Charles Hodge on Ephesians 2:3

V. 3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past. It appears not only from ch. 1: 11, 13, and from the connection in this place, but still more clearly from v. 11 and those following, in this chapter, that by you in this whole epistle, the apostle means Gentiles; and by we, when the pronouns are contrasted as here, the Jews. The spiritual condition of the Ephesians before their conversion was not peculiar to them as Ephesians or as heathen. All men, Jews and Gentiles, are by nature in the same state. Whatever differences of individual character, whatever superiority of one age or nation over another may exist, these are but subordinate diversities. There is as to the main point, as this apostle elsewhere teaches. no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is also no essential difference as to the way in which different communities or individuals manifest the depravity common to them all. There is very great difference as to the degree and the grossness of such manifestations, but in all the two comprehensive forms under which the corruption of our nature reveals itself, "the desires of the flesh and of the mind," are clearly exhibited. The apostle therefore does not hesitate to associate his countrymen with the Gentiles in this description of their moral condition, although the former were in many respects so superior to the latter. Nay, he does not hesitate to include himself, though he was before his conversion as ‘touching the righteousness which is of the law blameless.’ All men, whatever their outward conduct may be, in their natural state have "a carnal mind" as opposed to "a spiritual mind." See Rom. 8, 5-7. They are all governed by the things which are seen and temporal, instead of those which are not seen and eternal. Paul therefore says of himself and fellow Jews that they all had their conversation among the children of disobedience. They were not separated from them as a distinct and superior class, but were associated with them, congenial in character and life.

Wherein this congeniality consisted is stated in the following clauses. As the Gentiles so also the Jews had their conversation, i. e. they lived in the lusts of the flesh. The word ἐπιθυμία, lust, means strong desire, whether good or bad. In Scripture most commonly it is taken in a bad sense, and means inordinate desire of any kind. The ‘lusts of the flesh’ are those irregular desires which have their origin in the flesh. By the flesh, however, is not to be understood merely our sensuous nature, but our whole nature considered as corrupt. The scriptural usage of the word σάρξ is very extensive. It means the material flesh, then that which is external, then that which is governed by what is material, and in so far sinful; then that which is sinful without that limitation; whatever is opposed to the Spirit, and in view of all these senses it means mankind. See Phil. 3, 4, where the apostle includes under the word flesh, his descent from the Hebrews, his circumcision, and his legal righteousness. Gal. 3, 3. 5, 19-21. In this latter passage, envy, hatred, heresy, are included among the works of the flesh, as well as revellings and drunkenness. It depends on the immediate context whether the word, in any given place, is to be understood of our whole nature considered as corrupt, or only of the sensuous or animal part of that nature. When it stands opposed to what is divine, it means what is human and corrupt; when used in opposition to what is intellectual or spiritual in our nature, it means what is sensuous. In the present case it is to be taken in its wide sense because there is nothing to limit it, and because in the following clause it is defined as including both,—"the desires of the flesh (in the restricted sense of the word) and of the mind." The word θελήματα rendered desires, means rather behests, commands. The things done were those which the flesh and the mind willed to be done. They were the governing principles to whose will obedience was rendered. Διανοία, mind, is used here for the whole thinking and sentient principle, so far as distinguished from the animal principle. Frequently it means the intellect, here it refers more to the affections. Comp. Col. 1, 21, "Enemies in your mind." Lev. 19, 7, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy mind." Numbers 15, 39, "Follow not after your own minds." Jews and Gentiles, all men, therefore, are represented in their natural state as under the control of evil. They fulfil the commands of the flesh and of the mind.

And were by nature the children of wrath even as others, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς. The expression " \children of wrath," agreeably to a Hebrew idiom above referred to, means ‘the objects of wrath,’ obnoxious to punishment. Compare Deut. 25, 2, ’son of stripes,’ one to be beaten. 1 Sam. 20, 31. 2 Sam. 12, 5, ’son of death,’ one certainly to die. The idea of worthiness is not included in the expression, though often implied in the context. The phrase ’son of death,’ means one who is to die, whether justly or unjustly. So ‘children of wrath,’ means simply ‘the objects of wrath.’ But as the wrath spoken of is the displeasure of God, of course the idea of ill-desert is necessarily implied.

The word φύσις in signification and usage corresponds very nearly to our word nature. When used, as in this case, to indicate the source or origin of any thing in the character or condition, it always expresses what is natural or innate, as opposed to what is made, taught, superinduced, or in any way incidental or acquired. This general idea is of course variously modified by the nature of the thing spoken of. Thus when the apostle says, Gal. 2, 15, ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, we by nature Jews, he means Jews by birth, in opposition to profession. In Gal. 4, 8, it is said of the heathen deities that they are not by nature gods, they are such only by appointment, or in virtue of the opinions of men. In Rom. 2, 13, men are said to do by nature the things of the law, i. e. the source of these moral acts is to be sought in their natural constitution, not in the instruction or example of others. In Rom. 2, 27, uncircumcision is said to be by nature, i. e. natural, not acquired. This usage is common in the classic writers. Thus Plato, de Legibus, lib. 10, says, ‘Some teach that the gods are οὑ φύσει, ἀλλὰ τισὶ νόμοις,’ i. e. that they owe their divinity not to nature but to certain laws. Afterwards he says, ‘Some things are right by nature, others by law.’ In another place, he says, of certain persons, ‘They were φύσει barbarians, νόμῳ Greeks;’ by birth barbarians, but by law Greeks. In these writers the expressions, ‘by nature selfish,’ ‘by nature swift to anger,’ ‘by nature avaricious,’ &c., are of very frequent occurrence. In all such cases the general sense is the same. The thing predicated is affirmed to be natural. It is referred to the natural constitution or condition as opposed to what is acquired. According to this uniform usage the expression, ‘We were by nature the children of wrath,’ can only mean, ‘We were born in that condition.’ It was something natural. We did not become the children of wrath, but were already such as we were born. In this interpretation commentators of all classes agree. RUECKERT, one of the ablest and most untrammelled of the recent German commentators, says: "It is perfectly evident from Rom. 5, 12-20, that Paul was far from being opposed to the view expressed in Ps. 51, 7, that men are born sinners; and as we interpret for no system, so we will not attempt to deny that the thought,’ we were born children of wrath,’ i. e. such as we were from our birth we were exposed to the divine wrath, is the true sense of the words." HARLESS, a commentator of higher order, says: " Unless we choose to explain the word φύσει in a senseless and inconsistent manner, we can account for its use only by admitting that Paul proceeds on the assumption of an enmity to God at present natural and indwelling. And since such a native condition is not a fatuity, we can properly acknowledge no other explanation of the fact here incidentally mentioned, than that which in perfect consistency with the whole apostolic system of doctrine, is given in Rom. 5th." The simple fact is asserted, not the reason of it. It is by nature, not on account of nature that we are here declared to be the children of wrath. The Scriptures do indeed teach the doctrine of inherent, hereditary depravity, and that that depravity is of the nature of sin, and therefore justly exposes us to the divine displeasure. And this doctrine may be fairly implied in the text, but it is not asserted. In other words, φύσις does not mean natural depravity, and the dative (φύσει) does not here mean on account of. The assertion is that men are born in a state of condemnation, and not that their nature is the ground of that condemnation. This is, indeed, an old and widely extended interpretation; but it does violence to the force of the word φύσις, which means simply nature, and not either holy or corrupt nature. The idea of moral character may be implied in the context, but is not expressed by the word. When we say, ‘a man is by nature kind,’ it is indeed implied that his nature is benevolent, but nature does not signify ‘natural benevolence.’ Thus when it is said, men are ‘by nature corrupt,’ or, ‘by nature the children of wrath,’ all that is asserted is that they are born in that condition.

Others take φύσις to mean in this place simply disposition, character, inward state of mind; very much as we often use the word heart. According to this view, the word means not quod nascenti inest, sed quod consuetudo in naturam vertit. The sense then is: ‘We, as well as others are, as to our inward disposition or state of mind, children of wrath.’ All the expressions quoted by Clericus and other advocates of this interpretation, are really proofs that the word φύσις has not the signification which they assign to it. When it is said that Barbarians are by nature rapacious, the Syrians by nature fickle, the Lacedemonians taciturn, more is meant than that such is the actual character of these people. The characteristic trait asserted of them is referred to what is innate or natural. In other words φύσις does not mean, in such cases, simply disposition, but innate disposition.

Still more remote from the proper meaning of the terms is the interpretation which renders φύσει truly, really. This is substituting an idea implied in the context for the signification of the word. When Paul says, the heathen deities are not by nature gods, he does indeed say they are not really gods; but this does not prove that by nature means truly.

Another exposition of this passage is, that the apostle here refers to the incidental cause of our being the children of wrath. Our exposure to the divine displeasure is due to our nature, because that nature being what it is, filled with various active principles innocent or indifferent, leads us into sin, and we thus become children of wrath. It is not by nature, but durch Entwickelung natürlicher Disposition, ‘through the development of natural disposition,’ as Meyer expresses this idea. This is a theological hypothesis rather than an interpretation. When it is said men are by nature desirous of truth, by nature honest, by nature cruel, more is affirmed than that they become such, under the influence of natural principles of which these characteristics cannot be predicated. The very reverse is the thing asserted. It is affirmed that love of truth, honesty, or cruelty are attributes of the nature of those spoken of. In like manner when it is said, ‘We are by nature the children of wrath,’ the very thing denied is, that we become such by a process of development. The assertion is that we are such by nature, as we were born. The truth here taught, therefore, is that which is so clearly presented in other parts of Scripture, and so fully confirmed by the history of the world and faith of the church, viz. that mankind as a race are fallen; they had their probation in Adam, and therefore are born in a state of condemnation. They need redemption from the moment of their birth; and therefore the seal of redemption is applied to them in baptism, which otherwise would be a senseless ceremony.