ΝΥ + ὅ,.ὁὦὃ- Ασα, “οὐ ατσ“ den ~~ oes doce = 4. ἊΝ : : μη * 3.4. ἡ Ὁ ον ng teat Ὁ ων - «ἢ γσ ρα φύρονν ‘ . te δ ΠΣ μον ἡ δα ὧν δι δι ρον Pu .ὧ΄ σι. ~ "ν re Pee ς ΝΕ ΨΩ Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY DIS PRESENTED BY The Rev. Fred A. Crandall ΠΥ ie an αν εἰ ha Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/criticalgramma0Oelli ὁ" ἐεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεεες, Private Library ν bd —oi— °., Fred A. Grandall_ re Ss PARY {MATICAL SSSScervrerreeerete 93393339333393333399933305- δι. rauu'S EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, AND TO PHILEMON, ΕΠ Ἂ Shue ΞΕ ΑΝ ΒΊΑΙ αι ©uNie BY γ΄ ᾿ RT. REV. CHAS. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. Andover : WARREN F. DRAPER. BOSTON: GOULD & LINCOLN. NEW YORK: HURD & HOUGHTON. PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH, AND COMPANY. CINCINNATI: G. 8. BLANCHARD, 1865. ANDOVER: STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED LY W. F. DRAPER. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Tue 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- lemon. 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 11 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, IV 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 1 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 relianee 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 Jntroduction 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. ~ δ should I weleome 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 Arabio scholar would very likely entirely reverse my judgment. Nat 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, 6. g. Phil. ii. 8, ‘ni vulva rahnida visan sik galeiko [surely not a correct franslation of toa] gupa,’ but are not sufii- ciently strong to detract seriously from the general faithfulness of the Version. 2 I 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, Jntroduction, Vol. Iv. p. 319. . 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 theology 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. Allis 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 Vit 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, [have 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 diffluent 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 brackets 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 unwelcome 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 5 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 I fear this may have arisen from an omission to correct the copy of the Authorized Version which lay 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 lex 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 δι" thorities and various exegetical subsidies that were alike accessible to us Χ 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 Holemann, 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 ; Ἴ 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. τὰ ᾿ ΔΎ ΤῊΣ. ᾿ Αι = ᾿ 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 Ly, 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, 1861. ΓΝ ΕΟ ΌΤΤΟΝ. ΤῊΙΒ fervent, affectionate, and, in parts, pathetic Epistle was written by the apostle to his liberal 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 ἃ closer and harsher character, and his earthly prospects, though not by any means without hope (ch. i. 25, 26; ii. 24), yet, im many respects, cheerless and depressing (ch. i. 20 sq., ii. 17, 28). It has thus been supposed, with some probability, to have been written after the death of the Praetorian 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. 1. Ῥ. 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. ii. 26), we may fix the date of the Epistle towards the close of, or more prob- ably about the middle of, A. p. 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. τι. 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. 11. 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, ili. 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. iii. 17-21). The supposition that there were definite 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, Irenzus, Her. τν. 34, ed. Grabe, Clem.-Alex. Pedag. τ. 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, Jnirod. Vol. 11. p. 387 sq. 4 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. CHAPTER ETE Apostolic address and salu- tation. 1. καὶ TeudSeos| 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, ἀπόστολος κ. τ. A. (Gal. i. 1), or ἀπόστ. "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- | [ὃ καὶ Τιμόδεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ ’ “ rn a e , > an Ἰησοῦ, πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ 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 ph. i. 1, and on Col. i. 1. δοῦλοι X. Ἴ.] “ bond-servants of Jesus Christ ;’ “servi proprie erant qui toti ob- stricti erant Domino in perpetuum,’ Zanch. ap. Pol. Syn.; so Rom. i. 1; compare Gal. i. 10, and also James i. 1, 2Pet.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. δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην, ‘non essem homo Christianus,’ is to impair all the vigor of the passage. The term is used in its ethical, rather than mere /istorical sense, ‘an apostle,’ ete. (see Meyer on Gal. l.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 Joc. The formula δοῦλος Θεοῦ (comp. “449 nym Ps, exiii. 1, al.) is naturally more 18 PHIGIEPIANS. Craps Tale >) fal a 5 > , \ ᾽ / \ , Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις Kal διακόνοις. general ; δοῦλος Χριστοῦ, somewhat more personal and special: compare notes on ἘΠ 1:1: ἁγίοις κι τ. λ.] ‘to all the saints,’ ete., ‘to all that form part of the visible and spiritual community at Philippi ;’ ἅγιοι being used in these salutations in its most inclusive sense: see notes on Eph. 1.1. ‘Though ἅγιος in these sorts of ad- dresses does not necessarily imply any special degree of moral perfection, being applied by the apostle to a!l his converts, except the Gal. (and apparently Thess., ἁγίοις in ch. v. 27 being very doubtful), yet still the remark of Olsh. (on Lom. i. 7) is probably true, that it always hints at the idea of a higher moral life impart- ed by Christ. This in the present case is made still more apparent by the addi- tion ἐν Χριστῷ : it was ‘ in IZim’ (not for διά, Est , Rheinw.), in union with Him, and Him alone, that the ayidrns was πᾶσιν τοῖς true and real; of γὰρ ἐν Xp. "Ino. ἅγιοι ὄντως εἰσίν, Theophyl.: compare Koch on Thessalon. i. 1, p. 59. The inclusive πᾶσιν, repeated several times in this Ep., ch. i. 4, 7, 8, 25, ii. 17, 26, iv. 23 (Rec.), well expresses the warmth and expan- siveness of the apostle’s love. @:Atmmots| Philippi, now Filibah or Filibejih, and anciently Κρήνιδες (not Adros, Van Heng. after Appian, Bell. Civ. 1v. 106, which was the ancient name of the port, Neapolis), was raised toa 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. vy. p. 1477 ; compare also Leake, N. Greece, Vol. 111. p. 216. σὺν ἐπισκ. καὶ διακ.] ‘toyether with the bishops and deacons ;’ not merely ‘ in company with’ (wera), 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.) ; (Ὁ) because the ἐπίσκ. and διάκ. 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- cal views’ (ib.) of the Apost. Ff. (now by no means critically certain); for com- pare Ignatius (7) Philad. 1 : — the shep- herds naturally follow the sheep. On the meaning of the title of office, ἐπίσκο- mos, here appy. perfectly interchangeable with the title of age and dignity, πρεσδύ- tepos (Acts xx. 17, 28, 1 Pet. v. 1), see especially notes on 1 Tim. iii. 1; and on Side. see notes on ib. iii. 8. The reading of B°D?; 39, 67, συνεπισκόποις, 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. χάρις ὑμῖν x.7.A.] On the spir- itual significance of this blended form of Ε CN πὰὠυννδο, δ σιν δνδιν Cuar. I. 2-3. PH Dane RA ΝΟ. 19 2 / if - \ > , > x Θ lal Ν [1 a ‘ , , ae χάρις ὑμῖν Kat εἰρήνη ὠπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου 'Incod Χριστοῦ. I thank my God with con- stant prayers for your pres- 8 Ed lal lel (6) -“ >’ Ἂν ,ὔ A 7 υχαρίστω TH EW μου ETL πασῇ Τῇ μνειᾳ ent fellowship in the gospel, and my love makes me confident for the future. May ye abound yet more and more, Occidental and Oriental salutation, see notes on Gal, i. 2, and on Ephes. i. 2 ; comp. also Koch on 1 Thess. p. 69. 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, καὶ Kup. “Ine Xp. seems certainly an insertion, and in the latter (the apostle’s earliest Epistle) it may be doubted whether the simple χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, without any further ad- dition, may not be the more probable reading ; sce, however, Tisch. tn loc. kal Κυρίου] Scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου κ.τ.λ. The Socinian interpr. καὶ (πατρὸς) Κυ- ρίου, 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. εὐχαριστῶ x.7.A.| \ εἐπν Τῇ κοινωνίᾳ UL@V ELS TO second ; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126. The latter, however, seems much more simple and natural; the πάντοτε is de- fined by πάσῃ δεήσει, and πάσῃ δ. again is limited by ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, while the article attached to δέησιν (AIf. seems here to argue against himself; compare with Meyer) refers it back to the δέησις thus previously limited: so most of the an- cient Vv., Syr., Clarom., Vulg., Coptic. The construction adopted by Est., al., evxap.— ὑπὲρ πάντ. ὕμ., though else- where adopted by St. Paul (Eph. i. 16, comp. Rom. i. 8, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. i. 8), seems here very unsatisfactory. On the meaning of δέησις (a special form of προσευχή), see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1. μετὰ χαρᾶς] 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; διηνεκῶς ὑμῶν μεμνημένος Suundias amd- ons ἐμπίμπλαμαι, Theodoret. 5. ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ] ‘for your fa- lowship ;’ ἐπὶ correctly marking the cause for which the apostle returned thanks, } Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 15; see Winer, Gr. § 48. c, p. 351. This clause is most naturally connected with edxap. (Beng., al., and apparently Greek commentt.), not with τὴν δέησ. ποιούμ. (Van Heng., De W.; compare Green, Gr. p. 292), as there would otherwise be no specific statement of what was the subject of the De Wette urges as an objection the use of edxap. ἐπὶ in two different senses, in ver. 3 and 5, but this may be diluted by observing that the first ἐπὶ 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 apostle’s εὐχαριστία. ‘ Cnar. I. 5, 6. ’ , U a a εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ πρώτης “ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, εὐχαρ. 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. κοινωνίᾳ eis τὸ evayy.| ‘fellowship toward the gospel;’ not ‘in the gospel,’ Syr., Vulg. (but not Clarom.), bat ‘in reference to,’ or perhaps more strictly “toward ’ (Hamm.), the εἰς marking the object toward which the κοινωνία 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 secondarily and specially in their contribution and assistance to St. Paul. So in effect Chrysostom, ἄρα τὸ συναντιλαμβάνεσϑαι κοινωνία ἐστὶ εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, except that he too much limits the συναντιλαμβ. 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 εἰς τὸ evayy., which con- fessedly involves the close connection of κοιν. and εἰς τὸ ebayy. (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 κοινωνία 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 loc., and Ne- ander, Phil. p. 25. Κοινωνία is thus ab- solute (Acts ii.42, Gal. ii. 9) and ab- stract, — ‘fellowship,’ not ‘ contribution’ PIILIPPIANS. 21 6 πεποιϑδὼς αὐτὸ (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 eis τὸ evayy. is a periphrasis for a gen. (κοινωνίαν δὲ τοῦ evayy. Thy πίστιν ἐκάλεσε), is grammat- ically untenable ; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 5, p. 174. ἡμέρας] ‘from the first day,’ in which it was preached among them (ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἐπιστεύσατε, 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 πεποιδὼς κ. τ. A., On account of the absence of the article. This is hypercriticism, if not error; ἀπὸ πρώτης κι τ. λ. is a subordinate temporal definition so closely joined with the κοι- νωνία, as both naturally and logically to dispense with the article. The insertion of the article would give the fact of the duration of the κοινωνία a far greater prominence than the apostle seems to have intended, and would in fact suggest two moments of thought, — ‘ communio- nem camque 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 πέ- moa, 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 εὐ- xdp. (CEcum., Beza, Beng.) seems equal- ly untenable and unsatisfactory ; such a temporal limitation could not suitably be so distant from its finite verb, nor would ἀπὸ πρώτης «.t.A. be in harmony with the pres. edxap., or the prior temporal ἀπὸ πρώτης- . 22 ῬΎΠΠΙΣΕΡΙ ING S's Cuap. I. 6. fal ee cas. [κ᾿ ,, ’ id lal yy > \ 5 4, ” τοῦτο, OTL ὁ ἐναρξάμενος ἐν ὑμῖν ἔργον ἀγαδὸν ἐπιτελέσει ἄχρις clause πάντοτε κ. τ. Δ. ; compare De Wette. 6. πεποιϑδὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] ‘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. ;’ “hace fiducia nervus est gratiarum actio- nis,’ Beng. matically considered, the causal member of the sentence (Donalds. Gir. § 615) ap- pended to εὐχαριστῶ k.T.A., Standing in parallelism to the temporal member, This clause is thus, gram- πάντοτε --- ποιούμενος K.T.A., and cer- tainly requires no supplementary καὶ (Tynd., Flatt, al.), nor any assumption of an asyndeton (Van Heng.). The accus. αὐτὸ τοῦτο is not governed by πε- mowsas (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 ὅτι k.7.A.; comp. Wi- ner, Gr. § 23. 5, p. 145, where several examples of this construction are cited. It is mainly confined to St. John and St. Paul, and serves to direct the attention somewhat specially to what follows ; compare Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 461. ὁ évapiduevos| ‘He who hath begun;’ obviously God: see ch. ii. 13, and comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12, ἄρξομαι καὶ ἐπιτελέσω ; not ‘each better one of the Philippians’ (Wakef. Sy/v. Crit. Vol. 11. p. 98), — an interpretation to which the following ἔργον ayasby (see below) need in no way compel us. The Ferb ἐνάρχ. occurs again in connection with ἐπιτελ. in Gal. iii. 8, and 2 Cor. viii. 6 (Lachm., 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. 8, 5), but per- haps only differs from ἄρχεσϑαι 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; sce Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. ἐν, E, Vol. 1. p. 912. ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘in you,’ sc. ‘in animis ves- tris,’ compare 1 Cor. xii. 6 ; not ‘ among you,’ Hamm., which would scarcely be in harmony with ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, 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. ἔργον ἀγαὺ ὄν] ‘a good worl:,’—not ‘the good .work,’ Luth.: not elsewhere used in ref. to God (yet comp. John x. 32), but only in ref. to man; compare Acis 1x. 36, Rom. 11. 7, 9 (τ᾽ ΤΣ 8. Eph. ii. 10, Col. i. 10, Heb. xiii. 21, al. Still there is no impropriety in the pres- ent use; the ἔργον ἀγαϑόν, though here stated indefinitely, does not appear to re- fer subjectively to the good works (Syr. ; τὰ κατορϑώματα, Chrys.), the ἔργον τῆς ᾿'πίστεως (1 Thess. 1.3) of the Philippians generally (Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. 11. p- 172), but rather objectively to the par- ticular κοινωνία eis εὐαγγ. previously spe- cified : God had vouchsafed unto them, among other blessings, that of an open hand and heart (ταύτην ὑμῖν Swpnodue- vos τὴν mposuulay, Theod.) ; this blessing He will continue. This declaration, however, is expressed in a general form ; comp. Rom. ii. 7. ἐπιτελέσει] “ will accomplish,’ ‘will perfect,’ not merely ‘will perform it,’ Au- thor., but ‘will bring it to a complete 7 and perfect end,’ Syr. pws [exple- bit]; see notes on Gal. iii. 8. With re- gard to the dogmatical application of the words, which, owing to their probable Cuap. I. 7. ἡμέρας Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ' ἴκαδώς specific reference cannot safely be pressed, it seems enough to say with Theoph., ἀπὸ τῶν παρελϑόντων καὶ περὶ τῶν μενόν- των στοχάζεται: 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, hoe adjuvan- tis est gratiz ; illa liberi arbitrii conatum preevertit, hee comitatur.’ On the doc- trine of Perseverance generally, see the clear statements of Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, ὃ 513, 514, Vol. 11. p. 534- 549. The conclusions arrived at are thus stated: ‘ Perseverantia est effectus sanctificationis. Sanctificatio est condi- tio perseverantix. Datur apostasia re- genitorum, nempe si in sanctificatione inertes sunt,’ p. 548; compare also some admirable comments of Jackson, Creed, x. 37. 4 sq. ἄχρις ἡμέρας Xp. Ἴησ.] ‘unto, or up to the day of Christ Jesus, i. 6. ἄχρι τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Κυρίου, Theoph. ‘That St. Paul in these words assumes the nearness of the com- ing of the Lord (AIf.) cannot be posi- tively asserted, It is certainly evasive to refer this to future generations (τοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν, 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, PETRIE PLANS. 23 b] , ’ \ fa) - ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν 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 (AIf.) seems here unduly and indemonstrably exclu- sive. See notes on 1 Tim. vi. 14, and compare (with caution) Usteri, LeArb. 11. 2.4. B, p. 326 sq. On ἄχρι and μέχρι, see notes on 2 Tim. ii 9. 7. καϑώς x.7.A.] ‘evenas:’ explan- atory statement of the reason why such a confidence is justly felt; compare 1 Cor. i. 6, Eph. 1. 6. On the nature of this particle, see notes on Gal. iii. 16, and on Eph. l. ec. ‘right,’ ‘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 iy. 19, Eph. vi. 1, 2 Pet.i.13. Alford (with Meyer and De W.) remarks that the two classical constructions are δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο φρ. (Herod. 1. 39), and δίκαιός εἰμι τοῦτο φρ. (Plato, Legg. x. 897). The last construe- tion is the most idiomatic (comp. Krii- 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. 834, δίκαιον τότε τούτοις τοὺς πονηροὺς ὠφελεῖν. τοῦτο φρονεῖν] ‘to think this,’ Auth., Syr.; ‘hoe sen- tire,’ Vulg.; ἡ, 6. to entertain this confi- dence: ‘ φρονεῖν hic non dicitur de animi affectu sed de mentis judicio,’ Beza; compare. lt Cor. iv. 6 (Rec.), Gal. ν. 10. To refer τοῦτο 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 , δίκαιον] 24 PHILIPPIANS. Cwar. 1. 7. iS \ , ς [al Ὁ Ἄς 17. 9 A / e “ ” As UTEP TTAVTWV ὑμῶν; διὰ Το εχέεὶν με ἐν TY καρδίᾳ υμαᾶς, ἐν TE τοις cura et precibus’ (Van Heng.), is unsat- isfactory, and is certainly not required by ὑπέρ, which occurs several times in the Ne 1 (2) Cor: 1.16, 83" 2) Thess. 1. 1. al), ina sense but little different from περί; see Winer, Gram. ὃ 47.1, p. 343. The probable distinction, — ‘ep! solam mentis circumspectionem, ὑπὲρ 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, 6. g. ‘ to entertain this favorable opinion about you,’ ‘ut ita de vobis sentiam et confi- dam,’ Est. On the uses of ὑπὲρ and περί, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and on φρο- νεῖν, see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 19, p. 61 sq. διὰ τὸ ἔχειν K.7.A.] ‘because I have you m my heart,’ ee! BSS [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 John i. 49: see also Winer, Gr. § 44.6, p. 294. The translation of Beza, ‘in animo tenere’= ‘quasi insculptum habere memorix ’ (ἄσβεστον περιφέρω τὴν μνήμην, Theod. ; see especially Justin. in ἰο6.), is opposed both to the similar affectionate expres- sions, 2 Cor. iii. 2, vii. 8, and to the pre- vailing use of καρδία (comp. Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 89 sq., notes on ch. iv. 7, and on1 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. ἔν τε Tots δεσ- μοῖς «.7.A.] It is doubtful whether these words are to be connected with the preceding διὰ τὸ ἔχειν x. τ. A. (Chrys., Theoph.), or with the succeeding συγκοι- νωνούς μου K.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 (δεσμοῖς), which they alle- viated, or in his exertions for the gospel (τῇ amor. καὶ BeB.), with which they sym- pathized, they all were bound up with him in the strictest spiritual fellowship. On τε --- καί, 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. ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ K.T.A.| ‘in my de- fence (of) and confirmation of the gospel.’ These words have been somewhat per- versely interpreted. ᾿Απολογία and βε- Baiwois are certainly not synonymous (Rheinw.),—nor do they form an hen- diadys, sc. ἀπολ. eis βεβ. (Heinr. ; com- pare Syr. ‘defensione que est pro veri- tate [confirmatione] evangelii’),— nor can τῇ ἀπολ. be dissociated from τοῦ evayy. (Chrys.), both being under the yinculum 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 ἀπολογίᾳ 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 βεβαιώσει 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 Cunar. I. 7, 8. BHIGLIPERLANS: 95 -” ° ‘ > a » / \ , a > , δεσμοῖς μου καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου συγκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος πάντας ὑμᾶς ὄντας. 8ὃ μάρτυς γάρ 8. μου ἐστίν] So Rec. with ADEKL; great majority of mss.; very many Vy. (but Vy. in such cases can scarcely be depended on for either side) and many Ff. ( Griesb. [but om.], Scholz.). The ἐστὴν 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 ἐστὶν 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. συγκοινωνούς 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 gratiz,’ Schmid ; compare Hamm., and Scholef. Hints, p. 104. The preceding ὑμᾶς, fur- ther characterized as ἔν te — συγκοιν., is rhetorically repeated (see Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 4, p. 275 sq.) to support πάν- τας; the whole clause serving to explain the reason for the ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ. It is doubtful whether μου is to be connect- ed (a) with συγκοινωνοὺς as a second gen- itive (Syr., Copt.), or (Ὁ) with τῆς χάρι- τος (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 συγκοιν. As συγκοιν. 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 χάρις, seems in favor of (a) ; com- pare ch. ii. 30: so Hammond, De Wette. τῆς χάριτος] 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 duty,’ 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 χάρις 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 χαρᾶς, though no mss. have been adduced in which that variation is found. 8. μάρτυς γάρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘For God is my witness ;’? earnest confirmation of the foregoing verse, more especially of διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν TH καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς. Chrys. well says, οὐχ ὡς ἀπιστούμενος μάρτυρα καλεῖ τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πολλῆς διαϑέσεως. The reading μοι [DEFG; al.; Chrys.; Lat. Ff.] would scarcely involve any change of sense ; it would perhaps only a little more enhance the personal rela- tion. ὡς ἐπιποὺῦ ὦ] ‘how I long after you ;’ comp. ch. ii. 26, Rom. i. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i. 4. Tho force of ἐπὶ in this compound does not mark izntension (‘vehementer desidero,’ Van Heng.; ‘expetam,’ Beza), but, as in ἐπιϑυμεῖν and similar words, the direc- tion of the 7630s ; see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 4, and Fritz. Rom. i. 9, Vol. 1. p. 81. Again, it seems quite unnecessary with Van Heng. to restrict the πόϑος to ‘ ves- > Or Pate) PHILIPPIANS. πάρ. I. 8, 9. μου ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός, ws ἐπυποδῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χρισ- τοῦ ᾿]Ιησοῦ. tree consuetudinis desiderium ;’ the long- ing and yearning of the apostle was for something more than mere earthly reun- ‘jon; it was for their eternal welfare and blessedness, and the realization, in its highest form, of the χάρις of which they were now συγκοινωνοί. The context seems clearly to decide that ὡς 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, οὐ δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν TOs ἐπιποδῶ. ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χ. 1.1 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. Ἔν thus retains its natural and usual force (contr. Rilliet), and the gen. is not the gen. auctor’s or vriginis (Har- tung, Casus, p. 17), as apparently Chrys. σπλάγχνα γὰρ αὕτη [ἣ συγγένεια ἣ κατὰ Χρ.] ἡμῖν χαρίζεται, but simply possessive. We can hardly term this use of σπλάγ- xva (psems) 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 σπλαγχνίζομαι, however, and the adjectives πολύσπλαγχνος and εὔσπλαγ- xvos (when not in its medical sense, Hip- pocr. p. 89) seem purely so, while, on the contrary, the substantive εὐσπλαγχ- via oceurs in Eurip. Rhes.192. For a list of Hebraisms of the New Test. judi- ciously classified, see Winer, Gram. § 3, p- 27 sq. 9 K \ lal ΄ vA ς Ν / ig lal ” al τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, Wa ἢ ὠγάπη ὑμῶν ETL 9. καὶ τοῦτο mpoa.| ‘ ΕἸ hoc precor,’ but ποῦ ‘ propterea precor,’ as Wolf, 2: the καὶ with its simple copulative force introduces the apostle’s prayer (ver. 9 -- 11) alluded to in ver. 4, while the τοῦτο prepares the reader for the statement of its contents, ‘and this which follows is what I pray.’ The καὶ (as Meyer ob- serves) thus coalesces more with τοῦτο than προσεύχομαι ; not καὶ προσ. τοῦτο, but καὶ τοῦτο προσ. To connect the clause closely with what precedes (Ril- liet) destroys all the force of ver. 8. ἵν α] The particle has here what has been called its secondary telic force (see notes on Eph. i. 17); 1. 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 ἵνα 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 νὰ with the subj., it lapses (after a large class of verbs) into a mere periphrasis of the infinitive ; see Corpe, Gramm. pp. 129, 130. ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶ ν] ‘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. Tegal ΝΣ ΟἿ . πὶ r \ r ’ ν ἢ , ’ὔ A , » ’ὔ μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσϑήσει, 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 κοινωνία, 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 μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον will be found in Kypke, Obs. Vol. II. p. 507. ἐν «.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 ἐν is somewhat doubtful ; it can scarcely (a) approximate in meaning to μετά, Chrys. (who, however, fluctuates between this preposition and ef), 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 περισσεύῃ ἀγάπη together with ἐπιγν. and αἰσῶ., but to ἐπιγν. and αἰσῶ. more especially, as insphering and defining that love, that attention is directed ; nor () does it ex- actly denote the manner of the increase (De W.), as this again seems to give too little prominence to émyy. and aiosd. ; nor, lastly, is ἐν 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 μετά, κατά, or διά (much less to εἰς, . 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. 345. 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. εἰν is thus not absolute, but closely in union with ἐν 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 inerease is real- ized ; compare 2 Cor. viii. 7, Col. ii. 7, al. Lachmann, Tischendorf read περισ- σεύσῃ 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. Περισσεύ- ἐπιγν. καὶ πάσῃ αἰσϑ.] These two substantives may be thus distinguished ; ἐπίγνωσις, “accurata cognitio’ (see notes on ph. i. 17), denotes a sound knowledge of theo- retical and practical truth (Mey.), τὴν προσήκουσαν γνῶσιν τῶν εἰς ἀρέτην συν- τεινόντων, Theodorus. Αἴσϑησις, “ sen- sus’ (Vulg., Clarom.) is more generic, but here, as the context implies, must be limited to right spzritual discerament > o> (-οῦῦ “\.oas? [intelligentia spiri- tus] Syr.), a sensitively correct moral perception (νόησις, 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 ἔννοια, and Exod. xxviii. 3, where it is joined with σοφία. It only occurs here in the N. T.; the in- strumental derivative αἰσϑητήριον (‘organ of feeling,’ etc.) is found Heb. v. 14; compare Jer. iv. 19. The adjective πάσῃ is not intensive (‘plena et solida,’ Calyv.), but, as apparently always in St. Paul’s Epp., extensive, ‘every form of ;’ comp. notes on Eph.i. 8. 10. εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν κιτ.λ.}] ‘for you to prove things that are excellent ;’ pur- pose of the περισσ. ἐν ἐπιγν. καὶ aid. 28 PHILTEPPIANS: Cuap. I. 10. 10 εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ διαφέροντα, iva ἣτε εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ (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 ἵνα ἦτε K.7.A.is appended in the next clause. The words δοκ. τὰ Siap., both here and Rom. ii. 18, may correctly receive two, if not three, different interpretations, vary- ing with the meanings given to διαφέ- ροντα, and the shade of meaning assigned to δοκιμάζειν. Thus they may imply either (a) ‘to prove (distinguish between) things that are different, 1. e. to discrimi- nate (δοκιμάζειν καὶ διακρίνειν, ‘many,’ Auth. Ver. Those [multitu- do] Syr., but ‘the greater portion,’ ‘ the more part,’ as Author. in Acts xix. 32, XXvVii. 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. ‘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 ἐν Κυρίῳ with ἀδελ- φῶν, “ 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, ἐν Κυρίῳ, occurs several times in St. Paul’s Epistles with sub- stantives or quasi-substantives, 6. g. Rom. xvi. 8, 18, Eph. iv. 1, vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, it is never found with ἀδελφός : Eph. vi. 21, cited in opp. by Van Heng., is not in point; see Meyer iz loc. On the con- trary, werod. is found similarly joined with ἐν Kup. chap. ii. 24, Galat. v. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 4, comp. Rom. xiv. 4. The objection that in these and similar cases ἐν Kup. πεποιὼ.] merroiy. Stands first in the sentence (AIf.), is not here of any moment ; the empha- sis rests on ἐν Κυρίῳ, 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 yery de- cidedly Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 124. περισσοτέρως τολμᾶν] ‘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 ; ‘hae freti plus solito audere debemus, jam in persona fratrum pignus victoriz nostra habentes,’ Caly. The construction adopted by Grotius, Baumg., Crus., al., περισσ. ἀφόβως, 7. ε. ἁφοβωτέρως, is eminently unsatisfactory ; each verb naturally takes its own adverb. With ἀφόβως λαλεῖν, comp. Acts iv. 31, ἐλάλουν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ παῤῥη- σίας, ἃ passage which may have suggest- ed here the insertion of the nearly certain gloss τοῦ Θεοῦ, as in AB; about 20 mss. ; majority of Vv. (Lachm.). The varia- tions (see Tisch.) serve to confirm the shorter reading. 15. τινὲς μὲν Kk. τ. λ.}1 ‘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, ἐν Kup. πεποιῶ., seems to render it impossible that the τινὲς μὲν should be comprised in the ἀδελφοί, 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 τινὲς μὲν (obs. not of μὲν as in ver. 16) his Judaizing — not his unbelieving (Chrys.) — opponents, while in τινὲς δὲ he reverts to the sounder majority men- tioned in ver. 14. Καί, with its common contrasting force in such collocations (see notes on chap. ivy. 12; comp. Klotz, Cuar. I. 15, 16. ἘΠΙΡΡΙΆΝΒΙ, 98 μὲν καὶ διὰ φϑόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾿ εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν' 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 καὶ to τινες, ‘ besides those mentioned ver. 14. This, however, does not seem tenable. διὰ φϑόνον)] ‘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. 855, and notes on Gal. iv, 13. Alberti adduces somewhat perti- nently Philemon [Major, a comic poet, B.C. 330] πολλά με διδασκεις ἀφϑόνως διὰ φϑόνον ; 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 : διὰ with an accus. in local or quasi- local references is purely poetical; com- pare Bernhardy, Synt. v. 18, p. 236. δ εὐδοκίαν] ‘onaccount of, from, good will,’ ἀπὸ προδυμίας ἁπάσης, Chrys.,— towards the apostle; not towards others in respect of their salvation (Est.). De W. objects to this meaning of εὐδοκία as not sufficiently confirmed, and adopts the transl. ‘ good pleasure,’ sc. of me and my affairs. This seems somewhat hypercriti- cal; surely the opposition διὰ φϑόνον coupled with ἐξ ἀγάπης, 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 καὶ refers to contrary motives just enunciat- ed; and-the party specified under τινὲς δέ, though practically coincident with the πλείονες, are yet, as De Wette rightly observes, put slightly under a different 5 16 « \ ’ Lf PA 5 " Ὁ“ , > / -“ οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ point of view, and as forming the oppo- site party to those last mentioned. Thus of those who spake the word, τινὲς μὲν were factious and envious, τινὲς δὲ full of good will and kindly feeling, and these latter were they who constitute the πλεί- ovas τῶν ἀδελφῶν, ver. 14. 16. of μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπη] ‘those in- deed (that are) of love (do so) ;’ sc. ὄντες, comp. Rom. ii. 8, Gal. iii. 7. The two classes mentioned in the last verse are now by of μὲν and οἱ δὲ a little more ex- actly specified, the order being inverted. In fec. the more natural order is pre- served, but is very insufficiently sup- ported, viz., only by one of the second correctors of D, Καὶ (L omits of μὲν ἐξ €pis. to μου), other mss.; Syr.-Philox. and other Vv., and several Greek Ff. The Auth. Ver. and apparently nearly all the older expositors make of μὲν the subject, and refer ἐξ ἀγάπης to the sup- plied clause, τὸν Xp. κηρ. : 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 first, ἐξ ἀγάπης would thus be only a kind of repetition of διὰ εὐδοκίαν, as also ἐξ épid. of διὰ φϑόνον ; 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 ἐξ ἀγάπης, ‘qui ab amore originem ducunt,’ see notes on Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. on Rom. ii. 8, Vol. I. p- 105. εἰδότες ὅτι κ. τ. λ.} 94 > / Lal εὐωγγελίου κεῖμαι, PHALIPPIANS. σαν. Τὺΐ M οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριδείας τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλ- λουσιν οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι Ὑλίψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου. “as they now 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. v. 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 (Est., Fell 2), but the energetic apostle whose example quickens and evokes their co-operation. Κεῖμαι has thus a purely passive refer- ence, not ‘jaceo in conditione misera,’ Van Heng. (a meaning lexically defensi- ble, see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), but ‘constitutus sum,’ /2th., ‘I am set,’ Auth., Θεός με κεχειροτόνηκε, Theodoret: so Luke ii. 34, 1 Thess. iii. 8. 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. ἀπολογίαν τοῦ evayy. is referred by Chrys., Theoph., and C&cum. to the account (τὰς εὐϑύνας) of his ministry, which the apostle would have to render up to God, and which the co-operation of others might render less heavy. This seems artificial: ἀπολογία 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 Wic- seler, Chronol. p. 430 note. 17. of δὲ ἐξ Eprdeias] ‘but they (that are) of party-feeling or dissension ;’ opposite class to of ἐξ ἀγάπης, ver. 16. On the derivation and true meaning of épiSela, — not exactly ‘ contention,’ Au- thor. (comp. Vulg., Syr., Copt.), follow- ed by many modern commentators, but ‘intrigue,’ ‘party-spirit’? (ἀναιδῶς κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν περϊιόντες, Theod.), as appar- ently felt by Clarom. ‘ dissensio,’ and perhaps ZEth., —see notes on Gal. v. 20. On the most suitable translation, comp. notes on Transl. καταγγέλλουσιν ‘declare, ‘ pro- ’ in effect not different from κερύσ- σειν, ver. 16 (katayyéAAeTat’ κηρύσσεται, Hesych.), but perhaps presenting a little more distinctly the idea of ‘ promulga- tion,’ ‘making fully known’ (Xenoph. Anab. 11. 5. 11, τινὶ τὴν ἐπιβουλήν) ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 14, Coloss. i. 28, and Acts xvii. 8, 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 κατα- λέγειν, καταφαγεῖν κ- τ. λ.; see Rost τ. Palm, Ler.s.y.1v.4. Οὐχ ἁγνῶς ‘insin- cerely,’ ‘with no pure intention,’ (οὐκ claim ; εἰλικρινῶς οὐδὲ δ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα, Chrys- ost.), belongs closely to καταγγ., and marks the spirit in which they performed the καταγγελία. On the meaning of ay- vos (‘in quo nihil est impuri’) see notes on 1 Tim. ν. 22, and Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 22: οἰόμενοι κ. τ. A.J ‘thinking (thus) to raise up, ete.;’ not exactly parallel to εἰδότες, ver. 16, but explanatory of οὐχ ἁγνῶς. The verb οἴεσϑααι seems here to convey a faint idea of intention, though of an intention which was not realized; e.g. Plato, Apol. 41 τ, οἰόμενοι βλάπτειν (cited by De W.); καὶ καλῶς εἶπε τὸ οἰόμενοι" οὐ yap οὕτως ἐξέ- βαινεν, Chrysost. The reading ἐγείρειν (Lec. ἐπιφέρειν) is supported not only by the critical principle, ‘ proclivi lectioni preestat ardua,’ but also by the weight of uncial authority, ABD!FG ; so too, three mss., Vulg., Clarom., Goth., al., and the best modern editors. τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου ‘unto my bonds,’ dat. incommodi, Jelf, Gr. § 602. 3; 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 ϑλίψις. Is Cuar. I. 18. PHILIPPIANS. 35 18 τί γάρ; πλὴν παντὶ τρόπῳ, εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληδείᾳ, it outward, 1.6. dangers from the inflamed hatred of heathen enemies (Chrysost.), or inward, ἃ 6. ‘trouble of spirit’ (Alford) 1 Not the latter, which is not in harmony with the studiedly objective δεσμοῖς, or with the prevailing use of ϑλίψις in the N. T.;—nor yet exactly 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 of ἐξ ἐριϑείας would be sure to call forth. Calvin very prudently observes, ‘crant plurime occasiones [Apostolo nocendi] qu sunt nobis incognite qui temporum circumstantias non tenemus.’ 18. τί γάρ] “ 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 τί 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, ofien serving to imply tacitly that an opponent has no answer to make; see Hand, Jursell. 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; (6) 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 ‘fined by εἴτε --- εἴτε. novam sententiam transgreditur,’ Kiih- ner on Xenoph. Memor. 11. 6. 2), and thus perhaps differing from the calmer In every one of these cases, how- ever, the proper force of γάρ (‘sane pro rebus comparatis’) though successively becoming more obscure, may still 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, διαφέρει (Chrys.), μοι. μέλει (Theoph.), φήσομεν (Van H.), ete., are perfectly unnecessa- ry, if not uncritical. πλ΄ή ν] ‘notwithstanding,’ ‘nevertheless ;’ this particle, probably connected with πλέον (Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. 11. pp. 39, 323), not with πέλας (Hartung, Par- tik. Vol. 11. p. 80), has properly a com- parative force, especially recognizable in the disjunctive comparison πλὴν ἤ (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 ἀλλά, ‘nevertheless,’ ‘abgeseben davon’ (ch. 111. 16. iv. 14, 1 Cor. xi. 11, Eph. v. 38), with which particle it is not unfrequently joined ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 725. παντὶ τρόπῳ] ‘inevery way,’ scil. of preaching the gospel, more exactly de- 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 τί οὖν. 90 PHILIPPIANS Cuap. I. 18. Ν , 44 s ͵ ᾽ «Χριστὸς καταγγελλεταῖι, καὶ ἐν TOUT χαίρω" ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι' 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. 1x. Vol. v. p. 191 (A.-C. Libr.) ; see especially Nean- der, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 318 (Bohn), and compare Stier, Peden 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 προφασις and ἀλήϑεια Or τἀληϑές ; these are quite enough, independently of the context, to induce us to reject the trans- lation of προφάσει, adopted by Grot., al., ‘occasione,’ 2. e., ‘be the good not in- tended but only occasioned by them,’ Hammond. On the more general mean- ing of the here more limited ἀλήϑεια, compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. 11. p. 169. ‘therein,’ ‘in this state of things,’ scil. that Christ is preached, though from dif- ferent reasons ; comp. Luke x. 20. This use of ἐν τούτῳ, 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, ἐν τούτοις πᾶσιν ἢ εἴτε προφάσει κ.τ.λ.] ἐν τούτῳ] λυπουμένους ἢ χαίροντας. ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρ!] ‘yea, and I shall re- joice:’ not exactly, det ὑπὲρ τούτων χα- ρήσομαι, Chrys., Caly., but, in more strict connection with the following fut., when the ἀποβ. eis owt. is being realized. The punctuation is here not quite certain. Lachm., followed by Tisch. and Meyer, places a full stop before ἀλλά, and a co- lon after xap., thus connecting οἶδα 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 χαίρω and χαρήσομαι 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 οὐ μόνον before χαίρω. This is very unsatisfactory. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ has here its idiomatic meaning ‘at etiam,’ the faintly seclusive force of ἀλλὰ serving specially to confine attention to the new assertion which the καὶ 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 ἀλλὰ γάρ, ἀλλὰ μέν, the primary force of ἀλλὰ (‘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, 1. 6., p. 8, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 85. Lastly, we should be careful to distinguish between the present use of ἀλλὰ καὶ 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.), ἐν ταῖς νήσοις ἄλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ; or (6) ΠΟΓΟ ἀλλὰ occurs in brisk exhortation, 6. g. Soph. Ῥλιοοί. 796, ἀλλ᾽ ὦ τέκνον καὶ Sdpoos ἴσχε; in which passage Hermann’s proposed emendation 7: Sdpcos does not seem either plausible or necessary. Grap. Ty 19. PHILIPPIANS. 87 [3] 10 - Ἁ “ -“ , ’ , » ΄ Ν lol .« “Ὁ οἷδα γὰρ ὅτι τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν 19. οἷδα γάρ] Confirmation of the words immediately preceding, having its simple argumentative force. If with Calv., Bisp., al. this clause be referred to ver. 17, yap must have more of an explanatory force (comp. notes on Gal. ii. 6): such a ref., however, is un- duly regressive; τοῦτο here can only mean the same as τούτῳ ver. 19,— the more extended preaching of the gospel of Christ. occur in Job xiii. 16, and ma y have been a reminiscence. eis σωτηρίαν) ‘losalvation.” The exact meaning of σωτηρία has been very differ- ently explained. It has been referred to (a) ‘salus corporea,’ scil. ‘escape from present danger,’ ἀπαλλαγήν, Chrys., who however fluctuates; ‘preservation in life” τὸ ὅσον οὐδέ πω μαρτύριον, Gicum., and apparently Syr.; (0) ‘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 (ἀποβ.), and is most in accordance with the pre- vailing meaning of σωτηρία in St. Paul’s Epistles : compare ver. 28, ch. ii. 12, and eis σωτ. Rom. i. 16, 2 Thess. ii. 13. διὰ THs κι τ. Χ.} ‘through your suppli- cation and the supply of the spirit of J. C.;’ the two means by which the σωτηρία is to be realized, interecessory supplication on the part of man, and supply of the Spirit on the part of God. Meyer and Alford regard the gen. ἐπιχορηγίας as dependent on ὑμῶν, ‘ your supply to me (by that prayer) of, ete.,’ on the ground that διὰ τῆς, or at least τῆς would have been inserted. Independently of the very the yap The words τοῦτο --- σωτηρίαν unsatisfactory meaning in a dogmatical point of view, this is not grammatically exact. No article is required. Tach 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. ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ Πν.] ‘supply of the Spirit.’ These words admit of two interpretations ac- cording as tov Πν. is considered a gen. objecti or subjecti ; compare Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 168. If the former, the mean- ing will be, ‘the supply which is the Spirit,’ the genitive being that of identity 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., Mey. 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 pelined: Wiesing. and Alf. urge Gal. iii. 5, but this ean hardly be consid- ered pets in point to fix the inter- pretation. Still less tenable is the asser- tion that the gen. subjecti would have re- quired the order τοῦ Tv. *I. X. émxop. 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 τὸ Tv. "Ina. 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 38 1 ca Oe Bl oo ead GBS Cuap. I. 20. δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ Πνεύματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 39 κατὰ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 888: ina 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 ἐπιχορηγία, 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 ἐπὶ is directive, not intensive; see notes on Eph. ἰ. c. 20. κατὰ THY ἀποκαρ.] ‘accord- ing to my expectation,’ sc. ‘even as Tam hoping and expecting,’ Syr., ‘sicut spe- ravi et confisus sum,’ 4th. The curi- ous word ἀποκαραδοκία (Hesych. προσδο- kla, ἀπεκδοχή) only here and Rom. viii. 19 in the N. T., is derived from κάρα, and δοκέω [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 necessar#y varying with that of the simple καραδοκεῖν, which, from the ideas of ‘attention’ (Eur. Troad. 93) and ‘observation’ (Polyb. Hist. x. 42. 6), passes to those of ‘suspense’ (Kur. Med. 1117) and simple ‘ expectation’ (Eur. Iph. Aul. 1433). The prep. ἀπὸ is not properly zntensive, as in ἀποϑεριόω, ἀποψεύδομαι, κ. τ. A. (Tittm. Synon. p.' 106 sq., and even Meyer on Lom. viii. 19), but local: it primarily (so to say) localizes the καραδοκεῖν, 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. xv111. 31. 4, or (b) the quarter whence the thing or issue is looked for, 6. g. Polyb. Hist. XVI. 2. 8,—and comes thence, as in ἀπεκδέχομαι (Germ. ‘abwarten,’ see notes on Gal. ν. 5), with a gradual, but intel- ligible, evanescence of the local idea (‘ quidquid enim expectes alicunde te id expectare oportet,’ Tritz.), to imply little more than the fixedness, permanence, and patience (not ‘solicitude,’ Tittm.) with which the observation is continued, or the expectation entertained ; see Winer, de Verb. Compos. 1v. Ὁ. 14, and especially the excellent discussion of Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. pp. 150-157. ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ aiax.] ‘that in nothing I shall be put to shame.’ These words admit of various possible interpretations ; for example (a) ὅτι may be either relati- val, ‘that,’ τὸ ἐλπίζειν ὅτι, Chrys., or argumentative, ‘ because,’ ‘ quia,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; (b) οὐδενὶ may be cither neuter (Syr., Auth., al.), or masculine in refer- ence to the preachers of the gospel (Ho- elem.) ; again (c) aisxuvS. 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) ὅτι far more natu- rally follows Ams 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) οὐδενὶ 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 οὔτε ἐν τῷ Civ οὔτε ἐν Saveiv, Theoph., — but, ‘in no respect, in no particular’ (comp. ver. 28), thus forming an antith- esis to ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥ. Lastly, (6) αἰσχ. cannot logically be taken with any mid- dle force; St. Paul can scarcely know Cuap. I. 20. PHIELDIPEIANS:. 89 \ > , \ bl / ev » > \ , , τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνδήσομαι, ΄ ’ lal ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥησίᾳ ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν μεγαλυνδήσεται Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σώματί μου, εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ 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 ὅτι οὐ περιέσονται οὗτοι, Chrys., ὅτι κρείσσων ἔσομαι τῶν δυσχε- ρῶν, 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 hichest duties and aims of his life ; see De Wette in loc., who aptly compares the Hebrew τὴ Psalm xxxiv. 5 (LXX. καταισχυνϑῇ), Ixix. 2 (LXX. αἰσχυνϑείησαν), and contrasts St. Paul’s favorite term καυχᾶσϑαι. GAN ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥ.] ‘but (on the contrary) in all boldness ;’ antithesis to the foregoing clause introduced with the full force of the adversative ἀλλά. Πάσῃ, 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 ἐν οὐδενὶ above. Ἔν παῤῥησίᾳ is thus not merely ‘in joyfulness’ (Wiesing., comp. Eph. ili. 12), and certainly not σαφῶς φανερῶς, “" » MA GEcum., comp. Syr. bel, Stans [revelata facie], but, as the contrast and context both imply, ‘in fiducia,’ Vule., ‘in boldness of speech and action ;’ eomp. Eph. vi. 19. ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν] Temporal clause, following close on the foregoing modal predication (comp. Donalds. Gr. § 444). The addition καὶ 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. μεγαλυνδήσεται ἐν τῷ σώμ.] ‘shall be magnificd in my body ;’ not ἐν ἐμοί, but, in accordance with the studiedly passive aspect given to the whole decla- ration (obscured by /ith.), — ἐν τῷ σώμ., ‘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 ἐν (‘sub- stratum of action”) see notes on Gal. i. 24, Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, Μεγαλ. 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 ἐν παῤῥ., and still less with the local ev odu., — but, as in Acts xix. 17, ‘shall be glorified,’ δειχϑήσεται ds ἐστι, Theod., ‘ gloriosior apparebit,’ Just., the meaning being here appy. a little more forcible than ‘be praised’ (Alf. ; comp. Lk. i. 46, Acts y. 13) and pointing more to the gen- eral, than to the merely oral spread of the Lord’s glory and kingdom among men. εἴτε διὰ κ. τ. λ.] " whether by life or by death ;’ two alternatives, suggested by and in explanation of the preceding ἐν σώματι; ‘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: διὰ μὲν ζωῆς, ὅτι ἐξείλετο" διὰ Sa- γνάτου δέ, ὅτι οὐδὲ ϑάνατος ἔπεισέ με ἀρνή- ‘hrys. Well then might the apostle say οἶδα ὅτι...εἰς σωτηρίαν 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 σωτηρία. 21. ἐμοὶ γάρ] Confirmation and elu- | cidation of the last clause of v.20. Tho γὰρ has no ref. to any omitted clause (BL), σασδϑαι αὐτόν, 40 PHELUPPPIANS.. Cuap. I. 21, 22. 21 ᾿Εμοὶ yap τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποδανεῖν κέρδος. ™ εἰ δὲ τὸ — ever a doubtful and precarious mode of explaining this particle, — but simply confirms the preceding assertion by show- ing the real nature of ζωὴ and ϑάνατος, according to the apostle’s present mode of regarding them ; ‘in my view and def- inition of the term, L/fe is but another name for Christ,’ Peile. The emphatic ἐμοὶ (‘to me, in my merely personal ca- pacity,’ see Wiesinger) is thus the pro- nominal dative judicii (De W.), or 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 tucommodi ; see Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 9, p. 85, and especially Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 6. 1 sq., by whom this use of the dative is well illustrated. τὸ ζῆν Χριστός] ‘to live is Christ,’ i. 6. 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 Χριστός, beside the idea of union with Him, must also involve that of devotion to His service. So, perhaps too distinctly, Auth. (compare Caly.) ‘si vixero, Christo.’ Td (ζῆν 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, ζῆν τς ἀποῦ., is thus obscured, and the argument impaired: what ζωὴ is in ver. 20, that must τὸ ζῆν be here. καὶ τὸ ἀποὺὃ. κέρδο»5] ‘and [simple copulative] to diets gain ;’ death is gain, as I shall thus enjoy a still nearer and more blessed union with my Lord ; oa- φέστερον αὐτῷ συνέσομαι, Chrys., The- oph. Κέρδος belongs οηΐῃ 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 τὸ ζῆν and τὸ amos. accusatives of ‘refer- ence to’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4), se. “ut tam in vitd quam in morte lucrum esse praedicetur’ (Caly.; compare Beza), is to mar the perspicuity, and to intro- duce a difficulty in point of grammar, as | τὸ 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 Scheucrl. Synt. ὃ 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. Bell. vir. 8, 6, συμ- φορὰ τὸ ζὴν ἐστιν avdpérois οὐχὶ Savatos, as it hints at the purely substantival char- acter of τὸ ζῆν (opp. to Alf.) and τὸ The practical aspects of the subject will be found in Heber, Serm. ΧΥΤ Xavi 22. εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῆν κ. τ. λ.] ‘but if my living in the flesh, τ 7 this is to me the (the medium of) fruit from my labor ;’ so Vulg., Claroman., Goth., and (with ob- scured τοῦτο) 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) εἰ is not problematical, ‘if it chance,’ Tyndale, Cranm., but as Meyer correctly observes, syllogistic, — and virtually assertory. (8) The addition ἐν σαρκὶ does not imply any qualitative difference between τὸ ζῆν here and τὸ (jy in ver. 21 (Rill.), but guards against it being understood in the ἀποϑανεῖν. Gap. 1.99. PHILIPPA NS. 41 / a ΄ \ , \ ζὴν ἐν σαρκί, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου" Kal τί αἱρήσομαι, οὐ γνω- higher sense, which the preceding τὸ ἀποὺ. κέρδος (‘to die, ἡ. e. to live out of the flesh with Christ, is gain’) might other- wise seem naturally to suggest. (γ) Τοῦτο 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 idea contained in the preceding words ; com- pare Winer, Gir. ὁ 44. 4, p. 144. (δ) In καρπὸς ἔργου 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 [originis], ‘ proventus operis,’ De Wette, v oe TW eee 15 Lo [fructus in operibus meis| Syr., 7. e. ‘conveys with it, is the condition of fruit from apostolical labor,’ the ἔργον referring to the laborious nature of the apostolic work (Acts xiii. 2, 1 Thess. v. 15, 2 Tim. iv. 5); καρποφορῶ, διδάσκων Kal φωτίζων πάντας, 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 (ἐμοί) ; 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; ‘ ohjecta spe conversionis multorum, heret atque heesitat,’ Just.: so, in substance, The- ophyl. (who has explained this clause briefly and perspicuously), Chrys., ‘The- odoret, G2cumen., 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 τοῦτο κ. τ. A. forms the ap- odosis, ἐστί μοι being supplied after ἐν σαρκί, ‘but if I live in the flesh, this is,’ etc.; the /east so (b) that of Beza, Genev. (amended by Conyb., but satisfactorily 6 answered by Alf.), according to which εἰ is ‘ whether,’ and καρπὸς ἔργου = ‘ opera pretium’ (comp. Grot., Hamm., Schole- field, ZZints, 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 (ὁ), independently of gram- matical objections, the halting and incon- sequent nature of the argument ; see Alf. in loc. kal τί αἱρήσομαι k. τ. 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 καί. Though no certain example of an exactly similar use of ei—ia) has been adduced from the N. T. (2 Cor. ii. 2 [De Wette] is not in point, being there the καὶ of rapid inter- rogation, Hartung, Partick. Vol. 1. p. 147), yet the use of καὶ at the beginning of the apodosis is so common (see Bru- der, Conc. s. ν. kat, D, p. 455) as to ren- der such a use after εἰ by no means im- probable; see examples in Hartung, Partik. s. v. καί, 2. 6, Vol. 1. p.130, and compare the somewhat similar use of ‘atque,’ Hand, Tursell. Vol. 1. p. 481 sq. In such cases the proper force of καὶ 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, 6. 4. εἰ φύσει κινεῖται κἂν βίᾳ κινηϑείη, κἂν εἰ βίᾳ καὶ φύσει, Arist. de Anim. ch. 8, p. 9 (ed. Bekk.), —so here, if life certainly subserve to apostolic use- fulness, there will a/so be a difficulty as to choice. It is thus unnecessary to as- sume any aposiopesis after the first mem- ber, scil. ‘non repugno,’ ‘non xgre fero,’ Miller, Rill. There is only a slight pause, and slight change from the ex- pected, to a more emphatic sequence, which this semi-ratiocinative καὶ very ap- propriately introduces. On 42 PRALIP PLANS. Cuap. I. 23, ρίζω' 38 συνέχομαι δὲ ἐκ τῶν δύο, τὴν ἐπι υμίαν ἔχων εἰς TO ἀνα- the use of the less exact τί for πότερον, see Winer, Gir. § 25.1, p. 153 (ed. 6); and on that of the future in a delibera- tive clause, Winer, 7b. ὃ 41. 4. b. p. 267. The strict alliance between the future and the subjunctive renders such an in- terchange very intelligible. οὐ γνωρίζω] ‘ [donot recognize,’ ‘Ido not clearly perceive, — a somewhat excep- tional use in the N. T. of yrwp., which is nearly always ‘notum facio.’ For examples of the present use, see Ast, Lex. Plat. s.v.; comp. Job xxxiv. 25 (Lxx), iv. 16 (Symm.). 23. συνέχομαι δὲ κ. τ. λ.] ‘yea, I am held in a strait by the two ; antitheti- cal explanation of the last member of verse 22; the fuintly oppositive δὲ (not ‘metabatic’ [Meyer] on the one hand, nor equivalent to ἀλλὰ on the other) placing the emphatic συνέχομαι in gentle contrast with the preceding οὐ γνωρίζω. The reading γὰρ (Lec.) has scarcely any critical support, and is only a correction of the less understood δέ. On the real difference between these two particles in sentences like the present, see especially Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 363. The prep. ἐκ is here not used for ἀπό (Bloomf.), nor yet for διά ( Heinr.,— instrumentality would have been expressed by a simple dative, 6. g. Matth. iv. 24, Luke viii. 37, Acts xviii. 5, xxviii. 8), but with its proper force points to the origin of the συνοχή, 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 συνέχ., and the illustrative connection with it of the two classes which follow. τὴν ἐπιδυμίαν ἔχων] ‘having my desire ;’ not merely ‘a desire,’ Author., nor ‘the desire previously alluded to,’ Hoel.,— as no ἐπιϑυμία, strictly speaking, has been alluded to,—but ‘the desire which I now feel,’ ‘my desire.’ The ἐπιϑυμία thus stands absolutely, its diree- 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 τὸ ἀναλῦσαι] ‘towards depart- ing,’ ‘turned to departure ;’ not ‘ desid- erlum solvendi’ (τοῦ ἀναλ., 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 émd. (comp. Thucyd. vit. 84, τοῦ πιεῖν ema.), but with the proper force of the preposition εἰς, ‘ 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. ᾿Αναλῦσαι is not ‘ dissolvi,’ Vulg , nor even ‘liberari,’ Syr. ΠΡ ΤῸΝ (comp. Schoettg. zn loc.), but, perhaps with primary reference to breaking up a camp or loosing an anchor, ‘ migrare,’ ZEth. (comp. Judith xiii. 1, Alian, Var. Fist. αν. 283), and thence with a shade of meaning imparted by the context, ‘ discedere a vita,’ ἡ ἐντεῦϑεν ἀπαλλαγή, Theod.; compare notes on 2 Tim. iv. 6, and see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. p. 286 sq-, by whom this word is copiously il- lustrated ; add too Perizonius, on /Elian, 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. καὶ σὺν Xp. εἶναι] From the immediate con- nection of this clause with ἀναλῦσαι dog- matical deductions have been made in Cuap, I. 24. λῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, 24 ‘ δὲ ’ ’ >? a \ τὸ δὲ ἐπιμένειν ἐν TH σαρκὶ reference to the intermediate state ; ‘clare ostenditur animas sanctorum ex hae vita sine peccato migrantium § statim post mortem esse eum Christo,’ Est.; comp. Cyrill.-Alex. cited by Forbes, Jnstruct. xu. 8. 33, Bull, Lngl. Works, p. 42 (Oxf., 1844), Reuss, Theol. Chrét. iv. 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 atthe right hand of God,’ Creed, Art. x11. Vol. 1. p. 467, and com- pare Polye. ad Phyl. § 9, eis τὸν ὀφειλό- μενον αὐτοῖς τόπον εἰσὶ mapa Κυρίῳ, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. § 5, ἐπορεύϑη [Πέτρος] εἰς τὸν ὀφειλ. τόπον τῆς δόξης. 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 σὺν Xp. εἶναι, in reference to the soul’s incor- poreal state, is explained profoundly, though perhaps somewhat singulary, by Hofmann, Schrifib. 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, Bill. Psychol. v1. 6, p. 383 sq. πολλῷ yap K.T.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 μᾶλλον 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. ὃ 35. 1, p. 214. The reading is somewhat doubt- ful : yap is omitted by DEFGKL; great majority of mss., several Vv. and some Ff. Porlhirrran’s. 45 πολλῷ yap μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον" ἀναγκαιότερον δι’ ὑμᾶς. (Ree., Griesh. but om. om.) ; as, however, itis found in ABC; 31. 67**; Copt.; Or. (1), Bas., Aug. (often and explie. — as D1FG show in this passage marks of incertitude in reading πόσῳ for πολλῷ, and lastly, as γὰρ might have been thoughtto interrupt the sequence, we may perhaps safely acquiesce in the in- sertion with Zachm., Tisch., and even Elz. and Scholz. 234. τὸ δὲ ἐπιμένειν κ. τ. λ.] ‘yet to tarry in my flesh.’ In the former verse the apostle stated what is κρεῖσσον, for himself, now he turns to what is ἀναγ- καιότερον in regard of his converts. δὲ is thus simply ‘but,’ ‘ yet,’—scarcely ‘nevertheless,’ Auth., which is commonly a more suitable translation of ἀλλά : on the difference between these particles (‘ verum — sed ᾽), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. pp. 33, 361. The ἐπὶ in emu. 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 ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ are, as Meyer correctly observes, scarcely quite the same as ἐν σαρκὶ in ver. 22; was general, here more specific and in- dividualizing ; see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 50. 2. 3. δι᾽ ὑμᾶ 9] ‘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 mco desiderio satisfiat,’ Van Heng., Ben- gel,— but simply ‘more needful,’ scil. than the contrary course, than ἀναλῦσαι x.7.A. This latter courso St. Paul might have thought ἀναγκαῖον on his own account, a thing to be prayed for and hastened; continuance, however, was ἀναγκαιότερον on account of his con- verts. The meaning proposed by Loesn., ‘ preestat, ‘melius est’ (comp. /2th.), has there the expression ἀναγκαιότερον PHILIPPIANS; Crap. 1, 25, 44 25 ‘ fal A 59 .“ “ \ Los al ς A > καὶ τοῦτο πεποιδὼς οἶδα OTL μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν εἰς 25. παραμενῶ] So Lachm. with ABCD'FG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Clarom.; Lat. Ff. (approved by Griesb., Alf). Tisch. reads συμπαραμενῶ, appy. only with D?EKL; majority of mss.; Chrys. (expressly), Theod., Dam., Theophyl., al. ([ee., Scholz, Mcey.). 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 πᾶσιν 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. καὶ τοῦτο wmeTotaes| ‘And being persuaded, being sure, of this ;’ scil., that my ἐπιμένειν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ is more necessary on your account. Πεποιϑῶς has thus its natural force and regimen (ver. 6), and is not to be explained away adverbially, πεποιϑότως καὶ ἀδιστάκτως οἶδα ,Theoph., As flas2 [confidenter] Syr., Goth., Copt., or blended with οἶδα (ZEth.), but is to be closely connected’ with τοῦτο, while οἶδα is joined only with ὅτι; ‘persuadens mihi vitam meam vobis esse [magis] necessariam, scio quod Deus me vobis adhue concedet,’ Corn. a Lap. οἷδα)] “1 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 ΟΥ̓́ οἶδα, see the examples adduced by Van Heng., but observe that even in the strongest (Hom. 7]. v1. 447) οἶδα still refers more to the persuasions of the speaker than to any absolutely prophetic certitude. παραμεν ὦ] ‘continue here (on earth),’ ‘bleiben und dableiben,’ Meyer, who aptly cites Herod. 1. 30, τέκνα éxyevd- μενα kal πάντα παραμείναντα ; add Plato, Phedo, p. 115 D, ἐπειδὰν πίω τὸ φάρμα- κον, οὐκέτι ὑμῖν παραμενῶ, ib. Crito, p. 51, παραμείνῃ, Opp. to μετοικεῖν ἄλλοσε. On the reading sce critical note. The dative πᾶσιν ὑμῖν may be the dative of interest, ‘to support and comfort you’ (Kriiger, The uncial authority is moreover far Sprachl. § 48. 4), but is here far more naturally governed by the παρὰ in the compound ; see Plato, Phd. 1. c., Apol. p- 39 E, apparently Protag. p. 835 ἵν, and contrast 1 Cor. xvi. 6, πρὸς ὑμᾶς mapa- μενῶ, where the πρὸς 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. εἰς THY ὑμῶν κ. τ. λ.} ‘for your fur- therance in, and joy of the faith ;’ not ‘for your furth., and for your joy,’ ete., Van Heng.,—there being here no reason whatever to depart from the ordinary rule; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 4. ἃ, p. 116, and comp. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 368. It is scarcely 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 /Eth., 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 χαρά, compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 18, Vol. 11. p. 202, whose definition how- Cnap. I. 26, 27. PHILIPPIANS. 45 τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν Kal χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως, "0 ἵνα τὸ καύχημα ε nr , ᾽ an? mS > \ \ fol x, A / ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας , Se ee δὰ πάλιν προς ὑμᾶς. 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 |’ad- versité,’ imparts to χαρὰ too passive a character. Χαρὰ 15 rather that active and operative emanation of love and thank- fulness that forms the sort of spiritual equipoise to εἰρήνη and ὑπομονή. 26. ἵνα τὸ καύχημα κ. τ. λ. fin 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 εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκ. κι τ. A. being expanded into the more definite and concrete ἵνα κ᾿ 7. A. These words, simple as they seem, have not been always clearly understood. In the first place καύχημα is not the same as καύ- χησις; not ‘gloriatio qua gloriamini,’ Corn. a Lap., but ‘ gloriandi materies’ (HEM, Jere. xvii. 14), as in Rom. iv. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 15, and appy. everywhere in the N. T. (sce notes on Gal. vi. 4), this ‘ma- teries’ being τὸ ἐστηρίχϑαι ἐν τῇ πίστει, Chrys., or generally, their possession of the gospel (Meyer), their condition as Christians. Again, ἐν Χριστῷ is not to be connected,. directly or indirectly, with καύχημα (‘l'occasion de yous glori- fier d’ étre unis ἃ Christ,’ Rill.) but with περισσεύῃ, the qualitative ἐν 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 ἐν ἐμ οἱ 15 neither=8r ἐμοῦ, IHein., 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 vé , fol lal le] “ἴ Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ ,ὔ \ x ON a πολιτεύεσδε, iva εἴτε EAN@V Kal ἰδὼν ὑμῶς εἴτε ᾽ \ -“ ei ἀπὼν ἀκούσω TA περὶ ὑμῶν, OTL στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ procedure was displayed; see notes on Gal. i. 24. It is thus not to be connect- ed with καύχημα directly, oras in Chrys., by inversion, ἵνα ἔχω καυχᾶσϑαι ἐν ὑμῖν μειζόνως, Nor even with περισσ. alone, but with the complete idea τὸ καύχ. πε- pioo. ἐν Χρ. Thus the whole seems clear : the καύχημα is their condition as Chris- tians; ἐν Xp. defines the holiness and purity of its increase; ἐν ἐμοί, the seat and substratum of the so defecated ac- tion. διὰ THS κ. τ. λ. 1S to be closely connected with ἐμοί as de- fining the exact means by which the in- crease of matter of boasting, thus specifi- cally Christian, is to take place ἐν ἐμοί. Passages like the present, in which dif- ferent predications are grouped closely together, will repay careful analysis. Here it will be seen ἐν Xp. is the mysti- cal and generic predication of manner, ἐν of place, διὰ τῆς παρ. 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. μόν ον] “ 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; τοῦτο ἐστι τὸ ζητούμενον μόνον καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο, 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. τοῦ evayy. τοῦ Xp.| ‘the gospel of Christ,’ i. ὁ. which relates to, which tells of, Christ ; τοῦ Xp. being the gen. objecti, not, as AZth. would seem to imply, sub- 46 PHILIPPIANS: Cuap. I. 27. πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ ocuvaddodvtTes τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 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 Wincr, Gr. ὃ 30. 1, p. 168, but ob- serve that the ref. to Rom. i. 3 is of doubtful pertinence. πολιτεύεσϑε! ‘have your conversa- tion,’ ‘ behave yourselves,’ or more exactly, ‘lead your life of (Christian) citizen- ship;’ compare Acts xxiii. 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 περιπατεῖν, 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 πολίτευμα, 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 viteque ra- tionem componere,’ Krebs.) will be found in Wetstein in loc., Krebs, Obs. p. 245, Loesn. Obs. p. 226, and especially in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 799 sq. ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν K.T-A.} ‘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 ἀκούσω (for which Lachmann, with BD!; 10 mss. ; Basm., reads ἀκούω) really performs a kind of double office ; in the one case it stands in antithesis to ἰδὼν (per orat. variat.) ; in the second place it repeats itself (Van Heng.), or suggests some appropriate verb (εὐφράν- Sw, Chrys., γνῶ, De Wette) immediately before ὅτι: in a word, quoad sensum it seems to belong to ἀπών, quoad structuram to ἵνα. Attempts have been made to de- fend the construction as it stands, either (a) by referring ἀκούσω 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 ἱδὼν ὑμᾶς and ἀκούσω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, 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 εἴτε ἐλϑὼν καὶ ἰδών, εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀκούω ὅτι κ. τ. Δ., or still Worse, ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούσας τὰ π. bu. γνῶ ὅτι κι T.A., as suggested by modern com- mentators. ὅτι στήκετε) ‘that ye are standing ;’ fuller expansion and definition of τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν ; 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, etc., e.g. Mark xii. 34, Acts iii. 10, 1 Cor. xvi. 13, 1 Thess. ii.1,al. Στήκειν, 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. iv. 1, 1 Cor. xvi. 18, Gal. v. 1, 1 Thess. iii. 8, 2 Thess. ii. 15. ἐν ἑν) πνεύματι] ‘in one spirit ;᾽ in one common higher principle of our nature. The addition ΄ Cuap. I. 28. PRILIERPIANS: 47 8 \ A , > ὃ ‘ ig Ν a > / “ και μὴ πτυρομένοι εν PMNOEVL ὑπὸ τῶν αντικείμενων, τις μιᾷ ψυχῇ seems certainly to show that πνεῦμα is here the human spirit, the higher part of our immaterial nature (see Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, § 48, Vok. 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 τὸ Πνεῦμα (compare Ephes. iv. 4) becomes necessarily in- volved. Indeed in most cases in the N. T. it may be said that in every men- tion of the human πνεῦμα some reference to the eternal Spirit may always be rec- ognized ; sce notes on 2 Tim. i. 7, and compare Delitasch, Bibl. Psychol. 1v. 5, p- 144 sq. μιᾷ ψυχῇ] ‘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- fections, and energies. As the higher πνεῦμα Which gave direction was to be one and common to them all,’ so was the lower ψυχὴ 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 anim.’ On the difference between the πνεῦμα (Ἢ vis superior, agens, imperans in hom- ine’) and the ψυχή, the sphere of tlre will and affections, the centre of the per- sonality, see Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. vi. p. 145 sq., Beck, Bibl. Scelenlehre, 11. 12, 13, p. 50 sq. συναδϑλοῦντες must be united with μιᾷ ψυχῇ, thus forming a participial, and indeed psychological, parallel to στήκειν ἐν. Mv. It is somewhat singular that the best ancient Vy. (Syr., Vulg., Clar., ZEth., Copt.), with Chrys., al., agree in referring μιᾷ ψυχῇ to στήκετε. Such a construction, however, has but little to recommend it in point of grammar, and still less in point of psychology: μιᾷ ψυχῇ stands correctly in prominence after the semi-emphatic ἐν ἑνὶ mv. (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 902), and forms a modal ad- junct to the undefined συναϑλοῦντες es- pecially significant and appropriate ; στή- Kew ἐν πνεύματι, συναϑλεῖν τῇ ψυχῇ. The force of the preposition σὺν has been dif- ferently estimated ; it is referred by the Greek expositors to the fellowship of the Philipp. (συμπαραλαμβάνετε ἀλλήλοσυς, Chrys.) ; by Meyer and others to fellow- ship with St. Paul; the former seems more suitable to the context. τῇ πίστει) ‘for the faith;’ dat. com- modi: not under the regimen of σύν, ‘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 haying previ- ously occurred in the case of μιᾷ ψυχῇ. Πίστις, here, as nearly always in the N. Τὶ, has a subjective reference; see notes on Gal. i. 23. 28. πτυρόμενοι] ‘being terrified:’ am. Aeydu. in N. T.; properly used in reference to scared horses (Diodor. Sic. XVII. 34, πτυρόμενοι τὰ χαλινὰ διεσείον- vo), thence generally, though often with some tinge of its more special meaning, as in Plut. Mor. p. 800 c, μήτε ὕψει μήτε φωνῇ πτυρόμενον, and lastly, as here, in a purely general sense, e.g. [Plato], Ax- ioch. § 16, οὐκ ἄν ποτε πτυρείης τὸν ϑάνα- tov; comp. Hesych. πτύρεται " σείεται, φοβεῖται, φρίττει, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 312. Itis not improb. derived from aroot MTY-,—and allied with πτοέω ; see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 100. τῶν ἀντικειμένων * the opposers,’ ‘ your adversaries ;’ compare 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 4, Luke xiii. 17, xxi, 15. 48 5 \ 9 a ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ Θεοῦ: 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. ἐστίν κ΄ τ. Χ.] ‘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 ; ὅταν γὰρ of διώκοντες τῶν « ἥτις διωκομένων μὴ περιγένωνται, οἱ ἐπιβουλεύ- οντες τῶν ἐπιβουλενομένων, οἱ κρατοῦντες τῶν κρατουμένων, οὐκ αὔτοϑεν ἔσται δῆλον αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἀπολοῦνται, OTL οὐδὲν ἰσχύσου- ow; Chrys. The ὅστις, as in Eph. iii. 13 al., has here a faint explanatory force (see especially notes on Gal. iy. 23), and is the logical relative to μὴ πτυρόμ. κ. τ. A., though grammatically connected (by at- traction) with the predicate ἔνδειξις ; see examples of this species of attraction in Winer, Gram. § 24. 3, p. 150; compare also § 66.5. 2, p. 552, and Madvig, Synt. δ 98. The dative αὐτοῖς is the dative incomm. or, of ‘interest’ (Kriig., Sprachil. ᾧ 48. 4), and is dependent on ἔνδειξις, not on ἀπωλείας (Holem.),—a needlessly involved construction. The reading of Rec. αὐτοῖς μὲν ἐστὶν has but little criti- cal support [KL; Theodoret, al.], and is properly rejected by all the best edi- tors. ὑμῖν δὲ σῶτηρίαΞ]) ‘but to you (an evidence) of salvation ; scil. of final salvation, as opposed to the preceding ἀπώλεια ; ‘ipsos perdet et du- cet in gehennam, vos autem ducet ad salutem οὐ gloriam,’ Corn. a Lap. ; com- pare similar antitheses, Rom. ix. 22 sq., 1 Cor. i. 18, al., and on the force of ἀπώ- Aeia, notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9. The present reading is somewhat doubtful : ὑμῶν is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. PaTLIPPLEANS: Cuap. 1. 28, 29. ” ὃ Ξ rv , ec nw δὲ / ‘ a ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῖν δὲ σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο 29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσϑη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον (so Meyer, Alf.) with ABC?; 4 mss. ; Clarom., Sangerm. ; Chrys. (ms.), Aug., al., and is plausible on account of the possible conformation of ὑμῖν to αὐτοῖς. The text is, however, strongly supported (D9EFKL [ἡμῖν C'D1G; 73]; Vulg., Goth., Copt., Basm., Ath. (Platt, Pol.), Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theod.), and has apparently the diplomatic preponderance plainly in its favor. kat τοῦτο κ.τ. λ.}] ‘and this from God,’ comp. Eph. ii. 8; ὦ. e. not merely ‘vos salutem consecuturos esse,’ Calvin, which would arbitrarily limit τοῦτο 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. Ath., Clem.-Alexan. Strom. rv. p. 604, Pott.) declaration, in fact to ἐπίδειξις (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. ὅτι ὑμῖν 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 yap. The apostle says, the ἔνδειξις κι τ. 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 Cuap. I. 30.—II. 1. Pe PELE PLANS. 49 ~ > b pees a 3 nN i x ¢ \ > lal , 80 Ν TO εἰς αὑτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπερ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν, τον > Ν ᾽ A ” e Ἢ ’ 5 \ \ fal ’ 4 ᾽ > ὔ αὐυτον GYWVa EXOVTES OLOV εἰδετε εν ἐμοὺυ KAL νυν UKOVETE EV ἐμοι. Be united in spirit; be lowly in heart as was Christ, II. Ei τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι 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 in loc. ἐχαοίσ ὃ ἢ] ‘was freely given ;’ avaridels τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ χάριν εἶναι λέγων τὸ πᾶν καὶ χάρισμα καὶ δωρεὰν τὸ πάσχειν ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, 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: χαρίζεται would be too present, and in- deed prospective (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 1), to suit the actual circumstances ; κεχάρισται would express that the effects of the χάρισμα 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 prezteriit, 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 πάσχειν, and would have been structurally associated with it if the apos- tle had not paused to interpolate a clause (οὐ μόνον ---- ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ) that serves ma- terially to heighten the assertion and add to its significance: ἐκεῖ μὲν ὀφειλέτης εἰμί, ἐνταῦϑα δὲ ὀφειλέτην ἔχω τὸν Xpic- τόν, Chrys. So expressly Syr., /£th., both of which suppress in translation the prefixed τὸ ὑπὲρ Xp. 30. €xovres] ‘as youhave:’ further specification of the preceding πάσχειν, with a consolatory turn suggested by the associated example; καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα ἔχετε. πάλιν αὐτοὺς ἐπαίρει, Chrysost. The structure is ‘ad sensum’ rather 7 τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ than ‘ad verbum ;’ the participle being constructed with the ὑμεῖς which is prac- tically involved in the preceding verse, rather than with the ὑμῖν 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 ἥτις τ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν 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. οἷον εἴδετε] ‘such as gou saw in me,’ se. when I was with you at Philippi; compare Acts xvi. 16 sq.: οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀκηκόατε, ἀλλ᾽, εἴδετε" καὶ λησεν ἐν Φιλίπποις, Chrys. pression ἐν ἐμοὶ 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., th., to translate the second ἐν ἐμοὶ ‘de me’: as the Philip- pians saw the ἀγὼν 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 ‘ere ( Ltec., Griesb.), though fairly supported [B*D3E°FGKL; very many mss.; Theoph., Gicum.] is appar- ently only due to the interchange of εἰ and ἐ (itacism) ; see Scrivener, Collation, etc. 111. 3, p. LXIX. γὰρ ἐκεῖ Hd- In the ex- Cuarter II.—1. εἴ ris οὖν] ‘If then, etc.’ The οὖν, 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) Iii. f , 4 ” / Le wv , παραμύϑιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία Πνεύματος, εἴ τινα σπλάγχνα ing circumstances, with aretrospective ref. to the exhortation in ch. 1. 27; ‘revocat οὖν lectorem ad rem presentem, id est, que nunc cum maxime agitur, eodem prorsus modo, quo Latina particula igi- 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. παράκλ. ἐν Xp.| ‘exhortation in Christ,’ 2. 6. exhortation specified and character- ized by being in Ilim as its sphere and element. This important modal adjunct defines the παράκλησις 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. Παράκλησις is apparently here ‘exhortation’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 10, Rom. xii. 8, and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 32), o> not ‘consolatio,’ Vulg. ibaa Syriac (compare Goth., Copt.), which, though lexically tenable (see Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. Vol. 1. p. 132 sq., and comp. notes on 1 Thess. v. 11), seems here somewhat tautologous when παραμύϑιον so immediately follows. The exact distinction between the clauses is worthy of notice: the first (ἐν Xp.) and third (Πνεύμ.), as Meyer observes, cer- tainly point to the objective principles of Christian life, while the second (ἀγάπης) and fourth (σπλάγχν. k. οἰκτ.) 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. παραμύϑιον ἀγ.] ‘comfort or consola- tion of love ;’ ‘solatium caritatis,’ Vulg., 2] compare Syr. ἘΞ: ἴξαξο [loqu- utio in cor], “th. and apparently Copt. ; not ‘ winning persuasion,’ Wiesing., —a meaning which is defensible (compare Plato, Legg. x. p. 880 A, παραμυϑίοις ev- πείϑης γίγνηται), but here apparently precluded by the parallelism σπλάγχνα kal οἶκτ. in the fourth clause. The gen. ἀγάπης is the gen. of the source or agent, ‘comfort such as love supplies ;’ see Scheuer]. Synt. § 17, p. 126. κοινωνία Ty.| ‘ fellowship of the Spirit ;? gen. objectt, communion with, participation in the gifts and influence of the Holy Spirit; τὴν μετοχὴν αὐτοῦ kal τὴν μετάληψιν KkaX ἣν ἁγιαζόμεϑα, Theoph. on 2 Cor. xiii. 14: so expressly JEth., ‘ 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 κοινωνία and κοινωνὸς (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. 851. 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 thiop. (Polygl., but not Platt), which expressly inserts ἅγιος" ef Tiva σπλ. κι T.A.] ‘if any bowels (heartfelt love) and Crap. II. 2. PHILIPPIANS. 51 \ ᾽ / 2 ’ , \ fé “ \ p Wome. fal Kal οἰκτιρμοί, 7 πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαράν, ἵνα TO αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, , Ν ἃ cal Ν τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες, σύνψυχοι τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες, ὃ μηδὲν compassions.’ By comparing James y. 11, and especially Col. iii, 12, σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, 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, ‘oA. amorem vehe- mentiorem quemecunque denotat (στορ- hv, compare Philem. 12) ; οἰκτ. 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 εἴ τις σπλ. Though adopted by Tisch. (ed. 7) and Lachm., and defended by Green, Gram. p. 284, it seems really to have arisen from an erroneous (para- diplomatic) repetition of the preceding τις. The prevalence of such an appar- ent error need not shake our faith in mere MSS. testimony (AIf.) ; it rather seems to hint at the general fidelity of the tran- scribers. 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. Τινὰ is found in Clem. Alex. Strom. rv. p. 604 (cd. Pott.). 2. rAnpocate| ‘fulfil,’ ‘make com- plete ;’ ρώσατε' τούτεστιν ἤρξασϑε φυτεύειν ἐν οὖκ εἶπε ποιήσατέ μοι, ἀλλά, πλη- ἐμοί: ἤδη μοι μετεδώκατε τὸ εἰρηνεύειν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τέλος ἐπιϑυμῶ ἐλϑεῖν, Chrys. The position of μον before χαρὰν 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). ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ k.7.A.] ‘that so ye be likeminded. The particle ἵνα 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, etc., with the purpose of mak- ing it: so rightly Chrys., ti βούλει ; ἵνα σε κινδύνων ἀπαλλάξωμεν, ἵνα σοί τι χορη- γήσωμεν ; Οὐδὲν τούτων φησίν, ἀλλ᾽, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε. See notes on Lph i. 17, where this and other uses of ἵνα are briefly investigated. Van Heng. refers ἵνα to an omitted ταύτην, sc. χαρὰν ταύ- τὴν ἵνα k. τ. A.: this seems very unsatis- factory. Td αὐτὸ φρον. is rightly explained by Tittmann (Synon. p- 67) as, ‘eandem sententiam habere, idem sentire, velle et querere,’ while the following participial clauses, τὴν αὐτὴν ay. ἔχ. and σύνψ. τὸ ἕν φρ., 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 σύνψ. from τὸ ἐν φρον. ; see below. τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγ. ἔχ.] ‘having the same love ;’ closer (οῇ- nition of τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν : ἐστὶ yap καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν καὶ μὴ ἀγάπην ἔχειν, Chrys. The true nature of such love is well de- fined by the same able commentator as ὁμοίως καὶ φιλεῖν καὶ φιλεῖσϑαι. On thie 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, Lehr). 11. 1. 4, p. 242 sq., Reuss, Théol. Chrét. αν. 19, Vol. II. p. 203 sq. σύνψυχοι K.7.A.] ‘with accordant souls minding (the) one thing ;’ second declining clause, and parallel to τὴν abr. ay. ἔχ. Most of the ancient Vv. (Syr., Copt., /Zth., al.), apparently the Greek expositors, and several modern commentators regard σύνψυχοι and τὸ ἕν pp. as separate predi- cations; it seems however best, with Meyer, to regard them as united, the slightly emphatic σύνψ. forming a quasi- adverbial or secondary predication to τὸ δ2 ΕΣΊΒ.1Ε1Κ}.} 1} PIB TIN IN IS) ¢ Cuap. II. 3, 4. ᾿ “ \ κατὰ épiSeiay μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ > / e ’ € , -ς lal 4 \ \. 2 lal “ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας εαυὐτῶν, * μὴ TA εαυτῶν ἕκαστοι ἐν φρ. There is thus no necessity for any artificial distinctions between τὸ αὐτὸ gp. and τὸ ἕν gp. (Tittmann Synonym. 1. p. 69), nor for the assumption of a studied tautology (comp. Chrys.) : Ψψυχοι scrves to illustrate the participial clause with which it is associated, while τὸ ἕν dp. remands the reader to the τὸ αὐτὸ gp. 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 σύνψυχος and ἰσόψυχος, see notes on ver. 20. 3. μηδὲν κατὰ épra.| ‘ meditating , συν- nothing in the way of dissension, or conten- tiousness ;’ not ποιοῦντες, V. Heng., Scho- lef. (Zints, p. 105), or still worse ποιεῖτε, Luth., but simply φρονοῦντες, continued from the preceding verse; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 64. 2, p. 618. The prep. κατὰ 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. ili. 5, and Winer, Gram. § 49. d, p. 358. On épidefa see notes on ch. i. 17, and on Gal. ν. 17; compare too Theophyl. in loc., who appears to have caught the true force and meaning of the word ; σπουδά- σαι ἔχω, ἵνα μή με νικήσῃ 6 δεῖνα᾽ τοῦτο ἔστιν ἣ ἐριδεία. μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν] ‘nor in the way of vain- glory.” Kevod. an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. T. (adj. Gal. ν. 26) is sufficiently defined by Suidas as, ματαία τις περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ot- nots; 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. (1) Copt., ZEth. (1); 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. τῇ ταπεινοῷφ- ροσύνῃ])]ὔ ‘with, under the influence of (duc) lowliness;’ modal dative (comp. notes on ch. i. 18), or perhaps more pre- cisely dat. of the sudjective 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. c, p. 181, and Kriiger, 7. c. The article here prefixed to the abstract tameiwodp. may have its collective force (Jelf, Gr. ὁ 448) and mark ‘ lowliness’ in its most abstract form, ‘the virtue of lowliness ἢ (Mey., comp. Middl. Gram. Art. p. 90), but more probably only characterizes the τατπειν. as that due and befitting lowliness by which each ought to be influenced : comp. Rom. xii. 10 sq., and Fritz. in loc. On ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘the thinking lowly of ourselves because we are so,’ and its distinction from πραὔτης, see notes on Eph. iv. 2. Trench, Synon. § 42, and the more spiritually profound discussion of Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 483 sq. (Bohn). ὑπερέχονταξ ἕαυ τῶ ν] ‘superior to themselves ;? com- pare Rom. xii. 10, Ephes. v. 21, 1 Pet. y.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 3 ταπεινοῴρ. The ταπεινόφρων 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 Cuap. II. 5: a ᾽ \ Na eee Ψ GKOTOVITES, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ετέρων εκαστοι. PR ee AGN) S . 53 maa Ἔ ὃ Τοῦτο yap φρονεῖτε 5. γάρ] So Rec. and now Tisch. (ed. 7) with DEFGJK; very many ὅν. ; Gr. and Lat. Ff. (Griesb., but om. om. ; Van JTeng., Mey., Alf.). ted by Lachm. with ABCN; 17.37; Coptic, Arm., Ath.; Origen, Ath., al. The particle is omit- 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 slightly more probable. φρονεῖτε] So ABCIDEFGS; 3 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syriac, Ath. (Pol. and Platt); Cyr.; Lat. Ff. (Lackm., Mey.). The reading of Tisch, (ed. 2,7), φρονείσϑω, with C°IKXL; nearly all mss.; Copt., Goth., al.; Orig., Ath. ([ec., Alf), is insufli- ciently attested by uncial authorities, and, on internal grounds, quite as likely to have been a correction of φρονεῖτε (to harmonize with ὃ ὃ καὶ ἐν Xp. Ἴησ.) as vice versa : compare contra, Fritz. /ritzsch. Opuse. 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. τὰ ἑαυτῶν σκόπ.] ‘regarding, looking to their own interests:’ warning against a selfish regard for themselves, following suitably on the exhortation to ταπεινοφροσύνη. 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). Σκοπεῖν is here searcely different in sense from ζητεῖν, ch. ii. 21, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5; compare 2 Mace. iv. 5, τὸ σύμ- φερον σκοπῶν. Numerous examples of similar forms of expression will be found in Wetstein in loc., 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, οὐ τὸ ἐκείνων ἔτι σκο- πουμένων, ἀλλὰ τὺ ἑαυτῶν. The reading of [ec., ἕκαστος (with CDEKLN; al.)— σκοπεῖτε (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 [/ec.], is more than We return, then, to the reading of Lachm. and doubtful) ἕκαστος is only found in the singular. ἀλλὰ Kal] ‘but also :’ a somewhat weakened form of the adversative clause, the καὶ perhaps point- ing to the thought that it was natural that a man should look after his own in- terests ; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 55. 8, p. 441 sq., Fritz. Mare. exc. τι. p. 788. On the difference between οὐκ --- ἀλλά, ov μόνον ---- ἀλλά, and ov μόνον --- ἀλλὰ καί, see the acute remarks of Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 9. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to controvert the position of Raphel (Obs. Vol. I. p. 503), that τὰ ἑαυτῶν are ‘sua dona;’ such an inter- pretation is less in harmony with the context, and would tend to make καὶ 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 γὰρ is briefly illustrated. φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘entertain this mind in yourselves,’ Bc.. ‘ in Animis vestris,’ Van H., not ‘intra yestrum cctum,’ a construction which Two 54 Hae IeASN Si Cukr, 11. 6. ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, © ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ seems distinctly precluded by the follow- ing ἐν Xp. Meyer compares the Homeric. ἐνὶ φρεσί, ἐνὶ δυμῷ, thus similarly com- | bined with φρονεῖν, Ill. xx1v.173, Odys. XIV. 82, al. ὃ καὶ ἐν X. 1 ‘which was also in Christ Jesus,’ se. ἐφ- poveito or ἐφρονήδη. The καὶ 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 καὶ after relative particles, and the form of comparison it indicates, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. The in- terpretation of Hofmann (Schrifib. Vol. I. p. 130), according to which 6 is to be referred to φρονεῖν, not ἐφρονήϑη, scil. ‘welches ein φρονεῖν in ihnen selbst nicht ist, ohne auch in Christo Jesu’ (compare Gal. ii. 20), seems artificial and unsatis- factory. 6. ὅ 9] 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 és refer? To Christ as (a) the Λόγος ἄσαρκος, Christ in his pre-incarnate state (Chrys. and majority of Ff.), or, as (b) the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος, ---- 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 (0), to the τέλειος Ὑἱὸς (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, Ὁ. 136. In the present verse the ref- ͵ erence seems plainly to (a); for as the tertium comparationis is manifestly ταπει- νοφροσύνη, 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, πλούσιος ὧν 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 (b): the Λόγος ἄσαρκος, which is the more immediate subject of vérse 6, passes into the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος in ver. 7, and as the slight break in the con- tinuity of the sentence, καὶ σχήματι κ.τ.λ., 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. v1. 21, Jackson, Creed, Book vii1. 1, Tho- masius, Chr. Pers. Vol. 11. p. 136 sq. Reference to the older monographs on this subject will be found in Wolf in loc., and to the more recent in Meyer in loc. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρ.] ‘subsisting in the form of God,’ ‘iirstandend τι. 5. 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 ὑπάρχων, not dv, is especially no- ticeable. In the following words, μορφὴ Θεοῦ, there is but little difficulty, if we adhere simply and honestly to the true lexical meaning of μορφή, and properly at- tend to the subsequent antithesis. With respect to μορφή [probably derived from bbs Cuap. II. 6. PHLILIPPLANS. δῦ Ld Ν [4 Γι \ 3 » “Ὁ yf ᾽ \ e Ν > 7 ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσωτο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, * ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν the Sanser. Varpas, ‘form,’ comp. Ben- fey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 309], we may first observe, that it is not perfectly ilen- tical with φύσις or οὐσία (Chrysost., al., Jackson, / c.), being in fact one of its two essential elements (see especially Aristot. de Animd, 11. 1), but designates ‘form,’ ‘appearance’ (/&th.), ‘likeness’ (Syr.), and may be compared with εἰκών, Col. i. 15, and χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, Heb. i. 3; compare Thomasius, /. ¢., p. 137. a v \ ε \ al yw ὑπερύψωσεν Και εἐχαρίισᾶτο αὐτῷ OVOLaA τὸ ὑπερ παν OVOLA, A # τὸ Wx sentence clearly require, —to γενόμενος ὑπήκ. The ὑπακοὴ 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, 6. g. ὑπήκουσεν ὡς vids, οὐχ ὡς δοῦλος, Theod., for see Rom. vi. 16, Col. iii. 22. As the derivation suggests, ὑπήκοος and ὑπακούειν involve the idea of “dicto obtemperare ;” πείϑεσϑαι is rather ‘monitasequi,’ πειϑαρχεῖν ‘coactus obse- qui;’ see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 193, and notes on Tit. iii. 1. On the apparent futility of distinctions between μέχρι (here not of time but degree) and ἄχρι, see on 2 Tim. ii. 9. ϑανάτου δὲ ot.] ‘yea death on the cross ;” not only death, but a death of suffering, shameful and accursed : οὗτος γὰρ [ὃ ϑάνατος] πάντων ἐπονειδιστικώτε- ρος εἶναι ἐδόκει, οὗτος ὃ αἰσχύνης γέμων, οὗτος 6 ἐπάρατος, Chrys. On the use of δὲ 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. 361, Hartung, Partik. δέ, 2. 7, Vol. 1. p- 168; and on the genitive (of ‘more “remote relation’), see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 168. 9. διὸ καί] * On which account also ;’ ‘in consequence of this condescension and humiliation on the part of Christ God also, ete. ;’ the καὶ not being merely consecutive (De W., Mey.), but stand- ing in connection with ὑπερύψ., and serv- ing to place in gentle contrast the conse- quent exaltation with the previous ταπεί- vwois; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, and notes on ch, iv. 12. The meaning of διό, ‘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, ib., p. 825: ὅταν τῆς σαρκὸς ἐπιλάβηται ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος πάντα λοιπὸν τὰ τα- πεινὰ μετὰ ἀδείας φϑέγγεται, Chrysost. in loc. On the humiliation of the Eternal Son see especia'ly Jackson, Creed, vi1t. 1. 2, and on the nature and deeree of His exaltation, Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. 1. p. 322 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). αὐτὸν irept ywoer] ‘highly exalted = Him ;’ Cuno p05 |, [multum exaltavit cum] Syr.; compare Psalm xcvi. 9, σφόδρα ὑπερυψώϑης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς Yeovs, Dan. iv. 34. The ὑπὲρ 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 Ethiopic, Copt. On St. Paul’s favorite use of ὑπὲρ and its compounds, see notes on Eph. iii. 20. The exact nature 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. 3. 4, Bull, Primit. Tradit. v1. 23. 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 1s appy. al- most a marked transition from the pre- incarnate to the incarnate Son, —as in ver. 10 this allusion seems still contin- ued in the name ’Incov, —so here the tenes 60 PE PEEP ANS: Craz Ii 10 10 “ b] lel > / "7. lal a , / > “ ‘ wa ἐν τῳ OVOLATL Ὥσου TAY γονυ κἀμψτῃ επουρανιὼν Kat reference is the same ; ὑπερυψοῦσϑαι λέ- γεται, καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἔχων, διὰ τὸ avdpdmwov μονονουχί, Hippolyt. Fragm. Vol. 11. p. 29 (ed. Fabr.}. The exaltation is thus a “τ ΡΝ 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 peverwanted;.sce 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. ΧΗ, jie 987: ἐχαρίσατο ‘freely gave;’ chap. i. 29. There is no reason whatever to depart from the sim- ple and proper lexical meaning of the word; εἰ δὲ λέγεται ἐν τάξει χαρίσματος τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα δέχεσϑαι, εἰς ἐκεῖνο δη- λονότι μετὰ σαρκὺς ἐπανάγεται, εἰς ὕπερ ἦν καὶ δίχα σαρκός, Cyr.-Alex. Thesaur. Ρ. 130. ‘a name the which is above every name ;’ a name, which, as the context shows, is not to ke understood generically (comp. Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4), as Κύριος (Mich.), or vids Θεοῦ, but specifically and ex- pressly as Ἰησοῦς, 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 κυριότης (ver. 11) is eternally conjoined. There is thus no reason whatever for modifying the sim- ple meaning of ὄνομα: 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 τὸ ὄνομα τὸ κι τ λ., with ABC; 17; Copt. [a lan- guage which has a definite and indefi- nite article], Dionisius-Alex., Euseb., ὄνομα κ. τ. λ.] Cyr. (3), ἃ]. ; 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 τό, 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. ἵν α x. τ. A.J ‘that in the name of Jesus ;’ purpose and intent of the exal- tation. Ἔν τῷ ὀνόμ. is not equivalent to eis τὸ ὄνομα (IIeinr.) as directly specify- ing that to which (/2th.) the adoration is to be paid, nor yet, ‘ad nomen,’ Beza (compare Auth.), ‘ nuncupato nomine,’ Grot.,—a meaning of ἐν ὀνόμ. 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. vy. 20, and Harless in loc., who well re- marks that τὸ ὄνομα κ. τ. 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. πᾶν γόνυ κι τ. Δ.] ‘every knee should bow;’ εἰς προσκύνησιν δηλονότι, CEcumen. ; genu- flection being the external representation of worship and adoration ; see Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11, Eph. iii. 14 and notes zn 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 δόξαν Θεοῦ), but, as the whole aspects of the passage, its Ὅν ΤΙΣ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχϑονίων, ΕΙΣ ΤΑΝ 5. 61 \ nr fol I καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται ὅτι Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός. clear contrasts, and its concluding theme, —the exaltation of the Son, —seem 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 yenera- 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. xvir. xvi11. Vol. 11. p. 421 sq. ἐπουρανίων 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,’ /Eth. (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 (καὶ of δίκαιοι [not καὶ of ζῶντες, as cited by Mey. and Alf.] καὶ of ἁμαρτωλοί, 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, Republ. vir1. p. 548 a, [ib.) Azioch. 368 8), and the departed under the earth ; ἐπουρανίους καλεῖ τὰς ἀοράτους δυνάμεις, ἐπιγείους δὲ τοὺς ἔτι ζῶντας ἂν- ϑιρώπους καὶ καταχϑονίους τοὺς τεῶνεῶτας ; compare Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. v1. 3, p. 854. The last class is referred by Chrys. 1, Theoph., and C&cum. to δαίμονες, 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 other jnter- 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,’ pst. 71; see Bingham, An- tig. Vol. 1x. p. 245 sq., Andrewes, Serm, 1x. Vol. 1. p. 884 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). ll. πᾶσα yA@ooa| ‘every tongue ;’ not metaphorically, πάντα τὰ evn, The- odoret, but simply and literally in ac- cordance with, and in expansion of, the preceding concrete expression πᾶν γόνυ ; ‘the knee is but a dumb acknowledg- ment, but a vocal confession that doth utter our mind plainly,’ Andrewes, Serm. Ix. Vol. 11. p. 8337, who, however, with his characteristic exhaustion of every possible meaning also notices the former, p- 339. ἐξομολογήσεται) ‘openly confess,’ “ diserte confiteatur ” [confitebitur], Beng.; the prep. not merely pointing to ‘exitum vocis ab ore,’ Van Hengel (comp. Andrewes, /. ¢.), 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, duo- λογία ; compare Acts xix. 18, ἐξομολο- γούμενοι καὶ ἀναγγέλλοντες Tas πράξεις, 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 yeliementer confi- the following clause. 02 Work out your salvation ; be peaceful and blameless, and give me cause to re- 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 ἵνα with a fut. see Winer, Gr. ὃ 41. 1. b, p. 258. Kvpios] Predi- cate put forward with especial emphasis ; the contrary, as Mey. observes, is ἀνάϑ- eua Ἰησοῦς, 1 Cor. xii. 3. This august title is not to be limited; it does not re- fer to a κυριότης 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 δόξαν k.7.A.] “to the glory of God the Father,’ depend- ent on ἐξομολ., not On ὅτι k.T.A.; 7.6. 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’ (Zth., comp. Beng.), is an untenable alteration of the more correct ‘in gloriam ’ [better ‘ad gloriam,’ see Hand, Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 317] of the Old Latin; so correctly Syr., Copt. (2). 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. PHILIPPIANS. Cnap. H,. 12, ff > / 2 "Note ἀγαπητοί μου, KaS@s πάντοτε ὑπη- , \ e > fol κούσατε, μὴ ὡς EV TH παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον, ἀλλὰ Il. p. 118: ὁρᾷς πανταχοῦ Stay 6 Tids δοξάζηται, τὸν Πατέρα δοξαζόμενον. Οὕτω ὅταν ἀτιμάζηται ὁ Ὑἱὸς 6 Πατὴρ ἁτιμάζεται, Chrys.,— true and wise words that it is well to bear in mind. We now pass on to a more easy paragraph. 12. ὥστ ε] ‘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, εἰς τοῦτο ἀφορῶντες Td παράδειγμα, Theodoret. In the union of ὥστε 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, Ler. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 1013: see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 776, and for examples, Winer, Gr. ὁ 41. 5. 1, p. 269. In such a case the correct transla- tion in Latin is not ‘igitur’ (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. vy. p. 1013), nor even per- haps ‘ proinde,’ Beza (which according to Heindorf = ‘ igitur cum exhortatione quadam ’), but ‘itaque,’ Vulg., this par- ticle being more correctly used of con- clusions naturally flowing from what has preceded (nerus realis), ‘igitur’ of con- clusions that are the result of pure ratio- cination (nexus logicus) ; see especially Hand, Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 187. καδὼς πάντοτε K.T.A.] ‘asye were always obedient :’ observe the latent par- allelism to ὑπήκοος γενόμ. y. 8. But to whom was the obedience shown? Not, as the context might at first sight seem to suggest, ‘ mihi,’ ZEth., Conyb., ‘ mihi ad salutem vos hortanti,’ Beng., but, as the more plausible connection of μὴ ὡς κι τ᾿ A. With the last clause seems to in- Cuapr. II. 12. PHIDPIPPRANS.. 63 A a rn ᾿ A 9 , \ / νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ μου μετὰ φόβου Kal τρόμου dicate, — ἴὸ the tacit subject of the ὑπα- ko} in ver. 8, 7. ὁ. 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 καϑώς, see notes on Gal. iii. 6. μὴ ὡς 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 κατέργ. (Grat., Zachm.), not with the preceding aor. ὕπηκ., ττ ἃ con- struction which would certainly seem to require οὐ (see Winer, Gr. § 55.1, p. 422), and would tend to obliterate the force of νῦν. The ὡς (though omitted by B; a few mss. ; Copt., A&th., al.) is certainly genuine, and not to be passed over in translation. The apostle does not con- tent himself with the simple precept, κα- Tepy: μὴ ev Tap. κ. TA, but also speci- fies the feeling and spirit with which they were to do it; ἢ. 6. 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. zn loc., who has well explained the force of this par- ticle.! The slight difficulty arises from two oppositions — πάντοτε — viv, παρου- gia — ἀπουσίᾳ being blended in a single enunciation. μετὰ φόβου κι τ. 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 in /oc.; compare also 1 Cor. ii. 8, 2 Cor. vii. 15, where the meaning is sub- _ stantially the same. The ‘fear’ is thus to be referred, not directly to God (νόμιζε παρεστάναι τὸν Θεόν, Chrys., Waterland, Works, Vol. v. p. 683), but only indi- rectly and inferentially ; the φόβος arose directly from a sense of the greatness of the work and the possibility of failure ; the τρόμος was the anxious solicitude which was naturally associated with it ; see Conyb. én 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. xv1. Vol. 1. p. 294, who, however, is here less precise and discriminating. τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρ.] ‘your own sal- vation τ᾿ 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 ἑαυτῶν = ἀλλήλων (compare Michaelis) is fairly refuted by Van Heng. in loc. κατεργάζεσϑ εἸ ‘ carry out,’ * peragite,’ Grot., ‘ perficite, perfec- tum reddite,’ Just. 2: compare Rom. vii. 18, Eph. vi. 13, and see notes in ἰο6., where the meanings of this verb are briefly noticed. The compound form does not imply the σπουδὴ or ἐπιμέλεια (Chrysost.), but the ‘ perseverantia’ that was to be shown, the intensive κατὰ in- dicating the carrying through of the ἔργον ; see Rost τι. Palm, Zer. s. v., and s. vy. κατά, tv. 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 “ complete,’ θά ῬΠΙΙΡΡῬΤΑΝΕ:. Cuap. II. 13. Nervi a r , % ar} Θ ‘ Ψ Ὁ ἘΞ 15 a THY EAVUTWYV TWTHPlLaV κατεργάζεσ' E εος γὰρ ἐστιν O EVEPY OV xviit. Vol. τ΄ p. 311 (edit. Hughes). 13. Θεὸς yap κ. τ. Χ.1 ‘for God is He who effectually worketh, ete.: yea, work and be not disheartened, for verily God is He who worketh within you. The γὰρ is not argumentative in reference to a suppressed thought, μὴ φόβου ὅτι εἶπον, μετὰ φόβ. καὶ τρόμου, Chrys., but explan- atory (sce 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 Θεὸς is justified by ABCD! FGK ; al., and is adopted by Zachm. and Tisch. ὁ évepyay] ‘ He iA who worketh effectually,’ Sao [-ῆ- 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. ἐνεργὸν εἶναι, ‘vim suam exercere ;’ comp. Po- lyb. Hist. 111. 6. 5, XVII. 14. 18, χα σαι. 1.11. When then Angustine urges in opposition to the Pelagian misinterpre- tation, ‘ Deus facit ut faciamus, praebendo 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- εργεῖν is used several times in Polybius, see Schweigh. Ler. 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. ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘in you,’ 1. 6. 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. καὶ τὸ ϑέλειν κι τ. λ.] ‘both to will and to do,’ as much the one as the other. Observe especially the use of the more emphatic enumeration cal—ral; the SéAew no less than the ἐνεργεῖν is a direct result of the divine ἐνέργεια ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 4, p. 389, notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. Of these the first (τὸ ϑέλειν) is due to the inwork- ing influence of sanctifying grace (Wa- terl. Serm. xxv. Vol. v. p. 688), or, to speak more precisely, of gratia preveni- 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 ἐνεργεῖν) 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. zn loc., ἂν δελήσῃς, τότε ἐνεργήσει τὸ δέλειν, might thus seem open to exception if the ϑελήσῃς is to be referred to a ‘dispositio przvia;’ 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 loc., 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 Cuar. II. 18, 14. PHILIPPIANS. 65 , ig r \ \ Ss / ‘ \ ’ lal Cy \ a , [2 14 ᾽ ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ ϑέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας. πάντα the repetition of the word ἐνεργεῖν, (pre- seryed correctly by Claroman., Coptic, but not Syr., Vulg.), rather than κατερ- γάζεσϑαι, is due to the fact that it ex- presses more exactly the inward ability showing itself in action, and is thus more suitable in connection with ϑέλειν. 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. εὐδοκ.] ‘of His good pleasure,’ i. 6. in fulfilment of, to carry it out and satisfy it; διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην, διὰ τὴν ἀρεσκείαν ad- τοῦ, Chrys. The prep. ὑπὲρ here seems to approach in meaning κατά (Eph. i. 5), or διά (Eph. ii. 4), but may still be clearly distinguished from either. It does not represent the εὐδοκία 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 εὐδοκία was that which the action was designed to subserve ; comp. Rom. xy. 8, John xi. 4, where however the primary meaning of ὑπὲρ is less obscured: see Winer, Gr. § 47.1, p. 343, and com- pare Rost τι. Palm, Lex. s. v. ὑπέρ, 2, Vol. 11. p. 2067. Εὐδοκία 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 ϑέλειν (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 Vv., opposed to it. On the meaning of εὐδοκία, see notes on Eph. i. 5, and compare Andrewes, Serm. x111. 9 « A “ ὑπερ τῆ" Vol. 1. p. 259 (A.-C. Libr.). 14. πάντα] ‘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. γογγυσμῶν) “murmurings 7 compare 1 Pet. iv. 5, ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ : here apparently against God, 6 γογγύζων ἀχαριστεῖ τῷ Θεῷ, Chrys. ; not, against one another, Wie- singer (‘placide se gerant inter homi- nes,’ Caly.),— 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) γογγυσμ. 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 γογγύζω and γογγυσμὸς [per- haps derived from the Sanser. guy, ‘ to murmur,’ Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 62] are said to be Ionic, the Attic forms being τονϑορύζω and τονϑορυσμός ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 858, compare Thom. M. p. 856 (ed. Bern.). On the alleged but doubtful distinction between ἄνευ and χωρίς, see notes on Eph. ii. 12. διαλογισμῶν] ‘doubtings, ‘hesita- tionibus,’ Vulg., /Ethiop. [dubitatione], Copt. [cogitationibus],— not ‘ detracta- > tionibus,’ Clarom., or ts | divis- ione], a meaning not found in the N. T., and apparently not supported by any good lexical authority ; see especially notes on 1 Tim. i. 8, where this word is briefly noticed. Alford urges the use of διαλογίζω [read -i¢oua] in Mark ix. 33, 00 PHILIPRIANS. Cuap. II. 15. a \ a \ ὃ A 15 “ LA ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισμῶν, ἵνα γένησϑε 34; but even there the idea is ‘discus- sion,’ rather than ‘ dispute’ or ‘ conten- tion:’ comp. Xenoph. Mem., 111. 5. 1. 15. ἵνα x. τ. λ.] Object and aim, not ‘incitamentum ἡ (Wan 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 (ἄμεμ- πτοι) and be inwardly characterized by (ἀκέρ.) rectitude and holiness, and so be- come examples to an evil world around them. When Alford urges against the internal reference of διαλ. that the object is outward,—blamelessness and good example, he suppresses the direct inter- nal object ἀκέραιοι (suitably answering to χωρὶς διαλ.), and makes the apposition- ally stated, and more indirect object, — the good.example, primary and direct. The reading is very doubtful; Lachkm. reads ἦτε with AD EJFG; 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. ἀκέραιοι) ‘pure, ‘simplices,’ Vulg., th., ‘ sinceres[i],’ Clarom.; not ‘harmless,’ Auth., Alf., —a meaning not recognized by the best ancient Vy., and neither in harmony with the derivation and lexical meaning of the word (6 μὴ κεκραμένος κακοῖς, ἄλλ᾽ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ἀποίκιλος, Etymol. M.), nor substantiated by its use in the N. T.: see Matth. x. 16, ἀκέραιοι ὡς αἱ περιστε- pal, Rom. xvi. 19, ἀκεραίους eis τὸ κακόν ; in the former of which passages it stands in a species of antithesis to φρόνιμος, in the latter to σοφός ; compare Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. Ὁ. 154, Krebs. Obs. p- 331, and for the distinction between ἀκέρ., ἁπλοῦς, and ἄκακος, Tittm. Synon. Ie (pears τέκνα Θεοῦ κι t.2,.] ‘irreproachable, unblamable, chil- dren of God |by virtue of the υἱοϑεσία, Rom. viii. 15, 23] in the midst,’ ete. ; 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, τέκνα μωμητά, γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη. ᾿Αμώμητος [Lachm. ἅμωμα, with ABC ; 2 mss.; but an apparent al- teration] is a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T., here and 2 Pet. iii. 14 (Zachm., Tisch.), compare Hom. J/.,x11, 109; and, as de- rivation and termination suggest, ap- pears but little different from ἄμεμπτος, except as perhaps approaching nearer to ἄμωμος (Hesych. auduntos: &uwpos), and expressing not merely the unblamed (Xen. Ages. vi. 8), but non-blamewor- thy state of the τέκνα ; compare Adsch. Sept. 508, and see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 29. The reading μέσον (adverbially used, Winer, Gr. ὁ 54. 6), with ABCD!IFG (Lachm., Tisch.), has the weight of uncial authority as well as critical probability in its favor. σκολιᾶς Kal διεστρ.] ‘crooked and perverted,’ in reference to their moral obliquity and their distorted spiritual growth ; compare Deut. xxxii. 5. Σκο- Aids, allied probably to σκέλος, σκελλός, and σκαίρειν [Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. τ. 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 ili. 5, and twice, as here, in an ethical sense, Acts ii. 40, 1 Peter ii. 18. Ateorp. 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. ἐν ois] ‘among whom,’— in reference to the persons of which the γενεὰ was com- posed; comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 4. b, p. παρ. 11. 15, 16. Proiuie rt POON §. 67 , , lal ᾽ / , a a ἄμεμπτοι Kal ἀκέραιοι, τέκνα Θεοῦ ἀμώμητα μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς ‘\ / b / ig a > ‘ καὶ διεστραμμένης, ἐν ols daiverSe ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ, 10 Ai ΄ a > 4 7 , ᾽ \ > id , 5 Ὁ Lal oyov ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες, εἰς καύχημα ἐμοὶ εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, 457: so, somewhat similarly, Gal. ii. 2. φαίνεσδ εἾ ‘yeappear, are seen;’ not “lucetis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Wordsw., al., which would require the active φαίνετε, John i. 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? sce examples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 11. 1. b. The verb is indicative (Vulg., Copt., AZth.), 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. φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ) heavenly lights in the world ;’ ἐν κόσμ. be- ing closely joined with gwar. as its secon- dary predicate (Vulg. and all Vv.), not with φαίνεσϑδε (De W.), which would thus haye two prepositional adjuncts. To illustrate the meaning of φωστ. com- pare Rey. xxi. 11, Gen. i. 14, 16, Ec- clus. xliii. 7 (applied to the moon), Wis- dom xiii. 2, and for the different uses of κόσμος, 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 φαίνεσϑε, and the tenor of the context. 16. ἐπέχοντες κ. τ. A.] ‘seeing ye hold forth (are the ministers of ) the word of life:’ further and explanatory defini- tion of the preceding, the participle hay- inga slightly causal force. The meaning of éréx. is somewhat doubtful. It cer- tainly cannot be for προσέχοντες, Theod., as this would require a dat. ; it may, how- ‘ luminaries, ever, be either (a) occupantes, comp. Syr. > > > = χα Asopo (Oo «59. 2]; [ut sitis illis loco salutis], and thence, with a modification of meaning, ‘ conti- nentes,’ Vulg., Claroman, ‘ tenentes,’ Copt. (22th. paraphrases), κατέχοντες, Chrys., ἔχοντες, Theoph., Cicum ,— a translation that has certainly a lexical basis (see examples in Rost u. Palm, Ler. s. y.1. Ὁ, Vol. 1. p. 1029) and is far too hastily condemned by Van Heng. and Wiesing.; (8) pratendentes, ‘ Beza, Auth., ‘doctrinam spectandam praben- 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 eractly 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 λόγος ζωῆς is the gospel, ζωῆς being a species of gen. of the content, τὴν aid- νιον προξενεῖ ζωήν, Theod.: comp. John vi. 68, and notes on Eph. i. 13. eis καύχημα] ‘to form a ground of boasting for me;’ result, on the side of St. Paul, of his converts becoming ἄμεμ- πτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι: τοσαύτη ὑμῶν ἣ ἀρετή, ὡς μὴ ὑμᾶς σώζειν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμὲ λαμπρὸν ποιεῖν, Chrys.; comp. 2 Cor. i. 14. eis ἡμέραν 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 PRE ee TANS: Cuap. IT. 17, 18. e > » ‘ eS ὑδὲ » \ ’ ͵ὔ abe ,’ A ’ 4 OTL οὐκ εἰς KEVOY EOPAJLOV OVOE εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπίασα. ἀλλα εἰ καὶ , LN A , \ / a / ς lal 7 σπένδομαι Επῖὺ ΤῊ) Ὁ νσίᾳ Kab λειτουργίᾳ Τῆς" TLOTEWS υμων, χαίρω \ a a καὶ συνχαίρω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν: 1 συνχαίρετέ μοι. pression ἡμέρα Xp., see notes on ch. i. 6. ἔδραμον, ἐκοπίασα] Thesame idea of ministerial activity presented in two different forms of expression, the one fig- urative, from the stadiam (comp. Gal. ii. 2, 2 Tim. iv. 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 εἰς κενόν, Heb. pad, Job xxxix. 16 (comp. εἰς καλόν, εἰς κοι- νόν, Bernhardy, Synt. v. 11, p. 221), see ον 1 (ΟἿ 11: 9. 1 ΠΡ Θ55: τ: ἢ, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 275. 17. ἀλλὰ κ. τ. λ.] ‘ 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. ᾿Αλλά, with its primary and proper force (‘ alind jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2), has no reference to a suppressed thought (οὐ κ ἐκοπ. εἰς κέν., Rill.), but presents the contrary al- ternative to that already implicitly ex- pressed. The preceding words eis καύ- χημα might seem to imply the exvecta- tion, on the part of the apostle, of a /iv- ing fruition in the Christian progress (ἵνα γεν. ἄμεμπτ.) 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 ἡμέρα Xp. (Van Heng.) improbable, as εἰς Nu. Xp. is only a subordinate thought to the general idea implied in eis καύχημα ἐμοί. εἰ καὶ τηιιδῦ not be confounded with καὶ εἰ (Scholef. ints, 8, ὃ; ΠΡῚΝ ΝΑ \ TO QUTO καὶ υμεις χαίρετε Καὶ p- 106), but, in accordance with the po- sition of the ascensive καί, marks a more probable supposition ; the καὶ in the for- mer case being referred to the consequent words (ets? or st etiam), but in the latter merely to the preceding condiiion (etiam si). Contrast Soph. (Μὰ. Rex, 302, εἰ καὶ μὴ βλέπεις φρονεῖς δ᾽ buws, or ib. 304, εἰ καὶ μὴ κλύεις, with /Esch. Choeph. 296, Kei μὴ πέποιϑα, τοὔργον ἐστ᾽ ἐργαστέον, and see especially Herm. Viger, No. 307, from which these examples are taken ; see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 519, Hartung, Partik. καί, 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 καὶ εἰ is very rare in St. Paul; ap- apparently only in 2 Cor. xiii. 4 (Rec., Tisch.), if indeed the reading be consid- ered genuine ; comp. Gal. i. 8. σπένδομαι, ‘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 ἐπισ- πένδ. (Herod. 11. 39, rv. 62, Plut. Popl. § 4, al.), or κατασπένδ. (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- ially notes on 2 Tim. 1. c., Suicer, The- saur. Vol. 11. p. 993, and the good note Cnap. II. 19. I hope tosend my unselfish son in the faith, Timothy, and to come myself. of Wordsworth in loc. ἐπὶ τῇ ϑυσίᾳ κ. τ. Χ.}] ‘unto the sacrifice and (priestly) service of your faith.’ The ex- act meaning of ϑυσίᾳ is somewhat doubt- ful. There is certainly no ἐν διὰ δυοῖν (comp. Conyb.), but it may be doubted whether the use of the single article does not so connect due. and Aet., that both may specify acts of which πίστ. 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. [7 for comp. John xvi. 2], ZEth., and thus far Chrys. and Theod., to retain the simple meaning of ϑυσ. and to regard πίστεως 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 ϑυσία, then, is the sacri- fice, the Aer. the act of offering it by the apostle (Bisp.), and the object both of one and the other (in slightly different relations) the πίστις of the Philippians. Ἐπὶ will thus be, not simply temporal, ‘wahrend,’ Meyer, nor simply ethical, ‘ propter,’ or ‘in sacrificium,’ /Zth., but will imply ‘addition,’ ‘ accession to’ (Matth. xxv. 20), and will point to the σπένδ. as the concomitant act; see esp. Arrian, Alex. νι. 19.5, σπείσας ἐπὶ τῇ ϑυσίᾳ, 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- chieol. § 378), but around the altar; see Joseph. Antig. 111. 9. 4, and notes on 2 Tim. iv. 5. συνχὴ ‘Lrejoice, and jointly rejoice with you all ;’ I rejoice absolutely (not ἐπὶ τῇ ϑυσ. xatp. Chrys.), 7. 6. on account of my probable σπένδεσϑαι, and do herein χαίρω καὶ PHILIPPIANS. 69 2 / \ fal ΄ 19 ᾿Ελπίζω δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ TipdSeov , , ig a icf ᾽ \ ᾽ a \ ταχέως πέμψαι ὑμῖν, Wa κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ γνοὺς participate in rejoicing with you all: my joy is not altered on the supposition of my death. Zuvxalpw is not ‘ congratu- lator,’ Vulg..—a meaning which the verb apparently may have in classical (Esch. de Fals. Leg. p. 34), as well as post-classical writers (Polyb. /Zist. xx1rx. > 7. 4),—but ‘simul gaudeo,’ Coptic, v n~ bob 703 [exulto cum] Syr., Ath. (1), σ the meaning which συνχ. 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. τὸ δ᾽ αὐτό] ‘yea, on the same account ;’ not ‘in like manner,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 106, but the simple pronomi- nal accus. after χαίρω ; compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 5.9. Meyer reads αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ‘hoc ipsum,’ apparently by an oversight, as there is here no difference χαίρετε καὶ ᾿ not of reading. συνχ.} ‘rejoice and jointly rejoice ; 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 συνχαίρειν, he em- phatically repeats in a retiprocal form (καὶ ju.) what he had implied in the pre- ceding verse,— that they were indeed to rejoice in this seemingly mournful alter- native. 19. ἐλπίζω dé] ‘yet I hope;’ the op- positive δὲ suggests that the σπένδ. above mentioned was not necessarily consid- ered either as certain or immediate. This hope was ἐν Κυρίῳ, it rested and was cen- tred in Him, it arose from no extraneous feclings or expectations, and so would doubtless be fulfilled, ϑαῤῥῶ ὅτι ἑξευμαρί- get μοι 6 Θεὸς τοῦτο, Clirys.; see notes 70 PHILIP PIANS. Cuap. II. 20, 21, \ Ne. fal 90 >) \ ” > , (a J δὴ τῶ περὶ ὑμῶν. οὐδενα γὰρ ἔχω ἰσόοψυχον, ὅστις γνησίως τῷ περὶ ὑμῶν μεριμνήσει: 31 οἱ πάντες γὰρ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, οὐ on Ephes. iv. 17, vi. 1. ὑμῖν] ‘to you,’ not “ unto you’ in the sense of πρὸς ὑμᾶς,--- local usage of the dative too broadly denied by Alf. (see Winer, Gr. ὁ 31. 5, p. 192; compare Hartung, Cusus, 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. Kayo εὐψυχῶ] “1 also (I the sender as well as you the receivers) may be of good heart.’ Εὐψυχ. is an ἅπ. Aeyou. in the N. T., but is occasionally found elsewhere, compare Poll. Onom. 111. 28: the subst. εὐψυχία (Polyb. 1. 57. 2, 11. 55. 4, al.) and the ady. εὐψύχως (Polyb. x. 39. 2, al., Jo- seph. Ant. vit. 6. 2) are sufficiently com- mon. ‘The use of the verb in the imper- ative as a kind of epitaph is noticed by Rost τι. Palm, Lez. 5. v.; Jacobs, Anth. Pal, p. 939. 20. γάρ] Reason for sending Timo- thy in preference to any one else: Τιμό- Seov πέμπεις ; τί δήποτε; Nal, φησίν, ov- δένα yap kK. T.A., Chrys. ἰσόψυχον] ‘like-minded,’ 7. e., with myself, ἐμοίως ἐμοὶ κηδόμενον ὑμῶν καὶ φροντίζοντα, Chrysostom ; compare Syr. A A -..... 2]: [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 ἰσότης to the subject of the sentence, with the apostle. On the distinction between ἰσόψ. ‘ qui eodem modo est animatus,’ and σύμψυ- xos, ‘qui idem sentit, unanimis,’ see Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 67. The word is an &. Aeydu. in the N. T., but is found occasionally elsewhere, both in classical (Esch. Agam. 1479), and post-classical, Greek (Psalm liv. 13); comp. ἰσοψύχως, Eustath. on Ill. x1. p. 764. ? not ‘quippe qui,’ but ‘ita comparatus ut,’ Mey., ‘ of that kind, who,’ Alf., with reference to the ποιότης of the antecedent (οὐδεὶς τοιοῦτός ἐστιν, 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 ὅστις is briefly but satisfactorily explained. γνησίως μεριμνήσει ‘ 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; γνησίως, τουτέστι πατρικῶς ; compare 1 Tim. i. 2, and see notes in loc. Mepmvay 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 περί), ch. xii. 25 (absolutely),—and agreeably to its probable derivation and affinities, μερμη- ρίζω, μέρμερος [Sanscr. smri,— " memi- nisse,’ ‘anxium esse,’ Benfey, Wurzel- lex. Vol. 11. p. 32, Donalds. Craty/. § 410] denotes anxious thought, solici- tude, ‘ ita curare ut solicitus sis’ (comp. Luke x. 41), differing in this respect from the simpler φροντίζειν ; see Tittm. Synon. τ. p. 187. The future is not eth- ical, but points to the time when Timo- thy should come to them. Batis] ‘who; 21. of πάντες γάρ] ‘forall the rest (now with me) ;’ not ‘plerique,’ Wolf, but ‘omnes quos nunc habeo mecum,’ Van Heng., the article, apparently spec- ifying the whole umber 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 πᾶς, see Krii- ger, Sprachl. § 50. 11. 12, compare Bern- hardy, Synt. v1. 24, p. 320, and Rose, Cnar. II. 22-24. 99 —_ τὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. PRILTRERIANS. 71 \ \ \ > lo) Δ er . τὴν δὲ δοκιμὴν αὐτοῦ γινώσκετε, ὅτι ὡς \ / \ > x 25 , 3 Ἂς > f 93 a TATpPl τέκνον συν ἐμου € OUNEUGEV εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον" “ TOUTOV \ Ss ᾿ / , e Xn > ὃ \ ἌΝ Μ᾽ ἢ - μὲν οὖν ἐλπίζω πέμψραι, ὡς av ἀφίδω τὰ περὶ ἐμέ, ἐξαυτῆς. 24 πέ- moa δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ἐλεύσομαι. 21. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So Lachmann, with ACDEFG; mss.; many Vy.; Lat. Ff. (Griesb., Scholz; Rec. inserts tod). 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 πᾶς (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. zn loc. τὰ ἑαυτῶν)]Ἱ ‘their own things,’ not specially τὴν οἰκείαν ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ τὺ ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ εἶναι, Chrys., followed by The- oph. and Cscum., 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. τὴν δὲ , δοκιμήν] ‘But his tried character ;’ contrast of the charac- ter of Timothy with that of the of πάντες. δίς Δοκιμή, Lecoas [probatio] Syr., ‘ex- perimentum,’ Vulg., here and Rom. vy. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, by a very easy gradation of meaning points to the indo- les spectata,’ Fritz. (om. v. 4, Vol. 1. p- 259), ‘indoles,’ Ath, [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. l- 4 with ver. 12. The use of δοκιμὴ in the N. T. is confined to St. Paul’s Epistles; compare Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 229. γινώσκετε) ‘ye know;’ indicative, as Syr., Clarom., Copt., /ith., 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 ; καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἁπλῶς λέγω, ὑμεῖς, φη- σίν, αὐτοὶ ἐπίστασϑε, ὅτι κ. T.A., Chrys. ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον] ‘as a child toa 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, Gr. § 650. 1, 2, Krii- ger, Spracil. § 68. 9.2. Mey. and Alf. deny unrestrictedly an omission of the prep. in the first member, but see Alsch. Suppl. 313, Eurip. Hel. 872, and Jelf, Gr. § 650. 3, The construction affords an example of what is termed ‘oratio variata :’ the apostle, feeling that ἐδού- Aevoev was scarcely suitable in connec- tion with πατρὶ and τέκνον. proceeds with the comparison in a slightly changed form ; ἐδούλευσεν,--- ποῦ ἐμοί, as the con- struction might seem to require (Rom. xvi. 18), but σὺν ἐμοί, as the nature of the relation suggested; see Winer, Gr. § 63. 11. 1, p. 509. εὐαγγέλιον] ‘for the gospel ;’ not ‘in the gospel,’ Auth., Syr., ‘in the doctrine of the gospel,’ /£th., but ‘in evange- , > . ers αὐ; ""ῶ 4 Epaphroditus, your mes- senger, who has been griev- ous!y sick, and has risked his life for me, I send back, that you may rejoice. lium,’ Vulg., ἡ, e. to further the cause of the gospel; the preposition εἰς with its usual force denoting the object and des- tination of the action ; compare Luke vy. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer, Gr. § 49. a, Ρ. 354. 23. τοῦτον μὲν οὖν] ‘Him then;’ the μὲν being antithetical to δέ, ver. 24, and the retrospective ody continuing and concluding the subject of the mission of On this force of ody see notes ὡς ἂν Timothy. on Gal. iii. 5. ἀ φίδ ὠἹ] ‘whensoever I shall have seen (the issue of ) ;’ in effect, ‘so soon as I shall have, or have seen, etc.,’ Auth., ὅταν ἴδω ἐν τίνι ἕστηκα, 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. ἄν, 11. 11, p. 120, and on the tempo- ral use of ὡς, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 759. The remark of Eustathius (Ὁ. 1214, 40) is very pertinent, ὅτι δέ ἐστί τις καὶ XpoviKh ποτε σημασία, φαίνεται ἐν ἐπιστολῇ τοῦ βασιλέως ᾿Αντιόχου, οἷον, ὡς ἂν οὖν λάβῃς τὴν ἐπιστολήν, σύνταξον κήρυγμα ποιήσασϑαι, ἤγουν ἡνίκα λάβῃς. He wou!d, however, have been more cor- rect if he had said ἡνίκ᾽ ἄν, see Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. Vol. 1. p. 773. In the compound form ἀφίδ. 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. v111. 37 ; compare ἀποϑεᾶσϑαι, ἀποσκοπεῖν, al., and especially Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 11. The change from the tenuis to the ΓΤ ΕΑΝ: Cuap. IT. 25. » a \ /, ’ Ud % ᾿Αναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην ᾿Επαφρόδιτον x J) \ \ ‘\ \ ee τὸν ἀδελφὸν Kal συνεργὸν καὶ συνστρατιώτην r \ nr μου, ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον Kal λειτουργὸν τῆς aspirate (with AB!ID1IFGN ; 17, Zacihm., Tisch.) is ascribed by Winer (Gr. § 5. 1, p. 43) to the pronunciation of ἰδεῖν with a digamma; comp. Acts iy. 29 (Zachm., Tisch.). τὰ περὶ ἐμέ] ‘the things pertaining to me ;’ ποῖ identi- cal with τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ (ch. i. 12), but with a faint idea of motion (occupation about, Acts xix. 25), in ref. to their issue and development; 7. 6. how they will turn, what issues they will have; ποῖον ἕξει τέλος, Chrys., ἐὰν τέλεον λάβῃ λύσιν τὰ δυσχερῆ, Theod. The form ἐξαυτῆς, se. τῆς Spas, ‘illico,’ “6 vestigio’” (παραυτίκα, Hesych., evSéws, Suid.), occurs in Mark vi. 25, Acts x. a3, al: 24. mémoid. ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘am con- Jident in the Lord ;’ He is the sphere of my confidence; see notes on ver. 19, and on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. καὶ αὐτός] ‘I myself also;’ the καὶ implying that besides sending Timothy to them, the apostle hoped himself to come in person. The ταχέως, as Meyer remarks, must, as in yer. 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 ἐξαυτῆς, ‘forthwith ;” his own visit he had good confidence would be ταχέως, 7. 6. no long interval after. 25. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἡ γησ.] ‘yt 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 6¢. On the use b) Cnar. II. 26. χρείας μου, πέμψαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, of the epistolary aorist (still more ex- pressly ver. 28), see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5, b. 2, p. 249. Ἐπαφρόδιτον] 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. 1. 1, al., see Wetst. in lJoc.),—as Epa- phras was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12),— and as the alms of the European city of Philippi would hardly have been com- mitted to the member of a church so re- mote from it as the Asiatic Colossx, it seems natural to regard them as different persons. For the necessarily scanty Jit- erature on the subject, see Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Epaphras,’ Vol. 1. p. 330. τὸν ἀδελφὸν x.7.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 συνστρατ. compare 2 Tim. ii. 3, and notes zn Joe. ὑμῶν δὲ «.7.A.] ‘but your messenger and minister to my need ;’ secular and ad- ministrative relation in which Epaph. stood to the Philippians. ᾿Απόστολον is here used in its simple etymological sense, not ‘ apostolum,’ Vulg., Clarom., τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ὑμῶν ἐμπεπιστευμένον, Theod., Chrys. 2 (comp. Taylor, Lpise. § 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. Λειτουργὸν (Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16) is used in its general and wider sense of ‘ minis- ter’ in ref. to the office undertaken by Epaphr. ὡς τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀποσταλέντα κο- μίσαντα χρήματα, Theod. On the yari- 10 PHILIPPIANS. 73 30 ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποδῶν ἣν πάντας ous meanings of Aer. see Suicer, The- saur. 8. v. Vol. 11. p. 222. The connection is not perfectly certain, but on the whole it seems most natural to connect ὑμῶν with this as well as with the preceding subst., comp, ver. 30: so Scholef. Hints, p. 106; contr. De Wette (comp. /&th.), who, however, urges no satisfactory reason for the separation. πέμψαι) Itwas really ἀναπέμψαι, 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. ἐπειδὴ x. τ. A.] Reason for the ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην. ‘The conjunction ἐπειδή, ‘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 ἐπεί, that it also involves 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 oceur- rence or realization of another; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 548, Hartung, Partik. δή, 8. 8, Vol.1.p. 259. It is not of frequent occurrence in the N, T.; in St. Paul only, 1 Cor. i. 21, 22, xiv. 16, Ξε νει ΟΝ ἐπιποδῶν ἢν] ‘he was longing after you all” On this use of pres. part. with the auxiliary verb, to denote the duration of a state (less commonly in ref. te an action), see Wi- ner, Gram. ὃ 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 ἐπὶ in émirod., sce notes on 2 Tim. i. 4. ἀδημονῶν)] ‘in heaviness ;’ see Matth. xxvi. 27, λυ- 74 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. II. 27, 28, e κ ‘ > - id ’ 7 er 5 4 . 27 \ A ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἀδημονῶν, διότι ἠκούσατε OTL ἠσδένησεν. καὶ γὰρ » t , ΄ πος ΝΠ Ὁ \ 7 Ἂ ΡΟΣ ἠσϑένησεν παραπλήσιον YavdTw* ἀλλὰ ὁ Θεὸς ἠλέησεν αὐτόν, > > ‘ \ , 5 \ Ἄν Pe CF A ἂν > \ 7 -“ οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ, ἵνα μὴ λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην σχῶ. 28 πεῖσϑαι καὶ ἄδημ., Mark xiv. 33, ἐκῶαμ- βεῖσϑαι καὶ ἀδημ. This somewhat pe- culiar verb is explained by Buttmann (Lexil. § 6.13) as properly denoting ‘great perplexity (tym. 1. ἀλύειν καὶ ἀπορεῖν, ἀμηχανεῖν, Hesychius, ἀγωνιᾶν) 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, δῆμος ; comp. ἀδημεῖν, and see Symm., Eccles. vii. 16, where the LXX. have ἐκπλαγῇς. How the Phi- lippians heard of this, and why Epaphr. was especially so grieved, is not ex- plained. 27. καὶ yap had.) ‘For he really was sick ;’ the report you heard was true. In this formula the καὶ 15 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, ‘nam etiam,’ as here; see Klotz, Devar, Vol. 11. p. 642, Hartung, Parti. καί, 8.1, 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 καὶ δέ, 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. παραπλήσιον ϑανάτῳ) ‘like unto death.’ There is here neither solecism (Van Heng.) nor brachyology (De W.). Παραπλ. is the adverbial neuter (Polyb. 111. 33.17, with dat.; rv. 40. 10, abso- lutely ; comp. Herod. rv. 99), and like the more usual form παραπλησίως (Plato, Pheer. p. 255 Ἐ) is associated with the regular dative of ‘ likeness or similarity ;’ , > ” > , “ 50." Sirs , σπουδαιοτέρως οὖν ἔπεμψα αὐτόν, ἵνα ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48.13. 8, Jelf, Gr. § 594, 2, and the numerous exx. in Rost u. Palm, Ler. 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 μέχρι ϑανάτου ἤγγισεν, ver. 30, πλήσιον ἀφίκετο Savdrov, Galen in Hippocr. Epid. τ. (cited by Wetst.), but the mode of expression is different. λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην] upon sorrow ;᾿ λύπη arising from the death of Epaphr. in addition to the λύπη of my own captivity, Bisp.; not as Chrys. τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς τελευτῆς ἐπὶ τῇ διὰ τὴν ἀῤῥωστίαν γενομένην αὐτῷ, for, as Meyer justly observes, this would be clearly inconsistent with ἀλυπότερος, ver. 28. Ifthe second λύπῃ 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, ἄλυπος. The read- ing of the text is supported by ABCDE FGL; major. of mss. (Zach., Tisch.), and differs only from the more usual ἐπὶ λύπῃ (Rec. with K ; Chrys., Theod.) in imply- ing motion in the accumulation ; comp. Psalm Ixviii. 27, Isaiah xxviii. 10, Ezek. vii. 26. ox | The subjunc- tive is here appropriately used after the preterite 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. omovdatorépws| ‘more dil gently than I should have done if ye had ‘sorrow coming Cuap. II. 29. PHILIP PLIANS. 75 χαρῆτε κἀγὼ ἀλυπότερος ὦ. 39 προσδέχεσϑε οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν Κυρίῳ 80. ἔργον τοῦ Xp.] So Rec. with DEKL; al. (Zachm, with BFG; al., om. τοῦ). Tisch. omits tod Xp. only with C,—certainly insufficient authcrity. mapaBodevoduevos] The reading is doubtful. tec. and Tisch. read παραβουλευ- σάμενος with CKL; most mss.; Chrys., Theod., al. ; the meaning of which would be ‘quum male consuluisset;’ comp. Copt., ‘parabouleusthe’ [cited by Tisch. and Vy Alf. for the other reading]; Syr. ~£2 [sprevit], Goth. ‘ufarmunnonds’ [oblivis- cens], all of which seem in favor of παραβουλ. On the contrary, the form mapaBoa. is adopted by Griesb., Lachm., and most modern editors with ABDEFGS; Clarom., Vulg., Aug., ZEth. (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. lii. 14 (notes), 2 Tim. i. 17 (notes), and see Winer, Gr. § 35. 4, p. 217. πάλιν may be connected with ἰδόντες (Beza, Auth.), but is more naturally re- ferred to χαρῆτε (Vulg., Luth.), it being the habit of St. Paul to place πάλιν be- fore the verb, wherever the structure of the sentence will permit; contrast 2 Cor. x. 7, Gal. iv. 9, v.3. 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, Deitrdge, p. 491 sq. ἀλυπότεροϑ»5]) ‘less sorrowful :’ the joy felt by the Philippi- ans will mitigate the sorrow (in his con- finement) of the sympathizing apostle ; ἐὰν ὑμεῖς χαίρητε, κἀγὼ χαίρω, Chrysost. The word ἀλυπ. is an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. T.; in classical writers it is oceasion- ally found in a transitive sense ; comp. ἄλυπος οἶνος, Athen. 1. 29. 29. προσδέχεσϑε οὖν] “ Receive him then ;’ in accordance with my inten- tion in sending him (ἵνα κ. τ. Χ.). The οὖν here perliaps 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 οὖν (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. ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘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. πάσης" xapas| ‘all joy,’ ‘every form of it,’ not ‘summa letitia,?’ 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 mas seems made clearly apparent by the plural forms of the associated abstract accusa- tives. τοὺς τοιούτ. 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 τοιοῦτος to denote a known individ- ual or a whole class of such, see Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem.1. 5. 2, and notes on fal. v.21. The formula ἔντιμον ἔχειν, though not without parallel in classical Greck, 6. 4. ἐντιμ. ἡγεῖσϑαι (Plato, Phaed. p- 64 D), ποιεῖν, al., is more usually ex- τὸ PHILIPPIANS. Cnap. II. 30. \ ΄ “ \ \ , 5 ΄ », 20 “ ὃ \ \ μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε, * OTL διὰ TO ἔργον τοῦ Χριστοῦ μέχρι Savdtov ἤγγισεν παραβολευσάμενος τῇ ψυχῇ, ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρός με λειτουρ- γίας. pressed with the adverb, e.g. ἐντιμῶς ἔχειν, ἄγειν, compare Plato, Pepubl. ναι. p- 528 B, VIII. p. 548 A. 30. διὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Xp.| 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; εἰκὸς οὖν παντὸς καταφρονῆσαι κινδύνου, ὥστε προσελϑεῖν καὶ ὑπηρετή- σασϑαι, Chrys. The foregoing mention, however, of his sickness, and the subse- quent statement of the object contem- plated by the τὸ παράβολον 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. Τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Xp. is thus not τὸ evayy. Baumg.-Crus. (compare Rill.), but the service which, by being rendered immediately to the apostle, became im- mediately rendered to Christ. μέχρι Savdrov| ‘up todeath;’ ex- tent of the danger; compare Job xxxii. 2, ἤγγισε εἰς ϑάνατον ἣ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, Isai. XXXVili. 1, ἐμαλακίσϑη ἕως ϑανάτου ; and still more expressly, 4 Macc. 7, μέχρι Savdtov τὰς βασάνους ὑπομεινάντας, and Polyzn. Strategem. p. 666 (Wetstein), μέχρι Savdrov μαχοῦνται. On the force of μέχρι and ἄχρι, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 4h mapaBor. TH ψυχῇ] ‘having risked, hazarded his life (soul) ;’ ‘tradens,’ Vulgate; ‘parabolatus de,’ Clarom.; ‘tradidit,’ ἢ. The form and meaning of this word has been well investigated by Meyer. It would appear to have been formed from the adj. πα- ράβολος, ‘ venturesome’ (φιλοκίνδυνος καὶ “pound verb is παράβ., Diod. Sic. x1x. 8), like mepmepev- eodat (1 Cor. xiii. 4), from πέρπερος, and to belong to a class of words in -εὐω rightly branded by Lobeck as ‘longe maxima pars invecticia,’ and designed to express the meaning of tlie adj. and aux- iliary ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 67, 591, and Winer, Gram. § 16.1, p. 85. The meaning will then be παράβολος εἶναι, and thus really but little different in meaning from tapaBovA.,—at any rate as the Jatter is explained by Theophyl., ἐπέῤῥιψεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ ϑανάτῳ. Meyer com- pares παραβάλλομαι τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ κεφαλῇ, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 398. The figurative reference to the stake (παραβόλιον or πα- ράβολον) which the appellant deposited, and if lost forfeited (Wordsworth), is . scarcely so probable as the simpler ex- planation adopted above. The dative ψυχῇ is the dative ‘of reference,’ and with the true limiting character of that case expresses the sphere to which thie action is confined; sce notes on Gal. i. 20, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 6, p.193. On the relation of the ψυχὴ to animal life, and its intfmate connection with the blood, see esp. Delitazsch, Bibl. Psychol. Iv. 11, p. 195 sq., Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. τ. DEW Pat. ἀναπληρώσῃ] ‘fill up, ‘supply ;? compare Col. i. 24 (ἀντα- ναπλ.), and 1 Cor. xvi. 17. The pri- mary and proper meaning of this com- ‘erplere,’ ‘totum implere’ (1 Thess. ii 16), and thence by an easy gradation of meaning, ‘supplere,’ the ἀνὰ denoting the addition, or rather making up, of what is lacking; comp. Plato, Conviv. p. 188 Ε, εἴ τι ἐξέλιπον σὺν ἔργον ἀναπληρῶσαι. It is thus never merely synonymous with πληροῦν, but has regularly a reference more or less 3 σπᾶν. 1Π..1. Rejoice, brethren ; beware of Judsizers who trust in the flesh. I have every / Κυρίῳ. PHILIPPIANS. 77 Ill. Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου, χαίρετε ἐν \ ? \ / con > \ \ > τ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ 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 racuum. Such examples as Thucyd 11. 28 (denuo), belong to another use of the prep. ; see especially Winer, de Verb. Comp. 111. Ὁ. 11 sq., and notes on Gal. We 2. τὸ ὑμῶν bor. κ.τ.λ.] ‘your lack, i. e. that which you lacked, in your service to me ;’ ὑμῶν being the gen. of the subject (ὃ ὑμεῖς ὑστερήσατε, The- oph.), and so a kind of gen. possessivus, and τῆς Ae:toupy., the gen. of the object in reference to which the ὑστέρημα 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. 3, p. 172. There is therefore in the words no call to modesty or humility (Chrys.) on the ground that 6 πάντες ὀφείλετε μόνος πεποίηκεν (Theod.),—as this would imply a virtual connection of ὑμῶν with λειτουργίας, 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 (τῆς πρός με λειτ. 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 zn loc., who has well explained the true mean- ing of this delicate and graceful commen- dation. Cuarter III. 1. τὸ λοιπόν] ‘ Fi- nally ;’ preparation for, and transition to, the concluding portion of the Epistle, again repeated yet more specifically ch. iy. 8: compare 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 1 Thess. iy. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, and for the gram- matical difference between this and the gen. Tov λοιποῦ, 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 tie Juda- ists is so fully stated in a concluding portion of the Epistle. Without haying recourse to any arbitrary hypotheses (comp. Van Heng.), it seems enough to say, first, that the exhortations all as- sume a more generic form,— χαίρετε, as Wiesing. remarks, is the key-note ; and secondly, as Alf. suggests, that the men- tion of κατατομὴ 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. yi. 8. χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘rejoice in the Lord ;’ their joy is to be no joy κατὰ τὸν κόσμον, hollow, earthly, and unreal, but ἃ πνευματικὴ Suundia (Theod.), a joy in Him; in whom αἱ ϑλίψεις αὗται ἔχουσι χαράν, Chrys. : compare ch. iii. 19, 24, 29, and notes. τὰ αὐτά) 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 (Caly.), or recently communicated to Timothy and Epaphr. (Wicseler) ; (c) that they refer to the words just pre- ceding, viz. χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ (Wie- sing., Alf.). Of these (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 FPHILIPETANS. Cuap. III. 2. ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλές. 32 βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς the remark in Polyc. Phil. § 3, ὃς καὶ ἄπων ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστόλας, seems fairly neutralized by ‘epistole 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 implics an emphasis on γράφειν, which neither the language nor the order of the words in any way substantiates. The last (6) appears on the whole open to least objection, as χαίρειν does seem the pervading thought of the Epistle, ch. 1.4, 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 τὰ αὐτὰ to what follows, though admitting the appropri- ate nature of the precept. The gram- matical objection to the plural τὰ αὐτὰ (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 ; see Jelf, Gr. § 883, 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. ὀκνηρόν] ‘grievous,’ ‘irksome ;’ com- pare Soph., Gd. Rex. 834, ἡμῖν ταῦτ᾽ éxvnpd. The primary idea of ὄκνος and ὁκνηρὸς 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’ (1), see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. ΤΡ. 92: ἀσφαλ ἐς] ‘sure,’ ‘safe;’ i.e. in effect, as Syr. paraphrases, O wT > 7: > A aso (Oo? Nee ES) [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 χαίρειν but ἀϑυμεῖν. The quasi-causative sense is parallel to that in ὀκνηρόν ; compare Joseph. Antig. 111. το Ais 2. βλέπετε] ‘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): Ζ 1. (Platt) unites both. This exhortation not unnaturally follows. The remembrance of the many things that wrought against τὸ χαίρ. ἐν Kup. rises before the apostle; one of the chief among which,—perhaps immediate- ly suggested by the word ἀσφαλές, --- he now enumerates. It was here that a σφάλμα was in some degree to be feared. τοὺς κύνας] ‘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 ; ὥσπερ of ἐδνικοὶ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀλλότριοι ἦσαν, Chrys. τοὺς κακοὺς épy.] ‘the evil workers ;? compare 2 Cor. xi. 13, ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι; they were ἐργάται certainly, but the ἐργάζεσ- Sat was ἐπὶ κακῷ, Chrys. The use of the article seems to show that there were some whom the apostle especially had in his thoughts. τὴν κατατομήν] ‘the concision, Auth. ; ἢ. 6. ‘the concised’ (‘ curti Judzi,’ Hor. Sat. τ. 9. 70), ‘ truncatos in circumcis- ione,’ /Ethiop. (Platt) appy. [but (7), as Cnar. III. 8, 4. \ > / “ Ἁ / κακοὺς ἐργάτας, βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν. PHILIPPIANS. 79 3 ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ la « , a ’ \ / , περιτομή, οἱ Πνεύματι Θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν a? fol \ > >’ \ , 4 / , Ν ΝΥ “Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιδότες, καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων 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 περιτομή, as this, though now abrogated in Christ (1 Cor. vii. 19, Gal. vi. 15), had still its spiritual aspects (ver. 8, Rom. ii. 29, Col. ii. 11),—but κατατομή, ἃ mere hand-wrought, outward mutilation (com- pare Eph. ii. 11), which these false teach- ers gloried in and sought to enforce on others ; οὐδὲν GAAS ποιοῦσιν ἢ τὴν capKa κατατέμνουσιν, 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. ἡμεῖς yap «.7.A.] ‘For we are the circumcision ;’ reason for the designa- tion immediately preceding : ‘I say κα- τατομή, for you and 1, whether cireum- cised in the body or no, are the cireum- cision, περιτομή, in its highest, truest, and spiritual sense,—the cireumcised in heart, 45 sbsy (Ezek. xliv.7);’ see Rom. ii. 29, and the good note of Fritz. in loc. On the spiritual aspects of περι- τομή, see particularly Ebrard, Abendm. ὁ 2, Vol. 1. p. 23 sq., Kurtz, Gesch. der Alt. Bund. § 58. 3, p. 184 sq., where the subject is well discussed. of Πνεύματι x. 7.A.] ‘who by the Spirit of God are serving ;’ apposition by means of the substantival participle (compare Winer, Gr. § 45.7, p. 316), and indirect epexegesis of the preceding collective designation. The sentence might have been expressed by means of ὅσοι or οἵτινες with the indicative, but the former would have too much limited the class, while the latter would have seemed too purely explanatory of the allusion, and so would have weakened the force of the antithesis. The dative Πνεύμ. is not the dative norme (Van Heng., compare notes on (al. y. 16), but, as the context seems to require, the dative instrument’, or what Kriiger per- haps more correctly terms, the ‘ dy- namic’ dat. (Sprachi. § 48.15), compare Rom. viii. 14, Galat. v. 5, 18, al.; the Holy Spirit was the influence under which the λατρεία was performed ; com- pare John iv. 23, The reading Θεοῦ 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 Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ as a proper name, and as having a similar freedom in respect to the article; see Fritz. Rom. viii. 4, Vol. 11. p. 105, com- pare notes on (ral. vy. 5. Aatpevovres| Absolutely, as in Luke 11.9.7, Acts XxXVi. 7, ΗΘ. ix. /9yex. 2. For a sermon on this and the following verses, more, however, resembling ἃ com- mentary, see Augustine, Serm. CLx1x. Vol. v. p. 915 sq. (ed. Migne). καὶ οὐκ κ. τ. λ.] ‘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. Σὰρξ does not specially and exclusively refer to circumcision, but, as the widening 80 πεποίδησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί. ἘΞΗΙΠΤΕΡ ΤΑ NS. Cuap. IIL. 4, 5. εἴτις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιϑέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μᾶλλον: ὃ περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος, ἐκ γένους ᾿Ισραήλ, φυλῆς. nature of the context seems to suggest, to the outward, the earthly, and the phe- nomenal; see Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. τ. p. 541, Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 11. 2, Vol. 1. p. 853 (Clark). 4. καίπερ ἐγὼ x.7.A.] ‘although myself having,’ etc. ; concessive sentence introduced by καίπερ, qualifying the as- sertion which immediately precedes ; see Denalds. Gr. § 621. The construction involves but little difficulty. In the pre- ceding ἡμεῖς and οὐ rerod. the apostle is himself included : lest this disavowal of πεποίῶ. ἐν σαρκὶ 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 ἐγὼ to his own case, and proceeds as if the forecoing 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 (ἔχων) todo so.’ Thus, then, καί- περ has its proper construction with the part., and the concessive sentence a sim- ple and perspicuous relation to the fore- going clause. Καίπερ, only used in this place by St. Paul (Heb. v. 8, vii. 5, Kil, 17, 2. Pet. 1. 19). has its reeular meaning, ‘ even very much’ (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 728), the πὲρ (περὶ) giving to the simple καὶ the idea of ‘ am- bitum rei majorem’ (Klotz), 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. πεποίδ. καὶ ἐν σαρκί] ‘confidence even in the flesh,’ ‘in it as well as ἐν Xp.,’ the force of καὶ being apparently descen- sive; see notes on Gal. iii.4. There is no reason for modifying the meaning of this word (‘ gloriandi argumentum,’ Caly.), or that of the simple pres. part. ἔχων (‘rem preteritam facit praesentem,’ Van Heng.): πεποίϑ. is simply xavxn- σις, παῤῥησία, Chrys., and is actually now possessed by the apostle; he still has it, though he will not use it; ‘ ha- bens, non utens,’ Beng. δοκεῖ is certainly not pleonastic (see examples in Winer, Gr. ὃ 65. 7, p. 540), but may be either (α) 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 (0) in his own opinion,— ‘ opinionem qua quis sibi placeat,’ Van Heng., as 1 Cor. iii. 18, vili. 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 πεποίϑησις of these Judaists, and does not seem at variance (Mey.) with ἐγὼ μᾶλλον, scil. δοκῶ πεποιῶ. ἐν σαρκί, which follows: so Syr., and apparently Copt., /Eth. (Platt). 5. περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερο 5] ‘eight days old when circumcised, lit. in respect of circumcision,’ dat. of ‘reference,’ Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 6, p. 193, notes on Gal. 1. 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. Antiq. τ. 12. 2. The nom. περιτομή, which is found in Steph. 3, Elz. (1624, 1633), with some few mss., and apparently Chrys., Theod., is not correct: the abstract περιτομὴ 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. § 31.3 (ed. 5): so Van Heng., Meyer. ἐκ yévous *laop.] ‘of the race of Israel;’ gen. of Cuap. III. 5, 6. PHIPLIPPIANS. 81 Βενιαμίν, “EBpatos ἐξ ‘EBpatwv, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, ° κατὰ apposition or identity, Scheuerl. § 12. 1, p. 82, 83: first of the three climactic dis- tinctions in regard to race, tribe, and lineage τ ‘in censum nune venit splen- dor natalium,’ Van Heng. ’Ex. γέν. Ἴσρ. is exactly equivalent to Ἰσραηλίτης in the very similar passages, Rom. xi. 3, 2 Cor. xi. 22, and, as the designation Ἰσραὴλ suggests (see Harl. on Lph. 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 περιτ. showed that the apostle was no proselyte; the é« γέν. Ἶσρ. that he Was οὐδὲ προσηλύτων γονέων, Chrys. in loc. Meyer and Alf. following Theodo- ret refer Ἴσρ. to the πρόγονον Jacob, but this seems to mar the symmetry of the climax and the parallelism with Rom. xi. 3 and 2 Cor. xi. 22. φυλῆς Βενιαμίν] ‘of the tribe of Benjamin ;’ of one of the two most il- lustrious of the tribes, a true son of the ἀποικία (Ezraiv.1). Some of the de- scendants of the other tribes were still existing, and though amalgamated un- der the common name, Ἰουδαῖοι, could still prove their descent; compare Jost, Gesch. des Isr. Volkes, Vol. 1. p. 407 sq., and Winer, RWB. Article ‘ Stimmce,’ Vol. 11. Ὁ. 515. The assertion of Chrys., ὥστε τοῦ δοκιμωτέρου μέρους, τὰ γὰρ ἱε- ρέων ἐν τῷ κληρῷ ταύτης ἣν τῆς φυλῆς, is apparently not historically demonstra- ble. Ἑβραῖος ἐξ ‘EBp.]| ‘a Hebrew of Hebrews,’ a Webrew of He- brew parentage and ancestry, a Hebrew of pure blood ; εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν ῥίζαν ἀνέδ- ραμεν, Theodoret: compare Dion.-Hal. III. p. 163, ἐλεύϑεροι ἐξ ἐλευϑέρων, Po- lyb. Hist. 11. 59. 1, ek τυράννων πεφυ- κότα, 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. Ler. Labb. 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 Greck, might naturally be desirous to vindicate his pure descent, and to claim the honorable title of ‘EBpatos (ἄνωδεν τῶν εὐδοκίμων ᾿Ιουδαίων, Chrys.) for him- self and his forefathers ; compare Winer, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 472, 475. That ‘EB- patos may also have reference to lan- guage (Chrys.) is far too summarily de- nied by Meyer and Alford ; see Trench, Synon. § 39. 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. Paul 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). κατὰ νόμον κι τ. λ.}] ‘in respect of the law (of Moses) a Pharisee ;’ 7. 6. in regard of keeping or maintaining it, the prep. κατὰ being used throughout in its more general signification of ‘ quod atti- net ad;’ compare Winer, Gr. § 49. ἃ, p-357. Νόμος is here the ‘ Mosaic law:’ though it may occasionally have what Reuss calls ‘signification économique, tout ce qui tient ἃ l’ancienne dispensa- tion’ (Thél. Chrét. rv. 7, Vol. 11. p. 66), this would be here out of harmony with the following Siac. ἣ ἐν νόμῳ. The present and ‘two following clauses state the theological characteristics of the apostle, arranged perhaps climacti- cally, a Pharisee, a zealous Pharisee, and a blameless Pharisee; comp. Acts xxii. ll 82 POGGIO ION IN tS) 8 Cuap. III. 6, 7. ζῆλον διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενό- μενος ἄμεμπτος. Τ᾿ Αλλ᾽ ἅτινα ἣν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ 3, xxvi. 5, Gal. 1: 14. 6. κατὰ ζῆλον k.T.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 (Wan 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, ἄμεμπτος, and predicatively in relation to a suppressed verb subst. that pervades the clauses; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, Ρ. 312. The sense is the same, but grammatical propriety seems to require the distinction. τὴν ἐν vogue] ‘righteousness that is in the law ;’ righteousness specially so characterized, comp. notes on 1 Tin. iii. 14,2 Tim.i.13. In ver. 9 the same idea is somewhat differently expressed : Suc. ἢ éx νόμου is righteousness that emanates from the law, that results from its com- mands when truly followed; dic. ἡ ἐν νόμῳ 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 δικαιοσύνη. All limitations of νόμος, e.g. ‘specialia instituta,’ Grot., ‘traditionem patrum,’ Vatabl., are com- pletely untenable. On this verse, and on Justification generally, see August. Serm. ccxx. Vol. v. p. 926 sq. (edit. Migne). ‘blameless ;’ ‘ proprie est is in quo nihil desiderari potest, ἄμωμος in quo nihil est quod reprehendas,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The ἀμεμφία here spoken of, in accord- ance with the clearly external relations δικαιοσ. ἄμεμπτοϑ]) 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. ἅτινα] ‘the which things;’ scil. the qualities, characteristics, and prercg- atives alluded to in the preceding clauses, doris being used in reference to indefi- nitely expressed antecedents ; see notes on Gal. iv. 34. The general distinction between ὃς and ὅστις has rarely been stated better than by Kriiger; ‘ds is purely objective, ὅστις generic and qual- itative,’ Sprachl. § 51. 8. ἣν μοι κέρδη] ‘were gains to me;’ not, ‘in my judgment,’ ‘non vera sed opinata lucra,” Van Heng., wo: being thus an ethical dative (Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 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 κέρδη is appropriately used in ref- erence to the different forms and charac- ters of κέρδος involved in the foregoing prerogatives ; κέρδος, in fact, considered in the plurality of its parts, Jelf, Gr. § 355. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 44. 3. 5. Meyer compares Herod. 111. 71, περιβαλ- Aduevos ἑωυτῷ κέρδεα ; add Plato, Legg. IX. p. 862 c, βλάβας καὶ κέρδη. διὰ τὸν 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, εἰ διὰ τὸν Χριστόν, οὐ φύσει ζημία. ἥγημαι ζημίαν] “1 have considered (and they are now to me) as loss ;’ con- trast ἡγοῦμαι, ver. 8, and on the force of the perfect, which here marks ‘ actionem ᾿ que per effectus suos durat,’ see notes on Eph. ii. 8. Meyer, followed by Alf., Guar. TH. 8: τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν. ἘΈΓΓΙΙΡΡΙΊΡΑΝ ΟΣ 83 8 ’ \ \ ον \ e ἴω ’ ! ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν Ss \ Ἁ - / fol , an? fa! lal U εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου » Mer \ / \ fal μου, δι’ ὃν Ta πάντα ἐζημιώδην καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα εἶναι, iva comments on the use of the sing. ζημίαν 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. in loc.), and whether the use of the plural would not suggest the inappropriate idea of ‘ pun- ishments,’ a prevalent meaning of ζημίαι: see Rost τι. Palm, Ler. s. v. The form (mu. is supposed to be connected with ‘damnum,’ and perhaps to be referred to the Sansecr. dam, ‘domitum esse,’ Pott, Ltym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 261. 8. ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν κ. τ. λ.}] “Δαν 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 ; ἀλλὰ contrasts the pres. ἡγοῦμαι with the perf. ἥγημαι, μὲν confirms, while οὖν, with its usual retrospective force, collects and slightly concludes from what has been previously said ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 663, and for the use of μὲν οὖν in adding some emphatic addition or cor- rection, comp. Donalds. Gr. § 567. The continuative force of μὲν οὖν, ‘cum qua- dam conclusionis significatione,’ is no- ticed by Herm. Viger, No. 342. The reading of Mec., μενοῦνγε, rests only on A; very many mss.; Theoph., al., and is rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. καὶ ἡγοῦμαι) “1 am also accounting ;’ not only ἥγημαι but ἡγοῦμαι, the καί, 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. , πάντα] ‘all,’—in reference to the pre- ceding ἅτινα ἦν x. 7.A., ‘illa omnia,’ Syr., Copt.; πάντα, as its position shows, having no emphasis, but being used only to include ‘quacunque antea Apostolo in lucris posita sunt,’ Van Heng. The fuller and regular construction, ¢7- μίαν εἶναι (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. διὰ τὸ ὕπερ. x. τ. Χ.] ‘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 γνῶσις ; it was not merely διὰ τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν γνῶσιν, but διὰ τὸ ὕπερ. τῆς yv., see Bernhardy, Synt. rir. 42. 4, 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. 48, al. This nicety of lan- guage was not unobserved by Chrysost., who adverts to it to show that the real difference between the γνῶσις and the πάντα (involving the νόμος) with which it was contrasted, lay solely in the ὕπερ- oxy of the former; διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον, ob διὰ τὸ ἀλλότριον. τὸ yap ὑπερέχον τοῦ ὁμογενοῦς ὑπερέχε. The deduction, however, is unnecessary if not untena- able. The knowledge of Christ admits no homogencities, and transcends all comparisons. τὰ πάντα ἐζη μι] " 1 suffered the loss of them all ;? not with any middle force but purely passive, the retrospective and inclusive τὰ πάντα (καὶ τὰ πάλαι, Kal τὰ πάροντα, Chrys.) being the regular accus. of the (so termed) quantitative object; comp. 84 ΕΥΕΙΠΙΡΊΝΕΣ. Cuap. III. 9. “Χριστὸν κερδήσ 9 καὶ εὑρεϑῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔ ἐμὴν ὃ ριστὸν κερδήσω, al εὑρεδῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιο- , Ὁ“ Lol σύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου, ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ Matth. xvi. 26, and see Hartung, Casus, p-. 46, comp. Winer, Gr. § 39. 1, p. 223. The verb is designedly stronger than the preceding ἡγοῦμαι ζημίαν, and its object- accus. more comprehensive ; both suita- bly enhancing the climactic sequence of this noble verse. μαι σκύβ. εἶναι) ‘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 σκύβαλον appears properly to mean ‘ dung’ (Syr., Clarom., Vulg.), 6. g. Alex.-Aphrodit. Probl. 1. 18, ἐξιᾶσι σκύβ. καὶ οὖρον, and thus is probably to be connected with σκῶρ (not oxdp), gen. σκατός ; see Lo- beck, Pathol. p. 92, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 172. The old derivation, κυσὶ βαλεῖν, 7. 6. κυσίβαλον (Suid., Etym. M.) or ἐς κύνας, is still defended by Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 295. On the various derivative meanings, ‘ refuse,’ ‘quisquilias’ (Goth., /E£th.), etc., see Suicer, Thesaur. 8. v. Vol. 11. p. 978, the numerous exx. collected by Wetst. in loc., and the smaller collections of Kypke, Elsner, and Loesner. ἵνα Xp. κερδήσω] ‘that I may gain Christ ;? purpose of the ἦγ. σκύβ. εἶναι, antithetically expressed with reference to the previous ζημιοῦσϑαι. Meyer and Alf. properly object to the bleak interpr. of Grot., ‘Christum, ἡ. 6. 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 καὶ ἡγοῦ- 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. εὑρεϑῶ ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘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. EépeS6 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 ἐν αὐτῷ, both in the sight of God and his fellow men; sce notes on Gal. ii. 17. μὴ ἔχων] Dependent on the preceding ἵνα, and as- sociated with the preceding εὑρεϑῶ asa predication of manner. Tisehend. and Lachm. both remove the comma after év αὐτῷ, thus leaving it doubtful whether μὴ ἔχων May not form a portion of an objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.), ‘ be found in Him not to have, etc.” —a construction that is grammatically defensible (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. 56. 7.2), but certainly not exegetically sat- isfactory : ἐν αὐτῷ would then be wholly obscured ; comp. Meyer in loc. ἐμὴν Str. κι τ. Χ.}] ‘my righteousness that is of the law ;’ 1. 6. such righteous- ness as I strove to work out by attempt- ing to obey the behests of the law, thy ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνην, Rom.x.3. The mean- ing of δικαιοσ. is here slightly different in its two connections, With ἐμὴν it implies an assumed attribute of the apos- tle, with ἐκ νόμου it implies a righteous- Cuap. III. 10. a , δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, ness reckoned as such, owing to a fulfil- ment of the claims of the law. On the force of ἐκ in these combinations (‘im- mediate origin,’ ete.), see notes on Gal. ii. 16. τὴν διὰ πίστ. Χρ.] ‘that which ἐς 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 Water]. on Justif. Vol. v1. p. 4 note, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1.1, p. 87. On the meaning of πίστ. Xp. and the dog- matical import of διὰ πίστ., 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. vi11. 23.22. On the true doctrine of justification see espec. Hooker, on Justif. ὃ 6 sq., and for the opposing tenets of the Romanists the clear statements of Mohler, Symlolik, § 15, p. 148 sq., § 22, p. 215, 216. ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει) ‘based on fuith;’ not ‘sub hae conditione ut habeas,’ Fritz. (Rom. Vol. 1. p. 46), but ‘super fide,’ Copt., Beng., «πίστις being the founda- tion on which it firmly and solidly rests. On the force of ἐπὶ with the dative, which, roughly speaking, denotes a more close, while with the gen. it expresses a less close connection (IKriiger, 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 ἐπὶ with both cases {apparently interchangeably) will be found in [Eratosth.] Catasterismi, PHILIPPIANS:. 85 Lal Lal Ν ‘ 4 10 τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν ap. Gale, Mythol. p. 99-135, but the work is of yery doubtful date. The connection is not perfectly clear; ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει has been joined, (a) with the suc- cecding τοῦ γνῶναι, /Eth. (Pol., but not Platt), Chrys., and, with a different ap- plication, Calv., Beng.; (0) with the remotely preceding ἔχων, Mey.; (6) with the immediately preceding δικαιοσύνην, Vulg., Copt., Goth. Of these (a) is not tenable; see below on verse 10; (i) is improbable and harsh, owing to the dis- tance of ἐπὶ τῇ π. from ἔχων ; (c) on the other hand is grammatically defensible, and eminently simple and perspicuous. As we may say δικαιοῦσϑαι ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, 80 dix. ἐπὶ τῇ mor. without the art. is permissible, see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123, and comp. notes on Lph. i. 15. 10. τοῦ γνῶναι ‘that 7 may know Him, Auth. Ver.; infinitive of design+— dependent on the preceding edpeda, not on μὴ ἔχων (Mcy.), which seems to give an undue prominence to the participial clause. The reference of τοῦ γνῶναι (= ἵνα γνῶ) to ver. 8, as Winer, De W., al., seems to disturb the easy and natu- ral sequence of thought; see Wicsinger and Alf. 7x 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 τοῦ γνῶναι with ἐπὶ τῇ πίστ., if (a) as equivalent to ὥστε γνῶναι διὰ τῆς πίστεως (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 lim?’ (Caly., Beng.), is a construction of πίσ- τις not found in the N. T. ; see Meyer and Alf. The knowledge here mentioned, as Meyer rightly observes, is x 80 PHILIPPIANS: CHar: DIT 165m » ὦ ra ‘ \ / lal lal τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ Kal τὴν κοινωνίαν TOV παδημάτων αὐτοῦ, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ ϑανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, 1' εἴ K } is τῇ μμορφιζόμενος τῷ Ῥϑανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, πως καταντήσω ELS τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν. not merely speculative, but practical and experimental ; see especially Beck, Sce- lenl. 1. 9, p. 22, comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 204 (A.-C. Libr.). καὶ τὴν δύν. x. τ. λ.] ‘and the power of Tis resurrection ;’ fuller explanation of the preceding αὐτόν, under two differ- ent aspects, the Lord’s resurrection, and the Lord’s sufferings. ἄναστ. is clearly not ‘ potentia qua exci- tatus fuit,’ Vatabl. (ἀναστ. being a gen. objecti), but, ‘ qui justos ad immortalita- tem revocabit,’ Just.,— ἄναστ. being the gen. originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 23) ; “a virtue or power flowing from Christ’s resurrection, called by the apostle vis resurrections, 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; (0) as con- firming the hope of our resurrection, Rom. viii. 11, 1 Corinth. xv. 22; (6) 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 (6) 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. τὴν κοινωνίαν x.7.A.] ‘the fellow- ship of Iis sufferings ;’ farther exempli- fication of the experimental knowledge of Christ, regarded as objective and pres- ent, suggested by the preceding clause, The δύναμις τῆς 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: εἰ: τοίνυν μὴ ἐπιστεύομεν ὅτι συμβασιλεύσο- μεν οὖις ἂν τοσαῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπάσχο- μεν, 'ΓΠΘΟΡΗ. ; 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, Theéol. Chrét. τν. 20, Vol. 11. p. 224. συμμορφιζόμ. x. τ. A] ‘being con- formed unto His death, 7. e. ‘by being, or while I am, conformed unto His death, even as I now am:’ pres. participle logi- cally dependent on the preceding γνῶναι; see notes on Eph. iii. 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 συμμορφούμενος with D2EKL; al.; Chrysost., Theod.: the rarer form in the text is adopted by Lachmann and Tisch. with ΑΘ}; 17. 67 ** * 71; Orig. (mss.), Bas., Maced., to which the incorrect συνφορτειζόμενος of F and G may lend some slight weight. 11. ef mws] ‘if by any means,’ ‘si quomodo,’ Vulg., Clarom.; an expres- sion, not 56 much of doubt, as of humil- ity, indicating the object contemplated in Caap. III. 12. I have not yet obtained, but am eagerly pressing for- ward ; in this imitate me. συμμορφιζ. κ. T.A.; οὐ ϑαῤῥῶ γάρ, φησίν, οὕπω οὕτως, ἐταπεινοφρόνει, Theoph. : see also Neander, Phil. p. 43. Τὰ 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. Ρ. 47, Hartung, Partik. εἰ, 2. 6, Vol. 11. p- 206, and for a few examples of the similar use of si in Latin, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 451. d. καταντήσω 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, εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, seem to suggest. On the force of εἰ with the subj. (‘ ubi nibil nisi conditio ipsa indicetur’), now admitted and acknowledged in the best Attic Greek, see Herm. de Part. ἄν, Ὑ7 7. »' 97, ΚΊΟΙΣ, Mevar Viol, τι. p: 499 sq., comp. Winer, Gr. § 41, 3. ς, p. 263. The expression καταντᾶν εἰς, ‘ 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. 36), and ethical relations (Acts xxvi. 7, Eph. iv. 15), in which last connection it is also found with ἐπὶ several times in Polyb. ; 6. g. with gen., Hist. x1v. 1.9 (but ?reading), with accus., 111. 11. 4, 111. 91.1, σιν. 1.9. The ref. of Van Heng. to time, ‘si perveniam ad tempus hujus eventi,’ is thus wholly unneces- sary, if indeed not also lexically untena- ble. ἐξανάστασιν κ. τ. λ.} ‘the resurrection from the dead ;’ 7. 6., 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. iv. 16), and the qui. be caught up to meet Him in the clouds (1 Thess. iv. 17); compare Luke xx. 35. The first resurrection will include , PHILIPPIANS. 87 2 Οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, 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. 1x. p. 255 (Transl.). Any reference here to a merely ethical resur- rection (Cocceius) is wholly out of the The double compound ἐξανάστασις, an ἅπ. Aeydu. in N. Test. (comp. Polyb. Z/ist. 111, 55. 4), does not appear to have any special force (τὴν &- question. dotov, τὴν ἐν νεφέλαις ἔξαρσιν, 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. τι. 1, p. 83, and notes on Eph. i. 21: comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 316 (edit. Butt.). tinct and slightly emphatic specification of the ἐξανάστ. ; 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 Rec. τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν] Dis- ἐξαν. τῶν νεκρῶν (KL; al.), on the ground that elsewhere St. Paul regularly omits ἐκ; 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. οὐχ ὅτι] “ (1 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. 11. 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 οὐχ ὅτι 501}. οὐκ ἐρῶ ὅτι, in limiting a preceding assertion or obviating a misapprehension, see Har- j..) 88 RIL EER LANs: Cuapr; III. 12. διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, ἐφ᾽ 6 καὶ κατελήμφδϑην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ. tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 154, compare Herm. Viger, No. 258. ἤδη ἔλαβον] ‘Ihave already attained.’ The object of ἔλαβον is somewhat doubt- ful. ‘The two most natural supplements are (a) Χριστόν, Theod., implied from what precedes; (b) βραβεῖον, Chrys., re- flected from what follows. Of these () is to be preferred, as the διώκω immedi- ately following seems to show that the favorite metaphor from the stadinm was already occupying the apostle’s thoughts. The simple ἔλαβον thus precedes, almost ‘generaliter dictum,’ to be succeeded by the more specific καταλάβω. On the force of ἤδη and its distinction from νῦν, see on 2 Tim. iv. 6. retTeAciwuai| ‘have been made per- οι: more exact explanation of the semi-metaphorical ἔλαβον, 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, quam 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 τελειοῦσϑαι 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, Tiél. Chret. 1v. 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 ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι inserted after ἔλ- aBov DIEFG; Clarom.; Iren, al., indi- rectly shows the meaning here ascribed to τετελείωμαι. διώκω δέ] ‘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 this nature, where a negative has pre- ceded and the regular ἀλλὰ (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- versalive ; 1. 6. that in the one case (ἀλλὰ) the preceding negation is brought into sharp prominence and contrasted with what follows, while in the other (δὲ) 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. 860, and compare Hand, /. c. The metaphor is obviously taken from the stadium (Loesn. Obs. p. 355, ἐπαγώνιός εἰμι, Theoph.), and the verb διώκω, as in the examples cited by Loesn., and as also in ver. 14, seems to be here used absolutely, κατὰ σπουδὴν ἐλαύνειν, Pha- γΟΥ. ; 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 (nex ὅσου τόνου) from τρέχω ; see also Theophyl. in loc. If διώκω be regarded as transitive, the object of διώκω will be the same as that of καταλάβω, scil. the βραβεῖον implied in the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ : compare ZEth. (Platt). “The former construction, however, seems more simple and natu- ral. εἰ kal καταλάβω) ‘if I might also lay hold on ;’ the καὶ con- trasting καταλάβω not with the more re- mote ἔλαβον (Mey.), but with the imme- diately preceding διώκω (Alf): see Ee- clus. xi, 10, xxvii. 8, comp. Rom. ix. 30, Lucian, Hermot. ὁ 77, Cicero, Off. τ. 31. 110, in all which passages there seems a contrast more or less defined between the διώκειν and καταλαμβάνειν, the ‘sequi’ and ‘ assequi;’? compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 355. On the τ Cnap., III. 18, 14. 15 ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι" force of εἰ καὶ see notes on chap. ii. 17. Whether καταλάβω (‘ assequar,’ Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24) is to be taken abso- lutely or transitively will depend on the meaning assigned to ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελ.} ‘that for which also an I was laid hold on ;’ so Syriac ΠΆΣΑΣ o> ? σιν δὴ [id cujus causa], and sim. ἣν ZEthiopic (Platt),—the only two ver- sions that make their view of this pas- sage perfectly clear. "Ep. @ has here received several different interpretations. Taken per se it may mean ; (a) quare, like av ᾧν (Luke y. 3), at the begin- ning of a sentence ; comp. Diodor. Sic. XIX. 9, ἐφ᾽ & τὸν μὲν μεῖζον καλοῦσι Tad- ρον k. τ. A.; (B) eo quod, propterea quod, 501}, ἐπὶ τούτῳ, ὅτι --- διότι (apparently Rom. ν. 12, 2 Corinth. v. 4), expressed more commonly in the plural ἐφ᾽ οἷς in classical Greek ; see Thom. M. p. 400, | ed. Bern., and Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 299 ; (γ) sub qud 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), ᾧ being here regarded as the relative to a suppressed antecedent τοῦτο, the obj. accus. of καταλάβω : 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 striy- FPaerniLiPvEelaNS* 89 4 ἕν δέ, τὰ ing to lay hold οἵ, It may be observed lastly that καὶ does not refer to a suppressed ἐγώ, nor to cared. (Alf.), 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, καϑὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσϑην, and sce. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. 13. ἀδελφοί] 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 disayows all self- esteem and self-confidence,— not perhaps without reference to some of his converts (ταῦτα πρὸς τοὺς μεγαλοφρονοῦντας ἐπὶ τοῖς ἤδη κατορϑωϑδεῖσι λέγει, Theod.) ; ins‘the second portion and verse 14 he declares the persistence and energy of his onward endeavor; ἑνός εἰμι μόνου, τοῦ τοῖς ἔμπροσϑεν ἐπεκτείνεσϑαι, Chrys. ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζ(. κ. τ. λ.] ‘do not esteem MYSELF to have apprehended : the juxtaposition of ἐγὼ and the spec- ially added ἐμαυτὸν (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 λογίζομαι 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 Ν T. 14. ἐν δέ] ‘but one thing L do,’ scil. ποιῶ, the general verb in the first clause being inferred from the special verb that follows; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 1. b, p. 546. The ellipsis is variously supplied hela (Spo [novi] Syriac; φροντίζω or pe- ριμνῶ, GEcumen, 2; ἐστί, Beza; διώκω, Flatt), evaded (Gothic), passed over (Ethiopic), or left nakedly as it stands 12 wy 90 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. III. 14. \ 3 ie » , lal \ ” ’ , μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανδανόμενος, τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσϑεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος, lal an 7 lal lol κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω ἐπὶ TO βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ 14. ἐπί] 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 ἐπὶ being an interpretation of the εἰς of ‘ destination.’ As it can scarcely be said that ἐπί, especially with the meaning anciently assigned to βραβ. (e. g. Theod.), is a much easier expression than εἰς, 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 4701}, Gr. § 895. ce. Meyer strongly urges the participial form ποιῶν, but this surely mars the em- phasis, and obscures the prominent διώκω, to which the ellipsis seems intended to direct attention. τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλ.} ‘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; ἕν ποιῶ, ἑνὸς γίγνομαι μόνου, ὅπως del προκόπτοιμι" ἐπιλανϑάνομαι τῶν κατορϑωμάτων καὶ ἀφί- μι αὐτὰ ὀπίσω, καὶ οὐδὲ μέμνημαι ὅλως αὐτῶν, Theoph.; compare Chrys. The special reference of Theod. to οὗ περὶ τοῦ κηρύγματος πόνοι is unsatisfactory, as ob- scuring the general and practical teach- ing which this vital passage conveys ; καὶ ἡμεῖς μὴ ὅσον ἢνύσαμεν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀναλογιζώμεϑα, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον ἡμῖν λείπει, Chrys. In the verb émaavs. (middle, — of the inward 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 (ληϑῇ πα- ραδοῦναι, Chrys.) ; comp. Rost. u. Palm, Lex. s. v. ἐπί, C. ec, dd. It is occasion- ally, as here, found with the accus. ; the simple form always with gen.; compare Jelf, Gr. ὃ 512, Thom. M. p. 348 (ed. Bern.). τοῖς δὲ ἔμπρ οσ- Sev ἐπεκτ.] ‘but stretching out after the things that are in front:’ more dis- tinct emergence of the image of the racer. The τὰ ἔμπροσϑεν are the δίαυλοι (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 ἐπεκτειν. is directed: good works done in faith are the successive strides; Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 111. p. 95 (A.-C. Libr.). In the double compound ἐπεκτ. the ἐπὶ marks the direction, ἐκ the pos- ture, in which the racer stretches out his body toward the objects before him; 6 γὰρ ἐπεκτεινόμενος οὗτός ἐστιν 6 τοὺς πό- δας καίτοι τρέχοντας τῷ λοιπῷ σώματι προλαβεῖν σπουδάζων, Chrys. a ᾽ \ eet) e AG 3... a 90 .£ “-“ καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν; οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. ~ ἡμῶν tain and fearful issues that await them. Τέλος has the article as marking the defi- nite and almost necessary end of such a course (compare 2 Cor. xi. 15), while ἀπώλεια marks that end as no merely temporal one, but, as its usage in St. Paul’s Epp. (ch. i. 28, Rom. ix. 22, 2 Thess. ii. 3, 1 Tim. vi. 9) seems always to indicate, — as eternal ; compare Fritz. Romans, Vol. 11. p. 338, and contrast Rom. vi. 22. ὧν ὃ Θεό9] ‘whose God is their belly:’ comp. Rom. Xvi. 18, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ od δου- λεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ ( Tisch.). That this peculiarly characterizes these sensualists as Jews (see Theod.), and espec. Pharisees (Schoettg. [Zor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 801), does not seem tenable ; see on ver. 18. Several commenta- tors, B. Crus., Alf. (comp. Vulg., The- oph.), regard 6 Θεὸς as the predicate ; the following clause seems to suggest the contrary. kal i δόξα k.T-A.] ‘and (whose) glory is in their shame,’ scil. ‘exists in the sphere of it,’ ‘versatur in,’ not ‘becomes their shame,’ Luther; clause dependent on the pre- ceding dy. The δόξα is here, as Meyer rightly suggests, subjective, what they deemed so; αἰσχύνη, on the contrary, is objective, what every moral consideration marked to be so. The reference of αἰσ- χύνη to circumcision (‘ quorum gloria in pudendis,’ Aug., Pseudo.-Ambr., ‘conyersatio,’ Vulg., hase [opus] Syr., ‘ vita civilis,’ Copt., and as far as we can infer, Theodoret, Gicumenius, —the meaning being, ‘ nostra quam hic sequamur vivendi ratio in calis 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. xvii1. Vol, 11. p. 375, and more recently Manning, Serm. x. Vol. 111. p. 183; (y) country, state, to which we belong as πολῖται ; Sanderson, Serm. xv. Vol. 1. p. 378 (ed. Jacobs.); see 2 Mace. xii. 7, τῶν ᾿Ἰοππιτῶν πολίτευμα, Polyb. List. τ. 13, 12, τὰ πολιτεύματα [τῶν Ῥωμ. κ. Kapx.], and compare Eph. ii. 19, συνπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων ; so Theophl. (τὴν πατρίδα), Beng., Mey., Alf., and the majority of modern commentators. Of these (a) has this advantage, that being subjective it pre- sents ἃ more exact contrast to τὰ ἐπίγ. 90 PHILS PEAS: Cuap. III. 20, 21. \ τ If 5» ᾽ a e , 5 Ὁ \ n > ὃ γὰρ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδε- , ih » lal Ἂν 91 A f \ Led χόμεδα Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, 5) ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα φρονεῖν ; the equiv., however, to ἄνασ- τροφὴ rests only on the use of the verb (comp. Philo, de Confus. § 17, χῶρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύονται), and is itself not lexically Again in (8) the equiv- alence of πολίτευμα to πολιτεία (Acts XXii. 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 (πόλεως τάξις), -- ἃ statement fully confirmed by other passages, Polyb. ZZist. rv. 23. 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 πόλις (Heb. xi. 10), or πατρίς (Heb. xi. 14), as repre- senting our heavenly home, our ‘Iepovea- λὴμ ἐπουράνιος (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, Rev. xxi. 2, 10, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 2, p. 182. brdpx.| ‘exisleth in heaven,’ ‘consti- tuta est,’ Clarom.; sce Wordsw. in loc., who rightly calls attention to the strong word ὑπάρχει. The various practical aspects of this consolatory declaration are ably stated by Whichcote, Serm. xXviil., though somewhat modified by the interpretation assigned to πολίτευμα: 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 the quality of our actions ; inchoative, accord- ing to the degree of our present station ; intellectualiter, according to the constitu- tion of our minds; Vol. 11. p. 875 sq. ἐξ ob] ‘from whence,’ ‘ inde,’ Vulgate ρ es — [exinde] Syr.; not ἐξ οὗ, demonstrable. 5 9. - εν ουρανοιϑ5 5011. πολιτ. (Beng.), a construction per- missible, but not necessary, as ἐξ οὗ 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. καὶ owt. ameKd.| ‘we also tarry for as Saviour ;’ the καὶ marks the corres- pondence of the act with the previous declaration, σωτῆρα the capacity in which the Lord was tarried for. The pure eth- ical meaning of ἀπεκδ. sc. ‘ constanter, patienter, expectare’ (Tittm. Synon. 1. p- 106), seems here, owing to the preced- ing ἐξ οὗ, less distinct than in other pas- sages where such local allusions are not present, e.g., Rom. vii. 19, 23, 25, 1 Cor. i. 7, Gal. v. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 20, but is perhaps not wholly lost: see notes on Gal. ν. 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 ἐκδέχεσϑαι occurs 1 Cor. xvi. 11, James y. 7; comp. Soph. Phil. 128, Dion.-Hal. Antig. v1. 67. 21. μετασχηματίσει] ‘shall trans- form,’ simply ;—not ‘ verkliren,’ 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 ἡμεῖς surviving to witness the coming of the Lord,’ when really every moment of a true Christian’s life involves such an ἀπεκδοχήν. On the nature of this μετασχηματισμός, which the following words define to be strictly ὍΣ, III. 21. BVI Pre ha Ns. oF a , A lal fal -“ τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, Ν \ b easel at a δύ Q > \ \ 4 Aa > A δὰ κατὰ τὴν ενεργείαν τοῦ δύνασαι αὐτὸν καὶ υποτώζαιν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. in accordance with that of the Lord’s body, —a change from a natural to a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44), compare Burnet, State of Dead, ch vu. p. 231 (Transl.), Cudworth, Zntell. Syst. v. 3, Vol. 111. p. 310 sq. (Tegg), Delitzsch, Psychol. 111. 1, ἢ. 401 sq., and the com- ments of Wordsw. in Joc. τὸ σῶμα K.7.A.| ‘the body of our hu- miliation ;? not ‘our vile body,’ Auth, Ver., Conyb., a solution of the genitive ease 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 materi (Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 2. p. 83); the ταπείνωσις was that which the σῶμα 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 ταπείνωσις 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 τὸ σῶμα τῆς δόξης seems also to show that the ideas of weakness and fleshly nature (Coloss. i. 22) must not be ex- cluded ; compare Fritz. Rom. vi. 6, Vol. I. p- 882. The distinction between τα- πείνωσις and ταπεινότης (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. σύμμορφον κ.τ.λ] ‘ (so as lo be) conformed to the body of His glory ; scil. eis τὸ γενέσϑαι σύμμ., ---- ἃ gloss which Rec. with D°D°EKL ; many Vy.; Orig., al., retain as a portion of 13 the text. The shorter reading has not only internal, but preponderant external evidence [ABD!FG; Vulg., Clarom., Gvth., al.] distinetly in its favor. On this proleptic use of the adj., see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p. 550, Jelf, Gram. § 439. 2. The genitival relation τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ is exactly similar to that of τῆς tam. ἧμ., ‘the body which is the receptacle of His glory, in which His glory is manifested.’ In respect of this δόξα we are σύμμορφοι, —ov κατὰ τὴν ποσότητα ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν ποιότητα, Theod. τὴν évépy.| ‘according to the working of His ability,’ ete. ; 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 convertcre oportet, ut ipsa omnem dubitationem absorbeat. Nec potenti tantum meminit, sed efficacia, quae est effectus vel potentia in actum se exse- rens.” The infin. with τοῦ 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 δύναμις, the enduring nature and latitude of that power; see examples in Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 290. καὶ ὑποτάξαι] ‘even to subdue ;’ the ascensive καὶ serves to mark the limitless nature of that power: He shall not only transform τὸ σῶμα «.7.A., but shall also x κατα subdue τὰ πάντα, all existing things, Death not excluded (1 Cor. xv. 26), to Himself. The Κυριότης of the Eternal Son will then be complete, supreme, and universal; to be resigned unto the Fa- ther (1 Cor. xv. 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 98 Brethren, stand fast in the Lord. PHILIPPIANS. Crap. IV. 1-3. IV. “Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ém- ἡ \ \ la , ec , > K / > TONSHTOL, Xapa Kab στεφανός μου, OUTWS στήκετε ἐν υριῳ; aya- / “πήτοι. Let Euodia and Syntyche be of one mind: assist, O ‘ . Qn Ν > tal yokefellow, the faithful καλῷ τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν Κυρίῳ. women. (ed. Burt.). On the use of αὐτῷ [AB DIFG], not ἑαυτῷ (Rec.), comp. notes on Eph. i. 4. Cuaprer IV.1. ὥστε] ‘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 (ἀδελφοί) ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 58, where the particle similarly refers to what has immediately preceded. De Wette and Wiesinger refer the particle to ch. iii. 2sq, but thereby deprive the exhortation of much of its natural and consecutive force. On the force of ὥστε with indic. and inf., sce notes on Gal. ii. 13, and reff., and with the imper., notes Ochi. 12: ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπιπόϑ. ‘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 to see them ; ‘carissimi et desideratissimi,’ Vulgate. The word is an Gz. Aeyou. in the N. T, but is occasionally found elsewhere ; Ap- pian, J/isp. § ‘43, ἐπιποϑήτους ὅρκους (Rost u. Palm, Ler.), Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. δ 59, εὐκταίαν καὶ ἐπιπόϑητον εἰρήνην. On the force of ἐπί, see notes on 2 Tim. i. 4. νός μου] ‘my joy and crown,’ scil. ἐφ᾽ χαρὰ καὶ στέφα- vis χαρὰν καὶ ἔπαινον ἔχω, Camerar. See especially 1 Thess. ii. 19, in which the words ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ [Κυρίου] παρουσίᾳ there limit the reference to the Lord’s coming, —a reference, however, here 2 Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ καὶ Συντύχην παρα- 8 \ ? lal val EpWTW (Alford, comp. Caly.) 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 orép., see Isaiah xxviii. 5, Ecclus. i. 11, xxv. 6, Soph. Ajaz, 460. οὕτω 5] ‘thus,—‘as I have exhorted you, and as those are acting whose πολί- τέυμα 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. στήκετε ἐν Κυρ.] ‘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. Evodiav mapak.| Special ex- hortation addressed to two women, Euo- diaand 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 (τὸ αὐτὸ pov. ἐν Kvp.), might have shaken the faith (comp. οὕτως στή- kere immediately preceding) of some of the Philippian converts. Syntyche has a place in the Acta Sanct. (July) Vol. v. p: 225. παρακαλῶ] The repetition of this verb is somewhat no- Cnar. IV. 3. Pale AGUNG S : 99 ‘ , / , , - καὶ σε, γνῆσιε σύνζυγε, συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς, αἵτινες ἐν τὸ εὐαγ- / , , fal lal γελίῳ συνήδλησάν μοι, μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συν- lal ᾿ ΟΝ > Lp εργῶν μου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς. 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 to blame. The ἐν Kup. is of course not to be joined with mapax., ‘obtestor per Dom.,’ Beza 2, but marks the sphere in which the τὸ αὐτὸ φρον. (see notes on ch. ii. 2) was to be displayed. 3. val ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ] ‘yea, 7 be- seech even thee” The particle vat (not καί, Iéec., 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. xv. 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. x» (Grot., Viger, al.) cannot be substantiated. For examples of its use in classical Greek, see Viger, Idiom. vit. 9, p. 424, Rost τι. Palm, Ler. 8. v. Vol. 11. ἢ. 309. On the distinction between ἐρωτᾶν (‘rogare,’ — equals) and αἰτεῖν (‘ petere, — superiors), see Trench, Synon. § 40. γνήσιε σύνζυγε ‘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 uncertdin gender of ctv. (Eur. Alec. 315, 343) would cause γνήσιος 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 σύνζυγος is a proper name, and that γνήσιος 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, σύνζυγος es,’ Gom., Meyer; (b) that the chief of the ἐπίσκοποι (ch. i. 1) at Philippi is here re- ferred to. Of these (a) harmonizes with the meaning of γνήσιος (comp. notes on 1 Tim. i. 2), and is slightly favored by the order (Luke i. 8, Galat. iii. 1; but KL; al. Ree. 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 συνεργοί (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 γνήσιε ( Winer, Gr, ὃ 59. 2, p. 469), the balance seems in favor of this latter view: so Luther, De Wette, and apparently the majority of modern expositors. σνυλλαμβ. adtats] ‘assist them,’ scil. Euodia and Syntyche, in endeavoring to bring them to a state of ὁμόνοια ; not ‘those women which,’ Auth. and other Engl. Vy. (comp. Vulg. “ illas que’), —an inexact translation of αἵτινες (seo below) which obscures the reference of αὐταῖς to the preceding substantives. The middle συλλαμβ. occurs in a similar construction, Luke vy. 7 (Bonde D), Gen. xxx. 8 (Alex.), Alian, Var. ist. 11. 4, and with a gen. re’, Soph. Philoct. 282. The active is more usual, in this 100 Rejoice, show forbearance ; be not anxious, but tell your wants to God, and His peace shall be with you. 4 Χαίρετε χαίρετε. sense, in classical Greek ; see examples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. attives| ‘inasmuch as they,’ ‘ut que,’ aon ΛΝ Beza, compare Syr. a [quia ip- sx| and see Scholef. Hints, p. 106: a very distinct use of the explicative force of ὕστις : see notes on Gal. iv. 24. ἐν τῷ evayy-.| The gospel was the sphere in which the labor was expended ; compare Reuss, Thél. Chrét. rv. 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; ἐλαλοῦμεν ταῖς συνελϑούσαις γυναιξίν. ‘Women were the first fruits of St. Paul’s labors on the continent of Europe,’ Baum. on Acts, l. ¢. μετὰ καὶ Κλήμ.] “ὧν company with Clement also,’ scil. συνήϑλησαν : 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. 1.28. 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. Iv. p. 153 (ed. Ben.), Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 111. 4, 15, Jerome, de Vir. Ill. xv. Vol. 11. p. 839 (ed. Vallars.), Epiphanius, Her. xxvit. 6, Const. Apost. v11. 46 ; see Hammond, contr. Blond. p. 254, Lardner, Credibility, 11. 88. 23. On the other hand (a) the notice of Clem. in Ireneus, Her. 111. 3. 3, 6 καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ᾿Αποστό- λους καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς, --- where, however, συμβεβλ. (most unnecessarily queried by Conyb. and Bloomf.) should not be overlooked,— contains no allusion to this special commendation ; and () the present context seems certainly in Peer TeASNi Sy Cuap. IV. 4, 5. 2 , , / Shee ev Κυρίῳ πάντοτε: πάλιν ἐρῶ, 5 A b) \ 1d lal / lal TO €7TTLELKES υμων γνωσϑήτω πᾶσιν fayor of the supposition that Clement, like Euodia and Syntyche and (appy.) the συνεργοί, was ἃ 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 distinet, 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 καὶ between the prep. and the noun is somewhat unusual, such a collo- cation being in the N. T. apparently con- fined to yap (John iv. 37), ye (Luke xi. 8), δέ (Matth. xi. 12), μέν (Rom. xi. 22), μὲν γάρ (Acts xxviii. 22), and τε (Acts x.39); compare Matth. Gr. § 595.3. In the present case, however, the vinculum of the preposition extends over the whole clause, kal — καὶ (see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10) being correlative. The examples cited by Alf. (compare Mey.), in which only a single καὶ occurs, are thus not fully in point. ὀνόμ. appear only to refer to τῶν λοι- 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 Ἐ7 90. [πον X18. χὺτ; 8: KK. eRe 27. To supply an optative (εἴη, ‘ex- stent’) and assume that the λοιποὶ were now dead (Beng.), seems unnecessary and unsatisfactory. The expression is not improbably derived from the Old Test. ; compare Exod. xxxii. 32, Psalm ἐπ. 28, Isaiah iv. 8, Ezek. xiii. 9, Dan. ἈΠ: 4. χαίρετε] Separate exhortations to the church at large, continued to ver. ὧν τὰ air? τ δὴδ. ἀνδρώποις. 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, τοῦτο ϑαρσύνοντός ἐστι καὶ δεικνύντος, ὅτι ὃ ἐν Θεῷ [Κυρίῳ] ὧν ἀεὶ χαίρει κἄν Te ϑλίβηται, κὰν ὁτιοῦν πάσχῃ ἀεὶ χαίρει ὃ τοιοῦτος : 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. v. p- 933 (ed. Migne). πάλιν ἐρῶ] ‘again will say,’ not “1 say, Auth, as ἐρῶ seems regularly and correctly used throughout the N. T.as a future. The traces of a present épéw (Hippocr. Precept. p. 64, Epidem. τι. p. 691) are few and doubtful; see Buttm. Irreg. Verbs, p. 89 (Translation). It is scarcely necessary to do more than no- tice the very improbable construction of Beng., by which πάντοτε is joined with this clause. 5. τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν] ‘your for- bearance,’ Conybeare, ‘ your moderation (Auth.) and readiness to waive all rigor and severity:’ compare Joseph. Arch. VI. 12.7, ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ μέτριοι, and Loesn. Obs. p. 358, where several examples are cited of ἐπιείκεια in connection with mpav- ΤΊΣ, φιλανϑρωπία, and ἡμερότης. See notes on 1 Tim. iii. 3, and comp. Trench, Synon. § 43. On the use of the abstract neuter (7d ἐπιεικὲς --- ἐπιείκεια), compare Jelf, Gr. § 436. y, and notes on ch. iii. 8; add Rom. ii. 4, 1 Corinth. 1. 25, and_ Glasse, Philol. 111. 1, p. 537. yvworsitw πᾶσιν avadp.| ‘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. ὁ Κύριος ἐγγύς] ‘the Lord (Jesus) Peer Pecans). 101 ὁ Κύριος ἐγγύς. ὃ Μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ is near. The exact meaning and con- nection of the words is slightly doubtful. The regular meaning of Κύριος in St. Paul’s Epistles (compare Winer, Gram. § 19. 1, p. 113) and the demonstrable temporal meaning of ἐγγὺς (Matth. xxiv. 52, Rom. xiii. 11, Rev. 1. 8) 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 ἔσχαται ἡμέραι (James y. 3,7) and καιροὶ ὕστεροι 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 may be either minatory (Schoettg. J/or. 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 anxicties. 6. μηδὲν μεριμν.] ‘be carcful about nothing ;’ ‘entertain no disquieting anx- ieties about anything earthly,’ Matth. vi. 25. The accusative is that of the object whereon the μεριμνᾶν is exercised (Jelf, Gr. § 551), and stands in emphatic an- tithesis to the following ἐν παντί. Chrys. and Theophyl. refer μηδὲν mainly to the pressure of calamity or persecution (μήτε 102 ῬΈΕΙ ΑΝ: CHAE LVeie - A A \ 5 Ν » , lal τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσδωω πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. ἴ καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχου- τῆς ἐκείνων ὕβρεως, μήτε τῆς ὑμῶν ὅλι- ψεως, 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., 2£th., but, ‘in omni- bus,’ Copt., ἐν παντὶ φησί, τουτέστι πράγ- The translation of Vulg., ἐν παντί] ματι, Chrys. ‘in omni oratione’ (so Clarom.), which Meyer, and after him Alford defend as meaning ‘in omni (re) oratione,’ ete., is certainly rather suspicious. τῇ προσευχῇ κ-τ.λ.} ‘by your prayer and your supplication,’ by the specific prayer offered up when the occasion may require it; compare Middleton, Art. v. 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. ὁ 19. 5, p. 117. The difference between the more general προσ. (precatio) and the more special δέησ. (rogatio) is stated in notes on Eph. vi. 18, and on 1 Lim, As Ve μετὰ εὐχαρ.] ‘with thanksgiving, an adjunct to prayer that should never be wanting, 1 Thess. v. 18, 1 Abhank, Δ 25 sce Beveridge, Serm. σαι. Vol. Vv. Ρ. 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 εὐχαριστία. It seems more simple to say that evxap., ‘thanksgiving for past blessings” (com- pare Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p- 337), is in its nature more general and compre- hensive, προσ. and δέησ. 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. iv. 15. τὰ αἰτήματα) ‘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 δεή- σεως, 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 "σις and -μα; compare 2 Tim. i.13,al. Meyer quotes Plato, Rep. vit. p. 566 B, where the explanatory clause αἰτεῖν τὸν δῆμον (see Stallb. in loc.) seems to show that there is even there also some tinge of such an interchange. πρὸς τὸν Θεόν] ‘toward God,’ i. e. “ before and unto God,’ the prep. denoting the ethical direction of the prayer; see Winer, G7. § 49. h, p. 371. 7. καὶ ἣ εἰρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘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 καί (Heb. xii. 19, al.), see Winer, Gram. ὃ 53. 3, p. 387. The exact meaning of εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ (see below, ver. 9) is somewhat doubt- ful. Three meanings have been assigned to εἰρήνη ; (a) ‘concurd;’ ‘studium pa- cis, unitatis, concordiz, inter homines atque in ecclesia’ (Pol. Syn.), appar- ently adopted by Theodoret (ὡς ὑπαλλή- λων bytay τῶν διωγμῶν ἀναγκαίως αὐτοῖς τὴν eip. ἐπηύξατο), and strenuously ad- vocated by Meyer in loc.; (8) ‘ reconcil- iation’ with God; ἡ καταλλαγή, ἡ ayd- an τοῦ Θεοῦ, Chrys. 1; compare Rom. y. 1, and Green, Gr. p. 262; (γ) ‘peace,’ ἢ. e. the deep tranquillity of a soul rest- ing wholly upon God, —the antithesis Cuar. IV: 7. FHILIPPLANS. 105 σα ππάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς Kapdias ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. to the solicitude and anxiety engendered by the world and worldliness ; compare Jolin xiv. 27; Chrys. 2, Beza, Beng., al. Of these (a) seems clearly insuflicient 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. μηδὲν μεριμν., ver. 6), includes (8), and gives a fulland spiritual meaning : so De W., Wiesing., Alf., and most modern com- mentators ; compare notes on Col. iii. 15. h ὕπερ. πάντα νοῦ ν] ‘which over- passeth every understanding ;’ ‘ which transcendeth every effort and attempt on the part of the understanding to grasp and realize it.’ Νοῦς here, as the context suggests, points to the human πνεῦμα ‘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 νοῦς is apparently used by the sacred writers, not to denote any sepa- rate essence or quality different from the πνεῦμα, but as a manifestation or outcom- ing of the same in moral and intellectual action, the human πνεῦμα, “ quatenus cogitat, intelligit, ef vult,’—the exact limits of this definition being in all cases best fixed by the immediate contxt: see especially Beck, Seelenl. 11. 18, p. 48 sq., Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. αν. 5, p. 145, and compare Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, Vol. 11. p. 494 546. On the use of the transi- tive ὑπερέχειν with an accus. of the ob- ject surpassed (contrast chap. ii. 3), see Jelf, Gr. § 504. obs. 2. φρουρήσει) ‘shall guard, keep;’ not optative, ‘custodiat,’ Vulg., Claroman., and in effect Chrys. διαφυλάξειε καὶ ao- φαλίσαιτο, 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 μηδὲν κι τ. A. is attended to. We can scarcely say with Conyb. that φρουρ. is literally “shall garrison’ (2 Cor, xi. 32, Thucyd. 111. 17, Plato, Rep. 1v. p. 420 A), as the idea of ‘ watching over,’ ‘ guarding,’ ac- cords with derivation [φρο - προ, and Homeric OP-; Pott, Lt. Forsch. Vol. 1. p- 122], and appears both in connection with persons and things ; Sophoe. 2d. Itex, 1479, Eurip. Cycl. 686, Herc. Fur. 399 ; Hesych. φρουρεῖ: φυλάττει. The nature of the φρούρησις is more nearly defined by ἐν Xp. Ἴησ. which appears to denote, not so much with a semi-local reference (ὥστε μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτοῦ τῆς πίστεως, Chrys.) the sphere in which they were to be kept, as that in which the action was to take place ; see Meyer in loc. τὰς καρδίας κι τ. A.] ‘your hearts and your thoughts ;’ ‘corda vestra et cogitationes vestras,’ Copt., 2th. The distinction between these two words should not be obscured. Καρδία, properly the (imaginary) seat of the ψυχή, 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- litasch, Bibl. Psych. αν. 11, p. 203 sq.), and, to speak roughly, bears much the same relation to the ψυχὴ that νοῦς bears te πνεῦμα (see above), being in fact the ψυχὴ in its practical aspects and rela- tions ; see Olshaus. Opuse. p. 155 sq., and notes on 1 Tim. i. 5. ‘The νοήματα, on the other hand, are properly (as here) the products of spiritual activity, of think- ing, willing, ete. (2 Cor. ii. 11), and oe- casionally and derivatively, the imple- ments or instruments of the same, 2 Cor iii. 14, iv.4: see Beck, Seclenl. 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 (?) and their fruits τ ἢ 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. τὸ λοιπόν] ‘ 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 (πάντα ἡμῖν εἴρηται, Chrys.) than in ch. ili. 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 λοιπόν. The sixfold repetition of ὅσα 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. ἀλη δῆ) 7.é., as the context requires, in their nature and practical applications, ‘“genere morum,’ Which- cote: so Theoph. (comp. Chrys.) ἀληϑῆ" τουτέστιν ἐνάρετα : ἣ γὰρ κακία ψεῦδος ; compare Eph. iv. 21. To restrict the “true:’ reference to words (Beng., Bisp.), or to . doctrine (Hamm.), seems undesirable ; the epithets throughout are general and inclusive. σεμν ἀ] ‘seemly,’ ‘ venerable,’ ‘ deserving of, and receiving, O eV respect,’ Syr. -Ξ.:. [yverecunda] : 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 (σέβομαι), the adjective prima- rily marks whatever calls for ‘ respect’ or ‘ veneration,’ and thence, with a some- what special application, whatever is so PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. IV. 8. , 0 fol 8 Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληδῆ, ὅσα Diane: f .“ e ΄ ec a ee σεμνά, ὅσα δίκαια, ὅσα ἁγνά, ὅσα προσφιλῆ, ὅσα seemly and grave (ὅσα ἐν σχήμασιν καὶ λόγοις, καὶ βαδίσμασι καὶ πράξεσιν, CEcu- men.) as always to secure it ; see Which- cote, p. 399. Τὸ σεμνόν, according to this able writer, consists in ‘ grave be- havior’ and ‘ composure of spirit,’ and is briefly characterized by Calvin as ‘in hoc situm ut digne vocatione nostra am- bulemus:’ hence such associations as σεμνὸν καὶ ἅγιον, Plato, Soph. p. 249 a, μέτρια καὶ σεμνά, Clem.-Rom,1 Cor. § 1; compare notes on 1 Tim. ii. 2. δίκαια) ‘just; in its widest applica- tion, ‘que 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 (Whicheote, Vol. rv. 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 δίκαιος and the more limited ἀγαϑός, see Tittm. Synon. p. 19 sq., and on that between dix. and ὅσιος notes on Tit. i. 8. ἁγνά] ‘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 ayvdés and its distinction from ἅγιος (with which the Vulgate appears here to have in- terchanged it), see notes on 1 Tim. v. 22, and Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 21 sq. Chrys. draws a correct line between this and the preceding σεμνός ; τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς ἔξω ἐστὶ δυνάμεως, τὸ δὲ ἁγνὸν τῆς ψυχῆς. προσφιλῆ] ‘lovely’ (ἅπ. λεγόμ.), ποῦ merely in reference to our fellow-men, ‘per que sitis amabiles hominibus,’ Est. (compare Ecclus. iv. 7), nor even with exclusive reference to God (ἅπερ ἐστὶ τῷ Θεῷ προσφ., 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 Cuar. IV. 9. PHILIPPIANS. 105 ” » > \ \ ν » fal , εὔφημα, εἰ TIS ἀρετὴ Kal εἰ τις ἔπαινος, ταῦτα RoyiferSe: 9 ἃ καὶ ἐμάδετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, fal 4 Noe \ Ὁ » / Μ δ τῷ r ταῦτα πράσσετε" καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μεδ᾽ ὑμῶν. the good exemplifications of τὸ προσφι- λές, in Whichcote, Serm. rxxv. Vol. rv. p- 88 sq. εὔφημα) ‘of good report ;? not merely ‘qu 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,’ ° Syriac Seemed [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- tainment, Whichcote, p. 108 sq. εἴ τις ἀρετή) ‘whatever virtue there be,’ Scholef. Πὰν, p. 107, or more accu- rately ‘there is,’ Alf., it being assumed that there is such; see Latham, English Lang. ὃ 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 ἔπαινος. ᾿Αρετὴ [from a root AP- and connected with Sanser. vrt, ‘ protegere,’ Pott, Ltym. 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’ (ἡ τῶν καλῶν νομιζο- μένων ἐμπειρία, Hesych.), and is opposed to κακία, Plato, epubl 1v. 444 p, 445 c: see Whichcote, Vol. 1v. p. 120. > 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 ἔπαινο] ‘praise; addition ἐπιστήμης after ἔπαιν. with DIE'FG ; Clarom., some mss. of Vulg.. al., is an interpolation properly rejected by all modern editors. AovyiCerdse] ‘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. ἃ καὶ] ‘ which also:’ exemplifica- tion of the foregoing in the apostle him- self; τοῦτο διδασκαλίας ἀρίστης, τὸ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς παμαινέσεσιν ἑαυτὸν παρέχειν τύπον, Chrysost. The first καὶ is ascen- sive (‘facit transitionem a generalibus (ὅσα) ad Paulina,’ Beng.), — not ‘et,’ Vulg. (Syr., Copt. omit), but ‘ etiam,’ Luth., the other three simply copulative, the sentence falling into two portions (ἐμάϑ. καὶ mapeA. ἠκούσ. καὶ εἴδ.) con- nected by καί, each of which again is similarly inter-connected: ‘duo priora verba ad doctrinam pertinent, duo reli- qua ad exemplum,’ Estius; compare Theod., καὶ διὰ τῶν λόγων ὑμᾶς ἐδίδαξα, καὶ διὰ τῶν πραγμάτων ὑπέδειξα. So also Van Heng., Mey., Wiesinger, al. παρελάβετε] ‘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 ἠκούσ. καὶ εἴδ.) seems to suggest, with a somewhat active reference (John i. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 1); compare Dion.-Halic. 1. p. 44, λέγω ἃ παρὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων παρέλαβον (que ab incolis percep’), and the somewhat simi- lar ἀναλαβεῖν ἐν καρδίᾳ, Job xxii. 22, The distinction of Grot. ‘ ἐμάϑετε signifi- cat primam institutionem: παρελάβετε exactiorem doctrinam’ (ἐγγράφως, The- oph., —but qu. reading) seems lexically doubtful: for examples of παραλ. seo Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 222. Ν 14 100 I rejoiced in your renewed aid; yetI am content and PHILP PLANS. ΒΔ». IV. 10. 10. Εχὰρην δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ μεγάλως, ὅτι ἤδη want ποῖ. Ye have freely σχγοτὲ ape SaNeTE τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν" ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ supplied my needs, and God shall supply yours. ἠκούσατε does not refer to any form of teaching or preaching (‘refertur ad familiares sermones,’ Grot., Hammend), 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. Ἔν ἐμοὶ thus belongs more especially to the two latter verbs, the prep. ἐν 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. ταῦτα πράσσετε] Parallel to the preceding ταῦτα λογίζεσθε, without how- ever suggesting any contrast between ? and ‘thinking ;’ Aoyi¢. (see notes) having a distinctly practical ref- erence; see Meyer tn loc. καὶ 6 Θεὸς x.7.A.] ‘and (so) the God of peace ;” compare ver. 7, where καὶ has a similarly consecutive force, and see notes on ver.12. The expression 6 Θεὸς τῆς eip. admits of different explanations according to the meaning assigned to εἰρήνη, see Reuss, Theél. 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 fort of the gen. of content, or (which is nearly allied to it) of the characterizing attribute ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115, and comp. Andrewes, Serm. xvi11. Vol. 11. p. 84 (A.-C. Libr.). 10. ἐχάρην δέ! ‘Now 7 rejoiced: transition to more special matters, the δὲ being μεταβατικόν (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 165), and marking the change to a new subject; εἶτα καὶ περὶ τῶν πεμφδϑέν- τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν γράφει χρημάτων, Theod. The addition ἐν Κυρίῳ serves to define the nature of the joy; it was neither selfish nor earthly, it was in his Lord and without Him was not; see notes on “acting ae ch, 111. 1. ἤδη ποτέ] ‘now at εηηίλι,, ‘tandem aliquando,’ Vulg., Rom. i. 10; more fully expressed in Aris- toph. Ran. 931, ἤδη ποτ᾽ ἐν μακρῷ χρόνῳ, — ἤδη acquiring that meaning from ref. to something long looked for; see Har- tung, Partik. ἤδη, 2.4, Vol. 1. p. 288. De Wette adopts the translation ‘ jetzt einmal,’ ‘jam aliquando’ (comp. Plato, Symp. p. 216 £), 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. avedsd λετε K.T.A.] ‘put forth new shoots, Jlourished again, in respect of your solict- tude for me;’ ‘refloruistis pro me sen- tire,’ Vulgate, and less literally, Syriac 4 > v ἘΠῚ yas oho}? [ut ceepistis curam habere mei]. There is some litile difficulty both in the construc- tion and the exegesis. The verb dva- ϑάλλειν may be either transitive (Ezek. xvii. 24, Ecclus. i. 18), or ¢ntransitive (Psalm xxviii. 7, Wisdom iv. 4). In the former case the construction is plain (τὸ ὑπὲρ κ. τ. A. being a simple accusa- tive after the verb), but the exegesis un- satisfactory, as the ἀναϑάλλειν 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 Greek commentators the exegesis is less diffi- cult, but the construction somewhat am- biguous. Either (a) τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ is the accus. object. after φρονεῖν, the verb it- self being somewhat laxly appended to aveddr., Beng., Mey., Alf.; or (bj τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν is the accus. of the = Caar. IV. 11. ἐφρονεῖτε, neatpetaye δέ. quantitative object (notes on Eph. iv. 15) dependent on ἀνεϑάλετε, 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: () is simple and intelligible, but certainly involves the difficulty that the following clause (if we retain the proper and obvious reference of ἐφ᾽ &) will in fact be ἐφρονεῖτε ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν. As, however, this logical dimiculty may be diluted by ob- serving that φρονεῖν is not used exactly in the same sense in the two clauses, — τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ dp. in fact coalescing to form a new idea, —and as (a) is not only ar- tificial, but involves an undue emphasis on τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, we somewhat confident- ly adopt ()) : so Wiesing. and Bisping. Lastly, ἀνεδάλετε does not involve any censure (ὅτι πρότερον bytes avanpol ἐμα- ράνϑησαν, Chrysost ): the time during which ἠκαιροῦντο was the period of un- avoidable torpor; when the suitable time and opportunity came, ἀνέϑαλον, comp. Andrewes, Serm. xvui1. Vol. 111. p. 99 (A.-C. Libr.). The rare aor. aveS. is noticed by Winer, ὁ 15, Buttm. Trreqg. Verbs, s. v. ϑάλλω. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ] ‘for which, ‘with a view to which,’ ‘in contemplation of which ;’ the ἐπὶ 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 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, sce the notes on ch. iii. 12. καὶ ἐφρονεῖτ ε] ‘ye also were anxious, careful ;’ imperf., marking the continu- ance of the action, to which the καὶ adds a further emphasis: ‘ your care for me was of no sudden growth, it did not show itself jast when the need came, — far from it, you were also anxious long be- fore you ἀνεϑάλετε. The omission of μὲν after ἐφρον. gives, as Meyer observes, PHILIPPIANS. “ner, Gr. § 64. 6, p. 526: 107 Ἡ οὐχ ὅτι Ka ὑστέρησιν λέγω: ἐγὼ a greater vigor to the antithesis; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356, compare notes on Gal, ii. 15. ἠκαιρεῖσ δ εἾ ‘ye were lacking opportu- nity ;’ ti. e. “it was not from any barren- ness on your part,’ Wordsw. ’Araip. (an dim. Aeydu.) is a word of later Greek, the opposite of which is εὐκαιρεῖν (εὖ σχολῆς ἔχειν), 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 οὐκ εἴχετε ἐν χερσίν, οὐδὲ ἐν apdo- via ἦτε, and urges the popular use of ἀκαιρ. in that sense. It may have been so; it seems, however, safer to preserve the ordinary temporal reference; see above. 11. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘not that, ‘I do not mean that :’ see notes on ch. iii. 12, Wi- 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 ὑστέρησιν) ‘in consequence of want,’ ‘propter penuriam,’ Vulg., sim. Syriac Yan > wes ἐ 32.) δ το [propterea quod defuerit mihi]; see notes on chap. ii. 3, and on Tit. iii. 5, where this meaning of κατὰ is briefly investigated. Van Heng., to preserve the more usual meaning of the prep., gives ὑστέρησιν a concrete ret- erence, ‘ut more receptum est penurize ;’” this is artificial and unnecessary. The meaning is simply οὐ διὰ τὴν ἐμὴν χρείαν, Theodoret ; ‘ notio secundum facile tran- sit in notionem propter,’ Kiihner, Xen- oph. Mem. τ. 3. 12. ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔμαϑ ον] ‘for 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 μανϑάνειν took place after a given time (see Donalds. 108 PHILIPPIANS. Cuap. IV. 12. \ ” ΝΣ 5 - aN ate f, - 12 ὃ ΩΝ a Yap €HaAJOV EV OLS ξειμι AUTAPKNS εἰναι. OLOa@ Kab TATELVOUOG SAL, Gr. § 452) ; whether it does or does not last to the present time is left unnoticed ; sce especially Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 16 sq. The ἐγὼ is emphatic, ‘ quidquid alii sentiunt aut cupiunt,’ and ἔμαϑον, 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 ; διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων ὁδεύων, πεῖραν ἔλαβον ἱκανήν, ‘Theod. ἐν οἷς εἰμί] ‘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 ἄν, ---- 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 ἐν ois (no ellipse of χρήμα- ow, Wolf, al.), is copiously illustrated by Wetstcin im loc.; see also Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 319. avrdpi«ns| ‘content,’ ‘ut sufficiat mihi id quod est mihi,’ Syr. (compare Heb. xiii. 5, ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παρούσιν), literally self-supporting,’ ‘independent,’ the op- posite being, as Meyer observes, mpoo- δεὴς ἄλλων, Plato, Tim. 83 p ; compare Arist. Hthic. Nic. τ. 5, τὸ τέλειον ἀγαϑὺὸν Zattapkes εἶναι δοκεῖ : 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. οἷδα καὶ ramerv.] “1 know (how) also to be abased :’ second member of the climax (ZuaSov κ. τ. λ., οἶδα κ. T-A., μεμύημαι x. τ. A.) explaining more in de- tail the preceding ἐν οἷς εἰμὶ abrdpr. εἶναι : the apostle, as Andrewes well says, ‘had stayed affections.’ The first καὶ thus serves to annex the special instance (τα- πειν.) to the more general statement (sce notes on Eph. v. 18, Winer, Gr. § 53.3, p- 388, ed. 6), the second appends to ταπειν. its opposite, and is thus copula- tive and indirectly contrastive. The use of καὶ inthe N. T., as the Aramaic © 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) kat appears as, (a) simply copulative; (8) adjunctive, 7. 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, (6) ascensive, “even, a very common and varied usage (compare notes on Ephe- sians, i. 11), or conversely, descensive, Gal. iii. 4, Eph. vy. 12, where see notes ; (ε) 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, sce notes on Eph. ν. 23; to all which we may perhaps add a not uncommon use of καί, which may be termed (7) its contrasting force, as here (24 καί), and more strongly, Mark xii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 18; compare 1 Cor. ix. 5,6 (24 καί). In such 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 καὶ in the N. T.; for further examples see the well arranged list in Bruder, Concord. s.v. καί, and the much improved notice in the sixth ed. of Winer, Gr. § 53. 3. The Cuar. IV. 12, 18. BELPER LAS: 109 \ \ a οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν" ἐν παντὶ Kal ἐν πᾶσιν μεμύημαι, καὶ χορτά- feoSau καὶ πεινᾶν, καὶ περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσϑαι. reading δὲ (οἶδα δὲ) of Rec. has scarcely any authority, and is rightly rejected by apparently all modern editors. περισσεύειν) ‘to abound.’ The op- position between tarev. and περισσ. is not exactly perfect (contrast Matth. xxiii. 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 (ταπειν.) is more general (‘to be cast down,’ —not ex- pressly, λιμωττεῖν, GEcum., and sim. even De W.), but obviously includes the idea of the pressure and dejection arising from want (comp. /Eth.); the latter is more specific. The paraphrase of Pelag. (cited by Meyer) is thus per- fectly satisfactory, ‘ut nec abundantia extollar, nee frangar inopia. ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν] ‘in every- thing and in all things, ‘in omni et in omnibus,’ Clarom., Goth., not ‘ ubique et in omnibus,’ Vulg., Auth.,— an as- sumed ellipsis of τόπῳ (Chrys. supplies χρόνῳ) which cannot be substantiated any more than that of ἀνθρώποις ( Beng.) after πᾶσιν ; compare 2 Cor.ix.8. The expression seems designed to be per- fectly general and inclusive, ἐν παντὶ πράγμ. Kal ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς παρεμπίπτουσι, Phot. ap. Gicum. μεμύη- μαι] ‘Ihave been initiated, fully taught,’ ‘institutus sum,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt. ; ° wy; μ᾽ —45_59 [exercitatus sum] Syr., ‘assuetus sum,’ /®th. ;—climactic, see above. The word is an Gm. Aeydu. in the N. T., and appears used, not in its primary sense, ‘disciplina arcand imbutus sum,’ Beng. (μνούμενος: μυσταγωγούμε- vos, Hesych.), but in its derivative sense, ‘TI have been fully instructed’ (μύησις" μάδϑησις, κατήχησις, Hesych.), with per- haps some reference to the practical mode in which the knowledge was acquired ; 3 πάντα πεῖραν ἁπάντων ἔχω, Phot. ap. Cecum. ; see Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 11. p. 379 sq. As μυεῖσϑαι is used with an accus. of the thing (Plato, Symp. p. 209 τ, and see examples in Rost τι. Palm, Lex. s. v.), more rarely with a gen. (THeliod. 22thiop. 1. 17, see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 651 note) or dat. (Lucian, Demon. 11), some mod- ern commentators (Mey., Alf.) join ἐν παντὶ κ. τ. A. With the infinitives. This is harsh and somewhat hypercritical ; μυεῖσϑαι Appears with a prep. (κατὰ) in 3 Mace. ii. 80, and is probably so to be joined here; so Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Goth., and appy. Copt., /Eth. πειν ἃ ν] Later form for πεινῆν, see Wi- ner, Gram. § 13. 3, p. 71, Thom. M. p. 699: ‘vulgaris horum verborum scrip- tura cum ingressu Macedonici xvi, ten- uis scaturiginis instar, hic ibi emicat,’ Lobeck, Phryn. p. 61. The verb xop- τάζω, properly used in ref. to animals (Hesiod, Op. 454, Aristoph. Pax, 176, Plato, Rep. 11. p. 372 D, comp. ΙΧ. p. 586 Ὁ), is found always in the N. Test. (except Rev. xix. 21), and very com- monly in later writers, in simple ref. to men. 13. πάντα ἰσχύω] “17 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. txxxv.) 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, xtv. p. 297 (A.-C. Libr.). Πάντα is the accus. of the ‘ quantitative’ object after ἰσχύω (Gal. ν. 6, James y. 16, Wis- dom xvi. 20), defining the measure and extent of the action; see Madvig, Synt. § 27. ἐν τῷ ἐνδυν.] ‘in 110 PHILIPPIANS:. Cuap. IV. 14, 15. > ἢ ΟΣ a » a ig 14 \ A > , ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί pe. πλὴν καλῶς ἐποίήσατε συγκοι- νωνήσαντές μου τῇ σλίψει. 16 οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῆ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία Tim 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 δύναμις ; com- pare 1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. iv. 17, and Tgnat. ad Smyrn. ὃ 4. The late form ἐνδυναμόω 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 Χριστῷ 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. πλὴν κ. τ. λ.] “ 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 οὐχ ὅτι, verse 11, the apostle guards against any appearance of slighting the liberality of his converts (Chrys., Calv.), by specifying what peculiarly evoked his joy, —the sympathy of the Philippi- ans, τὸ συγκοινωνῆσαι μου τῇ ϑλίψει. For the explanation of πλὴν see notes on ch. i. 18, iii. 16, and for examples of the idiomatic καλῶς ἐπ. with a part. (Acts x. 33), see Elsner, Obs Vol ii. p. 257. συγκοινων. κ΄ τ. λ.} ‘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 ; ὑμῶν τοῦτο κέρδος" κοινωνοὶ yap τῶν ἐμῶν ἐγένεσϑε παϑημάτων, 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. ὃ 45. 6. b, p. 316), and specifies the act in which the καλῶς ἐποιήσατε was evinced. It is scarcely necessary to add that ϑλίψει is not either here or 2 Cor. viii. 13, ‘ penu- rive’ (‘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. οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὕμ.] ‘ 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. iil. 8, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356, 862, 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 καὶ suggests a comparison with the apos- tle, ‘ye too, as well as1;’ comp. notes on ver. 12. Φιλιππήσιοι) ‘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 ecclesias;’ the comparison is instituted in what follows. ὅτε ἐξῆλϑον] ‘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. Τῇ (a), then é&jASov must be regarded as having a pluperfect Cuap. IV. 16. PHEBEPRIANS. 11 b] , > / > , ὃ , \ / ’ δά 6 Lal μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς NOYOV δόσεως Kal λήμψεως, εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς , 16 ind ΟΥ̓] , Ν ψῃ \ δὶ > \ ͵ μόνοι, 15 ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς εἰς τὴν χρείαν μοι reference (Van Heng., De W., see Pa- ley, Hor. αι. ναι. 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 ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ edayy., which, as Meyer observes, refers the eyent to the earliest period of their con- nection with the apostle. Itseems safer, then, to adopt () ; so Meyer, Alf., and Bisp. k. T.A.] ‘communicated with (‘dealt with,’ Andrewes) me in regard of the account (ver. 17) of giving and receiving ;’ εἰς λόγον not being taken in the more lax, yet defensible sense, ‘ ratione habita,’ Van Heng. (comp. 2 Mace. i. 14, Thu- ceyd. iii. 46), but, as εἰς λόγον below seems to suggest, in the stricter meaning, ‘ in ratione dati et accepti,’ Vulg., Gothic, Copt.; compare Cicero, Leal. xvt. (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 ; ὁρᾷς πῶς ἐκοινώ- ἐκοινώνησεν νησαν, εἰς λόγον δόσεως τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ λήψεως τῶν πνευματικῶν, 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. scems 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- δ᾽» ping. Examples of the expression λήψις καὶ δόσις are cited by Wetstein in loc. ; compare also Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 804. For the construction of κοινωνέω, see notes on Gal. vi. 6. 16. ὅτι] ‘ because,’ — argumentative (not demonstrative, ‘that,’ Paley, Van Heng., Rilliet, al.), the object of this verse being to justify the statement, ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ 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; 2th. omits. The other interpre- tation of ὅτι reverses the order of time, and disturbs the logical sequence. καὶ ἐν Θεσσ.] ‘even in Thessalonica,’ not ‘ to Thessalonica,’ Vule., Claroman., but, ‘ when I was in that city.’ There is here no ellipse of ὄντι (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. by the early commentators to the impor- tance of Thessalonica ; ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει The ascensive καὶ is referred καϑήμενος παρὰ τῆς μικρᾶς ἐτρέφετο πό- λεως, 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. καί, 2. 8, Vol. 1. p. 135. καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis] ‘both once und twice,’ 7.e. ‘not once only, but twice,’ emphatic: see 1 Thessal. i. 18, Nehem. xiii. 30, 1 Mace. iii. 30, and Herod. 11. 121. 2, 111. 148. Meyer cites as the an- tithesis οὐχ ἅπαξ οὐδὲ δίς, Plato, Clitoph. Ρ. 410 B. On καὶ --- καί, sce notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. els τὴν χρείαν] ‘to supply my ne- cessity ; eis marking the ethical desti- 112 ῬΕΤΙΡῬῬΤΑΝΒΝ Cuap. IV. 17, 18. " rn A a ἐπέμψατε. ™ οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα, ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ Tov καρπὸν Ν / > / Γι r TOV πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν. nation of the contribution; so εἰς τὸ edayy-, 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, 7. e. ‘my necessity,’ Syr., al. Chrysostom calls attention to the absence of the pronoun, οὐκ εἶπε τὰς ἐμὰς [χρείας] ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς, τοῦ σεμνοῦ ἐπιμελόμενος : this is inexact, as the art. fully performs the function of the pronoun; Middl. Art. vy. 1. 3. 17. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘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. ἐπιζητῶ] ‘I seek after,’ not ‘studiose quero,’ Bretschneid., nor even ‘ insuper quero,’ Van Heng., who has an elabo- rate, but not persuasive note on this word: the ἐπί, as in ἐπιποϑεῖν κ. τ. λ., 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. 1. 22. Meyer rightly calls attention to the present, —the ‘allzeitiges Priisens’ of Kriiger (Sprachl. § 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). τὸ δόμα] ‘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- 3 Ὁ τ δὲ ΄ \ ἀπέχω O€ TTAVTA κΚαὺᾶ περίσ- rium.’ ἀλλὰ emi] ‘but I do seek,’ Alf.: the repetition of the same verb with ἀλλά, as in Rom. viii. 15, Heb. xii. 18, adds force and empha- sis, and makes the primary meaning of ἀλλὰ (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 1) still more apparent; compare Fritz. Rom. vill. 15. τὸν καρπὸν k.T.A.| ‘the fruit which aboundeth to your account,’ ὑμῶν, οὐκ ἐμοῦ, Chrys. ; 7.e. the future divine recompense, which, on every fresh proof of their love, is rep- resented as being laid up to their account, ὁ καρπὸς ἐκείνοις τίκτεται, Chrys. As πλεονάζειν 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 zn loc. takes it different- ly), Van Heng. and De W. here connect eis with ἐπιζγτῶ. This seems an unnec- essary refinement; there is nothing in πλεονάζω to render its connection with eis, as marking the destination of the πλεονασμός, either ungrammatical or un- natural: it is joined with ἐν [Plato], Locr. p. 108 a. The use of Adyos is here the same as in verse 15, not ‘ habité vestrum ratione,’ Van Heng., and cer- tainly not = εἰς ὑμᾶς (Rill.; compare Syr.), but ‘in rationem vestram,’ Vulg., 7. 6., dropping all metaphor, εἰς thy ὑμετ- έραν σωτηρίαν, Chrys.; compare Calvin in loc. 18. ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα] ‘ 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 δὲ thus retains its proper op- positive force (not ‘and now,’ Peile), and preserves the antithesis between the em- phatic ἀπέχω and the foregoing ἐπιζητῶ ; ἀπέχω πάντα, οὐδὲν ἐπιζητήτεον. ᾿Απέχω is neither barely ‘habeo,’ Vulg., nor yet with any special forensic sense (accepti- Cuar. IV. 18, 19. PRET P TAN Ss: 119 σεύω, πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ ᾿Επαφροδίτου τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, » A > / , \ bee A a “ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, δυσίαν δεκτὴν εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ. latio) ‘ satis habeo,’ ‘I give you my ac- quittance’ Hammond on Mark xiv. 41; compare Chrys, ἔδειξεν ὅτι ὀφειλὴ ἐστὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα), but simply ‘acceptum teneo,’ ASas [accepi] Syr., Copt., the prep. ἀπὸ apparently having a slightly inten- sive force (‘significat actionis quendam, ut ita dicam, decursum, atque adco in agendo perseverantiam,’ Winer, Verb. Comp. v1. p. 7), and marking the com- pleteness and definitive nature of the ἔχειν ; compare Math. vi. 2, 5, 16, Luke vi. 24, Philem. 15, Arrian, Epict. ται. 24 [p. 228, ed. Borh.] τὸ yap εὐδαιμονοῦν ἀπέ- xew δεῖ πάντα ἃ ϑέλει, and compare Wi- ner, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 246. kal περισσεύω] ‘and abound ;’ ex- pansion and amplification of the preced- ing ἀπέχω, “1 have all I want and more than all,’ the following πεπλήρωμαι com- pleting the climax; ‘die Hiille und Fiille habe ich,’ Meyer. To supply xa- pas after πεπλήρ. (Grot.) is to wholly mar the simplicity and climactic force of the sentence. δεξάμενος κι τ. 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 Ἔπ. : FG, al. supply πεμφϑέντα af ter ὑμῶν], caused probably by the recur- rence of παρά : there is, however, no dif- ficulty ; ὑμεῖς ᾿Επαφροδίτῳ ἐδώκατε, Ἔπα- φρόδιτος ἐμοί, Theodoret. ὀσμὴν εὐωδία 5] ‘a sweet-smelling sa- vor ;’ accus. in apposition to the preced- ing τὰ map’ ὑμῶν; compare Eph. v. 2, and notes in loc. The reference of Alf. to Kiilmer, Gr. Vol. 11. p. 146, and the examples cited (Ilom. J/. xx1v.735, Eu- rip. Orest. 950) are not quite in point, as the apposi‘ion is not to the verbal action contained in the sentence (Jelf, Gram. 19 ὁ δὲ Θεός § 580. 2) but simply to the accus. τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, which is thus further defined and characterized. It is doubtful whether the gen. εὐωδίας is to be considered a gen. materia (W., Gr. § 84. 2. b, p. 212 note, compare Arist. 7thet. 1. 11) or a gen. of the characterizing quality (see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115); the latter is per- haps most simple and most in harmony with the Hebraistie ténge which seems to mark these kinds of gen. in the N. T.; compare Winer, G7, l. c. (text). ϑυσίαν x. 7.A.] ‘a sucrifice acceptable (and) well pleasing to God ;’ not ‘an ac- cepted sacrifice such as is,’ eic., Peile, (comp. Syr.); both adjectives as well as the preced. ng ὀσμὴν εὐωδ. (comp. Ley. i. 9,13) standing in connection with τῷ Θεῷ, 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 Himseff. It does not seem necessary with Johnson (Unbl. Sacr. 11. 4, Vol. τ. p. 436 [A.-C. Libr.], compare Irenxus, Jer. 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 uch. ch. x11. Vol. ιν. p. 750. 19. ὁ δὲ Θεός μου] Not without emphasis and an expression of hopeful trust, ‘qui meam agit causam,’ Van Heng. ; see notes on chap, i. 3. πληρώσει κι 7t-A] ‘shall fulfil (with reciprocating reference to mem. ver. 18) every need of yours ;’ not in the form of prayer (ἐπεύχεται αὐτοῖς, Chrys.), but of hopeful promise, the future πληρώσει be- 15 114 PHULIPPIANS: Cuar. IV. 20, 21. ͵7ὔ ral f lal fal μου πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν κατὰ TO πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ ᾽ a) la) ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. « an n ΄ αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. All here send you greeting. ing distinctly predictive ; compare Rom. Ἐν! οῦ, 5. (δὴ, χί: Wiley 9. 11π|: νι 18: The reading πληρώσαι [DIFG; several mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.], followed by Theod., Theophylact, seems clearly a gloss. It is doubtful whether χρείαν is to be referred solely to temporal (Chrys.), or solely to spiritual (Theodor.) wants. The use of χρεία and the preceding allu- sions are in favor of the former; the use of πλοῦτος and the immediate context, of the latter: the inclusive form of the expression seems to justify our uniting both. ἐν δόξῃ] ‘Sin glory ;’ not so much an instrumental (Meyer, Alf.) as a modal clause, closely in union with ἐν 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 ἐν Xp. “Inc. specifies the ever-blessed sphere in which alone all is realized ; see notes on Ephes. ii. 7. So apparently Chrys., οὕτω περισσεύει ὑμῖν ἅπαντα ὥστε ἐν δόξῃ αὐτοῦ ἔχειν. Grotius and others (comp. /Eth.).con- nect ἐν δόξῃ with πλοῦτος ; this is gram- matically admissible, — the expression πλουτεῖν ἔν τινι (1 Tim. vi. 18) justify- ing the omission of the article (sec notes on Eph. i. 15), —and certainly deserves consideration, but the remark of Meyer, that πλοῦτος is always used in the Ν, 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 κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς 5. αὐτοῦ, seems to strike the balance in favor of πληρ. ἐν δόξῃ : so apparently Syr., but I fal \ lol \ ἌΣ Wie. a 50. τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς ’ / > r a “1 ᾿Ασπάσασϑϑε πάντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. these are cases in which the Vy. cannot safely be adduced on either side. κατὰ To πλ.] ‘according to,’ 1. 6. ‘in accordance with the riches He has;’ compare notes on Eph.i.5. The clause involves a shade of modal reference, and marks ὅτι εὔκολον αὐτῷ καὶ δυνατόν, καὶ ταχέως ποιεῖν, Clirys. 20. Θεῷ καὶ πατρί] ‘to God and our Father ;’ anticipatory doxology called forth by the preceding words. On the august title Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, see notes ΟΠ {ταὶ 1 Α: 0 ἡ δόξα] Scil. εἴη, not ἔστω; see notes on Ephesians The article seems here to have its ‘rhetorical’ force (Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 22, p. 315), and to mark the δόξα as that ‘which especially and peculiarly belongs to God;’ see notes on (al. i. 5, where this and the following expression, εἰς Dy τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, are bricfly inves- tigated. On the two formule αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων, and αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων, sce Har- less on Eph. iii. 21, with however the qualifying remarks in notes i loc. Ql. πάντα &ytov| ‘every saint:’ not ‘omnes sanctos,’ Syr., Copt., 7Eth., 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 ἅγιος and its application in the N. T., see notes on Eph. i. 1. Tt is doubtful whether ἐν Xp. is to be joined with ἀσπάσασϑε (compare Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Corin. xvi. 19) or with ἅγιον (ch. i. 1); the former is adopted by Syr. (plural) and Theod. (6 τῷ Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ πιστεύων) ; the latter by Mey. and several modern interpreters. As ἅγιος is connected in this Epistle with ἐν Xp. (comp. Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 9, 10, 13), and Cuar. IV. 22, 23. PHRILIPETANS. 115 > , Lp a e \ 5 la) ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί. ~ ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς πάντες Lae / \ Cae m fol i$ / rte f οἱ ἅγιοι, μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας. Benediction. πνεύματος ὑμῶν. as ἀσπάζ. does not appear elsewhere used with ἐν Xp. or ἐν Xp. Ἴησ., but only with ἐν Κυρίῳ, the latter is perhaps slightly the most probable. of σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί] Those who were more immediately in communica- tion with the apostle, suitably and natu- rally specified before the inclusive πάντες of ἅγιοι in the following verse. The ap- parent difficulty between this and ch. ii. 20, is simply disposed of by Chrys., οὐ παραιτεῖται καὶ τούτους ἀδελφοὺς καλεῖν. 22. μάλιστ α͵] ‘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 μάλιστα is alluded to in notes on 1 Tim. iy. 10. of ἐκ τῆς K. οἰκία] ‘ 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 Praeto- 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 οἰκεῖοι (The- od.), the servants and retainers belong- °3°H χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ ing to the emperor’s household; see Krebs, Obs. p. 832, Loesn. Obs. p. 358. It may thus seem not improbable that St. Paul was in confinement in or near to that barrack of the Przetorians which was attached to the palace of Nero (Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 11. p- 510, ed. 2), but it does not necessarily follow that πραιτώριον 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. μετα τοῦ πνεύμ.] ‘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. not very doubtful: the more usual μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν is not strongly supported [IXL; many mss.; Syriac (both), al. ; Chrys., Theod.], while the text has de- cided external evidence [ABDEFG; 17. 67.** 73, 80; Vulg., Clarom., Coptic, Eth. (Platt); many Ff.], and does not seem so likely to have been changed from πάντων ὑμῶν ἃ5 the converse. The addi- tion of ἡμῶν after Κυρίου [| Rec. with DE ; Coptic, al.] has still less critical sup- port. The reading is THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. INTRODUCTION: Tue profound and difficult Epistle to the Colossians was written by the apostle during his jirst captivity at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16 ; compare Jntrod. to t 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, 11. 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. 190 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, Yer. 11. 14. 1, Clem.-Alex. Sirom. 1. p. 325, 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 have been both very generally and very summarily rejected; see Meyer, Linleitung, 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 sufliciently 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. Cuarter I. 1. ardor. Xp. ἼἸησ.] ‘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 ἀπόστολος, here obvi- ously in its higher and more especial sense, see notes on Gul. 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 Lph. 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 Παῦλος ; in Philemon (very appropriately), δέσ- pos Xp. °1.; in Phil., δοῦλος Θεοῦ (asso- ciated with Timothy); in Titus, δοῦλ. Θεοῦ andor. δὲ X.7I.; in Rom., δοῦλ. Ἰ. X. (Tisch. X. 71.) κλητὸς ἀποστ. ; in 1 Cor. (κλητὸς ἀπ. Tisch., Rec., but not certain), 2 Cor., Ephes., Col., 2 Tim., ἀἄποστ. Χ. Ἰ. διὰ ϑελήματος Θεοῦ; in 1 Tim. ἀπόστ. Χ. Ἷ. κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν Ο. σω- τῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χ. Ἴ. x. τ. A.; and lastly, with fullest titular distinction, in Galat., 16 | lena ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ ϑελήματος Θεοῦ καὶ Τιμόδεος ὁ ἀπόστ., οὐκ am’ ἀνδ)δρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾽ avdp. κι τ. A. An interesting paper might be written on these peculiarities of designa- tion. διὰ δϑελήματος Θεοῦ] Added, probably, in thankful re- membrance of God’s grace, and in feel- ings of implicit obedience to His will; see notes on Jeph. i. 1. καὶ Τιμ. 6 ἀδελφ.)} Timothy is simi- larly associated with the apostle in his greeting in 2 Cor. 1. 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 im 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. 3. 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 ἀδελφός, as in 1 Cor. i.1, 2 Cor. i.1, has no special reference to official (οὐκοῦν καὶ ἀπόστολος, Chrys.), but simply to Christian brother- hood; Timothy was one of of ἀδελφοί, ‘ der christliche-Mitbruder,’ De Wette. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I, 2. 122 ἀδελφὸς 2 τοῖς ἐν Κολασσαῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν lel if 3 o \ ’ / > Ν na 3 id le) Χριστῷ. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν. 2. KoAagaais| So Rec. (but not E/z.), Lachm., and Tisch., with AB (Ὁ in subser.) KX; more than 40 mss. ; Syr. (both), Copt; /Ethiop. (Platt), Slay. (mss.) ; Origen, Theod., Chrysost. (mss.), Theophyl. (1mss.), Suidas, al., to which may be added mss. in Herod. vir. 30 and Xenoph. Anab. 1.2.6. The more usual mode of spelling is found in B7DEFGL; numerous mss.; Vulg., Claroman., al. ; Clem., Chrys., Theodoret (mss.), al.; Lat. Ff. (Ree., 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 Vy., seems so strong, that Κολασσαῖς 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. Κολοσσαῖς was an old emendation. 2. Κολασσαῖς)] Colosse or Colas- sx (see crit. note) was a city of Phrygia, on the Lycus (an afiluent of the Mzan- der), near to, and nearly equidistant from the more modern cities of Hierapo- lis and Laodicea. It was anciently a place of considerable importance (πόλις μεγάλη, Herod. vit. 30; πόλις οἰκουμένη, εὐδαίμων καὶ μεγάλη, Xenoph. Anab. τ. 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 μεγίσται τῶν κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν πόλεων), as to be classed by Strabo (Geogr. x11. 8. 13, ed Kramer) only among the πολίσματα of Phrygia, though still, from past fame, classed by Pliny (Nat. Mist. v.41) among the “ cel- eberrima oppida’ of that country ; see Steiger, Einl. § 2, p.17. It afterwards rose again in importance, and under the name of Χώναι (Theophylact) again re- ceived the titles of εὐδαίμων and μεγάλη (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, Peal-Encycl. Vol. 11. p. 518, and the very interesting topograph- So too Meyer, who admits that ical notes of Steiger, inl. p. 1 — 33. ay tors] ‘saints ;’ used substantivally, as appy. in all the addresses of St. Paul’s Epp-, Rom. i. 7, 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. 1. 1, Eph. i. 1, Phil. i. 1; so Copt., Asth. (Platt), and appy. Chrys. De W. and others connect ἁγίοις with adeA@. (So ap- parently Syriac, Vulg.), but with con- siderably less plausibility, as in such a case πιστοῖς would far more naturally precede than follow, the more compre- hensive ἁγίοις. On the meaning of ἅγιος in such addresses, see Davenant in loc., Beveridge, Serm. 11. Vol. v1 p.401, and compare notes on Eph. i. 1. πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς κ. τ. A.J ‘ fuith- ful brethren in Christ ;’? more specific, and slightly explanatory, designation of the preceding ἅγιοι. Ἔν Χριστῷ is in close union with ἀδελφοί, and marks the sphere and element in which the broth- erhood existed. The omission of the article is perfectly admissible, ἐν Xp. be- ing associated with ἀδελφοῖς so as to form, as it were, one composite idea ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 20.2, p. 123, and notes on E’ph.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 Ἰησοῦ with AD'EIFG; 3 mss.; Syriac, Copt. Caar. I. 38. We thank God for your faith, and love, and progress in the gospel as preached to you by Epaphras. (not 2&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 can hardly be con- ceived that he only uses the title ἐκκλη- σία to those churches which he had him- self founded : see Meyer in loc. χάρις κι 7.A.] On this blended form of the modes of Occidental and Oriental salutation, see notes on Gal. i. 8, Eph. i. 2. The term χάρις is elaborately ex- plained by Davenant; it seems enough to say with Waterland Luchar. x., that χάρις ‘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. rv. p. 666. πατρὸς ἡμῶν] The addition καὶ 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. 8. εὐχαριστοῦμεν] ‘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; li. 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 πάντοτε is to be joined (a) with the finite verb COLOSSIANS. 123 ὃ Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν προσ- (1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, comp. Eph. i. 16), or (Ὁ) with the participle (compare Rom. i. 10, Phil. i. 4): Syr., Avth., and the majority of modern commentators adopt the former; the Greek expositors and apparently Copt. and Vulg. the lat- ter. As περὶ ὑμῶν would seem a very feeble commencement to the participial clause, (0) is to be preferred : see Alf. in loc, who has well defended this latter construction. On εὐχαριστεῖν, sce notes on ch. i. 12, and on Phil. i. 3. The reading is very doubtful. ec. in- serts καὶ before πατρί, with AC*D°EKL ; al.: Lachmann inserts τῷ with DIFG; Chrys.: Tisch. adopts simply πατρὶ with BC. As the probability of an insertion, especially of the familiar καί (Eph. i. 3, al.), seems very great, we retain, though not with perfect confidence, the reading of Yisch. The anarthrous use of πατὴρ is fully admissible ; see the list in Winer, Gr. §.19. 1, p. 109 sq. περὶ ὑμῶν προσ.] “ praying for you.’ The uncial authorities are here again nearly equally divided between περὶ [AC ΠΡ ΚΠ] and ὑπέρ [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 ὑπὲρ seems to direct the attention more to the action itself, περὶ 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 περί, see Donalds. Cratyl. § 177, 178. 4. ἀκούσαντες] ‘having heard, i.e. S aol er ha yriac τοῖς ee [a quo audivimus], ZZthiop. ‘after having heard,’ 124 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I, 4, 5. , 4 ᾽ :2 Ν , ig “- . Χ fal Ἵ fa) \ EV OMEVOL, ακουσαντες τὴν πίστιν υμῶν EV βίστῳ σου Kab \ ets) Oe ae > ΄ Sole, 5 ὃ ὧν SANE ἊΝ δ \ Τὴν ὠγαπην ἣν EXETE εἰς TTAVTAS TOUS AYLOUS La Τὴν EATTLOA τὴν 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. ὃ 45. 3, p. 308. ἐν Xp. ‘Iqe.| “in Christ Jesus,’ —in Him, as the sphere or substratum of the πίστις, that in which the faith centres itself. 'The omission of the article gives ἃ more complete unity to the conception, ‘ Christ-centred faith,’ see notes on ph. i. 15, and comp. Fritz. Rom. iti. 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. ἣν ἔχετε] Further statement of the direction and application of the ἀγάπη. The difference between this and τὴν εἰς (Rec.) is slight, but appreciable. The latter simply ap- pends a second moment of thought (‘amorem, eumque erga omnes sanctos ἢ), the former draws attention to it, and points to its persistence, ἣν ἐπιδεικνύμενοι διετέλουν, Theodor. The reading of Rec. is, however, very feebly supported [51 ΤῸ ; al.| and rejected by all recent editors. 5. διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα is most natu- rally connected with the preceding rela- tive sentence, not with εὐχαρ., Davenant, Eadie; for, as Meyer justly remarks, this preliminary εὐχαριστία is always, in St. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 4, Eph.1. 15, Phil.1.5, 1 Thess. 1.3, 2 Thessa'on. i. 3, 2 Tim. i. 5, Philem. 4), grounded on the subjective state of his converts, ἀκούσαντες κι τ. A. The love they entertained toward the ἅγιοι was Πίστις, evoked and conditioned by no thought of any earthly return (compare Calvin), but by their hope for their μισῶὸς in heaven ; ἀγαπᾶτέ φησι, τοὺς ἁγίους, ov διά τι ἀνϑρώπινον, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἐλπίζειν τὰ μέλλοντα ἀγαϑά, Theoph.; so Chrys. and Theodoret. THY ἀποκειμένην 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 ἐλπὶς must here be regarded, if not as purely objective, ‘id quod speratur,’ Grot., yet certainly as under objective aspects (comp. Rom. vili. 24, ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη, and perhaps Heb. vi. 18), scil. τὴν εὐτρεπισμένην ὑμῖν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν, ‘Theod. ; compare notes on ph. 1.18. It is char- acterized as τὴν amon. x. τ. A. partly to mark its security (τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἔδειξεν, 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, καρπῶν ὅσοι ἀπέκειντο δεδαπα- νημένων, Xen. Anab. 11. 38.5, af βάλανοι τῶν φοινίκων τοῖς οἰκέταις ἀπέκειντο, and examples in Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 820. προηκούσατε] ‘ye heard before :’? before when? Not before its fulfilment, ‘ respectu spei quae illis de re futurd erat facta,’ Wolf, —which would leaye 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.,—7. 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, οὐ προακηκοόσι τοῖσι ᾿Αϑηναίοισι ἐπιπεσεῖν, VIII. 79, mpo- ακήκοε ὅτι; compare Plato, Legg. vii. p. Cuapr. I. 5, 6. COLOSSIANS. 125 ~ ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἣν προηκούσατε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληδείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “ τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς καδὼς καὶ ἐν 797 a. The verb is often found with a purely local sense, e.g. Xenoph. Jem. 11. 4. 7, where see Kiihner. τῷ λόγῳ τῆς GANA] ‘the word of Truth ;’ not the gen. of quality (‘ veris- simum,’ Grot.), but the gen. of the sub- stance or coiitent (Scheuerlein, Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82), τῆς ἀληϑείας specifying what was the substance and purport of its teaching ; sce notes on Eph. i. 13. The genitive εὐαγγελίου is usually taken as the genitive of apposition to τῷ λόγῳ τῆς a@And. (De Wette, Olsh.); but it seems more simp!ce to regard it as a defining genitive allied to the genitive possessivus (genitive cout/nentis), 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; τς 80..5: In ΣΆ]. ἀἰ 5.14, the gen. εὐαγγ. is somewhat different, as ἀλήϑεια stands prominent and separate, whereas here it is under the regimen of, and serves to characterize, a preceding substantive. 6. τοῦ παρόντος εἰς bp] ‘which is present with you ;’ more exactly ‘ which came to and is present with you,’ thie es (not ἐν as in the next clause) conveying the idea of the gospel having reached them (Jelf, Gr. ὁ. 625), while παρόντος implies that it abides there ; οὐ mapeyév- ετο, φησί, καὶ ἀπέστη, GAN ἔμεινε καὶ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ, Chrys. For examples of this not very uncommon union of verbs of rest with εἰς or πρός (Acts xii. 20), sce Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 4, pp. 368, 869. A somewhat cxtreme case occurs in Jer. xli. 7, ἔσφαξεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ φρέαρ. καδϑὼς καὶ κ. τ. λ.Ἶ ‘evenas it also is in the whole world ;’ πανταχοῦ κρατεῖ, Chrys., — a very natural and intelligible hyperbole ; compare Rom. i. 18, x. 18. It is obviously not necessary cither to limit κόσμος to the Roman empire (Mi- chacl.), or to understand it with a literal exactness, which at this period could not be substantiated ; comp. Orig. in Matth, Tract. XXVIII., and see Justiniani zn loc. καὶ ἔστιν καρποφ. K.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 καρποφορουμένου, but by a studied change to the finite verb (see on Eph. i. 20, Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. b, p. 505) throws an emphasis on the fact of the καρποφο- pia, while by his use of the periphrastic present (not καρποφορεῖ ‘ 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 Greck commentators seem right in re- ferring «apro®. to the inner and personal, avé. to the outward and collective in- crease ; καρποφορίαν τοῦ edayy. κέκληκε ? τὴν πίστιν τῶν ἀκηκοότων καὶ τὴν ἐπαι- νουμένην πολιτείαν: αὔξησιν δὲ τῶν πισ- τευόντων τὸ πλῆδϑος, Theod.: compare Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, xix.20. The middle καρποφ. is an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. T.; it may perhaps be an instance of the ‘dynamic’ middle (Donalds. Gr. § 482. 2.05, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8), and may mark some intensification of the active, ‘fructus suos exserit ;’ compare evepyei- oda, Gal. v. 6, and notes in loc. The reading is somewhat doubtful : καὶ avé., with ABCD E!1FGL, scems to rest on preponderant evidence, but the authori- ties for the omission [ABCD1E!; Copt., 120 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I; 6, 7. \ lal ‘ παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, Kal ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον ἣν \ b] € “ > ’ ial e fi BJ , Ν > f \ Kay@s Kal ἐν ὑμῖν, ap ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε Kal ἐπέγνωτε τὴν 7 an na > ’ / χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ Sah.], or insertion [D?D°E?2FGKL; Vulg., Claroman., Syr. (both), Ath.] of the first καί, 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. τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the grace of God,’ 7. 6. as evinced and manifested in the gospel: “ amplificat hisce verbis effi- caciam evangelii...... evangelium vo- 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 (b) only with ἐπέγνωτε (Mey.). The grammatical se- quence appears to suggest the former, and is apparently followed by Chrysost., ἅμα ἐδέξασϑε, ἅμα ἔγνωτε τὴν χάρ. τ. O., but the logical connection certainly the latter ; for if ἐν aAnd. were joined with ἠκούσατε, Kadws (scil. ἐν ἀληῦ., see be- low) «. τ. A. in verse 7 would seem tau- tologous. On the whole it seems best to adopt (b); so Steiger, Mey., al. ἐν ἀληδείᾳ)] ‘in truth;’ 1. 6. in no Judaistic or Gnostic form of teaching ; ἐν aAnd. being (as καϑώς, ver. 7, seems naturally to suggest) an adverbial defi- nition of the manner appended to the pre- ceding ἐπέγνωτε ; 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, (οὐκ ἐν λόγῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν ἀπάτῃ κ. τ. A.) appear to have given to ἐν more of an instrumental force : this is not grammatically neces- 7 καδὼς ἐμάδετε ἀπὸ ᾿Επαφρᾶ sary, and has led to the doubtful para- phrase, τουτέστι σημείοις καὶ ἔργοις παρα- δόξοις, Theophyl. 7. καὺ ὦ 9] ‘evenas;’ not causal ‘in- asmuch as’ (Eph. i. 4), but as usual, simply modal, referring to the preceding ἐν aAnvela, 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 καϑώς, see notes on Gal. iii. 6. The Rec. adds καὶ after καϑώς : the external authority, however, is weak [D%EKL], and the probability of a mechanical repetition of the preceding καϑὼς καὶ far from slight ; compare Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 172 note (Bohn). "ET adppa| A Colossian (ch. iv. 12) who appears from this verse to have been one of the first, #f not the first, of the preachers of the gospel in Coloss: 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. 255; 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. 330, and notes on ch. ii. 25. The reading καθὼς καὶ ἐμάδ. 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 καϑὼς καὶ ἀπὸ Ἐπ. 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. 11. p. 472 sq. ; for replications and coun- ter-arguments, Davidson, Introd. Vol. II. p. 402 sq. συνδούλου] > Cnap. 1..8,.9. COLOSSIANS. 127 πὸ ΚΑ a , ΒΑ 5A “ ᾽ \ Ce TA Cok δ , τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διά- κονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃ Πνεύματι. 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, τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἐντεῦϑεν δείκνυσι τοῦ ἀνδρός, Theoph., compare Theod. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] ‘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 ἡμῶν with ABD!G; 8 mss. ; Bo- ern., in which case ‘ 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 Vv.], and the arguments derived from errone- ous transcription (compare pref. to Gal. p- xvii, ed. 2) seem decidedly in favor of the reading of [ec., as rightly followed by Tisch. (ed. 2, 7). 8. ὁ καὶ δηλώσαϑ] ‘who also made known ;’ further and accessory statement of the acts of Epaphr. Ἡμῖν, as before, refers to the apostle and Timothy; see notes on ver. 5. ἀγάπην ἐν Πνεύματι] ‘love in the Spirit;’ not merely love towards the apostle (Theoph., Gdcum., and appy. Cbrys.), but ‘brotherly love’ in its most general meaning, in which that towards St. Paul was necessarily included; ‘erga me et esp. Eph. i. 15. « Ν ὃ , δι, σὲ \ ΄ la ᾽ / b] O Kal nrwoas μιν τὴν υμωὼῶν ayaTnV εν 9 Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκού- σαμεν, οὐ παυόμεδα ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι καὶ αἰτούμενοι ἵνα πληρωδῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν omnes Christianos,’ Corn. ἃ Lap. This love is characterized as in ‘ the (Holy) Spirit’ (compare Rom. xiv. 17, χαρὰ ἐν Πν. ἁγίῳ) ; it was from Him that it arose (compare Rom. xv. 30, ay. τοῦ Πν.), and it was only in the sphere of His blessed influence (surely not ἐν instrumental, “ ὁ Sp. div. excitatum,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. III. p. 203) that it was genuine and op- erative ; αἵ γε ἄλλαι ὄνομα ἀγάπης ἔχουσι μόνον, Chrys. CEcumenius suggests the the right antithesis (οὐ σαρκικήν, ἀλλὰ πνευματικήν), but dilutes the force by the adjectival solution: the omission of the article before ἐν Ty. is perfectly in ac- cordance with N. Test. usage, and pre- serves more complete unity of concep- tion ; see Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 1238. On the term ἀγάπη, see Reuss, Tél. Chrét. 1v. 19, Vol. 11. p. 203 sq. 9. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘On this account ;’ “because, as we hear, ye have such faith, and have displayed such love :’ καϑάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἁγῶσιν ἐκείνους μάλιστα διεγείρο- μεν τοὺς ἐγγὺς ὄντας τῆς νίκης" οὕτω δὴ καὶ ὃ Παῦλος τούτους μάλιστα παρακαλεῖ τοὺς τὸ πλέον κατωρϑδωκότας Clirys.; sce Thus the ‘ causa impui- 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 παύομαι k.T.A.; the subject (blended with the purpose of it) by ἵνα πληρωϑῆτε κ. τ. A. kal mets] ‘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 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 9. a / ἴω ‘ a τοῦ δελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ Kal συνέσει πνευματικῇ, Καὶ has here its slightly contrasting force, and is clearly to be joined with ἡμεῖς, not τοῦτο, as De W.; see notes on Phil. iv. 12. ἀφ᾽ is ἡμέρας- k. τ᾿ A.] ‘from the day that we heard ;’ incidental definition of the time, with reference to ἀκούσαντες, ver. 4, not ap’ ἧς ἧμ. ἠκούσατε, ver. 6 (Huth.), which may be echoed in the present clause, but, from the difference of the subjects of the ἀκούειν, is not directly referred to. ob παυόμεδα k.7.A.] Sce the ex- actly similar affectionate hyperbole in Eph. i. 16: οὐ μίαν ἡμέραν brepevxdueda, οὐδὲ δύο, οὐ τρεῖς, Chrys. On this idio- matic use of the part., which as usual points to a state supposed to be already in existence, sce notes and reff. on Eph. i. 16, and for a general investigation of the union of the participle with the finite verb, sce the good treatise of Weller, Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt. p. 11 sq. καὶ αἰτούμενοι) ‘and making our pe- tition ;’ the more special form of the more gencral mpocevx., see Mark xi. 24, Eph. vi. 18, and notes in loc. The pres- ent passage seems to confirm the view, expressed Eph. ἰ. c., and on 1 Tim. ii. 1, that προσευχὴ (and προσεύχομαι) is not merely for good things (comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. v. p. 358, A.-C. Libr.), but denotes prayer in its most general as- pects. On the exact force of ἵνα, 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 L’ph. i. 16. Meyer, as usual, too strongly presses the latter idea. τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν K.T.A.] ‘the (full) knowledye of His will,’ —of God’s will, the subject of αὐτοῦ sufficiently transpir- ing in προσευχ. x. τ. A. The accusative ἐπίγν. 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. 5, p. 205, and notes on Phil. i. 11, where this construction is discussed. On the meaning of ἐπίγνωσιν, not barely ‘ Kennt- niss’ (compare Riick. on Lom. 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 γνῶ- σις and ἐπίγνωσις (opp. to Riick. on Lom. 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. SeAhpatos| Obvi- ously not with any special reference, διὰ τί τὸν Ὑἱὸν ἔπεμψεν, 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 zn Joc. ἐν πάσῃ x. τ. λ.] ‘in all spiritual wis- dom and understanding,’ or perhaps more exactly, though less literally, ‘in all wis- dom and understanding of the Spirit,’ πνεύμ. referring to the Holy Spirit,’ (ZEth.-Pol.), the true source of the copia ‘and σύνεσις, see notes on Ephes.i. 3; compare Romans i. 11, 1 Cor. ii. 13, al. Thus then πάσῃ (so expressly Syr., /Eth. (Platt), Copt.) and πνευματικῇ (opp. to Alf. ; compare Chrys.) refer to both sub- stantives, the extensive πάσῃ referring to every exhibition or manifestation of the cop. καὶ σύν. (sce notes on Eph. i. 8), while πνευματικῇ 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 πληρωδῆναι τὴν ἐπίγν. was to take place : this σοφία x. σύν. was not to be ἀνϑρωπίνη (1 Cor. ii. 13) or σαρκική (2 Cor. i. 12), but mvev- patixh, —inspired by and sent from the Cnap. I. 10. COLOSSIANS. 129 ~ 10 an » ' fa) / > a ᾽ f Ψ Ν περιπατῆσαι ἀξίως τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρέσκειαν, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαδῷ καρποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι τῇ ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ 10. περιπατῆσαι] So Lachm. with ABCD!IFG; 10 mss.; Clem. (Griesb., Scholz, Meyer, al.). Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) following Mec. adds ὑμᾶς with D°EKL; great ma- jority of mss.; Chrys., Theod., Dam. The addition is deficient in uncial authority, and somewhat opposed to grammatical usage; compare Winer, Gram. ὃ 44. 3, p. 287 sq. τῇ ἐπιγνώσει) 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 εἰς thy ἐπίγνωσιν with D®E2KL; very great majority of mss.; Theod., Dam., Theoph. (Rec., Meyer, Bisp.): lastly, ἐν τῇ ἐπιγν. 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. τῇ ἐπιγν. as the equally misunderstood εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν, 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 σοφία and σύνεσις, 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 ἄγνοια, Plato, Rep. 111. p. 376 B) its more special result and application; see Harless on Eph. i. 8, and compare Beck, Sceelent. 11, 19, p. 60. Between σύν. and φρόνη- ots (Luke i. 17, Eph. i. 8) the difference is very slight; σύνεσις is perhaps seen more in practically embracing a truth (Ephes. iii. 4), φρόν. more in bringing the mind to bear upon it; compare notes on Eph. i. 8, and Beck, /. c., p. 61. 10. περιπατῆσαι κ. τ. λ.] ‘that ye walk: worthily of the Lord ;’ purpose and object (ἵνα, Theod., compare The- ophyl.), not result (Steiger, al.) of the πληρωδῆναι, specified by the ‘ infin. epex- egeticus ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 44. 1, p. 284, Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. p. 365. For examples of ἀξίως with the genitive, see Eph, iv. 1, Phil. i. 27, 1 Thess. ii. 12, and the examples collected by Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 527. Lastly, Κυρίου is not = Θεοῦ (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. ii. 13 (the other examples are quotations) to Christ. els πᾶσαν apéak.| ‘unto all (every form of ) pleas- ing,’ ‘in omne quod placet,’ Claroman., i. 6. ‘to please Him in all things,’ ἵνα οὕτω ζῆτε ὥστε διὰ πάντων ἀρέσκειν τῷ Θεῷ [Κυρίῳ], Theoph. On this use of ἀρέσκεια, ‘studium placendi,’ Beng. (an am. λεγόμ. in the N. T.), see Loesner, Obs. p. 361, 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.), πάντα καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν ἐσπούδαζεν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ βασιλέως, and de Sacrif. § 8, Vol. 11. p. 257, διὰ πασῶν ἰέναι τῶν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν ὁδῶν. On the extensive πᾶς, see above, and on Eph. i. 8. ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγ.] ‘inevery good work ;’ sphere in which the καρποφορία is manifested. This clause is not to be connected with the preceding εἰς ἀρέσκειαν, as Syriac (Pesh.), Chrys., Theoph., but with the following kapropop., as Vulg., Gothic, 17 150 COLOSSIANS. ὉΗΑΡ. Ἱ. 11: lal rn , Θεοῦ, 1! ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει δυναμούμενοι κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης 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 ‘earnificinam,’ 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. καὶ αὐξ. τῇ ἐπιγνώσει] ‘and in- creasing by the (full) knowledge of God.’ The ἐπίγνωσις Θεοῦ was the instrument by which the growth was increased. The reading of Fec., eis thy ἐπίγν., is not ex- egetically untenable, as ἐπίγν. may be viewed with a kind of reciprocal refer- ence as the measure of the moral αὔξησις (see Mey. in loc., and comp. Ephes. iv. 15), but the weight of external evidence, if not also of internal, preponderates against it ; 500 critical note. 11. ἐν πάσῃ κ. τ. λ.] ‘being strength- ened with all (every form of) strength ; third participial clause parallel to, and in co-ordination with, ἐν παντὶ κ. τ. A. Ἔν here seems purely instrumental (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 ἐν as denoting the element, δύναμις being subjective ; this is possible ; the instrumental force, how- ever, seems clearly recognized by Theod., τῇ Fela ῥοπῇ κρατυνόμενοι, and appears more simple and natural. The simple form δυναμόω is an am. Aeydu. in the N. T. (see Psalm Ixvii. 28, Eccles. x. 10, Dan. ix. 27), ἐνδυναμόω being the more usual form. κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς δ.] ‘according to the power of ITis 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 Eph. i. 6. The prep. κατὰ 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 δυνάμωσις 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 ; οὐχ ἁπλῶς, φησί, δυναμοῦσϑε, ἀλλ᾽ ws εἰκὸς τοὺς οὕτως ἰσχυρῷ δεσπότῃ δουλεύοντας, Chrysost. On the deriy. of κράτος, see notes on Eph. i. 19. eis πᾶσαν k.7.A.] ‘unto all patience and longsuffering ;’ 7. 6. ‘to insure, to lead you into, every form of patience and longsuffering,’ ‘ ut procreet in nobis [vo- bis] patientiam,’ ete., Davenant, — the prep., as usual, marking the final desti- nation of the δυνάμωσις. The distinction between these words is not very clear: neither that of Chrys. (μακροϑυμία πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὑπομονὴ πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω), nor that quoted, but not adopted by Daven. (ὕπομ. ad illa mala que a Deo infligun- tur μακροῦ. ad illa que ab hominibus inferuntur) is quite satisfactory, as both, on different sides, seem too restrictive. Perhaps ὑπομονὴ is more general, desig- nating that ‘ brave patience,’—not ‘ endur- ance,’ with which the Christian ought to bear all trials, whether from God or men, from within or without (see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 10, and on Tit. ii. 2), while μακ- 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. μετὰ χαρᾶς 15 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 Cnap. I. 12. COLOSSIANS. 151 αὐτοῦ els πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν Kal μακροδυμίαν, μετὰ χαρᾶς | εὐχα- r a al e ’ - A ριστοῦντες τῷ Πατρὶ τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν μερίδα τοῦ very plausible, —the dou. and μακρ. 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 ὑπομονὴ and μακροῦ. are perfectly distinct and are commonly used, whether in juxtaposi- tion (2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10) or separately (Rom. ν. 8, 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., Lachm., and Tisch., to connect the defining words with evxa- ριστοῦντες. 12. evx. τῷ Πατρί] ‘giving thanks to the Father, scil. ‘of our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ participial clause, obviously not dependent on οὐ παυόμ. 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- ificari,’ χάριν διδόναι ; (b) non-Attie, ‘ gra- tias habere vel réferre ; but see Demosth. de Cor. p. 257. 2; (6) gratias agere verbis,’ used by Polyb. (xvi. 25. 1, xv1it. 26. 4, XXX. 11.1) and later writers ; (d) ‘yratias referre simul et agere gratificando, found in certain inscript.: see also notes on Pil. i. 12. The readings τῷ π. καὶ Θεῷ and τῷ Θεῷ x. π. are obvious interpolations, and rest on no critical authority ; see Tisch. in loc. τῷ σαντι κ. τ. λ.} ‘who made us meet for the portion of the inheritance of the saints in light.’ These words deserve some con- sideration. Inthe first place the reading is slightly doubtful: DIFG; 17. 80; Claroman., Goth.; Did.; Lat. Ff. read καλέσαντι for ixav., while Lachm., with B, retains both τῷ ἱκαν. καὶ kad. The critical preponderance is, however, clear- © / tKaV@- ly in favor of ixay., for which καλέσ. would have formed a natural gloss. (2) Ἵκαν. is not ‘ qui dignos fecit, ’ Vulg., but y y ol? [qui idoneos nos fecit] Syriac, compare /Eth.; see 2 Cor. iii. 6, ds καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς, where the meaning is perfectly clear. Again the part. has not here a causal force ‘ quippe qui,’ Meyer (compare Theod., ὅτι κοινωνοὺς ἀπέφηνε), —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 ; πολὺ τὸ βάρος ἔδειξεν, Chrys. The principal difficulty is, however, in the construction, as ἐν τῷ φωτὶ may admit of at least four connections, (a) with ἱκανώσαντι, in an instrumental (Meyer) or semi-modal sense, —as apparently Chrys., Gicum., Theoph., who explain φωτὶ as = γνώσει; (0) with τὴν μερίδα (Beng.), ἐν having a local force, and defining the position of the μερίς ; (c) with ἁγίων, --- ἐν φωτὶ des- ignating their abode ; compare Grotius ; lastly and most probably, (4) with «Aq- pov, or more exactly κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων, the gen. specifying the possessors, and so indirectly the character of the κλῆρος, the prep. clause its ‘situm et conditio- nem,’ Corn.a Lap. Of these (a), though ably defended by Meyer, is harsh and improbable; (b) causes a dislocation in the order, unless pep. «. τ. A. be all taken as one idea (Alford), in which case the omission of the article is not perfectly satisfactory ; (c) gives to of ἅγιοι an un- due prominence, compare Alford ; (d) on the contrary seems to give to the κλῆρος τῶν wy. exactly the qualifying, or possi- bly localizing definition it requires, and preserves a good antithesis with ἐξ. τοῦ σκότους, V. 13, which (a) especially ob- scures ; compare Acts xxvi, 18. The art. before ἐν τῷ φωτὶ is not needed, as 132 COLOSSIANS. Cuar. I. 13. , “ € / 3 Lod , 13 ἃ 39 ey, Ἕ aA » A ’ , κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί, 15 ὃς ἐῤῥύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας lal \ / > a a n TOU σκότους, καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς THY βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγά- κλήρ. τῶν ay. ἐν τῷ φ. forms asingle idea (Winer, Gram. § 20. 2, p. 123) : >with the whole clause ( Alf.) it could be less easily dispensed with. Weretain then (d) with De W., perhaps Theod., and apparently the majority of interpreters. ‘There re- main only a few details. κλῆρος] ‘inheritance, Acts xxvi. 18; properly ‘a lot’ (Matth. xxvii. 35, Mark xy. 24), thence anything obtained by lot (compare Acts i. 25, /tec.), and thence, with a greater latitude, anything as- signed or apportioned (τόπος, κτῆμα, οὐ- σία ἢ λαχμός, Suid.), whether officially (1 Pet. v.35; ‘cleros appellat particulares ecclesias, Caly.), or, as here, a posses- sion and inheritance ; comp. Heb. mbm. The κλῆρος ev $. is represented as a joint inheritance of the saints, of which each individual has his μερίδα. The deriva- tion is uncertain; perhaps from κλάειν, 7. 6. a ‘ broken-off’ portion (Pott, Ltym. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 597), or, less probably, from Sanscr. kri, with sense of ‘ casting,’ or ‘ parting off’ (Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11 p. 172). Its more specific use in eccl. writers is well illustrated by Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 110 sq. ἐν τῷ φωτί] It is not necessary to refer this specifically to the heavenly realm: φῶς marks its characteristics on the side, not merely of its glory (Huth., compare Bp. Hall, Jnvis. 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. vi. p. 399. 13. ὃς ἐῤῥύσατο κ. 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 ἐῤῥύσατο (‘eripuit ; plus hoe est quam liberavit: ..... eripiuntur svepe inviti,’ Zanch.), though in part phi- lologically defensible (see Buttm. Lezil. s. v. § 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; οὐκ εἶπε δέ, ἐξέβαλεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐῤῥύσατο, δεικνὺς ὅτι ὧς αἰχμάλωτοι ἐταλαιπωρούμεδϑα. ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότ.}) ‘the power of > the power which is possessed darkness ; and exerted by Darkness, —not, how- ever, merely subjectively, τῆς πλάνης, Chrys. 1, but evil and sin, viewed objec- tively as the antithesis of φῶς, 7. 6. τοῦ δι- αβόλου τῆς τυραννίδος, Chrys. 2, Theod. μετέστησεν] ‘translated,’ ‘removed ;’ redemption in its further and positive aspects. The yerb 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, τοὺς οἰκήτορας μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν. The further idea ‘ migrare cogit ex natali solo,’ Daven., though theologically true, is not necessarily involved in the word. eis τὴν βασιλείαν) The term βασι- λεία 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 μετέστ. suggests, semilocal and de- scriptive. Nor is this wholly future ; the υἱοὶ rod φωτός, the pure and the holy (comp. Matth. v. 8, Heb. xii. 14), even Cuap. I. 14, 15. COLOSSIANS. 190 ᾽ a 14 > e wv \ ’ 4 \ » lol . TNS αὐτοῦ, “ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, THY ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρ- lal 5 > a a a τιῶν" 15 ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης while tarrying in these lower courts are the subjects of that kingdom, the ‘ deni- zens’ of that πολίτευμα (Phil. iii. 20), the sharers of that υἱοϑεσία (Eph. i. 5), just as the viol τῆς ἀπειϑείας are even here on earth the occupants of the realm of darkness and the vassals of its κοσμο- «pdtopes. A long and elaborate treatise on the βασιλεία Θεοῦ will be found in Comment. Theol. Vol. 11. p. 107-173. τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ) ‘of Lis love,’ t. 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 ἀγαπητός, Matthew iii. 17, Mark xii. 6, al., or ἢγαπημένος, Ephes. i. 6, compare Chrys. ; (0) a species of gen. originis, ἀγάπη being considered more as an es- sence than an attribute ; see August. de Trin. x. 19 (cited by Est. and Just.), and Olsh. in loc. ; (c) the gen. of the re- moter object (comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p- 169), ‘the son who has His love,’ Steiger, compare Wordsw. ; and more probably, (d) the gen. suhjecti, ἀγάπης being classed under the general head of the possessive genitive; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7.7: De Wette and Mey. compare Gen. xxxv. 18, vibs ὀδύνης μον. It has been thought that the title is specially selected to imply some reference to the viodecia (Huth.) ; this is possible, but the context and a comparison with Ephes. i. 6, 7, do not favor the supposition. 14. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom;’ certainly not ‘by whom,’ but ‘in’ Him as the living source of redemption : see notes on Eph. i. 7, where these and the following words in the clause are commented upon and illustrated. ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολ.] ‘we are having the redemption,’ or, simply , 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. ἀπὸ is not intensive (οὐκ εἶπε λύτρωσιν, GAN ἄπολ., ὥστε μηδὲ πεσεῖν λοιπόν, 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 Ilis 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 ; διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. (Rec.) rests only on cursive mss., and is rightly omitted by nearly all modern ed- itors. Ἔχομεν is more doubtful, as it might be a change in conformity with Eph. i. 7. ZLachm. reads ἔσχομεν with B (A is doubtful), Copt. [an-s/] ; but the diplomatic authority seems insufficient to warrant the change. τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἅμαρτ.,] ‘the forgive- ness of our sins ;’ apposition to the pre- ceding τὴν amod., defining more exactly its nature and significance. On the dis- tinction between ἄφεσις and παρεσις, see Trench, Synon. § 33, and on that between ἁμαρτίαι and παραπτώματα, notes on Eph. i. 7. 15. ὅς ἐστιν x. τ. λ.] Detailed de- scription of the person of Christ, His dignity, and His exaltation, for which the preceding verse and the allusion to βασιλεία in ver. 13 form a suitable prep- 194 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 15, 16. / 16 Ὁ » ᾽ a 15 , S \ “4 \ a. Lal > A ὶ KTLOEWS, OTL EV AUTM EKTLO 5 TA TTAVTA, TA EV τοις Ovpavols Κα 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, καὶ σχήματι k. τ. A. seemed to introduce a new por- tion of the subject, so here the second καὶ αὐτὸς (v.18) indicates a similar transi- tion; and further, that, just as in Phil. l. c. the first portion related to the Λόγος ἄσαρκος, the latter to the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος, 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 καὶ 17) is dependent on the fore- “Os thus refers to the subject ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἄγ. αὐτοῦ 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. εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τ. τ. A.] ‘the image of the invisible God ;’ not ‘an image,’ Wakef., or ‘image,’ Alf.,—the article is idiomatically omitted after ἐστιν; see Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3.2. With this ex- pression comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν αὐτὸς (ver. going ὅτι. τοῦ Θεοῦ, Heb. i. 3, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ: 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 man,’ Waterl. Serm. Chr. Div. ν. Vol. 11. p. 104, see especially Athan. Nicen. 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 zqualitatis significantiam ha- bet similitudo,’ Hil. de Syn. § 73, ἀπα- ράλλακτος εἰκὼν τοῦ Πατρὸς [on the sub- sequent Semi-arian use of this term, see Oxf. Libr. of Ff. Vol. στα. p. 35, 106] καὶ τοῦ πρωτοτύπου ἔκτυπος χαρακτήρ, Alex. ap. Theod. Hist. Eccl. 1.4; see Athan. contr. Arian. 1.20. The Son is the Father’s image in all things save only in being the Father, εἰκὼν φυσικὴ καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος κατὰ πάντα ὁμοία τῷ πατρί, πλὴν τῆς ἀγεννησίας καὶ τῆς πατρό- τητος, Damase. de Imag. 111. 18 ; comp. Athan. contr. Arian. τ. 21. The exact force of the emphatically placed τοῦ ἀοράτου (‘ who is invisible,’ Wordsw.; Winer, Gram. ὃ 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 visibility, of the εἰκών (Daven., Meyer, al.; compare 2 Cor. iii. 18, Heb. xii. 14)? Apparently to the latter: Christ, as God and as the original image of God, was of course primarily and essentially ἀόρατος (ἐπεὶ οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἰκὼν εἴη, 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. Pid. Nic. 1. 1, 1 sq.). He was δρατός, the manifester of Him who dwells in φῶς ἀπρόσιτον (1 Tim. vi. 16) and whom no man hath Cuapr. I. 16. COLOSSIANS. 188 \ SN fal a \ . \ \ \ > Sale y U » Ta ETL τὴς YS, TA OpaTa Kab Ta aopaTa, €LTE Spovor, €LTE 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, Zehrb. 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 εἰκών, and its distinction from ὁμοίωσις, see Trench, Synon. § 15. πρωτότοκος πάσης Ktlo.| ‘the Jirst-born before every creature,’ ἵ. 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 (πρὸ πάντων) expressly reiterates, our Lord is here solemnly defined as πρωτότοκος in rela- tion to every created thing, animate or inanimate, human or superhuman ; πρω- τότ. τοῦ Θεοῦ. καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισ- μάτων, Just. Martyr, Dial. § 100. This notable expression has received every variety of explanation. Grammat. con- sidered, τῆς κτίσεως may perhaps be the part. gen., the posses. gen. (Hof. Schri/tb. 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 πρῶτος 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, πᾶσα κτίσις must be con- n~ > sidered as equiy. to a plur. (τ os) ο nm |Aupo [omnium creaturarum] Syr.), i. 6. every form of creation (comp. Hof- mann, /.c.), the expression compared with πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, Rey. i. 5, and (esp. in the last of these cases) the Arian deduction, that Christ is a κτίσις, deemed grammatically possible ; see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 4, and even Reuss, Theéol. 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, πᾶσα κτίσις retains its proper force, πρωτότοκος its comparative reference, and the conclusion of Atha- nase, especially when viewed in connec- tion with the context (ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτ., ver. 16), perfectly inevitable ; ἄλλος ἐστι τῶν κτισμάτων, Kal κτίσμα μὲν οὐκ ἔστι, κτιστὴς δὲ τῶν κτισμάτων, contr. Arian. 11. ᾧ 62, —a passage of marvellous force and perspicuity : see also, both on this and ver. 16, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 148. The term πρωτότοκος (obs. not πρωτόκτιστος OF mpwrdmAagTos) 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- γενὴς which more exactly defines His relation to the Father; μονογενὴς μέν, διὰ τὴν ἐκ Πατρὸς γέννησιν" mpwrdtoKos: δέ, διὰ τὴν εἰς τὴν κτίσιν συγκατάβασιν [condescension] καὶ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἀδελ- φοποίησιν, 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. Fid. Nic. 111. 9.9, who however appears to have misunderstood the meaning’ of συγκατάβασις, compare Newman, in Oxf. Libr. of Ef. Vol. vit. p. 288. Lastly, as there seem to be two senses in 136 COLOSSIANS. ΠΑΡ. 1. 163 , ” ’ μ“ yy fe , = x , ὃ ’ ’ n \ KUPLOTYTES, ELTE apxXat, ElTE εζουσιᾶα TA TAVTA νὑ αὑὐτου και 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. /. c., ὁ 63), we may possibly admit, as ver. 18 also par- tially suggests, a secondary and inferen- tial, — certainly not a primary (Theod.- Mops. ; 2th., ‘supra omnia opera’), nor even co-ordinate, reference to prior- ity in dignity (προτίμησις) : see Alf. in loc., who, however, unduly presses this reference, and by referring the whole to Christ in his now glorified state (50 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. ὅτι] ‘because,’ not ‘for,’ Alf., a translation better reserved for ydp, — 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 προτότ. πάσης κτίσεως, and had an eter- nal priority in time and dignity. The objections of Schleiermacher (Stud. uw. Kit. 1832, p. 502) to the logic of this causal explanation are unreasonable and pointless. 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: ἐν has been referred to Christ as (a) the causa instrumentalis (ἐν = διά), creation being conceived as existing in the means, Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3; (b) the causa exemplaris, the κόσμος νοητὸς 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 ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘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 ἐν αὐτῷ here and δι αὐτοῦ 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 Scrip- ture. We therefore adopt (6) which is theologically exact and significant, and in which St. Paul’s peculiar, yet somewhat varied, use of ἐν Χριστῷ wit! verbs (com- pare 2 Cor. v. 19, Gal. 11. 17, Eph. i. 4, al.) is suitably maintained : compare the similar usage of ἐν, especially with pro- nouns, to denote the subject in which and on which (‘den Haltpunkt’) the action depends, 6. g. ἔν σοι πᾶσ᾽ ἔγωγε σώζομαι, Soph. Ajar, 519; see Rost τι. Palm, Lex. s. v. ἐν, 2. Ὁ, Vol. 1. p. 509, Bern- hardy, Synt. v. 8. b, p. 210. ἐκτίσϑ ἡ] ‘were created, with simple physical ref.: observe the aorist of the past action, as contrasted with ἔκτισται 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. xy. 27, and Winer, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 248. The forced (ethical) meaning ‘were arranged, re- constituted’ (Schleierm.), though lexi- cally admissible, is fully disproved by Meyer, who observes that κτίζω 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. τὰ πάντα) ‘all things (that exist)? — more specifical- ly defined, first in regard of place, sec- Cuap. I. 16, 17. ,» COLOSSIANS. 137 ’ 3. \ y 17 A ile ek EW A τι \ , Ny ἃ , εἰς αὑτὸν EKTLOTAL, Και AUTOS ἐστιν προ πάντων, καὶ τὰ TAVTa ondly in regard of nature and essential characteristics. On the use of the art. (‘das All’), see W., Gr. § 18. 8, p. 105. τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρ. κ. τ. Δ.] ‘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; ‘hic 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 farther specified by disjunc- tive enumerations. τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρ.] ‘the things visible and the things invisible ;’ amplifi- cation — not exclusively of the former (διδάσκει σαφέστερον τίνα καλεῖ οὐράνια εἴτε ὁρατὰ [as sun, moon, and stars] εἴτε ἀόρατα, Theod.), or exclusively of the latter member (ἀόρατα τὴν ψυχὴν λέγων, ὁρατὰ πάντας ἀνϑρώπους, Chrys.), but of both, ‘the visible and invisible world :’ ‘in celo visibilia sunt sol, luna, stellz ; invisibilia, angeli: in terra visibilia, plant, elementa, animalia; invisibilia, anim, humane,’ Daven.,— unless in- deed, as the following enumeration seems to imply, this last class, ‘animx humane,’ be grouped with ὁρατά (Mey.). εἴτε Spdvotx.t.A.] ‘whether thrones, whether dominions, whether principalities, whether powers ;’ disjunctive specification of the preceding ἀόρατα ; ‘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, Thél. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p. 226 sq., and the extremely good article in Suicer, Thesaur, s.v. &yy. Vol. 1. p. 30-48. By comparing this passage with Eph. J. c., where the order seems descensive, we may possibly infer that the ϑρόνοι (not else- where ia 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, κυριότητες the fourth, ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι the intermedi- ate (Mey.), if indeed, as is observed on Eph. 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 _ theosophistie 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 the term ἀόρατα evoked. Of the other numerous interpretations which these words have received (see De Wette in loc.), none seem worthy of serious atten- tion. τὰ πάντα K.7.A.] ‘ (yea) all thinys,’ etc.; solemn recapitu- lation of the foregoing. The most nat- ural punctuation seems to be neither a period (Tisch.), nor a comma (AIf.), least of all a parenthesis (Zachm.), but, as in Mill, and in Buttmann’s recent edi- tion, a colon. καὶ eis αὐτόν] ‘through Himand for Him ;’ resumption of ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτ. 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’ (Daven.) or ‘ finis ulti- δ᾽ αὐτοῦ 18 198 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 17,18. 9 > a / 18 Ν > f 5 € ἈΝ lal / ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν δ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος. 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; εἰς αὑτὸν κρέμαται ἣ πάν- των ὑπύστασι5......«ὥστε ἂν ἀποσπασϑῇ τῆς αὐτοῦ προνοίας, ἀπόλωλε καὶ διέφϑαρται, 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; ifthe Son had not been God, such an interchange of important relations would never have seemed pos- sible: compare Waterland Def. Qu. xt. Vol. x. p. 383 sq., Vol. 11. p. 54, 56. On the force of the perf. ἔκτισται, see above; and in answer to the attempts to refer this passage to any figurative crea- tion, see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. ἢ. 149, 150 (ed. Burt.). 17. καὶ αὐτός κι τ. Δ) ‘and He Timnself,’ etc. ; contrast between the cre- ator and the things created ; αὐτὸς being emphatic, and καὶ having a gentle con- trasting force (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) by which the tacit antithesis involved in αὐτὸς (‘ipse oppositum habet alium,’ Hermann, Dissert., αὐτός 1) between the things created (τὰ πάντα) 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 αὐτὸς 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. πρὸ πάντων) ‘before all things,’ not ‘all beings’ (΄ omnes,’ Vulg., Clarom.), and that too not in rank, but, in accordance with the primary meaning of πρωτότοκος and the immediate context,—=in time ; τοῦτο Θεῷ ἅρμοζον, Chrys. Theodoret with reason calls attention to the expres- sion —not ἐγένετο mpd πάντων, but ἔστι πρὸ πάντων : contrast John i. 14 ἐν αὐτῷ avvéorT.| ‘consist in Him,’ as the causal sphere of their continuing ex- istence : not exactly identical with ἐν αὐτῷ 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 their persist- ence; comp. Heb. i. 3, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. The de- claration, as Waterl. observes, is in fact tantamount to ‘in Him they live, and move, and have their being’ (Serm. on Div. vu. 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. xvi1I. Vol. τ. p. 430. The verb συνιστάναι 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, ἐκ Seov Ta πάντα, καὶ διὰ Seod ἡμῖν συ- νέστηκεν ; see especially Krebs, Obs. p. 334, and Loesner, Obs. p. 862, by both of whom this word is copiously illustrated from Josephus and Philo; compare also Elsner, Ols. Vol. 11. 259. 18. καὶ αὐτός x.7.d.] 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. Αὐτὸς is thus, as before, emphatic, possibly involving an antithe- Cuap. I. 18. COLOSSIANS. 159 τῆς ἐκκλησίας" ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, iva sis to some falsely imagined κεφαλὴ or κεφαλαὶ 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 κεφαλὴ rather than ἐκκλησία ; it was the head- ship of the Church, not its imaginary constitution, that formed the undercur- rent of the erroneous teaching. τοῦ σώμ. τῆς eKKA.]. ‘of His body, the Church,’ τῆς ἐκκλ. 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 φιλανϑρωπία of Christ (ϑέλων ἡμῖν οἰκειότερον δεῖξαι Chrys.), but the real, vital, and essen- tial union between the Church and its Head : compare Ephes. iv. 15, 16, and notes in loc. ; sce also Rom. xii. 5, 1 Cor. x. 17, Ephes. i. 23, al. bs ἐστιν] ‘seeing He is;’ the relative having a semi-argumentative force, and serving to confirm the previous declara- tion ; see Jelf, Gram. ὃ 836.3. We can scarcely say that in such sentences ‘ds is for ὅτι (Jelf, J. c., Matth. Gr. § 480. c), but rather that, like the more usual ὅστις, 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. ἀρχή] ‘ the beginning,’ not merely in ref. to the fol- lowing τῶν νεκρῶν (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 Θεὸς δὲ ἄναρ- xos ἀρχὴ τῶν ὕλων mayTeAts),—but, as the more immediate context and the ref- erence to our Lord’s Headship of His αὑτόν, ᾽ 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 πρωτότοκος ex τῶν νεκρ. Serv- ing to define that relation more closely, and to preserve the retrospective allusion to πρωτότ. in ver. 15: our Lord in His glorified humanity is the ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς (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, Lehr. 11. 2,4, p. 804. The plausible reading ἀπαρχή, adopted by Chrys. and a few mss., is a limiting gloss suggested by the next clause compared with 1 Cor. xy. 23. The omission of the article [in- serted in B, 67**] before ἀρχὴ is due, not to the abstract form of the word (Olshaus.), but simply to the preceding verb subst., Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3. 2. πρωτότ. ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν] ‘ first- born from the dead ;’ not exactly identi- cal with πρωτότ. τῶν νεκρῶν, 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. 111. p. 57); he was the true ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων, 1 Cor. xy. 23: compare Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 241. Others had been transleted 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, πρωτ. ee τῶν νεκρῶν, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 136 (ed. Burt.). ἵνα γένηται κ. τ. λ.] ‘in order that in all things He might become (not ‘sit,’ Vulg.) pre-eminent, might take the first place,’ ‘primas teneat,’ Beza, Daven. ; πανταχοῦ πρῶτος" ἄνω πρῶτος, ἐν τῇ ἐκ- 140 COLOSSIANS. Ομ». 1. 19. ένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων, 19 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν yevn ’ O κλησίᾳ πρῶτος, ἐν TH ἀναστάσει πρῶτος, Chrys.: divine purpose (ἵνα has here its full telie force, compare on Eph. i. 17) of His being the ἀρχὴ 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 Mis feet, and the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of the Lord and His Christ (Rev. xi. 15). The tense γένηται 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 πρωτεύειν is an Gm. Aeydu. in the N. T., but is not uncommon elsewhere ; compare Zech. iv. 7 (Aquil.), Esth. v. 11, 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15, in all which passages an idea of προτίμησις seems clearly conveyed. This however does not require a similar meaning to be as- signed to πρωτότ. (comp. De W., Alf.) : πρωτεύειν was to be the result, πρωτότοκ. k. τ. A. was one of the facts which led to it; compare Meyer zn loc. ἐν πᾶσιν] ‘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 τὰ πάντα in the causal sen- tence which follows. Lastly, αὐτός, as above, must net be left unnoticed ; ‘ si quis alius mortem debellasset, etc., tam 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. in the causal sentence which follows. 19. ὅτι] ‘because ;’ confirmation of the divine purpose in reference to Christ’s precedence ἐν πᾶσιν : He in whom the whole πλήρωμα (of the Sedrys) was pleased to reside, must needs have had His precedence in all things eternally designed and contemplated. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him,’ and in Him special- ly: connected with κατοικεῖν, 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. εὐδόκησεν κ. τ. λ.] ‘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 εὐδοκεῖν. This verb, a late and probably Macedonian- Greek word (Sturz, de Dial. Maced. p. 167), has four constractions in the N. T., all personal ; with ἐν and a dat. (Matth. ἢ]. 17, xvii. 5, al.: 2 Thessalon. ii. 12 is doubtful), with εἰς 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 εὐδοκ. are fully investigated. In the present case three subjects have been proposed ; (a) Χρισ- τός, the preceding subject, Tertull. Mare. v.19, and recently Conyb., and Hofm. Schrijib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 242, where it is fairly defended ; (b) Θεός, 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 τὸ πᾶν πλήρω- μα; Clarom., Copt., apparently /£th., 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 (0), a harsh change of subject to the two infin. : the second (ὦ) is dogmatically correct, but involves a very unusual construction of evdox. (comp. Cuar. I. 90. COLOSSIANS. 141 a \ ’ a TO πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι * καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα Polyb. Hist. 1. 8. 4. vir. 4. 5, 2 Mace. xiv. 35), a different subject to κατοικ. and ἀπυκ., 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 (6) is syntactically simple, it is also in harmony with St. Paul’s regular usage of evox. 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 ὅτι wav τὸ πλ. εὐδ. «. τ. 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, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν TO WA. τῆς Sed- τῆτος σωμ. 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. πᾶν τὸ TAH- ρωμα] ‘the whole fulness (of the God- head ),’ ‘omnes divine nature divitix,’ Fritz. These words have been very dif- ferently explained. Lexically consid- ered, πλήρωμα 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 (y) 7d quo res impletur, Gal. iv. 4, Ephes. iii. 9 (see notes on both pas- sages), which aguin often passes into the neutral and derivative (7) cffluentia, abundantia, πλοῦτος, ---- 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 (vy), is alone exegetically admissible. The real difficulty is in the supplemental gen. Setting aside all doubtful and ar- bitrary explanations, e.g. ἐκκλησία (The- od., Sever.), ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ (Schleierm.), ‘fulness of the universe’ (Conyb., Hofm. 1. c., Ρ. 26), we have only one authoritative supplement, Seé- τητος, cither exactly in the same sense as in ch. ii. 9, ‘ plenitudo Deitatis,’ or in the more derivative sense, ‘ plenitudo gratie habitualis’ (compare Davenant, Mey., al.). The latter of these is adopt- ed by those who advocate construction (Ὁ) of εὐδοκ., but has this great disadvan- tage, that it involves two interpretations of πλήρωμα ϑεότ. (here in ref. to ‘ divina gratia,’ there to ‘divina essentia,’ so Mey., Alf., al.), whereas on the constr. of εὐδοκ. already adopted, πλήρ. will nat- urally 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 Θεός, 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, II. 15. 12. ‘to dwell ;’? a term especially applied to the indwelling influence of the Father (compare Eph. 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 πλήρωμα; ἐκεῖ ὥκησεν οὐκ ἐνέργειά τις ἀλλ᾽ οὐσία, Theophyl.] 20. ἀποκατ. τὰ πάντα] ‘to re- concile all things ;’ not ‘ prorsus reconcil- iare,’ Mey. (compare Chrys., κατηλλαγ' κατοικῆσαι) 142 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 20. a le] “ > “ εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, μένοι, ἀλλὰ τελείως ἔδει), but, with the natural force of ἀπὸ in similar com- pounds (ἀποκαϑιστάνειν, ‘jin pristinam conditionem reconciliando reducere ;’ see Winer, de Verb. Comp. ιν. p. 7,8. The subject of the inf. is of course the same as that of κατοικ., 7. 6.» grammatically considered, the πλήρωμα above, but exegetically, —as the follow- ing αὐτὸν and other scriptural analogies (compare 2 Cor. ν. 19, Eph. i. 10) seem to suggest, the more definite Θεός, 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 ἀποκατ. (e.g. ‘reunionem creaturarum inter se invicem,’ Dallzeus), or to limit the com- prehensive and unrestricted τὰ πάντα (6. 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, Lehrb, 11. 1. 1, p. 129, Marhcineke, 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 ἀπευϑεύνειν), ‘causa medians’ by which the absolute Ὁ 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 ἀνα- κεφαλαιώσασϑαι, Ephes. i. 10 (obs. both the prep. and the voice), is a more gen- . eral and perhaps more deyeloped, while 2 Cor. v. 19, κόσμον καταλλ. is a more limited and more specific, representation of the same eternal truth: see Destiny of Creature, p. 85 sq. eis ‘unto Himself,’ i. 6. to God, couched in the foregoing πλήρωμα: a ‘ preegnans constructio,’—the preposi- tion marking the reconciled access to (comp. Eph. ii. 18), and union with the Creator; compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 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 αὑτόν (Griesb., Scholz), as the reference to the subject is unemphatic; see notes on Eph.i. 4. εἰρηνοποιή- aas| ‘having made peace ;’ 1. 6. God,— a simple and intelligible change of gen- der suggested by the preceding αὐτὸν and the personal subject involved in the subst. with which the participle is gram- matically connected; in fact, ‘a con- struct. πρὸς τὸ ὕπο σημαινόμενον. The parallel passage Eph. ii. 15, ποιῶν εἰρή- νην, 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. διὰ τοῦ alu. τοῦ σταυρ.] ‘by {1 δἱἰοοά of αὐτόν) Cuap. I. 20, 21. δι You who were alienated He reconciled by His death, > a y \ αὐτου, €LTE TA COLOSSIANS. 143 > ae Lal fel ” - “ ἐπι τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. \ cal ’ “Ἢ Kai ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμένους if at least ye remain firm in the faith and abide by the hope of the Gospel. (z. ὁ. 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. δι αὐτοῦ] ‘by Iim;’ it is scarcely neces- sary to say that δι αὐτοῦ does not refer to the immediately preceding διὰ τοῦ aiu., but to the more remote δι᾽ αὐτοῦ 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. ‘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 τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς yijs. 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. x1v. 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). How 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 elte Ta €v ovp. k.T.A.] 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. Vili, 19 sq.), peace is wrought; see the yaluable note of Harless on Eph. i. 10, especially p. 52, Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. I. p. 189, and comp. Wordsw. in /oc. 21. καὶ ὑμᾶς] ‘and you also:’ new clause, to be separated by a period (not merely by acomma, 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 involves a slight anacoluthon : the apostle probably commenced with the intention of placing ὑμᾶς under the immediate regimen of ἀποκατήλλ., but was led by ποτὲ ὄντας into the contrasted clause νυνὶ δὲ before he inserted the verb ; compare Winer, Gram. ὃ 63.1, p. 504. The reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε adopted by Lachm. and Meyer with B [DIFG ; Cla- rom.; Iren., al., have ἀποκαταλλαγέντες] involves an equally intelligible, though much stronger anacoluthon, but has not sufficient external support. ὄντας ἀπηλλοτρ.] ‘being alienated,’ ‘being ina state of alienation,’ scil. ‘from God ;’ compare Eph. iv. 238, 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 ἀπαλλ. (‘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. CHAey Ly 215.225 ὶ éySpovds τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπο- καὶ ἐχϑροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ηροῖς, ἀ © A an \ a \ rn κατήλλαξεν “5 ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ Yavarou, ἐχϑροὺς τῇ διαν.] “ enemies in your understanding ;’ not passive, ‘regarded as enemies by God’ (Mever, who com- pares Rom. v. 10), but, as the subjective tinge given by the limiting dative and the addition ἐν τοῖς ἔργ. seem to imply, active; ἐχϑροὶ ἦτε, φησί, καὶ τὰ τῶν ἐχ- δρῶν ἐπράττετε, Chrysost. The dative διανοίᾳ 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 ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις marks the practical spheres and substrata in which the €y3pa was evinced ; comp. Hu- ther in loc. On the meaning of διάνοια, the ‘higher intellectual nature’ (d:éfod0s Ao- yin, Orig.), especially as shown in its practical relations (contrast ἔννοια, Heb. iv. 12), see the good remarks of Beck, Seelenl. 11. 19. b, p. 58. The addition τοῖς πονηροῖς, not simply ἐν τοῖς πον. ἔργ., serves to give emphasis, and direct attention to the real character of the ἔργα; Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 1, p. 119. νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατ.] ‘yet now hath He ( God, see next note) reconciled :’ antith- esis to the preceding ποτὲ ὄντας, the op- positive δὲ in the apodosis being evoked by the Jatent ‘although’ (Donalds. Gr. § 621) involved in the participial prota- sis; compare Xen. Mem. 111. 7. 8, ἐκεί- vous ῥᾳδίως χειρούμενος, τούτοις δὲ μηδένα τρόπον οἴει δυνήσεσϑαι προσενεχϑῆναι, and sce the note and reff. of Kiihner, also Buttmann, Mid. Excurs. x11. p.148 : add Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 374, Har- tung, Partik. δέ, 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 (hete, 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, πρὸ TOU... ἐν ἦμεν, νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διῳκίσϑημεν ὑπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 22. ἐν σῷ oom. κ'ὶ τολι ‘in the body of His flesh,’ ἱ. e., as the language and allusion undoubtedly requires, — the flesh of Christ; the prep. ἐν pointing to the substratum of the action ; see notes on Gal. i. 24, and comp. especially Andoc. de Myst. p. 83 (ed. Schill.) 6 μὲν ἀγὼν ἐν τῷ σώματι τῷ ἐμῷ καϑέστηκεν. It may justly be considered somewhat doubtful whether the subject of the pres- ent clause, and of the verb ἀποκατήλ- λαξεν is regarded as Christ (Chrysost., Cicum., al.), or God. In favor of the first supposition we have the use of σώ- ματι (which scems to suggest an identi- ty between the subject to which the σῶμα refers and the subject of the verb), per- haps the use of παραστῆσαι (comp. Eph. vy. 27, but contrast 2 Cor. iv. 14), and the ready connection of such a purpose with the fact specified by ἀποκατ. (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 διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. τοῦ ot. above and the cir- cumstantial ἐν τῷ σώμ. x. τ. A. in the present verse, seem to supply distinctly preponderant arguments, and lead us with Bengel, Huth., and others, to refer ἄποκατ. to the subject of ver. 20, ὦ. 6. to Cuap. I. 55. COLOSSIANS. 145 παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους Kai ἀμώμους Kal ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον God. Many reasons have been assigned why St. Paul adds the specifying gen. (substantie, Winer, Gr. § 30. 2) τῆς σαρ- «és. 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. ; (Ὁ) 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 Ignat. Magnes. ὃ 9, 11, al.) allusions to Docetic error traceable in this Epistle, the opinion () is, on the whole, to be preferred. That the addition is used to mark the distinction between this and the Lord’s spiritual σῶμα, the Church (Olsh.), does not seem natural or prob- able. διὰ τοῦ dav.| ‘by means of His death ;’ added to the pre- ceding ἔν τῷ σώμ. 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. Vi1t. 8. 4. παραστῆσαι] ‘to present ;’ infinitive, expressing the actual purpose and intent of the action expressed in amor.; see Madvig, Synt. § 118, where this mood is extremely well discussed. Had ὥστε 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 ὥστε; 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, ᾽ is commonly obscured (Madvig, § 172), especially as here in an aoristic sequence. On παραστῆσαι, which certainly conveys no sacrificial idea, comp. on ph. ν. 27. There the reference is more restricted, here more general. aylovs καὶ ἂμ. καὶ ἂνεγκ.] ‘holy and blameless and without charge ;’ desig- nation of their contemplated state on its positive and negative side (Mey.), aylous marking the former, ἀμώμ. καὶ ἀνεγκλ. the latter. Strictly considered then, the first and second καὶ 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 (Daven.) ; 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 ἄμωμος (inculpatus, not immaculatus), see notes on Eph. i. 4: it is apparently less strong than the following aveyka. ; ἀνέγκλ. yap τότε λέγεται, ὅταν μηδὲ μέχρι καταγνώσεως μηδὲ μέχρι ἐγκλήμα- Tos ἢ τι πεπραγμένον ἡμῖν, Chrysostom. Lastly, on the distinction between ἀνέγ- KAnTos and ἀνεπίληπτος (‘in quo nulla justa causa sit reprehensionis ’), see ΤΊ, mann, Synon. 1. p. 31. κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ] ‘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 19 140 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I, 23. 3. ms ΡΣ ” > , A ΄, , \ ὃ a Ν αὐτου" ““ ELYE ἐπίμένετε ΤΉ TTLOTEL TESEMENLW LEVOL Kal € parol, και \ 4, ’ \ 4 aN ὃ “ 5 λί ia > 4 μὴ PETAKLVOULEVOL ἀπὸ τῆς EATTLOOS TOV EVAYYEALOU OV IKOVO ATE, sisteremus nos, manifestum est ipsos re- conciliatos et renatos sanctitatem suam a Christo mutuari, sive de actuali, sive de inhxrente, 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. εἴγε ἐπιμ. τῇ πίστει] ‘ifat least ye continue in the faith ;’ a tropical use of émm. peculiar to St. Paul, Rom. Vie 1 ΧΙ 99. 29. 1 ΠῚ ΠῚ: ive 10: ἐπί, Acts xiii. 45 (Zec.), has scarcely any critical support. Like several compounds of ἐπὶ it has two constructions (see Wi- ner, Gr. § 52.7. p. 382), with preposi- tions ἐπί, πρός, ἐν (Acts xxviii. 14, 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. i. 24), and with the simple dative (Rom. //. cc., 1 Tim. 1. c.) which apparently is semilocal (comp. on Gal. y. 1), or, perhaps more probably, under the influence of the preposition. The preposition ἐπὶ 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 εἴγε (si quidem) and εἴπερ (si omnino), see notes on Gal. iii. 4. TEDEMEA. καὶ ἑδραῖοι] ‘grounded and firm;’ specification on the posttive side of the mode of the ἐπιμονή ; compare Eph. iii. 17, ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεϑεμελιωμένοι, and 1 Cor. xv. 58, ἑδραῖοι, ἀμετακίνητοι. The qualitative termination -aos seems to justify the distinction of Beng., “τεϑεμ. affixi fundamento, é5p. stabiles, firmi intus.’ That there is any reference to the metaphor of a temple (Olsh.), seems here very doubtful. μὴ μετακιν.] ‘and not being moved away ;’ nearly identical with ἀμετακίνη- τοι, 1 Cor. xv. 58, and representing their fixity on its negative side: the change to the present pass., —as marking by the καὶ \ 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, πολιτείας μετακεκινημέ- On the μὴ with μετακ., which, in a hypothetical sentence like the present, is usual and proper, see, if necessary, Winer, Gram. § 55.1, p. 522. τοῦ evayy.] ‘ the hope of the Gospel,’ i. 6. arising from, evoked by, the Gospel, τοῦ εὐαγγ. 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. Ἔλ- mis can hardly be here, except in a very derivative sense, equivalent to 6 Χριστός, Chrys. ; it seems only to have its usual subjective meaning ; compare notes on Eph. i. 18. οὗ ἠκούσατε ‘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 μὴ μετακινούμε- they had heard the Gospel, the world had heard it (πάλιν αὐτοὺς φέρει vas Kal ἔτι viv μετακινουμένας. THS €AT. VoL: μάρτυρας, εἶτα τὴν οἰκουμένην, 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 Cuap. I. 23, 24. COLOSSIANS. ΤΙ a , Ἁ , a Ν , τοῦ κηρυχϑέντος ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος. I rejoice in my sufferings for you and the Chureh; I 4 Nov χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παϑήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, am preaching the mystery of salvation, and striving to present every man perfect before Christ. preacher of it; καὶ τοῦτο εἰς τὸ ἀξιόπισ- τον συντελεῖ, Chrys. The apostle gives weight to his assertions by the special mention of his name, 2 Cor x. 1, Gal. y. 2, Eph. iii. 1, 1 Thess. ii. 18, Philem. 19. ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει) ‘in the hearing of every creature ;’ surely not ‘in the whole of creation,’ Alf., —a translation which, even if we concede that πᾶσα κτίσις may be equivalent to ‘every form of creation,’ ὦ. 6. ‘all crea- tures’ (Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 137), 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, secs the uni- yersal tendency of Christianity already realized. The limitation, τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρ. characterizes the κτίσις as ἐπίγειος, in- cluding however, thereby, all mankind. For the meaning of ἐν, apud, coram, — perhaps here with singular reverting somewhat to the primary idea of sphere of operation, see Winer, Gr. § 48. a. d, Υ 34. διάκονο 5] ‘a min- ister ;’ see notes on Ephes. ii. 7. The three practical deductions which Dave- nant draws from this clause are worthy of perusal. 24. νῦν χαίρω] Transition suggest- ed by the preceding clauses, especially by the last, to the apostle’s own services in the cause of the Gospel. The νῦν 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 κηρυχϑέντος and ἐγενόμην. ᾽ The reading ὃς νῦν κ΄ τ᾿ A. (ὈΙΕΙΕῸ ; 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. ἐν παδήμασιν)] Not exclusively ‘de iis qu patior,’ Beza, but simply ‘in pas- sionibus,’ Vulg. ; the παϑήματα were not only the subject whereupon he rejoiced, but the sphere, the circumstances in which he did so ; χαίρω πάσχων, Chrys. The brief and semi-adverbial ἐν τούτῳ (Phil. i. 18) is perhaps slightly different. The omission of the article before ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν arises from πάσχειν ὑπὲρ being a legitimate construction ; see notes on Eph. i. 15. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) ‘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 οὐ 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. ἀνταναπλ. K.T.A.| Sam 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 endeayor briefly to state the grammatical and con- textual meaning of the words. (1) ϑλίψεις Χριστοῦ is clearly not ‘afflictiones propter Christum subeun- dx,’ Elsner (Vol. 11. p. 260), Schoettg., al., nor ‘calamitates quas Christus per- ferendas imposuit,’ Fritz. (Ztom. Vol. 111. p. 275), —asomewhat artificial gen. 148 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 24, 25. ae lal \ 5 al »“ A A καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν SrAbpewv τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ or € \ la) , 2 A ἐνὶ εἰσ e 9 / 95 σαρκὶ μου UTEP TOV σώματος αὑτοῦ, ὃ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία; auctoris, —but simply and plainly ‘ the afflictions of Christ,’ 7. e. which apper- tain to Christ, not, however, with corpo- real reference, ὅσα ὑπέμεινε, 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 ὑστερήματα of these af- flictions filled up by the apostle? Not (a) by the endurance of afflictions similar (ὡσαύτως, Theod.) to those endured (ὑπο- στατικῶς) 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 ϑλίψεις, vicarious suffering (Olshaus.), was lacking in those of His apostle (οὐ yap ἴσον τοῦτο οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ, Gicum.),—but, (9), 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 (σχετι- κῶς), and of which the πλήρωμα has not yet come ; see Olsh. zn loc., who has well defended this vital and consolatory in- terpretation, and compare August. in Psalm. \xi. 4, Vol. 1v. p. 731 (edit. Migne). (3) The meaning of avTavamAnpody 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 zemulans’ (Fritz.),—a somewhat artificial inter- pretation, nor even ‘ alterius ὑστέρημα de suo explere’ (Winer, de Verb. Comp. 111. 22), but, as Mey. suggests, ‘to meet, and fill up the ὑστέρημα with a corres- ponding πλήρωμα ;᾽ the ἀντὶ contrasting not the actors or their acts (contrast Xen- oph. Hell. 11. 4. 12, ἀντανέπλησαν com- ἧς pared with a previous ἐμπλῆσαι), but the defect and the supply with which it is met: see the examples cited by Winer, especially Dio Cass. xLIv. 8, ὅσον ἐνέδει τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς Tapa τῶν ἄλλων συντελείας ἀνταναπληρωϑδῇ. The simpler ἀναπληρόω [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 ὑστερή- pata) which it was intended to meet. For a practical sermon on this text, see Donne, Serm. xcvit. Vol. rv. p. 261 sq. (ed. Alf.), and compare Destiny of Crea- ture, p. 39 sq. ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου clearly belongs to ἄντα- ναπλ., defining more closely the seat, and thence, inferentially, the mode, of the ἀνταναπλήρωσις (compare 2 Cor. iv. 11, Gal. iv. 14); the word σαρξ, which thus involves the predication of manner, standing, as Meyer acutely observes, in exquisite contrast with the σῶμα, which defines the object of the action. Steiger, Huther, al., connect this clause with ϑλίψεων τοῦ 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. ὅ ἐστιν ἐκκλ.]} As ἐκκλ. might be thought the word of importance, the construction ἥτις ἐστιν ἐκκλ., 1 Tim. iii. 15, might have seemed more natural; compare Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. The present construction is, however, pérfectly correct, as the article and defining gen. associated with σῶμα, as well as the antithetical contrast in which it stands with σάρξ, point to σῶμα as the subst. on which the chief moment of thought really dwells. 25. ἧς ἐγενόμην k. 7.A.J which I (Paul) became a minister :’ “ay state- Grar. 1. 25. COLOSSIANS. 149 , ’ ΦιῸΝ, [4 \ \ > / a fol ‘ a ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ διάκονος κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοϑεῖσαν ment of the relation in which he stands to the ἐκκλησία just mentioned, the ἧς having a faintly causal, or rather explan- atory force (see notes on ver. 18, and Ellendt. Lex. Soph. 5. ν. Vol. 11. p. 371), and indirectly giving the reason and moving principle of the avravarAnpwots ; ‘T fill 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 ἐγὼ continues, in a slightly changed relation, the ἐγὼ Παῦλος of ver. 23: there the διακονία referred to the evayy., here to the Church by which the evayy. is preached; ‘idem plane est ministrum Ecclesiz esse et Evangelii,’ Just. κατὰ τὴν οἶκον. Θεοῦ] ‘in accordance with the dispensation, i.e. the spiritual stewardship, of God ;’ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐνε- πιστεύϑην Thy σωτηρίαν, καὶ τὴν τοῦ κη- ρύγματος ἐνεχειρίσϑην διακονίαν, Theod. The somewhat difficult word οἰκονομ. seems here, in accordance with τὴν δο- ϑεῖσαν x. τ. A. which follows, to refer, not to the ‘disposition of God, Syriac o> oO ν᾽ {201p>,% [gubernationem], Gothic ‘ragina,’ /Eth. ‘ordinationem,’ but, as Just., Mey., al., to the ‘spiritual func- tion,’ the ‘ office of an οἰκονόμος ᾿ (see 1 Cor. ix. 17, compared with 1 Cor. iv. 1), originating from, or assigned by, God; the more remote gen. Θεοῦ 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, Théol. 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. τὴν δοδϑεῖσαν κ. τ. λ.}] ‘which was given me for you;’ further definition of the οἶκον. τοῦ Θεοῦ, the meaning of which, owing to the different meanings of οἰκον., might otherwise have been misunderstood : ‘ this οἰκονομία was spe- cially assigned to me and you, — you, Gentiles, were to be its objects.’ The connection of eis ὑμᾶς with mAnp. (Scho- lef. Hints, p. 110) does not seem plausi- ble : the juxtaposition of the pronouns (μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς») suggests their logical con- nection. πληρῶσαι τὸν Ady. τοῦ Θ.] ‘to fulfil the word of God ;’ i.e. ‘to perform my office in preaching unrestrictedly, to give all its full scope to the word of God:”’ infin. of design (see notes on ver. 22) dependent either on ἧς ἐγενόμην (Huth.), or per- haps more naturally on τὴν δοϑεῖσαν k. τ. A., thus giving an amplification to the preceding εἰς ὑμᾶς. The glosses on πληρῶσαι 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; (Ὁ) ‘to spread abroad,’ Huth.,— who compares Acts y. 28; (¢) “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 gikovoula which would thus be fully discharged ; compare Rom. xy. 19, μέχρι τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Xp. ΟΥ̓ these () has an advantage over (a) in implying a πλή- 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; (6) 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 ὑμᾶς), seems most in accordance with the spirit of the passage and with the words that follow; compare the some- what analogous expression, 6 λόγος τοῦ 150 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 26, 27. , e “-“ -“ Ν A A μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι Tov λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, * τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ’ / ’ Ν lol SF: \ lal nr ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, νυνὶ δὲ ἐφα- / “ . / > an oa νερώϑη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ, ™ οἷς ἠδέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς γνωρὶσαι τί Θεοῦ ηὔξανε, Acts vi. 7, xii. 24. It need hardly be added that the λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ does not imply the ‘ promissiones Dei, partim de Christo in genere, partim de yocatione Gentium,’ Beza, but simply and plainly τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Corinth. ii. 17, 1 Thessal. ii. 13, al. 26. “the mystery which hath been hidden ; position to the preceding τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. The μυστήριον 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 μυστήριον in the N. T., see notes on Eph. vy. 32, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 9, Vol. 11. p. 88, where the applica- tions of the term in the N. T. are briefly ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων K.7.A.] ‘from the ages and Jrom the generations (that have passed) ;’ from the long temporal periods (αἰῶνες) and the successive generations that made them up (yeveal; see on Eph. iii. 21), which have elapsed (observe the article) since the ‘arcanum decretum’ was con- The expression is not identical τὸ μυστήριον τὸ amok.] ” ap- elucidated. cealed. with mpd τῶν αἰώνων, 1 Cor. ii. 7; the counsel was formed 1 pb τῶν αἰώνων, but concealed ἃπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ; comp. Rom. xvi. 25, and see notes on Eph. iii. 9, where the same expression occurs. νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώϑη)] ‘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 Hph. i. 20, and Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. b, p. 505 sq., where other examples are noticed and discussed. The gavépwors, 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 νυνὶ [Lachm, viv, with BCFG; mss. ; Did.] with the aor., see notes on ver. 21, and for a good distinction between νῦν (ἐπὶ τῶν τριῶν χρόνων) and νυνί (ἐπὶ μόνου ἐνεστῶτος), see Ammonius, Voc. Diff: p- 99, ed. Valek. τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ] To limit these words to the apostles, from a comparison with Eph. iii. 5 (Steiger, Olsh.: FG; Boern. actu- ally insert ἀποττόλοις), or to the elect, ‘quos Deus in Christo consecrandos de- erevit’ (Dayen. 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, τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, καὶ τοῖς διὰ τούτων πεπιστευκόσι. On the meaning of ἅγιος, see notes on ver. 2, and on Eph. i. 1. 27. οἷς HXE€AHGEY ὃ Θ.] ‘towhom God did will ;’ 7. 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 γνωρίσαι κ. τ. A. which was contemplated by God in the pavépwois. The most recent commenta- tors, Meyer, Eadie, Alf., rightly reject any reference of ἠϑέλησεν to the free grace of God (Eph. i. 9, κατὰ τὴν εὐδο- κίαν αὐτοῦ), no such idea being here in- volved in the context: what ἠϑέλησεν 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’ Crap; I. 27: COLOSSIANS. Ν r lol , fal / 4 > - » “ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔδνεσιν, ὅς to do so. On the distinction between ϑέλω and βούλομαι, see notes on 1 Tim. vy. 14. γνωρίσαι) ‘to make known ;’ practically little different from φανερῶσαι. 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 tn loc. τί τὸ πλοῦτος k. τ᾿ A.] ‘what is the riches of the glory of this mystery :’ not, exactly, ‘ how great,’ Mey., but with the simple force of rfs, — ‘what,’ referring alike to nature and de- gree; compare Eph. i. 18, and see notes in loc. The gen. τῆς δόξης is no mere genitive of quality which may be re- solved into an adjective, and appended either to πλοῦτος (‘ herrliche Reichthum,’ Luth.) or to μυστήριον (‘ gloriosi hujus mysterii,’ Beza), but, as always in these kinds of accumulated genitives in St. Paul, specially denotes that peculiar at- tribute of the μυστήριον (gen. subjecti) which more particularly evinces the πλοῦτος ; see notes and reff. on Zph.i. 6, and compare Eph.i.18. The δόξα itself is not to be limited to the transforming nature of the mystery of the Gospel, in its effects on men (διὰ ψιλῶν ῥημάτων καὶ πίστεως μόνης, Chrys.), nor yet, on the objective side, to the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 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 Jatter. To make its ref- erence identical with that of the δόξα below (Mey., Alf.), where the preceding words introduce a new shade of thought, does not seem so exegetically satisfacto- ry. The former δόξα gains from its col- location a more general and abstract force ; the latter, from its association with ἐλπίς, has a more specific reference. ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν] ‘among the Gen- tiles ;’ semilocal clause appended to τί (ἐστι) τὸ πλοῦτος κ. τ. A., defining the sphere in which the πλοῦτος τῆς δόύξ. Tov μυστ. is more especially evinced ; φαίνεται δὲ ἐν ἑτέροις, πολλῷ δε πλέον ἐν τούτοις ἣ πολλὴ τοῦ μυστηρίου δόξα, Chrys. ; see especially Eph. i. 18, where the construction is exactly similar. ὅς ἐστιν Xp.] The reading is here somewhat doubtful; ὃς is found in CD EKL; nearly all mss. ; Chrys., Theod. (Tisch., Rec.), and, as being the more difficult reading, is to be preferred to 8, 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; (Ὁ) the more remote τὸ πλοῦτος kK. 7. A.» GEcum., Daven., Mey. ; (6) the more immediately preceding μυσ- tnpiov τούτου, Chrys., Alf., al. Of these (a) is defensible (comp. Phil. i. 28), but too vague; (δ) is plausible (compare Eph. iii. 8), but rests mainly on the as- sumption that πλοῦτος is the leading word (Mey., Winer), whereas it seems clear from ver. 26, that μυστήρ. is the really important word in the sentence. We retain then the usual reference to μυστήριον ; Christ who was preached, and was working by grace among them, was in Himself the true and real mystery of redemption; compare notes on Lph. iii. 5. In any case the masc. ds results from a simple attraction to the predicate ; see Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘among you;’ not exclusive- ly ‘in vobis inhabitans per fidem,’ Zanch. (compare Eph. iii. 17), but in parallel- ism to the preceding ἐν τοῖς é3v. As, however, this parallelism is not perfectly exact (Alf.),—for ἐν ὑμῖν is in close as- sociation with the preceding substantive, whereas ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν is not, — we may 102 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 98. a rn , A € lal Ld ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης: 55 ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγέλ- λομεν, νουϑετοῦντες πάντα ἄνϑδρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄν- Spwmov ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνδρωπον 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. ο MA > ν ἴξξυ aS? [qui in vobis est spes] involyes an unnecessary and untenable trajection. ἡ δ ό ξη 5] ‘the hope of glory ;’ to the preceding Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ; not either the ‘spei causa’ (Grot.), or the object of it (Vorst), but its very element and substance ; seel Tim.i.1, and notes The second gloss of Theoph, 7 ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν ἔνδοξος, is unusually incor- rect; δόξα is a pure substantive, and re- fers to the future glory and blessedness in heaven, Rom. vy. 2, 1 Corin. ii. 7 (ap- parently), 2 Cor. iv. 17, al. For a list of the various words with which ἐλπὶς is thus joined, see Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. ΘΟ, Δ ΟἹ ent. ΒΕ 291]: 28. ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγ.] ‘whom we preach ;? whom I and Timothy, with other like-minded teachers (comp. Stei- ger), do solemnly preach ; the ἡμεῖς 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 (&ywdev αὐτὸν φέροντες, Chrys.) force of xatayy., see notes on Phil. i. 17. vouSetovytes| ‘admonishing,’ ‘warn- ing, ‘corripientes,’ Vulg., Ath. ; parti- cipial clause defining more nearly the manner or accompaniments of the καταγ- γελία. The verb νουϑετεῖν has its proper force and meaning of ‘admonishing with blame’ (νουϑετικοὶ λόγοι, Xenoph. Mem. 1. 2. 21, compare notes on Eph. vi. 4), and, as Meyer (compare De W.) rightly observes, points to the μετανοεῖτε of the evangelical message, while d:5don. lays ἐλπὶς τῆς apposition in loc. the foundation for the πιστεύετε; 50, in- ferentially, Theophyl., νουϑεσία μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς πράξεως, διδασκαλία δὲ ἐπὶ δογμάτων. On the meaning of νουϑετεῖν, which im- plies, primarily, correction by word, an appeal to the νοῦς (compare 1 Sam. iii. 12), and derivatively, correction by act, Judges viii. 16 (compare Plato, Leg. 1x. p- 879), see Trench, Synon. § 32. πάντα ἄνδρ.) 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: τί Aé- yels; πάντα ἄνϑρωπον ; vat, φησί, τοῦτο σπουδάζομεν. εἰ δὲ μὴ γένηται οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, Theoph. σοφίᾳ] ‘in all, 1. 6. in every form of, wisdom ;’ see notes on Eph. i. 8: mode in which the διδάσκειν was carried out, ἐν πάσῃ μετὰ πάσης σοφίας, Chrys. (compare ch. iii. 16), or perhaps, more precisely, the characteristic element in which the διδα- 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), aecordance with (Ephes. 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 ἐν in the N. T. is by no means inconsiderable. στήσωμεν] ‘inorder 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 ἵνα παρα- Cnap. I. 39. COLOSSIANS. 153 τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ: “ἢ εἰς ὃ Kal κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν δυνάμει. adeo omnium verbi 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 ἐν Xp., as usual, define the sphere in which the τελειότης, ‘ l’en- semble de toutes les qualités naturelles au Chrétien’ (Reuss, Zheél. Chrét. Vol. 11. p. 182), is to consist; compare notes on ch. iv. 12, and on Eph. iv. 138. The polemical antithesis which Chrys. here finds, οὐκ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδὲ ἐν ἀγγέλοις, owing to the continual recurrence of ἐν Xp., is perhaps more tnan doubtful. The addi- tion of Ἰησοῦ is rightly rejected by Tisch. with ABCD'FG; mss.; Claromanus; Clem., and Lat. Ff. 29. eis 6] ‘to which end ;’ the prep. with its usual and proper force denoting the object contemplated in the κοπιᾶν ; compare notes on Gal. ii. 8. ‘I also toil;’ ‘ beside preaching with νουϑεσία and διδαχή, I also sustain every form of κόπος (2 Cor. vi. 5) in the cause of the Gospel,’ the καὶ contrasting (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) the κοπιῶ with the previous καταγγ. κι 7. 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 (ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγ.), to the strug- gles of the individual preacher. On the meaning and derivation of κοπιῶ, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. ἀγωνιζόμενο 5] ‘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 ἀγών. The former is adopted by Chrys., Theoph., Davanant, al. ; the latter by Kat κοπιῶ) , Steig., Olsh., and most modern com- mentators. The use of κοπιῶ (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 ἀγωνίζομαι in this Ep. (see ch. iv. 12, ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς mpocev- χαῖς) seem here rather more in favor of modern exegesis, unless indeed with GEcum. and De Wette we may not im- probably admit both. κατὰ τὴν evéepy.| ‘according to His working which worketh in me ;’ measure of the apostle’s spiritual κόπος (compare notes on Eph. i. 19), viz. not his own ἐνέργεια but, as the context seems to suggest, that of Christ; τὸν αὐτοῦ κόπον καὶ ἀγῶνα τῷ Χριστῷ ἀνατιϑείς, CEcum., who alone of the Greek commentators (Theod. silet) expressly refers the αὐτοῦ 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. 13. The passive interpretation ‘ qua agitur, exercetur, perficitur’ (Bull, Ham. Cens. 11. 3), though lexically defensible, seems certainly at variance with St. Paul’s reg- ular use of the verb; see on Phil. l. e. ἐν δυνάμει] ‘in power,’ i. 6. power- fully ; modal adjunct to ἐνεργουμένην. Though it seems arbitrary to restrict δύναμις 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. in loc, 154 I am earnestly striving for you, that you may come to COLOSSIANS. Cuar, 1101, 11. Θέλω yap ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα the full knowledge of Christ. Let no one deceive you, but as you received Christ, walk in Him. Cuarter II. 1. γάρ] Description of the nature and objects of the struggle previously alluded to, introduced by the ~ 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 ἀγωνι(ό- μενος (Beng.), but the whole current of the verse: ‘meminerat in calce superio- ris capitis suorum Jaborum et certami- num, eorum nunc causam et materiam explicat,’ Just. ἀγῶνα] ‘how great a struggle;’ not ‘solicitudinem,’ Vulg., but ‘ certamen,’ ἡλίκον o> Clarom., bo, Syr., ‘quantum col- luctor,’ ith. 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. ἡλίκος (Hesychius ποταπός, μέγας, ὁποῖος; compare Don- aldson, Cratyl. § 254), occurs only here and James iii. 5. περὶ ὑ μῶν] ‘for you.’ The reading is some- what doubtful. Zachm. reads ὑπὲρ with ABCD?; 6 mss.; but as this might ea- sily have come from ch. iv. 12 (compare ch. i. 24), it seems best with Tisch. to retain περί, 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 τῶν ἐν 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, Epist. 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 Colossx, and about six miles south of Hierapolis, which lat- ter city is not improbably hinted at in. kal ὅσοι k. τ. A. ; see Wieseler, Chronol. p; 441 note. Close upon the probable date of this Epistle (a. Ὁ. 61 or 62), the city suffered severely from an _ earth- quake, but was restored without any as- sistance from Rome; Tacit. Ann. xIv. 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. vy. Vol. 11. p. 5, Pauly, Real- Encycl. Vol. tv. 1, p. 764, and Arundell, Seven Churches, Ὁ. 84 sq., ib. Asia Minor, Vol. 11. p. 180 sq. kal ὅσοι κι τ. A.] ‘and (in a word) as many as, etc.;’ the καὶ 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 ὑμεῖς and the of ἐν Aaod. belong to the general class καὶ ὅσοι κ. τ. A., and con- sequently that the Colossians were not personally acquainted with the apostle. Recent attempts have been made either to refer the ὅσοι 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. μεν 15] COLOSSIANS. 155 ” Ν 6 lol \ lal 5 , Vv ov > er Ν ἔχω 7 ἐερι υμῶὼῶν καὶ τῶν εν “αοδικείᾳ, καὶ οσοι ουχ εὠὗρακᾶν το ἐ , , > , 9 7 a e \ | Ll o TT pOOWT7 OV μου εν σάαρκι; “ Wa TapakdynS@ow at καρδὶαι αὐτῶν συμβιβασϑὲντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ καὶ εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφο- Krit. 1838, p. 176), but as all the words are, in fact, under the vinculum of a common preposition, and as αὐτῶν, if dissociated from ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν 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. 1. p. 171 (Bohn). The form ἑώρακαν adopted by Lachm., Tisch. [with ABC (ἕορ.) D"], 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. σαρκὶ seems naturally connected with the preceding πρόσωπόν μου ( Vulg., Cop- tic, /Eth.), not with ἑώρακαν (Syr., but not Philox., where the order is changed), forming with it one single idea. There is almost obyiously here no implied an- ἐν tithesis to πνεύματι (δείκνυσιν ἐνταῦϑα ὅτι ἑώρων συνεχῶς ἐν πν., 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. ἵνα mapakA.] ‘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, 6. 4. Psalm exix. 52], De W., Alf., al., — but ‘ consolentur’ (consolationem > Fo aN accipiant), Vulg., ood [consol. accipiant], Syr., ‘gaudeant,’ JEth., — 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 conso!ation ; compare Davenant in /oe. For exam- ple of παρακαλ. compare ch. iv. 8, Eph. vi. 22, and even 2 Thess. ii. 17, where the associated στηρίξαι is not a repetition, but an amplification, of the preceding παρακαλέσαι. The final ἵνα is obviously dependent on ἀγῶνα ἔχω (comp. Chrys. ay. ἔχω: ἵνα τί γένηται), 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. συμβιβασϑέντες ἐν ay|* they be- ’ relapse to the logical subject by the common particip- jal 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 παράκλησις was to take place; see Madvig, Synt. § 176. b. The verb συμβιβ. has not here its derivative sense, ‘instructi,’ Vulg., Copt., but its primary meaning of aggre- gation, ‘knit together,’ Auth, (comp. Syr. ing knit together in love: > yom oped [accedant], /&th., ‘ confir- metur’), as in ch. ii. 19, and Eph. iv. 16, where see notes. The reading -évtwy (Rec., with D®E*KL ; al.) seems certain- ly only a grammatical emendation. Ἐν ἀγάπῃ, with the usual meaning of the preposition, denotes not the instru- 150 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. 11. 2. , A , ᾿ 5 , lo) Ι͂ aA A A plas τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, 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 καὶ (not ‘ etiam,’ Beng.) with εἰς πᾶν «. τ. A. which defines the object of the union ; see next note. eis πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτο»] ‘unto all the richness :’ prepositional member defining the object and purpose contemplated in the συμβίβασις, 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 πα- pakAns. (Baumg.-Crus.) mars the union of the prepositional members, and gains nothing in exegesis. The reading πάντα πλοῦτον, though fairly supported (Lec. with DEKL), seems clearly to have had a paradiplomatic origin (see Pref. to Gal. p- Xvi1), the ra being a clerical error for To, and πλοῦτον a corresponding correction. On this neuter form, see notes on Eph. i. 7. τῆς: πληροφορίας THs συνέσ.] “of the full assurance of the understand- ing ;’ not ‘ certo persuase intelligentix,’ Davenant, a resolution of the gen. which is wholly unnecessary: compare notes on ch. i.27. The word πληροφ. (1 Thess. i. 5, Heb. vi. 11, x. 22) denotes on the qualitative side (πλοῦτ., quantitative, De W.) the completeness of the persua- sion which was to be associated with the σύνεσις, ---- which the σύνεσις 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 σύνεσις, see notes on ch. i. 9: that it is here Christian σύνεσις, clear- ly results from the context (Mey.). eis ἐπίγνωσιν κι τ. λ.] ‘unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, even Christ ;’ prepositional member exactly parallel to the preceding εἰς πᾶν τὸ mA. k.7.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., Χριστοῦ being the possessive gen. of re- lationship, ete. ; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 7, Ὁ. 123 sq., and comp. Eph. i. 17, and 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 Θεοῦ; so in effect, Hil., ‘Deus Christus sacramentum est;’ (y) ‘the mystery of God, even Christ:’ Xp. being in apposition, not to Θεοῦ, but to μυστη- plov, and so forming a very close paral- lel to ch. 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 μυστηρίου bs ἐστι Χριστός (ch. i. 27), and has the indirect support of D!, 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. 11. 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 ἡ We adopt (y), however, on what seem decided exegetical grounds. On the meaning and applications of μυστή- ριον, see notes on Ephes. v. 32, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 9, Vol. 11. p. 89; and for the exact force of ἐπίγνωσις (‘ accu- rata cognitio ’) bere apparently confirmed by the juxtaposition of the simple γνῶσις, ver. 3, see notes on Eph. i. 17. Cnap., II. 3. COLOSSIANS. 157 - 8 ’ e Ὁ. δὰ , e Sg \ iol U \ a , εν @ εἰσιν σαντες οἱ σαῦροι τὴς σοφίας Kab τῆς γνώσεως 2. τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ] 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) τοῦ Θεοῦ, 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) τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ ἐστὶν Χριστός, with D1; Clarom. (Auth., quod de Christo): (6) τοῦ Θεοῦ πα- τρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ with AC; al.; Vv.; and lastly, (4) τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Xp. with 15 ἘΙΚΤ, ; many mss. and Vy.; 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 τοῦ Θεοῦ Xp.; (6) 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. 8. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom,’ relative sentence explaining the predication involved in the preceding apposition (μυστηρ. = Χριστοῦ), the relative having its explana- tory force; see notes on ch. i. 25. To follow the reading of the text, and yet to refer ἐν ᾧ to the μυστήριον (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 μυστ. and ἀπόκρ., but to this it may be said, — first, that what is applicable to μυστ. is equally so to that to which it is equivalent (comp. Bisp.) ; secondly, that the secondary predicate ἀπόκρυφοι (see below) logically eluci- dates the equivalence of Χριστὸς with the μυστήριον, but would seem otiose if only added to enhance the nature of the μυστήριον or the ἐπίγνωσις thereof: com- pare Waterl. Christ’s Div. Serm. vit. Vol. 11. p. 156. εἰσὶν πάντες κι 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 words seem to show that ἀπόκρυφοι is not to be joined with εἰσὶν as a direct predication (Syr., Copt., De W., al.), but that it is subjoined to it ( Vulgate, Eth.) 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, Craty/. ὁ 304, and comp. Miiller, Kleine Schrifi. Vol. 1. p. 310 (Donalds.), who has the credit of first introducing this necessary distinction between ‘ adjectiva attributa, predicata, and apposita ;’ see also Don- aldson, Gr. ὁ 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 /hiddenly 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,’ Davenant; ὥστε παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δεῖ πάντα αἰτεῖν, Chrysostom. There is thus no need with Bahr and 158 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. 11. 4, 5. ἀπόκρυφοι. * τοῦτο δὲ λέγω ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν S ἮΝ / 5 ᾽ \ Ν A \ ” ἰλλὰ A , miyavoroyia. ὅ εἰ yap καὶ TH σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι others to modify the simple meaning of the adjective. καὶ γνώσεως] The exact distinction between these words is not perhaps very easy to substantiate. We can hardly say that ‘ σοφία res credendas, γνῶσις res agendas complectitur’ (Davenant), but rather the contrary. It would seem, as in σοφία and φρόνησις (see notes on Eph. i. 9), that copia is the more general, ‘wisdom,’ in its completest sense, κοινῶς σοφίας ἁπάντων μάϑησις, Suid., γνῶσιδ 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. tv. 7, Ὁ. 166, and, on the meaning of ‘wisdom,’ comp. Taylor (H.), Notes Jrom Life, p. 95. 4. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω] ‘ Now this I say ;’ transition, by means of the δ ὲ με- ταβατικόν (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 165; omitted by Lachm. with Al (ap- parently), B; Ambrosiast.), to the warn- ings which, with some intermixture of exhortation and doctrinal statements, pervade the chapter. The τοῦτο seems clearly to refer not merely to ver. 3, but to the whole introductory paragraph, ver. 1-3. παραλογίζηται) “may deceive;’ only here and James i. 22, though not uncommon in the LXX, e. 4. Josh. ix. 22, 1 Sam. xii. 28, 2 Sam. xxi. 5,al. The verb παραλογ. 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, ἀπατᾶν, ψεύ- σασϑαι (Hesych.) ; comp. Arrian, /pict. 11. 20, ἐξαπατῶσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ παραλογίζον- ται, and examples in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 261, Loesn. Obs. p. 335. ἐν misavoroylal ‘with enticing speech ;? compare 1 Cor. ii. 4, ἐν πειδϑοῖς σοφίας λόγοις, the prep. ἐν having that species of instrumental force in which the object is conceived as existing in the means; comp. Jdelf, Gr. ὁ 622.3. The subst. occurs in Plato, Zheet. p. 162 Ε, and the verb in Aristot. Hth. Nic. 1. 1, but with a more special and technical reference to probability as opposed to demonstration or to mathematical cer- tainty. 5. εἰ yap καὶ n.7.a.] ‘foriflam absent verily in the flesh ;’ reason for the foregoing warning, founded on the fact of his spiritual presence with them; εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, GAN ὅμως οἶδα τοὺς ἀπατεῶνας, Chrys. The καὶ does not belong, strictly considered, to the εἰ (compare Raphel zn Joc.), but to σαρκί, on which it throws a slight emphasis, con- trasting it with the following πνεύματι : see notes on Phil. ii. 17. The dative σαρκὶ is the dat. ‘of reference,’ and, with the regular limiting power of that case, marks that to which the ἀπουσία was re- stricted ; see notes on Gal. i. 22. ἄλλα] ‘yet on the contrary,’ ‘ neverthe- less ;’ the hypothetical protasis being followed by ἀλλὰ at the commencement of the apodosis ; see examples in Har- tung, Partik. ἀλλά, 2. 8, Vol. 11 p. 40. In such cases, which are not uncommon, the ἀλλὰ preserves its primary and proper force ; ‘ per istam particulam quasi tran- situs ad rem noyam significatur que ei, que membro orationis conditionali erat declarata, jam opponatur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 98. ματι] ‘in the spirit;’ dative exactly similar to τῇ σαρκί. 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- τῷ πνεύ- Caap. ΤΙ 5. COLOSSIANS. 159 \ CPLR ane 6 / ‘ , ¢ fal \ / ‘ Ν , συν υμιν εἰμι, χαιρων Kal βλέπων UL@V τὴν τάξιν Kal TO OTEPEMLA gers (Stud. u. Arit. 1838, p. 181). from this passage and especially from the use of ἄπειμι, that there had been a previous παρουσία 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, PiCors xls 1) xi. 2, LO, bile 3.27510 all of which πάρειμι 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 σὺν and μετά : compare on Eph. vi. 23. χαίρων καὶ βλέπων κ.τ. λ.] “το- 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 ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (‘gaudeo dum video,’ Wolf), —a zeug- matic construction of the accusative with both verbs (‘ mit Freuden sehend,’ De Wette), —a trajection (‘ secing, ete., and rejoicing,’ see Winer, Gram. § 54. 4, p. 417 note),— a causal use of καί (‘ gau- dens quia cerno,’ Daven., compare Syr. σύν ὑμῖν] ‘with mo \}a02), etc., we have three plausible in- terpretations, (a) ‘rejoicing, to wit, see- ing,’ ete., καὶ being used purely explica- tively, Olsh., Winer, 2, l. c.; (B) ‘re- joicing (thereat), 1. 6. at being with you in spirit, and seeing, etc.,’ the subject of the χαίρειν being deduced from the words immediately preceding, and the καὶ be- ing simply copulative ; so Meyer, and after him Eadie and Alf. ; (γ) ‘ rejoicing (about you) and seeing, ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν being suggested by the preceding σὺν ὑμῖν, Wi- ner 1, l.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 (δ) so far to modify (y) as to assume a continuation of σὺν ὑμῖν ; the modal χαίρων expressing the apostle’s general feeling of joyful sympathy (suggested by the state in which he found them), while the circumstantial βλέπων κ. τ. Χ. adds a more special, and, in fact, explanatory accessory : for this use of καί (special after general), comp. notes on Eph. ν. 18, and on Phil. iv. 12. τάξιν] ‘order, 1. e. ‘orderly state and conduct ;’ τὴν τάξιν, τὴν εὐταξίαν φησί, 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: és γὰρ ἐπὶ παρατάξεως ἣ εὐταξία τὴν φάλαγγα στερεὰν καδϑίστησιν οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῇς ἐϊ- κλησίας, ὅταν εὐταξία ἢ, τῆς ἀγάπης πάν- τα καϑιστώσης καὶ μὴ ὄντων σχισμάτων, τότε καὶ τὸ στερέωμα γίνεται, 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. foundation, ‘firm attitude, καϑάπερ πρὸς στρατιώτας εὐτακτῶς ἐστῶτας καὶ βεβαίως, Chrys. ; specification of their state in- wardly considered ; not ‘ firmitas,’ Syr., ZEth. [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 στερέωμα] ‘solid 100 COLOSSIANS. Cnap. II. 6, 7. τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. © ‘Qs οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν Χρισ- Ν > ἴω ‘ A > » J an Lal i died / \ tov ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον, ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε, ἴ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ lexical ground for regarding the more concrete στερέωμα (‘effect of the verb as aconcretum, Buttm. Gr. § 119.7; nearly = part. in -uevoy) as identical in mean- ing with the purely abstract στερεότης. The word (an ἅπ. 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 Zim.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. ὡς οὖν mapeddBeTe| ‘ As then ye received :’ exhortation founded on the words of blended warning and encour- agement in the two preceding verses, οὖν 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. ὃ 604. On ὡς see notes on Tit. i. 5. The παρελάβετε 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 ἐδιδάχϑητε, ver. 7), the object is so emphatically specified, τὸν Xp. "Ino. τὸν Kup., as apparently to require a more inclusive meaning ; they received not merely the ἀκήρατον διδασ- καλίαν (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 in loc. τὸν Κύριον] ‘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 (Κύριον 2 Cor. iv. 5, not τὸν Κύρ., see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3.4), would make παραλαβεῖν 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. ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε! ‘walk in Him,’ as the sphere and element of your Christian course. Christ is not here represented as an 656s (7 προσάγουσα εἰς τὸν Πατέρα, Chrys.), but as an ensphering ‘ Lebens- Element’ (Mey.), to which the περιπα- τεῖν, 2. 6. 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. ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ ἐποικοδο- μούμενοι) ‘having been rooted and be- ing built up in Him ;’ modal definitions appended to the preceding περιπατεῖν ; 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 ἐν αὐτῷ is attached to both: Christ, as Mey. Cuap. II. 7, 8. COLOSSIANS. 161 N, ὟΝ ὃ ’ € ’ > a ‘ B :β 4 a / Ὁ \ καὶ ETTOLKOOOMLOULEVOL EV αὐτῷ, και EPALOULEVOL Τῇ πιστει κα ὼς > ΄ , > En ae) > / ἐδιδάχϑητε, περισσεύοντες EV αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. 7. ἐν αὐτῇ So Rec., Lachm., and now T’sch. (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 ἐν αὐτῇ or ἐν αὐτῷ 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 zn which the root is held (Eph. iii. 17), and the solid foundation on which (1 Cor. iii. 11) the building is raised, — the prep. ἐν (not ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Eph. ii. 20) being studiously con- tinued to enhance the idea ἐν Χριστῷ that pervades the passage ; comp. Eph. ii. 21, 22. The accessory idea of the foundation is admirably conveyed by the ἐπὶ 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. καὶ βεβαιούμ. τῇ πίστει] ‘and being stablished in your faith ;’ the idea (τὸ βέβαιον) 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. τῇ πίστει is not the instrumental dat. (Mey.), but the dat. ‘of reference to’ (De Wette), faith being naturally regarded as the principle which needed βεβαίωσιν, and to which it might most appropriately be restricted : see notes on Gal. i. 22. The prep. ἐν is inserted be- fore πίστει in Rec. [with ACD®EKU], but is apparently rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch., though only with BD!; 4 mss.; Vulg.,—the probability of an insertion being very great. καϑὼς ἐδιδάχϑ.] ‘even as ye were taught ;’ scil. to become firmly estab- lished in faith: this they might have been taught by Epaj:hras (ch. i. 7) or by some of their early instructors. περισσ. ἐν αὐτῇ κ. τ. λ.}] “ abound- ing in it with thanksgiving :’ participial clause subordinate to BeBaodu., main- ly reiterating with a quantitative, what had been previously expressed with a qualitative reference. Of the two pre- positional adjuncts, the first ἐν αὐτῇ is united closely with περισσ., 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 (σὺν edxap., CEcum.), the περισσ. ἐν πίστει 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 or ch. iv. 2. 8. βλέπετε wh τις 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; ὑμᾶς, as the order suggests, being slightly emphatic : see critical note. The cautionary im- per. βλέπετε is found in at least six com- binations in the N. T.; (a) with a sim- ple accus., Mark iv. 24, Phil. iii. 2; () with ἀπὸ and a gen., Mark viii. 15, xii. 38; (c) with m@s and the indic., Luke 21 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 8. 162 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 eyil. 8 Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν as a , \ A > / \ \ διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν 8. ὑμᾶς ἔσται] 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 ἔσται ὑμᾶς 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. vill. 18, 1 Cor. iii. 10; (4) with ἵνα and the subj., 1 Cor. xvi. 10; (6) with μὴ and the subjunctive, —the prevailing con- struction, Matth. xxiv. 4, Gal. ν. 15, ἃ]. ; (7) with μὴ 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,’ ete.; see Winer, Gr. § 56. 2, p. 446, Hartung, Partik. wh, 5. 6, Vol. 11. p. 140, and compare Herm. Soph. Lect. 992. Numerous examples of μὴ in dif- ferent constructions after dpa κ. τ. A. will be found in Gayler, Parti. Neg. p. 316 sq. ‘bearing away as a booty ;’ an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. T., found only in later Greck, both directly with an accus. persone, e. g. παρϑένον, Heliod. 4th. x. 85, and, in a more derivative sense, with an accus. 22. There seems no reason for diluting ὑμᾶς (συλαγωγῶν τὸν νοῦν, Theoph.) or adopt- ing the weaker force of the verb (ἀποσυ- λῶν τὴν πίστιν, 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. τις, see notes on Gal. i. 7. διὰ Tis φιλοσ. x.7.A.] ‘by means of philoso- phy and vain deceit,’ 7. 6. a philosophy that is essentially and intrinsically so, the absence of both prep. and article be- fore κενῆς ἀπάτης showing that it belongs to the same category as the foregoing TvAaywyer| 2 ret, 6. 5. οἶκον, Aristen. Ep. τι. φιλοσοφία, and forms with it a joint idea ; ἐπειδὴ δοκεῖ σεμνὸν εἶναι τὸ τῆς φιλοσο- dias προσέϑηκε, καὶ κενῆς ἂπ., Chrys.: see Winer, Ογαηι. ὃ 19. 4, p.116. Such φιλοσοφία was but a κενὴ ἀπάτη, an empty, puffed-out [comp. Benfey, Wur- zellex. Vol. 11. p. 165] system of deceit and error ; compare Eph. vy. 6. The term φιλοσοφία 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. Prescr § 7), or Pythagorean (Grot.), or on the other, to the ‘ religio Judaica’ (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. 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 (τ ἢ ς g:Aoc.,—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; (b) Christianity tinged with Jewish usages and speculations as con- demned in the Pastoral Epistles, — not heresy proper, but an adulterated Chris- Crap. II. 8, 9. ’ A ’ , \ παράδοσιν τῶν ἀν ρώπων, κατὰ \ x , 9 Κ΄ > te κατα βίστον, Οτύ ἐν αὑτῷ 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, Anfiinge, p. 320 sq., Burton, Lectures, 111. Vol. 1. Ρ- 76 (ed. 2), Reuss, Theol. Chrét. v1. 13, Vol. 11. p. 642 sq. κατὰ τὴν wapad. τῶν avd. ‘ac- cording to the tradition of men;’ modal predication attached, not to τῆς φιλοσο- φίας, κ΄ τ. A. (a construction in a high degree grammatically doubtful), but to the part. συλαγωγῶν, defining, first posi- tively and then negatively, the charac- teristics of the συλαγωγία. Philosophy was the ‘ causa medians,’ παράδ. τῶν avSp. the ‘norma’ and ‘ modus agendi.’ The gen. τῶν ἄνδρ. is apparently that of the origin (Hartung, Casus, p. 23), the παρά- δοσις took its rise from, and was received from, men; compare Gal. i. 12, 2 Thess. iii. 6. Meyer presses the art. τῶν avdp. (΄ τῶν 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). στοιχ. K.T.A.| ‘according to the rudi- ments of the world ;’ second modal pred- ication parallel to the foregoing. The antithesis οὐ κατὰ 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. , \ \ κατα TGQ COLOSSIANS. 163 \ - a Ta στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου Kal οὐ al a \ a κατοικεῖ πᾶν TO πλήρωμα τῆς κατὰ Χριστόν] ‘according to Christ ;’ clearly not, as Grot., Corn. a Lap., ‘ se- cundum doctrinam Christi,’ but ‘secun- dum Christum,’ ὡς τοῦ Χριστοῦ χωρίζον- τας, Theod. (compare Chrys.): Christ Himself, the personal Christ, was the substance, end, and norma of all evan- gelical teaching. A good lecture on the ‘ten points of faith’ is based on this text by Cyr.-Hieros. Catech. τὺ. 9. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘because in Him ;’ reason for the implied exclusion of all other teaching except that κατὰ Χριστόν, ἐν αὐτῷ being prominent and emphatic, and standing in close connection with the preceding Χριστόν, ‘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 βλέπετε (compare Huth.), to which, however, the emphatic ἐν αὐτῷ seems de- cidedly opposed. κατοικεῖ) ‘doth dwell,’ —now and evermore: ob- serve both the tense and the compound form. The former points to the present, continuing κατοίκησις of the Godhead in the glorified son of God (compare Ilof- mann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 1, p. 24); the latter to the permanent indwelling, the κατοικία, not παροικία, of the πλήρωμα δεότητος, compare Deyling, Obs. rv. 1, Vol. 1v. p. 591, and see notes on ch. i. 19, and on Eph. iii. 17. πᾶν τὸ πλήρ.] ‘all the fulness of the Godhead,’ all the exhaustless perfections of the essential being of God: not with- out emphasis ; ἐν ἡμῖν μὲν yap ἀπαρχὴ kal ἀῤῥαβὼν ϑεότητος κατοικεῖ, ἐν Xp. δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλήρ. τῆς ϑεότητος, Athan. ; see notes on ch. i. 19, where the meaning of πλήρωμα 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 ϑεότης must 104 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 10. [al “9 ’ > led , ica 3 Ὁεότητος σωματικῶς, ἢ καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι, ὅς ἐστιν not be confounded with ϑειότης (Rom. i. 20), as Copt., Syr., A&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, vit. 1, and points to the nature of God on the side of the actual essentia (τὸ εἶναι Θεόν) ; the latter ‘divinitas,’ ‘die Gottlichkeit,’ ‘conditionem ejus qui sit Sezos,’ and points to the divine nature on the side of its qualitas (τὸ εἶναι ὃ εἴον) ; see Fritz. Rom. i. 20, Vol. 1. p.62. The real difficulty of the verse is in the next word. σωματικῶ 5] ‘in . o oOo > bodily fushion,’ δέος [ecorpo- 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 -:Kos (‘like what?’ Donaldson, Craty/. § 254), we must certainly decide that it signifies neither ἀληϑῶς, sc. οὐ τοπικῶς ἡ σκιατι- κῶς, ‘ vere, non umbratice’ (August., compare Hammond 2), — ὅλως, ‘ totali- ter, (Capell.). — οὐσιωδῶς sc. ob σχετι- κῶς, essentialiter, non relative’ (Cicum., Usteri, Lehrb. p. 308), —nor even ὕπο- στατικῶς, ‘ 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 bedily fashion,’ in the once mortal, and now glorified, body of Christ; comp. Phil. iii. 21. The πλήρωμα δεότητος, which once dwelt ov κατὰ σωματικὸν εἶδος in the Λόγος ἄσαρκος, now dwells forevermore σωματι- κῶς (Chrys. calls attention to the precis- ion of the language; μὴ νομίσῃς Θεὸν συγκεκλεῖσϑαι, ὡς ἐν σώματι) in the Ao- γος ἔνσαρκος : compare Meyer in loc., and Hofmann Schriftb. 1. c. So De Wette, Eadie, Alford, and most mod- ern commentators, and anciently /#thi- opic, ‘in carne s. corpore hominis,’ and apparently Athanasius contr. Arian. 111. 8, de Suse. Hum. Vol. τ. 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. καί ἐστε κ. τ. λ.] ‘and (because) yeareinhim filled full;’ not exactly, ‘ye are made full in Him’ (Eadie), but, as the position of ἐστε 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, τῆς ϑεότητος (Theoph.), τοῦ πληρ. τῆς ϑεότ. (De W.), τῆς ζωῆς (Olsh.): all wherewith Christ is full, all His gifts, and graces, and communi- cable perfections, are included in the πλήρωσις ; compare the somewhat paral- lel text Eph. iii. 19, and see notes zn loc. Grotius and a few others regard ἐστε as an imper. parallel to βλέπετε, but are rightly opposed by all modern commen- tators. ὅς ἐστιν x.7.A.] ‘who is, i. 6. sceing 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 πλήρωσις from any subordinate source, or by any ceremonial agency (compare verse 11), The reading is somewhat doubtful: Zachm. reads ὃ with BDEFG ; Clarom., al., and encloses rai — ev αὐτῷ in a parenthesis, but as the neuter rela- tive would seem to have arisen from ἃ mistaken ref. of ἐν αὐτῷ to mAnp., we seem justified in retaining ὃς with AC KL; nearly all mss. ; Chrys., Theod., παρ: II. 10, 11. COLOSSIANS. 165 ς N ΄ > an Sa 5 , Tih. “ἢ \ , ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας: | ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήδητε ee) ’ » ὋΣ» ', fa) ΄ fol , “περιτομῇ ἀχειροποίητῳ, εν ΤΊ) ἀπεκδύσει. του σώματος TS σαρκος, al., followed by Zec. and Tisch. On the use of the abstract terms ἀρχὴ and εξου- gia to denote orders of heavenly Intelli- gences, see notes and reff. on Lph. i. 21, and Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. ἄγγελος, Vol. 1. p. 830-48. 11. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom,’ i.e. ‘seeing that in Him,’ not ‘ per quem,’ Schoettg., ἐν ᾧ being exactly parallel with ἐν αὐτῷ (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.). καὶ περιετμήϑητεϊ) circumcised,’ viz. at your conversion and baptism, ‘ quum primum facti estis Chris- tiani,’ Schoettg.: not ‘in whom too, ye, etc.,’ Eadie, which tends to separate καὶ 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 καί ἐστε --- πεπληρ. (see above) ; this, however, is further expanded in two explanatory relatival clauses, és ἐστιν, κι τ. A. being directed against the first error, ἐν @ καὶ x. τ. A. against the sec- ond; see Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 11. 2, p- 153. ἀχειροποιήτῳ] ‘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 περιτομὴ [Baptism, see below] with the legal, typ- ical, περιτομὴ χειροποίητος, performed outwardly ἐν σαρκί, Eph. ii. 11. Sey- ‘ye were also eral references to a spiritual circumcision will be found in Schoettg. Z/or. Vol. 1. p- 815; compare Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, al. The form &xepor. occurs again Mark xiv. 58 (in expressed contrast), and 2 Cor. v. 1. ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει κ. τ. λ.} ‘inthe putting off of the body of the flesh ;’ not ‘by means of ete.,’ Mey., the prep. ἐν not having any quasi-instrumental force, but simply specifying that in which the περιτομὴ 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 σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς has been somewhat differently explained. Gram- matically considered, the expression is exactly the same as in ch. i. 22; σαρκὸς is the gen. of the material or specifying clement (see notes), but its meaning and application are necessarily different. There it was the material σὰρξ of the Redeemer without any ethical signifi- cance ; here it is the material σάρξ, qua the seat of sinful motions, practically sy- nonymous with the more generic σῶμα ἁμαρτίας (Rom. vi. 6), and designedly used in this place to keep up the anti- thetical allusion to legal circumcision : the περιτ. χειροπ. consisted in the ἀπέκ- δυσις and περιτομὴ of a part (Exod. iv. 25), the περιτ. Χριστοῦ in the ἀπέκδυσις of the whole σῶμα τῆς σαρκός ; see Hof- mann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 154, and Wordsw. in loc., who pertinently cites the good doctrinal comments of Hilary, de Trin. 1x. 7. It is somewhat perverse in Miiller, Doetr. of Sin, Vol. 1. p- 359 (Transl.), p. 455 (Germ.), to salve his general interpretation of σὰρξ by here giving to σῶμα a figurative meaning (‘ massa,’ Caly., al.), which, even if lex- ically admissible, is obviously out of 100 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 11, 12. > lol A A ral 12 / >| Ar. aA 7 ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1" συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσ- harmony with the concrete references (συνταφέντες, συνηγέρϑητε) in the con- text. No writer has more ably vindicat- ed the prevailing meaning of σάρξ (see notes on Gal. y. 5), but that there are some passages in the N. T. in which σὰρξ has a reference to sensationalism general- ly, to weakness, fleshliness, and sinful motions cannot safely be denied ; comp. with this expression, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνῶρ. kK. τ. A. Ch. iii. 9, and see especially the excellent article of Tho- luck in Stud. u. Krit. for 1855, p. 488- 492. ἅμαρτ. τῆς σ. with D?D3E°KL, is rightly rejected by Zischener and most modern critics. ἐν TH περιτ. TOD X p.| ‘in the circumcision of Christ,’ com- municated by, and appertaining unto, Christ ; second characterizing definition parallel to ἐν τῇ amex. κ. τ. A. specifying more exactly the nature of the περιτομὴ Χριστοῦ is not exactly a The reading of Rec., σώμ. τῶν ἀχειροποίητος. gen. auctoris (6 Χριστὺς περιτέμνει ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι, Theophyl.), but of the origin, or perhaps still more exactly, the orzgi- nating cause (see Hartung, Casus, p. 17, and notes on ch. i. 23) ; τούτων αἴτιος ὃ δεσπότης Χριστός, 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. in loc. The reference of ἀπεκ. κι τ. A. and περιτ. τοῦ 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. συνταφέντεϑ) buried together with Him,’ ‘when you were, etc., the action described in the partici- ple being contemporaneous with that of ‘having been περιετ. (Mey.); compare ch. 1. 20, and see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, 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 περιτομὴ 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 κα- τάδυσις and ἀνάδυσις in Baptism; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. avdd. Vol. 1. p. 259, Bingham, Antig. x1. 11. 4, and comp. Jackson, Creed, x1. 17.6. That this burial with Christ is spiritually real and actual (τὸ βάπτισμα κοινωνοὺς ποιεῖ Tov ϑανάτου Xp. Theod.-Mops. on Rom. ἰ. c.), not symbolical or commemorative, seems certain from the plain, unrestrict- ed language of the apostle; compare Waterl. Huchar. vit. Vol. tv. p. 577. ἐν ᾧ καὶ cuyny.| ‘wherein ye were also raised with Him:’ ἄλλ᾽ οὐ τάφος μόνον ἐστί [τὸ βάπτισμα], ὅρα γὰρ τί φησι, Chrysost. (compare Theoph.), — noticed by Meyer, Alf., and others as referring ᾧ to Χριστός, tut apparently without suffi- cient reason. The reference of ᾧ to Xp. (Mey., Eadie) is at first sight structurally plausible (6s...€v d...€v &), but on a closer consideration certainly not exegetically satisfactory ; the two spiritual character- istics, the τὸ συνταφῆναι as shown in the κατάδυσις, the τὸ συνεγερϑῆναι as shown in the ἀνάδυσις, must surely stand in close reference and connection with Bap- tism. The counter-arguments of Meyer founded on the use of the prep. (ἐν ᾧ not ἐξ οὗ), and the parallelism of the prepo- sitional clauses (cuvrap. αὐτῷ ἐν k. τ. λ., ournyeps. διὰ K. τ. A.) are not convine- ing. In the first place no other preposi- tion would be so appropriate as the semi- local ἐν; and in the second place, διὰ Cuap: II. 12; 13. COLOSSIANS. 167 ματι, ἐν ᾧ Kal συνηγέρδητε Sia τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ lol col “Ὁ lal ‘ a Θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" 13 καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς k. τ. A., the statement of the causa medi- ans, can scarcely be conceived as form- ing any logical parallelism with the fore- going semilocal ἐν τῷ Barr. Lastly the καὶ seems to keep both συντ. and συνηγ. in close correlative reference to each other. By comparing Rom. vi. 4, it would seem that the primary ref. of cuyny. is clearly to a present and spir- ttual 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. 1v. p- 577, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. rv. 21, Vol. 11. p. 235. διὰ τῆς πίστεω 5] ‘through faith:’ 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. vi. p. 23; compare Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 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. τῆ ἐνεργείας κ. τ. λ.} “ (in) the effectual working of God:’ not gen. of the agent or causa efficiens (De Wette, al.), but more simply and intelligibly the genitive > mn ¥; objecti; 2 δάσο o19 = [qui credi- distis in] Syr., sim. /®th., ‘in fide, in auxilio’ (Platt; Pol. inverts), ἐπιστεύ- cate ὅτι δύναται ὁ Θεὺς ἐγεῖραι, καὶ οὕτως ἠγέρϑητε, Chrys., — as ἴῃ all cases where πίστις 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, 111. 22, and Stier on Eph. Vol.t. p. 477. τοῦ ἐγείραντος k.7.A.] Clause appended, to give a sure and certain pledge (ἐνέχυρον ἔχοντες τοῦ δεσπότου Χριστοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, Theod.) of the almighty ἐνέργεια of God, both in the present vivification to new life and the future vivification to glory (comp. Eph. i, 20 and notes in Joc.) ; — ‘ 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 bas] ‘and you also, ‘et vos etiam,’ Copt.; application of the foregoing to the Colossians, especially with reference to their formerly heathen state, καὶ being associated with ὑμᾶς and ascensive, not with ovve¢. in a merely copulative sense ; see notes on ph. ii. 1. The pronoun is repeated after συνε, with ACKL (B, al., ἡμᾶς ; more than 40 mss.; Copt., /&thiop., al.; Theod. (ms.), Dam., Ggeum., 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. νεκροὺς bvtas| ‘being dead,’ or ‘when 108 ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν you were dead’ (not, ‘who were dead,’ Alf.), the past sense attributed to ὄντας 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 νεκροὺς a proleptic reference to physical death, scil. ‘certo morituri,’ ὑπὸ τὴν δίκην ἔκεισϑε ἀποδϑανεῖν, Chrys. : a remote, inferential, reference to physical death may possibly be included (see Alf. on Eph. ἰ. c.), but any primary ref. seems wholly irrecon- cilable with the context. ἐν τοῖς παραπτ.] ‘in your transgres- ’? the prep. as usual marking the element in which the dead state was ex- perienced ; contrast Eph. ii. 1, where the ἐν is omitted and the dat. is instrumen- 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 παραπτ. and ἅμαρτ. (especially when associated) advanced in notes on Eph. l. c. τῇ ἀκροβ. τῆς σαρκός] ‘the uncircumcision 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 σάρξ, ---- not merely your material (Eadie), but your sinful, unpu- rified flesh, of which the ἀκροβυστία was the visible and external mark ; they were heathens, unconverted, sinful heathens, as their very bodies could attest: this ἀκροβυστία, however, had now lost its significance ; they were περιτετμημένοι in Christ. ᾿Ακροβυστία is thus not ne- sions ; COLOSSIANS. Cuapr. II. 13. αὑτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα cessarily spiritual (Deut. x. 16, Jerem. iv. 4), but retains its usual and proper sense ; on the derivation (not ἄκρον Bia, but a corruption of ἀκροποσϑία) see Fritz. fiom. Vol. 1 p. 136. συνεζωοποίησ εν] ‘ 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, “ποίαν. 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. ii. 5, seems to point to the last substant. Θεός, 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. Θεοῦ, --- the obyious prominence given to Christ throughout the preceding portion —the peculiar acts described in the par- ticiples (especially ἐξαλ. x. τ. A. com- pared with Eph. ii. 15, and even χαρισ. compared with Col. iii. 13), —the rela- tion of Christ to ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι (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- νεῷ 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. 302, ed. Burt.) : so Chrys. (here, e sil., but elsewhere expressly), apparently Syriac and Goth. (certainly in ver. 15, see be- low), perhaps /&th. (Platt), and recently Cuap. II. 18, 14. COLOSSIANS. 169 τὰ παραπτώματα, 1 ἐξαλείψας τὸ KaY ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς Heinr., Baur, Paulus, γν. 452 note, and very decidedly, Donalds. Chr. Orthod. p- 76. It is somewhat singular that the Greek commentators Theod., Theoph., and C&cum., silently adopt Θεὸς as the subject of verse 13, and 6 Θεὸς Λόγος (Theod.), as that of ver. 14, 15; comp. also Wordsw. in /oc., 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. σὺν αὑτῷ] ‘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. χαρισάμενος x.7.A.] ‘ having forgiven us all our transgressions ;’ modal participle describing the prelimi- nary act which conditioned the realiza- tion of the συζωποίησις, by removing the true cause of the vexpérns : πάντα παραπτ. ποῖα; ἃ τὴν νεκρότητα ἐποίει, Chrys. ; compare ch. iii. 13, 2 Cor. ν. 19, Ephes. iv. 32, and observe that in these last two passages Θεὸς is the subject, yet with the noticeable addition, ἐν Χριστῷ. For the 22 reading ὑμῖν (lz. not Steph.), there is but little critical authority. Both exter- nal and internal arguments suggest the more inclusive ἡμῖν. 14. ἐξαλείψ α5] ‘having blotted out ;’ modal participle contemporary with, surely not prior to (Mey.) χαρισάμενος, 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 χειρόγραφον. 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 4 To answer, with Eadie, ‘What Christ did, God did by Him,’ only evades, but does not meet, the difficulty. The form ἐξαλ. (Acts iii. 19, Rev. iii, 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4; compare Psalm |. 9, eviii. 13), as its derivation suggests [a= avd, and Sanscr. ip, ‘ illinere,’ Pott, Ltym. Forsch. Vol. τ. p. 258, Vol. 11. p. 153], properly denotes ‘ cera obducti delere ’ (compare Krebs, Obs. p. 337), and thence, ‘to ex- punge,’ ‘ wipe out,’ generally, in opposi- tion to γράφειν, Euripid. ap. Stob. Floril. ΧΟΙΙ. 10, p. 507 (ed. Gesn.), or ἐγγρά- gew, Plato, Rep. vi. p. 501 B, compare Xen. Hell. 11. 3. 51. τὸ Kad ἡμῶν χειρ. K.7.A.] ‘the handwriting in force against us by its de- crees;’ the dative δόγμασιν belonging closely to τὸ Ka¥ jm. χειρ., and falling under the general head of the dative ‘ of reference to’ (notes on Gal. i. 22); the δόγματα were that in which the τὸ καϑ᾽ ἡμῶν (the hostile aspect or direction, op- posed to ὑπέρ, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. k, p- 341) of the bond was specially evinced : see Winer, Gr. § 31.10. 1,0}. 197. The usual explanation, ‘ consisting of δόγμα- 110 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 14. Ld a 5 / -» fa) δόγμασιν ὃ ἣν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, Kal αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ TOD μέσου, προσ- τα, ‘rituum chirographo,’ Beza,—in which the dat. would be equivalent to a kind of gen. materic, or involve a tacit ellipsis of ἐν (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 xepdyp.,— more than doubrful, as χειρ. is a synthetic compound (Donalds. Gr. § 372), and apparently incapable of such a decomposition ; com- pare Tobit ν. 3, ix. 5, Polyb. Hist. xxx. 8.4. The reference of χειρόγραφον has been very differently explained. The context would seem to suggest that χει- 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, Obs. Part. 1v. p. 596 sq.), but the whole law, ‘nam benefi- cium chirograpbi ad omnes spectat, tam Gentiles quam Judzos : ergo hujusmodi chirogr. ponere oportet, quo ex aliqua parte tenentur omnes,’ Daven. ; compare Andrewes, Serm. tv. 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 χειρόγρ. was Kav ἡμῶν, 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 τὸ καϑ᾽ ἡμῶν 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 a, and see exx. in Wetsi.), by which all were bound, and which 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, The@l. Chrét. 1v. 17, ΚΟ]. τι. Ρ. 190. ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἣμ.] ‘which was against us ;’ expansion of the preceding τὸ KaY ὑμῶν: it was hostile not merely in its direction and aspects, but practi- cally and definitely. The idea of secret . hostility (ὑπὸ) 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, Lez. s. y. Vol. 11. p- 2064. Perhaps the prep. may have pri- marily involved an idea of locality, local opposition (compare Hesiod, Scut. 347, ἵπποι ὑπεναντίοι ἀλλήλοισιν ὀξεῖα χρέμι- σαν, 1 Mace. 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 ὑπό, 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. καὶ αὐτὸ k.T.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 ἦρεν, but on 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 ἐκ μέσου expresses still more fully the com- pleteness of the ἦρκεν (ἐποίησε μηδὲ φαί- versat, Theophyl., μὴ ἀφεὶς ἐπὶ χώρας, C&cum.), and perhaps alse the impedi- mental character (Meyer) of the thing taken away ; examples of αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου will be found in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 323. προσηλώσας k.T.A.] ‘having nailed it to the cross;’ modal Crap. 11. 15. ’ - »" ηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ, Yar ‘ [ COLOSSIANS. wel εκδυσάμενος Tas ἀρχὰς Kal τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ, δριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ ς ery ῤῥησίᾳ, Spray ς ἐν αὐτῷ. participle, contemporaneous with the commencement of the prev (Alf.), de- scribing the manner in which Christ re- moved the χειρόγραφον : He nailed the Mosaic law with all its decrees to His cross, and it died with Him; αὐτὸς κο- λασϑεὶς ἔλυσε Kal τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν κόλασιν, Chrys. The reference toa bond cancelled by striking a nail through it (Pearson, Creed, Art. 1v. Vol. τι. p. 248 ; compare διέῤῥηξεν, Chrys., κατέσχι- σεν, 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 χειρόγραφον Kad ἡμῶν, forever extin- guished and abrogated ; comp. Rom. vii. 6, and see Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 55 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 15. ἀπεκδυσ. Tas ἀρχὰς κ.τ.λ.] ‘having stripped away from Himself the (hostile) principalities and powers ;’ nei- 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 (Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 805), Alford, and Wordsw., nor even, ‘having stripped for Himself,’ ‘ deponere jubens,’ Winer, de Verb. Comp. tv. 15, — both interprett. wholly unsupported by the lexical usage of ἀποδύω, ἐκδύω, and ἀπεκδ. (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], Eth. (Platt), Chrys 2, more distinctly Theoph. 2, and with ° 4 a special reference, Syriac aS aD a) Se per exspoliationem corporis 581], Goth., ‘andhamonds sik leika, and per- haps Theod. followed by Hil., August., Pacian, and reflected in the ancient gloss The rare binary compound ἀπεκδ. was appar- ently chosen rather than the simpler ἐκδ. 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, ἀπεκδύσατο τὴν λαβήν [rd ἄνϑρωπος εἶναι], ἀνάληπτος εὑρέϑη ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις. 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. πρὸς καιρόν, 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 xxiii. 46) was the shout of eternal tri- umph and victory. See Wordsw. in /oc., 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 (mepié- meipev ἐκεῖ, Chrys.), while He underwent sufferings and death, and the last efforts ἀπεκδ. τὴν σάρκα, FG; Boern., al. 172 Let no one judge you in ceremonial observances, COLOSSIANS. 16 Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ Cuap. II. 15, 16. ᾽ εν holding not the Head. Submit not to outward austerities that are inwardly vain and carnal. of baffled demoniacal malignity, He de- stroyed τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ Savarou, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι Tov διάβολον, Heb. 1ϊ. 14 ; com- pare 1 John iii. 8. ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς 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 (αὐτ 0 vs) 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. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p. 226 sq. The opinion of Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 305), Alf., al., that good angels only are here referred to, and that ἀπεκδ. 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 Θεός, not Χριστός. ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παῤῥ.] ‘He made ashow of them with boldness;’ not 5 Tas v AES [diffamavit] Syr., sim. Goth., ἠσχημόνησε, Chrys., compare thiopic (Platt) and Theod., — but simply, ‘ fecit eos manifestos,’ Copt., ‘ ostentui esse fecit,’ Hil.: it was an open manifesta- tion, and that too, ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ, “ with boldness,’ — not opp. to ἐν κρυπτῷ (John vil. 4), sc. δημοσίᾳ, πάντων δρώντων, Chrysost., but, as the formula seems al- ways used by St. Paul, ‘ confidenter,’ Vulg.; see notes on Phil. i. 20. The word δειγματίζειν (Matth. i. 19, Lachm., Tisch.), apparently confined to the N. T., does not much differ in meaning from the compound παραδειγματίζειν, 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. xvu1. 1. 5, xxix. 7.5). To connect ἐν wap. with ϑριαμβ. (Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 305) seems very unsatisfactory, but has appy. arisen from the assumption that ‘ open- ly’ is the correct translation. ϑριαμβ. αὐτούς] ‘Shaving triumphed over them ;’ contemporaneous with ἐδείγμ. (see notes on ver. 12), explaining more fully the circumstances of the action. The expression ϑριαμβεύειν τινα occurs again 2 Cor. ii. 14, and apparently there (see Mey. in 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. ὃ 4, βασιλεῖς ἐδριάμβευσε καὶ ἥγε- μόνας, and examples cited by Wetst. on 2 Cor. 1. c. On the derivation of the word [ϑρι-, cogn. with Sup-, connected with τρεῖς, and ἔαμβος or ἅμβος, ‘ proces- sion,’ or ‘ close dance’|, see Donaldson, Cratyl. § 317, 318, and compare Benfey, Wurzellex. 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.). ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘init;’ not (a) ‘in the nailed up χειρόγραφον, Mey., which would give a force to αὐτῷ with which its position and the context seem at variance; nor (b) ‘in semetipso,’ Vulg., Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 111. p. 66, which would form an almost unnecessary addition ; but (c) ‘in it,’ scil. τῷ σταυρῷ (ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ, Orig.) with the Greek commentators and ma- jority of modern expositors : τὸ yap τοῦ κόσμου ὁρῶντος ἄνω ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ τὸν bow σφαγιασϑῆναι, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ϑαυμαστόν, Chrys.; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 291, and especially notes, Vol. 11. p. 217, 218 (ed. Burt.). 16. μὴ οὖν] ‘Let not then,’ ete.;’ with reference to ver. 14 sq., οὖν having its usual collective force, and recalling the readers to the fact that the Mosaic Law is now abrogated; see notes on Guan, 11.:16, 11. COLOSSIANS. 173 ’ ἅν. 4 , 4 a A , x 4 17 3 \ πόσει, ἢ EV μέρει ἐορτὴς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, 1 ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ 16. ἢ ἐν] Tisch. (ed. 9) reads καὶ ἐν only on the authority B; Copt., Syriac; Orig. (1); Hier., Tichon. (Tertull. ‘et’ 4 times), but now (ed. 7) has rightly reo turned to the reading of Rec., Lachm. The common association of βρῶσις and πόσις would very naturally have suggested the displacement of ἢ for the more usual καί. ver. 6. κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει] ‘judge you in eating,’ pass ἃ judgment upon what may or may not be eaten; ἐν referring to the item in which the judgment was passed, see Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 22. Βρῶσις is not here ‘cibus,’ Vulg. (comp. Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. 111. 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, Vili. 8, 18, x. 3, 1 Tim. iv. 3. The dis- tinction is, however, not observed in St. John (comp. iv. 32, vi. 27), nor indeed always in classical writers, comp. Hom. Od. 1.191, v1. 176; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 783 c, cited by Meyer, does not seem equally certain. The rule of Thom. M., βρώματα: πληδυντικῶς, οὐ βρῶμα, οὐδὲ βρῶσις, cannot be substantiated; see notes collected by Bern. in loc., p. 174. ἢ ἐν πόσει] ‘orindrinking, the prep. being repeated to give a slight force to the enumeration. The remarks made in respect to βρῶσις apply exactly to πόσις, contrast 1 Cor. x. 4 with Rom. xiv. 17, and compare John yi. 55. As there is no command in the Mosaic law relative to πόσις except in the case of Nazarites (Numb. vi. 3) and priests be- fore going into the tabernacle (Ley. x. 9), and as πόσει seems 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: πο- τὸν ὕδωρ vauatiaiov αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, Philo, de Vit. (πὶ. ὃ 4, Vol. 11. p. 477 (edit. Mang.). . ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆ 5) ‘in the matter of a festival : not ‘in the partial observance of festi- vals’ (οὐ yap δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ πρό- τερα, Chrys.), ‘ob partem aliquam festi violatam,’ Day., nor ‘in segregatione ἢ (7. e. setting apart one day rather than »- > oe another), Caly., comp. Syr. Losses [in divisionibus 5. distinctionibus], nor specifically, ‘in the [Talmudical] tract upon,’ Hamm. after Casaub. and Scal., —— but, simply and plainly, ‘in the mat- ter of,’ μέρος pointing to the ‘class’ or ‘category’ (Mey.); see Plato, Republi. I. p. 348 B, ἐν ἀρετῆς καὶ σοφίας τίϑης μέρει τὴν ἀδικίαν, 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- τὴ referring to one of the greater feasts, νουμηνία to the monthly festival of the new moons (Numb. x. 10; see Jahn, Ar- cheol. ὃ 351, Winer, RWB. 5. v. ‘Neu- monde,’ Vol. 11. p. 149), and σάββατα to the weekly festival; comp. Gal. iv. 10. 17. ἅ ἐστιν) relative clause showing the justice of the preceding command, the relative having a slight explanatory force ; see notes on ch. i. 25, 27. That ἃ refers not merely to the last three items but to the whole verse, i.e. to all legal or traditionary ceremonies, seems clear from the con- text. The reading 6, with BFG; Cla- rom., Goth., al. (Lachm.), is not improb- able, but is insufficiently attested. σκιά) ‘shadow ;’ not ‘an outline,’ in reference to a σκιαγραφία, ‘ beneficia ‘which things are ;’ 114 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 17, 18. τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. 1 μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβρα- Christi ac doctrinam evangelicam ob- scure dclineabant,’ Daven.,—a mean- ing doubtfal even in Heb. x. 1, but, as the antithesis σῶμα obviously requires, « [pwn [umbrz] Syr., shadows op- posed to substance (Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11. 2.5, σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας, ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα), and with per- haps some further reference to tke typi- eal character of such institutions, shad- ows flung forward (‘ prenunciative ob- servationes,’ Aug.) from the τὰ μέλλοντα (scil. τὰ τῆς καινῆς διαϑήκης, Theoph.), from the future blessings and realities of the Christian covenant; προλαμβάνει δὲ ἣ σκιὰ τὸ σῶμα ἀνίσχοντος τοῦ φωτός, Theod. The use of the present ἐστιν must not be unduly pressed ; ‘loquitur de illis ut considerantur in sud natura, abstractz ἃ circumstantiis temporis,’ Da- venant. τὸ δὲ σῶμα Xp.| ‘but the body (their substance) is Christ’s:’ the σῶμα, SC. τῶν μελλόντων, 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 preedictis cxrimoniis,’ Daven. The nom. might at first sight have been expected; the possessive gen. Χριστοῦ [so Tisch. rightly, with DEFGKL; not τοῦ Xp. with ABC; Lachm.}, however, is of more real force, as marking that the true σῶμα τῶν μελλόντων 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 im any form of lasting observation in the Chris- tian Church, St. Paul could not have used such language,— cannot be sub- stantiated. The σάββατον of the Jews, as involving other than mere national reminiscences (with Deuteron. vy. 15, contrast Exod. xx. 11), was a σκιὰ 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. καταβραβευέτω] ‘beguile you of your reward:’ so distinctly, Zonar. on Conc. Laod. Can. 35 (Suicer, Thesaur. 8. v.), καταβραβεύειν ἐστὶ τὸ μὴ νικήσαν- τα ἀξιοῦν τοῦ βραβείον, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρῳ διδόναι αὐτό, ἀδικουμένου Tos μικήσαντος, the κατὰ marking the hostile feeling towards the proper recipient, which dictated the con- sequent injustice, and τὸ mapaBpaBevew ; see Demosth. Mid. p. 544, ἐπιστάμεϑα Στρατῶνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου καταβραβευϑέντα καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωϑέντα, and Buitm. in loc. (Index, p. 176), who per- tinently remarks, ‘ verbum in translato sensu 2liter usurpari non potuisse quam de eo qui debitam alteri victoriam eripit.’ The many renderings, either insufficient (xaraxpwérw, Hesych. incorrect (κατα- παλαιέτω, Castal. ap. Pol. Syn.), or per- verted (2. g. kataxuptevérw, Corn. 8 Lap.), that have been assigned to this word will be found in Pol. Synops., and in Meyer in loc. The βραβεῖον, 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 zterna,’ Gom., τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλή- σεως (Phil. iii. 14), and with a more ex- act allusion, the ἄφϑαρτον στέφανον (1 Grasp: IT. 18; COLOSSIANS. 175 , bh ; , \ ͵ A > “a βευέτω ϑέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ Kai Spnokela τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἃ Cor. ix. 25), the στέφανον τῆς δικαιοσύ- νης (2 Tim. iv. 8), τῆς ζωῆς (James i. 12), τῆς δόξης (1 Pet. v. 4), which the Lord, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής (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 βραβεῖον 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 κατα- βραβεύειν. ὃ ἑλὼν] ‘ desir- ing (to do it),’ scil. καταβραβεύειν ; ϑέλων τοῦτο ποιεῖν, CGicum.; 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 καταβράβευσις ; τοῦτο τά νυν συνεβούλευον ἐκεῖνοι γίγνεσϑαι, ταπει- νοφροσύνῃ δῆϑεν κεχρημένοι, Theodor, who, however, somewhat overpresses ϑέλων, compare notes on 1 Tim. v. 14. These feelings were not directly, but in- directly, hostile to the καταβραβευϑησόμε- vot; the purpose was to secure the στέ- 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, ϑέλειν ἐν ταπειν., ΞΞ ἢ VER (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 καταβ. Sé- λων, apparently favored by Syr., and, with varying shades of meaning assigned to the part., by Beza, Zanch., Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 131), al., and most recent- ly, Alf. The former is distinctly unten- able, as contrary to all analogy of usage of ϑέλειν 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 καταβράβευσις 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 scarecly so simple as that of the Greek commentators proposed aboye. ‘in lowliness ;’ ἐν ταπεινοφρ.] ele- ment in which he desires to do it, the prep. ἐν not being so much instrumental (Mey.) as modal, πῶς, ἐν ταπειν. ; ἢ πῶς, φυσιούμενος ; δείκνυσι κενοδοξίας ὃν τὸ πᾶν, Chrys. It seems clear that ταπει- 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; λέγοντες ὡς ἀόρατος ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεός, ἀνέφικτός τε καὶ ἀκατάληπτος, καὶ προσήκει διὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τὴν ϑείαν εὐμένειαν πραγματεύ- εσϑαι, Theod. ; see also Zonaras on Can. 35, Conc. Laod. (A. Dp. 363% see Giesel. Kirchengesch. Vol. 1. p. 396), where this heresy was expressly condemned ; see ap. Bruns, Concil. Vol. 1. p. 37. ϑρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων] ‘worship of the angels ;’ not gen. subjecti (James i. 26), ‘que angelos deceat,’ Wolf, with reference to the ultra-human character of 176 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 18, SY els ’ vt , A - e Ν A Ν A + ea μὴ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῆ φυσιούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς devotion which the false teachers affected (sce Noesselt, Disput., Hale, 1789), but gen. objecti (Wisdom xiy. 21, εἰδώλων Spnoxefa, and examples in Krebs, Obs. p- 339), worship paid to angels; sce Winer, Gr. ὃ 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 εὐκτήρια 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 zn /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. ὃ 33, Iven. Her. 1. 31.2, Epiph. Har. xx. 2: see further references in Wolf, in loc. The evasive interpretation of ϑρησικ., talem angelorum cultum qui Christum excludat,’ Corn. a Lap., ‘im- pium angelorum cultum,’ Just., is wholly opposed to the simple and inclusive meaning of the word ; compare Browne, Articles, Art. XXII. p. 539. ἃ μὴ ἑόρ. ἐμβ.] ‘intruding into the things which he hath not seen;’ μὴ not οὐ, as the dependence of the sentence on uy- dels ὑμᾶς καταβρ. leaves the objects natu- rally indeterminate, and under subjec- tive aspects ; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 3, p. 426; compare Exod. ix. 21, ds μὴ mpo- σέσχε TH διανοίᾳ eis τὸ ῥῆμα, where the use of the μὴ 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 ABD!: 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Copt. ; Tertull., Ambrst., al.], but right- ly retained by Tisch. [with CD?2D®EKL (FG οὐκ) ; nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both), Vulg., Boern., Goth., Ath. (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. 327 note (Bohn). *EuParevew, with an accus. objecti, has properly a local sense, 6. 4. πόλιν, Eurip. Electr. 595, ναόν, ib. Lhes. 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), ἐμβατεύον- τες ἐπιστήμαις. εἰκῆ φυσιού μ.] ‘vainly puffed up ;’ modal clause, more fully defining ἐμβατεύων. The false teachers were inflated with a sense of their superior knowledge, but it was εἰκῆ (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xy. 2, Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11), bootlessly, without ground or reason. On the derivation [from εἴκειν, perhaps Sanscr. vican, ‘ re- cedere ’| compare, but with caution, Ben- fey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p. 349. De W., following Steig., joins εἰκῆ 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 ἃ μὴ ἑόρακεν. ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς «.7.A.| ‘by the mind of his flesh, ἢ. 6. the higher spiritual principle in its materialized and corrupted form, the genitive probably being simply possessive (compare notes on Zph. iv. 23), and the contradictory form of the combination being chosen to depict the abnormal ᾽ Cnap. II. 19. COLOSSIANS. 177 -“ Ν > lal \ , ᾿] Ὁ lal ‘ “- A αὐτοῦ, © καὶ ov κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν TO σῶμα διὰ τῶν condition : the flesh was, as it were, en- dued with a νοῦς (instead of vice versa), and this was the ruling principle ; see Olsh. Opuse. p. 157, Delitzsch, Psychol. Ivy. 5, p. 144, and for the normal mean- ing of νοῦς in the N. 'T., notes on 1 Zim. Vi. The σὰρξ apparently stands in latent antithesis to the πνεῦμα (compare 5: Chrys. ὑπὸ capkicjs διανοίας οὐ πνευμα- τικῆ5), 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. τι. Kit. 1855, p. 492, Beck, Seclenl. 11. 18, p- 53. 19. καὶ οὐ κρατῶν κ. τ. λ.] ‘and not holding fust the head ;’ οὐ not μή, 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. ὃ 55. 5, p. 430, and especially Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 287 sq., Where there is a good collection of examples. Κρατεῖν is here used with an aceus. in the same sense as in Acts iii. 11, compare Cant. iii. 4, ἐκράτησα αὐτόν, καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα αὐτόν, and Polyb. List. vii. 20. 8, and denotes that individual adherence to Christ the Head which alone can constitute life and salvation ; τί τοίνυν τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀφεὶς ἔχῃ τῶν μελῶν, Chrysost.: compare the possible physiological reference alluded to in notes on Eph. iv. 16. ἐξ ov] ‘from which ;’ not neut., either in reference to τὸ κρατεῖν, Beng., or un- der an abstract and generalized aspect (Jelf. Gr. § 820. 1, Kriiger, Sprachil. § 61. 7.9), to κεφαλήν, Mey., Eadie, but, as the exactly parallel passage Eph. iv. 16 so distinctly suggests, —masc. in ref. to Χριστοῦ, the subject obviously referred to in κεφαλήν. 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 distinetly the contrary. Nor again, does it seem necessary, with the same com- mentator, to refer ἐξ οὗ both to the par- ticiples and the finite verb, as in Ephes. iv. 19; the connection seems naturally with avfe,—the prep. ἐξ marking the source and ‘fons augmentationis;’ sce notes on Gal. ii. 16. πᾶν τὸ σῶμα] ‘the whole body ;’ sure- ly not necessarily ‘the body in its every part,’ Alf. : between τὸ πᾶν σῶμα (a po- sition of the art. very rarely found in the N. T.) and πᾶν τὸ σῶμα no distinction can safely be drawn. If πᾶς had occu- pied the position of a secondary predi- cate (comp. Matth. x. 80, Rom. xii. 4) there would have been some grounds for the distinction. διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ ovvd.] ‘by means of its joints and bands ;’ media of the ἐπιχορή- ynois and συμβίβασις. The apa and σύνδεσμοι. 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., 2th. (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 distince- tions adopted by Mey., al.,— according to which the apa} are specially associated with émyop., and referred to Faith the σύνδ. with συμβ., and referred to Loye, —are plausible, but perhaps scarcely to be relied upon. As in Eph. /. c., the passage does not seem so much to in- volve special metaphors, as to state for- cibly and cumulatively a general truth ; πᾶσα ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἕως ἂν ἔχῃ Thy κεφαλήν, αὔξει, Chrys. ἐπιχορ. καὶ συμβ.}] ‘being supplied and knit together ;’ passive and present; the ac- tion was due to communicated influen- 23 178 COLOSSIANS Cuap. 11. 19, 20. ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει \ a lal τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ces, and the action was still going on. To give ἐπιχορ. a middle sense (Eadie), ‘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, 8 Mace. vi. 40. The force of ἐπὶ is not intensive but directive, pointing to the ac- cession of the supply, ‘ cui, qua sunt ad incrementum necessaria, sufficiuntur,’ Noesselt (see notes on Gal. iii. 5); but it does not seem improbable that both in xopny. 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 cuuB. see notes on Eph. iv. 16. Θεοῦ] ‘with the increase of God,’ 1. e. the increase which God supplies, τοῦ Θεοῦ 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 ; sce Winer, Gr. § 36. 8, p. 221. The accus. αὔξησιν 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. εὖ awed. κ' τλῆ. ‘Tf ye. be dead with Christ ;’? warning against false asceticism ; see notes on 1 Tim. iy. 3, and compare generally Rothe, Tveol. Ethik, § 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 οὖν, and the art. before Xp. inserted in Rec., τὴν αὔξ. τοῦ 20 Ki ἀπεδάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν have the authority of αἱ the MSS. against them, and are properly rejected by all modern editors. ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχ. τοῦ κόσμου] “ 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 ἀπέϑανεν ἀπὸ νόμον, when He fulfilled all its claims and bore its curse. The ‘ constructio pregnans’ ἀπεῦ. ἀπὸ 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. ὃ 47, p. 331. ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ] ‘as if ye were living in the world,’ 7. 6. 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 ἃ non-Christian realm, from all the rudi- ments of which ye are really dead 2?’ δογματίζεσδ εἾ ‘do ye submit to ordi- nances ;’ ὑπόκεισϑε τοῖς στοιχείοις, Chrys., τῶν ταῦτα διδασκόντων avéexecde, 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. mend Ζδε [judicamini] ; Coptic and ZEth. paraphrase), as this, though per- fectly lexically admissible (observe 2 Mace. x. 8, ἐδογμάτισαν παντὶ τῷ ἔϑνει), seems somewhat less in harmony with the tone of this paragraph than the ‘ do- Cnap. IT. 21, 22. COLOSSIANS. 179 , Ze) / ΓΝ al » , Ul Da | In στοιχείων TOU κόσμου, Ti ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ SoypaTiteae. 51 My) ἅψῃ, μηδὲ γεύσῃ, μηδὲ ϑέγῃς 33 (ἅ ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φϑορὰν τῇ ceri vos sinitis’ (Grot.) of the middle; ὅρα δὲ καὶ πῶς ἠρέμα αὐτοὺς διακωμωδεῖ, δογματίζεσϑε εἰπών, 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. μὴ ἅψῃ κι τ. λ.}] ‘Handle not, nor taste, nor touch;’ examples of the δογματισμὸς to which they allowed them- selves to submit ; ‘ recitative hee profe- runtur ab apostolo,” Daven. With re- gard to the grammatical association, the coarser ἅψῃ at the beginning, the inter- posed γεύσῃ, and the more delicate Siyns at the end might seem to justify the dis- tinction of Meyer that the first μηδὲ 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 μὴ...μηδὲ...«μηδὲ 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 essential 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. τι. p. 707. With regard to the objects alluded to, the interposed γεύσῃ and the terms of yer. 23 seem certainly to suggest a ref- erence of all three verbs to ceremonial distinctions in βρῶσις and πόσις (verse 16); see especially Xenoph. Cyr. 1. 3. 5 (cited by Raph.), where all three verbs are used in reference to food, and for ex- amples of ἅπτεσϑαι, see Kypke, Obs. p. 824, Loesn. Obs. p. 872. More minute distinctions, 6. φ. ἅψῃ, women (Olsh.), corpses (Zanch.) ; Siyns, oil (Boehm. ; compare Joseph. Bell. 11. 8.3), sacred vessels (Zanch.), al., seem very doubt- ful and uncertain. On the distinction between the stronger ἅπτεσϑαι and the weaker Sryydvew (OIL, TAT, tango, Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 235], compare Trench, Synon. § 17. 22. ἅ ἐστιν κ. 7.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 xy. 17. To refer this either to the preceding com- mands, ‘quod totum genus prcepto- 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 ἀπόχρησις (sec 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 (b) 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 φϑοράν] ‘for destruction, decom- position,’ the prep. marking the destina- tion, and φϑορὰ having apparently a simply physical sense; compare Syriac Howdsos ere [usus corrupti- 180 COLOSSIANS. Cnap. II. 22, 23. \ fe ἀποχρήσει), κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνὰ ρώπων ; 93 a , > / \ vy , 9 » / \ τινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἔδελοϑρησκείᾳ καὶ bilis], and very distinctly Theod., εἰς κόπρον γὰρ ἅπαντα μεταβάλλεται, and (ἔσα!η. φϑορᾷ γάρ, φησιν, ὑπόκειται ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι. τῇ ἄἂπο- χρήσει) ‘in their consumption,’ in their being used completely up ; οὐ σκοπεῖτε ὡς μόνιμον τούτων οὐδέν, Theod. The com- pound ἀποχρ. has here a somewhat similar meaning to d:axp. (comp. Rost τι. Palm, Lex. s. v.), the prep. ἀπὸ denoting ‘non solum separari aliquid ab aliquo, sed ita removeri ut esse prorsus desinat,’ Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1v. p. 5; compare Plu- tarch, Caesar, ὃ 58, καινῆς ἔρωτα δόξης ἀποκεχρημένῳ τῇ παρούσῃ, aud sce Sui- cer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 489, where βου- eral pertinent examples are collected from the eccl. writers. ‘according to the commandments and teachings of men ;’ fur- ther definition and specification of the preceding δογματίζεσϑε ; they had died with Christ, they were united with a di- vine Deliyerer, and yet were ready to submit to the ordinances and doctrines of conscience-enslaving men. The &- dack., as the exceptional omission of the article (Winer, Gram. ὃ 19. 8, p. 113) shows, belonged to the same general cat- egory as the ἐντάλμ., and are added probably by way of amplification ; they were submitting to a δογματισμὸς not only in its preceptive, but even in its doctrinal, aspects ; compare Mey. in Joc. Alford presses τῶν avSp. as describing the authors ‘as generally human:’ this is doubtful; as ἐντάλμ. has the article, the principle of correlation requires that ἄνδρ. should have it also: sce Middle- ton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6. 23. ἅτιν αἹ ‘al which things,’ ‘a set of things whieh;’ in reference to the preceding ἐντάλμ. καὶ διδ., and specifying the class to which they belonged. On this force of ὅστις, see notes on Gal. iv. J κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλμ.]} 34. The difference between ὃς and ὅστις is here very clearly marked ; & (ver. 22) points to its antecedents under purely objective, ἅτινα under qualitative and generic aspects; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51.8. ἐστιν Ady. ἔχοντα] ‘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., Eadie), but, as every rule of perspicuity suggests, with ἔχοντα, and serving to mark the regular normal, prevailing char- acter of the ἔχειν ; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, 0. 911. The exact meaning of Adyoy ἔχειν is somewhat doubtful, as λόγος in this combination admits of at least three different meanings ; (a) ‘ speciem,’ σχῆμα, Theod., Auth. Ver.; De W., compare Demosth. Leptin. p. 462, λόγον τινὰ ἔχον opp. to ψεῦδος ὃν φανείη, see Elsner, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 265; (8) ‘rationem,’ scil. ‘ grounds for being considered so,’ Vulg., Clarom., and probably Syriac {AS ; compare Polyb. Hist. χντι. 14. 5, δοκοῦν πανουργότατον εἶναι πολὺν ἔχει λόγον τοῦ φαυλότατον ὑπάρχειν, and other exam- ples in Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. 5. v.; (y) ‘famam,’ scil. ‘has the repute of,’ Mey., Alf., and perhaps Chrys., λόγον φησίν, οὗ δύναμιν: ἄρα οὐκ ἀλήϑειαν; compare Herod. ν. 66, ὅσπερ δὴ λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυϑίην ἀναπεῖσαι (cited by Raph.). Of these, though in fact all ultimately coin- cide, (7) is perhaps to be preferred ; “τὰ Ady. ἔχ. sunt res ejusmodi que quidem vulgo sapientiz nomen habent, sed a verd sapieutid absunt longissime,’ Ra- phel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 535. μὲ yhas here no corresponding δέ, but serves to pre- pare the reader for a comparison (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 656) which is involved in the phrase λόγον ἔχειν (λόγον οὐ δύνα- μιν, Chrys.), and is substantiated by the Cukr. 11.535: COLOSSIANS. 181 7, See) , , ? > A Ν τΤαπεινο οσυνὴ Και ἃ ειἰδίᾳ σώματος, OVK EV τιμὴ τινι, προς πλησ- « ‘ e μονὴν τῆς σαρκός. context; see Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. e, p. 507, where other omissions of δὲ are enu- merated and carefully classified. ἐν ἐδελοδρησκείᾳ] ‘in self-imposed worship,’ — ἐν pointing to, not the instru- ment 6y which (Mey.), but as usually, the ethical domain in which, the Adyos σοφίας was acquired, or the substratum on which the τὸ ἔχειν «. τ. A. takes place ; see Winer, Gram. § 48. a, p. 345. The word ἐϑελοϑρ. is apparently an G7. λε- you. ; but by a comparison with similar compounds éSeAodovAcla, ἐδελοκάικησις, k. τ. A. (see Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. Vol. 1. p- 778), and with the verb ἐθελοϑρησκεῖν as explained by Suidas (ἰδίῳ ϑελήματι σέβειν τὺ doxodv)may be clearly assumed to mean, ‘an arbitrary self-imposed ser- vice,’ — which, as the similar association with rave. in ver. 18 seems to suggest, was evinced in the ϑρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων. ταπειν. καὶ aged. σώ μ.] ‘ louli- ness and disregard, or unsparing treat- ment of the body:’ the two other pervert- ed elements in which the λόγος σοφίας was acquired. On tamev., which here also obviously implies a fulse, perverted humility, see notes on verse 18. The ἄφειδ. σώμ. marks the false spirit of as- ceticism, the unsparing way (compare Diod. Sic. x111. 60, ἀφειδεῖν σώματος), in which they practised bodily austeri- ties, the σωματικὴ. γυμνασία in which Jewish Theosophy so emulously in- dulged ; compare notes on 1 Tim. iv 8. The omission of καὶ after tame. and the reading ἀφειδείᾳ (B; [Lachm.]. Steig.) is strenuously supported by Hofimann, Schrifth. Vol. 11. 2, p. 64, who takes it as an adjective (comp. ἀφειδείως, Apoll.- Rhod. 111. 897), but seems both unsatis- factory and improbable. οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ κ.τ.λ.} ‘not in any real value serving (only) to the satisfying of the flesh” The explanations 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 τιμῇ is understood to point antithetically to the preced. ape:d., and to refer to the same gen. (οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τῷ σώματι χρῶνται, Theophyl.), the clause οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ being regarded as a continuance on the nega- tive side of what had previously been expressed in the positive: ἐϑελ. κ᾿ T. A. were the elements in which the Adyos σοφί- as was, and τιμῇ τινι the element in which it was not acquired ; (0) that adopted by Syr. and appy. A&th. (Platt), according to which τιμὴ approaches to the meaning of ‘pretium,’ and suggests that there was something which might be a true sub- stratum for the τὸ ἔχειν x. τ. A., if prop- erly chosen, —‘a reputation of wisdom evinced in ἐϑελ. x. τ. 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 1. p. 328 (Bohn). Of these, (a) has much to recommend it ; as how- ever it suggests, if not involves, either a very unsatisfactory meaning of πρὸς πλησμ., ‘so that the natural wants of the body are satisfied ’ (Chrysost., al.), or a retrospective connection of the clause with ἐστιν, or, still less likely, with doy- ματίζεσϑε (ΔΙ), it seems better to adopt (b), to which also the use of τινι, almost, ‘no value of any kind,’ seems decidedly to lean. Πρὸς πλησμονήν, 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 ;’ σαρκὸς having a retrospec- tive reference to νοὸς τῇς σαρκὸς in ver. 18, and contrasting, with great point, the means pursued and the end really in view; they were unsparing (ἀφειδ.) with 182 {1 Mind the things above, for your life is hidden with » Christ: when he is mani- avo fested so shall ye be also. the σῶμα, that they might satisfy (πρὸς πλησμ.) —the capt. Syr. and Auth. in- sert ἀλλὰ before πρὸς πλησ. ; this is not necessary ; the exposure of the motive is rendered more forcible and emphatic by the omission of all connecting parti- cles. Cuarter III. 1. εἰ ody] ‘If then,’ with retrospective reference to ef ames , chap. ii. 20, οὖν 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 εἰ is not problematical, but logical (Mey.), introducing in fact the first member of a conditional syllogism ; compare Rom. y. 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. Teg) curvnyéeprnte] ‘ye were raised together,’ scil. in baptism ; not merely in a moral sense (De W.), which would render the injunction that follows somewhat superfluous : εἰπών, ὅτι ἀπεϑάνετε σὺν Xp. διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσμα- τος δηλαδή, καὶ κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον δοὺς νοεῖν ὕτι καὶ συνηγέρϑητε (τὸ γὰρ βάπτισ- μα, ὥσπερ διὰ τῆς καταδύσεως ϑάνατον, οὕτω διὰ τῆς ἀναδύσεως τὴν ἀνάστασιν τύποι), νῦν εἰσάγει κ. 7T.A., Theoph. ; compare Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 3, p. 220. On the force and deep reality of these expressions of mystical union with Christ, compare Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. 11. p. 164. τὰ ἄνω] ‘ the things above:’ all things pertaining to the πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς, Phil. iii. 20, and to the Christian’s true home, the ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ, Gal. iy. 26; the con- trast being τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς yas, ver. 2; comp. ᾽ COLOSSIANS. Θεοῦ καδϑήμενος" ΟἾΑΡ. III. 1, 2. 5 5 iL fel A A Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρϑητε τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ a Φ . al r ζητεῖτε, οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιῖ, τοῦ 2) Xx Sy la) \ ΚΕ Ὡς τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε, μὴ τὰ ἐπι Pearson, Creed, Art. γι. Vol. 1. p. 322 (ed. Burt.). οὗ ὃ Xp. x-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 ;’ οὐκ ἠρκέσϑη δὲ τῷ ἄνω εἰπεῖν, οὐδέ, οὗ ὁ Χρ. ἐστίν: ἀλλὰ προσέϑηκεν, ἐν δεξ. Kaan. τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα πλέον τὶ ἀποστήσῃ τὸν νοῦν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, Theophyl. ; comp. Chrys. On the session of Christ at the right hand of God as implying indisturbance, dominion, and judicature, see Pearson, Creed, Art. v1. Vol. 1. p. 328, 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 vit. Vol. 11. p. 809-322 (A.-C. Libr.), and another by Farindon, Ser- mon XLii. Volume 11. p. 359 (London, 1849). 2.7% ἄνω φρονεῖτε] ‘mind the expansion of the preced- ing command, φρονεῖν haying a fuller meaning than ζητεῖν ; they were not on- ly querere but sapere. On the force of φρονεῖν, compare notes on Phil. iii. 15, Beveridge, Serm. cxxxvul. Vol. vi. p. 172 (A.-C. Libr.), and especially the able analysis of Andrewes, Serm. v111. Vol. 11. p. 315. τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς Ὑῖῆ5] ‘the things on the earth ; all things, conditions, and interests that be- long to the terrestrial ; compare Phil. iii. 19, of τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. 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 things above ;’ Cuap. III. 8, 4. COLGSSIANS. 183 hs γῆς. ὃ. ἀπεδάνετε yap, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπτ ὺν τῷ τῆς γῆς. 8. ἀπεδά γάρ, ἡ ζωὴ ὑμ ρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ: “ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωδῇ, ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωϑδήσεσδε ἐν δόξῃ. (Ὁ) any special ethical allusion with ref. to ver. 5 (Estius), for the antithesis τὰ ἄνω obviously precludes all such limita- tion. The command is unrestricted and comprehensive, ‘ restria ;’ see Caly. in /oc., and the sound sermon by Beveridge, Serm. Vol. v1. p. 169 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). 3. ἀπεϑάνετε γάρ] ‘For ye are dead,’ Alf., Wordsw., as the reference seems still to the past act, ch420. Co- nyb. urges that the associated κέκρυπται 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 ϑνήσκω, however, is such as to pre- clude any rigorous translation on either side. ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν) ‘your life,’ —which succeeded after the ἀπεϑάνε- ve; your real and true life, —not merely your ‘resurrection life,’ Alf.\(rijs-jueré- pas ἀναστάσεος τὸ μυστήριον, Theod.), but, with the tinge of ethical meaning which the word ζωή, from its significant antithesis to Sdvaros, always seems to involve (compare Reuss, Thél. Chret. αν. 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. iy.8. On the meaning of ζωή, see the good treatise of Olshausen, Opusc. Art. vi11. p. 187 sq., and on its distine- tion from Bios, Trench, Synon. § 27. κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ 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- superma curate non ter- 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 coimmplete ; compare the thoughtful re- marks of Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. v. 8, p- 298. ἐν τῷ Oew| ‘in God ;’ He is the element and sphere in which the ζωὴ is concealed: in Him, as φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον (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 ζωὴ is concealed ἐν Θεῷ ; considered under its coherent re- lations it is concealed σὺν Χριστῷ ; com- pare Meyer in loc., whose interpretation of ζωὴ (‘das ewige Leben’) is, however, narrow and unsatisfactory. 4. φανερω ὃ ἢ] ‘shall be manifested ;’ scil. at His second coming, when He shall be seen as He is, and when His present concealment shall cease; οὔτε yap ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁρᾶται, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπίστων παντε- λῶς ἀγνοεῖται, Theod.: compare 2 Peter iii. 4. ἡ ζωὴ ἡ μῶν] ‘our Life, almost, ‘ being our Life,’ the ‘ pre- dicatio,’ as Daven. acutely observes, be- Christ is here termed ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, 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. 1.91. Thus Christ is termed ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν, 1 Tim. i. 1 (comp. ing ‘ causalis non essentialis.’ 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. CHAP. Π1]. 4575; 5 , 5 Ν , [ A Aide Σὰ A Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν, ἀκαδαρσίαν, πάδος, ἐπιδυμίαν 5. τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν] So Rec., Lachm., with Α ΟΡ DEFGKL; nearly all mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), Copt., Aéth. (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 Vy. seem to render this otherwise not improbable omission here very doubtful. Col. i. 27), ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, Eph. ii. 14, where see notes. The reading is very doubtful: ἡμῶν is adopted by Rec., Lachm., and Tisch. with BD*D?E2 KL; great majority of mss. ; Syr. (both), al.; Or., Gicum., al. On the other hand, ὑμῶν is supported by CD!E!FG; 5 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Copt. [quoted by Tisch. and Alf. for the other reading], Goth., Aéth. (Pol. and Platt); many Latin and Greek Ff. As ἡμῶν is far less easy to account for than ὑμῶν, which might have come from ver. 3 or from the ὑμεῖς in the present verse, critical principles seem to decide for the reading of the text. kat ὑμεῖς] ‘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 ζωὴ being applied, as it has been applied, merely to the resurrection life. Alford urges this clause as fixing that meaning to ζωή; but surely the avoidance of the regular antithesis seems to hint the very reverse ; ὑμεῖς φανερ. is the natural sequel of your inward and heavenly life, and is its true development. ἐν δόξῃ] ‘in glory;’ compare Rom. viii. 17, εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ συν- δοξασϑῶμεν. The δόξα 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 seternee 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; ζωὴ will become 4 ὄντως ζωή, and will reflect the glories of Him who is its element and essence : comp. Olsh. Opuse. p- 195 sq. 5. νεκρώσατε οὖν] ‘* 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 qua antea revera pos- ita lectorem revocat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 719), serving to enhance the perti- nent reference of νεκρώσατε to the ἀπεϑά- vere and ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν which have preced- ed. τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν] ‘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. 13, Gal. y. 24, and with respect to the image, and form of expres- sion, Matth. v. 29, 50. These are more specifically defined as τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (compare ver. 2), as defining the sphere of their activities (‘ ubi suum habent pab- ulum,’ Beng.), and as justifying the pre- ceding command. πορνείαν καὶ ἄκαδαρσίαν) ‘for- Cuap. III. 5, 6. COLOSSIANS. 185 , \ \ κακήν, Kal τὴν πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, ὃ δ ἃ 6. ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ἀπειῶ.] Tisch. [Lachm.], and A/f. 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 eyi- dence more than doubtful. nication and uncleanness ;’ specific and generic products of the τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μέλη on the side of lust and carnality ; compare Eph. v. 3. There is no need to supply mentally νεκρώσατε (Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 379), or to introduce paraphrastically a prep., ‘a scortatione,’ ZEth. ; the four accusatives stand in an appositional relation to τὰ μέλη Kk. τ. Δ.» as denoting their evil products and op- erations ; see Wiuer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470, and compare Matth. Gr. ὃ 432. 3. πάϑος ἐπιϑυμ. κακήν] ‘lustfulness, evil concupiscence ;’ further and more ge- neric manifestations. It does not seem proper, on the one hand, to extend πάϑος to ‘ motus vitiosos, quales sunt ἔχϑραι, pets, λοι, x. τ. 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 ἡ λύσσα τοῦ σώματος, Kal ὥσπερ πυρετός, ἢ τραῦμα, ἢ ἀλλὴ νόσος, Theoph. The last, ἐπιϑυμία κακή, is still more in- clusive and generic ; ἰδοῦ γενικῶς τὸ πᾶν εἶπε, Chrys. τὴν πλεο- ν εξία ν] ‘ 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 yoluptatum turpium,’ DPstius, ‘ the whole longing of the creature,’ Trench (Synon. § 24, —a very doubtful expan- sion), but simply ‘ coyetousness,’ ‘ inex- plebilem appetitium animi quierentis di- vitias, Daven. (compare Theod., The- oph.), a sin that especially depends on the τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (‘maxime efligit 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 Site Veda 9. νῸ1» το ἢ: 109. (Claris). and notes on Ephes. iv. 20. ἥτις ἐστὶν eidwAa.| ‘the which is, seeing it is, idolatry ;’ explanatory force of ὅστις, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The remark of Theod. is very pertinent, ἐπει- δὴ τὸν μαμμωνᾶ κύριον ὁ σωτὴρ προσηγό- ρευσε διδάσκων, ὡς ὁ τῷ πάϑει τῆς πλεο- νεξίας δουλεύων ὡς ϑεὸν τὸν πλοῦτον τιμᾶ. The very improbable reference of ἥτις to μέλη (Harl. on Eph. ν. 5), or to all that precedes (Heinr.), is rightly rejected by Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. 6. δι ἅ] ‘on account of which sins ;’ clearly not 8? & sc. μέλη (Bir), but in reference to ‘ peccata praecedentia aliaque flagitia,’ Grot.: compare notes on Eph. y.6. The reading is doubtful : ὃ is found in C1IDIEIFG; Claroman., Sang; ἃ in ABC2D2D*E2KL; 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 24 180 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 6-8. ” foe πὶ \ A Θ A oN \ PSS A > , Ἢ > ᾿ ἔρχεται ἡ Opn Tov Oeov ἐπι τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειδείας" Ἷ ἐν οἷς a “, “ καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε, ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις" ὃ safely reversed. ἔρχεται) ‘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. ἣ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ] Not only here, but hereafter ; καὶ ἣ μέλλουσα ὀργὴ καὶ ἣ ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι πολλάκις καταλαμβάνουσι τοὺς τοιούτους Theoph. Meyer rejects this, but without sufficient reason ; see notes on Eph. ν. 6. τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἄπειϑ.) ‘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 ib. ii. 2. 7. ἐν ots| ‘among whom,’ scil. υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειδείας, ---ο ποῦ neuter ‘in which,’ in reference to the foregoing vices: see ᾽ Eph. ii. 8, ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνεστράφημεν, 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 υἱοῖς τῆς ameiy. as converts, seems easily answered by observing that περιπατεῖν, 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. ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοι5] ‘ye were living in these sins,’ ‘ these things were the sphere of your existence and activities ;’ the verb ἐζῆτε referring to the preceding aed. (ver. 3), and its tense portraying the then continuing state ; compare Jelf, Gr. § 401.3. Huther and others regard τούτοις as masc.: this does not seem satisfactory, as ὅτε ἐζ. would be but a weak and tautologous explanation of the preceding ἐν ois περιεπ. ποτε, and as ζῆν év (except in its deeper meanings, e. g. νυνὶ δὲ Gav ἐν Xp. x. τ. 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), Cav ἐν ᾿Οδυσσείᾳ, ἐν φροντίσιν, ἐν λόγοις, ἐν ἀρετῇ, ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ κ. τ. 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. zn loc. The reading of Rec. αὐτοῖς |D*E2F GIL] has insufficient critical support. 8. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόδ εσὃ ε] ‘but Now lay aside ;’ emphatic exhortation suggested by their present state, the forcible νυνὶ (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. 24) standing in sharp opposition to the preceding τότε, On the figurative ἀπόϑεσϑε, opp. to ἐνδύσασϑε, 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 buets| ‘ye also, ye as well as other Christians ; the καὶ putting them here in contrast with their fellow-con- verts, as in ver. 7 with their fellow-heath- ens; comp. notes on Pail. iv. 12. τὰ πάντα] ‘the whole of them:’ all previously (τούτοις, ver. 7), and hereaf- ter to be mentioned. Winer (Gr. § 18. 1, p. 98) refers τὰ πάντα, 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 zn loc. So similarly Syr., Goth. (Eth. omits), ‘hee omnia’ (compare Theod.), except that this is perhaps too exclusively prospective. There is no full stop after this word in Tisch., as is τ, OTE. Cuap. III. 8. 9. COLOSSIANS. 187 a \ ἀπόϑεσϑε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, ὀργήν, δυμόν, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν, ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν, ὃ μὴ ψεύδεσδε εἰς ἀλλήλους, asserted by Alf., nor apparently in any edition. κακίαν] ‘ malice,’ ‘badness of heart,’ the evil habit of the mind as contrasted with πονηρία, the more definite manifestation of it ; comp. Eph. iv. 31, and Trench, Synon. § 11. On the distinction between the preceding ὀργὴ (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, ἔστε yap Suubs.... ἔξαψίς τις kal avaSuulacis ὀξεῖα τοῦ πάϑους, ὀργὴ δὲ ἔμμονος λύπη. βλασφημίαν may be either against God or against men, according to the context (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 13); here the associated vices seem to limit the reference to the latter; τὰς λοιδορίας οὕτω λέγει, The- oph.; see notes on the very similar pas- sage, Eph. iv. 8. αἰσχρολογίαν) ‘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,’ AEthiop.; or (b) the more general, ‘foul-mouthed abusiveness,’ Trench (comp. Copt., where, however, it seems confounded with pwpodoyia), ‘schand- bares Reden,’ Meyer. As αἰσχρ. is an am. 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. ιν. 106, Clem.-Alex. Ped. 11. 6, comp. Suicer, Thesaur. 8. v. Vol. 1. p. 136; Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 535; the lat- ter, Polyb. Hist. vi11. 13. 8, and xxx1. 10. 4, where it is associated with λοιδορία, —the context alone must decide. As this appy. refers mainly to sins against a neighbor (compare ver. 9), the balance seems in favor of (b), according to which aicxp. will be an extension of βλασφ., and will imply all coarse and foul- mouthed language, whether in abuse or otherwise, ἐκ τοῦ στό- ματος is not to be referred solely to αἰσχρολ. {Ath.), but to the two preced- ing substantives, ἀπόϑεσϑε being men- tally supplied. It seems doubtful wheth- er the addition marks specially the pollu- lion (ῥυποῖ yap τὸ εἰς δοξολογίαν Θεοῦ πε- ποιημένον στόμα, 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. μὴ Pevdeade| ‘donotlie;’ pres., do not indulge in the practice. The ad- dition εἰς ἀλλήλους 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, τι L082 ὍΣ ἘΝ ΘΙ ἰώ, ῬῚ 171. 86- (Clark): It seems best with Lachm., Tisch., and apparently most modern editors, to place only ἃ comma between ver. 8 and 9. ἀπεκδυσάμενο ι] “ 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. ἀπόδεσϑε. 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 ἀπεκδ. 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 ἀπεκδ. see notes on ch. ii. 11. τὸν παλαιὸν 188 COLOSSIANS. Cnap. III. 10. > /, Ν \ ” \ a / > a] ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν avSpwrov σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, ‘ 9 10 καὶ ἐνδυσὰμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ ἄν ϑ ρ.] ‘the old man;’ not merely τὴν προτέραν πολιτείαν, Theod., but, with a more individualizing reference, our for- mer unconverted self, our state before regeneration ; sec notes on Eph. iv. 22. Davenant (comp. Calv.) refers the term to the ‘insita natura nostra 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 (τότε, yuvi), seems to yield no support. σὺν tats mp.| ‘with his deeds;’ slightly explanatory, marking the prac- tical character of the developments of the παλαιὸς ἄνϑρωπος ; comp. Gal. v. 24. 10. καὶ ἐνδ. τὸν νέον] ‘and have put on the new man;’ closely connected with the preceding clause, and presenting, on the positive side, the act succeeding to the ἀπεκδ. on the negative. Tlie νέος ἄνδρ. stands in contrast with the παλαιὸς as specifying the newly-entered and fresh state of spiritual conditions after conver- sion and regeneration. In Eph. iv. 23 the term is καινός, as marking rather the new state in respect of quality ; compare Tittmann, Synon. τ. 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 (ἄνανε- οὔσϑαι --- καινὸν ἄνϑρ., νέον ἄνϑρ. -- τὸν ἄνακαιν.) further suggest, is the reference exclusive. On the distinction, see Wa- terland, Regen. Vol. 1v. p. 438 sq., com- pare Trench, Synon. § 18. τὸν ἄνακαιν.Ἶ ‘who is being renewed ;’ characteristic, not merely of ἄνϑρω- πον (De W.), but of the νέον ἄνϑρωπον» as the prominence of the epithet clearly requires. This process of ἀνακαίνωσις, 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 ἔσωϑεν (ἄνϑρ.) ἀνακαινοῦται ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ. The prep. ἀνὰ 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 ἐπίγνωσιν] ‘unto complete knowledge, apparently of God, and the mystery of redemption (τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τῶν Setwv, Theoph.) ; com- pare ch. i. 9, ii. 2, Ephes. i. 17; ‘in eo quod ait gui renov. in agnitionem, demon- strabat quoniam ipse ille qui ignorantize erat homo, id est, ignorans Deum, per (1) eam que in cum est agnitionem ren- ovatur,’ Iren. Her. vy. 12. On the full meaning of ἐπίγν. (‘ accurata cognitio’), see notes on Eph.l.c., and compare on Jol. ii. 3, This was the object towards which the ἄνακαιν. tended (not the sphere in which, Auth., Copt.),—the result which it was designed to attain; comp. Eph. iv. 13. κατ᾽ εἰκόνα k.7T.A.] ‘after the image of Ilim 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 ava- καιν., not with ἐπίγνωσιν (Meyer, comp. Hofm , Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 252), —a con- struction grammat. admissible (see Win. Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), but not exegetically satisfactory. Κατὰ will thus point to the ‘norma’ or model (notes on Gal. iv. 28), and the εἰκὼν τοῦ κτίσ. to the image of God (Theod.), not of Christ (Chrysost. ; compare Miiller, Doetr. 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, Caar, III. 11, 12. a / εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν' COLOSSIANS. i Ἡ ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι Ελλην καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖος, 189 περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία, βάρβαρος, Σ᾽ κύδης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύδερος, ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός. Put on mercy, be forgiving and loving, and let the 2 ᾽᾿Ενδύσασδε οὖν, ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ peace of God rule in 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, Engl. Works, Disc. v. p. 478 sq., and especial- ly p. 492. On the meaning of εἰκών, see Trench, Synon, 15. αὐτόν] Scil. νέον avSp.; not merely ἄνδρ. (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 κτίσας in reference to the jirst, or to the second creation (ἀνάκτισις, 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- nus, Her. 111. 18. 11. ὅπου] ‘where;’ ‘qua in re’ (f‘apud quem,’ JEth.), scil. in which condition yof ἀπέκδυσις of the old, and ἔνδυσις of the new man; compare Xen- ophon, Mem. 111. 5. 1, and Kiihner, in loc., cited (but incorrectly) by Meyer. οὐκ ἔνι] ‘there is not ;’ see notes on Gal. iii. 28, where the grammatical char- acter of this contraction is briefly dis- cussed. Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδ.] ‘Greek and Jew;’ antithesis involving national distinctions, followed by a sec- ond (περιτ. καὶ dep.) involving ritual characteristics, and by a climax (βάρβ., vs.) in reference to habits and civili- zation (‘Scythe barbaris barbariores,’ Beng., βραχὺ τῶν ϑηρίων διαφέροντες, Jo- seph. contr. Ap. 11. 37; see examples in Wetst. in /oc.), and lastly, by a third un- connected antithesis (δοῦλος, ἐλεύϑ.) in- volving social relations. Between the last two Lachm. inserts καί, with ADE 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 καὶ by D'E!FG after βάρβ. 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. /ints, p. 113) seems quite unnecessary. ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα κ. τ. λ.] ‘but Curist is all and in all;’ similar in meaning to πάντες ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Xp. Ἴησ., 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; πάντα ὑμῖν ὃ Χριστὺς ἔσται, καὶ ἀξίωμα καὶ γένος, καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ὑμῖν αὐτός, Chrys. For examples of εἶναι τὰ πάντα or πάντα [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. ἐνδύσασϑε οὖν] ‘ Puton then;’ 190 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 12, 13. ~ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι, σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, χρηστότητα, ταπει- νοφροσύνην, πραὔτητα, μακροδυμίαν, 13 ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων καὶ exhortation naturally following from the fact that the νέος ἄνϑρωπος which in- volved all the above blessings had been put on; ‘as you have put on the new man, put on all its characteristic quali- ties.’ The οὖν 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. ries be ὡς ἐκλ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] “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 as ἐκλεκτοὶ echoes the preceding argumen- tative ἀπεκδυσ., and thus stands in logi- cal and exegetical connection with what precedes. It is doubtful whether ἅγιοι καὶ ἤγαπημ. are to be regarded as used substantively (‘ ut sancti et dilecti,’ A®th., —Pol., but not Platt), and as co-ordi- \nate to, or as simple predicates to, the ‘preceding ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 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 ἐκλεκτοί, not as being ἅγιοι καὶ ἤγαπ.. renders the latter connection most plausible ; 50 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. σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ] ‘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. 3, p. 115, and compare Luke i. 78, σπλάγχνα ἐλέους. The expression is probably a little more emphatic than the simple οἰκτιρμούς (Heb. x. 28), or the more common ἔλεος : οὐκ εἶπεν ἔλεον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμφαντικώτερον διὰ τῶν δύο, Chrys. For exx. of the tropical use of σπλάγχνα, which, however, is here not necessarily required (compare Meyer), see Philip- pians i. 18, ii. 1, and notes in loce. The plur. οἰκτιρμῶν (Fec.) has only the support of K; mss.; Theod., al., and is rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. χρηστότητα] ‘kindness:’ ‘benevo- lence and sweetness of disposition as shown in intercourse with one another ; ἢ joined in Tit. iii. 4 with φιλανϑρωπία, and in Rom. xi. 22 opp. to ἀποτομία ; see notes on Gal. v. 22. ταπεινοφροσ.] ‘lowliness (of mind), the thinking Iéwly of ourselves because we are so; ἂν ταπεινὸς ἧς, καὶ ἐννοήσῃς τὶς ὧν πῶς ἐσώδης, ἀφορμὴν πρὸς ἀρετὴν λαμβάνεις τὴν μνήμην, Chrys. on Eph. iv. 2, here more exact than in his definitions collected in Suicer, Thesuur.s.v. Onthe 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. πραύΐτητα) ‘ 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 tamew. and μακροϑυ- μία. Eadie objects to the primary refer- ence to God, but apparently without suf- ficient reason : that πραὕὔτης is frequently used in purely human relations is quite true (compare Titus iii. 2, πραὔτ. πρὸς πάντας avSpémous), but that itwbasis is a meck 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 Cuar. III. 18, 14. COLOSSIANS. 191 , « a b We , »Μ Τὰ Ἁ , O¢€ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν, κα ὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς" 1, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις groundwork of the exhortation. In such passages mere gentleness seems quite insufficient. Ona μακροϑυμία opp. to ὀξυϑυμία (James i. 19), see notes on Eph. iv. 2. 13. ἀνεχόμενοι &AA.] ‘ 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, μετὰ μακροῦ., ἀνεχόμενοι GAA. ἐν ἀγάπῃ. There does not seem any necessity for enclosing the whole verse (Griesb., Lachm., Buttm.), nor even Kadws καὶ.. «ὑμεῖς (Winer, Cir. ὃ 64, ed. 5), in a parenthesis. ‘The 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 χαριζόμενοι ; see Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499, ed. 6. χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς] ‘ forgiving each other ;’ compare Eph. iv. 32. The change to the reflexive pronoun in two members so perfectly similar (Eph. J. c. is a little different) is perhaps not acci- dental ; while ἀλλήλων marks an act to be done by one Christian to his fellow Christian, ἑαυτοῖς 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 ἂν ἐν τῷ εὐεργετεῖν ποιῶμεν ἑτέρους, καλῶς ταῦτα, καὶ διὰ τὸ τέλος καὶ διὰ τὸ συσσώμους ἡμᾶς εἶναι, μᾶλλον εἰς ἡμᾶς ἀναφέρεται, Origen on Eph. ἰ. c. (Cramer, Cat. Vol. 1. p. 311), here perhaps more appropriate. μομφήν) ‘(ground of) blame.’ This form is an ἅπαξ Aeydu. in the N. T., but, especially in combination with ἔχω, sufficiently common in classical Greek; see exam- ples in Wetstein in /oc., and in Rost τι. Palm, Ler. s. ν. The glosses μέμψιν [018 1] and ὁργὴν [FG] are obviously suggested by the non-appearance of the word elsewhere in the N. T. or in the LXX. καδὼς καὶ ὁ 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. iy. 32, where it is referred to 6 Θεὸς ἐν Xp. Καϑώς (comp. on Gal. iii. 6), associated with the καὶ of comparison (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635) and balanced by the fol- lowing οὕτως καί, here simply introduces an examp!e (μιμεῖσϑε τὸν Δεσπότην, The- od.): in Eph. Δ 6., as the imperatival structure suggests, it has more of an argumentative tinge; see notes in loc. The reading is slightly doubtful : Κύριος is adopted by Lachm. with ABD!FG ; 1 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.; Aug. al., but is not improbably due to some attempts at conformation to Eph. iv. 32. καὶ ὑμεῖς] Scil. χαριζόμενοι, the struc- ture remaining participial: see Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499. The principal Vy. > Syr. (@00< [condonate]), Clarom. (‘ita et vos facite’), Goth. (‘taujaip’), πὶ. (* facite’), and Theod. supply the imperative, which in some MSS. [Π1Ὲ} FG: al., ποιεῖτε] is actually expressed : this, however, certainly seems at vari- ance with the stracture, and interrupts the otherwise easy sequence of clauses ; so rightly De Wette and Meyer. On the double καὶ 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. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ robrois| ‘but over all these things ;’ not, as in Eph. vi. 14 (see notes in loc.), with a simple 192 \ > , A 53 Ν , ὃ ΟΝ 7 τὴν ἀγάπην, ὃ ἐστὶν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος. force of accession or superaddition, Syr. = eS oo [cum his om- nibus], /Xth., but, as the more distinct expression and especially the foregoing image seem to require, with a semi-local force (‘ ’ Vulg., ‘ufar,’ Goth.), the dative with ém as usual conveying the idea of closer and less separable connec- tions ; see notes on J’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 ἔνδυσις. 8] ‘which (element) ;’ neuter, the ante- cedent being viewed under an abstract and generalized aspect; sce Jelf, Gram. § 820. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 7. 9. The reading is not perfectly certain ; ἥτις (Rec.) is fairly supported [D?DE KL; many ΕἾ], 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 Zachm. and Tisch. is to be distinctly preferred. σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητοϑ]) ‘the bond of perfectness,’ Auth. ; not ‘ of com- pleteness,’ Alf., which would be a more suitable translation of ὅὁλοκληρία ; comp. Trench, Synon. ὃ 39. The genitival re- lation has been somewhat differently ex- plained ; the abstract gen. may be (a) the gen. of quality, in which case τελειότ. 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, — τῆς τελειότ. marking that which the σύνδ. enclosed within it, De W., Olsh., compare Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, Ὁ. 242; or (c) the genit. objecti; τῆς τελειότ. being that which super, COLOSSIANS. Cuap: III. 14, 1b, 15 Nae: ’ , Kal ἡ εἰρηνὴ is held together by it, and on which it exercises its conjunctive power ; ἐκεῖνα αὕτη συσφιγγεῖ, Theophyl.: so ° Chrys., Theod., apparently Syr. Lo pu [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 σύνδεσ- pos (comp. Meyer) ; as, however, it as- signs a questionable collective force to πάντα τελειότης, 501]. τὰ τὴν τελειότητα ποιοῦν- τα, Chrys., Theoph., it seems more ex- act to regard the genitive as, (d) a gen. subjecti 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. iv. 2, and compare notes in loc. The omission of the article may be due to the yerb substantive; see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 8. 2, p. 48 (ed. Rose). 15. εἰρήνη τοῦ 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); ἐκείνην (εἰρή- ynv) ἣν ὃ Χριστὸς ἀφῆκεν αὐτός, Chrys. The peace of Christ must not be restrict- ed merely to ὁμόνοια, 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 εἰρήνη Θεοῦ, 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 zn loc.), while here it is rather to the hard, unloving, and unquiet spirit that mars the union of the ἕν σῶμα. The reading τοῦ Θεοῦ (Zec.) is fairly supported [C*D°EJK ; Cnar. III. 15, 16. COLOSSIANS. 193 τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλή- ϑητε ἐν ἑνὲ σώματι: καὶ εὑχάριστοι yiveoe. 10 Ὃ λόγος τοῦ 10. ἐν ταῖς kapdias] So Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., with ABCDIFG ; 10 mss. ; ap- parently all Vv.; Chrysost., Theod. (comm.); Lat. Ff. The reading ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ (Ree., 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 Eph. v.19) ; great mass of mss. ; Clem., Theod. (text), al., and (b) so very probably an assimilation to Eph. /. c. (E, however, there reads ἐν ταῖς καρδ.), that it is difficult to conceive what principle, except that of opposition to Zachm., 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 probability is a correction. vv BpaBevéro] ‘rule, -2_) [ducat, regat] Syriac, ‘sit gubernatrix,’ Beza. The verb βραβεύειν [βρα = προ, sce notes on Phil. iii. 14] has here received differ- ent explanations, ‘exultet,’ Vulg., Goth., ‘stabiliatur,’ Copt., Z&thiop., ‘ abundet,’ Clarom., all perhaps endeavoring to re- tain some shade of the original meaning (ἀγωνοδϑετοῦσάν τε καὶ βραβεύουσαν, The- od.), but obscuring rather than elucidat- ing. The later and secondary meaning ‘administrare.’ ‘ gubernare,’ Hesychius iSvvécdw (Raph., Annot. Vol. 11. p.533 sq. and Schweigh. Ler. 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. 343), and Loesn. (Obs. p. 373), one of the most pertinent of which is Jos. Antig.1v. 3. 2, πάντα σῇ προνοίᾳ διοικεῖται Kal... . κατὰ βούλησιν βραβευόμενον τὴν σὴν εἰς τέλος ἔρχεται where the association with διοι- κεῖσϑαι renders the meaning very dis- tinct. On the use of καρδία to denote the subject in its inner relations, see Beck, Seelen/. 111. 23, p. 80, compare p. 107. els ἣν καὶ ἐκλήϑ.] ‘unto which [almost, for unto it (see notes on ch. i. 25, 27)] ye were also called ;’ unto the enjoyment and participation of 25 which, the eis marking the immediate (not ultimate) object of the καλεῖν (1 Cor. i. 9, 1 Tim. vi. 12, compare notes), and thus differing but little from ἐπὶ 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 καὶ marks the κλῆσις as also hay- ing the same object as the apostle’s ad- monition. ἐν ἑν) céparil ‘in one body,’ 7. 6. 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 ; φκονόμησεν 6 Xp. τοὺς πάντας ἕν σῶμα ποι- ῆσαι, Gacum.; compare Eph. ii. 16, and Winer, Gr. § 50. 5, p. 370. kal evxdp. γίν] ‘and be (become) thankful,’ scil. to God (Chrysost., Theo- phyl.) as ὁ καλῶν (see notes on Gal. i. 6), less probably to Christ, as Theod. and expressly Syr. and th. The meamng ‘amabiles,’ εὐχάριτοι (Olshaus.), though lexically defensible (comp. Xen. Gcon. vy. 10), seems here wholly inappropriate. Εὐχαριστία was a duty ever foremost in the thoughts of the great apostle, 1 Thess. vy. 18; observe his frequent use of εὐχαριστεῖν (25 times) and εὐχαριστία (12 times), the latter of which only oc- curs thrice elsewhere (Acts xxiv. 3, Rev. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. III. 16, 17. re (—\omne} f 9 ΄ Ὁ / 5 , Uy , «Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλουσίως, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες ‘ fo e ‘ nr ¢ > A a καὶ νουδετοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ψαλμοῖς, ὕμνοις, ὠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ἐν a ΄ ” ᾽ an , Ὁ a A 17 \ an o τῇ χάριτι ἄδοντες ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ Θεῷ, " καὶ πᾶν 6 τι 17. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So Lachm., with ACDIFG; mss.; very many Vy.; some Ff. Rec., followed by Tisch. and A/f., reads Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ with BD°EK; great mass of mss.; Amit., Goth., Syr. (Philox.), al.; Clem. (1), 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 KL present distinct traces of conformation, E less so, ADFG perhaps still less, and B scarcely any at all; C has a lacuna at Eph. /. ας. iv. 9, vii. 12) in the whole N. T. Fora good sermon on the whole of the verse, see Frank, Serm. 1.1. Vol. 11. p. 394 (A.-C. Libr.). 16.6 λόγος τοῦ Χρ.] ‘the word of Christ,’ as delivered in the Gospel, Χριστοῦ being the genitive subjecti, the word spoken and proclaimed by Him, 1 Thessalon. i. 8, iv. 15, 2 Thessalon. iii. 1; compare Winer, Gr. ὃ 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 εὐχάρ. γίνεσϑε 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; παραινέσας εὖ- χαρίστους εἶναι καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν δείκνυσι, Chrys. ὑμῖν wA.| ‘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 ἐνοικείτω ἐν you’ (τὴν τοῦ Xp. διδασκαλίαν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ περιφέρειν ἀεί, 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 ἐνοικεῖν ἐν ὑμῖν occurs, and which, though the τὸ ἐνοικοῦν is different, go far to fix the meaning in the present case. The indwelling was to be πλουσίως, ‘richly,’ ‘not with a scanty foothold, but with a large and liberal occupancy,’ Eadie. ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ 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 ; ἐνοικείτω has its single ad- verb πλουσίως, and is supported and ex- panded by two co-ordinate participial clauses, each of which has its spiritual manner or element of action (ἐν πάσῃ copia, ἐν χάριτι) more exactly defined ; see notes on ch. i. 28. διδάσκ. καὶ νουϑετ. ἕαυτ.] ‘teach- ing and admonishing one another :’ on the meaning and force of νουϑετεῖν, see notes on ch. i. 28. On the possible force of ἑαυτούς, see notes on ver. 13: here it is more probably simply for ἀλλήλους ; 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. ψαλμοῖς, ὕμνοις, κ΄ τ. A] ‘with psalms, hymns, spiritual songs ;’ instru- ment by which, or vehicle in which (Mey.), the διδαχὴ and νουϑέτησις were to be communicated. Mill and Tisch. connect these datives with the following words, but not with propriety, as ἄδυντες, Cuap. III. 16, 17. COLOSSIANS. 195 ὙΝ a > , eS) " , > ν 2 , a a ἐὰν ποιῆτε EV λόγῳ ἢ EV ἔργῳ, πάντα ἐν ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ. has already two defining members asso- ciated with it. On the distinction be- tween the terms, and the force of mvev- par. (‘such as the Holy Spirit inspires’), see notes on the parallel passage, Eph. v.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. Pad. 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. x1v. 2.1. The copula καὶ after ψαλμοῖς |C2D*D FE KL] and after ὕμνοις [AC*DIEKL] seems to have come from the sister pas- sage, and is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors. ἐν τῇ χάριτι @5.] ‘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 in loc. Ἔν τῇ xdp. [Rec. omits τῇ with ΑΘ ΚΙ; al.] is obviously parallel to ἐν πάσῃ σο- gia, and serves to define the characteris- tic element to which the @5ew 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, ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Πνεύματος, CGicum., διὰ τῆς παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύμα- τος δοϑείσης χάριτος, 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 χαριέντως, Grot., ‘in dexteritate quidam gratiosd,’ Da- venant 2, untenable, as the singing was not aloud, but in the silence of the heart (Mey.). ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑ μῶ ν] ‘in your hearts ;’ locality of the dew. This ᾷδειν ἐν ταῖς xapd. is not an expansion of the preceding, defining its proper characteristics or accompani- ments (μὴ μόνον τῷ στόματι, 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 ἑαυτοῖς : see notes on Eph. v.19. The reading Κυρίῳ [Ree. with C?D®EKL] seems clearly to have arisen from the parallel passage. 17. πᾶν 6 τι... ἔργ ῳ] An absolute nom. standing out of regimen and placed at the beginning of the sentence with a slight emphatic force ; see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 477.1. This seems slightly more correct than to regard it as an accusative reflected from the following πάντα, as apparently Steiger and De Wette. πάντα is certainly not adverbial (Storr, compare Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 329), nor even a resumption of the preceding πᾶν, but an accus. governed by ποιεῖτε, supplied from the preceding ποιῆτε ; compare notes on Ephes. y. 22 What had been stated individually in πᾶν 6 τι κι τ. A. is now expressed more fully and collectively by πάντα. It is difficult to understand how the reverse can be the case (Eadie), and the plural ‘individual- izing.’ Xp.| ‘in the name of Jesus Christ;’ not ‘invocato illius adjutorio,’ Daven. (καλεῖ τὸν Yiov, Chrys.), but, as in Eph. v. 20, ‘in the name, in that holy and spiritual element which His name _ betokens ;’ see notes on Epes. 1. 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. οὐχ. Vol. v. p- 116 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). edxap. TE Θεῷ x. 7.A.] ‘ giving thanks ἐν ὀνόματι I. 190 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 (ποιεῖτε) πάντα k.T.A.is to be ever associated ; comp. Eph. ν. 20, and see notes on ver. 15, and on Phil. iv.6; add Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. 11. 2, p. 836, who less probably limits the evxap. to thankfulness for ability thus to do all ἔν ὀνόμ. k.7.A. The read- ing Θεῷ κ αὶ πατρὶ ( [ἰε0.} is well support- ed [DEFGK; mss.; Vulg., 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. ai γυναῖκες] 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 Colossx 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 Lph. vi. 21. Alford in loc. seems of a contrary opinion, but is in some degree at issue with his Prole- gomena, p. 42. τοῖς avdp.| ‘submit yourselves to your husbands ;’ see notes on Eph. v. 22, where the same precept occurs nearly in the same language. The addition ἰδίοις [Rec. with L; many mss.; Vy. and Ff.] 07 OT. COLOSSIANS. lal ’ ‘ ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν Κυρίῳ. Cuap. III. 18, 19. 18. Ai γυναῖκες, bmotdcoeoNe τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, 19 Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε is opposed to the authority of all the other uncial manuscripts. ὡς ἀνῆκεν) ‘as tt 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. 5. y., p. 751, ed. Bern.), but, as the associated ἐν Κυρίῳ 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 προσῆκε, ἔχρην, ἔδει, the tense is properly recognized. On the frequently recurring ἐν Κυρίῳ, here to be connected with ἀνῆκεν (compare ver. 20), not with ὑποτάσσ. (Chrysost., Theoph.), see notes on Eph. iv. 16, vi. 1, Phil. ii. 19, al. 19. οἱ ἄνδρες 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. μὴ πικραί- νεσὃ εἾ] ‘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 ἀκραχολεῖν, [De- mosth.] Hist. p. 1464, joined with μνη- σικακεῖν), and post-classical, writers, e.g. Exod. xvi. 20, ἐπικράνϑη ἐπ᾽ αὐτάς, al., comp. Joseph. Antig. ν. 7.1, ἐπικραινό- μενος πρὸς αὐτούς. The form is appar- ently pass. with a middle force (‘ medial- pass.,’ Kriiger) ; compare Theocr. Jdyl. v. 120, and Schol. in loc., πικραίνεται" λυπεῖται, and see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. Cuar. IIT. 20, 21. COLOSSIANS. 197 \ = Cal \ \ / Ν » °0 \ / e Tas γυναῖκας Kal μὴ πικραίνεσίδε πρὸς αὐτάς. Τὰ τέκνα ὑπα- κούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν κατὰ πάντα' τοῦτο γὰρ εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν Κυρίῳ. 51: Οἱ πατέρες, μὴ ἐρελίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν, ἵνα μὴ ἀδυ- 20. εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν] So Tisch. (ed. 1), Lachm., ΑἸ, 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; antl great majority of mss.,— apparently very insufficient authority. 6. 1, where a large list of such verbs is given, withexamples. On the derivation of πικρός [from a root ΠΙΚ- ‘ pierced ’], see Buttmann, Leri/. § 56, comp. Don- alds. Cratyl. § 266. 20. ὑπακ. τοῖς γον. k.T.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 applied only, and involved in the argumentative clause. The com- prehensive τὰ πάντα is obviously to be regarded as the general rule; excep- tional cases (τοῖς γε ἀσέβεσι πατράσιν ov κατὰ πάντα δεῖ ὑπακούειν, 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 ὑπακούειν, if not stronger than ὑποτασσ. (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. τοῦτο yap κ. τ. λ.] ‘forthis is well- pleasing in the Lord ;’ obviously not ‘ to the Lord’ (Copt., perhaps following a different reading), ἐν not being a ‘nota ρ dat.,’ nor even ‘coram’ Og Syriac, ‘apud,’ /&th. (Pol.), but, as in ver. 18 and elsewhere, ‘in Domino,’ Vulg., Cla- rom., Goth., the prep. defining the sphere in which the τὸ εὐάρεστον was especially felt and evinced to be so. . The reading of Rec., τῷ Κυρίῳ, has not the support of any uncial MS., and is rejected by all modern editors. 21. μὴ epediCere| ‘donot irritate ;’ duty of fathers, expressed on the negative side; compare Eph. vi. 4. The com- mand there is μὴ παροργίζετε, 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 ἐρεϑίζω and épédw is not perfectly certain, it is commonly referred to ἔρις [Lobeck, Pathol. p. 438, Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 1. p. 102], μὴ φιλονεικο- τέρους αὐτοὺς ποιεῖτε, Chrysost., — but comp. Pott, Et. Forsch. Vol. 11. p. 162, and Benfey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 340. Lachmann here, according to his princi- ples, reads παροργίζετε with ACDIEIF GL; al. Though well supported, it can scareely be doubted that it is a confor- mation to Ephes. J. e. ἵνα μὴ ἀϑυμ.}] ‘in order that they may 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 ἀδυμεῖν is an ἅπ. 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 J2neas Tact. [ap. Fabric. 111. 30.10], Poliorcet. 38, ὀργῇ δὲ μηϑένα μετιέναι τῶν τυχόντων ἀνδρώπων' ἀδϑυμότεροι γὰρ elev ἄν. not be disheartened ; 198 μῶσιν. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. ΠῚ: 22,93. A Η ΄ \ lal 2 Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, μὴ ἐν ὀφ᾿ αλμοδουλείαις ὡς ἀν) ρωπάρεσκοι, GAN ἐν ἀπ- λότητι καρδίας φοβούμενοι τὸν Κύριον. * ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς 22. οἱ δοῦλοι] 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. ku p.| ‘ your masters according to the flesh ;’ your bodily, earthly masters ; you have another Master in heaven: ‘ of κατὰ odp- κα κύρ. tacite distinguuntur a Christo,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 270. There is apparently no consolatory force in the a Ui τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα addition (πρόσκαιρος 7 δουλεία Chrysost., Theoph.; sim. Theod., Gicum.); see notes on Eph. I.c. On the neglected distinction between κύριος and δεσπότης, see Trench, Synon. § 28, comp. Ammon. Diff. Voc. p. 39 (ed. Valck.). ἐν ὀφϑαλμοδουλείαι5]) ‘in acts of eye-service ;’ Kat’ ὀφϑαλμοδουλείαν, 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, ἐν προσωπο- ληψίαις, and the long list in Gal. ν. 20, where see notes and grammatical refer- ences. Lachm. here reads ὀφϑαλμοδου- λείᾳ 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., Gicumen. (Jtec., Tisch.), —the plural, which, even independently of the parallel passage, was so likely to be changed to a reading supposed to be more in harmony with the ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας in the correlative member which follows. ἐν ἁπλότ. Kap- dias] “ὅπ 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 μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρό- μου. On the scriptural meaning and ap- plication of ‘doubleness of heart,’ see Beck, Seelen/. 111. 26, p. 106. Here, as , Meyer observes, ἐν ἁπλότ. in the nega- tive clause answers to ἐν ὀφϑαλμοδ. in the positive, and the following φοβούμ. τὸν Kup. to ὡς ἀνδρωπάρεσκοι. The read- ing is again slightly doubtful. Fee. has Θεόν, with D®°E2K; mss.; Lachm. and Tisch. adopt Κύριον, with ABCDIEIF GL, — which is certainly to be preferred, as there seems nothing in Eph. /. 6. to which it could be a conformation. 23.8 ἐὰν ποιῆτε] 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 ABCD!FG, and adopted by Zachm. and Tisch. The Rec. καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι ἐὰν is feebly supported [0055 Κ11, and possibly a reminis- cence of yer. 17. Alford prefixes καί, apparently by an oversight. ἐκ ψυχῆς) ‘from the heart (soul) ;’ stronger than ἐν ἁπλότ. καρδ. above, 561]. ἐξ εὐνοίας καὶ bon δύναμις, (ἔσαπι., and as opposed to any outward constraint, Delitzsch, Psychol. 1v. 7, p. 162: comp. on Eph. vi. 7. κι τ. Δ. ‘as to the Lord and not to men ;’” dat. of ‘ interest,’ Kriiger, Sprachi. § 48. 4. The ὡς serves to mark the mode in which, or the aspects under which, the service was to be viewed; see Bernhar- dy, Synt. vit. 1, p. 333, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 360, and notes on Eph. ν. 22, where this interpretation of ὡς is more fully investigated. It is objected to by Eadie (on Col. p. 258), but apparently without full reason, being grammatically ὡὧς τῷ Kup. Cuap. III. 24, 25. COLOSSIANS. 199 ἐργάζεσδε ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνδρώποις, * εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ Κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσδε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας. τῷ « Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε: “5 ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κομίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν, \ > Μ , Καὶ οὐκ ἐστιν προσωπολημψιία. exact and apparently exegetically satis- factory. The negative οὐκ, 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. eiddres] ‘seeing ye know:’ cau- sal participle, giving the reason for the preceding command ; compare ch. iv. 1, and the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 8. ἀπὸ Κυρίου) ‘from the Lord,’ not per- fectly identical with παρὰ Κυρίου 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. Ὁ, p- 326, and notes on Gal. i. 11. The re- mark of Eadie that ἀπὸ marks that the gift ‘comes immediately from Christ,’ is thus wholly untenable. In παρὰ (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, l.c., p. 327. KAnp.| ‘ the recompense of the inheritance,’ z. 6. the recompense which is the inheri- tance, τῆς KAnpov. being the gen. of zdenti- ty or apposition, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, pp. 82, 85, Wi. Gr. § 59.8. ἃ, p.470. This κληρονομία is obviously the κληρον. (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Xp. καὶ Θεοῦ, Eph. ν. 5), which was reserved for them hereafter ; compare 1 Pet. i. 4, and on the meaning of the term, Reuss, Theol. Chrét. αν. 22, Vol. 11. p. 249. The double compound ἀνταπόδοσις in an ἅπ. Aeydu.in the N. T, but not uncommon elsewhere (Isa. 1xi. 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 τὴν ἄνταπ. TIS N. T., and the pass. compound, ἀνταπό- doua, twice, Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9 (quotation). _ The gloss μισϑαποδοσίαν only occurs in cursive mss. τῷ Kup. Xp. δουλ.] ‘serve ye the Lord Christ :’ brief yet comprehensive state- ment of the duty of δοῦλοι, regarded in its true light, ὡς τῴ Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ avdpa- ποις, ver. 23. So distinctly, imperative, Vulg., Copt. (ari-bok), ath. (Pol. ; mis- translated) ; Claromanus less probably adopts the present. The reading is scarcely doubtful: ec. inserts yap with D?D°(E?) KL; Syriac (both), A&thiopic (Platt), Goth., al., hut with very little probability, being weaker than the text in uncial authority [ABC!C2D1E], and suspicious as helping out the seeming want of connection. 25. ὁ yap ἀδικῶν] ‘for the wrong- doer” It is slightly doubtful whether 6 ἀδικῶν refers to the master (Theod.), to the slaves (Theoph.), or, more compre- hensively, to both (Huther). The pre- vailing meaning of ἀδικεῖν in the N. T. (‘injuriam facere,’ Vulg.; except Rey. xxii. 11, but surely not Philem. 18, as Eadie), and still more the succeeding clause, οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπ., 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 ; ὥστε φησί, κἂν μὴ τύχητε ayadav ἀντιδόσεων παρὰ τῶν δεσπότων, ἐστὶ δικαιοκρίτης ὃς οὐκ olde δούλου καὶ δεσπότου διαφοράν, ἀλλὰ δικαίαν εἰσφέρει τὴν ψῆφον, Theod. κομίσεται ‘shall receive back,’ as it were a deposit: not so much a brachy- logy as a pregnant statement, ‘he shall receive back ὃ ἠδίκησε in the form of just retribution,’ Winer, Gram. § 66.1. b, p. 200 COLOSSIANS. Causey ΓΝ 7155 LV. Οἱ κύριοι. τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις πα- plot, ) Y id / “ αν “" y K , 2 > a PEXEO & €, ELOOTES OTL Καὶ υμεις EN ETE υρίον εν ουρανῳ. 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. προσωπολημψί αἹ ‘respect of persons ;’ see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and on the (Alex- andrian) insertion of μ, Tisch. Prolegom. p- xlvi. sq. (ed. 7). In the parallel pas- sage, Eph. vi. 9, παρὰ αὐτῷ (Rom. ii. 11. ix. 14) is added [FG παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ], 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 2) of the quality alluded to; comp. Matt. Gr. § 588. b. Cnraprer IV. 1. Οἱ κύριοι] The du- ties of masters are enunciated on the positive side; in the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 9, the addition, ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν, defines also the negative side. τὴν ἰσότητα] ‘equity. The associa- tion of this word with τὸ δίκαιον and the undoubted occurrence of it in a similar sense elsewhere (see Philo, de Just. § 4, Vol. 11. p. 863 (ed. Mang.), and esp. § 14, ib. p. 374, where it is termed the μήτρη δικαιοσύνης) 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 ; ἰσότητα ἐκάλεσε THY προσήκουσαν ἐπιμέλειαν, 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. 18, 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 Th προσευχῇ προσκαρτερεῖτε, γρηγοροῦν- τες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, ® προσευχόμενοι ἅμα cognate with ‘ even’]. This is ingenious and plausible, but, on account of the as- sociation with τὸ δίκαιον, not satisfactory. In such a case we may with some profit refer to the ancient Vy. and Greek com- mentators. παρέχεσδ ε] ‘ 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, παρέχειν μὲν λέγεται τὰ διὰ χειρὸς διδόμενα, παρέχεσϑαι δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς διαϑέσεων, οἷον προδϑυμίαν, εὔνοιαν [but see Acts xxviii. 2, al.], de Diff. Voc. p. 108 (ed. Valek.) εἰδότες x. τ. λ.}] ‘seeing ye know that ye also ;’ causal participle, as in chapter iii. 24. The ascensive καὶ hints that masters and slaves stand really in like conditions of dependence ; ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι ὑμᾶς, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε Κύριον, The- oph. The reading in the last word of the verse is not quite certain: Rec. with good uncial authority [DEFGKL] reads οὐρανοῖς, but not without suspicion, on account of the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 9. The singular is found in ABC; al. (Lachm., Tisch.). 3. τῇ προσευχῇ προσκ.] ‘con- Gwar. ΓΝ 2! 8. COLOSSIANS. 201 Kal περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν Svpav τοῦ NOyou, λαλῆσαι tinue instant in your prayer ;’ Rom. xii. 12, Acts i. 14. occurs several times in the N. T., and in the majority of cases, a8 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 The verb προσκαρτερεῖν a thing; προσκαρ. τῇ προσευχῇ, ὡς περί τινος ἐπιπόνου, Chrys. Itis found in the LXX. (Num. xiii. 20, absolutely), and in Polyb. (Hist. 1. 55. 4, I. 59. 12, al.) both absolutely and with a dative rec or persone. γὙρηγοροῦντες “ being watchful in it;’ modal clause to προσ- καρτερεῖν : they were not to be dull and heayy in this great duty, but wakeful and active ; compare Eph. vi. 18, 1 Pet. iv. 7. °Evis here not instrumental (De Wette), but, as usual, denotes the sphere in which the wakefulness and alacrity was to be evinced. ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ) ‘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- fies the peculiar accompaniment, or con- comitant act with which 7 προσ. was to ἐν αὐτῇ] be associated ; τουτέστι μετὰ εὐχαριστίας ταύτην ποιοῦντες, Theophil. This not uncommon use of ἐν in the N. T. (ἐν 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 εὐχαριστία see notes on ch. iii. 15, and on Phil. iv. 6. 3. καὶ wep) ἡμῶν] ‘ 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 (δέδεμαι) would other- wise seem pointless ; see notes on ch. i. 3. On the almost interchangeable mean- ings of περὶ and ὑπὲρ in this and similar formulz, see notes on Phil. i. 7, and on Eph. νὶ. 19. tva K.T.A.] Subject of the prayer blended with the purpose of making it: use of ἵνα in ref- erence to secondary purpose ; see notes on Phil. i. 9, and on Eph. i. 17. ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν κι τ. Χ.}] ‘may open to us a door of the word ; 1. 6. may remove any obstacle to the preaching of the gos- pel. The ϑύρα is thus not exactly εἴσο- dos καὶ παῤῥησία (Chrys., Gicum.), but involves a figurative representation of obstructions and impediments that barred the way to preaching the Gospel, which were remoyed when the ϑύρα was open- ed; compare Acts xiv. 27, 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. p. 1415, and examples in Wetstein on V Cor. 1. αἱ λαλῆσαι Infin. of purpose and intention ; see notes on ch. i. 23, where this construction is discussed. On the meaning and deriva- tion of λαλεῖν ‘ vocem ore emittere,’ see notes on Tit. ii. 1, and on the distinction between λαλεῖν (τὸ τεταγμένως προφέρε- σϑαι τὸν λόγον) and λέγειν (τὸ ἀτάκτως ἐκφέρειν τὰ εὑποπίπτοντα ῥήματα), --- ἃ distinction, however, which cannot al- ways be maintained in the N. Test., see Ammonius, Diff. Voc. p. 87 (ed. Valck.). μυστήριον τοῦ Xp.| ‘the mystery of Christ ;? not ‘the mystery relating to Christ,’ gen. object? (De W., comp. Eph. i. 9), but gen. subjécti, ‘the mystery of which He is the sum and substance ;’ see notes on Eph. iii. 4, and compare on Col. ii. 5. On the meaning of μυστήριον, see on Ephes. y. 32, and Reuss, Theol. Chrét. tv. 9, Vol. 11. Ὁ. 89. δι᾽ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι] ‘for which I have also been bound ; ‘ which I have preached even wéxpt-Seouay’ (2 Tim. ii. 9), the ascensive καὶ 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. a la) XA TO μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, dv’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι, * ἵνα φανερώσω αὐτὸ ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. ὅ ᾿Εν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω, τὸν that, bonds. The perf. δέδεμαι (‘ 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 δι ὅν, adopted by Lachm. with BFG; Boern., has not sufficient external sup- port. 4. ἵνα φανερώσω] ‘in order that I may make it manifest.’ It is somewhat doubtful whether this clause depends (a) on δέδεμαι, Chrys., Beng., al.; compare Phil. i. 12, 2 Tim. ii. 9; (b) on προσευ- χόμενοι, De W., Baumg.-Crus., al. ; (c) on the preceding infinitival clause of pur- pose, λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον, 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 ἀπ- ροσδόκητον 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 (ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι) the λαλῆσαι which was the object involved in the prayer; οὐχ ὅπως ἀπαλλαγῶ τῶν δεσμῶν, GAN ὕπως λαλήσω τὰ μυστήριον τοῦ Χρισ- τοῦ, Theoph. ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι) ‘as I ought to speak;’ so, but with a slightly different reference, Eph. vi. 20. This was not to be pera πολλῆς τῆς παῤῥησίας Kal μηδὲν ὑποστει- λάμενον (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 ἀνοίξῃ ϑύραν 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 δεδεμένος he could not λαλῆσαι ὡς ἔδει αὐτὸν λαλῆσαι ; see Meyer ἐπ 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. /.c., 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. ἐν σοφίᾳ] ‘in wisdom ;’ element and sphere in which they were to walk, Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 346: μηδεμίαν αὐτοῖς πρόφασιν δίδοτε βλάβης, πάντα 2 ὑπὲρ τὴς αὐτῶν μηχανᾶσϑε σωτηρίας, Theod. On the meaning of σοφία, ---- not merely ‘prudence,’ but practical Christian wisdom, —compare notes on ch. i. 9, and on Eph. i. 8. πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω] ‘toward them that are without, τοὺς μηδέπω πεπιστευκότας. Theod. ; the regular designation of all who were not Christians, 1 Cor. y. 12, 13, 1 Thessal. iv. 12; see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 198, and notes on 1 Tim. iii. 7. The prep. πρός, both here and 1 Thess. l.c., marks the social relation (Mey.) in which they were to stand with of ἔξω, the proper meaning of ‘ ethical direction to- ward’ (Winer, Gr. § 49.h, p. 360) being still distinctly apparent. For examples of this use of πρός, see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 265, Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. 1. 2, Vol. 11. p. 1157, where this prep. is extremely well discussed. Toy καιρὸν ἐξαγ.] ‘buying up for yourselves the ( fitting) season:’ seeon Eph. Cnar. IV. 6, 7. καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι. COLOSSIANS. 203 ~ 6 e / e A / 3 4 ev ὁ λόγος υμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι » ‘ ἰδέ - ὃ a¢ lal CA © / ’ , 8) 2)PTUMEVOS, ELOEVAL TMS OFL υμᾶς EVL EKATTM ATTOKPLVED Jal, You will learn my state and all matters here from ¢« 5» Tychicus and Onesimus. yv. 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, ὅτι af ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν : here nothing more is stated than a general precept (ey σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε) 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 eyery opportunity of obeying the com- mand. 6.56 λόγος ὑμῶν] not only generally, but, as the close of the verse shows, more especially πρὸς ‘ your speech,’ τοὺς ἔξω. ‘with grace ; be the element zz which, or perhaps the garb with which, the Adyos was to be in- vested ; xdpis was to be the ‘habitus orationis ;’ compare notes on 1 Tim. i. 18. ἅλατι ἤρτυμ.] ‘ 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 agrecable 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 σα- πρὸς (‘ne quid putridi subsit,’ Bengel, compare Chrys.) is plausible (compare Eph. iv. 29 sq.), but not in accordance with πῶς δεῖ ἀποκρίνεσϑαι, which points to λόγος under forms in which campérns could scarcely have been intruded. The ἐν χάριτι) 5011. ἔστω : χάρις was to " \ erie, , , re ce , ' Ta κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Τύχικος \ > \ \ \ / ’ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος Kal later classical use of GAs, ‘sal, sales, sa- line,’ seems here out of place. On the later form ἅλας, sce Buttm. Gr. Vol. τ. Ῥ 227. εἰδέναι] ‘to know,’ 7. 6. ‘so that you may know ;”’ loosely appended infinitive expressive of conse- quence ; compare Madyig, Gram. ὃ 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 xv. 10, Heb. v. 5), see Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 284. πῶς δεῖ ἀποκρ.] Show you ought to the πῶς embracing all the various forms of answer which the occasion might require. The apostle further adds, not without significance, ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ; 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. τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ] ‘my condition, ‘my circumstances,’ ‘res meas,’ Beza: on this formula see reff. on Hph. vi. 21, and on the force of κατὰ in this collocation, notes on Phil. i. 12. Τύχικο 5] not, Τυχικός, Mill, Griesb. ; an Ασιανός, 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 ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς in reference to return answer ;’ 204 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. IV. 8, 9. σύνδουλος ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὃ dv ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἵνα γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὃ σὺν ᾿Ονη- Ἃ fal fal A > r > Lal “ ΕῚ 5 ς lal / σίμῳ τῷ πιστῷ Kal ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ, ὅς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν: πάντα n a a ὑμῖν γνωριοῦσιν τὰ ὧδε. the Christian community, ἃ πιστὸς διάκο- vos in reference to his missionary services to St. Paul (not in the ministry general- ly, Alford), and further, with a graceful allusion to similarity of duties, a σύνδου- Aos ἐν Κυρίῳ, a co-operator with, and co- adjutor of, the apostle in the service of the same Master; compare notes on Eph. Viel ἐν Κυρίῳ may be associated with all three designations (De W., compare Eph./. c.), or with the last two (Meyer), or with σύνδουλος Z&th.-Pol., and perhaps Syr.). As the two former have defining epithets, per- haps the last connection is slightly the ° most probable. 8. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] ‘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 αὐτὸ τοῦτο to what follows, comp. Eph. vi. 22, Phil. i. 6, and notes zn loc. The reading is doubtful. Griesb.and Lachm. read γνῶτε and ἡμῶν, 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 ΤῈ before Ta. The text (Rec., Tisch.) is found in CD?D%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 γνῶτε, 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. παρακαλέσῃ]) ‘comfort;’ in reference to their own State; δείκνυσι δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐν πειρασμοῖς ὄντας, καὶ παρακλήσεως δεομένους, The- ophyl. : according to the other reading the reference would be to St. Paul; compare on Eph. vi. 22. 9. σὺν Ὀνησίμῳ] ‘with Onesimus, scil. ἔπεμψα. 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- +63 (A.-C. Libr.). The name was not uncommon, added to which the tra- dition of the Greek Church ( Const. Apost vil. 46) represents the ‘ Onesimus Phi- lemonis’ to have been Bishop of Berea 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. ἐξ ὑμῶν] ‘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 Os ἐστιν kal ἐγκαλλωπίζωνται ὡς τοιοῦτον προενέγ- κοντες, Theoph.), but to commend the tidings and the joint-bearer of them still more to their attention. τὰ ὧδε] ‘the things here, the matters here at Rome, of which τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, ver. 7, would form the principal portion. The addition πραττόμενα [FG; Vulg.. Cuap. IV. 10. Aristarchus, and _ others, and your faithful Epaphras, COLOSSIANS. 205 10 Aordkeras ὑμᾶς ’Apiotapyos ὁ συναιχ- 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. ὁ συναιχμάλω- τός μου] ‘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 συναιχμάλ. but as a συνεργός, while Epaphras, who here indirectly, and still more clearly ch. i. 7, appears in the latter capacity, is there a συναιχμάλωτος. 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 bis 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. Μάρκος] 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. 111. p. 344. avewids| ‘cousin,’ ΤΠ ΞΡ Numb. xxxvi. 11 ; ἀνεψιοί: τῶν ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, Ammon. Voc. Diff. p. 54 (ed. Valck.) ; the proper term for what was sometimes designated as ἐξάδελφος by later and non-classical writers ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 306, where the proper meaning of ἀνεψιὸς is well discussed. St. Mark was thus not the ‘ nephew’ (Auth., but? See remarks in Transl.), but the ‘ consobrinus’ Vulg., mo Claroman.), the 6122 ¢ (Syr.) of St. Barnabas ; see exx. in Wetst. in loc. ἐλάβετε ἐντολά5] ‘ye received com- mands ;’ what these were cannot be de- termined. The conjectural explanations, — messages from Barnabas (Chrysost.), letters of commendation (‘ liters: forma- te’), either from St. Paul (Daven.) or the Church of Rome (Est.), ete. are very 200 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. IV. 10, 11. μάλωτός μου, καὶ Μάρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα, περὶ ob ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς (ἐὰν EAS πρὸς ὑμᾶς, déEacSe αὐτόν), 11 καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς 6 , ’ lal Εν ’ λεγόμενος ᾿Ιοῦστος, οἱ ὄντες ἐκ numerous, but do not any of them seem to deserve particular attention. ΤῸ find in ἐὰν x. τ. 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 ἐντολὰς does certainly seem to sug- gest that these ἐντολαὶ were of a com- mendatory nature; compare Wieseler, Chronolog. p. 452, note. A few MSS. {[DiFG; Syr., Arr.] read δέξασϑαι, prob- ably on the same hypothesis as that of Bengel. δέξασϑε αὐτόν] ‘receive him,’ 1. 6. with hospitality (comp. Matth. x. 14) and friendly feelings (Luke ix. 48, John iy. 45). The historical de- duction, founded on the use of the sim- ple δέξασϑε (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. 11. “Incovs 6 "lodatos| 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 ὄντες ἐκ περιτ.] ‘ 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 περιτομῆς, 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 μόνοι naturally refers the thought to the category last mentioned ; ‘these only of that class are my helpers:’ compare A€ey: περιτομῆς" οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοὶ Philem. 24, where, though Luke and Demas are grouped together with them as συνεργοί, the same general order is still preserved. On the formula εἶναι ἐκ, with abstract substantives, in which ἐκ retains its primary meaning of origin, compare notes on Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. on Rom. ii. 8, Vol. 1. p. 105. eis τὴν Bacita.| ‘unto, towards, the kingdom of God:’ “ adjuverunt Paulum ad regnum Messianum qui ei, quum homines idoneos redderet qui in illud regnum aliquando reciperentur, opitulati sunt,’ Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. 141. p. 201. Onthe term βασιλεία Θεοῦ, see an elaborate paper by Bauer (C. G.) in Comment. Theol. Part 11. p. 107-172, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p. 244. οἵτινες ἐγεν] ‘men who proved ;’ the indefinite ὅστις 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 eyevyjs., 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 ἐγένετο ; comp. Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, p. 50. παρηγορία] ‘a com- fort ;? an ἅπαξ 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. “πα- ραμυϑία in meerore domestico, παρηγορία in forensi periculo,’ does not seem sub- stantiated by lexical usage. Perhaps Cuap. IV. 12, 18. COLOSSIANS. 207 ’ \ , a a ” > , , , els τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἵτινες ἐγενήϑδησάν μοι παρηγυρία. 12 ἀσπάξεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Επαφρᾶς ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, πάντοτε ἀγωνιξόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, ἵνα στῆτε én, ‘ / > \ ’ a - 13 τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν παντὶ δελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. 13 μαρ- the only real distinction is that παρηγο- pew and its derivatives admit of physical and quasi-physical references which are not found with the more purely ethical παραμυδεῖσδαι ; sce the good lists of ex- amples in Rost τι. Palm, Lex. s. vv. 12. "Eragpas] See notes on ch.i.7; he is specified in the same way as One- simus, as a native of Colosse. For the probable reason of the addition, sce notes on ver. 9. δοῦλος Xp. *Ino.| Meyer, and after him Alford, fol- lowing Griesb. (who, however, reads only Χριστοῦ), join these words with ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν : this certainly seems unnecessary, the title δοῦλος 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 δοῦλος. In Eth. (Polygl.) 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 Ἰησοῦ after Χριστοῦ (Lachmann, Tisch.) has good critical support [ABCJ ; 10 mss.; Vulg., Copt., Arm.] and is rightly adopted by most modern editors. ἀγωνιζόμενος] ‘striving earnestly ;’ compare Rom. xy. 30, where the com- pound συναγων. occurs in a similar con- text; compare ch. ii. 1, and notes in loc. ἵνα στῆτε] ‘that ye may stand fast ;’ purpose of the ἀγωνιζόμενος, the more emphatic ἀγωνιζόμ. ἐν προσευχ. (not merely προσευχόμενος) not requiring any dilution of the telic force of ἵνα ; comp. notes on Eph. i. 17. Στῆναι has here, as in Eph. vi. 11, 13, al., the meaning of standing firm and unshaken amidst trials and dangers (see notes on Ephes. il. cc.), and is more nearly defined by the follow- ing adjectives and their associated semi- local predication ἐν παντὶ ϑελήματι. τέλεοι καὶ πεπληροφ.) ‘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 τέλειος and ὁλόκληρος (‘omnibus numeris absolu- tus’) see Trench, Synon. § 22, and be- tween τέλ. and ἄρτιος, notes on 2 Tim. iii. 17. The reading πεπληροφ. 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 πεπληρωμένοι (Rec.). ἐν παντὶ δελήματι] ‘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 τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφ. (De W.). The latter is most simple, as defining the sphere in which the τελειότης and TAnpopopla was to be evinced and find its realization ; so Chrys., Theoph., and perhaps Coptic, Gothic, who even with πεπληρωμένοι (comp. on Eph. y. 18) con- nect ἐν παντὶ SeA. 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. μαρτυρῶ γάρ] Confirmatory (yap) testimony to the earnestness and activity of Epaphres. πολὺν 208 COLOSSIANS. πάρ. LV. 13-15. a a \ 4 ς AN : e lal Ν la} 3 τυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ὅτι ἔχει πολὺν πόνον ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Aao- δικείᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν “Ἱεραπόλει. 14 > ΄ὔ id lal ἴω (oe) Ν ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς καὶ Anas. 1 ἀσπάσασδε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφοὺς πόνον] ‘much labor ;’ not such as that which attends a combat (Eadie), but, as the etymological affinities of πόνος [con- nected with πένομαι, and probably derived from =MA-, see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. II. p. 360] seem to suggest, such as im- plies a putting forth all one’s strength (intentio) ; compare Suidas πόνος" omov- δή, ἐπίτασις. The word is rare in the N. T., only here and Rey. xvi. 10, 11, This may account for the vari- ety of reading; κόπον, DIFG; ζῆλον D2D2EKL (Ree.}. The text is support- ed by ABC; 80; Coptie (emkah), and indirectly by D!FG: so Luchm., Tisch. Λαοδικείᾳ] Fora brief notice of this city, see notes on ch. ii. 1. Ἱεραπόλει An important city of Phrygia, about twenty English miles NNW. (surely not ‘ 6stlich,’ 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. 348, 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. It is curious that this city should apparently have been unnoticed in Pau- ly, Real. Encyel. 14. Aovxas| The Evangelist, who according to ancient tradition (Irenzeus, Heer. 111. 14. 1, ‘ ereditus est _referre no- bis evangelium’) bas been regarded as identical with the ἰατρὸς ἀγαπητὸς here mentioned. The tradition that he was a painter (Nicephor. Hist. Eccl. 11. 13) Od ἊΣ is late and untrustworthy. There seems 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 ὁ ἰατρὸς ὃ ἀγαπητὸς 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). Anpuas| Mentioned as one of the apos- tle’s συνεργοί (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 js 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: Νυμφᾶν) ‘and (among them) Nymphas,’ καὶ being here used to add the special to the general (see notes on Eph. ν. 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- καὶ portance: ὅρα γοῦν πῶς δείκνυσι μέγαν τὸν ἄνδρα, Chrys., -— who, however, adds too restrictively, εἴ ye 7 οἰκία αὐτοῦ éx- κλησία; compare notes on Philem. 2. The repetition of the more generic τῇ Aaod. ἐκκλ. in ver. 16 would seem to show that the church in the house of Nymphas did not comprehend all the ΟἾΑΡ, TV. 15, 16; COLOSSIANS. 209 ‘ A τς ἢ eek καὶ Νυμφᾶν καὶ τὴν Kat οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν. 1 καὶ ὅταν ava- a > ig tal jae bo / 4 id SPA fal , γνωσδῇ Tap ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή, ποιήσατε ἵνα Kai ἐν τῇ Aaodixéwv > / ᾽ a Ν \ > / 7 \ a a ἐκκλησίᾳ avayvwo sy, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε. Christians of Laodicea. The form Νύμ- gas (Lachm., Buttm., with B?) is not cor- rect; the last syllable is circumflexed, and marks a probable contraction from Nymphodorus (Pliny, ist. Nat. vit. 2), as Ολυμπᾶς (Rom. xvi. 15) from Olym- piodorus, Ζηνᾶς (Tit. iii. 13) from Zeno- dorus ; compare Fritz. Rom. Vol. 111. p. 309. κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτοῦ) 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 αὐτῶν [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 αὐτῶν be adopted (Mey., Alf.), then the plural must be referred to ‘Nymphas and his family,’ involved κα- τὰ σύνεσιν in the preceding substantive ; see Jelf, Gr. § 379. b, compare Winer, Gr. § 22.3, p.132. Lachm. reads αὐτῆς. but on authority [B ; 67**] manifestly insufficient. 16. ἡ ἐπιστολή) ter ;’ 27. ‘the present let- compare Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Thess. v. Several cursive mss. add αὐτή, but quite unnecessarily ; see Winer, Gram. § 18. 1, p. 97. ποιήσατε tval ‘cause that;’ a form- ula of later Greek (John xi. 37, compare Rey. iii. 9), though not without parallel in the ποιεῖν ὅπως (Jelf, Gr. ὁ 666, obs.) of the classical writers. The proper force of ἵνα, though weakened and somewhat approximating to the lax use of τοῦ with ‘the infinitive after ποιεῖν (Acts iii. 12, Josh. xxii. 26, al.), is not wholly lost; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, p. 301. τὴν ἐκ Aaod.| ‘that from Laodicea,’ δ Ξε ΩΣ ¥.. αν mn not Loco -ἰς Asdozl> [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., ‘ ebdlehen 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 1st Epistle to Tim. (Theophylact), the Ist 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 ; (Ὁ) 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 (b) we may urge the highly proba- ble circumstance that Tychicus might have been the bearer of the two letters 27 210 M καὶ εἴπατε ᾿Αρχίππῳ Βλέπε Κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς. 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 ἃ 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 τοῖς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (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 Eph. i. 1),—as there does seem a trace of another lost Ep. (1 Cor. v. 9), —as the close neighborhood of Colossze 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 ἃ priort arguments on such subjects are always to be viewed with some suspicion, we decide in fayor of (δ), 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 ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are genuine. It is right, however, to add that the new- discovered δὲ rejects them, and that thus an important authority has been added COLOSSIANS. Cuap. IV. 16, 17. τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν 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 TIT. Ὁ: 17. "Apxtmmw| / > Ν la) Ν id “ \ / ᾽ lal r καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. I thank God for thy prog- ress in faith, and pray that 4 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου, πάντοτε μνείαν it may prove beneficial to others : the proofs of thy love to the saints gladdens me. ἀγαπητῷ, compare Rom.i.7. Both titles are dwelt upon by Chrys. and Theophy1.; the latter says, εἰ ἀγαπητός, δώσει τὴν χάριν" εἰ συνεργός, οὐ καδϑέξει τὸν δοῦλον ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀποστελεῖ πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν τοῦ κηρύγματος. 2, ᾿Απφίᾳ] 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 ᾿Απφία, which in some mss. appears in the form ᾿Αππία (see Acts xxviii. 15), is the softened form of the Latin ‘ Appia’ (Grot.)." ᾿Αρχίππῳ] Supposed by Wiescler (Chronol. p. 452), but without sufficient reason, to have been of the Church of Laodicea ; see notes on Col. iv.17. He is héfe distinguished by the honorable title of συνστρατιώτης with the apostle; compare 2 Tim. ii. 3. On the Alexan- drian form συνστρ. see Winer, Gr. § 5. 4, p. 46. gov ékkA.] ‘the church in thy house ;’ not merely the household of Philemon, οὐδὲ δούλους παρῆκεν ἐνταῦδα, 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 Ool. ivy. 15, and Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Volai p09 7. 3. χάρις ὑμῖν x.7.A.] Scil. εἴη, not ἔστω (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. καὶ Κυρίου] Scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου k.7.A. ane, na as expressly in Syr. ~ ee [et a τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν Dom. nostro] : the Socinian interpreta- tion καὶ (πατρὸς) Κυρίου seems very im- probable ; see notes on Phil. i. 2. 4. εὐχαριστῶ] Usual eucharistic commencement in reference to the spir- itual state of his convert; ‘a gratulatione more suo incipit,’ Caly.: 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 εὐχαριστεῖν (‘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 τῷ Θεῷ μου, 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. πάντοτε k.7.A.] Participial sentence, defining more closely both when the ed- χαριστία 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 εὐχα- ριστῶ (Syr., ZEthiop.), see notes on Phil. 1. 4, where the reasons for a connection with the participle are more distinct than in the present case. μνείαν σου] ‘mention of thee, μνεία receiving this meaning when in associa- tion With ποιεῖσϑαι ; see notes on Phil. i. 3. The formula is not uncommon in classical Greek (comp. Plato, Protag. p- 317 ©, and a little more strongly ib. Pheer. p. 254 A), and, as Koch remarks, is an expansion of ἔχειν μνείαν twos (1 Thess. iii, 6, 2 Tim. i. 3), the ‘dynamic’ 5: PHILEMON. 219 \ r lal σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου, © ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην \ \ , ἃ 4 \ \ ’ ’ a > / καὶ THY πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας middle ποιεῖσϑαι not being without its force and significance ; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq., and notes on Col. ive i. ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν] “in my prayers,’ not merely ‘at the time of making them,’ but, with a tinge of local force, ‘in orationibus,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., 5611. when engaged in offering them ; see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 23. a, p. 246, and notes on Eph. i. 16. 5. ἀκούων] ‘as 7 am hearing ;’ cau- sal participle (Donalds. Gr. § 616), giv- ing the reason for the εὐχαριστῷ, or, per- haps more exactly, for the circumstances which especially led to its being offered ; τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς σοῖς κατορϑώ- μασιν ἀνυμνῶ, Theod.: contrast Rom. i. 8, where evxap. is followed by the more definite ὅτι, and the causal sentence is expressed in a passive form. ἣν ἔχεις] ‘which (fuith) 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; ZLachm., with ACDI!E ; 17. 137, reads εἰς τὸν Κύριον, and with DE; 10 mss.; Syr., al. inverts the order of ἀγάπην and πίστιν. Both, however, seem corrections suggested by the somewhat unusual πίστις πρὸς Κύριον, 3 and the apparently anomalous connec- " tion of πίστιν with eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. Adopting the present text, we have two explanations ; (a) that of Meyer, recently adopted by Winer in the /ast edition of his grammar (§ 50. 2, p. 365), according to which πίστις 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; (Ὁ) that of Grot., al., derived from Theodoret and followed by De Wette, Alf., and most commentators, according to which τὴν ἀγάπην is to be referred by a kind of χι- ασμὸς (Jelf, Gr. ὁ 904. 3) to εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, and τὴν πίστιν alone to τὸν Κύριον. Of these (a) does not seem ten- able, as it is surely very improbable that, in combination with ἀγάπη, πίστις 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 (δ), grammatically considered, is ad- missible (see Winer, Gr. § 50. 2, p. 365), but the distinctive ἣν ἔχεις (sec 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 πίστις πρὸς τὸν Κύρ. -- «ἃ faith directed towards the Lord’ (comp. 1 Thess. i. 8), in a purely spiritual reference, while πίστις eis πάν- Tas K. τ. Δ. Ξε ἃ 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 ἀγάπην, 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; πρὸς refers to a more remote, eis to a more immediate, applica- tion of the specified action, whether erga (2 Corinth. vili. 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), πρὸς primarily presents little more than the idea of sim- ple motion forwards; see Donalds. i. § 169, 171. On the various construc- 220 \ τοὺς ἁγίους, PHILEMON. 6. Ὁ , “ δ ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς- πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται > / r a a a ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς wyassov τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. tions of πίστις and πιστεύω, see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. rv. 13, Vol. 11. p. 129. 6. ὅπω 57 ‘in order that ;’ dependent On εὐχαριστῶ, or perhaps more immedi- ately on μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν, and conveying the object of the prayer (2 Thessalon. i. 12), perhaps slightly blended with the subject of it; εὔχομαι, φησίν, va; ἣ κοινωνία τῆς πίσ- τεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται, Chrysost., and more distinctly Theod., δέομαι καὶ ἂντι- βολῶ τὸν κοινὸν εὐεργέτην, τελείαν σοι δοῦναι τὴν κτῆσιν τῶν ἀγαδῶν. 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 ἣν ἔχεις (Beng., Meyer), is very un- satisfactory. It is 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 ὅπως, and its distinction from ἵνα, see notes on 2 Thess. i. 12. κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς Tov] ‘com- munication of thy faith ;’ scil. ‘ participa- tion in thy faith enjoyed by others,’ πίσ- teas being not a gen. subjecti, but, as more commonly (except with a personal pron.), agen. objecti ; comp. Phil. ii. 1, iii. 10, al. The clause thus serves to clear up, and indeed indirectly confirm the interpretation of the preceding πίστιν eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. The meaning as- signed to κοινωνία by Cicum., ἧ κοινὴ πίστις, ἣ κοινωποιός, ‘fides tua, quam communem nobiscum habes’ (Bengel), or the more concrete, ‘ beneficentia ex fide profecta’ (Estius, compare Beza), does not seem accordant with the use of κοινωνία in St. Paul’s Epistles when asso- ciated with a gen. ret ; compare notes on Phil. ii. 1. évepyns γένητα | ‘might become operative,’ scil. ma Ow F eS ο |-aso 1519 loo [reddens fruc- tus in operibus] Syr.; γίνεται évepyhs ὅταν ἔργα ἔχῃ, Chrys. The translation ‘evidens,’ Vulg., ‘ manifesta,’ Clarom., appears to have arisen from a mistaken reading ἐναργής. ἐν ἐπιγ- νώσει παντὸς ἂγ.] ‘inthe (complete) knowledge of every good thing ;’ sphere and element in which the ἐνέργεια was to be displayed (see notes on Phil. i. 9), serving also indirectly to define the ‘ mo- dus operandi;’ πῶς δὲ ἔσται ἐνεργής ; διὰ τοῦ ἐπιγνῶναί σε καὶ πράττειν πᾶν ἂγα- ϑόν, (Εεμπη., who however unnecessa- rily introduces καὶ πράττειν, and incor- rectly limits it to Philemon, whereas the previous interpretation of κοινωνία shows that the reference is to others, to the κοι- νωνοὶ τῆς πίστεώς σου ; see Meyer in loc. On the meaning of ἐπίγνωσις (‘ accurata cognitio’), see notes on Eph. i. 17, Phil. i. 9, but observe that this force of ἐπὶ cannot always be conveyed in translation ; compare on Col. i. 9. τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν] ‘whichisinus ;’ 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 τοῦ with AC; 17, but on authority manifestly insufficient. Again Rec. reads ὑμῖν with FG; Vulg. (ed.), Syriac (both), Coptic, al., but on weak external, and still weaker internal evidence, as ὑμῖν might have been easily suggested by a desire to conform to the ὑμῖν 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 , 7. PHILEMON. 991 7 χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν ἔσχον καὶ παράκλησιν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα τῶν ἁγίων ἀναπέπαυται διὰ σοῦ ἀδελφέ. 7. χαράν] 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 χάριν 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 preestat ardua,’ still as χάριν might have been suggested by the εὐχαριστῶ which precedes, it does not appear safe to re- verse so great a preponderance of uncial authority. ἔσχον] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with ACFG ; 5 mss.; Vulg., Copt. (ai-shi), Ἔτι. (Pol. and Platt), ἃ]. ; Theod.; Lat. Ff. The plur. ἔσχομεν is found in D!E ; Clarom., Sang.; Hier., al. (J/eg., Alf) ; the pres. ἔχομεν (before πολλὴν) 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 ἡμῖν, we retain the best attested reading. ἐνεργὴς γένηται, not to whatimmediately foundation upon which the χαρὰ aud πα- precedes (Syr., Vulg., and more distinct- ly Z£th. (Platt), εἰς being assumed = ἐν), still less to the more remote τῆς πίστεώς σου, as Grotius. Lachm. omits Ἰησοῦν with AC; 2 mss.; Copt., Ath. (Polyb., but not Platt); Hier., al., but without sufficient external authority. 7. γάρ] It is somewhat doubtful whether this gives the (subjective) rea- son for the εὐχαριστία, 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 κοινωνία x. τ. A. may prove ἐνεργής, for (‘sane rebus ita comparatis,’ Klotz) it is at present so great as to cause joy both to himself and to Timo- thy ; σύ μοι παῤῥησίαν ἔδωκας ἐκ τῶν εἰς ἑτέρους γενομένων, Chrys. ἔσχον] “1 had;’ scil.,when I first heard of your ἀγάπην and πίστιν, ver. 5. The πολλήν, as Meyer observes, appears to belong to both substantives ; compare Jelf, Gr. § 39. 1. obs. ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου] ‘in thy love;’ literally, ‘based on thy love,’ ἐπὶ with the dat., as usual, marking the basis and para. rested ; see notes on Phil. i. 8. ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘because the hearts ;’ explanation of the preceding ἐπὶ TH ἂγ.; πολλῆς yap ἐμπίμπλαμαι Sv- μηδίας ὅτι παντοδαπὴν τοῖς ἁγίοις Sepa- πείαν προσφέρεις, Theod. On the semi- Hebraistie σπλάγχνα (ver. 20, 2 Cor. vi. 12, al.), see notes on Phil. i. 8: there, however, the idea of ‘affection’ (mvev- ματικὴ φιλοστοργία, 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 σπλάγχνα is a somewhat comprehensive term (‘ proprie sunt viscera illa, nobiliora vocata, cor, pulmones, hepar et lien,’ Tittmann, Synon. 1. p. 68), the ethical applications may obviously be somewhat varied ; see Suicer, Thesaur. s. vy. Vol. II. p. 997. ‘have been refreshed ;’ so 1 Cor. xvi. 18, 2 Cor. vii. 18. On the distinction be- tween ἀνάπαυσις, ‘ pause or cessation from labor, and ἄνεσις, ‘ relaxation of what had been tightly strained,’ see Trench, Synon. § 41. ἀδελφέ] Not ‘ Bruder in Wahrheit,’ De W., Koch, but as /&th., ‘ frater mi,’ — in tones of earnest affection : ‘hoc in ἀναπέπαυται) 999 ek eek te Tbeseech thee for Onesimus, thy once unprofitable ser- vant, who left thee a ser- ὀχιτάσσειν σοι TO ἀνῆκον, vant, to return a brother: PHILEMON. 8, 9. 8 Διὸ πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παῤῥησίαν ἔχων 9 διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην receive him as myself. Ifhe be a defaulter, I will repay thee. fine positum multum habet πάϑος ; conf. Virg. 42n. vr. 836,’ Scip. Gent. ap. Poli Syn. 8. 524] “Οἱ which account,’ ‘as Ihave so much joy and consolation in thee ;’ not in connection with app. ἔχων (dv- vduevos, φησί, δαῤῥεῖν ὧς ϑερμῶς wem- στευκότι, Theod.) ,as Syr. and the Greek commentators, but in ref. to the preced- ing χαρὰν ἔσχον --- ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ, Express- ing more fully the motive of the διὰ τὴν ay. μᾶλλον mapax. which follows ; so De Wette, Meyer, Alf. On the use of διό, see notes on Gal. iv. 31, and for its dis- tinction from οὖν and ἄρα, 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. Tapp. ,ἔχω ν] ‘ 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 παῤῥ.» --- here in its deriva- tive sense of ἐξουσία, ἄδεια, Hesych., — see notes on 1 Tim. 111. 15. This παῤῥη- σία was ἐν Xp.; He was the element in , which (not διὰ τὴν πίστιν τὴν εἰς Xp., Chrys.) it was entertained, and out of which it did not exist : compare on Eph. hele ἐπιτάσσ. σοι Td ἀνῆκον] ‘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 ἐπιτάσσ. though not uncommon elsewhere in the N. T. is only found here in St. Paul’s Epistles: ἐπιταγή, on the contrary, occurs seven times in these Epistles, but not elsewhere in the N. T. The neuter τὸ ἀνῆκον (comp. Eph. v. 4, Col. iii. 18), not exactly τὸ εἰς χρείαν μου ἐλϑόν, Theoph., but more generically ‘quod decet facere,’ Coptic i, Owd -:} [illa quee justa) Syr., τὸ πρέπον, Suid., marks the category (Meyer) to which the receiving back of Onesimus is to be referred. 9. διὰ τὴν aY.| ‘on account of love,’ ‘ for love’s sake,’ Auth. ; partially explan- , atory of the preceding διό, but with a more general reference, the ἀγάπη here not being ἣν κἀγὼ ἔχω πρός ce, Theoph., or ἣν ἀγαπῶ τέ σε καὶ ἀγαπῶμαι, Gicum., 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. τοιοῦτος &y| ‘ Being such an one,’ ‘As Iam such an one,’ scil. who would rather beseech for love’s sake, than avail myself of my παῤῥησίαν ἐπιτάσσειν. There is some little difficulty as to the connection of this participial clause. It is usually regarded as preparatory to the ὡς Παῦλος 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 τοιοῦτοβ, though often more nearly explained and defined by οἷος, ὥστε, nei- ther is, nor scarcely can be, associated with ὧς, which naturally presumes ἃ more defined antecedent, and always ‘aptius conjungitur cum sequentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p 757. This be- ing apparently the case, τοιοῦτος ὧν must be referred to ver. 8, while ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης, enhanced by νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσ- μιος Ἵ. X., belongs to the second παρα- καλῶ (so Lachm., De Wette, and recently Buttm., Alf.), and states the capacity in 9, 10. μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ. PHILEMON. 223 τοιοῦτος ὦν, ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης, νυνὶ dé \ δέ tf n Χ fa 10 fal \ a? fa) ,ὔ Kal ὀὁεσμίος εησοὺ «Δλρίστου, παρακαλῶ σε πέρι TOV ἐμοὺυ τέκνου, 9. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So Rec. with ΤΡ ΒΕ ΟΊΤ,; apparently great majority of mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Eth. (Platt), al.; Chrys., Theod. reverse the order with AC; a few mss. ; Copt., Aith. (Pol.), Iber., al. Lachm. and Tisch. 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 ὡς Παῦλος in a parenthesis ; Buttm, isolates it by commas (so Chrys., amd τῆς ποιότητος τοῦ προσώπου" ἀπὸ τῆς HAL- κίας" ἀπὸ τοῦ δικαιοτέρον πάντων ὅτι καὶ δέσμιος K.T.A., compare /Eth. [Platt]) ; both however unsatisfactorily : Παῦλος seems more naturally to stand in imme- date union with πρεσβύτης (Syr., Copt.) and to hint at the title he might have assumed, ‘ Paul the Apostle.’ πρεσβύτη)] ‘an aged man, Auth., oo ‘senex,’ Vulg. Low 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. Ὁ. 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. D. 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 πρεσβύτης. 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. δέσμιος I. X.] Not διὰ Χριστὸν δεδεμέ- 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 ἐμοῦ τέκνου] ‘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. 431, who cites the partially parallel μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἢ οὐχ ἧττον τῶν γονέων γεγέννηκα, Philo, Cai. § 8, Vol. 11. p. 554 (ed. Mang.). The pronoun ἐμοῦ seems here emphatic. Lachm. and Meyer introduce ἐγὼ before ἐγέννησα, 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. δεσμοῖς] 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- ἐν τοῖς quest; πάλιν οἱ δεσμοὶ δυσωπητικοί [ex- orandi vim habent], Chrys. The addi- tion μοῦ after δεσμοῖς [Rec., Scholz, with CD°KL; al.] seems rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. Ὄνήσιμον] 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 τέκνου here follows the common regimen, passing into the gender of the latter substantive, PHILEMON. 11, 12. 224 ἃ See, 5 a ὃ lal κ᾿ 11 Ν re 4 ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς, ᾿Ονήσιμον, τὸν ποτέ σοι ἄχρη- \ \ \ AES! \ bd ἃ Sy) iS / 2 \ \ στον, νυνὶ δὲ σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον, ὃν ἀνέπεμψαά σοι. σὺ δὲ 11. ἀνέπεμψά σοι] So Lachmann and Tischen. 1, with ACD1D; 17; Syr., Copt. (ha-pok), 7ith. (both) ; Chrys. (πρὸς σέ) ; Lat. Ff. (Meyer). In his second edition Tisch. omits co: with D°FGKL; nearly all mss. ; Amit., Fuld., Goth., Syr. (Phi- lox.) ; many Ff. (fec. Al/f.). 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 σὺ δὲ which immediately follows. and attracting it into its own case; see Winer, Gram. ὃ 24.2, p. 149, § 66. 5, p. 552. Σ ll. τὸν ποτέ σοι ἄχρ.] ‘who was once unprofitable,’ ‘ unserviceable,’ 501]. who once did not answer to his name (ὀνήσιμον), but by running away, and apparently also by theft (Chrys. on ver. 18), proved himself ἄχρηστος. The word ἄχρηστ. is an ἅπ. Aeyou. 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 preebeat.’ The distinction be- tween this and ἐχρεῖος (Matth. xxv. 30, Luke xvii. 10) is not very palpable : per- haps the latter rather implies οὗ οὐκ ἔστι χρεία, ‘quo non opus est’ (Tittm.), ‘one who could be dispensed with,’ and hence, inferentially, ‘ worthless,’ ἀχρεῖον καὶ avw- φελές, Xen. Mem. τ. 2. 54, while ἄχρη- o7os has less of a negative sense (οὐ χρή- σιμον) and more approximates to that of πονηρός. It would seem, however, that ἀχρεῖος belongs mainly to earlier, ἄχρη- στος mainly to later Greek. The play on the name, Ὀνήσιμον, τὸν ποτὲ ἄχρηστον (not noticed by the Greek com- mentators), has been recognized by the majority of expositors ; see Winer, Gr. ὁ 68. 2, p. 561. Any further allusion, χρηστὸς as compared with Χριστιανός (Koch), seems improbable and even un- tenable, compare Mey. in loc. σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ ev xp.] ‘profitable, ser- viceable, to thee and to me.’ The εὐχρη- στία 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 ἐμοὶ (Philemo- nem civiliter 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). πεμψά σοι] “1 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 ἔπεμψα, Phil. ii. 28, and see examples in Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249. 12. σὺ δὲ αὐτόν] ‘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 πρροσ- λαβοῦ [ 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. ὃ 63.1, p. 500), rightly re- jected by Lachm., Tisch., and most mod- ern expositors as an ancient gloss. Lach- mann also omits ob δέ [with AC; 17], but with little probability, as the omis- sion was apparently the result of an at- ὃν ave 18, PHILEMON. 225 eee κ᾿ \ , A αὐτόν, TOUT ἔστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, 13 ὃν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ᾿ o \ a a a a a ἐμαυτὸν κατέχειν, ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ tempt to evade the anacoluthon by join- ing ἀνέπεμψα and αὐτόν ; comp. Meyer (crit. note), p. 173. τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘mine own heart,’ ‘meinos brusts,’ Goth. ; οὕτω yap αὐτὸν ἀγαπῶ καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ περιφέρω, Theoph. The meaning adopted by Syriac oo, oO % ms? {pedo [sicut natum meum], Ethiopic (Platt; Polygl. paraphrases), Theod., ἐκ τῶν ἐμῶν γεγέννηται σπλάγχ- νων, al., though perfectly defensible (see Snuicer, Tiesaur. s. v., and the pertinent examples in Weistcin), docs not here seem requisite or indeed satisfactory, as the paternal relation of St. Paul to Ones- imus was a purely spiritual one, and as σπλάγχνα 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,’ laut. Cas. 1v. 4. 14.(16) : com- pare notes on ver. 7. 13. ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην) ‘I (on my part) was purposing ;’ contrast ἠϑέλησα, ver. 14, where not only the general dis- tinction between the verbs βούλομαι and ϑέλω (sce notes on 1 Tim. vy. 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. 5, p. 373. The use of ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3 (Alf.) though analogons, 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 ; sec notes on Gal. ν. 20. πρὸς ἐμαυτόν] ‘with myself;’ the proper and primary meaning of the preposition (‘ motion toward,’ compare Donaldson, Cratyl. § 109) is often obscured in con- nection with persons ; see notes on Gal. i. 18, and Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p. 360. ὑπὲρ σοῦ] ‘in thy stead ;’ not simply for ἀντί, 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, κατ- Saveiv ὑπὲρ σοῦ, and see Green, Gram. p. 301. This more derivative meaning of the prep. cannot be denied (see Winer, Gr. § 47.1, p. 342), 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 (ἵνα τῆς σῆς μοι διακονίας ἐκ- τίσῃ τὸ χρέος, Theod.), should not be left unnoticed. διακονῇ] ‘might minister ;’ present, idiomatically referring to the time when the ἐβουλόμην took place, and giving a vividness to the past by representing it as present; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 41. b. 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 διακονία, in its more direct sense, had now ceased, as Onesimus was all but on his way home to his master. δεσμοῖς Tov εὐαγγ.] ‘bonds of the gospel ;’ scil. ‘bonds which the gospel brought with it,—which preaching the gospel entailed on me,’ edayy. being a gen. auctoris; see Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. B. note, p. 170, Ilartung, 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. χωρὶς δὲ κ. τ. Χ.] ‘but without thy own approval :’ comp. Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 642, who very appropriately cites Polybius, List. p. 983 (xv. 18. 4), 29 220 PHILEMON. 14, 15. εὐανγγελίου' 1 χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης οὐδὲν ἠδέλησα ποιῆσαι, δ, \ e \ ’ / \ ’ , cp » Ν Ν e 4 ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην TO ἀγαδόν σου ἢ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον. ἘΞ 7 \ 5 \ A 5) / % \ ? “ 5. ἢ 308 TAX yap ola TOUTO EXD Plo Ἴ προς WpPav, VA ALWVLOY αὐὑτον χωρὶς τὴς Ῥωμαίων γνώμης ; compare ib. 111. 21. 7, χωρὶς τῆς αὐτοῦ γνώμης, ib. ΧΧΙ. 8. 7, ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης (cited in Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 89). Γνώμη 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. ἠδ ἐλη σα] notes on ver. 13. ἂν ἀγκη ν] ‘as if by necessity,’ ‘ compul- sion-wise ;’ the κατὰ 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, Gr. § 49. d, p. 358), while és marks the aspect which the ac- tion would have worn; see Bernhardy, Synt. vir. 2, p. 333, and notes on Eph. y. 22, Col. iii. 23. Chrysost., and more fully Theophyl. and Gicum., rightly call attention to this insertion of the particle. τὸ ἀγαδόν σου] ‘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 agen. 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 N. T. p. 659), nor merely to the kind reception which Philemon was to give him on his arrival (Hofmann, Schrift). 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, ‘was willing;’ aor., see ὡς κατὰ ‘beneficentia tua’ (Caly.), 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 τὸ ἀγαϑὸν in the particular case would have worn the appearance (ὧς) of a kind of constraint ; St. Paul, however, wished, as in this so in all other matters, that Philemon’s 7d ἀγαϑὸν should be μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην On the doubtful distinction in the N. T. between τὸ ἀγαϑὺν and τὸ καλόν, see notes on Gal. vi. 10. κατὰ ἑκούσιον] ‘voluntarily.’ The more usual periphra- sis for the adverb appears in the earlier Greek to have been καϑ᾽ ἑκουσίαν, Thu- cydides vii1. 27, or ἐξ ἑκουσία ς, Soph. Trach. 724, by an ellipse of γνώμη. In the present case there may have been originally an ellipse of τρόπον (Porphyr. de Abs. 1.9, καϑ᾿ ἑκούσιον τρόπον) ; the expression, however, would soon become purely adverbial : comp. Lobeck, Phryn. p- 4. 15. τάχα yap] ‘ For perhaps ;’ rea- son that influenced the apostle in send- ing back Onesimus. The insertion of τάχα (Rom. y. 7; more usually τάχ᾽ ἄν, in classical Greek) gives a softening and suasiye 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 ; καλῶς τό, τάχα, ἵνα εἰξῇ 6 δεσπότης, Chrys. ; τάχα γὰρ κατὰ ϑείαν οἰκονομίαν ἔφυγεν, 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, — ‘ preesta- bilius ducere Deum de malis bona facere, quam mala nulla facere,’ Justin. in loc., ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἐκούσιον. 15, 16. PHILEMON. ἀπέχης, 1 οὐκέτι ws δοῦλον, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ δοῖλον, ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, see August. Enchir. § 3, Vol. v1. p. 349 (ed. Ben. 1836). éxwpicdsy] ‘he departed ;’ he does not say ἔφυγεν lest he should rouse up any angry remembrances in the mind of Phi- lem.: so Chrys., Gcum., 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. ὁ. 1. πρὸς ὥραν] ‘for a season;’ 2 Corin. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5, and more definitely 1 Thess. ii. 17, πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας. 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 πρὸς ἑσπέραν (Luke xxiv. 29), al.; compare: Bernhar- dy, Synt. τ. 31, p. 564. The derivation of ὥρα is uncertain; it has been connect- ed with the Sanscr. vara, ‘time’ (Ben- fey, Wurzeller. Vol. 11. p. 328), but, per- haps more probably, with the Zend. jare, Germ. ‘Jahr,’ as apparently evinced in the Lat. ‘horno ;”’ compare Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 8, 123. αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἂπ.] ‘mightest re- ποῦ merely ‘ perpetuum,’ Beza (Grot. com- pares Hor. Epist. 1.10.41, ‘ serviet zter- num’), nor with any allusion to ‘ per- petua mancipia,’ Exodus xxi. 6, Deut. xv. 17 (Beza, Gent.), but ‘in xternum,’ Clarom., ‘aiveinana,’ Goth.; οὐκ ἐν τῷ παρόντι μόνον καιρῷ ἀλλὰ Kal ἐν τῷ μέλ- λοντι, ἵνα διαπαντὸς ἔχῃς αὐτόν, οὐκέτι δοῦλον ἀλλὰ τιμιώτερον δούλου, Chrys. : so pertinently Estius, ‘servitus omnis ceive him eternally, everlastingly,’ hac vita finitur, at fraternitas Christiana manet in eternum.’ The tertiary predi- cate of time, αἰώνιον, 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. ὃ 489 sq., and see examples in Winer, Gr. § 54. 2, p. 412. On the compound ἀπέχειν, in which, as in ἀπολαμβάνειν κ. τ. X., the prep. does not apparently so much mark the ‘ receiving back, as the ‘having for one’s own’ (‘sibi habere,’? Bengel, ‘hinwechaben,’ Mey.), see notes on Phil. iv. 18, comp. Winer, Verb. Comp. rv. p. 8. 16. οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον) Changed spiritual relation in which he now would stand to his master; ὥστε καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ κεκέρδακας καὶ τῇ ποιότητι, Chrys. The particle ὡς 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 (sce verse 14); the inward relation was changed, the outward remained the same; comp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 318. ὑπὲρ δοῦλον] ‘above a slave, more than a slave,’ ‘ufar skalk,’ Gothic, y --ἰ 3 jo dw [praestantior quam], Syr., sim. /ith. (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 ὑπὲρ is somewhat similar, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. ο, p. 359. The ex- pression is explained by the following ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν ; Onesimus was not now to be regarded in the light of a slave, but in a higher light, viz. as a be- loved brother; ἀντὶ δούλου ἀχρήστου, χρηστὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀπείληφας, acum. μάλιστα ἐμοί] ‘especially, above all others, to me ;’ not directly dependent on ἀγαπητόν (Meyer), but, as ἀγαπητὸς in , 228 PHUILEMON. 16-18. “-“ A a) A \ > μάλιστα ἐμοί, πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλόν σοι Kal ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν Κυρίω. τ: 7 a SN ε ἜΣ ὦ > oO ΤΊ εἰ οὖν με ἔχεις κοινωνόν, προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ. 18 εἰ δέ τι the N. T. has to ἃ great degree lost its verbal character, a dative ‘ of interest’ (IXriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4) attached to GdeAO. ἀγαπ. ; comp. Syr., Bengel. He stood in the light of an ἄδελφ. ἀγαπ. to St. Paul, whom he had now left, but much more so to Philemon, who had formerly known him as a mere δοῦλον, but who was now to have him as his own in a higher and closer relation than before. On the meaning and derivation of μάλιστα, compare notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. kal ἐν σαρκὶ k.7.A.] “both in the flesh and in the Lord ;’ the two spheres in which Oncsimus was to be πόσῳ μᾶλλον an ἀδελφὸς ἀγαπητὸς to Philemon than to the apostle, — ‘in the flesh,’ 7. ec. in earthly and personal rela- tions (Mcy.), 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 καὶ ἐν tats σωματικαῖς ὑπερησίαις Kal ἐν ταῖς πνευματικαῖς, Schol., except that the idea must not be limited to ὑπηρεσία; compare Theod., Gicum. To define ἐν σαρκὶ more nearly (comp. Grot., al.) is neither here neccs- sary nor in harmony with the gencral use of the word in St. Paul’s Epistles ; sec notes on Galat. ν. 16, and the elabo- rate notes of Koch, p. 99 sq.; ‘dice Ge- gensiiize, a's Mensch und als Christ sind in ihrer ganzen Weite zu belassen,’ Mey. On the force of kal—rai (‘as well the one as the other’), see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. 17. εἰ οὖν] ‘Ifthen;’ summing up what has been urged, and resuming the request imperfectly expressed in ver. 12. On the ‘ vis collectiva’ of οὖν. (Gal. iv. 15, Phil. ii. 29, sec notes) and its re- sumptive force (Galat. iii. 5, see notes), both here united, sce Klotz, Devar. Vol. ΤΙ pps 417..1.1.8: κοινων ὁ ν)] ‘a partner,’ 501]. in faith, and love, and Christian principles generally, — not merely in sentiments (εἰ τὰ αὐτά μοι φρονεῖς, ἐπὶ τοῖς αὑτοῖς τρέχεις, εἰ φίλον ayn, 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. προσλαβοῦ &s ἐμέ] ‘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 προσλαμβ. occurs in avery similar sense, Rom. xiv. 1, 8, 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 [tom. xiv. 1, and Fritz. in loc., who, however, 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. εὖ Se] ‘Dut if;’ contrasted thought (comp. Alf.), suggested by the remembrance of what might militate against the warmth of the reception. The δὲ thus docs not seem μεταβατικόν (Mcy.), but preserves its usual opposi- tive foree ; ‘qui loquitur, etiam si nibil positum est in oratione tamen aliquid in mente habet, ad quod respiciens illam oppositionem infert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 365. ἠδίκησέν σε ‘uronged thee, more specifically ex- pained by the ‘mitius synonymon’ (Beng.) ἢ ὀφείλει. The Greck 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 (οὐκ εἶπεν ἔκλεψεν, GAN 19. PHILEMON. 229 ἠδίκησέν σε ἢ ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα. 19 ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα εὐφημότερον, ἠδίκησεν ἢ ὀφείλει, The- oph.), and further, the kind and wise way inwhich he keeps it to the end of his letter ; ὅρα ποῦ τέϑεικε καὶ πότε τὸ ἀδίκημα: ὕστερον μετὰ τὸ πολλὰ ὑπὲρ τοῦτου προειπεῖν, Clirys. τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα] ‘this set down to my account,’ scil. ὅ τι ἠδίκησέν σε ἣ ὀφείλει; ‘id meis rationibus imputa,’ Grot. Though there is no certain lexi- cal authority for ἐλλογάω (it docs not appear in the new ed. of Steph. Thesaur.), and though its existence has been some- what peremptorily denied (Tritz. Dom. v. 13, Vol. 1. p. 311), yet still as the de- siderative Aoydw (Lucian, Leriph. § 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. ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγρ.] “1 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 Jollows, but always more or less retro- spectively, 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 /oc.), 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 γράφω 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 scem desira- ble with Lachm. and Guttm. to make this verse the commencement of a new para- graph. ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω) ‘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, χαριέντως (Theoph.), yet, perhaps, as the next words convey, with a gracefully implied exhortation, καὶ ἐπιτρεπτικῶς Gua καὶ χαριέντως (Chrys.) ; comp. Theod., ἀντὶ γραμματίου τήνδε κάτεχε Thy ἐπιστο- λήν: πᾶσαν" αὐτὴν ἐγὼ γέγραφα. The addition ἐν Κυρίῳ [Π11}; Claromanus, Sang.] is an improbable repetition of ἐν Κυρίῳ below. ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι] ‘that I may not say to thee;’ a rhe- torical turn, —oxjua παρασιωπήσεως, Grot., or παραλείψεως, 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 ἵνα does not seem strictly dependent on ἔγραψα, on amoticw (Mcy.), 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 to suggest, on a thought called up by the ἀποτίσω, ---- ‘ 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 οὐ κατὰ ἀνάγκην ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον, verse 14. προσοφείλει 5] ‘thou owest unto me besides :’ Philemon was not onlyan actual debtor to the apostle of any trifle that he thus (μετὰ χάριτος τῇ5 πνευματικῆς, Chrysost.) offers to make good, but in addition to it (mpoo-), even (καὶ ascensive) his own self, his own Christian existence. Raphel adduces somewhat similar uses of προσοφείλειν it Xen. Cyr. ται. p. 59 (111. 2. 16), (ἴοι. 250 PHILEMON. 20, 21. in he lel , BES » / “4 \ JS Ὁ \ , TH ἐμῇ KELPL, EY@ ὠποτίσω" Wa μὴ λέγω σοι OTL καὶ σεαυτὸν μοι προσοῴφειλεις. 29 Ναί, ἀδελφέ, ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν Κυρίῳ - ἀνά- , \ 4 2 xX = παυσὸν μου τὰ σπλαγχνα EV ApPLOTO. I am confident that thou wilt fully comply with my “1 ΠΟοεποιδὼς τῇ ὑπακοῇ cov ἔγραψά ON 24 \ ς \ Δ “ / request. Prepare me a gol, εἰδὼς OTL Kal ὑπὲρ ὃ λέγω ποιήσεις. lodging. p- 684 (20. 1); the meaning, however, is sufficiently obvious. A curious meta- phorical use of προσοφ. (‘longe inferio- rem esse’) will be found in Polyb. [ist. 20.0 By 2. Ὁ. 20. ναί, ἄδελφέ] ‘yea, brother ;’ certainly not ‘precantis’ (Grot.), nor ‘yehementer obsecrantis’ (Gent.), but with the usual force of the particle in the N. Test., ‘serio aflirmantis’ (compare Erasm.), in reference to the request em- bodied in yer. 12 sq. ; ἀφεὶς τὸν χαριεν- τισμὸν πάλιν ἔχεται τῶν προτέρων τῶν σπουδαίων, Chrys., compare Theoph. and Gcum. On the use of ναὶ in the N. T., see notes on Phil. iy. 3. ἐγώ cov ὀναίμην ‘may I reap profit from thee ;’ —I, not without em- phasis; the apostle again (comp. ver. 12, 17) makes it 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 ὀναί- μην [2 aor. opt., see Buttm. Irreg. Verbs, p- 189 Transl.], coupled with the signifi- cant ἐγώ (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 dvai- μην is similarly used by Ignatius ( Polye. 1. 6, Mayn. 12, al.),—once (ples. 2) curiously enough, but apparently by mere accident, after a mention ofan Onesimus. denotes, as usual, the sphere of the ὄνησις, (see on EZphes. iv. 17, Phil. ii. 19, al.), just as ἐν Χριστῷ, which follows, speci- fies that of the ἀνάπαυσις ; both were to be characterized by being zn Him, they were to be such as implied His hallowing ἐν Κυρίῳ influences. It may be here observed that ἐν Xp. has distinctly preponderating authority [ACD,FGL; al.; Claroman., Syr. (both), 22th. (both), Copt., Goth.], and is adopted by nearly all modern eds. τὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘my heart ;’ not One- simus, as in v. 12 (Hieron.), which would here be wholly out of place, nor τὴν περί σε ἀγάπην (Theoph., Gicum.), but simply the σπλάγχνα of the apostle, — the seat of his love and affections ; see notes on ver. 7. 21. πεποιδὼς τῇ ὕπακ.] 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 ; ὕπερ καὶ ἀρχόμενος εἶπε, παῤῥησίαν ἔχων τοῦτο καὶ ἐνταῦδϑα λέγει εἰς τὸ ἐπισφραγίσαι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, Chrys. ἔγραψα] “1 have written, not ‘I write,’ De W.; see above on ver. 19, and con- trast the following present. ὑπὲρ ὃ λέγω] ‘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 2 apostle (ἅμα καὶ διήγειρεν εἰπὼν τοῦτο, 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. ZLachm. here reads ὑπὲρ ἃ with AC; 3 mss.; Coptic, Syr. (PhXox.), — 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 PHILEMON: 231 “2 ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν: ἐλπίζω γὰρ ὅτι διὰ τῶν προσευ- χῶν ὑμῶν χαρισϑήσομαι ὑμῖν. Salutations. ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 4 Μάρκος, συνεργοί μου. Benediction.- TOU πνεύματος ὑμῶν. as best supported by external authority. 22. ἅμα δὲ καὶ κ. τ. λ.] “ Moreover at the same time also provide me a lodg- ing ;’ ἃ 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 ; ἵνα προσ- δοκῶν αὐτοῦ τὴν παρουσίαν αἰδεσϑῇ [Φιλ.] καὶ τὰ γράμματα, Theod. It may be doubted, however, whether the jirst view of Theoph. and G&cumen. 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 (εἰ μὴ διὰ ᾿Ονήσιμον οὐδὲ λόγου με ἠξίου, The- oph.), but as containing special messages on other matters to himself. The word tevia (Hesych. ὑποδοχή, κατάλυμα) only occurs here and, also in reference to St. Paul, Acts xxviii. 23. διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν] 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 gencral view, a year or two later ; comp. Wieseler, Chronol: p. 456. "5 ᾿Δσπάζεταί ce Επαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου ᾿Αρίσταρχος, Anuas, Λουκᾶς, οἱ “Ὁ Ἢ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ 23. ἀσπάζεται) 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 ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, Coloss. iv. 11) preceding Luke and De- mas, except that Epaphras is here placed first. The reading ἀσπάζονται [Iec. with ΚΠ] is rightly rejected by most modern editors as a grammatical correc- tion. ὁ συναιχμάλ. pov] ‘my fellow-prisoner ;’ more specifically defined as ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ; sec on Eph. iv. 1. The title here given to Epaphras is, in Col. iv. 10, given to ᾿Αρίσταρχος, while the latter is afterwards named as a συνεργός : for the probable reasons, see notes on Col. 1. c. 24. ΜάρκοΞ] Probably John Mark, and the Evangelist. For a bricf notice of him, and those mentioned in this verse, see notes on Col. iv. 10 and 14. 25. ἡ χάρις κ. τ. λ.] Precisely the same form of salutation as in Gal. vi. 18, with the exception of the significant con- clusion ἀδελφοί. τὰς αἰ: ἰδ ": ᾿ ων at De 5 fal 1, » Soe 7 ie, εἰν die a 2 an ¢ ἣν ἊΝ sa; | nods . ἣν i dts ait © 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 Colossi 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, ὅ because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard be- Cnarter I. 1. Christ Jesus] ‘*Jesus Christ,’ Auth. Timothy} So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘ Timo- theus,’ Author. and the remaining Vv. 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. Suints in Colosse] Sim. Tyndale, Cov., Cran., ‘ sayntes which are at Co- lossx:’ ‘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. Iaving leard| ‘Since we heard,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. (‘have’) ; ‘herynge,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), them. ; 33 ‘for we haue hearde,’ Cran. The trans- lation of Auth., al. is perhaps somewhat ambiguous, ‘since’ haying as much a causal as ἃ 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. 80 (Zransl.). To all] So Auth. A few of the Vv., Cov. (Test.), Ihem., retain the more literal ‘ toward.’ 5. Because of | So Cov. ('Test.) ; ‘ for,’ Author., Wicl., Tthem.; ‘ for the hope’s sake,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. Word of truth, etc.| So Cov. except that ἐν (18t) is translated ‘ by,’ and similarly Gen., ‘the worde of trath which is in the gospel:’ ‘word of the truth of the gospel,’ Author.,. Wicl., Ithem.; ‘true worde of the gospell,’. Zynd., Cranm. ; ‘worde of truth of the gospel,’ Coverd. (Test.), Bish. The truce relation of the genitives thus scems expressed by threo COLOSSIANS. Cuap. 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- ercasing as it is also in you, since the day ye heard of zt, 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 ; 8 who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit. 9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, 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 ; 19 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 ; 1 being strengthened with all strength, accord- of the older Vv. ; see notes. The arti- cle preceding ἀληϑείας appears only to mark that ἀλήδϑ. 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. JViel., ‘also itis;’ Rhem., ‘also in the whole world it is:’ ‘it is,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Is bringing forth fruit] ‘ Bringeth forth fruit,’ Auth., Cov., Test. (omits ‘ forth’) ; ‘makith frute,’ Wicl.; ‘is frutefull,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ fructi- fieth,’ them. And increasing| Auth. *omits. 15] ‘ Doth,’ Auth. Came to know] ‘ Knew,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. ( Coverd. Test., ‘haue knowen’) except Tynd., Cran., ‘had experience’ —a translation which similarly with text endeavors to express the force of ἐπέγνωτε (see notes on ver. 9), and deserves consideration. 7. Even as ye| Author. adds ‘ *also,’ and omits ‘even.’ The translation of καϑώς, 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,’ [them. In your behalf] ‘ For you,’ Auth. and the remain- It seems desirable to sclect a translation that should prevent ὑπὲρ be- ing possibly understood as ‘in your. place ;’ 566 notes. 9. Make our petition] ‘Desire,’ Auth. and the other Vv. (Tynd., Rhem., ‘ de- syringe’) except Wiel., ‘to axe;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘ axing.’ May] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem: ‘might,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wiel., ‘that ye be filled.’ Spiritual wisdom and, etc.| So Cov. (Test.): ‘ wis- dom and spiritual understanding,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vv. 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.’ ing Vy. Cuap. I. 12-16. COLOSSIANS. 259 ing to the might of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering with joy ; 15 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. 1 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 things have been created by Him, and Strength] ‘ Might,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘vertu ;” Cov. (both), ‘power.’ It is perhaps desirable to re- _tain the παρήχησις of the original. The might of His glory] So Cov. (both), Rhem., and sim. Weel., ‘migt of His tlerenesse :’ ¢ glorious power,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Joy] So Wiel., Ihem., and, with a different collocation, Cov. (Test.): ‘joyfulness,’ Author. and the remaining Vy.: comp. notes on Phil. ii. 29 ( Transl.). 12. Made] So Wiel.: ‘hath made,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 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,’ 2them. 13. Delivered] So Wicl.: ‘hath deliy- ered,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex- cept Coverd. (Test.), ‘hath drawen us oute.’ Out of | ‘ From,’ Auth. Translated] So Wicl., Coverd.: ‘hath translated,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 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 Vy. 15. Firstborn] So Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Ihem.; ‘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 Rev. 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 Vy. 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 Vv. In] So Wiel., 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.). ΠΣ been created] ‘ Were created,’ Author., Cran., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘ben made of nought,’ Wiel. ; ‘are created,’ Tynd., 200 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 17-21. for Him; ΤΠ and He is before all things, and in Him all things subsist. 18 And Ie is the head of the body, the church ; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that im all things He might have the pre-eminence: 15 because in Him it pleased the whole fulness of the Godhead to dwell, 29 and by Him to recon- cile all things unto Himself, having made peace through the’ blood of His cross; by Him, 7 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). As the Greek perfect ex- presses both ‘have been’ and ‘are ;’ there is sometimes a difficulty in know- ing which of the two to select : perhaps as a gencral rule (where idiom will per- mit, and there is no danger of miscon- ception) it is best to adopt the former when past time seems 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 5¢ αὐτοῦ, see Reviscd Transl. of St. John, p. xiii. 17. In] So Wiel., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cran. Subsist] ‘ Consist,’ Auth. 18. Who] So Auth., them., 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 erplana- tory force in the relative ‘being as He is” As, however, the translation in the commentary ‘seeing Ie is,’ though per se expressing clearly this force of és, is perhaps somewhat too strong when placed in connection with what precedes and follows, it seems better to leave 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 Iim, etc.| So similarly Wicl., ‘in Hym it plesid alle plentce to enhabite ;’ Coverd. (Test.), ‘it hath pleased alle fulnesse of the Gudheade to dwel in Hym ;’ Jhem., ‘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 Vy. ( Coverd., ‘shuld dwell all f.’). 20. Laving 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 Vy. On this transla- tion of καί, see notes on Eph. ii. 1. Though ye were, etc.| Similarly Ihem., ‘whereas you were;’ compare Wiel., Cov. (Test.), ‘whanne ye weren : ἡ ‘that were,’ Auth. ; ‘whiche were,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vy. 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 Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘ witte;’ ‘ Crap. I. 22-27. COLOSSIANS. 261 enemies in your understanding in WICKED works, yet now hath He reconciled ~ 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 being 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. *t Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and am filling fully up the Jacking 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 ; 35 even the mystery which hath lain hid from the ages and from the genetations, but now hath been made manifest to His saints: “1 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. ITis death] “ Death,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Blameless and without charge] ‘Unblamable and unre- provable,’ Author.; ‘unwemmed and without repreef,’ Wiel. ; ‘ unblameable and without faut,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘unspotted and unblamea- ble, Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘immaculate and blameless,’ /them. 23. If at least] ‘If,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vy. 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 Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. ('Test.), Rhem., ‘unmouable.’ Heard| ‘Have heard,’ Author, and all the other Wy. In the hearing of | “Το, Auth., Genev., Bish.; ‘in al creaturis,’ Wicl. ; ‘amonge all creatures,’ Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Ihem.; ‘among euery creature,’ Cov. (Test.). Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘am I Paul become :’ ‘am made,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 24. Now 17] ‘*Who now,’ Auth, Am filling fully up| ‘Fill up,’ Author. ; ‘fille,’ Wiel.; ‘fulfill, Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cranm., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ accom- plish,’ hem. 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. 7them. ; ‘ the rest of,’ Gen. 25. Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘am become:’ ‘am made,’ Aut/. and the remaining Vy. Was given} So Tynd., Cranm.: ‘is given,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 26. Lain] ‘ Been,’ Author. the slight change may better conyey the force of the perf. participle. From the ages and from the gen.| * From ages and from gen.,’ Author, Wiel., Rhem. ; Tynd., Cov., Cranm., Gen., and Perhaps Bish., paraphrase; ‘ from euerlastynge and the generacions,’ Cov. (Test.). Hath been| ‘1s,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 27. It was God's will] ‘God would,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. COLOSSIANS. Cuap. I. 28-IT. 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: 58 whom WE proclaim, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ: 59 to which end I also toil, striving according to His working, which worketh in me with power. CAP ἢ ΠῚ 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 ; 2 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. * Now this I say, that no one may beguile you with Among (24)| So Coverd. (Test.): ‘ in,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Christ] ‘*Christ Jesus,’ Auth. 28. Proclaim| ‘ Preach,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘ schewen.’ 29. To which end| ‘ Whereunto,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘in whiche thing,’ Wicl. ; ‘wherin,’ Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran., Rhem. Toil| Comp. on 1 Tim. iv. 10: ‘labor,’ Auth. and all Vy. except Wicl., ‘ trauceile.’ With power] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘ by power ;’ Ihem., ‘in power :’ ‘ mightily,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘in vertu.’ Cnarter 11. 1. Would have you, etc.] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘ would have you to know ;’ Fhem., ‘ wil haue you know :’ ‘would that ye knew,’ Author., Cranm., Bish.; ‘wole that ye wite,’ Ἀεὶ; ‘wolde ye knewe,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. And them] ‘ And for them,’ Auth. In] ‘ At,’ Auth., Wicl., Cranm., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ of,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. And as many] ‘ And for as many,’ Auth. 2. May] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘might,’ Author. and the remaining Vy. except Weel., ‘that her hertis counforted.’ They being, etc.| ‘*Being knit together,’ Author. The riches! So Wiel., Cov. (Test.), hem. ; ‘riches,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. The understanding| Author. and all the other Vy. omit the article; ‘ full understond- inge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘persuaded underst.,’ Gen. Unto] ‘To,’ Auth.: change to preserve parallelism with the preceding εἰς. Full knowledge] ‘ Acknowledgment,’ Auth. ; ‘knowynge,’ Wicl.; ‘for to knowe,’ Tynd., Cranm., Gen. ; ‘knowledge,’ Cov. (both), Cranm. ; ‘to know,’ Bish. The juxtaposition of ἐπίγνωσις and γνῶσις 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 a enticing speech. ὃ For if I am absent verily in the flesh, yet still I am with you in the spirit, joying with you and beholding your order, and the firm foundation of your faith in Christ. ® As then ye received Christ Jesus TuE Lorp, so walk ye in Him; 7 rooted and being built up in Him, and being stablished in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. ὃ 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: 9. 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 Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Phem., ‘ that no man disceyue you.’ Enticing speech] ‘ Enticing words,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘higthe of wordis ;’ Bish. ‘ per- suasion of word;’ Jthem., ‘ loftines of wordes.’ 5. If I am absent verily, ete.] ‘Though I be absent,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Yet still Tam] ‘Yet am I,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Cov, (Test.), ‘but yetamI;’ Phem., ‘ yet in spirit I am:’ Wicl. omits. Joying with you] ‘Joying,’ Author. and the other Vv. except Coverd. (Test.), Ithem., ‘ rejoye- ynge.’ Firm foundation] « Stedfastness,’ Author., Coverd. (both) ; ‘sadnesse,’ Wiclif; ‘ stedfast fayth,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘ constancic,’ Rhem. 6. As then ye] ‘ As ye have therefore,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. ( Wiel, 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 discerni- 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 Vy. except Wicl., ‘the bileue;’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., ‘faith.’ 8. There shall be any one that, εἰς. ‘ Any man spoil you,’ Auth., Cov., Bish. ; ‘that no man disceyue you,’ Wielif, [heni. ; ‘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 Vy. Doth dwell] ‘PDwelleth,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The introduction of the auxiliary appears to add a slight force to the important verb κατοικεῖ. The principal emphasis apparently falls on ἐν αὐτῷ; the verb, however, both from meaning and posi- tion, is not without prominence. In bodily fashion] ‘ Bodily,’ Author. and the other Vy. except Jthem., ‘ corporally.’ 10. In Him made full| Sim. Mhem., ‘in Him replenished:’ ‘complete in 204 COLOSSIANS. Cuap. II. 11-13. pality and power: in whom ye were also circumcised with ἃ circumcision not wrought with hand, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ ; 15 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 trom the dead. 1 And you also being dead in your trespasses and the 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 Vy. ex- cept Rhem., ‘also you are,’ ete. 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),’ Zynd., Cov., Gen., Bish.; ‘in robbyng of, Cov. (Test.) ; ‘for asmoch as, ete.,’ Cranm. ; ‘ in spoil- ing of,’ Ithem. The insertion of the ar- ticles gives a heaviness to the sentence, but seems required to show that ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδ. 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- cumcision] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Wicel., ‘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, ete.’ Tynd. and the remaining Vy. notes on Phil. ii. 7 ( Transl.). Your baptism] ‘Baptism,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Ye were also raised] ‘ Also ye are risen,’ Auth., and with slight variations the other Vy.: the καί, however, is rightly joined in translation with ovvnyep3. by Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Your faith) ‘ Faith, Author. and, with some variations in construction, the other Vy. except Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Ithem., ‘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 sentence; consider Romans xii. 7 sq., where, as in many other passages, it re- quires much discrimination to decide when the article has a pronominal force, and when it is merely associated with an abstract noun. In the operation] ‘Of the operation,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘wrought by the operacion of,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cranm., Gen.; ‘of God’s work- ynge,’ Cov. (Test.). On the translation of this word see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 13: 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:’ see, however, notes on Eph. ii. 1. Trespasses] So Compare Cuap. IT. 14-17 COLOSSIANS. 265 uncireumcision of your flesh, He quickened together with Himself, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ™ blotting out the handwrit- ing in force against us by its decrees, which was contrary to us; and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to His cross ; ™ and stripping away from Himself principalities and powers, He made a show of them with boldness, triumphing over them in it. 7° 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 ἃ sab- bath ; " which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Auth. in Eph. ii. 1, and in the present noun: the insertion of it, however, verse: ‘sins,’ Author., Coverd. (both), Bish. ; ‘ giltis,’ Wiel. ; ‘synne,’ Tynd., Cran., Genev. ; ‘ the offenses,’ [them. He quickencd| So Wicl., Cov., and sim. Ehem., ‘did he quicken :’ ‘hath he, ete.,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Himself | ‘ Him,’ Auth. and all the other Weve Us] ‘*You,’ Auth. Our trespasses] So Tynd., Cranm., Gen. (‘your’), Bish. (‘your’) : ‘ trespasses,’ Author. ; ‘ giltis,’ Wicl.; ‘sins,’ Coverd. (both) ; ‘ offenses,’ Phem. 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, ete.,’ is open to the objection of being cumbrous, and perhaps unduly modal. In force against us, etc.] “ΟΥ̓ 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 deere,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘the handwryt- ing of ceremonies that was against us,’ Gen., Bish. (‘ordinances’); ‘the hand- writing of decrees,’ Zthem. Hath taken| So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem.: ‘took,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Auth, also omits the personal pro- coupled with the slight change in pune- tuation, seems to clear up the construc- tion, and render the connection of clauses somewhat more perspicuous. 15. Stripping, εἰς. ‘ 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 | “Τῇ respect of,’ Author. ; in part of,’ Wiel., Bish., Rhem.; " for pece of,’ Lynd., Cov., Cran., Gen ; ‘ina part of,’ Cov, (Test.). A new moon] ‘ The, ete.,’ Auchor. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘neomynye.’ A sabbath| ‘Sabbath days, Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., Cov. (Test.) ; Rhem., ‘Sabotis.. As σάββατα is used with the force of a singular (Matth. xii. 1, Luke iy. 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.), hem. : ‘of Christ,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish; ‘is in Christ,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 34 COLOSSIANS. 266 Cuap. II. 18-22, Christ’s. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward, desiring to do it in false lowliness of mind and worshipping of the angels, intruding into the things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by the raind of his flesh, 19 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. - - - 29 If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, a3 if ye were living in the world, do ye submit to ordi- nances, 2! Handle not, nor taste, nor touch, 35 (which things are all to be destroyed in their consumption), after the commandments and 18. Desiring to do it, εἰς. 1 ‘In a vol- untary humility,’ Auth. ; ‘ willynge to teche in mekeness,’ Wiel. ; ‘ which after his awne ymaginacion walketh in the humblenes and holynes of angels,’ 7'ynd., 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 Vv. 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,’