III. 9]

ὀργήν, θυμόν, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν·

^9μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους· ἀπεκδυσάμενοι

ὀργήν, θυμόν] ‘_anger_, _wrath_’. The one denotes a more or less settled

feeling of hatred, the other a tumultuous outburst of passion. This

distinction of the two words was fixed chiefly by the definitions of the

Stoics: Diog. Laert. vii. 114 ὁ δὲ θυμός ἐστιν ὀργὴ ἀρχομένη. So

Ammianus θὺμος μέν ἐστι πρόσκαιρος, ὀργὴ δὲ πολυχρόνιος μνησικακία,

Greg. Naz. _Carm._ 34 (II. p. 612) θυμὸς μέν ἐστιν ἀθρόος ζέσις φρενός,

ὀργὴ δὲ θυμὸς ἐμμένων. They may be represented in Latin by _ira_ and

_furor_; Senec. _de Ira_ ii. 36 ‘Ajacem in mortem egit furor, in furorem

ira’, and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 ‘Furor incipiens ira est’: see Trench

_N. T. Syn._ § xxxvii, p. 123 sq. On other synonymes connected with

θυμός and ὀργή see the note on Ephes. iv. 31.

κακίαν] ‘_malice_’, or ‘_malignity_’, as it may be translated in default

of a better word. It is not (at least in the New Testament) vice

generally, but the vicious nature which is bent on _doing harm to

others_, and is well defined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) ‘animi

pravitas, quæ _humanitati et æquitati_ est opposita’. This will be

evident from the connexion in which it appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph.

iv. 31, Tit. iii. 3. Thus κακία and πονηρία (which frequently occur

together, e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8) only differ in so far as the one denotes

rather the vicious disposition, the other the active exercise of it. The

word is carefully investigated in Trench _N. T. Syn._ § xi. p. 35 sq.

βλασφημίαν] ‘_evil speaking_, _railing_, _slandering_’, as frequently,

e.g. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v.l.), x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31,

Tit. iii. 2. The word has the same twofold sense, ‘evil speaking’ and

‘blasphemy’, in classical writers, which it has in the New Testament.

αἰσχρολογίαν] ‘_foul-mouthed abuse_’. The word, as used elsewhere, has

two meanings: (1) ‘_Filthy-talking_’, as defined in Clem. Alex. _Pæd._

ii. 6 (p. 189 sq.), where it is denounced at length: comp. Arist. _Pol._

vii. 17, Epict. _Man._ 33, Plut. _Mor._ 9, and so commonly; (2)

‘_Abusive language_’, as e.g. Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3, xxxi. 10.

4. If the two senses of the word had been quite distinct, we might have

had some difficulty in choosing between them here. The former sense is

suggested by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 4 αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἤ

εὐτραπελία; the second by the connexion with βλασφημία here. But the

second sense is derived from the first. The word can only mean ‘abuse’,

when the abuse is ‘foul-mouthed’. And thus we may suppose that both

ideas, ‘filthiness’ and ‘evil-speaking’, are included here.

9. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ.] ‘_putting off_’. Do these aorist participles

describe an action coincident with or prior to the ψεύδεσθε? In other

words are they part of the command, or do they assign the reason for the

command? Must they be rendered ‘putting off’, or ‘seeing that ye did (at

your baptism) put off’? The former seems the more probable

interpretation: for (1) Though both ideas are found in St Paul, the

imperative is the more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. ἀποθώμεθα οὖν τὰ

ἐργα τοῦ σκότους, ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός ... ἐνδύσασθε τὸν

Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, Ephes. vi. 11 ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν with ver.

14 στῆτε οὖν ... ἐνδυσάμενοι κ.τ.λ., 1 Thess. V. 8 νήφωμεν ἐνδυσάμενοι

κ.τ.λ. The one exception is Gal. iii. 27 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν

ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. (2) The ‘putting on’ in the parallel

passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is imperative, not affirmative, whether we read

ἐνδύσασθαι or ἐνδύσασθε. (3) The participles here are followed

immediately by an imperative in the context, ver. 12 ἐνδύσασθε οὖν,

where the idea seems to be the same. For the synchronous aorist

participle see Winer § xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses ἀπεκδυσάμενοι,

ἐνδυσάμενοι (not ἀπεκδύομενοι, ἐνδύομενοι), for the same reason for

which he uses ἐνδύσασθε (not ἐνδύεσθε), because it is a thing to be done

_once for all_. For the double compound ἀπεκδύεσθαι see the notes on ii.

11, 15.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A revised text with introductions, notes and dissertations · 第 113 / 241 题