{"id":29170,"date":"2022-09-24T13:09:45","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:09:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-23\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T13:09:45","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:09:45","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-23","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-23\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 2:3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

3<\/strong>. also we all<\/em> ] Better we also all<\/strong>, the “also” emphasizing the “we.” “ We all:<\/em> ” all present Christians, whether Jews or heathens by origin. St Paul often insists on this one level of fallen nature<\/em>, wholly unaffected by external privilege. Cp. Rom 3:9<\/span>; Rom 3:23<\/span>; Gal 3:22<\/span>. It is met by the glorious antithesis of equal grace<\/em>. Cp. just below, and Rom 1:16<\/span>; Rom 3:29<\/span>, Rom 10:12<\/span>, &c. Observe the emphatic statement that man as (fallen) man, whether within or without the pale of revelation, begins as a “child of disobedience.” Observe too the change of person, from the second (Eph 2:2<\/span>) to the first. The Apostle willingly, and truly, identifies his own experience with that of his converts.<\/p>\n

had our conversation<\/em> ] Lit., moved up and down<\/strong>; engaged in the activities of life. Conversatio<\/em> in Latin, like the Gr. word here, means precisely this; the goings in and out of human intercourse;<\/em> not specially the exchange of speech<\/em>, to which the word “conversation” is now restricted. In Php 3:20<\/span> the Gr. original is different.<\/p>\n

the lusts of our flesh<\/em> ] Better, the desires<\/strong>. “Lusts” is narrowed in modern usage to a special class of sensual appetites, but the older English knew no such fixed restriction; see e.g.<\/em> Psa 34:12<\/span>, in the Prayer Book (Cranmer’s) Version; “what man is he that lusteth to live?<\/em> ” and Gal 5:17<\/span>, where the Spirit, as well as the flesh, “lusteth.” Sinful “lusts” are thus all desires<\/em>, whether gross or fine in themselves, which are against the will of God.<\/p>\n

“ Our flesh:<\/em> ” this important word, wherever it occurs in N.T. in connexion with the doctrine of sin, means human nature as conditioned by the Fall, or, to word it otherwise, either the state of the unregenerate being, in which state the sinful principle dominates, or the state of that element of the regenerate being in which the principle, dislodged, as it were, from the centre, still lingers and is felt; not dominant in the being, but present. (For its permanence, till death, in the regenerate, see the implied statements of e.g.<\/em> Gal 5:16<\/span>; Php 3:3<\/span>.) We may account for the use of the word flesh<\/em> as a symbol for this phenomenon by the fact that sin works so largely under conditions of bodily, fleshly, life in the literal sense of those words. See further, note on Rom 8:4<\/span> in this Series.<\/p>\n

fulfilling the desires<\/em> ] Lit., doing the wishes<\/strong>. This (see last note) does not mean that “we” were loose livers, in the common sense; we might or might not have been such. But we followed the bent of the unregenerate Ego, whatever on the whole it was.<\/p>\n

of the mind<\/em> ] Lit., of the thoughts<\/strong>; in the sense generally of reflection and impression. The word is used (in the singular) e.g.<\/em> Mat 22:37<\/span>; “with all thy mind,” representing the Heb. “heart” in Deu 6:5<\/span>; and 1Jn 5:20<\/span>; “He hath given us an understanding.” Here probably the distinction is between sin in imagination and sin in positive action (“of the flesh<\/em> ”); one of the many warnings of Scripture that moral evil lies as deep as possible in the texture and motion of the fallen nature. Cp. Mat 15:19 ; 2Co 7:1<\/span>, and see Pro 24:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

by nature the children of wrath<\/em> ] On the phrase “children of wrath” see last note on Eph 2:2<\/span>. “By nature we were connected with, we essentially were exposed to, wrath, the wrath of God.” It has been suggested that “children of wrath” may mean no more than “beings prone to<\/em> violent anger,” or even to “ungoverned impulse<\/em> ” generally. But the word “wrath” is frequent with St Paul, and in 13 out of the 20 places it unmistakably means the Divine wrath, even where “of God” is not added, and where the definite article is absent. See for passages specially in point Rom 4:15<\/span>; Rom 5:9<\/span>; Rom 9:22<\/span>; below, ch. Eph 5:6<\/span>; 1Th 5:9<\/span>. Add to this that this passage deals with the deepest and most general facts, and it is thus unlikely that any one special phase of sin would be instanced. N. T. usage gives no<\/em> support to the suggested explanation “ungoverned impulse<\/em> ” mentioned above. The word must mean “wrath,” whether of man or of God. Translate, certainly, with A. V. and R. V. On the truth that the fallen being, as such, lies under Divine “wrath,” see Joh 3:36<\/span>, where “the wrath of God remaineth<\/em> against” the soul which does not submit to the Son. Not to “possess eternal life” is to have that “wrath” for certain still impending.<\/p>\n

And what is the Divine wrath? No arbitrary or untempered passion in the Eternal, but the antagonism of the eternal Holiness to sin; only the antagonism of an Eternal Person. Von Gerlach, quoted by Monod on this verse, writes: “The forgetfulness at the present day of the doctrine of the wrath of God has exercised a baneful influence on the various relations in which man holds the place of God, and in particular on the government of the family and the state.” The antithesis to the truth about it is the dictum<\/em> of the “Absolute Religion,” that “there is nothing in God to fear;” words in complete discord with great lines of revelation.<\/p>\n

“ By nature:<\/em> ” i.e., by our unregenerate state in itself, not only by circumstances. For illustration see Gal 2:15<\/span>, (“Jews by nature”) and Eph 4:8<\/span>, (“by nature no Gods”). Such was our state antecedent to the new process, ab extra<\/em>, of regeneration. We have here the doctrine of “Original or Birth Sin,” as given in Art ix. of the Church of England. “That which provokes the wrath of God is not only in the individual, but in the race and in the nature” (Monod). A greater mystery we could not state; but neither could we name a surer fact “Original sin is, fundamentally, simply universal<\/em> sin. That is the fact which is at once the evidence and the substance of it Universal sin must receive the same interpretation that any other universal does, namely that it implies a law<\/em>, in consequence of which it is universal. Nobody supposes that anything takes place universally by chance we know there must be some law working in the case What we call<\/em> the law is a secondary question. The great thing is to see that there is a law. If all the individuals who come under the head of a certain nature have sin in them, then one mode of expressing this law is to say that it belongs to the nature<\/em>, the nature being the common property and ground in which all meet” (J. B. Mozley, Lectures<\/em>, ix. pp. 136, &c.). See further, Appendix B.<\/p>\n

even as others<\/em> ] Lit, as also the rest<\/strong>; the unregenerate world at large.<\/p>\n

C. ORIGINAL SIN. (Ch. Eph 2:3<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

The theological literature, ancient and modern, of this great subject (the title of which we owe to St Augustine), is very extensive. The English reader will find information in Commentaries on the XXXIX Articles, such as those of Bps Beveridge and E. H. Browne. Art. ix deals expressly with the subject, and its statements underlie those of several following Articles, especially x, xi, xiii, xv, xvii. Among English discussions of the subject we specially recommend three of the late Prof. Mozley’s Lectures<\/em> (one of which is quoted in the notes); “ Christ alone without Sin<\/em>,” “ Original Sin<\/em>,” and “ Original Sin asserted by Philosophers and Poets<\/em>.” To the quotations given in this last Essay we may add the lines of Mr Browning:<\/p>\n

“I still, to suppose it” [the Christian faith] “true, for my part,<\/p>\n

See reasons and reasons; this, to begin;<\/p>\n

’<\/p>\n

Tis the faith that launched point-blank her dart<\/p>\n

At the head of a lie taught Original Sin,<\/p>\n

The Corruption of Man’s Heart.”<\/p>\n

Gold Hair; a story of Pornic<\/em>.<\/p>\n

See, for some admirable pages on Original Sin, Prof. Shedd’s Sermons to the Natural Man<\/em>, especially Sermons v. and xiv. On the Pelagian Controversy, see Hagenbach’s Dogmengeschichte<\/em>, or English Translation ( History of Doctrines<\/em>), and Period, B., i. 2; Shedd’s Hist. of Christian Doctrine<\/em>, Book iv. ch. 4; Cunningham’s Historical Theology<\/em>, Vol. i. ch. 11<\/span>. A popular but able account of the controversy is given in Milner’s History of the Ch. of Christ<\/em>, Cent. 5, cch. 3, 4.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

We all had our conversation – <\/B>see the notes at 2Co 1:12<\/span>; compare 1Pe 4:3<\/span>.<\/P>

In the lusts of our flesh – <\/B>Living to gratify the flesh, or the propensities of a corrupt nature. It is observable here that the apostle changes the form of the address from ye to we, thus including himself with others, and saying that this was true of all before their conversion. He means undoubtedly to say, that whatever might have been the place of their birth, or the differences of religion under which they had been trained, they were substantially alike by nature. It was a characteristic of all that they lived to fulfil the desires of the flesh and of the mind. The design of the apostle in thus grouping himself with them was, to show that he did not claim to be any better by nature than they were, and that all which any of them had of value was to be traced to the grace of God. There is much delicacy here on the part of the apostle. His object was to remind them of the former grossness of their life, and their exposure to the wrath of God. Yet he does not do it harshly. He includes himself in their number. He says that what he affirms of them was substantially true of himself – of all – that they were under condemnation, and exposed to the divine wrath.<\/P>

Fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind – <\/B>Margin, as in Greek, wills. Complying with the wishes of a depraved nature. The will of the flesh is that to which the flesh, or the unrenewed nature of man, prompts; and Paul says that all had been engaged in fulfilling those fleshly propensities. This was clearly true of the pagan, and it was no less true of the unconverted Jew that he lived for himself, and sought to gratify the purposes of a depraved nature, though it might manifest itself in a way different from the pagan. The will of the mind referred to here relates to the wicked thoughts and purposes of the unrenewed nature – the sins which relate rather to the intellect than to the gross passions. Such, for instance, are the sins of pride, envy, ambition, covetousness, etc.; and Paul means to say, that before conversion they lived to gratify these propensities, and to accomplish these desires of the soul.<\/P>

And were by nature – <\/B><\/SPAN><\/span> Fusei. By birth, or before we were converted By conversion and adoption they became the children of God; before that, they were all the children of wrath. This is, I think, the fair meaning of this important declaration. It does not affirm when they began to be such, or that they were such as soon as they were born, or that they were such before they became moral agents, or that they became such in virtue of their connection with Adam – whatever may be the truth on these points; but it affirms that before they were renewed, they were the children of wrath. So far as This text is concerned, this might have been true at their very birth; but it does not directly and certainly prove that. It proves that at no time before their conversion were they the children of God, but that their whole condition before that was one of exposure to wrath; compare Rom 2:14<\/span>, Rom 2:27<\/span>; 1Co 11:14<\/span>; Gal 2:15<\/span>. Some people are born Jews, and some pagan; some free, and some slaves; some white, and some black; some are born to poverty, and some to wealth; some are the children of kings, and some of beggars; but, whatever their rank or condition, they are born exposed to wrath, or in a situation which would render them liable to wrath. But why this is, the apostle does not say. Whether for their own sins or for the sins of another; whether by a corrupted soul, or by imputed guilt; whether they act as moral agents as soon as born, or at a certain period of childhood, Paul does not say. <\/P>

The children of wrath – <\/B>Exposed to wrath, or liable to wrath. They did not by nature inherit holiness; they inherited that which would subject; them to wrath. The meaning has been well expressed by Doddridge, who refers it to the original apostasy and corruption, in consequence of which people do, according to the course of nature, fall early into personal guilt, and so become obnoxious to the divine displeasure. Many modern expositors have supposed that this has no reference to any original tendency of our fallen nature to sin, or to native corruption, but that it refers to the habit of sin, or to the fact of their having been the slaves of appetite and passion. I admit that the direct and immediate sense of the passage is that they were, when without the gospel, and before they were renewed, the children of wrath; but still the fair interpretation is, that they were born to that state, and that that condition was the regular result of their native depravity; and I do not know a more strong or positive declaration that can be made to show that people are by nature destitute of holiness, and exposed to perdition.<\/P>

Even as others – <\/B>That is, do not suppose that you stand alone, or that you are the worst of the species. You are indeed, by nature, the children of wrath; but not you alone. All others were the same. You have a common inheritance with them. I do not mean to charge you with being the worst of sinners, or as being alone transgressors. It is the common lot of man – the sad, gloomy inheritance to which we all are born. The Greek is, <\/SPAN><\/span> hoi loipoi the remainder, or the others, – including all; compare the notes at Rom 5:19<\/span>. This doctrine that people without the gospel are the children of wrath, Paul had fully defended in Rom. 13. Perhaps no truth is more frequently stated in the Bible; none is more fearful and awful in its character. What a declaration, that we are by nature the children of wrath! Who should not inquire what it means? Who should not make an effort to escape from the wrath to come, and become a child of glory and an heir of life?<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3<\/span><\/p>\n

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of Our flesh.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

All men by nature alike<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>The chosen of God have, before conversion, nothing differing from other sinners. Even those whom God takes to mercy were sinful as others, before by His grace they are changed. And why?<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> That the mercy of God may be magnified, and made manifest in the free grace of justification.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> That love may be engendered in us who have been justified. Mary, who had many sins forgiven, loved much.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Where there is no fear of God, no outward privileges will procure us His favour. When Gods people do not obey Him, their circumcision is made uncircumcision. How can this be, seeing the one profess the true God, while the other does not?<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> In deeds they deny Him.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> In deeds they set up false gods–their lusts, pleasures, riches, etc.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>We must not be ashamed to confess ourselves sinners with the worst. The most upright are most forward in confession. It is the proper fruit of grace, to freely confess and give glory to God.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>By nature the state of all is such that Gods wrath abides on them.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> We are born separated from God.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> We are given up to Satan.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Subject to every curse in this life, whether spiritual or corporal.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> To death temporal.<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> To death eternal.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>By nature all of us are sinful; not only in regard of Adams sin imputed, but of corruption or concupiscence with which we are conceived (Psa 51:5<\/span>; Psa 58:3<\/span>; Gen 8:21<\/span>; Eze 16:4-6<\/span>; Isa 53:6<\/span>; Isa 1:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

6. <\/strong>Even the children of the godly are by nature children of wrath. (Paul Bayne.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The misery of mans natural state<\/strong><\/p>\n

A sinful state cannot but be a miserable state. If sin goes before, wrath follows of course. In the text we have four things.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>The misery of a natural state; it is a state of wrath, as well as a state of sin. The natural man is a malefactor, dead in law, lying in chains of guilt; a criminal, held fast in his fetters, till the day of execution; which will not fail to come, unless a pardon be obtained from his God, who is his judge and his opponent too.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Here is the rise of this misery; men have it by nature. They owe it to their nature, not to their substance or essence; for that neither is nor was sin, and therefore cannot make them children of wrath; though, for sin, it may be under wrath: not to their nature, as qualified at mans creation by his Maker; but to their nature, as vitiated and corrupted by the Fall; to the vicious quality, or corruption of their nature, as before noticed, which is their principle of action, and, ceasing from action, the only principle in an unregenerate state.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>The universality of this misery. All are by nature children of wrath, we, says the apostle, even as others; Jews as well as Gentiles. Those that are now, by grace, the children of God were, by nature, in no better case than those that are still in their natural state.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>Here is a glorious and happy change intimated. We were <\/em>children of wrath, but are not so now; grace has brought us out of that state. And thus, it well becomes the people of God to be often standing on the shore, and looking back to the Red Sea, or the state of wrath, which they were once weltering in, even as others. The state of nature is a state of wrath.<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>What the state of wrath is. No one can fully describe it. Enough may be discovered, however, to convince men of the absolute necessity of fleeing to Jesus to escape it.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>There is wrath in the heart of God against the natural man.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> His person is under Gods displeasure (Psa 5:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>There is wrath in the Word of God against him (Rev 2:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>There is wrath in the hand of God against him. He is under heavy strokes of wrath already, and is liable to more.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> There is wrath on his body (Gen 2:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Wrath, on his soul.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Wrath on his enjoyments.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> He is under the power of Satan (Act 24:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> The natural man hath no security for a moments safety from the wrath of God coming on him to the uttermost.<\/p>\n

The curse of the law, denounced against him, has already tied him to the stake: so that the arrows of justice may pierce his soul. Does he lie down to sleep? There is not a promise that he knows of, or can know, to secure him that he shall not be in hell ere he awake. He walks amidst enemies armed against him: his name may be Magor-missabib, that is, terror round about (Jer 20:3<\/span>). Thus the natural man lives, but he must die too; and death is a dreadful messenger to him. It comes upon him armed with wrath, and puts three sad charges in his hand.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Death charges him to bid an eternal farewell to all things in this world; to leave it, and haste away to another world.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Death charges soul and body to part, till the great day. His soul is required of him (Luk 12:20<\/span>). O what a miserable parting must this be to a child of wrath! Care was indeed taken to provide for the body things necessary for this life; but, alas! there is nothing laid up for another life. As for the soul, he was never solicitous to provide for it.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Death charges the soul to appear before the tribunal of God, while the body lies to be carried to the grave (Ecc 12:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>I shall confirm the doctrine of the state of wrath. Consider–<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>How peremptory the threatening of the first covenant is: In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>The justice of God requires that a child of sin be a child of wrath; that the law being broken, the sanction thereof should take place.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>The horrors of a natural conscience prove this. Conscience, in the breasts of men, tells them that they are sinners, and therefore liable to the wrath of God.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>The pangs of the new birth, the work of the Spirit on elect souls, in order to their conversion, demonstrate this. Hereby their natural sinfulness and misery, as liable to the wrath of God, are plainly taught them, filling their hearts with fear of that wrath. As it is the Spirits work to convince of sin, righteousness, and judgment (Joh 16:8<\/span>), this testimony must needs be true; for the Spirit of truth cannot witness an untruth.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>The sufferings of Christ plainly prove this doctrine. Wherefore was the Son of God a son under wrath, but because the children of men were children of wrath?<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>I now proceed to apply this doctrine of the misery of mans natural state. Is our state by nature a state of wrath? Then–<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Surely we are not born innocent. Those chains of wrath, which by nature are upon us, show us to be born criminals.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>What desperate madness is it for sinners to go on in their sinful course! What is it but to heap coals of fire on thine own head! to lay more and more fuel to the fire of wrath! (Rom 2:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Thou hast no reason to complain as long as thou art out of hell. Wherefore doth a living man complain? (Lam 3:39<\/span>).<\/p>\n

If one, who has forfeited his life, be banished from his native country, and exposed to many hardships; he may well bear all patiently, seeing his life is spared.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>To you that are yet in an unregenerate state, I would sound the alarm, and warn you to see to yourselves, while there is yet hope. O you children of wrath, take no rest in this dismal state; but flee to Christ, the only refuge. The state of wrath is too hot a climate for you to live in. But if any desire to flee from the wrath to come, and for that end to know what course to take, I offer them these few advices.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Retire to some secret place and there meditate on this your misery.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Consider seriously the sin of your nature, heart, and life. A proper sight of wrath flows from a deep sense of sin.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Labour to justify God in this matter. To quarrel with God about it, and to rage like a wild bull in a net, will but fix you the more in it.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> Turn your eyes towards the Lord Jesus Christ, and embrace Him as He offers Himself in the gospel.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>I Shall drop a few words to the saints.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Remember, that in the day our Lord first took you by the hand, you were in no better a condition than others.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Remember there was nothing in you to engage Him to love you, in the day He appeared for your deliverance.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Remember, you were fitter to be loathed than loved in that day.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> Remember, you are decked with borrowed feathers. It is His comeliness which as upon you (Eph 2:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> Remember your faults this day, as Pharaohs butler, who had forgotten Joseph. Mind how you have forgotten, and how unkindly you have treated, Him who remembered you in your low estate.<\/p>\n

(6)<\/strong> Pity the children of wrath, the world that lies in wickedness. Can you be unconcerned for them, you who were once in the same condition?<\/p>\n

(7)<\/strong> Admire that matchless love, which brought you out of the state of wrath. (T. Boston, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Inherited depravity<\/strong><\/p>\n

When, nine years after his marriage, the birth of his son Nero was announced to him, he (Neros father) answered the congratulations of his friend with the remark, that from himself and Agrippina nothing could have been born but what was hateful and for the public ruin. (Archdeacon Farrar.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The mind sinful<\/strong><\/p>\n

The wall thought it very unfair to influence a childs mind by inculcating any opinions before it should have come to years of discretion and be able to choose for itself. I showed him my garden, and told him it was my botanical garden. How so? said he, it is covered with weeds. Oh, I replied, that is only because it has not yet come to its age of discretion and choice. The weeds, you see, have taken the liberty to grow, and I thought it unfair in me to prejudice the soil towards roses and strawberries. (Coleridge<\/em>s Table Talk.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Fleshly depravity<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conversation <\/em>does not mean talking. There is no instance where it has this signification in the English Bible. It means, as the Greek original does, deportment, conduct, character, as in the following passages: 2Co 1:12<\/span>; Gal 1:13<\/span>; Eph 2:3<\/span>; Eph 4:22<\/span>; 1Ti 4:12<\/span>; Heb 13:5<\/span>; Heb 13:7<\/span>; Jam 3:13<\/span>; 1Pe 1:15<\/span>; 1Pe 1:18<\/span>; 1Pe 2:12<\/span>; 1Pe 3:1-2; 1Pe 3:16<\/span>; 2Pe 2:7; 2Pe 3:11<\/span>. In Php 1:27<\/span>, conversation signifies citizenship; so that to have a good conversation is to act worthy of the New Jerusalem to which grace has called you. But this former conduct or conversation of theirs was in the lusts of the flesh. This refers–<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>To carnal or sensual appetites, in which the heathen world was sunk, and Paul asserts in the text that the Jews were the same (Rom 6:12<\/span>; Rom 7:8-9; 1Ti 6:9<\/span>, and many others). This implies and includes luxuries, the pleasures of the table, drunkenness, and all such forbidden pleasures.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>These fleshly desires are seen most perfectly in the systems of false worship adopted by the heathen world in general. Baalim was the embodiment of lewdness; Buddhism is the embodiment of the dogma of priestly rule; so is Hindooism and other forms of religion. The Greeks and the Romans deified nature and the dead. The flesh is the teeming fountain of vileness from which all these and similar systems flow:–the picture, the image, the idol, the oracle are the four head forms or developments of false worship, and they all come from the flesh.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Flesh is always contrasted with spirit, and in general denotes alienation from God. The law of the flesh is sin; the works of the flesh are evil; the carnal mind is enmity against God (Rom 8:6-7<\/span>); to walk after the flesh is ungodliness; to be in the flesh is not to know or please God. Jesus Christ crucified it, and He gives us the principle and power of doing the same. (W. Graham, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Original sin, a fact<\/strong><\/p>\n

Original or birth sin is not merely a doctrine in religion, it is a fact in mans world acknowledged by all, whether religious or not. Let a man be providing for an unborn child; in case of distribution of worldly property, he will take care to bind him by conditions and covenants which shall guard against his fraudulently helping himself to that which he is to hold for or to apportion to another, He never saw that child; he does not know but that child may be the most pure and perfect of men; but he knows it will not be safe to put temptation in his way, because he knows he will be born in sin, and liable to sin, and sure to commit sin. (Dean Alford.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Man innately bad<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many inquirers find it difficult to believe themselves innately bad, simply because they have been told that such a belief is required of them. No man taught the doctrine of original sin, commonly so called, so impressively as Jesus Christ, and yet He never mentioned it. His whole scheme was founded upon the assumption that men were wrong. Every call to a new point, every frown upon sin, every encouragement of well-doing, meant that society needed regeneration. Men may come upon the doctrine of original depravity in one of two different ways; for example, they may come upon it as a dogma in theology. The first thing that some theologians do is to abuse human nature, to describe it as being, covered with wounds and bruises and putrefying sores, and as deserving nothing but eternal burning. Human nature resists this as a slander: it says, No; I have good impulses, upward desires, generous emotions towards my fellow creatures; I resent your theological calumnies. So much for the first method of approaching the doctrine. The second is totally unlike it. A man, for example, heartily accepts Jesus Christ, studies Him with most passionate devotion, and grows daily more like Him in all purity, gentleness, and self-oblivion. From this attitude he looks back upon his former self; he compares the human nature with which he started with the human nature he has attained, and involuntarily, by the sheer necessity of the contrast, he says, I was born in sin and shapen in iniquity. This conclusion he comes to, not by dogmatic teaching, but by dogmatic experience; what he never could have understood as an opinion he realizes as a fact. Suppose a tree to be conscious, and let it illustrate what is meant by growing into a right understanding of this hard doctrine. Tell the tree in April that it is bare and ungainly in appearance; very barren and naked altogether. The tree says, Nay; I am rooted in the earth; my branches are strong; I live in the light; I drink the dew; and I am beautiful; the winds rock me, and many a bird twitters on my boughs. This is its April creed. Go to the same tree after it has had a summers experience: it has felt the quickening penetration of the solar fire, quenched its thirst in summer showers, felt the sap circulating through its veins; the leaves have come out on branch and twig; the blossoms have blushed and bloomed through long days of light; fruit has been formed, and mellowed into maturity. Now hear the tree! I am not what I was in April; my very identity seems to be changed; when men called me bare and rugged I did not believe them a few months ago; now I see what they meant–their verdict was sound; I thought the April light very beautiful, but it is nothing to the blazing splendour of the later months; I liked the twitter Of the spring birds, but,. it is poor compared with the song of those that came in June. I feel as if I had been born again. The parable is broad enough to cover this bewildering, and at times horrifying, doctrine of hereditary depravity. Men cannot be in April what they will be in September. Each year says to growing hearts, I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. In old age men may accept the rejected doctrines of their youth. Experience brings us round many a rugged hill, and gives us better views of condemned, because misunderstood, opinions. (J. Parker, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Universal depravity a proof of original sin<\/strong><\/p>\n

As it is absolutely impossible for a man to believe, when the dice are thrown sixes successively a thousand times, that the dice are not loaded, so is it a thousand times more impossible to believe, when every human being of all nations and generations, without a single exception, begins to sin the instant he enters moral agency, that his will is not biassed by a previous effectual tendency in his nature to sin. (Hodge.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The state of nature and the state of grace<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>Jews and Gentiles (i.e., <\/em>all)<\/p>\n

are by nature alike prone to and lovers of sin. Before and after the flood. In Asia, Europe, Africa, etc.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>Believers can happily say that the time of their sinful conversation is past. (See text; Isa 55:13<\/span>; Rom 6:17<\/span>; Tit 3:8<\/span>.)<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>When a man knows himself, he will confess that his nature is sinful as others. Job; David; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Paul.<\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>The corruption of nature is sinful before it appears in thoughts, words, etc. (Mat 15:19<\/span>; Rom 9:11-13<\/span>).<\/p>\n


V. <\/strong>The sinfulness of every mans nature justly exposes him to the wrath of God.<\/p>\n


VI. <\/strong>The Scriptures tell us satisfactorily how the world comes to be so wicked. Improvement: The necessity of regeneration. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, etc. (Joh 3:6-7<\/span>). The necessity of daily self-denial. The fatal delusion of Pelagians. The fatal delusion of Arminians. Grace must make one to differ from another. (H. Foster, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

A misinterpreted proof text<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is assumed far too axiomatically that the wrath referred to can mean nothing else than Gods personal wrath against sin, whether original or actual. We are ready to admit that sin in any form must draw down the Divine displeasure. God would be less than God unless sin drew down on it that consuming fire by which at present it is punished, and so held in check, and by which it will ultimately be destroyed forever when He who sits as a refiner shall have purged His silver from the last speck of dross. In this sense Gods wrath against sin–a wrath punitive and a wrath purifying; for they are both, stages of the same process–is an essential conception of His character. But while admitting this, it is going too far to assume that this wrath of God descends on us at the beginning, instead of at the end, of our moral career. If we are children of wrath in this sense, by our descent from Adam, we can easily see how this view tends to efface all moral distinctions of good and evil. The race is a doomed one from the beginning, and we are all overwhelmed alike in the same whirlpool of perdition here and hereafter. Men may shrink from such remorseless logic, and seek to soften it down; but as long as the text, that we are by nature children of wrath, stands unrevised in our so-called Revised Version, is it strange that the English reader appeals to that text as decisive on the extreme or Augustinian doctrine of birth sin and its consequences? But is this the true interpretation of the text? Will the words bear any other rendering? There must be a mistake somewhere. May it not lie in the inattention of learned men to the fact that the Apostle Paul wrote in Greek, but thought in Hebrew, and that consequently Hebraisms crop up in cases where students of classical Greek are not on the lookout for them as they should be. The present is a case in point. In the previous verse the apostle has described mankind as children of disobedience, which is a strong adjectival form in Hebrew for children thoroughly disobedient. In this verse, returning to this thought and emphasizing it, he reminds us that we all once lived in the lusts of the flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath–i.e.<\/em>, children of a wicked, passionate impulse, even as others. The text in this sense not only confirms in this way what goes before, but it also throws a fresh, though lurid, light on human nature, Jew alike and Gentile. It reminds us that these lusts of the flesh and mind all had their root in a principle of passionate impulse () which is congenital to us, and which is so much our nature that we may in a sense be described as the children of this passionate desire, or the slaves of it, as we should say in modern phrase. Surely this is a dark enough description of human nature, without adding that other dark hue of Augustinian theology, that in consequence of this we are born under Gods wrath, and that the curse of God descends on us as a kind of birth, taint. (J. B. Heard, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Children of wrath<\/strong><\/p>\n

What is it to be a child of wrath? It is to turn every blessing that this earth can give into aggravated misery. The happier we see a man–the more exalted in station, the more renowned by fame, the more endowed with wealth–the more miserable is his lot when precipitated from them all to everlasting ruin. Belshazzar was more to be commiserated and contemned than the poorest beggar within the city of Babylon, when the hand of fire came forth to write his doom upon the wall; the louder he had laughed–the more triumphantly he had praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone–the deeper draughts of luscious wine that he and all his court had quaffed from the golden vessels of Jehovahs temple–the deadlier was the livid paleness of his face, the loosening of his joints, and the smiting of his knees, when the fatal characters of death and judgment were traced, before his eyes. What profit in the vast domains of wealth, when the trumpet of eternal judgment shall awake their haughty owners from the death of trespasses and sins? When they shall call, but call in vain, upon those lofty mountains, of which, in their pride of heart, they had boasted as their own, to fall on them and cover them, and hide them from the wrath of that God whom they have dishonoured and despised? <\/em>(R. J. McGhee, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Natures testimony to the wrath of God<\/strong><\/p>\n

Wrath <\/em>and threatening are invariably mingled with love, and in the utmost solitudes of nature the existence of hell seems to me as legibly declared by a thousand spiritual utterances as of heaven. It is well for us to dwell with thankfulness on the unfolding of the flower, and the falling of the dew, and the sleep of the green fields in the sunshine; but the blasted trunk, the barren rock, the moaning of the bleak winds, the roar of the black, perilous whirlpools and the mountain streams, the solemn solitudes of moors and seas, the continual fading of all beauty into darkness, of all strength into dust–have these no language for us? We may seek to escape their teachings by reasonings touching the good which is wrought out of evil, but it is vain sophistry. The good succeeds to the evil as the day succeeds to the night, but so also the evil to the good. Ebal and Gerizim, birth and death, light and darkness, heaven and hell, divide the existence of man and his futurity. (Ruskin.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Discipline of the passions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The passions may be humoured till they become our master, as a horse may be pampered till he gets the better of his rider; but early discipline will prevent mutiny, and keep the helm in the hands of reason. (Cumberland.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The power of religion<\/strong><\/p>\n

A <\/em>clergyman, having made several attempts to reform a profligate, was at length met with the decided statement, It is all in vain, sir; you cannot get me to change my religion. I do not want that, replied the good man; I wish religion to change you.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 3<\/span>. Among whom also we all had our conversation<\/B><\/I>] We<\/I> JEWS, as well as you Gentiles<\/I>, have lived in transgressions and sins; , this was the course<\/I> of our life<\/I>; we lived in sin, walked in sin, it was woven through our whole constitution, it tinged every temper, polluted every faculty, and perverted every transaction of life. The lusts<\/I> – the evil, irregular, and corrupt affections of the heart<\/I>, showed themselves in the perversion of the mind<\/I> as well as in our general conduct. The mind<\/I> was darkened<\/I> by the lusts<\/I> of the flesh<\/I>, and both conjoined to produce acts of unrighteousness. It was not the will of God<\/I> that was done by us, but the will of the flesh and of the mind<\/I>.<\/P>

<\/P>

And were by nature the children of wrath<\/B><\/I>] For the import of the phrase, by nature<\/I>, , See Clarke on Ga 2:15<\/span>, and See Clarke on Ro 2:14<\/span>. To what is said on those passages, I may add, from Dr. Macknight<\/I>: – “Nature<\/I> often signifies one’s birth<\/I> and education<\/I>, Ga 2:15<\/span>: We, who are Jews<\/I> BY NATURE. Also, men’s natural reason<\/I> and conscience<\/I>, Ro 2:14<\/span>: The Gentiles who have not the law, do<\/I> BY NATURE the things<\/I> contained in the law<\/I>, c. Also, the general sense<\/I> and practice<\/I> of mankind, 1Co 11:14<\/span>: Doth not even<\/I> NATURE itself teach you, that if a man have long<\/I> hair<\/I>, c. Also, the original constitution<\/I> of any thing, Ga 4:8<\/span>: Who are not gods<\/I> BY NATURE, Also, a disposition<\/I> formed by custom<\/I> and habit<\/I> thus Demetrius Phalereus said of the Lacedemonians: . The Lacedemonians had naturally<\/I> a concise mode of speaking. Hence our word laconic<\/I> a short speech, or much sense conveyed in a few words.” The words in the text have often been quoted to prove the doctrine of original sin<\/I>, but, though that doctrine be an awful truth<\/I>, it is not, in my opinion, intended here; it is rather found in the preceding<\/I> words, the<\/I> lusts of the flesh<\/I>, and the desires of the flesh and of the mind<\/I>. The apostle appears to speak of sinful habits<\/I>; and as we say HABIT is a second nature<\/I>, and as these persons acted from their originally corrupt nature<\/I> – from the lusts of the flesh<\/I> and of the<\/I> mind<\/I>, they thus became, by their vicious habits, or second nature,<\/I> children of wrath<\/I> – persons exposed to perdition, because of the impurity of their hearts and the wickedness of their lives. Here we see that the fallen, apostate nature produces the fruits of unrighteousness. The bad tree<\/I> produces bad fruit<\/I>.<\/P>

<\/P>

Children of wrath<\/I> is the same as son of perdition, son of death<\/I>, c. i.e. persons exposed to God’s displeasure, because of their sins.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Among whom also we all; <\/B>we apostles and believers of the Jews. Either Paul by a coenosis<\/I> reckons himself among them, though not guilty with them; or rather, though he were not an idolater as the Ephesians, yet he had been a blasphemer, and a persecutor, <\/I>1Ti 1:13<\/I><\/span>; and though he were blameless as to the righteousness of the law, Phi 3:6<\/span>, yet that was only as to his outward conversation, and still he might fulfil the desires of a fleshly mind. <\/P>

Had our conversation; <\/B>walked in the same way after the course of the world, &c. <\/P>

In the lusts of our flesh<\/B>: flesh<\/I> is here taken more generally for depraved natures, the whole principle of corruption in man. <\/P>

Fulfilling the desires of the flesh; <\/B>the inferior and sensitive faculties of the soul, as appears by the opposition of the flesh<\/I> to the mind.<\/I> <\/P>

And of the mind; <\/B>the superior and rational powers, to denote the depravation of the whole man even in his best part, and which seems to have rectitude left in it: to the former belongs the filthiness of the flesh, <\/I>to the latter that of the spirit, <\/I>2Co 7:1<\/I><\/span>; see Rom 8<\/span>:;7<\/span> Gal 5:19-21<\/span>. <\/P>

And were by nature; <\/B>not merely by custom or imitation, but by nature as now constituted since the fall. <\/P>

The children of wrath, <\/B>by a Hebraism, for obnoxious to wrath; as sons of death, 1Sa 26:16<\/span>, for worthy of or liable to death. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3. also we<\/B>that is, wealso.<\/I> Paul here joins himself in the same category with them,passing from the second person (Eph 2:1<\/span>;Eph 2:2<\/span>) to the first personhere. <\/P>

all<\/B>Jews and Gentiles. <\/P>

our conversation<\/B>“ourway of life” (2Co 1:12<\/span>;1Pe 1:18<\/span>). This expressionimplies an outwardly more decorous<\/I> course, than the open”walk” in gross sins<\/I> on the part of the majority ofEphesians in times past, the Gentile portion of whom may be speciallyreferred to in Eph 2:2<\/span>. Paul andhis Jewish countrymen, though outwardly more seemly than the Gentiles(Act 26:4<\/span>; Act 26:5<\/span>;Act 26:18<\/span>), had been essentiallylike them in living to the unrenewed flesh, without the Spirit ofGod. <\/P>

fulfilling<\/B>Greek,<\/I>doing. <\/P>

mind<\/B>Greek,<\/I> “ourthoughts.” Mental suggestions and purposes (independent of God),as distinguished from the blind impulses of “the flesh.” <\/P>

and were by nature<\/B>Heintentionally breaks off the construction, substituting “and wewere” for “and being,” to mark emphatically his andtheir past<\/I> state by nature, as contrasted with their presentstate by grace. Not merely is it, we had our way of life fulfillingour fleshly desires, and so being<\/I> children of wrath; but wewere by nature<\/I> originally “children of wrath,” and soconsequently had our way of life fulfilling our fleshly desires.”Nature,” in Greek,<\/I> implies that which has grown<\/I>in us as the peculiarity of our being, growing with our growth, andstrengthening with our strength, as distinguished from that which hasbeen wrought on us by mere external influences: what is inherent, notacquired (Job 14:4<\/span>; Psa 51:5<\/span>).An incidental proof of the doctrine of original sin. <\/P>

children of wrath<\/B>notmerely “sons,” as in the Greek,<\/I> “sons ofdisobedience” (Eph 2:2<\/span>),but “children” by generation;<\/I> not merely byadoption,<\/I> as “sons” might be. The Greek<\/I> ordermore emphatically marks this innate corruption: “Those who intheir (very) nature are children of wrath”; Eph2:5<\/span>, “grace” is opposed to “nature” here; andsalvation<\/I> (implied in Eph 2:5<\/span>;Eph 2:8<\/span>, “saved”) to”wrath.” Compare Article IX, Church of England CommonPrayer Book.<\/I> “Original sin (birth-sin), standeth not in thefollowing of Adam, but is the fault and corruption of the nature ofevery man, naturally engendered of Adam [Christ was supernaturally<\/I>conceived by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin], whereby man is very fargone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclinedto evil; and therefore, in every person born into this world, itdeserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” Paul shows that even theJews, who boasted of their birth from Abraham, were by natural birthequally children of wrath as the Gentiles, whom the Jews despised onaccount of their birth from idolaters (Rom 3:9<\/span>;Rom 5:12-14<\/span>). “Wrath<\/I>abideth” on all who disobey the Gospel in faith and practice(Joh 3:36<\/span>). The phrase,”children of wrath,” is a Hebraism, that is, objects ofGod’s wrath from childhood, in our natural state, as being born inthe sin which God hates. So “son of death” (2Sa12:5<\/span>, Margin<\/I>); “son of perdition” (Joh 17:12<\/span>;2Th 2:3<\/span>). <\/P>

as others<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“as the rest” of mankind are (1Th4:13<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past<\/strong>,…. What the apostle says of the Gentile Ephesians before conversion, he says of himself and other Jews; and this he does, partly to show that it was not from ill will, or with a design to upbraid the Gentiles, that he said what he did; and partly to beat down the pride of the Jews, who thought themselves better than the sinners of the Gentiles; as well as to magnify the grace of God in the conversion of them both: the sense is, that the apostle and other Jews in the time of their unregeneracy, had their conversation according to the customs of the world, and to the prince of the air, and among unbelievers, as well as the Gentiles; and that they were equally sinners, and lived a like sinful course of life:<\/p>\n

in the lusts of our flesh<\/strong>; by “flesh” is meant, the corruption of nature; so called, because it is propagated by natural generation; and is opposed to the Spirit, or principle of grace; and has for its object fleshly things; and discovers itself mostly in the body, the flesh; and it makes persons carnal or fleshly: and this is called “our”, because it belongs to human nature, and is inherent in it, and inseparable from it in this life: and the “lusts” of it, are the inward motions of it, in a contrariety to the law and will of God; and are various, and are sometimes called fleshly and worldly lusts, and the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life: and persons may be said to have their conversations in these, when these are the ground of their conversation, when they are solicitous about them, and make provision for the fulfilling of them, and constantly employ themselves in obedience to them, as follows:<\/p>\n

fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind<\/strong>: or the wills of them; what they incline to, will, and crave after: various are the degrees of sin, and its several motions; and universal is the corruption of human nature; not only the body, and the several members of it, are defiled with sin, and disposed to it, but all the powers and faculties of the soul; even the more noble and governing ones, the mind, understanding, and will, as well as the affections; and great is the power and influence which lust has over them:<\/p>\n

and were by nature children of wrath<\/strong>, even as others: by which is meant, not only that they were wrathful persons, living in malice, hateful, and hating one another; but that they were deserving of the wrath of God, which comes upon the children of disobedience, among whom they had their conversation; and which is revealed from heaven against such sins as they were guilty of, though they were not appointed to it: and they were such “by nature”; really, and not in opinion, and by and from their first birth: so a Jewish commentator s on these words, “thy first father hath sinned”, Isa 43:27<\/span> has this note;<\/p>\n

“how canst thou say thou hast not sinned? and behold thy first father hath sinned, and he is the first man, for man<\/p>\n

, “is naturally in sin”;”<\/p>\n

or by nature a sinner, or sin is naturally impressed in him; and hence being by nature a sinner, he is by nature deserving of the wrath of God, as were the persons spoken of:<\/p>\n

even as others<\/strong>; as the rest of the world, Jews as well as Gentiles; and Gentiles are especially designed, in distinction from the Jews, the apostle is speaking of; and who are particularly called in the Jewish dialect , “others”; [See comments on Lu 18:11]<\/span>.<\/p>\n

s Kimchi in loc.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

We also all <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). We Jews.<\/P>

Once lived <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second aorist passive indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb, to turn back and forth, to live (2Co 1:12<\/span>). Cf. <\/SPAN><\/span>, of the Gentiles in verse 2<\/span>.<\/P>

The desires <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Late and rare word except in LXX and N.T., from <\/SPAN><\/span>, to will, to wish. Plural here “the wishes,” “the wills” of the flesh like <\/SPAN><\/span> just before. Gentiles had no monopoly of such sinful impulses.<\/P>

Of the mind <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Plural again, “of the thoughts or purposes.”<\/P>

Were by nature children of wrath <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). This is the proper order of these words which have been the occasion of much controversy. There is no article with <\/SPAN><\/span>. Paul is insisting that Jews as well as Gentiles (“even as the rest”) are the objects of God’s wrath (<\/SPAN><\/span>) because of their lives of sin. See Ro 2:1-3:20<\/span> for the full discussion of this to Jews unpalatable truth. The use of <\/SPAN><\/span> (associative instrumental case of manner) is but the application of Paul’s use of “all” (<\/SPAN><\/span>) as shown also in Rom 3:20<\/span>; Rom 5:12<\/span>. See <\/SPAN><\/span> of Gentiles in Ro 2:14<\/span>. The implication of original sin is here, but not in the form that God’s wrath rests upon little children before they have committed acts of sin. The salvation of children dying before the age of responsibility is clearly involved in Ro 5:13f<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Had our conversation [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on the kindred noun conversation, 1Pe 1:15<\/span>. Rev., more simply, lived. <\/P>

Fulfilling [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., doing. The verb implies carrying out or accomplishing, so that the A. V. is more nearly correct. See on Rom 7:15<\/span>; Joh 3:21<\/span>. <\/P>

Desires [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit., willings. See on Col 3:12<\/span>. <\/P>

Mind [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. More strictly, thoughts. See on Mr 12:30<\/span>; Luk 1:51<\/span>. <\/P>

By nature children of wrath. See on ver. 2. Children [<\/SPAN><\/span>] emphasizes the connection by birth; see on Joh 1:12<\/span>. Wrath [<\/SPAN><\/span>] is God ‘s holy hatred of sin; His essential, necessary antagonism to everything evil, Rom 1:18<\/span>. By nature [<\/SPAN><\/span>] accords with children, implying what; is innate. That man is born with a sinful nature, and that God and sin are essentially antagonistic, are conceded on all hands : but that unconscious human beings come into the world under the blaze of God ‘s indignation, hardly consists with Christ ‘s assertion that to little children belongs the kingdom of heaven. It is true that there is a birth – principle of evil, which, if suffered to develop, will bring upon itself the wrath of God. Whether Paul means more than this I do not know. 167 Others [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., correctly, the rest.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “Among whom also”<\/strong> (en ois kai) “Or in fellowship with whom,” 1Co 6:9-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2) “We all had our conversation in times past”<\/strong> (hemeis pantes anestraphemen pote) “We all then conducted ourselves.” Paul reflected on the past evil conduct of unbelievers, who had become Christians, only to bid them stay turned away from bad conduct, Col 3:1-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “In the lusts of our flesh”<\/strong> (en tais epithumiais tes sarkos hemon) ‘In the lusts of the flesh – nature of us,” doing obstinately, as we selfishly and impulsively pleased, 1Pe 4:3-6<\/span>, 1Jn 2:15-17<\/span>. This involves one in excess of riot and rebellion against God which will be brought to judgment, Ecc 12:13-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

4) “Fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind”<\/strong> (poiountes ta thelemata tes sarkos kai ton dianoion) “Doing the obstinate and determined will of the flesh-nature and of the flesh-mind,” of deranged desires and comprehensions, both warped and adverse to holiness, Joh 1:13<\/span>; Eph 6:12<\/span>; Jud 1:23<\/span>; Jas 1:21<\/span>; Col 2:8<\/span><\/p>\n

5) “And were by nature the children of wrath”<\/strong> (kai emetha tekna phusei orges) And were children of wrath by nature,” Eph 5:6<\/span>; Rom 1:18<\/span>. They were inclined by nature, what they were by innate or natural birth, to choose gratification or satisfaction of flesh impulses and desires before salvation, but had received a new nature and new spirit, Eph 1:13<\/span>; Eph 4:30-32<\/span>; Gal 5:25<\/span>.<\/p>\n

6) “Even as others”<\/strong> (hos kai hoi lopoi) “As also were the rest” (of the Gentiles). They had no bad evil nature, not common to other Gentiles, and were therefore called to respond in life behavior to the call of the Spirit to live the life of the new creature in Christ, Eph 2:10<\/span>; 1Co 6:19-20<\/span>; 2Co 5:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3. Among whom also we all had our conversation. Lest it should be supposed that what he had now said was a slanderous reproach against the former character of the Ephesians, or that Jewish pride had led him to treat the Gentiles as an inferior race, he associates himself and his countrymen along with them in the general accusation. This is not done in hypocrisy, but in a sincere ascription of glory to God. It may excite wonder, indeed, that he should speak of himself as having walked “in the lusts of the flesh,” while, on other occasions, he boasts that his life had been throughout irreproachable. <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

Touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” (Phi 3:6<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

And again, <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblamably, we behaved ourselves among you that believe.” (1Th 2:10<\/span>) <\/p>\n

I reply, the statement applies to all who have not been regenerated by the Spirit of Christ. However praiseworthy, in appearance, the life of some may be, because their lusts do not break out in the sight of men, there is nothing pure or holy which does not proceed from the fountain of all purity. <\/p>\n

Fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. To fulfill these desires, is to live according to the guidance of our natural disposition and of our mind. The flesh means here the disposition, or, what is called, the inclination of the nature; and the next expression ( τῶν διανοιῶν) means what proceeds from the mind. Now, the mind includes reason, such as it exists in men by nature; so that lusts do not refer exclusively to the lower appetites, or what is called the sensual part of man, but extend to the whole. <\/p>\n

And were by nature (121) children of wrath. All men without exception, whether Jews or Gentiles, (Gal 2:15<\/span>,) are here pronounced to be guilty, until they are redeemed by Christ; so that out of Christ there is no righteousness, no salvation, and, in short, no excellence. Children of wrath are those who are lost, and who deserve eternal death. Wrath means the judgment of God; so that the children of wrath are those who are condemned before God. Such, the apostle tells us, had been the Jews, — such had been all the excellent men that were now in the Church; and they were so by nature, that is, from their very commencement, and from their mother’s womb. <\/p>\n

This is a remarkable passage, in opposition to the views of the Pelagians, and of all who deny original sin. What dwells naturally in all is certainly original; but Paul declares that we are all naturally liable to condemnation; therefore sin dwells naturally in us, for God does not condemn the innocent. Pelagians were wont to object, that sin spread from Adam to the whole human race, not by descent, but by imitation. But Paul affirms that we are born with sin, as serpents bring their venom from the womb. Others who think that it is not in reality sin, are not less at variance with Paul’s language; for where condemnation is, there must unquestionably be sin. It is not with blameless men, but with sin, that God is offended. Nor is it wonderful that the depravity which we inherit from our parents is reckoned as sin before God; for the seeds of sin, before they have been openly displayed, are perceived and condemned. <\/p>\n

But one question here arises. Why does Paul represent the Jews, equally with others, as subject to wrath and curse, while they were the blessed seed? I answer, they have a common nature. Jews differ from Gentiles in nothing but this, that, through the grace of the promise, God delivers them from destruction; but that is a remedy which came after the disease. Another question is, since God is the Author of nature, how comes it that no blame attaches to God, if we are lost by nature? I answer, there is a twofold nature: the one was produced by God, and the other is the corruption of it. This condemnation therefore which Paul mentions does not proceed from God, but from a depraved nature: for we are not born such as Adam was at first created, we are not <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

wholly a right seed, but are turned into the degenerate” (Jer 2:21<\/span>) <\/p>\n

offspring of a degenerate and sinful man. <\/p>\n

(121) “ Φύσις, ‘nature,’ in such an idiom, signifies what is essential as opposed to what is accidental, what is innate in contrast with what is acquired. This is its general sense, whatever its specific application. Thus, Φαρμάκου φύσις is the nature of a drug, its color, growth, and potency. Φύσις τοῦ Αἰγύπτου is the nature of the land of Egypt — a phrase referring to no artificial peculiarity, but to results which follow from its physical conformation.” — Eadie. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(3) Among whom also we all . . .<\/strong>Up to this point St. Paul had addressed himself especially to the Ephesians as Gentiles: now he extends the description of alienation to all, Jews and Gentiles alike, as formerly reckoned among the children of disobedience. It is indeed the great object of this chapter to bring out the equality and unity of both Jews and Gentiles in the Church of Christ; and this truth is naturally introduced by a statement of their former equality in alienation and sin.<\/p>\n

In the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.<\/strong>The parallelism of these two clauses illustrates very clearly the extended sense in which the word flesh is used by St. Paul, as may indeed be seen by the catalogue of the works of the flesh in Gal. 5:19-20<\/span>. For here the flesh, in the first clause, includes both the flesh and the mind (or, more properly, the thoughts<\/em>) of the second; that is, it includes both the appetites and the passions of our fleshly nature, and also the thoughts of the mind itself, so far as it is devoted to this visible world of sense, alienated from God, and therefore under the influence of the powers of evil. In fact, in scriptural use the sins of the flesh, the world, and the devil are not different classes of sins, but different aspects of sin, and any one of the three great enemies is made at times to represent all.<\/p>\n

And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others<\/strong> (or rather, the others<\/em>that is, the heathen).From this passage the phrase children of wrath has passed into Christian theology as an almost technical description of the unregenerate state. Hence it needs careful examination. (1) Now the phrase children of wrath (corresponding almost exactly to children of a curse, in 2Pe. 2:14<\/span>) seems borrowed from the Hebrew use in the Old Testament, by which (as in 1Sa. 20:30<\/span>; 2Sa. 12:5<\/span>) a son of death is one under sentence of death, and in Isa. 57:4<\/span> (the Greek translation) children of destruction are those doomed to perish. In this sense we have, in Joh. 17:12<\/span>, the son of perdition; and in Mat. 23:15<\/span>, the son of hell. It differs, therefore, considerably from the phrase children of disobedience (begotten, as it were, of disobedience) above. But it is notable that the word for children here used is a term expressing endearment and love, and is accordingly properly, and almost invariably, applied to our relation to God. When, therefore, it is used as in this passage, or, still more strikingly, in 1Jn. 3:10<\/span>, children of the devil (comp. Joh. 8:44<\/span>), there is clearly an intention to arrest the attention by a startling and paradoxical expression. We were children, not of God, not of His love, but of wraththat is, His wrath against sin; born (see Gal. 3:10-22<\/span>; Gal. 4:4<\/span>) under the law, and therefore shut up under sin, and under the curse. (2) Next, we have the phrase by nature, which, in the true reading of the original, is interposed, as a kind of limitation or definition, between children and of wrath. In the first instance it was probably suggested by the reference to Israel, who were by covenant, not by nature, the chosen people of God. Now the word nature, applied to humanity, indicates what is common to all, as opposed to what is individual, or what is inborn, as opposed to what is acquired. But whether it refers to humanity as it was created by God, or to humanity as it has become by fault and corruption of nature, must always be determined by the context. Here the reference is clearly to the latter. Nature is opposed to gracethat is, the nature of man as alienated from God, to the nature of man as restored to his original birthright, the image of God, in Jesus Christ. (See Rom. 5:12-21<\/span>.) The existence of an inborn sinfulness needs no revelation to make it evident to those who have eyes to see. It needs a revelationand such a revelation the gospel givesto declare to us that it is not mans true nature, and that what is really original is not sin, but righteousness. (3) The whole passage, therefore, describes the state of men before their call to union with Christ, as naturally under wrath, and is well illustrated by the full description, in Rom. 1:18<\/span>; Rom. 2:16<\/span>, of those on whom the wrath of God is revealed. There mans state is depicted as having still some knowledge of God (Rom. 1:19-21<\/span>), as having the work of the law written on the heart (Rom. 2:14-15<\/span>), and accordingly as being still under a probation before God (Rom. 2:6-11<\/span>). Elsewhere we learn that Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, died for all, even the ungodly (Rom. 5:6-8<\/span>; Rev. 13:1<\/span>); and that none are wholly excluded from His atonement but those who tread under foot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing (Heb. 10:29<\/span>). Hence that state is not absolutely lost or hopeless. But yet, when the comparison, as here, is with the salvation of the gospel, they are declared children of wrath who are strangers to the new covenant of promise, with its two supernatural gifts of justification by faith and sanctification in the Spirit, and their condition is described, comparatively but not absolutely, as having no hope, and without God in the world.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3<\/strong>. <\/strong> Among whom<\/strong> Namely, the children of disobedience<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

Conversation<\/strong> Daily intercourse and conduct. <\/p>\n

Flesh<\/strong> Animal appetites and mind governed by them. <\/p>\n

Desires<\/strong> Wills or volitions. <\/p>\n

Flesh and mind<\/strong> The lower and the higher depraved tendencies. <\/p>\n

Were<\/strong> This verb corresponds with had <\/strong> and walked<\/strong>. Contemporaneously with our evil courses, and underlying them, was a nature by which we were children of wrath<\/strong>. The divine wrath <\/strong> condemned not only our guilty persons, but it reached more deeply to our very nature<\/strong>. On the phrase children of wrath<\/strong>, consult what we have said on the phrase children of disobedience<\/strong>, in Eph 2:2<\/span>. But the Greek in Eph 2:2<\/span> is, properly, sons; <\/em> here, children<\/strong>. Robinson’s New Testament Lexicon says: “By Hebrew genitive case, the child of any thing <\/em> is one connected with, partaking of, or exposed to, any thing; often put instead of an adjective.” Mat 11:19<\/span> and Luk 7:35<\/span>, “Wisdom is justified of her children.” Eph 5:8<\/span>, “Children of light,” that is, enlightened. 1Pe 1:14<\/span>, “Obedient children.” 2Pe 2:14<\/span>, “Cursed children.” So Septuagint, “Children of perdition.” A survey of these cases will show: 1. The absurdity of understanding that the expression children of wrath<\/strong>, has the least shadow of implying that men are born of the wrath of God. 2. A survey of such phrases as “child of hell,” “son of perdition,” shows that it will not do to affirm, with Eadie, that the phrase means more than exposed to <\/em> the matter of which one is child<\/strong>. The “child of hell” was yet untouched by hell, though exposed to it.<\/p>\n

So the child of wrath may be not touched by the wrath of God, yet liable to become so.<\/p>\n

A thing is said to be thus or so by nature <\/strong> when it is so by birth or origin, or by growth, in distinction from being made <\/em> so. A free agent is so by nature <\/strong> when he grows so in regular and normal conditions. See our work on “The Will,” p. 249. Now the question here is, (overlooked by commentators like Eadie and Hodge,) Does the phrase by nature children of wrath <\/strong> mean that the wrath <\/strong> lies upon the child <\/em> at birth, or not? We affirm the negative, and believe it can be overwhelmingly proved. It is essentially the question of “infant damnation.” Josephus says, that David was “just and pious by nature;” <\/em> certainly not in his infancy, but as he developed into manhood. Herodian says, that “barbarians are property-loving by nature;” <\/em> not, certainly, in infancy, but in their adult development. AElian says, “The Cean is silver-loving by nature;” <\/em> that is, when he has grown old enough to contract that love. AElian says, “The Athenians were envious by nature;” <\/em> not so at birth, certainly, but by the character into which they grew. So AElian again, “warlike by nature;” <\/em> and Philo, “peaceful by nature.” <\/em> All the examples (most of which we take from Wetstein) imply, to be sure, a natural tendency at birth to the condition or character into which they grow; but not the condition itself. <\/em> That is, they prove that the infant possesses the tendency apart from grace, to come into a subjection to the wrath of God, and so prove innate depravity; but do not prove that it is born under the wrath of God. The words do not decide that the infant is responsible for its inborn tendency, and so deserving of damnation at birth. The doctrine that the child is born under damnation lies in the very centre of the standard predestinarian system. That system assumes that any and every infant might be sent to hell forever, justly, and without a Saviour. On that assumption it bases its views of the mercy of God in redemption. Arbitrary reprobation is claimed to be just because all <\/em> might be justly so doomed for original sin alone, without the commission of a single sin.<\/p>\n

We hold, on the contrary, that though sinward tendencies exist in germ in the infant, yet there is no responsibility, and no damnability, until these tendencies are deliberately and knowingly acted in real life, and by that action appropriated and sanctioned. Then the man is condemned both for the guilt of the act and the pravity of his nature, now responsibly assumed and ready to be acted out, as described in Eph 2:1-2<\/span>. See note, Rom 5:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

But if the infant is irresponsible, how can Christ be to him a pardoner of sin and a Saviour? We might reply, that it does not make Christ any pardoner of sin to imagine a factitious sin, or a guilt which has no foundation in the nature of things. The pardon will remain just as factitious, just as merely verbal, as the guilt to be pardoned. But Christ still stands a Saviour to the infant, as we hold, in the following respects: 1. We have elsewhere shown that had Christ not been given the race would, in all probability, not have been permitted to be propagated after the fall. Notes on Joh 14:19<\/span>, and Rom 11:32<\/span>. So the grace of Christ underlies the very existence of every human being that is born. 2. Between the infant descendant of fallen Adam and God there is a contrariety of moral nature, by which the former is irresponsibly, and in undeveloped condition, averse to the latter, and so displacent to Him. By Christ, the Mediator, that averseness is regeneratively removed, and the divine complacency restored: so that the race is enabled to persist under the divine grace. 3. Christ, in case of infant death, entirely removes the sinward nature, so as to harmonize the being with the holiness of heaven. 4. Christ is the infants’ justifier against every accuser, (note on Rom 8:29<\/span>,) whether devils, evil men, or mistaken theologians; asserting their claim through his merits, in spite of their fallen lineage, to redemption and heaven. Being thus purified, justified, and glorified by Christ, none are more truly qualified to join in the song of Moses and the Lamb.<\/p>\n

If it be said, Yes, the infant sinned in Adam, we reply, (as in our note on Rom 5:12<\/span>,) that the New Testament nowhere says that he “sinned in Adam.” It is contrary to fact that he did so thousands of years before he had any existence. Still, as there are in law what are called “legal fictions,”<\/p>\n

so in theology there may be “theological fictions.” Such fictions are modes of figurative idea by which surrounding or analogous truths may be more vividly realized; as, for instance, where it is said of man and wife, “they twain are one flesh.” But such fictions must be so applied as not to contradict axiomatic truth and good. If from the oneness of man and wife theologians literally infer that the wife must die when the husband does, and so burn her on the funeral pile, they transform the fiction into a direful lie. And yet this would not be a millionth part as bad as the theologians picture God to be, when they make him hold infants to be justly condemnable to hell forever because, forsooth, “they sinned in Adam!”<\/p>\n

If, however, we must say that infants “sinned in Adam,” let us be consistent, and add, but they also became justified in Christ. So Fletcher of Madeley beautifully puts it; as the entire race, infants and all, sinned, died, and went to hell before they were born, but only “seminally” and conceptually in Adam, so they are all redeemed and saved conceptually in Christ; and so are born into the world justified heirs of the atonement and heaven. Then fiction meets fiction; and beauty, truth, and reason are the outcome.<\/p>\n

But if infants die, and death is the consequent of sin, why do sinless infants die? Because, we reply, in the fall the supernatural Spirit of holiness, by which man was raised above the natural law of death, was withdrawn from Adam and his posterity; and he and they were surrendered over to nature. See notes on Rom 5:12-19<\/span>; Rom 11:32<\/span>. And by nature, as an animal being, and by the law of material nature, he disintegrates and dies. So the justified and sanctified adult dies. For such are, under Christ, the laws of our probationary being, established after the fall, that death arising from nature is not repaired by immediate immortality of body, but by a bodily resurrection after the era of mere nature with us has past.<\/p>\n

Even as others<\/strong> Literally, as also the rest. <\/em> The rest <\/em> of whom? All the commentators that we have consulted, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, etc., have, obviously, missed the true answer. Some, as Meyer, make it the Gentiles, as in addition to Jews; but nothing has been said of Jews or Gentiles thus far. Others, as Ellicott and Alford, make it signify the rest of mankind; but the words are too slight to cover so wide an extent. The true meaning is, the rest of the children of disobedience<\/strong>, in Eph 2:2<\/span>. Paul’s train of ideas is: The devil worketh in the children of disobedience, among whom <\/strong> we indulged the same lusts, and were by nature <\/strong> as depraved even as the rest.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘Among whom we also once lived in the lusts of the flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.’<\/p>\n

‘We.’ Lest anyone think he is excluding himself from being a sinner Paul now includes himself and his companions, along with all Christians. They too had once followed the lusts of the flesh and had given way to the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and there was also a theoretical danger that they might do so again. For constant is the battle of the Spirit with the flesh, although those who walk by the Spirit will overcome (Gal 5:16<\/span>). Note the duality of the types of ‘lusts of the flesh’, for they include not only the desires of the body, but also the desires of the mind. Intellectual sin is as great as fleshly sin. The mind at war with God is as sinful as the body which walks in disobedience.<\/p>\n

‘And were by nature (phusei) children of wrath, even as the rest.’ For phusei compare Gal 2:15<\/span>. It means what we essentially are in our thinking and behaviour, our natural condition. The natural man is thus a child of wrath, that is a person deserving of wrath, for by nature man is a sinner (Rom 5:19<\/span>) and once given the chance this soon reveals itself. Thus is introduced, as a suggestion that cannot be denied, that the wrath of God is directed at sin (compare Rom 1:18<\/span>) and that all men are under the wrath of God because of sin (Rom 2:5<\/span>; Col 3:6<\/span>; Joh 3:36<\/span>; Rev 6:17<\/span>). The wrath of God is not anger as we know it, it represents God’s antipathy to sin, God’s hatred of sin, God’s reaction in His holiness against sin. He cannot abide sin and must act to destroy it like a gardener acting with his chemicals to destroy all that is destructive and harmful in his garden. That is His ‘wrath’.<\/p>\n

‘Even as the rest.’ Paul was no different from the others, no different from us, in this.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Among whom also we, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> The Apostle, changing the expression from ye to we, <\/em>seems plainly to declare, that he meant to include himself and all other Christians in what he here says. See Rom 3:9<\/span>. Instead of the desires of the flesh and of the mind, <\/em>some render the Greek, the dictates of the flesh and of the passions; <\/em>observing that the word , here made use of, expresses a kind of dictatorial power; <\/em>and the plural, , which we render mind, <\/em>as it cannot here signify its intellectual powers, <\/em>must denote the various passions, according to the prevalence of which our minds take as it were different colours and forms, and become strangely different from themselves. Some think that the meaning of the phrase, by nature children, <\/em>&c. is only that they were so truly <\/em>and indeed. <\/em>But though Dr. Taylor has taken great pains to establish this interpretation, it appears incomparably more reasonable, upon the whole, to understand the words of the original apostacy and corruption, <\/em>in consequence of which, men do, according to the course of nature, fall early into personal guilt. And we may venture to affirm, that the word , by nature, <\/em>signifies a natural disposition, and not merely an acquired habit. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3<\/span> . After the apostle has just depicted the pre-Christian corruption of the readers<\/em> , who were Gentile-Christians<\/em> , the sinful corruptness of all<\/em> this basis for his enthusiastic certainty of the universality of the redemption (Rom 1:18<\/span> Rom 2:24<\/span> , Rom 3:19<\/span> ; Rom 3:23<\/span> , Rom 11:32<\/span> ; Gal 2:15-16<\/span> ; Gal 3:22<\/span> , al.<\/em> ) 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<\/em> ( ) in the same state of corruption, and accordingly<\/em> , on the resumption of the argument at Eph 2:4<\/span> , he cannot again employ the second person introduced in Eph 2:1<\/span> , but must change this into . Inasmuch as , we also<\/em> , must necessarily denote the class falling to be added<\/em> to , Eph 2:1<\/span> , we cannot understand by it the Christians generally<\/em> (Estius, Koppe, and others); but, since the are Gentile-Christians, we must take it to mean the Jewish-Christians<\/em> . The general<\/em> 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<\/em> in the moral condition of both. [132] Comp. Rom 1:2-3<\/span> . De Wette explains it quite arbitrarily: “we also, who have been already a considerable time Christians<\/em> .”<\/p>\n

] is not to be referred to , Eph 2:1<\/span> (Peshito, Jerome, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmller), for that reference is not to be supported by Col 3:7<\/span> , but, on the contrary, is impossible with the reading after ., Eph 2:1<\/span> , and is, moreover, to be rejected, because Paul has not again written , and because the reference to the nearest<\/em> subject is altogether suitable; for the Jewish-Christians also all walked once among the disobedient<\/em> , 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<\/span> ff.; Rom 2:2<\/span> ; Rom 3:9<\/span> ff.).<\/p>\n

. .] more precise definition to what has just been said , denoting the immoral domain of the pre-Christian state ( 2Co 1:12 ; 2Pe 2:18<\/span> ; comp. Xen. Ages<\/em> . ix. 4; Plat. Legg.<\/em> 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<\/span> ff; Rom 8:7<\/span> ; Gal 5:17<\/span> ; Rom 8:2<\/span> , al.<\/em> ), and hence rendered ineffectual the moral volition directed towards the divine law (Rom 7:17-20<\/span> ). The opposite is: , Gal 5:16<\/span> ; comp. Rom 8:13<\/span> .<\/p>\n

. . .] so that we<\/em> , etc., now specifies the way and manner<\/em> of this walk, wherein the prefixed has the emphasis, in that it predicates what they did<\/em> , as afterwards , what they were<\/em> . The (comp. on the plural, Act 13:22<\/span> ; Jer 23:26<\/span> ; 2MMal 1:3<\/span> ) are here in reality not different from the , which, however, are conceived of as activities of the will<\/em> , that take place on the part of the and the (both conceived of under a personified aspect as the power ruling the ego<\/em> of the unconverted man). As regards , which stands related to as the special to the general, the bad connotation is not implied in the plural<\/em> , as Harless conjectures (who finds therein “fluctuating, changing opinions”), but in the context<\/em> , which makes us think of the unholy<\/em> thoughts, [133] whose volitions were directed to evil, in the state of disobedience. Comp. Num 15:39<\/span> : ; also Jer 23:26<\/span> ; Isa 55:9<\/span> ( ), where likewise the prejudicial connotation lies not in the plural, but in the connection<\/em> .<\/p>\n

] Instead of continuing the construction in uniformity with by , the apostle passes over, as at Eph 1:20<\/span> (see on that passage), emphatically into the oratio finita<\/em> , depicting, after the immoral mode of action, the unhappy condition<\/em> in which withal we found ourselves. The fact that on this<\/em> account is prefixed<\/em> has been left unnoticed, and hence has been either tacitly (so usually) or expressly (as by Fritzsche, Conject<\/em> . p. 45, who takes . . . . together as one clause) connected with . 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 and is overlooked.<\/p>\n

are children of wrath<\/em> (comp. on Eph 2:2<\/span> ), that is, however, not merely those worthy of wrath<\/em> (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and others), which relation of dependence is not in keeping with the context, but, as . shows, Eph 2:1<\/span> , subject to wrath, irae dbnoxii, standing under wrath<\/em> (comp. Eph 5:8<\/span> ; Mat 23:15<\/span> ; Joh 17:12<\/span> ). So most expositors rightly take it. To whose<\/em> wrath they were subject, Paul does not indicate (for he does not write , comp. Rom 12:19<\/span> ), but (comp. Rom 4:15<\/span> ) he leaves it to the reader to say for himself that it is God’s<\/em> wrath he has to think of (see Eph 2:4<\/span> ). As to the wrath<\/em> of God, which here, too, is not to be understood merely of that of the future judgment (Ritschl, de ira Dei<\/em> , 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<\/span> .<\/p>\n

] dative of the more precise mode (= ), may either attach itself merely to (not to ), so that the idea expressed is: nature-children<\/em> , (see on such datives joined on to nouns, Lobeck, ad Phryn<\/em> p. 688; Heind. ad Cratyl.<\/em> p. 131); or it may more precisely define the whole notion<\/em> , thus: wrath-children by nature<\/em> , ; so that the ., like . , Eph 2:2<\/span> , forms a single idea. The latter is the correct view, because is used figuratively and receives the real contents of the conception only by means of , for which reason it is not to be thought of as separated therefrom. [134] The notion of must obtain its more precise definition solely from the context, as to whether, namely, it betokens an innate<\/em> relation (as in Gal 2:15<\/span> ; Xen. Mem.<\/em> i. 4. 14; Dem. 1411 ult.; Soph. Aj.<\/em> 1280; O. C.<\/em> 1297; Isoc. Evag<\/em> . 16: , ; specially instructive are Plat. Prot<\/em> . p. 323 C D, Dem. 774, 7), whether it is consequently equivalent to , and the sonship of wrath is , a qualitas innata<\/em> ( Wis 12:10 , comp. Wis 13:1 , and thereon Grimm, Handb<\/em> . p. 233), or, on the other hand, a relation brought about<\/em> by development of a nativa indoles<\/em> , one that has been produced by virtue of natural endowment<\/em> (as Rom 2:14<\/span> ; 1Co 11:14<\/span> ; Xen. Mem.<\/em> i. 2. 14, iv. 1. 3; Plat. Legg.<\/em> vi. p. 777 D; Ael. V. H.<\/em> ii. 13. 3, xxii. 9. 1; see also Wetstein in loc.<\/em> , and Loesner, p. 340 f.). In the latter sense David is said by Josephus, Antt.<\/em> vii. 7. 1, to have been ; comp. xiii. 10. 6. Philo, de conf. lingu<\/em> . p. 327 E: , Xen. Oec.<\/em> xx. 25: , Plut. Artax<\/em> . Ephesians 6 : , Arist. Polit<\/em> . i. 1. 9: , and many others. According to this view, would have to be paraphrased by: , , . From early times (see, already, Augustine, Retract<\/em> , i. 10. 15; de verb. Rev 14<\/span><\/em> ) the word in our passage has been employed in defence of original sin<\/em> as an inborn<\/em> condition of culpability ( inborn peccatum vere damnans<\/em> ), as indeed even Rckert, Harless, Olshausen, Usteri, [135] Julius Mller, Lechler, Philippi, Thomasius, and others have understood an inborn<\/em> childship of wrath. “Paulus nos cum peccato gigni<\/em> 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<\/em> . p. 639 f. But (1) the context points, in Eph 2:1-3<\/span> , as again also in Eph 2:5<\/span> , to an actually produced<\/em> , not to an inborn<\/em> state of guilt. [136] Further, (2) if Paul had wished, after touching on the sinful action<\/em> , to bring into prominence the inborn<\/em> state of culpability, and so had taken the course ab effectu ad causam<\/em> , would have an emphasis, which would make its critically assured position, as it stands in the Recepta<\/em> , appear simply inappropriate; in fact, not even the position in Lachmann ( ) would be sufficiently in keeping, but we should be obliged logically to expect: , “and (already) by birth were we children of wrath,” in which would lie the source of sinful action. But (3) the ecclesiastical<\/em> dogma, that man is a born<\/em> subject of wrath, from birth<\/em> an object of the divine condemnation, is not at all a doctrine of the apostle, according to whom man by his actual<\/em> sin falls under the wrath of God (Rom 1:18<\/span> ; Rom 2:8-9<\/span> ; Rom 7:7<\/span> f., al.<\/em> ), inasmuch, namely, as he becomes subject to and follows the inborn principle<\/em> of sin (Rom 7:14<\/span> ff.), in opposition to his moral will, which he likewise by nature bears in himself; in connection with which, we may add, bodily death<\/em> has its causal<\/em> 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<\/span> ). And (4) how could Paul, speaking of the Jews<\/em> , predicate of them an inborn<\/em> childship of wrath, when he regarded them as (Rom 11:16<\/span> )! They were in fact of the sacred olive-tree of the theocracy (Rom 11:21<\/span> ); how could they be at the same time the opposite (observe the ), born<\/em> ? See also Gal 2:15<\/span> , where the are opposed<\/em> to the , [137] as well as Rom 9:4<\/span> , where of them is predicated the possession of the , 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<\/em> . p. 262 ff. Several have found in 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<\/em> liability to wrath, consequently of condemnation from the very first<\/em> , without any personal participation and contracting of guilt, before one yet knows<\/em> sin (Rom 7:7<\/span> ). This remark also holds in opposition to the essentially similar interpretation in Hofmann, p. 565, comp. Schmid, bibl. Theol<\/em> . II. p. 274, and Julius Mller, v. d.<\/em> Snde<\/em> , p. 377 f. Further, (5) if Paul had thought of an inborn<\/em> liability to wrath, he could not have regarded even the children of Christians<\/em> as holy<\/em> and pure<\/em> (1Co 7:14<\/span> ); and infant baptism must have been already ordained in the N.T., and that, indeed, with the absolute necessity<\/em> , 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<\/em> 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<\/span> f., Mat 19:14<\/span> f.) is accordingly to be rejected as opposed to the context<\/em> and un-Pauline<\/em> ; and defines the childship of wrath to the effect, that it has arisen in virtue of natural constitution<\/em> (observe the just-mentioned , comp. the , which overcomes the moral law in man, Rom 7:23-24<\/span> ). Certainly man is born<\/em> with this natural, sinful quality, i.e.<\/em> with the principle of sin, by the awakening and development of which the moral will is vanquished (Rom 7<\/span> ; comp. also Joh 3:6<\/span> ); it is not, however, the mere fact of this inborn presence having its basis in his , that in and of itself<\/em> [138] makes him the child of wrath (comp. Beyschlag, Christol. d. N.T.<\/em> 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<\/em> (Rom 3:9<\/span> ; Rom 11:32<\/span> ; Gal 3:22<\/span> ) brought about the victory of the sin-principle, and therewith the and (Rom 7:14<\/span> ). [139] Others, such as Erasmus, Balduin, Bengel, Morus, Koppe, Stolz, Flatt, Matthies, de Wette, Bleek (comp. also Weber, vom Zorn Gottes<\/em> , p. 88), have explained it of the so-called natural state<\/em> of man, i.e.<\/em> of the state of the pre-Christian life, which was as yet aloof from the influence of (Eph 2:5<\/span> ff.) and of the Holy Spirit; but in this way, properly speaking, nothing<\/em> is explained; for while the whole description, and not merely , delineates “the natural state in which the redemptive activity of God found the nations” (de Wette), in connection with there always remains the special question, whether the “ by nature<\/em> ” denotes an inborn relation to wrath or not. Holzhausen would even combine (“wrath which comes from the ungodly nature-life”), a view from which, even if meant nature-life, the very absence of any article ought in itself to have precluded him; , or . , or the like, must have been used. Moreover, Cyril, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Grotius, erroneously hold as equivalent to (comp. others in Jerome, who take it as prorsus<\/em> ), which it never is, not even in Gal 4:8<\/span> , to which Grotius appeals. Lastly, in a quite peculiar way Ernesti, Urspr. d. Snde<\/em> , II. p. 174 ff., obtains the exact opposite of a born liability to wrath by conducting his interpretation so as to enclose within two commas, and to connect with : “ We were<\/em> in consequence of our actual sinfulness, although children<\/em> [of God in the Israelitish sense, Rom 9:4<\/span> ] by nature, liable to wrath even as the Gentiles<\/em> ;” according to which, therefore, is explained from the well-known usage of in the sense of “belonging to.” But it may be decisively urged against this view, first, that the supplying the thought of after (as Isa 63:8<\/span> ; Rom 8:17<\/span> ; Gal 4:6<\/span> ) 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 ; and secondly, that there is nothing to indicate the contrast assumed by Ernesti ( although<\/em> , etc.), for in order to write in some measure intelligibly, Paul must at least have said: , , although this, too, on account of the absence of a definition to , would have been enigmatic enough. Equally to be rejected is the quite similar interpretation of Nickel (in Reuter’s Repert.<\/em> 1860, Oct., p. 16), who explains as though the words ran: , .<\/p>\n

] sc<\/em> . . The are the Gentiles<\/em> (Rom 3:9<\/span> ; 1Th 4:13<\/span> ), and is not adhuc<\/em> (Grotius), but the also<\/em> of comparison.<\/p>\n

[132] In doing which Paul could, least of all, venture to except himself, although, according to Phi 3:6<\/span> , the justitia externa<\/em> had not been wanting to him.<\/p>\n

[133] That these were selfish<\/em> , is in itself correct, but is not implied in the word itself, and is not expressed by Paul (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew<\/em> , I. p. 563).<\/p>\n

[134] According to this view, there is here in the position of the words a severance<\/em> (Khner, II. p. 627) whereby the genitive is separated from its governing word (Buttm. neut. Gr<\/em> . p. 332 [E. T. 387]). This hyperbaton has for its object the reserving of the whole emphasis for the closing word , and letting it fall thereon. Comp. Philem. fragm.<\/em> p. 354, ed. Cleric.: .<\/p>\n

[135] Usteri, Lehrbegr<\/em> . p. 30, we may add, suspects the genuineness of , 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. is omitted only in 109, Aeth. No doubt Clem. Alex. ad Gent.<\/em> ( Opp<\/em> . ed. Pott, p. 23) is also adduced, where the passage is cited without . But in Clem. l.c.<\/em> (comp. p. 560) we have no citation, but merely a free use<\/em> of the passage, from which the existence of variations cannot be made good. Clement, we may add, singularly explains by , .<\/p>\n

[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<\/em> .” See, on the other hand, Romans 1-3, Rom 11:32<\/span> ; Gal 3:22<\/span> , al.<\/p>\n

[137] <\/em> Which Hofmann, Schriftbew<\/em> . I. p. 564 (comp. his Heil. Schr. N.T.<\/em> II. 1, p. 24), denies on invalid linguistic grounds; see on Gal. l.c.<\/p>\n

[138] <\/em> The objection of Lechler, p. 107 (comp. Philippi, Dogm.<\/em> III. p. 205 f.) that my explanation, inasmuch as the sinful disposition is inborn<\/em> , thereby after all concedes the traditional Church-view overlooks the essential distinction, that it is only according to the latter that man is born<\/em> 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<\/em> so only through the setting in of actual<\/em> sin, which, it is true, does not fail to emerge in any one who lives long enough to be able<\/em> 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<\/em> of sin, but even to the occasion to sin<\/em> , which every one has by nature. This is, so far as I can see, exegetically incompatible<\/em> with the anthropological teachings of the apostle elsewhere, especially with his exposition in Rom 7:7<\/span> f. Only with the actual<\/em> sin, according to Paul, is the guilt<\/em> connected, and consequently the wrath of God. An inborn<\/em> guilt is not taught by the apostle; as is rightly brought out by Ernesti, but is only hesitatingly hinted at by Bleek.<\/p>\n

[139] Through Christian regeneration the moral will attains, by virtue of the Spirit (Rom 8:2<\/span> ), the ascendancy in man, and he becomes therewithal qualitatively , 2Pe 1:4<\/span> , and , Heb 12:10<\/span> . Comp. 1Jn 5:18<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

DISCOURSE: 2097
ORIGINAL SIN STATED, AND IMPROVED<\/strong><\/p>\n

Eph 2:3<\/span>. And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others<\/em>.<\/p>\n

AMONG the many beautiful traits which mark the character of St. Paul, we cannot but notice particularly his readiness to place himself on a level with the least and lowest of mankind, and to confess his obligations to the sovereign grace of God for all the difference that had been made between him and others. In his Epistle to Titus he gives such a representation of himself and his fellow-Apostles in their unconverted state, as was most humiliating to them, whilst it afforded rich encouragement to all who felt the plague of their own hearts. In like manner, in the epistle before us, after shewing that the Gentile world had been altogether in a state of bondage to sin and Satan, he declares, that he himself, and all others without exception, had in fact been in a condition no less deplorable, both by nature and practice;by practice having habitually fulfilled the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and being by nature children of wrath, even as others.
That we may fully enter into the confession which he here makes, we shall,<\/p>\n

I.<\/p>\n

Explain the terms here used<\/p>\n

We may notice them,<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

Separately<\/p>\n

[As in the preceding verse the words children of disobedience<\/em> mean disobedient children, so, in our text, children of wrath must be understood as importing children doomed to wrath: just as a similar expression of St. Peter is actually translated: what in the Greek is sons of a curse, is in our translation cursed children [Note: 2Pe 2:14<\/span>.]. It is a Hebraism, common throughout all the inspired writings.<\/p>\n

Such, we are told, is the state of all by nature<\/em>. Those who are adverse to the doctrine of original sin, would interpret these words as importing, that men were in this state by habit or custom: but the words cannot with any propriety be so construed: the only true and proper sense of them is that which our translators have here assigned to them [Note: See Guyses note on the text.].<\/p>\n

The Apostle further says, that he and his fellow-Apostles were in this state, even as others<\/em>. The Jews were ready enough to account the Gentiles accursed; but they thought that no curse could attach to them, because they were children of Abraham. This mistake St. Paul rectifies in our text, declaring, that whatever privileges the Jews might enjoy above the Gentiles, there was in this respect no difference between them; the Jews, yea the Apostles themselves, being, by nature, children of wrath, even as others.]<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

Taken in their collective sense<\/p>\n

[According to their plain and obvious and undeniable import, they declare, that every child of man, whatever be his privileges, or whatever his attainments, is by nature under the wrath of God.
All, as fallen in Adam, deserve Gods wrath<\/em>. Adam was the covenant-head and representative of all his descendants. Had he stood, they would have stood in him: and as he fell, they fell in him. If it be thought strange, that his posterity should be responsible for his act, let it suffice to say, that, if he fell, there can be no doubt but that we, if subjected to the same trial, should have fallen also: yea, considering all the circumstances in which he was placed, (created in the fullest possession of all his faculties, having a perfect nature, and subjected only to one single trial, and having dependent on him the welfare, not of himself alone, but of all his posterity,) it was infinitely more probable that he would stand, than that we should, who come into the world in a state of infantine weakness. But, whether we approve of it or not, so the matter is; and so it was ordained of God: and, exactly as Levi is said to have paid tithes in Abraham, (though he was not born till one hundred and fifty years after the circumstance of paying tithes occurred,) merely because he was in the loins of Abraham at the time that he paid tithes to Melchizedec, so may we be justly said to have sinned in Adam, because we were in the loins of Adam when he sinned. Hence it is declared by God himself, that, in Adam all have sinned [Note: Rom 5:12<\/span>.], and in Adam all have died [Note: 1Co 15:22<\/span>.].<\/p>\n

[Moreover, all, as partakers of Adams fallen nature, are fit for the wrath of God<\/em>. Adam begat children in his own fallen likeness. Indeed, being corrupt himself, he could transmit nothing but corruption to his descendants; for who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Now in whomsoever iniquity be found, God cannot look upon it without abhorrence: and hence it is said, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither can corruption inherit incorruption.<\/p>\n

Further, all, both as fallen in Adam, and corrupt in themselves are actually under a sentence of wrath<\/em>, and actually doomed to it. This is indeed an awful truth; but it is explicitly declared by an inspired Apostle, that, by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, yea, that by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation [Note: Rom 5:18-19<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n

Having endeavoured to ascertain the precise import of the words, we proceed to,<\/p>\n

II.<\/p>\n

Establish the truth contained in them<\/p>\n

In proof of what our text asserts, we appeal,<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

To Scripture<\/p>\n

[Consult the declarations of Almighty God<\/em>. In the Old Testament he has testified, that every human being, without exception, is corrupt, not in act only, but in every imagination and thought of his heart [Note: Gen 6:5<\/span>.]. And this testimony which the heart-searching God himself bore before the flood, as a reason for destroying the earth, he renewed after the flood, as a reason why he would deluge the earth no more; seeing that, if he should proceed to destroy it as soon as it should become universally corrupt, he would have to repeat his judgments continually, there being nothing but iniquity in every child of man [Note: Gen 8:21<\/span>.]. In the New Testament we have a similar declaration from our blessed Lord. He, assigning a reason why no unregenerate man can possibly behold the kingdom of God, says, That which is born of the flesh, is flesh [Note: Joh 3:6<\/span>.], and therefore incapable of enjoying a spiritual kingdom.<\/p>\n

With these declarations of God agree the confessions of his most eminent saints<\/em>. To his original corruption David traced the sin which he had committed in the matter of Uriah; not intending thereby to extenuate, but rather to aggravate, its guilt: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me [Note: Psa 51:5<\/span>.]. St. Paul also, speaking of the conflicts which he yet had to maintain against the corruption that remained within him, says, In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing [Note: Rom 7:18<\/span>.]: I see a law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members [Note: Rom 7:23<\/span>.]. Thus we see both these eminent saints confessing that their nature, as derived from their first parents, was altogether corrupt.<\/p>\n

To these we may add the promises which God has made to his fallen creatures:<\/em> A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh [Note: Eze 36:26<\/span>.]. What can be the meaning of this? What need they a new heart, if the old heart be not corrupt? or why should he promise to take away the stony heart, if the heart be not by nature hard and obdurate?<\/p>\n

Not to multiply passages, which yet might be multiplied to a great extent, we will further appeal,]<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

To experience<\/p>\n

[Let any one make his observations on what passes all around him, or trace the records of his own heart, and say, whether children, as born into the world, be not partakers both of Adams corruption<\/em>, and Adams punishment<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Is not every child full of evil tempers and dispositions? There is, it is true, more evil in some than in others: but who ever saw a child in whose heart folly and iniquity were not bound up? If a child be even tolerably free from fretfulness, and impatience, and selfishness, and falsehood, is it not admired as a prodigy? And when children grow up to the exercise of reason, do they improve that reason in seeking after God? Do they not invariably shew that their dispositions are altogether earthly, and that by nature they affect only the things of time and sense? Nor is this the case with children of one age or one nation only, but of every age, and every nation, yea, of the most godly parents too, as well as of the ungodly.
And, as they inherit the corruption of Adam, so do they also his guilt and punishment. Death, we know, was the penalty of Adams transgression; In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. But children who have never sinned in their own persons, are subjected to death: we see little new-born infants oppressed with sickness, and racked with pain, and cut off by an untimely stroke of death. For whose sin are they thus punished? Their own? They are not capable of actual sin. It is for Adams sin therefore that they are punished [Note: Rom 5:12<\/span>; Rom 5:14<\/span>.]: and that indisputably proves, that they are, as they are represented in our text, children of wrath.<\/p>\n

We do not say that children, dying before they have committed actual sin, are consigned over to everlasting death: we hope, and believe, that God does, for Christs sake, extend his mercy to them: but this alters not the case at all: we consider only what they are in themselves, and what they deserve at Gods hands, and to what, as fallen creatures, they are doomed by Gods righteous law: the relief which may be afforded them by the Gospel is not the present subject of our consideration: our present position which we are to establish, and which we think we have fully established, is, that all, as born into the world, are children of wrath.]
We will now endeavour to,<\/p>\n

III.<\/p>\n

Suggest a suitable improvement of the subject<\/p>\n

Surely we may see from hence<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

In what a deplorable condition are all they who are yet in a state of nature<\/p>\n

[Children of wrath were they born, and children of wrath have they continued to the present hour. We know indeed how strenuously it is asserted by many, that baptism and regeneration are the same thing, and that to look for a new nature in conversion is unnecessary. But we would ask every parent here present, have you invariably<\/em> found that your children, from the moment that they were baptized, put away their evil dispositions, and instantly became new creatures? Is it even generally<\/em> found, that this change takes place at baptism? I might almost proceed to ask, did you ever see this change so wrought by baptism, that you could not do otherwise than refer it to baptism as the means which God made use of for that end? We do not presume to say, that God never does confer a new heart in baptism; but we say, that if that be the usual, and still more the constant, means of regeneration to the children of men, it is very extraordinary that the change wrought is so rarely visible, that, if it were undeniably to appear, it would be universally esteemed a miracle. The truth is, that they who are so strenuous for this opinion, have invariably but very low notions of original sin. It is their low sense of their disease that leads them to rest in such a remedy. But, as the fault and corruption of their nature is such as deserves Gods wrath and damnation [Note: See the Ninth Article of our Church.], they must have a new nature given to them by the operation of the Holy Ghost: they must be renewed, not externally, or partially, but inwardly, and in all the powers of their souls: they must be renewed in the spirit of their minds<\/em> [Note: Eph 4:23<\/span>.], their whole dispositions being changed from earthly and carnal to spiritual and heavenly: in a word, they must be created anew in Christ Jesus [Note: ver. 10.], and become altogether new creatures, old things passing away, and all things becoming new [Note: 2Co 5:17<\/span>.]. The change may not unfitly be compared with a river where the tide comes: one while it flows with great rapidity from the fountain-head to the ocean: a few hours afterwards it flows with equal rapidity back again towards the fountain-head: and this change is wrought by the invisible, yet undisputed, influence of the moon. In like manner does the soul of every truly regenerate man flow back towards God, from whom but lately, with all its faculties and powers, it receded: and this change is effected by the invisible, but real and undoubted, operation of the Spirit of God: and till this change is effected, we remain under the wrath of Almighty God. O consider the wrath of God: how terrible the thought! To all eternity it will be the wrath to come<\/em>. May God stir us all up to flee from it, and, in newness of heart and life, to lay hold on eternal life!]<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

In what a happy condition are they who have been brought from a state of nature to a state of grace<\/p>\n

[Such, whilst they humbly acknowledge that they were<\/em> children of wrath, may with adoring gratitude assure themselves, that they are so no longer. But let them never forget what they were, or what obligations they owe to that grace of God which has delivered them. Hear how strongly St. Paul inculcates this on those to whom our text was addressed: We were by nature children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, of his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.Wherefore remember, (O beloved brethren, remember,) that at that time ye were without Christ, (O, think of that!) being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ [Note: ver. 4, 5, 1113.]. Dear brethren, remember<\/em> this transition; and let every syllable that records it fill your souls with gratitude to your almighty Saviour and Deliverer.]<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

What attention should be shewn to the welfare of the rising generation<\/p>\n

[They are all by nature children of wrath. And should they be left in that awful state? Should no means be used to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God?
O parents, look at your dear offspring; and whilst fondling them in your arms, or delighting in their progress, remember what they are, and cry mightily to God for them night and day. Be not contented with their advancement in bodily strength, or intellectual power, or temporal condition; but seek above all things to behold them turning to God, and growing in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let all your plans for them have respect to this one point, the changing of them from children of wrath to children of the living God.
Let those also who have the care of children [Note: If this be the subject of a Sermon for Sunday Schools or Charity Schools, the Instructors in particular may be here addressed.] endeavour to get their own minds impressed with the thought, that their office is not so much to convey instruction in worldly knowledge, as to lead the souls of the children to Christ, that they may be partakers of his salvation: and let them engage in their work with hearts full of tender compassion to their scholars, and of zeal for God.<\/p>\n

And, my dear children, let me address also a few words to you. Think me not unkind if I remind you of what you are by nature. If I speak to you as children of wrath, it is not to wound your feelings, but to stir you up to improve the opportunities that are afforded you for attaining a better and a happier state. What would you do, my dear children, if you were shut up in a house that was on fire, and a number of benevolent persons were exerting themselves to rescue you from the devouring element? would you not strive which should first be partakers of the benefit? Know then, that this is a just representation of your state: you are children of wrath, and are in danger of dwelling with everlasting burnings: and the object of your instructors is, to shew you how you may flee from the wrath to come. O listen to their instructions with all possible care; treasure up in your minds all their exhortations and advice; and beg of God, that through those Scriptures which they explain to you, you may be made wise unto salvation by faith in Christ Jesus.]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 3. Among whom also we all, &c.<\/strong> ] Let the best look back often on what they were before calling, that they may thankfully cry out with Iphicrates, , from what misery to what dignity are we advanced!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Fulfilling the desires<\/strong> ] Gr. the wills of the flesh. Now therefore we must as diligently fulfil not the will, but the wills of God, as David did, Act 13:22<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The children of wrath<\/strong> ] De ires.<\/em> Gregory the Great said of the English boys that were presented to him, Angli quasi Angeli, <\/em> English just as Angels. And demanding further what province they were of in this island, it was returned, that they were called De ires; <\/em> which caused him again to repeat the word, and to say, that it were great pity but that by being taught the gospel, they should be saved de ira Dei, <\/em> from the wrath of God. (Abbot’s Geog.) Whereunto we are subject, even as in nature a child is to the commands and restraints of his father; being damnati priusquam nati, <\/em> as Augustine hath it, damned ere born into the world. <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3<\/strong> .] among whom<\/strong> (the . : not merely local, but ‘numbered among whom,’ , as Rckert: not ‘ in which<\/em> ,’ viz. , as Syr., Jer., Grot., Bengel, al., and Stier, who would divide off , allotting them to the Gentiles, and to Eph 2:2<\/span> , and , assigning them to the Jews, and to Eph 2:3<\/span> . See further on this below: but meantime, besides its very clumsy treatment of the . and . which both belong to in Eph 2:1<\/span> , it ascribes to the Apostle an unusual and unnatural precision in distinguishing the two words which he had used without any such note of distinction, such as ) we also all<\/strong> (WHO? The usage of <\/strong> by St. Paul must decide. It occurs Rom 4:16<\/span> , , undeniably for Jews and Gentiles included (for the slight difference arising from being first, and therefore emphatic, need not be insisted on): Rom 8:32<\/span> , , where the universal reference is as undeniable: 1Co 12:13<\/span> , where it is still more marked: , : 2Co 3:18<\/span> , equally undoubted. It can hardly then be that here he should have departed from his universal usage, and placed an unmeaning after merely to signify, ‘we Jews, every one of us.’ I therefore infer that by <\/strong> , he means, we all, Jews and Gentiles alike; all, who are now Christians) lived our life<\/strong> (reff. especially 2 Cor.) once, in<\/strong> (as in ref. 1 Pet., of the element, in which: in 2Co 1:12<\/span> , the same double use of , of the place, and the element, is found) the desires of our flesh<\/strong> (of our unrenewed selves, under the dominion of the body and the carnal soul. See a contrast, Gal 5:16 ), doing the wishes<\/strong> (the instances in which manifested itself: see reff.) of our flesh and of our thoughts<\/strong> (the plural use is remarkable. There appears to be a reference to Num 15:39<\/span> , . In Isa 55:9<\/span> , a distinction is made, , which is useful here, as pointing to as an improper use for , the instrument for its results. Thus ‘ thoughts<\/em> ’ will be our nearest word those phases of mind which may or may not affect the will, but which then in our natural state we allowed to lead us by the desires they excited), and were<\/strong> (the change of construction has been remarked by the best Commentators as intentional, not of negligence, “to give emphasis to the weighty clause that follows, and to disconnect it from any possible relation to present time, ‘we were<\/em> children of wrath by nature, it was once our state and condition, it is now so no longer.’ ” Ellicott. And Eadie remarks: “Had he written , as following out the idea of , there might have been a plea against the view of innate depravity (see below) ‘fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and being,’ or ‘so being, children of wrath.’ But the Apostle says ‘and we were,’ at a point of time prior to that indicated in ”) children<\/strong> (not = , but implying closer relation. The effect of the expression is to set those of whom it is predicated, beneath, in subjection to, as it were, the products of, . So in the passages adduced by Harl.; Deu 25:2<\/span> , , ‘if he be the son of stripes,’ i.e. not as LXX and E. V. , but actually beaten: 1Sa 20:31<\/span> , , ‘he is the son of death,’ i.e. as we express it, ‘he is a dead man,’ anticipating the effect of that which seems to be certain) by nature<\/strong> (the meaning of <\/strong> is disputed. Some of the ancients (Cyr., c., Thl.), and Grot. took it as = , , which meaning it never bears; see on Gal 4:8<\/span> . Others (Holzhausen, Hoffm.) would join it with , ‘anger, which arises from the ungodly natural life:’ but as Mey. remarks, even granting this use of , this would require or . . It can then only mean, ‘by nature.’ And what does this imply? Harl., in loc., seems to have given the distinctive sense well: “ , in its fundamental idea, is that which has grown<\/em> as distinguished from that which has been effected<\/em> (das Gewordene in Gegensass zum Gemachten), i.e. it is that which according to our judgment has the ground of its existence in individual development, not in accessory influence of another. Accordingly, , in its concrete idea, as the sum total of all growth, is ‘rerum natura:’ and in its abstract philosophical idea, is the contrast to . The of an individual thing denotes the peculiarity of its being, which is the result of its being, as opposed to every accessory quality: hence or means, ‘ sua sponte facere, esse aliquid<\/em> ’ and ‘natura esse aliquid:’ to be and do any thing by virtue of a state<\/em> ( ) or an inclination<\/em> ( ), not acquired, but inherent<\/em> : | , , Soph. Philoct. 80.” If this be correct, the expression will amount to<\/em> an assertion on the part of the Apostle of the doctrine of original sin. There is from its secondary position (cf. Plutarch de frat. am. p. 37, in Harl., ) no emphasis on : but its doctrinal force as referring to a fundamental truth otherwise known, is not thereby lessened. And it is not for Meyer to argue against this by assuming original sin not to be a pauline doctrine. If the Apostle asserts it here, this place must stand on its own merits, not be wrested to suit an apparent preconceived meaning of other passages. But the truth is, he cites those other passages in a sense quite alien from their real one. It would be easy to shew that every one of them (Rom 1:18<\/span> ; Rom 2:8-9<\/span> ; Rom 5:12<\/span> ; Rom 7:9<\/span> ; Rom 11:21<\/span> . Gal 2:15 ) is consistent with the doctrine here implied. The student will do well to read the long notes in Harl., De W., Stier, and Eadie) of wrath<\/strong> (WHOSE wrath, is evident: the meaning being, we were all concluded under and born in sin, and so actual objects of that wrath of God which is His mind against sin. <\/strong> must not be taken as = , , as Chrys., Thdrt., Basil, Thl., al.: this would in fact make the expression mean, actually punished<\/em> : see above on ; just as it now means, the actual objects of God’s wrath against sin), as also are<\/strong> (not, were) the rest<\/strong> (of mankind: not Gentiles, as those hold who take the of Jews, see above: nor, as Stier, the rest of the Jews who disbelieved: but, all others, not like us, Christians<\/em> ).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3<\/span> . : among whom also we all had our life and walk aforetime<\/em> . The AV gives “also we all”; Tynd., Cov., Gen., “we also had”; Bish., “we all had”; RV, “we also all”. The cannot mean “in which trespasses<\/em> ” (so Syr., Jer., Beng., etc.); for the of Eph 2:1<\/span> is against that, and the form would have been as ruled by the nearest noun . It can only refer to the . The is in contrast with the of Eph 2:1<\/span> and the of Eph 2:2<\/span> . Paul had begun by speaking of the moral condition of these Gentiles before their conversion. He now adds that these Gentiles were in no exceptional position in that respect, but that all, Jews as well as Greeks, Jewish-Christians like himself no less than Gentile Christians like his readers, had been among those who once lived in obstinate disobedience to God. Paul seldom misses the opportunity of declaring the universal sinfulness of men, the dire level of corruptness on which all, however they differed in race or privilege, stood. So here the is best taken in its utmost breadth not merely “all the Jewish-Christians” (Mey.), but = the whole body of us Christians, Jewish and Gentile alike included. For the of Eph 2:2<\/span> we have now , “had our conversation” (AV), “conversed” (Rhem.), “lived” (RV). Like the Heb. it denotes one’s walk, his active, open life, his way of conducting himself. : in the lusts of our flesh<\/em> . Definition of the domain or element in which their life once was spent. It kept within the confines of the appetites and impulses proper to fallen human nature or springing from it. The noun has its usual sense of craving<\/em> , the craving in particular of what is forbidden; in like manner has its large, theological sense, human nature as such, in its physical, mental and moral entirety, considered as apart from God and under the dominion of sin. : doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts<\/em> . The is sufficiently represented by the “doing” of Wycl., Cov., Rhem., RV. The AV and other Versions give “fulfilling”. The word is of very rare occurrence, except in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek. It denotes properly the thing willed<\/em> , but is used also of the Divine purpose<\/em> ( e.g.<\/em> , Eph 1:9<\/span> ), or command<\/em> ( e.g.<\/em> , Eph 5:17<\/span> ), etc. Here, as also in Joh 1:13<\/span> , it denotes inclination<\/em> or desire<\/em> . The pl. is best rendered “thoughts,” with Wycl., Cov., Rhem. and RV margin; RV text, following the AV and other Versions, gives “mind”. In the LXX the singular represents the OT , and denotes the mind<\/em> in the large sense, inclusive of understanding, feeling and desiring. It is only the context that gives it the sense of wicked<\/em> thoughts. Two sources of evil desire and impulse, therefore, are indicated here, viz.<\/em> , our fallen nature in general and the laboratory of perverted thoughts, impressions, imaginations, volitions, in particular. : and were children by nature of wrath<\/em> . “Children,” rather than “ the<\/em> children,” as it is given by AV and all the other old English Versions (except Wycl., who has “the sons”). From what he and his fellow-Christians did<\/em> in their pre-Christian life, Paul turns now to what they were<\/em> then. The statement is so constructed as to throw the chief emphasis on the and the . For the better attested form is . Some good MSS. and Versions ( [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] , Syr.-Harcl., Vulg.) read , and that order is accepted by Lachmann, while a place is given it in the margin by Tregelles. The order , however, which is that of [138] [139] [140] , Chrys., etc., and both the TR and the RV, is to be preferred. The makes it clear that it is no longer doing<\/em> ( ) simply that is in view, but being, condition<\/em> . The is the same kind of idiomatic phrase as the former , only, if possible, stronger and more significant. It describes those in view as not only worthy of the , but actually subject<\/em> to it, definitely under<\/em> it. But what is this itself? It is not to be identified with punitive righteousness<\/em> ( ), punishment<\/em> ( ), future judgment<\/em> , or the effect<\/em> of God’s present judgment of men, but denotes the quality<\/em> or affectus<\/em> of wrath. But is it man’s<\/em> wrath or God’s?<\/em> The word is certainly used of the passion of wrath in us (Eph 4:31<\/span> ; Col 3:8<\/span> ; Jas 1:19<\/span> , etc.), and so the whole phrase is understood by some to mean nothing more than that those referred to were given to violent anger or ungovernable impulse ( e.g.<\/em> , Maurice, Unity<\/em> , p. 538). But this would add little or nothing to what was said of the lusts of the flesh and thoughts, and would strip the whole statement of its point, its solemnity, and its universality. It is the Divine wrath that is in view here; as it is, indeed, in thirteen out of twenty occurrences in the Pauline writings, and that, too, whether with or without the definite article or the defining ( cf.<\/em> Moule, in loc<\/em> ). This holy displeasure of God with sin is not inconsistent with His love, but is the reaction of that love against the denial of its sovereign rights of responsive love. The term , though it may occasionally be applied to what is habitual<\/em> or to character as developed<\/em> , means properly what is innate, implanted<\/em> , in one by nature<\/em> , and this with different shades of meaning ( cf., e.g.<\/em> , Rom 2:14<\/span> ; Gal 2:15<\/span> ; Gal 4:8<\/span> , etc.). The clause means, therefore, that in their pre-Christian life those meant by the were in the condition of subjection to the Divine wrath; and that they were so not by deed merely, nor by circumstance, nor by passing into it, but by nature. Their universal sin has been already affirmed. This universal sin is now described as sin by nature. Beyond this Paul does not go in the present passage. But the one is the explanation of the other. Universal sin implies a law of sinning, a sin that is of the nature; and this, again, is the explanation of the fact that all are under the Divine wrath. For the Divine wrath operates only where sin is. Here is the essential meaning of the doctrine of original sin.<\/em> That it finds any justification here is denied, indeed, by some; even by Meyer, who admits, however, that elsewhere ( e.g.<\/em> , in Rom 6<\/span> ) Paul teaches that there is a principle of sin in man by nature, and that man sins actually because of that innate principle. But he argues that it is in virtue not of the principle itself, but of the acts of sin by which that principle expresses itself, that we are in a state of subjection to the Divine wrath. This, however, is to make a nature which originates sinful acts and which does that in the case of all men without exception, itself a neutral thing.<\/p>\n

[133] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).<\/p>\n

[134] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.<\/p>\n

[135] Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.<\/p>\n

[136] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.<\/p>\n

[137] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16<\/span> .<\/p>\n

[138] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.<\/p>\n

[139] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.<\/p>\n

[140] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Among. Greek. en. App-104. <\/p>\n

also we . . . past = we also all once lived. <\/p>\n

conversation. See 2Co 1:12. <\/p>\n

lusts. Greek. epithumia, strong desire. See Luk 22:15. Not necessarily evil desire, as see the verb in 1Ti 3:1. <\/p>\n

flesh. Old nature. See Rom 7:5. <\/p>\n

fulfilling = doing. Greek. poieo. <\/p>\n

desires. App-102. <\/p>\n

flesh. The coarse lusts of the body. <\/p>\n

mind. Greek. dianoia, thought. The refined lusts of the mind. <\/p>\n

by nature. See Rom 2:27. <\/p>\n

the. Omit. <\/p>\n

children. App-108. <\/p>\n

wrath. See Rom 1:18. <\/p>\n

even as. Add “also”. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3.] among whom (the . : not merely local, but numbered among whom,- , as Rckert: not in which, viz. , as Syr., Jer., Grot., Bengel, al., and Stier, who would divide off , allotting them to the Gentiles, and to Eph 2:2,-and , assigning them to the Jews, and to Eph 2:3. See further on this below: but meantime, besides its very clumsy treatment of the . and . which both belong to in Eph 2:1, it ascribes to the Apostle an unusual and unnatural precision in distinguishing the two words which he had used without any such note of distinction, such as -) we also all (WHO? The usage of by St. Paul must decide. It occurs Rom 4:16, , undeniably for Jews and Gentiles included (for the slight difference arising from being first, and therefore emphatic, need not be insisted on): Rom 8:32, , where the universal reference is as undeniable: 1Co 12:13, where it is still more marked: , : 2Co 3:18, equally undoubted. It can hardly then be that here he should have departed from his universal usage, and placed an unmeaning after merely to signify, we Jews, every one of us. I therefore infer that by , he means, we all, Jews and Gentiles alike; all, who are now Christians) lived our life (reff. especially 2 Cor.) once, in (as in ref. 1 Pet., of the element, in which: in 2Co 1:12, the same double use of , of the place, and the element, is found) the desires of our flesh (of our unrenewed selves, under the dominion of the body and the carnal soul. See a contrast, Gal 5:16), doing the wishes (the instances in which manifested itself: see reff.) of our flesh and of our thoughts (the plural use is remarkable. There appears to be a reference to Num 15:39, . In Isa 55:9, a distinction is made, , which is useful here, as pointing to as an improper use for ,-the instrument for its results. Thus thoughts will be our nearest word-those phases of mind which may or may not affect the will, but which then in our natural state we allowed to lead us by the desires they excited), and were (the change of construction has been remarked by the best Commentators as intentional, not of negligence,-to give emphasis to the weighty clause that follows, and to disconnect it from any possible relation to present time, we were children of wrath by nature,-it was once our state and condition, it is now so no longer. Ellicott. And Eadie remarks: Had he written , as following out the idea of , there might have been a plea against the view of innate depravity (see below)-fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and being, or so being, children of wrath. But the Apostle says -and we were, at a point of time prior to that indicated in ) children (not = , but implying closer relation. The effect of the expression is to set those of whom it is predicated, beneath, in subjection to, as it were, the products of, . So in the passages adduced by Harl.;-Deu 25:2, , if he be the son of stripes, i.e. not as LXX and E. V. , but actually beaten:-1Sa 20:31, , he is the son of death,-i.e. as we express it, he is a dead man, anticipating the effect of that which seems to be certain) by nature (the meaning of is disputed. Some of the ancients (Cyr., c., Thl.), and Grot. took it as = , , which meaning it never bears; see on Gal 4:8. Others (Holzhausen, Hoffm.) would join it with ,-anger, which arises from the ungodly natural life: but as Mey. remarks, even granting this use of , this would require or . . It can then only mean, by nature. And what does this imply? Harl., in loc., seems to have given the distinctive sense well: , in its fundamental idea, is that which has grown as distinguished from that which has been effected (das Gewordene in Gegensass zum Gemachten), i.e. it is that which according to our judgment has the ground of its existence in individual development, not in accessory influence of another. Accordingly, , in its concrete idea, as the sum total of all growth, is rerum natura: and in its abstract philosophical idea, is the contrast to . The of an individual thing denotes the peculiarity of its being, which is the result of its being, as opposed to every accessory quality: hence or means, sua sponte facere, esse aliquid and natura esse aliquid: to be and do any thing by virtue of a state () or an inclination (), not acquired, but inherent: | , , Soph. Philoct. 80. If this be correct, the expression will amount to an assertion on the part of the Apostle of the doctrine of original sin. There is from its secondary position (cf. Plutarch de frat. am. p. 37, in Harl., ) no emphasis on : but its doctrinal force as referring to a fundamental truth otherwise known, is not thereby lessened. And it is not for Meyer to argue against this by assuming original sin not to be a pauline doctrine. If the Apostle asserts it here, this place must stand on its own merits, not be wrested to suit an apparent preconceived meaning of other passages. But the truth is, he cites those other passages in a sense quite alien from their real one. It would be easy to shew that every one of them (Rom 1:18; Rom 2:8-9; Rom 5:12; Rom 7:9; Rom 11:21. Gal 2:15) is consistent with the doctrine here implied. The student will do well to read the long notes in Harl., De W., Stier, and Eadie) of wrath (WHOSE wrath, is evident: the meaning being, we were all concluded under and born in sin, and so actual objects of that wrath of God which is His mind against sin. must not be taken as = , , as Chrys., Thdrt., Basil, Thl., al.: this would in fact make the expression mean, actually punished: see above on ;-just as it now means, the actual objects of Gods wrath against sin), as also are (not, were) the rest (of mankind: not Gentiles, as those hold who take the of Jews,-see above: nor, as Stier, the rest of the Jews who disbelieved: but, all others, not like us, Christians).<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3. ) we also, viz. Jews. In the last times of the Old Testament sin had greatly prevailed, even among the Jews, in order that grace might more abound; Rom 5:6; Rom 5:20; Tit 3:3; Luk 1:17; Luk 1:79; Mat 4:16.-, we were conversant [had our conversation or way of life]) This is somewhat more specious[22] [outwardly decorous] than to walk, Eph 2:2. , of the flesh) without the Spirit of God.- , of the flesh and of the thoughts) The thoughts imply the more subtle and practised purpose of sinning; the flesh rushes on with a blind impetuosity [impulse].-, by nature) Nature denotes the state of man without the grace of God in Christ. We owe this to our nature [although we have been Jews, Isa 1:13.-V. g.], that we are the children of wrath.-, of wrath) whilst we all the time thought that we were the children of God. The antithesis is in Eph 2:4.- ) 1Th 4:13 : the others, who do not believe, or at least not yet.<\/p>\n

[22] The Gentiles (ye) openly walked in sins. The Jews (we also., in the way of life and inward character, though not openly walking in the grosser sins of the former, were essentially like them in living to the flesh.-ED.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3<\/p>\n

Eph 2:3<\/p>\n

among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh,-The we refers to the Jews. They among others had their course of life previously to becoming Christians. Notwithstanding they had the law of Moses, it did not prevent their following the rule of fleshly lusts. [The apostle here brings Jews and Gentiles together. We also, as well as you-we were all in the same condition, all in a miserable plight, not merely occasionally dipping into sin, but spending our very lives in the lusts or desires of our flesh, living for noble ends, but in an end of carnal desire, as if there were nothing higher than to please the carnal nature.]<\/p>\n

doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind,-[These two clauses illustrate very clearly the extended sense in which the word flesh is used by Paul, as may be seen by the following catalogue of the works of the flesh: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. (Gal 5:19-21). In the text before us, the flesh, in the first clause, includes both the flesh and the mind of the second; that is, it includes both the appetites and the passions of our fleshly nature, and also the thoughts of the mind itself, so far as it is devoted to this visible world of sense, alienation from God, and therefore under the power of evil. In fact, in scriptural use the sins of the flesh, the world, and the devil are not different classes of sins, but different aspects of sin, and any one of the three great enemies is made at times to represent all.]<\/p>\n

and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-Paul distinctly states that those who had become Christians were by nature formerly children of wrath, as well as those not Christians. [The Jewish Christians were once, when in a state of nature, the objects of Gods wrath, because they were in sin, just as the Gentiles were. The state of nature is the unconverted state.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

we: Isa 53:6, Isa 64:6, Isa 64:7, Dan 9:5-9, Rom 3:9-19, 1Co 6:9-11, Gal 2:15, Gal 2:16, Gal 3:22, Tit 3:3, 1Pe 4:3, 1Jo 1:8-10 <\/p>\n

in times: Eph 4:17-19, Act 14:16, Act 17:30, Act 17:31, Rom 11:30, 1Pe 2:10, 1Jo 2:8 <\/p>\n

in the: Eph 4:22, Mar 4:19, Joh 8:44, Rom 1:24, Rom 6:12, Rom 13:14, Gal 5:16-24, 1Ti 6:9, Jam 4:1-3, 1Pe 1:14, 1Pe 2:11, 1Pe 4:2, 2Pe 2:18, 1Jo 2:16, Jud 1:16 -18 <\/p>\n

fulfilling: Rom 8:7, Rom 8:8, 2Co 7:1, Gal 5:19-21 <\/p>\n

desires: Gr. wills, Joh 1:13 <\/p>\n

by: Gen 5:3, Gen 6:5, Gen 8:21, Job 14:4, Job 15:14-16, Job 25:4, Psa 51:5, Mar 7:21, Mar 7:22, Joh 3:1-6, Rom 5:12-19, Rom 7:18, Gal 2:15, Gal 2:16 <\/p>\n

children: Eph 2:2, Rom 9:22 <\/p>\n

even: Rom 3:9, Rom 3:22, Rom 3:23, 1Co 4:7 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Lev 11:16 – General Num 17:10 – rebels Deu 1:39 – which in 1Sa 26:16 – worthy to die 1Ch 17:9 – the children Neh 1:6 – both I Job 11:12 – man be Psa 14:3 – all gone Psa 58:3 – estranged Psa 102:20 – those that are appointed to Pro 21:8 – way Pro 22:15 – Foolishness Ecc 7:29 – they Ecc 11:9 – walk Isa 48:8 – a transgressor Isa 57:4 – are ye Jer 9:14 – walked Jer 31:19 – Surely after Jer 32:36 – now Eze 16:3 – Thy birth Eze 16:63 – when Mat 3:14 – I have Mat 7:13 – for Mat 7:14 – and few Mat 11:11 – born Mat 23:15 – ye make Luk 1:35 – that Luk 10:6 – the Son Luk 15:5 – when Luk 15:15 – to feed Joh 3:6 – born of the flesh Joh 9:34 – wast Joh 13:2 – the devil Rom 3:12 – They are Rom 6:19 – for as ye Rom 7:5 – in the flesh Rom 9:11 – the children Rom 9:23 – he had afore 1Co 3:3 – and walk 2Co 10:2 – we walked Eph 5:6 – children Col 1:13 – and Col 3:6 – children Jam 1:17 – good 1Pe 2:12 – your conversation 1Pe 4:6 – but 2Pe 2:14 – cursed 1Jo 4:19 – General<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(Eph 2:3.) -Among whom also we all had our conversation once in . . . The does not refer to , as is supposed by the paraphrase of the Syriac version, and as is imagined by Jerome, Estius, Cocceius, Koppe, Baumgarten, and Stier; but it agrees with , as is argued by de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meyer, Harless, Meier, Matthies, and Rckert. The first refers to persons, among whom as a portion of them; and the second, in immediate connection with the verb, to things. It appears altogether too refined to suppose, with Stier, that in Eph 2:2, and in connection with the of Eph 2:1, the apostle refers to the heathen world, and that in this verse, and in connection with , he characterizes the Jewish world. Least of all can the change from you to we vindicate such a meaning. We wait till the apostle, in a subsequent verse, makes the distinction himself. The is-we all, Jew and Gentile alike. See also Rom 4:16; Rom 8:32; 1Co 12:13; 2Co 3:18. There is not in this section such a characteristic definition of sins, as should warrant us to refer the one verse to Jews, and the other to Gentiles. We cannot accede to such a view, though it is advocated by Harless and Olshausen, and almost all the modern commentators, with the exception of de Wette; advocated, too, in former times by no less names than Pelagius and Calvin, Zanchius and Grotius, Clarius and Bengel. As much ground is there for Hammond’s strange idea, that the Christians of Rome are here described. Nor is there in the verse any feature of criminality, such as should lead us to say that the apostle classes himself among these sinners, simply, as some would have it, by a common figure of speech. There is nothing here of which the apostle does not accuse himself in other places. 1Ti 1:13. <\/p>\n

. 2Co 1:12; Gal 1:13; 1Ti 3:15. This has much the same meaning with the similar terms of the preceding verse, perhaps with the additional idea of greater attachment to the scene or haunt; speciosius quam ambulare, says Bengel. All we-all of us-Jew and Gentile, were once so distinguished. For we walked- <\/p>\n

-in the lusts of our flesh. This clause marks out the sphere of activity. signifies man’s fallen and corrupted nature, in its antagonism to the Spirit of God, and it probably has received such a name because of its servitude to what is material and sensuous. Not that we at all espouse the notion that sin has no other origin than sensuousness, or that it is but the predominance of sensuous impulse over the intellect and will. This theory, befriended in some of its aspects by Kant and Schleiermacher, has been overthrown with able argument by Mller; and the reply of de Wette, who had also adopted it, is a failure as a defence. But though , in apostolic language, include the will, and have a meaning which neither nor has, the question still recurs, How has our whole nature come to be represented by a term which truly and properly denotes only one part of it? Delitzsch, Bib. Psychologie, p. 325. does sometimes stand in opposition to the human , as 1Co 5:5, Col 2:5; but in such places its meaning is restricted by the antithesis. Gen 6:3. If what properly signifies a portion of our nature come to signify the whole of it under a certain aspect, there must be some connection. What is material, as naturally is, may represent what is external and so far unspiritual; while what is non-spiritual is sinful, as being opposed to the Spirit of God. See Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, 323, vol. i. p. 463; Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel, p. 207. in such a connection, has a stigma upon it, for it represents desires or appetites which are irregular and sinful – such inclinations as are formed and pursued by unregenerate humanity. The spiritual life is dead, and therefore the is unchecked in all i ts impulses and desires. And the apostle adds- <\/p>\n

-doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts. The principal differences of interpretation respect the word , which has a good sense in the classics. The exegesis of the Greek fathers is too vague. Chrysostom sums up the meaning by saying – , . Stier denies that by and different species of sin are indicated, but adds that the last term refers to reasons or arguments-denkerei-which check or guide the flesh in its sinful propensities. The view of Bengel is coincident. This interpretation does not bring out the distinction between the two terms-a distinction which the article before each seems to intimate. The exegesis of Flatt is his usual hendiadys: flesh and thoughts stands for fleshly thoughts; or, as Crellius also latinizes it-cogitationes carnales. Some understand by the terms depraved fancies, as Hase; others, like Olshausen, sinful thoughts, which have no sensual lust for their basis; and others, like Harless, unresolute, shifting thoughts, which determine the will. Rckert and Meier make it immoral thoughts. in the plural is found only here, and in the singular it stands often in the Septuagint for the Hebrew , H4213. In the plural, as if for , it apparently denotes thoughts or sentiments, ideal fancies and resolves. See Num 15:39; Isa 55:9. in the first clause may signify humanity as it is fallen and debased by sin; while here the meaning is more defined and restricted to our fleshly nature. The general conversation of disobedient men may be said to be in the lusts of the flesh, but when their positive activity is described-, and when these become actually -when inclinations become resolves, a distinction at once arises, and sins of a grosser are marked out from those of a more spiritual nature. Such is the view of Jerome. The desires of the flesh are those grosser gratifications of appetite which are palpable and easily recognized; and the desires of the thoughts, those mental trespasses which may or may not be connected with sensuous indulgences. Mat 15:19; Luk 11:17. Our Lord has exposed such thoughts as violations of the Divine law. The is one, all its appetences are like; but the word is plural, for it describes what is complex and multiform. See , Aristoph. Ranae, 5.688; and Sapientiae, Cicero, Tusc. 2.18. Thought follows thought, as the shadows flit across the field on a cloudy summer day. Men may scorn intemperance as a degrading vice, and shun it, and yet cherish within them pride high as Lucifer’s, and wrath foul and fierce as Tophet. Under the single head of (Gal 5:19-20) the apostle includes both classes of sins-hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, as well as adultery, fornication, murder, drunkenness, and revellings. The historian Polybius describes men sinning, as many of them, -from want of thought, as , by nature. Lib. xvii. cap. viii. apud Raphel. But there is an awful and additional clause- <\/p>\n

– and we were by nature children of wrath. This common reading is retained by Tischendorf, followed by Rckert. Lachmann, however, after A, D, E, F, G, J, has . But there appears no good ground for departing from the order of the Textus Receptus, the changed order wearing the aspect of an emendation. is not simply punishment, but that just indignation which embodies itself in punishment. The word is often so used in the New Testament. resembles the previous , but implying, as Alford says, closer relation. That phrase does not denote, liable to disobedience, but involved in it; and therefore does not signify-liable to wrath, but actually under it. Thus, Deu 25:2, -a son of stripes-not liable to be scourged, but actually scourged. The idiom, then, does not mean worthy of wrath, as the Greek fathers, when they render it , and as Grotius, Koppe, Baumgarten, and others have understood it; but it describes a present and actual condition. The awful wrath of God is upon sinners, for sin is so contrary to His nature and law, that His pure anger is kindled against it. Nor is this to be explained away after the example of the early Fathers, as if it were simply chastisement, -not judicial infliction, but benignant castigation; for as Alford well says-then the phrase would, from its nature, imply that they had been actually punished. is God’s holy anger against sin, which leads Him justly to punish it. Rom 1:18. But God’s manifestation of wrath is not inconsistent with His manifestation of love; for, to repeat the oft-quoted w ords of Lactantius – Si Deus non irascitur impiis et injustis, nec pios justosque diligit. <\/p>\n

The apostle says further, -children by nature; the dative, as Madvig says, defining the side, aspect, regard, or property on and in which the predicate shows itself, 40. See also Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 688; Khner, 585, Anmerk 1. -nature-in such an idiom, signifies what is essential as opposed to what is accidental, what is innate in contrast with what is acquired; as Harless puts the antithesis-das Gewordene im Gegensatz zum Gemachten. This is its general sense, whatever its specific application. Thus- is the nature of a drug, its colour, growth, and potency. is the nature of the land of Egypt-a phrase referring to no artificial peculiarity, but to results which follow from its physical conformation. It stands opposed to or , as marking what is spontaneous, in contrast to what is enjoined or is inevitable. Thus Plato, De Leg. lib. x.-Some say that the gods are . Again, the noun is often used in the dative, or in the accusative with or in descriptions of condition or action, and then its signification is still the same: -blind by nature, not by disease; -the slave by nature, that is, from birth, and not by subjugation; -warriors by nature, by constitutional tendency, and not by force of circumstances. And so in such phrases as, -agree ably to nature, not simply to education or habit; -contrary not to mere conventional propriety, but to general or ordinary instinctive development; thus- -the natural, not the adopted son. The usage is similar in the Hellenistic writers. Wis 7:20, -the natures of animals, not the habits induced by training. -all are by nature, not by training, self-lovers. .-being evil by nature, and not simply by education. So also in the same author-of the constitutional clemency of the Pharisees- . Likewise in Philo, -peaceful by nature, not from compulsion; and in many other places, some of which have been collected by Loesner. The usage of the New Testament is not different. Save in Jam 3:7 and 2Pe 1:4, where the word has a signification peculiar to these passages, the meaning is the same with that which we have traced through classical and Hellenistic literature. If the term characterize the branches of a tree, those which it produces are contrasted with such as are engrafted (Rom 11:21-24); if it describe action or character, it marks its harmony with or its opposition to instinctive feeling or sense of obligation (Rom 1:26; Rom 2:14; 1Co 11:14); if it point out nationality, it is that of descent or blood. Rom 2:27; Gal 2:15. See Fritzsche on the references to Romans. And when the apostle (Gal 4:8) speaks of idols as being not Gods, he means that idols become objects of worsh ip from no inherent claim or quality, but simply by art and man’s device. And so we are children of wrath, not accidentally, not by a fortuitous combination of circumstances, not even by individual sin and actual transgression, but by nature-by an exposure which preceded personal disobedience, and was not first created by it; an exposure which is inherent, hereditary, and common to all the race by the very condition of its present existence, for they are so born children of wrath. For does not refer to developed character, but to its hidden and instinctive sources. We are therefore not atomically, but organically children of wrath; not each simply by personal guilt, but the entire race as a whole; not on account of nature, but by nature. Wholly contrary, therefore, to usage and philology is the translation of the Syriac -plene; that of Theophylact, OEcumenius, and Cyril, or -really or truly; that of Julian, prorsus, and that even of Suidas-a constant and very bad disposition and long and evil habits- , for on the contrary, and are placed by the Greek ethical writers in contrast. Harless adduces apt quotations from Plutarch and Aristotle. Pelagius, as may be expected, thus guards his exegesis-Nos paternae traditionis consuetudo possederat, ut omnes ad damnationem nasci VIDEREMUR. Erasmus, Bengel, Koppe, Morus, Flatt, de Wette, Reiche, and others, take the word as descriptive of the state of the Ephesian converts prior to their conversion, or, as Bengel phrases it-citra gratiam Dei in Christo. But, as Meyer observes, the status naturalis is depicted in the whole description, and not mere ly by . Such an interpretation is also unsatisfactory, for it leaves untouched the real meaning of the word under dispute. That the term may signify that second nature which springs from habit, we deny not. Natura had such a sense among the Latins-quod consuetudo in naturam vertit-but in many places where it may bear this meaning, it still implies that the habit is in accordance with original inclination, that the disposition or character has its origin in innate tendencies and impulses. When Le Clerc says that the word, when applied to a nation, signifies indoles gentis, he only begs the question; for that indoles or in the quotations adduced by him, and by Wetstein and Koppe, from Isocrates, the so-called Demetrius Phalereus, Polyaenus, Jamblichus, Cicero, and Sallust, is not something adventitious, but constitutional-an element of character which, though matured by discipline, sprang originally from connate peculiarities. The same may be said of Meyer’s interpretation-durch Entwickelung natrlicher Disposition-through the development of natural disposition; for if that disposition was natural, its very germs must have been in us at our birth, and what is that but innate depravity? And yet he argues that cannot refer to original sin, because the church doctrine on that subject is not the doctrine of Paul, and one reason why Koppe will not take even the interpretation of Le Clerc is, that it necessarily leads to the doctrine of original sin. Grotius, Meyer, de Wette, and Usteri (Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 30) object that the word cannot refer to original depravity, because it is only of actual sin that the apostle speaks in the preceding clauses. S o little has Grotius gone into the spirit of the passage, that he says-that it cannot refer to original sin, as the preceding verses show, in which vices are described from which many of the ancients were free-a quibus multi veterum fuere immunes. Usteri is disposed to cancel altogether, and Reiche (Comment. Criticus, 1859) dilutes it to a habitus naturalis connatus quasi, p. 147. See also Episcopius, Instit. 2.5, 2; Limborch, Thelog. Christ. 3.4, 17, p. 193; Amstelaedami, 1686. We may reply with Olshausen, that in this clause actual sins are naturally pointed out in their ultimate foundation-in the inborn sinfulness of each individual by his connection with Adam. Besides, the apostle means to say that by natural condition, as well as by actual personal guilt, men are children of wrath. Had he written , as following out of the idea of , there might have been a plea against our view of innate depravity-fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and being, or so being, children of wrath. But the apostle says, -and we were, at a point of time prior to that indicated in . This exegesis is also supported by the following clause- <\/p>\n

-as also are the rest of mankind; not Gentiles simply, nor the remainder of the unbelieving Jews, as is held by Stier and Bisping. Turner apparently imputes our exegesis, which is simply and plainly grammatical, to want of candour and to a desire to support a preconceived doctrinal theory. <\/p>\n

Having described the character of unregenerate men, the apostle adverts to their previous condition. We and the entire human family are by nature children of wrath, even as Crellius himself is obliged to paraphrase it-velut haereditario jure. Those who hold that refers to the Jews injure their interpretation, and Harless and Olshausen unnecessarily suppose that the apostle contrasts the natural state of the Jews with their condition as the called of God, though they do not, like Hofmann, join to , as if the allusion were to the Jews, and the meaning were-objects of God’s love as the children of Abraham, but of His anger as children of Adam. Schriftb. i. p. 564. Thus Estius opposes filii natur to filii adoptione; and Holzhausen’s idea is-that they were children of wrath which rises from the ungodly natural life. To get such a meaning the article must be repeated, as Harless says- ; or as Meyer, , or, . We do not imagine, with many commentators, that stands in contrast with . The former denotes a condition, and cannot well be contrasted with an act or operation of God. Death by or in sin, walk in lust, vassalage to Satan, indulgence of the disorderly appetites of a corrupted nature, and the fulfilling of the desires of the flesh and of the mind-these form a visible and complex unity of crime, palpable and terrific. But that is not all; there is something deeper still; even by nature, and prior to actual transgression, we were the children of wrath. The apostle had just referred to the -feeble and depraved humanity, and knowing that that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that the taint and corruption are thus hereditary, he adds, and w e were by nature, through our very birth, children of wrath; that is, we have not become so by any process of development. Thus also Mller (Die Lehre von der Snde, ii. p. 378) says-that they, that is, Christians, from among the Jews as well as others, had been objects of Divine punitive justice-nach ihrer natrlichen angebornen Beschaffenheit Gegenstnde; and Lechler also calls man’s natural condition-eine angeborne Zorneskindschaft d. h. eine angeborne Verderbniss der Menschennatur. Das Apost. und das nachap. Zeitalter, etc., p. 107. Barnes and Stuart deny, indeed, that the use of this term can prove what is usually called the doctrine of original sin. It is true that the apostle does not speak of Adam and his sin, nor does he describe the germs and incipient workings of depravity. It is not a formal theological assertion, for is unemphatic in position; but what is more convincing, it is an incidental allusion-as if no proof were needed of the awful truth. How and when sin commences is not the present question. Still the term surely means, that in consequence of some element of relation or character, an element inborn and not infused, men are exposed to the Divine wrath. The clause does not, as these critics hold, simply mean that men in an unconverted state are obnoxious to punishment, but that men, apart from all that is extrinsic and accidental, all that time or circumstance may create or modify, are children of wrath. As Calvin says-Hoc uno verbo quasi fulmine totus homo quantus-quantus est prosternitur. It would be, at the same time, wholly contrary to Scripture and reason to maintain, with Flacius, that sin is a part of the very essence and substance of our nature. The language of this clause does not imply it. Sin is a foreign element & –; an accident – whatever be the depth of human depravity. <\/p>\n

It belongs not to the province of interpretation to enter into any illustration of the doctrine expressed or implied in the clause under review. The origin of evil is an inscrutable mystery, and has afforded matter of subtle speculation from Plato down to Kant and Schelling, while, in the interval, Aquinas bent his keen vision upon the problem, and felt his gaze dazzled and blunted. Ideas of the actual nature of sin naturally modify our conceptions of its moral character, as may be seen in the theories which have been entertained from those of Manichaean dualism and mystic pre-existence, to those of privation, sensuousness, antagonism, impreventibility, and the subtle distinction between formal and real liberty developed in the hypothesis of Mller. While admitting the scriptural account of the introduction of sin, many have shaped their views of it from the connection in which they place it in reference to Divine foreknowledge, and so have sprung up the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian hypotheses. Attempts to form a perfect scheme of Theodicy, or a full vindication of the Divinity, have occupied many other minds than that of Leibnitz. The relation of the race to its Progenitor has bee n viewed in various lights, and analogies physical, political, and metaphysical, with theories of Creationism and Traducianism, have been employed in illustration, from the days of Augustine and Pelagius to those of Erasmus and Luther, Calvin and Arminius, Taylor and President Edwards. Questions about the origin of evil, transmission of depravity, imputation of guilt, federal or representative position on the part of Adam, and physical and spiritual death as elements of the curse, have given rise to long and laboured argumentation, because men have looked at them from very different standpoints, and have been influenced in their treatment of the problem by their philosophical conceptions of the Divine character, the nature of sin, and that moral freedom and power which belong to responsible humanity. The modus may be and is among the deep things of God, but the res is palpable; for experience confirms the Divine testimony that we are by nature children of wrath, per generationem, not per imitationem. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3. The pronoun whom refers to the children of disobelience who are mentioned in the preceding verse. Conversation is from ANASTREPHO, which Thayer defines, “to conduct one’s self, behave one’s self, live.” So the term means the Ephesians formerly behaved themselves after the manner of disobedient children. The apostle specifies by saying it was the desires and lusts of the flesh that they were gratifying. By nature the children of wrath. By following the desires of their fleshly nature they did wrong, and that threatened them with the wrath of God.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3. Among whom, i.e., the sons of disobedience, not among which, referring to trespasses (Eph 2:1).<\/p>\n

We also all, etc. Also, or even, is to be connected with we all, but the main question is respecting the exact reference of the latter phrase, whether it means all Jewish Christians, or all Christians. The former view would be best expressed by translating even we. In favor of this is the fact that you (Eph 2:1-2) refers to the Gentile Christians, and the previous distinction (chap. Eph 1:12-13) between these classes. The latter view is, however, supported by Pauls use of we all in other passages (comp. Rom 4:16; Rom 8:32; 1Co 12:13; 2Co 3:18), and by the universal applicability of the statement of the verse, and by the wide reference of we, us, in the rest of the section. Perhaps it is safest to follow this usage (against the mass of commentators). The fact of universal sinfulness is involved, whether we suppose the Apostle to be stating that all Christians were children of wrath by nature, or emphasizing this in the case of the Jews, who had thought themselves children of promise by nature. The phrase even as the rest must be interpreted in accordance with the view taken of we all.<\/p>\n

Had our way of life once. Once, but not now; the word is the same as in Eph 2:2. But the verb rendered had our way of life, presents substantially the same idea as walked (Eph 2:2). Conversation (E. V.) is now misleading.<\/p>\n

In the lusts of our flesh. The life they led was in this sphere, the lusts which spring from and belong to the flesh. The word is to be taken here in its strictly ethical sense, the entire human nature turned away from God, in the supreme service of self, seeking its delight in the creature; comp. Excursus, Romans 7.<\/p>\n

Doing the desires (Greek, wills) of the flesh and of the thoughts. This clause defines more fully the preceding phrase had our way of life. The word desires points to the various manifestations of the will, in its confused, enslaved, fleshly condition; the notion of desiring is included, but is not the prominent one. Flesh is here used in its ethical sense; the thoughts are the special sinful thoughts, which characterize him who is under the dominion of the flesh. Mind is altogether incorrect here; and equally objectionable are these interpretations which contrast flesh and thoughts, as referring to sensual and intellectual sins. Man is here represented as the slave of his inborn nature and of his selfish thought; the two are turned to various objects, and in his desires create a diversity. The understanding or the reason stands in the service of the flesh, falls into subtleties, seeking reasons, excuses, ways and means for the lusts of the flesh, helping the desires to strengthen into determinations and activities of the will (Braune).<\/p>\n

We were children, by nature, of wrath. We give the order of the original, and insert we to bring out the emphasis which rests on the verb. What they were, not what they are, is de scribed. The change of construction points to a state which was not the result of the action just portrayed, but rather its cause. By nature is not the emphatic phrase, but is in implied contrast with what they became by adoption. The phrase undoubtedly refers to something innate, original, as distinguished from subsequent development and external influences. Bishop Ellicott finds in Gal 2:15; Rom 2:14; Gal 4:8, respectively, the meanings (a.) transmitted inborn nature; (b.) inherent nature; (c.) essential nature. The first is the sense here; the unemphatic position forbids our finding here any direct assertion of the doctrine of original sin, but this very position suggests a contrast which assumes that fact Children of wrath means exposed to Gods holy hatred of sin. We were from birth those who were forfeited to the divine wrath (Braune). This view of the passage is confirmed by the next clause, which declares the state to be a universal one. All efforts to explain away the fact of this universal natural state of condemnation fail, both because of such passages as Rom 5:12-21, and on account of the facts of human nature itself; experience confirms the Divine testimony (Eadie), whether we can explain the mode or not. See Excursus on Rom 5:12-21.<\/p>\n

Even as the rest. (The broken construction of the original is reproduced by placing a dash at the end of the verse.) Those who refer we all to all Christians explain this as including all the rest of mankind, who are not Christians; those who limit the former phrase to Jewish Christians, differ as to the sense of the latter; some include only unbelieving Jews, others Gentiles, while others give it the widest reference. In any case the universality of sin and guilt is asserted in the passage as a whole; and that the close of this verse contains an indirect, and there fore even more convincing assertion of the doctrine of Original Sin, it seems impossible to deny (Ellicott). But notice, that the Apostle dwells on this fact only to bring out the more strongly the side of grace.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Our apostle in these words is supposed to set forth the condition of the Jews by nature, as he had done before of the Gentiles; and that he declares, that even they had their conversation amongst the number of disobedient persons, and were no less obstinately rebellious against God than the disobedient Gentiles, following the motions of their corrupt lusts and vile affections; nay, he affirms roundly, concerning himself and all the Jews, without exception, that as to their way and course, whilst unregenerate, they did whatsoever their corrupt minds willed, liked, and inclined to; and as to their state, were by nature children of wrath, as much as others; yea, even as much as the despised Gentiles were. <\/p>\n

Here note, 1. The case of all men, Jews and Gentiles, alike described, children of wrath; that is, our estate and course is such by nature as deserves destruction, as tends to and will end in destruction, without the renewing grace of God.<\/p>\n

Note 2. The rise of this case, expressed by nature, which implies,<\/p>\n

1. The term from which this commences, namely, from the first receiving of our beings and natures from our immediate parents, and together with the depravation of our natures we received an obnoxiousness to the wrath and curse of God.<\/p>\n

2. It implies the ground for which this wrath doth impend and hang over us, namely, for that depravity of nature which since the fall is found with us.<\/p>\n

Learn hence, 1. That original corruption is universal to all mankind, both Jew and Gentile.<\/p>\n

2. That this original corruption leads to, and will lodge under, eternal wrath, every person in whom regeneration and transplantation into Christ are not found: We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:3. Among whom also we Jews, as well as you Gentiles; had our conversation That is, our course of life; in times past At least in some degree, whatever our education or religious profession might have been. Here the apostle speaks in the name of the generality of the converted Jews, as his changing the expression from ye Ephesians to we, plainly declares; including himself and all other Christians, whose former character and state he affirms to have been the same with respect to sin and misery, with the character and state of the children of disobedience: and it is so professedly the design of the beginning of his epistle to the Romans, to prove that the Jews had not, in point of justification, any advantage above the Gentiles, (Rom 3:9,) that it is surprising any men of learning and knowledge should contend for the contrary. In the lusts of our flesh To the base appetites of which we were enslaved, so as to forget the true dignity and happiness of rational and immortal spirits: fulfilling the desires of the flesh Yielding to, and suffering ourselves to be governed by those corrupt appetites, inclinations, and passions, which had their seat in our fallen body, or in our evil nature; and of the mind The earthly and devilish mind, that is, the desires, lusts, and passions, which were inherent in our still more corrupted souls. Observe, reader, the desires or lusts of the flesh, lead men to gluttony, drunkenness, fornication, adultery, and other gross, brutal sins: and the inclinations or desires of the mind, or imaginations, (as may be rendered,) prompt them to ambition, revenge, covetousness, and whatever other earthly and diabolical wickedness can have place in the fallen spirit of man. And were by nature That is, in our natural state, or by reason of our natural inclination to all sorts of evil, and this even from our birth; children of wrath Having the wrath of God abiding on us; even as others As well as the Gentiles. This expression, by nature, occurs also Gal 4:8; Rom 2:14; and thrice in chap. 11. But in none of those places does it signify by custom, or practice, or customary practice, as some affirm. Nor can it mean so here. For this would make the apostle guilty of gross tautology, their customary sinning having been expressed already in the former part of the verse. But all these passages agree in expressing what belongs to the nature of the persons spoken of.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. <\/p>\n

We all – every single one of us – not one of us that did not live in this condition – save Jesus Christ Himself. All since Adam have spent time in this condition. Some for only a few years before their death, and some all their lives and those will spend eternity in the same predicament. <\/p>\n

This seems to contradict those two positions about the deadness of man that we spoke of earlier – Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. One that is just a little sick or maybe even real sick can be pulled out of the Devil’s hold by teaching and some assistance – only through the blood of Christ can assist them out of this problem or should we say condition. <\/p>\n

Paul tells us that the lost are lost on several fronts: <\/p>\n

a. They are tied up in the lust of the flesh. This would relate to those desires that come from our skin and bones. It would be the sexual desires, the stomach desires, the eye desires etc. It would be those things that our body desires to do that we probably should not do. The lust is that desire, the act is what the lust produces if it is not stopped. In the lost person there is little desire to stop lust. <\/p>\n

In the believer we have the Holy Spirit; He convicts us of that lust before we act, we have the Spirit to empower us to say no to that lust. <\/p>\n

b. They are tied up in fulfilling those lusts of the flesh. Not only do they lust, they act on that lust. They give in to those desires of the body and continue to sin against God and themselves. <\/p>\n

c. They are tied up in fulfilling the lust of the mind. This term mind is the same Greek word that is translated “eyes of your UNDERSTANDING” in verse eighteen. They are treating themselves to anything that their mind can dream up to do. If it enters their mind, it translates into actions to give them pleasure. <\/p>\n

d. They are by nature children of wrath. The term “wrath” is the Greek word “orge” and relates to actions of anger, indignation and vengeance. This is their nature. It is who they are, it is what they are, it is their very nature, and it is their very makeup. It is what makes them tick. <\/p>\n

1Jn 2:16-17 is one of the clearest passages on this subject that I know of. It is quite clear in the way of the lost and it is in stark contrast to the way of the righteous. “For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Pride of life relates to being proud of whom or what you are or what you have become. <\/p>\n

All sin fits into these three phrases and the three describe lost man as best he can be described. This stands in contrast to the believer – the believer is forever and the lost are destined to pass away into an existence prepared for them by God. <\/p>\n

By the way this stuff we are talking about is what many call the old nature. This is the stuff they say God left inside us to fight and war with the new nature that He placed within us. Now, I don’t know about you, but if God promised that I would be new, I really would resent knowing He left all this terrible stuff inside me. I’d, even, more than this, be upset that the God I had decided to serve could not clean me up better than that. <\/p>\n

To suggest that God left us as we were and just stuck in a new nature to fight with our old seems to be a serious disservice to Him that made us new. <\/p>\n

The Net Bible states that “children of wrath” is a Jewish idiom that can be taken one of two ways, indeed it is true either way. It can mean children whose character is full of wrath, or it can mean they are destined for wrath. They are both, by character full of wrath and are definitely destined for wrath. <\/p>\n

An idiom is a phrase that is particular to a certain language and that language only. This is not quite as clear in our day as an idiom in America quickly is adopted into other languages and vise versa. An American idiom might be something like, “Ya think.” “Well, duhh.” I know those aren’t real intellectual, but you get the point. Huum “you get the point” is probably an idiom as well. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2:3 {6} Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our {d} flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and {7} were by nature the {e} children of wrath, even as {f} others.<\/p>\n

(6) After he has separately condemned the Gentiles, he confesses that the Jews (among whom he numbers himself) are not the least bit better.<\/p>\n

(d) By the name of flesh in the first place, he means the whole man, which he divides into two parts: into the flesh, which is the part that the philosophers consider to be without reason, and into the thought, which they call reasonable. And so he leaves nothing in man half dead, but concludes that the whole man is by nature the son of wrath.<\/p>\n

(7) The conclusion: all men are born subject to the wrath and curse of God.<\/p>\n

(e) Men are said to be the children of wrath passively, that is to say, guilty of everlasting death by the judgment of God, who is angry with them.<\/p>\n

(f) Profane people who did not know God.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Third, not only do the philosophy of the world guide unbelievers and Satan control them, but they also indulge the flesh. The term "flesh" (NASB, Gr. sarkos<\/span>), when used metaphorically as here, refers to the sinful nature that everyone possesses. It is our human nature that is sinful. The unbeliever characteristically gives in to his or her fleshly desires and thoughts whereas the believer should not and need not do so (cf. Romans 7-8).<\/p>\n

"Children of wrath" and "sons of disobedience" are both phrases that describe unbelievers. "Children" (Gr. tekna<\/span>) highlights the close relationship between a child and his or her parents. "Sons" (Gr. huioi<\/span>) stresses the distinctive characteristics of the parents that the child displays. Unbelievers have a close relationship to God’s wrath because of their rebellion against Him (cf. Rom 1:18 to Rom 2:29; Joh 3:36).<\/p>\n

These verses (1-3) picture the hopeless unbeliever as a part of the world system, controlled by Satan, indulging the flesh, and destined to experience God’s wrath. When an unbeliever trusts Jesus Christ, the world, the devil, and the flesh become his or her three-fold enemy.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 3. also we all ] Better we also all, the “also” emphasizing the “we.” “ We all: … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 2:3”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29170","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}