ΠΡΟΣΚΟΛΑΣΣΑΕΙΣ Chap. 1:1, 2. Address and greeting. 1. διὰθελήματοςθεοῦ ] see on reff. καὶΤιμόθεος ] as in 2 Corinthians 1:1 (see also Philippians 1:1; Philemon 1:1, and 2 Thessalonians 1:1). ὁἀδελφός ] see on 2 Corinthians 1:1. On his presence with the Apostle at the time of writing this Epistle, see Prolegg. to Past. Epp. § i. 5. Chrys. (and similarly Thl.) says on ὁἀδελφός , οὐκοῦνκαὶαὐτὸςἀπόστολος : but there seems no reason for this. 2. On Colossæ , or Colassæ , see Prolegg. § ii. 1. ἁγίοις should be taken (Mey.) as a substantive, not (De W.) with ἀδελφοῖς , in which case πιστοῖς , being already (as Mey.) presupposed in ἁγίοις , would be tame and superfluous:— and καὶπιστοῖςἀδελφοῖςἐνχριστῷ seems to be a specifying clause, ‘ viz.— to the &c.:’ or perhaps added merely on account of the natural diplomatic character of an opening address. ἐνχρ . belongs closely to πιστοῖςἀδελφοῖς or perhaps rather to ἀδελφοῖς alone, as Philippians 1:14: no article before ἐνχριστῷ being wanted, because no distinction between these and any other kind of brethren is needed— the idea ἀδελφὸς -ἐν -χριστῷ being familiar. χάριςκ .τ .λ .] see Romans 1:7. 3-29. Introduction, but unusually expanded, so as to anticipate the great subjects of the Epistle. And herein, 3-8. Thanksgiving for the faith, hope, and love of the Colossians, announced to him by Epaphras. 3. We (I and Timotheus. In this Epistle, the plural and singular are too plainly distinguished to allow us to confuse them in translating: the plural pervading ch. 1., the singular ch. 2., and the two occurring together in ch. 4:3, 4, and the singular thenceforward. The change, as Mey. remarks, is never made without a pragmatic reason) give thanks to God the Father (πατήρ , like ἥλιος , γῆ ,&c. is anarthrous, as indeed often in our own language, from its well-known universal import as a predicate necessarily single of its kind: see Ephesians 1:2, Ephesians 1:3) of our Lord Jesus Christ, always (I prefer, against De W., Mey., B.-Crus., Eadie, to join πάντοτε to περὶὑμ . προσευχ ., rather than to εὐχαριστ . For 1) it would come rather awkwardly after so long an interruption as τῷθ . πατ . τ . κυρ . ἡμ . Ἰησ . χρ . (see however 1 Corinthians 15:58): and 2) I doubt whether the next clause would begin with περὶὑμῶν , so naturally as with πάντοτεπερὶὑμῶν , which are found together so usually, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:3 (2 Thessalonians 1:2)) praying for you (Meyer’ s and Eadie’ s objection to joining πάντοτε with προσευχόμενος is, that it is much more natural to say ‘ we always give thanks when we pray,’ than ‘ we give thanks, always praying.’ But we must remember that ‘ prayer with thanksgiving’ was the Apostle’ s recommendation (Philippians 4:6), and doubtless his practice, and that the wider term προσευχόμενος included both): since we heard of (not, because we heard: see Ephesians 1:15. The facts which he heard, not the fact of his hearing, were the ground of his thanksgiving) your faith in (not τὴνἐν : the immediate element of their faith, not its distinctive character, is the point brought out) Christ Jesus, and the love which ye have (these words, dwelling on the fact as reported to him, carry more affectionate commendation than would merely the article τήν of the rec.) towards all the saints, 5. on account of (not to be joined with εὐχαριστ . as Beng., Eadie, al.: for, as Mey., the ground of such thanksgiving is ever in the spiritual state of the person addressed, see Romans 1:8; 1 Corinthians 1:4 ff.; Ephesians 1:15 &c., and this can hardly (against Eadie) be said to be of such a kind: but with ἢνἔχετε — so Chr.: τοῦτοπρὸςτοὺςπειρασμούς , ὥστεμὴἐνταῦθαζητεῖντὴνἄνεσιν . ἵναγὰρμήτιςεἴπῃ · καὶτίτὸκέρδοςτῆςἀγάπηςτῆςεἰςτοὺςἁγίουςκοπτομένωναὐτῶν ; χαίρωμεν , φησίν , ὅτιμεγάλαἑαυτοῖςπροξενεῖτεἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς . So also Calvin, who combats the argument of Est., al., deriving support for the idea of meritorious works from this verse. It is obvious that we must not include τὴνπίστινὑμῶν in the reference, as Grot., Olsh., De W., al., have done: for πίστιςἐνχ . Ἰ . cannot be referred to any such motive: besides, see ver. 8, where he returns again to τὴνἀγάπην ) the hope (on the objective sense of ἐλπίς , see reff.) which is laid up τὴνὑπὲρὠκεανὸνδίαιτανἀποκεῖσθαι ) for you in the heavens (reff.), of which ye heard (aorist, referring to the time when it was preached among them) before (not, before this letter was written, as Beng., and usually: nor, as Mey., before ye had the hope: nor, as De Wette, al., before the hope is fulfilled: nor exactly as Eadie, ‘ have (see above) already heard:’ but ‘ before,’ in the absolute indefinite sense which is often given to the idea of priority,— ‘ ere this’ — olim, aliquando) in (as part of) the word of the truth (no hendiadys) of the Gospel (the word or preaching whose substance was that truth of which the Gospel is the depository and vehicle), 6. which is present (emphatic: is now, as it was then: therefore not to be rendered as an imperfect, which stultifies the argument, cf. ἐστὶνκαρποφ … ἀφ ʼ ἧςἡμ . below. οὐπαρεγένετο , φησίν , κ . ἀπέστη · ἀλλ ʼ ἔμεινε , κ . ἐστὶνἐκεῖ , Chrys.) with you (pregnant construction,— ‘ came to and remains with:’ see reff., and Herod. vi. 24, παρῆνἐςἈσίην , and al. frequently) as it is also in all the world (ἐπεὶδὴμάλισταοἱπολλοὶἐκτοῦκοινωνοὺςἔχεινπολλοὺςτῶνδογμάτωνστηρίζονται , διὰτοῦτοἐπήγαγεν ‘ καθ . κ . ἐνπ . τ . κόσ .’ πανταχοῦκρατεῖ · πανταχοῦἕστηκεν . Chrys. The expression παντὶτῷκόσμ . is no hyperbole, but the pragmatic repetition of the Lord’ s parting command. Though not yet announced to all nations, it is παρὼνἐνπαντὶτῷκόσμῳ — the whole world being the area in which it is proclaimed and working) bearing fruit and increasing (the paragraph is broken and unbalanced. The filling up would be, to insert καί after κόσμῳ as in rec. Then it would be, ‘ which is present with you, as also in all the world, and καρπ . and αὐξ . (in all the world), as also among you.’ But neglecting this, the Apostle goes forward, more logically indeed (for the reference in the rec. of κ . ἐστὶνκαρπ . to the second member of the foregoing comparison, is harsh), but not so perspicuously, enlarging the παρόντος of his first member into ἐστὶνκαρπ . κ . αὐξ . in the second, and then in these words, for fear he should be supposed to have predicated more of the whole world than of the Colossians, returning to καθ . κ . ἐνὑμ . Again: on καρπ . κ . αὐξ ., cf. Thdrt.: καρποφορίαντοῦεὐαγγελίουκέκληκετὴνἐπαινουμένηνπολιτείαν . αὔξησινδὲτῶνπιστευόντωντὸπλῆθος . As Mey. observes, the figure is taken from a tree, whose καρποφορία does not exclude its growth: with corn, it is otherwise) as also (it is καρπ . κ . αὐξ .) among you, from the day when ye heard (it) (the Gospel: better thus, than with De W., to go on to τὴνχάριντοῦθεοῦ for the object of both verbs: ἐπεγν . being not simultaneous with ἠκούσ ., and ἐνἀληθ . not being thus satisfied: see below) and knew (ἐπ -, intensitive, but too delicately so to be expressed by a stronger word in our language) the grace of God in truth (not adverbial, ‘ truly,’ as Beza, Olsh., Mey., De W., al., which would make ἐνἀλ . a mere qualification to ἐπέγνωτε : still less, as Storr, al., τὴνχάρινἀληθῆ , or as Grot., ἐντῷλόγῳτῆςἀλ .: but generally said, ‘ truth’ being the whole element, in which the χάρις was proclaimed and received: ‘ ye knew it in truth,’ — in its truth, and with true knowledge, which surely differs very appreciably from the adverbial sense (against Ellicott): οὐκἐνλόγῳ , φησίν , οὐδὲἐνἀπάτῃ , ἀλλ ʼ ἐναὐτοῖςτοῖςἔργοις ), 7. as ye learnt from Epaphras (mentioned again ch. 4:12 as of Colossæ , and Philemon 1:23, as then a fellow-prisoner with the Apostle. The name may be (hardly as Conyb., is) identical with Epaphroditus. A person of this latter name is mentioned, Philippians 2:25, as sent by St. Paul to the church at Philippi, and ib. 4:18, as having previously brought to him offerings from that church. There is no positive reason disproving their identity: but probability is against it) our beloved fellow-servant (of Christ, Philippians 1:1: not necessarily ‘ fellow-bondsman,’ as Conyb.: συναιχμάλωτος , Philemon 1:23), who is a minister of Christ faithful on our behalf (the stress of the predicatory sentence is on πιστὸςὑπὲρἡμῶν , which ought therefore in the translation not to be sundered. He was one acting faithfully “ vice Apostoli” (Ambrst.), and therefore not lightly to be set aside in favour of the new and erroneous teachers), who also made known to as your love in the Spirit (viz. the ἀγάπη of which he described himself in ver. 4 as having heard; their love εἰςπάνταςτοὺςἁγίους . This love is emphatically a gift, and in its full reference the chief gift of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22; Romans 15:30), and is thus in the elemental region of the Spirit,— as distinct from those unspiritual states of mind which are ἐνσαρκί . This love of the Colossians he lays stress on, as a ground for thankfulness, a fruit of the hope laid up for them,— as being that side of their Christian character where he had no fault (or least fault, see ch. 3:12-14) to find with them. He now proceeds, gently and delicately at first, to touch on matters needing correction). 9-12. Prayer for their confirmation and completion in the spiritual life. 9. For this reason (on account of your love and faith, &c. which Epaphras announced to us) we also (καί , on our side— the Colossians having been the subject before; used too on account of the close correspondence of the words following with those used of the Colossians above) from the day when we heard (it) (viz. as in ver. 4) do not cease praying for you (‘ precum mentionem generatim fecit ver. 3: nunc exprimit, quid precetur,’ Beng.) and (brings into prominence a special after a general, cf. Ephesians 6:18, Ephesians 6:19) beseeching that (on ἵνα after verbs of praying, see note, 1 Corinthians 14:13) ye may be filled with (accusative, as in reff.) the thorough knowledge (ἐπίγν . stronger than γνῶσις : see 1 Corinthians 13:12) of His (God’ s, understood as the object of our prayer) will , (Œ c., Thl., al.: cf. Ephesians 1:9: but of course not excluding the great source of that special will respecting you, His general will to be glorified in His Son) in all wisdom and spiritual understanding to walk (aim of the foregoing imparting of wisdom: ‘ so that ye may walk.’ ἐνταῦθαπερὶβίουκ . τῶνἔργωνφησίν · ἀεὶγὰρτῇπίστεισυζεύγνυσιτὴνπολιτείαν . Chrys.) worthily of the Lord (Christ, see reff. and cf. ἀξίωςτοῦθεοῦ , 3 John 1:6) unto (‘ with a view to,’ subjective: or, ‘ so as to effect,’ objective: the latter is preferable) all (all manner of, all that your case admits) well-pleasing (the word occurs in Theophr. Character. 5, which is on ἀρέσκεια as a subjective quality. Mey. quotes from Polyb. xxxi. 26. 5, πᾶνγένοςἀρεσκείαςπροσφερόμενος . The meaning is, ‘ so that (see above) in every way ye may be well pleasing to God’ ): in (exemplifying element of the καρπ .; see below) every good work (not to be joined with the former clause, as (Œ c., Thl., Erasm., al., to the destruction of the parallelism) bearing fruit (the good works being the fruits: the περιπατῆσαι is now further specified, being subdivided into four departments, noted by the four participles καρποφοροῦντες , αὐξανόμενοι , δυναμούμενοι , and εὐχαριστοῦντες . On the construction, see Ephesians 3:18 note) and increasing (see on ver. 6 above) by the knowledge of God (the instrument of the increase. This is by far the most difficult of the three readings (see var. readd.), the meaning of ἐν and εἰς being very obvious— the former pointing out the element, the latter the proposed measure, of the increase. And hence, probably, the variations. It is the knowledge of God which is the real instrument of enlargement, in soul and in life, of the believer— not a γνῶσις which φυσιοῖ , but an ἐπίγνωσις which αὐξάνει ), 11. (corresponding to ἐνπαντὶκ .τ .λ . above) in (not instrumental (Mey.), but betokening the element: all these, ἐνπάση , ἐνπαντὶ … are subjective, not objective. The instrument of this strength comes in below) all (departments of every kind of) strength being strengthened according to (in pursuance of, as might be expected from, reff.) the power of His glory (beware of the hendiadys, ‘ his glorious power,’ into which E. V. has fallen here: the attribute of His glorious majesty here brought out is its κράτος (see Ephesians 1:19, note), the power which it has thus to strengthen. In the very similar expression Ephesians 3:16, it was the πλοῦτοςτῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ , the exuberant abundance of the same, from which as an inexhaustible treasure our strength is to come) to (so as to produce in you, so that ye may attain to) all patient endurance (not only in tribulations, but generally in the life of the Spirit. Endurance is the result of the union of outward and inward strength) and long-suffering (not only towards your enemies or persecutors, but also in the conflict with error, which is more in question in this Epistle. Chrys.’ s distinction, μακροθυμεῖτιςπρὸςἐκείνουςοὓςδυνατὸνκαὶἀμύνασθαι · ὑπομένειδὲοὓςοὐδύναταιἀμύνασθαι , though in the main correct, must not be closely pressed: see (Mey.) Hebrews 12:2, Hebrews 12:3) with joy (Mey. argues that these words must be joined, as Chr., (Œ c., Thl., Est., al., with εὐχαριστ ., because in the other clauses the participles were preceded by these prepositional qualifications. But this can hardly be pressed, in the frequent disregard of such close parallelism by our Apostle, and seeing that εὐχαριστ . does in fact take up again μετὰχαρᾶς , which if attached to it is flat and unmeaning: and as De Wette says, by joining μετὰχαρ . to εὐχ ., we lose the essential idea of joyful endurance,— and the beautiful train of thought, that joyfulness in suffering expresses itself in thankfulness to God. And so Luth., B.-Crus., Olsh., Eadie, al.), giving thanks to the Father (the connexion is not, as Chr., Thl., Calov., Calv., al., with οὐπαυόμεθα , the subject being we, Paul and Timothy,— but with the last words (see above), and the subjects are ‘ you,’ — τῷπατρί , viz. of our Lord Jesus Christ: see reff.) who made (historical— by His gift of the Spirit through His Son) us (Christians) capable (not, ‘ worthy,’ as Est. after the Vulg.) for the share (participation) of the inheritance of the saints in the light (it is much disputed with what ἐντῷφωτί is to be joined. Mey., after Chr., Œ c., Thl., &c., regards it as instrumental— as the means of the ἱκανῶσαι which has been mentioned. But this seems unnatural, both in sense, and in the position of the words, in which it stands too far from ἱκ . to be its qualifying clause. It connects much more naturally with κλήρου , or perhaps better still with the whole, τὴνμερίδατ . κλήρουτῶνἁγ ., giving τὸφῶς as the region in which the inheritance of the saints, and consequently our share in it, is situated. This seems supported by the usage of κλῆρος in Acts 8:21, οὐκἔστισοιμερὶςοὐδὲκλῆροςἐντῷλόγῳτούτῳ — cf. also κλῆρονἐντοῖςἡγιασμένοις , ib. 26:18. And so Thdrt., al., De W., Eadie, al.— Grot., al., would take ἐντῷφωτί with ἁγίων : against this the omission of the article is not decisive: but it does not seem so natural, as giving too great prominence to οἱἅγιοιἐντῷφωτί as the ἐπώνυμοι of the inheritance, and not enough to the inheritance itself. The question as to whether he is speaking of a present inheritance, or the future glory of heaven, seems best answered by Chrys., δοκεῖδέμοικ . περὶτῶνπαρόντωνκ . περὶτῶνμελλόντωνὁμοῦλέγειν . The inheritance is begun here, and the meet-ness conferred, in gradual sanctification: but completed hereafter. We are ἐντῷφωτί here: cf. Romans 13:12, Romans 13:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; Ephesians 5:8; 1 Peter 2:9 al.): 13. Transition, in the form of a laying out into its negative and positive sides, of the ἱκάνωσεν above, to the doctrine concerning Christ, which the Apostle has it in his mind to lay down. Who rescued us out of the power (i.e. region where the power extends— as in the territorial use of the words ‘ kingdom,’ ‘ country,’ &c.) of darkness (as contrasted with light above: not to be understood of a person, Satan, but of the whole character and rule of the region of unconverted human nature where they dwelt), and translated (add to reff. Plato, Legg. vi. p. 762 b, πιστεύοντεςτῷμεθίστασθαικατὰμῆναςεἰςἕτερονἀεὶτόπονφεύγοντες , and a very striking parallel noticed by Mey., Plato Rep. vii. p. 518 a, ἔκτεφωτὸςεἰςσκότοςμεθισταμένωνκ . ἐκσκότουςεἰςφῶς . The word is strictly local in its meaning) into the kingdom (not to be referred, as Mey. always so pertinaciously maintains, exclusively to the future kingdom, nor is μετέστησεν proleptic, but a historical fact, realized at our conversion) of the Son of His Love (genitive subjective: the Son upon whom His Love rests: the strongest possible contrast to that darkness, the very opposite of God’ s Light and Love, in which we were. The Commentators compare Benoni, ‘ the son of my sorrow,’ Genesis 35:18. Beware of the hendiadys, adopted in the text of the E. V. On the whole, see Ellicott’ s note): 14-20. Description, introduced by the foregoing, of the pre-eminence and majesty of the Son of God, our Redeemer. 14. In whom (as its conditional element: as in the frequent expressions, ἐνχριστῷ , ἐνκυρίῳ , &c.: see the parallel, Ephesians 1:7) we have (see note, ibid.) Redemption (this is perhaps better, taking the art. as the idiomatic way of expressing the abstract subst., than our Redemption as in my earlier editions. See Ellic.), the remission (“ on the distinction between ἄφεσις and πάρεσις , see Trench, Synon. § 33.” Ellic.) of our sins (note, Eph., ut supra. παραπτωμάτων , the more special word, is here replaced by ἁμαρτιῶν the more general: the meaning being the same): 15. (The last verse has been a sort of introduction, through our own part in Him, to the Person of the Redeemer, which is now directly treated of, as against the teachers of error at Colossæ . He is described, in His relation 1) to God and His Creation (vv. 15-17): 2) to the Church (18-20). This arrangement, which is Meyer’ s, is far more exact than the triple division of Bä hr,— ‘ Source of creation (15, 16): upholder of creation (17): relation to the new moral creation 18-20)’ ), who is (now— in His glorified state— essentially and permanently: therefore not to be understood, as De W. after Erasm., Calv., Beza, Grot., Beng., al., of the historical Christ, God manifested in our flesh on earth: nor again with Olsh., Bleek on Heb_1 al., of the eternal Word: but of Christ’ s present glorified state, in which He is exalted in our humanity, but exalted to that glory which He had with the Father before the world was. So that the following description applies to Christ’ s whole Person in its essential glory,— now however, by His assumption of humanity, necessarily otherwise conditioned than before that assumption. See for the whole, notes on Philippians 2:6, and Hebrews 1:2 ff.; and Usteri, Paulinisches Lehrbegriff, ii. § 4, p. 286 ff.) image (= the image) of the invisible God (the adjunct τοῦἀοράτου is of the utmost weight to the understanding of the expression. The same fact being the foundation of the whole as in Philippians 2:6 ff., that the Son ἐνμορφῇθεοῦὑπῆρχεν , that side of the fact is brought out here, which points to His being the visible manifestation of that in God which is invisible: the λόγος of the eternal silence, the ἀπαύγασμα of the δόξα which no creature can bear, the χαρακτήρ of that ὑπόστασις which is incommunicably God’ s: in one word the ἐξηγητής of the Father whom none hath seen. So that while ἀόρατος includes in it not only the invisibility, but the incommunicability of God, εἰκών also must not be restricted to Christ corporeally visible in the Incarnation, but understood of Him as the manifestation of God in His whole Person and work— præ -existent and incarnate. It is obvious, that in this expression, the Apostle approaches very near to the Alexandrian doctrine of the λόγος : how near, may be seen from the extracts from Philo in Usteri: e.g. de somniis, 41, vol. i. p. 656, καθάπερτὴνἀνθήλιοναὐγὴνὡςἥλιονοἱμὴδυνάμενοιτὸνἥλιοναὐτὸνἰδεῖνὁρῶσι , κ . τὰςπερὶτὴνσελήνηνἀλλοιώσειςὡςαὐτὴνἐκείνην · οὕτωςκαὶτὴντοῦθεοῦεἰκόνα , τὸνἄγγελοναὐτοῦλόγον , ὡςαὐτὸνκατανοοῦσι : and de Monarch. ii. 5, vol. ii. p. 225, λόγοςδέἐστινεἰκὼνθεοῦ , δι ʼ οὗσύμπαςὁκόσμοςἐδημιουργεῖτο . See other passages in Bleek on Hebrews 1:2. He is, in fact, as St. John afterwards did, adopting the language of that lore as far as it represented divine truth, and rescuing it from being used in the service of error. (This last sentence might have prevented the misunderstanding of this part of my note by Ellic. in loc.: shewing, as it does, that the inspiration of St. Paul and the non-inspiration of Philo, are as fully recognized by me as by himself)), the first-born of all creation (such, and not ‘ every creature,’ is the meaning (so I still hold against Ellic. But see his whole note on this passage, as well worth study): nor can the strict usage of the article be alleged as an objection: cf. below, ver. 23, and Ephesians 2:21 note: the solution being, that κτίσις , as our word ‘ creation,’ may be used anarthrous, in its collective sense. Christ is ὁπρωτότοκος , the first-born, Hebrews 1:6. The idea was well known in the Alexandrian terminology: τοῦτονμὲνγάρ ,— viz. τὸνἀσώματονἐκεῖνον , θείαςἀδιαφοροῦνταεἰκόνος — πρεσβύτατονυἱὸνὁτῶνὄντωνἀνέτειλεπατήρ , ὃνἑτέρωθιπρωτόγονονὠνόμασε , καὶὁγεννηθεὶςμέντοιμιμούμενοςτὰςτοῦπατρὸςὁδούς , πρὸςπαραδείγματαἀρχέτυπαἐκείνουβλέπων , ἐμόρφουεἴδη . Philo, de Confus. Ling. 14, vol. i. p. 414. That the word is used as one whose meaning and reference was already known to the readers, is shewn by its being predicated of Christ as compared with two classes so different, the creatures, and the dead (ver.18). The first and simplest meaning is that of priority of birth. But this, if insisted on, in its limited temporal sense, must apply to our Lord’ s birth from his human mother, and could have reference only to those brothers and sisters who were born of her afterwards; a reference clearly excluded here. But a secondary and derived meaning of πρωτότοκος , as a designation of dignity and precedence, implied by priority, cannot be denied. Cf. Ps. 88:27, κἀγὼπρωτότοκονθήσομαιαὐτόν , ὑψηλὸνπαρὰτοῖςβασιλεῦσιτῆςγῆς :— Exodus 4:22, υἱὸςπρωτότοκόςμουἸσραήλ :— Romans 8:29, and Hebrews 12:23, ἐκκλησίᾳπρωτοτόκωνἀπογεγραμμένωνἐνοὐρανοῖς , where see Bleek’ s note. Similarly πρωτόγονος is used in Soph. Phil. 180, οὗτοςπρωτογόνωνἴσωςοἴκωνοὐδενὸςὕστερος . It would be obviously wrong here to limit the sense entirely to this reference, as the very expression below, αὐτὸςἐστὶνπρὸπάντων , shews, in which his priority is distinctly predicated. The safe method of interpretation therefore will be, to take into account the two ideas manifestly included in the word, and here distinctly referred to— priority, and dignity, and to regard the technical term πρωτότοκος as used rather with reference to both these, than in strict construction where it stands. “ First-born of every creature” will then imply, that Christ was not only first-born of His mother in the world, but first-begotten of His Father, before the worlds,— and that He holds the rank, as compared with every created thing, of first-born in dignity: for, &c., ver. 16, where this assertion is justified. Cf. below on ver. 18. It may be well to notice other interpretations: 1) Meyer, after Tert., Chr., Thdrt., al., Bengel, al., would restrict the term to its temporal sense: ‘ primogenitus, ut ante omnia genitus:’ on this, sec above. 2) The Arians maintained that Christ is thus Himself declared to be a κτίσις of God. It might have been enough to guard them from this, that as Chr. remarks, not πρωτόκτιστος , but πρωτότοκος is advisedly used by the Apostle. 3) The Socinians (also Grot., Wetst., Schleierm., al., after Theod. Mops.) holding the mistaken view of the necessity of the strict interpretation of πρωτότοκος — maintain, that Christ must be one of those among whom He is πρωτότοκος — and that consequently κτίσις must be the new spiritual creation— which it certainly cannot mean without a qualifying adjective to indicate such meaning— and least of all here, where the physical κτίσις is so specifically broken up into its parts in the next verse. 4) Worst of all is the rendering proposed by Isidore of Pelusium and adopted by Erasm. and Er.-Schmidt, ‘ first bringer forth’ (πρωτοτόκος , but used only of a mother). See on the whole, De W.: and a long note in Bleek on the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 43-48): 16. because (explanatory of the πρωτ . πάσ . κτίσ .— it must be so, seeing that nothing can so completely refute the idea that Christ himself is included in creation, as this verse) in Him — this is expressed afterwards, and is a different fact from the present one, though implied in it. The idea of the schoolmen, that in Christ was the ‘ idea omnium rerum,’ adopted in the main by Schl., Neandor, and Olsh. (“ the Son of God is the intelligible world, the κόσμοςνοητός , i.e. creation in its primitive idea, Himself; He bears in Himself their reality,” Olsh.), is, as Meyer rightly observes, entirely unsupported by any views or expressions of our Apostle elsewhere: and is besides abundantly refuted by ἐκτίσθη , the historic aorist, indicating the physical act of Creation) was created (in the act of creation: cf. on ἔκτισται below) the universe (thus only can we give the force of the Greek singular with the collective neuter plural, which it is important here to preserve, as ‘ all things’ may be thought of individually, not collectively)— (viz.) things in the heavens and things on the earth (Wetst. urges this as shewing that the physical creation is not meant: ‘ non dicit ὁοὐρανὸςκ . ἡγῆἐκτίσθη , sed τὰἐν &c., quo habitatores significantur qui reconciliantur’ (cf. the Socinian view of ver. 15 above): the right answer to which is— not with De W. to say that the Apostle is speaking of living created things only, for manifestly the whole universe is here treated of, there being no reason why living things should be in such a declaration distinguished from other things,— but with Mey. to treat τὰἐντ . οὐρρ . κ . τὰἐπ . τ . γῆς as an inexact designation of heaven and earth, and all that in them is, Revelation 10:6. In 1 Chronicles 29:11, the meaning is obviously this, σὺπάντωντῶνἐντῷοὐρ . κ . ἐπὶτ . γῆςδεσπόζεις ), things visible and things invisible (which divide between them the universe: Mey. quotes from Plato, Phæ d. p. 79 a, θῶμενοὖν , εἰβούλειἔφη , δύοεἴδητῶνὄντων , τὸμὲνὁρατόν , τὸδὲἀειδές . The ἀόρατα are the spirit-world (not, οἷονψυχή , Chr.: this, being incorporated, would fall under the ὁρατά , for the present purpose), which he now breaks up by εἴτε … εἴτε … εἴτε ), whether (these latter be) thrones, whether lordships, whether governments, whether authorities (on εἴτε , … often repeated, see reff.: and Plato, Rep. p. 493 d, 612 a, Soph. El. 595 f. (Mey.) These distinctive classes of the heavenly powers occur in a more general sense in Ephesians 1:21, where see note. For δυνάμεις there, we have θρόνοι here. It would be vain to attempt to assign to each of these their places in the celestial world. Perhaps, as De W., the Apostle chose the expressions as terms common to the doctrine of the Colossian false teachers and his own: but the occurrence of so very similar a catalogue in Ephesians 1:21, where no such object could be in view, hardly looks as if such a design were before him. Mey. well remarks, “ For Christian faith it remains fixed, and it is sufficient, that there is testimony borne to the existence of different degrees and categories in the world of spirits above; but all attempts more precisely to fix these degrees, beyond what is written in the N. T., belong to the fanciful domain of theosophy.” All sorts of such interpretations, by Teller and others, not worth recording, may be seen refuted in De W.): the whole universe (see above on τὰπάντα , ver. 16) has been created (not now of the mere act, but of the resulting endurance of creation— leading on to the συνέστηκεν below) by Him (instrumental: He is the agent in creation— the act was His, and the upholding is His: see John 1:3, note) and for Him (with a view to Him: He is the end of creation, containing the reason in Himself why creation is at all, and why it is as it is. See my Sermons on Divine Love, Serm. I. II. The fancies and caprices of those who interpret creation here ethically, are recounted and refuted by Meyer): and He Himself (emphatic, His own Person) is (as in John 8:58, of essential existence: ἦν might have been used, as in John 1:1: but as Mey. well observes, the Apostle keeps the past tenses for the explanatory clauses referring to past facts, vv. 16, 19) before all things (in time; bringing out one side of the πρωτότοκος above: not in rank, as the Socinians: of which latter James 5:12, 1 Peter 4:8, are no justifications, for if πρὸ -πάντων be taken as there, we must render, and He, above all, exists,’ ‘ He especially exists,’ προπάντων being adverbial, and not to be resolved. For the temporal sense, see reff.) all things (not ‘ omnes,’ as Vulg.), and in Him (as its conditional element of existence, see above on ἐναὐτῷ ver. 16) the universe subsists . 18-20. Relation of Christ to the Church (see above on ver. 15): And He (emphatic; not any angels nor created beings: the whole following passage has a controversial bearing on the errors of the Colossian teachers) is the Head of the body the church (not ‘ the body of the church:’ the genitive is much more naturally taken as one of apposition, inasmuch as in St. Paul, it is the church which is, not which possesses, the body, see reff.): who is the beginning (of the Church of the First-born, being Himself πρωτότ . ἐκτ . νεκρ .: cf. ἀπαρχὴχριστός , 1 Corinthians 15:23, and reff., especially the last. But the word evidently has, standing as it does here alone, a wider and more glorious reference than that of mere temporal precedence: cf. ref. Rev. and note: He is the Beginning, in that in Him is begun and conditioned the Church, vv. 19, 20), the First-born from (among) the dead (i.e. the first who arose from among the dead: but the term πρωτότοκος (see above) being predicated of Christ in both references, he uses it here, regarding the resurrection as a kind of birth. On that which is implied in πρωτότ ., see above on ver. 15), that He (emphatic, again: see above) may become (not, as Est., ‘ ex quibus efficitur, Christum … tenere:’ but the aim and purpose of this his priority over creation and in resurrection) in all things (reff. Beza, (and so Kypke) argues, that because the Apostle is speaking of the Church, πᾶσιν must be masculine, allowing however that the neuter has some support from the τὰπάντα which follows. In fact this decides the question: the τὰπάντα there are a resumption of the πᾶσιν here. The ἐν then is not ‘ inter,’ but of the reference:— ‘ in all matters:’ πανταχοῦ , as Chrys.: because the πάντα which follows applies not only to things concrete, but also to their combinations and attributes) pre-eminent . 19. “ Confirmatory of the above-said γίνεσθαιἐνπᾶσιναὐτ . πρωτεύοντα — ‘ of which there can be no doubt, since it pleased &c.’  ” Meyer.— for in Him God was pleased (on the use of εὐδοκέω for δοκέω by the later Greeks, see Fritzsche’ s note, on Rom. vol. ii. pp. 369-72. The subject here is naturally understood to be God, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 1:15: clearly not Christ, as Conyb., thereby inducing a manifest error in the subsequent clause, ‘ by Himself He willed to reconcile all things to Himself,’ for it was not to Christ but to the Father that all things were reconciled by Him, cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19. See a full discussion on the construction, and the subject to εὐδόκησεν , in Ellic.’ s note. His conclusion, that πλήρωμα is that subject, I cannot accept) that the whole fulness (of God, see ch. 2:9; Ephesians 3:19, and on πλήρωμα , note, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 1:23. We must bear in mind here, with Mey., that the meaning is not active, ‘ id quod rem implet,’ but passive, ‘ id quo res impletur:’ all that fulness of grace which is the complement of the divine character, and which dwells permanently in Christ: ‘ cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum copia,’ Beza,— as in John 1:16. The various other interpretations have been,— “ the essential fulness of the Godhead;” so Œ c., al.; which is manifestly not in question here,— but is not to be set aside, as Eadie, by saying that ‘ the divine essence dwelt in Christ unchangeably and not by the Father’ s consent or purpose: it is His in His own right, and not by paternal pleasure:’ for all that is His own right, is His Father’ s pleasure, and is ever referred to that pleasure by Himself;— “ the fulness of the whole universe;” so Conyb., and Castellio in Beza. This latter answers well: “ Quorsum mentio universitatis rerum? Nam res ipsa clamat Apostolum de sola ecclesia hic agere, ut etiam 1 Corinthians 15:18 (?); Ephesians 1:10; Ephesians 4:6, Ephesians 4:20 (?):” — ‘ the Church itself,’ as Severianus in Cramer’ s Catena, τουτέστιντὴνἐκκλησίαντὴνπεπληρωμένηναὐτοῦἐντῷχριστῷ ,— and Thdrt., πλήρ . τὴνἐκκλησίανἐντῇπρὸςἘφεσίουςἐκάλεσεν , ὡςτῶνθείωνχαρισμάτωνπεπληρωμένην , ταύτηνἔφηεὐδοκῆσαιτὸνθεὸνἐντῷχριστῷκατοικῆσαι , τουτέστιναὐτῷσυνῆφθαι ,— and similarly B.-Crus., al., and Schleierm., understanding the fulness of the Gentiles and the whole of Israel, as Romans 11:12, Romans 11:25, Romans 11:26. But this has no support, either in the absolute usage of πλήρωμα , or in the context here. See others in De W.) should dwell, and (‘ hæ c inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis,’ Beng.) by Him (as the instrument, in Redemption as in Creation, see above ver. 16 end) to reconcile again (see note on Ephesians 2:16) all things (= the universe: not to be limited to ‘ all intelligent beings,’ or ‘ all men,’ or ‘ the whole Church:’ these πάντα are broken up below into terms which will admit of no such limitation. On the fact, see below) to Him (viz. to God, Ephesians 2:16: not αὑτόν ; the writer has in his mind two Persons, both expressed by αὐτός , and to be understood from the context. The aspirate should never be placed over αυτ -, unless where there is a manifest necessity for such emphasis. But we are not (as Conyb.,— also Est., Grot., Olsh., De W.) to understand Christ to be meant: see above), having made peace , Thdrt., Œ c., Luth., al.), but the Father: He is the subject in the whole sentence since εὐδόκησεν ) by means of the blood of (genitive possessive, belonging to, figuratively, as being shed on: ‘ ideo pignus et pretium nostræ cum Deo pacificationis fuit sanguis Christi, quia in cruce fusus,’ Calv.) His Cross,— through Him (emphatic repetition, to bring αὐτός , the Person of Christ, into its place of prominence again, after the interruption occasioned by εἰρην … αὐτοῦ : not meaning, as Castal. (in Mey.), ‘ per sanguinem ejus, hoc est, per eum:’ for the former and not the latter is explicative of the other),— whether (τὰπάντα consist of) the things on the earth, or the things in the heavens. It has been a question, in what sense this reconciliation is predicated of the whole universe. Short of this meaning we cannot stop: we cannot hold with Erasm., al., that it is a reconciliation of the various portions of creation to one another: ‘ ut abolitis peccatis, quæ dirimebant concordiam et pacem cœ lestium ac terrestrium, jam amicitia jungerentur omnia:’ for this is entirely precluded by the εἴτε … εἴτε : nor, for the same reason, with Schleierm., understand that the elements to be reconciled are the Jews and Gentiles, who were at variance about earthly and heavenly things, and were to be set at one in reference to God . The Apostle’ s meaning clearly is, that by the blood of Christ’ s Cross, reconciliation with God has passed on all creation as a whole, including angelic as well as human beings, unreasoning and lifeless things, as well as organized and intelligent. Now this may be understood in the following ways: 1) creation may be strictly regarded in its entirety, and man’ s offence viewed as having, by inducing impurity upon one portion of it, alienated the whole from God: and thus τὰπάντα may be involved in our fall. Some support may seem to be derived for this by the undeniable fact, that the whole of man’ s world is included in these consequences (see Romans 8:19 f.). But on the other side, we never find the angelic beings thus involved: nay, we are taught to regard them as our model in hallowing God’ s name, realizing His kingdom, and doing His will (Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10). And again the εἴτε … εἴτε would not suffer this: reconciliation is thus predicated of each portion separately. We are thus driven, there being no question about τὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς , to enquire, how τὰἐντοῖςοὐρρ . can be said to be reconciled by the blood of the Cross. And here again, 2) we may say that angelic, celestial creation was alienated from God because a portion of it fell from its purity: and, though there is no idea of the reconciliation extending to that portion, yet the whole, as a whole, may need thus reconciling, by the final driving into punishment of the fallen, and thus setting the faithful in perfect and undoubted unity with God. But to this I answer, a) that such reconciliation (?) though it might be a result of the coming of the Lord Jesus, yet could not in any way be effected by the blood of His Cross: b) that we have no reason to think that the fall of some angels involved the rest in its consequences, or that angelic being is evolved from any root, as ours is from Adam: nay, in both these particulars, the very contrary is revealed. We must then seek our solution in some meaning which will apply to angelic beings in their essential nature, not as regards the sin of some among them. And as thus applied, no reconciliation must be thought of which shall resemble ours in its process— for Christ took not upon Him the seed of angels, nor paid any propitiatory penalty in the root of their nature, as including it in Himself. But, forasmuch as He is their Head as well as ours,— forasmuch as in Him they, as well as ourselves, live and move and have their being, it cannot be but that the great event in which He was glorified through suffering, should also bring them nearer to God, who subsist in Him in common with all creation. And at some such increase of blessedness does our Apostle seem to hint in Ephesians 3:10. That such increase might be described as a reconciliation, is manifest: we know from Job 15:15, that “ the heavens are not clean in His sight,” and ib. 4:18, “ His angels He charged with folly.” In fact, every such nearer approach to Him may without violence to words be so described, in comparison with that previous greater distance which now seems like alienation;— and in this case even more properly, as one of the consequences of that great propitiation whose first and plainest effect was to reconcile to God, in the literal sense, the things upon earth, polluted and hostile in consequence of man’ s sin. So that our interpretation may be thus summed up: all creation subsists in Christ: all creation therefore is affected by His act of propitiation: sinful creation is, in the strictest sense, reconciled, from being at enmity: sinless creation, ever at a distance from his unapproachable purity, is lifted into nearer participation and higher glorification of Him, and is thus reconciled, though not in the strictest, yet in a very intelligible and allowable sense. Meyer’ s note, taking a different view, that the reconciliation is the great κρίσις at the παρουσία , is well worth reading: Eadie’ s, agreeing in the main with the above result, is unfortunately, as so usual with him, overloaded with flowers of rhetoric, never more out of place than in treating lofty subjects of this kind. A good summary of ancient and modern opinions is given in De W. 21-23. Inclusion of the Colossians in this reconciliation and its consequences, if they remained firm in the faith. 21, 22. And you, who were once alienated (subjective or objective?— ‘ estranged’ (in mind), or ‘ banished’ (in fact)? In Ephesians 2:12, it is decidedly objective, for such is the cast of the whole sentence there: so also in ref. Ps.: in Ephesians 4:18 it describes the objective result, with regard to the life of God, of the subjective ‘ being darkened in the understanding.’ It is better then here to follow usage, and interpret objectively— ‘ alienated’ — made aliens) (from God,— not ἀπὸτῆςπολιτείαςτοῦἸσρ ., nor ἀπὸτῆςζωῆςτ . θεοῦ : for ‘ God’ is the subject of the sentence), and at enmity (active or passive? ‘ hating God,’ or ‘ hated by God?’ Mey. takes the latter, as necessary in Romans 5:10 (see note there). But here, where the διάνοια and ἔργατὰπονηρά are mentioned, there exists no such necessity: the objective state of enmity is grounded in its subjective causes;— and the intelligent responsible being is contemplated in the whole sentence: cf. εἴγεἐπιμένετεκ .τ .λ . below. I take ἐχθ . therefore actively, ‘ hostile to Him’ ) in (dative of reference; not, as Mey. is obliged to take it on account of his passive ἐχθ . of the cause, ‘ on account of,’ &c.: this is not the fact: our passive ἔχθρα subsists not on account of any subjective actuality in us, but on account of the pollution of our parent stock in Adam) your understanding (intellectual part: see on Ephesians 2:3, Ephesians 4:18. Erasm.’ s rendering, in his Par., ‘ enemies to reason,’ ‘ etenim qui carni servit, repugnat rationi,’ is clearly wrong: διάνοια is a ‘ vox media,’ and cannot signify ‘ reason:’ besides, there is nothing here about ‘ carni inservire:’ that of Tert., Ambr., and Jer., ‘ enemies to God’ s will,’ rests on the reading αὐτοῦ after διαν .,— see var. readd.: that of Beza, Mich., Storr, and Bä hr,— ‘ mente operibus malis intenta,’ is allowable constructionally: the verb is followed by ἐν , cf. Psalms 72:8, διενοήθησανἐνπονηρίᾳ , Sir. 6:37; 39:1, and consequently the article before ἐν would not be needed: but is impugned by the τοῖςἔρ . τοῖςπονηροῖς ,— not only wicked works, but the wicked works which ye did) in your wicked works (sphere and element in which you lived, applying to both ἀπηλλ . and ἐχθ . τῇδιαν .), now however (contrast to the preceding description,— the participles forming a kind of πρότασις : so δέοναὐτοὺςτὴνφρόνησινἀσκεῖνμᾶλλοντῶνἄλλων , οἱδὲχεῖρονπεπαίδευνταιτῶνἰδιωτῶν , Isocr. ἀντιδ . c. 26: χρεὼνγάρμινμὴλέγειντὸἐόν , λέγειδ ʼ ὦν , Herod. v. 50: Eur. Alcest. 487 (476). See more examples in Hartung, i. p. 186. It is probably this δέ which has given rise to the variety of readings: and if so, the rec. is most likely to have been original, at least accounting for it) hath He (i.e. God, as before: the apparent difficulty of this may have likewise been an element in altering the reading) reconciled in (of the situation or element of the reconciliation, cf. ver. 24, ἑντῇσαρκίμον , and 1 Peter 2:24) the body of his (Christ’ s) flesh (why so particularized? ‘ distinguitur ab ecclesia, quæ corpus Christi dicitur,’ Beng.,— but this is irrelevant here: no one could have imagined that to be the meaning:— ‘ corpus humanum quod nobiscum habet commune Filius Dei,’ Calv. (and so Grot., Calov.),— of which the same may be said:— as against the Docetæ , who maintained the unreality of the incarnation: so Beza, al.; but St. Paul no where in this Epistle maintains, as against any adversaries, the doctrine of its reality. I am persuaded that Mey. is right: ‘ He found occasion enough to write of the reconciliation as he does here and ver. 20, in the angel-following of his readers, in which they ascribed reconciling mediatorship with God partly to higher spiritual beings, who were without a σῶματῆςσαρκός ʼ ) by means of His Death (that being the instrumental cause, without which the reconciliation would not have been effected) to (aim and end, expressed without εἰςτό : as in Ephesians 1:4, al. fr.) present you (see Ephesians 5:27 and note: not, as a sacrifice) holy and unblameable and irreproachable (‘ erga Deum … respectu vestri … respectu proximi,’ Beng. But is this quite correct? do not ἀμώμ . and ἀνεγκλ . both refer to blame from without? rather with Meyer, ἁγίους represents the positive, ἀμώμ . and ἀνεγκλ . the negative side of holiness. The question whether sanctitas inhæ rens or sanctitas imputata is here meant, is best answered by remembering the whole analogy of St. Paul’ s teaching, in which it is clear that progressive sanctification is ever the end, as regards the Christian, of his justification by faith. Irrespective even of the strong testimony of the next verse, I should uphold here the reference to inherent holiness, the work of the Spirit, consequent indeed on entering into the righteousness of Christ by faith: ‘ locus est observatione dignus, non conferri nobis gratuitam justitiam in Christo, quin Spiritu etiam regeneremur in obedientiam justitiæ : quemadmodum alibi (1 Corinthians 1:30) docet, Christum nobis factum esse justitiam et sanctificationem.’ Calvin) before His (own, but the aspirate is not required: see above on ver. 20: not, that of Christ, as Mey., reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε : in Ephesians 1:4, a different matter is spoken of) presence (at the day of Christ’ s appearing): 23. (condition of this presentation being realized: put in the form of an assumption of their firmness in the hope and faith of the Gospel)— if, that is (i.e. ‘ assuming that,’ see note on 2 Corinthians 5:3), ye persist (more locally pointed than μένετε ;— usually implying some terminus ad quem, or if not, perseverance to and rest in the end) in the faith (ref.: also Xen. Hell. iii. 4. 6, Ἀγησίλαοςδὲ … ἐπέμεινε (al. ἐνέμ .) ταῖςσπονδαῖς : more frequently with ἐπί , see Rost u. Palm sub voce) grounded (see Ephesians 3:18, note: and on the sense, Luke 6:48, Luke 6:49) and stedfast (1 Corinthians 15:58, where the thought also of μὴμετακιν . occurs), and not (the second of two correlative clauses, if setting forth and conditioned by the first, assumes a kind of subjective character, and therefore if expressed by a negative particle, regularly takes μή , not οὐ . So Soph. Electr. 380, μέλλουσιγάρσε … ἐνταῦθαπέμψαι , ἔνθαμήποθ ʼ ἡλίουφέγγοςπροσόψει . See more examples in Hartung, ii. 113 f.) being moved away (better passive, than middle: cf. Xen. rep. Lac. xv. 1, τὰςδὲἄλλαςπολιτείαςεὕροιἄντιςμετακεκινημέναςκ . ἔτινῦνμετακινουμένας : it is rather their being stirred (objective) by the false teachers, than their suffering themselves (subjective) to be stirred, that is here in question) from the hope (subjective, but grounded on the objective, see note on Ephesians 1:18) of (belonging to, see Eph. as above: the sense ‘ wrought by’ (Mey., De W., Ellic.) is true in fact, but hardly expresses the construction) the Gospel, which ye heard (“ three considerations enforcing the μὴμετακινεῖσθαι : the μετακινεῖσθαι would be for the Colossians themselves inexcusable (οὗἠκούσ .), inconsistent with the universality of the Gospel (τοῦκηρυχθ . &c.), and contrary to the personal relation of the Apostle to the Gospel.” Mey. This view is questioned by De W., but it certainly seems best to suit the context: and cf. Chrys. πάλιναὐτοὺςφέρειμάρτυρας , εἶτατὴνοἰκουμένηνἅπασαν , and see below),— which was preached (οὐλέγειτοῦκηρυττομένου , ἀλλ ʼ ἤδηπιστευθέντοςκ . κηρυχθέντος , Chr.) in the whole creation (see Mark 16:15. On the omission of the article before κτίσει see above, ver. 15, note) which is under the heaven,— of which I Paul became a minister (κ . τοῦτοεἰςτὸἀξιόπιστονσυντελεῖ . μέγαγὰραὐτοῦἦντὸἀξίωμαλοιπὸνπανταχοῦᾀδομένου , κ . τῆςοἰκουμένηςὄντοςδιδασκάλου , Chrys.). 24. Transition from the mention of himself to his joy in his sufferings for the Church, and (25-29) for the great object of his ministry:— all with a view to enhance the glory, and establish the paramount claim of Christ. I now (refers to ἐγενόμην — extending what he is about to say down to the present time— emphatic, of time, not transitional merely) rejoice in (as the state in which I am when I rejoice, and the element of my joy itself. Our own idiom recognizes the same compound reference) my sufferings on your behalf , nor ‘ because of you,’ but strictly ‘ in commodum vestri,’ that you may be confirmed in the faith by (not my example merely, as Grot., Wolf, al.) the glorification of Christ in my sufferings), and am filling up (the ἀντί implies, not ‘ vicissim,’ as Le Clerc, Beza, Bengel, al.; nor that ἀναπλ . is said of one who ‘ ὑστέρημα a se relictum ipse explet,’ and ἀνταναπλ . of one who ‘ alterius ὑστ . de suo explet,’ as Winer (cited by Mey.), but the compensation, brought about by the filling up being proportionate to the defect: so in ref.: in Dio Cass. xliv. 48, ὅσον … ἐνέδει , τοῦτοἐκτῆςπαρὰτῶνἄλλωνσυντελείαςἀνταναπληρωθῇ : in Diog. Laert. x. 48, καὶγὰρῥεῦσιςἀπὸτῆςτῶνσωμάτωνἐπιπολῆςσυνεχὴςσυμβαίνει , οὐκἐπίδηλοςαἰσθήσειδιὰτὴνἀνταναπλήρωσιν , ‘ on account of the correspondent supply’ ) the deficiencies (plural, because the θλίψεις are thought of individually, not as a mass: those sufferings which are wanting) of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh (belongs to ἀνταναπλ ., not (as Aug. on Psalms 100:3 Psalms 100:3c. 3, vol. iv. p. 1104, Storr, al.) to τῶνθλίψ . τοῦχρ ., not only because there is no article , which would not be absolutely needed, but on account of the context: for if it were so, the clause τῶνθλίψ . τ . χρ . ἐντῇσ . μ . would contain in itself that which the whole clause asserts, and thus make it flat and tautological) on behalf of (see on ὑπέρ above) His body, which is the Church (the meaning being this: all the tribulations of Christ’ s body are Christ’ s tribulations. Whatever the whole Church has to suffer, even to the end, she suffers for her perfection in holiness and her completion in Him: and the tribulations of Christ will not be complete till the last pang shall have passed, and the last tear have been shed. Every suffering saint of God in every age and position is in fact filling up, in his place and degree, the θλίψειςτοῦχριστοῦ , in his flesh, and on behalf of His body. Not a pang, not a tear is in vain. The Apostle, as standing out prominent among this suffering body, predicates this of himself κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν ; the ἀναπλήρωσις to which we all contribute, was on his part so considerable, as to deserve the name of ἀνταναπλήρωσις itself— I am contributing θλίψεις which one after another fill up the ὑστερήματα . Notice that of the παθήματατοῦχριστοῦ not a word is said (see however 2 Corinthians 1:5): the context does not concern, nor does θλίψεις express, those meritorious sufferings which He bore in His person once for all, the measure of which was for ever filled by the one sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, on the cross: He is here regarded as suffering with His suffering people, bearing them in Himself, and being as in Isaiah 63:9, “ afflicted in all their affliction.” The above interpretation is in the main that of Chrys., Thl., Aug., Anselm, Calv., Beza, Luth., Melancth., Est., Corn.-a-lap., Grot., Calov., Olsh., Do W., Ellic., Conyb. The latter refers to Acts 9:4, and thinks St. Paul remembered those words when he wrote this: and Vitringa (cit. in Wolf) says well, ‘ Hæ sunt passiones Christi, quia Ecclesia ipsius est corpus, in quo ipse est, habitat, vivit, ergo et patitur.’ The other interpretations are 1) that the sufferings are such as Christ would have endured, had He remained longer on earth. So Phot. (in Eadie): ὅσα … ἔπαθενἂνκ . ὑπέστη , καθ ʼ ὃντρόπονκ . πρὶνκηρύσσωνκ . εὐαγγελιζόμενοςτὴνβασιλείαντῶνοὐρανῶν . 2) That the sufferings are not properly Christ’ s, but only of the same nature with His. Thus Thdrt., after stating Christ’ s sufferings in behalf of the Church, says, καὶὁθεῖοςἀπόστολοςὡσαύτωςὑπὲραὐτῆςὑπέστητὰποικίλαπαθήματα : and so Mey., Schl., Huther, and Winer. But evidently this does not exhaust the phrase here. To resemble, is not to fill up. 3) Storr, al., would render, ‘ afflictions for Christ’ s sake,’ — which the words will not bear. 4) Some of the Roman Catholic expositors (Bellarmine, Cajetan, al.) maintain hence the doctrine of indulgences: so Corn.-a-lap. in addition: ‘ Hinc sequitur non male Bellarminum, Salmeroneum, Franc. Suarez, ct alios Doctores Catholicos, cum tractant de Indulgentiis, hæ c generalia Apostoli verba extendere ad thesaurum Ecclesiæ , ex quo ipsa dare solet indulgentias: hunc enim thesaurum voluit Deus constare meritis et satisfactionibus non tantum Christi, sed et Apostolorum omniumque Christi Sanctorum: uti definivit Clemens VI. extravagante extra corpus canonicum Gratiani, sive extra Decretorum libros vagantur’ ) unigenitus.’ But Estius, although he holds the doctrine to be catholic and apostolic, and ‘ aliunde satis probata,’ yet confesses, ‘ ex hoc Apostoli loco non videtur admodum solide statui posse. Non enim sermo iste, quo dicit Apostolus se pati pro ecclesia, necessario sic accipiendus est, quod pro redimendis peccatorum pœ nis quas fideles debent, patiatur, quod forte nonnihil haberet arrogantiæ : sed percommode sic accipitur, quomodo proxime dixerat “ gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis,” ut nimirum utraque parte significet afflictiones et persecutiones pro salute fidelium, ipsiusque ecclesiæ ) promovenda toleratas.’ The words in italics are at least an ingenuous confession. Consult on the whole matter, Meyer’ s and Eadie’ s notes): of which (parallel with οὗ above: in service of which, on behoof of which) I (emphatic, resuming ἐγὼΠαῦλος above) became a minister, according to (so that my ministry is conducted in pursuance of, after the requirements and conditions of) the stewardship (see on 1 Corinthians 9:17; 1 Corinthians 4:1, al.: also Ephesians 1:10; Ephesians 3:2: not, ‘ dispensation,’ as Chrys., Beza, Calv., Est., al.: the simpler meaning here seems best, especially when taken with δοθεῖσαν . ‘ In domo Dei quæ est ecclesia, sum œ conomus, ut dispensans toti familiæ , i.e. singulis fidelibus, bona et dona Dei domini mei,’ Corn.-a-lap.) of God (of which God is the source and chief) which was given (entrusted to) me towards (with a view to; ref.) you (among other Gentiles; but as so often, the particular reference of the occasion is brought out, and the general kept back), to fulfil the word of God (exactly as in Romans 15:19, to fulfil the duty of the stewardship εἰςὑμᾶς , in doing all that this preaching of the word requires, viz. ‘ ad omnes perducere,’ as Beng., see also below: a pregnant expression. The interpretations have been very various: ‘ sermonem Dei vocat promissiones … quas Deus præ stitit misso ad gentes Apostolo qui Christum eis patefaceret,’ Beza: ‘ finem adscribit sui ministerii, ut efficax sit Dei sermo, quod fit dum obedienter accipitur,’ Calv.: ‘ ut compleam præ dicationem evang. quam cœ pit Christus,’ Corn.-a-lap.: ‘ ut plene ac perfecte annuntiem verbum Dei: vel, secundum alios (Vatabl. al.) ut ministerio meo impleam æ ternum Dei verbum, i.e. propositum et decretum de vocatione gentium ad fidem: vel denique, quod probabilius est, ut omnia loca impleam verbo Dei,’ Est.: ‘ valet, supplere doctrinam divinam, nempe institutione quam Epaphras inchoavit, profliganda et conficienda,’ Fritzsche ad Rom., vol. iii. p. 275, where see much more on the passage: and other interpretations in Eadie, Meyer, and De W. All the above fail in not sufficiently taking into account the οἰκον . εἰςὑμᾶς . Chrys. better, εἰςὑμᾶς , φησί , πληρῶσαιτ . λόγ . τ . θεοῦ (but this connexion can hardly stand) περὶτῶνἐθνῶνλέγει . He goes on however to understand πληρῶσαι of perfecting their faith, which misses the reference to fulfilling his own office) 26. (namely) the mystery (see on Ephesians 1:9) which has been hidden from the ages and the generations (before us, or of the world: as many Commentators have remarked, not πρὸτ . αἰ ., which would be ‘ from eternity,’ but the expression is historical, and within the limits of our world), but now (in these times) was manifested (historical: at the glorification of Christ and the bestowal of the Spirit. This change of a participial into a direct construction is made when the contrasted clause introduced by it is to be brought into greater prominence than the former one. So Thuc. iv. 100, ἄλλῳτετρόπῳπειράσαντες , καὶμηχανὴνπροσήγαγον , ἥπερεἷλεναὐτό , τοιάνδε . Herod. ix. 104, ἄλλαςτεκατηγεόμενοίσφιὁδοὺς — καὶτέλοςαὐτοίσφιἐγένοντοκτείνοντεςπολεμιώτατοι . See Bernhardy, p. 473) to His saints (all believers, not merely as in Ephesians 3:5, where the reference is different, the Apostles and prophets (see there, and cf. various readings here), as some of the Commentators have explained it , e.g. Est., Steiger, al., and Olsh., but regarding the Apostles only as the representatives of all believers): This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 2. First part of the Epistle. His earnestness in entering into and forwarding the Christian life among them, so amply set forth in ch. 1, is now more pointedly directed to warning them against false teachers. This he does by 1) connecting his conflict just spoken of, with the confirmation in spiritual knowledge of themselves and others whom he had not seen (vv. 1-3): 2) warning them against false wisdom which might lead them away from Christ (vv. 4-23): and that a) generally and in hints (vv. 4-15),— b) specifically and plain-spokenly (vv. 16-23). 1. For (follows on, and justifies, while it exemplifies, ἀγωνιζόμενος , ch. 1:29)— I would have you know how great (emphatic; not only that I have an ἀγών , but how great it is. The word is unusual, see reff.) a conflict (of anxiety and prayer, cf. ch. 4:12: his present imprisoned state necessitates this reference here: he could not be in conflict with the false teachers) I have on behalf of you and those in Laodicea (who probably were in the same danger of being led astray, see ch. 4:16: on Laodicea, see Prolegg. to Apocalypse, § iii. 13), and (it would not appear on merely grammatical grounds, whether this καί generalizes from the two specific instances, you and those in Laodicea, to the genus, including those two in the ὅσοι (see the two first reff., in the second of which however ἄλλα is added)— or adds another category to the two which have preceded, as in the third ref., Μακεδόνεςκαὶ … καὶ … καὶὅσοιτῆςΘρηΐκηςτὴνπαραλίηννέμονται . This must be decided on other grounds, viz. those furnished by the context: see below) (for) as many as have not seen (“ the form ἑώρακαν is decidedly Alexandrian.… The ‘ sonstige Gebrauch Pauli’ urged against it by Mey. is imaginary, as the third person plural does not elsewhere occur in St. Paul’ s Epistles.” Ellicott) my face in the flesh (my corporal presence: ἐνσαρκί must not be joined with the verb, as Chrys. seems to have done, who adds, δείκνυσινἐνταῦθα , ὅτιἑώρωνσυνεχῶςἐνπνεύματι ; for in ver. 5 the σαρκί is attached to the Apostle. But it is not necessary nor natural, with Estius, to see any ‘ ταπείνωσις , ut intelligant pluris faciendam esse præ sentiam spiritus quam carnis.’ Rather is the tendency of this verse the other way— to exalt the importance of the Apostle’ s bodily presence with a church, if its defect caused him such anxiety), that their hearts (these are the words on which the interpretation of the former καὶὅσοι must turn. If αὐτῶν apply to a separate class of persons, who had not seen him, whereas the Colossians and Laodiceans had, how are we to bring them into the ἀγών In ver. 4 the third person αὐτῶν becomes ὑμᾶς . Where is the link, on this hypothesis, that binds them together? The sentence will stand thus: “ I am anxious for you who have seen me, and for others who have not: for these last, that &c. &c. This I say that no man may deceive you.” What logical deduction can there be, from the circumstances of others, to theirs, unless they are included in the fact predicated of those others? in a word, unless the ὅσοι above include the Colossians and Laodiceans? Thus the αὐτῶν extends to the whole category of those who had never seen him, and the ὑμας of ver. 4 singles them specially out from among this category for special exhortation and warning. This seeming to be the only logical interpretation of the αὐτῶν and ὑμᾶς , the καί above must be ruled accordingly, to be not copulative but generalizing: see there) may be confirmed (see reff. It can hardly be doubted here, where he is treating, not of troubles and persecutions, but of being shaken from the faith, that the word, so manifold in its bearings, and so difficult to express in English, carries with it the meaning of strengthening, not of comforting merely. If we could preserve in ‘ comfort’ the trace of its derivation from ‘ confortari,’ it might answer here: but in our present usage, it does not convey any idea of strengthening. This I still hold against Ellicott), they being knit together (so E. V. well: not ‘ instructi,’ as vulg. On the construction, see reff. and Ephesians 3:18; Ephesians 4:2) in love and (besides the elementary unity) unto (as the object of the συμβ .) all (the) richness of the full assurance (reff. see also Luke 1:1) of the (Christian) understanding (the accumulated substantives shew us generally the Apostle’ s anxious desire for a special reason to impress the importance of the matter on them. οἶδά , φησιν , ὅτιπιστεύετε , ἀλλὰπληροφορηθῆναιὑμᾶςβούλομαι , οὐκεἰςτὸνπλοῦτονμόνον , ἀλλ ʼ εἰςπάντατὸνπλοῦτον , ἵνακαὶἐνπᾶσικαὶἐπιτεταμένωςπεπληροφορημένοιἦτε , Chrys.), unto the thorough-knowledge (on ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις , here clearly distinguished, see on ch. 1:9) of the mystery of God (the additions here found in the rec. and elsewhere seem to be owing to the common practice of annotating on the divine name to specify to which Person it belongs. Thus τοῦθεοῦ having been original, πατρός was placed against it by some, χριστοῦ or τοῦχριστοῦ by others: and then these found their way into the text in various combinations, some of which from their difficulty gave rise again to alterations, as may be seen in various readings. The reading in text, as accounting for all the rest, has been adopted by Griesb., Scholz, Tischdf. (edn. 2), Olsh., De Wette, al.: τοῦθεοῦχριστοῦ by Mey. and Steiger. This latter is also edited, in pursuance of his plan, by Lachm. The shorter reading was by that plan excluded from his present text, as not coming before his notice. In the present digest, the principal differing readings are printed in the same type as that in the text, because I have been utterly unable to fix the reading on any external authority, and am compelled to take refuge in that which appears to have been the origin of the rest. One thing is clear, that τοῦθεοῦχριστοῦ , which Ellicott adopts ‘ with some confidence,’ is simply one among many glosses, of which it is impossible to say that any has overwhelming authority. Such expressions were not corrected ordinarily by omission of any words, but constantly by supplementing them in various ways): in which (mystery, as Grot., Beng., Mey., De W., al. (Bisping well remarks, that the two in fact run into one, as Christ is Himself the μυστήριοντοῦθεοῦ . He might have referred to ch. 1:27 and 1 Timothy 3:16)— not ‘ in whom,’ as E. V. (but ‘ wherein’ in marg.), and so, understanding ‘ whom’ of Christ, Chrys., Thdrt., al.: for it is unnatural to turn aside from the main subject of the sentence,— the μυστήριον , and make this relative clause epexegetic of the dependent genitive merely. To this view the term ἀπόκρυχφος also testifies: see below) are all the secret (the ordinary rendering is, to make ἀπόκρυφοι the predicate after εἰσίν : ‘ in which are all, &c. hidden.’ The objection to this is, that it is contrary to fact: the treasures are not hidden, but revealed. The meaning given by Bä hr, B.-Crus., and Robinson (Lex.), ‘ laid up,’ lying concealed, ἀποκείμενα , does not belong to the word, nor is either of the places in the canonical LXX (reff.) an example of it. The rendering which I have adopted is that of Meyer, and I am persuaded on consideration that it is not only the only logical but the only grammatical one also. The ordinary one would require ἀποκεκρυμμένοι , or with ἀπόκρυφοι , a different arrangement of the words ἐνᾧἀπόκρυφοίεἰσιν , or ἐνᾧεἰσὶνἀπόκρυφοι . The objection, that for our rendering οἱἀπόκρυφοι would be required (Bä hr), shews ignorance of the logic of such usage. Where the whole subject is covered by the extent of the predicate, the latter, even though separated by an intervening clause from the former, does not require the specification by the article. It may have it, but need not. Thus if all the men in a fortress were Athenians, I might say 1) οἱἄνδρεςἐντούτῳἐντῷτείχειοἱἈθηναῖοι : but I might also say 2) of οἱἄνδρεςἐντούτῳἐντῷτείχειἈθηναῖοι . If however, part of the men were Platæ ans, I must use 1), and could not use 2). Here, it is not asserted that ‘ all the treasures, &c. which are secret, are contained in the mystery,’ others being implied which are not secret,— but the implication is the other way: ‘ the treasures, &c. are all secret, and all contained in the mystery.’ Ellicott’ s rendering of ἀπόκρυφοι as an adverbial predicate, ‘ hiddenly,’ is quite admissible, and tallies better with the classification and nomenclature of predicates, which he has adopted from Donaldson: but I question whether the rendering given above be not both more simple and more grammatical) treasures (see Plato, Phileb. p. 15 e, ὥςτινασοφίαςεὑρηκὼςθησαυρόν : Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 9, ἄγαμαίσουδιότιοὐκἀργυρίουκ . χρυσίουπροείλουθησαυροὺςκεκτῆσθαιμᾶλλονἢσοφίας : also ib. i. 7. 14) of wisdom and knowledge (σοφ ., the general, γνῶσις , the particular; see note on Ephesians 1:8). 4. See summary at the beginning of the chapter. [But (the contrast is between the assertion above, and the reason of it, now to be introduced)] this (viz. vv. 1-3, not ver. 3 only, as Thl., Calv., al.: for ver. 1 is alluded to in ver. 5,— and vv. 1-3 form a logically connected whole) I say, in order that (aim and design of it) no one may deceive you (the word is found in this sense in. Æ sch. p. 16, 33, ἀπάτῃτινὶπαραλογισάμενοςὑμᾶς ,— ib. in Ctesiph. (Wetst.), ἢτοὺςἀκούονταςἐπιλήσμοναςὑπολαμβάνειςἢσαυτὸνπαραλογίζῃ — also in Diod. Sic., &c., in Wetst. See also Palm u. Rost sub voce) in (element in which the deceit works) persuasive discourse (add to the ref. Plato, Theæ t. p. 162 e, σκοπεῖτεοὖν … εἰἀποδέξεσθεπιθανολογίᾳτεκ . εἰκόσιπερὶτηλικούτωνλεγομένουςλόγους , and see 1 Corinthians 2:4): 5. personal ground, why they should not be deceived: for though I am also (in εἰκαί the force of the καί does not extend over the whole clause introduced by the εἰ , as it does in καὶεἰ , but only belongs to the word immediately following it, which it couples, as a notable fact, to the circumstance brought out in the apodosis: so πόλινμέν , εἰκαὶμὴβλέπεις , φρονεῖςδ ʼ ὅμως , οἵᾳνόσῳξύνεστι , Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 302. See Hartung, i. 139) absent (there is no ground whatever from this expression for inferring that he had been at Colossæ , as Wiggers supposed, Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 181: nor would the mere expression in 1 Corinthians 5:3 authorize any such inference were it not otherwise known to be so) in the flesh (ver. 1 reff.), yet (ἀλλά introduces the apodosis when it is a contrast to a hypothetically expressed protasis: so Hom. Il. α . 81 f., εἴπεργάρτεχόλονγεκ . αὐτῆμαρκσταπέψῃ , ἀλλάτεκαὶμετόπισενἔχεικότον , ὄφρατελέσσῃ . See Hartung, ii. 40) in my spirit I am with you (reff.) rejoicing (in my earlier editions, I referred χαίρων to the fact of rejoicing at being able thus to be with you in spirit: but I see, as pointed out by Ellic., that this introduces a somewhat alien thought. I would now therefore explain it, not exactly as he does, by continuing the σὺνὑμῖν , but as referring to their general state: rejoicing as such presence would naturally suggest: the further explanation, καὶβλέπων &c., following) and (strictly copulative: there is no logical transposition, as De W., al.: nor is καί explicative, ‘ rejoicing, in that I see’ — as Calv., Est., al.: nor, which is nearly allied, is there any hendiadys, ‘ I rejoice, seeing,’ as Grot., Wolf, al.: nor need ἐφ ʼ ὑμῖν be supplied after χαίρως , as Winer and Fritzsche: but as above. The passage of Jos. in ref. is rather a coincidence of terms than an illustration of construction) seeing your order (ἡσυμπᾶσασχέσιςκ . τάξιςτῆςοἰκουμένης , Polyb. i. 4. 6: see also 36. 6; Plato Gorg. p. 504 a. It is often used of the organization of a state, e.g. Demosth. p. 200. 4, ταύτηντὴντάξιναἱρεῖσθαιτῆςπολιτείας . Here it imports the orderly arrangement of a harmonized and undivided church. Mey.) and (as τάξις was the outward manifestation, so this is the inward fact on which it rested) the solid basis (ὅτεπολλὰσυναγαγὼνσυγκολλήσειςπυκνῶςκ . ἀδιασπαστῶς , τότεστερἐωμαγίνεται . Chrys. It does not mean ‘ firmness’ (Conyb.), nor ‘ stedfastness’ (E. V.), nor indeed any abstract quality at all: but, as all nouns in -μα , the concrete product of the abstract quality) of your faith on Christ. 6. As then (he has described his conflict and his joy on their behalf— he now exhorts them to justify such anxiety and approval by consistency with their first faith) ye received (from Epaphras and your first teachers) Jesus the Christ the Lord (it is necessary, in order to express the full sense of τὸνχρ . Ἰησ . τὸνκύρ ., to give something of a predicative force both to τὸνχρ . and to τὸνκύρ .: see 1 Corinthians 12:3 (but hardly so strong as “ for your Lord,” as rendered in my earlier editions: see Ellicott here). The expression ὁχρ . Ἰησ . ὁκύρ . occurs only here: the nearest approach to it is in 2 Corinthians 4:5, … κηρύσσομεν … χριστὸνἸησ . κύριον : where also κύρ . is a predicate: but this is even more emphatic and solemn. Cf. also Philippians 3:8, τὸὑπερέχοντῆςγνώσεωςχρ . Ἰησοῦτοῦκυρ . μου . On the sense, Bisping says well: “ Notice that Paul here says, παρελάβετετὸνχριστόν , and not παρελ . τὸνλόγοντοῦχρ . True faith is a spiritual communion: for in faith we receive not only the doctrine of Christ, but Himself, into us: in faith He Himself dwells in us: we cannot separate Christ, as Eternal Truth, and His doctrine” ), in Him walk (carry on your life of faith and practice), rooted (see Ephesians 3:18) and being continually built up in Him (as both the soil and the foundation— in both cases the conditional element. It is to be noticed 1) how the fervid style of St. Paul, disdaining the nice proprieties of rhetoric, sets forth the point in hand by inconsistent similitudes: the walking implying motion, the rooting and building, rest; 2) that the rooting, answering to the first elementary grounding in Him, is in the past: the being built up, answering to the continual increase in Him, is present. See Ephesians 2:20, where this latter is set forth as a fact in the past) and confirmed in the (or, your) faith (dat. of reference: it seems hardly natural with Mey. to take it instrumental, as there is no question of instrumental means in this passage), as ye were taught, abounding in it (reff.) in thanksgiving (the field of operation, or element, in which that abundance is manifested. “ Non solum volo vos esse confirmatos in fide, verum etiam in ea proficere et proficiendo abundare per pleniorem mysteriorum Christi cognitionem: idque cum gratiarum actione erga Deum, ut auctorem hujus totius boni.” Est.). 8-15. See summary, on ver. 1— general warning against being seduced by a wisdom which was after men’ s tradition, and not after Christ,— of whose perfect work, and their perfection in Him, he reminds them. 8. Take heed lest there shall be (the future indicative expresses strong fear lest that which is feared should really be the case; so Aristoph. Eccles. 487, περισκοπουμένηκἀκεῖσεκαὶτἀκδεξιᾶς , μὴξυμφορὰγενήσεταιτὸπρᾶγμα . Hartung, ii. 138: see reff. and Winer, § 56. 2. b a) any one Who (cf. τινὲςοἱταράσσοντες , ref. Gal. and note. It points at some known person) leads you away as his prey (Mey. connects the word in imagery with the foregoing περιπατεῖτε — but this perhaps is hardly necessary after the disregard to continuity of metaphor shewn in vv. 6, 7. The meaning ‘ to rob’ (so with τὸνοἶκον , Aristæ n. ii. 22), adopted here by Thdrt. , ‘ to undermine,’ Chrys. , hardly appears suitable on account of the κατὰ … κατά , which seem to imply motion. We have (see Rost and Palm’ s Lex.) συλαγωγεῖνπαρθένον in Heliod. and Nicet., which idea of abduction is very near that here) by means of his (or the article may signify, as Ellic., the current, popular, philosophy of the day: but I prefer the possessive meaning: see below) philosophy and empty deceit — Clem. Strom, i. 11, 50, vol. i. p. 346, P. , Grot. al. As De W. observes, Josephus calls the doctrine of the Jewish sects philosophy: Antt. xviii. 2. 1,— Ἰουδαίοιςφιλοσοφίαιτρεῖςἦσαν , ἥτετῶνἘσσηνῶνκ . ἡτῶνΣαδδουκαίων , τρίτηνδὲἐφιλοσόφουνοἱΦαρισαῖοι . The character of the philosophy here meant, as gathered from the descriptions which follow, was that mixture of Jewish and Oriental, which afterwards expanded into gnosticism), according to the tradition of men (this tradition, derived from men, human and not divine in its character, set the rule to this his philosophy, and according to this he ἐσυλαγώγει : such is the grammatical construction; but seeing that his philosophy was the instrument by which, the character given belongs in fact to his philosophy), according to the elements (see on Galatians 4:3: the rudimentary lessons: i.e. the ritualistic observances (‘ nam continuo post exempli loco speciem unam adducit, circumcisionem scilicet,’ Calv.) in which they were becoming entangled) of the world (all these belonged to the earthly side— were the carnal and imperfect phase of knowledge— now the perfect was come, the imperfect was done away), and not (negative characteristic, as the former were the affirmative characteristics, of this philosophy) according to Christ : 9. because in Him (emphatic: in Him alone) dwelleth (now, in His exaltation) all the fulness (cf. on ch. 1:19, and see below) of the Godhead (Deity: the essential being of God: ‘ das Gott sein,’ as Meyer. θεότης , the abstract of θεός , must not be confounded with θειότης the abstract of θεῖος , divine, which occurs in Romans 1:20, where see Fritzsche’ s note. θεότης does not occur in the classics, but is found in Lucian, Icaromenippus, c. 9: τὸνμέντιναπρῶτονθεὸνἐπεκάλουν , τοῖςδὲτὰδεὺτερακ . τὰτρίταἔνεμοντῆςθεότητος . ‘ The fulness of the Godhead’ here spoken of must be taken, as indeed the context shews, metaphysically, and not as ‘ all fulness’ in ch. 1:19, where the historical Christ, as manifested in redemption, was in question; see this well set forth in Mey.’ s note. There, the lower side, so to speak, of that fulness, was set forth— the side which is presented to us here, is the higher side. Some strangely take πλήρωμα here to mean the Church— so Heinr. in Mey.: “ Ab eo collecta est omnis ex omnibus sine discrimine gentibus ecclesia, eo tauquam οἴκῳ , tanquam σώματι , continetur gubernaturque.” Others again hold Christ here to mean the Church, in whom [or which] the πλήρωμα dwells: so τινές in Thdrt. and Chrys.) bodily (i.e. manifested corporeally, in His present glorified Body— cf. on οἰκεῖ above, and Philippians 3:21. Before His incarnation, it dwelt in Him, as the λόγοςἄσαρκος , but not σωματικῶς , as now that He is the λόγοςἔνσαρκος . This is the obvious, and I am persuaded only tenable interpretation. And so Calov., Est., De W., Mey., Eadie, al. Others have been 1) ‘ really,’ as distinguished from τυπικῶς : so,— resting for the most part on ver. 17, where the reference is quite different,— Aug., Corn.-a-lap., Grot., Schö ttg., Wolf, Nö sselt, Rev_2) ‘ essentially,’ οὐσιωδῶς , as contrasted with the energic dwelling of God in the prophets: the objection to which is that the word cannot have this meaning: so Cyr., Thl., Calv., Beza, Usteri, p. 324, Olsh., al.), and ye are in Him (in your union with Him,— ‘ Christo cum sitis semel insiti,’ Erasm. in Mey.) filled up (with all divine gifts— so that you need not any supplementary sources of grace such as your teachers are directing you to,— reff.: τῆςγὰρἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦχάριτοςἀπελαύσατε , as Thdrt.: cf. John 1:16, ἐκτοῦπληρώματοςαὐτοῦἡμεῖςπάντεςἑλάβομεν : not, as Chrys., Thl., De W., ‘ with the fulness of the Godhead,’ which is not true, and would require ἧςἐστεκαὶὑμεῖςἐναὐτ . πεπλ . Nor must ἐστε be taken as imperative, against the whole context, which is assertive, no less than usage— ‘ verbum ἐστέ nunquam in N. T. sensu imperandi adhibitum invenio, v. c. ἐστὲοἰκτίρμονες , sed potius γίνεσθε , cf. 1 Corinthians 10:32; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Corinthians 15:58: et Ephesians 4:32; Ephesians 5:1, Ephesians 5:7, Ephesians 5:17, &c. Itaque si Paulus imperare hoc loco quicquam voluisset, scripturus potius erat κ . γίνεσθεἐναὐτῷπεπληρ .’ Wolf. What follows, shews them that He their perfection, is not to be mixed up with other dignities, as objects of adoration, for He is the Head of all such)— who is the Head of every government and power: 11. (nor do you need the rite of circumcision to make you complete, for you have already received in Him the spiritual substance, of which that rite is but the shadow) in whom ye also were circumcised (not as E. V. ‘ are circumcised,’ — the reference being to the historical fact of their baptism) with a circumcision not wrought by hands (see Ephesians 2:11, and Romans 2:29. The same reference to spiritual (ethical) circumcision is found in Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6: Ezekiel 44:7: Acts 7:51), in (consisting in— which found its realization in) your putting off (= when you threw off: ἀπεκδ ., the putting off and laying aside, as a garment: an allusion to actual circumcision,— see below) of the body of the flesh (i.e. as ch. 1:22, the body of which the material was flesh: but more here: so also its designating attribute, its leading principle, was fleshliness— the domination of the flesh which is a σὰρξἁμαρτίας , Romans 8:3. This body is put off in baptism, the sign and seal of the new life. “ When ethically circumcised, i.e. translated by μετάνοια out of the state of sin into that of the Christian life of faith, we have no more the σῶματῆςσαρκός : for the body, which we bear, is disarrayed of its sinful σάρξ as such, quoad its sinful quality: we are no more ἐντῇσαρκί as before, when lust ἐνηργεῖτοἐντοῖςμέλεσιν (Romans 7:5, cf. ib. ver. 23): we are no more σάρκινοι , πεπραμένοιὑπὸτήνἁμαρτίαν (Romans 7:14), and walk no more κατὰσάρκα , but ἐνκαινότητιπνεύματος (Romans 7:6), so that our members are ὅπλαδικαιοσύνηςτῷθεῷ (Romans 6:13). This Christian transformation is set forth in its ideal conception, irrespective of its imperfect realization in our experience.” Meyer. To understand τὸσῶμα to signify ‘ the mass,’ us Calv. , Grot. , al.,— besides that it is bound up very much with the reading τῶνἁμαρτιῶν , is out of keeping with N. T. usage, and with the context, which is full of images connected with the body),— in (parallel to ἐν before— then the circumcision without hands was explained, now it is again adduced with another epithet bringing it nearer home to them) the circumcision of Christ (belonging to, brought about by union with, Christ: nearly =, but expresses more than ‘ Christian circumcision,’ inasmuch as it shews that the root and cause of this circumcision without hands is in Christ, the union with whom is immediately set forth. Two other interpretations are given: 1) that in which Christ is regarded as the circumciser: ὁχρ . περιτέμνειἐντῷβαπτίσματι , ἀπεκδύνἡμᾶςτοῦπαλαιοῦβίου , Thl., but not exactly so Chrys., who says, οὐκέτιφησὶνἐνμαχαίρᾳἡπεριτ ., ἀλλ ʼ ἐναὐτῷτῷχρ .· οὐγὰρχεῖρἐπάγει , καθὼςἐκεῖ , τ . περιτομὴνταύτην , ἀλλὰτὸπνεῦμα . Beza combines both— ‘ Christus ipse nos intus suo spiritu circumcidit.’ 2) that in which Christ is the circumcised— so Schö ttg.: “ per circumcisionem Christi nos omnes circumcisi sumus. Hoc est: circumeisio Christi qui se nostri causa sponte legi subjecit, tam efficax fuit in omnes homines, ut nulla amplius circumcisione carnis opus sit, præ cipue quum in locum illius baptismus a Christo surrogatus sit” (i. p. 816). The objection to both is, that they introduce irrelevant elements into the context. The circumcision which Christ works, would not naturally be followed by συνταφέντεςαὐτῷ , union with Him: that which was wrought on Him might be thus followed, but would not come in naturally in a passage which describes, not the universal efficacy of the rite once for all performed on Him, but the actual undergoing of it in a spiritual sense, by each one of us), 12. (goes on to connect this still more closely with the person of Christ— q. d., in the circumcision of Christ, to whom you were united, &c.)— buried together (i.e. ‘ when you were buried:’ the aorist participle, as so often, is contemporary with the preceding past verb) with Him in your baptism (the new life being begun at baptism,— an image familiar alike to Jews and Christians,— the process itself of baptism is regarded as the burial of the former life: originally, perhaps, owing to the practice of immersion, which would most naturally give rise to the idea: but to maintain from such a circumstance that immersion is necessary in baptism, is surely the merest trifling, and a resuscitation of the very ceremonial spirit which the Apostle here is arguing against. As reasonably might it be argued, from the ἀπέκδυσις here, that nakedness was an essential in that sacrament. The things represented by both figures belong to the essentials of the Christian life: the minor details of the sacrament which corresponded to them, may in different ages or climates be varied; but the spiritual figures remain. At the same time, if circumstances concurred,— e.g. a climate where the former practice was always safe, and a part of the world, or time of life, where the latter would be no shock to decency,— there can be no question that the external proprieties of baptism ought to be complied with. And on this principle the baptismal services of the Church of England are constructed); in which (i.e. baptism: not, as Mey. (and so most expositors), ‘ in whom,’ i.e. Christ. For although it is tempting enough to r, ard the ἐνᾧκαί as parallel with the ἐνᾧκαί above, we should be thus introducing a second and separate leading idea into the argument, manifestly occupied with one leading idea, viz. the completeness of your Christian circumcision,— cf. ἀκροβυστίᾳ again below,— as realized in your baptism: whereas on this hypothesis we should be breaking off from baptism altogether,— for there would be no link to connect the present sentence with the former, but we must take up again from ἐξουσίας . This indeed is freely confessed by Mey., who holds that all allusion to baptism is at an end here, and that the following is a benefit conferred by faith as separate from baptism. But see below. His objection, that if ἐνᾧ applied to baptism, it would not correspond to the rising again, which should be ἐξοὗ , or at all events the unlocal δι ʼ οὗ , arises from the too precise materialization of the image. As ἐν before did not necessarily apply to the mere going under the water, but to the process of the sacrament, so ἐν now does not necessarily apply to the coming up out of the water, but also to the process of the sacrament. In it, we both die and rise again,— both unclothe and are clothed) ye were also raised again with Him (not your material, but your spiritual resurrection is in the foreground: it is bound on, it is true, to His material resurrection, and brings with it in the background, yours: but in the spiritual, the material is included and taken for granted, as usual in Scripture) by (means of: the mediate, not the efficient cause: the hand which held on, not the plank that saved. I am quite unable to see why this illustration is, as Ellic. states, “ in more than one respect, not dogmatically satisfactory.” Surely it is dogmatically exact to say that Faith is the hand by which we lay hold on Christ the Ark of our refuge) your faith in (so Chrys., Thdrt., Œ c., Thl., Erasm., Beza, Calv., Grot., Est., Corn.-a-lap., Mey., al., Beng. (‘ fides est (opus) operationis divinæ ’ ), al., and Luther. De W. understands faith wrought by God (‘ durch den Glauben den Gott wirket,’ Luth.: ‘ mittelst des Glaubens Kraft der Wirksamkeit Gottes,’ De W.). But both usage and the context are against this. The genitive after πίστις is ever (against Ellic. here) of the object of faith, see reff., and on Ephesians 1:19) the operation of God (in Christ— that mighty power by which the Father raised Him, cf. Romans 8:11; ἣνἐνήργηκενἐνχριστῷ , Ephesians 1:20) who raised Him from the dead (πιστεύοντεςγὰρτῇτοῦθεοῦδυνάμειπροσμένομεντὴνἀνάστασιν , ἐνέχυρονἔχοντεςτοῦδεσπότουχριστοῦτὴνἀνάστασιν . Thdrt. But there is very much more asserted than the more προσμένειντὴνἀνάστασιν — the power of God in raising the dead to life is one and the same in our Lord and in us— the physical power exerted in Him is not only a pledge of the same physical power to be exerted in us, but a condition and assurance of a spiritual power already exerted in us, whereby we are in spirit risen with Christ, the physical resurrection being included and taken for granted in that other and greater one): 13-15. Application, first to the (Gentile) Colossians, then to all believers, of the whole blessedness of this participation in Christ’ s resurrection, and assertion of the antiquation of the law, and subjection of all secondary powers to Christ. And you, who were (or perhaps more strictly, when you were) dead (allusion to ἐκ [τῶν ] νεκρῶν immediately preceding) in your trespasses (see Ephesians 2:1, notes) and (in) the uncircumcision of (i.e. which consisted in: this is better than, with Ellic., to regard the gen. as simply possessive) your flesh (i.e. having on you still your fleshly sinful nature, the carnal præ putium which now, as spiritual, you have put away. So that, as Mey. very properly urges, it is not in ἀκροβυστία , but in τῆςσαρκός , that the ethical significance lies— ἀκροβυστία being their state still, but now indifferent), He (God— who, not Christ, is the subject of the whole sentence, vv. 13-15. See the other side ingeniously, but to me not convincingly defended in Ellic.’ s note here. He has to resort to the somewhat lame expedient of altering αὐτῷ into αὑτῷ : and even then the sentence would labour under the theological indecorum of making our Lord not the Resumer of His own Life merely, but the very Worker of acts which are by Himself and His Apostles always predicated of the Father. It will be seen by the whole translation and exegesis which follows, that I cannot for a moment accept the view which makes Christ the subject of these clauses) quickened you (this repetition of the personal pronoun is by no means unexampled, cf. Aristoph. Acharn. 391,— νῦνοὖνμεπρῶτονπρὶνλέγεινἐάσατε | ἐνσκευάσασθαίμ ʼ οἷονἀθλιώτατον : see also Soph. Œ d. Col. 1407: Demosth. p. 1225. 16-19. Bernhardy, p. 275 f.) together with Him (Christ: brought you up,— objectively at His Resurrection, and subjectively when you were received among His people,— out of this death. The question as to the reference, whether to spiritual or physical resurrection, is answered by remembering that the former includes the latter), having forgiven (the aorist participle (which aor. ‘ having forgiven’ is in English, we having but one past active participle) is here not contemporaneous with συνεζωοπ . but antecedent: this forgiveness was an act of God wrought once for all in Christ, cf. ἡμῖν below, and 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 4:32) us (he here passes from the particular to the general— from the Colossian Gentiles to all believers) all our transgressions (ἃτὴννεκρότηταἐποίει , Chrys.: but this, though true, makes the χαρισάμ . apply to the συνεζ ., which it does not), having wiped out ἐξαλεῖψαι , καὶοὐπάλαιβεβούλευσθε ;) the handwriting in decrees (cf. the similar expression τὸννόμοντῶνἐντολῶνἐνδόγμασιν , Ephesians 2:15, and notes. Here, the force of -γραφον passes on to the dative, as if it were τὸγεγραμμένοντοῖςδόγμασιν — cf. Plato, Ep. vii. p. 343 a, κ . ταῦταεἰςἀμετακίνητον , ὃδὴπάσχειτὰγεγραμμένατύποις . This explanation of the construction is negatived by Ellicott, on the ground of χειρόγραφος being “ a synthetic compound, and apparently incapable of such a decomposition:” referring to Donaldson, Gram. § 369 (it is § 377). But there it is laid down that in synthetic compounds of this kind, the accent makes the difference between transitive and intransitive, without any assertion that the verbal element may not pass on in the construction. If χειρόγραφον means written by hands, then surely the element in which the writing consists may follow. Meyer would make the dative instrumental: but it can be so only in a very modified sense, the contents taken as the instrument whereby the sense is conveyed. The χειρόγρ . represents the whole law, the obligatory bond which was against us (see below), and is apparently used because the Decalogue, representing that law, was written on tables of stone with the finger of God. The most various interpretations of it have been given. Calv., Beza, al., understand it of the mere ritual law: Calov., of the moral, against πάντατὰπαραπτ . above: Luther, Zwingl., al., of the law of conscience. Thdrt.’ s view is very curious: he interprets τὸχειρόγρ . to mean our human body,— ὁτοίνυνθεὸςλόγος , τὴνἡμετέρανφύσινἀναλαβών , πάσηςαὐτὴνἁμαρτίαςἐλευθέρανἐφύλαξε , κ . ἐξήλειψετὰκακῶςὑφ ʼ ἡμῶνἐναὐτῇγενόμενατῶνὀφλημάτωνγράμματα . He urges as an objection to the usual interpretation, that the law was for Jews, not Gentiles, whereas the Apostle says καθ ʼ ἡμῶν . But this is answered by remembering, that the law was just as much against the Gentiles as against the Jews: it stood in their way of approach to God, see Romans 3:19: through it they would be compelled to come to Him, and by it, whether written on stone or on fleshy tablets, they were condemned before Him. Chrys., Œ c., Thl., al., would understand τὸχειρόγραφονὃἐποίησεπρὸςἈδὰμὁθεὸςεἰπὼνᾗἂνἡμέρα̣φάγῃςἀπὸτοῦξύλου , ἀποθάνῃ — but this is against the whole anti-judaistic turn of the sentence) which was hostile to us (the repetition of the sentiment already contained in καθ ʼ ἡμῶν seems to be made by way of stronger emphasis, as against the false teachers, reasserting and invigorating the fact that the law was no help, but a hindrance to us. There does not appear to be any force of ‘ subcontrarius’ in ὑπεναντίος ; Mey. refers, besides reff., to Herod. iii. 80, τὸδ ʼ ὑπεναντίοντούτουεἰςτοὺςπολιήταςπέφυκε — to ὑπεναντιότης , Diog. Laert. x. 77: ὑπεναντιότης , Aristot. poet. xxvi. 22 ὑπεναντίωσις , Demosth. 1405. 18), and (not only so, but) has taken it (the handwriting itself, thus obliterated) away , by nailing it to the cross (“ since by the death of Christ on the cross the condemnatory law lost its hold on us, inasmuch as Christ by this death bore the curse of the law for mankind (Galatians 3:13),— in the fact of Christ being nailed to the Cross the Law was nailed thereon, in so far as, by Christ’ s crucifixion, it lost its obligatory power and ceased to be ἐνμέσῳ .” Meyer. Chrys. finely says, οὐδαμοῦοὕτωςμεγαλοφώνωςἐφθέγξατο . δρᾷςσπουδὴντοῦἀφανισθῆναιτὸχειρ . ὅσηνἐποιήσατο ; οἷονπάντεςἦμενὑφ ʼ ἁμαρτίανκ . κόλασιν , αὐτὸςκολασθεὶςἔλυσεκ . τὴνἁμαρτίνκ . τὴνκόλασιν · ἐκολάσθηδὲἐντῷσταυρῷ ). 15. The utmost care must be taken to interpret this verse according to the requirements of grammar and of the context. The first seems to me to necessitate the rendering of ἀπεκδυσάμενος , not, as the great majority of Commentators, ‘ having spoiled’ , a meaning unexampled for the middle, and precluded by the plain usage, by the Apostle himself, a few verses below, ch. 3:9, of the same word ἀπεκδυσάμενοι ,— but ‘ having put off,’ ‘ divested himself of.’ Then the second must guide us to the meaning of τὰςἀρχὰςκαὶτὰςἐξουσίας . Most Commentators have at once assumed these to be the infernal powers, or evil angels: relying on Ephesians 6:12, where undoubtedly such is the specific reference of these general terms. But the terms being general, such specific reference must be determined by the context of each passage,— or, indeed, there may be no such specific reference at all, but they may be used in their fullest general sense. Now the words have occurred before in this very passage, ver. 10, where Christ is exalted as the κεφαλὴπάσηςἀρχῆςκ . ἐξουσίας : and it is hardly possible to avoid connecting our present expression with that, seeing that in τὰςἀρχὰςκ . τὰςἐξουσίας the articles seem to contain a manifest reference to it. Now, what is the context? Is it in any way relevant to the fact of the law being antiquated by God in the great Sacrifice of the atonement, to say that He, in that act (or, according to others, Christ in that act), spoiled and triumphed over the infernal potentates? Or would the following οὖν deduce any legitimate inference from such a fact? But, suppose the matter to stand in this way. The law was διαταγεὶςδι ʼ ἀγγέλων (Galatians 3:19: cf. Acts 7:53), ὁδιἀγγέλωνλαληθεὶςλόγος (Hebrews 2:2): cf. also Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, ἡμῶντὰκάλλιστατῶνδογμάτων , κ . τὰὁσιώτατατῶνἐντοῖςνόμοιςδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνπαρὰτ . θεοῦμαθόντων ;— they were the promulgators of the χειρόγραφοντοῖςδόγμασιν . In that promulgation of theirs, God was pleased to reveal Himself of old. That writing, that investiture, so to speak, of God, was first wiped out, soiled and rendered worthiess, and then nailed to the Cross— abrogated and suspended there. Thus God ἀπεξεδύσατοτὰςἀρχὰςκ . τὰςἐξουσίας — divested Himself of, put off from Himself, that ἀγγέλωνδιαταγή , manifesting Himself henceforward without a veil in the exalted Person of Jesus. And the act of triumph, by which God has for ever subjected all principality and power to Christ, and made Him to be the only Head of His people, in whom they are complete, was that sacrifice, whereby all the law was accomplished. In that, the ἀρχαὶκ . ἐξουσίαι were all subjected to Christ, all plainly declared to be powerless as regards His work and His people, and triumphed over by Him, see Philippians 2:8, Philippians 2:9: Ephesians 1:20, Ephesians 1:21. No difficulty need be created, on this explanation, by the objection, that thus more prominence would be given to angelic agency in the law than was really the fact: the answer is, that the prominence which is given, is owing to the errors of the false teachers, who had evidently associated the Jewish observances in some way with the worship of angels: St. Paul’ s argument will go only to this, that whatever part the angelic powers may have had, or be supposed to have had, in the previous dispensation, all such interposition was now entirely at an end, that dispensation itself being once for all antiquated and put away. Render then,— putting off the governments and powers (before spoken of, ver. 10, and ch. 1:16: see above) He (God, who is the subject throughout: see also ch. 3:3:— not Christ, which would awkwardly introduce two subjects into the sentence) exhibited them to the simple verb. That this sense is involved in Matthew 1:19, is owing to the circumstances of the context) in openness , triumphing over them (as in 2 Corinthians 2:14, we are said (see note there) to be led captive in Christ’ s triumph, our real victory being our defeat by Him,— so here the principalities and powers, which are next above us in those ranks of being which are all subjected to and summed up in Him) in Him (Christ: not ‘ in it,’ viz. the cross, which gives a very feeble meaning after the ἐγείραντοςαὐτόν , and συνεζωοπ . σὺναὐτῷ above). The ordinary interpretation of this verse has been attempted by some to be engrafted into the context, by understanding the χειρόγρ . of a guilty conscience, the ἀρχ . κ . ἐξ . as the infernal powers, the accusers of man, and the scope of the exhortation as being to dissuade the Colossians from fear or worship of them. So Neander, in a paraphrase (Denkwü rdigkeiten, p. 12) quoted by Conyb. and Howson, edn. 2, vol. ii. p. 478 note. But manifestly this is against the whole spirit of the passage. It was θρησκείατῷνἀγγέλων to which they were tempted— and οἱἄγγελοι can bear no meaning but the angels of God. 16-23. More specific warning against false teachers (see summary on ver. 1), and that first (vv. 16, 17) with reference to legal observances and abstinence. 16. Let no one therefore (because this is so— that ye are complete in Christ, and that God in Him hath put away and dispensed with all that is secondary and intermediate) judge you (pronounce judgment of right or wrong over you, sit in judgment on you) in (reff.) eating , see reff.; in John 4:32; John 6:27, John 6:55, it seems to have this signification. Mey. quotes Il. τ . 210, Od. α . 191, Plato, Legg. vi. p. 783 c, to shew that in classical Greek the meanings are sometimes interchanged. The same is true of πόσις and πόμα ) and (or or) in drinking (i.e. in the matter of the whole cycle of legal ordinances and prohibitions which regarded eating and drinking: these two words being perhaps taken not separately and literally,— for there does not appear to have been in the law any special prohibition against drinks,— but as forming together a category in ordinary parlance. If however it is desired to press each word, the reference of πόσις must be to the Nazarite vow, Numbers 6:3) or in respect (reff.: Chrys. and Thdrt. give it the extraordinary meaning of ‘ in part,’ — ἐνμέρειἑορτῆς · οὐγὰρδὴπάντακατεῖχοντὰπρότερα : Mey. explains it, ‘ in the category of— which is much the same as the explanation in the text) of a feast or new-moon or sabbaths (i.e. yearly, monthly, or weekly celebrations; see reff.), 17. which (if the sing. be read, the relative may refer either to the aggregate of the observances mentioned, or to the last mentioned, i.e. the Sabbath. Or it may be singular by attraction, and refer to all, just as if it were plural, see Matthew 12:4) is (or as in rec. are: not, ‘ was,’ or were: he speaks of them in their nature, abstractedly) a shadow (not, a sketch, σκιαγραφία or -φημα , which meaning is precluded by the term opposed being σῶμα , not the finished picture,— but literally the shadow: see below) of things to come : nor with the same Commentator, interpret τῶνμελλ . of the yet future blessings of the state following the παρουσία ,— for which ἐστιν (see above) gives no ground. Nor again must we imagine that the obscurity (Suicer, al.) of the Jewish dispensation is alluded to, there being no subjective comparison instituted between the two,— only their objective relation stated); but the body (the substance, of which the other is the shadow) belongs to Christ (i.e. the substantial blessings, which those legal observances typified, are attached to, brought in by, found in union with, Christ: see on the whole figure Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 10:1). We may observe, that if the ordinance of the Sabbath had been, in any form, of lasting obligation on the Christian Church, it would have been quite impossible for the Apostle to have spoken thus. The fact of an obligatory rest of one day, whether the seventh or the first, would have been directly in the teeth of his assertion here: the holding of such would have been still to retain the shadow, while we possess the substance. And no answer can be given to this by the transparent special-pleading, that he is speaking only of that which was Jewish in such observances; the whole argument being general, and the axiom of ver. 17 universally applicable. I cannot see that Ellicott in loc. has at all invalidated this. To hold, as he does, that the sabbath was a σκιά of the Lord’ s day, is surely to fall into the same error as we find in the title of 1Co_10 in our authorized bibles,— ‘ The Jewish Sacraments were types of ours.’ The antitype is not to be found in another and a higher type, but in the eternal verity which both shadow forth. An extraordinary punctuation of this verse was proposed by some mentioned by Chrys.: οἱμὲνοὖντοῦτοστίζουσι , τὸδὲσῶμα , χριστοῦ . ἡδὲἀλήθειαἐπὶχριστοῦγέγονεν · οἱδὲ , τὸδὲσῶμαχριστοῦμηδεὶςὑμᾶςκαταβραβευέτω · and Aug. ep. 149 (59). 27, vol. ii. p. 841 f., has ‘ corpus autem Christi nemo vos convincat. Turpe est, inquit … ut cum sitis corpus Christi, seducamini umbris.’ No wonder that the same father should confess of the passage, ‘ nec ego sine caligine intelligo.’ 18-23. See above— warning, 2ndly, with reference to angel-worship and asceticism. 18. Let no one of purpose (such is by far the best rendering of θέλων ,— to take it with καταβραβ . and understand it precisely as in ref. 2 Pet. And thus apparently Thl.: θέλουσινὑμᾶςκαταβραβεύεινδιὰταπεινοφροσ . Mey. pronounces this meaning ‘ ganz unpassend, and controverts the passages brought to defend it; omitting however ref. 2 Pet. So also does Ellicott, believing it to “ impute to the false teachers a frightful and indeed suicidal malice, which is neither justified by the context, nor in any way credible.” But his own “ desiring to do it” is hardly distinguishable from that other: nor does it at all escape the imputation of motive which he finds so improbable. But surely it is altogether relevant, imputing to the false teachers not only error, but insidious designs also. Others take θέλων with ἐνταπ ., keeping however its reference as above, and understanding, as Phot. in Œ c., τοῦτοποιεῖν after it. So Thdrt., τοῦτοτοίνυνσυνεβούλευονἐκεῖνοιγίνεσθαιταπεινοφροσύνῃδῆθενκεχρημένοι ,— Calv., ‘ volens id facere,’ — Mey., Eadie, al. This latter, after Bengel, assigns as his reason for adopting this view, that the participles θέλων , ἐμβατεύων , φνσιούμενος , κρατῶν , form a series. This however is not strictly true— for θέλων would stand in a position of emphasis which does not belong to the next two: rather should we thus expect ἐνταπ . θέλωνκ . θρ . τῶνἀγγ . I cannot help thinking this rendering flat and spiritless. Others again suppose a harsh Hebraism, common in the LXX (reff., especially Psalms 146:10), but not found in the N. T., by which θέλεινἐν is put for ח ָ פ ֵ ץ ב ּ ְ , ‘ to have pleasure in.’ So Aug., Est., Olsh., al. The principal objection to this rendering here is, that it would be irrelevant. Not the delight which the false teacher takes in his ταπ . &c., but the fact of it as operative on the Colossians, and its fleshly sources, are adduced) defraud you of your prize (see reff. Demosth. Mey. points out the difference between καταβρ ., a fraudulent adjudication with hostile intent against the person wronged, and παραβραβεύειν , which is merely, as Thdrt. explains this, ἀδίκωςβραβεύειν . So Polyb. xxiv. 1. 12, τινὲςδ ʼ ἐγκαλοῦντεςτοῖςκρίμασιν , ὡςπαραβεβραβευμένοις , διαφθείραντοςτοῦΦιλίππουτοὺςδικαστάς . Supplying this, which Chrys. has not marked, we may take his explanation: καταβραβευθῆναιγάρἐστινὅτανπαρ ʼ ἑτέρωνμὲνἡνίκη , παρ ʼ ἑτέρωνδὲτὸβραβεῖον . Zonaras gives it better, in Suicer ii. 49: καταβρ . ἐστι , τὸμὴτὸννικήσανταἀξιοῦντοῦβραβείου , ἀλλ ʼ ἑτέρῳδιδόναιαὐτό , ἀδικουμένουτοῦνικήσαντος . This deprivation of their prize, and this wrong, they would suffer at the hands of those who would draw them away from Christ the giver of the prize (2 Timothy 4:8. James 1:12. 1 Peter 5:4), and lower them to the worship of intermediate spiritual beings. The various meanings,— ‘ ne quis brabeutæ potestatem usurpans atque adeo abutens, vos currentes moderetur, perperamque præ scribat quid sequi quid fugere debeatis præ mium accepturi’ (Beng.),— ‘ nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi ultro sumat’ (Beza and similarly Corn.-a-lap.),— ‘ præ mium, id est libertatem a Christo indultam, exigere’ (Grot.),— are all more or less departures from the meaning of the word) in (as the element and sphere of his καταβραβ .) humility (αἵρεσιςἦνπαλαιὰλεγόντωντινῶνὅτιοὐδεῖτὸνχριστὸνἐπικαλεῖσθαιεἰςβοήθειαν , ἢεἰςπροσαγωγὴντὴνπρὸςτὸνθεόν , ἀλλὰτοὺςἀγγέλουςὡςτάχατοῦτὸνχριστὸνἐπικαλεῖσθαιπρὸςτὰεἰρημέναμείζονοςὄντοςτῆςἡμετέραςἀξίας . τοῦτοδὲτάχαταπεινούμενοιἕλεγον . Zonaras in canon 35 of the Council of Laodicea, in Suicer i. p. 45. Similarly Thdrt., λέγοντεςὡςἀόρατοςὁτῶνὅλωνθεός , ἀνεφικτόςτεκ . ἀκατάληπτος , κ . προσήκειδιὰτῶνἀγγέλωντὴνθείανεὐμένειανπραγματεύεσθαι . Aug. Conf. x. 42, vol. i. p. 807, says: “ Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi? abeundum mihi fuit ad angelos?… multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt hæ c, et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illusionibus.” So that no ironical sense need be supposed) and (explicative, or appending a specific form of the general ταπεινοφρ .) worship of the angels (genitive objective, ‘ worship paid to the holy angels:’ not subjective, as Schö ttg., Luther, Rosenm., al.: cf. Jos. Antt. viii. 8. 4, τοῦναοῦκ . τῆςθρησκείαςτῆςἐναὐτῷτοῦθεοῦ ; Justin M. cohort. ad Græ c. § 38, p. 35,— ἐπὶτὴντῶνμὴθεῶνἐτράπησανθρησκείαν . With reference to the fact of the existence of such teaching at Colossæ , Thdrt. gives an interesting notice: οἱτῷνόμῳσυνηγοροῦντεςκαὶτοὺςἀγγέλουςσέβειναὐτοῖςεἰσηγοῦντο , διὰτούτωνλέγοντεςδεδόσθαιτὸννόμον . ἔμεινεδὲτοῦτοτὸπάθοςἐντῇΦρυγίᾳκ . Πισιδίᾳμέχριπολλοῦ . οὗδὴχάρινκ . συνελθοῦσασύνοδοςἐνΛαοδικείᾳτῆςΦρυγίαςνόμῳκεκώλυκετὸτοῖςἀγγέλοιςπροσεύχεσθαι · κ . μέχριδὲτοῦνῦνεὐκτηρίατοῦἁγίουΜιχαὴλπαρ ʼ ἐκείνοιςκ . τοῖςὁμόροιςἐκείνωνἐστὶνἰδεῖν . The canon of the council of Laodicea (a.d. 360) runs thus: οὐδεῖχριστιανοὺςἐγκαταλείπειντὴνἐκκλησίαντοῦθεοῦ , κ . ἀπιέναι , κ . ἀγγέλουςὀνομάζειν , κ . συνάξειςποιεῖν , ἅπερἀπηγόρευται . εἴτιςοὖνεὑρεθῇταύτῃτῇκεκρυμμἐνῃεἰδωλολατρείᾳσχολάζων , ἔστωἀνάθεμα , ὅτιἐγκατέλιπετὸνκύρ . ἡμ . Ἰ . χρ . τ . υἱ . τοῦθεοῦ , κ . εἰδωλολατρείᾳπροσῆλθε . See, for an account of subsequent legends and visions of the neighbourhood, Conyb. and Hows., ii. p. 480, note, edn. 2),— standing on the things which he hath seen (an inhabitant of, insistens on, the realm of sight, not of faith: as Aug. above, ‘ incidens in desiderium curiosarum visionum.’ First a word respecting the reading. The μή of the rec. and οὐκ of others, seem to me to have been unfortunate insertions from misunderstanding the sense of ἐμβατεύων . That it may mean ‘ prying into,’ would be evident from the simplest metaphorical application of its primary meaning of treading or entering on: but whether it does so mean here, must be determined by the context. And it surely would be a strange and incongruous expression for one who was advocating a religion of faith,— whose very charter is μακάριοιοἱμὴἰδόντεςκ . πεπιστευκότες ,— to blame a man or a teacher for ἃμὴἑόρακενἐμβατεύειν , placing the defect of sight in the very emphatic forefront of the charge against him. Far rather should we expect that one who διὰπίστεωςπεριεπάτει , οὐδιὰεἴδους , would state of such teacher as one of his especial faults, that he ἃἑόρακενἐνεβάτευεν , found his status, his standing-point, in the realm of sight. And to this what follows corresponds. This insisting on his own visual experience is the result of fleshly pride as contrasted with the spiritual mind. Of the other meanings of ἐμβατεύειν , that of ‘ coming into possession of property,’ ‘ inheriting,’ might be suitable, but in this sense it is usually constructed with εἰς , cf. Demosth. 1085. 24, 1086. 19. The ordinary meaning is far the best here: see reff., and cf. Æ sch. Pers. 448— νῆσος … ἣνὁφιλόχοροςΠἀνἐμβατεύει , Eur. Electr. 595— κασίγνητονἐμβατεῦσαιπόλιν (this view I still maintain as against Ellicott)), vainly (groundlessly. εἰκῆ must not be joined with ἐμβατ ., as De W., Conyb., al.,— for thus the emphasis of that clause is destroyed: see above) puffed up by (as the working principle in him) the mind (intent, bent of thought and apprehension) of his own flesh (ὑπὸσαρκικῆςδιανοίας , οὐπνευματικῆς , Chrys. But as usual, this adjectival rendering misses the point of the expression,— the διάνοια is not only σαρκική , but is τῆςσαρκός — the σάρξ , the ordinary sensuous principle, is the fons of the νοῦς — which therefore dwells in the region of visions of the man’ s own seeing, and does not in true humility hold the Head and in faith receive grace as one of His members. I have marked αὐτοῦ rather more strongly than by ‘ his’ only: its expression conveys certainly some idea of self-will. On the psychological propriety of the expression, see Ellicott’ s note), 19. and not (objective negative source of his error) holding fast the Head (Christ: see on Ephesians 1:22. Each must hold fast the Head for himself, not merely be attached to the other members, however high or eminent in the Body), from whom (better than with Mey., ‘ from which,’ viz. the Head,— Christ, according to him, being referred to ‘ nicht personlich, sondern sä chlich:’ but if so, why not ἐξἧς — what reason would there be for any change of gender? The only cause for such change must be sought in personal reference to Christ, as in ref. 1 Tim.; and this view is confirmed by the τ . αὕξησιντ . θεοῦ below, shewing that the figure and reality are mingled in the sentence. Beng. gives as his first alternative, ‘ ex quo, sc. tenendo caput:’ but this would be δι ʼ οὗ , not ἐξοὗ . The Head itself is the Source of increase: the holding it, the means) all the body (in its every part: not exactly = ‘ the whole body,’ in its entirety, which would, if accurately expressed, be τὸπᾶνσῶμα , cf. τὸνπάνταχρόνον , Acts 20:18,— ὁπᾶςνόμος , Galatians 5:14. On the whole passage see Ephesians 4:16, an almost exact parallel) by means of the joints (see against Meyer’ s meaning, ‘ nerves,’ on Eph. l. c.) and bands (sinews and nerves which bind together, and communicate between, limb and limb) being supplied (the passive of the simple verb is found in 3 Macc. 6:40, Polyb. iv. 77. 2, πολλαῖςἀφορμαῖςἐκφύσεωςκεχορηγημένοςπρὸςπραγμάτωνκατάκτησιν : ib. iii. 75. 3; vi. 15. 4, al. The ἐπι , denoting continual accession, suits the αὔξει below) and compounded (see on Eph. Notice, as there, the present participles, denoting that the process is now going on. Wherewith the body is supplied and compounded, is here left to be inferred, and need not be, as by some Commentators, minutely pursued into detail. It is, as Thl., τὸζῆνκ . αὔξεινπνευματικῶς ,— as Chrys.,— understanding it however after πᾶντὸσῶμα ,— ἔχειτὸεἷναι , κ . τὸκαλῶςεἶναι . The supply is as the sap to the vine— as the πᾶσααἴσθησιςκ . πᾶσακίνησις (Thl.) to the body) increaseth with (accusative of the cognate substantive, see Ellic. and Winer, § 32. 2) the increase of God (i.e. ‘ the increase wrought by God,’ — God being the first cause of life to the whole, and carrying on this growth in subordination to and union with the Head, Jesus Christ: not as Chrys., merely = κατὰθεόν , τὴνἀπὸτῆςπολιτείαςτῆςἀρίστης ,— nor to be tamed down with Calv., al., to “ significat, non probari Deo quodvis augmentum, sed quod ad caput dirigitur.” Still less must we adopt the adjectival rendering, ‘ godly growth,’ Conyb., making that an attribute of the growth, which is in reality its condition of existence). The Roman Catholic Commentators, Corn, -a-lap., Estius, Bisping, endeavour by all kinds of evasions to escape the strong bearing of this passage on their following (and outdoing) of the heretical practices of the Judaizing teachers in this matter of the θρησκείατῶνἀγγέλων . The latter (Bisp.) remarks,— “ It is plain from this passage, as indeed from the nature of things, that the Apostle is not blaming every honouring of the angels, but only such honouring as put them in the place of Christ. The true honouring of the angels and saints is after all in every case an honouring of Christ their Head.” On this I may remark 1) that the word ‘ honouring’ (Verehrung) is simply disingenuous, there being no question of honouring, but of worship in the strict sense . 2) That whatever a Commentator may say in his study, and Romanists may assert when convenient to them, the honour and worship actually and practically paid by them to angels and saints does by very far exceed that paid to Christ their Head. Throughout Papal Europe, the worship of Christ among the body of the middle and lower orders is fast becoming obliterated, and supplanted by that of His Mother. 20. Warning against asceticism. If ye died (in your baptism, as detailed above, vv. 11 if.) with Christ from (a pregnant construction: ‘ died, and so were set free from:’ not found elsewhere in N. T.: cf. Romans 6:2; Galatians 2:19, where we have the dative) the elements (cf. ver. 8: the rudimentary lessons, i.e. ritualistic observances) of the world (see on ver. 8: Christ Himself was set free from these, when, being made under the law, He at His Death bore the curse of the law, and thus it was antiquated in Him), why, as living (emphatic, as though you had not died, see Galatians 6:14) in the world, are ye being prescribed to (the active use of the verb, ‘ to decree,’ is common in the later classics, and occurs in the LXX, and Apocrypha. The person to whom the thing is decreed or prescribed is put in the dative (2 Macc. 10:8), so that, according to usage, such person may become the subject of the passive verb: cf. Thuc. i. 82, ἡμεῖςὑπ ʼ Ἀθηναίωνἐπιβουλευόμεθα ,— Herod. vii. 144, αἱδὲνῆες … οὐκἐχρήσθησαν , and see Kü hner, Gram. ii. p. 35. Some, as Bernhardy, p. 346, and Ellicott, prefer considering this form as middle, and give it the sense of “ doceri vos sinitis.” It seems to be of very little consequence which we call it; the meaning in either case is almost identical: “ why is the fact so?” or, “ why do you allow it?” To my mind, the passive here carries more keen, because more hidden, rebuke. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 3:1-4:6. Second part of the Epistle. Direct exhortations to the duties of the Christian life— founded on their union with their risen Saviour. 1-4. Transition to the new subject, and grounding of the coming exhortations. 1. If then (as above asserted, ch. 2:12, 20: the εἰ implies no doubt of the fact, but lays it down as ground for an inference, see ch. 2:20, and cf. Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1) ye were raised up together with Christ (not as E. V. ‘ are risen:’ the allusion, as above, ch. 2:11-13, is to a definite time, your baptism. And it is important to keep this in view, that we may not make the mistake so commonly made, of interpreting συνηγέρθητε in an ethical sense, and thereby stultifying the sentence— for if the participation were an ethical one, what need to exhort them to its ethical realization? The participation is an objective one, brought about by that faith which was the condition of their baptismal admission into Him. This faith the Apostle exhorts them to energize in the ethical realization of this resurrection state), seek the things above (heavenly, spiritual things: cf. Matthew 6:33; Galatians 4:26; Philippians 3:20) where Christ is (‘ se trouve,’ not merely the copula. If you are united to Him, you will be tending to Him; and He is in heaven),— seated on the right hand of God (see Ephesians 1:20. Here, as every where, when the present state of Christ is spoken of, the Ascension is taken for granted): care for the things above (φρονεῖτε , wider than ζητεῖτε , extending to the whole region of their thought and desire), not the things on the earth (cf. οἱτὰἐπίγειαφρονοῦντες , Philippians 3:19: i.e. matters belonging to this present mortal state— earthly pleasure, pelf, and pride. There is no reason, with Thl., Calv., Schrad., Huther, to suppose him still aiming at the false teachers, and meaning by τὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς , τὰπερὶβρωμάτωνκ . ἡμερῶν (Thl.): in this part of the Epistle he has dropped the controversial and taken the purely ethical tone). For ye died (ch. 2:12: ‘ are dead,’ though allowable, is not so good, as merely asserting a state, whereas the other recalls the fact of that state having been entered on. That being made partakers with Christ’ s death, cut you loose from the τὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς : see Romans 6:4-7), and your life (that resurrection life (which is “ your real and true life” as Ellic., objecting to this explanation. The only real life of the Christian is his resurrection life in and with Christ. The fact is, Ellic. has mistaken my meaning in this term: see my remarks on it below), which you now have only in its first fruits, in possession indeed, but not in full possession, see below, and cf. Romans 8:19-23) is hidden (οὔπωἐφανερώθη , 1 John 3:2: is laid up, to be manifested hereafter: that such is the sense, the next verse seems plainly to shew) with Christ (who is also Himself hidden at present from us, who wait for His ἀποκάλυψις (1 Corinthians 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 1:7. 1 Peter 1:7, 1 Peter 1:13; 1 Peter 4:13), which shall be also ours, see ver. 4, and Romans 8:19) in God (with Christ who is εἰςτὸνκόλποντοῦΠατρός — it is in Him, as in a great depth, that all things concealed are hidden, and He brings them out as seems good to Him. Notice the solemnity of the repetition of the articles: and so all through these verses). When Christ shall be manifested (shall emerge from his present state of hiddenness, and be personally revealed), who is our (no emphasis— ἡμῶν applies to Christians generally— see on ὑμ . below) life : Christ is personally Himself that life, and we possess it only by union with Him and His resurrection: see John 14:19), then shall ye also with Him be manifested in glory (see on the whole, the parallel 1 John 3:2. Though the completed life of the resurrection seems so plainly pointed out by this last verse as the sense to be given to ἡζωή , this has not been seen by many Commentators, who hold it to be ethical; hidden, inasmuch as inward and spiritual— ἐντῷκρυπτῷ , Romans 2:29 (De W.), and ideal: or, inasmuch as it is unseen by the world (Beng., similarly Storr, Flatt, Bisping, al.). The root of the mistake has been the want of a sufficiently comprehensive view of that resurrection life of ours which is now hidden with Christ. It includes in itself both spiritual, ethical, and corporeal: and the realization of it as far as possible, here, is the sum of the Christian’ s most earnest endeavours: but the life itself, in its full manifestation, is that perfection of body, soul, and spirit, in which we shall be manifested with Him at His appearing. Cf. Thdrt.: ἐκείνουγὰρἀναστάντοςπάντεςἠγέρθημεν · ἀλλ ʼ οὐδέπωὁρῶμεντῶνπραγμάτωντὴνἔκβασιν . κέκρυπταιδὲἐναὐτῷτῆςἡμετέραςἀναστάσεωςτὸμυστήριον ). 5-17. General exhortations: and herein (5-11)— to laying aside of the vices of the old man,— (12-17) to realizing the new life in its practical details. Put to death therefore (the οὖν connects with the ἀπεθάνετε of ver. 3: follow out, realize this state of death to things on earth— νεκρώσατε — notice the aorist implying a definite act:— cf. ἐσταύρωσαν Galatians 5:24, θανατοῦτε Romans 8:13, in the same reference) your members which are on the earth , is certainly a mistake: cf. τὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς above, ver. 2),— fornication (these which follow, are the carnal functions of the earthly members. It is one instance of that form of the double accusative, where the first denotes the whole, the second a part of it, as τὸνδ ʼ ἄοριπλῆξ ʼ αὐχένα , λῦσεδὲγυῖα , Il. λ . 240,— ποῖόνσεἔποςφύγενἕρκοςὀδόντων ; Od. α . 64 See Kü hner, ii. p. 230), impurity (reff.), lustfulness (see Romans 1:26, whence it would appear that the absolute word need not be understood of unnatural lust, the specifying genitive ἀτιμίας giving it there that meaning. We may understand it generally as in Plato, Phæ dr. p. 265 b, τὸἐρωτικὸνπάθος ,— ‘ morbum libidinis,’ Beng.), shameful desire , and covetousness (τὴνπλ . as Beng.— ‘ articulus facit ad epitasin, et totum genus vitii a genere enumeratarum modo specierum diversum complectitur.’ On πλεονεξία , see on Ephesians 4:19, and Trench, N. T. Synonyms, § xxiv.), for it is idolatry (the πλεονέκτης has set up self in his heart— and to serve self, whether by accumulation of goods or by satiety in pleasure, is his object in life. He is therefore an idolater, in the deepest and worst, namely in the practical significance. τὸμαμωνᾶ , κὺριονὁΣωτὴρπροσηγόρευσε , διδάσκωνὡςὁτῷπάθειτῆςπλεονεξίαςδουλεύων , ὡςθεὸντὸνπλοῦτοντιμᾷ , Thdrt.), on which account (on account of the πλεονεξία , which amounts to idolatry, the all-comprehending and crowning sin, which is a negation of God and brings down His especial anger) cometh (down on earth, in present and visible examples) the wrath of God: in which , John 11:54, Ephesians 2:3, which last, if the clause ἐπ . τ . υἱ . τ . ἀπ . were inserted here, would certainly go far to decide the matter) ye also walked once, when ye lived (before your death with Christ to the world) in these things (the assertion is not tautological: cf. Galatians 5:25, εἰζῶμενπνεύματι , πνεύματικαὶστοιχῶμεν . When ye were alive to these things, ye regulated your course by them, walked in them. “ Vivere et ambulare inter se differunt, quemadmodum potentia et actus: vivere præ cedit, ambulare sequitur.” Calv.): 8. but now (that ye are no longer living in them: opposed to ποτὲὅτε above) do ye also (as well as other believers) put away the whole (τὰπάντα seems to have a backward and a forward reference— ‘ the whole,— both those things which I have enumerated, and those which are to follow.’ The mistake of rendering ἀπόθεσθε , ‘ have put off,’ which one would hardly look for in a Commentator, occurs in Eadie here— cf. Ephesians 4:22),— anger, wrath (see on Ephesians 4:31), malice (ib.), evil speaking (ib.), abusive conversation , for these four regard want of charity, of kindness in thought and word, rather than sins of uncleanness, which were before enumerated. And the occasional usage of the word itself bears this out, cf. Plato, Rep. iii. p. 395 end, κακηγοροῦντάςτεκαὶκωμῳδοῦνταςἀλλήλουςκ . αἰσχρολογοῦντας : Polyb. viii. 13. 8, ἡκατὰτῶνφίλωναἰσχρολογία ) out of your mouth ,— lie not towards (εἰς the indifferent general preposition of direction: so κατά with ψεύδομαι in a hostile sense, James 3:14. Plato, Euthyd. p. 284 a, οὐδὲνκατάσουψεύδεται . We have πρὸςἐκεῖνονψευσάμενον , Xen. Anab. i. 3. 5) one another,— having put off , Calv. (postquam exuistis), Mey., al. Vulg. (exuentes), Luth., Calov., Beng., Olsh., De W., Conyb., al., understand them as contemporary with ἀπόθεσθε ,— putting off,— or, and put off. But surely this is very flat, and besides would, if it is to answer to the foregoing, contain a superfluous member, the ἐνδυσάμ . κ .τ .λ . there being no exhortation to graces in the former sentence, only dehortation from vices. Besides, as Mey. remarks, the objective description in ver. 11 belongs to an assignment of motive, not to a hortative sentence: and the hortative figure begins ver. 12) the old man (i.e. as Mey., ‘ die vorchristliche Individualitä t;’ the nature which they had before their conversion: see on reff.) with his deeds , and having put on the new (the other was the negative ground: this is the positive. See on Ephesians 4:23, and 2:15), who (the two are personal: not ‘ which,’ — except in its old personal sense) is continually being renewed (notice the present participle. “ The new man is not any thing ready at once and complete, but ever in a state of development (by the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:5), by which a new state and nature is brought about in it, specifically different from that of the old man.” Mey.) towards perfect knowledge (which excludes all falsehood, and indeed all the vices mentioned above) according to the image of Him that created him (the new creation of the spirit unto fulness of knowledge and truth, the highest form of which would be the perfect knowledge of God, is regarded by the Apostle as analogous to man’ s first creation. As he was then made in the image of God, so now: but it was then his naturally, now spiritually in ἐπίγνωσις . Some join κατ ʼ εἰκ . with ἀνακαιν ., some with ἐπίγνωσ . The sense will be the same; but grammatically it is far better to join it with ἀνακαιν . Thus the norm and method of the renewal is, κατ ʼ εἰκ . τ . κτίσαντοςαὐτόν (the new man),— i.e. God, who is ever the Creator, not as Chrys., al., Christ. To understand the whole passage as referring to a restoration of the image of God in the first creation, as Calov., Est., and De W., is to fall far short of the glorious truth. It is not to restore the old, but to create the new, that redemption has been brought about. Whatever may have been God’ s image in which the first Adam was created, it is certain that the image of God, in which Christ’ s Spirit re-creates us, will be as much more glorious than that, as the second man is more glorious than the first): where (viz. in the realm or sphere of the new man) there is not (on ἔνι see Galatians 3:28) Greek and Jew (difference of nation; with special allusion also to the antiquation of the Abrahamic privilege as regarded his natural seed), circumcision and uncircumcision (difference of legal ceremonial standing),— barbarian (having as yet specified by pairs, he now brings forward a few single categories, which in the new man were nonexistent as marks of distinction; see below. The proper contrast to Βάρβαρος would have been Ἕλλην , which has been already expressed), Scythian , bond, free (he perhaps does not say ‘ bond and free,’ because these relations actually subsisted: but the persons in them were not thus regarded in Christ— no man is, quoad a Christian, δοῦλος , nor (see also Galatians 3:28) ἐλεύθερος ): but Christ (emphatically closes the sentence) is all (every distinctive category of humanity is done away as to worth or privilege, and all have been absorbed into and centre in this one, χριστοῦεἶναι , yea χριστὸςεἶναι — His members, in vital union with Him) and in all (equally sprinkled on, living in, working through and by every class of mankind). 12. Put on therefore (as a consequence of having put on the new man, to whom these belong) as the elect of God (see reff. and 1 Thessalonians 1:4), holy and beloved (it seems best to take, as Mey., ἐκλεκτοί for the subject, and ἅγ . and ἠγ . for predicates,— 1) because ἐκλεκτοί is a word which must find its ground independently of us, in the absolute will of God, and therefore cannot be an adjunctive attribute of ἅγιοιἠγαπ .— and 2) because ἐκλεκτοὶθεοῦ is used in reff. and ἐκλεκτοὶ in several other places, as a substantive), bowels of compassion (see reff., and Luke 1:78. The expression is a Hebraism: and the account of it to be found in the literal use of σπλάγχνα as the seat of the sympathetic feelings: cf. Genesis 43:30), kindness (see on Galatians 5:22), lowliness (towards one another— see on Ephesians 4:2), meekness (Eph. ib.: but here it is primarily towards one another; not however excluding but rather implying meekness towards God as its ground), long-suffering (ib.), forbearing one another (see ib.) and forgiving each other (ἑαυτοῖς is not = ἀλλήλοις , as De W., al.: but the mutual forgiveness of the Christian body is put in marked correspondence to that great act of forgiveness which has passed upon the whole body, in Christ. ‘ Forgiving yourselves,’ did it not convey to our ears a wrong idea, would be the best rendering: doing as a body for yourselves, that which God did once for you all), if any have cause of blame (the phrase is a classical one— cf. Eur. Orest. 1068, ἓνμὲνπρῶτάσοιμομφὴνἔχω — Phœ n. 781; Soph. Aj. 180, and other examples in Wetst.): as also (καί ; besides, and more eminent than, the examples which I am exhorting you to shew of this grace) the Lord forgave (see on Ephesians 4:32) you, so also ye (scil. χαριζόμενοι — do not supply an imperative, by which the construction is unnecesarily broken. Chrys. carries this χαρίζεσθαι to an exaggerated extent, when he says that it extends not only to τὴνψυχὴνὑπὲραὐτῶνθεῖναι — τὸγὰρ ‘ καθὼς ’ ταῦταἀπαιτεῖ — καὶοὐδὲμέχριθανάτουμόνονστῆναιδεῖ , ἀλλ ʼ εἰδυνατὸνκαὶμετὰταῦτα ; thinking perhaps on Romans 9:3): 14. but (the contrast lies between ταῦταπάντα , which have been individually mentioned, and ἐπὶπᾶσιτούτοις , that which must over-lie them as a whole) over (carrying on the image ἐνδύσασθε — see below. Calvin’ s ‘ propter omnia hæ c’ is every way wrong:— ‘ in addition to,’ as Eadie, al., falls short of the fitness and beauty of the passage, weakening what is really the literal sense into a metaphorical one. The E. V., ‘ above all these things,’ looks ambiguous, but by repeating ‘ put on,’ it seems as if our translators meant ‘ above’ to be taken locally and literally) all these things (put on) love (the article gives a fine and delicate sense here, which we cannot express— ἡἀγάπη is not merely love, but ‘ the (well-known) love which becomes Christians:’ the nearest rendering would perhaps be ‘ Christian love,’ but it expresses too much), which thing is the bond of perfectness (the idea of an upper garment, or perhaps of a girdle, as Calov. supposed, seems to have been before the Apostle’ s mind. This completes and keeps together all the rest, which, without it, are but the scattered elements of completeness: πάνταἐκεῖνά , φησιν , αὕτησυσφίγγειπαροῦσα · ἀπούσηςδὲδιαλύονταικ . ἐλέγχονταιὑπόκρισιςὄντακ . οὐδέν , Thl. Wetst. cites from Simplic. in Epictet., p. 208, καλῶςοἱΠυθαγόρειοιπερισσῶςτῶνἄλλωνἀρετῶντὴνφιλίανἐτίμων , κ . σύνδεσμοναὐτὴνπασῶντῶνἀρετῶνἔλεγον . The genitive after σύνδεσμος is not the genitive of apposition, as in Ephesians 4:3, but of that which is held together by the σύνδεσμος , as in Plato, Rep. x. p. 616 c, εἶναιγὰρτοῦτοτὸφῶςξύνδεσμοντοῦοὐρανοῦ , οἷοντὰὑποζώματατῶντριήρων , οὕτωπᾶσανξυνέχοντὴνπεριφοράν . Those who, as some of the Roman Catholic expositors (not Bisping), find here justification by works, must be very hard put to discover support for that doctrine. The whole passage proceeds upon the ground of previous justification by faith: see ch. 2:12, and our ver. 12, ὡςἐκλ . τ . θ . Some render σύνδεσμος ‘ the sum total,’ or inclusive idea, ‘ Inbegriff:’ so Bengel, Usteri, De W., Olsh., al.: and it appears to bear this sense in Herodian iv. 12.11, πάντατὸνσύνδεσμοντῶνἐπιστολῶν ,— but not in the N. T.; and besides, the sense would be logically inconsistent with ἐπὶπᾶσιντούτοις , implying that Love does not include, but covers and supplements all the former. Still worse is the wretched adjectival rendering of τῆςτελ . as = τέλειος , ‘ the perfect band,’ as Grot., Erasm.-par., Est., al.): and (simply an additional exhortation, not an inference, ‘ and so,’ as Beng.; compare Ephesians 4:3, where peace is the σύνδεσμος . It is exceedingly interesting to observe the same word occurring in the same trains of thought in the two Epistles, but frequently with different application. See the Prolegg. to this Epistle, § iv. 7) let Christ’ s peace (the peace which He brings about, which He left as his legacy to us (ref. John), which is emphatically and solely His. This peace, though its immediate and lower reference here is to mutual concord, yet must not on account of the context be limited to that lower side. Its reference is evidently wider, as βραβευέτω shews: see below. It is the whole of Christ’ s Peace in all its blessed character and effects) rule : against this is ἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςὑμῶν , which makes the office of the peace spoken of not adjudicare, but præ venire lites) in your hearts,— to which (with a view to which, as your blessed state of Christian perfection in God— sec Isaiah 26:3; Isaiah 57:19: Ephesians 2:14-17) ye were also (the καί marks the introduction of an additional motive— ‘ to which, besides my exhortation, ye have this motive: that,’ &c.) called (reff.) in one body (as members of one body— oneness of body being the sphere and element in which that peace of Christ was to be carried on and realized. This reminiscence refers to the whole context from ver. 8, in which the exhortations had been to mutual Christian graces. διὰτίγὰρἄλλοἐσμὲνἓνσῶμα , ἢἵναὡςμέληὄντεςἀλλήλωνταύτηντηρῶμεν , κ . μὴδιϊστώμεθα ; Thl.): and be thankful (to God, who called you: so the context before and after certainly demands: not ‘ one to another,’ as Conyb., which though an allowable sense of εὐχάριστος , breaks the connexion here, which is as Chrys. on ver. 16— παραινέσαςεὐχαρίστουςεἶναι , καὶτὴνὁδὸνδείκνυσι . The ἐκλήθητε was the word which introduced the exhortation— all conduct inconsistent with the ‘ calling in one body’ being in fact unthankfulness to God, who called us. Jer., Erasm.-not., Calv., al., render it ‘ amiable,’ ‘ friendly,’ against which the same objection lies. See Ephesians 5:4; and ib. 19, 20: where the same class of exhortations occurs). 16. See the connexion in Chrys. above. This thankfulness to God will shew itself in the rich indwelling in you and outflowing from you of the word of Christ, be it in mutual edifying converse, or in actual songs of praise. Let Christ’ s word (the Gospel: genitive subjective; the word which is His— He spoke it, inspired it, and gives it power) dwell in you (not ‘ among you,’ as Luther, De W., al.: which does not suit ἐνοικ . As Ellic. observes, St. Paul’ s usage (reff., remembering that ref. 2 Cor. is a quotation) seems to require that the indwelling should be individual and personal. Still we may say with Mey. that the ὑμεῖς need not be restricted to individual Christians: it may well mean the whole community— you, as a church. The word dwelling in them richly, many would arise to speak it to edification, and many would be moved to the utterance of praise. And to this collective sense of ὑμῖν , ἑαυτούς below seems to correspond; see above on ver. 13) richly (i.e. in abundance and fulness, so as to lead to the following results), in all wisdom (these words seem to be better taken with the following than with the foregoing. For 1) ch. 1:28 already gives us νουθ … κ . διδ … ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳ . 2) ἐνοικείτω has already its qualifying adverb πλουσίως emphatically placed at the end of the sentence. 3) The two following clauses will thus correspond— ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳδιδάσκοντες … ἐντῇχάριτιᾄδοντες . And so Beng., Olsh., De W., Mey., al.: the usual arrangement has been with E. V., all. (not Chrys.), to join them with the preceding) teaching and warning (see on ch. 1:28) each other (see on ver. 13) in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs (on the meaning of the words, see notes, Ephesians 5:19. The arrangement here adopted may be thus vindicated: ψ . ὕμν . ᾠδ . πν . must be joined with the preceding, not with the following, because 1) the instrumental dative is much more naturally taken after διδ . κ . νουθ . ἑαυτ ., from the analogy of Eph 5:19, λαλοῦντεςἑαυτοῖςψ . κ . ὕμν . κ . ᾠδ . [πν .], ᾄδοντεςκ .τ .λ . 2) ᾄδοντες here has already two qualifying clauses, one before and one after, ἐντῇχάριτι and ἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςὑμῶν . Meyer’ s note here is important: “ Notice moreover that Paul here also (see on Eph. ut supra) is not speaking of ‘ divine service’ properly so called, for this teaching and admonishing is required of his readers generally and mutually, and as a proof of their rich possession of the word of Christ:— but of the communication of the religious life among one another (e.g. at meals, at the Agapæ , and other meetings, in their family circles, &c.), wherein spiritual influence caused the mouth to overflow with the fulness of the heart, and gave utterance to brotherly instruction and reproof in the higher form of psalms, &c.; perhaps in songs already known,— or extemporized, according to the peculiarity and productivity of each man’ s spiritual gift: perhaps sung by individuals alone (which would especially be the case when they were extemporized), or in chorus, or in the form of antiphonal song (Plin. Ep. x. 97).” How common religious singing was in the ancient church, independently of ‘ divine service’ properly so called, see in Suicer, Thes. 2. p. 1568 f. Euseb., H. E. ii. 17, v. 28, testifies to the existence of a collection of rhythmical songs which were composed ἀπαρχῆς by Christians (ψαλμοὶδὲὅσοικ . ᾠδαί , ἀδελφῶνἀπαρχῆςὑπὸπιστῶνγραφεῖσαι , τὸνλόγοντοῦθεοῦτὸνχριστὸνὑμνοῦσιθεολογοῦντες , v. 28). On singing at the Agapæ , see Tert. Apol. 39, vol. i. p. 477: “ post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de scripturis Sanctis vel proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere” ); in grace — ἀπὸτῆςχάριτοςτοῦπνεύματόςφησινᾄδοντες , Chrys.: so Œ c., διὰτῆςπαρὰτοῦἁγίουπνεύματοςδοθείσηςχάριτος : not as Erasm., Luth., Melaneth., Calv. , and indeed Chrys. , Beza, Corn.-a-lap., al., ‘ gracefully,’ — which would be irrelevant as applied to the singing of the heart: see below— nor as Anselm, and De W., Conyb., al., ‘ thankfully,’ which would be a flat and unmeaning anticipation of εὐχαριστοῦντες below. The article marks ‘ the grace,’ which is yours by God’ s indwelling Spirit) singing in your hearts to God (this clause has generally been understood as qualifying the former. But such a view is manifestly wrong. That former spoke of their teaching and warning one another in effusions of the spirit which took the form of psalms, &c.: in other words, dealt with their intercourse with one another; this on the other hand deals with their own private intercourse with God. The second participle is coordinate with the former, not subordinate to it. The mistake has partly arisen from imagining that the former clause related to public worship, in its external form: and then this one was understood to enforce the genuine heartfelt expression of the same. But this not being so, that which is founded on it falls with it. The singing τῷθεῷ is an analogous expression to that in 1 Corinthians 14:28,— ἐὰνδὲμὴᾖδιερμηνευτής , … ἑαυτῷ … λαλείτωκ . τῷθεῷ . So the ἐνταῖςκαρδ . ὑμ . describes the method of uttering this praise, viz. by the thoughts only: τῷθεῷ designates to whom it is to be addressed,— not, as before, to one another, but to God): 17. general exhortation, comprehending all the preceding spiritual ones. And every thing whatsoever ye do in word or work all things (do) in the name of the lord Jesus (not as Chrys., Œ c., Thl., &c., τουτέστιναὐτὸνκαλῶνβοηθόν , nor as Thdrt., who treats it as a dehortation from the worship of angels, which they were to exclude by their always τὰἔργακοσμῆσαιτῇμνήμῃτοῦδεσπότουχριστοῦ :— but much as the common ἐνχριστῷ — so that the name of Christ is the element in which all is done— which furnishes a motive and gives a character to the whole) giving thanks to God the Father through Him . 18-4:1. Special exhortations to relative social duties: 18, 19, to the married: 20, 21, to children and parents: 22-4:1, to slaves and masters. Seeing that such exhortations occur in Ephesians also in terms so very similar, we are not justified, with Chrys., al., in assuming that there was any thing in the peculiar circumstances of the Colossian church, which required more than common exhortation of this kind. It has been said, that it is only in Epistles addressed to the Asiatic churches, that such exhortations are found: but in this remark the entirely general character of the Epistle to the Ephesians is forgotten. Besides, the exhortations of the Epistle to Titus cannot be so completely severed from these as to be set down in another category, as Eadie has endeavoured to do. See throughout the section, for such matters as are not remarked on, the notes to Ephesians 5:22-9. 18. ὡςἀνῆκεν ] The verb is in the imperfect— as ἔδει and χρῆν , conveying always in its form a slight degree of blame, as implying the non-realization of the duty pointed out— just as when we say, ‘ It was your duty to,’ &c. See Winer, § 40. 3, end. The words ἐνκυρίῳ belong to ἀνῆκεν , not to ὑποτάσεσθε ; as is shewn by the parallel expression in ver. 20: was fitting, in that element of life designated by ἐνκυρίῳ . 19. See the glorious expansion of this in Ephesians 5:25-33. πικραίνεσθαι occurs in the same sense in Demosth. 1464. 18: also in Plato, Legg. p. 731 d,— τὸνθυμὸνπραΰνεινκ . μὴἀκραχολοῦντα , γυναικείωςπικραινόμενον , διατελεῖν . Kypke illustrates the word from Plutarch, de ira cohibenda, p. 457, ‘ ubi dicit, animi prodere imbecillitatem quum viri πρὸςγύναιαδιαπικραίνονται :’ and from Eurip. Helen. 303: ἀλλ ʼ ὅτανπόσιςπικρὸς | ξυνῇγυναικί , κ . τὸδῶμ ʼ ἐστιπικρόν , θανεῖνκράτιστον . 20. See Ephesians 6:1. κατὰπάντα , the exceptions not being taken into account: St. Paul’ s usual way of stating a general rule. It is best to take εὐάρεστον , as Mey. absolutely, as προσφιλῆ , Philippians 4:8: the Christian qualification being given by the ἐνκυρίῳ : De W., al., understand τῷθεῷ , which would render that qualification meaningless. 21. See on Ephesians 6:4, for πατέρες . μὴἐρεθ .] do not irritate them— τοῦτόἐστι , μὴφιλονεικοτέρουςαὐτοὺςποιεῖτε . ἔστινὅπουκαὶσυγχωρεῖνὀφείλετε , Chrys. In ἵναμὴἀθ ., it is assumed that the result of such irritation will be to cause repeated punishment, and so eventual desperation, on the part of the child. It would be well if all who have to educate children took to heart Bengel’ s remark here; ‘ ἀθυμία , fractus animus, pestis juventutis.’ Wetst. quotes from Æ neas Tacticus, ὀργῇδὲμηθέναμετιέναιτῶντυχόντωνἀνθρώπων · ἀθυμότεροιγὰρεἶενἄν . 22. See on Ephesians 6:5 ff. The ὀφθαλμοδουλεῖαι here are the concrete acts of the -εία of Ephesians 6:6, the abstract spirit. τὸνκύριον , Him who is absolutely, and not merely κατὰσάρκα , your master. τοῦτόἑστιφοβεῖσθαιτὸνθεόν , ὅταν , μηδενὸςὁρῶντος , μηδὲνπράττωμενπονηρόν . ἂνδὲπράττωμεν , οὐχὶτὸνθεόν , ἀλλὰτοὺςἀνθρώπουςφοβούμεθα , Chrys. 23. ἐκψυχῆς , as Chrys., μετ ʼ εὐνοίας , μὴμετὰδουλικῆςἀνάγκης , ἀλλὰμετ ʼ ἐλευθερίαςκ . προαιρέσεως . The datives may be taken as of reference, or commodi. In Ephesians 6:7 the construction is filled up by δουλεύοντες . Mey. observes against De W., that οὐκ is an absolute not a mere relative negative: ‘ doing things unto men’ is to be laid aside altogether, not merely less practised than the other: “ as workers to the Lord and non-workers to men,” Ellic. 24. = Ephesians 6:8, but more specific as to the Christian reward. εἰδότες , knowing as ye do … The ἀπὸκυρίου is emphatically prefixed— ‘ that it is from the Lord that you shall … ’ ἀπό , as Winer, § 47. b, is distinguished from παρά , as indicating not immediate bestowal, but that the Lord is the ultimate source and conferrer of the inheritance— from the Lord— not ‘ at the hands of the Lord.’ You must look to Him, not to men, as the source of all Christian reward. (Eadie, p. 265, has represented Winer as saying the contrary of that which he does say.) ἀνταπόδοσις occurs in Thuc. iv. 81, in the sense of a mutual exchange of places taken in war: in Polyb. vi. 5. 3, in that of a compensation, τοῦτοἱκανὸνἀνταπόδοσινποιήσειἐκείνου ,— and xx. 7. 2, ὥσπερἐπιτηδὲςἀνταπόδοσινποιουμένηἡτύχη : and hence in that of ‘ an opposite turn,’ xxvii. 2. 4, ἀνταπόδοσινλαμβάνειτὰπράγματα ,— iv. 43. 5, ἀνταπόδοσινποιεῖταιὁῥοῦςπρός , &c. Here the sense would appear to be, with a marked reference to their present state of slavery, the compensation. κληρ ., genitive of apposition (reff). The very word κληρονομία should have kept the Roman Catholic expositors from introducing the merit of good works here. The last clause, without the γάρ , is best taken imperatively, as a general comprehension of the course of action prescribed in the former part of the verse: serve ye the Lord Christ. So Vulg. ‘ domino Christo servite,’ 25. This verse seems best to be taken as addressed to the slaves by way of encouragement to regard Christ as their Master and serve Him— seeing that all their wrongs in this world, if they leave them in His hands, will be in due time righted by Him, the just judge, with whom there is no respect of persons. For he that doeth wrong shall receive (see, as on the whole, Ephesians 6:8) that which he did wrongfully (the tense is changed because in ἀδικῶν he is speaking of present practice— in ἠδίκησεν , he has transferred the scene to the day of the Lord, and the wrong is one of past time), and there is not respect of persons (= εἴτεδοῦλοςεἴτεἐλεύθερος , Ephesians 6:8). At His tribunal, every one, without regard to rank or wealth, shall receive the deeds done in the body. So that in your Christian uprightness and conscientiousness you need not fear that you shall be in the end overborne by the superior power of your masters: there is A judge who will defend and right you: ἐστὶδικαιοκρίτηςὃςοὐκοἶδεδούλουκ . δεσπότουδιαφοράν , ἀλλὰδικαίανεἰσφέρειτὴνψῆφον , Thdrt. Some, as Thl., Beng., al., suppose the verse spoken with reference to the slaves; but οὐκἔστινπροσωπολημψία is against this, unless we accept Bengel’ s far-fetched explanation of it: “ tenues sæ pe putant, sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum.” Ch. 4:1. Meyer contends for the strict meaning of ‘ equality’ for ἰσότητα , and that it never has the signification of ‘ fairness.’ But (see examples in Wetst.) the common conjunction of ἴσονκ . δίκαιον would naturally lead to assigning to ἴσον the same transferred meaning which ‘ æ quus’ has in Latin, and to ἰσότης the same which ‘ æ quitas’ has. I would render then, equity,— fairness: understanding by that, an extension of τὸδίκαιον to matters not admitting of the application of strict rules— a large and liberal interpretation of justice in ordinary matters. In every place cited by Meyer where the word is used ethically and not materially, this rendering is better than his. In Polyb. ii. 38. 8, the case is different: it there imports absolute political equality. Erasm., Corn.-a-lap., al., understand impartiality. not preferring one above another: but this does not seem to be in question here. Calv. says: ‘ Non dubito quin Paulus ἰσότητα hic posuerit pro jure analogo aut distributivo: quemadmodum ad Ephesios τὰαὐτά . Neque enim sic habent domini obnoxios sibi servos, quin vicissim aliquid ipsis debeant: quemadmodum jus analogum valere debet inter omnes ordines.’ Thdrt.: ἰσότηταοὐτὴνἰσοτιμίανἐκάλεσεν , ἀλλὰτὴνπροσήκουσανἐπιμέλειαν , ἧςπαρὰτῶνδεσποτῶνἀπολαύεινχρὴτοὺςοἰκέτας . Chrys.: τίδέἐστινἰσότης ; πάντωνἐνἀφθονίᾳκαθιστᾷν , κ . μὴἐᾷνἑτέρωνδεῖσθαι , ἀλλ ʼ ἀμείβεσθαιαὐτοὺςτῶνπόνων . Cf. Philemon 1:16. παρέχεσθε ] ‘ supply on your side:’ see Krü ger, Grieehische Sprachlehre, § 52. 8, who gives several examples of the dynamic middle in this very verb. Ellic. well insists on and explains its force, as referring rather to the powers put forth by the subject, whereas the active simply and objectively states the action. εἰδότες ] See ch. 3:24. καὶὑμεῖς ] as well as they: as you are masters to them, so the Lord to you. 2-6. Special concluding exhortations: and 2-4. to prayer; see Romans 12:12: 1 Thessalonians 5:17. 2. γρηγ . watching in it, i.e. not remiss and indolent in your occupation of prayer (τῇπρ .), but active and watchful, cheerful also, ἐνεὐχαριστίᾳ , which defines and characterizes the watchfulness. ἐπειδήγὰρτὸκαρτερεῖνἐνταῖςεὐχαῖςῥᾳθυμεῖνπολλάκιςποιεῖ , διὰτοῦτόφησιγρηγοροῦντες , τουτέστινήφοντες , μὴῥεμβόμενοι . οἶδεγάρ , οἶδενὁδιάβολοςὅσονἀγαθὸνεὐχή · διὸβαρὺςἔγκειται . οἶδεδὲκαὶΠαῦλοςπῶςἀκηδιῶσιπολλοὶεὐχόμενοι . διόφησιγρ . ἐναὐτ . ἐνεὐχαρ .— τοῦτογάρφησινἔργονὑμῶνἔστω , ἐνταῖςεὐχαῖςεὐχαριστεῖν , κ . ὑπὲρτῶνφανερῶνκ . ὑπ . τῶνἀφανῶν , κ . ὑπὲρὧνἑκόντας , κ . ὑπὲρὧνἄκονταςἐποίησενεὖ , κ . ὑπὲρβασιλείας , κ . ὑπὲργεέννης , κ . ὑπὲρθλίψεως , κ . ὑπὲρἀνέσεως . οὕτωγὰρἔθοςτοῖςἁγίοιςεὔχεσθαι , κ . ὑπὲρτῶνκοινῶνεὐεργεσιῶνεὐχαριστεῖν . Chrys. 3. ἡμῶν , not ‘ me,’ — see ch. 1:1, 3. This is plainly shewn here by the singular following after. ἵνα ] see on 1 Corinthians 14:13. Here, the idea of final result is prominent: but the purport is also included. θύραντ . λόγου ] not as Calv., al., oris apertionem, Ephesians 6:19; but as in reff., objective, an opening of opportunity for the extension of the Gospel by the word. This would, seeing that the Apostle was a prisoner, naturally be given first and most chiefly, as far as he was concerned, by his liberation: cf. Philemon 1:22. λαλῆσαι ] inf. of purpose— so that we may speak. δι ʼ ὃκ . δ .] for (on account of) which (mystery) I am (not only a minister but) also bound. 4. The second ἵνα gives the purpose of the previous verse, not the purpose of δέδεμαι , as Chrys. , Bengel , nor to be joined with προσευχόμενοι , as Beza, De W., al. If that might be so, the door opened, &c.,— then he would make it known as he ought to do— then he would be fulfilling the requirements of that apostolic calling, from which now in his imprisonment he was laid aside. Certainly this is the meaning,— and not, as ordinarily understood, cf. Chrys., al., that he might boldly declare the Gospel in his imprisonment. 5, 6. Exhortations as to their behaviour in the world. 5. ἐνσοφίᾳ ] in (as an element) wisdom (the practical wisdom of Christian prudence and sound sense). πρός , as in οὐδὲνπρὸςΔιόνυσον ,— εἴτουδέοιτοπρὸςΤιμόθεονπρᾶξαι , Demosth. p. 1185, signifying simply in relation to, in the intercourse of life. Ellic. refers to a good discussion of this preposition in Rost and Palm’ s Lex. vol. ii. p. 1157. On οἱἔξω , see reff. They are those outside the Christian brotherhood. πρὸςτὰμέλητὰοἰκεῖαοὐτοσαύτηςἡμῖνδεῖἀσφαλείας , ὅσηςπρὸςτοὺςἔξω · ἔνθαγὰρἀδελφοί , εἰσὶκ . συγγνῶμαιπολλαὶκ . ἀγάπαι . Chrys. τ . καιρ . ἐξαγορ .] see on Ephesians 5:16. The opportunity for what, will be understood in each case from the circumstances, and our acknowledged Christian position as watching for the cause of the Lord. The thought in Eph., ὅτιαἱἡμέραιπονηραίεἰσι , lies in the background of the word ἐξαγοραζάμενοι . 6. Let your speech (πρὸςτοὺςἔξω still) be always in (as its characteristic element) grace (i.e. gracious, and winning favour: cf. Luke 4:22), seasoned with salt (not insipid and void of point, which can do no man any good: we must not forget that both these words have their spiritual meaning: χάρις , so common an one as to have almost passed out of its ordinary acceptation into that other,— the grace which is conferred on us from above, and which our words and actions should reflect:— and ἅλας , as used by our Saviour in reff. (see note on Mark), as symbolizing the unction, freshness, and vital briskness which characterizes the Spirit’ s presence and work in a man. So that we must beware here of supposing that mere Attic ‘ sales’ are meant, or any vivacity of outward expression only, and keep in mind the Christian import. Of the Commentators, Thdrt. comes the nearest,— πνευματικῇσυνέσεικοσμεῖσθε . There seems to be no allusion here to the conservative power of salt: the matter in hand at present is not avoiding corrupt conversation. Still less does the meaning of wit belong to this place. A local allusion is just possible: Herod. vii. 30 says of Xerxes, ἌναυαδὲκαλεομένηνΦρυγῶνπόλινπαραμειβόμενος , καὶλίμνηνἐκτῆςἅλεςγίνονται , ἀπίκετοἐςΚολοσσάς , πόλινμεγάληνΦρυγίης ). εἰδέναι ] to know— i.e. so that you may know: see ref., “ loosely appended infin., expressive of consequence,” as Ellicott. See Winer, edn. 6, § 41. 1. Cf. 1 Peter 3:15, which however is but one side of that readiness which is here recommended. 7-18. Close of the Epistle. 7-9. Of the bearers of the Epistle, Tychicus and Onesimus. 7. On Tychicus, see Ephesians 4:21. ὁἀγ . ἀδελφός , as dear to his heart: πιστ . διάκ ., as his tried companion in the ministry,— σύνδ . ἐνκυρίῳ , as one with him in the motives and objects of his active work: ὥστε , as Chrys., αὐτῷπάντοθεντὸἀξιόπιστονξυνήγαγεν . There is a delicate touch of affection in ἵναγνῷτὰπερὶὑμ ., which can hardly, in the doubtfulness of the reading, be the work of a corrector. It implies that there were painful circumstances of trial, to which the subsequent παρακαλέσῃ also has reference. δείκνυσιναὐτοὺςἐντοῖςπειρασμοῖςὄντας , Chrys. The objection (Eadie), that thus the εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτο will announce another purpose from that enounced above in τὰκατ ʼ ἐμὲπ . γνωρ ., will apply just as much to the other reading;— for any how the αὐτὸτοῦτο must iuclude the καὶπαρακαλέσῃκ .τ .λ . But the fact is, that αὐτὸτοῦτο may apply exclusively to the following, without any reference to what has preceded: see Romans 9:17; the parallel place, Ephesians 6:22; Philippians 1:6. 9. σὺνὈνησ .] There can hardly be a doubt (compare ver. 17 with Philemon 1:2, Philemon 1:10 ff.) that this is the Onesimus of the Epistle to Philemon. When Calv. wrote “ vix est credibile hunc esse servum illum Philemonis, quia furis et fugitivi nomen dedecori subjectum fuisset,” he forgot that this very term, ἀδελφὸςἀγαπητός , is applied to him, Philemon 1:16. ἐξὑμῶν ] most probably, a native of your town. πάντ . ὑμ . γν . τὰὧδε ] A formal restatement of τὰκατ ʼ ἐμὲπ . γν . above. Is it likely, with this restatement, that the same should be again stated in the middle of the sentence, as would be the case with the reading ἵναγνῶτετὰπερὶἡμῶν 10-14. Various greetings from brethren. 10. Aristarchus was a Thessalonian (Acts 20:4), first mentioned Acts 19:29, as dragged into the theatre at Ephesus during the tumult, together with Gaius, both being συνέκδημοιΠαύλου . He accompanied Paul to Asia (ib. 22:4), and was with him in the voyage to Rome (27:2). In Philemon 1:24, he sends greeting, with Marcus, Demas, and Lucas, as here. On συναιχμάλωτος , Meyer (after Fritzsche, Rom. vol. i. prolegg. p. xxi) suggests an idea, which may without any straining of probability be adopted, and which would explain why Aristarchus is here συναιχμ ., and in Philemon 1:24, συνεργός , whereas Epaphras is here, ch. 1:7, merely a σύνδουλος , and in Philemon 1:23 a συναιχμάλωτος . His view is, that the Apostle’ s friends may have voluntarily shared his imprisonment by turns: and that Aristarchus may have been his fellow-prisoner when he wrote this Epistle, Epaphras when he wrote that to Philemon. συναιχμάλωτος belongs to the same image of warfare as συνστρατιώτης , Philippians 2:25; Philemon 1:2. Μάρκος ] can hardly be other than John Mark, cf. Acts 12:12, Acts 12:25, who accompanied Paul and Barnabas in part of their first missionary journey, and because he turned back from their at Perga (ib.13:13; 15:38), was the subject of dispute between them on their second journey. That he was also the Evangelist, is matter of pure tradition, but not therefore to be rejected. ἀνεψιός ] not ‘ sister’ s son:’ this rendering has arisen from mistaking the definition given by Hesych., ἀνεψιοί , ἀδελφῶνυἱοί ,— meaning that ἀνεψιοί are sons of brothers, i.e. cousins. (Ellic. in notes on his translation of the Epistle, suggests that ‘ sister’ s-son’ may after all be no mistake, but an archaism to express, as the German Geschwisterkind, a cousin.) “ Pollux dicit, filios filiasque fratrum et sororum, dici ἀνεψιούς , ex his prognatos ἀνεψιαδοῦς , ἀνεψιαδάς ,— tertio gradu ἐξανεψιούς , ἐξανεψιάς a Menandro dici.” Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 306. This is decisively shewn in Herod. vii. 5, Μαρδόνιος … ὃςἦνΞέρξῃμὲνἀνεψιός , Δαρείουδὲἀδελφεῆςπάϊς . It is also used in a wider sense (see Hom. Il. α . 464): but there is no need to depart here from the strict meaning. περὶοὗ … ] What these commands were, must be left in entire uncertainty. They had been sent previous to the writing of our Epistle : but from, or by whom, we know not. They concerned Marcus, not Barnabas (as Thl., al.): and one can hardly help connecting them, associated as they are with ἐὰνἔλθῃ , δέξασθεαὐτόυ , with the dispute of Act 15:38. It is very possible, that in consequence of the rejection of John Mark on that occasion by St. Paul, the Pauline portion of the churches may have looked upon him with suspicion. 11. Ἰησοῦς … Ἰοῦστος ] Entirely unknown to us. A Justus is mentioned Acts 18:7, as an inhabitant of Corinth, and a proselyte: but there is no further reason to identify the two. The surname Justus was common among the Jews: cf. Acts 1:23, and Jos. Vit. 9, 65, 76. These alone who are of the circumcision (the construction is of the nature of an anacoluthon, οἱὄντεςἐκπ . being equivalent to ‘ of those of the circumcision.’ We have a similar construction frequently in the classics: e.g. ἄμφωδ ʼ ἑζομένωγεραρώτεροςἦενὈδυσσεύς , Il. γ . 211: ὅρκιαπιστὰταμόντεςὁμὲνβασιλευέτωαἰεί , Od. ω . 483. See many more examples in Kü hner, ii. § 678. 2. This seems far better, with Meyer and Lachmann, than with rec. Ellic. al. to place the stop at περιτομῆς and attach the clause to the three preceding names. For thus we lose (in spite of the assertion by Ellic. that the μόνοι naturally refers the thought to the category last mentioned) the fact that there were other συνεργοί not of the circumcision who had been a comfort to him. The judaistic teachers were for the most part in opposition to St. Paul: cf. his complaint, Philippians 1:15, Philippians 1:17) are my fellow-workers towards the kingdom of God (the rest would not be called by this name— so that De W.’ s objection to the construction does not apply, that the opponents would not be called συνεργοί ; for they are not so called), man that proved (the passive meaning of ἐγενήθησαν is not safely to be pressed: see notes on Ephesians 3:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:15. The aor. alludes to some event recently passed: to what precisely, we cannot say) a comfort to me (they are my συνεργοί ‘ quippe qui.… ’ Hierocles, de nuptiis, apud Stob. (Kypke), has the same phrase: ἡγυνὴδὲπαροῦσαμεγάληγίνεταικ . πρὸςταῦταπαρηγορία : so Plutarch, de auditione, p. 43 (id.), νόσημαπαρηγορίας … δεόμενον ). 12. On Epaphras, see ch. 1:7 note. The sentence is better without a comma at ὑμῶν , both as giving more spirit to the δοῦλοςχ . Ἰ ., and setting the ἐξὑμ . in antithesis to the ὑπὲρὑμῶν below. On ἀγων . besides reff., see Romans 15:30. By mentioning Epaphras’ s anxious prayers for them, he works further on their affections, giving them an additional motive for stedfastness, in that one of themselves was thus striving in prayer for them, ἵνα here gives the direct aim of ἀγωνιζ . See above on ver. 3— that ye may stand,— perfect and fully persuaded (see reff.),— in (be firmly settled in, without danger of vacillating or falling) all the (lit. ‘ in every:’ but we cannot thus express it in English) will of God. This connexion, of στῆτε with ἐν , as Mey., seems better than, as ordinarily (so also De W. and Ellic.), to join ἐν with the participles. Eadie characterizes it as needless refinement in Mey. to assert that thus not only a modal-beftimmung but a local-beftimmung is attached to στῆτε : but the use of στῆναιἐν in the reff. seems to justify it. 13. πόνος ,— an unusual word in the N. T., hence the var. readd.,— is usual in the toil of conflict in war, thus answering to ἀγωνιζόμ . above: so Herod. vi. 114, ἐντούτῳτῷπόνῳὁπολέμαρχοςΚαλλίμαχοςδιαφθείρεται : similarly viii. 89. Plato, Phæ dr. 247 b, ἔνθαδὴπόνοςτεκ . ἀγὼνἔσχατοςψυχῇπρόκειται : Demosth. 637. 18, εἰδ ʼ ἐκεῖνοςἀσθενέστεροςἦντὸνὑπὲρτῆςνίκηςἐνεγκεῖνπόνον . On account of this mention of Laodicea and Hierapolis, some have thought that Epaphras was the founder of the three churches. See Prolegg. § ii. 2, 7. Λαοδικείᾳ ] Laodicea was a city of Phrygia Magna (Strabo xii. 8, Plin. v. 29: according to the subscription (rec.) of 1 Tim., the chief city of Phrygia Pacatiana), large (ἡτῆςχώραςἀρετὴκ . τῶνπολιτῶντινεςεὐτυχήσαντες , μεγάληνἐποιήσαντοαὐτήν , Strabo) and rich (Revelation 3:17; and Prolegg. to Rev. § iii. 13. Tac. Ann. xiv. 27: ‘ Laodicea, tremore terræ prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio, propriis opibus revaluit:’ δυνατωτέρατῶνἐπὶθαλάττῃ , Philostr. Soph. i. 25), on the river Lycus (hence called Λ . ἡἐπὶΛύκῳ or πρὸςτῷΛύκῳ , see Strabo, ib.), formerly called Diospolis, and afterwards Rhoas; its subsequent name was from Laodice queen of Antiochus II. (Steph. Byz.) In a.d. 62, Laodicea, with Hierapolis and Colossæ , was destroyed by an earthquake (Tacit. l. c.), to which visitations the neighbourhood was very subject (εἰγάρτιςἄλληκ . ἡΛαοδίκειαεὔσειστος , κ . τῆςπλησιοχώρουπλέον , Plin. ib.). There is now on the spot a desolate village called Eski-hissar, with some ancient ruins (Arundel, Seven Churches). Winer, Realw. Ἱεραπόλει ] Six Roman miles north from Laodicea: famed for many mineral springs (Strabo, xiii. 4, describes them at length, also the caverns which exhale noxious vapour. See also Plin. ii. 95), which are still flowing (Schubert, i. 283). Winer, Realw. 14. This Λουκᾶς has ever been taken for the Evangelist: see Iren. iii. 14.1, p. 201, and Prolegg. to St. Luke, § i. In ὁἰατρὸςὁἀγαπητός there may be a trace of what has been supposed, that it was in a professional capacity that he first became attached to St. Paul, who evidently laboured under grievous sickness during the earlier part of the journey where Luke first appears in his company. Compare Galatians 4:13 note, with Acts 16:6, Acts 16:10. But this is too uncertain to be more than an interesting conjecture. Δημᾶς ] one of Paul’ s συνεργοί , Philemon 1:24, who however afterwards deserted him, from love to the world, 2 Timothy 4:10. The absence of any honourable or endearing mention here may be owing to the commencement of this apostasy, or some unfavourable indication in his character. 15-17. Salutations to friends. 15. καί , before Νυμφᾶν , as so often, selects one out of a numbe Laodicean brethren. The var. readings, αὐτοῦ , αὐτῆς , appear to have arisen from the construction (see below) not being understood, and the alteration thus having been made to the singular, but in various genders, αὐτῶν refers to τῶνπερὶΝυμφᾶν : cf. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 62, ἐάντιςφανερὸςγένηταικλέπτων — τούτοιςθάνατόςἐστινἡζημία : and see Bernhardy, p. 288; Kü hner ii. § 419 b. On the ἐκκλησία spoken of, see note, Romans 16:5. 16. ἡἐπιστ ., the present letter, reff. ποιήσ . ἵνα ] as ποίει , ὅκως … Herod. i. 8. 209,— ὡςσαφέστατάγἂνεἰδείην … ἐποίουν , Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 18. τὴνἐκΛαοδ .] On this Epistle, see Prolegg. to Eph. § ii. 17, 19; and Philem. § iii. 2, 3 [and note on the subscription to 1 Tim.]. I will only indicate here the right rendering of the words. They cannot well be taken, as τινές in Chrys., to mean οὐχὶτὴνΠ . πρὸςαὐτοὺςἀπεσταλμένην , ἀλλὰτὴνπαρ ʼ αὐτῶνΠαύλῳ (so also Syr., Thdrt., Phot. in Œ c., Erasm., Beza, Calv., Wolf, Est., Corn.-a-lap., al.), both on account of the awkwardness of the sense commanding them to read an Epistle sent from Laodicea, and not found there, and on account of the phrase τὴνἐκ so commonly having the pregnant meaning of ‘ which is there and must be sought from there;’ cf. Kü hner, ii. § 623 α . Herod. iii. 6. Thucyd. ii. 34; iii. 22; vi. 32; vii. 70, and other examples there. We may safely say that a letter not from, but to the Laodiceans is meant. For the construction of this latter sentence, ποιήσατε again is of course to be supplied. 17. Archippus is mentioned Philemon 1:2, and called the Apostle’ s συνστρατιώτης . I have treated on the inference to be drawn from this passage as to his abode, in the Prolegg. to Philemon, § iii.1. He was evidently some officer of the church, but what, in the wideness of διακονία , we cannot say: and conjectures are profitless (see such in Est. and Corn.-a-lap.). Meyer well remarks, that the authority hereby implied on the part of the congregation to exercise reproof and discipline over their teachers is remarkable: and that the hierarchical turn given to the passage by Thl. and Œ c. (ἵναὅτανἐπιτιμᾷἈρχ . αὐτοῖς , μὴἔχωσινἐγκαλεῖνἐκείνῳὡςπικρῷ , … ἐπεὶἄλλωςἄτοποντοῖςμαθηταῖςπερὶτοῦδιδασκάλουδιαλέγεσθαι , Thl.) belongs to a later age. As to the words themselves,— Take heed to the ministry which thou receivedst in the Lord (the sphere of the reception of the ministry; in which the recipient lived and moved and promised at his ordination: not, of the ministry itself (τὴνἐνκυρ .),— nor is ἐν to be diverted from its simple local meaning), that (aim and end of the βλέπε ,— in order that) thou fulfil it (reff.). 18. Autograph salutation. ὁ … Παύλου ] See ref. 1 Cor., where the same words occur. μνημ .… δεσμ .] These words extend further than to mere pecuniary support, or even mere prayers: they were ever to keep before them the fact that one who so deeply cared for them, and loved them, and to whom their perils of false doctrine occasioned such anxiety, was a prisoner in chains: and that remembrance was to work and produce its various fruits— of prayer for him, of affectionate remembrance of his wants, of deep regard for his words. When we read of ‘ his chains,’ we should not forget that they moved over the paper as he wrote. His right hand was chained to the soldier that kept him. See Smith’ s Dict, of Antiq. under ‘ Catena.’ ἡχάρις — cf. reff. and ch. 3:16. ‘ The grace’ in which we stand (Romans 5:2): it seems (reff.) to be a form of valediction belonging to the later period of the Epistles of St. Paul.