° - Wits ’ es eet rt eee eee ie Te > , ~ > reat eels ; eral , Tice 4 ty) tht Pah Ou Pregaes tf an unt eb i" 7 TD LA HT be +e ® a ley “1 , ; ray pie iad Apes ny baa Wy Hag. an) ier i 7) yp Hin a Ay hs hw mech re 1 Hue mo es ay ty iy Ath cleiah Ses f Ms Prey rot. F Maat i Hy BY a Hise (He Le Heal i i aah 4 aye eth gh cat EN 5 NectGe teas ia rat aN At e ne ap ah 1 Hanh Bal Leto abe Ue weg an ee Daisey iM / if Pidialt it cane) nit ie We ies i itv tet ROHN beh bit MACPiee ley) f 17 eo ted dh sf if digit ae ay Pa fit tw foe ne ' ty sr ha? fy easy fy ei aif aN mt ihe bad re er Y Udielal eli’ 7? Tih om co Ae hes Prin ‘J oH ih ripe \" “6 aud NL ars shh hath Ae pie Vibe Wael oenl agit sles be Senet sana Hite Pa ed Utghy SEM ag HM) ny i ai o a ae I oa x i tie J a bie ee bets tos if) ; meth ae cy Py Afr a ib N, 1s rack itt ae es ne BP en at ve a Pe) oh His ai i an ryt 4 H Af ih Bai feet} oni iy aie ae bi + i pion NR 4 tT Pha a sie we t 4 aes i Je apaed aal Rae iay holh Pl ted as des He sees hy, ir it) ela the 51 ee Or die ¥ CHUA hon he PFT He ot! Ot 43 M's ee bie wey - his Mr ray We rat oy h bit ie aati He 4 bites y Ait rath Py pba ais eet 7 Vy shes Mihai it ald mare Leis: aa orks i: i vanes oe aN te eta fi i a i AM Bich ta i ty rie ynatehs L bid Whe sites a at vai ona ” tet ae i vm Pot raedeat 1 y, aide poh fe hetaetat olen aR i ntl earth bea Tens! ass hi ses it iiigntearees "ELLICOTT’S COMMENTARIES, CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL, ON THE EPISTLES OF SAINT PAUL, WITH REVISED TRANSLATIONS. VOLUME II. PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 1 TIMOTHY, 2 TIMOTHY, TITUs. BOSTON: DRAPER AND HALLIDAY, NOS. 58, 60, 62, AND 64 CORNHILL. NEW YORK: HURD & HOUGHTON. PHILA.: SMITH. ENGLISH, & CO. CINCINNATI: GEO. S. BLANCHARD «& CO. A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COM IN ACK Y: ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, AND TO PHILEMON, Wii EA REEVES 'oRANS LA TLON, ay: RT. REV. CHAS. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. BOSTON: DRAPER AND HALLIDAY, NOS. 58, 60, 62, AND 64 CORNHILL. NEW YORK: HURD & HOUGHTON. PHILA.: SMITH, ENGLISH, & CO. CINCINNATI: GEO. S. BLANCHARD «& CO. wi S6'. re ak nit + wh lathe si » Fa 2 it eon oe + bong 7 y Be « Sn. GA aa y ot. ? vd y PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. THE present volume forms the fourth portion of my Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, and contains an exposition of the important Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and of the graceful and touching Epistle to Phi- Jemon. The notes will be found to reflect the same critical and grammatical char- acteristics, and to recognize the same principles of interpretation as those which I endeavored to follow in the earlier portions of this work, and on which the experiences slowly and laboriously acquired during this under- taking have taught me year by year more confidently to rely. There is, however, a slight amount of additional matter which it is perhaps desirable briefly to specify. In the first place, I have been enabled to carry out more fully and com- pletely a system of reference to the great versions of antiquity, and have spared no pains to approach a little more nearly to those fresh and clear, yet somewhat remote, well-heads of Christian interpretation. In the notes on the Pastoral Epistles it was my endeavor to place before the reader, in all more important passages, the interpretations adopted by the Syriac, Old Latin,’ and Gothic Versions. To these in the present volume I have added refer- ences to the Coptic (Memphitic) and Ethiopic Versions; to the former as found in the convenient and accessible edition of Botticher, to the latter as found in Walton’s Polyglott, but more especially and exclusively to the ex- cellent edition of the Ethiopic New Testament by the late Mr. Pell Platt (1830), published by the Bible Society. These have been honestly and laboriously compared with the original ; but, as in the preface to the Pastoral Epistles, so here again would I earnestly remind the reader that though I 1T have now adopted this term, feeling convinced that the term ‘ Italic’ is likely to mislead. The latter I retained in the previous Epistles, as sanctioned by common usage ; I was, however, fully aware that the term ‘ vetus Itala’ really belonged to a recension, and not to an independent version. In the present Epistles I have derived the Old Latin from the translation in that language as found in the Codex Claromontanus. LV, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. have labored unflinchingly, and have spared no pains faithfully to elicit the exact opinion of these ancient translators, I still am painfully conscious how very limited is my present knowledge, and many must needs be my errors and misconceptions in languages where literary help is scanty, and in applications of them where I find myself at present unaided and alone. Poor, however, and insuflicient as my contributions are, I still deem it necessary to offer them ; for I have been not a little startled to find that even critical editors of the stamp of Tischendorf,! have apparently not acquired even a rudimentary knowl- edge of several of the leading versions which they conspicuously quote: nay more, that in many instances they have positively misrepresented the very readings which have been followed, and have allowed themselves to be misled by Latin translations, which, as my notes will passingly testify, are often sadly and even perversely incorrect. I fear, indeed, that Iam bound to say that on the Latin translations attached to the now antiquated edition of the Cop- tic New Testament by Wilkins, from which Tischendorf appears to have derived his readings, little reliance can be placed; and on that attached to the Ethiopic Version in Walton’s Polyglott even less, because not only as a trans- lation is it inexact, but as a representative of the Ethiopic Version, worse than useless, as the text was derived from the valueless edition of 1548 (Rome), which in its transfer to the Polyglott was recruited with a fresh stock of inac- curacies. It is fair to say that in this latter version Tischendorf appears to have also used the amended translation of Bode, but even thus he is only able to place before the reader results derived from an approximately accurate trans- lation of a careless reprint of a poor original; and thus to give only inade- quately and inaccurately the testimony of the ancient Ethiopic Church The really good and valuable edition of Pell Platt has lain unnoticed and un- used, because it has not the convenient appendage of a Latin translation. The same remark applies to the edition of the Coptic Version by Schwartze and Botticher, which, though differing considerably less from that of Wilkins than the Ethiopic of Platt from the Ethiopic of the Polyglott, is similarly devoid of a Latin translation, and has, in consequence, I fear, received pro- portionately little attention. Under these circumstances, when our knowledge even of the true readings of these two versions is still so very limited, I do not shrink from offering my scanty contributions, which, though intentionally exegetical in character, may be found to some extent useful even to a critical editor. Gladly, most gladly, 1The fourth volume of the new edition of Horne’s Introduction will show how con- scientiously our countryman Dr. Tregelles has acted in this respect, and what pains he has taken to secure an accurate knowledge of versions in languages with which he himself did not happen to be acquainted, ‘ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vv should I welcome other laborers into the same field, nor can I point out to students in these somewhat intractable languages a more really useful under- taking than a correct Latin translation of Platt’s Ethiopic Version, and a similar translation of the portions of the Coptic New Testament published by Schwartze and his less competent successor. I will here add, for the sake of those who may feel attracted towards these fields of labor, a few bibliographical notices, and a few records of my own limited experiences, as these may be of some passing aid to novices, and may serve as temporary finger-posts over tracks where the paths are not well-trod- den, and the travellers but few. : In Coptic, I have used with great advantage the grammar of Archdeacon ' Tattam, and the lexicon of the same learned editor. The more recent lexi- con of Peyron has, I believe, secured a greater reputation, and as a philo- logical work seems deservedly to rank higher, but after using both, I have found that of Tattam more generally useful, and more practically available for elementary reading, and for arriving at the current meaning of words. The very valuable Coptic grammar of Schwartze cannot be dispensed with by any student who desires to penetrate into the philological recesses of that singular language, but as a grammar to be put into the hands of a beginner, it is of more than doubtful value. In Ethiopic, the old grammar of Ludolph still maintains its ground. The author was a perfect Ethiopic enthusiast, and has zealously striven, by the most minute grammatical subdivisions, to leave no peculiarities in the Ethi- opic language unnoticed and unexplained; the student, however, must not fail to exercise his judgment in a first reading, and be careful to confine him- self to the general principles of the language, without embarrassing himself too much with the many exceptional characteristics which this difficult? lan- guage presents. These leading principles, especially in the second edition, are sufficiently well-defined, and will easily be extracted by any reader of moderate sagacity and grammatical experience. The recent Ethiopic gram- mar of Dillmann has passed through my hands, but my acquaintance with it is far too limited to pronounce on it any opinion. As far as I could judge, it seems to be very similar to that of Schwartze in Coptic, and only calcu- lated for the more mature and scientific student. With regard to lexicons, there is, I believe, no better one than that of Ludolph (2ded.). That of Castell, alluded to in the’ preface to the Pastoral Epistles, I have since found to be decidedly inferior. I do venture then to express a humble hope, that even with no better 1 This epithet must be considered as used subjectively. To me, who am unfortunately unacquainted with Arabic, this language has presented many difficulties. The Arabic scholar would very likely entirely reverse my judgment. VE PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. literary appliances than these, earnest men and thoughtful scholars may be induced to investigate patiently and carefully the interpretations of these ancient witnesses of the truth. Surely the opinion of men, who lived in such early ages of the Church as those to which the chief ancient versions may all be referred, cannot be deemed unworthy of attention. Surely a version like the old Syriac, parts of which might almost have been in the hands of the last of the apostles, a venerable monument of almost equal antiquity like the Old Latin, a version so generally accurate as that of Ulfilas,’ a version so distinctive as that of the Coptic, and so laborious as Platt’s Ethiopic,’ can- not safely be disregarded in the exposition of a Divine Revelation, where antiquity has a just and reasonable claim on our attention, and where novelty and private interpretation can never be indulged in without some degree of uncertainty and peril. With these three earthly aids, first, an accurate knowledge of Hellenic Greek ; secondly, the Greek commentators, and thirdly, the five or six prin- cipal ancient versions, we may (with humble prayer for the illuminating grace of the Eternal Spirit) address ourselves to the task of a critical exposition of the Covenant of Mercy; we may trust that, though often with clouded and holden eyes, we may yet be permitted to see and to recognize some sure and certain outlines of Divine Truth: but without any of these, or with one, or even two, to the exclusion of what remain, dare we hope that our inter- pretations will always be found free from uncertainties and inconsistencies, and will never exhibit the tinges of individual opinion, and the often estima- ble, but ever precarious, subjectivity of religious predilections ? I fear indeed that these remarks are but little in unison with popular views and popular aspirations ; I fear that the patient labor necessary to per- form faithfully the duty of an interpreter is unwelcome to many of the for- ward spirits of our own times. To be referred to Greek Fathers when sua- sive annotations of a supposed freer spirit, and a more flexible theology claim from us a hearing; to be bidden to toil on amid ancient versions, when a rough and ready scholarship is vaunting its own independence and sufficiency ; to weigh in the balance, to mark and to record the verging scale while relig- ious prejudice is ever struggling to kick the beam, —all seems savorless, unnecessary, and impracticable. I fear such is the prevailing spirit of our own times; yet, amid all, I seem to myself to descry a spirit of graver 1 Some tinges of Arianism have been detected in this Version, e. g. Phil. ii. 8, ‘ ni vulva rahnida visan sik galeiko [surely not a correct translation of Yoa] guba,’ but are not sufii- ciently strong to detract seriously from the general faithfulness of the Version. 2 J regret that I cannot in any way agree with my valued acquaintance Dr. Tregelles, “in his judgment on the Ethiopic Version : in St. Paul’s Epistles I have found it anything but ‘the dreary paraphrase’ which he terms it in his remarks in Horne, Introduction, Vol. Iv. p. 819. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. VII search winning its way among us, a more determined allegiance to the truth, a greater tendency to snap the chains of sectarian bondage, and it is to those who feel themselves animated by this spirit, who are quickened by the desire at every cost to search out and to proclaim the truth, who think that there is no sacrifice too great, no labor too relentless, in the exposition of the word of God, — to them, and to such as them, I would fain, with all humility, commend the imperfect and initial efforts to elicit the testimony of the ancient ver- sions which these pages contain, and it is from them that I hopefully look for corrections of the errors and inaccuracies into which my inexperience will, I fear, be often found to have betrayed me. Another addition which I have striven to make, and which the profound importance of the subject has seemed to require, consists in the introduction of a few doctrinal comments upon the passages in these Epistles which relate to our Saviour’s divinity; and this I trust no one will deem supererogatory. The strongly developed tendencies of our own times towards humanitarian conceptions of the nature and work of our divine Master, — tendencies often associated with great depth of feeling and tenderness of sympathy, — seem now to demand the serious attention of every thoughtful man. The signs of the times are very noticeable. The divinity of the Eternal Son is not now so much assailed by avowed heretical teaching, as diluted by more plausible, perhaps even more excusable, but certainly no less destructive and perni- cious, developments of human error. The turmoil of Arian and semi-Arian strife has comparatively ceased, to be succeeded, however, by a more delu- sive calm, and a more dangerous and enervating repose. In the popular theolosy of the present day, the Eternal Son is presented to us under aspects by no means calculated to rouse any active hostility or provoke any earnest antagonism. All is suasive and seductive: our Lord is claimed as united to us by human affinities of touching yet precarious application; He is the prince of sufferers, the champion of dependence and depression, the repre- sentative of contested principles of social union; His crucifixion becomes the apotheosis of self-denial, the atonement the master work of a pure and subli- mated sympathy, — all principles and aspects the more dangerous from in- volving admixtures of partial truth, the more harmful from their seeming harmlessness. It is against this more specious and subtle form of error that we have now to contend; it is this plausible and versatile theosophy that seeks to ensnare us by its appeal to our better feelings and warmer sympa- thies, that seems to edify while it perverts, that attracts while it ruins, that it is now the duty of every true servant of Jesus Christ to seek to expose and to countervail. And this can be done in no way more charitably, yet more effectually, than by simply setting forth with all sincerity, faithfulness, and truth, those portions of the word of life which declare the true nature of Vill PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. the Eternal Son in language that no exegetical artifice can successfully ex- plain away, and against which Arian, semi-Arian, Deist, and Pantheist, have beaten out their strength in vain. Under these feelings, then, in the important doctrinal passages in these Epistles which relate to our Lord’s divinity, Ihave spared no pains in the endeavor candidly and truthfully to state the meaning of every word, and to put before the younger reader, in the form of synopsis or quotation, the great dogmatical principles and deductions which the early Greek and Latin Fa- thers, and more especially our own Divines of the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth century have unfolded with such meek learning, such per- spicuity, and such truth. I need scarcely remark that here I have had to rely solely on my own reading; for in the works of the best German com- mentators sound dogmatical theology will I fear too often be sought for in vain, and even in the more recent productions of our own country, subjective explanation and an inexact and somewhat diffiuent theology have been allowed to displace the more accurate and profound deductions of an earlier day. On this portion of my labors more than on any other may the Father of Lights be pleased to vouchsafe His blessing, and to overrule these efforts to issues beyond their own proper efficacy, and to uses which my earnest aspirations, but not my sense of their realization, have presumed to contem- plate. A few additions will be found in what may be termed the philological portion of this Commentary. Wherever the derivation of a word has seemed obscure, and an exact knowledge of its fundamental meaning has seemed of importance to the passage, I have noted in byackets its probable philo- logical affinities, and stated, with all possible brevity, the opinions of modern investigators in this recently explored domain of literature. Gladly ‘would I have found this done to my hand in the current lexicons of England or Ger- many, as it would have saved me not only much labor, but many unweleome interruptions ; but upon the philology of modern lexicons I regret to say very little reliance can be placed. Even in the otherwise admirable lexicon of Rost and Palm, which, I may here remark, is now brought to a completion, it is vexatious to observe how much philology has been neglected by its com- pilers, and how uncertain and precarious are the derivations of all the more difficult words. With regard to references to former notes, which, now that my work has extended to eight Epistles, have necessarily become somewhat numerous, I have endeavored to observe the following rule. Where the reference has appeared of less moment, I have contented myself with a simple allusion to the former note. Where the reference has seemed of greater moment, and the note referred to contains any critical or grammatical investigations, I PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Ix have generally endeavored to embody briefly in the note before the reader the principles previously discussed, leaving the fuller detail to be sought for in the note referred to. My desire is thus to make each portion of this work as much as possible an independent whole, and while avoiding repetition still to obviate, as far as is compatible with the nature of a continuous work, the necessity of the purchase or perusal of foregoing portions. A few concluding words on the Translation. I have more than once had my attention called to passages in former commentaries, where the translation in the notes has not appeared in perfect unison with that in the Revised Ver- sion. In a few cases J fear this may have arisen from an omission to correct the copy of the Authorized Version which Jay beside me, but I believe in most instances these seeming discrepancies have arisen from the fact that the fixed principles on which I venture to revise the Authorized Version do not always admit of an exact identity of language in the version and in the note. In a word, the translation in the note presents what has been considered the most exact rendering of the words taken per se; the Revised Version pre- serves that rendering as far as is compatible with the ler operis, the context, the idioms of our language, or lastly, that grave and archaic tone of our ad- mirable version which, even in a revised form of it designed only for the closet, it seemed a kind of sacrilege to displace for the possibly more precise, yet often really less expressive, phraseology of modern diction. Needlessly to divorce the original and that version with which our ears are so familiar, and often our highest associations and purest sympathies so intimately bound, is an ill-considered course, which more than anything else may tend to foster an unyoked spirit of scriptural study and translation, alike unfilial and pre- sumptuous, and to which a modern reviser may hereafter bitterly repent to have lent his example or his contributions. I desire in the last place to record a few of my many obligations. These, however, are somewhat less than in earlier portions of this work, as the great and unintermitting labor expended in the examination of the ancient ver- sions, especially the Coptic and Ethiopic, has left me little time, and, perhaps I might say little need, for consulting commentaries of a secondary character. These it is not necessary to specify, but the student who may miss their names on my present pages will, I truly believe, have gained far more from the an- cient versions that have been adduced, than lost by the writers that have been left unnoticed. Of the larger commentaries, I have carefully and thoughtfully perused the excellent commentary of my friend, Dean Alford. From it I have not derived much directly, as I deemed it best for the cause of that truth which we both humbly strive to advance, to consult for myself the original au~ thorities and various exegetical subsidies that were alike accessible to us x PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. both, that so my adhesion to the opinions of my able predecessor, or my de- parture from them, might be the result of my own deliberate investigations. At the same time I have been particularly benefited by the admirable per- spicuity of his notes, and have felt rejoiced when our opinions coincide, and unfeignedly sorry when I have deemed myself compelled to take a contrary or antagonistic side. To the commentaries of De Wette and Meyer, but especially to those of the latter, I am, as heretofore, greatly indebted for grammatical and exe- getical details, but in the dogmatical portions I have neither sought for nor derived any assistance whatever. To German commentaries the faithful and candid expositor of Scripture is under great obligations, but for theology, he must turn to the great doctrinal treatises of the Divines of our own country. Of separate commentaries on the Philippians, the learned and laborious production of Van Hengel has been on many occasions extremely useful from its affluence of grammatical examples; but it is rather deficient in that brev- ity and perspicuity of critical discussion which is nowhere more indispensable than in the aggregation of parallel passages, and the comparison of supposed, but perhaps illusory, similarities of structure. The commentary of Wiesinger is thoughtful and sensible, and not unfre- quently distinguished by a sound and persuasive exegesis. Those of Rilliet and Hoélemann, but especially the former, deserve consideration, but have been still so far superseded by more modern expositions, that it will in all cases be advisable for the student to read them with some degree of caution and suspended judgment. Of commentaries on the Colossians, I must first specify the learned and exhaustive work of Bishop Davenant, which has certainly not received that. attention from modern expositors which it so fully deserves. Its usefulness is somewhat interfered with by the scholastic form in which the notes are drawn up, nor is it free from the tinge of theological prejudice ; but there is a thoroughness and completeness of exegetical investigation, which render it an exposition which no student of this profound Epistle will be wise to overlook. Of modern commentaries, that of Huther will well repay the trouble of perusal, but both this work and that of Bahr have been so thoroughly exam- ined by De Wette and Meyer, and in many passages so assimilated and in- corporated, that a separate study of them is rendered somewhat less neces- sary. They will, however, always be referred to with advantage, but this should not be apart from a consideration of the opinions of their successors, and of the various rectifications which a more accurate scholarship has occa- sionally been found to suggest. The commentary of Professor Eadie has been of occasional service to me ; but, as in the commentary on the Ephesians, so here also I fear I am com- ——— PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XI pelled in candor to say, that the grammatical comments do not always appear quite exact, nor are the doctrinal passages always discussed with that calm precision and dignified simplicity of language which these subjects seem to require and suggest; still most of the exegetical portion is extremely good, — nor will any reader rise from the study of this learned, earnest, and not un- frequently eloquent volume, unimproved either in head or in heart. Notices of the other and larger commentaries on the New Testament, or on St. Paul’s Epistles, to which I have been in the habit of referring, will be found in the prefaces to the preceding portions of this work. It now only remains for me to commit this volume to the reader, with the earnest prayer to Almighty God that he, who has so mercifully sustained me with health and strength during the anxieties of continued research and the pressure of protracted labor, may be pleased to grant that this research may not prove wholly fruitless, this labor not utterly in vain. TPIAS, MONAS, *EAEHSON. CAMBRIDGE, OCTOBER 20, 1857. heres peal ie a} ' an x beet Ute real he Peri ey Tine Aes, iy bf ‘sug s * t a 3 rl a 4 eolty cial alga) ¥ tity: ’ i ’ ‘ i ‘ Mert Hh ea 4 C oi a « @ } , \ r : . “api wo il ed or i, ore ; i} ' A - . iF ~ 7" ‘ a p 5 4 OOM Fete: (ER! Pag i ae Pmer Ih Se vf, Sag seer} eel man? tant ste 1" wile 7 (Peed ot i wvegey Fly tes # Ps ar . Ne z a bie ea ary! whe cnt 2 opener’ wf ee hes} pHindiey> Md < ~ . . Ee Sass 23d pelt | Kona a Oo) sana ret Hines Fly cme) bial vel Se a eae me es Ce ee aie oF mit i tte ht ener uk oiMs su0 had ies PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. TuE second edition of this portion of my labors is now at length presented to the reader. Like the second edition of the portion which preceded, the Pastoral Epistles, it has been delayed till time could be found for calmly and deliberately reviewing and reconsidering the whole work. This duty has now been performed. Every portion of the commentary has been read over; every interpretation has been tested; and, I might almost add, every citation of Scripture has been examined and verified anew. For this labor, which has occupied a considerable portion of the past summer, there is but little to show. The book remains nearly in all its details as well as in its larger features exactly what it was. A very few readings, and those unimportant, have been changed; a certain number of alterations have been introduced in the Revised Translation; a small number of references to standard sermons, which had been either overlooked or not known when the commentary was written, are now added; and lastly, a short introduction has been prefixed to each one of the three Epistles that are included in this volume. This I fear is all that I have to show for the time spent in preparing this edition. Yet perhaps that time has not been spent wholly in vain. It now enables me, with all humility, and with a thorough consciousness of my own imperfections and shortcomings, yet with some measures of chastened confi- dence, to commend to the reader the interpretations of the many great doc- trinal passages, — especially those bearing on the Majesty and Divinity of our adorable Lord, — which he will find in the first two of the portions of Holy Scripture contained in this volume. Those interpretations (which, let it be observed, are nearly in every case those of the early versions or Greek commentators, stated only in a little more precise and technical language) have been again carefully tested. The accuracies of modern scholarship have been anew brought to bear upon them, the finesse and ingenuity of modern exegesis have been freely applied to the passages which they ex- pound to us; and the result is that these ancient interpretations appear to have as strong claim upon our attention as ever, and, in an age of unlicensed xIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. criticism and sadly deceitful dealings with the word of God, to stand forth as examples of what the meek wisdom of earlier days regarded as the true and accurate method of expounding the message of salvation. If such be the result of these present labors, —if the renewed testimony of one humble witness may be permitted in any degree effectually to warn the young and the earnest from rash and unblest modes of Scriptural inter- pretation; if these pages may be thought in some measure to show that the deductions of rigorous scholarship and of catholic truth stand ever in the truest union, — then I shall humbly and devoutly rejoice, and bless God that amid many recent hinderances and distractions I have been thus enabled carefully to revise and calmly to reconsider a very important portion of my \ labors, and thus to commend it with renewed confidence to the Christian student. May the blessing of the Father of Lights rest on all readers and expound- ers of his inspired Word, and move us all, in these proud and dangerous ~ days, to yield up our high thoughts unto him who ‘ of God is made unto us wisdom,’ and to determine, even as an inspired apostle determined amid the sceptical disputants of his own times, ‘not to know anything save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ C. J. ELLICOTT. EXETER, SEPTEMBER, 186]. INTRODUCTION. Taurs fervent, affectionate, and, in parts, pathetic Epistle was written by the apostle to his iberal and warmhearted converts in the Roman colony of Philippi, towards the close of his first captivity at Rome (see Introd. to 1 Tim.), and at a time when, it would seem, his imprisonment was of a closer and harsher character, and his earthly prospects, though not by any means without hope (ch. i. 25, 26; ii. 24), yet, in many respects, cheerless and depressing (ch. i. 20 sq., ii. 17, 28). Ji has thus been supposed, with some probability, to have been written after the death of the Pretorian Prefect (Burrus) to whom the apostle had been at first entrusted (Acts xxviii. 16), and by whom, as we may infer from Acts /.c., he had been treated with leniency and con- sideration. As the death of Burrus took place in a. p. 62 (Clinton, Fasti Rom. Vol. t. p- 44), and as there are some expressions in the Epistle that seem distinctly to imply that the captivity had been of some duration (ch. i. 13 sq., comp. li. 26), we may fix the date of the Epistle towards the close of, or more prob- ably about the middle of, A.D. 63, and may thus place it as the last in order of the four Epistles written during the first captivity at Rome : see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 373. The circumstances that gave rise to the Epistle appear to have been simply the fact of Epaphroditus having come from the Church of Philippi with contributions ‘to alleviate the necessities of the captive apostle, — con- tributions which, as we learn from the Epistle itself (ch. iv. 15, 16 ; compare 2 Cor. xi. 9), this liberal Church had promptly sent on other and earlier occasions. Moved by this fresh proof of love evinced by his dearly-beloved Philippians, — his ‘ joy and crown’ as he affectionately terms them (ch. iv. 1), XvI INTRODUCTION. the apostle avails himself of the return of Epaphroditus, who now, after a dangerous illness (ch. ii. 27), was on his way back to Philippi, to send to that Church and its chief officers (ch. i. 1; see notes in loc.) by the hand of their own messenger, his warm and affectionate thanks, mingled with personal notices relative to his own state, earnest commendations, pointed but kindly warnings, and varied expressions of consolation and encouragement. No Epistle written by the inspired apostle is pervaded with a loftier tone of cheering exhortation (see notes on ch..jii. 1); none in which the pressing forward for ‘the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus’ is set forth in language of greater animation; none in which imitation of his own love of his Master is urged upon his converts in strains of holier incen- \\ tive (compare ch. ili. 17-21). The supposition that there were: definite N parties and factions in the Church of Philippi, and that the Epistle was designed to expose their errors, and especially those of the Judaists, does not seem tenable. It is clear that Judaizing teachers had intruded into the Church of Philippi (ch. iii. 2), but it seems also clear that their teaching had at present met with but little reception. The genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle are very convincingly demonstrated by external testimony (Polycarp, ad Philipp. cap. 3, Ireneus, Her. tv. 34, ed. Grabe, Clem.-Alex. Pedag. 1. p. 129, ed. Pott., Tertull. de Resurr. Carn. cap. 23), and even more so by the individuality of tone and language. Doubts have been urged by a few modern writers, but they have been justly pronounced by all competent critics as wholly unworthy of atten- tion. The same may be said of the doubts as to the unity of the Epistle: see Davidson, Inirod. Vol. 11. p. 387 sq. . THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. CHA PAT BR. ol. Apostolic address and salu- tation. 1. kal TiwdSeos] Timothy is here associated with the apostle (as in 2 Cor. ‘i: 1, Col. i. 1, 1 and 2 Thess. i. 1), being known to, and probably esteemed by, the Philippians (Grot.), whom he had al- ready twice visited; once in company with St. Paul (Acts xvi. 1, 12), and once alone (Acts xix. 22). The asscciation seems similar to that with Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; Timothy being neither the joint author of the Epistle (Menoch.), nor the ‘comprobator’ of its contents (Zanch.; comp. notes on Gal. i. 2), nor again the mere transcriber of it (comp. Rom. xvi. 22), but simply the ‘socius salutationis,’ Est. Two verses lower the “apostle proceeds in his own person, and in ch. ii. 19, when Timothy reappears, it is simply in the third person. It may be remarked that it is only in this Ep., 1 and 2 Thess., and, as we might expect, Philem., that St. Paul omits his official designation, améorodos xk. T. A. (Gal. i. 1), or aaréor. "Ino. Xp. (remain- ing Epp.). This seems due, not to ‘ mo- destia’ in the choice of a title common to himself and Tim. (Grot.), for see 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, but simply to the terms of affection and familiarity on which he stood with the churches both of Thessalonica (ch. ii. 19, 20, iii. 6- AYAOZ kai TypoSeos Sotrot Xpuorod ’ fa! an Lal (3 t > aA Incobd, Tmaow Tots aytous ev Xpicta ( c 10) and Philippi: he was their apostle, and he knew from their acts (Phil. iv. 14 sq.) and their wishes (1 Thess. iii. 6) that they regarded him as such. On the modes of salutation adopted by St. Paul, see Riickert on Gal. i. 1, and compare notes on Eph. i. 1, and on Col. i. 1. SodAo0t X. “1.] ‘ bond-servants of Jesus Christ ;’ ‘servi proprie erant qui toti ob- stricti erant Domino in perpetuum,’ Zaneh. ap. Pol. Syn.; so Rom. i. 1; compare Gal. i. 10, and also James i. 1, 2 Pet.i.1, Jude 1. The interpretation of Fritzsche (Rom. i. 1), ‘Jesu Christi cultor,’ scil. ‘homo Christianus,’ is tena- ble (compare Dan. iii. 26), but like so many of that commentator’s interpreta- tions, hopelessly frigid; comp. Gal. i. 10, where to translate Xp. SodAos odk by Hunv, ‘non essem homo Christianus,’ is to impair all the vigor of the passage. The term is used in its ethical, rather than mere historical sense, ‘an apostle,’ ete. (see Meyer on Gal. /. c.), and the genitive is strongly possessive: they be- longed to Christ as to a master, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 22: His they were; yea, His very marks they bore on their bodies ; compare Gal. vi. 17, and see notes in /oc. The formula dodA0s God (comp. “Say mins Ps. cxiii. 1, al.) is naturally more 18 PHILIPPLANS: Cuap, I. 1. Ti nr a iD z | @ ri \ ? / \ 5 , HoOU TOLS OVOLW EV tAITTTTOLS GUY ETT LOKOTTOLS KAL OLAKOVOLS. general ; SodAos Xpicrod, somewhat more personal and special: compare notes on 1g. a. 1. &ylots n.7.A.| ‘to all the saints,’ etc., ‘to all that form part of the visible and spiritual community at Philippi ;’ being used in these salutations in its most inclusive sense: see notes on Eph. i. 1. ‘Though dys in these sorts of ad- dresses does not necessarily imply any special degree of moral perfection, being applied by the apostle to all his converts, except the Gal. (and apparently Thess., - &ylos in ch. v. 27 being very doubtful), yet still the remark of Olsh. (on Mom. i. 7) is probably true, that it always hints at the idea of a higher moral life impart- TAaTLVY TOLS e aytoe ed by Christ. This in the present case. is made still more apparent by the addi- tion év XpiorG : it was ‘ in Him’ (not for did, Est , Rheinw.), in union with Him, and Him alone, that the ayidrns was true and real; of yap év Xp. Ino. &yior ’ytws eicly, Theophyl.: compare Koch on Thessalon. i. 1, p. 59. The inclusive macw, repeated several times in this Ep., ch. i. 4, 7, 8, 25, ii. 17, 26, iv. 23 (Ree.), well expresses the warmth and expan- siveness of the apostle’s love. :Atmmots| Philippi, now Filibah or Filibejih, and anciently Kpfvides (not Adros, Van Heng. after Appian, Bell. Civ. rv. 106, which was the ancient name of the port, Neapolis), was raised to a position of importance by Philip of Ma- cedon about B.c. 358, and called after his name. In later times it was memo- rable as overlooking the scene of the bat- tle between Antony and Octavius against ‘Brutus and Cassius, when the cause of the republic was finally lost (Merivale, Hist. Vol. 111. p. 208): soon afterwards it became a Roman colony (Colon. Au- gust. Julia Philippensis) and received the «Jus Italicum.’ It was, however, still more memorable as being the first city in our continent of Europe in which the gospel was preached, Acts xvi. 9. A few ruins are said still to remain; see Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. Vol. 111. p. 1070, and the article by the same author in Pauly, Encyl. Vol. v. p. 1477 ; compare also Leake, NV. Greece, Vol. 111. p. 216. ovy émiok. kat Stak. ‘together with the bishops and deacons ;’ not merely ‘ in company with’ (werd), but ‘ together with’ (‘una cum,’ Beza), — specially in- cluded in the same friendly greeting; compare notes on Eph. vi. 23. Various reasons have been assigned why special mention is made of these church-officers. The two most plausible seem, (a) be- cause there were tendencies to division and disunion even among the Philippi- ans, which rendered a notice of formally constituted church-officers not unsuitable (Wiesinger, al.) ; (b) because the émlor. and did«. had naturally been the princi- pal instruments in collecting the alms (Chrys., Theoph., and recently Meyer, Bisping). The latter seems most prob- able; at any rate the date of the Epistle is not enough to account for the addition (Alf.), nor does the position of the clause warrant any contrast with ‘ the hierarchi- eal views’ (ib.) of the Apost. Ff. (now by no means critically certain); for com- pare Ignatius (?) Philad. 1 : —the shep- herds naturally follow the sheep. On the meaning of the title of office, émtoxo- mos, here appy. perfectly interchangeable with the title of age and dignity, mpec8u- repos (Acts xx. 17, 28, 1 Pet. v. 1), see especially notes on 1 Tim. iii. 1; and on Side. see notes on 2b. iii. 8. The reading of B°D’; 39, 67, cvvemioxdmois, retained and noticed by Chrys., seems meaning- ‘less and indefensible, and arose probably from the epistolary style of later times ; comp. Chrys. in loc. 2. xdpts duty x.7.A.] On the spir- itual significance of this blended form of Cuap. I. 2-3. D | A ec a \ > , b) \ (9) a \ id fal Xapls VELL KQt €Lp7)V ATO €OU TTATPOS 1){LWV Xptotov. I thank my God with con- stant prayers for your pres- more, Occidental and Oriental salutation, see notes on Gal. i. 2, and on Ephes. i. 2 ; comp. also Koch on 1 Thess. p. 60. The formula is substantially the same in all St. Paul’s Epistles, except in Col. i. 2, and 1 Thess. i. 1, where the reading is doubtful. In the former, kat Kup. "Ine Xp. seems certainly an insertion, and in the latter (the apostle’s earliest Epistle) it may be doubted whether the simple xdpis kab eiphyn, without any further ad- dition, may not be the more probable reading ; see, however, Tisch. in loc. kat Kuptou| Scil. cat amd Kupiov x.7.A. The Socinian interpr. rad (marpds) Ku- ptov, found also in Erasm. on Lom. i. 7, is rendered highly improbable by the use of the same formula without judy, 2'Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4, most probably 1 Tim. i. 2, and perhaps 2 Thess. i. 2: compare 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess. ii. 16. 3. evxaptoT® x. 7.A.| A closely similar form of commencement occurs in Rom. i. 9, 1 Cor. i. 4, Philem. 4; com- parg also Eph. i. 16, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2. Indeed in all his Epp. to churches, with the single and sad exception of that to the Galat., the apostle either returns thanks to God, or blesses Him, for the spiritual state of his converts ; rovro d¢ moet ex TOV TOAAA adTors ouverdévar ay- a%d, Chrys. The present use of edyapic- tev (‘quod pro gratias agere ante Poly- bium’ usurpavit nemo,’ Lobeck) is con- demned by the Atticists; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 18, Thom. M. p. 913 (ed. Bern.), Herodian, p. 400 (ed. Koch), but consider Demosth. de Cor. p. 257. Pollux (Onom, v. 141) admits it for 5:54- vat xdpw, but condemns it for eidévar xd- pw; see, however, Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Vol. 1. p. 52, and notes on Col. i. 12. PHLELIPELANS. 3 P} > lal nr lal Evyapictd 7 Oe@ pov ent fellowship in the gospel, and my love makes me confident for the future. 19 kat Kupiov ’Incod Racy - al fA €7Tb TAa0n T) VEL May ye abound yet more and T@ Oe@ wov| So Rom.i.8; compare Acts xxvii. 23, 08 eiwl 6 nal AaTpevw. ‘ Significat Paulus quanti fiducid vero Deo adhereat. Sunt enim qui sentiunt Deum misericordem quidem esse per Christum Sanctis hominibus nescio qui- bus, non autem sentiunt Deum ipsis esse misericordem,’ Calv. éwl radon TH pvelal ‘onthe whole of my remembrance of you,’ not ‘every re- membrance,’ Auth. (but not the older English Vy.), Bloomf., Conyb., and oth- ers, — a translation incompatible with the use of the art.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 4,p.101. The prep. ém with the dative (which we can hardly say ‘answers to the same prep. with a gen.; Rom. i. 10, Eph. i. 16,’ Alf.) is not here temporal (Heb. ix. 26), édcdkis tuav avayyvnodsda, Chrys., Winer, Gir. p. 350, —a meaning favored by the incorrect interpr. of aan 7 pv., but semilocal, and correctly ex- presses the idea of close and complete con- nection, ‘my giving thanks is based upon my remembrance of you,’ ‘ remembrance and gratitude are bound up together’ (comp. Isaiah xxvi. 8), the primary idea being, not addition (Alf.), but superposi- tion, Donalds. Cratyl. § 172, Gram. § 483 : see notes on ch. iii. 9, and on Eph. ii. 20, where (ed. 1) interchange the ac- cidentally transposed ‘ former’ and ‘ lat- ter.” In Rom. i. 10, and Eph. i. 16 (see notes), where ém is used with the gen. in a very similar sentence, a certain amount of temporal force seems fairly recognizable. The causal meaning, ‘ de eo quod vos mei recordamini,’ Homberg, Michael., al. (comp. 1 Cor. i. 4), accord- ing to which duéy is a gen. subjecti, is exegetically untenable, as ver. 5 gives the reason for the edxap., and specifies 20 PHILIPPRANS. Cuap. I. 4,5. n > \ a . ipov, * wdvtote vy Taon Senoet pov UTEp TavT@Y tpaY wETa xapas tiv Seno TOLOvpEVOS, something which far more naturally clic- ited it. pwvela bay] ‘re- membrance of you,’ 1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i. 3; not ‘commemorationem vestri ’ (Van Hengel),—a meaning which, as Meyer rightly observes, it only receives when associated with roretodat; compare Rom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1 Thess. i. 2, Phi- lem. 4. 4. rdvtote—motovmevos| Parti- cipial sentence defining and explaining more fully when the evxapict@ k. T. 2. takes place, viz., on every occasion that he prayed for them: the evxapioria was based on, and inseparable from the pvela, and this thankful remembrance ever found an utterance in every prayer. Mdytore is clearly not to be joined with evxapicT@ (Wiesing.),—a construction which interferes with the studied and affectionate cumulation mdvtore, don, mdyvrwy (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8) in the parti- cipial clause ; compare Col. i. 3, where it also seems best (contr. Meyer, De W. ; see notes) to join the adverb with the participle. It may be remarked that no inference can be drawn from the position of mdvtore (x favorite word with the apostle), it being as often used by him after as before the verb with which it is connected: in the other writers of the N. T. (except John viii. 29, where it is emphatic) it precedes the verb. On the emphatic repetition, mdytote, mdon, mav- Twy, see the copious list of examples in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 51 sq. bmép tmavtrwv buadv| These words may be connected either (a) with tiv Senow morovmevos, Calv., De Wette, Alf., al., or (b) with deqoe: wov, Auth. and all Engl. Vv., Meyer, al. Both are gram- matically tenable; the omission of the article before dtp ravrwr being perfectly justifiable in the first case (see notes on Eph. i. 15), and according to rule in the Bb. 5 lol Uy e a > A €7lb T1) KOLVMVLE ULWVY ELS TO second ; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126. The latter, however, seems much more simple and natural; the wdyvrote is de- fined by mdon Seqoe, and mdon 5. again is limited by brép Suey, while the article attached to Sénaw (Alf. seems here to argue against himself; compare with Meyer) refers it back to the déyors thus previously limited: so most of the an- cient Vv., Syr., Clarom., Vulg., Coptic. The construction adopted by Est., al., evxap.— tmép mdavr. du., though else- where adopted by St. Paul (Eph. i. 16, comp. Rom. i. 8, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. i. 3), seems here very unsatisfactory. On the meaning of déyo1s (a special form of mpooevx7), see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1. feta xXapas| These words serve to depict the feelings he bore to his children in the faith at Philippi; he prays for them alway, yea, and he prays with joy ; dinven@s tuav meuvnuevos Suundlas Gard- ons éumiumrauot, Theodoret. 5. é€m) tH Kotvwvig| ‘for your fe- lowship ;’ ém correctly marking the cause for which the apostle returned thanks, 1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 15; see Winer, Gr. § 48. c, p. 351. This clause is most naturally connected with ebxap. (Beng., al., and apparently Greek commentt.), not with ri déno. moovp. (Van Heng., De W.; compare Green, Gr. p. 292), as there would otherwise be no specific statement of what was the subject of the apostle’s ebxapioria. De Wette urges as an objection the use of evxap. ém) in two different senses, in ver. 3 and 5, but this may be diluted by observing that the first ém) is not (as with De W.) temporal, but semilocal (ethico-local), defining the subject on which the thanks rest, and with which they are closely united, the difference between which and the present simply ethical use is but slight. Thus then ver. 3 marks the object on which the Cuap. I. 5, 6. PEELE eLAIN SS’: 21 > f- ’ \ , e tL ” fal A 6 \ ; a evayyedLov amd TPwTNS iMEpas axpL TOD viv, ° TeTOSwS aUTA edxap. rests, ver. 4 defines when it takes place, ver. 5 why it takes place. Such slightly varied and delicate uses of prep- ositions are certainly not strange to the style of St. Paul. Kotvwvia cis To evaryy.| ‘fellowship toward the gospel ;’ not ‘in the gospel,’ Syr., Vulg. (but not Clarom.), but ‘ in reference to,’ or perhaps more strictly ‘toward’ (Hamm.), the eis marking the object toward which the xowwvia was directed (Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353), — the fellowship of faith and love which they evinced toward the gospel primarily and generally in their concordant action in the furtherance of it, and secondurily and specially in their contribution and assistance to St. Paul. So in effect Chrysostom, upa 7d cvvaytT:AquBdveodsat xowwvla éot) els TO evayyeAtov, except that he too much limits the cuvayriAapB. to the particular assistance rendered to the apostle (so Theophyl., Bisping.), which rather appears involved in, than directly conveyed by, the expression. On the other hand, the absence of the article before eis 7d evayy., which con- fessedly involves the close connection of ko. and eis Td evayy- (Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123, comp. ch. iv. 15), coupled with the exegetical consideration, that in an epistle which elsewhere so especially commemorates the liberality of the Phi- lippians (ch. iv. 10, 15, 16), such an al- lusion at the outset would be both natu- ral and probable (comp. De W.), renders it difficult with Mey. and Alf. to restrict kowvwvia merely to ‘unanimous action’ (Alf.), ‘bon accord’ (Rilliet), and not to include that particular manifestation of it which so especially marked the lib- eral and warm-hearted Christians of Phi- lippi; compare Wiesing. in Joc., and Ne- ander, Phil. p. 25. Kowwvia is thus ab- solute (Acts ii.42, Gal. ii. 9) and ab- stract, — ‘fellowship,’ not ‘ contribution’ (Bisp.), a translation which is defensible (see Fritz. on Rom. xv. 26, Vol. 111. p. 287), but which would mar the studiedly general character of the expression. The interpretation of Theod. (not Chrysost.), al., according to which els 7d evayy. is a periphrasis for a gen. (kowwvtay 5& Tod evayy. Thy mioTWw ekdAece), is grammat- ically untenable ; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 5, p. 174. nuéepas| ‘from the first day,’ in which it was preached among them (a¢’ ob émotevoate, Theophyl.), Acts xvi. 13 sq., comp. Col. i. 6. This clause, which seems so obviously in close union with the preceding words, is connected by Lachm. (ed. stereot., but altered in larger ed.) and Meyer with memoiSas k. 7. A., On account of the absence of the article. This is hypercriticism, if not error ; amd mpoTns k.T.A. is a subordinate temporal definition so closely joined with the xo:- vevia, as both naturally and logically to dispense with the article. The insertion of the article would give the fact of the duration of the rowwvia a far greater prominence than the apostle seems to have intended, and would in fact suggest two moments of thought, — ‘ communio- nem eamque a prima die,’ ete. ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, and notes on 1 Tim. i..13. Even independently of these grammatical objections, the use of 7é- moiwsa, Which De Wette and Van Heng. remark is usually placed by St. Paul first in the sentence (ch, ii. 24, Rom. ii. 19, 2 Cor. ii. 3, Gal. v. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 4), would certainly seem to suggest for the participle a more prominent position in the sentence. The connection with ¢i- xdp. (cum., Beza, Beng.) seems equal- ly untenable and unsatisfactory ; such a temporal limitation could not suitably be so distant from its finite verb, nor would amd mpérns x.7.A. be in harmony with the pres. edxap., or the prior temporal ands TpPeTNS 22 jG GG hel bg i) coh eo eo Cuap. I. 6, an 4 P93 tad / 3 ig lal ” >’ \ b] /, v TOUTO, OTL O EvapSapmevos ev Umiy Epyov ayasov émitehéce axpis clause mdytote x.7.A.; compare De Wette. 6. TeTotsws avTd TodrTo| ‘being confident of this very thing, viz., that He who,’ ete., comp. Col. iv. 8; not ‘ confi- dent as Iam,’ Alford (comp. Peile), but with the faint causal force so often couch- ed in the participle, ‘seeing I am, ete. ;’ ‘heec fiducia nervus est gratiarum actio- nis,’ Beng. This clause is thus, gram- matically considered, the causal member of the sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 615) ap- pended to evxapioT@ k.T.A., standing in parallelism to the temporal member, mdvToTe —Tmolovmevos K.T.A., and cer- tainly requires no supplementary rai (Tynd., Flatt, al.), nor any assumption of an asyndeton (Van Heng.). The accus. avrd Tovro is not governed by we- moisés (Raphel, Wolf), but is appended to it as specially marking the ‘content and compass of the action’ (Madvig, Synt. § 27. a), or, more exactly, ‘the object in reference to which the action extends’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4. 1 sq.), which again is more fully defined by the following 67: «.7. A. ; comp. Wi- ner, Gr. § 23. 5, p. 145, where several examples of this construction are cited, It is mainly confined to St. Jolin and St. Paul, and serves to direct the attention somewhat specially to what follows ; compare Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 461. 6 évapidmevos| ‘ He who hath begun;’ obviously God: see ch. li. 13, and comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12, bpkouot kat emiteAeow ; not ‘each better one of the Philippians’ (Wakef. Sy/v. Crit. Vol. 11. p. 98), — an interpretation to which the following épyov ayadov (see below) need in no way compelus. The verb évdpx. occurs again in connection with émireA. in Gal. ili. 3, and 2 Cor. viii. 6 (Zachm., but only with B). The com- pound verb does not appear to mark the ‘vim divinam hominum in animis agen- tem,’ Van Heng. (for see Gal. /.¢., and comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 1. 3, 5), but per- haps only differs from &pxeoSat in this, that it represents the action of the verb as more directly concentrated on the ob- ject, whether (as here) expressed, or un- derstood; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. ev, E, Vol. 1. p. 912. év bmiv| ‘in you,’ sc. ‘in animis ves- tris,’ compare 1 Cor. xii.6; not ‘ among you,’ Hamm., which would scarcely be in harmony with rep raytav iuav, ver. 7. The commencement of the good work was not limited to instances among the Philippian Christians, but was spoken generally in reference to all. épyov ayaasdv| ‘a good work,’—not ‘the good work,’ Luth.: not elsewhere used in ref. to God (yet comp. John x. 32), but only in ref. to man; compare ANCES, 1x. 36, ROM I. 7, 2 Cor. axes. Eph. ii. 10, Col. i. 10, Heb. xiii. 21, al. Still there is no impropriety in the pres- ent use; the épyoyv ayasdv, though here stated indefinitely, does not appear to re- fer subjectively to the good works (Syr. ; Ta Katopseuata, Chrys.), the épyoyv tis miorews (1 Thess. i.3) of the Philippians generally (Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p- 172), but rather objectively to the par- ticular rowwvia eis ebayy. previously spe- cified : God had vouchsafed unto them, among other blessings, that of an open hand and heart (tadrny tuiv Swpnodue- vos Thy mposuutay, Theod.) ; this blessing He will continue. This declaration, however, is expressed in a general form ; comp. Rom, ii. 7. émiteAéeaet| ‘ will accomplish,’ ‘will perfect,’ not merely ‘will perform it,’ Au- thor., but ‘will bring it to a complete v and perfect end,’ Syr. soad [exple- bit] ; see notes on Gal. iii. 3. With re- gard to the dogmatical application of the words, which, owing to their probable (Gmap.iI. 7. PH PLE ELAN Ss. 23 ¢ lA xX A ak Cole 7/ S W > 8L. b] ‘ rf a nMEpaAS ~SploTOU LNOOU KAS@S EOTLY OLKALOV EOL TOUTO poveiy specific reference cannot safely be pressed, it seems enough to say with Theoph., amd TGV TapeASéyTwY Kal wep) TOY pevdv- tay oroxdcera: the inference is justly drawn, that God who has thus far blessed them with His grace will also bless them with the gift of perseverance ; compare 1 Cor. i. 8: ‘Gottes Art ist es ja nicht, etwas halb zu thun,’ Neander. The charge of semi-Pelagianism brought against Chrysostom in loc. has been sat- isfactorily disproved by Justiniani, who thus perspicuously sums up that great commentator’s doctrinal statements ; ‘yult Chrysostomus Deum et incipere et perficere : illud excitantis, hoc adjuvan- tis est gratie ; illa liberi arbitrii conatum preevertit, heec comitatur.’ On the doc- trine of Perseverance generally, see the elear statements of Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, § 518, 514, Vol. 11. p. 534- 549. The conclusions arrived at are thus stated: ‘ Perseverantia est effectus sanctificationis. Sanctificatio est condi- tio perseverantiz. Datur apostasia re- genitorum, nempe si in sanctificatione inertes sunt,’ p. 548 ; compare also some admirable comments of Jackson, Creed, x. 37.4 sq. uxXpts Huéepas Xp. “Ino.] ‘unto, or up to the day of Christ Jesus, i.e. &xpt THs Tapovoias Tod Kuptov, Theoph. That St. Paul in these words assumes the nearness of the com- ing of the Lord (Alf.) cannot be posi- tively asserted. It is certainly evasive to refer this to future generations (ro?s et duav, Theophyl.), but it may be fairly said that St. Paul is here using language which has not so much a mere historical, as a general and practical reference : the day of Christ, whether far off or near, is the decisive day to each individual ; it is practically coincident with the day of his death, and becomes, when addressed to the individual, an exaltation and am- _ plification of that term. Death, indeed, as has been well remarked by Bishop Reynolds, is dwelt upon but little in the N. T.; it is to the resurrection and to the day of Christ that the eyes of the believer are directed ; ‘ semper ad beatam resur- rectionem, tanquam ad scopum, referen- di sunt oculi,’ Calv. To maintain, then, that this is not the sense in which the apostle wrote the words (Alf.) seems here unduly and indemonstrably exclu- sive. See notes on 1 Tim. vi. 14, and compare (with caution) Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2.4. B,p. 326 sq. On &yps and péxpr, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. 7. ead@s x.7.A.] ‘evenas:’ explan- atory statement of the reason why such a confidence is justly felt; compare 1 Cor. i. 6, Eph. i. 6. On the nature of this particle, see notes on Gal. iii. 16, and on Eph. lc. ‘rijht,’ ‘meet, scil. § secundum legem caritatis, Van Hengel; it is in accord- ance with the genuine nature of my love (1 Cor. xiii. 7) to entertain such a confi- dent hope : compare Acts iv. 19, Eph. vi. 1, 2 Pet.i.13. Alford (with Meyer and De W.) remarks that the two classical constructions are Sixaoy eué TodTo pp. (Herod. 1. 39), and Sikaids eiue TodTO gp. (Plato, Legg. x. 897). The last construe- tion is the most idiomatic (comp. Kri- ger, Sprachl. § 55. 3.10), and perhaps the most usual in the best Greek, but there is nothing unclassical in the pres- ent usage; comp. Plato, Republ. 1. p. 334, Slkasov téTe TovTOIs Tos Tovnpovs w@perciv. TovTO ppoveiy| ‘to think this,’ Auth., Syr.; ‘hoc sen- tire,” Vulg.; 7. e. to entertain this confi- dence: ‘ ppovety hic non dicitur de animi affectu sed de mentis judicio,’ Beza; compare 1 Cor. iv. 6 (Rec.), Gal. v. 10. To refer rodro to the prayer in verse 4, ‘hoe curare pro vobis,’ Wolf (compare Conyb.), or to the expectation in ver. 6, ‘hoc omnibus vobis appetere, scil, omni d Sikaror| 24 PHILIPPIANS. Cuar; 1%: ¢e \ , e fal \ a Vf, 2} n bd ce a ” A imép TaVTMV UUaV, Sia TO EXEL ME EV TH Kapdia vpds, Ev TE TOIS cura et precibus’ (Van Heng.), is unsat- isfactory, and is certainly not required by émép, which occurs several times in the N. T. (2 Cor. i. 6,8; 2 Thess. ii. 1, ‘al.), ina sense but little different from mept; see Winer, Gram. § 47.1, p. 3438. The probable distinction, — ‘ep! solam mentis circumspectionem, érép simul an- imi propensionem significat’ (Weber, Demosth. p. 130), is perfectly recogniza- ble in the present case, but cannot be ex- pressed without a periphrasis, ¢. g. ‘to entertain this favorable opinion about you,’ ‘ut ita de vobis sentiam et confi- dam,’ Est. On the uses of trép and mepi, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and on @go- ve, see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 19, p. 61 sq. 51a 7d Exetv K.7.A.] ‘because I have you in my heart,’ en! 25 [in corde meo positi] Syr. ; not ‘because you have me,’ Rosenm., Conyb.: the apostle is throughout clearly the subject and agent (comp. ver. 8); the depth of his love warrants the fulness of his confi- dence. In all cases the context, not the mere position of the accusatives, will be the surest guide ; compare Jol i. 49: see also Winer, Gr. § 44.6,p. 294. The translation of Beza, ‘in animo tenere ’?= ‘quasi. insculptum habere memoriz ’ (daBeorov repipépw thy pvfjunv, Theod. ; see especially Justin. in loc.), is opposed both to the similar affectionate expres- sions, 2 Cor. iii. 2, vii. 3, and to the pre- vailing use of kapdia (comp. Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 89 sq., notes on ch. iv. 7,andon1 Tim.i.5)inthe N. T. It is the fervent love of the apostle that is ex- pressed; and in this remembrance is ne- cessarily involved; compare Chrysost. in loc. Zy re Tots Sea- pots «.7.A.] It is doubtful whether these words are to be connected with the preceding 5: 7d exew x. 7. A. (Chrys., Theoph.), or with the succeeding ovykor- vwyovs wou kK. T.A. (Calvin, Lachmann, Tisch.). Neander and the majority of modern commentators adopt the former ; the latter, however, seems more simple and natural. The apostle had his confi- dence because he cherishes them in his heart; and he cherishes them because their liberality showed that whether in his sufferings (Secpuo%s), which they alle- viated, or in his exertions for the gospel (ti God. kat BeB.), with which they sym- pathized, they all were bound up with him in the strictest spiritual fellowship. On te—rkat, which here serves to unite two otherwise separate and distinct notions, slightly enhancing the latter, see Har- tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 98, and comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. év Th &moroyia K.T.A.] ‘in my de- fence (of) and confirmation of the gospel.’ These words have been somewhat per- versely interpreted. *AzoAoyia and Be- Batwors are certainly not synonymous (Rheinw.),— nor do they form an hen- diadys, sc. dod. eis BeB. (Heinr.; com- pare Syr. ‘defensione qu est pro veri- tate [confirmatione] evangelii’),— nor can 7H God. be dissociated from tod evayy. (Chrys.), both being under the vinculum of a common article (Green, Gr. p. 211), —nor, finally, does it seem necessary to restrict the clause to the ju- dicial process which resulted in the apos- tle’s imprisonment (Van Heng.). It seems more natural to give both words their widest reference; to understand by amoaoyia St. Paul’s defence of the gos- pel, whether before his heathen judges (compare 2 Tim. iv. 16) or his Jewish opponents (comp. Phil. i. 16, 17), and by BeBadoe: his confirmation and estab- lishment of its truth (Heb. vi. 16), — not by his sufferings (Chrys., Theod.), but by his teaching and preaching among his own followers and those who resorted to him (compare Acts xxviii. 23, 30): see Crap: I. 7, 8. PHILIPPIANS. 95 deo pot al év TH amonoyia Kal BeBavwoes TOD evayyert eopols ov Kal ev TH a ha é 00 evayyeXlou cvyKOWWwVOUS ov THs YaplTos TdvTas buas ovtas. § wadptus ydp _ 8. pov éorly] So Rec. with ADEKL; great majority of mss.; very many Vv. (but Vy. in such cases can scarcely be depended on for either side) and many Ff. (Griesb. [but om.], Scholz.). The éorly is omitted by Tischend. and bracketed by Lachm. with BFG ; 17. 67**; Vulg., Claroman. ; Chrysost. (ms.), Theod.-Mops. (Meyer, Alf.). ‘The external evidence seems too decidedly in favor of the insertion to be overbalanced by the somewhat doubtful internal argument that éorly is a rem- iniscence of Rom. i. 9 (Mey., Alf.). It does not seem much more probable that the transcriber should have borne in mind a remote reference, than that the apostle should have twice used the same formula, the good note of Wieseler, Chronol.-p. 429, 430. cuykotvwvovs K.T.A.] ‘seeing that both in my defence of and, etc., ye are all partakers with me of my grace ;’ ‘ut qui omnes mecum consortes estis gratix,’ Schmid ; compare Hamm., and Scholef. Hints, p. 104.. The preceding tpas, fur- ther characterized as €y te — ovyxow., is rhetorically repeated (see Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 4, p. 275 sq.) to support mdv- tas ; the whole clause serving to explain the reason for the éxew ev ty kap3ia. It is doubtful whether pov is to be connect- ed (a) with cvyrowwvods as a second gen- itive (Syr., Copt.), or (b) with ris xdpr- tos (compare Clarom., Vulg.), the pro- noun being placed out of its order (Wi- ner, Gr. § 22.7.1) to mark the reference of the prep. in cuyroy. As ovykow. is found in the N. T. both with persons (1 Cor. ix. 23) and things (Rom. xi. 17), the context alone must decide; this, in consequence of the meaning assigned be- low to xdpis, seems in favor of (a) ; com- pare ch. ii. 30: so Hammond, De Wette. Tis xapttos| The reference of this subst. has been differently explained : the Greek commentators refer it more specifically ‘to the grace of suffering,’ comp. ver. 29; Rosenm., al. to the ‘ mu- nus apostolicum,’ scil. ‘ ye are all assist- ants to me in my daty,’ Storr, Peile ; others again to the ‘ evangelii donatio,’ 4 compare Van Heng. ; others to grace in its widest acceptation, Eph. ii. 8, Col. i. 6 (De W. Alf.). Of these the first is too restrictive, the others, especially the last, too vague. The article seems to mark the xdpis as that vouchsafed in both the cases previously contemplated, suf- ferings for (ver. 29), and exertions in behalf of the gospel. © The translation ‘gaudii,’ Clarom., Vulg., Ambrst., al., is apparently due to the reading yapas, though no mss. have been adduced in which that variation is found. 8. wdptus ydp K.7.A.] ‘For God is my witness ;’ earnest confirmation of the foregoing verse, more especially of dia. 7d Exew we ev TH kapdig buds. Chrys. well says, obx &s dmorovjmevos pdptupa Kade? Toy Oedy, GAN ek TOAATS Siadécews. The reading wor [DEFG; al.; Chrys.; Lat. Ff.] would scarcely involve any change of sense ; it would perhaps only a little more enhance the personal rela- tion. @s éritodsa| ‘how I long after you ;? comp. ch. ii. 26, Rom. ial lede ‘Ciess, an." 6)72 bined. 4= ~The force of émt in this compound does not mark intension (‘ vehementer desidero,’ Van Heng.; ‘expetam,’ Beza), but, as in émiduuety and similar words, the direc- tion of the mé8o0s ; see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 4,-and Fritz. Rom. 1.9, Vol. 1. p. 31. Again, it seems quite unnecessary with Van Heng. to restrict the rdSos to ‘ ves- ’ 26 PREERIPPR TANS. Cuar. I. 8, 9. \ 4 a n Lou éotiv 6 Qevs, ws eruToda TavTas buds év oTrayXvoUs Xpio- tod “Incod. ° Kat tovro mpoccvxoua, Wa % aydrn vpov ert tree consuetudinis desiderium ;’ the long- ing and yearning of the apostle was for something more than mere earthly reun- ion; it was for their eternal welfare and blessedness, and the realization, in its highest form, of the xdpts of which they were now ovyxowwvot. The context seems clearly to decide that és here, and probably also Rom. i. 9, is not ‘quod’ (Rosenmuller, De Wette) but ‘ quo- modo’ (Syr., Copt.), scil. ‘quantopere,’ ‘quam propense,’ Corn. a Lap.; com- pare Chrysostom, ov duvardy cimeiy TGS emia. évy omAdyxvots X. 71.] This forcible expression must not be understood mere- ly as qualitative, — ‘ opponit Christi vis- cera carnali affectui,’ Calv., but as semi- local, ‘in the bowels of Christ,’ in the bowels of Him with whom the apostle’s very being was so united (Gal. ii. 20), that Christ’s heart had, as it were, be- come his, and beat in his bosom: comp. Meyer in loc., who has well maintained this more deep and spiritual interpreta- tion. "Ey thus retains its natural and usual force (contr. Rilliet), and the gen. is not the gen. auctoris or vriginis (Har- tung, Casus, p. 17), as apparently Chrys. omadyxva yap atrn [f ovyyévera 7 Kara Xp.] juiv xapiCera, but simply possessive. We can hardly term this use of omAdy- ‘ xva (psams) completely Hebraistic, as a similar use is sufficiently common in classical Greek (see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v., Vol. 11. p. 1504); the verb omaayxviCoua, however, and the adjectives woAtvomAayxvos and ev¥omAay- xvos (when not in its medical sense, Hip- pocr. p. 89) seem purely so, while, on the contrary, the substantive evomAayx- yta occurs in Eurip. Rhes.192. For a list of Hebraisms of the New Test. judi- ciously classified, see Winer, Gram. § 3, p- 27 sq. 9.xat rotTo mpoa.| ‘ Kthoc precor,’ but not ‘ propterea precor,’ as Wolf, 2: the xa) with its simple copulative force introduces the apostle’s prayer (ver. 9 — 11) alluded to in ver. 4, while the rodro prepares the reader for the statement of its contents, ‘and this which follows is what I pray.’ The kai (as Meyer ob- serves) thus coalesces more with totro than mpocedxouat; not Kal ™poo. TOvTO, but «al todto mpoo. To connect the clause closely with what precedes (Ril- lict) destroys all the force of ver. 8. tva] The particle has here what has been called its secondary telic force (see notes on I’ph. i. 17); @. e. it does not directly indicate the purpose of the prayer, but blends with it also its subject and purport : Theodorus in loc. paraphrases it by a simple infin. It may be again remarked that this secondary and blended use (esp. after verbs of prayer), though not recog- nized by Meyer and Fritzsche, cannot be safely denied in the N. T.: there are numerous passages (setting aside the dis- puted use after a prophecy) in which the full telic force (‘in order that’) cannot be sustained in translation without arti- fice or circumlocution ; e. g. comp. Meyer on John xv.8. We may observe further, that this use of #va is not confined to the N. T. : it was certainly common in Hel- lenic Greek (see examples in Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 300), and in modern Greek, under the form va with the subj., it lapses (after a large class of verbs) into a mere periphrasis of the infinitive ; see Corpe, Gramm. pp. 129, 130. h ayarn Su@yr] ‘your love,’ not, to- wards the apostle (Chrys.), — which had been so abundantly shown as to leave a prayer for its increase almost unnecessa- ry; nor again, ‘toward God’ (Just.), nor even, ‘ towards one another,’ Meyer, Alf. (Theodorus unites the two comp. Cuap. I. 9. PHIGIPPITANS. 27 =_ na \ na / > > 7 \ 4 ’ / PaAXov Kal waddov Tepiacedy EV ETTLYVOTEL Kal TaN alaS)CEL, Wiesing.), both of which seem unneces- sarily restrictive. It seems rather ‘ to- wards all’ (comp. De Wette),—a love which, already shown in, and forming an element of, their rowwvia, ver. 4 (not identical with it, Alf.), the apostle prays may still more and more increase, not so much per se, as in the special elements of knowledge and moral perception. Ex- amples of the very intelligible waAdAov kat MaAAov will be found in Kypke, Obs. Vol. Il. p. 307. Tepiogevn év k.7.A.] ‘may abound in knowledge and all (every form of ) perception,’ not ‘in all knowledge and perception,’ Lu- ther, —an attraction for which there “seems no authority. The exact force of év is somewhat doubtful ; it can scarcely (a) approximate in meaning to perd, Chrys. (who, however, fluctuates between this preposition and eg), Corn. a Lap., al.; for this use, though grammatically defensible (comp. examples in Green, Gr. p. 289), is not exegetically satisfac- tory, as ver. 10 shows that it is not to aydarn together with émvyv. and aicd., but to émvyy. and aicS. more especially, as insphering and defining that love, that attention is directed ; nor (b) does it ex- actly denote the manner of the increase (De W.), as this again seems to give too little prominence to émryy. and aig. ; nor, lastly, is ev here instrumental, Flatt, Heinr., —as love could hardly be said to increase by the agency of knowledge. The prep. is thus not simply equivalent to werd, kata, or did (much less to eis, comp. Winer, Gr. § 50.5, p. 370), but with its usual force marks the sphere, ele- ments, or particulars, in which the in- crease was to take place ; compare Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 8345. It was not for an increase of their love absolutely that the apostle prayed, for love might become the sport of every impulse (comp. Wie- sing.), but it was for its increase in the important particulars, a sound knowl- edge of the truth and a right spiritual perception, and of both of which it was to have still more and more. Tlepioaev- ew is thus not absolute, but closely in union with éy and its dative, and may be considered generally and practically as identical with abundare and an ablative, the substantives defining the elements and items in which the increase is real- ized ; compare 2 Cor. viii. 7, Col. ii. 7, al. Lachmann, Tischendorf read repic- cevon With BDE; al., but as two of these mss., DE, adopt the aor. in ver. 26 with- out critical support, their reading is here suspicious. émiyy. Kat amdon aiocs.| These two substantives may be thus distinguished ; émiyvwous, “accurata cognitio’ (see notes on Eph. i. 17), denotes a sound knowledge of theo- retical and practical truth (Mey.), rhv mpoonkovcay ywaow Tay eis apéTny ovv- tewdvtwv, Theodorus. Avodnots, ‘ sen- sus’ (Vulg., Clarom.) is more generic, but here, as the context implies, must be limited to right spzritual discernment o>” \oem [intelligentia spiri- tus| Syr.); a sensitively correct moral perception (vénois, Hesych.) of the true nature, good or bad, of each circum- stance, case, or object which experience may present ; compare Prov. i. 4, where it is in connection with évyoa, and Exod. xxviii. 8, where it is joined with codia. It only occurs here in the N. T.; the in- strumental derivative aisSnrnpiov (‘organ of feeling,’ etc.) is found Heb. v. 14; compare Jer. iv.19. The adjective raon is not tntensive (‘ plena et solida,’ Calv.), but, as apparently always in St. Paul’s Epp., extensive, ‘every form of ;’ comp. notes on Eph. i. 8. 10. cis Td SoKipaery K.7.A.] ‘for you to prove things that are excellent ;’ pur- pose of the epic. év emyy. kat aiod. 7 ( =thO9 9 28 PETE OANS: Cuap. I. 10. cis TO Soxypdbew vuds Ta Svapépovta, iva Are eiduKpwweis Kab (not result, —a meaning grammatically admissible, but here inapplicable; com- pare Winer, Gr. 44. 5, p. 294, note), to which the further and final purpose iva Te k.T. A. is appended in the next clause. The words dox. 7% diad., both here and Rom. ii. 18, may correctly receive two, if not three, different interpretations, vary- ing with the meanings given to diapé- povra, and the shade of meaning assigned to doxmacew.. Thus they may imply either (a) ‘to prove (distinguish between) things that are different,’ 1. e. to discrimi- nate (SocmudCew Kat Siaxpivew, Arvian, Epict. 1. 20),— whether simply between what is right and wrong (Theoph. on Rom. ii. 18,.De W.), or between differ- ent degrees of good and their contraries (eidévar riva wey Kadd, tiva 5& KpelrTova, tiva d€ mayvtdmact Ta Siapopay mpbs aA- Anda @xovta, Theod.); so Beza, Van Heng., Alf., al. ; (b) ‘ to approve of things that are excellent,’ ‘ut probetis potiora,’ Vulg., 7a Siapepovta being used in the same sense as in Matth. x. 31, xii. 12, Luke xii. 7, 24 (Meyer adds Xen. Hier. I. 3, 74 diap., Dio Cas$ x iv. 25), and doxmdCew in its derivative sense, comp. Rom. xiv: 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, and exam- ples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.; so Au- thor., Mey., al.; or lastly (bi) ‘to prove, bring to the test, things that are excellent,’ Syr. [ut discernatis convenientia], ®th. [ut perpendatis que prestat], the pri- mary meaning of dox. being a little more exactly preserved ; see Rom. xii. 2, Eph. vy. 10. Exegetical considerations must alone decide ; these seem slightly in fa- yor of the meaning of diapépovta (‘ pre- stabilia, sc. in bonis optima,’ Beng.) adopted in (b) and (b;),—the prayer for the increase of love being more naturally realized in proving or approving what is excellent, what is really worthy of love, than in merely discriminating between what is different. Between (b) and (1) the preceding aioSfjoerand the prevailing lexical meaning of Sox. decides us in fa- vor of the latter ; so Theophyl. (7d ovp- gepov Soxmdoa Kad émvyvevar Tivas pev Xp pircty kal tivas wy), and apparently Chrysostom, Beng. (‘explorare et am- plecti’), al., who appear correctly to hold to the more exact meaning of doneuacew ; comp. notes on Eph. v. 10. eiAtkptvets] ‘pure, 2 Pet. iii. 1; compare 1 Cor, v. 8, 2 Cor. i. 12, ii. 17. The derivation of this adjective, though a word not uncommon cither in earlier or later Greek, is somewhat doubtful. The most probable is that adopted by Stallbaum (Plato, Phd. 77 1), who de- rives it from eiAos [he must mean e%Aq], and «pivw, with reference to a root eiAei. As, however, the primary meaning of this root is not quite certain, efAxcp. may be either ‘ what is parcelled off by itself? (gregatim), with reference to eYAn (see especially Buttmann, Lewil. § 44, and compare Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), or more probably, ‘volubili agitatione se- cretum,’ with reference to the meaning volvere, which has recently been indicated as the primary meaning of eiAeiy ; see esp. Phiiol. Museum, Vol. 1. p. 405 sq. So appy- Hesych. eiducpivés: 7d kaSapdy Kab Gpryes Er€pov; see Plutarch, Quest. Rom. § 26, eiAicpives Kad duryés; ib. Is. et Osir. § 54, kadapds od8 ciAicpiys, and esp. § 61, where 7a eiAucpiy and 7a mixta are opposed to each other; compare also Max. Tyr. Diss. 31. The more usual, but less prob., derivation is from efAn, ‘splendor’ [‘EA-, cognate with SEA,’ Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p. £60], in which case the rough breathing would be more suitable; compare Schneider on Plato, Rep. 11. p. 123. Several exam- ples of the use of eiAup. will be found in Loesner, Obs. p. 350, Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 398, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 10, of which the most pertinent are Cuap. I.:.11. PE ees Nes. 29 > , ’ ¢ 4 Ext la) age , ‘ Py QT pod KoTr ob ELS NM EPaV plLoTov, TET ANPWLEVOL KAPTOV OLKALO- rn fal ins n avvns Tov dia Inco Xpiazod, eis Oofav Kat érraivov Oeod. those above. ampoaKkomot| ‘without offence, stumbling ;’ ‘ inoffenso eursu,’ Beza; intransitively as in Acts xxiv. 16, Hesych. donavddAicrov ; com- pare Suicer, Ziesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 495. Chrys. and others give an active mean- ing, as in 1 Cor. x. 32, ‘ giving no of- fence,’ ciAucp. marking their relation to God, ampécr. their relation to men. This hardly accords with the context, in which their inward state and relations to God form the sole subject of the prayer. It will be best, then, in spite of 1 Cor. J. c., to maintain the intransitive meaning ; so apparently Vulg., Syriac, Coptic; but these are cases in which the Vv. scarcely give a definite opinion. eis juépav Xp.] ‘against the day of Christ ;’ ‘in diem,’ Vulg., scil. va téT¢ edpediire kadapot, Chrys. ;—not ‘ till the day,’ ete., Auth. Ver. (compare Beza), which would rather have been expressed by &xpis juepas, as in ver 6. The prep- osition has here not its temporal, but its ethical force ; compare ch. ii. 16, Ephes. iv. 30, and notes on 2 Tim. i. 12. On the expressi.n jjuépa Xp. see the notes on ver. 6. ll. memAnpwmévor k.T.A.] ‘being filled with the fruit of righteousness ;’ mo- dal clause defining more fully eiAucp. rad ampdox., and specifying not only on the negative, but also on the positive side the fullest and completest Christian de- velopment. The accus. kapmdy [kaprar, Rec., is unsupported by uncial authority] is that of ‘the remoter object,’ marking that in which the action of the verb has its realization; so Col. i. 9, tAnpwSijre Thy émlyyoow Tod SeAhwatos ; compare Hartung, Casus, p. 62 sq. and notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, where this construction is discussed. If we compare Rom. xv. 14, TMerAnpwuevor TdonNS ywdoews, We may recognize the primary distinction be- 2 tween the cases: the gen., the ‘ whence- case,’ marks the absolute material out of which the fulness was realized (compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 16); the accus., the ‘whither-case,’ the object towards which and along which the action tended, and, as it were, in the domain of which the fulness was evinced; see Scheuerl., Synt. § 9.1, p.63. The gen. ducaortvns is the gen. originis, that from which the kapmos emanates (Hartung, Cusus, p. 63), or perhaps more strictly, that of the orig- inating cause (Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 125),—a xapmbs that is the production of ducatoodvyn ; compare Gal. y. 22, Eph. v. 9, James iii. 18, and on the meaning of xapmdés, notes on Gal. I. c. With regard to the strict meaning of d:- katoovvn it may be briefly remarked that we must in all cases be guided by the context : here ver. 10 and the app. empha- sis On kaprdy point to dix. as a moral habitus (comp. Chrys.), as in Rom. vi. 18, Eph. v. 9, al.,—not ‘justification ’ proper (Rilliet), but the righteousness which results from it and is evinced in good works; so Caly., Meyer, De W. On the distinction between the ‘righteous- ness of sanctification ’ and the ‘ righteous- ness of justification,’ see especially the admirable sermon of Hooker, § 6, Vol. III. p, 611 (ed. Keble), and on the doc- trine of justification generally, the short but comprehensive treatise of Waterland, Works, Vol. v1. pp. 1-38. Tov 51a “I. X. serves to specify the kapmév, as being only and solely through Christ; compare notes on 2 Tim. i. 18. This fruit is a communication of the life of Christ to His own (Wiesing.) ; it re- sults from ‘the pure grace of Christ our Lord whereby we were in Him [by the working of the Spirit He sent, Gal. ii. 20, iii. 22, Mey.] made to do those good works that God had appointed for us to 20 Know that my sufferings have furthered the gospel, for Christ is preached by all. I indeed would fain depart to Christ, but for your sake I shall remain. walk in,’ King Edw. VI. Catech., cited by Waterland, Justi: Vol. VI. p. 81. eis Sdtav kat @m. Ocod| ‘to the praise and glory of God:’ the praise and glory of God is the ‘ finis primarius’ of the metAnp@oda. Hence ‘ad gloriam,’ Beza, is more exact than ‘in gloriam,’ Vulg., Clarom.; see notes on Eph. i. 6. Adéa is here, as Meyer pertinently re- marks, the ‘majesty’ of God per se, Zrawos, the ‘ praise and glorification’ of the same; compare Eph. i. 6, 12, 14, 1 Reta 12. yevdonerv Sé x. 7.Aa.] ‘Now I would have you know ;’ the transitional dé (Hartung, Partik. 6é, 2,3, Vol. 1. p. 165) introduces the fresh subject of the apostle’s present condition at Rome, his hopes and fears ; compare Rom. i. 13, 1 Cor. xii. 1, 1 Thess.iv.13,al. It seems rather far-fetched in Meyer, followed by Alf., to refer yivdéor. to év émvyv. above, ‘and as a part of this knowledge I would have you know,’ ete. There certainly seems no peculiar emphasis in yiwéorew ; the order is the natural one (comp. Jude 5) when BovaAoua is unemphatic ; con- trast 1 Tim. ii. 8, v. 14, al. Though few minor points deserve more attention in the study of the N. T. than the collo- cation of words, we must still be careful not to overpress collocations which arise not so much from design as from a natu- ral and instinctive rhythm; compare 2 Cor. i. 8. “my circumstances,’ ‘ rerum inearum con- ditio,’ Wolf; comp. Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, Tobit x. 8, and see illustrations in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234, Wetst. in Eph.l.c. In such cases kara is local, and marks, as it were, an extension along an object; compare Acts xxvi. 3, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 356. In TH KaT ewe] PHILIPPIANS. tion. Cuap. I. 12, 18, / Si lal uA ’ 2 Twockew dé twas Bovrowar, adedpol, OTe \ ’ \ n lal Ta KAT Ewe LaAXov Els TPOKOTI)Y TOD Evaryyedlou elprusev, wate Tors Secpovs pou pavepods late writers, xara with a personal pro- noun becomes almost equivalent to a possessive pronoun, and with a substan- tive almost equivalent to a simple gen. ; comp. 2 Mace. xv. 37. BaAAOY] ‘rather;’ not ‘maxime’ or “excellenter’ (compare Beza), but ‘ po- tius,’ rather than what might have been expected, — viz. hinderance : see Winer, Gr. § 35. 4, p. 217, by whom this use of the comparative is well illustrated. mpokomny] ‘advance,’ ‘ furtherance ;” a substantive of later Greek condemned by the Atticists, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 15, and compare Triller on Thom. M. s. v. p. 741 (ed. Bernh.), who, though perhaps justly pleading for the word as an intelligible and even elegant form, is unable to cite any instance of its use in any early writer, Attic or otherwise. Nu- merous examples, especially out of Plu- tarch, are cited by Wetst. in loc. €AhAvdSev] ‘have fallen out,’ Author. Ver. ; compare Wisdom xy. 5, eis dvei5os %pxerat. Further but doubtful exam- ples are cited by Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p- 499; at any rate, from them take out Mark v. 26, Acts xix. 27 (cited even by Meyer), in which éAdety certainly implies nothing more than simple (ethical) mo- Alford adduces Herodot. 1. 120, és Godeves Epxerat, which seems fully in point. 13. dore rovs Secu. k.T-A.] ‘80 that my bonds have become manifest in Christ ;’ illustrations of the above mpo- xowh; first beneficial result of his im- prisonment: ‘duos nunc sigillatim apos- tolus fortunz sus adversee memorat ef- fectus,’ Van Heng. The order of the words seems clearly to imply that év Xp. must be joined, — not with decuots, Au- thor. Ver., al., scil. ‘ad provehendum Guar. I. 13. PHILIPPIANS. ol , nr , ’ f- lel] / \ lal a A év XploT@ Yeveo Nal EV OAM TO TPalTwpl@ Kal Tois oLTTO’S TAC, Christi honorem,’ Calv., but with dave- povs , on which, perhaps, there is a slight emphasis ; the Secuol were not KpuTrot, but gavepot ; nor davepol, only, but pave- pol ev Xp., ‘manifesta in Christo,’ Cla- rom., manifest—not ‘through Christ,’ Theoph., Gcum., but ‘7 Christ,’ mani- fest as borne in fellowship with Him, and in His service. On this important qual- itative formula, which must never be vaguely explained away, see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and for a brief explanation of its general force, compare Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol. 111, p. 763 (cd. Keble). The variation pay. yevéod. (Chrys. adds tous) év Xp. with DEFG; Boern., Vulg., al., shows perhaps that some difculty has been felt in the connection. év 6Aw TO TpatT.] ‘inthe whole preto- rium. The meaning of mpatépioy in this passage las been abundantly dis- cussed. Taken per se, the adjectival sub- stantive ‘ pretorium’ has apparently the following meanings: (a) ‘the gencral’s tent,’ sc. ‘teutorium or tabernaculum ’ (Livy, vit. 12), and derivatively ‘the council of war’ held there (Livy xxvt. 15); (b) the * palace of a provincial goy- ernor’ (Cicero, Verr. 111. 28; compare Matth. xxvii. 27, Mark xv. 16; al.), sc. ‘domiciiium,’ and thence derivatively, (a) ‘the palace of aking’? (Juv. x. 161; compare Acts xxiii. 35), and even (6) ‘the mansion of a private individual’ (compare Suet. Octav. 72) ; lastly, (c) ‘the body-guard of the emperor’ (Tacit. Tist. rv. 46) ; and thence not improba- bly, (d) ‘the guard-house or barracks where they were stationed ;’ compare Scheller, Lex. siv., from which this ab- stract has been compiled. In the pres- ent passage Chrys. and the patristic ex- positors all adopt (b, a) and refer the term to ‘the empcror’s palace’ (7& Baot- Aeia), but since the time of Perizonius (de Pret. et Pretorio, Franeq. 1687) nearly all modern commentators adopt (cd), and refer pair. to the ‘ castrum Pre- torianorum’ built and fortified by Seja- nus, not far from the ‘ Porta Viminalis ;’ compare Suet. Tiber. 37, Tacit. Ann. 1v. 2, Dio Cass. tv1r. 19. The patristic in- terpretation, on account of the lax use of ‘pretorium,’ seems fairly defensible: as, however there is no proof that the imperial palace at Rome was ever so called, and as it is expressly said, Acts Xxviii. 16, that St. Paul was delivered TO otpatoredagxw (one of the two Pre- fecti Praetorio, perhaps Burrus), and by him assigned to the. custody of a (Pree- torian) soldier, it seems more probable that the apostle is here referring to the ‘castrum Preetorianorum,—not merely to the smaller portion of it attached to tue palace of Nero (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 403, followed by Hows. [Vol. 11. p. 510, ed. 2], and Alf. in loc.), but as 6Aw and the subsequent generic To?s Aomots maou seem to imply, —to the whole camp of the Preetorians, whether inside or outside the city, —in which general designation it is not improbable that the oi«la Katca- pos (chap. iv. 22) may be zncluded: see notes in loc. The interpr. ‘ hall of judi- eature,’ Tamm., al. (see Wolf zn loc.), does not appear either satisfactory or tenable. The arguments based on this passage by Baur (der Apost. Pail. p. 469 sq.) against the genuine- ness of this Ep. must be pronounced very hopeless and unconvincing. kal tots Aotmwots| ‘and to all the rest,’ beside the Preetorian camp, ‘ reli- quis omnibus Rome versantibus,’ comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p.317 (Bohn) : not ‘the rest of the Preetorians’ (Wiese- ler, Chronol. p. 457), a meaning too lim- ited ; nor, ‘ hominibus exteris (gentilibus) quibuscunque,’ Yan Heng., a meaning which of Aorro) certainly does not neces- sarily bear. Vulg., @th., and Author. 82 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. I, 14, 15. 14 gal Tods TAElovas TOY adeApav év Kupi@ memoiSotas tois Seo- Lois ov Treptocotépws TorApav apoBws Tov Adyov Aareiv. © Tues refer trois Ao.rots to locality, ‘in other places’ (év 7 wéAet maon, Chrys.), the dative being under the vinculum of ev: this is grammatically possible, but, as Aorrds is not elsewhere applied to places in the N. T., not very probable; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2. 14. kal robs tAelovas] ‘and that the greater part of the brethren:’ second beneficial effect of the apostle’s imprison- ment. The presence of the article obvi- ously shows that mAefovas must here re- tain its proper comparative force, — not o> ‘many,’ Auth. Ver. Toso [multitu- do] Syr., but ‘ the greater portion,’ ‘ the more part,’ as Author. in Acts xix. 32, XXvii. 12, 1 Cor. ix. 19, xv. 6. So also 2 Cor. ii. 6, iv. 15, ix. 2, where both Lu- ther and Auth. incorrectly retain the positive. évy Kup. wemoid.] ‘having in the Lord confidence in my bonds ;? not ‘in regard of my bonds’ (Flatt, Rill.), which vitiates the construc- tion; the dative not being a dative ‘of reference to’ (comp. Gal. i. 22), but the usual transmissive dative. At first sight it might seem more simple and natural with Syr. to connect év Kupi@w with ddeA- ay, ‘ brethren united with, in fellowship with the Lord,’ —a construction admis- sible in point of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123), but open to the. serious objection that though the important mo- dal adjunct, év Kupiw, occurs several times in St. Paul’s Epistles with sub- stantives or quasi-substantives, e. g. Rom. Xvi. 8,13, Eph. iv. 1, vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, it isnever found with adeApds: Eph. vi. 21, cited in opp: by Van Heng., is not in point; see Meyer zn loc. On the con- trary, merois. is found similarly joined with év Kup. chap. ii. 24, Galat.v. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 4, comp. Rom. xiv. 4. The objection that in these and similar cases memoy. Stands first in the sentence (Alf.),, is not here of any moment ; the empha- sis rests on év Kupi@, and properly causes its precedence: surely it must have been ‘in the Lord,’ and in Him only, that con- fidence could have been felt— when in bonds: so rightly Meyer, and very de- cidedly Winer, Gr. § 20. 2; p. 124. TEplogoTepws TOAMAaY| ‘are more abundantly bold,’ scil. than when I was not in bonds; not ‘ are very much em- boldened,’ Conyb., a needless dilution of the comparative ; ‘hac freti plus solito audere debemus, jam in persona fratrum pignus victoriz nostre habentes,’ Caly. The construction adopted by Grotius, Baumg., Crus., al., repo. apdBws, 7. e. apoBwrépws, is eminently unsatisfactory ; each verb naturally takes its own adverb. With apéBws Aadrcivy, comp. Acts iv. 31, éAddovy Tov Adyov Tod Ocod pera mappn- alas, a passage which may have suggest- ed here the insertion of the nearly certain gloss rod @eod, as in AB; about 20 mss. ; majority of Vv. (Zachm.). The varia- tions (see Tisch.) serve to confirm the shorter reading. 15. reves mev x. 7. A] ‘Some in- deed even from envy and strife:’ excep- tions to the foregoing; ‘this is the case with all; some preach from bad motives.’ The previous definition, év Kup. remois., seems to render it impossible that the twes pev should be comprised in the adeApol, ver.14. The mention of ‘speak- ing the word’ brings to the apostle’s mind all who were doing so; he pauses then to allude to all, specifying under the ries wey (obs. not of wéy as in yer. 16) his Judaizing —not his unbelieving (Chrys.) — opponents, while in rivés 5& he reverts to the sounder majority men- tioned in ver. 14. Kal, with its common contrasting force in such collocations (see notes on chap. iv. 12; comp. Klotz, Cuap. I. 15, 16. PRIULES IANS. 33 pev Kat dia PSdvov Kab Epiv, Tues dé Kat Sv evdoniay Tov Xpiorov Knpvocovow" Devar, Vol. 11. p. 636, and examples in Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. pp. 136, 137) marks that there were, alas! other mo- tives beside the good ones that might be inferred from the preceding words. Al- ford refers «al to tives, ‘besides those mentioned ver. 14.’ This, however, does not seem tenable. 51a ~&dbvov] ‘on account of envy,’ or more idiomatically, ‘from envy,’ ‘for envy,’ —to gratify that evil feeling ; so Matth. xxvii. 18, Mark xv. 10, comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. ¢, p. 355, and notes on Gal. iv, 13. Alberti adduces somewhat perti- nently Philemon [Major, a comic poet, B.C. 330] moAAd pe didacKkes apSovws dia PAdvov; see Meineke, Com. Fragm. Vol. 1v. p. 55. It is scarcely necessary to add that the translation ‘amid envy’ (Jowett on Gal. iv. 10), is quite untena- ble: 8:4 with an accus. in local or quasi- local references is purely poetical; com- pare Bernhardy, Synt. v. 18, p. 236. 50 evdoKnlav| ‘onaccount of, from, good will,’ amd mpoSuulas amdons, Chrys.,— towards the apostle; not towards others in respect of their salvation (Est.). De W. objects to this meaning of eddoxia as not sufficiently confirmed, and adopts the transl. ‘ good pleasure,’ sc. of me and my _ affairs. This seems somewhat hypercriti- cal; surely the opposition 6:4 pSdvov coupled with é& aydrns, ver. 16, seems sufficient to warrant the current transla- tion; see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 372, ‘whose note, however, is not in all points perfectly exact; comp. notes on Eph. i. 5, and the quaint but suggestive com- ments of Andrewes, Serm. x111. Vol. 1. p- 230 (Angl.-Cath. Libr.). The kat refers to contrary motives just enunciat- ed; and the party specified under tivés dé, though practically coincident with the mAcloves, are yet, as De Wette rightly observes, put slightly under a different 5 16 e St 3 > is id0 ig by > / fa) ou pev €& aydrns, ElooTes OTL Els ATrOAOYiaV TOD point of view, and as forming the oppo- site party to those last mentioned. Thus of those who spake the word, tives pev were factious and envious, twes dé full of good will and kindly feeling, and these latter were they who constitute the wAei- ovas Tov adeAPar, ver. 14. 16. of wev €& &ydans| ‘those in- deed (that are) of love (do so) ;’ sc. bvres, comp. Rom. ii. 8, Gal. iii. 7. The two classes mentioned in the last verse are now by of wey and of dé a little more ex- actly specified, the order being inverted. In Rec. the more natural order is pre- served, but is very insufficiently sup- ported, viz., only by one of the second correctors of D, K (L omits of wey é€ epis. to ov), other mss.; Syr.-Philox. and other Vv., and several Greek Ff. The Auth. Ver. and apparently nearly all the older expositors make of yey the subject, and refer e& aydmrns to the sup- plied clause, roy Xp. knp.: so also Matth., Alf., and other modern commentators. This is plausible at first sight, but on a nearer examination can hardly be main- tained. For jirst, é& aydmns would thus be only a kind of repetition of 614 eddoKiar, as also é épid. of 8:4 p3dvov; and sec- ondly, the force of the causal participial clause would be much impaired, for the object of the apostle is rather to specify the motives which caused this difference of behavior in the two classes than merely to reiterate the nature of it. See esp. De Wette in loc. by whom the present interpretation is ably maintained; so Meyer, Wies., and (in language perhaps too confident), Van Heng.: where appy. all the ancient versions are on the other side, it is not wise to be too positive. On the expression, of €& aydmns, ‘qui ab amore originem ducunt,’ see notes on Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. on Rom. ii. 8, Vol.. I. p. 105. eiddres Sri x. 7.A.] 34 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. 1.4% ebayyedtou Keiuar, “of 8& €& epiSelas Tov Xpiotov Kxatayyér- Aovew ody ayvas, oldpmevor Sip eyelpew Tois Seopois pov. ‘as they know that I am appointed for the defence of thegospel,’ i.e. ‘set to defend the gospel,’ Tynd., Cran.; participial clause explaining the motives of the be- havior, compare Rom. vy. 3, Gal. ii. 6, Eph. vi. 8, al. They recognize in me the appointed defender of the gospel, — not the incapacitated preacher, whose position claims their help (Hst., Fell 2), but the energetic apostle whose example quickens and evokes their co-operation. Keijua has thus a purely passive refer- ence, not ‘jiceo in conditione misera,’ Van Heng. (a meaning lexically defensi- ble, see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.), but ‘constitutus sum,’ /Zth., ‘I am set,’ Auth., @eds we Kexelpotdvnke, Theodoret : so Luke, ii. 34, 1 Thess. iii. 3. The apostle was in confinement, but not, as far as we can gather, either in misery or in suffering; compare Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 515 sq. amovAoylay rod evayy. is referred by Chrys., Theoph., and C&cum. to the account (ras edsdvas) of his ministry, which the apostle would have to render up to God, and which tlie co-operation of others might render less heavy. This seems artificial: dmoAoyia is nowhere used in the N. T. in reference to God, and can hardly have a different meaning to that which it bears in v. 7; see Wie- seler, Chronol. p. 430 note. 17. of 5& €& epidetas] ‘but they (that are) of party-feeling or dissension ;’ opposite class to of ée& aydmns, ver. 16. On the derivation and true meaning of épiSefa, —not exactly ‘contention,’ Au- thor. (comp. Vulg., Syr., Copt.), follow- ed by many modern commentators, but ‘intrigue,’ ‘party-spirit’ (avudas Kard thy ayopav tepitdyres, Theod.), as appar- ently felt by Clarom. ‘dissensio,’ and perhaps Aith., —see notes on Gal. v. 20. On the most suitable translation, comp. notes on Transl. katayyéAAovoty] ‘declare,’ ‘ pro- ’ in effect not different from kepta- cetv, ver. 16 (ataryyéAAeTat’ Knptooerat, Hesych.), but perhaps presenting a little more distinctly the idea of ‘promulga- tion,’ ‘making fully known’ (Xenoph. Anab. 11. 5. 11, tw thy émiBovany) ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 14, Coloss. i. 28, and Acts xvii. 3, 23, in which latter book the word occurs about ten times. It is pe- culiar to St. Paul and St. Luke. In this compound the preposition appears to have an intensive force, as in kata- Aéyew, KaTaparyety k.T.A.; see Rost u. Palm, Lex.s.v.1v.4. Odx wyvas ‘insin- cerely,’ ‘with no pure intention,’ (od« eiAiKpw@s ovd= 8 ato Td mpayua, Chrys- ost.), belongs closely to karayy., and marks the spirit in which they performed the katayyeAta. On the meaning of ay- yds (‘in quo nihil est impuri’) see notes on 1 Tim. vy. 22, and Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 22, oidmevot K.T. A] ‘thinking (thus) to raise up, etc.;’ not exactly parallel to «iddéres, ver. 16, but explanatory of otx ayvés. The verb oteadat seems here to convey a faint idea of intention, though of an intention which was not realized; e.g. Plato, Apol. 41 p, oiduevor BAarew (cited by De W.); nat KaAG@s ele Td oiduevor’ ov yap oUTws eké- Bawev, Chrysost. The reading éyelpew (Rec. émipéperv) is supported not only by the critical principle, ‘ proclivi lectioni prestat ardua,’ but also by the weight of uncial authority, ABD!FG ; so too, three mss., Vulg., Clarom., Goth., al., and the best modern editors. tots Seguots pov] ‘unto my bonds,’ dat. incommodi, Jelf, Gr. § 602. 8; en- deavoring to make a state already suffi- ciently full of trouble yet more painful and afflicting. There is some little doubt as to the exact nature of this SAhjs. Is claim ; ties Mate - Cuar. I. 18. PHIBIPPIANS. 35 18 , s ‘ \ \ , vw tA v > T TL yap; .whynv TavTl TpoT@, LTE mpopace elTE ann Yeud, it outward, 7.c. dangers from the inflamed hatred of Aeathen enemies (Chrysost.), or inward, ze. ‘trouble of spirit’ (Alford) 4 Not the latter, which is not in harmony with the studiedly objective Seopots, or with the prevailing use of SA{js in the ‘N. T.;—nor yet exacily as Chrys., al., which seems too restricted, if not artifi- cial, but, more probably, ill-treatment at the hands of Jews and Judaizing Chris- tians, which the false teaching of the oi e& épiSelas would be sure to call forth. Calvin very prudently observes, ‘erant plurime occasiones | Apostolo nocendi] qu sunt nobis incognite qui temporum circumstantias non tenemus.’ 18. rt ydp] ‘ What then;’ ‘quid enim,’ Vulg., or perhaps more exactly, ‘quid ergo;’ not ‘quid igitur,’ Beza, which is not commonly thus used in in- dependent questions. The uses of f yap may be approximately stated as three: (a) argumentative, answering very nearly to the Lat. ‘ quid enim,’ and while confirming or explaining the preceding sentence, often serving to imply tacitly that an opponent has no answer to make ; see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 386. It is thus often followed by another in- terrogation; compare Rom. iii. 3, Job xxi. 4; ()) affirmative ; answering very nearly to ‘profecto’ or the occasional ‘quid ni’ of the Latins (Hand, Tursell. Vol. 1v. p. 186); compare Eurip. Orest. 481, Soph. Gd. Col. 547, and see Herm. Viger, No. 108, and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 1. p. 537, who however has not suf- ficiently discriminated between the ex- amples adduced; (c) rhetorical, as ap- parently here, answering more nearly to ‘quid ergo’ or ‘quid ergo est’ (Hand, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 456), and marking commonly either a startled question (com- pare Gd Col. 544, 552), or, as here, and apparently Job xviii. 4, a brisk transition (‘ubi quis cum alacritate quidam ad novam sententiam transgreditur,’ Kih- ner on Xenoph. Afemor. 11. 6. 2), and thus perhaps differing from the calmer zt otv. In every one of these cases, how- ever, the proper force of yap (‘sane pro rebus comparatis’) though successively becoming more obscure, may stiil be rec- ognized; here, for example, the ques- tion amounts to, ‘ things being then as I have described them, what is my state of feeling ¢’ See Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 247 sq. All supplements, diapéeper (Chrys.), jor weAee (Theoph.), pjoouer (Van H.), ete., are perfectly unnecessa- ry, if not uncritical. mAhv] ‘notwithstanding,’ ‘nevertheless ;’ this particle, probably connected with maéov (Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. pp. 39, 323), not with wéAas (Hartung, Par- tik. Vol. 11. p. 30), has properly a com- parative force, especially recognizable in the disjunctive comparison rAjy #% (see Donalds. Cratyl. § 100), and its use with the gen. e. g. Mark xii. 32, John viii. 10. This might be termed its prepositional use. It however soon passed by an in- telligible gradation into an adverbial use, and came to imply little more than aaad, ‘nevertheless,’ ‘abgesehen davon’ (ch. iii. 16. iv. 14, 1 Cor. xi, 11, Eph. v. 33), with which particle it is not unfrequently joined ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 725. mavT tpdme| ‘in every way,’ scil. of preaching the gospel, more exactly de- fined by etre—eire. At first sight there might seem some difficulty in this lenity of St. Paul towards false, and perhaps heterodox teachers, — men against whom he warns his converts with such empha- sis in ch. iii. 2. The answer seems rea- sonable, that St. Paul is here contem- plating the personal motives rather than alluding to the doctrines of the preach- ers ; nay, more, that perverted in many respects as this. preaching might be, Curist is still its subject, and to the 36 PHILIPPIANS. Cuapr. 1 18. Xpworos KatayyedNeTat, Kal vy ToUT@ yYalpw" ara Kai YapHoopas’ large heart of the apostle this is enough ; this swallows up every doubt and fear: ‘let then the word be preached, and let it be heard ; be it sincerely, or be it pre- tensedly, so it be done, it is to him [St. Paul] and should be to us, matter (not only of contentment, but also) of rejoic- ‘ing,’ Andrewes, Serm. rx. Vol. v. p. 191 (A.-C. Libr.) ; see especially Nean- der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 318 (Bohn), and compare Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. 111. p. 29: ‘whether in pretence or in truth ;’ datives expressive of the manner, technically termed, modal datt.; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, and especially Jelf, Gr. § 603, by whom this use of the dative is well illustrated ; compare also Hartung, Casus, p. 69. The phraseological anno- tators, especially Wetstein and Raphel (Vol. 11. p. 500), adduce numerous in- stances of a similar opposition between mpopacis and aAnsea Or TAaAndEs ; these are quite enough, independently of the context, to induce us to reject the trans- lation of rpopdvet, adopted by Grot., al., “occasione,’ 7. e., ‘be the good not in- tended but only occasioned by them,’ Hammond. On the more general mean- ing of the here more limited aaqSea, compare Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. 11. p. 169. év ToVTe| ‘therein,’ ‘in this state of things,’ scil. that Christ is preached, though from dif- ferent reasons ; comp. Luke x. 20. This use of év rovrw, nearly = Germ. ‘ darii- ber, though apparently not very com- mon in the best prose, is certainly no Hebraism (Rilliet); see Winer, Gram. § 48. a, p. 346. Meyer compares Plato, Republ. x. p. 603 c, év robras maow } Avmoumévous } xalpovrus. G@AAG Kal xap.} ‘yea, and I shall re- joice :’ not exactly, de) itp TovTwy xa- phooua, Chrys., Calv., but, in more strict connection with the following fut., when elre tpopaaet k.T.A.] the aroB. cis owr.is being realized. The punctuation is here not quite certain. Lachm., followed by Tisch. and Meyer, places a full stop before aAAd, and a co- lon after xap., thus connecting ofda yap more immediately with the present’ clause. This seems right in principle both on grammatical, as well as exeget- ical, considerations : a colon, however, as in text, seems preferable to a full stop, for there is a kind of sequence in the xalpw and xaphooua which can hardly be completely interrupted. De W., Van Heng., and others who retain the com- ma (Alford has a comma in text but a colon in translation), suppose an ellip- sis of ov udvoy before xaipw. This is very unsatisfactory. *AAA& ka) has here its idiomatic meaning ‘at etiam,’ the faintly seclusive force of aAAd serving specially to confine attention to the new assertion which the ca) annexes and en- hances ; see Fritz. Rom. vi. 5, Vol. 1. p. 374. It may be observed that in these words, and also in some uses of the idi- omatic GAAd ydp, GAAG wey, the primary force of &AA& (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) is so far obscured that it does practi- cally little more than impart a briskness and emphasis to the declaration; see Klotz, /.¢., p. 8, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 35. Lastly, we should be careful to distinguish between the present use of aAAX Kal and (a) where a hypothetical clause precedes, evoking a more distinct opposition, e. g. 1 Cor. iv. 15, 2 Cor, iv. 16; (b) where an opposition is involved in the terms themselves, e. g. Diod. Sic. v. 84 (Fritz.), év rats vioos GAAG Kal KaTe thv Actay ; or (c) where gAA& occurs in brisk exhortation, e. g. Soph. Philoct. 796, GAN @ Téxvoy kai Sdpoos toxe; in which passage Hermann’s proposed emendation 7: Sdpoos does not seem either plausible or necessary. Cnap. I. 19. PHALTPPIAINS. 37 19 75 \ 24 anf ’ / > i 8 \ Ale 1¢ a 0loa yap OTL’ TOVTO LOL aTroByaeTat ets OWTHpPLayv ta TNS VLWY 19. of8a ydp| Confirmation of the words immediately preceding, the -ydp having its simple argumentative force. If with Caly., Bisp., al. this clause be referred to ver. 17, yap must have more of an explanatory force (comp. notes on Gail. iis 6): such a ref., however, is un- duly regressive; todro here can only mean the same as tovr@ ver. 19,—the more extended preaching of the gospel of Christ. The words tovto — cwrnplay occur in Job xiii. 16, and may have been a reminiscence. els cwtnptav| ‘to salvation.” The exact meaning of owrnpia has been very differ- ently explained. It has been referred to (a) ‘salus corporea,’ scil. ‘escape from present danger,’ amradAayhv, Chrys., who however fluctuates; ‘preservation in life” 1d dcov ovdé tw papripioy, Gicum., and apparently Syr.; (l) ‘salus spiritu- alis, ‘Seelenheil,’ De Wette, ‘his own fruitfulness to Christ,’ Alford ; (c) both united, ‘ for good, whether of soul (Rom. viii. 28) or of body’ (Acts xxvii. 34), Peile, Bloomf.; (d) ‘salus sempiterna,’ whether (a) in reference to others (Grot., Hamm.), or (8) in ref. to himself, ‘suam salutem veram et perennem,’ Van Heng. The last of these meanings alone seems to satisfy the future reference (da7of.), and is most in accordance with the pre- vailing meaning of cwrnpia in St. Paul’s Epistles : compare ver. 28, ch. ii. 12, and eis owt. Rom. i. 16, 2 Thess. ii. 13. 51a THS K.T.A.] ‘through your suppli- cation and the supply of the spirit of J. C.;’ the two means by which the cwrnpia is to be realized, intercessory supplication on the part of man, and supply of the Spirit on the part of God. Meyer and Alford regard the gen. émxopnyias as dependent on dyéy, ‘ your supply to me (by that prayer) of, ete.,’ on the ground that da THs, or at least r7s would have been inserted. Independently of the very unsatisfactory meaning in a dogmatical point of view, this is not grammatically No article is required. Each substantive has its own defining genitive, and on this account the second may dis- pense with its article; so Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 118 (ed.6). Meyer is unfort- unate in referring to Winer in support of his interpretation, as that grammarian expressly adopts the more natural con- struction. éemixXopnytas rob Iv.| ‘supply of the Spirit’ These words admit of two interpretations ac- cording as rod Tv. is considered a gen. objecti or subjecti ; compare Winer, Gr. § 80. 1, p. 168. If the former, the mean- ing will be, ‘the supply which is the Spirit,’ the genitive being that of ¢dentity or apposition (Scheuerl. Synt. § 12.1, p. 82, 83); so Chrysost., Theoph., Gicum. If the latter, the meaning will be the ‘supply which the Spirit gives,’ the gen. being that of the origin or agent (Har- tung, Casus, p. 17); so Theodoret, De W., Mcy. ‘This latter interpretation is on the whole to be preferred, as the par- allelism, ‘the prayers you offer—the aid the Spirit supplies,’ is thus more ex- actly retained. Wiesing. and Alf. urge Gal. iii. 5, but this can hardly be consid- ered sufficiently in point to fix the inter- pretation, Still less tenable is the asser-. tion that the gen. subjecti would have re- quired the order rod Ty. *I. X. emxop. as in Eph. iv. 16 (Alford) ; for in the first place examples of the contrary (and in- deed, usual) order are most abundant, see Scheuerl. Synt. p. 126, Winer, Gr. p- 167; and in the next place the gen. in Eph. /. c. is confessedly of a different grammatical class ; see notes in loc. The Spirit is here termed 7d Ty. “Inc. Xp., not merely because Christ gives Himself spiritually in and with the Holy Ghost (Meyer on Rom. viii. 9), but because that eternal Spirit proceeds from the Son; so exact. 38 PERG ee CAUN S Cuap. I. 20. dejoews Kal émvyopnyias Tod IIvedpatos Incot Xpictod, » Kata Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 383: in a word the genitive is not so much a defin- itive or quasi-possess. gen., as a simple genitive originis, Hartung, Casus, p. 23. Lastly, on émxopynyta, which perhaps re- tains a slight shade of the primary mean- ing of xopny. in the ampleness and liber- ality which it seems to hint at on the part of the gift and giver, see notes on Coloss. ii. 19, and Harless on Ephes. iv. 16. The ém is directive, not intensive; see notes on Eph. l. c. 20. kata ThY &moKap.| ‘accord- ing to my expectation,’ sc. ‘even as 1 am hoping and expecting,’ Syr., ‘sicut spe- ravi et confisus sum,’ Auth. The curi- ous word amoxapadorla (Hesych. rpoodo- kta, @mexdox) only here and Rom. viii. 19 in the N. T., is derived from kdpa, and doxéw [possibly allied to a root dic, ‘monstrare,’ Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p- 185, 267] and properly denotes ‘ cap- itis, scil. oculorum animique ad rem ab aliquo loco expectandam attenta conver- sio,’ and thence derivatively ‘ patient, persistent, looking for’ (Rom. viii. 19), and, with a further weakened force, ‘calm expectation,’ as in this place; the meaning necessarily varying with that of the simple kapadorety, which, from the ideas of ‘attention’ (Hur. TJroad. 93) and ‘ observation’ (Polyb. Hist. x. 42. 6), passes to those of ‘ suspense’ (Eur. Med. 1117) and simple ‘ expectation’ (Eur. Jph. Aul. 1433). The prep. ard is not properly intensive, as in drodepidw, Gmoevdouat, x. 7. A. (Tittm. Synon. p. 106 sq., and even Meyer on Rom. viii. 19), but Jocal: it primarily (so to say) localizes the kapadoxety, by marking ei- ther (a) the place from which the obser- vation is maintained, e.g. Joseph. Bell. Jud. 111.7. 26, comp. Polyb. Hist. xv1it. 81. 4, or-(b) the quarter whence the thing or issue is looked for, e. g. Polyb. Hist. . Xvi. 2. 8,—and comes thence, as in amexdéxoua (Germ. ‘ abwarten,’ see notes on Gal. v. 5), with a gradual, but intel- ligible, evanescence of the local idea (‘ quidquid enim expectes alicunde te id expectare oportet,’ Fritz.), to imply little more than the jfixedness, permanence, and patience (not ‘solicitude,’ Tittm.) with — which the observation is continued, or the expectation entertained ; see Winer, de Verb. Compos. rv. p.14, and especially the excellent discussion of Fritz. /ritzsch. Opusc. pp. 150-157. Ort €v ovdevt aiax.] ‘ that in nothing I shall be put to shame.’ These words admit of various possible interpretations ; for example (a) 67: may be either relati- val, ‘that,’ 7d éami¢ew or, Chrys., or argumentative, ‘ because, ‘ quia,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; (b) ovdev) may be either neuter (Syr., Auth., al.), or masculine in refer- ence to the preachers of the gospel (Ho- elem.) ; again (c) atsxuvS. may be either passive, ‘confundar,’ Vulg., or with a middle force, ‘pudore confusus, ab offi- cio deflectam,’? Van Hengel. In this variety of interpretation we must be guided solely by the context: and this seems certainly in favor of the above translation; for (a) Gr: far more natu- rally follows éAms as defining the subject to which it refers (comp. Rom. viii. 21) than as supplying the reason why it is entertained ; the latter interrupts the se- quence, vitiates the logic, and leaves the object of hope undefined. Again, (b) ovdeyt cannot be masculine ; for if so, it would have to be arbitrarily referred only to the better class of those mentioned above, whereas if neuter it remains per- fectly general and inclusive, not merely ore ev TH Civ ovre ev Savetv, Theoph., — but, ‘in no respect, in no particular’ (comp. ver. 28), thus forming an antith- esis to év mdon mapp. Lastly, (c) aio. cannot logically be taken with any mid- dle force; St. Paul can scarcely know Cuap. I. 20. PHIEPPPIANS, 39 Tv aroKapacokiay Kat édarida pov, OTe ev ovdderd aicywSjcowar, > >? Pa ft ae e fy ‘ a f GXX eV TAaTH Tappynoia WS WavtoTe Kat viv peyaduySijoeTat X \ 3 A é ” 8 \ n ” 8 \ Sy , piatos «vy T® cwMmaTL pov, elTe Ova Coors elte Ova Yavatov. that the preaching will turn out to his salvation, and yet only hope and expect that he shall not fall from his duty. What the apostle does hope and expect is, not merely drt ov mepiecovrat ovTot, Chrys., dt: kpeloowy @oouat Tay Svoxe- pov, Theod., but more generally, that he shall not be brought to a state of shame (2 Cor. x. 8, 1 John ii. 28), that he shall not fail in the highest duties and aims of his life ; see De Wette in loc., who aptly compares the Hebrew yi}a Psalm xxxivy. 5 (LXX. karacxuvdy), xix. 2 (LXX. aicxuySelnoay), and contrasts St. Paul’s favorite term ravxaocdat. GAN ev waon twapp.] ‘but (on the contrary) in all boldness ;’ antithesis to the foregoing clause introduced wich the full force of the adversative dAAd. don, as has often been remarked (see ver. 9), is not qualitative, ‘une pleine liberté,’ Rill., but, as usual, quantitative, ‘every form and manifestation of boldness,’ forming an exact opposition to éy ovder} above. *Ev rafpnoig is thus not merely ‘in joyfulness’ (Wiesing., comp. Eph. iii. 12), and certainly not capads pavepas, oo, > v Ccum., comp. Syr. tol, Bown [revelata facie], but, as the contrast and context both imply, ‘in fiducia,’ Vule., ‘in boldness of speech and action;’ comp. Eph. vi. 19. @s mdvtote rat viv] Temporal clause, following close on the foregoing modal predication (comp. Donalds. Gr. § 444). The addition ka) viv gives a dignifying and consoling aspect to the apostle’s present condition, cheerless as it might seem, and supplies a retrospec- tive corroboration of ver. 12. Meyaruvanocetatev te oduy.] ‘shall be magnified in my body ;’ not év éuot, but, in accordance with the studiedly passive aspect given to the whole decla- ration (obscured by Auth.), — év rd ody., ‘in my body;’ ‘my body shall be, as it were, the theatre on which Christ’s glory shall be displayed,’ comp. John xxi. 19; and in illustration of this use of év (‘sub- stratum of action’) see notes on Gal. i. 24, Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, Meyaa. is thus not ‘shall be enlarged,’ ‘ augebi- tur,’ Copt. (comp. Luke i. 58, 2 Cor. x. 15), with reference to the development and growth of Christ within (Rill. ; com- pare Gal. ii. 20, Rom. viii. 10), which here would not harmonize with the mo- dal év mapp., and still less with the local év odu., — but, as in Acts xix. 17, ‘shall be glorified,’ Sex34oera Os ort, Theod., ‘ gloriosior apparebit,’ Just., the meaning being here appy. a little more forcible than ‘be praised’ (Alf. ; comp. Lk. i. 46, Acts v. 13) and pointing more to the gen- eral, than to the merely oral spread of the Lord’s glory and kingdom among men. etre 510 «.7.A.| ‘whether by life or by death ;’ two alternatives, suggested by. and in explanation of the preceding év céuatt; ‘in my body,—whether that body be preserved alive as an earthly in- strument of my Master’s glory, or be given up to martyrdom for His name’s sake: Sia pev Cwijs, dri e&elAeTo" did Sa- vdrou b€, Ott ovdé Sdvatos ~reiwé we Apvi}- caocsa avtéy, Chrys. Well then might the apostle say oi6a ét1...cis owtnpiav when he could entertain a hope and an expectation so unspeakably blessed. The whole verse, and especially this clause, is strongly confirmatory of the fuller meaning of owrnpia. 21. €uol ydp| Confirmation and elu- cidation of the last clause of v.20. The yap has no ref. to any omitted clause (B1.}, 40 PHILIPSTAR &. 21 ’Eyoi yap to Gv Xpuoros Kal To arroSavelv Képoos. ™ ei 68 TO — ever a doubtful and precarious mode of explaining this particle, — but simply confirms the preceding assertion by show- ing the real nature of (wi and Sdvaros, according to the apostle’s present mode of regarding them ; ‘in my view and def- inition of the term, Life is but another name for Christ,’ Peile. The emphatic uo) (‘to me, in my merely personal ca- pacity,’ see Wiesinger) is thus the pro- nominal dative judicii (De W.), cr per- haps more correctly and more inclusively, the dative of ethical relation (comp. Gal. vi. 14); not merely ‘in my estimation,’ but ‘in my case,’ ‘ life in my realization of it,’ — a dative which is allied to, and more fully developed in, the dative com- ~ modi or incommodi ; see Bernhardy, Synt. i111. 9, p. 85, and especially Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 6. 1 sq., by whom this use of the dative is well illustrated. Td (fv Xptaorés| ‘to live is Christ,’ z. e, living consists only in union with, and devotion to, Christ ; my whole being and activities are His; ‘ quicquid vivo Christum vivo,’ Beng.: see Gal. ii. 20, but observe the difference of the applica- tion; there the reference is to faith, here rather to works (De W.), the context showing that Xpiords, beside the idea of union with Him, must also involve that of deyotion to His service. So, perhaps too distinctly, Aith. (compare Calv.) ‘si vixero, Christo.’ Td (jy is clearly the subject (‘vita mea,’ Syriac, Copt.), the natural life alluded to in the preceding, and more specifically in the following verse. It cannot refer to spiritual life (Rill., comp- Chrys., Theoph.) as the antithesis, (jv —ézo8., is thus obscured, and the argument impaired: what (w) is in ver. 20, that must 7d (jv be here. kat 7d &rod. képdos| ‘and [simple copulative] to dieis gain ;’ death is gain, as I shall thus enjoy a still nearer and more blessed union with my Lord; ca- péorepovy avTG ovvécoua, Chrys., The- oph. Keépdos belongs only to this latter clause, the full meaning of which is very easily collected from the context ; com- pare verse 23. To make Xp. the subject to both members of the sentence and 7d (jv and 7d amos. accusatives of ‘refer- ence to’ (Kriiger, Sprachi. § 46. 4), se. ‘ut tam in vita quam in morte lucrum esse preedicetur’ (Caly. ; compare Beza), is to mar the perspicuity, and to intro- duce a difficulty in point of grammar, as 7d amos. could scarcely be ‘in morien- do:’ such accusatives commonly point to things or actions which may, so to say, be conceived as extensible, and over the whole of which the predication can range ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 9. 3, p. 68, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4.1. Numerous examples of similar expressions are cited by Wetstein in loc., the most pertinent of which is Joseph. Gell. v11. 8, 6, oup- popa 7d Civ eorw avdpdérois ovx Sdvaros, as it hints at the purely substantival char- acter of 7d (fv (opp. to Alf.) and 7d amogavety. The practical aspects of the subject will be found in Heber, Serm, XVI. XVII. 22. ei 56 rd Cv w.7.A.] ‘but if my living in the flesh,—if this is to me the (the medium of ) fruit from my labor ;? so Vulg., Claroman., Goth., and (with ob- scured todrv) Syr., Copt.: antithetical sentence suggested by the remembrance of his calling as an apostle. There are difficulties in this verse in the individual expressions, as well as in the connection and sequence of thought. We will (1) briefly notice the former: (a) e is not problematical, ‘if it chance,’ Tyndale, Cranm., but as Meyer correctly observes, syllogistic, — and virtually assertory. (8) The addition év capx’ does not imply any qualitative difference between 7d Cav here and 7d (jy in ver. 21 (Rill.), but guards against it being understood in the Cuar. I. 21, 22, ————e— ee rltC( Cuar. I. 22: PHILIPPIANS. 41 : , ar \ ” \ r Civ ev capki, TOUTO juor KapTOS Epyou' Kal TL aipnaopat, ov yvo- higher sense, which the preceding 7d aoa. Képdos (‘to die, z. e. to live out of the flesh with Christ, is gain’) might other- wise seem naturally to suggest. (7) Tovdro is not a redundancy ‘ per Hebrais- mum’ (see Glasse, Phil. Sacr. p. 738 [219]), but is designed to give special prominence and emphasis to the idca contained in the preceding words ; com- pare Winer, Gr. § 44.4, p. 144. (6) In kapmds épryov the genitive is not a gen. of apposition, ‘ opus pro fructu habet,’ Ben- gel, nor a gen. objecti, ‘profit for the work’ (Rill.}, but a simple gen. subjecti [origins], ‘proventus operis,’ De Wette, v- ow V , {5 Lo [fructus in operibus meis] Syr., 7. e. ‘conveys with it, is the condition of fruit from apostolical labor,’ the &pyov referring to the /aborious nature of the apostolic work (Acts xiii. 2, 1 Thess. v. 15, 2 Tim. iv. 5); kapropopa, Siidckwv Kal dwri(wy mdvras, Theoph.: comp. Raphel, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 622. (2) The connection then seems to be as follows: in verse 21 the apostle had spoken of life and death from a strictly personal point of view (éuol) ; in this as- pect death was gain. The thought, how- ever, of his official labors reminds him that his life bears blessings and fruitful- ness to others; so he pauses; ‘ objecta spe conversionis multorum, hzeret atque heesitat,’ Just.: so, in substance, The- ophyl. (who has explained this clause briefly and perspicuously), Chrys., 'The- odoret, Gicumen., and after them, with some variations in detail, De W., Meyer, and the best modern editors. Of the other interpretations the most plausible is (a) that of Auth., Beng., al., accord- ing to which rodro x. r. A. forms the ap- odosis, éori yo: being supplied after ev capri, ‘ but if I live in the flesh, this is,’ etc. ; the least so (Lb) that of Beza, Genev. (amended by Conyb., but satisfactorily 6 answered by Alf.), according to which é is ‘ whether,’ and rapmbs épyou = ‘ opere pretium’ (comp. Grot., Hamm., Schole- field, Hints, p. 105,—a more than doubt- ful translation), scil. ‘and whether to live in the flesh were profitable to me, and what,’ ete. The objection to (a) is the very harsh and unusual nature of the ellipsis; to (b), independently of gram- matical objections, the halting and incon- sequent nature of the argument ; see Alf. in loc. kal Ti aiphoopar k. T. A.] ‘then, or why, what I am to choose [observe the middle] Z know not ;’ apo- dosis to the foregoing. The principal difficulty lies in the use of cai. Though no certain example of an exact/y similar use of ei—xa) has been adduced from the N. T. (2 Cor. ii. 2 [De Wette] is not in point, being there the «al of rapid inter- rogation, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 147), yet the use of cai at the beginning of the apodosis is so common (see Bru- der, Conc. s. v. kal, D, p. 455) as to ren- der such a use after ef by no means im- probable; see examples in Hartung, Partik. s. v. wat, 2.6, Vol. 1. p. 130, and compare the somewhat similar use of “atque,’ Hand, Turseil. Vol. 1. p. 481 sq. In such cases the proper force of tal is not wholly lost. Just as, in brief logical sentences, it constantly implies that if one thing be true, then another will be true also, e.g. et ptoe Kiweirat Kay Bla Kwndeln, Kav ef Bia cal pice, Arist. de Anim. ch. 8, p. 9 (ed. Bekk.), —so here, if life certainly subserve to apostolic use- fulness, there will also be a difficulty as to choice. It is thus unnecessary to as- sume any aposiopesis after the first mem- ber, scil. ‘non repugno,’ ‘non zgre fero,’ Miiller, Rill. There is only a slight, pause, and slight change from the ex- pected, to a more emphatic sequence, which this semi-ratiocinative xa) very ap- propriately introduces. On 42 PHILIPPIANS. Cuar. I. 23; pitw * cuvéyopar 6€ x THY S00, THY eTISUplay Exwv eis TO dva~ the use of the less exact ti for mérepor, see Winer, Gr. § 25.1, p. 153 (ed. 6); and on that of the future in a delibera- tive clause, Winer, 7b. § 41. 4. b. p. 267. The strict alliance between the future and the subjunctive renders such an in- terchange very intelligible. ov yvwpi¢w] ‘Idonot recognize,’ ‘Ido not clearly perceive,’ — a somewhat excep- tional use in the N. T. of ywp., which is nearly always ‘notum facio.’ For examples of the present use, see Ast, Lex, Plat. s. v.; comp. Job xxxiv. 25 (txx), iv. 16 (Symm.). 23. cvvéxopmat SE x. 7. A.] ‘yea, I am held in a strait by the two ;’ antitheti- cal explanation of the last member of verse 22; the fuintly oppositive 5& (not ‘metabatic” [Meyer] on the one hand, nor equivalent to @AA& on the other) placing the emphatic ovvéxouam in gentle contrast with the preceding od yvwpi¢w. The reading yap (Ztcc.) has scarcely any critical support, and is only a correction of the less understood dé. On the real difference between these two particles in sentences like the present, see especially Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p.363. The prep. é« is here not used for amd (Bloomf.), nor yet for dé (Heinr.,— instrumentality would have been expressed by a simple dative, e. g. Matth. iv. 24, Luke viii. 37, Acts xviii. 5, xxviii. 8), but with its proper force points to the origin of the ovvoxn, the sources out of which it arises ; see notes on Gal. ii. 16, where the uses of this preposition in N. T. are briefly noticed. Lastly, the article is not pros- pective (compare Syr.) but retrospective (Mey., al.), referring to the two alterna- tives previously mentioned. ~This is confirmed by the apparent emphasis on ovvéex., and the illustrative connection with it of the two classes which follow. thy émiduplav €xwv] ‘having my desire ;’ not merely ‘a desire,’ Author., nor ‘the desire previously alluded to,’ Hoel.,— as no émuuia, strictly speaking, has been alluded to,—but ‘the desire which I now feel,’ ‘my desire.’ The émauuta thus stands absolutely. its direc- tion being defined in the words which follow. A very eloquent and feeling application of this text will be found in Manning, Serm. xx. Vol. 111. p. 370 sq. eis Td Gvadtoat| ‘towards depart- ing,’ ‘turned to departure ;’ not ‘ desid- erium solvendi’ (rod avad., Origen, in a free citation), nor even quite, ‘ the desire to depart,’ Conyb. (comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p. 294), —both of which would seem to imply the not unusual definitive genitive after ém3. (comp. Thucyd. vir. 84, Tov meiy em), but with the proper force of the preposition eis, ‘ desiderio tendens ad dimissionem ;? compare Wi- ner, Gr. § 49. a, p. 854. The preposi- tion is omitted in DEFG; Chrysostom (comm.), apparently by accident, as the construction would not thus be made more easy. “AvaAdoat is not ‘ dissolvi,’ Vulg , nor even ‘ liberari,’ Syr. pokos (comp. Schoettg, in loc.), but, perhaps with primary reference to breaking up a camp or loosing an anchor, ‘ migrare,’ ZEth. (comp. Judith xiii. 1, Alian, Var. Hist. 1v. 23), and thence with a shade of meaning imparted by the context, ‘ discedere a vita,’ 7) évretSev amadAaynh, Theod.; compare notes on 2 Tim. iv. 6, and see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 286 sq., by whom this word is copiously il- lustrated ; add too Perizonius, on /Xlian, Var. Hist. l.c. The translation adopted by Tertull. ‘recipi’ has perhaps refer- ence to the ‘receptui canere,’ and is thus virtually the same ; comp. Mill., Prole- gom, p. LXVII. kal ovy Xp. eivat| From the immediate con- nection of this clause with dvaditom dog- matical deductions haye been made in Cuap. I. 24. Adoar Kal adv Xpict@ éivar, DA ‘\ \ > / > lal \ TO Sé Emripévery Ev TH TapKt reference to the intermediate state ; ‘clare ostenditur animas sanctorum ex hac vita sine peccato migrantium statim post mortem esse cum Christo,’ Est.; comp. Cyrill.-Alex. cited by Forbes, Jnstruct. xu. 8. 33, Bull, Hngl. Works, p. 42 (Oxf., 1844), Reuss, Theol. Chré. 1v. 21, Vol. 11. p. 240. Without presuming to make hasty deductions from isolated pas- sages, we may safely rest on the broad and sound opinion of Bishop Pearson, that life eternal may be regarded as in- itial, partial, and perfectional, and that the blessed apostle is now in the fruition of that second state, and ‘is with Christ who sitteth at the right hand of God,’ Creed, Art. x11. Vol. 1. p. 467, and com- pare Polye. ad Phyl. § 9, cis tov dpead- Mevoy avrots Témy cic) mapa Kuplw, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. § 5, éropetan [TMérpos] eis Tov oped. Témov THs Sdéns. For a con- trary view, see Burnet, State of Departed, ch, 111. p. 58; and lastly, for a practical application of the verse, Farindon, Serm. xxxvi. Vol. 11. p. 1006 (edit. 1672). The meaning involved in the words civ Xp. eivat, in reference to the soul’s incor- poreal state, is explained profoundly, though perhaps somewhat singulary, by Hofmann, Schriftb. 11. 2, Vol. 11. p. 449, ‘selbst korperlos, wird er den Leib, in welchem die Fiille der Gottheit wohnt, zu seiner Wohnung haben ;’ comp. De- litasch, Bibl. Psychol. v1. 6, p. 383 sq. TWOAA@ yap K.7.A.] ‘for it is very far better,’ scil. being with Christ is so (for | me); explanation of the foregoing de- sire. The comparative strengthened by uaAAov gives a force and energy to the assertion that is here very noticeable and "appropriate ; compare Mark vii. 36, 2 Cor. vii. 13, and Winer, Gr. § 35. 1, p. 214. The reading is somewhat doubt- ful : yap is omitted by DEFGKL; great majority of mss., several Vy. and some Ff. PIL PP WANS 45 TOMA@ yap paAdov KpElccor" ’ a dvayKatotepov Ov’ vas. (Rec., Griesb. but om. om.) ; as, however, itis found in ABC; 31. 67**; Copt.; Or. (1), Bas., Aug. (often and explic. — as )1FG show in this passage marks of incertitude in reading méow for mwodAd, and lastly, as yap might have been thoughtto interrupt the sequence, we may perhaps safely acquiesce in the in- sertion with Zachm., Tisch., and even Elz. and Scholz. 24. 7d Ge Ewmipevety k.7.A.| ‘yet to tarry in my flesh.’ In the former verse the apostle stated what is kpetocoy, for himself, now he turns to what is dvay- katérepov in regard of his converts. Aé is thus simply ‘but,’ ‘ yet,’—scarcely ‘nevertheless,’ Auth., which is commonly a more suitable translation of aAAd: on the difference between these particles (‘ verum — sed ’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. pp. 33, 361. The ém in erm. im- plies rest in a place (comp. notes on Gal. i. 18), and hints at a more protracted stay ; compare Rom. vi. 1.. The next words €v 77) cap) are, as Meyer correctly observes, scarcely quite the same as év capk) in ver. 22; there the expression was general, here more specific and in- dividualizing ; see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 50. PAGE avayKatstepov 51? buds] ‘more needful on your account ;? not an inexact comparative (De W.), nor to be diluted into a positive (Clarom., compare Syr.), nor with reference to the apostle’s own feelings, scil. ‘quam ut meo desiderio satisfiat,’ Van Heng., Ben- gel,— but simply ‘more needful,’ scil. than the contrary course, than dvaAdoas k.7.A. This latter course St. Paul might have thought dvaykatoy on his own account, a thing to be prayed for and hastened; continuance, however, was avaykatdrepoy on account of his con- verts. The meaning proposed by Loesn., ‘ preestat, ‘melius est’ (comp. Aith.), has 44 PHILIPPIANS. Cnap. I. 25. 5 ‘ a : hy 5 7 ae oN a A ton > Kat TOVTO TETOLY@S vida OTL EVO) KAL TTAPALEVvad TTACLW Up ELS 25. mapayeva| So Lachm. with ABCD'FG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Clarom. ; Lat. Ff. (approved by Griesb., Alf). Tisch. reads cvuprapamevd, appy. only with D?EKL ; majority of mss,; Chrys. (expressly), Theod., Dam., Theophyl., al. (Rec., Scholz, Mey.). While on the one hand, it is possible that the unusual compound might have been changed into the more simple form, still, on the other hand, the dative nacw might have suggested the insertion. too preponderant to be safely reversed. no lexical authority, and is not supported by the examples adduced Obs. p. 353. 25. kal rodTo memordaes| ‘And being persuaded, being sure, of this ;’ scil., that my émmévew év tH oapkd is more necessary on your account. Tlerois@s has thus its natural force and regimen (ver. 6), and is not to be explained away adverbially, wemoiwSdtws Kal ddioTdeTws oda ,Theoph., Ao fleo2 [confidenter] Syr., Goth., Copt., or blended with ot6a (ZBth.), but is to be closely connected with todro, while ofa is joined only with drt; ‘ persuadens mihi vitam meam vobis esse [magis] necessariam, scio quod Deus me vobis adhuc concedet,’ Corn. a Lap. ofa] ‘ZI know;’ not with any undue emphasis, ‘ preevideo,’ Van Heng., for see ch. ii. 17, but simply ‘I know.’ se. it is my present feeling and conviction ; compare Acts xx. 25. For somewhat analogous uses of oda, see the examples adduced by Van Heng., but observe that even in the strongest (Hom. J/. vr. 447) oida still refers more to the persuasions of the speaker than to any absolutely prophetic certitude. mapameva| ‘continue here (on earth),’ ‘bleiben und dableiben,’ Meyer, who aptly cites Herod. 1. 30, réxva éxyevd- peva ka) mdvTa wapapetvavta ; add Plato, Phedo, p.115 D, ereidav miw Td pdppa- Koy, ovxeTt Suty wopauera, ib. Crito, p. 51, mapapelvy, Opp. to meroucety &AAoce. On the reading see critical note. The dative naow Sui may be the dative of interest, ‘to support and comfort you’ (Kriger, The uncial authority is moreover far Sprachl. § 48. 4), but is here far more naturally governed by the mapa in the compound ; see Plato, Pheed. l. c., Apol:. p. 89 B, apparently Protag. p. 335 p, and contrast 1 Cor. xvi. 6, mpbs duas mapa- jlev@, where the mpds gains its force from the intended journey to them just before mentioned ; here the apostle is mentally with those he is addressing. This is a somewhat more common regimen than Kriiger (Sprachl. § 48. 11.9) seems in- clined to admit. eis THY buav K.7.A.] ‘for your fur- therance in, and joy of the fuith ;’ not ‘for your furth., and for your joy,’ etc., Van Heng.,—there being here no reason whatever to depart from the ordinary rule; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 4. d, p. 116, and comp. Middleton, Gr. Art: p. 368. Tt is searcely necessary to say that there is not here any kind of znversion (‘ for your joy and for the increase of your faith’) as Syriac, nor any disjunction (‘ for your furth., and for your faith, and for your joy’), as in /&th., nor any conjunction (‘for the advancement of the joy of your faith’), as Macknight: still the rela- tion of the genitive to the two substan- tives seems slightly different ; in the first case it is a gen. subjecti, referrible per- haps to the class of the possess. gen. ; in the latter it is a gen. originis, ‘quod ex fide promanat,’ Zanch., and belongs to the general division of the gen. of abla- tion ; compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 11. 1, p- 79, Donalds. Gr. § 448 sq. On xapd, compare Reuss, Thél. Chré. 1v. 18, Vol. 11. p. 202, whose definition how- Cnap. I. 26, 27. ‘ THY ULOV TpoKOTY Kal Yyapav THs TisTEws, PHIELEPPEANYS. 45 06 7 x wa TO Kavya c lal - 7 ’ a3 Cote) > xX \ fol > A / vpav Teptaceiy ev Xpict@ Inood év enol dua Ths €uns Tapovotas / \ Clo m TANW TPOS UpLAS. Live as becometh the gos- pel, that whether absent or present I may hear well of you. Be not dismayed, ye are sufferers for Christ. ever, ‘ cette sérénité de l’ame qui la pré- serve de tout découragement dans l’ad- versité,’ imparts to xap& too passive a character. Xapa is rather that active and operative emanation of love and thank- fulness that forms the sort of spiritual equipoise to eipqyn and Sromovh. 26. fva Td Kadxnma K.T.A.] Sin order that your matter of boasting may abound in Jesus Christ in me;’ more spe- _ cific statement of the purpose of the apostle’s continuance with his converts ; the previous abstract eis thy buay mpor. «. T.A. being expanded into the more definite and concrete iva x. 7. A. These words, simple as they seem, have not been always clearly understood. _In the first place tat xn mais not the same as Kav- xnois; not ‘gloriatio qua gloriamini,’ Corn. a Lap., but ‘ gloriandi materies’ (nban, Jere. xvii. 14), as in Rom. iv. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 15, and appy. everywhere in the N. T. (see notes on Gal. vi. 4), this ‘ma- teries’ being 7d éornpixdae év TH micTet, Chrys., or generally, their possession of the gospel (Meyer), their condition as Christians. Again, €vy Xpior@ is not to be connected, directly or indirectly, with xatxnua (‘occasion de vous glori- fier d’ étre unis a Christ,’ Rill.) but with mepiooedn, the qualitative év Xp. defining, as it were, the blessed sphere in which the increase takes place, and out of which, Christianly speaking, it has no existence. Lastly év é wot is neither=8? éuod, Hein., nor ‘propter me,’ Grot., nor even ‘de me,’ Beza, but ‘in me,’ Vulg.,— the preposition here marking the substratum of the action, the mirror, as it. were (Zanch.), in which the whole gracious vA ld lal fal a 27 Movov a&lws tov evayyediov Tod Xpiotod Pi A n ToNTeved Se, iva elte EAS@V Kal idwv Duds elite 2 \ si lal ATOV AKOVTW TA TEPL ULOV, OTL OTHKETE EV Evi procedure was displayed; see notes on Gal. i. 24. It is thus not to be connect- ed with katxnua directly, or as in Chrys., by inversion, tva @xw KavxaoSa év buiv pet(dvws, nor even with epic. alone, but with the complete idea 7d kavy. me- pico. €v Xp- Thus the whole seems clear : the cavxnyua is their condition as Chris- tians; éy Xp. defines the holiness and purity of its increase; ev euol, the seat and substratum of the so defecated ac- tion. 61a THS K.T.A. 1S to be closely connected with éeuoi as de- fining the exact means by which the in- crease of matter of boasting, thus specifi- eally Christian, is to take place éy euot. Passages like the present, in which dif- ferent predications are grouped closely together, will repay careful analysis. Here it will be seen év Xp. is the mysti- eal and generic predication of manner, ev of place, 5:4 THs map. of special instru- mentality, involving also in its substan- tive the predication of time; compare notes on Ephes. i. 8, and Donalds, Gr. § 444. 27. wdvov]. ‘ Only;’ my persuasion then being as I have told you, this is the sole thing that I specially press upon you, and exact from you as indispensa- ble; rodro éort 7d (ytovmevoy mdvov Kab obdey &AAO, Chrys. ; compare Gal. ii. 10, y. 13, in which latter passage, as here, ‘verborum tanquam agmen ab illo duci- tur,’ Van Heng. In this one requisition many weighty duties are involved. Tod evayy. Tod Xp.] ‘the gospel of Christ, i. e. which relates to, which tells of, Christ ; rod Xp. being the gen. objecti, not, as Ath. would seem to imply, sub- 46 PHIETPPIANS. Cuap. I. 97. TVEUMAT!, pad Woy cvvadrodvTes TH mioTEL TOD evayyedion, jecti, ‘the gospel taught by Him.’ In such cases the nature of the gen. is not perfectly certain, but, from the analogy supplied by partially similar use of evayy., is more probably that objecti ; see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 168, but ob- serve that the ref. to Rom. i. 3 is of doubtful pertinence. moAitevecse] ‘have your conversa- tion,’ ‘ behave yourselves,’ or more exactly, ‘lead your life of (Christian) citizen- ship;’ compare Acts xxiil. 1. It can scarcely be doubted that this word, oc- curring once only in St. Paul’s Epis- tles, though examples of very similar exhortations are not wanting (Eph. iv. 1, Col. i. 10, 1 Thess. ii. 12) has been studiedly used instead of the more com- mon wepimareiv, to give force to the idea of fellow-citizenship,— not specially and peculiarly with Christ (Heinr.), but with one another in Him, — joint membership in a heavenly mwoAitevya, comp. ch. iii. 20. Numerous examples of a similar metaphorical use of the word (‘ vivere, non quoad spiritum et animam, sed quoad mores,’ Loesn., ‘ad normam insti- tutorum in Republica mores vitseque ra- tionem componere,’ Krebs.) will be found in Wetstein zn loc., Krebs, Obs. p. 245, Loesn. Obs. p. 226, and especially in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 799 sq. iva etre €ASav KeTmA.} ‘in order that, whether having come and seen you or else remaining absent, I may hear the things concerning you.’ This clause, though perfectly intelligible, is apparently some- what inexact in structure. It would seem that axovow (for which Lachmann, with BD!; 10 mss. ; Basm., reads axovw) really performs a kind of double office ; in the one case it stands in antithesis to idéyv (per orat. variat.) ; in the second place it repeats itself (Van Heng.), or suggests some appropriate verb (ebppay- Sw, Chrys., yv@, De Wette) immediately before ét1: in a word, quoad sensum it seems to belong to amdy, quoad structuram to va. Attempts have been made to de- fend the construction as it stands, either (a) by referring &kovow zeugmatically to both clauses, ‘j’apprenne a votre sujet que,’ Rill. ; or (8) by understanding it to imply ‘ hearing from themselves,’ in refer- ence to the first clause, ‘hearing from others,’ in the second, Meyer. This last explanation is ingenious, but is appar- ently precluded by the opposition be- tween idey duds and dkovow 7d mep) duav, which seems too distinct to have been otherwise than specially intended. There must be few, however, who do not pre- fer the warmhearted incuria of such a brevity of expression to restorations like elre CASOv Kal idédv, elte arov akotow TH mept juav, akolw ott xk. 7.A., or still worse, amay Kal dkovoas Ta T. tu. yO ért x. T. A., as Suggested by modern com- mentators. ori oTHKeTel ‘that ye are standing ;’ fuller expansion and definition of 7& wept Suadv; the ex- planatory clause being in structural de- pendence upon the principal member, according to the ordinary and simplest form of attraction ; see especially Winer, Gr. § 66. 5, p. 551, where this and other forms of attraction and assimilation are perspicuously discussed. The present form of attraction is especially common after verbs of knowledge, perception, ete., e.g. Mark xii. 34, Acts iii. 10, 1 Cor. xvi. 18, 1 Thess. ii. 1, al. Srqxew, it may be observed, is not per se, ‘to stand fast,’ Author. Ver., ‘ perstare,’ Beza, but simply ‘stare,’ Vulg., Syriac, Goth., the ideas of readiness (compare Chrys.), persistence, etc., being imparted by the context ; compare ch. iy. 1, 1 Cor. xvi. 13, Gal. v..1, 1 Thess. iii. 8, 2 Thess. ii, 15. év €v) mvetpuari] ‘in one spirit ;’ in one common higher principle of our nature. The addition ? ’ OE eT Crap. I. 28. PHILELP PLANS: AT 28 \ \ r 2 5 Oe eX a 5) L e Kab fy TWTVPOMEVvOL EV MNOEVL VTO TWV GVTLKELLEVOV, 1)TLS “ud WuxH seems certainly to show that mvevua is here the human spirit, the higher part of our immaterial nature (see Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, § 48, Vol. 11. p. 498), that in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is especially seen and felt. This common unity of the spirit is, however, so obviously the effect of the inworking of the Holy Spirit, that an indirect reference to 7d Tvedua (compare Ephes. iv. 4) becomes necessarily in- volved. Indeed in most cases in the N. T. it may be said that in every men- tién of the human tveiua some reference to the eternal Spirit may always be rec- ognized ; sce notes on 2 Tim. i. 7, and compure Delitasch, Bibl. Psychol. 1v. 5, p- 144 sq. Mia Wuxh| ‘with one soul striving together for the faith of the gospel ;’ making your united ef- forts from the common faith from one common centre and seat of interests, af- feciions, and energies. As the higher avedya Which gave direction was to he one and common to them all, so was the lower ux? which obeyed those behests to be one, — one common seat of con- cordant affections and energies. The remark of Bengel is true and deep ; ‘ est interdum’ inter sanctos naturalis aliqua antipathia: hee vincitur ubi unitas est non solum spiritus, sed etiam anime.’ On the difference between the mvedua (‘ vis superior, agens, imperans in hom- ine’) and the wuxf, the sphere of the will and affections, the centre of the per- sonality, sec Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. vi. p. 145 sq., Beck, Bibl. Sceleniehre, 11. 12, 15, p. 50 sq. cuvasAotvrtes must be united with fac Wuxi, thus forming a participial, and indeed psychological, parallel to orjxew ev. Tv. It is somewhat singular that the best ancient Vy. (Syr., Vulg., Clar., ZEth., Copt.), with Chrys., al., agree in referring mug Wuxh to orfxere. Such a construction, however, has but little to recommend it in point of grammar, and still less in point of psychology: mid yux7 stands correctly in prominence after the semi-emphatic év éy) mv. (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 902), and forms a modal ad- junct to the undefined cuvadaAodivtes es- pecially significant and appropriate ; or7- kew ev Tvevuat, cvvasrely TH Wuxn. The force of the preposition atv has been dif- ferently estimated ; it is referred by the Greek expositors to the fellowship of the Philipp. (cuwrapadauBdvere aAdAhAous, Chrys.) ; by Meyer and others to fellow- ship with St. Paul; the former seems more suitable to the context. TH whore] ‘for the faith;’ dat. com- modi: not under the regimen of ovr, ‘adjuvantes fidem,’ Erasm.,—an un- exampled prosopopeeia; nor a dat. in- strum. (more precisely termed by Krii- ger, a ‘dynamic’ dative, Sprachl. § 48. 15), ‘fide Ev.,’ Calv., ‘per fidem Ev.,’ Beza, — this construction having previ- ously occurred in the case of uid uxf. Mioris, here, as nearly always in the N. T., has a subjective reference; see notes on Gal. i. 23. 28. trupdpevotl ‘being terrified :’ dim. Aeyéu. in N. T.; properly used in reference to scared horses (Diodor. Sic. XVII. 34, wrupduevor Ta YaArwa Sieostov- vo), thence generally, though often with some tinge of its more special meaning, as in Plut. Mor. p. 800 c, wire der whre gwyn mTvpduevoy, and lastly, as here, in a purely general sense, e.g. [Plato], Az- toch. § 16, od &y more wrupetns Toy Sdva- tov; comp. Hesych. mripera’ cetera, gpoBeirat, dpirrer, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p.312. Itis not improb. derived from aroot TITY-,—and allied with mroéw; see Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 100. Tav avTiketmévawr] * the opposers,’ ‘your adversaries ;? compare 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 4, Luke xiii. 17, xxi. 15. 48 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. I. 28, 29, > AY > tal ” > / po aN \ Fi f ‘ fa) €otly avTols évdevEts amwArelas, buiv é owTnpias, Kal TOUTO ato @eod: Who these were is not perfectly certain. The context and general use of the word seem both to point to open and avowed enemies of Christianity; not Judaists, but unbelieving Jews (Usteri, Lehrb. p. 332, comp. Acts xvii. 5), or, perhaps even more probably, Gentiles ; compare Acts xvi. 19 sq. HTLs €oriv «.7.A.] ‘the which is to them, ‘seeing it is,’ etc.; viz., when they see, as they cannot fail to do, if they will pause to consider, that they cannot in- timidate you; dtay yap of BidKovtes TOY SiwKopevey wy wepryévwvTat, of émiBovadcv- ovtes Tay emiBovAcvo“evwr, of KpaTovyTeEs TOY KpaTouuEevay, odK a’Trosey ora: SjAOV avrois, St GroAobvTal, btt ovdev icxtoou- ow; Chrys. The ée7ts, as in Eph. iii. 13 al., has here a faint explanatory force (see especially notes on Gal. iv. 23), and is the logical relative to wh mrupdu. Kk. T. A., though grammatically connected (by at- traction) with the predicate évdeiés ; see examples of this species of‘attraction in Winer, Gram, § 24. 3, p. 150; compare also § 66.5. 2, p. 552, and Madvig, Synt. § 98. The dative airois is the dative incomm. or, of ‘interest’ (Kriig., Sprachl. § 48. 4), and is dependent on évderéis, not on amwdrcias (Holem.),—a needlessly involved construction. The reading of Rec. aitots pev éorlv has but little criti- cal support [KL; Theodoret, al.], and is properly rejected by all the best edi- tors. butvy 8& cSrnplas| ‘but to you (an evidence) of salvation ;’ scil. of final salvation, as opposed to the preceding amréAcia; ‘ipsos perdet et du- cet in gehennam, vos autem ducet ad salutem et gloriam,’ Corn. a Lap. ; com- pare similar antitheses, Rom. ix. 22 sq., ° 1 Cor. i. 18, al., and on the force of amd- Acta, notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9. The present reading is somewhat doubtful: Suay is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. ore buiv éxapiosn To bmép Xpictod, ov povov (so Meyer, Alf.) with ABC?; 4 mss. ; Clarom., Sangerm. ; Chrys. (ms.), Aug., al., and is plausible on account of the possible conformation of iptv to abtois. The text is, however, strongly supported (DSEFKL [iyivy C1D1G; 73]; Vulg., Goth., Copt., Basm., th. (Platt, Pol.), Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theod.), and has apparently the diplomatic preponderance plainly in its favor. kal todrTo «.7.A.] ‘and this from God,’ comp. Eph. ii. 8 ; 7. e. not merely “vos salutem consecuturos esse,’ Calvin, which would arbitrarily limit rodro to the latter member ; nor even ‘ illud, ad- versarios quidem perituros, vos vero sa- lutem,’ etc., Grot., but, as the consola- tory nature of the context seems to re- quire, with reference to the whole preced- ing (certainly not succeeding, Syr. Bth., Clem.-Alexan. Strom. 1v. p. 604, Pott.) declaration, in fact to émldeiztis (Peile, De W., Alf.) ; ‘et hoc sane non augu-: rium humanum est, sed divinum,’ Van Heng., and sim., Michaelis. Whether it be recognized or not as such, there still is this token of the issue for either side, and it is from God ; compare Wie- sing. in loc. 29. Ort buty x.7.A.] Reason for the declaration immediately preceding, by an appeal to their own cases: not ex- actly, motives to steadfastness (De W.) ; as, in the first place, the exhortation to be steadfast is implicit rather than ex- plicit ; and, secondly, such motives would have been more naturally introduced by ydp. The apostle says, the evdezts k. T. A. is verily not an ‘humanum’” but a ‘divinum augurium,’ because the grace given to you (observe the slightly em- phatic position, — whatever it may be to others) is such that you are thereby ena- bled not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him: the double favor Gwar. -I. 30.—II. 1: PHILIPPIANS. 49 »% > InN , > \ \ heal AGS 3: a , 80 \ TO €lS AUTOV TioTEVEeLY UNA Kal TO UTEP AUTOV TAT YXeEL, TOL BLN > a ” e 3" > ? \ \ a ? id ? b] ? QUTOV AYWVa EXOVTES OvoV ELOETE €V EOL KAL VUV AKOUETE EV €{40l. Be united in spirit; be lowly in heart as was Christ, II. Ei tis ody trapdkrnow ev Xpiota, el ts who humbled Himself unto death, and was exalted with every measure of exaltation. you have received affords the surest proof of the essentially divine nature of the token ; see Meyer tn /oc. exaniadn] ‘was freely given ;’ dvarivels TH Ocw, Kal xdpw clvar A€éywv Td way ka xdpioua Kal Swpedy To mdoxew imEp Xpiorod, Chrys. The aorist is used as referring to the period when the initial grace which has since wrought in the hearts of the Philippians was first given : xapitera: would be too present, and in- deed prospective (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 1), to suit the actual circumstances ; Kexdpiora would express that the effects of the xdpicua are remaining, which, though probably really the case, less per- fectly harmonizes with the language of implied exhortation than the simple ref- erence to what they once received, and must show that they now possess. The essential character of the tense (‘ quod preteriit, sed ita ut non definiatur quam late pateat id quod actum est,’ Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17 sq.) may here be easily traced. is not ‘in Christi negotio,’ Beza (comp. Auth.), but is logically dependent on the following méoxew, and would have been structurally associated with it if the apos- tle had not paused to interpolate a clause (ob udvoy — bmép adrod) that serves ma- terially to heighten the assertion and add to its significance: exe? puey dperdérns eiul, evratda de dpeiderny exw Tv Xpi0- tov, Chrys. So expressly Syr., Alth., both of which suppress in translation the prefixed rd brép Xp. ‘80. €xovres] ‘as youhave:’ further specification of the preceding mdoxyev, with a consolatory turn suggested by the associated example; kal 7d mapdderyya éxere. médw avtovs émalper, Chrysost. The structure is ‘ad sensum’ rather To brep Xpiorod than ‘ad verbum ;’ the participle being constructed with the due?s which is prac- tically involved in the preceding verse, rather than with the duiv which immedi- ately precedes : see especially Eph. iv. 2, and notes iz loc. Such relapses of the participle into the nominative are far too common to render it necessary with Ben- gel, Bloomf., and what is more singular, Lachm., to enclose 471s —ab’tos méoxew in a parenthesis : see examples in Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505, Jelf, Gr. § 707. The frequent, and almost idiomatic, occur- rence of such anacolutha seems to be re- ferrible to the practically weaker force of the oblique cases of participles. ofov e{Sere] ‘such as gou saw in me,’ sc. when I was with you at Philippi; compare Acts xvi. 16 sq.: ov« eimev, aknkdaTe, GAA, efdeTe Kad yap éxet H2- In the ex- pression évy €uol the prep. marks as it were the substratum of the action; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, and compare notes on Gal. i. 24. There is thus no need, with Syr., Aith., to translate the second év euo ‘de me’: as the Philip- pians saw the &yev when he was present with them, so now they hear of it in his Epistle, in which he as it were person- ally speaks to them; compare Meyer. The reading were (Rec., Griesb.), though fairly supported [B°D°E°FGKL; very many mss.; Theoph., Gicum.|] is appar- ently only due to the interchange of « and i (itacism); see Scrivener, Collation, etc. III. 3, p. LXIX. Anoev év SiAlrmos, Chrys. Cuaprer II.—1. ef tis obv] ‘If then, etc.’ The odv, which has here its reflexive rather than collective force, re- calls the readers to the consideration of what their duty ought to be under exist- 50 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 1. id 7 / ” | 7 v 4 Tapayvsvov aydrns, €l Tis Kowwvla IIvevpatos, et twa oTrhayxva ing circumstances, with aretrospective ref. to the exhortation in ch. i. 27; ‘revocat ovv lectorem ad rem preesentem, id est, que nunc cum maxime agitur, eodem prorsus modo, quo Latina particula 2g- tur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717., Be- za’s correction of the Vulg., ‘ igitur’ for ‘ergo,’ is thus judicious. On the exact difference between these particles, see Hand. Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 187. mapaKar. év Xp.| ‘exhortation in Christ,’ 7. e. exhortation specified and character- ized by being in Him as its sphere and element. This important modal adjunct defines the mapdxAnois as being essen- tially Christian, ‘quam [qualem] dat conjunctio cum Christo,’ Wahl; it was only ‘in Him’ that its highest nature was realizable ; compare notes on Eph. iv. 1. TlapdeAnois is apparently here ‘exhortation’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 10, Rom. xii. 8, and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 32), o> not ‘consolatio,’ Vulg. Theos Syriac (compare Goth., Copt.), which, though lexically tenable (see Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. Vol. 1. p. 132 sq., and comp. notes on 1 Thess. vy. 11), seems here somewhat tautologous when trapapvdior so immediately follows. The exact distinction between the clauses is worthy of notice: the first (év Xp.) and third (Mvedu.), as Meyer observes, cer- tainly point to the objective principles of Christian life, while the second (dydzns) and fourth (omAdyxv. k. oikT.) point to the subjective elements: so also Wiesing., who, however, somewhat unsatisfacto- rily refers the first two members to St. Paul, the last two to the Philippians. Surely the very terms of the exhortation seem to imply that all must be referred to the Philippians. It is the hoped- for, and indirectly assumed, existence of these four elements among his con- verts that leads the apostle so pressingly to beseech them to fulfil his joy: comp. Chrys., who very well illustrates the force and meaning of the appeal. Tapamvsiov &y.| ‘comfort or consola- tion of love ;’ ‘solatium caritatis,’ Vulg., 2) compare Syr. Los5 thsato [loqu- utio in cor], Auth. and apparently Copt. ; not ‘ winning persuasion,’ Wiesing., —a meaning which is defensible (compare Plato, Legg. x. p. 880 A, mapayvSiots eb- meidns ylyyntoa), but here apparently precluded by the parallelism omAdyxva kal oixt. in the fourth clause. The gen. aydans is the gen, of the source or agent, ‘comfort such as love supplies;’ see Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126. kotvwria Ty.| ‘fellowship of the Spirit; gen. objecti, communion with, participation in the gifts and influence of the Holy Spirit; thy petoxhy adrod kal Thy peTdAniy Kad hv ayiaCdueda, Theoph. on 2 Cor, xiii. 14: so expressly Eth., ‘ particeps fuit in Spiritu;” comp. Chrys. The gen. at first sight might seem a gen. suljecti as above,—a con- struction both lexically and grammati- cally defensible (compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 111. p. 81, 287), but here somewhat at variance with the prevailing use and reference of xowwvia and xowvwvds (comp. 1 Corin. i. 9, 2 Pet. i. 4) in passages of — this doctrinal aspect; see Meyer on 2 Cor. xiii. 14, compare Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 419 (edit. Burton), and the good sermon of Waterland, Works, Vol. v. p. 351. The Spirit here is not the human spirit, ‘animorum conjunctio,’ Tirin. (Pol. Syn.), De W.., al., but the personal Holy Spirit, as the parallelism to the first clause, and the recurrence of the expression in 2 Cor. xiii. 14, seem very distinctly to suggest. So AXthiop. (Polygl., but not Platt), which expressly inserts &y:os* ef TLi\va OTA. k. T.A.] ‘if any bowels (heartfelt love) and Crap. II. 2. PHIBIPRIANS: 51 \ . 4 2 / , \ / (ca Ni LN a kal viktippol, * mAnpwoaTé ov TV Yapdy, va TO avTO hpovijre, THY avTHY aydTnY ExoVTES, aUINpuxoL TO EV hpovodvTes, * wndEev compassions.’ By comparing James v. 11, and especially Col. iii. 12, orAdyxva oixtipuod, it would seem that there is some distinction between the two words, and that the latter is not a mere expla- nation of the former (Zanch.). That ad- vanced by Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 69) seems satisfactory, ‘omA. amorem vehe- mentiorem quemcunque denotat (a7op- yhv, compare Philem, 12) ; oikr. miseri- cordiam proprie denotat, seu sensum do- loris ex malis seu incommodis aliorum ;’ compare Grot. in loc. It is somewhat singular that all the uncial MSS. includ- ing x, at least 50 mss., and several Ff. read ef tis omA. Though adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7) and Lachm., and defended by Green, Gram. p. 284, it seems really to have arisen from an erroncous (para- diplomatic) repetition of the preceding mis. The prevalence of such an appar- ent error need not shake our faith in mere MSS. testimony (Alf.) ; it rather seems to hint at the general fidelity of the tran- seribers. They could scarcely have all made the same error; but may very probably have studiously perpetuated it on the authority of two or three more an- cient documents. Tivé& is found in Clem. Alex. Strom. tv. p. 604 (ed. Pott.). 2. rAnpdcare| ‘fulfil,’ ‘make com- plete;’ ov« etme movhoaré wot, GAAG, TAD- pbcate’ rolreotiv ipkacde putevew ev euol” %5n por peteddnate 7d eipnvevew, GAN cis TéAos emiduus eASeiv, Chrys. The position of wou before xapay does not seem intended to convey any empha- sis; see the long list of similar examples in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7.1, p. 140 (ed. 6). iva rd avrd k.7.A.] ‘that so ye be likeminded.’ The particle iva does not here denote simple purpose (Meyer), —a forced and unsatisfactory interpretation which ignores the usage, of later Greek and the analogy of the modern vd (see Corpe, Gr. p. 129 sq.),—but, with a weakened force, blends the subject of the entreaty, ete., with the purpose of mak- ing it: so rightly Chrys., tt BolAc ; iva ce Kwobvwy dradAdkwmev, iva ool Te xopn- yhowuev; Ovdev tovtwy yoy, arr’, iva duets TO adTd ppov7te. See notes on Lph i. 17, where this and other uses of fva are bricfly investigated. Van Heng. refers iva to an omitted ratbrny, sc. xapay Tab- Thy va k. T. A.: this seems very unsatis- factory. Td avtd dpoy. is rightly explained by Tittmann (Synon. p- 67) as, ‘eandem sententiam habere, idem sentire, velle et querere,’ while the following participial clauses, thy avrhy ay. éx. and cmp. 7b ev pp., more nearly define its essence and characteristics. See Fritz. Rom. xii. 16, Vol. 111. p. 87, who however does not appear quite ex- act in separating cum. from 7d ev poy. ; see below. THY GUTNY AY. €x.] ‘having the same love ;’ closer defi- nition of rd aiTd ppovety : eat) yap cad Td alTd ppovety Kal ur aydany exew, Chrys. The true nature of such love is well de- fined by the same able commentator as duolws Kad pidety kad Pidcioda. On the nature of Christian love as delineated in St. Paul’s Epistles, the most summary and comprehensive definition of which is in ver. 4, see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 242 sq., Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 19, Vol. II. p. 203 sq. otyvpuxot K.T.A.] ‘with accordant souls minding (the) one thing ;’ second declining clause, and parallel to rhy abt. ay. éx. Most of the ancient Vv. (Syr., Copt., Ath., al.), apparently the Greek expositors, and several modern .commentators regard obvivxor and 7d éy pp. as separate predi- cations; it seems however best, with Meyer, to regard them as united, the slightly emphatic odmp. forming a quasi- adverbial or secondary predication to 7d rn 52 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 3, 4. Kata épieiay pndé Kata Kevoooflay, adda TH TaTrewoppoctvy ? , ¢e , e L € La) 4 \ Aye ia) 4 AXANAOUS NYOU{MLEVOL UTEPEXOVTAS EAUTMV, * [1] TA EAVTWY EKATTOL év op. There is thus no necessity for any artificial distinctions between 7d aird gp. and 7d év gp. (Tittmann Synonym. 1. p. 69), nor for the assumption of a studied tautology (comp. Chrys.) : odv- wuxor serves to illustrate the participial clause with which it is associated, while 7 éy gp. remands the reader to the 7d aid op. above, with which it is practi- cally synonymous, and of which it is possibly a more abstract expression; compare Green, Gram. p. 201. Middle- ton (Gr. Art. p. 368) following Grotius refers this latter clause to what follows : this is not satisfactory, and mars the symmetry of the sentence. On the dis- tinction between civuxos and isdWuxos, see notes on ver. 20. 3. wndéy Kata éprd.] ‘ meditating nothing in the way of dissension, or conten- trousness ;’ not moodvtes, V. Heng., Scho- lef. (Hints, p. 105), or still worse mrotetre, Luth., but simply dpovotyres, continued from the preceding verse; see Winer, Gr. § 64. 2, p. 618. The prep. kara pri- marily denotes the model or rule, and thence, as here, by a very intelligible gradation, the occasion or circumstances in accordance with it; see notes on Tit. iii. 5, and Winer, Gram. § 49. d, p. 358. On épidela see notes on ch. i. 17, and on Gal. v. 17; compare too Theophyl. i loc., who appears to have caught the true force and meaning of the word ; orovdd- oat 2xw, va uh me vixhon 6 Betva’ TovTo Zor % épisela. MndE KaTG kevodokiayv] ‘nor inthe way of vain- glory” Kevod. an ar. Aeyéu. in the N. T. (adj. Gal. vy. 26) is sufficiently defined by Suidas as, patala tis wep) Eavtov of- nows ; compare Polyb. Hist. 111. 81. 9, x. 33.6. The reading is here very doubt- ful, that adopted in the text [ABC; Vulg., Clarom., Sang., Syr. (?) Copt., Z8th. (2); Lachm., Tisch.], though not free from suspicion, has the greatest amount of external evidence, and seems on the whole the most probable and sat- isfactory. Th Tamwervog- pootyn| ‘with, under the influence of (due) lowliness;’ modal dative (comp. notes on ch. i. 18), or perhaps more pre- cisely dat. of the subjective cause, thus falling under the general head of the ‘dynamic’ dative, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48.15.5. On this causal dative, which though allied to, must not be confounded with, the instrumental dat. (as appar- ently Mey., Alf.), see Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 14, p. 101, sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. ce, p. 181, and Kriiger, 7.c. The article here prefixed to the abstract tasewwodp. may have its collective force (Jelf, Gr. § 448) and mark ‘lowliness’ in its most abstract form, ‘ the virtue of lowliness ” (Mey., comp. Middl. Gram. Art. p. 90); but more probably only characterizes the Tamew. as that due and befitting lowliness by which each ought to be influenced : comp. Rom. xii. 10 sq., and Fritz. in loc. On tamewodpootvn, ‘the thinking lowly of ourselves because we are so,’ and its distinction from mpairns, see notes on Eph. iv. 2. Trench, Synon. § 42, and the more spiritually profound discussion of Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 483 sq. (Bohn). bmwepéexovTas éauvt@v] ‘superior to themselves ;? com- pare Rom. xii. 10, Ephes. v. 21, 1 Pet. vy. 5. The query of Calvin, how those who really and obviously excel others in certain points can conform to this pre- cept, is satisfactorily answered by con- sidering the true nature of taeivogp. The rarewdéppwr is one so conscious of his dependence on God, and of his own imperfections and nothingness, that his own gifts only remind him that others must have gifts also, while his sense of his own utter nothingness suggests to ‘ a EE PP ANS. Cuap. Il. 5. 53 oKoTrobVTES, GANA Kal Ta EvTEpwv ExacToL. * Todto yap dpoveire 5. yap] So Rec¥ and now Tisch. (ed. 7) with DEFGJK; very many Vv.; Gr. and Lat. Ff. (Griesb., but om. om.; Van Heng., Mey., Alf.). The particle is omit- ted by Lachm. with ABCN; 17.37; Coptic, Arm., Eth.; Origen, Ath., al. , As verse 5 begins an ecclesiastical lection, and as the explicative force of the yap might not have been fully understood, and have led to the omission of the particle, the reading of the text seems s/ightly more probable. gpoveire] So ABCIDEFG®; 3 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syriac, 2th. (Pol. and Platt); Cyr.; Lat. Ff. (Zachm., Mey.). The reading of Tisch. (ed. 2,7), ppoveicda, with C?KL; nearly all mss.; Copt., Goth., al.; Orig., Ath. (Rec., Alf), is insuffi- ciently attested by uncial authorities, and, on internal grounds, quite as likely to have been a correction of povetre (to harmonize with 6 kal év Xp. Ino.) as vice versa: compare contra, Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 49 note, whose judgment, however, seems here hasty and ill-supported. Tisch, (ed. 1). him that these gifts may well be supe- rior to his own, and higher in nature and degree : see especially Neander, Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 485 (Bohn). 4.7a éavtayv oxém.] ‘regarding, looking to their own interests:’ warning against a selfish regard for themselves, following suitably on the exhortation to Tamewoppoctyn. Pride, as Miiller well observes, is the most naked form of self- ishness: see the excellent remarks on selfishness as the essence of sin, and as specially developing itself in pride and hatred, ib. Doctr. of Sin. 1.3. 1 and 2, especially Vol. 1. p. 175 sq. (Clark). Sxoreiy is here scarcely different in sense from (nreiv, ch. ii. 21, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5; compare 2 Mace. iv. 5, 7d cdy- gpepov cxor@v. Numerous examples of similar forms of expression will be found in Wetstein in /oc., the most pertinent of which is from a writer whose diction is said often to reflect that of St. Paul, Plotin. Enn. 1. 4.8, ob 7d éxetvwy @rt oKo- Toupevov, dAAG Td EavTdv. The reading of Rec., Exaoros (with CDOEKLN; al.)— oxoreite (with L; al.) is rightly rejected by Lachmann, Tisch., and most modern commentators: it may, however, be re- marked that in all other cases in the N. T. (Rey. vi. 11 [Mec.], is more than We return, then, to the reading of Zachm. and doubtful) éxacros is only found in the singular. GAAG Kal] ‘but also :’ a somewhat weakened form of the adversative clause, the cat perhaps point- ing to the thought that it was natural that a man should look after his own in- terests ; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, p. 441 sq., Fritz. Marc. exc. 11. p. 788. On. the difference between ov«—daaAdAd, ob pdvoyv —GAAd, and od pdvov —GAA& kal, see the acute remarks of Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 9. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to controvert the position of Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 503), that r& éauta@y are ‘sua dona;’ such an inter- pretation is less in harmony with the context, and would tend to make «al ap- pear redundant. What the apostle con- demns is not so much a reasonable re- gard for their own interests as the selfish exhibition of it; comp. Waterl. Serm. v. Vol. 11. p. 503. 5. yap has here its explanatory force, ‘verily,’ ‘as the case stands,’ and serves both to illustrate and confirm the preced- ing exhortation ; see especially notes on Gal. ii. 6, where this use of yap is briefly illustrated. ppoveire év btv] ‘entertain this mind in yourselves,’ se. ‘in animis vestris,’ Van H., not ‘intra vestrum ccetum,’ a construction which 54 PRILIPPIANS . év vpiv 6 Kat év Xpiot@ "Inood, ° seems distinctly precluded by the follow- ing €v Xp. Meyer compares the Homeric ev) ppeci, ev) Suus, thus similarly com- bined with gpoveiv, Jil. xx1v.173, Odys. XIv. 82, al. ® kal év X.71.] ‘which was also in Christ Jesus, se. ép- poveiro or eppovndyn. ‘The kal is not ‘cum maxime,’ Van. Heng., but simply correlative, indicating the identity of the disposition that is to be between the Phi- lippians and Christ (Wies.) : on the in- sertion of «at after relative particles, and the form of comparison it indicates, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. The in- terpretation of Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. I. p. 180), according to which 6 is to be referred to gpoveiv, not eppovndn, scil. ‘welches ein @poveiy in ihnen selbst nicht ist, ohne auch in Christo Jesu’ (compare Gal. ii. 20), seems artificial and unsatis- factory. 6. Ss] In this important, and it is to be feared much perverted passage, nearly every word has formed the subject of controversy. In no portion of Scripture is it more necessary to follow the simple and plain grammatical meaning of the words. The first question is, to what does 6s refer? To Christ as (a) the Aéyos %capkos, Christ in his pre-incarnate ‘state (Chrys. and majority of Ff.), or, as (b) the Adyos évcapkos, — what is now usually, but not very reverently, termed the ‘historical Christ’ (Novation, De W., al.)? The true answer seems, — to neither exclusively, but, as the appro- priately chosen antecedent (Xp. Inc.) suggests, and the profound nature of the subject requires, to (a) AND (b), to the TéAewos Tids (Hyppolyt. ap. Routh, Opuse. Vol. 1. p. 73) in either form of His eter- nal existence ; it being left to the imme- diate context to define the more imme- diate reference ; compare Col. i. 13, 15, and see Thomasius, Christi Person, Vol. 11, p- 136. In the present verse the ref- Cuap. IL. 6. a 3 ied reteys 4 / > Os &V popghy Ocod vrdpyav ovy erence seems disiniy 10 (a); for as the tertiwn comparationis is manifestly rame- voppootvn, so this cannot be completely evinced in the case of Christ, unless His prior state be put in clear contrast with that to which He was pleased to conde- scend ; compare 2 Cor, viii. 9, where, while “Ino. Xp. is similarly the subject, TAovotos &y can scarcely admit any other reference than to Christ’s pre-incarnate state; so even Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 4, p. 295. In verses 8-12 the reference is as obviously to @): the Adyos ucapxos, which is the more immediate subject of verse 6, passes into the Aéyos @ycapxos in ver. 7, and as the slight break in the con- tinuity of the sentence, cal oxhmari K.T.A., fittingly and significantly indicates, re- mains so to the end of the clause. Other opinions, especially that of Origen, will be found in the admirable sermon of Wa- terl. (Works, Vol. 11. p. 109), in which the whole passage is very clearly dis- cussed. See also Pearson, Creed, Art. 11. Vol. 1. p. 155, Bull, Prim. Trad. vr. 21, Jackson, Creed, Book viz. 1, Tho- masius, Chr. Pers. Vol. 11. p. 136 sq. Reference to the older monographs ‘on this subject will be found in Wolf én Joc., and to the more recent in Meyer in doc. év wopoh Oeod bmrdp.| ‘ subsisting in the form of God,’ ‘iivstandend u. s. w.,’ Thomasius, /.c., scil. from all eternity, in reference to His pre-incarnate exist- ence, the participle not having so much a causal (‘ inasmuch as he was’) as a con- cessive reference, ‘although he was,’ a sufficiently common solution of the par- ticiple; see Donalds. Gr. § 621. The use of drdpxwy, not &y, is especially no- ticeable. In the following words, pop) ©cov, there is but little difficulty, if we adhere simply and honestly to the true lexical meaning of wopph, and properly at- tend to the subsequent antithesis. With respect to wopp4 [probably derived from Cuap. II. 6. PHILIPPIANS. 59 e \ € , \ > yw A A vi BJ \ e \ oe 4 apTaywov nyNTaTO TO ElvaL Loa ew, "ene EKEVOOED the Sanser. Vurpas, ‘form,’ comp. Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 309], we may first observe, that it is not perfectly iden- tical with dois or ovata (Chrysost., al., Jackson, /. c.), being in fact one of its two essential elements (see especially Aristot. de Animd, 11. 1), but designates ‘form,’ ‘appearance’ (/Eth.), ‘likeness’ (Syr.), and may be compared with eixéy, Col. i. 15, and xapaxthp ris broordcews, Heb. i. 3; compare Thomasius, /. ¢., p. 137. As, however, both these allied ex- pressions stand in connection with a ref- erence to the eternal Sonship (Waterl. l.c.), as opp) Ocod stands in distinct and undeniable antithesis to popphy Sob- Aov (Bull, /. c.), and as this latter expres- sion is referred by the apostle himself to the assumption of human nature, so no candid man can doubt that both ante- Nicene and post-Nicene writers were right in their deduction that pop) @cov has reference to the divine nature, and does express as much as @eds éx Ocov (Hippol. Vol. 11. p. 29, ed. Fabr.) and vids Ocod (Dionys.-Alexan. apud. Labb. Vol. 1. p. 853), and hence, what is truly and essentially divine; see esp. Waterl. Serm. v. Vol. 11. p. 103 sq. ovX apmaybudy K.7.A.] ‘Hedid not deem His being on an equality with God a thing to be seized on, or to grasp at.’ On this important clause we must premise the following remarks: (1) the slightly emphatic apruyyudy is the predicate, and 7d civat x. T. A., the immediate object to nynearo, see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 289; (2) the word apm., if considered apart from the context, does not seem merely = dprayua or aprdymoy (Callim. Hymn. Cer. 9), but, with the usual force of its termination (Donaldson, Cratyl. § 253), would seem to denote ‘the act of seiz- ‘ing ;’ compare Plut. (?) de Educ. p. 120 A, Tov éx Kpnrys Kadotmevoy apmaypudy ; (3) toa is used adverbially (Winer, Gr. § 27. 3, p. 160), exew tows Oew, ‘ equal- iter Deo esse,’ Thomas., J. c, p. 140, and that no stress can be laid on such an use (‘spectari tanquam Deum,’ Grot.), as the whole force of the assertion of equal- ity lies in the use of the verb. subst., 7d eivat; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 88, ed. Burton; (4) ev woppn Ocod bmdpy. and 7d eva: oa Oce are virtually, though not precisely, identical. Both refer to the Divine Nature ; the former, however (perhaps with a momentary glance of thought to its dvAla), points to it in re- spect of its form and pre-eristence ; the latter, with exquisite distinction, to its state and present continuance, referring the reader, as it were, to the very moment of the nyfcaTo. On these prem- ises the translation would be, —(a) He thought the being equal to God no act of ro’bery, —no usurpation of any dignity which was not His own by right of na- ture (Jackson, Creed, vit1. 1); ‘non rapinam existimavit pariari Deo,’ Ter- tullian, see Waterl., J. c., p. 107 sq.: so ° > appy- Syr. fun Onda [direptio], Vulg. ‘rapinam,’ Goth. ‘ vulva,’ and perhaps Copt. ‘hélem’ (but appy.—éapray px a Lev. vi. 4), Authoriz., and many of the older commentators. To this, however, tho logical consideration that a condition cannot properly be regarded an act (com- pare Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 131), and the still graver contextual considera- tions, — (a) that the above rendering of apm. hyho. not only affords no exempli- fication of wh Ta eauTdv oKor. (ver. 4) but really implies the very reverse; (8) that the antithesis oty 7yhao.— GAAd exer. is thus wholly destroyed (see below), — present objections so serious, and appar- ently insurmountable, that we seem jus- tified in reconsidering (2), and in assign. ing to the rare word aprayubs a meaning approaching that of the verbal in -ras 56 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 7. popdyy SovrAov AaBdv, ev spordpatse avSparwv yevopevos, (Hesiod, Op. 320) or the substant. in -ua [consider Seouds, xpnouds, and permuta- tions of -ua and -wos, such as, Siwyya, ou- wyu.os|, so that the phrase may be consid- ' ered closely allied to &pmayya jryeiodat (Heliod. th. v11. 20) and the similar expressions pm. moteiodat, Huseb. Const. Il. 81, dpra Séoda, Euseb. Hist. vit. 12; compare apmadéa déo1s, Pind. Pyth. Vill. 65, and see especially Donalds. in loc. The meaning then will be (b) He did not deem the being on an equality with God a thing to be seized on, a state to be exclusively (so to speak) clutched at, and retained as a prize; the expression ovx apr. jy. being perhaps studiedly used rather than ovx jjpmace, /Uth., ‘ut sententiam etiam graviorem redderet, et Christum de illo ne cogitasse quidem sig- nificaret,’ Rabiger, in Thomas. Christ. Pers, Vol. 11. p. 139: so in effect Theod- oret (ov wéya TodTo bméAaBe), and, with some yariations in detail, Van Heng., De W., Wiesing., and the majority of modern commentators, except Meyer and Alford), who adopt a quasi-active meaning (‘ein Verhaltniss des Beutema- chens,’ ‘ self-enrichment’) but somewhat confuse the exegesis. The fuller justifi- eation of (b) will appear in the following note. 7. AAG EauTdy exév.] ‘but emp- tied Himself ;’ ‘He retained not his equal- ity with God, but on the contrary emp- tied Himself, — Himself, with slight em- phasis, divine as He was in nature and prerogatives.’ The real difficulties of this passage are brought into clear prom- inence by this adversative clause We have here two lines of interpretation, perfectly and plainly distinct. (1) If, on the one hand, we adopt (a), the first in- terpretation mentioned ver. 6, then bidp- xwv will be causal, ox apr. jy. will re- fer to the preceding account of Christ’s greatness (Waterland, /. c., p. 110), and apm. will more nearly preserve its appar- ent lexical meaning, but aAA& will have to be regarded as equivalent to GAA’ Buws (Waterl., p. 108), and the antithesis as one between whole members, not, as the context seems imperatively to demand, between conterminous clauses; ‘ He thought the being equal to God no usurpa- tion; yet He emptied Himself ;’ so ex- pressly Waterland, and, as far as we can infer from renderings almost perplex- ingly literal, Auth., and the principal ancient Vy., except ith. (2) If, on the other hand, we adopt (2) as above, then — irapx. will be concessive, ovx apm. yy. will refer to the consequent ac- count of Christ’s humiliation, preserving . an exact parallelism to mi) 7a éavTdy cxor., apm. will recede further from its lexical meaning, but aAAd will retain its usual, proper, and logical force after the negative clause (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus ‘dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 2), and the sentence will be even, con- tinuous, and in fullest contextual har- mony : ‘ He did not deem His equality to God a prize to be seized, but, etc.;’ in other words,—‘ He did not insist on His own eternal prerogatives, but, on the contrary, humbled Himself to the condi- tion and sufferings of mortal man.’ Of these two interpretations while (1) pre- serves more nearly the primary lexical meaning of apmayuds, it so unduly ex- pands that of aAAd, and so completely mars the regular antithesis (od«— add), that we seem bound to adopt confidently and unhesitatingly the latter interpreta- tion : see especially Waterland (/.¢., p. 110), who while adopting (1) shows clearly that (2) isa sound and catholic interpretation : compare Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 870, Browne, Articles, 1. 2, p. 41, neither of whom, however, seems to have felt sufficiently the lexical difficulty con- nected with apmrayyds. All Cuap. Il. 8. PHILTPPIANS: oT rn \ d r € eae ? t ¢ , , Kat XNLaTEL EUpe sels @S avS pw7ros ETAT ELYMOEV EAUTOD, YEVOMEVOS arcempts to preserve both the exact mean- ing of apw. and the regular grammatical ‘ wequence (Meyer, and apparently Alf.), in fact to combine (1) and (2), seem hopeless: the two translations are fun- damentally distinct, and most of the con- fused interpretations of this passage are owing to this distinction and this incom- patibility not having been seen and rec- ognized. It is fair to add that of these attempts, the most plausible is the as- sumed coherence of the negative with aprayudy (=‘non-rapinam ’), but to this the form and balance of the sentence, — the appearance of ov with an aorist in the first member, followed by aAAa with a responsive aor. in the second member, —seems, as before, to present a gram- matical objection that remains in all its fullest validity. Lastly, it is not correct to say (De Wette) that 7d eivat x. 7.A. must refer to something Christ did not possess: surely it is logically ac- curate to say, that Christ did not seize for Himself, and covet to retain a state that was then his own. Even though such phrases as toy Sdvatoy apmayua Sé- wevot (Euseb. Hist. vi11. 12) may be found, would it be necessarily incorrect to say of a patriot, odx Gp. (or apm.), hryhoato tov Ploy GAN’ eiAeTo Toy Sdva- Tov? éauToy éxévwoer| ‘emptied Himself, not metaphorically, ‘humiliavit,’ A&th., but according to the simple and lexical meaning of the word (compare Xenoph. CEcon. vi11. 7, al.), “exinanivit,’ Vulg., Claroman. ; Fa) w 4 [inane reddidit] Syriac, ‘ effluere fecit,’ Copt.; compare ‘ us-lausida,’ Goth. Of what did He empty Himself? Not ex- actly of the popph) Ocod (Mey., Alf.) un- less understood in a sense different to that which it inferentially has in the pre- ceding clause, for, as Waterl. truly says, ‘He had the same essential glory, the 8 same real dignity He ever had’ (uévwy ’ fv, fAaBey 3 vd« jv (Chrys.), but, as the following clause more expressly shows, of that which he had in that form (comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 158), that Godlike majesty and visible glories (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 34) which He had from all eternity: thy dtlay ka- Taxpipas Thy aKpay Tamewoppocivyy et- Aero, Theodoret. The military meta- phor which Krebs ( Obs. p. 329) finds in kevody and even in apr. 7yho., seems doubtful in the highest degree. hopoynyv SovArAov AaBer| ‘taking, or by taking, the form of a servant ;’ the ac- tion of the aor. part. being synchronous with that of the finite verb (see Bernhard., Synt. x. 9, p- 383, notes on Eph. i. 9), and serving more fully to explain it: ‘si queris quomodo Christus seipsum exi- nanivit? Respondet apostolus, servi for- mam accipiens,’ Bull, Prim. Trad. vt. 20. The choice of the term SovAov, as the same great writer ably observes, has no reference to any servilis conditio (‘ mi- seram sortem,’ Heinr.), but is suggested only by the preceding antithesis poppf @covd, and marks the relation which our Lord assumed towards God; ‘ad Deum autem comparata creatura omnis servi formam habet, Deique ad obedientiam obstricta tenetur,’ ib. § 20. év duotdmatt x. 7.A.] ‘being made in the likeness of men ;’ modal clause sub- ordinated to the preceding:—‘if any man doubt how Christ emptied Himself, the text will satisfy him, by taking the form of a servant; if any still question how he took the form of a servant, he hath the apostle’s resolution by being made in the likeness of men,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 157 (ed. Burton). The expression év duo. is very noticeable ; Christ though perfect man was still not a mere man, a.YAds &vIpwmos, but was 6 Adyos a&pt yevduevos; compare ‘The- 58 PHILP PLANS: Cuar. II. 8, 9. dmHKO0S expt Yavdtou, Yavatov 5é ctavpovd. * 810 Kal 6 Ocds avrov ophylact zn loc., and Fritz. Rom. viii. 3, Vol. 11. p.97. Lastly, yiveoda: does not here imply merely ‘to be born,’ but, as the context requires, with a greater lati- tude of meaning, ‘apparere,’ ‘in con- spectum venire,’ Kiihner on Xenophon Mem. 111. 3. 6 (Meyer), while év is used with a quasi-local force to mark the en- yelope or environment; see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 7, p. 209. 8. kal oxHmaTt K.T.A.] ‘and be- ing found in fashion as a man, ete.; da- tive of reference, Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, and notes on Gal. i. 22; ov todto A€ywy, bt} Piows meTemerey OvdE GUYXU- gis Tis éyéveTo, GAAG oXhmaTe eyéveTo, Chrys. This clause is connected by De Wette, Meyer, Yisch. (ed. 2, 7), and others closely with what precedes, a stop being placed after &vSpwmos, and éramet- vecev being left, without any connecting particle, to commence the next clause: so also Copt., and probably Syr. and JEth. To such a punctuation there are two grave objections. On theone hand, such an abrupt separation in a group of clauses which have a close logical and historical coherence is improbable, and apparently unprecedented (the examples cited by De Wette, Gal. iii. 13, v. 25, 2 Cor. v. 21, are not in point): on the other, as was hinted above on ver. 6, the slight break, combined with the some- what peculiar cipedels harmonize admi- rably with the change of subject, and indi- cate the transition from the pre-incarnate glory to the incarnate humiliation and post-incarnate exaltation of the Eternal Son: so it would seem, expressly, Chrys. Hom. vit. 4, init. Eépedets is thus not for év, butj.as always, implies that He was found, manifested, acknowledged, to be; see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and Winer, Gram. § 64.8, p. 542 sq. On oxjjua, which, as its derivation [yw] clearly hints, is not = duofwua, Heinr., but de- notes the habitus, ‘outward guise, de- meanor, and manner of life’ (oixérov oXijua mepiédnne, Lucian, Necyom. § 16, oXijua ppuvyaviotipos AaBdv, Polyzen. Strategem. 1. p. 37 [Wetst.]), and its dis- tinction from the more ‘intrinsic’ and ‘essential poppy,’ see Journ. Class. Phil. No. vir. p. 115 sq.; compare notes on 2 Tim. iii. 5. &s tvspwros| ‘asa man;’ though a perfect man, yet not a mere man; jets yap Wux} Kab Toya’ exetvos Beds, kal Wux7y, Kal cOpa, ‘Chrys., who, however, would have ex- pressed himself with more psychological exactness if, in both clauses for wuxf, he had written wvetua kal Wuxh; comp. Luke xxiii. 26, and Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy- chol. v.1, p. 288 sq. éramweivwoev| ‘humbled Himself:’ not éavrby eram., the emphasis resting rather on the act, than, as before (éaur. exév.) on the subject. °Erazety. is clearly not synonymous with éxév. (Rheinw.), but refers to the acts of condescension and humiliation in that human nature which He emptied Himself to assume: ‘non solum, cum Deus esset, naturam assumpsit humanam, verum in ea se ve- hementer humiliayit et dejecit,’ Bull, Prim. Trad. v1. 21. On the meaning of tamewds [allied with tds, and not im- probably derived from a root STATI— ‘press,’ ‘tread,’ compare Benfey, Wur- zellex. Vol. 1. p. 656] in Christian writers in contradistinction to heathen (by whom it is commonly used in a bad sense, e. g. Tamew) Kal dverevSepos, Plato, Legg. 1v. p. 774 c.), see Trench, Synon. § 42. yevomevos K.T.A.| ‘by becoming obedi- ent even to death;’ modal clause ap- pended to and explaining érameivwoer ; the supplementary words péyxpt k. 7. A. not belonging to the finite verb (Beng., Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 80), but, as the explanatory nature of the parti- cipial clause and the even flow of the ee Cuap. II. 9. PHILIPPIANS. 59 ¢ , ne , We Ci Sok Ni ee kiN os uTreputrwoev Kat EX aAPlLOaTO AUT® OVOKLaAa TO UTrep TAV OVOLMA, sentence clearly require, —.to yevduevos imnjx. The iraxo) here mentioned was not that shown to His earthly parents (Zanch.), or to Jews and Romans (Gro- tius), but, as the following verse seems distinctly to indicate, to God; compare Matth. xxvi. 89, Rom. v. 19, Heb. v. 8. The meaning of the term cannot fairly be pressed, e.g. tmhkovoey ds vids, ovx &s SovAos, Theod., for see Rom. vi. 16, Col. iii. 22. As the derivation suggests, iahKoos and smaxovew involve the idea of ‘dicto obtemperare ;’? mefSeodat is rather ‘monitasequi,’ me:Sapxeiy ‘coactus obse- qui;’ see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 193, and notes on Tit. iii. 1. On the apparent futility of distinctions between péxpr (here not of time but degree) and a&xpu, see on 2 Tim. ii. 9. Savdrov S& at.| ‘yea death on the cross ;” not only death, but a death of suffering, shameful and accursed : ofros yap [6 Sdvatos| mdvTwy émovedioriKdTe- pos eivor €d0xet, oTos 6 aicxiyns yéeuwy, ovTos 6 émdparos, Chrys. On the use of d¢ in repetition, in which however the original oppositive force may just faintly be traced (‘ similis notio quodam modo opponitur’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 861, Hartung, Partik. d€, 2. 7, Vol. 1. p- 168; and on the genitive (of ‘more remote relation’), see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 168. 9. 84 «al] * On which account also ;’ ‘in consequence of this condescension and humiliation on the part of Christ God also, etc. ;’ the xa) not being merely consecutive (De W., Mey.), but stand- ing in connection with émepiy., and serv- ing to place in gentle contrast the conse- quent exaltation with the previous tazre(- vwois; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, and notes on ch. iv. 12. The meaning of 8:4, ‘quo facto’ (comp. Wolf, al.), adopted only, it is to be feared, from dogmatical reasons, is distinctly untena- ble in grammar, and by no means neces- sary in point of theology ; ‘ God,’ as Bp. Andrewes says, ‘not only raised Him, but, propter hoc, even “ for that cause” exalted Him also to live with Him in glory for ever, Serm. 1. Vol. 11. p. 197, ab., p. 325: bray tis capkds émAdBnrae 6 pakdpios TladAos mdvta Aoiwdy Te Ta- mewe meTa adelas Pdéyyerat, Chrysost. in On the humiliation of the Eternal Son see especially Jackson, Creed, vr1t. 1, 2, and on the nature and degree of His exaltation, Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 822 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). avtov imeptpwoer| ‘highly exalted Him ;? CLD gO} nw, [multum exaltayit eum] Syr.; compare Psalm xevi. 9, cpddpa trepupddns bwtp mdvras Tovs deovs, Dan. iv. 34. The dép is not here temporal, nor even local, though the reference is obviously to the Ascension (Eph. iv. 10) and elevation at the right hand of God, but ethical, —‘ dignitate atque imperio supra omnes,’ Zanch., ‘insigniter extulit,’ Just. : so Athiopic, Copt. On St. Paul’s favorite use of jmép and its compounds, see notes on loc. Eph. iii. 20. The exact ae of this exaltation is well discussed in Waterl. Serm. 11. Vol. 11. p. 112; it is to be doubted, however, whether, as Waterl. maintains, the reference is specially to Christ as Son of God, and to ‘ an exalta- tion relutive to us, by a new and real title, viz., that of redemption and salvation ;’ so also Jackson, Creed, x1. 8. 4, Bull, Primit. Tradit. v1. 28. The accordant opinion of these great writers claims our most serious consideration ; still as the aor. seems to point to a definite histori- cal fact, —as in ver. 8 there is appy. al- most a marked transition from the pre- incarnate to the incarnate Son, —as in yer. 10 this allusion seems still contin- ued in the name *Incod,—so here the 60 PHILIPPIANS. CHaz. Ti.10 10 (7 > lal - TG 4 lo) lal , 7 > ! ‘ wa ev T® ovopwate Inood may yoru Karyn érovpaviwy Kat reference is the same; dmepupotcSa Aé- yeTat, kal ds ovk Exwy, 51a Td avSpadmivoy povovovxt, Hippolyt. Fragm. Vol. 11. p. 29 (ed. Fabr.). The exaltation is thus not merely relative but proper ; an inves- titure as the Son of Man, with all that full power, glory, and dominion, which as God He never wanted; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 190 (ed. Burt.). So, distinctly, Chrysost., Theodoret, Cyr.- Alex., some of the ante-Nicene and ap- parently the bulk of the post-Nicene writers. For the psychological consid- erations dependent on this exaltation of the God-man, see Delitzsch. Bibl. Psych. v. 1, p. 287. éxaplcaro| ‘ freely gave ;’ chap. i. 29. ‘There is no reason whatever to depart from the sim- ple and proper lexical meaning of the word ; «i 5¢ Acyeta ev taker Xaplouaros 7d brép Tay Bvoua SéxecSat, cis exetvo Sn- Aovdri peta capKds emavdryerat, cis Orep Fv Kat dixa oaprds, Cyr.-Alex. Thesaur. p- 130. bvoja K. 7. A.J ‘a name the which is above every name ;’ a name, which, as the context shows, is not to be understood generically (comp. Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4), as Kupios (Mich.), or vids cop, but specifically and. ex- pressly as &. is, the name of His hu- miliation, and henceforth that of His ex- altation and glory; a name with which now every highest attribute, grace, power, dominion, and xupidrns (ver. 11) is eternally conjoined. There is thus no reason whatever for modifying the sim- ple meaning of dvoua: both here and elsewhere (Mark. vi. 14, John xii. 28, Acts iii. 16, Rom. i. 5, al.) the idea of ‘dignity’ (Bloomf., Heinr.), is derived solely from the context ; see Van Heng. ‘in loc. The reading is somewhat doubt- ful. Lachm. and Mey. read 1d dvoua 7d x. T.A., with ABC; 17; Copt. [a lan- guage which has a definite and indefi- nite article], Dionisius-Alex., Euseb., Cyr. (2), al.; but, as the insertion can more plausibly be referred to grammati- cal correction than the omission to erro- neous transcription, —scil. the prece- dence of 76, we retain with DEFGKL: nearly all mss.; Orig., Ath., Chrys., al., the reading of Tischendorf.. On the use of the article with the defining clause to characterize more expressly the preced- ing anarthrous noun, see Winer, § 21. 4, p- 126, who, however, appears to lean to the other reading. 10. tva «. 7. A.] ‘that in the name of Jesus ;’ purpose and intent of the exal- tation. °Ev 7@ éydu. is not equivalent to eis 7) Uvoua (Heinr.) as directly specify- ing that to which (A0th.) the adoration is to be paid, nor yet, ‘ad nomen,’ Beza (compare Auth.), ‘ nuncupato nomine,’ Grot.,—a meaning of év évou. wholly without example in the N. T., but, with the full force of the prep., denotes the spiritual sphere, the holy element as it were, in which every prayer is to be of- fered and every knee to bow; see Eph. y. 20, and Harless in loc., who well re- marks that 7d dvouwa x. 7. A. does not, imply simply and per*se the personality (‘pro persona positum,’ Est.), but that personality as revealed to and acknowl- edged by man: compare also Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. wav youu k.7.A.] ‘every knee should bow;’ eis mposkuvnow Sndrovdrt, Gicumen.; genu- flection being the external representation of worship and adoration ; see Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11, Eph. iii. 14 and notes in loc., Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. p. 777. The. subject to whom the adoration is di- rected, can only be, as Meyer rightly ob- serves, the principal subject of the con- text, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. Such an adoration is not, however, as Meyer goes on to say, merely relative (comp. ver. 11, eis dééav cod), but, as the whole aspects of the passage, its —— —— Cuap. II. 11. erruyeioy Kai KaTaySovior, PHILIPPIANS. 61 \ a a 0 kat waca yAoooa e&oporoyjoetat drt Kipwos “Incovs Xpuotos eis ddfav Ocod tratpos. clear contrasts, and its concluding theme, —the exaltation of the Son, —scem all plainly to indicate, positive and absolute. By no one has the distinction between the relative and absolute worship of the Son been more clearly enunciated than by Bishop Bull; ‘si absolute ut Deus spectatur....... idem plane divinus cultus quem Patri exhibemus omnino debetur: Sin Filium intueamur relate qua Filius est, et ex Deo Patre trahit originem ; tum rursus certum est cultum et venera- tionem omnem quem ipsi deferimus, ad Patrem redundare,’ id. Nic. 1x. 15, — a section that for soundness of divinity and clearness of definition deserves atten- tive perusal: see also Waterl. Def. of Quer. xviI. Xvii1. Vol. 11. p. 421 sq. émovpaviwv x.7.A.] ‘of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things un- der the earth ;’ ‘que in ceelis, et in terra, et in abyssis,’ Sth. (Platt); comp. Rev. y. 13, and for examples of a similar sep- aration of the nom. from its dependent genitives, Winer, Gram. § 30. 2, p. 172. The three classes here mentioned are to be understood not with any ethical refer- ence («al of Sixasor [not Kal of (auTes, as cited by Mey. and Alf.] kat of Guaptwaot, Chrys. 2), but simply and plainly, angels and archangels in heaven (comp. Eph. i. 20, Heb. i. 4, 6), men upon earth (com- pare Plato, Repub/. vi11. p. 548 a, [ib.) Axioch. 368 B), and the departed under the earth ; emovpavlous Kade? Tas dopdrous duvdpets, emuyelous Se Tods Er CyTas dy- Spérovs kad kataxPovious Tovs TeSvEearTas ; ecmpare Delitasch, Bibl. Psych. v1. 3, p. 354. The last class is referred by Chrys. 1, Theoph., and Gicum. to Safuoves, but, as Meyer well observes, such is by no means the locality elsewhere assigned to them by the apostle (comp. Eph. vi. 12), nor is the homage of impotence or sub- jugated malice (2 Pet. ii. 4, Jude 6) an idea so suitable with the present as with the following clause. The other inter- pretations that have been proposed are either purely arbitrary (Christians, Jews, Heathens), or adjusted to dogmatical preconceptions (‘ qui in purgatorio sunt,’ Est.) to which the context yields no sup- port. It may be here briefly re- marked that the reverential custom of making an outward sign of adoration at the name of Jesus (Canon 18), though certainly not directly deducible from this text, may still, as Mede admits, be de- rived from it ‘ generali et indefinita con- sequentia,’ Hpist. 71; see Bingham, An- tig. Vol. rx. p. 245 sq., Andrewes, Serm. Ix. Vol. 1. p. 334 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). ll. réca yAdooa| ‘every tongue ;’ not metaphorically, wdyra r& eSvn, The- odoret, but simply and literally in ac- cordance with, and in expansion of, the preceding concrete expression wav ydvu 3 ‘the knee is but a dumb acknowledg- ment, but a vocal confession that doth utter our mind plainly,’ Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. 11. p. 8337, who, however, with his characteristic exhaustion of every possible meaning also notices)the former, p- 339. éfomorAoynoeratl ‘openly confess,’ ‘ diserte confiteatur ” [confitebitur], Beng.; the prep. not merely pointing to ‘ exitum vocis ab ore,’ Van Hengel (comp. Andrewes, J. c.); but, as the occurrence of the simple verb in similar but less emphatic passages (John ix. 22, al.), indirectly suggests, the openness and completeness of the dx0- Aoyia; compare Acts xix. 18, éfomodo- youmevor kad avaryyéAAovTes Tas mpdtels, Philo, Leg. Alleg. § 26, Vol. 1. p. 60 (ed. Mang.), Lucian, Hermot. § 75 ; and see Fritz. on Matth. iii. 6, p. 126, who, however, on the other hand, somewhat over-presses the force of the compound, ‘lubenter et aperte et vehementer confi- as. mae we 62 PRILIFPIANS. Work out your salvation ; be peaceful and blameless, Cuap. II. 19. ia > / ; 2 "Date ayarntol mov, Kay@s TavToTe UTN- s \ e > Lal / / > and give me cause to re. KOUTATE, [1] WS EV TH Tapovaig mov MOVO?, ana joice, even if I have to be offered up for you. teri.’ The student must always bear in mind the tendency of later writers to compound forms : see Thiersch, de Pent. 11.1, p. 83. The reading is doubtful : on the one hand the fut. [ACDEFGKL; 30 mss.; Zisch.| may be due to a change of vowels; on the other hand the subj. [B ; Lachm. ex errore] is very probably a correction of the anomalous future. On the whole, it seems safer to adhere to the majority of MSS. For examples of #va with a fut. see Winer, Gr. § 41. 1. bip.Zos: Kvptos] Predi- cate put forward with especial emphasis ; the contrary, as Mey. observes, is avds- eva Inoovs, 1 Cor. xii. 3. This august title is not to be limited ; it does not re- fer to a «upiérns merely over rational be- ings (Hoelem.), but assures us that not only hath Jesus Christ ‘an absolute, su- preme, and universal dominion over all things, as God,’ but that as the Son of Man He is invested with all power in heaven and earth ; partly economical, for the completing of our redemption ; partly consequent unto the union, or due unto the obedience of His passion, Pearson, Creed, Art. 11. ad fin., Vol. 1. p. 196 (ed. Burton). eis Sdfav K.7.A.] “to the glory of God the Father,’ depend- ent on efouoA., not on O71 K.T.A.3 2. €. the object contemplated by the act of con- fession (Mey., De W., Wiesing.), not the subject matter of it, Andrewes (/.c.), who, however, notices both. The transl. of Vulg., ‘in gloria’ (th., comp. Beng.), is an untenable alteration of the more correct ‘in gloriam ’ [better ‘ad gloriam,’ see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 817] of the Old Latin; so correctly Syr., Copt. , (%). The confession of Jesus as Lord of » all redounds ‘to the glory of the Father, whose Son He is; their honor insepara- ble and their glory one,’ Waterl. Vol. Il. p. 118: dépés mavtaxod bray 6 Tibs dokd(nra, Tov Tlarepa dokatduevov. Obtw bray ariud(ntat 6 Lids 6 Marhp armdCerat, Chrys.,— true and wise words that it is well to bear in mind. We now pass on to a more easy paragraph. 12. dare] ‘So then,’ ‘Consequently ;’ exhortation directly and definitely flow- ing, not from all the previous admoni- tions, ch. i. 27 sq. (De W.), but more especially from the paragraph immedi- ately preceding, eis totro apopavres Tb mapddevryua, Theodoret. In the union of éore with the imper. the usual force of the particle (‘consecutio alicujus rei ex antecedentibus,’ Klotz) is somewhat ob- scured, — the idea of real or logical con- sequence (see notes on Gal. ii. 13) merg- ing into that of inferential exhortation ; ‘rem faciendam certo documento firmat,’ Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 1013: see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 776, and for examples, Winer, Gr. § 41. 5. 1, p.— 269. In such a case the correct transla- tion in Latin is not ‘igitur’ (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. p. 1013), nor even per- haps ‘ proinde,’ Beza (which according to Heindoif = ‘ igitur cum exhortatione quadam ’), but ‘itaque,’ Vulg., this par- ticle being more correctly used of con- clusions naturally flowing from what has preceded (nexus realis), ‘igitur’ of con- clusions that are the result of pure ratio- cination (nexus logicus) ; see especially Hand, Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 187. Kadws tmadvToTE K.T.A.] ‘as ye were always obedient :’ observe the latent par- allelism to srhxoos yevdu. v. 8. But to whom was the obedience shown? Not, as the context might at first sight seem to suggest, ‘ mihi,’ Aith., Conyb., ‘ mibi ad salutem vos hortanti,’ Beng., but, as the more plausible connection of wy as k. T. A. With the last clause seems to in- é’ Cuap. II. 12. PHILIPPIANS. 63 a a a J A b J \ / , viv TOAD paddrdov €v TH aTovcia pov peTg PoBou Kai TPdmou dicate, —to the tacit subject of the tra- Koy in ver. 8, 7. e. ‘to God ;” or what is in effect equivalent to it, ‘ Dei praeceptis ab apostolo traditis,’ Estius: so Van Heng., Mey., Alf., and among the older expositors, Crell. and perhaps Justiniani. On the later form kaSdés, see notes on Gal. iii. 6. Bh @s K.T-A.| ‘not as if in my presence only, but now much more in my absence.’ These words must be connected with the succeeding imperative xarépy. (Grot., Lachm.), not with the preceding aor. irnx.,—a con- struction which would certainly seem to require ov (sec Winer, Gr.§ 55.1, p. 422), - and would tend to obliterate the force of viv. The ds (though omitted by B; a few mss.; Copt., Atth., al.) is certainly genuine, and not to be passed over in translation. The apostle does not con- tent himself with the simple precept, sa- TEpy. Mi) év wap. K. T.A., but also speci- fies the feeling and spirit with which they were to do it; 7. e. not with the spirit of men who did it when he was present, but left it undone when he was absent, but who even in the latter case did it in a yet higher degree; see Mey. in loc., who has well explained the force of this par- ticle. The slight difficulty arises from two oppositions — raytote — viv, mapou- ola — Grovcia being blended in a single enunciation. peta pdBouv Kk. 7. A.] ‘with fear and trembling,’ i. e. with anxious solicitude, with a distrust in your powers that you can ever do enough ; see especially Eph. vi. 5, and notes zn loc. ; compare also 1 Cor, ii. 3, 2 Cor. vii. 15, where the meaning is sub- stantially the same. The ‘fear’ is thus to be referred, not directly to God (vduiCe mapeotdva Tov Ody, Chirys., Waterland, Works, Vol. v. p. 683), but only indi- rectly and inferentially ; the @éGos arose directly from a sense of the greatness of the work and the possibility of failure ; the tpéuos was the anxious solicitude which was naturally associated with it; see Conyb. in loc. An implied exhorta- tion to humility (Neander, p. 67), or warning against false security (Calv.), is not required by the context, and is not in accordance with what seems the regu- lar meaning in which the present form of words is used by the apostle; see esp. the good note of Hammond, who has well investigated the meaning of the ex- pression ; comp. Beveridge, Serm. xvi. Vol. 1. p. 294, who, however, is here less precise and discriminating. Thy €avtT@y cwtnp.| ‘your own sal- vation ;’ the reflexive pronoun not with- out ‘emphasis, hinting that now they were alone, and must act for themselves ; compare Beng. Their salvation was something essentially individual, some- thing between each man and his God. A reference to the example of Christ (‘as He obeyed so do you obey,’ Alf.) seems very doubtful; the whole exhor- tation refers to that example, but the in- dividual pronoun more naturally points to the words which immediately precede it. The unsatisfactory interpretation éavTav = GAAHAwy (compare Michaelis) is fairly refuted by Van Heng. in loc, katepyaCeade] ‘complete, ‘carry out,’ * peragite,’ Grot., ‘ perficite, perfec- tum reddite,’ Just. 2: compare Rom. vii. 18, Eph. vi. 13, and see notes zn loc., where the meanings of this verb are briefly noticed. The compound form does not imply the omovd} or émpéAcia (Chrysost.), but the ‘ perseverantia’ that was to be shown, the intensive kar& in- dicating the carrying through of the épyoyr ; see Rost u. Palm, Ler. s.v., and s. v. xard, Iv. Vol. 1. p. 1599. On the prac- tical aspects of the doctrine, see the good sermon by Beveridge, Serm. xv1. Vol. 1. p. 284 (A.-C. Library), Taylor, Life of Christ 111. 13. 16, Sherlock, Sermon 64 PHL PE AN S*. Cuap. II. 13. A. gle La r s .. S18, (2) x Pep? @. 58 a THY CAVTWY TWTNPLay Katepyalea se €os yap €oTlV O EVEPY@Y xvi. Vol. 1. p. 311 (edit. Hughes). 13. @ebs yap k.7.A.] ‘for God is He who effectually worketh, ete.: yea, work and be not disheartened, for verily God is He who worketh within you. The yap is not argumentative in reference to a suppressed thought, «wh pdBov 871 eimov, peta PdB. cad tpduov, Chrys., but explan- atory (see notes on Gal. ii. 6), in refer- ence to the preceding command, obviat- ing any objection by demonstrating the vital truth on which it was based, and the great principle on which it was justi- fiable: ‘work anxiously, work solicit- ously ; verily (‘ sane pro rebus compara- tis,’ Klotz, Devar.: Vol. 11. p. 232) ‘ God giveth you the ability ;” compare Liicke on John iv. 44. The omission of the article before @eds is justified by ABCD! FGK ; al., and is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 6 évepyar] ‘ He y who worketh effectually,’ eta [effi- ciens, sedulam operam navans]| Syriac. The: full meaning of this word, so fre- quently used by St. Paul, must not be obscured ; it appears in all cases to point not only to the inward nature of the working, but also to hint at the persistent and effective character of it, scil. évepydy elvat, ‘vim suam exercere ;’ comp. Po- lyb. Hist. 111. 6. 5, xvii. 14. 18, XXVII. 1.11. When then Augustine urges in opposition to the Pelagian misinterpre- tation, ‘ Deus facit ut faciamus, proebendo vires efficacissimas voluntati,’ he would seem to be no less verbally exact than doctrinally accurate: compare de Grat. et Lib. Arb. 9. 16, contra Pelag. 1. 19. It may be remarked in passing, that év- epyeiy is used several times in Polybius, see Schweigh. Zer. s. v.; there is how- ever this distinction between his use and that of St. Paul, that by the latter it is never used in the passive (see notes on Gal. v. 6), and by the former never in the middle; see Fritz. Rom. vii. 5, and for a notice of its various constructions, notes on Gal. 1. c., and ib. ii. 8: see also Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 1115. év tyuiv] ‘in you,’ 7. e. in your minds, not among you; this being alike pre- cluded by the prevailing use of the verb (Matth. xiv. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 12, Gal. iii. 5 [see notes], Col. i. 29, al.) and the nature of the context. kal 7d SéaAeuv k.7.A.] ‘both to will and to do,’ as much the one as the other. Observe especially the use of the more emphatic enumeration kal—ral; the SéAew no less than the évepyety is a direct result of the divine évépyera; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4, p. 389, notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. Of these the first (7d SéAev) is due to the inwork- ing influence of sanctifying grace (Wa- terl. Serm. xxvi. Vol. v. p. 688), or, to speak more precisely, of gratia praeveni- ens, to which the first and feeblest mo- tion of the better will, the first process of the better judgment (2 Cor. iii. 5), is alone to be ascribed ; comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. v. p. 303: the second (7d éevepyetv) to the gratia co-operans, by the assistance of which we strive (‘non per vires nativas sed dativas’) to perform the will of God; see Ebrard, Christl. Dogm. § 524, Vol. 11. p. 566. The lan- guage of Chrys. in loc., ay SeAhons, Tore évepynoet Td SéeAev, might thus seem open to exception if the SeAjaps is to be referred to a ‘dispositio previa;’ this however cannot be certainly inferred from his context. For the diversities of opinion on this text, even among Ro- manists, see the long and perspicuous note of Justiniani zn Joc., and for the dif- ferences among Protestants, and the nec- essary distinction between passivity (‘ho- mo convertitur nolens’) and receptivity (‘ex nolente fit volens’), see Ebrard, Christl. Dogm. § 519—522, Vol. 11. p. 558 sq. It may be remarked that a oe Cuar. II. 13, 14. PHILIPPIANS: 65 ° ¢ an \ \ ls \ eS fal ie \ A 1) i 14 if €V UMLLV Kab TO Serco Kat TO EvVEpYyetv UTEP TS EVOOKLAS. TAVTEa the repetition of the word évepyety, (pre- served correctly by Claroman., Coptic, but not Syr., Vulg.), rather than xarep- - ydeoSu, is duc to the fact that it ex- presses more exactly the inward ability showing itself in action, and is thus more suitable in connection with SéAev. While then this important verse is a conclusive protest against Pelagianism on the one hand, its guarded language as well as its intimate connection with ver. 12 show that it is as conclusive on the other against the Dordracene doctrines of irre- vocable election (cap. 1), and all but compelling grace; cap. 111. Iv. 12, 16, Reject err. 8. evdox.| ‘of His good pleasure,’ i. e. in fulfilment of, to carry it out and satisfy it; Sid thy dydmny, 8d Thy dpecrelay ad- zov, Chrys. The prep. drep here seems © X fol uTep TiS to approach in meaning kata (Eph. i. 5), . or dia (Eph. ii. 4), but may still be clearly distinguished from either. It does not represent the evdoxia as the mere ratio of the action, or the mere norma accord- ing to which it was done, but, as the interested cause of it; the commodum of the evdoxia was that which the action was designed to subserve ; comp. Rom. xv. 8, John xi. 4, where howcver the primary meaning of irép is less obscured: see Winer, Gr. § 47.1, p. 343, and com- pare Rost u. Palm, Ler. s. v. bwép, 2, Vol. 11. p. 2067. Evdoxia is referred by Syr., Just., Green (Gram. N. T. p. 302), to the ‘ bona voluntas’ of the Philippi- ans: this is grammatically plausible, but owing to the preceding SéAew (Meyer) not exegetically satisfactory. Still less probable is the connection of the clause with ver. 14 (Conyb.), which, independ- ently of grammatical difficulties (see Al- ford), has the whole consent of antiquity, Ff. and Vyv., opposed to it. On the meaning of edSoxia, see notes on Eph. i. 5, and compare Andrewes, Serm. x11. 9 Vol. 1. p. 289 (A.-C. Libr.). 14. rdyta] ‘all things,’ not exactly ‘everything you have to do,’ or with ref. to ver. 3 (Fell), but, as the context and the last of the two associated substan- tives seem to suggest, ‘ everything which stands in more immediate connection with the foregoing commands, and in which the malice of the devil might more especially be displayed :’ see Chrysost. in loc. yoyyuvouar| ‘murmurings ;” compare 1 Pet. iv. 5, dvev yoyyvopuod : here apparently against God, 6 yoyyiGer axapire? TH Oey, Chrys. ; not, against one another, Wie- singer (‘placide se gerant inter homi- nes,’ Calv.),—a command which here finds no natural place. Alford urges that in every place in the N. T. (only 4, and only here by St. Paul) yoyyuou. re- fers to murmuring against men; but of these passages, one (John vii. 12) is not applicable, and another (1 Pet. iv. 9, compare De Wette) not perfectly cer- tain. That it may be applied to God seems demonstrable from 1 Cor. x. 10. The forms yoyyi¢w and yoyyvaopds [per- haps derived from the Sanscr. guy, ‘ to murmur,’ Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 62] are said to be Ionic, the Attic forms being rovSopi(m and rovSepvcuds; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 858, compare Thom. M. p. 856 (ed. Bern.). On. the alleged but doubtful distinction between éyev and Xwpis, see notes on Hph. ii. 12. Siaroyiousy] ‘doubtings, *‘ hesita- tionibus,’ Vulg., Athiop. [dubitatione], Copt. [cogitationibus],— not ‘ detracta- . ‘g eos tionibus,’ Clarom., or eS [divis- ione], a meaning not found in the N. T., and apparently not supported by any good lexical authority; see especially hotes on 1 Tim. i. 8, where this word is briefly noticed. Alford urges the use of diadoyitw [read -iCoua] in Mark ix. 33, 66 PHILIPPIANS. CHap, Ii. bar a) Q n \ Py A 15 / , MoeiTe ywpis yoyyvouav Kal oladoyiopor, wa yevnose 34; but even there the idea is ‘ discus- sion,’ rather than ‘ dispute’ or ‘ conten- tion: comp. Xenoph. Mem., 111. 5. 1. 15. fvya x. 7. A.| Object and aim, not ‘incitamentum’ (Van Heng.), contem- plated in the foregoing exhortation. They were to fulfil everything connected with the great command, ver. 12 sq., without murmurings and doubtings, that they might both outwardly evince (&ueu- mrot) and be inwardly characterized by (axép.) rectitude and holiness, and so be- come examples to an evil world around them. When Alford urges against the internal reference of dad. that the object is outward,—blamelessness and good example, he suppresses the direct inter- nal object &xépao: (suitably answering to xwpls Siad.), and makes the apposition- ally stated, and more indirect object, — the good example, primary and direct. The reading is very doubtful; ZLachm. reads jive with AD'EIFG; Vulg., Cla- rom., al.; Lat. Ff.; but the external au- thority (BCD%E?KL; appy. all mss.; Chrys., Theod., Dam., al.) combined with the greater probability of correction seems slightly preponderant in favor of the text. &képarorl ‘pure,’ ‘simplices,’ Vulg., th., ‘ sinceres[i],’ Clarom.; not ‘harmless,’ Auth., Alf., —-a meaning not recognized by the best ancient Vyv., and neither in harmony with the derivation and lexical meaning of the word (6 wh kexpamévos Kakois, GAN? Gmhods Kat amofcaAos, Etymol. M.), nor substantiated by its use in the N. T.: see Matth. x. 16, dxépator ws ai mepioTte- pat, Rom. xvi. 19, akepalous eis Tb Kandy ; in the former of which passages it stands in a species of antithesis to @pdéymos, in the latter to copds ; compare Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 154, Krebs. Obs. p- 331, and for the distinction between axép., amAods, and &axos, Tittm. Synon. i. p. 27. TéKva Oceo0d k. t. A.| ‘irreproachable, unblamable, chil- dren of God [by virtue of the viosecta, Rom. viii. 15, 23] zn the midst,’ etc. ; not ‘irreproachable or blameless in the midst of,’ Luth., a position which weakens the climactic force of the epithet, and ob- scures the apparent allusion to Deut. Xxxii. 5, Téxva popntd, yeved oKoALd Kal dieotpaymevn- “Audunrtos | Lachm. tuwma, with ABC; 2 mss.; but an apparent al- teration] is a dls Aeydu. in the N. T., here and 2 Pet. iii. 14 (Lachm., Tisch.), compare Hom. J/. x11. 109; and, as de- rivation and termination suggest, ap- pears but little different from dmeumros, except as perhaps approaching nearer to tpmmos (Hesych. duduntos: &uwpos), and expressing not merely the unblamed (Xen. Ages. vi. 8), but non-blamewor- thy state of the réxkva; compare Aisch. Sept. 508, and see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 29. The reading péoov (adverbially used, Winer, Gr. § 54. 6), with ABCD!FG (Lachm., Tisch.), has the weight of uncial authority as well as critical probability in its favor. oKoAtas Kat 5t:earTp.| ‘crooked and perverted,’ in reference to their moral obliquity and their distorted spiritual growth ; compare Deut. xxxii. 5. 3xo- Aids, allied probably to oxéAos, oxeAAds, and oxalpew [Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p- 268, root-form =K-, ‘ progression by steps,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 387, less prob- ably KP-, Sanscr. kri with prefixed o¢, Benfey, Wurzell. Vol. 11. p. 363], occurs elsewhere in the N. T., once in a proper sense, Luke iii. 5, and twice, as here, in an ethical sense, Acts ii. 40, 1 Peter ii. 18. Aveorp. is similarly found in Matth. xvii. 17, Luke ix. 41, Acts xx. 80; see also examples from Arrian in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 309. év ois| ‘among whom,’— in reference to the persons of which the yeved was com- posed; comp. Winer, Gir. § 58. 4. b, p. Fak a Cuap. II. 15, 16. PHILIPPIANS. 67 apeptrroe Kal axépatot, Téexva Ocod duopynta pécov yeveds cxods \ f > e / ig nr > bs Kal duectpapperns, ev ois paweose ws hworthpes ev Koco, 6 Noyou bwijs émréxyovtes, els Kavynwa éuol eis nuépav Xpio tod, 457: so, somewhat similarly, Gal. ii. 2. galveose] ‘ye appear, are seen;’ not ‘lucetis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Wordsw., al., which would require the active patverte, Johni. 5, v. 35, 2 Pet. i. 19, al. Alford objects that the active is not used by St. Paul: but will this justify a departure not only from the simple meaning of the word, but from the special use of the middle in connection with the appear- ance or rising of heavenly bodies ? see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. 11. ‘1. b. The verb is indicative (Vulg., Copt., Ath.), not imperat. (Syr., The- ophyl.) : Christians were not to be, but now actually were, as luminaries in a dark, heathen, world; compare Matth. v. 14, Eph. v. 8. gwaoripes év koopo] ‘ luminaries, heavenly lights in the world ;’ ev kéap. be- ing closely joined with gwar. as its secon- dary predicate (Vulg. and all Vy.), not with gaiveade (De W.), which would thus have two prepositional adjuncts. To illustrate the meaning of gwar. com- pare Rev. xxi. 11, Gen. i. 14, 16, Ec- clus. xliii. 7 (applied to the moon), Wis- dom xiii. 2, and for the different uses of kéopos, here apparently in its ethical sense, see notes on Gal. iv. 3. The ref- erence to the use of torches to guide pas- sengers along the narrow and winding streets of a city (Wordsw.) is ingenious, but scarcely in harmony with aiveade, and the tenor of the context. 16. éwéxovres k.T.A.] ‘seeing ye hold forth (are the ministers of ) the word of life:’ farther and explanatory defini- tion of the preceding, the participle hav- inga slightly causal force.. The meaning of éréx. is somewhat doubtful. It cer- tainly cannot be for rpocéxovres, 'Theod., as this would require a dat. ; it may, how- ever, be either (a) occupantes, comp. Syr. > > > = cero NR stan i eae [ut sitis illis loco salutis], and thence, with a modification of meaning, ‘ conti- nentes,’ Vulg., Claroman., ‘ tenentes,’ Copt. (ith. paraphrases), karéxovtes, Chrys., éxovres, Theoph., Cicum ,— a translation that has certainly a lexical basis (see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s, v.1. b, Vol. 1. p. 1029) and is far too hastily condemned by Van Heng. and Wiesing.; (8) pretendentes, Beza, Auth., ‘doctrinam spectandam preben- tes,’ Van Heng., with reference to the preceding image. Of these interpr. (a), has clearly the weight of antiquity on its side ; still as no exactly opposite example of the modified sense ‘continentes’ has yet been adduced, and as the meaning ‘occupantes’ involves an idea foreign to the N. T. (compare Meyer), we seem bound to adhere to (8), a meaning that is lexically accurate and exegetically satisfactory. The objection of Meyer is fully answered by Alford in loc. The Adyos (wijs is the gospel, (wis being a species of gen. of the content, rhy aid- viov mpokevet (why, Theod.: comp. John vi. 68, and notes on Eph. i. 13. eis kavxnpmal ‘to form a ground of boasting for me;’ result, on the side of St. Paul, of his converts becoming ueu- mrot Kal aképaur: ToTalTn buav 7) apeTh, ds ph tyuas ode pdvor, GANA ‘kad eue Aaumpov moeiv, Chrys. ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 14. eis Huépay Xp.| ‘against the day of Christ ;’ the preposi- tion not so much marking the epoch to which (€ws), as that for which, in refer- ence to which, the boasting was to be reserved ; compare ch. i. 10, Eph. iv. 30, and notes on Gal. iii. 23. On the ex- - 68 ’ ’ > \ oo» Ny Ves / OTL OVK ELS KEVOV Edpapov ovoée ELS KEVOV CKOTLACA. PHILIP PIANS* Cuap. IT. 17,18. WW Gra ef Kab omevoopat eri TH Svoia Kat NevToupyia Tis TicTews Lov, xalpw na cal X ] an Kal cuvyaipw tracw tpi. Bro 8 avto Kai tpeis yalpere Kat TUVXALPETE [L0b. pression jjuepa Xp., see notes on ch. i. 6. Zdpauov, éxorlaca| Thesame idea of ministerial activity presented in two different forms of expression, the one fig- urative, from the stadium (comp. Gal. ii. 2, 2 Tim. iy. 7), the other more gen- eral, involving the notion of the toil and suffering undergone in the cause; see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. For exx. of the adverbial eis kevdvy, Heb. pb, Job xxxix. 16 (comp. eis xaddv, eis Kot- vév, Bernhardy, Synt. v. 11, p. 221), see 2 Cor. vi. 1, Gal. ii. 2, 1 Thess. ‘iii. 5, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 275. 17. GAAG x. 7. A.] ‘ Howbeit, if I be even poured out ;’ contrary hypothesis to that tacitly implied in the preceding verse. In no verse in this epistle is it more necessary to adhere to the exact force of the particles and the strict lexi- cal meaning of the words. °AAAd, with its primary and proper force (‘ aliud jam hoe esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2), has no reference to a suppressed thought (ov éxom. «is xev., Rill.), but presents the contrary al- ternative to that already implicitly ex- pressed. The preceding words eis kav- xnua might seem to imply the exyecta- tion, on the part of the apostle, of a liv- ing fruition in the Christian progress (iva yev. &ueurr.) of his converts ; the pres- ent verse shows the apostle’s joy even in the supposition of his death; compare Bisping. So remote a reference as to ch. i. 26 (De W.) is wholly inconceivable ; and even a contrast to an implied hope that the apostle would survive to the huepa Xp. (Van Heng.) improbable, as cis Hu. Xp. is only a subordinate thought to the general idea implied in cis catxnua uot. ei kat must not be confounded with «ai ei (Scholef. Hints, p- 106), but, in accordance with the po- sition of the ascensive cat, marks a more probable supposition ; the «at in the for- mer case being referred to the consequent words (etsi or si etiam), but in the latter merely to the preceding condition (etiam st). Contrast Soph. Gd. Rex, 302, et kal ph BAémrets ppovets & Guws, or ib. 304, ei kal wy KAvELs, With Asch. Choeph. 296, Kei wy mwemoia, ToUpyov éa7 épyacréoy, and see especially Herm. Viger, No. 307, from which these cxamples are taken ; see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 519, Hartung, Partik. nal, 3. 3, Vol. 1. p. 141. Thus, then, in the pres- ent case, the apostle in no way seeks to limit the probability of the supposition ; his circumstances, though by no means without hope (ch. i. 25), were still such as seemed to preclude any such limita- tion. It may be remarked, however, that cat ei is very rare in St. Paul; ap- apparently only in 2 Cor. xiii. 4 (Ree., Tisch.), if indeed the reading be consid- ered genuine ; comp. Gal. i. 8. omévdouat| ‘am poured out, am in the act of being so, in reference to the dangers with which he was environed ; comp. ch.i.20. The simple form, which must not be confounded either with émo- mévd. (Herod. 11. 39, rv. 62, Plut. Popl. § 4, al.), or karaorévd. (Plutarch Alex. § 50, ib. Mor. p. 435 B, p. 437 a), both here and in 2 Tim. iv. 5, under the im- age of the ritual drink-offering which accompanied the sacrifice (Numb. xv. 5, xxviii. 7), alludes to the pouring out of his blood (‘libor,—not ‘immolor,’ as Vulg., Syriac, Copt.) and the martyr’s death by which it might be reserved for the apostle to glorify God; see espec- jally notes on 2 Tim. l. c., Suicer, The- saur. Vol. 11. p. 993,.and the good note Crap. JI.-19. I hope tosend my unselfish son in the faith, Timothy, and to come myself. of Wordsworth in loc. éml TH Svola «.t.A.] ‘unto the sacrifice and (priestly) service of your faith.’ The ex- act meaning of Svofg is somewhat doubt- ful. There is certainly no éy dia dvoiy (comp. Conyb.), but it may be doubted whether the use of the single article does not so connect Svc. and Aer., that both may specify acts of which wicr. is the common object; see Mey. in loc. As, however, Svofa in St. Paul’s Epistles, and indeed throughout the N. T., appy. always means the thing sacrificed, not the action, we seem bound with Syriac, Vulg.; Copt. [? for comp. John xvi. 2], 4Hth., and thus far Chrys. and Theod., to retain the simple meaning of Suc. and to regard mictews as a common gen..ob- Jjecti to both, standing in a species of ap- positional relation to the former (the faith, not the apostle [Chrys., Theod.], was the sacrif.) and of simple relation to the latter. The Svoia, then, is the sacri- fice, the Aecr. the act of offering it by the apostle (Bisp.), and the object both of one and the other (in slightly different relations) the wiots of the Philippians. °Em) will thus be, not simply temporal, ‘wihrend,’ Meyer, nor simply ethical, ‘ propter,’ or ‘in sacrificium,’ /Eth., but will imply ‘ addition,’ ‘accession to’ (Matth. xxv. 20), and will point to the oreyd. as the concomitant act; see esp. Arrian, Alex. v1. 19.5, omeioas én) TH Svola, cited by Raphel in loc. ; so Van Heng. and De Wette. The local mean- ing is untenable, as with the Jews the libation was not poured on (Jahn, Ar- cheol. § 378), but around the altar ; see Joseph. Antig. 111. 9. 4, and notes on 2 Tim. iv. 5. xaipw Kat avvx] ‘rejoice, and jointly rejoice with you all ;’ I rejoice absolutely (not ém 7H Ivo. xalp. Chrys.), 7.e on account of my probable orévySeoSa, and do herein PHILIPPIANS. 69 19 "Exmifm dé év Kupio “Incod TipoSeov , , €) OTA ivf ] \ > SA \ Taxews Tréprat viv, va Kayo einpvyd yvods participate in rejoicing with you all: my joy is not altered on the supposition of my death. Zuvxaipw is not ‘ congratu- lator,’ Vulg..—a meaning which the verb apparently may have in classical (Ausch. de Fals. Leg. p. 84), as well as post-classical writers (Polyb. ist. xx1x. 7. 4),—but ‘simul gaudeo,’ Coptic, v mn ass 1°23 [exulto cum| Syr., 2th. (7%), the meaning which ouyvx. always appears to have in the N. T., and to which the following verse offers no exegetical ob- stacle (Meyer, Alf.) but is rather con- firmatory. 18. 7d 8 avrd| ‘yea, on the same account ;’ not ‘in like manner,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 106, but the simple pronomi- nal accus. after xaipw ; compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 5.9. Meyer reads avrd tovto, ‘hoc ipsum,’ apparently by an oversight, as there is here no difference of reading. xalpete ka guvx.] ‘rejoice and jointly rejoice ;’ not ; indic. Erasmus, but imper., as Syr. and all the best Vv. The apostle had pre- viously said that he rejoiced not only for himself, but associated them with this joy: lest they might think that the prob- able martyrdom of their loved apostle was not a subject for cvvxalpew, he em- phatically repeats in a reciprocal form (kat du.) what he had implied in the pre- ceding verse,— that they were indeed to rejoice in this seemingly mournful alter- native. zt 19. €Amwigw Sé] ‘yet I hope ;’ the op- positive 5¢ suggests that the orévé. above mentioned was not necessarily consid- ered either as certain or immediate. This hope was év Kupiw, it rested and was cen- tred in Him, it arose from no extraneous feelings or expectations, and so would doubtless be fulfilled, Sa65@ dr: é£evpapt- cet pol 6 Meds TodTo, Chrys. ; see notes \ 70 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 20, 21 3 Ay lal 20 > \ 7 desde ee , \ TA TEPL VILOV- ovdeva yap Exw iaouyor, OoTIs YyYnTiWs Ta lal 4 48 lal nr 2 Trept twov pepysvjoe 7 of mavtTes yap Ta Eavtdv CnTodow, ov on Ephes. iv. 17, vi. 1. bpiv] ‘to you,’ not ‘ unto you’ in the ‘sense of mpds Suas,—a local usage of the dative too broadly denied by Alf. (see Winer, Gr. § 31. 5, p. 192; compare Hartung, Casus, p. 81 sq.), nor again the dat. commodi, De Wette, but the da- tive of the recipients (Mey.), falling un- der the general head of what is techni- cally termed the transmissive dat. ; com- pare Jelf, Gr. § 587. evWvx a] ‘TZ also (I the sender as well as you the receivers) may be of good heart.’ Edvx. is an dr. Aeydu. in the N. T., but is occasionally found elsewhere, compare Poll. Onom. 111. 28: the subst. edpuxta (Polyb. 1. 57. 2, 11. 55. 4, al.) and the ady. etWixws (Polyb. x. 39. 2, al., Jo- seph. Ant. vit. 6. 2) are sufficiently com- mon. ‘The use of the verb in the imper- atiye as a kind of epitaph is noticed by Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.; Jacobs, Anth. Pal. p. 939. 20. yap] Reason for sending Timo- thy in preference to any one else: Tiué- Seov méureis ; TL dhmote; Nal, pyoiv, ov- déva yap K. T. A., Chrys. iodWuxov] ‘like-minded, 7. e., with myself, guolws éuol kndduevov buoy Kal ppovtiCovta, Chrysostom ; compare Syr. 2 A Kayo oo ¥, = le Sd eWay) [qui sicut animam me- am]: so expressly Copt., Syr. Timothy is not here contrasted with others (Be- za), but, in accordance with the natural and logical reference of the icdrns to the subject of the sentence, with the apostle. On the distinction between iody. ‘ qui eodem modo est animatus,’ and ovuv- xos, ‘qui idem sentit, unanimis,’ see Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 67. The word is an Gz. Aeydu. in the N. T., but is found occasionally elsewhere, both in classical (ZEsch. Agam. 1479), and post-classical, Greek (Psalm liy. 13) ; comp. icopixws, Eustath. on Ii. x1. p. 764. ? not ‘quippe qui,’ but ‘ita comparatus ut,’ Mey., ‘ of that kind, who,’ Alf., with reference to the za:drys of the antecedent (ovdels towitrds éoti, Chrys., comp. Hartung, Casus, p. 286) ; the relative being here used (to adopt a terminology previously explained) not explicatively, but classifically, or qualita- tively ; see notes on Gal. iv. 24, and Krii- ger, Sprachl. § 51. 8 sq., where the dif- ference between ds and dots is briefly but satisfactorily explained. yunolws meptmvajcer| ‘ will genu- inely care for,’ ‘will have true care for ;’ with that genuineness of feeling which befits the relationship between the apos- tle and his converts; yvyoiws, rovréort matpik@s ; compare 1 Tim. i. 2, and see notes in loc. Mepiuvay is always thus used with an accusative of the object by St. Paul,— contrast Matth. vi. 25 (dat.), ch. vi. 28, Luke x. 41 (with wep¢), ch. xii. 25 (absolutely),—and agreeably to its probable derivation and affinities, wepyn- pi(w, mépuepos [Sanscr. smr7,— ‘ memi- nisse,’ ‘anxium esse,’ Benfey, Wurzel- lex. Vol. 11. p. 82, Donalds. Craty/. § 410] denotes anxious thought, solici- tude, ‘ita cnrare ut solicitus sis’ (comp. Luke x. 41), differing in this respect from the simpler dpovri¢ew ; see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 187. The future is not eth- ical, but points to the time when Timo- thy should come to them. 21. of madvres yap] ‘forall the rest (now with me) ;’ not ‘plerique,’ Wolf, but ‘omnes quos nunc habeo mecum,’ Van Heng., the article, apparently spec- ifying the whole number of the others with St. Paul (cuncti), to whom the sin- gle one, Timothy, is put in contrast. On this use of the art. with was, see IXrii- ger, Sprachl. § 50. 11. 12, compare Bern- hardy, Synt. v1. 24, p. 320, and Rose, Sots] ‘who; ‘Cup. II. 22-24. , 99, am ta Incod Xpicrov. PHILIPPIANS. 71 \ be 8 \ > a 7 4 e THV O€ OCOKLLNY AUVTOV YWWOKETE, OTL WS \ / \ > oY 25 7 > AS >’ / A 23 na TAaTpl TEKVOY GUY EOL E0OVAEUTEV ELS TO EVAyYEALOV TOUTOV A N / \ \ a pev odv errrivo Tréurpat, os dv aid Ta Trepl ue, CEavriis. 4 cé- a Ul ¢c/ \ Cy, ig > , mowsa dé év Kupig ort Kal avtos Tayews EhevTomal. 21. "Incod Xpictov| So Lachmann, with ACDEFG; mss.; many Vy.; Lat. Ff. (Griesb., Scholz; Rec. inserts tov). The reversed order is adopted by Tisch. with BL; great majority of mss.; Demid., Copt., Syr.: Philox.; many Ff. The ex- ternal authority seems to preponderate decidedly in favor of the text. in Middl. Art. p. 104 note, to whose list of examples of the art. with mas (plur.), when used without a subst., this passage may be added. The attempts to explain away this declaration are very numerous, but all either arbitrary or ungrammati- cal: this only it seems fair to urge, that the context does necessarily imply some sort of limitation, and does apparently warrant our restricting it to all those companions of St. Paul who were ayail- able for missionary purposes, who had undertaken, and were now falling back from the hardships of an apostle’s life. Who these were, cannot be ascertained ; compare Wiesing. in loc. Ta éavTa@y| ‘their own things,’ not specially thy oirelay avdmavow Kat Td év acparela elvat, Chrys., followed by The- oph. and Gicum., with reference to the difficulties and perils of the journey, but generally, ‘sua,’ Clarom., ‘temporalia commoda consectantes,’ Anselm,— con- sidering their own selfish interests, and not the glory and honor of Christ ; com- pare ver. 4. 22. thy SE BSoniuhvr] ‘But his tried character ;’ contrast of the charac- ter of Timothy with that of the of raves. o > Aoki, Leoos [probatio] Syr., ‘ ex- perimentum,’ Vulg., here and Rom. v. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, by a very easy gradation of meaning points to the indo- les spectata,’ Fritz, (Rom. v. 4, Vol. 1. p- 259), ‘indoles,’ Adth. [simply,— al- most as we use ‘character’], by which Timothy was distinguished, and of which the Philippians themselves probably had. personal experience on a former visit ; comp. Acts xvi. 1-4 with ver. 12. The use of Soxiu} in the N. T. is confined to St. Paul’s Epistles; compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p. 229. yiveonete] ‘ye know;’ indicative, as Syr., Clarom., Copt., Auth., not imper., as Vulg., Corn. a Lap.,—a construction almost plainly inconsistent with the fol- lowing words, which seem specially de- signed to explain and justify the asser- tion ; kal Ott ovx aTAGs A€yw, Bets, pn- oly, avtol emicracde, Stik. T.A., Chrys. @s wmatpt téxvov| ‘asa child to a father, ‘sicut patri filius,’ Vulg., not ‘with a father,’ Syr., Auth. Ver.; such an omission of the preposition in the first member being apparently confined to poetry ; see Jelf, Grr. § 650. 1, 2, Krii- ger, Sprachl. § 68.9.2. Mey. and Alf. deny unrestrictedly an omission of the prep. in the first member, but see Asch. Suppl. 313, Eurip. Hel. 872, and Jelf, Gr. § 650. 2. The construction affords an example of what is termed ‘oratio variata :’ the apostle, feeling that edov- Aevocev was scarcely suitable in connec- tion with rarp} and réxvov, proceeds with the comparison in a slightly changed form ; edovAcvoev,— not euol, as the con- struction might seem to require (Rom. xvi. 18), but ody éuol, as the nature of the relation suggested; see Winer, Gr. § 63. 11. 1, p. 509. eis Td evayyéator| ‘for the gospel ;’ not ‘in the gospel,’ Auth., Syr., ‘in the doctrine of the gospel,’ /ith., but ‘in evange- 72 Epaphroditus, your mes- senger, who has been griev- ously sick, and has risked his life for me, I send back, that you may rejoice. lium,’ Vulg., 7. e. to further the cause of the gospel; the preposition eis with its usual force denoting the object and des- tination of the action ; compare Luke v. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p- 354. 23. rodtov péev ody] ‘Him then;’ the wey being antithetical to dé, ver. 24, and the retrospective o#y continuing and concluding the subject of the mission of Timothy. On this force of ody see notes on Gal. iii. 5. as bv apldw] ‘whensoever I shall have seen (the issue of) ;’ in effect, ‘so soon as I shall have, or have seen, etc.,’ Auth., bray tow év tim €ornwa, Chrys., but de- signedly couched in terms involving more of doubt, the particle ay being joined with the temporal és to convey the complete uncertainty when the ob- jectively-possible event specified by the subjunctive will actually take place ; compare Jelf, Gr. § 841, Herm. de Par- tic. &y, 11. 11, p. 120, and on the tempo- ral use of és, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 759. The remark of Eustathius (p. 1214, 40) is very pertinent, dt: 5é éoti Tis Kal Xpovtkh ToTE onuacta, patveTat ev émiaToAn Tod BaciAews *Aytidxov, oiov, ds by ody AdBys Thy emicToAhv, cbvTakov Kipuvyua Toncacsa, Hyouv qvixa AdBys. He would, however, have been more cor- rect if he had said jvi« &y, see Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. Vol. 1. p. 773. In the compound form apis. the prep. is not in- tensive, ‘see clearly’ (Alf.), but local, referring, however, not to the object, but to the observer, ‘ prospicere,’ and per- haps may further involve the idea of a “terminus’ looked to; see Jonah iv. 5 (a pertinent example), Herod. vir. 37 ; compare aroseaodat, amockoreiy, al., and especially Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 11. The change from the tenuis to the PHILIPPIANS. Crap. II. 25. % -Avarykaiov dé iHynodunv “Emadpodctov n as Tov adeApov Kal cuvepyov Kal ovvaoTpaTUOTHY pov, tua@v O€ amocToNoy Kal AeLTOUpyoV THs aspirate (with AB1DIFGN ; 17, Lachm., Tisch.) is ascribed by Winer (Gr. § 5. 1, p. 43) to the pronunciation of idet with a digamma; comp. Acts iv. 29 (Lachm., Tisch.). Ta Tept émel ‘the things pertaining to me ;’ not identi- cal with 7a kar’ eué (ch. i. 12), but with a faint idea of motion (occupation about, Acts xix. 25), in ref. to their issue and development; 7. e. how they will turn, what issues they will have; mofoy efe TéXos, Chrys., €av TeAcov AdBn Atow TH ducxep7j, Theod. The form ééaurjs, se. tis Spas, ‘ illico,’ ‘e vestigio’ (mapavtixa, Hesych., edSéws, Suid.), occurs in Mark vi. 25, Acts x. 33, al. 24. mémoid. év Kupl@] ‘am con- Jident in the Lord ;’ He is the sphere of my confidence ; ‘see notes on yer. 19, and on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. kal avtds| ‘I myself also;’ the rar implying that besides sending Timothy to them, the apostle hoped himself to come in person. The taxéws, as Meyer remarks, must, as in ver. 19, date from the present time, the time of writing the Epistle. In recurring, however, to the mission of Timothy, ver. 23, he ex- presses the hope that it would be efaurfjs, ‘forthwith ;’ his own visit he had good confidence would be raxéws, 7. e. no long interval after. 25. avaykatov 6& nyna.| ‘yet I deemed it necessary ;’? though probable, the mission of Timothy and the apostle’s own visit were both contingent; he deemed it necessary therefore to send (back) one on whom he could rely, and in whom the Philippians had interest and confidence. Wiesinger denies any connection between the sending back Epaphr. and the mission of Timothy ; this, however, is surely to overlook the antithesis suggested by 5¢€. On the use Cnap. II. 26. Tel el So Opa Og xXpelas pov, Tréuapar Tpos tpas, of the epistolary aorist (still more ex- pressly ver. 28), see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5, b. 2, p. 249. "Emappdditoyr Of Epaphroditus, beyond this passage, nothing is known. He has been sup- posed to be the same with Epaphras, Col. i. 7, iv. 12, Philem. 23; but this, though etymologically possible, is certainly not historically demonstrable. As the name appears. to have been not uncommon (Sueton. Nero, § 49, Joseph. contr. Ap. I. 1, al., see Wetst. im loc.),— as Epa- phras was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12),— and as the alms of the European city of Philippi would hardly haye been com- mitted to the member of a church so re- mote from it as the Asiatic Colosse, it seems natural to regard them as different persons. For the necessarily scanty lit- erature on the subject, see Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Epaphras,’ Vol. 1. p. 330. Tov adeApdy x«.t.A.] Three general but climactic designations of the (spirit- ual) relation in which Epaphroditus stood to the apostle, under the vinculum of the common article; my brother in the faith, fellow-worker in preaching it, and fellow-soldier in maintaining and defending it; on cuvortpar. compare 2 Tim. ii. 3, and notes zn loc. buadv SE x. 7. A.] ‘but your messenger and minister to my need ;’ secular and ad- ministrative relation in which Epaph. stood to the Philippians. °’Améo7odoyr is here used in its simple etymological sense, not ‘apostolum,’ Vulg., Clarom., Thy emycAciay tuav éeumemioTevpévoy, ~“Theod., Chrys. 2 (comp. Taylor, 'E/pisc. § 4. 3), but, as the context seems to re- quire, ‘legatum,’ Beza, Beng.; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 3, and see notes on Gal. i. 1. Ae:roupydv (Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16) is used ‘in its general and wider sense of ‘ minis- ter’ in ref. to the office undertaken by Epaphy. @s 7a wap’ abr@v dmooranévra. ko- ploavra xphuata, Theod. On the vari- 10 PIANS. 73 6 errevdy) eTiUTON@V FV TWavTas * ous meanings of Aer. see Suicer, The- saur. 8. Vv. Vol. 11. p. 222. The connection is not perfectly certain, but on the whole it scems most natural to connect tudy with this as well as with the preceding subst., comp. ver. 30: so Scholef, Hints, p. 106; contr. De Wette (comp. Aith.), who, however, urges no satisfactory reason for the separation. wéupat| It was really dvaméupa, comp. ch. iv. 18: if, however, as does not seem improbable, Epaphr. was sent to stay some little time with the apostle (Beng.), the simple form becomes more appropri- ate: comp. ver. 28, 30. 26. éwerdy x. 7. A.| Reason for the dvayKaioy Fyntdunv. The conjunction éreidh , ‘quoniam’ [quom jam], ‘ sinte- mal,’ ‘ since ’(sith-then-ce, comp. Tooke, Div. of Purl. 1.8, Vol. 1. p. 253), differs thus, and thus only, from é7eé, that it also involyes the quasi-temporal reference (‘affirmatio rerum eventu petita,’ Klotz) which is supplied to it by 64, and thus expresses a thing that at once ensues temporally or causally) on the occur- rence or realization of another; s+ 808 Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. Nan Haxtung, Partik. 84, 3.8, Vol.t. p- 259. | of frequent occurrence in’ i ai “ily St. Paul only, 1 Cor. i321, 22, xiv. . eye Oh : érimoday fv] ‘he was longing after you all.’ On this use of pres. part. with thé auxiliary verb, to denote the duration of a state (less commonly in ref. to an action), see Wi- ner, Gram. § 45. 5, p. 311, and notes on Gal. i. 23. The construction is occa- sionally found in classical Greek (see examples in Winer, /. c., and Jelf, Gr. § 375. 4), but commonly with the limi- tation that the part. expresses some prop- erty inherent in the subject. On the (di- rective) force of ém) in émirosd., sec notes on 2 Tim. i. 4. &5n hover] ‘in heaviness ;’? see Matth. xxvi. 27, Av- 74 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 27, 28. e an ‘ > rn Py Ld > uA oe ’ id 27 \ Upas, KAL GdNMovaY, OLoTL HKoVoAaTE OTL HoSévnceD. kal yap noSéevnoey TapatAncwov Savatw* adda 6 Oeds nrenoev avtov, > ee \ / > N ered I IY: \ f > \ 4 fal OvK avTov O€ MOVOV, GAA Kal Ene, (va py AVITHV ETL NOTH oXO. 28 meiogat Kad GOnu., Mark xiv. 33, éxdapu- Beioda kat adnu. This somewhat pe- culiar verb is explained by Buttmann (Zexil. § 6.13) as properly denoting ‘ereat perplexity (tym. ML. datvew nad amopew, aunxaverv, Hesychius, aywniv) leading to trouble and distress of mind,’ and is to be referred not to a root adéw (Wiesing.), but, as Buttmann plausibly shows, to a, djmos; comp. adnuety, and see Symm., Eccles. vii. 16, where the LXX. have éxmdayys. How the Phi- lippians heard of this, and why Epaphr. was especially so grieved, is not ex- plained. 27. kat yap jod.| ‘For he really was sick ;’ the report you beard was true. In this formula the «at is not otiose, but either with its conjunctive force (comp. notes on ch. iv. 12) annexes sharply and closely the causal member, ‘etenim’ (comp. Soph. Antig. 330), or with its ascensive force throws stress on the pred- ication, ‘nametiam,’ as here; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 642, Hartung, Partik. kat, 3.1, Vol. 1. p.138. The remark of Hartung seems perfectly just that there is no inner and mutually modifying con- nection between the two particles (con- trast cal 5¢, notes on 1 Tim. iii. 10), but that their constant association is really due to the early position which yap regu- larly assumes in the sentence. TapatwAnaiov savate| ‘like unto death.’ There is here neither solecism (Van Heng.) nor brachyology (De W.). Tlapama. is the adverbial neuter (Polyb. 11I. 33.17, with dat.; rv. 40. 10, abso- lutely ; comp. Herod. rv. 99), and like the more usual form mapamAnoiws (Plato, Pheer. p. 255 8) is associated with the regular dative of ‘ likeness or similarity ;’ , 5 ” TALE o bie Set y amrovoaloTépws ody eTemra avTov, wa iovtes avTov maw see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48.13. 8, Jelf, Gr. § 594, 2, and the numerous exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The gen. is rare; compare Plato, Soph. 217 B, Polyb. Hist. 1. 23,6. The meaning is thus in effect the same as wéxpt Savdrou tHyyiev, ver. 30, TAhowv adiketo Savdrov, Galen in Hippocr. Epid. 1. (cited by Wetst.), but the mode of expression is different. Auvmny ém) AUmny| ‘sorrow coming upon sorrow ;’ Avry arising from the death of Epaphr. in addition to the Adan of my own captivity, Bisp.; not as Chrys. riv dard tis TeAevTijs emt 77 Sid Thy apswotiay yevouevny aite, for, as Meyer justly observes, this would be clearly inconsistent with aAumérepos, ver. 28. Ifthe second Ady had arisen from the sickness of Epaphr. it would have ceased when he was well enough to be sent away, and the apostle in that re- spect would have been not compara- tively, but positively, @Aumos. The read- ing of the text is supported by ABCDE FGL; major. of mss. (Lach., Tisch.), and differs only from the more usual ét Ava (Rec. with K ; Chrys., Theod.) in imply- ing motion in the accumulation ; comp. Psalm Ixviii. 27, Isaiah xxviii. 10, Ezck. vii. 26. ox | The subjune- tive is here appropriately used after the preeterite to mark the abiding character the sorrow would have assumed; see Winer, Gram. § 41.1, p. 257, and espe- cially Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 618. This remark, however, must be applied with great caution in the N. T. where, in com- mon with later writers, the use of the op- tative is so noticeably on the decline; see notes on Gal. iii. 19. 28. omovdatotépws| ‘more dil gently than I should have done if ye had _ Cuar. IT. 29. dcp igh gh DQ Ld Sl Sal els 75 Xaphre Kayo aduTrotepos @. ™ mpocdéyecSe odw avdtow év Kupio 30. &pyov tod Xp.| So Rec. with DEKL; al. (Zachm. with BFG; al., om. rod). Tisch. omits rob Xp. only with C,—certainly insufficient authority. mapaBorevoduevos|] The reading is doubtful. Sec. and Tisch. read mapaBovdev- oduevos with CKL; most mss.; Chrys., Theod., al.; the meaning of which would be ‘quum male consuluisset;’ comp. Copt., ‘parabouleusthe’ [cited by Tisch. and ee Alf. for the other reading]; Syr. ¢&2© [sprevit], Goth. ‘ ufarmunnonds’ [oblivis- cens], all of which seem in favor of mapaBovA. On the contrary, the form mapaBoa. is adopted by Griesb., Lachm., and most modern editors with ABDEFGS; Clarom., Valg., Aug., Acth. (both), al.; and Lat. Ff.,—and rightly, the weight of author- ity and appy. unique use of the word being in manifest favor of the text. not heard, and been disquieted by the tidings of his sickness.’ In examples of this nature, which are common both to the N. T. and classical Greek, the comp. is not used for the positive, but is to be ex- plained from the context ; comp. 1 Tim. iii. 14 (notes), 2 Tim. i. 17 (notes), and see Winer, Gi. § 35. 4, p. 217. mdaAty may be connected with iddyres (Beza, Auth.), but is more naturally re- ferred to xapAre (Vulg., Luth.), it being the habit of St. Paul to place mdauw be- fore the verb, wherever the structure of the sentence will permit; contrast 2 Cor. x. 7, Gal. iv. 9, v.38. The same order is regularly adopted by St. Matthew; but St. Mark and St. John, who use the word very frequently, place it nearly as often after, as before, the verb with which it is associated ; compare the extremely useful work, Gersdorf, Bettridge, p. 491 sq. &rAumrdtepos| ‘less sorrowful :’ the joy felt by the Philippi- ans will mitigate the sorrow (in his con- finement) of the sympathizing apostle ; eav ducts xalpynte, Kayo xalpw, Chrysost. The word aaum. is an Gm. Aeydu. in the N. T.; in classical writers it is occasion- ally found in a transitive sense ; comp. &Avtos olvos, Athen. 1.29. 29. rpocdéxease obv] ‘ Receive him then ;’ in accordance with my inten- tion in sending him (#a«.7.A.). The ovv here perhaps slightly differs in mean- ing from the one immediately preceding. In ver. 28 it is slightly more inferential, here it relapses to its perhaps more usual meaning of ‘continuation and retrospect,’ Donalds. Gr. § 604. On the two uses of ody (the collective and reflexive), see Klotz, Devar: Vol. 11. p. 717, compared with Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 9 sq., and on its varieties of translation, Rev. Transl. of St. John, p. x. év Kuptao| ‘inthe Lord,’ almost, ‘in a truly Christian mode of reception,’ Christ was to be, as it were, the element in which the action was to be performed ; compare notes on ver. 19 and 24, and the caution in notes on Eph. iv. 1. madons xapas| ‘ali joy,’ ‘every form of it,’ not ‘summa Ietitia,? De Wette (on James i. 2); see notes on ch. i. 20, on Eph. i. 8, and compare 1 Pet. ii. 1, where this extensive force of ras seems made clearly apparent by the plural forms of the associated abstract accusa- tives. Tovs ToLlodT. K.T.A.] ‘and such hold in honor ;’ ‘ such,’ scil. as Epaphroditus, who is the sort of speci- men of the class. On the use of the art. with rowodros to denote a known individ- ual or a whole class of such, see Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem.1. 5. 2, and notes on Gal. v.21. The formula @rimov exew, though not without parallel in classical Greek, e.g. évrip. jryetoSat (Plato, Phed. p- 64 D), worety, al., is more usually ex 76 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 30. \ & a \ \ 7 >? t yg 80 &, 5 \ \ peTa TaoNS Yapas, Kal Tods ToLOUTOUS EvTimouS ExeTE, °° OTL Oia TO épyov Tod Xpictov wéxpe Navarou iHyywcev mapaPodevoduevos TH Wuyh, va dvarrAnpocyn TO tpav votépnua THs pds we EvTOUp- ylas. pressed with the adverb, e.g. évTimads exe, &yew, compare Plato, Republ. vit. p- 528 B, VIII. p. 548 A. 80. 51a +d Epyov rod Xp.] ‘on account of the work of Christ.’ All the Greek commentators refer these and the following words to the danger arising from persecution confronted by Epaphr. at Rome in his endeavor to minister to St. Paul; eixds oty mavtds katappovijoa Kwdvvov, dote mpoocAdeivy cal bmnpeTh- cacsa, Chrys. The foregoing mention, however, of his sickness, and the subse- quent statement of the object contem- plated by the rd mapdBodov of his con- duct, seem to restrict the reference sim- ply to the service undertaken, and ren- dered by, Epaphroditus to the apostle, the performance of which exposed him to the danger of an all but mortal sick- ness. Td épyoy rod Xp. is thus not 7d evayy. Baumg.-Crus. (compare hill.), but the service which, by being rendered immediately to the apostle, became im- mediately rendered to Christ. méxXpt Savarov| ‘up to death;’ ex- tent of the danger; compare Job xxxii. 2, Hyyice cis Sdvarov 7 Wux7H avrod, Isai. XXXViil. 1, euaraxicSyn €ws Savdrov; and still more expressly, 4 Macc. 7, péxpr Savdtov tas Bacdvous tmowewavras, and Polyzn. Strategem. p. 666 (Wetstein), wéxpt Savdrov paxotvra. On the force of uéxpr and &xpr, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9: mapaBor. TH Vuxnl ‘having risked, hazarded his life (soul) ;’ ‘tradens,’ Vulgate; ‘parabolatus de,’ Clarom.; ‘tradidit,? 2th. The form and meaning of this word has been well investigated by Meyer. It would appear to have been formed from the adj. za- pt Boros, ‘ venturesome’ (piAoktyduves kat mapaf8., Diod. Sic. xx. 3), like mepwepev- ecda (1 Cor. xiii. 4), from mépzepos, and to belong to a class of words in -etw rightly branded by Lobeck as ‘longe maxima pars invecticia,’ and designed to express the meaning of the adj. and aux- iliary ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 67, 591, and Winer, Gram. § 16.1, p. 85. The meaning will then be mapdBodos civat, and thus really but little different .in meaning from tapaBovA., at any rate as the Jatter is explained by Theophyl., emepiupev éavToy TG Xavdrw. Meyer com- pares mapaBdAAouot TH EuavTovU Kepadg, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 238. The figurative reference to the stake (mapaBdAtoy or mra- pdBodoyv) which the appellant deposited, and if lost forfeited (Wordsworth), is scarcely so probable as the simpler ex- planation adopted above. The dative ux" is the dative ‘of reference,’ and with the true limiting character of that case expresses the sphere to which the action is confined ; see notes on Gal. i. 20, and Winer, Gr. § 81. 6, p.193. On the relation of the ux} to animal life, and its intimate connection with the blood, see esp. Delitasch, Bibl. Psychol. Iv. 11, p. 195 sq., Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 1. 2, p. 4. avatAnpoaon| ‘fill up, ‘supply ;? compare Col. i. 24 (avra- vawar.), and 1 Cor. xvi. 17.. The pri- mary and proper meaning of this com- pound verb is ‘ explere,’ ‘ totum implere’ (1 Thess. ii. 16), and thence by an easy gradation of meaning, ‘supplere,’ the ava denoting the addition, or rather making up, of what is lacking; comp. Plato, Conviv. p. 188 EB, ef rt é&€Aumoy ody epyov avarAnpGom. It is thus never merely synonymous with mAypody, but has regularly a reference more or less ’ PHILIPPIANS: Cuap. III. 1. Rejoice, brethren ; beware of Judaizers who trust in the flesh. I have every Kupio. TT Ill. To rovrov, adergpot pov, yaipere ev \ > Ea 7, CPR 5] \ \ > TL avtTa ypadew viv, éuol pwev ovK cause to trust therein, but value nought save Christ, His righteousness, and the power of His resurrection. distinct to a partial rather than an en- tire vacuum. Such examples as Thucyd II. 28 (denuo), belong to another use of the prep. ; see especially Winer, de Verb. Comp. 111. p. 11 sq., and notes on Gal. vie.2: Td buoy boT. K.T.A.| ‘your lack, i. e. that which you lacked, in your service to me ;”’ tuév being the gen. ’ of the subject (6 tuets torephoare, The- oph.), and so a kind of gen. possessivus, and tijs Aectoupy., the gen. of the object in reference to which the torépnua was evinced, and so a gen. of what has been termed ‘the point of view :’ see Scheu- erl. Synt. § 17. 2, p. 127 sq., where these double genitives are briefly but clearly discussed ; comp. also Winer, Gr. § 30. 3. 8, p. 172. There is therefore in the words no call to modesty or humility (Chrys.) on the ground that 6 mdvtes dpetAere udvos meroinrey (Theod.),—as this would imply a virtual connection of buav with Ae:roupylas, but only a gentle and affectionate notice of the complete nature of the services of the emissary. All that the Philippians lacked was the joy and privilege of a personal ministra- tion; this Epaphrod. by executing the commission with which he was charged (rijs mpds we Aerr. comp. verse 25) sup- plied, —and to the full. It would thus seem probable that the illness of Epaph- roditus was connected, not with his jour- ney, but with his anxious attendance on the apostle at Rome. See Meyer in loc., who has well explained the true mean- ing of this delicate and graceful commen- dation. Cuapter JIT. 1. 1d Aowrdy] ‘ Fi- nally ;’ preparation for, and transition to, the concluding portion of the Epistle, again repeated yet more specifically ch. iv. 8: compare 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 1 Thess, iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, and for the gram- matical difference between this and the gen. Tov Aozrod, see notes on Gal. vi. 17. There is perhaps a slight difficulty in the fact, that subjects previously alluded to are again touched on, and that the per- sonal relation of the apostle to the Juda- ists is so fully stated in a concluding portion of the Epistle. Without having recourse to any arbitrary hypotheses (comp. Van Heng.), it seems enough to say, jirst, that the exhortations all as- sume a more generic form,— xalpere, as Wiesing. remarks, is the key-note ; and secondly, as Alf. suggests, that the men- tion of xatatou) leads to one of those digressions, expressively but too famil- iarly, termed by Paley, ‘ going off at a word,’ which so noticeably characterize the writings of the inspired apostle: see Hore Paul. ch. vi. 3. xalpere év Kuplo| ‘rejoice in the Lord ;’ their joy is to be no joy kata tov kécnov, hollow, earthly, and unreal, but a mvevmatixy Suundla (Theod.), a joy in Him; in whom ai dates airar Zxovur xapdy, Chrys. : compare ch. iii. 19, 24, 29, and notes. Ta abrdal It is very doubtful to what these words refer. Out of the many opinions that have been advanced, three deserve con- sideration ; (a) that they refer to exhor- tations in a lost Epistle (Flatt, Mey.) ; (b) that they refer to oral communica- tions, whether made to the Phil. person« ally (Calv.), or recently communicated to Timothy and Epaphr. (Wieseler) ; (c) that they refer to the words just pre- ceding, viz. xalpete év Kupliw (Wie- sing., Alf.). Ofthese (a), whatever may be said of the general question (see notes on Col. iv. 16), must here be pronounced in a high degree doubtful and precarious, and is expressly rejected by Theodoret: 78 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. III. 2. oxuynpov, viv de acparés. * Bree Tors Kivas, Br€reTE TOS the remark in Polye. Phil. § 3, ds Kat trwov tiv eypaey emortddrAas, seems fairly neutralized by ‘epistol ejus,’ ch. 11, see Wies. Chron. p. 460, and comp. Wordsw. in loc. The second (b) is well defended by Wieseler, /. c., p. 459 sq., but implies an emphasis on +ypddeuw, which neither the language nor the order of the words in any way substantiates. The last (c) appears on the whole open to least objection, as xalpew does seem the pervading thought of the Epistle, ch. i. 4, 18, ii. 17, iv. 4, 10, and to have been the more dwelt upon as the actual circumstances of the case might have very naturally suggested the contrary feeling: compare Chrys. Hom. x. init., who, however, refers ta avt& to what follows, though admitting the appropri- ate nature of the precept. The gram- matical objection to the plural 74 aira (Van Heng.) is of no weight; the plural idiomatically refers to and generalizes the foregoing precept, hinting at the par- ticulars which it almost necessarily in- volves; sce Jelf, Gr. § 383, Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. 111. 6. 6, and the exam- ples collected by Stallbaum on Plato, Apol. p. 19 p, and Gorg. p. 447 a. _6Kvnpdv] ‘grievous,’ ‘irksome ;’ com- pare Soph., Gd. Rer. 834, juiv ratr’ éxvnpd. The primary idea of dxvos and dxvnpds seems that of ‘ delay,’ or ‘ loiter- ing,’ whether from fear or sloth (Matth. xv. 26, Rom. xii. 11), and thence that which is productive of such feelings in others. The derivation is uncertain; perhaps from Sanscr. vak, with the no- tion of ‘bending,’ ‘stooping,’ or ‘ cow- ering’ (7), see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. Il. p. 22. a&opares] ‘sure,’ ‘safe;’ i.e. in effect, as Syr. paraphrases, Oo wT > hg > m % -_ (oom? 4% [propterea quod vos commonefaciunt]. The word is pressed both by Wieseler (/.c.) and De W., though on different sides, and is confessedly somewhat singularly used. It seems, however, suitable on the grounds alleged above, viz. that the Philippians might think they had every reason— not xalpew but aduuciv. Tlie quasi-causative sense is parallel to that in éxvnpév ; compare Joseph. Antig. 111. 2.0% 2. BrAémere] ‘look to,’ ‘observe ;’ ‘videte,’ Vulg., Goth., Copt, not ‘ be- ware of,’ Auth. Ver., with Syr., this be- ing a derived meaning (Winer, Gram. § 32. 2, p. 200): A&th. (Platt) unites both. This exhortation not unnaturally follows. The remembrance of the many things that wrought against 7d xalp. év Kup. rises before the apostle; one of the chief among which,—perhaps immediate- ly suggested by the word aopaaés, —he now enumerates. It was here that a opdAua Was in some degree to be feared. tovs kuvas| ‘the dogs,’ not so much, in the classical use of the term, in ref. to the impudence (Poll. Onom. v. 65), or the snarling and reviling spirit (Athen. x11. § 93), of those so designated,—as in the Jewish use, in ref. to the impure (Rey. xxii. 15), and essentially ethnic (Matth. xv. 27, comp. Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 1145), and antichristian char- acter of these spiritual enemies of the Philippians ; omep of eSvixol kal rod @cod Kal Tod Xpiocrod aAAdSTpio Aoay, Chrys. Tovs Kakovs épy.] ‘the evil workers ;’ compare 2 Cor. xi. 13, pevdardacToAa, épydrat Sod; they were epydrat certainly, but the épyd¢eo- Sa: was ém kang, Chrys. The use of the article seems to show that there were some whom the apostle especially had in his thoughts. Thy katatouny] ‘the concision, Auth. ; i.e. ‘the concised’ (‘ curti Judai,’ Hor. Sat. 1. 9. 70), ‘ truncatos in cireumcis- ione,’ AXthiop. (Platt) appy. [but (2), as ee Se Cuap. III. 3, 4. \ > fe 4 \ / Kaxovs épyatas, PréreTe THY KaTaTOmHD. PHILIPPIANS. 79 3 nels yap éopev 1) / c 4 a + x , BI) mepitoun, ot IIvedwats Ocod Ratpevovtes Kal Kavy@pevor ev Xpiot Incod Kai otk év capkt the word in the original has also ref. to excommunication ; compare Theod.]: a studiedly contemptuous paronomasia, see examples in Winer, Gr. § 68. 2, p. 561. The apostle will not say mep:townh, as this, though now abrogated in Christ (1 Cor. vii. 19, Gal. vi. 15), had still its spiritual aspects (ver. 3, Rom. ii. 29, Col. ii. 11),—but kararouh, a mere hand-wrought, outward mutilation (com- pare Eph. ii. 11), which these false teach- ers gloried in and sought to enforce on others ; ov5ev GAAY ToLodow 7) Thy capicd katatéuvovow, Chrys. The reference to excommunication (Theod., Hammond) seems wholly out of place: indeed it is singular that such a very intelligible al- lusion should have received so many, and some such monstrous interpreta- tions, e.g. Baur, Paulus, p. 435. 3. qmets yap «.7.A.| ‘ Por we are the circumcision ;’ reason for the designa- tion immediately preceding: ‘I say ra- tatoun, for you and I, whether circum- cised in the body or no, are the cireum- cision, wepiTout, in its highest, truest, and spivitual sense,—the circumcised in heart, 45 sb=y (Ezek. xliv.7);’ see Rom. ii. 29, and the good note of Fritz. in loc. On the spiritual aspects of tepi- 7oun, see particularly Ebrard, Abendm. § 2, Vol. 1. p. 23 sq., Kurtz, Gesch. der Alt, Bund. § 58. 3, p. 184 sq., where the subject is well discussed... of Tvevmari x.7.A.] ‘who by the Spirit of God are serving ;’ apposition by means of the substantival participle (compare Winer, Gr. § 45.7, p. 816), and indirect epexegesis of the preceding collective designation. The sentence might have been expressed by means of boot or ofrwes with the indicative, but the former would have too much limited the class, while the latter would have / 4 f > \ av TETTOLSOTES, KQLTTED EY@ EX OV seemed too purely explanatory of the allusion, and so would have weakened the force of the antithesis. The dative Tivedu. is not the dative norme (Van Heng., compare notes on Gal. v. 16), but, as the context seems to require, the dative instrumenti, or what Kriiger per- haps more correctly terms, the ‘ dy- namic’ dat. (Sprachl. § 48.15), compare Rom. viii. 14, Galat. v. 5, 18, al.; the Holy Spirit was the influence under which the Aatpela was performed ; com- pare John iv. 23. The reading cod rests upon the authority of all the uncial MSS. except D!; more than 60 mss. ; Copt., Syr. (Philox), in marg,, al., and is adopted by all modern editors. It is to be regretted that Middleton (Gr. Art. p. 371) should be led by a doubtful theory to oppose himself to such a preponder- ance of authority. It seems perfectly reasonable to consider Tveiua @cod as a proper name, and as haying a similar freedom in respect to the article; see Fritz. Rom. viii. 4, Vol. 11. p. 105, com- pare notes on (ral. v. 5. Aatpevortes| Absolutely, as in Luke 11/37, Acts xxvi. 7, Heb. ix. 9) x12. For a sermon on this and the following verses, more, however, resembling a com- mentary, see Augustine, Serm. CLXIX. Vol. v. p. 915 sq. (ed. Migne). kal ov «.7.A.] ‘and not trusting in the flesh ;’ opposition to the preceding, though still under the vinculum of a common article: ‘we boast in Christ Jesus,—and in the flesh, the bodily and external, far from boasting as they did (Gal. .vi. 13), we go not so far even as to put trust.’ On the definite negation im- plied by od with the part., see Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, p. 430, Green, Gr. p. 120. apt does not specially and exclusively refer to circumcision, but, as the widening 80 meTrolsnow Kal év capkl. PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. ITI. 4, 5, elzus Soxel &AXos TeTroSévat €v capKl, éy@ paiddrov' ° Tepito oKxtanpepos, ex yevous "Icparjr, purrs nature of the context seems to suggest, to the outward, the earthly, and the phe- nomenal; see Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 541, Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 11. 2, Vol. I. p. 853 (Clark). 4, xatiwep eyo «.t.a.] ‘although myself having,’ etc. ; concessive sentence introduced by xalmrep, qualifying the as- sertion which immediately precedes ; see Donalds. Gr. § 621. The construction involves but little difficulty. In the pre- ceding jets and ov metas. the apostle is himself included : lest this disayowal of memoid. év capx) might on his part be attributed to the absence or forfeiture of claims, rather than the renunciation of them, he passes at once by means of éyw to his own case, and proceeds as if the foregoing clause had been in the singu- lar ; ‘I put no trust in the flesh, though, as far as externals are concerned, I for my part have an inalienable and de jure right (@xwv) to do so.’ Thus, then, rat- mep has its proper construction with the part., and the concessive sentence a sim- ple and perspicuous relation to the fore- going clause. Kalrep, only used in this place by St. Paul (Heb. v. 8, vii. 5, SG 7s) 2ePet: if 12),- has its‘regular meaning, ‘ even very much’ (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 723), the wép (zp?) giving to the simple xa} the idea of ‘ am- bitum rei majorem’ (Motz), or perhaps, more probably, the intensive meaning of ‘through-ness’ or ‘completion;’ see Donalds. Cratyl. § 178. The meaning ‘though,’ it need scarcely be said, arises from its combination with the participle. metwols. kal év gapxl] ‘confidence even in the flesh,’ ‘in it as well as év Xp.,’ the force of «ai being apparently descen- sive; see notes on Gal. iii.4. There is no reason for modifying the meaning of this word (‘gloriandi argumentum,’ Calv.), or that of the simple pres. part. éxwy (‘rem preeteritam facit preesentem,’ Van Heng.): mweroid. is simply xavxn- ots, mappnola, Chrys., and is actually now possessed by the apostle; he still has it, though he will not use it; ‘ ha- bens, non utens,’ Beng. dSoxe? is certainly not pleonastic (see examples in Winer, Gir. § 65. 7, p. 540), but may be either (a) in the opinion of others, —‘ videtur esse, quam vere esse dicere mavult,’ Fritz. Matth. iii. 9, p. 129, compare 1 Cor. xi. 16, where such a meiosis seems plausible; or (b) in his own opinion,— ‘ opinionem qua quis sibi placeat,’ Van Heng., as 1 Cor. iii. 18; viii. 8, al., and appy. in the great major- ity of cases in the N. T. The latter seems best to suit the presumptuous, sub- jective memofSnois of these Judaists, and does not seem at variance (Mey.) with. éya madadoy, scil. Sox memoid.-ev capkt, which follows: so Syr., and apparently Copt., Ath. (Platt). 5. repitouyn oxrahpepos] ‘eight days old when circumcised, lit. in respect: of circumcision,’ dat. of ‘reference,’ Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, notes on Gal. i. 22. Ritualistic distinction, followed by his natal prerogatives, and (ver. 6) his per- sonal and theological characteristics. Circumcision on the eighth day (Levit. xii. 8) distinguished the native Jew, whether from proselyte or Ishmaelite, the latter of whom was circumcised after the thirteenth year, Joseph. Antig. 1. 12. 2. The nom. mepitouy, which is found in Steph. 8, Elz. (1624, 1633), with some few mss., and apparently Chrys., Theod., is not correct: the abstract meprrou) is suitably used for the concrete in its col-: lective sense (ver. 3), but apparently never, as assumed here, for a single per- son, Winer, Gr. § 31.8 (ed. 5): so Van Heng., Meyer. ex yévous *Lap.] ‘of the race of Israel;’ gen. of Cuap. III. 5, 6, PHILIPPE IANS: 81 Benapty, ‘Efpaios ¢& “EBpatwv, cata vépov Papioaios, ° kata apposition or identity, Scheuerl. § 12. 1, p. 82, 83: first of the three climactic dis- tinctions in regard to race, tribe, and lineage: ‘in censum nunc yenit splen- dor natalium,’ Van Heng. ’Ex. yév. “Ip. is exactly equivalent to IopanAirys in the very similar passages, Rom. xi. 3, 2 Cor. xi. 22, and, as the designation *IopayA suggests (see Harl. on J’ph. ii. 12, Meyer on Cor. xi. 22), stands in dis- tinction to Idumean, Ishmaelite, or eth- nic origin in a theocratic point of view ; compare also Trench, Synon. § 39. The wepir. showed that the apostle was no proselyte; the é« yév. “Iop. that he was ovdE mpoonAtTwy yovéwy, Chrys. in loc. Meyer and Alf. following Theodo- ret refer “Iop. to the mpdyovoyv Jacob, but this seems to mar the symmetry of the climax and the parallelism with Rom. xi. 3 and 2 Cor. xi. 22. pvaAs Beviauly| ‘of the tribe of Benjamin ;’ of one of the two most il- lustrious of the tribes, a true son of the amoula (Ezraiv.1). Some of the de- seendants of the other tribes were still existing, and though amalgamated un- der the common name, "Iovdato, could still prove their descent; compare Jost, Gesch. des Isr. Volkces, Vol. 1. p. 407 sq., and Winer, RWB. Article ‘ Stamme,’ Vol. 11. p. 515. The assertion of Chrys., ore rod Sokipwrépov mépous, TH yup fe- pewy ev TH KANPG Tabrns jv Tis puaijs, is apparently not historically demonstra- ble. ‘EBpatos éf ‘EBp.| ‘a Hebrew of Hebrews,’ 2 Hebrew of He- brew parentage and ancestry, a Hebrew of pure blood ; eis adryy ryv piCay avéd- pauev, Theodoret: compare Dion.-Hal. III. p. 163, €ActSepar e& ércuSépwv, Po- lyb. Hist. 1. 59. 1, é« rupdyvov repv- xéra, and other examples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 115. It does not seem proper to limit it merely to Hebrew pa- rents on both sides (Mey., Alf.). Owing to the loss of private records in earlier times (comp. Ezra ii. 59, 62) and the confusions and troubles in later times, there might have been (even in spite of the care with which private genealogies were kept, Othon. Lex. Rabb. p. 76, 262) many a Benjamite, espec. among those whose families had left Palestine, who could not prove a pure Hebrew descent. Thus the Jew of*Tarsus, the Roman cit- izen, familiarly speaking and writing Greek, might naturally be desirous to vindicate his pure descent, and to claim the honorable title of “EBpaios (&ywSev Tay evdoKluwy lovdaiwy, Chrys.) for him- self and his forefathers ; compare Winer, RWB. Vol.1. p. 472, 475. That ‘Ep- patos may also have reference to lan- guage (Chrys.) is far too summarily de- nied by Meyer and Alford ; see Trench, Synon. § 89. That it has reference to locality (Palestinian not Hellenist) is every way doubtful: the assertion of Je- rome, by which it is supported, that St. Panl was born at Gischala in Palestine, appears only to be, as that writer himself terms it, a ‘fabula;’ see Neander, Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 79° (Bohn). Kata vémov k.T.A.] ‘in respect of the law (of Moses) a Pharisee ;’ 7. e. in regard of keeping or maintaining it, the prep. xar& being used throughout in its more general signification of ‘ quod atti- net ad;’ compare Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p-357. Néwos is here the ‘ Mosaic law:’ though it may occasionally have what Reuss calls ‘signification économique, tout ce qui tient a l’ancienne dispensa- tion’ (Théol. Chrét. 1v. 7, Vol. 1. p. 66), this would be here out of harmony with the following diac. 7% év vduy. The present and two following clauses state the theological characteristics of the apostle, arranged perhaps climacti- cally, 2 Pharisee, a zealous Pharisee, and a blameless Pharisee; comp. Acts xxii. 11 82 PHILIPPIANS. ad Cuap. III. 6, 7. Sirov SidKwv tiv exkdnoiav, Kata Sikatoobyny THY év' vowm ryevd- pevos dpeumros. "ANN atwa iv por Képdn, Tadta Frynwat Sia 8, xxvi.5, Gal. i. 14. 6. Kata CHAov K.7.A.] ‘in respect of zeal — persecuting the Church ;’ comp. Gal.i. 13; said here perhaps not without a tinge of sad irony; even in this re- spect, this mournful exhibition of Judaist zeal, he can, if they will, set himself on a level with them. If they be Judaists he was more so. The present part. is not for the aor. (Grot.), nor used as the historical present (Van Heng.), nor asa substantive (the examples referred to by Mey. and Alf. being all associated with the art.), but is used adjectivally, standing in parallelism to the following epithet, &meutros, and predicatively in relation to a suppressed verb subst. that pervades the clauses; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 812. The sense is the same, but grammatical propriety seems to require the distinction. dikatoa. Thy év vépe| ‘righteousness that is in the law ;’ righteousness specially so characterized, comp. notes on 1 Tim. iii. 14,2 Tim.i.13. In ver. 9 the same idea is somewhat differently expressed : 81. 7 éx véuov is righteousness that emanates Jrom the law, that results from its com- mands when truly followed; 8x. 7 év vé.w righteousness that resides zn it, and exists in coincidence with its commands. In the one case the law is the imaginary origin, in the other the imaginary sphere, of the dixaoctvn. All limitations of vouos, ¢.g. ‘specialia instituta,’ Grot., ‘traditionem patrum,’ Vatabl., are com- pletely untenable. On this verse, and on Justification generally, see August. Serm. ccoxx. Vol. v. p. 926 sq. (edit. Migne). &meurros| “blameless ;’ ‘ proprie est is in quo nihil desiderari potest, %upos in quo nihil est quod reprehendas,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The dueupta here spoken of, in accord- ance with the clearly external relations previously enumerated, must be referred to the outward and common judgment of men; ‘vite mez rationes ita plane composui ut nihil in me quisquam rep- rehendere aut damnare posset,’ Justini- ani in loc. 7. &rival ‘the which things;’ scil. the qualities, characteristics, and prereg- atives alluded to in the preceding clauses, doris being used in reference to inde/fi- nitely expressed antecedents ; see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The general distinction between 6s and goers has rarely been stated better than by Kriiger; ‘ts is purely objective, doris generic and qual- itative,’ Sprachl. § 51. 8. hiv pot képdn] ‘were gains to me;’ not, ‘in my judgment,’ ‘non vera sed opinata lucra,’ Van Heng., wo being thus an ethical dative (Kriiger, Sprachil. § 48. 6. 5),— but ‘to me,’ a simple dat. commodi ; they were really gains to St. Paul in the state previous to his conver- sion; compare Schoettg. in loc. The plural «ép$y is appropriately used in ref- erence to the different forms and charac- ters of xépdos involved in the foregoing prerogatives ; xépdos, in fact, considered in the plurality of its parts, Jelf, Gr. § 355. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 44. 8. 5. Meyer compares Herod. 111. 71, mepiBaa- Aduevos EwuT@ Képdea; add Plato, Legg. IX. p. 862 c, BAdBas Ka Képdn. 51a thy Xp.] ‘for Christ’s sake,’ more fully explained in ver. 8,9, and put, for the sake probably of emphasis, between the verb and its accusative. Chrys. here not inappropriately remarks, ef dia tov Xpiordy, ov pice: Cypla. hynwat (nulav] ‘I have considered (and they are now to me) as Joss;” con- trast jryoduat, ver. 8, and on the force of the perfect, which here marks ‘ actionem quz per effectus suos durat,’ see notes on Eph. ii. 8. Meyer, followed by Alf., ? a. ee Cuap. III. 8. PHILIPPIANS. 83 4 \ 5 a Tov Xprorov %yulav. * GdrAda pev ody Kat ayodmat TdavTa Cyulav elvat Oud TO bTrEpexov THs yvooews Xpictod ’Incod tod Kupiov Jk \ ia a / \ ¢ n 4 Ly ts pov, dv dv Ta Tavta eCnwidSnv Kai Hyotpar cxtBadra civar, iva comments on the use of the sing. ¢nutay as marking ‘one loss in all things’ of which the apostle is here speaking. This is possible, but it may be doubted whether the singular is not regularly used in this formula (comp. examples in Kypke, Vol. 11.315, Elsner, Vol. 11. p. 252, and especially Wetst. zn loc.), and whether the use of the plural would not suggest the inappropriate idea of ‘ pun- ishments,’ a prevalent meaning of (yulas : see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The form Gu. is supposed to be connected with ‘damnum,’ and perhaps to be referred to the Sanscr. dam, ‘domitum esse,’ Pott, Ltym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 261. 8. GAAG mev ody KT. A.] ‘ Nay more, am indeed also, etc. ;’ ‘at sane qui- dem,’ Winer, Gr. § 53. 7, p. 392. In this formula, scarcely accurately ren- dered by ‘imo vero,’ Wiesinger (after Winer, ed. 5), or ‘but moreover,’ Alf., each particle has its proper force ; aAAa contrasts the pres. 7yoduet with the perf. frynweat, wey confirms, while ody, with its usual retrospective force, collects and slightly concludes from what has been previously said ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 663, and for the use of wey ody in adding some emphatic addition or cor- rection, comp. Donalds. Gr. §567. The continuative force of ev ofv, ‘cum qua- dam conclusionis significatione,’ is no- ticed by Herm. Viger, No. 342. The reading of Rec., uevodvye, rests only on A; very many mss.; Theoph., al., and is rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. kal nyodpar] ‘I am also accounting ;? not only iynua but nyoduat, the kal, with its usual ascensive, and indirectly contrasting, force, bring- ing into prominence the latter verb: it is not with St. Paul merely a past but also a present action. wdvta| ‘all,’—in reference to the pre- ceding atwa jv x. 7. X., ‘illa omnia,’ Syr., Copt.; mavra, as its position shows, having no emphasis, but being used only to include ‘ guacunque antea Apostolo in lucris posita sunt,’ Van Heng. The fuller and regular construction, ¢y- mlav eivar (compare Weller, Bemerk. zum Gr. Synt. p. 8,—an ingenious tract), is here adopted on account of the difference in the order of the words. 51a Td bmep. x. 7.A.] ‘for the excel- lency of the knowledge of Christ my Lord,’ —‘qui mihi super omnia est,’ Grotius, ‘dominus mihi carissimus,’ Van Heng. ; compare Est. in loc. The article with the neuter adjectival participle seems de- signedly used to bring into prominence the specific characteristic or attribute of the yraous; it was not merely 8a thy brepéxoveay yvaow, but da 7d brep. tis yv., sce Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 42. d, p. 156, and compare Jelf, Gr. § 436. y, who notices this use of the neuter part. as very characteristic of Thucydides, 1. 142, 11. 63, 111. 43, al. This. nicety of lan- guage was not unobserved by Chrysost., who adverts to it to show that the real difference between the yv@o1s and the adévra (involving the yvéuos) with which «it was contrasted, lay solely in the bzep- ox} of the former; da 17d trepéxor, ov dia Td GAAOTpLov. Td yap bmepexov TOD duoyevoos tmepéxer. The deduction, however, is unnecessary if not untena- able. The knowledge of Christ admits no homogeneities, and transcends all comparisons. Th wht é¢nyu.] ‘I suffered the loss of them all ;’ not with any middle force but purely passive, the retrospective and inclusive 7d mdvro, (kal Ta wdAcL, Kal T& TdpovTa, Chrys.) being the regular accus. of the (so termed) quantitative object; comp, 4. PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. III. 9. Xpicrov Kepdijow, ° cal evpeS@ ev aita, pi Exov euiy Sixaro- auvny THY EK VO“OU, GAA THY dia TIcTEws Xpiotod, tiv ex Oeod os Matth. xvi. 26, and see Hartung, Casus, p- 46, comp. Winer, Gr. § 39. 1, p. 228. The verb is designedly stronger than the preceding fyodua Cnutay, and its object- accus. more comprehensive ; both suita- bly enhancing the climactic sequence of this noble verse. Kal hyov- fat okvB. eivas| ‘and count them to be dung;’ clearly not a parenthetical clause (Van Heng.), but, as the nature of the verse indicates, joined.to, and in sentiment advancing further than what has last. been said. The colon in some editions (Oxf. 1836, 1851), is very unde- sirable; even the comma (Mill, Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.) can be dispensed with. The somewhat curious word oxiBadov appears properly to mean ‘ dung’ (Syr., Clarom., Vulg.), e. g. Alex.-Aphrodit. Probl. 1.18, é&iao1 oxvB. kad odpov, and thus is probably to be connected with oxa@p (not oxdp), Sen. cxatds ; see Lo- beck, Pathol. p. 92, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 172.. The old derivation, kvot Badly, 2. e. kvoiBadov (Suid., Ltym. M.) or és kivas, is still defended by Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 295. On the various derivative meanings, ‘ refuse,’ “quisquilias’? (Goth., ®th.), etc., see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 978, the numerous exx. collected by Wetst. in loc., and the smaller collections of Kypke, Elsner, and Loesner. tva Xp. kepdjaw| ‘that I may gain Christ ;? purpose of the 7y. oxvB. eivat, antithetically expressed with reference to the previous (nuodoSa. Meyer and” Alf. properly object to the bleak interpr. of Grot., ‘Christum, 7. e. Christi favo- rem:’ it is curious that it should have been adopted by so good an expositor as Hammond. To ‘gain Christ’ is, to use the exquisite language of Bp. Hall, ‘ to lay fast hold upon Him, to receive Him inwardly into our bosoms, and so to make Him ours and ourselves His, that we may be joined to Him as our Head, espoused to Him as our Husband, incor- porated into Him as our Nourishment, engrafted in Him as our Stock, and laid upon Him as a sure Foundation,’ Christ Mystical, ch. v1. —a treatise of the lofti- est spiritual strain. 9. edpeds@ ev adre| ‘be found in Him ;’ in Him, as the sphere and ele- ment of my spiritual being; comp. notes | on Eph. ii. 6, Gal. ii. 17. EépeS@ must not be regarded as a mere periphrasis for the verb subst.; ‘ existam sive sim,’ Gro- tius (see contra Winer, Gr. § 65. 8, /p. 542), nor as referring solely to the judg- ment of God (Beza), nor yet as antithet- ical to being lost (Bp. Hall), but simply and plainly to the ‘judicium universale ” (Zanch.), ‘the being and being actually found to be ev avrg,’ both in the sight of God and his fellow men; sce notes on Gal. ii.17. Hn Exwr| Dependent on the preceding ta, and as- sociated with the preceding edpeS@ as a predication of manner. Tischend. and Lachm. both remove the comma after év avrg, thus leaving it doubtful whether kh Exov may not form a portion of an objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.), ‘be found in Him not to have, ete.’ —a construction that is grammatically defensible (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. 56. 7.2), but certainly not exegetically sat- isfactory : év avr@ would then be wholly obscured ; comp. Meyer in loc. éunyv Sen. x. 7. A.) ‘my righteousness that is of the law ;’ 7. e. such righteous- ness as I strove to work out by attempt- ing to obey the behests of the law, rp idlay dixaocdvnv, Rom. x.3. The mean- ing of diac. is here slightly different in its two connections. With éuhy it implies an assumed attribute of the apos- tle, with é« véuou it implies a righteous- Cuapr. III. 10. PHILIPPIANS. 85 al / a rn ‘ .Y AN Sixatocbvny ert TH TioTe, 1 Tod yvovar adtov Kat THY Sivapw ness reckoned as such, owing toa fulfil- ment of the claims of the law. On the force of é« in these combinations (‘im- mediate origin,’ etc.), see notes on Gal. ii. 16. thy 51a mwiot. Xp] ‘that which is through faith in Christ ;’ of which faith in Christ is the ‘ causa medians,’ and which, as the following words specify, comes immediately from God as its active source and origin; compare Waterl, on Justif. Vol. v1. p. 4 note, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1.1, p. 87. On the meaning of wior. Xp. and the dog- matical import of dia mior., see notes on Gal. ii. 16 (comp. notes on Col. ii. 12), where both expressions are briefly dis- cussed ; and also the short but extremely perspicuous remarks of Hamm., Pract. Catech. 1. 4, who well observes that our ‘faith itself cannot be regarded, in the strict sense of the term, as a logical in- strument of our justification, but as a condition and moral instrument without which we shall not be justified,’ p. 78 (A.- C. Libr.) ; so also with equal perspicuity Forbes, Jnstruct. vi1r. 23.22. On the true doctrine of justification see espec. Hooker, on Justif. § 6 sq., and for the opposing tenets of the Romanists the clear statements of Mohler, Symbolik, § 15, p. 148 sq., § 22, p. 215, 216. éml-rH mlaorec| ‘based on fuith;’ not ‘sub hdc conditione ut habeas,’ Fritz. (Rom. Vol. 1. p. 46), but ‘super fide,’ ~ Copt., Beng., mloris being the founda- tion on which it firmly and solidly rests. On the force of ém) with the dative, which, roughly speaking, denotes a more close, while with the gen. it expresses a less close connection (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 41. 1), see notes on ch. i. 3, and esp. on Eph. ii. 20,— where, however, observe that (in ed. 1) the words ‘former’ and ‘latter’ have become accidentally trans- posed. Numerous examples of ém) with both cases (apparently interchangeably) will be found in [Eratosth.] Catasterismi, ap. Gale, Mythol. p. 99-135, but the work is of very doubtful date. The connection is not perfectly clear; éml 77 miore: has been joined, (a) with the suc- ceeding Tod yvdvu, Auth. (Pol., but not Platt), Chrys., and, with a different ap- plication, Calv., Beng.; (b) with the remotely preceding €xw#v, Mey.; (c) with the immediately preceding dixcaoodyny, Vulg., Copt., Goth. Of these (a) is not tenable ; see below on verse 10; (b) is improbable and harsh, owing to the dis- tance of ém) tH m. from éxwy ; (c) on the other hand is grammatically defensible, and eminently simple and perspicuous. As we may say SicaodoSai em) Ti Tio et, so Six. em) TH mor. without the art. is permissible, see Winer, G7. § 20. 2, p. 123, and comp. notes on Eph. i. 15. 10. rod yvavarl ‘that I may know Him,’ Auth. Ver.; infinitive of design dependent on the preceding edpedsa, not on p41) €xwv (Mey.), which seems to give an undue prominence to the participial clause. The reference of rod yvaéva (=va yv@) to ver. 8, as Winer, De W., al., seems to disturb the easy and natu- ral sequence of thought; see Wiesinger and Alf. zn loc. On the infin. ‘of de- sign,’ which fails under the general head of the gen. of subjective relation (compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47, 22. 2), and is by no means without. example in classical Greek (Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. 2, p. 357, Madvig, Synt. § 170 c), see Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 291, where other examples are noticed and discussed, ‘The con- struction of rod yyavat with ém 77 rlorT., if (a) as equivalent to &cTe yvavar dia Ths mictews (Theod., Chrys.}, is op- posed to the order of words, and to all rules of grammatical analysis,— if ()) as a definitive gen., ‘so as to know Him’ (Calv., Beng.), is a construction of mlo- mis not found in the N. T.; see Meyer and Alf. The knowledge here mentioned, as Meyer rightly observes, is , 86 PHILTIPPIANS. Cuap. III. 10, 11. THS avacTdcews avTOD Kal THY KOWaviay TOY TAaYnWaTwY avTod, 4 a y s > a 11; , ? \ ouppophilomevos TO Savat@ avoid, €l TWS KATAVTIOW Els THY éEavadotacw TV EK veKpOD. not merely speculative, but practical and experimental ; see especially Beck, See- lenl. 1. 9, p. 22, comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 204 (A.-C. Libr.). kal thy Sbv. x. 7. A.| ‘and the power of Iis resurrection ;’ fuller explanation of the preceding airdy, under two differ- ent aspects, the Lord’s resurrection, and the Lord’s sufferings. avaor. is clearly not ‘ potentia qua exci- tatus fuit,’ Vatabl. (avac7. being a gen. objecti), but, ‘ qua justos ad immortalita- tem revocabit,’ Just.,— avacr. being the gen. originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 23) ; ‘a virtue or power flowing from Christ’s resurrection, called by the apostle wis resurrectionis, Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 11. p- 204 (A.-C. Libr.) ; compare Theoph. As the resurrection of Christ has at least four spiritual efficacies, viz. (a) as quick- ening our souls, Eph. ii. 5; (b) as con- firming the hope of our resurrection, Rom. viii. 11, 1 Corinth. xv. 22; (c) as assuring us of our present justification, Rom. iv. 24, 25; (d) as securing our final justification, our triumph over death, and participation in His glory, 2 Corinth. iv. 10 sq., Colos. iii. 4,—the context can alone determine the imme- diate reference. Here the general con- text seems to point to (c) or (d), the present verse and ver. 11, perhaps more especially to the latter. On the fruits of Christ’s resurrection, see Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 1. p. 313, Usher, Body of Div. ch. xv. ad fin., and on our justifi- cation by Christ’s resurrection compared with that by His death, the admirable remarks of Jackson, Creed, xv. 16. 8. thy cotvovilay «.7. 2.) * the fellow- ship of His sufferings ;’ further exempli- fication of the experimental knowledge of Christ, regarded as objective and pres- ent, suggested by the preceding clause, The Stvauis THs 9 : of which the reference was rather subjec- tive and future. It is only in a partici- pation in His sufferings that there can be one in His resurrection and glory: e Tolvuy wy éemorevouey OTL cvuBaciActoo- Mev ovK Gy ToCadTa kal Ta TOLADTA émaoxXo- pev, Theoph. ; compare Rom. viii. 17, 2 Tim.ii.11. This partnership in Christ’s sufferings is outward and actual (Chrys., al.), not inward and ethical (Zanch.) ; it is a sharing in the sufferings He suf- fered, a drinking from the cup He drank ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10, 1 Pet. iv. 13, notes on 2 Timothy, ii. 11, and Reuss, Thél. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. p.. 224. cuupmoporCdm. Kx. 7. A] formed unto EHis death,’ t. e. ‘by being, or while I am, conformed unto His death, even as I now am:?’ pres. participle logi- cally dependent on the preceding yv@vax ; see notes on Eph. ili. 18, iv. 2. This conformation, then, is not ethical, ‘ ut huic mundo emortuus sim quemadmo- dum Christus mortuus est in cruce” Van Heng., but, as the connection and tenor of the passage require, actual, and as the pres. suggests, even now more especially going on: ‘ut cognoscam communica- tionem passionum ejus, in quam yenio, et que mihi contigit dum per passiones et mortis pericula qua pro nomine ejus sustineo, conformis efficior morti ejus,’ Estius. The reading is slightly doubtful ; Rec. has cuppoppodmevos with D?EKL; al.; Chrysost., Theod.: the rarer form in the text is adopted by Lachmann and Tisch. with ABD?'; 17. 67 * * 71; Orig. {mss.), Bas., Maced., to which the incorréct cvvpopre:Copevos of F and G may lend some slight weight. 11. ef mws| ‘if by any means,’ ‘si quomodo,’ Vulg., Clarom.; an expres- sion, not se much of doubt, as of humil- ity, indicating the object contemplated in ‘ being con- . LE — Cuap. III. 12. I have not yet obtained, but am eagerly pressing for- ward : in this imitate me. - oupmopgil. kK. T.A.; ov Sappa yap, pnoty, ovmw otws, eramewoppdver, Theoph. : see also Neander, Phil. p. 43. In this formula, when thus associated with verbs denoting an action directed to a particu- lar end, the idea of an attempt is con- veyed (‘nixum fidei Pauline,’ Beng.), which may or may not be successful ; compare Acts xxvii. 12, Rom. i. 10, xi. 14, and see Fritz. Rom. xi. 14, Vol. 11. p- 47, Hartung, Partik. ci, 2.6, Vol. 11. p- 206, and for a few examples of the similar use of si in Latin, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 451. d. KaTAVTHOW eis] ‘may attain unto ;’ not indic. fut., as in Rom. i. 10, and perhaps xi. 14 (Mey.), but aor. subj. (Alf.), as the fol- lowing words, «i xa) kataAdBw, seem to suggest. On the force of ef with the subj. (‘ubi nihil nisi conditio fpsa indicetur’), now admitted and acknowledged in the best Attic Greek, see Herm. de Part. tv, 1. 7, p. 97, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 499 sq.; comp. Winer, Gir. § 41, 2. ¢, p. 263. The expression katayray eis, ‘ per- venire ad,’ is used in the N. T. in con- nection with places (Acts xvi. 1, xviii. 19, 24, al.), persons (1 Cor. x. 11, xiv. 86), and ethical relations (Acts xxvi. 7, Eph. iv. 13), in which last connection it is also found with ém several times in Polyb.; e. g. with gen., Hist. x1v. 1.9 (but ?reading), with accus., 111. 11. 4, mre. O11; carve ols 92 Dhewret. of Vian Heng. to time, ‘si perveniam ad tempus hujus eventi,’ is thus wholly unneces- sary, if indeed not also lexically untena- ble. éfavdortraciv K.7.A.] ‘ the resurrection from the dead ;’ 7. ¢., as the context suggests, the first resurrec- tion (Rev. xx. 5), when, at the Lord’s coming the dead in Him shall rise first (1 Thessalon. iy. 16), and the quick be eaught up to meet Him in the clouds (1 Thess. iv. 17); compare Luke xx. 35. The first resurrection will include ? EEO TEE TANS: 2 Ovx dre 87 Hon éraBov 7 On TeTENE@pat, only true believers, and will apparently precede the second, that of non-believers and disbelievers, in point of time; see Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 571, and the singu- lar but learned work of Burnet, on the Departed, ch. rx. p. 255 (Transl.). Any reference here to a merely ethical resur- rection (Cocceius) is wholly out of the question. The double compound ekavactacis, an am. Aeydu. in N. Test. (comp. Polyb. Hist, 111. 55. 4), does not appear to have any special force (thy é- dotov, Thy ev vepeAus ekapow, The- ophyl.), but seems only an instance of the tendency of later Greek to adopt such forms, without any increase of meaning, see Thiersch, de Vers. Alex. 11. 1, p. 83, and notes on Eph. i. 21: comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 316 (edit. Burt.). Tv éx verp@y] Dis- tinct and slightly emphatic specification of the etavdor.; see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 14,2 Tim. i. 13, where, however, the first art., as being associated with a word of known meaning and common occurrence, is omitted after the prep. The reading is slightly doubtful. Meyer defends Ree. efay. Tav vexpov (KL; al.), on the ground that elsewhere St. Paul regularly omits é«; these internal considerations however must yield to such distinct pre- ponderance of external authority as ABDE; 10 mss.; Syr., and great ma- jority of Vv.; Bas., Chrysost., al.: so Lachm., Tisch. 12. obx Sri] ‘ (I say) not that:’ not so much in confirmation of what pre- cedes (Theoph.), as to avoid misappre- hension, and by his own example, to con- firm his own exhortations, ch. ii. 3, com- pare iii. 15; ‘nolite, inquit, in me falli; plus me ipse novi quam vos. Si nescio -quid mihi desit, nescio quid adsit,’ Au- gust. On the use of odx dri scil. od« Epa dri, in limiting a preceding assertion or obviating a misapprehension, see Har- A 88 PHILIPPIANS. Siwodkw 88 ei cab KataraBo, éf 6 kal kateanudSyv bro Xpictod. tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 154, compare Herm. Viger, No. 253. nin €rxaBor| ‘L have already attained.’ The object of ZAaBov is somewhat doubt- ful. The two most natural supplements are (a) Xpiordv, Theod., implied from what precedes; (b) BpaBetov, Chrys., re- flected from what follows. Of these (b) is to be preferred, as the diéxw immedi- ately following seems to show that the favorite metaphor from the stadium was already occupying the apostle’s thoughts. The simple @Aafor thus precedes, almost ‘generaliter dictum,’ to be succeeded by the more specific kataAdBw. On the force of #5n and its distinction from. viv, see on 2 Tim. iv. 6. reterceiwuat| ‘have been made per- feet:’ more exact explanation of the semi-metaphorical ZAgBov, and result of it. The preceding aor. is thus not to be ‘regarded as a perfect, but as represent- ing a single action in the past (‘ita ut non definiatur, guam late pateat id quod actum est’), Fritz. de Aoristi Vi, p. 17), which the succeeding perf. explains and expands ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 40. 5, p. 257. That the teAcotcda has here an ethical reference, ‘to be spiritually per- fected,’ not agonistical (Hamm., Loes- ner, p- 355), ‘to be crowned or receive the reward,’ is almost self-evident: com- pare Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 16, Vol. 11. p. 182. The verb is only used here by St. Paul (2 Cor. xii. 9 is more than doubtful), though common in Hebrews and elsewhere in the N. T. The ancient gloss 7 45n Sedixalwuar inserted after €a- aBov DIEFG; Clarom.; Iren., al., indi- rectly shows the meaning here ascribed to TeTeAciwmat. didKw Sé| “but I am pressing onward ;’ not ‘sed persequor,’ Beza, but ‘ [per]-sequor au- tem,’ Vulg., with a more just regard to the force of the particle: see Hand, Tursell. Vol..1. p. 559. In sentences of Cuap. III. 12. this nature, where a negative has pre- ceded and the regular aAAd (sondern) might have been expected (comp. Don- alds. Cratyl. § 201) it will be nearly al- ways found, that the connection of the two clauses is oppositive rather than ad- versative ; i.e. that in the one case (&AAd) the preceding negation is brought into sharp prominence and contrasted with what follows, while in the other (€) the negation is almost left unnoticed, and the sentence continued with the (so to Say) connective opposition that so regu- larly characterizes the latter particle ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 360, and compare Hand, l. c. The metaphor is obviously taken from the stadium (Loesn. Obs. p. 355, érayéuds eit, Theoph.), and the verb diéxw, as in the examples cited by Loesn., and as also in ver. 14, seems to be here used absolutely, kata omovdyy édatvew, Pha- vor. ; see examples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 317, Buttmann, Lezil. § 40, p. 232 (Transl.): so, distinctly, Syr., Copt., ‘curro,’ and apparently Chrys., who re- gards it as only differing qualitatively (ue® Bcov tévou) from tpéxw; see also “Theophyl. in loc. If didkw be regarded as transitive, the object of dié«w will be the same as that of karaAdBw, scil. the BpaBetoy implied in the eg é: compare ith. (Platt). The former construction, however, seems more simple and natu- ral, ei kal KaTtarddBol ‘if I might also lay hold on ;’ the kad con- trasting xaraAdBw not with the more re- mote éAaBov (Mey.), but with the imme- diately preceding diékw (Alf): see Ec- clus. xi. 10, xxvii. 8, comp. Rom. ix. 30, Lucian, Hermot. § 77, Cicero, Off. 1. 81. 110, in all which passages there seems a contrast more or less defined between the didcew and xcaradapBdver, the ‘sequi’ and ‘ assequi;’ compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 355. On the : : Cuap. IIT. 18, 14. PRED VP PAN §: 89 8 Gdedpoi, eyo euavtov ot roytCouar kateiinpévar: 1 év Oé, Ta force of ei xal see notes on chap. ii. 17. Whether caraddBw (‘assequar,’ Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24) is to be taken abso- lutely or transitively will depend on the meaning assigned to é@’ @. ed 6 kal cated. ‘that for which also I was laid hold on ;’ so Syriac Sopa Oo >m mAS{So9 [id cujus causi], and sim. Atthiopic (Platt),—the only two ver- sions that make their view of this pas- sage perfectly clear. “Ed. ¢ has here received several different interpretations. Taken per se it may mean ; (a) quare, like av¥ dy (Luke y. 3), at the begin- ning of a sentence ; comp. Diodor. Sic. XIX. 9, ef’ & Toy pev wetCov Kadovor Tad- pov x. T. A.3 (B) €0 quod, propterea quod, scil. ém) roitTw, 671 = SidTe (apparently Rom. v. 12, 2 Corinth. v. 4), expressed more commonly in the plural 颒 ofs in classical Greek ; see Thom. M. p. 400, ed. Bern., and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 299 ; (y) sub qué conditione, cujus causa, almost ‘to which very end,’ Hammond (see 1 Thess. iv. 17, Gal. v. 13, and notes, also examples in Lobeck, Phryn. p. 475), @ being here regarded as the relative to a suppressed antecedent rodro, the obj. accus. of kataAdBw : comp. Luke v. 25. Of these (8) and (y) are the only two which here come into consideration. The former is adopted by the Greek commen- tators, Beng., Meyer, al., and deserves consideration, but introduces a reason where a reason seems hardly appropri- ate. The latter is adopted by Syriac, Copt., De W., Neand., and apparently the bulk of modern expositors, and seems ‘most in harmony with the context: the apostle was laid hold on by Christ (at his conversion, Horsley, Serm. xv11., not necessarily as a fugitive in a race, Chrys., Hamm.) with ref. to that,—to enable him to obtain that, which he was now striv- ing to lay hold of. It may be observed lastly that «a does not refer to a suppressed éyé, nor to karted. (AIf.), but to the preceding relative, which it specifies, and tacitly contrasts with other ends which might be conceivable; ‘ for which, too, for which very salvation, I was apprehended,’ etc.; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12, naSas kad éreyvdoSny, and see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. 13. 45e¢Aqpolt| Earnest and emphatic repetition of the preceding statements, under somewhat hortatory aspects, neg- ative and positive: in the first portion of the verse the apostle disavows all self- esteem and self-confidence,— not perhaps without reference to some of his converts (tatTa mpos Tovs peyadoppovoiyTas éml Tots #3n KaTopSwetor Aeyet, Theod.) ; in the second portion and verse 14 he declares the persistence and energy of his onward endeavor; évds eius pdvou, Tov Tots Eumpoodev émexretverdat, Chrys. éuautTodyv ov Aoyl¢. x. 7. A.] ‘do not esteem MYSELF to have apprehended :’ the juxtaposition of éy& and the spec- ially added éuavrdy (see Winer, Gram. § 44. 3, p. 287) not only mark the self- ish element which the apostle disavows (Mey.), but declare his own deliberate judgment on his own case; comp. Beng. The verb AoyiCoua: is rather a favorite word with St. Paul, being used (exclud- ing quotations) twenty-nine times in his Epp., and twice only (Mark xi. 31 is very doubtful) in the rest of the N. T. 14. vy dé] ‘but one thing L do,’ scil. moi, the general verb in the first clause being inferred from the special verb that follows; see Winer, Gir. § 66. 1. b, p. 546. The ellipsis is variously supplied ee (Nye [novi] Syriac; gpovri{w or pe- py, Ccumen. 2; éari, Beza; didkw, Flatt), evaded (Gothic), passed over (ZBthiopic), or left nakedly as it stands 12 90 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. III. 14. \ ’ f > i tal BY: ” ’ , fev OTlowm emihavSavopevos, Tols € Ew poo Sev ETT EKTELVOMEVOS, Kata cKoTrOV SiwKw él TO BpaBelov THs dvw KrAjcEws TOD Ocod 14. emi] So Rec., Griesb., with DEFGKL; majority of mss.; Chrys., Theod. On the other hand, Zachm. and Tisch. read eis with AB; 17. 73. 80; Clem., Ath., al. (Mey., Alf.), apparently on the ground of ém being an interpretation of the e7s of ‘destination.’ As it can scarcely be said that émt, especially with the meaning anciently assigned to BpaB. (e. g. Theod.), is a much easier expression than eis, it does not here seem safe to reject the reading of so many uncial MSS. (Vulg., Copt.). The most simple and natural supplement is that adopted above, as Theoph., Gicum., and most modern expositors; see Jelf, Gr. § 895. ce. Meyer strongly urges the participial form roiéy, but this surely mars the em- phasis, and obscures the prominent Side, to which the ellipsis seems intended to direct attention. TH Mev éwiocw éwta.| ‘forgetting the things behind;’? not the renounced Judaical prerogatives, ver. 5 sq. ( Vorst.), nor the deeds done under their influence, but, as the metaphor almost unmistakably suggests, the portions of his Christian course already traversed, ‘the things at- tained and left behind,’ Fell; ev wrod, evos ylyvouat udvov, Orws del mpokdmrotut’ emaAavadvouat Tay KaTopIwudTwy Kal api- Nut avTa Omigw, Kad ovdé péuynua bAws avtay, Theoph.; compare Chrys. The special reference of 'Theod. to o? rept Tod Knpvyuaros mévot is unsatisfactory, as ob- securing the general and practical teach- ing which this vital passage conveys ; kal jets wh Boov jyioapey Tis. apeTiis dvadoyildueda, GAN Boov juiy Aelret, Chrys. In the verb émaavs. (middle, —of the enward act, Scheuerl. Synt. p. 295; act. non occ.) the preposi- tion seems to mark the application of the action to,and perhaps also its extending over (accus.) the object, a little more forcibly than the simple verb (An3# 7a- padodyvat, Chrys.) ; comp. Rost. u. Palm, Lex. s. vy. érl, C. ce, dd. It is occasion- ally, as here, found with the accus. ; the simple form always with gen.; compare Jelf, Gr. § 512, Thom. M. p. 348 (ed. Bern.). Tots 5& 2umpoc- Sev ément.| ‘but stretching out after the things that are in front:’ more dis- tinct emergence of the image of the racer. The 7a éumpoodey are the diavaot (to use the language of Chrys.) which are yet to be passed over in the Chris- tian course, and are the successive ob- jects (dat. of direction, see Hartung, Ca- sus, p. 83) toward which the action of the éwextew. is directed: good works done in faith are the successive strides ; Andrewes, Serm. Wol. m1. p. 95 (A.-C. Libr.). In the double compound érexr. the ém} marks the direction, éx the pos-. ture, in which the racer stretches out his body toward the objects before him; 6 yop emektTewomuevos ouTOs ear 6 Tos 1é- das kairo. TpéxovTas TH AoITG THmare mporaBeiv omovddCwv, Chrys. A very similar use of érexrelveddat is cited in Steph. Thesaur. s. v., Strabo, xvi. p. 800. kaTa oKomoy d:aKw] ‘I press forward toward the mark.’ The preposition card here marks the direction of the didcev (see Acts viii. 26, xvi. 7, and with more geo- graphical reference, ii. 10, xxvii. 12), — a direction which, according to the pri- mary meaning of the prep. (kata = ke-v -Ta) is represented ‘beginning near us and proceeding to a point not necessari- ly distant,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 183. On the absolute use of didkw, see on ver. 12. BpaB. tis &yw KAhoews| ‘prize of the heavenly calling ;’ the gen. not be- ing of apposition (De W.), which would — Cuapr. III. 15. PHILIPPIANS: 91 év Xpiotd “Inaod. ©” Oot ody tédev01, ToUTO Ppovapev Kab el Te involve the untenable assumption that kAjjots = ‘superna beatitudo,’ Ist., com- pare De W., —but a specigs of the gen. possessivus, serving to mark the BpaB. as that which the aw Ajjois has in expec- tation as its final crown. The BpaBetoy is here, as in 1 Corinth. ix. 24, not ‘ the goal,’ but ‘the prize’ (7d &SAov exdAecer, , Pheod.), and is the object which the 6:d- key is designed to attain (compare Luke xv. 14, xxii. 52, Acts viii. 36, and see critical note), — ‘ the future eternal glory to which God calls us by the gospel of Christ,’ Bull, Serm. xrv. p. 268 (Oxf. 1844). The derivation is uncertain; perhaps Bpa = mpo with reference to the judge sitting forward to award the prize. Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 106. The xAjjous, here defined as proceeding from God (gen. originis), is still further specified as 7 &yw KAjois, the heavenly calling (compare Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26) ; not with any special reference to the pe- culiar appointment of St. Paul (Meyer, Alf.), but, as the latitude of the passage seems to require, with general reference to its ends and objects; it was a KAjous émovpdvios (Heb. iii. 1). God was its au- thor (1 Thess. ii. 12), heaven the object to which it conducted, and in reference to which it was vouchsafed ; compare ver. 20. évy Xp. *Ino. may be con- nected (a) with di&xw, as Chrys., appy. Theoph., GEcum., and very emphatical- ly Meyer; or (b) with «Ajows (Copt., JEth.), — xadrety év Xp., and therefore «a. év Xp. without the art. being a permissible formula; see Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 123, and notes on Hph.i: 15. The latter seems most simple, and most coincident with St. Paul’s use of the formula. On the dogmatical significance of this verse, as indicating an effort on our parts through the assistance of grace, compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 22. Vol. 11. p 255. 15. Soot oby] ‘As many then as;? the ody with its usual collective and ret- rospective force gathering into a definite exhortation the statements made in the three preceding verses : compare Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717. “Ooo: is clearly not synonymous with jes of, Heinr., but is designedly used as leaving to each one’s conscience whether he were téAeios or no. TéAetotl ‘ perfect ;” not absolutely, e.g. rereAciwuevor (ver. 12), but relatively ;— yet not necessa- rily as opposed to’ vfmio., ‘in socictate Christiana cum adultis comparandi,’ Van Heng. (compare 1 Cor. ii. 6, xiv. 20, where, however, the reference seems more to knowledge), but simply as those who had made some advance toward the tédos Of Christian life; compare Wie- singer in loc., where this view is elabo- rately and successfully maintained. TOUTO ppovGmev| ‘let us be of this mind,’ ‘let us entertain these views with regard to religious practice (Horsley), which I follow, and which I am here in- culeating.’ Yet what views? Surely not merely Td 71 Set Tay Omiadev emidav- Sdveosxat, Chrys.; so that reAesdrns in its fullest sense is to consist in 7d ph vo- mlCew éavrdy Tédctoy eva (compare The- ophyl.), but with a more inclusive refer- ence to the whole great subject which commenced ver. 7, was continued to ver. 12, and was specially illustrated in ver. 12-14. That the rodro does refer to what immediately precedes, to the éy 5& of ver. 13, seems required by the rules of perspicuity, — but, that it refers to it only in so far as it forms a sort of exam- ple,and special statement of the modus agendi, in reference to ver. 8 sq., seems required by the evident interdependence of the whole passage. et Tt Kk, 7.A.] ‘and if in any respect ye are differently minded ;’ ‘if you entertain, as is certainly supposable («i with indie., Kat 99 PHILIPPIANS. Crap. IIT. 15, 16. a a AY val / AY > érépws povelre, Kat TodTO 6 Oeos tiv amoxadver. 1 mdjpv eis a n a a 0 epSdcapev TH AVTO oToUyelv. see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, notes on Gal. i. 9), upon any point, — not of doctrine or external worship (Horsley), but of moral practice (od wept Soyudtwy Tata eipnrat GAAG Tept Biov TeAcidTHTOS, Chrys.), any different, and so, almost necessarily, less correct sentiments, even this too, — this about which ye are thus differently minded, will God reveal to you in its true relations.’ There is thus no need with Horsley, in his able sermon on this passage, to give gpove?re two different references, (a) to religious disposition, (6) to opinion ; noris it enough to regard €Tépws as merely in opposition to ‘ same- ness and uniformity,’ when the context seems so clearly to imply an zmproper and injurious diversity ; see examples of this sense of €repos in notes on Gal. i. 6. We may observe (with Wiesinger) that the apostle does not say €repoy but éré- pws; they did not differ in fundamentals, but in the aspects and relations in which they regarded them and carried them into practice. kar TodvTo| ‘ even this,’ ‘ this also, as well as the other things which God has been pleased to reveal ;’ the ascensive xa) contrasting the present toiro, — the point on which they need revelation, not with the pre- ceding totdro (Flatt); but with the other points (to which e% 7 is the exception) concerning which they have already re- ceived it, and are already in accord with the apostle: compare Hartung, Partik. 8. v. kat, 2. 8, Vol.1.p.135. The rodro is somewhat differently explained, ‘ jus- titiam esse ex fide,’ Vatabl., ‘vos esse deceptos,’ Grot., ‘quod nos perfecti’sen- timus,’ Beng. ; alii alia. The only nat- ural explanation seems that adopted above, viz., the thing concerning which érépws ppoveire (Horsley), 7. e. the true relations of the preceding ti, ‘ zi in sei- ner wahrheit,” De Wette; 6 Ocds iui @s ayvootow bmodciéca tb Sov, Theoph. &amoxarver| ‘will reveal, by means of the Tlvedua coplas rad dmroradtpews, Ephes. i. 17 ; obi efmev, évdtet, GAN’ arok- adver iva Sd& paAAov ayvolas elvaL Td mpayua, Chrys. The future is not merely expressive of wish, but of an assured and predictive hope ; ‘ loquitur pro spe quam ex priore ipsorum fide conceperat ; sic et Gal. v. 10,’ Grot.: comp. Winer, G7. § 40. 6, p. 251. 16. rAnyv] ‘ Notwithstanding, ‘be that as it may,’ Horsley; ‘in spite of there being several points in which you will probably need dmoxdAviis.’ » The practically adversative force of rAjv lim- its the preceding ,expression of predic- tive hope, while its intrinsically compar- ative force serves also to contrast the aor. eos. with the fut. drox.; see notes on ch. i. 18, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 724. eis 0 épSdoaper| ‘whereto we have attained” Matth. xii. 28, Rom. ix. 31, compare Luke xi. 20. The primary and classical meaning of this verb (prevenire) appears to have been almost entirely lost sight of in Al-_ exandrian Greek, and to have merged in the general meaning ‘ venire,’ and with eis, ‘ pervenire ;” compare Dan. iv. 19, 4 peyadwotvn cov eueyaduven Kal epadacev eis Toy odpaydy: see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 357. It is doubtful whether éoSdo. denotes advance in moral conduct (Chrys., Theophyl., Mey.), ad- vance in knowledge (De W.., Wiesing.), or in both (Alf.); the first seems most in accordance with the context and with orotxeiv, the last, however, not improba- ble. Lastly, that 6 does not indicate a point common to all, is almost self-evi- dent: it is a point, in a common line, va- rying in its position according to indi- vidual progress. This common line (produced) the apostle, in the following Cusp. III. 17, 18. Tmitate me and my follow- ers, for many, alas ! mind earthly things. Our coun- try is heaven, whence we look for our Lord and our final change. TUTOV Mas. words, commands all to pursue, and not to diverge from: compare the illustra- tive diagram of Meyer in loc. T@ avtT@ otorxetyv| ‘walk onward coincidently with the same,’ or ‘ according to the same;’ dat. norm, compare Gal. vi. 16, T4 Kavdi To’Tw oToLXeEIv, Where see note and references. The infinitive is here imperatival, and in accordance with that usage, conveys a precise and emphatic command, or rather address (Kriiger, Sprachi. § 55. 1.5), in the sec- ond person singular or plural; see Jelf, Gr. 671. a, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 111. p. 86. Hence the hortative translation in the first person, as in Theoph., oroxyapev (comp. Chrys.), and in all the Vy. ex- cept Auth. (Platt), seems grammatically doubtful ; so rightly Mey., Alf., but not De W. This is perhaps the only certain instance of a pure imperatival infinitive in the N. T.; other instances, e.g. Rom. xii. 15, pass more into declarations or duty and of what ought to be done, and may consequently be joined with all three persons ; sec Jelf, Gram. § 671. b, Winer, Gr. § 43. 5, p. 283. The addition in Rec., kavdv, Td adtd ppoveiv, which appears, with variations both of words and order, in the majority of un- cial MSS (see Tisch.), is rejected by AB; 17.67**; Copt., Sah., Ath. (Pol., but not Platt), Theodot.-Ancyr.; Hil., Aug., al., and by Luchm., Tisch., and most recent editors. It has been de- fended by Rinck, Matth., and Wordsw., but, owing to the suspicious variations in words and order, has every appear- ance of an explanatory gloss ; comp. ch. 5 1h.2,,Gal, vi. 16. “7. Tveminntal K.7.A.] ‘ Be imi- tators together, scil. with all who imitate me;’ ‘coimitatores,’ Clarom., Copt.: PHILIPPIANS. 93 cv Mi Suppepntat pov yiveorSe, aderdoi, Kab lay \ ev m TKOTELTE TOUS OUTWS TrENLTTATOUVTAS Kaas eyeTE \ si a a 18 qroddol yap TepiTratovaw, ods continuation of the foregoing exhortation with reference to the apostle’s own ex- ample. The ovv in cvpu. is apparently neither otiose on the one hand, as in ovymoditat, Ephes. ii. 19, nor yet on the other does it imply so much as ‘omnes uno consensu, et una mente,’ Calv., Al- ford, —a tinge of ethical meaning not suggested or required by the context. It appears simply to mark the common na- ture of the action in which they all were to share; not merely ‘be imitators’ (1 Cor. iv. 16), but ‘bea company of such ;’ kasdmep év xopp kal otparowédw Toy Xo- pnydy Kal orpatiyyby Set pimetodae Tods Aorods, Chrys. Kah okomwette x.7.A.| ‘and mark them which are thus walking ;’ they were all to imitate the absent apostle and to observe studiously those with them who walked after hisexample. Who these were can- not be determined: the reference may be to Timothy, Epaphras, and other mis- sionaries of the apostle, but is perhaps more naturally to all those, whether holy men among the Philippians, or teachers sent to them, who followed the example of St. Paul; diddoKe: ds modAovs exer TovdE TOU GkoTOD KoLvwyovs, Theod. kadas €xete x. 7. A.J] ‘Sas ye have us for an ensample, kas standing in correlation to the preceding oftws, and nuas referring to the apostle: so Vulg., Clarom., and all Vv., Chrys. and the Greek expositors, and, it may be added, nearly all modern commentators. Meyer and Wiesing. give kadas an argumenta- tive force, ‘inasmuch as’ (see notes on Eph. i. 4), but in so doing seem to im- pair the force, and obscure the perspi- cuity of the passage : see Alf. in loc., who has satisfactorily refuted this interpreta: tion. The use of the plural judas does, 94 PHILIP PLAN'S, Cuapr. III. 18, 19. a lal , ‘ TOAAdKIS EXeyou Liv, viv 5é Kai KNalwy héeyw, Tors éySpods Tod a a a \ I “ .Y ctaupod Tod Xpictod, 1 dv TO TENOS am@XeELA, OV 6 Oeos 7) Kota not imply a reference to St. Paul and Tovs ovTws mepiT., but seems naturally to point either to the apostle and his fellow- workers (Van Heng., Alf.), or perhaps, more probably, is the apostle’s designa- tion of himself viewed less in his per- sonal than his official relations : ‘ be all, in matters of practical religion, imitators of me, Paul, and observe those, etc., who have me their apostle as their ensample ;’ compare 2 Thess. iii. 7,9. The singu- lar téroy yields no support to either in- terpretation; see Bernhardy, Synt. 11. 5, p- 61. : 18. toAAo) ydép] Reason for the foregoing exhortation arising from the sad nature of thé case. Who the moadol were cannot be exactly determined. It seems, however, clear that they are not the same as those mentioned in ver. 2 sq. The latter were false teachers, and of Judaical tenets; these, on the con- trary, were not teachers at all, and were of an Epicurean bias; not, however, Pa- gans (Rill.), but nominal Christians, baptized sinners (Manning), who dis- graced their profession by their sensual- ity; Xpirrianopdy pev Sroxpiwdpevor ev Tpuph d€ Kat avéoet (avtes, Theoph., after Chrys. atv] ‘are walking, ‘are pursuing their course.’ There is no need to supply oe any qualifying adverb (Dus ve) gaa {aliter] Syr.), or to assume any pause and change of structure (Rill., De W.). Though commonly associated by St. Paul with qualifying adverbs or adv. clauses, whether in bonam (Rom. xiii. 13, Eph. iv. 1), or in malam partem (2 Cor. iv. 2, 2 . Thess. iii. 6), the verb itself is of neutral meaning (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 1), and in its metaphorical use seems only to de- signate a man’s course of life in its prac- tical aspects and manifestations ; it being TEPLTATOV- left to the context to decide whether they are bad or good. moAAdKLs €AEvor| ‘ ofttimes used to mention to you ;” most probably by word of mouth ; perhaps also in the messages transmitted to them by his emissaries; not by any means necessarily in another Epistle (Flatt). The mwoAddms (‘many times’) follows the zoAAo} with a slight rhetorical force not without example in St. Panl’s Epistles ; see Winer, Gr. § 68. 1, p. 560, and compare the large quan- tity of examples collected by Lobeck, Paralipom. p. 56, 57. kal kAalwy| ‘even weeping,’ because the evil has so increased; dytws duxpiav &Elot of Tpupayres, Td pev mepiBdAaor, TovTéoTl, TO Gua Aiwatvoytes, THS BE MeAAovons evdbvas diddvar [Wuxis?] ov- d€éva, motodyTat Adyov, Chrys. tTovs €xSpovs rod ctavpod| ‘the (special) enemies of the cross :’ apposition to the preceding relative ; compare Wi- ner, Gr. § 59.7, p. 469. The article de- fines the class sharply and distinctly, and specifies them as enemies kar’ ekoxhv. They are so specified, not on account of their doctrinal errors (d:ddoKovras Ort dixa Tis vous woAirelas advvarov Tis cwrnpias Tuxeiv, Theod.), but on account of their sensuality and their practical de- nial of the great Christian principle, of dé Tod Xpic rod Thy odpKa écratpwoay civ Tos Tadhuacw Kal rats émSuutas, Gal. vy. 24. So Chrys., Theoph., Gicumen., and, with a more general ref., Athan. (#) de Virgin. § 14. On the practical ap- plication of the verse, ‘the Cross the measure of sin,’ see Manning, Serm. x1. Vol. 111. p. 201 sq., and compare Bp. Hall, Serm. x11. Vol. v. p. 172 sq. (Oxf. 1837). 19.év 7d TérAos GmdbrA€tal ‘whose end is perdition ;’ more specific deserip- tion of their characteristics, and the cer- Cuar. ITI..19, 20. PHILIPPIANS. 95 Ne 60 b A > \ tT ‘conversatio,’ Vulg., wluscs [opus] Syr., ‘ vita civilis,’ Copt., and as far as we can infer, Theodoret, Gicumenius, —the meaning being, ‘ nostra quam hic sequamur vivendi ratio in ceelis est,’ Van Heng., De Wette ; (8) citizenship, ‘municipatus,’ Jerome (comp. Tertull. de Cor. Mill. § 13), ‘ jus civitatis nostre,’ Zanch , Luther (earlier ed ), — the mean- ing being, ‘we are freedmen of a heay- enly city,’ Whichcote, Serm. xv111. Vol. 11. p. 875, and more recently Manning, Serm. x. Vol. 111. p. 183; (+) country, state, to which we belong as moAtra; Sanderson, Serm. xy. Vol. 1. p. 378 (ed. Jacobs.); see 2 Macc. xii. 7, ray ‘lommitav moAtrevpa, Polyb. Hist. 1. 13, 12, ra mwoAtretpata [Tov “Pou. Kk. Kapx.], and compare Eph. ii. 19, cuymoAtra: rey ayiwy ; so Theophl. (thy ratpisa), Beng., Mey., Alf., and the majority of modern commentators. Of these (a). has this advantage, that being subjective it pre- sents a more exact contrast to Ta émly. 96 PRILTIPLE TANS. Cuap. III. 20, 21. \ x t > 9 mie ‘ > & \ a > 5 yap TO ToNtTEvpa ev ovpavols UTapyel, EE 00 Kal CwTHpa amreKde- f s ’ a ‘XS \ 914 I Ss a xomesa Kupiov “Inootv Xpictov, “ds petacynpatice TO Hwa ppovety ; the equiv., however, to avac- Tpopy rests only on the use of the verb (comp. Philo, de Confus. § 17, x@pov év @ moArrevovta), and is itself not lexically demonstrable. Again in (8) the equiv- alence of moAirevwa to modrrela (Acts XxXii. 28) is equally doubtful, for the pas- sage adduced from Aristot. Pol. 111. 6, does not prove that the words are used indifferently ( Alf.), but indifferently only in regard to a particular sense (méAews Taé1s),—a statement fully confirmed by other passages, Polyb. Hist. 1v. 28. 9, al., Joseph. contr. Ap. 11. 17,—a perti- nent example; compare Beza in loc. We retain then (y), which appears to yield a pertinent meaning, and was per- haps chosen rather than méAus (Heb. xi. 10), or warpis (Heb. xi. 14), as repre- senting our heavenly home, our ‘Iepovea- Ahm emovpayios (Heb. xii. 22), on the side of its constitution and polity; ‘our state, the spiritual constitution to which we be- long is in heaven:’ compare Gal. iv. 26, Rey. xxi. 2, 10, Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 2, p. 182. badpx.| ‘existeth in heaven,’ ‘ consti- tuta est,’ Clarom.; see Wordsw. in loc., who rightly calls attention to the strong word tmdpxe. The various practical aspects of this consolatory declaration are ably stated by Whichcote, Serm. Xvii1., though somewhat modified by the interpretation assigned to woAlreupa : our home is in heaven while we are here below, exemplariter, as we make it our copy; jinaliter, as we carry it in our thoughts; analogice, in regard to jthe quality of our actions ; znchoative, accord- ing to the degree of our present station ; intellectualiter, according to the constitu- tion of our minds; Vol. 11. p. 375 sq. €& ob] ‘from whence,’ ‘ inde,’ Vulgate o A= — [exinde] Syr.; not é€ 08, év ovpavots scil. woArr. (Beng.),.a construction per- missible, but not necessary, as é& ov is purely adverbial ; see Winer, Gr. § 21. 3, p. 128. The meaning ‘ex quo tem- pore,’ is grammatically correct (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 43. 4.7) but obviously point- less and unsatisfactory. kal owt. awend.] ‘we also tarry for as Saviour ;’ the xa! marks the corres- pondence of the act with the previous declaration, owr7pa the capacity in which the Lord was tarried for. The pure eth- ical meaning of amexd. sc. ‘ constanter, patienter, expectare’ (Tittm. Synon. 1. p- 106), seems here, owing to the preced- ing éeé ov, less distinct than in other pas- sages where such local allusions are not present, e.g., Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25, 1 Cor. i. 7, Gal. v. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 20, but is perhaps not wholly lost: see notes on Gal. v. 5, Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 14, Fritz. Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 156 ; com- pare also notes on ch. i. 20. The sim- ple form éxdéxecSa: occurs 1 Cor. xvi. 11, James v. 7; comp. Soph. Pail. 128, Dion.-Hal. Antiqg. v1. 67. 21. wetacxnpmatiaes] ‘shall trans- Jorm,’ simply ;— not ‘ verklaren,’ Luth., Neand., a meaning derived only from the context. This peculiar exhibition of our Lord’s power at His second coming is brought here into prominence, to en- hance the condemnation of sensuality (ver. 19) and to confirm the indirect ex- hortation to a pure though suffering life, It seems wholly unnecessary to restrict this merely to the living (Mey.) ; still less can we say with Alf. that ‘the words assume, as St. Paul always does when speaking incidentally, the jue?s surviving to witness the coming of the Lord,’ when really every moment of a true Christian’s life involves such an amexdoxfv. On the nature of this weracynuatiouds, which the following words define to be strictly Cuap. III. 21.°. PHILIPPIANS. 97 fal , lal) lol nn an THS TATEWOTEDS TULOV TUUpoppoy TH GwpaTe THs SoEns avTod, Kata THY évépyetay Tod SivacSat avTov Kal brotatas aiTe Ta WwavTa. in aecordance with that of the Lord’s body, —a change from a natural to a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44), compare Barnet, State of Dead, ch. viii. p. 231 (Transl.), Cudworth, Jntell. Syst. v. 3, Vol. 111. p. 310 sq. (Tegg), Delitzsch, Psychol. 111. 1, p. 401 sq., and the com- ments of Wordsw. zn loc. td oGma K.7.A.] ‘the body of our hu- miliation ;* not ‘our vile body,’ Auth. Ver., Conyb., a solution of the genitive case which though in some cases admis- sible (Winer, Gr. § 34. 3.b, p. 211) here obscures the full meaning of the words and mars the antithesis. The gen. seems here not so much a gen. of quality as of content, and to belong to the general cat- egory of the genitive materice (Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 2, p. 83); the rametywois was that which the odua contained and in- volved, that of which it was the recepta- cle; compare Bernh. Synt. 111. 45, p. 63. It seems undesirable with Chrys. (comp. Mey., Alf.) to refer rametywors wholly to the sufferings of the body, ‘humil. que fit per crucem.? Though the more remote context (comp. ver. 18) shows that these must clearly be in- cluded, the more immediate antithesis 7) caua THs Sdéns seems also to show that the ideas of weakness and fleshly nature (Coloss. i. 92) must not be ex- eluded ; compare Fritz. Rom. vi. 6, Vol. I. p. 882. The distinction between ra- metvwors and ramewdtns (compare Alf.) cannot safely be pressed ; see Luke i. 48, Prov. xvi. 19 al. For examples of a similar connection of the pronoun with the dependent subst., see Green, Gr. p- 265. cipmuoppoy k.7.d | ‘ (so.as to be) conformed to the body of His glory ;’ seil. eis To yevéoSar ciup., —a gloss which Rec. with D?D*EKL ; many Vy.; Orig., al., retain asa portion of 13 the text. The shorter reading has not only internal, but preponderant external evidence [ABD!FG; Vulg., Clarom., Gth., al.] distinctly in its favor. On this proleptie use of the adj., see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p. 550, Jelf, Gram. § 439. 2. The genitival relation tis Sdéns adtod is exactly similar to that of rs tam. ju., ‘the body which is the receptacle of His glory, in which His glory is manifested.’ In respect of this ddf we are ctupoppor, —ov Kata Thy moodTHTA GAAG KaTa THY moiTyTa, Theod. thy évépy.| ‘according to the working of His ability,’ etc. ; compare Eph. i. 19. The object of this clause, as Calvin rightly remarks, is to remove every pos- sible doubt; ‘ad infinitam Dei poten- tiam convertere oportet, ut ipsa omnem dubitationem absorbeat. Nec potentize tanttum meminit, sed efficacize, qua est effectus vel potentia in actum se exse- rens.’ ‘The infin. with rod is dependent on the preceding subst. as a simple (pos- sessive) gen. (a construction very com- mon in the N. T.), and serves here to express, perhaps a little more forcibly’ than ddvauis, the enduring nature and latitude of that power; see examples in Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 290. kal brotdéat| ‘even to subdue;’ the — ascensive ka) serves to mark the limitless nature of that power: He shall not only transform 7b céua «.7. A., but shall also subdue ra mdvra, all existing things, Death not excluded (1 Cor. xv. 26), to Himself. The Kupidrns of the Eternal Son will then be complete, supreme, and universal; to be resigned unto the Fa- ther (1 Cor. xy. 28) in so far as it is eco- nomical, to last for ever and for ever in so far as it is ‘ consequent unto the union, or due unto the obedience of the passion,’ Pearson, Creed, Art. 11. Vol. 1. p. 197 Kata 98 PHILIP PIANS. Brethren, stand fast in the Lord. Cuap. IV. 1-3. IV. “Qote, adeagoi pov ayarnrol Kal ere 1 \ \ t ! c/ / ? (ee TONNTOL, Yapa Kal oTEpavos pov, oUTwWS aTHKETE ev Kupie, aya- tf TT)TOL. Let Euodia and Syntyche be of one mind: assist, O yokefellow, the faithful kgrX@ To avTO ppovelv év Kupio. women. (ed. Burt.). On the use of arg [AB DiFG], not éav7g (Rec.), comp. notes on Eph. i. 4. Cuarter IV.1. éo7€] ‘So then, ‘ Consequently,’ ‘itaque,’ Vulg.; ‘as we have such a heavenly home, and tarry for such a salvation :’ concluding exhor- tation naturally flowing from the preced- ing paragraph, ch. iii. 17-21, and con- tinued in the same tones of personal en- treaty (adeAgol) ; comp. | Cor. xv. 58, where the particle similarly refers to what has immediately preceded. De Wette and Wiesinger refer the particle to ch. iii. 2 sq., but thereby deprive the exhortation of much of its natural and consecutive force. On the force of dare with indic. and inf., see notes on Gal. ii. 13, and reff., and with the imper., notes on ch. ii. 12. ayanrntot Kal érimdsd.| ‘beloved and longed af- ter, — terms by no means synonymous (Heinr.), but marking both the love the apostle entertained for them (emphati- cally repeated at the end of the para- graph) and the desire he felt te see them ; ‘carissimi et desideratissimi,’ Vulgate. The word is an &z. Aeyou. in the N. T, but is occasionally found elsewhere ; Ap- pian, Hisp. § 43, émimodhrovs dpkous (Rost u. Palm, Zer.), Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. § 59, eixratay Kad émimddSntov eiphynv. On the force of émi, see notes on 2 Tim. i. 4. xapa kal oréga- vos pov] ‘my joy and crown,’ scil. é¢? vis xXapay Kat @mawov exw, Camerar. See especially 1 Thess. ii. 19, in which the words év 77 avtod [Kuplov] mapoucig there limit the reference to the Lord’s coming, —a reference, however, here 2 Evodiav tapaxare Kat Suvtvynv mapa- 3 \ > lal val EpWTW (Alford, comp. Calv.) by no means nec- essary: the Philippians were a subject of joy and a crown to St. Paul, now as well as hereafter; compare 1 Cor. ix. 2, 3. For examples of this metaphorical use of crép., see Isaiah xxviii. 5, Ecclus. i. 11, xxv. 6, Soph. Ajaz, 460. otrws| ‘thus,—‘as I have exhorted you, and as those are acting whose zroat- Tévua isin heaven.’ A reference to their present state (‘sic ut ccepistis, state,’ Schmid., Beng.), though suggested by Chrys., seems out of place in this ear- nest exhortation: 1 Cor. ix. 24, cited by Bengel, is not in point. oTNKETE év Kup.| ‘stand ( fast) in the Lord ;’ not ‘per Dominum,’ Zanch., but ‘in Domi- no,—in Him as in the true element of their spiritual life; see 1 Thess. iii. 8, and notes on Ephes. iv. 17, vi. 1. al. 2. Evodtav mapak.| Special ex- hortation addressed to two women, Euo- dia and Syntyche ; compare ver.3. The opinion of Grot. that they are the names of two men (Euodias and Syntyches) is untenable; that of Schwegler (Nacha-* post. Zeit. Vol. 11. p. 135), that they rep- resent two parties in,the Church, mon- strous. Of the two persons nothing whatever is known; they may have been deaconesses (Rom. xvi. 1), but were more probably persons of station and influence (Chrys., comp. Acts xvii. 12), whose dissensions, perhaps in matters of religion (7d aitd pov. €v Kvp.), might haye shaken the faith (comp. oftws or- kere immediately preceding) of some of the Philippian converts. Syntyche has a place in the Acta Sanct. (July) Vol. v. p22: mapakar@| The repetition. of this verb is somewhat. no- i ee ie @nar. [V.3) PHILIPPIANS. 99 ‘ , , , lal Kal o€, yunove avvbvye, avANapBavov adtais, aitives év TO evay- / y , \ \ aA rs yedio ouvySAncav pot, wera Kal KXypevtos Kat THY NOTOV Cuv- EpyOv pov, OV Ta dvomaTta év BiPrw Cor. ticeable: it scarcely seems ‘ ad vehemen- tiam affectus significandam,’ Erasm., Mey., but rather to mark that they both equally needed the exhortation, that they were in fact both equally toblame. The év Kup. is of course not to be joined with mapak., ‘obtestor per Dom.,’ Beza 2, but marks the sphere in which the 7d aird gpov. (see notes on ch. ii. 2) was to be displayed. 8. val épwtG kal ce] ‘yea, I be- seech even thee. The particle vat (not kal, Rec., which has scarcely any critical support) has here its usual and proper confirmatory force. It is used either (a) in assent to a direct question, Matth. ix. 28, John xi. 27, Rom. iii. 29; (b) in as- sent to an assertion, Matth. xy. 27, Mark vii. 28; (c) in graver assertions as confirmatory of what has preceded, Matth. xi. 26, Luke xi. 51, xii. 5; (d) in animated addresses as corroborating the substance of the petition, Philem. 20 (see Mey. in loc.). The simple ‘ vis ob- secrandi,’ = Heb. x5 (Grot., Viger, al.) cannot be substantiated. For examples of its use in classical Greek, sce Viger, Idiom. vit. 9, p. 424, Rost u. Palm, Ler. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 309. On the distinction between épwray (‘rogare,’ — equals) and aireiy (‘ petere,’— superiors), see Trench, Synon. § 40. yuhove ctv Cuyel ‘true yoke-fellow,’ ‘dilectissime conjunx,’ Claroman.—a translation that may have early been misunderstood. The explanations of these words are somewhat numerous. Setting aside doubtful or untenable ‘conjectures, —that the person referred to is the wife of the apostle, Clem. Alex. Strom. 111. 53 [grammatically incorrect (opp. to Alf.) as the uncertain gender of otiv¢. (Eur. Ale. 315, 843) would cause ywiowos to revert to three terminations], the husband or brother of one of the women (Chrys., hesitatingly), Timothy (Estius), Silas (Beng.), Epaphroditus, though now with the apostle (Grot., Hamm.), Christ (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 458), — two opinions deserve considera- tion; (a) that cdvvyos is a proper name, and that yvtjo.ws is used in allusion to the correspondence between the name of the man and his relation to the apostle, ‘ qui vere, et re et nomine, ovy¢uyos es,’ Gom., Meyer; (b) that the chief of the émioxomot (ch. i. 1) at Philippi is here re- ferred to. Of these (a) harmonizes with the meaning of yvfjows (comp. notes on 1 Tim. i. 2), and is slightly favored by the order (Luke i. 3, Galat. iii. 1; but KL; al. Rec. reverse it), but is improb- able on account of the apparently unique occurrence of the name. As the only valid objection to (b),—that St. Paul never elsewhere so designates any of his avvepyol (Mey.), may be diluted by the fact that the chief Bishop of the place stood in a somewhat different relation to such associates, and as the order is prob- ably due to emphasis on yyjore ( Winer, Gr. § 59. 2, p. 469), the balance seems in favor of this latter view: so Luther, De Wette, and apparently the majority of modern expositors. cTvAAauB. avtais] ‘assist them,’ scil. Euodia and Syntyche, in endeavoring to bring them to a state of dudvoia; not ‘those women which,’ Auth. and other Engl. Vv. (comp. Vulg. ‘illas que’), —an inexact translation of afrwes (see below) which obscures the reference of av’tais to the preceding substantives. The middle cvAAauB. occurs .in a similar construction, Luke v. 7 (BonSe D), Gen. xxx. 8 (Alex.), lian, Var. Hist. x1. 4, and with a gen. rei, Soph. Philoct. 282. The active is more usual, in this 100 PHILIPPIANS. Rejoice, show forbearance ; be not anxious, but tell your wants to God, and al ETE His peace shall be with you. x r sense, in classical Greek ; see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. aitives] ‘inasmuch as they,’ ‘ut que,’ Beza, compare Syr. io [quia ip- sx| and see Scholef. Hints, p. 106: a very distinct use of the explicative force of doris : see notes on Gal. iv. 24. év T@ evayy-| The gospel was the sphere in which the labor was expended ; compare Reuss, Tél. Chrét. 1v. 8, Vol. 11. p. 81. Meyer very appropriately calls attention to the fact that women were apparently the first in whom the gospel took root in Philippi; Acts xvi. 13, €AaAoduev Tals cuveAdovomsS yuvaikiv. “Women were the first fruits of St. Paul’s labors on the continent of Europe,’ Baum. on Acts, /. c. meta kat KAhu.] ‘in company with Clement also, scil. cuvndAnoav: they were asso- ciated with Clement and the apostle’s other fellow-laborers at Philippi in some efforts to advance the gospel, perhaps, as Beng. suggests, not unattended with danger; Acts xvi. 19 sq., compare Phil. i.28. Itis doubtful whether the Clement here mentioned is identical with the third bp. of Rome, or not. On the one hand we have the very distinct testimony of Origen, in Joann. i. 29, Vol. 1v. p. 153 (ed. Ben.), Euseb. Hist. cel. 111. 4, 15, Jerome, de Vir. Ill. xv. Vol. 11. p. 839 (ed. Vallars.), Epiphanius, Her. xxvii. 6, Const. Apost. v11. 46 ; see Hammond, contr. Blond. p. 254, Lardner, Credibility, 11. 38. 28. On the other hand (a) the notice of Clem. in Irenzeus, Her. 111. 3. 8, 6 kal Ewpakws tovs pakaplovs ’'Aroord- Aous Kal cuuBeBAnkas avrots, — where, however, cuufeBaA. (most unnecessarily queried by Conyb. and Bloomf.) should not be overlooked,— contains no allusion to this special commendation ; and (4) the present context seems certainly in Cup. IV. 4, 5. ? yt . a * Xaipete €v Kupiy mdvtote madw €pd, 5 70 émtetKes DOV yvooSHiTw Tacw favor of the supposition that Clement, like Euodia and Syntyche and (appy.) the cuvepyot, was a member of the Church of Philippi. Still,as it is per- fectly conceivable that a member of the Church of the Roman city of Philippi might have become 7 or 8 years after- wards (Pearson, Minor Works, Vol. 11. p- 465) Bp. of Rome, — as (b) is merely negative, and as the early testimony of Origen is positive and distinct, there seems no just ground for summarily re- jecting, with De W., Mey., and Alf., this ancient ecclesiastical tradition ; compare Winer, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 232. The position of «at between the prep. and the noun is somewhat unusual, such a collo- cation being in the N. T. apparently con- fined to ydp (John iv. 37), ye (Luke xi. 8), 6€ (Matth. xi. 12), wév (Rom. xi. 22), bev ydp (Acts xxviii. 22), and re (Acts x.89); compare Matth. Gr. § 595.3. In the present case, however, the vinculum of the preposition extends over the whole clause, cal — xa) (see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10) being correlative. The examples cited by Alf. (compare Mey.), in which only a single kat occurs, are thus not fully in point. é6vdm. appear only to refer to Tay Ao- mav,— ‘Clement whom I have men- tioned by name, and the rest, who though not named by me, nevertheless have their names in the book of life ;’ comp. Luke x. 20, Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, xxi. 27. To supply an optative («%y, ‘ex- stent’) and assume that the Aourol were now dead (Beng.), seems unnecessary and unsatisfactory. The expression is not improbably derived from: the Old Test. ; compare Exod. xxxii. 32, Psalm lix. 28, Isaiah iv. 3, Ezek, xiii. 9, Dan. Sede Ite 4. xaipere| Separate exhortations to the church at large, continued to ver. Gv te a —e oi Cuap. IV. 5, 6. wYpeorrais. 10. They commence with the exhorta- tion, which, as has been already re- marked (see notes on ch. iii. 1), pervades the whole Epistle. On the repetition, Chrys. well observes, todto Sapavvorrds éort kal deucvivtos, dtr 6 ev Ocw [Kuplo| dy aed xalper Kay Te DALByTaL, Kav STLOvY mdoxny vet xalper 6 TowdTos: see the good sermon of Beveridge on this text, Serm, cy. Vol. v. p. 62 sq. (A.-C. Libr.), and compare August. Serm. cLxx1. Vol. vy. p- 933 (ed. Migne). maAtv épal ‘againT will say, not ‘I say,’ Auth. as ép@ seems regularly and correctly used throughout the N. T. as a future. The traces of a present épéw (Hippoer. Precept. p. 64, Epidem. 11. p. 691) are few and doubtful; see Buttm. Irreg. Verbs, p. 89 (Translation). It is scarcely necessary to do rhore than no- tice the very improbable construction of Beng., by which maytore is joined with this clause. 5. 70 émterkts Sua@y] ‘your for- bearance,’ Conybeare, ‘your moderation (Auth.) and readiness to waive all rigor and séverity:’ compare Joseph. Arch. VI.12.7, emekets kat weTprot, and Loesn. Obs. p. 358, where several examples are cited of émetxera in connection with mpav- THs, piravspwria, and juepdrns. See notes on 1 Tim. iii. 8, and comp. Trench, Synon. § 43. On'the use of the abstract neuter (7d émeukes = émeixera), compare Jdelf, Gr. § 436. y, and notes on ch. iii. 8; add Rom. ii. 4, 1 Corinth. i, 25, and Glasse, Philol. 111. 1, p. 537. yrwoditw wmacivy avarp.| ‘become known to-all men ;’ ‘let the goodness of your principles in this respect be known experimentally by all who have dealings with you, be they epicurean enemies of the cross (Chrys., Theoph.), or pagan persecutors’ (Theod.). The command is wholly unrestricted. 6 Kipios éyybs] ‘the Lord (Jesus) PALL VE PLAIN S.. 101 6 Kipwos éyyts. © Mndév pepywate, ad ev ravti is near. The exact meaning and con- nection of the words is slightly doubtful. The regular meaning of Képios in St. Paul’s Epistles (compare Winer, Gram. § 19. 1, p. 113) and the demonstrable temporal meaning of éyyts (Matth. xxiv. 32, Rom. xiii. 11, Rev. i.3) seem clearly to refer this not to a general readiness to help (Manning, Serm. x111. Vol. 111. p. 241), but specially to the Lord’s second advent, which the inspired apostle re- gards as nigh, yet not necessarily as im- mediate, or to happen in his own life- time. That the early church expected a speedy return of Christ, —that they thought that He ‘that was to come would come, and would not tarry,’ is not to be denied. This general expectation, however, founded on our Master’s own declarations, and on the knowledge that the écxara: jucpar (James'v. 3,7) and katpol torepor were already come, both is and ought to be, separated from any specific and personal anticipations of which the N. Test. presents no certain trace. With regard to the connection, it muy be either minatory (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 803) or encouraging (De W.) with regard to what has preceded, or, more probably, consolatory with refer- ence to what follows (Chrys.), or, not unlikely, a bond of union to both (Alf.) : on the one hand, the Lord’s speedy com- ing (as Judge) adds a stimulus to our exhibition of forbearance toward others, comp. James v. 9; on the other, it swal- lows up all unprofitable anxieties. 6. undév wepipy.| ‘be careful about nothing ;? ‘ entertain no disquieting anx- ieties about anything earthly,’ Matth. vi. 25. The accusative is that of the object whereon the pepimvay is exercised (Jelf, Gr. § 551), and stands in emphatic an- tithesis to the following év wayti. Chrys. and Theophyl. refer wydev mainly to the pressure of calamity or persecution (ure 102 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. IV. 7. zh mpoceryh Kal Th Sejoer peta evyapiotias TH aiTipaTa Upeov qvapiféaS@ mpos Tov Ocov. 7 cat 7) cipyvn Tod Ocod UTrepexov- Ths exelyvwy BBpews, whre TiS Vmav SAl- Wews, Theoph.): it seems better to leave it wholly unrestricted. The practical applications of the text will be found in Beveridge, Serm. Vol. v. p. 181 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). ‘in everything,’ equally unrestricted ; not ‘in all time,’ Syr., Aith., but, ‘in omni- bus, Copt., év mavt pnot, rovréott m™pary- part, Chrys. ‘The translation of Vulg., ‘in omni oratione’ (so Clarom.), which Meyer, and after him Alford defend as meaning ‘in omni (re) oratione,’ ete., is certainly rather suspicious. TH tmpogevxh K-T.A.] “by your prayer and your supplication,’ by the specific prayer offered up when the occasion may require it; compare Middleton, Art. Vv. 1. 3,4, p. 93 (ed. Rose). The repeti- tion of the article gives an emphasis to the words ; each noun is enunciated in- dependently : see Winer, Gr, § 19..5, p- 117. The difference between the more ‘ general mpoo. (precatio) and the more special déqo. (rogatio) is stated in notes on Eph. vi. 18, and on 1 Tin. ii. 1. meta evxap.| ‘with thanksgiving,’ an adjunct to prayer that should never be wanting, 1 Thess. v. 18, 1 Tim. Mey 2s see Beveridge, Serm. cv11. Vol. Vv. p. 76 sq. (A.-C. Libr.) compare notes on Col. iii. 15. Alford remarks on the omission of the article, ‘because the matters themselves may not be recog- nized as grounds of edxapiria.” It seems more simple to say that ebxap., ‘thanksgiving for past blessings’ (com- pare Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 337), is in its nature more general and compre- hensive, mpoo. and 5éqo. almost necessa- rily more limited and specific. Hence, though edxap. occurs twelve times in St. Paul’s Epistles, it is only twice used with the article, 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 2 Cor. tiv. 15. Ta aiThpatal év mavTl| ‘your requests ;’ according to termina- tion, ‘the things requested’ (compare Buttm. Gr. § 119. 7), and thence (as the context requires), with a slight modifi- cation of meaning, ‘ the purport or sub- jects of prayer :’ ‘ petitum, materia def- sews,’ Beng.; compare Luke xxiii. 24, 1 John v. 15. There is often, especially in later Greek, a sort of libration of meaning between nouns in -ois and -ya; compare 2 Tim. i. 13, al. Meyer quotes Plato, Rep. vir. p. 566 B, where the explanatory clause aiteiy rdv dijuov (see Stallb. in loc.) seems to show that there is even there also some tinge of such an interchange. mpds Tov ©edr] ‘toward God,’ i.e. ‘ before and unto God,’ the prep. denoting the ethical direction of the prayer; see Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p. 371. 7. kal fh eip. tod Oeod| ‘and (so) the peace of God,’ the peace which comes from Him and of which He is the source and origin; gen. auctoris, or rather originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 17, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 125), belonging to the general category of the genitive of ablation (Donalds. Gr. § 448). On the use of the consecutive caf (Heb. xii. 19, al.), see Winer, Gram. § 53. 8, p. 387. The exact meaning of eiphyn Tod Ocov (see below, ver. 9) is somewhat doubt- ful. Three meanings have been assigned to eipfvn; (a) ‘concord ;’ *studium pa- cis, unitatis, concordiz, inter homines atque in ecclesia’ (Pol. Syn.), appar- ently adopted by Theodoret (@s émaaaq- Awy byvTwY TGV Biwyuayv avaryKalws avTois thy eip. exnttaro), and strenuously ad- vocated by Meyer in loc. ; (8) ‘ reconeil- jation’ with God; 7 kataAAayn, n ayd- mn Tod @eod, Chrys. 1; compare Rom. vy. 1, and Green, Gr. p. 262; (7) ‘peace,’ i. e. tle deep tranquillity of a soul rest- ing wholly upon God, —the antithesis Cun. DV. 7; PHILIPPIANS. 108 oa TdvTa voov ppoupicet TAS Kapdias tov Kal TA voNMaTa Dpuav év Xpiot@ "Inood. to the solicitude and anxiety engendered by the world and worldliness ; compare John xiv. 27; Chrys. 2, Beza, Beng,, al. Of these (a) seems clearly insufficient and not in harmony with the context ; (8) points in the right direction, but is unnecessarily restrictive; (y) is fully in accordance with the context (comp. pndev pepuuy., ver. 6), includes (8), and gives a full and spiritual meaning: so De W., Wiesing., Alf., and most modern com- mentators ; compare noies on Col. iii. 15. ) twep. wavta vovr| ‘which over- passeth every understanding ;’? ‘ which transcendeth every effort and attempt on the part of the understanding to grasp and realize it.’ Nods here, as the context suggests, points to the human tvevua ‘quatenus cogitat et intelligit’ (Olshaus. Opusc. p. 156),—a meaning, however, in many, perhaps the majority of cases in the N. T., not sufficiently comprehen- sive; see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, and on 2 Tim. iii. 8. It may be observed that the term voids is apparently used by the sacred writers, not to denote any sepa- rate essence or quality different from the mvevua, but as a manifestation or outcom- ing of the same in moral and intellectual action, the human myvedua, ‘ quatenus cogitat, intelligit, et vult,’—the exact limits of this definition being in all cases best fixed by the immediate context: see especially Beck, Seelenl. 11. 18, p. 48 sq., Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. 1v. 5, p. 145, and compare Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, Vol. II. p. 494.sq. On the use of the transi- tive imepexew with an accus. of the ob- ject surpassed (contrast chap. ii. 3), see Jelf, Gr. § 504. obs. 2. ppovphaer| ‘shall guard, ‘keep ;’ not optative, ‘custodiat,’ Vulg., Claroman., and in effect Chrys. diapuadéere kal ao- gadtoaro, but simply future, as in Goth. ‘fastaip ’ [servabit,— not ‘ servat,’ De Gab.; Goth. pres. commonly supplies place of Greek future], Coptic, al.; the event will follow if the exhortation undev k. T. A. is attended to. We can scarcely say with Conyb. that gpoup. is literally ‘shall varrison’ (2 Cor. xi. 32, Thucyd. 111. 17, Plato, Rep. 1v. p. 420 a), as the idea of ‘ watching over,’ ‘ guarding,’ ac- cords with derivation [po = po, and Homeric OP-; Pott, Ht. Morsch. Vol. 1. p- 122], and appears both in connection with persons and things; Sophoc. Gd. Rex, 1479, Eurip. Cycl. 686, Here. Fur. 8399 ; Hesych. @poupe?: pudAdrrea. The nature of the @povpnots is more nearly defined by év Xp. Ino. which appears to denote, not so much with a semi-local reference (@oTe mi exmecety avTov Tijs miorews, Chrys.) the sphere in which | they were to be kept, as that in which the action was to take place ; see Meyer in loc. Tas Kapdlas k. T. A.] {your hearts and your thoughts ;’ ‘corda vestra et cogitationes vestras,’ Copt., Ath. The distinction between these two words should not be obscured. Kapila, properly the (imaginary) seat of the yux7%, the ‘ Lebens-Mitte’ (see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 20, p. 63), is used with con- siderable latitude of meaning to denote the centre of feeling, willing, thinking, and even of moral life (see especially De- litzsch, Bibl. Psych. rv. 11, p. 203 sq.),, and, to speak roughly, bears much the same relation to the Wux} that vots bears to mvedua (see above), being in fact the vx} in its practical aspects and rela- tions; see Olshaus. Opusc. p. 155 sq., and notes on 1 Zim.i. 5. ‘The vofhuara, on the other hand, are properly (as here) the: products of spiritual activity, of think- ing, willing, etc. (2 Cor. ii. 11), and oc- casionally and derivatively, the imple- ments or instruments of the same, 2 Cor. ili. 14, iv. 4: see Beck, Sceclenl. 11. 19% 104 Practise all that is good, and all that you have learned from me. p- 59, Roos, Psych. rv. 26. The meaning is thus in effect as stated by Alf., ‘ your hearts themselves (7%) and their fruits ;’ or as, briefly, by Beng., ‘ cor sedes cog- itationum.’ On biblical psychology gen- erally, see the remarks in pref. to Past. Epist. p. v., and notes on 1 Tim. iii: 16. 8. 7d Aotwdy] ‘Finally ;’ conclud- ing recapitulation, in an emphatic and comprehensive summary, of the chief subjects for preparatory meditation and (ver. 9) consequent practice. The for- mula is here more definitely conclusive (mavra juiy elpnrat, Chrys.) than in ch. lii. 1 (see notes), where the nature of the exhortations led to a not unnatural di- gression. It thus echoes, yet, owing to the difference of the exhortations, does not resume (Matth.) the preceding 7d Aomdy. The sixfold repetition of dca adds much to the vigor and emphasis of the exhortation. On the whole verse see thirteen able sermons by Whichcote, Works, Vol. 111. p. 368 sq. GAnSi| ‘true:’ 7.e., as the context requires, in their nature and practical applications, ‘genere morum,’ Which- cote : so Theoph. (comp. Chrys.) aAn37- TovTéoty évdpeTa* ) yap Kakia wWevdos ; compare Eph. iv. 21. To restrict the reference to words (Beng., Bisp.), or to doctrine (Hamm.), seems undesirable ; the epithets throughout are general and inclusive. cepval ‘seemly,’ ‘ venerable,’ ‘ deserving of, and receiving, Oo wT respect,’ Syr. eee Tverecunda] : com- pare Hor. Fpist. 1.1.11, ‘quid verum atque decens curo et rogo.’ The Vulg. ‘pudica’ is too special, the Auth. ‘hon- est’ scarcely exact. As the derivation suggests (o¢Boua), the adjective prima- rily marks whatever calls for ‘ respect’ or ‘ yeneration,’ and thence, with a some- what special application, whatever is so PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. IV.-8. ’ aA 8 To Aowrrov, adeAHol, boa eaTiv ddnYH, boa F218, OL 24 ec 4 eo Aye - ceuva, doa dixaia, boa ayvd, boa Tpocpirh}.boa seemly and grave (doa év oxhuacw Kar Adyots, Kal Badiouacr Kad mpdteow, Cicu- men.) as always to secure it ; see Which- cote, p. 399. Td ceurydv, according to this able writer, consists in ‘ grave be- havior’ and ‘ composure of spirit,’ and is briefly characterized by Calvin as ‘in hoe situm ut digne vocatione nostra am- bulemus:’ hence such associations as ceuvoy kal Gyiov, Plato, Soph. p. 249 a, peérpia, kad ceuvd, Clem.-Rom,1 Cor. § 1; compare notes on 1 Jim. ii. 2. dixara| ‘just; in its widest applica- tion, ‘ qu talia sunt qualia esse opor- tet,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 19: not exactly ‘just and equal,’ Whichcote, but rather ‘just and right,’ whether from the pro- portions of things or constitutions of the law (Whichcote, Vol. 1v. p. 10), with- out any reference to others (Col. iv. 1) : compare Acts.x. 22, Rom. v. 7, 1 Tim. i.9. On the distinction between Sikaros and the more limited dyaSés, see Tittm. Synon. p. 19 sq., and on that between dix. and Govos notes on Tit. i. 8. ayuda] ‘pure;’ 2 Cor. vii. 11, 1 Tim. v. 22: not ‘chaste,’ Grot., Est., al., in the more special and limited meaning of the word. On the use of ayvds and its distinction from @yos (with which the Vulgate appears here to have in- terchanged it), see notes on 1 Tim. vy. 22, and Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 21 sq. Chrys. draws a correct line between this and the preceding ceuyds ; Tb ceuvdy THs téw eat) Suvduews, 7d SE Gyvdy Tis Wux7s. mpoaptan| ‘lovely’ (am. Acydu.), not merely in reference to our fellow-men, ‘per que sitis amabiles hominibus,’ Est. (compare Ecclus. iv. 7), nor even with exclusive reference to God (amep eat) to cg mpocd., Theod.) but generally, what- ever both in respect of itself, and the dis- position of the doer (Whichcote), concil- iates love, is generous and noble. See Cusp. IV. 9. EAP eA Ss). 105 ” ” > \ \ 7 x ~ ' evpnua, €l TIS apeT) Kal el TLS ETaWwos, TavTa NoyiecSe: 9 & Kai éwdSere Kal TapedaBeTe Kat nKovcaTe Kal eldete ev euoi, la) / 5, a < ‘ a > / 4 ri n TavTa TpdcceTe* Kat 0 Oeos THs eipyvys EoTaL wey VULav. the good exemplifications of 7d mpoo¢u- Aes, in Whichcote, Serm. xxv. Vol. ry. p- 88 sq. etpnpmal ‘of good report ;’ not merely ‘que bonam famam pariunt’ (Grot., Calv.), but, in accordance with the more literal mean- ing of the word, ‘ well-sounding’ (Luth.), ‘of auspicious nature when spoken of,’ o Syriac me [laudabilia], — those ‘great and bright truths’ in relation to God, ourselves, and our fellow-men, which sound well of themselves (loquun- tur res), and command belief and enter- tainmeut, Whichcote, p. 108 sq. ef tis apeth] ‘whatever virtue there be,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 107, or more accu- rately ‘there is,’ Alf., it being assumed that there is such; see Latham, Lnglish Lung. § 614 (ed. 3), and comp. Words- worth in doc. : recapitulation of the fore- going, with ref. perhaps to all the epithets except the last, which seems to be gen- eralized by the following €mavos. “Apeti) [from a root AP- and connected with Sanser. vri, ‘ protegere,’ Pott, tym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 221, Donalds. Crat. § 285] is only found elsewhere in the N. T. in 2 Pet. i. 5 (in reference to man ; compare Wisdom iy. 1) and 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 3 (in ref. to God; comp. Hab. iii. 2, Isaiah xlii. 8, al.) : it designates, as Meyer observes, ‘ moral excellence in feeling and action’ (4 tay Kad@v vous(o- pévwv éeumetpia, Hesych.), and is opposed to kaxia, Plato, Republ 1v. 444 p, 445 c: see Whichcote, Vol. 1v. p. 120. ématvos| ‘praise;’ not ‘id quod est laudabile,’ Calv., or, ‘ea que laudem apud homines mereantur,’ Est.,— but ‘praise,’ in its simple sense, which, as Whichcote observes, ‘ regularly follows upon virtue, and is a note of it and a piece of the reward thereof,’ p. 132. ‘The addition after @raw. with. DIE‘FG; Clarom., some mss. of Vulg., al., is an interpolation properly rejected by all modern editors, Aoyl Cease] ‘think on,’ ‘take account of, not however merely ‘bear them in your thoughts,’ ‘meditate’ (Alf.), but “use your faculties upon them,’ ‘ horum rationem habete,’ Beng. ; compare 1 Cor. xiii. 5, and see Whichcote, p. 138. 9. & xa] ‘ which also:’ exemplifica- tion of the foregoing in the apostle him- self; totto didacKaAlas aploryns, To ev eTLOTHUNS TACOS Tas Tapaweoeow EavTdy Tapéexew turov, Chrysost. The first «at is ascen- sive (‘facit transitionem a generalibus (Goa) ad Paulina,’ Beng.), — not ‘et,’ Vulg. (Syr., Copt. omit), but ‘ etiam,’ Luth., the other three simply copulative, the sentence falling into two portions (€udS- Kat mapedA. Akovo. Kab €f5.) con- nected by xal, each of which again is similarly inter-connected: ‘duo priora verba ad doctrinam pertinent, duo reli- qua ad exemplum,’ Estius; compare Theod., kat dia t&v Adywy buds edibaka, Kal dit TOY Tpayudtwy brédeta. Soalso Van Heng., Mey., Wiesinger, al. maperAdBere| ‘received;’ not, how- ever, in a purely passive (Galat. i. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 13), but, as the climactic or- der of the words (compare jKotc. rad ei5.) seems to suggest, with a somewhat active reference {John i. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 1); compare Dion.-Halic. 1. p. 44, Aéyw & mapa Tav eyxwpiwy mapéAaBoy (que ab incolis percepz), and the somewhat simi- lar dvadaBeiv év kapdia, Job xxii. 22. The distinction of Grot. ‘ éuddere signifi- cat primam institutionem: mapeAdBere exaciiorem doctrinam’ (éyypadws, The- oph., —but qu. reading) seems lexically doubtful: for examples of mapad. see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 222. 14 106 I rejoiced in your renewed aid; yetI am content and PHIEIPPIANS; Cuapr. IV. 10. 0° Eyapny oé év Kupim peyddos, ote 5 want not. Ye have freely qroré GyeSaNETE TO UTEP Eu“oU ppovelv ef’ Kab supplied my needs, and God shall supply yours. jxovcaTe does not refer to any form of teaching or preaching (‘refertur ad familiares sermones,’ Grot., Hammond), but, as the division of members, noticed above, seems to require, to the example which the apostle had set them when he was with them ;—this they heard from others, and further saw for themselves. Ey éuo thus belongs more especially to the two latter verbs, the prep. ev denot- ing the sphere, and as it were substratum of the action; sce notes on Galat. i. 24, and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 545. rTavTa wpdooete] Parallel to the preceding Tatra AoyiCeove, without how- ever suggesting any contrast between ‘acting’ and ‘thinking ;’ Aoyi¢. (see notes) having a distinctly practical ref- erence; see Meyer zn loc. kar 6 @eds K.7.A.] ‘and (so) the God of peace ;? compare ver. 7, where ral has a similarly consecutive force, and sce notes on ver.12. The expression 6 Oeds Tis eip. admits of different explanations according to the meaning assigned to eipqvn, see Reuss, Thél. Chrét. 1v. 18, Vol. 11. p. 201. Here there seems no reason to depart from the meaning as- signed in ver. 7; the gen. being a form of the gen. of content, or (which is nearly allied to it) of the characterizing attribute ; sec Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 8, p. 115, and comp. Andrewes, Serm. xv111. Vol. 11. p. 84 (A.-C. Libr.). 10. éxdpnyv dé] ‘Now I rejoiced:’ transition to more special matters, the 5¢ being wetaBarindy (Hartung, Partik. Vol. I. p. 165), and marking the change to a new subject ; efta xa) rep) Tay Teupder- Tov Tap avTay ypdper Xpnudtwy, Theod. The addition év Kupiw serves to define the nature of the joy; it was neither selfish nor earthly, it was im his Lord and without Him was not; see notes on ch, iii. 1. H5n wore] ‘now at length, ‘tandem aliquando,’ Vulg., Rom. i.10; more fully expressed in Aris- toph. Z?an. 931, #8n wor’ ev pape xpdve, — #5n acquiring that meaning from ref. to something long looked for; see Har- tung, Partik. %3n, 2.4, Vol. 1. p. 238. De Wette adopts the translation ‘ jetzt einmal,’ ‘jam aliquando’ (comp. Plato, Symp. p. 216 EB), on the ground that the more usual transl. involves a tacit re- proach. This is not the case. The apostle, as the Philippians well knew, in all cases preferred maintaining himself: now, however, his captivity seemed to call for their aid ; compare Neand. Phi- lipp. p. 25. AeTe K.T.A.] Aveda ‘put forth new shoots, Jlourished again, in respect of your solici- . tude for me;’ $refloruistis pro me sen- tire,’ Vulgate, and less literally, Syriac ~ a. > v Ove) ~2 fas olaoly [ut ceepistis curam habere mei]. There is some little difficulty both in the construc- tion and the exegesis. The verb ava- SdAAew may be either transitive (Ezek. xvii. 24, Eeclus. i. 18), or tntransitive (Psalm xxviii. 7, Wisdom iv. 4). In the former case the construction is plain (7d drép x. 7. A. being a simple accusa- tive after the verb), but the exegesis un- satisfactory, as the avaddAAew would ap- pear dependent on the will of the Phi- lippians, which the context certainly seems to contradict. In the latter, adopt- ed by Vulg., Copt., Syr., and the Greck commentators the exegesis is less diffi- cult, but the construction somewhat am- biguous. LEither (a) 7d brép euod is the aceus. object. after ppovety, the verb it- self being somewhat laxly appended to’ aveddr., Beng., Mey., Alf.; or (b) 7d dmép euod ppoveiv is the accus. of the .Cuar. IV. 11. €ppovetre, nKatpeto se Oé. quantitative object (notes on Eph. iv. 15) dependent on dveddAete, Winer, Gram. § 44. 1, p. 284, Wiesing., Bisp., and ap- parently Chrysost. and Theophyl. (who interpolates eis). Of these (a) is artifi- cial and contrary to the current and se- quence of the Greek: (b) is simple and intelligible, but certainly involves the difficulty that the following clause (if we retain the proper and obvious reference of eg’ &) will in fact be éppovetre ém) 74 bmep éuod ppovetv. As, however, this logical ditiiculty may be diluted by ob- serving that ppovety is not used exactly in the same sense in the two clauses, — 7d brep euod pp. in fact coalescing to form a new idea, —and as (a) is not only ar- tificial, but involves an undue emphasis on 7d imép éuod, we somewhat confident- ly adopt (L): so Wiesing. and Bisping. Lastly, aveddAere does not involve any censure (871 mpdétepov bytes avdnpol eua- pavSnoav, Chrysost.): the time during which jxapodyto was the period of un- avoidable torpor ; when the suitable time and opportunity came, avéSadov, comp. Andrewes, Serm. xv111. Vol. 111. p. 99 (A.-C. Libr.). The rare aor. aves. is noticed by Winer, § 15, Buttm. Trreg. Verbs, 8. v. SdAAw. ed @| ‘for which, ‘with a view to which,’ ‘in contemplation of which ;’ the ém) marking the object contemplated : not ‘ sicut,’ Vulg., Syr., ‘in quo,’ Copt., interpretations which obscure the proper force of the prepositions. On the mean- ings of 颒 g, see the notes on ch. iii, 12. kal éeppovetre| ‘ye also were anxious, careful ;’ imperf., marking the continu- ance of the action, to which the xa} adds a further emphasis: ‘ your care for me was of no sudden growth, it did not show itself just when the need came, — far from it, you were also anxious long be- fore you dvedddere.’ The omission of wev after eppor. gives, as Meyer observes, PHIELIPPIANS:. 107 M1 ody dre Kay botépnow réeyw" Ey a greater vigor to the antithesis; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356, compare notes on Gal, ii. 15. Akatpetose] ‘ye were lacking opportu- nity ;’ t. e. “it was not from any barren- ness on your part,’ Wordsw. ’Arap. (an dr. Aeydu.) is a word of later Greek, the opposite of which is eviapety (ev oXoAjjs éxeuv), a form equally condemned by the Atticists; Lobeck, Phryn. p. 125, Thom. M. p. 830. Chrysostom refers the term: specially to the temporal means of the Phil. ov evxere év xepalv, ovde ev apdo- via fire, and urges the popular use of axaup. in that sense. It may have been so; it seems, however, safer to preserve the ordinary temporal reference; see above. ll. obx Sri] ‘not that, ‘I do not mean that :’ see notes on ch. iii. 12, Wi- er, Gr. § 64.6, p. 526. The apostle does not wish his joy at this proof of their sympathy to be misunderstood as mere satisfaction at being relieved from present want or pressure. kay botépnoty| ‘in consequence of want,’ ‘propter penuriam,’ Vulg., sim. Syriac vv. > eras ja? \WfiSo [propterea quod defuerit mihi]; see notes on chap. ii. 3, and on Tit. iii. 5, where this meaning of kata is briefly investigated. Van Heng., to preserve the more usual meaning of the prep., gives borépyow a concrete ref- erence, ‘ut more receptum est penuriz ;’ this is artificial and unnecessary. The meaning is simply od dia tiv euhv xpelav, Theodoret ; ‘ notio secundum facile tran- sit in notionem propter,’ Kiihner, Xen- oph. Mem. 1. 3. 12. yap €uasor| ‘forl for my part have learned,’ not ‘learned,’ Alf., which repre- sents the action as too remote to suit the English idiom. In the Greek nothing more is said than that the warddvew took place after a given time (see Donalds, > A eyo 108 PHILIPPIANS. Caap.-IV. 12. ‘ 2 fal yap EwaXov év ois eiwt adtapens eivar. © ofda Kal tatrewovo Sat, Gr. § 482) ; whether it does or does not last to the present time is left unnoticed ; see especially Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 16 sq. The éy® is emphatic, ‘ quidquid alii sentiunt aut cupiunt,’ and guaSoy, as the tenor of the verse seems to indicate, refers to a teaching derived, not ‘ divini- tus,’ Beng., but, from the practical ex- periences of life ; 51 ray evayTiwy ddetwr, Teipay eAaBov ikavty, Theod. év ois eipl| ‘in what state I am:’ not, on the one hand, with reference merely to his present state, which is too limited. — nor on the other hand, with reference to any possible state, ‘ in quo- cunque statu sim,’ Raphel (compare Auth.), which would require ay, — but with reference to the state in which he is at the time of consideration ; almost ‘in every state that I come into. The expression éy ois (no ellipse of xpfua- ow, Wolf, al.), is copiously illustrated by Wetstein in /oc.; see also Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 319. avrdpKns] ‘content,’ ‘ut sufficiat mihi id quod est mihi,’ Syr. (compare Heb. xiii. 5, dprotjevor Tots wapovow), literally self-supporting,’ ‘independent,’ the op- posite being, as Meyer observes, mpoc- des HAAwy, Plato, Tim. 33D; compare Arist. Ethic. Nic. 1.5, 7 rédevov aryaSdv avrapres eivat Soret: see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 6, and Barrow, Serm. xxxvi. Vol. 11. p. 404. The practical inferences de- ducible from this verse are well stated by Sanderson, Serm. v. (ad Aul.). 12. of8a Kat tamery.| ‘I know (how) also to be abased :’ second member of the climax (@uaSov x. 7. A., oda Kk. T.X., pewtnua xk. 7. A.) explaining more in de- tail the preceding év ots ciul adrdpk. elvar: the apostle, as Andrewes well says, ‘had stayed affections.’ The first «ad thus serves to annex the special instance (ta- mew.) to the more general statement (sce notes on Eph. vy. 18, Winer, Gr. § 53.3, p- 388, ed. 6), the second appends to Tamew. its opposite, and is thus copula- tive and indirectly contrastive. The use of «al inthe N. T., as the Aramaic 9 would have led us @ priori to suppose, is somewhat varied. Though all are re- ally included in the two broad distine- tions et and etiam (see especially Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635), we may perhaps conveniently enumerate the following subdivisions. Under the first (et) kad appears as, (a) simply copulautive; (B) adjunctive, i. e. either when the special is annexed to the general as here, Mark i. 5, Eph. vi. 19, al., or conversely the gen- eral to the special, Matthew xxvi. 59 ; (y) consecutive, nearly ‘and so,’ ‘verse 9,1 Thessalonians, iv. 1, compare James ii. 23, Matthew xxiii. 32, al. Under the second (etiam) kat appears as, (8) ascensive, ‘even,’ a very common and varied usage (compare notes on Ephe- sians, i. 11), or conversely, descensive, Gal. iii. 4, Eph. v. 12, where see notes ; (e) explanatory, approaching nearly to ‘namely,’ ‘that is to say,’ John i. 16, Gal. ii. 20, vi. 16, where see notes; (¢) comparative, especially in double-mem- bered clauses, see notes on Eph. vy. 23; to all which we may perhaps add a not uncommon use of «al, which may be termed (7) its contrasting force, as here (24 nat), and more strongly, Mark xii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 18; compare 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6 (2% xat). Insuch a case the parti- cle is not adversative, as often asserted, but copulative and contrasting ; the op- position arises merely from the juxtapo- sition of clauses involving opposing or dissimilar sentiments. These seven heads apparently include all the more common uses of xa in the N. T.; for farther examples see the well arranged list in Bruder, Concord. s.v. kat, and the much improved notice in the sixth ed. of Winer, Gr. § 53. 3. The Cuar. IV.'12, 13. EeLrurPrrilaAa ws. 109 x A tal Va x oida Kal Trepiocevew* Ev TravTi Kal ev TaoW pemnLal, Kal yopTa- N la) ‘ Fi 2 \ ¢ a Sy, 13 , feaSar Kat TELVAV,. Kab TEPlooevely Kat VOTEPELT al. TTAVTG reading 5€ (ota 5¢) of Rec. has scarcely any authority, and is rightly rejected by apparently all modern editors. meptaaevery| ‘to abound.’ The op- position between ztamey. and mepicc. is not exacily perfect (contrast Matth. Xxill. 12, 2 Cor. xi. 7, and above, Phil. ii. 8, 9), but still need not involve a de- parture from the lexical meaning of ei- ther word. The former (razeww.) is more general (‘to be cast down,’ —not ex- pressly, Auwrreiv, Gicum., and sim. even De W.), but obviously includes the idea of the pressure and dejection arising from want (comp. AZth.); the latter is more specific. The paraphrase of Pelag. (cited by Meyer) is thus per- fectly satisfactory, ‘ut nec abundantia extollar, nec frangar inopia. év wavTl kal év macty| ‘in every- thing and in all things, ‘in omni et in omuibus,’ Clarom., Goth., not ‘ ubique et in omnibus,’ Vulg., Auth.,— an as- sumed ellipsis of témw (Chrys. supplies xpévw) which cannot be substantiated any more than that of av3peHrots ( Beng.) after maow ; compare 2 Cor.ix.8. The expression seems designed to be per- fectly general and inclusive, év may7) mpdyp. Kal évy maot Tos wapeuminrouct, Phot. ap. Gicum. me mUn- wat] ‘L have been initiated, fully taught,’ ‘institutus sum,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt. ; ° ean La wH5—e50 [exercitatus sum] Syr., ‘assuetus sum,’ /dth. ;—climactic, see above. The word is an am. Aeydu. in the N. T., and appears used, not in its primary sense, ‘disciplina arcana imbutus sum,’ Beng. (wvodpevos: uvorarywyobpe- vos, Hesych.), but in its derivative sense, -*I have been fully instructed’ (unos: udanots, Kathxnots, Hesych.), with per- haps some reference to the practical mode in which the knowledge was acquired ; meipay amdvrwy €X@, Phot. ap. CEcum. ; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 379 sq. As mvetoda: is used with an accus. of the thing (Plato, Symp. p. 209 », and see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), more rarely with a gen. (Heliod. Zthiop. 1. 17, see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 651 note) or dat. (Lucian, Demon. 11), some mod- erm commentators (Mey., Alf.) join éy mavtT) x. T. A. with the infinitives. This is harsh and somewhat hypercritical ; pveioSae appears with a prep. (kat&) in 3 Mace. ii. 30, and is probably so to be joined here; so Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Goth., and appy. Copt., th. metvay] Later form for rewjy, see Wi- ner, Gram. § 13. 3, p. 71, Thom. M. p, 699: ‘vulgaris horam verborum scrip- tura cum ingressu Macedonici evi, ten- uis scaturiginis instar, hic ibi emicat,’ Lobeck, Phryn. p. 61. The verb xop- Td(w, properly used in ref. to animals (Hesiod, Op. 454, Aristoph. Par, 176, Plato, Ltep, 11. p. 872 D, comp. 1x. p. 586 D), is found always in the N. Test. (except Rev. xix. 21), and very com- monly in later writers, in simple ref. to men. 13. rdvta ioxdw)] ‘I can do all things,’ — not ‘all this,’ Hammond on 1 Cor. xiii. 7, ‘omnia memorata,’ Van Heng., but ‘all things,’ with the most inclusive reference, marking the transi- tion from the special to the general. Bernard (Serm. Lxxxv.) well says, ‘ ni- hil omnipotentiam Verbi clariorem reddit, quam quod omnipotentes facit omnes qui in se [eo] sperant;’ see a good sermon on this text by Hammond, Serm, x1v. p. 297 (A.-C. Libr.). Mdyra is the accus. of the ‘ quantitative’ object after icxéw (Gal. v. 6, James v. 16, Wis- dom xvi. 20), defining the measure and extent of the action; see Madvig, Synt. § 27. ev T@ évivy.] ‘in 110 PHILIPPEANS: Cuar. IV. 14, 15. > 7, > tal > a / 14 \ n ) fe icxim év TS evOuvamodvTi pe. TANVY KAADS ETTOLNTATE TUYKOL- vavncavres wou TH Srirver. 5 oidate € kal tpeis, Pirvrmyjorot, drt €v apxh Tod evayyeXiou, OTe €E&7pASov avro Maxedovias, ovdenia Him that giveth me inward strength ;’ not ‘per eum,’ Beza, but ‘in Him,’ in vital and living union with Him who is the only source of all spiritual Stvauis ; com- pare 1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. iv. 17, and Ignat. ad Smyrn. § 4. The late form évduvauow occurs six times in St. Paul’s Epistles, in Acts ix. 22, and Heb. xi. 34 (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 12), Psalm lii. 7, and eccl. writers. The simple form oc- curs Col. i. 11, Psalm Ixviii. 31, and is noticed by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 605 note. The interpolation of Xpiord after pe (Rec.) is well supported [D?EFGKL; Boern., Syr. (both), Goth., al.; Gr. Ff], but seems due to 1 Tim. i. 12, and is rejected by most modern editors. 14. rAhv x. 7. A.] * Notwithstanding ye did well ;’ clearly not ‘ye have done well,’ Peile, — the event referred to be- longed definitely to the past. In this verse and the following, which in fact present the positive side to the negative ovx $871, verse 11, the apostle guards against any appearance of slighting the liberality of his converts (Chrys., Caly.), by specifying what peculiarly evoked his joy, — the sympathy of the Philippi- ans, 7) cuykowwrijcat wou TH SAwe. For the explanation of Aj see notes on ch. i. 18, iii. 16, and for examples of the idiomatic kad@s em. with a part. (Acts x. 83), see Elsner, Obs Vol. ii. p. 257. ovykotvwy. k.7. A.) ‘in that ye com- municated, had fellowship, with my afflic- tion,’ see notes on Eph. v. 11: specifica- tion of their action viewed in its moral aspects ; buav TodTo Képdos- Kowvwyo) yap Tay euav éyéverSe TtaSnudtwv, Theod. The action of the participle is contempo- raneous with that of the finite verb (see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, notes on Eph. i. 9, comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 6. b, p- 316), and specifies the act in which the kaAdés émorhoare was evinced. It is scarcely necessary to add that SAhve: is not either here or 2 Cor. viii. 13, ‘ penu- riz’ (‘necessity,’ Peile), but simply ‘trib- ulationis,’ Vulg. : the gift of the Philipp. is regarded from a higher point of view, as an act of ministering sympathy. 15. of8are SE kat byu.| ‘ Morcover yourselves also know ;’ notice of their for- mer liberality in the way of gentle con- trast. Aé here does not merely annex an ‘enlargement upon’ the preceding verse (Peile, ‘and,’ Scholef.), but passes to earlier acts, which it puts in juxtapo- sition with the present ; see notes on Gal. iii. 8, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356, 362, who has well discussed this parti- cle, with the single exception that he denies any connection between it and the numeral, which seems philologically certain; Donalds. Cratyl. § 155. The kat suggests a comparison with the apos- tle, ‘ye too, as well asI;’ comp. notes on ver. 12. SidkinmmH ctor} ‘men of Philippi.’ The mention by name is emphatic (compare 2 Corin. vi. 11); it does not mark merely affection (‘my Philippians,’ Bisp.), but specifies them, gratefully and earnestly, as the well remembered and acknowledged do- ers of the good deed. Beng. goes rather too far when he says, ‘ innuit antitheton ad alias eeclesias;’ the comparison is instituted in what follows. bre €&HADov| ‘when I went out,’ ‘quando profectus sum,’ Vulg., scil. at the time that event took place. It is doubtful whether the apostle alludes (a) to the assistance supplied to him when at Corinth, and especially mentioned 2 Cor. xi. 9; or (b) to that supplied pre- viously to, and possibly at, his depart- ure, Acts xvii. 14. If (a), then e&jASav must be regarded as having a pluperfect Cuap. LV. 16. PHILIPPIANS. 111 prot €xxAnola éxowwavncen els NOyoV Socews Kal Ajprfews, et pw) LpEts / 16 (24 ed 4 NEF (3 Ni ry) > \ f povot, 1 rT Kat ev Occoadoviky Kal arra€® Kal is els THY YpELaV joe reference (Van Heng., De W., see Pa- ley, Hor. Puu!. v11. 3), —an interpreta- tion to which no serious grammatical ob- jection can be urged (Jelf, Gram. § 404, Winer, Gram. § 40. 5; see, however, Fritzsch, de Aor. p. 16), but which seems at variance with ev apxn ToD evayy-, which, as Meyer observes, refers the event to the earliest period of their con- nection with the apostle. Itseems safer, then, to adopt (b) ; so Meyer, Alf., and Bisp. éekKoLVaynoev k. T.A.] ‘ communicated with (‘dealt with,’ Andrewes) me in regard of the account (ver. 17) of giving and receiving ;’ «is Adyoy not being taken in the more lax, yet defensible sense, ‘ ratione habita,’ Van Heng. (comp. 2 Mace. i. 14, Thu- cyd. iii. 46), but, as eis Adyor below seems to suggest, in the stricter meaning, ‘ in ratione dati et accepti,’ Vulg., Gothic, Copt.; compare Cicero, Lal. xvr. (58), ‘ratio acceptorum et datorum.’ The exact meaning of the words is slightly doubtful. Chrys., Theoph., nearly all the earlier, and the great majority of re- cent expositors refer the giving and re- ceiving to each party ; épds mas exowwd- ynoay, cis Adyov Sécews TaY capKiKGy Ka) AnWews TOY Trevuwatin@v, Chrys. ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 11. Grotius and others limit the giving to the Philippians and the re- ceiving to the apostle; ‘ego sum in ves- tris expensi tabulis, vos in meis accepti.’ Meyer (followed by Alf.) extends this so far that each party is supposed to open an account with the other, but that the debtor side was vacant in their ac- count, the creditor in his. This last in- terpr. seems so artificial, and the first so fairly analogous with the spiritual ap- plication in ver. 17, that we see no reason for departing from the ordinary interpre- tation; so recently Wiesing., and Bis- ping. Examples of the expression Afis ka) Sdors are cited by Wetstein in loc. ; compare also Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 804. For the construction of rowwvéew, see notes on Gal. vi. 6. 16. dri] ‘ because,’ — argumentative (not demonstrative, ‘that,’ Paley, Van Heng., Rilliet, al.), the object of this verse being to justify the statement, év apxn Tod evayy. (ver. 15), by noticing a very early period when assistance was sent to the apostle from Philippi. Even before he had left Macedonia they had twice ministered to his necessity: so Goth. (‘unte’), and perhaps, Vulg., Cla- rom., ‘quia:’ the other Vy. are ambig- uous; uth. omits. The other interpre- tation of dz: reverses the order of time, and disturbs the logical sequence. kal év @ea.c.| ‘even in Thessalonica,’ not ‘ to Thessalonica,’ Vulg., Claroman., but, ‘ when I was in that city.’ There is here no ellipse of dvr: (Beza), nor a di- rect instance of the preposition of rest in combination with a verb of motion (Mey., Alf.), but only a case of simple and in- telligible brachylogy, Winer, Gr. § 50. 4, p. 368. The ascensive xa) is referred by the early commentators to the impor- tance of Thessalonica ; év Ty wntpomdAet KaShmevos Tapa THs mikpas érpépero md- Aews, Chrys. This is doubtful; it seems more naturally ascensive in reference to time, ‘even at so early a period as when Iwas at Thessalonica;’ compare Har- tung, Partik. nal, 2. 8, Vol. 1. p. 135. kal &mak kat Sts] ‘both once and twice, i.e. ‘not once only, but twice,’ emphatic: see 1 Thessal. i. 18, Nehem. xiii. 30, 1 Mace. iii. 830, and Herod. 11. 121. 2, 111. 148. Meyer cites as the an- tithesis obx Gat ovdé Sis, Plato, Clitoph. p- 4108. On kal—nral, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. eis thy xpelav] ‘to supply my ne- cessity; eis marking the ethical desti- 112 PHTILIPPIANSE. Cuap: IV. 17,.18% a ¢ * a \ a érréuapate. ™ ody dtu emifnT@ 70 Sopa, ddAra ETrLEnTa Tov KapTrov ww / ? / is rn TOV TAEOValoVTAa Els NOYOV VELOY. nation of the contribution}; so eis 7d evayy-, 2 Corinthians ii. 12, ‘to preach the gospel ;? see examples in Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354. The article marks the necessity the apostle then felt, 2. e. ‘my necessity,’ Syr., al. Chrysostom calls attention to the absence of the pronoun, ok elme Tas euas [xpelas] GAA’ amAds, Tov ceuvod emimedduevos : this is inexact, as the art. fully performs the function of the pronoun; Middl. Art. v. 1. 3. 17. ob}x Sr] ‘not that;’ added, as before ver. 11, to avoid a misunderstand- ing ; see notes on ch. iii. 12; ‘sic laudat Philippensium liberalitatem ut tamen sinistram cupiditatis immodicz opinio- nem semper ase rejiciat,’ Calvin. émi(nt a ‘I scek after,’ not ‘ studiose quero,’ Bretschneid., nor even ‘ insuper quero,’ Van Heng., who has an elabo- rate, but not persuasive note on this word: the émi, as in émmoSely k. T.A., only marks the direction of the action, see notes on ch. i. 8, and on 2 Tim. i. 4. In many cases, in this and similar com- pounds, the directive force is so feebly marked that the difference between the simple and compound is hardly appre- ciable ; compare Winer, de Verb. Comp. I, 22, the present, —the ‘allzeitiges Prasens’ of Kriiger (Sprachi. § 53.1), as marking the regular and characteristic mode of ac- tion ; see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 1, p. 370, and compare the English present, in which, however, habitude is more strong- ly marked than in the Greek ; Latham, Eng. Lang. § 507 (ed. 4). Td 5dpa] ‘ the gift,’ — not exactly ‘ the gift which they had [now] sent him,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 108, but ‘ the gift in the particular case in question’ (Meyer, Alford), almost in English idiom ‘any gift.’ The Coptic [taio] seems to con- vey the idea of a recompense, ‘ honora- Meyer rightly calls attention to ° AQv; dank ny , \ ATTEX@ O€ TAVTA KAL TTEPlLo- rium,’ GAAG Emi] ‘but I do seek, Alf.: the repetition of the same verb with aAAd, as in Rom. viii. 15, Heb. xii. 18, adds force and empha- sis, and makes the primary meaning of aAA& (‘ aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 1) still more apparent; compare Fritz. Rom. viii. 15. Toy Kapmoy k.7.A.] ‘the fruit which aboundeth to your account,’ tpav, ovx éuod, Chrys. ; i.e. the future divine recompense, which, on every fresh proof of their love, is rep- resented as being laid up to their account, As mAcovatew appears in all other cases in the N. T. to stand alone (2 Thess. i. 3 is doubtful; Alford cites it here as certain, but in his notes in doc. takes it different- ly), Van Heng. and De W. here connect eis with émi(n7r@. This seems an unnec- essary refinement; there is nothing in mAcova@w to render its connection with eis, as marking the destination of the mAcovacuds, either ungrammatical or un- natural: it is joined with éy [Plato], Locr. p. 103 A. The use of Adyos is here the same as in verse 15, not ‘ habit&é vestrum ratione,’ Van Heng., and cer- tainly not = eis suas (Rill.; compare Syr.), but ‘in rationem vestram,’ Vulg., i. e., dropping all metaphor, eis thy buer- épay owtnplay, Chrys.; compare Calvin in loc. 18. dwméxw 5¢ wavra] ‘ But Ihave all I need ;’ ‘ though I seek not after the gift, I still have all things in abundance ; your liberality has left me to want noth- ing.’ The S¢ thus retains its proper op- positive force (not ‘ and now,’ Peile), and preserves the antithesis between the em- phatic améxw and the foregoing émi(nr@ ; amexw TdvTa, ovdev eri(ntATeov. “Améexw is neither barely ‘ habeo,’ Vulg., nor yet with any special forensic sense (accepti- 6 kapmbs exetvors tikterat, Chrys. Cuar. IV. 18, 19. PHILIPPIANS. 113 . ceo, TeTANpwwar SeEdwevos Tapa "Etrappoditov ta Tap’ buor, dopa evwodias, Svalav Sexthy eddpectov TH Oecd. 6 SE Oeds latio) ‘ satis habeo,’ ‘I give you my ac- quittance ? Hammond on Mark xiv. 41; compare Chrys. @egev br. dpeAh ear) 7d mpaiyuc.), but simply ‘acceptum teneo,’ Adsas [accepi] Syr., Copt., the prep. amd apparently having a slightly inten- sive force (‘significat actionis quendam, ut ita dicam, decursum, atque adeo in agendo perseverantiam,’ Winer, Verb. Comp. vi. p. 7), and marking the com- pleteness and definitive nature of the @xew ; compare Matth. vi. 2, 5, 16, Luke vi. 24, Philem. 15, Arrian, Zypict. 111. 24 [p. 228, ed. Borh.] 7d yap evdamovodv amé- xew be? mdvra & SA, and compare Wi- ner, Gir. § 40. 4, p. 24 6. kal meoptaocetw| ‘and abound;’ ex- pansion and amplification of the preced- ing amréxw, ‘I have all I want and more than all,’ the following memAjpwma com- pleting the climax; ‘die Hille und Fiille habe ich,’ Meyer. To supply xa- pas after mewAnp. (Grot.) is to wholly mar the simplicity and climactic force of the sentence. deiduwevos x. tT. A.]| Temporal clause, ‘now that I have received,’ Peile, ‘posteaquam ac- cepi,’ Erasm.; compare Donalds. Gr. § 573.sq. In the following words there is a slight variation of MSS. [A omits mapa Er.: FG, al. supply meupdévra af ter du@v], caused probably by the recur- rence of mapa: there is, however, no dif- ficulty ; duets ’Emappoditw édéxare, Ena- pediros éuol, Theodoret. dounhv evwdlas| ‘ a sweet-smelling sa- vor ;’ aceus. in apposition to the preced- ing 7a map tu@v; compare Eph. v. 2, and notes iz loc. The reference of Alf. to Kiihner, Gr. Vol. 11. p. 146, and the examples cited (Hom. JJ. xx1v.735, Eu- rip. Orest. 950) are not quite in point, as the apposition is not to the verbal action contained, in the sentence (Jelf, Gram, § 580. 2) but simply to the accus. 74 ap’ tuey, which is thus further defined and characterized. It is doubtful whether the gen. evwolas is to be considered a gen. materiee (W., Gr. § 34. 2. b, p. 212 note, compare Arist. Rhet. 1.11) or a gen. of the characterizing quality (see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 8, p. 115); the latter is per- haps most simple and most in harmony with the Hebraistic tinge which seems to mark these kinds of gen. in the N. T.; compare Winer, Gr. /. c. (text). Suaiayv x. 7.A.| ‘a sacrifice acceptable (and) well pleasing to God ;’ not ‘an ac- cepted sacrifice such as is,’ etc., Peile, (comp. Syr.); both adjectives as well as the preced.ng dcpuiy ebwd. (comp. Ley. i. 9,13) standing in connection with 7@ @c¢, which thus falls under the general head of the dative of ‘interest;’ see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4. The good deeds which the Philippians did towards the apostle become, from the spirit in which they were done (comp. Chrys.), an acceptable sacrifice to God Himself, It does not seem necessary with Johnson (Unbl. Saer. 11. 4, Vol. 1. p. 436 [A.-C, Libr.], compare Irenzus, Her. 1v. 18) to conclude that the alms brought by Epaphr. had been offered by the people at the altar: the sacrifice of alms is one of the spiritual and evangelical sacrifices specially noticed in the N. T., e.g. Heb. xiii. 16; see the comprehensive list in Waterland, Doct. of Euch. ch. x11. Vol. ly. p. 730. 19. 6 5€ Oeds pov] Not without emphasis and an expression of hopeful trust, ‘qui meam agit causam,’ Van Heng.; see notes on chap. i. 3. TmAnpdaet x. 7-A.] ‘shall fulfil (with reciprocating reference to memA. ver. 18) every need of yours ;’ not in the form of prayer (émedxerat adrois, Chrys.), but of hopeful promise, the future rAnpécer be- 15 114 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. IV. 20, 21. / cal a f lal pov TANpoce, Tacay YpElav LwaV KaTA TO TODTOS avTod év ddEn. ev Xpiotd “Incod. 76 5é Oc@ Kat tratpi jpav 4 dd£a eis Tods An a aidvas TOV ai@vev, auny. All here send you 21°? , greeting. AoracacNe ing distinctly predictive ; compare Rom. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 18. The reading mAnpéca [DIFG; several mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.], followed by Theod., Theophylact, seems clearly a gloss. It is doubtful whether xpeiay is to be referred solely to temporal (Chrys.), or solely to spiritual (Theodor.) wants. The use of xpela and the preceding allu- sions are in favor of the former; the use of mAodtos and the immediate context, of the latter: the inclusive form of the expression seems to justify our uniting both. év 56én] ‘in glory ;’ not so much an instrumental (Meyer, Alf.) as a modal clause, closely in union with év Xp., the former pointing to the manner in which God will supply their wants, —not, however, merely ‘ magni- fice, splendide,’ Calv. (compare Beng.), but with reference to the element or the attribute in which the action will be evinced, —while év Xp. “Inc. specifies the ever-blessed sphere in which alone all is realized ; see notes on Ephes. ii. 7. So apparently Chrys., ofrw mepioceder iuiv Grayvra ore ev Sdin abtod Exe. Grotius and others (comp. th.) con- nect éy 66%) with rAodros ; this is gram- matically admissible, — the expression mwdouvte ey twt (1 Tim. vi. 18) justify- ing the omission of the article (see notes on Eph. i. 15),— and certainly deserves consideration, but the remark of Meyer, that wAodros is always used in the N. T. in such metaphorical expressions with a gen. of the thing (Rom. ii. 4, ix. 23, 2 Cor. viii. 2, Ephes. i. 7, 18, ii. 7, iii. 16, Col. i. 27), and that we should have ex- pected kara 7d mAovTos Tis 5. avTod, seems to strike the balance in favor of mdnp. év 56&: So apparently Syr., but mavta ayov ev Xpiat@ ’Inood. these are cases in which the Vv. cannot safely be adduced on either side. kata Td WA.] ‘according to,’ i.e. ‘in accordance with the riches He has;’ compare notes on Eph. i.5. The clause involves a shade of modal reference, and marks 671 e¥xoAoy abt@ kat bvvardy, Kad Taxéws Tovey, Chrys. 20. @cG nal wmarpt] ‘to God and our Father ;’ anticipatory doxology called forth by the preceding words. On the august title Ocds ka) watnp, see notes on Gal. i. 4. n déé€a] Scil. eM, not ZoTw; see notes on Ephesians i. 2. The article seems here to have its ‘rhetorical’ force (Bernhardy, Syzt. v1. 22, p. 315), and to mark the ddfa as that ‘ which especially and peculiarly belongs to God ;’ see notes on Gal. i. 5, where this and the following expression, eis Tous aidvas Tov aidvwy, are briefly inves- tigated. On the two formule aidv tay aiévwv, and aidves Tov aidywy, see Har- less on Eph. iii. 21, with however the qualifying remarks in notes in loc. Ql. wdvta Gytov| ‘every saint:’ not ‘omnes sanctos,’ Syr., Copt., th., but ‘omnem sanctum,’ Vulg., Clarom. : it does not apply to the whole Church, but, as Beng. suggests, individualizes ; each one is specially saluted ; so Conyb., Wies., Alf. On the term &yos and its application in the N. T., see notes on Eph. i. 1. Tt is doubtful whether év Xp. is to be joined with adomdcacSe (compare Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Corin. xvi. 19) or with dyov (ch. i. 1); the former is adopted by Syr. (plural) and Theod. (6 rg Kupl@ "Inood moretwv) ; the latter by Mey. and several modern interpreters. As &ytos is connected in this Epistle with év Xp. (comp. Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 9, 10, 13), and Cuar. IV. 22, 23. PHIEEPPIANS. 115 : > fe ¢ a e \ > \ LO / 29 ? 28 ¢€ a de GoTaCOVTAL VMAS OL TLV Euol added Hoi. aoTragovTar Umas TaVTES egw 4 \ bd ay! an / 2 haya of dytot, wddwoTa O€ ot €x THS Kaicapos oikias. Benediction. TVEUMATOS VLAD. as doma¢. does not appear elsewhere used with év Xp. or év Xp. Ino., but only with év Kupiw, the latter is perhaps slightly the most probable. of civ éuol &deApoit] Those who were more immediately in communica- tion with the apostle, suitably and natu- rally specified before the inclusive mdvtes of &ytor in the following verse. The ap- parent difficulty between this and ch. ii. 20, is simply disposed of by Chrys., ot mapaiterrat Kal TovTous GdeApovs KaAeiv. 22. udAtoral| ‘especially ;’ they were naturally more in contact with the apos- tle than the other Christians at Rome, who were not among his immediate as- sociates. The primary force of uddura is alluded to in notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. of éx THs K. oikias| ‘ those of Ce- sar’s household.’ ‘These words have re- ceived various interpretations. It seems most natural to regard them as denoting, not on the one hand, merely ‘ the Preeto- rian guards’ (Matth.), nor on the other, the ‘members of Nero’s family’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 16), Camer., Van Heng., and more recently, and it is to be feared with obvious reasons, Baur (Apost. Paulus, p. 470), — who founds on this interpretation an argument against the genuineness of the Ep.,—but simply the oireto. (The- od.), the servants and retainers belong- *3°HT ydpis tod Kupiov ’Inood Xpiotod peta Tov ing to the emperor’s household; see Krebs, Obs. p. 332, Loesn. Obs. p. 358. It may thus seem not improbable that St. Paul was in confinement in or near to that barrack of the Preetorians which was attached to the palace of Nero (Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 510, ed. 2), but it does not necessarily follow that mpa:r@pioy in ch. i. 13 (see notes) is to be restricted to that smaller portion. The barracks within the walls were probably in constant communication with the camp without. See an interesting paper by Lightfoot, Journ. Class. Philol, 1857 (March), p. 58 sq. 23. weTa TOU mvedyu.| ‘with your spirit ;’ the ‘ potior pars’ of our compos- ite nature, the third and highest constit- uent of man: see notes on Gal. vi. 18, and on 2 Tim. iv. 22. The reading is not very doubtful: the more usual wera mavTwy suey is not strongly supported [KL; many mss.; Syriac (both), al.; Chrys., Theod.], while the text has de- cided external evidence [ABDEFG; 17. 67.** 73. 80; Vulg., Clarom., Coptic, Mth. (Platt); many Ff.], and does not seem so likely to have been changed from mayTwyv juav as the converse. The addi- tion of yuay after Kupiov [ Rec. with DE ; Coptic, al.] has still less critical sup- port. - . ra ie: if f AEs | c Wing ri Oa THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. INTRODUCTION. Tue profound and difficult Epistle to the Colossians was written by the apostle during his first captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16 ; compare Introd. to 1 Tim.), and, as far as we can gather from some of the expressions in the concluding chapter (ver. 3, 4), at a period of that captivity, when the apos- tle’s anticipations were not of so grave a character as they appear to us in the Epistle to the Philippians (ch. i. 20, 21, 30, i. 27; see Introd. to Philipp.), and when his restraint was probably less close (comp. Acts xxviii. 16 sq.) and his treatment more merciful (comp. ch. iv. 8 sq.). We may thus not improbably place it first in the third of the four groups (the Epistles of the first captivity) into which St. Paul’s Epistles may be con- veniently divided, and conceive it to have been written a very short time be- fore the Epistle to the Ephesians, and perhaps about the early part of the year A.D. 62. It was conveyed to the church of Colossee by Tychicus (ch. iv. 7, 8), who had received a similar commission with reference to the con- verts at Ephesus (Eph. vi. 21), and it not improbably reached its destination before the Epistle to the last-mentioned Church ; comp. Meyer, Komment. iib. Eph. p. 17. The Epistle seems to have been called forth by the information St. Paul had received from Epaphras (ch. iv. 12; Philem. 23), who, if not the actual founder of the Church of Colossee (Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 405), was most certainly one of the very earliest preachers of Christ in that city ; com- pare ch.i. 7 and notes in loc. Its object transpires very clearly, — an earnest desire on the part of the apostle to warn the Colossians against a system ot false teaching, partly Oriental and theosophistic in its character (ch. ii. 18), and partly Judaical and ceremonial (ch. ii. 16), which was’ tending on the one hand directly to obscure the majesty and glory of Christ (comp. ch. i. 15, ii. 8 sq-), and on the other, to introduce ritualistic observances, especially on the side of bodily austerities (ch. ii. 16-23), opposed alike to the simplicity and freedom of the gospel, and to all true and vital union with the risen Lord (ch. ii. 19, iii. 1). For further particulars see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 420 INTRODUCTION. ; ~ 407 sq., where the sects to which these corrupters of the faith have been sup- posed to belong, and the peculiar nature of their tenets are very carefully discussed ; comp. also Smith, Dict. of Bible, Art. ‘ Ep. to the Colossians,’ Vol. I. p. 342. In reference to the genuineness and authenticity of this Epistle it may be said briefly that no doubts have been urged that deserve any serious consid- eration. Even if the external testimonies had been less clear and explicit than we find them to be (Ireneus, Her. 111. 14. 1, Clem.-Alex. Strom. I. p. $25, ed. Pott, Tertull. de Prescr. cap. 7, Origen, contr. Cels. v. 8), the inter- nal arguments derived from the peculiarities of style and expression, must have been pronounced by every sagacious critic as final and unanswerable. To class such an Epistle, so marked not only by distinctive peculiarities of style, but by the nerve, force, and originality of its argument, with the vague productions of later Gnosticism (Mayerhoff, Baur, al.) is to bewray such a complete want of critical perception that we can scarcely wonder that such views haye been both very generally and very summarily rejected; see Meyer, Einleitung, p. 7, Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 427 sq. As the latter writer very justly observes, the fabrication of such an Epistle would be ‘a phenomenon perfectly inexplicable’ (p. 428). The similarity between many portions of this Epistle and that to the Ephe- sians has often been noticed, and the claim to priority of composition much debated. With regard to the first point it may be again observed (see Introd. to Eph.) that the two Epistles were written closely about the same time, and addressed to two Churches sufficiently near to one another to have had many points of resemblance, and to have needed very similar forms of exhor- tation, especially in reference to the duties of social and domestic life. With regard to the second point it may be enough to say that the nature of the contents of the two Epistles seems to harmonize best with the opinion that the Epistle to the Colossians was first in order, and that the more directly individualizing and polemical preceded the more directly systematic and doctrinal; see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 346 sq., and compare notes on Eph. vi. 21. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. CHAPTER. I. Apostolic address and salu- tation. CuapTerR I. 1. awédor. Xp. "Inc.] “an apostle of Jesus Christ ;’ the (posses- sive) genitive denoting whose minister he was: see notes on Eph. i. 1, and for the meanings of améaredos, here obvi- ously in its higher and more especial sense, see notes on Gol. i. 1, and on Eph. iv. 11. The form of greeting in this Ep. closely resembles that to the Ephesians ; there are, however, as has been previ- ously observed (compare notes on Eph. i. 1, and see Riick. on Gai. i. 1), some differences in the addresses of St. Paul’s Epistles, especially in the apostle’s desig- nation of himself, which, though not in all cases easy to account for, can hard- ly be deemed accidental. We may thus classify these designations: in 1 Thess. and 2 Thess., simply’ Tavaos ; in Philemon (very appropriately), 5éc- puos Xp. 71. ; in Phil., S0dA0s Oeod (asso- ciated with Timothy); in Titus, Soda. @cod andor. 5 X.71.; in Rom., doi. I. X. (Tisch. X. 71.) xantds aoc. ; in 1 Cor. (kAntds am. Tisch., Rec., but not certain), 2 Cor., Ephes., Col., 2 Tim., amoot. X.71. Sid SeAhuaros Ocovd; in 1 Tim. dmoor. X."1. kar’ éemrayhy ©. cw- Tipos huey kat X. 71. x. 7. A.; and lastly, with fullest titular distinction, in Galat., 16 AYAOZ dréctor0s Xpictod *Inaod dua Serjpwatos Ocod xai TipoSeos 6 amdoT., ovx am avdpemwv ovde Sv avSp. x. 7. A. An interesting paper might be written on these peculiarities of designa- tion. 1a SeAhmaTos ©«v%d] Added, probably, in thankful re- membrance of God’s grace, and in feel- ings of implicit obedience to His will; see notes on Eph. i. 1. Kar Tiu. 6 a@deAgp.| Timothy is simi- larly associated with the apostle in his greeting in 2 Cor. i. 1, Philem. 1, and, even more conjointly as to form of asso- ciation, Phil. i. 1, 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i.,1: so also Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1, com- pare Gal. i. 2, and see notes in loc. It may be observed, however, that in 1 Cor, Phil., and Philem., the apostle pro- ceeds in the singular, while here, 2 Cor. i, 3 (see Meyer), 1 and 2 Thessalon., he continues the address in the plural; see below, notes on ver. 8. It has been supposed that Timothy was also the transcriber of the Epistle (Steiger, Bisp. ; compare ch. iv. 18): this is possible, but nothing more. The title 6 adeAdds, as in 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, has no special reference to official (odKody kal amdaroAos, Chrys.), but simply to Christian brother- hood; Timothy was one of of ddeAgol, ‘ der christliche-Mitbruder,’ De Wette. 122 COLOSSIANS. Ce. os aderdpos 2 tois ev Koraccais aylows nai mictois adeddois év Xpictd. yxapis vpiv Kai eipyyyn aro Ocod matpos Huav. 2. KoAagoais] So Rec. (but not Elz.), Lachm., and Tisch., with AB (C in subser.) K; more than 40 mss. ; Syr. (both), Copt; /&thiop. (Platt), Slav. (mss.) ; Origen, Theod., Chrysost. (mss.), Theophyl. (mss.), Suidas, al., to which may be added mss. in Herod. vir. 830 and Xenoph. Anab. 1.2.6. The more usual mode of spelling is found in B2DEFGL; numerous mss.; Vulg., Claroman., al.; Clem., Chrys., Theodoret (mss.), al.; Lat. Ff. (Mec., Meyer, al.). It can be proved by coins that the latter was the correct form (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 111. 147); still the external authority, especially as seen in the Vv., seems so strong, that KoAagoais can hardly be referred to a mere change of vowels in transcription found only in two or three of the leading MSS., but must be regarded as the, not improbably, provincial mode of spelling in the time of St. Paul. KoAoooais was an old emendation. 2. KoAacoais]| Colosse or Colas- sx (see crit. note) was a city of Phrygia, on the Lycus (an affluent of the Mzean- der), near to, and nearly equidistant from the more modern cities of Hierapo- lis and Laodicea. It was anciently a place of considerable importance (éAcs peyaan, Herod. vit. 30; wdAts oikoupevn, evdaluwv Kal weydAn, Xenoph. Anab. I. 2. 6), but subsequently so declined in com- parison with the commercial city of Apa- mea on the one side, and the strong, though somewhat shattered city of La- odicea on the other (ai weyiora Tay Kata Thy Ppvylay moAewr), as to be classed by Strabo (Geogr. x11. 8. 13, ed Kramer) only among the moAlcuata of Phrygia, though still, from past fame, classed by Pliny (Nat. Hist. v. 41) among the ‘ cel- eberrima oppida’ of that country ; “see Steiger, Hinl. § 2, p.17. It afterwards rose again in importance, and under the name of Xéva (Theophylact) again re- ceived the titles of evdaiuwy and peydAn (Nicetas, Chon. p. 203, ed. Bonn). It has been supposed to have occupied the site of the modern Chonas or Khonos, but of this there now seem conSiderable doubts; see Smith, Dict. Geogr. s. v., Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 471 note, Pauly, Real-Encycl. Vol. 11. p. 518, and the very interesting topograph- So too Meyer, who admits that ical notes of Steiger, Hinl. p. 1—33. &vtous| ‘suints ;’ used substantivally, as appy. in all the addresses of St. Paul’s Epp., Rom. i. 7, 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1, Phil. i. 1; so Copt., Atth. (Platt), and appy. Chrys. De W. and others connect a-ylois with adeA@. (so ap- parently Syriac, Vulg.), but with con- siderably less plausibility, as in such a case morois would far more naturally precede than follow, the more compre- hensive aylos. On the meaning of dyios — in such addresses, see Davenant zn loc., Beveridge, Serm. 11. Vol. vr. p. 401, and compare notes on Eph. i. 1. migtots &SeAHots Kk. T.A.] ‘ faith- ful brethren in Christ ;? more specific, and slightly explanatory, designation of the preceding Gyo. "Ev Xpiorg@ is in close union with a5eAgo/, and marks the sphere and element in which the broth- erhood existed. The omission of the article is perfectly admissible, év Xp. be- ing associated with adeAgois so as to ; form, as it were, one composite idea ; see Winer, Gr. § 20.2, p. 123, and notes on Eph. i. 15. The insertion of the ar- ticle would throw a greater emphasis on ev Xp., ‘ iisque in Christo,’ than is neces- sary or intended; see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 14, Gal. iii. 26. Lachm. adds Incov with AD'E'FG ; 3 mss.; Syriac, Copt, Crap, I. 3: We thank God for your faith, and love, and progress COLOSSIANS. 123 3 Evyapictoipev TO Ocw watpi tov Kupiov in the gospel as preached query Inoobd Xpiotov, wdvtote wept buav mpoc- to you by Epaphras. (not Z&th.), al., but, considering the prob- ability of insertion, not on sufficient au- thority. It may be observed that here, Rom. i. 7, Eph. i. 1, and Phil. i. 1, the apostle does not write especially to the Church (1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, Gal. i. 2 (plural), 1 Thess. i. 1, and 2 Thess. i. 1), but to the Christians collectively. This is perhaps not intentionally signifi- cant; at any rate it cam hardly be con- ceived that he only uses the title éxxAn- ala to those churches which he had him- self founded : see Meyer in loc. xdpis «.7.A.] On this blended form of the modes of Occidental and Oriental salutation, see notes on Gal. i. 3, Eph. i. 2. The term xdpis is elaborately ex- plained by Davenant; it seems enough to say with Waterland Euchar. x., that xdpis ‘in the general signifies ‘ favor,’ ‘mercy,’ ‘ indulgence,’ ‘ bounty ;” in particular it signifies a gift, and more especially a ‘spiritual gift,’ and in a sense yet more restrained, the gift of sanctification, or of such spiritual aids as may enable a man both to will and do according to what God has commanded,’ Works, Vol. 1v. p. 666. matpos mar] The addition kal Kup. *1.X. adopted by Rec. with ACFG; mss. ; Vulg. (ed.), Syr.-Phil., —but with as- terisk, Boern., al. ; Gr. Ff, appears right- ly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors. 3. edbxaptototmev|] ‘we give thanks ;? i.e. I and Timothy. In this Ep., as in 2 Cor., the singular and plu- ral are both used (see ch. i. 23, 24, 28, 29; ii. 1; iv. 2,3, 4, 13), and sometimes, as in ch. i. 25, 28, iv. 3, 4, even in juxtaposi- tion : in all cases the context seems fully to account for and justify the appropri- ateness of the selection ; see Meyer on 2 Cor. i.4. It is doubtful whether rdyrore is to be joined (a) with the finite verb (1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 83, comp. Eph. i. 16), or (b) with the participle (compare Rom. i. 10, Phil. i. 4): Syr., 4th., and the majority of modern commentators adopt the former; the Greek expositors and apparently Copt. and Vulg. the lat- ter. As mep) budy would seem a very feeble commencement to the participial clause, (b) is to be preferred : see Alf. in loc., who has well defended this latter construction. On evxapioreiv, sce notes on ch. i. 12, and on Phil. i. 3. The reading is very doubtful. Rec. in- serts kal before warp{, with AC?D°EKL ; al.: Lachmann inserts 76 with D!FG; Chrys. : Tisch. adopts simply warpi with BC!. As the probability of an insertion, especially of the familiar caf (Eph. i. 3, al.), seems very great, we retain, though not with perfect confidence, the reading of Tisch. The anarthrous use of rarhp is fully admissible ; see the list in Winer, Gr. §.19. 1, p. 109 sq. wepl buav mpoa.| ‘ praying for you.’ The uncial authorities are here again nearly equally divided between rep} [AC D®E*KL] and irép [BDIEIFG]: the former is adopted by Tisch. and most modern editors, and on critical grounds is to be preferred, though grammatically considered the difference is extremely slight, if indeed appreciable, compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 25 sq. .The ut- most perhaps that can be said is that imép seems to direct the attention more to the action itself, rep! more to the object or circumstances towards which it is direct- ed, or from which it may be supposed to emanate : see notes on Gal.i.4. On the primary meaning and etymolog. affinities of wep, see Donalds. Cratyl. § 177, 178. 4. akovaarvres] ‘having heard, i.e. Syriac — se [a quo audivimus], Aithiop. ‘after having heard, Le vy 124 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 4, 5. , rhe , \ ' eee x a , ‘ [Bae ) 5 p>) \ \ a ‘5. \ THV AYATHV HV EXETE ELS TAVTAS TOUS aYLOUS ta THY EATTLOG THV postquam ;’ temporal use of the partici- ple (Donalds. Gr. § 575), not causal, ‘quoniam audivimus,’ Caly. It was not the hearing but the substance of what he heard that caused the apostle to give thanks. For examples of the union of two or more participles with a single finite verb, see Winer, Gram. § 45. 3, p. 308. éy Xp. “Ina.| ‘in Christ Jesus,’ —in Him, as the sphere or substratum of the mioris, that in which the faith centres itself. ‘The omission of the article gives a more complete unity to the conception, ‘ Christ-centred faith,’ see notes on Lph. i. 15, and comp. Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p. 195, note. as usual, has its subjective meaning ; not ‘externam fidei professionem,’ nor both this and ‘internam et sinceram in corde habitantem fidem’ (Davenant), but simply the latter ; compare notes on Gal. i. 23. hy @xere] Further statement of the direction and application of the &ydrn. The difference between this and ri cis (Rec.) is slight, but appreciable. The latter simply ap- pends a second moment of thought (‘amorem, eumque erga omnes sanctos ’), the former draws attention to it, and points to its persistence, hv émdenxvimevor Theodor. The reading of Rec. is, however, very feebly supported [D°E*KL ; al.] and rejected by all recent editors. 5. 51a tHv €Amida is most natu- rally connected with the preceding rela- tive sentence, not with evxap., Davenant, Eadie; for, as Meyer justly remarks, this preliminary evxapiotia is always, in St. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 4, Eph. i. 15, Phil. i.5, 1 Thess. i..8, 2 Thessalon. i. 3, 2 Tim. i. 5, Philem. 4), grounded on the subjective state of his converts, dxovoayres k. 7. A. The love they entertained .toward the Go: was Tliotts, diet éAour, evoked and conditioned by no thought of any earthly return (compare Calvin), but by their hope for their piodds in heaven ; ayararé no, Tovs ayious, ob did Te GvSpdmivov, GAAG Sid 7 eAmiCew Td méAAovTa ayasd, Theoph. ; so Chrys. and Theodoret. THY amokerméevnyv K.7.A.] ‘which is laid up for you in heaven,’ ‘ propter coelestem beatitudinem,’ Daven. This defining clause, as well as the following words, seem to show that the éAms must here be regarded, if not as purely objective, ‘id quod speratur,’ Grot., yet certainly as under objective aspects (comp. Rom. viii. 24, éAmls BAewouevn, and perhaps Heb. vi. 18), scil. thw evrpemopévny ‘tuiv tev ovpavav Bactrctav, Theod. ; compare notes on Eph. i.18. It is char- acterized as thy dao. kK. T. A. partly to mark its security (7d dopadts eeikev, Chrys.), partly its futurity (see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 8),’—the amd denoting the setting apart, by itself, for future pur- poses or wants ; compare Joseph. Antiq. xv. 9.1, xapw@v boot améxewrTo Sedama- ynuevwv, Xen. Anab. 11. 8.5, af Bddavor Tov powlkwy Tots oikéTaus améxewTo, and examples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. u. p. 320. mponkotvoate] ‘ye heard before:’ before when? Not before its fulfilment, ‘ respectu spei quae illis de re futura erat facta,’ Wolf, —which would leave the compound form very unmeaning ; nor yet specifically . before this Epistle was written, ‘ante quam scriberem,’ Beng., but simply and gen- erally, ‘ formerly,’ Steiger, Alf.,—i. e. not before any definite epoch (e. g. ‘ when you received this hope,’ Meyer, al.), but merely at some undefined period in the past, ‘prius [shorp] audistis,’ Coptic ; compare Herodot. v. 86, od tpoaxnkodas Toot ASnvatoit émumecciv, VIII. 79, mpo- axhkoe &tt; compare Plato, Legg. Vil. Px Cuapr. I. 5, 6. COLOSSIANS. 125 arroKeipevny tyiv év Tots ovpavots, vy mponkovaarTe ev TO NOY THs > / fal > / 6 nr , > id al \ Ni as adn Yeas Tov evayyedov, ° Tov TapovTos Els Luads KaY@s Kal év 797 a. The verb is often found with a purely local sense; e.g. Xenoph. Mem. 11. 4. 7, where see Kiihner. TG AdywH THS GANS] ‘the word of Truth ;’ not the gen. of quality (‘ veris- simum,’ Grot.), but the gen. of the sub- stance or content (Scheuerlein, Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82), tis GAndelas specifying what was the substance and purport of its teaching ; see notes on Eph.i. 13. The genitive evayyeAlov is usually taken as the genitive of apposition to TG Adyw Tis dans. (De Wette, Olsh.) ; but it seems more simple to regard it as a defining genitive allied to the genitive possessivus (genitive continentis), which specifies, and, so to say, localizes the general notion of the governing substantive, — ‘ the truth which was preached in and was an- nounced in the-gospel ;’ compare notes on Eph. i. 13, and see examples in Wi- ner, Gr. 30. 2. In Gal. ii. 5, 14, the gen. evayy.'is somewhat different, as dAfSe1a stands prominent and separate, whereas here it is under the regimen of, and serves to characterize, a preceding substantive. 6. rod mapdévTos eis bu] ‘which is present with you ;’ more exactly ‘ which came to and is present with you,’ the eds (not ev as in the next clause) conveying the idea of the gospel haying reached them (Jelf, Gr. § 625), while mapévzos implies that it abides there ; od mapeyér- eto, onal, Kal améorn, GAN? Euewe kad -€orw éxet, Chrys. For examples of this ‘not very uncommon union of verbs of rest with eis or mpds ‘Acts xii. 20), see Winer, Gr. § 50. 4, pp. 368, 369. A ‘somewhat extreme case occurs in Jer. xii. 7, Zopatev abrods eis Td ppéap. - Kadas kal K.7.A.] ‘even as it also is in the whole world ;’ nayraxod Kpare?, Chrys., — a very natural and intelligible hyperbole.;, compare Rom. i, 18, x. 18. It is obviously not necessary either to limit kécuos to the Roman empire (Mi- chael.), or to understand it with a literal exactness, which at this period could not be substantiated ; comp. Orig. in Mautth, Tract. xxv11I., and see Justiniani in loc, kal oti KkapTog. «.7.A.| ‘and is bearing fruit and increasing ;’ metaphor from trees or arborescent plants (Chrys., Just.; compare Meyer) depicting the inward and intensive, as well as outward and extensive progress of the gospel. It may be observed that the apostle does not merely append a parallel participle kal Kaptodopoupevov, but by a studied change to the finite verb (see on //ph. i. 20, Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. b, p. 505) throws an emphasis on the fact of the xapmogo- pla, while by his use of the periphrastic present (not xKapmropope? ‘ fructificat,’ Vulg., but ‘est fructificans,? Clarom.) he gives further prominence to the idea of its present continuance and duration ; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 311. The distinction between the two verbs has been differently explained : on the whole Greek commentators seem right in re- ferring kapro®. to the inner and personal, avé. to the outward and collective in- crease ; Kaptopopiay Tov evayy. KéKAnke Thy TioTW TOV aknkodTwy Kal thy érai- vounevnv woditelay: avénow 8 Tay ma- Tevdytay Td TARXOS, Theod.: compare Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, xix. 20. . The middle kaprop. is an Gm. Aecydu. in the N. T.; it may. perhaps be an instance of the ‘dynamic’ middle (Donalds. Gr. § 432. 2. bb, Kriiger, Sprachil. § 52. 8), and may mark some intensification of the active, ‘fructus suos exserit ;’ compare évepyei- osat, Gal. v. 6, and notes in loc. The reading is somewhat doubtful : xa) adé., with ABCD'EIFGL, seems io rest on preponderant evidence, but the authori- ties for the omission [ABCD!E!; Copt., . 126 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 6, 7, iY A , \ ” A ‘\ > J TavtTl TO KOoUw, Kal eoTwW KapTropopovpevoy Kat avEavdpevov Kasas Kal év tpiv, ad ts iuépas jKovcate Kal éméyvote THY VS. n lal > > if xapw tov’ Ocod év adndeia Sah.], or insertion [D?D®E2FGKL; Vulg., Claroman., Syr. (both), Ath.] of the first kai, owing to the great prepon- derance of the Vy. on the latter side, are nearly equally balanced. On the whole it seems more likely to have been omitted to modify the hyperbole than in- serted to preserve the balance of the sen- tence ; so Tisch., Mey., and De W. thy xdptiv Tod @eod] ‘the grace of God,’ i. e. as evinced and manifested in the gospel: ‘ amplificat hisce verbis efli- caciam evangelii...... evangelium vyo- luntatem Dei salvantem ostendit, et nobis gratiam in Christo offert,’ Daven. ; com- pare Tit. ii. 15. It is doubtful whether this accus. is to be connected (a) with both verbs (De Wette), or (6) only with éréyvwre (Mey.). The grammatical se- quence appears to suggest the former, and is apparently followed by Chrysost., Gua edetacde, dua eyywre Thy xdp. T. O., but the logical connection certainly the latter ; for if év aAn®. were joined with Heovoate, Kadws (scil. évy GAnd., see be- low) x. 7. A. in verse 7 would seem tau- tologous. On the whole it seems best to adopt (b); so Steiger, Mey., al. év &AnSetal ‘in truth;’ vt. e. in no Judaistic or Gnostic form of teaching ; év aAnd. being (as kadds, ver. 7, seems naturally to suggest) an adverbial defi- nition of the manner appended to the pre- ceding éréyvwre ; compare Matth. xxii. 16, and see Winer, Gr. § 51.1, p. 377 (comp. p. 124), Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8, p- 211. Alford objects to the adverbial solution, but adopts an interpretation, ‘in its truth and with true knowledge,’ that does not appreciably differ from it. Both Chrys. and Theoph. (od év Adya, ovde év amdrn K.T. A.) appear to have given to évy more of an instrumental force: this is not grammatically neces- T kaS@s euasete aro Erappa sary, and has led to the doubtful para- phrase, rovtéor onuelois kad Epyous Tapa- ddéors, Theophyl. 7. kadxads] ‘evenas;’ not causal ‘in- asmuch as’ (Eph. i. 4), but as usual, simply modal, referring to the preceding ev GAnvelg, and thus serving formally to ratify the preaching of Epaphras : as it was in truth that they had known the grace of God, so was it in truth that they had learnt it. On the later form kadds, see notes on Gal. iii. 6. The Rec. adds kal after kaS#s: the external authority, however, is weak [D*EKL], and the probability of a mechanical repetition of the preceding kaSas «at far from slight ; compare Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 172 note (Bohn). "Emagppa| A Colossian (ch. iv. 12) who appears from this verse to have been one of the first, if not the first, of the preachers of the gospel in Colosse: he is again men- tioned as being in prison with St. Paul at Rome, Philem. 23. Grotius and oth- ers conceive him to have been the Epaph- roditus mentioned in Philip. ii. 25; see Thornd. Right of Ch. ch. 111. 2, Vol. 1. p. 462 (A.-C. Libr.) : this supposition, however, has nothing in its favor except the possible identity of name; see Wi- ner, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 830, and notes on chy i925. The reading kadas Kar éuds. will not modify the apparent infer- ence that Epaphras was the first preacher at Colossx; this would have been the case if the order had been kadws kal amd °Em. eudd.: see Meyer in loc. contrasted with Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 1838, p. 185. For the arguments that the apos- tle himself was the founder of this Church, see Lardner, Credibil. x1v. Vol. II. p. 472 sq.; for replications and coun- ter-arguments, Davidson, Introd. Vol. Il. p. 402 sq. cuvdovAoul > Cuap. I. 8, 9. COLOSSIANS. 127 ar 3 6 y e n 4 > \ ig \ e a s TOU ayaTnTOD GvVOOVAOV HuaV, Os eoTLW TLoTOS UTép Kuov Sid- na xX lal 8 € N. ry / Cd r \ Ls! lal > / > Kovos Tov AploToOV, ° 0 Kal OnAWOAS UY THY LUV ayaTnY év IIvevpare. We unceasingly pray that ye may be fruitful in good works, and thankful for your salvation in Christ, -—who is the creator, ruler, and reconciler of all things. ‘ fellow-servant,’ i. e. of our common mas- ter, Christ ; compare ch.iv. 7. This and the further specification in the pronomi- nal clause seem designed to confirm and enhance the authority of Epaphras, 7d akidmiotov évrciIev Seikvuct Tod av5pds, Theoph., compare Theod. bmép bua@v] ‘in your behalf, i. e. to advance your spiritual good, ‘ pro vestra salute,’ Daven., — not ‘in your place,’ a translation grammatically (Philem. 13, see notes on Gal. ii. 13), but not histori- cally permissible, as this would imply that Epaphr. had been sent to Rome to minister to the apostle (Menoch.),—a supposition which needs confirmation. The reading is slightly doubtful ; Lachm. adopts juév with ABD!1G; 8 mss.; Bo- _ern., in which ease ‘ vice Apostoli’ (Am- brosiast.) would be the natural transla- tion (opp. to Mey.): the external au- thority, however, [CD2EFKL; great majority of mss. ; and nearly all Vy.], and the arguments derived from errone- ous transcription (compare pref. to Gal. p- xvii, ed. 2) seem decidedly in favor of the reading of Rec., as rightly followed . by Tisch. (ed. 2, 7). 8. 6 kat SnAdoas] ‘ who also made known ;’ further and accessory statement of the acts of Epaphr. ‘Hui, as before, refers to the apostle and Timothy; see notes on ver. 8. ayamny év Ivetmarti] ‘love in the Spirit;’ not merely love towards the apostle (Theoph., Gicum., and appy. Chrys.), but ‘brotherly love’ in its most general meaning, in which that towards St. Paul was necessarily included; ‘erga me et 9 \ n Ne a 243 @ ey 2 > , Aia Tovto Kai jets, ab As tuépas HKov- CAMEV, OV TAaVOMESA UTEP YUaY Tpocevyopevor ¥ > rs es fol \ 3 / Kab attovpevor wa TANPwWSATE Tiv émiyvwow omnes Christianos,’ Corn. a Lap. This love is characterized as in ‘ the (Holy) Spirit’ (compare Rom. xiv. 17, xapa év Ty. ayiw) ; it was from Him that it arose (compare Rom. xv. 30, ay. rod Myv.), and it was only in the sphere of His blessed influence (surely not éy instrumental, ‘a Sp. div. excitatum,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. Ill. p. 203) that it was genuine and op- erative ; af ye GAAat bvoua aydans @xover uévov, Chrys. Gicumenius suggests the the right antithesis (od capxikhy, ZAAG mvevpatixny), but dilutes the force by the adjectival solution: the omission of the article before év Tv. is perfectly in ac- cordance with N. Test. usage, and pre- serves more complete unity of concep- tion ; see Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 123. On the term dydin, see Reuss, Theil. Chrét. 1v. 19, Vol. 11. p. 203 sq. 9. 5t& todto] ‘On this account ;’ “because, as we hear, ye have such faith, and have displayed such love :’ ev Tois &y@ow ékelvous mddiora, dievyetpo- Kaddmep fev Tous eyyls BvTas Tis vixns: oTw 3) kal 6 TatAos tovtous wdAicTa mapaKadre? Tovs TO TA€ov KaTwpdIwKdtas Chrys. ; see esp. Eph.i.15. Thus the ‘ causa impul- siva’ (Daven.) of the apostle’s prayer is this Christian progress on the part of his converts ; the mode of it is warmly ex- pressed by the intensive od matoua k.7.A.; the subject (blended with the purpose of it) by tva tAnpwdire Kk. T. A. kat Hmets| ‘we also,” ‘Timothy and I on our parts ;’ gentle contrast between the Colossians and their practical dis- play of vital religion, and the reciprocal prayer of the apostle and his helper. 128 a / 3 Clete , Tov YeAnuwatos avTov ev Tracy Ka} has here its slightly contrasting force, and is clearly to be joined with jets, not roiro, as De W.; see noteson Phil. ave l2: ag is Nuépas k. T.A.] ‘from the day that we heard ;’ incidental definition of the time, with reference to axovcayTes, ver. 4, not ap’ fis tu. nkovoare, ver. 6 (Huth.), which may be echoed in the present clause, but, from the difference of the subjects of the axovew, is not directly referred to. ob mavépeda x. T.A.] See. the ex- actly similar affectionate hyperbole in Eph. i. 16: ob play Hucpay bmepevxducda, ovde Svo, ov tpets, Chrys. On this idio- matic use of the part., which as usual points to a state supposed to be already in existence, see notes and reff. on Eph. i. 16, and for a general investigation of the union of the participle with the finite ’ verb, see the good ‘treatise of Weller, Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt. p..11 sq. kat aitovmevor| ‘and making our pe- tition ;’ the more special form of the \ more general mpooevx., see Mark xi. 24, Eph. vi. 18, and notes in loc. The pres- ent passage seems to confirm the view, expressed Eph. /. c., and on 1 Tim. ii. 1, that rpocevx} (and mpocedxouat) is not merely for good things (comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. v. p. 858, A.-C. Libr.), but denotes prayer in its most general as- pects. On the exact force of tva, which has here its secondary telic force, and in which the subject of the prayer is blend- ed with the purpose of making it, see notes on Eph. i. 16. Meyer, as usual, too strongly presses the latter idea. thy emlyvwotv k.T.A.] ‘the (full) knowledge of His will,’ —of God’s will, the subject of abrod sufficiently transpir- . ing in mpocevx. k. TA. The accusative érlyv. is that of the remoter, or, as it is sometimes termed, the ‘ quantitative’ object in which the action of the verb has its realization, see Winer, Gr. § 32. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 9. t ‘ copia Kal cuvécet TvEUpAaTLK, 5, p- 205, and notes on Phil. i. 11, where this construction is discussed. On the meaning of émi-yywouw, not barely ‘ Kennt- niss’ (compare Riick. on Rom. i. 28, Olsh. on Eph. i. 17), but ‘ Erkenntniss,’ ‘perfecta cognitio,’ Daven., see notes on Eph. i.17. The remark of Alf. on ver. 6 is apparently just, that the force of the compound can hardly be expressed in English, but the distinction between yvé- ots and érlyvwous (opp. to Riick. on Rom. i. 28, Olsh. on Eph. i. 8) seems no less certain. The former, as De W. rightly suggests, points to a mere unpractical and theoretical, the latter to a full and living, knowledge ; see Wordsworth in — loc. SeAnpwatos| Obvi- ously not with any special reference, dia ti Tov Tidy éreuer, but simply and gen- erally, His will,— not only in reference to ‘ credenda,’ but also and perhaps more particularly (Theod.) to ‘agenda ;” com- pare ver. 10, and see Davenant in loc. év wdaon «.7.A.] ‘in all spiritual wis- dom and understanding,’ or perhaps more exactly, though less literally, ‘in all wis- dom and understanding of the Spirit,’ mvevu. referring to the Holy Spirit,’ (th.-Pol.), the true source of the copia and gvvecis, see notes on Ephes.i. 3; compare Romans i. 11, 1 Cor. ii. 18, al. Thus then *don (so expressly Syr., Ath.» (Platt), Copt.) and mvevuarin@ (opp. to Alf. ; compare Chrys.) refer to both sub- | stantives, the extensive mdcy referring to! every exhibition or manifestation of the gop. kal atv. (see notes on Eph. i. 8), while mvevuarixy points to the character- istics and origin of both. The clause is not purely instrumental, but represents the mode in which, or the concomitant influences under which, the Anpwdfva Thy ertyv, was to take place : this cola kt. | aby. was not to be avdpwmivn (1 Cor. ii. 13) or capeexh (2 Cor. i. 12), but mvev-— patixh, — inspired by and sent from the | | | | : Cnap. I.-10. COLOSSIANS. 129 10 A Ief = la) K / ? A 3 la > \ mTepitatncat aEiws tod Kupiov eis macav apéoxeay, év Travth ‘hppa til ’ épyo ayas@ Kaprropopodvtes Kai avfavouevor TH emiyvwser Tod 10. mepirarjaa] So Lachm. with ABCDIFG; 10 mss.; Clem. (Griesb., Scholz, Meyer, al.). Tisch. (ed. 2,7) following Rec. adds suas with D?9EKL; great ma- jority of mss.; Chrys., Theod., Dam. The addition is deficient in uncial authority, and somewhat opposed to grammatical usage; compare Winer, Gram. § 44. 3, p. 287 sq. Th éemvyvéce| So Lachmann with ABCD!E!FG; nearly 10 mss.; Amit. Tol. ; Clem., Syr., Max. (Griesb., Scholz, De W., Alf.). On the contrary, Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) reads eis tHv eriyywow with D®E2KL; very great majority of mss.; Theod., Dam., Theoph. {Rec., Meyer, Bisp.): lastly, év 7% émvyv. is found in about 4 mss., nearly all the Vv., and Chrys. On reviewing this evidence, the uncial authority is indisputably in favor of the text; the Vy., on the other hand, might seem to be in favor of the insertion of a preposition. As, however, the Vv. may nearly as prob- ably have inserted the prep. to explain the ill-understood instrumental dat. r@ émvyr. as the equally misunderstood eis émiyywow, and as internal considerations seem rather in favor of the simple dat., we return to the reading of Tisch. (ed. 1). Holy Spirit; compare Ephes. i. 3, and notes, where however the instrum. force is more distinct. With regard to cota and ovveows, both appear to have a prac- tical reference (see esp. Daven.); the former is, however, a general term, the latter (the opposite of which is &yvoia, Plato, Rep. 111. p. 376 B) its more special result and application; see Harless on Eph. i. 8, and compare Beck, Seelent. 11.19, p. 60. Between ody. and ¢ppdyvn- ots (Luke i. 17, Eph. i. 8) the difference is very slight; ovveors is perhaps seen more in practically embracing a truth (Ephes. iii. 4), ppév. more in bringing the mind to bear upon it; compare notes on Eph. i. 8, and Beck, l. c., p. 61. 10. reptmatjoat x.T.a.|] ‘that ye walk worthily of the Lord ;’ purpose and object (iva, ‘Theod., compare The- ophyl.), not result (Steiger, al.) of the TAnpwsijvat, specified by the ‘ infin. epex- egeticus ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 44. 1, p. 284, Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. p. 365. For examples of ééws with the genitive, see Eph.’ iv. 1, Phil. i. 27, 1 Thess. di. 12; and the examples collected by Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 527. Lastly, Kuptov is not = cod (Theod.), but, as appar- ently always in St. Paul’s Epistles, refers to our Lord ; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, p. 113. In the Gospels, 2 Pet., and James, it commonly refers to God, but in 1 Pet. li. 13 (the other examples are quotations) to Christ. eis Tacayr apéar.]| ‘unto all (every form of ) pleas- ing,’ ‘in omne quod placet,’ Claroman., 2. e. ‘to please Him in all things,’ tva oltw Cite dore dia mdvtTwy apéonew 73 cg [Kupiy], Theoph. On this use of apéorera, ‘studium placendi,’ Beng. (an dm. Aeydu. in the N. T.), see Loesner, Obs. p. 861, where there will be found several illustrative examples from Philo, the most pertinent of which are, de Mund. Opif. § 30, Vol. 1. p. 35 (ed. Mang.), mdvra Kal Aéye kad mpdrrew eomovdacerv eis GpéoKetay Tod maTpos Kal Baoidéws, and de Sacrif. § 8, Vol. 11. p. 257, dia macay iéva: Tay eis dpeoketay ddav. On the extensive mas, see above, and on Eph. i. 8. Epyw ay.] ‘in every good work ;’ sphere in which the kapmogopia is manifested. This clause is not to be connected with the preceding «is dpeocnemy, as Syriac (Pesh.),; Chrys., Theoph., but with the following kapmropop., as Vulg., Gothic, éy wavTk 17 130 COLOSSIANS. Crap Ad. Ocod, © év radon Suvdper Svvapovpevor Kata TO KpaTos Ths SoEns Syr. (Philox.), Theod., and the majority of modern commentators. The construc- tion is thus perfectly symmetrical, each participle being associated with a modal or instrumental predication. The parti- ciples, it need scarcely be said, do not belong to mAnp. (Beng.), —a construc- tion which Schwartz quaintly terms a ‘carnificinam,’ but with the infin., the participle having relapsed into the nom. ; see Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p, 505, and notes on Eph. iii. 18, iv. 2. kalavéi. TH Emiyvdcer| ‘and in- creasing by the ( full) knowledge of God.’ The éxtyvwois Ocod was the instrument by which the growth was increased. The reading of Fec., eis thy emiyv., is not ex- egetically untenable, as émiyvy. may be viewed with a kind of reciprocal refer- ence as the measure of the moral avénois (see Mey. in loc., and comp. Ephes. iv. 15), but the weight of external evidence, if not also of internal, preponderates against it ; see critical note. ll. €v don x.7.A.] ‘being strength- ened with all (every form of ) strength ;’ third participial clause parallel to, and in co-ordination with, év maytl «. 7. A. *Ev here seems purely zzstrumental (con- trast ver. 9), the action being considered as involved in the means; see Jelf, Gr. § 623. 3: with this may be compared the simple dat. Eph. iii. 16, see notes-in loc. Alford regards éy as denoting the clement, Sivas being subjective : this is possible ; the instrumental force, how- eyer, seems clearly recognized by Theod., 7H Sela porn Kparvyduevor, and appears more simple and natural. The simple form dvvaudw is an am. Aeydu. in the N. T. (see Psalm Ixvii. 28, Eccles. x. 10, Dan, ix. 27), évduvauéw being the more usual form. Kata Td Kpadtos THs 8.] ‘according to the power of His glory;’ not His glorious power,’ Auth., Beza, al., but ‘the power which is the peculiar characteristic of His glory,’ the gen. belonging to the cat- egory of the gen. possessivus ; compare notes on Hph. i. 6. The prep. kara rep- resents, not the source (Daven.), nor the motive (Steig.), but, as usual, the norma, in accordance with which, and in corres- pondence with which, the dvvduwous would be effected. The power which is the attribute of the glory of God indi- cates the measure and degree in which the Colossians will be strengthened ; obx amTAas, pyal, Suvamotase, GAA’ as eixds Tovs oUTwS ioxupy SeamwdTn SovAcvovTas, Chrysost. On the deriv. of kpdros, see notes on Eph. i. 19. eis maocav x.7.A.] ‘unto all patience and longsuffering ;? i.e. ‘to insure, to lead you into, every form of patience and longsuffering,’ ‘ ut procreet in nobis [yvo- bis] patientiam,’ etc., Dayvenant, — the prep., as usual, marking the final desti- nation of the duyduwois. The distinction between these words is not very clear: neither that of Chrys. (uaxpoSuuia mpds GAAHAous, UTowovh mpds Tovs ew), nor that quoted, but not adopted by Dayen. (drou. ad illa mala que a Deo infligun- tur paxpos. ad illa que ab hominibus- inferuntur) is quite satisfactory, as both, on different sides, seem too restrictive. Perhaps trouovy is more general, desig- nating that ‘ brave patience,’—not ‘ endur- ance,’ with which the Christiantought to bear all trials, whether from God or men, from within or without (sce notes on 2 Tim. ii. 10, and on Tit. ii. 2), while war- pos. points more to forbearance, whether towards the sinner (see on Eph. iv. 2), the gainsayer, or even the persecutor : see on 2 Tim. iii. 10. meta Xapasis joined by Theodoret, Olsh., De W., Alf., and others, with the pre- ceding clause ; so appy. Vulg., Coptic, Goth., Syriac (Philox.), and /®thiop. Viewed alone, this connection seems a: Crkp.- I. 12. COLOSSIANS. 131 ‘auTov els TacaV UTOMOVIY Kal waKkpoSumiay, peta yapas ™ evya- a a fol e an a uwctouvtes To LIlatpl TO ikav@cavTs Huds els TIV pEeplda TOU t c very plausible,—the trou. and paxp. are to be associated with joy, the resig- nation is to be genuinely Christian, com- pare Daven. As, however, each preced- ing clause commences with a defining prepositional adjunct, and both brouovy and wakpos. are perfectly distinct and are commonly used, whether in juxtaposi- tion (2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10) or separately (Rom. v. 3, 2 Cor. xii. 12, al. ; Gal. v. 22, Col. iii. 12, al.), without any further definition, it seems more natural, with Syr., Chrys., Theoph., Gicumen., and recently Mey., Zachm., and Tisch., to connect the defining words with evxa- plorourTes. 12. evx. TG Marpt] ‘giving thanks to the Father,’ scil. ‘of our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ participial clause, obviously not dependent on ov mavdu. verse 9 (Chrys., Theoph.), but co-ordinate with the preceding clauses. The meaning of evxap.is well discussed by Boeckh, Corp. Inscr, Vol. 1. p. 521; it is there stated to have four meanings : (a) Attic, ‘ grat- Vicari,’ xdpw diddvar; (b) non-Attic, ‘ gra- tias habere uel referre ; but see Demosth. de Cor. p. 257. 2; (¢) gratias agere verbis,’ used by Polyb. (xvi. 25. 1, xviii. 26. 4, XXX. 11.1) and later writers ; (d) ‘yratias referre simul et agere gratificando,’ found in certain inscript.: see also notes on Phil. i.12. The readings r@ 7. kad @eG and 7@ @cG x. w. are obvious interpolations, and rest on no critical authority ; see Tisch. in loc. TG. ikave- gavrTt Kk. 7.2] ‘who made us meet for the portion of the inheritance of the saints in light.’ These words deserve some con- sideration. In the first place the reading is slightly doubtful: DIFG; 17. 80; Claroman., Goth.; Did.; Lat. Ff. read Kahéoaytt for fav., while Lachm., with B, retains both t@ ixav. kad kad. The critical preponderance is, however, clear- ly in favor of ikay., for which kadéo. would have formed a natural gloss. (2) ‘Txay. is not ‘ qui dignos fecit, ’Vulg., but y y ; us|? [qui idoneos nos fecit] Syriac, compare /Eth.; see 2 Cor. iii. 6, Os Kad ixdvwoev judas, where the meaning is perfectly clear. Again the part. has not here a causal force ‘ quippe qui,’ Meyer \ (compare Theod., drt kowwvods arepnve), —a meaning which is precluded by the presence of the article (see notes on Eph. i. 12), but is distinctly predicative, and somewhat solemnly descriptive ; moAb 7d Bdpos @ekev, Chrys. The principal difficulty is, however, in the construction, as év 76 dwTi may admit of at least four connections, (a) with ixayécaytt, in an instrumental (Meyer) or semi-modal sense, —as apparently Chrys., Gicum., Theoph., who explain pwr! as = yrdoe ; (b) with thy pepida (Beng.), ev having a local force, and defining the position of the pepis ; (c) with aylwv, — év dwt) des- ignating their abode ; compare Grotius ; lastly and most probably, (d) with «aq- pov, or more exactly KAjpouv Tay ayiwv, the gen. specifying the possessors, and so indirectly the character of the KAjpos, the prep. clause its ‘situm et conditio- nem,’ Corn.a Lap. Of these (a), though ably defended by Meyer, is harsh and improbable; (6) causes a dislocation in the order, unless sep. «. 7. A. be all taken as one idea (Alford), in which case the omission of the article is not perfectly satisfactory ; (c) gives to of &yior an un- due prominence, compare Alford ; (d) on the contrary seems to give to the xAjpos Tay ay. exactly the qualifying. or possi- bly localizing definition it requires, and preserves a good antithesis with é. tod oxérous, v. 13, which (a) especially ob- scures ; compare Acts xxvi. 18. The art. before év 7@ pwr) is not needed, as 132 COLOSSIANS. Cuap.. I. 13. KAnpov TOV Gyiov ev TO Hwtl, ® ds éppvcato judas ex THs eLouclas TOU GKOTOUS, Kai mETETTHGED Eis THY Bacirelay TOD Viod THs aya- KAnp. Tov wy. év Ta >. forms asingle idea (Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 123) : with the whole clause (Alf.) it could be less easily Wispensed with. Weretain then (d) with De W.., perhaps Theod., and apparently the majority of interpreters. There re- main only a few details. kARpos| ‘inheritance,’ Acts xxvi. 18; properly ‘a lot’ (Matth. xxvii. 35, Mark xv. 24), thence anything obtained by lot (compare Acts i, 25, Hec.), and thence, with a greater latitude, anything as- signed or apportioned (tém0s, KTfjua, od- aia 7) Aaxpds, Suid.), whether officially (1 Pet. v.3; ‘cleros appellat particulares ecclesias, Caly.), or, as here, a posses- sion and inheritance; comp. Heb. mdm. The «Ajjpos ev >. is represented as a joint inheritance of the saints, of which each individual has his pepiéa. The deriva- tion is uncertain; perhaps from kAdew, i. e. a ‘ broken-off’ portion (Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 597), or, less probably, from Sanscr. kri, with sense of ‘ casting,’ or ‘ parting off’ (Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 172). Its more specific use in eccl. writers is well illustrated by Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 110 sq. éy TG dw] It is not necessary to refer this specifically to the heavenly realm: ¢@s marks its characteristics on the side, not merely of its glory (Huth., compare Bp. Hall, Znvis. World, 11. 5) but, as the antithesis suggests, of its es- sential purity and perfections ; compare 1 John i.5 This blessed inheritance may be entered upon in part even here on earth. For a good sermon on this text, see Beveridge, Serm. 11. Vol. vr. p. 399. 13. ds €ppiaaro k.7.A.| Apposi- tional relative-sentence (Winer, Gram. § 60. 7, p. 479), introducing a contrasted amplification of the preceding clause, and preparing for a transition to the doctrine of the person, the glory, and the redeeming love of Christ, ver. 14 20. The special meanings that have been assigned to épptoaro (‘eripuit ; plus hoc est quam liberavit: .....eripiuntur sepe inviti,’ Zanch.), though in part phi- lologically defensible (see Buttm. Lezil. 8. Vv. § 53. 1, 2), cannot be certainly maia- tained in the N. T., where for the most part the idea of ‘dragging from a crowd of enemies’ (comp. Luke i. 74, 2 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 17;—surely not unwilling) passes into the more generic idea of ‘ sav- ing ;” see Buttm. /.c.,§ 3. The remark of Theoph. is much more in point; ov« elme Se, e&éBarev, GAN’ Eppioaro, Seikvds Ort Os aixuddAwror éradamwpovueda. éEovclas tot oxkdt.| ‘the power of darkness ;’ the power which is possessed and exerted by Darkness, —not, how- ever, merely subjectively, tis mAdyns, Chrys. 1, but evil and sin, viewed objec- tively as the antithesis of dds, 7. e. Tod di- aBddov THs Tupayvidos, Chrys. 2, Theod. metéatnaev| ‘translated,’ ‘removed ;’ redemption in its further and positive aspects. The verb clearly involves a local reference, the removing from one place and fixing in another; we were taken out of the realms of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of light : see Joseph. Antig. 1x. 11. 1, robs. oixhropas petéoTngev ets Thy avToU BaciAelav. The further idea ‘ migrare cogit ex natali solo,” Daven., though theologically true, is not necessarily involved in the word. eis tHv BaotAetav| The term Bacr- Acia has here a reference neither purely metaphorical (e.g. the Church; comp. Huth.), nor ethical and inward (Olsh. ; Luke xvii. 21), nor yet ideal and prolep- tic (Mey.), — but, as the image involved in wetéor. suggests, semilocal and de- scriptive. Nor is this wholly future ; the viol rod @wréds, the pure and the holy (comp. Matth. v. 8, Heb. xii. 14), even Cuap. I. 14, 15. a @ c > a 14 > TNS AVTOV, ** EV COLOSSIANS. 153 y \ b s \ ” a e EXOMEV THY ATOAVTPWOLY, THY abEeoLY TOV apwap- fal 15 iva > > Ta! rn 6) A fal b} i / , TLOV’ OS EOTLY ELKWY TOU €OU TOU GOPaTou, TP@WTOTOKOS TTAGNS while tarrying in these lower courts are the subjects of that kingdom, the ‘ deni- zens’ of that moAirevya (Phil. iii. 20), the sharers of that vfodecta (Eph. i. 5), just as the viol rijs amemelas are even here on earth the occupants of the realm of darkness and the vassals of its koopo- xpdtopes. A long and elaborate treatise on the BamAcla @cod will be found in Comment. Theol. Vol. 11. p. 107-173. THS aydmns avTod| ‘of Lis love,’ i. e. who is the object of it, whom it em- braces. This genitive has received dif- ferent explanations; it has been regard- ed as (a) a genitive of the characterizing quality (compare Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. b, p. 211), in which it differs little from ayarntdés, Matthew iii. 17, Mark xii. 6, al., or 7yamnuévos, Ephes. i. 6, compare Chrys.; (b) a species of gen. originis, aydan being considered more as an es- sence than an ‘attribute; see August. de Trin, x. 19 (cited by Est. and Just.), and Olsh. in doc. ; (c) the gen. of the re- moter object (comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p- 169), ‘the son who has His love,’ Steiger, compare Wordsw. ; or, simply and more probably, (d) the gen. subjecti, aydrns being classed under the general head of the possessive genitive; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7.7: De Wette and Mey. compare Gen. xxxy. 18, vids 6dtyns ov. It has been thought that the title is specially selected to imply some reference to the vioSecta (Huth.); this is possible, but the context and a comparison with Ephes. i. 6, 7, do not favor the supposition. 14. év @] ‘in whom;’ certainly not ‘by whom,’ but ‘zn’ Him as the living ‘source of redemption : see notes on Hph. i. 7, where these and the following words in the clause are commented upon’ and illustrated. exomev thy &moA.] ‘we are having the redemption,’ not ‘our redemption,’ Alford, but ‘the red.,’ or with idiomatic omission of the art., ‘Redemption,’ Auth.,—the refer- ence being to the redemption from the wrath and punitive justice of God in its most comprehensive signification, wheth- er specially ours or common to us and to all mankind. The prep. amd is not intensive (ov« eire AUTpwoty, GAN GToA., ote pndé meceiy Aorrdy, Chrys.), but, with its usual force (‘ separationis remo- tionisque potestas,’ Winer, Verb. Comp. Iv. 5), points to the punishment and di- vine wrath from which we were redeemed in Christ and by His blood. On the four degrees of redemption, —viz., (a) payment of ransom for all, (b) admis- | sion into the Church, (c) exemption | from tyranny of sin here, and (d) ex- emption from hell and death here- after, —see Jackson, Creed, 1x. 5, Vol. ' Vill. p. 218 sq. (Oxf. 1844). For other details see notes on Eph. i. 7. There is some variation in reading; 8a Tod alu. (Rec.) rests only on cursive mss., and is rightly omitted by nearly all modern ed- itors. “Exouwey is more doubtful, as it might be a change in conformity with Eph. i.7. Lachm. reads éoxouev with B (A is doubtful), Copt. [an-si] ; but the diplomatic authority seems insufficient to warrant the change. THY &pecivy TOV amapt.| ‘the forgive- ness of our sins ;’ apposition to the pre- ceding thy amod., defining more exactly its nature and significance. On the dis- tinction between &peois and mapecis, see Trench, Synon, § 33, and on that between Gpapria and wapartépyara, notes on Eph. ee 15. 6s éoriv x. 7.A.| Detailed de- scription of the person of Christ, His dignity, and His exaltation, for which the preceding verse and the allusion to BaotAcla in ver. 13 form a suitable prep- 134 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 15, 16. i 16 og b] > rN ee) , \ , Ve) ‘A > rn } KTLOEWS, OTL EV aAvuT@ EKTLOSN Ta TTAVTA, TA EV TOLS ovpavols Ka aration. As this forms one of the three important passages in St. Paul’s Epistles (Ephesians i. 20-23, Phil. ii. 6-11) in which the doctrine of the person of Christ is especially unfolded, both the general divisions and the separate details will require very careful consideration. With regard to the former, it seems scarcely doubtful that there is a twofold division, and that, as in Phil. ii. 7, kal oxhware k. T. A. seemed to introduce a new por- tion of the subject, so here the second kab avros (v.18) indicates a similar transi- tion; and further, that, just as in Phil. 1. c. the first portion related to the Adyos &oapros, the latter to the Adyos @vcapkos, so here in ver. 15-17, the reference is rather to the pre-incarnate Son in His re- lation to God and to His own creatures, in ver. 18-20 to the incarnate and now glorified Son in His relations to His Church: so Olsh., hastily condemned by Meyer, but, in effect and inferentially, supported by the principal Greek and majority of Latin Fathers: comp. Pear- son, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 14. See contra, Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 135, whose opposition, however, is based on the more than doubtful supposition that ca 17) is dependent on the fore- “Os thus refers to the subject ay. avtod in its widest and most complex relations, whether as Cre- ator or Redeemer, the immediate context defining the precise nature of the refer- ence :-see on Phil. ii. 6. eixkay Tod Ocod 7. 7.A.] ‘the image of the invisible God ;’ not ‘an image,’ Wakef., or ‘image,’ Alf.,—the article is idiomatically omitted after éorw; sce Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3.2. With this. ex- pression comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, és éorw cixoy Tov Ocod, Heb. i. 3, amatyaoua tis ddEns avTos (ver. olen a going ot. 6 vibs Tis Kal xapaxthp Tis bmootdcews avTov: Christ is the original image of God, ‘bearing his figure and resemblance as truly, fully, and perfectly as a son of man has all the features, lineaments, and perfections belonging to the nature of mau,’ Waterl. Serm. Chr. Div. vy. Vol. II. p. 104, see especially Athan. Dicen. Def. § 20. Without overpassing the limits of this commentary, we may observe that Christian antiquity has ever regarded the expression ‘image of God’ as denoting the eternal Son’s perfect equality with the Father in respect of His substance, nature, and eternity ; ‘perfectze equalitatis significantiam ha- bet similitudo,’ Hil. de Syn. § 73, ama- pdAAaktos eikay Tov Tatpds [on the sub- sequent Semi-arian use of this term, see Oxf. Libr. of Ff. Vol. vr11. p. 35, 106] kal ToD mpwrotimov exTumTos XapakTip, Alex. ap. Theod. Hist, Eccl. 1. 45 see Athan. contr. Arian. 1. 20. The Son is the Father’s image in all things save only in being the Father, cixay pvoumy kat GmapdAAaktos Kata mdvta duola TP matpl, mAhY Tis ayevynolas al THs TaTpé- tyros, Damasc. de Imag. 111. 18 ; comp. Athan. contr. Arian. 1. 21. The exact force of the emphatically placed rod aopdrouv (‘ who is invisible,’ Wordsw.; Winer, Gram. § 20. 1. a, p. 120) is somewhat doubtful. Does it point to the primal invisibility (Chrys., Orig. ap. Athan. Nic. Def. § 27), or, by a tacit antithesis, to the viszbility, of the eixéy (Daven,, Meyer, al.; compare 2 Cor. iii. 18, Heb. xii. 14) 4 Apparently to the latter: Christ, as God and as the original image of God, was of course primarily and essentially adéparos (émet ovd’ dy eixdyv etn, Chrys.) ; as, however, - the Son that declared the Father (John i. 18), as He that was pleased to reveal Himself visibly to the saints in the O. T. (see especially, Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. 1. 1. 1 sq.). He was épazds, the manifester of Him who dwells in ¢@s ampdottov (1 Tim. vi. 16) and whom no man hath Cuapr. I. 16. COLOSSIANS. 135 A SN an fol A e \ \ Xx ba ” , ” Ta €Tl THS Ys, TA OpaTa Kal Ta aopata, elite Ypovot, Eire seen or can see; John i, 18; compare Beng. in loc. Whether there is here any approximation to views entertained by Philo (Olsh., Alf., see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2.4, p. 293), is very doubtful. We must at any rate remember that Philo was the uninspired exponent of the better theos- ophy of his day, St. Paul the inspired Apostle revealing the highest and most transcendent mysteries of the Divine economy. On the meaning of eixév, and its distinction from duoiwats, see Trench, Synon. § 15. mpwrotokos maans xKtlo.| ‘the Jirst-born before. every creature,’ 7. e. ‘be- gotten, and that antecedently to every- thing that was created ;’ surely not ‘ the whole creation,’ Waterland (Vol. 11. p. 57), compare Alf.,—an inexact transla- tion which here certainly (contrast on Eph. ii. 21) there seems no necessity for maintaining; compare Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 373. As verse 17 (mpd mdyrwv) expressly reiterates, our Lord is here solemnly defined as apwtdérokos in rela- tion to every created thing, animate or inanimate, human or superhuman ; zpw- 767. TOU Ocod. kal mpd TavTwY TOY KTIC- pdrwv, Just. Martyr, Dial. § 100. This notable expression has received every variety of explanation. Grammat. con- sidered, tis xticews may perhaps be the part, gen., the posses. gen. (Hof. Schrift. Vol. 1. 137), or, much more probably, the gen. of the point of view, ‘in reference to, ‘in_comparison to,’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18. 1. p. 129), the latent comparative force involved in the rpéros rendering this last genitival relation still more in- telligible and perspicuous ; comp. Fritz. on Rom. x. 19, Vol. 11. p. 421. In the first two cases, taca xtiots must be con- sidered as equiv. to a plur. (—o ee) WAago [omnium creaturarum] Syr.), i. e. every form of creation (comp. Hof- mann, /.c.), the expression compared with mpwrétoxos tay vexpav, Rev. i. 5, and (esp. in the last of these cases) the Arian deduction, that Christ is a Ktlots, deemed grammatically possible ; see Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 2. 4, and even Reuss, Thél. Chrét. rv. 10, Vol. 11. p. 100, both which writers use language, which, without the limitation named by Thorndike (Cov. Grace, 11. 17. 5), must be pronounced simply and plainly Arian. In the last case, raca «riots retains its proper force, mpwrdrokos its comparative reference, and the conclusion of Atha- nase, especially when viewed in connec- tion with the context (871 éy aiT@ exr., ver. 16), perfectly inevitable ; %AAos eave TOY KTIGMaTwY, Kal KTioMa pey ovK oT, KTioTys 8 Tay KTICMaTwY, contr. Arian. 11. § 62, —a passave of marvellous force and perspicuity ; see also, both on this and ver. 16, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 148. The term mpwrdrorKos (obs. not TpwrdkTioToS OF mporémdaaros) i is studi- ously used to define our Lord’s relation to His creatures and His brotherhood with them (comp. Rom. viii. 29), and is in this respect distinguished from povo- yevys which more exactly defines His relation to the Father; povoyevys pmev, dia Thy ex Tlatpbs yevynow: mpwrdtoKkos bé, dia thy cis tTHy KTlow ovyKatdBacw [condescension] kal thy Tay moAAGY adeA- gomoinow, Athan. contr. Arian. 11. 62: in a word, He was begotten, they were created, — the gulf infinite, yet as He stooped to wear their outward form, so He disdains not to institute, by the mouth of His apostle, temporal comparison between His own generation from eternity and their creation in time; see Bull, Defen. Frid. Nic. 111. 9. 9, who however appears to have misunderstood the meaning of ovykatdBacis, compare Newman, in Oxf, Libr. of Ef. Vol. v1rt. p. 288. Lastly, as there seem to be two senses in 136 COLOSSIANS. Cuarv. I. 16. i ” > Ul ” 26, / . & of 5 , > Lal at KUPLOTNTES, ELTE APVAl, ELTE ECOVTLALY TH TAVTA Ol AVTOV KA Scripture in which our Lord is first-born in respect of every creature, viz., in its restoration after the fall as well as in its first origin (see Athan. J. c., § 63), we may possibly admit, as ver. 18 also par- tially suggests, a secondary and inferen- tial, — certainly not a primary (Theod.- Mops. ; /Eth., ‘supra omnia opera’), nor even co-ordinate, reference to prior- ity in dignity (mporiunots): see Alf. in loc., who, however, unduly presses this reference, and by referring the whole to Christ in his now glorified state (so Mey., and Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 135), certainly seems to impair the the- ological force and significance of this august passage. For further doctrinal comments see the good note of Words- worth in loc. 16. dru] ‘because,’ not ‘for,’ Alf., a translation better reserved for yap, — logical elucidation of the preceding mem- ber: He, in the sphere of whose crea- tive power all things were made and on whom all things depend, was truly the mpotoT. mé&ons Kticews, and had an eter- nal priority in time and dignity. The objections of Schleiermacher (Stud. uw. Krit. 1832, p. 502) to the logic of this causal explanation are unreasonable and pointless. év aut@| Sin Him,’ as the creative centre of all things, the causal element of their existence ; compare Winer, Gr. § 50. 6, p. 372 (ed. 6; here judiciously altered). The prep- osition has received several different ex- planations, three of which deserve con- sideration : ev has been referred to Christ as (a) the causa instrumentalis (év = did), creation being conceived as existing in the means, Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3; (b) the causa exemplaris, the noopos vontds being supposed to be included and to have its essentiality (Olsh.) in Him as the great exemplar; (c) the causa conditionalis, the act of creation being supposed to rest in Him, and to depend on Him for its com- pletion and realization. Of there (a) is adopted by the Greek commentators, but is open to the serious objection that no distinction is preserved between ev a’rg@ here and & airod below, which St. Paul’s known use of prepositions (see notes on Gal. i. 1) would lead us certain- ly to expect. The second (+) is adopted by the schoolmen and recently by Olsh., Neander, Bisp., but is highly artificial, and supported by no analogy of Serip- ture. We therefore adopt (c) which is theologically exact and significant, and in which St. Paul’s peculiar, yet somewhat varied, use of év Xptor@ with verbs (com- pare 2 Cor. v. 19, Gal. ii. 17, Eph. i. 4, al.) is suitably maintained : compare the similar usage of éy, especially with pro- nouns, to denote the subject in which and on which (‘den Haltpunkt’) the action depends, e. 9. @y cot mao” &ywye ob omat, Soph. Ajar, 519; see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. év, 2. b, Vol. 1. p. 509, Bern- hardy, Synt. v. 8. b, p. 210. éxtladn] ‘were created, with simple physical ref. : observe the aorist of the past action, as contrasted with exrietaz below, in which the duration and persist- ence of the act (‘ per effectus suos durat,’ see on Eph. ii. 8) is brought into especial prominence ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27, and Winer, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 243. The forced (ethical) meaning ‘were arranged, re- constituted’ (Schleierm.), though lexi- cally admissible, is fully disproved by Meyer, who observes that «ri¢w always in the N. T. (even in Eph. ii. 10, 15, iv. 25) implies the bringing into existence, spiritually or otherwise, of what before was not. For an exposition of this im- portant text see Conc. Antioch. ap. Routh, Relig. Sacr. Vol. 11. p. 468, referred to by Wordsw. in loc. Ta wavTa| ‘ all things (that exist)’ — more specifical- ly defined, first in regard of place, sec- Kf Crap. I. 16, 17. COLOSSIANS. 197 > a alieee 17 CN tre ee \ , REUNS ¥ , ‘ELS GUTOV EKTLOTAL, KQL QUTOS E€OTLW TpO TAVTWV, Kat TA TayTa ondly in regard of nature and essential characteristics. On the use of the art. (‘das All’), see W., Gr. § 18.8, p. 105. Ta év Tots ovp. K.T.A.| ‘the things in the heaven, and the things on the earth ;’ not in reference merely to intelligent be- ings (Huther), nor to the exclusion of things under the earth (Phil. ii. 10), but, as in Eph. i. 10 (see notes), with the ful- lest amplitude, —‘ all things and beings whatsoever and wheresoever; ‘hdc dis- tributione universam creaturam complec- titur,’ Daven. The following clauses carry out the universality of the refer- ence, by specifying the two classes of things, the visible and material, and the invisible and spiritual,—which latter class is still further specified by disjunc- tive enumerations. Ta Sparta kal rad &dp.| ‘the things visible and the things invisible ;’ amplifi- eation — not exclusively of the former (Siddorer capéorepoy tiva Karel ovpdvia etre dpara [as sun, moon, and stars] ezre adpara, Theod.), or exclusively of the latter member (adpata thy puxhv Aéyor, dpara& mdvtas avSpémovs, Chrys.), but of both, ‘the visible and invisible world :’ ‘in ceelo visibilia sunt sol, luna, stelle ; invisibilia, angeli: in terra visibilia, plant, elementa, animalia; invisibilia, animee, humane,’ Daven.,— unless in- deed, as the following enumeration seems to imply, this last class, ‘ animz humane,’ be grouped with dpard (Mey.). etre Spdvor x.t.A.| ‘ whether thrones, whether dominions, whether principalities, ‘whether powers ;’ disjunctive specification of the preceding dépara; ‘lest in that ‘invisible world, among the many degrees of the celestial hierarchy, any order might seem exempted from an essential dependence upon Him, he nameth those which are of greatest eminence, and in them comprehendeth the rest,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 148. There seems no reason to modify the opinion advanced on Eph. i. 21, that four orders of heay- enly intelligence are here enumerated ; see notes and references in loc., Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p- 226 sq., and the extremely good article in Suicer, Thesaur. 8.v. &yy. Vol. t p. 30-48. By comparing this passage with Eph. J. c., where the order seems descensive, we may possibly infer that the Spdéver (not else- where in N. T., but noticed in Dyonys. Areop. de Hier., and in Test. x11. Patr. p. 532, Fabric.) are the highest order of blessed spirits, those sitting round the eternal throne of God, xupidtyres the fourth, épxat and éfovcla: the intermedi- ate (Mey.), if indeed, as is observed on Lph.l.c., all such distinctions are not to be deemed precarious and presump- tuous; compare Bull, Serm. x11. p. 221, and Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 302. This enumeration may have been sug- gested by some known _ theosophistic speculations of the Colossians (chap. ii. 18, compare Maurice, Unity of N. T. p. 566), but more probably, as in Eph. i. 21, was an incidental revelation, which 4 the term aépara evoked. Of the other 2 numerous interpretations which these ‘ words have received (see De Wette in ’ loc.), none seem worthy of serious atten- tion. Ta wayTa K.T.A.| ‘ (yea) all thinys,’ etc.; solemn recapitu- lation of the foregoing. The most nat- ural punctuation seems to be neither a period (Zisch.), nor a comma (AIf.), least of all a parenthesis (Zacim.), but, as in Mill, and in Buttmann’s recent edi- tion, a colon. ? oP? avrod kat eis abtéy] ‘through Him and for Him ;’ xesumption of év adr@ éxr. with a change both in tense and prepositions ; there the Son was represented as the ‘causa conditionalis ’ of all things, here as the ‘ causa medians’ of creation, and the ‘causa finalis’ (Dayen.) or ‘finis ulti- 18 138: COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 17,18. > >’ la) / 18 XN > , > e \ la] / év avT@ ouveotnker’ ® Kat avTos eat 7 Kear?) TOV TwHpLATOS, mus’ (Calov.) to which it is referred. It was to form a portion of His glory, and to be subjected to His dominion (comp. Matth. xxviii. 18) that all things were created; eis ai’roy xpéuara 4 mdv- TW VMOTTACIS......00TE VY ATOOTATSH THs avTod mpovolas, amdAwAe Kab SiepSaprat, Chrys. We may observe that the me- diate creation, and final destination, of the world, here referred to the Son, are in Rom. xi. 86 referred to the Father. Such permutations deserve our serious consideration ; if the Son had not been God, such an interchange of important relations would never have seemed pos- sible: compare Waterland Def. Qu. x1. Vol. 1. p. 383 sq., Vol. 11. p. 54, 56. On the force of the perf. @riora, see above; and in answer to the attempts to refer this passage to any figurative crea- tion, see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 149, 150 (ed, Burt.). 17. kal abrds xn. t.A.] ‘and He Himself,’ etc. ; contrast between the cre- ator and the things created ; adrds being emphatic, and kat having a gentle con- trasting force (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) by which the tacit antithesis involved in avtbs (‘ipse oppositum habet alium,’ Hermann, Dissert., arés 1) between the things created (7% mdyra) and Him who created them is still more enhanced : they were created in time, He their crea- tor is and was before all time. It may be observed that though airbs appears both in this and the great majority of passages in the N. T. to have its proper classical force (‘ut rem ab aliis rebus discernendam esse indicet,’ Herm. Dis- sert. 1.c.), the Aramaic use of the cor- responding pronoun should make us cautious in pressing it in every case. The vernacular tongue of the writers of the N. T. must have produced some effect on their diction.. mpd wdvtwyv)] ‘before all things,’ not ‘all beings’ (§ omnes,’ Vulg., Clarom.), and that too not in rank, but, in accordance with the primary meaning of mpwrdrokos and the immediate context,— in time; TovTo Oe Epuoov, Chrys. Theodoret with reason calls attention to the expres- sion—not éyévero mpd mavtwv, but gore aps mdytwv: contrast John i. 14 év avT@ aovvéorT.] ‘consist in Him,’ as the causal sphere of their continuing ex- istence: not exactly identical with év abt@ above (Mey., Alf.), but, with the very slight change which the change of verb in- volves, in more of a causal ref-; Christ was the conditional element of their crea- tion, the causal element of theit persist- ence ; comp. Heb. i. 3, pépwy Te Ta ravTa, T@ piuatt Ths Surduews advtov. The de- claration, as Waterl. observes, is in fact tantamount to ‘in Him they live, and move, and have their being’ (Serm. on Div. vit. Vol. 11. p. 164), which is and forms one of the great arguments for the omnipresence and the preserving and sustaining power of Christ; see ib. Def Qu. xv111. Vol. 1. p. 430. The verb ovvictdvat is well defined by Reiske, Ind. Dem. (quoted by Meyer), as ‘corpus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum con- sentiens esse et permanere,’ compare 2 Pet. iii. 5, and [Arist.] de Mundo, 6, ex Seod Ta mayrTa, Kal did Seod Huiv ov- véotnkev 3 see especially Krebs, Obs. p. 334, and Loesner, Obs. p. 362, by both of whom this word is copiously illustrated from Josephus and Philo; compare also Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. 259. 18. «kal adrds x.7.A.] Transition to the second part, in which the relation of the incarnate and glorified Son to His Church is declared and confirmed, not perhaps without some reference to the erroneous teaching and angel-worship that apparently prevailed in the Church of Colosse. Airds is thus, as before, emphatic, possibly involving an antithes Cuapr. I. 18. COLOSSIANS. 139 THs éxKAnolas' bs eat apy}, TpwTdTOKOS eK THY vEexpav, wa sis to some falsely imagined kepada or kepadal of the Church ; ‘He in whom all things consist, He, and no other than He, is the head of the Church.’ The empha- sis, as Meyer observes, rests on repaai) rather than éxxcAynoia; it was the head- ship of the Church, not its imaginary constitution, that formed the undercur- rent of the erroneous teaching. TOD gpm. THS EKKA.] ‘of His body, the Church,’ rijs éxxa. being the genitive of identity or apposition ; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p- 82. The apostle does not say merely ‘of the Church,’ but ‘ of His body,’ etc., to show, — not the ¢iAavSpwria of Christ (S€Awy july oikeidTepoy Sei~ar adrdv, Chrys.), but the real, vital, and essen- tial union between the Church and its Head: compare Ephes. iv. 15, 16, and notes in loc. ; see also Rom. xii. 5, 1 Cor. x. 17, Ephes. i.-23, al. és éoriv| ‘seeing He is;’ the relative having a semi-argumentative force, and serving to confirm the previous declara- tion; see Jelf, Gram. § 836.3. We can scarcely say that in such sentences ‘ds is for dru’ (Jelf, 7. c., Matth. Gr. § 480. c), but rather that, like the more usual éoris, the simple relatival force passes into the explanatory, which almost neces- sarily involves some tinge of a causal or argumentative meaning: see notes on Gal. ii. 4. &px%h| ‘ the beginning,’ not merely in ref. to the fol- lowing tév vexp&v (Meyer, Hofmann, Schrifth, Vol. 11. 1, p. 241; compare Theod.), nor even to the spiritual resur- rection (Daven.), both of which seem too limited ; nor yet, with a general and abstract reference, the ‘ first creative prin- ciple’ (Steig., Huth. ; compare Clem.- Alex. Strom. 1v. p. 638, 6 Ocds 5& dvap- Xs apx} Tay Orwy TayTeAhs),—but, as the more immediate context and the ref- erence to our Lord’s Headship of His mpwtdT. €k TOV vEeKpar] Church seem certainly to suggest, in ref. to the new creation (comp Caly., Corn. a Lap. ; 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 17), the following mpwrdtoKos éx T&Y veKp. Serv- ing to define that relation more closely, and to preserve the retrospective allusion to mpwrdr. in ver. 15: our Lord in His glorified humanity is the apxnybs tis (wis (Acts iii. 15) to His Church, the be- ginning, source, origin and of the new and spiritual, even as He was of the former and material, creation; see Olsh. and Bisp. in loc., and compare Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2,4, p. 304. The plausible reading dmapxh, adopted by Chrys. and a few mss., is a limiting gloss suggested by the next clause compared with 1 Cor. xv. 23. The omission of the article [in- serted in B, 67**] before apx} is due, not to the abstract form of the word (Olshaus.), but simply to the preceding verb subst., Middl. Gr. Art. 111, 3. 2. ‘ fust- born from the dead ;’ not exactly identi- cal with mpwrdr. tay vexp@y, Rev. i. 5 (partitive gen.), but with the proper force of the preposition, ‘the first-born, not only of, but out of the dead;’ He left their realm and came again as with a new begetting and new birth into life (see especially Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 11I. p. 57) ; he was the true amapx} Tav kekounuevoy, 1 Cor. xv. 23: compare Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 241. Others had been translated or had risen to die again, He had risen with glorified humanity to die no more (Rom. vi. 9): hence He is ‘not called simply the first that rose, but with a note of generation, MpwT. ek Tav vexpay, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 136 (ed. Burt.). iva yévnrat k.7.A.] ‘in order that in all things He might become (not ‘ sit,’ Vulg.) pre-eminent, might take the first place,’ ‘ primas teneat,’ Beza, Daven. ; TavTaXov mpaTos* avw mpATos, ev TH ek- . 140 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I, 19. yévntat ev Taow avtos TpwTevav, 1 dtt ev ait@ eddKnoev Trav KAnola mp@tos, ev TH avactdce: mpeTos, Chrys.: divine purpose (iva has here its full telic force, compare on Eph. i. 17) of His being the apx} of the new crea- tion, and having the priority in the res- urrection, —a divine purpose fulfilled in its temporal, and to be fulfilled in all conceivable relations, when all things are put under His feet, and the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of the Lord and His Christ (Rev. xi. 15). The tense yévnta cannot be safely pressed, as in the subj. the force of the aor. is considerably weakened and modified ; see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 382. The verb mpwrevew is an Gr. Aeydu. in the N. T., but is not uncommon elsewhere ; compare Zech. iv. 7 (Aquil.), Esth. v. 11, 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15, invall which passages an idea of mporiwnois seems clearly conveyed. This however does not require a similar meaning to be as- signed to mpwrdr. (comp. De W., Alf.) : mpwrevew was to be the result, mpwrdror. Kk. T. A. was one of the facts which led to it; compare Meyer zn loc. év waatv] ‘in all things, surely not ‘inter omnes,’ Beza,—a restricted ref- erence that completely mars the majesty of this passage, and contravenes the force of the neuter 7& mdyra in the causal sen- tence which follows. Lastly, airdés, as above, must not be left unnoticed ; ‘ si quis alius mortem debellasset, ete., tum Christus non tenuisset primatum in om- nibus,’ Daven. | We may observe that with this clause the predications respect- ing Christ seem here to reach their acme (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 28), and lead us to ad- mit, if not to expect, a modification of subj. inthe causal sentence which follows. 19. 6c] ‘because ;’ confirmation of the divine purpose in reference to Christ’s precedence év maow: He in whom the whole wAnpwua (of the Sedrys) was pleased to reside, must needs have had His precedence in all things eternally. designed and contemplated. év av7@| ‘in Him, and in Him special- ly; connected with xarouety, and put early forward in the sentence to receive full emphasis. The reference, as the. context seems to show, is now more es- pecially to the incarnate Son. evddnnoev x.7.A.] ‘the whole fulness (of the Godhead) was pleased to dwell ;’ ‘in ipso complacuit omnis plenitudo in- habitare,’ Clarom. The first difficulty in this profound verse is to decide on the grammatical subject of evdoxciy. This verb, a late and probably Macedonian- Greek word (Sturz, de Dial. Maced. p. 167), has four constructions in the N. T., all personal ; with éy and a dat. (Matth. lil. 17, xvii. 5, al: 2 Thessalon. ii. 12 is doubtful), with eis and an accus. (2 Pet. i. 17), with a simple accus. (Heb. x. 6, 8), with an infin. referring to the subject (Rom. xv. 12, 1 Corin. i. 21, al., —the principal and prevailing use in St. Paul’s Epp.) ; see Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol. 11. p. 369 sq., where the uses of edSox. are fully investigated. In the present case three subjects have been proposed ; (a) Xpio- rds, the preceding subject, Tertull. Mare. v.19, and recently Conyb., and Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11.1, p. 242, where it is fairly defended ; (b) Oeds, supplied from the context ; so, it can scarcely be doubt- ed, Syr., Vulg., Goth., Theod., and, by inference, Chrysost., Theoph., and after them the bulk of modern expositors ; (c) the expressed subject 7d wav mAfpw- pa; Clarom., Copt., apparently Ath., and recently Peile, and, very decidedly, Scholef. Hints, p. 108. Of these (a) in- volves indirect opposition to strong anal- ogies of Scripture (e. g. 2 Cor. v. 19), and, equally with (b), a harsh change of subject to the two infin. : the second (6) is dogmatically correct, but involves a very unusual construction of evox. (comp. Cuap. I. 20. COLOSSIANS. 141 fo! \ > la) . TO TAnpwwa Katouhoat * Kai dv avtod dmoKatadrAd bat Ta TavTa Polyb. Hist. 1. 8.4. vir. 4.5, 2 Mace. xiv. 35), a different subject to karo. and dmox., and further an ellipsis of a word, which though not without clas- sical parallel (see Jelf, Gr. § 373. 3) would here, in a passage of this dog- matical importance, be in a very high degree unnatural and improbable: the third (c) is syntactically simple, it is also in harmony with St. Paul’s regular usage of evdox. when associated with an infin., and, — what is still more impor- tant, — both in its causal connection, the nature of the expressions, and the order of the words (Meyer’s assertion that it would have been 67s way Td mA. evs. x. 7. A. falls to the ground ; observe also the order in 1 Cor. i. 21, x. 5, Galat. i. 15), stands in closest parallel with the authoritative interpretation in ch. ii. 9, bri é€v avTG KaToLKKEl Wav TO WA. Tis Bed- TnTos gwu. We seem bound then to abide by (c),— possibly the interpretat. of the ancient Latin Church : it involves, however, as will be seen, some grave, though apparently not insuperable, diffi- culties. mav Td TAH pwpa] ‘the whole fulness (of the God- head ),’ ‘omnes divine nature divitie,’ Fritz. These words have been very dif- ferently explained. Lexically consid- ered, tAhpwua has three possible mean- ings, one active, (a) implendi actio, and two passive, (8) id quod impletum est, Ephes. i. 23 (see notes), and the more common (vy) id quo res impletur, Gal. iv. 4, Ephes. iii. 9 (see notes on both pas- sages), which again often passes into the neutral and derivative (71) affluentia, abundantia, tAotros, — especially in con- nection with abstract genitives, Rom. xy. 29; see Fritz. Rom. xi. 12, Vol. 11. p- 469 sq., Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 26. Of these (7%), or perhaps sim- ply (y), is alone exegetically admissible. The real difficulty is in the supplemental gen. Setting aside all doubtful and ar- bitrary explanations, e.g. éxxAnola (The- od., Sever.), ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ (Schleierm.), ‘fulness of the universe’ (Conyb., Hofm. J. c., p. 26), we have only one authoritative supplement, Sed- tnTos, either exactly in the same sense as in ch. ii. 9, ‘ plenitudo Deitatis,’ or in the more derivative sense, ‘ plenitudo gratiz habitualis’ (compare Davenant, Mey., al.). The latter of these is adopt- ed by those who advocate construction (6) of eddox., but has this great disadvan- tage, that it involves two interpretations of tAjpwpa Sedr. (here in ref. to ‘ divina _ gratia,’ there to ‘divina essentia,’ so Mey., Alf., al.), whereas on the constr. of evdox. already adopted, wAnp. will nat- mrally be the same in both cases, and ‘will imply ‘ the complete fulness and ex- haustless perfection of the Divine Es- sence,’ the plenitudo Deitatis,’ — an ab- stract term of transcendent significance, involving in itself the more concrete @eds, which, as will be seen, seems pos- sibly to be the subject of the following participial clause. When we con- sider the context in ch. ii. 9, there seem grave reasons for thinking that St. Paul chose this august expression with special reference to some vague or perverted meaning assigned to it by the false teach- ers and theosophistic speculators at Co- loss ; comp. Thorndike, Cov. of Grace, 1. 15. 12. KaTOLK oat ‘to dwell ;? aterm especially applied to the indwelling influence of the Father (compare Iiph. ii. 22), the Son (Eph. iii. 17), and the Spirit (James iv. 5), and both here and ch. ii. 9, enhancing the personal relations involved in the myste- rious word mAfpwua; exe? Sknoev ove évépyend Tis GAN ovata, Theophyl.] 20. amonat. Ta wavaral ‘to re- concile all things ;’ not ‘ prorsus reconcil- iare,’ Mey. (compare Chrys., katnAday- 142 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I, 20. eis avTov, eipnvotroincas Sua Tov aipatos Tod oTavpod avToD, Mévol, GAAG TeAeiws Zder), but, with the natural force of amd in similar com- pounds (dmoxa&iordvew, dmevdetvew), ‘jn pristinam conditionem reconciliando reducere ;’ see Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 7,8. The subject of the inf. is of course the same as that of karour., 2. €., grammatically considered, the rAnpopa above, but exegetically, —as the follow- ing adrdy and other scriptural analogies (compare 2 Cor. v. 19, Eph. i. 10) seem to suggest, the more definite @eds, in- volved and included in the more mysti- cal and abstract designation. The reve- lation contained in these words is of the most profound nature, and must be in- terpreted with the utmost caution and reverence. Without presuming to di- lute, or to assign any improper ‘ elas- ticity’ (Mey.) to, the significant aroxar. (e.g. ‘reunionem creaturarum inter se invicem,’ Dalleeus), or to limit the com- prehensive and unrestricted Ta mdyra (e.g. ‘universam Ecclesiam,’ Beza, ‘om- nes homines,’ Corn. a Lap.), we must guard against the irreverence of far- reaching speculations on the reconcilia- tion of the finite and the infinite (Usteri, Lehvb, 11. 1. 1, p. 129, Marheineke, Dogm. § 331 sq.), to which this mighty declaration has been supposed to allude. This, and no less than this, it does say,— that the eternal and incarnate Son is the ‘causa medians’ by which the absolute totality of created things shall be restored into its primal harmony with its Creator, — a declaration more specifically unfold- ed in the following clause: more than this it does not say, and where God is silent it is not for man to speak. See the sober remarks of Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 188 sq. The mysterious dyva- Kepadamoacsat, Ephes. i. 10 (obs. both the prep. and the voice), is a more gen- eral and perhaps more developed, while 2 Cor. v. 19, Kéopoy KaTaAA. is a more limited and more specific, representation of the same eternal truth: see Destiny of Creature, p. 85 sq. eis attéyv] ‘unto Himself,’ i.e. to God, couched in the foregoing mAfpwua: a ‘ pregnans constructio,’—the preposi- tion marking the reconciled access to (comp. Eph. ii. 18), and union with the Creator; compare Winer, Gr. § 66. 2, p- 547. The simple dative (Eph. ii. 16; compare Rom. v. 10, 2 Cor. v. 19, al.) expresses the object to whom and for whom the action is directed, but leaves the further idea conveyed by the prep. unnoticed. There is no need to read airédy (Griesb., Scholz), as the reference to the subject is unemphatic; see notes on Eph.i. 4. eipnvoTotnh- aas| ‘having made peace ;’ i. e. God,— a simple and intelligible change of gen- der suggested by the preceding aitrby and the personal subject involved in the subst. with which the participle is gram- matically connected; in fact, ‘a con- struct. mpds Td bt oonuawouevov. The parallel passage Eph. ii. 15, moi@y eiph- vnv, would almost seem to justify a ref- erence to the Son (Theod., Gicumen.) by the common participial anacoluthon (Steiger; compare Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p- 505), but as this would seriously dis- locate the sentence by separating the modal participial clause from the finite verb, and would introduce confusion among the pronouns, we retain the more simple and direct construction. Thus then the two constructions (b) and (c) noticed in ver. 19 ultimately coincide in referring verse 20 to God, not Christ; and it is worthy of thought whether the ancient Syr. and Clarom. Vv. may not, by different grammatical processes, ex- hibit a traditional ref. of ver. 20 to God, of a very remote, and perhaps even au- thoritative antiquity. 51a Tov alu. Tod oraup.] ‘by theblood of Cuap. I. 20, 21. COLOSSIANS. 143 , n \ ‘ n an Yj a rn du avTov, cite Ta Ertl THS ys elite Ta €v ols ovpavots. You who were alienated He reconciled by His death, "1 Kat buds wore ovtas amn\doTpiwpevous if at least ye remain firm in the faith and abide by the hope of the Gospel. (2. e. shed upon) the cross ;’ more specific and circumstantial statement of the ‘ cau- sa medians’ of the reconciliation. The gen. is what is termed of ‘ remoter ref- erence,’ forming in fact a species of bre- viloquentia: see especially Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 168, where numerous exam- ples are collected. de avtov| ‘by Him;’ it is scarcely neces- sary to say that 6? adrod does not refer to the immediately preceding 6a tov aiu., but to the more remote 6? avrod of which it is a vivid and emphatic repeti- tion. These words are omitted in some MSS. [BD!FGL; 10 mss.], but almost obviously to facilitate the construction. elite T& ev ovp. k.7.A.| ‘whether the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens ;’ disjunctive enumeration of the ‘universitas rerum,’ as in ver. 16, with this only difference, that the order is transposed, — possibly from the more close connection of the death of Christ with ra él rijs yas. It is hardly neces- sary to say that the language precludes any idea of reconciliation between the oc- cupants of earth and heaven (apparently Cyril.-Hieros. Catech. xiv. 3, Chrys. (in part), Theod., al.) or, in reference to the latter, of any reconciliation of only a retrospectively preservative nature (Bramhall, Dise. 1v. Vol. v. p. 148). Jiow the reconciliation of Christ affects the spiritual world — whether by the an- nihilation of ‘ posse peccare,’ or by the infusion of a more perfect knowledge (Eph. iii. 10), or (less probably) some restorative application to the fallen spir- itual world (Orig., Neand. Planting, Vol. I. p. 531), — we know not, and we dare not speculate: this, however, we may fearlessly assert, that the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Eternal Son is infinite and limitless, that it extends to all things in earth and heaven, and that it is the blessed medium by which, between God and His creatures, whether angelical, human, animate, or inanimate (Rom. vill. 19 sq.), peace is wrought; see the valuable note of Harless on ph. i. 10, especially p. 52, Hofmann, Schriflb. Vol. I. p. 189, and comp. Wordsw. in loc. 21. kal bas] ‘and you also:’ new clause, to be separated by a period (not merely bya comma, Lachm., Bisp.) from ver. 20, descriptive of the application of the universal reconciliation to the special case of the Colossians ; compare ch. ii. 13, and see notes on Eph. ii. 1. The structure involyes a slight anacoluthon : the apostle probably commenced with the intention of placing suas under the immediate regimen of aroxathAA., but was led by woré dvtas into the contrasted clause vuy) Se before he inserted the verb ; compare Winer, Gram. § 63. 1, p. 504. The reading aoxarnAAdynte adopted by Lachm. and Meyer with B [D1FG; Cla- rom.; Iren., al., have dmroxatraddayevtes] involves an equally intelligible, though much stronger anacoluthon, but has not sufficient external support. dvtTas amnaAdorp.| ‘being alienated,’ ‘being ina state of alienation,’ scil. ‘ from God ;’ compare Eph. iv. 28. The part. of the verb subst. is used with the perf. part. to express yet more forcibly the continuing state of the alienation ; com- pare Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 511. For illustrations of the emphatic verb aaAa. (‘abalienati,’ Beza), see notes on Eph. ii. 12, where the application is more ex- pressly restricted. Both there and Eph. iv. 28, the Ephesians were represented as a portion of heathenism, here the Co- lossians are represented as a portion of the ‘universitas rerum,’ to whom the: redeeming power of Christ extends. 144 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I 21, Bass L éySpovs TH Stavola ev Tots Epyous TOls TroVNpots, vuvl dé a7ro- Kal éySpovs TH Q Tots Epyous Tots Tovnpots, t 99 2 cal , n \ >’ a PS) NV a % / KaTnrakev * ev TH TwWmaTL THS GapKOsS avTod dia Tod Savdrou, exSpovs tH Stav.] ‘ enemies in your understanding ;’ not passive, ‘regarded as enemies by God’ (Meyer, who com- pares Rom. v. 10), but, as the subjective tinge given by the limiting dative and the addition éy rots py. seem to imply, active; éxXpol Ate, ono, Kal TH TOY ex- Spav emparrete, Chrysost. The dative diavoia is what is termed the dat. of ref- erence to (see notes on Gal. i. 22), and represents, as it were, the peculiar spir- itual seat of the hostility (comp. notes on Eph. iv. 18), while éyv rots épyos marks the practical spheres and substrata in which the @ySpa was evinced ; comp. Hu- ther zn loc. On the meaning of didvoia, the ‘higher intellectual nature’ (d:éfod0s Ao- yuh, Orig.), especially as shown in its practical relations (contrast évvo., Heb. iv. 12), see the good remarks of Beck, Seelenl. 11. 19. b, p. 58. The addition tots moynpots, not simply éy Tots mov. épy., serves to give emphasis, and direct attention to the real character of the épya; Winer, Gr. § 20. 1, p. 119. vuvl 5& a@rokat.| ‘yet now hath He ( God, see next note) reconciled:’ antith- esis to the preceding woré bvtas, the op- positive d¢ in the apodosis being evoked by the latent ‘although’ (Donalds. Gr. § 621) involved in the participial prota- sis; compare Xen. Mem. 111. 7. 8, éxel- vous podiws xetpovmevos, TovToLs 5é undéva tpdmov ote. Svvhoeodat mpocevexdijvat, and see the note and reff. of Kiihner, also Buttmann, Mid. Excurs. x11. p.148: add Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 374, Har- tung, Partik. Sé, 5. 6, Vol. 1. p. 186. Such a construction is not common in Attic writers. In this union of the em- phatic particle of absclutely present time with the aor. (comp. Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 24) the aor. is not equivalent to a pres. or perf., but marks with the proper force of the tense, that the action followed a given event (here, as the context suggests, the atoning death of Christ), and is now done with ; see Do- nalds. Gr. § 433, compared with Fritz. de Aor. p. 6, 17. Meyer pertinently compares Plato, Symp. p. 193 A, mpd Tov... &v Huev, vurt de Sid THY Gductav dipxlodsnucy bd Tod Seod. 22. éy TG odpm. x.7.A.] ‘in the body of His flesh,’ i. e., as the language and allusion undoubtedly requires, — the flesh of Christ; the prep. ev pointing to the substratum of the action ; see notes on Gal. i. 24, and comp. especially Andoe. de Myst. p. 33 (ed. Schill.) 6 pév ayav évy TH ThuaT: TH Cue Kadséorynkev. It may justly be considered somewhat doubtful whether the subject of the pres- ent clause, and of the verb dmoxarfA- Aakey is regarded as Christ (Chrysost., Cicum., al.), or God. In favor of the first supposition we have the use of od- watt (which seems to suggest an identi- ty between the subject to which the céua refers and the subject of the verb), per- haps the use of rapacrijoa (comp. Eph. vy. 27, but contrast 2 Cor. iv. 14), and the ready connection of such a purpose with the fact specified by dzroxar. (comp. De Wette), and lastly, the semi-parallel passage, Eph. ii. 13. Still the difficulty of a change of subject, —the natural transition from the more general act on the part of God alluded to in ver. 20 to the more particular application of the same to the Colossians, — the fuller am- plification which this verse seems to be of the substance of ver. 13,— and the similarity between the circumstantial dia Tod alu. trod ot. above and the cir- cumstantial ev re odpm. x. 7. A. in the present verse, seem to supply distinctly preponderant arguments, and lead us with Bengel, Huth., and others, to refer anoxar. to the subject of ver. 20, 7. e. to Cuap. I. 22, COLOSSIANS. 145 Tapacthaas vuds drylovs Kal dpdwous Kal aveyKAjTOUS KATEVOTLOV God. Many reasons have been assigned why St. Paul adds the specifying gen. (substantie, Winer, Gr. § 30. 2) rijs cap- nds. Two opinions deserve considera- tion; (a) that it was to oppose some forms of Docetic error which were pre- vailing at Colossx, Steiger, Huther, al. ; (b) that it was directed against a false spiritualism, which, from a mistaken as- ceticism (ch. ii. 23), led to grave error with respect to the efficacy of Christ’s atonement in the flesh; so Meyer, fol- lowed by Alford. As there are no di- rect, and appy. no indirect (contrast Tgnat. Magnes. § 9, 11, al.) allusions to Docetic error traceable in this Epistle, the opinion (6) is, on the whole, to be preferred. That the addition is used to mark the distinction between this and the Lord’s spiritual oma, the Church, (Olsh.), does not seem natural or prob- able. 51a Tov Say] ‘by means of His death ;’ added to the pre- ceding éy TG odu. to express the means by which the reconciliation was so wrought : it was by means of death, borne in, and accomplished in that blessed body, that reconciliation was brought about; com- pare some valuable remarks in Jackson, Creed: vitt. 8. 4. Tapaactioaat| ‘to present ;’ infinitive, expressing the actual purpose and intent of the action expressed in dmor.; see Madvig, Synt. § 118, where this mood is extremely well discussed. Had éore been inserted, the idea of manner or de- gree would rather have come into prom- inence (Madvig, § 166), and the mean- ing would literally have been ‘ as with the intention: of, etc.,’ the finite verb being in fact again tacitly supplied after éore ; see especially Weller, Bemerk. z, Griech. Synt. p. 14 (Mein. 1843). Meyer calls attention. to the tense, but it must be observed that in the infin. the aorist, except after verbs declarandi vel sentiendi, d is commonly obscured (Madvig, § 172), especially as here in an aoristic sequence. On rapaorhoau, which certainly conveys no sacrificial idea, comp. on Eph. v. 27. There the reference is more restricted, here more general. aylovs cat am. ral averyn.| ‘holy and blameless and without charge ;’ desig- nation of their contemplated state on its positive and negative side (Mey.), aylovs marking the former, audéu. kad aveykar. the latter. Strictly considered then, the first and second xa are not perfectly co- ordinate and similar: they do not con- nect three different ideas (‘ erga Deum, respectu vestri, respectu proximi,’ Ben- gel) nor simply aggregate three similar ideas (Dayen.) ; but, while the first con- nects the two members of the latent an- tithesis, the second is, as it were, under a vinculum joining the component parts of the second member. On the meaning of %uwuos (inculpatus, not immaculatus), see notes on Eph. i. 4: it is apparently less strong than the following aveyka. ; aveykA. yap téTe Ayer, drav pnde méexpt Katayvecews unde mexpr eyKAtua- Tos 7} TL Temparyuevoy huiv, Chrysostom. Lastly, on the distinction between ayéy- KAnTos and averlAnmros (‘in quo nulla justa causa sit reprehensionis ’), see Titt. mann, Synon. I. p. 31. KaTevemiov avtrod| ‘before Him;’ God,—not Christ (Mey.), a reference neither. natural nor easily reconcilable with the very similar passage, Eph. i. 4. There, may be here a faint reference to the ‘day of Christ’s appearing,’ Alford, but it does not seem perfectly certain - from the context. With respect to the question whether ‘sanctitas imputata’ (Huth.), or, perhaps more probably, ‘sanctitas inherens, (Chrys. ; compare notes on Eph. i. 4) is here alluded to, the remark of Davenant seems just, — ‘cum dicit, ut sistat nos sanctos, non ut 19 146 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 23. > n 93, 7 ? LA lol Z. S , » 4 ES lal A avtov: 73 eltye ETTLLEVETE TH TLOTEL TESEMEALWPLEVOL KAL EOPALOL, KaL \ / eX a 9 ‘S nee ri e 9» s BN) PETAKLVOULEVOL ATTO THS EATTLOOS TOU EVAYYEALOU OU NKOVOAaTE, sisteremus nos, manifestum est ipsos re- conciliatos et renatos sanctitatem suam a Christo mutuari, sive de actuali, sive de inhzrente, sive de imputata loqui- mur,’ p. 113 (ed. 3); ‘whensoever we have any of these we have all, — they go together,’ Hooker, Serm. on Justification, 11. 21. 23. elye emi. TH wmlaoTe] ‘ifat least ye continue in the faith ;’ a tropical use of émm. peculiar to St. Paul, Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, 1 Tim. iv. 16: émm., Acts xiii. 45 (Rec.), has scarcely any critical support. Like several compounds of ér} it has two constructions (see Wi- ner, Gr. § 52.7. p. 882), with preposi- tions émi, mpéds, év (Acts xxviii. 14, 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. i. 24), and with the simple dative (Rom. Jl. cc., 1 Tim. 1. c.) which apparently is semilocal (comp. on Gal. v. 1), or, perhaps more probably, under the influence of the preposition. The preposition em is not (per se) inten- sive (Alf.), but appears to denote rest at a place, see notes on Gal. i. 18. On the meaning of efye, see notes on Eph. iii. 2, and on the distinction between eye (si quidem) and evzep (si omnino), see notes on Gal. iii. 4. TEDEMEA. kar €Spato:] ‘grounded and firm;’ specification on the positive side of the mode of the émmovh; compare Eph. iii. 17, éppiopevor xal TedeweArwpevor, and 1 Cor. xv. 58, €5pator, dueraxivnro. The qualitative termination -aos seems to justify the distinction of Beng., ‘redeu. affixi fundamento, é6p. stabiles, firmi -intus.’ That there is any reference to the metaphor of a temple (Olsh.), seems here very doubtful. Ka wh metaniv.|] ‘and not being moved away ;’ nearly identical with auerakivn- rot, 1 Cor. xv. 58, and representing their fixity on its negative side: the change to the present pass.,—as marking by the tense the process that might be going on, and by the mood (pass., not act., as De Wette), that of which they were now liable to be the victims, —is especially suitable and exact; see the suggestive example cited by Alford, viz. Xenoph. Rep. Lac. xv. 1, moartelas petarexwnpe- On the by with perax., which, in a hypothetical sentence like the present, is usual and proper, see, if necessary, Winer, Gram. § 55. 1, p. 522. THS €AT. Tod evayy.-| ‘ the hope of the Gospel,’ 7. e. arising from, evoked by, the Gospel, Tov evayy. being the genitive of the ori- gin or rather the originating agent ; see Hartung, Casus, p. 17, and comp. notes on 1 Thess. i. 6. To regard it as a pos- sess. gen. (Alf.) gives an unnecessary vagueness to the expression. Such gen- itives as those of the oriyin (Hartung, p- 17), originating agent, and perhaps a shade stronger, the causa efficiens (Scheu- erl. Synt. § 17), all belong to the gen- eral category of the gen. of ‘ablation’ (Donalds. Gr. § 448, 449) : the context alone must guide us in our choice. *EA- ms can hardly be here, except in a very derivative sense, equivalent to 6 Xpiords, Chrys. ; it seems only to have its usual subjective meaning ; compare notes on Eph. i. 18. ot nKrotoartel ‘which ye heard, scil. when it was first preached to you; not ‘have heard,’ Auth., —here certainly an unnecessary introduction of the auxiliary. This and the two following clauses serve to give weight to the foregoing wh metakivotpe- they had heard the Gospel, the world had heard it (wdAw avrods pepe pdptupas, eita Thy oixoumevnv, Chrys.), and he the writer of this Epistle, — who though probably not their founder (see on verse 7), yet stood in close relation to them through Epaphras, — was the vas Kab &rt voy meTakivoupevas. vol: ¢ Cuap. I. 23, 24. COLOSSIANS. 147 n ff Uj rovnk \ \ > TOD KNpUXSEVTOS EV TATH. KTIGEL TH UITO TOV OvpaVoY, Ov eyevounv Be N a ’ éy@ IlaiXos SudKovos. I rejoice in my sufferings for you and the Church; I 4 Nov yatpw év trois TaSjpwacw brép tpuar, am preaching the mystery of salvation, and striving to present every man perfect before Christ. preacher of it; at todro cis 7d Géidmo- tov ovytede?, Chrys. The apostle gives weight to his assertions by the special mention of his name, 2 Cor x. 1, Gal. vy. 2, Eph. iii. 1, 1 Thess. ii. 18, Philem. 19. évy waon KkTloet| “in the hearing of every creature ;’ surely not ‘in the whole of creation,’ Alf., —a translation which, even if we concede that maca xtlois may be equivalent to ‘every form of creation,’ ¢. e. ‘all crea- tures’ (Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 187), would be needlessly inexact. The art. is inserted in D°EKL (Rec.), but clearly has not sufficient critical support. This noble hyperbole only states in a slightly different form what the Lord had com- manded, Mark xvi. 15: the inspired apostle, as Olsh. well says, sees the uni- versal tendency of Christianity already realized. The limitation, 77 51d rdy odp. characterizes the xriois as émtyeios, in- cluding however, thereby, all mankind. For the meaning of év, apud, coram, — perhaps here with singular reverting somewhat to the primary idea of sphere of operation, see Winer, Gr. § 48. a. d, y 34. didkovos| ‘a min- ister; see notes on Ephes. iii. 7. The three practical deductions which Dave- nant draws from this clause are worthy of perusal. 24. viv xalpo| Transition suggest- ed by the preceding clauses, especially by the last, to the apostle’s own services in the cause of the Gospel. The viv is not merely transitional (compare Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 677), but, as its posi- tion shows, purely temporal and em- phatic (2 Corinth. vii. 9), ‘now, with the chain round my wrist’ (Eadie), forming a contrast with the past time involved in the foregoing knpuxSévros and éyerdsunv. =) The reading $s viv x. 7. A. (DIEIFG ; Vulg., Clarom., al.) seems either due to the preceding letters, or was intended to keep up the supposed connection between ver. 25 and ver. 23. ev mrasxhwactv| Not exclusively ‘de iis qu patior,’ Beza, but simply ‘in pas- sionibus,’ Vulg. ; the waSjuara were not only the subject whereupon he rejoiced, but the sphere, the circumstances in which he did so; xalpw méoxwv, Chrys. The brief and semi-adverbial év robrw (Phil. i. 18) is perhaps slightly different. The omission of the article before émtp juey arises from mdéoxew brép being a legitimate construction ; see notes on Eph. i. 15. bwép buadr| ‘for you,’ not ‘in your place,’ Steig., nor, with a causal reference, ‘on your account,’ Eadie, ‘ vestra causa,’ Just. (compare Est. and Corn. a Lap.), but ‘vestro fructu et commodo,’ Beza, ‘zum Vortheil,’ Winer, Gr. § 47.1, p. 342, as the more usual meaning of the prep. in the N. T. and its use below both suggest. On the uses of the preposition compare notes on Gal. i. 4, iii. 18, Phil. i. 7. avravamwnr. K.7.A.] ‘am filling fully up the lacking measures of the sufferings of Christ.’ The meaning of these words has formed the subject both of exegetical discussion and polemical application ; compare Cajet. de Induly. Qu. 3, Bellar- mine, de Indulg. Cap. 8. Without en- tering into the latter, we will endeavor briefly to state the grammatical and con- textual meaning. of the words. (1) SAtWers Xptorod is clearly not ‘afflictiones propter Christum subeun- dx,’ Elsner (Vol. 11. p. 260), Schoettg., al., nor ‘calamitates quas Christus per- ferendas imposuit,’ Fritz. (Rom. Vol. Ill. p. 275), —a somewhat artificial gen. 148 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I, 24, 25, Ap ca) \ a a nr Kat avTavaTANp@ Ta voTEepnwata TOV SrApewv Tod Xpiotov ev TH capki jou UTEP TOV Taparos avTov, 6 éoTw 1 eKKAnolar » ag auctoris, —but simply and plainly ‘ the afflictions of Christ,’ 7. e. which apper- tain to Christ, not, however, with corpo- real reference, doa bréuewe, Theod., but which are His (Xp. being a pure posses- sive genit.; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 170, note), of which He is the mys- tical subject ; see below. But (2) how are the torephuara of these af- flictions filled up by the apostle? Not (a) by the endurance of afilictions similar (&cattws, Theod.) to those endured (dzo- otatix@s) by his Master (comp. Heb. xiii. 13, 1 Pet. iv. 13), and by drinking out of the same cup (Matth. xx. 23), as Huth., Mey., — for, independently of all other considerations, the distinctive feature of the Lord’s SAhpes, vicarious suffering (Olshaus.), was lacking in those of. His apostle (ob yap cov TodTo ovdE Suoloy, moAAoD ye Kat det, CEcum.), —but, (bd), in the deeper sense given to it by Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., and recently adopted by De Wette, Eadie, Alf., al., — by the endurance of afflictions which Christ en- dures in His suffering Church (cxere- kos), and of which the wAjpwpa has not yet come ; see Olsh. in loc., who has well defended this vital and consolatory in- terpretation, and compare August. in Psalm. \xi. 4, Vol. 1v. p. 781 (edit. Migne). (3) The meaning of avtTavamAnpodyr has yet to be con- sidered ; this is not ‘ vicissim explere’ (Beza, compare Tittmann, Synon. 11. p. 230), nor ‘cum Christo calamitates im- ponente in malis perferendis zmulans’ (Fritz.),—a somewhat artificial inter- pretation, nor even ‘ alterius daréepnua de suo explere’ (Winer, de Verb. Comp. 111. 22), but, as Mey. suggests, ‘to meet, and fill up the torépnua with a corres- ponding mhpwua;’ the dy7t contrasting not the actors or their acts (contrast Xen- oph. Hell. 11. 4. 12, avravérAnoay com- pared with a previous éurAjjoat), but the defect and the supply with which it is met: see the examples cited by Winer; especially Dio Cass. xuiv. 8, dcov évédes TOUTO ek THS Tapa TaY %AAwy ouyTEeAclas avravanAnpwoh. The simpler avamAnpdw [found in FG; mss. : Orig. in allusion] would have expressed nearly the same ; the double compound, however, specifies more accurately the intention of the ac- tion, and the circumstances (the torepf- ata) which it was intended to meet. For a practical sermon on this text, see Donne, Serm. xovir. Vol. rv. p. 261 sq. (ed. Alf.), and compare Destiny of Crea- ture, p. 89 sq. év TH capri pov clearly belongs to dayta- vamA., defining more closely the seat, and thence, inferentially, the mode, of the avtavaTAnpwots (compare 2 Cor. iy. 11, Gal. iv. 14); the word capt, which thus involves the predication of manner, standing, as Meyer acutely observes, in exquisite contrast’with the c@ua, which defines the object of the action. Steiger, Huther, al., connect this clause with SAlpewy. Tod Xp.: this may be grammat- ically possible (Winer, Gr.§ 20. 2, p. 123), but is exegetically untenable, as it would but reiterate what is necessarily involved in the use of the first person of the verb. 6 é€otiv éxKA.] As éxka. might be thought the word of importance, the construction #tis eoTw éxxaA., 1 Tim. iii. 15, might have seemed more natural; compare Winer, Gr. § 24. 8, p. 150. The present construction is, however, perfectly correct, as the article and defining gen. associated with o@pa, as well as the antithetical contrast in which it stands with cdpé, point to c@ua as the subst. on which the chief moment of thought really dwells. 25. Fs eyevdunv x. 7.A.] ‘of which I (Paul) became a minister :’ state- Cuap. I. 25. COLOSSIANS. eyevouny éy@ SudKovos KdTa THY oiKovouiay Tod Ocod THY SoSeicav ment of the relation in which he stands to the éxxAnola just mentioned, the js having a faintly causal, or rather explan- atory force (see notes on ver. 18, and Ellendt. Lex. Soph. s. vy. Vol. 11. p. 371), and indirectly giving the reason and moving principle of the avravarAnpwos ; ‘Ifill up the lacking measures of the sufferings of Christ in behalf of His body the Church, being an appointed minister thereof, and having a spiritual function in it committed to me by God.’ The éy® continues, in a slightly changed relation, the éyw& MavaAos of ver. 23: there the diaxovia referred to the evayy., here to the Church by which the ciayy. is preached; ‘idem plane est ministrum Ecclesiz esse et. Evangelii,’ Just. KaTa& THY oiKoY. Oeod| ‘in accordance with the dispensation, i.e. the spiritual stewardship, of God ;’ tis éxxanolas éve- TMoTEvIny Thy TwTnplay, Kal THY TOD Ky- puyuaros évexepiodny Siaxoviay, Theod. The somewhat difficult word oikovoy. seems here, in accordance with ryy do- Setoay «x. 7. A. which follows, to refer, not to the ‘disposition of God, Syriac o> oO 4 {2Zaljo,\ [gubernationem], Gothic ‘ragina,’ Eth. ‘ordinationem,’ but, as Just., Mey., al., to the ‘spiritual func- tion,’ the ‘ office of an oixovouos’ (see 1 Cor. ix. 17, compared with 1 Cor. iv. 1), originating from, or assigned by, God; the more remote gen. @covd denoting either the origin of the commission (Har- tung, Casus, p. 17), or, with more of a possessive force, Him to whom it be- longed and in whose service it was borne: see Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 9, Vol. 11. p. 93, and notes on Eph. i. 10, where the meanings of oixovou. in the N. T. are briefly noticed and classified. rnv Sodsetoay x.7.A.| ‘which was given me for you;’ further definition of the oixoy.. ro} @eod, the meaning of which, owing to the different meanings of oixov., might otherwise have been misunderstood : ‘ this ofcovouia was spe- cially assigned to me and you, — you, Gentiles, were to be its objects.’ The connection of eis Suds with mAnp. (Scho- lef. Hints, p. 110) does not seem plausi- ble : the juxtaposition of the pronouns (mo eis duas) suggests their logical con- nection. TAHpP@®otat thy Ady. 70d @.] ‘to fulfil the word of , God;’ i.e. ‘to perform my office in preaching unrestrictedly, to give all its fuil scope to the word of God:’ infin, of design (see notes on ver. 22) dependent either on fs éyevéuny (Huth.), or per- haps more naturally on chy d0Setcav k. T. A., thus giving an amplification to the preceding eis juas. The glosses on TAnpGoa are exceedingly numerous ; the most probable seem, (a) ‘ad plene expo- nendam totam salutis doctrinam,’ Da- ven. 1, compare Olsh., and Tholuck, Bergpr. p. 136 ; (b) ‘to spread abroad,’ Huth.,—who compares Acts vy. 28; (c) ‘to give its fullest amplitude to, to fill up the measures of its fore-ordained uni- versality,’ not perhaps without some al- lusion to the oixovoula which would thus be fully discharged ; compare Rom. xv. 19, wéxpe TOU IAAupiKod meTANpwKevan Td evayyéAtoy ToD Xp. Of these (b) has an advantage over (a) in implying a wA#- pwois viewed extensively, in haying, in fact, a quantitative rather than a quali- tative reference, but fails in exhausting the meaning and completely satisfying the context; (c) by carrying out the idea further, and pointing to the Adyos as something which was to have a universal application, and not be confined to a single nation (hence the introduction of eis buds), seems most in accordance with the spirit of the passage and with the words that follow; compare the some- what analogous expression, 6 Adyos Tov 150 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 26, 27. > re: lal lal fal la Hot eis Las TANPATaL Tov OYov TOD Ocod, * Td pvaTipLOV TO > / > \ an a. AY \ an an \ Ap AT OKEK PULL LEVOV ATO TOV ALWYWV KAL ATTO TWV YEVEMV, VUVL Ys epa- / lal ‘ r i \ veposn Tois aylos avtod, ™ ois néAncev 6 Ocos yvwpicat Ti @cod niéave, Acts vi. 7, xii. 24. It need hardly be added that the Adyos rod cod does not imply the ‘ promissiones Dei, partim de Christo in genere, partim de yocatione Gentium,’ Beza, but simply and plainly ro evayyéAiov, as in i Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Corinth. ii. 17, 1 Thessal. ii. 138, al. 26. 7d pvothptovy td amok] ‘the mystery which hath been hidden ;’ ap- position to the preceding rbv Adyoy rod @cod. The pvorhpiov was the divine purpose of salvation in Christ, and, more especially, as the context seems to show, ‘de saivandis Gentibus per gratiam eyan- gelicam,’ Daven.; see Ephes. ili. 4 sq., and compare Eph.i. 9. On the mean- ings of uwvothpioy in the N. T., see notes on Eph. v. 32, and Reuss, Theol. Chreét. Iv. 9, Vol. 11. p. 88, where the applica- tions of the term in the N. T. are briefly elucidated. ans TOY aidvov K.T.A.] ‘srom the ages and Jrom the generations (that have passed) ;’ from the long temporal periods (aidves) and the successive generations that made them up (yeveat; see on Eph. iii. 21), which have elapsed (observe the article) since the ‘ arcanum decretum’ was con- cealed. The expression is not identical with mpd t&v aidywy, 1 Cor. ii. 7; the counsel was formed 7 pb Tay aidvwy, but concealed 47 tév aidywy; comp. Rom. xvi. 25, and see notes on Eph. iii. 9, where the same expression occurs. vuvi d& épaveposn| ‘but now has been made manifest ;’ transition from the participial to the finite construct., sug- gested by the importance of the predica- tion; see notes on Eph. i. 20, and Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. b, p. 505 sq., where other examples are noticed and discussed. The gavéepwors, the actual and historical manifestation (De W.), took place, as Meyer observes, in different ways, partly by revelation (Ephes. iii. 5), partly by preaching (ch. iv. 4, Tit. i.3) and expo- sition (Rom. xvi. 26), and partly by all combined. On the connection of yur} [Lachm. viv, with BCFG; mss. ; Did.] with the aor., see notes on ver. 21, and for a good distinction between viy (ém TOY Tpilwy xpdvwy) and vuyt (em pdvov éveot@tos), see Ammonius, Voc. Dif. p- 99, ed. Valck. Tots aytots aitot| To limit these words to the apostles, from a comparison with Eph. iii. 5 (Steiger, Olsh.: FG; Boern. actu- ally insert amogrdAois), or to the elect, ‘quos Deus in Christo consecrandos de- crevit’ (Daven. 1), is highly unsatisfac- tory, and quite contrary to St. Paul’s regular and unrestricted use of the word ; so Theod., who, however, shows that he remembered Eph. iii. 5, ro?s amoordaAats, Kal Tots Sia TovTwy memorevkdct. On the meaning of dyos, see notes on yer. 2, and on Eph. i. 1. 27. ofs HXEAHGEYV 6 O.] ‘towhom God did will ;’ i. e. ‘seeing that to them it was God’s will,’ etc., the relative hav- ing probably here, as in ver. 25, an indi- rectly causal, or explanatory force (‘ra- tionem adjungit,’ Daven.), and reiterat- ing the subject to introduce more readily the specific purpose yvwpioa Kk. T. A. ‘which was contemplated by God in the pavépwois. The most recent commenta- tors, Meyer, Eadie, Alf., rightly reject any reference of #%éAncev to the free grace of God (Eph. i. 9, kara Thy evdo- Klay avrov), no such idea being Aere in- volved in the context: what 7%éAncev here implies is, not on the one hand, that God ‘ was pleased’ (‘ propensionem vo- luntatis indicat,’ Est.), nor on the other, that He ‘was willing,’ Hammond, but simply and plainly ‘it was God’s will’ Cuap. I. 27. COLOSSIANS. 151 S. ral a , fal fe 7 b] A 5) 4 TO TAOVTOS THS So&NS TOD PuoTnpiov TovtTou ev Tois ESvecw, Os to do so. On the distinction between SéAw and BovrAoum, see notes on 1 Tim. v. 14. yvowploat| ‘to make known ;’ practically little different from gpavep@ou. ‘The latter perhaps is slight- ly more restricted, as involving the idea of a previous concealment (see above and compare 2 Tim. i. 10), the former more general and unlimited: see Meyer in loc. ti td wAOUTOS «. T.A.| ‘ what is the riches of the glory of this mystery :’ not, exactly, ‘ how great,’ Mey., but with the simple force of tis, — “what, referring alike to nature and de- gree; compare Eph. i. 18, and see notes in loc. The gen. ris ddéns is no mere genitive of quality which may be re- solved into an adjective, and appended either to mAodrTos (‘ herrliche Reichthum,’ Luth.) or to puornpioy (‘ gloriosi hujus mysterii,’ Beza), but, as always in these kinds of accumulated genitives in St. Paul, specially denotes that peculiar at- tribute of the wvorhpioy (gen. subjecti) which more particularly evinces the mAodros ; see notes and reff. on Eph. i. 6, and compare Eph.i.18. The ddéa itself is not to be limited to the transforming nature of the mystery of the Gospel, in its effects on men (1a Wray fnudroy Kad mictews udvns, Chrys.), nor yet, on the objective side, to the dda tod cod, the grace, glory, and attributes of God which are revealed by it, —but, as the weight of the enunciation requires, to both (see especially De W.), perhaps more par- ticularly to the latter. To make its ref- erence identical with that of the ddéa below (Mey., Alf.), where the preceding words introduce a new shade of thought, does not seem so exegetically satisfacto- ry. The former dééa gains from its col- location a more general and abstract force ; the latter, from its association ‘with éAmfs, has a more specific reference. év tots @Svearv] ‘among the Gen- tiles ;? semilocal clause appended to ri (€or) 7d mAodTOS Kk. T. A., defining the sphere in which the mAodros rijs déé. Tov wvot. is more especially evinced ; gaiverau 8& év Erépois, TOAAG Se TA€ov ev ToUTOLS 7 MOAAH TOD pvornplov dédéa, Chrys. ; see especially Eph. i. 18, where the construction is exactly similar. és €ottv Xp.| The reading is here somewhat doubtful; os is found in CD EKL; nearly all mss. ; Chrys., Theod. (Tisch., Rec.), and, as being the more difficult reading, is to be preferred to 4, adopted by Lachm. with ABFG; 17. 67**, and perhaps Vulg., al. But to what does it refer? Three interpreta- tions have been suggested : (a) the com- plex idea of the entire clause, — Christ in his relation to the Gentile world, De Wette, Eadie; (b) the more remote 7d mAovTos k. 7. A., Gicum., Daven., Mey. ; (c) the more immediately preceding pvo- tnpiov Tovrov, Chrys., Alf., al. Of these (a) is defensible (comp. Phil. i. 28), but too vague; (b) is plausible (compare Eph. iii. 8), but rests mainly on the as- sumption that wAovros is the leading word (Mey., Winer), whereas it seems clear from ver. 26, that puornp. is the really important word in the sentence. We retain then the usual reference to puotnptov ; Christ who was preached, and was working by grace among them, was in Himself the true and real mystery of redemption; compare notes on ph. iii. 5. In any case the masc. ds results from a simple attraction to the predicate ; see Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. év tpmtv] ‘among you;’ not exclusive- ly ‘in vobis inhabitans per fidem,’ Zanch. (compare Eph. iii. 17), but in parallel- ism to the preceding év rots ev, As, however, this parallelism is not perfectly exact (Alf.),—for év duty is in close as- sociation with the preceding substantive, whereas éy Tots éSveowv is not, — we may 152 a \ rn / eotw Xpioros ev byiv, 1) edmis tis Oo&ys nr \ Nopev, vouSeTodvTes TavTa aVSpwrov Kat COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 28. 8 Ov jyucts KaTaryryén- OLvodoKovTes TaVTA d= Spwrov év macn copia, wa Tapacticopey Tavta avSpwmov admit that ‘in you’ is also virtually and by consequence involved in the present use of the preposition ; compare Olsh., Eadie. The connection adopted by Syr. 4 pou rey [qui in vobis est spes] involves an unnecessary and untenable trajection. h €Amls Tis ddéns]| ‘the hope of glory ;’ apposition to the preceding Xpiorbs ev duty; not either the ‘spei causa’ (Grot.), or the object of it (Vorst), but its very element and substance ; see 1 Tim.i.1, and notes in loc. The second gloss of Theoph, 7 éAms quay edotos, is unusually incor- rect; ddfa is a pure substantive, and re- fers to the future glory and blessedness in heaven, Rom. v. 2, 1 Corin. ii. 7 (ap- parently), 2 Cor. iv. 17, al. For a list of the various words with which éAmts is thus joined, see Reuss, Z’heél. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p. 221. 28. bv Ruets Katayy.| ‘whomwe preach ;? whom I and Timothy, with other like-minded teachers (comp. Stei- ger), do solemnly preach; the jets be- ing emphatic, and instituting a contrast between the accredited and the non-ac- credited preachers of the Gospel. On the intensive, surely not local (dvwSev aitoyv pépovres, Chrys.) force of karwyy., see notes on Phil. i. 17. voudetovyres| ‘admonishing,’ ‘ warn- ing, ‘corripientes,’ Vulg., ith. ; parti- cipial clause defining more nearly the manner or accompaniments of the raray- yeAta. The verb vouserety has its proper force and meaning of ‘ admonishing with blame’ (vouSerixo) Adyor, Xenoph. Mem. I. 2. 21, compare notes on Eph. vi. 4), and, as Meyer (compare De W.) rightly observes, points to the peravoeire of the evangelical message, while d:ddox. lays the foundation for the micredere; sO, in- ferentially, Theophyl., vouSecta wey ém Tis mpdkews, SidacKaAla de em) Soyudrov. On the meaning of vovSereiv, which im- plies, primarily, correction by word, an appeal to the vods (compare 1 Sam. iii. 12), and derivatively, correction by act, Judges viii. 16 (compare Plato, Leg. 1x. p- 879), see Trench, Synon. § 32. wdvta &vap.| Thrice repeated and emphatic ; apparently not without allu- sion to the exclusiveness and Judaistic bias of the false teachers at Colosse. The message was universal; it was ad- dressed to every one, whether in every case it might be received or no: tf Aé yeis; wdavta avSpwrov; vat, pynol, TodTo omovdd(ouey. ef O€ wy yevnTas ovdey mpds nas, Theoph. év Tao copta| ‘in all, i.e. in every form of, wisdom ;’ see notes on Eph. i. 8: mode in which the diddécKew was carried out, peta mdons copias, Chrys. (compare ch. iii. 16), or perhaps, more precisely, the characteristic element in which the 8:5a- x was always to be, and to which it was to be circumscribed. The meaning is thus really the same, but the manner in which it is expressed slightly differ- ent. The lines of demarcation between sphere of action (Eph. iv. 17), accordance with (Xphes. iv. 16), and characterizing feature (Eph. vi. 2), all more or less in- volving some notion of modality, are not always distinctly recognizable. The in- fluence of the Aramaic & in the various usages of éy in the N. T. is by no means inconsiderable. tva wapa- otnaowpmer] ‘in order that we may pre- sent,’ exactly as in ver. 22, with implied reference, not to a sacrifice, but to the final appearance of every man before God: ‘en metam et scopum Pauli, atque Cuap. I. 29. COLOSSIANS. 153 b > x A. 99 > a \ ca) > / x \ TEhELoy Ev APLOTO els 0 Kat KOTTLd aywuviGopmevos KATA TIV évépyevay avTov THY evepyoumevny ev ewol ev Suvapet. adeo omnium yerbi ministrorum, Dave- nant, — whose remarks on the propriety of the intention, —as coming from one who sat at the Council of Dort, —are not undeserving of perusal. The con- cluding words éy Xp., as usual, define the sphere in which the teAesétns, ‘l’en- semble de toutes les qualités naturelles au Chrétien’ (Reuss, Theol. Chrét. Vol. II. p. 182), is to consist; compare notes on ch, iv. 12, and on Eph. iv. 13. The polemical antithesis which Chrys. here finds, ovK ev vou ovdé év ayyéAols, owing to the continual recurrence of év Xp., is perhaps more tnan doubtful. The addi- tion of *Incod is rightly rejected by Tisch. with ABCD'FG; mss.; Claromanus ; Clem., and Lat. Ff. 29. eis 8] ‘to which end;’ the prep. with its usual and proper force denoting the object contemplated in the xomév ; compare notes on Gal. ii. 8. kat koma] ‘I also toil;’ ‘ beside preaching with vovSecta and d:dax4, I also sustain every form of kémos (2 Cor. vi. 5) in the cause of the Gospel,’ the xa} contrasting (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) the som with the previous karayy. «x. tT. A. The relapse into the first per- son has an individualizing force, and carries on the reader from the general and common labors of preaching the Gospel (dv juets Karayy.), to the strug- gles of the individual preacher. On the meaning and derivation of komié, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. aywviCdmevos] ‘striving ;’ compare chap. iv. 12, 1 Tim. iv. 10 (Lachm., —a doubtful reading, vi. 12), 2 Tim. iv. 7, and in a more special sense, 1 Cor. ix. 25. It is doubtful whether this is to be referred to an outward, or an inward ayév. ‘The former is adopted by Chrys., Theoph., Davanant, al.; the latter by ? Steig., Olsh., and most modern com- mentators. The use of kom (see on Tim. l. c.) perhaps may seem to point to the older interpretation ; the immediate context (ch. ii. 1), however, and the use of aywviCouc in this Ep. (see ch. iy. 12, aywricduevos bmep tua ev Tais mpocev- xats) seem here rather more in favor of modern exegesis, unless indeed with Cicum. and De Wette we may not im- probably admit both. Kata Thy évepy.| ‘according to His working which worketh in me ;’ measure of the apostle’s spiritual «dos (compare notes on Eph. i. 19), viz. not his own évepyera but, as the context seems to suggest, that of Christ; roy avrod Kdmov kal ayava TH Xplore avartiSels, Gicum., who alone of the Greek commentators (Theod. silet) expressly refers the adrod to Christ, the others apparently referring it to 6 @eds. On the construction of the verb évepy., see notes on Gal. ii. 8, v. 6, and on its meaning, notes on Phil. ii. 18. The passive interpretation ‘ que agitur, exercetur, perficitur’ (Bull, Hxam. Cens. 11. 3), though lexically defensible, seems certainly at variance with St. Paul’s reg- ular use of the verb; see on Phil. 1. c. év Suvdmet| ‘in power, i. e. power- fully ; modal adjunct to evepyoupévny. Though it seems arbitrary to restrict dvvayis to miraculous gifts (Michael.), it still seems equally so (with Meyer and Alf.) summarily to exclude it; compare Gal. iii. 5. The principal reference, as the singular suggests (contrast Rom. i. 4 and Acts ii. 22), seems certainly to in- ward operations ; a secondary reference to outward manifestations of power seems, however, fairly admissible ; ‘quum res postulat, etiam miraculis,’ Calvin, compare Olsh. zn loc. 154 I am earnestly striving for you, that you may come to COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 1. II. O2\o yap tpas eldévat jAlkov ayava the full knowledge of' Christ. Let no one deceive you, but as you received Christ, walk in Him, Cuarrer II. 1. ydp| Description of the nature and objects of the struggle previously alluded to, introduced by the nm yap argumentative (not transitional, <=? Syr. [probably not a different reading, see Schaaf, Lex. s. v.], and partially even Alf.), which confirms and illustrates, — not merely the foregoing word dyw(d- pevos (Beng.), but the whole current of the verse: ‘meminerat in calce superio- ris capitis suorum lJaborum et certami- num, corum nune causam et materiam explicat,’ Just. &yava| ‘how great a struggle;’ not ‘solicitudinem,’ Vulg., but ‘ certamen,’ NAtKOV o> Clarom., Bot, Syr., ‘quantum col- luctor,’ th. The struggle, as the cir- cumstances of the apostle’s captivity suggest, was primarily inward, —‘ in- tense and painful anxiety,’ Eadie (com- pare ch. iv. 12), yet not perhaps wholly without reference to the outward suffer- ings which he was enduring for them (ch. i. 24), and for all his converts. The qualitative adj. 7Atkos (Hesychius motamds, wéyas, dmotos; compare Don- aldson, Cratyl. § 254), occurs only here and James iii. 5. meph iua@v] ‘for you.’ The reading is some- what doubtful. Zachm. reads srép with ABCD?; 6 mss.; but as this might ea- sily have come from ch. iy. 12 (compare ch. i. 24), it seems best with Tisch. to retain epi, which is found in D'!D3EFG KL, and the great majority of mss. : these prepositions are often interchanged. On the distinction between them, see on Gal. i. 4, and on Phil. i. 7. kat t@v év Aaod.| The Christians in the neighboring city of Laodicea are men- tioned with them, as possibly subjected to the same evil influences of heretical teaching. The rich (Rev. iii. 17), com- mercial (compare Cicero, Lpist. Fam. 111. 5), city of Laodicea, formerly called Diospolis, afterwards Rhoas, and subse- quently Laodicea, in honor of Laodice, wife of Antiochus II., was situated on the river Lycus, about eighteen English miles to the west of Coloss, and about six miles south of Hierapolis, which lat- ter city is not improbably hinted at in, kal doo. kK. T. A. ; see Wieseler, Chronol. p- 441 note. Close upon the probable date of this Epistle (4. p. 61 or 62), the city suffered severely from an earth- quake, but was restored without any as- sistance from Rome; Tacit. Ann. xtv. 27, compare Strabo, Geogr. x11. 8. 16 (ed. Kramer) : a place bearing the name of Eski-hissar is supposed to mark the site of this once important city. For further notices of Laodicea see Winer, RWB. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 5, Pauly, Real- Encycl. Vol. tv. 1, p. 764, and Arundell, Seven Churches, p. 84 sq., ib. Asia Minor, Vol. 11. p. 180 sq. kal dooe k. 7. A.] ‘and (in a word) as many as, etc.;’ the nat probably annexing the general to the special (compare Matth. xxvi. 59, notes on Eph. i. 21, Phil. iv. 12, and Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388), and including, with perhaps a thought of Hi- erapolis (see above), all in those parts who had not seen the apostle. The or- dinary principles of grammatical perspi- cuity seem distinctly to imply that the iuets and the of év Aaod. belong to the general class kal doo: x. 7. A., and con- sequently that the Colossians were not personally acquainted with the apostle. Recent attempts have been made either to refer the 600: to a third and different set of persons to the Colossians and La- odiceans (Schulz. Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 538 ; so Theodoret and a schol. in Mat- thei, p. 168), or to a portion only of those two Churches (Wiggers, Stud. u. OnAp, Il, 2: COLOSSIANS. 155 ” \ c fal \ lal b] fe \ v4 3 Cue A EX@ TEpl UL@V KAL TMV EV Aaodixeia, Kat OGOot oux EWPAaKav TO , r 2 Ley ies fal € X 2A T pOoWTrov OU €V oapKl, tva TapakrkynS @ow at Kapoiat QAUT@V oupBiBaoNevtes ev ayaTyn Kab eis Tay TO TAOVTOS THS TAnpodo- Krit. 1838, p. 176), but as all the words are, in fact, under the vinculum of a common preposition, and as avréay, if dissociated from tua@v Kal Trav év Aaod. (comp. Schulz), would leave the men- tion of these two former classes most aimless and unnatural, we seem justified in concluding with nearly all modern editors that the Colossians and.those of Laodicea had not seen the apostle in the flesh; see the good note of Wieseler, Chronol. p. 440 sq., and Neander, Plant- ing, Vol. I. p. 171 (Bohn). The form éépaxay adopted by Lachm., Tisch. [with ABC (éop.) D1], is decidedly Alex- andrian (see Winer, Gr. § 13. 2, p. 71), and probably the true reading. The ‘sonstige Gebrauch Pauli’ urged against it by Meyer is imaginary, as the third person plur. does not elsewhere occur in St. Paul’s Epistles. év capk) seems naturally connected with the preceding mpdowmdy pov ( Vulg., Cop- tic, ZEth.), not with édpaxay (Syr., but not Philox., where the order is changed), forming with it one single idea. There is almost obviously here no implied an- tithesis to mveduats (Seixvvow evtaidsa br. Edpwv ocuvex@s ev mv., Chrys., The- oph., compare ver. 5): the bodily coun- tenance is not in opposition with ‘the spiritual physiognomy,’ Olsh., but seems a concrete touch added to enhance the nature of his struggle; it was not for those whom he personally knew and who personally knew him, but for those for whom his interest was purely spiritual and ministerial. 2. tva wmapaka.| ‘in order that their hearts may be comforted ;’ not ‘may be strengthened,’ ‘inveniant robur,’ Copt. literally, but ? if the derivative meaning ‘consol. accipere’ is not the most com- mon, é. g. Psalm exix. 52], De W., Alf., al., — but ‘consolentur’ (consolationem > Sek AN accipiant), Vulg., omodd [consol. accipiant], Syr., ‘gaudeant,’? Aith., — the fuller meaning which, in passages of this nature, mapax. always appears to bear in St. Paul’s Epistles, and from which there does not here seem sufficient reason to depart (contr. Bisp., Alford) : surely those exposed to the sad trial of erroneous teachings needed consolation ; compare Davenant zm loc. For exam- ple of wapaxaA. compare ch. iv. 8, Eph. vi. 22, and even 2 Thess. ii. 17, where the associated ornpitat is not a repetition, but an amplification, of the preceding mapakahéoat. The final va is obviously dependent on a@yava éxw (comp. Chrys. ay. €xw: iva tt yévnrat), and introduces the aim of the struggle, — the consolation and spiritual union of those believers previously mentioned who had not seen the apostle in the flesh. gumBiBacdsévtes ev ay‘ they be- ing knit together in love:’ relapse to the logical subject by the common particip- ial anacoluthon (Eph. iv. 2; see notes on Eph. i. 18, and on Phil. i. 30), the participle having its modal force, and defining the manner whereby, and cir- cumstances under which, the mapdékAnots was to take place; see Madvig, Synt. § 176. b. The verb cuuzfiB. has not here its derivative sense, ‘instructi,’ Vulg., Copt., but its primary meaning of aggre- gation, ‘ knit together,’ Auth. (comp. Syr. > Vin OS oop [accedant], Aith., ‘ confir- metur’), as in ch. ii. 19, and Eph. iv. 16, where see notes. The reading -évTwv (Rec., with D®E?KL ; al.) seems certain- ly only a grammatical emendation. Ev aydrn, with the usual meaning of the preposition, denotes not the instru- 156 COLOSSIANS. Cuapr. II. 2. f > n a) a fa) plas Ths cvvéceas, els érriyvwow Tod pvotnpiov Tod Ocod Xprorod, ment (‘per caritatem,’ Est.), but the sphere and element in which they were to be knit together, and is associated by means of the copulative xa) (not ‘ etiam,’ Beng.) with eis wav «. 7. A. which defines the object of the union ; see next note. eis Tav Td TAODTOS| ‘unto all the richness; ’ prepositional member defining the object and purpose contemplated in the cvpBiBacis, and closely connected with the preceding definition of the ethical sphere of the action; deep insight into the mystery of God is the object of the union in love. The connection with ma- pakAn®, (Baumg.-Crus.) mars the union of the prepositional members, and gains nothing in exegesis. mAovrov, though fairly supported (Lec. with DEKL), seems clearly to have had a paradiplomatic origin (see Pref. to Gal. p- Xvi), the ra being a clerical error for TO, and wAodroy a corresponding eorrection. On this neuter form, see notes on Eph. i. 7. THs wAnpohpoplas. Tis auvvés.| “of the full assurance of the understand: ing ;’ not ‘ certo persuase intelligentiz,’ Davenant, a resolution of the gen. which is wholly unnecessary: compare notes on ch.i.27. The word rAnpod. (1 Thess. i. 5, Heb. vi. 11, x. 22) denotes on the qualitative side (mAodr., quantitative, De W.) the completeness of the persua- sion which was to be associated with the odveots, — which the ctveo.s was to have and to involve (gen. possess.), — and, as Olsh. observes, may denote that the ov- veois was not to be merely outward, de- pendent on the intellect, but inward, rest- ing on the testimony of the Spirit ; com- pare Clem.-Rom. 1. Cor. § 42. On the meaning of ovveois, see notes on ch. i. 9: that it is here Christian ctveots, clear- ‘ly results from the context (Mey.). eis érlyvwotv K.7.A.] ‘unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, even The reading ravra Christ ;’ prepositional member exactly parallel to the preceding «is wav Td mA. k.7T.A. The construction of the last three words is somewhat doubtful. Three connections present themselves ; (a) ‘ the mystery of the God of Christ,’ Huth., Mey., Xpicrod being the possessive gen. of re- lationship, etc. ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 7, p. 123 sq., and comp. Eph. i. 17, an@ notes in loc.; (B) ‘the mystery of God, even of Christ, Xp. being a gen. in sim- ple apposition to, and more exactly de- fining @eod; so in effect, Hil., ‘Deus Christus sacramentum est;’ (y) ‘the mystery of God, even Christ:’ Xp. being in apposition, not to cov, but to wuary- plov, and so forming a very close paral- lel toch. i. 27. Of these (a) seems hope- lessly hard and artificial; (8) though dogmatically true, seems here an unne- cessary specification, and exegetically considered, much inferior to (y), which stands in harmony with the preceding expression pvornplov bs éort Xpiotds (ch i. 27), and has the indirect support of D1, Clarom., Aug., Vig., and Aith., za- baenta Chrestos [quod de Christo]. It seems singular that these words have not given rise to more discussion (South has a doctrinal sermon on the text, Vol. II. p. 174 sq., but does not notice the readings), for (8), though in point of collocation somewhat doubtful, seems still, considered apart from the context, not indefensible, and at any rate is not to be disposed of by Meyer’s summary ‘entbehrt aller Paulinischen analogie’ We adopt (y), however, on what seem decided exegetical grounds. On the meaning and applications of pyerh- ptov, see notes on Ephes, v. 32, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 9, Vol. 11. p. 89; and for the exact force of émlyvwors (‘ accu- rata cognitio ’) bere apparently confirmed by the juxtaposition of the simple yraots, ver. 3, see notes on Eph. i. 17. Cuap. II. 3. COLOSSIANS. 157 ’ 3 b & \ af. e SS t a pt \ n , eV @ ELOLWW TTAVTES Ob Hoadvupol THS Gopias Kab TIS YYMCEWS 2. Tod @cod Xgicr0d] This passage deserves our attentive consideration. The reading of the text is that of B, Hil. (Lach., Tisch. ed. 1, Mey., Huth., Wordsw.), and has every appearance of being the original reading, and that from which the many perplexing variations have arisen. The other principal readings are (a) rod @cod, with cursive mss. 37. 67**. 71. 80*. 116 (Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. 2, 7), fol- lowed by Olsh., De W., Alf., and the majority of modern commentators: (b) rod @cod 6 évtiy Xpiords, with D1; Clarom. (/ith., quod de Christo): (c) rod @e0d ma- Tpds Tod Xpiorod with AC; al.; Vv.; and lastly, (d) rod Ocod nad matpds.Kal rod Xp. with D3EKL; many mss. and Vv.; Theod., Dam., al. (Rec.). Now of these (a) is undoubtedly too weakly supported ; (b) seems very like a gloss of the as- sumed true reading rod @cod Xp. ; (c) and (d) still more expanded or explanatory readings. As all four may be so simply derived from the text, (a) by omission, the rest by gloss and expansion, we adopt, with considerable confidence, the reading of Lachm., and we believe also, of Tregelles. 3. év &| ‘in whom,’ relative sentence explaining the predication involved in the preceding apposition (uvornp. = Xpiorod), the relative having its exp/ana- tory force; see notes on ch.i. 25. To follow the reading of the text, and yet to refer év @ to the uvorhpiov (Mey.), seems unusually perplexed, unless (with Mey.) we adopt the unsatisfactory con- struction (a), previously discussed. De Wette and Mey. urge the implied an- tithesis between wvor. and améxp., but to this it may be said, — first, that what is applicable to uvor. is equally so to that to which it is equivalent (comp. Bisp.) ; secondly, that the secondary predicate arékpupor (see below) logically eluci- dates the equivalence of Xpiotds with the pvorhpiov, but would seem otiose if only added to enhance the nature of the fvorhptoy or the éalyvwors thereof: com- pare Waterl. Christ’s Div. Serm. vit. Vol. 11. p. 156. k. 7. A.] ‘are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden ;’ not ‘the secret treasures, etc.,’ Meyer, Alf., which ob- scures the secondary predication of man- ner, and in fact confounds it with the usual ‘ attributive’ construction (Kriig., Sprachl. § 50. 8). The position of the substantive verb and the order of the > Ul elolvy wavTes words seem to show that dmréxpupa is not to be joined with cioly as a direct predication (Syr., Copt., De W., al.), but that it is subjoined to it ( Vulgate, kth.) as the predication of manner, and is in fact equivalent to an adverb, the most distinct type of the secondary pred- icate ; see especially Donaldson, Cratyl. § 304, and comp. Miiller, Kleine Schrift. Vol. 1. p. 810 (Donalds.), who has the credit of first introducing this necessary distinction between ‘ adjectiva attributa, preedicata, and apposita ;’ see also Don- aldson, Gr. § 486-447. It will be seen that the translation of Meyer and Alf., and especially the explanations based upon it, are unsatisfactory from not hay- ing observed these important distine- tions. Exegetically consid- ered, the expression seems to convey that all treasures of wisdom and knowl- edge are in Christ, and are fiddenly so, ‘quo verbo innuitur, quod pretiosum et magnificum est in Christo non -promi- nere, aut protinus in oculos incurrere hominum carnalium, sed ita latere ut conspiciatur tantummodo ab illis quibus Deus oculos dedit aquilinos, id est, spir- ituales ad. vivendum,’ Dayenant; écre map’ ato Set mayta aiteiv, Chrysostom. There is thus no need with Bahr and 158 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 4, 5. amokpugot. * Todto S& A€yo iva pydels buds Tapadoyitntar ev S DN Y Ley \ \ a Vara iAXKa A 7 miyavoroyia. % el yap Kal TH capKl aTrEeyl, GNA THO TvevpaTs others to modify the simple meaning of the adjective. coolas kal yvéoews| The exact distinction between these words is not perhaps very easy to substantiate. We can hardly say that ‘ copfa res credendas, yvaats res agendas complectitur’ (Davenant), but rather the contrary. It would seem, as in copia and Ppdynors (see notes on Eph. i. 9), that copia is the more general, ‘wisdom,’ in its completest sense, rowas ardytway pddnois, Suid., yvaous the more restricted and special, ‘knowledge,’ as contrasted with the results and applica- tions of it ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 139 (Bohn), Delitzsch, Bibl. Psy- chol. 1v. 7, p. 166, and, on the meaning of ‘wisdom,’ comp. Taylor (H.), Notes Srom Life, p. 95. 4. rodTo SE A€yw] ‘ Now this I say ;’ transition, by means of the 5€ pe- tTaBatixoy (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 165; omitted by Lachm. with A! (ap- parently), B; Ambrosiast.), to the warn- ings which, with some intermixture of exhortation and doctrinal statements, pervade the chapter. The rodro seems clearly to refer not merely to ver. 3, but to the whole introductory paragraph, ver. 1-3. maparoyt(nrat| “may deceive;’ only here and James i. 22, though not uncommon in the LXX, e. g. Josh. ix. 22, 1 Sam. xii. 28, 2 Sam. xxi. 5,al. The verb rapadoy. is of com- mon occurrence in later Greek, and properly denotes ‘to deceive,’ either by false reckoning (Demosth. Aphob. 1. p. 822), or false reasoning (Isocr. p. 420 c), and thence generally, dmraray, wev- cacsat (Hesych.) ; comp. Arrian, Epict. II. 20, éawatGow suas nad mapadroyicor- rot, and examples in Elsner, Obs. Vol. II. p. 261, Loesn. Obs. p. 335. év misavoaAoyla] ‘with enticing speech ;’? compare 1 Cor. ii. 4, év mewors codias Adyos, the prep. év having that species of instrumental force in which the object is conceived as existing in the means ; comp. Jelf, Gr. § 622.3. The subst. occurs in Plato, Theat. p- 162 B, and the verb in Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1. 1, but with a more special and technical reference to probability as opposed to demonstration or to mathematical cer- tainty. 5. ef yap kal «.7.A.] ‘forifLam absent verily in the flesh ;’ reason for the foregoing warning, founded on the fact of his spiritual presence with them; ef yap Kol TH capkl Gren, GAN Guws olda tous amate@vas, Chrys. The ral does not belong, strictly considered, to the ei (compare Raphel zn loc.), but to capKi, on which it throws a slight emphasis, con- trasting it with the following mveduati: see notes on Phil. ii. 17. The dative capr) is the dat. ‘ of reference,’ and, with the regular limiting power of that case, marks that to which the a@mrovota was re- stricted ; see notes on Gal. i. 22. &@AAd] ‘yet on the contrary,’ ‘ neverthe- less;’ the hypothetical protasis being followed by aad at the commencement of the apodosis ; see examples in Har- tung, Partik. dAad, 2. 8, Vol. 11 p. 40. In such cases, which are not uncommon, the add preserves its primary and proper force ; ‘ per istam particulam quasi tran- situs ad rem novam significatur que ei, quz membro orationis conditionali erat declarata, jam opponatur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 93. TO Tvev- att] ‘in the spirit;’ dative exactly similar to rH capkl. It need scarcely be said that this is St. Paul’s human spirit (Beck, Seelenl. 11. 11, p. 29 sq.), not any influence of the Holy Spirit, Pseud- Ambr. (compare Grot. ; Daven. unites both), which would here violate the ob- vious antithesis. The deduction of Wig- 3 Cuap. II. 5. COLOSSIANS. 159 \ © A bp er 2 s x , © a NS / w X , ovv wuiv cil, yalpwv Kat PrEéTrOV Uuov THY TaEW Kali TO oTEpEMpA gers (Stud. u. Arit. 1838, p. 181) from this passage and especially from the use of teu, that there had been a previous mapovoia with the Col. on the part of St. Paul, is rightly rejected by De Wette and Meyer: the verb itself simply im- plies absence without any reference to a previous presence ; the accessory thought is supplied by the context. Contrast the other instances in the N. T., 1 Cor. v.3, QCorexel, 1, xii2, 10) Phil, 1.27, in all of which mdpeyu is distinctly ex- pressed. you;’ ‘joined with you,’ in a true and close union; compare Gal. iii. 9, where see remarks on the difference between aby and pera: compare on Eph. vi. 23. avy omit] ‘with xalpwy nal BAéwwy k.7.A.] ‘re- Joicing (with you), and seeing your order ;’ modal and circumstantial clause defining the feelings with which he was present, and the accessory circumstances. There is some difficulty in the union of these two participles. After rejecting all un- tenable assumptions, of an éy da Svoty (‘ gaudeo dum video,’ Wolf), —a zeug- matic construction of the accusative with both verbs (‘mit Freuden sehend,’ De Wette), — a trajection (‘ seeing, ete.; and rejoicing,’ see Winer, Gram. § 54. 4, p. 417 note), —a causal use of raf (‘ gau- dens quia cerno,’ Daven., compare Syr. mo {}s02), etc., we have three plausible in- terpretations, (a) ‘rejoicing, to wit, see- ing,’ ete., cad being used purely explica- tively, Olsh., Winer, 2, /. c.; (B) ‘re- Joicing (thereat), i. e. at heing with you in spirit, and seeing, etc.,’ the subject of the xaipew being deduced from the words immediately preceding, and the xa) be- ing simply copulative ; so Meyer, and after him Eadie and Alf. ; (y) ‘ rejoicing (about you) and seeing,’ ep suiv being suggested by the preceding oby buiv, Wi- ner 1, J.c., Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 425 note. Of these (a) seems hard and arti- ficial; (8) imports a somewhat alien thought, for surely it was the state of the Colossians, rather than the being with them in spirit, that made the apostle re- joice; (y) preserves the practical con- nection of xaip. with the latter part of the sentence, but assumes an ellipse which the context does not very readily supply. It seems best then (5) so far to modify (y) as to assume a continuation of vy buiv; the modal xalpwy expressing the apostle’s general feeling of joyful sympathy (suggested by the state in which he found them), while the circumstantial Baérwy k.7.A. adds a more special, and, in fact, explanatory accessory : for this use of kal (special after general), comp. notes on Hph. v. 18, and on Phil. iv. 12. tatty] ‘order,’ zt. e. ‘orderly state and conduct ;’? thy rdtw, Thy edtatiay pyot, Chrys.; specification of their state out- wardly considered in reference to church- fellowship, and to the attention and obe- dience of the good soldier of Christ: as yap em) mapardtews 4 edratia thy pddayya oTepedy Kadsiotnow otTw Kat ém) Tis éx- kAnolas, Stay evtatia H, THS aydans Tdv- Ta KadioTdons Kal wi) dvTwY TXLTMATwP, TéTe Kal Td oTepéwua yiverat, Theoph. The allusion may be to a well organized body politic (Meyer, Alford; compare Demosth. de Rhod. Lib. p. 200) or, per- haps more probably, in accordance with the apostle’s metaphors elsewhere (Eph. vi. 11 sq.) to military service ; see Wolf in loc. otepéwmal ‘solid Soundation,’ ‘ firm attitude,’ kaSdmep mpds OTPATLOTAS EVTAKTaS eoTaras Kai BeBalws, Chrys. ; specification of their state in- wardly considered : not ‘ firmitas,’ Syr., Eth. [both which languages have an- other word more exactly answering to the concrete], followed by Huther, De Wette, al., but, ‘fundamentum,’ Vulg., ‘firmamentum,’ Copt.— there being no 160 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 6, 7% Tis eis Xpictov Tictews buav. ° ‘Qs odv mapehdBere Tov Xpio- tov "Inoodv tov Kupiov, év ait@ Tepurrateite, * éppilwpévor Kat lexical ground for regarding the more concrete otepéwpua (‘effect of the verb as aconcretum, Buttm. Gr.§ 119.7; nearly = part. in -wevoy) as identical in mean- ing with the purely abstract o7repedrns. The word (an dz. Aeydu. in the N. T. ; compare 1 Pet. v. 9, Acts xvi. 5) occurs frequently in the LXX, and nearly al- ways in its proper sense, though occa- sionally showing the tendency of later Greek in a partial approximation to the verbal in -o1s ; comp. Esth.ix.29. The gen. may be a gen. of apposition (comp. notes on Eph. vi. 14), but seems more naturally a gen. subjecti referable to the general category of the possessive geni- tive. On the construction of mor. with eis, see notes on 1 Tim.i. 16, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. iv. 14, Vol. 11. p, 129. After these words we have no reason for doubting that the Church of Colosse, though tied by heretical teaching, was substantially sound in the faith. 6. ds otv mapedAdBerTe| ‘ Asthen ye received :’ exhortation founded on the words of blended warning and encour- agement in the two preceding verses, otv having its common retrospective and col- lective force (‘ad ea que antea revera posita sunt lectorem revocat,’ Klotz), and thus answering better to ‘ then,’ Peile, than ‘ therefore,’ Alf.: see Klotz, Devar, Vol. 11. p. 717, compare Don- aldson, Gr. § 604. On ds see notes on Tit. i. 5. The mapeddBere can hardly be ‘from me,’ Alf. (see on ver. 1), but, from Epaphras (ch. i. 7) and your first teachers in Christianity. Though the reference seems mainly to reception by teaching (compare éd:ddxSnTe, ver. 7), the object is so emphatically specified, Tov Xp. Ino. tov Kup., as apparently to require a more inclusive meaning ; they received not merely the a&«hparoy didac- xaAlay (Theod.), the ‘doctrinam Christi’ (Daven.), but Christ Himself; in Him- self the sum and substance of all teach- ing (Olsh., Bisp.) ; compare Ephes. iv. 20, and notes zn loc. Tov Kvpiov| ‘Tue Lorp;’ not without emphasis ; yet not so much as ‘ for your Lord,’ Alf., after Huth. and Mey.,—an interpretation which, independently of grammatical difficulties (Kdpiov 2 Cor. iv. 5, not tov Kup., see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 8.4), would make wapadaBeiv imply rather the recognition of a princi- ple of doctrine, than the spiritual recep-. tion of the personal Lord. The title, as both the position and article show, is plainly emphatic, —it marks Him as Lord of all, above all Principality and. Power (Eph. i. 20), the Creator of men and angels (Col. i. 16), but cannot be safely regarded as forming a tertiary predication; compare Donalds. Cratyl. § 305. év avT@ mepimarette] ‘walk in Him,’ as the sphere and element of your Christian course. Christ is not here represented as an 606s (4 mpoodyovca eis Thy Matépa, Chrys.), but as an ensphering ‘ Lebens- Element’ (Mey.), to which the zepira- rev, t. é. life and all its principles and developments, was to be circumscribed ; compare Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i. 20. For a practical sermon on this text, see Fa- rindon, Sermon xxx11. Vol. 11. p. 165 (Lond. 1849). 7. €pprCwpéevor kal érorKodo- movmevot| ‘having been rooted and be- ing built up in Him;’ modal definitions appended to the preceding mepirarety ; the first under the image of a root-fast tree (hence the perf. part.), the second under that of a continually uprising building (hence the pres. part.) marking the stable growth and organic solidity of those who truly walk in Christ. The ev av7@ is attached to both: Christ, as Mey. Caap: II. 7, 8 COLOSSIANS. 161 Lé Souodmevos 2 UT@, Kal BeBasod Maat Sa Kal érrorKodopovpevot ev AUTO, Ka pevot TH TiaTes KAS@S > / rs > > a > / eOLvdaY STE, TEplacEvoVTES EV AUTH EV EvXApLOTIA. 7. év avr] So Rec., Lachm., and now Tisch. (ed. 7) with BD°EKL; great mass of mss.; Vulg. (Clarom., ‘in illo,’ as also D!; mss.; and perhaps some Vy., the inflexions of which often leave it uncertain whether év adtf or év ad’r@ was in the original) ; Chrys., Theod , al., and Lat. Ff. The two words were omitted by Tisch. (ed. 2) with AC; 15 mss. ; Am. Tol. (certainly not Copt., as Tisch., Alf.) ; Ar- chel., al., — but are now rightly restored. The authority for their omission seems clearly insufficient, especially when such an omission might so easily have been suggested by the difficulty of the construction. observes, is both the ground im which the root is held (Eph. iii. 17), and the solid foundation on which (1 Cor. iii. 11) the building is raised, — the prep. ev (not em avTg, Eph. ii. 20) being studiously con- tinued to enhance the idea évy Xpiorp that pervades the passage; comp. Eph. li. 21, 22. The accessory idea of the foundation is admirably conveyed by the émt in the compound verb; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 12, Eph. ii. 20. Ina passage of such force and perspicuity we need not pause on the slight mixture or discordance of metaphors ; it would be difficult indeed to imagine such fruitful and suggestive thoughts conveyed in so few words. kal BeBatotmp TH wiore| ‘and being stablished in your faith ;’ the idea (rd BéBauov) involved in the preceding participles being still more clearly brought out, — and, as the nature of the case requires, in the present tense. The ‘dat. 7H miore: is not the instrumental dat. (Mey.), but the dat. ‘of reference _to’ (De Wette), faith being naturally regarded as the principle which needed BeBatwo.y, and to which it might most appropriately be restricted : see notes on Gal. i. 22. The prep. év is inserted be- fore miore: in Rec. [with ACD°EKL], but is apparently rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch., though only with BD!; 4 mss.; Vulg.,—the probability of an insertion being very great. kadmws €51ddx9.| ‘even as ye were taught ;’ scil. to become firmly estab- lished in faith: this they might have been taught by Epayhras (ch. i. 7) or by some of their early instructors. meptoc. évy avTH K.T.A.| ‘ abound- ing in it with thanksgiving :’ participial clause subordinate to BeBaiodu., main- ly reiterating with a quantitative, what had been previously expressed with a qualitative reference. Of the two pre- positional adjuncts, the first ev atrT7 is united closely with mepioc., specify- ing the element and item in which the increase takes place (equivalent to abun- dare with an abl.; see notes on Phil. i. 9), the second as the field of operation in which (Alf.), or perhaps rather the accompaniment with which (cby edxap., Cicum.), the mepioo. ev mioTre was asso- ciated and, as it were, environed ; com- pare Luke xiv. 31, Ephes. vi. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 21, in which the gradual transition from the more distinct idea of environ- ment to the less defined idea of accompa-, niment may be easily traced ; see Green, Gr. p. 289, and notes on ch, iv. 2. 8. BAéwere ph tis x.7.A.] ‘ Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh you his booty,’ — you as well as the.others that have been led away; spas, as the order suggests, being slightly emphatic : see critical note. The cautionary im- per. BAémere is found in at least six com- binations in the N. T.; (a) with a sim- ple accus., Mark iv. 24, Phil. iii. 2; (0) with dd and a gen., Mark viii. 15, xii. 38; (c) with m@s and the indic., Luke 21 COLOSSIANS. 162 Cuap. II. 8. Let not worldly wisdom lead you away from Him who is the Head of all, who has quickened you, and for- given you, and triumphed over all the powers of evil. 8 Brérrere pun Tis buas Eotat 6 cvAaywyov \ rn = 4 \ n b] FA \ \ Sua THs pirocodias Kal Kevis amatns KaTa THY 8. buas €ora| It is curious that apparently no critical editor except Wetst. (and recently Zisch. ed. 7) has noticed the doubtful order of these two words. Tischener (ed. 2) silently adopted Zora tuas with ACDE (Lachmann), but has now (ed. 7) rightly reversed the position of the words. The order of the text is that of BKL; all mss. ; Chr., Theod., al., —and is apparently to be preferred as the less obvious order ; so Rec. and Scholz. vili. 18, 1 Cor. iii. 10; (d) with fva and the subj., 1 Cor. xvi. 10; (e) with w) and the subjunctive, —the prevailing con- struction, Matth. xxiv. 4, Gal. v.15, al.; (f) with »} and the future, only here and Heb. iii. 12. The last construction is adopted in the present case as imply- ing the fear that the case contemplated will really occur, ‘ne futurus sit qui,’ etc. ; see Winer, Gr. § 56. 2, p. 446, Hartung, Partik. ph, 5. 6, Vol. 11. p. 140, and compare Herm. Soph. Lect. 992. Numerous examples of i in dif- ferent constructions after dpa x. T. A. will be found in Gayler, Partik. Neg. p. 316 sq. TvAaywyor] ‘ bearing away as a booty ;’ an am. Aeydu. in the N. T., found only in later Greek, both directly with an accus. persone, e. g. map%évov, Heliod. 47th. x. 35, and, in a more derivative sense, with an accus. rei, e.g. olkoy, Aristen. Ep. 11. 22. There seems no reason for diluting judas (cvAaywyav tov voov, Theoph.) or adopt- ing the weaker force of the verb (amoov- Adv thy tlorw, Theod.) : the false teach- ers sought to lead them away captive, body and mind ; the former by ritualis- tic restrictions (verse 16), the latter by heretical teaching (verse 18). On the use of the art. after the indef. tis, see notes on Gal. i. 7. dia Tihs ptroa. x. 7.A.] ‘by means of philoso- phy and vain deceit,’ i. e. a philosophy that is essentially and intrinsically so, the absence of both prep. and article be- fore xevijs amdrns showing that it belongs to the same category as the foregoing PiAogodia, and forms with it a joint idea ; éretdy SuKet ceuvdv elvar Td THS PiAogo- glas mpooésnke, Kat Kevajs am., Chrys. : see Winer, Gram. § 19. 4, p.116. Such idocopia was but a Kev amdrn, an empty, puffed-out |comp. Benfey, Wur- zellex. Vol. 11. p. 165] system of deceit and error ; compare Eph. v. 6. The term giAogopla in this passage has been abundantly discussed. ‘There seems no sufficient reason for referring it, on the one hand, to Grecian philosophy, wheth- er Epicurean (Clem.-Alex. Strom. 1. 11 (50), Vol. 1. p. 346, ed. Pott.), Stoic and Platonic (Tertull. Preser § 7), or Pythagorean (Grot.), or on the other, to the ‘ religio Judaica’ (Kypke, Obs. Vol. II. p. 322; so Loesner and Krebs), — but, as the associated terms and the general contrast seem to suggest, to that hybrid theosophy of Jewish birth and Oriental affinities (7 7s tAoc.,—the pop- ular, current, philos. of the day), which would be likely to have taken nowhere firmer root than among the speculative ° and mystery-loving Phrygians of the first century ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 321 sq. (Bohn), and the good note of Wordsw. on this verse. In estimat- ing the errors combated in St. Paul’s Epistles which were allied with Judaism, it becomes very necessary to distinguish between, (a) Pharisaical Judaism, such as that opposed in the Epistle to the Ga- latians; (6) Christianity tinged with Jewish usages and speculations as con- demned in the Pastoral Epistles, — not heresy proper, but an adulterated Chris- Cnap. II. 8, 9. ‘ , a > , \ TAapdoocw TOV aVSpOTTOV, KATA \ , 9 > A Kata Xpwictov, OTL €V avT@ tianity (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 4), which afterwards merged into (c) speculative and heretical Judaism, as noticed in this Epistle ; perhaps of a more decided Cab- balistic origin, and associated more inti- mately with the various forms of Orien- tal theosophy : see Neander, /. c., Rothe, Anfinge, p. 320 sq., Burton, Lectures, 111. Vol. 1. p. 76: (ed. 2), Reuss, Theol. Chrét. v1. 13, Vol. 11. p. 642 sq. ‘KaTd Thy Tapad. Tav ava. ‘ac- cordiny to the tradition of men ;? modal predication attached, not to tis ptAogo- dias, x. 7. A. (a construction in a high degree grammatically doubtful), but to the part. cvAaywyaev, defining, first posi- tively and then negatively, the charac- teristics of the cvAaywyta. Philosophy was the ‘ causa medians,’ rapdd. Tay avap. the ‘norma’ and ‘modus agendi.’ The gen. ray av%p. is apparently that of the origin (Hartung, Casus, p. 23), the mapd- Socis took its rise from, and was received from, men ; compare Gal. i. 12, 2 Thess. iii. 6. Meyer presses the art. tay avdp. (‘ray markirt die Kategorie, die ‘ traditio humana’ als solche der Offenbarung ent- gegengesetzt’), but apparently unduly : the article is probably only introduced on the regular principle of correlation ; see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6, p. 48 (ed. Rose). oT0LX. K.T.A.] ‘according to the rudi- ments of the world ;? second modal pred- ication parallel to the foregoing. The antithesis od kata Xp. seems clearly to show that this expression here includes all rudimental religious teaching of non- Christian character, whether heathen or Jewish, or a commixture of both, — the first element possibly slightly predomi- nating in thought here, the second in ver. 20. On the various meanings as- signed to this difficult expression, see notes on Gal. iv. 3. KaTa Ta COLOSSIANS. 163 \ a Ta OTOLYELA TOU KOapOU Kal Ov KATOLKEL TAY TO TAHOMA THS kata& Xptotdy] ‘according to Christ ;’ clearly not, as Grot., Corn. a Lap., ‘ se- cundum doctrinam Christi,’ but ‘secun- dum Christum,’ @s rod Xpicrod xwpiCov- tas, Theod. (compare Chrys.): Christ Himself, the personal Christ, was the substance, end, and norma of all eyan- gelical teaching. A good lecture on the ‘ten points of faith’ is based on this text by Cyr.-Hieros. Catech. rv. 9. rt ev abra@] ‘because in Him;’ reason for the implied exclusion of all other teaching except that kata Xpiordy, ev avt@ being prominent and emphatic, and standing in close connection with the preceding Xpiordy, ‘in Him, and in none other than Him.’ Mill and Griesb., by placing a period after Xp. would seem rather to imply a reference to Bremere (compare Huth.), to which, however, the emphatic év ait@ seems de- cidedly opposed. KaTotKe?| ‘doth dwell,’ —now and evermore: ob- serve both the tense and the compound form. . The former points to the present, continuing karolxnots of the Godhead in the glorified son of God (compare Hof- mann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 24); the latter to the permanent indwelling, the kat ola, not mapoiuta, of the mAfpoua SedrynT0s, compare Deyling, Obs. 1v. 1, Vol. rv. p. 591, and see notes on ch. i. 19, and on Eph. iii. 17. mav to wrAHp.] ‘all the fulness of the Godhead,’ all the exhaustless perfections of the essential being of God: not with- out emphasis ; év jiv wiv yap amapxh kal appaBav SedrnTos Karoue?, év Xp. 5& mav Td TANp. THs Sedrntos, Athan. : see notes on ch. i. 19, where the meaning of mAnpwua in this connection is briefly in- vestigated. Any reference to the Church (Theod., but with some hesitation) is here wholly out of the question. It is only necessary to add that «drys must 164 YEornTos TwmaTiKas, not be confounded with Se.dtns (Rom. i. 20), as Copt., Syr., /ith., and, what is more to be wondered at, Vulg., which has certainly two distinct words: the former is Deitas, ‘ die Gottheit,’ ‘ statum [essentiam] ejus qui sit Deus,’ August. Civ. Dei, vi1. 1, and points to the nature of God on the side of the actual essentia (7d civat @coy); the latter ‘ divinitas,’ ‘die Gottlichkeit,’ ‘ conditionem ejus qui sit Sezos,’ and points to the divine nature on the side of its qualitas (7b bodily fashion, Dow bheow on [corpo- raliter], Syr., ‘ corporaliter,’ Vulg. The meanings assigned to this word are very numerous. If we follow the plain lex- ical meaning of the word, and the true qualitative force of the termination -ixos (‘like what?’ Donaldson, Craty/. § 254), we must certainly decide that it signifies neither GAnSGs, Sc. ov ToTLKGs 4 OKLATI- k@s, ‘vere, non umbratice’ (August., compare Hammond 2), — édws, ‘ totali- ? (Capell.). — odoiwdds sc. od cyxeTI- K@s, essentialiter, non relative’ (Cicum., Usteri, Zehrb. p. 308), —nor even s7o- orartk@s, ‘ personaliter’ (compare Cyr.- Alex. adv. Nest. 1. 8, p. 28), but — with reference, not so much to that which in- dwells, as to that which is dwelt in (Hof- mann, Schriftb. Vol. 11.1, p. 25),— ‘bodily wise,’ ‘in bodily fashion,’ in the once mortal, and now glorified, body of Christ; comp. Phil. iii. 21. The wAnpoua SedrnTos, which once dwelt ov KaT& ocwuatikdy cidos in the Adyos &oapxos, now dwells forevermore cwuari- k@s (Chrys. calls attention to the precis- ion of the language; uh vouions Ody ouyKekAciovat, as év oduart) in the Ao- yos -évoapxos: compare Meyer in loc., and Hofmann Schrifth. l.c. So De Wette, Eadie, Alford, and most mod- COLOSSIANS. Cnap. II. 10. 10 yom, | 3 > lol t v4 > ® KQU EOTE EV AUT@ TET AN POLEVOL, OS ¢OTW ern commentators, and anciently /®thi- opic, ‘in carne s. corpore hominis,’ and apparently Athanasius contr. Arian. 111. 8, de Susc. Hum. Vol. 1. p. 60, Damase. Orthod. Fid. 111. 6, except that the refer- ence is perhaps not sufficiently extended to the present glorified body of our Re- deemer : see the copious reff. in Suicer, Thesaur.s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1216, and com- pare Wordsw. in loc. 10. kat éore k.7.A.| ‘ anita yeare inhim filled full ;’ not exactly, ‘ye are made fullin Him’ (Eadie), but, as the position of éore and the order of the words seem to require, ‘ye are in Him made full,’— there being in fact a double pred- ication, ‘ye are united with Christ (do not then seek help of subordinate power), yea and filled with all His plenitude (and so can need nothing supplementary).’ There is no necessity to supply any defi- nite genitive, tis Sedrnros (Theoph.), Tod mwAnp. THS Sedt. (De W.), THs wis (Olsh.): all wherewith Christ is full; all His gifts, and graces, and communi- cable perfections, are included in the mAhpwors ; compare the somewhat paral- lel text Eph. iii. 19, and see notes in loc, Grotius and a few others regard éote as an imper. parallel to BAémere, but are rightly opposed by all modern commen- tators. ds é€oTiv K.7.A.] ‘who is, i. e. seeing He is, the head of all (every) Principality and Power,’ the ds having a slight explanatory force (see notes on ch. i. 25, and on 1 Tim. ii. 4), and tacitly evincing the folly of seeking a wAfpwots from any subordinate source, or by any ceremonial agency (compare verse 11). The reading is somewhat doubtful: Lachm. reads 6 with BDEFG; Clarom., al., and encloses kai —év avT@ in a parenthesis, but as the neuter rela- tive would seem to have arisen from a mistaken ref. of évy avtg to mAnp., We seem justified in retaining 6s with AC KL; nearly all mss.; Chrys., Theod., Cuapr. II. 10,'11. H Kehpary maons apyns Kai efovoias ! év COLOSSIANS. 165 Ws \ A Kal TEepleTmHnySNTE c n A / la) / an MEPLTOLA UYELPOTOLNTH, EV TH ATEKOVTEL TOD THpuaATOS THS capKos, al., followed by Ree. and Tisch. On the use of the abstract terms &px7 and efov- cia to denote orders of heavenly Intelli- gences, see notes and reff. on Eph. i. 21, and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. &yyedos, Vol. I. p. 30-48. ll. é€v @] ‘in whom,’ i.e. ‘seeing that in Him,’ not ‘ per quem,’ Schoettg., év @ being exactly parallel with év aitg (ver. 10), and the use of the relative similar to that of és in the foregoing clause: all that the believer can receive in spiritual blessings is already given to him in Christ (Olsh.). Kal mweptetTuHanrtre| ‘ye were also circumcised,’ viz. at your conversion and baptism, ‘ quum primum facti estis Chris- tiani,’ Schoettg.: not ‘in whom too, ye, ete.,’ Eadie, which tends to separate cat from the verb on which it throws empha- sis. The Colossians seem to have been exposed to the influence of two funda- mental errors; first, the belief that they were under the influence, .or at any rate needed the assistance, of intermediate in- telligences ; secondly, the persuasion that circumcision, the symbol of purification appointed by God, must still be necessa- ry. Both are in fact met by the single clause kat éore—aemAnp. (see above) ; this, however, is further expanded in two explanatory relatival clauses, 8s éoriy, x. T. A. being directed against the first error, év @ kal x. T.A. against the sec- ond; see Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p- 153. a&XEtpoToLnTe| ‘not hand-wrought ;’ they were indeed circumcised —in a spiritual and anti- typical manner, as the two characteriz- ing definitions which follow still more clearly show. The epithet axep. puts in obvious contrast the spiritual reprrowh [Baptism, see below] with the legal, typ- ical, weprrou xeporolnros, performed outwardly éy capi, Eph. ii. 11. Sey- eral references to a spiritual circumcision will be found in Schoettg. Hor, Vol. r. p- 815; compare Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, al. The form éxewpor. occurs again Mark xiv. 58 (in expressed contrast), and 2 Cor. v. 1. amexdtboae. x. 7.A.| ‘inthe putting off of the body of the flesh ;? not ‘by means of etc.,’ Mey., the prep. év not having any quasi-instrumental force, but simply specifying that in which the zep:topy consisted (De W.), the external act in which it took place; compare notes on ver. 7, and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. In all such cases the real use of the prep- osition is local, but the application ethi- cal. The odua rijs capxds has been somewhat differently explained. Gram- matically considered, the expression is exactly the same as in ch. i. 22; apkds is the gen. of the material or specifying element (sce notes), but its meaning and application are necessarily different. There it was the material capt of the Redeemer without any ethical signifi- cance; here it is the material odpt, qud the seat of sinful motions, practically sy- nonymous with the more generic capa Guaprias (Rom. vi. 6), and designedly used in this place to keep up the anti- thetical allusion to legal circumcision : the meprr. xeipom. consisted in the améx- ducts and mepitouy of a part (Exod. iv. 25), the wepir. Xpiorod in the améxdvors of the whole céua 77s capkos ; see Hof- mann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 154, and Wordsw. im loc., who pertinently cites the good doctrinal comments of Hilary, de Trin. 1x. 7. It is somewhat perverse in Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 1. p- 359 (Transl.), p. 455 (Germ.), to salve his general interpretation of capé by here giving to o@pa a figurative meaning (‘ massa,’ Calv., al.), which, even if lex- ically admissible, is obviously out of ev TH 166 COLOSSIANS. _Caap. II. 11, 12. > n A a a 12 fh bd na? a f év TH TeptToun ToD Xpictod, ™ cuvtapertes avT@ év TO Bamric- harmony with the concrete references (cuvtapevtes, ovynyepSnre) in the con- text. No writer has more ably vindicat- ed the prevailing meaning of capt (see notes on Gal. y. 5), but that there are some passages in the N. T. in which capt has a reference to sensationalism general- ly, to weakness, fleshliness, and sinful motions cannot safely be denied ; comp. with this expression, amerdvoduevor Tov mahaioy avoep. K. T. A. ch, iii. 9, and see especially the excellent article of Tho- Juck in Stud. u. Krit. for 1855, p. 488- 492. The reading of Rec., odu. Tov Gmapt. THs o. with D*DSE?KL, is rightly rejected by Zischener and most modern critics. Xp.] ‘in the circumcision of Christ, com- municated by, and appertaining unto, Christ; second characterizing definition parallel to év 7H amen. k. T. A. specifying more exactly the nature of the mepitowy &XElpoToinros. Xpicrod is not exactly a gen. auctoris (6 Xpiorbs wepiréuver ev TE Barrlowart, Theophyl.), but of the origin, or perhaps still more exactly, the oriqi- nating cause (see Hartung, Casus, p. 17, and notes on ch. i. 23) ; todtwy atrios 6 deordtns Xpiotés, Theod.: Christ, by union with Himself, brings about the circumcision and imparts it to believers. To give the genitive a strongly possessive ref., e.g. ‘the circumcision undergone by Christ,’ Schoettg., seems, exegetical- ly considered, very unsatisfactory ; com- pare Olsh.inloc. 'The reference of amex. k. T. A. and mepir. Tov Xp. to the death of Christ (Schneckenburger, Theol. Jahrb. for 1848, p. 286 sq.) is convincingly re- futed by Meyer. Even Miiller (on Sin, Vol. 1. p. 359) will take no refuge in ‘such an interpretation. 12. guvtapéyvres| ‘having been buried together with Him,’ ‘when you were, etc.,’ the action described in the partici- ple being contemporaneous with that of évy TH wWepttT. TOD mepieT. (Mey.); compare ch. i, 20, and see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 883, Stallb. on Plato, Phedo, p.62 p. The tempo- ral force seems, however, here clearly secondary and subordinate, the primary force of the part. being apparently modal, and serving to define the manner in which the meprrouy Xp. was communicat- ed to the believer: compare especially Romans vi. 4. There seems no reason to doubt (with Eadie) that both here and Rom. /. c, there is an allusion to the xa- Tddvots and ayddvois in Baptism; see Suicer, Thesaur, s. v. avdd. Vol. 1. p. 259, Bingham, Antig. xr. 11. 4, and comp. Jackson, Creed, x1. 17.6. That this burial with Christ is spiritually real and actual (7d Bdrricpa Kotvwvods Toret Tod Savdtov Xp. Theod.-Mops. on Rom. J. c.), not symbolical or commemorative, seems certain from the plain, unrestrict- ed language of the apostle; compare Waterl. Euchar. vit. Vol. tv. p. 577. ev @ kal ovyny.| ‘wherein ye were also raised with Him:’ GAN ov ragos pdvov eoti [7d Barricual, dpa yap Ti Pyotr, Chrysost. (compare Theoph.), — noticed by Meyer, Alf., and others as referring é to Xpiorés, but apparently without suffi- cient reason. ‘The reference of @ to Xp. (Mey., Eadie) is at first sight structurally plausible (8s...€v ...€v &), but on a closer consideration certainly not exegetically satisfactory ; the two spiritual character- istics, the 7d cuvrapjvac as shown in the katddvois, the 7d cvveyepSivar as shown in the avddvors, must surely stand in close reference and connection with Bap- tism. The counter-arguments of Meyer founded on the use of the prep. (év 6 not eé of), and the parallelism of the prepo- sitional clauses (cuvrad. abta ev Kk. T.A., curnyeps. did kK. T. A.) are not convine- ing. In the first place no other preposi- tion would be so appropriate as the semi- local é€v; and in the second place, dia Cuap. II. 12, 13. 4 COLOSSIANS. 167 3 a \ f A a i a b) 7 fa! Hart, €v ® Kat ournyépSynte ia THs wictews Tis EVEPYELAS TOU Ocod rod éyelpavtos avtov ék Tav vexpor. % Kal twas vexpods nr ‘ nn =) a dvras €v Tois TapaTT@pacw Kal TH axpoBvotia THs capKds k. T. A., the statement of the causa medi- ans, can scarcely be conceived as form- ing any logical parallelism with the fore- going semilocal év +G@ Bawr. Lastly the kal seems to keep both ovr. and cuvny. in close correlative reference to each ‘other. By comparing Rom. vi. 4, it would seem that the primary ref. of ovyny. is clearly to a present and spir- itual resurrection, but again by compar- ing Ephes. ii. 6 (in which the converse seems true; see notes), it would also appear that a secondary ref. to a future and physical resurrection ought not to be excluded : as Jackson well says, ‘ of our resurrection unto glory, we receive the pledge or earnest when we receive the grace of regeneration which enables us to walk in newness of life; and this is called the jirst resurrection,’ Creed, x1. 17.7; compare Waterland, Luchar. vit. Vol. iv. p. 577, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 21, Vol. 11. p. 235. dia THs wlaotews| ‘through fuith:’ subjective medium by which the objec- tive grace is received : ‘ faith is not the mean by which the grace is wrought, effected, or conferred; but it may be and is the mean by which it is accepted or received,’ Waterl. on Justif. Vol. v1. p. 23; compare Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 3, p. 216. The image of Alf., ‘the hand which held on, not the plank that saved,’ is, in more than one respect, not dogmat- ically satisfactory. TIS éevepyelas «.7.A.] ‘ (in) the effectual working of God :’ not gen. of the agent or causa efficiens (De Wette, al.), but more simply and intelligibly the genitive > n~ ¥ objecti; coAdtoe 619 [qui credi- distis in] Syr., sim. Ath., ‘in fide, in auxilio’ (Platt; Pol. inverts), émored- sare bri divaTat 5 Ocds eyeipa, Kal abrws nyepsnte, Chrys., —as in all cases where mioris is thus associated with a gen. rei, the gen. appears to denote the object of faith ; comp. Acts iii. 16, Phil. i. 27, 2 Thess. ii. 13. The statement of Mey., en- dorsed by Eadie, and Alf. (but comp. the latter on Gal. iii. 2), that this is true in every case except where the gen. refers to the believer, does not seem perfectly cer- tain; see notes on Gal. ii. 16, iii. 22, and Stier on Eph. Vol.t. p. 477. Tov éyelpayTos k.T.A.] Clause appended, to give a sure and certain pledge (évéxupoy xovtes tod Seardtov Xpistov thy avdaracw, Theod.).of the almighty évépye of God, both in the present vivification to new life and the future vivification to glory (comp. Eph. i. 20 and notes in loc.) ;—* that nothing may be done or suffered by our Saviour in these great transactions but may be acted in our souls and represented in our spirits,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 265 (ed. Burt.). 13. kat buds] ‘and you also,’ ‘et vos etiam,’ Copt.; application of the foregoing to the Colossians, especially with reference to their formerly heathen State, ka) being associated with tuas and ascensive, not with ovve¢. in a merely copulative sense ; see notes on Eph. ii. 1, The pronoun is repeated after cuve¢. with ACKL (B, al., quas; more than 40 mss.; Copt., Athiop., al.; Theod. (ms.), Dam., Gicum., and rightly adopt- ed by Tisch. and most modern editors ; the omission [ec. with DEFG; al.] was obviously suggested by the apparent syntactic difficulty. This, however, is very slight, as a rhetorical pleonasm of the pronoun for the sake of emphasis is not uncommon; see Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 4, p. 275. vekpovs dvtas] ‘being dead,’ or ‘when 168 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 13. Upov, ovveCwoTroincey Las TY AUTO, Yaplodpevos Auiv TmavTa you were dead’ (not, ‘who were dead,’ Alf.), the past sense attributed to dvras being justified by the aorists which are associated with it in the sentence (Wi- ner, Gr. § 41. 1, p. 305); see also notes on Ephes. ii. 1 (Transl.). It seems ex- tremely unsatisfactory in Meyer, both here and Ephes, ii. 1, to give vexpots a proleptic reference to physical death, scil. ‘certo morituri,’ trd Thy Sixny Exeirde amosxaveiy, Chrys. : a remote, inferential, reference to physical death may possibly be included (see Alf. on Eph. l. c.), but any primary ref. seems wholly irrecon- cilable with the context. €vy Tots wapamT.| ‘in your transgres- sions ;’ the prep. as usual marking the element in which the dead state was ex- perienced ; contrast Eph. ii. 1, where the év is omitted and the dat. is instruamen- tal. The prep. is actually omitted in BL; 20 mss.; Goth.; Greek Ff., but appy. either by accident or conformation to Eph./.c. There does not seem reason for receding from the general distinction between mapamr. and auapr. (especially when associated) advanced in notes on Eph. l..c. TH akpoR. THs capkds| ‘the uneircumeision of your flesh, i. e. that appertained to, was the distinctive feature of —the gen. not be- ing either of apposition (Storr), or quasi- material (B.-Crus., compare Alf.), but simply possessive. The associated words (obs. the omission of the prep.) and the foregoing use of the term (ver. 11) may perhaps justify us in assigning some eth- ical reference to cdpt, — not merely your material (Eadie), but your sinful, unpu- rified flesh, of which the ad«poBvotia was the visible and external mark ; they were heathens, unconverted, sinful heathens, as their very bodies could attest: this akpoBvorta, however, had now lost its significance; they were mepiretunwévor in Christ. *Axpofvoria is thus not ne- cessarily spiritual (Deut. x. 16, Jerem. iv. 4), but retains its usual and proper sense ; on the derivation (not &xpoy Biw, but a corruption of axpowocdia) see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 136. cvve(wotolna er] ‘ He together quick- ened,’ spiritually, — with reference to the life of grace ; a secondary and inferential reference to the physical resurrection need not, however, be positively exclud- ed: see above, and notes on Eph. ii. 5, where the force of the aorist (what is wrought in Christ is wrought * ipso facto’ in all united with Him) is briefly noticed ; see especially Waterland, Luchar. 1x. Vol. Iv. p. 643. The great difficulty in this clause is the subject. On the one hand, a comparison with Rom. viii. 11, and still more Eph. i. 5, seems to point to the last substant. @eds, ver. 12; so Theod., Theoph., appy. Copt. [‘secum,’ Wilk., is a mistransl.], and nearly all modern commentators. On the other hand, the logical difficulty of sup- plying a nom. from the subordinate gen. cov, — the obvious prominence given to Christ throughout the preceding portion —the peculiar acts described in the par- ticiples (especially égaA. x. T. A. com- pared with Eph. ii. 15, and even xapic. compared with Col. iii. 13), —the rela- tion of Christ to apxal and efovetar (ver. 15, compare i. 16, ii. 10), —and lastly, the extreme difficulty of referring the acts described in ver. 14, 15, to God the Father, are arguments so preponderant, that we can scarcely hesitate to refer ov- ve(. and its associated participles to Christ, who, as of the same essence and power with the Father and the Holy Ghost, did infallibly quicken Himself (Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. 1. p. 802, ed. Burt.) : so Chrys. (here, e sil., but elsewhere expressly), apparently Syriac and Goth. (certainly in ver. 15, see be- low), perhaps 42th. (Platt), and recently Cuap. II. 13, 14. Ta maparTopata, ™ éEareirvas Heinr., Baur, Paulus, p. 452 note, and very decidedly, Donalds. Chr. Orthod. p- 76. Itis somewhat singular that the Greek commentators Theod., Theoph., and Cicum.; silently adopt @eds as the subject of verse 13, and 6 @cbs Adyos (Theod.), as that of ver. 14, 15; comp. also Wordsw. in loc., who conceives the propositions in this and in the following verses ‘ to refer to God in Christ, and to Christ as God.’ Such an interpretation is dogmatically defensible on the ground of the ‘ communicatio idiomatum ’ (com- pare Ebrard, Chr. Dogm. § 885), and certainly deserves consideration, but viewed logically and grammatically seems somewhat artificial and unsatis- factory. We may observe lastly, that if the reference to Christ here advocated is, as it certainly seems to be, correct, it is worthy of serious notice that actions else- where ascribed by the apostle to God (Eph. ii. 5, compare Rom. viii. 11), are here unrestrictedly predicated of Christ. Meyer’s objection that the above interpr. is opposed to the ‘ Lehrtypus,’ that God raised Christ, is not very strong; God, it is here said, did raise Christ, Christ us, — yet, as God, also Himself. atv abr] ‘with Himself? As this seems a case in which a reference to the subject is somewhat immediate, and in which it is desirable to obviate misunder- standing, the aspirated form may be properly adopted ; comp. notes on Eph. i. 4. Xaptodmevos k.7.A.] ‘having forgiven us all our transgressions ;’ modal participle describing the prelimi- nary act which conditioned the realiza- ‘tion of the cuv(wmrolnots, by removing the true cause of the vexpérns: mdvta mapamr. moia; & Thy vexpdrnta emote, Chrys. ; compare ch. iii. 13, 2 Cor. v. 19, Ephes. iv. 32, and observe that in these last two passages Ocbs is the subject, yet with the ‘noticeable addition, év Xpior@. For the COLOSSIANS. 169 TO Kay puav yYeipsypadov Tots reading tuiy (Elz. not Steph.), there is but little critical authority. Both exter- nal and internal arguments suggest the more inclusive juiv. 14. €Earetwas| ‘having blotted out ;’ modal participle contemporary with, surely not prior to (Mey.) xapioduevos, and detailing it more fully and circum- stantially. Christ forgave us our sins when he took them upon Himself and suffered for us ; the mode of forgiveness was by cancelling the xe:péypapov. Sure- ly if this participle be applied to God, arguments might be founded on it not only in support of Patripassian doc- trines, but in opposition to the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. If God the Fa- ther did all this, what was the precise effect of the expiatory death of Christ ? To answer, with Eadie, ‘What Christ did, God did by Him,’ only evades, but does not meet, the difficulty. The form efaA. (Acts iii. 19, Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4; compare Psalm 1. 9, cyviii. 18), as its derivation suggests [a = avd, and Sanscr. lip, ‘ illinere,’ Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 258, Vol. 11. p. 153], properly denotes ‘ cera obducta delere ’? (compare Krebs, Obs. p. 8337), and thence, ‘ to ex- punge,’ ‘ wipe out,’ generally, in opposi- tion to ypdgew, Euripid. ap. Stob. Floril. xc1ir. 10, p. 507 (ed. Gesn.), or eyypd- gew, Plato, Rep. vi. p. 501 B, compare Xen. Hell. 11. 3. 51. To Kay Hudv xerp. x. 7.A.] ‘the handwriting in force against us by its de- erees;’ the dative déyuacw belonging closely to 7d Kad’ ju. xeip., and falling under the general head of the dative ‘ of reference to’ (notes on Gal. i. 22); the ddypara were that in which the 7d Ka?’ nuav (the hostile aspect or direction, op- posed to trép, see Winer, Gr. § 47. k, p. 341) of the bond was specially evinced : see Winer, Gr. § 31. 10.1,p.197. The usual explanation, ‘ consisting of déyua- 22 170 L 3 e Soypacw oO va, ‘rituum chirographo,’ Beza,—in which the dat. would be equivalent to a kind of gen. materia, or involve a tacit ellipsis of év (compare Ephes. ii. 15) — seems distinctly ungrammatical, and that of Meyer, Eadie, and Alf., —according to which the dat. is governed by the ver- bal element in yerpdyp.,— more than doubtful, as xeup. is a synthetic compound (Donalds. Gr. § 372), and apparently incapable of such a decomposition ; com- pare Tobit v. 3, ix. 5, Polyb. Hist. xxx. 8.4. The reference of xeipdypapoy has been very differently explained. The context would seem to suggest that xe poyp. is clearly not the command given to Adam (Theophyl. 2), nor the law of conscience (Luth.), nor even specially, the moral law (Calv.; compare Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 462), nor yet the ceremonial law (Schoettg., Wordsw. ; see especially Deyling, Ols. Part. rv. p. 596 sq.), but the whole law, ‘nam benefi- cium chirographi ad omnes spectat, tam Gentiles quam Judzos : ergo hujusmodi chirogr. ponere oportet, quo ex aliqua parte tenentur omnes,’ Daven. ; compare Andrewes, Serm. 1v. Vol. 1. p. 54 sq. (A.-C. Libr.), and Vol. 111. p. 66, where he curiously terms it the ‘ragman roll :’ so De Wette, Mey., and most modern commentators. The xepdyp. was Kav’ heav, Jews and Gentiles ; immediately against the former, mediately and infe- rentially (as founded on immutable prin- ciples of justice and rectitude) against the latter, Rom. ii. 15, compare Rom. iii.19. It was in the positive commands whether written on stone or in the heart that the 7d ka judy was mainly evinced: compare on the prohibitive side, Rom. vii. 7 sq. The law was thus appropriately designated, being a‘ bond,’ an ‘obligatory document’ (comp. Plut. Mor. p. 829 4, and see exx. in Wetsi.), by which all were bound, and which COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 14. if a i \ 4 aA hv brrevayTiov Hiv, Kal adTO HpKev ex TOD pécov, Tpoc- brought penalty in case of non-fulfil- ment; compare Pearson, Creed, Art. 1v- Vol. 1. p. 248 (ed. Burt.), Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1, 2, p. 175, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. li, Volaaxap. 1905 8 iv brevavrlov hm] ‘which was against us ;’ expansion of the preceding 7d KaX’ suey: it was hostile not merely in its direction and aspects, but practi- cally and definitely. - The idea of secret hostility (7d) is not implied either here, Heb. x. 27, or indeed in the majority of passages where the word occurs: see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. y. Vol. 11. p- 2064. Perhaps the prep. may have pri- marily involved an idea of locality, local opposition (compare Hesiod, Scut. 347, inmot brevavtto: GAAHAoW oketa xXpept- cav, 1 Macc. xvi. 7) which in the meta- phorical applications of the word neces- sarily became obliterated. This is fur- ther confirmed by the fundamental mean- ing of imd, which, it may be observed, is not ‘under,’ but appears to be that of ‘motion to the speaker from that which is near to him;’ see Donalds. Cratyl. § 279. kal abrd K.7.A.] ‘and He hath taken it out of the way ;” change from the participial structure to that of the finite verb to add force and emphasis (see notes on ch. i. 6, 20), and especially to the perfect |D! FG; many mss.; Orig., Theod., al., read jpev, but ou insufficient authority] to express the enduring and permanent nature of the act; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 242, and notes on Ephes. ii.20. The addition é« peoou expresses still more fully the com- pleteness of the jjprey (émolnoe unde dal- versat, Theophyl., uh adels em xdpas, (Ecum.), and perhaps alse the impedi- mental character (Meyer) of the thing taken away ; examples of a¥peiv ex wéoov will be found in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 323. TpPOTNABTAS K.T-A.| ‘having nailed it to the ecross;’ modal Cuap. II. 15. COLOSSIANS. Lee rv / bs ae, A A 152 5 lA \ , \ \ \ QA@BCAS AVTO TO oTaUpP®, QATTEKOUCDALEVOS TAS apKXas Kat Tas ? Ul > / > Be: / A > \ > > lal eEovolas edevypaticey év Tappnota, SprayuPevaas avtovs év auT@. participle, contemporaneous with the commencement of the #prev (Alf.), de- scribing the manner in which Christ re- moved the xepdypapoy: He nailed the Mosaic law with all its decrees to His cross, and it died with Him; airds xo- AagSels eAvoe Kal THY Guaptiay Kal Thy kédaow, Chrys. The reference to a bond cancelled by striking a nail through it (Pearson, Creed, Art. 1v. Vol. 11. p. 248 ; compare d:eppnkev, Chrys., caréoxi- aev, Theoph.) seems very doubtful. All that the apostle seems here to imply is, that in Christ’s crucifixion, the curse of the law was borne, and its obligatory and condemnatory power, its power as a xelpdypapoy KaY judy, forever extin- guished and abrogated ; comp. Rom. vii. 6, and see Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 55 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 15. adwekdvuo. Tas apxas K.T.A.] ‘having stripped away from Himself the (hostile) principalities and powers ;’ ther ‘ exspolians,’ Vulg., silently follow- ed by apparently all modern writers ex- cept Deyling (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 609), Don- aldson (Chr. Orth. p. 68), Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 805), Alford, and Wordsw., nor even, ‘having stripped for Himself,’ ‘ deponere jubens,’ Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. 15, — both interprett. wholly unsupported by the lexical usage of amrodtw, éxddw, and amexd. (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. vy.), and opposed to St. Paul’s own use of the word, ch. iii. 9, — but ‘exuens se,’ Claroman., Copt. [mis- transl. by Wilkins], Aath. (Platt), Chrys. 2, more distinctly Theoph. 2, and with nei- ° v a special reference, Syriac SAD a ol; per exspoliationem corporis sui], Goth., ‘andhamonds sik leika, and per- haps Theod. followed by Hil., August., Pacian, and reflected in the ancient gloss amend. THY odpka, FG; Boern., al. The rare binary compound dazrexd. was appar- ently chosen rather than the simpler éxé. to express, not only the act of ‘ divesti- ture,’ but that of ‘removal ;’ see Winer, l.c. Itis singular that an interpretation of such antiquity, so well attested, and so lexically certain, should in modern times have been completely, if not con- temptuously ignored. The meaning of the expression is, however, somewhat obscure: it appears most probably to imply that, as hinted at by Theod., and apparently all the Greek commentators, our Lord by His death stripped away from Himself all the opposing hostile powers of evil (observe the article) that sought in the nature which He had con- descended to assume, to win for them- selves a victory, dmexdtoaTo thy AaBhy [ts aySpwros civ], avddnmros cipédy Tais apxais ka) Tats éEovcias, Theoph. 2, compare Theod. When He died on the cross, when He dissolved that temple in which they, both in earlier (Matth. iv. 1 sq., Luke iv. i..sq., obs. pds katpdv, ver. 13), and later, and perhaps redoubled efforts of temptation (see John xiv. 30, and especially Luke xxii. 53), had vainly endeavored to make sacrilegious. entry, He reft them away forever, and vindicat- ed His regal power (Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 260, ed. Burt.) ; yea, the loud voice (Matth. xxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37, Luke Xxill. 46) was the shout of eternal tri- umph and victory. See Wordsw. zn loc., who has adopted the same view, and well explained the peculiar significance of the term. Thus all seems clear, consistent, and theologically pro- found and significant ; while our Saviour bore the curse of the law, He destroyed its condemnatory power forever (arepié- meipey exec, Chrys.), while He underwent sufferings and death, and the last efforts T72 Let no one judge you in ceremonial observances, ‘COLOSSIANS. 16 Mn odv Tis Has KpwweTo ev Bpdces 4) Cuap. II. 15, 16. - >, €V holding not the Head. Submit not to outward austerities that are inwardly vain and carnal. of baffled demoniacal malignity, He de- stroyed roy 7d Kpdtos Exovta Tov Savarou, Tour gor Toy didBodoy, Heb. ii. 14 ; com- pare 1 John iii. 8. apxas ar ras é&.| ‘the Principali- ties and the Powers (that strove against Him) :’ these abstract terms being used, as always in the N. T., with reference to spiritual beings (air ov s) and Intelligen- ces (see notes on Eph. i. 26, vi. 12), the context showing whether the reference is to good (ch. i. 16, see notes), or, as here, to evil angels and spirits; see Us- teri, Lehrb. 11.1. 2, p. 176, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 226 sq. The opinion of Hofmann (Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 305), Alf., al., that good angels only are here referred to, and that dmexd. refers to God putting aside from Him the nim- bus of the Powers which shrouded Him from the heathen world (Hofm.), is in- genious, but not satisfactory, and further rests on the assumption that this verse refers to Ocds, not Xpiords. éderymatiocev évy wapp.| ‘He made ashow of them with boldness;’ not TAS y. tS [diffamavit] Syr., sim. Goth., hoxnudynce, Chrys., compare Adthiopic (Platt) and Theod., — but simply, ‘fecit eos manifestos,’ Copt., ‘ ostentui esse fecit,’ Hil.: it was an open manifesta- tion, and that too, év mappyolg, ‘ with boldness,’ — not opp. to év kpurr¢ (John vil. 4), sc. Onuoolg, mavrwy dpévTwr, Chrysost., but, as the formula seems al- ways used by St. Paul, ‘ confidenter,’ Vulg.; see notes on Phil. i. 20. The word Seryuaricew (Matth. i. 19, Zachm., Tisch.), apparently confined to the N. T., does not much differ in meaning from the compound mapaderyuaricewv, except that it confines the idea to an open ex- hibition (as the context shows) in tri- umph, without any further idea of shame or ignominy (Polybius, Hist. xvir. 1. 5, xxx. 7.5). To connect év wags. with SpiauB. (Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 305) seems very unsatisfactory, but has appy- arisen from the assumption that ‘ open- ly’ is the correct translation. SptauB. avrovs| ‘having triumphed over them ;’ contemporaneous with éderyyu. (see notes on ver. 12), explaining more fully the circumstances of the action. The expression SpiauBever Twa occurs again 2 Cor. ij. 14, and apparently there ~ (see Mey. zn loc.) as necessarily here, not in a factitive sense, but with an accusa- tive of the object triumphed over, or led in triumph; compare Plut. Comp. Thes. c. Rom. § 4, BactArets éSpiduBevoe kab jrye- pévas, and examples cited by Wetst. on 2 Cor. 1. c. On the derivation of the word [Spi-, cogn. with Sup-, connected with tpets, and YauBos or &uBos, ‘ proces- sion,’ or ‘ close dance’|, see Donaldson, Cratyl. § 317, 318, and compare Benfey, Wurzellexr. Vol. 11. p. 260. The varied nature of our blessed Redeemer’s meek triumphs is well set forth by Hilary, de Trin. x. 48 (cited by Wordsw.). évy avt@| ‘init;’ not (a) ‘in the nailed up xetpsypapov,’ Mey., which would give a force to av7@ with which its position and the context seem at variance; nor (db) ‘in semetipso,’ Vulg., Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 111. p. 66, which would form an almost unnecessary addition ; but (c) ‘in it,’ scil. TG craups (ev TH EvAw, Orig.) with the Greek commentators and ma- jority of modern expositors : 7b yap Tod Kécpov épavtos tvw ev TS EVAw Toy bow chayiacdivat, TodTO €or. TO Savpaotorv, Chrys. ; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 291, and especially notes, Vol. 11. p. 217, 218 (ed. Burt.). 16. «4% ody] ‘Let not then,’ ete.;? with reference to ver. 14 sq., oov having its usual collective force, and recalling the readers to the fact that the Mosaic Law is now abrogated; see notes on Cnap. II. 16, 17. COLOSSIANS. 173 x an E) f x / oF ad \ TOcEL, %) ev MEpEL EoPTHS 1) voupnvias 1) caBBdtav, “ & éotw Kd 16. 4 ev] Tisch. (ed. 2) reads kal év only on the authority B; Copt., Syriac; Orig. (1) ; Hier., Tichon. (Tertull. ‘et’ 4 times), but now (ed. 7) has rightly re turned to the reading of Rec., Lachm. The common association of Bpdots and wécts would very naturally have suggested the displacement of 7 for the more usual kat. ver. 6. KptvéTw ev Bpdcei| ‘judge you in eating,’ pass a judgment upon what may or may not be eaten ; év referring to the item 7m which the judgment was passed, see Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 22. Bpdéots is not here ‘ cibus,’ Vulg. (comp. Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. Iii. p. 200), but, as apparently always in St. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. xiv. 17, 1 Cor. viii. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 10), ‘esus,’ ‘ac- tus edendi,’ Copt., Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 159, the passive verbal being regularly used by the apostle in reference to the thing eaten ; comp. 1 Cor. 111. 2, vi. 13, wit 8; 13, x. 3/51 Tim. iv. 3. ° The ‘dist tinction is, however, not observed in St. John (comp. iv. 32, vi. 27), nor indeed always in classical writers, comp. Hom. Od, 1.191, vi. 176; Plato, Legg. v1. p. 783 c, cited by Meyer, does not seem equally certain. The rule of Thom. M., Bpduata mAnSuyTiKas, ov BpGua, ovdé Bp@o1s, cannot be substantiated; see notes collected by Bern. in loc., p. 174. } év wécet| ‘orin drinking,’ the prep. being repeated to give a slight force to the enumeration. The remarks made in respect to Bpdois apply exactly to moots, contrast 1 Cor. x. 4 with Rom. xiv. 17, and compare John vi. 55. As there is no command in the Mosaic law relative to méo1s except in the case of Nazarites (Numb. vi. 3) and priests be- fore going into the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), and as méoe scems certainly to form a distinct member (opp. to Alf.), we are driven to the conclusion that the Colos- sian heretics adopted ascetic practices in respect of wine and strong drinks, per- haps of a Rabbinical origin. The Es- senes, we know, only drank water: zo- tov Hdwp vayariatoy airois éotw, Philo, de Vit. Cont. § 4, Vol. 11. p. 477 (edit. Mang.). €v mépet EoptiHs| ‘in the matter of a festival:’ not ‘in the partial observance of festi- vals’ (od yap 8) mdvta Karetxov Ta mpd- tepa, Chrys.), ‘ob partem aliquam festi violatam,’ Day., nor ‘in segregatione ’ (7. e. setting apart one day rather than. m > a another), Caly., comp. Syr. or [in divisionibus s. distinctionibus], nor specifically, ‘in the [Talmudical] tract upon,’ Hamm. after Casaub. and Scal., —— but, simply and plainly, ‘in the mat- ter of,’ «épos pointing to the ‘class’ or ‘eategory’ (Mey.); see Plato, Republ. I. p. 348 B, ev aperis kad codias tiSns méper Thy adictay, Thecet. p. 155 8, al., examples in Loesner Obs. p. 367, and compare 2 Cor. iii. 10. The three ob- jects in the matter of which judgment is forbidden, are enumerated in reference to the frequency of their occurrence ; éop- 7 referring to one of the greater feasts, vouunvia to the monthly festival of the new moons (Numb. x. 10; see Jahn, Ar- cheol. § 351, Winer, RWB. s. v. -‘Neu- monde,’ Vol. 11. p. 149), and cdBBara to the weekly festival; comp. Gal. iv. 10. 17. &@ @oriv)] ‘which things are;’ relative clause showing the justice of the preceding command, the relative having a slight explanatory force ; see notes on ch. i. 25, 27. That & refers not merely to the last three items but to the whole verse, ?.e. to all legal or traditionary ceremonies, seems clear from the con- text. The reading 6, with BFG; Cla- rom., Goth., al. (Zachm.), is not improb- able, but is insufficiently attested. oxida] ‘shadow ;’ not ‘an outline,’ in reference to a oxiaypagia, ‘ beneficia 174 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 17; 18, TOV meANOVTWV, TO bE cHua Xpictod. ¥® pnbSels buas cataBpa- Christi ac doctrinam evangelicam ob- scure delineabant,’ Daven.,—a mean- ing doubtful even in Heb. x. 1, but, as the antithesis g@ua obviously requires, {Asts3 [umbre] Syr., shadows op- posed to substance (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 2.5, oxtay aitnoduevos BactAcias, 7s Hpwacey éavTG Td cama), and with per- haps some further reference to tke typi- cal character of such institutions, shad- ows flung forward (‘ preenunciative ob- servationes,’ Aug.) from the ra wéAdovTa (scil. 7a THs Kawijs Siadnens, Theoph.), from the future blessings and realities of the Christian covenant ; mpoAauBdver dé ) TKI TO CGua avicxovtos tov pwrds, Theod. The use of the present éorw must not be unduly pressed ; ‘loquitur de illis ut considerantur in sud natura, abstractz a circumstantiis temporis,’ Da- venant. 7d 5&€ cGpa Xp.| ‘but the body (their substance) is Christ’s ;’ the oGua, SC. TOv wedAAdyTay, belongs to Christ in respect of its origin, existence, and re- alization ; ‘in Christo habemus illa vera et solida bona que erant adumbrata et figurata in predictis cxrimoniis,’ Daven. The nom. might at first sight have been expected; the possessive gen. Xpiotod [so Tisch. rightly, with DEFGKL; not Tov Xp. with ABC; Lachm.], however, is of more real force, as marking that the true oGpua Tay weAAdyTwy not merely was Christ, but belonged to, was derived from Him, and so could only be realized by union with Him. A reference of this clause to ver. 18 (comp. August. Epist. 59) destroys the obvious antithesis and is wholly untenable. The assertion of Alf. (comp. Olsh.) — that if the ordi- nance of the Sabbath had been in any form of lasting observation in the Chris- tian Church, St. Paul could not have used such language,— cannot be sub- stantiated. The o¢8Barov of the Jews, as involving other than mere national reminiscences (with Deuteron. y. 15, contrast Exod. xx. 11), was a ond of the Lord’s day: that a weekly seventh part of our time should be specially given up to God rests on considerations as old as the Creation; that that seventh portion of the week should be the jirst day, rests on apostolical, and perhaps inferentially (as the Lord’s appearances on that day seem to show) Divine usage and appointment; see Bramhall, Lord’s Day, Vol. v p.32 sq. (A.-C. Libr.), and Huls. Essay for 1843, p. 69. 18. kataBpaBeveto| ‘beguile you of your reward:’ so distinctly, Zonar. on Conc. Laod. Can. 35 (Suicer, Thesaur. S. v.), KaTaBpaBewew eo Td wh viKHoaY- ta atiovv Tod BpaBelov, GAN Erépw~ Biddvae até, aducoupéevov Tod uikhoavTos, the kata marking the hostile feeling towards the proper recipient, which dictated the con- sequent injustice, and 7d mapaBpaBevew ; see Demosth. Mid. p. 544, émordpeda Srpatava ims Meidiov karaBpaBeuvsévra Kal Tapa mdvTe TH Sikata aTiuwsevra, and Buttm. in loc. (Index, p. 176), who per- tinently remarks, ‘ verbum in translato sensu aliter usurpari non potuisse quam de eo qui debitam alteri victoriam eripit.’ The many renderings, either insufficient (karaxpwérw, Hesych. incorrect (kata- madkaétw, Castal. ap. Pol. Syn.), or per- verted (¢. g. katakuptevérw, Corn. & Lap.), that have been assigned to this word will be found in Pol. Synops., and in Meyer in loc. The BpaBetor, of which the false teachers sought to de- fraud the Colossians was not their Chris- tian freedom (Grot.),—at first sight a plausible interpretat., — but, as the con- text and the grave nature of the error it reveals seem certainly to suggest, ‘vita eterna,’ Gom., 7d BpaBetov tis vw KAT- gews (Phil. iii. 14), and with a more ex- act allusion, the %&pSaproy orépavoy (1 Cuap. II. 18. COLOSSIANS. ; 175 L Lt > , \ ' A > a Bevéto Sérov ev tarrewohpootvy Kai Npynoxela Tov ayyédov, & Cor. ix. 25), the orébavoy tis Sicaoov- vns (2 Tim. iv. 8), ris (wis (James i. 12), ris ddés (1 Pet. v. 4), which the Lord, 6 dixatos xpirhs (2 Tim. /. c.), will give to the Christian victor at the last day. This prize the false teachers sought to obtain, but it was under circumstances of such fatal error, viz., the worship of angels, the introduction, in fact, of fresh mediators, that they would eventually beguile and defraud of the BpaBetov those who were misled enough to join them : ‘nihil aliud moliuntur nisi ut palmam ipsis intercipiant, quia abducunt eos a rectitudine cursus sui,’ Calv.,—who, however, does not appear to have felt the precisely correct application of kara- BpaBevew. %€Awy| ‘ desir- ing (to do it),’ scil. kataBpaBetew ; SéAwv Tovto moiety, CXcum.; modal participle defining the feelings they evinced, and hinting at the studied nature of the course of action which they followed, and which resulted in the karaBpdBevors ; TodTo Ta yvuv ovveBovAevoy exetvot yiyvetdat, TaTel- voppoowvn Oidvev Kexpnuevor, Theodor , who, however, somewhat overpresses S€Awv, compare notes on 1 Tim. v. 14. These feelings were not directly, but in- directly, hostile to the raraBpaBevdynodme- vot; the purpose was to secure the oré- gavos for themselves and their followers ; the result, to lose it themselves, and to defraud others of it. Two other inter- pretations have been proposed ; (a) the Hebraistic construction, SéAew év tarewv., aes Ven (1 Sam. xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings xv. 26, 2 Chron. ix. 8, only, however, with a personal pronoun), adopted by Aug., al., and recently by Olshaus., but contrary to all analogy of usage in the N. T.; and, perhaps more plausibly, (b) the connection KkataB. 3é- A@y, apparently favored by Syr., and, with varying shades of meaning assigned to the part., by Beza, Zanch., Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 181), al., and most recent- ly, Alf. The former is distinctly unten- able, as contrary to all analogy of usage of SéAew in the N. Test. The latter is structurally and grammatically defensi- ble, compare 2 Pet. iii 5, but, even in the translation of Alf., ‘of purpose de- fraud you,’ exegetically unsatisfactory, as it would seem to impute to the false teachers a frightful and indeed suicidal malice, which is neither justified by the context, nor in any way credible. They sought to gratify their vanity by gaining adherents, not their malice hy compass- ing, even at their own hazard, their ruin. The karaBpaBevors was perhaps reckless- ly risked, but not maliciously designed beforehand. ‘The translation of Words- worth is much more plausible, ‘by the exercise of his mere will,’ but is perhaps scarcely so simple as that of the Greek commentators proposed above. ‘in lowliness ;’ éy tTamwetvogp.| ele- ment in which he desires to do it, the prep. év not being so much instrumental (Mey.) as modal, ras, év rarew. ; 7) Tas, guotodmevos ; Seikvuor Kevodokias by Td may, Chrys. It seems clear that tamer- vopp. is not here proper Christian hu- mility (see notes on Phil. ii. 3), but a false and perverted lowliness, which deemed God was so inaccessible that He could only be approached through the mediation of inferior beings ; &s ddpatos 6 Tav bAwy Ocds, avépintds TE kal &katdAnmtos, Kal mpoohker dia TaY ‘byyédwy Thy Selay edudveray mpayyared- eoSat, Theod. ; see also Zonaras on Can. 35, Cone. Laod. (A. D. 363% see Giesel. Kirchengesch. Vol. 1. p. 396), where this heresy was expressly condemned ; see ap. Bruns, Concil. Vol. 1. p. 37. Spnonela tav ayyéArwy] ‘worship of the angels ;’ not gen. subjecti (James i. 26), ‘qua angelos deceat,’ Wolf, with reference to the ultra-human character of AéyovTes 176 > COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II..18, Me LB ’ ba In dl e A A \ ny x HH Eopakev €mPatevor, etx) PvoLovpEVvos UTFO TOU VOOS THs CAapKOS ‘ devotion which the false teachers affected (see Noesselt, Disput., Hale, 1789), but gen. objecti (Wisdom xiv. 21, cidéAwv Spnoxela, and examples in Krebs, Obs. p- 339), worship paid to angels; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 1, p. 168, and Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 44. Theodoret no- tices the prevalence of these practices in Phrygia and Pisidia, and the existence of edxrhpia to Michael in his own time: even in modern times the worship of the Archangel in that district has not become extinct; see Conyb. notes in /oc., and on angel-worship generally, the good note of Wordsw. on ver, 8. Whether this had originally any connection with Essene practices, cannot satisfactorily be determined, as the words of Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 7, are ambiguous ; see Whiston in loc. That it was practised by Gnostic sects is attested by Tertull. Prescr. § 33, Iven. Her. 1. 31. 2, Epiph. Her. xx. 2: see further references in Wolf, in loc. The evasive interpretation of Spnox., talem angelorum cultum qui Christum excludat,’ Corn. a Lap., ‘zm- pium angelorum cultum,’ Just., is wholly opposed to the simple and inclusive meaning of the word ; compare Browne, Articles, Art. Xx1t. p. 539. & wh Edp. euB.] ‘intruding into the things which he hath not seen ;’ wh not ov, as the dependence of the sentence on y7- dels Suds kataBp. leaves the objects natu- rally indeterminate, and under subjec- tive aspects ; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 3, p. 426; compare Exod. ix. 21, 0s wh mpo- céoxe TH Siavola eis Td pijua, where the use of the “7 somewhat similarly results from the indeterminate nature of the sub- ject of the verb. The reading is doubt- ful. The negative is omitted by Lachm. {with ABD1: 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Copt.; Tertull., Ambrst., al.], but right- ly retained by Tisch. [with CD2D9EKL (FG otx) ; nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both), Vulg., Boern., Goth., ith. (Platt), al. ; Origen, Chrys., Theod.], as, in the first place, external authority is distinctly preponderant, and secondly, the less usual subjective negative led to correc- tion, and correction to omission. Mey. and Alf. defend the omission, adopting an interpretation (‘an inhabitant of the realm of sight, not of faith,’ Alf.) which is ingenious, but not very plausible or satisfactory ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 827 note (Bohn). ’"EuBarevew, with an accus. objecti, has properly a local sense, e. g. médw, Eurip. Electr. 595, vadv, ib. Rhes. 225 (see fur- ther examples in Krebs, Obs. p. 341), and thence by a very intelligible appli- cation an ethical reference, the accusa- tive denoting the imaginary realm to which the action extended; comp. (but with a dative) Philo, Plant. Noe, § 19, Vol. 1. p. 341 (ed. Mangey), éuBaredvoy- Tes emioThucus. eit puctovyu.] ‘vainly puffed up;’ modal clause, more fully defining éuBarevwv. The false teachers were inflated with a sense of their superior knowledge, but it was efx} (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xy. 2, Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11), bootlessly, without ground or reason. On the derivation [from eY«ev, perhaps Sanscr. vican, ‘ re- cedere ’| compare, but with caution, Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 349. De W., following Steig., joins ei<# with the pre- ceding clause ; this is a possible, but not probable connection, as it would throw an emphasis on the adverb (comp. Gal. iii. 4) which really seems solely confined to & wh édparev. brd Tod vods x. 7.A.] ‘by the mind of his flesh, 2. é. the higher spiritual principle in its materialized and corrupted form, the genitive probably being simply possessive (compare notes on Eph. iv. 23), and the contradictory form of the combination being chosen to depict the abnormal ? Cnar. II. 19. COLOSSIANS. lod LT rn \ vA aA a lal a avtod, © Kal ov Kpatov THY Kepadny, €& ob TaV TO CHpua Sid TOV condition : the flesh was, as it were, en- dued with a vods (instead of vice versa), and this was the ruling principle ; see Olsh. Opusc. p. 157, Delitzsch, Psychol. iv. 5, p. 144, and for the normal mean- ing of vods in the N. T., notes on 1 Tim. 5. The odpt apparently stands in latent antithesis to the mvetua (compare Vi. Chrys. id capructs Stavolas od myeupa- Tixhs), and seems here clearly to retain its ethical sense, ‘his world-mind’ (Miil- ler, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 1. p. 356, Clark), his devotion to things phenomenal and material; compare Tholuck, Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 492, Beck, Seelend. 11. 18, p- 53. 19. kal od Kpat@y x. 7.A.] ‘and not holding fust the head ;’ od not wh, the negation here becoming direct and ob- jective, and designed to be specially dis- tinct ; compare Acts xvii. 27, 1 Cor. ix. 26, and see Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, p. 430, and especially Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 287 sq., where there is a good collection of examples. Kpareiy is here used with an accus. in the same sense as in Acts iii. 11, compare Cant. iii. 4, éxpdrnoa airy, kal ovk apijika abtovy, and Polyb. Hist. vil. 20. 8, and denotes that individual adherence to Christ the Head which alone can constitute life and salvation ; tt rolvuy thy Keparhy apels exn Ta ved@y, Chrysost.: compare the possible physiological reference alluded to in notes on J7ph. iv. 16. ef 06] ‘from which ;’ not neut., either in reference to rd kpareiv, Beng., or un- der an abstract and generalized aspect (Jelf. Gr. § 820. 1, Kriiger, Spracii. § 61. 7.9), to kepaathv, Mey., Eadie, but, as the exactly parallel passage Eph. iv. 16 so distinctly suggests, —masc. in ref. to Xpiorod, the subject obviously referred to in kepadjy. The assertion of Meyer that the reference is not to Christ in His personal relations cannot be substantiat- ed. The following verse seems to imply distinctly the contrary. Nor again, does it seem necessary, with the same com- mentator, to refer e& ob both to the par- ticiples and the finite verb, as in Ephes. iv. 19; the connection seems naturally with aijter,—the prep. é€ marking the source and ‘fons augmentationis;’ see notes on’ Gal. ii. 16. mav 7 c@mal ‘the whole body ;’ sure- ly not necessarily ‘the body in its every part,’ Alf. : between 7d may o@pa (a po- sition of the art. very rarely found in the N. T.) and way 7d cGpua no distinction can_safely be drawn. If més had occu- pied the position of a secondary predi- cate (comp. Matth. x. 30, Rom. xii. 4) there would have been some grounds for the distinction. d1a TOY apav cal ouvvd.] ‘by means of its joints and bands ;’ media of the éiyoph- ynois and ouuBiBaois. The ada and otvderpor, as the common. article seems to hint, are the same in genus; the for- mer referring, not to the ‘ nerves,’ Mey. (in opp. to Syr., Aith. (Platt), Coptic, and all the best Vy.), but to the joints, the ‘commissure’ of the frame (comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 111. p. 96); the latter to the varied ligatures of nerves and muscles and sinews by which the body is bound together. The distine- tions adopted by Mey., al.,— according to which the apa? are specially associated with émxop., and referred to Faith, the ovvd. with oupB., and referred to Love, —are plausible, but perhaps scarcely to’ be relied upon. As in Eph. J. c., the passage does not seem so much to in- volve special metaphors, as to state for- cibly and cumulatively a general truth ; mao i) exkAnota, ews by Exn Thy Kepadrhy, avter, Chrys. | émixop. kal ouvpB.] ‘being supplied and knit together ;? passive and present; the ac- tion was due to communicated influen- 23 178 COLOSSIANS Cuap. II. 19, 20. apav Kai cvvdeopov emruyopyyovpevor Kat ocupBiBatouevoy aver tiv avknow tod Ocod. » Ei ameSdvete oly Xpiotd amo Tov ces, and the action was still going on. To give emxop. a middle sense (adie), ‘furnished with reciprocal aid,’ seems highly unsatisfactory: the pass. of the simple form is by no means uncommon ; see Polyb. Hist. 111. 75. 3, v1. 15.4, 3 Mace. vi. 40. The force of ém is not intensive but directive, pointing to the ac- cession of the supply, ‘ cui, quae sunt ad incrementum necessaria, sufficiuntur,’ Noesselt (see notes on Gal. iii. 5); but it does not seem improbable that both in xopyy. and émxop. some trace of the pri- mary meaning, some reference to the free and ample nature of the supply, is still preserved, compare 2 Pet. i. 5, with ver. 8, and Winer on Gal. iii. 5, p. 76. On the meaning of cupB. see notes on Eph. iv. 16. THY ak. TOD @cod| ‘ with the increase of God,’ i. e. the increase which God supplies, rod @cod being the gen. auctoris or originis, Hartung, Casus, 17, 23; compare 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7, al. To regard the expression as a periphrasis is wholly untenable ; see Winer, Gr. § 36. 8, p. 221. The accus. avénow is that of the cognate subst. (not merely ‘of reference,’ Alf.), and serves to give force to, and develop the mean- ing of the verb ; see Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 200, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501 sq., where this etymological figure is elabo- rately discussed. 20. ci awed. x. 7. A] ‘If ye be dead with Christ ;? warning against false ‘asceticism ; see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 3, and compare generally Rothe, Theol. Eithik, § 878 sq., Vol. 111. p. 120 sq. The apostle grounds his gentle expostu- lation on the acknowledged fact that they were sharers (by baptism, ver. 12) in the death of Christ; in ch. iii. 1, he bases his exhortation on their participation in His resurrection. The collective ody, and the art. before Xp. inserted in Rec., have the authority of all the MSS. against them, and are properly rejected by all modern editors. amd TOV GTOLX. TOD Kdcmovl| ‘ from the rudiments of the world,’ ‘ from ritualis- tic observances and all non-Christian rudiments which in any way resembled them ;” see notes on ver. 8. The Law and all its ordinances were wiped out by the death of Christ (ver. 14), they who were united with Him in His death shared with Him all the blessings of the same immunity. There is no brachylogy (Huth.) ; Christ Himself amrdéSavev amd véuov, when He fulfilled all its claims and bore its curse. The ‘ constructio preenans’ ames. ard only occurs here in the N. T.; it is probably chosen in preference to the dat. (Rom. vii. 14, Gal. ii. 19), as expressing a more complete severance, —not only death to it, but separation and removal from it; comp. Winer, Gr. § 47, p.331. &s (Gvres év ntéouw] ‘as if ye were living in the world, i. e. as if ye were in antithetical relations; ‘ye are dead with Christ; why do ye live as if in a character exactly the reverse, as in a non-Christian realm, from all the rudi- ments of which ye are really dead 2’ SoymatiCease] ‘do ye submit to ordi- nances ;’ imrdxeioe Tots oT oLxelors, Chrys., TaY TadTa didacKdyTwY avexecde, Theod.: middle, — certainly not active, ‘ decerni- tis,’ Vulg., ‘ unredip,’ Goth. (a meaning here not only inappropriate but lexically incorrect), and appy. not passive, ‘pla- citis adstringimini,’ Beza; (comp. Syr. = = n~ abe 92A\So [judicamini] ; Coptic and JEth. paraphrase), as this, though per- fectly lexically admissible (observe 2 Mace. x. 8, édoyudrioay maytl TO eave), seems somewhat less in harmony with the tone of this paragraph than the ‘ do- Cap. IT. 21, 22, COLOSSIANS. 179 oToLyelwv Tod Kdo mov, TLOs Cortes ev Koop@ SoypatiterSe. 7! Mr Gyn, pnde yeton, pnde Siyns * (a4 éotw ravta eis PYopav 7H ceri vos sinitis’ (Grot.) of the middle; Spa 5¢ ral TGs Hpgua adrovs Siakwuwde?, Soypari(erse eimdv, Theophyl.: so Wi- ner, Gr. § 39. 4, p. 295 (ed. 5), though apparently not in ed. 6. In either case the meaning is practically the same ; in the tone of expostulation only is there a slight shade of difference. 21. uh bn x. 7. A.) ‘Handle not, nor taste, nor touch;’ examples of the doyuatiopds to which they allowed them- selves to submit; ‘recitative hae profe- runtur ab apostolo, Daven. With re- gard to the grammatical association, the coarser &/y at the beginning, the inter- posed -yedor, and the more delicate Siyps at the end might seem to justify the dis- tinction of Meyer that the first udé is more adjunctive (see notes on Gal. i. 12 and on Eph. iv. 27), the second more as- censive, if such a distinction in so regu- lar a sequence as pi)...unde...undé be not somewhat precarious; consider Rom. xiv. 21, and especially Luke xiv. 21, where there is a similar slight. disturb- ance of the climax. ‘The essenti.1 char- acter of such quasi-adjunctive enumera- tions is that the items are not ‘ apte con- nexa, sed potius fortuito concursu acce- dentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 707. With regard to the objects alluded to, the interposed yeton and the terms of ver. 23 seem certainly to suggest a ref- erence of all three verbs to ceremonial distinctions in Bpdois and wéois (verse . 16); see especially Xenoph. Cyr. 1. 8. 5 (cited by Raph.), where all three verbs are used in reference to food, and for ex- amples of drrecSa, see Kypke, Obs. p. 324, Loesn. Obs. p. 372. More minute distinctions, e. g. &n, women (Olsh.), corpses (Zanch.) ; Siyns, oil (Boehm. ; compare Joseph. Gell. 11. 8.3), sacred vessels (Zanch.), al., seem very doubt- ful and uncertain. On the distinction between the stronger &rreoSa: and the weaker Svyydvew [OIL, TAT, tango, Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 235], compare Trench, Synon. § 17. 22. & éorivy .T.A.| ‘whieh things, almost, seeing they are things, which are all to be destroyed in their consumption ;’ parenthetical observation of the apostle on the essential character of the meats and drinks which the false teachers in- vested with such ceremonial charac- teristics ; ‘ratio ducitur ab ipsa natura et conditione harum rerum,’ Davenant : they were ordained to be consumed and enter into fresh physical combina- tions; compare Matthew xv. 17. To refer this either to the preceding com- mands, ‘quod totum genus precepto- rum,’ Aug., Sanderson (Serm. vir. ad Pop.], al., or to the preceding clause.as the continued statement of the false teach- ers, Neand. (Plant., Vol. 1. p. 328), De W., al., seems to infringe on the meaning of amdxpynots (see Mey.), and certainly gives a less forcible turn to the parenthe- sis. The objection urged by De Wette, and apparently felt in some measure by Chrysost. and Theoph. —that St. Paul wou'd thus be furnishing an argument against restrictions generally, even those sanctioned by divine authority, may be diluted by observing (a) that a very sim- ilar form of argument occurs in 1 Tim. iv. 3 sq., and (d) that these restrictions and observances are not condemned per se, but in relation to the new dispensa- tion, in which all ceremonial distinctions were done away, and things remanded (so to say) to their primary conditions. eis pdSopdy] ‘for destruction, decom- position,’ the prep. marking the destina- tion, and Sopa having apparently a simply physical sense; compare Syriac vy owmddos | area [usus corrupti- o ww g 4 ’ 180 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 22, 23. aTOYXpHTEL), KATA Ta évTdApaTa Kat Sidackadlas TOV avSpwHTrar ; 23 e / 5 / \ 4 / > b] / \ atwd éotw dAdyov pev Exovta copias év éSehoSpnoxela Kab bilis], and very distinctly Theod., eis Kdmpoy yop GmavTa meTaBddAeTa, and CEcum. psopd ydp, pnow, brdnerta év TE apedponr. TH aT o- xpnoet| ‘in ther consumption,’ in their being used completely up ; ov cxomeire ws povimov TovTwy ovdév, Theod. The com- pound aroxp. has here a somewhat similar meaning to daxp. (comp. Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.), the prep. amd denoting ‘non solum separari aliquid ab aliquo, sed ita remoyveri ut esse prorsus desinat,’ Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 53 compare Plu- tarch, Cesar, § 58, kowis Epwra dds GmokexXpnuevy TH Tapovon, and sce Sui- cer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 489, where sev- eral pertinent examples are collected from the eccl. writers. kata T& evtdArAu.| ‘according to the commandments and teachings of men ;’ fur- ther definition and specification of the preceding doyyuatifecde ; they had died with Christ, they were united with a di- vine Deliverer, and ‘vet were ready to submit to the ordinances and doctrines of conscience-enslaving men. The &- dack., .as the exceptional omission of the article (Winer, Gram. § 19. 3, p. 118) shows, belonged to the same general cat- egory as the évrdAu., and are added probably by way of amplification ; they were submitting to a Soyuatiouds not only in its preceptive, but even in its doctrinal, aspects ; compare Mey. in loc. Alford presses ty‘ aySp. as describing the authors ‘as generally human:’ this is doubtful; as évrdAw. has the article, the principle of correlation requires that avep. should have it also: see Middle- ton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6. 23. &tival ‘al which things,’ ‘a set of things which;’ in reference to the preceding évrdAu. xa} 515., and specifying the class to which they belonged. On this force of doris, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The difference between 6s and doris is here very clearly marked ; & (ver. 22) points to its antecedents under purely objective, &rwa under qualitative and generic aspects; see Kriiger, Spracil. § 51. 8. éoriv Ady. €éxovra] ‘do have the repute of wisdom,’ ‘are enjoying the repute of wisdom,’ the verb subst. being joined, — not with the concluding clause of the verse (Conyb., Kadie), but, as every rule of perspicuity suggests, with €yovra, and serving to mark the regular normal, prevailing char- acter of the gxew; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 311. The exact meaning of Adyov éxew is somewhat doubtful, as Adyos in this combination admits of at least three different meanings ; (a) ‘ speciem,’ «xjua, Theod., Auth. Ver., De W., compare Demosth. Leptin. p. 462, Adyov rwa& exov opp. to Wevdos dy pavetn, see Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 265; (8) ‘rationem,’ scil. ‘ grounds for being considered so,’ Vulg., Clarom., and probably Syriac Jato; compare Polyb. Hist. xv11. 14. 5, Soxodv mavoupyétatov eivat moAby exer Adyov TOD gpavrdtarov imdpxew, and other exam- ples in Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.; (y) ‘famam,’ scil. ‘has the repute of,’ Mey., Alf., and perhaps Chrys., Adyov gnotv, ov Sivamiw dpa ode GAnSeay; compare Herod. v. 66, domep 5) Adyov exer Thy Tlusinv avameioa (cited by Raph.). Of these, though in fact all ultimately coin- cide, (y) is perhaps to be preferred ; ‘7a Ady. éx. sunt res ejusmodi que quidem vulgo sapientis nomen habent, sed a veri sapieutid absunt longissime,’ Ra- phel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 535. wy has here no corresponding 6¢, but serves to pre- pare the reader for a comparison (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 656) which is involved in the phrase Adyov éxew (Adyov ov dbva- uv, Chrys.), and is substantiated by the -~ Cuap. IT. 23. COLOSSIANS. 181 A Nie F , , 7 > A af TaTrewwoppoatyy Kal AaEldig T@pLATOS, OUK EV TLL TLL, TPOS TANG- Movi Ths TapKos. context; see Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. e, p. 507, where other omissions of 5€ are enu- merated and carefully classified. évy €SecAodpynoketa | ‘in self-imposed worship,’ — év pointing to, not the instru- ment by which (Mey.), but as usually, the ethical domain in which, the Adyos copias was acquired, or the substratum on which the 7d @xew «. 7. A. takes place ; see Winer, Gram. § 48. a, p. 345. The word é%eAo%p. is apparently an Gm. Ae- you. ; but by a comparison with similar compounds éSeAodovAcla, eSeAoKdxnots, x. 7. A. (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. Vol. 1. p- 778), and with the verb éSeAospnoneiv as explained by Suidas (idi@ SeAquatt oéBew Tb Soxody)may be clearly assumed to mean, ‘an arbitrary self-imposed ser- vice,’ — which, as the similar association with tame. in ver. 18 seems to suggest, was evinced in the Spyonela tay dyyeAwr. Tamwetv. kat aperd. cdu.| ‘ lowli- ness and disregard, or unsparing treat- ment of the body :’ the two other pervert- ed elements in which the Adyos codias was acquired. On tamew., which here also obviously implies a fulse, perverted humility, see notes on verse 18. The apes. cd. marks the false spirit of as- ceticism, the unsparing way (compare Diod. Sic. x111. 60, apedeiv cdparos), in which they practised bodily austeri- ties, the ocwyarict yuuvacia in which Jewish Theosophy so emulously in- dulged; compare notes on 1 Tim. iv 8. The omission of xa) after rare. and the reading dpedela (B; [Lachm.], Steig.) is strenuously supported by Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p. 64, who takes it as an adjective (comp. apeidefws, Apoll.- Rhod. 111. 897), but seems both unsatis- factory and improbable. ob ey Timm K.7.A.| ‘not in any real value serving (only) to the satisfying of the flesh” Theexplanations of this very ob- scure clause are exceedingly numerous. With regard to the first portion, two only seem to deserve consideration; (a) that of the Greek comm., according to which Tyu7 is understood to point antithetically to the preced. apevd., and to refer to the same gen. (ovK ev TUL TE THpaTL XpOYTaL, Theophyl.), the clause ov« év tru being regarded as a continuance on the nega- tive side of what had previously been expressed in the positive: éSeA. k. TNs were the elements in which the Adyos cogi- as was, and riyyA Tie the element in which it was not acquired ; (b) that adopted by Syr. and appy. Z&th. (Platt), according to which tiuwy approaches to the meaning of ‘pretium,’ and suggests that there was something which might be a true sub- stratum for the rd €xew k. T. A., if prop- erly chosen, —‘a reputation of wisdom evinced in édeA. x. T. A., NOt in any prac- tices of true value and honor;’ so Beza, Beng., al., and, with slight variations in detail, Huther, Meyer, and Neand. Plant- ing, Vol i. p. 828 (Bohn). Of these, (a) has much to recommend it; as how- ever it suggests, if not involves, either a very unsatisfactory meaning of mpbs mAnou., ‘so that the natural wants of the body are satisfied’ (Chrysost., al.), or a retrospective connection of the clause with éoruy, or, still less likely, with dey- patiCecde (Alf.), it seems better to adopt (b), to.which also the use of ri, almost, ‘no value of any kind,’ seems decidedly to lean. Tipds TAncHOY HY, added somewhat closely, then defines gravely and conclusively the real object of all these perverted austerities, — ‘the satisfying of the unspiritual element, the fleshly mind ;’ caprds having a retrospec- tive reference to vobs THs capkds in ver. 18, and contrasting, with great point, the means pursued and the end really in view ; they were unsparing (aped.) with 182 III. Mind the things above, for your life is hidden with » Christ: when he is mani- avo fested so shall ye be also. the céua, that they might satisfy (mpds mAnou.) —the odpt. Syr. and /&th. in- sert GAAG before mpds mwAna.; this is not necessary ; the exposure of the motive is rendered more forcible and emphatic by the omission of all connecting parti- cles. Cuapter III. 1. ei ody] ‘Uf then,’ with retrospective reference to ef d7es., chap. ii. 20, ody being slightly inferential (resurrection with Christ is implied in death with Him), but still preserving its general meaning of ‘continuation and retrospect,’ Donalds. Gr. § 604. The ei is not problematical, but logical (Mey.), introducing in fact the first member of a conditional syllogism ; compare Rom. vy. 15, and see Fritz, in loc. In such cases, instead of diminishing, it really enhances the probability of the truth or justice of the supposition ; compare notes on Phil. 4:22; guynyéepanrte] ‘ye were raised together, scil. in baptism ; not merely in a moral sense (De W.), which would render the injunction that follows somewhat superfluous: eimdéy, Ott ameSavere oly Xp. Sia Tod Bamrioua- Tos Sndadh, Kal KaTa Td TLwTdmevov Sods voeiy Tt Kal ovynyepsyte (Td yap Bdrric- pa, Sowep ia THs KaTaddoews Sdvaror, ottw 5 THs avadvoews Thy avdoTacW Timo), viv eiodyer x. T.A,, Theoph. ; compare Usteri, Zehrb. 11. 1. 3, p. 220. On the force and deep reality of these expressions of mystical union with Christ, compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. 11. p. 164. Td &vo| ‘the things above:’ all things pertaining to the woAtrevya év odpavois, Phil. iii. 20, and to the Christian’s true home, the 4 tw ‘Iepovoadnp, Gal. iv. 26; the con- trast being r& emt ris yijs, ver. 2; comp. I COLOSSIANS. Cuar. III. 1, 2. Ei ov curnyépSnte 76 Xpiote, Ta lal ka ¢ HY > 3 a lal tyreire; ob 6 Xpiotds éotw ev Sekia TOV Ocod caSnpevos' 7 Ta dvw ppoveire, wr) TA ETrt Pearson, Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 322 (ed. Burt.). ot 6 Xp. «.7.A.] ‘where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God;’ not exactly, ‘where Christ sitteth,’ Auth., as there are really two enunciations, ‘ Christ is there, and in all the glory of His regal and judiciary pow- er;’ ovK Apkéodn S€ TH dy cimeiv, ovdE, mpooedniev, ev Sek. mA€ov TL arooThon Tov vod huey ard THs vis, Theophyl. ; comp. Chrys. On the session of Christ at the right hand of God as implying indisturbance, dominion, and judicature, see Pearson, Creed, Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 828, and on the real and literal sig- nificance, Jackson. Creed, Book x1. 1. The student will find a good Ser- mon on this text by Andrewes, Ser- mon vitt. Vol. 11. p. 809-822 (A.-C. Libr.), and another by Farindon, Ser- mon xL11. Volume 11. p. 359 (London, 1849). 2.7 tvw ppovetre] ‘mind the things above ;? expansion of the preced- ing command, gpovety having a fuller meaning than (yreiv; they were not on- ly querere but sapere. On the force of gpoveiv, compare notes on Phil. iii. 15, Beveridge, Serm. cxxxvu. Vol. vi. p. 172 (A.-C. Libr.), and especially the able analysis of Andrewes, Serm. V11t. Vol. 11. p. 315. Ta emt THs. ys] ‘the things on the earth ;’ all things, conditions, and interests that be- long to the terrestrial ; compare Phil. iii. 19, of ta emiyera ppovoivytes. There is here certainly not (a) any polemical al- lusion to the earthly rudiments of the false teachers (Theoph., Cicum.), for, as Meyer observes, the remaining por- tion of the Epistle is not anti-heretical but wholly moral and practical, —nor ov 6 Xp. éativ: GAAG Kadnu. Tod @eov, tva ’ | Cuap. III..3, 4. COLGSSIANS. 183 n a Pie) / lA \ € \ c a , \ A THs yhs. ®ameSavete yap, Kab Son buov KéxpuTtar odv TO fal an a iv4 e \ n id \ ¢ Qn Xpictd ev TO Oecd * dtav 0 Xpiotos havepwrH, 1) Gor juor, ) L pels adv avTa havepwrijceae év Oo& TOTE Kal Ypels OY AUTG pon) ? 7. (b) any special ethical allusion with ref. to ver. 5 (Estius), for the antithesis Ta &yw obviously precludes all such limita- tion. The command is unrestricted and comprehensive, ‘ superna curate non ter- restria ;’ see Calv. zn /oc., and the sound sermon by Beveridge, Serm. Vol. v1. p. 169 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 3. ameSdvetre yap| ‘For ye are dead, Alf., Wordsw., as- the reference seems still to the past act, ch. 20. Co- nyb. urges that the associated Kéxpurtat shows that the aor. is here used for a perfect. Surely this is inexact; the aor. may, and apparently does, point to the act, the perfect to the state which ensued thereon and still continues. The nature of 3vfoKw, however, is such as to pre- clude any rigorous translation on either side. n Cwh buav| ‘your life,’ —which succeeded after the amedave- me; your real and true life, —not merely your ‘ resurrection life,’ Alf. (ris: jueré- pas avactdceos Td pvorhpiov, Theod.), but, with the tinge of ethical meaning which the word (wH, from its significant antithesis to Sdvaros, always seems to involve (compare Reuss, Theol. Chret. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 252), ‘your inward and heavenly life,’ of which Christ is the es- sence, and, so to speak, impersonation (ver. 4), and with whom it will at last receive all its highest developments, ex- pansions, and realizations ; comp. notes on 1 Tim.iv.8. Onthe meaning of (w#, see the good treatise of Olshausen, Opusc. Art. viz. p. 187 sq., and on its distinc- tion from Bios, Trench, Synon. § 27. KéxpuTtTat obv TG Xp.| ‘hath been (avd is) hidden with Christ ;’ its glory and highest characteristics are concealed from view, — not merely ‘laid up,’ Al- ford, but.shrouded in the depths of in- ward experiences and the mystery of its union with the life of Christ. When He is revealed, then the life of which He is the source and element will be re- vealed in all its proportions and all its blessed characteristics : the manifestation which is now at best only partial and subjective, will then be objective and complete; compare the thoughtful re- marks of Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. v. 3, p- 298. évy TG Ocg| ‘in God ;’ He is the element and sphere in which the (w? is concealed: in Him, as pas oik@v ampooirov (1 Tim. vi-6), as the Father in whom is the Eternal Son (John i. 18, xvii. 21), and with whom He forever reigns (ver. 1), the life of which the Son is the essence lies shroud- ed and concealed. Considered under its inherent relations our (w} is concealed év @eg@ ; considered under its coherent re- lations it is concealed civ XpiorG ; com- pare Meyer in loc., whose interpretation of (wi) (‘das ewige Leben’) is, however, narrow and unsatisfactory. 4. pavepway| ‘shall be manifested ;’ scil. at His second coming, when He shall be seen as He is, and when His present concealment shall cease; otre yap ig’ budy para, kal ord Tay amioTwY TaVTEX A@s ayvoeira, Theod.: compare'2 Peter iii. 4. n (oh mar] ‘our Life, almost, ‘ being our Life,’ the ‘ pree- dicatio,’ as Daven. acutely observes, be- ing ‘ causalis non essentialis.’ Christ is here termed 7 (wh jjuav, not, however, as being merely the author of it (Daven.), or the cause of it (Corn. a Lap.), much less ‘in the character of it’ (Eadie), but as being —our Life itself, the essence and the impersonation of it; compare Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i.21. Thus Christ is -termed 4 éAms judy, 1 Tim. i. 1 (comp. 184 Mortify your members and the evil principles in which ye once walked: put off the old man, and put on the new, in which all are one in Christ. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 4, 5: 5 Nexpoécate ody Ta médn tuav Ta ert Ths Ys, Twopvelav, axaSapolav, mdSos, émiSupiav 5. 7a wéAn buav] So Rec., Lachm., with AC7DEFGKL; nearly all mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), Copt., &th. (Pol. and Platt), Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al. (Meyer, De Wette). The pronoun is omitted by Tisch. (ed. 2, but not ed. 7), Alf, with BC!; 17. 67**. 71; Clem. (1), Orig. (5), al. The great preponderance of MSS., and the accordant testimony of so many Vv. seem to render this otherwise not improbable omission here very doubtful. Col. i. 27), 4 eiphyn judy, Eph. ii. 14, where see notes. The reading is very doubtful: jor is adopted by Rec., Lachm., and Tisch. with BD*D*E? KL; great majority of mss. ; Syr. (both), al.; Or., Gicum., al. On the other hand, tuay is supported by CD!E1FG; 5 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Copt. [quoted by Tisch. and Alf. for the other reading], Goth., Eth. (Pol. and Platt); many Latin and Greek Ff. As judy is far less easy to account for than juéy, which might have come from ver. 3 or from the dpets in the present verse, critical principles seem to decide for the reading of the text. kat duets] ‘yealso;’ ye Colossian converts, as well as all other true Chris- tians. The more verbally exact opposi- tion would have been ‘ your hidden life’ (comp. Fell); but this the apostle per- haps designedly neglects, to prevent (#7 being applied, as it has been applied, merely to the resurrection life. Alford urges this clause as fixing that meaning to (wf; but surely the avoidance of the regular antithesis seems to hint the very reverse ; duets payep. is the natural sequel of your inward and heavenly life, and is its true development. év 86&n] ‘in glory;’? compare Rom. viii. 17, elmep cuumdoxopuey iva Kal ovy- SotacdGuev. The ddéa will be the issue, development, and crown of the hidden life, and will be displayed both in the material (1 Cor. xv. 43) and immaterial portions of our composite nature: ‘ hu- jus seternze vite promissa gloria sita est in duplici stola ; in stola anime et stola corporis, Daven. The conjunction of body and soul, soul and spirit, will then be complete, harmonious, and indissolu- ble; (w} will become 7 dvtws (wh, and will reflect the glories of Him who is its element and essence : comp. Olsh. Opuse. p- 195 sq. 5. vexpdcate ody] ‘ Make dead then:’ ‘as you died, and your true life is hidden with Christ, and hereafter to be developed in glory, act conformably to it, —let nothing live inimical to such a state, kill at once (aor.) the organs and media of a merely earthly life.’ Ody is thus, as commonly, retrospective and collective (‘ad ea que antea revera pos- ita lectorem revocat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 719), serving to enhance the perti- nent reference of vexpdcare to the amreSd- vere and 4 (wh tudv which have preced- ed. Ta MEAN Smav] ‘your members,’ the portions of your bodily or- ganization (compare Rom. vii. 5) gud the instruments and media of sinfulness and lusts ; compare with respect to the pre- cept, Rom. viii. 18, Gal. y. 24, and with respect to the image, and form of expres- sion, Matth. v. 29,50. These-are more specifically defined as ta em tis yas (compare ver. 2), as defining the sphere of their activities (‘ ubi suum habent pab- ulum,’ Beng.), and as justifying the pre- ceding command. mopvelav kal axasapotay] ‘for- Cuar. III. 5, 6. COLOSSIANS. 185 Kaki, Kat THY TAeoveElay iris é€ativ eidwroraTpela, * SV & 6. ém robs viods ametd.] Tisch. [Zachm.], and Alf. omit these words with B; Sahid., 2th. (Pol., but not Platt); Clem. (1), Ambrosiast. (text). On the one hand, it is certainly possible that they may have been inserted from the paral- lel passage, Eph. vi. 6; still, on the other, the overwhelming weight of external evidence, and the probability, that in two Epistles where so much is alike, even individual expressions might be repeated, seem to render the omission on such evi- dence more than doubtful. nication and uncleanness ;’ specific and generic products of the 7a én) rijs vijs wéAn on the side of lust and carnality ; compare Eph. v. 3. There is no need to supply mentally vexpéoare (Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 379), or to introduce paraphrastically a prep., ‘ a scortatione,’ J@th.; the four accusatives stand in an appositional relation to Ta méAn Kk. T. A., as denoting their evil prodticts and op- erations ; see Wiuer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470, and compare Matth. Gr. § 432. 3. Tacos emisuu. karhy| ‘lustfulness, evil concupiscence ;’ further and more ge- neric manifestations. It does not seem proper,on the one hand, to extend 7430s to ‘motus vitiosos, quales sunt éxSpat, épets, Gado, «. T. A.,’ Grot., or, on the other, to limit it to more frightful exhibitions (Rom. i. 26, 27): it points rather, as the evolution of thought seems to require, to ‘the disposition toward lust,’ Olsh., the ‘morbum libidinis,’ Beng., — in a word, not merely to lust, but to lustfulness ; mdsos 7 Avcoa TOD odhuatos, Kal wowep mupeTds, i) Tpadpa, 7) GAA vdoos, Threoph. The last, émiSvpia karh, is still more in- clusive and generic ; idod yerik@s 7) way etre, Chrys. Thy TAEO- vettav| ‘ Covetousness,’ — with the arti- cle, as the notorious form of sin (‘die ~bekannte, « hauptsichlich. vermeidende Unsittlichkeit, Winer, Gr. § 18. 8, p. 106), that ever preserves so frightful an alliance with the sins of the flesh. There seems no reason whatever to depart from the proper sense of the word ; it is nei- ther specially ‘base gains derived from uncleanness’ (comp. Storr, Flatt, al.), nor generically, ‘insatiabilem cupidita- tem voluptatum turpium,’ Estius, ‘ the whole longing of the creature,’ Trench (Synon. § 24, —a very doubtful expan- sion), but simply ‘ covetousness,’ ‘ inex- plebilem appetitum animi quierentis di- vitias, Daven. (compare Theod. The- oph.), a sin that especially depends on the 7a ém ris ys (‘maxime effigit ad terram,’ Beng.), and makes, not sen- sational cravings per se, but the means of gratifying them, the objects of its in- terest; see especially Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 8. 2, Vol. 1. p. 169 (Clark), and notes on Ephes. iy. 20. htis éotiy eidwa.| ‘the which is, seeing it is, idolatry ;’ explanatory force of Sorts, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The remark of Theod. is very pertinent, ézet- 3} Toy pappwva Kipioy 6 owThp mpoonyd- pevoe DiddoKwv, s 6TH Tddet Tis WAEo- veklas dSovAetwy as Sedy Thy TAOVTOV Tia. The very improbable reference of jjrts to pean (Harl. on Eph. v. 5), or to all that precedes (Heinr.), is rightly rejected by Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. 6. 30 &] ‘on account of which sins ;’ clearly not 8? &, sc. wéAn (Bahr), but in reference to ‘ peccata preecedentia aliaque flagitia,’ Grot.: compare notes on Eph. v.6. The reading is doubtful: 6 is found in C1D!EIFG; Claroman., Sang; @ in ABC2D2D2E2KL; al., and apparently rightly adopted by Lachmann and Tisch. after Rec. Though an emendation is not improbable, the preponderance of external evidence seems too distinct to be 24 186 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 6-8. Epxetat 1) opyi) Tov Oeod eri Tovs viods THs ameSelas’ 7 év ois al f Kai wpmels TrepleTaTHnoaTé ToOTE, safely reversed. EpxeTatl ‘doth come;’ emphatic, both position and tense. The present hints at the en- during principles of the moral govern- ment of God; see notes on Eph. v. 5. n Opyn Tov Oeo0d| Not only here, but hereafter ; iad ) wéAAovea opyy Kad 7 ev TG viv aiG@vt ToAAdKIS KaTaAapBdvouct Tovs Toovrovs Theoph. Meyer rejects this, but without sufficient reason ; see notes on Eph. v. 6. Tovs viovs THs amweLa.| ‘the sons of disobedience ;? those who reject and disobey the principles and practice of the Gospel ; see notes on Eph. v. 6, where the same expression occurs in the same com- bination, and on the force of the Hebra- istic circumlocution, notes on 2b. ii. 2. 7. év ofs| ‘among whom,’ scil. viots THS ameselas, —not neuter ‘in which,’ in reference to the foregoing vices: see Eph. ii. 3, év ois kal jets averrpadnuer, which, with the present (longer) reading, seems to leave no room for doubt. The objection of Olsh. that the Colossians were still walking among the viots ris ameiy. aS converts, seems easily answered by observing that mepurareiv, St. Paul’s favorite verb of moral motion (only here and 2 Thess. iii. 11 with persons), seems always used by him to denote an actual participation in a course or manner of life ; contrast John xi. 54, e¢ate ev tovtrous| ‘ye were living in these sins,’ ‘ these things were the sphere of your existence and activities ;’ the verb é(jre referring to the preceding ames. (ver. 3), and its tense portraying ‘the then continuing state ; compare Jelf, Gr. § 401.3. Huther and others regard TovTois as masc.: this does not seem satisfactory, as dre ée¢. would be but a weak and tautologous explanation of the preceding év ois mepier. wore, and as jy év (except in its deeper meanings, e. 9. dte entre év trovrou: 8 vi dé Civ év Xp. x. 7. A., Rom. vi. 11, Gal. ii. 20) is always used by St. Paul with things ; compare Rom. vi. 2, Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i. 22, Col. ii. 20. See the exam- ples collected by Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 327), Civ év ’Odvoccia, ev ppovtiow, ev Adyots, ev apeTH, ev pidrogopia x. T. A., in all of which the non-personal substan- tives similarly define the sphere to which the activities of life were confined; see also examples in Wetst. in doc. The reading of Rec. avrots [D*E2FGKL] has insufficient critical support. 8. vuvl d& awmddeade] but Now lay aside ;’ emphatic exhortation suggested by their present state, the forcible yup) (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. 24) standing in sharp opposition to the preceding rére, On the figurative aré%eoSe, opp. to évdtcagSe, compare notes on Eph. iv. 22. The translation of Eadie, ‘ye too have put off,’ perhaps suggested by a misunderstanding of Auth., can only be regarded as an oversight ; such mis- takes, however, seriously weaken our confidence in this otherwise useful writer as a sound grammatical expositor. kal duets] ‘ye also,’ ye as well as other Christians ; the xa) putting them here in contrast with their fellow-con- verts, as in ver. 7 with their fellow-heath- ens; comp. notes on Piil. iv. 12. ta wavtal ‘the whole of them:’ all previously (rovras, ver. 7), and hereaf- ter to be mentioned. Winer (Gr. § 18. 1, p. 98) refers ra mévra, with an inten- sive force, only to what had been already adduced: the enumeration which fol- lows seems to require a more compre- hensive and prospective reference; see Meyer in loc. So similarly Syr., Goth. (Eth. omits), ‘hae omnia’ (compare Theod.), except that this is perhaps too exclusively prospective. There is no full stop after this word in Tisch., as is OTe. Cuap. III. 8,9. COLOSSIANS. 187 tal , amroSeoSe kal tpels Ta TavTa, opynv, Supmov, Kakiav, PLacdnpiar, aicxporoylav, €x Tov aTOpaTos Uuov, * p1) Yrevdeae Eis GAAHAOUS, asserted by Alf., nor apparently in any edition. kaktlav| ‘ malice,’ ‘badness of heart,’ the evil habit of the mind as contrasted with movypia, the more definite manifestation of it ; comp. Eph. iv. 31, and Trench, Synon. § 11. On the distinction between the preceding ‘opy) (the more settled state) and Suuds (the more eruptive and temporary), see notes on Eph. iv. 31, and Trench, Synon. § 37; add also Gicum., who correctly remarks, ore yap Supds.... etapis tis kal dvaSuulacis oketa ToD mdSous, dpy) bE Eupovos AUTH. Brachonmtav may be either against God or against men, according to the context (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 18); here the associated vices seem to limit the reference to the latter; Tas Aodoplas ottw Aéye:, The- oph.; see notes on the very similar pas- sage, Eph. iv. 31. aiaxporoyiar| ‘coarse (reproachful) speaking. It is somewhat doubtful whether we are to adopt (a) the more limited meaning ‘ turpiloquium,’ Claroman., sim. Vulg., Syr., ‘aglaitivaurdein,’ Goth., turpitu- do,’ AXthiop.; or () the more general, ‘foul-mouthed abusiveness, Trench (comp. Copt., where, however, it seems confounded with pwpodoyia), ‘ schand- bares Reden,’ Meyer. As aioxp. is an ar. Aeydu. in N. T., and does not occur in LXX., and as both interpretations have good lexical authority, —the for- mer, Xenoph. Laced. v. 6, Poll. Onomast. Iv. 106, Clem.-Alex. Ped. 11. 6, comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 136; Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 535; the lat- ter, Polyb. Hist. vi1z. 13. 8, and xxx1. 10. 4, where it is associated with Aoidopia, —the context alone must decide. As this appy. refers mainly to sins against a neighbor (compare yer. 9), the balance seems in favor of (b), according to which aicxp. will be an extension of BAacd., and will imply all coarse and foul- mouthed language, whether in abuse or otherwise. #aros is not to be referred solely to aicxpoa. (/Eth.), but to the two preced- ing substantives, aréSecde being men- tally supplied. It seems doubtful wheth- er the addition marks specially the pollu- €k TOU oT 6- tion (pumot yap Td eis 5ufoAoyiay cod Te- mommevov otdua, Gicum., comp. Chrys.), or the unsuitableness (Mey.) of the ac- tions which are here described : the lat- ter is perhaps slightly the most probable ; comp. James iii. 10. 9. wh Wetvdease] ‘donotlie;’ pres., do not indulge in the practice. The ad- dition eis aAAnAous specifies the objects toward which the practice was forbidden (compare Winer, Gram. § 49. a, p. 353), and stamps it as a social wrong. On the frightful character of untrutbfulness, and its evolution from selfishness and lust, see especially Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1-°1./8.)2) Vol 1p. .171 sq. (Clark). It seems best with Lachm., Tisch., and apparently most modern editors, to place only a comma between ver. 8 and 9. amekdvadmevor| ‘ seeing that ye have put off, Auth. ; causal participle, giving the reason for the precept, and in point of time being prior to (Meyer), not contemporaneous with (‘ exspoliantes,’ Vulg., Clarom.), the preceding aor. infin. amosecse. Such a reference is not su- perfluous or inappropriate (De W.); the part. serves suitably to remind them that the condition into which they had now entered rendered a selfish and untruthful life a self-contradiction. To consider émexd. as beginning a new period, inter- rupted and resumed in ver. 12, as Hof-" mann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 268, seems very harsh and improbable. On the double compound azekd. see notes on ch. ii. 11. Tov wadkatdy 188 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 10. , > amexkduvcdpevot Tov Tadaioyv dvSpwrov avy Tais mpakeow avTov, 10 A > \ \ lA is ? s > > / > Kab EVOUTA[LEVOL TOV VEOV TOV AVAKALVOVLEVOY ELS ETTLYYMOW KAT &v&p.| ‘the old man;’ not merely thy mpotépay wod.telay, Theod., but, with a more individualizing reference, our for- mer unconverted self, our state before regeneration ; see notes on Eph. iv. 22. Davenant (comp. Calv.) refers the term to the ‘insita naturz nostr corruptio,’ -—a special and polemical reference, to which the context, which seems to point simply to their ante-Christian, as con- trasted with their present, state (tdére, yuri), seems to yield no support. ovv tats mp.] ‘with his deeds;’ slightly explanatory, marking the prac- tical character of the developments of the madaids &vSpwros ; comp. Gal. v. 24. 10. kal évd. tov véor| ‘and have put on the new man;’ closely connected with the preceding clause, and presenting, on the positive side, the act succeeding to the dmexd. on the negative. &v&p. stands in contrast with the madads as specifying the newly-entered and fresh state of spiritual conditions after conver- sion and regeneration. In Eph. iv. 23 the term is xaivds, as marking rather the new state in respect of quality ; compare Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 59, notes on Eph. iii. 16, iv. 24. It is not improba- ble that the reference in the two passages is slightly different, there, (Eph.) as the hortatory tone suggests, the reference is primarily to renovation ; here, as the ar- gumentative allusion seems to imply, primarily to regeneration, yet in neither, as the noticeable combinations (dvave- ovovat—Kawdy &vdp., véov t&vdp.— Tov avaxaw.) further suggest, is the reference exclusive. On the distinction, see Wa- terland, Regen. Vol. 1v. p. 433 sq., com- pare Trench, Synon. § 18. tov avakatv.| ‘whois being renewed ;’ characteristic, not merely of dydSpo- mov (De W.), but of the véov &vSpwrorvs as the prominence of the epithet clearly The véos requires. This process of dvakatvwots, of which the causa instrumentalis and agent (Tit. iii. 5, compare Eph. iv. 23) is the Holy Spirit, is represented as con- tinually going on; compare 2 Cor. iv. 16, 6 €omSev (t%v3p.) avaravotra juepa kat nuéepa. The prep. ava appears to mark restoration to a former, not neces- sarily a primal, state; see Winer, de Verb. Comp. 111. p. 10, compare notes on Eph. iv. 23. eis éemiyvactr| ‘unto complete knowledge,’ apparently of God, and the mystery of redemption (tod @cod ka Tay Selwv, Theoph.) ; com- pare ch. i. 9, ii. 2, Ephes. i. 17; “in eo quod ait qui renov. in agnitionem, demon- strabat quoniam ipse ille qui ignorantiz erat homo, id est, ignorans Deum, per (%) eam quee in eum est agnitionem ren- ovatur,’ Iren. Her. vy. 12. On the full meaning of émlyv. (‘ accurata cognitio’), see notes on EHph.l. ¢., and compare on Col. ii. 2. This was the object towards which the avaraw. tended (not the sphere in which, Auth., Copt.),—the result which it was designed to attain; comp. Eph. iv. 13. Kat eikova Kk. T.A.] ‘after the image of Him that created him.’ By a comparison with the similar and suggestive passage, Eph. iv. 23, there can scarcely be a doubt that ‘this clause is to be connected with dava- kaw., not with émlyywow (Meyer, comp. Hofm , Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 252), —acon- struction grammat. admissible (see Win. Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), but not exegetically satisfactory. Kara will thus point to the ‘norma’ or model (notes on Gal. iv. 28), and the eixéy tod ric. to the image of God (Theod.), not of Christ (Chrysost. ; compare Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 11. p- 392, Clark), in which the first man was created, which was lost by sin, but ‘is to be restored again by a real though not substantial change,’ Pearson, ‘Creed, Cuap, III. 11, 12. COLOSSIANS. 189 elxova Tov KTicavTos avTov: 1! dou ove vu” EXXAnv Kab Iovsdaios, TeptToun Kat axpoBvotia, BapPapos, Xxvsys, Soddos, édevSepos, ral tA Ga Ta TaVTA Kai ev TacW XpiaTos. Put on mercy, be forgiving and loving, and let the 2 ’HvdtcacSe obv, ws éxdEeKTOL ToD Ocod peace of Godrulein you. Sing aloud, and in your hearts, to God, and give thanks. Art. 11. Vol. 1. p. 149 (ed. Burt.) ; ‘in, eo quod dicit secundum imag. conditoris recapitulationem manifestavit ejus hom- inis qui in initio secundum imaginem factus est Dei,’ Iren. Her. v. 12, comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 11. 2, p. 51, who conceives that with the spiritual, a physical depravation of the image was also included. To assert that a refer- ence to a restoration of the image of God in the first creation involves ‘an idea foreign to Scripture’ (Alf., comp. Miil- ler, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 11. p. 393, Clark), seems somewhat sweeping ; see notes on Eph. iv. 24, and the passages collected from the early eccl. writers in Bull, Lng. Works, Dise. v. p. 478 sq., and especial- ly p. 492. .On the meaning of cixay, see Trench, Synon, 15. aut dy] Scil. véoy avdp.; not merely aySp. (De W.), which seems opposed to the logical and grammatical connection, and is not required by the preceding interpretation. Whether God be defined as 6 xticas in reference to the first, or to the second creation (avdxrio1s, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 80, Burt.), does not alter the doc- trinal truth involved in the words — ‘quod perdidimus in Adam, id est se- cundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu recipimus,’ Ire- neus, Her. 111. 18: 11. drov] ‘where;’? ‘qua in re’ (‘apud quem,’ @th.), scil. in which condition of aréxdvois of the old, and évdvois of the new man; compare Xen- ophon, Mem. 111. 5. 1, and Kiihner, zn loc., cited (but incorrectly) by Meyer. ob €vi| ‘there is not ;? see notes on Gal. iii. 28, where the grammatical char- acter of this contraction is briefly dis- cussed. “EAAnY kad lovd.] ‘Greek and Jew;’ antithesis involving national distinctions, followed by a sec- ond (mepir., kad ap.) involving ritual characteristics, and by a climax (BdpB., xv.) in reference to habits and civili- zation (‘Scythe barbaris barbariores,’ Beng., Bpaxd tév Snpiwy diapépovtes, Jo- seph. contr. Ap. 11. 37; see examples in Wetst. in /oc.), and lastly, by a third un- connected antithesis (SodA0s, éAevS.) in- volving social relations. Between the last two Zachm. inserts kai, with ADIE FG; 3 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.: the external authority is fair, but the proba- bility of a conformation to the preced- ing very great. The addition of kal by D'EIFG after BapB. seems a clear inter- polation, thus rendering the testimony of the same MSS. of doubtful value in the next pair. To insert ‘and’ in transla- tion (Scholef. Hints, p. 113) seems quite unnecessary. GAA TH mdvra «.7.A.| ‘but Curist is all and in all; similar in meaning to mdyres duets els eort &v Xp. Ino., Galat. iii. 28, but with a somewhat more comprehen- sive enunciation: ‘ Christ’ (placed with emphasis at the end, Jelf, Gram. § 902, 2) is the aggregation of all things, dis- tinctions, ‘prerogatives, blessings, and moreover is in all, dwelling in all, and so uniting all in the common element of Himself; mdvra tuiv 6 Xpicrds @oras, kar atloua Kal yévos, kal év macw butv avtds, Chrys. For examples of eiva: ta mdvta or mdyra [as AC, and many mss. in this place] in ref. to an individual, see the very large collection in Wetstein on 1 Cor. xv. 28. 12. €vdtcoacSe obr| ‘ Puton then;’ 190 COLOSSIANS. Cuar. Tf. 19,593. Grytou Kat HyaTrn evo, omNayyva oirrippod, xpnorérnra, TATED voppoovyny, mTpaiTnTa, paxposuplav, a8 AVEXOMEVOL GXAnA@V Kab exhortation naturally following from the fact that the véos &vSpwros which in- volved all the ahove blessings had been put on; ‘as you have put on the new man, put on all its characteristic quali- ties.’ The odv has thus appy. more of its reflexive force ; ‘it takes up what has been said and continues it,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 192; compare notes on Phil. rales &s éxr. Tod Ocod] “as chosen ones of, God ;’ as being men who enjoy and value so great and so singular a blessing as to have been called out of heathen darkness to the knowledge of Christ; compare Tit. i. 1. Meyer acutely calls attention to the fact that és éxdexTo) echoes the preceding argumen- tative aexduc., and thus stands in logi- cal and exegetical connection with what precedes. It is doubtful whether ayo xa) iyyanw. are to be regarded as used substantively (‘ ut sancti et dilecti,’ Acth., —Pol., but not Platt), and as co-ordi- nate to, or as simple predicates to, the preceding éxAckrol rod Ocod. The pure substantival use of the latter expression in St. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. viii. 33, Tit. i. 1, compare 2 Tim. ii. 10), coupled with the fact that the force of the exhor- tation rests on their character as éxAexTol, not as being &y:ot xa) jryam., renders the latter connection most plausible; so Beng., and after him Mey., and the ma- jority of modern editors and expositors. Chrysost. and Theoph. appear to have regarded them as three attributes; so Daven., Huther, al. omrdyxva oiktippod] ‘bowels of mercy ;’ bowels which are characterized by, are the seat of mercy, the gen. being that of the ‘ predominating quality,’ and probably falling under the general head of the genitive possessivus ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 8, p. 115, and compare Luke i. 78, omadyxva éddovs. The expression is probably a little more emphatic than the simple oixripuyods (Heb. x. 28), or the more common @Aeos: ovK elmev EAcor, GAN éudavtixdrepoy ia rev 500, Chrys. For exx. of the tropical use of owAdyxva, which, however, is here not necessarily required (compare Meyer), sce Philip- pians i. 18, ii, 1, and notes in loce. The plur. oi«tipydv (Rec.) has only the support of K; mss. ; Theod., al., and is rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. xpnaortdétntal ‘kindness:’ ‘benevo- lence and sweetness of disposition as shown in intercourse with one another; ’ joined in Tit. iii. 4 with piravSpomla, . and in Rom. xi. 22 opp. to amrotopia ; see notes on Gal. y. 22. tatetvoppoa.| ‘ lowliness (of mind)? the thinking léwly of ourselves because we are so; dv tamewds is, Kal evvonons mis dy was éoHSns, apopyhy mpds apeTHv AauBdves Thy wvhwny, Chrys. on Eph. iv. 2, here more exact than in his definitions collected in Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. On the true meaning of this word see the valua- ble remarks of Neander, Planting, Vol: 1. 483, Trench, Synon. § 42, and notes on Eph. iv. 2 rpaitrntal ‘ meekness,’ in respect of God, and toward one another; see notes on Galat. v. 23, and on Eph. iv. 2, in which latter pas- sage it occurs in exactly the same posi- tion with respect to ramew. and waxposu- pla. Eadie objects to the primary refer- ence to God, but apparently without suf- ficient reason : that rpairns is frequently used in purely human relations is quite true (compare Titus iii. 2, pair. mpds mavTas avSpémrous), but that its basis is a meek acceptance of God’s dealings with us seems clearly shown in Matth, xi. 29, where it is an attribute of the Saviour, and in Gal. vi. 1, and perhaps 1 Cor. iv. 21 and 2 Tim. ii. 25, where a sense of dependence on God forms the very Cuap. III. 13, 14. COLOSSIANS. 191 t e A 32 if; ” , \ ae xapifomevor éEavtois, édv Tis TMpos Twa exn poudyy, KaY@s Kal 6 an \ a fal Xpwotos éxapicato buiv ovtws Kal tpelss 4 eri waow S€ TovTas groundwork of the exhortation. In such passages mere gentleness seems quite insufiicient. On pakposvuula opp. to dfvSsuuia (James i. 19), see notes on Eph. iv. 2. 13. &vexdmevot GAA.] ‘ forbearing one another ;’ exhibition of the last two, and perhaps more particularly of the last, of the above-mentioned virtues ; com- pare Eph. iv. 2, werd paxpod., avexduevor GAA. ev aydrn. There does not seem any necessity for enclosing the whole verse (Griesb., Lachm., Buttm.), nor even Kadws kal...tuets (Winer, Gr. § 64, ed. 5), in a parenthesis. ‘he structure and sequence of thought seem uninterrupted ; while the first participial clause expands the preceding substantives, the second is enhanced by an adverbial clause which in its second member carries with it the preceding participle xapi(duevor ; see Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p: 499, ed. 6. xaprCdmevor Eavtots| ‘forgiving each other ;? compare Epli.iv. 382. The change to the reflexive pronoun in two members so perfectly similar (ph. e. is a little different) is perhaps not acci- dental; while aAAfjAwy marks an act to be done by one Christian to his fellow Christian, éavrots may suggest the per- formance of an act faintly resembling that of Christ’s, namely, of each one to- ward all,—yea even to themselves in- cluded (‘ vobismet ipsis,’ Vulg.), Chris- tians being members of one another ; boa ty év TH evepyereiy Toiapev Erépous, KaA@s Tatra, kal dia To TéAOS Kal Sid Td ovoeocemovs judas elvat, wadAoy eis Tuas avapepera, Origen on Eph. l.c. (Cramer, Cat. Vol. 1. p. 811), here perhaps more appropriate. ‘ (ground of) blame.’ This form is an Gat Acydu. in the N. T., but, especially in combination with é¢yw, sufficiently common in classical Greek ; see exam- ponphyy ples in Wetstein in Joc., and in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. The glosses péupw [D1E ?] and dépyiv [FG] are obviously suggested by the non-appearance of the word elsewhere in the N. T. or in the LXX. kKadva@s kal 6 Xp.] “even as Christ also forgave you ;’ comp. ch. ii. 18, where the same divine act is, as it would there seem, similarly attrib- uted to Christ; contrast Eph. iv. 32; where it is referred to 6 Ocbs év Xp. KaSdas (comp. on Gal. iii. 6), associated with the «at of comparison (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635) and balanced by the fol- lowing o¥tws ral, here simply introduces an example (sipetoSe troy Acométny, The- od.): in Eph. /. c., as the imperatival structure suggests, it has more of an argumentative tinge; see notes in loc. The reading is slightly doubtful : Kupuos is adopted by Lachm. with ABD!IFG ; 1 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.; Aug.al., but is not improbably due to some attempts at conformation to Eph. iv. 32. kal duets] Scil. xapiCduevor, the struc- ture remaining participial : see Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499. The principal Vv. > Syr. (QO. [condonate]), Clarom. (‘ita et vos facite’), Goth. (‘taujaip’), ZEth. (‘ facite’), and Theod. supply the imperative, which in some MSS. [D1E! FG: al., roveire| is actually expressed : this, however, certainly seems at vari- ance with the structure, and interrupts the otherwise easy sequence of clauses ; so rightly De Wette and Meyer. On the double xa) in sentences composed of correlative members, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, and notes on Ephes. v. 23, where the usage is briefly investi- gated. 14. dm) macy Sé rodbTois] ‘bul over all these things ;’ not, as in Eph. vi. 14 (see notes in loc.), with a simple 192 N > 7, aoe! \ z, 5 THV AYATHV, 0 ETTLY TUYOETMOS force of accession or superaddition, Syr. OLS aS oe [cum his om- nibus|, Auth., but, as the more distinct expression and especially the foregoing image seem to require, with a semi-local force (‘ super,’ Vulg., ‘ufar,’ Goth.), the dative with ém as usual conveying the idea of closer and less separable connec- tions ; see notes on ph. ii. 20, but trans- pose (ed. 1) the accidentally misplaced ‘latter’ and ‘ former.’ Love toward all (comp. on Phil. i. 9) was thus to be the garb that was to be put on over all the other elements in the spiritual é&dvors. 3] ‘which (element) ;’ neuter, the ante- cedent being viewed under an abstract and generalized aspect; see Jelf, Gram. § 820. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 7. 9. The reading is not perfectly certain ; qtis (Rec.) is fairly supported [D?D3E KL; many Ff.], and is certainly in ac- cordance with St. Paul’s (explanatory) use of the indef. relative in similar pas- sages; still the probability of a gram- matical gloss seems here so great, that the reading of Lachm. and Tisch. is to be distinctly preferred. avvSecuos THS TEAELSTHTOS| ‘the bond of perfectness,’ Auth. ; not ‘ of com- pleteness,’ Alf., which would be a more suitable translation of 6AoKAnpla ; comp. Trench, Synon. § 22. The genitival re- lation has been somewhat differently ex- plained ; the abstract gen. may be (a) the gen. of quality, in which case reAetdr. would be little more than an epithet, ‘the most perfect bond,’ Hamm., Grot., and even Green, Gram. p. 247; (b) the gen. of content, ‘amor complectitur vir- tutum universitatem,’ Bengel, compare Bull, Exam. Cens. 11. 5,—ijs rededr. marking that which the odtvd. enclosed within it, De W., Olsh., compare Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 242; or (c) the genit. objecti; tis tedeiér. being that which COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 14, 1), a , 15 a ye omer THS TENELOTHTOS. Kal 7) ELpnvn is held together by it, and on which it exercises its conjunctive power; mayTa exetva ality ovodryyet, Theophyl.: so ° Chrys., Theod., apparently Syr. Lops [cinctorium], and more recently Steig. and Meyer. Of these (c) has clearly the advantage, as not involving either a doubtful genitive or an unsatisfactory, if not indemonstrable meaning of cvvdec- pos (comp. Meyer) ; as, however, it as- signs a questionable collective force to TeAcLOTNS, SCil. TA THY TeAELOTYNTA ToLOdY- za, Chrys., Theoph., it seems more ex- act to regard the genitive as, (d) a gen. subject belonging to the general category of the gen. possess.; love is the bond which belongs to, is the distinctive fea- ture of perfection : contrast Eph. iy. 2, and compare notes in loc. The omission of the article may be due to the verb substantive ; see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 8. 2, p. 43. (ed. Rose). 15. eipvn Tod Xp.| ‘the peace of Christ ;’ gen. auctoris, or perhaps rather originis (Hartung, Casus, p.17, see on ch. i. 23), ‘the peace which comes from Him who is our peace (Ephes. ii. 14), and who solemnly left His peace to His church’ (John xiv. 27); éxetvny (eiph- ynv) hv 6 Xpiords apijxey adtds, Chrys. The peace of Christ must not be restrict- ed merely to éudvoia, though this is ap- parently the more immediate reference in the present passage, but includes that deep peace and tranquillity which is His blessed gift, and emanates from His Cross ; compare eiphyn Ocod, Phil. iv. 7, in which the idea is substantially the same, except that perhaps peace is there contemplated as in its antithesis to anx- ious worldliness (see notes in loc.), while here it is rather to the hard, unloving, and unquiet spirit that mars the union of the é€v cua. The reading rod @cod (Rec.) is fairly supported [O2D°EJK; Crap. III. 15, 16. COLOSSIANS. 193 Tod Xpictod BpaBevétw ev rais Kapdiars budv, ets iy Kal éxdj- Synre ev &l capate Kai evyapiotoe yiveoSe. 1%‘O Royos tod 16. év rats kapdias] So Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., with ABCD1FG; 10 mss.; ap- parently all Vy. ; C@hrysost., Theod. (comm.); Lat. Ff. The reading é» 77 kupdia (Rec., Tisch. ed. 2, 7) is (a) so feebly supported, — only by D?EKL (MSS. here of doubtful authority from showing other traces of conformation to Hph. v.19); great mass of mss. ; Clem., Theod. (text), al., and (>) so very probably an assimilation to Eph. /. c. (E, however, there reads év rats capd.), that it is difficult to conceive what principle, except that of opposition to Lachm., induced Tisch. to retain so very questionable a reading, and to reverse the judgment of his first edition. nearly all mss.; Goth., al.], but in all which, the eis marking the immediate probability is a correction. vv BpaBevéro] ‘rule, -Og4 [ducat, regat] Syriac, ‘sit gubernatrix,’ Beza. The verb BpaBevew [Spa = po, see notes on Phil. iii. 14] has here received differ- ent explanations, ‘exultet,’ Vulg., Goth., ‘ stabiliatur,’ Copt., ZEthiop., ‘ abundet,’ Clarom., all perhaps endeavoring to re- tain some shade of the original meaning (aywvoserotody re kal BpaBevovoay, The- od.), but obscuring rather than elucidat- ing. The later and secondary meaning ‘administrare.’ ‘ eubernare,’ Hesychius iguvécsw (Raph., Annot.Vol. 11. p.533 sq. and Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.), seems here the most simple and natural ; ‘let the peace which comes from Christ order all things in your hearts.’ For confirma- tion of this later meaning, see also the exx. collected by Krebs (Obs. p. 843), and Loesn. (Obs. p. 373), one of the most pertinent of which is Jos. Antig. 1v. 3. 2, ndvta of mpovola dioiKeirat Kad... . Kate BovAnow BpaBevduevoy thy ahy eis TéA0s épxera: where the association with d:0:- keioSa: renders the meaning very dis- tinct. On the use of kapdla to denote the subject in its inner relations, see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 23, p. 80, compare p. 107. eis hv Kat éxans.] “unto which [almost, for unto it (see notes on ch. i. 25, 27)] ye were also called ;’ unto the enjoyment and participation of 25 (not ultimate) object of the kaAei (1 Cor. i. 9, 1 Tim. vi. 12, compare notes), and thus differing but little from ém) with dat., by which Chrysost. here explains it. The latter perhaps involves more the idea of approximation (Donalds. Cratyl. § 172), the former of direction. The as- censive «at marks the «Ajjous as also hay- ing the same object as the apostle’s ad- monition. év év) cépars| ‘in one body,’ 7. e. so as to abide in one body ; not marking the object contem- plated, ‘ut unum essetis corpus’ (comp. Grotius), nor the manner of the calling (Steig., compare 1 Cor. vii. 15), but, as the more concrete term seems to require, simply the result to which it tended ; @xovouncey 6 Xp. Tovs wavras ev cBua Tot- joa, Gicum.; compare Eph. ii. 16, and Winer, Gr. § 50. 5, p. 370. kal evxdp. ylv| ‘and be (become) thankful,’ scil. to God (Chrysost., Theo- phyl.) as 6 kaAév (see notes on Gal. i. 6), less probably to Christ, as Theod. and expressly Syr. and Ath. The meamag “amabiles,’ edxdpiro: (Olshaus.), though lexically defensible (comp. Xen. (con. v. 10), seems here wholly inappropriate. Edxapioria was a duty ever foremost in the thoughts of the great apostle, 1 Thess. v. 18; observe his frequent use of edyapioretv (25 times) and edxapiorla (12 times), the latter of which only oc- curs thrice elsewhere (Acts xxiv. 3, Rev. 194 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 16, 17. lo) Uf ’ lal Xpictod évouxeitw év vulv wrovoiws, év wdon copia diudacKovTes Kal vouSeTodvtes EavTous adpols, Uuvous, @dais mvevpatiKats, ev an / 15 bp las Ol ig a tal (Q) an 17 \ a iva TH XapiTe ddovtes év Tais Kapdias tpov TO Oe, “ Kai way O TL 17. *Incod Xpiotod] So Lachm., with ACD1FG; mss.; very many Vv.; some Ff. Rec., followed by Tisch. and A/f., reads Kuplov *Inood with BD°EK; great mass of mss.; Amit., Goth., Syr. (Philox.), al.; Clem. (7), Theod., al., but appy. with less probability. By a comparison of the variations of this and the preceding verse with those of Eph. v. 19, 20 ( Alf.’s remark that there are ‘ hardly any,’ is scantly correct) we may form some interesting /ocal comparisons. It will be seen that KI present distinct traces of conformation, E less so, ADFG perhaps still less, and B searcely any at all; C has a lacuna at Eph. /. ec. iv. 9, vii. 12) in the whole N. T. Fora good sermon on the whole of the verse, see Frank, Serm. x1. Vol. 11. p. 394 (A.-C. Libr.). 16.6 Adyos tod Xp.] ‘the word of Christ,’ as delivered in the Gospel, Xpicrod being the genitive subjecti, the word spoken and proclaimed by Him, 1 Thessalon. i. 8, iv. 15, 2 Thessalon. iii. 1; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 158. It is perfectly unnecessary, with Lachm. (ed. stereot.), to enclose this clause in brackets. The previous more general exhortations to love and peace which conclude with edxdp. yiverde are suitably accompanied by a more special one which shows the efficacy of the Gos- pel in such respects, and more fully ex- pands the last precept; mapaivéoas ev- ‘xaptotous civat Kal thy ddd Selkvuct, Chrys. iptv wr.| ‘dwell within you richly ;’ surely not ‘among you,’ De W., which would tend to obliterate the force of the compound, nor ‘in you as a Church,’ Meyer, Alf., which really comes to the same thing,—but, as usual, ‘ within you’ (thy tot Xp. Sibdackadrlav ev tH Wx mepupepew ael, Theod.), ‘in your hearts,’ the outcoming and manifestation of which was to be seen in the acts de- scribed by the participles. Comp. Rom. viii. 11, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, the only other passages in St. Paul’s Epistles (2 Cor. vi. 16, is a quotation) in which évoieiy évorkeltw év éy juiy occurs, and which, though the 7d évoixoby is different, go far to fix the meaning in the present case. The indwelling was to be mAovoiws, ‘ richly,’ ‘not with a scanty foothold, but with a large and liberal occupancy,’ Eadie. éy taan copia is not to be connected with what precedes (Syr., — but appar- ently not Chrys., as asserted by Meyer, Alf.), but with what follows, as in ch. i. 28. The construction is then perfectly harmonious ; évoixeitw has its single ad- verb mAovotws, and is supported and ex- panded by two co-ordinate participial clauses, each of which has its spiritual manner. or element of action (é€v mdéon copia, év xdpitt) more exactly defined ; see notes on ch. i. 28. Sis] d:SdaK. kal vovsert. EavT.] ‘teach- ing and admonishing one another ;’ onthe meaning and force of vousereiv, see notes on ch. i. 28. On the possible force. of éavrovs, see notes on ver. 13: here itis more probably simply for aAAfAous ; see Winer, Gr. § 22.5, p. 136. On the very intelligible participial anacoluthon, see Green, Gr. p. 313, notes on Eph. iii. 18, and on Phil. i. 30. é Warpots, Buvots, KT. A.) ‘with psalms, hymns, spiritual songs ;’ instru- ment by which, or vehicle in which (Mey.), the ddax} and vousérnois were to be communicated. Mill and Tisch. connect these datives with the following words, but not with propriety, as ¢5uvres, Cuap. III. 16, 17. COLOSSIANS. 195 xX lal ) , A 3 4 / > bie ’ a lo! éay Toure év oye 1) ev Epyo, Tavta év ovowatt "Incod Xpictov evyaptotouvTes TO Oe tratpt dv avrod. has already two defining members asso- ciated with it. On the distinction be- tween the terms, and the force of avev- par. (‘such as the Holy Spirit inspires’), see notes on the parallel passage, Eph. vy. 19. Meyer remarks that the singing, ete., here alluded to, was not necessarily at divine service, but at the ordinary so- cial meetings; see Clem.-Alex. Peed. 11. 4, 43, Vol. 1. p. 194 (ed. Pott.), where this passage is referred to; compare Sui- cer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 1568. On the hymns used by the ancient church in her services, see Bingham, Antiq. xtv. 2.1. The copula xa) after padmots [C2D°D3E KL] and after tuvos [AC7DIEKL] seems to have-come from the sister pas- sage, and is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors. ey TH XapiTte a5.| ‘in Grace sing- ing;’ participial clause co-ordinate to the foregoing, specifying another form of singing, viz., that of the inward heart ; see Eph. v.19, and notes zn loc. *Ev rH xdp. [Rec. omits 77 with AD*E*KL; al.] is obviously parallel to év mdon oo- gia, and serves to define the characteris- tic element to which the dew was to be circumscribed (see notes on ch. i. 28); it was to be in the element, and with the accompaniment of Divine grace: so Chrys. 2, ard ris xdpitos Tov Mvevuaros, CGicum., dia tis mapa tod ayiov Mvedua- Tos Sovelons xdpiros, both of which, how- ever, are rather coarse paraphrases of the ‘preposition. The interpretations ‘ quod se utilitate commendet,’ Beza, ‘ with be- coming thankfulness,’ De Wette, etc., are unsatisfactory, and xapiévtws, Grot., ‘in dexteritate quadam gratiosd,’? Da- venant 2, untenable, as the singing was not aloud, but in the silence of the heart (Mey.). év tats kapdlats -bp@r| ‘in your hearts ;’ locality of the gew. This ddew év rais xapd. is not an expansion of the preceding, defining its proper characteristics or accompani- ments (uy wdvov TG oTduatt, Theod.) — in which case the clause would be subor- dinate, —but specifies another kind of singing, viz., that of the inward heart to God, the former being éavrozs : see notes on Eph. v.19. The reading Kupiw [Rec. with C2D°EKL] seems clearly to have arisen from the parallel passage. 17. wav 8 Tt... py] An absolute nom. standing out of regimen and placed at the beginning of the sentence with a slight emphatic force; see Jelf, Gr. § 477.1. This seems slightly more correct than to regard it as an accusative reflected from the following wdvra, as apparently Steiger and De Wette. awdav7ais certainly not adverbial (Storr, compare Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 329), nor even a resumption of the preceding mav, but an accus. governed by mo:e?re, supplied from the preceding zozjjre; compare notes on Hphes. v.22. What had been stated individually in ray 6 m1 kK. T. A. is now expressed more fully and collectively by mavra. It is difficult to understand how the reverse can be the case (Kadie), and the plural ‘ individual- izing.’ év évémare ’I. Xp.| ‘inthe name of Jesus Christ;’ not ‘jnvocato illius adjutorio,’ Daven. (rare? tov Tidy, Chrys.), but, as in Eph. v. 20, ‘in the name, in that holy and spiritual element which His name betokens ;’ see notes on Ephes. I. c., on Phil. ii. 10, and compare Barrow, Serm. xxx111. 6, Vol. 11. p. 323, where every possible meaning is stated and exhausted; see also Whichcote, Dise. xu111. Vol. 11. p. 288 sq. (Aberd. 1751), — one of a course of three valuable sermons on this text, and comp. Beveridge, Serm. c1x. Vol. v. p- 116 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). evxap. TE Oe@ x. 7-A.] ‘ giving thanks 196 Wives and husbands, chil- dren and parents, observe ¢ > your duties. Servants, obey your masters and be faithful ; masters, be just. to God the Father through Him ;’ attend- ant service with which the (rotc?re) rdv7a k.T.A.is to be ever associated ; comp. Eph. v. 20, and see notes on ver. 15, and on Phil. iv. 6; add Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 8336, who less probably limits the edxap. to thankfulness for ability thus to do all & évdu. «.7.A. The read- ing @e@ ka? warp} (ec.) is well support- ed [DEFGK; mss.; Valg., Clar., al.], but opposed to AC and B (an important witness in these verses, see crit. note) ; some mss.; Goth., Copt., Sah., al. ; Clem. and many Ff. ; so also Lachm. and Tisch. 18. af yuvatkes] This verse and the eight following (iii. 18-iv. 1) con- tain special precepts, nearly the same as those in the latter part of ch. v. and the beginning of ch. vi. of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Such a similarity, often ex- tending to words and phrases, is notice- able, and not very easy to account for, except on the somewhat obvious suppo- sition that social precepts of this nature addressed, in the first instance, to the Christians of Colossz and Laodicea, were known and felt by the apostle to be equally necessary and applicable to the church of Ephesus and the Christians of Lydia. The exhortations in the past Epistles are urged under somewhat dif- ferent aspects. A comparison of the two Epistles will here be found very instruc- tive ; it seems to lead to the opinion that the shorter Epistle was written first ; com- pare notes on Eph, vi. 21. Alford in loc. seems of a contrary opinion, but is in some degree at issue with his Prole- gomena, p. 42. Tots avdp.| ‘submit yourselves to your husbands ;’ see notes on Eph. v. 22, where the same precept occurs nearly in the same language. The addition bm oT. idiows COLOSSIANS. an b] ’ as avicev ev Kupig. Cuap. III. 18, 19. 18 Aj yuvaixes, UToTdcoede Tois avopaow, 19 Oi dvdpes, ayarrare is opposed to the authority of all the other uncial manuscripts. &s avijKkev] ‘as it became fitting, ‘as it should be,’ as was still more your duty when you entered upon your Christian profession. The imperf. not perf., Huth.) is not for the present (compare Thom. M. s. v., p. 751, ed. Bern.), but, as the associated éy Kupiw still more clearly shows, has its proper force, and points to conditions that were simultaneous with their entrance into Christianity, but which were still not completely fulfilled ; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 3, p. 242. and Bern- hardy, Synt. x. 3, p. 373, add also Hero- dian, s. v., p. 468 (ed. Piers.), where in the similar forms mpoojjce, Expnv, eet, the tense is properly recognized. On the frequently recurring év Kupiw, here to be connected with évjxev (compare ver. 20), not with brordao. (Chrysost., Theoph.), see notes on Eph. iv. 16, vi. 1, Phil. ii. 19, al. 19. of &vipes x.7.A.] Repeated in Eph. v. 25, but there enhanced by a comparison of the holy bond between Christ and His Church. The encyclical letter enters into greater and deeper re- lations. wy wikpat- veade] ‘donot be embittered ;’ compare Eph. iv. 31. The verb occurs in its simple sense, Rey. viii. 11, x. 9,10; here in its metaphorical sense, as occasionally both in classical (e.g. Plato, Legg. v. p. 731 D, associated with a&xpaxoreiv, [De- mosth.] Epist. p. 1464, joined with uv7- otkaxety), and post-classical, writers, e.g. Exod. xvi. 20, émixpdvSy ém ards, al., comp. Joseph. Antig. v. 7.1, émucpawvd- Mevos mpds avtovs. The form is appar- ently pass. with a middle force (‘ medial- pass.,’ Kriiger) ; compare Theocr. Jdyil. v. 120, and Schol. in loc., mixpatverat . [Rec. with L; many mss.; Vv. and Ef.] _ Avmetra, and see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. Cnap. III. 20, 21. COLOSSIANS. 197 a - \ , Tas yuvaikas Kal fn TiKpaiveoSe Tpos avTds. » Ta réxva bra- nr a la) ard b] ? KOVETE TOS YyovEevcW KaTa TdVTAa TOUTO yap EvdpeoToY éoTLW ev / fa) \ Kupio. 7! Oi watépes, pur) épedifete Ta Téxva bpov, Wa pH aSv- P's poy ? 20. evdpeotév éotw| So Tisch. (ed. 1), Lachm., Alf., al., with ABCDE; 3 mss. (Vv. in such cases are hardly to be relied on). Tisch. (ed. 2,7) adopts the reversed order with FGKL; and great majority of mss.,— apparently very insufficient authority. 6. 1, where a large list of such verbs is given, withexamples. On the derivation of muxpos [from a root TIIK- ‘ pierced’], see Buttmann, Zezil. § 56, comp. Don- alds. Cratyl. § 266. 20. brak. Tots you. x. 7.A.| ‘be obedient to your parents in all things ;’ comp. Eph. vi. 1. There the exhorta- tion is accompanied with a special ref. to the fifth commandment; here that reference is applicd only, and involved in the argumentative clause. The com- prehensive t& maya is obviously to be regarded as the general rule; excep- tional cases (Tots ye doéBeot maTpadow ov kata mdvta det braxovew, Theophylact) would be easily recognized; the great apostle was ever more occupied with the rule than with the exceptions to it. On the exceptions in the present case, see Bp. Taylor, Duct. Dub. 111. 5, Rule l.and4sq. The form drakovew, if not stronger than srotacc. (De W.), has a more inclusive aspect as implying ‘ dicto obtemperare,’— not merely submission to authority, but obedience to a com- mand ; see Tittmann, Synon, 1. p. 193. TOUTO yap K.T.A.| ‘forthis is well- pleasing in the Lord;’ obviously not ‘to the Lord’ (Copt., perhaps following a different reading), ev not being a ‘ nota ° dat.,’ nor even ‘coram’ 5o_.5 Syriac, ‘apud,’ 28th. (Pol.), but, as in ver. 18 and elsewhere, ‘in Domino,’ Vulg., Cla- rom., Goth., the prep. defining the sphere in which the 7d eddpeoroy was especially felt and evinced to be so. The reading of Rec., 73 Kupl, has not the support of any uncial MS., and is rejected by all modern editors. 21. wh épediCere| ‘donot irritate ;’ duty of fathers, expressed on the negative side; compare Eph. vi. 4. The com- mand there is wh mapopyicere, between which and the present the difference is perhaps scarcely appreciable. The for- mer verb perhaps points to provocation to a deeper feeling, the latter (‘irritare ’) to one more partial and transitory. The derivation of épedi¢w and épéSw is not perfectly certain, it is commonly referred to 2pis [Lobeck, Pathol. p. 488, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 102], wh ptdoverro- Tépous av’Tovs moreire, Chrysost., — but comp. Pott, Et. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 162, and Benfey, Wurzellexr. Vol. 11. p. 340. Lachmann here, according to his princi- ples, reads mapopyi¢ere with ACDIEIF GL; al. Though well supported, it can scarcely be doubted that it is a confor- mation to Ephes. /. c. iva wh advp.| ‘in order that they may not be disheartened ;’ that they may not ‘have a broken spirit and pass into apa- thy and desperation, by seeing their parents so harsh and difficult to please ; compare Corn. a Lap. in loc. The verb aSuuery is an dr. Aeydu. in the N. T., but sufficiently common both in the LXX. (1 Sam.i. 7, xv. 11), and else- where; see examples in Wetst., who cites a pertinent passage from AZneas Tact. [ap. Fabric. 111. 80. 10], Poliorcet. 38, opyf 5¢ wndéva petieva trav TuxdvT@Y Gydparwv: aSuudrepor yap elev kv. 198 poo. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 22, 23. 99, ly n id 7 \ / lal \ tA Oi SodAo, braKoveTe KATA TavTAa TOIS KATA oapKa Kupiows, 1) ev opSadpobovrclats ws avSpwmrdpeckol, aN €v ar AoTHTL Kapdias PoBovpevor Tov Kupioy. ™ 0 éav Trovfre, eer~buyis _ 22. of ScdA01] Duties of slaves, more fully detailed, yet closely sim., both in arguments and language, in the paral- lel passage in Eph. vi. 5 sq., where see notes. On the general drift and object of these frequently recurring exhorta- tions to slaves, see note on 1 Tim. vi. 1 sq. kup.| ‘ your masters according tu the flesh ;’ your bodily, earthly masters ; you have another Master in heaven: ‘ of kata odp- ka Kup. tacite distinguuntur a Christo,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 270. There is apparently no consolatory force in the addition (mpécrapos 7 dovActa Chrysost., Theoph.; sim. Theod., Gicum.); see notes on ph. I.c. On the neglected distinction between kvpios and Seardrns, see Trench, Synon. § 28, comp. Ammon. Diff. Voc. p. 89 (ed. Valck.). év 6pSarApmodovaActais| ‘in acts of eye-service ;’ Kat’ dpSaAmodovaciay, Eph. vi. 6; the primary reference to the mas- ter’s eye (Sanders. Serm. vit. 67, ad Pop.), passes into the secondary ref. to falsehearted and hypocritical service gen- erally. For examples of this use of the plural, compare James ii. 1, év mpotwro- Anwias, and the long list in Gal. y. 20, where see notes and grammatical refer- ences. Lachm. here reads 6p%aApodou- Aefg with ABDEFG; 6 mss.; Dam., Theoph., Chrysost. (varies): in spite of this preponderance of uncial authority we seem justified on critical principles in re- taining with CKL; great mass of mss. ; Clem., Theod.; acumen. (Rec., Tisch.), —the plural, which, even independently of the parallel passage, was so likely to a f Tots KaTa TCapKa ‘be changed to a reading supposed to be more in harmony with the éy amAdrnri kapdias in the correlative member which follows. é€v GmAST. Kap- Stas] ‘in singleness of heart,’ in freedom from all dishonesty, duplicity, and false show of industry ; see Eph. vi. 5, where the meaning is slightly more limited by the preceding clause wera dou kat tpd- pov. On the scriptural meaning and ap- plication of ‘doubleness of heart,’ see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 26, p. 106. Here, as Meyer observes, év amrAdr. in the nega- tive clause answers to éy épdaAmod. in the positive, and the following goBovu. Tov Kup. to as dvdpwrdpecka. The read- ing is again slightly doubtful. Rec. has @edv, with D®E?IK; mss.; ZLachm. and Tisch. adopt Képiv, with ABCD!EIF GL, — which is certainly to be preferred, as there seems nothing in Eph. J. ec. to which it could be a conformation. 23.6 éav mwornre| More specific explanation and expansion of the pre- ceding positive exhortations. Again, there is a difference of reading; that of the text is found in ABCDIFG, and adopted by ZLachm. and Tisch. The Rec. rat wav b 7 eay is feebly supported [D°*D°EKL], and possibly a reminis- cence of ver. 17. Alford prefixes kat, apparently by an oversight. é€x puxis] ‘from the heart (soul) ;’ stronger than éy amAér. kapd. above, scil. ef edvoias kat bon Sdvauis, GEcum., and as opposed to any outward constraint, Delitzsch, Psychol. 1v. 7, p. 162: comp. on Eph. vi. 7. @s T@ Kup. k. T. A.] ‘as to the Lord and not to men ;’ dat. of ‘ interest,’ Kriiger, Sprachil. § 48. 4. The os serves to mark the mode in which, or the aspects under which, the service was to be viewed; see Bernhar- dy, Synt. vir. 1, p. 333, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 360, and notes on Eph. v. 22, where this interpretation of @s is more fully investigated. It is objected to by Eadie (on Col. p. 258), but apparently without full reason, being grammatically Cuap. III, 24, 25. COLOSSIANS. 13g epyateoSe @s TH Kupie Kat ov« avSp@rrois, * etddtes OTe amo Kupiov arodjprpeoSe tiv avtamodoow Ths KAnpovoutas. TO , A Fe ie OR Ne \ 5) a ' A OO/ Kupio Xpict@ Sovdevete 6 yap adiKOV KomiceTaL 0 HdiKnoE?, / Kal ovk €oTw TpocwToAnuYia. exact and apparently exegetically satis- factory. The negative ovx, as usually in such opposite members, is absolute and objective; they were to work as workers to the Lord and non-workers to men; they were not to serve two masters (Mey.) ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 55. 1, p. 422, Green, Gr. p. 121 sq. 24. ciddéres| ‘seeing ye know:’ cau- sal participle, giving the reason for the preceding command ; compare ch. iv. 1, and the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 8. &md Kuptov| ‘from the Lord,’ not per- fectly identical with mapa Kupiov Eph. vi. 8, but, with the proper force of the prep., expressive of procedure from, as from the more remote object : see Winer, Gr 47.b, p- 326, and notes on Gal.i. 11. The re- mark of Eadie that amd marks that the gift ‘comes zmmediately from Christ,’ is thus wholly untenable. In rapa (more usual in personal relations) the primary idea of simple motion from the subject passes into the more usual one of motion from the immediate neighborhood of the ob- ject; see Donalds. Crat. § 177, Winer, biG.spn 320. KAnp.] ‘ the recompense of the inheritance,’ z. e. the recompense which is the inheri- tance, THs KAnpov. being the gen. of identi- ty or apposition, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, pp. 82, 85, Wi. Gr. § 59.8. a, p.470. This KAnpovoula is obviously the KAnpoy. (év 7H Baotrcla Tov Xp. kat Ocod, Eph. v. 5), which was reserved for them hereafter ; compare 1 Pet. i. 4, and on the meaning of the term, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 249. The double compound avtTamddoo1s in an Gm. Aeydu. in the N. T., but not uncommon elsewhere (Isa. Ixi. 2, Hosea ix. 7, Polyb. Hist. v1. 5.3, and with a local reference, 1v. 43. 5, al.): the verb is found several times in the > - THY avTaT. THS N. T., and the pass. compound, davrard- doua, twice, Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9 (quotation). The gloss picSamodociav only occurs in cursive mss. 76 Kup. Xp. Sov .]| ‘serve ye the Lord Christ :’ brief yet comprehensive state- ment of the duty of 500A, regarded in its true light, @s T@ Kupio kal ob« avdpd- mots, ver. 23. So distinctly, imperative, Vulg., Copt. (ari-bok), Ath. (Pol. ; mis- translated) ; Claromanus less probably adopts the present. The reading is scarcely doubtful: Rec. inserts yap with D2D3(E?7) KL; Syriac (both), A®thiopic (Platt), Goth., al., but with very little probability, being weaker than the text in uncial authority [ABC!IC2D15], and suspicious as helping out the seeming want of connection. 25. 6 yap abiKa@y| ‘for the wrong- doer” Itis slightly doubtful whether 6 a5ixn@y refers to the master (Theod.), to the slaves (Theoph.), or, more compre- hensively, to both (Huther). The pre- vailing meaning of adi«ety in the N. T. (‘injuriam facere,’ Vulg.; except Rev. Xxii. 11, but surely not Philem. 18, as Eadie), and still more the succeeding clause, ov« 2oTiy mpoowm., seem decided- ly in favor of the former; so that the verse must be regarded as supplying en- couragement and consolation to slaves when suffering oppression or injustice at the hands of their masters ; é07e noi, Kav bh TUXNTE Tay SeoTwdTav, ayasav avrTiddcewy Tapé, €or Sixasoxpityns ds ovK olde SovAov kal Seomdrov Siapopdy, GAAG Sixatay ciodéper Thy Widov, Theod. komigetat| ‘shall receive back,’ as it were a deposit : not so much a brachy- logy as a pregnant statement, ‘he shall receive back 8 #5ixnee in the form of just retribution,’ Winer, Gram. § 66.1. b, p, 200 COLOSSIANS. Cuap: IV. 1-3: IV. Oi kdpwot, 7d Stkavov Kat THv icétyTa Tots SovdAOLS Tra- péxeode, ciddres b7u Kal bpeis Exere Kupiov év ovpave. Pray for us and for our suc- cess in the Gospel. Walk wisely, speak to the point, and be ready to answer them that ask. 547. The future refers to the day of final retribution ; see on Eph. vi. 8. TpogwnrorAnmy tal ‘respect of persons ;’ see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and on the (Alex- andrian) insertion of wu, Tisch. Prolegom. p- xlvi. sq. (ed. 7). In the parallel pas- sage, Eph. vi. 9, rapa avrg (Rom. ii. 11. ix. 14) is added [FG rapa 7G ce], in which case the prep. has its prevailing idea of closeness to (comp. on ver. 24), and marks the ethical presence with the object (Latin in) of the quality alluded to; comp. Matt. Gr. § 588. b. Cnrapter IV. 1. Of xvpioc] The du- ties of masters are enunciated on the positive side; in the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 9, the addition, dmévres Thy amreiAnv, defines also the negative side. Thy icornta| ‘equity. The associa- tion of this word with 7d dfxaov and the undoubted occurrence of it in a similar sense elsewhere (see Philo, de Just. § 4, Vol. 11. p. 363 (ed. Mang.), and esp. § 14, 7b. p. 374, where it is termed the paTpn Sixaoctvvns) seem fully to justify the more derivative meaning adopted above: so Syr., Vulg., Auth. (Pol.), ap- parently Copt., and distinctly Chrysost., _ and the Greek commentators; iodryta exdAeoe Thy TMpoonkovoay émipmecAcay, Theod.: so De W., Neander (Planting, Vol. 1. p. 488), Alf., and the majority of modern expositors. Meyer, and after him Eadie (with modifications), contend for the more literal meaning ‘ equality’ (2 Cor, viii. 13, 14, compare Job xxxvi. 29), i.e. the equality of condition in spiritual matters which Christianity brought with it; compare Philem. 16: so perhaps Goth. ibnassu [similitudinem ; 2 Ti mpocevyh mpooKaptepette, ypryopovv- Tes Ev AUTH ev EvyapLoTia, ® mpocevXopeEvoL Gwe cognate with ‘even’]. This is ingenious and plausible, but, on account of the as- sociation with 7d dikaoy, not satisfactory. In such a case we may with some profit refer to the ancient Vv. and Greek com- mentators. mapéexerse] ‘ supply on your side ;’ middle, Acts xix. 24, Tit. ii. 7; active elsewhere in the N. T. In this form of the middle voice, called the ‘dynamic’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8), or ‘intensive’ middle, the ref- erence to the powers put forth by the subject is more distinct than in the ac- tive, which simply states the action ; compare Donalds. Gram. § 432. 2. bb4. Such delicate shades of meaning can scarcely be expressed in translation, but no less exist ; see especially Kriiger, /.c., where this verb is particularly noticed, and Kuster, de Verb. Med. § 49. The difference appears to have been partially appreciated by Ammonius, in his too narrow distinction,, map¢éxew mev AéyeTat Te Sid Xetpds HSdueva, mapéexeoda Se emt TY Tis WuXis Siadécewy, oiov mpoSuulay, e¥voray [but see Acts xxviii. 2, al.], de Diff. Voc. p. 108 (ed. Valck.) eiSdres x. 7. A.] ‘seeing ye know that ye also ;’ causal participle, as in chapter iii. 24. The ascensive xa) hints that masters and slaves stand really in like conditions of dependence; déomep éexeivar twas, ow Kal iueis Exere Kipiov, The- oph. The reading in the last word of the verse is not quite certain: Rec. with good uncial authority [DEFGKL] reads ovpavots, but not without suspicion, on account of the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 9. The singular is found in ABC; al. (Lachm., Tisch.). 2.77 TpocevxH mpock.] > * con Cuap. IV. 2, 3. COLOSSIANS. 201 Kab Trepl nuav, iva 6 Ocos avoiEn jypiv Svpav.tod Aoyov, Aadijoat tinue instant in your prayer ;’ Rom. xii. 12, Actsi.14. The verb mpockaprepety occurs several times in the N. T., and in the majority of cases, as here, with a dat., in which combination it appears to de- note an earnest adherence and attention whether to a person (Acts viii. 13) or to a thing; mpockap. TH mpooevxh, ws mepl tivos emmévov, Chrys. Itis found in the 19.8.8 (Num. xiii. 20, absolutely), and in Polyb. (Hist. 1. 55. 4, I. 59. 12, al.) both absolutely and with a dative re or persone. yenyopodytes ev avril ‘being watchful in it;’ modal clause to mpoo- kaptepew : they were not to be dull and heavy in this great duty, but wakeful and active ; compare Eph. vi. 18, 1 Pet. iy. 7. ’Evis here not instrumental (De Wette), but, as usual, denotes the sphere in which the wakefulness and alacrity was to be evinced. évy evxaptotia] ‘with thanksgiving.’ This clause is not to be connected with the finite verb, but with the participle, and, as in Eph. vi. 18 (see notes), speci- wes the peculiar accompaniment, or con- comitant act with which 4 mpoc. was to be associated ; rouvréort yeTa evXaptoTias TavTny mo.ovvtes, Theophil. This not uncommon use of éy in the N. T. (év ad- junctive) to denote an attendant act, ele- ment, or circumstance, has scarcely re- ceived from Winer (Gr. § 48. a, p. 344) the notice it deserves; see notes on ch. ii. 7, on Eph. v. 26, and Green, Gr. p. 289. On the duty of edxapiotia see notes ‘on ch. iii. 15, and on Phil. iv. 6. 3. kal wep) nudy] ‘ for us also;’ scil. for the apostle and Timothy, not for the apostle alone (Chrys., Theophil.) : the change to the singular in the last clause of the verse (dédeuar) would other- wise seem pointless ; see notes on ch. i. 3. On the almost interchangeable mean- ings of wep) and érép in this and similar formuls, see notes on Phil. i. 7, and on Eph. vi. 19. va «7. A.] Subject of the prayer blended with the purpose of making it: use of iva in ref- erence to secondary purpose ; see notes on Phil. i. 9, and on Eph. i. 17. avolin mmtv «.t.A.] ‘may open to us a door of the word ;’ 7. e. may remove any obstacle to the preaching of the gos- pel. The Supa is thus not exactly ezoo- dos kal mappyota (Chrys., Gicum.), but involves a figurative representation of obstructions and impediments that barred the way to preaching the Gospel,»which were removed when the Svpa was open- ed; compare Acts xiv. 27, 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p- 1415, and examples in Wetstein on We Gone. Aaria atl Infin. of purpose and intention ; see notes on ch. i. 23, where this construction is discussed. On the meaning and deriva- tion of AaAew ‘ vocem ore emittere,’ see notes on Tit. ii. 1, and on the distinction between Aadciv (Tb TeTayuévws mpopépe- ada Tov Adyov) and Agyew (7d ardKTws expepey TX evmomintovTa phuata),—a distinction, however, which cannot al- ways be maintained in the N. Test., see Ammonius, Diff. Voc. p. 87 (ed. Valck.). muoThpltov Tov Xp.| ‘the mystery of Christ ;’ not ‘the mystery relating to Christ,’ gen. objecti (De W., comp. Eph. i. 9), but gen. subjecti, ‘the mystery of which He is the sum and substance ;’ see notes on Eph. iii. 4, and compare on Col. ii. 2. On the meaning of wuorhpiov, see on Ephes. v. 32, and Reuss, Theol. Chrét. tv. 9, Vol. 11. p- 89. 82d Kal Sé8enar] ‘for which I have also been bound ;’ ‘ which I have preached even wéxpt decudv’ (2 Tim. ii. 9), the ascensive xa! marking the ex- treme to which he had proceeded in his evangelical labors: he had endured pri- vations and sufferings, and now beside 26 202 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. IV. 4, 5. la lol C) TO pvoTHpioy ToD Xpuctod, di 6 Kai Sédewat, * va havepdow avTo as Sef pe AaAHoa. ° Ev codig wepuratetre pos Tovs é&@, TOV that, bonds. The perf. Séd5eua (‘I have been and am bound’) seems clearly to evince that the apostle was now in cap- tivity: that this was at Rome, not at Cesarea (Mey., inl. p. 5), is satisfacto- rily shown by Alford, Prolegom. p. 20 sq. compared with p. 59. The reading 5 dy, adopted by Lachm. with BFG; Boern., has not sufficient external sup- port. ” 4. iva pavepsow| ‘in order that I may make it manifest.’ It is somewhat doubtful whether this clause depends (a) on dédeua, Chrys., Beng., al.; compare Phil. i. 12, 2 Tim. ii. 9; (b) on mpocev- xduevor, De W., Baumg.-Crus., al.; (c) on the preceding infinitival clause of pur- pose, Aarjoa Td pvothjpioy, ver. 3, Mey., al., or more generally, on the whole pur- pose involved in the verse, viz. unob- structed, unhindered speaking. Of these (a) involves a paradoxical assertion, which here, without any further explana- tion or expansion, seems somewhat az- pooddxntoy and out of place: (b) impairs the continuity of the sentence, and puts a prayer which thus taken per se would naturally be referred to subjunctive ca- pabilities in somewhat awkward paral- lelism with one which refers to the re- moval of objective hinderances: (c) on the contrary, keeps up the continuity, and carries out with proper modal addi- tions (@s de? we AaAjjoou) the Aadjoa which was the object involved in the prayer; ovx dws amadAay@ Tv Secuar, GAN Orws AaAhow TA mvoTHpioy TOD Xpic- tov, 'Theoph. @s Sel pe Aarjoat] ‘as I ought to speak;’ so, but with a slightly different reference, Eph. vi. 20. This was not to be pera TOAATS TIS Tappnatas Kal wndev broorei- ‘ Aduevov (Chrys.) while in prison (which is apparently the sentiment mainly con- veyed in Eph. /. c.), nor with any sub- jective reference to his inward duty (Da- venant, Hammond), but, as the previous avocén Svpay seems to suggest, simply and objectively, ‘as I ought to do it (scil. freely and unrestrainedly), so as best to advance and further the gospel.” While dedeuevos he could not AaAjjoa ds der avTov Aadjjoat; see Meyer in loc. Eadie unites both the subjective and objective reference: the phrase is confessedly gen- eral, still the context seems to point, mainly and principally, if not exclusive- ly, to the latter. In Eph. /.¢., on the contrary, though the language is so very ‘similar, the reference in both members seems to have more of a subjective char- acter, and the construction in conse- quence to be slightly different. 5. év coplta| ‘in wisdom ;’ element and sphere in which they were to walk, Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346: pndeutay avrois mpdpacw Sidote BAGBns, mavTa ? bmep Tis avTav pnxXavaose owTyplas, Theod. On the meaning of copia, — not merely ‘prudence,’ but practical Christian wisdom, — compare notes on ch. i. 9, and on Eph. i. 8. mpos tovs &&w]| ‘toward them that are without, robs undérw wemoreukdtas. Theod.; the regular designation of all who were not Christians, 1 Cor. v. 12, 13, 1 Thessal. iv. 12; see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 198, and notes on 1 Tim. iii. 7. The prep. mpés, both here and 1 Thess. l.c., marks the social relation (Mey.) in which they were to stand with of w, the proper meaning of ‘ethical direction to- ward’ (Winer, Gr. § 49.h, p. 360) being still distinctly apparent. For examples of this use of mpés, see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 265, Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. y. 1. 2, Vol. 11, p. 1157, where this prep. is extremely well discussed. Toy katpodv éfay.|] ‘buying up for yourselves the ( fitting) season: ’ seeon Eph. Cuap. IV. 6,7. Katpov e€ayopalopevor. COLOSSIANS. 203 6 e , e lal / > 7 ef 0 AOYOS U“@V TaVTOTE EV YUpLTL, AaTe > / Pd é nN et e a a a / b) t S, NPTVULEVOS, ELOEVAL TTWS O&L UMAS €Vl EKAOTWM ATTOKPLWEG SAL, You will learn my state and all matters here from e¢ 2 Tychicus and Onesimus. v. 16, where this formula is investigated at length. The exhortation in this verse is extremely similar to that in Ephes. v. 15, 16, except only that the precepts ex- pressed there in a negative, are here ex- pressed in a positive form. The reason for the present clause is there specifically noticed, dr: af juépat movnpal eiow : here nothing more is stated than a general precept (en copia wepimuteire) with an adjoined notice of the manner in which it was to be carried. out: they were to make their own every season for walking in wisdom, and to avail themselves of every opportunity of obeying* the com- mand. 6.6 Adyos buGyv] ‘ your speech,’ not only generally, but, as the close of the verse shows, more especially zpds Tous ew. év xapiri| ‘with grace;’ scil. 2orw: xdpis was to be the element in which, or perhaps the garb with which, the Adyos was to be in- vested ; xdpis was to be the ‘habitus orationis ;7 compare notes on 1 Zim. i. 18. dAatt Aprvy.| ‘ sea- soned with salt;’ further specification. Their discourse was not to be profitless and insipid, but, as food is seasoned with salt to make it agreeable to the pal- ate, so was it to have a wholesome point and pertinency which might commend itself to, and tend to the edification of the hearers; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 181. An indirect caution and antithetical reference to Adyos ca- mpos (‘ne quid putridi subsit,’ Bengel, compare Chrys.) is plausible (compare Eph. iv. 29 sq.), but not in accordance with més de? aroxplyecdat, which points to Adyos under forms in which campérns could scarcely have been intruded. The i \ aise ON 4 , CoA / Ta Kat éue Tavta yvopice bpiv TiyiKxos \ >’ \ \ \ 7 \ 6 ayamrnTos abedpos Kal TicTOs OudKOVOS Kal later classical use of GAs, ‘sal, sales, sa- lin,’ seems here out of place. On the later form GAas, see Buttm. Gr. Vol. 1. p: 227. eidévat| ‘to know, 7. é€. “so that you may know;”’ loosely appended infinitive expressive of conse- quence ; compare Madvig, Gram. § 148, rem. For examples of this ‘ infin. epex- egeticus,’ which is more usually found in clauses expressive of purpose or inten- tion (see on ch. i. 22), but is also found in laxer combinations (Acts xy. 10, Heb. v. 5), see Winer, Gr. § 44.1, p. 284. mas Set amoxp.| ‘Show you ought to the w@s embracing all the various forms of answer which the occasion might require. The apostle further adds, not without significance, év2 éxdotw; each individual, whether put- ting his questions from malice or igno- rance, sincerity or insincerity, was sepa- rately to receive the appropriate answer to his inquiry ; compare 1 Peter iii. 15. The context, as Meyer observes, seems to limit the present reference to the inter- course of Christians with non-Christians, though the command has obviously an universal application: Chrysost. notices the case of the apostle at Athens; Mey. adds to this his answer before Felix, Festus, and the Jews at Rome. 7.7% Kat éwé| ‘my condition,’ ‘my circumstances,’ ‘res meas,’ Beza: on this formula see reff. on Eph. vi. 21, and on the force of xara in this collocation, notes on Phil. i. 12. TdxeKos| not Tvxinds, Mill, Griesb. ; an Ao.avds, mentioned Acts xx. 4, Eph. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 12, Tit. iii. 12; see on Eph. l.c. His name is here associated with three titles of esteem and affection ; he is an ayamntds adeApds in reference to return answer ;’ 204 COLOSSIANS. Cuar. IV. 8, 9. avvdouros év Kuplo, § dv &reuaya mpos buds eis abto TobTO, iva. fol x N \¢ lal \ / \ od ¢ a 9 \ 0 YV@ TA TEepl ULOY KAL TAPAKANETH Tas Kapoias v“wY, “ guy Uvn- / lal lel Ris AS nw 3 nr v4 2 > ¢ n / ciwe TO TICTO Kal ayaTTNT@ a6EXPO, 65 eaTw €E Upov' TavTa bpiv ywwploiow Ta woe. the Christian community, a mords didio- vos in reference to his missionary services to St. Paul (uot in the ministry general- ly, Alford), and farther, with a graceful allusion to similarity of duties, a otvdov- Aos év Kupiw, a co-operator with, and co- adjutor of, the apostle in the service of the same Master ; compare notes on L’ph. vi. 21, éy Kuplw may be associated with all three designations «De W., compare Eph. /. c.), or with the last two (Meyer), or with ovdydovdos /th.-Pol., and perhaps Syr.). As the two former have defining epithets, per- haps the last connection is slightly the most probable. 8. eis avTd TrodTo] ‘for this very purpose, viz. as further defined and ex- panded in the following clause, ‘ that he should gain a knowledge of your state, and comfort you.’ On the reference of avd TovTo to what follows, comp. Eph. vi. 22, Phil. i. 6, and notes in loc. The reading is doubtful. Griesb. and Lachm. read yvare and juey, with ABDIFG; 10 mss.; Clarom., Eth. (both Pol. and Platt) ; Theod. (text), al., to which Mey. adds the argument derived from proba- ble erroneous transcription (comp. Pref. to Galat. p. xvii.) ;-viz. the accidental omission of the TE before TA. The text (Ree., Tisch.) is found in CD?2D°EKL ; great majority of mss., and (what is very important) Vulg., Syr. (both), Coptic, Goth. ; Chrysost., Theod. (comm.), al. The weight of uncial authority is clearly in favor of yv@re, still the distinct prepon- derance of Vy., and the probability of a conformation to Eph. vi. 22, induce us to retain the reading of Tisch.; so De Wette and Alf. Tapakaréon] ‘comfort;’ in reference to their own state ; delxvuc: 5 abtobs év metpacuots ivtas, Kal mapakAhoews Seouevous, The- ophyl. : according to the other reading the reference would be to St. Paul; compare on Eph. vi. 22. 9. ody ?Ovnaipe] ‘with Onesimus,’ scil. éreupa. There seems no reason to doubt (Calvin) that the Onesimus here mentioned was the runaway slave of Philemon, whose flight from his master (Philem. 15), and subsequent conversion (at Rome by the apostle, gave rise to the exquisite Epistle to Philemon. Whether he was identical with Onesimus, Bishop of Ephesus, mentioned by Ignatius, Eph. § 1, as affirmed by Ado (ap. Usuard. Martyrology, p. 272, ed. Soll.), is very doubtful; see Pearson, Vind. Ign. 11. 8, p- 463 (A.-C. Libr.). The name ‘was not uncommon, added to which the tra- dition of the Greek Church (Const. Apost vir. 46) represents the ‘ Onesimus Phi- lemonis’ to have been Bishop of Bercea in Macedonia ; compare Winer, RWB. Vol. 11. p. 175. There appear to have been two at least of this name in the early martyrologies, the legendary no- tices of those lives have been mixed up together ; see Acta Sanct. Feb. 16, Vol. II. p. 855 sq. bs €otiv €& tua@v| ‘whois of you,’ ‘ who belongs to your city.’ This addition seems to have been made, not to give indirect honor and praise to the Colossians (iva kal eyradkAwmi(wytat &s ToLodTov mpoevey- kovres, Theoph.), but to commend the tidings and the joint-bearer of them still more to their attention. Ta @8e] ‘the things here, the matters here at Rome, of which 7& kar’ éué, ver. 7, would form the principal portion. The addition mparréueva [FG; Vulg.. Cuar. IV. 10. -, Aristarchus, and _ others, and your faithful Epaphras, COLOSSIANS. 205 0° Aamdgerar buds ’Apiotapyos 6 cvvarx- salute you. Interchange epistles with the church of Laodicea. Tell Archippus to be diligent. Claroman.; Lat. Ff.] is a self-evident gloss. 10. ’Apiorapxos| A native of Thessa- lonica (Acts xx. 4), who accompanied St. Paul on his third missionary journey ; he was with the apostle in the tumult at Ephesus (Acts xix. 29), and. is again noticed as being with him in the voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2). There he shared the apostle’s captivity, either as an attendant on him (see below) or a fellow-sufferer. According to some tra- ditions of the Greek Church he is said to have been Bishop of Apamea in Phryg- ia: accordiug to the Roman martyrolo- gies, Bishop of Thessalonica ; see Mar- tyrol. Rom. p. 343 ( Antwerp, 1589), Acta Sanct. Aug. 4, Vol. 1. p. 313. In the Menol. Gree. (April 15, Vol. 111. p. 57) he is said to have been one of the 70 dis- ciples. 6 gvvatxudaa- tds pov] ‘my fellow-prisoner.” It is certainly singular that in the Epistle to Philemon, written so closely at the same time with the present Epistle, Aristarchus should be mentioned not as a cuvarxman. but as a auvepyds, while Epaphras, who here indirectly, and still more clearly ch. i. 7, appears in the latter capacity, is therea cuvaixuddwtos. ‘There seem only two probable solutions ; either that their positions had become interchanged by the results of some actual trial, or that their captivity was voluntary, and that they took their turns in sharing the apos- tle’s captivity, and in ministering to him in his bonds. The latter solution, which is that of Fritz. (Rom. Vol. 1. p. xxi, followed by Meyer), seems the most nat- ural ; compare also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 417 note. To regard the term as semi- titular, and as referring to a bygone cap- tivity (Steiger, compare Rom. xvi. 7), does not seem satisfactory. The term is slightly noticeable (‘designat hasta superatum et captum,’ Daven.), as car- rying out the metaphor of the soldier of Christ ; compare Meyer in loc. Mdpkos| Almost certainly the same with John Mark the son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), whom St. Paul and St. Barna- bas took with them on their first mission- ary journey, who left them when in Pamphylia, and who was afterwards the cause of the contention between the apostle and St. Barnabas (Acts xv. 39); compare Blunt, Veracity of Evang. § 24, where the connection between John Mark and St. Barnabas, and especially the history of the latter, is ably elucidat- ed. There seems no reason for doubt- ing (Grot., Kienlen, Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p- 423 sq.) that he was identical with St. Mark the Evangelist ; see Meyer, Linl. z. Evang. d. Markus, p. 2, Fritz. Proleg. in Mare. p. 24. According to ecclesias- tical tradition, St. Mark was first Bishop of Alexandria, and suffered martyrdom there; see Acta Sanct., April 25, Vol. Ill. p. 344, &vewrds| ‘ cousin,’ 5¥4* “a, Numb. xxxvi. 11 ; avefiol: tev adeApav maides, Ammon. Voc. Diff. p. 54 (ed. Valck.) ; the proper term for what was sometimes designated as efddeApos by later and non-classical writers; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 306, where the proper meaning of aveWids is well discussed. St. Mark was thus not the ‘nephew’ (Auth., but? See remarks in Transl.), but the ‘ consobrinus’ Vulg., mo Claroman.), the 6199 r= (Syr.) of St. Barnabas ; see exx. in Wetst. in loc. €AadBete évtords] ‘ye received com- mands ;’ what these were cannot be de- termined. The conjectural explanations, — messages from Barnabas (Chrysost.), letters of commendation (‘literz forma- tx’), either from St. Paul (Daven.) or the Church of Rome (Est.), ete. are very 206 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. IV. 10, 11. peddwtos pov, Kat Mdpxos 6 averids BapvadBa, epi ob éddBere évtodas (€av EXAMn Tpos buds, SéEacYe adtov), ™ Kai ‘“Inaods 6 Aeyowevos IodcTos, of dvTES Ex TEPITOMAS" OUVTOL pLovOL TUVEpYOL numerous, but do not any of them seem to deserve particular attention. To find in gay x. 7. A. the ‘summa illorum man- datorum,’ Beng., is grammatically un- tenable ; the person of the aor. precludes the assumption of its use as an epistolary . present. The parenthetical clause, how- ever, so immediately following the éad- Bete évrodas does certainly seem to sug- gest that these évytoAal were of a com- mendatory nature; compare Wieseler, Chronolog. p. 452, note. A few MSS. [DiFG; Syr., Arr.] read dé€acSa, prob- ably on the same hypothesis as that of Bengel. déFacde avtor] “receive him,’ t. e. with hospitality (comp. Matth. x. 14) and friendly feelings (Luke ix. 48, John iv. 45). The historical de- duction, founded on the use of the sim- ple défacde (contrast Acts xxi. 17), that St. Mark had. not been in the neighbor- hood of Colosse, and would not have been recognized as an assistant of St. Paul (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 567), seems not only precarious but improbable. ll. "“Incots 6 Aey. “lodaros| Mentioned only in this place; probably not identical with Justus of Corinth (Acts xviii. 7). Tradition represents him as afterwards bishop of Eleutherop- olis. oi bytes Ex TeptT.] ‘ who are of the circumcision ;’ participial predication in reference to the three pre- ceding nouns. Meyer, Lachmann, and Buttm. (ed. 1856) remove the stop after mepitoufjs, and regard the clause as in the nom. (‘per anacoluthon’), instead of being in the more intelligible partitive genitive. Such an anacoluthon is not uncommon (see Jelf, Gr. § 708. 2), but does not seem here necessary as the udévot naturally refers the thought to the category last mentioned ; ‘these only of that class are my helpers:’ compare Philem. 24, where, though Luke and Demas are grouped together with them as ouvepyol, the same general order is still preserved. On the formula eiva: éx, with abstract substantives, in which é« retains its primary meaning of origin, compare notes on Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. on Rom. ii. 8, Vol. 1. p. 105. eis thy Bacta.] ‘unto, towards, the kingdom of God:’ ‘ adjuyerunt Paulum ad regnum Messianum qui ei, quum homines idoneos redderet qui in illud regnum aliquando reciperentur, opitulati sunt,’ Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. 111. p. 201. Onthe term BaoiAcia @cod, see an elaborate paper by Bauer (C. G.) in Comment. Theol. Part 11. p. 107-172, and Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 244, olrives évyev] ‘men who proved ;’ the indefinite dos being here used in what has been termed its classific sense, and pointing to the cate- gory to which the antecedents belong ; see notes on Gal. ii. 4, iv. 24. The pas- sive form éeyevnd., condemned by Thom, M. p. 189 (ed. Bern.), and rejected by Phrynicus, p. 108 (ed. Lobeck), as a Doric inflexion, occurs not uncommonly in the N. T. (noticeably in 1 Thess.), but, as a careful comparison of parallel passages seems to show, without any clearly pronounced passive meaning, or any justly appreciable difference from éyevero; comp. Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, p. 50. mwapnyopta| ‘a com- fort ;’ an G@mat Aeydu. in the N. T. but not uncommon elsewhere, see the exam- ples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p.. 330; add also ZEsch. Agam. 95, where the term seems to involve a slightly medical al- lusion. The distinction of Beng. ‘za- pauudia in meerore domestico, mapnyopla in forensi periculo,’ does not seem sub- stantiated by lexical usage. Perhaps Cuar. IV. 12, 18. COLOSSIANS. 207 7 \ / na nr 7 b] A / / eis THY Bactheiav Tod Oeod, oitwes éeyerySnody por Trapnyopia. 12 aoraveras twas Erradppas 6 €& tpdv, So0d0s Xpiotod "Inood, u ¢ QC \. Lal Lal lel Tavrote aywvitdwevos UTEp LuadV €v Tals Tpocevyais, va oThre TEELOL KaL TETTANPOpopHuevoL €v TaVvTl SeAjpate TOV Ocod. 13 joap- the only real distinction is that mapyyo- pewy and its derivatives admit of physical and quasi-physical references which are not found with the more purely ethical Tapupuseiosa: ; see the good lists of ex- amples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. vv. 12. "Eragppas] See notes on ch.i.7; he is specified in the same way as One- simus, as a native ot Colosse. For the probable reason of the addition, see notes on ver. 9. dovAos Xp. *Ino.| Meyer, and after him Alford, fol- lowing Griesb. (who, however, reads only Xpiored), join these words with 6 é juay: this certainly seems unnecessary, the title SodA0s Xp. “Inc. is of quite suffi- vient weight and importance to stand alone as a title of honor and distinction ; so apparently Copt., as it inserts the def. art. before do0A0s. In Auth. (Polyel.) the position of the pronoun of the 3d pers. [appy-. here for the verb subst., Lu- dolph, Gr. p. 135] might seem in favor of the other mode of punctuation ; Syr. seems in favor of the text. The inser- tion of *Incod after Xpiotod (Lachmann, Tisch.) has good critical support [ABCJ ; 10 mss.; Vulg., Copt., Arm.] and is rightly adopted by most modern editors. &ywviCduevos| ‘striving earnestly ;’ compare Rom. xv. 30, where the com- pound cuvaywr. occurs in a similar con- text; compare ch. ii. 1, and notes én Joc. fva at7re| ‘that ye may stand fast ;’ purpose of the dywyi(éuevos, the more emphatic @yer(du. ev mpocevx. (not merely mpooevxéuevos) not requiring any dilution of the telic force of iva; comp. notes on Eph. i. 17. Srijvat has here, as in Eph. vi. 11, 13, al., the meaning of standing firm and unshaken amidst trials and dangers (see notes on Ephes. ll. cc.), and is more nearly defined by the follow- ing adjectives and their associated semi- local predication év mavt) SeAfpare. TéA€OL Kal weTAnpOD.| ‘perfect and fully assured ;’ secondary predicates of manner (Donalds. Cratyl. § 303), the first referring to their maturity and per- fectness (ch. i. 28, Eph. iv. 13), the sec- ond to their firm persuasion, and the ab- sence of all doubtfulness or scrupulosity. On the distinction between téAeios and 6AdKAnpos (‘omnibus numeris absolu- tus’) see Trench, Synon. § 22, and be- tween Téa. and &prtios, notes on 2 Tim. iii. 17. The reading memAnpod. is adopt- ed by Lachmann and Tisch. [with ABC DifG; 6 mss.], and both on external and on internal grounds is to be pre- ferred to memAnpapévar (Rec.). év wmavtTl SeAHpaT | ‘inevery (man- ifestation of the) will of God,’ i.e. ‘in ev- erything which God willeth’ (Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. 101), which, though not gram- matically, yet in common usage becomes equivalent to ‘in all the will of God,’ Auth. It is doubtful whether these words are to be joined with the finite verb (Meyer, Alf.; compare Rom. y. 2, 1 Corinth. xv. 1), or with the secondary predicates TéAe1ot rad memAnpo. (De W.). The latter is most simple, as defining the sphere in which the teAcdérns and TAnpopopia was to be evinced and find its realization ; so Chrys., Theoph., and perhaps Coptic, Gothic, who even with meTrAnpwuevor (comp. on Eph. v. 18) con- nect éy may7) Sed. with the secondary predicates. The Vyv., however, in such cases cannot be appealed to with confi- dence, as they commonly preserve the ambiguous order of the original. 13. paptup® ydp| Confirmatory (yap) testimony to the earnestness and activity of Epaphras. woAvy 208 COLOSSIANS. Cuapr. IV. 13-15, a \ > SOP 4 \ / e \ “e a \ a I A TUPO yap avT@ OTL Eyer TOY TOvOY UTEP LLaV Kal TaV ev Aao- i ‘ na b] € lf 14 > , e an A a Le} \ Siceia Kal tov év ‘Ieparone. ™ aowdSerar vas Aovkds 0 tatpos 6 ayarnros Kat Anuas. » domacacSe rods év Aaodixeia aderpors a évov] ‘much labor ;’ not such as that which attends a combat (Eadie), but, as the etymological affinities of rdvos [con- nected with mévouat, and probably derived from SIA-, see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. If. p. 860] seem to suggest, such as im- plies a putting forth all one’s strength (intentio) ; compare Suidas évos+ orov- 64, ériracts. The word is rare in the N. T., only here and Rey. xvi. 10, 11, xxi. 4. This may account for the vari- ety of reading; kérov, DIFG; (¢HaAov D2D°EKL (Rec.). The text is support- ed by ABC; 80; Coptic (emkah), and indirectly by DIFG: so Lachm., Tisch. Aaodixeia| Fora brief notice of this city, see notes on ch. ii. 1. ‘IepamwoaAci| An important city of Phrygia, about twenty English miles NNW. (surely not ‘ Ostlich,’ Winer) of Colossx, celebrated for its mineral springs, and a mephitic cavern called Plutonium, which was apparently con- nected with the worship of the ‘Magna Mater ;’ see Strabo, Geogr. x111. 4. 14 (ed. Kramer), Pliny, Hist. Nat. 11. 93 (ed. Sillig). The site of Hierapolis ap- pears to have been close to the modern Pambuk-Kulasi, round which extensive ruins are still to be traced ; see Forbiger, Alt. Geograph. Vol. 11. p. 848, 349, Arun- dell, Seven Churches, p. 79 sq., ib. Asia Minor, Vol. 11. p.-200 sq., and a good article in Kitto’s Bibl. Cyclop. Vol. 11. p. 848. Itis curious that this city should apparently have been unnoticed in Pau- ly, Real. Encycl. 14. Aoveas] The Evangelist, who according to ancient tradition (Ireneus, Heer. 111. 14. 1, ‘ creditus est referre no- bis evangelium’) has been regarded as identical with the iatpds. a@yarnrds here mentioned. The tradition that he was a painter (Nicephor. Hist. Eccl. 11. 13) is late and untrustworthy. Thereseems no etymological grounds whatever for identifying him further with the Lucius mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21 (Origen) : Lucas may have been a contraction of Lucanus, or possibly even of Lucilius, but not of Lucius. For further notices see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 11. The addition 6 iarpbs 6 ayarntds may possibly have been intended to distinguish the Evan- gelist from others of the same name (Chrys.), but more probably is only a further designation similar to those given to Tychicus (ver. 7), Onesimus (ver. 9), Aristarchus, Mark (ver. 10), Justus (ver. 11), and Epaphras (ver. 12). Anas] Mentioned as one of the apos- tle’s ovvepyot (Philem. 24), but too well remembered as having deserted: him in the hour of need; see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 10. Whether the omission of a title of honor or affection is accidental, or owing to his having already shown symptoms of the defection of which he was after- wards guilty (Meyer), cannot be deter- mined. The latter does not seem im- probable, especially as he here occupies the last place in the enumeration ; con- trast Philem. 24. 15. Nuu@pav) ‘and (among them) Nymphas,’ kat being here used to add the special to the general (see notes on Eph. v. 18, vi. 19), and to particular- ize Nymphas, who apparently belonged to Laodicea and, as the following words seem to show, was a person of some im- portance: dpa yody mas Selkvuor pméyay Tov &vdpa, Chrys., — who, however, adds too restrictively, e% ye 7 oikia avTod ék- kAnola; compare notes on Philem. 2. The repetition of the more generic 77 Aaod. éxeA. in ver. 16 would seem to show that the church in the house of Nymphas did not comprehend all the kat Cuap. IV. 15, 16. COLOSSIANS. 209 a \ 4 > > > a y Kal Nupdav Kat thv Kat oixoy avtod éxxrnciav. ™ Kal dtav dva- ¥7 Sete as > ey 9 ee , 7 APs n A 5 L yVoo js Tap ULV 1) ETTLO TOAD, TTOLIOATE LWA KAL EV T)) LLAOOLKE@V KKAno la a 37, Kal THY ex Aaodixelas Wa Kal byes a a exkrAnolg avayvoosh, vy) sy L tpels avaryverte. Christians of Laodicea. The form Niu- gas (Lachm., Buttm., with B?) is not cor- rect; the last syllable is circumflexed, and marks a probable contraction from Nymphodorus (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi1, 2), as ’OAvumas (Rom. xvi. 15) from Olym- piodorus, Zynvas (Tit. iii. 13) from Zeno- dorus ; compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 111. p. 309. ; kat oikov avuTod| So Rom. xvi. 5, in reference to Prisca and Aquila, who had also at Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 19) devoted their house to a similar righteous use; compare on Phi- lem. 2, and see especially Neand., Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 151, note (Bohn). The reading is somewhat doubtful. The text is supported by DEFGKL; great ma- jority of mss. ; Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Tisch.), and appy. rightly, for though a’tav [AC; 7 mss.; Slav. (ms.)] is not improbable as at first sight a more diffi- cult reading, it may still have easily arisen from the preceding plural, and the desire, even at the expense of the sense, to identify the whole church of Laodicea with that in the house of Nym- phas. If airay be adopted (Mey., Alf.), then the plural must be referred to ‘Nymphas and his family,’ involved ka- 7a civeow in the preceding substantive ; see Jelf, Gr. § 379. b, compare Winer, Gr. § 22.3, p.132. Lachm. reads adrijs. but on authority [B ; 67**] manifestly insufficient. 16. 7 €mtaotoarn] ‘the present let- ter ;’ compare Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Thess. v. 27. Several cursive mss. add air, but quite unnecessarily ; see Winer, Gram. § 18.1, p. 97. mothoate iva] ‘cause that;’ a form- ula of later Greek (John xi. 37, compare Rev. iii. 9), though not without parallel in the roieiv 8rws (Jelf, Gr. § 666, obs.) of the classical writers. The proper force of iva, though weakened and somewhat approximating to the lax use of rod with the infinitive after moveiy (Acts iii, 12, Josh. xxii. 26, al.), is not wholly lost; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 301. Thy 逫 Aaod.| ‘that from Laodicea,’ y = ™ Mae eh ~ not boop —< Asdo2i|> [que scripta est ex Laodicensibus] Syr., — but corrected in Philox., or ‘quam scripsi ex Laod.,’ Ath. (compare Theod.), but, with the usual and proper force of the preposition, ‘ that out of Laodicea,’ ‘ boei ist us Laud.,’ Goth., ‘ebdlchen Laod.,’ Copt., — two prepositions being really in- volved in the clause ‘ the Epistle sent to and to be received from or out of Laod.,’ but the latter, by a very intelligible and not uncommon attraction, alone ex- pressed ; compare Luke ix. 61, xi. 13, and see Winer, Gr. § 66. 6, p. 553, Jelf, Gr. § 647. a. The real difficulty is to determine what letter is here referred to. Setting aside attempts to identify it with the Ist Epistle to Tim. (Theophylact), the 1st Ep. of St. John (Lightf.), the Ep. to Philemon — an essentially private let- ter (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 452), two opin- ions deserve consideration ; —(a) that it is the Epistle to the Ephesians ; (b) that it is a lost Epistle. For (a) we have the - similarity of contents, and the probabili- ty, from the absence of greetings and lo- cal allusions, that the Ep. to the Ephe- sians was designed for other readers than those to whom it was primarily ad- dressed. Against it, the great improba- bility that the apostle should know that his Epist. to the Ephesians would have, reached Laodicea at or near the time of’ the delivery of his Ep. to the Colossians. For (6) we may urge the highly proba- ble circumstance that Tychicus might have been the bearer of the two letters 27 210 M «ai elrate “Apyinm@ Brére Kupie, va abr mAnpois. to the two neighboring cities, leaving that to Laodicea first, with orders for the interchange, and then continuing his journey. Against it there is the & priori improbability that a letter which, from the present direction given by the apos-. tle, stood apparently in some degree of parallelism to that to the Colossians (we have no right to assume that it was ‘ of a merely temporary or local nature,’ Eadie; see contra Meyer), should have been lost to the Church of Christ. The fact that the orthodox early Church (com- pare Jones on Canon, Part 111. 6) does not seem to have ever acquiesced in (}) makes the decision very difficult; as, however, the Ep. to the Colossians does appear to have been written first, —as the title tots é€v "E@éow (Eph. i. 1) does seem to preclude our assigning to that Epistle a further destination than to the churches dependent on Ephesus (see crit. note on Hph. i. 1),— as there does seem a trace of another lost Ep. (1 Cor. v. 9), —as the close neighborhood of Colossz and Laodicea might prepare us to admit a great similarity in contents, and conse- quently a very partial loss to the Church, —and lastly, as @ priori arguments on such subjects are always to be viewed with some suspicion, we decide in favor of (b), and believe that an actual Epistle to the Laodiceans is here alluded to, which, possibly from its similarity to its sister-Epistle, it has not pleased God to preserve to us: see Meyer, Hinl. z. Eph. p- 9 sq., where the question is fairly ar- gued. It may be added in conclusion that the above reasoning rests on the as- sumption that the Epistle to the Ephe- sians was written to that Church, and that the words éy’Edpéom are genuine. It is right, however, to add that the new- discovered N rejects them, and that thus an important authority has been added COLOSSIANS. Cuap. IV. 16, 17, Tv Svakoviay iv mapédaBes év to the side of those who deem that a blank was left for the name of the Church, and that the Epistle was purely encyclical. Jf this view (which still seems very doubtful) be adopted, the bal- ance will probably lean more to (a) ; at present, however, no more need be said than this, that the’title of the Epistle to the Ephesians and the present question may justly be considered as in somewhat close connection. The forged Epistle to the Laodiceans deserves no notice, being a mere cento out of St. Paul’s Epistles ; see Jones, on Canon, Part 711. 6: 17. ’Apxtmm@| A church-officer of Colossz,—not of Laodicea (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 452, compare Const. Apost. vit. 46); possibly an instructor (Theod. Philem. 2), but more probably a friend (Chrys., Theophyl. 7b.) of the household of Philemon, — if, indeed, on account of the position of Arch. in the salutation (Philemon 2), not more nearly related (compare Olsh.). What the d:axovia of Archippus was, cannot be determined ; that he was a didxovos in the literal mean- ing (compare Wordsw.), does not seem improbable. ‘Tradition represents him to have suffered martyrdom at Chone ; see Menolog. Gracum, Nov. 23, Vol. 1. p. 206. ae by * erga ed) ud dip dae bornhine > ae ibid i ebtawot “pnibaiay” iS ‘fe 34) INTRODUCTION. TuHIs exquisite and interesting Epistle, alike a master-piece of persuasive tact and delicacy, and an enduring model of truest Christian courtesy, was written by St. Paul to Philemon closely about the same time as the Epistle to the Church of Coloss, and not improbably stands first in the group of Epis- tles written during the first captivity at Rome; comp. Davidson, Introd. Vol. Im. p. 158. It would thus have been written about A.D. 61 or 62: see Introd. to Colossians. It was addressed to Philemon, most probably a member of the Church of Colossz (ver. 2, compared with Col. iv. 9, 17), who had originally been con- verted to Christianity by the apostle (ver. 19), and who, from the honorable title of ‘fellow-laborer’ (ver. 2; compare ver. 24 and Col. iv. 11), coupled with the notice of ‘ the church in his house’ (ver. 2) and the general tone of the Epistle, appears to have been a person of distinction, worth, and Christian zeal and earnestness (ver. 7). The bearer of the Epistle was Onesimus, a slave who had run away from, and as it would seem robbed Philemon (ver. 18), but who now, after having had the blessing of meeting with St. Paul at Rome, and of being converted to Christianity by him (ver. 10), was returning to the master he had wronged, changed and repentant, especially commended to his love and forgiveness (ver. 17), and mentioned, not without honor (Col. iv. 9), to the Church of which both were now alike to be members. His fellow trav- eller was Tychicus, the bearer of the Epistles to the Churches of Colosse and Ephesus (Col. iv. 7, Eph. vi. 21), to whose care and good offices he was not improbably further committed, and who might have been instructed by the apostle to induce the Colossian Christians generally to receive the hitherto uprofitable servant (comp. ver. 11) with forbearance and favor. The object of the Epistle is very clearly set before us,— an affectionate desire on the part of the apostle to restore Onesimus to the confidence and love of his master, and to insure for him a reception which he might justly have been considered wholly to have forfeited. The exquisite tact with which his fraudulent conduct towards Philemon is alluded to (ver. 18), — the ab- 216 INTRODUCTION. sence of everything tending to excuse or palliate the misdeed, yet the use of every expression and sentiment calculated to win the fullest measures of Phi- lemon’s forgiveness, — has never failed to call forth the reverential admiration of every expositor of this Epistle from the earliest times down to our own day. The originality with which the Epistle is thus stamped, and the strong external testimonies of antiquity which, short as this Epistle is, are by no means wanting (Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 42, Origen, Hom. xix. in Jerem.; in Matth. Tract. xxx. xxxiv., Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 111. 25), may justly be said to place its genuineness and authenticity beyond all doubt. It appears, however, to have been carped at in early times (see Jerome, Prowm. in Phi- lem.), and has recently been considered by a modern critic (Baur, Apostel Paulus, p. 475 sq.) as of doubtful authorship, but on grounds so utterly unten- able that we may with justice refuse to notice what the very author of the criticism seems to feel (p. 476) is open to the charge of an undue and unrea- sonable scepticism. THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. Apostolic address and salu- tation. AYAOZ Sécpu0s Xpictod *Inood kar TipoSeos 6 adeAdos Piryjpov TH aya- THTO Kal cvvepy@ huav ? kal Aria Th aderpp kai Apyinrp TO 2. &derpn|] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with AD1IE'F G; 3 mss.; Claroman., Amit., Tol., Copt., Ath. (Platt); Hes., Hier. (Meyer). In his later edd. Tisch. reverts to the reading of Rec. with D°E®KL; nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both, — but Philox. with asterisk) ; Theod.-Mops. (expressly), Chrys., Theod., al. The ex- ternal authorities are thus very nearly balanced ; it does not, however, seem im- probable that the supposed connection between Philemon and Apphia might have led to the same title being applied to each. 1. S€optos Xp. *Ina.] ‘a prisoner of Christ Jesus,’ ‘whom Christ Jesus and His cause have made a prisoner ;’ gen. of the author of the captivity ; see Wi- ner, Gram. § 30. 2, p. 170 (ed. 6), and notes on Eph. iii. 1, 2 Tim. i. 8. Con- sidering the subject of the Epistle, no title could be more appropriate, or more feelingly prepare Philemon for the re- quest which the apostle is about to make to him. On the titles adopted by St. Paul in his salutations, see notes on Phil. i. 1, and especially on Col, i. 1. kal Tiuzédseos] Associated with the apostle in the same way as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, each having a separate, and not, as in Phil. i. 1 (compare 1 and 2 Thess. i. 1), a common title; see notes on Phil. i., and on Col. i.1. The associ- ation of Timothy in a letter which has the character of a private communication was perhaps, as Chrys. suggests, doe KaKeivoy brd ToAAGY GkLodmevoY MaAAoV eléc nad Sodvar Thy xdpwv. 28 $:Ahpwovi] Philemon was a member of the Church of Colossz (compare Col. iv. 9), who owed his conversion to St. Paul (verse 19), and who by his zeal in the Christian cause (verse 5), showed himself worthy of the consideration and regard which the apostle evinces for him in this Epistle. There does not seem any good ground for the opinion of Wie- seler (Chronol. p. 452) that Philemon belonged to Laodicea ; his house at Co- lossze was shown in the time of Theodo- ret (Argum. ad Philem.), and tradition (Const. Apost. v11. 46) represents him as having been bishop of that city, —not of Laodicea, as Alford, Prolegom. p. 114. In the Menol. Gracum, Noy. 23, Vol. 1. p- 206, he is said to haye suffered mar- tyrdom with Archippus at Chon. cuvepy@ heey] ‘our fellow-helper ;’ more special designation suggested by the zeal of Philemon for the Gospel. The genitive quay, as the single article hints, belongs to ovvepy¢ and the verbal 218 PHILEMON. 2-4, TWOTPATLOTY NUOV, Kal TH KaT oiKdV gov EKKAHTIA. ° yapus Kyiv \ > / > \ an \ id a \ / ’ fal n kal eipnvn ao Ocod Tatpos nuav Kal Kupiov ‘Incod Xpictod. I thank God for thy prog- ress in faith, and pray that 4 Evyapiot® 76 Oew pov, mdavTote pveiav it may prove beneficial to others : the proofs of thy love to the saints gladdens me. &yarnté, compare Rom.i.7. Both titles are dwelt upon by Chrys. and TheophyL.; the latter says, «i dyamntés, Seca Thy xdpw* ei cuvepyds, ov Kaséter Tov SovAov GAAG TdAW GmooTEAE? Tpds tmnpeciay TOU KNpUyLaros. 2. °Amgta] Most probably, as sug- gested by Chrysos. and the Greek com- mentators, the wife of Philemon. If this be so, it is not improbable that Archip- pus may have been their son ; see notes on Col. iv. 17. The name ’Amopia, which in some mss. appears in the form *Ammia (see Acts xxviii. 15), is the softened form of the Latin ‘ Appia’ (Grot.). ’Apximm@] Supposed by Wieseler (Chronol. p. 452), but without sufficient reason, to have been of the Church of Laodicea ; see notes on Col. iv.17. He is here distinguished by the honorable title of cvvorpatiétys with the apostle ; compare 2 Tim. ii. 3. On the Alexan- drian form ovvarp. see Winer, Gr. § 5. 4, p. 46. gov éxka.] ‘the church in thy house ;’ not merely the household of Philemon, ovdé SovAous TapyKev évytaidsa, Chrys., but, as the expression seems regularly to designate, the assembly of Christians that were accustomed to meet at the house of Philemon, and join with his household in public prayer ; compare on Col. iv. 15, and Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 397. 8. xdpis duty x.7.A.] Scil. etn, not éoTw (Koch); see notes on Eph.i.2: the regular form of salutation in St. Paul’s Epp. On the spiritual meaning of the blended form of address, see notes on Gal. i. 2, Eph. i.2; add also on Phil. i. 1. kal Kupiov] Scil. rat aad Kupiov t.7.A. ‘ ye a“ as expressly in Syr. To wate [et a TH KaT oikdv Dom. nostro] : the Socinian interpreta- tion kal (rarpds) Kuplov seems very im- probable ; see notes on Phil. i. 2. 4. evxaptora| Usual eucharistic commencement in reference to the spir- itual state of his convert; ‘a gratulatione more suo incipit,’ Calv.: see Rom. i. 9, 1 Cor. i. 4, and notes on Phil.i. 1, where this mode of address is briefly alluded to. For the meaning and uses of evxapioreiv (‘gratias agere’) in earlier and later Greek, see notes on Col.i. 12. As in Rom. i. 8, 1 Corinth. i. 4, Phil. i. 3, the thanks are returned 76 ©e@ pov, to Him ‘whose he was and whom he served’ (Acts xxvii. 23), a particularizing mode of address called forth from the warm heart of the apostle, by a remembrance of the great mercies vouchsafed to him in having thus been blessed in his labors ; comp. on Phil. i. 3. mdvtote «.7.A.] Participial sentence, defining more closely both when the ed- xapictia took place, and the circum- stances under which it was offered to God; ‘nunquam oro quin tui memine- rim,’ Est. The adverb is here, as also in Phil. i. 4, Col. i. 3, more naturally joined with the participle (Chrysostom, Theod.) than with the preceding edxa- pior@ (Syr., Aithiop.), see notes on Phil. i. 4, where the reasons for a connection with the participle are more distict than in the present case. Mvetav gov] ‘mention of thee,’ wvela receiving this meaning when in associa- tion with moeioSa: ; see notes on Phil. i. 3. The formula is not uncommon in classical Greek (comp. Plato, Protag. p- 317 B, and a little more strongly ib. Phedr. p. 254 a), and, as Koch remarks, is an expansion of yew pyelay twos (1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim, i. 3), the ‘dynamic’ 5. PHILEMON. 219 lal lal , COU TroLovpEvos ETL TAV TpoTeVYa@V pov, © akovwY Gov THY ayaTnV a a Kal THY TicTW Hv exes Tpos TOV Kupioy *Incodv xa cis wavtas middle ovetoSa not being without its force and significance; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq., and notes on Col. iv. i. éml Trav mpocevx ar] ‘in my prayers,’ not merely ‘at the time of making them,’ but, with a tinge of local force, ‘in orationibus,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., scil. when engaged in offering them; see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 23. a, p. 246, and notes on Eph. i. 16. 5. axovwy] ‘as I am hearing ;’ cau- sal participle (Donalds. Gr. § 616), giv- ing the reason for the evxapior, or, per- haps more exactly, for the circumstances which especially led to its being offered ; Tov Tv SAwy Oedy em) Tois Tots KaTopsA- pact dvupve, Theod.: contrast Rom. i. 8, where edxap. is followed by the more definite 671, and the causal sentence is expressed in a passive form. Hv Exes] ‘which (faith) thou hast to- ward the Lord Jesus, and dost evince to- ward all the saints.’ There is some diffi- culty in these words. In the first place the reading is doubtful; Lachm., with ACD! ; 17. 187, reads eis roy Kipiov, and with DE; 10 mss.; Syr., al. inverts the order of aydanv and tictiwv. Both, however, seem corrections suggested by the somewhat unusual mloris mpds Kipioy, and the apparently anomalous connec- tion of ristw with eis mdyras rods aylous. Adopting the present text, we have two explanations ; (a) that of Meyer, recently adopted by Winer in the last edition of his grammar (§ 50. 2, p. 365), according to which riovis is taken as equivalent to ‘fidelity, and justified by Rom. iii. 3, Gal. v. 22, and Tit. ii. 10, in the first of which passages the meaning occurs in a very different combination, while in the second it is more than doubtful (see notes in Joc.), and in the third is asso- ciated with an adjective; (b) that of Grot., al., derived from Theodoret and followed by De Wette, Alf., and most commentators, according to which rhv &ydrnv is to be referred by a kind of xu- ™ aopos (Jelf, Gr. § 904. 3) to eis mdvras Tous aylous, and thy miotw alone to rby Kupiov. Of these (a) does not seem ten- able, as it is surely very improbable that, in combination with aydarn, miotis should revert to a meaning so very unusual, and in St. Paul’s Epistles so very feebly sup- ported, as that of ‘ fidelitas.’? The sec- ond (0), grammatically considered, is ad- missible (see Winer, Gr. § 50. 2, p. 365), but the distinctive qv exes (see Meyer) and the repetition of the article with both substantives make it very unplau- sible. In this difficulty a third view seems to deserve considera- tion, according to which mioris mpds Tov Kip.=‘a faith directed towards the Lord’ (comp. 1 Thess. i. 8), in a purely spiritual reference, while miotis eis mdv- Tas kK. T. A. =‘a faith evinced towards (erga) the saints,’ with a more practical reference, scil. as shown in contributions to their necessities, —a meaning sug- gested to the reader by the preceding &ydrnv, and conveyed by the studied prepositional interchange. The prepo- sitions then substantially preserve the distinction alluded to in notes on Ephes. iv. 12, Tit. i. 1; mpds refers to a more remote, eis to a more immediate, applica- tion of the specified action, whether erga (2 Corinth. viii, 24, 1 Pet. iv. 9), contra (Rom. viii. 7), or with a more neutral ref. (2 Cor. x. 1, Col. iii. 9); compare Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353. This seems also confirmed by etymology, for while eis (€vs) incorporates the idea of locality, of having reached the place (compare Donaldson Cratyl. § 170), rpds primarily presents little more than the idea of sim- ple motion forwards; see Donalds. 70. § 169, 171. On the various construc- 220 PHILEMON. 6. \ a Tous aylous, © drrws ) KoWwvia THS TicTeas cov evepyns yévnTaL év éruyydoet Tavtos ayayov Tod év myiv eis Xpiotov "Inoodv. tions of mists and moretw, see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 18, Vol. 11. p. 129. 6. Srws| ‘in order that ;’ dependent On €vxapioT@, or perhaps more immedi- ately on pyelay cov motovmevos em) TaY mpocevxav, and conveying the object of the prayer (2 Thessalon. i. 12), perhaps slightly blended with the subject of it; eVxouat, dyciv, va, n Kowwvia rijs lo- Teds gov evepyns yevnta, Chrysost., and more distinctly Theod., d€oua: Kad avti- Boa@ tov Kowdy evepyérny, TeAciav oor dodvar Thy KThow Tay dyasav. To give the particle an exclusive reference to re- sult or consequence (Estius; compare Tittmann, Synon. 11. p. 55, 58), or to re- fer it to ver. 5 as giving the ‘ tendency’ of Hv @xeis (Beng., Meyer), is very un- satisfactory. Itis singular that two such good commentators as Beng. and Mey. should agree in an interpretation so ut- terly pointless ; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 6, p. 410. On the essential meaning of 8rws, and its distinction from fa, see notes on 2 Thess. i. 12. Kotvwavia THs mhaTEws Gov] ‘com- munication of thy faith ;’ scil. ‘ participa- tion in thy faith enjoyed by others,’ zfo- teas being not a gen. subjecti, but, as more commonly (except with a personal pron.), agen. objeeti ; comp. Phil. ii. 1, iii. 10, al. The clause thus serves to clear up, and indeed indirectly confirm the interpretation of the preceding mlotw eis mdytas Tovs aylovs. The meaning as- signed to kowwvia by Cicum., 7 Kowh mlotis, 7 Kowwmods, ‘ fides tua, quam communem nobiseum habes’ (Bengel), or the more concrete, ‘ beneficentia ex fide profecta’ (Estius, compare Beza), ‘does not seem accordant with the use of xotvwvia in St. Paul’s Epistles when asso- ciated with a gen. rei ; compare notes on Phil. ii. 1. évepyis ‘yévynta | ‘might become operative,’ scil. mm Oa Y ao ° ° {pass {slo boow [reddens frue- tus in operibus] Syr.; yivera évepyhs bray epya @xn, Chrys. The translation ‘evidens,’ Vulg., ‘ manifesta,’ Clarom., appears to have arisen from a mistaken reading évapyns. év émey- voéoet wavtTds ay.| ‘inthe (complete) knowledge of every good thing ;’ sphere and element in which the évépyeim was to be displayed (see notes on Phil. i. 9), serving also indirectly to define the ‘ mo- dus operandi;’ mas 5& gota evepyhs; ia Tod emryvaval oe Kal mpdrrew wav ayar &év, Gicum., who however unnecessa- rily introduces kat mpdrrew, and incor- rectly limits it to Philemon, whereas the previous interpretation of xoivwrta shows that the reference is to others, to the xot vavol Tis tlarews gov ; see Meyer in loc. On the meaning of émiyvwois (‘accurata cognitio’), see notes on Eph. i. 17, Phil. i. 9, but observe that this force of ém cannot always be conveyed in translation ; compare on Col. i. 9. TOo év hmtv] ‘which isin us ;’ with special reference to them as Christians, and as recipients of the good gifts and graces of God. The reading is slightly doubtful. Lachmann omits rod with AC; 17, but on authority manifestly insufficient. Again Rec. reads suiv with FG; Vulg. (ed.), Syriac (both), Coptic, al., but on weak external, and still weaker internal evidence, as duty might have been easily suggested by a desire to conform to the dui in ver. 3. eis Xp. Ino.] ‘unto Christ Jesus,’ not merely ‘in reference to Him,’ but with a closer adherence to the primary force of the pre- position, ‘ for the work of,’ ‘to the honor of, ‘erga Christum,’ Erasm. (compare notes on ver. 5); ‘ bonum nobis exhibi- tum redundare debet in Christum,’ Ben- gel. The words obviously belong to zt PHILEMON. 991 od 7 yapay yap ToAAnY Exyov Kal TapdKAnow ert Th ayaTN cov, OTL la na (ae ey b) f \ a > la Ta OTAYKVA TOV dyiov avarrérravTal Sia Tov adENé. 7. xapdv] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with ACDEFG; 10 mss. ; apparently-all Vv.; Lat. Ff. (Griesb., Scholz., Mey.). In edd. 2 and 7 Tisch. reads xdpw with KL; great majority of mss.; Chrys. (ms.), Theod., Dam., Theoph., al. (approved by Griesb., and adopted by A/f.). This latter reading has some little claim on our attention, on the principle ‘ proclivi lectioni prestat ardua,’ still as xdpw might have been suggested by the evxapior@ which precedes, it does not appear safe to re- verse so great a preponderance of uncial authority. érxov] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with ACFG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Copt. (ai-shz), ith. (Pol. and Platt), al.; Theod.; Lat. Ff. The plur. goyouey is found in D1E; Clarom., Sang.; Hier., al. (Meg., Alf.) ; the pres. Zxouev (before roAA}y) is found in D*JK ; great maj. of mss. ; Syr. (both) ; Chrys., Dam., Theoph., al., and adopted by Tisch. ed. 2,7. At first sight the plural (St. Paul and Tim., ver. 1) would seem to be the true reading, of which the text was an alteration. As, however, the change might have been due to the preceding 7juiy, we retain the best attested reading. éevepyhs yevnrat, not to what immediately foundation upon which the xapé aud 7a- precedes (Syr., Vulg., and more distinct- ly Ath. (Platt), cis being assumed = év), still less to the more remote ris mioreds cov, as Grotius. Lachm. omits *Inoody with AC; 2 mss.; Copt., th. (Polyb., but not. Platt); Hier., al., but without sufficient external authority. 7. yap] It is somewhat doubtful whether this gives the (subjective) rea- son for the ebyapiotia, ver. 4 (Jerome, Mey.), or for the prayer immediately preceding (De W., Alf.). The latter is perhaps the most natural, as the subject of thanksgiving seems insensibly to have passed into that of prayer. The apostle prays that the kowwvila x.7.A. may prove évepynhs, for (‘sane rebus ita comparatis,’ Klotz) it is at present so great as to cause joy both to himself and to Timo- thy ; od por mappnotay Zdwkas ex Tay eis érépous yevouevwy, Chrys. éaxov| ‘I had;’ scil. when I first heard of your dydrny and miorty, ver. 5. The woaahy, as Meyer observes, appears to belong to both substantives ; compare Jelf, Gr. § 39. 1..obs. éml tH aydrn cov] ‘in thy love;’ literally, ‘based on thy love,’ ém with the dat., as usual, marking the basis and paka. rested ; see notes on Phil. i. 3. btt T& o@Adyxva] ‘because the hearts ;’ explanation of the preceding éml TH ay.; TOAATS yap eumiumrAayo Sv- endlas bre mavrodamhy rots arylos Sepa- melay mpoopépers, Theod. On the semi- Hebraistic omAdyxva (ver. 20, 2 Cor. vi. 12, al.), see notes on Phil. i. 8: there, however, the idea of ‘ affection’ (mvev- Batik) pidocropyia, Theod. in loc.) is more predominant ; here the term only serves to specify the imaginary seat of it; comp. Liicke on 1 John iii. 17. As omAdyxva is a somewhat comprehensive term (‘ proprie sunt viscera illa, nobiliora vocata, cor, pulmones, hepar et lien,’ Tittmann, Synon. i. p. 68), the ethical applications may obviously be somewhat varied; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. fi. p. 997. &vamwéetwavt atl ‘have been refreshed ;’ so 1 Cor, xvi. 18, 2 Cor. vii. 13. On the distinction be- tween dvdmavois, ‘ pause or cessation from labor,’ and &veo.s, ‘ relaxation of what had been tightly strained,’ see Trench, Synon. §.41. &5eAp€] Not ‘ Bruder in Wahrheit,’ De W.., Koch, but as Ath., ‘ frater mi,’ —in tones of earnest affection : ‘hoc in 222 Ibeseech thee for Onesimus, thy once unprofitable ser- vant, who left thee a ser- @ruTaoGELY GOL TO GVKOV; vant, to return a brother : PHILEMON. 8, 9. 8 Aid Todd ev Xpiors wappnotay exov 9 Sia THY ayamnv receive him as myself, Ifhe be a defaulter, I will repay thee. fine positum multum habet mddos ; conf. Virg. An. v1. 836,’ Scip. Gent. ap. Poli Syn. 8. 814] ‘ On which account,’ ‘as I have so much joy and consolation in thee ;’ not in connection with mapf. @xwv (du- vdwevos, onal, Sappety as Sepua@s wemi- atevxdrt, Theod.) ,as Syr. and the Greek commentators, but in ref. to the preced- ing xapav toxov — emt rH aydmp, express- ing more fully the motive of the da thy ay. waAAov mapax. Which follows ; so De Wette, Meyer, Alf. On the use of 61d, see notes on Gal. iv. 31, and for its dis- tinction from ody and &pa, see Klotz, De- var. Vol. 11. p. 173, but on the two latter particles contrast the more correct re- marks of Donalds. Gram. § 604, Cratyl. § 192. mapp. Exwr] ‘though I have boldness ;’? concessive use of the simple participle, see Donald- son, Gram. § 621, and compare the re- marks of Winer on the translation of participles, Gr. § 46. 12, p. 413, —ed. 5, apparently omitted in ed. 6. On the meaning of wapf.,—here in its deriva- tive sense of étovaela, ae, Hesych., — see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 18. This mappn- aia was év Xp.; He was the element in which (not 8: thy wlorw thy eis Xp., Chrys.) it was entertained, and out of which it did not exist: compare on Eph. iv. 1. émitdaoo. cot Td &vArov] ‘to enjoin upon thee that which is fitting ;’ explanatory infin. following a phrase expressive of ability or capabil- ity; compare Madvig, Synt. § 145. 1. The verb émitdoo. though not uncommon elsewhere in the N. T. is only found here in St. Paul’s Epistles: ém:tayn, on the contrary, occurs seven times in these Epistles, but not elsewhere in the N. T. The neuter 7d avjxov (comp. Eph. v. 4, Col. iii. 18), not exactly 7d eis xpelay mov , éasdv, Theoph., but more generically ‘quod decet facere,’ Coptic I, Od we 2/> [illa quae justa) Syr., 7d mpémoy, Suid., marks the category (Meyer) to which the receiving back of Onesimus is to be referred. 9. 51a THY &y.] ‘on account of love,’ ‘ for love’s sake,’ Auth. ; partially explan- atory of the preceding 6:4, but witha more general reference, the dydan here not being hy Kaye &xw mpds ce, Theoph., or hy aya Té oe Kal Gryar@ucu, Cicum., nor even ‘charitas tua in Christum,’ Just., but, as the omission of all defining genitives seems to suggest, ‘ Christian love’ in its widest sense (De W., Mey.). The article gives the abstract noun its most generic meaning and application, Middleton, Gr. Art. v. 5. 1, p. 89 sq. totootos &yv| ‘Being such an one,’ ‘As Iam such an one,’ scil. who would rather beseech for love’s sake, than avail myself of my mappyclay emrdooew. There is some little difficulty as to the connection of this participial clause. It is usually regarded as preparatory to the @s TWatdAos which follows, and is con- ceived to more nearly explain it. Meyer, however (whose note on this clause is very persuasive), shows that the unde- fined ro.odros, though often more nearly explained and defined by ojos, dare, nei- ther is, nor scarcely can be, associated with @s, which naturally presumes a more defined antecedent, and always ‘aptius conjungitur cum sequentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p 757. This be- ing apparently the case, roodros Sy must be referred to ver. 8, while os TlavAos mpecBvrns, enhanced by yur dé Kal Séo- juos 71. X., belongs to the second zapa- Kar@ (so Lachm., De Wette, and recently Buttm., Alf.), and states the capacity in 9, 10. PHILEMON. 993 HaAXoV TrapaKado. ToLodTos wv, ws Iladdos mpecBvrns, vuvi dé Kal décptos “Incod Xpictod, !° mapaxada ce Tepi Tov euod TéKvou, 9. "Incod Xpiotovd] So Rec. with D*D®EFGKL; apparently great majority of mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Ath. (Platt), al.; Chrys., Theod. Lachm. and Tisch. reverse the order with AC; a few mss.; Copt., Auth. (Pol.), Iber., al. The evi- dence does not seem sufficient to justify the reversed order, especially as the best authorities give Xp. Ino. in ver. 1, which might easily have suggested the correc- tion. which the apostle makes his affectionate request. Lachm. it may be observed en- closes és MadAos in a parenthesis ; Buttm, isolates it by commas (so Chrys., ard THs ToLdTHTOS TOD TpoTwmov: ard TIS HAL klas* ard Tod Sikaorépov mdvTwy Ott Kal déouios x. T.A., compare Nth. [Platt]) ; both however unsatisfactorily : TladaAos seems more naturally to stand in imme- date union with mpecBurns (Syr., Copt.) and to hint at the title he might have assumed, ‘ Paul the Apostle.’ ampeaBurns| ‘an aged man,’ Auth., o0o ‘senex,’ Vulg. Loss Syriac and appy. all Vy. It is quite unnecessary to at- tempt to explain away the simple mean- ing of this word (‘non statem sed offi- cium significat,’ Calvin, ‘ ein Senior der Christenheit,’ Koch), or to evade the al- most obvious reference to age; see Wolf inloc. If with Wieseler we assume as late a year as A. D. 39 for the martyrdom of Stephen, and consider the veavias at that time as no more that 25 or 26, the apostle would now (probably a. p. 62) be nearly 50, which, broken as he was with labor, suffering, and anxieties (2 Cor. xii. 24-28), might well entitle him to the appellation of mpecBitns. If we follow the tradition in Pseud.-Chrys. Orat. de Petr. et Paulo (Vol. v111. spur. p-. 10, ed. Bened.), that St. Paul’s age was 68 when he suffered martyrdom, there will remain no doubt as to the ap- propriateness of the term. All attempts, however, to fix the year in which St. Paul was born seem hopeless; compare Winer, RWB. Vol. 11. p. 217. Séoputos “I. X.] Not did Xpiordy Sedeue- vos, Chrys., but, as in ver. 1, ‘one whom Christ and his cause have bound;’ see notes above, and Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 170. 10. rod éuod tréxvov] ‘my own child ;’ with tender reference to Phile- mon as being converted by the apostle, and owing to him his Christian exist- ence ; compare 1 Cor. iv. 14, Gal. iv. 19, and Loesner, Obs. p. 481, who cites the partially parallel wa@AAov adrov 7) odx fittov Tay yovewy yeyevynia, Philo, Cai. § 8, Vol. 11. p. 554 (ed. Mang.). The pronoun éeuod seems here emphatic. Lachm. and Meyer introduce éy& before éyevynca, but though on internal grounds not improbable, the external authority [A; 2 mss.; Slav. (ms.), Chrys. (1)] does not seem nearly sufficient to war- rant the insertion. év tots decors] With feeling allusion to the circumstances in which he was when Philemon was converted, and in which he now is again while urging his re- quest; mdéAw of Secuod Svowrntixot [ex- orandi vim habent], Chrys. The addi- tion od after decpots [Rec., Scholz, with CD?KL; al.] seems rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. "Ovhaorpuov] Accusative, owing to an inverted form of attraction; the relative which would more usually (compare Wi- ner, Gr. § 24.1, p. 147) have been in the same gender and case as réxvov here follows the common regimen, passing into the gender of the latter substantive, 224 a ake 5) an al b] , ov eyevynoa év Tots Seopois, ’Ovijcipor, PHILEMON. 11, 12. [ihe a Ff TOV TOTE GOL axpn- . \ A oTov, vuvi € col Kal Ewol evypnoToV, dv avéTemrApa cor. ” od de 11. avéreupd cot] So Lachmann and Tischen. 1, with ACD!D; 17; Syr., Copt. (ha-pok), Aith. (both) ; Chrys. (xpbs o¢) ; Lat. Ff. (Meyer). In his second edition Tisch. omits co. with D*FGKL; nearly all mss. ; Amit., Fuld., Goth., Syr. (Phi- lox.) ; many Ff. (Rec. Alf.). Independently of external authority which seems to preponderate against the omission, it does not seem improbable that oo: should have been omitted on account of the two preceding repetitions in the same verse, and the ob 5¢ which immediately follows. and attracting it into its own case ; see Winer, Gram. § 24. 2, p. 149, § 66. 5, p. 552. ll. rbv wore cor &xp.| ‘who was once unprofitable,’ ‘ unserviceable,’ scil. who once did not answer to his name (dvqomor), but by running away, and apparently also by theft (Chrys. on ver. 18), proved himself &xpyoros. The word &xpnor. is an am. Acydu. in the N. Test. (evxpnotos, 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv 11), and is defined by Tittm. (Synon. 11. p. 12) as “quo uti recte non possumus,’ ‘ qui nul- lum usum prebeat.’ The distinction be- tween this and éxpeios (Matth. xxv. 30, Luke xvii. 10) is not very palpable: per- haps the latter rather implies 06 od« éo71 xpela, ‘quo non opus est’ (Tittm.), ‘one who could be dispensed with,’ and hence, inferentially, ‘ worthless,’ &xpetov kal avw- pedés, Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 54, while &xpn- oros has less of a negative sense (ov xpn- owov) and more approximates to that of movnpés. It would seem, however, that axpetos belongs mainly to earlier, &xpy- oros mainly to later Greek. The play on the name, ’Ovjomov, tov mote &xpnorov (not noticed by the Greek com- mentators), has been recognized by the majority of expositors ; see Winer, Gr. § 68. 2, p. 561. Any further allusion, Xpnords as compared with Xpioriavds (Koch), seems improbable and even un- tenable, compare Mey. in loc. oot nat éuot etx p.] ‘profitable, ser- viceable, to thee and to me.’ The eixpn- etla here alluded to has obviously a higher reference than to merely earthly service (comp. Chrys.) : Philemon had now gained in his servant a brother in the faith; St. Paul, one who owed him his hope of future salvation, and was a living proof that he had not run in vain. In the delicately added éuo) (Philemo- nem oiviliter preponit sibi,’ Beng.) it is somewhat coarse (Theoph., Corn. a Lap.) to find a hint that Philemon was to send him back to the apostle. On the various beauties and persuasive touches in this exquisite Epistle, see Marshall (Nath.), Serm. x111. Vol. 11. p. 327_ sq. (Lond. 1731). dv ave- meupd ool ‘I have sent back to thee,’ or even ‘I send back, etc.,’— epistolary aor.; present to the writer, but aoristic to the receiver of the letter; compare éreua, Phil. ii. 28, and see examples in Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249. 12.60 5& airdyv] ‘But do thou (receive) him.’ The sentence involves an anacoluthon, which, however, affords but little difficulty, as ver. 17, in which the construction is resumed, suggests the natural supplement. The addition mpoo- AaBov [Rec. with CDEKL; al.] is well attested, but considering the tendency of St. Paul, esp. in relatival sentences, to pass into anacolutha (see examples in Winer, Gr. § 63.1, p. 500), rightly re- jected by Lachm., Tisch., and most mod- ern expositors as an ancient gloss. Zach- mann also omits od 8é [with AC; 17], but with little probability, as the omis- sion was apparently the result of an at- 13. PHILEMON. 225 a \ \ , A avrov, TOOT éoTw Ta cua oTrayxva, © ov éym eBovdouny pos \ lo) €wauTov KaTéxew, iva UTEp ood tempt to evade the anacoluthon by join- ing évémeupa and aitéy; comp. Meyer (crit. note), p. 173. TO éua omrdyxval ‘mine own heart,’ ‘meinos brusts,’ Goth. ; oftw yap aitdy ayarG kad ev TH Wuxi mepipépw, Theoph. The meaning adopted by Syriac a, o 4 OSL) { poe? [sicut natum meum], ZXthiopic (Platt; Polygl. paraphrases), Theod., é« trav éuav yeyevynra omAdyx- vev, al., though perfectly defensible (see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v., and the pertinent examples in Wetstein), does not here seem requisite or indeed satisfactory, as the paternal relation of St. Paul to Ones- imus was a purely spiritual one, and as orAdyxva appears nearly always in St. Paul to involve some special idea of af- fection, or, as here, of the seat of it: Meyer (after Grot.) quotes ‘ meum cor- culum,’ Plaut. Cas. 1v. 4. 14 (16) : com- pare notes on ver. 7. 13. €y@ é€BovrAdunv] ‘LI (on my part) was purposing ;’ contrast 7%¢Anca, ver. 14, where not only the general dis- tinction between the verbs BovAoua and SéAw (see notes on 1 Tim. y. 14), but, as Meyer remarks, between the tenses, is accurately preserved. The imperfect points to the time when the design was formed, and to its non-fulfilment ; com- pare Bernhardy, Synt.x.3,p.373. The use of ndxdunv Rom. ix. 3 ( Alf.) though analogous, is not exactly similar, as this belongs to a use of the imperfect where there is a more distinct reference to a suppressed conditional clause ; see notes on Gal. v. 20. mpos épaurdy] ‘with myself;’ the proper and primary meaning of the preposition (‘motion toward,’ compare Donaldson, Cratyl. § 169) is often obscured in con- foot Stakovh év toils Secpots Tod nection with persons; see notes on Gal. ‘ i. 18, and Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p. 360. bmép cod] ‘in thy stead ;’ not simply for avri, but with a tinge of the more usual meaning of the preposition ‘in the place of, and thereby beneficially to thee ;’ compare Eurip. Alcest. 700, xat- Saveiv dep cod, and see Green, Gram. p. 301. This more derivative meaning of the prep. cannot be denied (see Winer, Gr. § 47.1, p. 842), but has been unduly pressed in doctrinal passages ; compare notes on Gal. iii. 13, and Usteri, Lehrd. 11.1.1,p.115. The exquisite turn that St. Paul gives to his intention of retain- ing Onesimus, viz. as a representative of his master (iva Tijs ofjs mot Siaxovlas éx- tlon 7d xpéos, Theod.), should not be left unnoticed. dtakovy| ‘ might minister ;’ present, idiomatically referring to the time when the éBovadunv took place, and giving a vividness to the past by representing it as present; see Winer, Gr. § 41.%. 1, p. 258, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 618: compare also Gal. i. 16, but observe that’ the use of the present is somewhat different; there an event is referred to which was still going on, here the diaxovia, in its more direct sense, had now ceased, as Onesimus was all but on his way home to his master. deguots Tod cvaryy.| ‘bonds of the gospel ;’ scil. ‘bonds which the gospel brought with it,— which preaching the gospel entailed on me,’ evayy. being a gen. auctoris; see Winer, Gr. § 30.2. B. note, p. 170, Hartung, Casus, p. 17. Again a delicate allusion to his sufferings (comp. v. 9), and to a state which could not fail to touch the heart of Philemon. 14. xwpls 5é «.7.A.] ‘but without thy own approval :’ comp. Raphel, Annet. Vol. 11. p..642, who very appropriately cites Polybius, Hist. p. 983 (xv. 18. 4), 29 226 PHILEMON. 14, 15. evavyyeriou: ! yapls dé Ths os ydpns ovdev 73é\noa Trovjoat, 7 \ e \ +) 4 A > f es > \ \ e A iva fu) ws KaTa avayKny TO ayaSov cov 7H, GANA KaTa ExovotoDV. Tiealpe \ iS \ n 5) / XY \ ¢ Y Wi ee TAaXa yap ola TOUTO EX WPLo n TT pos WpPaVv, LWA ALWVLOY AUTOV xwpls Tis ‘Pwpatwv yyduns ; compare ib. Ill. 21. 7, xwpls THs adtod yvdpns, ib. XXI. 8. 7, dvev rijs éxelvou yvduns (cited in Schweigh. Ler. Polyb. p. 89). Tvaun occurs a few times in the N. T., and in slightly varied senses; comp. Acts xx. 3, where it has apparently the stronger sense of ‘design,’ and 1 Cor. i. 10, vii. 25, 40, 2 Cor. viii. 20, where it has its more regular meaning of ‘ sententia’ or ‘judicium ;’? compare Meyer on 1 Cor. i. 10, and Kypke, Obs, Vol. 11. p. 205. AXéAnoal ‘was willing;’ aor., see notes on ver. 13. avdyKnyv] ‘as if by necessity,’ ‘ compul- sion-wise ;’ the kara marking primarily the norma or manner according to which the action was done (see notes on Titus iii. 5), and thence the prevailing princi- ple to which it was to be referred (comp. examples in Winer, Gir. § 49. d, p. 358), while és marks the aspect which the ac- tion would have worn; see Bernhardy, Synt. vir. 2, p. 833, and notes on Eph. vy. 22, Col. iii. 23. Chrysost., and more fully Theophyl. and Gicum., rightly call attention to this insertion of the particle. Tos ayasdy cou ‘thy good,’ ‘thy be- neficence,’ ‘the good emanating from or performed by thee,—the gen. perhaps being not so much a mere possessive gen. as a gen. auctoris or cause efficien- tis; see notes on Col. i. 23. The exact meaning of the words is slightly doubt- ful; there seems certainly no reference to any manumission of Onesimus (Es- tius, Koch; contrast Maurice, Unity of NV. T. p. 659), nor merely to the kind reception which Philemon was to give him on his arrival (Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. p. 387), nor even to the ‘ benefi- cium’ which in this particular instance Philemon was to confer on the apostle, but, as the more abstract term suggests, ¢ BS @S KaTaG@ ‘beneficentia tua’ (Calv.), whether as shown in this or in other good and merci- ful acts generally. If the apostle had retained Onesimus, Philemon would have doubtless consented, but the 7d ayaSdy in the particular case would have worn the appearance (as) of a kind of constraint ; St. Paul, however, wished, as in this so in all other matters, that Philemon’s 7d ayaddv should be wy os KaT& dvdyKny GAAG KaTd exovotov. On the doubtful distinction in the N. T. between 7) dyasoy and rd Kaddv, see notes on Gal. vi. 10. KaTa Exovotoy| ‘voluntarily.’ The more usual periphra- sis for the adverb appears in the earlier Greek to have been ras’ éxovciav, Thu- cydides vi11. 27, or ef Exovotas, Soph. Trach. 724, by an ellipse of yvdéun. In the present case there may have been originally an ellipse of tpémoy (Porphyr. de Abs. 1.9, ka¥ éxovo.ov tpdmov) ; the expression, however, would soon become purely adverbial : comp. Lobeck, Phryn. p- 4. 15. rdxa yap] ‘For perhaps ;’ rea- son that influenced the apostle in send- ing back Onesimus. The insertion of taxa (Rom. v. 7; more usually tax’ &y, in classical Greek) gives a softening and suasive turn to the admission of his con- vert’s fault, no less sound in principle (‘occulta sunt judicia Dei, et temera- rium est quasi de certo pronunciare quod dubium est,’ Hieron.) than judicious in its present use; kad@s 76, rdxa, va eit 6 deomdrns, Chrys. ; taxa yap Kara Selav oixovoutay épuyev, Theoph. Both Chrys. and Jerome admirably illustrate from the history of Joseph the great feature of the providential government of God which these verses disclose, —‘ praesta- bilius ducere Deum de malis bona facere, quam mala nulla facere,’ Justin. in loc., 2 15, 16. PHILEMON. 227 améyns, © odxére @s Soddov, GAN’ brrép Sodrov, adeAgov ayarnrov, see August. Enchir. § 3, Vol. v1. p. 349 (ed. Ben. 1836). éxwpladn] ‘he departed ;’ he does not say @puyev lest he should rouse up any angry remembrances in the mind of Phi- lem. : so Chrys., Gicum., and Theophyl. all of whom have admirably illustrated the delicate touches in this beautiful Ep. For examples of this sort of ‘ medial- passive,’ in which, however, not only the passive form, but passive meaning, is clearly to be recognized, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 6. 1. mpos épav] ‘for a season;’ 2 Corin. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5, and more definitely 1 Thess. ii. 17, mpds kaipsy dpas. In the present expression the duration of the time is not expressly stated, but it may be inferred from the antithesis to have not been very long; compare Theophyl. in loc. The proper force of the prep. (‘ motion towards ’) may be easily recog- nized in the formula, especially when compared with its more appreciable force in such expressions as mpds éo7mépay (Luke xxiy. 29), al.; compare Bernhar- dy, Synt. v. 31, p. 564. The derivation of Spa is uncertain ; it has been connect- ed with the Sanser. vdra, ‘time’ (Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 328), but, per- haps more probably, with the Zend. jare, Germ. ‘Jahr,’ as apparently evinced in the Lat. ‘horno ;’ compare Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 8, 123. aidviov abtdy am] ‘mightest re- ceive him eternally, everlastingly,’ not merely ‘perpetuum,’ Beza (Grot. com- pares Hor. Epist. 1.10.41, ‘ serviet ster- num’), nor with any allusion to ‘ per- petua mancipia,’ Exodus xxi. 6, Deut. xv. 17 (Beza, Gent.), but ‘in xternum,’ Clarom., ‘aiveinana,’ Goth.; od« ev 7G mapdvrt wdvov Kap GAAS Kal év TE wérA- Aovtt, a diamavrds exns adrdy, odért SovAov GAAA TiuumTEpoy SovAov, Chrys. : so pertinently Estius, ‘servitus omnis hae vita finitur, at fraternitas Christiana manet in eternum.’ The tertiary predi- cate of time, aidémoy, is,not an adverb (Mey.), but, as its position suggests, an adverbial adjective involving a prolepti- cal statement of the result ; comp. Don- alds. Gr. § 489 sq., and see examples in Winer, Gr. § 54. 2, p. 412. On the compound améyew, in which, as in aroAauBavew xk. T. A., the prep. does not apparently so much mark the ‘ receiving back,’ as the ‘having for one’s own’ (‘sibi habere,’ Bengel, ‘ hinweghaben,’ Mey.), see notes on Phil. iv. 18, comp. Winer, Verb. Comp. rv. p. 8. 16. ob}kéTL Bs SotAov] Changed spiritual relation in which he now would stand to his master; dare kal TG xpove Kexepdakas kal TH mort, Chrys. The particle &s almost convincingly shows that there is here no reference to manu- mission (comp. on ver. 14): though ac- tually a slave, he is not to be regarded in the ordinary aspect of one (see verse 14); the inward relation was changed, the outward remained the same; comp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 318. imép SovAov]. ‘above a slave, more than a slave,’ ‘ufar skalk,’ Gothic, v7 aad jo Ao [prestantior quam], Syr., sim. Ath. (Platt), Copt.; not ‘ pro ser- vo,’ Vulg., Clarom., which obscures the force of the preposition ; compare Matth. x. 24, 37, Acts xxvi. 13, in which the force of irép is somewhat similar, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. e, p.359. The ex- pression is explained by the following &deApdy ayarnréy; Onesimus was not now to be regarded in the light of a slave, but in a higher light, viz. as a be- loved brother; avr) SovAov axpiorou, Xpnoroy adeApdy aareiAnpas, Gicum. maéaAtora épmol] ‘especially, above all others, to me ;’ not directly dependent on &yannrév (Meyer), but, as d&yamnrds_in 228 PHILEMON. 16-18. la al \ \ > pdrora euol, récw S& padddv cou Kai ev capki Kai ev Kuplo. - > rn x > f > / 1 ef oby me éyers KoLWwvdv, TpochaBod avTov ws cue. ® et Sé TE ? the N. T. has to a great degree lost its verbal character, a dative ‘of interest’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4) attached to aber. ayar.; comp. Syr., Bengel. He stood in the light of an aeAp. aya. to St. Paul, whom he had now left, but much more so to Philemon, who had formerly known him as a mere dovAor, but who was now to have him as his own in a higher and closer relation than before. On the meaning and derivation of wdAvora, compare notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. kal év wapki K.7.A.] ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord ;’ the two spheres in which Onesimus was to be wéaw maddAov an adeApds ayamnrds to Philemon than to the apostle, —‘ in the flesh,’ i. e. in earthly and personal rela- tions (Mey.), as having intercourse and communication with him on a necessa- rily somewhat altered footing ; — ‘in the Lord,’ as enjoying spiritual communion with him which he had never enjoyed before, — nearly kal ev tats cwmarixats imepnolats év Tats Schol., except that the idea must not be limited to tmnpecia; compare Theod., CEcum. To define év capx) more nearly (comp. Grot., al.) is neither here neces- sary nor in harmony with the general use of the word in St. Paul’s Epistles ; see notes on Galat. v. 16, and the elabo- rate notes of Koch, p. 99 sq.; ‘die Ge- gensitze, als Mensch und als Christ sind in ihrer ganzen Weite zu belassen,’ Mey. On the force of kal—xai (‘as well the one as the other’), see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. 17. ei ody] ‘If then;’ summing up what has been urged, and resuming the request imperfectly expressed in ver. 12. On the ‘vis collectiva’ of oy (Gal. iy. 15, Phil. ii. 29, see notes) and its re- sumptive force (Galat. iii. 5, see notes), both here united, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. kal MVEUMATLKGLS, Ti Ops Pld s sles kotvwvdr] “a partner,’ scil. in faith, and love, and Christian principles generally, — not merely in sentiments (ef T& adTd pos ppoveis, emt Tots abtois Tpéxets, ei PiAov iryn, Chrys., Just.), or, still less likely, in community of property (‘ut tua sint mea, et mea tua,’ Beng., compare Beza, Pagn.), interpretations which here im- properly limit what seems purposely left unrestricted. ™pocAaBo 3 &s éuél ‘receive him to thee as myself ;’ ‘as you would me;’ in my spiritual af- fection towards him he is a part of my very self, compare ver. 12. The form mpocAauB. occurs in avery similar sense, Rom. xiv. 1, 3, xv. 7, the idea not being so much of a mere kindness of reception (compare Acts xxviii. 2) as of an admis- sion to Christian love and fellowship ; see Meyer on Rom. xiv. 1, and Fritz. in loc., who, bowever, in his translation ‘ in suum contubernium recipere,’ somewhat puts out of sight the Christian character of the reception which the context seems to imply. 18. ef de] ‘But zf;’ contrasted thought (comp. Alf.), suggested by the remembrance of what might militate against the warmth of the reception. The dé thus does not seem petaBarixdv (Mey.), but preserves its usual opposi- tive force ; ‘ qui loquitur, etiam si nihil positum est ia oratione tamen aliquid in mente habet, ad quod respiciens illam oppositionem infert, Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 365. noinnoéyv cel ‘wronged thee,’ more specifically ex- plained by the ‘ mitius synonymon’ (Beng.) 4} épetAet. The Greek commen- tators draw attention to the tender way in which St. Paul notices that misdeed of the repentant Onesimus which must have tended most to keep up the irrita- tion of Philemon (oi eirev ExAepev, GAN 1. PHILEMON. 999 od nOiKnoe ce 7) OpeireL, TODTO uot EAAdya. 1 eye Taddos eyparva evpnudtepov, Hdlknoevy 7 OpetAe, The- oph.), and further, the kind and wise way in which he keeps it to the end of his letter ; dpa mod réSeue nal wéte 7d adikquas votrepoy peta Th TOAAG Ep TovTov mpoeureiy, Chrys. ToUTO éwol EAASYal ‘this set down to my account,’ scil. 8 Te Adiknod ce épciAcr; ‘id meis rationibus imputa,’ Grot. Though there is no certain lexi- cal authority for €AAoydw (it does not appear in the new ed. of Steph. Thesaur.), and though its existence has been some- what peremptorily denied (Fritz. Lom. v. 13, Vol. 1. p. 311), yet still as the de- siderative Aoydw (Lucian, Lexriph. § 15) is an acknowledged form, and as peculiari- ties of orthography or errors of transcrip- tion cannot be made satisfactorily to ac- count for the assumed permutation of e and a [Bastius ap. Greg. Cor. p. 706 (ed. Schef.) cited by Fritz. is not in point, as here referring to cursive mss. ; see examples and plates referred to] we seem bound to follow the preponderant uncial authority, ACDIFG; 17. 31: so Lachm., Tisch., and also Meyer, Alf. 19. €éy® Tataos éyp.| ‘IL Paul have written ;’ scarcely ‘I write,’ De W., Conyb., Green (Gr. p. 17), as this epis- tolary aorist in the N. Test. does not ap- pear used simply in reference to what follows, but always more or less _retro- spectivély, whether in reference to a for- mer letter (2 Cor. ii. 3), to preceding passages in an all but concluded letter (Rom. xv. 15, see Meyer in loc.), or to an immediately foregoing portion of one in progress (1 Cor. ix. 15): when the reference is to what is definitely present, the simple ypapw is used in preference to the idiomatic aorist; see Winer, Gram. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249, and notes on Gal. vi. 11. This would lead us to conclude that St. Paul wrote with his own hand certainly the preceding verse, and not improbably (Theod., Hieron.) the whole Epistle. It does not thus seem desira- ble with Lachm, and Buttm. to make this verse the commencement of a new para- graph. eyo arotica| ‘I will repay, obviously not with any serious meaning, as if the apostle expect- ed that Philemon would demand it, but, as the Greek commentators all observe, xapievrws (Theoph.), yet, perhaps, as the next words convey, with a gracefully implied exhortation, nad émirpemtucas dua kal xaptévtws (Chrys.) ; comp. Theod., av7l ypaypariov thvde KdteXe Thy emioro- Ai: wacav abthy eyo yéypapa. The addition éy Kupi» [D1E1; Claromanus, Sang.] is an improbable repetition of éy Kupiw below. tva ph Aéyo got] ‘that I may not say to thee;’ a rhe- torical turn, — oxjjua Tapaciwricews, Grot., or mapadelews, Gent., ‘ rhetorica preteritio,’ Est.,—in which what might be said is partially suppressed, or only delicately brought to the remembrance of the person addressed. The va does not seem strictly dependent on @ypawa, on amoticw (Mey.), nor yet on a suppressed imper. ‘yield me this request’ (Alford), — which would impair the graceful flow of thought, but rather, as Chrys., The- oph., and Gicum. seem tg suggest, on a thought called up by the amoticw, —‘ re- pay ; yes I say this, not doubting thee, but not wishing to press on thee the claim I might justly urge:’ all was to be ov kare avdryeny GAAG Kata Exotc.oy, verse 14. mpocopetrAers| ‘thou owest unto me besides :’ Philemon was not only an actual debtor to the apostle of any trifle that he thus (uer& xapitos Tis mveuyarixas, Chrysost.) offers to make good, but in addition to it (7poo-), even (*al ascensive) his own self, his own Christian existence. Raphel adduces somewhat similar uses of mpocopetAew in ‘Xen. Cyr. 111. p. 59 (111. 2. 16), Gicon. 230 PHILEMON. 20, 21. AP lol by > \ > / . (7 \ ré v4 \ t Th eh xetpl, eyo arroticw iva pn A€yw oot OTL Kal cEavToY pot > / mpocoeirers. 7 Nal, dderpé, &yo cou ovaiunv év Kupip: ava- p , ’ Pp mavodv mov Ta oTAayyva ev XpioTo. I am confident that thou wilt fully comply with my 21 [leroiSas th tmaxoh cov é&yparpa ION 4 \ € \ A fe A 4 request. Prepare me a goy, E€loWS OTL Kal UTEep O EYW ToLNoELS. lodging. p- 684 (20. 1); the meaning, however, is sufficiently obvious. A curious meta- phorical use of xpocop. (‘longe inferio- rem esse’) will be found in Polyb. Hist. XXXIX. 2. 6. 20. vat, &deA PE] ‘yea, brother ;’ certainly not ‘precantis’ (Grot.), nor ‘vehementer obsecrantis’ (Gent.), but with the usual force of the particle in the N. Test., ‘serio affirmantis’ (compare Erasm.), in reference to the request em- bodied in ver. 12 sq. ; apels Toy xaprer- Tiopov mddAw exeTa TOY wpoTépwy TOV orovdatwy, Chrys., compare Theoph. and Gcum. On the use of va) in the N. T., see notes on Phil. iv. 3. éyd cov dvatunv] ‘may I reap profit from thee ;’ —J, not without em- phasis; the apostle again (comp. ver. 12, 17) makes if a matter between himself and Philemon, putting for the time One- simus almost out of sight; it was a favor to himself. The somewhat unusual évat- pny [2 aor. opt., see Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, p- 189 Transl.], coupled with the signifi- cant éyé (J, not merely Ones.), seems to confirm the view of most modern com- mentt., except De W., that there is again a play on the name of Onesimus ; see Wi- ner, Gr. § 68.2, p. 561. The form évat- env is similarly used by Ignatius (Poly. 1. 6, Magn. 12, al.),— once (Ephes. 2) curiously enough, but apparently by mere accident, after a mention of an Onesimus. évy Kupl@ denotes, as usual, the sphere of the dynos, (see on Ephes. iv. 17, Phil. ii. 19, al.), just as €v XpiorG, which follows, speci- fies that of the dydmavois ; both were to be characterized by being in Him, they were to be such as implied His hallowing influences. It may be here observed that év Xp. has distinctly preponderating authority [ACD,FGL; al.; Claroman., Syr. (both), 2&th. (both), Copt., Goth.], and is adopted by nearly all modern eds. Ta oTAGYXVAal ‘my heart ;’ not One- simus, as in y. 12 (Hieron.), which would here be wholly out of place, nor thy mept oc aydanv (Theoph., Gicum.), but simply the orAdyxva of the apostle, — the seat of his love and affections ; see notes on ver. 7. 21. remotdas tH Srax.] Conclud- ing allusion to his apostolic authority, but how delicately introduced, how ten- derly deferred, and how encouragingly echoing the commendations with which he commenced ; dézrep ka) dpxduevos etme, mappnolay éxwy TodTo Kal évTaida Aéyer eis TO emiopparyloa Thy emiaroAhv, Chrys. Zypawa] ‘I have written,’ not ‘I write,’ De W.; see above on ver. 19, and con- trast the following present. brép & A€ya| ‘beyond what I am say- ing;’ compare Eph. iii. 20. It is very doubtful whether this alludes, however faintly, to the manumission of Onesimus (Alf.). The tenor of the Epistle would seem to imply nothing more than en- couraging confidence on the part of the apostle (Gua Kal Sifyeipev eitay TovTo, Chrys.), that Philemon would show to the fugitive even greater kindness and a more affectionate reception than he had pleaded for; compare notes on ver. 14 and 16. Lachm. here reads émép & with AC; 3 mss.; Coptic, Syr. (Philox.), — not without some reason, as the single request might have suggested the cor- rection (compare Alford); still it is perhaps more safe to retain the text 22-25, PHILEMON. 2 Ga Oé Kat érolwaté pos Eeviav' Ehrrifw yap Oru Sia THY Tpocev- YOv tpav xaptoSjncopar viv. Salutations. év Xpict@ Inood, * Madpkos, ’Apictapyos, Anuas, Aovxdas, of oUVEPYOL [0Vv. Benediction.~ TOD TVEUMATOS UMOV. as best supported by external authority. 22. &ma 5& weal «.7.A.] ‘ Moreover at the same time also provide me a lodg- ing ;” a commission appended to his re- quest: in addition to complying with the subject of the letter, Philemon was also to make this provision for the expected apostle. Chrys. and Theod. (compare Alf.) find in this message a last thought of Onesimus, and a direction tending to secure him a kind reception ; fva mpoo- doxdy adtod Thy mapovolay aidecdH [PiA.] kal 7a ypduuara, Theod. It may be doubted, however, whether the jirst view of Theoph. and Cicumen. is not more probable, and more worthy both of Phi- lemon and of the apostle, — viz., that Philemon was not to consider the Epis- tle a mere petition for Onesimus (ei dia "Ovomoy ovde Adyou pe Héiov, The- oph.), but as containing special messages on other matters to himself. The word tevla (Hesych. trodoxn, kardAvua) only occurs here and, also in reference to St. Paul, Acts xxviii. 23. 51a TAY TpOTEVXaY KuGr| through your prayers ;’ in reference to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and those mentioned in ver. 2. The same expectation of recovering his liberty appears in Phil. i. 25, ii. 24; there, however, the journey contemplated is to the Philippians, and the date when it is formed, according to the general view, a year or two later; comp. Wieseler, Chronol. p. 456. 3 Aomatetal ce’ ’Etrappas 6 cuvarypddoros pou “HT yapis tov Kupiov nav Incod Xpictod pera 23. domdCeras] Greetings from the same persons as those mentioned in the Ep. to the Coloss. (ch. iv. 10 sq.), with the exception of Justus. The order ob- served is substantially the same, Mark and Aristarchus (of dvtes é« tepitopijs, Coloss. iv. 11) preceding Luke and De- mas, except that Epaphras is here placed first. The reading domd(ovra [ Rec. with D°*D°KL] is rightly rejected by most modern editors as a grammatical correc- tion. 6 guvatxmaa. pov| ‘my fellow-prisoner ;? more specifically defined as év XpiotgG “Inco ; see on Eph. iv. 1. The title here given to Epaphras is, in Col. iv. 10, given to ’Aplorapxos, while the latter is afterwards named as a ouvepyés: for the probable reasons, see notes on Col. 1. c. 24. Mdépxos] Probably John Mark, and the Evangelist. For a brief notice of him, and those mentioned in this verse, see notes on Col. iv. 10 and 14. 25. 7 xdpis x.7.A.] Precisely the same form of salutation as in Gal. vi. 18, with the exception of the significant con- clusion ad<«Agot. As there, so here (com- pare also 2 Timothy iv. 22), the apostle prays that the grace of the Lord may be peta TOD mvedmatos, ‘with the spirit’ of those whom he is addressing, with the third and highest portion of our compos- ite nature ; see notes on Gal. 1. c., Desti- ny of Creature, p. 113 sq., and compare Olshaus, Opusc. vi. p. 145 sq. 231. « ja a sora! ‘ee ; pF ’ y tage ; } iif a Be A LCN ae! eh ee ae ine som ' Rote 3 NOY out i PD Sa Te. TuE following translation is based on the same principles as those adopted in the portions of this Commentary that have already appeared. The in- creased and increasing interest in the subject of revision has, however, induced me to be a little fuller in the citations from the eight Versions, which are here compared with the Authorized, and has also suggested the insertion of a few comments on general principles of translation, and of a few brief reasons for changes, which the notes on the original might not fully supply. My humble endeavor has been to avoid everything that might seem arbitrary and capri- cious, and to cling with all possible tenacity to fixed principles of correction ; still there both are and must be many passages in which the context and general tone of the original render one of two apparently synonymous trans- lations not only more appropriate, but even more faithful and correct, than the other. In the present edition a few alterations have been made, but not any of sufficient importance to require here to be separately specified. Of the older English Vv., the attention of the student may be especially directed to the version of Coverdale, which, considering the time and circum- stances under which it was executed, appears remarkably vigorous and faith- ful. This venerable Version has now become accessible by the reprint of Coverdale’s Bible, published by Messrs. Bagster ; but a small and cheap edi- tion of the New Testament alone, with perhaps the Version in the *‘ Duglott’ edition [Cov. (Test.)], would, I am confident, be very acceptable to many students who may be deterred by the size and price of the reprint above alluded to. Some interesting remarks on these Versions, and on the subject of Revision generally, will be found in a tract by ‘ Philalethes, entitled The English Bible, 8vo. Dublin, 1857. THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. CHAPTER I. AUL and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: 7 grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 IT thank my God upon all my remembrance of you, 4 always, in every supplication of mine for you all, making my supplication with joy, ® for your fellowship shown toward the Gospel from the first day until now ; © being confident of this very thing, that He Cuarrer I. 1. Servants] So Wiel.: ‘the servants,’ Auth. and the other Vv. On the designation Timothy (‘ Timo- theus,’ Auth.), see notes on Coloss. i. 1 (Transl.). Christ Jesus (18*)] ‘*Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 2. And the Lord] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘and Jrom the Lord,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicel., ‘of.’ It is perhaps more exact to omit the preposition in the sec- ond member, as in the Greek: here it is unimportant, but in some cases the sense and construction are impaired by the repetition ; comp. Blunt, Lect. on Par. Priest, pp. 55, 56. 3. All my remembrance] ‘ Every re- membrance,’ Auth. ‘ 4. Supplication] ‘Prayer,’ Auth. and all Vy.: it is perhaps better to retain the more special meaning, as evincing the earnest nature of the apostle’s prayer ; comp. notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1, and notice below, Wicl., Cov. (Test.), in the trans- lation of the second dénors. It is curious that all the Vv. except Auth: change to the plural, ‘all my prayers ;’ this cer- tainly preserves the raphxnots (compare on Eph. vy. 20), but at the expense of ac- curacy. My supplication] ‘ Request,’ Auth. ; ‘bisechynge,’ Wicl.; ‘ instaunte prayer,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘praier,’ Bish. ; ‘petition, Rhem.; the remaining Vv. adopt the simple verb ‘and praye’ ( Tynd., Cov., Cran.), or ‘ praying, ( Gen.). 5. Shown toward] ‘In,’ Auth. and all Vv. except Cran., ‘ of.’ 6. Began] ‘Hath begun,’ Auth. In you a good work] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. I. 6-11. 286 which began in you a good work, will perfect ¢ up to the day of Christ Jesus: ‘ even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in my defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are par- takers with me of my grace. ® For God is my witness, how I do’ long after you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus. °% And this I pray, that your love may yet more and more abound in knowledge and in all discernment, 1 to the intent that ye may prove things that are excellent, that ye may be pure and without offence against the day of Christ ; 4 being filled with the fruit of righteousness, which is by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. Rhem.: ‘agood work (‘that g. w.,’ Cov., ‘the,’ Coverd. Test.) in you,’ Auth. and the other Vv. Perfect| So Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘ fulende :’ ‘perform,’ Auth., Wicl., Cranm., Bish. ; ‘go forthe witb it,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. Up to] Sim. Rhem. ‘unto:’ ‘ until,’ Auth. and remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘ til in to.’ Christ Jesus] **Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 7. My defence] So Cov. (Test.), Gen.: ‘the,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish., Rhem.; ‘in defendynge,’ Wicl., Cov. ; ‘as I defende,’ Lynd. Partakers with me] So Cov. and sim. Tynd., Cranm., ‘ com- panions of grace with me ;’ ‘ partakers of my grace,’ Auti., Genev , Bish., and sim. Wicl., ‘felowis of my joie ;’ ‘ par- takers of my joye,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 8. Witness] So Wicl., Rhem.: § re- cord,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Tynd., Gen., ‘ beareth me recorde.’ Do long| So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Cov. ; ‘greatly long,’ Auth. and other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., Rhem., ‘ coueite;’ Bish, ‘hartely I long.’ The insertion of the auxiliary seems to throw a slight empha- sis on the action expressed by the verb, which is not inappropriate after the sol- emn adjuration. Christ Jesus] ‘%*Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 9. Yet more and more abound] Sim. Rhem., ‘ may more and more abound :’: ‘abound yet more and more,’ Auth., Bish., and, with similar position of the adverbs, the other Vv. The inversion seems a little more closely to preserve the Greek order and the connection of repiccevew with the particulars in which the increase takes place. All discernment] More literally ‘all manner of,’ etc., a translation actually adopted by Coverd., but marred by the untenable attraction, ‘in all manner of knowledge and in all experience.’ Discernment] ‘Judgment,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘ wit,’ Wiel. ; ‘fealinge,’ Tynd.; ‘experience,’ Cov. ; ‘understandyng,’ Cov. (Test.), Cranm., Bish., Rhem. ' 10. To the intent that] ‘ That,’ Auth. and all other Vv. It seems desirable to make some difference in translation be- tween the more immediate eis Td x. T. A. and the further and final {va fire k. T. A. Prove] So Wicl., Cov. : ‘approve,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘accepte,’ Tyndale, Cranmer ; ‘alowe,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘diserne,’ Gen., Bish. Pure] So Tynd. and all Vv. except Auth., Rhem., ‘sincere ;” Wicl., ‘clene.’ Against} So’ Coverd. (Test.): ‘ till,’ Auth., Bish., and sim. Tynd., Cran., Gen., ‘untyll;’ * in,’ Wicl.; ‘unto,’ Cov., Rhem. 11. Fruit] ‘*Fruits, Auth. Is] ‘are,’ Auth. 12. Now] ‘ But,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cuap. I. 12-17. PHILIPPIANS. 937 22 Now I would have you know, brethren, that matters with me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; ¥ so that my bonds have become manifest in Christ in the whole preeto- rium, and to all the rest ; and that the greater part of the brethren having in the Lord confidence in my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word without fear. 1 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife ; and some too from good will: 1 they that are of love so preach, because they know that I am set for the defence of the gospel; ™ but they that are of contentiousness pro- Bish. ; ‘for,’ Wicl.; ‘and,’ Rhem.; the rest omit. Have you know] So Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘have you to wite :’ ‘ wole that ye wite,’ Wicl. ; ‘ye should understand,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish., and sim. Tynd., Coverd., Genev., ‘wolde ye understode.’ Matters with me] Somewhat similarly, Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘the thingis that ben aboute me:’ ‘the things about me,’ Rhem.; ‘the things which happened unto me,’ Author., Cranmer, Genev. (‘have hap.’) Bish. (‘came’); ‘my busynes,’ Zynd., Cov. 13. Have become] Sim. Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., ‘weren made:’ ‘are,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. The perfect is adopted as perhaps better continuing the tense of the preceding member. Manifest in Christ] ‘Bonds in Christ,’ Auth. The whole Preetorium] ‘ All the palace,’ Auth. ; ‘eche moot halle,’ Wicl.; ‘all the judg- ment hall,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish, ; ‘ every judgment house,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘althe court,’ Rhem. To all the rest] Sim. Rhem., ‘in all the rest :’ Auth. (Marg.), ‘to all others ;’ ‘in all other places,’ Auth. and remain- ing Vv. 14. That the greater part] ‘ Many,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘mo.’ All however except Auth. prefix ‘ that.’ Having in the Lord, etc.] ‘ Brethren in the Lord, waxing con- fident by my bonds,’ Auth., and, with some variations, the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), which connect év Kupiw with remoiddras. 15. From] ‘ Of,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘for,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), [hem. Too] ‘ Also,’ Auth., Gen., Rhem.; the rest omit. From] ‘Of, Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘for.’ 16. They that are, etc.| ‘ But the other of love,’ Auth., but with a transposition of ver. 15 and 16. Because they know] So Cran., and sim. Tynd., Cov., ‘because they se:’ ‘knowing,’ Auth., Cov. (Test-), Gen., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ wit- ynge,’ Wiel. 17. But they that are, etc.] ‘The one preach Christ of contention, not sincere- ly, supposing to add affliction to my bonds,’ Auth., but with a transposition of ver. 15 and16. There is some little dif- ficulty in finding a suitable translation for épiSeta. On the one hand, the older translation, ‘ strife,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., is certainly open to the objection of confounding gps and épiSela, from which that of Auth., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., viz., ‘contention,’ is scarcely free: on the other hand, the more lexically exact, ‘a spirit of in- trigue,’ here certainly presents an inade- quate antithesis to d@ydirn. In this diffi- culty perhaps the term chosen in the text sufficiently maintains the antithesis, while in its etymological formation it approaches lexical accuracy by keeping PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. I. 17-93. 238 claim Christ, not sincerely, thinking thus to raise up affliction unto my bonds. %® What then! notwithstanding, in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and therein I do re- joice ; yea, and I shall rejoice ; 1° for I know that this shall issue to me unto salvation, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, *° according to my steadfast expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be put to shame, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also, Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether zt be by life, or by death. 1 Yor To ME to live is Christ, and to die 7s gam. ™ But if to live im the flesh, —7f THIS is to me the fruit of my labor, then what I should choose I wot not. 23 Yea I am held in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to in view the spirit, the spirit of faction and dissension, that actuated the oppo- nents. Proclaim] ‘ Preach,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘ schewen.’ Thinking| ‘ Supposing,’ Auth. To raise up| ‘*To add,’ Auth. 18. In every way] ‘ Every way,’ Auth. ; ‘on alle maner,’ Wicl.; ‘all maner wayes,’ Tynd., Cov. (‘of wayes’), Gen. ; “by every meane,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘anye maner of waye,’ Cran., Bish.; ‘by al meanes,’ Rhem. Proclaimed] ‘ Preached,’ Auth. and other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ schewid.’ Therein I ‘T therein,’ Auth.: changed to avoid any false emphasis on the pronoun. Shall] So Wicl. and Coverd. (Test.): ‘will,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 19. Issue to me unto salv.| Sim. Rhem., ‘ shall fall out to me unto saly.:’ ‘turn to my saly.,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘come to me in to helthe,’ Weel. ; ‘ shall befal unto me to saluacion,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘shall chaunce to my salv.,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. Supplication] ‘ Prayer,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 20. Steadfast expectation] ‘Earnest ex- pectation,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘ expectacion,’ Cranm., Rhem. ; ‘abidynge,’ Wicl. ; ‘as I hertely loke for,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘ waytynge for,’ Cov. (Test.). Hope] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cranm., them. : ‘my hope,’ Auth.; ‘and hope’ (verb), Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. Put to shame] ‘ Ashamed,’ Auth. and all Vv. except Rhem., ‘ confounded:’ it seems desirable to preserve and express the passive aicxuvShoopa. 22. But if to live, etc.| ‘ But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor,’ Auth., and somewhat similarly as to con- struction, Tynd., Cran.: the other Vv. are perplexed, except Cov., ‘but in as moch as to live in the flesh is fruteful to me for the worke,’ and better Coverd. (Test.), ‘yf to live here in the flesh is frute of my labour, what,’ etce., in which though the rodro is overlooked, that di- vision between protasis and apodosis is the preserved which seems, on the whole, most probable: so in this respect simi- larly Wicl., Rhem. Then what} ‘Yet what,’ Auth.; ‘lo what,’ Wiel. ; ‘and what,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘I wote not what,’ Cov.; ‘what,’ Cov. (Test.). Should] ‘ Shall,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Tynd., Gen., ‘to chose,’—an idiomatic transla- tion, but tending to obscure the delibera- tive future. Wot not] So Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish. : scarcely exact, yet forcible and firm in cadence. The translation of Cov. (Test.), Cuap. I. 23-27. PHILIPPIANS. 239 depart, and to be with Christ, for it is very far better: % yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sakes. 25 And being persuaded of this, I know that I shall abide and shall continue here with you all for your furtherance in and joy of Faith, *° in order that your ground of boasting may abound in Christ Jesus in me through my presence with you again. 27 Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel of Christ ; ‘IT cannot tel,’ is idiomatic, and preferable to ‘knowe not,’ Wicl., Rhem. 23. Yea] ‘*¥For,’ Auth. Tam held in a strait] ‘I am in a strait,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘Tam constreyned,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cran.; ‘both these thinges lye harde upon me,’ Cov. ; ‘I am in distresse with two things,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘Iam greatly in doubte,’ Genev. ‘I am straitened,’ Rhem. The two| ‘ Two,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. and Rhem., which (the former somewhat too strong- ly) express the article. The desire] ‘A desire,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish. ; ‘desire,’ Rhem.; ‘I haue desire, Wicl. ; ‘I desyre,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm. ; ‘desiring,’ Gen. For it is, etc.] ‘Which is far better,’ Author.; ‘it is myche more better,’ Wiclif; ‘ which thinge is best of all, Tynd., Genew. ; ‘which thinge were moch more better,’ Cov. ; ‘the whyche is much more better,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘and to be with Christ is moch better,’ Cran.; ‘ which is muche farre better,’ Bish. ; ‘a thing much more better,’ Rhem. 24. Yet} ‘Nevertheless,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘but,’ Wicl. and the remaining Vy. For your sakes] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘for you,’ Auth. ~ and the other Vv. 25. Being persuaded of this] ‘ Having this confidence,’ Author.; ‘ trustynge,’ Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘am I sure of,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Shall continue here with] ‘ Continue with,’ Author., with a difference of reading, which, however, does not affect the translation. The Vy. are nearly all identical with Author., except Wicl., ‘dwelle and perfightli dwelle,’ and Cov. (Test.), ‘continue with you all unto the end.’ Furtherance in| ‘ Your furtherance and joy,’ Author., Cranmer (‘youre faith’), Bish., Rhemish (‘ the faith’) ; ‘ youre profight and joie of faith,’ Wicl. ; ‘ the furth. and joye of youre f.,’ Tynd., Cov.; ‘to youre profite and re- joycynge of f.,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘the fur- therance and joy of your f.,’ Gen. 26. In order that] ‘That,’ Auth. and all Vv. Ground of boasting] ‘ Rejoicing,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ; ‘thanke,’ Wicl.; ‘may moare abundantly rejoyce,’’ Tynd., Cov. (om. ‘moare’), Genev.; ‘ your gratulation,’ Rhem. Abound] So Wicel., Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘be plen- teous:’ ‘be more abundant,’ Author., Cran. (‘the more’). For Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish., see above. In me] So Wicl., Cranm. (but ‘thorowe J. C.’), Rhem.: ‘for me,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘thorowe me,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘ by me,’ Cov. (Test.). Through my presence with you] ‘ By my coming to you,’ Auth. and most of the other Vv., —but perhaps less exact than in the text. 27. Worthy of] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘worthili to’: “as it becometh,’ Author. and remaining Vv. Remain absent] ‘Be absent,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ ethir absent ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ be- ynge absent.’ Are standing] Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘ ye stonden :’ ‘stand fast,’ Author., and sim. Coverd. (Test.), PHILIPPIANS. Cuapr. I, 27-II. 2. 240 that whether I come and see you, or remain absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye are standing in one spirit, with one soul striving together for the faith of the gospel, 7° and not being terrified in anything by your adversaries ; the which is to them an evidence of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God: * because unto you was granted, in behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also in behalf of Him—+to suffer; *° having the same conflict as ye saw in me, and now hear of in me. CHAPTER II. If then there be any exhortation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and compassions, 2 make ‘stande stedfaste ;’ ‘ contynue,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Soul] So Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., Bish. : ‘minde,’ Auth., Gen., Rhem., and-sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘one mynded;’ ‘wile,’ Wicl. 28. Not being terrified] ‘In nothing terrified,’ Auth.; ‘in no thing be ye aferd,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘afraid ;’ ‘in nothynge fearinge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish.; ‘in nothing feare,’ Gen.; ‘in nothing be ye terrified,’ Rhem. The which} So Cov. (Test.): ‘ which,’ Auth. and all remaining Vv. Evidence] ‘Evident token,’ Author. ; ‘cause,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Cranm., Rhem. ; ‘ token,’ Tynd., Coverd., Genev., Bish. This from| Sim. Rhem., ‘this of :’ ‘that of, Auth. and remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘ this thing is of.’ 29, Because] ‘ For, Auth. and all Vv. Was granted] ‘It is given,’ Auth. and all Vv. In Him] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘on Him,’ Author. and remaining Vv. It seems very de- sirable, on account of the etymological affinity of cis (évs) and éy (Donalds. Cratyl. § 170), to translate morevewy eis, ‘believe in’ (where a more literal trans- lation is not possible), and to reserve ‘on’ for morevew emi: for the construc- tion of this verb in the N. T., see notes on 1 Tim. i. 16, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 14, Vol. 1. p. 129, and Rev. Transl. of St. John, p. x. In behalf of Him, etc.| ‘ Suffer for His sake,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., ‘for Him.’ For the rea- sons for this change, see notes. 30. As ye saw] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem. (‘have seen’), and sim. Cran., ‘soch a fyght as ye saw :’ ‘which yesaw,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. (Cov., ‘have sene’). Hear of | ‘ Hear to be,’ Author., Genev. (‘have heard’); ‘han herde of me,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘hear of me,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran. ; ‘heare in me,’ Bish. Cuapter II. 1. Jf then there be] ‘If there be therefore,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ therfor if ony com- fort is,’ Wicl.; ‘if therefore there be,’ Rhem. ; Tynd. and Cov. omit ody. Exhortation| ‘Consolation,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov., ‘com- fort.’ Compassions] ‘ Mercies,’ Auth. and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘mercy ;’ ‘inwardnesse of merci doynge,” Wicl. ; ‘entier mocion of pytie,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘bowels of commiseration,, Rhem. 2. Make ye full] ‘ Fulfil ye,’ Auth. Cuar. II. 3-7. PHILIPPIANS. 241 ye full my joy, that ye mind the same thing, having the same love, with united souls minding the one thing ; * minding nothing in the way of contentiousness, nor in the way of vain glory, but with due lowliness of mind esteeming other superior to themselves; * not looking each of you to your own things, but each of you to the things of others also. ° Verily have this mind within you, which was also in Christ Jesus: © who, though existing in the form of God, esteemed not His being on an equality with God a prize to be seized on, “ but emptied HimsELr, taking upon Him the form of Mind the same thing] Sim. Wicl., ‘un- derstonde the same thing:’ ‘be like minded,’ Auth., Cranm., Genev., Bish. ; «drawe one way,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘mynde one thing,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘ be of one meaning,’ Ehem. With united souls, etc.| ‘Being of one accord, of one mind,’ Author., and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm. (‘and of’), Bish.; ‘of o wille and felen the same thing,’ Wicl. ; ‘of one mynde meanynge one thynge,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘of one accorde and of one judgment,’ Cran.; ‘of one mind, agreeing in one,’ /them. 3. Minding, etc.] ‘ Let nothing be done through,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., and sim. Tynd., Cov. (‘there be’), Cranm., Genev.; ‘that nothinge be done;’ ‘no thing bi,’ Wiel., Rhem. Contentiousness]} Sim. Rhem., ‘ conten- tion:’ ‘strife,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy.; see notes on ch. i. 17 ( Transl.). Nor in the way of | ‘*Or,’ Auth. With due lowliness| ‘Tn lowliness,’ Auth. ; ‘in meknesse,’ Wicl., Bish; ‘in meke- ness of mind,’ Tynd., Cranm., Genev. ; ‘thorow mekeness,’ Cov.; ‘in humble- nesse,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘in humilitie,’ Rhem. As the article does not appear merely used to give tame. its more ab- stract force, but to mark the ‘ due, befit- ting ’ lowliness by which the Philippians were to be influenced, the insertion would seem justifiable. Esteeming] So Coverd. (Test.); ‘let each esteem,’ Auth., and sim. the remaining Vy. ex- 81 cept Wiel. (‘demynge’), hem. (‘ count. ing’), which retain the participial con- struction. Superior to] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘ the superiores of :’ ‘ bet- ter than,’ Author. and the other Vy. ex- cept Wicel., ‘higher than.’ 4. Not looking, ete.| ‘*Look not *ev- ery man on,’ Author., and sim. in the imperative, Cranm., Genev., Bish. ; ‘not beholdynge,’ Wiel. ; ‘and that no man consider,’ Tynd.; ‘and let euery man loke not for his awne profet,’ Coverd. ; ‘euery one consydering not,’ Coverdale (Test.), Rhem. But each of you, etc.| ‘But *every man also on,’ Auth., and sim. Gen., Bish., the only two Vy. that notice in translation the asceusive Kat. 5. Verily] Auth. and all the Vv. omit the translation of ydp, except Wici., ‘and ;” LRhem., ‘ for.’ Have this, etc.] ‘*Let this mind be in you,” Auth., sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; “let the same mind, etc.,’ Cov. (Test.), Bish. ; ‘that mind, ete. ;’ ‘fele ye this thing in you,’ Wiel.; ‘this think in yourselves,’ Rhem. 6. Though existing] ‘Being,’ Author., Tynd., Gen., Bish. ; ‘whanne He was,’ Wicl. and remaining Vv. Esteemed not, etc.| ‘ Thought it not rob- bery to be equal with God,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Bish., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Cran., Gen., Rhem., ‘no robbery, etc. ;’ ‘ demed not raueyn, that him silf were euene to God,’ Wiel. 942, PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 7-13. a servant, being made in the likeness of men: ® and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea unto death on the cross. % Wherefore God did also highly exalt Him, and bestowed on Him a name which is above every name, 1° that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under ” the earth ; ! and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ zs LorD, to the glory of God the Father. 2 So then, my beloved, even as ye were always obedient, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 7} For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to perform, of His good pleasure. 7. Emptied Himsetr] ‘ Made Him- self of no reputation,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘lowede Him- self ;? Rhem., ‘exinanited Him self.’ Taking| So Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish., Rhem.: ‘and took,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. There is some little dif- ficulty in the translation of the modal (aor.) participle, when, as in the present case, the action of the participle is syn- chronous with that of the finite verb. On the whole, the pres. part. in English seems the best and most idiomatic equiv- alent, especially as in practice the tense of the finite verb seems so far reflected on the participle, that though really pres- ent in form, it becomes almost aoristic in sense. Being made] Sim. Lish., ‘and made :’ ‘was made,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Gen. ; ‘became lyke,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cranm.; ‘ made into,’ Rhem. 8. Becoming] ‘And became,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘and was made;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘was made ;’ Bish., Rhem., ‘ made.’ Even unto| ‘unto,’ Auth. Yea unto death| Sim. Wiel., ‘ ye to the death :’ ‘even the death,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov., which inserts ‘unto,’ as in text. On the cross| ‘ Of the cross,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.: the slight change seems to add somewhat to perspicuity, and is compatible with the present use of the gen., which is one of ‘more remote relation.’ 9. Did also, etc.] So Coverd. (Test.), ‘God also hath,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish., Rhem.; ‘God enhauncid,’ Wiel.; ‘God hath exalted,’ Tynd.; ‘hath God, ete.,’ Cov. ; ‘God hath. highly exalted,’ Gen. The change in the text seems to have the advantage of placing the contrasting kal in more distinct connection with d7e- puywoer. Bestowed on| Sim. Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘ gave:’ ‘given,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. except Rihem., ‘ hath given.’ 10. In the name] So Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘at the name,’ Auth., Gen. On earth] Sim. Coverd., ‘upon erth:’ ‘in earth,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. except Wiel., ‘erthely thingis ;’ Rhem., ‘ terrestrials.’ 12. So then] ‘ Wherefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ therefore.’ Even as| ‘as,’ Auth. Were always ob.| ‘Have always obeyed,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘evermore ye han obeischid.’ 13. To perform] So Wicl., Coverdale (Test.), and sim. Rhem., ‘accomplish :’ ‘to do,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘ the dede,’ Tynd., Cqv., Cran., Gen. Cnar. II. 14-18. PHILIPPIANS. 243 14 Po all things without murmurings and doubtings ; © that ye may be blameless and pure, children of God without reproach, amidst a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye appear as heavy- enly lights in the world, 1 holding forth the word of life; that I may have whereof to boast against the day of Christ, that I did not run in vain nor yet labored in vain. 1 Howbeit if I be even poured out in the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and re- joice with you all. rejoice with me. 14. Doubtings| So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), and sim. Ehem., ‘ staggerings:’ ‘ dis- putings,’ Azth. and, in the sing., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. ; ‘reasonings,’ Gen. 15. Pure] So Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. : ‘harmless,’ Author. (Marg. ‘ sincere’) ; ‘simple,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test ), Fhem. ; ‘unfayned,’ Cran. Children of | So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘the sons of, Author. and remaining Vv. except Cran., ‘unfayned sonnes of.’ Without reproach] ‘ Without rebuke,’ Auth. Amidst] ‘*In the midst,’ Auth. Generation | So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘nation,’ Auth. and remaining Vy. Appear] * Shine,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Heavenly lights) ‘Lights,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Wicl., ‘geuers of light.’ 16. Have whereof, etc.| ‘ Rejoice,’ Author., Cranm., Gen. ; ‘to my glorie,’ Wicl., Rthem.; ‘unto my rejoysynge,’ Tynd., Cov. (both.), Bish. (‘to’). Against] ‘In,’ Auth. and all Vy. Did not run} ‘ Have not run,’ Auth. and all the Vv. | The change to the aoristic form seems in this case clearly proper and necessary : the form with the auxil-’ iary is here chosen for the sake of pre- serving the rhythm of the Auth. Ver., which can rarely be neglected without some loss to the general cadence of the verse. Modern translators have paid far too little attention to this not unimpor- tant element in a good version of the Scriptures. Nor yet] ‘ Neither,’ 18 And for the same cause do ye also joy, and Author. and all the Vv. except Rhem., ‘nor ;’? Cov. (Test.) omits. The change is here made in accordance with the rule generally followed in this revision — to adopt the weaker translation. (‘ nor,’ or ‘neither’) of the disjunctive ovdé, where the meanings of the words it disjoins are more similar and accordant, the stronger and more emphatic (‘nor yet’), where they are less so; see notes on 1 Tim. i. 4 ( Lransl.). 17. [Howbeit] ‘ Yeaand,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘but though ;’ Cov. (Test.) ‘butathough ;’ Rhem., ‘ but and if, —an archaic, but not otherwise un- satisfactory transl. Be even poured out] ‘ Be offered,’ Auth. and sim. Tynd. (adds ‘or slayn’), Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘be offered up;’ ‘am off. up,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘be immolated,’ Rhem. In the] ‘Upon the,’ Author. and all the Vv. (Wicl., ‘on the’); it seems, how- ever, desirable to mark in translation that ém) has here probably not a local but an ethical reference ; the more exact ‘unto’ (see notes) would here be hardly intelligible. 18. And for] ‘For, etc.,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘and the same thing have ye joie;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘be ye glad also of the same ;’ Rhem., “and the self same thing do you also re- joice.’ The regimen of ai7d is some- what more exactly expressed by Coverd. (Test.) than by Auth. and the Text, but there seems scarcely sufficient reason to 244 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 19-24, 18 Yet I hope in the Lord Jesus shortl 7 to send to you Timothy, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. 7° For I have no man likeminded, who will have a true care for your state. 2! For they all seek their own things, not the things of Christ Jesus. ™ But ye know the proof of him, that, as a child to a father, he served with me in furthermg the gospel. 3 Him, then, I hope’ to send forthwith, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. introduce the change, especially as the sense would remain substantially the same, while the rhythm would certainly suffer. Do ye also} Sim. Rhem., ‘do you also :’ ‘also do ye,’ Auth., Cran., Bish. ; ‘also, rejoice ye,’ Tynd.; ‘be ye glad also,’ Cov. (both); ‘also be ye glad,’ Gen.: Wicl. omits ‘ also.’ 19. Yet I hope] ‘ But I trust,’ Author. (Marg., ‘ moreover’), Bish.; ‘and I hope,’ Wicl. Rhem.; ‘1 trust,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen. Shortly to, etc.| ‘To send Timothy shortly unto you,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘schal sende Tymothe soone to you;” Rhem., ‘to send Tim. unto you quickly.’ The change is made to en- deavor to show that duty is the transmis- sive dative, and not the same as zpds vas, ver. 25; see notes. 20. Will have a true care] ‘ Will nat- urally care,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘is bisie for you with clene affection ;’ ‘ with so pure affeccion careth,’ Tynd., Coverd., Gen. ; ‘be careful for you with sincere affec- cion,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘with so pure aff. will care,’ Cran. ; ‘ with sincere affection is careful,’ Rhem. 21. They all] So Coverd. (Test.), and somewhat sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. : ‘all,’ Author., Bish., Rhem.; ‘all men,’ Wiel. Own things] ‘ Own,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem. ‘the things that ben her owne,’ and sim. Cov. (Test.). Of Christ Jesus} ‘Which are *Jesus Christ’s,’ Auth., Cran., Cov. (Test.), (‘that be’), Bish., Rhem. (‘that are’); ‘that ben of Crist Jhesus,’ Wicl. ; ‘ that which is Je- sus Christes,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen The change in the text seems to leave the translation equally uncircumscribed with the Greek: the possessive gen. in E’ng- lish seems more limited. 22. The proof| So Auth. and all the Vv. except Wicl., ‘assaie;’ Lhemish, ‘an experiment:’ the meaning really amounts to ‘proved character’ (see notes), but as so many of the Vy. retain the literal meaning of doxiu7, a change may be deemed unnecessary. Child to a father] Sim. Cov. (both), ‘a chylde unto the father:’ ‘a son with the father,’ Auth., Bish., and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘a sone to the f.;” Rhem., “a sonne the father.’ Served] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘dyd he serve,’ and sim. as to aoristic form, Tynd., Cranm., Gen.: ‘hath served,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish., Rhem.; ‘hath he ministred,’ Cov. In furthering the gospel] ‘In the gospel,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Tynd., ‘bestowed his labor upon the gospel.’ 23. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Tynd., Coverd., which omit ody in translation. 4 Forthwith| ‘ Presently,’ Auth. ; ‘imme- diately,’ Rhem.: the rest omit. The concluding words of the verse are due to the version of Tynd., and have been retained by succeeding Vy. except Bish., ‘as soone as I knowe my estate ;’ hem., ‘that concern me.’ The sense is ex- pressed with sufficient accuracy (see notes) to render it undesirable to alter a translation so thoroughly idiomatic. 24. Myself also] So Coverd. (Test.), Cuar. IL. 24-28. PHILIPPIANS. 945 4 But I trust in the Lord that I myself also shall come shortly. 5 Yet I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labor, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger and minister to my need, *° since he was longing after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye heard that he had been sick. 2 For indeed he was sick like unto death: how- beit God had mercy on him ; and not on him only, hut on me also, that I should not have sorrow upon sorrow. Rhem. (omits ‘1’): ‘also myself,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 25. Unto you] So Coverd., and, after - ¢Epaphr.,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. : ‘to you,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish., Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) omits. It seems desirble to attempt to make a distinction between mpds tuas and the transmissive dative; see notes on ver. 19. Minister, etc.] Sim. Wiel., Bish., ‘the mynistre of my nede;’ Fhem., ‘ minister of my necessi- tie ;’ Zynd., Cov. [‘nede’], ‘my minis- ter at my nedes:’ ‘he that ministered to ‘my wants,’ Auth.; ‘the servant of my nede,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘which also myn- ystereth unto me at nede,’ Cran.; ‘he that ministered unto me such things as I wanted,’ Gen. 26. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Coverd., ‘for so moch as,’ an archaic, but not inexact translation ; Rhem., ‘because.’ He was longing] ‘ He longed,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘he desired ;’ Rhem., ‘he had a desire.’ Ye heard] So Wicl.: ‘had keard,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. In the next member the English idiom seems clearly to require the pluperfect in translation ; in the former member it may apparently be dispensed with. 27. Lnke unto] ‘ Nigh unto,’ Author., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ sike to the deeth,’ Wiel.; ‘untyll death,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘even to death,’ Rhem. Howbeit] ‘ But,’ Auth. and all Vy. That I should not] ‘ Lest I should have,’ 281 have sent him Author, and the other Vv. except Wiel. “‘leest I hadde;’ Zynd., Cov., ‘I shuld have had.’ 28. Have sent] ‘Sent,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. The change seems neces- sary, as émeua is in all probability the epistolary aorist’ (see notes on Philemon 11), Epaphr. being apparently the bearer of this Epistle. It may be doubted whether the present ought not to he adopted, as in Coverd. (both) : English idiom, however, seems in favor of the perfect ; compare notes on Coloss. iv. 8 ( Transi.). Therefore] Se Auth. and all the Vv.; and apparently rightly, as this seems one of the-cases in which ody has a slightly inferential force, which is inadequately expressed by ‘then; ” see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1. Diligently| So Tynd., Bish., and sim. Cranm., Gen., ‘diligentliar ;’ compare 2 Tim. i. 17; ‘ carefully,’ Auth. ; ‘haistli,’ Wicl., Coverd. ; ‘spedely,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. The translation of the text, though not wholly free from ainbiguity, perhaps shows a /ittle more clearly than Author., al., that the apostle showed omovdi) in sending Ep. I too] Sim, Cov., ‘Ialso:’ ‘I,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. ‘The inserted pro- noun (‘1 on my side’) perhaps suggests this slight addition. Rejoice again] So Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Rhem., and sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.): ‘again, ye may rejoice,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. Per- haps the insertion of the adverb between the auxiliary and the verb might seem » 246 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 29-III. 1. therefore the more diligently, that, when ye see him ye may rejoice again, and that I too may be the less sorrowful. 29 Receive him ‘then in the Lord with all joy, and hold such in honor; * because for the work of Christ he went nigh even unto death, having hazarded his life, to supply that which you lacked in your service to me. CHAPTER III. FINALLY, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed ¢s not irksome, while for you ¢¢ 2s safe. more consonant with the order of the Greek, and perhaps also with our pres- ent modes of expression: as, however, it has a tendency to suggest an undue emphasis on ‘again,’ and is, perhaps, a modern collocation, we retain the order of the older version. This is one of many minor points that would need careful consideration in any formal re- vision of our present version. 29. Then] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and all Vy.: see notes zn loc. Joy| So Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘gladness,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. It certainly seems undesirable to depart from the usual and almost semi-theological meaning of xapd. In honor] So Coverd. (Test.), and sim. Wicl., Rhem.: ‘in reputation,’ Auth. ; “make moch of soche,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. 30. Went nigh, etc.| ‘ Was nigh unto death,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘he wente to deeth, Wicl.; ‘he went so farre, that he was nye unto deeth,’ Tynd., Cranm. ; came nye unto,’ Coverdale; ‘ went to even untyll death,’ Coverdale (Test.) ; “came to the point of death,’ hem. Having hazarded| ‘ Notregarding,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘ geuynge his liif,’ Wiel. ; ‘and regarded not his lyfe,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen.; ‘geuyng over his lyfe,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘ yelding his life,’ Rhem. The translation of the aor. part., when associated with the finite verb, requires very careful consideration. Besides the usual periphrastic translations by means of temporal or causal particles, we have three forms of translation,— (a) the present participle; (b) the past partici- ple, with the auxiliary ‘ having ;’ (c) the idiomatic conversion into the finite verb with ‘and.’ Of these, (a) is especially admissible when the part. defines more closely the manner of the action expressed by the finite verb, or the circumstances under which it took place (see notes on ch. ii. 7); (b) is often useful when it is necessary to mark the priority of the ac- tion of the part. to that of the finite verb ; (c) sometimes serves to mark their con- temporaneity. In the present case the choice seems to be between (6) and (e), as the mapaBoA. may be regarded as partly accompanying, and partly as hav- ing preceded, the #yyiwev. As, logically considered, the latter idea seems here distinctly more prominent, we adopt the second form of translation. That which, etc.| So somewhat similarly Tynd., Cov., Gen., ‘that service which was lacking on your part to me :” ‘ your lack of service to me,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘that that falid of you anentis my ser- vice,’ Wiel. —not an incorrect view of the gen. (see notes) ; ‘it that was want- ynge unto you toward my willynge ser- Crap. IIT. 2-5. PHILIPPIANS. 247 2 Look to the dogs, look to the evil-workers, look to the CoNCISION. 3 For we are the CIRCUMCISION, which by the Spirit of God do serve Him, and make our boast in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh; +*though myself possessed of confidence even in the flesh. If any other man deemeth that he can put confidence in the flesh, I more: ° circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, -vyce,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘that which was lackynge on youre part toward me,’ Cran. ; ‘that which on your part wanted toward my service,’ Rhem. CuaptTer III. 1. Jrksome] ‘ Griev- ous,’ Author. ; ‘it is not-slowe,’ Wicl. ; ‘it greveth me not,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘no gyefe,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘tedious,’ Rhem. While] ‘But,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘and,’ Wicl., Cov., Gen., Rhem.; ‘ for to you it is, ete.’ Tynd., Cran., Bish. Tt would at first sight seem desirable to suppress the pév in translation ; as, however, the opposi- tion wév—6e is sparingly used in the N. T., and only when a somewhat decided. contrast is intended, it is best to retain Auth. 2. Look to (3 times)] Sim. Wicl., ‘se ye;’ Rhem., “see:’ ‘ beware of,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. The dogs| So Rhem.: ‘dogs,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The presence of the article with the two following substan- tives seems to show that here the article is not merely generic, but distinctive and definitive ; ‘indicat eum de certis qui- busdam loqui, quos illi noverint,’ Erasm. in loc. The evil] So Rhem.: Auth. and the remaining Vv. omit the article. 3. By the Spirit of, etc.| ‘ Worship *God in the spirit,’ Author. It seems permissible to add ‘ZZim’ to the absolute Aarpevoyres in accordance with Auth. in Luke ii. 837, Acts xxvi. 7. The transla- tion of Cov., ‘even we that serve, etc.,’ by which the appositional character of of Myvedu. x. T. A. is fully preserved, is not undeserving of notice: there seems, how- ever, scarcely sufficient reason for a change. Make our boast} Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘ glorien:’ ‘rejoice,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Put] ‘Have,’ Auth. On account of the next clause it seems desirable here to avoid the use of ‘ have.’ 4. Myself possessed of] ‘Though I might also have,’ Gish., Auth., and sim. Rhem. (‘albeit I also have’); ‘though IT have trist,’ Wicl.; ‘though I also have confidence,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘though I have wher of I myght rejoyce,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. ; ‘though I myght also re- joyce,’ Cran. Tle change to ‘ possessed of,’ is an endeavor to mark the ‘ habens, non utens ’ implied here by €xwr, and to draw a distinction in translation between TeToisws and €xwy memolanouy. Even in the] ‘In the flesh,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Wicl., ‘in flesh.’ Deemeth| ‘Thinketh,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wiel. ‘is seyn to trist ;? Cov. (Test.), ‘semeth to have;’ Rhem., ‘seeme to have.’ The slightly stronger “deemeth,’ appears best to coincide with the view of Soe? adopted in the notes. Can put conf.| ‘Hath whereof he might trust,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘is seyn to trust,’ Wiel. ; ‘whereof he might rejoyce,’ Cov. ; ‘ seemeth to have confidence,’ Coverdale (Test.), Rhemish (‘seeme’). The literal translation, ‘ that he hath confidence,’ is here slightly am- biguous, and appy. warrants our adopt- ing the slight periphrasis in the text. 5. As regards] ‘ As touching,’ Auth. ; ‘bi,’ Wicl.; ‘as concernynge,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘after,’ Cov. (Test.), Bish. ‘by profession a Ph.,’ Gen, ; ‘according * 248 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. III. 6-8. of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as regards the law, a Pharisee ; © as regards zeal, persecuting the church; as regards the righteousness which is in the law, having lived blame- less. sake I have counted loss. 7 Howbeit what things were gain to me, these for Christ’s 8 Nay more, and I do also count them all to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whose sake I suffered the loss of all things, and do to,’ Rhem. It will be seen (from next verse) that Wicl. and Fhem. are the only two which preserve the same translation of xar& in the three clauses : this certain- ly seems desirable, as more clearly di- recting the reader’s attention to the three theological characteristics of the apostle, which are not improbably climactic in arrangement. 6. As regards] ‘ Concerning,’ Author., Bish.; ‘as concernynge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘after,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ac- cording to,’ Rhem. As regards the, etc.| ‘ Touching,’ Author., Bish. ; ‘bi,’ Wicl. ; ‘as touchynge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen.; ‘according to, Coverd. (Test.), hem. Having lived blameless] Sim. Wicl., ‘lyuynge without playnte :’ Cov. (Test.), ‘I have walked wythout blame;’ &hem., ‘ conversing without blame ;’ ‘blameless,’ Auth. ; ‘I was unrebukeable,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘I was blameless,’ Bish. The addition of Wicl. serves to mark, though not quite adequately, the yevduevos which Auth. leaves unnoticed. 7. Howbeit} ‘But,’ Auth. and all the Vy. The adversative 4AA& seems here to require a stronger translation than the merely oppositive ‘ but.’ These] So Wicl.: ‘those,’ Auth., Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘the same,’ T’ynd., Cov. (both), Gen. For Christ’s sake] So Tynd., Cov. (both), Cranm., Gen., Bish., but at the end of the sen- tence: ‘for Christ,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem. —also at theend. The change of order perhaps keeps up the antithesis «ép5os and (nla with a little more emphasis. Have counted] So sim. Coverd. (Test.), ‘have I counted ;’ Wicl., ‘I have demede ;’ Rhemish, ‘ have I esteemed ;” ‘counted,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 8. Nay more] ‘*Yea doubtless,’ Auth., Gen. ; ‘netheless,’ Wicl.; ‘ye,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. ; ‘ neverthelesse,’ Cov. (Test); ‘yea but,’ Rhem. The most literal translation would perhaps be ‘ nay indeed as was said,’ but is obviously too heavy for,an idiomatic version ; comp. notes. Do also count them all] ‘I count all things,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘I gesse alle thingis,’ Wiel. ; ‘I thinke all thynges,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish.; ‘I esteeme al things,’ Rhem. The insertion of ‘them,’ and the change to ‘do also count,’ seem required to show that the real emphasis does not rest on mavrTa, but on Fyodua as contrasted with Hynuat, while méyta refers back to the preceding G@riva «x. 7. A.; comp. Meyer in loc. To be loss| So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Wiel., ‘to be peire- ment:’ ‘but loss, Author. and the re- maining Vy. For whose sake] So Coverd. (Test.), Bish.: ‘ for whom,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy.: change for the sake of accordance with the trans- lation of 51a roy Xp., ver. 7. Suffered] ‘ Have suffered,’ Auth., and similarly with the auxiliary ‘ have,’ all Vv. except Wicl., ‘I made alle thingis peirement.’ To be dung| So Bish-: ‘but dung,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen, Bish.; ‘as drit,’? Wicl.; ‘as dounge,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘but vyle,’ Cran. Cuap. III. 9-12. PHILIPPIANS. 949 count them to be dung, that I may win Christ, ® and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through Faith in Christ, even the righteousness which cometh of God by Faith: 1 that I may know Him, and the power ‘of His resurrection, and the fellowship in His sufferings, being fash- ioned to the likeness of His death, “ if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead. 2 Not that I have already attained, or am already made perfect ; but I am pressing onward if that I may lay hold on that for which 9. Faith in] Sim. Tynd., ‘the fayth which is in Christ :’ ‘the faith of,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Even| So Cranm., and sim. Wicl., ‘that is :’ Tynd., Gen., ‘1 meane ;’ Cov., ‘name- ly ;’ Auth. and Bish. omit, and Coverd. (Test.) and Rhem. alter the construction. The insertion, thus sanctioned by six of the Vvy., seems to add slightly both to the perspicuity and emphasis. Cometh of | So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. : ‘is of, Auth , Wicl., Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) alters the construction The concluding words, ‘ by faith,’ Auth. (‘in faith,’ Wicel., Coverdale (both), Rhem. ; ‘thorowe faith,’ Tynd., Cranm., Genev., Bish.), are scarcely an exact translation of em 77 mioret (see notes), but are per- haps a sufficiently close approximation to it to be preferable to any periphrasis (‘ grounded on faith,’ ‘resting on faith),’ which an adhesion to the literal meaning of the prep: would render necessary. 10. In His] ‘ Of His,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. Fashioned to, etc.| Somewhat sim. Wicl., ‘ made liik to;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘lyke fashioned with :’ ‘*made conformable unto,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 2hem. The expression in the original (cupmop- ol€eoSa: Savdrw) though perfectly intel- ‘ligible, is so far unusual as to require some slight periphrasis in English. The shorter translation, ‘ being conformed to,’ is perhaps open to objection as in- volving a.use of ‘conform,’ which, though sanctioned by, Hooker, is now of | rare occurrence. The transl. of Conyb., ‘sharing the likeness of,’ is objectiona- ble as obliterating the passive. 11. May] So Coverd. (both), Rhem.: ‘might,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘if......I come.’ From the dead| So Cov.: ‘*of the dead,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., which follow the reading in the text. These three Vy. all translate rqy (‘that is fro,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.); ‘which is from,’ Rhem.) : the insertion of the article is certainly in- tended emphatically to specify, but appy. falls short of the very distinctive force conveyed by the parallel insertion of the relative in English. 12. Not that] So Wiel., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem.: ‘not as though,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish, T have] So Wicl., Coverd. (both), Cran., Rhem.: ‘Thad,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish. On the use of the auxiliary ‘have’ in the translation of the aor. with #57,'see notes on Eph. iii. 5 (Transl.); and on 1 Tim. i. 20 (Zransl.). Or am already, etc.] Sim. Wicl., ‘or now am perfect ;’ Cov., Cran., ‘ or that I am all ready p.;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘or that I be now p.;’ Rhem., ‘or now am p.;’ ‘either were already perfect,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish. On the translation of the perfect, see notes on Col. i. 16 (Transl.). Am pressing| ‘Follow after,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘sue,’ Wicl.; ‘folowe,’ Tynd., Coverd., 32 PaAPLELP PLANS: Cuap. III. 13-17. 250 also I was laid hold on by Christ. 1 Brethren, I count not MYSELF to have gotten hold: but one thing J do, forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth after the things that are before, 14 T press on toward the mark for the prize of the heavenly calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us then, as many as be perfect, be of this mind: and if im any thing ye are differently minded, even this will God reveal unto you. 16 Nevertheless, whereto we have attained, — in the same direction walk ye onward. 1 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘follow upon,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ pursue,’ Phem. Lay hold on — was laid hold on| ‘ Appre- hend—am apprehended of, Author. ; ‘ comprehende — am comprehendide of,’ Wicl. and the remaining Vv. Christ] ‘*Christ Jesus,’ Auth. 13. Gotten hold| So Cov. (Test-), and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm., ‘gotten it:’ ‘apprehended,’ Auth. ; ‘ comprehendide,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘atteyned to the mark,’ Gen.; ‘attained,’ Bish. One thing) So Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Rhem.: ‘this one thing,’ Author., Cran., Bish. The things| So Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘those things,’ Author., Cranm., Bish.; ‘that which,’ Zynd., Cov., Gen. That are (twice)] So Wicl., Cov. (Test., once), Rhem.: ‘which,’ Auth, and the remaining Vv. If the distinction allud- ed to on Ephes. i. 23 be correct, ‘ that’ would seem here slightly more exact than ‘which.’ Stretching forth after| Sim. Wicl., ‘strecche forth my silf to;’ Tynd., Cov., ‘stretche my silfe unto ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘stretchynge my- self to;’ Rhem., ‘stretching forth myself to:’ ‘reaching forth unto,’ Auth. ; ‘ en- deuore myself unto,’ Cran., Gen., Bish. 14. Press on] ‘Press,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (both), Cranm., Bish.; ‘ pursue,’ Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘ follow hard,’ Gen., Bish. In this verse the simple English present is more suitable than the auxiliary with the part., as in ver. 12. There the ad- verb #5n and the past tenses €AaBoy and TeTeAclwuat suggested a contrast in point of time ; here the iterative force involved in the English present (Latham, Hngl. Lang. § 573) is more appropriate. Heavenly] ‘ High,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Rhem., ‘supernal.’ 15. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ Auth. and all the Vv. Of this mind] ‘Thus minded,’ Auth., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Tthem.; ‘feele we this thing, Wiel. ; ‘thus wyse minded,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. Are differently] ‘ Be otherwise,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., ‘ understonden in other man- er ony thing.’ This will God, etc.| ‘God shall reveal even this unto you,’ Auth. and, in the same order, with some slight variations of language, the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘this thing God schal schewe;’ Fhem., ‘ this also God hath reuealed,’—a singular mis- translation. 16. Attained] ‘Already attained,’ Author.; ‘han commun,’ Wicel.; ‘ are come,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Rhem. ; ‘ at- tained unto,’ Bish. In the same direction, etc.| ‘*Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing,’ Auth. The verse is obscure from its brevity; the translation ‘to what point we have attained,—in the same direction, etc.,’ perhaps may slightly clear it up, but is inferior to Author. in giving too special a meaning to eis 6. 17. Are walking] ‘ Walk,’ Auth. and PHILIPPIANS. Cuar. TII. 18-IV. 3. 951 are walking so as ye have us for an ensample. 1 For many walk, of whom many times I used to tell you and now tell you even weep- ing, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 1 Whose end is perdition, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who are minding earthly things. 2° For our cou. _- wealth is in heaven ; from whence we also tarry for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ : 74 Who shall transform the body of our humili- ation so that it be fashioned like unto the body of His glory, accord- ing to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself. CHARTER LV. Wauererore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, dearly beloved. 2T exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yea I entreat thee also, true yoke-fel- all the Vv. It seems desirable to make some slight distinction between the pres. participle in this verse and the present indic. in ver, 18. 18. Many times I used, etc.] ‘ Have told you often,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘I have seide ofte to you;’ Rhem., ‘often I told you of.’ Change to preserve the true force of @Aeyoy, and the TapHXnots, TOAAG — TOAAAKLS. 19. Perdition| ‘ Destruction,’ Author., Rhem. ; ‘deeth, Wicl., Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘dampnacion,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., ' Bish. Compare on 1 Tim. vi. 9. Are minding| ‘ Minde,’ Author., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘saueren, Wiel. ; ‘are worldely mynded,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen. ; ‘are earthly minded,’ Cov. 20. Commonwealth} ‘ Conversation,’ Author, and all the Vv. except Wiel., ‘lyuyng.’ We also tarry for, etc.]| ‘Also we look for the Saviour,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘also we abiden the sauyour,’ Wicl. ; ‘ we loke for a saveour, even, etc.,’ Tynd., Coverd. (‘the sav. J. C.’) ; ‘we do wayte for the saueoure the Lord J. C.,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ we loke for the s., even the Lord J. C.,’ Cran. ; ‘we expect the Saviour our Lord J. C.,’ Rhem. 21. Transform] ‘ Change,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘re- fourme ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ restore.’ Body of our humiliation] Sim. Rhem., ‘body of our humilitie;’ Wicl., ‘ bodi of oure mekenesse :’ ‘ vile body,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. So that it be] ‘*That it may be,’ Auth. Body of His glory| So Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘bodi of his clereness :’ ‘ glorious body,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ hys cleare body.’ Cuaprer IV. 1. Wherefore] So Cov. (both): ‘ therefore,’ Author. and the re- maining Vy. The more exact transla- tion, ‘so then,’ is here somewhat awk- ward on account of the following ‘so.’ Dearly bel. (2nd)| Auth. prefixes ‘ my,’ with Bish., Rhem. ; ‘most dere britheren,’ Wicl.; ‘ye beloved, Tynd., and the remaining Vv. . 2. Exhort] ‘ Beseech,’ Auth., Coverd., (Test.); ‘ preie,’ Wicl. and the remain- PHILIPPIANS. Caap. IV, 3-8. 252 low, give them aid, since they labored with me in the gospel, in company with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life. * Rejoice in the Lord alway: again I will say, Rejoice. ® Let your forbearance be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. 6 Be anxious about nothing; but in every thing by your prayer and your supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known before God. 7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understandings, shall keep your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things ing Vv.’ except Ithem., ‘desire’ As mapakaA® is a word of very frequent oc- currence in St. Paul’s Epp. (compare notes on 1 Tim.i. 8), the translation must vary with the context: here perhaps the slightly stronger ‘exhort’ is more suita- ble than the (now) weaker ‘ beseech.’ 8. Yea] ‘*And,’ Auth. (kat ép.) Give them aid, etc.| ‘Help those women which,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. (‘that’); ‘ the ilke wymmen that,’ Wiel. ; ‘the wemen which,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. In company with] ‘With,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The rest of | Sim. Ithem., ‘ the rest my :’ ‘with other,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran, Genev., Bish.; ‘and other,’ Wicl. ; ‘my other,’ Cov. (both). 4. Again] So Rhem., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., and sim. Wicl., ‘efte:’ ‘and again,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. I will say| So Bish.: ‘I say,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 5. Forbearance] ‘ Moderation,’ Auth. ; ‘pacience,’ Wiel.; ‘softeness,’? Tynd., Cov. (both), Cranm. ; ‘ patient mynde,’ Gen., Bish. ; ‘ modestie,’ Rhem. 6. Anzious about] ‘ Careful for,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish. ; ‘no thing bisie,’ Wiel. ; “not carfull,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. ; ‘ noth- yuge carefull,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Your (twice)] Auth. and the other Vv. simply ‘ prayer and supplication ’ ( Wicl., ‘bisechinge’). The Versions which er- roneously connect may7) with mpooevxh are Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), and, what is singular, Cranm., as this Version was not from the Vulgate, and was preceded by the correct translations of Tynd. and ‘Cov. Before] So Coverd. : ‘unto,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘at;’ Rhemish, ‘ with.’ Though not perfectly exact, the above translation of mpbds is slightly preferable to ‘unto,’ as not seeming to imply to the English reader that a dat. is used in the original. 7. All understandings] ‘ All under- standing,’ Auth. and. all the Vv. ( Wicel., ‘witte’). As these words are so famil- iar to Christian ears, it seems desirable to introduce the slightest possible change consistent with accuracy. ‘This. seems to be the change to the plural, as it ap- proximately conveys the meaning of mdvta vooy (comp. notes on Col. ii. 15), and precludes the ordinary misconcep- tion that ‘understanding’ is a participle. Your thoughts] ‘Minds,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘undirstondingis ;’ Lhem., ‘ intelligen- ces.” In] So Wicel., Tynd., Coverd. (both), Genev., Bish., Rhemish : ‘through,’ Auth., Cran., Bish. 8. Seemly| ‘Honest,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ chast.’ Crap. IV. 9-12. PHILIPPIANS. 953 are seemly, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. ® The things, which ye also learned and received, and heard, and saw in me, the same do: and the God of peace shall be with you. 10 Now I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye flourished again in respect of your care for me, wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. 1 Not that I speak in consequence of want: for I have learned, in what state I am, therein to be content. 9. The things| So Cov. (Test.), where also it is similarly resumed as in text by ‘the same:’ ‘those things,’ Author. ; ‘which,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘that.’ Also learned| Similarly Wicl., ‘also ye han lerned:’ ‘have both learned,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Saw] ‘Seen,’ Author. The same do| So Cov. (Test.), ‘do the same,’ and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish., ‘those thynges do;’ Jthemish, ‘ these things do ye’ (Wiel. inverts order): ‘do,’ Auth. 10. Now] ‘But,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Bish. ; ‘and,’ Rhem.; the rest omit. At length] Sim. Rhem., ‘at the length :’ ‘at the last,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘ sumtyme aftirward.’ Ye flourished again, etc.| ‘ Your care of me hath flour- ished again,’ Auth. ; ‘ ye flouriden agen to fele for me,’ Wicl. ; ‘ ye are revived agayne to care for me,’ Tynd., Coverd., Genev., Bish.; ‘ye are flouryshynge agayne to regarde me,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘your care is reuyued againe for me,’ Cran.; ‘you have reflourished to care for me,’ Rhem. 11. In consequence of | ‘ In respect of,’ Auth.; ‘as for,’ Wicl.; ‘because of, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘as be- cause of,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘as it were for,’ 2 T know also how to be abased, I know too how Rhem. The translation in the text is probably a modern form of expression, but is appy. exact: the Auth. though not incorrect is somewhat ambiguous. What state] Sim. Coverd. (Test.), ‘what cases :’ ‘whatsoever state,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. (‘estate’) except Wicl., ‘ to be sufficient in whiche thingis Tam;’ Rhem., ‘to be content with the things that I have.’ Therein| ‘Therewith,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem. (see above), and Cov. (Test.), which omits. 12. Know also] ‘*Know both,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘can also,’ Wicl.; ‘can both,’ Tynd., Coverd. (Test.),° Cranm. ; ‘can,’ Coverd., Gen.; ‘knowe how,’ Bish. It may here be remarked in passing that the position of kai in Greek, and that of ‘also,’ ‘even,’ or ‘ too,’ in English, will not always exactly correspond. Here, for instance, ral belongs to tamewovosat (see notes), whereas in English the ‘also’ seems idiomatically to take an earlier place in the sentence, and in position to connect itself with ‘know :’ the transla- tion in the notes, ‘know how also to be abased, orto be abased also,’ is literal, but scarcely idiomatic. The attention of the student is directed to this point, as it requires some discrimination to perceive when it is positively necessary to retain in translation the position of PHIEIPPEANS. Cuar. IV. 18-17. to abound: in every thing and in all things I have been fully taught both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 18T can do all things in Him that strengtheneth me. standing ye did well that ye bare part with my affliction. 14 Notwith- 4 More- over, Philippians, yourselves also know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as touching any account of giving and receiving, but ye only: 1° since even in Thessalonica ye sent to me both once and again unto my necessity. kal, and when to yield to a more usual English collocation. I know too| ‘And I know,’ Author., Bish.; ‘I can also, Wicl., Tynd.; ‘and I can,’ Cov. (both), Cranm., Genev. ; ‘I know also,’ Rhem. In every thing, etc.] ‘Every where and in all things,’ Auth. and the other Vy. (Gen. omits ‘ and’). Have been fully taught] Sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘Iam taughte:’ ‘ am instruct- ed,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 13. Jn Him that] ‘*Through Christ which,’ Author., Coverd., Cranm., Bish. ; ‘thorow the helpe,’ Tynd., Gen. Strengtheneth] So Auth. and all Vv. ex- cept Wiel. and Cov. (Test.), ‘coumfort- ith.” The force of évdvy. cannot be ex- pressed without weakening the emphasis of the verse, and impairing the rhythm. 14. Did well] ‘ Have well done,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. (both), Rhem., ‘han don wel.’ Bare part with] So Cov. (Test.), ‘ bear- ynge parte wyth,’ and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., ‘ye bare part with me in:’ “communicated with,’ Auth. ; ‘did com- municate to,’ Bish. ; ‘communicating to,’ Rhem. 15. Moreover, Philippians, etc.| ‘ Now ye Phil. know also,’ Auth., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Gen., ‘and ye, etc.;’ ‘for ye filipensis witen also,’ Wicl.; ‘ye of Phi- lippos knowe that,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., (‘also that’); ‘ye Philip. knowe also,’ Bish. ; ‘and you also know, O Philipp.,’ Rhem. As touching any, etc.] M% Not that I seek after your gift; but ‘As concerning giving and receiving,’ Author., Tynd., Cov. (omits ‘as’), Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘in resoun of thing gouun and takun,’ Wiel. ; ‘in the way of gyfte and receate,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘in the account of, etc.,’ Rhem. Perhaps the insertion of the indefinite ‘any ’ may be considered permissible as serving slightly to clear up the meaning; neither ‘an account’ or ‘the account’ (2hem.) is free from objections. 16. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., which omits the con- junction. To me] So Wiel. : Auth. and all the other Vv. omit. Both once] ‘ Once,’ Author. and the other Vv. Unto] So Auth. and all Vy. ( Wicl., ‘in to ;’ Rhem., ‘ to’) except Coverd. (Test.), ‘to my behofe.’ It is a matter of grave consideration whether, in a literal but idiomatic translation like the Authorized Version, we can consist- ently introduce here and in similar pas- sages such periphrastic yet practically correct translations of eis as ‘ to supply,’ ‘to meet,’ etc. As there might seem to be some difficulty in fixing the limits of such periphrases, and as the older Vv. appear to have but seldom adopted such transl., it is perhaps best in the majority of cases to retain the more literal, though sometimes less intelligible rendering. 17. That] So Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cranm., Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘because,’ Auth. ; ‘for,’ Wiel. Seek after (twice)] ‘Desire,’ Auth. and the other Cua. IV. 18-28. PHILIPPIANS. 955 I seek afte> the fruit that multiplieth unto your account. 1 But I have all things and abound: I am full now that I have received from Epaphroditus the things which came from you, a savor of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. ) But my God shall supply every need of yours according to His riches, with glory in Christ Jesus. glory for ever and ever. with me salute you. 20 Now unto God and our Father be Amen. 1 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. % All the saints salute you, but especially The brethren which are they that are of Czesar’s household. 3 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Vy. except Wicl., Co». (both), Lhem., ‘seke.’ Your gift] ‘ A gift,’ Author., Bish. ; ‘ gifte,’ Wicl., Coverd. ; ‘eyftes,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘the gifte,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘a rewarde,” Gen. It is doubtful whether the plural translation. of Tynd. and Cranm. does not practically convey more clearly than the text the meaning of the present article, ‘the gift in the particular case, 7. e. ‘gifts,’ or even ‘any gift;’ compare notes: such translations, however, involve principles of correction that should be admitted with great caution. fruit] So Coverd., Gen., Rhem. ; ‘ fruit,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish. ; ‘ aboundant frute,’ Tynd. Cran.; ‘plentyfull frute, Coverd. (Test.). That multiplieth| ‘That may abound,’ Author., and sim. Gen., ‘which may forther;’ ‘ abound- ing,’ Wiel., Bish., Rhem. The change is of no importance, but made to pre- serve in the translation the different words used in the original, here and in yer. 18, — mAcovd(ew and mepiooevery. Unto| ‘To,’ Auth. 18. All things] So Wicl., Rhemish: ‘all,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. The present translation of améxw (Author. Wicl., Cov. (both), Bish., Rhem.) is un- duly weak (Zynd., Cranm., Gen., omit ‘have’); but the more literal transla- tion, ‘I have in full,” ‘I have for my own,’ seems as unduly strong, and some- The - what interferes with the bricf and cli- mactic character of the first portion of the verse. Now that, etc.| Sim. Tynd., Gen., Bish., ‘after that I had rec. :’ Cov. ‘whan. I rec. ;” Cov. (Test.), ‘ whan I had received;’ Cranm., ‘after that I received ;’ Rhem., ‘ after I received.’ From] ‘ Of,’ Auth. and all Vy. Which came] So Tynd., Coverd., Gen. : ‘which were sent from,’ Author., Cranm., Bish.; ‘which ye senten,’ Wicl., and sim. Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. Savor of sweet smell] Sim. Cov, ('Test.), ‘a savoure of swetness:’ ‘of a sweet smell,’ Auth., Cran.; ‘odour of swet- nesse,’ Wricl.: ‘an odour that smelleth swete,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘ odour of sweete- ness,’ Cov., Rhem. ; ‘an odour of a sweete smell,’ Bish. 19. With glory] ‘In glory,’ Author., Wicl., Cov. (both), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ glo- rious riches,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. In| So Wicel., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cran. 21. Salute you] So Coverd. (both), Rhem.: * greet,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. A change of translation in the same verse does not seem desirable. 22. But especially] So Coverd. (both), Rhem.: ‘chiefly,’ Auth. : ‘moost sothli,’ Wicl. ; ‘and most of all,’ Tynd., Gen. 3; “most of all,’ Cran., Bish. 23. The Lord] ‘ *Our Lord,’ Auth. Your spirit] ‘* You all, Amen,’ Auth. ¥ CoM Babi PAs pee Hiv iets) 2, Tuma 8! ay rs ‘Biboaay best jet Ly ae A! aa ahd Ararat! 4 as ee faye SS eae Ws Ca vynyat , é. ak 0 wary mY Sin her ERG KS a rs Cae SGA, +). a0" A ie ee sa THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. CHAPTER I. AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timo- thy our brother, 2 to the saints in Colossze and faithful brethren in Christ: grace be unto you and peace, from God our Father. 3 We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, * having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, ® because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard be- CuarTer I. 1. Christ Jesus] ‘*Jesus Christ,’ Auth. Timothy| So Wiel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘ Timo- theus,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. The principle put forward in the preface to Auth., though apparently not always followed, seems sound and reasonable, —to adopt, in the case of proper names, those forms which are most current, and by which the bearers of the names are most popularly known. 2. Saints in Colosse] Sim. Tyndale, Cov., Cran., ‘ sayntes which are at Co- lossee:’ ‘to the saints and faithful breth- ren in Christ which are at Colosse,’ Auth. and, with slight variations in order, the remaining Vv. God our Father] Auth. adds ‘*and the Lord Je- sus Christ.’ 3. God the Father] ‘*God and the Father,’ Auth. 4. Having heard] ‘Since we heard,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. (‘have’) ; ‘herynge,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘for we haue hearde,’ Cran. The trans- lation of Auth., al. is perhaps somewhat ambiguous, ‘since’ having as much a causal as a temporal reference. As the | latter seems to be the most probable ref- erence in the present case (see notes in loc.), it will perhaps be best to adopt what seems a more definitely temporal translation; see notes on Phil. ii. 30 (Transl.). To all] So Auth. A few of the Vv., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., retain the more literal ‘ toward.’ 5. Because of | So Cov. (Test.) ; ‘for,’ Author., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘for the hope’s sake,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. Word of truth, etc.| So Cov. except that év (1st) is translated ‘by,’ and similarly Gen., ‘tne worde of truth which is in the gospel:’ ‘word of the truth of the gospel,’ Author., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘true worde of the gospell,’ Tynd., Cranm. ; ‘worde of truth of the gospel,’ Coverd. (Test.), Bish. The true relation of the genitives thus seems expressed by three 33° COLOSSIANS. Cuar. I. 6-11. 258 fore in the word of Truth in the gospel; ° which is come unto you, as it is also in all the world; and is bringing forth fruit and in- creasing as it is also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and came to know the grace of God in truth: 7 even as ye learned of Epa- phras our beloved fellow-servant, who is in your behalf a FAITHFUL minister of Christ ; ® who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit. 9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard zt, do not cease to pray for you, and to make our petition that ye may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and under- standing ; 1! that ye may walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, bringing forth fruit in every good work, and increasing by the knowledge of God ; " being strengthened with all strength, accord- of the older Vv. ; see notes. The arti- cle preceding &AnSelas appears only to mark that &A/&. is used in its most ab- stract sense. This use of the article in the case of abstract nouns is commonly marked in this Revision by a capital letter. 6. It is also (18t)] So Cov. (Test.), andsim. Wiel., ‘also itis;’ Rhem., ‘also in the whole world it is:’ ‘it is,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Ts bringing forth fruit] ‘Bringeth forth fruit,’ Auth., Cov., Test. (omits ‘ forth’) ; ‘makith frute, Wiel.; ‘is frutefull,’ Tyng., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ fructi- fieth,’ Rhem. And increasing| Auth. *omits. Is| ‘ Doth,’ Auth, Came to know] ‘ Knew,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. ( Coverd. Test., ‘haue knowen’) except Tynd., Cran., ‘had experience’ —a translation which similarly with text endeavors to express the force of é éyvwre (see notes on ver. 9), and deserves consideration. 7. Even as ye] Author. adds ‘ *also,’ and omits ‘even.’ The translation of xaSws, whether ‘as’ or ‘even as,’ must depend on the general tone of the pas- sage: here the latter seems to connect the present verse a little more closely, with the concluding words of ver. 6. Beloved] ‘Dear,’ Auth., Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ moost dereworthe,’ Wicl.; ‘mooste beloued,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘deerest,’ hem. In your behalf] ‘ For you,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. It seems desirable to select a translation that should prevent bp be- ing possibly understood as ‘in your place ;” see notes. 9. Make our petition] ‘Desire,’ Auth. and the other Vv. (Zynd., Rhem., ‘ de- syringe’) except Wicl., ‘to axe;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘axing.’ May) So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem: ‘might,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘that ye be filled.’ Spiritual wisdom and, etc.| So Cov. (Test.): ‘ wis- dom and spiritual understanding,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vy. 10. May] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘might,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘ that ye walke.’ Bringing forth fruit] So Cov. (Test.): ‘being fruitful,’ Auth. It seems desira- ble to preserve the same translation as in ver. 6. By the| ‘*In the,’ Auth. 11. Being strengthened] So Coverdale (Test.) : ‘strengthened,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘and be comfortid ; ’ Cov., ‘and to be strong.’ ; . COLOSSIANS. 259 Cuap. I. 12-16. ing to the might of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering with joy ; ® giving thanks unto the Father, which made us meet for the portion of the inheritance of the saints in light: © who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love; ‘in whom we have Re- demption, even the forgiveness of our sins. ™ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature: 1 be- cause in Him were all things created, the things that are in heaven, and the things that are on earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or prin- cipalities, or powers, —all thmgs have been created by Him, and Strength] ‘ Might,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘vertu ;’ Cov. (both), ‘power.’ It is perhaps desirable to re- tain the rapyxnots of the original. The might of His glory] So Cov. (both), Rhem., and sim. Wiel., ‘migt of His tlerenesse :’ ‘ glorious power,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Joy] So Wicl., Rhem., and, with a different collocation, Cov. (Test.): ‘joyfulness,’ Author. and the remaining Vv.: comp. notes on Phil. ii. 29 ( Zransl.). 12. Made] So Wicl.: ‘hath made,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. For the portion] ‘To be partakers of,’ Auth., Tynd., Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ to the part of,’ Wiel. ; ‘ mete for the inher- itance,’ Cov.: ‘worthy of the parte of the enh.,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘ worthy unto the part of the lot,’ hem. 13. Delivered] So Wicl:: ‘hath deliv- ered,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- cept Coverd. (Test.), ‘hath drawen us oute.’ Out of | ‘ From,’ Auth. Translated] So Wiel., Coverd.: ‘hath translated,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The Son of His love] So Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘the sone of His louynge:’ ‘His dear Son, Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. except Cov, (Test.), ‘Hys be- loued Sonne.’ 14. Redemption] Auth. adds ‘*through His blood.’ Our sins] ‘Sins,’ Auth, and all the other Vv. 15. Firstborn] So Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.; ‘first begotten,’ Wiel., Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen. It is appar- ently not of much moment which of these expressions is adopted, as the meaning is substantially the same. In Rom. viii. 29, Auth. adopts the former, in Rey. i. 5, the latter: in expressions of this peculiar and mystical nature it seems desirable to preserve a uniform transla- tion. Before] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘of,’ Author. and remaining Vv. This latter translation was retained ‘in ed. 1, as most inclusive; the arguments, how- ever, for the translation in the text (see notes) seem sufficiently strong to justify the alteration. 16. Because] ‘ For,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. In] So Wicel., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The things that are] ‘That are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible,’ Auth., Cran., Bish., and, with some slight variations, Wicl., Cov., Gen., Rhem.: Tynd. alone inserts ‘things,’ four times as in the text. The repetition seems to give em- phasis to the enumeration ; see notes on Eph. i. 10 ( Transl.). Have been created] ‘ Were created,’ Author., Cran., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ben made of nought,’ Wicl.; ‘ are created,’ Tynd., COLOSSIANS. Caapr. I. 17=2hy 260 for Him; “ and He is before all things, and in Him all things subsist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church ; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that in all things He might have the pre-eminence: because in Him it pleased the whole fulness of the Godhead to dwell, *° and by Him to recon- cile all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; by Him, J say, whether they be the things on earth, or the things in heaven. 21 And you also, though ye were in times past alienated and Cov. (both). presses both ‘have been’ and ‘are; there is sometimes a difficulty in know- ing which of the two to select : perhaps as a general rule (where idiom will per- mit, and there is no danger of miscon- ception) it is best to adopt the former when past time scems to come more in prominence, the latter when present ef- fects are more immediately the subject of consideration. ‘To apply this to the present case; as the former. part of the verse seems to show that the reference is perhaps more to the past than to pres- ent operations of the Divine power, these latter being more alluded to in the fol- lowing verse,—we may perhaps judi- ciously change the ‘are created’ of ed. 1 into the translation now adopted in the text. On the translation of 80 airou, see Revised Transl. of St. John, p. xiii. 17. In] So Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cran. Subsist] ‘ Consist,’ Auth. 18. Who] So Auth., Rhem., Wicl., and Cov. Test. (‘whyche’) ; ‘he is the beg.’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish. The relative translation is scarcely sufficient, as it does not fully convey the explana- tory force in the relative ‘being as He is.’ As, however, the translation in the commentary ‘seeing He is,’ though per se expressing clearly this force of ds, is perhaps somewhat too strong when placed in connection with what precedes and follows, it seems better to leave As the Greek perfect ex- , Auth. unchanged. In order that] ‘ That,’ Author. and all the other Vv. The oc- casional insertion of ‘in order’ seems useful where it is required to exhibit clearly the purpose involved in the ante- cedents. 19. Because in Him, etc.] So similarly Wicl., ‘in Hym it plesid alle plentee to enhabite ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘it hath pleased alle fulnesse of the Godheade to dwel in Hym ;’ Rhem., ‘it hath wel pleased al fulness to inhabite:’ ‘for it pleased the Futher that in Him should all fulness dwell,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. (Coverd., ‘shuld dwell all f.’). 20. Having made—cross| Auth. places this clause in the first part of the verse, immediately after ‘and.’ All the other Vy. retain the order of the Greek, but with some variations in the translation of the participle. The things on earth| ‘ Things in earth,’ Auth. The things in] ‘ Things in,’ Auth. 21. And you also| ‘ And you,’ Author. and all the other Vv. On this transla- tion of kai, see notes on Eph. ii. 1. Though ye were, etc.] Similarly Rhem., ‘whereas you were;’ compare Wiel., Cov. (Test.), ‘whanne ye weren :’ ‘that were,’ Auth. ; ‘whiche were,’ Zynd. and the remaining Vv. In times past| So Tynd., Cov., Gen. : ‘ sometime,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Understanding] So Auth. in Eph. iv. 18; ‘mind,’ Auth., and sim. remaining Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘ witte ;’ Cuap. I. 22-27, COLOSSIANS. 961 enemies in your understanding in WICKED works, yet now hath He reconciled 7 in the body of His flesh through His death, to present you holy and blameless and without charge in His sight: * if at least ye continue in the faith, grounded and stable, and without bemg moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye heard, and which was preached in the hearing of every creature which is under heaven ; whereof I Paul became a minister. 4 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and am filling fully up the lacking measures of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body’s sake, which is the church: * whereof I became a minister, according to the dispensation of God which was given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God ; 2° even the mystery which hath lain hid from the ages and from the generations, but now hath been made manifest to His saints: 7 to whom it was God’s will to make ‘by cogitation,’ Bish.: Rhem. ‘sense.’ In| So Wiel., Rhem., and, with a differ- ent construction, Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish.: ‘by,’ Author.: ‘ geuen to, ete.’ Cov. (Test.). 22. His death| ‘ Death, Auth. and all the other Vv. Blameless and without charge] ‘Unblamable and unre- provable,’ Author.; ‘unwemmed and without repreef,’ Wicl.; ‘ unblameable and without faut,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘unspotted and unblamea- ble,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘immaculate and blameless,’ Rhem. 23. If at least] ‘If,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vv. except Wicl., ‘if netheles ;’ Rhem., ‘ if yet.’ Stable} So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘settled,’ Author. ; ‘stab- lysshed,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. Without being] ‘Be not,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ unmouable.’ Heard] ‘Have heard,’ Author. and all the other Vv. In the hearing of | ‘ To,’ Auth., Genev., Bish.; ‘in al creaturis,’ Wicl. ; ‘amonge all creatures,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Rhem.; ‘among euery creature,’ Cov. (Test.). Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘am I Paul become :’ ‘am made,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 24. Now I| ‘*Who now,’ Auth. Am filling fully up|. ‘ Fill up,’ Author. ; “fille” Wiel. ; ‘fulfill,’ Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; * accom- plish,’ Rhem. The lacking measures of | ‘That which is behind of,’ Auth:, Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Bish. ; ‘ the thingis that failen of, Wiel.; ‘the thynges that are wantynge of,’ Coverd. (Test.), sim. hem. ; ‘ the rest of,’ Gen. 25. Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘am become:’ ‘am made,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Was given| So Tynd., Cranm.: ‘is given,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 26. Lain] ‘ Been,’ Author. Perhaps the slight change may better convey the force of the perf. participle. From the ages and from the gen.| ‘From ages and from gen.,’ Author., Wicl., them. ; Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., and Bish., paraphrase; ‘ from euerlastynge and the generacions,’ Cov. ('Test.). Hlath been| ‘1s,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. : 27. It was God’s will] ‘God would,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 28-II: 4. 262 known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles ; which is Christ among you, the hope of Glory: *% whom WE proclaim, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom ; that we may present every man perfect in Christ: ™ to -which end I also toil, striving according to His working, which worketh in me with power. CHA PPE R-atL. For I would have you know what great conflict I have for you, and them in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my face in the flesh ; ? that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love and unto all the riches of the full assurance of the understanding, unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, even Christ ; in whom are hiddenly all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Among (24)] So Coverd. (Test.): ‘ in,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Christ] ‘*Christ Jesus,’ Auth. 28. Proclaim] ‘ Preach,’ Author, and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘schewen.’ 29. To which end] ‘ Whereunto,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘in whiche thing,’ Wiel. ; ‘wherin,’ Zynd., Coverd. (both), Cran., Rhem. Toil] Comp. on 1 Tim. iv. 10: ‘labor,’ Auth. and all Vv. except Wicl., ‘ traueile.’ With power| Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘ by power ;”’ Rhem., ‘in power :’ ‘ mightily,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘in vertu.’ Cuapter II. 1. Would have you, etc.] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘ would have you to know ;’ Fthem., ‘ wil haue you know :’ ‘would that ye knew,’ Author., Cranm., Bish.; ‘wole that ye wite,’ Wiclif’; ‘ wolde ye knewe,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. And them) ‘ And for them,’ Auth. In] ‘ At, Auth., Wicl., Cranm., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ of,’ Tynd., Cov., Gehe. ed And as many] ‘ And Jor as many,’ Auth. 4 Now this I say, that no one may beguile you with 2. May] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘might,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Wicel., ‘that her hertis counforted.’ They being, etc.| ‘*Being knit together,’ Author. The riches] So Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘riches,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The understanding| Author. and all the other Vv. omit the article; ‘ full understond- inge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘ persuaded underst.,’ Gen. Unto] ‘ To,’ Auth.: change to preserve parallelism with the preceding eis. Full knowledge] ‘ Acknowledgment,’ Auth. ; ‘knowynge,’ Wicl.; ‘for to knowe,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen. ; ‘knowledge,’ Cov. (both), Cranm.; ‘to know,’ Bish. The juxtaposition of emlyywois and yvaous seems here to justify this translation ; comp. notes. Of God, even Christ] ‘Of God *and of the Father, and of Christ,’ Auth. 3. Hiddenly| ‘ Hid,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 4. Now] ‘ And,’ Author., Gen. ; ‘for,’ Wicl. ; ‘but,’ Coverdale (Test.), Rhem.: Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. omit. Cuap. II. 5-10. COLOSSIANS. 263 enticing speech. ° For if I am absent verily im the flesh, yet still Tam with you in the spirit, joymg wth you and beholding your order, and the firm foundation of your faith im Christ. © As then ye received Christ Jesus THE Lord, so walk ye in Him; ” rooted and being built up m Him, and being stablished in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest there shall be any one that maketh you his booty through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. °% Because IN Him doth dwell in bodily fashion all the fulness of the Godhead. 10 And ye are in Him made full; who is the head of every princi- That no one] ‘Lest *any one,’ Author. May] ‘Should,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Zhem., ‘ that no man disceyue you.’ Enticing speech] ‘ Enticing words,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘higthe of wordis ;’ Bish , ‘ per- suasion of word;’ Jthem., ‘ loftines of wordes.’ 5. If I am absent verily, etc.] ‘Though I be absent,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Yet still Iam] ‘Yet am J,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ but yetam1;’ Rhem., ‘ yet inspirit Iam :’ Wiel. omits. Joying with you] ‘ Joying,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ rejoyc- ynge.’ Firm foundation] “Stedfastness,’ Author., Coverd. (both) ; ‘sadnesse, Wiclif; ‘ stedfast fayth,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ constancie,’ Rhem. 6. As then ye] ‘ As ye have therefore,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. ( Wicl, Rhem., ‘therfor as ye han’). 7. Being built up| Auth. and all the other Vv. either omit ‘ being,’ or slightly change the construction. The insertion is an attempt to mark the difference of tense in the two participles. The true force of the tense in each case (as is sug- gested in notes in loc.) is very diseerni- ble; they had already been rooted and were now remaining so (perf.); they were being built up (pres.) — the process going on from day to day. What was underneath was firm and was remaining so; what was above was receiving con- tinual increase and accession. Being stablished] So Coverd. (Test.) : Author. and the remaining Vy. either omit ‘ being’ or slightly change the con- struction. Your faith] ‘The faith,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘the bileue;’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., ‘faith.’ 8. There shall be any one that, etc.] ‘ Any man spoil you,’ Auth., Cov., Bish. ; ‘that no man disceyue you,’ Wielif, Rhem. ; ‘eny man come and spoyle you,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘ony man deceaue you,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘lest be eny man spoyle you,’ Cran. 9. Because] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Doth dwell] ©“Dwelleth,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The introduction of the auxiliary appears to add a slight force- to the important verb xatoxe?- The principal emphasis apparently falls on év aitg@; the verb, however, both from meaning and posi- tion, is not without prominence. Tn bodily fashion] ‘ Bodily,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Rhem., ‘ corporally.’ 10. In Him made full| Sim. Rhem., ‘in Him replenished:’ ‘complete in 264 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. Il. 11-13. pality and power: “in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not wrought with hand, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ ; % having been buried with Him in your baptism, wherein ye were also raised with Him through your faith in the operation of God, who raised Him from the dead. Him,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘ filled in Him.’ Who] ‘ Which,’ Author. The otherwise unnecessary change adds here to perspi- cuity. Every] ‘ All,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 11. Ye were also circumcised] ‘ Also ye are cire.,’ Author. and the other Vv. ex- cept Rhem., ‘also you are,’ etc. A circumcision] So Coverd. (Test.), and sim. all the other Vv. (except Author.), ‘circumcision :’ Author. inserts the defi- nite article. Not wrought with hand| ‘Made without hands,’ Author., Tynd., Genev., Bish. ; ‘not made with hond,’ Wicl., Rhem. (‘by’); ‘circum. without hondes,’ Coverd.; ‘not made with handes,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘done with- out handes,’ Cran. In the putting off, etc.] ‘In putting off,’ etc, Auth. ; ‘in dispoilynge of (off),’ Wiel. ; ‘by puttinge of (off),’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish.;. ‘in robbyng of,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘for asmoch as, etc.,’ Cranm. ; ‘ in spoil- ing of,’ Rhem. ‘The insertion of the ar- ticles gives a heaviness to the sentence, but seems required to show that ev 77 amexd. is not to be regarded as modal, much less causal, as Cranm. Body of the flesh] ‘Body *of the sins of the flesh,’ Auth. In the cir- cumeision| So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Wicl., ‘in circumcision :’ ‘ by the circumcision,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘ thorow the cire.,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen.; ‘ with the cire.,’ Cov. 12. Having been buried] ‘ Buried,’ Author., Bish., Rhem.; ‘and ye ben biried,’ Wicl.; ‘being buried,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘in that ye are buried, etc.’ 18 And you also being dead in your trespasses and the Tynd. and the remaining Vy. notes on Phil. ii. 7 ( Transl.). Your baptism] ‘Baptism,’ Aath. and all the other Vy. Ye were also raised] ‘ Also ye are risen,’ Auth., and with slight variations the other Vv.: the kal, however, is rightly joined in translation with ouvnyepS. by Ti ynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Your faith] ‘Faith,’ Author. and, with some variations in construction, the other Vy. except Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem., ‘the faith.’ The personal address seems here to render the translation of the arti- cle by the possessive pronoun correct and appropriate; there are, however, many cases in which such attempts at accuracy overload and embarrass the septence; consider Romans xii. 7 sq., where, as in many other passages, it re- Compare quires much discrimination to decide: when the article has a pronominal force, and when it is merely associated with an abstract neun. In the operation] ‘Of the operation,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem. ;- ‘wrought by the operacion of,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., Gen.; ‘of God’s work- yuge,’ Cov. (Test.). On the translation of this word see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 18 : the rendering here adopted by Author. may perhaps be allowed to stand; the term ‘operation,’ though not usually a good translation, here not unsuitably representing the ‘potentia in actum se exserens’ (Caly. on Phil, iii. 21) alluded to and exemplified in the clause which follows. 13. You also] Auth. and the other Vy. omit ‘also :’ Eph. ii. 1. see, however, notes on ° Trespasses] So’ Cuap. II. 14-17 COLOSSIANS. 965 ~ uncireumcision of your flesh, He quickened together with Himself, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 1 blotting out the handwrit- ing in force against us by its decrees, which was contrary to us ; jand He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; % und stripping away from Himself principalities and powers, He made a show of them with boldness, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let not any man therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, or in the matter of an holy day, or of a new moon, or of a sab- bath; ’ which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Auth. in Eph. ii. 1, and in the present verse: ‘sins,’ Author., Coverd. (both), Bish. ; ‘ giltis,’ Wicl.; ‘synne,’ Tynd., Cran., Genev. ; ‘the offenses,’ hem. noun: the insertion of it, however, coupled with the slight change in punc- tuation, seems to clear up the construc- tion, and render the connection of He quickened| So Wicl., Cov., and sim. Ehem., ‘ did he quicken :’ ‘hath he, etc.,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Himself | ‘Him,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Us| ‘*You,’ Auth. Our trespasses] So Tynd., Cranm., Gen. (‘your’), Bish. (‘your’): ‘ trespasses,’ Author. ; ‘giltis,’ Wicl.; ‘sins,’ Coverd. (both) ; ‘ offenses,’ Z?hem. 14. Blotting out] So Author. ‘As this participle seems contemporary with the preceding, and to mark the circumstances under which the preceding aet took place, the present participle in English may be properly retained ; comp. notes on Phil. ii. 7 (Transl.). The more exact, ‘by having, etc.,’ is open to the objection of being cumbrous, and perhaps unduly modal, In force against us, etc. | ‘Of ordinances that was against us,’ Author.; ‘that writynge of decre that was agens us,’ Wiel.; ‘the handwriting that was agaynst us contained in the lawe written,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘ the hande wrytynge that was againste us of the derre,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘the handwryt- ing of ceremonies that was against us,’ Gen., Bish. (‘ordinances’); ‘the hand- writing of decrees,’ them. Hath taken| So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. Rhem.: ‘took,’ Auth, and the remaining Vy. Auth, also omits the personal pro- clauses somewhat more perspicuous. 15. Stripping, etc.| ‘ Having spoiled,’ Auth., Bish., and sim. Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., ‘spoiling ;’ ‘and hath spoyled,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vy. With boldness] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘boldely ;? Rhem., ‘ confidently :’ ‘ open- ly,’ Authorized and the remaining Ver- sions. 16. Let not, etc.] ‘ Let no man there- fore,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ therfor no man juge.’ Eating or in drinking] ‘ Meat or in drink,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.) (omits ‘in’), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘meate and drinke,’ Tynd., Cov. (‘or’), Cran., Gen. In the matter of | ‘In respect of,’ Author. ; in part of,’ Wicl., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ for pece of,’ Lynd., Cov., Cran., Gen ; ‘ina part of,’ Cov. (Test.). A new moon] ‘ The, ete.,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘neomynye.’ A sabbath] ‘Sabbath days,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; Rhem., ‘Sabotis.’ As odBBara is used with the force of a singular (Matth. xii. 1, Luke iv. 16, al.), and as the preceding terms are in the singular, it seems bet- ter to revert to that form in translation. 17. Christ’s]| So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘of Christ,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish.; ‘is in Christ,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 34 266 Christ’s. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 18=22, 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward, desiring to do at in false lowliness of mind and worshipping of the angels, intruding into the things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by: the mind of his flesh, ! and not holding fast the Head, from which the whole body by means of its joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and being knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. --- ° If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as if ye were living in the world, do ye submit to ordi- nances, 7! Handle not, nor taste, nor touch, ” (which things are all to be destroyed in their consumption), after the commandments and 18. Desiring to do it, etc.| ‘In a vol- untary humility,’ Auth. ; ‘ willynge to. teche in mekeness,’ Wicl. ; ‘ which after his awne ymaginacion walketh in the humblenes and holynes of angels,’ 7ynd., sim. Cov. ; ‘wyllynge in humblynesse,’ Cov. (Test.), hem. ; ‘by the humblenes and holynes of angels,’ Cranm.; ‘ by humblenes, and worshipping of angels,’ Gen. ; ‘in the humb. and w. of angels,’ Bish. The insertion of the epithet ‘ false,’ is only an exegetical gloss to assist the general reader. The angels] ‘ Angels,’ Auth, and all the other Vy. The insertion of the article is perhaps not a certain correction, as it may be used only to specify the genus. It seems however plausible to consider it as referring to the special class to whom this unbecoming adoration was habitually offered. The things} So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cranm., Rhem.: ‘those things,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘thinges,’ Tynd., Cov. The mind of his flesh] Sim. Wiel., with wit of his fleisch :’ Cov. (Test.), ‘in the meanynge of hys fleshe:’ Enem., ‘by the sense of his flesh :’ ‘his fleshly mind,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. (Cov., ‘his owne ’). 19. Holding fast] ‘ Holding,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘holdeth,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. The whole body] So Coverd. (both), Rhem. : ‘all the body,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. By means of its joints} ‘ By joints,’ Auth. and the other Vy. ex- cept Coverd. (Test.), ‘by knottes and jointes ;? Wicl., ‘bi boondis and join- ynges.’ Being knit together] “Knit together,’ Author., Genev., Bish. ; ‘made,’ Wiel. ; ‘and is knet together,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘ fastened together,’ Cow, (Test.); ‘compacted,’ Rhem. 20. If] ‘*Wherefore if, Auth. As if ye were living] ‘ As though living, Auth., Bish.; Wicl. (very exactly), ‘as men living;’ ‘as though ye yet lived,’ Tynd., Gen. (Cov. omits ‘yet.”) Do ye submit] ‘ Are ye subject,’ Auth. ; ‘demen ye,’ Wicl.; ‘are ye ledde with tradicions,’ Tynd., Cran., Bish. ; ‘holden with soch trad.,’ Coverd. ; ‘what do ye yet use de- crees,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘are ye bur- thened with traditions,’ Gen. ; ‘ decree,’ Ehem. The change in the text is intend- ed-to express that SoyuariCecde is here taken as in the middle voice. 21. Handle not, etc.] ‘Touch not; taste not; handle not,’ Author. and the other Vy. (Lynd. and Genev. prefix ‘ of them that say’) except Wicl., ‘that ye touche not, nether taast, nether trete with hondis the thingis ;’ Cov., ‘as when they say, touch not this, taste not that, handle not that.’ 22. Which things] ‘ Which,’ Auth. Are all] So Rhem., and in a similar col- location Cov. (Test.): ‘all are,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Coverd., ‘all these things do.’ Change made to Cuap. II. 23-1. 1. COLOSSIANS. 267 doctrines of men? * All which things have indeed the repute of wisdom in voluntary worship, and lowliness of mind, and unsparing treatment of the body, not in any thing of real value, serving only to satisfy the flesh. CHAPTER III. _ Ip then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, sitting on the right hand of God. preserve not only the order but a distinc- tion between the definite and the indefi- nite relative ; see next verse. To be destroyed, etc.| ‘To perish with the using,’ Auwthor.; ‘in to deeth by the ilkeuse,’ Wicl.; ‘perysshe with the usyng of them,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘do hurte unto men because of the abuse of them,’ Cov., —an unusually incorrect translation, es- pecially for Coverd. ; ‘do all hurte with the very use,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ perysshe thorow the very abuse,’ Cranm. ; ‘be in corruption, in abusynge,’ Dish.; ‘unto destruction by the very use,’ hem. 23. All which things| ‘ Which things,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ which.’ The repute] ‘A shew, Author., Bish., Gen., Rhem.; ‘a resoun,’ Wicl.; ‘the similitude,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘ shyne,’ Cov. (both). The definite article with ‘ repute’ seems required by usage and ordinary English idiom. Voluntary worship] Similarly Gen., ‘ vol- ontarie worshipping ;’ Bish., ‘ volunta- rie religion :’ ‘ will worship,’ Author. ; ‘veyn relegioun,’ Wicl.; ‘chosen holy- nes,’ Zynd. ; ‘chosen spirituality,’ Cov. ; “supersticion,’ Cov. (Test.), Gen., Rhem. Lowliness of mind| ‘ Humility, Author. Possibly here the epithet ‘false’ might be inserted as in ver. 18. Unsparing treatment] ‘ Neglecting,’ Auth.; ‘not to spare,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘in that they spare not,’ Tynd., Coverd. ; ‘in not sparyng,’ Coverd. (Test.), Genev., Bish. Not in any thing, etc.] Somewhat simi- larly Gen., ‘yet are of no value;’ ‘in any honor,’ Auth., Wiel., Bish., Rhem.; ‘do the flesshe no worshype,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran. ; ‘ counting it not worthy of ony honoure,’ Cov. (Test.). It will be observed (see below) that Gen. ap- proaches most nearly to the view taken in the text, but that it tacitly assumes a change of construction and an ellipsis of the verb substantive. To avoid this, and to be intelligible, we seem forced to some paraphrase like that in the text. Serving only, etc.| ‘ To the satisfying of,’ Author., and sim. the other Vy. except Gen., which thus paraphrases, ‘ but ap- perteine to those things wherwith the fleshe is crammed.’ Cuarter III. 1. [fthen] ‘If ye then,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘ therfor if ye;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘yf ye are therfore.’ Were raised together] ‘ Be risen,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem.; ‘han rise to gidre,’ Wiel. ; ‘be then rysen agayne,’ Tynd., Cranm.; ‘be risen now with,’ Coverd.; ‘are therfore rysen with,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘be rysen agayne with,’ Gen. The things that are above} So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘those things which are,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wiel., ‘the thingis that ben.’ The lighter rela- tive ‘ that’ seems here more suitable, and 268 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 2-8: ? Set your minds on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth. with Christ in God. 8 For ye died, and your life hath been hidden 4 When Gest our Life, shall be Hine then shall ye also be manifested with Him in glory. 5 Make dead then your members which are upon the earth ; for- nication, uncleanness, lustfulness, evil concupiscence, and covet- ousness, the which is idolatry : 6 for which things’ sake the wrath of God doth come on the children of disobedience; 7 among whom ye also once walked, when ye were living in these sis. accords with the translation in verse 2. On the supposed distinction between ‘that’ and ‘which,’ compare notes on EEph. i. 23 ( Transl.), and Brown, Gram. of Grammars, 11. 5, p. 293 (ed. 1). Per- haps, as a very rough rule, it may be said that ‘which’ is a little more appropri- ately used when the clause introduced by the relative tends to form a distinct and separable predication in reference to _ the antecedent ; ‘that,’ when the relative so coalesces with its concomitants as either to form with them a species of ep- ithet, or to express a predominant and prevailing, rather than an accidental ‘characteristic. Christ is, sitting] So Cov. : ‘ sitteth,’ Auth. , Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘is sitting at,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 2. Set your minds] So Cov. (Test.), and Cov. (‘minde’): ‘set your affec- tion,’ Auth, and the remaining Vy. ex- cept Wicl., ‘ sauer tho thingis;’ Bish., ‘affections’ (plural). The things that are (bis)] So Phem.: ‘things’ (bis), Auth., Bish. ; ‘tho thingis that ben aboue not tho that ben, etc.,’ Wiel., Coverd. (Test.); ‘thynges that are above, and not on thinges which are,’ Tynd., Cov. (inverts relatives), Cranm., Gen. (‘ which,’ bis). 3. Died] ‘ Are dead,’ Author. and all Vv.; see notes. Hath been] ‘Js,’ Auth. 4. Christ, our Lafe| So Cov.: Author. inserts ‘who is;’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen., 8 But Bish. insert ‘ which is ;’ Wiel., Coverd. (Test.), Zthem., ‘ yoare liif.’ Be manifested (bis)| ‘ Appear’ (bis), Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘shewe him silfe— appeare,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. The change seems neces- sary to keep up the antithesis between the céxpumra: and pavepwd7. 5. Make dead then} ‘ Mortify therefore,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘ therfor sle ye.’ Which] So Auth. and the other Vv. except Coverd, (Test.), Rhem., ‘ that,’ and Cran., ‘ erthy membres.’ Here ‘ that’ seems inexact ; the original is Ta wéAn buav Ta em) Tis Vis. Lustfulness| Similarly Rhem., ‘lust:’ ‘ inordinate affection,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘leecherie,’ Wiel. ; ‘un- naturall lust,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran. ; ‘wantonness,’ Gen. The which] ‘Which,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 6. Doth come] So Coverd. (Test.), and somewhat similarly Cranmer, ‘ useth to come:’ £ cometh,’ Author., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘cam,’ Wicel. 7. Among whom] So Cran.: ‘in the which,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish. ; ‘in whiche,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘in which thynges,’ Tynd. Once] ‘Sometime,’ Auth. Were living] ‘ Lived,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ did live.’ These sins] ‘*Them,’ Auth. 8. Do ye] ‘ Ye also,’ Auth. ; the other Vy. adopt the simple imperative form, ‘ put ye, etc.,’ but thereby somewhat ob- CaHar. III. 9-13; COLOSSIANS. 2969 Now do ye also put away from you all these ; anger, wrath, malice, railing, coarse speaking out of your mouth; ° do not lie one to another, seeing that ye have put off from you the old man with his deeds ; !° and have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of Him that created him: | where there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, Bar- barian, Scythian, bond-man, free-man ; but Curist is all, and in all, 2 Put ye on, then, as elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, lowlimess of mind, meekness, long-suffering ; 8 forbearing one another, and forgiving each other, if any man scure the connection of ka) with speis. Put away from you| So, in slightly va- ried order, Tynd., Cov., Cranm. ; Wicl., Gen., and Bish. omit ‘from you:’ ‘put off,’ Auth. ; ‘lay away,’ Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. It seems desirable to preserve a slight distinction between amé3eoSe« and amekduoduevot, ver. 9. All these] So Auth., and sim. most of the other Vv. JSish. omits ‘ these,’ but is thus very liable to be misunderstood, especially as some edd. leave out the comma that ought to separate ‘ all’ and the subst. that follows. Railing] ‘Blasphemy,’ Author., Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem.; ‘cursed speaking,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen. Coarse speaking] ‘Filthy communica- tion,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Bish. ; ‘foule word,’ Wicl. ; ‘ filthy speakynge,’ Tynd., Gen.; filthy wordes,’ Cov.; ‘ fil- thie talke,’ Rhem. 9. Do not lie] ‘Lie not,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘nyle ye lie.’ Off from you] Auth. omits ‘from you,’ and similarly the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘spuyle ye you;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘robbyng yourselves ;’ Rhem., spoiling yourselves of.’ : 10. Unto] So Rhem., and similarly Wicl., Cran., Bish., ‘in to:’ ‘in,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Ts being renewed] ‘ Is renewed,’ Auth. 11. There is no] ‘There is neither,’ Auth. And (bis)] So Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘nor,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. exeept Coverd., which omits. Bond-man, Jree-man| Similarly Wiel., ‘bonde man and fre man :’ ‘bond nor free,’ Author. ; ‘or,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘and,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; Coverd., Gen., Bish. omit ‘ nor.’ 12. Put ye] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Wiocl.: Author. and the remaining Vv. omit. The insertion of the pronoun is perhaps desirable at the beginning of a new paragraph. Then] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Elect] So Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Cranm., Gen.: ‘the elect,’ Auth., Cov., Bish., Rhem.; ‘the chosun,’ Wicl. Perhaps a more exact translation would be ‘chosen ones,’ as giving to €xAexTol its substantival force without the inaccuracy of the inserted article. Mercy] ‘*Mercies,’ Auth. Lowliness of mind| So Auth. in Phil. ii. 3: ‘humbleness of mind,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘mekenes ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘lowlinesse ;’ Rhem., ‘humil- itie.’ 13. Each other] Similarly Wiel., Cov. (Test.), both of which make a difference of translation between &AAfAwy and éav- tois (‘ech oon other—you silf,’ ‘ eche other — amonge yourselves ’) ; see notes. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 14-18. 70 have a complaint against any ; as Christ forgave you, even so doing also yourselves. -1* But over all these put on Love, which is the bond of perfectness. % And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to the which ye were also called in one body; and be ye thankful. 1° Let the word of Christ dwell within you richly, teach- img and admonishing one another in all wisdom, with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, in Grace singing in your hearts to God. “ And m every thing, whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. 18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as it should be Auth. and the remaining Vv., ‘one an- other.’ Complaint] So Cov. (Test.): ‘quarrel,’ Author. and all the remaining Vv. As] ‘ Even as,’ Auth. In the attempt to express the true participial structure, idiom seems to require the union of ‘even’ with the latter member; compare Jynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. Even so, etc.] ‘So also do ye,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘so also ye,’ Wicl.; ‘even so do ye,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘so do ye also,’ Coverd. (both) ; ‘so you also,’ Rhem. 14. But| So Coverd., Rhem.: ‘and,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish. ; Tynd., Cran. omit. Over] So, with apparently similar local force, Wicl., ‘upon :’ ‘ above,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy., some of which, as Cov. (both), ‘ above all things,’ probably here gave to ém) a decided ethical reference. These] Auth. adds ‘ things,’ and so the other Vy. Perhaps the indeterminate ‘these,’ z. e. ‘ qualities,’ ‘ principles,’ ‘ vir- tues,’ is more exact. Love] So Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran., Gen. : ‘charity,’ Author., Wicl., Bish., Rhem. See notes on 1 Tim. i. 5 (Transl.). 15. Christ] ‘*God,’ Auth. Were] ‘ Are,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Also called) Sim. Coverd., ‘called also :’ Auth. (‘which also’) and Rhem. (‘where- in also’) connect with the pronoun. 16. Within] ‘In,’ Author. and all the other Vv. Tn all wisdom] Auth. and all the other Vv. place these words after, and connect them with the adverb. With] So Cov., Rhem. : ‘in,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Hymns| Auth. prefixes ‘*and ;’ so also before ‘spiritual songs,’ but with not much critical probability. In grace] So Wicl., Rhem. : ‘ with grace,’ Auth., Cran., Bish. The change seems desirable to obviate such misunderstand- ings as Tynd., Coverd., ‘songes which have favour with them;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘graciously ;’ Gen., ‘ with a certeyn grace.’ Singing in your hearts| So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘singing with grace in,’ Author., and similarly the remain- ing Vv. It seems especially desirable here to preserve the order of the Greek, . as @5ew év rats capd. stands in distinct contrast with another and audible sing- ing. 17. And in every thing, whatsoever] ‘And whatsoever,’ Author. It seems right to preserve the slight irregularity of the original as setting forth the studied inclusiveness of the command. Jesus Christ] ‘*Lord Jesus,’ Auth. God the Father|: ‘ God *and the Father,’ Auth. Through] ‘ By,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. i 18. Your husbands] ‘ Your *own hus- Cuar. III. 19-IV. 1. in the Lord. COLOSSIANS. 271 19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not embittered towards them. * Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well-pleasing in the Lord. ™ Fathers, provoke not your children, lest they be disheartened. * Bond-servants, obey ‘in all thimgs your masters according to the flesh; not with acts of eye- service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. 3 Whatever ye do, do 7 from the heart, as to the Lord and not to men; * seeing ye know that of the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance. Serve ye the Lord Christ ; for the wrong-doer shall receive back that which he did wrong- fully ; and there is no respect of persons. CHAPTER IV. - Masters, deal out unto your servants justice and equity ; seeing ye know that ye also have a Master in heaven. bands,’ Auth. ‘Tt is fit,’ Auth. ; ‘it bihoueth,’ Wrel., Rhem.; ‘it is comly,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘it is due,’ Coverd. (Test.). 19. Embittered| ‘ Bitter,’ Auth. Towards| So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘against,’ Author., Bish. ; ‘to,’ Wiel. ; ‘unto,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 20. In the Lord] ‘*Unto the Lord,’ Auth. 21. Provoke] Auth., Coverd. (Test.), Cran., Gen., Bish. add ‘ to anger’ after ‘children.’ This scems unnecessary : as in present practice ‘ provoke,’ when used absolutely, nearly always involves the notion of ‘ anger’ or ‘ indignation.’ Disheartened| ‘ Discouraged,’ Author., Bish., Rhem.; ‘be not made febil hert- ed,’ Wicl. ; ‘be of a desperate mynde,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm.; ‘ware not feble mynded,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘cast downe their harte,’ Gen. 22. Bond-servants] ‘Servants,’ Auth., Wicl., Tynd., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ ye servants,’ Cov. (both), Cran. Acts of eyeservice] ‘ Eyeservice,’ Auth. Tt should be} and the other Vv. except Weel., ‘ seru- ynge of the iye;’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. (‘to the’). The Lord] ‘God,’ Auth. 23. Whatever] ‘*And whatsoever,’ Author. From the heart]. So Rhem.: ‘heartily,’ Auth, and the remain- ing Vy. except Wicl., ‘of wille.’ To men| ‘Unto men,’ Auth. 24. Seeing ye know] Similarly Tynd., ‘for as moche as ye knowe:’ ‘ knowing,” Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘wittynge,’ Wicl.; ‘and ye be sure,’ Cov., Cran. (omits ‘ ye’). Recompense] ‘ Reward,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ gildynge’ [giv- ing]; Rhem., ‘ retribution.’ Serve ye] ‘*¥For ye serve,’ Auth. 25. For] ‘*But,’ Auth. The wrong-doer| ‘ He that doeth wrong,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. ; ‘he that doeth injurie,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘whoso doth wronge, Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘he that doth sinne,’ Cran. Receive back] Sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘resceyue that, ete.:’ ‘receive for the © wrong which he hath done,’ Auth. COLOSSIANS. Crap. LV. 1-8 272 2 Persevere in your prayer, being watchful therein with thanks- giving ; ® withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for the sake of which I am also in bonds, ¢ in order that I may make it manifest, as T ought to speak. ° Walk in wisdom toward them which are without, buying up the time. © Let your speech be alway with grace, sea- soned with salt, so that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. 7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, our beloved brother, and faithful minister, and fellow-servant in the Lord: 8 whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that he may Carter IV. 1. Deal out] ‘ Give,’ 5. Buying up] ‘ Redeeming,’ Auth., Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘do,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. . Justice and equity| ‘ That which is just and equal,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. (Cov. Test. omits ‘ which’) except Wiel., ‘that that is just and euene.’ Seeing ye know] So Tynd.: ‘ knowing,’ Auth., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ witynge,’ Wicl. ; ‘and knowe,’ Coverd.; ‘beynge sure,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘and be sure,’ Cran. 2. Persevere in| ‘ Continue in,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ be ye bisie in ;’? Rhem., ‘ be instant.’ Your prayer] ‘In prayer,’ Author. and all the other Vv. Being watchful] Sim. Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., ‘watching:’ ‘and watch,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘and wake.’ Therein] So Coverd. (Test.): ‘in the same,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘in it.’ 8. Of the word] So Cov. (both), and sim. Wicl., ‘of word:’ ‘of utterance,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Rhem., ‘ of speech.’ For the sake of which] ‘For which,’ Auth., Wicl. ; ‘wherfore,’ Zynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘for the whyche thynge,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘for the which,’ Rhem. 4. In order that] ‘ That,’ Author. and all the other Vy. Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ agenbi- ynge,’ Wicl. ; ‘and redeme,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Genev.; ‘lose no opportunite,’ Cran. 6. So that] ‘That,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. The slight change is made to express distinctly the infin. of conse- quence, and to prevent ‘that’ being re- garded as indicative of purpose, and as a translation of tva with the subjunctive. 7. Our beloved] So Gen., and similarly Rhemish, ‘our dearest:’ ‘a beloved,’ Author. ; ‘moost dere’ (no art.), Wiel. ; ‘the deare,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘the mooste deare,’ Coverd. (Test); ‘the beloved,’ Cranm. ; ‘a dearely beloued,’ Bish. Faithful] So Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘a faithful,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen. 8. Have sent] So Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘sent.’ As Tychicus appears certainly to have been the bearer of this letter (compare notes on Phil. ii. 28, and on Philem. 2), the pres. ‘send’ was adopted in ed. 1. Our English perfect, however, seems to be used idiomatically with a similar epis- tolary reference to present time, and may thus be left unchanged. This very] ‘The same,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘this same ;”’ Cov. (Test.), ‘ therfore.’ Cuap. IV. 9-13. COLOSSIANS. 273 know your estate, and comfort your hearts; ° with Onesimus our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here. 10 Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments (if he come unto you receive him); ™ and Jesus, which is called Jus- tus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, men who have proved a comfort unto me. 12 Hpaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, saluteth you, always striving earnestly for you in his prayers, that ye may stand fast, perfect and fully assured in all the will of God. 3 For I bear him witness, that he hath much labor for you, and them that May| ‘ Might,’ Author. Change to pre- serve the ‘ succession’ of tenses. 9. Our faithful] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘our mooste beloued and faythful:’ ‘a faithful,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., moost dere and feithful ;’ Rhem., ‘ the most dere and faithful.’ Which are done] So Author., except that in the more approved editions ‘ are,’ which is necessary for the construction, is in italics, while ‘done,’ which is a mere exegetical insertion, is in the ordi- nary character. A better, but now anti- quated, translation is that of Tynd., al., ‘which are adoynge here.’ 10. Mark] So Wicel., Coverd. (Test)., Rhem.: ‘Marcus,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vv.; see notes on ch. i. 1. _ The cousin of | So Wicl., and sim. Rhem., ‘the cosin-german of :’ ‘sister’s son to Barnabas,’ Auth. and sim. Tynd. (‘ Bar- nabassis systers sonne’) and the other Vv. It seems very doubtful whether this is to be considered a mistake : it is not improbably an archaic mode of ex- pression, equivalent to the ‘ Geschwist- erkind,’ of the German. The following words are included by Auth. in a paren- thesis: this seems hardly correct; see notes. 11. Men who have proved] ‘ Which have been,’ Auth., Cranm., Bish., Rhem. ; 35 ‘that when,’ Wiel. ; ‘ which were,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. ; ‘which comforted,’ Coverd. (Test.). 12. Christ Jesus] ‘*Christ,’ Auth. Striving earnestly] Sim. Marg., ‘ striv- ing :’ ‘laboring fervently,’ Auth., Bish., and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., ‘laboreth fervently ;’ ‘bisie for you,” Wicl. ; ‘alwaye carefull,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. His prayers| Auth. omits ‘his.’ Stand fast] ‘Stand,’ Author. and all the other Vv. The addition of the epithet is useful as implying what really seems involved in the or7Te, and as also leaving the second- ary predicates reAcio: and emAnpod. more independent and emphatic. Fully assured| ‘*Complete,’ Auth. 13. Witness] Sim. Wiel., ‘ witness- ynge:’ ‘record,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. except Rhem., ‘ testimonie.’ Much labor] ‘*A great zeal,’ Auth. Them that are] So Auth., Cov. (Test.) ; the other Vy. vary: Wicl. inserts ‘ that ben’ in both clauses ; ‘them of L. and them of H.,’ Tynd., Gen., Bish. ; ‘them at L. and at H.,’ Coverd.; ‘that are of’ (in both clauses), Cranm.; ‘ that are in’ (in both clauses), Bish. ; ‘ that be at L., and that are at H.,’ Rhem. In this variety the translation of Cov. (Test.) and Auth. is, on the whole, most satis- 274 are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. physician, saluteth you, and Demas. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. IV. 14-18. M4 Luke, the beloved 15 Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. 16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. M% And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou receivedst in the Lord, that thou fulfil it. 18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. BONDS. GRACE BE WITH YOU. factory ; the insertion ‘that are,’ in the first clause, makes the meaning perfectly clear, while its omission, in the second, prevents the sentence being unduly heavy. 14. Saluteth you] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., and, in the same order, Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., ‘greteth:’ ‘greet you’ (at the end of the verse), Author., Wicl., Bish. REMEMBER MY 15. That are] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘which are,’ Auth. and the other Vv. Change to preserve a uniform translation with ver. 13. 17. Receivedst| ‘ Hast received,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘hast takun.’ 18. With you] Auth. adds ‘*Amen.’ THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. AUL, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved and fellow-laborer, ? and to Apphia our sister and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the church in thy house: ® grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 4 I thank my God, always making mention of thee in my prayers, ° hearing, as J do, of thy love and the faith, which thou hast toward the Lord, and dost show toward all the saints; ° that the communication of thy faith may become effectual unto Christ Jesus in the knowledge of every good 1. Beloved and] ‘ Beloved, and ete.,’ Auth. The comma should be removed, as nue@y apparently belongs both to aya- mT@ and cuvepy@. 2. Our sister] ‘*Our beloved Apphia,’ Auth. To Arch.| So all the Vv. except Author. and Coverd. (Test.), which omit the ‘ to.’ 8. Grace be unto you] ‘ Grace to you,’ Auth. The insertion of ‘be’ with ‘to’ or ‘unto’ is the form adopted by Auth. elsewhere in St. Paul’s Epistles. 4, Always making mention] So, in point of order, Rhem. The other Vv. differ in their mode of placing the ad- verb: Author. places it after ‘ of thee ;’ Wicl. connects it with the foregoing clause; Tynd. and the remaining Vv. insert it directly after ‘mention.’ It seems best to follow the order of the Greek, and so to retain the slight empha- sis which the position implies. 5. Hearing, as I do] ‘ Hearing,’ Auth., Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘when I heare,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen. ; ‘for so moch as I heare,’ Coverd. The participle explains the circumstances which led to the prayer being offered. The faith} So Coverd. (Test.) : ‘ faith,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Lord] ‘Lord *Jesus,’ Auth. Dost show toward] ‘And toward,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ and to;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘and unto.’ The saints| So Rhem.: ‘saints,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Wicel., ‘holi men.’ 6. Unto Christ Jesus] ‘In Chr. Jesus,’ Author., Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., and at the end of the verse. So, in point. of order, Tynd., ‘by Jesus Christ ;’ Cranm., Bish. ‘towarde J. C.;’ ‘the good that ye have in J. C.,’ Cov. ; Gen., with a transposed order, ‘ whatsoeuer good thing is in you tliroughe Christ may be knowen.’ PHILEMON. 7-14, 276 thing which isin us. 7 For I had much joy and consolation in thy love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by thee, brother. 8 Wherefore, though I have much boldness in Christ to enjoin thee that which is becoming, ° yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee. Being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a pris- oner of Jesus Christ, 1° I beseech thee for my own child Onesimus, whom I begat in my bonds; ! which in time past was to thee un- profitable, but now profitable to thee and to me; ” whom I have sent back to thee. But do thou receive him, that.is, mine own bowels; 7° whom I was purposing to retain with myself, that in thy stead he might minister unto me in the bonds of the gospel: # but without thine approval would I do nothing, that the good thou In the knowledge} Sim. Wicl., ‘in know- inge;’ Coverd. (Test.), Cranm., Bish., ‘in the knowledge ;’ hem., ‘in the ag- nition of:’ ‘by the acknowledging of,’ Auth. ; ‘thorow knowledge,’ Tynd., Cor.; Genev. changes the construction ; sce above. Us] ‘*You,’ Auth. 7. [had] ‘ *We have,’ Auth. Much] ‘ Great,’ Auth. Hearts] So Tynd., Cran., Gen.: ‘bowels,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem.; ‘entrailis,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘are hertely refreszhed,’ Cov. Have been] ‘ Are,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ restiden;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘dydreste;” Rhem., ‘ haue rested.’ 8. Have much boldness} Sim. Wiel., ‘hauyng myche trist;’ Lhem., ‘hauing great confidence :’ ‘might be bold,’ Auth., Cranm. ; ‘be bold,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘have great boldnes,’ Cov.; ‘I beynge bold,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘be much bolde,’ Bish. Enjoin thee] So Auth., following Tynd. and Gen.; an archaism which it does not seem necessary to remove. Becoming] Sim. Tynd., Cov., Gen., ‘ that which becometh the:’ ‘ convenient,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘that that perteyneth to profete,’ Wicl.; ‘that maketh matter,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘that which was thy dewtye to do,’ Cranmer; ‘that which perteyneth to the purpose,’ Rhem. 9. Thec] Auth. places a comma after ‘thee,’ and a full stop at the end of the verse ; so very similarly all the other Vy.: Wicl. (‘sithen thou art suche as, etce.’) and 2hem. (* whereas thou art such an one, etc.’) refer the to1odros dy to Philemon. 10. Own child] ‘Son,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. Begat| So Wicl., Tynd., Gen.: ‘have begotten,’ Auth, and the remaining Vy. 12. Have sent] So Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl, Coverd., ‘sente:’ see notes on Col. iv. 8 ( Zransl.). Back to thee] Author. omits ‘*to thee.’ But do, etc.] ‘ Thou therefore,’ Auth. 13. Was purposing to retain] ‘ Would have retained,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘woold with hoold,’ Wicl. ; ‘wolde fayne have retayned,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘ wolde haue kepte,’ Cov. (both); ‘ would have fayne retayned,’ Bish. Myself | ‘Me,’ Auth. and all the other Vy: Might minister] So Rhem. ; ‘might have ministered,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘schulde serve.’ 14. Thine approval] ‘ Thy mind,’ Au- thor. and the other Vv. except Wiel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ counceil.’ 15-20. PHILEMON. 271T doest should not be as it were of necessity, but. willingly. 1 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou mightest re- ceive him eternally ; no longer as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? " If therefore thou countest me a partner, receive him as myself. 18 But if he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, this set down to my account; ®I Paul have written with mine own hand, I will repay zt: that I may not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. 20 Yea, brother, may I reap profit from thee in the Lord: refresh my heart in Christ. The good thou doest] Sim. Cov. (both: Cov. Test., ‘that thou, ete.’), Cranm., ‘the good whiche thou doest;’ Tynd., ‘that good which springeth of the :’ ‘thy benefit,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ thy good,’ Wicl., Rhem. 15. Therefore] So Auth. and all the other. Vv.; and apparently with good reason, for the more usual translation, ‘for this cause,’ seems to fail in connect- ing the first and second members with sufficient closeness, unless emphasis is laid on ‘ this.’ Mightest| So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘ shouldest,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Eternally] ‘¥or ever, Author. and the other Vv. except Wiclif, ‘ withouten ende.’ 16. No longer] ‘Not now,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘now not.’ 17. If therefore] So Gen., Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘ therfor if :’ Auth., Cranm., Cov. (Test.), Bish., ‘if thou count me therefore ;’ Cov. omits. As ody has ap- parently here somewhat of an inferential tinge (see notes on Phil. ii. 28), the translation ‘ therefore ’ may be retained, and be allowed here to occupy the same position in the sentence as ody in the Greek. Countest] So Gen., and similarly as to mood, Wicl., ‘ hast ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘holdest:’ ‘count,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Bish.; ‘holde me for,’ Coverd. ; ‘take me for,’ Rhem. On the proper use of the indicative and subjunc- tive with ‘if,’ see Latham, Engl. Lang. § 614 (ed. 3), and notes on 2 Thess. iii. 14 (Zransl.). 18. But if| So Coverd. (both) : ‘if,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘for if;’ Rhem., ‘ and if,’ Hath wronged| So Auth., and in respect of the insertion of the ‘hath’ all the other Vy. This therefore may be re- garded as one of those cases in which our idiom requires the auxiliary to be inserted. If omitted, the event seems too far removed back into the past : com- pare 1 Thess. ii. 16 ( Transl.). This set down, etc.| ‘*Put that down on mine account,’ Author.; ‘arrette thou this thing to me,’ Wicl.; ‘that laye to my charge,’ Tynd., Con. (Cov. Test., ‘lay that’), Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘that impute to me,’ Rhem. It will be ob- served that six out of the nine Vy. re- tain the emphatic position of the pro- noun. 19. Written] So Rhem.: ‘ written it,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘wroot;’ Genev., Bish., ‘ written this.’ That I may not say] Very sim. Wicel., ‘ that I seie not:’ ‘al- beit, I do not say,’ Author., Gen., Bish. ; “so that Ido not saye,’ Tynd., Coverd. 278 PHILEMON. 21—25. 21 Having confidence in thy obedience I have written unto thee, knowing that thou wilt do even above what I say. 22 Moreover at the same time prepare me also a lodging: for I hope that through your prayers I shall be granted unto you. 3 Hpaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus, saluteth thee : *4 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-laborers. 5 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. (both), Cranmer; ‘not to say,’ Rhem. 20. May I reap profit from] ‘Let me have joy of,’ Auth.; ‘I schal use thee,’ Wicl. ; ‘let me enjoye the,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish. ; ‘thus shall I enjoye thee,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘1ct me obteyne this fruit,’ Gen. ; ‘graunt I may enjoy thee,’ hem. Heart] So Cov.: ‘bowels,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘entrailis.?” Christ] ‘*The Lord,’ Auth. 21. Have written] So Coverd. (both), Rhem. ; ‘wrote,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vy. Do even| * Also do, Auth., Cranm., Bish.; ‘aboue that also,’ Rhem.; the rest omit «a in trans- lation. Above what| Sim. Coverd. (Test.), ‘ above it that;’ Rhem., THE ‘above that also which:’ ‘more than,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘ ouer that that I see.’ 22. Moreover at the same time] Sim. Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., ‘moreover prepare:’ ‘but withal,’? Author.; ‘ also make thou redi,’ Wiel. ; ‘and make redy also,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘moreover prep. me also,’ Bish. ; ‘and withal,’ Rhem. Granted] ‘ Given,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ restored.’ 23. Saluteth] Sim. as to number and position Wicl., ‘gretith;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘saluteth the in Christ Jesus :’ ‘ there salute thee,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Cov., ‘ saluteth.’ 24. Spirit] Auth. adds ‘*Amen.’ END. Pe a ee aha kite Wad. Tcsirdliotie 202 ai sons Quce xr Pee reed tithe yd wire oO Hire mode ta" TARA MIe Ss cA CRONE hd 6? eet teet TT URS fit > aE A at De a } hr),2 (ERAIGIE 1 tq RoE yATS CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY ON THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. WITH A REVISED TRANSLATION. BY RT. REV. CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, D.D., LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. BOSTON: DRAPER AND HALLIDAY, NOS. 58, 60, 62, AND 64 CORNHILL. NEW YORE: HURD & HOUGHTON. PHILA.: SMITH, ENGLISH, & CO. CINCINNATI: GEO. 8. BLANCHARD « CO. 1866. ; — ms ae ; . nl . ¢ - ‘a « . 7 — t i ; t ra ; Pl t uw ‘ 4 ‘ r Z r ; 4 Ape s : f ss “eked = j : . “ , rf ; A ere Tee urinary, Sot COR Te oxi TER 2+ mJ dye 0?) isha 4 x a oe thw to Cobo om > B - . ; ns * 7.5 _ y see ae | Ae ; 7 ’ mn 2 } - a PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Tue following Commentary is substantially the same, both in principles and execution, as those on the Galatians and Ephesians. I have, however, earnestly striven, on the one hand, to introduce improvements, and, on the other, to amend defects of which time, experience, and, above all, the kind criticism of friends have not failed to convince me. I will briefly notice both. In the first place the reader will find the. substance of the grammatical references more ‘fully stated in the notes, while at the same time care has been taken to modify and repress the use of technical terms, as far as is con- sistent with the nature of the Commentary. I confess I cannot yet persuade myself that the use of technical terms in grammar, independently of sub- serving to brevity, does not also tend to accuracy and perspicuity ; still so many objections have been urged by judicious advisers, that I have not failed to give them my most respectful attention. This modification, how- ever, has been introduced with great caution; for the exclusion of all tech- nical terms would not only be wholly inconsistent with the lex operis, but would be certain to lead the way to a rambling inexactitude, which in gram- mar, as in all other sciences, can never be too scrupulously avoided. I have also endeavored, as far as possible, to embody in the notes the sen- timents and opinions of the dogmatical writers, more especially those of the great English Divines to whom I have been able to refer. Yet here again this has been subordinated to the peculiar nature of the Commentary, which, to be true to its title, must mainly occupy itself with what is critical and grammatical, and must in other subjects confine itself to references and allusions. Still, as in the preface to the Ephesians, so here again, let me earnestly entreat my less mature readers not to regard as the mere biblio- graphical embroidery of a dull page the references to our English Divines. IV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. They have all been collected with much care ; they are nearly in every case the aggregations of honest individual labor, and if they prove to. the student half as beneficial and instructive as they have been to the collector, they will not have been adduced in vain. Let us never forget that there is such a thing as the analogy of Scripture ; that it is one thing generally to unfold the meaning of an individual passage, and another to do so consistently with the . general principles and teaching of Scripture. The first may often be done with plausible success by means of acuteness, observation, and happy intui- tions; the second, independently of higher aids, is only compatible with some knowledge of dogmatical theology, and some acquaintance with those masterpieces of sacred learning which were the glory of the seventeenth century. On verifying these references, the allusion to the individual pas- sage of Scripture will, perhaps, sometimes be found brief and transient, but there will ever be found in the treatise itself, in the mode that the subject is handled, in the learning with which it is adorned, theology of the noblest development, and, not unfrequently, spiritual discernment of the very highest strain. With many deductions, the same observations may in part apply to the dogmatical treatises of foreign writers referred to in the notes. Several recent works on +Christian doctrine, as enunciated by the sacred writers, whether regarded individually or collectively, appear to deserve both recog- hition and consideration. I would here specify the dogmatical works of Ebrard and Martensen, the Pflanzung und Leitung of Neander, and the Théologie Chrétienne of Reuss, a work of no mean character or pretensions. By the aid of these references, I do venture to think that the student may acquire vast stores both of historical and dogmatical theology, and I dwell especially upon this portion of the Commentary, lest the necessarily frigid tone of the critical or grammatical discussions should lead any one to think that I am indifferent to what is infinitely higher and nobler. To expound the life-giving Word coldly and bleakly, without supplying some hints of its eternal consolations, without pointing to some of its transcendent perfections, its inviolable truths, and its inscrutable mysteries,— thus to wander with closed eyes through the paradise of God, is to forget the expositor’s highest duty, and to leave undone the noblest and most sanctifying work to which human learning could presume to address itself. Among semi-dogmatical treatises, I would earnestly commend to the atten- tion of grave thinkers the recent contributions to Biblical Psychology which are occasionally alluded to in the notes (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16). Without needlessly entrammelling ourselves with arbitrary systems, without yielding too prone an assent to quasi-philosophical theories in a subject that involves much that is equivocal or indemonstrable, it-seems still our duty to endeavor / PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vv to grasp the general principles of psychology, which appear to have been recognized by the sacred writers, and to realize those aspects under which they viewed the parts and portions of our composite nature. No thoughtful man, after reading Philo, and observing how deeply psychological specula- tions, sufficiently consistent and harmonious, give their tinge to his writings, could hesitate to believe that a contemporary, at least as well educated as the Jew of Alexandria, elevated by a higher consciousness, and illumined by a truer knowledge, both thought and wrote on fixed principles, and used lan- guage that is no less divinely inspired than humanly consistent and intelligi- ble. It is but a false or otiose criticism that would persuade us that the terms with which St. Paul designated the different portions of our immaterial nature were vague, uncertain, and interchangeable; it is indeed an idle assertion that Biblical Psychology can be safely disregarded by a thoughtful expositor. A slight addition has been made to the purely critical notices. As in the former Commentaries, the Text is that of Tischendorf, changed only where the editor did not appear to have made a sound decision. These changes, as before, are noted immediately under the text. In addition to this, however, in the present case, brief remarks are incorporated in the notes, apprizing the reader of any variations in the leading critical editions which may seem to deserve his attention. An elementary knowledge of Sacred Criticism can never be dispensed with, and it is my earnest hope that the introduction of criticism into the body of the notes may be a humble means of presenting this subject to the student in a form somewhat less repulsive and forbidding than that of the mere critical annotation. Separate notes of this kind are, I fear, especially in the case of younger men, systematically disregarded ; when, however, thus incorporated with grammatical and philological notices, when thus giving and receiving illustration from the context with which they are surrounded, it is my hope that I may decoy the reader into spending some thoughts on what seem to be, and what seem not to be, the words of Inspiration, on what may fairly claim to be the true accents of the Eternal Spirit, and what are, ouly too probably, the mere glosses, the figments, the errors, or the perversions of man. Possibly a more interesting addition will be found in the citations of authorities. I have at last been enabled to carry out, though to a very lim- ited extent, the long cherished wish of using some of the best Versions of antiquity for exegetical purposes. Hitherto, though I have long and ‘deeply felt their importance, I have been unable to use any except the Vulgate and the Old Latin. I have now, however, acquired such a rudimentary knowl- edge of Syriac, and in a less degree of Gothic, as to be able to state some of the interpretations which those very ancient and venerable Versions present. VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. The Latin, the Syriac, and the Gothic have been somewhat carefully com- pared throughout these Epistles. I know that my deficiency in the two latter languages will be plainly apparent, and I seek in no way to disguise it; this only I may be permitted to say, in justice to myself, that the Latin inter- pretations annexed to the words are not borrowed from current translations, but are fairly derived from the best glossaries and lexicons to which I have had access. Mistakes I know there must be, but at any rate these mistakes are my own. These it is perhaps nearly impossible for a novice to hope to escape; as in both the Syriac and Gothic, but more especially the former, the lexicographical aids are not at present of a character that can be fully relied on. And it is here that, in the application of ancient Versions, the greatest caution is required. It is idle and profitless to adduce the interpre- ‘tation of a Version, especially in single words, unless the usual and current meaning of those words is more restricted or defined than in the original. Half the mistakes that have occurred in the use of the Peshito, — mistakes from which the pages of scholars like De Wette are not wholly free, are referable to this head. It is often perfectly apparent that the partial inter- pretation supplied by the Latin translation appended to the Version, has caused the Version itself to be cited as supporting some restricted gloss of the original Greek words, while in reality the words both in the original and in the Version are of equal latitude, and perhaps both equally indetermi- nate. This error I have especially endeavored to avoid; but that I have always succeeded is far more than I dare hope. In thus breaking ground in the ancient Versions, I would here very ear- nestly invite fellow-laborers into the same field. It is not easy to imagine a greater service that might be rendered to Scriptural exegesis than if scholars would devote themselves to the hearty study of one or more of these Ver- sions. I dwell upon the term scholars, for it would be perhaps almost worse than useless to accept illustrations from a Version, unless they were also associated with a sound and accurate knowledge of the original Greek. This applies especially to the Syriac ; and the remark is of some moment; for it is now a common opinion among many Oriental scholars, that the lan- guage of the New Testament is yet to receive, in a mere grammatical point of view, its most complete illustration from Syriac. That there are some points of similarity, no student in both languages could fail to observe ; but it may be seriously doubted whether one-tenth of the suspected Syriasms of the New Testament are not solely referable to the changing and deteriorated constructions of later Greek. To accumulate Syriac illustrations, which may only serve to obscure or supersede our accurate study of later Greek, is a very doubtful, and perhaps profitless, application of labor. ~ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vit Under these, and perhaps a few other, limitations, the study of the ancient Versions for exegetical purposes may be very earnestly recommended. The amount of labor will not be very formidable, and in some cases we have fair, if not good, literary appliances. There seems good reason for not going beyond the Syriac, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Coptic, and the Ethiopic. The remaining Versions are of doubtful vaiue. The Arme- nian, though so much extolled, is said to have undergone no less serious than unsatisfactory alterations. The Arabic Versions are of very mixed origin ; the Slavonic is late; the Georgian has been but little used, and is deemed to be of no great value; the Persian and Anglo-Saxon, as far as they extend, are not free from suspicion of dependence, the one on the Syriac, the other on the Vulgate. For the present, at any rate, the Syriac, Old Latin, Vul- gate, Gothic, Coptic, and Ethiopic are all that need demand attention. Most of these are rendered perfectly accessible by the labors of recent scholars. The Syriac has been often reprinted ; grammars in that language are com- mon enough, but the Lexicons are but few and unsatisfactory The Old Latin I fear is only accessible by means of the large work of Sabatier, or Tischendorf’s expensive edition of the Codex Claromontanus. The Gothic, independently of not being at all difficult to the German or Anglo-Saxon scholar, has been admirably edited. In addition to the very valuable edition of De Gabelentz and Loebe, and the cheap Latin transla- tion of that work in Migne’s Patrology, there is the available edition of Massmann, to which, as in the case of the larger work of De Gabelentz and Loebe, a grammar, and perhaps glossary, is to be added. In addition to the lexicon attached to De Gabelentz and Loebe’s edition, we have also the Glossary of Schulze (Magdeb. 1848) both, as far as my very limited experi- ence extends, works constructed on sound principles of philology. In the Coptic there is a cheap and portable edition of the Epistles by Boetticher ; and, with the Grammar by Tattam, and the Lexicon by the same author, or the Glossary by Peyron, it is not very probable that the student will encounter much difficulty. Of the Ethiopic, at present, I] know nothing; an early edition of this version will be found in Walton’s Polyglott ; the Latin translation has been re-edited by Bode, and the original Version edited in a very excellent way by Mr. Platt. An Ethiopic Grammar is announced by Dillman, but I should fear that there is no better lexicon than that of Cas- tell? The study of this language will be perhaps somewhat advanced by a forthcoming pentaglott edition of Jonah (Williams and Norgate), which is to include the Ethiopic, and to have glossaries attached. 1 It is said that Professor Bernstein has for some time been engaged in the preparation of a new Syriac Lexicon, but I cannot find out that it has yet appeared. 2 See, however, preface to the Commentary on the Philippians. etc., p. vii. Vill PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. I sincerely trust that these brief notices may tempt some of our Biblical scholars to enter upon this important and edifying field of labor. The notes to the Translation will be found a little more full (see Introduc- tory Notice), and, as the subject of a Revised Translation is now occupying considerable attention, a little more explicit on the subject of different ren- derings and the details of translation generally. With regard to this very important, subject, the revision of our Authorized Version, I would fain here make a few observations, as I am particularly anxious that my humble efforts in this direction should not be misinterpreted or misunderstood. What is the present state of feeling with regard to a revision of our present Version? It seems clear that there are now three parties among us. The first, those who either from what seem seriously mistaken views of a translation of the Holy Scripture, or from sectarian prejudice, are agitating for a new Translation. The second, those who are desirous for a revision of: the existing Version, but who somewhat differ in respect of the proposed alterations, and the principles on which they are to be introduced. The third, those who from fear of unsettling the religious belief of weaker breth- ren are opposed to alterations of any kind; positive and demonstrable error in the representation of the words of Inspiration being in their judg- ment less pernicious than change. Of these three parties the first is far the smallest in point of numbers, byt the most persistent in activities; the second’ class is daily increasing, yet at present greatly inferior both in numbers and influence to the third. Which of these three parties will prevail? We may fervently trust not: the first. Independently of the extreme danger of unsettling the cherished: | convictions of thousands, of changing language that has spoken to doubting or suffering hearts with accents that have been to them like the voice of God himself, — independently of reversing a traditional principle of revision that has gained. strength and reception since the days of Tyndale, —inde- pendently of sowing.a strife in the Church of which our children and chil- dren’s children may reap the bitter fruits,— independently of all these momentous considerations, — have we any good reason for thinking that, in a mere literary point of view, it would be likely to be an improvement on the Old Translation? The almost pitiable attempts under the name of New Translations that have appeared in the last twenty years, the somewhat low state of Biblical scholarship, the diminished and diminishing vigor of the popular language of our day, are facts well calculated to sober our expecta- tions and qualify our self-confidence. But.are we unreservedly to join the third party? God forbid. If we are truly and heartily persuaded that there are errors and inaccuracies in our Version, if we know that though by far the best and most faithful translation PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX” that the world has ever seen, it still shares the imperfections that belong to every human work, however noble and exalted,— if we feel and know that these imperfections are no less patent than remediable, then surely it is our duty to Him who gave that blessed Word for the guidance of man, through evil report and through good report, to labor by gentle counsels to supply what is lacking and correct what is amiss, to render what has been blessed with great measures of perfection yet more perfect, and to hand it down, thus marked with our reverential love and solicitude, as the best and most blessed heritage we have to leave to them who shall follow us. It is in vain to cheat our own souls with the thought that these errors are either insignificant or imaginary. There are errors, there are inaccuracies, there are misconceptions, there are obscurities, not indeed so many in num- ber or so grave in character as the forward spirits of our day would persuade us of, — but there are misrepresentations of the language of the Holy Ghost, and that man who, after being in any degree satisfied of this, permits him- self to lean to the counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness, or who, intellectually unable to test the truth of these allegations, nevertheless per- mits himself to denounce or deny them, will, if they be true, most surely at the dread day of final account, have to sustain the tremendous charge of having dealt deceitfully with the inviolable Word of God. But are we to take no thought of the weaker brethren, whose feelings may be lacerated, or whose conscience may be offended, by seeming innovations ? That be far from us. We must win them by gentle wisdom; we must work conviction in their minds by showing how little, comparatively speaking, there is that is absolutely wrong, — how persuasively it may be amended, — how we may often recur to the expressions of our older Versions, and from those rich stores of language, those treasuries of pure and powerful English, may find the very rectification we would fain adopt, the very translation we are seeking to embody in words. No revision of our Authorized Version can hope to meet with approval or recognition that ignores the labors of those wise and venerable men who first enabled our forefathers to read in their own tongue of the marvellous works and the manifold wisdom of God. Let there be then no false fears about a loving and filial revision of our present Version. If done in the spirit and with the circumspection that marked the revision of that:predecessor to which it owes its own origin and existence, no conscience, however tender, either will be or ought to be wounded. Nay, there seems intimation in their very preface that our last translators expected that others would do to them as they had done to those who had gone before them; and if they could now rise from their graves and aid us by their counsels, which side would they take ? Would they stay our hands if they saw us seeking to perfect their work ? Would they not 6 xX PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. rather join with us, even if it led sometimes to the removal or dereliction of the monuments of their own labor, in laying out yet more straightly the way of divine Truth ? . . How this great work is to be accomplished in detail is not for such a one as me to attempt to define. This only I will say, that it is my honest convic- tion that for any authoritative revision we are not yet mature, either in Bib- lical learning or Hellenistic scholarship. There is good scholarship in this country, superior probably to that of any nation in the world, but it has cer- tainly not yet been sufficiently directed to the study of the New Testament (for of the New Testament only am I now speaking) to render any national attempt at a revision either hopeful or lastingly profitable. Our best and wisest course seems to be this, —to encourage small bands of scholars to make independent efforts on separate books, to invite them manfully to face and court impartial criticism, and so by their very failures to learn practical wisdom, and out of their censors to secure coadjutors, and by their partial successes to win over the prejudiced and the gainsaying. If a few such attempts were to be made, and they were to meet with encouragement and sympathy, such a stimulus would be given to Biblical studies that a very few years would elapse before England might be provided with a company of wise and cunning craftsmen, into whose hands she might hopefully confide her jewel of most precious price. A single word only with regard to the translation which accompanies this volume. It is exactly similar in principles and construction to the former attempts, — attempts made at a time when the question of a revision of the Authorized Version had been but little agitated. It lays no presumptuous claim to be a sample of what an authoritative revision ought to be. It is only the effort of a fallible and erring man, striving honestly and laboriously, and on somewhat fixed principles, to present to a few students of his own time a version for the closet, a version possibly more accurate than that which it professes to amend, yet depending on it and on the older Versions for all the life and warmth with which it may be animated or quickened. The time and pains I have bestowed on this translation are excessive, and yet in the majority of corrections 1 feel how little cause I have for satisfaction. . - Lastly, with regard to the Epistles themselves now. before. us, it remains only to commend them to the reader’s most earnest and devout attention. They are distinguished by many peculiarities of language, and many singu- larities of expression, and are associated together by an inter-dependence of thought that is noticeable and characteristic. They seem all composed at a time when the earthly pilgrimage of the great Apostle was drawing to its close, and when all the practical wisdom of that noble and loving heart was / PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XI spread out for the benefit of his own children of the faith, and for the edifi- cation of the Church in all ages. On the question of their genuineness, — without entering upon investigations which would be foreign to the nature of this Commentary, it will not be, perhaps, presumptuous to say that a very careful study of their language and turns of expression has left on my mind a most fixed and most unalterable conviction that they came from no other hand and heart than those of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and that it seems hard to understand how accomplished scholars, like De Wette, could so decid- edly maintain the contrary hypothesis. This conviction, however, has never prevented me from freely and frankly calling attention to all the peculiarities in thoughts, words, and expressions which characterize the three Epistles, but which, nevertheless, when viewed in connection with the age and expe- riences of the sacred writer, and the peculiar nature of the errors he was opposing, can cause neither surprise nor difficulty. In the present Commentary I am much less indebted to the labors of my predecessors than in the two former Epistles. - The commentary of Huther, except in the Prolegomena, is a sad falling off, after the able and scholarlike expositions of Meyer. De Wette, owing to his doubts about the authorship, is often perplexed and unsatisfactory. I have derived benefit from the com- mentary of Wiesinger, which, though somewhat prolix, and deficient in force and compression, may still be heartily commended to the student. The commentary of Leo is mainly sound in scholarship, but not character- ized by any great amount of research. The commentary on the second Epistle to Timothy was written some years after that on the first, and is a noticeable improvement. The commentaries of Mack, Matthies, and Hey- denreich (of whom, however, I know very little), are useful in examples and illustrations, but perhaps will hardly quite repay the labor of steady perusal. Something less may be said of Flatt and Wegscheider. The Danish com- mentary of Bp. Moller is brief and sensible, but lays no claim to very crit- ical scholarship. I have made far more use of the extremely good commen- tary of the distinguished Hellenist, Coray. It is written in modern Greek, under the somewhat curious title of SuvékSmos ‘Ieparixds (Vade-mecum Sa- crum), and, with the exception of the somewhat singular fact that’ Coray seems only to have known the Greek commentators through the medium of Suicer, shows very extensive reading, and generally a very sound judgment. It is very remarkable that this able commentary, though more than five-and- twenty years before the world, should have attracted so little attention. As far as my observation extends, it is not referred to by any English or foreign commentator, and there are not many expositions on this group of epistles that more thoroughly deserve it. These, with the Patristic commentators, the able Romanist expositors, XII PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Justiniani, Cornelius a Lapide, and Estius, and a few other writers noticed in the preface to the Epistle to the Galatians, are the principal authorities which I have used in the present Commentary. I now commit this volume to the reader, with the humble prayer to Almighty God that He may vouchsafe to bless this effort to expound and illus- trate a most vital and most consoling portion of His holy Word; may He pity the weakness and forgive the errors of His servant. TPIAS, MONA, EAEHZON. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. THE second edition of the Epistles contained in this volume has been thus long delayed, that it might not appear before the reader till the interpreta tions advanced in the first edition had been fully and maturely considered, with reference to the opinions of more recent interpreters. The result of the revision is but a very slight amount of change in the interpretations formerly proposed,! and, it may not perhaps be improper to add, an increasing confidence in a system of interpretation which has thus apparently stood the test of the rigorous and lengthened reconsideration to which its details have been subjected in the preparation of this edition. Though substantial change has been thus slight, it will still be found that improvements and slight additions appear on nearly every page, and that the edition has some claim to be entitled, revised and enlarged. I may briefly specify that the references to ancient Versions are increased, that the gram- matical notices? are occasionally expanded, and that the references, espec- ially to Scripture, have been nearly all verified anew. Mistakes in this last- mentioned portion of the work, due perhaps less to the printer than to the wearied eye of the writer, may, I fear, still be found; but I trust it will be at wide intervals, and only to such an extent as may admit of easy rectification. For further details and comments I may now refer to the Preface to the first edition of this Commentary, and to the Preface to the second edition of the Commentary on the Ephesians, where the general standard which I have latterly attempted to reach is more fully stated. To this standard each suc- ceeding volume has naturally tended to approach somewhat more nearly 1 The only passages, I believe, in which any substantial change of opinion occurs are as follows, 1 Tim. vi. 4 (reading; epeis for pts); yi. 10; 2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 2. 21 may here remark that all the references to Winer’s Grammar have been altered and conformed to the lamented author’s 6th and last edition. XIV. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. than that which preceded it. What was once almost purely critical and grammatical has now confessedly become also exegetical; yet still to no further extent than to enable the student to grasp the general connection of the holy and inspired Original, as well as to understand the force of isolated words and expressions. May God’s blessing go with this volume, and mercifully enable it, in these our days of doubt and trial, to minister to the Truth as it is in His Blessed Son, and, in its humble measure and degree, to set forth the blessed teachings and warnings and consolations of the inspired and saving Words of Life. CAMBRIDGE, May, 1861. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. aie ik gateveied INTRODUCTION. THE date and general circumstances under which this and the accom- panying Epistles were written have long been the subjects of discussion and controversy. As our opinion on these points must first be stated, it may be said briefly, — (a) that when we duly consider that close connection in thought, subject, expressions, and style which exists between the First Epistle to Timothy and the other two Pastoral Epistles, it seems in the highest degree incredible, that they could have been composed at intervals of time widely separated from each other. When we further consider (0) the almost insuperable difficulty in assigning any period for the composition of this group of Epistles in that portion of the Apostle’s life and labors included in the Acts; (c) the equally great, or even greater, difficulty in harmonizing the notes of time and place in these Epistles with those specified in the Apostle’s journeys as recorded by St. Luke; and add to this the important subsidiary arguments derived from (d) the peculiar and developed character of the false teachers and false teaching alluded to in these Epistles (1 Tim. i. 4 sq.; iv. 1 sq.; vi. 3 sq.; 2 Tim. ii. 16 sq.; ili. 6 sq.; iv. 4; Titus i. 10 sq.; iii. 9 sq.), and from (e) the advanced state of Church organization which they not only imply but specify (1 Tim. iii. 1 sq.; v. 3 sq-; Titus i. 5 sq.; ii. 1 sq.), it seems plainly impossible to refuse assent to the ancient tradition that St. Paul was twice imprisoned at Rome (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 11. 2), and further to the simple, reasonable, and highly natural opinion that the First Epistle to Timothy and the other two Epistles which stand thus closely associated with it are to be assigned to the period between these two imprisonments. : 3 XVIII INTRODUCTION. This being premised, we may now express the opinion that the present Epistle to Timothy was written by the Apostle towards the close of the above-mentioned period (perhaps A. D. 66 or 67), while he was passing through Macedonia (ch. i. 3), after a probable journey to Spain (Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, Vol. 1. p. 548, ed. 2) and a return to Ephesus (comp. ch. i. 3), at which city he had left Timothy in charge of the local church. The object of the Epistle may be clearly inferred from ch. i. 3, 4, and iii. 14, 15, and may be roughly defined as twofold; first, to exhort Timothy to counteract the developing heresies of the time, and secondly, to instruct him in all the particulars of his duties as overseer and Bishop of the important Church of Ephesus. With this design the contents of the Epistle, which are very varied and comprehensive, have been well shown by Dr. Davidson to accord in all respects most fully and completely ; see Introduction, Vol. IIL. p: 39 sq., where the student will also find a good summary of the contents of the Epistle. In reference to the genuineness and authenticity of this Epistle, with which that of the other Pastoral Epistles is intimately connected, we may briefly remark, (a) that there was never any doubt entertained in the ancient Church that these Epistles were written by St. Paul (see the testimonies in Lardner and Davidson), and (0) that of the objections urged by modern scepticism, the only one of any real importance —the peculiarities of phrases and expressions (see Huther, Einleitung, p. 50, and the list in Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, Vol. 11. p. 663 sq. ed. 2) — may be so com- pletely removed by a just consideration of the date of the Epistles, the pecu- liar nature of the subjects discussed, and the plain, substantial accordance in all main points with the Apostle’s general style (admitted even by De Wette), that no doubt of the authorship ought now to be entertained by any calm and reasonable enquirer: see the very elaborate and able defence of Davidson, Introduction, Vol. 111. p. 100 sq. THE FIRST EPISTLE TQ TIMOTHY. CHA ETS EL. Apostolic address and salutation. AYAOX amoctor0s Xpictod ’Insod, Kar éritaynv Oeod cwripos jyav Kat 1. amédortodAos X, “I1.] ‘an Apostle of Jesus Christ;’ an Apostle (in the higher and more especial sense, see notes on Gal. i. 1, and on Eph. iv. 11), who not merely derived his commission from, but belonged to Christ (gen. poss.) as His minister and servant; see notes on Eph. i. 1. The use of this formal designation does not seem intended merely to support the authority of Tim- othy (Heydenr.), or to imply a destina- tion of the Epistle for others (Calvin), or for the Church at large (compare Bp. Moller), but simply to define and main- tain the true nature of the document. As this epistle may be most naturally regarded as an official letter, the Apostle appropriately designates himself by his solemn and official title: comp. 2 Tim. i. 1 sq., and esp. Tit. i. 1 sq., where this seems still more apparent. In Philem. 1, on the other hand, the Apostle, in exquisite accordance with the nature and subject of that letter, styles himself simply d¢cpt0s Xpiorov "Inood; see notes in loc. kat émwitayhyv Ocod| ‘according to the commandment of God ;’ not simply equivalent to the customary dia SeAjpatos Ocod (1 and 2 Cor.i. 1, Eph. i. 1, Col. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1; comp. Moller), but pointing ‘more precisely to the immediate antecedents of the Apos- tle’s call (the émtayy was the result of the 3€Anua), and thus perhaps still more serving to enhance the authoritative na- ture of his commission: see Tit. i. 3, and comp. Rom. xvi. 26, the only other passages where the expression occurs. cwTHpos nua@v| ‘our Saviour ;’ not merely in reference to His preserving and sustaining power (compare Zevs cwThp, etc.), but to His redeeming love in Christ, more distinctly expressed, Jude 25, cwrhpt quay oid I. X. (Tisch, Lachm.) ; compare 2 Cor. v. 19, and see Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 9, Vol. 11. p. 98. This designation of God is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. ii. 3, iv. 10, Tit. i. 3, ii. 10, iii. 4), Luke i. 47, and Jude 25, but is sufficiently common in the LXX, e.g. Psalm. xxiv. 5, Isaiah xii. 2, xlv. 15, 21. Its grammatical connection with @eds is slightly diversi- fied in the N. T.: in 1 Tim.iv. 10 cwthp (19) 20 Nike! sl iu O04 bal & Cae Cuap. I. 2, Xpiotov ‘Inood ris €dsridos huov, * TywoSéo ywnoio téxvm év TIOTEL. "Incobd tod Kupiov pyar. is added epexegetically in the relative clause, @ep és éorw owthp; in Luke i. c., here, and Jude 25, it stands in sim- ple, or what is termed parathetic apposi- tion (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 57.9) to @eds, —in the first passage with, in the two latter without, the article. In all the other places the formula is 6 cwrhp quay @eds; the tenor of the sentence (esp. 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4) probably suggesting the prominence of the appellation. Accord- ing to Huther, the anarthrous owryp jpay is here an adjectival apposition appended to @eod, while in Luke-/. c. (7@ owr7pi pov), the article marks it as a.substantive. This is very doubtful; the usage of Attic Greek in similar cases seems here correctly maintained ;— if the name of the deity have the article, the appellation has it also; if the former be anarthrous, so usually is the latter; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 8. 10. THS €AmL50s Huey] ‘our Hope,’ — not merely the object of it (Leo), nor the author of it (Flatt), but its very sub- stance and foundation ; ‘in eo solo resi- det tota salutis nostre materia,’ Calv.: see Col. i. 27, Xpictds ev tyiv, h éAms vis Sdéns, and comp. Eph. ii. 14, adrds yap éoTw % ciphyn jay, where (see notes) the abstract subst. must be taken in a sense equally full and comprehen- sive. The same expression occurs in Ignat. Trail. 2. 2. Tiwodsé@ u.7.A.] ‘to Timothy my true child” There is no necessity to supply xalpey; for, as Moller. rightly obseryes, the following wish forms really part of the salutation. It is best, in accordance with the punctuation adopted in the former Epp., to place a period after mlore:; for although in St. Paul’s salutations, with the exception of this passage, 2 Tim. i. 2, and Tit. i. 4, the / EX, > / > \ n \ \ lal Kapis, €deos, elpnvn amo Oeov tatpos Kai Xpiotod resumption is made more apparent by the insertion of iyiy after xdpis, yet this appears to have arisen either from the plurality of the persons saluted (e.g. Phil., Philem.) or the generic expression (7H éxxAnoig 1 and 2 Thess. i. 1, rais exxAnotas Gal. i. 2) under which they are grouped. Here the resumptive pro- noun would be unnecessary. On the’ form of salutation see notes on Gal. i. 4 and Eph. i. 2. év mlare.| ‘in (the) faith,’ ‘in the sphere of Christian faith ;”? not to be connected merely with yvnol» (a grammatically admissible, though not natural connection; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 124), or merely with téxvm (compare Alf.), but with the compound idea yvnclw téxvw. Every part of the appositional member has thus its complete significance: 7 ékv@ denotes the affectionate (1 Cor. iv. 17, TéKvov ayanntdv), 2s well as spiritual (Philem. 10) nature of the connection ; yvnolw (not ‘dilecto,’ Vulgate, but 1c [true] Syr.; joined with dvtws éy, Plato, Politic. p. 293, and opp. to véos, Philo, Somn. 11. 6, Vol. 1. p. 665, ed.’ Mang.) specifies the genuineness and reality of it (Phil. iv. 3),—7hv axpip7 kal brép tovs HAAoUs mpds adtdy dpo.d- tyta, Chrys.; évy mfore: marks the sphere in which such a connection is alone felt and realized,— more gener- ally, but not less suitably (De W.), ex- pressed by xara xownhy mloriv, Tit. i. 4. — ér€os] The addition of this substantive to the usual form of salutation, xdpis rad eiphyn, is peculiar to the Pastoral Epp. (Tit. i. 4, Rec., Lachm., is however doubtful) ; see 2 John 3, and Jude 2. It here probably serves to individualize, and to mark the deep and affectionate interest of the Apostle in his convert ; Cuap. I. 3. I exhort thee to abide still in Ephesus, and to repress aT MO EY. 21 ° Kaos mapexddecd oe mpocpeivar év teachers of other doctrine and would-be teachers of the law: the law is not for the righteous, but for open sinners and opponents of sound doctrine, as the spirit of the Gospel shows. kal TodTo dmb ToAAs giAooTopyias, Chrys. : see notes on Eph. i. 2. 3. kades] ‘Even as;’ protasis, to which there is no expressed apodosis (neither at ver. 5, nor ver. 18, Beng.), but to which the obvious and natural one, obtw kal viv mapaxaA@ (comp. ch. ii. 1), can easily be supplied; see Winer, Gr. § 63. 1, p. 503, where there is a good list of the imaginary parentheses in St. Paul’s Epp. All other explanations, whether by an interpolation before iva (‘ita facito,’ Erasm.), or by an arbi- trary change of reading (mpoopeivas, — Schneckenb. Beitr. p, 183), seem forced and unsatisfactory. TapekdAcca| ‘I besought,’ Auth. Ver.: &kove 7d mpoon- vés....00 yap cimev? émétata, ovde €xeAcvoa, ovde, Taphvera, GAAG TL; Tmape- kdAeod, oe, Chrys.; compare Philem. 8, mappnolay Exwy émirdooew — waddAov Ta- paxradkd@. The above comment is cer- tainly not invalidated by Titus i. 5 (Huther) ; for there the use of dreratd- “nv was probably suggested by the spe- cific instructions which follow the general order. It may be observed, however, that mapakad@ is a word of most frequent occurrence in St. Paul’s Epp., being used above fifty times, and with varying shades of meaning (comp. notes on Eph. iv. 1, 1 Thess. v.11), while of the other words mentioned by Chrys., one only (€merdoow) is used by the Apostle, and that only once, Philem. /.c. No undue stress, then (‘recommended,’ Peile), should be laid in translation. mpogpetvat| ‘to abide still, ‘tarry on,’ ‘ut permaneres,’ Beza; certainly not, in an ethical sense, ‘to adhere to a plan’ (Paulus),— an interpretation framed only to obviate supposed historical diffi- culties : see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 302. The tense cannot be pressed; as the aor. inf. is only used on the principle of the ‘temporum Td KardAdAndov’ (Schefer, Demosth. Vol. 111. p. 432),—a usage not always sufficiently borne in mind. All that can be said is, that if the pres. inf. had been used (comp. Acts xiv. 22), the contemplated duration of Timothy’s stay at Ephesus would have been more especially marked. In the present case no inference can be safely drawn. On the use of the inf. pres. and aor. after eAmiCew, KeAevELY, TapakaAcivy K. T. Avy see Winer, Gr. § 44. 7. c, p. 296, comp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 748 sq.; and on the general distinction between these tenses in the inf., consult the good note of Stallbaum on Plato, Kuthyd. p. 140. mopevdpevos| ‘when I was on my way,’ ‘as I was going, Hamm. It is not grammatically possible, as De Wette seems to imagine, to refer this participle to Timothy; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 287. -Such participial anacolutha as those cited by Matth., e. g. Eph. iii. 19, iv. 2, Col. iii. 16 (but see Meyer), are very dissimilar: there the distance of the part. from the words on which it is grammatically dependent, and still more the obvious prominence of the clause (see notes on ph. iii. 18) render such a con- struction perfectly intelligible; here no such reasons can possibly be urged; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505. There is confessedly great difficulty in harmonizing this historical notice with those contained in the Acts. Three hypotheses have been proposed, to all of which there are very grave objections, historical and exegetical. These can here only be noticed very briefly. (a) If the journey here mentioned be that related Acts xx. 1, 2° (Theodoret, Hem- sen), how is it possible to reconcile. the stay of Timothy at Ephesus with the fact that .St. Paul despatched him a short time only before his own departure, 22 1-TIMO THY. Cuap. I. 3. "Edéce, tropevopevos eis Maxedoviav, tva tapayyeiiyns ticlv pi) to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22) and thence to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17), and that we further find him at the latter place (2 Cor. i. 1) with the Apostle ? when St. Paul then left Ephesus, he cer- tainly contemplated no speedy return (1 Tim. iii. 14); for see Acts xix. 21, xx. 3: comp. Huther, Hinleit. p. 13, 14, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 290 sq. (b) If St. Paul be supposed to have sent Timothy forward to Ephesus from Achaia (Mat- thew), having himself the intention of following; can this be reconciled with Acts xx. 4, cuvelmero, and with the fact that when St. Paul was near Ephesus, and might have carried out his intention, he &kpwe mapamaAciom thy ~Ep.% see Wieseler, p. 294, Wiesinger, Kinleit. p. 370 sq. (c) Even Wieseler’s opinion (Chronol. p. 813, comp. p. 295 sq.) that this was an unrecorded journey during St. Paul’s 2-3 years’ stay at Ephesus, though more reconcilable with historical data, seems inconsistent with the charac- ter of an Epistle which certainly recog- nizes (a) a fully developed form of error (contrast the future ciccAetoovra, Acts xx. 29), (8) an advanced state of Church discipline, not wholly probable at this earlier date, and further (7) gives instructions to Timothy that seem to contemplate his continued residence at Ephesus, and an uninterrupted perform- ance of his episcopal duties ; see Huther, Einleit. p. 17. These objections are so grave that we seem justified in re- manding this journey (with Theophyl., (Ecum., and recently Huther and Wie- singer) to some time after the first im- prisonment at Rome, and consequently, beyond the period included by St. Luke in the Acts: see Pearson, Ann. Paul. Vol. 1. p. 398, Guerike, Hinleit. § 48. 1, p- 396 (ed. 2), Paley, Hor. Paul. ch. x1. iva mapayyetaAns| ‘that thou mightest command :’ purpose contemplated in the Moreover, - tarrying of Timothy. The verb here used does not apparently mark that it was to be done openly (Matth.), but au- thoritatively ; mapaxadeiy being the milder, mapayyéAAew the stronger word; comp. 2 Thess. iii. 12. In the Epistle to Titus the Cretan character suggests the use of still more decided language; e. g. Tit. i. 11, émoroutCew, ver. 18, édéyxew amorous. ttolyv| ‘certain persons, ‘quibusdam,’ Vulg.: so ver. 6, iv. 1, v. 15, 24, vi. 21. We cannot safely deduce from this that the number of evil teach- ers was small (Huther); the indef. pro- noun is more probably slightly contempt- uous : ‘le mot tives a quelque chose de méprisant,’ Arnaud on Jude 4; compare Galian 12: EtTepodtdacka- Aety] ‘to be teachers of other doctrine,’ ™ O,ee 1a Sea So LieSes [diversas doc- trinas Syr.; dis Aeydu., here and ch. vi. 3. Neither the form nor meaning of this word presents any real difficulties. In form it is analogous with érepo(vyeiy, 2 Cor. vi. 14, and is the verbalized derivative of érepodiidorados (compare kadodiSdonadcs, Tit. ii. 3); not érepodi- ddoxew, but érepodidackadciv, “to play the érepodid.’? The meaning is equally perspicuous if we adhere to the usual and correct meaning of érepos (distine- tion of kind,—-see notes on Gal. i. 6): thus érepod:d. implies ‘teaching,’ — not necessarily ‘what is doctrinally false,’ nor even so much as ‘what is strange, but ‘what is different to, what deviates from (‘afvigende,’ Moller) sound doc- trine ;’ see ch. vi. 8, where this meaning is very clearly confirmed. Just as the evayyeAtoy of the Galatians was érepoy from its assimilation of Judaical ele- ments, so here the didacKaAfa was érépa from its commixture with an unedifying (ver. 4), vain (ver. 6), and morbid (ver. 10) theosophy of similarly Jewish orig- _~ Guar. I. 4. TeeITVMwO Ww ay: 23, érepodioackanrely 4 unde trpocéxyew ptSois Kal yeveaoylais amre- ination. It will thus be seen that, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the other Greek commentators, we regard the error which St. Paul is here condemn- ing, not so much a settled form of her- esy, pre-Marcionite or otherwise, as a profitless and addititious teaching which, arising from Jewish (comp. Tit. i. 14), perhaps Cabbalistic, sources, was after- wards an affluent of the later and more definite Gnosticism; see especially Wies- inger, Hinleit. § 4, p. 212, Huther, Hin- leit. p. 41, and (thus far) Schleiermacher, uber 1 Tim. p. 83 sq. 4. mpoaéxery] ‘give heed to,’ Auth. Ver., a felicitous translation; so Tit. i. 14. The verb mpocéxev does not imply ‘fidem adhibere’ (Heinr.), and is cer- tainly not synonymous with morevew (Krebs, Obs. p. 204), either here or else- where (Acts viii. 6, 11, xvi. 14, al.), but simply indicates a prior and preparatory act, and is, as it were, a mean term between akovew and maorevew; compare Polyb. Hist. 1v. 84. 6, diaxotcavtes ovdev mpocecxov, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v1. 5. 8, ovte mpooeixov ote erictevov. The ex- amples adduced by Krebs and Raphel (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 113) only serve to con- firm the strict interpretation. The canon of Thom. Mag. ‘mpooéxw oor Tov voor’ KdAAwov 2) ‘mpoaexw cot’ pdvov, is abun- dantly disproved by his commentators ; see p. 749, ed. Bernard. kal yevearoy. ameparr.] ‘fables and endless genealogies.’ It is very doubt- ful whether the popular reference of these terms to the spiritual myths and emana- tious of Gnosticism (Tertull. Valent. 3, de Prescr, 33, Irenzeus, Her. (Pref.), Grot., Hamm., and most modern com- mentators) can be fairly sustained. The only two passages that throw any real light on the meaning of these terms are Tit. i. 14, iii. 9. In the former of these the niSo are defined as "Iovdaixol, in the mUSoLs latter the -yeveaAoyia: are connected with paxoat vourxat; in both cases, then, the wopds have there a Jewish reference. / The same must hold in the present case; for the errors described in the two Epp. are palpably too similar to make it at all probable that the terms in which they are here alluded to have any other than a Jewish reference also ; so Chrys., The- odoret, al., compare Ignat. Magn. 8; see esp. Wiesinger, Hinleit. p. 211 sq., Nean- der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 842 (ed. Bohn). For a discussion of the various refer- ences that have been assigned to -yeveaa. in the present passage see the note of De Wette translated by Alford in loc. Thus then #d%o+ will most probably be, not specifically ra mapdonua Sdypara (Chry- sost.), nor a supplementary épunvela, a devtépwois (Theod), but generally, Rab- binical fables and fabrications whether in history or doctrine. Again yevea- Aoylat will be ‘genealogies’ in the proper sense, with which, however, these wilder speculations were very probably combined, and to which an allegorical interpretation may have been regularly ' assigned; comp. Dihne, Stud. u. Krit. for 1833, p. 1008. It is curious that Polybius uses’ both terms in similarly close connection, Hist. rx. 2. 1. a&mepavtors| ‘endless,’ ‘interminable,’ ‘quibus finis non est,’ Syr.: medloy azé- payrov, Pind. Nem. v111. 38; so 3 Mace. ii. 9, awép. yav. It does not seem neces- sary to adopt either the ethical (areAclw- tov Hesych., Chrysost. 2). or logical _ (Adyou amrépayro Opp. to Adyot mepayTikol, Diog. Laert. viz. 78) meaning of this word. The genealogies were vague, rambling, interminable ; it was an a&e- Tpos Kat aarép. dinynots (Philo, de Abrah. § 3, Vol. 11. p. 4, ed. Mangey) that had: no natural or necessary conclusion; com- pare Polyb. Hist. 1. 57. 3, where the simple sense appears similarly main- 24 I*TIMOTHY. Cuap. I..5. pavrois, altwes Gythioes Tapéyovow maddov %) oikovowiay Oeod \ > ' 5 THV EV TLOTEL tained. airives ‘inasmuch as they,’ “seeing they ;’ explanatory use of dotts, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. Cnt h- oes] ‘questions;’ either subjectively, ‘disputings,’ Acts xv. 2 (Tisch.); or, more probably, in an objective sense, ‘questions of controversy,’ ‘enquiries,’ essentially opposed to faith (Chrysost., Theod.), and of which Zpeis and pdxat are the natural and specified results; see ch. ‘vi. 4, 2 Tim: ii: 23, Tit. tii. 9. oikovoplav @e€od] ‘God's dispensa- tion,’ not ‘edifying,’ Raphel, Wolf, —a translation which oixovoula cannot bear ; see Polyb. Hist. 1v. 65. 11 (cited by Raphel), where the proper translation is ‘exsecutio instituti;’ and compare Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v. The exact meaning of the term is, however, doubt- ful. If oirovouia be explained subjec- tively, ‘the stewardship,’ scil. ‘the exer- cising of the stewardship’ (Conyb. and Hows.), ‘the discharge of the functions of an otkovdéuos @eod’ ‘actum non sta- tum,’ Beng; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 17, iv. 1), the use of mapéxew must be zeugmatic, i.e. involve two different meanings (‘ preebere, promovere’), unless (nrfoes be also explained actively,in which case mapexew will have a single meaning, but . the very questionable one, ‘ promovere.’ If, however, oixovouta @eod be taken objectively and passively (Chrys.), the ‘dispensation of God’ (gen. of the orv- gin or author ; compare notes on 1 Thess. i. 6), 2.e. ‘the scheme of salvation de- signed by God, and proclaimed by His Apostles, with only a remote reference to the ofxos @cod (see notes on Eph. i. 10), the meaning of (mr. and vikoy. will be more logically symmetrical, and zapé- xew can retain its simple sense ‘ pre- bere:’ the fables and genealogies sup- plied questions of a controversial nature, but not the essence and principles of the \ \ f “ 4 > \ > if 9) TO 5€ TéXOS THS Tapayyedias éoTW ayaTn &K divine dispensation. Thy év mioret] ‘which is in faith:’ further definition of the nature of the oikovoula by a specification of the ‘sphere of its action, —‘ faith, not a questioning spirit,’ —thus making the contrast with ¢yrho. more clear and emphatic. The easier readings oikodoulay (found only in D®) or oixodoufvy (D1; Iren. ap. Epiph.), though appy. supported by several Vy. (edificationem, Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Syr., al.), cannot possibly be sustained against the authority of all the uncial MSS., and is probably only due to erro- neous transcription, 6 and v being con- fused. How can Bloomf. (ed..9) adduce the Alex. MS. in favor of oixodoulay, and (except from a Lat. transl.) assert that Chrys. and Theod. were not aware of any other reading? ‘These are grave errors. 5. Td 5& réAos xu. 7.A.] ‘ But (not ‘now,’ Auth. Ver.. Conyb.) the end (aim) of the commandment, etc.;’ a contrasted statement of the purpose and aim of sound practical teaching. There ought not to be here any marks of paren- thesis (Giriesb., Lachm.), as the verse does not commence a new train of thought, but stands in simple antithet- ical relations (5¢) to ver. 4, forming at the same time an easy and natural tran- sition to ver. 6 sq., where the errors of the false teachers are more particularly specified. TéAos is thus not the cumrAf- pwua (Chrys.; comp. Rom. xiii. 10), the ‘palmarium, precipuum’ (Schoettg.), or the ‘sum’ (‘die Hauptsumme,’ Luther), —meanings scarcely lexically tenable, —but the ‘aim’ (Beza, Hamm. 2), as in the expression noticed by Chrys., TéXos iarpiris byeta; see Rom. x. 4, and Chrysost. in loc.,— where however the meaning does not seem equally certain. The distinction of Cassian (cited by Cmap. I. 5. LIMO Tay . 25 a Si \ 5 , 2 SF \ / 5) ! KaSapas Kap taS KAL DVVELONTEWS AYAINS KAL TTLOTEWS avuTOKpli- Justiniani) between oxdédmos, ‘id quod artifices spectare solent,’ and _ ‘éAos, ‘quod expetitur ab arte,’ is not fully satisfactory. q wTapayyedta is not the ‘lex Mosaica’ (‘pars pro toto,’ Caly.), nor even the ‘lex Evangelica’ (Corn..a Lap.), both of which meanings are more inclusive than the context seems to require, or the usage of mapary- yeAla in the N. T. (ch, i. 18, Acts v. 28, xvi. 24, 1 Thess. iv. 2) will admit of. On the other hand, to refer mapayy. simply to the preceding mapayyelans (Theophyl., éay mapayyéAns mh érepodi- SacKadeiv, TOUTO KaTOpsaoeis, Thy AyaTny) seems too narrow and exclusive. That it was suggested by the verb just pre- ceding is not improbable; that it has however a further reference to doctrine in a preceptive form generally, — ‘ prac- tical teaching’ (De W.), seems required by the context, and confirmed by the recurrence of the verb in this Ep. ; com- pare ch. iv. 11, v. 7, vi. 13, 17. aydmn| ‘love;’ the (nrhoes engendered paxas, 2 Tim. ii. 23. The love here mentioned is clearly love to men (4 ék diadecews Ka) TOU ovvaAryeEly cuvioTapevn, Theophyl.) not love to God and men (Matth.): ‘quum de g¢aritate fit mentio in Scriptura, sepius ad secundum mem- brum restringitur,’ Calv.: see esp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 242. €k Kada- pas kapdias]| ‘out of, emanating from, a pure heart;’ é« with its usual and proper force (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 328) pointing to and marking the inward seat of the aydrn: comp. Luke x. 27, 1 Pet. i, 22. The xapdia, properly the (imag- inary) seat of the puxf (Olsh. Opusc. p. 155), appears very commonly used in Scripture (like the Hebrew 225) to de- note the Wux7 in its active aspects (‘ qua- tenus sentit et agitur et movetur duce spiritu vel carne,’ Olsh. 2b.), and may be regarded as the centre both of the feel- ings and emotions (John xvi. 6, Rom, ix. 2, al.) and of the thoughts and imag- inations (Matth. ix. 4, xv. 19, 1 Cor. iv. 5, al.), though in the latter case more usually with the associated ideas of activity and practical application; see Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 111. 24. 38, p. 94 sq., and esp. the good collection of exx. in Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. rv. 12, p. 204. cvveldnots ayasn here and ver. 19 (compare 1 Pet. ili. 16; kad} Heb. xiii. 18; xaSapa 1 Tim. iii. 9,2 Tim. i. 3) is connected with wiotts as the true princi- ple on which its existence depends. Faith, — faith dvuméxpitos, though last in the enumeration, is really first in point of origin. It renders the heart pure (Acts xy. 9), and in so doing ren- ders the formerly evil conscience éyasn. Thus considered, cuvetinots ay. would seem to be, not the antecedent of the Kavapa Kkapdia (Hamm.), and certainly not identical with it (Corn. a Lap., com- pare Caly.), but its consequent ; ‘ consci- entia bona nihil aliud est quam scientia et testimonium animz affirmantis se pure et sancte yivere,’ Menoch. ap. Pol. Syn.; compare Pearson, Creed, Art. v11. Vol. 1. p. 847 (ed. Burton). On, the exact meaning of ovvelSnors see Sander- son, de Obl. Conse. 1.4 sq., Vol. 1v. p. 3 (ed. Jacobs.) ; on its nature and power, Butler, Serm. 2,3, and on its threefold character (an exponent of moral law, a judge, and a sentiment) the very clear discussion of M‘Cosh, Divine Gov. m1. 1. 4, p. 291 sq. It must be remembered, however, that in Scripture these more exact definitions are frequently wholly inapplicable; the ovveidnois is viewed, not in its abstract nature, but in its prac_ tical manifestations ; see Harless, Lthik, § 9. B, p. 35. ‘unfeigned,’ ‘undissembled ;’ an epithet of micris here and 2 Tim. i. 5; of wydrn, Rom. xii. 9, 2 Cor. vi. 6; of 4 &vuToKptitov| 26 Ly DMO; E EY : Cuap. I. 6, 73 tov, § oy TwWes aoToxyncayTes eLeTpaTncaY Eis pataLodoyiar, 7 Sérovtes elvar vopwodidasKadoL, “2 voodvTEs pyTEe A AéyouowW iradeadia, 1 Pet. i. 22; of 7 dvwder copia, James ili. 17, marking the absence of everything émlrAaoroy and bmokex- pyuevoy (Chrys.). It was a faith not merely in mask and semblance, but in truth and reality : ‘notandum epitheton ; quo significat fallacem esse ejus profes- sionem ubi non apparet bona conscientia,’ Calvy. All these epithets have their especial force as hinting at the exactly opposite in the false teachers; they were diepSapuévor Tov vovv (ch. vi. 5), Kexav- Tnpiacwévo. THY auveldnotv (ch. iv. 2), GOdKimor mepl THy miotw (2 Tim. iii. 8). It may be remarked that the common order of subst. and epith. (see Gersdorf, Beitriige, p. 334 sq.) is here reversed in Kadvapa Kapd.; so 2 Tim. ii. 22, Heb. x. 22, comp. Rom. ii. 5; on the other hand contrast Luke viii. 15, and esp. Psalm 1. (li.) 10, napdtay naSapav ktloov ev euot. This is possibly not accidental; the heart is usually so sadly the reverse, so often a kapdia movnpa amorias, Heb. iil. 12, that the Apostle, perhaps designedly, gives the epithet a slightly distinctive prominence; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 2, p. 564 (ed. 6). 6 @yv tives x. 7.A.] The remark of Schleiermacher (ier 1 Tim. p. 161), that this verse evinces an incapacity in the writer to return from a digression, cannot be substantiated. There is no digression; ver. 5 has an antithetical relation to ver. 4; it states what the true aim of the mapayyeAla was, and thus forms a natural transition to ver. 6, which specifies, in the case of the false teachers, the general result of having missed it: ver 7 supplies some additional characteristics. *Qy refers only to the three preceding genitives, not to aydmn also (De W.?%): dydan, the principle emanating from them, forms the true aim, and stands in contrast with paraoa., the state consequent on missing them, and the result of false aim; comp. Wiesing. in loc. aoroxnoavres| ‘having missed their aim at.’ This word only occurs again in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 18, in both cases with mepi: in 1ts mean- ing it is opposed to evoroxeiv (Kypke ; comp. TéAos, ver. 4), and far from being ill chosen (Schleierm. p. 90), conveys more suitably than auaprovtes, the fact that these teachers had once been in the right direction, but had not kept its KaA@s elmev, GoTOX.: TExNS yap Jet Hore evdgéea BddAew ka wy e&w Tov oxKdrou, Chrys.; see exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. II. p. 348. éEetpadmnoar| ‘swerved, turned themselves from ;’ e&€kAu- vay, Hesych.: see ch. vy. 15, vi. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 4, Heb. xii. 13. "Extpémeodar is properly ‘a via deflectere’ (Alberti, Obs. p. 392), the éx referring to the original direction from which they swerved ; comp. Joseph. Ant. x111. 10, 5, ris 6500 éxtpemduevov, and simply, ib. Ant. viII. 10. 2, «is eketpamn mpdtess. ‘ Aversi sunt’ (Beng.) is thus a more exact transl. than ‘conversi- sunt’ (Vulg.). MatTatoroyiar| ‘vaniloquium,’ or, in more classical Lat. (Livy, xxx1v. 24, Tac. Ann, 111. 49), ‘vaniloquentia, Beza. This was an especial characteristic of the false teach- ers (comp. Tit. i. 10, iii. 9), and is more exactly defined in the following verse. 7. S€Aovres] ‘desiring; they were not really so, This and the following expressions, vouodiddoKaAol, 1} voovvTes kK. T. A., seem distinctly to show, — and this much Schleiermacher (p. 80 sq.) has not failed to perceive, — that Juda- ism proper (Leo, compare Theodoret) cannot be the error here assailed. The vduos is certainly the Mosaic law, but at the same time it was clearly used by the false teachers on grounds essentially adiKous @uir. 1.8! pnre tept tivev SiaB_eBavodvrat. differing from those taken up by the Judaists, and in a way which betrayed their thorough ignorance of its princi- ples; see Huther zm loc. The assertion of Baur (Pastoralbriefe, p. 15), that An- tinomians (Marcionites, etc.) are here referred to, is opposed to the plain mean- ing of the words, and the obvious cur- rent of the passage ; comp. ver. 8 sq. uh voovvres] ‘yet understanding not, though they understand not ;’ the participle having a slight antithetical or perhaps _even concessive force (Donalds. Gr. § 621: the total want of all qualifications on the part of these teachers is contrasted with their aims and assumptions. The correct translation of participles will always be modified by the context, as it is from this alone that. we can infer which of its jive possible uses (temporal, causal, modal, concessive, conditional) mainly prevails in the passage before us - for exx. in the New Test. see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, p. 307 (where, however, the uses of the part. are not well-defined), and for exx. in classical Greek, the more satisfactory lists of Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56.10 sq. On the negative with the part. comp. notes on ch. vi. 4. “ente & «.7.2r.] The negation bifur- cates; the objects to which it applies, and with respect to which the ignorance of the false teachers extends, are stated in two clauses introduced by the adjunc- tive negatives uyte—phre; compare Matth. v. 34, James v. 12, and sce Winer, Gr. § 55. 6, p. 433. Their ig- norance was thus complete, it extended alike to the assertions they made and the subjects on which they made them. mept tivwy S1aBeB.| ‘whereof they affirm, Auth, Ver.‘—scil. ‘the subject about which (Syr., Vulg.) they make their asseverations;’ not ‘what they maintain,’ Luther, Bretschn., compare De Wette. The compound verb diaBe- Pent OVE HY. oT 8 oldapev 5é OTL KANOS 6 VOMLOS Baovosa: does not here necessarily imply ‘contention,’ Syr. tiem dso [contendentes], but, as in Tit. iii. 8, is simply equivalent to Aéyew pera BeBatcd- cews (‘stiurjan,’ Goth.: comp. Pollux, Onomast V. 152, Sieyyvepat, diaBeB., diioxupiCoua), mep) referring to the object about which the action of the verb takes place (Winer, Gr. § 47. e, p. 333); compare Polyb. Hist. x11. 12. 6, SiopiCduevos rad SiaBeBaovpevos trep? Thas then & and ep) tivwy refer to different objects (opp. to De W.); the former referring to the sub- jective assertions, the latter to the objects which called them forth: so Huther, Weisinger. The union of the relative and interrogative in parallel clauses involves no difficulty ; see Winer, Gr. § 25. 1, p. 152, Bernhardy, Synt. x11I. 11. p 443, and the copious list of exx. cited by Stallbaum on Plato, Crit. p. 48 A. 8. ofdauev Se] ‘Now we know;’ ToUTwy. @oave): €deyey wmodoynucvoy Tod70 Kat d7jAdv éott, Chrys. (on Rom. vii. 14): compare Rom. ii. 2, ili. 19, vii. 14 (Zachm. marg.}, viii. 28. The ¢, though certainly not = wey Moller (an unfor- tunate comment), is still not directly oppositive, but rather petaBaticdy (in a word, not ‘at’ but ‘autem’ Hand, Tur- sell. Vol. 1. p. 562, compare p. 425), and the whole clause involves a species of concession: the false teachers made use of the law; so far well; their error lay in their improper use of it; ob TG vduw Meupouat, GAAQ Tois KaKols ddacKdAos Tov vouov, Theodoret. Kados| ‘good,’ morally; not &péAuos, Theodo- ret, De W. The object of the apostle seems to be a full admission, not merely of the usefulness, but the positive excel- lence of the law ; compare Rom. vii. 12) 14, 16. 6 vdémos) ‘the law;’ 28 1 TIMOTHY. Cuap. I. 9. , ral - an ON fal nf / / édy TIS AUT@® vopiplws yxpHtat, 9% eidws TodTO, OTe SiKalw vomos a , \ at \ o ov KeiTal, dvomols S€ Kal avUTTOTaKTOLS, acEBETWW Kai aGpwapTwdois, surely not ‘law in the abstract’ (Peile), but, as the preceding expression vouod:- unmistakeably implies, ‘the __iMosuic law,’ the law which the false teachers improperly used and applied to Christianity. 71s] ‘any one,’ 2, é@., a8 the context seems here to sug- gest, any teacher; ‘non de auditore legis [compare Chrys.| sed de doctore loquitur,’ Beng., —and, after him, most recent interpreters. voutpws] ‘lawfully,’ i. e. agreeably to the design of the law; an obvious instance of that effective paronomasia (repetition of a similar or similar-sounding word) which we so often observe in St. Paul’s Epp. ; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 68.1, p. 560 sq. The legitimate use of the law has been very differently defined, e. g. dray [ris] exmAnpot abrdv 80 epywy, Chrys. 1, Theophyl. ; 7d mapaméurew mpbs tov Xpiordv, Chrys. 2, Theodoret, Theoph. ; bray €k TOAATS avToy puAaTTns THs Tept- ovalas, Chrys. 3, etc. The context, however, seems clearly to limit this le- gitimage use, not to a use consistent with its nature or spirit in the abstract (Mack, comp. Justiniani), but with the admis- sion of the particular principle dér: dixaiw ov Keira avduois b€ Kal ayumoT. k. tT. A. The false teachers, on the con- trary, assumed that it was designed for the righteous man, urged their inter- pretations of it as necessarary appendices to the Gospel; so De W., Weissing., al., and, similarly, Alford. 9. eidws TotToO| ddoKaAor ‘knowing this,’ ‘being aware of (‘mit dem Bewusst- sein, Wegsch.) this great truth and principle ;’ secondary and _ participial predication, referring, not to the subject of ofdauey (‘per enallagen numeri,’ Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 288), but to the foregoing tis, and specifying the view which must be. taken of the law by the teacher who desires to rightly use it. vdmos Kkettat| ‘the law is not ordamed. The translation of Peile, ‘no law is enacted,’ is fairly defensible (see Middleton, Greck Art. p. 385 sq. and comp. IIT. 3. 5, p. 46, ed. Rose), and not without plausibility ; the absence of the article being regarded as designed to imply that yéuos is taken indefinitely, and that the sentiment is perfectly gen- eral, —e. g. 6 undev adin@v oddevds Setrat youov, Antiph. ap. Stob. Flori. 1x. 16 [cited by Mack, al.). As, however, it is now certain that vduos, like many similar words both in the N. T. and elsewhere (see the full list in Winer, Gr. §- 19. 1, p. -109 sq.), even when anarthrous, can and commonly does sig- nify ‘the Mosaic law’ (compare Alford on Rom. ii. 12), and as this sense is both suitable in the present passage, as de- fining the true functions of the Mosaic law, and is also coincident with St. Paul’s general view of its relation to the Christian (comp. Rom. vi. 14, Gal. iii. 19, al.) we retain with Chrys. and the Greek expositors the definite refer- ence of véuos: comp. Iren. Her. 1v. 3: so De W., Huther, Wiesing., al. Stxal@| ‘a righteous man.’ The exact meaning of S5ikaos has been somewhat differently estimated : it would seem not so much, on the one hand, as 6 dicatw- Sels, with a formal reference to diac. ex mlorews, nor yet, on the other, so little as 6 KaropSwKws thy apethy, The- ophyl., but rather, as the context seems to require and imply, ‘justus per sancti- ficationem,’ Croc. (compare De W.), he who (in the language of Hooker, Serm. 11. 7) ‘has his measure of fruit in ho- liness ;? compare Waterl. Justif: Vol. TEs te Kkett as ‘is enacted,’ ‘posita est,’ Vulg., ‘ist satith,’ Goth. No special or peculiar force (‘ onus illud > Ov Cup. I. 9. 1 TIMOTHY. 29 avocios Kai BeBrrows, TaTpOA@AaLS Kal. UNTPOAwALS, avdpoddvoxs, maledictionis,’ Pisc.; ‘ consilium et des- tinatio,’ Kiittn. ap. Peile) is here to be assigned to «efoSa, it being only used in its proper and classical sense of ‘enactment,’ etc., of laws ; comp. (even passively, Jelf, Gir. § 359. 2) Xenoph. Mem. 1v. 4. 22, robs id tay Seay Keevous vouous, and the numerous exx. in Wetstein, Kypke, and the phrase- ological annotators. The origin of the phrase seems due to the idea, not of mere local position (‘in publico exponi ibique jacere,’ Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 349), but of ‘fixity,’ etc. (comp. Rost. u. Palm, Zer. s. v. 12, Vol..1. 1694) which is involved in the use of ketoSat. avdmors BE K.7.A.] ‘but for lawless and unruly.’ The reference of dyvéuots and ayvmor. to violation of divine and human laws respectively (Leo) is in- genious, but doubtful. Both imply opposition to law; the former perhaps, as the derivation seems to convey, a more passive disregard of it; the latter, as its deriv. also suggests (imotdoceaSat = sponte submittere, Tittm. Synon. 11. p. 3) a more active violation of it, aris- ing from a refractory will; comp. Tit. i. 10, where ayuméraxro: stands in near connection with évtiAéyovTes. aceBéocitv kal amapr.| ‘ ungodly and sinful.’ These epithets are also connected in 1 Pet. iv. 18, Prov. xi. 31. This second bracket points to want of reverence to God; the third to want of inner purity and holiness; the fourth to ‘want of even the commonest human feeling. The list is closed by an enu- meration of special vices. av O- otots| ‘unholy ;’ only here and 2 Tim. iii. 2. As Soros. and éo.d7ys seem, in all the passages where they are used by St. Paul, to convey the notion of a “holy purity’ (comp. notes on Eph. iv. 24, and Harless in loc.), the same idea is probably involyed in the negative. The aoeBys is unholy through his lack of reverence; the aydows through his lack of tanner purity. The use in classical authors is appy. somewhat dif- ferent ; it seems there rather to mark ‘impiety’ (Plato, Euthyphr. p. 9 v, 3 dv mavres of Jeol wicHow, avdoiov), the vio- lation of fas in contradistinction to jus, whether in its highest sense in relation to the gods, e. g. Schol. Eurip. Hee. dows, 6 wept Ta Seta Sikatos, or its lower sense in relation to parents and kindred, e.g. Xen. Cyrop. vi1t. 8, 27, dvoowwrTépous mep) cuyyevers: see Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 25. Hence the frequent combination of avdéowos and &bduxos, e. g. Plato, Gorg. p. 505 B, Legy. vi. p. 777 B, Theext. p. 176 E, Republ. 11.,p. 363 dD. ™ aT p0- m oO Ag@atrs| ‘smiters of father,’ eda! > « FO omaotl [qui percutiunt patres] Syr.; not ‘murderers of fathers,’ Auth. Ver. Both the derivation (dAodw, com- pare Aristoph. Ran. 149) and the similar use of the word in good authors (e. g. Demosth. Timocr. 732, Aristoph. Nub. 1327, compared with 1331, and esp. Lysias, Theomn. 116. 8) will certainly warrant this milder translation ; comp. Suidas, marpadoias, marpotimtns: Kat matpakgas 6 avtés, and Poll. Onomast. 111. 13, who even extends it to of 7ep Tous yoveis ekauaptdvoytes : sim. Hesych., TaTpar.: 6 Toy TaTEepa atid wy, TUTTwY, } xrelvwv. It seems, too, more consis- tent with the context, as the crime of parricide or matricide would naturally be comparatively rare, and almost (even ina pagan’s idea, compare Cicero, pro Rosc. c. 25) out of the special contem- plation of any law. Against the crime of the text the Mosaic law had made a provision, Exodus xxi. 15 (obs. there is no addition ma, as in ver. 12), comp. Lev, xx. 9. The following avdpopdvors 30 1 DMD Osh Y . Cuap. I. 10. 10 / b i > } 5 al - b , TrOpVOLs, apo EVOKOLTALS, AV Paro toTaLs, vpevo TAL, ETT LOpPKOLS, supplies no argument against this transl. (De W.); St. Paul is obviously follow- ing the order of the commandments. The usual Attic form is marpadolas ; Thom. Mag. p. 695 (ed. Bern.), Alberti, Obs. p. 394. 10. dvy3pamodiatais| ‘ men-steal- ers:’ ‘plagiariis’ (Cicero, Quint. Frat. 1. 2. 2), i.e. ‘qui vel fraude vel aperta vi homines suffurantur ut pro manci- piis vendant,’’ Vorst ap. Pol. Synon. ; compare Poll. Onomast. 111. 78, avdpar. 6 tov éAevSepoy KatadovAotmevos 7) Toy GAAST poy oiKeT HY Srayouevos (ed. Bekk.); a repulsive and exaggerated violation of the eighth commandment, as apoevoro- reiv is similarly of the seventh: they are grouped with dpameral and porxoi, Polyb. Hist. x11. 9. 2,10. 6; compare Rein, Yriminalrecht, p. 386 sq.. The penalty of death is attached to this crime, Exo- dus xxi. 16, Deut. xxiv. 7; so appy. in some Pagan codes, Xenoph. Laced. tv. 36; see Sturz., Ler. Xenoph. s. v. émidpKo.s| ‘perjured persons,’ Auth. Ver.: ‘émdpkor sunt et ii qui quod juraverunt non faciunt (Xenoph. Agesil. 1.12, comp. 11) et ii qui quod falsum esse norunt jurato affirmant.’ Raphel. Perjury is specially mentioned Lev. xix. aie ef T1 x. 7. A. is not for & +t (Mack), but is a mere emphatic and inclusive form of expression. It implies that all forms of sinfulness had not been specifically mentioned, but that all are designed to be included ; Raphael (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 562) very appositely cites Polyb. Hist. p, 983 [xv. 18. 5], oixlas kal xdpav, kal wéreis kal ef Te erepdv eore Mascaviocov. Th bytatvovan didack.] ‘the sound (healthful —not healthgiving, Mosh.) doctrine:’ Karas elme, TH bya. didackadrla, éxewa yap mayra mdsn wuxis jv diepSapucvns. Chrys.; comp. Plutarch, de Liber. Educ. § 9, THs adiapsdpov kal dypravovons Tat- delas, ib. § 7, byialvovtos Kal TeTaypevov Biov. The formula is nearly identical in meaning with 7 Kady didacKkaAla, ch. iv. 6, and 7 kat evoéBerav didack., ch. vi. 3, and stands in clear and suggestive contrast to the sickly (ch. vi. 4) and morbid (2 Tim. ii. 17) teaching of Jew- ish gnosis. The present part. seems to convey the idea of present, existing healthiness, which was to be maintained and not depraved; comp. Waierl. Trin- ity, Vol. 111. p. 400. The expres- sions byiaivovca SidacKaArta, 2 Tim. iv. 3, Tit. i. 9, ii. 1, and byaivovres Adyot, 1 Tim. vi. 3, 2 Tim. i. 13 (compare Tit. ii. 8), are peculiar to the Pastoral Epis- tles, and have frequently been urged as ‘un-Pauline:’ to this the answer of Weisinger (on Tit. i. 9) seems fair and satisfactory, — viz. that it is idle to lay stress upon such an usage, unless at the same time corresponding expressions can be produced out of St. Paul’s other Epp., which might suitably take the place of the present: see in answer to Schleiermacher, Planck, Bemerkungen, Gott. 1808, Beckhaus, Specimen Obss. Ling. 1810. The majority of these objections are really fundamentally un- critical. If in these Epp. the Apostle is characterizing a different form of error frrom any which he had previously described, and if the expressions he has made use of admirably and felicitously depict it, why we are to regard them with suspicion because they do not occur in other Epp. where really dissimilar errors are described? That there is a certain difference in the language of these Epp. we freely admit, yet still it is not one whit more than is natural to ex- pect from the form of errors described (see Huther, Hinleit p. 52), the date of the composition (see notes on ver. 3), and, possibly, the age and experiences of the inspired author; compare Guerike, Einr- Cuapr. I. 11, 12. al el Te & 7 Uylatvovcn SidacKaNia avTik Kab el Te ETepov TH UY on OL Q LKELTAL, 7 een © T EY. 31 \ \ u Kata TO > t a J la / n a 3 i > / evayyédov THs SoEns ToD wakapiov Oeod, 0 érictedSnv eyo. I thank Him who entrusted that Gospel to me, and who 12 \ s yi a 3 , / Kai Xapw EXD TH évovvapacavTt bE _was merciful to me in my ignorance and unbelief: to Him be all honor and glory. leit. § 48. 2, p. 402 (ed. 2). It is to be regretted that so able a writer as Reuss should still feel difficulties about the authorship of this Ep.; see his Gesch. des N. T. § 90, p. 76. ll. kata To ebvayyéator| ‘ac- cording to the Gospel;’ specification of that with which all the foregoing is in accordance. There is some little diffi- culty in the connection. Three con- structions have been proposed: the clause has been connected (a) with ry by. didacx., Beng., Leo, Peile, al.; (d) with ayrixerrar, Mack, Matth., compare Justin. 2; (c) with the whole foregoing sentence, ver. 9 sq., De W., Huther, Wiesing. Of these (a) seems clearly grammatically untenable: for the article [inserted in D1; Bas.] cannot be dis- pensed with, as Theopyl., in his gloss, TH ovon Kata Td evaryyéA., tacitly admits. Again (b) is exegetically unsatisfactory, as the sentence would thus be tautolo- gous, the ty. d:dacx. being obviously the import of the evayyéA., it not even synonomous with it; comp. ch. vi. 1, 3. Thus then (¢) is alone tenable: the Apostle substantiates his positions about the law and its application by a refer- ence to the Gospel. His present asser- tions were coincident with its teaching and principles: so, very similarly, Rom. ii. 16; see Meyer, zn loc., and on kard, comp. notes on Eph i. 5. Tis 36&ns] is not a mere genitive of quality (compare Winer, Gr. § 34. 2. b, p. 211), and only equivalent to évdotos, Beza. Auth. Ver., al., but. is the gen. of the contents; see Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, p- 161, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 126, and notes on Eph. i. 18, and compare 2 Cor. iv. 4. The glory of God, whether as evinced in the sufferings of Christ (Chrys) or in the riches of His sover- eign grace, (D. W.), is the zmport, that which is contained in, and revealed by the Gospel, ‘quod .,Dei majestatem et immensam gloriam [Rom. ix. 23, Eph. iii. 16] explicet,’ Justiniani, 2. The gen. Tod Seov is consequently not the gen. originis (Thy wéAdovoay Sdkay emaryyedAAc- tot, Theodoret, comp. also Chrys.), but the simple possessive genitive, the glory which essentially belongs to and is im- manent in God. fakaptou| This epithet (only here and ch. vi. 15), when thus applied to God, seems de- signed still more to exalt the glory of the Gospel dispensation. Makdpios, in- deed, was God, not only on account of His own immutable and essential perfections (ds Theophyl. ix 1 Tim. vi. 15), but on account of the riches of His mercy in this dispensation to man; comp. Greg. Nyss. in Psalm. i. 1, Vol. 1. p. 258 (ed. Morell), guoe ou éoT avTouakapisrns, TovTo pdvoy éoT) pakdpioy TH may TO wéeTEXOY pakdploy ylyve- toa: compare also Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. Ti p..280- d émicotetddany| ‘with which I was entrusted :’ a common construction in St. Paul’s Epp., espe- cially in reference to this subject; see ty Corvise li Gall le el hessh ites Tit.i.3. As the context is simply refer- ring to the past, not (as in Gal ii. 7) also to the present fact of the apostle’s commission, the aor. is perfectly suita- ble; see notes on Gal. ii. 7. 12.xdpiv €xa| ‘And I give thanks ;’ appended paragraph (not however, as Alf., only with a comma after éyw) ex- pressive of the Apostle’s profound thankfulness for God’s mercy toward him, as implied in the 6 éreoreddny of the preceding verse. It has been urged 82 1 TIMOTHY. Cuapr. I. 12. Xpiot@ "Incod 7& Kupio jyav, te Tietov pe Hyjocato, Séwevos * 12. nat xdpw exw] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with D KL; great majority of mss. ; Clarom., Goth., Syr. (both), al.; Dam., Gicum. (text); Lucif., Ambrst. (Rec., Griesb., Sholz, Wiesing.). The connecting xa is omitted in AFG; about 10 mss.; Boern., Vulg., Copt., Aith. (both), Arm.; Chrys., Theodoret, al.; Pel., Vig., Bed. (Mill, Prolegom, p. txxxiv., Lachm., Huther, De Wette (e sil.), Tisch. ed. 1, A/f). The external authorities are thus nearly equally balanced. Internal arguments are also nearly in equipoise :— if, on the one hand, the important criti- eal principle, ‘ proclivi lectioni prastat ardua’ (compare Tregelles, Printed Text of N. T., p. 221), seems here to find a legitimate application, the insertion of kal, on the other hand, is distinctly in accordance with St. Paul’s use of that particle. As it is possible that the omission of kai may have arisen from a mistaken idea of the connection of éy& with xdpw éxw, and as the preponderance of external evidence is perhaps slightly in favor of the insertion, we retain, though not with perfect con- fidence, the reading of Tischendorf. by Schleierm. (p. 163 sq.) in his argu- ments against the genuineness of this Ep., that there is here a total want of connection. Were it even so, no argu- ment could be fairly founded on it, for what is more noticeable than St. Paul’s tendency to digression whenever any- thing connected with his mission and the mercy of God towards him comes before his thoughts? comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9 sq., Eph. iii. 8. There is, however, here scarcely any digression ; the Apos- tle pauses on the weighty words 6 émo- revSny éyé (what a contrast to the ig- norance and uncertainty of the false teachers, ver. 7!), to express with deep humility (compare Chrys.) his thankful- ness; with this thankfulness he inter- weayes, ver. 13 sq., a demonstration, founded on his own experiences of the transforming grace of the Gospel, and the forgiveness. (not the legal punish- ment) of sin. Thus, without seeking to pursue the subject in the form of a studied contrast between the law and the Gospel (he was not now writing against direct Judaizers) or of a declar- ation how the transgressors of the law were to attain righteousness (see Baum- garten, Pastoralbr. p. 224 sq.), he more than implies it all in the history of his own case. In a word, the law was for the condemnation of sinners; the Gospel of Jesus Christ was for the saving of sinners and the ministration of forgive- ness: verily it was an evayyéAwv Tijs ddéns TOU pakapiov @cod; comp. Huther in loc. TG évovvapdoarTi| ‘to him who strengthened me within,’ se. for the discharge of my commission, for bearing the AdBoupoy (Chrys.) of Christ. The expressive word évdvyayu., with the exception of Acts ix. 22, is only found in the N. T. in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. iv. 20, Eph. vi. 10, Phil. iv. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17) and Heb. xi. 34: compare notes on Eph. vi. 10. There does not seem any reference to the dvvdwers which attested the apostleship (Macknight), nor specially to mere bravery in con- fronting dangers (compare Chrys.), but generally to spiritual Svvaus, for the functions of his apostleship. miatdv| ‘faithful, ‘trusty,’ compare 1 Cor. vii. 25.- Eadie, on Eph. 1. 1, p. +, advocates the participial translation ‘believing’? (compare Goth. ‘ galaubjan- dan’): this, however, seems here clearly untenable; the addition of the words eis diakoviay show that the word is used in its ordinary ethical, not theological sense. Sémevos eis S1ax.] ‘appointing me, _ * Cuap. I. 13. Sy els Svaxoviav, ™ Hcsdb ge ih(O) Jb ing c 33 TO TpoTepoy dvta Prdadnmov Kai SubKTnv \ if / F, > A > / e/ ’ an > te > > 4 kat uBpioTnv' adda HrENSHV, OTL ayvoaV éToinTAa ev aTLoTia, or, in that he appointed me, for the minis- try;” not ‘postquam,’ Grot., but ‘dum posuit,’ ete. Beng. The act, rd Séoda eis dvax., furnished proof and evidence bri muorby Hyhoaro: Tas yap by e8erd pe el wh emitnderdtyTa evpey ev euot; The- ophyl.; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, p. 311. Schleiermacher takes exception at this expression; why may we not adduce 1 Thess. v. 9, @ero jas eis opynv 4 13. dy7a] The participle seems here to involve a concessive meaning, ‘ though I was,’ ‘cum tamen essem,’ Justiniani, — certainly not, ‘who was,’ Alf., as this gives it a predicative character. On the use of participles in concessive sentences, see Donaldson, Gr. § 621, and compare notes on ver. 7. BrAdoonpor] ‘blasphemer ;’? in the full and usually received meaning of the word, as it was specially against the name of our Lord (Acts xxvi. 9,11) that St. Paul both ‘spoke and acted. The verb BAacdnuety (i. e. Baraipnucty, Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 47, Vol. 11. p. 49) taken per se is nearly equivalent in meaning to Aoidope (e.g. Murtyr. Polyc. 9, roido- pysov toy Xpirrdv, compared with the martyr’s answer, w@s Sbvayar BAacdyuy- oa; compare Clem. Alex. Pedag. 1. 8, p- 137, ed. Potter), but when in connec- tion with God’s name it naturally has the more .special and frightful meaning of ‘blasphemy,’ 7 eis @edv #Bpis, Suidas : see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 696 Sq. 516k nv] ‘persecutor;’ od | povoy éBAacphuovy GAAG Kal Tos LAAOUS Siwkav Brachnucty Hvdyra¢ov, Gicum. : see Acts xxii, 4, Gal. i. 18, 28. bBpiot xv] ‘doer of outrage,’ Conyb and ‘Hows. ; only here and Rom. i. 30; é8pic- Ths [perhaps from brép, Donald. Cratyl. § 335, with verbal root, i (ire), Pott, Etym, Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 144] is one who displays his insolence not in words 5 merely, but in deeds of violence and outrage: see Trench, Synon. § xxix. “Paulus nequitiam quibusdam veluti gradibus amplificat. Primus gradus est maledicere, ideo se vocat blasphe- mum; secundus insectari, ideo se appel- lat persecutorem; et quia potest insec- tatio citra vim consistere, addit tertio se fuisse oppressorem,’ Justiniani. The translation of the Vulgate ‘contumeli- osus,’ is scarcely critically exact, as, although ‘contumelia’ [perhaps from ‘contumeo,’ Voss, Ltymol. s. v., comp. Pott, Vol. 1. p. 51] is frequently ap- plied to deeds (e.g. Cesar, Bell. Gall., quamvis vim et contumeliam [fluctuum] perferre), ‘contumeliosus,’ seems moré commonly applied to words. The dis- tinction between tmephpavos (thoughts), ddalév (words), and bBpiorhs (deeds), is investigated in Trench, /. c.; see also Tittm. Synon. 1 74. GAAG AEH nv] ‘still, notwithstanding, I obtained mercy.” °AAA& has here its full and proper seclusive (‘aliud jam hoe esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’? Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2), and thence commonly adyersa- tive force: God’s merey and St. Pauls’ want of it are put in sharpest contrast. In the following words the apostle clearly does not seek simply to excuse himself (De W.), but to illustrate the merciful procedure of divine grace. . His igno- rance did not give him any claim on God’s 2Acos, but merely put him within the pale of its operation. év amiotia (‘being yet in unbelief,’ Peile) then further defines the ground of his &yvoiw: his ignorance was due to his amortia. How far that amoria was ex- cusable, is, as‘ Huther observes, left un- noticed: it is only implied that the éyvow which resulted from it was such as did not leave him wholly évawoAdyn- Tos; od yap pSdvw BarrAducvos emoucuouy, 54 Pa EO? PY - Cuap. I. 15515. Tie t \ 4 a in UmepeTrAcovacey O€ 7) Yapis TOD Kuplou hav peta mlorews Kab ayarns Ths év Xpiotd “Inood. GAN brep Tod vduov dASEev aywrviCdsuevos, Theodoret: comp. Acts iii. 17, Rom. x. 2, and see esp. the excellent sermon of Waterland, Part 11..Vol. v. p. 731. 14. bwmepewAcdvacer| ‘wus (not ‘hath been,’ Peile) exceeding abundant,’ vy Du [magna fuit] Syr.; compare Rom. y. 20, imepemepiocevoey 7% xapts, 2 Thess. i. 3, bmrepavidvee 7 lors. There is not here any comparative force in drepewAcévacey, whether in relation to the apostle’s former sin and unbelief (Mack), or to the eos which he had experienced (émepéBn Kad Toy Zrcov 7h dpa, Chrys.), as verbs compounded with jmwep are used by St. Paul in a super. rather than a compar. sense; see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 350; the apostle thus only explains more fully how, and in what mea- sure, he obtained mercy. This, it may be observed, he introduces, not by an explan- atory kal, or aconfirmatory yap, but by dé; a gentle adversative force being suggested by the last words, ev amortig: ‘yes, un- believing [ was, but God’s grace was not on that account given in scanty mea- sure:’ see especially Klotz, Devar. p. 363 sq, and comp. the remarks in notes on Gal. iii. 8, 11, and al. pass. The word émep7ma. is excessively rare ; it has at present only been found in the Psalt. Salom. v. 19, and Herma Fragmenta, ap. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. Book v. 1, Vol. v. p. 12 (ed. 1712), where it is used with a semi-local reference, — od xywpel ékeivo Td ayyos, GAN breprAcovdce. On St. Paul’s frequent use of verbs com- pounded with tmép, see notes on Eph. iii. 20. meta mlaot. kal ay. Faith and love are ‘ the concommitants of the grace of our Lord Jesus ;’ proper force of werd, see notes on Eph. vi 23, and compare ib. iv. 2. Leo has rightly felt and expressed this use of the on which 15 \ € t ‘ U, TLOTOS O NOYOS Kal Taons prep.,—‘verbis wera x. 7. A. indicatur mio. k. ay. quasi comites fuisse illius xapitos.’ Of the two substantives the first mioris stands in obvious antithesis to év amoria, ver. 13 (on its more inclu- sive sense as also implying éAzts, see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, p. 241), while aydrn, which here seems clearly to im- ply Christian love, love to man (Justin.) as well as to God, suggests a contrast to his former cruelty and hatred; ‘ dilectio in Christo opponitur szevitize quam exer- cuerat adversus fideles, Caly. THs é@v Xp.| ‘which is in Christ,’ — not ‘per Christum,’ Justin. (compare Chrys., 76, ev, dia eorw), but in Him, as its true sphere and element. Faith and Jove have their only true centre in Jesus Christ; it is only when we are in union with Him that we can share in and be endowed with those graces. This proper meaning of ey has fre- quently been vindicated in these com- mentaries ; see notes on Gal. ii. 17, on Eph. i. 2, al. On the insertion of the article, see notes on ch. iii. 13. 15. reatos 6 Adyos| ‘Faithful is the saying,’ ‘triggv [trusty, sure] thata vaurd,’ Goth.; morés — dvr) tod diped- dns Kal GAndhs, Theod. This ‘ gravis- sima prefandi formula’ (Beng.), is found only in the Pastoral Epp.; ch. ii 1, iv.99;/2 Timi ly ate comp. the somewhat similar forms, oéroz of Adyot GAnSwol Kal morot, Rev. xxi. 5, xxii. 6, and dAndiwds 6 Adyos, 1 Kings x. 6, 2 Chron. ix. 5. This is one of the many hints that may tend to confirm us- in the opinion that the three Epp. were written about the same time; compare Guerike, Hinleit. § 48.1, p. 400 (ed. 2). ndons amodoxHs| ‘all (i.e. every kind of) acceptation,’ Auth, Ver. ; an ex- cellent translation. ’Azodox7, ‘exceptio studii et favoris plena,’ Schweigh. Lez. Cuap. I. 16. PE PMO Hey. 35 arrodoyis d&tos, btu Xpictos "Inoods HAXev eis Tov Kocpov dpap- n e nee 6 > Dupe y 4 TWAOUS THTAL, WV TPWTOS Elpl eyo" Polyb. s. v. (comp. amodextés, ch. ii. 3, vy. 4), is used very frequently and in very similar constructions by later Greek wri- ters; e.g. aod. uéwos, Philo, de Pram. § 23, Vol. 1. p. 565, ib. de Profug. § 2, Vol. 11. p. 410, al. In Polybius (where it very frequently occurs), it is occasion- ally found in union with miotis, e. g. Hist. 1. 43. 4, v1. 2. 13,—‘ etiam fides species est acceptionis, Beng.; see the collections of Elsner and the phraseolog. annotators, by all of whom the word is abundantly illustrated. On this use of mas with abstract nouns, commonly de- noting extension (‘omnium totius animi facultatum,’ Beng.) rather than cntension, see notes on Eph. i. 8. hASev eis thy kdacpmoyr] ‘came into the world:’ see John xvi. 28, and (ac- cording to the most probable construc- tion) ib.i. 9. In these passages xécpos is appy. used in its physical or perhaps rather (see John iii. 16 sq.) collective sense; comp. Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 20, p. 228, and notes on Gal. iv. 3. The allusion they involve to the mpotmapéts of Christ is clear and unmistakable ; comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 141 (ed. Bur- ton). “of whom I am chief;? ‘antecedens om- nes non tempore sed magnitudine,’ Au- gust. in Psalm lxx. Justiniani and others, following a hint of Ambrose, en- deavor to qualify these words, by refer- ring the relative, not to Guaptwaovds ab- solutely, but ‘iis tantum qui ex Judaismo conyersi erant in fidem;’ dy se. cwCoué- vov, Wegscheid.: similarly Mack, and, what is more singular, Waterland, Serm. xxx. Vol. v. p. 729. As however the words Xpiorbs ASev... must clearly be taken in their widest extent,— ‘non solos illos Judzos sed et omnes omnino homines et peccatores venit sal- vos facere,’ Corn. a Lap.,— any interpre- @v wpOtds cis] . THOAL 1 © ara Sie TOUTO 7rENSV) tation which would limit either auapre- Aovs or its relative seems exegetically untenable. Equally unsuccessful is any grammatical argument deduced from the anarthrous mpa@ros, scil. ‘einer der Vor- nehmsten.’ Flatt; for comp. Matth. x. 2 (De Weite also cites ib. xxii. 38, but the reading is doubtful, and Middleton, Art., vi. 3, p. 100 (ed.Rose). Thus to explain away the force of this expression is seri- ously to miss the strong current of feel- ing with which, even in terms of seeming hyperbole (adrdv trepBaive: tis Tame.vo- gpoovvns Spov, Theod.) the apostle ever alludes to his conversion, and his state preceding it; see notes on Eph. iii. 8. eis] Not jv; ‘cave existimes modes- tix causa apostolum mentitum esse. Ve- ram enim non minus quam humilem confessionem edere voluit, atque ex inti- mo cordis sensu depromptam,’ Calvin. Sce the excellent sermons on this text by Hammond, Serm. xxx. xxxI. p. 632 sq. (A. C. Libr,), and compare August. Serm. CLXXIV. CLxxv. Vol. v. p. 939 sq. (ed. Migne), Frank, Serm. vi11. Vol. I. p. 108 sq. (A. C. L.). 16. &Aad] ‘ Howbeit, Auth. Ver., not resumptive (‘ respicit ad ver. 13,’ Heinr.), but, as in ver. 13, seclusive and antithetical, marking the contrast be- tween the apostle’s own judgment on himself and the merey which God was pleased to show him: Guaptwads (ev) eu, GAAG HAenSnv. Beza has here judi- ciously changed ‘sed,’ Vulgate, into ‘verum;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 3, and compare some remarks of Water- land on this particle, Serm. v. (Moyer’s Lect.), Vol. 11. p. 108. ~ 51a todTo| ‘on this account,’ ‘ for this end;’ pointing to, and directing more especial attention to the tva. ev émot| ‘in me;’ not equiv. to dc euov (Theod.), but with the usual and 36 1TIMOTHY. Crar. yt LZ bd ’ ‘ / oF / \ ’ la) \ Pat. / y iva év euor TpeT@ evdelEntar Xpiatos 'Incovs THv dmacay waKpo- full force of the prep.; the apostle was to be as it were the substratum of the ac- tion: comp. Exod. ix. 16, and see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, and notes on Gal. i. 24. Tp ore ‘the chief, not ‘ first,’ Auth. Ver.: ‘alludit ad id quod nuper dixerat se primum esse inter peccatores,’ Calyv. evicitnra| ‘might show forth ;’ in- tensive, or, as it has been termed, dynamic middle; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 432, 2. bb, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8, and notes on Eph. ii. 7, where this word and its uses are noticed and investigated. thy &racav pakp.| ‘the whole of His long-suffering ;’ i.e. ‘the fulness of long- suffering,’ Peile; od« épn, Wa evd. év euol Thy wakp. GAAG, Thy Tacay pakp. ws dy ei deve’ maAAov euov em BAW ovK Zxet makpoSvuijoa, Chrys. The reading dmacav (Lachm., Tisch.) is not quite cer- tain: the preponderance of uncial au- thority [AFG opp.to DKL] is perhaps slightly in its favor, but it may be re- marked that the form éras is only found once more in St. Paul’s Epp., Eph. vi. 13 (Gal. iii. 28 Lachm. is very doubtful), while the more common form occurs about 420 times. St. Luke ‘uses amas far more (23 times certain) than any other of the sacred writers. On. the less usual position of the article, see notes on Gal. v.14, and comp. Gersdorf, Beitrage, p. 881, who has, however, omitted this instance and Acts xx. 18: comp. Green, Gram. p. 194. We need not here modify the meaning of pakpod. : ‘Deo tribuitur parpods. quia poenas pec- catis debitas differt propter gloriam su- am, et ut detur peccatoribus resipiscendi locus,’ Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p-. 293. The distinction of Theophyl. (on Gal. v. 22) between pakpoSuuta (7d oXOAR emitiIeva THY mpoohkovoay dixnv) and mpadrns (1d apievar tavtdmact) cited by Suicer; s. v.,,and Trench, Synon. p. 199, may perhaps be substantiated by comparing this passage with Tit. ii. 2. wpds brotimwotv K.7-A.| ‘to ex- hibit a pattern for them, etc.,’ mpds émo- Sek, Cocum. 2: smorde., (Aw Cn ox [ostensio, exemplum, 2 Pet. ii. 6] Syr., is a dls Aeydu-; here, and in a somewhat modified sense, 2 Tim. i.13. St. Paul’s more usual expression is tUos (Rom. vy. 14, vi. 17, 1 Cor. ;x.:6,/11, Phil} ay Ay al), but for this dor. is perhaps here substituted, as itis not so much the mere passive example (tumoy) as the active display of it on the part of God (‘ad exprimendum exemplar,’ Erasm.) which the apostle wishes to specify. The usual explanation that the apostle himself was to be the dmdderyya (2 Pet. ii. 6), the standing type and representative, the ‘all-embracing example’ (Moller) of those who were hereafter to believe on Christ (‘si eredis, ut Paulus; salvabere ut Paulus,’ Beng.), is scarcely satisfac- tory. It was not so much the apostle as the paxpos. shown to him that was the object of the brordm.; comp. Wiesing: in loc. On the technical meaning [ad- umbratio et institutio brevis) see the notes of Fabricius on Sext. Empir. p. 1, and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11 p. 1398. The gen. ta@y weAAdytwy (‘in respect of,’ ‘ pertaining to,’ see Donalds. Gr. § 453) may be more specifically de- fined as the genitive of the point of view (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18, p. 129), or per- haps, more correctly, as an extended ap- plication of the possessive gen.; the b:o- timwois was designed in reference to them, to be, as it were, their property ; so 2 Pet. ii. 6; comp. Soph. Gd. Col. 355, and see Scheuerl. Synt. § 13. 2, p. 112 sq., Matth. Gram. § 348. 1 (not 2, where Soph. /. ce. is misinterpreted, see Wunder in loc.).. If the dative had been. used, the idea of the ‘ convenience,’ ‘ ben- Cuap. I... 1-7. PPM OW ¥ ; 37 U 7 e 7 aA , A Supiay, Tpos UTOTUT@GW TOY pEdAOYTOY TiCTEvELY eT a’Te Eis ay 17 Sw7v aiwviov. efit’ of the parties concerned, would have come more prominently into notice : con- trast Ecclus. xliv. 16 with 2 Pet. J. c: The explanation of Bretsch., ‘ut (hoc meo exemplo) adumbraret conversionem futuram gentium,’ is grammatically de- fensible but not exegetically satisfactory. miaTevery em. avt@| ‘to believe on Him.’ In this construction, which only occurs elsewhere in Luke xxiv. 25 (omit- ted by Huther) and (in one and the same citation from the LXX) Rom. ix. 83, x: 11, 1 Peter ii. 6 (Matthew xxvii. 42 is doubtful), Christ is represented as the basis, foundation, on which faith rests ; ém with dat. marking ‘ absolute superpo- sition’ (Donalds. G'r. § 483), and thence the-accessory notion of ‘ dependence on ;’ see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 24, p. 250, Krii- ger, Sprachl. § 68. 41, p. 541. If we adopt the usual reading and explanation in Mark i. 15 (comp. John iii. 15 [ Tésch., Lachm. marg.], Gal. iii. 26, Jerem. xii. 6, Ignat. Philad. 8), it may be observed that moredw has five constructions in the N. T., (a) with simple dative; (bd) with év; (c) with eis; (d) with ém and dat.; (e) with ém and accus. Of these it seems clear that the prepositional con- structions have a fuller and more special force than the simple dative (see Winer, Gr. § 81. 2. obs., p. 241), and also that they all involve different shades of mean- ing. There may be no great difference in a dogmatical point of view (compare Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 8, ed. Burt.), still the grammatical distinctions seem clearly marked. In a word, the exercise of faith is contemplated under different aspects: (a) expresses only the simple. act; (b) involves also the idea of union with; (c) union with, appy. of a fuller and more mystical nature (comp. notes- on Gal. iii. 27), with probably some ac- cessory idea of moral motion, mental \ lal o ’ T@ 0€ Baoihel THY aiwvev, adSdptw dopdtw direction toward; see Winer, Gr. § 53. a. p. 473; (d) repose, reliance on; (e) mental direction with a view to it; Fritz. Rom. iv..5, Vol. 1. p. 217, comp. Don- alds. Gr. § 483. Of the four latter formule, it may be remarked in couclu- sion, that (>) and (d) are of rare occur- rence ; (c) only (John iii. 15 is doubtful) is used by St. John and St. Peter, by the former very frequently; and about equally with (e) by St. Luke, and rather more than equally by St. Paul: a notice of these constructions will be found in Reuss,*Théol. Chrét. rv. 14, p. 229; com- pare also Tholuck, Beitrége, p. 94 sq. eis (whv aidvioy| ‘unto eternal life; object to which the exercise of wiotis ém av7@ was directed. It is singular that Bengel should have paused to notice that this clause can be joined with irotdrwouy : such a construction has nothing to re- commend it. 17. Bactret TOY aidvwy| ‘to the king of the ages, IsoS3 foSsoS [regi seeculorum] Syriac,—a noticeable title, that must not be diluted into ‘the king eternal’ of Luth. and the Auth. Ver., even if Hebraistic usage (comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. b, p. 211) may render such a dilution grammatically admissi- ble: comp. Heb.-i. 2, xi. 3. The term ai@ves seems to denote, not ‘the worlds’ in the usual concrete meaning of the” term (Chrys., and appy. Theod., The- oph:), but, in accordance with the more usual temporal meaning of aidy in the N. T., ‘the ages, the temporal periods whose sum and aggregation (aidves 7av aiéyvwy) adumbrate the conception of eternity ; see notes on Eph. i. 21. The Bactrels tay aidvwy, will thus be ‘the sovereign dispenser and disposer of the ages of the world:’ see Psalm exlvi. (exlv.) 13, 4 BactAcla cov BactAcla mév- 33 Per Ori rOy Cuap. I. 18, / fol sh \ 60 b} \ tA an a. 7 > + pov Oeo, Tun Kat ofa els Tovs alavas TOV alwovev apn. I charge thee, son Timothy, to fight the good fight of ; 18 Tavtny Thy Tapayyeay TapaTiseuai cot, faith, and not to make shipwreck of it, as some have done. Tay Tov aidvev, Kal 7 Seomotela cou év mdon yevea, kat yeved and comp. Ex. xv. 18; so Hamm. 1, comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2.4,p.315. Any reference to the Gnostic zeons (Hamm. 2) is untenable, and com- pletely out of place in this sublime dox- ology. The title does not occur again in the N. T., but is found in the O. T., Tobit xiii. 6, 10; comp. Ecclus. xxxvi. 17. 6 Sebs Tay aidvwr. &pSdprT | ‘incorruptible ;’ nearly equi- valent to 6 wdvos €xwy adavactay, ch. vi. 16. This epithet is only found in union with @eds, here and Rom. i. 23; comp. Wisdom xii. 1. Both this and the two following epithets must be connected with @ed, not BaoiAe? (Auth. Version, Conyb., al.), which is scarcely grammat- ically tenable. Huther urges against this the omission of the article before the epithet; this, however, frequently takes place in the case of a title in apposition ; see Middleton, Article, p. 387 (ed. Rose). ” see Col. i. 15, and comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16; v@ udv@ oKiarypagod- Gopate| ‘invisible ; mevos kal TodTO Atay Guvdpas Kal peTplws, Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxvi1I. 11 (a noble passage), p. 615 p (ed. Morell). udvw eG] ‘only God ;’ comp. ch. vi. 15, 6 waxdpios Kad pdvos duvdorns. It is not of serious importance whether, with Pseud.-Ambrose in loc., we refer this ap- pellation to the First Person (‘particula péve extraneas tantum personas, non autem divinas excludit,’ Just., comp. Basil, Hunom. Book rv. ad fin.) or, with Theodoret and Greg. Naz. (Orat.xxxvt. 8, p. 586 B, ed. Morell), to the three Per- sons of the blessed Trinity. The former seems most probable ; comp. John xvii. 3. The reading of the text, a ‘mag- nifica lectio,’ as Bengel truly calls it, is supported by such preponderating au- thority [AD'FG opp. to KL.] that it seems difficult to imagine how Leo can still defend the interpolated oogé. Timy Kat 5déa| ‘honor and glory ;’ a combination (in doxology) only found here and (with the art.) in Rey. v. 13, comp, iv. 9 sq. St. Paul’s usual for- mula is df alone, with the art.: see notes on Gal. i. 5. Tovs ai@vas «.T.A] ‘to the ages of the ages, i.e. ‘for all eternity ;’ see notes on Gal. i. 5. > €ls 18. radtny Thy Tapayyeadtar| ‘This command ;’ ti 8€ maparyyéAAeis, The reference of these words has been very differently explained: they have been referred (a) directly to maparyyetAns, ver. 3, Calvin, Est., Mack; (b) to mapayye- Alas, ver.5, Beng.; (c) to miords 6 Adyos k. T. A., Peile; (d) to va orpar., Chrys., De Wette, al, comp. John xiii. 34. The objection to (a) lies in the fact that in ver. 3 mapayy. is defined and done with ; to (b) that the purport of the rapa. is not defined, but only its aim stated; and to both that the length of the digression, and the distance of the apodosis from the protasis is far too great: (c) is obviously untenable, as ver. 15 involves no mapay- yeAia at all. It seems best, then, with Chrys. and the principal modern exposi- tors, to refer maparyy. directly to iva oTpar., and indirectly and allusively to ver. 3 sq., inasmuch as obedience to the com- mand there given must form a part of the Kad} orpateta. This verse thus forms a general and appropriate conclusion ; ver. 3—11 convey the direct injunctions ; ver. 12—16 the authority of the apostle ; ver. 18 sq. the virtual substance of his previous injunctions expressed in the simplest form. eimé; iva orpatevn x. T. A., Chrys. mapatlxepnal ~~ eel 2 Cuap. I. 18. 1 TIMOTHY. 39 , / . \ / oN EN / Lod Texvoyv Tiposyee, KaTa Tas Tpoayovcas éml oe TpopyteElas, wa aot] ‘I commit unto thee, as a sacred trust ;’ Tis pvdakis TO axpiBes SnAot, Chrys. ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 2. The use and force of the middle in such forms of expression may be perhaps felt by ob- serving that the object is represented, as it were, emanating from, or belonging to, the subject of the verb; see Kriiger, Sprachl. 52. 8. 6, p. 365, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 482. 2. bb. kata Tas, K. 7. A.] ‘in accordance with the forerunning prophecies about thee ;’ de- fining clause apparently intended to add weight to the apostle’s exhortation (ao- pay mpos exelvas..... mapavaco, The- ophyl.), and to suggest to Timothy an additional ground of obligation ; éefvwy &ovcoy, éxeivais Teidou..... exeival oe efAovto eis 6 eiAovts oe, Chrys. There is thus no necessity for here assuming an hyperbaton, scil. a orpatedn Kata Tas «. T.A. (Cicum., Moller), a very forced and untenable construction. ‘ forerunning,’ ‘ precur- sory;’ see Heb. vil. 18, mpoayovons év- roAjs. The order of the words might seem to imply the connection of ém ce with mpoayotcas (‘leading the way to, pointing to you as their object,’ Matth.), but as this involves a modification of the simple meaning of rpodyw, and also (see below) of apopnreta as well; it is best, with De W., Huther, and most modern commentators, to connect ém cé with mpopyteias. It is not however necessary to give mpd a purely temporal sense (Syr.); the local or quasi-local meaning which nearly always marks the word in the N. T. may be fully retained; the prophecies went forward, as it were,. the heralds and avant-couriers to the actions which they foretold ; comp. ch. v. 24. emt oé| ‘ upon thee,’ or, more in accord- ance with our idiom, ‘concerning thee,’ ‘respecting thee,’ Peile. °Em marks the ethical direction, which, as it were, the mTpoayovaas| ? prophecies took (see Winer, Gr. § 49.1, p-. 362), and, with its proper concomi- tant idea, of ‘ultimate super-position,’ points to the object on whom they came down (from above) and rested ; see Do- nalds. Gr. § 483, and compare the exx. in Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 42. 1, p. 543. Tas tTpopyntetas| ‘the prophecies :’ not ‘the premonitions of the Holy Spirit’ (kata Selay amoKkdAviiy Thy xepotoviay éd¢tw, Theodoret) which led to the ordi- nation of Timothy (Hammond in loc., Thorndike, Gov. of Churches, ch. 1v. 8, —an interpretation which involves a modification of the meaning of rpopnrteta which the word can scarcely bear), but, in accordance with its usual meaning in the N. T., ‘the predictions suggested by the Spirit,’ ‘the prophecies ? which were uttered over Timothy at his ordination (and perhaps conversion, Fell, compare Theophyl.), foretelling his future zeal and success in the promulgation of the gospel. The plural may point to pro- phecies uttered at his circumcision and other chief events of his spiritual life (Theophyl.), or, more probably, to the several sources (the presbyters perhaps) from whence they proceeded at his ordi- nation ; comp. ch. iv. 14, vi. 12. tva otpatevn| ‘that thou mayest war,’ etc. In this use of fva after verbs imply- ing ‘command,’ ‘ exhortation,’ etc., the subjunctive clause is not a mere circum- locution for a simple infinitive, but serves to mark the purpose contemplated by the command as well as the immediate sub- ject of it; compare Luke x. 40, al., and see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 299 sq. On the uses of iva in the N. T. see notes on Eph. i. 17. ‘in them, as your spiritual protection and equipment;’ emphatic. The translation of De Wette, ‘in the might of,’ is not sufficiently exact. The prep. has here its usual and proper force ; it is not iden- év avtais| 40 a \ t oTpatein ev avtals THY Kad}Y oTpaTelar, bk PEROT Tr: Cuapr. I. 19. 9 4 t \ eXOv TLOTLW Kab > \ I cf > / ‘ X f > / ayaSnv cuveidnow, hy Ties GT@oapEvol TEL THY TLoTW Evaua- tical in meaning with did (Mosh., comp. Cicum.), or with card (Kypke, Obs. Vol. II. p. 351, and virtually Huther) but, in accordance with the image, marks, as it were, the armor zm which Timothy was to wage his spiritual warfare; so Mack, Matth., and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346; comp. also Green, Gr. p. 289. Huther objects to this as artificial, but surely his own interpretation ‘ within, in the bounds of their application,’ is more open to the charge, and scarcely so intelligible. otpatetay] ‘warfare;’ not paxny, Theodoret (‘ Kampf, De W.), but more inclusively, ‘ militiam,’ Clarom., Vulg., —the service of a otpatiérns in all its details and particulars; comp. Huther For examples of this simplest form of the cognate accus. (when the subst. is involved in the verb, and only serves to amplify its notion), see Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 201, and for a correct val- uation of the supposed rhetorical force, the excellent article by Lobeck, Parali- pom. p. 501 sq. 19. 2x wv] ‘having,’ Hammond ; not ‘retinens’ (Beza) as a shield or weapon (Mack, Matth.), in reference to the pre- ceding metaphor,— this would have been expressed by a more precise word, e. 9 évadaBév, Eph. vi. 16,—or ‘ innitens’ as a ship on an anchor (Priceus), in reference to the succeeding metaphor, but simply, ‘Aabens,’ scil. as an inward and subjective possession: so Syriac, where the verb is simply replaced by the prep. & (in, with); see also Meyer on Rom. xv. 4. &yasnv cvvets.| ‘a good conscience ;’ see notes on ver. 5 supra. hv] Se. ayadhy cuvel- Snow. amwodpmevort| ‘having thrust away ;’ &récaro’ pakpoy eppupev, Hesych. ; see exx. in Wetst. on Rom. xi. 1. This expressive word marks the de- liberate nature of the act, the wilful vio- in loc. lence which the tives (ver. 3) did to their better nature. ’Amécato (Adyov, Acts xiii. 46; elsewhere in the N. T. with persons, Acts vii. 27, 39, Rom. xi. 1, 2, LXX) occurs very frequently in the LXX, and several times with abstract nouns (dadj«nv, 2 K. xvii. 15 (Alex.) ; éAmida, Jer. li. 37; vowov, Jer. vi. 19; €optas, Amos v. 21) as a translation of ona. The objection of Schleierm. (i. 1 Lin. p. 36) that St. Paul elsewhere uses this word properly (Rom. xi. 1, 2) as in reference to something external, not in- ternal, is pointless ; Rom. /. c. is a quo- tation. Conscience is here suitably rep- resented, as it were, another and a better self. Viewed practically the sentiment is of great moment; the loss of a good conscience will cause shipwreck of faith. Olsh. mepl thy mlariv} ‘concerning, in the matter of, the faith.’ Loesner compares Philo, de Soman. p. 1128 p [1x. § 21. Vol. 1. p. 678, ed. Mang.], vavaryhoavres, 7) mepl yA@TTav &Supov, 7 wep) yaotépa amAnoroy 7) meph Thy tev broyactploy axpdropa Aayvelay ; there is however some difference in the use of the prep. In Philo /. c. it marks really what led to the shipwreck; the accusatives properly representing the ob- jects * around which the action or motion take place,’ see Winer, Gr. § 49. i, p. 361, Donalds. Gr. § 482. c: in the pres- ent case merely the object in reference to which it happened, perhaps more usually expressed by the gen., see Rost u. Palm, Lex.8.V. mept, 1. 1.e, Vou 11, p.oele At any rate it is surely an oversight in Huther to say that ep) with the accus. is here used in the sense in which it usu- ally stands with the dat. ; for, in the first place, wept with dat. is rarely found in Attic prose and never in the N. T.; and, secondly, wep) with dat. (‘around and upon,’ Donaldson, Gr. 482. b), if more Cuap. I. 20. ynoav" Tae Or ¥ 41 20 dy eorw “Tuevatos cal AréEavdpos, ods trapéSwxa TO Yatava iva rawWevSaow un Pracdnpeiv. usual in prose, might have been suitable in Philo J. c. (the rock on which they split,—comp. Soph. Frag. 149, wept eug Kapa KaTdyvuTa 7d TevXos), but certainly not in the present passage. Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 353) cites a somewhat differ- ent use, wep) Ty Kéay SdAacoay vavayi- oat, Diog. Luert. 1.1.7, where the ace. seems to mark the area where the disas- ter took place, see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. mepi, 111. 2, Vol. 11. p. 825. 20. ‘Yuévaros| There does not seem any sufficient ground for denying the identity of Hymenzus with the heretic of that name in 2 Tim. ii.17. Mosheim (de Rebus, ete., p. 177 sq.) urges the comparatively milder terms in which Hymenzus is spoken of, 2 Tim. 1. c. ; the one he says was the ‘ open enemy,’ the other ‘the insidious corrupter’ of Christianity. On comparing however the two passages, it will be seen that the language and even structure is far too similar to render any such distinction either plausible or probable. The only difference is, that here the apostle notices the fact of his excommunication, there his fundamental error; that error how- ever was a BéBnaAos kevopwria, 2 Tim. ii 16. This certainly affords a hint (somewhat too summarily repudiated by Wieseler, Chronol. p. 314), in favor of the late date of this epistle ; see notes on ver. 3. "AA €Eavopos] Iris more difficult to decide whether this per- son is identical (a) with Alexander, 6 xaArkevs, 2 Tim. iv. 14, or (b) with Alex- ander, Acts xix. 33, or (as seems most probable) different from either. The addition 6 xaAKe’s in the second epistle, and the fact that he seems to have been more a personal adversary of the apos- tle’s than an heretical teacher, incline us to distinguish him from the excommuni- cate Alexander. All that can be said 6 in favor of (b) is that the Alexander, mentioned Acts J.c., was probably a Christian ; see Meyer in loc., and Wiese- ler, Chronol. p. 56. The commonness of the names makes any historical or chro- nological inferences very precarious ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 347, note (Bohn). wmapédwka TH Saravé] ‘I delivered over to Satan,’ ‘tradidi Satane,’ Vulgate,— scil. at some former period. The exact meaning of this formula has been much discussed. Does it mean (a) simply, excommunica- tion? Theod. zn loc. and on 1 Cor. v. 5, Theoph. in /oc., Bals., on Can. vit. (Ba- silii), al. ; comp. Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. ch. 4, Vol. 11. p. 233 (Angl. Cath. Libr.) ; or (6) simply, supernatural infliction of cor- poreal suffering, Wolf on Cor. l. c., and appy. Chrys., who adduces the example of Job; or (c) both combined, Meyer, and most modern interpreters? The latter view seems most in harmony with this passage, and esp. with 1 Cor. J. c., where simple exclusion from the Church is denoted by atpe ék wéoov. We con- clude then with Waterland, that ‘ deliy- ery over to Satan’ was a form of Chris- tian excommunication, declaring the per- son reduced to the state of a heathen, accompanied with the authoritative inflic- tion of bodily disease or death; on Fun- damentals, ch. 4, Vol. 111. p. 460. The patristic views will be found in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 940, and Petavius, Theol. Dogm. Vol. tv. p. 108. In thig fearful formula, the offender is given over 7 ZatavG, to the Evil One in his most distinct personality ; comp. notes on Eph. iv. 27. Tatdsevsa@ory] ‘be dis- ciplined,’ Hamm. ; ‘ taught hy punishment,’ Conyb. The true Christian meaning of maidevev, ‘ per molestias erudire,’ is here distinctly apparent ; see Trench, Synon. § 32, and notes on Eph. vi. 4. 42 I exhort that prayers be of- fered for all, for this is ac- ceptable to God, who willeth the salvation of all, and whose Gospel I preach. Cuarter IL. 1. mwaparad®& ody] ‘Texhort then;’ ‘in pursuance of my general admonition (ch. i. 18) I proceed to special details.’ It is singular that Schleierm., and after him De W., should find here no logical connection, when really the sequence of thought seems so easy and natural, and has been so fairly explained by several older (comp. Corn. a Lap.), and most modern expositors. ° In ch. i. 18, the apostle gives Timothy a commission in general terms, iva otpa- tevy x. T. A. This, after the very slight digression in ver. 19, 20, he proceeds to unfold in particulars, the first and most important of which is the duty of prayer in all its forms. The particle ody has thus its proper collective force (‘ad ea, que antea posita sunt, lectorem revocat,’ Klotz; ‘continuation and _ retrospect,’ Donalds. Gr. § 604), and could not properly be replaced by any other parti- cle; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717. For the use of this and similar particles, the student is especially referred to Euclid (e. g. Book 1): the careful perusal in the original language of three or four lead- ing propositions will give him more ex- act views of the real force of &pa, obv x. T. A. than he could readily acquire in any other way. adévtwyv) ‘first of all, ‘imprimis ;’ not priority in point of time, sc. év TH Aatpela Th kadnuepn, Chrys. (compare Conyb. and Howsen), ‘ diluculo,’ Erasm.,— but of dignity; see Bull, Serm. x111. p. 243 (Oxf. 1844), and comp. Matth. vi. 33. The adverb is thus less naturally con- nected with moretoSar than with the lead- ing word mapaxaa@ (Syr., Auth. Ver.). The combination mp@tov mdvtwv only occurs in the N. T. in this place. dehoets K.T. A. ‘petitions, prayers, sup- plications, thanksgivings.’ It has been TpaTov 1. TIMOTHY. Cuap. II, 1. I]. Ilapaxanr otv rpatov ravtwv Trovetc- 4 Sas Senoes, mposevyds, evrevfers, evyapiotias, somewhat hastily maintained by Heinr., De W. (comp. Justin.), al., that the first three terms are little more than synony- mous, and only cumulatively denote prayer. On the other hand several spe- cial distinctions (comp. Theodoret in /oc., Greg. Naz. Carm. 15, Vol. 11. p. 200) and applications (August. Epist. Lix. 12) have been adduced, which certainly cannot be substantiated. Still there is a difference : 5é€yots seems a special form (rogatio) of the more general mrpocevx (precatio), see notes on Eph. vi. 18; &- tevéis (ch. iv. 5) is certainly not a déyo1s eis éxdixnow (Hesych.; comp. Theod.), but, as its derivation (évrvyxdvw) sug- gests, prayer in its most individual and urgent form (ét. kat éxBonoes, Philo, Quod Det. Pot. § 25, Vol. 1. p. 209), prayer in which God is, as it were, sought in audience (Polyb. Hist. v. 35. 4., 111. 15. 4), and personally drawn nigh to; compare Origen, de Orat. § 44, éyrevieis Tas Ud TOU Tappyclay Tiva TAcl- Thus, then, as Huth. ob- serves, the first term marks the idea of our insufficiency [5e?, compare Beng.], the second that of devotion, the third that of childlike confidence. The ordi- nary translation, ‘intercessions,’ as Au- thorized Ver, Alf., al. (comp. Schoettg. in lcc.), too much restricts évrevéis, as it does not per se imply any reference to others: see ch. iv. 5, where such a mean- ing would be inappropriate, and comp. Rom. viii. 27, 34, xi. 2, Heb. vii. 25, where the preposition, dwep or kara, marks the reference and direction of the prayer; see especially the examples in Raphel, Annotations Vol. 11. p. 567 sq. who has yery copiously illustrated this word. evxaptottas| ‘ thanks- givings :’ thanksgiving, was to be the perpetual concomitant of prayer; see ova €xovrTos. . Cuap. II. 2. irép Tavtav avSperrav, ° Feri wOo THY. 43 € \ , ai Wi lA rn ] umép Bacitiéwv Kal TaVT@V TOV €V ig my sk vA wv \ e€ 7 / / > UZ Umepoyyn dvTwV, va Npewov Kai naovy.ov Biov Sidyopev ev Taon esp. Phil. iv. 6, Col. iv. 2; Justin M. Apol. 1. 13, 67, al., and comp. Harless, Ethik, § 31. a. It is scarcely necessary to say that the special translation ‘ eucha- rists’ (J. Johnson, Unbl. Sacr. 1. 2. Vol. 11. p. 66, Angl. Cath. Libr.), is wholly untenable. a&vdp. is to be connected, not merely with the last, but with all the foregoing substantives ; tata d¢ movety bmep amdy- UTEP TAaYTWY Tov aviparwy Tapeyyua, emeidy Kat X. I. WAdev cis Thy KdoMmov auapTwAods cHoat, Theodoret. To further encourage this universality in prayer Justin, Apol. 11. 15), the apostle proceeds to specify, nom- inatim, particular classes for whom it ought to be offered ; comp. Chrys. in /oc. 2. bmep BactrAéwy] ‘for kings,’ — generally, without any special reference to the Roman emperors. It is an in- stance of the perverted ingenuity of Baur (comp. De W.) to refer the plural to the emperor and his associate in rule, as they appear in the age of the Antonines ; surely this would have been tay Bact- Aéwy. On the custom, generally, of praying for kings (Ezra vi. 10, Baruch i. 11), see Justin, Apol. 1. 17, Tertull. Apologet. cap. 39, the passages collected by Ottius, Spicileg. p. 433, and Grinf. Schol. Hell. Vol. 11. p. 580. It is very noticeable that the neglect of this duty on the part of the Jews Jed to the com- mencement of their war with the Ro- mans, see Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 17. 2. év bwepoxh] ‘in authority ;’ all who have any share of constituted authority, the efovela: tmepéxovoa, “Rom. xiii. 1; comp. 2 Mace. iil. 11, avdpds év brepoxi kemevov, Polyb. Hist. v. 41. 3. trois ev brepoxais ovow. tva hpemoyv k. 7. A.] ‘in order that we may pass a quiet and tranquil life:’ contemplated end and object, not import of the interces- sory prayer; dpa ti pyot, kal mas Tidnot 7) Képdos iva Kav ottw d€én Thy Tapalve- N ekelvwv TwTNpla NUaY dmepyevia tmdpxet, Chrys. The prayer has clearly not a purely subjective reference, ‘ that we may lead a life of quietude and sub- mission’ (Mack, comp. Heydenr.), nor again a purely objective reference, ‘ that they may thus let us live in quiet,’ but in fact involves both, and has alike a per- sonal and a political application,—‘ that through their good government we may enjoy peace:’ the blessing * the powers that be’ will receive from our prayers will redound to us in outward peace and inward tranquillity; comp. Wiesing. zn loc. *“Hpemos is a late form of adjective derived from the adv. npéua; comp. Lu- cian, Tragod. 209, Eustath. Z/. vir. p. 142.9. Lobeck (Pathol. p. 158) cites a single instance of its usage in early Greek ; Inser. Olbiopol. No. 2059. The correct adjectival form is jpeuatos. novxeov] ‘tranquil ;’ once only again, bake ote 1 Pet. iii. 4, rod mpados kad jovxlov mred- patos. The distinction drawn by Olsh. between jjpeuos and jovx10s can appy. be substantiated ; the former [connected ap- parently with Sanscr. ram, ‘rest in a chamber,’— the fundamental idea accord- ing to Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 262] seems to denote tranquillity arising from without, ‘ qui ab aliis non perturba- tur,’ Tittmann; compare Plato, Def. p. 412 A, Apeula Wuxis wept Ta Sewd; Plu- tarch, Sol. 31, thv Te xadpav éevepyeotépay kal Thy woAW jpeuavotépay éemolnoey: the latter [connected with “H3-, ja, Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1 p. 418] tranquillity arising from within, 1 Pet. l. c.; comp. Plato, Charm. p. 160 a, jovxuos 6 ow- ppwv Bios. So, in effect, Tittmann, ex- cept that he assigns to 70x. more of an active meaning, ‘qui aliis nullas turbas excitat,’ Synon. 1. p. 65. On the use of Bios for ‘manner of life,’ comp. Treneh, 44 r TIMOTHY. Cuap. II.:3, 4. evaeBeia Kal ceuvornti. 3 TodTo yap Kadov Kal derodexTov éve- mov ToD cwTHpos juav Oeod, Synon. § 27. év ebaoce Bela k. T- A.| ‘in all godliness and gravity ;’ the moral sphere in which they were to move. Mera might have been used with ceuvdrns (comp. iii. 4), but would have been less appropriate with eaéBea; the latter is to be not merely an accompani- ment but a possession (comp. Heb. xi. 2,and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346), the sphere in which they were always to walk. It is proper to observe that both these substantives are only used by St. Paul in the Pastoral Epistles. ° ” evoePeta, las|, Daa? [timor Jehove] Syr., is a word which occurs several times in these Epp. e.g. ch. iii. 16, iv. 7, 8, vi. 3, 5, 6,11, 2 Tim. iii. 5, Tit. i. 1, see also Acts iii. 12, 2 Pet. i. 3, 6, 7, iii. 11. It properly denotes only ‘ well-directed reverence ’ (Trench, Synon. § 48), but in the N. T. is practically the same as SeooéBeia (ch. ii. 10), and is well defined by Tittmann, Syzon. 1. p. 146, as ‘vis piectatis in ipsa vita vel ex- terna vel interna,’ and more fully, but with accuracy, by Euseb., Prep. Evang. I. p. 3, as 9 mpds Tov Eva Kad pdvoy as GANSaS 5uoroyobmerdy Te Kal ovTa Ody avdvevots, kal ) Kate rooTov (wy. Thus then eicéB. conveys the idea, not of an ‘inward, inherent holiness, but, as Alford (on Acts iii. 12) correctly observes, of a ‘ practical, operative, cultive piety :’ see other, but less precise, definitions in Sui- cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. 1264, and esp. the discriminating remarks of Harless, Ethik, § 37. cemvoTns (only here, ch. iti. 4, and Titus ii. 7) ap- pears to denote that ‘decency and pro- priety of deportment,’ ‘morum gravitas et castitas,’ Estius (Ehrbarkeit,’ Luther), which befits the chaste (Chrys. ; comp., in an exaggerated sense, Eur. Zph. Aud. 1350), the young, (ch. ili. 4, Tit. ii. 7), 4 Os mavtas avSparous Séree and the earnest (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 2), and is, as it were, the appropriate setting of higher graces and virtues ; compare Joseph. Vit. § 49, peta mdons ceuy. Kal tdons Se GpeTis Evdade mwemual- TEVA. 3. rodTrol Scil. 7d cbyeoSau rep wav Tw: TovTe amodéxeTa 56 Oeds, Tove S%éAe, Chrys. This verse stands in more immediate connection with ver. 1, of which verse 2 really only forms a semi- parenthetical illustration. To please God is the highest motive that can influ- ence a Christian. Téap is omitted by Lachm. with A; 17. 67** ; Copt., Sa- hid. (not Pesch., as Bloomf. asserts),— evidence, however, far from sufficient. The omission very probably arose from a want of perception of the true connec- tion between ver. 1, 2, and 3. KaAddv Kal amodexrdy] Not ‘good and acceptable before "—Huth., Wiesing., Alf., but, ‘yood (per se) and acceptable before God,’ Mack, De Wette, al. ; Kat Th pioe €or Kaddv..... kal T@ Oc@ be amodextéy, Theophylact. Huther urges against this 2 Cor. viii. 21, mpovoodmer yap KaAd ov pdvov evwmiov Kuplov k. T. A., but there, as still more clearly in Rom. xii. 17, mpovooduevor Kad& [opp. to kaxdy, ver. 16] évémov ravtwv avepérwv, the latter clause evdémioy x. T. A. is not con- nected simply with xadd, but with mpor. kadd, see Meyer in loc. *Arodexrds (not amddextos, as Lachm., Tisch.; see Lo- beck, Paralip. v11. 11, p. 490) is used in N. T. only here, and ch. v. 4; compare amodoxh, ch. i. 15. TOU CTT pos «.7.A.] our Saviour God :’ sce notes on ch. i. 1. The appropriateness of the title is evinced by the following verse. 4.38 wdvras x. 7.4] ‘whose, t. e. seeing his will is (not * whose wish is,’ Peile ; compare notes on ch. v. 14) that all men should be saved,’ etc.; explanatory Cuap. II. 4. 5. codivat Kai els ériyvwow aryYelas édeiv. and faintly confirmatory of the preceding assertion; see Col. i. 25, and notes in doc. On this slightly causal, or perhaps rather explanatory force of és, see Ellendt, ‘ Lex. Soph. s. v. 111. 3, Vol. 11. p. 371, and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 12. a, p. 291 sq. phatic, Rom. viii. 32; ‘omnes, etiam non eredentes, vult salvari, Beng. ; mimod ~dv mavtas| Em- @cdv’ ci wavras avSpémovs SéAEt TwodHveri, Sérc nal ov" ei FE BeAeis cto, TaY yap toovtwy ect! 7 e¥xeoSa, Chrys. The various dogmatical expositions of this important verse will be found_in Justini- ani, Corn. a Lap., and Estius in loc. ; compare also Petavius, Theol. Dogmut. Vol. 1. Book x. 1.2 sq., Vol. v. Book XI. 1.3, 4, Forbes, Znstruct. vi11. 18, p- £15 sq. Without entering upon them in detail, or overstepping the limits pre- scribed to this commentary, it seems proper to remark that all attempted re- strictions (‘ quosvis homines, Beza, com- pare August. Lnchirid. § 103; compare contr. Winer, Gr. §18. 4, p. 101) of this vital text are as much to be reprehended on the one hand, as that perilous univer- salism on the other, which ignores or explains away the clear declaration of Scripture, that there are those whose iAespos shall be aidyvios (2 Thess. i. 9), and whose portion shall be the dSedrepos Suvaros (Rev. xxi. 8): the remarks of Usteri, Lehrb. 11. B. p. 352 sq. are very unsatisfactory. Setting aside all techni- cal, though perhaps plausible, distinc- tions between the ‘ voluntas antecedens’ and ‘ voluntas consequens’ of God (Da- mase. Orth. Fid. 11. 29), it seems enough to say, that Scripture declares in terms of the greatest latitude (see esp. Ham- mond, Fundamentals, x1v. 2, and comp. Pract. Catechism 11.2, p. 18, Angl. C. Libr.) that God does will the salvation (cwSfvar not cacat) of all; all are ren- dered (through Jesus Christ) “ salvabi-. eR VE OM EL Y. 45 5 eis yap Oeos, eis les’ and ‘salvandi’ (Barrow, Serm. 72). That some are indisputably not saved (Matt. xxv. 41 sq., Rev. xx. 10, 15, xxii. 15, al.) is not due to any outward cit- cumscription or inefficacy of the Divine SéAnua (Episcop. Jnst. Theol. rv. 2. 21), but to man’s rejection of the special means of salvation which God has been pleased to appoint, and to which it is also His Divine 3éAnua (Eph. i. 9) that man’s salvation should be limited; comp. Miiller on Sin, 111. 2.1, Vol. 11. p. 211 (Clark). In a word, redemption is uni- versal, yet conditional ; all maybe saved, yet all well not be saved, because all will not conform to God’s appointed condi-' tions; see Hammond, /.c. § 15; and esp. Barrow, Works, Vol. 1v. p. 1—97, who in four sermons (71—74) has nearly exhausted the subject. The two further momentous questions connected with this doctrine are fairly stated by Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 557 sq., Vol. 11. p. 689, comp. also Martensen, Dogm. § 219 sq. kaleis é€miyvwotv x.7.A.| ‘and to come to the ( full) knowledge of the truth ;” comp. 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7: no inversion of clauses, but a further specification of the more immediate object and end ; see Winer, Gr. § 61. 3. obs., p. 488. The cwoijva is the ultimate, the eis émiyy. GAnd. eAdetv, an immediate end leading naturally and directly to the former. The introduction of this latter moment of thought is suggested by, and suitably precedes, the enunciation of the great truth which is contained in the following verse. On émiyyvwois (‘ cognitio certa et accurata’) see notes on Eph. i. 17, and on the emissions of the art. notes on 2 Tim. ii. 25. It may be remarked that aAhSera here, as commonly in the N. T., implies no mere theoretical, but, practical and saving truth, ‘veritas salvifica,’ as revealed in the Gospel; dans. molas ; Tis eis altov miorews, Chrysost.; see 46 DMO ioe ¥. Cnap. II. 5, 6. kal pecitns Ocod kal avSpoHrav, avSpwros Xpictos *Inoods, 6 6 dovs éavTov ayTiAVTpoV UTép TavTwWY, TO papTUpLOV KaLpois Reuss, Theol. rv. 8, Vol. 11. p. 82. A special treatise on this word has been written by Baumann, Strasb. 1838. 5. efs yap Oeds] ‘ For there is one God ; proof of the foregoing explanatory assertion, the yap having here its simple argumentative force, and connecting this yerse, not with ver. 1 (Leo, Mack), but with the verse immediately preceding. Eis and mdy7as stand thus in correlation ; the universality of the dispensation is proved by the unity of the Dispenser. The existence of different dispensations for different portions of the human race, would seem inconsistent with the con- ception of one supreme, all-ruling Crea- tor; ‘unius Dei una providentia ;’ com- pare Rom. iii. 30, where a similar argu- ment is introduced by the forcible (Har- tung, Part. Vol. 1. p. 342) éselzep. efs kal weoizns] ‘one mediator also:’ 6 év éavtg@ Ta dieotaGta cuvdas, Theod. In this and similar distinctions between the first and second Persons of the bles- sed Trinity (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6, Eph. iv. 4—6), Reuss finds traces of a citra- Athanasian view (so to speak) of the subordination of the Son; Theol. Chrét. iv. 10, Vol. 11. p. 102. This is not cor- rect: all that could reasonably be infer- red from such a text as the present is the catholic doctrine of a subordination in respect of office; see Waterland, Second Vind. Vol. 11. p. 400. The position of De Wette after Schleierm. (iiber.1 Tim. p. 177), that this use of weoitns, without definite allusion to a dadh«n, argues a compiler from the Ep. to the Heb. (viii. 6, ix. 15, xii 24), is not entitled to seri- ous attention or confutation. The pre- vious allusion to redemption (ver. 4) and the antithesis of the eis @eds and avr. avep. suggest the use of a term that best sustains that relation: see also Ebrard, Dogm. § 406, and a good sermon by Bey- eridge, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 86 sq. (Angl. Cath. Libr. cod ral avspomwy| ‘of God and men:’ both anarthrous ; the former in accordance with its common privilege of rejecting the article (see exx. Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 110), the latter, from a bare indication of the other party only being necessary. In both cases the omission is obviously suggested by the familiarity of both the terms connected by the conjunction; see Green, Gr. Iv. 3, p. 181. &vaSpwmros X.1.] ‘aman Christ Jesus.’ The human nature of Christ is specially mentioned as being the state in which His mediatorial office was visibly per- formed ; &ySpwmov de Toy Xpictoy dvdua- cev emeld)) mecitny exddAecev’ emavSpwTt- cas yap éueoirevoey, Theod. On the du- ration of Christ’s mediation, see Pearson, Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. 834 (ed. Burton). The omission of the article (scarcely noticed by the modern German com- mentators) must be preserved in transla- tion. Middleton (Greek Art. p. 388, ed. Rose) considers the article unnecessary, and compares &vSp. X. I. with «vpios X. *I.; but the comparison fails, as Kvpios has so unequivocally the character of a proper name; comp. Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 113. In a different context Christ might clearly have been designated as 6 bvSp., ‘the (representative) man of humanity’ (comp. Peile in Joc.) ; here, however, as the apostle only wishes to mark the na- ture in which Christ éuecitevoev, but not any relation in which He stood to that nature, he designedly omits the article. The distinction of Alford between ‘ indi- vidual and generic humanity’ seems here out of place, and not involved in the con- text: contrast Wordsw. in loc., who per- tinently cites August. Serm. xxv1. Vol. v. p. 174, ed. Migne. 6. avtiAurpor] ‘ ransom; the avts Cuap. II. 6, 7. I-PIaO THY. 47 idiows, 7 eis 6 éréSnv ey KypvE Kal dmdoToXos (ddjSevav AEyo, ov wevdopuat), SuddcKaros éSvev év TlaTeE Kab adyYeia. being here by no means redundant (Schleierm. p. 42, comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 377), but serving to ex- press the idea of exchange, ‘ permutatio- nem, qua veluti capite caput et vita vitam redemit,’ Just.; compare dytdAAayua, Matt. xvi. 26, avripuxov, Ignat. Smyrn. 10, and the valuable remarks on it of Pearson, Vind. Ign. chap. xv. p. 597 (Angl. C. Libr.). In this important word the idea of a substitution of Christ in our stead cannot be ignored (see, thus far, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 17, Vol. Ir. p. 185, sq.), especially when connect- ed with passages of such deep signifi- cance as Rom. iii. 25 (our Lord’s death was a true ‘expiatorium,’ a propitiatory sacrifice,’ see Meyer on Rom. l. c.) and ’ Eph. v. 2: compare also Meyer on Rom. v. 6, and for some calm and clear com- ments on this ‘ satisfactio vicaria,’ Mar- tensen, Dogmatik, § 157 sq., p. 343. All the modern theories of atonement seem to forget that God hates sin as sin, not as a personal offence against Himself. ‘How is a God thus holy and just to be reconciled 2 See M‘Cosh, Divine Gov. Iv. 2.3, p. 475 (4thed.). Waterland’s words are few, but very weighty; on Fundam. Vol. v. p. 82. tirép mavtwy] On the meaning of irép in dogmatical passages, see notes on Gal. iii. 13. Here trép (‘in commo- dum’) seems to point to the benefit con- ferred by Christ upon us, év7) to His substitution of Himself in our place. 7d wapTtuptoy Kk. 7. A.] ‘the (import of the) testimony (to be set forth) in its proper ™~ > Oo seasons ;’ Syriac 22\2 |2o20m 22 a O1ID}= [testimonium quod venit in tempore suo], not ‘ the proof of it,’ etc, Middleton, Art. p. 389. Some little dif- ficulty has been felt in these words, ow- ing to the true nature of the apposition not having been recognized. Td uaprtpiov is an accusative in apposition, to the pre- ceding sentence, not to a@yriAutpoy (Ort GvtlAvtpov Td mapt. Aeyw, TovTETTL Td magos, Theophyl. 2), but to 6 dovs mavtwy, scil. ‘que res (nempe quod sua ipsius morte omnes homines redemisset, Luke xxiv. 46, 47) testimonii suo tempore (ab apostolis) dicendi argumentum esset,’ Fritz. Rom. xii. 1, Vol. 111. p. 12, where this passage is very carefully investigat- ed; see also Winer, Gir. § 59. 9. p. 472, and Scholef. Hints, p. 118. Thus there is no reason whatever for modifving the text (Liicke, Stud. u. Krit. for 1836, p. 651 sq.); the insertion of of before 7d papr., with DFG al., and of édd3y after idiots with D'KG, are incorrect (compare Fritz.) explanatory additions, and the omission of 7d wap. in A due apparently to accident. were Katpots tdlors] ‘its own seasons ;’ scil. rots mpoonKoust, Chrys. It is singular that Liicke should have felt any difficulty in this formula; comp. Gal. vi. 16, and somewhat simi- larly Polyb. Hist. 1.30. 10, xvi11. 34, 6. ‘Tempus testimonio de Christi morte expiatoria hominibus ab apostolis di- cendo idoneum, illud tempus est quod a Spiritus Sancti adventu ad apostolos (Acts i. 8) usque ad solemnem Christi reditum de coelo (2 Thess. i. 10) labitur,” Fritz. J.c.. The dative then is not a quasi dat. commodi (compare Scholef., Peile), but the dat. of the time wherein the action takes place ; comp. Rom. xvi. 25, xpdvois aiwvlos ceorynuévov, and see exx. in Winer, Gram. § 31. 9, p. 195. This form of the temporal dative thus approximates to the ordinary use of the temporal gen. (‘period within which ;’ comp. Donalds. Gr. § 451. ff, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 2), and is more correctly preceded by év; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48, 2, Wannowski, Constr. Abs. 111, 1, 48 1 TIMOTHY. Cuap. II. 7, 8. I desire that the men pray 8 , 5 /, 5. an ‘reverently, and that the wo- Bovdop at OuV ™p ooEvyed Sal TOUS dvdpas men dress and comport éy qrayTl TOm@ emalpovTas dalous xElpas Ywpis themselves with modesty. 8. diadroyicnov] So ADKL, Vulg., and many Vv., Origen (3), Chrys., Theo- doret (text), al. (Rec., Griesb , Matth., Scholz, Lachm., De Wette (e sil.), Huther, Alf.). The plural d:adroyoudv is adopted by Tisch. with FG: 17. 67**. 73. 80 [MSS. that it is asserted commonly accord with B], and many others; Boern,, Copt. Syr. (both); Origen (4), Euseb., Basil, Theod., al. As the external author- ities seem decidedly to preponderate in favor of the former, and as it seems more probable that the plural should be a correction of the less usual singular (only in Luke ix. 46, 47), than that the singular should have been altered from the plural for the sake of symmetry in number with épyjs, we retain the reading of the Received Text. p. 88. The temporal gen., except in a few familiar forms, is rare in the N. T. 7. eis 6) ‘for which, scil. waptipioy ; ‘cui testimonio dicendo constitutus sum preco,’ Fritz. Rom. xii. 1, Vol. 111. p. 15, note. kh pvél ‘a herald,’ “przeco solemnis, a Deo missus,’ Beng. ; only here, 2 Tim. i. 11, and 2 Pet. ii. 5. There is no necessity in the present case for modifying (‘ preedicator,’ Vulg.) the primary meaning of the word ; compare Ececlus. xx. 15, avoigte: 7b ordua avrTod ws Khp., and see esp. 1 Cor. ix. 27, where knpvooew is used of the ‘ agonistic her- ald’ in accordance with the tenor of the forecoing verses; see Meyer zn loc. amdatoados] ‘anapostle,’ in the higher sense of the word; péya 7d Tod aroord- Aov atlwma Kat 51d TodTO ayTimoLetra Tov- tov, Theophyl. : see notes on Gal. i. 1. &AjGerav «7. A] ‘IL say the truth, I lic not.’ De Wette seems clearly right in maintaining that this protestation re- fers to the preceding words; the asseve- ration with regard to his apostleship was of course not intended for Timothy, but for the false teachers who doubted his apostolical authority. The third official designation d:d¢cx. éSvav, then follows with full climactic force. To assert that this is a phrase which the apostle used in his later years ‘with less force and relevance than he had once done’ (Alf.) appears questionable and precarious. év mlaote: k.7.A.| ‘in faith and truth ;” the spheres in which the apostle perform- ed his mission. The two substantives are commonly taken either both with ob- jective reference, scil. év mioret dAndiwh ,— kal being explanatory, Mack (compare Peile, who inappositely cites 2 Thess. ii. 13), or both with subjective reference, ‘faithfully and truly’ év wior. «. dA. = motov kat adn&wév), Grinf., Leo [mis- cited by De W.] It seems, however, more simple to refer wiotis to the subjec- tive faith of the apostle, aA7S. to the ob- jective truth of the doctrine he delivered ; ‘quidquid fides docet necessario est ve- rum,’ Justin. “AAjxea logically follows miotts, for, as the same expositor re- marks, ‘hee ad illam aditum recludit ;’ comp. John viii. 31. 8. BotAopat ovv] ‘I desire then:’ ‘hoc verbo exprimitur auctoritas apos- tolica ; cap. v. 14,’ Beng. In BovAopa the active wish is implied ; it is no mere willingness or acquiescence. On the dis- tinction between BovAoua and SéA®, see below on ch. vy. 14, and comp. notes on Eph. i. 11, and especially the clear and satisfactory discussion of Donaldson, Cratyl. § 463, p. 694 sq. (ed 3). ody] Not simply illative and in reference to ver. 7 (Caly.), but retrospective and resumptive,— recapitulating, and at the Guar. Il 9: Nee Devic O mie eve: 49 ’ n \ Ss x Ai) on Gh oe / \ a 5) Lal \ , lal e 4 ee J ae Koopia peta aidods Kab cwppocvvns Koopely EavTas, p1 ev Trey- good texical authority. The explanation of Chrysost. and the Greek expositors, GpdiBoria (mictevay Btt AnWn, Theodo- ret), ‘hesitationes,’ Vulg. in Phil. /. c., Ow ve {Ac ouiso [cogitationes] Syr., ‘ tvei- flein,’ Goth., is perfectly satisfactory and in accordance with the proper meaning of the word; compare Plato, Avxioch. p. 367 A, ppovrides..... Kal Siadoyiopol, and Clem. Rom. Cor. 1. 21, where it is in connection with éyyo@y; so also Clem. Alex. Strom. 1v. 17, quoting from Clem. Rom. On the alleged distinction between xwpis and &yev, see notes on Hph. ii. 12. 9. doabtws K.7.A.] ‘(1 desire) like- wise that women also, in seemly guise, with shamefustness and discretion, do adorn themselves,’ ete. Omitting all evasive and virtually participial translations (comp. Conybeare) of the plain infinitive koo- ety, we have two constructions: we may either supply (a) merely BotaAoua, the infin. kooweiy being simply depend- ent on the supplied verb; or (b) BovAo- fat mpooevxecSat, the infinitival clause Koopey kK. T. A., being regarded as added ‘per asyndeton’ (Mack), or with an ex- planatory foree (comp. De W.). The main objection to (a) is the less special meaning that must be assigned to éaav- tws; but compare Tit. iil. 3, and appy. Rom. viii. 26, where écavtws introduces a statement co-ordinate with, but not purely similar to, what precedes ; see also 2 Mace. ii. 12. The objection to (b) is the singularly unconnected position of koouery : this is far less easy to surmount, for in all the instances hitherto adduced of unconnected infinitives (ch. v. 14, vi. 18, Tit. iii. 1) the verbs all relate to the same subject, and the construction is easy and obvious. It seems best then to adopt (a), and to find the force of dcav- tws in the continued but implied (ver. 11) reference to public prayers ; see Bp. Moller zn loc. Kal, moreover, has thus its full and proper ascensive force ; the women were not mere supernumeraries ; they also had their duties, as well as the men; these were sobriety of deportment and simplicity of dress, at al/ times, espe- cially at public prayers. It would seem almost as if the apostle intended only to allude to demeanor and dress at the lat- ter, but concluded with making the in- structions general. é€v KaTa- “in seemly guise:’ compare Tit. ii. 3, év KataoThmatt iepo- mpemeis, and see notes in loc.; not to be connected directly with koopety, but form- ing with pera cwppoo. x. 7.A. akind of adjectival predication to be appended to yuvaikas ; comp. Peile in loc, and see Matth. vi. 29, Tit.i.6. KataoroAy is not simply ‘dress’ (Liddell and Scott, Lex. s. v., Huther, al.), a meaning for which there is not satisfactory authority, but ‘deportment,’ as exhibited exter- nally, whether in look, manner, or dress ; see Rost u. Palm, Ler. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 1655, and comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. 1. 8. 4, kataoToAy Kal oxjua odparos, and especially Hippocr. de Dec. Habitu, 1. 26, where katacToAy is associated with raSe- dpa and mepiotoAH, thus apparently con- veying the idea of something outwardly cognizable, —external appearance as principally exhibited in dress ; comp. Syr. Lecads Lasd Lesavls [in oxhwart casto vestitus]: ‘guise’ thus perhaps approaches most nearly to the idea which the apostle intended to con- vey. We cannot (with De W.) cite the Vulg. ‘ habitus,’ as the following epithet (ornato) seems to show that the transla- tor referred it more definitely to ‘ ap- parel.’ It would seem then not improb- able that the glosses of Hesych. (kataor. mepiBorny) and Suidas (karaot.* oToAyv), and the use in later writers, e.g. Basil TTOAH Koopla| « rT a Cnkey LE 0, pacw Kal yput@ %) papyapitals 7) (waTicu@ TrodvTeNel, t TIMOTHY. 51 1D 2 Wh: 0 mpémet yuvaréiv errayyeddopévals SeoséBeav, Ov Epywv ayaSav. (see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. 65), were suggested by a doubtful interpreta- tion of this passage. kooule| Only here and ch. iii. 2, and with the meaning, ‘ seemly,’ ‘becoming’? (compare Goth. ‘ hrainjai’), — not ‘ ornato,’ Vulg., Luther: see Suicer, Z'hesaur. s. vy. Vol. II. p. 147. scappoctyns| ‘shamefastness and dis- cretion ;’ the inward feeling which should accompany the outward bearing and de- portment: both terms are found united, Arrian, Epict. 1v. 8. Aidws (only here; Heb. xii. 28, cited by Trench, Synon. s. v, has but little critical support) marks the innate shrinking from anything un- becoming ;* cwpootvn (ch. ii. 15, Acts xxvi. 25), the ‘well-balanced state of mind resulting from habitual self-re- straint ;’ comp. 4. Macc. i. 31, owdpo- 5 A A atdovus kal ovvn early emikpateia Tay emuuiay, More comprehensively, Plato, Republ. 1v. p. 430 5, kal noovay tiwav Kal émidumiav eyxpar., similarly, Symp. p. 196 c, and more at length Aristotle, Hthics, 111. 13. Chrysostom is no less distinct, cwpoc. ov ToUTO pdvov eorTt Td Topvelas améxeo- Sat, GAAG kat To TaY AoITeY TadGv exTds eivot, on Tit. ii. 5, p. 822, see Trench, Synon. § 20, and for the most plausible translation, notes on Transl. It may be remarked that céppwy and its derivatives (except cwppoveiy, and, cwppootvn, Acts 1. c.) cwppovicew, cwppovicuds, cwhpdvws, cwppocvvn, occur only in the Pastoral Epp This is one among many hints, afforded by the verbal characteristics of these three Epp., that they were written by one hand [St. Paul], and probably at no distant period from one another. Kh ev wA€ypacty] ‘not with plait- ings:’ special adornments both personal (wAéyu.) and put on the person (xpva@, Mapyap., iuatious) inconsistent with Christian simplicity ; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 3, eumAokh TpLxev, and see esp. Clem. Alex. Peedag. 111. 11. 62, Vol.1. p. 290 (Pott.), ai mepitAoKal TOV TpiX@v ai EraipiKat k. T.A., Where this and other kinds of personal decoration are fully discussed ; comp. Wakef. Sylv. Crit. Vol. 111. p. 133. What Clement approves of is ava- detodou Tv Kdunv evTEAGS Tepdyy Tw ATH mapa thy adxéva apedrc? Sepameia ovvavéovoas (yuvatkly) eis KdAAOS yyhotov Tas céppovas kduas. On the subject gen- erally, see Smith, Dict. of Antig. Art. ‘Coma,’ and the plates in Montfaucon, TL Antiqg. Expl. Vol. 111. p. 41, Suppl. Vol. 111. p. 44. The remarks of Beng. on this use of ui) are not satis- factory ; ov in peculiar forms of expres- sion is found after BovAoua, the regular and natural particle after verbs of ‘ will,’ is, however, of course wf; see exx. in Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 329 sq Kal xpva@l Scil. repidsecer xpvolwy, 1 Pet. iii. 3; ear-rings, necklaces, brace- lets, comp. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 1x. 35. 10. GAN’ b wpemer k.T.A.] ‘but, — which becometh women professing (not ‘ who profess,” Alf.) godliness.’ 'The construc- tion is slightly doubtful : 6? épyor ayasav may be joined with émayyeAa. (Vulg., Theod.); in which case the rel. 6 must be regarded as equivalent to év rovTa 6 (Matth.), or cad’ 6’ (Huth.),—both some- what unsatisfactory explanations. It seems much more simple to connect 6” py. wy. with koopety (Syr., Theophyl.), and toregard 0 mpére: x. T. A. aS a common relatival opposition ; see Winer, Gr. § 23.2, p. 143, note. The objection of Huther to kocuety— dia is not of mo- ment: épya ayaa were the medium of the xécuos; the prevenient and attend- ant graces of soul (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 3. ) were its actual constituents. éTwTay- yerAomévars] ‘ professing,’ ‘ profi- tentes,’ ‘ pre se ferentes,’ Justin. ; comp, 1 TIMOTHY. Cnap. II. 11, 12. 52 A woman must learn and not teach, for two reasons ; she was second in respect of Tay ‘ creation, and first in respect of transgression. 1 Turi ev jovyla pavSavétm év don vro- 42 8 Py / be \ > > V4 wdoKe Sé yuvalkt ovK érriTpémra, 12. biddonew 5e yuv.] So Lachm. and Tisch., ed. 1, with ADFG; 10 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Goth., al.; Cypr., Ambrst., Jerome (much appr. by Griesb., De Wette, Huther, Wiesing.). It is difficult to understand what principle except that of oppo- sition to Lachm. has induced Tisch. (ed. 2,7) to adopt the reading of the Rec. ywu- vail be SiddoKnewv, with KL; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Theod.-Mops., Chrys., Theod., Dam., al.; Ambr. (M/ill, Scholz, Alf.), when the uncial authority is thus noticeably weak, and the context so plainly favors the reading of the text. The de is not for yap (Syr.), and has certainly no ‘ vim copulativum ’ (= ‘ scilicet,’ Leo), but properly, and with its usual antithetical force, marks the opposition to pavSavéerw. ch. vi. 21, where this meaning is per- fectly clear. Huther compares Xenoph. Mem. 1. 2.7, apethy émayyedAcuevos, and Jenat. Ephes. 14, riotw emayyeAd.; add Philo, de Human. § 1, Vol. 11. p. 384 (ed. Mang.), émayyeAdéTar Seov Sepa- metay, and see further exx. in Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 1157. @ecoce- Bea, an am. Aeyou., scarcely differs in sense from evoéfeia, ver. 2; compare notes. ll. yuvi] ‘a woman,’ tv. e. any one of the class, or, in accordance with the idiom of our language (Brown, Gramm. of Gr. 11. 2. obs. 6, p. 220), ‘the woman,’ see notes on Lph. v. 23. év jovxia] ‘in quiet,’ scil. ‘ without speaking or attempting to teach in the Church:’ pdt deyyécdo, gnoly, év exkAnoia yurh, Chrys. havsavérea| ‘karn,’ i.e. at the public ministrations; in antithesis to ddack., yer. 12. It is obvious that the apostle’s previous instructions, 1 Cor. xiv. 31 sq., are here again in his thoughts The renewal of the prohibition in Concil. Carth. rv. Can. 99 (a. D. 398), would seem to show that a neglect of the apos- tolic ordinance had crept into the African Church. Women were permitted, how- eyer, to teach privately those of their own ser, ib. Can. 12; see Bingham, Antiq. xIV"445: év waon bTo- sayin] ‘in all subjection,’ 2. e. yielding it in all cases, not ‘in voller Unterord- nung,’ Huther; was being extensive rather than intensive: see notes on Eph. i. 8. On the position occupied by women in the early Church, it may be remarked that Christianity did not abrogate the primal law of the relation of woman to man. While it animated and spiritual- ized their fellowship, it no less definitely assigned to them their respective spheres of action; teaching and preaching to men, ‘mental receptivity and activity in family life to women,’ Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 147 (Bohn). What grave ar- guments these few verses supply us with against some of the unnatural and un- scriptural theories of modern times. 12. SidacKerv SG] Opposition to pavSaverw ver. 11, see critical note. Ar ddoKew is emphatic, as its position shows ; it does not, however, follow, as the Mon- tanists maintained from 1 Cor. xiv. 5, that a woman might mpopnrevew in pub- lic. Every form of public address or teaching is clearly forbidden as at vari- ance with woman's proper duties and destination: see Neander, Planting, 1. c. note. Wolf cites Democrates, Sentent. [ap. Gale, Script. Myth.] yovh ph aonetrw Aoyov, Sewdy yap. avSevteiv] ‘ to exercise dominion ; , ud > oO Mf Ss Cua So SoS, {audacter agere super] Syr.; not ‘to usurp authority,” Crap. II. 13, 14. ovde adSevrety avdpos, GAN’ eivat ev Hovyig. Tos emAaoSsn, eita Eda. ‘Auth. Ver., a further meaning not con- tained in the word. Addevrety (Gm. Ac- you. in N. T.), found only in late and eccl. writers (Basil, Hpist. 52), involves the secondary and less proper meaning of aveévrns {Lobeck, Phryn. p. 120, but comp. Eur. Suppl. 442), scil. deordrns, avrodikns, Moeris; so Hesych. adSevreiy: étovoia¢eiv. The substantive avdevtia oc- curs 3 Mace. ii. 29; see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p.573, where verb, adj., and subst. are explained and illustrated. The im- mediate context shows that the primary reference of the prohibition is to public ministration (Beng.) ; the succeeding ar- guments, however, demonstrate it to be On this subject see the brief but satisfactory re- marks of [arless, Hthik, § 52, note, p. 279. GAN elvat x.T.A.] ‘but to be in quiet, 7. e. in silence ;’ infin, dependant on BovAoua: or some similar verb (not keAevw, which St. Paul does not use), to be supplied from od émtpérw; so 1 Cor. xiv. 34; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 8, Herm. Soph. Electr. 72. This form of brachylogy occurs most commonly in the case of an antithesis (as here), intro- duced by an adversative conjunction, Jelf, Gr. § 895. h. The antithesis be- tween each member of this and of verse 11 is very marked. 13. "Adam yap] First confirmation of the foregoing command, derived from the Creation. The argument from pri- ority of creation, to be complete, requires the subsidiary statement in 1 Cor. xi. 9, ovK exTiodn avhp Sia Thy yuvatka, GAAG yuvn 51a Tov dv5pa: comp. Est. The re- marks of Reuss, 7/ié!. Chreét. Vol. 11. p. 210, note, are unguarded ; there is here no ‘dialectique, Judaique,’ but a simple and direct declaration, under the influ- ence of the Holy Spirit, of the typical meaning of the order observed in the also of universal application. ap MOVE Eb Y \ 14 Kat 53 13° Adap yap mpe- "Adty ovK nTaTAS, 1) O& yun creation of man and wontan. éetmAadaady| ‘was formed, fashioned ;’ proper and specific word, as in Hesiod, Op. 70, ék yains mAdooe: comp. also Rom. ix. 20, and esp. Gen. ii. 7, @érAacey (TS) 6 Oeds roy dvSpwrov xoiv amd Tijs yiis : so Joseph. Antig. 1.1, 1. 14. tat Adda] Second confirmation, deduced from the history of the fall: ‘docet apostolus feminas oportere esse viris subjectas, quia et posteriores sunt in ordine et priores in culpa,’ Primas, cited by Cornel. a Lap. in loc. ovK Hrathan| There is no necessity whatever to supply ap@tos, Theodoret, Gicum. 1. The emphasis rests on ama- Adam was not directly deceived, Eve was; she says to God, 6 ddus qra- tnoé we; he only says, ality po @wkev We can hardly urge with Beng., ‘mulier virum non decepit sed ei persuasit, Gen. ili. 17,’ for it can scarcely be doubted that the woman did deceive the man (compare Chrys.), being in fact, in her very per- suasions, the vehicle of the serpent’s de- ceit : it is, however, the first entrance of sin which the apostle is specially regard- ing; this came by the means of the ser- pent’s amdtn; Eve directly succumbed to Tay. Gms tov EvAov, Kal Eparyov. it (dard yur. apxi) Guaptias, Ecclus. xxy. 24), Adam only indirectly and deriva- tively, Hence observe in Gen. iii. the order of the three parties in the promul- gation of the sentence ; the serpent (ver. 14), woman (ver. 16), man (ver. 17). According to the Rabbinical writers (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 867), Eve was addressed, because it was very doubtful whether man would have yielded. éfamatndetoa| ‘being completely, pa- tently deceived.’ The reading, which is supported by AD'FG; 17, al. (Lachm., Tisch.), seems to confirm the foregoing explanation. To preclude apparently ot a / ee efatratyveica ev trapaBace yeyover, eae EON ble Mog CuHap, If 15. 15 cwSynoetar bé Sia THS ' Nt,” 3 / \ e n A Texvoyovias, EaV pelvwow €v TLOTEL KaL AYaTN Kal aylacHO peTa cwppocvvys. 7 any misconception of his meaning, the apostle adds a strengthened compound, which serves both to show that the mo- ment of thought turns on dmardw, and also to define tacitly the limitation of meaning under which it is used. The prep. é« here conveys the idea of comple- tion, thoroughness, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. vy. éx, Vol. 1. p. 820. ‘H yuvt is here clearly ‘the woman,’ i.e. Eve, not the sex generally (Chrysost.). ‘The generic meaning comes out in the next verse. Eye was the typical representative of the race. évy wapaBaoet yéyover] ‘became involved in transgres- ston,’ ‘ fell into transgression ;’ the constr. ylverSa ev oceurs occasionally (but not ‘frequently ’ Huther) in the N. T. (e. 9. év aywvia, Luke xxii. 44; ev éxoracet, Acts xxii. 17; év dd&, 2 Cor. ili. 7; ev duoipart, Phil- ii. 7; €v Adyw koAarelas, 1 Thess. ii. 5) to denote the entrance into, and existence in, any given state. On the distinction between «iva: (esse) and ylveoSau (existere et evenire), see Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 284, note. 15. cwShoetat Se] ‘yet she shall be saved ;’ not merely ‘eripietur e noxa illa,’ (Beng.), but in its usual proper and scriptural sense, ‘ad vitam «ternam per- ducetur ;’ comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 1206. The translation of Peile (founded on the tense), ‘shall be found to have been saved,’ is somewhat artificial ; see notes on Gal. ii. 16. The tense here only marks simple futurity. The nom. to cwSfoeTra is yuvh, in its generic sense; od ep) rijs Etvas en, GAAG Trep) TOD Kowod Tis Pvcews, Theod. This is confirmed by the use of the plural, day welvwow k. T.A-, see below. 31a THS TEKVOYyovias| ‘by means of rue child-bearing.’ Setting aside all un- tenable or doubtful interpretations of 5:4 (‘in’ Beza, ‘cum’ Rosenm.) and texvo- yovias (=tTéxva, Syriac; Td kata Ody |réxva] avaryareiv, Chrys., Fell, compare Stier, Red. Jes. Vol. 111. p. 13; ‘ matri- monium,’ Heinsius), we have two expla- nations ; (a) ‘by child-bearing ;’ by fulfil- ling her proper destiny and acquiescing in all the conditions of woman’s life, Beng., De Wette, Huther, al. ; compare Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 341 (Bohn): (B) ‘by the child-bearing, 2. e. by the rela- tion in which woman stood to the Mes- siah, in consequence of the primal pro- phecy that ‘her seed (not man’s) should bruise the serpent’s head’ (Gen. iii. 16), Hammond, Peile: ‘ the peculiar function of her sex (from its relation to her Sa- viour) shall be the medium of her salva- tion.’ This latter interpretation has but few supporters, and has even been said, though scarcely justly, to need no refu- tation (Alf.); when, however, we con- sider its extreme appropriateness, and the high probability that the apostle in speaking of woman’s transgression, would not fail to specify the sustaining ‘prophecy which preceded her sentence ; —when we add to this the satisfactory meaning which 6:4 thus bears, — the un- circumscribed reference of gwShoetat (opp. De W., Alf.),—the force of the article (passed over by most expositors), —and, lastly, observe the coldness and jejuneness of (a), it seems difficult to avoid deciding in favor of (8): see the clear and satisfactory note of Hammond, and we may now add of Wordsw. in loc. é€av welvwory] ‘if they should continue,’ seil. af yuvatkes, or rather 7 yuvy, taken in its collective sense ; see Winer, Gr § 58. 4, p. 458: a necessary limitation of the previous declaration; 4 texvoy. of itself could effect nothing. The plural is referred by Chrysost. and Syr. [as Gary EAs Qualifications of a bishop ; he must be of irreproacha- ITEM OW HY. 5d III. ITvords 6 Novos el tus erisKoTrs ope- ble morals, a good father of his family, and of good report. shown by the mase. termination] to réxva, this is grammatically admissible (see Winer, Gr. § 67. 1, p. 555), but exegeti- cally unsatisfactory. On the use of éay with subjunctive (objective possibility ; ‘experience will show whether they will abide’), see Hermann, de Partic. &y, 11. 7, p. 97, and notes on Gal. i. 8. In ap- plying these principles, however, it must always be remembered that in the N. T. the use of éay with subj. has nearly en- tirely absorbed that of ef with the opt. ; see Green, Gr. p. 53. év miotet kal ay.] ‘in faith and love ;’ sphere in which they were to continue. On the union of these terms, and the omission, but of course virtual inclusion, of éAmtis, compare Reuss, Thél. Chrét. Iv. 22, Vol. rr. p. 259. iors here ap- propriately points, not to ‘eheliche Treue,’ Huth., but to faith in the cardinal prom- ise. holiness.’ kal aytaocual ‘and ‘La sanctification est donc Vétat normal du croyant, Rom. vi. 22, 1 Thess. iv. 3 sq.;’ Reuss. Theol. Chreét. 1v. 16, Vol. 11. p. 167. On cwopocdvn, see notes on ver. 9. Cuapter III. 1. miords 6 Ad- yos| ‘ Fuithful is the saying.’ ‘ Hac vel- uti preefatiunculad attentionem captat,’ Justin. Chrysostom refers this to what has preceeded (compare ch. iv. 9); the context, however, seems clearly to sug- gest that, as in ch. i. 15, the reference is to what follows. The reading avSpém- vos (1) and a few Lat. Vy.) is of course of no critical value, but is interesting as seeming to hint at a Latin origin. In ch.i. 15, ‘humanus’is found in a few Lat. Vy. (see Sabatier), where it was probably a reading, or rather gloss, ad sensim (hum.=benignus). From that passage it was ignorantly and unsuitably imported here into some Lat. Vy., and thence perhaps into the important Cod. Claromont. Charges of Latinisms (though by no means fully sustained), will be found in the Edinburgh Review, No. cxcr.; see Tregelles, Printed Text of N. T. p. 199 sq. éT1LG- komw7s| ‘office of a bishop. Without entering into any discussion upon the origin of episcopacy generally, it seems proper to remark that we must fairly ac- knowledge with Jerome (just. 73, ad Ocean. Vol. 1v. p. 648), that in the Pas- toral Epp. the terms éionxoros and mpec- Bétepos are applied indifferently to the same persons; Pearson, Vind. Jgn. x11. p. 585 (A.C. L.), Thorndike, Gov. of Churches, 111. 3, Vol. 1. p. 9 (ib.). The first was borrowed from the Greeks (oi map’ ASnvalous «is Tas bmnkdous méAeEts emuTkepardat Ta Tap’ ExdoTos TeuUTOMEVoL, Snidas, s. v. éwiox., Dion. Hal. Antiq. 11. 76; see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v11. 2. 2, and exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 293), and pointed to the office on the side of its duties: the second, which marked primarily the age of the occupant, was taken from the Jews (Hamm. on Acts xi. 30), and pointed to the office on the side of its yravity and dignity ; comp. 1 Peter y. 1, and see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p- 143 (Bohn). While this cannot be denied, it may be fairly urged on the other hand,— (1) that the icodvvauia of the two words in the N. T. appears of this kind, that while mpeoBirepos, con- jointly with exicromos, refers to what was subsequently the higher order, it is rarely used in the N. T. (comp. James v. 14 ?) to denote specially what was subsequently the lower; comp. Hammond, Dissert. Iv. 6, Vol. tv. p. 799 sq. ; to which may be added that in the second century no one of the lower order was ever termed an émloxomos (Pearson, Vind. Jyn. ch. X111. 2); and (2) that there are indelible 56 yeTal, KaXOD Epryou eémiSupel. traces in the N. T. of an office (by what- ever name called, ayyeAos, x. 7. A.) which, possibly, first arising from a simple zpo- edpia in a board of mpecBuTepa (comp. Jerome on Tit. i. 5, Vol. rv. p. 413, ed. Ben.) grew under apostolic sanction and by apostolic znstetution into that of a sin- gle definite rulership ‘ over a whole body ecclesiastical ;’ see esp. Blunt, Sketch of the Church, Serm. 1. p. 7 sq., and comp. Saravia, de Divers. Grad. ch. x. p. 11 sq. We may conclude by observing that the subsequent official distinction between the two orders (traces of which may be observed in these Epp.) has no- where been stated more ably than by Bp. Bilson, as consisting in two prerogatives of the bishop, ‘ singularity in succeeding, and superiority in ordaining,’ Perpet. Gov. x11. p. 334 sq. Oxf. 1842). Of the many treatises written on the whole subject, this latter work may be espe- cially recommended to the student. Bil- son is, indeed. as Pearson (Vind. Ign. ch. 111.) truly says, ‘ vir magni in eccle- sid nominis.’ dpévyeTrat| ‘ seeketh after :’ there is no idea of ‘am- biticus seeking’ (De W.) couched in this word: it seems only to denote the defi- nite character, and perhaps manifesta- tion, of the desire, the ‘stretching out of the hands to receive,’ whether in a good (Heb. xi. 16), or in a bad (chap. vi. 10) application ; compare Wieseler, Chronol. p- 301, note. ? épyov] ‘work :’ not ‘bonam rem,’ Castal., but definitely ‘function,’ ‘ occupation ;* comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5, and see notes on Eph. iv. 12. On the subject of this and the following yerses, see a discourse by Bp. Kennett (Lond. 1706). 2. oy] ‘then ;’ continuation slightly predominating over retrospect ; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 604. The proper collec- tive sense of this particle (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p.717) may, however, be clearly YTS OPET : Cuap. III. 2. 9 5 an X St 7 > r €l OUVY TOV E€ETTLOKOTTOVY AVETTI- traced in the refererfce to the foregoing words, Kkadod &pyouv: so acutely Bengel, ‘bonum negotium bonis committendum.’ Toy émickomoy] ‘every bishop’ or (ac- cording to our idiom) ‘a bishop ;’ the article is not due so much to the impli- cation of érick. in émoxomjs (ver. 1; comp. Green, Gr. p. 140), as to the ge- neric way in which the subject is pre+ sented; comp. Middleton, Art. 111. 2. 1, notes on Gal. iii. 20. Huther here calls attention to two facts in relation to emick. (1) That except here and Tit. i, 7, St. Paul only uses the term once, Phil. i. 1; we ought perhaps to add Acts xx. 28: (2) That the singu- lar is used here, and still more noticea- bly in Tit. 1. ec. where mpeoBirepor had just preceded. Of these two points, (1) seems referable to a later date, as well as to the different subject of these Epp. ; (2) to the desire of the apostle to give his instructions their broadest application by this generic use of the article. avewlAnumTov| ‘ irreproachable ; * ‘inreprehensibilem,’ Vulgate, Clarom. ; tpueumrov, akatayvworov, Hesych., There seems no authority for regarding avemin. as ‘an agonistic term’ (Blomf., Peile) ; it appears only used in an ethical sense, as ‘qui nullum in agendo locum dat rep- rehensionis’ (Tittm.; wy mapéxwy Kare- yoplas apopuiv, Schol. Thucyd. vy. 17), and differs from a@ueurtos as implying, not ‘qui non reprehenditur,’ but ‘ qui non dignus est reprehensione, etiamsi reprehendatur ;’ see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 380. Hence its union with &omaAos, ch. vi. 14, and with kaSapdés, Lucian, Pisce. 8; comp. Polyb. Hist. xxx. 7. 6, where, however, the sense seems simply priva- tive: see further exx. in Elsner, and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. mias yuvatkds &vdpal ‘a husband of one wife.’ These much-contested words have been explained in three ways § Cuap. III. 2. RE TM OVE ELY : 57 5 a \ ” 5 } , r AneTTOY Eival, MLAs yvVAaLKOS avopa, vnhadLorv, cwPpova, KOT LLOV, (a) in reference to any deviation from morality in respect of marriage, ‘ whether by concubinage, polygamy, or improper second marriages’ [comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2], Matthies; so appy. Theodoret, roy md udvyn yuvarl cuvocodyta swppdves: (b) contemporaneous polygamy, which at that time still seems to have prevailed among the Jews, Joseph. Ant. xvi. 1. 2, mdr- plov yap ev TaUTS mAcloow july cvvoiKely ; Justin Mart. Trypho, § 134: so Calvin, Bengel, al.: (c) successive polygamy, whether (a) specially, after divorce, Hamm., Suicer (Thesaur. s. v. dvyaula) ; or (8) generally, after loss of first wife, however happening, Fell, and appy. Huth., Wiesing., al. Of these (a) is clearly too undefined ; (b) is in opposition to the corresponding expression in ch. y. 9; (c, a) is plausible, but when we consider the unrestrictedness of the formula, — the opinions of the most ancient writers (Hermas, Past. Mand. trv., Tertull. de Monogam. cap. 12, Athenagoras, Legat. p. 37, ed. Morell, 1636, Origen, in Lu- cam, xvit. Vol. 111. p. 953, ed. Delarue ; see Heydenr. p. 166 sq., Coteler’s note on Herm. /. c.),— the decisions of some councils, e. g. Neoces. (A. p. 314) Can. 3, 7, and the guarded language of even Laod. (A. p. 363%) Can. 1,—the hint afforded by paganism in the case of the woman (‘ univira’),— and lastly, the pro- priety in the particular cases of éricxomot and didkovor (ver. 8) of a greater temper- ance (mox ynddAtoy, cSppova) and a man- ifestation of that rep) roy Eva yduov ceuvd- tns (Clem. Alex. Strom. 111.1, Vol. 1. p. 511, Potter), which is not unnoticed in Scripture (Luke ii. 36, 37), we decide in favor of (c, B),.and consider te apostle to declare the contraction of a second mar- riage to be a disqualification for the office of an érickomos, or didkovos. The position of Bretschn., that the text implies a bish- op should be married (so Maurice, Unity,. 8 p- 632], does not deserve the confutation of Winer, Gr. § 18. 9, p. 107, note. ynpdadAcrov] ‘sober,’ —either in a meta- phorical sense {céppwy, Suidas), as the associated epithets and the use of vppw in good Greek (e. g.) Xenoph. Conviv. vi1i- 21) will certainly warrant, or per- haps more probably (as 4} mdpowor, ver. 3, is not a mere synonym, see notes) in its usual and literal meaning. Nadew (ypnyopetv, cwppoveiv Biw, Hesych.) in- deed occurs six times in the N. T. (1 Thess. v. 6, 8,/2) Limttiv; 51 Bet: i. 13, iv. 7, v. 8), and in all, except perhaps 1 Thess. /. c., is used metaphorically ; as however the adj. both in ver. 11 (see notes) and appy. Tit. ii. 2 is used in its literal meaning, it seems better to pre- serve that meaning in the present case ; so De W., but doubtfully, for see ib. on Tit, 1. c. Under any circumstances the derivative translation ‘ vigilant,’ Auth. Ver. (d:eynyepuevos, Theodoret), though possibly defensible in the verb (see Etym. M. s. v. vipew), is needlessly and doubt- fully wide of the primary meaning: on the derivation see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 5. caédpova, Kdapmtov| ‘sober-minded or discreet, orderly.’ The second epithet here points to the outward exhibition of the inward virtue implied in the first,— ote cal Sid ToD chuatos palveoSat THY Ths Wuxis cwppocvynv, Theodoret : see notes on chap. ii. 9. On @uAdtevoy, see notes on Tit. i. 8. didaKkTiKdy| ‘apt to teach,’ Auth. Ver., ‘lehrhaftig,’ Luther ; not only ‘able to teach’ (The- od.; comp. Tit: i. 9), but, in accordance with the connection in 2 Tim. ii. 24, ‘ready to teach, ‘skilled in teaching,’ o Ma = [doctor) Syr. ; 7d 5& pddiora xapaxthpicoy tov éemiekoroy Td diddoKew éorly, Theophyl.; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. y. Vol. 1. p. 900, comp. Hofmann,, Schrift. Vol. 11. 2, p- 253. On the qual- 58 1 TIM pirotevov, SidaKTLKor, apwayov, apidapyupor, 4 vy 2 ig A \ / , TEKVA EXOVTA EV UTOTAY)) META TTACNS DELVOTHTOS, itative termination -xés, see Donalds. Cratyl. § 254, p. 454. 3. mdpotvoy] ‘violent over wine,’ Tit. i. 7; not simply synonymous with pfao- voy or with olvw moAA@ mpocéxovTa, ch. iii. 8 (Ziegler, de Episc. p. 350), but in- cluding drunkenness and its manifesta- tions : so Loess Syr. SN pos sti | wine,’ see not ‘ sectator vini,’ Schaaf; see Michaelis in Cast. Lex., and compare Heb. x. 28]; comp. Chrys., rbv tBpic- thy, Tov avaddn, who, however, puts too much out of sight the origin, oivos: comp. tapoivos Arist. Acharn. 981, and the copious lists of eXamples in Krebs, Obs. p. 852, Loesner, Obs. p. 396. The simple «state is marked by peduvaos (1 Cor. v. 11, vi. 10), the exhibitions of it by mdpowos ; Td wapowety ek ToD pmedvew ylyvera, Athen. x. § 62, p. 444. mAhKT HY] ‘a striker, Tit. i. 7; one of the specific exhibitions of rapowia. Chrys- ost. and Theodoret (comp. also Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p- 356) give this word too wide a reference (wAATTew Tay adeAPav Its connection both here and in Tit. /. c. certainly seems to suggest the simple and strict meaning ; see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v Vol. 11. p. 751, where both meanings are noticed. émietkh, &pmaxor] ‘ forbearing, not con- téntious, Tit. iii. 2, but in a reversed order; generic opposites to the two pre- ceding terms. The force of émeuhs is here illustrated by the associated adj. ; the &uaxos is the man who is not aggres- sive (Beng. on Tit lI. c.) or pugnacious, who does not contend; the émeuchs goes further, and is not only passively non- contentious, but actively considerate and forbearing, waving even just and legal ‘a transgressor over Thy ovveldnow). redress, éAartwtikbs kalrep exwv Toy _ OTHY \ Cuap. IIL. 3 —5, ss / / % 1) TWApOLVOV, [17 TWANKTHY, GAN EmrLEiKh, 4 rod idlov olxov Kah@s TpoicTdpevor, 5 (eb O€ Tus vouov Bonsdv, Aristot. Nicomach. Eth. v. 14 The latter word is also illustrated by Trench, Synonyms, § 43, but observe that the derivation is not from ef«w, but from eixds ; see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. apiriapyupor] ‘not a lover of money ;’ only here and Heb. xiii. 5. This epithet is not under the vinculum of aAAd, but is co-ordinate with the first two negatived predicates, and perhaps has a retrospec- tive reference to pAdtevov (Theophyl.). On the distinction between g:Aapyupia (‘avarice’) and mdAcovetia (‘ covetous- ness’), see Trench, Synon. § 24. 4. idfov| emphatic, and in prospective antithesis to ©cov, ver. 5 On the use of YSvos in the N. T., see notes on Eph. v, 22, and on its derivation (from pronoun 7), comp. Donaldson Cratyl. § 139, 152. éy bToTay7H is not to be connected closely with @ovra (Matth.), but appended to éxovra réxva, and is thus a kind of adjectival clause, specifying the moral sphere in which they were to move: see Tit, i. 6, comp. 1 Tim. ii. 9, Matth. vi. 29, al. If the part. had been used, though the meaning would have been nearly the same, the idea presented to the mind would have been different : in the one case subjection would have been noticed as a kind of at- tribute, in the present case it is represent- ed as the moral element with which they were surrounded. The transition from actual (Luke vii. 25) to figurative environ- ment (Matth. /. c.), and thence to deport- ment (ch. 11.9), or, as here, to moral con- ditions seems easy and natural. meta mdons K.7.A.| ‘ with all gravity :’ closely connected with éor., specifying the atten- dant grace with which their obedience was to be accompanied ; see notes on ch. ii. 2. 5. ef 6€...0uK ofde] ‘but if any man knows not (how) ;’ contrasted paren- ‘his own ;’ 4 Cur. III. 6. 1 TIMOTHY. 59 n° , 4 : A L a > Shae a , Tod (diov olkov mpooThvat ovK oidev, TAS exKANolas Oeod ErripEXs)- A 6 \ , ov \ % ‘ > cal : Sergey a geTAL 3) pay veoduTov, wa pn Tudwreis eis Kplwa eEuTréeon TOU thetical clause (Winer, Gr. § 53. 2, p. 401) serving to establish the reasonable- ness and justice of the requisition, tov éStov k T. A.3, the argument, as Huther observes, is ‘a minori ad majus.’ Ay is perhaps scarcely necessary to remark that there is no irregularity in the pres- ent use of ef ov: ‘ od arctissime conjungi cum verbo [not always necessarily a verb; compare Schexfer, Demosth. Vol. Ill. p 288] debet, ita ut hoc verbo con- junctum unam notionem constituat, cu- jusmodi est ov« oida nescio,’ Hermann, Viger, No. 309. This seems more sim- ple than to refer it here, with Green, ( Gr. p- 119), to any especial gravity or ear- nestness of tone. ‘The use of e od in the N T. is noticeably frequent; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 59 6, p. 568 sq., and for a copious list of exx., principally from later writers, Gayler, Part. Neg. v. p. 99 sq. emimednoeTat| ‘can he take charge ;’ ethical future, in- volving the notion of ‘ability,’ ‘ possi- bility ;’? mas Suvjoera, Chrysost.; see Winer, Gr § 40. 6, p. 250, Thiersch, de Pent. 111. 11. d, p. 159, and notes on Gal. vi. 5. Similar uses of érmedcioSau, “curam gerere,’ scil. ‘ saluti alicujus pros- piscere’ Bretschn. ; comp. Luke x. 35), are cited by Raphel in loc. 6 wh vedputTor| ‘not a recent con- vert,’ (Tov veoxathxntov, Chrys., Tov ev- Svs memotevedta, Theodoret), rendered somewhat paraphrastically in Syriac mn oO > a psoso2 iz [puer discipulatu suo’): the word is copiously illustrated by Sui- cer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 394. This and the following qualification are not speci- fied in the parallel passage, Tit. i. 6 sq. : there is, howeyer, surely no reason for drawing from the present restriction any unfavorable inferences against the au- thenticity of this Ep.; see Schleierm. uber 1 Tim. p 46. If the later date of the Ep. be admitted, Christianity would have been long enough established at Ephesus to make such a regulation nat- ural and easy to be complied with: see Wiesing. in loc. tTupwdeis] ‘ besotted, or clouded, with pride ;’ only here, ch. vi. 4, and 2 Tim. iii. 4. Both the derivation [OYTI-, 7¥¢w, Benfey, Vol. II. p. 275, less probably rupws, Harpocr. 175, 16] and the combinations in which tupdw is used (e. g. Polyb. Hist. 111. 81. 1, ayvoet Kat tetUpwTar; sim. Demosth. Fals. Leg. 409, paivouat rat teTUpwpar ; ib. Phil. 111. 116, Anpety kad TeTUpGoSau 5 Lucian, Megrin. 1, avohtov te Kat retv- pwuévou, etc.) seem to show that the idea of a ‘beclouded’ and ‘stupid’ state of mind must be associated with that of pride. Obnubilation, however produced, seems the primary notion ; that produced by pride or vanity (kevodofjocas, Coray) the more usual application: so Hesy- chius, TUdos’ GAaCovia, €rapots, cevodotta : comp. Philo, Migr. Abrah. § 24, Vol. 1. p. 457 (ed. Mang.), régov kal aradevotas Kal aAaCovelas yéeuovtes. Kptpa Tov S:aBdArAov| ‘judgment of the devil. The meaning of these words is somewhat doubtful. As xpiua, though never per se anything else than judicium, will still admit of some modification in meaning from the context (comp. Fritz. Rom. ii. 83, Vol. 1. p 94), d:aBdAov may be either (a) gen. subjecti, ‘the accusing judgment of the devil ’ (Matth., Huther) ; or (b) gen. object, ‘ the judgment passed upon the devil.’ In the former case kptua has more the meaning of ‘ crimina- tio’ (Beza), in the latter of ‘condemna- tio’ (Coray, al.). As the gen. d:aB0Aov in the next verse is clearly subjecti, in- terpr. (a) is certainly very plausible. Still as there is no satisfactory instance of an approach to that meaning in the 60 1 TIMOTRY. dvaBorov. 7 Cuar. III. 7, 8. al \ lal del 6€ Kal paptupiay Kady exew ard Tov wer, v4 \ > > \ > / A f fal , iva pn els ovevdicpov eurréon Kat Tayida tov diaBonov. The deacons must also be similarly irreproachable, and of good report ; the dea- conesses too must be faith- ful. N. T.— as xpiya seems naturally to point to God (Rom. ii. 2), as it is elsewhere found only with a gen. objecti (Rom. iii. 8, Rev. xvii. 1; xviii. 20 is a peculiar use),— and as the position of tod diaf. does not seem here to imply so close a union between the substantives as in ver. 7, we decide, with Chrys. and nearly all the ancient interpreters, in favor of (b), or the genitive objecti. Matthies urges against this the excess of lapse which would thus be implied; the force of the allusion must, however, be looked for, not in the extent of the fall, but in the similarity of the circumstances : the devil was once a ministering spirit of God, but by insensate pride fell from his hierarchy; comp. Jude 6, and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. didBodros, Vol. 1. p. 851. On the mean- ing and use of di¢8. see notes on Eph. iv. 27; the translation ‘ calumniatoris ’ (Grinf., al.) is not consistent with its use in the N. T. 7. 6@ nai] ‘ But, instead of being a veoputos, one of whose behavior in his new faith little can be known, he must also have a good testimony (not only from those within the Church, but) from those without.’ amo Tay €EwSer] ‘from those with- out;’ the prep. certainly not implying ‘among’ (Conyb.), but correctly mark- ing the source from which the testimony emanates: on the distinction between amd and mapd, esp. with verbs of ‘ receiving,’ see Winer, Gr. § 47. a, p. 331, note. Oi ewSev (in other places of gw, 1 Cor. Woylewets, Cel. av, 5, 1 Thess, iv: 12); like the Jewish p»p4x"45, is the regular designation for all not Christians, all those who were not oiketo: tis micrews ; see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 198, and the * Avakovous @catTws ceuvovs, 2) SiAGyoUS, Hi) Ov TOAAD TpocéxovTas, pun) alacypoKEpoets, Rabbinical citations in Schoettg. Hor. (on Cor. /. c.) Vol. 1. p. 600. dvetdtapov «.7.A]| ‘reproach, and (what is sure to follow) the snare of the devil,’ the absence of the article before maryida being perhaps due to the preposi- tion ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 2. p. 114. The exact connection is somewhat doubt- ful as the gen. may depend (a) on both, or (b) only on the’ last of the two sub- stantives. The omission of the prepo- sition before rayida (De W.) is an argu- ment in favor of (a); the isolated posi- tion, however, of dved. and the connec- tion of thought in ch. y. 14, 15, seem to preponderate in favor of (b), évei5. being thus absolute, and referring to ‘the re- proachful comments and judgment,” whether of those without (Chrys.) or within the Church. On the termination -(«)uos (action of the verb preceding from the subject) and its prevalence in later Greek, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 511; comp. Donaldson Cratyl. § 253, p. 420. The expression mayls rov 5108. occurs again 2 Tim. ii. 26; so similarly 1 Tim. vi.9. It is here added to oveid., not epex- egetically (7d eis oxdvdarov mpoxeiodat ToAA@y taryis éoTt Sia8., Theophyl.) but rather as marking the temptations that will be sure to follow the loss of charac- ter; ‘quid spei restat ubi nullus est pec- candi pudor ?’ Caly. 8. d1axdvovs| ‘deacons ;’ only used again by St. Paul in this special sense Phil. i. 1, and (fem.) Romans xvi. 1, though appy. alluded to Rom. xii. 7, I Cor. xii. 28, and perhaps 1 Pet. iv. 11. The office of Sidkovos (Siqxw Buttman Eeril. § 40), originally that of an almoner of the Church (Acts vi. 1 sq.), gradually developed into that of an assistant (&yr- ? Cuap. Iii. 9. 1 TIMOTHY. 61 yy b «f fol i DJ A l4 9 €yovTas TO pvoTHpLoy THs TicTews ev KaSapa ouveldyjcel. Afwes, 1 Cor. J. c.) and subordinate to the presbyters (Rothe, Anfdange, § 23, p. 166 sq.) : their fundamental employment, however, still remained to them; hence the appropriateness of the caution, my aicxpoxepdeis, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 34 sq. (Bohn). On the duties of the office, see esp. Bingham, Antiq. Book 11. 20. 1 sq., Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 869 sq., and Thomassin, Discipl. Eccl. Part 1. 2. 29 sq. “in like manner,’ as the foregoing class included im the toy éwickomoy, ver. 2: it was not to be as érépws (Arist. Elench. Soph. 7) in any of the necessary qualifi- cations for the office of a deacon, but &ocavtws as in the case of the bishops. It need scarcely to be added that the de? elvat of the preceding verses must be sup- plied in the present member. dtAdyous] ‘ doudle-tongued,‘ Auth. Ver. ‘speaking doubly,’ Syr.: drat Aeydu. ; mentioned in Poll. Onomast. 11. 118. The meaning is rightly given by Theo- doret, €repa pev mwovTw Erepa Se exeivw Aé€yovres. Grinfield (Schol. Hell.) com- pares 8iyAwacos, Prov. xi. 13, Barnab. Epist. 19: add S:xeuvdos Eurip. Orest. 890. mpocéxorvTas| “giving (themselves) up to;’ mpooéxew thus used is more commonly found with abstract nouns, e.g. avayvéoe, ch. iv. Here, how- ever, olvos moAds (and so probably Svor- actnpiov, Heb. vii. 13. comp. SdAacoa, Plut. Thess. 17) approaches somewhat to the nature of an abstract noun. This verb is only used by St. Paul in the Pas- toral Epp.; comp., however, Acts xx. 28. alicxporepdets| ‘greedy of base gains;’ only here. and Tit. i. 7. The adverb occurs 1 Pet. v. 2. As in all these cases the term is in connection with an office in the Church, it seems most natural (with Huther) to refer it, not to gains from unclean (com- < U aoavtTws| 13, dicctoovvyn, Job xxvii. 6. pare Syr.) or disgraceful actions (Theo- dor.), but to dishonesty with the alms of the Church, or any abuse of their spirit- ual office for purposes of gain; compare Ditein di 9. Exovras| ‘having, or (in the common ethical sense, Crabb, Synon. p. 252, ed. 1826) ‘ holding,’ Auth. Version, ‘behaltend,’ De Wette : not for karéxov- vas, Grot., a meaning more strong than the context requires and the use of the simple form will justify; see notes on ch. i. 19. The emphasis falls on ev kad. cuved., not on the participle, To pvot., THS Tiotews]| ‘the mys: tery of the fuith.” Owing to the different shades of meaning which wvorhpiov bears, the genitive in connection with it does not always admit the same explanation ; see notes on Eph.i. 9, iii. 4, vi.19. Here miotews is apparently a pure possessive gen. ; it was not merely that about which the wvor. turned (gen. objecti, Eph. i. 9), nor the subject of it (gen. of content ; this would tend to give riotis an objec- tive meaning, comp. exx. in Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 161), nor exactly the substance of the wvor. (genitive materia, Eph. iii. 4), but rather that to which the pvothpioy appertained: the truth, hith- erto not comprehensible, but now reveal- ed to man, was the property, object, of faith, that on which faith exercised itself. So very similarly ver. 16, 7d wvor. tis evoeBelas, ‘the mystery which belonged to, was the object contemplated by, god- liness ; the hidden truth which was the basis of all practical piety ; see Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 147, and Reuss, Theol. 1v. 9, Vol. 11. p. 89. Torts is faith consid- ered subjectively ; not objective faith (* doc- trina fidei’), a very doubtful meaning in the N. T.: see notes on Gal. i. 24. On the meaning of uverhpiov, see Sanderson, Serm. 9 (ad Aul.), Vol. 1. p. 227 (Ja- cobs.), and the notes on Hph. v. 82. 62 1 TIMOTHY Cuap. III, 10, 11. a = 10 Kai obtou Sé SoxipatécSwcayv TpOTov, cita SvaKoveitwoay avéey- ” KANTOL OVTES. év kaXapa@ ouvetd.| Emphatic; de- fining the ‘ratio habendi,’ and in close connection with the part.: the KaSapa cuveidjioet was to be, as it were, the ensphering principle, see 2 Tim. i. 13. On ovveid. see notes on ch. i. 5. 10. «al o&rou 8é] And these also, “and these moreover, ; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 12, wat mdytes Se of SéAovtTes K.T:A; These words (appy. not elewrly under- stood by Huther) admit only of one ex- planation. In the formula cal—é¢, like the Latin ‘ et—vero,’ or the ‘ et—autem’ of Plautus (see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 1. p. 588), while each particle retains its proper force, both together often have ‘ notionis quandam consociationem;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p.645. Thus while rat connects or enhances, and 6€ contrasts, the union of the two frequently causes dé to revert from its more marked, to its primary and less marked oppositive force, ‘in the second place’ (comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 155), so that the whole formula has more of an adjunctive character, and only retains enough of a retrospective opposition to define more sharply, ex- pand, or strengthen, the tenor of the pre- ceding words. Speaking roughly we might say, ‘xal conjungit, 5¢ intendit ;’ the true rationale, however, of the con- struction is best seen when wey is found in the preceding clause, e. g. Xenophon Cyrop. vit. 1. 30, compare Acts iii. 22, 24. The formula then may be translated with sufficient accuracy, ‘and —also,’ “and —too,’ the translation slightly va- rying according as the copulative or ascen- sive force of kat is most predominant. In Homer xa} 5¢ is found united, in sub- sequent writers one or more words are interpolated ; see Hartung, Partik. 6é, 5. 2, 3, Vol. 1. p. 181 sq., Liicke on 1 John i. 3, and comp. Matth. Gr.§ 616. St. Paul’s use of it is not confined to these 11 yuvaixas @cavTws ceuvds, p17 diaBoXovs, vypa- Epp. (Huther), for see Rom. xi. 23. It is used indeed by every writer in the N. T. except St. James and St. Jude, prin- cipally by St. Luke and St. John, the latter of whom always uses it with em- phasis; in several instances, however (e.g. Luke x. 8, John vi. 51), owing probably to ignorance of its true mean- ing, MSS. of some authority omit 6¢. doxipaléacdwoaar] ‘it them be proved,’ not, formally, by Timothy or the elder- hood (De W. compares Constit. Apost. vitr. 4), but generally by the commu- nity at large among which they were to minister. The qualifications were prin- cipally of a character that could be re- cognized without any formal investiga- tion. aveyKAntot bytes] “being unaccused,’ ‘ having no charge laid against them,’ i. e. provided they are found so: conditional use of the participle (Donalds. Gr. § 505) specifying the lim- itations and conditions under which they were to undertake the duties of the office ; comp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207. 5. On the distinction between avéyxAntos (‘ qui non accusatus est’ ( and dvemlAnumzos (‘in quo nulla justa causa sit reprehen- sionis’), see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 31, and comp, Tit. 1. 6: ll. yuvaikas woadtws| ‘women in like manner when engaged in the sime office.’ It is somewhat difficult to~ de- cide whether, with the Greek commenta- tors, we are here to understand by yuvai- Kas (a) wives of the deacons, Auth Ver , Coray, Huth., and as dependant in strue- ture on éxovtas, Bengel; or (b) deucon- esses proper, yuvaires being used rather than Sidcovo. (fem.), Rom. xvi. 1. to ‘prevent confusion with masc. The other possible interpr. ‘wives of deacons aid éexion.’ (Beza, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 809) does not suit the context, which turns only on didkovor; obs. ver. 12. Huther Cuap. III. 12, 13. Alous, TMicTas eV TacwW. 1G al Gh Ok ORs Was OR Ge 63 12 ju 4 of : oA N ” AKOVOL EOTWOADV las YUVQALKOS AV- , fal a / \ fal yh v 13 2: \ dpes, TEKVMV KANWS T POloTAMEVOL Kal TMV LOLWY OLKDY. * ol yap na / i € lal % a \ KAAS StaxovncavTes Baypov éavTots Kadov TreEpiToLODYTAL Kal TodAny Tappyolav évy TiaTe TH ev Xpiot@ ‘Incod. defends (a) on the ground that in one part of the deacon’s office (care of sick and destitute) their wives might be fit- tingly associated with them. This is plausible; when, however, we observe the difference of class to which dca’tws seems to point (ver. 8, ch. ii. 9, Tit. ii. 3, 6),—the omission of avtwy, — the or- der and parallelism of qualifications in ver. 8and 11, coupled with the suitable change of S:Adyous to diaBdAous, and the substitution of moras év maow for the more specific aisxpox. (deaconesses were probably almoners, Coteler, Const. Apost. 11. 15, but in a much less degree),— the absence of any notice of the wives of éxickomot, —and lastly the omission of any special notice of domestic duties, though it follows (ver. 12) in the case of the men, we can scarcely avoid deciding, with Chrys., most ancient and several modern expositors ( Wies., Alf., Wordsw., al.), that (b) ‘ diaconisse’ are here allud- ed to. On the duties of the office, see Bingham, Antig. 11. 22, 8 sq., Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 864, Herzog, Real-Encycl. s. v. Vol. 111. p. 368, and the special treatise of Ziegler, de Diacon. et Diaconiss. Witeb. 1678. S1aBdrovs| ‘slanderous,’ ‘traducers,’ kataAdaAous, Theophyl. ; only in the Pas- toral Epp.: twice in reference to women, here and in Tit. ii. 3; once in ref. to men, 2 Tim. iii. 83. See the good article on the word in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p: 848 sq. ynpdartovs «.T-A.] ‘sober, faithful in all. things.’ The evident parallelism between the qualifications in ver. 8, and the present, seem to imply that ynpdatos has its literal meaning; see notes on ver.2. The last qualification, moras év magw, is stated very generally; it does not, of course, preclude a ref. to domestic calls and cares (see Huther), but it certainly seems far more applicable to ecclesiastical duties. 12. Stdeovor x.7.A.| Exactly the same qualifications in respect of their domestic relations required in the 6.d- kovot as in the émioxomos: see notes on ver. 4. 13..yap| The importance of the of- fice is a sufficient warrant for the reason- ableness of the preceding requisitions. Badpmody caddy] ‘ayood degree, Auth. Ver., Arm. Baduds an am. Acyou. in N. T. (not an Ionic form of Baouds, Mack, but the very reverse: comp. apiduds, apa- weds, and Donalds. Cratyl. § 253), has received three different explanations ; ei- ther (a) ‘an (ecclesiastical) step,’ in refer- ence to an advance to a higher spiritual office Aith., Jerome, and appy. Chrys., al.; (b) ‘a post,’ in reference to the hon- orable position a deacon occupied in the Church, Matth., Huther; (c) ‘a degree,’. in reference to the judgment of God, and to their reward éy tr wéAdovTi Biw, The- od., De Wette, al. Of these (a) appears, on exegetical grounds, clearly untenable (opp. to Wordsworth); for surely such a ground of encouragement as ecclesias- tical promotion (were this even histori- cally demonstrable, which appears not the case in the first two centuries) seems strangely out of place in St. Paul’s mouth, and preserves no harmony with the subsequent words. Against (b) the aor. daxov. is not fairly conclusive, as it may admit a reference not necessarily to a remote, but to an zmmediate past; the mepi@oino.s of a good position would nat- urally ensue after some discharge of the diaxovia. The associated clause, how- 64. I write this. to guard thy conduct in the church of the living God ; verily great ge TAX OV" is the mystery of godliness. ever, and the use of the ferm zappycia, especially with its modal adjunct év zio- tex. T.A., both seem so little in harmony with this ecclesiastical reference, while on the other hand they point so very nat- urally to the position of the Christian with respect to God (see notes on Eph. iii. 12, and comp. Heb. iv. 16, 1 John ii. 28, iii. 21), and derive so very plausible support from the appy. parallel pas- sage, ch. vi. 19, that we decide somewhat unhesitatingly in favor of (c), and refer BaSpbs to the’step or degree which a faith- ful discharge of the d:axovia would ac- quire in the eyes of God. mepiTotovvTat EauTois] ‘acquire, obtain for themselves, — only here and Acts xx. 28 (a speech of St. Paul’s) ; compare also 1 Thess. v. 9, mepimolnow owtnplas, which seems indirectly to yield considerable support to the foregoing in- terpretation of BaSudv. For examples of the reflexive pronoun with middle verbs, see Winer, Gr. § 38.6, p. 230. The insertion here perhaps makes the personal reference a little more certain and definite: the duties of the deacon had commonly reference to others. acappnatav] ‘boldness,’ ‘ fiduciam,’ Clarom., Vulg.; properly ‘openness ’ of (Mark viii. 32, al., and frequently in St. John) or ‘boldness of speech’ (Acts iv. 13), and thence derivatively that ‘ con- fidence and boldness of spirit’ (&e.a, Suidas), with which the believer is per- mitted and encouraged (Heb. iv. 16) to approach his heavenly Father; 1 John ii. 28, iii. 21, ete. The use of magp. in reference to the final reward, is clearly evinced in 1 John iv. 17. Huther urges that this derivative meaning always arises from, and is marked by, its con- comitants, mpos Tov Oedv, 1 John iii. 21, etc. Here éy micre: k.7.A. does seem such an adjunct; at any rate, 2 Cor. vii. i*fIiMoTHY Cuap. III. 14 14 Tadra cor ypadw, édmifov €rSeiv mpos 5 gay d€ Bpadiva, iva cidns Tas 4 (adduced by Huther), where there is no similar addition, cannot plausibly be compared with the present case: see De Wette zn loc., whose note on this passage is full and explicit. év wiotet x.T.A.] ‘in faith which is in Christ J” By the insertion of the article (comp. ch. i. 14, 2 Tim. i. 13, iii. 15, al.), two moments of thought are ex- pressed, the latter of which explains and enhances the former: ‘in fide (aiotis was the foundation, substratum, of the mapp.), eaque in Chr. Jes. collocata ;’ see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p.195. The article is not uncommonly omitted (Gal. lii. 26, Eph. i. 15, Col. i. 4) on the prin- ciple explained in notes on Eph. i, 15. On the meaning of mor. év, comp. notes on ch. i. 16. 14. ratdra] ‘ These things ;’ not ‘to- tam epistolam,’ Beng., but more proba- bly ‘these foregoing brief directions,’ Hamm. If St. Paul had here adopted the epistolary aorist (comp. notes on Gal. vi. 11), the latter reference would have been nearly certain. The use of the present leaves it more doubtful, and re- mands us to the context; this (compare yer. 15) certainly seems to limit tatra to ‘superiora illa de Episcoporum, Dia- conorumque officiis,’ Goth. ap. Pol. Syn. On the uses of yeddw and éypaya see Winer, Gir. § 40. 5, p. 249. éaAtiCwr] ‘ hoping,’ or, more definitely, ‘though I hope,’ the part. having its con- cessive force; see Donalds. Gr. § 621. The actual reason of his writing is im- plied in the following verse, va eidjs 7 K.T. A. Ta xXLo0v] ‘more quickly ;? not, on the one hand, ‘compar. absoluti loco positum’ (Beza; taxi07Ta, Coray), nor, on the other, with marked compar. force, ‘sooner than thou wilt need these instructions’ (Winer, Gr. § 35. 4, p. 217), but probably with a more 2 % Cuap. III. 15. 1 TIMOTHY. 65 det év olk@ Ocod avactpéperSan, ijtis éotiv exxrAnola Ocod Cav- a NY IS / nN ic) / TOS, STUAOS Kal ESpaiwpa THs adynSelas. suppressed comp. reference, ‘sooner than these instructions presuppose,’ ‘ sooner than I anticipate.’ Such comparatives often refer to the suppressed feelings of the subject ; comp. Theano, ad Eubul. p. 86 (ed. Gale), madiov, kv wh TaxLov payn, kAde. The reading év taxer(Lach., with ACD') seems only an explanatory gloss. 15. Bpadvvea| ‘should tarry ;’ only here and 2 Pet. iii. 9. Wieseler (Chro- nol. p. 315) refers this to the possibility of the apostle’s journey, perhaps to Crete (p. 347), or to some place he had not included in his original plan. This rests on the supposition that the Epistle was written in the period included in the Acts,— which, however (see notes on ch. i. 3), does not seem probable. otkw cod] ‘the house of God;’ being anarthrous either owing to the prep. (Winer, Gr. § 19. 2) or the anar- throus gen. which follows ; comp. Mid- dleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3.6. This appel- lation, derived from the Old Test., where it denotes primarily the temple (2 Chron. v: 14, Ezra v. 16. al., comp. Matth. xxi. 13) and secondarily the covenant-people (Numbers xii. 7, Hosea viii. 1), those among whom God specially dwelt, is suitably applied in the N. Test. to the Church,— either viewed as the spiritual building which rests on Christ as the corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20), or as the true temple in which Christ is the true High Priest (Heb. iii. 6, 1 Pet. iv. 17); see Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 468, Vol. 11. p. 395. avartpéeperdsai| “walk, have (thy) conversation in.’ It is doubtful whether this verb is to be taken (a) absolutely, ‘ how men ought to walk,’ Peile, Huther, al. ; or (b) specially with reference to Timothy, ‘how thou ought- est to walk,’ Auth. Ver., De Wette, al. Huther urges against (b) that in what precedes Timothy has no active course otkw 9 assigned to him, but rather the supervis- ion of it in others ; as, however avac7péo. is a ‘vox media’ which does not mark mere activities, but rather conduct and deportment in its most inclusive refer- ence (comp. Eph. ii. 3, where it ‘closely follows the Hebraistic mepurateiy,)—as the explicative clause jtis éotly Kk. 7. A. seems intended to impress on ‘Timothy the greatness of his ofxevouia,— and as the expansion of ol. Ocod from the special church over which Timothy presided, to the general idea of the universal Church, involves no real difficulty (see De W.), it seems best to adopt (b) and limit avaorp. to Timothy: so rightly Clarom., Vulg. Ares] explanatory use of the indef. relative : compare notes on Eph. i. 23, and esp. Gal. iv. 24, where the uses of Saris are explained at length. éexKkaAnala Oceod CavTos| ‘ the Church of the living God ;’ fuller definition of the ofxos @cod, on the side of its internal and spiritual glory: it was no material fane (‘oppo- nitur fano Diane,’ Beng.) of false dead deities, but a living and spiritual com- munity, a life stream (see Olsh. on Matth. xvi. 18), of believers in an ever-living ‘which indeed ;” God. 7?EkkAnola appears to have two meanings, according to the context and point of view in which it is regarded. On the one hand, in accordance with its simple etymological sense (Acts xix. 39), it denotes a Christian congregation (Tév motey toy cbAdAoyov, Theodosius- Mops ), with a local reference of greater or less amplitude; see exx. in Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 397 (ed. Bur- ton) : on the other, it involves the mean- ing and adaptations of + Srp in the O. T., and denotes the INseCovenniit paagie of God, with spiritual reference to their sacramental union in Christ and com- munion with one another; see esp. Bp. 66 relLMOT HY; Cuap. III. 16. A 4 , n 16 Kat Omodoyoupévas méeya éotly TO THs evoeBelas pvaTpLov, Os 16. ds] So Tisch., Lachm., Tregelles, Alf, Wordsw., and apparently the majority of modern critics. eds (Lec.) is adupted by Mill, Maith., Scholz, some commentt., Leo, Mack, Burton, Peile, al., and, it ought not to be suppressed, some of our best English divines, Bull, Waterland (Vol.11. p. 158). The state of evidence is briefly as follows. (1) “Os is read with A‘ |indisputubly: after minute personal inspec- tion ; see note, p. 103] C! [Tisch. Prol. Cod. Ephr. § 7, p. 39] FG and the newly- discovered & |'Tisch. Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20]; 17.78.81; Syr.-Phil., Copt., Sah., Goth. ; also (ds or 6) Syr. Ar. (Erp.), 4Zth., Arm. Gelas., Hieron. in Hsatam wii. 11. nearly all Latin Ff. ; Cyr., Theod.-Mops, Epiph., (2) 8 with D'; Clarom., Vulg. ; (3) Seds, with D?KL; nearly all mss.; Arab. (Polygl.), Slav.; Did., Chrys. (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theod., Euthal., Taylor, Dissuasive, Part 11.1.1, Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 467, Vol. 11. p. 392, and the various usages cited by Suicer, Thesaur. 8. v. Vol. 1, p. 1049. aotdAos cad €dp.| ‘pillar and basis of the truth:’ no ev 8a Svoi (= ‘ firmly- grounded,’ Beng., Peile), but a climactic apposition to éxxA. @cod (@vTos,— defin- ing, with indirect allusion to nascent and developing heresies (see chap. iv. 1 sq.), the true note, office, and vocation of the Church , otiaov abthy Kal édpaimya éxa- Accev, as by ev abTh Tis aAndelas Thy atotacw éxovons, Theodorus. Were there no Church, there would be no wit- ness, no guardian of archives, no basis, nothing whereon acknowledged truth could rest. Chrysostom adopts the right connection, but inverts the statement, 7 yap GAs. éots Tis éxKA. Kal oTbAos Kab édp., missing appy. the obvious distinc- tion between truth in the abstract, and truth, the saving truth of the Gospel, as revealed to, and acknowledged by, men ; comp. Taylor. Disswasive, Part 1. 1. 1. 3. Such appears the only natural con- struction of the clause. tion with what follows, as has been adyo- cated by Episcopius (Inst. Theol. rv. 1. 8, Vol. 1. p. 241) and others (it is to be feared mainly from polemical reasons), is alike abrupt (there being no conncct- ing particles), illogical (a strong substan- tival, being united with a weak adjecti- A close connec- val predication), and hopelessly artifi- cial: see De Wette in loc. It may he added that oriaAos and édpalwua (amat Acydu.; comp. SeueAtos, 2 Tim. ii. 19) do not appy. involve any architectural allusion to heathen temples, etc. (Dey- ling, Obs. Art. 66, Vol. 1. p. 317), but are only simple metaphorical expressions of the stability and permanence of the sup- port: see the copious illustrations of this passage in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. pp. 1042—1066. 16. kal bwoAoyoupéevas k.T.A.] ‘ And confessedly or indisputably great (7. e. deep, Ephesians y. 32) is the mystery, ete. 2] Oo >) Lol #4 g& [vere magnum| Syr.. “nemo (scil. of those to whom this wuort. is revealed), cui mica sane mentis inest de e4 re potest controversiam movere,’ Altmann, Melet. 10, Vol. 11. p. 268. The xa is not simply copulative, but heightens the force of the predication, “yes, confessedly great,’ etc.; compare Hartung, Partik. nai, 5.4, Vol. 1. p. 145. Several examples of a similar use of moar. are cited by Wetstein and Raphel in loc. ; add Joseph. Ant. 1. 10. 2, jv 8& ToLovTos GuoAoy., 2b. It. 9. 6, dmodroy. ‘EBpalwy &piotos; see also Suicer, The- saur. Vol. 11. p. 479, and Altmann, Joc. cit., where there is a discussion of some merit on the whole verse. evoeBelas wvaotnptor] ‘the mystery Cuar. IIL. 16. 1 TIMOTHY. 67 épaveparn év capki, édixaw Sn ev mrevpati, &dSn ayyédous, Damasc., Theophyl., Gicum.,— Ignat. Eph. 19 (but very doubtful). On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but all the Vv. older than the 7th century are distinctly in favor of a relative,—as 9 seems only a Latinizing variation of és,—and lastly, as os is the more difficult, though really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, Schriftb, Vol. 1. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed into @eds (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for making the change, Liber Diac. Grev. cap. 19) than wice ver'sd, we unhesitatingly decide in favor of és. For further information on this sub- ject, see Griesbach, Symb. Crit. Vol. 1. pp. 8—54, Tregelles, Printed Text of N. T. p. 227, Davidson, Bibl. Criticism, ch. 66, p. 828. of yodliness ;? ‘ipsa doctrina ad quam omnis pietas sive religio Christiana refe- renda est,’ Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 147: see notes on ver. 9, where the gen. is in- vestigated. bs €havepadsyn x. 7. A.) ‘Who was manifested in the flesh. The construction cannot be either satisfactorily or grammatically explained unless we agree to abide by the plain and proper meaning of the relative. Thus, then, ds is not emphatic, ‘ He who’ (Tregelles, Pr. Text, p. 278), nor ‘including in itself both the demonstra- tive and relative’ (Davidson, Bibl. Crit. p- 846,— a very doubtful assertion ; com- pare Day, on the Relative, § 1. p. 8; § 60, 61. p. 98),—nor absolute, ‘ecce! est qui’ (Matthies: John i. 46, iii. 34, Rom. iil. 28; 1 Cor. vii. 37,1 John i..8, are ir- relevant, being only exx. of an ellipsis of the demonstr.),— nor, by a ‘ constructio ad sensum,’ the relative to puothpior, Olsh. (Col. i. 26, 27 is no parallel, being only a common case of attraction, Wi- ner, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150),— but is a rela- tive to an omitted though easily recog- nized antecedent, viz., Christ; so De Wette, and apparently Alf. (whose note, however, is not perfectly perspicuous). To refer it to the preceding @cod ( Words- worth) seems very forced, especially after the intervention of the emphatic words oTvAOS K.T A. It may be remarked that the rhythmical as well as antithetical character of the clauses (see the not im- probable arrangement in Mack, and comp. notes to Transl.) and the known existence of such compositions (Eph vy. 19; compare Bull, Fid. Mie. 11. 3.1) render it not by any means improbable that the words are quoted from some well known hymn, or possibly from some familiar confession of faith; compare Winer, Gr. § 64. 3, p.519, and see Ram- bach, Antholoyie, Vol. 1. p. 33, where Eph. v. 14 is also ascribed to the same source ; so also Huth. and Wiesinger. epavepdadsn] ‘was manifested ;* comp. 1 Jolin i. 2, 7 (ah épavepddn ; iii. 5, exeivos edavepoadn. In the word itself, as Huther well suggests, there is a pow- erful argument for the pre-existence of Christ. CStearddn ev rvevmatil ‘was jus- tified (was shown to be, evinced to be, just, Matth. xi. 19, Luke vii. 35) in spirit (in the higher sphere of His divine life).’ There is some little difficulty in these words, especially in mvetuart. The meaning however seems fixed by the antithesis capxi, especially when com- pared with other passages in which the higher and lower sides of that nature which our Lord was pleased to assume are similarly put in contrast. The mved- wa of Christ is not here the Holy Spirit (comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 163), nor 7 Sela dbvauis, Coray (comp. Chrys., and see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 777), but the higher principle of spiritual life 68 exnpvySn ev Edveow, émiaTevn (Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, § 48, Vol. 11. p. 498) which was, not itself the Di- vinity, Wiesing. (this would be an Apol- linarian assertion), but especially and intimately wnited (not blended) and asso- ciated with it. In this higher spiritual nature, in all its manifestations, whether in His words and works, or in the events of His life, He was shown to be the All- holy, and the All-righteous, yea, ‘ mani- fested with power to be the Son of God,’ Rom. i. 4, John i. 14; compare 1 Pet. iii. 18 (Tisch., Lachm.), and Middleton, in loc. p. 430, but esp. the excellent note of Meyer on Rom. 1. c. The assertion of some commentators that the term odpé includes the body, soul, and sprit ’ of Christ is not reconcilable with the prin- ciples of biblical psychology ; the odpé may perhaps sometimes include the pux7, but never, in such passages of obvious antithesis, the mvedua as well; see Liicke, on John i. 14. The student of St. Paul’s Epp. cannot be too earnestly recommended to acquire some rudiments of a most important but very neglected subject — biblical Psychology. Much information of a general kind will be found in Schubert, Gesch. der Seele (ed. 2), and of a more specific nature in Beck, Bibl. Seelenlehre (a small but excellent treatise), Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol., and Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. 6. SoS ayy €éAots] ‘was seen of angels,’ Auth. Ver., 7. e. ‘appeared unto, showed Himeelf unto, angels’. Both the use of opaiva (occurring more than twenty times in the N. T., and nearly always with reference to the self-exhibition of the subject), and the invariable meaning of &yyero in the N. T. (not ‘apostles,’ Leo, Peile, al., but ‘ angels’) preclude any other translation. The epoch, however, precisely referred to cannot be defined with certainty. The grouping of the 1 ADO PY. Cuap. III. 16. ey Koop, avehnud sn év So&n. clauses (see notes to Jransl.), according to which the first two in each division appear to point to earthly relations, the third to heavenly, seem to render it very probable that the general manifestation of Christ to angels through His inearna- tion,— not, inversely, the specific ap- pearances of them during some scenes of His earthly life (Theophyl., comp. Alf.), nor any (assumed) specific manifestation in heaven (De W.),— is here alluded to : see esp. Chrysost., &p3n ayyéAas bore kal GyyeAor med Tudy eidoyv Toy viby Tod cov mpdtepoy ovx épavtes; so also The- odoret, thy yap adpatoy Hs SedTHTOs glow ovde excivor Edpwy, capkwsevra dé éXeaoavto. Hammond includes also evil angels; this is possible, but the antithe- sis of clauses seems opposed to it. émictevan| ‘was believed on;’ not ‘fidem sibi fecit,’ Raphel, but ‘ fides illi habita est,’ Beza; compare 2 Thess. i. 10, and see also Winer, Gram. § 39. 1, p. 2383. averdHupan ev S6En] ‘was received up in glory;’ ev here being used, not simply for ets (Rosenm.), nor with def as an equivalent of évddtws (comp. Ham- mond), but in a sort of ‘ pragnans sen- sus,’ Sc. eis 5dfav Kat early ev 56k (Wahl, Huther) ; see Winer, Gr. § 50. 4, p. 367 sq., and comp. Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. Vol. 1. p. 598. The event here referred to is simply and plainly the historical ascent of Christ into heaven. No words can be more distinct ; compare aveAjud- Sy, Mark xvi. 19, Acts i. 2,11 (part.), 22; and dvepépeto eis Toy ovpavdy, Luke xxiv. 51 (Lachm.) For a good sermon on the whole verse see Sanderson, Serm. 1x. (ad Aul.), p. 479 sq. (Lond. 1689), and for devotional comments of the highest strain, Bp. Hall, Great Mystery of Godliness, Vol. V11I. p. 330 (Oxford 1837). Crap. IV. 1, 2. In the latter times men shall fall away from the faith, and shall teach prin- eiples of abstinence which are not approved of God. Tee OUR OY. 69 _ \ \ ral A IV. To 6 [Ivedpa pntas Néyee Ore év borté- lal ’ na pos Kaipois aTooTicovtal Twes THs TioTEWS, ld TpooexYovTEs Tvevpwacw TrdVOS Kal SioacKa- s U 5 t z Alas Saoviov, 2% év UroKpice revdodGywrv, KEKavTNpLacLEveVv Car. IV. 1. 7d 5 Mvedpal ‘ But the (Holy) Spirit ;’ contrast to the fore- going in the present and in the future, — the particle 5¢ here indicating no transi- tion to a new subject (Auth., Conyb. ; comp. notes on Gal. iii 8), but retaining its usual antithetical force; ‘great in- deed as is the mystery of godliness, the Holy Spirit has stil/ declared that there shall be disbelief and apostasy ;” pi) dav- pdons, Chrys. pn7@s] ‘ distinct ly,’ ‘expressly’ (pavep@s, tapas, dmodo- younevws, ws uy audiBaddrcw, Chrysost. ; ‘non obscure aut involute, ut fere loqui solent prophete,’ Justiniani), not only in the prophecies of our Lord, Matth. xxiv. 11, al., and the predictions, whether of the apostles (comp. 1 John ii. 18, 2 Pet. iii. 3, Jude 18) orof the prophets in the various Christian churches (Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 340), but more par- ticularly in the special revelations which the Holy Spirit made to St. Paul him- self; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3 sq. katpots| ‘latter This expression, used only in this place, is not perfectly synonymous (Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p. 224) with éoxd- Tas nuepas, 2 Tim. iii. 1, 2 Pet. iii. 3 (Lachm., Tisch.), James v. 3 (compare Koip@ eaxatw, 1 Pet. 1.5, €oxaTos xpdvos, Jude 18); the latter expression, as Hu- ther correctly observes, points more spe- cifically to the period immediately pre- ceding the completion of the kingdom of Christ; the former only to a period fu- ture to the speaker,— of &kcAovSo xpdvot, Coray ; see Pearson, Minor Works, Vol. 11. p. 42. In the apostasy of the pres- ent, the inspired apostle sees the com- mencement of the fuller apostasy of the future. In this and a few other passages 7 ¢ boreépots times.’ in the N. T., xapds appears nearly sy- nonymous with xpdvos; comp. Lobeck, Ajarz, p. 85. mpoaéxovtes| See notes on ch. i. 4. myvevu. wAdvots) ‘deceiving spirits ;’ certainly not merely the false teachers themselves (Mack, Coray, al.) ,— less violation of the primary meaning of mvetua,— but, as the antithesis 7d Tvetdua suggests, the deceiving powers and prin- ciples, the spiritual emissaries of satan, which work in their hearts ; comp. Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12 (see notes), 1 John iv. 1 sq. SidacK. a need- Satmoviwy| ‘doctrines of devils;’ not ‘doctrines about devils,’ Mede, al., ‘demonolatry,’ Peile (docu. being a gen. oljecti), but doctrines ema- nating from, taught by, devils’ (gen. subjecti) ; see Winer, Gir. § 30. 1. obs., p. 168, and comp. Thorndike, Cov. of Grace, 11.12, Vol. 111. p. 195 (A.-C.L.). The term dauodrov, it may be observed, is not here a‘vox media’ (comp. Ign. Smyrn. 3), but has its usual N. T. mean- ing ; see Pearson, Minor Works, Vol. 11. p. 46. Olshausen significantly remarks on this passage, that man never stands isolated ; if he is not influenced by 7d Tv. rd ayiov, he at once falls under the powers of 7d mvedua Tijs mAdyys (1 John iv. 6). 2.év troxpice: pevdorAdywr| ‘in (through) the hypocrisy of the speakers of lies,” Hammond ; prepositional clause appended to mpooéxovtes, defining the manner (pretended sanctity and ortho- doxy) in which 76 mpocéxew x. T. A. Was brought about and furthered; év being instrumental. Leo and Matth explain the clause as a second modal definition of the fallers away, parallel to rpooéxov- Tes k.7T.A, and more immediately de- 70 Do Ah Dh go gk Guar. 1a 4 5 Noe 5 3 ' 3 AL DpRTE y , : THV LOLAV’ OVVELONOLY, K@AVOVTOV YAMELW, ATTEVEO NAL Bpwpatov, Ue % ” ? / \ 3. f a a aw 0 Meos ExTicev Els pEeTAaANMAYW META EVXApPLOTLAS TOlS TLOTOIS pendent on amoothoovta ; ‘habent in se eam brdxp. qualis est dmoxp. wevdor.,’ Heinr., and so appy. Auth. Ver. This isdoubtful ; the third clause kwA. yawetv seems far too direct an act of the false teachers suitably to find a place in such an indirect definition of the falsely taught. Matth. urges the absence of the article before droxpioe, but this after the prep. (Huther needlessly pleads N. T. laxity) is perfectly intelligible (Winer, Gr. § 19. 2, p. 114), even if it be not referable to the principle of correlation; comp. Mid- dleton, Art 117. 3.6. Thus, then, lying teachers will be the mediate, evil spirits the immediate, causes of the apostasy. KekauT. Thy idtiav cuvelts.| ‘beng branded on their own conscience :’ the ac- cusative with the passive verb (compare ch. vi. 5, SuePapuevor Toy vovr, etc.) cor- rectly specifies the place in which the ac- tion of the verb is principally manifested. The exact application of the metaphor is doubtful ; it may ‘be referred to the éo- xatTn avarynota after cautery (Theodo- ret), or more probably to the penal brand which their depraved conscience bore, as it were, on its brow (Theophyl.) ; ‘insignite nequitiz viros et quasi scele- rum mancipia,’ Justiniani. See the nu- merous and fairly pertinent examples cited by Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 298, Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 357. *I8lay is not without emphasis; they knew the brand they bore, and yet with a show of outward sanctity (comp. broxploe) they strove to beguile and to seduce others, and make them as bad as themselves. 8. Kkwrdvdytwy yapmety] ‘ forbid- ding tomarry.’ This characteristic, which came afterwards into such special prom- inence in the more developed Gnosticism (see Clem. Alex. Strom. 111. 6, Irenxus, Her. 1. 22, al.), first showed itself in the false asceticism of the Essenes (see esp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 2, yduwou pev tmepola map avtots, Antig. XVIII. 1. 5. ovTE yameTas eiodyovta Pliny, N. H. v. 17) and Therapeutz, and was one of those nascent errors which the inspired apostle foresaw would grow into the im- pious dogma of later times, ‘ nubere et generare a Satana dicunt esse,’ Irenzeus, l.c.: see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 735. améxetdat Bpwuatwy| ‘ (bidding) to abstain from meats ;’ kwAvoytTwy must be resolved into mapayyeAAdvtwy uh (see ch. ii. 12), from which wapayy. must be carried on to the second clause ; see Wi- ner, Gr. § 66. 2, p. 548. Distinct no- tices of this abstinence and severity in respect of food are to be found in the ac- count of the Therapeute in Philo, Vit. Contempl. § 4, Vol. 11. p. 477 (ed. Mang.). When there are thus such clear traces of a morbid and perverted asceticism in the apostle’s own day, it is idle in Baur to urge these notices as evidences against the authenticity of the Epistle. It may be remarked that the view taken of the errors combated in this and the other Pastoral Epp. (see notes on ch. i. 3) ap- pears to be confirmed by the present pas- sage. St. Paul is alluding throughout, not to Judaism proper, but to that false spiritualism and those perverted ascetical tendencies, which emanating from Juda- ism, and gradually mingling with simi- lar principles derived from other systems (compare Col. ii. 8 sq., and see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p. 645, 646), at last, after the apostolic age, became merged in a fuller and wider Gnosticism ; see also Wiesinger in /oc., whose indirect confutation of Baur is satisfactory and convincing. On asceticism generally, and the view taken of it in the N. T., comp. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 878 sq., Vol. 111. p. 120 sq. & 6 @ebs K-7.A.] ‘which God created Cuap. LV. 4. ‘ ’ / \ ’ / Kal eTeyvwkool THY adn eav. to be partaken of,’ etc.: confutation of the second error. The reason why the for- mer error is left unnoticed has been dif- ferently explained. The most probable solution is that the prohibition of mar- riage had not as yet assumed so definite a form as the interdiction of certain kinds of food. ‘The Essenes themselves were divided on this very point; see Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11.8. 13, and comp. 7b. 11. 8. 2. This perhaps led to the choice of the modified term cwAvdytav. Tots mtaTots| ‘for the fuitiful,’ Wam- mond, Est. The dat. is not the dat. of reference to, Bengel (compare notes on Gal. i. 22), still less for 67d trav moray (Bloomf.), but marks the objects for whom the food was created. Bpduara were, indeed, created for all, but it was only in the case of the moot, after a receiving meTa evap. (condition attached), that the true end of creation was fully satis- fied. kal émeyvwrdoiv k. T.A.] ‘and who have full knowledge of,’ etc.: the omission of the article { Winer, Gr. § 19. 4, p. 116) shows that the moro? and émeyy. k.7T.A. constitute a single class, the latter term being little more than explanatory of the former (Estius). On éreyvwndtes eriyywors=adloraxtos ywaeois, Coray), see notes on Eph. i. 17, and Valck. on Luke, p. 14 sq. 4. O71 wav K.7-A.] ‘because every crea- ture of God is good :’ not explanatory of (Theoph., Beng.), but giving the reason for the foregoing words ; 2. e. not what is ealled an objective (Donalds. Gr. § 584), but a causal sentence. The apostle has to substantiate his former declaration that meats are intended to be enjoyed with thanksgiving: this he does by the positive declaration (comp. Gen. i. 31) mav xticua @cod caddy (corresponding to & 6 @cds Exrivev), supported and enhanc- ed by the negative sentence, kal ovdéy «. TA, (parallel to eis meTaA. meTa edx.),- ie aT MOU HY: 71 v lal an ’ 4 OTe wav KTicopa Ocod Karov, which again is finally confirmed by the declaration in y. 5. Krioua is ouly here used by St. Paul, his usual expression be- ing ktiows. The argument, however, of Schleierm. based: upon it is sufficiently answered by Planck, who cites several instances, €.g. mpookon) 2 Cor. vi. 3, opeiAnua Rom. iv. 4, etc., of words thus only once used when another and more usual synonym might have beenexpected. ktloua Ocod| ‘creature of God,’ ‘every creation of his hand designed for food : ’ T@ ciety, KTigpa, Tep) TAY Cdwiuwy amay- twy yvitato, Chrys. The fact of its be- ing His creation is enough; ef xtioua @eod, kadov, ib.; comp. Ecclus. xxxix. 33, 34. amdBAnTor| ‘to be refused:’ expansion of the former statement; not only was everything kaAév, whether in its primary (‘ eutward- ly pleasing,’ xad-Ads, Donalds. Cratyl. § 324), or secondary and usual accepta- tion, but further, ‘nothing was to be re- jected.” It was a maxim even of the heathens that the good gifts of the gods were not to be rejected ; so Hom. J/. 111. 65, compare Lucian, Timon, § 37, otro andBAnta ciot Ta Sapa Ta Tapa Tov Ards (cited by Kypke). The whole of this verse 1s well discussed by Bp. Sanderson, Serm. v. (ad Populum), p. 233 sq. (Lon- don 1689), AapmB.| ‘ifit bereceived, etc.; condi- tional use of the participle ; see Donalds. Gr. § 505, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 11, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 45.2. This clause specially limits the assertion od5ev aréBa., and while it shows how the assertion is to be accepted serves also to echo and elucidate the previous limitation, peT& evx- in verse 3. Wiesinger considers kaAdy as also dependant on pera edx. AauB., and not a positive and independ- ent assertion. This, however, does not seem satisfactory; for as the previous verse virtually contains two assertions,’ METH EVX, 72 PTEM O THY . Cuap. IV. 5,6. ‘ , Kal ovdev aTroBANTOv peTa evyapltaTias NapBavopevov' 5 daryiake- Tat yap Oia Noyou Oceod Kat évtevsews. Reject all idle teachings and discussion, and practi- eally exercise thyself in godliness, which is lasting- ly profitable. viz., that @eds &xrirev eis peTda., and that the werdAnuis was to be weTa evxap., so the present verse contains two confirm- atory clauses, viz., that the food being God’s creation, is absolutely good (see Sanderson, Serm. v. § 4), and also that if so, weTa Edy. AapwBavdu. it is odK amd- Banrov, or relatively good as well. It is best then to retain the punctuation of Lachm. and Tisch. 5. ayeaCetras yap] ‘for it is sancti- fied,’i. e. each time the food is partaken of; present tense corresponding to Aau- Bavéuevov. This verse is confirmatory of ver. 4, especially of the latter clause ; the general and comprehensive assertion, that nothing is to be rejected or consid- ered relatively unclean if partaken of with thanksgiving is substantiated by more nearly defining edxapitia and more clearly showing its sanctifying effect. ‘Ayid¢ew is thus not merely declarative, ‘to account as holy,’ but effective, ‘to make holy,’ ‘to sanctify.’ In some few things (e. g. eidwAdduta, Chrys.) the ayt- agpos might actually be absolute in its character ; in others, whether pronounced legally axdSapra, or accounted so by a false asceticism (e.g. the Essenes avoided wine and flesh on their weekly festival, Philo, Vit. Contempl. 4 9, Vol. 11. p. 483), the ayaopuds would naturally be relutive. Estius and Wiesinger seem to take ay- a¢erat as comprehensively absolute, and to refer the impurity of the crfoua to the primal curse; but is this consistent with Matth. xv. 11, Rom. xiv. 14, 1 Cor. x. 25, 26, and can it be proved that the curse on the earth (Gen. iii. 17, observe especially the reading of the LXX, ém- KaTdparos ) yi év Tots pyots cov, 6 Tatra imotiSéuevos Tots adedpois Kados éon OvaKovos Xpictov Incod, évtpepopevos Tois / n / \ na an f e Adyos THs TlaTEws Kal THS KAAS OvwacKanias 7 and see also Joseph. Ant. 1. 1. 4) took the special effect of unhallowing the ani- mal or vegetable creation? If so, would not a law such as that in Lev. xix. 23, 24, which applied to the polluted land of Canaan, have been of universal applica- tion? The effect of the primal curse is indeed most plain and palpable, (see Destiny of Creature, p. 12 sq.), but it seems doubtful whether it is to be recog- nized in the special form here alluded to. Adyou k.7.A.] ‘the word of God and supplication.’ ‘The regular and unvary- ing use of Adyos cod in the N. T. wholly precludes the gen. being taken as ohjectt, —‘oratio ad Deum facta,’ Wahl. The Adyos Oeod is the word of God as uttered and revealed by Him in the Scriptures, and here, as the close union with évrevéis clearly suggests, must be referred not to any decree of God (Sanders. Serm. v. § 39), but to the contents of the prayer ; the word of God as involved and em- bodied in the terms of the prayer. Thus, as Wiesinger suggests, the idea of edxa- ptotia is expressed in the fullest manner ; on its objective side as to the contents of prayer, and on its subjective side (évrvy- xavew) as to the mode in which it is made. On érevéis, see notes ch. ii. 1, and for an ancient form of grace before meat, see Alf. in loc. 6. tatta bmor:d.| ‘ By setting forth,’ scil. ‘if thou settest forth, teachest (Syr.), these things: ’ TWY, OUK Eire TapayyeAAwY, GAAG SToTia., oun elmey émitdr- TouTéoTW, ws TuuBovAciwy TadTa roT{- Seco, Chrysostom. On the construction and more exact translation of the parti- ciple, see notes on ver. 16. The reference of tadra is somewhat Cuap.IV.6, 7. 1 TIMOTHY. 73° mapnxorovsnxas. 7% Tods dé BeBnrovs Kal ypawders pUSous doubtful. As iroriderdan (dynamic mid- dle,—. e. application of the simple mean- ing of the active to mental and moral forces; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8. 4, and compare notes on ch. i. 16) seems clearly to imply not merely ‘in memo- riam revocare,’ Auth. Ver., but ‘ docere,’ ‘instituere,’ whether ‘amice et leniter’ (Loesn.; compare Philo, Vit. Mos. 11. § 9, Vol. 11. p. 142, ed. Mang.,. droriserat kal Tapynyoper TO wA€oy 7) KeAever; Hesy- chius, droSéoSat: cupBovacdoa), or, as in the present case, somewhat more pos- itively and precisely, 7b mapaweiy Kal BovAcverSa, Budzus (comp. Josephus Bell. Jud. 11. 8. 7, thy abtrhy broriservra diartay, see examples in Krebs, Obs. p. 355 sq.), Tad7a will most naturally refer to ver. 4, 5, and to the principles and dissuasive arguments which it involves. See especially Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 582, who well supports the latter mean- ing of brotisecdat. diakovos] ‘minister:’ ‘thou wilt fitly and properly discharge thy Siaxoviay, 2 Tim. iv. 5; ‘tuo muneri cumulatissime satisfacies,’ Just. evTtTpeddpe- vos| ‘being nourished up.’ The pres- ent properly and specially marks a con- tinuous and permanent nutrition in ‘ the words of faith ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p- 811. So, with his usual acuteness, Chrysost., 7d 5invexés rijs eis Ta To1wdTa mpocoxijs SnAGv. Loesner aptly com- pares, among other exx. (p. 399, 400), Philo, Leg. ad Cai. §-29, Vol. 11. 574 (ed. Mang.), od« evetpapns ovde evnoK- Sns Tois iepots ypdupacw ; compare also § 26, Vol. 11. p. 571, and see D’Orville, Chariton, p. 37: similar exx. of ‘innu- triri’ are cited in Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. WOlnte p.-Ul'2 7. Tots Adyots THS TiaTews] ‘the words of faith, gen. subjecti; ‘ words, terms, in which, as it were, faith expresses itself,’ Huther. MWicvis, as Beng. suggests, in- volves areference to Tim., % Kady b:- dack. a reference to others. On the meaning of miotis, see notes on Gal. i. 23, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p. 127, who, however, too much gives up the subjective reference which the word always seems to involve. In the follow- ing relative clause, if js the reading of Lachm. [only with A, 80] be adopted, it must be regarded as an instance of un- usual, though defensible attraction ; see Winer, Gr. § 24. 1, p. 147. mapnkorovankas| ‘hast closely fol- lowed (as a disciple), hast been a follower of ;’ 2 Tim. iii. 10; perf. in appropriate connection with the pres., éevtpeddu. TlapakoAovsety (‘ subsequi ut assequaris,’ Valck. on Luke i. 3) is frequently used with ethical reference (e. g. mapaxod. Tots apayuacw, Luke /.c., Demosth. de Coron. p- 285; mapa. tots xpévos, Nicom. ap. Athen, 291) to denote ‘ tracing diligently out,’ ‘attending to the course of,’ and thence, by an intelligible gradation, ‘ un- derstanding the drift and meaning’ of any facts or subjects presented for con- sideration; see exx. of this latter mean- ing in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 207, and comp. Dissen, on Demosth. /. c. Both here, however, and 2 Tim. iii. 10, the meaning appears to be simply, ‘ followed after,’ not merely in the sense of imitat- ing a pattern (De W. on 2 Tim. /. c.), but of attending to a course of instruction, &s wadnths diddcKnadov, Coray ; the cad di8ackadta was, as it were, a school of which Tim. ‘was a disciple ;’ see Peile in Vv loc. The Syr. Aaj, See? quam didicisti| and the Vulg. ‘quam assecu- tus es’ (compare Auth. Ver.) express rather too strongly the simple result, and too insufficiently the process by which it was attained. 7. rovs 5& BeBha. x. 7.A.] ‘ But with the (current) profane and old-wives’ 10 74 1 TIMOTHY. a. , be \ \ > My g e X é, \ mapaitov' yupuvate dé ceavTov Tpos evoéBevav. 1 Yap TMpaTLKy fables have nothing to do” The article (not noticed by the majorityof ex positors) appears to allude to the well-known character and the general circulation which the pio had obtained. These Jewish fables (Chrys., see notes on ch. i. 4) are designated BéBnAua, ‘ profane’ (ch. 1,9, vi. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 16, Heb. xii. 16), in tacit antithesis to edoéB., as bearing no moral fruit, as lying out of the holy compass, and, as it were, on the wrong side of the ByAbds of divine truths (comp. Schoettg. in loc.),— and ypaddes (az. Acydu.) as involving foolish and absurd statements. Wetstein aptly compares Strabo, 1. p. 32 a, thy rointixhy ypaddy pusoroylay amopaiver. The assertion of Baur that ypaédns points to a ypata, the Sophia-Achamoth (comp. Gieseler, Kir- chengesch. § 45), is untenable ; independ- ently of other considerations, it may be remarked that ypaixds (Clemens Alex. Peed. 111. 4, p. 270, Pott) would have been thus more grammatically exact than the present ypawdns (ypaweldns). mapattov| ‘decline, have nothing to do’ with,’ amdpevye, Coray ; always similarly used in the second person in the Pastoral Epp., e.g. ch. v. 11, and Titus iii. 10 (persons), 2 Tim. ii. 23 (things). Mapar. does not occur again in St. Paul’s Epp. ; it is, however, used three times in Heb. (xii. 19, 25, bis) and four times by St. Luke : compare Joseph. Antiq. 111. 8. 8, Tapaitnoduevos Tacay tiunv. Loesner, Obs. p. 404, gives a copious list of exx. from Philo, the most pertinent of which is Alleg. 111, § 48, Vol. 1. p. 115 (ed. Mang.), where mpooteuevos and mapaitov- evos are put in opposition : see also notes on ch. y. 11. yumvace 8] ‘and rather exercise ;’ so Auth. Ver., correctly marking the 6€, which serves to present antithetically the positive side of the con- duct Tim. is urged toassume. He is first negatively rapateiodat w0Sous, then posi- ’ tively yuuva ew x.7.A. The special term, youvacew (Heb. v. 14, xii. 11, 2 Pet. ii. 14) appropriately marks the strenuous ef- Jort which Timothy was to make, in con- trast with the studied &ornots of the false teachers. Tpods evoéB.] ‘ for piety ;’ evoéBewa, ‘ practical, cultive, piety’ (see notes on ch. ii. 2), was the end toward which Timothy was to direct his endeavors. 8. yap confirms the preceding clause by putting yuuvacia cwuatixh, the out- ward and the visible, in contrast with yuuvacla mpos . : body,’ Syr. line? Lesos [exercitatio corporis]. The exact meaning of these words is somewhat doubtful. Tuuvacia may be referred, either (a) to the mere physical training of the body, gymnastic exercises proper, De W., Huther, and, as might be expected, Justin, Est., Mack, al.; or (b) to the ascetic training of the body (1 Cor. ix. 27) in its most general aspect (7 apa ocKAnpaywyla Tod odu., Coray), with reference to the theosophis- tic discipline of the false teachers, Tho- mas Aq., Matth. Wiesing., al. Of these, (a) is not to be summarily rejected, as it was maintained by Chrys., Theophyl. (though on mistaken grounds), Theod., Cicum., and has been defended with some ingenuity by De Wette: see Sui- cer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 804. As, however, yuuvacia is not uncommonly used in less special references (e. g. Aris- tot. Zop. v111. 5, Polyb. Hist. 1. 1. 2),— as yuuva¢e (ver. 7) prepares us for this modification,— as the context seems to require a contrast between external ob- servances and inward holiness,—and, lastly, as ascetic practices formed so very distinctive a feature of that current Jew- ish Theosophy (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 8. N TWMATLKN Cnar. 1V.8. Cuar. IV. 9, 10. 1 TIMOTHY. 45 , , yupvacia mpos ortLyov éativ @pédipos 7 Sé evceBEra Tpos TavTa apéeruos eat, eTrayyeriav Eyovoa Cwis ths viv Kal Tis werdov- ons. 2 sq., Philo, Vit. Contempl. § 4 sq.) which in this chapter appears so distinctly al- luded to, it seems impossible to avoid deciding in favor of the latter interpreta- tion ; so Beveridge, Serm. ci. Vol. Iv. p. 408 (A.-C. L.) Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 340 (Bohn), and apparently the majority of modern expositors. If it be urged that » cwpatich your. (in this sense) was unrestrictedly condemned in ver 2, 3, and could never be styled even mpds dAtyov awpéAmos, it seems enough to say that there the apostle is speaking of its morbid developments in the toerepor capo, here of the more inno- cent though comparatively profitless as- ceticism of the present. mpos dAiyoyr taken per se may either ’ refer to the duration (Syr., Theod. ; com- pare James iy. 14) of the @péAea, or the extent to which it may be applied (Hu- ther, De Wette). The context, how- ever, and the antithesis mpds mdvra seem decidedly in favor of the latter, and to limit the meaning to ‘a little’ (ad modi- cum,’ Vulg.) — ‘the few objects, ends, or circumstances in life,’ toward which (mpbs dAlyov, not dAlyw or év dAtyw) bod- ily training and asceticism can be profit- ably directed. éxovca| “as it has, ‘since it has;’ causal use of the participle (comp. Donalds. Gr. § 615 sq.) in confirmation of the preceding as- sertion. On the practical application of this clause see Barrow, Serm. 11. 111. Vol. 1. p. 23 sq. (Oxf. 1830). éemayyeAlav Cwis| ‘promise of life.’ The geuitival relation is not perfectly clear. If it be the gen. of zdentity or ap- position (comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82), (wh, the import or rather object of the promise, would seem at first sight to involve two applications, quantitative ? (‘long life,’ Eph. vi. 3, De W.) when’ N id / \ / > n yy 9 qioTOS O AOYOS Kal TdoNs aTrodoyAs afLos. 10 es TovTO in connection with rijs viv, qualitative (‘ holy, blessed life,’) when in connection with 7Hs meAAovons. If again it be the gen. of reference to (Huth., comp. Alf.), or if the point of view (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129 sq.), (wy retains its general meaning (‘vital existence,’ etc.), but émayyeAta becomes indefinite, and more- over is in a connection with its depend- ant genitive not supported by any other passage inthe N. T. This last objection is so grave that it seems preferable to adopt the first form of genitive, but in both members to give (w7 its higher and more definitely scriptural sense, and to regard it as involving the idea, not of mere length, or of mere material bless- ings (‘bona et commoda hujus vite,’ Caly., contrast Mark x. 30, neta diwy- pay), but of spzritual happiness (evda:no- via, Coray) and holiness; in a word, as expressing ‘the highest blessedness of the creature:’ see Trench, Synon. § 27, whose philology, however, in connecting wy} with &w is here doubtful; it is rather connected with Lat. ‘ vivere’ (Sanscrit jiv); see especially Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 265, Donalds. Cratyl. § 112, Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p.684. There is a good treatise on (wy in Olsh. Opuse. p- 187 sq. TRS viv K.T.A.| The two independent parts into which the life promised to edoeBera is divided, life in this world and that which is to come: the promises of the old covenant are involved and incorporated in the New (Taylor, Life of Christ, 111. 13, Dise. 15. 15), and enhanced. On the use of the art., which thus serves to mark each part as separate, comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 1i7. 9. miotds 6 Adyos k.T.A.] See notes on ch. i. 15; here the formula is confirmatory of what immediately pre- 76 7 EE OP EY. Cuap. IV. 10. ~\ \ Lal xX. 3 , A 2 iA - \ A lal Yap Kal KoTriapev Kat overdiloueSa, Stu Amixapev ert Oco Cave, t \ , ~ 05 €oTW CwTIP TaYTWY aVSpwTOV, WadLCTA TLOTOD. cedes, 7d, O71 H evoEB. WPEAE Kal Els THY Tapovoav, kat eis Thy MEAA. Cwhv, eivat Adyos Gkios va morevera. Coray [mod- ern Greek]. The particle yép, ver. 10, obviously precludes any reference to what follows (Conyb.) ; compare notes on ch. iii. 1. 10. eis Todt yap] ‘ For looking to this,’ (Col. i. 29, comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 170), ‘in reference to this,’ viz. the real- ization of the promise in our own cases: Tl Onmote yap Toy ToAvy TovTOY avedek- dmeda Tovoy.... .€i ph Tis €oTt TOV ToveY aytidoois, Theod. The reference of eis tovTo (by no means synonymous with 516. rodT0, Grot.) to the following é71,— ‘therefore we both labor etc., because,’ Auth. Ver. (comp. Theophyl., Beza, al.), has been recently defended by Wiesinger; but surely this interrupts the causal con- nection (yap) with ver. 8, and its con- firmatory sequel ver. 9. It is not neces- sary to restrict todro to émuyyed. (wis Tis weAAovons (Weising.), for although this would naturally form the chief end of the coméay and dvedicerSat, still wh {in its extended sense) 7 viv might also suitably form its object, as being a kind of pledge and appaBav of (wh 7 mér- Aovoa. kal KOTL@Mev k T.A.] ‘we both labor and are the objects of reproach ;’ not merely St. Paul alone (Col. i. 29), or St. Paul and Timothy, but the apostles in general (1 Cor. iv. 12), and all Christian missionaries and teachers. Komidw is frequently used in reference to both apostolic and ministe- rial labors (Rom. xvi. 12, 1 Cor. xy. 10, Gal. iv. 11, al.), with allusion, as the derivation (ko7-, kémTw,—not Sanscr. kap, Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p. 268] suggests, to the toil and suffering which accompanied them. The reading is not perfectly certain; the first cal is omitted in the important mss,, ACD ; majority of Vv.; Chrys., Dam., and Latin Ff. ; and ove. is replaced by ayort(dueda (Lachm.) in ACFGK, but apparently with only one version, Syr. (Philox.), and with only seven mss. The latter reading is suspicious as being easier, and as having possibly originated from Col. i. 29. The former (the omission of kat) is more specious ; the insertion, however, which is well supported (FGKL, and nearly all mss.; see 7isch.), gives a force and emphasis which seems peculiarly appropriate, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 11: not only, ‘ toil and shame’ (Kai), nor ‘ where toil, there shame’ (7e—xal), but ‘as well the one as the other’ (xal—xat), both parts being simultaneously presented in one predication; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4,. p- 889, and compare Donalds. Cratyl. § 189, 195, pp. 322, 338. hAwinapev| ‘have set our hope on,’ ‘have set and do set hope on,’—the perfect expressing the continuance and permanence of the éAmis; see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 6, p. 378, and compare ch. v. 5, vi. 17, John vy. 45, 2 Cor. i. 10. Peile and Wiesinger compare 1 Cor. xv. 19, haAmudtes éouev, but it should not be for- gotten that there 7A7. écuéy is not merely =Atixapev ; see Meyer in loc. "EAmi€w, like morevw (comp. notes on ch. i. 16), is found in the N. T. in connection with different prepositions ; (a) with év, 1 Cor. xv. 19, ‘spes in Christo reposita;’ (b) with eis, John v. 45, 2 Cor. i. 10, 1 Pet. iii. 5 (Lachm., Tisch.), marking the di- rection of the hope with perhaps also some faint (locative) notion of union or communion with the object of it; comp. notes on ch. i. 16, and on Gal. iii. 27: ' (c) with ém and dat., ch. vi. 17, Rom. xv. 12 (LXX), marking the basis or foundation on which the hope rests; () with ém and ace. (ch. v. 5), marking the mental direction with a view to that reli- -Cuap. IV, 11, 12. Let not thy youth induce contempt ; be rather a mod- el. Neglect not thy spirit- ual gifts, but persevere in all thy duties. ance; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 483. The simple dative is found (Lachm., Tisch.) in Matth. xii. 21 (LXX). Bs éoriy x.7.A.] ‘who is the Saviour of all men;’ relative clause, not, how- eyer, with any causal or explanatory force (this would more naturally be éo7is), but simply declaratory and defin- itive. The declaration is made to arouse the feeling that the same God who is a living, is a loving God, one in whom their trust is not placed in vain; the Saviour here and hereafter (Chrys., Theoph.) of all men, chiefly, especially, of them that believe. De Wette objects to the use of udAdwora; surely the primary notion of udada, ‘in a great degree’ [closely con- nected with peydAa, compare ‘moles ;’ Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 283], is here perfectly suitable and proper; God is the owrnp of all men, in the greatest degree of the motoi; 7. e. the greatest and fullest exhibition of His cwrnpia, its complete realization, is seen in the case of the morot ; comp. Gal. yi. 10, There is involved in it, as Bengel observes, anargumentum @ minorz ; ‘quanto magis eam (Dei beneficentiam) experienter pii qui in eum sperant,’ Caly. On this im- portant text see four sermons by Barrow, Works, Vol. rv. p. 1 sq. (Oxf. 1830). ll. radra] ‘these things, not merely the last statement, ds ( Wegsch.), nor, on the other hand, more inclusively ‘omnia que dixi de magno pietatis sacram.,’ etc, but, 7d év edcef. yuuvacersai, Td mpoomevey Tas dyTiOOceLs, Td Toy GywvoseTny Spav, Theod.,— in fact all the statements included between the last Tatra (ver. 6) and the present repe- tition of the pronoun. Tmapayyedade| ‘command,’ Vulgate, Goth., Auth. Ver. ; not ‘exhort,’ Ham- mond, or ‘ mone privatim,’ Grot., but in éoTl kK. T. A, lV OMEN Yer 11 [lapayyerre tadta nat didacke. © 77 ies / “ , dels gou THS VEeOTNTOS KaTappovelitw, GNAA TUTOS ywou Tov TLaTOV, €v Oye, év avacTpoph, év the usual and proper sense, ‘ precipe,’ émitatte, Chrysost., who thus explains the use of each term: réy mpaypdtov Te Mev Sidackarlas Setra, Ta dé emiTAyIS....-. oidv Tt A€yw, Td uh iovdaiCey [comp. ver. 7) émitayjs Setra by pevtor A€yns Ort det Ta HmapxovTa Kevody K.T. A. evTasa didackarias xpela, Homil. x111. init. 12. undeis cov «.7.A.| ‘Let no one despise thy youth;’ cov being con- nected, not directly with katapp.,—‘ de- spiciat te ob juvenilem xtatem’ (Bretsch. Lex. ; comp. Leo, al.), but with the fol- lowing gen. ts vedtntos. The former construction is grammatically tenable (Winer, Gr. § 30. 9, p. 183), but is not supported by the use of xatapp. in the N. T., and is not required by the con- text. It has been doubted whether this command is addressed (a) indirectly to the Church (Huth.), in the sense, ‘no man is to infringe on your authority,’ avSevTiKwTEpov TapdyyeAAe, Theoph. 1, Chrys. 1, or (b) simply to Tim., in the sense, ‘let the gravity of thy life supply the want of years,’ Hamm., Chrys. 2, al. The personal application of the next clause, GAAG tUmos yivou K.T. A., seems decidedly in favor of (b) ; ‘do not only, negatively, give no reason for contempt, but, positively, be a living example.’ There is no difficulty in the term veérys applied to Timothy. It is in a high de- gree probable (see Acts xvi. 13) that Timothy was young when he first joined the apostle (a. p. 50, Wieseler): if he were then as much as twenty-five he would not be more than thirty-eight (ac- cording to Wieseler’s chronology), or forty (according to Pearson’s) at the as- sumed date of this Epistle —a relative veétns when contrasted with the func- tions he had to exercise, and the age of those (ch. y. 1 sq ) he had to overlook. 78 TIMOTHY. Cuap. IV. 13. aydrn, ev TlaTEL, ev ayvela. 13 Ews Epxowar Tpocexe Ti} avayva- &AAG TomOoS K.T.A.] ‘but become an example, model, for the believers: SéAets, onal, wh Katappoveioda KeAevwv, Eupuxos véuos yevov, Theod. Tvzos is similarly applied in a moral sense, 1 Pet. v. 3, Phil. iii. 17, 1 Thess. i. 7, 2 Thess. iii. 9, Tit. ii 7; comp. Rom. vi. 17. In the following words the insertion of a comma after moray (Lachm., Tisch ) is distinctly to be preferred to the ordinary punctua- tion (Mill, Scholz), as serving to specify with greater force and clearness the qual- ities and conditions in which the exam- ple of Timothy is to be shown. There is, indeed, as Huther suggests, a kind of order preserved in the five substan- tives which seems designed and signifi- cant; Words, whether in teaching or in social intercourse ; Conduct (comp. notes on Transl. and on Eph. iv. 22), as evinced in actions ; Love and Faith, motive forces in that inner Christian life of which words and conduct are the outward manifesta- > vy tions: Purity Syr. |Zous? ; not ‘ cas- titate,’ Vulg., Beng., either here or ch. v. 2,—(on the true meaning of ayvds, see notes on ch. vy. 2), the prevailing charac- teristic of the life as outwardly manifested and developed. The omissions of the article in this list might be thought to confirm the canon of Harless, Eph. p. 29, ‘that abstracts which specify the quali- ties of a subject are anarthrous,’ if that rule were not wholly indemonstrable : ‘see Winer, Gr.§ 19, 1, p. 109. The addition, év mvetuati, Rec. (only found in KL; great majority of mss.; Arab. [Polygl.] ; Theod., Dam., al.), is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most re- cent editors. It might have crept into the text from 2 Cor. vi. 6; comp. Mill, Prolegom. p. 61. 13. ws Epxopas ‘until I come;’ the present is perhaps used rather than ‘€ws By @ASw (1 Cor. iv. 5), or ews CAdw (Luke xv. 4, xvii. 8 [Lachm., Tisch.,}, al , compare Herm. de Part. &y, 11. 9, p. 110 sq.), as implying the strong expec- tation which the apostle had of coming, eat. ASE Tpds ce TaxLOV, Ch. ili. 14; compare Luke xix. 13, John xxi. 22, and Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237. On the constructions of €ws see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 505 sq. ampdcexe] ‘apply (thyself), diligently attend to;’ compare notes on chap. i. 4. The meaning here and ch. ili. 8. appears a little stronger than in ch. i. 4 and iv. 1; comp. Herod. 1x. 33, mporéxew yumvact- owt, and the good list of exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. 3. c, Vol. 11. p. 1192. TH avayvecet| ‘the (public) reading’ of the Scriptures, the Old, and probably (comp. Col. iv. 16, 1 Thess. v. 27, and Thiersch, Hist. of Church, Vol. 1. p. 147, Transl.) parts of the New Testament : compare Acts xiii. 15, thy avayy. Tod vdwou; 2 Cor. iii. 14, ém) TH dvayvecer On the public reading of the Scriptures in the early church, see Bingham, Antig. x111. 4, 2, and comp. notes on Gal. iv. 21. THS TaAdads SiadsHens. TH wapakAnoer k.T. A.] ‘the ‘exhor- tation, the teaching:’ both terms occur again together, Rom. xii. 7, 8. The distinction usually made between wapdka. and 6.5., as respectively ‘ public exhorta- tion’ and ‘private instruction,’ seems very doubtful. Both appear to mark a form of public address, the former (as the derivation suggests, compare Thceod.) possibly directed to the feelings, and ap- parently founded on some passage of Scripture (see especially Acts xiii. 15, and Just. M. Apol. 1. 67, where, how- ever, the true reading is mpécxAnoats), the latter (7 e&jynoi tay ypapay, Coray) more to the understanding of the hearers ; perhaps somewhat similar to the (now obscured) distinction of ‘sermon’ and ‘lecture.’ On didack. compare notes on Cuap. IV. 14, 15. cel, TH Tapakdjoe, TH SidacKaria. eM OE Ey. « 79 \ ) /. a 14 un auéret TOD ev col xapiopartos, 5 éd0Sn cou dua Tpopyteias peta erriSécews THY YEI- pay tod pec Butepiov. Eph. iv. 11, and Suicer, Thesaurus s. v. Vol. 1. p. 901, 14. wh a&uerer] ‘Be not neglectful of, i.e. ‘do not leave unexercised ;’ comp. 2 Tim. i. 6, dvaCwrupeiy Tb xapic- pa. The following word xdpioua, with the exception of 1 Pet. iv. 10, occurs only in St. Paul’s Epp. where it is found as many as fourteen times, and in all cases denotes ‘a gift emanating from the Holy Spirit or the free grace of God.’ Here probably, as the context suggests, it prin- cipally refers to the gifts of mapdxAnots and didack. just specified ; comp. Rom. xii. 6—8. On the later use to denote Baptism (Clem. Alex. Pedag. 1.6, Vol. I. 113, ed. Pott.), see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 1503. The parallel passage, 2 Tim. i. 6, clearly develops the force of the prep.: pioua is as a spark of holy fire within him, which he is not to let die out from want of attention; comp. Taylor, Forms of Liturg. § 22, 23, 51a tpogntetas] ‘by means of, by the medium of prophecy. The meaning of this preposition has been needlessly tam- pered with: da (with gen.) is not for dé with acc. (Just.), nor for eis, nor for éy (Beza), nor even, ‘under inspiration,’ Peile, but simply points to the medium through which the gift was given; comp. Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. p. 256. The clese union of mpop. with emd. xeipav (ued points to the concomitant act, Wi- ner, Gr. § 47. h, p. 337) renders the dia perfectly intelligible: prophecy and im- position of hands were the two co-existent (Kviiger, Sprachl. § 68. 18. 1) circum- stances which made up the whole pro- cess (comp. De Wette), by the medium of which the xdpiowa was imparted. The association of 6:4 with émd. xelp. is so perfectly regular (Acts viii. 18, 2 Tim. i. ev cot| the xd- a {Z 15 ravTa medeTa, Ev ToVTOLS lau, iva cov 6), that its use with mpog. gains by the association a kind of reflected elucida- tion. The emideois xepav or xetpodeoia (Cone. Nic. xrx. Cone. Chalced. xv.) was a symbolic action, probably derived from the Jewish Aa 52D (see Schoette. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 874), the outward sign of an inward communication of the Holy Spirit (Acts viii. 17, ix. 17) for some spiritual office (Acts vi. 6) or undertak- ing (Acts xiii. 3), implied or expressed : (comp. Wiesinger in loc., Neand. Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 155 (Bohn), and especially Hammond’s treatise, Works, Vol. 1. p. 632—650 ed. 1684). only the superior orders of clergy, not the sub-deacons, readers, etc. In the early church (hence called a&xepotévytos brnpecia) received xetposeciay: see Bingham, Antiy. 111. 1. 6, and rv. 6. 11. mpeoButeptou] ‘presbytery,’ ‘confra- ternity of presbyters’ at the place where Timothy was ordained (perhaps Lystra, if we assume that the ordination closely followed his association with St. Paul) who conjointly with the apostle (2 Tim. i. 6) laid their hands on him. TpeoBv- Téptoy (used in Luke xxii. 66 and Acts xxii. 5 for the Jewish Sanhedrin) occurs very often in the epp. of Ignatius, in the present sense (Trall. 7, 18, Philad. 7, al.), to denote the college of rpecBirepor, the ovyédpiov @eod ( Trail. 3) in each par- ticular city or district: comp Thorn- dike, Prim. Gov. x11. 9, Vol. 1. p. 75 (A.-C. Libr.). 15. tadta weAdéral ‘practise these things, exercise thyself in these things,’ Hammond, Scholef. Hints, p. 119; par- tial antithesis to wh dméAe, verse 14. MeAerdw only occurs again in the N. T. in a quotation from the LXX, Acts iv. 25, guedérnoay xevd; Mark xiii. 11, unde mederare (rejected by Tisch, and placed 80 e ‘ Ac a 2 TpoKoTn pavepa n TAC. emipeve avTois’ aKOUVOVTAS TOV. in brackets by Zachm.), is very doubtful. As there is thus no definite instance from which its exact meaning can be elicited in the N. T., it seems most accurate to adopt the prevailing meaning of the word, not ‘ meditari,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Arm. (though the idea of ‘ thinking about’ really does form the primary idea of its root, Donalds. Cratyl. § 472), but ‘exercere, ‘diligenter tractare,’ Bretsch., aoxeiv, Hesych.; compare Diog. Laert. E/picur. x. 123, radta mpdtre kal pedréra (cited by Wetst.), and see esp. the exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 586. The transl. of Conyb. (comp. Alf.), after De Wette, ‘let these things be thy care’ would be more appropriate to tadrd co peadérw, comp. Hom. Z//. v. 490, xvil. 463. ‘ be occupied, spend thy time, in these things,’ Hamm. ; ‘hoe age, his in rebus esto oc- cupatus,’ Valck. on Luke ii. 49, compare Proy. xxiii. 17, €v pd8@ Kupiov tod. bAnv Thy Hucpay, and examples in Wakefield, Sylv. Crit. Vol. 1v. p. 198: a stronger enunciation of the foregoing words, cor- responding to émiweve x. T. A. in ver. 16. mpokom%| ‘advance, ‘progress ;’ only here and Phil. i. 12, 25 (with a depend- . ant gen.): ‘non immerito hee vox a Grammaticis contemta est, que nullum antiquum nedum Atticum auctorem ha- bet,’ Lobeck, Phryn. p. 85. The ‘ad- vance’ may be in godliness generally, 2 Tim. iii. 17 (De Wette), but more prob- ably in all the particulars mentioned ver. 12—14; compare Chrys. uy év 7G Blw évy rovTo.s tot] pdvoy, GAAG Kab ev TS AdyH TO Bidacka- Atk, except that this throws the empha- sis a little too much on didackaAla. It is curious that Raphel, neither here nor on Phil. i. 12, 25, should have adverted to the not uncommon use of the word by 1 Mra TY. Cuap. IV, 16. lal tN a 16 &reye ceavT@ Kat TH SidacKanria, TOUTO Yap TOL Kal GEeavTOY TwCELS Kal TOUS Polyb. €. 9: ist. 1. 12. 7; 15.) doe ean 4. 2, al. 16. €méxe x. 7. A.] ‘ Give heed unto thyself (thy demeanor and conduct, ver. 12), and unto the doctrine which thou dost deliver, ver.13.’ *Eméxew (‘to fix atten- tion upon,’ émxetoSa, Hesych., Suid.) is somewhat similarly used in Luke xiv. 7, Acts iii. 5, comp. 2 Mace. ix. 25; not Phil. ii. 16 (Theodoret), where Adyov (wijs éméxovtes is either ‘ occupantes,’ Syr., al., or more probably ‘ praetenden- tes,’ Beza, al.; see notes 2m loc. St. Luke mainly uses the formula mpocéxew éauvt@, Luke xii. 1, xvii. 3, xxi. 34, Acts y. 35, xx. 27. The difference in mean- ing is very slight; éréxew is perhaps rather stronger, the idea of ‘rest upon” being probably united with that of sim- ple direction, see Rost u. Palm, Lez, s. vy. c. 3, Vol. 1. p. 1045. Timothy was to keep his attention jixed both upon himself and his teaching; his teaching was to be good (ch. iv. 6) and salutary (ch. i. 10), and he himself was practically to exemplify it both in word and deed (ver. 12). ‘continue in them ; émwipmeve avutors| ? comp. Col. i. 23, emmuevete TH TioTe, and similarly Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22,23, Phil. i. 24: this tropical use of émm. is thus peculiar to St. Paul. The reference of avrots has been very differently explained. By comparing the above examples of the apostle’s use . of émim. with a dat., it would seem nearly certain that adrots must be neuter: if the apostle had here designed to refer to per- sons (avtois masc. ; see Grot., Beng.) he would more probably have used zpds with an accusative; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7, Gal. i. 18. Avdrd& may then be referred either to the details implied in &rexe k.T.A., or perhaps more probably to all Cuap. V. 1—3. Behavior of Timothy to- ward the elder and younger members of the church. Distinctions to be observed in the support of widows. 2 ape Butépas gas év Tdon ayveia. the points alluded to in verse 12 sq. (Matth., Huther), so as to form a final recapitulatory echo, as it were, of the TavTa and rovrois, ver. 15. rovTo ydp x.T.A.| ‘for by doing this,’ etc.; confirmatory clause. The present part. is used with a similarly gerundial force (Comp. Herm. Soph. Elect. 57) in ver. 6, where it is also better to preserve the more exact participial translation. This form of protasis involves a temporal reference (rather, however, too fully ex- v pressed by Syr. = p>) and may perhaps be distinguished from e with pres. indic., or éay with pres. subj., with either of which it is nearly synon. (Don- alds. Gr. § 505), as connecting a little more closely the action of the verb in the protasis with that of the verb in the apo- dosis. : It is singular that De Wette assigns a higher meaning to o@(ew in reference to Timothy, but a lower (‘ Be- festigung’) in reference to his hearers. In both it has its normal and proper sense, not merely ‘servabis ne seducam- ini,’ Bengel (comp. Theod.), but ‘ salvum facies,’ Vulg., ‘salvabis,’ Clarom., and, as Wiesinger well remarks, conveys this important truth, ‘ that in striving to save others, the minister is really caring for his own salvation.’ On the force of kal —rai, see notes on ver. 10. CuapterR V. 1. tpecBurtépa| ‘an elder, Auth. Ver., 7. e. an elderly man,’ not ‘a presbyter; so Syr., Vulg.: apa 7d dkiwud pnow ; ovk ofwat, GAAG wep) Tay- wos yeynpaxdtos, Chrys. This interpreta- tion is rendered nearly certain by the an- tithetical vewrépous in the following verse, and by ws matépa in the adversative 11 eT LO'r FY. 81 V. IIpecBurépm py erimdjEns adda tra- pakdrE, @s TaTépa, vewTépovs ws adedpous, e Ve / id > @s pmtépas, vewTépas ws aoeh- 3 / Las Ni ” f Xijpas Twa Tas ovtws xpas. clause. The exhortation, as Leo ob- serves, follows very suitably after the reference (ch. iv. 12) to the vedrns of Tim., ‘ita se gerat erga seniores ut re- vera deceat virum juniorem.’ wh emimaAnéns| ‘do not sharply rebuke, reprimand.’ -EmimAnttrew (an am. v Aeyduevoy in the N. Test.), Syriac im [increpavit], vouSereiy me wappnoiav Kar avotepétnta, Coray (mod. Greek), seems to involve the notion of sharpness and © severity: Td emumd. kal kéwrTew A€yeTat.... éri SE Kal paorti¢ev....ap’ ov Kal Td Ao- yous emimAnooew elpytat, Eustathius. on Homer, J/. x. 500 (cited by Wetstein). The usual form in the New Testament is émtiuav, used very frequently by the first three evangelists, but only once by St. Paul, 2 Tim. iv. 2. The grammatical construction requires mapardadet to be supplied. The context, however, seems to suggest a more gene- ral word, e.g. vovdéra (comp. 2 Thess. lil. 15, vouSetetre ws &deApor), a mean term, as it were, between émimAntte and mapaxdde. This, however, was proba- bly not inserted on account of the follow- ing mpeoBurépas, where a milder term , would again be more appropriate. 2. év mdon ayvetal ‘inall purity; with exclusive reference to the vewrépas : the bishop was so to order his conversa- tion to the younger women of his flock, with such purity, as not to afford any ground even for suspicion (Chrysost.). The rule of Jerome (/pist. 2) is simple ; “omnes puellas et virgines Christi aut sequaliter ignora aut xqualiter dilige.’ 3. xhpas tipal ‘pay due regard to widows,’ Conyb. The meaning of timdw and the connection of the following ver- vewTépous| 82 PPO? HY. Cuap. V. 4. ? , , t x ” L/ lal \ 4 @f O€ TIS YI}pa TéxVa 1 EKyoVA EXEL, pavSaveTwoay TPATov TOV ses, 3-16, has been from the earliest times so much a matter of dispute, that it is very difficult to arrive at a certain deci- sion. On the whole, when we observe the economic terms, @moiBas ar0d.8. (ver. 4), mpovoeiy (ver. 8), and esp. emapr. Tats bvtws xnpais (ver. 16), it seems best with De Wette (after Theodoret, al.) to give Tiua a somewhat extended meaning, — ‘honor,’ not by a simple exhibition of respect (woAATSs yap SeovTat Timijs mewovw- uévat, Chrys..—a somewhat insufficient reason), but also by giving material proofs of it; €Adet kal Ta dvarykata xophrye, The- ophyl. The translation of Peile, al., ‘support, provide for,’ tpépe we eAenuo- otvas, Coray (Romaic), involves too great a departure from the simple sense ; the context, however. does certainly seem to require some intermediate translation, which, without obscuring the primary and proper meaning of tiudw, may still leave the latter and less proper meaning fairly discernible: comp. tums ver. 17, Matth. xv. 4 sq. If this view be correct, ver. 3—8 will seem to relate specially to the support widows are to receive, ver. 9—16 to their qualifications for an office in the church ; see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 309, and notes on ver. 9. On the posi- tion which widows occupied in the early church, see Bingham, Antiq. vii. 4. 9, Winer, RWB. Art ‘ Witwen.’ Tas OYTHWS XHpas| ‘who are widows indeed :’ 2. e. as ver. 4, 5, and especially ver. 16, clearly explain it,— destitute and desolate, Tas wh exovoas aAAaxddev ovde- piav Bonserav, Coray. There seems then no sufficient ground either (a) for assign- ing to xfpa its ecclesiastical sense (Baur, Pailus, p. 497, who compares Ignatius Smyrn. 13, tas mapSévous Tas Aeyouevas xhpas; see Coteler in loc. Vol. 11. p. 38), so that 7) bvtws x. is ‘a widow proper,’ opp. to a xhpa in the official meaning of the term ; or (b) for giving 7 dvtws xhpa a strictly ethical reference, ‘bona vidua et proba,’ Leo; for the ‘nervus argu- menti’ in both cases, viz. the clause HATiucev em) Tov Oedv, does not mark ex- clusively the religious attitude, but the earthly isoijation of 7 dvTws xhpa, and her freedom from the distractions of ordinary domestic life; comp i Cor. vii. 33, 84, and, thus far, Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p- 154 (Bohn). 4. €i B€ tis xhpal ‘ But ifany wid- ow,’ i. e. ‘in every case in which a widow has,’ ete.; comp. Syriac, where this evi- dent opposition to 7 dvrws x. is still more distinctly maintained. Having spoken of the ‘ widows indeed,’ the apostle pro- ceeds to show still more clearly his mean- ing by considering the case of one who does not fall under that class. éxyova| ‘descendants,’ or more special- ly, as the context implies, ‘ grandchil- dren ;’ ‘ children’s children,’ Syr. ‘ neph- ews,’ Auth. Ver.,—in the original, but now antiquated sense of the word ; com- pare Thom. M. p. 850 (ed. Bern.). The term éx-yovoy only occurs here in the N. T., but is sufficiently common in the LXX, as well as in earlier Greek, see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. favasavetwoar| ‘let learn.’ Who? The x7pa implied in the collec- tively-taken xhpa? or the réxva and &- yova® The former is supported by Vulg., Clarom., Chrys., and Theod. ; the latter, however, which has_the sup- port of Syr., Theoph, Gicum. 2, al., seems more in accordance both with the context generally, and with the use of the special terms evoeBeivy (see below) and émoiBas arodi8. The explanation of Chrys., ar7ASov éxeivor (oi mpdyovor) ..... év Tots exydvois avTovd dueiBov, arodldou 7d dpetAnua did Tay maldwv, can scarcely be regarded as otherwise than artificial and unsatisfactory. 7 p@tov] ‘ first,’ scil. ‘before thou hast to do it,’ De W. them Cuar. Via 1 YA M,O AME 83 16 3 > Lal Ny 3 MY b) } 5 r A “4 a lovov oiKkoy evocPeiv Kal apoiBas amrodidovat Tots Tpoyovois’ TOTO yap €otw arrodextov éevwmriov Tod Qeod. »* 1 dé dvTws ypa Kal evaoeBetv] ‘to be dutiful, ‘to evince ( filial) piety towards,’ ‘ barusnjan,’ Goth. (Massm.); compare Acts xvii. 23, 6 ay- vooovtes evoeBetre (Lachmann, Tisch.). This verb can hardly be referred to the Xhpat, as it certainly cannot be taken ac- tively, ‘domum suam regere,’ Vulg., and not very plausibly, ‘ to practise piety in respect of,’ Matth.; whereas when re- ferred to the children, its primitive sense is but slightly obscured ; compare Philo, de Dec. Orac. § 23, Vol. 11. p. 200 (ed. Mang.), where storks are similarly said eboeBeiv and ynporpopeiv. The expres- sion Toy %1oy ofkoy is somewhat singular in such a connection, but the remark of De Wette (who has elucidated the whole passage with great ability) that ofoyv was expressly used to mark the duty as an act of ‘family feeling and family honor,’ seems fairly to meet the difficulty. Tov ZSiov marks the contrast between assist- ance rendered by members of the same family and that supplied by the com- parative strangers composing the local church. Kat dmorBas k.T.A.] ‘and to requite their parents ;’ further ex- planation of roy 7. ofk. edocBetv. The expression dwoiBas arod.ddvau is illustrat- ed by Elsner, and Wetst. in loc. (comp. Hesiod, Op. 188, toxetow amd Sperrhpia dveiv), and while perfectly suitable in the ease of children, would certainly seem very unusual in reference to parents. The duty itself is enforced in Plato, Legy. iv. 717; see also Stobeeus, F/oril. Tit. 79, and especially Taylor, Duct. Dub. 111. 5.3. Tpoyovo: does not commonly refer to living parents (De W. however, cites Plato, Legg. x1. 931), but in the present case suitably balances the term éxyova, and seems adopted as_ briefly comprehending both generations, moth- ers or grandmothers. TOUTO yap x.7.A.] See notes on ch. ii. 3. 5.7 8& dytTws xhpa| ‘ But (not ‘now’ Auth. Ver.) she that is a widow indeed ;’ sharp and emphatic contrast to the foregoing, serving to specify still more clearly to Timothy the characteris- tics of the ‘ widow indeed,’ kal wepovwmuern| ‘and left desolate ;’ explanatory, not merely additional (Schleierm.) characteristic. Matthies urges that if this were an explanatory characteristic, it would have been either enovapevn eotiv, or 7 meuovwuevy. This does not seem necessary; the apostle probably feeling and remembering the adjectival nature of yfjpa [xa-, perhaps Sanser. hd, ‘deserere,’ Pott, Htym. Vol. 1. p. 199; but comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 280, 287, and Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 188], adds another epithet which explains, and more exactly marks, the characteristic (orbitas) which is involved in xnpa, and forms the principal ‘subject of thought. HAwiKEeV K.T.A.] ‘hath placed her hopes on God ;’ ‘hath hoped and still hopes ;’? see Winer, Gr. § 41. 4, p. 242. On the distinction be- tween éAmi@w with ém and accus. and with em} and dat. see notes on ch. iv. 10. mpogpméve.| ‘abides in;’ the preposi- tion apparently intensifying the meaning of the simple verb; see Acts xi. 23, 77 mpovsere: THs Kapd. mpocuevery TH Kupie, xiii 43, mpoomeveww TH XapiTL; Comp. TH mpocevxh mpockaprepev, Acts i. 14, Rom. xii. 12, Col. iv. 2, and consult Rost u. Palm, Ler. s. v. mpés, C. c, Vol. 11. p. 1162. On the distinction between déyo1s and mpocevxh, see notes on ch. il. 1, and on Eph. vi. 18. It may be observed that the article is prefixed to both: it clearly might have been omitted before the latter; St. Paul, however, chooses to regard prayer under two separate aspects ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 117 note. vuktos Kal fucpas| ‘night and day, 84 1 TIMOTHY. Cuap. .V. 6, 7. , ve SN \ \ \ (4 ta) pA pewovwopevn HArmiKev ert Tov Ocdv Kal mpoopever Tais Senoeow kal Tais mpocevyais vuKTos Kal nuépas. § 1) b€ orraTadoca, Soa TESENKED. i. €. grammatically considered, within the space of time expressed by the substan- tives: see Donalds. Gr. § 451, Kviiger, Sprachl. § 47. 2, and comp. notes on ch. ii. 6 ad fin. St. Luke, in the very paral- lel case of Anna, ch. ii. 37, uses the ace. vuKTa Kat juepav, but there the previous occurrence of ynoreias renders the accu- sative and perhaps the order (fasts appy. began at eve, Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Fas- ten,’ compare Lev. xxiii. 32) perfectly appropriate; in Acts xxvi. 7 and in 2 Thess. iii. 8 (Tisch.) the accus. is appy. hyperbolical. On the order vuxros rab je. (always in St. Paul), comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 62 sq. It may be observed that St. Luke adopts the order vurr. Kat ju. with the ace. (comp. Mark iv. 27), and inverts it when he uses the gen. (opp. to Mark y. 5). St. John (Rey. iv. 8, vii. 15, xii. 10, xiv. 11, xx. 10) uses only the gen. and the order jy. kat vurtds. Is the order always to be explained from internal considerations, and not rather to be referred to the habit of the writer ? 6.7 5¢ cmatadrddsoa| ‘but she that liveth riotously ;’ one of the sins of Sodom and her daughters (Ezek. xvi. 49), form- ing a sharp contrast to the life of self- denial and prayer of 7 évtws xhpa. Bmra- Tarkav only occurs again in the N. Test., James vy. 5, étpuphoate nab eomatadrn- care; comp. Ezek. loc. cit., ebSnvig éona- tddwy, Ecclus. xxi. 15, 6 omataddy. As the derivatidn of each word suggests, onataAdw [SIIA-, cognate with oraddw] points more to the ‘ prodigality’ and ‘wastefulness’ (Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 592), the somewhat synonymous word rpuddw (Spimrw), more to the ‘ ef- feminacy’ and ‘luxury’ of the subject: so also rightly Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 193. The present verb is thus, etymo- logically considered, more allied in mean- 7 ‘ na , vd > I 5 Kal TAUTA Trapayyerre, Wa aveTLANUTTTOL WoW ing to dowtws (qv, comp. notes on Eph. y. 18, though it is occasionally found (Theano, ad Eubul. p. 86, ed. Gale, ra oTaTadkGvTa Tey maidiwy) in a sense scarcely at all differing from tpupax. See also Suicer, Thesaur.s. v. Vol. 11. p- 992. (aoa TES HKEY] “ts dead while she liveth;’ so Rev. iii. 1, Gis, kal vexpds ef, compare Eph. iv. 18. The meaning is rightly expressed by the Greek expositors, e. g. Theophyl. (most incorrectly quoted by Huther), cay dox7 Giv tabrny thy Cohy Thy aicdnthy [comp. Gal. ii. 20] TéeSvnke kaTd mvedua: simi- larly Theodoret, but with less theologi- cal accuracy of expression. Her life is merely a conjunction of soul and body, destitute of all union with the higher and truly quickening principle; comp. Ols- hausen, Opusc. p. 196. Numerous quo- tations involving similar sentiments will be found in Wetst. zn loc. ; the most per- tinent is Philo, de Profug. § 10, Vol. 1. p. 554 (ed. Mang.), (aves vitor TeSvfkact kal TeQunkdtes (@ou kK. T.A.; comp. Loes- ner, Obs. p. 404. 7. tavtal ‘these things:’ what things? Those contained (a) in ver. 3 —6 only, Theodoret (appy.), and Hu- ther; or (b) in ver. 6 only, Chrys.; or (c) in ver. 5 and 6, De Wette and Wie- sing. Of these (a) is very plausible on account of the simple mandatory force of mapayyeAAe, but involves the difficulty that averiA. must then be referred to Téxva and éxyova as well as the widows, whereas the latter seem manifestly the principal subjects. The use of rat (not simply tadrva as in ch. iv. 6) is in favor of (b), but then again it seems impossible to disunite two verses so closely connect- ed by the antithesis involved as ver. 5 and 6. On the whole, then, it seems best to adopt (c), and to refer the pro- Cuap. V. 8, 9. 1 TIMOTHY. * $8 > f fal PANDA Si A a > / > a \ 8 ef O€ Tis THY idlwy Kal ddioTa TOY oiKElwv od TPOvoel, THV NA . TioTW HpvyTat Kal éotw amlatou xeipwv. Presbyteral widows must be sixty years of age and of 9 Xipa KatareyéoSo pur) EXatrov érav é£y- good character ; refuse younger widows, whom I desire rather to marry, and not to give offence. noun to the two foregoing verses: Kat thus binds ver. 7 to ver. 5 and 6, while ver. 8 includes the whole subject by a still more emphatic statement of the rule involved in ver. 4, but not then further expanded, as the statement of the differ- ent classes and positions of the widows would otherwise have been interrupted. mapayyeAde] ‘command ;’ see notes on ch, iv. 11: the choice of this stronger word seems to imply that the foregoing contrast and distinction between 7 évTws xnpa and 7 omar. was intended to form the basis for a rule to the church. avewlAnumror| ‘erreproachable;’ the widows, not the widows and their de- scendants, see above. On the meaning of the word, see notes on ch. iii. 2. 8. ef 5€ «.7.A.] Recurrence to the same subject and to the same persons, Texva Kal éxyova, as in ver. 4, but, as the ts implies, in the form of a more general statement. The 5¢ (not = ydp, as Syr.) is correctly used, as the subjects of this verse stand in a sort of contrast to the widows, the subjects of ver. 7. TOY idiwy K.T.A.]| ‘his own (relatives) and especially those of his own house ;’ 5.01 here marks the relationship, ofke?o:, those who were not only relations, but also formed part of the family,—obs ka- ToLKOUYTAS THY avTHY oiKklay Tuyyevets, Co- ray ; ‘domestici, qualis vel maxime est mater aut avia vidua, domi,’ Bengel. Lachmann, on fair uncial authority AD FG], omits the second réy; this would bind the %:o: and oixetos more explicitly into one class; Winer, Gr. § 19 4, p. 116. On oixetor, comp. notes on Gal. vi. 10. Itis worthy of notice that the Es- senes were not permitted to give relief to their relatives without leave from their a éritpora, though they might freely do so to others in need; see Joseph. Bell. Jud. II. 8. 6. ; not provide for ;’? only again Rom, xii. 17 (from Prov. iii. 4) and 2 Cor. viii. 21 ; in both cases with an accus. rez (Jelf, Gr. § 496, obs. 1), in the former passage in the middle, in the latter (Zachm.) in the active voice. On the connection «7 od (here perfectly intelligible as od is in such close connection with mpovoe?), see the copious list of examples in Gayler, Par- tic. Neg. pp..99—115, and notes on ch. Tl. 5 THY TloTLY HpynTratl ‘he hath denied the faith ;’ not ‘ doctri- nam Christianam,’ but ‘the (Christian) faith,’ considered as a rule of life; com- pare notes on Gal. i. 23. His acts are a practical denial of his faith: faith and love are inseparable ; in not showing the one he has practically shown that he is not under the infiuence of the other. On the meaning of miotis,. see Reuss, Theol. Chrét. 1v. 18, Vol. 11. p 128 sq. amioarov| Not a‘ misbeliever’ (2 Cor. iv. 4, Tit. i. 15), but an ‘ unbeliever,’ opp. to 6 mlatedwy, 1 Cor. xiv, 22 sq. Such a one, though he might bear the name of Christian, would be really worse than a heathen, for the precepts of all better heathenism forbade such an unnatural selfishness ; see Pfanner, Theol. Gent. xr. 22, p. 320, and compare the quotations in Stobeus, Flori]. Tit. 79. 9 Xhpa Katadeyérdsw xK.T.A.| ‘ As widow let no one be put on the list, ete.” In this doubtful passage it will be best to consider (a) the simple meaning and grammatical structure ; (b) the interpre- tation of the clause. First, then, cata-. Aéyew (katararrew, Suid.) simply means ‘to enter upon 2 list’ (see examples in ov mpovoe?| ‘does 86 KOVTA yeyovvla, Evds avdpos yuvn, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. vy. Vol. 1. p. 1624), the contents and object of which must be deduced from the context. Next, we must observe that xfpa is in fact the pre- dicate ‘als Witwe werde verzeichnet,’ Winer, Gr. § 64.4, p. 521. Grammar and Lexicography help us no further. (b) Interpretation: three explanations have been advanced; (a) the somewhat obvious one that the subject of the pre- ceding clause is simply continued ; so Chrys. in loc., the other Greek expositors and the bulk of modern expositors. The objections to this are, grammatically con- sidered, the apparently studied absence of any connecting particle; exegetically considered, the high improbability that when criteria had been given, ver. 4 sq., fresh should be added, and those of so very exclusive a nature ; would the Church thus limit her alms? (8) That of Schlei- ermacher, Mack, and others, that deacon- esses are referred to: against this the ob- jection usually urged seems decisive,— that we have no evidence whatever that deaconesses and xnpat are synonymous terms (the passage in Ignat. Trull. 13, cannot here fairly be made use of, first on account of the doubtful reading ; sec- ondly, the suspicion which now hangs about the whole epistle, see’ Cureton, Corp. Iyn. p. 333), and that the age of 60, though deriving a specious support from Cod. Theod. xvi. 2. 27 (compare, however, Cone. Chale. ec. 15, where the age is fixed at 40), is wholly incompati- ble with the active duties (comp. Bing- ham, Antiqg. 11. 22. 8 sq.) of such an office: (vy) The suggestion of Grot., ably éxpanded by Mosheim, and followed by De Wette, Wiesing., Huth. (Evnlett. § 4), that an order of widows (xnpav xépos, Chrrsost. Hom. in Div. N. T. Loc. 31, compare Tertull. de Vel. Virg. 9, and the other reff. in Mosheim) is here referred to, whose duties apparently consisted in TIMOTHY. Cuap. V. 10. 30 oe. a eV Epos Kadols fapTupoU- the exercise of superintendence over, and the ministry of counsel and consolation (see Tertull. /. c.) to, the younger women ; whose office in fact was, so to say, pres- byteral (mpeoBurides) rather than dia- conic. The external evidence for the existence (though not necessarily the spe- cial ecclesiastical organization) of such a body even in the earliest times is so fully satisfactory, and so completely in har- mony with the internal evidence supplied by ver. 10 sq., that on the whole (7) may be adopted with some confidence ; see the long note of Wiesinger in loc., and Huther, Linleit. § 4, p. 46. We thus find noticed in this chapter the xnpa in the ordinary sense; 7 dvtws x., the desolate and destitute widow; 7 katei- Aeyeevn xnpa, the ecclesiastical or pres- byteral widow. yeyovuiais now properly referred by Lachm., Tisch., al., to wh @ZAaTTov k.T.A., see examples in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 592. The construction, @Aattov 4} érn é&hkovTa, would be perhaps more correct, but the somewhat concise gen. is perfectly intel- ligible. évds avipbs yurn| ‘the wife of one husband:’ comp. ch. iii. 2. It is obvious that this can only be contrasted with successive polygamy, and cannot possibly be strained to refer to the legitimacy of the marriage (compare Beng.). In plain terms the woman was to be univira: so Tertull. ad Uzor. 1. 7, ‘preescriptio Apostoli.....viduam allegi in ordinem [ordinationem, Seml.] nisi jiniviram non concedit ;’ compare notes on ch. iii, 2, and the copious list of exx. in Wetst. in loc. 10. évy €pyots Kkadots kT. A] ‘well-reported of in the matter of good works,’ scil. ‘ for good works ;” compare notes on Titus iii. 8 ’Ev denotes the sphere to which the woman’s actions and the consequent testimony about them was confined. Huther cites Heb. xi. 2 Cuae! V. 10; 11. 1 TIMOTHY. 87 (Pen >» r S445 , y er , ” pevn, et erexvotpopycer, ef eevoddynoev, et ayiwy Todas évivper, > Sr B , Ly fA > Ay ar > S a 3 ny IS ef SAvBopévows emypKecev, eb TavTi Epyp ayaS@ éernkorovSnoev. “ 0 , a 11 Newrépas 5é ynpas Twapastod" OTav yap Katactpyyiacwow Tod ll. xatacrpnyidowow] So CDKL; most mss.; Chrysost., Theodoret, Theoph., (Eeum. (Griesb., Scholz, De W. e sil.. Wordsw.). Lachm., Tisch., Alf. here read kataotpnvidcovow with AFG; 31; Chrys. (Cod.). Though the future might fairly be borne with, as in Rey. iv. 9 (comp. pres. Mark xi. 25), the external authority does not seem sufficient, for it must be remembered that F and G, even in errors of transcription (‘ mira est utriusque [codicis] consensio in lectionibus ipsisque multis calami erroribus,’ 'Tisch.), are practically little more than one authority. Moreover, the only correct principle of explaining these usages of ééy and d7ay with the indic., —viz., the restriction of the whole conditional force to the particle, and the absence of necessary internal connection between the verb in the protasis and that in the apodosis—does not seem here to apply. St. Paul does not apparently desire to mark the mere relation of time, but the ethical connection between katactp. and you. SéA.: a weariness of Christ’s yoke involves a further and more decided lapse. On the use of éav and éray with the indic., see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 468—478. as evincing the use of ey to mark the reason of the paptupta, but there ey is simply ‘in;’ in hae fide constituti,’? Wi- ner, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346, note. petodat appears frequently used in the NES etmurActevi. 3, x. 22; xvi. 2 al., in special reference to a good testimony. The simple meaning is retained by Syr., Vulg., Goth., al. el éetekvotpogdnaev] ‘if she (ever) brought up children ;’ hypothetical clause, ultimately dependent on kataad., but still also more immediately explanatory of épy. kad. It is doubtful whether rexvo- tpopeiv is to be confined to the widow’s own children (Vulg., Chris. and Greek commentt ), or extended also to the or- phans she might have brought up, ‘ ec- clesie commodo’ (Beng.). The latter seems most probable, especially as in two passages which have been adduced, Her- mann Past. Mund. 1.2, and Lucian, de Mort. Peregr. § 12, widows and orphans are mentioned in a suggestive connection. In either case, 7d evoeBGs Spépa (The- od.) is necessarily implied, though not expressed in the word. é€fevo0d5dx na evr] ‘entertained strangers,’ Maprtv- dr. Aeyou., but comp. Matth. xxv. 35. The sequence of duties may have been suggested by the relations of proximity ; dpas THs Tavtaxod THY oikelwy Tas evep- yeolas Tay GAAOTpiwy mpoTidyat, Chrys. ; the widow’s own children would clearly be comprehended in, and even form the first objects of the texvotpodia. ei ayiwy K.7.A] ‘if she (ever) washed the feet of the suints;’ an act not only connected with the rites of Oriental hos- pitality (Jahn, Archeol. § 149), but de- monstrative of her humility (1 Sam. xxy. 41,—it was commonly a servant’s office, Elsner, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 338), her love (compare Luke vii. 38), and, it might be added, the practical heartiness (comp. Chrysostom) of her hospitality : ‘non dedignetur quod fecit Christus fa- cere Christianus,’ August. in Joan. Tract. LVIII. “relieved ;’ éBonsnoev, Hesych., compare Polyb. Hist. 1.51.10, where it is used as nearly synonymous with émBondeiv. It thus need not be restricted merely to alms (aropta émapretv, Clem. Alex.. Strom. I. 10, compare Vales. on Euseb. Hist. vir. 5), nor SAiBou. to ‘ paupertate pres- éemhApKrecer] 88 Xpwictov, yapelv YéXovaw, 2 sis’ (Beng.), but, as apparently Syriac uA Auod] [refocillavit], may refer to the relief of necessity in its most general form ; kal dia xpnudrov, kal di mpoota- ctas, kat weortelas, Theophyl. emnkordovanaer] ‘followed after ;’ comp. 1 Pet. ii. 21, émaxoAouseiy Tois txveow: the em) does not appear to in- volve any idea of intensity, scil. tpodduws kad kat’ Yxvn, Coray, Auth. Ver. (comp. Steph. in Thesaur. s. v.), but only that of direction. ‘The sense is not very differ- ent to that implied in &iéKew 7d dyaSdv, 1 Thess. v.15; compare Plato, de Rep. Il. p. 370 6, 7@ mpattopévw émarodov- Seiv, where the next words, uh év mapép- you “épet, supply the notion of mpoSupta ; see ib. Phaedo, p. 107 B, where the force of the compound also does not seem very strongly marked. The meaning is rightly conveyed by Chrys., 5nAotvrés éorw, drt ei kal wh adTh adTd epydoacda Hdvvjdn, GAN buws exowdyynoev, STovpynoe. 11. vewtépas] Not necessarily, with studied reference to ver. 9, ‘ widows un- der sixty years of age,’ Wiesing., but, as the context seems to imply, ‘ younger’ with nearly a positive sense, ver.2. * mapattod]| ‘shun,’ or, as the contrast with katadeyéodw (ver. 9) seems to re- quire,—‘ decline’ (‘refuse,’ Auth. Ver., amdBadre, Coray,) scil. ‘to put on the katdAoyos of the presbyteral widows.’ They were not necessarily to be excluded from the alms of the Church (Taylor, E/pise. § 14), but were only to be held in- eligible for the ‘collegium viduarum ;’ compare however ver. 16. On raparod, compare notes on ch. iv. 7: the regular meaning (as Huther properly observes) suggested by ch. iv. 7, 2 Tim. ii. 23, Tit. iii. 10, need not here be lost sight of; Timothy was to shun them, and not en- tertain their claims ; ‘ noli causem earum suscipere,’ Beng. 1 ARO Bey. Cnap. V. 11, 12. Eyovoal Kpia OTL THY TPaTHV étav Kkatactpny.| ‘when they have come to wax wanton against Christ,’ Auth. Vers., ‘lascivieru[i|nt,’ Beza; the aor. subj. with drav, marking an action which takes place at some single point of time distinct from the actual present, but oth- erwise undefined ; see Winer, Gir. § 42. 5, p. 275, and notes on 2 Thess. i. 10. This translation of catacrp. may be fully retained if ‘lascivire’ be taken more in . its simple (‘ instar juventorum quae cum pabulo ferociunt,” Scul. ap. Pol. Syn.) than in its merely sexual reference (qu fornicatee sunt in injuriam Christi, Je- rome, Fpist. 11, al. 223), though this, owing to the yaueiy SéAovor, not simply fut. yauhoovoww [usual later form], cannot wholly be put out of sight. Srpyvidw, a word of later comedy (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 381), implies the exhibition of ‘ over. strength,’ ‘restiveness,’ and thence of fulness of bread’ (Antiph. ap. Athen. 111, 127), and ‘ wanton luxury ;’ comp. Rey. xviii. 7,9. The adjective otpnvis is far more probably connected with the Sabine ‘strena’ (Donalds. Varron. 1v. 2), and the Lat. ‘ strenuus’ (Pott, Etym. Vol. 1. p. 198) than with topés, tpavés, which is suggested by Lobeck. The prep. kara expresses the direction of the action (Rost u. Palm, Lew. s. v. card, Iv. 2), and points to the object against which the otpivos was shown: comp. katakav- xaoda, James il. 13. 12. Zxovoat xepipa] ‘having, bear- ing about with them a judgment that,’ ete. ; comp. pdBov %xew, verse 20, auapriav zxev, John xv. 22. The judgment or sentence is a load which they bear about with them (comp. Gal. v. 10) ; and this judgment is that 79éryoav kK. T. A. “Ort is thus not causal, but objective, and so must not, asin J/ill, be preceded by a comma,—a punctuation probably sug- gested by a misinterpretation of xpiua. This it need scarcely be said is not for Cuap. V. 13. mictw 7XéTncav' 3 dma Oé Kal katdkpa (‘damnationem,’ Vulg., Cla- rom. ; katd«piow, Theophyl.), much less = ‘ punishment’ (beladen sich mit Straf- barkeit,’ Mack), but retains its usual and proper meaning. The context will alone decide the nature of the judgment, wheth- er favorable or unfavorable ; comp. notes on Gal v. 10, and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 94. Thy TwpOTHY K.T.A.| ‘they broke their first faith ;’ clearly, as it is explained by the Greek commentt., their engagement (cvvdijxnv, Chrys.) to Christ not to marry again, which they virtually, if not explicitly, made when they attempted to undertake the duties of the presbyteral office, as évds avdpds yuvaikes ; So Theodoret, te Xpiorg ovy- Tatduevor coppdvws Cav év xnpela devre- The only seeming difficulty is mpérnv, not mporépay, as the mpoTn TiatTis was really to the first hus- band. This is easily explained: there are now only two things put in evidence, faith to Christ and faith to some second husband. In comparing these two, the superlative, according to a very common Greek habit of speaking, is put rather than the comparative ; see Winer, Gr. § 35. 4. 1, p. 218. The phrase adereiy niotw, ‘ fidem irritam facere,’ is illustrat- ed by Wetstein and esp. Raphel in Joc. ; the latter cites Polyb. Hist.vi11. 2. 5, x1. 20 es SOU LOn Ove REV Gs. Ga Le numerous illustrations that the language of St. Paul’s unquestioned Epistles has received from Polybius are well-known and admitted. This persistent similar- ity, in the case of an Epistle of which the genuineness has been (unreasonably) doubted, is a subsidiary argument which ought not to be lost sight of. 13. Gua 5€ x. 7.A.] There is some difficulty in the construction; pavSdy. is nsually connected with mepiepx., but, un- less with De Wette and Wiesinger we plainly assume that the participle is in- puis dutAovor ydmos. 1 TIMOTHY. 89. apyat pavSdvovaewy TrepvepXopuevat correctly used for the infinitive, we shall have an incongruous sense, for pavddve meprepxduevos can only mean ‘I learn that Lam going about,’ Jelf, Gr. § 683. Again if with Wordsworth we translate ‘being idle they are learners, running about’ we have an absolute use of uay- Sdvw (compare, however, 2 Tim. iii. 7) and a dislocation of words that seem harsh and unnatural. It will be best then, with Syr., Chrysost., al., and also Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, p. 311, to connect pave. with apyai, ‘ they learn to be idle,’ especially as this can be supported by Plato, Euthyd. p. 276 B, ot duaxes Bpa copol pavddvovow [Bekker, however, omits copot], and in part by Dio Chrys. p- 283 (ed. Reisk.), €udvdave rAwdtoos Thy Tov matpos Texvhv,— both of which examples are appositely cited by Winer, l.c. Ifit be urged (De Wette, Wiesing.) that running about would be more natu- rally the consequence of idleness than vice versd, it may be said that mepiepx. may possibly refer to some portion of their official duties, in the performance of which, instead of rather acquiring spiritual experiences, they only contract idle and gossiping habits. Tas oixtas might seem to confirm this, ‘ the houses of them they have to visit;’ but compare 2 Tim. iii. 6, where (as here) the article appears generic, or at most, ‘the houses of such as receive them ;’ comp. Winer, Gr.§ 17.1, p. 116, note (ed. 5). meprepxdmevart| ‘going round to;” the participle is certainly used with ref- erence to an idle, wandering, way of go- ing about, in Acts xix. 13; this mean- ing, however, is derived from the con- text, which does not oblige us necessarily to retain the same meaning here. Other examples of accusatives after the ep? in the comp. verb are found in the N. T., e.g. Mark vi. 6, Acts ix. 3, al. ; compare also Matth. Gr. § 426, Bernhardy, Synt. 12 90 \ PELIMOTeY. Crar. V. 14. ! Tas oiKias, ov pdvoyv Sé apyal, GNA Kat pdvapor Kal Teplepyot, Aarodoa TA pn SéovTa. v. 30 ad fin., p. 260. arAAG kal paAvapo.r kal weplepyot| ‘but also tatilers amd busybodies ;’ émavdpSwois of preceding epithet; beside being merely idle, they also contract and display a ‘mala sedulitas’ in both words and ac- tions. Advapos, an ar. Aeydu. in N. T. (but see paAvapety, 3 John 10), as its deri- vation [IIAY-, fluere, Pott, Etymol. Forsch. Vol. 1. 212] obviously suggests, points to a babbling, profluent way of talking. Tlepiepyos (see Acts xix. 19) marks a meddling habit, a perverted activity that will not content itself with minding its own concerns, but must busy itself about those of others; compare 2 Thess. iii. 11, undév épyaCdwevous GAAG meprepyatoue- vous, |Demosth.] Philipp. 1v. 150, é& av epyacn Ka) meprepydcn. Aadovaat x.7.A.| ‘speaking things which they ought not,’ carrying things from one house to another: mepiodevovcm yap Tus oiKlas ovdey GAN 2 Ta TavTHS Mmpds éexelynv pépovot, Theophyl. On ra wh déovra, comp. notes on Tit. i. 11. 14. BovrAouat] ‘Idesire;’ not merely ‘I hold it advisable,’ De Wette, ‘velim,’ Beza, comp. notes on ii. 8. The comparison of this verse with verse 11 is instructive ; there the widows them- selves SéAovow yauev; their SeAquara lead them to it (Eph. ii. 3); their will is to marry; here St. Paul desires (delibe- rato et propenso animo,’ Tittm.) that — not being on the list —they would do so. Chrys. makes no distinction, éred) abrat BovrAovta BovAoua Kayo k.T.A- As a general rule, the distinction of Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 124,—‘Séaev nihil aliud est quam simpliciter velle, neque in se ‘habet notionem voluntatis propensx ad aliquam rem, sed BotAeodo: denotat ip- sam animi propensionem,’— will be found satisfactory, but in the application of it to individual cases proper caution must 14 t io Us lal Aovropan odv vewTépas yapuely, TeKVO- be used. It ought to be remarked that S€Aw is by very far more frequently used by St. Paul than fova., the latter occurs only 1 Cor. xii. 11, 2 Cor. i. 15, and 17 (ZLachm.) Phil. i. 12, 1 Tim. ii. 8, vi. 9, Tit. iii. 8, Philem. 13; once only 1 Cor. l. c.in ref. to God (the Holy Ghost). Bova. is most used by St. Luke in the Acts, where it occurs about fourteen times, and conse- quently, if we except quotations, rather more frequently than déAw. ovy has here its proper collective force (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11 p. 717), ‘in con- sequence of these things being so, I de- sire,’ etc. ; ‘igitur,’ Beza,— not an inju- dicious change for ‘ ergo,’ Vulg., as there is here no ‘ gravior argumentatio ;’ see Hand, Tursell, Vol. 111. p. 187. vewTépas| ‘younger widows,’ not mere- ly ‘younger women,’ as Auth. Ver.; still less ‘ Jungfrauen,’ as Bauer. The context seems to confine our attention simply to widows. The true aspect of this precept is, as Wiesinger observes, defined by ody here, and yap ver. 15; the precept involves its own restrictions. The apostle desires the younger widows to marry rather than attempt a course of duties which they might swerve from or degrade ; compare Chrysost. Texvoy. oitkod.| ‘to bear children, to rule the house ;’ regular infin. after verbs denoting ‘a motion of the will,’ Jelf, Gr. § 664; compare Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 287. Both words are a. Aeydu. in the N. T.; the substantive rexvoyovta, however, occurs ch. ii. 15, and olxodec- mérns several times in the first three gos- pels. Both the latter substantive and its verb belong to later Greek, oixias deamd- Tys AeKTéov, odx. dS “AAekts, olKodeaTd- tns, Phrynicus ; so Pollux, Onom. x. 21: further examples are cited by Lobeck, on Phryn. p. 373. It is an untenable posi- tion that texvorpod. is included in texvo- Cuap. V. 15, 16. DOULA. Of a ’ 5 tal y , bd \ 8 86 Aves , yovely, oikodectroreiv, pndeuiav adopynv Sidovar TH avTiKermeven Aodopias yapw 15 Hdn yap twes éEeTpaTncav bricw Tod Ya- Tava. 16 By] \ x \ ” / b] / b] a €l TLS [ wuoros 7| TOT?) eX EL XNPAS; ETTAPKELT@ auTals, ‘\ \ / ¢ rd / vA tal ” / > /, Kal un Bapeias@ n exkdnola, Wa Tals dvTwSs yHpals éeTAapKéy. yov. (Moller) ; ifincluded in any word, it would far more naturally be so in o- «xodeomotew (Leo), which points to the woman’s sphere of domestic duties. TG avtixetméeva| ‘to the adversary ;’ not ‘ the devil,’ Chrys., for though this application derives some plausibility from Tod Sat. ver. 15, yet the Aodop. xdpw seems far more naturally to suggest a reference to human opponents,— the ad- versaries of Christianity (Phil. i. 28, Tit. ii. 8) among the Jews or the Gentiles ; so Hammond, De. W., Wiesinger. On this word, and the possibly stronger évr- Tacodmevor (‘qui in adversa acie stantes oppugnant’), see Tittm. Synon. 11. p. I. ‘ for reviling,’ lit. ‘to further, promote, reviling ;’ prepositional clause, append- ed to apopuny d:56var to specify the man- ner in which, and purpose for which, the occasion would be used ; on the meaning of xapu compare notes on Gul. iii. 19, and Donalds. Cratyl. § 278. The ‘ re- proach’ must be understood as directed not merely against the widows, but against Christianity generally ; compare Tit. ii. 5. 15. H8n yap tives] ‘ For already some,’ sc. widows; amb melpas 7 vomode- cia yeyevnrat, Theod. Matthies here gives the pronoun a more extended ref- erence, but without sufficient reason ; yap clearly confirms the command in the preceding verse, and thus naturally refers us to the special cases of those mention- ed in it. The inversion égerparn- ody tives now adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7) with AFG; al., appears of less critical authority than the reading in the text. eEetpamnaay| ‘(have) turned them- selves out of the way,’ sc. of chastity, pro- priety, and discretion: comp. 2 Tim. iv. Aotdopias xapey| 4. Itis unnecessary to give this aberra- tion a wider or more general reference,— ‘from the faith’ (Mosh.), ‘from right teaching ’ (Heydenr.). The younger widows, to whom the apostle alludes, had swerved from the path of purity and chastity, which leads to Christ, and fol- lowed that of sensuality, which leads to Satan: Christ was the true spouse, Satan the seducer. UG. Netiqesilanea.aos Mle TAs | ey any [believing man or| believing woman This might fairly seem a concluding reitera- tion of the precept in ver. 4 and ver. 8, or a species of supplementary command based on the same principles (compare Mosh.). The connection, however, and difference of terms, émapkeitw not mpo- vocitw, suggest a different application of the precept. In verses 4, 8, the duties of children or grandchildren to the elder widow are defined : here the reference is rather to the younger widows. How were such to be supported ? If they married, the question was at once answered; if they remained unmarried, let their rela- tives, fathers or mothers, uncles or aunts, brothers or sisters, support them, and not obtrude them on the ynpikby Tdéyua, ver. 9, when they might be unfit for the du- ties of the office, and bring scandal on the church by their defection. Bapetodw] ‘be burdened, Luke xxi. 34, 2 Cor. i. 8, v. 4; later and less cor- rect form for Baptve. The assertion of Thom. M. s. v. rAyv ém tod tmapakepe- vou ov BeBdpuyKa A€éyovow GAAG BeBa- pnka, is somewhat doubtful; BeSapnos (intrans.) is used by Homer, and BeBapy- pévos certainly appears in Plato, Symp. p- 203 B, as well as in Aristides (cited by Thom. M.), but the latter passage is have widows, let such relieve them.’ 92 lL TIMOTHY Cuap. V..17. Let the elders who rule well receive double honor ; a > / / e nr be thou guarded in receiv- TLLNS akwovaSwoav' pahtaTa Ol KOTTLUYTES ev ing accusations against them. Rebuke sinners. " Oi Karas TpoecoTMtes mpeaBuTepor SuTAHs 16. mortbs } moth] So Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) with DKL; nearly all mss.; Vulg. (Tol., Harl.?), Syr. (both), Ar., Slav.; Chrys. (distinctly), Theodoret, Dam., al. (Griesb., De W., Wiesing.), and possibly rightly. The shorter reading e¥ tes moth, supported by ACFG; 17.47; Vulg. (Amit., Harl.'), Copt., Arm., and adopted by Lachm., deserves much consideration, but can be accounted for more easily than the longer reading. It must now however be added that the newly-discovered & is said to support the shorter reading ; see Tischendorf, Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20. If this be correct, and the MS. prove to be of the value and antiquity at present as- cribed to it, the preponderance will probably be rightly deemed in favor of the reading of Lachmann. an imitation of Homer, and the former has a very poetical cast; the use of Be- Bdpnuct as the regular Attic perfect (Hu- ther), cannot therefore be completely sub- stantiated: comp. Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, 8._V. Bapivw. 17. of kaA@s Tpoecta@tes| ‘who rule, preside (surely not ‘ have presided,’ Alf.), well;’ not in antithesis to those ‘who preside ill,’ but in contra-distine- tion to other presbyters, to the presbyter as such (Wiesing.).. The meaning of KaA@s TpoeoTavat is approximately given by Chrys. as undevds peldeoSat rijs éxel- vev Kndeuovias évexey ; this, however, too much obscures the idea of rule and direc- tive functions (Bloomf.) implied in the participle rpoeor. ; comp. ch. ili. 4. SimAHsS TimHs] ‘double honor, v. e. re- muneration ;’ double, not in comparison with that of widows or deacons (Chrys. 1, comp. Thorndike, Relig. Assembl, 1v. 22), nor even of of uy KdA. mpoear. (com- pare of Guaptdvoytes, ver. 20) but, with a less definite numerical reference,— d:r- Ajjs (not dimAactas Tiywjs, as in Plato, Legg. v. p. 730 D), @. €. TOAATS Tiuis, Chrys. 2, mAciovos tiujjs, Theodoret. Tiywh again, as tiua, verse 3, includes, though it does not precisely express, ‘ sal- ary, remuneration,’ and is well para- phrased by Chrysostom as S