“ blasphemy ”. — πλω The word may mean “ filthy κ... or “abusive speech”. Here the context decides for the latter. Lightfoot, com- bining both senses, translates “ foul- mou abuse,” but such combinations are generally to be Poser ἮΝ στόματος ὑμῶν: probably thi
wien apc ἧς περὶ Pith BA. and Whether it is dependent on ἀποθ., “ ban- ish from your mouth"’ (Mey., Ol., Abb.), is more doubtful, since the interpolation of sins which are not sins of speech makes such a connexion awkward. Prob-
6—11.
ὑμῶν.
9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, 3
439
y 9 ὃν ἆ ii. 15. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι "τὸν παλαιὸν 2 μις νι 6,
ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, το. καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν Eph. ἵν.
A , i ‘ ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν Kat εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν, f Only here
-» , 11. ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἕ ἀκροβυστία,
and 2 Cor. iv. 16 in class. or
βάρβαρος, " Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος, ἀλλὰ Ta! πάντα καὶ ἐν Bib. Gk.
g ii. 13. h Only here in N.T.
1So Ln., Τ., Tr., Lft., R.V., Ws. with 8cBDEFGKLP. τα: omitted by W.H.
with Ke*AC.
ably, then, the meaning is ‘ proceeding out of your mouth’”’. tp. is emphatic, and recalls the readers to their Christian profession.
Ver. 9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους: “lie not to one another”. The impera- tive changes its tense from aorist to present, the exhortation to the decisive act being followed by a rule for their daily life. εἰς expresses the direction of the utterance. It should not be trans- lated “against” (ΚΙ., Ἐτ.).---ἀπεκδυσά- μενοι. . . ἐνδυσάμενοι. These parti- ciples may be translated as part of the exhortation, “lie not one to another putting off. . . and putting on,” in other words, ‘‘ put off... and puton...and lie not’. Or they may give a reason for the exhortation, “lie not, seeing ye have put off . . . and put on”. In favour of the former is the addition σὺν τ. mp. αὐτ., for ifthe practices had been put off at conversion the warning might seem superfluous. ἄνακαιν. (pres.) also points to a continuous process. Either view harmonises with Paul’s theology, for he speaks of death to the old and life to the new either as ideally complete in the moment of conversion or as realised gradually in actual experience. But the latter, which is taken by most commen- tators, is preferable; for the reference is much wider than in the foregoing words. They refer only to the discarding of vices. Paul now emphasises the positive side also, the putting on the new as well as casting off the οἷά.--τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον: i.e., the old non-Christian self (cf. Rom. vi. 6, Eph. iv. 22).—mpageow : ‘‘practices,”” such as those already enu- merated.
Ver. 10. τὸν νέον. In Eph. iv. 24 we have καινός, “fresh’’ (as opposed to “worn out”); νέος is new as opposed to old. The idea contained in κ. is here expressed by ἀνακ. Some (including Sod.) regard ‘‘the new man” as Christ, according to which “the old man”? will be Adam. But this is negatived by the
next verse, for if the new man is Christ, Χριστός would be a strange tautology. κτίσ. is also against it, though we have μορφωθῇ X., Gal. iv. 19. It is the re- generate self, regenerate, of course, be- cause united with Christ.—éavaxa.vov- μενον: '' being renewed,” the present expressing the continuous process of re- newal (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16). There is no reference to a restoration to a former state.—eis ἐπίγνωσιν: not to be connected (as by Mey. and Hofm.) with κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, which would give a strange and obscure thought, but to be taken as the object of the renewal. The knowledge is ethical rather than theoretical in this connexion. -κατ᾽ εἰκόνα : to be taken with ἀνακαιν. There is a clear allusion to Gen. 1. 26-28, the new self grows to be more and more the image of God. There may perhaps be a side reference to “tye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” in eis ἐπίγ.-- τοῦ κτίσαντος: i.e., God, not (as Chrys. and others) Christ. Some take κατ᾽ εἰκ. τ. KT. a. to mean “according to Christ”. It is true that Christ is the image of God, but the parallel kara Θεὸν, in Eph. iv. 24, makes this improbable, and we should have expected the article before εἰκ.