THE EPISTLE TO THE — — — — ΠΡΟΣΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ The spelling of the name is uncertain. In the title the spelling Κολοσσαεις is given by א Bc D G L 17 (Κολοσαεις ), while A B K P have Κολασσαεις , which א also has twice at the top of the page, and so G once (once also Κολοσοαεις ). In the subscription א A B C K 17 agree in Κολασσαεις , while B2 D G L P have Κολοσσαεις . In ver. 2 א B D G L have Κολοσσαις , K P 17, al. Κολασσαις (A non liquet). The versions also vary. Syr. (both) have א , with Boh., but Vulg. and Arm. o. Coins give the spelling with o, and for the name of the people Κολοσηνων or Κολοσσηνων . But the form with a appears in Polyaenus and in some MSS. of Herodotus and Xenophon. The latter may have been a provincial pronunciation and spelling. WH. and Lightfoot adopt a in the title, o in ver. 2; Tregelles has a in both places, as well as in the subscription (which WH. omit). Tischendorf preserves the correct spelling with o, remarking, “ videtur Κολασσαι scriptura sensim in usum abisse. At inde non sequitur iam Paulum ita scripsisse.” As the heading did not proceed from the pen of St. Paul, this conclusion agrees practically with that of WH. and Lightfoot as to the spelling here. 1:1 Salutation. Παῦλοςἀπόστολος , κ .τ .λ . See Ephesians 1:1. καὶΤιμόθεος . Timothy’ s name is joined with that of Paul also in 2 Cor. 1Th_2 Thess. Philemon. In Phil. and Philemon, however, the apostle proceeds in the singular, whereas here the plural is maintained throughout the thanksgiving. ὁἀδελφός . This does not imply any official position (οὐκοῦνκαὶἀπόστολος , Chrys.); it is the simplest title that could be employed to express Christian brotherhood. So it is used of Quartus, Romans 16:23; of Sosthenes, 1 Corinthians 1:1; and of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 16:12; and of an unnamed brother, 2 Corinthians 8:18, 2 Corinthians 12:18. Compare 2 Corinthians 9:3, 2 Corinthians 9:5. 2. τοῖςἐνΚ . ἁγίοιςκαὶπιστοῖςἀδελφοῖς . ἁγίοις , as in all similar salutations, must be taken as a substantive. De Wette, however, and apparently Syr. and Vulg., connect it as an adjective with ἀδελφοῖς . πιστοῖς is more than “ believing,” which would add nothing to ἁγίοις and ἀδελφοῖς . It is “ true, steadfast.” Cf. Acts 16:15. ἐνΧριστῷ . Closely connected with πιστοῖςἀδ ., but refers chiefly to πιστοῖς . Cf. πιστὸςδιάκονοςἐνΚυρίῳ , Ephesians 6:21. Only in Christ were they “ faithful brethren” ; the article, therefore, is not required. ἐνΧρ . might, indeed, have been dispensed with; but it suits the formality of the introductory greeting. After ἐνΧριστῷ , Ἰησοῦ is added in A D* G 17, Vulg., Boh., not in א B DeK L P, Syr-Harcl., Arm., etc. (Syr-Pesh has Ἰησοῦ before Χριστῷ ). It is remarkable that St. Paul’ s earlier Epistles are addressed τῇἐκκλησίᾳ , ταῖςἐκκλησίαις ; whereas here, as in Rom. and Eph., the address is to the saints and brethren. This can hardly be accidental. It certainly gives the address a more personal and less official aspect, and may have been adopted because the apostle had no personal relations with the heads of these Churches, to which he was personally unknown. It has been objected to this, that in 4:16 the Church of the Laodiceans is mentioned; and, again, that the Epistle to the Philippians, to whom St. Paul was personally known, is similarly addressed. As to the former objection, it may be fairly replied that to speak of his Epistle being read in the Church is very different from addressing it to the Church; and as to the second, although the word ἐκκλησία is not used in the address to the Phil., we have what may be regarded as an equivalent, σὺνἐπισκόποιςκαὶδιακόνοις . It is hardly satisfactory to say that the disuse of ἐκκλησία in the address is characteristic of the later Epistles; for, first, this is not an explanation; and, secondly, the word is used in Philemon, τῇκατ ʼ οἶκόνσουἐκκλησίᾳ . χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνηἀπὸΘεοῦπατρὸςἡμῶν = Ephesians 1:2, where there follows ΚαὶΚυρίονἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . These words are added here also in א A C G and most MSS. Boh., Arm., also P in a different order, ἸησοῦΧρ . τοῦΚυρίουἡμῶν . The words are absent from B D K L 17, al. Amiat., Fuld.., Syr-Pesh (text). Origen and Chrysostom both expressly attest the absence of the words. The latter, after quoting the preceding words, observes: τὸνυἱὸνἐσίγησενκαὶοὐπροσέθηκενὡςἐνπάσαιςταῖςἐπιστολαῖς · καὶΚυρίουἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . The addition has plainly come in by assimilation to Eph. 3-8. Thanksgiving for their faith and love, passing on into the assurance that the gospel they were taught by Epaphras was the true universal gospel, which proved its genuineness by the fruit it produced, both among them and in all the world 3. εὐχαριστοῦμεν . In all St. Paul’ s Epistles to Churches, with the exception of that to the Galatians, the Salutation is followed by thanksgiving. In Eph. as in 2 Cor. this is in the form εὐλογητὸςὁΘεός , elsewhere in some form of εὐχαριστῶ . On the verb, see Ephesians 1:15. τῷΘεῷπατρί . We have the same form of words in 3:15; elsewhere, however, always ὁΘεὸςκαὶπατήρ . Here also καί is inserted by א A C2 Dc K L P, and apparently all other MSS. except those mentioned below; Vulg., Arm., Theodoret, al. It is wanting in B C D G, Chrys. (D* G Chrys. have τῷπατρί ). Old Latin, Syr. (both), Boh., Eth. Tisch. 8th ed. (in deference to א ), restores καί , which he had omitted in 7th ed. (WH. and RV. omit). Lachm. also omits, but reads τῷ with D* F G. Meyer thinks καί was omitted in a mechanical way after the preceding Θεοῦπατρός . It is observable that in 3:17, א A agree with B C in omitting καί , while D F G, with K L and nearly all others, as well as Syr-Pesh, insert it. The evidence for the omission there is decidedly preponderant. It is less so here, yet perhaps decisive enough when we consider how certainly the scribes would stumble at the unusual form. The reading τῷπατρί appears to be another attempt to get rid of it. Compare 1:12 below, where א 37, with other authorities, have Θεῷ before πατρί . εὐχαριστοῦμεν … πάντοτεπερὶὑμῶνπροσευχόμενοι . It is questioned whether πάντοτε is to be joined with εὐχαριστοῦμεν or with προσευχ . The latter connexion is adopted by the Greek commentators, also by Bengel, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, etc. But Ephesians 1:16 is almost decisive for the other connexion, οὐπαύομαιεὐχαριστῶνὑπὲρὑμῶνμνείανὑμῶνποιούμενοςἐπὶτῶνπροσευχῶνμου . Compare 1 Corinthians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:2. προσευχ . is, in fact, a nearer definition of πάντοτε “ We give thanks on your account always in our prayers,” or (as Meyer), “ always when we pray for you.” “ Always praying for you” would require the addition of words specifying the object of the prayer. The reading varies between περί and ὑπέρ . The latter is read by B D* G 17, al., but A C Dc J K, with most MSS., have περί . ὑπέρ would readily be introduced from ver. 9, where there is no variant. 4. ἀκούσαντεςτὴνπίστινὑμῶνἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ . Assigns the ground of his thanksgiving. He had heard from Epaphras, ver. 8. The addition of ἐνΧρ . Ἰης . as a more precise definition of πίστις , which of itself expresses only a psychological conception, is quite natural here, where St. Paul is addressing for the first time those who were unknown to him. So in Ephesians 1:15. In Romans 1:8 the specification of πίστις had preceded vv. 2, 3. The article is unnecessary, as πίστιςἐνΧρ . is one notion. See Eph. l.c. καὶτὴνἀγάπηνἣνἔχετεεἰςπάνταςτοὺςἁγίους . ἣνἔχετε is read in א A C D* G P 17 37 47, al. Old Latin, Vulg., Boh., Syr-Harcl., Arm. But Dc K L and most MSS. Chrys., Theod., Syr-Pesh have τὴνἀγάπηντὴνεἰς , while B has τὴνἀγάπηνεἰς . The reading with ἣνἔχετε might be a conformation to Philemon 1:5, while τὴνἀγάπηντήν might be a conformation to Ephesians 1:15. 5. διὰτὴνἐλπίδα . The Greek comm. and most moderns connect this with the words immediately preceding, “ the love which ye have to all the saints.” ἀγαπᾶτέ , φησι , τοὺςἁγίουςοὐδιάτιἀνθρώπινονἀλλὰδιὰτὸἐλπίζειντὰμέλλονταἀγαθά , Theoph. The reasons alleged are— (1) the remoteness of εὐχαριστοῦμεν ; (2) the following clause,ἣνπροηκούσατε , suggests that the words διὰτῆνἐλπίδα describe the motives of the Colossians for welldoing, rather than the reasons of the apostle for thanksgiving; (3) in other Epistles the ground of thanksgiving is the spiritual state of the persons addressed; (4) εὐχαριστεῖν is never used with διά in the N.T.; and (5) the connexion with εὐχ . would break up the triad of graces which St. Paul delights in associating together. (So Meyer, Soden, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot.) (1), (2), (5) are considered by Lightfoot decisive. Yet surely there is something strange in assigning the future hope as the motive of Christian love. As Eadie observes, if the apostle had said that they loved one another because of the common hope which they had in heaven, or that this prospect of a joint inheritance deepened their attachments, the meaning might have been easily apprehended; but why the hope in itself should be selected as the prop of such love, we know not. Of all the graces, love has the least of self in its nature. Such passages as 2 Corinthians 9:6, Galatians 6:9 f. are not analogous; for what creates a difficulty is not the mention of expected reward as a motive for action, but as a motive for love. As ἐλπίς here is not the grace of hope, but the object (τὴνἀποκειμένην ), reason (5) loses its force; as ἐλπίς does not mean the same thing as in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, for example, it is quite natural that it should fall into a different connexion. Nor does there seem to be much weight in the second reason. The words ἣνπροηκούσατε , κ .τ .λ ., involve an appeal to the first teaching they had received, which was sound and full. This goes very well with εὐχαριστοῦμεν ; but if the hope were described as the motive of their love, what appropriateness would there be in referring to their former instruction in it? As to (3) and (4), the clause ἀκούσαντες does imply that the ground of his thanksgiving was their faith and love; but it is consistent with this that what prompted him to feel thankful for these graces was the thought of the hope laid up for them, and hence with this connexion διά is not only admissible, but is alone suitable. The signification of εὐχαριστεῖνὑπέρ (1 Corinthians 10:30; Ephesians 5:20) is not that required here. There is good reason, then, for Bengel’ s interpretation: “ ex spe patet, quanta sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris.” If ἣνἔχετε be omitted the connexion with ἀγάπην is grammatically harsh. Estius, De Wette, Olshausen, and others connect διὰτὴνἐλπ . with both πίστιν and ἀγάπην . This connexion is certainly awkward, and the sentiment not Pauline. Theodore Mops. connects the words with προσευχόμενοι . ἐλπίς is clearly objective, as in Romans 8:24; Galatians 5:5. τὴνἀποκειμένην . The thought of the “ hope,” i.e. the blessing hoped for, being already prepared is not expressed in this form by St. Paul elsewhere, except perhaps 1 Timothy 6:19, but is clearly put in 1 Peter 1:4, κληρονομίαν … τετηρημένηνἐνοὐρανοῖς . In substance it is involved in Philippians 3:20, and, indeed, in Matthew 6:20. ἣνπροηκούσατε . The προ - has reference, according to Meyer, to the future fulfilment. Bengel understands it simply as “ antequam scriberem,” but the context rather suggests that the reference is to their early teaching in contrast to the later errors. The apostle now is not teaching them anything new, but desires to confirm them in the true doctrine which they had already learned. Compare vv. 7, 23 and 5:6. Hence also the mention of the truth of the gospel in the following words:— ἐντῷλόγῳτῆςἀληθείαςτοῦεὐαγγελίου . That εὐαγγελίου is the principal notion here is shown by the participle παρόντος , which agrees with it, and not with ἀληθείας . And this is confirmed by the connexion of ἐλπίς and εὐαγγέλιον in ver. 23. The genitive ἀληθείας then qualifies λόγος , and this compound notion is explained by εὐαγγ . ἡἀλ . τοῦεὐαγγ ., Galatians 2:5, Galatians 2:14, is not exactly parallel, because there the formula has a direct polemical purpose. Here the point is that ὁλόγοςτοῦεὐαγγ . is a λόγοςτῆςἀληθείας in opposition to those false teachers who would fain complete it by their παραδόσεις , 2:8, which were κενὴἀπάτη . 6. τοῦπαρότοςεἰςὑμᾶς . A quite classical use of παρεῖναι as implying “ has come and remains.” οὐπαρεγένετοκαὶἀπέστη , ἀλλ ʼ ἔμεινεκαὶἔστινἐκεῖ , Chrys.; cf. Acts 12:20. It needs, then, no further addition. καθὼςκαὶἐνπαντὶτῷκόσμῳἐστὶνκαρποφορούμενον . παντὶτῷκόσμῳ here is not an insignificant hyperbole, but intimates the catholicity of the true gospel in opposition to the merely local character of false gospels; compare ver. 23. Tischendorf, Exo_8, places a comma after ἐστίν . This construction escapes the irregularity involved in the doubling back of the comparison by the second καθώς . The comparison then may be either as to the mere fact of the presence of the gospel, so that ἐστίν = “ exists,” or as to the contents of it, which agrees better with the designation of the gospel as λόγοςτῆςἀληθειας . The readers then are assured that the gospel which has come to and remains with them is the same as in the whole world; they need have no fear that it was imperfect; it is the false teachers that are not in agreement with the universal gospel. So Soden. But most comm. connect ἐστί with καρποφορούμενονκαὶαὐξ . καί is prefixed to ἐστίν in Dbc G K L, etc. Old Lat., Vulg., Syr. (both), Chyrs. It is absent from א A B C D* 17, al. Boh., Arm., Eth. The evidence against it, therefore, is quite decisive. It was doubtless added to simplify the construction, and is defended on the ground of this simplicity by Olshausen and Eadie. Ellicott, who had previously hesitated, thinking that it might have been omitted to modify the hyperbole, omitted the word in his 5th ed. καρποφορούμενον . The middle voice is not elsewhere found; its force here is probably intensive, denoting the inherent energy, while the active (which is used below, ver. 10) would rather denote external diffusion (Lightfoot). Verbs like σιδηροφορεῖσθαι , τυμπανοφορεῖσθαι are not parallel, since in them φορεῖσθαι means “ to wear.” Those comm. who connect ἐστίν with the participles explain this periphrastic present as expressing continuity of action, as in 2 Corinthians 9:12, οὐμόνονἐστὶνπροσαναπληροῦσα , κ .τ .λ ., and Phil: 2:26, ἐπιποθῶνῃν . καὶαὐξανόμενον rests on preponderant evidence, א A B C D* G I, Vss. Rec. omits, with Dbc K, etc. αὐξανόμενον doubtless refers to the outward expansion, as καρποφ . to the personal, inner working. “ The gospel is not like those plants which exhaust themselves in bearing fruit and wither away. The external growth keeps pace with the reproductive energy,” Lightfoot. Observe the order; first the preservation of the gospel amongst those who received it, and after that its extension to new circles. Both are to the Colossians a proof of its truth and sufficiency. καθὼςκαὶἐνὑμῖν , so that they did not come behind their brethren in this respect. If we connect the participles with ἐστίν , the comparison is very curiously doubled back on itself. Moreover, as Olshausen observes (defending the addition of καί after κόσμῳ ), the words καθὼςκαὶἐνὑμῖν do not fit the beginning of the proposition, καθὼςκαὶἐνπαντὶτῷκόσμῳ , since the Colossians are, of course, included with the rest in the whole world. Lightfoot explains the irregularity thus: “ The clause reciprocating the comparison is an afterthought springing out of the apostle’ s anxiety not to withhold praise where praise can be given,” and he compares 1 Thessalonians 4:1 (not Rec.),παρακαλοῦμενἐνΚυρίῳἸησοῦἵνα , καθὼςπαρελάβετεπαρ ʼ ἡμῶντὸπῶςδεῖὑμᾶςπεριπατεῖνκαὶἀρέσκεινΘεῷ , καθὼςκαὶπεριπατεῖτε , ἵναπερισσεύητεμᾶλλον . But that passage is not really parallel; for καθὼςκαὶπεριπατεῖτε is entirely distinct from καθὼςπαρελάβετε , and is a courteous admission that they were actually walking as they had been taught. Here there is nothing of the kind, and the difficulty (apart from that mentioned by Olshausen) is that we have the mere repetition,“ in you as also in all the world, as also in you.” The difficulty, of course, disappears in the Rec. Text with the insertion of καί ; or, since we are compelled to omit καί , with the adoption of the construction above referred to, as then the comparison in καθὼςκαὶἐνὑμῖν is with καρποφ . καὶαὐξ . ἀφ ʼ ἧςἡμέρας , κ .τ .λ . To be closely joined with καθὼςκαὶἐνὑμῖν ; the fruitfulness and growth began at once, so that it was independent of these later παραδόσεις . ἠκούσατεκαὶἐπέγνωτετὴνχάριν . There is no occasion to regard τὴνχάριν as the object of the latter verb only (as Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie understanding “ it,” i.e. the gospel, as the object of ἠκούσατε ). χάρις was the content of the gospel message, which is called τὸεὐαγγέλιοντῆς · χάριτοςτοῦΘεοῦ (Acts 20:24), and as such may be said to be heard. We can hardly, indeed, say, with Lightfoot, that St. Paul uses χάρις as a “ synonyme for the gospel,” of which use he gives as instances 2 Corinthians 6:1, 2 Corinthians 8:9, γινώσκετετὴνχάριντοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , ὅτιδι ʼ ὑμᾶςἐπτώχευσεπλούσιοςὤν . Here the word suggests a contrast with the false gospel, which was one of δόγματα (2:14). Compare Galatians 2:21, οὐκἀθετῶτὴνχάριντοῦΘεοῦ . ἐπέγνωτε implies not so much developed knowledge as active conscious recognition, or taking knowledge of; cf. Acts 3:10, Acts 3:4:13, Acts 3:22:24, 29, 27:39, 28:1; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Corinthians 1:14 (ἐπέγνωτεἡμᾶςἀπὸμέρους ). ἐνἀληθείᾳ . Even although the gospel was itself λόγοςτῆςἀληθείας , there was the possibility that as known by them it was imperfect; hence this is added to guard them against the error of the false teachers, who insisted on supplementing it by their philosophy (2:8, 28). 7. καθὼςἐμάθετεἀπὸἘπαφρᾶ . This gives them a further assurance as to the source of their Christianity; the apostle gives his seal to the teaching of Epaphras, which conveyed the full gospel of the grace of God, so that having received this in truth as they did, they had no need to listen to strange teachers. Epaphras appears from 4:12 to have been a Colossian; either a native, or now reckoned as an inhabitant of Colossae. From the present passage we gather that he was the founder of the Church there (compare the καθώς and ἀφ ʼ ἧςἡμέρας .) He was at this time a fellow-prisoner of St. Paul (Philemon 1:23): or perhaps συναιχμάλωτος there only means that he was so constantly with St. Paul as practically to share his captivity. As the name is a shortened form of Epaphroditus, it was natural to conjecture that the Epaphroditus of Php 2:25 was the same person. But the names were common, occurring frequently in inscriptions; and as Epaphroditus appears to be in close connexion with the Philippians (whose ἀπόστολος he was), there is no sufficient ground for the identification. τοῦἀγαπητοῦσυνδούλουἡμῶν . So Tychicus (4:7) is called σύνδουλος , the servitude being, of course, to Christ. This designation appears intended to command high respect for Epaphras, who is thus placed as near as possible to the apostle. ὅςἐστιπιστὸςὑπὲρἡμῶνδιάκονοςτοῦΧριστοῦ . See note on the reading. The reading ἡμῶν makes Epaphras a representative of St. Paul in preaching the gospel at Colossae; probably at the time when the apostle was dwelling for two years at Ephesus, at which time “ all that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:10). This would explain the attitude of authority which St. Paul assumes in this Epistle towards a Church which he had not himself seen. διάκονος has clearly its general meaning “ minister,” not the special sense “ deacon,” as the genitive τοῦΧριστοῦ shows. This designation of him as πιστὸςὑπὲρἡμῶν , κ .τ .λ ., serves still further to confirm the confidence of the Colossians in their first teacher. If ὑμῶν is read, ὑπέρὑμῶν would mean “ for your benefit,” not “ instead of you,” for there is no personal reference here, as in Philemon 1:13, ἵναὑπὲρσοῦμοιδιακονῇ . The genitive τοῦΧριστοῦ is, indeed, decisive of this, for this implies that his ministry was one of spiritual benefit, which would not be suitable to a messenger from the Colossians to St. Paul. There are two rather important varieties of reading in ver. 7. The Rec. Text has καί after καθώς on comparatively weak authority, viz. Do 37 47 K L Syr-Harcl., Arm., against א A B C D * G 17 P Vulg., SyrPesh1;, and other Vers. καί was doubtless added from assimilation to the two preceding καθὼςκαί . καθὼςἐμάθετε without καί can only mean that Epaphras was their first teacher. The other important variation is between ὑπὲρἡμῶν and ὑπὲρὑμῶν , and with respect to this there is a remarkable conflict between MSS. and versions. ἡμῶν is read by א A B D G. Ambrosiaster (Comm. “ qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice Apostoli” ). ὐμῶν by א c C Dbc K L P and most MSS. The versions, however, are nearly all on the side of ὑμῶν , Vulg., Syr. (both), Boh., Arm., Eth., Goth., Chrys. also interprets ὑμῶν . The other Greek comm. are silent as to the word in their comments, and the reading in their texts, which is ὑμῶν , may be due to editors. Of the old Latin, d (and e) with f have “ vobis” (against the Greek D F), while g has “ nobis” (agreeing with G). Internal evidence favours ἡμῶν . First, “ for your benefit” would hardly be expressed by ὑπὲρὑμῶν , but either by ὑμῶν , cf. διάκονονπεριτομῆς , Romans 15:8, or ὑμῖν , as in 1 Peter 1:12. The form of expression does not indicate that any emphasis on “ for your benefit” is intended, as if the apostle meant to impress on the Col. that whatever Epaphars had done was for their good. Secondly, it is easy to understand how ὑμῶν might be substituted for ἡμῶν partly on account of the recurrence of ὑπὲρὑμῶν in the neighbouring context (vv. 3, 9) and in connexion with this, from the significance of ἡμῶν not being understood. The two words being pronounced alike, these circumstances would naturally lead to ὑμῶν being written by mistake in the first instance, and the second to its preference when both readings were deliberately compared. On the other hand, Meyer thinks that ἡμῶν is due to the influence of the preceding ἡμῶν and the following ἡμῶν . Editors differ in their judgment; Lachm., Treg., WH., Lightfoot, RV., Barry, Moule adopt ἡμῶν , ὑμῶν being given a place in the margin by WH., RV. On the other hand, Tisch., Meyer, Ell. Eadie, Soden prefer ὑμῶν . Eadie in support of this points out that ἡμῶν would include Timothy. But there is no reason why Timothy should be so pointedly excluded, as would have been the case had ἐμοῦ been used, any more than with συνδούλου and δηλώσας . 8. ὁκαὶδηλώσαςἡμῖντὴνὑμῶἀγάπηνἐνπνεύματι , viz. their love to St. Paul in particular. This appears clear from ἡμῖντὴνὑμῶν , as well as from the subsequent διὰτοῦτοΚαὶἡμεῖς . The words may be regarded as a courteous justification of the didactic tone which the apostle adopts, and perhaps also as an indication that Epaphras had not made any complaint of the Colossians. Meyer (reading ὑμῶν ) understands love to Epaphras; Ellicott, brotherly love. ἐνπνεύματι expresses the ground of their love, which was not individual sympathy, personal acquaintance, or the like, but belonged to the sphere of the Holy Spirit’ s influence. It was οὐσαρκική , ἀλλὰπνευματική , Oecum. Compare ὅσοιοὐχἑωράκασιτὸπρόσωπόνμουἐνσαρκί (2:7). 9-12. Prayer for their advancement in spiritual knowledge, not speculative, but practical 9. Διὰτοῦτο . On account, namely, of all that has preceded from ver. 4; cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:4. Chrys. strikingly observes: καθάπερἐντοῖςἀγῶσινἐκείνουςμάλισταδιεγείρομεντοὺςἐγγὺςὄνταςτῆςνικῆς · οὕτωδὴκαὶὁΠαῦλοςτούτουςμάλισταπαρακαλεῖτοὺςτὸπλέονκατωρθωκότας . Cf. Ephesians 1:15. καὶἡμεῖς , “ we also,” by its position emphasises the transition from the conduct of the Colossians to its effect on the apostle and his friends. ἀφ ʼ ἧςἡμέραςἠκούσαμεν echoes the similar expression in ver. 6. So the apostle’ s prayer was, as it were, an echo of their faith. An encouragement to them to proceed as they had begun. οὐπανόμεθαπροσευχόμενοι . Cf. Ephesians 1:16. Called by Ellicott an “ affectionate hyperbole” ; yet it is hardly to be called a hyperbole, for it would at no moment be true to say that he had ceased to pray for them. It is not asserted that the expression of the prayer was uninterrupted. As they did not cease to grow and bear fruit, so he did not cease to pray. Cf. Acts 5:42, οὐκἐπαύοντοδιδάσκοντες , κ .τ .λ ., and contra, Acts 13:10, οὐπαύσῃδιαστρέφων , and 1 Samuel 12:23. καὶαἰτούμενοι , κ .τ .λ ., adds the special request to the more general προσευχόμενοι . Compare Mark 11:24, ὅναπροσεύχεσθεκαὶαἰτεῖσθε . ἵνα after words like θέλειν , αἰτεῖσθαι , signifies merely the purport of the wish or prayer; cf. Philippians 1:9, where τοῦτο as object of προσεύχομαι is explained by ἵναπληρωθῆτετὴνἐπίγνωσιν . For the accusative, compare Philippians 1:11, πεπληρωμένοικαρπὸνδικαιοσύνης , “ that ye may be perfected in,” Oltramare. ἐπίγνωσιν , stronger than γνῶσις : see 1 Corinthians 13:12. The difference, however, seems to be rather that the former word implies a more active exercise of a faculty, and hence lends itself better to the expression of practical knowledge. This distinction agrees well with Romans 1:21, Romans 1:28. Compare on the verb, ver. 6. Lightfoot remarks that ἐρίγνωσις is a favourite word in the later Epistles of St. Paul; but, in fact, although it occurs four times in this Epistle and twice in Eph., it is used only once in Phil. (1:9), whereas it is thrice used in Rom. In the later Epistles, however, it is always used in reference to spiritual knowledge. See Trench, Syn. lxxv. τοῦθελήματοςαὐτοῦ . The following context, vv. 10-12, shows that what is meant is the Divine will as to their conduct, as in 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 4:5:18; Romans 12:2; not the χάρις mentioned as the object of their knowledge in ver. 6 (διὰτοῦυἱοῦπροσάγεσθαιἡμᾶςαὐτῷ , οὐκέτιδι ʼ ἀγγέλων , Chrys., etc.). The knowledge which is here meant is, in fact, the consequence of that which is there attributed to them. Knowing the χάρις , they should know also that what God required of them was nothing but conduct corresponding thereto. This in opposition to the false teachers and the doctrines of their φιλοσοφία . ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳκαὶσυνέσειπνευματικῇ . “ In all spiritual wisdom and understanding,” ἐν introducing the manner in which the πληρωθῆναι is carried out, and πάησͅ and πνευματικῇ being taken with both substantives. To connect πν . with συνέσει alone would be to give the inappropriate meaning, “ wisdom of all kinds and spiritual understanding.” On σοφία see Ephesians 1:8, where the words are ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳκαὶφρονήσει . These three, σοφία , φρόνησις , σύνεσις , are reckoned by Aristotle as the three intellectual ἀρεταί or excellences (Eth. N. i. 13), the first being the most general and thorough, embracing the knowledge of first principles as well as that of particulars; while he distinguishes φρόνησις as the practical knowledge of particulars from σύνεσις , which is critical; ἡφρόνησιςἐπιτακτικήἐστιν … ἡδὲσύνεσιςκριτική (Eth N. vi. 7. ii). Demosth. (269. 24) defines σύνεσις , ᾗτὰκαλὰκαὶαἰσχρὰδιαγνώσκεται , which agrees with Aristotle’ s κριτική . It would appear, therefore, that σύνεσις was the faculty of deciding what was right or wrong in particular cases, while σοφία apprehended the general principles. But σύνεσις is used by St. Paul in a more general sense; see Ephesians 3:4; cf. Luke 2:47. The two words frequently occur together in the O.T., e.g. Exodus 31:3; Isaiah 29:14; Eccles. 14:20; (1 Corinthians 1:19 is a quotation), and the corresponding adjectives in Matthew 11:25. πνευματικῇ , given by the Spirit. Compare 1 Corinthians 12:8, ᾧμὲνδιὰτοῦπνεύματοςδίδοταιλόγοςσοφίας . The word is emphatic in this position, marking the contrast with the false teaching, which had λόγονσοφίας , a pretence of wisdom (2:23) which really proceeded from ὁνοῦςτῆςσαρκός (2:18). We have the apostle’ s σοφίασαρκική , 2 Corinthians 1:12; ἀνθρωπίνη , 1 Corinthians 2:5, 1 Corinthians 2:13; τοῦκόσμουτούτου , 1 Corinthians 2:6, etc. 10. περιπατῆσαιὑμᾶςἀξίωςτοῦΚυρίου . A similar expression occurs 1 Thessalonians 2:12, ἀξίωςτοῦΘεοῦ : and Ephesians 4:1, τῆςκλήσεως , “ in a manner worthy of,” i.e. befitting your connexion with Him. The infinitive expresses the consequence (and proof) of πληρωθῆναι , ἀεὶτῇπίστεισυζεύγνυσιτὴνπολιτείαν , Chrys. If ὑμᾶς after περιπατῆσαι were genuine (Text. Rec.), the infinitive might conceivably be regarded as dependent on προσευχόμενοι ; but it is certainly spurious, being omitted by א A B C D G 17, al. Clem., Boh. It is added in א c Dc K L P, most MSS. Chrys., Theodoret, Arm. εἰςπᾶσανἀρεσκείαν . I.e. “ so as to please God in every way.” Compare 1 Thessalonians 4:5, πῶςδεῖὑμᾶςπεριπατεῖνκαὶἀρέκεινΘεῷ . In classical authors ἀρεσκεία has generally an unfavourable sense, “ obsequiousness,” and it is so defined both in Eth. Eudem. (τὸλίανπρὸςἠδονήν , ii. 3) and by Theophrastus (Char. 5). Polybius uses it especially of trying to gain the favour of a sovereign. Similarly Philo, πάντακαὶλέγεινκαὶπράττεινἐσπούδαζενεἰςἀρεσκείαντοῦπατρὸςκαὶβασιλέως (i. p. 34), but he also uses it of pleasing God. The ἀνθρώποιςἀρέσκειν is disavowed by the apostle in Galatians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; compare ch. 3:22. The verb is used, however, without any unfavourable connotation, in Romans 15:2 (τῷπλησίονἀρεσκέτω ) and elsewhere. ἐνπαντὶἔρλῳἀγαθῷ qualifies the following, as ἐνπάσῃδυνάμει qualifies the following participle. Most commentators separate καρποφοροῦντες and αὐξανόμενοι ; but then αὐξ . τῇἐπιγνώσει becomes tautologous with πληρωθῆτετὴνἐπίγνωσιν , ver. 9. Moreover, the combination καρποφορούμενονκαὶαὐξ . in ver. 6 seems to require that the two participles here also should be taken together. What is true of the gospel in the world and amongst the Colossians is also to hold good of those whose lives are inspired by its teaching. The participles refer to the logical subject of περιπατῆσαι , not to πληρωθῆτε (Beza, Bengel). Cf. Ephesians 4:2. τῇἐπίγνωσειτοῦΘεοῦ , “ by the knowledge of God,” instrumental dative, a frequent use of the dative with αὐξαν . (So Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soden, RV.mg.) The fruitfulness and growth are wrought through the ἐπίγνωσιςτοῦΘεοῦ , and this again results from the practice of his will, ver. 9. Some commentators take the dative as one of reference, as in Romans 4:20 (?), “ increasing in the knowledge of God” (Moule, RV. text), which, after πληρωθῆτετὴνἐπιγν ., ver. 9, would be somewhat of a tautology. τῇἐπιγνώσει is the reading of א A B C D* G P 17, al. Amiat., Arm. al. ἐν is prefixed in א c 47, and a few others, Chrys., Old Lat. and Vulg-Clem. have “ in scientia Dei,” which is doubtful. Text. Rec. has είςτήνἐπίγνωσιν , with Dc K L most MSS., Theodoret, Theoph. Oec. This appears to be an attempt to simplify the construction. Meyer, on the contrary, regards the dative as an explanation of the more difficult (?) είςτὴνἐπ ., which, he thinks, is also confirmed by the parallelism in structure of the other participial clauses, which conclude with a definition introduced by εἰς . He understands it as “ in respect of,” that is, always more fully attaining to a knowledge of God, εἰς indicating the final reference, or direction of the growth, comparing Ephesians 4:15 and 2 Peter 1:8. As to the comparative difficulty of the readings, Alford’ s judgment, that the simple dative “ is by far the most difficult of the three readings,” is surely more correct than Meyer’ s. είςτὴνἐπίγν . would, in fact, present no difficulty to the ordinary reader. 11. ἐνπάσῃδυνάμειδυναμούμενοι . Theodoret takes this ἐν as instrumental, τῇθείᾳῥοπῇκρατυνόμενοι , and so Eadie, Ellicott, and Meyer. “ Strengthened with all (every form of) strength,” Ell. (a translation which is itself ambiguous). It is simpler and more natural to understand ἐνπ . δ . as “ in (i.e. in the matter of) all strength” (Alford, Lightfoot). It thus corresponds with ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳ and ἐνπαντὶἔργῳ , which are both subjective. δυναμούμενοι , present, “ becoming strengthened.” The simple verb is not used elsewhere by St. Paul, who, however, employs ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι several times. But δυναμοῦσθαι is in Hebrews 11:34, and B has it in Ephesians 6:10. It is frequently used by the Greek translators of the O.T., but is not a classical word. The connected virtues here, ὑπομονή and μακροθυμία , indicate that what is referred to in this clause is steadfastness under trial, as the former referred to active conduct. κατὰτὸκρὰτοςτῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ . “ According to the might of His glory.” Strength is supplied in a manner corespondent with the power which belongs to the glory of God, i.e. His majesty as manifested to men. Compare Ephesians 1:19. The rendering of AV. (Beza, etc.), “ His glorious power,” is sufficiently refuted by αὐτοῦ . Thomas Aquinas understands by “ His glory,” “ His Son Christ Jesus.” But although the Son may be called ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ , it would not be intelligible to use ἡδόξααὐτοῦ as a substitute for His name. Lightfoot remarks that κράτος in N.T. is “ applied solely to God” ; but see Hebrews 2:14 τὸντὸκράτοςἔχοντατοῦθανάτου , τοῦτ ʼ ἔστιτὸνδιάβολον . εἰςπᾶσανὑπομονῆνκαὶμακροθυμίαν . “ To all endurance and longsuffering.” “ Patience” is a very inadequate rendering of ὑπομονή , which includes perseverance or steadfast continuance in a course of action. Thus we have καρποφοροῦσινἐνὑπομονῇ , Luke 8:15; ὑπομονῆἔργουἀγαθοῦ , Romans 2:7; δι ʼ ὑπομονῆςτρέχωμεν , Hebrews 12:1. Even the ὑπομονή of Job, to which James refers, was by no means the uncomplaining endurance of suffering to which we give the name of “ patience.” Job was, in fact, the very reverse of “ patient” ; but he maintained his faith in God and his uprightness in spite of his sore trials. μακροθυμία comes much nearer to our notion of “ patience” (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:4); not so much, however, patience under suffering, but “ the self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong.” It is the opposite of ὀξυθυμία . Chrysostom distinguishes the two words thus: μακροθυμεῖτιςπρὸςἐκείνουςοὓςδυνατὸνκαὶἀμύνασθαι · ὑπομένειδὲοὓςοὑδύναταιἀμύνασθαι ; but this, though correct as to μακροθυμεῖ , is clearly inadequate for ὑπομένει . 11, 12. μετὰχαρᾶςεὐχαριστοῦντες . μετὰχαρᾶς is joined by many comm. to the preceding (Theodoret, Olsh., De W., Alf., Eadie, Lightfoot, RV.). In defence of this it is said that εὐχαριστεῖν of itself implies joyfulness, so that μετὰχ . if attached to it would be flat and unmeaning; also that by joining the words with εὐχ . we lose the essential idea of joyful endurance. Lightfoot, quoting James 1:2, James 1:3, πᾶσανχαράνἡγήσασθε … ὅτανπελρασμοῖςπεριπέσητεποικίλοιςγινώσκοντεςὅτιτὸδοκίμιονὑμῶντῆςπιστέωςκατεργάζεταιὑπομονήν , remarks that this parallel points to the connexion with the preceding, and adds that the emphatic position of the words if connected with εὐχ . cannot be explained. It may be replied that εὐχαριστεῖν does not necessarily imply joy. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 14:18, “ I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all,” 10:30; Colossians 3:17. χαρᾶς is so far from being flat or unmeaning, that without it εὐχαριστοῦντες would be too weak. The idea of joyful endurance is not lost when the prayer passes from endurance to joyful thanksgiving; and the emphatic position of the words is sufficiently explained by the writer’ s desire to emphasise this characteristic of their thanksgiving with special reference to the trials implied in ὑπομονή and μακροθυμία . The words thus acquire greater significance than if they slipped in as it were after μακροθυμίαν . The connexion with εὐχαριστοῦντες is also favoured by the structure of the preceding clauses, each of which commences with a defining adjunct. This connexion is adopted by Chrys., Theoph., Oecum., also Ellicott, Meyer, Soden, Lachm., Tisch. In any case εὐχ . is not to be connected with οὐπαυόμεθα , as Chrys., Theoph., al., which unnaturally separates this clause from the preceding, making them parenthetical. This interpretation was suggested by the reading ἡμᾶς : but even if that is correct, the transition from the second person to the first is quite in St. Paul’ s manner; cf. 2:12, 2:13. τῷΠατρί . The designation of God thus absolutely as ὁΠατήρ , when Christ has not been named immediately before (as in Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:18; Acts 1:4, Acts 1:7, Acts 1:2:33), is remarkable. But we have τοῦΚυπίου in ver. 10, and, what is perhaps more to the point, τοῦυἱοῦτῆςἀγάπηςαὐτοῦ in ver. 13. א 37 (G, Θεωτωπατρι ), Vulg-Clem., Boh. al. prefix Θεῷπατρί . τῷἱκανώσαντιὑμᾶς . “ Who qualified you,” or “ made you competent.” i.e. given you a title. The same verb occurs 2 Corinthians 3:6 (only). ὃςκαὶἱκάνωσενἡμᾶςδιακόνουςκαινῆςδιαθήκης , “ qualified us to be ministers,” cf. ib. ver. 5. The adjective ἱκανός is of frequent occurrence in the N.T., always with the idea of reaching to a certain standard, “ sufficient,” and so when time or quantity is in question, “ considerable.” See Mark 15:15; Luke 22:38, ἱκανόνἐστι : Acts 22:6, φῶςἱκανόν : 2 Corinthians 2:16, πρὸςταῦτατίςἱκανός : 2 Timothy 2:2, οἵτινεςἱκανοὶἔσονταικαὶἑτέρουςδιδάξαι . It does not mean “ dignus,” “ worthy,” although with a negative that translation is not unsuitable in Matthew 3:11 Matthew 3:8:8. Here, then, ἱκάνωσεν is not “ dignos fecit,” Vulg., but “ idoneos fecit.” There is an important variety of reading. For ἱκανώσαντι (which is read by א A C Dc K L P most MSS., Vulg., Boh., Syr. (both), Chrys., etc.) we have καλέσαντι in D* G 17 8o, Goth., Arm., Eth., also Didymus (once), Ambrosiaster; while B has καλέσαντικαὶἱκανώσαντι , which is adopted by Lachm., but appears to be a combination of both readings. The confusion between ΤΩΙΙΚΑΝΩςΑΝΤΙ and ΤΩΙΚΑΛΕςΑΝΤΙ would be easy, and the latter word would naturally occur to a copyist. ὐμᾶς is the reading of א B 4 23 80 115, Amiat., Syr-Pesh marg. Eth., Didymus, Theoph., Ambrosiaster. ἡμᾶς . A C D G K L P most MSS., Vulg-Clem., Fuld.., Syr Pesh and Harcl text, Chrys., Theodoret, etc. Internal evidence seems rather to favour ὑμᾶς . The natural tendency of scribes would be to generalise such a statement, and this would be assisted by ἡμᾶς which presently follows. On the other hand, it would be quite natural for St. Paul to enforce the exhortation involved in his prayer by such a personal application. In the next sentence, where he passes to a direct dogmatic statement, he naturally and of course uses ἡμᾶς . (Yet P, al. Amiat., Goth. have ὑμᾶς there also.) Compare Ephesians 4:32, Ephesians 5:2. ὑμᾶς is adopted here by Tisch., WH., Soden, and is given a place in the margin by Tregelles, Lightfoot, RV. εἰςτὴνμερίδατοῦκλήρου , “ for, i.e. to obtain, the portion of the lot.” Compare Psalms 15:5, Κύριοςμερὶςτῆςκληρονομίαςμου . Κλῆρος (pp. “ a lot” ) is not synonymous with κληρονομία , it does not designate the whole, but the allotted part; cf. Acts 8:21, οὐκἔστισοιμερὶςοὐδὲκλῆρος : 26:18, κλῆρονἐντοῖςἡγιασμένοις . What is a μερίς in reference to the whole is a κλῆρος in reference to the possessor. The genitive, then, is one of apposition, “ the portion which consists in the lot” (Lightfoot, Soden). It is, however, possible to understand it as partitive, “ to have a share in the κλῆρος and so most comm. Chrysostom observes: σιὰτίκλῆρονκαλεῖ ; δεικνὺςὅτιοὐδεὶςἀπὸκατορθωμάτωνοἰκείωνβασιλείαςτυγχάνει , referring to Luke 17:10. Compare also Luke 12:32, εὐδόκησενὁπατὴρὑμῶνδοῦναιὑμῖντὴνβασιλείαν . ἐντῷφωτί . Chrys., Oec., Theoph. followed by Meyer, al., connect with ἱκανώσαντι , “ by the light,” ἱκανοῦνἐντῷφωτί being nothing else but καλεῖνεἰςτὸφῶς (1 Peter 2:9) regarded in its moral efficacy, the result of which is that men are φῶςἐνΚυρίῳ (Ephesians 5:8). This light has power, it is the light of life (John 8:12); has its weapons (Romans 13:12); produces fruit (Ephesians 5:9), etc.; and without it men were incapable of partaking in the kingdom of Christ. But φῶς is not the means, but the result; and, moreover, the distance of ἐντῷφωτί from ἱκαν . forbids the connexion, for there is no such emphasis on the words as to account for their position. It is the deliverance that is the thought dwelt on, not the means. It is better to connect the word with τὴνμερίδα , κ .τ .λ . (Alf., Lightfoot), or, if with one of the three substantives, with κλήρου , which has a local sense (Ellicott, Soden). Thus ἐντῷφωτί = “ in the kingdom of light.” Compare 2 Corinthians 11:14; 1 Timothy 6:16; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 21:24. κλῆροςἐντῷφωτί , then, is equivalent to the ἐλπὶςἀποκειμένηἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς , φῶς being here chosen because the apostle had already in his thoughts the representation of the natural condition of men as σκότος . There is nothing, therefore, in the objection, that if this were the sense intended ἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς would have been used, or ἐντῇζωῇ , or the like. Eadie’ s interpretation, “ the inheritance which consists in light,” is untenable, and is certainly not supported by his examples of κλῆροςἐν from Acts 8:21, Acts 26:18. 13ff. From the prayer for their increase in knowledge, St. Paul goes on to give them positive instruction which will be a safeguard against the false teaching which threatens them. They have already been translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God’ s beloved Son, and it is in Him only that they have redemption. 13. ὃςἐρρύσατο (ἐρύσατο , B* G P Lightf.) ἡμᾶςἐκτῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦσκότους . “ Who rescued us from the power of darkness.” ἐρρύσατο , δεικνὺςὅτιὣςαἰχμάλωτοιἐταλαιπωρούμεθα . Theoph. ἐξουσία (from ἔξεστι ), properly means “ liberty of action,” as in 1 Corinthians 9:5; hence in relation to others, “ authority,” generally “ delegated authority” (but not always; see Jude 1:25). Lightfoot, following Wetstein, maintains that the word here means “ arbitrary power, tyranny.” But the instances he cites seem quite insufficient to support this. In Demosth., for example, De Falsa Leg. p. 428, τὴνἄγανταύτηνἐξουσίαν , it is the word ἄγαν that introduces the idea of excess, just as we might speak of the “ excessive exercise of authority.” From the etymology of the word it is applicable, whether the ἐξεῖναι is assumed or rightfully derived. Whatever its use, however, in Plutarch or other writers, the usage of the N.T. gives no support to Lightfoot’ s view. It is a word of very frequent occurrence (being found nearly one hundred times), and always in the simple sense of “ authority” (abstract or concrete). If the “ idea of disorder is involved” in ἡἐξουσίατοῦσκότους here and in Luke 22:53, it is suggested by σκότους , not by ἐξουσία . When Chrysostom, after explaining τῆςἐξουσίας by τῆςτυραννίδος , adds: χαλεπὸν · καὶτὸἁπλῶςεἶναιὑπὸτῷδιαβόλῳ · τὸδὲκαὶμετ ʼ ἐξουσίας , τοῦτοχαλεπώτερον , his meaning seems to be: “ It is hard to be simply under the power of the devil; but that he should also have authority is still harder.” This gives much more force to his words. That ἐξουσια is not opposed to βασιλεία , as an arbitary tyranny to a well-ordered sovereignty, see Revelation 12:10, ἡβασιλείατοῦΘεοῦἡμῶνκαὶἡἐξουσίατοῦΧριστοῦαὐτοῦ . The whole passage is strikingly parallel to Acts 26:18, τοῦἐπιοτρέψαιἀπὸσκότουςεἰςφῶςκαὶτῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦΣατανᾶἐπὶτὸνΘεόν , τοῦλαβεῖναὐτοὺςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶνκαὶκλῆρονἐντοῖςἡγιασμένοις . σκότος here is not to be regarded as personified as if it were equivalent to “ the devil” (Augustine); it is rather the characteristic and ruling principle of the region in which they dwelt before conversion to Christ. καὶμετέστησεν . The verb is appropriate, being that which is employed by classical writers to signify the removal of whole bodies of men. Yet it is doubtful whether such an idea is present here; cf. Plato, Rep. vii. p. 518 A, ἔκτεφωτὸςεἰςσκότοςμεθιοσταμένωνκαὶἐκσκότουςεἰςφῶς . τοῦυἱοῦτῆςἀγάπηςαὐτοῦ . Not of angels, as the false teachers would have it. ὑπὸτὸνκληρόνομονἐσμέν ; οὐχὑπὸτοὺςοἰκέτας Severianus. τῆςἀγάπηςαὐτοῦ . Augustine understands this as a genitive “ auctoris.” “ Caritas quippe Patris … nihil est quam ejus ipsa natura atque substantia … ac per hoc filius caritatis ejus nullus est alius quam qui de ejus substantia est genitus” (De Trin. xv. 19). He is followed by Olshausen and Lightfoot. But such a form of expression has no analogy in the N.T. Love is not the “ substantia” or “ nature” of God, but not the generation of a person. Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted the exepression in an opposite way: υἱὸνἀγάπηςαὐτὸνἐκάλεσενὡςοὐφύσειτοῦΠατρὸςὄνταυἱὸνἀλλ ʼ ἀλάπῃτῆςυἱοθεσίαςἀξιωθέτατούτων . But an explanation of the nature of the Sonship would be alien to the context. The simplest interpretation is, “ the sun who is the object of His love.” It corresponds exactly with Ephesians 1:6, ἐντῷἠγαπημένῳἐνᾧἔχομεν , κ . τ . λ ., only is not merely bestowed upon Him, but makes Him its own. υἱὸςὀδύνηςμου in Genesis 35:18 (Meyer, Ellicortt) is not parallel. Lightfoot thinks this interpretation destroys the whole force of the expression; but it is not so. It is because Christ is the central object of God’ s love that who have been translated into His kingdom are assured of the promised blessings thereof. 14. ἐνᾧἔχομενκ .τ .λ . = Ephesians 1:7. The words διὰτοῦαὐματος of the Rec. Text are interpolation from Ephesians 1:7. They are found in many minuscules, and in Vulg-Clem., Demid., Syr-Pesh, Arm, Theodoret, Oec.; but apparently not in any uncial nor in the other versions. For ἔχομεν B, Boh., Arab. (Lips, Bedwell) read ἔσχομεν . In the parallel passage, Ephesians 1:7, א D (not the Latin d) Boh., Eth., Iren. (transl.) have ἔσχομεν . Lightfoot thinks that this reading in Eph. was a harmonistic change to conform to the text which these authorities or their predecessors found in Col., and judges that ἔσχομεν . is possibly the correct reading here. WH. also give it a place in the margin. Yet it is hard to suppose that St. Paul wrote different tenses in the two places. Moreover, ἕσχομεν does not appear to be a suitable tense; if past time were to be expressed, we should expect ἐσχήκαμεν (cf. Romans 5:2). Weiss rejects it. τὴνἄφεσιντῶνἁμαρτιῶν . This expression does not occur in the Epistles of St. Paul elsewhere, but twice in his speeches in Acts (13:38, 26:18). In Ephesians 1:7 we have the equivalent, ἄφεσιντῶνπαραπτωμάτων ; generally in the Epp. he prefers the more positive δικαιοσύνη . Lightfoot suggests that the studied precision in the definition of ἀπολύτρωσις points to some false conception of ἀπολ . put forward by the heretical teachers. Later Gnostics certainly did pervert the meaning of the term. Irenaeus relates of the Marcosians that they held εἶναιτελείανἀπολύτρωσιναὐτὴντὴνἐπίγνωσιντοῦἀρρήτουμεγέθους (1. 21. 4). Hippolytus says: λέγουσίτιφωνῇἀρρήτῳἐπιτιθέντεςχεῖρατῷτὴνἀπολύτρωσινλαβόντι , κ .τ .λ . (Haer. vi. 41). In the baptismal formula of the Marcosians are the words: εἰςἕνωσινκαὶἀπολύτρωσινκαὶκοινωνίαντῶνδυνάμεων (Iren. i. 21. 3), where the last words “ surely mean communion with the (spiritual) powers.” In an alternative formula, also given by Irenaeus, the words are εἰςλύτρωσινἀγγελικήν , which is explained by Clem. Alex. (Exc. Theod. P. 974) as ἣνκαὶἄγγελοιἔχουσιν . It is not likely that there was any historical connexion between these later Gnostics and the Colossian heretics; but, as Lightfoot observes, “ the passages quoted will serve to show how a false idea of ἀπολύτρωσις would naturally be associated with an esoteric doctrine of angelic powers.” 15-17. The pre-eminence of Christ. In His essential nature He is above all created things, being the image of the invisible God; and more than that, all things have been created through Him and held together by Him 15. ὅςἐστιν , κ .τ .λ .. On this verse Lightfoot has a valuable excursus. The arrangement of the passage 15-20 is twofold. We have, first, the relation of Christ to God and the world, 15-17; and, secondly, His relation to the Church, 18 ff. This division is indicated in the construction of the passage by the repeated ὅτιἐναὐτῷ , 16, 19, introducing in each case the reason of the preceding statement. The relation to the Church begins with καὶαὐτός , ver. 18. Some commentators regard 15-17 as descriptive of the Word before the Incarnation, the Λόγοςἄσαρκος ; and 18-20, of the Incarnate Word, Λόγοςἔνσαρκος . But this is inconsistent with ἔστιν , “ is,” which shows that St. Paul is speaking of Christ in His present glorified state. Compare 2 Corinthians 4:4, τὸνφωτισμὸντοῦεὐαγγελίουτῆςδόξηςτοῦΧριστοῦ , ὅςἐστινεἰκὼντοῦΘεοῦ . The exalted Christ is now and continues to be what He was in His own nature as the Word before He became incarnate, John 17:5. εἰκών is primarily an image (so in Rev. often, comp. Matthew 22:20). It differs from ὁμοίωμα , which expresses mere resemblance, whereas εἰκών implies representation of an archetype. αὔτηγάρεἰκόνοςφύσιςμίμημαεἶναιτοῦἀρχετύπου (Greg. Naz. Orat. 30). It may be used, therefore, to express resemblance in some essential character. So in Hebrews 10:1, εἰκών is contrasted with σκιά . Compare 1 Corinthians 15:49, τὴνεἰκόνατοῦχοϊκοῦ … τὴνεἰκ . τοῦἐπουρανίου : Romans 8:29, συμμόρφουςτῆςεἰκόνοςτοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ , an idea expressed again 2 Corinthians 3:18, τὴναὐτὴνεἰκόναμεταμορφούμεθα : and Colossians 3:10, τὸνἀνακαινούμενονκατ ʼ εἰκόνατοῦκτίσαντοςαὐτόν . An allusion to Genesis 1:26, Genesis 1:28. With the same allusion in 1 Corinthians 11:7 the apostle calls the man εἰκὼνκαὶδόξαθεοῦ . This last passage, in particular, forbids our adopting the view of some commentators, that the expression denotes “ the eternal Son’ s perfect equality with the Father in respect of His substance, nature, and eternity” (Ellicott, quoting Hil. De Syn. § 73: “ perfectae aequalitatis significantiam habet similitudo.” ). As Lightfoot remarks: “ The idea of perfection does not lie in the word itself, but must be sought from the context, e.g. πᾶντὸπλήρωμα , ver. 19.” The expression is frequently used by Philo in reference to the Logos, e.g. τὸνἀόρατονκαὶνοητὸνθεῖονλόγονεἰκόναλέγειθεοῦ (De Mund. Op. 8, Opp. I. p. 6); λόγοςδέἐστινεἰκὼνΘεοῦδι ʼ οὗσύμπαςὁκόσμοςἐδημιουργεῖτο (De Monarch. ii. 5, II. p. 225); and notably De Somniis, I. p. 656, καθάπερτὴνἀνθήλιοναὐγὴνὡςἣλιονοἱμὴδυνάμενοιτὸνἤλιοναὐτὸνἰδεῖνὁρῶσι … οὓτωςκαὶτὴντοῦΘεοῦεἰκόνα , τὸνἄγγελοναὐτοῦλόγον , ὡςαὐτὸνκατανοοῦσι . Compare with this John 14:9, ὁἑωρακὼςἐμὲἑώρακεντὸνπατέρα . Closely allied to εἰκών is χαρακτήρ , similarly applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:3, ὢνἀπαύγασματῆςδόξηςκαὶχαρακτὴρτῆςὑποστάσεωςαὐτοῦ . τοῦἀοράτου . This word, which by its position also is emphatic, makes prominent the contrast with the εἰκών , the visibility of which is therefore implied. Compare Romans 1:20, τὰἀόρατααὐτοῦ … τοῖςποιήμασινοούμενακαθορᾶται . Here Christ is the visible manifestation of the invisible. Chrysostom, indeed, and the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, argued that, as the archetype is invisible, so must the image be, ἡτοῦἀοράτουεἰκὼνκαὶαὐτὴἀόρατοςκαὶὁμοίωςἀόρατος . But, as Lightfoot says, “ the underlying idea of the εἰκών , and, indeed, of the λόγος generally, is the manifestation of the hidden.” Compare John 1:18, Θεὸνοὐδεὶςἐώρακεπώποτε · ὁμονογενὴςἐξηγήσατο , and 14:9, quoted above. πρωτότοκοςπάσηςκτίσεως . πρωτότοκος seems to have been a recognised title of the Messiah (see Hebrews 1:6), perhaps derived from Psalms 89:28, ἐγὼπρωτότοκονθήσομαιαὐτόν , which is interpreted of the Messiah by R. Nathan in Shemoth Rabba, 19, fol. 118. 4. Israel is called God’ s firstborn (Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:9), and hence the term was readily transferred to the Messiah, as the ideal representative of the race. The genitive here is not partitive, as the following context clearly shows, for ἐναὐτῷἐκτίσθητὰπάντα . Setting this aside, commentators are not agreed as to the interpretation of πρωτότοκος . Eadie, Hofmann, al., understand it of sovereignty. Alford and Lightfoot, while giving the first place to the idea of priority to all creation, admit sovereignty over all creation as part of the connotation. So Theodore of Mops., οὐκἐπὶχρόνονλέγεταιμόνον · ἀλλὰγὰρκαὶἐπὶπροτιμήσεως (but he interprets κτίσεως of the new creation). In defence of this interpretation of the word Ps. 88:28 is quoted, where after πρωτότοκονθήσομαιαὐτόν the explanation is added, ὑψηλὸνπαρὰτοῖςβασιλεῦσιτῆςγῆς : also what appears as a paraphrase of this, ἔθηκενκληρόνομονπάντων , Hebrews 1:2: also Exodus 4:22; Romans 8:29, εἰςτὸεἶναιαὐτὸνπρωτότοκονἐνπολλοῖςἀδελφοῖς . Job 18:13, “ the firstborn of death,” for “ a fatal malady” ; and Isaiah 14:30, “ the firstborn of the poor,” for “ the very poor,” are also referred to. Lightfoot quotes R. Bechai, who calls God Himself the firstborn of the world, and he concludes that the words signify “ He stands in the relation of πρ . to all creation,” i.e. “ He is the Firstborn, and as the Firstborn the absolute Heir and Sovereign Lord of all creation.” The passages cited do not justify this interpretation. In Exodus 4:22 the word does not at all mean “ sovereign,” which would be quite out of place even apart from the prefixed “ my,” but “ object of favour.” In Ps. 88:28, again, the added words, if taken as an explanation of πρωτ . simply, would go too far; but it is the πρωτότοκος of God, who is said to be “ higher than the kings of the earth.” θήσομαιαὐτὸνπρ . is, “ I will put him in the position of a firstborn,” and the following words are not an explanation of πρ ., but state the result of God’ s regarding him as such. Compare the English phrase, “ making one an eldest son by will.” By no means would the words of the psalm justify such an expression as πρωτότοκοςτῶνβασιλέων , unless it were intended to include the πρ amongst the βασιλεῖς . As the context forbids our including the πρωτότοκος here amongst the κτίσις , the interpretation leaves the genitive inexplicable. It is called “ the genitive of reference” ; but this is too vague to explain anything, as will appear by substituting either κόσμου for κτίσεως , or μέγας for πρωτ . Thus πρωτότοκοςτοῦκόσμον for “ sovereign in relation to the world,” and μέγαςπάσηςκτίσεως are equally impossible. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 2:1-7. The apostle’ s care and anxiety are not limited to those Churches which he had himself founded, or to which he had personally preached, but extended to those whom he had never seen. He is anxious that they should be confirmed in the faith and united in love, and, moreover, may learn to know the mystery, that is, the revealed will of God. It is no new doctrine they are to look for, but to seek to be established in the faith which they have already been taught, and to live in conformity thereto 1. Γάρ . “ Striving, I say, for,” etc. The general statement κοπιῶἀγωνιζόμενος is supported by this special instance of his anxiety for the Colossian Church; and thus although γάρ is not merely transitional, the transition to the personal application is naturally effected. θέλωγὰρὑμᾶςεἰδέναι . So 1 Corinthians 11:3. More frequently οὐθέλωὑμᾶςἀγνοεῖν . That either phrase does not necessarily commence a new section is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:3; Romans 11:25. ἡλίκον , a classical word, not found in Sept. or Apocrypha, and in the N.T. only here and James 3:5. ἀγῶναἔχω . As he was now a prisoner this ἀγών can only be an inward one. It is not to be limited to prayer (iv. 12), but includes anxiety, etc. ὑπὲρὑμῶν . Here, as often, the reading varies between ὑπέρ and περί . The former is that of א A B C Db P; the latter of D*c G K L. καὶτῶνἐνΛαοδικίᾳ (sic א A B C D G K L P). The Laodiceans were probably exposed to the influence of the same heretical teaching as the Colossians. Hierapolis is probably alluded to in the words καὶὅσοι , κ .τ .λ ., see 4:13. καὶτῶνἐνἸεραπόλει is actually added in some MSS. (10 31 73 118) and in Syr-Harcl.* It is clearly a gloss from 4:13. καὶὅσοι , κ .τ .λ . καί here introduces the general after the particular, as in Acts 4:6 and often. It is only the context that decides whether this is the case or whether a new class is introduced. Here there would be no meaning in mentioning two particular Churches which had known him personally, and then in general all who had not known him. The inference is therefore certain that he had never visited Colossae, and this agrees with the incidental references in the Epistle as well as with the narrative in the Acts. See on αὐτῶν , ver. 2. ἑώρακαν (Alexandrian) is better supported than the Attic ἑωράκασι . The spelling with ω is rather better supported here than that with o. ἐνσαρκί does not qualify the verb, as if “ seeing in the flesh” were contrasted with “ seeing in the spirit” (δείκνυσινἐνταῦθαὅτιἑώρωνσυνεχῶςἐνπνεύματι , Chrys.), but goes with πρόσωπόνμου , giving vividness to the expression. Naturally it is implied that they had a knowledge of him, though not personal. 2. ἵναπαρακληθῶσιναἱκαρδίαιαὐτῶν . “ That their hearts may be strengthened.” It can hardly be doubted that this is the meaning of παρακαλεῖν here, where there is no mention of, or allusion to, troubles or persecutions. The sense “ comforted, consoled” is, indeed, defended by Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie, al. Ellicott observes: “ surely those exposed to the sad trial of erroneous teachings need consolation” ; but there is no trace of this view in the Epistle, nor would such consolation be the prime object of the apostle’ s prayer and anxiety. No; what made him anxious was the danger they were in of being carried away by this erroneous teaching. It was not consolation that was required, but confirmation in the right faith. For this sense of παρακαλεῖν cf. 1 Corinthians 14:31 (RV. marg.). αὐτῶν . We might have expected ὑμῶν , but αὐτῶν was suggested by the preceding ὅσοι . This is decisive as to the Colossians being included in the ὅσοι ; for if excluded there, they are excluded here, and the writer returns to the Colossians in ver. 4 (ὑμᾶς ) in a most illogical manner: “ This I say about others who do not know me, in order that no man may deceive you.” συμβιβασθέντες . “ United, knit together,” the common meaning of the verb, and that which it has elsewhere in this Epistle (ver. 19) and in Ephesians 4:16, q.v. In the Sept. it always means to “ instruct,” cf. 1 Corinthians 2:16 (quotation) and Acts 19:33. It is so rendered here by the Vulg. “ instructi.” The nominative agrees with the logical subject of the preceding. It is read by א A B C D* P al., Vulg., Syr. (both). The genitive συμβιβασθέντων is read in א c Dc K L and most MSS., but is obviously a grammatical correction. ἐνἀγάπῃ . “ In love,” which is the “ bond of perfection” (3:14). καὶεἰς expresses the object of the συμβιβ .; connected by καί , because the verb contains the idea of motion. πᾶνπλοῦτοςτῆςπληροφορίαςτῆςσυνέσεως . “ All riches of full assurance of the understanding.” “ Full assurance” seems the most suitable sense for πληροφορία , and it is also suitable in every other place in the N.T. where the word occurs (1 Thessalonians 1:5; Hebrews 6:11, Hebrews 10:22). “ Fulness” would also be suitable, except in 1 Thessalonians 1:5. The word does not occur in Sept. or Apocr., nor in classical authors. On σύνεσις cf. 1:9. It has an intransitive sense, and hence never takes a genitive of the object; here it appears to mean the faculty of judging. He desires their judgment to be exercised with full certainty. De Wette observes that πλοῦτος expresses a quantitative, πληροφορία a qualitative, characteristic. εἰςἐπίγνωσιν , κ .τ .λ ., seems best taken as parallel to the preceding εἰς , so that it emphatically points out the special object on which the σύνεσις is to be exercised. Some, however, connect this with παρακληθῶσιν , on the ground that ἐπίγνωσις implies as an antecedent condition the συμβιβ . κ .τ .λ . For ἐπίγνωσις , “ full knowledge,” see Ephesians 1:17. τοῦθεοῦΧριστοῦ . If this reading is adopted, there are three conceivable constructions: (a) Χριστοῦ in apposition to Θεοῦ , (b) Χριστοῦ dependent on Θεοῦ , (c) Χριστοῦ in apposition to μυστηρίου . The first (adopted by Hilary of Poitiers, also by Steiger and Bisping) is generally rejected, either on account of the context (Ell.) or because the phrase is destitute of Pauline analogy (Meyer, Moule, Lightfoot). But it appears to be inadmissible on other grounds. To point τοῦΘεοῦ , Χριστοῦ , taking these in apposition and thus identifying ὁΘεός and Χριστός , is obviously impossible, as it would mean, not that Θεός could be predicated of Χριστός , but that Χριστός could be predicated of ὁΘεός , thus ignoring the distinction of Persons. On the other hand, if we point τοῦΘεοῦΧριστοῦ , and understand “ the God Christ” (according to the rendering suggested, though not accepted, by Moule), the expression seems inconsistent with strict Monotheism. It defines Θεοῦ by the addition Χριστοῦ , and therefore suggests that other definitions are possible. ὁΘεὸςπατήρ is not analogous, for two reasons; first, πατήρ only suggests υἱός , and, secondly, πατήρ expresses a relation proper to the Deity. Ellicott, who considers the construction not indefensible, takes it to mean “ of God, even of Christ.” This is rather to suppose μυστηρίου supplied before Χριστοῦ , which is certainly untenable. But this is clearly not what he means, and it suggests that he hesitated to accept either of the other renderings. According to the third view, Χριστοῦ is in apposition to μυστηρίου , so that Christ personally is the mystery of God (Ellicott, Lightfoot, Moule, al.). If this is the apostle`s meaning, he has expressed himself very obscurely. As μυστήριον is an abstract name, when it is explained as a person, we should expect ὅἐστιν as in i. 24, 27; 1 Corinthians 3:11. Lightfoot understands the “ mystery” not as “ Christ,” but “ Christ as containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom,” and in illustration of the form of the sentence compares Ephesians 4:15, εἰςαὐτόν … ὅςἐστινἡκεφαλή , Χριστός , ἐξοὗπᾶντὸσῶμα , κ .τ .λ . This passage, it is obvious, adds another example of the use of ὅςἐστιν in such sentences, and it can hardly be said to furnish a parallel to Lightfoot’ s interpretation of ἐνᾧ , for in Ephesians 4:15 a full stop might have been placed after Χριστός without impairing the figure. Moreover, the apostle has given a different definition of the μυστ . in i. 27 (to which he again alludes in iv. 3), and it is hard to suppose that he would give a different definition within a few lines, for different this certainly is. The second translation mentioned above, “ the God of Christ,” has its parallel in the phrase, ὁΘεὸςκαὶπατὴρἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , and in Ephesians 1:17, ὁΘεὸςτοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ . This construction is adopted by Meyer and v. Soden. The addition of Χριστοῦ is explained by the consideration that it is only through Christ that God’ s plan in this mystery is carried out; it is only because and in so far as God is the God of Christ that this μυστήριον could exist and be revealed. Meyer adds, “ He that has recognised God as the God of Christ, to him is the Divine μυστήριον revealed.” This, after all, is not quite satisfactory, and requires us to read into the text more than is expressed. If the shorter reading τοῦΘεοῦ (omitting Χριστοῦ ) is adopted, the difficulty disappears; but the difficulty is not so obvious as to tempt the ordinary copyist to omit the word. The different readings are as follow:— (1) τοῦΘεοῦ . Without any addition. Db P 37 67** 71 80 116. Adopted by Griesbach, Tisch. 2, Olsh., De Wette, Alford. (2) τοῦΘεοῦΧριστοῦ . B, Hilary of Poitiers (De Trin. ix. 62, “ in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi,” adding, “ Deus Christus sacramentum est” ). Adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and Lightfoot without a comma after θεοῦ ; by Tisch. 8, RV. with a comma, also by Harless (Eph. p. 458), Ellicott, Meyer, and v. Soden. (3) τοῦΘεοῦ , ὅἐστινΧριστός . D* “ Dei quod est Christus,” d e, Vigilius Thaps. So Augustine, De Trin. xiii. 24, “ Dei quod est Christus Jesus.” (4) τοῦθεοῦπατρὸς (add τοῦ A C 4) Χριστοῦ , א * A C 4, Vulg. in Codd., Amiat., Fuld.., f. Boh. (add Ἰησοῦ , Lagarde). (5) τοῦΘεοῦκαὶπατρὸςτοῦΧριστοῦ , א c two of Scrivener’ s MSS. and a corrector in the Harclean Syriac. (6) τοῦθεοῦπατρὸςκαὶτοῦΧριστοῦ , 47 73, Syr-Pesh (ed. princeps and Schaaf). (7) τοῦΘεοῦκαὶπατρὸςκαὶτοῦΧριστοῦ (Rec. Text), D3 K L most cursives, Syr-Harcl. (text), Theodoret, etc. Isolated readings are— (8) τοῦΘεοῦκαὶΧριστοῦ , Cyril. Thes. p. 287. (9) τοῦΘεοῦἐνΧριστῷ , Clem. Alex. v. 10, 12, and with τοῦ before ἐν ,17. So Ambrosiaster, “ Dei in Christo.” τοῦΧριστοῦ is given by Tisch. from his MS. of Euthalius, but with the remark, “ sed non satis apparet.” As far as documentary evidence goes (4) seems the best attested, and is probably the source of (5) (6) (7). But it is most probably an attempt to remove the difficulty of the simpler reading (1) or (2). Of these (2) is preferred by the critics above named, as accounting for all the rest, (1) the witnesses for which are later, being supposed to have originated from an attempt to remove the difficulty of the former reading. Meyer thinks that the original reading must have involved some dogmatic difficulty, which (4) does not. The short reading, τοῦΘεοῦ (1), would account for the others, but the attestation of it is not sufficiently early. Wescott and Hort suspect some corruption. 3. ἐνᾧ . The antecedent is probably μυστηρίου , not Χριστοῦ . What the apostle is dwelling on is the greatness of the “ mystery” (1:27), and the importance of the knowledge of it, in opposition to the supposed wisdom of the false teachers; hence the statement that “ all the treasures,” etc., are contained in it. This is confirmed by the use of ἀπόκρυφοι , which corresponds to μυστήριον . So Alford, Eadie, Meyer, Soden, De Wette, etc.; but Ellicott, Lightfoot, and many comm. refer the ᾧ to Christ. With this latter reference, the wisdom and knowledge are those possessed by Christ as a treasure which He communicates. With the reference to μυστ . the terms have an objective sense, these being characteristics of the Divine plan. These treasures St. Paul calls ἀπόκρυφοι , probably in allusion to the pretended hidden wisdom of the false teachers, which nevertheless was merely superficial and concerned external observances, whereas the true Christian wisdom was inward and profound. These treasures of wisdom are not “ kept concealed,” ἀποκεκρυμμένοι , they are “ hidden, laid up,” ἀπόκρυφοι ; but capable of being discovered. For this reason, as well as on account of the position of the word, ἀπόκρυφοι is not to be construed with εἰσίν as the direct predicate,— a construction which would require it to come next to εἰσίν . Meyer and Alford take the word as attributive, “ all the secret treasures.” The absence of the article is against this, although not perhaps fatal; since, as Alford observes, οἱἀπόκρυφοι would imply that there were other treasures, only those that are secret being contained, etc. The position of the word, however, suggests that it is a secondary predicate (Ellicott, Lightfoot, v. Soden, al.), “ all the treasures, etc., as hidden treasures,” i.e. “ hiddenly,” ὥστεπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦδεῖπάντααἰτεῖν . Chrys. “ quo verbo innuitur quod pretiosum et magnificum est in Christo non prominere, aut protinus in oculos incurrere hominum carnalium, sed ita latere ut conspiciatur tantummodo ab illis quibus Deus oculos dedit aquilinos, id est, spirituales ad videndum,” Davenant, quoted by Ellicott. The word occurs in connexion with θησαυροί in Isaiah 45:3, δώσωσοιθησαυροὺςσκοτεινοὺςἀποκρύφους : also 1 Macc. 1:23, ἔλαβετοὺςθησαυροὺςτοὺςἀποκρύφους . On the Gnostic use of the word to designate their esoteric writings, see Lightfoot’ s note.1 The expression θησαυρὸςσοφίας is used by Plato, Phileb. 15 E, ὥςτινασοφίαςεὑρηκὼςθησαυρόν , and by Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 9, ἄγαμαίσουδιότιοὐκἀργυρίουκαὶχρυσίουπροείλουθησαυροὺςκεκτῆσθαιμᾶλλονἢσοφίας . σοφίαςκαὶγνώσεως . These terms occur together, Romans 9:33, and several times in Eccles. Sept. “ While γνῶσις is simply intuitive, σοφία is ratiocinative also. While γνῶσις applies chiefly to the apprehension of truths, σοφία superadds the power of reasoning about them and tracing their relations,” Lightfoot. Augustine’ s distinction is that σοφία is “ intellectualis cognitio aeternarum rerum” ; γνῶσις , “ rationalis temporalium,” so that the former pertains to contemplation, the latter to action (De Trin. xii. 20, 25). This, however, is quite opposed to usage. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. i. 1, opposed γνῶσις to πρᾶξις . And in 1 Corinthians 13:2, St. Paul connects γνῶσις with the apprehension of eternal μυστήρια . 4. τοῦτολέγω . In this expression τοῦτο often refers to what follows, but with ἵνα it refers to what precedes; cf. John 5:34. τοῦτο is not to be limited to ver. 3. Ver. 5 shows that 1-3 are included, if, indeed, the reference does not extend further back. δέ is omitted in א A (apparently) B, but added in א c Acorr. C D K L P, and apparently all other authorities. Weiss considers it certainly genuine. ἳναμηδείς . So א * A B C D P al. ἳναμήτις , א c K L, most MSS. παραλογίζηται . In N.T. only here and James 1:22; frequent in Sept. and later Greek writers. It applies primarily to false reckoning, and thence to fallacious reasoning; hence, παραλογισμός , a fallacy or paralogism; cf. ἀπάτῃτινιπαραλογισάμενοςὑμᾶς , Aeschines, p. 16, 33. ἐνπιθανολογίᾳ . “ By persuasive speech,” “ a persuasive style,” Moule. The word occurs in Plato, Theaet. p. 162 E (πιθανολογίᾳτεκαὶεἰκόσι ); the verb πιθανολογεῖν in Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 1; also Diog. Laert. x. 87, al. In classical writers the sense is only that of probable reasoning as opposed to demonstration; but see Demosth. 928, 14, λόγουςθαυμασίωςπιθανούς , and ἡπιθανολογική = “ the art of persuasion,” Arrian, Epict. i. 8. 7. Compare St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:4, οὐκἐνπειθοῖςσοφίαςλόγοις , ἀλλ ʼ ἐνἀποδείξειπνεύματος . πιθανολογία expresses the subjective means of persuasion, the personal influence; παραλογ . the objective, the appearance of logic. 5. εἰγὰρκαὶ . The καὶ after εἰ does not belong to the whole clause introduced by εἰ , but emphasises the word immediately following; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:16, 2 Corinthians 11:6. τῇσαρκὶἄπειμι . It has been inferred from this that St. Paul had been at Colossae; but without reason. The same expression, indeed, occurs 1 Corinthians 5:3; but this proves nothing, γάρ . ἀλλά introduces the apodosis, when it is contrasted with a hypothetical protasis; cf. Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 5:16, al. τῷπνεύματι , “ in spirit,” not “ by the spirit,” as Ambrosiaster and Grotius, “ Deus Paulo revelat quae Colossis fierent.” The antithesis is the common one of body and spirit; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:3, ἀπὼντῷσώματι , παρὼνδὲτῷπνεύματι . σὺνὑμῖν . Stronger than ἐνὑμῖν , expressing union in a common interest. χαίρωνκαὶβλέπων . There is no need to suppose a logical transposition, or to separate the participles as if χαίρων meant “ rejoicing at being with you in the spirit” (Meyer, Alford). The apostle’ s joy may have been due to many circumstances, and this joy led him to contemplate further their orderly array. ὑμῶντὴντάξιν . The pronoun is placed emphatically first, not so much to accentuate this τάξις as an advantage which they possessed over others, as because the apostle’ s interest was in them personally and in the τάξις only as belonging to them. τὴντάξινκαὶτὸστερέωμα . Both terms are supposed by Hofmann, Lightfoot, Soden, al., to contain a military metaphor, perhaps suggested by St. Paul’ s enforced companionship with the praetorian guard, στερέωμα being rendered by Lightfoot “ solid front, close phalanx” ; by Soden, “ bulwark,” “ Bollwerk.” τάξις is frequently used of military array, e.g. Xen. Anab. i. 2. 18, ἰδοῦσατὴνλαμπρότητακαὶτὴντάξιντοῦστρατεύματοςἐθαύμασεν : Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 16, κατιδὼντάξιντεκαὶφυλακὰςκαὶκόσμοναὐτῶνκαὶτὸσχῆματῆςστρατοπεδείαςἐθαύμασε . στερέωμα is found in the Sept. Psalms 18:2; Genesis 1:6, Rev_1 Macc. 9:14 is quoted in support of the military sense, εἶδενὁἸούδαςὅτιΒακχίδηςκαὶτὸστερέωματῆςπαρεμβολῆςἐντοῖςδεξίοις . But neither word has this military sense of itself, but from the context, and here the context suggests nothing of the kind. τάξις is used equally of the organisation of a state or a household, e g. Demosth. p. 200, 4, ταύτηντὴντάξιναἱρεῖσθαιτῆςπολιτείας . Compare also Plato, Gorgias, p. 504 A, τάξεως … καὶκόσμουτυχοῦσαοἰκία . St. Paul has it again, 1 Corinthians 14:40, πάντα … κατὰτάξινγινέσθω . Here the idea of a well-ordered state lies much nearer than that of an army. The apostle rejoices in the orderly arrangement of the Colossian Church. The opposite state would be ἀταξία , and of this he finds some instances in Thessalonica, where some walked ἀτάκτως , and he reminds them ὅτιοὐκἠτακτήσαμενἐνὑμῖν (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 2 Thessalonians 3:11). With στερέωματῆςπίστεως compare Acts 16:5, ἐστερεοῦντοτῇπίστει , and 1 Peter 5:9, ᾧἀντίστητεστερεοὶτῇπίστει . It is most natural to take the word here as = the firm structure of your faith, i.e. the solidity of your faith. ὅτεπολλὰσυναγαγὼνσυγκολλήσειςπυκνῶςκαὶἀδιασπαστῶς , τότεστερέωμαγίνεται , Chrys. We gather from this that the Church at Colossae was still substantially sound in the faith, and it is instructive to observe how here as in other Epistles St. Paul is careful to commend what he finds deserving of commendation. It is worthy of notice that d e translate as if they read ὑστέρημα for στερέωμα “ quod deest necessitatibus fidei vestrae.” Augustine agrees, quoting, “ id quod deest fidei vestrae” (Ep. 149, Joh. 98). So also Ambrosiaster. 6. ὡςοὖνπαρελάβετε . “ As, then, ye received, i.e. from your teachers” = καθὼςἐμάθετεἀπὸἘπαφρᾶ , 1:7; καθὼςἐδιδάχθητε , ver. 7. Compare 1 Thessalonians 4:1, καθὼςπαρελάβετεπαρ ʼ ἡμῶντὸπῶςδεῖ , κ .τ .λ .; 1 Corinthians 15:1, 1 Corinthians 15:2, 1 Corinthians 15:11:23; Galatians 1:9, Galatians 1:12; Philippians 4:9 (ἐμάθετεκαὶπαρελάβετε ). Ellicott, however, and Moule understand it as meaning that they received “ Christ Himself, the sum and substance of all teaching.” The sense is good, but does not agree so well with the usage of παραλαμβάνειν or with the context, in which we have the contrast between true and false teaching in relation to the Christian walk (καθὼςἐδιδάχθητε , κατὰτὴνπαράδοσιντῶνἀνθρ .). τὸνΧριστὸνἸησοῦντὸνΚύριον . As St. Paul does not use the phrase ὁΧριστὸςἸησοῦς , this is naturally divided into τὸνΧριστόν and ἸησοῦντὸνΚύριον , so that τὸνΧρ . is the immediate object of παραλ . This is confirmed by the frequency of ὁΧριστός in this Epistle, and by the designation of the object of the Christian preaching as ὁΧριστός in Philippians 1:15, Philippians 1:17. Further, it will be observed that in what follows up to 3:4 it is not the notion of Ἰησοῦς or of Κύριος that is prominent, but that of Χριστός . The Christ, rather than the gospel, is specified as the object of the instruction, because “ the central point of the Colossian heresy was the subversion of the true idea of the Christ,” Lightfoot. ἸησοῦντὸνΚύριον adds to the official designation the name of Him to whom it belongs, “ even Jesus the Lord.” Compare Ephesians 4:20, Ephesians 4:21. The position of τὸνΚύριον after Ἰησοῦν (instead of the usual τὸνΚύριονἸησοῦν ) points to the two elements of which the true doctrine of the Christ consists, viz. first, the recognition of the historical person, Jesus; and, secondly, the acceptance of Him as the Lord. ἐναὐτῷπεριπατεῖτε . This phrase does not occur elsewhere, but it corresponds to the idea of τὰςὁδούςμουἐνΧριστῷ , 1 Corinthians 4:17; ζῶνταςἐνΧριστῷ , Romans 4:11, etc. 7. ἐρριζωμένοικαὶἐποικοδομούμενοι . The propriety of the tenses is to be observed; the settled state, which is the antecedent condition of περιπατατεῖνἐναὐτῷ , is expressed by the perfect; the continual development which is always advancing, by the present. The three figures are disparate, the apostle’ s thoughts being occupied with the lesson to be enforced, without regard to the consistency of his metaphor; see Ephesians 3:18. Some commentators put a stop at περιπατεῖτε , connecting the participles with the following ver. 8 a construction which leaves ἐναὐτῷπ . very isolated. The ἐπι - in ἐποικοδ . probably does not convey “ the accessory idea of the foundation,” which would not agree well with ἐν ; besides, it is clear from περιπατεῖτε and ἐρριζ . that the apostle has not before him the distinct figure of a building, but is using the word as St. Jude does, ver. 20, ἐποικοδομοῦντεςἑαυτοὺςτῇἁγιωτάτῃὑμῶνπίστει , in the derived ethical sense “ being built up.” Lightfoot remarks that in this Epistle and that to the Ephesians, Christ is represented rather as the binding element than as the foundation of the building; see Ephesians 2:20. βεβαιούμενοι qualifies the idea of both the preceding participles. The present gives the idea “ being more and more stablished.” τῇπίστει is taken by Meyer and Lightfoot as an instrumental dative, “ by your faith.” “ Faith,” says the latter, “ is, as it were, the cement of the building.” But this is to press unduly the metaphor in ἐποικοδ ., which, as we have seen, is not intended any more than the other two verbs to convey a definite picture. There is no question here of the instrument, and τῇπίστει is better taken as a dative of reference, as in Jude 1:20. There πίστις was that which needed βεβαίωσις . καθὼςἐδιδάχθητε , “ even as ye were taught,” i.e. so that ye continue firm and true to the lessons which ye were taught by Epaphras; cf. 1:7, not “ taught to be established by or in your faith.” περισσεύοντεςἐνεὐχαριστίᾳ . “ Abounding in thanksgiving.” If ἐναὐτῇ is read after περισς ., then ἐνεὐχ . is “ with thanksgiving,” although even with this reading some expositors interpret “ in your faith abounding in thanksgiving.” τῇπίστει without ἐν , B D* 17 al., Vulg., Ambrosiaster, Theoph. ἐντῇπίστει , א Do K L P, most MSS., Chrys., al. ἐνπίστει , A C 672. ἐν would readily come in from the impression made by the repeated ἐν in the context. ἐναὐτῇ is added after περισσεύοντες in B Dc K L most MSS., Syr-Pesh, Arm., Chrys. Also א c D 1 d e f, Vulg., Syr., mg. have ἐναὐτῷ . The words are absent from א A C 17 and some other MSS., Amiat., Fuld.., Eth. The words are omitted in the text of RV. but retained in the marginal reading. They may have been added originally from a recollection of 4:2, where we have ἐναὐτῇἐνεὐχαριστίᾳ . This is rather more probable than that they were omitted because περισσεύοντες was thought to be sufficiently defined by ἐνεὐχαριστίᾳ . So Weiss. 8-15. he apostle has reason to know (having, no doubt, been so informed by Epaphras) that there are amongst the Colossians teachers who are propagating mischievous heresies, dangerous to the faith, and inculcating precepts not consistent with their position as members of Christ’ s kingdom. These teachers make a professsion of philosophy, but it is a mere system of deceit and of human origin, and so far is it from being an advance on what they have been taught that it really belongs to a more elementary stage of progress. Ye, he tells them, have been already made full in Christ, in whom dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead, and who is therefore far above all these angelic beings of whom they speak. Ye need no circumcision of the flesh, for ye have received in Christ the true circumcision of the spirit. By Him ye have been raised from death to life, and His work is complete; He has wholly done away with the bond that was against you. 8. βλέπετεμήτιςὑμᾶςἔσται . “ Beware lest there be anyone,” etc. For τις with the participle and article, cf. Galatians 1:7, εἰμήτινέςεἰσινοἱταράσσοντεςὑμᾶς . As it gives prominence to the person and his action, it appears to point to some particular person whom the apostle has in view but does not wish to name. Compare Ignat. Smyrn. 5, ὅντινεςἀγνοοῦντεςἀρνοῦνται … τὰδὲὀνόματααὐτῶν … οὐκἔδοξέμοιἐγγράψαι . The future indic. ἔσται indicates the reality of the danger, cf. Mark 14:2, μήποτεἔσταιθόρυβος , and Hebrews 3:12, βλέπετεμήποτεἔσταιἔντινιὑμῶν , κ .τ .λ . ὑμᾶς before ἔσται is somewhat emphatic: “ you who are such persons as I have thus commended.” This order, ὑμᾶςἔσται , is that of B C K L P; but א A D have ἔσταιὑμᾶς , which, as the more obvious order, was more likely to be written in error. ὁσυλαγωγῶν . A later Greek word (not indeed found till after St. Paul) used by Aristaenetus (2:22) with οἶκον in the sense “ plunder,” in which sense it is understood here by Chrys., Theodoret, and some moderns. Theodoret supplies τὴνπίστιν , Theophyl. τὸννοῦν . If this were the sense here, the object could hardly be omitted. But the proper meaning of the word seems to be “ to carry off as spoil.” So Heliodorus, Aeth. x. 35, ὁτὴνἐμὴνθυγάτερασυλαγωγήσας . And this meaning corresponds with that of the analogous compounds, δουλαγωγεῖν , σκευαγωγεῖν , λαφυραγωγεῖν . Von Soden remarks that it also corresponds better with the idea of a destroyed bond in ver. 14 to suggest that they might again be brought into bondage; cf. Galatians 5:1. The Vulgate “ decipiat” is very inadequate. διὰτῆςφιλοσοφίας . A term not occurring elsewhere in the N.T., and no doubt adopted here because it was used by the false teachers themselves. The combination of it here with κενὴἀπάτη indicates that the sense is nearly “ his philosophy, so called, which is a vain deceit.” Compare ψευδώνυμοςγνῶσις , 1 Timothy 6:20. Chrysostom remarks: ἐπειδὴδοκεῖσεμνὸνεἶναιτὸ “ τῆςφιλοσοφίας ” προσέθηκεεκαὶκενῆςἀπάτης . That the word φιλοσοφία was in use in Jewish circles appears from Philo and Josephus. The former applies the word to the religion of the Jews and the law of Moses, perhaps for the purpose of giving dignity to them in the eyes of Gentile readers. He speaks of ἡκατὰΜωϋσῆνφιλοσοφία (De Mut. Nom. 39), ἡπάτριοςφιλοσοφία (Leg. ad Cai. 23), ἡἸουδαϊκὴ , φιλοσοφίο (ib. 33). Josephus calls the three Jewish sects τρεῖςφιλοσοφίαι (Ant. xviii. 1. 2). It is clear from the connexion with κενῆςἀπάτης that St. Paul is not condemning philosophy in general, which, indeed, would be quite beside his purpose. καὶκενῆςἀπάτης . The absence of the article shows that this is not a different thing from ἡφιλοσοφία , but is a characteristic of it. ἀπάτη is opposed to λόγοςτῆςἀληθείας , 1:5, and to σοφίακαὶγνῶσις , 2:3. κατὰτὴνπαρὰδοσιντῶνἀνθρώπων . Probably to be connected with the immediately preceding words rather than with συλαγωγῶν . The teaching of the Colossian false teachers was essentially traditional and esoteric. The Essenes, their spiritual predecessors, as well as the Gnostics, subsequently claimed to possess such a source of knowledge. The oath taken by the full members of the former sect bound them not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise than as he himself had received them, and, further, to guard carefully the books of their sect and the names of the angels (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7; Lightfoot, pp. 89, 90). Compare the designation Kabbala, “ tradition,” applied by the Jews to their later mystic theology. κατὰτὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου . “ According to the rudiments of the world” (?). This κατά with the following κατὰΧριστόν may perhaps be best connected with συλαγωγῶν , as the ideas they introduce have a different logical relation to the main idea, and οὐκατὰΧριστόν is too brief to form the antithesis to the other two κατά clauses. τὰστοιχεῖα (= Galatians 4:3) (originally = “ letters of the alphabet” ) is generally understood by modern commentators as meaning “ elementary teaching,” “ the A B C of religious instruction” ; compare παιδαγωγός in Gal. Then τοῦκόσμου would mean having reference to mundane, or material, not spiritual things (Alford, Lightfoot, al.). But De Wette takes κόσμος as = “ humanity,” as the subject of this instruction (John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19). So Oltramare. Meyer, on the other hand, understands by it “ the non-Christian world,” “ rudiments with which the world concerns itself” ( = Bleek, Weiss, al.). Neander judges that a comparison of all the Pauline passages and the Pauline association of ideas favour our understanding the phrase as denoting the earthly, elsewhere termed τὰσαρκικά . Hence, 2:20, στοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου and κόσμος may, he thinks, be considered as synonymous. An entirely different interpretation has been adopted by several recent commentators. According to this, τὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου are the personal elemental spirits. According to Jewish ideas, not only were the stars conceived as animated by spiritual beings,1 but all things had their special angels. In the Book of Enoch, 82. 10 ff., it is said with reference to the angels of the stars that they keep watch, that they may appear at their appointed times, in their proper orders, etc. There are, first, the four leaders who divide the seasons, then the twelve leaders of the orders (taxiarchs), who divide the months; and for the 360 days there are heads over thousands (chiliarchs), who divide the days. Anyone who is curious about the matter may learn the principal names in the book itself. In 18. 15 we read of stars which suffer punishment because they have transgressed the commandment of God as to their appearing. In the Book of Jubilees, cap. 2, amongst the creations of the first day are the Angels of the Presence, but also the angels of the winds, of clouds, of cold and heat, of hail, hoarfrost, thunder, etc. Perhaps Psalms 104:4 may have some relation to this conception; certainly it seems to be illustrated by the Apocalypse, vii. 1, 2, xiv. 18, xvi. 5 (τοῦἀγγέλουτῶνὑδάτων ), xix. 17; and by the interpolation in John 5:4. It is obvious that the term properly used of the elements ruled by these spirits might readily be applied to the spirits themselves, especially as there was no other convenient term. It agrees with this that in Galatians 4:1 ff. those who were δεδουλωμένοιὑπὸτὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου are compared to those who are under ἐπίτροποικαὶοἰκονόμοι ,— a comparison which suggests personality in the former. And again, ib. 8, 9, δουλεύειντοῖςφύσειμὴοὖσινθεοῖς appears to be equivalent to δουλεύειντοῖςστοιχείοις , κ .τ .λ . In the present passage the observance of times and seasons, etc., is κατὰτὰστ .τ .κ ., not κατὰΧρ ., a contrast which does not agree well with the conception of στ . as elements of instruction. This view of τὰστοιχεῖα gives special pertinence to the proposition which follows, ὅτιἐναὐτῷ , κ .τ .λ ., and ver. 10, ὅςἐστινἡκεφαλὴπάσηςἀρχῆςκαὶἐξουσίας . Ritschl defends this personal interpretation of στοιχεῖα at length (Rechtfertigung u. Versö hnung, 3rd ed. ii. p. 252), but needlessly limits the meaning to the angels of the lawgiving. Spitta adopts the more general reference (Der Zweite Brief des Petras u.der Brief des Judas, 1885, 263 ff.). He quotes from the Test. Levi, c. 4, a passage which speaks of the burning up of τὰἀόραταπνεύματα , just as 2 Peter 3:10 speaks of the burning up of στοιχεῖα . This view is unreservedly adopted by Kü hl, the recent editor of the Epistles of Peter and Jude in Meyer’ s Kommentar, and by v. Soden in his comment on the present passage.2 9. ὅτιἐναὐτῷκατοικεῖπᾶντὸπλήρωμα . See 1:19; and on πλήρωμα , Lightfoot’ s dissertation, Colossians, p. 323 ff. τῆςθεότητος , “ of the Godhead,” i.e. of the Divine nature. θεότης , the abstract of θεός , must not be confounded with θειότης , which is used with propriety in Romans 1:20, and which means, not the essence, but the quality of divinity. θεότης is found in Lucian, Icarom. ix., τὸνμέντιναπρῶτονΘεὸνἐπεκάλουν , τοῖςδὲτὰδεύτερακαὶτὰτρίταἔνεμοντῆςθεότητος ; and in Plutarch, Mor. p. 415 C, ἐκδὲδαιμόνωνὀλίγαιμὲνἔτιχρόνῳπολλῷδι ʼ ἀρετῆςκαθαρθεῖσαιπαντάπασιθεότητοςμετέσχον . The δαίμονες were always θεῖοι , but a few became in course of time θεοί . The same author, Mor. p. 857 A, says, πᾶσινΑἰγυπτίοιςθειότηταπολλὴνκαὶδικαιοσύνηνμαρτυρήσας , i.e. a Divine faculty. The Versions generally, including the Vulgate, fail to mark the distinction, doubtless for want of a word to express θεότης . The word deitas was a later coinage (not quite according to Latin analogy). Trench quotes from Augustine, De Civ. Dei, vii. § 1, “ Hanc divinitatem, vel, ut sic dixerim deitatem: nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant id quod illi θεότητα appellant.” σωματικῶς , “ bodilywise, corporeally.” Not ἀσωμάτως as in the λόγος before the Incarnation, but in His glorified body σῶματῆςδόξηςαὐτοῦ , Philippians 3:21. Chrysostom draws attention to the accuracy of the expression, μὴνομίσῃςΘεὸνσυγκεκλεῖσθαι , ὡςἐνσώματι . This interpretation, which is that adopted by most modern commentators, is the only one tenable, but many others have been suggested. Theophylact and Oecumenius took the word to mean “ essentially,” οὐσιωδῶς , i.e. not merely as an influence, as in the saints or as in the prophets. So Calvin, Beza, and, more recently, Olshausen and Usteri. But the word cannot have this meaning. Augustine (Epist. 149) understands it to mean “ really” not “ typically,” “ vere non umbratice,” not “ umbratiliter,” as in the temple made with hands; and so many moderns (including Bengel and Bleek), comparing ver. 17, where σῶμα is contrasted with σκιά . But there the idea is that of a body which cast a shadow, and the passage does not justify our rendering the adverb “ really.” Others, again, understanding πλήρωμα of the Church, take σωματικῶς to mean, “ so that the Church is related to Him as His body” (Baumgarten-Crusius, al.), thus making the body of Christ dwell in Christ, instead of Christ in the body. 10. καὶἐστὲἐναὐτῷπεπληρωμένοι . “ And ye are in Him made full.” Alford, Ellicott, and Lightfoot render, “ ye are in Him, made full,” regarding the clause as containing two predications. But the connexion seems to require the fact to be emphasised, that it is “ in Him” that the πεπληρωμένονεἶναι rests; for on this depends the inference that nothing more is lacking in our relation to God. The πεπληρωμένοι obviously corresponds with the πλήρωμα . Christ is πεπληρωμένος : ye being in Him share in His πλήρωμα , and are therefore yourselves πεπληρωμένοι . Compare John 1:16, ἐκτοῦπληρώματοςαὐτοῦἡμεῖςπάντεςἐλάβομεν : Ephesians 3:9, ἴναπληρωθῆτεεἰςπᾶντὸπλήρωματοῦΘεοῦ , also ibid. 4:13 and 1:23. ὃςἐστιν . So א A C K L P and nearly all MSS. with the Latin e f g Vulg. and Chrys., Theodoret, al. But B D G 47* with d have ὅἐστιν , perhaps a correction made on the supposition that αὐτῷ referred to πλήρωμα , or by oversight c was lost before e c. Lachmann adopts it, placing καὶ to ἐναὐτῷ in a parenthesis. The image, however, would be quite confused if the πλήρωμα were represented as the head; ἡκεφαλή is always Christ. Besides, we should be obliged to refer ἐνὧ also to πλήρωμα , and this would not yield any tolerable sense. Ewald, adopting ὅἑστιν , takes it as= “ scilicet,” comparing 1:24, 27 and 3:17; but this would require τῇκεφαλῇ . ἡκεφαλὴπάσηςἀρχῆκαὶἐξουσίας . He is the head of all those angelic powers to whose mediation the false teachers would teach you to seek. As they are subordinate to Christ, ye have nothing to expect from them which is not given you in full completeness in Christ. 11. ἐνὧκαὶπεριετμήθητε . “ In whom also ye were (not ‘ are,’ as AV.) circumcised.” “ Ye have received the circumcision of the heart, by which ye have put off the whole body of the flesh, and therefore ye have no need of the symbolical circumcision of the flesh.” The aorists point to the time of their reception into the Christian Church by baptism. περιτομῇ , “ with a circumcision,” not “ the circumcision.” ἀχειροποιήτῳ , “ not wrought by hands,” not physical: cf. Mark 14:58; 2 Corinthians 5:1; and Ephesians 2:11, where we have the other side of the contrast, οἱλεγόμενοιἀκροβυστίαὑπὸτῆςλεγομένηςπεριτομὴἐνσαρκιχειροποιήτου . The idea of spiritual circumcision is frequent in the O.T.; see note on the passage in Eph. In St. Paul, compare Romans 2:28; Philippians 3:3. At first sight it might appear from this clause that the Colossians had been tempted like the Galatians to submit to circumcision. But in that case we should find, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, some direct condemnation of the practice; whereas in 16-23 there is no reference to it. Possibly the allusion here is to some claim to superiority on the part of the false teachers. ἐντῇἀπεκδύσει . ἐν specifies that in which the περιτομή consisted. The substantive ἀπέκδυσις has not been found in any earlier writer (for the verb, see ver. 15). It expresses a complete putting off and laying aside, and was probably chosen with reference to the figure of circumcision. The connexion requires it to be understood passively, not “ ye have put off,” but “ was put off from you.” τοῦσώματοςτῆςσαρκός , i.e. “ the body which consists in the flesh,” “ the fleshly body,” so that we are no more ἐντῇσαρκι (Romans 7:5, Romans 7:8:8, Romans 7:9). The change is ideally represented as complete, which it is in principle. Some expositors take σῶμα in the sense of “ mass, totality” (Calvin, Grotius, al.); but this is against N.T. usage, and does not agree so well with the context, the images in which are connected with the body, “ buried, raised.” The expression σῶματῆςσαρκός , 1:22, has a different meaning. The Rec. Text after σώματος adds τῶνἁμαρτιῶν , with א c Dbc K L and most MSS., Syr., Chrys., etc. The words are absent from א A B C D G P some good cursives, Old Lat. Vulg., Boh., etc. They are clearly a gloss. ἐντῇπεριτομῇτοῦΧριστοῦ . The simplest and most natural interpretation is: “ the circumcision which belongs to Christ, and is brought about by union with Him,” in contrast to the circumcision of Moses and of the patriarchs. Thus it is nearly equivalent to “ Christian circumcision,” but expresses the idea that the source of this circumcision is in Christ. Some commentators have taken Χριστοῦ as the genitive of the object, the thought being supposed to be that in the circumcision of Christ we are circumcised. So Schö ttgen: “ Circumcisio Christi qui se nostri causa sponte legi subjecit, tam efficax fuit in omnes homines, ut nulla amplius circumcisione carnis opus sit, praecipue quum in locum illius baptismus a Christo surrogatus sit.” This is not only without support from Scripture analogy, but is foreign to the context, in which the circumcision spoken of is ἀχειροποίητος . The baptism mentioned in ver. 12, in which we are buried with Him, is our baptism. Soden also takes Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive, understanding, however, περιτομή in the sense of ἀπέκδυσιςτοῦσώματοςτῆςσαρκός just specified, which echoes 1:22. Chrysostom and Theophylact understand the genitive as subjective, ὁΧριστὸςπεριτέμνειἐντῷβαπτίσματιἀπεκδύωνἡμᾶςτοῦπαλαίουβίου , Theoph. This does not harmonise with the following συνταφέντεςαὐτῷ . 12. συνταφέντεςαὐτῷ , κ .τ .λ . We have the same figure in Romans 6:3, Romans 6:4, which may almost be regarded as a commentary on this passage. The figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in baptism, which St. Paul interprets as symbolical of burial, the emersion similarly symbolising the rising again to newness of life. συνταφέντες is to be connected with περιετμήθητε , and specifies when and how this was brought about. ἐντῷβαπτίσματι . So most authorities, א A C Dc K L P, etc. But א c, B D F G 47 672 71 have βαπτισμῷ , which Lightfoot prefers on the ground that it is the less usual word in this sense. That it might be so used is shown by its occurrence in Josephus, Ant. xviii. 5. 2, of the baptism of John. But in two of the other three passages in which it occurs in the N.T., it means lustration or washing, e.g. of vessels: Mark 7:4 (in Rec. also 8); Hebrews 9:10. The third passage, Hebrews 6:2, is doubtful. In the Latin version as well as in the Latin Fathers, “ baptisma” and “ baptismus” are used indifferently. St. Paul uses the substantive “ baptism” in only two other places (Romans 6:4; Ephesians 4:5), and this is not sufficient to supply any basis for inference as to his usage. Etymologically βαπτισμός would signify rather the act of dipping, βάπτισμα the act as complete. Weiss thinks the former more suitable here. ἐνᾧ , viz. βαπτίσματι . This seems clearly required by the analogy between συνταφέντεςἐν and συνηγέρθητε . Chrysostom, however, and most comm. understand ἐνΧριστῷ . Meyer defends this on the ground, first, of the parallelism of ἐνᾧκαί — ἐνᾧκαί ; secondly, because, if baptism were intended, ἐν would not be suitable to the rising again, and we should expect ἐξ , or at least the non-local διά ; and, lastly, because as συνταφέντες is defined by ἐντῷβαπτ ., so is συνηγέρθητε by διὰτῆςπίστεως ; and, therefore, the text suggests no reason for continuing to it the former definition also. To the second objection (adopted also by Eadie), it may be replied that βάπτισμα (βαπτισμός ) includes the whole act. It is only when we take in the two things signified, the “ death unto sin” and the “ new birth unto righteousness,” or the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new, that βάπτισμα can be identified with περιτομὴἀχειροποίητος ; for περιτομή also signified the entrance into a holy state as well as the separation from the state of nature. The first objection has really no weight, for it is much more natural to connect συνηγέρθητε with συνταφέντες than with περιετμήθητε ; and this is strongly confirmed by the passage in Rom. just referred to: συνετάφημεναὐτῷδιὰτοῦβαπτίσματος … ἵναὥσπερἠγέρθηΧριστός … οὕτωςκαὶἡμεῖςἐνκαινότητιζωῆςπεριπατήσωμεν , κ .τ .λ . Further, as Lightfoot observes, the idea of Χριστῷ must be reserved for συνηγέρθητε , where it is wanted: “ ye were raised together with Him.” (So Alford, Beza, De Wette, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soden, al.) συνηγέρθητε . Compare Galatians 3:27, ὅσοιεἰςΧριστὸνἐβαπτίσθητεΧριστὸνἐπενδύσασθε . The Χριστὸνἐπενδύσασθαι presupposes the ἀπέκδυσιςτοῦσώματοςτῆςσαρκός . διὰτῆςπίστεωςτῆςἐνεργείαςτοῦΘεοῦ . “ Through your faith in the working of God.” Bengel, De Wette, al., understand ἐνεργείας as a genitive of cause, “ faith produced by the operation of God.” But the genitive after πίστις , when not that of the person, is always that of the object. Cf. Mark 11:22; Acts 3:16; Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:12; Philippians 1:27, etc. Ephesians 1:19 is cited in favour of this interpretation, but κατὰτὴνἐνεργείαν there is not to be joined to τοὺςπιστεύοντας ; see note on the passage. The former interpretation is also more suitable to the context. The πίστις here is specified as faith in the resurrection, πιστεύοντεςγὰρτῇτοῦΘεοῦδυνάμειπροσμένομεντὴνἀνάστασιν , ἐνέχυρονἔχοντεςτοῦδεσπότουχριστοῦτὴνἀνάστασιν , Theodoret. πίστεωςὅλονἐστίν · ἐπιστεύσατεὅτιδύναταιὁΘεὸςἐγεῖραι , καὶοὕτωςἠγέρθητε , Chrys. Faith is the subjective means by which the grace is received; only by a belief in the resurrection can the rising again with Christ be appropriated by the individual. By belief in the resurrection of Christ we believe in the power of God, of which it is an evidence; and this belief, again, is the means by which that power works in the life and produces an effect analogous to that resurrection. Compare Romans 4:24, Romans 6:8, Romans 10:9. B D G 17 and most MSS. have τῶν before νεκρῶν ; א A C K L P and several cursives omit it. In most instances of this or similar phrases ἐκνεκρῶν is used without τῶν , and with no variety in codd. (In Ephesians 1:20 L and some twenty-five MSS. prefix τῶν .) But in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 א B D G L P and many MSS., with Chrys., Theodoret, al., have τῶν , A C K and many MSS. omitting it. It seems, therefore, more probable that τῶν was omitted here in conformity with usage than that it was wrongly added. See on Luke 20:35. 13. καὶὑμᾶς , νεκροὺςὄνταςτοῖςπαραπτώμασι … ὑμῶν . See Ephesians 2:1. καὶτῇἀκροβυστίᾳτῆςσαρκὸςὑμῶν . Some commentators understand σαρκός as a genitive of apposition, or “ epexegetical,” “ the uncircumcision which consisted in your carnal, sinful nature” ; “ exquisita appellatio peccati originalis,” Bengel. But the apostle could hardly have said νεκροὺςτῇσαρκὶὑμῶν without some further definition. If, indeed, he were addressing Jews, the expression in this sense would be intelligible, since it would be at once obvious that ἀκροβ . was figuratively used, and therefore σαρκός also. But though intelligible it would be very strange, as it would imply a hidden contrast between the literal and figurative meanings of σάρξ . As addressed to Gentiles, who had the literal ἀκροβυστίατῆςσαρκός , the words can hardly be understood otherwise than as referring to the external fact. But it is referred to only on account of its symbolical significance. Dead in your trespasses and your alienation from God, of which the uncircumcision of your flesh was a symbol. τῆςσαρκός appears to be added in contrast to the περιτομὴἀχειροποίητος , and at the same time to suggest the symbolical sense. Hence the apostle does not say ἡμῶν , although presently after he introduces the first person. The Rec. Text has ἐν before τοῖςπαραπτώμασιν , with א a A C D F G K P and most MSS. It is omitted by Tisch., Lightfoot, with א B L 17 and some other MSS. Chrys., D, G and a few others, with the Latin d e g, prefix ἐν to τῇἀκροβυστία also. συνεζωοποίησενὑμᾶς . ὑμᾶς is repeated for emphasis. So א * A C K L and about fifty cursives, Syr. Eth. etc. B 17 37 and more than twenty other cursives read ἡμᾶς , conforming to the following ἡμῖν . א c D G P and many MSS. Old Lat., Vulg., Boh., Chrys., etc. omit. The reasons for omission may have been the desire to simplify the grammar, and to avoid the proximity of ὑμᾶς and ἡμῖν . As B reads ἡμᾶς here for ὑμᾶς , so א c L P and many others, with Vulg., Eth., Theodoret, al., have ὑμῖν for ἡμῖν . On συνεζωοποίησε , see Ephesians 2:5. What is the subject? Ellicott, following Chrysostom, replies: Christ; partly on account, first, of “ the logical difficulty of supplying a nom. from the subordinate gen. Θεοῦ ” ; secondly, of the prominence given to Christ throughout the preceding context, the acts described in the participles (ἐξαλ . κ .τ .λ ., compared with Ephesians 2:15, and χαρις . with Colossians 3:13); and, lastly, the difficulty of referring vv. 14 and 15 to God the Father. On the other hand, the reasons for adopting ὁΘεός as the subject seem decisive. (1) There is really less logical difficulty in supplying ὁΘεός from τοῦΘεοῦτοῦἐγείραντος than in supplying ὁΧριστός from αὐτῷ or αὐτόν , where it is the object, or from τοῦΧριστοῦ . (2) καὶὑμᾶς makes it almost necessary to understand the same subject to συνεζωοποίησε as to ἐγείραντος . (3) This is further confirmed by the συν in συνεζωοποίησεν , and by σὺναὐτῷ . He that quickened you along with Him must surely be the same who is said to have raised Him. (4) In St. Paul it is always God, not Christ, who is the subject of ἐγείρει , συνεγείρει , ζωοποιεῖ , συνζωοποιεῖ . (5) Lastly, in Ephesians 2:4, which is so closely parallel, ὁΘεός is the subject of συνεζωοποίησε . Hence we seem compelled to take ὁΘεός here as the subject, whatever the difficulty of vv. 14, 15. And so Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, v. Soden. χαρισάμενος , “ having forgiven.” Moule prefers “ forgiving,” i.e. in the act of quickening. There is no grammatical objection to this; but logically, at least, the χαρίζεσθαι must precede the ζωοποιεῖν . The verb χαρίζεσθαι properly means “ to grant as a favour” (see on Ephesians 4:32). Compare in the N.T. Luke 7:21, ἐχαρίσατοβλέπειν : Acts 3:14, φονέαχαρισθῆναι : 25:11, οὐδείςμεδύναταιαὐτοῖςχαρίσασθαι ; ib. 16, 27:24, κεχάρισταίσοιὁΘεὸςπάνταςτοὺςπλέονταςμετὰσοῦ . Philippians 1:29; Philemon 1:22. It does not seem necessary to suppose that its use in the sense “ forgive an offence” is derived from that of “ forgiving a debt” ; but even if so, there is no reason to think that it continued to suggest the latter idea. Here at all events, notwithstanding χειρόγραφον , it would appear not to have been so intended, else παραπτώματα would hardly be used, which would interfere with the figure. See on Luke 7:21, Luke 7:42. ἡμῖν is here the right reading, with א * A B C D G K and most MSS., d e g Goth., Syr. (both), Boh., Arm., Chrys., al. ὑμῖν is read by א c L P and many MSS. f, Vulg., Eth. The apostle at the earliest moment, as we may say, includes himself, claiming his share in the transgression and in the forgiveness. Such transition is frequent with him; cf. 1:10-13, 3:3, 4; Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 2:3, Ephesians 2:13, Ephesians 2:14, Ephesians 2:4:31, 32, Ephesians 2:5:2. For the converse transition see Galatians 3:25, Galatians 3:26, Galatians 3:4:5, Galatians 3:6. If χαρισάμενος were simultaneous with συνεζωοποίησεν , St. Paul must have used ὑμῖν here. 14. ἐξαλείψας , “ blotting out” (because simultaneous with χαρισάμενος , and specifying the act by which the χαρ . was carried out). Strictly, it means “ wiping out or away,” “ cera obducta delere.” It is used of “ sins,” Acts 3:19; of a “ name,” Revelation 3:5; of “ tears,” Revelation 7:17, Revelation 21:4. It is used also in classical writers of blotting out or wiping out a writing, e.g. Plato, Rep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B, and hence of abolishing a law, Dem. p. 468, 1, etc. τὸκαθ ʼ ἡμῶνχειρόγραφον . “ The bond that was against us.” χειρόγραφον , properly an autograph, was in later Greek a technical term for a written acknowledgment of debt, for which the older term was συγγραφή or γραμματεῖον . “ Chirographum” became the usual Roman legal term; cf. Cic. Fam. vii. 18; Juvenal, Sat. xvi. 41. Here the χειρόγραφον is the Mosaic Law, which being unfulfilled is analogous to an unpaid “ note of hand.” But the figure must not be pressed too far, for in this case the χειρόγραφον was not written by the debtor. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the apostle had in view the assent of the Jewish people; Deuteronomy 27:14-26; Exodus 24:3 (Chrys., Oecum., Theoph., Lightfoot, etc.), or in the case of the Gentiles the assent of conscience to the moral law. The fact of obligation is sufficient to justify the use of the figure. Hence it is τὸκαθ ʼ ἡμῶνχειρόγραφον , but not ἡμῶνχειρόγραφον . Although the Gentiles had not the written law, they had “ the work of the law written in their hearts,” and therefore come under the same obligation. For a detailed account of other views of χειρόγραφον , see Eadie. δόγμασιν , “ consisting in δόγματα , i.e. ordinances,” compare Ephesians 2:15, τὸννόμοντῶνἐντολῶνἐνδόγμασι , where see note on the meaning of δόγμα , which in the N.T. is always “ a decree.” The dative is best regarded as closely connected with χειρόγραφον only, being dependent on the idea of γεγραμμένον involved in the word. Compare Plato, Ep. 7. p. 243 A, ὃδὴπάσχειτὰγεγραμμένατύποις . So Meyer, Alford, Eadie, Lightfoot, Soden. The explanation is not without difficulty, as χειρογ . is a synthetic compound; and Lightfoot thinks it possible that ἐν may have dropped out after the similar termination -ον . If so, it must have been in the earliest ages that the error occurred, since no trace remains of the reading ἐν . Two or three other explanations deserve notice; first, that of Winer, al., followed by Ellicott, according to which δόγμασι is a nearer definition of the whole, τὸκαθ ʼ ἡμῶνχειρόγραφον expressing at the same time what the χειρόγραφον was, and in what respect it was against us. For this we should expect τὸτοῖςδόγμασινκαθ ʼ ἡμῶνχ ., or τὸκαθ ʼ ἡμῶνχ . τῶνδογμάτων , or the like. Erasmus, Olshausen, Conybeare, and others connect τοῖςδόγμασιν with the following clause: “ the handwriting, which by its ordinances, was against us,” a very unnatural construction, for which Acts 1:2 affords no parallel. The Greek commentators (Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Oec., Theoph.) connect δόγμασιν with ἐξαλείψας , understanding the word to mean the doctrines or precepts of the gospel, as the instrument by which the blotting out was effected. Jerome adopts this view; and so, amongst moderns, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Fritzsche. But this is not only opposed to the use of δόγμα in the N T., but, what is of more importance, it is inconsistent with fact. For it is not by precepts or doctrines (ἡεὐαγγελικὴδιδασκαλία , Theoph.), nor by faith (Theodoret), that the handwriting, i.e. the Mosaic Law, is abrogated. Moreover, the cognate verb δογματίζεσθε in ver. 20 has obvious reference to the δόγματα here, and it is implied that such δόγματα are obsolete. It is remarkable that the Greek commentators named above do not even allude to the correct interpretation, adopting without question that construction which was grammatically simplest. Irenaeus, however (quoted by Lightfoot), appears to have taken the more correct view. The term δόγματα is used here instead of νόμος , doubtless in order to fix attention on the formal element, the plurality of precepts,— an element which was common to it and the δογματίζειν of the false teachers. It thus prepares for the τίδογματίζεσθε of ver. 20. See on Luke 2:1. ὃἦνὑπεναντίονἡμῖν . “ Which was directly opposed to us.” Here first the idea of the hostility of the χειρόγραφον is expressed, the καθ ʼ ὑμῶν only asserting its validity with reference to us. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 3:1-4. Ye must have a loftier aim; ye have risen with Christ and your life is hid with Christ in God. Seek therefore those things that are above, where He is, seated at God’ s right hand 1. εἰοὖνσυνηγέρθητετῷΧριστῷ . Not “ if ye be risen,” AV., but “ if ye were raised,” viz. at the definite point of time when they became Christians, and were in baptism symbolically buried and raised again with Him, ch. 2:12. The death as a death from τὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου is mentioned in ii. 20. εἰ does not express a doubt, but, as in ii. 20, the ground of an inference. τὰἄνωζητεῖτε , κ .τ .λ . There is no longer any direct reference to the precepts of the false teachers (as if τὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς , ver. 2, were τὰπερὶβρωμάτωνκαὶἡμέρων , Theoph.). These have been cast aside as concerning only those living in the world, and the apostle rises into a higher region. Your thoughts should be on things above, on spiritual things, and the precepts you have to follow concern moral conduct. Compare “ treasure in heaven,” Matthew 6:20; τὸβραβεῖοντῆςἄνωκλήσεως , Philippians 3:14. οὗὁΧριστόςἐστιν , κ .τ .λ . ἐστιν is not the copula: “ where Christ is, seated,” etc. “ Par enim illuc tendere studia curasque membrorum, ubi jam versator caput,” Erasm. 2. τὰἄνωφρονεῖτε . “ Set your mind on the things above,” RV., an advance on ζητεῖτε . In the AV. “ set your affection,” etc. The word “ affection” was doubtless intended to bear the sense of “ affectus,” “ tendency or bias of the mind.” The bishops’ Bible had “ affections.” The Vulgate has “ sapite,” “ savour,” as Wyclif renders. We have the opposite state of mind in Philippians 3:19, οἱτὰἐπίγειαφρονοῦντες . Compare Romans 8:5. 3. ἀπεθάνετεγάρ . Not “ ye are dead,” as AV., but “ ye died.” Conybeare, indeed, urges that the associated κέκρυπται shows that the aorist is here used for the perfect; but this is erroneous. The aorist expresses what occurred at a particular moment in the past, while the perfect κέκρυπται expresses the resulting and now existing state. Nor does the nature of the verb θνήσκω preclude a rigorous translation, as even Ellicott suggests. True, in ordinary narrative, ἀπέθανε , “ died,” implies, though it does not express, “ is dead” ; but not so when there is reference to a possible afterlife. Accordingly, Plato in the Phaedo never confounds θνήσκειν or ἀποθανεῖν with τεθνάναι . For example, p. 72 C, εἰἀποθνήσκοιμὲνπάντα , ὅσατοῦζῆνμεταλάβοι , ἐπειδὴδὲἀποθάνοι , μένοιἐντούτῳτῷσχήματιτὰτεθνεῶτακαὶμὴπάλινἀναβιώσκοιτοἆρ ʼ οὐπολλὴἀνάγκητελευτῶνταπάντατεθνάναικαὶμηδὲνζῆν ; τὸτεθνάναι having been defined in 71 C as the opposite of τὸζῆν , while ἀποθνήσκειν was the opposite of ἀναβιώσκεσθαι , ib. E. So Homer, Il. ψ . 365, uses τέθναθι with critical accuracy, not “ die,” but “ lie dead.” Here “ are dead” would contradict συνηγέρθητε . They died, indeed, but at the same time rose again, and that to a life spiritual and heavenly. They were, indeed, νεκροὶτῇἁμαρτίᾳ , but ζῶντεςτῷΘεῷ , Romans 6:11. ἡζωὴὑμῶν , your true life, not merely your resurrection life. They are seated ἐντοῖςἐπουρανίοις , Ephesians 2:4-6. κέκρυπται . “ Neque Christum neque Christianos novit mundus; ac ne Christiani quidem plane seipsos,” Bengel. Compare Romans 2:29, ὁἐντῷκρυπτῷἸουδαῖος . 4. ὅτανὁΧριστὸςφανερωθῇ , ἡζωὴἡμῶν . “ When Christ shall be manifested, who is our life,” not “ shall be manifested in the character of our life,” as Bengel and Eadie. Compare ὁἔχωντὸνυἱὸνἔχειζωήν , 1 John 5:12. He is Himself the essence of the life; cf. Galatians 2:20; Philippians 1:21. The absence of δέ or καί makes the expression more striking and vivid. Bengel observes on this: “ Sermo absolutus lectorem totum … repentina luce percellit.” For the transition to the first person cf. 2:13. φανεροῦσθαι is used here with propriety instead of ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι , which does not so distinctly imply actual present existence. τότεκαὶὑμεῖςσὺναὐτῷφανερωθήσεσθεἐνδόξῃ . Compare 1 John 3:2, οἴδαμενὅτιἐὰνφανερωθῇὅμοιοιαὐτῷἐσόμεθα , and Romans 8:19, τὴνἀποκάλυψιντῶνυἱῶντοῦΘεοῦἀπεκδέχεται : and on ἐνδόξῃ , Romans 8:17, ἵνακαὶσυνδοξασθῶμεν , and 18, τὴνμέλλουσανδόξανἀποκαλυφθῆναιεἰςἡμᾶς . For the reading; ἡμῶν is read in B Dbe K L most MSS., Syr. (both), Boh., Origen. ὑμῶν in א C D* G P 17 47, Vulg., Goth., Arm., Eth. ὑμῶν was very likely to be substituted for ἡμῶν on account of the preceeding ὑμῶν and the following ὑμεῖς . Tischendorf and Tregelles prefer ὑμῶν ; WH. and Lightfoot ἡμῶν ; and so Weiss. 5-11. Sins to be destroyed, as well the more subtle sins of temper as the grosser ones of appetite 5. Νεκρώσατεοὖν . “ Make dead, therefore.” As ye died, and your true life is hidden, carry out this death to the world, and kill whatever is carnal in you. τὰμέλητὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς . Meyer understands by μέλη the literal members, hand, foot, eye, etc. (Matthew 5:29), of course, taking the verb in an ethical sense. But this would be too strong a figure, and is not sufficiently supported by the passage in St. Matt., where the precept is not, as here, unqualified and absolute, and the verbs, moreover, are used in as literal a sense as the substantives. The whole precept there is symbolical, but the words have their natural sense. Besides, this interpretation of μέλη makes the connexion with the following more difficult. It is more natural to explain the word by the idea of the “ old man,” “ In the σῶματῆςσαρκός .” And this is suggested by the added qualification τὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς . The members spoken of are those which belong to the body as the instrument of the carnal mind. With the whole precept compare θανατοῦτε : Romans 8:13, εἰδὲπνεύματιτὰςπράξειςτοῦσώματοςθανατοῦτεζήσετε : and Galatians 5:24, οἱτοῦΧριστοῦτὴνσάρκαἐσταύρωσανσὺντοῖςπαθήμασικαὶταῖςἐπιθυμίαις . πορνείαν , κ .τ .λ . Usually taken in apposition with μέλη , either directly, as if πορνεία , etc., were themselves called μέλη , “ membra quibus vetus homo, i. e. ratio ac voluntas hominis depravata perinde utitur ac corpus membris,” Beza; “ naturam nostram quasi massam ex diversis vitiis conflatam imaginatur,” Calvin; or indirectly, i.e. “ when I say νεκρώσατετὰμέλη , I mean νεκρώσατεπορνείαν , κ .τ .λ ., of which τὰμέλη are instruments.” On either view the apposition of the instruments and the activities is extremely harsh. Severianus (followed by many moderns) regards sin as the body of which the special sins enumerated are the members: σῶμακαλεῖτὴνἁμαρτίαν , ἧςκαὶτὰμέληκαταριθμεῖ ; but this only evades the difficulty. Alford regards the construction as an instance of that form of the double accusative where the first denotes the whole, the second a part of it, as in ποῖόνσεἔποςφύγενἕρκοςὀδόντων ,— an explanation which does not touch the difficulty. Braune thinks the body in question is the body of the Church. Lightfoot proposes to meet the difficulty by placing a colon after γῆς . Then πορνείαν , κ .τ .λ ., will be viewed as prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as ἀπόθεσθε : but several dependent clauses interpose, and the last of these suggests incidentally a contrast between the past and the present, the thought of which predominating in the apostle’ s mind leads to a recasting of the sentence, νυνὶδὲἀπόθεσθεκαὶὑμεῖςτὰπάντα . Lightfoot illustrates this dislocation of the construction occasioned by the contrast of ποτέ and νῦν by reference to 1:22, νυνὶδὲἀποκατηλλάγητε (or ἀποκατήλλαξεν ): and 26, νῦνδὲἐφανερώθη : and to Ephesians 2:1-5, καὶὑμᾶς … ἐναἷςποτέ … ἐνοἷςκαί . … ποτε … ὁδὲΘεός … καὶὄνταςἡμᾶς … συνεζωοποίησεν . This construction has been characterised as “ extremely difficult” ; but the difficulty is only of the same kind as that in the passages cited. After ὑμῶν the Rec. Text adds ὑμῶν , with א * A C3 D G H K L P most MSS., Vulg., Goth., other versions, Chrys., al. It is omitted by א B C* 17 672 71, Clem. al. πάθος is used by classical writers of any passive emotion. Thus, Aristotle distinguishes these three ἐντῇψυχῇγινόμενα : πάθη , ἕξεις , δυνάμεις . πάθη he defines as οἷςἕπεταιἡδονὴἢλύπη , including ἐπιθυμία , ὀργή , etc. But it is specially used of a violent emotion or “ passion.” In the other two places in which the word occurs in St. Paul it is defined by a genitive (πάθηἀτιμίας , Romans 1:26; ἐνπάθειἐπιθυμίας , 1 Thessalonians 4:5). Here the enumeration appears to proceed from the more special to the more general, so that πάθος probably means not specially “ lustfulness.” Still less the πάθηἀτιμίας of Romans 1:26,— an interpretation which has no linguistic justification,— but generally “ passion,” as RV. ἐπιθυμίανκακήν . This includes all evil longings, and so is wider than πάθος . ἰδού , γενικῶςτὸπᾶνεἶπε · πάνταγὰρἐπιθυμίακακὴ , βασκανία , ὀργή , λύπη , Chrys. ἐπιθυμία in the N.T. has a wide sense; cf. John 8:44; hence the necessity for κακήν . καὶτὴνπλεονεξίαν , κ .τ .λ . See on Ephesians 4:19, Ephesians 5:5. ἥτιςἐστιν . “ Seeing it is.” 6. δι ʼ ἅ . This is undoubtedly the correct reading, but a few authorities (C D G) read δι ʼ ὅ . ἔρχεταιἡὀργὴτοῦΘεοῦ . After Θεοῦ , Rec. adds: ἐπὶτοὺςυἱοὺςτῆςἀπειθείας , as in Eph. v. 6. The evidence for the addition is extremely strong, as they are contained in all manuscripts except B. In D, however, the words are written in a smaller character at the end of the line, an indication apparently that they were not present in its archetype. Of Versions the Sahidic omits them, and the Roman ed. of the Ethiopic. Clement 294 (MSS.) and 531 quotes from νεκρώσατε to Θεοῦ : but it would be unsafe to infer that his copy did not contain the addition; he may well have stopped short of it as not necessary for his purpose. Ambrosiaster omits them in his text, but his comment appears to recognise them. With these exceptions the addition is supported by all MSS., Versions, and Fathers. Its genuineness would be certain were it not that the same words occur in the parallel passage Ephesians 5:6. It is very credible that they were added from that place at a very early period. On the other hand, they seem required to complete the sense; certainly without them the thought is not the same as in the parallel in Eph. In the one case the words are a general warning as to the consequence of these sins; in the other a lesson is drawn from the example of others. The καὶὑμεῖς , ver. 7, seems to assume a previous mention of the unbelieving Gentiles. The evidence in favour of the omission being so slight, it may be considered equally probable that the omission was accidental. The words are omitted by Tischndorf, Tregelles, WH., Alford, Weiss, and bracketed by Lachm. They are retained by Ellicott, Meyer, RV. (om. marg.). 7. ἐνοἷςκαὶὑμεῖςπεριεπατήσατέποτε , ὅτεἐζῆτεἐντούτοις . The reading τούτοις is certain, being that of א A B C D* al. αὐτοῖς is read in Dc G K L, most MSS., Chrys., Theodoret, al. If the doubtful words in ver. 6 are omitted, οἷς and τούτοις are of necessity both neuter, and refer to the vices mentioned. If the words are retained, the pronouns may be both neuter, or the first masculine and the second neuter, or the first neuter, and the second masculine. To the last view, which is that of Huther and others, it may be objected, that ζῆνἐν is never used in the N.T. of living amongst persons, while it is frequently used with things, ἐνἁμαρτίᾳ , Romans 6:2; ἐνκόσμῳ , 2:20; ἐνσαρκί , Philippians 1:22. So in classical writers, ἐνἀρετῇ , ἐνφιλοσοφίᾳ , etc. Meyer, De Wette, Braune, and Ellicott take οἷς as masc., τούτοις neuter. In favour of this seems to be the partial parallel, Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 2:3, εἰτοῖςυἱοῖςτῆςἀπειθείαςἐνοἷςκαὶἡμεῖςπάντεςἀνεστράφημένποτε , a parallel which Ellicott thinks leaves no room for doubt. Of course, περιπατεῖνἐν would then be understood to denote not mere outward living amongst, but participation in a course of life. Alford and Lightfoot argue that, independently of the rejection of the doubtful words, it is better to take οἷς as neuter, since περιπατεῖνἐν is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion Epistle, 4:5, Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 2:10, Ephesians 2:4:17, Ephesians 2:5:2. In 2 Thessalonians 3:11, indeed, we have τιναςπεριπατοῦνταςἐνὑμῖνἀτάκτως : but the addition of ἀτάκτως there makes the expression not quite parallel. So Ephesians 2:3 Lightfoot regards as not parallel on account of the addition ἐνταῖςἐπιθυμίαιςτῆςσαρκὸςἡμῶν . But this addition does not affect the connexion of ἐνοἷςἀνεστρ . And Alford admits that, if the clause ἐπὶτ . υἱ . τ . ἁπ . is retained, this parallel goes far to decide the matter. ὅτεἐζῆτεἐντούτοις , i.e. before ye died to the world; ἐζῆτε being in contrast with ἀπεθάνετε . The change of tense is to be observed. περιεπατήσατε , aorist, because denoting single acts, ἐζῆτε expressing the containing state. For the difference in sense, compare Galatians 5:25, εἰζῶμενπνεύματι , πνεύματικαὶστοιχῶμεν . “ Vivere et ambulare inter se differunt, quemadmodum potentia et actus; vivere praecedit, ambulare sequitur,” Calvin. 8. νυνὶδέ , in contrast to the ποτε above. καὶὑμεῖς , “ ye also,” as well as other Christians. As in the former verse they were compared with the heathen society from which they had separated, so here with the Christian society which they had joined. Holtzmann strangely supposes the Καί to refer to the Christians addressed in Ephesians 2:22. τὰπάντα , “ all of them,” everything that belongs to the old man. The asyndeton is thus less harsh than if τὰπάντα be understood to be only retrospective (as Meyer, al.). ἀπόθεσθε , “ put ye away.” ὀργήν , κ .τ .λ . See on Ephesians 4:31. αἰσχρολογία occurs in the N.T. here only. The connexion here shows that it means “ abusive” rather than “ filthy” language. It denotes the form in which the injurious βλασφημία finds expression. Chrysostom takes it in the sense of “ obscene talk” (which he calls ὄχημαπορνείας ), and so many moderns; but the sins of uncleanness have been dealt within ver. 5, and the other substantives here regard want of charity. The word is used by Polybius, viii, 13. 8, in this sense of “ abusive language,” ἡκατὰτῶνφίλωναἰσχρολογία : cf. xxxi. 10, 4. The verb has a similar meaning in Plato, Rep. iii. p. 395 E, κακηγοροῦντάςτεκαὶκωμῳδοῦνταςἀλλήλουςκαὶαἰσχρολογοῦντας . Compare αἰσχρὰἔπεα , Hom. Il. γ . 38. ἐκτοῦστόματοςὑμῶν , not “ proceeding from,” but dependent on ἀπόθεσθε , and belonging to both βλασφ . and αἰσχρ . 9. μὴψεύδεσθεεἰςἀλλήλους . “ Do not lie towards one another.” εἰς does not express hostility, but direction. In Hist. Sus. 55 we have ἔψευσαιεἰςτὴνσεαυτοῦψυχήν : but this is clearly not parallel. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι , κ .τ .λ . This may be understood either as “ putting off,” “ exuentes,” Vulg., so as to form part of the exhortation, or “ seeing that ye have put off” The former view is adopted by Olshausen, De Wetter, etc. Lightfoot also defends it, observing (1) that though both ideas are found in St. Paul, the imperative is the more usual; cf. Romans 13:12; Ephesians 6:2, with ver. 14; 1 Thessalonians 5:8, νήφωμενἐνδυσάμενοι , κ .τ .λ .; (2) that in the parallel, Ephesians 4:24, the “ putting on” is imperative; and (3) that the participles here are followed by an imperative, ver. 12. Grammatically, there is no difficulty in thus understanding the aorist participle as synchronous with the present imperative. The aorist would, in fact, express a thing done once for all, and would be better represented in Latin by an ablative absolute than by a present participle. Nevertheless, the other view (adopted by Theodoret, and amongst moderns by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott), according to which the participles contain the motive for the preceding exhortation (from ἀπόθεσθε ), seems the more probable, first, because in what precedes there is nothing to correspond with ἐνδυσάμενοι , as the Christian graces are not referred to; secondly, because ver. 11 does not fit in so well with an exhortation as with an argument; and thirdly, because the imperative in ver. 12 is introduced by οὖν . On ἀπεκδυσάμενοι see 2:11, 15. τὸνπαλαιὸνἄνθρωπον . See Ephesians 4:22. 10. καὶἐνδυσάμενοιτὸννέον . In the parallel, Ephesians 4:24, it is ἐνδύσασθαιτὸνκαινὸνἄνθρ . νέος , unlike καινός only expresses newness in point of time, but the idea of καινότης is supplied by the participle. As the result of ἐνδύσασθαιτὸννέονἄνθ . is that Christ is τὰπάντακαὶἐνπᾶσιν , and as the apostle speaks elsewhere of Χριστὸνἐνδύσασθαι , Galatians 3:27, Romans 13:14, some commentators infer that the νέοςἄνθρ . here is Christ; and hence, again, that ὁπαλαιὸςἄνθρ . is Adam, whose image men bear, 1 Corinthians 15:49. Ignatius, Eph. 20, has the expression εἰςτὸνκαινὸνἄνθρωπονἸησοῦνΧριστόν . If this had been the thought in St. Paul’ s mind here, he would probably have expressed it more distinctly. It seems better, then, to rest satisfied with the interpretation of the “ new man” as “ the regenerate man formed after Christ.” The ultimate meaning is the same. ἀνακαινούμενον , present participle, because although “ created” once for all (κτισθέντα , Ephesians 4:24), its growth and development are continually going on. Compare 2 Corinthians 4:16, ὁἔσωἡμῶν [ἄνθρωπος ] ἀνακαινοῦταιἡμέρᾳκαὶἡμέρᾳ , and the opposite, τὸνπαλαιὸνἄνθρ . τὸνφθειρόμενον , Ephesians 4:22. The ἀνα does not suggest the restoration of the original state, but the contrast to that which has lately existed. ἀνακαινόω is not used by Greek authors, nor by the Sept., but ἀνακαινίζω . The substantive ἀνακαίνωσις (Romans 12:2; Titus 3:5) is also peculiar to the N.T. εἰςἐπίγνωσιν . “ Unto thorough knowledge.” Meyer connects this with the following words: “ unto a knowledge which accords with the image of God,” i.e. which is in accordance with the Divine knowledge. But the Divine knowledge would hardly be set forth in this general way as an ideal to be attained; we should expect some limitation to moral or spiritual knowledge. It is more natural to connect κατ ʼ εἰκόνα with ἀνακαιν . and to supply the object of ἐπίγνωσις from the context, viz. the knowledge of God and the mystery of the gospel; Cf. 1:9, ἵναπληρωθῆτετὴνἐπίγνωσιντοῦθελήματοςαὐτοῦ , and 2:2, εἰςἐπίγνωσιντοῦμυστηρίου , κ .τ .λ . κατ ʼ εἰκόνα , κ .τ .λ . To be connected with ἀνακαινούμενον as above. An allusion to Genesis 1:26, Genesis 1:28. τοῦκτίσαντοςαὐτόν . ὁκτίσας according to Chrysostom, al. is Christ; but ὁκτίσας is always God, and so here especially, where the passage in Genesis is alluded to. αὐτόν is the new man, not τὸνἄνθρωπον generally. Compare κτισθέντα in Ephesians 4:24, and καινὴκτίσις , 2 Corinthians 5:17. Soden, who interprets the “ new man” of Christ, refers αὐτόν to τὸνἀνακαινούμενον . As Christ is the εἰκών of God, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, so Christians, when Christ is formed in them, become renewed after the image of God. Olshausen presses the designation of Christ as the εἰκών of God, and accordingly interprets, “ after the pattern of Him who is the Image of God.” But this does not agree with the allusion to Genesis. It is true the Alexandrian school interpreted the expression in Genesis of the Logos, but only in a sense borrowed from the Platonic doctrine of ideas as τὸἀρχέτυπονπαράδειγμα , ἰδέατῶνἰδέωνὁΘεοῦλόγος : and this conception is certainly not in the spirit of St. Paul. Besides, the absence of the definite article before εἰκόνα obliges us to take κατ ʼ εἰκόνα in its natural sense as “ after the likeness of.” Those commentators who understand κατὰΘεόν , Ephesians 4:24, as = “ after the likeness of,” of course understand the expression here as only a more precise definition. 11. ὅπουοὐκἔνι . Compare Galatians 3:28. This ἔνι is not, as formerly used to be stated, a contraction of ἔνεστι , although it is often used in that sense; it is simply the longer form of the preposition ἐν , with ἐστι understood, as in πάρα , ἄνα . The fact that ἐν is used with it in 1 Corinthians 6:5 is not inconsistent with this, since the word came to be looked upon as equivalent to ἔνεστι . That passage, however, shows that we are not to press here the idea of “ impossibility,” οὐκἔνιἐνὑμῖνοὐδεὶςσοφός . The word here simply states the objective fact. The distinctions enumerated as abolished are first those of birth, involving national privileges; secondly, of legal or ceremonial standing (which might be gained by adoption); thirdly, those of culture; and fourthly, of social caste. ἝλληνκαὶἸουδαῖος . In contrast with Ἰουδαῖος , Ἕλλην means simply “ Gentile” ; and, indeed, even to the present day the Jews sometimes speak of other nations as Greeks. περιτομὴκαὶἀκροβυστία . Abstract for concrete. This clause and the former have special reference to the Judaising tendency of the heretical teachers. βάρβαρος , properly one who did not speak Greek (probably with the idea of talking “ gibberish.” Strabo explains it as onomatopoetic.) Hence the Greeks applied the term to all other nations. Even the older Roman poets (as Plautus) used the term of themselves; but later writers excluded the Romans from the class “ barbari,” and even included them under the term Ἕλληνες (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. v. 8). Lightfoot quotes a striking passage from Professor Max Mü ller: “ Not till that word barbarian was struck out of the dictionary of mankind, and replaced by brother, not till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was recognised, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science (of language). … This change was effected by Christianity” (Lectures on the Science of Language, Ist Ser. p. 81. The whole passage is too long to cite). Σκύθης . The natural antithesis to βάρβαρος would be ῞ελλην (cf. Romans 1:14); but as that has already been used the apostle substitutes for an antithesis a climax, for the Scythians were regarded as “ barbaris barbariores,” Bengel. The earlier Greek writers, indeed, on the principle “ omne ignotum pro magnifico,” described them as εὔνομοι (Aesch. Frag. 189); but Josephus says they are βραχὺτῶνθηρίωνδιαφέροντες (contra Ap. ii. 37). Cicero uses a climax similar to that before us, “ quod nullus in barbaria, Quis hoc facit ulla in Scythia tyrannus?” (In Pisonem, viii.). The word Σκύθης was used of any rough person, like our “ Goth.” This clause has reference, perhaps, to the stress laid by the Gnostic teachers on their γνῶσις . δοῦλος , ἐλεύθερος . There was a special reason for St. Paul’ s thoughts being directed to the relation of master and slave, in the incident of Onesimus’ conversion and return to his master. πάντα and τὰπάντα are very frequently used by classical writers as predicates of persons. Wetstein on 1 Corinthians 15:28 quotes many examples. One or two may suffice here. Dem. De Cor. p. 240, πάντ ʼ ἐκεῖνοςἦναὐτοῖς : cont. Ariston, p. 66o, πάνταἦνἈλέξανδρος ; Lucian, De Morte Peregr. 11, προφήτηςκαὶξυναγωγεύς , καὶτὰπάνταμόνοςαὐτὸςὤν . 12-17. Virtues to be cultivated, kindness, love, forgiveness, in Which God’ s forgiveness of us is to be the pattern; mutual teaching and admonition, and in everything thankfulness, everything being done in the name of Jesus Christ 12. ἐνδύσαθεοὖν , having put on the new man, put on also these virtues. ὡςἐκλεκτοὶτοῦΘεοῦ . cf. Romans 8:33; Titus 1:1. In St. Paul κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί , κλῆσις and ἐκλογή (Romans 9:28, Romans 9:29), are coextensive, as indeed they seem to be in other N.T. writers (cf. Revelation 17:14) except the Gospels, where κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοι are distinguished (Matthew 24:22, Matthew 24:24, Matthew 24:31 al.). ὡςἐκλεκτοί has a significant connexion with what precedes, since the ἐκλογή is presupposed in what is said in vv. 10, 11. ἅγιοικαὶἠγαπημένοι are best taken as predicates of ἐκλέκτοι which with and without τοῦΘεοῦ is used in several places as a substantive. καί is om. by B 17 Sah., and Lightfoot brackets it, thinking that the sentence gains in force by the omission; cf. 1 Peter 2:6. σπλάγχναοἰκτιρμοῦ . “ A heart of compassion.” σπλάγχνα , like “ viscera,” denoted especially the nobler inward parts, heart, liver, and lungs, and figuratively the seat of the emotion, as we use the word “ heart.” The singular οἰκτιρμοῦ is supported by very preponderant authority. χρηστότητα , cf. Ephesians 2:7. ταπεινοφροσύνη . Ephesians 4:2, πραύτηταμακροθυμίαν , ibid. 13. ἀνεχόμενοιἀλλήλων , ibid. καὶχαριζόμενοιἑαυτοῖς . For the variation from ἀλλήλων to ἑαυτοῖς , see Ephesians 4:32. The latter word marks more strikingly than ἀλλήλοις would the correspondence with ὁκύριοςἐχαρίσατοὑμῖν . μομφή , not found elsewhere in the N.T. nor in Sept. or Apocr. In classical writers ἔχεινμομφήν is frequent. “ Quarrel” of the AV. is an archaism. καθὼςκαὶὁΚύριοςἐχαρίσατοὑμῖν . To be connected with the following words, οὕτωκαὶὑμεῖς (as RV.), supplying, therefore, not χαριζόμενοι , but χαρίζεσθε (ἑαυτοῖς ). Assuming, as is probable, that ὁΚύριος = ὁΧριστός , this is the only place where Christ is directly said to forgive (see on 2:13). In the parallel in Ephesians 4:32, the subject is ὁΘεὸςἐνΧριστῷ . Meyer remarks that the very frequent ἡχάριςτοῦκυρίουἡμῶν corresponds with the present expression. It is perhaps pressing the technical sense of Κύριος too much to suppose, with Lightfoot, that it suggests the duty of fellow-servant to fellow-servant, recalling the lesson of the parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Matthew 18:27; compare below, 4:1. It must be observed that the καθώς has reference only to the fact of forgiveness, not to the manner of its exhibition in the death. of Christ (as Chrys., Theoph. al.). The reading cannot be regarded as certain. For ὁκύριος are A B D* G 213 d e f g Vulg. Pelag. For ὁΧριστός , א ac C Dbe K L P almost all MSS. Syr. (both), Sah., Boh., Eth., Arab. (Bedwell), Clem., Chrys., Euthal., (cod. Tisch.), Theodoret, al. א * has ὁΘεός , while 17 Arm. have ὁΘεὸςἐνΧριστῷ . Augustine also has the latter reading in one place (Ep. 148), but in another ὁΚύριος . It is suggested, on the one hand, that Χριστός has been substituted (as in other places) as an interpretation of Κύριος , especially as it occurs in Ephesians 5:32 (but not in the same connexion); and, on the other side, it has been suggested that Κύριος originated in an attempt at conformation with the passage in Eph. Lachmann, Treg., WH., Afford, Meyer, Lightfoot, RV. Weiss read Κύριος . Tisch., Ellicott read Χριστός , to which RV and WH. give a place in the margin. 14. ἐπὶπᾶσιδὲτούτοις . “ And over all these,” the figure of clothing being retained, as the verb ἐνδύσασθε has still to be carried on. ὅἐστιν . The pronoun is not without difficulty. The illustrations cited by Lightfoot from Ignatius are hardly parallel, Rom_7, ἄρτονΘεοῦθέλω , ὅἐστινσὰρξΧριστοῦ : Magn. 10, νέανζύμηνὅἐστινἸησοῦςΧριστός . In these cases the words following ὅἐστιν are an explanation of the words preceding, and ὅἐστιν = “ idest,” or “ by which is to be understood.” So in Mark 12:42, λεπτὰδύο , ὅἐστικοδράντης ; 15:42, παρασκευή , ὅἐστιπροσάββατον . In none of these cases does ὅἐστιν , κ .τ .λ . predicate a property or character of the antecedent. In order that the present instance should be parallel, τ . ἀγάπην and σύνδ . κ .τελ . should change places. Ephesians 5:5 is nearer, πλεονέκτης , ὅἐστινεἰδωλολάτρης , and Ign. Trall. 7, ἀνακτήσασθεἑαυτοὺςἐνπίστειὅἐστινσὰρξτοῦΚυρίου : yet neither are these quite parallel. εἰδωλολάτρης is not, indeed, an explanation of the word πλεονέκτης , but it expresses his true character. Probably the form of expression is to be accounted for by the figure. σύνδεσμος , κ .τ .λ ., explains the view taken of ἀγάπην when ἐπὶπᾶσιτούτοις is applied to it. An alternative is to suppose the antecedent to be τὸἐδύσασθαιτὴνἀγάπην : and so Huther and Soden. But this certainly does not suit the sense so well. σύνδεσμοςτῆςτελειότητος . Love binds the virtues into a harmonious whole, not as if they could exist without it, for It might be called by a different figure— the root of all; but the figure of clothing here adopted required that its relation to the other virtues should be put in a different aspect. πάνταἐκεῖνα , says Chrysostom, αὕτησυσφίλλει · ὅπερἂνεἴπῃςἀγαθόν ,ταύτηςἀπούσηςοὐδένἐστιν , ἀλλὰδιαρρεῖ , to which Theoph. adds ὑπόκρισιςὄντα . τῆςτελειότητος . As it is the σύνδεσμος here that makes all perfect, the genitive comes rather under the head of the possessive than of the objective. Lightfoot seems to take the latter view, explaining “ the power which unites and holds together all those graces and virtues which together make up perfection.” This not only involves a very questionable meaning of τελειότης , as if = τὰτήντελειότηταποιοῦντα , Chrys., but gives an inadequate representation of the function of ἀγάπη . Wetstein quotes from Simplicius, in Epict. p. 208 A, a strikingly parallel expression of the Pythagoreans: καλῶςοἱΠυθαγορεῖοιπερισσῶςτῶνἄλλωνἀρετῶντὴνφιλίανἐτίμωνκαὶσύνδεσμοναὐτὴνπασῶντῶνἀρετῶνἔλεγον . Grotius, Erasmus, Estius and many others take the genitive to be one of quality, “ the perfect bond,” which is not only feeble, but leaves σύνδεσμος undefined. Bengel, De Wette, Olshausen, al. understand by σύνδεσμος the “ totality,” as in Herodian, iv. 12, 11, πάντατὸνς . τῶνἐπιστολῶν , “ the whole bundle of letters.” But there is no instance of σύνδεσμος being used figuratively in this sense; nor does it agree with the context, in which ἀγάπη is represented as put on ἐπὶπᾶσι , not to say that it would require the article. In Ephesians 4:3 the gen. after σύνδεσμος is one of apposition. For τελειότητος D* G d e g and Ambrosiaster have ἐνότητος . 15. καὶἡεἰρήνητοῦΧριστοῦ . The peace of Christ is the peace which He gives and has left to His Church, εἰρήνηντὴνἐμὴνδίδωμιὑμῖν , John 14:27. But it is Christ’ s peace in another sense, as the peace which belongs to His kingdom by virtue of His sovereignty; compare the expression, “ the King’ s peace.” The immediate reference here is not to the inward peace of the soul, but to peace one with another, as the context shows. But it cannot be limited to this, the moment the words are uttered or heard they suggest the other reference. βραβεύτω , only here in N.T.; see on καταβραβευέτω , 2:18. As there observed, βραβεύω had dropped, for the most part, the reference to a contest, and was used of deciding or governing in general. Josephus, Ant. iv. 3. 2, uses it as synonymous with διοικεῖν ; Moses, in his prayer, says: πάντασῇπρονοίᾳδιοικεῖται , καὶμηδὲναὐτομάτως , ἀλλὰκατὰβούλησινβραβευόμενοντὴνσὴνεἰςτέλοςἔρχεται . Again, ib. βραβεύωνὁμονοίανκαὶεἰρήνην . Philo, Quis Rer. Div. 1. p. 494 A, οὐθαυμαστὸνδὲπαρ ʼ ἀληθείᾳβραβευούσῃ . The transition of meaning is exactly parallel to that of the Latin “ arbitrium,” which from meaning the sentence of an arbitrator comes to signify “ will and pleasure.” “ Jovis nutu et arbitrio caelum terra mariaque reguntur,” Cic. pro Rosc. Amer. c. 45. Obtinere arbitrium rei Romanae,” Tac. Ann. vi. c. ult. Hence there is no necessity to insist on the idea of a contest of opposing parties, and the attempt to introduce it by reference to a conflict of motives, etc., really forces on the text more than is suggested by it. Chrysostom carries this to an extreme, στάδιονἔνδονἐποίησενἐντοῖςλογισμοῖς , καὶἀγῶνακαὶἄθλησινκαὶβραβεντήν . The sense then appears to be, “ let the peace of Christ be the ruling principle in your hearts.” ἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςὑμῶν . In order that this principle may govern your actions and your words, it must first govern in your hearts. Χριστοῦ is the reading of א A B C D* G P 37 47, Vulg., Syr. (both), Boh., Sah, Arm., Eth. Θεοῦ is in א c C2 Dc K L 17, Goth. As ἡεἰρηνητοῦΘεοῦ occurs in Philippians 4:7, the substitution of Θεοῦ for Χριστοῦ is readily accounted for. The latter is clearly more suitable to the present context, since εἰρήνητοῦΘεοῦ could not well be understood of anything but our peace with God. In Philippians 4:7, A has Χριστοῦ . Bengel and others who defend the reading Θεοῦ here, suppose Χριστοῦ to have come in from 13 or 16. εἰςἡκαὶἐκλήθητε . This is nearly equivalent to “ for to that we were also called.” Comp. 1 Corinthians 7:15, ἐνεἰρήνῃκέκληκενἡμᾶςὁΘεός . ἐνἑνὶσώματι . Not = εἰςἓνσῶμα , but expressing the result of their calling; they are so called that they are in one body. It is on the fact that this is their present condition that the stress is placed. As there is one body, there should be one spirit; cf. Ephesians 4:3, Ephesians 4:4, τηρεῖντὴνἑνότητατοῦπνεύματοςἐντῷσυνδέσμῳτῆςεἰρηνης , Ἕνσῶμακαὶἓνπνεῦμα , κ .τ .λ . καὶεὐΧάριστοιγίνεσθε . “ And become thankful.” Thankfulness for this calling is the strongest motive for the preservation of the peace to which they were called. The mention of this leads on to what follows. γίεσθε is used because the ideal is not yet reached. εὐχάριστος does not occur elsewhere in N.T. It is not uncommon in classical writers, both in the sense “ thankful” and “ pleasant” (so usually of things). It occurs once in Sept., and then in the latter sense, Proverbs 11:16, γυνὴεὐχάριστος . Some commentators take it here in the latter sense (cf. Ephesians 4:32, χρηστοί ). So Jerome, Beza, a Lapide, Olshausen, Reiche; “ in mutuo vestro commercio estote gratiosi, amabiles, comes … qua virtute pax et concordia saepe servantur,” Reiche. This sense is certainly not inappropriate; and in favour of it it may be observed that the duty of thankfulness is brought in as the final exhortation in ver. 17. 16. ὁλόγοςτοῦΧριστοῦ . In 1 Thessalonians 1:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:15 St. Paul has ὁλόγοςτοῦΚυρίου , but more usually ὁλ . τοῦΘεοῦ . The change here is probably owing to the apostle’ s purpose of exalting the position of Christ, which is characteristic of this Epistle. The gen. may be either objective, as in εὐαγγέλιονΧριστοῦ , or subjective (as most comm.), “ the word delivered by Christ.” It is generally understood as = the gospel, but Lightfoot interprets it as denoting “ the presence of Christ in the heart as an inward monitor. Comp. 1 John 2:14, ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦἐνὑρῖνμένει , with ib. 1:10, ὁλόγοςαὐτοῦοὐκἔστινἐνὑμῖν : and so perhaps Acts 18:5, συνείχετοτῷλόγῳ (the correct reading).” Probably the “ teaching of Christ” generally is meant; and so apparently Chrysostom, τούτεστιν , ἡδιδασκαλία , τὰδόγματα , ἡπαραίνεσις . See on Luke 8:11. ἐνὑμῖν . Not “ among you,” which would not agree with the idea of “ indwelling” . Yet it cannot well be understood of each in dividual, as if referring to the faith and knowledge of each. Since the context speaks of oral communication one with another, ἐνὑμῖν then means, probably, “ in you as a collective body.” This is not the same as “ among you.” πλουσίως . The fulness of this indwelling exhibits itself in the following words. ἐνπάσῃσοφία . Lightfoot joins these words with the foregoing, comparing for their position ch. 1:9 and Ephesians 1:8, which, however, determine nothing. He thinks this connexion is favoured by the parallel in Ephesians 5:18, Ephesians 5:19; but this only decides that ψαλμοῖς , κ .τ .λ ., are to be connected with the preceding words. On the other hand, it may be observed that ἐνοικείτω is already qualified by πλουσίως , which emphatically stands at the end. Ch. 1:28 is strongly in favour of the connexion with the following, νουθετοῦντεςπάνταἄνθρωπονκαὶδιδάσκοντεςπάνταἄνθρωπονἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳ .Here the correspondence in meaning is surely of more weight than the position of the words, which precede in the one case as appropriately as they follow in the other. On διδάσκοντες and νουθετοῦντες comp. 1:28; and on ψαλμοῖς , κ .τ .λ , Ephesians 5:18. Here as there the reference does not appear to be exclusively or chiefly to public worship, for mutual instruction is what is prescribed. καί both before and after ὕμνοις is omitted by א A B CDF G, d e f g Vulg. (best MSS.) Syr-Pesh, Goth., al. It was much more likely to be added than omitted erroneously, and the omission is quite Pauline. ἐν [τῇ ] χάριτι . τῇ is inserted in א c B D G 672, Chrys. comm. Omitted in א A K L (to which we may perhaps add C, in which ενχαρι is written but expunged by dots above and below), Chrys. text. The reading with the article is adopted by critical editors generally, but Reiche argues strongly in favour of the omission. If it is read there are two interpretations possible, for χάρις may mean either the Divine grace, or thanksgiving. The former meaning is adopted by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, etc. For ἡχάρις = the grace of God, compare ch. 4:18, ἡχάριςμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν : Acts 18:27, τοῖςπεπιστευκόσιδιὰτῆςχάριτος : 2 Corinthians 4:15; Galatians 5:4; Ephesians 4:7; Philippians 1:7, συγκοινωνούςμουτῆςχάριτος . It must, however, be admitted that none of these passages is parallel to the present. In all of them ἡχάρις is spoken of as something conferred, and therefore can only be ἡχ . τοῦΘεοῦ . It is different here, where the readers are directed to do something ἐντῇχάριτι . Hence the other interpretation, “ with thankfulness,” which is that of Anselm, De Wette, Bleek (omitting τῇ ), Soden, seems preferable. For χάρις in this sense see 1 Corinthians 10:30, εἰδὲἐγὼχάριτιμετέχω , where the apostle himself interprets χάριτι in the following clause: ὑπὲροὗἐγὼεὐχαριστῶ . The article is sufficiently accounted for by the reference to the previous εὐχαριστοί . Meyer, on the supposition that χάρις is understood as “ thanksgiving,” would interpret the article as meaning “ that which is due.” It is not a valid objection to this view of χάρις that the idea of thanksgiving is introduced in the next verse; on the contrary, the precept there is an extension of this one; what is here said of singing is there said of everything. Theophylact’ s interpretation is different; he takes χαρις in the sense “ venustas,” “ pleasingness,” μετὰχάριτοςκαὶἡδονῆςπνευματικῆςὥσπεργὰρτὰἀνθρώπιναᾄσματαχάρινἔχεινδοκοῦσιν , εἰμὴπνευματικήν , οὕτωτὰθεῖα , πνευματικήν ; so also Bengel. Compare for this use of χάρις Psalms 45:3, ἐξεχύθηχάριςἐνχείλεσίσου ; Ecclesiastes 10:12, λόγοιστόματοςσοφοῦχάρις ; Luke 4:22, ἐθαύμαζονἐπὶτοῖςλόγοιςτῆςχάριτος ; also ch. 4:6, ὁλόγοςὑμῶνπάντοτεἐνχάριτι . Compare also Demosth. p. 51 (Phil. i. 38), ἡτῶνλόγωνχάρις , and so in classical writers frequently. Reiche, adopting this interpretation, remarks: “ recte et perspicue ἐνχάριτιᾄδοντες ii dicuntur, qui carmina sacra cantant et modulantur venuste, decore, suaviter, ita ut etiam cultioribus et pulchri sensu praeditis placeant.” To the objection that the following words show that the apostle is speaking of silent singing in the heart, he replies by defending the reading ἐντῇκαρδίᾳ and interpreting it as =“ ex animo, i.e. non ore tantum sed etiam cum animi assensu,” a questionable sense of ἐντῇκαρδίᾳὑμῶν . See on Luke 4:22 and Romans 1:5. In conformity with the connexion assigned to ἐνπάσῃσοφίᾳ , ἐντῇχάριτι is to be joined to what follows. Lightfoot naturally takes it with the preceding. ᾄδοντεςἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςὑμῶν . These words may either specify another effect of the ἐνοικεῖν ,κ .τ .λ . (Alford, al.), or they may denote the inward disposition which was to accompany the διδάσκοντες , κ .τ .λ . If τῇχάριτι is understood as above, the latter view would be the more suitable (Soden). It is preferred apart from that by Lightfoot. ἐνταῖςκαρδίαις is supported by preponderant authority, א A B C D* G, d e f g Vulg., Goth., Syr. ( both), Sah., Boh., Arm., Chrys. ἐντῇκαρδίᾳ is supported by Dc k L most MSS., Eth., Clem., Ephr., Theodoret. Compare Ephesians 5:19, where the singular appears to be the genuine reading. The singular here, as the plural there, is probably due to an attempt to harmonise Eph. and Col. τῷΘεῷ is the reading of א ABCDG 17 47 672 al., d f g Vulg., Sah., Syr. (both), Arm., Clem., al. τῷΚυρίῳ is that of C2 Dc K L most MSS., Goth., Boh., Ephr., Theodoret, al. (Chrys. varies). This, again, is harmonistic, the parallel in Eph. having τῷΚυρίῳ without variation. 17. καὶπᾶνὅτιἐὰνποιῆτεἐνλόγῳἢἐνἔργῳ . A nominative absolute. Comp. Matthew 10:32, πᾶςοὖνὅστιςὁμόλογήσει … ὁμολογήσωκἀγὼἐναὐτῷ Luke 12:10. As πᾶν would become the object in the following clause, it is replaced by πάντα . πάντα . We might supply to this ποιοῦντες , parallel to the other participles; but it is much better to supply ποιεῖτε , especially as εὐχαριστοῦντες is subordinate. ἐνὀνόματιΚυρίουἸησοῦ . Comp. Ephesians 5:20. “ In the name of” here means, not “ calling on for aid,” as Chrys. etc., nor “ in honorem,” as Jerome, but in the spirit which regards Christ as all and in all, the spirit which belongs to those who bear His name. “ Utperinde sit, ac si Christus faciat, ver. 11 (this is too strong) vel certe, ut Christo omnia pobetis. Qui potest dicere; Hoi in tuo, Jesu Christe, nomine feci, is certe actionem suam Christo probat,” Bengel. There is here another difference of reading. ΚυρίουἸησοῦ is the reading of B Dc K 17 37 most MSS., f. Amiat., Tol, Goth., Syr-Pesh, Arm., Chrys. ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ A C D* G g. ΚυρίουἸησοῦΧριτοῦ א d e Vulg. (Clem.), Field, al. Syr. (Harcl), Sah., Boh., Eth. Before πατρί ,καί is added in D G K L and nearly all MSS., d e f g Vulg., Syr-Pesh, Arm., Chrys. (cf. Ephesians 5:20). It is absent from א A B C, Sah., Boh., Syr., (Harcl), Eth., Goth. 18-4:1. Special precepts for the several relations of life, the motive being in each, that what is done is done “ in the Lord.” 18. αἱγυναῖκες ,κ .τ .λ . Comp. Ephesians 5:22. ἰδίοις , prefixed in Rec. Text to ἀνδράσιν , has but slight support, and has probably come from Ephesians 5:22. ὡςἀνῆκεν , imperfect, as often in Greek writers with similar verbs. Comp. Ephesians 5:4, ἃοὐκἀνῆκεν ; Acts 22:22, οὐγὰρκαθῆκεναὐτὸνζῇν . It is not implied here that the duty has not hitherto been rightly performed, but only that the obligation existed previously. The use of the past tense in the English “ ought” is not quite parallel, since the present “ owe” cannot be used in this sense. ἐνΚυρίῳ is to be joined with ἀνῆκεν , not with ὑποτάσσεσθε ; see ver. 20, εὐάρεστόνἐστινἐνΚυρίῳ , “ for those who are in the Lord.” 19. οἱἄνδρες ,κ .τ .λ . = Ephesians 5:25. μὴπικραίνεσθε . “ Become not embittered,” or rather, as this would seem to imply a lasting temper, “ show no bitterness.” The word occurs frequently in classical writers. Plato has (Legg. 731 D), τὸνθυμὸνπραΰνεινκ .μὴἀκραχολοῦντα , γυναικείωςπικραινόμενον , διατελεῖν ; Pseudo-Dem. 1464, μηδενὶμήτεπικραίνεσθαιμήτεμνησικακεῖν .The adjective πικρός is used by Euripides in a strikingly illustrative passage, Helen. 303, ὅτανπόσιςπικρὸςξυνῇγυναικί … θανεῖνκράτιστον . Plutarch observes that it shows weakness of mind when men πρὸςγύναιαδιαπικραίνονται . Philo uses πικραίνεσθαι of just anger. De Vita Moysis, ii. pp. 135, 20, and 132, 34. The word would seem, then, to correspond more nearly with the colloquial “ cross” than with “ bitter.” 20. τὰτέκνα , κ .τ .λ . See Ephesians 6:1. Disobedience to parents is mentioned as a vice of the heathen, Romans 1:30, κατὰπάντα .There would be no propriety in suggesting the possibility in a Christian family of a conflict between duty to parents and duty to God. εὐάρεστον There is no need to supply τῷΘεῷ the adjective is taken absolutely, like προσφιλῆ in Philippians 4:8, and is sufficiently defined by ἐνΚυρίῳ . In Romans 12:2 εὐάρεστου seems also to be absolute, τὸθέληματοῦΘεοῦτὸἀγαθὸνκαὶεὐάρ . καὶτέλειον . The Rec. Text has, instead of ἐνΚυρίῳ ,τῷΚυρίῳ , with many cursives, Boh., Eth., Clem., al. ἐνΚυρίῳ is the reading of all the uncials, most cursives, and versions. The Rec. arose from a desire to give a dative to εὐάρεστον . 21. μὴἐρεθίζετε . “ Do not irritate.” The verb means to “ excite, provoke,” not necessarily to anger, or in a bad sense; and in 2 Corinthians 9:2 it is used in a good sense. There is another reading, παροργίζετε , very strongly supported, being read in א ACD*GKL al. Euthal. (Tisch. cod.), Theodoret (cod.), Theoph. ἐρεθίζετε is read in B DboK, most MSS., Syr. (both, but Harcl marg. has the other reading), Clem., Chrys. παροργίζετε occurs in the parallel Ephesians 4:4 (with no variety), and to this is obviously due its introduction here. ἵναμὴἀθυμῶσιν . “ That they may not lose heart.” “ Fractus animus pestis juventutis,” Bengel. A child frequently irritated by over-severity or injustice, to which, nevertheless, it must submit, acquires a spirit of sullen resignation, leading to despair. 22. οἱδοῦλοι ,κ .τ .λ Comp. Ephesians 6:5 ff. Here it is observable that the duties of masters and slaves occupy nearly twice as much space as those of husbands and wives, parents and children, together. The circumstance is perhaps explained by the incident of Onesimus, a Colossian, who was now returning to his master, Philemon, in company with the bearer of the Epistle. φοβούμενοιτὸνΚύριον , i.e. the one Lord and Master, contrasted with τοῖςκατὰσάρκαΚυρίοις . Observe that these words are not preceded by ὡς , whereas ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι is. It is taken for granted that they fear the Lord. ἐνὁφθαλμοδουλείαις , the plural is read with א CKL most MSS., Clem. Theodoret, Oecum., Syr-Harcl. A B D G, al., Boh. have the singular. Chrysostom varies. Κύριον is the reading of א ABCDGL al., fg Amiat., Fuld.., Syr. (both), Arm., Clem., Chrys., al. θεόν is read in א cDcK most MSS., d Goth., Boh., Theodoret. This reading spoils the contrast. 23. ὃἐὰνποιῆτε . This is the correct reading, with א A B C(D G) 17 al., Old Lat., Vul., Goth., Boh., Arm., etc. (D* G have ἄν for ἐάν ). The Rec. Text has καὶπᾶνὅτιἐάν , with Db K L most MSS., Syr. (both), Theodoret, Chrys. (without καί ). This reading obviously comes from ver. 17. ἐκψυχῆς . Ephesians 6:6. μετὰεὐνοίας . Μὴμετὰδουλικῆςἀνάγκης , ἄλλὰμετὰἐλευθερίαςκαὶπροαιρέσεως , Chrys. ἐργάζεσθε . “ Do the work.” Not used as particularly appropriate to slaves, but because the things done are ἔργα . ὡςτῷΚυρίῳ , κ .τ .λ . Ephesians 6:7, Ephesians 6:24, ἀπὸΚυρίου . Lightfoot notes the absence of the article here, while it is studiously inserted in the context, vv. 22-24. In the parallel in Eph. the preposition is παρά Some commentators and grammarians distinguish the two prepositions as expressing respectively the immediate (παρά ) and the ultimate source; but this distinction is untenable. See Lightfoot on Galatians 1:12. 24. τὴνἀνταπόδοσιν . “ The full recompense.” The word is frequently used both in the Sept. and in classical writers, but not elsewhere in N.T. τῆςκληρονομίας . Genitive of apposition, the reward which consists in the inheritance. There is a special point in the word, inasmuch as slaves could not be inheritors of an earthly possession. Comp. Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 4:1-7. τῷΚυρίῳΧριστῷδουλεύετε .γάρ ,which in the Rec. Text is inserted after τῷ , must be rejected. In favour of the insertion are Dbc K L most MSS., Syr., (both), Arm., Goth. For the omission, א ABCD* 17 al., Vulg., Copt., Euthal. (Tisch. cod.). It was clearly added to make the connexion easy. G d and Ambrosiaster have τοῦκυρίου (ἡμῶνἸησοῦ ) Χριστοῦᾧδουλεύετε ,but d and Ambr. omit the words in brackets. γάρ being omitted, the verb is best taken as imperative, “ To the Master Christ do service.” The combination Κύριοςχριστός is not to be taken in the technical sense as = the Lord Jesus Christ, a use to which there is no parallel. In Romans 16:18, where we have τῷΚυρίῳἡμῶνΧριστῷ , some MSS. omit ἡμῶν : but its genuineness is beyond question. In 1 Peter 3:15 Κύριον is predicate of τὸνΧριστόν . This suggests that we should take Κυρίῳ here as relative to δουλεύετε . The sentence is not so much a summary of what precedes as an introduction to the fresh point added in ver. 25; Lightfoot. Lightfoot takes δουλεύετε as indicative, on the grounds, first, that the indicative is wanted to explain the previous ἀπὸΚυρίον (but is it?); and, secondly, that the imperative would seem to require ὡςτῷΚυρίῳ , as in Ephesians 6:7. On the other hand, however, he adds, see Romans 12:11, τῷΚυρίῳδουλεύοντες . If the interpretation above given is correct, ὡς is rightly absent, and in any case the indicative would be very abrupt and unconnected. Moreover, with this view the connexion of ver. 25 (γάρ ) would be hardly intelligible. Lightfoot passes it over in silence. 25. ὁγὰρἀδικῶνκομιεῖταιὃἠδίκησεν ,καὶοὐκἔστιπροσωποληψία . The first clause is, of course, a general maxim, but the application here chiefly intended appears from the words οὐκἔστιπροσωποληψία , which presuppose that the person punished is one higher in position. ὁἀδικῶν , also, is much more suitable to the master than the slave; and this view is further confirmed by the mention of τὸδίκαιον in 4:1. Hence ὁἀδικῶν in the present case is the master, and the words are designed to encourage the slave to regard himself as the servant of Christ, and as such not to be disheartened by unjust treatment, knowing that before the final tribunal there will be no respect of persons. So Theodoret, κἂνμὴτύχητεἀγαθῶνἀνταποδόσεωνπαρὰτοῦδεσπότου ,ἐστὶδικαιοκριτὴςὃςοὐκοἶδεδούλουκαὶδεσπότουδιαφοράν , ἀλλὰδικαίανεἰσφέρειτὴνψῆφον . But Chrys., Bengel, and others suppose the ἀδικῶν to be the slave. “ Tenues saepe putant, sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum. Id negatur,” Bengel; cf. Leviticus 19:15. It must be observed, however, that some of those who adopt this view have had before them the reading ὁδὲἀδικῶν (so Chrys.). Erasmus, Lightfoot, and many others (following Jerome) suppose both masters and slaves to be referred to, as in Ephesians 6:8. On the other hand, ib. ver. 9, προσωποληψίαοὐκἔστιπαρ ʼ αὐτῷ , is said with respect to the masters only. κομιεῖται . “ Shall be requited for” ; cf. Ephesians 6:8, and for προσωποληψία , ib. 9. ἠδίκησεν . The tense is past, from the point of view of the time referred to in κομιεῖται . For the reading the authorities are: For γάρ , א B C D* G 17 al., Old Lat., Vulg., Goth., Boh., Clem. al. For δέ , Dc K L, most MSS., Syr. (both), Chrys., Theodoret, al. Boh Bohairic. Cited by Tisch. as “ Coptic,” by Tregelles as “ Memphitic,” by WH. as “ me.” Arm Armenian. Eth Ethiopic. WH Westcott and Hort. Sah The Sahidic or Thebaic (“ the.” WH). Tisch. Tischendorf. Treg. Tregelles. Syr-Pesh The Peshitto Syriac. Tol Cod. Toletanus. Harcl The Harclean Syriac. Fuld. Cod. Fuldensis 4:1 τὸδίκαιονκαὶτὴνἰσότητα . “ Justice and fairness.” ἰσότης differs from τὸδίκαιον nearly as our “ fair” from “ just,” denoting what cannot be brought under positive rules, but is in accordance with the judgment of a fair mind. Compare Philo, De Creat. Princ. ii. p. 401, ἰσότηςμὲνοὖντὴνἐκτῶνὑπηκόωνεὔνοιανκαὶἠσφαλείανἀμοιβὰςδικαίαςἀντεκτινόντωνἀπεργάσεται . Meyer and others suppose the meaning to be that slaves are to be treated as equals, not as regards the outward relation, but as regards the Christian brotherhood (see Philemon 1:16). It would be a very obscure way of expressing this thought to say τὸδίκ . καὶτὴνἰσότηταπαρέχεσθε : nor does it agree well with the following clause, καὶὑμεῖςἔχετεΚύριον , not as in Eph., αὐτῶνκαὶὑμῶν . Perhaps, indeed, we may regard τὰαὐτά in Eph. (οἱκύριοι , τὰαὐτὰποιεῖτεπρὸςαὐτούς ) as illustrating ἰσότης here. The same moral principles were to govern both. ἰσότηταοὐτὴνἰσοτιμίανἐκάλεσεν , ἀλλὰτὴνπροσήκουσανἐπιμέλειαν ,ἧςπαρὰτῶνδεσποτῶνἀπολαύεινχρὴτοὺςοἰκετάς , Theodoret. Erasmus, Corn. a Lapide understand the word of impartiality, not treating one slave differently from others; but this would be consistent with harsh treatment of all. παρέχεσθε . “ Supply on your side.” 2-6. Exhortation to constant prayer and thanksgiving, to which is added the apostle’ s request that they would pray for himself in his work. Practical advice as to, wisdom in action and speech. 2. τῇπροσευχῇπροσκαρτερεῖτε = Romans 12:12; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:17. We have the same verb similarly used in Acts 1:14, Acts 2:46, Acts 6:4. γρηγοροῦντεςἐναὐτῇ . “ Being watchful in it,” i.e. not careless in the act. ἐπειδὴγὰρτὸκαρτερεῖνἐνταῖςεὐχαῖςῥᾳθυμεῖνπόλλακιςποιεῖ ,διὰτοῦτόφησιγρηγοροῦντεςτούτεστινήφοντες , μὴῥεμβόμενοι (wandering), Chrys. ἐνεὐχαριστίᾳ With thanksgiving (as an accompaniment; cf. 2:7). αὕτηγὰρἡἀληθινὴεὐχὴἡεὐχαριστίανἔχουσαὑπὲρπάντωνὧνἴσμενκαὶὧνοὐκἴσμεν , ὧνεὖἐπάθομενἢἐθλίβομεν , ὑπὲρτῶνκοινῶνεὐεργεσιῶν , Theophylact. 3. προσευχόμενοιἅμακαὶπερὶἡμῶν .“ Praying at the same time also for us,” including, namely, Timothy, named with St. Paul as sending the Epistle, but also, no doubt, including all who helped him in his work (vv. 10-14). ἵνα . The prayer is not for the personal benefit of the apostle and his companions, but for the promotion of their work. θύραντοῦλόγου . A door of admission for the word of the gospel, i.e. the removal of any hindrance which might be in the way. The same figure is employed 1 Corinthians 16:9; 2 Corinthians 2:12. Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Bengel, and others interpret θύραντοῦλόγου as “ the door of our speech,” i.e. our mouth,— an interpretation suggested by Ephesians 6:19, ἵναμοιδοθῇλόγοςἐνἀνοίξειτοῦστόματόςμου , but certainly not consistent with τοῦλόγου , which must mean “ the word.” λαλῆσαι , infinitive of the end or object, “ so as to speak” τὸμυστήριον , κ .τ .λ ., 1:26, 2:2; see Ephesians 1:9. δι ʼ ὅκαὶδέδεμαι . For it was his preaching the free admission of the Gentiles that led to his imprisonment. This is the only place in which St. Paul uses δέειν in the literal sense; but he uses δεσμοί , Philippians 1:7, Philippians 1:13, and elsewhere, as well as δέσμιος The transition to the singular was inevitable when he passed from what was common to himself with others to what was peculiar to himself. 4. ἵναφανερώσω ,κ .τ .λ . Generally taken as dependent on the previous clause, “ that God may open a door … in order that,” etc. Beza, De Wette, al., however, make it dependent on προσευχόμενοι , which, on account of the change from plural to singular, is improbable. Bengel joins it with δέδεμαι , “ vinctus sum ut patefaciam; paradoxon.” In this he follows Chrysostom, τὰδεσμὰφανεροῖαὐτόν , οὐσυσκιάζει : but this is quite untenable. V. Soden, who also makes the clause dependent on δέδεμαι , proposes a different interpretation. He observes that φανεροῦν is never used of St. Paul’ s preaching, nor does the notion of μυστήριον account for its use here. It must therefore have a special significance, and this is to be found in its immediate reference to δέδεμαι . St. Paul, as a prisoner awaiting trial, had to explain what his preaching was. How this turned out, he relates in Philippians 1:12 ff. The sense then, according to v. Soden, is: “ in order that I may make it manifest, how I am bound to speak,” the emphasis being on δεῖ , not ὡς . He desires to make clear to his judges, not only what he preaches, but that he cannot do otherwise; compare 1 Corinthians 9:16; Acts 4:20. δι ʼ ὅ is the reading of א ACDKL nearly all MSS., d e f Vulg., Goth., Clem., Chrys., etc. But B G, g have δι ʼ ὅν , apparently a correction to suit Χριστοῦ , but destroying the point of the sentence. 5. ἐνσοφίᾳ = practical Christian wisdom; cf. Matthew 10:16. πρός . “ With respect to,” or “ in relation to,” i.e. your behaviour towards them. τοὺςἔξω . Those outside the Church; compare 1 Corinthians 5:12, 1 Corinthians 5:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:12. The expression is borrowed from the Jews, who so designated the heathen. On the precept Chrys. says, πρὸςτὰμέλητὰοἰκεῖαοὐτοσαύτηςἡμῖνδεῖἀσφαλείας , ὅσηςπρὸςτοὺςἔξωἔυθαγὰρἀδελφοί , εἰσὶκαὶσυγγνῶμαιπολλαικαὶἀγαθαί . τὸνκαιρὸνἐξαγοράζοντες . See Ephesians 5:16, where is added a reason for the injunction, viz. ὅτιαἱἡμέραιπονηραίεἰσιν . 6. ὁλόγοςὑμῶνπάντοτεἐνΧάριτι . Still referring to behaviour, πρὸςτοὺςἔξω .On χάρις = pleasingness, see above, 3:16. χάριςλόγων is frequent in classical writers. ἅλατιἠρτύμενος . “ Seasoned with salt” ; cf. Mark 9:49, Mark 9:50; pleasant but not insipid, nor yet coarse. Compare Plut. p. Mor. 514 F, χάριντιναπαρασκευάζοντεςἀλλήλοιςὥσπερἁλσὶτοῖςλόγοιςἐφηνδύνουσιτὴνδιατριβήν : and again, p. 669 A, ἡδὲτῶνἁλῶνδύναμις … χάριναὐτῷκαὶἡδονὴνπροστίθησι .ἅλας is a later form. εἰδέναι , infinitive of object, as in ver. 3, πῶςδεῖἑνὶἑκάστῳἀποκρίνεσθαι , “ to each one,” according, namely, to the character, purpose, spirit, etc., of the inquirer. Compare the apostle’ s description of his own behaviour, 1 Corinthians 9:22, τοῖςπᾶσιγέγοναπάνταἵναπάντωςτινὰςσώσω . His discourses and answers at Athens, and before Felix, Festus, and the Jews at Rome, supply the best illustrations. 7-18. Personal commendations and salutations. 7. τὰκατ ʼ ἐμέ = Philippians 1:12, “ my matters” ; cf. Acts 25:14. Not a noun absolute, but the object of γνωρίσει . On Tychicus, see Ephesians 6:21, and compare Lightfoot’ s very full note here. ὁἀγαπητὸςἀδελφὸς = Eph. l.c. καὶπιστὸςδιάκονοςκαὶσύνδουλοςἐνΚυρίῳ . ἐνΚυρίῳ is probably to be taken with both substantives, as both require some specifically Christian definition, which ἀδελφός does not; and, moreover, in Eph. l.c. we have πιστὸςδιάκονοςἐνΚυρίῳ . σύνδουλος is perhaps added in order to place Tychicus on a level with Epaphras, who is so designated 1:7, and who was in high repute at Colossae. πιστός probably covers both substantives. 8. ὃνἔπεμψα , κ .τ .λ . = Ephesians 6:22. As to the reading, the Rec. Text has ἵναγυῷτὰπερὶὑμῶν , with א c C Dbc K L and most MSS., f Vulg., Goth., Syr. (both), ., Chrys. (expressly), Jerome (on Philemon), Ambrosiaster, al. ἵναγνῶτετὰπερὶἡμῶν , A B D* G P a few cursives, d e g ., ., Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Jerome (on Ephesians 6:21), Euthalius (cod. ). א has γνῶτε with ὑμῶν . א o at first corrected ὑμῶν to ἡμῶν to suit γυῶτε but afterwards deleted this correction and substituted γνῷ for γνῶτε . The context, with the emphatic εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτο , so obviously requires γνῶτε … ἡμῶν , that, considering the weight of authority, we cannot regard this as an alteration made in conformity with Ephesians 6:22. Besides, it is very unlikely that the writer himself should, to the Ephesians, say, εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτοἵναγνῶτε , κ .τ .λ . , and to the Colossians of the same messenger, εἰςαὐτὸτοῦτοἵναγνῷ , κ .τ .λ On the hypothesis that Eph. is not by the author of Col., it is equally improbable that the former should be written instead of the latter. The error may have arisen from τε accidentally dropping out before τα , or, as Lightfoot suggests, when ύμῶν had once been written in error for ἡμῶν (as in א ), γνῶτε would be read γνῷτε , as in 111 and John Dam. op. ii. p. 214, and then the superfluous τε would be dropped. These authorities, however, seem too late to be used to explain so early a corruption. Alford defends the Rec. Text, in which he is followed by Klö pper; but most critics and commentators adopt the other reading. 9. σὺνὈνησίμῳτῷπιστῷκαὶἀγαπητῷἀδελφῷ . Observe the delicacy with which Onesimus is given, as far as possible, the same predicates as Tychicus and Epaphras, he and Tychicus being, moreover, associated as subject of γνωριοῦσιν . He was not διάκονος or σύνδουλος , but as a faithful and beloved brother he is not placed below them. Compare Romans 16:6, Romans 16:12. ὅςἐστινἐξὑμῶν , who is of you, i.e. belongs to Colossae; hitherto, indeed, only a slave, but now a brother beloved, Philemon 1:16. It deserves notice how St. Paul assumes that Onesimus will be welcomed as such by his former master and by the Church. Calvin’ s very natural remark, “ Vix est credibile hunc esse servum illum Philemonis, quia furis et fugitivi nomen dedecori subjectum fuisset,” serves to put in strong relief this confidence of the apostle in the Colossians. πάνταὑμῖνγνωριοῦσιντὰὧδε . This is not a formal restatement of τὰκατ ʼ ἐμέ , but includes more than that phrase, and τάπερὶἡμῶν , namely, all that concerned the Church at Rome. This would naturally include an account of the conversion of Onesimus, who would be to them a living illustration of the success of St. Paul’ s preaching in Rome. Note the change from γνωρίσει to γνωριοῦσιν , in order more expressly to commend Onesimus to their confidence. G d e f g Vulg. Jerome, Ambrosiaster add after ὧδε , πραττόμενα , a gloss which looks as if it originated in the Latin, which could not literally render τὰὧδε . 10. ἈσπάζεταιὑμᾶςἈρίσταρχος . Of Aristarchus we know that he was a Macedonian of Thessalonica, Acts 19:20, Acts 19:20:4; a member of the deputation to Jerusalem (ib.), and a companion of St. Paul in the first part, at least, of his journey to Rome, Acts 27:2. Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 35) thought it probable that he parted from St. Paul at Myra, having accompanied him at first only because he was on his way home to Macedonia. If the centurion in whose charge St. Paul was had not accidentally fallen in at Myra with a ship sailing to Italy, their route would have taken them through Philippi. If this view is correct, Aristarchus must have rejoined St. Paul at Rome at a later date. In any case, the notices in Acts show that he would be well known in proconsular Asia. ὁσυναιχμάλωτόςμου . αἰχμάλωτος properly means a captive taken in war, and hence it has been supposed that it may here have reference to spiritual captivity; cf. Romans 7:23; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Ephesians 4:8. But none of these passages justify such an interpretation. In Rom. the verb is used of captivity to sin; in Eph. it is in a quotation from a Psalm; while in Cor. it is the thoughts that are brought into captivity so as to be obedient to Christ. There is no analogy to support the supposed use of αἰχμάλωτος absolutely in the sense supposed. It would be particularly unlikely to be so used in a letter actually written from prison. On the other hand, St. Paul speaks of the service of Christ in terms of military service; cf. 2 Timothy 2:3, and συστρατιώτης , Philippians 2:25; Philemon 1:2. It is in accordance with this that he should use the term συναιχμάλωτος here (and of Epaphras in Philemon 1:23). It has been conjectured that St. Paul’ s helpers may have voluntarily shared his imprisonment in turn; for Epaphras, who is here a συνεργός , is in Philemon a συναιχμ ., and Aristarchus here συναιχμ . is there a συνεργός . ΜάρκοςὁἀνεψιὸςΒαρνάΒα , “ cousin,” so defined by Pollux, iii. 28, ἀδελφῶνπαῖδεςἀνεψιοί , εἴτεἐκπατραδέλφωνεἰσι , εἴτεἐκμητραδέλφωνεἴτεἐξἀδελφοῦκαὶἀδελφῆς , εἴτ ʼ ἐκδυοῖνἀρρένωνἀδελφῶνεἴτ ʼ ἐκδυοῖνθηλειῶν .The use of it for “ nephew” is very late. The relationship explains why Barnabas was more ready than Paul to condone Mark’ s defection, Acts 15:37-39. At the same time, the passage throws light in turn on the rather remarkable form of commendation here, “ if he comes unto you, receive him.” The Pauline Churches, which were aware of the estrangement, might not be very ready to give a very hearty welcome to Mark. Comp. 2 Timothy 4:11. δέχεσθαι is a regular term for hospitable reception. See, for example, Matthew 10:14; John 4:45; often also in classical writers. περὶοὗ , κ .τ .λ . These injunctions probably had reference to the friendly reception of Mark, so that their purport is repeated in the following words. 11. ἸησοῦςὁλεγόμενοςἸοῦστος . Not mentioned elsewhere. The surname Justus is applied to two other persons in the N.T., namely, Joseph Barsabbas, Acts 1:23, and a proselyte at Corinth, Acts 18:7. It was a frequent surname amongstom Jews. οἱὄντεςἐκπεριτομῆς . These words are best connected with the following, οὗτοιμόνοι , κ .τ .λ . The sense then is, “ of those of the circumcision, these alone are,” etc. Otherwise, οὗτοιμόνοι would not be true (see vv. 12-14), and οἱὄντεςἐκπ . would have no significance. This construction, in which the more general notion stands first as in a nominative absolute, and the particular notion follows with the verb, is used by classical writers. On this οὗτοιμόνοι comp. Philippians 2:20, οὐδέναἔχωἰσόψυχον . συνεργοί is the predicate, so that the apostle does not apply the term to the opponents. οἵτινες as usual specifies, not the individuals, but the character, “ men that proved.” See on Luke 2:4. The aorist ἐγενήθησαν seems to refer to some definite recent occasion. παρηγορία , “ comfort,” only here in N.T., frequent in Plutarch. There is no ground for Bengel’ s distinction, that παραμυθία refers to domestic, and παρηγορία to forensic trouble. So far as the latter word has a technical sense, it is medical (cf. “ paregoric” ); but it is commonly used of consolation in general. 12. Ἐπαφρᾶς , see 1:7. ὁἐξὑμῶν . “ Who is one of you.” δοῦλοςχριστοῦἸησοῦ . A title frequently used by St. Paul of himself, once of Timothy in conjunction with himself, Philippians 1:1, but not elsewhere of any other. πάντοτεἀγωνιζόμενος , κ .τ .λ . Compare 1:29. ἵναστῆτετέλειοικαὶπεπληροφορημένοι . “ That ye may stand fast, perfect and fully assured.” στῆναι , as in Ephesians 6:11, Ephesians 6:13, al., conveys the idea of standing firm; hence τέλειοικαὶπεπλ . are secondary predicates, the first expressing the objective moment, the second the subjective; they were not only to be τέλειοιἐνΧριστῷ , 1:28, but to have full assurance; cf. 2:2. πληροφορεῖν in N.T. means either “ to fulfil,” as in 2 Timothy 4:5, 2 Timothy 4:17, or, “ to persuade fully,” as in Romans 4:21, πληροφορηθεὶςὅτι … δυνατόςἐστιν ; 14:5, ἐντῷἰδίῳνοῒπληροφορείτω . It is read in Romans 15:13, in B F G, where the sense is “ fill” ; but the better attested reading is πληρώσαι .The Rec. Text here has πεπληρωμένοι . See on Luke 1:1. ἐνπαντὶθελήματιτοῦΘεοῦ . “ In all the will of God” is not quite correct, yet we cannot say “ every will of God.” Lightfoot renders “ in everything willed by God.” The words are best connected with τελ . καὶπεπλ ., not with στῆτε , as the order of the words shows. παντι probably has reference to the variety of circumstances in which the Christian may find himself, with perhaps a hint at the contrast with the definite external precepts of the false teachers. στῆτε is the reading of א c A C D G K L P and most MSS., Chrys., Theodoret. σταθῆτε , א * B 23 71 al., Euthal. (cod. Tisch.). Comp. Matthew 2:9, Matthew 27:11, in both which passages B C 1 33 have ἐστάθη for the Rec. ἔστη . The passive is adopted by the critical editors in all three places. πεπληροφορημένοι , א A B C D* G al., marg., Euthal. (cod. Tisch.). πεπληρωμένοι , Dc K L P most MSS., Syr-Harcl., text. and Pesh., Arm., Chrys., Theodoret. As, however, πληροφορεῖν is sometimes used with the meaning “ fill,” the versions cannot be quoted with certainty for the latter reading, which probably slipped in as the more familiar and simpler word. 13. μαρτυρῶγὰραὐτῷ . The apostle confirms by his testimony what he has just said of Epaphras. ὅτιἔχειπολὺνπόνον . “ That he has much labour.” πόνος is not found elsewhere in N.T. except in the Apocalypse. It is, however, a common word for struggle in battle, and hence corresponds with the ἀγών , of the apostle himself, 2:1, and with the ἀγωνιζόμενος Of ver. 12. The two words occur in juxtaposition in Plato, Phaedr. 247 B, ἔνθαδὴπόνοςτεκαὶἀγὼνἔσχατοςψυχῇπρόκειται . πολὺνπόνον א A B C P, 80, Euthal. (cod. Tisch.), Old Lat., Vulg., Goth, Boh., Arm. ζῆλονπολύν , Rec., with K L most MSS., Syr. (both), Chrys., Theodoret., Dbe al. have πολὺνζῆλον ; D* G, πολὺνκόπον . Five cursives have πόθον , and two (6, 672) ἀγῶνα . No doubt the rarity of πόνος in the N.T. is responsible for the variety of reading. It is found in the Apocalypse only. ὑπὲρὑμῶνκαὶτῶνἐνΛαοδικείᾳκαὶτῶἐνἸεραπόλει . Laodicea and Hierapolis stood on opposite sides of the valley at a distance of about six miles from one another, and twice as far from Colossae. From the conjunction of the three names here i. appears probable that Epaphras stood in the same relation, as evangelist, to the three, and also that they were threatened by the same dangers; as, indeed, their near neighbourhood and consequent frequent intercourse would suggest. Compare 2:2. 14. ἀσπάζεταιὑμᾶςΛουκᾶςὁἰατρὸςὁἀγαπητός . “ Luke the physician, the beloved.” Beyond question the evangelist, named also 2 Timothy 4:11 as well as Philemon 1:24. It is interesting to find two of the evangelists in St. Paul’ s company here. The reason of his calling being specified may be that he was attending on St. Paul in his professional capacity. It has been observed that his first appearance in company with St. Paul, Acts 16:10, “ nearly synchronises with an attack of the apostle’ s constitutional malady (Galatians 4:13, Galatians 4:14), so that he may have joined him partly in a professional capacity” (Lightfoot). From the manner in which he is separated from the group in ver. 10 it is clear that he was a Gentile. This is fatal, not only to the tradition that he was one of the Seventy (which, indeed, is hardly consistent with the preface to his Gospel), but also to the conjecture that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. See on Luke 1:2, Luke 10:1-16, Luke 24:13-32. καὶΔημᾶς . Probably a contraction for Demetrius. It is remarkable that he is named without any epithet of commendation, which is the more striking as coming after ὁἀγαπητός . In Philemon 1:24 he is named with Mark, Aristarchus, and Luke as a συνεργός of St. Paul. But in 2 Timothy 4:10 he is mentioned as having deserted St. Paul, ἀγαπήσαςτὸννῦναἰῶνα . Perhaps the curt mention here foreshadows that desertion. 15. ἀσπάσασθετοὺςἐνΛαοδικείᾳἀδελφούς , καὶΝυμφᾶν , καὶτὴνκατ ʼ οἶκοναὐτῶν (or αὐτοῦ ) ἐκκλησίαν . Nymphas (if this reading is correct) is probably a short form of Nymphodorus; cf. Artemas for Artemidorus, Zenas for Zenodorus (Titus 3:12, Titus 3:13), Olympas for Olympiodorus (Romans 16:15), and perhaps Lucas for Lucanus. τὴνκατ ʼ οἶκον , κ .τ .λ ., i.e. the Church that assembled in their house. The same expression occurs, Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:19, of the home of Prisca and Aquila at Rome and at Ephesus respectively; also Philemon 1:2. Compare Acts 12:12. Separate buildings for the purpose of Christian worship seem not to be traced earlier than the third century. Bingham, Antiq. viii. 1. 13, shows that special rooms were so set apart, but gives no instances of separate buildings. Probst (Kirchliche Disciplin, p. 181 f.) is referred to by Lightfoot as affording similar negative evidence. It is curious that Chrysostom understands the expression to refer only to the household of Nymphas. ὅραγοῦνπῶςδείκνυσιμέγαντὸνἄνδρα , εἴγεἡοἰκίααὐτοῦἐκκλησία . αὐτῶν is difficult. Afford, Lightfoot, al., understand it as referring to οἱπερὶΝυμφᾶν . Alford compares Xen. Mem. i. 2. 62, ἐάντιςφανερὸςγένηταικλέπτων … τούτοιςθάνατόςἐστινἡζημία , which is clearly not parallel, for τις is one of a class, and τούτοις all those belonging to that class. Lightfoot compares Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7, προσῄει (Μιθριδάτης ) πρὸςτοὺςἝλληνας · ἐπεὶδ ʼ ἐγγὺςἐγένοντο , κ .τ .λ ., and iv. 5. 33, ἐπεὶδ ʼ ἦλθονπρὸςΧειρίσοφον , κατελάμβανονκαὶἐκείνουςσκηνοῦντας . These also are not parallel, since here, as in other languages, the force is called by the name of its commander. Hence Meyer says that the plural cannot without violence be referred to anything but “ the brethren in Laodicea and Nymphas.” He thinks, then, that by these brethren is meant a Church distinct from that of Laodicea, but in filial relation to it, and meeting in the same house. Lightfoot also suggests (as an alternative to his first-mentioned view) that the “ brethren in Laodicea” may refer to a family of Colossians settled in Laodicea. The reading varies between αὐτῶν , αὐτοῦ , and αὐτῆς . For the plural, א A C P 5 9 17 23 34 39 47 73, Boh. (wrongly quoted by Tinch. al. for αὐτοῦ , see Lightfoot), Arab. (Leipz.), Euthalius (cod. Tisch.). For αὐτοῦ are D G K L 37 (cod. Leic,) nearly all cursives, Goth., Chrys., Theodoret (expressly), Ambrosiaster. For αὐτῆς , B 672. The Latin versions have the singular “ ejus,” and so both Syriac. In the latter the gender would be indicated only by a point. The Pesh. is pointed inconsistently, making Nympha feminine (Numphē ) and the suffix (corresponding to αὐτοῦ or αὐτῆς ) masculine. The Harclean, again, has the suffix feminine in the text, masculine in the margin. How the translator intended the proper name to be taken is uncertain; it may be either masc. or fem. Lightfoot thinks probably the latter. The Greek name is accented as feminine (Νύμφαν ) in Bc and Euthalius (cod. Tisch.). Νύμφαν as a feminine name would be Doric, and the occurrence of such a form here is highly improbable. αὐτῆς , then, is probably a correction suggested by this misunderstanding of Νύμφαν . But it seems more probable that the scribe who made the correction had αὐτοῦ before him than αὐτῶν . αὐτῶν , again, might readily have been suggested to the mind of a copyist by his recollection of Rom 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:19 assisted by the occurrence of ἀδελφούς just before. αὐτῆς is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles (margin), ., v. Soden, Weiss. Νύμφαν being accentuated accordingly. αὐτῶν , by Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Tregelles (text). αὐτοῦ , by De Wette (who designates αὐτῶν “ false and unmeaning” ), Ellicott. 16. καὶὅτανἀναγνωσθῇπαρ ʼ ὑμῖνἡἐπιστολή . Obviously the present Epistle, as Romans 16:22, Τέρτιοςὁγράψαςτὴνἐπιστολήν : 1 Thessalonians 5:27, ἀναγνωσθῆναιτὴνἐπιστολήν : 2 Thessalonians 3:14, διὰτῆςἐπιστολῆς , these latter verses being of the nature of a postscript. ποιήσατεἵνα . Cf. John 11:37. ποιεῖν , in the sense “ take care,” is sometimes followed by ὅπως , as in Herod. i. 8, ποίεεὅκωςἐκείνηνθεήσεαιγυμνήν : ib. 209, ποίεεὅκωςἐπεάν … ὥςμοικαταστήσῃςτὸνπαῖδα . So with ὡς , Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 18. ἵνακαὶἐντῇΛαοδικέωνἐκκλησίᾳἀναγνωσθῇ . See the similar direction 1 Thessalonians 5:27, ἀναγνωσθῆναιτὴνἐπ . πᾶσιτοῖςἀδελφοῖς . The present Ep. was to be read in the assembly of the Church, and a copy sent to Laodicea and similarly read there. Compare the address 2 Corinthians 1:1, which implies the sending of copies to neighbouring Churches. καὶτὴνἐκΛαοδικείας . Chrysostom says that some understood this of a letter written from Laodicea to St. Paul. The SyriacPesh. also renders “ written from L.” ; and so Theodore Mops., Theodoret, and many others, including Beza, a Lapide, Estius, and some recent commentators. But why should St. Paul direct the Colossians to get from Laodicea the letter written to him, of which he could not assume even that the Laodiceans had retained a copy? and how would the letter of the Laodiceans edify the Colossians? Moreover, καὶὑμεῖς obviously implies that the Laodiceans were the receivers of the letter. Theophylact supposes the first Epistle to Timothy to be meant, which, according to the subscription, was written from Laodicea. This subscription, indeed, probably owes its origin to the theory, which was earlier than Theophylact, and appears in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. Other Epistles of St. Paul have been similarly said in some of the Versions to be “ written from Laodicea” (see Lightfoot). It is fatal to all such hypotheses that St. Paul had not been at Laodicea before this time (2:1), and, even had he been there, had now been some time in prison, and therefore could not have written any letter recently from Laodicea. These hypotheses are obviously founded on the error that ἡἐκΛ . must mean “ the letter written from ‘ L.’ ” But this is not so. When the article with a preposition expresses a substantival notion, it is often proleptic, a construction which is called the attraction of prepositions (Jelf, § 647), Thucyd, ii. 34, θάπτουσιτοὺςἐκτῶνπολέμων : iii. 22, ἤσθοντοοἱἐκτῶνπύργωνφύλακες : vi. 32, ξυνεπεύχοντοδὲκαὶὁἄλλοςὅμιλοςὁἐκτῆςγῆς . Most of the instances, indeed, cited by Jelf, l.c., and others are with verbs implying motion, as in Luke 11:13, Luke 16:26. Assuming, then, as certain that the Epistle was one written by St. Paul to Laodicea, we have three alternatives to choose from. First, there is extant an Epistle actually bearing the title “ To the Laodiceans.” It is extant only in Latin, but must have been originally written in Greek. Of it Jerome says (Vir. Ill. 5): “ legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur.” It is, indeed, abundantly condemned by internal evidence. It is a mere cento of Pauline phrases put together with no definite connexion or purpose, and absolutely destitute of any local allusion, except in the last line, which is obviously borrowed from the verse before us, viz.: “ et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.” As Erasmus truly and strikingly expresses it: “ nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis mendicatas. … Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paul s. At haec, praeterquam quod brevissima est (about as long as this ch. 4.), quam friget, quam jacet! … Nullum argumentum efficacius persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola.” It is found, however, in many copies of the Latin Bible from the sixth to the fifteenth century, and, as Lightfoot observes, for more than nine centuries it “ hovered about the doors of the sacred canon, without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded,” until at the revival of learning it was finally condemned on all sides. The Latin text of the Epistle will be found on p. 308. A full account of its history with a collation of the principal MSS., also a translation into Greek, will be found in Lightfoot. Secondly, it may be a lost Epistle. We have no reason to question the possibility of St. Paul having written letters which have not come down to us (compare, perhaps, 1 Corinthians 5:9); but in the present case we may observe, first, that the Epistle referred to was one to which some importance was attached by St. Paul himself, so that he himself directs that it be read publicly in two distinct Churches (for the passage justifies us in assuming that it was publicly read in Laodicea as well as Colossae); and, secondly, that in consequence of this direction not only must it have been copied, but great publicity was, in fact, assured to it. The Epistle to Philemon, which was in itself unimportant, and private, was not allowed by the Colossians to be lost, how much less an important public letter? Again, we know of three Epistles sent at this time to Asia Minor, namely, those to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon. It is best not to assume a fourth unless we are compelled to do so, which it will be seen we are not. In any case it could hardly have been an Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans, since if it had been we should not have salutations to the Laodiceans in this Epistle, not to say that it would be called τὴνπρὸςΛαοδικέας rather than τὴνἐκΛ . The third alternative is that the Epistle is one of those that we possess under another title. As early as the fourth century the claim was put forward on the part of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Philastrius, apparently from conjecture only, and one or two modern writers have adopted the same hypothesis. But in spite of some partial coincidences, it is really impossible to suppose these two Epistles to have been written at the same time by the same author to the same neighbourhood. The Epistle to Philemon has also been suggested, and Wieseler (Chronol. des Apost. Zeitalter, p. 450 ff.) speaks of this identification as scarcely open to doubt; but that Epistle is entirely private, and the delicacy of its appeal would be destroyed if St. Paul directed it to be read in public. There remains the Epistle to the Ephesians, which we know to have been written about the same time as the Epistle to the Colossians, and conveyed by the same messenger, and which, on quite distinct grounds, is, with high probability, regarded as a circular letter (see Introduction). ἵνακαὶὑμεῖςἀναγνῶτε . “ See that ye also read.” It would be rather awkward to make this ἵνα depend directly on ποιήσατε . It may be taken independently, as in Galatians 2:10, μόνοντῶνπτωχῶνἵναμνημονεύωμεν : 2 Corinthians 8:7, ἵνακαὶἐνταύτῃτῇχάριτιπερισσεύητε (John 9:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; 1 John 2:19 are not quite parallel). ὅπως is frequently used by classical writers in a similar manner. Here, however, as ποιήσατε has just preceded followed by ἵνα , it is perhaps more natural to understand before this ἵνα , “ see that,” taken out of ποιήσατε by a sort of zeugma. 17. καὶεἴπατεἈρχίππῳ . Archippus, called by St. Paul his συστρατιώτης (Philemon 1:2), was probably a son of Philemon, and a leading presbyter at Colossae (to suppose him to be a regular bishop would be an anachronism), or perhaps an “ evangelist” (Ephesians 4:11). Lightfoot thinks it more probable that he resided at Laodicea (of which place the Apostolic Constitutions make him bishop), and accounts thus for St. Paul not addressing him directly. Contrast the direct address, Philippians 4:3. But there the request addressed to the “ true yokefellow” is a special one; here it is general, and the form adopted gives it an official character which is natural and suitable; in fact, a direct address would have the appearance of harshness and discourtesy to the Colossians, and this the more the greater the authority he possessed. Would not this be the impression inevitably produced, if after animadverting on the heretical teaching in Colossae, the apostle had added, “ and thou, see that thou fulfil thy office” ? βλέπε , “ look to” ; compare 1 Corinthians 1:26, βλέπετετὴνκλῆσινὑμῶν : 10:18, βλέπετετὸνἸσραὴλκατὰσάρκα . In Philippians 3:2, βλέπετετοὺςκύνας , κ .τ .λ ., the idea is of being on one’ s watch (against). τὴνδιακονίαν . Clearly some office more important than the diaconate, properly so called, is intended here. So 2 Timothy 4:5, τὴνδιακονίανσουπληροφόρησον : compare Acts 12:25, πληρώσαντεςτὴνδιακονίαν (of a special mission to Jerusalem). ἣνπαρέλαβεςἐνΚυρίῳ . The qualification ἐνΚυρίῳ probably belongs both to the person and to the reception of the office; as living in the Lord, he received it, and he received it as committed to him in the service of the Lord. ἵνααὐτὴνπληροῖς . For the construction, compare 2 John 1:8 and for the sense, 2 Timothy 4:5 quoted above. The admonition reminds us, indeed, of the admonitions to Timothy and Titus. If Archippus was a young man, and recently appointed to his office, it would be a natural reminder of its greatness and its difficulty; and there is no need to suppose that a covert censure on his previous laxity is implied. 18. ὁἀσπασμὸςτῇἐμῇχειρὶΠαύλου = 1 Corinthians 16:21; 2 Thessalonians 3:17. In the latter passage St. Paul states that this was his usual custom. μνημονεύετέμουτῶνδεσμῶν . An appeal, touching in its brevity, and one which could not proceed from an imitator. He does not ask specially for their prayers, their sympathy, that they should spare him further anxiety, or the like; but all these are included in the request that 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 the doctrine occasioned such anxiety, was a prisoner in chains,” Afford; who adds, “ when we read of ‘ his chains’ we should not forget that they moved over the paper as he wrote. His hand was chained to the soldier that kept him.” This circumstance perhaps explains the singular abruptness of the request. ἡχάριςμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . This short form of benediction is used also in 1 Timothy 6:21 and 2 Timothy 4:22. ἡχάρις used thus absolutely occurs only in the later Epistles. In the earlier it is defined by the addition of τοῦΚυρίου [ἡμῶν ] Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ ]. Ἀμήν is added in א c D K L P and most MSS., d e f Vulg., Goth., Syr. (both), Boh., etc. Omitted in א * A B C F G 17 672, g al. For the subscription, א A B C D G L P al. have πρὸςΚολασσαεις (or Κολοσσαεις , Bcor D F G L P, etc.), to which A Bo add ἀπὸῥωμης (ῥωμηΑ ), and so Syr. (both); but Boh. has “ scripta Athenis.” Some later authorities, K L and many cursives, add διὰΤυχικοῦκαὶὈνησίμου . For other varieties and additions, see Tischnendorf. Here follows the text of the spurious Epistle from a MS. in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. — — — — AD Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem; sed per Jhesum Christum fratribus qui sunt Laodicie. Gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre nostro et Domino Jhesu Christo. Gratias ago Deo meo per omnem orationem meam quod permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in die iudicii. Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur etsi faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad perfectum veritatis evangelii et servientes et facientes benignitatem operum salutis vite eterne. Et nunc palam sunt vobis vincla mea quae patior in Christo quibus laetor et gaudeo et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu Sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem, est enim michi vivere vita in Christo et mori gaudium et in id ipsum vobis faciet misericordiam. suam ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unanimes. Ergo dilectissimi ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite in timore Dei et erit vobis vita eterna, est enim Deus qui operatur in vobis et facite sine retractu quecumque facitis et quod est [reliquum] dilectissimi gaudete in Christo et praecavete sordidos in lucro. Omnes sint petitiones vestre palam apud Deum et estote firmi in sensu Christi et quae integra sunt et vera et pudica et iusta et amabilia facite, et quae audistis et accepistis in corde retinete et erat [sic] vobis pax. Salutant vos sancti. Gratia Domini nostri Jhesu cum spiritu vestro. Et facite legi epistolam colosencium vobis. Bohairic. Cited by Tisch. as “ Coptic,” by Tregelles as “ Memphitic,” by WH. as “ me.” Armenian. Ethiopic. Tischendorf. The Harclean Syriac. Westcott and Hort.