Seis γῶν eteherans® ΡΥ se npnghane ete edst rhe teh Gedo Menetete”s Se Acdareterataniet ong hah hey Pete ty pepenate ohhahe te hg tenn iets teed = ΤΣ ἊΣ JS prepohett Cane ore ew jane yeuerae dete πγωψ οι ς Ν eee αγάμ ἡ μἀν ωνθαβωνοδονι, ἐν ϑο θη σροβνννῶννο τ Φ ΡΦ. ΤᾺ reribsvo Gah en hee * He inte Se 44 © “> whens. bier duit ie ΟΝ ον» Latin’ he γυλο δα εὐ δ,» οὲνιολυνδολολνῦνη ΟΣ οἴει Ὁ» et ἡ» οὐδεν ratenahetateherste ν ᾿ at ee ἐδ ἀράν ' afehpbe yee es φρο ν ἡ teh OR tr alee etn ge der? Pehuhetie 4 τ Ὁ eee! tie en pele PTY spate’ (oe edohoryie’ ig μεμα 4 ote at batial> te φερε σεν feh woes ‘ se Reret pote dete «peer viesere* res 4 ΟΣ ἀνὰ Copa μῶν hae pen “ ΤΑ, we pep pete et ea +h pie eh om" πὴ τι πτόν eon aidaswen bleu, τ ων τϑισονειβυνος τσ ῆτ. a's acres: eet be paadeied iy oe " ΔΑΝ αρνρκις δηλ γρρ υοῶς γινντρῥὴρ sia seen) Seas wt Oo ng Paieeeetebe hate Mr ty Mave De thee Vege ehetigXaleehelattgh Sate WePore Me pede te Neha pattie ,09%° odds bette sepriaPedster Pabetiege οὐ νὴ gist Kabel ava ws ctade haat eh at ote Be Ag bgreiota te tehel eres Darere tebe teeer ae ge etep ne dotstSinte* aya releeperrt wepetote” 3a" ὑφ δέ aight te > ΑΚ peBe Rs he errhp ΠΡ ahs yetieltniredeare eeesettshegstressears ee Be eed 4, BAY OF ΡΒ <<) “lap SEP 16 1918 Py ~~ 4 ΝᾺ “OLogica, sews ι vision Sectior = NOG ae ὌΝ: ΤῊ Mi oe felt Pa Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/criticalgrammatiOOelli A Per riICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, AND TO PHILEMON, WITH A .;, | REVISED TRANSLATION, & i, C. JELLICOTT, M.A. LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER AND SON, WEST STRAND. MDCCCLVII, LONDON: SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET, COVENT GARDEN. ary (a OT to ie ἃ. POR hE ACR, 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 Phi- lippians and Colossians, and of the graceful and touching Epistle to Philemon. t The notes will be found to reflect the same critical and grammatical characteristics, and to recognise the same principles of interpretation as those which 1 endeavoured to follow in the earlier portions of this work, and on which the experiences slowly and laboriously acquired during this undertaking have taught me year by year more confidently to rely. There is, however, a slight amount of additional matter which it is perhaps desirable to briefly specify. In the first place, I have been enabled to carry out more fully and completely 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 Chris- tian interpretation. In the notes on the Pastoral Epistles it was my endeavour to place before the reader, in all more important passages, the interpre- tations adopted by the Syriac, Old Latin,* and * T have now adopted this term, feeling convinced that the term ‘$ Italic’ is likely to mislead. The latter I retained in the previous Epistles as sanc- tioned 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. a2 IV PREFACE. Gothic Versions. ‘To these in the present volume 1 have added references to the Coptic (Memphitic) and Ethiopic Versions; to the former as found in the convenient and accessible edition of Bétticher, to” the latter as found in Walton’s Polyglott, but more especially and exclusively to the excellent 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 will I earnestly remind the reader that though I have laboured unflinchingly, and have spared no pains to faithfully elicit the exact opinion of these ancient translators, I still am pain- fully conscious how very limited is my present knowledge, and how 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 insufficient as my contributions are, I still deem it necessary to offer them; for I have been not a little startled to find that even critical editors of the stamp of Tischendorf,* have apparently not acquired even a rudimentary knowledge of several of the leading Versions which they conspicuously quote: nay more, that in many instances they have positively misre- presented 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 * The fourth volume of the new edition of Horne’s Introduction will show how conscientiously 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. Υ͂ fear, indeed, that I am bound to say that on the Latin translations attached to the now antiquated editions of the Coptic New Testament by Wilkins, from which Tischendorf appears to have derived his readings, little reliance can be placed; and on that attached to the Ethiopic Version in Walton’s Poly- glott even less, because not only as a translation 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 inaccuracies. It is fair to say that in this latter Version Tischen- dorf 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 translation of a careless reprint of a poor original; and thus to give only inadequately and in- accurately the testimony of the ancient Ethiopic Church. The really: good and valuable edition of Pell Platt has lain unnoticed and unused, because it has not the convenient appendage of a Latin transla- tion. 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 trans- lation, and has, in consequence, I fear, received pro- portionately little attention. Under these circumstances, and with such a very limited knowledge even of the true readings of these two Versions, I do not shrink from offering my ‘scanty contributions, which, though intentionally exegetical in character, may be found to some extent vl PREFACE. useful even to a critical editor. Gladly, most gladly should I welcome other labourers into the same field, nor can I point out to students in these somewhat intractable languages a more really useful undertaking ἡ" 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 labour, a few biblio- graphical 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 tracts where the paths are not well-trodden, and the travellers but few. In Coptic, I have used with great advantage the erammar of Archdeacon Tattam, and the lexicon of the same learned Editor. The more recent lexicon of Peyron has, I believe, secured a greater reputation, and as a philological 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 main- tains its ground. The author was a perfect Ethiopic enthusiast, and has zealously striven, by the most minute grammatical subdivisions, to leave no pecu- liarities in the Ethiopic language unnoticed and PREFACE. vil unexplained: the student, however, must not fail to exercise his judgment in a first reading, and be care- ful to confine himself to the general principles of the language, without embarrassing himself too much with the many exceptional characteristics which this difficult* language presents. These leading prin- ciples, especially in the second edition, are sufficiently well-defined, and will easily be extracted by any reader of moderate sagacity and grammatical experl- ence. The recent Ethiopic grammar 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 seemed to be very similar to that of Schwartze in Coptic, and only calculated for the more mature and scientific student. With regard to lexicons, there is, 1 believe, no better one than that of Ludolph (Second Edition). That of Castell, alluded to in the preface to the Pastoral Epistles, 1 have since found to be decidedly inferior. I do venture then to express a humble hope, that even with no better literary appliances than these, earnest men and thoughtful scholars may be induced to patiently and carefully investigate the interpreta- tions 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, which might almost have been in the hands of the * This epithet must be considered as used subjectively. To me, who am unfortunately unacquainted with Arabic, this language has presented many difficulties. The Arabic scholar would very likely entirely reverse my judgment. vill PREFACE. last of the Apostles, a venerable monument of almost equal antiquity like the Old Latin, a Version so gene- rally accurate as that of Ulfilas,* a Version so dis- tinctive as that of the Coptic, and so laborious as Platt’s Ethiopic, cannot 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 principal 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 per- mitted to see and to recognise 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 interpretations will always be found free from uncertainties and incon- sistencies, and will never exhibit the tinges of indi- vidual opinion, and the often estimable, but ever precarious subjectivity of religious predilections? I fear indeed that these remarks are but little * Some tinges of Arianism have been detected in this Version, e.g. Phil. ii. 8, ‘ni vulva rahnida visan sik galeiko [surely not a correct translation of tsa] gupa, but are not sufficiently strong to detract seriously from the general faithfulness of the Version. + 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. 1X in unison with popular views and popular aspirations ; I fear that the patient labour necessary to perform faithfully the duty of an interpreter is unwelcome to many of the forward spirits of our own times. ‘To be referred to Greek Fathers when suasive anno- tations 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 religious pre- judice is ever struggling to kick the beam, all seems savourless, unnecessary, and impracticable. I fear such is the prevailing spirit of our own times; yet, amid all, [seem to myself to descry a spirit of graver research winning its way among us, a more deter- mined allegiance to the truth, a greater tendency to snap the chains of sectarian bondage, and it 1s 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 labour too relent- less, 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 κοὐ the Ancient Versions 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 x PREFACE. 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 asso- ciated with great depth of feeling and tenderness of sympathy,—seem now to demand the serious atten- tion 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 pernicious developments of human error. The turmoil of Arian and semi-Arian strife has comparatively ceased, to be succeeded, however, by a more delusive 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. All is suasive and seductive: our Lord is claimed as united to us by human affinities of touching yet precarious application ; He is the prince of sufferers, the champion of dependence and depression, the representative of contested principles of social union; His Crucifixion becomes the apotheosis of self-denial, the Atonement ᾿ the master work of a pure and sublimated sympathy —all principles and aspects the more dangerous from involving 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 sympathies, that seems to edify while it perverts, that attracts PREFACE. xl 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 the Eternal Son in language that no exegetical artifice can successfully explain away, and against which Arian, semi-Arian, Deist, and Pantheist, have beaten out their strength in vain. Under these feelings, then, in the important doc- trinal passages in these Epistles which relate to our Lord’s divinity, I have spared no pains in the endeavour to candidly and truthfully 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 Fathers, and more espe- cially our own Divines of the seventeenth, and early part of the eighteenth, century have unfolded with such meek learning, such perspicuity, 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 commentators 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 explanations 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 labours 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 contemplate. ΧΙ PREFACE. 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 philological 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 Germany, as it would have saved me not only much labour, but many unwelcome interrup- tions; 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 compilers, 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 endeavoured 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 have generally endeavoured to briefly embody 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 to still obviate, PREFACE. xl as far as is compatible with the nature of a con- tinuous 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 Version. 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 con- sidered the most exact rendering of the words taken per se; the Revised Version preserves that rendering as far as is compatible with the lea operis, the context, the idioms of our language, or lastly, that grave and archaic tone of our admirable 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 less really expressive phraseology of modern diction. To needlessly divorce the original and that Version with which our ears are so familiar, and often our highest asso- ciations and purest sympathies so intimately bound, is an ill considered course, which more than anything else may tend to foster an unyoked spirit of Scrip- tural study and translation, alike unfilial and pre- sumptuous, and to which a modern reviser may here- after bitterly repent to have lent his example or his contributions. I desire in the last place to record a few of my XIV PREFACE. many obligations. These, however, are somewhat less than in earlier portions of this work, as the great and unintermitting labour expended in the examination of the ancient Versions, especially the Coptic and Ethiopic, has left me with 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 ancient 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 authorities and various exegetical subsidies that were alike accessible to us both, that so my adhesion to the opinions of my able predecessor, or my departure from them, might be the result of my own deliberate investigations. At the same time I have been particularly benefited by the admirable perspicuity 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 exegetical details, but in the dogmatical portions I have neither sought for nor derived any assistance whatever. To German commentaries the faithful and candid expo- sitor of Scripture is under great obligations, but for PREFACE. XV 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 brevity 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, simi- larities of structure. The commentary of Wiesinger is thoughtful and sensible, and not unfrequently distinguished by a sound and persuasive exegesis. Those of Rilliet and Hélemann, but especially the former, deserve con- sideration, 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 pre- judice, but there is a thoroughness and completeness of exegetical investigation, which render it an expo- sition 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 Bihr, have been so thoroughly examined by De Wette and Meyer, and in many passages so assimilated Xv1 PREFACE. and incorporated, that a separate study of them is rendered somewhat less necessary. They will, how- ever, 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 recti- fications which a more accurate scholarship has occa- sionally been found to suggest. The commentary of Professor Eadie has been of occasional service to me; but, as in the commentary on the Ephesians, so here also I fear I am compelled in candour 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 exe- getical portion is extremely good, nor will any reader rise from the study of this learned, earnest, and not unfrequently 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 labour, may be pleased to grant that this research may not prove wholly fruitless, this labour not utterly in vain. TPIAS, MONAS, ’EAEHSON. Cambridge, October 20th, 1857. THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. CHAPTER I. 1 Apostolic address and salutation. I. καὶ Τιμόθεος] Timothy is here associated with the Apostle (as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, and 2 Thess. i. 1), being known to, and probably esteemed by, the Philippians (Grot.), whom he had already twice visited ; , once in company with St. Paul (Acts, Xvi. I, 12), and once alone (Acts xix. 22). The association seems similar to that with Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. τ: Timothy is 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 is simply the ‘socius salutationis, Est. Two verses lower the Apostle proceeds in his own person, and in ch. ii. 10, when Tim. reappears, it is simply in the third person. It may be re- marked that it is only in this Ep., 1 and 2 Thess., and, as we might ex- pect, Philem., that St. Paul omits his official designation, k.T.A. (Gal. i. 1), or ἀπόστ. “Ino. Xp. (remaining Epp.). This seems due, not to ‘ modestia’ in the choice of a title common to himself and Tim. (Grot.), for see 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. τ, but simply to the terms of affection 3 td ἀπόστολος a. καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ 5) A > ep eg of, 5) vas Ἰησοῦ, σπάασιν τοις αγιοις εν Χριστῷ and familiarity on which he stood with the churches both of Thessa- lonica (ch. ii. 19, 20, iii. 6-10) 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 comp. notes on Eph. i, τ, and on Col. i. 1. δοῦλοι X. ᾽1.] ‘ bond-servants of Jesus Christ ; ‘servi proprie erant qui toti obstricti erant Domino in perpetuum,’ Zanch. ap. Pol. Syn. ; so Rom. i. 1; comp. Gal. i. 10, and also James i. 1, 2 Pet. i. 1, Jude τ. The interpretation of Fritzsche (Rom. i. 1), ‘Jesu Christi cultor,”’ se. ‘homo Christianus,’ is tenable (comp. Dan. iii. 26), but like so many of that commentator’s in- terpretations, hopelessly frigid; comp. Gal. i. 10, where to translate Xp. δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην, ‘non essem homo Christianus,’ is to impair all the vigour of the passage. The term is used in its ethical, rather than mere historical, sense, ‘an Apostle,’ ὅς. (see Meyer on Gal. l.c.), and the gen. is strongly possessive : they belonged to Christ as to a master, comp. I Cor. vil. 22: B 2 PHP E LANDS ag T a = 3 9 Dry ἣν ἢ ἐν ’ a ὃ , σου τοις οὐυσιν εν LALTTOLS GUY ETLOKOTOLS KUL οιακονοίς.- His they were; yea, His very marks they bore on their bodies; comp. Gal. vi. 17, and see notes in loc. The formula δοῦλος Θεοῦ (comp, "71 mm Ps. exiii. 1 al.) is naturally more general ; more personal and special: comp. notes δοῦλος Χριστοῦ, somewhat on Tit. i. τ: πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις κι τ.λ.7 ‘to all the Saints,’ &c., ‘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.i. 1. Though ἅγιος in these sort of addresses does not necessarily imply any special degree of moral perfection, being applied by the Apostle to all his converts, except the Gal. (and appy. Thess., ἁγίοις in ch. v. 27 being very doubtful), yet still the remark of Olsh. (on Rom. i. 7) is probably true, that it always hints at the idea of a higher moral life imparted by Christ. This in the present case is made still more appa- rent by the addition ἐν Χριστῷ: it was ‘in Him’ (not for did,’ Est., Rheinw.), in union with Him and Him alone that the ἁγιότης was true and real; οἱ yap ἐν Xp. "Ino. ἅγιοι ὄντως εἰσίν, Theophyl.: comp. Koch τ. 59... The in- clusive πᾶσιν, repeated several times inthis: Eip., ch. i, 4,7, 8) 25,41. 17, 26, iv. 23 (fec.), expresses only the warmth and expansiveness of the Apostle’s love. Φιλίπποις] Philippi, now Filibah or Filibejih, and anciently Κρήνιδες (not Adros, Van Heng. after Appian, Bell. Civ. Iv. 106, which was the ancient name of the port, Neapolis) was raised to a position of importance by Philip of Macedon about B.c. 358, and called after his name. In later times it was memorable as overlooking the scene on Thessalon. i. of the battle 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. August. 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, Zncyl. Vol. Vv. p. 14773; comp. also Leake, UN. Greece, Vol. 111. p. 216. σῦν ἐπισκ. καὶ διακ.]ὔ ‘together with the bishops and deacons ; not merely ‘in company with’ (werd), but ‘ to- gether with’ (‘una cum,’ Beza),— specially included in the same friendly greeting ; comp. notes on Eph. vi. 23. Various reasons have been assigned why special mention is made of these church-officers. The two most plau- sible seem, (α) because there were tendencies to division and disunion even among the Philippians, which rendered a notice of formally consti- tuted church-officers not unsuitable, Wiesinger, al. ; (Ὁ) because the ἐπίσκ. and διάκ. had naturally been the principal instruments in collecting the alms, Chrys., Theoph., and re- cently Mey., Bisping. The latterseems most probable; at any rate the date of the Ep. is not enough to account for the addition (Alf.), nor does the position of the clause warrant any contrast with ‘the hierarchical views’ (ib.) of the Apost. Ff. (now by no means critically certain), for comp. Ignat. (?) Philad. 1:—the shepherds naturally follow the sheep. On the meaning of the title of office, ἐπί- PHILIPPIANS I. 2, 3. 3 2 , ς α A a Oe ᾿ Αἴ Θ A A ς “ 4 K , χάρις υμιν Και εἐρηνῆῇ απο εου πατρος ημὼν Και υρίιου ᾽Ἴησοῦ Χριστοῦ. I thank my God with constant prayers for 3 A ΄“ “ STAN , 3 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου ἐπὶ πάση ἐμὰ present fellowship in the Gospel, and my love makes me confident for the future. ay ye abound yet more and more. σκοπος, here appy. perfectly inter- changeable with the title of age and dignity, πρεσβύτερος (Acts xx. 17, 28, « Pet. v. 1), see esp. notes on Tim. iii. 1 ; and on διάκ. see notes on ww. iii, 8. The reading of B** D***; 39. 67, συνεπισκόποις, re- tained and noticed by Chrys., seems meaningless and indefensible, and arose probably from the epistolary style of later times ; comp. Chrys. in loc. 2. χάρις ὑμῖν «.t.A.] On the spiritual significance of this blended form of Occidental and Oriental salu- tation see notes on Gal. i. 2, and on Eph.i.2; comp. also Koch on 1 Thess. p. 60. The formula is substantially the same in all St. Paul’s Epp. except in Col. i. 2, and 1 Thess. i. 1, where the reading is doubtful. In the former, καὶ Kup.’Ino. Xp. seems cer- tainly an insertion, and in the latter (the Apostle’s earliest epistle) it may be doubted whether the simple χάρις καί εἰρήνη, without any further ad- dition, may not be the more probable reading ; see, however, Tisch. in loc. καὶ Kvplov] Scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου κιτιλ.: the Socinian interpr. καὶ (πατρὸς) Kuptov, found also in Erasm. on Rom. i. 7, is rendered highly im- probable by the use of the same formula without ἡμῶν, 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4, most probably 1 Tim. i. 2, and per- haps 2 Thess. i. 2: comp. 1 Thess. iti, 11, 2 Thess. ii. 16. 3. εὐχαριστῶ «.t.A.] A closely similar form of commencement occurs in Rom. i 0, 1 Cor. i. 4, Philem. 4 ; compare also Eph. i. 16, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2. Indeed in all his Epp. to churches, with the single and sad exception of that to the Galat., the Apostle either returns thanks to God, or blesses Him, for the spiritual state of his converts: τοῦτο δὲ ποιεῖ ἐκ τοῦ πολλὰ αὐτοῖς συνειδέναι ἀγαθά, Chrys. The present use οἵ εὐχαριστεῖν (‘quod pro gratias agere ante Poly- bium usurpavit nemo,’ Lobeck) is condemned by the Atticists; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 18, Thom. M. Ῥ. 913 (ed. Bern.), Herodian, p. 400 (ed. Koch), but consider Demosth. de Cor. 257. Pollux (Onom. v. 141) admits it for διδόναι χάριν, but con- demns it for εἰδέναι χάριν ; see, how- ever, Boeckh, Corp. Jnscr. Vol. 1. Ρ. 52, and notes on Col. i. 12. τῷ Θεῷ pov] So Rom. i. 8; comp. Acts xxvii. 23, οὗ εἰμί, 6 καὶ λατρεύω. ‘Significat Paulus quanta fiducia vero Deo adhereat. Sunt enim qui sentiunt Deum misericordem quidem esse per Christum sanctis hominibus nescio quibus, non autem sentiunt Deum ipsis esse misericordem,’ Caly. ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ] ‘on the whole of my remembrance of you,’ not ‘every remembrance,’ Auth. (but not the older English Vv.), Bloomf., Conyb., and others,—a _ translation patible with the use of the art.; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 18. 4, p. ror (ed. 6). The prep. ἐπὶ with the dat. (which we can hardly say ‘answers to the same prep. with a gen.; Rom. i. Io, Eph. i. 16,’ Alf.) is not here temporal (Heb. ix. 26), ὁσάκις ὑμῶν ἀναμνησθῶ, Chrys., Winer, Gr. p. 350,—a mean- ing favoured by the incorrect interpr. of πάσῃ τῇ pv.,—but semilocal, and correctly expresses the idea of close B 2 incom- 4 PHILIPPIANS 1. 3, 4. “- , ea TH μνείᾳ UMW, and complete connection, ‘my giving thanks is based upon my remembrance of you,’ ‘remembrance and gratitude are bound up together’ (comp. Isaiah xxvi. 8), the primary idea being, not addition (Alf.), but superposition, Donalds. Cratyl. § 172, Gram. § 483: see notes on ch. iii. 9, and on Eph. li. 20, where interchange the acci- dentally transposed ‘former’ and ‘latter. In Rom. i. 10, and Eph. i. 16 (see notes), where ἐπὶ is used with the gen. in a very similar sen- tence, a certain amount of temporal force seems fairly recognisable. The causal meaning, ‘de eo quod vos mei recordamini,’ Homberg, Michael., al. (comp. 1. Cor. i. 4), according to which ὑμῶν is a gen. subjecti, is exegetically untenable, as ver. 5 gives the reason for the edxap., and specifies something which far more naturally elicited it. μνείᾳ ὑμῶν] ‘remembrance of you,’ t Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i. 3; not ‘com- memorationem vestri,’ Van Hengel, a meaning which, as Meyer rightly observes, it only receives when asso- ciated with ποιεῖσθαι ; comp. Rom. i. 9; Eph. i. 16, τ Thess. i. 2, Philem. 4. 4. πάντοτε-- ποιούμενος] Participial sentence defining and explaining more fully when the εὐχαριστῶ x.7.d. takes place, viz., on every occasion that he prayed for them ; the εὐχαριστία was based on, and inseparable from, the μνεία, and this thankful remembrance ever found an utterance in every prayer. Ildytore is clearly not to be joined with εὐχαριστῶ (Wiesing.), a construction which interferes with the studied and affectionate cumulation πάντοτε, πάσῃ, πάντων (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8), in the participial clause ; comp. Col. i. 3, where it also seems best (contr. Meyer, De W.; see notes) to , ς , , e 4 4 TQAVTOTE ἐν Taoy δεήσει μου ὑπερ join the adverb with the participle. It may be remarked that no inference can be drawn from the position of πάντοτε (a favourite word with the Apostle), it being as often used by him after, as before, the verb with which it is connected: in the other writers of the N.T. (except John viii. 20, where it is emphatic) it precedes the verb. On the emphatic repetition, πάντοτε, πάσῃ, πάντων, see the copi- ous list of exx. in Lobeck, Paralip. p- 51 sq. ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν] These words may be connected either (a) with τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος, Calv., De W., Alf. al., or (Ὁ) with δεήσει μου, Auth. and all Engl. Vv., Meyer, al. Both are grammatically tenable; the omission of the article before ὑπὲρ πάντων being perfectly justifiable in the first case (see notes on Eph, i. 15), and according to rule in the second; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126 (ed. 6). The latter, how- ever, seems much more simple and natural; the πάντοτε is defined by πάσῃ δεήσει, and πάσῃ 6. again is limited by ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, while the art. attached to δέησιν (Alf. seems here to argue against himself; comp. with Meyer) refers it back to the δέησις thus previously limited: so most of the ancient Vv., Syr., Ital., Vulg. Copt. The construction adopted by Kst., Hoel., al., εὐχαρ.---ὑπὲρ πάντ. ὑμ., though elsewhere adopted by St. Paul (Eph. i. τό, comp. Rom. i. 8, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. i. 3), seems here very unsatisfactory. On the meaning of δέησις (a special form of προσευχή), see notes on 1 Tem. 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 μεμνη- PHILIPPIANS I. 4, 5. 5 , e A A lo A , , TAYTOV ULWY μετὰ χαρὰς τῆν δέησιν ποιούμενος. 5ις ἃ ὅ ἐπὶ ic , ε “ τὶ \ 3 IY: 5 Ἁ TH κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγελιον ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας μένος θυμηδίας ἁπάσης ἐμπίμπλαμαι, Theodoret. 5. ἐπὶ τῇ Kowovia] ‘for your fellowship ; ἐπὶ correctly marking the cause for which the Apostle returned Guanes, “2 Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. ix. [5; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 351 (ed. 6). This clause is most naturally connected with εὐχαρ. (Beng., al., and appy. Greek commentt.), not with τὴν δέησ. ποιούμ. (Van Heng., De W.; comp. Green, Gr. p. 292), as there would otherwise be no specific statement of what was the subject of the Apostle’s εὐχαριστία. De Wette urges as an objection the use of εὐχαρ. 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 semi-local (ethico-local), defining the subject on which the thanks rest, and with which they are closely united, the diff. between which and the present simply ethical use is but slight. Thus then ver. 4 marks the object on which the εὐχαρ. rests, 5 defines when it takes place, ver. 6 why it takes place. Such slightly varied and delicate uses of prepp. are certainly not strange to the style of St. Paul. κοινωνίᾳ εἰς τὸ evayy.] ‘ fellowship toward the Gospel,’ not ‘im the Gospel,’ Syr., Vulg.(but not Clarom.), but ‘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 ver. Chrysost., dpa τὸ συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι κοινωνία ἐστὶ εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον, except that he too much limits the συναντι- λαμβ. to the particular assistance ren- dered to the Apostle (so Theophyl., Bisping), which rather appears in- volved in, than directly conveyed by, the expression. On the other hand, the absence of the article before εἰς τὸ evayy., which confessedly involves the close connection of κοιν. and εἰς τὸ evayy. (Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, p. 123, comp. ch. iv. 15), coupled with the exegetical consideration, that in an Ep. which elsewhere so especially com- memorates the liberality of the Philip- pians (ch. iv. 10, 15, 16), such an allusion at the outset would be both natural and probable (comp. De W.), renders it difficult with Mey. and Alf., to restrict κοινωνία merely to ‘unanimous action’ (Alf.), ‘bon ac- cord’ (Rilliet), and not to include that particular manifestation of it which so esp. marked the liberal and warm- hearted Christians of Philippi; comp. Wiesing. in loc., and Neand. Phil. p- 25. Kowwvia is thus absolute (Acts il. 42, Gal. ii. 9) and abstract,— ‘fellowship,’ not ‘contribution’ (Bisp.), a translation which is defensible (see Fritz. on Rom. xv. 26, Vol. τι. p. 287), but which would mar the studiedly general character of the expression. ‘The interpr. of Theod. (not Chrys. [Alf.]), al., according to which εἰς τὸ evayy. is a periphrasis for a gen. (κοινωνίαν δὲ τοῦ evayy. τὴν πίστιν ἐκάλεσε), is grammatically un- tenable; comp. Winer, Gir. ὃ 30. 5, Ds P74: ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας] ‘ from the first day,’ in which it was preached among them (ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἐπιστεύσατε, Theophyl.), Acts xvi. 13 sq., comp. Col. i. 0. This clause, 6 PHILIPPIANS I. 5, 6. ” = “- 6 ἀχρι τοῦ νῦν, 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 πεποιθὼς κιτ.λ., on account of the absence of the article. This is hyper- criticism, if not error; ἀπὸ πρώτης k.T.. is a subordinate temporal defi- nition so closely joined with the κοινωνία, as both naturally and logi- cally 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,—‘ communionem, eamque a prima die,’ &c.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, and notes on Tim. i. 13. Even independently of these gram- matical objections, the use of πέποιθα, which De Wette and Van Heng. re- mark is usually placed by St. Paul first in the sentence (ch. ii. 24, Rom. li. 19, 2 Cor. ii. 3, Gal. v. 10, 2 Thess. lii. 4), would certainly seem to sug- gest for the part. a more prominent position in the sentence. ‘The con- nection with εὐχαρ. (Gicum., Beza, Beng.) seems equally untenable and unsatisfactory ; such a temporal limi- tation could not suitably be so distant from its finite verb, nor would ἀπὸ πρώτης κιτ.Ὰ. be in har- mony with the pres. evxap., or the prior temporal clause πάντοτε x.T. X. ; comp. De Wette. 6. πεποιθὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] ‘being confident of this very thing, viz., that He who,’ &c., comp. Col. iv. 8; not ‘confident as I am,’ Alford (comp. Peile), but with the faint causal force so often couched in the participle, ‘seeing I am, &c.;’ ‘hee fiducia nervus est gratiarum actionis,’ Beng. This clause is thus, grammatically A Su SN A oe e 9 , TETOLOWS αὐτὸ τοῦτο, OTL O ἐναρξάμενος considered, the causal member of the sentence (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 615) ap- pended to εὐχαριστῶ x.7.X., standing in parallelism to the temporal member, πάντοτε---ποιούμενος K.T.A., and cer- tainly requires no supplementary καὶ (Tynd., Flatt., al.), nor any as- sumption of an asyndeton (Van Heng.). The accus. αὐτὸ τοῦτο is not governed by πεποιθώς (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 refe- rence to which the action extends’ (Kriiger, Sprachi. ὃ 46. 4. 1 8q.), which again is more fully defined by the following ὅτι κ. τ. Δ. ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 23. 5, p. 145 (ed. 6), where several exx. 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; comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. 11. p. 461. ὁ évapEdpevos] God, of course; see ch. 11. 13, and comp. I Sam. iii. 12, ἄρξομαι καὶ ἐπιτελέσω; not each better one of the Philippians (Wakef. Sylv. Crit. Vol. τι. p. 98), an interpr. to which the following ἔργον ἀγαθὸν (see below) need in no way compel us. The verb évapx. occurs again in con- nection with ἐπιτελ. in Gal. iii. 3, and 2 Cor. viii. 6 (Lachm., but only with B). The compound verb does not appear to mark the ‘vim divinam hominum in animis agentem,’ Van Heng. (for see Gal. l.c., and comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 1. 3, 5), but perhaps only differs from ἄρχεσθαι in this, that it represents the action of the verb as more directly concentrated on the object, whether (as here) ex- pressed, or understood ; see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. ἐν, E, Vol. 1. p. 912. PHILIPPIANS I. 6. 7 ᾽ Ἐπ κω, ἃ 9 A ᾽ , » sews A εν υμιν εργον ἀγαθὸν ἐπιτελεσει αχρίς ἡμέρας Χριστοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘in you,’ sc. ‘in animis vestris, comp. 1 Cor, xii. 6; not ‘among you,’ Hamm., which would scarcely be in harmony with ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, ver. 7. The com- mencement of the good work was not limited to instances among the Phi- lippian Christians, but was spoken generally in reference to all. ἔργον ἀγαθόν] ‘a good work,’ not “the good work,’ Luth.: not else- where used in ref. to God (yet comp. John x. 32), but only in ref. to man ; comp. Acts ix. 36, Rom. ii. 7, 2 Cor. =o. tpn. 11. ro, Col. i, το, Heb, xiii. 21, al. Still there is no impro- priety in the present use; the ἔργον ἀγαθόν, though here stated indefi- nitely, does not appear to refer sub- jectively to the good works (Syr. ; τὰ κατορθώματα, Chrys.), the ἔργον τῆς πίστεως (τ Thess. i. 3) of the Philip- pians generally (Reuss, Theol. Chret. Vol. 11. p. 172), but rather objectively to the particular κοινωνία eis εὐαγγ. previously specified: God had vouch- safed unto them, among other bless- ings, that of an open hand and heart (ταύτην ὑμῖν δωρησάμενος τὴν προθυ- μίαν, 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,’ Auth., but ‘ will bring it toa complete and perfect end,’ Syr. sea) [implebit]; see notes ν κι on Gal. iii. 3. With regard to the dogmatical application of the words, which, owing to their probable spe- cific reference, cannot safely be pressed, it seems enough to say with Theophyl., ἀπὸ τῶν παρελθόντων καὶ περὶ τῶν μενόντων στοχάζεται: the in- ference is justly drawn, that God who has thus far blessed them with His grace will also bless them with the gift of perseverance; comp. 1 Cor. i. 8: ‘Gottes Art ist es ja nicht, etwas halb zu thun,’ Neand. The charge of semi-Pelagianism brought against Chrysostom in loc. has been satisfac- torily disproved by Justiniani, who thus perspicuously sums up that great commentator’s doctrinal statements ; ‘vult Chrysostomus Deum et incipere et perficere: illud excitantis, hoc ad- juvantis est gratize ; illa liberi arbitrii conatum prevertit, hec comitatur.’ On the doctrine of Perseverance ge- nerally, see the clear statements of Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik, ὃ 513, 514, Vol. i. p. 534—549. The con- clusions arrived at are thus stated ; “ Perseverantia est effectus sanctifica- tionis. Sanctificatio est conditio per- severantie. Datur apostasia regeni- torum, nempe si in sanctificatione inertes sunt,’ p. 548; comp. also some admirable comments of Jack- son, Creed, x. 37. 4 56. ἄχρις ἡμέρας Xp. “Ino.] ‘unto, or up to, the day of Christ Jesus,’ ὁ. 6. ἄχρι τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Κυρίου, Theoph. That St. Paul in these words assumes the nearness of the coming of the Lord (Alf.) cannot be positively as- serted, refer this to future generations (τοῖς It is certainly evasive to 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 ad- dressed to the individual, an exalta- tion and amplification of that term. Death indeed, as has been well re- bas Ty 8 PHILIPPIANS I. 6,7. ᾽Ιησοῦ: 7 καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ , ε A ὃ ᾿ bed 9 ~ ’ ς “ aS TTAVTWV UMWV, OLA TO EX ELV fLE EV TH καρδίᾳ υμᾶὰς, EV TE τοις marked 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 re- surrectionem tanquam ad scopum re- ferendi sunt oculi,’ Calv. To main- tain then that this is not the sense in which the Apostle wrote the words (Alf) seems here unduly and inde- monstrably exclusive. See notes on 1 Tim. vi. 14, and compare (with caution) Usteri, Lehrb. τι, 2. 4 B, p- 326 sq. On ἄχρι and μέχρι, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. 7. καθώς x. τ. Δ. ‘even as: ex- planatory statement of the reason why such a confidence is justly felt ; comp. I Cor. i. 6, Eph. i. 6. On the nature of this particle see notes on Gal. iii. 16, and on Eph. l. c. δίκαιον] “ right,’ “ meet, scil. ‘secun- dum legem caritatis,’ Van Hengel ; it is in accordance with the genuine nature of my love (1 Cor. xiii. 7) to entertain such ὦ confident hope: comp. Acts iv. 19, Eph. vi. 1, 2 Pet. i. 13. Alford (with Meyer and De W.) remarks that the two classical constructions are δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο Pp. (Herod. τ. 39), and δίκαιός εἰμί τοῦτο gp. (Plato, Legg. x. 897). The last construction is the most idiomatic (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 55. 3. 10), and perhaps the most usual in the best Greek, but there is nothing un- classical in the present usage ; comp. Plato, Republ. I. 334, τούτοις τοὺς πονηροὺς ὠφελεῖν. τοῦτο φρονεῖν ] “10 think this,’ Auth., Syr.; ‘hoc sentire, Vulg. ; ὁ. 6. to entertain this confidence: “φρονεῖν hic non dicitur de animi affectu sed de mentis judicio,’ Beza; comp. I Cor. iv. 6 (Rec.), Gal. v. 10, To refer δίκαιον τότε τοῦτο to the prayer in ver. 4, ‘hoc curare pro vobis,’ Wolf (comp. Conyb.), or to the expectation in ver. 6, ‘ hoc omnibus vobis appetere, 5011. omni cura et precibus,’ Van Heng., is unsatisfactory, and is cer- tainly not required by ὑπέρ, which occurs several times in the N. T. (2 Cor. i. 6, 8; 2 Thess. 11: 15 ae a sense but little different from περί ; see Winer, Gr. § 47. 1, p. 343. The probable distinction,—‘ περὶ solam mentis circumspectionem, ὑπὲρ simul animi propensionem significat’ (Weber, Demosth. p. 130), is perfectly recog- nisable in the present case, but can- not be expressed without a peri- phrasis, 6. g. ‘to entertain this fa- vourable opinion ahout you,’ ‘ ut ita de vobis sentiam et confidam,’ Est. On the uses of ὑπὲρ and περί, see notes on Gal. i. 4, and on φρονεῖν, see Beck, Seclenl. 111. 19, p. 61, sq. διὰ τὸ ἔχειν k. τ. Δ. “ because I have you in my heart,’ Ra oes) 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 confidence. In all cases the context, not the mere position of the accusatives, will be the surest guide ; comp. Johni. 49: see also Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p. 294 (ed. 6). The translation of Beza, ‘in animo tenere’ =‘ quasi insculptum habere memo- rie’ (Theod. ἄσβεστον περιφέρω τὴν μνήμην, see esp. Justin. in loc.), is op- posed both to the similar affectionate expressions, 2 Cor. iii. 2, vil. 3, and to the prevailing use of καρδία (comp. Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 111. 24, Ὁ. 89, 84.» notes on ch. iv. 7, and on 1 Tum. i. PHILIPRIANS* ΤΕ ‘7 9 ὃ A Ὁ" Se 9 , A , a b) εσμοῖς μου Kal ἐν TH ἀπολογίᾳ Kal βεβαιώσει του evay- , , a I ’ ee ld γελίου συγκοινῶώνους μου τῆς χαρίτος TAVTAG UMAS ὄντας. 5)inthe N. T. It is the fervent love of the Apostle that is expressed ; and in this remembrance is necessarily in- volved ; comp. Chrysost. in loc. ἐν te τοῖς δεσμοῖς x. τ. A.] It is doubtful whether these words are to be connected with the preceding διὰ τὸ ἔχειν x. τ. Δ. (Chrys., Theoph.), or with the succeeding συγκοινωνούς μου κ. τ. X. (Calvin, Lachm., Tisch.) Neander and the majority of modern commentt. adopt the former; the latter, however, seems more simple and natural. The Apostle had his confidence because he cherishes them in his heart ; and he cherishes them because their liberality showed that whether in his sufferings (δεσμοῖς) which they alleviated, or in his exer- tions for the Gospel (τῇ ἀπολ. καὶ βεβ.) with which they sympathised, they all were bound up with him in the _ strictest On τε--καί, spiritual fellowship. which here serves to unite two, otherwise separate and dis- tinct, notions, slightly enhancing the latter, see Hartung, Partik., Vol. 1. p- 98, and comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ κ. τ. A.] “in my defence (of) and confirmation of the Gospel.’ been somewhat perversely interpreted. ᾿Απολογία and βεβαίωσις are certainly These words have not synonymous (Rheinw.),—nor do they form an hendiadys sc. don. eis βεβ. (Heinr. ; comp. Syr. ‘ defen- sione que est pro veritate [confirma- tione| evangelii’),—nor can τῇ don. be dissociated from τοῦ evayy. (Chrys.), both being under the vin- culum of a common article (Green, GE Tk 211),—nor finally does it seem necessary to restrict the clause to the judicial process which resulted in the Apostle’s imprisonment (Van | Heng.). It seems more natural to give’ both words their widest re- ference ; to understand by ἀπολογίᾳ St. Paul’s defence of the Gospel, whether before his heathen judges (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 16) or his Jewish opponents (comp. Phil. i. 16, 17), and by βεβαιώσει his confirmation and establishment 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 (comp. Acts xxvili. 23, 30): see the good note of Wieseler, Chronol. p. 429, 430. συγκοινώνους kK. τ. A.] ‘seeing that both in my defence of and, &e., ye all are partakers with me of my grace; ‘ut qui omnes me- cum consortes estis gratiz,’ Schmid, comp. Hamm., and Scholef. Hints, p. 104. characterised as ἔν τε---συγκοιν., 1s The preceding ὑμᾶς, further rhetorically repeated (see Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 4, p. 275 sq.) to support πάντας; the whole clause serving to explain the reason for the ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ. It is doubtful whether μου is to be connected (a) with συγκοινωνοὺς as asecond genitive (Syr., Copt.), or (6) with τῆς χάριτος (comp. Clarom., Vulg.), the pronoun being placed out of its order (Winer, Gr. ὃ 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 con- text alone must decide: this, in con- sequence of the meaning assigned below to χάρις, seems in favour of (α); comp. ch. ii. 30: so Hammond, De Wette. τῆς χάριτος] The reference of this subst. has been dif- ferently explained: the Greek com- mentators refer it more specifically 10 PHILIPPIANS I. 8. 8 , ’ 9 τ e Θθ , e 9 θῶ , Cae ’ μαρτυς γαρ μου ἐστιν O EOS, WS ἐπίποῦω παντας υμας εν 8. μου ἐστίν] So Rec. with ADEJK ; great majority of mss.; very many Vv. (but Vv. in such cases can scarcely be depended on for either side) and many Ff. (Griesb. [but om.], Scholz), The ἐστὶν is omitted by Tisch. and bracketted by Lachm. with BFG; 17. 67**; Vulg. Clarom.; Chrys. (ms.), Theod, Mops. (Meyer, Alj.). The external evidence seems too decidedly in favour of the insertion to be overbalanced by the somewhat doubtful in- ternal argument that ἐστὶν is a reminiscence 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, ‘ to the grace of suffering,’ comp, ver. 29; Rosenm., al. to the ‘ munus apo- stolicum,’ 5011, ‘ye are all assistants to me in my duty,’ Storr, Peile ; others again to the ‘eyangelii donatio,’ comp. Van Heng. ; others to grace in its widest acceptation, Eph. 11, 8, Col. i. 6 (De W., Alf.). Of these the first is too restrictive, the rest, esp. the last, too vague. The art. seems to mark the χάρις as that vouchsafed in both the cases previ- ously contemplated, sufferings for (ver. 29), and exertions in behalf of, the Gospel. The transl. ‘ gaudii,’ Clarom., Vulg., Ambrst., al., is appa- rently due to the reading χαρᾶς, though no Mss. have been adduced in which that variation is found. 8. μάρτυς yap k.t.A.] Harnest con- firmation of the foregoing verse, more especially of διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ 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 ἐπιποθῶ] ‘how I long after you,’ comp. ch, ii. 26, Rom. i. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i. 4. The force of ἐπὶ in this compound does not mark intension, (‘vehementer desi- dero,’ Van Heng., ‘expetam’ Beza), but, as in ἐπιθυμεῖν and similar words, the direction of the πόθος ; see notes on 2 Tim. 1. 4, and Fritz. Rom. i. 9, Vol. 1. p. 31. Again, it seems quite unnecessary with Van Heng. to re- strict the πόθος to ‘vestre consuetu- dinis desiderium ;’ the longing and yearning of the Apostle was for some- thing more than mere earthly reunion, it was for their eternal welfare and blessedness, and the realization, in its highest form, of the χάρις of which they were now guykowwvol, The con- text seems clearly to decide that ws here, and probably also Rom. i. 9, is not ‘quod’ (Rosenm., De W.) but ‘quomodo’ (Syr., Copt.), scil. ‘ quanto- pere,’ ‘quam propense,’ Corn. a Lap. ; compare Chrys., οὐ δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν πῶς ἐπιποθῶ. ἐν σπλάγχνοις *I. X.] This forcible expression must not be understood merely as qualita- tive, —‘ opponit Christi viscera 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. Mey. in loc. who has well main- tained this more deep and spiritual in- terpretation. ᾿Εν thus retains its na- tural and usual force (contr. Rilliet) and the gen. is not the gen. auctoris or originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 17), as PHILIPPIANS I. 8, 0. σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ "Inco. 11 A “ ’ 9 Kat τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, Ὁ“ ε τ , ΕΓ ἮΝ 54 lax A “ , 9 ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ἔτι μάλλον καὶ μάλλον περισσεύῃ ev appy. Chrys., σπλάγχνα γὰρ αὕτη [ἡ συγγένεια ἡ κατὰ Χρ.] ἡμῖν χαρίζεται, but simply possessive. We can hardly term this use of σπλάγχνα (BM) completely Hebraistic, as a similar use is sufficiently common in classical Greek (see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v., Vol. 11. p. 1504); the verb σπλαγχνίζομαι, however, and theadjec- tives πολύσπλαγχνος and εὔσπλαγχνος (when not in its medical sense, Hip- pocr. p. 89) seem purely so, while, on the contrary, the subst. εὐσπλαγχ- via occurs in Kurip. Rhes. 192, For a list of Hebraisms of the N. T. ju- diciously classified, see Winer, Gr. § 3, p. 27 54. 9. καὶ τοῦτο mpoo.| ‘Et hoc recor,’ but not ‘propterea precor,’ as Wolf 2: the καὶ with its simple copulative force introduces the Apos- tle’s prayer (ver. Q—II) alluded to in verse 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 τοῦτο, but καὶ τοῦτο προσ. προσ, To con- nect the clause closely with what pre- cedes (Rilliet) destroys all the force of ver. 8. ἵνα] The force of this particle is here what has been called hypotelic (see notes on Eph. i. 17); t.e. it does not directly indi- cate the purpose of the prayer, but blends with it also its subject and purport: Theodorus in loc. para- phrases it by a simple infin. It may be again remarked that this secondary and blended use in the N.T. (esp. after verbs of prayer), though not recog- nised by Meyer and Fritzsche, cannot be safely denied ; there are numerous passages (setting aside the disputed use after a prophecy) in which the full telic force (‘in order that’) cannot be sustained in translation without artifice or circumlocution ; e.g. comp. Meyer on John xv. 8. We may ob- serve, too, that this use of ἵνα is not confined to the N.T.; it was certainly common in Hellenic Greek (see exx. 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 peri- phrasis of the infinitive ; see Corpe, Gramm. p. 129, 130. ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν] ‘your love,’ not—to- wards the Apostle (Chrys.),—which had been so abundantly shown as to leave a prayer for [108 almost unnecessary ; nor again, ‘to- ward God’ (Just.), nor even, ‘towards one another,’ Mey., Alf. (Theodorus unites the two; comp. Wiesing,), both of whichseem unnecessarily restrictive. It seems rather ‘towards all’ (comp. De W.), —a love which, already shown in, and forming an element of, their κοινωνίᾳ, 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. Examples of the very intelligible μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον will be found in Kypke, Vbs. Vol. 11. p. 307. περισσεύῃ ἐν κ. τ. A] ‘may abound in knowledge and all (every form of) perception,’ not ‘in all kn. and per- ception,’ Luther,—an attraction for increase which there seems no authority. The exact force of ἐν is somewhat doubt- ful; it can scarcely (a) approximate in meaning to μετά, Chrys. (who, however, fluctuates between this prep. and ἐξ), Corn. a Lap., al. ; for this use, though grammatically defensible 12 (comp. exx. in Green, Gr. p. 289), is not exegetically satisfactory, as ver. 10 shows that it is not to ἀγάπη together with érvyv. and αἰσθ. but to ἐπιγν. and αἰσθ. more especially, as insphering and defining that love, that attention is directed ; nor (Ὁ) does it exactly denote the manner of the increase (De W.), as this again seems to give too little pro- minence to émvyv. and αἰσθ. ; nor, lastly, is ἐν here instrumental, Flatt., Heinr.,—as love could hardly be said to increase by the agency of know- ledge. The prep. is thus not simply equivalent to μετά, κατά, or διά (much less to εἰς, comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 5, p- 370), but with its usual force marks the sphere, elements, or par- ticulars, in which the increase was to take place ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 345. It was not for an increase of their love absolutely that the Apostle prayed, for love might be- come the sport of every impulse (comp. Wiesing.), but it was for its increase in the important particulars, a sound knowledge of the truth and a right spiritual perception, and of both of which it was to have still more and more. Περισσεύειν is thus not absolute, but closely in union with ἐν and its dat., and may be con- sidered generally and practically as identical with abundare and an abl., the substantives defining the elements and items in which the increase is realised ; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 7, Col. ἢ ΔΙ, Lachm. reads περισσεύσῃ with BDE, al., but as two of these mss, D [E?] adopt the aor. in ver. 26 without critical support, their reading is here suspicious. ἔπιγν. Kal πάσῃ αἰσθ.] These two substantives may be thus distinguished ; ἐπίγνωσις, ‘ accurata cognitio’ (see notes on Eph. i. 17), denotes a sound knowledge of PHILIPPIANS I. 9, 16, Py IW rn ernie ao ἊΣ ’ , 4 ’ t 4 , ἐπιγνώσει καὶ Taon αἰσθήσει: 10” Σ᾽ ὦ AY ἃ , ς κα Cle ΤΌ οκιμάζειν υμαὰας theoretical and practical truth (Mey.), τὴν προσήκουσαν γνῶσιν τῶν els ἀρέτην — συντεινόντων, Theodorus. Αἴσθησις, ‘sensus’ (Clarom., Vulg.) is more generic, but here, as the context implies, must be limited to right spiri- a» on» tual discernment (60 9 ἢ 50 [intelligentia spiritus] Syr.), a sen- sitively correct moral perception (νόησις, Hesych.) of the true nature, good or bad, of each circumstance, case, or object which experience may present ; comp. 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 instrumental derivative αἰσθητήριον (‘organ of feeling,’ &c.) is found Heb, v. 14; comp. Jer. iv. 19. The adj. πάσῃ is not intensive (‘plena et solida,’ Calv.), but, as appa- rently always in St. Paul’s Epp., extensive, ‘every form of ;’ comp. notes on Eph, i. 8. Io. εἰς Td δοκιμάζειν K.t.A.] ‘for you to prove things that wre excellent ; purpose of the περισσ. ἐν ἐπιγν. καὶ αἰσθ. (not result,—a meaning gram- matically admissible, but here inap- plicable, comp. Winer, Gr. 44. 5, p. 294, note), to which the further and final purpose iva ἦτε x.7.X. is appended in the next clause. The words δοκ, τὰ διαφ. both here and Rom. ii. 18 may correctly receive two, if not three, different interpretations, varying with the meanings given to διαφέροντα, and the shade of meaning assigned to δοκιμάζειν. Thus they may imply either (a) ‘ to prove (distinguish be- tween) things that are different,’ i.e. to discriminate (δοκιμάζειν καί δια- κρίνειν, Arrian, Epict. 1. 20), —whether simply between what is right and wrong (Theoph. on Rom. ii. 18, De PHILIPPIANS I. τὸ. 13 Q , [2 “" ᾿ A Q ς ’ 5 Ta διαφέροντα; να TE εἰλικρινεῖς και aT POTKOTOL εἰς W.), or between different degrees of good and their contraries (εἰδέναι τίνα μὲν κάλα τίνα δὲ κρείττονα τίνα δὲ παντάπασι τὰ διαφορὰν πρὸς ἄλληλα ἔχοντα, Theod.); so Beza, Van Heng., Alf., al. ; (Ὁ) ‘to approve of things that are excellent, ‘ut pro- betis potiora,’ Vulg., τὰ διαφέροντα being used in the same sense as in Matth. x. 31, xii. 12, Luke xii. 7, 24 (Mey. adds Xen. Hier. 1. 3, τὰ diap., Dio Cass. XLIV. 25), and δοκι- pagew in its derivative sense, comp. Rom. xiv. 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, and exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v.; so Auth. Mey. al.; or lastly (ὁ) ‘ te prove, bring to the test, things are excellent,’ Syr. [ut discernatis convenientia], Auth. [ut perpendatis que prestat', the primary meaning of dox. being a little more exactly preserved; see Rom. xii. 2, Eph. v. το. Exegetical considerations must alone decide; these seein slightly in favour of the meaning of διαφέροντα (‘ prestabilia, sc. in bonis optima,’ Beng.) adopted in (6) (6,),—the prayer for the in- crease of love being more naturally realized in proving or approving what is excellent, what is really worthy of love, than in merely discriminating between what is different. Between (ὁ) and (6,) the preceding αἰσθήσει and the prevailing lexical meaning of dox. decides us in favour of the latter; so Theophyi. (τὸ σύμφερον δοκιμάσαι καὶ ἐπιγνῶναι τίνας μὲν χρῆ φιλεῖν καὶ τίνας μή), appy. Chrys., Beng. (‘ ex- plorare et amplecti’), al., who appear correctly to hold to the more ex- act meaning of δοκιμάζειν: notes on Eph. v. το. εἰλικρινεῖς] ‘pure, 2 Pet. ili, 1; ΘΗ Cor. vy. 8; 2 Cor. i. £2, 11. 17. The derivation of this adj., though a word not uncommon either in earlier comp. or later Greek, is somewhat doubtful. The most probable is that adopted by Stalbaum (Plato, Phed. 77 A), who derives it from εἶλος [he must mean εἴλη]} and κρίνω, with reference to a root εἰλεῖν. As, however, the primary meaning of this root is not quite cer- tain, εἰλικρ. may be either ‘ what is parcelled off by itself’ (gregatim), with reference to εἴλη (see esp. Buttmann, Lexil. § 44, and comp. Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. 8.v.), or more probably, ‘ volubili agitatione secretum,’ with ref. to the meaning volvere, which has recently been indicated as the primary meaning of εἰλεῖν ; see esp. Philol. Museum, Vol. 1. p. 405 sq. So appy. Hesych. εἰλικρινές" TO καθαρὸν Kal ἀμιγὲς ἑτέρου ; see Plutarch, Quest. Rom. § 26, εἰλι- κρινὲς καὶ ἀμυγές ; ib. 78. et Osir. § 54, καθαρὸς οὐδ᾽ εἰλικρινής, and esp. ὃ 6r, where τὰ εἰλικρινῆ and τὰ μικτὰ are opposed to each other; comp. also Max. Tyr. Diss. 31. The more usual, but less probable, derivation is from etn, ‘splendor’ [‘EA-, cogn. with SEA, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. I. p. 460], in which case the rough breath- ing would be more suitable; comp. Schneider on Plato, Rep. ii. p. 123. Several exx. of the use of eidexp. will be found in Loesner, Obs. p. 350, Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 308, and Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. το, of which the most pertinent are those above. ἀπρόσκοποι) ‘without offence, stwm- bling ; ‘inoffenso cursu,’ Beza; in- transitively as in Acts xxiv. 16, Hesych. ἀσκανδάλιστον ; comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 495. Chrys. and others give an act. meaning, as in 1 Cor. x. 32, ‘giving no offence,’ εἰλικρ. marking their relation to God, ἀπροσκ. their relation to men. This hardly accords with the context, in which their inward state and relations 14 ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, PHILIPPIANS I. fo, 11. Tl Ἂ 4 \ ὃ , πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν OLKAaLOTUYNS τὸν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον Θεοῦ. to God form the sole subject of the prayer. It will be best, then, in spite οὔτ Cor. l.c., to maintain the intrans. meaning ; soappy. Vulg., Syr., Copt. ; but these are cases in which the Vv. scarcely give a definite opinion. εἰς ἡμέραν Xp.] ‘against the day of Christ? ‘in diem,’ Vulg., scil. iva τότε εὑρεθῆτε καθαροί, Chrys. ; not ‘till the day,’ &c., Auth. Ver. (comp. Beza), which would rather have been expressed by ἄχρις ἡμέρας, as in ver. 6. The preposition has here not its temporal, but its ethical, force ; comp. ch, ii. 16, Eph. iv. 30, and notes on 2 Tim. i. 12. On the expression ἡμέρα Xp. see the notes on ver. 6. 11. πεπληρωμένοι K.7.A.] ‘deing filled with the fruit of righteousness ; modal clause defining more fully εἰλικρ. καὶ ἀπρόσκ. and specifying not only on the negative, but also on the positive, side the fullest and com- pletest Christian development. The accus. καρπὸν (καρπῶν, Rec. is unsup- ported by uncial authority) is that of ‘the remoter object,’ marking that in which the action of the verb has its realization ; so Col. i. 9, πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν Tod θελήματος ; comp. Hartung, Casus, p. 62 sq. and notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, where this construc- tion is discussed. If we compare Rom. xv. 14, πεπληρωμένοι πάσης γνώσεως, we may recognise the pimary distinction between the cases : the gen., the ‘ whence-case,’ marks the absolute material out of which the fulness was realised (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 16); the accus., the ‘ whither-case,’ the object towards which and along which the action tended, and, as it were, in the domain of which the fulness was evinced ; see Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 9. 1, p. 63. The gen. δικαιοσύνης is the gen. originis, that from which the καρπὸς emanates (Hartung, Casus, p. 63), or perhaps more strictly, that of the originat- ing cause (Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 125),—a καρπός that is the production of δικαιοσύνη ; comp. Gal. v. 22, Eph. v. 9, James 111, 18, and on the mean- ing of καρπός, notes on Gal. l.c. With regard to the strict meaning of δικαιοσύνη it may be briefly remarked that we must in all cases be guided by the context: here verse to and the apparent emphasis on καρπὸν point to dcx. as a moral habitus (comp. Chrys.), as in Rom. vi. 13, Eph. v. Ὁ al.,—not ‘ justification’ proper (Rilliet), but the righteousness which results from it and is evinced in good works ; so Calv., Mey., De W. On the distinction between the ‘righte- ousness of sanctification’ and the ‘righteousness of justification,’ see esp. the admirable sermon of Hooker, § 6, Vol. 111, p. ὅτι (ed. Keble), and on the doctrine of justification gene- rally, the short but comprehensive treatise of Waterland, Works, Vol. VI. p. 1—38. τὸν διὰ I. X. serves to specify the καρπός, as being only and solely through Christ, comp. notes on 2 Tim. 1.13. This fruit is a communication of the life of Christ to his own (Wiesing.) it results from ‘the pure grace of Christ our Lord whereby we were in Him [by the working of the Spirit He sent, Gal. ii. 20, iii. 22, Mey. ] made to do those good works that God had appointed for us to walk in,’ King Edw. VI. Catech., cited by Waterl., Justif. Vol Vi. pi 3% εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπ. Θεοῦ] ‘to the praise and glory of God ; the praise and glory of God is the ‘ finis primarius’ of the πεπλη- PHILIPPIANS 1 τὰ; 19. Know that my suffer- ings have furthered the Gospel, for Christ is preached by all. I indeed would fain depart to Christ, but for your sake I shall remain. ρῶσθαι. Hence ‘ad gloriam,’ Beza, is more exact than ‘in gloriam,’ Clarom., Vulg.; see notes on Eph. i. 6. Δόξα is here, as Meyer per- tinently remarks, the ‘majesty’ of God per se, ἔπαινος, the ‘praise and glorification’ of the same; comp. pe, 1.16, 12, 14. 1 Pet. i. 7. 12. ywookev δὲ κιτ.λ.] ‘Now 1 would have you know : the transitional dé (Hartung, Partik. δέ, 2. 3, Vol. 1. p- 165) introduces the fresh sub- ject of the Apostle’s present con: dition at Rome, his hopes and fears ; comp. Hom. i. 13, t Cor. xii. 1, 1 Thess. iv. 13 al. It seems rather far fetched in Meyer, followed by Alf., to refer γινώσκ. to ἐν. ἐπιγν. above, ‘and as a part of this know- ledge I would have you know,’ ὅτ. There certainly seems no peculiar em- phasis in γενώσκειν ; the order is the natural one (comp. Jude 5) when βούλομαι is unemphatic; contrast 1 Tim. ii. 8, v. 14 al. Though few minor points deserve more attention in the study of the N.T. than the col- location of words, we must still be careful not to overpress collocations which arise not so much from design as from a natural and instinctive rhythm ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 8. τὰ κατ ἐμέ] ‘my circumstances,’ ‘rerum mearum conditio,’ Wolf; comp. Eph. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7, Tobit x. 8, and see illustrations in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 234, Wetst. in Eph. l.c. In such cases κατὰ is local, and marks, as it were, an extension along an object; comp. Acts xxvi. 3, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. d, p. 356. In late writers, κατὰ with a personal pronoun becomes almost equivalent εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν, 15 12 Τ᾽ νώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, ἀδελφοί, Μ“ 4 >) 5 A wn 9 A ~ OTL τὰ KaT ἐμὲ μάλλον εἰς προκοπὴν TOU 4 A 13 ὥστε τοὺς δεσ- to a possess. pronoun, and with a subst. almost equiv. to a simple gen. ; comp. 2 Macc. xv. 37. μᾶλλον] ‘rather,’ not ‘maxime’ or ‘excellenter’ (comp. Beza), but ‘ potius,’ rather than what might have been expected, —viz. hindrance: see Winer, Gr. § 35. 4, p. 217, by whom this use of the comparative is well illus- trated. προκοπήν] ‘ advance,’ ‘ furtherance ; a substantive of later Greek condemned by the Atticists, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 15, and comp. Triller on Thom. ΜΙ. s. v. p. 741 (ed. Bern.) who, though perhaps justly pleading for the word as an intelligible and even elegant form, is unable to cite any instance of its use in any early writer, Attic or otherwise. Numerous exx. esp. out of Plutarch, are cited by Wetst. in loc. ἐλήλυθεν] ‘have fallen out,’ Auth. Ver. ; comp. Wisdom xv. 5, εἰς ὄνειδος ἔρχεται. Further but doubtful exx. are cited by Raphel, Amnnot. Vol. τι. p- 499 ; at any rate, from them take out Mark v. 26, Acts xix. 27 (cited even by Meyer), in which ἐλθεῖν cer- tainly implies nothing more than simple (ethical) motion. Alford ad- duces Herodot. I. 120, és ἀσθενες ἔρχεται, which seems fully in point. 13. ὥστε τοὺς Seop. κιτ.λ. “80 that my bonds have become manifest in Christ ; illustrations of the above προκοπή ; first beneficial result of his imprisonment: ‘duos nunc sigillatim Apostolus fortune sue adverse me- morat effectus,’ Van Heng. The order of the words seems clearly to imply that ἐν Xp. must be joined, — not with δεσμούς, Auth. Ver., al., scil. ‘ad provehendum Christi honorem,’ 16 PHILIPPIANS I. 13. μούς μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ γενέσθαι ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραι- Calv., but with φανερούς, on which, perhaps, there is a slight emphasis ; the δεσμοὶ were not κρυπτοί, but © φανεροί ; nor φανεροὶ only, but φανεροὶ ἐν Xp., ‘manifesta in Christo,’ Clarom., manifest —not ‘through Christ,’ Theoph., Gicum., but ‘in Christ,’ manifest as borne in fellowship with Him, and in His service. On this important qualitative formula, which must never be vaguely explained away; see notes on Gal. li. 17, and for a brief explanation of its general force, comp. Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol. 111. p. 763 (ed. Keble). The variation gav. γενέσθ. (Chrys. adds τοὺς) ἐν Xp. with DEFG, Boern. Vulg. al., shows perhaps that some difficulty has been felt in the connection. ἐν ὅλῳ τῳ πραιτ.] ‘in the whole pre- torium. The meaning of πραιτώριον in this passage has heen abundantly discussed. Taken per se, the adjec- tival subst. ‘pretorium’ has appa- rently the following meanings: (a) ‘the general’s tent,’ sc. ‘ tentorium or tabernaculum’ (Livy, VII. 12), and de- rivatively ‘the council of war’ held there (Livy, XXvI. 15); (Ὁ) the ‘ palace of a provincial governor’ (Cicero, Verr. 1. 28; comp. Matth. xxvii. 27, Mark, xv. 16 al.) sc. ‘ domicilium,’ and thence derivatively, (a) ‘the palace of a king’ (Juv. Χ. 161 ; comp. Acts xxiii, 35), and even, (8) ‘the mansion of ἃ private individual’ (comp. Suet. Octav. 72); lastly, (c) ‘the body guard of the emperor’ (Tacit. Hist. Iv. 46) ; and thence not improbably (d) ‘the guard-house or barracks where they were stationed ; comp. Scheller, Lex. s.v., from which this abstract has been compiled. In the present passage Chrys. and the patristic expositors all adopt (}, a) and refer the term to ‘the emperor's palace’ (τὰ βασίλεια), but since the time of Perizonius (de Pret. et Pre- torio, Franeq. 1687) nearly all modern commentators adopt (d), and refer πραιτ. to the ‘Castrum Preetoria- norum’ built and fortified by Sejanus, not far from the ‘ Porta Viminalis ;’ comp. Suet. Tiber. 37, Tacit. Ann. IV. 2, Dio. Cass. ἀντι πῦρ patristic interpretation, on account of the lax use of ‘preetorium,’ seems fairly defensible ; as, however, there is no proof that the imperial palace at Rome was ever so called, and as it is ex- pressly said, Acts xxviii. 16, that St. Paul was delivered τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῳ (one of the two Prefecti Preetorio, perhaps Burrus) and by him assigned to the custody of a (Pretorian) sol- dier, it seems more probable that the Apostle is here referring to the ‘cas- trum Pretorianorum,’—not merely to the smaller portion of it attached to the palace of Nero (Wieseler, Chronol. p- 403, followed by Howson [Vol. 11. p. 510, ed. 2], and Alf. em loc.), but as ὅλῳ and the subsequent generic τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν seem to imply,— to the whole camp of the Przetorians, whether inside or outside the city,— in which general designation it is not improbable that the οἰκία Kaloapos (ch. iv. 22) may be included: see The interpr. ‘hall of judicature,’ Hamm., al. (see Wolf in loc.) does not appear either satisfac- tory or tenable. The arguments based on this passage by Baur (der Apost. Paul, p. 469 sq.) against the genuineness of this Ep. must be pro- nounced very hopeless and uncon- vincing. καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς] ‘and to all the rest,’ beside the Pree- torian camp, ‘reliquis omnibus Rome versantibus,’ comp. Neander, Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 317 (Bohn); not ‘to notes in loc. PHUEIPPEANS: I 63, 18 , \ a a la TWOL@ Kat Τοῖς λοιποῖς TAGLVs, 17 4 4 , A ™4 καὶ Tous wAelovas τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου περισ- σοτέρως τολμᾶν ἀφόβως τὸν λόγον λαλεῖν. the rest of the Pretorians’ (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 457), a meaning too limited ; nor, ‘hominibus exteris (gen- tilibus) quibuscunque,’ Van Heng., a meaning which οἱ λοιποὶ certainly does not necessarily bear. Vulg., Aith., and Auth. refer τοῖς λοιποῖς to locality, ‘in other places’ (ἐν τῇ πόλει πάσῃ, Chrys.), the dative being under the vinculum of ἐν: this is gramma- tically possible, but as λοιπὸς is not elsewhere applied to places in the N.T., not very probable; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2. 14. καὶ τοὺς πλείονας] that the greater part of the brethren ; second beneficial effect of the Apostle’s The presence of the ‘and imprisonment. article obviously shows that πλείονας must here retain its proper compara- tive force,—not ‘many,’ Auth. Ver. Ὁ» it em [multitudo] Syr., but ‘the SS greater portion,’ ‘the more part,’ as Auth. in Acts xix. 32, xxvii. I2, 1 Cor. ix. 19, xv. 6. So also 2 Cor. li. 6, iv. 15, ix. 2, where both Luth. and Auth. incorrectly retain the positive. ἐν Kup. πεποιθ.] ‘having m the Lord confidence in my bonds ;’ not ‘in regard of my bonds’ (Flatt, Rill.), which vitiates the con- struction ; the dative not being a dat. ‘of reference to’ (comp. Gal. i. 22), but the usual transmissive dat. At first sight it might seem more simple and natural with Syr. to connect ἐν Kuply with ἀδελφῶν, ‘brethren united with, in fellowship with the Lord,’— a construction admissible in point of grammar (Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123), but open to the serious objection that though the important modal 15 Ties adjunct, ἐν Κυρίῳ, occurs several times in St. Paul’s Epp. with sub- stantives or quasi-substantives, e.g. Rom. χυὶ 8. 15, pli) ivy, ie νῖ 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 im loc. On the contrary, πεποιθ. is found similarly joined with ἐν Kup. ch. ii. 24, Gal. v. 10, 2 Thess. lil. 4, comp. Rom. xiv. 4. The ob- jection, that in these and similar cases πεποιθ. stands first in the sentence (AIf.), is not here of any moment ;’ the emphasis rest on ἐν Κυρίῳ, and properly causes its precedence: surely it must have been ‘in the Lord’ and in Him only that confidence could have been felt—when in bonds: so rightly Meyer, and very decidedly Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 124. περισσοτέρως τολμᾶν] ‘are more abundantly bold,’ scil. than when I was notin bonds ; not ‘are very much emboldened,’ Conyb., a needless dilu- tion of the comparative ; ‘hac freti plus solito audere debemus, jam in persona fratrum pignus victorie nostre habentes,’ Calv. The con- struction adopted by Grot., Baumg. Crus., al., περισσ. ἀφόβως, i.e. dpoBw- Tépws, is eminently unsatisfactory ; each verb naturally takes it own adverb. With ἀφόβως λαλεῖν, comp. Acts iv. 31, ἐλαλοῦν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ παῤῥησίας, a passage which may have suggested here the insertion of the nearly certain gloss τοῦ Θεοῦ, as in AB; about 20 mss. ; majority of Vv. (Lachm.). The variations (see Tisch.) serve to confirm the shorter reading. 15. τινὲς pevk.t.A.] ‘But this is not Cc 18 PHILIPPIANS JI. 155, 16. μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν" 16 the case with all; some preach from bad motives.’ The previous definition, ἐν Kup. πεποιθ., seems to render it impossible that the τινὲς μὲν should be comprised in the ἀδελῴοί, ver. 14. The mention of ‘speaking 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 οἱ μὲν as in ver. 16) his Judaizing,—not his unbelieving (Chrys.)—opponents, while in τινὲς δὲ he reverts to the sounder majority mentioned in ver. 14. Kai, with its common contrasting force in such col- locations (see notes on ch. iv. 12; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636, and exx. in Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p- 136, 137) marks that there were, alas! other motives beside the good ones that might be inferred from the preceding words. Alford 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. Ὁ, Ῥ. 355 (ed. 6), and notes on Gal. iv. 13. Alberti adduces somewhat pertinently Philemon [ Major, a comic poet, B.C. 330] πολλά με διδάσκεις ἀφθόνως διὰ φθόνον; see Meineke, Com. Fragm. Vol. Iv. p. 55. It is scarcely necessary to add that the transl. ‘amid envy,’ Jowett on Gal. iv. 10 is quite untenable: διὰ with an accus. in local or quasi-local references is purely poetical ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 18, p. 236. δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν) ‘on account of, from, good will,’ ἀπὸ προθυμίας ἁπάσης, Chrys.,— towards the Apostle; not towards © τὴ >] τ , 9 f (v4 οἱ μεν ἐξ αἀγαπῆής. εἰδότες ὅτι others in respect of their salvation (Kst.). De Wette objects to this meaning of εὐδοκία as not sufficiently confirmed, and adopts the transl. ‘good pleasure,’ scil. of me and my affairs. This seems somewhat hyper- surely the opposition διὰ φθόνον coupled with ἐξ ἀγάπης, ver. 16, seems sufficient to warrant the current translation; 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 comments of Andrewes, Serm. xt. Vol. I. p. 230 (Angl. Cath. Libr.). The καὶ refers to contrary motives just enunciated ; and the party specified under τινὲς δέ, though practically coincident with the πλείονες, are yet, as De W. rightly observes, put slightly under a diffe- rent point of view, and as forming the opposite party to those last men- tioned. Thus of those who spake the word, τινὲς μὲν were factious and en- vious, τινὲς δὲ full of good will and kindly feeling, and these latter were they who constitute the πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν, ver, 14. 16. ot μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης] ‘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 οἱ μὲν and οἱ δὲ a little more exactly specified, the order being inverted. In Kec. the more natural order is preserved, but is very insufficiently supported, viz., only by one of the second correctors of Ὁ, K (J omits οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθ. to pov), other mss. ; Syr. (Philox.) and other Vv., and several Greek Ff. The Auth. Ver. and apparently nearly all the older expositors make oi μὲν the subject, and refer ἐξ ἀγάπης to the critical ; PHILIPPIANS I. 16, 17. 3 κ͵ ’ ~ 4 A “- εἰς ἀπολογίαν Tov εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι: 19 17 δι δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι θλίψιν supplied clause, τὸν Xp. κηρ.; so also Matth., Alf., and other modern com- mentators. This is plausible at first sight, but on a nearer examination can hardly be maintained. For jirst, ἐξ ἀγάπης would thus be only a kind of repetition of διὰ εὐδοκίαν, as also ἐξ ἐριθ. of διὰ φθόνον ; and secondly, the force of the causal participial clause would be much impaired, for the ob- ject of the Apostle is rather to specify the motives which caused this diffe- rence of behaviour 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 Mey., Wies., and (in language perhaps too confident), Van Heng.: where appy. all the an- cient Vv. are on the other side, it is On the ‘qui ab amore originem ducunt,’ see notes on Gal. iii. 7, and Fritz. on Rom. ii. 8, Wol. το p. 105. εἰδότες ὅτι κιτιλ. ‘as they know that I am ap- pointed for the defence of the Gospel,’ ie. ‘set to defend the Gospel,’ Tynd., Cran.; participial clause explaining wthe motives of the behaviour, comp. Rom. v. 3, Gal. ii. 6, Eph. vi. 8 al. They recognise in me the appointed defender of the Gospel,—not the in- capacitated preacher, whose position claims their help (Est., Fell 2), but the energetic Apostle whose example quickens and evokes theirco-operation. Κεῖμαι has thus a purely passive re- ference, not ‘jaceo in conditione misera, Van Heng. (a meaning lexi- cally defensible, see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v.), but ‘ constitutus sum,’ Aith., ‘I am set,’ Auth., θεός με κεχειροτόνηκε, Theodoret: so Luke 11, 34, τ Thess. iii. 3. The Apostle not wise to be too positive. expression, of ἐξ ἀγάπης, was in confinement, but not, as far as we can gather, either in misery or in suffering ; comp. Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. τι. Ὁ. 515 sq. ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγ. is referred by Chrys., Theoph., and Gcum. to the account (τὰς εὐθύνας) of his minis- try, 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 havea different meaning to that which it bears in ver. 7; Chronol. p. 430 note. 17. ot δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας] ‘but they (that are) of party feeling or dissension ἢ opposite class to of ἐξ ἀγάπης, ver. see Wieseler, 16. On the derivation and true mean- ing of épifeia,—not exactly ‘ conten- tion,’ Auth. (comp. Vulg., Syr., Copt.), followed by many modern commen- tators, but ‘intrigue,’ ‘party spirit’ (ἀναιδῶς κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν περϊιόντες, Theod.), as appy. felt by Clarom. ‘dissensio,’ and perhaps A‘th.,—see notes on Gal. v. 20. On the most suitable translation, comp. notes on Transl. καταγγέλλουσιν] ‘declare, ‘proclaim; in effect not different from κηρύσσειν, ver. 16 (καταγγέλλεται" κηρύσσεται, Hesych.), but perhaps presenting a little more distinctly the idea of ‘ promulgation’ ‘making fully known’ (Xen. A nab. τι. 5.11, τινὶ τὴν ἐπιβουλήν) ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 14, Col. i. 28, and Acts xvii. 3, 23, in which latter book the word occurs about ten times. It is peculiar to St. Paul and St. Luke. In this compound the prep. appears to have an intensive force, as in καταλέγειν, καταφαγεῖν κ.τ.λ. ; see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. iv. 4. Οὐχ ἁγνῶς (‘ insin- c 2 20 5 , A A EVEL PELV τοις δεσμοῖς μου. cerely,’ ‘with no pure intention,’ οὐκ εἰλικρινῶς οὐδὲ δ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα, Chrys.) belongs closely to Καταγγ.; and marks the spirit in which they performed the xarayyedla. On the meaning of ἁγνός (‘in quo nihil est impuri’}, see notes on 1 Tim. v. 22, and Tittm. Synon. I. p. 22. οἰόμενοι K.T.A.] ‘thinking (thus) to raise up, &e.;’ not exactly parallel to εἰδότες, ver. 16, but explanatory of οὐχ ἁγνῶς. The verb οἴεσθαι seems here to convey a faint idea of inten- tion, though of an intention which was not realized; e.g. Plato, Apol. 41 D, οἰόμενοι βλάπτειν (cited by De W.); καὶ καλῶς εἶπε τὸ οἰόμενοι" οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἐξέβαινεν, Chrys. The reading ἐγείρειν (Rec. ἐπιφέρειν) is supported not only by the critical principle, ‘proclivi lectioni prastat ardua,’ but also by the weight of Uncial authority, ABD*FG; _ so too threemss., Vulg., Clarom., Goth. (Tisch., Lachm.). Tots δεσμοῖς pov] ‘unto my bonds,’ dat. incommodi, Jelf, Gr. § 602. 3; en- deavouring to make a state already sufficiently full of trouble yet more painful and afflicting. There is some little doubt as to the exact nature of this θλίψις. Is it outward, i.e. dangers from the inflamed hatred of heathen enemies (Chrys.), or inward, i.e. ‘trouble of spirit’ (Alf.)? 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 artificial, but, more probably, ill-treat- ment at the hands of Jews and Juda- izing Christians, which the false teach- ing of the oi ἐξ ἐριθείας would be sure to call forth. Calvin very prudently observes, ‘ erant plurime occasiones 18 PHIEEPPIANS .1. 17. 18. ΓΑ ΡΥ 4 ᾿ 7 TL yao; πλὴν παντὶ τρόπῷ; [Apostolo nocendi] que sunt nobis incognitz qui temporum circumstan- tias non tenemus.’ 18. τί γάρ] ‘ What then; ‘quid enim,’ Vulg., or perhaps more ex- actly, ‘quid ergo;’ not ‘quid igitur,’ Beza, which is not commonly thus used in independent questions. The uses of τί γάρ may be approximately stated as three; (a) argumentative, answering very nearly to the Lat. ‘quid enim,’ and while confirming or explaining the preceding sentence, often serving to imply tacitly that an opponent has no answer to make; see Hand, Tursell. Vol. τι. p. 386. It is thus often followed by another inter- rogation ; comp. Rom. 111. 3, Job xxi. 4; (Ὁ) affirmative; answering very nearly to ‘ profecto’ or the occasional ‘quid ni’ of the Latins (Hand, Twrsell. Vol. Iv. p. 186); comp. Eurip. Orest. 481, Soph. Gd. Col. 547, and see Herm. Viger, No. 108, and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Vol. τ. p. 537, who how- ever has not sufficiently discriminated between the exx. adduced; (ὁ) rheto- rical, as appy. here, answering more nearly to ‘quid ergo’ or ‘quid ergo est? (Hand, Z'wrsell. Vol. 11. p. 456), and marking commonly eitherastartled question (comp. Gd. Col. 544, 552), or, as here, and appy. Job xviii. 4, a brisk transition (‘ ubi quis cum alacri- tate quaédam ad novam sententiam transgreditur,’ Kiihner on Xenoph. Memor. τι. 6. 2), and thus perhaps differing from the calmer τί οὖν. In every one of these cases, however, the proper force of ydp (‘sane pro rebus comparatis’), though successively be- coming more obscure, may still be recognised; here, for example, the question amounts to, ‘ things being then as I have described them, what is my state of feeling? See Klotz, PHILIPPIANS 1. 18. 21 ; ’ εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ, Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται, καὶ Devar. Vol. I. p. 247 sq. All sup- plements, διαφέρει (Chrys.), joe μέλει (Theoph.), φήσομεν (Van H.), &e., are perfectly unnecessary, if not un- critical. πλήν] ‘ notwith- standing,’ ‘nevertheless ,;’ this particle, probably connected with πλέον (Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. τι. p. 39, 323), not with πέλας (Hartung, Partik. Vol. τι. p- 30), has properly a comparative force, especially recognisable in the disjunctive comparison πλὴν ἤ (see Donalds. Cratyi. ὃ 100), and its use with the gen. e.g. Mark xii. 32, John vii. 10. This might be termed its prepositional use. passed by an intelligible gradation into It however soon an adverbial use, and came to imply little more than ἀλλά, ‘ nevertheless,’ ‘abgesehen davon’ (ch. 11]. 16, iv. 14, 1 Cor. xi. 11, Eph. v. 33), with which particle it is not unfrequently joined ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 725. παντὶ τρόπῳ] ‘in every way,’ scil. of preaching the Gospel, more exactly defined by εἴτε---εἴτε. 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 emphasis in ch. iil. 2. The answer seems reasonable, that St. Paul is here contemplating the per- sonal motives rather than alluding to the doctrines of the preachers; nay, more, that perverted in many respects as this preaching might be, CHRIST is still its subject, and to the 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 pretensedly, so it be done, it is to him [St. Paul] and should be to us, matter (not only of contentment, but also) of rejoicing,’ Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. v., p. 190 (Angl. C. Libr.); see esp. Neander, Planting, Vol. τ. p. 318 (Bohn), and comp. Stier, Reden Jes. Vol. II. 29. εἴτε προφάσει κ. τ. λ.] ‘whether in pre- tence or in truth » datives expressive of the manner, technically termed, modal datt.; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p- 193, and especially Jelf, Gr. ὃ 603, by whom this use of the dat. is well illustrated ; compare also Hartung, Casus, p. 69. The phraseological annotators, esp. Wetst. and Raphel (Vol. 11. p. 500) adduce numerous instances of a similar opposition be- tween πρόφασις and ἀλήθεια or τἀλη- θές; these are quite enough, inde- pendently of the context, to induce us to reject the transl. of προφάσει, adopted by Grot., al. ‘occasione,’i. e., ‘be the good not intended but only occasioned by them,’ Hammond. On the more general meaning of the here more limited ἀλήθεια, comp. Reuss, Theol. Chret. τν. 16, Vol. IL, p. 169. ἐν τούτῳ] ‘ 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. ‘ dariiber,’ though apparently not very common in the best prose, is certainly no Hebraism (Rilliet); see Winer Gr. § 48. a, p. 346. Meyer compares Plato, Republ. x. 603 0, ἐν τούτοις πᾶσιν ἢ λυπουμένους ἢ χαίροντας. ἀλλὰ καὶ xap.] ‘yea, and I shall re- joice ;’ not exactly, ἀεὶ ὑπὲρ τούτων χαρήσομαι, Chrys., Calv., but, in more strict connexion with the following fut., when the dof. εἰς σωτ. is being realized. The punctuation is here not quite certain. Zachm., followed by Tisch. and Mey., places a full stop before ἀλλά, and a colon after xap., thus connecting οἶδα yap more imme- 22 9 , ᾿ 5 ‘ Q 4 εν τουτῷ χαίρω" ἀλλὰ Kal χαρήσομαι" diately with the present clause. . This seems right in principle both on gram- matical, as well as exegetical, con- siderations: 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 comma (Alf. has a comma in text but a colon in transl.) suppose an ellipsis of οὐ μόνον before χαίρω. This is very ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ has here its idiomatic meaning ‘at etiam,’ the unsatisfactory. faintly seclusive force of ἀλλὰ serving specially to confine attention to the new assertion which the καὶ annexes and enhances; see Fritz. Rom. vi. 5, Vol. 1. p. 374. It may be observed that in these words, and also in some uses of the idiomatic 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 practically little more than impart a briskness and em- phasis to the declaration; see Klotz, /.c., p. 8, Hartung, Partik. Vol. I. p. 35. Lastly, we should be careful to distin- guish between the present use of ἀλλὰ καὶ and (a) where a hypothetical clause precedes, evoking a more distinct opposition, 6. g. 1 Cor. iv. 15, 2 Cor. iv. 16; (Ὁ) where an opposition is involved in the terms themselves, e. g. Diod. Sic. v. 84 (Fritz.), ἐν ταῖς νήσοις ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν; or (c) where ἀλλὰ occurs in brisk ex- hortation, e. g. Soph. Philoct. 796, ἀλλ᾽ ὦ τέκνον καὶ θάρσος ἴσχε; in which passage Hermann’s proposed emendation τὶ θάρσος does not seem either plausible or necessary. 19. οἶδα γάρ] Confirmation of the words immediately preceding, the γὰρ having its simple argumentative PHILIPPIANS 11. 18, το. 19 οἶδα yap ὅτι force. If with Calv., Bisp., al. this clause be referred to ver. 17, yap must have more of an explicative force (comp. notes on Gal. ii. 6) : such a ref. however, is unduly regressive ; τοῦτο here can only mean the same as τούτῳ ver. I19,—the more extended preaching of the Gospel of Christ. The words τοῦτο--σωτηρίαν occur in Job xiii. 16, and may have been a reminiscence. εἰς σωτηρίαν] ‘to salvation.’ The exact meaning of σωτηρία has been very differently ex- plained. It has been referred to (a) ‘salus corporea,’ scil. ‘escape from present danger,’ ἀπαλλάγην Chrys., who however fluctuates; ‘preserva- tion in life,’ τὸ ὅσον οὐδέ πω μαρτύριον, αὔοαμα. [not as Alf.], and appy. Syr.; (Ὁ) ‘salus spiritualis,’ ‘Seelen- heil,’ De W., ‘his own fruitfulness to Christ,’ Alf. ; (Ὁ 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 salu- tem 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 prevailing meaning of σωτη- pia in St. Paul’s Epp.: comp. ver. 28, ch. ii. 12, and εἰς cwr. Rom. i. 16, 2 Thess. ii. 13. Sia τῆς k. τ᾿ X.] ‘through your supplication and the supply of the spirit of J. C. »᾽ the two means by which the σωτηρία ° is to be realized, intercessory suppli- cation 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, &c.,’ on the ground that διὰ τῆς, or at least τῆς would have been inserted. PHILIPPIANS I. το, 20. 29 γ ν ΄ εν’ 9 , ς a καῖ Oe πον ee ; TOU TO μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς TWTHOLAV ta THY υμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγΐας τοῦ [Πνεύματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ze Independently of the very unsatis- factory meaning in a dogmatical point of view, this is not grammatically exact. No article is required. Each substantive has its own defining gen., and on this account the second may dispense with its art.; so Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 118 (ed. 6). Meyer is un- fortunate in referring to Winer in sup- port of his interpr., as that gram- marian expressly adopts the more natural construction. ἔπι- χορηγίας τοῦ IIv.] ‘supply of the Spirit. These words admit of two in- terpretations according as τοῦ II». is considered a gen. objecti or subjecti: comp. Winer, Gir. § 30. 1, p. 168. If the former, the meaning will be, ‘the supply which is the Spirit,’ the gen. 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 auctoris, Hartung, Casus, p. 17; so Theodrt., De W., Mey. This latter in- terpr. is on the whole to be preferred, as the parallelism, ‘the prayers you offer—the aid the Spirit supplies’ is thus more exactly retained. Wiesing. and Alf. urge Gal. iii. 5, but this can hardly be considered sufficiently in point to fix the interpretation. Still less tenable is the assertion that the gen. subjectt would have required the order τοῦ Πν. I. X. ἐπιχορ. as in Eph. iv. τό (Alford) ; for in the first place exx. of the contrary (and indeed, usual) order are most abundant, see Scheuerl. Synt. p. 126, Winer, Gr. p. 167; and in the next place the gen. in Eph. J. ὁ. is confessedly of a different grammatical class ; see notes in loc. The Spirit is here termed τὸ Πν. Ine. Xp., not merely because Christ gives iN κατα Himself spiritually in and with the Holy Ghost (Meyer on Rom. viii. 9), but because that eternal Spirit pro- ceeds from the Son; so Pearson, Creed, Vol. I. p. 383: in a word the gen. is notso much a definitive or quasi- possess. gen., asa simple gen. originis, Hartung, Casus, p. 23. Lastly, on ἐπιχορηγία, which perhaps retains a slight shade of the primary meaning of xopyy. in the ampleness and libe- rality which it seems to hint at on the part of the gift and giver, see notes on Col. ii. το, and Harless on Eph. iv. τ. The ἐπὲ is directive, not intensive ; see notes on Eph. l. c. 20. κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαρ. ] ‘according to my expectation,’ i.e. ‘even as I am hoping and expecting,’ Syr., ‘sicut speravi et confisus sum,’ Alth. The curious word ἀποκαραδοκία (Hesych. προσδοκία, ἀπεκδοχή), only here and Rom. vill. 19 in the N.T., is derived from κάρα, and δοκέω [possibly allied to a root dic, ‘ monstrare,’ Pott, Etym. Forschung. Vol. 1. p. 185, 267] and properly denotes ‘capitis, 501]. oculorum animique ad rem ab aliquo loco expec- tandam attenta conversio,’ and thence derivatively ‘ patient, persistent, look- ing for’ (Rom. viii. 19), and, with a further weakened force, ‘calm expec- tation,’ as in this place; the meaning necessarily 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’ (Eur. Med. 1117) and simple ‘ expec- tation’ (Eur. Iph. Aul. 1433.). The prep. ἀπὸ is not properly intensive, as in ἀποθεριόω, ΚΟ ΤῚΝ. (Tittm. Synon. p. 106 sq., and even Meyer on Rom. viii. 19), but local : it primarily (so to say) localises the ἀποψεύδομαι, 24 PHILIPPIANS I. 20. ’ , τὰ A 9 τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυν- καραδοκεῖν, by marking either (a) the place from which the observation is maintained, e.g. Joseph. Bell. Jud. 1. 7.26, comp. Polyb. Hist. XVIII. 31. 4, or (b) the quarter whence the thing or issue is looked for, e.g. Polyb. Hist. Xv1. 2. 8,—and comes thence, as in ἀπεκδέχομαι (Germ. abwarten,’ see notes on Gal. v. 5), with a gradual, but intelligible, evanescence of the local idea (‘ quidquid enim expectes alicunde te id expectare oportet,’ Fritz.), to imply little more than the jicedness, permanence, and patience (not ‘solicitude,’ Tittm.) with which the observation is continued, or the expectation entertained ; see Winer, de Verb. Compos. Iv. p. 14, and esp. the excellent of Fritz. Fritesch. Opusc. pp. 150-157. ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχ.] ‘that in nothing I shall be put to shame.’ These words discussion admit of various possible interpre- tations ; for example (a) ὅτι may be either relatival, ‘that,’ τὸ ἐλπίζειν ὅτι, Chrys., or argumentative, ‘ because,’ ‘quia,’ Vulg., Clarom.; (0) may be either neuter (Syr., Auth., al.), or masce. in reference to the preachers of the Gospel (Hoelem.) ; again (c) αἰσχυνθ. may be either passive, ‘ con- fundar,’ Vulg., or with a middle force, ‘pudore confusus, ab officio deflectam,’ Van Hengel. In this variety of interpretation we must be guided solely by the context: and this seems certainly in favour of the above translation : for (a) ὅτι far more naturally follows é\ms as defining the subject to which it refers (comp. Rom. viii. 21) than as supplying the reason why it is entertained ; the latter in- terrupts the sequence, vitiates the logic, and leaves the object of hope undefined. Again, (b) οὐδενὲ cannot be masce. ; for if so, it would have to οὐδενὶ be arbitrarily referred only to the better class of those mentioned above, whereas if neuter it remains perfectly general and inclusive, not merely οὔτε ἐν τῷ ζῆν οὔτε ἐν θανεῖν, Theoph.,— but, in every respect, in every par- ticular (comp. ver. 28), thus forming an antithesis to ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥ. Lastly, (c) aicx. cannot logically be taken with any middle force; St. Paul can scarcely know 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 δυσχερῶν, Theod., but more generally, that he shall not be brought to a state of shame (2 Cor. x. 8, 1 John ii. 28), that he shall not fail in the highest duties and aims of his life; see De W. ὧν loc. who aptly compares the Hebrew Dia Psalm xxxiv. 5 (LXX. καταισχυνθῇ), xix. 2 (LXX. aicxur- θείησαν), and contrasts St. Paul’s favourite term καυχᾶσθαι. GAN ἐν πάσῃ παῤῥ.] ‘but (on the con- trary) in all boldness ; antithesis to the foregoing clause introduced with the full force of the adversative ἀλλά. IIdoy, as has often been remarked (see ver. 9), is not qualitative, ‘une pleine liberté,’ Rill., but, as usual, quanti- tative, ‘every form and manifestation of boldness,’ forming an exact oppo- sition to ἐν οὐδενί above. Ἔν παῤῥησίᾳ is thus not merely ‘in joyfulness’ (Wiesing., comp. Eph. iil. 12), and certainly not σαφῶς, φανερῶς, Gcum., » y comp. Syr, δας 13] [revelata v facie] but, as the contrast and context both imply, ‘in fiducia,’ Vulg. ‘in boldness of speech and action,’ comp. Eph. vi. 19. ὡς πάντοτε PHILIPPIANS 1. 20, 21. 25 θή 5 3 9 ’ ge ’ e ; κ A C00UARL, αλλ εν TAaATH TAPPITLA ως TWAYTOTE καὶ νυν x θή x \ 3 “ , , 4 ὃ A Meya υνθησεται βίστος εν τῷ σώματι (LOU, ELTE ta ~ ΝΜ A , ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου. καὶ νῦν] Temporal clause, following close on the foregoing modal predica- tion (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_ retro- spective corroboratien of ver. 12. μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐν τῷ σώμ..] ‘shall be magnified in my body; ποῦ ἐν ἐμοί, but, in accordance with the studiedly passive aspect given to the whole declaration (obscured by Aith.), —év τῷ σώμ., ‘in my body;’ ‘my body shall be, as it were, the theatre on which Christ’s glory shall be dis- played,’ comp. John xxi. 19 ; and in illustration of this use of ἐν (‘sub- stratum of action’) see notes on (al. fea, Waner, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 345, Meyax. is thus not ‘shall be enlarged,’ ‘augebitur, Copt. (comp. Luke i. 58, 2 Cor. x. 15), with reference to the development and growth of Christ within (Rill. ; comp. Gal. ii. 20, Rom. Vili. 10), which here would not har- monize with the modal ἐν παῤῥ., and still less with the local ἐν cwu.,—but, as in Acts xix. 17, ‘shall be glorified,’ δειχθήσεται ὅς ἐστι, Theod., ‘ gloriosior apparebit,’ Just., the meaning being here appy. a little more forcible than ‘be praised’ (Alf. ; comp. Luke i. 46, Acts v. 13) and pointing more to the general, than to the merely oral, spread of the Lord’s glory and king- dom among men. εἴτε διὰ κιτιλ.} ‘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 instru- ment of my Master’s glory, or be given up to martyrdom for His name’s 21 Kol yap τὸ sake: διὰ μὲν ζωῆς, ὅτι ἐξείλετο" διὰ θανάτου δέ, ὅτι οὐδὲ θάνατος ἔπεισέ με ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτόν, Chrys. Well then might the Apostle say oléa ὅτι... εἰς σωτηρίαν when he could entertain a hope and an expectation so unspeak- ably blessed. The whole verse, and esp. this clause, is strongly confir- matory of the fuller meaning of σωτηρία. 21. ἐμοὶ γάρ] Confirmation and elucidation of the last clause of ver. 20. The yap has no reference to any omitted clause (Bloomf.),—ever a doubtful and precarious mode of ex- plaining this particle.—but simply confirms the preceding assertion by showing the real nature of ζωὴ and θάνατος, according to the Apostle’s present mode of regarding them ; ‘in my view and definition of the term, fife is but another name for Christ,’ Peile. The emphatic ἐμοὶ (‘to me, in my merely personal capacity,’ see Wiesing.) is thus the pronominal dat. judicit (De W.), or perhaps more cor- rectly and more inclusively the dat. of ethical relation (comp. Gal. vi. 14), not merely ‘in my estimation,’ but ‘in my case,’ ‘life in my realisation of it, —a dat. which is allied to, and more fully developed in, the dative commodi or incommodi; see Bern- hardy, Synt. UI. 9, p. 85, and esp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 6. 1 sq., by whom this use of the dative is well illustrated. τὸ ζῆν Χριστός] ‘to live is Christ,’ i.e. living consists only in union with, and devotion to, Christ ; my whole being and activities are his; ‘quicquid vivo Christum vivo,’ Beng.: see Gal. ii. 20, but ob- serve the difference of the application ; there the reference is to faith, here 26 ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος. PHILIPPIANS I. 21, 22. 4 A ~ 9 22 ef δὲ τὸ ζῆν ἐν , AY x , Q , coy, 3 TAOKL, TOUTO μοι καρπὸος ἔργου" καὲ Te αἱρήσομαι, ου 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. (comp. Calv.) ‘si vixero, Christo.’ To (Hv is clearly the subject (‘vita mea,’ Syr., 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 )( ἀποθ., is thus obscured, and the argument impaired: what ζωὴ is in ver. 20 that must τὸ ζῆν be here. Kal τὸ ἀποθ. κέρδος] ‘and [simple copulative] to die is gain; death is gain, as I shall thus enjoy a still nearer and more blessed union with my Lord ; σαφέστερον αὐτῷ συνέσομαι, Chrys., Theoph. Keépdos belongs only to this latter clause, the full mean- ing of which is very easily collected from the context; compare verse 23. To make Xp. the subject to both members of the sentence and τὸ ζῆν and τὸ ἀποθ. accusatives of ‘reference to’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4), ‘ut tam in vita quam in morte lucrum esse predicetur,’ Calv. (comp. Beza), is to mar the perspicuity, and to intro- duce a difficulty in point of grammar, as τὸ ἀποθ. could scarcely be ‘in mori- endo:’ such accusatives commonly point to things or actions which may, so to say, be conceived as extensible, and over the whole of which the pre- dication can range’; see Scheuer. Synt. § 9. 3, p. 68, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 46. 4. 1. Numerous examples of similar expressions are cited by Wetst. in loc., the most pertinent of which is Joseph. Bell. vit. 8. 6, συμφόρα τὸ ζῆν ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις οὐχὶ θάνατος, as it hints at the purely substantival cha- racter of τὸ (jv (opp. to Alf.) and τὸ ἀποθανεῖν. The practical aspects of the subject will be found in Heber, Serm. EVL. XVI. 22. εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῆν κιτ.λ.} ‘but of my living in the flesh—if this is to me the (the medium of) fruit from my labour ;᾽ so Vulg., Clarom., Goth., and (with obscured τοῦτο) Syr., Copt.; oppo- sition suggested by the remembrance of his calling as an Apostle. There are difficulties in this verse in the as well as in the connexion and sequence of thought. We will (1) briefly notice the former: (a) εἰ is not problematical, ‘if it chance,’ Tynd., Cranm., but as individual expressions, Meyer correctly observes, syllogistic, —and virtually assertory. (8) The addition ἐν σαρκὶ does not imply any qualitative difference between τὸ {jv here and τὸ ζῆν in ver. 21 (Rill.), but euards against it being understood in the higher sense, which the preceding τὸ ἀποθ. κέρδος (‘to die, i.e. to live out of the flesh with Christ, is gain’) might otherwise seem naturally to suggest. (y) Τοῦτο is not a redun- dancy ‘per Hebraismum’ (see Glasse, Phil. Sacr. p. 738 [219]), but is de- signed to give special prominence and emphasis to the idea contained in the preceding words ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p- 144. (δ) In καρπός ἐργοῦ the gen. is not a gen. of apposition, ‘opus pro fructu habet,’ Beng., nor a gen. objecti, ‘profit for the work’ (Rill.), but a simple gen. subjecti [originis], ‘proventus operis,’ De W., slo chee [fructus in operibus meis | ΓᾺΡ, i.e. ‘conveys with it, is the condition of fruit from apostolical labour,’ the ἔργον referring to the laborious nature of the apostolic work PEELIPP EAN 1... 129,23. γνωρίζω" (Acts xiii. 2, 1 Thess. v. 15, 2 Tim. iv. 5); καρποφορῶ, διδάσκων καὶ φωτίζων πάντας, Theoph.: comp. Raphel, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 622. (2) The con- mexton then seems to be as follows: in ver. 21 the Apostle had spoken of life and death from a strictly personal point of view (ἐμοί) ; in this aspect death was gain. The thought, how- ever, of his oficial labours reminds him that his life bears blessings and fruitfulness to others ; so he pauses ; ‘objecté spe conversionis multorum, heret atque heesitat,’ Just.: so, in substance, Theophyl. (who has ex- plained this clause briefly and _per- spicuously), Chrys., Theod., Gicum., and after them, with some variations in detail, De W., Meyer, and the best modern editors. Of the other inter- pretations the most plausible is (a) that of Auth., which τοῦτο x.7.\. forms the apodosis, Beng., al., according to ἐστί μοι being supplied after ἐν σαρκί, ‘but if I live in the flesh, this is,’ &c. ; the least so (Ὁ) that of Beza, Genev. (amended by Conyb., but satisfactorily answered by Alf.), according to which εἰ is ‘whether,’ and καρπὸς épyou= ‘opere pretium’ (comp. Grot., Hamm., Scholefield Hints, p. 105, — a more than doubtful translation), scil. ‘and whether to live in the flesh were pro- fitable to me, and what,’ &c. The objection to (a) is the very harsh and unusual nature of the ellipsis ; to (6), independently of grammatical objec- tions, the halting and inconsequent nature of the argument ; see Alf, ὧν loc. καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι κιτιλ. 7 ‘then, or why, what I am to choose [observe the middle] 7 know not ; apodosis to the foregoing. The principal difficulty lies in the use of kal, Though no certain example of an exacily similar use of ei—xai has 27 23 , δὲ 3 “ δύ 4 >) G , συνέχομαι OE εκ τῶν OVO, τῆν ἐπιθυμίαν been adduced from the N.T. (2 Cor. ii. 2 [De W.] is not in point, being there the καὶ of rapid interrogation, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 147) yet the use of καὶ at the beginning of the apodosis is so common (see Bruder, Cone. s.v. καί, D, p. 455) as to render such a use after ef by no means im- probable ; see examples in Hartung, Partik. sv. kal, 2.6, Vol. 1. p. 130, and comp. the somewhat similar use of ‘atque,’ Hand, Twrsell. Vol. 1. p. 481 sq. In such cases the proper force of καὶ is not wholly lost. Just as, in brief logical sentences, it con- stantly implies that if one thing be true, then another will be true also, e.g. εἰ φύσει κινεῖται κἂν βιᾷ κινηθείη, κἂν εἰ βίᾳ καὶ φύσει, Arist. de Anim. ch. 3, p. 9, ed. Bekk.,—-so here, if life certainly subserve to apostolic useful- ness, there will also be a difficulty as to choice. It is thus unnecessary to assume any aposiopesis after the first member, scil. ‘non repugno,’ ‘non egre fero, Miiller, Rill. There is only a slight pause, and slight change from the expected, to a more em- phatic, sequence, which this semi- ratiocinative καὶ very appropriately introduces. On the use of the less exact τέ for πότερον, see Winer, Gr. § 25. 1, p. 153 (ed. 6); and on that of the future in a deliberative clause, Winer, ib. § 41. 4. Ὁ, p. 267. The strict alliance between the future and the subj. renders such an inter- change very intelligible. οὐ γνωρίζω] “1 do not recognise,’ ‘Ido not clearly perceive, —a somewhat ex- ceptional use in the N.T. of yvwp., which is nearly always ‘ notum facio.’ For exx. of the present use, see Ast, Lex. Plat. s.v.; comp. Job xxxiv. 25 (LXX), iv. 16 (Symm.). 23. συνέχομαι δὲ K.7.A.] ‘yea, 1 28 PHILIPPIANS I. 23. “ lan Α ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, πολλῷ yap am held in a strait by the two: anti- thetical explanation of the last member of ver. 22; the faintly oppositive δὲ (not ‘metabatic’? [Mey.] on the one hand, nor equiv, to ἀλλὰ on the other) placing the emphatic συνέχομαι in gentle contrast with the preceding οὐ γνωρίζω. The reading γὰρ (Rec.) has scarcely any critical support, and is only a correction of the less under- stood δέ, On the real difference be- tween these two particles in sentences like the present, see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 3632. The prep. ἐκ is here not used for ἀπό (Bloomf.), nor yet for διά (Heinr., instrumentality would have been expressed by a simple dat, e.g. Matth. iv. 24, Luke viii. 37, Acts xvill. 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 prep. in N.T. are briefly noticed. Lastly, the article is not prospective (comp. Syr.) but retrospective (Mey., al.), referring to the two alternatives previously men- tioned. This is confirmed by the apparent emphasis on ovvéy., and the illustrative connexion with it of the two clauses which follow. τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων] ‘having my de- sire,’ not merely ‘a desire,’ Auth., nor ‘ the desire previously alluded to,’ Hoel. ,—as no ἐπιθυμία, strictly speak- ing, has been alluded to, but ‘the desire which I now feel,’ ‘my desire.’ The ἐπιθυμία thus stands absolutely, its direction being defined in the words which follow. A very eloquent and feeling application of this text will be found in Manning, Serm. xx. Vol. 11. τ. 370 sq. εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι] ‘towards departing,’ ‘turned to de- parture ; not ‘desiderium 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 gen. after ἐπιθ. (comp. Thucyd. vu. 84, τοῦ πιεῖν ἐἔπιθ.), but with the proper force of the prepos. εἰς, ‘desiderio tendens ad dimissionem ; compare Winer, G7. 8. 49. a, p. 354. The prep. is omitted in DEFG; Chrysost. (comm.), appa- rently by accident, as the construction would not thus be made more easy. ᾿Αναλῦσαι is not ‘dissolvi,’ Vulg., nor even “ liberari,’ Syr. pasos (comp. Schoettg. in loc.), but, perhaps with primary reference to breaking up a camp or loosing an anchor, ‘migrare,’ Adth. (comp. Judith xiii. 1, Aflian, Var. Hist. iv. 23), and thence with a shade of meaning imparted by the context, ‘discedere a vita, ἣ Theod. ; comp. notes on 2 Tin. iv. 6, and see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 286 sq., by whom this word is copiously illustrated, add too Perizonius, on Adlian, Var. Hist. l.c. The transl, adopted by Tertull. ‘recipi’ has perhaps reference to the ‘receptui canere,’ and is thus virtually the same; comp. Maill., Prolegom. p. LXVII. καὶ σὺν Xp. εἶναι] From the immediate connexion of this clause with ἀναλῦσαι dogmatical de- ductions have been made in reference to the intermediate state; ‘clare ostenditur animas sanctorum ex hie vita sine peccato migrantium statim ἐντεῦθεν ἀπαλλαγή, post mortem esse cum Christo,’ Hst. ; comp. Cyrill. Alex. cited by Forbes, Instruct. x11. 8. 33, Bull, Zngl. Works, p. 42 (Oxford, 1844), Reuss, Theol. Chret. Iv. 21, Vol. 11. p. 240. With- out presuming to make hasty deduc- tions from isolated passages, we may safely rest on the broad and sound PHILIPPIANS I. 23—2s. μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον" , " e a KQLOTEPOV Ov ὑμᾶς. opinion of Bishop Pearson, that life eternal may be regarded as initial, partial, and perfectional, and that the blessed Apostle is now in the fruition of that second state, and ‘is with Christ who sitteth at the right hand of God,’ Creed, Art. x11. Vol. 1. p. _ 467, and comp. Polyc. ad Phil. 9, εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον αὐτοῖς τόπον εἰσὶ παρὰ Κυρίῳ, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 5, ἐπορεύθη [ILérpos] εἰς τὸν ὀφειλ. τόπον τῆς δόξης. For a contrary view, see Burnet, State of Departed, ch. 111. p. 58; and lastly, for a practical application of the verse, Farindon, Serm. XXxviI. Vol. I. p. 1006 (ed. 1672). volved in the words σὺν Xp. εἶναι, in reference to the soul’s incorporeal state, is explained profoundly, though perhaps somewhat singularly, by Hof- mann, Schriftb. 1. 2, Vol. Il. p. 449, ‘selbst korperlos, wird er den Leib, in welchem die Fiille der Gottheit wohnt, zu seiner Wohnung haben ;’ comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. v1. 6, p- 383 sq. πολλῷ γὰρ κιτιλ.] ‘for at ἐδ very far better,’ scil. being with Christ is so (for me) ; expla- The comparative strengthened by μᾶλλον gives a force and energy to the asser- tion that is here very noticeable and appropriate; comp. 2 Cor. vii. 13, Mark vii. 36, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 35. 1, p. 214. The reading is somewhat doubtful ; yapis omitted by DEFGJK ; great majority of mss., several Vv. and some Ff. (Rec., Griesb. but om. om.) ; as, however, itis found in AB (e sil.) C, 31. 67; Copt.; Or. (1), Bas., Aug. (often andexplicitly),—as D* FG show in this passage marks of incer- titude in reading πόσῳ for πολλῷ, and lastly, as yap might have been thought to interrupt the sequence, we may The meaning in- nation of the foregoing desire. 29 24 \ δὲ 9 , ᾽ 5 Ὧ 9 TO OE ετπίιμενειν EV TH σαρκι avay- - A lan A a 25 Kat τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα ὅτι perhaps safely acquiesce in the inser- tion with Lachm., Tisch., and even Elz. and Scholz. 24. τὸ δὲ ἐπιμένειν «.7.A.] ‘yet to tarry in my flesh ; inthe former verse the Apostle stated what is κρεῖσσον, for himself, now he turns to what is dvay- καιότερον in regard of his converts. Aé is thus simply ‘but,’ ‘yet,’ scarcely ‘nevertheless,’ Auth., which is com- monly a more suitable translation of ἀλλά : on the difference between these particles (‘verum—sed’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 33, 361. The ἐπὶ in ἐπιμ. implies rest in a place (comp. notes on Gal. 1. 18), and hints at a more protracted stay; comp. Rom. vi. 1. The next words ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ are, aS Meyer correctly observes, scarcely quite the same as ἐν σαρκὶ in ver. 22; there the expression was general, here more specific and indi- vidualizing ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ BO 22 3: ἀναγκαιότερον δι᾿ ὑμᾶς] ‘more needful on your ac- count not an inexact comparative (De W.), nor to be diluted into a positive (Clarom., comp. Syr.), nor with reference to the Apostle’s own feelings, scil. ‘quam ut meo desiderio satisfiat,’ Van Heng., Beng.,—but simply ‘more needful,’ scil. than the contrary course, than ἀναλῦσαι κ.τ.λ. This latter course St. Paul might have thought ἀνάγκαιον 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. Auth.), has no lexical authority, and is not supported by the exx. adduced, Obs. p. 353. 25. Kal τοῦτο πεποιθώς] ‘ And being persuaded, being sure, of this; 30 PHILIPPIANS 1. 25. “A 4 ~ lod [ τς 9 Α e ~ 4 4 μένω και παραμένω TAG υμιν εἰς τὴν υμῶν 7 POKOT HV Kal 25. παραμενῶ] So Lachm. with ABCD*FG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Clarom. ; Lat. Ff. (Lachm., approved by Griesb., Alf.). Tisch. reads συμπαραμενῶ, appy. only with EJK, mss. (?); Chrys. (expressly), Theod., Dam., Theophyl., al. (Rec., Scholz, Mey.). While on the one hand, it is possible that the unusual compound might have been changed into the more simple form, still, on the other hand, the dative πᾶσιν might have suggested the insertion. The MSS. authority is moreover far too preponderant to be safely reversed. scil., that my ἐπιμένειν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ is more necessary on your account. ἹΠεποιθὼς has thus its natural force and regimen (ver. 6), and is not to be explained away adverbially, πεποιθό- τως καὶ ἀδιστάκτως οἶδα, Theoph., Δ. ..ω9 2 [confidenter] Syr., Goth., xo = Copt., or blended with oféa (Aith.), but is to be closely connected with τοῦτο, while οἷδα is joined only with ὅτι; ‘persuadens mihi vitam meam vobis esse [magis] necessariam, scio quod Deus me vobis adhuc con- cedet,’ Corn. a Lap. οἶδα] ‘J know ; not with any undue emphasis, ‘prevideo, Van Heng., for see ch. ii. 17, but simply ‘I know,’ itis my present feeling and conviction ; comp. Acts xx. 25. For somewhat analo- gous uses of οἶδα, see the exx. adduced by Van Heng., but observe that even in the strongest (Hom. JI. vi. 447) οἶδα still refers more to the persuasions of the speaker than to any absolutely prophetic certitude. παραμενῶ] ‘continue here (on earth),’ ‘bleiben und dableiben,’ Meyer, who aptly cites Herod. I. 30, τέκνα ἐκγενό- μενα καὶ πάντα παραμείναντα ; add Plato, Phado, 115 Ὁ, ἐπειδὰν πίω τὸ φάρμακον, οὐκέτι ὑμῖν παραμενῶ, ib. Crito 51, παραμείνῃ, opp. to μετοικεῖν ἄλλοσε. On the reading see critical note. The dative πᾶσιν ὑμῖν may be the dative of interest, ‘to support and comfort you’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4), but is here far more naturally governed by the παρὰ in the com- pound ; see Plato, Phad. l.c. Apol. 39 E, appy. Protag. 335 D, and con- trast 1 Cor. xvi. 6, πρὸς ὑμᾶς mapa- μενῶ, where the πρὸς gains its force from the intended journey to them here the Apostle is mentally with those he is addressing. more common regimen than Kriiger (Sprachl. § 48. 11. 9) seems inclined to admit. εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν κτλ] ‘for your furtherance in, and joy of, the faith» not ‘for your furth., and for your joy, &c.,’ Van Heng., there being here no reason whatever to depart from the ordinary rule, Winer, Gr. § 19. 4.d, p. 116 (ed. 6), see Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 368. It is scarcely necessary to say that there is not here any kind of inversion (‘for your joy and for the increase of your faith’) as Syr., nor any just before mentioned ; This is a somewhat disjunction (‘for your furth., and for your faith, and for your joy’) as in A’th., nor any conjunction (‘for the advance- ment of the joy of your f.’), as Mackn.: still the relation of the gen. to the two substantives seems slightly diffe- rent ; in the first case it is a gen. sub- jecti, referable perhaps to the class of the possess. gen. ; in the latter itis a gen. originis, ‘quod ex fide promanat,’ Zanch., and belongs to the general division of the gen. of ablation ; comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 11. 1, p. 79, Donalds. Gr. § 448 sq. Onyapd, comp. Reuss, Theol. Chret. iv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 202, whose definition however, ‘ cette séré- nité de l’ame qui la préserve de tout PHILIPPIANS I. 25—27. Ah χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως, 7° ol ef \ , ς “- tva TO KQAUX NA υμῶὼν περισσεύη 3 a) A 5 - A \ A Sika , , ἐν Χριστῷ ἸΙησοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας παλιν ἮΝ e #™ προς υμας. Live as becometh the Gospel, that whether 2 Μόνον ἀξίως TOU εὐαγγελίου τοῦ absent or present I may hear well of you. Be not dismayed, ye are sufferers for Christ. découragement dans l’adversité,’ im- parts to xapa too passive a character. “Χαρὰ is rather that active and opera- tive emanation of love and thankful- ness that forms the sort of spiritual equipoise to εἰρήνη and ὑπομονή. 26. ἵνα τὸ καύχημα K.T.A.] ‘in order that your matter of boasting may abound in Jesus Christ in me,’ more specific statement of the purpose of the Apostle’s continuance with his converts; the previous abstract εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκ. K.T.r. being expanded into the more definite and concrete ἵνα x.T.X. These words, simple as they seem, have not been always clearly understood. In the first place καύχημα is not the same as καύχησις ; not ‘gloriatio qua gloriamini,’ Corn. a lLap., but (πη, Jerem. xvii. 14), as in Rom. ‘gloriandi materies’ iv. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 15, and appy. every- where in the N.T. (see notes on Gal. vi. 4), this ‘materies’ being τὸ ἐστη- ρίχθαι ἐν τῇ πίστει, Chrys., or gene- rally, their possession of the Gospel (Mey.), their condition as Christians. Again, ἐν Χριστῷ 15 not to be con- nected, directly or indirectly, with καύχημα (‘occasion de vous glorifier detre tnis & Christ,’ Rill.) but with περισσεύῃ, the qualitative ἐν Xp. de- fining, as it were, the blessed sphere in which the increase takes place, and out of which, Christianly speaking, it has no existence. Lastly ἐν ἐμοὶ is neither = δι ἐμοῦ, Heinr., ‘ propter me,’ Grot., nor even ‘de me,’ Beza, but ‘in me,’ Vulg., the prepo- sition here marking the substratum of the action, the mirror, as it were (Zanch.), in which the whole gracious nor procedure was displayed; see notes on Gal. i. 24. It is thus not to be connected with καύχημα directly, or as in Chrys., by inversion, ἵνα ἔχω καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ὑμῖν μειζόνως, nor even with περισσ. alone, but with the com- plete idea τὸ Kady. περισσ. ἐν Xp. 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 action. διὰ τῆς KT.A. is to be closely connected with ἐμοί, as defining the exact means by which the increase of matter of boasting, thus specifically Christian, is to take place ἐν ἐμοί. Passages like the present, in which different predica- tions are grouped closely together, will repay careful analysis. Here it will be seen ἐν Xp. is the mystical and generic predication of manner, ev of place, δια τῆς παρ. of special instrumentality, involving also in its substantive the predication of time; comp. notes on Hph. i. 3, and Donalds. Gr. § 444. 27. μόνον] ‘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 indispensable; τοῦτο ἐστι τὸ ζητού- μενον μόνον καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο, Chrys. ; compare Gal. ii. 10, v. 13, in which latter passage, as here, ‘ verborum tanquam agmen ab illo ducitur,’ Van Heng. In this one requisition many weighty duties are involved. τοῦ evayy. τοῦ Xp.] ‘ the Gospel of Christ,’ i.e. which relates to, which tells of, Christ; τοῦ Xp. being the 32 PHILIPPIANS I. 27. Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε, ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε gen. objecti, not, as Alth. would seem to imply, subjecti, ‘the Gospel taught by Him.’ In such cases the nature of the gen. is not perfectly certain ; that it is the gen. obj. is rendered probable by such passages as evayy. Θεοῦ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Winer Gr. § 30. I, p. 168 (ed. 6). πολιυτεύεσθε] ‘have your conversation,’ ‘behave yourselves,’ or more exactly, ‘lead your life of (Christian) citizen- ship ; comp. Acts xxiii. 1. It can scarcely be doubted that this word, occurring once only in St. Paul's Epp., though examples of very similar exhortations are not wanting (Eph. iv. 1, Col. i. το, 1 Thess. ii. 12) has been studiedly used instead of the more common 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. ili. 20. Numerous exx. of a similar metapho- rical use of the word (‘vivere, non quoad spiritum et animam, sed quoad mores,’ Loesn., ‘ad normam institu- torum in Republicé mores viteque rationem componere,’ Krebs.) will be found in Wetst. ὧν loc., Krebs, Obs. p- 245, Loesn. Obs. p. 226, and esp. in Suicer, Zhesawr. Vol. 11. 799 sq. ἵνα εἴτε ἐλθὼν κ. τ. 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 appy. somewhat inexact in structure. It would seem that ἀκούσω for which (Lachm., with BD*; 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 ap- propriate verb (εὐφράνθω, Chrys., γνῶ, De W.) immediately before ὅτε: in a word, quoad sensum it seems to belong to ἀπών, quoad structuram to Attempts have been made to defend the construction as it stands, either (a) by referring ἀκούσω zeug- matically to both clauses, ‘j’apprenne ἃ votre sujet que,’ Rill. ; or (8) by un- derstanding it to imply ‘ hearing from themselves’ in reference to the first clause, ‘hearing from others’ in the second, Mey. This last explanation is ingenious, but is appy. precluded by “ wa. the opposition between ἰδὼν 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 prefer the warmhearted incuria of such a bra- chylogy to like ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδών εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τὰ restorations εἴτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀκούω ὅτι κ. τ. Δ.» Or, still worse, ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούσας τὰ π. ὑμ. γνῶ ὅτι κ. τ. λ., as suggested by modern commentators. ὅτι στή- kere] ‘that ye are standing; fuller ex- pansion and definition of τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν; the explanatory clause being in structural dependence upon the principal member, according to the ordinary and simplest form of attrac- tion; see esp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 5, p. 551 (ed. 6) 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, &c., 6. g. Mark xii. 34, Acts iii. ro, t Cor. xvi. 15, 1 Thess. iit) al Στήκειν, it may be observed, is not per se, ‘to stand fast, Auth. Ver., ‘perstare,’ Beza, but simply ‘stare,’ Vulg., Syr., Goth., the ideas of readi- ness (comp. Chrys.) persistence, &c., being imparted by the context; comp. PHILIPPIANS” 1. 27, 28. 99 “Δ LAN 9 , Q AeA “ Py eS , - αἰτῶν AKOVGW TA πέρι UMWV, OTL OTIKETE EV EVL πνευματι. MLA “ἢ. θ A ἴω , A 5 XL ψυχῆ συνα λοῦυντες τή TMG Gee Τοῦ Eevayye ἰοὺς 28 καὶ μὴ Apher aa L/S , er ’ ᾿ Sh en TTUPOMEVOL ἐν μηδενὶ UTO τῶν AVTLKELMEVWV, τις ἐστιν αυτοίς enna 4 Cor. xvi. 13, Gal. v. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 8, 2 Thess. 11. 15. ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι] ‘in one spirit ; in one common higher principle of our na- ture. The addition 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, Vol. 11. p. 498), that in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is especially seen and felt. This common unity of the spirit is, how- ever, so obviously the effect of the in- working of the Holy Spirit, that an indirect reference to τὸ Πνεῦμα (comp. Eph. iv. 4) becomes necessarily in- volved. Indeed in most cases in the N. T. it may be said that in every mention of the human πνεῦμα some reference to the eternal Spirit may always be recognised; see notes on 2 Tim. i. 7, and comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. iv. 5, p. 144, sq. μιᾷ ψυχῇ] ‘with one soul striving together for the faith of the Gospel ; making your united efforts for the common faith from one common centre and seat of interests, affections, andenergies. As the higher πνεῦμα which gave direction was to be one and common to them all, so was the lower Ψυχὴ which obeyed those be- hests to be one,—one common seat of concordant affections and energies. The remark of Bengel is true and deep; ‘est interdum inter sanctos naturalis aliqua antipathia: heec vin- citur ubi unitas est non solum spiritus, sed etiam anime.’ On the difference between the πνεῦμα (‘vis superior, agens, imperans in homine’) and the ψυχή, the sphere of the will and affec- tions, the centre of the personality, see Olshausen, Opuscula, Art. VI. p. 145, sq., Beck, Bibl. Seelenlehre, HU. 12, 13, p. 3951: συναθλοῦντες must be united with μιᾷ ψυχῇ. thus forming a participial, and indeed psy- chological, parallel to στήκειν ἐν IIv. It is somewhat singular that the best ancient vv. (Syr., Vulg., Clar., Aith., Copt.), with Chrys. al., agree in re- ferring 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 promi- nence after the semi-emphatic ἐν evi mv. (comp. Jelf, Gr. § 002), and forms a modal adjunct to the undefined συναθλοῦντες especially significant and στήκειν ἐν πνεύματι, συναθλεῖν τῇ ψυχῇ. The force of the prep. σὺν has been differently esti- mated; it is referred by the Greek expositors to the fellowship of the Philippians (συμπαραλαμβάνετε ἀλλή- λους, Chrys.); by Meyer and others to fellowship 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. appropriate ; instrum. (more precisely termed by Kriiger, a ‘dynamic’ dative, Sprachl. § 48. 15), ‘fide Ev.,’ Calv., ‘per fidem Ey.,’ Beza,—this construction having previously occurred in the case of μιᾷ ψυχῇ. Πίστις, here, as nearly always in the N. 'T., has a sub- jective reference ; see notes on Gal. i. 23. 28. πτυρόμενοι] ‘being terrified : dr. λεγόμ. in N. T.; properly used in reference to scared horses (Diod. D 94 PHILIPPIANS 1. 28. 5, ὃ 9 λ ’ eee δὲ , 4 A 9 4 Θ on EVOELCLE ἀπωλείας, υμιν € TWTN PLAS, Kat TOUTO ATO εου Sic. XVII. 34, πτυρόμενοι τὰ χαλινὰ διεσείοντο) thence generally, though often with some tinge of its more special meaning, as in Plut. Mor. 800 ο, μήτε ὄψει μήτε φωνῇ πτυρόμενον, and lastly, as here, in a purely general sense, e. g. [Plato] Axioch. § τό, οὐκ ἄν ποτε mrupelns τὸν θάνατον ; com- pare Hesych. πτύρεται" σείεται, φο- βεῖται, φρίττει, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. II. p. 312. It is not improbably de- rived from a root ITY-,—and allied with πτοέω ; see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. Ἣ Ῥ' <100; TOV ἀντικειμένων] ‘the opposers,’ “ your adversaries; comp. τ Cor. xvi. 9, Luke xiii. 17, xxi. 15, 2 Thess. ii. 4. 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 Christi- anity; not Judaists, but unbelieving Jews (Usteri, Lehrb. p. 332, comp. Acts xvii. 5), or, perhaps more pro- bably, Gentiles ; comp. Acts xvi. 19, sq. ἥτις ἐστὶν κ. τ. A. ] ‘the which is to them,’ ‘seeing ἐξ is,’ &c.; viz., when they see, as they cannot fail to do, if they will pause to consider, that they cannot intimidate you; ὅταν yap of διώκοντες τῶν διω- κομένων μὴ περιγένωνται, οἱ ἐπιβουλεύ- οντες τῶν ἐπιβουλευομένων, οἱ κρα- τοῦντες τῶν κρατουμένων, οὐκ αὕτοθεν ἔσται δῆλον αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἀπολοῦνται, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἰσχύσουσιν, Chrys. The ὅστις as in Eph. iii. 13 al., has here a faint explicative force (see esp. notes on Gal. iv. 23), and is the logical relative to μὴ πτύρεσθαι κ. τ. d., though gram- matically connected (byattraction) with the predicate ἔνδειξις ; see exx. of this species of attraction in Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. 3, Ῥ- 150; comp. also ὃ 66. 5. 2, p- 552, and Madvig, Synt. § 98. The dative αὐτοῖς is the dat. incomm. or, of ‘interest’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4), and is dependent on ἔνδειξις, not on ἀπωλείας (Holem.),—a needlessly in- volved construction. The reading of Rec. αὐτοῖς μὲν ἐστὶν has but little critical support (J K; mss.; Theo- doret, al.) and is properly rejected by all the best editors. ὑμῖν δὲ σωτηρίας] ‘but to you (an evidence) of salvation ;’ scil. of final salvation, as opp. to the preceding ἀπώλεια ; ‘ipsos perdet et ducet in gehennam, vos autem ducet ad salutem et glo- riam,’ Corn. a Lap.; compare similar antitheses, Rom. ix. 22 sq., 1 Cor. i. 18 al., and on the force of ἀπώλεια, notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9. The present reading is somewhat doubtful: ὑμῶν is adopted by Lachm. (so Mey., Alf.) with A B C**; 4 mss; Clarom. San- germ. ; Chrys. (ms.), Aug., al., and is plausible on account of the possible The text is however too strongly supported (D** EF GJ K[quiv C* D*G; 73]; Vulg. Goth. Copt. Basm. Auth. (Platt, Pol.) Syr. (Philox.); Chrys. Theod.) to allow subjective arguments to pre- vail. καὶ τοῦτο κ. τ. λ.7 ‘and this from God,’ comp. Eph. ii. 8 ; ὁ, e. not merely, ‘vos salutem consecutu- ros esse,’ Calv., which would arbi- trarily limit τοῦτο to the latter mem- ber; nor even, ‘illud, adversarios quidem perituros, vos vero salutem’ &c., Grot., but, as the consolatory nature of the context seems to require, with reference to the whole pre- ceding (certainly not sweceeding, Syr. fith., Clem. Alex. Strom. Iv. p. 604, Pott.) declaration, in fact to ἐπίδειξις (Peile, De W., Alf.); ‘et hoc sane non augurium humanum est, sed divinum,’ Van Heng., and sim. Michaelis. Whether it be re- cognised or not as such, there still is conformation of ὑμῖν to αὐτοῖς. PHILIPPIANS 1. 29, 30. 35 20 Φ e oa 9 ’ LS e A xX A 9 , A 3 Civitas οτιυμιν ἐχαρίσθη TOUTED APLTTOU, OV μονον TO εἰς αὐτὸν , 9 4 4A A e A ΕῚ A ’ 30 A 5 A πιστεύειν ἀλλα Kal TO ὑπερ αὐτοῦ πασχειν, TOV αὐτον 9 A x Ὁ x 3 τ Α 4 a 9 , 5) 9 [ἢ ayova EXOVTES OLOV εἴδετε εν ἐμοι Και νὺυν QKOUETE εν εμοι- this token of the issue for either side, and it is from God; comp. Wiesing. in loc. 29. ὅτι ὑμῖν κ. τ. A.] Reason for the declaration immediately preced- ing, by an appeal to their own cases: not exactly, motives to steadfastness (De Wette) ; as, in the first place, the exhortation to be steadfast is implicit rather than explicit; and, secondly, such motives would have been more naturally introduced by ydp. The Apostle says, the ἔνδειξις k. 7. X. is verily not an ‘humanum’ but a ‘ divi- num 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 enabled not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him: the double favour you have received affords the surest proof of the essentially divine nature of the token; see Meyer im loc. ἐχαρίσθη] ‘ was freely gwen ; τὸ πᾶν ἀνατιθεὶς TG Θεῷ, καὶ χάριν εἶναι λέγων καὶ χάρισμα καὶ δωρεὰν τὸ πάσχειν ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, Chrys. The aorist is used as re- _ ferring to the period when the initial grace which has since wrought in the hearts of the Philippians was first given: χαρίζεται would be too pre- sent, aud indeed 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 perfectly harmonizes with the language of im- plied exhortation than the simple re- ference to what they once received, and must show that they now possess. The essential character of the tense (‘quod preeteriit, sed ita ut, non de- finiatur quam late pateat id quodactum est,’ Fritz. de Aor. Vi, Ὁ. 17 86. may here be easily traced. τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ is not ‘in Christi negotio,’ Beza (comp. Auth.), but is logically dependent on the following πάσχειν, and would have been struc- turally associated with it if the Apostle had not paused to interpolate a clause (οὐ μόνον---ὁ πὲρ αὐτοῦ) that serves materially to heighten the as- sertion and add to its significance: ἐκεῖ μὲν ὀφειλέτης εἰμί, ἐνταῦθα δὲ ὀφειλέτην ἔχω τὸν Χριστόν, Chrys. So expressly Syr., Aith., both of which suppress in translation the pre- fixed τὸ ὑπὲρ Xp. 30. ἔχοντες) ‘as you have: fur- ther specification of the preceding πάσχειν, with a consolatory turn sug- gested by the associated example ; καὶ τὸ παράδειγμα ἔχετε. πάλιν αὐτοὺς ἐπαίρει, Chrys. The structure is ‘ad sensum’ rather than ‘ad verbum; the participle being constructed with the ὑμεῖς which is practically involved in the preceding verse, rather than with the ὑμῖν which immediately pre- cedes: see esp. Eph. iv. 2, and notes im loc. Such relapses of the participle into the nominative are far too common to render it necessary with Beng., Bloomf., and what is more singular, Lachm., to enclose ἥτις-- αὐτοῦ πάσχειν in a parenthesis: see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63. 2, p. 505 (ed. 6), Jelf, Gr. § 707. The fre- quent, and almost idiomatic, occur- rence of such anacolutha seems to be referable to the practically weaker force of the oblique cases of parti- ciples. οἷον εἴδετε] “ such as you saw in me,’ sc. when I was with you at Philippi; comp. Acts xvi. 16 Dg 36 Be united in spirit; be lowly in heart as was Christ, who hum- bled Himself unto PHILIPPIANS IL. x. II. ἘΠ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, , τὰ , V4 , εἴ τι παραμύθιον ἀγάπης; εἴ τις κοινωνία death, and was exalted with every measure of exaltation. Sq. : οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀκηκόατε, ἀλλ᾽, εἴδετε" καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ ἤθλησεν ἐν Φιλίπποις, Chrys. prep. marks as it were the substratum of the action ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, Ῥ. 345 (ed. 6), and comp. notes on Gal. i. 24. There is thus no need, with Syr., Aith., to translate the second ἐν ἐμοὶ ‘de me:’ as the Phi- lippians saw the ἀγὼν when he was present with them, so now they hear of it in his Epistle, in which he as it were personally speaks to them ; comp. Mey. The Rec. Text and Griesb. read ἴδετε with B (e sil.) D*** E** FG JK; Theoph., Gcumen. : it can scarcely be doubted that this is simply due to the interchange of εἰ and é (itacism) ; see Scrivener, Col- lation, &e, II. 3, p. LXIX. In the expression ἐν ἐμοὶ the CuapTer II.—1. εἴ tis οὖν. ‘If then, &c.’ The οὖν which has here its reflexive rather than collective force, recalls the readers to the considera- tion of what their duty ought to be under existing circumstances, with a retrospective reference to the exhor- tation in ch. i. 27; ‘revocat οὖν lec- torem ad rem presentem, id est, que nunc cum maxime agitur, eodem prorsus modo, quo Latina particula igitur, Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 717. Beza’s correction of the Vulg., ‘ igitur’ for ‘ergo,’ is thus judicious. On the exact difference between these par- ticles, see Hand, TZwrsell. Vol. 1m. p. 187. παράκλ. ἐν Xp. | ‘ exhortation in Christ,’ i.e. exhorta- tion specified and characterised by being in Him as its sphere and ele- ment. 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 realisable ; comp. notes 07 Eph. iv. τ. Παράκλησις is here ‘ ex- hortation’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 10, Rom. xii. 8, and Fritz. Rom. Vol. I. p. 32), γ on not ‘ consolatio,’ Vulg., Yaez Syr. ρ (comp. Goth., Copt.), which, though lexically tenable (see Knapp, Seript. Var. Arg. Vol. I. Ῥ. 132 8q.), seems here inappropriate when παραμύθιον so immediately follows. The exact distinction between the clauses is somewhat noticeable ; the first (ἐν Xp.) and third (Πνεύμ.), as Meyer observes, certainly point to the objec- tive principles of Christian life, while the second (ἀγάπηθ) and fourth (orddxv. κ. οἰκτ.) point to the swb- jective elements: so also Wiesing., who, however, somewhat unsatisfac- torily refers the first two members to St. Paul, the last two to the Philip- pians. Surely the very terms of the exhortation seem to imply that all must be referred to the Phill. It is the hoped-for, and indirectly assumed, existence of these four elements among his converts 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. παρα- μύθιον ay.] ‘comfort or consolation of love ; ‘solatium charitatis,’ Vulg., compare Syr. in\5 LSsaho ~ - ν [loquutio in cor], Aith., and appy. Copt.; not ‘winning persuasion,’ Wiesing.,—a meaning which is defen- sible (comp. Plato, Legg. x. 880 A, παραμυθίοις εὐπείθης γίγνηται), but PHILIPPIANS Il. 1, 2. V4 , , νεύματος. εἴ τινα σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί, 97 2 πληρώσατέ Α , ef A >) A a δὶ >) A >] , μου τὴν xXapay, va TO αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγαπην here appy. precluded by the paral- lelism σπλάγχνα καὶ ofxr. in the fourth clause. The gen. ἀγάπης is the gen. of the sowrce or agent, ‘ comfort such as love supplies ;’ see Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, p. 126. κοινωνία IIy. | ‘ fellowship of the Spirit; gen. ob- jecti, communion with, participation in the gifts and influence of the Holy Spirit; τὴν μετοχὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μετάληψιν καθ᾽ ἣν ἁγιαζόμεθα, Theoph. on 2 Cor. xiii. 14 ; so expressly Auth., ‘particeps fuit im Spiritu,’ comp. _ Chrys. The gen. at first sight might seem a gen. subjecti as above, —a con- struction both lexically and gramma- tically defensible, comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. m1. p. 81, 287, but here some- what at variance with the prevailing use and reference of κοινωνία and κοινωνὸς (comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, 2 Pet. i. 4) in passages of this doctrinal aspect ; see Meyer on 2 Cor. xiii. 14, comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. I. p. 419 (ed. Burton), and the good Sermon of Waterland, Works, Vol. v. p. 351. The Spirit here is not the human spirit, ‘ animorum conjunctio,’ Tirin. (Pol. Syn.), De W., al., but the per- sonal 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 Adth. (Polygl., but not Platt), which expressly inserts ἅγιος. εἰ τινα oth.) ‘if any bowels (heartfelt love) and compassion. 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 explanation of the former (Zanch.). That advanced by Tittmann (Synon. I. p. 69) seems sa- tisfactory, ‘om. amorem vehemen- tiorem quemcunque denotat (στοργήν, comp. Philem. 12); οἰκτ. misericor- diam proprie denotat, s. sensum do- loris ex malis seu incommodis alio- rum ;’ comp. Grot. in loc. It is somewhat singular that all the uncial MSS., at least 50 mss., and several Ff. read εἴὔ τις σπλ. Though adopted by Griesb. and Lachm., and defended by Green, Gram. p. 284, it seems really to have arisen from an errone- ous (paradiplomatic) repetition of the preceding tis. The prevalence of such an apparent error need not shake our faith in mere MSS. testimony (Alf.) ; it rather seems to hint at the general fidelity of the transcribers. 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 ancient documents. Twa is found in Clem. Alex. Strom. Iv. p. 604 (ed. Pott.). 2. πληρώσατε] ‘ fulfil, ‘ make complete 7 οὐκ εἶπε ποιήσατέ μοι, ἀλλά, wAnpwoare’ τούτεστιν ἤρξασθε φυτεύειν ἐν ἐμοί: ἤδη μοι μετεδώκατε τὸ εἰρηνεύειν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τέλος ἐπιθυμῶ ἐλθεῖν, Chrys. The position of μου before χαρὰν does not seem intended to convey any emphasis ; see the long list of similar exx. in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. I, p- 140 (ed. 6). ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ K. τ. A.] ‘that so ye be like- minded.’ The particle ἵνα does not here denote simple purpose (Mey.),— a forced and unsatisfactory interpre- tation which ignores the usage of later Greek and the analogy of the modern νά (see Corpe, Gr. p. 129 sq.),—but, with a weakened force, blends the subject of the entreaty, &c., with the purpose of making it: so rightly Chrys., τί βούλει; ἵνα σε κινδύνων ἀπαλλάξωμεν, ἵνα σοί τι χορηγήσωμεν ; 38 PHILIPPIANS II. 2, 3. 5, , Va -“ A Ry 23 , ἔχοντες; σύμψυχοι τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες, Ζ μηδὲν κατὰ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν, ἀλλὰ τῆ ταπεινοφροσύνη ἀλλήλους Οὐδὲν τουτων φησίν, ἀλλ᾽, ἵνα ὑμεῖς τὸ See notes on Eph. i. 17, where this and other uses of ἵνα are briefly investigated. Van Heng. refers iva to an omitted ταύτην, 50. αὐτὸ φρονῆτε. χαρὰν ταύτην ἵνα x. τ. Δ. : this seems very unsatisfactory. Td αὐτὸ gp. is rightly explained by Tittm. (Synon. p. 67) as, ‘ eandem sententiam habere, idem sentire, velle et quzrere,’ while the following participial clauses, τὴν αὐτὴν ay. ἔχ. and σύμψ. τὸ ἕν Pp. more nearly define its essence and characteristics. See Fritz. Rom. xii. 16, Vol. 111. p. 87, who however does not appear quite exact in separating σύμψ. from τὸ ἕν dpov. ; see below. τὴν αὐτὴν ay. &.] ‘ having the same love:’ closer definition of 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 the nature of Christian love as delineated in St. Paul’s Epp., the most summary and comprehensive definition of which is in ver. 4, see Usteri, Lehrb. I. 1. 4, p. 242 8q., Reuss, Théol. Chrét. v.19, Vol. 11. Pp. 203 sq. σύμψυχοιυ κ. τ. A.] ‘with accordant souls minding (the) one thing ; second defining clause, and parallel to τὴν air. dy. ἔχ. Most of the ancient Vy. (Syr., Copt., Aith., al.), appy. the Greek expositors, and several modern commentators regard σύμψυχοι and τὸ ἕν dp. as separate pre- dications ; it seems however best, with Mey., to regard them as united, the slightly emphatic σύμψ. forming a quasi-adverbial or secondary predica- tion to τὸ évgp. There is thus no necessity for any artificial distinctions between τὸ αὐτὸ gp. and τὸ & φρ. τὸ αὐτὸ (Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 69), nor for the as- sumption of a studied tautology (comp. Chrys.) : σύμψυχοι serves to illustrate the participial clause with which it is associated, while τὸ ὃν gp, remands the reader to the τὸ αὐτὸ dp. above, with which it is practically synony- mous, and of which it is possibly a more abstract expression; comp. Green, Gram. p. zo1. Middleton (Gr. Art. p. 368) following Grotérefers this latter clause to what follows: this is not satisfactory, and mars the symmetry of the sentence. On the distinction between σύμψυχος and ἰσόψυχος, see notes on ver. 20. 3. μηδὲν κατὰ ἐριθ.] ‘meditating nothing in the way of dissension, or contentiousness ; not ποιοῦντες, Van Heng., Scholef. (Hints, p. 105), or still worse ποιεῖτε, Luth., but simply φρονοῦντες, continued from the pre- ceding verse ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 64. 2, p. 618 (ed. 6). The prep. κατὰ pri- marily denotes the model or rule, and thence, as here, by a very intelligible gradation, the occasion or circwm- stances in accordance with it; see notes on Tit. ili. 5, and Winer, Gr. § 49. d, Ῥ. 258. On ἐριθείω see notes on ch. i, 17, and on Gal. v. 17; compare too Theophyl. in loc., who appears to have caught the true force and mean- ing of the word; σπουδάσαι ἔχω, ἵνα μή με νικήσῃ ὁ δεῖνα" τοῦτο ἔστιν 7 ἐριθεία. μηδὲ κατὰ κενο- ϑοξίαν] ‘nor in the way of vain-glory.’ Kevod. an dm. λεγόμ. in the N. T. (adj. Gal. v. 26) is sufficiently defined by Suidas as, ματαία τις περὶ ἑαυτοῦ οἴησις ; comp. Polyb. Hist. 111, 81. 9, Χ. 33. 6. The reading is here very doubtful, that adopted in the text (ABC; Vulg. Clarom. Sang. Syr. (?) Copt. Auth. (9) ; Lachm. Tisch.) though PHILIPPIANS II. 3, 4. , A ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν, not free from suspicion, has the greatest amount of external evidence, and seems on the whole the most pro- bable and satisfactory. τῇ τα- πεινοφροσύνῃ] ‘with, under the im- Jluence of (due) lowliness ; modal dative (comp. notes on ch. i, 18), or perhaps more precisely dat. of the subjective cause, thus falling under the general head of the ‘dynamic’ dative, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48.15.5. Onthis causal dative, which though allied to, must not be confounded with, the in- strumental dat. (as appy. Mey., Alf.), see Bernhardy, Synt. ΤΠ. 14, p. 101, sq., Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. c, p. 181, and Kriiger, J. c. The article here prefixed to the abstract ταπεινοῴρ. may have its collective force (Jelf, Gr. § 448) and mark ‘lowliness’ in its most abstract form, ‘the virtue of lowliness’ (Mey., comp. Middl. Gr. Art. p. 90), but more probably only characterizes the ra7ew. as that due and befitting lowliness by which each ought to be influenced: comp. Rom. xii. ΤῸ sq., and Fritz. m loc. On ταπεινοφροσύνη, ‘the thinking lowly of ourselves because we are so,’ and its distinction from mpaiirns see notes on Eph. iv. 2, Trench, Synon. § XLU., and the more spiritually profound dis- cussion of Neander, Planting, Vol. 1, p- 483, sq. (Bohn). ὑπερέχον- Tas ἑαυτῶν] ‘superior to themselves; comp. Rom. xii. 10, Eph. v. 21, 1 Pet. v.5. The query of Calvin, how those who really and obviously excel others in certain points can conform to this precept, is satisfactorily answered by considering the true nature of ramet vopp. The ταπεινόφρων is one so con- scious of his dependence on God, and of his own imperfections and nothing- ness, that his own gifts only remind him that others must have gifts also, 39 4 A A e ~ 4 My TA εαυτῶν EKADTOL while his sense of his own utter no- thingness suggests to him that these gifts may well be superior to his own, and higher in nature and degree: see esp. Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 485 (Bohn). 4. τὰ ἑαυτῶν oxdr.] ‘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 selfishness: see the excellent re- marks on selfishness as the essence of sin, and as specially developing itself in pride and hatred, ib. Doctr. of Sin. I..3. Land 2, esp. Vol. I. p. 175 sq. (Clark). Σκοπεῖν is here scarcely different in sense from ζητεῖν, ch. ii. ar, 1 Cot.-x.. 24,39, mill. 5); comp. 2 Mace. iv. 5, τὸ σύμφερον σκοπῶν. Numerous exx. of similar forms of expression will be found in Wetst. 7 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 σκοπουμένων, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἑαυτῶν. The reading of Rec., ἕκαστος (with CDEJK ; 41..--- σκοπεῖτε (with J ; al.) is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch. and most modern commentators: it may, however, be remarked that in all other cases in the N. T. (Rev. vi. t1, Rec. is more than doubtful) ἕκαστος is only found in the singular. ἀλλὰ Kal] ‘but also.’ a somewhat weakened form of the adversative clause, the καὶ perhaps pointing to the thought that it was natural that a man should look after his own in- terests ; see Winer, G7. ὃ 55. 8, Ρ. 441 sq. (ed. 6), Fritz. Mare. exc. I. p- 788. On the difference between οὐκ---ἀλλά, οὐ μόνον ἀλλά, and οὐ μόνον---ἀλλὰ καί, see the acute re- 40 PHILIPPIANS II. 4—6. A ’ 8 tls A ee o n ul X σκοποῦντες, ἀλλὰ Kal τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι. 5 Τοῦτο yap 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῆ 5. γάρ] So Rec. with DEFGJK ; very many Vv.; Gr. and Lat. Ff. (Griesb., but om. om. ; Van Heng., Mey., Alf.). The particle is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. with ABC; 17. 37; Copt. Atth.; Origen, Ath., al. As verse 5 begins an ecclesiastical lection, and as the explicative force of the yap might not have been fully understood, and have led to the omission of the particle, the reading of the text seems slightly more probable. φρονεῖτε] So ABC*DEFG ; 3 mss.;.... Vulg. It. Syr. A’th. (Pol. and Platt);....Oyr.; Lat. Ff. (Lachm., Mey.). The reading of Tisch. φρονείσθω with O***JK ; nearly all mss.;... . Copt. Goth. al.;.... Orig., Ath. (Rec., Alf.) is insufficiently attested by uncial authorities, and, on internal grounds, quite as likely to have been a correction of φρονεῖτε (to harmonize with ὁ καὶ ἐν Xp.’Ino.) as vice versi: comp. contra, Fritz. Fritzsch, Opusc. p. 49, note, whose judgment, however, is hasty and ill-supported. We return, then, to the φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ‘reading of Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 1). marks of Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 9. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to controvert the position of Raphel, (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 503), that τὰ ἑαυτῶν are ‘sua dona,’ such an interpr. is less in harmony with the context, and would tend to make καὶ appear redun- dant. What the Apostle condemns is not so much a reasonable regard for their own interests as the selfish ex- hibition of it ; comp. Waterl. Serm. v. Vol. I. p. 503. 5. yap has here its explicative force, ‘verily,’ ‘as the case stands,’ and serves to both illustrate and con- firm the preceding exhortation; see esp. notes on (al. ii. 6, where this use of yap is briefly illustrated. φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν] “ entertain this mind im yourselves,’ sc. ‘in animis vestris,’ Van H., not ‘intra vestrum ccetum,’ a construction which seems distinctly precluded by the following év Xp. Meyer compares the Homeric évi φρεσί, ἐνὶ θυμῷ, thus similarly com- bined with φρονεῖν, 71. XXIV. 173, Odys. XIV. 82, al. ὃ καὶ ἐν Χ. 1.1 ‘which was also in Christ Jesus’ sc. éppovetro or ἐφρονήθη. The kal is not ‘cum maxime,’ Van Heng., but simply correlative, indicating the identity of the disposition that is to be between the Philippians and Christ (Wies.): on the insertion of καὶ after relative particles, and the form of com- parison it indicates, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. The interpr. of Hof- mann (Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 130), ac- cording 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 un- satisfactory. 6. ὅς] In this important, and it is to be feared much perverted passage, nearly every word has formed the sub- ject 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 (Ὁ) the Λόγος évoapkos,—what is now usually, but ποῦ very reverently, termed, the ‘historical Christ’ (No- vatian, De W., al.) ? The true answer seems,—to neither eaclusively, but, as the appropriately chosen antecedent (Xp.’Iyo.) suggests, and the profound PHILIPPIANS Il. 6. 41 A , ° e A ς \ s 9 = Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἀρπαγμοὸν ἡγήσατο TO εἶναι ἰσὰ Θεῴ, nature of the subject requires, to (a) AND (6), to the τέλειος Υἱὸς (Hippolyt. ap. Routh, Opusc. Vol. 1. p. 73) in either form of His eternal existence ; it being left to the immediate context to define the more immediate refe- rence; comp. Col.i. 13, 15, and see Thomasius, Person Christi, Vol. τι. p. 136. In the present verse the re- ference seems plainly to (a): for as the tertiwm comparationis is manifestly ταπεινοφροσύνη, so this cannot be com- pletely evinced in the case of Christ, unless His prior state be put in clear contrast with that to which He was pleased to condescend; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9, where, while Ino. Xp. is simi- larly the subject, πλούσιος ὧν can scarcely admit any other reference than to Christ’s pre-incarnate state; so even Usteri, Lehr. τι. 2. 4, p. 295. In verses 8-12 the reference is as ob- viously to (6): the Λόγος ἄσαρκος, which is the more immediate subject of verse 6, passes into the Λόγος ἔν- σαρκος in ver. 7, and as the slight break in the continuity of the sen- tence, καὶ σχήματι κ. τ. X. fittingly and significantly indicates, remains so to the end of the clause. Other opinions, esp. that of Origen, will be found in the admirable sermon of Waterland, Works, Vol. τι. p. 109, in which the whole passage is very clearly dis- cussed. See also Pearson, Creed, Art. i. Vol. 1. p. 155, Bull, Prim. Trad. VI. 21, Jackson, Creed, Book VIII. § 1, Thomasius, Pers. Chr. Vol. τι. 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 trap. | “subsisting in the form of God,’ “ iir- standend u. 5. w.,’ Thomasius, J. 6.» scil. from all eternity, ἴῃ refer- ence to His pre-incarnate existence, the participle not having so much a causal (‘inasmuch as he was’) as a con- cessive reference, ‘although he was,’ a suificiently common solution of the participle; see Donalds. Gr. § 621. The use of ὑπάρχων, not wy, is es- pecially noticeable. The words μορφὴ Θεῦυ honestly considered, présent but little difficulty. Μορφὴ (probably de- rived from the Sanscr. Varpas, ‘form,’ comp. Benfey, Wwurzellex. Vol. τι. p. 309) is not perfectly identical with φύσις or οὐσία (Chrys., al., Jackson, lL. 4.), being in fact one of its two es- sential elements (see esp. Aristot. de Animé τι. 1), but designates ‘form,’ ‘appearance’ (AXth.), ‘likeness’ (Syr.) and may be compared with εἰκών, Col. i. 15, and χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, Heb. i. 3; comp. Thomasius, J. ¢., p. 137. As however both these allied expressions stand in connexion with a reference to the eternal Son-ship (Waterl. J. ¢.), as μορφὴ Θεοῦ stands in distinct and undeniable antithesis to μορφὴν δούλου (Bull, J. ¢.), and as this latter expression is referred by the Apostle himself to the assumption of human nature, so no candid man can doubt that both ante-Nicene and post-Nicene writers were right in their deduction that μορφὴ Θεοῦ has refer- ence to the divine nature, and does express as much as Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ (Hippol. Vol. τι. p. 29, ed. Fabr.) and vids Θεοῦ (Dionys. Alex. apud Labb. Vol. 1. p. 853), and hence, what is truly and essentially divine ; see esp. Waterl. Serm. v. Vol. It. p. 103 86. οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν k. τ. X.] On this important clause we must premise the following remarks ; (1) the slightly emphatic ἁρπαγμὸν is the predicate, and τὸ εἶναι κ. τ. X., the immediate object to ἡγήσατο, see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 289; (2) πὸ ae PHILIPPIANS IL. 7. 4 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι the word ἁρπ., if considered apart rom the context, does not seem merely = ἅρπαγμα or ἁρπάγιμον (Callimachus, Hymn. Cer, 9) but, with the usual force of its termination (Donaldson, Cratyl. § 253), would seem to denote ‘the act of seizing ;’ comp. Plut. (ἢ de Educ. p. 120 A, τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον ἁρπαγμόν; (3) ἴσα is used adverbially (Winer, Gr. § 27. 3, Ῥ. 160) ἔχειν ἴσως Θεῷ, ‘zequaliter Deo esse,’ Thomas. l.c., p. 140, and that no stress can be laid on such an use (‘spectari tanquam Deum.’ Grot.), as the whole force of the assertion of equality lies in the use of the verb. subst., τὸ εἶναι; see Pearson on Creed, Vol. τι. p. 88, ed. Burton; (4) ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχ. and τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ are virtually, though not precisely, identical. Both refer to the Divine Nature ; the former, how- ever (perhaps with a momentary glance of thought to its aia), points to it in respect of its form and pre-existence ; the latter, with exquisite distinction, to its state and present continuance, referring the reader, as it were, to the very moment of the ἡγήσατο. On these premises the translation would be,—(a) He thought the being equal to God no act of robbery,—no usurpa- tion of any dignity which was not His own by right of nature (Jackson, Creed, Vill. 1); ‘non rapinam existi- mavit pariari Deo,’ Tertullian, see Waterl. 1. ¢., p. 107 sq.: so appy. 2 a» Syr. βϑολω [direptio], Vulg. ‘rapi- nam,’ Goth. ‘vulva,’ and perhaps Copt. ‘ hélem’ (but appy. = ἅρπαγμα Lev. vi. 4) Auth., and many of the older com- mentators. To this, however, the logical consideration that a condition cannot properly be regarded an act (comp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 131) and the still graver contextual considerations,—(a) that the above rendering of apr. ἡγήσ. not only affords no exemplification of μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν σκοπ. (ver. 4) but really im- plies the very reverse; (8) that the antithesis οὐκ ἡγήσ. ἀλλὰ ἐκέν. is thus wholly destroyed (see below),—present objections so serious, and appy. insur- | mountable, that we seem justified in’ reconsidering (2) and in assigning to the rare word ἁρπαγμὸς a meaning approaching that of the verbal in -ros (Hesiod, Op. 320) or, the subst. in -wa (consider θεσμός, χρησμός, and per- mutations of -ua and -μος, such as δί- ὠγμα, διωγμός), so that the phrase may be considered closely allied to ἅρπαγ- μα ἡγεῖσθαι (Heliod. 4th. vit. 20) and the similar expressions dpm. ποιεῖσθαι Euseb. Const. 11. 31, dpm. θέσθαι, Euseb. Hist. vit. 12; comp. ἁρπαλέα δόσις Pind. Pyth. vir. 65, and see esp. Donalds. in loc. The meaning then will be (Ὁ) He did not deem the being equal to God a thing to be seized on, a state to be exclusively (so to speak) clutched at, and retained as a prize; the expr. οὐχ apm. wy. being perhaps studiedly used rather than οὐχ ἥρπασε Aith., ‘utsententiam etiam graviorem redderet, et Christum de illo ne co- gitasse quidem significaret’ Rabiger, in Thomas. Christi Pers. Vol. τι. p. 139: so in effect Theodoret οὐ μέγα τοῦτο ὑπέλαβε, and with some varia- tions in detail, Van Heng., De W., Wiesing., and the majority of modern commentators, except Meyer and Al- ford, who adopt a quasi-active meaning (‘ein Verhialtniss des Beutemachens,’ ‘ self-enrichment’) but somewhat con- fuse the exegesis. The fuller justi- fication of (b) will appear in the fol- lowing note. 7. GAA’ ἑαυτὸν éxév.] ‘but emptied PHILIPPIANS II. 7, 8. 9 , , ἀνθρώπων VEVOMEVOS, Himself; ‘Heretained not his equality with God, but on the contrary emptied Himself,— Himself, with slight em- phasis, divine as He was in nature and prerogatives.’ The real difficulties of this passage are brought into clear prominence by this adversative clause. We have here two lines of interpre- tation, perfectly and plainly distinct. (1) If, on the one hand, we adopt (a), the first interpr. mentioned ver. 6, then ὑπάρχων will be causal, οὐχ apr. ny. will refer to the preceding account of Christ’s greatness (Waterl. J. ¢., p. 110), and dp. will more nearly pre- serve its apparent lexical meaning, but ἀλλὰ will have to be regarded as equiv. to ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως (Waterl. p. 108), and the antithesis as one between whole members, not, as the context seems imperatively to demand, be- tween conterminous clauses; ‘ He thought the being equal to God no usurpation ; yet He emptied Himself ; so expressly Waterl., and, as far as we can infer from renderings almost perplexingly literal, Auth., and the principal ancient Vv., except Auth. (2) If, on the other hand, we adopt (b) as above, then—d7apx. will be con- cessive, οὐχ apm. ay. will refer to the consequent account of Christ’s humi- lation, preserving an exact parallel- ism to μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν σκοπ., apt. will recede further from its lexical meaning, but ἀλλὰ will retain its usual, proper, and logical force after the negative clause (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. 2), and the sentence will be even, con- tinuous, and in fullest contextual harmony: ‘He did not deem His equality to God ἃ prize to be seized, but é&c.’; in other words,—‘ He did not insist on His own eternal prerogatives, but, on the contrary, humbled Himself 45 8 A ; e 4 e 9 καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἀνθρωπος to the condition and sufferings of mortal man.’ Of these two interpr. while (1) preserves more nearly the lexical meaning. of ἁρπ., it so unduly expands that of ἀλλὰ, and so completely mars the antithesis, that we seem bound to adopt confidently and unhesitatingly the latter interpr. : see esp. Waterl. (J. 6. p. 110) who while adopting (1) shows clearly that (2) is a sound and catholic interpre- tation: comp. Middleton, Gr. Art., Ῥ. 370, Brown, Articles I. Us, p. 41, neither of whom, however, seem to ° feel the exact lexical difficulty. All attempts to preserve both the exact meaning of dpm. and the correct grammatical sequence (Meyer, and appy. Alf.), infact to combine (1) and (2), seem hopeless: the two translations are fundamentally distinct, and most of the confused interpretations of this passage are owing to this distinction and this incompatibility not having been seen and recognised. Lastly, it is not correct to say (De W.) that τὸ εἶναι x. τ. X. must refer to something Christ did not possess: surely it is logically accurate to say, that Christ did not seize for Him- self, and covet to retain a state that was then His own. Even though such phrases as τὸν θάνατον ἅρπαγμα θέμενοι (Euseb. Hist. Vil. 12) may be found, would it be necessarily in- correct to say of a patriot οὐχ dpm. (or ἁρπ.), ἡγήσατο τὸν βιόν, ἀλλ᾽ εἵλετο τὸν θάνατον Ἷ ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτόν] ‘emptied Himself,’ not metaphorically, ‘humiliavit,’ Aith., butaccording to the simpleand lexical meaning of the word (compare Xenoph. Gon. VIII. 7, al.), ‘exinanivit,’ Vulg., Clarom.; +O¢& σι γι [inane reddidit] Syr., ‘effluere fecit,’ Copt.; comp. ‘us-lausida,’Goth. Of 44 PHILIPPIANS ἢ]. 8. ς ’ e , , e or , ’ ETATELYWOEV EQAUTOV, VEVOMEVOS ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανατου, what did he empty Himself? Not exactly of the μορφὴ Θεοῦ (Mey., Alf.) unless understood in a sense different to that which it inferentially has in the preceding clause, for as Waterl. truly says, ‘He had the same essential glory, the same real dignity He ever had’ (μένων ὃ ἣν, ἔλαβεν ὃ οὐκ ἣν, Chrys.), but, as the following clause more ex- pressly shows, of that which he had in that form (comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. I, p. 158), that Godlike majesty and visible glories (comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 34) which He had from all eternity: τὴν ἀξίαν κατακρύψας τὴν ἀκρὰν ταπεινοφροσύνην εἵλετο, Theo- doret. The military metaphor which Krebs (06s. p. 329) finds in κενοῦν and even in dp. ἡγήσ., seems doubtful in the highest degree. μορφὴν δούλου λαβών] ‘taking, or by taking, the form of a servant ;’ the action of the aor. part. being synchronous with that of the finite verb (see Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 383, notes on Eph. i. 9) and serving more fully to explain it: ‘si queris quomodo Christus seipsum exinanivit? Respondet Apostolus, servi formam accipiens,’ Bull, Prim. Trad. Vi. 20. The choice of the term δούλου, as the same great writer ably observes, has no reference to any servilis conditio (‘miseram sortem,’ Heinr.) but is suggested only by the preceding antithesis μορφῇ Θεοῦ, and marks the relation which our Lord assumed towards God; ‘ad Deum autem comparata creatura omnis servi formam habet, Deique ad obedientiam obstricta tenetur,’ ib. ὃ 20. év ὁμοιώματι κ. τ. A.] ‘being made in the likeness of men ;? modal clause subor- dinated to the preceding; ‘if any man doubt how Christ emptied Himself, the text will satisfy him, by takung the form of a servant ; if any still question how he took the form of a servant, he hath the Apostle’s resolution by being made in the likeness of men,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 157 (ed. Burton). The expression ἐν ὁμοιώμ. is very noticeable; Christ though perfect man was still not a mere man, a Ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος, but was ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ γενό- μενος ; comp. Theophyl. in loc., and Fritz. Rom.’ viii. 3, Vol. I. p. 97. Lastly, γίνεσθαι does not here imply merely ‘to be born,’ but, as the context requires, with a greater latitude of meaning, ‘apparere, ‘in conspectum venire,” Kuhner on Xenoph. Mem. 111. 3. 6 (Meyer), while ἐν is used with a quasi-local force to mark the envelope or environment, see Bern- hardy, Synt. V. 7, p. 209. 8. καὶ σχήματι κ. τ. A.) Sand being found in fashion as a man,’.&e., dative of reference, Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 6, p. 193, and notes on Gal. 1. 22; οὐ τοῦτο λέγων, ὅτι ἡ φύσις μετέπεσεν οὐδὲ σύγχυσίς τις ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ σχή- ματι ἐγένετο, Chrys. De W., Meyer, Tisch. (ed. 2), and others connect this clause closely with the preceding, placing a stop after ἄνθρωπος, and leaving ἐταπείνωσεν without any con- necting particle to commence the next clause; so also Copt., and probably Syr. and Aith. Tosuch a punctuation there are two grave objections. On the one hand, such an abrupt separa- tion in a group of clauses which have a close logical and historical co- herence is improbable, and appy. un- precedented (the exx. cited by De W., Gal. iii. 13, v. 25, 2 Cor. Vv. 21, are not in point): on the other, as was hinted above on ver. 6, the slight break, combined with the somewhat peculiar εὑρεθεὶς harmonize admirably with the change of subject, and indi- cate the transition from the pre-in- PHILIPPIANS II. 8, 9. θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. carnate glory to the incarnate humilia- tion and post-incarnate exaltation of the Eternal Son; so it would seem, expressly, Chrys. Hom. VII. 4, init. Ἐϊὑρεθεὶς is thus not for ὦν, but, as always, implies that He was found, manifested, acknowledged, to be; see notes on Gal. ii. 17, and Winer, Gr. 8 64. 8, p. 542 sq. (ed. 6). On σχῆμα, which, as its derivation [ἔχω] clearly hints, is ποῦ-- ὁμοίωμα, Heinr., but denotes the habitus, ‘outward guise, and manner of life’ περιέθηκε, Lucian, demeanour, (οἰκέτου σχῆμα Necyom. 16, σχῆμα φρυγανιστῆρος λαβών, Polyen. Strategem. 1. p. 37 [Wetst. ]) and its distinction from the more ‘intrinsic’ and ‘essential,’ see Journ. Class. Phil. No. Vil. p. 115, sq.; comp. notes on 2 Tim. iii. 5. ὡς ἄνθρωπος] ‘as a man; though a perfect man, yet not a mere man; ἡμεῖς yap ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα" ἐκεῖνος Θεός, καὶ ψυχή, καὶ σῶμα, Chrys., who, however, would have expressed him- self with more psychological exactness if, in both clauses for ψυχὴ, he had written πνεῦμα Kal Ψυχή; comp. Luke xxiii. 26, and Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. V. 1, p. 283 sq. ἐτα- πείνωσεν] ‘humbled himself,’ not ἑαυτὸν éram., the emphasis resting rather on the act, than, as before (éaur. éxév.) on the subject. ᾿Εταπείν. is clearly not synonymous with ἐκέν. (Rheinw.), but refers to the acts of condescension and humiliation in that human nature which He emptied Him- self to assume: ‘nonsolum, cum Deus esset, naturam assumpsit humanam, verum in e& se vehementer humiliavit et dejecit,’ Bull, Prim. Tr. VI. 21. On the meaning of ταπεινὸς [allied with τάπης, and not improbably derived from a root STAI—‘ press,’ ‘tread,’ compare Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. I. 45 A Α ς Θ A 9 QA e , 9 διὸ Kat ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν 6567] in Christian writers in contra- distinction to Heathen (by whom it is commonly used in a bad sense, e. g., ταπεινὴ καὶ ἀνελεύθερος, Plato, Legg. Iv. 774 6.), see Trench, Synon. § XLII. γενόμενος k.7.A.] ‘by becoming obedient even to death ; modal clause appended to and explaining ἐταπείνωσεν μέχρι, not belonging tothefinite-verb, (Beng., Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. τ, p. 80), but, as the explanatory nature of the par- ticipial clause requires, to γενόμ. ὑπήκ. The ὑπακοὴ here mentioned was not that shown to His earthly parents (Zanch.), or to Jews and Romans (Grot.), but, as the following verse seems clearly to indicate, to God; comp. Matth. xxvi. 39, Rom. v. 19, Heb. v. 8. “The meaning of the term cannot fairly be pressed, e. g., ὑπή- Koucev ws vids, οὐχ ws 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 ‘monita sequi,’ πειθαρχεῖν ‘coactus obsequi;’ see Tittm. Synon. I. p. 193, and notes on Tit. ili. 1. On the ap- parent futility of distinctions between μέχρι (here not of time but degree) and ἄχρι, see on 2 Tim. ii. 9. θανάτου δὲ στ.] ‘yea death on the cross: not only death, but a death of suffering, shameful and accursed ; οὗτος [θάνατος] yap πάντων ἐπονειδιστι- κώτερος εἶναι ἐδόκει, οὗτος ὁ αἰσχύνης γέμων, οὗτος ὁ ἐπάρατος, Chrys. On the use οὗ δὲ inrepetition, in which however the original oppositive force may just faintly be traced (‘similis notio quodam modo opponitur’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 361, Hartung, Partik. δέ, 2.7, Vol. τ. p. 168; and on the geni- tive (of ‘more remote relation’), see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 168. 9. διὸ καί] ‘On which account also, 46 PHILIPPIANS II. 9. 4 9 , - Eos ἣν 4 | em! lal 4 και EXaPLTATO αὐτῷ ονομα TO UTEP TAaV OVOMa, ‘in consequence of this condescension and humiliation on the part of Christ God also, &c.;’ the καὶ not being merely consecutive (De W., Mey.), but standing in connexion with ὑπερύψ,., and serving to place in gentle contrast the consequent exaltation with the previous ταπείνωσις ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. 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 untenable in grammar, and by no means necessary in point of theology; ‘God,’ as Bishop Andrewes says, ‘not only raised Him, but, propter hoc, even ‘for that cause’ exalted Him also to live with Him in joy and glory for ever,’ Serm. I. Vol. 1. p. 197, 4b, -p. 325: drav σαρκὸς ἐπιλάβηται ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος πάντα λοιπὸν τὰ ταπεινὰ μετὰ ἀδείας φθέγγεται, Chrysost. ὧν loc. On the humiliation of the Eternal Son see esp. Jackson, Creed, VIII. 1. 2, and on the nature and degree of His exal- tation, Andrewes, Serm. 1x. Vol. I. p- 322 sq. (A. C. Libr.). τῆς = ὑπερύψωσεν] ‘highly exalted ; co] bers ] Ν I ~ xX A εαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, OU Ta σου βίιστου. PHILIPPIANS II. 20—22. 21 id , A 4 οἱ πάντες yap Ta 22 τὴν δὲ ἢ ΒΡῈ ΔΕ ὅν , / e ‘ , ‘ = 28 δοκιμὴν αὐτου γινώσκετε. ὃτι ως TAT Ot τέκνον GUY EOL 21. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So Lachm., with ACDEEFG;mss.;.... Vv.; .... Lat. Ff. (Griesb., Scholz; Rec. inserts roi). is adopted by Tisch. with B (e sil.) J; great majority of mss.; . . many Ff. The external authority seems to pre- Copt.weyr. (re nilox,)<. 2 .-- many The reversed order . . Demid. ponderate decidedly in favour of the text. its probable derivation and affinities, μερμηρίζω, μέρμερος [Sanscr. smri,— ‘meminisse,’ ‘anxium esse,’ Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. τι. p. 32, Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 410]denotes anxious thought, solicitude, ‘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 ethical, but points to the time when Timothy should come to them. 21. οἱ πάντες γάρ] ‘for all the rest (now with me) ; not ‘plerique,’ Wolf, but ‘omnes quos nunc habeo mecum,’ Van Heng., the article, appy. specifying the whole number of the others with St. Paul (cuncti), to whom the single one, Timothy, is put in con- trast. On this use of the art. with πᾶς, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. I1. 12, comp. Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 24, p. 320, and Rose, in Middl. Art. p. 104 note, to whose list of exx. of the art. with πᾶς (plur.), when used without a subst., this passage may be added. The attempts to explain away this de- claration are very numerous, but all either arbitrary or ungrammatical : this only it seems fair to urge, that the context does necessarily imply some sort of limitation, and does appy. warrant our restricting it to all those companions of St. Paul who were available for missionary purposes, who had undertaken, and were now falling back from, the hardships of an Apostle’s life. Who these were cannot be ascer- tained; comp. Wiesing. im loc. τὰ ἑαυτῶν) ‘their own things,’ not specially τὴν οἰκείαν ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ τὸ ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ εἷναι, Chrys., followed by Theoph. and Cicum., with refe- rence to the difficulties and perils of the journey, but generally, ‘sua,’ Clarom., ‘temporalia commoda con- sectantes,’ Anselm,—considering their own selfish interests, and not the glory and honour of Christ; comp. ver. 4. 22. τὴν δὲ δοκιμήν] ‘But histried character; contrast of the character of Timothy with that of the of πάντες. Δοκιμή, Ἰζρὰ [probatio] Syr., ‘ex- perimentum,’ Vulg., here and Rom. v. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, by a very easy gradation of meaning points to the ‘indoles spectata,’ Fritz. (Rom. v. 4, Vol. 1. p. 259), Aith., ‘indoles’ [simply,—almost as we use ‘ charac- ter],’ by which Timothy was distin- guished, and of which the Philippians themselves probably had personal ex- perience on a former visit; comp. Acts xvi. I—4 with ver. 12. The use of δοκιμὴ in the N. T. is confined to St. Paul’s Epp.; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. iv. 20, Vol. 1. p. 229. γιγνώσκετε] ‘ye know,’ indic., as Syr., Clarom., Copt., Aith., not im- per. as Vulg., Corn. a Lap.,—a con- struction almost plainly inconsistent with the following words, which seem specially designed to explain and justify the assertion; καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἁπλῶς λέγω, ὑμεῖς, φησίν, αὐτοὶ ἐπί- στασθε, ὅτι κ. τ. X., Chrys. ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον] ‘as a child to a PHILIPPIANS IL 22—24. . / ἐδούλευσεν εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον. πέμψαι, ὡς ἂν ἀφίδω τὰ περὶ ἐμέ, ἐξαυτῆς: 59 3 9 ’ οὖν ἐλπι ζω ’ 24 πεποιθα A Α 23 πρῦτον μὲν Sees Ee aps \ oy , > , δὲ εν Κυρίῳ OTL Καὶ AUTOS TAXEWS ἐλεύσομαι. father, ‘sicut patri filius,’ Vulg., not ‘with a father,’ Syr., Auth. Ver.; such an omission of the pre- position in the first member being appy. confined to poetry; see Jelf, Gr. § 650. 1, 2. Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68. 9. 2. Mey. and Alf. deny un- restrictedly an omission of the prep. in the first member, but see Adsch. Suppl. 313, Eurip. Hel. 872, and Jelf, Gr. § 650. 2. The construction affords an ex. of what is termed ‘oratio variata ; the Apostle, feeling that ἐδούλευσεν was scarcely suitable in connexion with πατρὶ and τέκνον, proceeds with the comparison in a slightly changed form ; édovAevoev,— not ἐμοί, as the construction might seem to require (Rom. xvi. 18), but σὺν ἐμοὶ, as the nature of the relation suggested ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. II. 1, Pp. 509 (ed. 6). εἰς evay- γέλιον]ὕ ‘for the Gospel ; not ‘in the Gospel,’ Auth., Syr., ‘in the doctrine of the Gospel,’ Aith., but ‘in evan- gelium,’ Vulg., ὁ. e., to further the cause of the Gospel; the prep. εἰς, with its usual force denoting the ob- ject and destination of the action; comp. Luke v. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. a, p. 354. 23. τοῦτον μὲν οὖν] ‘Him then ; the μὲ" being antithetical to δέ, ver. 24, and the resumptive οὖν continuing and concluding the subject of the mission of Timothy. On this force of οὖν see notes on Gal. 111. 5. ὡς dv ἀφίδω] ‘whensoever I shall have seen (the issue of ); in effect, ‘ so soon as I shall, &c.,’ Auth. Ver., ὅταν ἴδω ἐν τίνι ἕστηκα, Chrys., but designedly couched in terms involving more of doubt, the particle av being joined with the temporal ws to convey the complete uncertainty when the objectively-possible event specified by the subjunctive will actually take place; comp. Jelf, Gr. § 841, Herm. de Partic. av, τι. 11, p. 120, and on the temporal use of ws, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τ᾿. p. 759. The remark of Eustath. (p. 1214, 40), is very per- tinent, ὅτι δὲ ἐστί τις Kal χρονική ποτε σημασία, φαίνεται ἐν ἐπιστολῇ τοῦ βασίλεως ᾿Αντιόχου, οἷον, ws ἄν οὖν λάβης τὴν ἐπιστολήν, σύνταξον κήρυγμα ποιήσασθαι, ἤγουν ἡνίκα λάβῃς. He would, however, have been more correct if he had said jk’ ἄν, see Ellendt, Lew. Sophocl. Vol. 1. p. 773. In the compound form ἀφίδ. the prep. is not intensive, ‘see clearly’ (Alf.), but local, referring, however, not to the object, but the observer, ‘ pro- spicere,’ and perhaps may further in- volve the idea of a ‘terminus’ looked to ; see Jonah iy. 5 (a pertinent ex.), Herod. VII. 37; comp. ἀποθεᾶσθαι, ἀποσκοπεῖν, al., and esp. Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. τι. The change from the tenuis to the aspirate (with A B* D* FG; 17, Lachm.) is ascribed by Winer (Gr. § 5. 1, p. 43) to the pronunciation of ἐδεῖν with a digamma ; comp. Acts iv. 29. τὰ περὶ ἐμέ] ‘the things pertaining to me; not identical with τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ (ch. i. 12), but with a faint idea of motion (occu- pation about, Acts xix. 25), in ref. to their issue and development; 7. e., how they will turn, what issues they will have; ποῖον ἕξει τέλος, Chrys., ἐὰν τέλεον λάβῃ λύσιν τὰ δυσχερῆ, Theod. The form ἐξαυτῆς, sc. τῆς ὥρας, ‘illico,’ ‘e vestigio’ (παραυτίκα, Hesych., εὐθέως, Suid.) occurs Mark vi. 25, Acts x. 33, al. 24. πέποιθ, ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘am con- 60 Epaphroditus, your messenger, who has been grievously sick, and has risked his life for me, I send back, that you may rejoice. jident in the Lord; He is the sphere of my confidence ; see notes on ver. 19, and on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. Kal αὐτός] “1 myself also; the καὶ implying that besides sending Timothy to them, the Apostle hoped himself to come in person. The ταχέως, as Mey. remarks, must, as in ver. 19, date from the present time, the time of writing the Epistle. In recurring, however, to the mission of Timothy, ver. 23, he expresses the hope that it would be ἐξαυτῆς, ‘forthwith ;’ his own visit he had good confidence would be ταχέως, ὁ. €., no long interval after. 25. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησ.] ‘yet 7 deemed it necessary ; though probable, the mission of Timothy and the Apostle’s own visit were both contin- gent; 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 connexion between the sending back Ep. and the mission of Tim.; this, however, overlook the antithesis suggested by δέ. On the use of the epistolary aor. (still more expressly ver. 28) see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5, b. 2, p. 249 (ed. 6). *Emadpoditrov|] Of Epaphroditus, beyond this passage, nothing is known. He has been sup- posed to be the same with Epaphras, Col. i. 7, iv. 12, Phil. 23; but this, though etymologically possible, is cer- tainly not historically demonstrable. As the name appears to have been not uncommon (Sueton. Vero, 49, Joseph. contr. Ap. I. 1, al., see Wetst. in loc.),—as Epaphras was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12),—and as the alms of the European city of Philippi would is surely to , συνστρατιωτήν PHILIPPIANS II. 25. 25 ᾿Αναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην >Era- φρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ ε A δὲ " , A μου. ὑμῶν OF ἀπόστολον Kat hardly have been committed to the member of a church so remote from it as the Asiatic Colossz, it seems natural to regard them as different persons. For the necessarily scanty literature on the subject, see Winer, RWB, Art. ‘Epaphras,’ Vol. 1. p. 330. τὸν ἀδελφὸν κ. τ. A. ] Three general but climactic desig- nations of the (spiritual) 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. comp. 2 Tim. ii. 3, and notes in Joe. ὑμῶν δὲ x. τ. A.] ‘but your messenger and minister to my need ? secular and administrative relation in which Epaph. stood to the Philippians. is here used in its simple etymological sense, not ‘apostolum,’ Vulg., Cla- ᾿Απόστολον rom. τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ὑμῶν ἐμπεπιστευ- μένον, Theod., Chrys. 2 (comp. Taylor, Episc. ὃ 4. 3), but, as the context seems to require, ‘legatum,’ Beza, Beng. ; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 3, and see notes on Gal. i. 1. Aevroupydv (Rom, xiii. 6, xv. 16) is used in its general and wider sense of ‘ minister,’ in ref. to the office undertaken by Epaphr. ws τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀποσταλέντα κομίσαντα χρήματα, Theod. On the various meanings of λειτ. see Suicer, Thesawr, s. v. Vol. IL. p. 222. The con- nexion is not perfectly certain, but on the whole it seems most natural to connect ὑμῶν with this as well as the preceding subst., comp. ver. 30: so Scholef. Hints, p. 106; contr. De W. (comp. Aith.), who, however, urges no satisfactory reason for the separation. πέμψαι) It was really ἀναπέμψαι, PHILIPPIANS II. 25—27. 61 BO? \ A , , \ ἘΠῚ ἣν 4 λειτουργὸν τῆς χβέιὰς μου. πέμψαι προς υμας ἐπειδὴ ς A > ’ Coie Q ἃ A ὃ ’ 9 ’ ἐπιποθῶν ν παντὰας UMASS, Καὶ αοήημονωνς ἰοτι Ἠἠκουσατε “ " ’ὔ ὅτι ἠσθένησεν. 27 καὶ γὰρ ἠσθένησεν παραπλήσιον , 3 A e \ > , 9 , > >) A A θανάτῳ: ἀλλὰ ὁ Θεὸς ἠλέησεν αὐτόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον, 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 appropriate : comp. ver. 28, 30. 26. ἐπειδὴ «.7.d.] Reason for the ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην. The conjunc- tion ἐπειδή, ‘quoniam’ [quom jam], ‘sintemal,’ ‘since’ (sith-then-ce, comp. Tooke, Div. of Purl. 1. 8, Vol. 1. Ῥ. 253), differs thus and thus only from ἔπει, that it also involves the quasi-temporal reference (‘affirmatio rerum eventu petita,’ Klotz) which is supplied to it by δή, and thus ex- presses a thing that at once ensues (temporally or causally) on the occur- rence or realization of another; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 548, Har- tung, Partik. δή, 3. 3, Vol. 1. p. 259. It is not of frequent occurrence in the N.T.; in St. Paul only, 1 Cor. i. Qi, 22, xiv. 16, xv. 21. ἐπιποθῶν 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. to an action), see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, Ῥ 311, and notes on Gal. i. 23. The construction is occasionally found in classical Greek (see exx. in Winer l.c., and Jelf, Gr. ὃ 375. 4), but com- monly with the limitation that the part expresses some property inherent in the subject. On the (directive) force of ἐπὶ in ἐπιποθ., see notes on 2 Tim. i. 4. ἀδημονῶν] ‘in heaviness see Matth. xxvi. 27, λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημ., Mark xiv. 33, ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ adnu. This some- what .peculiar.verb is explained by Buttman (Lewil. § 6. 13) as properly denoting ‘ great perplexity (Ztym. M. ἀλύειν καὶ ἀπορεῖν, ἀμηχανεῖν, Hesych. ἀγωνιᾶν) leading to trouble and dis- tress of mind,’ and is to be referred not to a root ἀδέω, Wiesing., but, as Buttmann plausibly shows, to 4, δῆμος ; comp. ἀδημεῖν, and see Symm. Eccles. vii. 16, where the LXX have How the Philippians heard of this, and why Epaphr. was especially so grieved, is plained. 27. καὶ yap ἠσθ.] ‘For he really was sick ; the report you heard was true. In this formula the καὶ is not otiose, but either with its conjunctive force (comp. notes on ch. iv. 12) an- nexes sharply and closely the causal member, ‘etenim’ (comp. Soph. Antig. 330), or with its ascensive force throws stress on the predication, ‘nam etiam,’ as here; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. p. 642, Hartung, Partzk. καί, 3. 1, Vol. 1. p. 138. The remark of Hartung seems perfectly just that there is no inner and mutually modi- fying connexion between the two par- ticles (contrast καὶ dé, notes on τ Tim. iii. 10) but that their constant asso- ciation is really due to the early ἐκπλαγῇς. not οχ- position which γὰρ regularly assumes in the sentence. παρα- πλήσιον θανάτῳ] ‘like unto death.’ There is here neither solecism (Van Heng.) nor brachylogy (De W.). Παραπλ. is the adverbial neuter (Polyb. 11. 33. 17, with dat.; Iv. 40. το, absolutely ; comp. Herod. Iv. 99) and like the more usual form παρα- πλησίως (Plato, Phedr. 255 Ἐ) is associated with the regular dative 62 4 A / 9 4 I & ~ GANG καὶ ἐμέ, ἵνα μὴ λύπην ETL λύπην σχῶ. PHILIPPIANS I]. 27—29. 28 σπουδαιο- ,ὔ > 2, Ε] , 4 ad a AN , An TEPWS OUV ἔπεμψα QuTOV, LYa LOOVTES GQUTOV παλιν χάρητε ο A +) , Kayo αλυπότερος ω. 29 προσδέχεσθε οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν Κυρίῳ A , la A A , 5 , 7 μετὰ πασῆς χαρᾶς; Kal τοὺς τοιούτους εντίμους ἔχετε, of ‘likeness or similarity ;’ see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 13. 8, Jelf, Gr. § 594. 2, and the numerous exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The gen. is rare ; comp. Plato, Soph. 217 B, Polyb. Hist. ‘1. 23. 6. The meaning is thus in effect the same as μεχρὶ θανάτου ἤγγισεν, ver. 30, θανάτου, Galen in Hippocr. “pid. 1. (cited by Wetst.), but the mode of ex- pression is different. λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην] ‘sorrow coming 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 Mey. justly observes, this would be clearly inconsistent with ἀλυπότερος. ver. 28. If the second λύπη 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 respect would have been not comparatively, but positively, ἄλυπος. The reading of the text is supported by ABCDEFGJ ; majority of mss. (Lachm., Tisch.), and differs only from the more usual ἐπὶ λύπῃ (Rec. with K ; Chrys., Theod.) in im- plying motion in the accumulation ; comp. Psalm Ixviii. 27, Isaiah xxviii. 10, Ezek. vii. 26. σχῶ] The subjunctive is here appro- priately used after the preterite to mark the abiding character the sorrow would have assumed ; see Winer, Gr. § 41. I, p. 257, and esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 618. This remark, how- ever, must be applied with great caution in the N.T. where, in common with later writers, the use of the opt. πλήσιον ἀφίκετο is so noticeably on the decline ; see notes on Gal. iil. 19. ‘more dili- gently than I should have done if ye had not heard, and been disquieted by, the tidings of his sickness.’ In exx. 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 explained from the con- 28. σπουδαιοτέρως] text ; compare 1 Tim. iii. 14 (notes), 2 Tim. i. 17 (notes), and see Winer, Gr. § 35. 4, p. 217 (ed. 6). πάλιν may be connected with ἰδόντες (Beza, Auth.), but is more naturally referred to χαρῆτε (Vulg., Luth.), it being the habit of St. Paul to place πάλιν before 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 fre- quently, place it nearly as often after, as before, the verb with which it is associated ; comp. the extremely use- ful work, Gersdorf, Beitrdge, p. 401 sq. ἀλυπότερος] ‘less sor- rowful: the joy felt by the Phi- lippians will mitigate the sorrow (in his confinement) of the sympathizing Apostle; ἐὰν ὑμεῖς χαίρητε, κἀγὼ χαίρω, Chrys. The word ἀλυπ. is an da. λεγόμ. in the N.T.; in classical writers it is occasionally found in a transitive sense ; comp. ἄλυπος οἷνος, Athen. I. 29. 29. προσδέχεσθε οὖν] ‘ Receive him then ;’ in accordance with my inten- tion in sending him (iva x.7.X.). The οὖν here perhaps slightly differs in meaning from the one immediately PHILIPPIANS II. 30. 63 3° ὅτι διὰ TO ἔργον τοῦ Χριστοῦ μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν, 30. ἔργον τοῦ Χρ.] So Rec. with DEJK; al. (Lachm. with BFG; al., om. τοῦ). Tisch. omits τοῦ Xp. only with C,—certainly insufficient authority. παραβολευσάμενος] The reading is doubtful. Rec. and Tisch. read παρα- βουλευσάμενος with CJK; most mss.; Chrys., Theod., al.; the meaning of which would be ‘quum male consuluisset ;) comp. Copt., ‘ parabouleusthe’ v [cited by Zisch. and Alf. for the other reading]; Syr. ἐδ [sprevit], Goth. ‘ ufar-munnonds’ [obliviscens], all of which seem in favour of παραβουλ. On the contrary, the form παραβολ is adopted by Griesb., Lachm., and most modern editors with ABDEFG; Clarom. Vulg. Auth. ; and Lat. Ff.,—and rightly, the weight of authority and appy. unique use of the word being in manifest favour of the text. preceding. In ver. 28 it is slightly more inferential, here it relapses to its perhaps more usual meaning of ‘ con- tinuation and retrospect,’ Donalds. Gr. § 604. On the two uses of οὖν (the collective and reflexive) see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 717, compared with Hartung, Partik. Vol. τι. p. 9 8q., and on its varieties of translation, Rev. Transl. of St. John, p. x. ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘in the Lord,’ almost, ‘in a truly Christian mode of reception,’ Christ was to be, asit were, the element in which the action was to be per- formed; comp. notes on ver. 19 and 24, and the caution in notes on Eph. iv. 1. πάσης χαρᾶς] ‘all joy,’ ‘every form of it,’ not ‘summa letitia,’ De W. (on James i. 2); see notes on ch. i. 20, on Eph. i. 8, and comp. 1 Pet. ii. 1, where this extensive force of πᾶς seems made clearly apparent by the asso- ciated abstract accusatives. τοὺς τοιούτ. K.T.A.] ‘and such hold in honour ; ‘such,’ scil. as Epaphroditus, who is the sort of specimen of the class. On the use of the art. with τοιοῦτος to denote a known individual or a whole class of such, see Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. τ. 5. 2, and notes on Gal. v. 21. The formula ἔντιμον ἔχειν, though not without parallel in classical Greek, 6.9. ἐντιμ. ἡγεῖσθαι (Plato, Phed. 64 D), ποιεῖν, al., is more usually expressed with the adverb, e.g. ἐντιμῶς ἔχειν, ἄγειν, comp. Plato, Republ. vu. 528 B, VIII. 548 A. 30. διὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Xp.] ‘on account of the work of Christ. All the Greek commentators refer these and the following words to the danger arising from persecution confronted by Epaphr. at Rome in his endeavour to minister to St. Paul; εἰκὸς οὖν πάν- τος καταφρονῆσαι κινδύνου, ὥστε προσ- ελθεῖν καὶ ὑπηρετήσασθαι, Chrys. The foregoing mention, however, of his sickness, and the subsequent state- ment of the object contemplated by the τὸ παράβολον of his conduct, seem to restrict the reference simply to the service undertaken, and rendered by, Epaphroditus to the Apostle, the performance of which exposed him to the danger of an all but mortal sickness. Td épyov rod Xp. is thus not τὸ evayy. Baumg. Crus. (comp. Rill.), but the service which by being rendered immediately to the Apostle, became immediately rendered to Christ. μέχρι θανάτου] ‘wp to death ; extent of the danger ; compare Job xxxii. 2, ἤγγισε eis θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, Isaiah xxxviii. I, ἐμαλακίσθη ἕως θανάτου; and still more expressly, 4 Mace. 7, μέχρι θανάτου τὰς βασάνους ὑπομεινάντας, and Polyzen. Strateg. Ρ. 666 (Wetst.), μέχρι θανάτου pa- 64 PHILIPPIANS II. 30. , “ a 6 9 ’ὔ A ea παραβολευσάμενος τῆ ψυχῆ. ἵνα ἀναπληρωσὴη το ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρός με λειτουργίας. χοῦνται. On the force of μέχρι and ἄχρι, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 0. παραβολ. τῇ ψυχῇ] ‘having risked, hazarded his life (soul) ;’ ‘tradens,’ Vulg.; ‘parabolatus de,’ Clarom. ; ‘tradidit,’ Auth. The form and meaning of this word has been well investigated by Meyer. It would appear to have been formed from the adj. παράβολος, ‘venturesome’ (φιλοκίνδυνος καὶ παράβ., Diod. Sic. ΧΙΧ. 3), like περπερεύεσθαι (1 Cor. xiii. 4), from πέρπερος, and to belong to a class of words in -evw rightly branded by Lobeck, as ‘longe maxima pars invecticia,’ and designed to ex- press the meaning of the adj. and auxiliary ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 67, 591, and Winer, Gr. § 16. 1, p. 85 (ed. 6). The meaning will then be παράβολος εἶναι, and thus really but little different in meaning from παρά- Bovr.,—at any rate as the latter is explained by Theophyl., ἐπέῤῥιψεν ἑαυτὸν τῷ θανάτῳ: Meyer compares παραβάλλομαι τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ κεφαλῇ, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 238. The da- tive ψυχῇ is the dative ‘of reference,’ and with the true limiting character of that case expresses the sphere to which the action is confined ; see notes on Gal. i. 20, and Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p- 193 (ed. 6). On the relation of the ψυχὴ to animal life, and its inti- mate connexion with the blood, see esp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. Iv. τι, Ῥ. 195 sq., Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. 1. 2, Ῥ- 4: ἀναπληρώσῃ] ‘ fill up,’ ‘supply; comp. Col. i. 24 (ἀνταναπλ.), and 1 Cor. xvi. 17. The primary and proper meaning of this compound verb is ‘ezplere,’ ‘totum implere’ (1 Thess. ii. 16), and thence by an easy grada- tion of meaning, ‘supplere,’ the dva denoting the addition, or rather mak- ing up, of what is lacking; comp. Plato, Conviv. 188 8, εἴ τι ἐξέλιπον σὸν ἔργον ἀναπληρῶσαι. It is thus never merely synonymous with πληροῦν, but has regularly a reference more or less distinct to a partial, rather than an entire, vacwwm. Such exx. as Thucyd. 11. 28 (denuo), belong to another use of the prep.: see esp. Winer, de Verb. Comp. 111. p. τι sq., and notes on Gal. Υ]. 2. τὸ ὑμῶν tor. κιτ.λ.] ‘ your lack, t.e. that which you lacked, in your service to me ;’ ὑμῶν being the gen. of the subject (ὁ ὑμεῖς ὑστερήσατε, Theoph.), and so a kind of gen. pos- sessivus, and τῆς λειτουργ., the gen. of the object in ref. to which the ὑστέρημα was evinced, and so a gen. of what has been termed ‘the point of view :’ see Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. 2, p. 127 sq., where these double genitives are briefly but clearly discussed ; comp. also Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 3. 3, p. 172: There is therefore in the words no call to modesty or humility (Chrys.) on the ground that ὁ πάντες ὀφείλετε μόνος πεποίηκεν (Theod.),—as this would imply a virtual connexion 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 ministration; this Epaphr. by executing the commission with which he was charged (τῆς πρός με λειτ. comp. ver. 25) supplied,—and to the full. It would thus seem probable that the illness of Ep. was connected, not with his journey, but his anxious attendance on the Apostle at Rome. See Meyer i loc., who has well ex- plained the true meaning of this deli- cate and graceful commendation. PHILIPPIANS ΠῚ. τ. Rejoice, brethren ; be- ware of Judaizers who trust in the flesh. I have every cause to 65 JIT. Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου. χαίρετε ς ἢ \ oh ’ aA 9 ᾿ ι εν Κυρίῳ. τὰ αὐτὰ γραῷειν υμῖν, ἐμοι μεν trust therein, but value nought save Christ, His righteousness, and the power of His resurrection. CuapreR III. τ. τὸ λοιπόν] ‘ Finaliy;’ preparation for, and tran- sition to, the concluding portion of the Epistle, again repeated yet more specifically ch. iv. 8; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. r1, 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, and for the grammatical difference between this and the gen. τοῦ 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 personal relation of the Apostle to the Judaists is so fully stated in a concluding por- tion of the Epistle. Without having recourse to any arbitrary hypotheses (comp. Van Heng.), it seems enough to say, jirst, that the exhortations all assume a more generic form, —yalpere, as Wiesing. remarks, is the key note ; and secondly, as Alf. suggests, that the mention of κατατομὴ leads to one of those digressions termed somewhat familiarly by Paley, ‘going off at a word,’ which so noticeably characterize the writings of the inspired Apostle: see Hore Paul., ch. VI. 3. χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘rejoice in the Lord ; their joy is to be no joy κατὰ Tov κόσμον, hollow, earthly, and un- real, buta πνευματικὴ θυμηδία (Theod.), a joy in Him; in whom ai θλίψεις αὗται ἔχουσι χαράν, Chrys.: comp. - ch. ili. 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 consideration ; (a) that they refer to exhortations in a lost Epistle (Flatt, Mey.): (Ὁ) that they refer to oral communications, whether made to the Phil. personally (Calv.), or recently communicated to Tim. and Epaphr. (Wieseler); (ὁ that they refer to the words just preceding, viz. χαίρετε ἐν Kupiw (Wiesing., 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 : 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. The second (0) is well defended by Wieseler, l.¢., p. 459 sq., but implies an em-> phasis on γράφειν, which neither the language nor the order of the words in any way substantiates. The last (c) appears on the whole open to least objection, as χαίρειν does seem the pervading thought of the Epistle, ch. i. 4, 18, 11. 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 con- trary feeling: compare Chrys. Hom. X. init., who, however, refers τὰ αὐτὰ to what follows, though admitting the appropriate nature of the precept. The grammatical objection to the plural τὰ αὐτὰ (Van Heng.) is of no weight ; the plural idiomatically refers to and generalizes the foregoing pre- cept, hinting at the particulars which it almost necessarily involves; see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 383, Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. ut. 6. 6, and the exx. collected by Stalbaum on Plato, Apol. 19 D, and Gorg. 447 A. ὀκνηρόν] “ grievous,’ Soph. Gd. Rex, 834, ἡμῖν ταῦτ᾽ ὀκνηρά. The ‘irksome; comp. primary idea of ὄκνος and ὀκνηρὸς seems that of ‘ delay,’ or ‘loitering,’ whether from fear or sloth (Matth. xv. 26, Rom. xii. 11), and thence that which is productive of such feelings in Ε 66 οὐκ ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλές. PHILIPPIANS III. τ-- 2. , Ἁ , 2 βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, , A A .} / , A li βλέπετε Tous κακοὺς EpyaTas, βλέπετε τὴν κατατομῆήν. ς A , 9 ε ’ e ’ Lad / 3 ἡμεῖς yap εσμεν ἡ περιτομῆς OL TVEVMATL Θεοῦ λατρευ- others. The derivation is uncertain ; perhaps from Sanscr. vak, with the notion of ‘bending,’ ‘stooping,’ or * cowering’ (?) see Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 22. ἀσφαλές] “ swe,’ ‘safe; ὃ..6. in effect, as Syr. para- δ v » ᾿ ca ee phrases, Qn po gaa: diss [propterea quod vos commonefaciunt]. The word is pressed both by Wieseler (1. 6.) 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 Phil. might think they had every reason—not χαίρειν but ἀθυμεῖν. The quasi-causative sense is parallel to that in ὀκνηρόν; comp. Joseph. Antig. 111. 2. 1. 2. βλέπετε] ‘look to,’ ‘observe,’ ‘videte,’ Vulg., Goth., Copt., not ‘beware of,’ Auth. Ver., with Syr., this being a derived meaning (Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 200): Atth. (Platt) unites both. This exhortation not unnaturally follows. The remembrance of the many things that wrought against τὸ xalp. ἐν Kup. rises before the Apostle; one of the chief among which,—perhaps immediately sug- gested 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, XIII. ὃ 93), of those so designated,—as in the Jewish use, in ref. to the impure (Rev. xxii. 15), and essentially Ethnic (Matth. xv. 27, comp. Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 1145) and antichristian, character of these spiritual enemies of the Philippians ; ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀλλότριοι ἦσαν, Chrys. τοὺς κακοὺς épy. | ‘ the evil workers ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13, ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται δόλιοι; they were ἐργάται certainly, but the ἐργά- ζεσθαι was ἐπὶ κακῷ, Chrys. The use of the article seems to show that there were some whom the Apostle espe- cially had in his thoughts. τὴν κατατομὴν] ‘the concision,’ Auth. ; ὦ. 6. ‘the concised’ (‘ curti Judzi,’ Hor. Sat. τ. 9. 70), ‘ truncatos in cir- cumcisione,’ Aith. (Platt) appy. [but (ἢ, as the word in the original has also ref. to excommunication, comp. Theod.]: a studiedly contemptuous paronomasia, see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 68. 2, p. 561 (ed. 6). 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. 3, Rom. ii. 29, Col. ii. 11t),—but κατατομή, a mere hand- wrought, outward mutilation (comp. Eph. ii. 11) which these false teachers gloried in and sought to enforce on others; οὐδὲν ἀλλὸ ποιοῦσιν ἢ τὴν σαρκά κατατέμνουσι, Chrys. The ref. to excommunication (Theod., Hamm.) seems wholly out of place: indeed it is singular that such a very intelligible allusion should have re- ceived so many, and some such mon- strous, interpretations, e.g. Baur, Paulus, p. 435. 3. ἡμεῖς yap K.7.A.] ‘ For we are the circumcision ; reason for the desig- nation immediately preceding: ‘I say κατατομή, for you and I, whether cir- cumcised in the body or no, are the circumcision, περιτομή, in its highest, truest, and spiritual sense,—the cir- cumcised in heart, the 22 Pw (Ezek. PHILIPPIANS. TE. 354: 67 \ , 9 p< a | A a Ω 9 Α OVTES Και καυχώμενοι εν « βίστῳ σου καὶ Οὐκ ἐν σαρκι ’ὔ πεποιθότες. xliv. 7); see Rom. ii. 29, and the good note of Fritz. imloc. On the spiri- tual aspects of περιτομή, see particu- larly Ebrard, Abendm. ὃ 2, Vol. 1. p. 23 sq., Kurtz, Gesch. des Alt. Bund. § 58. 3, p. 184 sq., where the subject is well discussed. ot Πνεύματι K.7.A.] ‘who by the Spirit of God are serving ; apposition by means of the substantival participle (comp. Winer, Gr. 5 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 indic., but the former would have too much limited the class, while the latter would have seemed explanatory of the allusion, and so would have weakened the force of the antithesis. The dative Πνεύμ. is not the dat. norme (Van Heng., comp. notes on Gal. v. 16), but as the context seems to require, the dat. enstrumenti, or what Kriiger perhaps more correctly terms, the ‘dynamic’ dat. (Sprachl. ὃ 48. 15), comp. Rom. vili. 14, Gal. v. 5, 18 al.; the Holy Spirit was the influence under which the λατρεία was performed ; comp. 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 preponderance of authority. Jt seems perfectly reasonable to con- sider Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ as a proper name, and as having a similar freedom in respect to the article ; see Fritz. Rom. vill. 4, Vol. 1. p. 105, comp. notes on Gal. v. 5. λατρεύοντες] Absolutely, as Luke ii. 37, Acts xxvi. , ee.) Le , . ’ 4 καίπερ Εγω EX OV πεποίθησιν και €V σαρκι.- “: Eley. 4x; Ὁ, σε: 2: καὶ οὐκ K.T.A.] Sand not trusting in the jlesh ; 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 implied by od with the part., see Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 5, p. 430, Green, Gr. p. 120. Σὰρξ does not specially and exclusively refer to circumcision, but, as the widening nature of the con- text seems to suggest, to the outward, the earthly, and the phenomenal ; see Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. I. p. 541, Miiller, on Sin, 11. 2, Vol. I. p. 353 (Clark). 4. καίπερ ἐγὼ x. τ. λ. 7 ‘although myself having,’ &c.; concessive sen- tence introduced by καίπερ, qualifying the assertion which immediately pre- cedes ; see Donalds. Gr. ὃ 621. The construction involves but little diffi- culty. In the preceding ἡμεῖς and οὐ πεποιθ. the Apostle is himself in- cluded: lest this disavowal of πεποιθ, 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 éyw to his own case, and proceeds as if the foregoing clause had been in the sin- gular; ‘I put no trust in the flesh, though, as far as externals are con- cerned, I for my part have an inalien- able and de jure right (ἔχων) to do so.’ Thus, then, καίπερ has its proper con- struction with the part., and the con- cessive sentence a simple and _per- spicuous relation to the foregoing clause. Καίπερ, only used in this place by St. Paul (Heb. v. 8, vii. 7, xii. 17, 2 Pet. i. 12), has its regular Ἐ 9 68 PHILIPPIANS III. 4, 5. a A 7 εἴτις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μάλλον’ 5 περιτομῆ ὀκταήμερος: ἐκ γένους ᾿Ισραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, meaning, ‘even very much’ (see Klotz, Devar., Vol. τι. p. 723), ‘the πὲρ (περὶ) giving to the simple καὶ the idea of ‘ambitum rei majorem’ (Klotz), or perhaps, more probably, the intensive meaning of ‘through-ness’ or ‘com- pletion ; see Donalds. Cratyl. § 178. The meaning * though,’ it need scarcely be said, arises from its combination with the participle. πεποίθ. καὶ ἐν σαρκί] ‘confidence even in the jlesh,’ ‘in it as well as ἐν Xp.,’ the force of καὶ being appy. descensive ; see notes on Gal. 111. 4. There is no reason for modifying the meaning of this word (‘gloriandi argumentum,’ Calv.), or that of the simple pres. part. ἔχων (‘rem preteritam facit presen- tem,’ Van Heng.): πεποίθ. is simply καύχησις, παῤῥησία, Chrys., and is actually now possessed by the Apostle; he still has it, though he will not use it: ‘habens, non utens,’ Beng. δοκεῖ is certainly not pleonastic (see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 65. 7, p. 540) but may be either, (a) in the opinion of others ; ‘ videtur esse, quam vere esse dicere mavult,’ Fritz. Matth. iii. 9, p. 129, comp. I Cor. xi. 16, where such ἂν meiosis seems plausible; or (Ὁ) in his own opinion ; ‘ opinionem qua quis sibi placeat,’ Van Heng., as 1 Cor. ili. 18, viii. 3 al., and appy. in the great majority of cases in the N. T. The latter seems best to suit the pre- sumptuous, subjective πεποίθησις of these Judaists, and does not seem at variance (Mey.) with ἐγὼ μᾶλλον, 561]. δοκῶ πεποιῦ. ἐν σαρκί, which follows: so Syr., and appy. Copt., ith. (Platt). 5. περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος] ‘eight days old when circumcised, lit. in respect of circumcision,’ dat. of ‘ refer- ence,’ Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, notes on Gal. i. 22. Ritualistic dis- tinction, followed by his natal prero- gatives, and (ver. 6) his personal and theological characteristics. | Circum- cision on the eighth day (Lev. xii. 3) distinguished the native Jew, whether from proselyte or Ishmaelite, the lat- ter of whom was circumcised after the thirteenth year, Joseph. Antig. I. 12. 2. The nom. περιτομή, which is found in Steph. 3, Elz. (1624, 1633), follow- ing some mss. and appy. Chrys., Theod., is not correct: the abstract περιτομὴ is suitably used for the con- crete in its collective sense (ver. 3) but appy- never as here for a single per- son, Winer, Gr. § 31. 3 (ed. 5): so Van Heng., Meyer. ἐκ γενοῦς Ἴσρ.] ‘Of the race of Israel ; gen. of apposition or identity, Scheu- erl. § 12. 1, p. 82, 83: first of the three climactic distinctions in regard to race, tribe, and lineage: ‘in censum nune venit splendor natalium,’ Van Heng. ᾿Εκ yév. Ἴσρ. is exactly equiva- lent to ᾿Ισραηλίτης in the very similar passages, Rom. xi. 3, 2 Cor. xi. 22, andas the designation’ Ἰσραὴλ suggests (see Harl. on Eph. ii. 12, Mey. on Cor. xi. 22), stands in distinction to Idu- mean, Ishmaelite, or ethnic origin in a theocratic point of view ; comp. also Trench, Synon. ὃ Xxx1x. The περιτ. showed that the Apostle was no pros- elyte; the ἐκ yév. Ἴσρ. that he was οὐδὲ προσηλύτων γονέων, Chrys. in loc. Meyer and Alf. following Theodoret 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 Ben- jamin, of one of the two most illus- trious of the tribes, a true son of the ἀποικία (Ezra iv. 1). Some of the PHILIPPIANS III. 5, 6. “Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, 6 09 \ κατα A Ὦ ᾽ὕ A 5 ’ ‘ ὃ , 4 5) ’ὔ ζῆλος LWKO@Y τῆν ἐκκλησιαν, KATA LKQALOGUVHY τὴν EV νομῷ descendants of the other tribes were still existing, and though amalgamated under the common name, ‘Iovdator, could still prove their descent ; comp. Jost, Gesch. des Isr. Volkes, Vol. 1. p- 407 sq. and Winer, RWB, Art. ‘Stamme,’ Vol. 1. p. 515. The asser- tion of Chrys., ὥστε τοῦ δοκιμωτέρου μέρους, τὰ yap ἱερέων ἐν τῷ κληρῷ ταύτης ἣν τῆς φυλῆς, is appy. ποῦ his- torically demonstrable. Ἑβραῖος e&‘EBp.] ‘a Hebrew of He- brews,’ a Hebrew of Hebrew paren- tage and ancestry, a Hebrew of pure blood ; εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν ῥίζαν ἀνέδραμεν, Theodoret: comp. Dion. Hal. 1Π|. p. 163, ἐλεύθεροι ἐξ ἐλευθέρων, Polyb. Hist. ττ. 59. 1, ἐκ τυράννων πεφυκότα and other exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 115. It does not seem proper to limit it merely to Hebrew parents on both sides (Mey., Alf.). Owing to the loss of private records in earlier times (comp. Ezra ii. 59. 62) and the confu- sions and troubles in later times, there might have been (even in spite of the care with which private genealogies were kept, Othon. Lex Rabd. p. 76, 262) many a Benjamite, esp. among those whose families had left Pales- tine, who could not prove a pure Hebrew descent. Thus the Jew of Tarsus, the Roman citizen, familiarly speaking and writing Greek, might naturally be desirous to vindicate his pure descent, and to claim the honour- able title of ‘EBpatos (ἄνωθεν τῶν εὐδο- κίμων ᾿Ιουδαίων, Chrys.) for himself and his forefathers; comp. Winer, Poe Vol. τὸ p. 472, 475: That Ἑβραῖος may also have reference to language (Chrys.) is far too summarily denied by Mey. and Alford; see Trench, Synon. ὃ XXxtx. That it has reference to locality (Palestinian not Hellenist) is every way doubtful: the assertion of Jerome, by which it is supported, that St. Paul was born at Gischala in Palestine, appears only to be, as he himself terms it, a ‘fabula ;’ see Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 79 (Bohn). κατὰ νόμον K.T.A. | ‘in respect of the law (of Moses) a Pharisee ; ὁ. €., in regard of keeping or maintaining it, the prep. κατὰ being used throughout in its more general signification of ‘quod attinet ad; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. d, p. 357: Νόμος is here the ‘Mosaic law: though it may occasionally have what Reuss calls ‘signification économique, tout ce qui tient ἃ lancienne dispensation’ (Théol. Chret. Iv. 7, Vol. 1. p. 66), this would be here out of harmony with the following δικαιοσ. 7 ἐν νόμῳ. The present and two following clauses state the theological characteristics of the Apostle, arranged perhaps climac- tically, a Pharisee, a zealous Pharisee, and a blameless Pharisee ; comp. Acts Rx, 2: saver §y:Gal) i kas 6. κατὰ ζῆλος 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 respect, this mournful exhibi- tion of Judaist zeal, he can, if they will, set himself on a level with them. If they be Judaists he was more so. The present part. is not for the aor. (Grot.), nor used as the historical present (Van Heng.), nor as a sub- stantive (the exx. referred to by Mey. and Alf. being all associated with the article), but adjectivally, standing in parallelism to the following epithet, ἄμεμπτος, and predicatively in relation to a suppressed verb subst. that per- vades the clauses; comp. Winer, ΟὟ. § 45. 5, p. 312. The sense is the 70 γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος. ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν. same, but grammatical propriety seems to require the distinction. δικαιοσ. τὴν ἐν νόμῳ] ‘righteousness that is in the law,’ righteousness spe- cially so characterized, comp. notes on τ Ten: i. τὰ, 2 Tums 1 18. tin ver. 9 the same idea is somewhat dif- ferently expressed: δικ. ἡ ἐκ νόμου is righteousness that emanates from the law, that results from its commands when truly followed; dcx. ἡ ἐν νόμῳ righteousness that resides im it, and exists in coincidence with its com- mands. the imagirary origin, in the other the In the one case the law is imaginary sphere, of the δικαιοσύνη. All limitations of νόμος, e.g. ‘specialia instituta,’ Grot., ‘traditionem patrum,’ Vatabl., are completely untenable. ἄμεμπτος) ‘blameless ; ‘proprie est is in quo nihil desiderari potest, ἄμωμος in quo nihil est quod repre- hendas,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 29. The ἀμεμφία here spoken of, in accordance with the clearly external relations pre- viously enumerated, must be referred to the outward and common judgment of men; ‘ vitee mez rationes ita plane composui ut nihil in me quisquam reprehendere aut damnare_ posset,’ Justiniani in loc. 7. ἅτινα] ‘all which things ; scil. the qualities, characteristics, and pre- rogatives alluded to in the preceding clauses, ὅστις being used in reference to indefinitely expressed antecedents ; see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The general distinction between ὃς and ὅστις has rarely been stated better than by | Kriiger; ‘és is purely objective, doris generic and qualitative,’ Sprachl. ὃ 51. 8. ἣν μοι κέρδη) ‘ were gains tome; not, ‘in my judgment,’ ‘non vera sed opinata lucra,’ Van Heng., μοι being an ethical dative 7 °AXN ἅτινα ἣν μοι PHILIPPIANS III. 6—8. κέρδη, ταῦτα 8 ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ (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 conversion ; comp. Schoettg. in loc. appropriately used in reference to the different forms and characters of κέρδος The plural κέρδη is involved in the foregoing prerogatives ; κέρδος, in fact, considered in the plu- rality of its parts, Jelf, Gr. § 355. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 44. 3.5, Meyer compares Herod. II. 71, περιβαλλόμε- vos ἑωυτῷ κέρδεα ; add Plato, Legg. x. 862 ο, βλάβας καὶ κέρδη. διὰ τὸν Χρ.] ‘for Christ's sake,’ more fully explained in ver. 8, 9. Chrys. here not inappropriately remarks, εἶ διὰ τὸν Χριστόν, οὐ φύσει ζημία. ἥγημαι ζημίαν] ‘J have considered (and they are now to me) as loss ;’ contrast 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 fol- lowed by Alf. 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 sin- gular is not regularly used in this formula (comp. exx. in Kypke, Vol. 11, 315, Elsner, Vol. I. p. 252, and esp. Wetst. in loc.), and whether the use of the plural would not suggest the inappropriate idea of ‘punish- ments,’ a prevalent meaning of ζήμιαι: see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The form (nu. is supposed to be connected with ‘damnum,’ and perhaps to be re- ferred to the Sanser. dam, ‘ domitum esse, Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 261. 8. ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν] ‘Nay more, am indeed «lso de.,; ‘at sane qui- dem,’ Winer, Gir. ὃ 53. 7, p- 392 (ed. PHILIPPIANS Π|. 8. Ft A ‘a ’ > & A Ὁ ’; ~ , ἡγοῦμαι σαντα ζημίαν εἰναι διὰ ΤΟ υπέρέεχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου μου. Ou ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώ- 6). In this formula, scarcely accu- rately rendered by ‘imo vero,’ Wiesing. (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. τι. p. 663, and for the use of μὲν οὖν in adding some em- phatie addition er ccrrection, comp. Donalds. Gir. ὃ 567. force of μὲν οὖν, ‘cum quadam con- The continuative clusionis significatione,’ is noticed by Herm. Viger, No. 342. The reading of Rec. wevodvye rests only on A; mss. ; Theoph. al., and is rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. καὶ ἡγοῦμαι] ‘7 am also accounting ;’ not only ἥγημαι but ἡγοῦμαι, the καὶ, with its usual ascensive, and indirectly contrastimg, force, bringing into pro- minence the latter verb: it is not with St. Paul merely a past but also a pre- sent action. in reference to the preceding ἅτινα qv «.7.X., Silla omnia,’ Syr., Copt. ; πάντα, as its position shows, having πάντα] ‘all,’ no emphasis, but being used only to include ‘ quecungue antea Apostolo in lucris posita sunt,’ Van Heng. The fuller and regular construction, ζημία’ εἶναι (comp. 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 ὑπερ. κ. τ. A. ] ‘ for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ my Lord,’—‘ qui mihi super omnia est,’ Grot., ‘dominus cavissimus,’ Van Heng., comp. Est. The article with the adjective seems designedly used to bring into promi- nence the specific characteristic or at- mihi tribute of the γνῶσις ; it was not merely διὰ τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν γνῶσιν, but διὰ τὸ ὑπερ. τῆς γν., see Bern- hardy, Synt. Il. 42. ἃ, p. 156, and comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 436. y, who notices this use of the neuter part. as very characteristic of Thucydides, I. 142, 11. 63, 111. 43 al. This nicety of lan- guage was not unobserved by Chrys. 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 ὑπεροχὴ of the former; διὰ τὸ ὑπερέ- χον, οὐ διὰ τὸ ἀλλότριον. τὸ γὰρ ὑπερέ- χον τοῦ ὁμογενοῦς ὑπερέχει. The de- duction, however, is unnecessary if The knowledge of Christ admits no homogeneities, and not untenable. transcends all comparisons. τὰ πάντα ἐΐζημ.] “1 suffered the loss of them all; not with any middle force but purely passive, the retrospective and inclusive τὰ πάντα (καὶ τὰ πάλαι, καὶ τὰ πάροντα, Chrys.) being the regular accus. of the (so termed) quan- titative object ; comp. Matth. xvi. 26, and see Hartung, Casus, p. 46, comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 39. 1, p. 223. The verb is designedly stronger than the pre- ceding ἡγοῦμαι ζημίαν, and its object- accus. more comprehensive ; both suit- ably enhancing the climactic sequence of this noble verse. kal ἡγοῦμαι σκύβ. εἶναι] ‘and count them to be dung; clearly not a parentheti- cal 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 edd. (Oxf. 1836, 1851), is very undesirable ; even the comma (Mill, Griesb., Scholz, Tisch.) can be dispensed with. The somewhat curious word σκύβαλον appears properly to 72 PHILIPPIANS ΠΡΟ: θην καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα εἶναι, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω; A ε ~ 9 ᾿] an 4 4 3... τὰ ὃ , A 9 9 Kat εὑρεθῶ εν αὑτῷ PY EXWV ENVY Οοικαιοσυνὴν τὴν εκ mean ‘dung’ (Syr., Clarom., Vulg.), e.g. Alex. Aphrod. Probl. τ. 18, ἐξιᾶσι σκύβ. καὶ οὖρον, and thus is probably to be connected with σκῶρ (not oxwp), gen. σκατός ; see Lobeck, Pathol. p. 92, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. I. p. 172. The old derivation, κυσὶ βαλεῖν, ὁ. 6. κυσίβαλον (Suid., Ltym. M.) or ἐς κύνας, is still defended by Pott, Ltym. Forsch. Vol. I. p. 295. rious derivative meanings, ‘refuse,’ ‘quisquilias’ (Goth., Auth.), &c., see Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. IL. p. 978, the numerous exx. collected by Wetst. in loc., and the smaller collections of Kypke, Elsner, and Loesner. On the va- ἵνα Xp. κερδήσω] ‘that I may gam Christ ;’ purpose of the 7y. σκύβ. εἶναι, antithetically expressed with reference to the previous ζημιοῦσθαι. Mey. and Alf. properly object to the bleak interpr. of Grot., ‘Christum, ὁ. 6. ᾿ it is curious that it should have been adopted by so good an expositor as Hammond. To ‘ gain Christ’ is, to use the exquisite lan- guage of Bp. Hall, ‘to lay fast hold upon Him, to receive Him inwardly into our bosoms, and so to make Him ours and ourselves His, that we may be joined to Him as our Head, es- poused to Him as our Husband, incorporated into Him as our Nou- rishment, engrafted in Him as our Stock, and laid upon Him as a sure Foundation,’ Christ Mystical, ch. vi.—a treatise of the loftiest spiri- tual 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. £7. Ev- ρεθῶ must not be regarded as a mere periphrasis for the verb subst., ‘ ex- istam sive sim,’ Grot. (see contra Christi favorem : Winer, Gir. § 65. 8, p. 542), nor as referring solely to the judgment of God (Beza), nor yet as antithetical to being lost (Bp. Hall), but simply and plainly to the ‘judicium universale’ (Zanch.), ‘the being and being actu- ally found to be ἐν αὐτῷ,᾽ both in the sight of God and his fellow men; see notes on Gal. ii. 17. μὴ ἔχων] Dependent on the preceding iva, and associated with the preceding εὑρεθῶ as a predication of manner, Tisch. and Lachm. both remove the comma after εὑρεθῷ so that μὴ ἔχων would form portion of an objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584 s8q.), ‘be found in Him not to have, &c.’— a construction that is grammatically defensible (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. 56. 7. 2), but certainly exegetically unsatisfactory: ἐν αὐτῷ would then be wholly obscured ; comp. Meyer in loc. ἐμὴν Sux. κιτιλ,] § my righteousness that is of the law; i.e. such righteousness as I strove to work out by attempting to obey the behests of the law, τὴν ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνην, Rom. x. 3. The meaning of δικαίοσ. is here slightly different in its two connexions. With ἐμὴν it implies an assumed at- tribute of the Apostie, with ἐκ νόμου it implies a righteousness reckoned as such, owing to a fulfilment of the claims of the law. On the force of ἐκ in these combinations (‘immedi- ate origin,’ &c.) see notes on Gal. ii. 16. τὴν διὰ πίστ. Xp. | ‘that which is through faith in Christ ? of which faith in Christ is the ‘causa medians,’ and which, as the following words specify, comes immediately from God as its active source and origin ; comp. Waterl. on Justif. Vol. VI. p. 4, note, Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 1, p. 87. On the meaning of rior. Xp. PHILIPPIANS III. 9, το. 73 , 4 ΄ ~ νόμου. ἀλλὰ THY διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαι- ’ “Ὁ “ , Io οσυνήν ἐπὶ TH TLOTEL, ΄ ~ SN A \ TOU YVoval QUTOV Καὶ ΤῊΝ ’ ~ ’ , ᾿ “ A 4 ; ~ δύναμιν τῆς αναστασεέεῶς αὐτου καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν and the dogmaticalimport of διὰ πίστ. see notes on Gal. ii. 16 (comp. notes on Col. ii. 12), where both expressions are briefly discussed ; and also the short but extremely perspicuous re- marks of Hammond, Pract. Catech. 1. 4, who well observes that our ‘faith itself cannot be regarded, in the strict sense of the term, as a logical instru- ment of our justification, but as a con- dition and moral instrument without which we shall not be justified,’ p. 7 (Angl. Cath. Libr.); so also with equal perspicuity Forbes, Jnstruct. VIII. 23. 22. On the true doctrine of justification see esp. Hooker, on Jus- tif. § 6 sq., and for the opposing tenets of the Romanists the clear statements of Mohler, Symbolik, ὃ 15, ΡΥ 149 sq., ὃ 22, p. 215; 216. ἐπὶ Ty πίστει] ‘bused on faith; not ‘sub hac conditione ut habeas,’ Fritz. (Rom. Vol. 1. p. 46), but ‘super fide,’ Copt., Beng., πίστις being the foun- dation on which it firmly and solidly rests. On the force of ἐπὶ with the dative, which, roughly speaking, de- notes a more close, while with the gen, it expresses a less close connexion (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 41. 1), see notes on ch. i. 3, and esp. on Eph. li. 20,—-where, however, observe that the words ‘former’ and ‘latter’ have become accidentally transposed. Nu- merous exx. of ἐπὶ with both cases (appy. interchangeably) will be found in [Eratosth.] Catasterismi, ap. Gale, Mythol. p. 99-135, but the work is of very doubtful date. The connexion is not perfectly clear; ἐπὶ TH πίστει has been joined, (a) with the succeeding τοῦ γνῶναι, Ath. (Pol., but not Platt), Chrys. and, with a different application, Calv., Beng. ; (6) with the remotely preceding ἔχων, Meyer ; (c) with the immediately pre- ceding δικαιοσύνην, Vulg., Copt., Goth. Of these (a) is not tenable; see below on verse 10; (ὦ) is impro- bable and harsh, owing to the dis- tance of ἐπὶ τῇ π. from ἔχων ; (c) on the other hand is grammatically de- fensible, and eminently simple and perspicuous. As we may say δικαι- οὔσθαι ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, 50 δικ. ἐπὶ τῇ πιστ. Without the art. is permissible, see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123, and comp. notes on ph. i. 15. Io. τοῦ γνῶναι] ‘that 7 may know Him, Auth. Ver.; infinitive of de- sign dependent on the preceding εὑ- ρεθῶ, not on μὴ ἔχων (Mey.), which seems to give an undue prominence to the participial clause. The refer- ence of τοῦ γνῶναι ( = ἵνα γνῶ) to ver. 8, as Winer, De W., al., seems to disturb the easy and natural sequence of thought; see Wiesing. and Alf. i loc. On the infin. ‘of design,’ which falls under the general head of the gen. of subjective relation (compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 22. 2), and is by no means without example in clas- sical Greek (Bernhardy, Synt. IX. 2, p- 357, Madvig, Synt. § 170 6), see Winer, Gr. § 44. 4, p. 291, where other exx. are noticed and discussed. The construction of τοῦ γνῶναι with ἐπὶ τῇ πίστ., if (a) as equivalent to ὥστε γνῶναι διὰ τῆς πίστεως (Theod., Chrys.), is opposed to the order of words, and to all rules of grammatical analysis,—if (b) as a definitive gen., ‘so as to know Him’ (Calv., Beng.), is a construction of πίστις not found in the N. T.; see Meyer and Alf. The τὸ γνῶναι here mentioned, as Meyer rightly observes, is not merely 74 PHILIPPIANS III. το. ’ 9 “- , “ , >] ~ παθημάτων QUTOU, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ QUTOU, speculative but practical and experi- mental; see esp. Beck, Seelenl. τ. 9, Ῥ- 22, comp. Andrewes, Vol. 1. p. 204 (A. C. Libr.). kal τὴν δύν. κ. τ. λ.7 ‘and the power of His resurrection; fuller explana- tion of the preceding αὐτόν, under two different aspects, the Lord’s resur- rection, and the Lord’s sufferings. The δύναμις τῆς ἀναστ. is clearly not ‘potentia qua excitatus fuit,’ Vatabl. (avacr. being a gen. objecti), but, ‘qua justos ad immortalitatem revo- cabit,’ Just., dvaor. being the gen. originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 23); ‘a virtue or power flowing from Christ’s resurrection, called by the Apostle vis resurrectionis,’ Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 204 (A. C. Libr.) ; comp. Theoph. As the resurrection of Christ has at least four spiritual efficacies, viz. (a) as quickening our souls, Eph. ii. 5; (6) as confirming the hope of our resurrection, Rom. vill. 11, τ Cor. xv. 22 ; (0) as assuring us of our present justification, Rom. lv. 24, 25; (d) as securing our final justification, our triumph over death, and participation in His glory, 2 Cor. iv. 10 sq., Col. iii. 4, the context can alone determine the immediate refer- ence. Here the general context seems to point to (c) or (d), the present verse and ver. 11, perhaps more especially to the latter. On the fruits of Christ’s resurrection, see Pearson, Creed, Art. ν. Vol. 1. p. 313, Usher, Body of Div. ch. xv. ad fin., and on our justification by Christ’s re- surr. compared with that by His death, the admirable remarks of Jackson, Creed, xt. τό. 8. τὴν κοινωνίαν κ. τ. Δ.7 ‘the fellowship in His sufferings; further exemplifi- cation of the experimental knowledge of Christ, regarded as objective and Serm. present, suggested by the preceding clause, of which the ref. was rather subjective and future. It is only in a participation in His sufferings that there can be one in His resurrection and glory: εἰ τοίνυν μὴ ἐπιστεύομεν ὅτι συμβασιλεύσομεν οὐκ ἂν τοσαῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπάσχομεν, Theoph. ; comp. Rom. viii. 1”, 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 suffered, a drinking from the cup He drank; comp. 2 Cor. iv. to, 1 Pet. iv. 13, notes on 2 Tim. ii. 11, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 20, Vol, le ρε 2,25: συμμορφιΐόμ. K. τ. A.] ‘being con- formed unto His death,’ ὦ, 6. * by be- ing, or while I am, conformed unto His death even as Inowam:’ pres. participle logically dependent on the preceding γνῶναι ; see notes on Eph. iii. 18, iv. 2. This conformation, then, is not ethical, ‘ut huic mundo emortuus sim quemadmodum Chris- tus mortuus est in cruce,’ Van Heng., but, as the connexion and tenor of the passage require, actual, and as the pres. suggests, even now more espe- cially going on: “ ut cognoscam com- municationem passionum ejus, in quam venio, et que mihi contigit dum per passiones et mortis pericula que pro nomine ejus sustineo, conformis effi- cior morti ejus,’ Estius. The reading is slightly doubtful; Rec. has συμμορφουμένους with D**EJK ; al. ;- Chrys., Theod.: the rarer form in the text is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch, with A BD*; 17 ..67 cg Orig. (mss.), Bas., Maced., to which the incorrect συνφορτιζομένους of F and G may lend some slight weight. PHILIPPIANS ΠῚ τὰ. bo ( ΩΣ , " A ’ , A 9 A TT εἰ πῶς καταντήσω εἰς THY ἐξανάστασιν τὴν εκ νεκρῶν. τι. εἰ πῶς] ‘if by any means,’ ‘si quomodo, Vulg., Clarom.; an expression, not so much of doubt, as of humility, indicating the object con- templated in συμμορφιζ. κ. τ. λ.; οὐ θαῤῥῶ γάρ, φησίν, οὔπω, οὕτως ἐταπει- νοφρόνει, Theoph., see also Neander, Phil. p. 43. In this formula, when thus associated with verbs denoting an action directed te a particular end, the idea of an attempt is conveyed (‘nixum fidei Pauline,’ Beng.), which may er may not be successful ; comp. mes πεν <2, Rom.,i. 10, xi. 14, and see Fritz. Rom. xi. 14, Vol. mp. 47, Hartung, Partik. εἰ, 2. 6, Vol. 11. p. 206, and for a few exx. of the similar use of sz in Latin, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 451. d. καταντήσω eis] ‘may attain unto; not indic. future, as in Rom. i. 10, and perhaps xi. 14 (Mey.), but aor. subj. (Alf.) as the following words, εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, seem to suggest. On the force of εἰ with the subj. (‘ubi nihil nisi con- dicio ipsa indicetur’), now admitted and acknowledged in the best Attic Greek, see Herm. de Part. dy, τι. 7, Ῥ. 97, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 499 sq., comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. ὁ, p. 263. The expression καταντᾶν εἰς, ‘ pervenire ad’ is used in the N. T. in connexion with places (Acts xv. 1, XVill. 19, 24, &c.), persons (1 Cor. x. 11, “iv. 36), and ethical relations (Acts xxvi. 7, Eph. iv. 13), in which last connexion it is also found with ἐπὶ several times in Polyb. ; 6. σ. with gen., Hist. XIv. 1. g (but? reading), with accus., III. 11. 4, II. 01.1, XIV. 1.9. The ref. of Van Heng. to time, ‘si perveniam ad tempus hujus eventi,’ is thus wholly unnecessary, if indeed not also lexically untenable. ἐξανάστασιν κ. T.A.] ‘the resurrec- tion from the dead; t.e., as the con- text suggests, the first resurrection (Rev. xx. 5), when, at the Lord’s coming the dead in Him shall rise first (1 Thess. iv. 16), and the quick be caught up to meet Him in the clouds, τ Thess. iv. 17; comp. Luke xx. 35. The first resurrection will include only true believers, and will appy. precede the second, that of non- believers and disbelievers, in point of time; see Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 571, and the singular but learned work of Burnet, on the Departed, ch. ix. p. 255 (Transl.). Any reference here toa merely ethical resurrection (Cocceius) is wholly out of the question. The double compound ἐξανάστασις, an dm. Neyou. in N. T. (comp. Polyb. Hist. 111. 55. 4), does not appear to have any special force (τὴν ἔνδοξον, τὴν ἐν νεφέλαις ἔξαρσιν, Theophyl.), but seems only an instance of the ten- dency of later Greek to adopt such forms, without any increase of mean- ing, see Thiersch, de Vers. Alex. τι. τ, p. 83, and notes on Eph. i. 21: comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. τι. p. 316 (ed. Burt.) τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν] Dis- tinct and slightly emphatic specifica- tion of the éfavdor. ; see notes on I Tim. iit. 14, 2 Tom. i. 13, where, however, the first article, as being as- sociated with a word of known mean- ing and common occurrence, is omitted after the prep. The reading is slightly doubtful. Meyer defends Rec. ἐξαν. τῶν νεκρῶν (JK; al.), on the ground that elsewhere St. Paul regularly omits ἔκ ; these internal considerations however must yield to such distinct preponderance of external authority as ABDE; to mss.; Syr. and great ma- jority of Vv.; Bas., Chrys., 8]. : so Lachm., Tisch. 12. οὐχ ὅτι] (“ 7 say) not that? not so much in confirmation of what 76 I have not yet obtained but am _ eagerly pressing for- ward: in this imitate me. precedes (Theoph.), as to avoid mis- apprehension, and by his own ex- ample, to confirm his own exhorta- tions, ch, ii. 3, comp. iii. 15; ‘ nolite, inquit, in me falli; plus me ipse novi quam vos. Si nescio quid mihi desit, nescio quid adsit,’ August. On the use of οὐχ ὅτι, scil. οὐκ ἐρῶ ὅτι, in limiting a preceding assertion or ob- viating a misapprehension, see Har- tung, Partik. Vol. Il. p. 154, comp. Herm. Viger, No. 253. ἤδη ἔλαβον] ‘J have already attained.’ The object of ἔλαβον is somewhat doubtful. The two most natural sup- plements are (a) Χριστόν, Theod., im- plied from what precedes; (0) Bpa- Betov, Chrys., reflected from what fol- lows. Of these (Ὁ) is to be preferred, as the διώκω immediately following seems to show that the favourite me- taphor from the stadium was already occupying the Apostle’s thoughts. The simple ἔλαβον thus precedes, al- most ‘generaliter dictum,’ to be suc- ceeded by the more specific καταλάβω. On the force of ἤδη and its distinction from viv, see on 2 Tim. iv. 6. τετελείωμαι] ‘have been made perfect -᾿ 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 repre- senting 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 succeed- ing perf. explains and expands ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 40. 5, p. 257. That the τελειοῦσθαι has here an ethical re- ference, ‘ to be spiritually perfected,’ not agonistical (Hamm., Loesner, p. 355), ‘to be crowned or receive the reward,’ is almost self-evident: comp. PHILIPPIANS ΠῚ. 12. a2 Οὐ χ' ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι: διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην Reuss, Théol. Chrét. tv. 16, Vol. I. p. 182. The verb is only used here by St. Paul (2 Cor. xii. 9, is more than doubt- ful), though common in Heb. and else- where in the N. T. The ancient gloss ἢ ἤδη δεδικαίωμαι inserted after ἔλαβον D* E FG; Clarom.; Iren., al., indirectly shows the meaning here ascribed to τετελείωμαι. διώκω δέ] ‘but J am pursuing after ,᾽ not ‘sed persequor,’ Beza, but ‘[per]- sequor autem,’ Vulg., with a more just regard to the force of the particle: see Hand, T'ursell. Vol. I. p. 559. In sentences of this nature, where a negative has preceded and the regular ἀλλὰ (sondern) might have been ex- pected, it will be nearly always found, that the connexion of the two clauses is oppositive rather than adversative ; ὃ, 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 regularly characterizes the latter particle; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 360, and comp. Hand, J. ¢. The metaphor is obviously from the stadium (Loesn. Obs. p. 355, ἐπαγώνιός εἰμι, Theoph.), and the verb διώκω, as in the exx. cited by Loesn., and as also in ver. 14, seems to be here used absolutely, κατὰ σπουδὴν ἐλαύνειν, Phavor; see exx. in Kypke, Obs, Vol. II. p. 317, Buttm. Lewil. ὃ 40, p. 232 (Transl.): so, distinctly, Syr., Copt., ‘curro,’ and appy. Chrys., who regards it as only differing qualitatively (μεθ᾽ ὅσου τόνου) from τρέχω; see also Theophyl. im loc. If διώκω be regarded as transitive, the object of διώκω will PHILIPPIANS III. 12, 13. ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. be the same as that οἵ καταλάβω, 561]. the βραβεῖον implied in the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ: comp. Aith. (Platt). The former con- struction, however, seems more simple and natural. εἰ καὶ κατα- λάβω] ‘if I might also lay hold on; the καὶ contrasting καταλάβω not with the more remote ἔλαβον (Mey.), but with the immediately preceding διώκω (Alf.): see Ecclus. xi. 10, xxvii. 8, comp. Rom. ix. 30, Lucian, Hermot., ΠῚ Οἴσοτο, Of. I. 31. 110, in all which passages there seems a contrast more or less defined between the διώ- kew and καταλαμβάνειν, the ‘sequi’ -and ‘assequi;’ comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. II. p. 355. On the force of εἰ καὶ see notes on ch. 11. 17. Whether καταλάβω (assequar,’ Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24) is to be taken absolutely or transitively will depend on the meaning assigned to ἐφ᾽ @. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελ.1 ‘that for which also I was laid hold on; so Syr. σιδδν Λαο» So Sa [id cujus σ causa&], Aith. (Platt),—the only two versions that make their view of this passage perfectly clear. Eq’ @ has here received several different interpreta- tions. Taken per seit may mean ; (a) quare, like ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (Luke v. 3), at the beginning of a sentence ; comp. Diod. Sic. XIX. 9, ἐφ᾽ @ τὸν μὲν μεῖζον κάλουσι ταῦρον K.T.r.; (8) eo quod, propterea quod, scil. ἐπί τουτῷ, ὅτι-Ξ: διότι (appy. Rom. v. 12, 2 Cor. 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; (y) sub quad conditione, cujus causd, almost ‘to which very end,’ Hamm. (see 1 Thess. iv. 17, Gal. v. 13, and notes, also exx. in Lobeck, Phryn. p. 475), @ being here regarded as the relative rg 13 ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι 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 con- sideration. The former is adopted by the Greek commentators, Beng., Meyer, al., and deserves conside- ration, but introduces a reason where a reason seems hardly appropriate. The latter is adopted by Syr., Copt., De W., Neand., and appy. the bulk of modern expositors, and seems most in harmony with the context: the Apostle was laid hold on by Christ (at hisconversion, Horsley, Sem. ΧΥΊΓ., not necessarily as a fugitive in a race, Chrys., Hamm.) with reference to that, —-to enable him to obtain that, which he was now striving to lay hold of, Tt may be observed lastly that καὶ does not refer to a suppressed ἐγώ, nor to karen. (Alf.), but to the pre- ceding relative, which it specifies, and tacitly contrasts with other ends which might be conceivable; ‘for which too, for which very salvation, I was apprehended,’ &c.; comp. 1 Cor. Xill. 12, καθὼς Kai ἐπεγνώσθην, and see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 636. 13. ἀδελφοί] Earnest and emphatic repetition of the preceding, undersome- what hortatory aspects, negative and positive: in the first portion of the verse the Apostle disavows all self-esteem and self-confidence—not perhaps with- out reference to some of his converts (ταῦτα πρὸς τοὺς μεγαλοφρονοῦντας ἐπὶ τοῖς ἤδη κατορθωθεῖσι λέγει, Theod.), in the second portion and ver. 14 he declares the persistence and energy of his onward endeavour; ἑνός εἶμι μόνου, τοῦ Tots ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτείνε- ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζ. κιτιλ.7 ‘do not esteem MYSELF to have apprehended ? the juxtaposition of σθαι, Chrys. éywand the specially added ἐμαυτὸν 78 , κατειληφεναι" (see Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 3, p. 287) not only mark the selfish element which the Apostle disavows (Mey.), but de- clare his own deliberate judgment on his own case; comp. Beng. The verb λογίζομαι is a somewhat favourite word with St. Paul, being used (ex- cluding quotations) twenty-nine times in his Epp., and twice only (Mark xi. 31 is very doubtful) in the rest of the N.T. ἕν δέ] ‘but one thing I do,’ scil. ποιῶ, the general verb in the leading clause being inferred from the special verb that follows ; see Winer, Gr. § 66. τ. b, p. 546. The ellipsis yo is variously supplied (8.2 [novi] Syr. ; φροντίζω or μεριμνῶ, Cicum. 2 ; ἐστί, Beza; διώκω, Flatt), evaded (Goth.), passed over (Aith.), or left nakedly as it stands (Vulg., Copt.). The mosi simple and natural is that adopted above, as Theoph., Gicum., and most modern expositors; see Jelf, Gr. § 895. c. Meyer strongly urges the participial form ποιῶν, but this surely mars the emphasis, and obscures the prominent διώκω, to which the ellipsis seems intended to direct attention. τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἔπιλ. ‘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 unmis- takeably suggests, the portions of his Christian course already traversed, ‘the things attained and left behind,’ Fell; ἕν ποιῶ, ἑνὸς γίγνομαι μόνου, ὅπως ἀεὶ προκόπτοιμι' ἐπιλανθάνομαι τῶν κατορθωμάτων καὶ ἀφίημι αὐτὰ ὀπίσω, καὶ οὐδὲ μέμνημαι ὅλως αὐτῶν, Theoph. ; comp. Chrys. The special reference of Theod. to of περὶ τοῦ κηρύγματος πόνοι is unsatisfactory, as cbscuring the general and practical PHILIPPIANS* ΕΠ 155 24 \ / A ‘ 9. ’ 9 ’ - 14 ἐν δέ, τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος. τοῖς teaching which this vital passage conveys ; Kal ἡμεῖς μὴ ὅσον ἠνύσαμεν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀναλογιζώμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον ἡμῖν λείπει, Chrys. In the verb ἐπιλανθ. (middle,—of the inward act, Scheurl. Synt. p. 2055 act. non oce.) the prep. seems to mark the applica- tion of the action to, and perhaps also its extending over (accus.), the object, a little more foreibly than the simple verb (ληθῇ παραδοῦναι, Chrys.); comp. Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. él, C. ce, dd. It is occasionally, as here, found with the accus.; the simple form always with gen.; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 512, Thom. M. p. 348 (ed Bern.). Tots δ᾽ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτ.] ‘but stretching out after the things that are in front -ἢ more distinct 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 Christian course, and are the successive objects (dat. of direction, see Hartung, Casus, p. 83) toward which the action of évexrew is directed : good works done in faith are the suc- cessive strides ; Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 95 (A.C.L.). In the double compound ézexr. the ἐπὶ marks the direction, ἐκ the posture, in which the racer stretches out his body toward the objects before him ; ὁ yap ἐπεκ- τεινόμενος οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ τοὺς πόδας καίτοι τρέχοντας τῷ λοιπῷ σώματι προλαβεῖν σπουδάζων, Chrys. A very similar use of ἐπεκτείνεσθαι is cited in Steph. Thesawr. s.v., Strabo, XVIr. p- 800. 14. κατὰ σκόπον διώκω] ‘J press forward toward the mark.’ The prep. κατὰ here marks the direction of the διώκειν (see Acts viii. 26, xvi. 7, and with mere geographical ref., ii, 10, XXVil. 12),—a direction which, ac- cording to the primary meaning of the PHILIP PIANS:” 1 a4, 3 5. 79 δὲ 9, a) 5 4 A \ ὃ , 2.9 A ε EMT POT εν ETTEKTELVOMEVOS, KATA σκοῖον OLWK® ETL TO βρα- βεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. τ5 Ὅσοι 14 ἐπί] So Rec., Griesb., with DEFGJK ; mss.;.... Chrys., Theod. On the other hand, Lachm. and Tisch. read eis with AB; 17. 73. 80;.... Clem., Ath., al. (Mey., Alf.), appy. on the ground of ἐπὶ being an interpretation of the εἰς of ‘destination.’ As it can scarcely be said that ἐπὶ, esp. 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. prep. (κατὰ -- κε-ν-ταὺὴ is represented ‘beginning near us and proceeding to a point not necessarily distant,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 183. On the abso- lute use of διώκω, see on ver. 12. βραβ. τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως] ‘prize of the heavenly calling ; the gen. not being of apposition (De W.), which would involve the untenable assumption that κλῆσις = ‘superna beatitudo,’ Est., comp. De W.,—but a species of the gen. possessivus, and marking the βραβ. as that which the ἄνω κλῆσις has in expectation as its final crown. The βραβεῖον is here, as in 1 Cor. ix. 24, not ‘the goal,’ but ‘the prize’ (τὸ ἄθλον ἐκάλεσεν, Theod.), and is the object which the διώκειν is designed to attain (comp. Luke xv. 14, xxii. 52, Acts viii. 36, and see critical note),—‘ the future eternal glory to which God calls us by the Gospel of Christ,’ Bull, Serm. xiv. p. 268 (Oxf. 1844). The derivation is uncertain ; perhaps, Bpa=mpo with ref. to the judge sitting forward to award the prize, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. τι. p. 106. The κλῆσις, here defined as proceeding from God (gen. origins), is still further specified as 7 ἄνω κλῆσις, the heavenly calling (comp. Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26); not with any special reference to the peculiar ap- pointment of St. Paul (Mey., Alf.), but, as the latitude of the passage seems to require, with general refe- rence to its ends and objects ; it was a κλῆσις ἐπουράνιος (Heb. iii. 1), God was its author (1 Thess. ii. 12), heaven the object to which it conducted, and in reference to which it was vouch- safed ; comp. ver. 20. ἐν Xp. ’Inc. may be connected (a) with διώκω, as Chrys., appy. Theoph., (icum., and very emphatically, Mey.; or (ὁ) with κλῆσις (Copt., Ath.),— καλεῖν ἐν Xp., and therefore κλ. ἐν Xp. without the art., being a permis- sible formula, see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p- 123, noteson Eph.i.15. The latter seems most simple, and most coincident with St. Paul’s use of the formula. On the dogmatical significance of this verse, as indicating an effort on our parts through the assistance of grace, comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. IL p. 255. 15. ὅσοι οὖν] ‘As many then ; the οὖν with its usual collective and retro- spective force gathering into a definite exhortation the statements made in the three preceding verses: comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p.717. Ὅσοι is clearly not synonymous with ἡμεῖς of, Heinr., but is designedly used as leaving to each one’s conscience whether he were τέλειος or no. τέλειοι] ‘perfect ; not absolutely, e.g. τετελειωμένοι (ver. 12), but relatively; —yet not necessarily, as opposed to νήπιοι, ‘in societate Christiana cum adultis comparandi,’ Van Heng. (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6, xiv. 20, where, however, the reference seems more to 80 PHILIPPIANS ΠῚ. τ5. 3 7 al a A 5 δ a ‘ οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν" καὶ εἴ TL ETEPWS φρονεῖτε, Kat knowledge), but simply as those who had made some advance toward the τέλος of Christian life; comp. Wiesing. in loc. where this view is elaborately and successfully maintained. τοῦτο φρονῶμεν] ‘let us be of this mind,’ ‘let us entertain these views with regard to religious practice (Horsley), which I follow, and which Yet what Surely not merely τὸ ὅτι δεῖ τῶν ὄπισθεν ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι, Chrys. ; so that τελειότης in its fullest sense is to consist in τὸ μὴ νομίζειν ἑαυτὸν τέλειον εἶναι (comp. Theophyl.), but with a more inclusive reference to the whole great subject which commenced ver. 7, was continued to ver. 12, and was specially illustrated in ver. 12-14. That the τοῦτο does refer to what im- mediately precedes, to the ἕν δὲ of ver. 13, seems required by the rules of perspicuity,—but, that it refers to it only in so far as it forms a sort of example and special statement of the modus agendi, in ref. to ver. 8 sq., seems required by the evident inter- dependence of the whole passage. καὶ εἴ τι κιτ.λ.] Sand if in any re- spect ye are differently minded ; “τί you entertain, as is certainly suppo- sable (ef with indic., see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, notes on Gal. i. 9) upon any point,—not of doctrine or external worship (Horsley), practice (οὐ περὶ I am here inculcating.’ views ? but of moral δογμάτων ταῦτα εἴρηται ἀλλὰ περὶ βίου τελειότητος, Chrys.), any different, and so, almost necessarily, less correct sentiments, even this too,—this about which ye are thus differently minded, will God reveal to you in its true relations.’ There is thus no need with Horsley, in his able sermon on this passage, to give φρονεῖτε two different references, (a) to religious disposition, (b) to opinion ; nor is it enough to regard ἑτέρως as merely in opp. ‘ to sameness and uniformity,’ when the context seems so clearly to imply an ¢mproper and injurious diversity; see exx. of this sense of ἕτερος in notes-on Gal. i. 6. We may observe (with Wies.) that the Apostle does not say ἕτερον but ἑτέρως ; they did not differ in fundamentals, but in the aspects and relations in which they regarded them and carried them out practice. into Kal τοῦτο] ‘even this,’ ‘this also, as well as the other things which God has been pleased to reveal ; the ascensive καὶ contrasting the present τοῦτο, ---μθ point on which they need revelation, not with the pre- ceding τοῦτο (Flatt), but with the other points (to which εἴ τι is the ex- ception) concerning which they have already received it, and are in accord with the Apostle: comp. Hartung, Partik. s.v. καί, 2. 8, Vol. Ty po tame The τοῦτο is somewhat differently ex- plained, ‘justitiam esse ex fide,’ Vatabl., ‘vos esse deceptos,’ Grot., ‘quod nos perfecti sentimus,’ Beng. ; alii alia. The only natural explana- tion seems that adopted above, viz., the thing concerning which ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε (Horsley), ὁ. 6. the true rela- tions of the preceding τί, “τί in seiner wahrheit,’ De W.; ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῖν ws ἀγνοοῦσιν ὑποδείξει τὸ δεόν, Theoph. ἀποκαλύψει) ‘will reveal,’ by means of the Πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, Eph. i. 17; οὐκ εἶπεν, ἐνάξει, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποκαλύψει ἵνα δόξῃ μᾶλλον ἀγνοίας εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα, Chrys. The future is not merely expressive of wish, but of an assured and predictive hope ; ‘loquitur pro spe quam ex priore ipsorum fide conceperat ; sic et Gal. v. 10, Grot.: comp. Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 251. ἘΠ Ns ©. Al trs-—17. a e eC \ ee 5 , TOUTO O EOS ULV ἀποκαλύψει. vo ΟῚ al a ΤΩ αὐτῷ στοίχειν. Imitate me and my followers, for many, alas! mind earthly καὶ things. Our country OKOTELTE 81 16 πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν 17 Συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, ᾿ cf a TOUS OUTWS TEPLTATOVVTAS is heaven, whence we look for Our Lord and our final change. 16. πλήν] ‘notwithstanding,’ ‘be that as it may,’ Horsley ; ‘in spite of there being several points in which you will probably need ἀποκάλυψις.᾽ The practically adversative force of πλὴν limits the preceding expression of predictive hope, while its intrin- sically comparative force serves also to contrast the aor. ἐῴφθ. with the fut. ἀποκ.; see notes on ch. i. 18, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 724. εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν] ‘whereto we have attained,’ Matth. xii. 28, Rom. ix. 31, comp. Luke ix. 31. The primary and classical meaning of this verb (pre- venire) appears to have been almost entirely lost sight of in Alexandrian Greek, and to have merged in the general meaning ‘venire,’ and with eis, ‘pervenire ; comp. Dan. iv. 19, ἣ μεγαλωσύνη σου ἐμεγαλύνθη καὶ ἔφθασεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν : see Fritz. Kom. Vol. 1. p. 357. Τὸ is doubtful whether ἐφθάσ. denotes ad- vance in moral conduct (Chrys., Theophyl., Mey.), advance in know- ledge (De W., Wiesing.), or in both (Alf.); the first seems most in accor- dance with the context and with στοιχεῖν, the last, however, not im- probable. Lastly, that 6 does not in- dicate a point common to all, is almost self-evident: itis a point, in a common line, varying in its position according to individual progress. This common line (produced) the Apostle, in the following words, commands all to pursue, and not to diverge from: comp. the illustrative diagram of Meyer in loc. τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν) ‘walk onward coincidently with the same,’ or ‘according to the same ; dat. norme, comp. Gal. vi. τό, τῷ κανόνι τουτῷ στοιχεῖν, where see note and references. The infinitive is here imperatival, and in accordance with that usage, conveys a precise and emphatic command or rather address (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 55. 1. 5) in the second person singular or plural ; see Jelf, Gr. 671. a, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p- 86. Hence the hortative transl. in the first person, as in Theoph., στοιχῶ- fey (comp. Chrys.), and in all the Vv. except Aith. (Platt), seems gram- matically doubtful: so rightly Mey., Alf., but not De W. This is perhaps the only certain instance of a pure im- peratival inf. in the N. T. ; other in- stances, e.g. Rom. xii. 15, pass more into declarations of duty and of what ought to be done, and may consequently be joined with all three persons ; see Jelf, Gr. § 671. b, Winer, Gr. § 43. 5) ἢ 285. The addition in Ree. κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, which appears, with variations both of words and order, in the majority of uncial MSS. (see Tisch.), is rejected by AB; 17. 67** ; Copt., Sah., Ath. (Pol., but not Platt), Theodotus (Ancyr.) ; Hil., Aug., al., and by Lachm., Tisch., and most recent editors. It has been defended by Rinck and Matth., but, owing to the noticeable variations in words and order, has every appearance of an explanatory gloss; comp. ch. ii. 2, Gal. vi. 16. 17. συμμιμηταὶ «.7.A.] ‘Be imita- tors together, scil. with all who imi- tate me;’ Clarom., Copt. : continuation of the foregoing exhortation with reference to the Apostle’s own example. The σὺν in G “ coimitatores,’ 82 A 9, , e “ καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον nMas. PHILIPPIANS III. 17, 18. . A ‘ A πολλοὶ yap περιπατοῦσιν, A “ A A , ’ A ous πολλάκις ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς συμμ. is appy. neither otiose on the one band, as in συμπολῖται, Eph. ii. 20, nor yet on the other does it imply so much as ‘omnes uno consensu, et un& mente,’ Calv., Alf.,—a tinge of ethical meaning not suggested or required by the context. It ap- pears simply to mark the common nature of the action in which they all were to share ; not merely ‘ be imita- tors’ (1 Cor. iv. 16), but ‘be a com- pany of such; καθάπερ ἐν χορῷ καὶ στρατοπέδῳ τὸν χορηγὸν καὶ στρατηγὸν δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς λοιπούς, Chrys. καὶ σκοπεῖτε κιτ.λ.] ‘and mark them which are thus walking ; they were all to imitate the absent Apostle and to studiously observe those with them who walked after his example. Who these were cannot be determined : the reference may be to Timothy, Epa- phras, and other missionaries of the Apostle, but is perhaps more naturally to all those, whether holy men among the Philippians, or teachers sent to them, who followed the example of St. Paul ; τοῦδε TOU σκόπου κοινωνούς, Theod. διδάσκει ὡς πολλοὺς ἔχει καθὼς ἔχετε κ.τ.λ.1 ‘as yehave us for an ensample,’ καθὼς standing in corre- lation to the preceding οὕτως, and ἡμᾶς referring to the Apostle: so Vulg., Clarom., and all Vv., Chrys. and the Greek expositors, and, it may be added, nearly all modern commen- tators. Meyer and Wiesing. give καθὼς an argumentative force, ‘ inas- much as’ (see notes on Eph. i. 4), but in so doing seem to impair the force, and obscure the perspicuity, of the passage: see Alf. in loc., who has satisfactorily refuted this interpre- tation. The use of the plural ἡμᾶς does not imply a reference to St. Paul and τοὺς οὕτως περιπ., but seems naturally to point either to the Apo- stle and his fellow-workers (Van Heng., Alf.), or perhaps, more pro- bably, is the Apostle’s designation of himself viewed less in his personal than his official relations: ‘be all, in matters of practical religion, imitators of me, Paul, and observe those, &c., who have me their Apostle as their ensample ;’ comp. 2 Thess. 11]. 7, 9. The singular τύπον yields no support to either interpretation ; see Bernhardy, Synt. 1. 5, p. 61. 18. πολλοὶ γάρ] Reason for the foregoing exhortation arising from the sad nature of the case. Who the πολλοὶ were cannot be exactly deter- mined. It seems, however, clear that they are not the same as those men- tioned in ver. 2 sq. The latter were false teachers, and of Judaical tenets ; these on the contrary were not teachers at all, and were of an Epi- curean bias; not, however, Pagans (Rill.), but nominal Christians, bap- tized sinners (Manning), who dis- graced their profession by their sen- suality ; Χριστιανισμὸν μὲν ὑποκρινό- μενοι ἐν τρυφῇ δὲ καὶ ἀνέσει ζῶντες, Theoph., after Chrys. ‘are walking,’ ‘are There is no need to supply any qualifying adverb o ὃ (δ) gaol [aliter] Syr.) or to as- περιπατοῦσιν] pursuing their course.’ sume any pause and change of struc- ture (Rill., De W.). Though com- monly associated by St. Paul with qualifying adverbs or adverbial clauses, whether in bonam (Rom. xiii. 13, Eph. iv. 1), or i malam partem (2 Cor. iv. 2, 2 Thess. iii. 6), the verb itself is of neutral meaning (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 1), and in its meta- phorical use seems only to designate PHILIPPIANS III. 18, 109. 83 5» 4 A an A xX A ἐχθροὺς του σταύυρου TOU βίιστου. χυ A , 19 ὧν τὸ τέλος 3 , ” e GO A e , A e 60 5 ~ 5) , ἀπωλεια, WY O εος ἢ κοιλία Kal ἢ ὅὄξα εν TH αἰσχυνὴη a man’s course of life in zs practical aspects and manifestations ; it being left to the context to decide whether they are bad or good. πολλάκις ἔλεγον] ‘ofttimes used to mention to you; most probably by word of mouth ; perhaps also in the messages transmitted to them by his emissaries ; not by any means neces- sarily in another Epistle (Flatt). The πολλάκις (‘many times’) follows the πολλοὶ with a slight rhetorical force not without example in St. Paul’s Epp. ; see Winer, Gir. § 68. 1, p. 560, and comp. the large quantity of exx. collected by Lobeck, Paralipom. p. 56, 57. καὶ κλαίων] ‘even weeping, because the evil has so in- creased ; ὄντως δακρύων ἄξιοι οἱ τρυ- φῶντες, τὸ μὲν περιβόλαιον, τουτέστι, τὸ σῶμα λιπαίνοντες, τῆς δὲ μελλούσης εὐθύνας διδόναι [ψυχῆς 1)Π οὐδένα ποιοῦνται λόγον, Chrys. τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ] ‘the (special) enemies of the cross: appo- sition to the preceding relative ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 50: 7, p. 469. The article defines the class sharply and distinctly, and specifies them as enemies κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν.Ό They are so specified not on account of their doc- trinal errors (διδασκόντας ὅτι δίχα τῆς νομικῆς πολιτείας ἀδύνατον τῆς σωτη- ρίας τυχεῖν, Theod.), but on account of their sensuality and their practical denial of the great Christian principle, οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις, Gal. v. 24. So Chrys., Theoph., (£cum., and, with a more general refe- rence, Athan. (?) de Virgin. ὃ 14. On the practical application of the verse, ‘the Cross the measure of sin,’ see Manning, Serm. x1. Vol. 1. p. 201 sq. 19. ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια] ‘ whose end is perdition ; more specific de- scription of their characteristics, and the certain and fearful issues that await them. Τέλος has the article as marking the definite and almost neces- sary end of such a course (comp. 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 indi- cate,—as eternal ; comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. IL. p. 338, and contrast Rom. vi. 22. ὧν ὁ Θεός] ‘whose God is their belly? comp. Rom. xvi. 18, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ δουλεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ (Tisch.). That this peculiarly characterizes these sen- sualists as Jews (see Theod.), and esp. Pharisees (Schoettg. Hore, Vol. I. p. 801), does not seem tenable ; see on ver. 18. Several commentt. B. Crus., Alf. (comp. Vulg., Theoph.), regard ὁ Θεὸς as the predicate; the following clause seems: to suggest the contrary. καὶ ἡ δόξα K.7.A. | ‘and (whose) glory isin their shame,’ scil. ‘exists in the sphere of it,’ ‘ver- satur in,’ not ‘becomes their shame,’ Luther; clause dependent on the preceding ὧν. 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 αἰσχύνη to circum- cision (‘quorum gloria in pudendis,’ Aug., Pseud.-Ambr., Anselm), pro- bably suggested by the confusion of those here mentioned with those noticed in ver. 2, is alluded to, but rightly not adopted, by Chrys. and Theoph. ot τὰ ἐπίγ. φρο- νοῦντες) ‘who mind earthly things? relapse into the nominative to give re a 84 5 “ ε 4 " , - 20 αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. PHILIPPIANS IIL. το, 20. ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ ’ ’ a ε , 5 a 4 A 5 πολίτευμα εν ουρανοις ὑπάρχει, ἐξ OU και TwWTINA ἀπεκδε- the clause force and emphasis; see Bernhardy, Synt, 1. 3, p. 68. This can scarcely be called so much a par- ticipial anacoluthon (see exx. in Winer Gr. ὃ 63. 2, p. 505), as an em- phatic return to the primary con- struction, πολλοὶ γὰρ περιπ.---οἱ τὰ The word φρονεῖν, as Horsley has remarked (on ver. 15), has considerable amplitude of mean- ing: combined with τὰ ἐπίγεια (con- trast ver. 20) it here seems to denote the concentration of all thought, feel- ing, and interest in earth and earth- liness, τὸ ἐνταῦθα πάντα κεκτῆσθαι, Chrys., who gives special examples : comp. Alf. in loc. 20. ἡμῶν yap τὸ πολ. * For OUR country or commonwealth is in heaven; confirmation (‘enim,’ Clarom., not ‘autem,’ Vulg.) of the foregoing by means of the contrasted conduct of St. Paul and his followers (ver. 17), ἡμῶν being emphatic, and πολ. ἐν οὐρ. in antithesis to τὰ ἐπίγ. φρονεῖν. The word πολίτευμα, an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. Τ᾿, has received several different explanations. ration ; ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. Three deserve conside- (a) conversation; ‘conver- ν᾽ » satio,’ Vulg., εϑ sedge biciee [opus |Syr., ‘vita civilis,’ Copt., and as far as we can infer, Theod., icum.,—the mean- ing being, ‘nostra quam hic sequamur vivendi ratio in ccelis est,’ Van Heng., De W.; (8) citizenship, ‘municipatus,’ Jerome, ‘jus civitatis nostra,’ Zanch., Luther (earlier ed.),—the meaning being ‘ we are freedmen of a heavenly city,’ Whichcote, Serm. xvitt. Vol. 11. p- 375, and more recently Manning, Serm. X. Vol. 11. p. 183 ; (y) country, state, to which we belong as πολῖται ; Sanderson, Serm. xv. Vol. 1. p. 378 (ed. Jacobs.); see 2 Macc. xii. 7, τῶν ᾿Ιοππιτῶν πολίτευμα, Polyb. Hist. 1. 13. 12, Τὰ πολιτεύματα [τῶν Ῥωμ. κ. Kapx.], and comp. Eph. ii. 19, συμ- πολῖται τῶν ἁγίων ; so Theophyl. (τὴν πατρίδα), Beng., Mey., Alf., and the majority of modern commentators, Of these (a) has this advantage, that being subjective it presents a more exact contrast to Ta émly. φρονεῖν ; the equiv., however, to ἀναστροφὴ rests only on the use of the verb (comp. Philo, de Confus. 17, χῶρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύονται) and is itself not lexically demonstrable. Again in (8) the equivalence of πολίτευμα to πολιτεία (Acts xxii, 28) is equally doubtful, for the passage adduced from -Aristot. Pol. 1. 6, does not prove that the words are used indifferently {Alf.), but indifferently only in regard to a particular sense (πόλεως Taéts),—a statement fully confirmed by other passages, Polyb. Hist. Iv. 23. 9 al. ; comp. Beza im loc. We retain then (y), which appears to yield a pertinent meaning, and was perhaps chosen rather than πόλις (Heb. xi. ro), or πατρίς (Heb. xi. 14), as representing our heavenly home, our ἱΙερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος (Heb. xii. 22), on the side of its constitution and polity ; ‘our state, the spiritual constitution to which we belong is in heaven ;’ comp. Gal. iv. 26, Rev. xxi. 2, 10, and Usteri, Lehrb. ἀπὸ. 2, p. 182. ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχ.} ‘exristeth in heaven,’ ‘constituta est,’ Clarom. The various practical aspects of this consolatory declaration are ably stated by Whichcote, Serm. Xvit., though somewhat modified by the interpr. 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 PHILIPPIANS IIT. 20, 21. χόμεθα Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, 7! 85 ὃς μετασχηματίσει Ἁ ~ ~ , ς A , qf TO σωμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν συμμορῷον τῷ σώματι thoughts ; analogice, in regard to the quality of our actions ; znchoative, ac- cording to the degree of our present station ; intellectualiter, according to the constitution of our minds ; Vol. EE. 375 8g. ἐξ οὗ] ‘ from Oo Vulg., a2 to y m [exinde] Syr.; not ἐξ οὗ, 5011, πολιτ. (Beng.), a construction permissible, but not necessary, as ἐξ οὗ is purely adverbial; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 21. 3, p. 128. The meaning ‘ex quo tempore,’ is grammatically correct (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 43. 4. 7) but obviously pointless and unsatisfactory. καὶ owt. ἀπεκδ.]} ‘we also tarry for as Saviour ; the καὶ marks the corre- spondence of the act with the pre- vious declaration, σωτῆρα the capacity in which the Lord was tarried for. The pure ethical meaning of ἀπεκδ. * constanter, whence,’ ‘inde,’ patienter, expectare’ (Tittm. Synon. I. p. 106), seems here, owing to the preceding ἐξ οὗ, less distinct than in other passages where such local allusions are not present, Groom. Vili. 10, 23, 25,1 Cor. 1. 47, Gal. v. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 20, but is per- haps not wholly lost : see notes on Gal. v. 5, Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 14, Fritz. Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 156; comp. also notes on ch. i. 20. The simple form ἐκδέχεσθαι occurs 1 Cor. xvi. II, James v. 7; comp. Soph. Phil. 123, Dion. Hal. Antig. vi. 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 enhance the condem- nation of sensuality (ver. 19) and to confirm the indirect exhortation 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 sur- viving 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 in accord- ance with that of the Lord’s body,—a change from a natural to a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 44), comp. Burnet, State of Dead, ch. vil. p. 231 (Transl.), Cudworth, Jntell. Syst. v. 3, Vol. 1. p. 310 sq. (Tegg), Delitzsch, Psychol. Ty ΤΡ: 401: ΒΩ: τὸ σῶμα K.T.A.] ‘the body of owr humiliation 7 not ‘our vile body,’ Auth. Ver., Conyb., a solution of the genitive case which though in some cases admis- sible (Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ, 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 category of the gen. materia (Scheuerl. Synt. XII. 2, p. 83); the ταπείνωσις was that which the σῶμα contained and involved, that of which it was the receptacle ; comp. Bernh. Synt. 11. 45, p. 63. It seems undesirable with Chrys. (comp. Mey., Alf.) to refer ταπείνωσις wholly to the sufferings of the body, ‘ humil. quee fit per crucem :᾿ though the more remote context (comp. ver. 18) shows that these must clearly be included, the more immediate antithesis τὸ σῶμα τῆς δόξης seems also to show that the ideas of weakness and fleshly nature (Col. i. 22) must not be excluded ; comp. Fritz.. Rom. vi. 6, Vol. I. p. 86 PHILIPPIANS III. art. ΤΥ , ~ , 9 ~ 4 4 veg a , >] 4 τῆς δόξης αὐτου, KATA Τὴν ενεργείαν TOU δύνασθαι QUT OV Nord , 3 lan ‘ ; Kal ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ TAVTA. Brethren, stand fast in the Lord, 382. The distinction between ταπεί- νωσις and ταπεινότης (comp. Alf.) cannot safely be pressed ; see Luke i. 48, Prov. xvi. 19 al. For exx. of a similar connexion of the pronoun with the dependent subst., see Green, Gr. p. 265. σύμμορφον κι τ.λ.] ‘(so as to be) conformed to the body of His glory,’ scil. eis τὸ γενέ- σθαι σύμμ., a gloss which Rec. with D***EJK ; many Vv.; Orig., ai. re- tain as a portion of the text. The shorter reading has not only internal, but preponderant external, evidence [ABD*FG ; Vulg., Clarom., Goth. al.] distinctly in its favour. On this proleptic use of the adjective, see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p. 550, Jelf, Gr. § 430. 2. The genitival relation τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ is exactly similar to that of τῆς Tam. ἡμ., ‘the body which is the receptacle of His glory, in which His glory is manifested.’ In respect of this δόξα we are σύμμορφοι,---οὐ κατὰ τὴν ποσότητα ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν ποιότητα, Theod. κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργ.] ‘according to the working of His ability,’ &c.; comp. Eph. i. 19. The object of this clause, /as Calvin rightly remarks, is to remove every possible doubt; (‘ad infinitam Dei potentiam convertere oportet, ut ipsa omnem dubitationem absorbeat. Nec potentiz tantum meminit, sedefficacie, quie est effectus vel potentia in actum se exserens.’ The infin. with τοῦ is dependent on the preceding subst. as a simple (possessive) gen. (a con- struction very common 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 exx. in Winer, Gr. § 44. 4; P. 290. Kal ὑποτάξαι) IV. “ὥστε ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ‘even to subdue; the ascensive καὶ serves to mark the limitless nature of that power: He shall not only trans- form τὸ σῶμα κ.τ.λ., but shallalso sub- due τὰ πάντα, all existing things, Death not excluded (1 Cor. xv. 26), to Him- self. The Κυριότης of the Eternal Son will then be complete, supreme, and universal; to be resigned unto the Father (1 Cor. xv. 28) in so far as it is economical, to last for ever and for ever in so far as it is ‘consequent unto the union, or due unto the obe- dience of the passion,’ Pearson, Creed, Art. 11. Vol. 1. p. 197 (ed. Burt,). On the use of αὐτῷ [ABD*FG], not ἑαυτῷ (fec.) comp. notes on Eph. i. 4. CuHapPrer IV. 1. ὥστε] ‘So then,’ “ Consequently,’ ‘itaque,’ Vulg.; ‘as we have such a heavenly home, and tarry for such a salvation:’ concluding exhortation naturally flowing from the preceding paragraph, ch. iii, 17-21, and continued in the same tones of personal entreaty (ἀδελῴοί); comp. 1 Cor. xv. 58, where the particle similarly refers to what has imme- diately preceded. De Wette and Wiesinger refer the particle to ch, iii. 2 sq., but thereby deprive the ex- hortation of much of its natural and consecutive force. On the force of wore with indic. and inf., see notes on Gal. ii. 13, and reff., and with the imper., notes on ch, ii. 12. ἀγαπητοὶ Kal ἐἔπιπόθ.} ‘beloved and longed after,’ terms by no means synonymous (Heinr.), but marking both the love the Apostle entertained for them (emphatically repeated at the end of the paragraph) and the desire he felt to see them ; ‘ charissimi et desideratissimi,’ Vulg. The word PHILIPPIANS IV. 1—3. 87 5" , Ν A , , 4 , ΟῚ ἐπιπόθητοι; Xaoa Kal TTEpavos μου. OUTMS στήκετε EV , Κυρίῳ, ἀγαπητοί. Let Euodia and Syn- tyche be of one mind : assist O yokefellow, the faithful women. is an dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T., but is occasionally found elsewhere ; Appian, Hisp. 43, ἐπιποθήτους ὅρκους (Rost u. Palm, Zewx.), Clem. Rom. Cor. 1. 59, εὐκταίαν καὶ ἐπιπόθητον εἰρήνην. On the force of ἐπί, see notes on 2 Tim. Es ts χαρὰ καὶ στέφανος] “my joy and crown,’ 5011. ἐφ᾽ οἷς χαρὰν καὶ ἔπαινον ἔχω, Camerar. See esp. 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 (Alford, comp. Calv.) by no means necessary : the Philippians were a subject of joy and a crown to St. Paul, now as well as hereafter ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 2, 3. For exx. of this metaphorical use of στέφ., see Isaiah xxviii. 5, Ecclus. i. 11, xxv. 6, Soph. Ajax, 460. οὕτω] ‘ thus,’—‘as I have exhorted you, and as those are acting whose πολίτευμα is in heaven.’ A reference to their present state (‘sic ut ccepistis, state,’ Schmid., Beng.), though sug- gested by Chrys., seems out of place in this earnest exhortation: 1 Cor. ix. 24, cited by Bengel, is not in point. στήκετε ἐν Kup. | ‘ stand (fast) in the Lord ;’ not ‘per Dominum,’ Zanch., but ‘in Domino,’ —in Him as in the true element of their spiritual life ; see 1 Thess. iii. 8, and notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1 al. 2. HodStav mapax.] Special exhor- tation addressed to two women, Euodia and Syntyche ; comp. ver. 3. The opinion of Grot. that they are the names of two men (Euodias and Syntyches) is untenable; that of Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeit. Vol. τι. p. 2 Evodlay παρακαλῶ καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν Kuplo. 3 33 ~ 4A , 7 ’ ναί ερωτὼ καὶ σέ; γνήσιε σύνζυγε, συλλαμ- 135) that they represent two parties Of the nothing whatever is in the Church, monstrous. two persons known ; they may have been deacon- esses (Rom. xvi. 1), but were more probably persons of station and in- fluence (Chrys., comp. Acts xvii. 12) whose dissensions, perhaps in matters of religion (τὸ αὐτὸ gpov. ἐν Κυρ.) might have shaken the faith (comp. οὕτως στήκετε 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 scarcely somewhat noticeable: it ‘ad affectus significandam,’ Erasm., Mey., but rather to mark that they both equally needed the exhortation, that seems vehementiam they were in fact both equally to blame. The ἐν Kup. is of course not to be joined with zapax., ‘cbtestor per Dom.,’ Beza 2, but marks the sphere in which the τὸ αὐτὸ φρον. (see notes on ch. 11. 2) was to be displayed. 3. val ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ] ‘yea, 7 be- seech even thee. The particle vai (not καί, #ec., 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) nassent toan 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 ; (α) in animated addresses as corroborating the substance of the petition, Philem. 20 (see Mey. ὅν loc.). The simple ‘vis obsecrandi,’ = Heb. 88 PHILIPPIANS IV. 3. , " lal er ’ ~ εἰ ’ Ις Ι βανου αὑταῖς. αἰτινες EV τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ συνήθλησαν μοι; x (Grot., Viger al.) cannot be sub- stantiated. For exx. of its use in classical Greek, see Viger, Jdiom. VII. 9, p. 424, Rost u. Palm, Lez. s.v. Wol. αἰ. p: 590. On the distinc- tion between ἐρωτᾶν (‘rogare,’ — equals, and αἰτεῖν (‘petere,’ — su- periors), see Trench, Synon. § Xu. γνήσιε σύνζυγε)] ‘true yoke-fellow,’ ‘dilectissime conjunx,’ Clarom.,—a transl. that may have early been mis- understood. 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. Il. 53 [grammatically incorrect (opp. to Alf.), as the un- certain gender of ovvg. (Eur. Alc. 315, 343) would cause γνήσιος to revert to three terminations], the husband or brother of one of the women (Chrys., hesitatingly), Timothy (Kst.), Silas (Beng.), Epaphroditus, though now with the Apostle (Grot., Hamm.), Christ (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 458),— two opinions deserve consideration ; (a) that ovvgvyos 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 ; (0) that the chief of the ἐπίσκοποι (ch. i. 1) at Philippi is here referred to. Of these (a) harmonizes with the meaning of γνήσιος (comp. notes on 1 Tim. i. 2), and is slightly favoured by the order (Luke i. 3, Gal. iii. 1; but JK; al. tec. reverse it), but is improbable on accountof theappy. unique occurrence of the name. As the only valid objec- tion to (b),—that St. Paul never else- where 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 probably due to emphasis on γνήσιε (Winer, Gr. § 59. 2, p. 469), the balance seems in favour of this latter view: so Luth., De W., and appy. the majority of modern expositors. συλλαμβ. αὐταῖς] ‘assist them,’ scil. Euodia and Syntyche, in endeavouring to bring them to a state of ὁμόνοια ; not ‘those women which,’ Auth. and other Engl. Vv. (comp. Vulg. ‘illas que ’),—an inexact translation of αἵτινες (see below) which obscures the reference of αὐταῖς to the preceding substantives. The middle συλλαμβ. occurs in a similar construction, Luke v. 7 (βοηθεῖν Ὁ), Gen. xxx. 8 (Alez.), fflian, Var. Hist. 11. 4, and with a gen. rei, Soph. Philoct. 282. The active is more usual, in this sense, in classical Greek ; see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s.v. αἵτινες] ‘inasmuch as they,’ ‘ut que,’ Beza, nn compare Syr. cn ἢ [quia ipsze] and see Scholef. Hints, p. 106: a very distinct use of the explicative force of ὅστις : see notes on Gal. iv. 24. ἐν τῷ evayy.| The Gospel was the sphere in which the labour was expended ; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. tv. 8, Vol. 11. p. 81. Meyer very appropriately calls atten- tion to the fact that women were appy. the first in whom the Gospel took root at Philippi; Acts xvi. 13, ἐλαλοῦμεν ταῖς συνελθούσαις γυναιξίν. ‘Women were the first fruits of St. Paul’s labours on the continent of Europe,’ Baumg. on Acts, l.c. μετὰ Kal KAnp.] ‘in company with Clement also,’ scil. συνήθλησαν : they were associated with Clement and the Apostle’s other fellow-labourers at Philippi in some efforts to advance PHILIPPIANS IV. 3, 4. 89 Ν Ν , Ν᾿ =~ “~ A Ὁ Ν μετα και Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν μου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ Cais. Rejoice, show forbear- ance; be not anxious, 4 Χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ πάντοτε' , παλιν but tell your wants to God, and His peace shall be with you. the Gospel, perhaps, as Beng. sug- gests, not unattended with danger ; Acts xvi. 19 sq., comp. Phil. 1. 28. Tt is doubtful whether the Clement here mentioned is identical with the third bishop of Rome, or not. On the one hand we have the very dis- tinct testimony of Origen, im Joh. 1. 29, Vol. Iv. p. 153 (ed. Ben.), Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ut. 4, 15, Jerome, de Vir. Lil. xv. Vol. 11. p. 839 (ed. Vallars.), Epiphanius, Her. xxvit. 6, Const. Apost. vil. 46 ; see Hammond, contr. Blond. p. 254, Lardner, Credibility, 11. 38. 23. On the other hand (a) the notice of Clem. in Irenzeus, Her. 111. 3. 3, ὁ καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους ᾿Αποστόλους καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς, —where, however, συμβεβλ. (most un- necessarily queried by Conyb. and Bloomf.) should not be overlooked,— contains no allusion to this special commendation ; and (6) the present context seems certainly in favour of the supposition that Clement, like ‘Euodia and Syntyche, and appy. the συνεργοί, was a member of the Church of Philippi. Still, as it is perfectly 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. Il. p. 465) Bp. of Rome,—as (Ὁ) is merely negative, and as the early tes- timony of Origen is positive and dis- tinct, there seems no just ground for summarily rejecting, with De W., Mey., and Alf., this ancient eccle- siastical tradition; comp. Winer, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 232. The posi- tion of καὶ between the prep. and the noun is somewhat unusual, such a collocation being in the N.T. appy. confined to γάρ (John iv. 37), γε (Luke xi. 8), δέ (Matth. xi. 12), μέν (Rom. xi. 22), μὲν γάρ (Acts xxviil. 22), and te (Acts x. 39): comp. Matth. Gr. ὃ 595. 3. In the present case, however, the vinculum of the prep. extends over the whole clause, καὶ---καὶ (see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10) being correlative. The exx. cited by Alf. (comp. Mey.), in which only a single καὶ occurs, are thus not fully in point. ὧν τὰ ὀνόμ.. appears only to refer to τῶν λοιπῶν, --- ‘Clement whom I have mentioned by name, and the rest, who though ποῦ named by me, nevertheless have their names in the book of life ; comp. Luke x. 20, Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, xxl. 27. To supply an optative (εἴη, ‘exstent’) and assume that the λοιποὶ were now dead (Beng.), seems unnecessary and unsatisfactory. The expression is not improbably derived from the Old Test.; comp. Exod. XXXli. 32, Psalm lix. 28, Isaiah iv. 3, Ezek. xiii. 9, Dan. xii. 1. 4. χαίρετε] Separate exhortations to the church at large, continued to ver. 10. They commence with the exhortation, which, as has been already remarked (see notes on ch. iii. 1), pervades the whole Epistle. On the repetition, Chrys. well observes, τοῦτο θαρσύνοντός ἐστι καὶ δεικνύντος, ὅτι ὁ ἐν Θεῷ [Κυρίῳ] ὧν ἀεὶ χαίρει" κἄν τε θλίβηται, κἂν ὁτιοῦν πάσχῃ ἀεὶ χαίρει ὁ τοιοῦτος: see the good sermon of Beveridge on this text, Serm. CV. Viol. Vip: 62 sq. (A. C. ΤΩ): πάλιν ἐρῶ] ‘again I will say,’ not “1 say,’ Auth., as ἐρῶ seems regularly and correctly used throughout the N.T. as a future. The traces of a 90 ἐρῶ, χαίρετε. τ , ε ΧΡ 3 , ἀνθρώποις. oO Κύριος εγγυς. present ἐρέω (Hippocr. Precept. p. 64, Epidem. τι. p. 691) are few and doubtful ; see Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, p- 89 (Transl.) It is scarcely neces- sary to do more than notice the very improbable construction of Beng., by which πάντοτε is joined with this clause. 5. τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν] ‘your for- bearance,’ Conyb., ‘ your moderation (Auth.) and readiness to wave all rigour and severity :’ comp. Joseph. Arch, VI. 12. 7, ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ μέτριοι, and Loesn. Obs. p. 358, where several examples are cited of ἐπιείκεια in con- nexion with πραὕτης, φιλανθρωπία, and ἡμερότης. See notes on 1 Tim. iii. 3, and (avoiding the error in de- rivation) Trench, Synon. XLII. On the use of the abstract neuter (τὸ ἐπιεικὲς = ἐπιείκεια) comp. Jelf, Gi. ὃ 436. y, and notes on ch. ill. 8; add Rom. ii. 4, 1 Cor. i. 25, and Glasse, Philol, 1. τ, p. 537. γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν avOp.] ‘become known to all men ; ‘let the goodness of your principles in this respect be known experimentally by all who have deal- ings with you, be they epicurean enemies of the cross (Chrys., Theoph.), or pagan persecutors’ (Theod.). command is wholly unrestricted. ὁ Κύριος ἐγγύς) ‘the Lord (Jesus) is near. The exact meaning and connex- ion of the words is slightly doubtful. The regular meaning of Κύριος in St. Paul's Epp. (comp. Winer, Gv. § 19. 1, p- 113) and the demonstrable temporal meaning of ἐγγὺς (Matth. xxiv. 32, Rom. xiii. 11, Rev. i. 3) seem clearly to refer this not to a general readiness to help (Manning, Serm. x1. Vol. Ill. p. 241), but specially to the Lord’s second advent, which the in- spired Apostle regards as nigh, yet A ϑ A ¢ A 5 τὸ ἐπιεῖκες ὑμῶν The. PHILIPPIANS IV. 4—6. γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν 6 Μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε, ἀλλ᾽ not necessarily as immediate, or to happen in his own lifetime. 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 know- ledge that the ἔσχαται ἡμέραι (James v. 3, 7) and καιροὶ ὕστεροι were already come, both is and ought to be, sepa- rated from any specific and personal anticipations of which the N.T. pre- With regard to the connexion it may be either minatory (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. I. p. 803) or encouraging (De W.) with regard to what has preceded, or, more probably, consolatory with reference to what follows (Chrys.), or, not un- likely, a bond of union to both (AIf.): on the one hand, the Lord’s speedy coming (as Judge) adds a stimulus to our exhibition -of forbearance toward others, comp. James v. 9; on the other, it swallows up all unprofitable anxieties, 6. μηδὲν peppy. ] ‘be careful about nothing ; ‘entertain no disquieting anxieties about anything earthly,’ Matth. vi. 25. The accus. is that of the object whereon the μεριμνᾶν is exercised (Jelf, Gv. ὃ 551) and stands in emphatic antithesis to the following Chrys. and Theophyl. refer μηδὲν mainly to the pressure of cala- mity or persecution (μήτε τῆς ἐκείνων ὕβρεως, μήτε τῆς θλίψεως, Theoph.); it seems better to leave it wholly unrestricted. The practical applications of the text will be found in Beveridge, Serm. Vol. Vv. p. 181 sq. (A. Ο. Libr.). ἐν πάντι!] ‘in everything,’ equally unrestricted ; sents no certain trace. ἐν πάντι. ὑμῶν PHILIPPIANS IV. 6, 7. 91 3 A a lp ‘ a , ‘ ᾽ ’ κ εν TAaVTL Τῇ προσεχῆ Kal Τῇ δεήσει μέτα εὐχαριστιᾶς τα 93 , ς A / \ \ 7 αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. not ‘in all time,’ Syr., Aith., but, ‘in Copt., ἐν πάντι φησί, πράγματι, Chrys. The translation of Vulg., ‘in omni ora- tione’ (so Clarom.), which Mey., and after him Alf., defend as meaning ‘ in omni (re) oratione,’ &c., is certainly rather suspicious. τί προσευχῇ K.T.A. | ‘by your prayer and your supplication,’ by the specific prayer offered up when the occasion may require it; comp. Middleton, Art. V. τ. 3, 4, p. 93 (ed. Rose). The repetition of the article gives an em- phasis to the words; each noun is enunciated independently: see Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. 5, p. 117. The difference between the more general προσ. (pre- catio) and the more special δέησ. (ro- gatio) is stated in notes on Eph. vi. 18, and on 1 Tim. ii. 1. μετὰ εὐχαρ.] ‘with thanksgiving, an ad- junct to prayer that should never be wanting, 1 Thess. v. 18, 1 Tim. ii. 2; see Beveridge, Serm. ΟΥἹ1. Vol. v. p. 76 sq. (A. C. Libr.), comp. notes on Col. iii. 15. Alford remarks on the omission of the article, ‘ because the matters themselves may not be recognized as grounds of εὐχαριστία." It seems more simple to say that evxap., ‘thanksgiving for past bless- ings,’ (comp. Hotm., Schrifth. Vol. τι. 2, p. 337), 15 in its nature more general and comprehensive, προσ. and déno. almost necessarily more limited and specific. Hence, though εὐχαρ. occurs 12 times in St. Paul’s Epp., it is only twice used with the article, 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 2 Cor. iv. 15. τὰ αἰτήματα] ‘your requests; ac- cording to termination, ‘the things requested’ (comp. Buttm. Gr. ὃ 119. 7), and thence (as the context re- quires) with a slight modification of omnibus,’ τούτεστι 7 καὶ ἡ meaning, ‘the purport or subjects of prayer :’ ‘petitum, materia δεήσεως, Beng.; comp. Luke xxiii. 24, 1 John v. 15. There is often, esp. in later Greek, a sort of libration of meaning between nouns in —ovs and —wa ; comp. 2 Tim. i. 13 al. Meyer quotes Plato, Rep. Vit. 566 B, where the epexegetic clause αἰτεῖν τὸν δῆμον (see Stalb. in loc.) seems to show that there is there also some tinge of such an inter- change. πρὸς τὸν Θεόν] ‘toward God,’ z.e. ‘before and unto God,’ the prep. denoting the ethical direction of the prayer; see Winer, Gr: '§ 49. h, p..371. 7. καὶ ἡ εἰρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘and (sn) 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. ὃ 17, p. 125, be- longing to the general category of the gen. of ablation, Donalds. Gr. § 448. On the use of the consecutive καί (Heb. xii. 19 al.), see Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 3, Ῥ- 387. εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ (see below, ver. 9) is somewhat doubtful. Three meanings have been assigned to εἰρήνη ; (a) ‘concord ; ‘studium pacis, unitatis, concordiz, inter homines atque in ecclesia’ (Pol. Syn.), appy. adopicud by Theodoret (ws ὑπαλλήλων ὄντων The exact meaning of TOV διωγμῶν ἀναγκαίως αὐτοῖς τὴν εἰρ. ἐπηύξατο), and strenuously advocated by Meyer in loc. ; (8) ‘reconciliation’ with God ; ἡ καταλλαγή, ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ; Chrys. 1; comp. Rom. v. 1, and Green, Gr. p. 262; (y) ‘peace,’ i.e. the deep tranquillity of a soul resting wholly upon God,—the anti- thesis to the solicitude and anxiety engendered by the world and world- liness ; comp. John xiv. 27; Chrys. 92 PHILIPPIANS IV. 7.. ον lat a We Ue , , lol , A €t 077] TOU Θεοῦ 4] υπερέχουσα σαντα νοὺν φρουρήσει Tas ou e “ \ δ , e ~ 3 Ἕ (aus fe) ~ Kap aS υμῶν καὶ TA νοήματα ὑμῶν EV βιστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 2, Beza, Beng., al. Of these (a) seems clearly insufficient and not in harmony with the context ; (8) points in the right direction, but is unneces- sarily restrictive ; (γ) is fully in accor- dance with the context (comp. μηδὲν μεριμν., ver. 6), includes (8), and gives a full and spiritual meaning: so De W., Wiesing., Alf., and most modern commentators; comp. notes on Col. iii. 15. ἡ ὕπερ. πάντα νοῦν] ‘which over-passeth every understand- ing; ‘which transcendeth every effort and attempt on the part of the under- standing to grasp and realize it.’ Νοῦς here, as the context suggests, points to the human πνεῦμα ‘ quatenus cogitat et intelligit’ (Olsh. Opusc. p. 156),—a meaning, however, in many, perhaps the majority of cases in the N.T., not sufficiently comprehensive ; see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5, and on 2 Tim. iii. 8. It may be observed that the term νοῦς is appy. used by the sacred writers, not to denote any separate essence or quality different from the πνεῦμα, but as a manifes- tation or outcoming of the same in moral and intellectual action, the human πνεῦμα, ‘quatenus cogitat, in- telligit, et vult ” the exact limits of this definition being in all cases best fixed by the immediate context: see esp. Beck, Seelenl. τι. 18, p. 48 sq., Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. IV. 5, p. 145, and comp. Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, Vol. 11. p. 494 sq. On the use of the transitive ὑπερέχειν with an accus. of the object surpassed (contrast ch. ii. 3), see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 504. obs. 2. φρουρήσει] ‘shall guard, keep ; not optative, ‘custodiat,’ Vulg., Clarom., and in effect Chrys., διαφυλάξειε καὶ ἀσφαλίσαιτο, but simply future, as in Goth. ‘fastaip’ [servabit, — not ‘servat,’ De Gab.; Goth. pres. com- monly supplies place of Greek fut.], Copt., al. ; the event will follow if the exhortation μηδὲν κιτ.Ὰ. is attended to. We can scarcely say with Conyb. that φρουρ. is literally ‘ shall garrison’ (2 Cor. xi. 32, Thucyd. 111, 17, Plato, Rep. 420 A), as the idea of ‘watching over,’ ‘guarding,’ both accords with derivation [φροτε πρὸ and Homeric op-, Pott, Zt. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 122], and appears both in connexion with persons and things ; Soph. Gd. Rez. 1479, Eurip. Cycl. 686, Here. Fur. 399; Hesych. φρουρεῖ" φυλάττει. The nature of the φρούρησις is more nearly defined by ἐν Xp. Ino. 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 zn loc. τὰς καρδίας K.T.A.| ‘your hearts and your thoughts ; ‘ corda vestra et cogi- tationes vestras,’ Copt., Aith. The distinction between these two words should not be obscured. Kapdia, properly the (imaginary) seat of the ψυχή, the ‘Lebens-Mitte’ (Beck, Seelenl. 111. 20, p. 63), is used with considerable latitude of meaning to denote the centre of feeling, willing, thinking, and even of moral life (see esp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. Iv. 11, Ὁ. 203 8sq.), and, to speak roughly, bears much the same relation to the ψυχὴ that νοῦς bears to πνεῦμα (see above), being in fact the ψυχὴ in its practical aspects and relations ; see Olshaus. Opuse. p. 155 sq., and notes on τ Tim. i. 5. The νοήματα, on the other hand, are properly (as here) the products of spiritual activity, of think- ing, willing, &c. (2 Cor, 11. 11), and PHILIPPIANS IV. 8. 8 TO λοιπόν ἀδελφοὶ, ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, Practise all that is good, and all that you have learnt from me. occasionally and derivatively, the im- plements or instruments of the same, ὮΝ Gor. ili.- 14, Iv. 4: see Beck, Seelenl. τι. 19, p. 59, Roos, Psychol. Iv. 26. The meaning is thus in effect as stated by Alf., ‘ your hearts them- selves (ἢ and their fruits ; or as, briefly, by Beng., ‘cor sedes cogita- tionum.’ On _ biblical psychology generally, see the remarks in pref. to Past. Epist. p. V., and notes on 1 Tim. iii. 16. 8. τὸ λοιπόν] ‘ Finally ;’ concluding recapitulation, in an emphatic and comprehensive summary, of the chief subjects for preparatory meditation and (ver. 9) consequent practice. The formula is here more definitely con- clusive (πάντα ἡμῖν εἴρηται, Chrys.) than in ch. 111. 1 (see notes), where the nature of the exhortations led to a not unnatural digression. It thus echoes, yet, owing to the difference of the exhortations, does not resume (Matth.), the preceding τὸ λοιπόν. The sixfold repetition of ὅσα adds much to the vigour and emphasis of the exhortation. On the whole verse see thirteen able sermons by Whichcote, Works, Vol. 111. p. 368 sq. ἀληθῆ] ‘true. ἐ.6. as the context re- quires, in their nature and practical applications, ‘genere morum,’ Which- cote: soTheoph. (comp. Chrys.) ἀληθῆ" τουτέστιν ἐνάρετα᾽ ἣ yap κακία ψεῦδος ; comp. Eph. iv. 21. To restrict the reference to words (Beng., Bisp.), or doctrine (Hamm.), seems undesirable ; the epithets throughout are general and inclusive. σεμνά] “ seemly,’ ‘venerable,’ ‘ deserving of, Φ vy and receiving, respect,’ Syr. «922 [‘verecunda’]: comp. Hor. Epist. 1. 1. tT, ‘quid verum atque decens curo et rogo. The Vulg. ‘pudica’ is too 93 special, the Auth. ‘honest’ scarcely exact. As the derivation suggests (σέβομαι), the adj. primarily marks whatever calls for ‘respect’ or ‘ vene- ration,’ and thence with a somewhat special application whatever is so seemly and grave (ὅσα ἐν σχήμασιν καὶ λόγοις, Kal βαδίσμασι kal πράξεσιν, (EKeum.) as always to secure it; see Whichcote, p. 399. Τὸ σεμνόν, ac- cording to this able writer, consists in ‘grave behaviour’ and ‘composure of spirit,’ and is briefly characterized by Calv. as ‘in hoc situm ut digne vo- catione nostra ambulemus:’ hence such associations as σεμνὸν καὶ ἅγιον, Plato, Soph. 249 A, μέτρια καὶ σεμνά, Clem. Rom. Cor. i. 1; comp. notes ον 1 Tim. i. 2. in its widest application, ‘que talia sunt qualia esse oportet,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 19: not exactly ‘just and equal,’ Whichcote, but rather ‘just and right,’ whether from the propor- tions of things or constitutions of the law (Whichcote, Vol. Iv. p. τοὺ), with- out any reference to others (Col. iv. 1): comp: Acts x..22, Rom. v. 7; 1 Tim. i. 9. On the distinction be- tween 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 ἘΞ 2 Cor, τα tI, 1 Tim. v. 22: not ‘chaste,’ Grot., Est. al., in the more special and limited meaning of the word. On the use of ἁγνός, and its distinction from ἅγιος (with which the Vulg. appears here to have inter- changed it) see notes on 1 Tim. v. 22, and Tittmann, Synon. p. 21 sq. Chrys. draws a correct line between this and the preceding σεμνός ; τὸ σεμνὸν τῆς ἔξω ἐστὶ δυνάμεως, TO δὲ ἁγνὸν τῆς ψυχῆς. προσφιλῆ] ‘lovely’ (dm. λεγόμ.), not merely in δίκαια] ‘iust,’ 94 PHILIPPIANS IV. 8, ο. ω Ρ 4 δί Δ ε , Ψ A δ᾿ ὅσα σεμνα, OTA OiKaLa, ὅσα ava, ὅσα προσφιλῆ, ὅσα + 3, 5 \ τὴ x 2 a , εὔφημα, εἰ τις ἀρετή και εἰ τις ἔπαινος, ταυτα λογίζεσθε: 9 ra Nao 0 A Xa A 3 , A 10. α καὶ EULQAUETE Και TAPE αβετε καὶ Ἠκουσατε Kal ELOETE reference to our fellow-men, ‘per que sitis amabiles hominibus,’ Est. (comp. 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 disposition of the doer (Whiche.) con- ciliates love, is generous and noble. See the good exemplifications of τὸ προσφιλές, in Whichcote, Serm. LXXv. Vol. Iv. p. 88 sq. εὔφημα] ‘of good report ;? not merely ‘que bonam famam pariuut’ (Grot., Calv.), but in accordance with the more literal meaning of the word, ‘ well- sounding’ (Luth.), ‘of auspicious na- Qo ture when spoken of,’ Syr. weenie [laudabilia}, those ‘ great and bright truths’ in relation to God, ourselves, and our fellow-men, which sound well of themselves (loquuntur res), and command belief and entertainment, Whichcote, p. 108 sq. εἴ τις ἀρετή] ‘whatever virtue there be,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 107, or more accurately, ‘there is,” Alf., it being assumed that there is such; see Latham, Engl. Lang. ὃ 614 (ed. 3): re- capitulation of the foregoing, with ref. perhaps to all the epithets except the last, which seems to be generalized by the following ἔπαινος. *Aper7 [from a root AP- and connected with Sanscr. vrt ‘ protegere,’ Pott, Hiym. Forsch, Vol. I. p. 221, Donalds. Crat. § 285] is only found elsewhere in the N.T., in 2 Pet. i. 5 (in ref. to man, comp. Wisdom iv. 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 Mey. observes, ‘moral excellence in feeling and action’ (ἡ τῶν καλῶν νομιζομένων ἐμπειρία, Hesych.), and is opp. to κακία, Plato, Republ. 444 Ὁ, 445 ©: see Whichcote, Vol. Iv. p. 120. ἔπαινος] ‘ praise ;’ not ‘id quod est laudabile,’ Calv., or, “ea que laudem apud homines mere- antur,’ Est.,—but ‘praise,’ in 108 simple sense, which, as Whichcote observes, ‘regularly follows upon virtue, and is a note of it and a piece of the reward thereof,’ p. 132. The addition ἐπιστήμης after éraw. with D*E*FG ; Clarom., some mss. of Vulg., al. is an interpolation properly rejected by all modern editors. λογίζεσθε] ‘think on,’ ‘take accownt of, not however merely ‘bear them in your thoughts,’ ‘ meditate’ (Alf.), but ‘use your faculties upon them,’ ‘horum rationem habete,’ Beng. ; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 5, and see Which- cote, p. 138. 9. & καί] ‘which also? exemplifi- cation of the foregoing in the Apostle himself; τοῦτο διδασκαλίας ἀρίστης, τὸ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς παραινέσεσιν ἑαυτὸν παρέχειν τύπον, Chrysost. The first καὶ is ascensive (‘ 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 mapen. ἠκούσ. καὶ eld.) connected by καί, each of which again is similarly inter- connected : ‘duo priora verba ad doc- trinam pertinent, duo reliqua ad exem- plum,’ Estius ; comp. Theod., καὶ διὰ τῶν λόγων ὑμᾶς ἐδίδαξα, καὶ διὰ τῶν πραγμάτων ὑπέδειξας, So also Van Heng., Mey., Wiesinger, al. παρελάβετε)] ‘received ; not, how- ever, in a purely passive (Gal. i. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 13), but, as the climactic order of the words (comp. ἠκούσ. Kai PHILIPPIANS IV. 0. τὸ. 95 ἢ ’ ; “ , ᾿ bs Θ δὴ “ ue ” εν εμοι9ς TAUVUTA πράσσετε Kal ὁ COG Τὴν εἰρηνης εσται 2 αὖ. α μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. I rejoiced in your renewed aid: yet I 10 *Exapyv δὲ ἐν ἸΚυρίῳ μεγάλως, ὅτι am content and want not. Ye have freely supplied my needs, and_God shall supply yours. εἴδ.) seems to suggest, with a some- what active- reference (John i. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 1); comp. Dion. Halic. 1. Ῥ. 44, λέγω ἅ παρὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων παρέλαβον (que ab incolis percep), and the somewhat similar ἀναλαβεῖν ἐν καρδίᾳ, Job xxii. 22. The distinc- tion of Grot. ‘éud@ere significat primam institutionem: παρελάβετε exactiorem doctrinam (ἐγγράφως, Theoph.,—but qu. lexically doubtful: for exx. of παραλ. see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 222. ἠκούσατε does not refer to any form of teaching or preaching (‘refertur ad familiares sermones,’ Grot., Hamm.), 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. *Ev ἐμοὶ thus belongs more especially to the two latter verbs, the prep. ἐν denoting the sphere, and as it were substratum of the action ; see notes on Gal. i. 24, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 345 (ed. 6). ταῦτα πράσσετε] Parallel to the pre- ceding ταῦτα λογίζεσθε, without how- ever suggesting any contrast between ‘acting’ and ‘thinking ; Χογίζ. (see notes) having a distinctly practical reference ; see Meyer in loc. Kal ὁ Θεὸς k.t.A.] ‘and (so) the God of peace; comp. ver. 7, where xal has a similarly consecutive force, and see notes on ver. 12. The expression ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρ. admits of different ex- planations according to the meaning assigned to εἰρήνη, see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. tv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 201. Here there seems no reason to depart from the meaning assigned in ver. 7; the reading) seems gen. being a form of the gen. of con- tent, or (which is nearly allied to it) of the characterizing attribute; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115, and comp. Andrewes, Serm. Xvitl. Vol. II. p. 84 (Angl. C, Libr.). Io. ἐχάρην δέ] ‘Now 7 rejoiced :’ transition to more special matters, the δὲ being μεταβατικόν (Hartung, Partik. Vol. τ. p. 165), and marking the change to a new subject; εἶτα Kal περὶ τῶν πεμφθέντων παρ᾽ αὐτῶν γράφει χρημάτων, Theod. The addi- tion ἐν Κυρίῳ serves to define the nature of the joy; it was neither selfish nor earthly, it was ὧν his Lord and without Him was not; see notes on ch. iii. 1. ἤδη ποτέ] ‘now at length,’ ‘tandem aliquando,’ Vulg., Rom. i. to; more fully ex- pressed in Aristoph. Ran. 931, ἤδη ποτ᾽ ἐν μακρῷ χρόνῳ, ἤδη acquiring that meaning from ref. to something long looked for ; see Hartung, Partik. ἤδη, 2. 4, Vol. I. p. 238. De Wette adopts the translation ‘jetzt einmal,’ ‘jam aliquando’ (comp. Plato, Symp. 216 £) on the ground that the more usual transl. involves a tacit reproach. 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; comp. Neand. Philipp. p. 25. ἀνεθάλετε κι τ. λ.}] ‘put forth new shoots, jlourished again, in respect of your solicitude for me; ‘refioruistis pro me sentire,’ Vulg., and less literally, Q » Υ Syr. δα» 12,1805 cohacl? [αὖ ccepistis curam habere mei] There is some little difficulty both in 96 ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε TO ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν: ἐφ᾽ II ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ. the construction and exegesis. The verb ἀναθάλλειν may be either tran- sitive (Ezek. xvii. 24, Ecclus. i. 18), or intransitive (Psalm xxviil. 7, Wis- dom iv. 4). In the former case the construction is simple (τὸ ὑπὲρ κ.τ.λ. being a simple accus. after the verb), but the exegesis unsatisfactory, as the ἀναθάλλειν would appear dependent on the will of the Philipp., which the context certainly seems to contradict. In the latter, adopted by Vulg., Copt., Syr., and the Greek commen- tators, the exegesis is less difficult, but the construction somewhat am- biguous. Hither (a) τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ is the object accus. after φρονεῖν, the verb itself being somewhat laxly appended to ἀνεθάλ., Beng., Mey., Alf.; or (Ὁ) τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν is the accus. of the quantitative object (notes on Eph. iv. 15) dependent on ἀνεθά- rere, Winer, Gr. § 44. 1, p. 284, Wiesing., Bisp., and appy. Chrys. and Theophyl. (who interpolates εἰς). Of these (qa) is artificial, and contrary to the current and sequence of the Greek : (Ὁ) 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 difficulty may be diluted by observing that φρονεῖν is not used exactly in the same sense in the two clauses,—7d ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ gdp. in fact coalescing to form a new idea,—and as (a) is not only artificial, but involves an undue emphasis on τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, we somewhat confidently adopt (0) : so Wiesing. and Bisping. Lastly, ἀνεθάλετε does not involve any cen- sure (ὅτι πρότερον ὄντες avOnpol ἐμαράν- θησαν, ΟἾγγ5.): the time during PHILIPPIANS IV. tro, rr. 4 Kal “Sy 5 4 5 ic ’, οὐχ ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν which ἠκαιροῦντο was the period of unavoidable torpor ; when the suitable time and opportunity came, ἀνέθαλον comp. Andrewes, Serm. XVIII. Vol. III. p- 99 (A. C. Libr.). The rare aor. ἀνέθ. is noticed by Winer, ὃ 15, Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, s.v. θάλλω. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ] ‘for which,’ ‘with a view to which,’ ‘in contemplation of which ;’ the ἐπὶ marking the object contem- plated : not ‘sicut,’ Vulg., Syr., ‘in quo,’ Copt., interpretations which ob- scure the proper force of the prepo- On the meanings of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, see the notes on ch. iii. 12. καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε] ‘ye also were anxious, careful » imperf., marking the con- tinuance 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 just when the need came,—far from it, you were also anxious long before you ἀνεθά- λετε.᾽ The omission of μὲν after ἐῴρον. sitions. gives, as Meyer observes, a greater vigour to the antithesis ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 356, comp. notes on Gal. 11. 15. ἠκαιρεῖσθε] ‘ye were lacking opportunity.’ ᾿Ακαιρ. (an dm. λεγόμ.) 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 Phill., οὐκ εἴχετε ἐν χερσίν, οὐδὲ ἐν ἀφθονίᾳ ἢτε, and urges the popular use of dxaip. in that sense. It may have been so; it seems, however, safer to preserve the ordinary tem- poral reference ; see above. It. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘not that,’ “7 do not mean that ? see notes on ch, iii. 12, Winer, Gr. § 64. 6, p. 526. The PEN LIPPIANS? tEV > rire. , τ ‘ ‘ 4 ’ eo Sh 8 > , > Neyo’ εγω γὰρ ἔμαθον εν οἱις εἰμι αυταρκῆς εἰναι. 97 12 οἶδα ΓΟ > \ ,ὔ ΕῚ A Ww ~ καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι, οἶδα Kal περισσεύειν" εν παντὶ Καὶ EV TAGLV Apostle does not wish his joy at this proof of their sympathy to be mis- understood as mere satisfaction at being relieved from present want or pressure. Kad? ὑστέρησιν] ‘in consequence of want,’ ‘propter penuriam,’ Vulg., sim. Syr. ¥ vy » aan pilens Yds [propterea quod defuerit mihi]; see notes on ch. ii. 3, and on Tit. iii. 5, where this meaning of κατὰ is briefly inves- tigated. Van Heng., to preserve the more usual meaning of the prep., gives ὑστέρησιν a concrete reference, ‘ut more receptum est penuriz ;’ this The meaning is simply οὐ διὰ τὴν ἐμὴν χρείαν, Theodoret ; ‘notio secundum is artificial and unnecessary. facile transit in notionem propter,’ Kuhner, Xenoph. Mem. 1. 3. 12. ἐγὼ yap ἔμαθον] ‘for 1 for my part have learned, not ‘learned,’ Alf., which represents the action as too remote to suit the Lnglish idiom. In the Greek nothing more is said than that the μανθάνειν took place after a given time (see Donalds. Gr. § 432); whether it does or dves not last to the present time is left unnoticed; see esp. Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 16 sq. The ἐγὼ is emphatic, ‘quidquid alii sen- tiunt aut cupiunt,’ and ἔμαθον, as the tenor of the verse seems to indicate, refers to a teaching derived, not ‘divinitus,’ Beng., but, from the practical experiences of life ; διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων ὁδεύων, πεῖραν ἔλαβον ἱκανήν, Theod. ἐν οἷς εἰμι] ‘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 ref. to any possible state, ‘in quocunque statu sim,’ Raphel, (comp. Auth.), which would require dv,—but with ref. to the state in which he is at the time of consideration; almost ‘in every state that I come into.’ The expression ἐν οἷς (no ellipse of χρή- μασιν, Wolf., al.) is copiously illus- trated by Wetst. in loc. ; see also Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 310. αὐτάρκης] ‘content, “αὖ sufficiat mihi id quod est mihi,’ Syr. (comp. Heb. xiii. 5, ἀρκούμενοι Tots παροῦσιν), literally ‘self-supporting,’ ‘indepen- dent,’ the opposite being, as Meyer observes, προσδεὴς ἄλλων, Plato, Tim. 33 D; comp. Arist. Ethic. Nic. 1. 5, τὸ τέλειον ἀγαθὸν αὔταρκες εἶναι δοκεῖ : see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 6, and Barrow, Serm. XXXVI. Vol. 11. p. 404. The practical inferences deducible from this verse are well stated by Sanderson, Serm. Vv. (ad Aul.). 12. οἶδα καὶ ταπειν.] “17 know (how) also to be abased “ second mem- ber of the climax (ἔμαθον x.7.X., olda K.T.v., μεμύημαι K.T.A.) explain- ing more in detail the preceding ἐν ols εἰμι αὐτάρκ. εἶναι : the Apostle, as Andrewes well says, ‘had stayed affec- tions.’ The first καὶ thus serves to annex the special instance (ταπειν.) to the more general statement (see notes on Eph. v. 18, Winer, Grr. ὃ 53. 3, Ρ. 388, ed. 6), the second appends to ταπειν. its opposite, and is thus copulative and indirectly contrastive. The use of καὶ in the N.T., as the Aramaic © would have led us ὦ priort to suppose, is somewhat varied. Though all are really included in the two broad distinetions οὐ and etiam (see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 635), we may perhaps conveniently enumerate the following subdivisions. Under the first (et) καὶ appears as, (a) simply copulative ; (8) adjunctive, 2.¢. i 98 PHILIPPIANS . IV. τὸ. 8 ’ ᾿ a 8 , x μεμύημαι, και χορτάζεσθαι καὶ TWELVAV, Και περισσεύειν Kal either when the special is annexed to the general as here, Mark i. 5, Eph. vi. 19 al., or conversely the general to the special, Matth. xxvi. 59; (y) consecutive, nearly ‘and so,’ ver. 9, Matth. xxiii. 32, comp. James ii. 23 al. Under the second (etiam) καὶ appears as, (δὴ) ascensive, the most usual sense, or conversely, descensive, Gal. iii. 4, Eph. v. 12, where see notes; (ε) epexegetic, approaching nearly to ‘namely,’ ‘that is to say,’ John i. 16, Gal. ii. 20, vi. 16, where see notes ; (ὦ comparative, especially in double-membered clauses, see notes on Eph. v. 23; to all which we may perhaps add a not uncommon use of καί, which may be termed (7) its con- trasting force, as here (2% καὶ), and more strongly, Mark xii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6 (2% kal). In such a case the particle is not ad- versative, as often asserted, but copu- lative and contrasting; the opposition arises merely from the juxtaposition of clauses involving opposing or dis- similar sentiments. These seven heads appy. include all the more common uses of καὶ in the N.T., for further exx. 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 reading δὲ (ofda δέ)ὺ of Rec. has scarcely any authority, and is rightly rejected by appy. all modern editors. περισσεύειν] ‘to abound.’ The oppo- sition between ramew. and περισσ. is not exactly perfect (contrast Matth. xxiii, 12, 2 Cor. xi. 7, and above, Phil. ii. 8, 9), but still need not in- volve a departure from the lexical meaning of either word. The former (rarew.) is more general (‘ to be cast down,’— not expressly, λιμωττεῖν, Ccum., and sim, even De W.). but obviously includes the idea of the pressure and dejection arising from want (comp. Aith.); the latter is more specific. The paraphrase of Pelag (cited by Mey.) is thus perfectly satis- factory, ‘ut nec abundantia extollar, nec frangar inopia.’ ἐν πάντι Kal ἐν πᾶσιν] ‘in everything 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; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8. The expression seems designed to be perfectly general and inclusive, ἐν πάντι πράγμ. καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς παρεμπίπτουσι, Phot. ap. Gicum. μεμύημαι] ‘I have been initiated, fully taught,’ ‘institutus sum,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; a] 43 8 [exercitatus sum] Syr., ‘assuetus sum,’ Auth. ;— climactic, see above. The word is an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N.T., and appears used, not in its primary sense, ‘ dis- ciplinaé arcana imbutus sum,’ Beng. (μυούμενος" μυσταγωγούμενος, Hesych.), but in its derivative sense, ‘I have been fully instructed’ (μύησις" μάθη- σις, κατήχησις, Hesych.) with perhaps some reference to the practical mode in which the knowledge was acquired ; πεῖραν ἁπάντων ἔχω, Phot. ap. dicum.; see Suicer, Thesawr. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 379 sq. As μυεῖσθαι is used with an accus. of the thing (Plato, Symp, 209 E, and see exx. in Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. 8.v.), more rarely with a gen. (Heliod. dthiop. 1. 17, see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 651 note) or dat. (Lucian, Demon. 11), some modern commen- tators (Mey., Alf.) join ἐν πάντι k.7.r. with the infinitives. This is harsh and somewhat hypercritical ; μυεῖσθαι PHILIPPIANS IV. 12—14. e - ὑστερεῖσθαι. 99 13 ὁ J ’ 9 la 9 A) A ’ TAVTA toXUW εν To ενουναάαμουντι με- A ~ Ul 14 πλὴν καλῶς ἐποιήσατε συγκοινωνήσαντές μου TH θλίψει. appears with a prep. (κατὰ) in 3 Macc. ii. 30, and is probably so to be joined here ; so Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Goth., and appy. Copt., Auth. πεινᾶν] Later form for πεινῆν, see Winer, Gr. § 13. 3, p. 71, Thom. M. p- 699: ‘vulgaris horum verborum scriptura cum ingressu Macedonici zevi, tenuis scaturiginis instar, hic ibi emicat,’ Lobeck, Phryn. p. 61. The verb χορτάζω, properly used in ref. to animals, (Hesiod, Op. 454, Aristoph. faz, 176, Plato, Rep. 1. 372 Ὁ, _ comp. IX. 586 D), is found always in the N.T. (except Rev. xix. 21), and very commonly in later writers, in simple reference to men. 13. πάντα ἰσχύω] “7 can do all things, —not ‘all this,’ Hamm. on 1 Cor. xiii. 7, ‘omnia memorata,’ Van Heng., but ‘all things,’ with the most inclusive reference, marking the transition from the special to the general. Bernard (Serm. LXXXvV.) well says ‘nihil omnipotentiam Verbi clariorem reddit, quam quod omnipo- tentes facit omnes qui in se [eo] sperant ;) see a good sermon on this text by Hamm. Serm. XIv. p. 297 (Angl. C. Libr.). Πάντα is the accus. of the ‘quantitative’ object after ἰσχύω (Gal. v. 6, James v. τό, Wis- dom xvi. 20), defining the measure and extent of the action ; see Madvig, Synt. ὃ 27. ἐν τῷ ἐνδυν.] ‘in Him that giveth me inward strength ; not ‘per eum,’ Beza, but ‘in Him,’ in vital and living union with Him who is the only source of all spiritual δύναμις ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. iv. 17. The late form ἐνδυναμόω occurs five times in St. Paul’s Epp., in Acts ix. 22, and Heb. xi. 34 (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 12), Psalm 111, 7, and eccl. writers. The simple form occurs Col. i. 11, Psalm Ixviii. 31, and is noticed by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 605 note. The inter- polation of Χριστῷ after με (Rec.) is well supported [D***EFGJK; Boern, Syr. (both), Goth., al.; Gr. Ff.], but seems due to 1 Tim. i. 12, and is re- jected by most modern editors. 14. πλὴν κιτ.λ.] ‘ Notwithstanding ye did well ;’ clearly not ‘ye have done well,’ Peile,—the event referred to belonged definitely to the past. In this verse and the following, which in fact present the positive side to the negative οὐχ ὅτι, ver. 11, the Apo- stle guards against any appearance of slighting the liberality of his con- verts (Chrys., Calv.), by specifying what peculiarly evoked his joy,—the sympathy of the Philippians, τὸ συγ- κοινωνῆσαί μου TH θλίψει. For the explanation of πλὴν see notes on ch. i, 18, iii. 16, and for exx. of the idiomatic καλῶς ἐπ. with a part. (Acts x. 33) see Elsner, Obs. Vol. I. p. 257. συγκοινων. k.T.A. |] ‘in that ye communicated, had fellow- ship, with my affliction,’ see notes on Eph. vy. t1: specification of their action viewed in its moral aspects ; ὑμῶν τοῦτο κέρδος" κοινωνοὶ yap τῶν ἐμῶν ἐγένεσθε παθημάτων, Theod. The action of the participle is contem- poraneous with that of the finite verb (see Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 383, notes on Eph. i. 9, comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 6. b, p. 316), and specifies the act in which the καλῶς ἐποιήσ. was evinced. It is scarcely necessary to add that θλίψει is not either here or 2 Cor. viii, 13, ‘penurize’ (‘neces- sity,’ Peile), but simply ‘ tribulationi,’ Vulg.; the gift of the Phill. is re- garded from a higher point of view, as an act of ministering sympathy. H 2 100 PHILIPBIANS © Vitae 18 9 \ 4 | ς a Φ ο΄ 3 oy Pia ~ 5 οἴδατε δὲ Kat UMELG, ἰλιπ' πήσιοι,. OTL EV apxy Tov εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι 9 9 ’ὔ ο »» , 4 lA 9 4 ἐκκλησία εκοινώνησεν εἰς λογον δύσεως καὶ λήμψεως, εἰ μὴ 15. οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμ.} ‘ Moreover yourselves also know ;’ notice of their former liberality in the way of gentle contrast. Aé here does not merely annex an ‘ enlargeinent upon’ the pre- ceding verse (Peile, ‘and,’ Scholef.), but passes to earlier acts, which it puts in juxtaposition with the pre- sent; see notes on (Gal. iii. 8, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 356, 362, who has well discussed this particle, with the single exception that he denies any connexion between it and the numeral, which seems _philo- logically certain ; Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 155. The καὶ suggests a comparison with the Apostle, ‘ ye too, as well as I;’ comp. notes on ver. 12. of Philippi, The mention by name is emphatic (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 11); it does not mark merely affection (‘my Philip- pians,’ Bisp.), but specifies them, gratefully and earnestly, as the well remembered and acknowledged doers of the good deed. Beng. goes rather too far when he says, ‘innuit antitheton “men Φιλιππήσιοι] ad alias ecclesias τ᾿ the comparison is | instituted in what follows. ὅτε ἐξῆλθον] ‘when 7 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 specially men- tioned 2 Cor. xi. 9; or (Ὁ) to that supplied previously to, and possibly at, his departure, Acts xvii. 14. If (a), then ἐξῆλθον must be regarded as having a pluperfect reference (Van Heng., De W., see Paley, Hor. Paul. VII. 3),—an interpretation to which no serious grammatical objection can be urged (618, Gr. ὃ 404, Winer, Gr. ὃ 40. 5, see, however, Fritzsch. de Aor. Ῥ. 16), but which seems at variance with ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ evayy., which, as Mey. observes, refers the event to the earliest period of their connexion with the Apostle. It seems safer, then, to adopt (b); so Mey., Alf., and Bisp. ἐκοινώνησεν K.T.A.] “ communicated with (‘dealt with,’ Andrewes) me im regard of the account (ver. 17) of giving and receiving ;’ eis λόγον not being taken in the more lax, yet de- fensible, sense ‘ ratione habita,’ Van Heng. (comp. 2 Mace. i. 14, Thucyd. iii. 46), but, as εἰς λόγον below seems to suggest, in the stricter meaning, ‘in ratione dati et accepti,’ Vulg., Goth., Copt., comp. Cicero, Lal. XVI. (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 recent, expositors refer the giving and receiving to each party ; ὁρᾷς πῶς ἐκοινώνησαν, els λόγον δόσεως τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ λήψεως τῶν πνευμα- τικῶν, Chrys.; comp. 1 Cor. ix. IT: Grotius and others limit the giving to the Philippians and the receiving to the Apostle ; expensi tabulis, vos in meis accepti.’ Meyer (followed by Aif.) 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 account, the creditor on his. This last interpr. seems so artificial, and the first so fairly analogous with the spiritual application in ver. 17, that we see no reason for departing from the ordinary interpr.; so recently Wiesing., and Bisping. Exx. of the expression λήψις καὶ δόσις are cited by Wetst. in loc.; comp. also Schoettg. ‘ego sum ἴῃ vestris PHILIPPIANS TV. 15. τό. 101 16 Oh ee , 4 Ne ra) , νι of A Ss UMELC MLOVOL, οτι Και ἐν εσσαλονικη και ἅπαξ και οις εἰ \ , I, τῇ b) cf 3 as ‘ Ὁ ΤΩΡ XPErav μοι ἐπέμψατε. οὐχ οτι ἐπιζητῶ TO Hor. Vol. τ. p. 804. For the con- | sity; εἰς marking the ethical destina- struction of κοινωνέω, see notes on | tion of the contribution ; so εἰς τὸ Gal. vi. 6. evayy., 2 Cor. ii. 12, ‘to preach the 16. ὅτι] ‘ because,’—argumentative | Gospel ;’ see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. (not demonstrative, ‘that,’ Paley, | a, p. 354. The article marks the Van Heng., Rilliet, al.), the object of | necessity the Apostle then felt, ὁ. e. this verse being to justify the state- | ‘my necessity,’ Syr., al. Chrysostom ment, ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ evayy., ver. 15, by | calls attention to the absence of the noticing a very early period when as- | pronoun, οὐκ εἶπε τὰς ἐμὰς [ χρείας] sistance was sent to the Apostle from | ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς, τοῦ σεμνοῦ ἐπιμελόμενος : Philippi. Even before he had left | this is inexact, as the art. fully per- Macedonia they had twice ministered | forms the function of the pron. ; to his necessity: so Goth, (‘unte’), | Middl. Art. v. 1. 3. and perhaps, Vulg., Clarom., ‘quia ;’ 17. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘not that, added, as the other Vv. are ambiguous; Aith. | before ver. 11, to avoid a misunder- omits. The other interpr. of ὅτι re- | standing; see notes on ch. iii. 12: verses the order of time, and disturbs | ‘sic laudat Philippensium liberalitatem the logical sequence. ut tamen sinistram cupiditatis immo- καὶ ἐν Θεσσ΄.] ‘even in Thessalonica,’ | dice opinionem semper a se rejiciat,’ not ‘to Thessalonica,’ Vulg., Clarom., | Calvin. ἐπιζητῶ] “7 seck but ‘ when I was in that city.’ There | after,’ not ‘studiose quero,’ Bretsch., is here no ellipse of ὄντι (Beza), nora | nor even ‘insuper quero,’ Van direct instance of the prep. of rest in | Heng., who has an elaborate, but not combination with a verb of motion | persuasive, note on this word: the (Mey., Alf.), but only a case of simple | ἐπί, as in ἐπιποθεῖν x.7.d., only marks and intelligible brachylogy, Winer, | the direction of the action, see notes on Gr. ὃ 50. 4, p. 368. The ascensive | ch. i. 8,and on 2 Tim.i.4. In many καὶ is referred by the early commen- | cases, in this and similar compounds, tators to the importance of Thessa- | the directive force is so feebly marked lonica; ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει καθημένος | that the difference between the simple παρὰ τῆς μικρᾶς ἐτρέφετο πόλεως, | and compound is hardly appreciable ; Chrys. This is doubtful; it seems | comp. Winer, de Verb. Comp. 1. 22. more naturally ascensive in ref. to | Meyer rightly calls attention to the time, ‘even at so early a period as | present,—the ‘allzeitiges Prisens’ of when I was at Thess. ; comp. Har- | Kriiger (Sprachl. § 53. τὸν as marking tung, Partik. καί, 2. 8, Vol. 1. p. | the regular and characteristic mode of 135. kal ἅπαξ καὶ δίς] | action ; see Bernhardy, Synt. x. 1, p. ‘both once and twice,’ i.e., ‘not once | 370, and comp. the English present, only, but twice,’ emphatic: seer Thess. | in which, however, habitude is more ii. 18, Nehem. xiii. 30, 1 Mace. iii, | strongly marked than in the Greek ; 30, and Herod. ii. 121. 2, iii, 148. | Latham, Eng. Lang. § 507 (ed. 4). Meyer cites as the antithesis οὐχ ἅπαξ | τὸ δόμα] ‘the gift,’—not exactly ‘the οὐδὲ dis, Plato, Clitoph. 410 B. On | gift which they had [now] sent him,’ kai—xal, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. to. Scholef. Hints, p. 108, but ‘the gift εἰς τὴν χρείαν] ‘to supply my neces- | in the particular case in question’ 102 PHILIPPIANS _ IV. 17, 18, “A A \ ‘ , , δόμα, ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ TOV καρπὸν TOV πλεονάζοντα εἰς λόγον e ~ υμων. (Mey., Alf.), almost in English idiom ‘any gift.’ The Copt. [taio] seems to convey the idea of a recompense, ‘honorarium.’ GAN ἐπιΐ.] “but I do seek,’ Alf. : the repetition of the same verb with ἀλλά, as in Rom. viii. 15, Heb. xii. 18, adds force and emphasis, and makes the primary meaning of ἀλλὰ (‘ aliud jam hoc esse de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. m. p. 1) still more apparent ; compare Fritz. Rom. viii. 15. τὸν καρπὸν K.7.A.] ‘the fruit which aboundeth to your account,’ ὑμῶν, οὐκ ἐμοῦ, Chrys.; 1.6., the future divine recompense which on every fresh proof of their love is represented as being laid up to their account, ὁ καρπὸς ἐκείνοις τίκτεται, Chrys. As m)eovd- few appears in all other cases in the N.T. to stand alone (2 Thess. i. 3 is doubtful; Alf. cites it here as certain, but in his notes im loc. takes it diffe- rently), Van Heng. and De W. here connect εἰς with ἐπιζητῶ. This seems an unnecessary refinement, there is nothing in πλεονάζω to render its con- nexion with εἰς, as marking the desti- nation of the πλεονασμός, either un- grammatical or unnatural: itis joined with ἐν [Plato], Locr. 103 A. The use of λόγος is here the same as in ver. 15, not ‘ habit& vestrum ratione,’ Van Heng., and certainly not= els ὑμᾶς (Rill.; compare Syr.), but ‘in rationem vestram,’ Vulg., 7.¢., drop- ping all metaphor, els τὴν ὑμετέραν σωτηρίαν, Chrys. ; compare Calv. in loc. 18. ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα] ‘But 7 have all I need ; ‘though I seek not after the gift, I still have all things in abundance ; your liberality has left me to want nothing.’ The 6é thus retains its proper adversative force | 18 3 , A ; \ , , απέχω δὲ TAVTA Και TEPLTT EUW, πεπλήρωμαι (not ‘and now,’ Peile), and pre- serves the antithesis between the emphatic ἀπέχω and the foregoing ἐπιζητῶ ; ἀπέχω πάντα, οὐδὲν ἐπιζη- τητέον. ᾿Απέχω is neither barely ‘habeo,’ Vulg., nor yet with any special forensic sense (acceptilatio) ‘satis habeo,’ ‘I give you my acquit- tance’ (Hamm. on Mark, xiv. 41; comp. Chrys. ἔδειξεν ὅτι ὀφειλὴ ἐστὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα), but simply ‘acceptum teneo,’ MS>Do [accepi] Syr., Copt., mn Vv : the prep. ἀπὸ apparently having a slightly intensive force (‘ significat actionis quendam, ut ita dicam, de- cursum, atque adeo in agendo perse- verantiam,’ Winer, Verb. Comp. VI. p. 7), and marking the completeness and definitive nature of the ἔχειν ; comp. Matth. vi. 2, 5, 16, Luke vi. 24, Philem. 15, Arrian, Epict. 111. 24 [p. 228, ed. Borh.] τὸ yap εὐδαιμονοῦν ἀπέχειν δεῖ πάντα ἅ θέλει, and comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 40. 4, p. 246. καὶ περισσεύω] ‘and I abound,’ ex- pansion and amplification of the pre- ceding ἀπέχω, ‘I have all I want and more than all,’ the following πεπλή- pwuat completing the climax; ‘die Hiille und Fiille habe ich,’ Meyer. To supply χαρᾶς after πεπλήρ. (Grot.) is to wholly mar the simplicity and climactic force of the sentence. δεξάμενος «.7.A.] Temporal clause, ‘now that I have received,’ Peile, ‘posteaquam accepi,’ Erasm.; comp, Donalds. G7. ὃ 573 sq. In the fol- lowing words there is a slight variation of MSS [A omits rapa ’Ex.: FG, al. supply πεμφθέντα after ὑμῶν], caused probably by the recurrence of παρά: there is, however, no difficulty ; ὑμεῖς ᾿Επαφροδίτῳ ἐδώκατε, ᾿Επαφρόδιτος ἐμοί, Theodoret. ὀσμὴν ῬΗΠΙΡΡΙΆΝΒ ΤΥ, 18. ror 109 δεξάμενὸς παρὰ ᾿Επαφροδίτου τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτὴν εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ. 19 ὁ δὲ Θεός “ , iS ~ ‘ Ἁ A Ε A μου πληρώσει TATAV XpPerav υμῶν KATA TO πλοῦτος QuUTOU εὐωδίας] ‘a sweet-smelling savour ;" accus. in apposition to the preceding τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ; comp. Eph.v.2. The reference of Alf. to Kiihner, Gi. Vol. II. p. 146, and the exx. cited (Hom. 11. χχτν. 735, Eurip. Orest. 950) are not quite in point, as the apposition is not to the verbal action contained in the sentence (Jelf, Gr. ὃ 580. 2), but simply to the accus. τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, which is thus further defined and cha- racterized. It is doubtful whether the gen. εὐώδίας is to be considered a gen. materi (Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 2. Ὁ, p. 212 note, comp. Arist. Rhet. I. 11) or a gen. of the characterizing quality (see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115); the latter is perhaps most simple and most in harmony with the Hebraistic tinge which seems to mark these kinds of gen. in the N.T.; comp. Winer, Gr. l.c. (text). θυσίαν K.T.A.] ‘a sacrifice acceptable (and) well pleasing to God; not ‘an accepted sacr. such as is,’ &c., Peile, (comp. Syr.) ; both adjectives as well as the preceding ὀσμὴν εὐωδ. (comp. Ley. i. 9, 13) standing in connexion with τῷ Θεῷ, which thus falls under the general head of the dative of ‘ in- terest’ (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 sacri- fice to God himself. It does not seem necessary with Johnson (Und. Sacr.11. 4, Vol. 1. p. 436, [A. C. Libr. ], eomp. Ireneus, Her. Iv. 18) to con- clude 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., Heb. xiii. 16; see the comprehensive list in Waterl. Doctr. of Euch. ch, xu. Vol. Iv. p. 730. 19. ὃ δὲ Θεός μου] Not without emphasis and an expression of hopeful trust, ‘qui meam agit causam,’ Van Heng. ; see notes on ch. i. 3. πληρώσει K.T.A.] ‘shall fulfil (with reciprocating ref. to mem). ver. 18) every need of yours:’ not in the form of prayer (ἐπεύχεται αὐτοῖς, Chrys.), but of hopeful promise, the future πληρώσει being distinctly predictive ; comp. Rom. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. II, 2 Tim. iv. 18. The reading πλη- ρώσαι [D*FG; several mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., al.] followed by Theod., Theophyl., seems clearly a gloss. It is doubtful whether χρείαν is to be re- ferred solely to temporal (Chrys.), or solely to spiritual (Theod.), wants. The use of χρεία and the preceding allusions are in favour 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] ‘in glory ;’ not so much an instrumental (Mey., 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 ‘ magnifice, splendide,’ Calv. (comp. Beng.), but with ref. to the element or the attri- bute 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 Eph. ii. 7. So appy. Chrys., οὕτω περισσεύει ὑμῖν ἅπαντα ὥστε ἐν δόξῃ αὐτοῦ ἔχειν. Grotius and others (comp. A‘th.) con- nect ἐν δόξῃ with πλοῦτος ; this is 104 ev δόξη ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. ee All here send you greeting. poi. 7? C lh ele K ἢ 5. ἢ Οἱ εκ τῆς αἰσαρος Οἰκιας. grammatically admissible,—the ex- pression πλουτεῖν ἐν τινι (1 Tim. vi. 18) justifying the omission of the article (see notes on Eph. i. 15),—and certainly deserves consideration, but the remark of Meyer, that πλοῦτος is always used in the N.T. in such ‘metaphorical expressions with a gen. of the thing (Rom. ii. 4, ix. 23, 2 Cor. ΠῚ Ὁ, ph. 1, 3 18,. WZ, ii. 16, Col. i. 27). and that we should have expected κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δ. αὐτοῦ, seems to strike the balance in favour of πληρ. ἐν δόξῃ: so appy. Syr., but these are cases in which the _Vvy. cannot safely be adduced on either side, κατὰ τὸ TA. | © according to,’ i.e. ‘in accordance with the riches He has,’ comp. notes ‘on Eph. i. 5. The clause involves a shade of modal reference, and marks “ὅτι εὔκολον αὐτῷ καὶ δυνατόν, καὶ ταχέως ποιεῖν, Chrys. 20. Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί] ‘to God and the Father; anticipatory doxoclogy called forth by the preceding words. ‘On the august title Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, see notes on Gal. i. 4. ἡ δόξα] Scil. εἴη, not ἔστω ; see notes on Eph. 1... The article seems here to have its ‘rhetorical’ force (Bern- hardy, Synt, VI. 22, p. 315), and to mark the δόξα as that ‘which espe- cially and peculiarly belongs to God ;’ see notes on Gal. i. 5, where this and ‘the following expression, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, are briefly investi- gated. On the two formule αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, and αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων, see Harless on Eph. iil, 21, with however PHILIPPIANS IV. 1r9—22. 20 τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ A ε ὃ , 9 A 955 ~ wee 4 9 , ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς TOUS αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. 3 ᾿ “ e Ω “ 1 ᾿Ασπάσασθε πάντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ ἼἼ “ “ , ς ΄“ ς Ἁ 9 A κὃ σου. ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν εμοῖ αδελ- Ε € la , e δ , δὲ ἀσπάζονται μας WAaVTES Ol aylol, μαλιστα ε the qualifying remarks in notes in loc. 21. πάντα ἅγιον] ‘every saint ; not ‘omnes sancios,’ Syr., Copt., Aath., 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. It is doubtful whether ἐν Xp. is to be joined with ἀσπάσασθε (comp. Rom. xvi. 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 19) or with ἅγιον (ch. i. 1); the former is adopted by Syr. (plural) and Theod. (ὁ τῷ Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ πιστεύων) ; the latter by Mey. and several modern interpreters. As ἅγιος is connected in this Ep. with ἐν Xp. (comp. Rom. xvi. 3, 8, ἢ, 10, 13), and as ἀσπαΐζ. does not appear else- where used with ἐν Xp. or ἐν Xp. Ἴησ., but only with ἐν Κυρίῳ, the latter is perhaps slightly the most probable. οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί] Those who were more immediately in communication with the Apostle, suitably and natu- rally specified before~ the inclusive πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι in the following’ verse. The apparent difficulty between this and ch, ii. 20, is simply disposed of by Chrys., οὐ παραιτεῖται καὶ τούτους ἀδελφοὺς καλεῖν. 22. μάλιστα] ‘ especially ;’ they were naturally more in contact with the Apostle than the other Christians in Rome, who were not among his imme- diate associates. The primary force of μάλιστα is alluded to in notes on't Tim. iv. 10. ot ἐκ τῆς PHILIPPIANS IV. 23. Benediction, hat ~ , em μετὰ TOU TVEULLATOS ὑμῶν. Κ΄. οἰκίας] ‘those of Cesar’s house- hold.’ These words have received various interpretations. It seems most natural to regard them as de- noting, not on the one hand, merely ‘the Pretorian guards’ (Matth.), nor on the other, the ‘members of Nero’s family’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 16), Camer., Van Heng., and more recently, and “4, is to be feared with obvious reasons, Baur (Ap. Paulus, p. 470),—who founds on this interpr. an argument against the genuineness of the Ep., — but simply the οἰκεῖοι (Theod.), the ser- vants and retainers belonging to the emperor's household ; see Krebs, Obs. p. 332, Loesn. Obs. p. 358. thus seem not improbable that St. Paul It may was in confinement in or near to that barrack of the Pretorians 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 105 23 Ἣ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ᾽ησοῦ Χριστοῦ to be restricted to that smaller por- tion. The barracks within the walls were probably in constant communi- cation with the camp without. interesting paper by Lightfoot, Journ. Class. Philol. 1857 (March), p. 58 sq. 23. μετὰ τοῦ trvedp.] ‘with your spirit ; the ‘ potior pars’ of our com- posite nature, the third and highest constituent of man: see notes on Gal. vi. 18, and on 2 Tim. iv. 22. The reading is not very doubtful: the See an more usual μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν is not strongly supported [B (8 8511.) JK; many mss; Syr. (both), al.; Chrys., Theod.], while the text has decided external evidence [ADEFG; 17. 67.**73. 80; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., AAth. (Platt); many Ff.], and does not seem so likely to have been changed from πάντων ὑμῶν as the converse. The addition of ἡμῶν after Κυρίου [DE; Copt,, al.] has still less critical support. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. La Aa 9 ἵ Ps προ A ὅν, να » y ; hah wi ad . " ee a 3 oe THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. CHAPTER L ἢ Apostolic address and salutation. CuHaPTEeR I. 1. ἀπόστ. Xp. ᾽Ιησ.] ‘An Apostle of Jesus Christ; the (possessive) genitive denoting whose minister he was: see notes on Eph. i. 1, and for the meanings of ἀπόστολος, here obviously in its higher and more especial sense, see notes on (al. i. 1, and on Eph. iv. τ The form of greeting in this Ep. closely resembles that to the Ephesians; there are, however, as has been previously ob- served (comp. notes on Eph. i. 1, and see Riick, on Gal. i. 1), some diffe- rences in the addresses of St. Paul's Epp., especially in the Apostle’s de- signation of himself, which, though not in all cases easy to account for, can hardly be deemed accidental. We may thus classify these designa- tions ; in t Thess. and 2 Thess., simply Παῦλος ; in Philemon (very appro- priately), δέσμιος Xp. Ἶ. ; in Phil., δοῦλος Θεοῦ (associated with Timothy); in Tit., δοῦλ. Θεοῦ ἀπόστ. δὲ X.°I.; in Rom., dood. 1. X. (Tisch. X. 1.) κλητὸς ἀπόστ.; ἴῃ 1 Cor. (κλητὸς ἀπ. Tisch., Rec., but not certain), 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim., ἀπόστ. X. 71. διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ; in τ Tim., ἀπόστ. Χ. ᾽Ἴ. κατ᾽ ἐπι- ταγὴν Θ. σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χ. I, κιτ.Ὰ. ; and lastly, with fullest titular distinction, in Gal., ἀπόστ., οὐκ am’ ΑΥ̓ΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι ἀνθρ. x.7.X An interesting paper might be written on these peculiarities of designation. διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ] Added, pro- bably, in thankful remembrance of God’s grace, and in feelings of implicit obedience to His will; see notes on Eph. i. 1. καὶ Tu. ὁ ἀδελφ. |] Timothy is similarly associa- ted with the Apostle in his greeting in 2 Cor.i. 1, Philem. 1, and, even more conjointly as to form of asso- viation; ἘΠΕ a; “5 Thess) 1: xf 2 Thess. i. 1: so also Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1, comp. Gal. i. 2, and see notes in loc. It may be observed, however, that in 1 Cor., Phil., and Philem., the Apostle proceeds in the singular, while here, 2 Cor. i. 3 (see Meyer), 1 and 2 Thess., 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.; comp. ch. iv. 18): this is possible, but nothing more. The title ὁ ἀδελῴός, ag Ter ‘Cor. 1. 1, 5 Cor, 1. 1, has πὸ special reference to official (οὐκοῦν καὶ ἀπόστολος, Chrys.), but simply to Christian, brotherhood ; Timothy was one of of ἀδελῴοί, ‘der christliche- Mitbruder,’ De Wette. 110 COLOSSIANS 1. 1, 2. ἀδελφὸς 2 τοῖς ἐν Κολασσαῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελ- - 9 “ A e oa i ae εν, 9 \ a pots εν Χριστῷ. χάρις υμιν Και εἰρήνη απο Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν. 2. Κολασσαῖς) So Rec. (but ποὺ Elz.), Lachm., and Tisch., with AB (C in subscr.) K ; more than 40 mss. ..... Syr. (both), Copt. Aith. (Platt), Slav. (mss.)..... Origen, Theod., Chrys. (mss.), Theophyl. (mss.), Suidas, al., to which may be added mss. in Herod. vit. 30 and Xenoph. Anab. 1. 2. 6. The more usual mode of spelling is found in DEFGJ ; numerous mss.... Vulg., Clarom. .... Clem., Chrys., Theodoret (mss.), al.; Lat. Ff. (Rec., Meyer, al.). It can be proved by coins that the latter was the correct form (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 111. 147); still the external authority, especially as seen in the Vv., seems so strong, that Κολασσαῖς ean hardly be referred to a mere change of yowels 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. dation. 2. Kodtaccats] Colosse or Colassz (see crit. note) was a city of Phrygia, on the Lycus (an affluent of the Meander), near to, and nearly equi- distant from, the more modern cities of Hierapolis and Laodicea. It was anciently a place of considerable im- portance (πόλις μεγάλη, Herod, vit, 30; πόλις οἰκουμένη, εὐδαίμων καὶ μεγάλη, Xenoph. Anab. I. 2. 6), but subsequently so declined in com- parison with the commercial city of Apamea on one side, and the strong, though somewhat shattered city of Laodicea on the other (ai μεγίσται τῶν κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν πόλεων), as to be classed by Strabo (Geogr. xu. 8. 13, ed, Kramer) only among the πολίσματα of Phrygia, though still, from past fame, classed by Pliny (Nat. Hist, v. 41) among the ‘celeberrima oppida’ of that country; see Steiger, Hinl. ὃ 2, p.17. It afterwards rose again in importance, and under the name of Xdvat (Theophyl.) again received 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., So too Meyer, who admits that Κολοσσαῖς was an old emen- Conyb. and Hows. S¢. Paul, Vol. τι. p- 471 note, Pauly, Real-Encycl. Vol. 1. p. 518, and the very interesting topographical notes of Steiger, Hinl. p. 1-33. ἁγίοις] ‘saints , used substantivally, as appy. in all the addresses of St. Paul’s Epp., Rom. i. 7, 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i, a, Eph, Phil. i. 1; so Copt., Aith. (Platt), and appy.- Chrys. De Wette and others connect ἁγίοις with ἀδελῴ. (so appy. Syr., Vulg.), but with considerably less plausibility, as in such a case πιστοῖς would far more naturally pre- cede than follow, the more compre- hensive daylos. On the meaning of ἅγιος in such addresses, see Davenant wm loc., and notes on Eph. i. 1. πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς κιτ.λ.} ‘faithful ὀγοίμγοη in Christ ; more specific, and slightly explanatory, designation of the preceding ἅγιο, “Ev Χριστῷ is in close union with ἀδελῴοί, and marks the sphere and element in which the brotherhood existed. The omission of the article is perfectly admissible, ἐν Xp. being associated with ἀδελφοῖς so as to form, as it were, one com- posite idea; see Winer, Gr, ὃ 20. 2, p- 123, and notes on Eph.i. 15. The insertion of the article would throw a COLOSSIANS I. 3. We thank God for your faith, and love, and progress in the Gospel as preached to you by Epaphras. greater emphasis on ἐν Xp., ‘iisque in Christo,’ than is necessary or in- tended ; see notes on 1 Tim. iii. 14, Gal. iii. 26. Lachm. adds’Inood with AD*E*FG ; al. 3; Syr., Copt. (not Atth.), al., but, considering the proba- bility of insertion, not on sufficient authority. 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. τ, Gal. i. 2 (plural), 1 Thess. i. 1, and 2 Thess. i. 1) but to the Christians collectively. This is per- haps not intentionally significant ; at any rate it can hardly be conceived that he only uses the title ἐκκλησία to those churches which he had himself founded : see Meyer in loc. χάρις «.7.4.] On this blended form of the modes of Occidental and Oriental salutation, see notes on Gal.i. 3, Eph. i. 2. The term χάρις is elaborately explained by Davenant; it seems enough to say with Waterl. Ποίαν". X., that χάρις ‘in the general signifies “favour, ‘mercy,’ ‘ indulgence,’ ‘bounty ;’ in particular it signifies a gift, and more especially a ‘ spiritual gift,’ and in a sense yet more re- strained, 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,’ Vol. Iv. Ῥ. 666. πατρὸς ἡμῶν] The addition καὶ Kup.’I. X. adopted by Rec. with ACFG; mss.; Vulg. (ed.), Syr. (Philox.)—but with asterisk, Boern., al. ; Gr. Ff., appears rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors, 3. εὐχαριστοῦμεν] ‘we give thanks ;’ i.e. 1 and Timothy. In this Ep., as in 2 Cor., the singular and plural are both used (see ch. i. 23, 24,. 28, 111 3 Εϊχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ πατρὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πάντοτε περὶ 29; ii. 1; iv. 2, 3, 4, 13), and some- times, as in ch. i. 25, 28, iv. 3, 4, in close juxtaposition: in all cases the context seems fully to account for and justify the appropriateness of the selection ; see Meyer on 2 Cor. i. 4. It is doubtful whether πάντοτε is to be joined (a) with the finite verb (1 Cor. }% 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, comp. Eph. i. 16), or (6) with the participle (comp. Rom. i. το, Phil. i. 4): Syr., f&th., and the majority of modern commentators adopt the former; the Greek expositors and appy. Copt. and Vulg. the latter. As περὶ ὑμῶν would seem a very feeble commencement to the participial clause, (6) is to be pre- ferred : see Alf. in loc., who has well defended this latter construction. On εὐχαριστεῖν, see notes on ch.i. 12, and on Phil. i. 3. The reading is ery doubtful: Ree. inserts καὶ before πατρί, with AC**D***(E 2)JK; al. ; Lachm. inserts τῷ with D*FG; Chrys. ; Tisch. adopts simply πατρὲ with ΒΟΥ, As the probability of an insertion, esp. of the familiar καί (Eph. i. 3 al.), seems very great, we retain, though not with perfect con- fidence, the reading of Tisch. The anarthrous use of πατὴρ is fully ad- missible, see the list in Winer, Gr. § 19. I, p. 10g sq. περὶ ὑμῶν προσ. ‘praying for you.” The uncial authorities are here again nearly equally divided between περὶ [ACD***E**JK] and ὑπέρ [BD*E FG]: 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 in- deed appreciable, comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 25 sq. The utmost perhaps that can be said is that ὑπὲρ. seems to 112 e ~ ’ , ULWY προσευχομενοι; COLOSSIANS I. 3s. 9 , | , e ~ ° 4 ακουσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν εν κι» a 4 Q 4 , A ” 5 ’ A Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν αγαπὴην HV EX ETE εις WavTas Tous ἁγίους direct the attention more to the action itself, mept more to the object or circumstances towards which it is directed, or from which it may be supposed to emanate: see notes on Gal.i. 4. On the primary meaning and etymological affinities of περί, see Donalds. Cratyl. § 177, 178. 4. ἀκούσαντες] ‘having heard,’ i.e, ‘after having heard,’ Syr. Υ v -«-5ϑῶ» -ῷ [a quo audivimus], Auth. ‘postquam;’ temporal use of the participle (Donalds. Gr. § 575), not causal, ‘quoniam audivimus,’ Calv. It was not the hearing but the substance of what he heard that caused the Apostle to give thanks. For exx. of the union of two or more participles with a single finite verb, see Winer, Gr. § 45. 3, p. 308. ἐν Xp.’Ino.] ‘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 a more complete unity to the conception, ‘Christ-centred faith,’ see notes on Eph. i. 15, and comp. Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 1. p. 195, note. Πίστις, 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; comp. notes on Gal, i. 23. ἥν 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 appends ἃ second moment of thought (‘amorein, ewmque erga omnes sanctos’), the former draws attention to it, and points to its per- 5 ὃ A A 9 ὃ ‘ 9 , © ἱ 3 a la τὴν eATLOa τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν εν TOL: sistence, ἣν ἐπιδεικνύμενοι διετέλουν, Theod. The reading of Rec. is, how-. ever, very feebly supported [JK ; al. ] and rejected by all recent editors. 5. Sia τὴν ἐλπίδα is most naturally connected with the preceding relative sentence, not with evxap., Davenant, Eadie ; for, as Meyer justly remarks, this preliminary εὐχαριστία is always, in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 4, Eph. i. 15, Phil. i. 5, 1 Thess. i. 3, 2 Thess. i. 3, 2 Tim. i. 5, Philem. 4) grounded on the subjective state of his converts, ἀκούσαντες x.T.A. The love they entertained toward the ἅγιοι was evoked and conditioned by no thought of any earthly return (comp. Calv.), but by the remembrance of their μισθὸς in heaven ; ἀγαπᾶτέ φησι, τοὺς ἁγίους, οὐ διά τι ἀνθρώπινον, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἐλπίζειν τὰ μέλλοντα ἀγαθά, Theoph.; so Chrys. and Theo- doret. τὴν ἀποκειμένην K.7.A.] ‘which is laid up for you in heaven,’ ‘propter ccelestem beatitu- dinem,’ 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 cer- tainly as under objective aspects (comp. Rom. viii. 24, ἔλπις βλεπομένη, and perhaps Heb. vi. 18) scil. τὴν evdrpe- πισμένην ὑμῖν τῶν ovpdvev βασιλείαν, Theod.; comp. notes on Eph. i. 18. It is characterized as τὴν ἀποκ. κ'ιτ.λ. partly to mark its security (τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἔδειξεν, Chrys.), partly its futurity (see notes on 2 Tim. iv. 8),—the ἀπὸ denoting the setting apart, by itself, for future purposes or wants; comp. Joseph. Ant. XV. 9. I, καρπῶν ὅσοι ἀπέκειντο δεδαπανημένων, Xen. Anab. 11. 3. 5, at βάλανοι τῶν φοινίκων τοῖς COLOSSIANS TI. 5, 6. 113 33 . a. @! , 93 κ , Ξ- 9 , - οὐρανοῖς, nv προηκούσατε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ 5 Nace, ’ 6 evayyeALou; οἰκέταις ἀπέκειντο, and exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 320. προηκούσατε] ‘ye heard before :’ be- fore when? Not before its fulfilment, ‘respectu spei que illis de re futura erat facta,’ Wolf,—which would leave the compound form very unmeaning ; nor yet specifically, before this Epistle was written,’ ‘ante quam scriberem,’ Beng., but simply and generally, ‘ for- merly, Steiger, Alf.,—v7.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,’ Copt.; comp. Herod. v. 86, οὐ mpoa- κηκοόσι τοῖσι ᾿Αθηναίοισι ἐπιπεσεῖν, VIII. 79, προακήκοε ὅτι ; comp. Plato, Legg. Vu. 797 A. The verb is also found with a purely local sense, 6. g. Xenoph. Mem. 11. 4. 7, where see Kiihner. τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθ.} ‘the word of Truth ; not the gen. of quality, ‘ verissimum,’ Grot., but the gen. of the substance or content (Scheuerlein, Synt. XII. 1, p. 82), τῆς ἀληθείας specifying what was the substance and purport of its teaching ; see notes on Eph. 1. 13. The genitive εὐαγγελίου is usually taken as the genitive of appos. to τῷ λόγῳ «τῆς ἀληθ. (De W., Olsh.) ; but it seems more simple to regard as a defining genitive allied to the genitive possessivus (genitive conti- 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 ;) comp. notes on Eph. i. 13, and see exx. in Winer, Gr. 30. 2. In Gal. ii. 5, 14. the gen. evayy. is somewhat different, as ἀλήθεια stands prominent and sepa- rate, whereas here it is under the ~ ’, 9 ε (an \ Qe +8 A TOU παρόντος εἰς υμας καθως και ἐν παντι regimen of, and serves to characterize, a preceding substantive. 6. τοῦ πάροντος εἰς ὑμ.] ‘which is present with you; more exactly ‘which came to and is present with you, the εἰς (not ἐν as in the next clause) conveying the idea of the Gospel! having reached them (Jelf, Gr. § 625), while mdpovros implies that it abides there; οὐ παρεγένετο, φησί, καὶ ἀπέστη, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμεινε καὶ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ, Chrys. For exx. of this not very un- common union of verbs of rest with eis or πρός (Acts xii. 20), see Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 4, p. 368, 369. A some- what extreme case occurs in Jer. xli. 7, ἔσφαξεν αὐτοὺς εἰς TO φρέαρ. καθὼς καὶ κιτ.λ.7 ‘even as it also is in the whole world ; πανταχοῦ κρατεῖ, Chrys.,—a very natural and intelli- gible hyperbole ; comp. Rom. i. 18, ἘΞ 18. either to limit κόσμος to the Roman Empire (Michael.), or to understand it with a literal exactness, which at this period could not be substantiated ; comp. Orig. in Matth. Tract XXvItI., and see Justiniani in Joc. καὶ ἐστὶν καρποφ. «.T.A.] Sand is bearing fruit and increasing ,᾽ meta- phor from trees or arborescent plants (Chrys., Just.; comp. Mey.) 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, καὶ καρποφορου- μένου, but by a studied change to the finite verb (see on Eph. i. 20, Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. b, p. 505) throws an em- phasis on the fact of the καρποφορία, while by his use of the periphrastic present (not καρποφορεῖ, ‘fructificat,’ Vulg., but ‘est fructificans,’ Clarom.) he gives further prominence to the It is obviously not necessary I 114 κ , . »” A “᾿ fitter ἢ , TW κοσμῷ. και εστιν καρποφορούμενον Kal avEave EVOVs \ AnD. εἶδ κ 5. as. ΕἾΝ ε΄ τὖ δ᾽ τος ἐν ᾿ α΄ Asari SEX, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ad ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε Kal εἤέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ" idea of its present continuance and duration ; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 311. The distinction between the two verbs has been differently ex- plained: on the whole the Greek commentators seem right in referring καρποῴ. to the inner and personal, avé. to the outward and collective, increase; καρποφορίαν τοῦ evayy. κέκληκε THY πίστιν τῶν ἀκηκοότων Kal τὴν ἐπαινουμένην πολιτείαν" αὔξησιν δὲ τῶν πιστευόντων τὸ πλῆθος, Theod. : comp. Acts vi. 7, ἘΠῚ 24, XIX. 20. The middle καρποῴ. is an dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T.; it may perhaps be an instance of the ‘dynamic’ middle (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8), and may mark some intensification of the active, ‘fructus swos exserit ; comp. ἐνεργεῖσθαι, Gal. v. 6, and notes in loc. The reading is somewhat doubtful: καὶ avé., with ABCD*E* FGJ, seems to rest on preponderant evidence, but the authorities for the omission [ABCD*E* ; Copt., Sah.], or insertion [D***E**FGJK ; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), Aith.], of the first καὶ are nearly equally balanced. On the whole it seems more likely to have been omitted to modify the hyperbole than inserted to preserve the balance of the sentence ; so Zisch., Mey., and De W, τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the grace of God,’ i.e. as evinced and manifested in the Gospel: ‘amplificat hisce verbis effi- caciam evangelii..... evangelium voluntatem Dei salvantem ostendit, et nobis gratiam in Christo offert,’ Daven.; comp. Tit. ii. 15. It is doubtful whether this accus. is to be connected (a) with both verbs (De W.), or (Ὁ) only with ἐπέγνωτε (Mey.). The grammatical sequence appears to COLOSSIANS I. 6, 7. 2 , > 4A 7 καθώς ἐμαθετε ἀπο suggest the former, and is appy. fol- lowed by Chrys., ἅμα ἐδέξασθε, ἅμα ἔγνωτε τὴν χάρ. τ. Θ., but the logical connexion certainly the latter; for if ἐν ἀληθ. were joined with ἠκούσατε, καθὼς (scil. ἐν ἀληθ., see below) κ.τ.λ. in ver. 7 would seem tautologous. On the whole it seems best to adopt (b); so Steiger, Mey., al. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ] ‘in truth; 1. 6. in no Judaistic or Gnostic form of teaching ; ἐν ἀληθ. being (as καθὼς, ver. 7, seems naturally to suggest) an adver- bial definition of the manner appended to the preceding ἐπέγνωτε; comp. Matth. xxii. 16, and see Winer, Gr. § 51. I, p. 377 (comp. Ὁ. 124), Bern- hardy, Synt. v. 8, p. 211. Alford objects to the adverbial solution, but adopts an interpr., ‘in its truth and with true knowledge,’ that does not appreciably differ from it. Both Chrys. and Theoph. (οὐκ ἐν λόγῳ, οὐδὲ ἐν ἀπάτῃ K.T.A.) appear to have given to ἐν more of an instrumental force : this is not grammatically necessary, and has led to the doubtful paraphrase, τουτέστι σημείοις καὶ ἔργοις παραδόξοις, Theophyl. 7. καθώς] ‘even as; not causal ‘inasmuch as’ (Eph. i. 4), but as usual, simply modal, referring to the preceding ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, 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 Ree. adds καὶ after καθώς : the external authority, however, is weak [D***E JK], and the probability of a me- chanical repetition of the preceding καθὼς καὶ far from slight; comp, COLOSSIANS I. 7, 8. 115 °-B »“ a 5 “ ὃ ot ( Sat Ne [7 9 sy Tappa TOU ayaTyTou OUVOOUAOU YUWV, OF ETTLY TLATOS ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 8 A e A 49 , ’ II , THY ὑμωὼν ἀγαπὴν ev ἱϊνευματι. Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 172 note (Bohn). *Eradpa | A Colossian (ch. iv. 12) who appears from this verse to have been one of the first, if not the first, of the preachers of the Gospel in Colossz : he is again mentioned as being in prison with St. Paul at Rome, Philem. 23. Grotius and others conceive him to have been the Epaphroditus men- tioned in Phil. ii. 25; see Thornd. Right of Ch. ch. 111. 2, Vol. 1. p. 462 (A.C. Libr.): this supposition, however, has nothing in its favour except the possible identity of name ; see Winer, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 330, and notes on ch. il. 25. The reading καθὼς Kal ἐμάθ. will not modify the apparent inference that Epaphras was the first preacher at Colosse; this would have been the case if the order had been καθὼς καὶ ἀπὸ ᾽Επ. ἐμάθ.: see Meyer in loc. contrasted with Wiggers, Stud. u. Krit. for 1838, p. 185. For the arguments that the Apostle himself was the founder of this Church, see Lardner, Credibil. ἘΠῚ Vol. 1. p. 472 sq.; for replica- tions and counter-arguments, David- son, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 402 sq. συνδούλου] ‘ fellow-servant,’ i.e. of our common master, Christ: comp. ch. iv. 7. This and the further specifi- cation in the pronominal clause seem designed to confirm and enhance the authority of Epaphras , τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἐντεῦθεν δείκνυσι Tod ἀνδρός, Theoph., comp. Theod. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] ‘in your behalf,’ ὁ.6. to advance your spiritual good, ‘pro vestra salute,’ Daven.,—not ‘in your place,’ a transl. grammatically (Philem. 13, see notes on Gal. ii, 13), but not histori- cally, permissible, as this would imply ὁ Kat δηλώσας ἡμῖν that Epaphr. had been sent to Rome to minister to the Apostle (Menoch.), —a supposition which needs con- firmation. The reading is slightly doubtful; Zachm. adopts ἡμῶν with ABD*G ; 8 mss. ; Boern., in which case ‘vice Apostoli’ (Ambrosiast.) would be the natural translation (opp. to Mey.): the external authority, however [CD***EFJK ; great majo- rity of mss.; and nearly all Vv.], and the paradiplomatic arguments (comp. pref. to Gal. p. xvi.) seem decidedly in favour of the reading of Rec., as rightly followed by Tisch. (ed. 2). 8. 6 kal δηλώσας] ‘who also made known ; further and accessory state- ment of the acts of Epaphr. ‘Hyi, as before, refers to the Apostle and Timothy ; see notes on ver. 3. ἀγάπην ἐν ΤΙνεύματι] ‘love in the Spirit ” not merely love towards the Apostle (Theoph., Gicum., and appy. Chrys.), but ‘brotherly love’ in its most general meaning, in which that towards St. Paul was necessarily in- cluded; ‘erga me et omnes Christ- ianos, Corn. a Lap. This love is characterised as in ‘the (Holy) Spirit’ (comp. Rom. xiv. 17, χαρὰ ἐν IIv. ἁγίῳ) ; it was from Him that it arose (comp. Rom. xv. 30, ay. τοῦ IIv.), and it was only in the sphere of His blessed influence (surely not ἐν instrumental, ‘a Sp. div. excitatum,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. ul. p. 203) that it was genuine and operative; ai ye ἄλλαι ὄνομα ἀγάπης ἔχουσι μόνον, Chrys. cumenius suggests the right antithesis (οὐ σαρκικήν, ἀλλὰ πνευματικήν), but dilutes the force by the adjectival solution : the omission of the article before ἐν IIv. is perfectly in accordance with N.T. usage, and ~ 2 116 We unceasingly pray that ye may be fruit- ful in good works, and thankful for your COLOSSIANS “1.9. 9 Διὰ τοῦτο Kal ἡμεῖς ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας" 9 , Ε] , ς Α e ~ WKOUTAMEV, OU παυόμεθα UTED UMWY προσεὺυ- salvation in Christ,—who is the creator, ruler, and reconciler of all things, preseryes more complete unity of con- ception ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, p. 123. Onthe term ἀγάπη, see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 19, Vol. 11. p. 203 Bq. 9. Sua τοῦτο] ‘On this account ; ‘because, as we hear, ye have such faith, and have displayed such love ;’ καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ὡγῶσιν ἐκείνους μάλιστα διεγείρομεν τοὺς ἐγγὺς ὄντας τῆς νίκης" οὕτω δὴ καὶ ὁ ἸΪαῦλος τούτους μάλιστα παρακαλεῖ τοὺς τὸ πλέον κατωρθωκότας, Chrys.: see esp. Eph. i. 15. Thus the ‘causa impulsiva’ (Daven.) of the Apostle’s prayer is this Christian pro- gress on the part of his converts ; the mode of it is warmly expressed by the intensive οὐ παύομαι x.T.r.; the sub- ject (blended with the purpose of it) by ἵνα πληρώθητε κ.τ.λ. καὶ ἡμεῖς) ‘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. Kai has here its contrasting force, and is clearly to be joined with ἡμεῖς, not τοῦτο, as De W.; see notes on Phil. iv. 12. ad ἧς ἡμέρας K.7.A. |] Incidental definition of the time, with reference to ἀκούσαντες, ver. 4, not ap ἧς ju. 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, ov παυόμεθα k.t.A.] See the exactly similar affec- tionate hyperbole in Eph. i. 16: οὐ μίαν ἡμέραν ὑπερευχόμεθα, οὐδὲ δύο, οὐ τρεῖς, Chrys. On this idiomatic use of the part.,whichas usual points to astate supposed to be already in existence, see notes and reff. on Eph. i. τό, and for a general investigation of the union of the part. with the finite verb, see the good treatise of Weller, Bemerk. z. Gr. Synt. p. 11 sq. Kal αἰτούμενοι] ‘and making our petition; the more special form of the more general mpocevx., see Mark xi. 24, Eph. vi. 18, and notes in loc. The present passage seems to confirm the view, expressed Eph. l,¢., and on 1 Tim. ii. τ, that προσευχὴ (and προσ- evxoua) is not merely for good things (comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. v. p. 358, A.C. Libr.), but denotes prayer in its most general aspects. On the exact force of ἵνα, which has here its secondary telic force, and in which the subject of the prayer is blended with the purpose of making it, see notes on Eph. i. 16. Meyer, as usual, too strongly presses the latter idea. τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν K.7.A. | ‘the (full) knowledge of His will, —of God’s will, the subject of αὐτοῦ suffi- ciently transpiring in προσευχ. k.T.X. The accus. ἐπίγν. is that of the re- moter, or as it is sometimes termed, the ‘quantitative,’ object in which the action of the verb has its realiza- tion, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 5, p. 205 and notes on Phil. i. 11, where this On the meaning of ἐπίγνωσιν, not barely ‘ Kenntniss’ (comp. Riick on Rom. i. 28, Olsh. on Eph. i. 8), but ‘ Erkennt- niss,’ ‘ perfecta cognitio,’ Daven., see notes on Eph. i. 8. The remark of Alf. on ver. 6 is appy. just, that the force of the compound can hardly be expressed in English, but the distine- tion between γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις (opp. to Riick on Rom. i. 28, Olsh. on Eph. i. 8) seems no less certain, The former, as De W. rightly sug- gests, points to a mere unpractical and theoretical, the latter to a full and living, knowledge. construction is discussed. COLOSSIANS | I. 9, το. 117 ’ 4 3 , of A 4 8, A XOKMEVOL, καὶ GtTOVMEVOL LVA πληρωθῆτε την επιγνωσιν TOU 5 “- 3 U , 4 , θελήματος αὐτου ἐν Tacy copia καὶ συνεσει TVEULA= a Io ~ “ Ἷ aA K , 3 lad τι , TiK), περίιπατησαι ἀξίως TOU υρίου εἰς πασὰν αρε- το. περιπατῆσαι] So Lachm. with ABCD*FG ; τὸ mss. ; Clem. (Griesb., Scholz, Meyer, al.). Tisch. following Rec. adds ὑμᾶς with D***EJK ; great majority of mss.; Chrys, Theod., Dam. The addition is deficient in uncial authority, and somewhat opposed to grammatical usage ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 287 sq. TH ἐπιγνώσει) So Lachm. with ABCD*E*FG; nearly ro mss.; Amit. Tol. ; Clem., Cyr., Max. (Griesb., Scholz, De W., Alf.). Tisch. reads eis τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν with D***E**JK ; very great majority of mss.; Theod., Dam., Theoph. (Rec., Meyer, Bisp.): lastly, ἐν τῇ émvyv. is found in about 4 mss., nearly all the Vv., and Chrys. On reviewing this evidence, the uncial authority is indisputably in favour of the text; the Vv., on the other hand, might seem to be in favour of εἰς (ἐν τῇ having clearly no critical support). prep. to explain the ill-understood instrumental dat. τῇ émvyv. as the equally On the contrary, As, however, the Vv. may nearly as probably have inserted the misunderstood εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν, and as internal considerations seem rather in favour of the simple dat., we return to the reading of Tisch. (ed. τὴν θελήματος] Obviously not with any special reference, διὰ tl τὸν Υἱὸν ἔπεμψεν, but simply and generally, His wiil,—not only in reference to ‘ credenda,’ but also and perhaps more particularly (Theod.) to comp. ver. Io, and see Davenant in ‘agenda ; loc. ἐν πάσῃ K.T.A.] ‘in all spiritual wisdom and under- standing,’ or perhaps more exactly, though less literally, ‘in all w. and und. of the Spirit,’ rvevu. referring to the Holy Spirit Aith. (Pol.), the true source of the σοφία and σύνεσις, see notes on Eph. i. 3; comp. Rom. i. Ir, 1 Cor. ii. r3 al. Thus then πάσῃ (so expressly Syr., Aith. (Platt), Copt.) and πνευματικῇ (opp. to Alf.; comp. Chrys.) refer to both substantives, the extensive πάσῃ referring to every ex- hibition or manifestation of the cod. καὶ σύν. (see notes on Eph. i. 8), while πνευματικῇ points to the characteristics and origin of both. The clause is not purely instrumental, but represents the mode in which, or the concomitant influences under which, the πληρω- θῆναι τὴν ἐπίγν. was to take place: this σοφία x. σύν. was not to be ἀνθρωπίνη (τ Cor. 11. 13) or σαρκική (2 Cor. 1. spired by and sent from the Holy 3, and notes, 12), but πνευματική, —in- Spirit ; comp. Eph. i. where however the instrum. force is With regard to σοφία and σύνεσις, both appear to more distinct. have a practical reference (see esp. Daven.); the former is, however, a general term, the latter (the opp. of which is ἄγνοια, Plato, Rep. 111. 376 B) its more special result and application ; see Harless, on Eph. i. 8, and comp. Beck, Seelenl. 11. 19, p. 60. Between σύν. and φρόνησις (Luke i. 17, Eph. 1. 8) the difference is very slight ; σύνεσις is perhaps seen more in practically embracing a truth (Eph. ili. 4), φρόν. more in bringing the mind to bear upon it; comp. notes on Eph. 1. 8, and Beck, l.c., p. 61. 10. περιπατῆσαι k.T.A.] ‘that ye walk worthily of the Lord; purpose and object (iva, Theod., comp. Theo- phyl.) not result (Steiger, al.) of the 118 COLOSSIANS 1. 10, 11. 3 , + ? - A A 3 ’ OKELAV, EV TAVTL εργῳῷ ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες και αὐξανό- ~ 9 , ~ A μενοι TH ETTLYVWOEL TOU Θεοῦ, πληρωθῆναι, specified by the ‘infin. epexegeticus ;᾿ see Winer, Gir. ὃ 44. 1, p. 284, Bernhardy, Synt. Ix. p- 365. For exx. of ἀξίως with the gen., see Eph. iv. 1, Phil. i. 27, 1 Thess. ii. 2, and the exx. collected by Raphel, Annot. Vol. 1. p. 527. Lastly, Κυρίου is not = Θεοῦ (Theod.), but as appy. always in St. Paul’s Epp., refers to our Lord; see Wi- ner, Gr. § 19. 1, p. 113. In the Gospels, 2 Pet. and James, it com- monly refers to God, but in 1 Pet. 1]. 13 (the other exx. are quotations) to Christ. εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρέσκ.] ‘unto all (every form of) pleasing,’ ‘in omne quod placet,’ Clarom., 2.e. ‘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 dz. λεγόμ. in the N. T.), Loesner (Obs. p. 361) has collected several exx. from Philo, the most per- tinent of which are, de Mund. Opif. § 50, Vol. I. p. 35 (ed. Mang.), πάντα kal λέγειν καὶ πράττειν ἐσπούδαζεν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ βασίλεως, and de Sacrif. ὃ 8, Vol. I. p. 257, διὰ πασῶν ἰέναι τῶν els ἀρέσκειαν ὁδῶν. On the extensive πᾶς, see above, and on Eph. i. 8. ἔργῳ ay.) ‘in every good work ; sphere in which the καρποφορία is manifested. This clause is not to be ἐν πάντι connected with the preceding εἰς ἀρέσκειαν, as Syr. (Pesch.), Chrys., Theoph., but with the following kaptopop., as Vulg., Goth., 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 participles, it need scarcely. be 11 9 , ὃ , εν TAaCH υναμέει said, do not belong to πληρ. (Beng.), —a construction which Schwartz quaintly terms a ‘carnificinam,’ but with the infin., the participle having relapsed into the nom.; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. 2, p. 505, and notes on Eph. ili, 08. ἵν. 2: καὶ αὐξ. τῇ ἐπιγνώσει] ‘and increased by the (full) knowledge of God. The ἐπί- γνωσις Θεοῦ was the instrument by which the knowledge was increased. The reading of Rec., εἰς τὴν ἐπίγν., is not exegetically untenable, as ἐπίγν. may be viewed with a kind of re- ciprocal reference as the measure of the moral αὔξησις (see Mey. in loc., and comp. Eph. iv. 15), but the weight of external evidence, if not also of internal, preponderates against it. It. ἐν πάσῃ K.T.A.] ‘strengthened with all (every form of) strength 7 third participial clause parallel to, and in co-ordination with, ἐν πάντι x.7.X. Ἔν here seems purely instrumental (contrast ver: 9), the action being con- sidered as involved in the means; see Jelf, Gr. § 623. 3: with this may be compared the simple dat. Eph. iii. 16, see notes im loc. Alford regards ἐν as denoting the element, δύναμις being subjective: this is possible ; the instrumental force, however, seems clearly recognized by Theod., τῇ θείᾳ ῥοπῇ κρατυνόμενοι, and appears more simple and natural. The simple form δυναμόω is an dm. λεγόμ. in the N. T. (see Psalm Ixvii. 28, Eccles. x. 10, Dan. ix. 27), ἐνδυναμόω being the more usual form. κατὰ Td κράτος τῆς §.] ‘according to the power of His glory; not ‘His glorious power,’ Auth., Beza, al., but ‘the power which is the peculiar charac- teristic of His glory,’ the gen. belong- ing to the category of the gen. posses- COLOSSIANS en ee 119 , 4 A , A , 9 ~ a δυναμούμενοι Κατα FO, Κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτου εἰς TACAV ὑπομονὴν Kal μακροθυμίαν, μετὰ χαρᾶς 12 εὐχαριστοῦντες “ε᾿ II i EN ΤῈ te e na “ A ὃ aA rn Tw aT pt TW LKAVWOQAVTL ἡμὰς εἰς τῆν μέρι α TOU Κ ρου sivus ; comp. notes on Eph.i.6. The prep. κατὰ represents, not the source (Daven.), nor the motive (Steig.), but, as usual, the norma, in accord- ance with which, and in correspond- ence with which, the δυνάμωσις would be effected. The power which is the attribute of the glory of God indicates the measure and degree in which the Colossians will be strengthened ; οὐχ ἁπλῶς, φησί, δυναμοῦσθε, ἀλλ᾽ ws εἰκὸς τοὺς οὕτως ἰσχυρῷ δεσπότῃ δουλεύοντας, Chrys. On the deriv. οἵ κράτος, see notes on Eph. i. 19. εἰς πᾶσαν «.T.A.] ‘unto all patience and longsuffering ;’ i.e. ‘to ensure, to lead you into, every form of patience and longs.;’ ‘ut procreet in nobis [vobis] patientiam,’ &c., Daven., the prep., as usual, marking the final destination of the duvvduwors. 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. (ὑπομ. ad illa mala que a Deo infliguntur, μακροθ. ad illa que ab hominibus inferuntur) are quite satisfactory, as both, on different sides, seem too restrictive. Perhaps ὑπομονὴ is more general, de- signating that ‘brave patienee,’—not ‘endurance,’ with which the Christian ought to bear all trials, whether from God or men, from within or without (see notes on 2 Tim. ii. το, andon Tit. ii. 2), while μακροθ. points more to for- bearance, whether towards the sinner (see on Eph. iv. 2), thegainsayer, oreven the persecutor: see on 2 Tim. ili. το. μετὰ χαρᾶς is joined by Theodoret, Olsh., De W., Alf., and others, with the preceding clause ; so appy. Vulg., Copt., Goth., Syr. (Philox.), and Auth. Viewed alone, this connexion seems very plausible,—the tou. and paxp. are to be associated with joy, the re- signation is to be genuinely Christian, comp. Daven. As, however, each preceding clause commences with a defining prepositional adjunct, and as both ὑπομονὴ and μακροθ. are perfectly distinct and are commonly used, whether in juxtaposition (2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10) or separately (Rom. Vi 37, 2 Cok.) zi, τῷ al. > Gal; v.22, Col. aii. 12 al.), without any further definition, it seems more natural with Syr., Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., and recently Mey., Lachm., and Tisch., to connect the defining words with εὐχαριστοῦντες. 12. evx. τῷ Πατρί] ‘ giving thanks to the Father,’ scil. ‘of our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ participial clause, obviously not dependent on οὐ mavéu. ver. 9 (Chrys., Theoph.), but with the preceding clauses. co-ordinate The meaning of evxap. is well discussed by Boeck, Corp. Inser. Vol. 1. p. 521: it is there stated to have four mean- ings; (a) Attic, ‘gratificari,’ χάριν διδόναι ; (6) non- Attic, ‘gratias habere vel referre,’ but see Demosth. de Cor. 257. 23 (c) ‘gratias agere verbis,’ used by Polyb. (XVI. 25. 1, XVIII. 26. 4, XXX. τι. 1) and later writers ; (d) ‘gratias referre simul et agere gratifi- cando,’ found in certain inscriptions : see also notes on Phil. i. 12. The read- ings τῷ π. Kal Θεῷ, and τῷ Θεῷ κ. π. are obvious interpolations, and rest on no critical authority, see Tisch. wm loc, τῷ ἱκανώσαντι K.T.A.] ‘who made us meet for the portion of the inheritance of the saints in light” These words deserve some consideration. In the first plaee the reading is slightly 120 a « ͵ --} ar , τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ wrt, doubtful: D*FG ; 17. 80; Clarom., Goth.; Did.; Lat. Ff. read καλέ- σαντι for ἱκαν., while Lachm., with B, retains both τῷ ἱκαν. καὶ xaX. The critical preponderance is, however, clearly in favour of ἱκαν., for which καλέσ. would have formed a natural gloss. (2) ‘Ikav. is not ‘qui dignos v v fecit,’ Vulg., but «“α4]; [qui idoneos fecit] Syr., comp. Auth. ; see 2 Cor. iii. 6, ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς, where the meaning is perfectly clear. Again the part. has not here a causal force ‘quippe qui,’ Mey. (comp. Theod., ὅτι κοινωνοὺς ἀπέφηνε), but appears definitive and somewhat solemnly de- scriptive ; βάρος Chrys. The principal difficulty is, however, in the construction, as ἐν τῷ φωτὶ way admit of at least four connexions, (a) with ἱκανώσαντι, in an instrumental (Mey.) or semi-modal sense,—as appy. Chrys., Méicum., Theoph., whoexplain gwrias = γνώσει; (6) with τὴν μερίδα (Beng.), ἐν having a local force, and defining the position of the μερίς ; (c) with ἁγίων, ἐν φωτὶ designating their abode; comp. Grot.; lastly and most probably, (ὦ) with κληροῦ, or more exactly kAnpod τῶν ἁγίων, the gen. specifying the pos- sessors, and so indirectly the charac- πολὺ TO ἔδειξεν, ter, of the κλῆρος, the prep. clause its ‘situm et conditionem,’ Corn. a Lap. Of these (a), though ably defended by Meyer, is harsh and improbable ; () causes a dislocation in the order, un- less wep. x.7.\. be all taken as one idea (Alf.) in which case the omission of the art. is not perfectly satisfac- tory; (0) gives to of ἅγιοι an undue prominence, comp. Alf.; (d) on the contrary seems to give to the κλῆρος τῶν ay. exactly the qualifying, or possibly localizing, definition it re- COLOSSIANS I. 12, 13. 13 4 ser ee oa og €ppvcTaTo ἡμᾶς εκ Τῆς quires, and preserves a good anti- thesis with ἐξ. τοῦ σκοτοῦς, ver. 13, which (a) especially obscures ; comp. Acts xxvi. 18. The art. before ἐν τῷ φωτὶ is not needed as κλήρ. τῶν ay. ἐν τῷ φ. forms a single idea (Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123): with the -whole clause (Alf.) it could be less easily dispensed with. We retain then (d) with De W., perhaps Theod., and appy: the majority of interpp. There remain only a few details. κλῆρος] ‘ inheritance,’ Acts xxvi. 18 ; properly ‘a lot’ (Matth. xxvii. 35, Mark xv. 24), thence anything ob- tained by lot (comp. Acts i. 25, Rec.), aud thence, with a greater latitude, anything assigned or apportioned (τόπος, κτῆμα, οὐσία ἢ λαχμός, Suid.), whether officially (1 Pet. ν. 3 ; ‘cleros appellat particulares ecclesias,’ Calv.), or, as here, a possession and inheri- tance; compare Heb. mm. The κλῆρος ἐν φ., is represented as a joint inheritance of the saints, of which each individual has his μερίδα. The derivation is uncertain ; perhaps from κλάειν, @.e. a broken-off portion (Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. τι. p. 597), or, less probably, from Sanser. riz, with sense of ‘casting,’ or ‘ parting off’ (Benfey, Wurzellex, Vol. τι. p. 172). Its more specific use in Eccl. writers is well illustrated, by Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. IL. p. 110 sq. ἐν TO 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., comp. Bp. Hall, Jnvis. World, τι. 5) but also, as the antithesis suggests, its essential purity and _ perfections, comp. I Johni. 5. This blessed in- heritance may be entered upon in part even here on earth. 13. ὃς ἐῤῥύσατο κιτ.λ,] Apposi- COLOSSIANS — I. 13. 121 " ; a ’ κ᾿ , 3 a ; ἐξουσίας τοῦ GKOTOUS, καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν tional relative-sentence (Winer, Gr. ὃ 60. 7, p. 479), introducing a con- trasted amplification of the pre- ceding 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 as- signed to ἐῤῥύσατο (‘eripuit; plus hoe est quam liberavit: .... eripi- untur spe inviti,’ Zanch.), though in part philologically defensible (see Buttm. Lewil. s.v. ὃ 53. 1, 2), cannot be certainly maintained 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 ‘saving ;’ see Buttm. J.c. § 3. The remark of Theoph. is much more in point ; οὐκ ἐξέβαλεν, ἀλλ᾽ δεικνὺς ὅτι ὡς αἰχμάλωτοι ἐταλαιπω- εἶπε δέ, ἐῤῥύσατο, ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότ.] ‘the power of darkness; the power which is possessed and exerted by Darkness,—not, however, merely subjectively, τῆς πλανῆς, Chrys. 1, but evil and sin, viewed objectively as the antithesis of φῶς, 1.6. τοῦ διαβόλου τῆς τυραννίδος, Chrys. 2, Theod. μετέστησεν | ‘translated, ‘removed ;’ redemption in its further and positive aspects. The verb clearly involves a local reference, the removing from one place and fixing in another; we were taken out of the realms of dark- ness and transferred to the kingdom of light: see Joseph. Antig. ix. 11. 1, τοὺς οἰκητόρας μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν. The further idea ‘migrare cogit ex natali solo,’ Daven., though theologically true, is not necessarily involved in the word. εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν] The term βασιλεία ‘shas here a reference neither purely ρούμεθα. metaphorical (e.g. the Church; comp. Huth.), nor ethical and inward (Olsh. ; Luke xvii. 21), nor yet ideal and proleptic (Mey.),—but, as the image involved in μετέστ. suggests, semi- local and descriptive. Nor is this wholly future ; the viol rod φωτός, the pure and the holy (comp. Matth. v. 8, Heb. xii. 14), even while tarrying in these lower courts are the subjects of that kingdom, the ‘denizens’ of that πολίτευμα (Phil. iii. 20), the sharers of that viodecia (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 κοσμοκράτορες. A long and elabo- rate treatise on the βασιλεία Θεοῦ will be found in Comment. Theol. Vol. τι. p- 107-173. τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ] ‘of His love,’ i.e. who is the This genitive has received different expla- object of it, whom it embraces. nations ; it has been regarded as (a) a gen. of the characterizing quality (comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. b, p. 211), in which it differs little from dya- πητός, Matth. iii. 17, Mark xii. 6 al., or ἠγαπημένος, Eph. i. 6, Chrys.; (ὦ) a species of gen. o7v- comp. ginis, ἀγάπη being considered more as an essence than an attribute; see August. de Trin. X. 19 (cited by Est. and Just.), and Olsh. zn loc.; (ὦ the gen. of the remoter object (comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 169), ‘the son who has His love,’ Steiger; or, simply and more probably, (d) the gen. subjecti, ἀγάπης being classed under the general head of the posses- sive gen.; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 7. 7: De W. and Mey. compare Gen. xxxv. 18, vids ὀδύνης pov. It has been thought that the title is specially selected to imply some reference to the υἱοθεσία (Huth.):; 122 A en “A 9 , " “- του υἱου τῆς ἀγαπῆς avTOU, A », ~ e A τρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἀμαρτιων'" this is possible, but the context and a comparison with Eph. i. 6, 7, do not favour the supposition. 14. ἐν ᾧ] ‘im 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 com- mented upon and illustrated. ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολ.} ‘we are having the redemption,’ not ‘owr redemption,’ Alf., but ‘the red.,’ or with idiomatic omission of the art., ‘Redemption,’ Auth.,—the reference being to the redemption from the wrath and punitive justice of God in its most comprehensive signification, whether specially ours or common to us and all mankind. The prep. ἀπὸ is not intensive, (οὐκ εἶπε λύτρωσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε μηδὲ πεσεῖν λοιπόν, Chrys.), but with its usual force (‘separationis remotionisque potestas,’ Winer, Verb. Comp. Iv. 5), points to the punishment and divine wrath from which we were redeemed in Christ and by His blood. On the four de- grees of redemption,—viz., (a) pay- ment of ransom for all, (b) admission into the Church, (c) exemption from tyranny of sin here, and (d) exemp- tion from hell and death hereafter, — see Jackson, Creed, 1x. 5, Vol. VIII. p- 218 sq. (Oxf. 1844). For other de- tails see notes on Eph. i. 7. There is some variation in reading ; διὰ τοῦ alu, (Ree.) rests only on cursive mss., and is rightly omitted by nearly all modern editors. Ἔχομεν is more doubtful, as it might be a change in conformity with Eph.i. 7. Lachm. reads ἔσχομεν with B (A is doubtful), Copt. [an-si]; but the diplomatic authority seems in- sufficient to warrant the change. τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτ.] ‘the forgive- ἀπολ., COLOSSIANS I. 15--15. 14 9 “| 5 4 9 λύ εν Ww EX OMEV τὴν ATOAU- é 15 [2 ’ 4. ® OS εστιν εἰκὼν ness of our sins ; apposition to the preceding τὴν ἀπολ., defining more exactly its nature and significance. On the distinction between ἄφεσις and mdpeots, see Trench, Synon. ὃ XXXIII., andon that between ἁμαρτίαι and παραπτώματα, notes on Eph. i. 7: ; 15. ὅς ἐστιν «.7.A.] 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 preparation, As this forms one of the three important passages in St. Paul’s Epp. (Eph. 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 sepa- rate details will require very careful consideration. With regard to the former, it seems scarcely doubtful that there is a twofold division, and that as, as in Phil. 11, 7, καὶ σχήματι κ.τ.λ., seemed to introduce a new portion of the subject, so here the second καὶ αὐτὸς (ver. 18) indicates a similar transition ; and further that just, as in Phil. /.c., the first portion related to the Adyos ἄσαρκος, the latter to the Λόγος é- gapkxos, so here in ver. 15-17, the reference is rather to the pre-incarnate Son, in His relation 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, sup- ported by the principal Greek and majority of Eatin Fathers: comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 14. See contra, Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. I. p. 135, Whose opposition, however, is based on the more than doubtful sup- position that καὶ αὐτὸς (ver. 17) is COLOSSIANS I. 15. 123 A ~ " “ , , , τοῦ Θεοῦ TOU aopaTov, TPWTOTOKOS “΄ασῆς KTLTEWS, dependent on the foregoing ὅτι. “Os thus refers to the subject 6 υἱὸς τῆς dy. αὐτοῦ in its widest and most com- plex relations, whether as Creator or Redeemer, the immediate context de- fining the precise nature of the re- ference; see on Phil. ii. 6. εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.7 ‘the image of the invisible God,’ not ‘an image,’ Wakef., or ‘image,’ Alf.,—the article is idiom- atically omitted after ἐστιν, see Middl. Gr. Art. 1. 3. 2. With this expres- sion comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦτ Θεοῦ, Heb. i. 3, ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ : Christ is the original image of God, ‘ bearing His figure and resem- blance 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 esp. Athan. Nicen. Def. § 20. With- out overpassing the limits of this commentary, we may observe that Christian antiquity has ever regarded the expression ‘image of God’ as de- noting the eternal Son’s_ perfect Vv equality with the Father in respect of His substance, nature, and eternity ; ‘perfectz eequalitatis significantiam habet similitudo,’ Hil. de Syn. § 73, ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν τοῦ Πατρὸς [on the subsequent Semiarian use of this term, see Oxf. Libr. of Ff. Vol. vim. P- 35, 106] καὶ τοῦ πρωτοτύπου ἔκτυπος χαρακτήρ, Alex. ap. Theod. Hist. Hecl. τ. 4; see Athan. conti. Arian, 1. 20. The Son is the Father’s image in all things save only in being the Father, εἰκὼν φυσικὴ καὶ ἀπαράλ- λακτος κατὰ πάντα ὁμοία τῷ πατρί, πλὴν τῆς ἀγεννησίας καὶ τῆς πατρό- Tyros, Damasc. de 7πιαρ. iii. 18 ; comp. Athan. contr. Arian. I. 21. The exact force of the emphatically placed τοῦ ἀοράτου (Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. I. a, p. 120) is somewhat doubtful. Does it point to the primal invisibility (Chrys., Orig. ap. Athan. Nic. Def. ὃ 27), or, by a tacit antithesis, to the visibility, of the εἰκών (Daven., Mey. al.; comp. 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 esp. Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. I. 1. 1 sq.) He was ὄρατος, the mani- fester of Him who dwells in φῶς ἀπρόσιτον (1 Tim. vi. 16) and whom no man hath seen or can see; John i. 18; comp. Beng. 7m loc. Whether there is here any approximation to views entertained by Philo (Olsh., Alf., see Usteri, Lehrb, 11. 2. 4, p. 293), is very doubtful. We must at any rate remember that Philo was the uninspired exponent of the better theosophy of his day, St. Paul the in- spired Apostle revealing the highest and most transcendent mysteries of the Divine ceconomy. On the meaning of εἰκών and its distinction from ὁμοίωσις, see Trench, Synon. ὃ XV, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσ. | ‘the first-born of every creature,’ i.e. ‘begotten, and that antecedently to everything that was created ;’ surely not ‘the whole creation,’ Waterl. (Vol. τι. p. 57), comp. Alf.,—an in- exact translation which here certainly (contrast on Eph. 11. 21) there seems no necessity for maintaining; comp. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 373: our Lord was πρωτότοκος in relation to every created thing, animate or inanimate, human or superhuman ; πρωτότ. τοῦ 124 16 Θεοῦ, kal πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων, Just. Martyr, Dial. § τοο. This notable expression has received every variety of explanation. Grammati- cally considered, τῆς κτίσεως may perhaps be the partitive gen., the pos- sessive gen. (Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. I. p. 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 com- parative force involved in the πρῶτος rendering this last genitival relation Still more intelligible and perspicwous ; comp. Fritz. on Rom. x. 19, Vol. I. p- 421. In the two former cases, πᾶσα κτίσις must be considered as oO ΩΝ πο » equiv. to a plural ες. «σιν 29 Ὁ [omnium creaturarum] Syr.), 7. 6. every form of creation (comp. Hof- mann, J.c.), the expression compared with πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, Rev. i. 5, and (especially in the first of these cases) the Arian deduction, that Christ is a κτίσις, deemed grammatically possible ; see Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 2. 4, ‘and even Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. το, Vol. 11. p. 100, both which writers use language, which, without the limita- tion named by Thorndike (Cov. Grace, 11. 17. 5), must be pronounced simply and plainly Arian. In the latter ease, πᾶσα κτίσις retains its proper force, πρωτότοκος its comparative reference, and the conclusion of Athanase, espe- cially when viewed in connexion with the context (ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ éxr., ver. 16), ieperfectly inevitable, ἄλλος ἐστι τῶν κτισμάτων, καὶ κτίσμα μὲν οὐκ ἔστι, κτιστὴς contr. Arian, τι. ὃ 62,—a passage of mar- vellous force and perspicuity: see also, both on this and ver. 16, Pear- son, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 148. The term πρωτότοκος (obs. not πρωτόκτιστος or δὲ τῶν κτισμάτων, COLOSSIANS I. τό. of ’ 5, A 8 , A ’ A Te » 9 ae ΕΝ OTL ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη TA TAVTA, FA EV FOILS ovpavols Kat mpwtbmdacros) is studiously 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 jovo- γένης which more exactly defines His relation to the Father ; μονογένης μέν, διὰ τὴν ἐκ ἸΠατρὸς γέννησιν" mpwrd- Toxos δέ, διὰ τὴν εἰς τὴν κτίσιν συγκα- τάβασιν [condescension] καὶ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἀδελφοποίησιν, Athan. contr. Arian. τι. 62: in a word, He was be- gotten, 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, a temporal comparison be- tween His own generation from eternity and their ereation in time ; see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. 111. 9. 9, who however appears to have misunder- stood the meaning of συγκατάβασις, comp. Newman, in Oxf. Libr. of Ff. Vol. VII. p. 288. Lastly, as there seem to be two senses in Scrip- ture in which our Lord is first-born - in respect of every creature, viz., in its restoration after the fall as well as in its first origin (see Athan. J.c. ὃ 63), we may possibly admit, as ver. 18 also partially suggests, a secondary and inferential,—certainly not a primary (Theod. Mops.; Aath., ‘supra omnia opera’), or even co-ordinate, reference to priority in dignity (προτί- pnows): see Alf., ὧν loc., who, how- ever, unduly presses this reference, and by referring the whole to Christ in his now glorified state (so Mey., and Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. 1. p. 135), certainly seems to impair the theological foree and significance of this august passage. τό. ὅτι] ‘because,’ not ‘for,’ ΑἸ a transl. better reserved for ydp,— logical elucidation of the preceding COLOSSIANS 1. 16. Ou 12 “eh S| - A a ὟΝ A Q Xx oF 9 ld 9 TA €TL Τῆς γῆς: 7 mo 4 oOpaTa καξ Τα αἀορατας CURE θρόνοι. elTe member: He, in the sphere of whose creative power all things were made and on whom all things depend, was truly the πρωτότ. πάσης κτίσεως, and had an eternal priority in time and dignity. The objections of Schleier- macher (Stud. wu. Krit. 1832, p. 502) to the logic of this causal explanation are unreasonable and pointless. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him,’ as the creative centre of all things, the causal element of their existence ; comp. Winer, G7. § 50. 6, p. 372 (ed. 6; here judiciously altered). The preposition has re- ceived several different explanations, three of which deserve considera- tion: 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; (6) 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 Him, and to de- pend on Him for its completion and realization. Of these (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 prepp. (see notes on Gal. i. t) would lead us certainly to expect. The second (5) is adopted by the schoolmen and recently by Olsh., Neand., Bisp., but is highly artificial, and supported by no analogy of Scripture. We retain therefore (c) which is theologically exact and sig- nificant, and in which St. Paul’s peculiar, yet somewhat varied, use of ἐν Χριστῷ with verbs (comp. 2 Cor. v. 1G, Gal. ii. 17, Eph, i. 4 al.) is suitably. maintained: compare the similar usage of ἐν, esp, with pro- nouns, to denote the subject in which and on which (‘den Haltpunkt’) the action depends, e.g. ἔν σοι πᾶσ᾽ ἔγωγε σώζομαι, Soph. Ajax, 519; see Rost τι Palms Ler. avs, ἐν 2. Ὁ; Vols 1 ps 509, Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8. b, p. 210. ἐκτίσθη] ‘ were created,’ with simple physical refe- rence : observe the aorist of the past action, as contrasted with ἔκτισται below, in which the duration and per- sistence of the act (‘per effectus suos durat,’ see on Eph. ii. 8) is brought into especial prominence ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 247, and. Winer, Gir, § 40. 4,.p: 243. The forced (ethical) meaning ‘were arranged, re - constituted’ (Schleierm.), though lexically admis- sible, is fully disproved by Meyer, who observes that κτίζω always in the N.T. (even in Eph. ii. 10, 15, iv. 24) implies the bringing into existence, spiritually or otherwise, of what be- fore was not. τὰ πάντα] ‘all things (that exist)’—more specifi- cally defined, first in regard of place, secondly in regard of nature and essential characteristics. On the use of the art. (‘das All’) see Winer, Gr. § 18. 8, p. 105. τὰ ἐν τοῖς ovp. K.7.A.] ‘the things in the heaven, and the things on the earth,’ not in reference merely to intelligent beings (Huth.), nor to the exclusion of things under the earth (Phil. ii. 10), but asin Eph. i. ro (see notes) with the fullest amplitude, ‘all things and beings whatsoever and wheresover; ‘hic distributione universam creaturam complectitur,’ Daven. The following clauses carry out the universality of the reference, by specifying the two classes of things, the visible and mate- rial, and the invisible and spiritual,— which latter class is still further speci- fied by disjunctive enumerations, 126 COLOSSIANS 1. τό. , 9 3 , 9 9 , A , δ 9 9 val A KUPLOTYTES, ElLTE apXals ELTE ἐξουσίαι" TA TAVTA οἱ AUTOU και τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ddp.] ‘the things visible and the things invisible; ampli- fication—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 ccelo visibilia sunt sol, luna, stelle; invisibilia, angeli: in terra visibilia, plantz, ele- menta, animalia; invisibilia, anime humane,’ Daven.,—-unless indeed, as the following enumeration seems to imply, this last class, ‘anime humane,’ be grouped with ὁρατά (Mey.). εἴτε θρόνοι k.t.d.] ‘whether thrones, whether dominions, whether princi- palities, 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 depen- dence upon Him, he nameth those which are of greatest eminence, and in them comprehendeth the rest,’ Pear- son, Creed, Vol. I. p. 148. There seems no reason to modify the opinion advanced on Eph. i. 21, that four orders of heavenly intelligence are here enumerated ; see notes and references in loc., Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 20, Vol. τι. p. 226 sq., and the extremely good article in Suicer, 7'hesauwr. s.v. ἄγγ. Vol. 1. p. 30-48. By comparing this passage with Eph. l.c., where the order seems descensive, we may /pos- sibly infer that the θρόνοι (not else- where in N.T., but noticed in Dionys. Areop. de Hier. and in Test. xu. Patr. Ῥ. 532, Fabric.) are the highest order of blessed spirits, those sitting round the eternal throne of God, κυριότητες the fourth, ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι the intermediate (Mey.), if indeed such distinctions are not wholly precarious ; comp. Bull, Serm. ΧΙ. p. 221, and Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol, I. p. 302. This enumeration may have been sug- gested by some known theosophistic speculations of the Colossians (ch. ii. 18, comp. 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 attention. τὰ πάντα K.T.A.] ‘(yea) all things, &c., solemn recapitulation of the fore- going. The most natural punctua- tion seems to be neither a period (Tisch.), nor a comma (AIf.), least of alla parenthesis (Lachm. ed. ster.), but as in Mill, and in Buttmann’s recent edition, a colon. δι αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν] ‘through Him and for Him ; resumption of ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτ. with a change both in tense and prepositions: there the Son was re- presented as the ‘causa conditionalis’ of all things, here as the ‘causa medians’ of creation, and the ‘ causa finalis’ (Daven.) or ‘finis ultimus’ (Caloy.) 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; els αὐτὸν κρέ- para. ἣ πάντων ὑπόστασις .... ὥστε ἂν ἀποστασθῇ τῆς αὐτοῦ προνοίας, ἀπόλωλε καὶ διέφθαρται, Chrys. We may observe that the mediate creation, and final destination, of the world, here referred to the Son, are in Rom. xi. 36 referred to the Father. Such permutations deserve our serious con- sideration ; if the Son had not been God, such an interchange of impor- COLOSSIANS I. 16—18. 5 Bi A 4 εἰς GUTOV EKTLOTAL, A , ς b) ~ , 18 Ta aAGQVTaA ‘EV auTwW συνεστῆὴκεν" tant relations would never have seemed possible: comp. Waterl. Def. Qu. x1, Vol. 1. 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 creation, see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 149, 150 (ed. Burt.). 17. Kal αὐτός «.t.A.] ‘and He Himself,’ &c. ; contrast between the creator and the things created ; αὐτὸς being emphatic, and καὶ having a gentle contrasting force (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) by which the tacit anti- thesis involved in αὐτὸς (‘ apse oppo- situm habet alium,’ Herm. Dissert. αὐτός, τὴ between the things created (ra πάντα) and Him who created them is still more enhanced: they were created in time, He their creator 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. Dissert. l.c.), the Aramaic use of the corresponding pronoun should make us cautious in pressing it im 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 ac- cordance with the primary meaning of πρωτότοκος and the immediate con- text,—in time; τοῦτο Θεῷ ἅρμοζον, Chrys. Theodoret with reason calls attention to the expression—not éyé- veTo πρὸ πάντων, but ἔστι πρὸ πάντων: contrast John i. 14. év αὐτῷ συνέστ. ‘consist in Him,’ as the causal sphere of their continuing existence: not exactly identical with 127 17 Ἁ SSF = ‘ { 4 καὶ QUTOS εστιν 7 po TAVT@V, Και q > 2 3 ε Καὶ αὐὑὐτος εστιν ἢ ἐν αὐτῷ above (Mey., Alf.), but, with the very slight change which the change of verb involves, in more of a causal reference ; Christ was the con- ditional element of their creation, the causal element of their persistence ; comp. Heb. i. 3, φέρων τε Ta πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. The declaration, as Waterland observes, is in fact tantamount to ‘in Him they live, and move, and have their being (Serm. on Div. vu. Vol. τι. 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. xvutI, Vol. I. p. 430. The verb συνεστάναι is well defined by Reiske, ZJnd. Dem. (quoted by Mey.) as ‘corpus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum consen- tiens esse et permanere,’ comp. 2 Pet. iii. 5, and [Aristot.] de Mundo, 6, ἐκ θεοῦ τὰ πάντα, Kal διὰ θεοῦ ἡμῖν συνέστηκεν ; see esp. Krebs, Obs. p. 334, and Loesner, Obs. p. 362, by both of whom this word is copiously illustrated from Josephus and Philo ; comp. also Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. 259. 18. kal αὐτός κιτ.λ.] Transition to the second portion in which the re- lation 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 appy. pre- vailed in the Church of Colosse. Αὐτὸς is thus, as before, emphatic, possibly involving an antithesis to some falsely imagined κεφαλὴ or κεφαλαὶ of the Church ; ‘ Hein whom all things consist, He and no other than He is the head of the Church.’ The emphasis, as Meyer observes, rests on κεφαλὴ rather than ἐκκλησία ; it was the headship of the Church, 128 COLOSSIANS 1. 18. 4 nw , ~ 3 , e¢ 3 ? , κεφαλή TOV σώματος; TNS ἐκκλησίας" ὃς ἐστιν ἀρχή; πρώ-' , 9 A A , , ° κ ΟΝ TOTOKOS EK τῶν νεκρῶν. ἵνα γένηται εν πασὶν QAvuTOs πρω-. not its imaginary constitution, that formed the undercurrent of the erro- neous teaching. τοῦ σώμ. τῆς ἐκκλ.7 ‘ of His body, the Church,’ τῆς ἐκκὰ. being the genitive of zden- tity or apposition ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ Tokos ἐκ τῶν vexp. serving to define that relation more closely, and to pre- serve the retrospective allusion to πρωτότ. in ver. 15: our Lord in His, glorified humanity is the ἀρχηγὸς τῆς i ζωῆς (Acts iii. 14) of His Church, the ; 59. 8, p. 470, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82. The Apostle does not say merely ‘of the Church,’ but ‘ of His body,’ &c., to show,—not the φιλαν- θρωπία of Christ (θέλων ἡμῖν οἰκειό- τερον δεῖξαι αὐτόν, Chrys.), but the real, vital, and essential union be- tween the Church and its Head: comp. Eph. iv. 15, 16, and notes in loc.: see also Rom. xii. 5, 1 Cor. x. 17, Eph. i. 23 al. ὅς ἐστιν] ‘sceing He is; the relative having an argumentative force, and confirming the previous declaration ; see Jelf, Gr. § 836. 3. We can scarcely say that in such sentences «ὃς is for ὅτι᾽ (Jelf, l.c., Matth. Gr. § 480. c), but rather that, like the more usual ὅστις, the simple relatival force passes into the explicative, which almost necessarily involves some tinge of a causal meaning: see notes on Gal. ii. 4. ἀρχή] ‘the beginning,’ not merely in ref. to the following τῶν νεκρῶν (Mey., Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. 11. τ, p. 241; comp. Theod.), or even to the spiritual resur- rection (Daven.), both of which seem too limited; nor yet, with a general and abstract reference, the ‘ first creative principle’ (Steig., Huth. ; comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. Iv. p. 638, ὁ Θεὸς δὲ dvapxos ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων παντελήΞ), —but, as the more immediate context and the reference to our Lord’s Head- ship of his 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 πρωτό- beginning, source, and origin of the © new and spiritual, even as He was of the former and . material, creation ; see Olsh. and Bisp. im loc., and comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. 4, p. 304. The plausible reading ἀπαρχή, adopted by Chrys. and a few mss., is a limiting gloss suggested by the next clause compared with 1 Cor. xv. 23. The omission of the art. [inserted in B, 67**] before ἀρχὴ is due, not to the abstract form of the word (Olsh.), but simply to the preceding verb subst., Middl. Gr. Art. III. 3. 2. πρωτότ. ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν] ‘ first-born from the dead ; not exactly identical 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 esp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. ll. p. 57); he was the true ἀπαρχὴ τῷν κεκοιμημένων, τ Cor. xv. 23: comp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 1, p. 241. Others had been translated or had risen to die again, He had risen with glorified humanity to die no more (Rom. vi. 9): hence He is ‘ not called simply the first that rose, but with a note of generation, the πρωτ. τῶν νεκρῶν, Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 136 (ed. Burt,). ἵνα γένηται k.t.d.] ‘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 COLOSSIANS 1. 18, το. , τεύων. ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτος, ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει πρῶτος, Chrys.: divine purpose (iva has here its full telic force, comp. on Eph. i. 17) of His being the ἀρχὴ of the new creation, and having the priority in the resurrection,—a divine purpose fulfilled in its temporal, and to be fulfilled im all conceivable, re- lations, when all things are put under His feet, and the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of the Lord and His Christ (Rev. xi. 15). The tense 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 dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T., but is not uncommon elsewhere; comp. Zach. iv. 7 (Aquil.), Esth. v. r1, 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15, in all which passages an idea of προτίμησις seems clearly conveyed. This however does not re- quire a similar meaning to be assigned to mpwrér. (comp. De W., Alf.): πρωτεύειν was to be the result, πρω- ToToK. K.T.’. was one of the facts which led to it ; comp. Meyer in Joe. ἐν πᾶσιν] ‘in all things,’ surely not ‘inter omnes,’ Beza,—a_ restricted reference that completely mars the majesty of this passage, and contra- venes the force of the neuter τὰ πάντα in the causal sentence which follows. Lastly, αὐτός, as above, must not be left unnoticed: ‘si quis alius mortem debellasset &c., tum Christus non tenuisset primatum in omnibus,’ Daven. We may observe that with this clause the predications re- specting Christ seem here to reach their acme (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 28), and lead us to admit, if not to expect, a modification of subject in the causal sentence which follows. 19. ὅτι] ‘ because,’ confirmation of 125 I o 3 “Ἂς σιν δ ps \ , 9 OTL εν αὐτῷ εὐθόκησεν πᾶν TO πλήρωμα κατοι- the divine purpose in reference to Christ’s precedence ἐν πᾶσιν : He in whom the whole πλήρωμα (of the θεότης) was pleased to reside, must needs have had His precedence in all things eternally designed and contem- plated. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him,’ and in Him specially ; con- nected with κατοικεῖν, and put early forward in the sentence to receive full emphasis. The reference, as the con- text seems to show, is now more espe- cially to the ¢ncarnate Son. εὐδόκησεν «.7.A.] ‘the whole fulness (of the Godhead) was pleased to dwell ,’ ‘in ipso complacuit omnis plenitudo The first diffi- culty in this profound verse is to inhabitare,’ Clarom. decide on the grammatical subject of εὐδοκεῖν. This verb, a late and pro- bably Macedonian-Greek word (Sturz, de Dial. Maced. p. 167), has four constructions in the N. T., all per- sonal; with ἐν and a dat. (Matth. 1π| 17, xvii. 5 al.: 2 Thess. 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 Cor. i. 21 al.,—the principal and prevailing use in St. Paul’s Epp.); see ‘Fritz. Rom. X. τ, Vol. IL. p. 369 8q., where the uses of evdox. are fully investigated. In the present case three subjects have been proposed ; (2) Χριστός, the preceding subject, Tertull. Mare. v. 19, and recently Conyb., and Hofm., Schrift. Vol. τι. 1, p. 242, where it is fairly defended ; (Ὁ) Θεός, supplied from the context ; so, it can scarcely be doubted, Syr., Vulg., Goth., Theod., and, by infer- ence, Chrys., Theoph., and after them the bulk of modern expositors; (c) the expressed subject τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα; Clarom., Copt., appy. Auth., and re- K 150 κῆσαι cently Peile, and, very decidedly, Scholef. Hints, p. 108. Of these (a) involves indirect opposition to strong analogies of Scripture (e.g. 2 Cor. v. 10), and, equally with (0), a harsh change of subject to the two infini- tives : the second (Ὁ) is dogmatically correct, but involves a very unusual construction of εὐδοκ. (comp. Polyb. Fisi.. 1, B:. 4) Vl. 4.8, 2, Macc. xiv: 35), a different subject to κατοικ. and ἀποκ., and further an ellipsis of a word, which though not without classical parallel (see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 373. 3) would here, in a passage of this dogmatical importance, be in a very high degree unnatural and impro- bable: the third (c) is syntactically simple ; it is also in harmony with St. Paul’s prevailing usage of εὐδοκ. (at least 6 out of 8 times), and,—what is still more important,—both in its causal connexion, the nature of the expressions, and the order of the words (Meyer’s assertion that it would have been ὅτι πᾶν τὸ πλ. εὐδ. κ.τ.λ. falls to the ground), stands in closest parallel with the authoritative interpr. in ch. 11, 9, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλ. τῆς θεότητος σωμ. We seem bound then to abide by (c),—possibly the interpr. of the ancient Latin Church ; it involves, however, as will be seen, some grave, though appy. not insuperable, difficulties. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα] ‘the whole fulness (of the Godhead), ‘omnes divine nature divitie,’ Fritz. These words have been very differently explained. Lexically considered, πλήρωμα has three possible meanings, one active, (a) implendi actio, and two passive, (8) id quod impletum est, Eph. i. 23 (see notes), and the more common (γ) id quo res impletur, Gal. iv. 4, Eph. iii, 9. (see notes on both passages), COLOSSIANS I. 10, 20. 4 “ 4 , a ta ο 20 καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι TA παντα εἰς which again often passes into the neutral and derivative (y,) afluentia, abundantia, πλοῦτος, especially in con-. nexion with abstract genitives, Rom. xv. 29; see Fritz. Rom. xi. 12, Vol. 1. p. 469 sq., Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol, 11. 1, p. 26. Of these, (y,), oF perhaps simply (7), is alone exegeti- cally admissible. The real difficulty is in the supplemental gen. Setting aside all doubtful and arbitrary expla- nations 6... ἐκκλησία (Theod., Sever.), ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ (Schleierm.), ‘fulness of the universe’ (Conyb., Hofm. ἰ.6. p. 26), we have only one authoritative supplement, θεότητος, either exactly in the same sense as in ch. li. g, ‘plenitudo Deitatis,’ or in the more derivative sense, ‘ plenitudo gratiz habitualis’ (comp. Davenant, Mey., al.). The latter of these is adopted by those who advocate con- struction (0) of evdox., but has this great disadvantage, 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, al- ready adopted, πλήρ. will naturally be the same in both cases, and will imply ‘the complete fulness and ex- haustless perfection of the Divine Essence,’ the ‘ plenitudo Deitatis,’— an abstract term of transcendent sig- nificance, involving in itself the more concrete Θεός, which, as will be seen, seems possibly to be the subject of the following participial clause. When we consider the context in ch, ii. 9, there seem grave reasons for thinking that St. Paul chose this august expresijpn with special reference to some vague or perverted meaning as- signed to it by the false teachers and theosophistic speculators af Colossz ; comp. Thorndike, Cov. Prac Il. COLOSSIANS I. 20. 191 ° , 3 , A “ ΄- ΄- ~ QUTOY, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ. ᾿] ᾿) lan 4 A >) 4A ~ ~ 7 x “ A δι αὐτου; ELTE TA ETL τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. ἘΠ ἘΣ, κατοικῆσαι] ‘to dwell, a term especially applied to the indwelling influence of the Father (comp. 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 in- volved in the mysterious word πλή- ρωμα; exer ὥκησεν οὐκ ἐνέργεια τις ἀλλ᾽ οὐσία, Theophyl. 20 ἄποκατ. τὰ πάντα) ‘to restore all things ;’ not ‘ prorsus reconciliare,’ Mey. (comp. Chrys., κατηλλαγμένοι, ἀλλὰ τελείως Eder), but, with the na- tural force of ἀπὸ in similar com- pounds (ἀποκαθιστάνειν, ἀπευθεύνειν), ‘in pristinam conditionem reconci- liando reducere ; see Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 7, 8. The subject of the inf. is of course the same as that of κατοικ., ἴ.6., grammatically considered, the πλήρ. above,’ but exegetically,— as the following αὐτὸν and other scrip- tural analogies (comp. 2 Cor. v. 19, Eph. i. 10) seem to suggest, the more definite Θεός, involved and included in the more mystical and abstract designation. The revelation contained in these wordsis of the most profound nature, and must be interpreted with the utmost caution and reverence. Without presuming to to assign any improper ‘elasticity’ (Mey.) to, the significant ἀποκατ. (e. g. se invicem,’ Dallzeus), or to limit the dilute, or *reunionem creaturarum inter comprehensive and unrestricted τὰ πάντα (6. g. ‘universam Ecclesiam,’ Beza ‘omnes homines’ Corn. a Lap.), we must guard against the irreve- rence of far reaching speculations on the reconciliation of the finite and the infinite (Usteri, Zchrb, τι. 1. 1., p. 129, Marheineke, Dogm. § 331 sq.), to which this mighty declaration has been supposed to allude. This, and no less than this it does say,—that the eternal and incarnate Son is the ‘causa medians’ by which the abso- lute totality of created things shall be restored into its primal harmony with its Creator,—a declaration more spe- cifically unfolded 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 re- marks of Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 1., p- 188, sq. The mysterious ἀνακε- φαλαιώσασθαι, Eph. i. το (obs. both the prep. and the voice), is a more general and perhaps more developed, while 2 Cor. v. 19, κόσμον καταλλ. 15 a more limited and more specific, re- presentation of the truth. εἰς αὐτόν] ‘unto Himself,’ ἡ. e., to God, couched in the foregoing πλήρωμα: a ‘ preegnans con- same eternal structio,—the preposition marking the reconciled access to (comp. Eph. ii. 18), and union with, the Creator ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 66. 2, p. 547. The simple dative (Eph. ii. 16 ; comp. Rom. wv. ΤῸ. 2 Cor. i. Τῇ al.) ex- presses 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 unem- phatic ; see notes on Eph. 1. 4. εἰρηνοποιήσας] ‘having made peace ; i. 6. God, —a simple and intelligible change of gender suggested by the preceding ἀυτὸν and the personal sub- ject involved in the subst. with which the part. is grammatically connected ; in fact, ‘a construct. πρὸς τὸ ὑποσημαι- νόμενον.᾽ The parallel passage Eph. ii, 15, ποιῶν εἰρήνην, would almost seem to justify a reference to the Son kK ὦ 132 You who were alie- nated He reconciled COLOSSIANS _ I. a1. ΄σ΄ A ° 21 Kal ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριω- by His death, if at least ye remain firm in the faith and abide by the hope of the Gospel. (Theod., GEcum.) by the common par- ticipial anacoluthon (Steiger ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. 2, p. 505), but as this would seriously dislocate the sentence by separating the modal participial clause from the finite verb, and would introduce confusion among the pro- nouns, we retain the more simple and direct construction. Thus then the two constructions (Ὁ) and (c) no- ticed in ver. Το ultimately coincide in referring ver. 20 to God not Christ ; and it is worthy of thought whether the ancient Syr. and Clarom. Vy. may not, by different grammatical processes, exhibit a traditional ref. of ver. 20 to God, of a very remote, and perhaps even authoritative, antiquity. διὰ τοῦ αἵμ. τοῦ σταυρ.] ‘by the blood of (i.e. shed upon) the cross; more specific and circumstantial statement of the ‘causa medians’ of the recon- ciliation. The gen. is what is termed of ‘ remoter reference,’ forming in fact a species of breviloquentia : see esp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 168, where nu- merous exx. are collected. δί αὐτοῦ] ‘by Him,’ it is scarcely necessary 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 repetition. These words are omitted in some MSS [BD*FGJ ; ro mss. ], but almost obviously to fa- cilitate the construction. εἴτε τὰ ἐν οὐρ. K. τ. X.] ‘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 connexion of the death of Christ with τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. It is hardly necessary to say that the lan- guage precludes any idea of recon- ciliation between the occupants of earth and heaven (appy. Cyril. Hieros. Ca- tech. XIV. 3, Chrys. (in part), Theod.,» al.) or, in reference to the latter, of any reconciliation of only a retrospec- tively preservative nature (Bramhall, Disc. 1v. Vol. v. p. 148). How the reconciliation of Christ affects the spiritual world—whether by the anni- hilation of ‘ posse peccare,’ or by the infusion of a more perfect knowledge (Eph. iii. 10), or (less probably) some restorative application to the fallen spiritual world (Orig., Neand. Plant- ing Vol. I. p. 531),—we know not, and we dare not speculate : this, how- ever, we may fearlessly assert that the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Eternal Son is infinite and limitless, that it extends to all things in earth and heaven, and that it was 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 valuable note of Harless on Eph. i. 10, esp. p. 52, and Hofmann, Schrifib. Vol. 1., p. 189. 21 καὶ ὑμᾶς] ‘and you also.’ new clause, to be separated by a period (not merely a comma, Lachm., Bisp.) from ver. 20, descriptive of the appli- cation of the universal reconciliation to the special case of the Colossians ; comp. ch. 11. 13, and see notes on Eph. ii. 1. The structure involves a slight anacoluthon: the Apostle pro- bably commenced with the intention of placing ὑμᾶς under the cmmediate regimen of ἀποκατάλλ. but was led by ποτὲ ὄντας into the contrasted clause νυνὶ δὲ before he inserted the verb; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. 1, p. 504. The reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε adopted by Lachm. and Mey. with B [D*FG; Clarom.; Iren., al. have ἀποκαταλλα- COLOSSIANS [. a1, 22. 133 μένους καὶ ἐχθροὺς TH διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς. νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν ὩΣ γέντες | involves an equally intelligible, though much stronger, anacoluthon, but has not sufficient external support. ὄντας ἀπηλλοτρ. ] ‘being alienated,’ ‘being in ὦ state of alienation,’ scil. ‘from God ;’ comp. Eph. iv. 28: the part. of the verb subst. is used with the perf. part. to express yet more forcibly the continuing state of the alienation ; comp. 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 expressly re- - stricted. 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 ex- tends. ἐχθροὺς τῇ Stav. | “enemies in your understanding ; not passive, ‘regarded as enemies by God’ (Mey., who compares 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, Kai τὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἐπράττετε, Chrys. The dative διανοίᾳ is what is termed the dat. of reference to (see notes on Gal. i. 22), and repre- sents, as it were, the peculiar spiritual seat of the hostility (comp. notes on Eph. iv. 28) while ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις marks the practical spheres and substrata in which the ἔχθρα was evinced ; comp. Huther im loc. On the meaning of διάνοια, the ‘higher intellectual na- ture,’ (διέξοδος λογική, Orig.) es- pecially as shown in its practical relations (contrast ἔννοια, Heb. iv. 12), see the good remarks of Beck, Seelenl, τι. 19. b, p. 58. The addition τοῖς πονηροῖς, not simply ἐν τοῖς πον. épy., serves to give em- 9 ~ ’ὔ ~ A εν τῷ OWUATLE τῆς TAPKOS phasis, and direct attention to the real character of the épya; Winer, Gr. § 20. I, p. 119. γυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατ.] ‘yet now hath He (God, see next note) reconciled.’ Antithesis to the preceding ποτε ὄντας, the op- positive δὲ in the apodosis being evoked by the latent ‘although’ (Donalds. Gr. § 621) involved in the participial protasis ; comp. Xen. Mem. lL. 7. 8, ἐκείνους ῥαδίως χειρούμενος, τούτοις δὲ μηδένα τρόπον οἴει δυνήσεσθαι προσενεχθῆναι, and see the note and reff. of Kiihner, esp. Buttm. Mid. Excurs. xu. p. 148: add Klotz Devar. Vol. τ΄. p. 374, Hartung, Partik. δέ, 5.6, Vol. 1. p. 186. Such a construction is not common in Attic writers. In this union of the emphatic particle of absolutely present time with the aor. (comp. Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 24) the aor. is not equiv. to apres. or perf., but marks with the proper force of the tense, that the action followed a given event (here, as the context suggests, the atoning death of Christ) and is now done with ; see Donalds. Gr. § 433, compared with Fritz. de Aor. p. 6,17. Meyer pertinently compares Plato, Symp. 193 A, mpd τοῦ... ἕν ἦμεν, νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διωκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. 22 ἐν τῷ σώμ. K.T.A.] Sin the body of His flesh,’ 1. 6., as the language and allusion undoubtedly requires,— the flesh of Christ; the prep. & pointing to the substratum of the action, see notes on Gal. i. 24, and | comp. esp. Andoc. de Myst. p. 33 (ed. Schill.) ὁ μὲν ἀγὼν ἐν τῷ σώματι τῷ ἐμῷ καθέστηκεν. It has been doubted whether Christ is not the subject of ἀποκατ. (Chrys., Gicum.), not God. Such a supposition has in 194 COLOSSIANS I. 22. κ ν A ’ A eon tu 4--..δὲ. δ αὐτοῦ διὰ του θανατου. παρᾶάστησαι υμας αγίους και AMW- its favour the use of σώματι, (which seems to suggest an identity of sub- ject), the use of παραστῆσαι, and the real prominence which the clause as- sumes, and lastly the semi-parallel passage, Eph. ii. 13. Still, the diffi- culty of a change of subject,—the natural transition from the more general act on the part of God in ver. 20, to the more particular application of the same to the Colossians, —and the similarity between the circumstantial διὰ τοῦ alu. τοῦ στ. above and the cir- cumstantial ἐν τῷ com. x. τ. Δ. in the present verse, lead us with Bengel., Huth., and others, to refer ἀποκατ. to the subject of ver. 20, ὑ. 6., to God. Many reasons have been assigoned why St. Paul adds the specifying gen. (substantiw, Winer, Gr. § 30. 2) τῆς σαρκός. Two opinions deserve consideration; (6) that it was to oppose some forms of Docetic error which were prevailing at Colosse, Steiger, Huth., al.; (ὦ) that it was directed against a false spiritualism, which, from a mistaken asceticism (ch. ji. 23) led to grave error with respect to the efficacy of Christ’s atonement in the flesh; so Mey., followed by Alf. As there are no direct, and appy. no indirect (contrast Ignat. Magnes. § 9, 11, al.),allusions to Docetic error trace- able in this Ep., the opinion (Ὁ) 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 probable. διὰ τοῦ θαν.] ‘by means of His death; added to the preceding ἐν τῷ σώμ. to express the means by which the recon- ciliation was so wrought; it was by means of death, borne in and accom- plished in, that blessed body, that reconciliation was brought . about ; compare some valuable remarks in Jackson, Creed, VIII. 8. 4. παραστῆσαι] ‘to present; infin., ex- pressing the actual purpose and intent of the action expressed in ἀποκ. ; see Madvig, Synt. § 148, where this mood is extremely well discussed. Jad ὥστε been inserted, the idea of manner or degree wouldrather have come into prominence (Madvig, § 166), and the meaning would literally have been ‘as with the intention of, &e.,’ the finite verb being in fact again tacitly supplied after ὥστε; see esp. Weller, Bemerk. z. Griech. Synt. p. 14 (Mein. 1843). Meyer calls attention to the tense, but it must be observed that in the inf. the aor., except after verbs declarandi vel sentiendi, is commonly obscured (Mady. § 172), especially as here in an: aoristic sequence. On παραστῆσαι, Which certainly conveys no sacrificial idea, comp. on ELph. v. 27. ‘There the reference is more re- stricted, here more general. ἁγίους Kal ἀμ. καὶ ἀνεγκ.} ‘holy and blameless and without charge ; desig- nation of their contemplated state on its positive and negative side (Mey.), ἁγίους marking the former, ἀμώμ. καὶ dveyxr. the latter. Strictly con- sidered then, the first and second kcal are not perfectly coordinate and simi- lar: they do not connect three different ideas (‘erga Deum, respectu vestri, respectu proximi,’ Beng.) nor simply aggregate three similar ideas (Daven.) ; but, while the first connects the two members of the latent antithesis, 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 appy. less strong than the following, ἀνεγκλ. ; ἀνέγκλ. yap τότε λέγεται, ὅταν μηδὲ COLOSSIANS 1. 22, , ’ ° a μους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον αὐτου" oe. 135 23 957 ΟἹ , ELVE ET LME- ΄- ’ὔ 4 ς A 4 A vere TH πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ἑδραῖοι, καὶ μὴ μετακι- , > A a 3 ’ A ς᾽ ’ ΤΣ , a νούμενοι ATO τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε: TOU μέχρι καταγνώσεως μηδὲ μέχρι ἐγκλή- ματος ἢ Lastly, on the distinction between (‘in quo τι πεπραγμένον ἡμῖν, Chrys. ἀνέγκλ. and ἀνεπίληπτος nulla juste causa sit reprehensionis’), see Tittm. Synon. I. p. 31. κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ] ‘before Him; God,—not Christ (Mey.), a reference neither natural nor easily reconcileable with the very similar passage, Eph. i. 4. There may be here a faint refe- rence to the ‘day of Christ’s appear- ing,’ Alf., but it does not seem per- With respect to the question whether ‘sanc- fectly certain from the context. titas imputate’ (Huth.), or, perhaps more probably, ‘sanctitas enherens’, (Chrys. ; comp. notes on Eph. i. 4) is here alluded to: the remark of Da- venant seems just; ‘cum dicit, wt sistat nos sanctos, non ut sisteremus nos, inanifestum est ipsos reconciliatos et renatos sanctitatem suam a Christo mutuari, sive de actuali, sive de inhe- rente, sive de imputata loquimur,’ p. 113 (ed. 3); ‘whensoever we have any of these we have all, they go to- gether,’ Hooker, Serm. on Justif. ἘΠῸ ΖῚ, 23 εἴγε ἔπιμ. τῇ πίστει] ‘if at least ye continue in the faith » a tropical use of ἐπιμ. peculiar to St. Paul, Hom. vi. I, xi. 22, 23, 1 Tim. iv. 16: ἐπιμ., Acts xiii. 43 (Rec.) has scarcely any critical support. Like several com- pounds of ἐπὶ it has two constructions (see Winer, Gr. § 52. 7, p. 382), with prepp. ἐπί, πρός, ἐν (Acts xxviii. 14, I Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. i. 24), and with the simple dative (Rom. JU. cc., 1 Tim. ἢ. 6.) which appy. is semi-local (comp. on Gal. v. 1) or, perhaps more probably, under the influence of the prep. ‘The prep. ἐπὶ is not (per se) intensive, (Alf.), but appears to de- note rest at a place, see notes on Gal. i. £8. On the meaning of εἴγε see notes on Hph. iii. 2, and on the distinction between εὔγε (si quidem) and εἴπερ (si, omnino) see notes on Gal. iii. 4. αλαῦυνωα {}}.4. τεθεμελ. καὶ ἑδραῖοι] ‘grounded and jirm,; specification on the positive side of the mode of the ἐπιμονή; comp. Eph. iii. λιωμένοι, and 1 Cor. xv. 58, ἑδραῖοι, ἀμετακίνητοι. 18, ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμε- The qualitative termi- nation -atos seems to justify the dis- tinction of Beng., ‘ τεθεμ. affixi funda- mento, ἐδρ. stabiles, firmiintus.’ That there is any reference to the metaphor of a temple (Olsh.), seems here very doubtful. μὴ μετακινουμ..] ‘and not being moved away ;’ nearly identical with ἀμετακίνητοι, τ Cor. xv. 58, and representing their fixity on its negative side: the change to the present pass.,—as marking by the tense the process that might be going on, and by the mood (pass., not act., as De W.), of which they were now liable to be the victims, —is especially suitable and exact ; see the suggestive ex. cited by Alf., Xenoph. Rep. Lac. XV. I, πολιτείας μετακεκινημένας Kat On the μὴ with werax., which, in a hypothetical sentence like the present, is usual and proper, see, if necessary, Winer, Gv. δ ΣΡ τὶ Pe be: τῆς ἔλπ. τοῦ evayy.] ‘ the hope of the Gos- pel,’ ὁ. 6. arising from, evoked by, the Gospel, τοῦ evayy. being the gen. of the origin, or rather the originating agent, Hartung, Casus, p. 17. To regard it as a possess. gen. (Alf.) gives an unnecessary vagueness to the ex- pression. Such genitives as those of the ἔτι νῦν μετακινουμένας. 136 COLOSSIANS ‘I. 23, 24. t ἢ ΩΡ GS Q δ , ἐπὶ ie , κηρυχθέντὸς ἐν TAaCH KTLOE€L TH υπο TOV ουρᾶνον- ου εγενο- μην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος. I rejoice in my suf- ferings for you and 24 Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ the Church ; I am preaching the mystery of salvation and striving to present every man per- | fect before Christ. origin (Hartung, p. 17), originating agent, and perhaps a shade stronger, the causa efficiens (Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 17), all belong to the general category of the gen. of ‘ablation’ (Donalds. ΟἿ. § 448, 449): the context alone must guide us in our choice. ᾿Ελπὶς can hardly be here, except in a very de- rivative sense, equiv. to ὁ Χριστός, Chrys. ; it seems only to have its usual subjective meaning; comp. notes on Eph. i. 18. ov 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 μετακινούμενοι: they had heard the Gospel, the world had heard it (πάλιν αὐτοὺς φέρει μάρτυρας, εἶτα τὴν οἰκουμένην, Chrys.), and he the writer of this Epistle, —who though probably not their founder (see on ver. 7), yet stood in close relation to them through Epaphras,— was the preacher of it; καὶ τοῦτο els τὸ ἀξιόπιστον συντελεῖ, Chrys. The Apostle gives weight to his assertions by the special mention of his name, 2 Cor. x. 1, Gal. vy. 2, Eph. iii. 1, 1 Thess. 11. 18, Philem. 10. 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 equiv.to ‘every form of creation,’ ἦ.6. ‘all creatures’ (Hofm. Schrifib. Vol. 1. p. 137), would be needlessly in- exact. The art. is inserted in D***E JK (Rec,), but clearly has not sufficient critical support. This noble hyperbole only states in a slightly different form what the Lord had commanded, Mark xvi. 15: the inspired Apostle, as Olsh. well says, sees the universal ten - dency of Christianity already realized. The limitation, τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν ovp. charac- terizes the κτίσις as ἐπίγειος, including however, thereby, all mankind. For the meaning of év, apud, coram,—per- haps here with sing. reverting some- what to the primary idea of sphere of operation, see Winer, G7. ὃ 48. a. ἃ, De 245 διάκονος] ‘a mi- nister ; see notes on Eph. iii. 7. The three practical deductions which Da- venant draws from worthy of perusal. 24 viv χαίρω] Transition suggested by the preceding clauses, esp. the last, to the Apostle’s own services in the cause of the Gospel. The viv is not merely transitional (comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 677), but as its po- sition shows, purely temporal and em- phatic (2 Cor. vii. 9), ‘now, with the chain round my wrist’ (Eadie), form- ing a contrast with the past time involved in the foregoing κηρυχθέντος and ἐγενόμην. The reading ὃς νῦν κιτιλ. (D*E*FG ; Vulg., Clarom., al.) seems either due to the preceding letters (paradiplomatical), or was in- tended to keep up the supposed con- nexion between ver. 25 and ver. 23. ἐν παθήμασιν] Not exclusively ‘de iis que patior,’ Beza, but simply ‘in passionibus,’ Vulg.; the παθήματα were not only the subject whereupon he rejoiced, but the sphere, the cir- cumstances in which he did so ; χαίρω πάσχων, Chrys. The brief and semi- adverbial ἐν rour@ (Phil. i, 18) is per- this clause are COLOSSIANS 1. 24. 137 nae a. 5 A ‘ e ’ a θλί a ὑμῶν, καὶ ἀνταναπλήρω τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ ee γὴν εν A , 5) ~ 73 Χριστοῦ εν TH σάαρκι μου ὑπέρ TOU σώματος αὐτου. O εστιν haps 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 refe- rence, ‘on your account,’ Eadie, ‘vestra causa,’ Just. (comp. Est. and Corn. a Lap.), but ‘vestro fructu et commodo,’ Beza, ‘zum Vortheil,’ τ Gr. ὃ 47. 1, p. 342, as the more usual meaning of the prep. in the N.T. and its use below both sug- gest. On the uses of the prep. comp. notes on Gal. i. 4, iii. 13, Phil. i. 7. ἀνταναπλὰ. κιτ.λ.} ‘am filling fully up the lacking measures of the sufferings of Christ.’ The meaning of these words have formed the subject both of exegetical discussion and polemical application ; comp. Cajet. de Indulg. Qu. 3, Bellarm. de Indulg. Cap. 3. Without entering into the latter, we will endeavour briefly to state the grammatical and contextual meaning of the words. (1) θλιψεῖς Χριστοῦ is clearly not ‘afflictiones propter Christum subeunde,’ Elsner (Vol. 11. p. 260), Schoettg., al., nor ‘calamitates quas Christus perferen- das imposuit,’ Fritz. (Rom. Vol. m1. p- 275),—a somewhat artificial gen. auctoris, —but simply and plainly ‘ the afflictions of Christ,’ ὁ.6. which apper- tain to Christ, not, however, with corporeal reference, ὅσα ὑπέμεινε, Theod., but which are His (Xp. being a pure possessive gen. ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 170, note), of which He is the mystical subject; see below. But (2) how are the ὑστερήματα of these afflictions filled up by the Apostle? Not (a) by the endurance of afflictions similar (ὡσαύ- τως, Theod.) to those endured (ὑποστα- τικῶς) by his Master (comp. Heb. xiii, 13, I 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 (Olsh.), was lacking in those of His Apostle (οὐ yap ἴσον τοῦτο οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ, Ccum.),— but (0), in the deeper sense given to it by Chrys., Theoph., CEcum., and recently adopted by De W., Eadie, Alf. al.,—by the endurance of afflictions which Christ endures in His suffering Church (σχετικῶς), and of which the πλήρωμα has not yet come; see Olsh, in loc., who has well defended this vital and consolatory interpretation. (3) The meaning of ἀνταναπληροῦν has yet to be considered ; this is not ‘vicissim explere’ (Beza, comp. Tittm. Synon. 11. p. 230), nor ‘cum Christo calamitates imponente in malis per- ferendis zmulans’ (Fritz.),—a some- what artificial interpretation, nor even ‘alterius ὑστέρημα de suo explere’ (Winer, de Verb. Comp. 11. 22), but as Meyer suggests, ‘to meet, and fill up the ὑστέρημα with a corresponding πλήρωμα ; the ἀντὶ contrasting not the actors or their acts (contrast Xenoph. Hell. τι. 4. 12, ἀντανέπλησαν compared with a previous ἐμπλῆσαι), but the defect and the supply with which it is met: see the exx. cited by Winer, esp. Dio. Cass. xxiv. 8, ὅσον ἐνέδει τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων συντελείας ἀνταναπληρωθῇ. 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 action, and the circumstances (the ὑστερήματα) which it was intended to 138 COLOSSIANS I. 24, 25. Le) , 25 ® 9 , ’ A ὃ , 4 4 5 ἡ ἐκκλησια" ἧς ἐγενόμην EY OLAKOVOS κατὰ THY οἰκονο- meet. ἐν Ty σαρκί pov clearly belongs to ἀνταναπλ., defining more closely the seat, and thence, inferentially, the mode, of the ἀντα- ναπλήρωσις, (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 11, Gal. iv. 14); the word σάρξ, which thus involves the predication of - manner, standing, as Mey. acutely observes, in exquisite contrast with the σῶμα, which defines the object of the action. Steiger, Huth., al., con- nect this clause with θλίψεων τοῦ Xp.: this may be grammatically possible (Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, Pp. 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 ἐκκὰ. might be thought the word of importance, the construction ἥτις ἐστιν ἐκκὰ., I Tim. ili. 15, might have seemed more natural ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 24. 3; p. 150. ’ The present construction is, however, perfectly 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 «.t.A.] Sof which I (Paul) became a minister; state- ment of the relation in which he stands to the ἐκκλησία just mentioned the ἧς having a faintly causal, or rather explicative, force (see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 371), and indirectly giving the reason and moving principle of the ἀνταναπλή- pwors ; ‘I fill up the lacking measures of the sufferings of Christ in behalf of His body the Church, being an ap- pointed minister thereof, and having a spiritual function in it committed to me by God.’ a slightly changed relation, the ἐγὼ The ἐγὼ continues, in 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 οἰκον. Θεοῦ] ‘in accordance with the dispensation, i.e. the spiritual stewardship, of God; τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐνεπιστεύθην τὴν σωτηρίαν, Kal τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος ἐνεχειρίσθην διακονίαν, Theod. The somewhat difficult word οἰκονομ. seems here, in accordance with τὴν δοθεῖσαν x.t.X. which fol- lows, to refer, not to the ‘ disposition of God,’ Syr. [No2,.5,80 [guberna- tionem], Goth. ‘ragina,’ Auth. ‘ ordi- nationem,’ but, as Just., Mey., al., to the ‘spiritual function,’ the ‘ office of an oixdvouos’ (see t Cor. ix. 17, com- pared 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 belonged and in whose service it was borne: see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 9, Vol. 11. p. 93, and notes on Eph, i. 10, where the meanings of οἰκονομ. in the N.T. are briefly noticed and clas- sified. τὴν δοθεῖσάν K.T.A.] ‘which was given me for you , further definition of the olxov. τοῦ Θεοῦ, the meaning of which, owing to the different meanings of οἶκον. might otherwise have been misunder- stood: ‘this οἰκόνομ. was specially assigned to me and you,—you, Gen- tiles, were to be its objects.’ The con- nexion of eis ὑμᾶς with πληρ. (Scholef. Hints, p. 110) does not seem plausi- ble: the juxtaposition of the pronouns (μοι els duds) suggests their logical connexion. πληρῶσαι τὸν Ady. τοῦ Θ. ‘to fulfil the word of COLOSSIANS I. 25, =A 139 a 23 μίαν τοῦ Beas τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς ᾿πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 7° , TO μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ὶ εἶ A pl a : Ν 9 \ a A A oc 5) , ATO τῶν ALWYWY Καὶ ATO Τῶν γένεων». νυνι ε ἐφανερώθη God , 1.6. ‘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 perhaps, more naturally on τὴν δοθεῖσάν k.T.d., giving an amplifi- cation to the preceding εἰς ὑμᾶς. The glosses on πληρῶσαι are exceedingly numerous ; the most probable seem, (a) ‘ad plene exponendam totam salutis doctrinam,’ Daven. 1, comp. Olsh., and Thol. Bergpr. p. 136; (0) ‘to spread abroad,’ Huth., who com- pares Acts v. 28; (c) ‘to give its fullest amplitude to, to fill up the measures of its fore-ordained univer- sality,’ not perhaps without some allusion to the οἰκονομία which would thus be fully discharged ; comp. Rom. “xv. 19, μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Ιλλυρικοῦ πεπληρω- κέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Xp. Of these (6) has an advantage over (a) in im- plying a πλήρωσις viewed extensively, in haying, in fact, a quantitative rather than a qualitative reference, but fails in exhausting the meaning and completely satisfying the context : (c) by carrying out the idea further, and pointing to the λόγος as some- thing 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 ; comp. the somewhat analogous expression, ὁ λόγος TOU 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 voca- tione Gentium,’ Beza, but simply and plainly τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2: Cor. ii. 17; © Thess. 11: 1g al. 26. τὸ μυστήριον] ‘the mystery which hath been hidden,’ &c.; appo- sition 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 salvandis Gentibus per gratiam evangelicam,’ Daven.; see Eph. iii. 4 sq., and comp. Eph. i. 9. On the meanings of μυστήριον in the N.T., see notes on Eph. v. 32, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. iv. 9, Vol. τι. p. 88, where the applications of the term in the N.T. are briefly elucidated. ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων K.T.A.] ‘from the ages and from the generations (that have passed) ; from the long temporal periods (αἰῶνες) and the successive generations that made them up (γενεῶν ; see on Eph. iii. 21), which have elapsed (observe the article) since the concealed. ‘arcanum decretum’ was The expression is not identical with πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, τ Cor. il. 7; the counsel was formed πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, but concealed amd τῶν αἰώνων ; comp. Le RVI 28; see sites on Eph. iii. 9, same expression occurs. νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη) ‘but now has been made manifest ; transition from the participial to the finite construct., suggested by the importance of tits predication ; see notes on Eph. i. 20, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. 2. b, p. 505 sq., where other examples are noticed and discussed. The φανέρωσις, the actual and historical manifestation (De W.), took place, as Mey. observes, in diffe- rent ways, partly by revelation (Eph. ili. 5), partly by preaching (ch. iv. 4, and where the Tit. i. 3) and exposition (Rom. xvi. 140 an « , Ss a τοις αγιοις QUTOU, COLOSSIANS 1. 26, 27. 27 οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς γνωρίσαι τί Α a ~ oo σε , , 9 “- 4 TO πλοῦτος τῆς o&ns τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνε-- 26), and partly by all combined. On the connexion of νυνὶ (Lachm. νῦν, 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 ἐνεστῶτοΞ), see Ammonius, Voc. Dif. Ῥ. 99, ed. Valck. Tots ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ] To limit these words to the Apostles, from a comparison with Eph. iii, 5 (Steiger, Olsh.: FG; Boern. actually insert ἀποστόλοι5), or to the elect, ‘quos Deus in Christo consecrandos decrevit ’ (Daven. 1), is highly unsatisfactory, and quite con- trary to St. Paul’s regular and un- restricted use of the word ; so Theod., who however shows that he remem- bered Eph. iii. 5, τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, καὶ rots διὰ τούτων πεπιστευκόσι. On the meaning of ἅγιος, see notes on Eph. 1, 27. οἷς ἠθέλησεν ὁ O.] ‘to whom God did will; i.e. ‘seeing that to them it was God’s will,’ &c., the re- lative having probably here, as in ver, 25, an indirectly causal, or ex- plicative, force (‘ rationem adjungit,’ Daven.), and reiterating the subject to more readily introduce the specific purpose γνωρίσαι x.7.A. which was contemplated by God in the φανέ- pwots. The most recent commenta- tors, Mey., Eadie, Alf., rightly reject any reference of ἠθέλησεν to the free grace of God (Eph. i. 9, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ), no such idea being here involved in the context: what ἠθέλησεν here implies is, not on the one hand, that God ‘was pleased’ (‘propensionem voluntatis indicat,’ Est.), nor on the other, that He ‘ was willing,’ Hamm., but simply and plainly ‘it was God’s will’ to do so. On the distinction between θέλω and βούλομαι, see notes ont Tim.v. 14. γνωρίσαι] ‘io make known; practi- cally little different from φανερῶσαι. The latter perhaps is slightly more re- stricted, as involving the idea of a previous concealment (see above and comp. 2 Tim. i. 10), the former more general and unlimited: see Meyer in loc. τί τὸ πλοῦτος κ. τ. A. ] ‘what is the riches of the glory of this mystery.’ not, exactly, ‘how great,’ Mey., but with the simple force of Tls,—‘ what,’ referring alike to na- ture and degree ; comp. Eph. i. 18, and see notes in loc. The gen. τῆς δόξης is no mere genitive of quality which may be resolved into an ad- jective, and appended either to πλοῦ- τος (‘herrliche Reichthum,’ Luth.), or μυστήριον (‘gloriosi hujus mysterii’ Beza), but, as always in these kinds of accumulated genitives in St. Paul, specially denotes that peculiar attri- bute of the μυστήριον (gen. subjecti) which more particularly evinces the πλοῦτος ; see notes and reff. on Lph. i. 6, and comp. Eph. i. 18. The δόξα itself is not to be limited to the trans- forming 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 enun- ciation requires, to both (see esp. De W.), perhaps more particularly to the latter. To make its referenceidentical with that of the δόξα below (Mey., Alf.), where the preceding words in- troduce a new shade of thought, does not seem so exegetically satisfactory. The former δόξα gains from its collo- cation a more general and abstract force, the latter, from its association COLOSSIANS [. 27, 28. 141 A a ἘΣ Ε σιν, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης. 78 ὃν ε a , os U x 4 ἡμεις καταγγέλλομεν, νουθετοῦντες παντα ἄνθρωπον και a with ἐλπίς, has a more specific re- ference. ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] Semi-local clause appended to τί (éor) τὸ πλοῦτος k. τ. X., defining the sphere in which the πλοῦτος τῆς δόξ. τοῦ μυστ. is more especially evinced ; φαίνεται δὲ ἐν ἑτέροις, πολλῷ δε πλέον ἐν τούτοις ἣ πολλὴ τοῦ μυστηρίου δόξα, Chrys. ; see esp. Eph. i. 18, where the construction is exactly similar. ὅς ἐστιν Xp.| The reading is here somewhat doubtful; ὃς is found in CDEJK ; nearly all mss.; Chrys., Theod. (Tisch. Rec.), and, as being the more difficult reading, is to be pre- ferred to 6, adopted by Lachm. with ABFG; 17. 67**, and perhaps Vulg., al. But to what does it refer? Three interpretations have been suggested ; (a) the complex idea of the entire clause,—Christ in his relation to the Gentile world, De W., Eadie; (6) the more remote τὸ πλοῦτος k. τ. X., Cicum., Daven., Mey. ; (c) the more immediately preceding μυστηρίου τού- tov, Chrys., Alf., al. Of these (a) is defensible (comp. Phil. i. 28), but too vague ; (ὦ) is plausible (comp. Eph. iii. 8), but rests mainly on the assump- tion 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 ; comp. notes on Hph. iii. 5. In any case the mase. ὃς results from a simple attrac- tion to the predicate ; see Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, Pp. 150. ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘among you; not exclusively ‘in vobis inhabitans per fidem,’ Zanch. (comp. Eph, iii. 17), but in parallelism to the preceding ἐν τοῖς ἔθν. As, how- ever, this parallelism is not perfectly exact (Alf.),—for ἐν ὑμῖν is in close association with the preceding gsub- stantive, whereas ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ig not,—we may admit that ‘in you’ is also virtually and by consequence involved in it; comp. Olsh., Eadie. The connexion adopted by Syr. Oo v Ἄ v ᾿ξ (022; [qui in vobis est spes] involves an unnecessary and untenable trajection. ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης] Apposition to the preceding Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ; not either the ‘ spei causa’ (Grot.), or the object of it (Vorst), but its very element and sub- stance, see 1 Tim. i. I, and notes in loc. The second gloss of Theoph., ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν ἔνδοξος, is unusually in- correct; δόξα is a pure subst., and refers to the future glory and blessed- ness in heaven, Rom. v. 2, 1 Cor. ii. 7 (appy.), 2 Cor. iv. 17, al. For a list of the various words with which ἐλπὶς is thus joined, see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. iv. 20, Vol. 11: p. 221. 28 ὃν ἡμεῖς Katayy.] ‘whom we preach; whom I and Timothy, with other like-minded teachers (comp. Steig.), do solemnly preach; the ἡμεῖς being emphatic, and instituting a contrast between the accredited and the non-accredited preachers of the Gospel. On the intensive, surely not local (ἄνωθεν αὐτὸν φέροντες, Chrys.), force οἵ καταγγ., see notes on Phil. ΤΥ: νουθετοῦντες] ‘admonishing,’ ‘warning,’ “ corri- pientes,” Vulg., ith. ; participial clause defining more nearly the man- ner or accompaniments of the καταγ-’ γελία. The verb νουθετεῖν has its proper force and meaning of ‘ admo- nishing with blame’ (νουθετικοὶ λόγοι, 142 COLOSSIANS 1. 28, 20. διδάσκοντες πάντα ἀνθρωπον ἐν πάση σοφίᾳ; ἵνα παραστή- σωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ" ς εἴ A 29 -οίῳ O Kal om 5 , A A τ , “ 4 KOTTLW ἀγωνιζόμενος κατα Τὴν evepyelav αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργου- ’ 3 = ἃ 515 ὃ ’ μένην εν ἐμοί ἐν ουναμει. Xenoph. Mem. 1. 2. 21, comp. notes on Eph. vi. 4), and as Mey. (comp. De W.) rightly observes, points to the μετανοεῖτε of the evangelical message, while διδάσκ. lays the founda- tion for the πιστεύετε; so, inferen- tially, Theophyl., νουθεσία μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς πράξεως, διδασκαλία δὲ ἐπὶ δογμά- τῶν. On the meaning of νουθετεῖν, which implies primarily, correction by word, an appeal to the νοῦς (comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12), and derivatively, correction by act, Judges viii. 16, (comp. Plato, Legg. 879), see Trench, Synon. § XXXII. πάντα ἄνθρ.] Thrice repeated and emphatic ; appy. not without allusion to the ex- clusiveness and Judaistic bias of the false teachers at Colosse. The mes- sage was universal, it was addressed to every one, whether in every case it might be received or no: τί λέγεις; πάντα ἄνθρωπον ; val, φησί, τοῦτο σπου- δάζομεν. εἰ δὲ μὴ γένηται οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, Theoph. ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ] ‘in all, ὁ. 6. in every form of, wisdom,’ see notes on Eph. i. 8: which the διδάσκειν was carried out, μετὰ πάσης σοφίας, Chrys. (comp. ch. iii. 16), or perhaps, more precisely, the characteristic element in which the διδαχὴ was always to be, and to which it was to be circum- scribed. The meaning is thus really the same, but the manner in which it is expressed slightly different. The lines of demarcation between sphere of action (Eph. iv. 17), accordance with (Eph. iv. 16), and characterizing feature (Eph. vi. 2), all more or less involving some notion of modality, are not always distinctly recognizable. The influence of the Aramaic & in the mode in various usages of ἐν in the N. T. is by no means inconsiderable. ἵνα παραστήσωμεν] ‘in order that we may present,’ exactly as in ver. 22, with implied reference not to a sacri- fice, but to the final appearance of every man before God: ‘en metam et scopum Pauli, atque adeo omnium verbi ministrorum,’ Davenant,—whose remarks on the propriety of the in- tention,—as coming from one who sat at the Council of Dort,—are not un- deserving of perusal. The concluding words ἐν Xp., as usual, define the sphere in which the τηλειότης, ‘1’en- semble de toutes les qualités natu- relles au Chrétien’ (Reuss, Théol. Chrét., Vol. 11. p. 182), is to consist; comp. notes on ch. iv. 12, andon Eph. iv. 13. The polemical antithesis which Chrys. here finds, οὐκ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδὲ ἐν ἀγγέ- λοις, owing to the continual recurrence of ἐν Xp., is perhaps more than doubt- ful. The addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ is rightly rejected by Tisch. with ABCD* FG; mss.; Clarom.; Clem., and Lat. Ff. 29 εἰς 6] ‘to which end; the prep. with its usual and proper force de- noting the object contemplated in the κοπιᾶν ; comp. notes on Gal. ii. 8. kal κοπιῶ] “1 also toil; ‘beside preaching with νουθεσία and διδαχή, 1 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 xatayy. Κιτλ. The relapse into the first person has an indi- vidualizing force, and carries on the reader from the general and common labours of preaching the Gospel (ὅν ἡμεῖς καταγγ.), to the struggles of the individual preacher. On the meaning COLOSSIANS 1]. 1. I am earnestly striv- ing for you, that you 143 Il. Θέλω yap ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα may come to the full knowledge of Christ. Let no one deceive you, but as you received Christ, walk in Him, and derivation of κοπιῶ see notes on 1 Tim. iv. το. ἀγωνιζόμενος] ‘striving; comp. ch. 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., Daven., al.; the latter by Steig., Olsh., and most modern commentators. The use of κοπιῷ (see on Tim. l.c.) perhaps may seem to point to the older interpreta- tion ; the immediate context (ch. ii. 1), however, and the use of ἀγωνίζομαι in this Ep. (see ch. iv. 12, ἀγωνιζό- μενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς mpocevxais) seem here rather more in favour of modern exegesis, unless indeed with Cicum. and De Wette we may not improbably admit both. κατὰ τὴν évépy.| ‘according to His working which worketh in me ;’ mea- sure of the Apostle’s spiritual κόπος (comp. notes on Eph. i. 19), viz., not his own ἐνέργεια but that of Christ ; τὸν αὐτοῦ κόπον καὶ ἀγῶνα τῷ Χριστῷ ἀνατιθείς, Gicum., who alone of the Greek commentators (Theod. silet) refers the αὐτοῦ to Christ. 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 ‘que agitur, exercetur, perficitur,’ Bull, Lzxam. Cens. τι. 3, though, lexicaliy defen- sible, seems certainly at variance with St. Paul's regular use of the verb; see on Phil. l. 6. ἐν δυνάμει] ‘in power, ὁ.6. powerfully; modal adjunct to ἐνεργουμένην. Though it seems arbitrary to restrict δύναμις to miraculous gifts (Michael.), it still seems equally so (with Mey. and Alf.) to summarily exclude it; comp. Gal. ili. 5. The principal reference, as the singular suggests (contrast Rom. i. 4 and Acts ii. 22), seems certainly to inward operations ; a secondary ref. to outward manifestations of power seems, however, fairly admissible ; ‘quum res postulat, etiam miraculis,’ Calv., comp. Olsh. in loc. CHAPTER II. 1. γάρ] Description of the nature and objects of the strug- gle previously alluded to, introduced by the yap argumentative (not tran- sitional <*? Syr. [probably not a different reading, see Schaaf, Lez. 5. v.], and partially even Alf.), which confirms and illustrates, —not merely the foregoing word ἀγωνιζόμενος (Beng.) but the whole current of the verse: ‘meminerat in calce superio- ris capitis suorum laborum et certa- minum, eorum nunc causam et mate- riam explicat,’ Just. ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα] ‘how great a struggle; not ‘solicitudinem,’ Vulg., but ‘cer- D»n» tamen,’ Clarom. {a fe) 1 Syr,. ‘quan- τ. tum colluctor,’ ΖΦ. The struggle, as the circumstances of the Apostle’s captivity suggest, was primarily in- ward,—‘ intense and painful anxiety,’ Eadie (comp. ch. iv. 12), yet not perhaps wholly without reference to the outward sufferings which he was enduring for them (ch. i. 24), and for all his converts. The qualitative adj. ἡλίκος (Hesych. ποταπὸς μέγας, ὁποῖος ; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 254), occurs only here and James iil. 5. περὶ ὑμῶν] ‘for you.’ The reading is somewhat doubtful. Lachm. reads ὑπὲρ with ABCD****; 6 mss.; but as this might easily haye come from ch, 144 COLOSSIANS II. τ. ὕἦἤὄ es στα as 4 A ς Δ ὃ ’ , δ Ἂ δ 4 εχω περι υμῶν Και Τῶν. Ἐν ao LKEL(M, και οσοι ουχ εωρακᾶν iv. 12 (comp. ch. i. 24), it seems best with Tisch. to retain epi, which is found in D* D***»> EFGJK, and the great majority of mss.: these prepo- sitions are often interchanged. On the distinction between them, see on Gal. i. 4, and on Phil. i. 7. καὶ τῶν ἐν Aaod.| The Christians in the neighbouring city of Laodicea are mentioned with them, as possibly sub- jected to the same evil influences of heretical teaching. The rich (Rev. iii. 17), commercial (comp. Cicero, Epist. Fam. 11. 5), city of Laodicea, formerly called Diospolis, afterwards thoas, and subsequently Laodicza, in honour of Laodice, wife of Antiochus II., was situated on the river Lycus, about eighteen English miles to the west of Colosse, and about six miles south of Hierapolis, which latter city is not improbably hinted at in καὶ ὅσοι K.T.r. ; see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 441 note. Close upon the probable date of this Ep. (A.D. 61 or 62), the city suffered severely from an earth- quake, but was restored without any assistance from Rome; Tacit. Ann. XIV. 27, comp. Strabo, Geogr. ΧΙΙ. 8. 16 (ed. Kramer), a place bearing the name of Eski-hissar is supposed to mark the site of this once important city: for further notices of Laodicea see Winer, RWB. s.v. Vol. τι. p. 5, Pauly, Real-Encycl. Vol. Iv. 1, p. 764, and Arundell, Seven Churches, p. 84 sq., ib. Asia Minor, Vol. τι. p. 180 sq. Kal ὅσοι K.T.A. | ‘and (in a word) as many as, &c.,’ the καὶ probably annexing the general to the special (comp. Matth. xxvi. 59, notes on Eph. i. 21, Phil. iv. 12, and Winer, Gr. 53. 3, p- 388, ed. 6), and including, with perhaps a thought of Hierapolis (see above), all in those parts who had not seen the Apostle. The ordinary principles of grammati- cal perspicuity seem distinctly to im- ply that the ὑμεῖς and the οἱ ἐν Aaod., belong to the general class καὶ ὅσοι k.7.d., and consequently that the Co- lossians 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 Coloss. and Laod. (Schulz, Stud. wu. Krit. 1829, p. 538; so Theod. and a Schol. in Matthei, p. 168), or to a portion only of those two Churches, (Wiggers, Stud. uw. Krit. 1838, p. 176), but as all the words are, in fact, under the vincu- lum of a common preposition, and as αὐτῶν, if dissociated from ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Aaod. (comp. Schulz), would leave the mention 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 Laod. had not seen the Apostle in the flesh ; see the good note of Wieseler, Chronol. p. 440 sq., and Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 171 (Bohn). The form ἑώρακαν adopted by Lachm., Tisch., [ with ABC (éop.) D*], is decidedly Alex- andrian (see Winer, G7. ὃ 13. 2, p. 71), and probably the true reading. The ‘ sonstige Gebrauch Pauli’ urged against it by Mey. is imaginary, as the third pers. plur. does not else- where occur in St. Paul’s Epp. ἐν σαρκὶ seems naturally connected with the preceding πρόσωπόν μου (Vulg., Copt., Aith.), not with édpa- kav (Syr.; but not Philox., where the order is changed), forming with it one single idea, There is almost obviously here no implied antithesis to πνεύματι (δείκνυσιν ἐνταῦθα ὅτι ἑώρων συνεχῶς ἐν πν., Chrys., Theoph., comp. ver. 5): the bodily countenance is not in COLOSSIANS | II. 1, 2. 145 4 , & : > , 2 6 θῶ ς τὸ πρόσωπον μου εν σαρκι; iva παρακλὴη ωσιν αἱ ’ 3 ων , 3 9 , 4 5 ~ A καρδίαι αὐτῶν. συμβιβασθεντες εν αγαπῇ καὶ εἰς παν TO 2. τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ] This passage deserves our attentive consideration. The reading of the text is that of B, Hil. (Lach., Tisch. ed. τ, Mey., Huth.), 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), followed by Olsh., De W., Alf., and the majority of modern commentt.: (Ὁ) τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ ἐστὶν Xptords, with D*; Clarom. (Aith., quod de Christo): (c) τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ with AC; al.; Vv.: and lastly, (ὦ) τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Xp. with D***EJK; many mss. and ὅν. ; Theod., Dam., al. (Rec.). Now of these (a) is undoubtedly too weakly supported; (0) seems a very obvious gloss of the unusual τοῦ Θεοῦ Xp.; (c) and (d) still more expanded and epexegetic 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 T’regelles. opposition with ‘the spiritual phy- siognomy,’ Olsh., but seems a con- crete 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 tapakd.|] ‘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 common, e.g. Psalm cxix. 52], De Wette, Alford, but ‘consolentur,’ (consolationem acci- a v piant), Vulg., cofamlia [consol. accipiant], Syr., ‘gaudeant,’ Aith.— the meaning which παρακ. always ap- pears to bear in St. Paul’s Epp., and from which there does not here seem sufficient reason (contr. Bisp., Alf.), to depart: surely those exposed to the sad trial of erroneous teachings need consolation; comp. Davenant in loc. For exx. of παρακαλ. comp. ch. iv. 8, Eph. vi. 22, 1 Thess. iii. 2, 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 obvi- ously dependent on ἀγῶνα ἔχω (comp. Chrys. dy. 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 ἀγ.] ‘they being knit together in love,’ relapse to the logical subject by the common participial 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 circumstances 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 aggregation, ‘knit together,’ Auth. a» v 3 (comp. Syr. (o> 4c 2\a [accedant], Auth., ‘confirmetur’), as in ch. 11. 19, and Eph. iv. 16, where see notes. The reading -έντων (Rec., with D*** K** JK, al.) seems certainly only a grammatical emendation. Ep ἀγάπῃ, with the usual meaning of the prep., denotes not the instrument, ‘per charitatem,’ Est., but the sphere and element in which they were to be knit together, and is associated by L 146 COLOSSIANS II. 2. j “- lol , A , ; 9 β.τ Ὁ ἷ A πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ means of the copulative καὶ (not ‘etiam,’ Beng.) with eis πᾶν x.7.2. which defines the object of the union ; see next note. els πᾶν τὸ πλοῦτος] ‘unto all the richness: pre- positional 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 connexion with mapaxrX. (Baumg. Crus.) mars the union of the prepositional mem- bers, and gains nothing in exegesis. The reading πάντα πλοῦτον, though well supported (Rec. with DEJK, al.), seems clearly to have had a para- diplomatic origin (Pref. to Gal. p. xvi.), the TA being a clerical error for TO, and πλοῦτον a corresponding cor- rection. On this neuter form, see notes on Eph. i. 7. τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσ΄. 7 ‘of the full assurance of the understanding,’ not ‘certo persuase intelligentiz,’ Daven., a resolution of the gen. which is wholly unnecessary: comp. notes on ch. i. 27. The word mdnpod. ᾿(τ Thess. i. 5, Heb. vi. 11, x. 22) denotes on the qualitative side '(πλοῦτ,, quantitative, De W.) the completeness of the persuasion which was to be associated with the σύνεσις, —which the σύνεσις was to have and to involve (gen. jossess.),—and, as Olsh. observes, may denote that the σύνεσις was not to be merely out- ward, dependent on the intellect, but inward, resting on the testimony of the Spirit ; comp. Clem. Rom. 1, 42. On the meaning of σύνεσις, see notes on ch. i. 9: that it is here Christian σύνεσις, clearly results from the context (Mey.). εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν K.7.A.] ‘unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, even Christ ; prepositional member exactly parallel to the preceding εἰς πᾶν τὸ wr. κιτιλ. The construction of the last three words is somewhat doubtful. Three connexions present themselves ; (a) ‘the mystery of the God of Christ,’ Huth., Mey. ; Χριστοῦ being the possessive gen. of relationship, &c., see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 7, p. 123 sq., and comp. Eph. i. 17, and notes in loc. ; (8) the mystery of God, even of Christ, Xp. being a gen. in simple apposition to, and more exactly defining 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 μυστηρίου, and so forming a very close parallel to ch. i. 27. Of these (a) seems hopelessly hard and artificial ; (8) though dogmatically true, seems here an unnecessary specification, and exegetically con- sidered, much inferior to (y), which stands in harmony with the preceding expression μυστηρίου ὅς ἐστι Χριστός (ch. i. 27), and has the indirect sup- port of D*, Clarom., Aug., Vig., and Aith., za-baenta Chrestos [quod de Christo]. Τὺ 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, consi- dered apart from the context, not in- defensible, and at any rate is not to be disposed of by Meyer’s summary, ‘entbehrt aller Paulinischen analogie.’ We adopt (y), however, on what seem decided exegetical grounds. On the meaning and applications of μυστήριον, see notes on Lph. v. 32, Reuss, 7héol. Chrét. τν. 9, Vol. τι. p. 89; and for the exact force of ἐπί- γνωσις (‘accurata cognitio’), here con- COLOSSIANS IDL 2—+4. 147 po Λ P μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, 3 9 a 9 A , e ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν παντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι. 4 τοῦτο firmed by the juxtaposition of the simple γνῶσις, ver. 3, see notes on Hph, i. 17. 3. ἐν ᾧ] ‘in whom,’ relative sen- tence explaining the predication in- volved in the preceding apposition (uvornp. = Xpiorod), the relative hav- ing its explicative force ; see notes on ch. i. 25. To follow the reading of the text, and yet to refer ἐν to the μυστήριον (Mey.), seems unusually perplexed, unless (with Mey.) we adopt the unsatisfactory construction (a), previously discussed. De Wette and Mey. urge the implied antithesis. between «vot. and ἀπόκρ., but to this it may be said,—first, that what is applicable to μυστ. is equally so with that to which it is equivalent (comp. Bisp.); secondly, that the secondary predicate ἀπόκρυφοι (see below) logi- cally elucidates 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 : comp. Waterl. Christ’s Div. Serm. vit. Vol. 11. p. 156. εἰσι πάντες K.T.A.| ‘are all the trea- sures of wisdom and knowledge hid- denly ; not ‘the secret treasures, &c.,’ Mey., Alf., which obscures the secondary predication of manner, and in fact confounds it with the usual ‘attributive’ construction (Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 50. 8). The position of the substantive verb and the order of the words seem to show that ἀπόκρυ- got is not to be joined with eiclas a direct predication (Syr., Copt., De W., al.), but that it is subjoined to it (Vulg., Atth.) as the predication of manner, and is in fact equivalent to an adverb, the most distinct type of the secondary predicate; see esp. Donaldson, Cratyl. § 304, and esp. Miiller, Kleime Schrift. Vol. 1. p. 310 (Donalds.), who has the credit of first introducing this necessary dis- tinction between ‘ adjectiva attributa, predicata, and apposita ; see also Donalds. Gr. § 436-447. It will be seen that the translation of Mey. and Alf., and esp. the explanations based upon it, are unsatisfactory from not having observed these important dis- tinctions. Exegetically consi- dered, the expression seems to convey that all treasures of wisdom and know- ledge are in Christ, and are hiddenly so, ‘quo verbo innuitur, quod pre- tiosum et magnificum est in Christo non prominere, aut protinus in oculos incurrere hominum carnalium, sed ita latere ut conspiciatur tantummodo ab illis quibus Deus oculos dedit aqui- linos, id est, spirituales ad videndum,’ Daven. ; ὥστε παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δεῖ πάντα αἰτεῖν, Chrys. There is thus no need with Bahr and others to modify the simple meaning of the adjective. σοφίας kal γνώσεως] The exact dis- tinction between these words is not perhaps very easy to substantiate. We can hardly say that ‘codia res credendas, γνῶσις res agendas com- plectitur’ (Daven.), but rather the contrary. It would seem, as in σοφία and φρονήσις (see notes on Eph. i. 9), that σοφία is the more general, ‘ wis- dom,’ in its completest sense, κοίνως ἁπάντων μάθησις, Suid., γνῶσις the more restricted and special, ‘know- ledge,’ as contrasted with the results and applications of it ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 139 (Bohn), Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. Iv. 7, p. 166, and, on the meaning of ‘ wis- dom,’ comp. Taylor (H.), Notes from Life, p. 95. 4. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω] ‘ Now this I say ; transition, by means of the δὲ pera- Ὧ 148 COLOSSIANS a A ae δὲ λέγω ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ. 5 9 4 x lal A OE >) A ~ , A Ew él γὰρ και TH σαρκι Q7TTEL Aly ἀλλα TH σινευματι σὺυν ULV βατικόν (Hartung, Partik. Vol. τ. Ῥ. 165; omitted by Lachm. with A* (appy-), B; Ambrosiast.), to the warn- ings which, with some intermixture of exhortation and doctrinal state- ments, pervade the chapter. The Todroseems clearly to refer not merely to ver. 3, but to the whole introduc- tory paragraph, ver. I-3. παραλογίζηται] ‘may deceive ; only here and James i. 22, though not un- common in the LXX, e.g., Josh. ix. 22, 1 Sam. xii. 28, 2 Sam. xxi. 5, al. The verb παραλογΎ. is of common occurrence in later Greek, and pro- perly denotes ‘to deceive,’ either by false reckoning (Demosth. Aphob. I. 822), or false reasoning (Isocr, 420 c), and thence generally, ψεύσασθαι (Hesych.); comp. Arrian, ἀπατᾶν, Epict. τι. 20, ἐξαπατῶσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ παραλογίζονται, and exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 261, Loesn. Obs. p. 335. ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ] ‘ with enticing speech , comp. 1 Cor. ii. 4, ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις, the prep. ἐν having that species of instru- mental force in which the object is conceived as existing in the means ; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 622. 3. The subst. occurs in Plato, Thewt. 162 E, and the verb in Aristot. £th. Nic. 1. 1, but with a more special and technical reference to probability as opposed to demonstration or to mathematical certainty. 5. εἰ γὰρ καὶ κιτ.λ.} ‘for if Jam absent verily in the flesh ; reason for the foregoing warning, founded on the fact of his spiritual presence with them; εἰ yap καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλ ὅμως οἷδα τοὺς ἀπατεῶνας, Chrys. The καὶ does not belong, strictly con- sidered, to the ef (comp. Raphel. in loc.), but to σαρκί, on which it throws a slight emphasis, contrasting 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 restricted ; see notes on Gal. i. 22. ἀλλά] ‘yet on the contrary,’ ‘ never- theless ; the hypothetical protasis being followed by ἀλλὰ at the com- mencement of the apodosis ; see exx. in Hartung, Partik. ἀλλά, 2. 8, Vol. II, Ὁ. 40. In such cases, which are not uncommon, the ἀλλὰ preserves its primary and proper force; ‘per istam particulam quasi transitus ad rem novam significatur que ei, qu membro orationis conditionali erat declarata, jam opponatur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 93. τῷ πνεύματι] ‘in the spirit ; dative exactly similar to τῇ σαρκί. It need scarcely be said that this is St. Paul’s human spirit (Beck, Seelenl. τι. 11, Ὁ. 28 sq.), not-any influence of the Holy Spirit, Pseud. Ambr. (comp. Grot. ; Daven. unites both), which would here violate the obvious antithesis. The deduction of Wiggers (Stud. εὐ. Krit. 1838, p. 181) from this passage and esp. 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 Mey.: the verb itself simply implies absence without any ref. to a previous presence; the accessory thought is supplied by the context. Contrast the other instances in the N.T., 1 Cor. v. 3, 2 Cor. x. 10, Phil. i. 27, in all of which πάρειμι σύν ὑμῖν] ‘with you,’ ‘joined with you,’ in a true and close union ; comp. Gal. iii. 9, where see remarks on the difference I, LE, ἘΠῚ ἣν is distinctly expressed. COLOSSIANS 1]. 5. 149 > Pr , A , eA 4 ’ ᾿ 4 A , EL {Aly Xa pov Kal βλέπων υμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ. TO στερεῶμα between σὺν and μετά: comp. on Eph. vi. 23. χαίρων kal βλέπων «.7.d.] ‘rejoicing (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 re- jecting all untenable assumptions, of an ἕν διὰ δυοῖν (΄ gaudeo dum video,’ Wolf.),—a zeugmatic construction of the accus. with both verbs (‘mit Freuden sehend,’ De W.),—a trajec- tion (‘seeing, &c., and rejoicing,’ see Winer, Gr. § 54. 4, p. 417, note),—a causal use of καί (‘gaudens quia cerno,’ Daven., compare Syr. μι.) ὅο., &e., we have three plausible interpre- tations, (a) ‘rejoicing, to wit, seeing,’ &c., καὶ being used purely explica- tively, Olsh., Winer 2, l.c.; (8) ‘re- joicing (thereat), i.e. at being with you in spirit, and seeing, &c.,’ the subject of the xaipew being deduced from the words immediately preced- ing, and the καὶ being simply copu- lative; Mey., and after him Eadie and Alf.; (y) ‘rejoicing (about you) and seeing, ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν being suggested by the preceding σὺν ὑμῖν, Winer 1, L.c., Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 425, note. Of these (a) seems hard and artificial ; (8) impezts a somewhat alien thought, for surely it was the state of the Col., rather than being with them in spirit that made the Apostle rejoice; (y) preserves the practical connexion of xaip. with the latter part of the sen- tence, but assumes an ellipse which the context does not very readily supply. It seems best then (δ) to so far modify (y) as to assume a con- tinuation of σὺν ὑμῖν ; the modal χαίρων expressing the Apostle’s gene- ral feeling of joyful sympathy (sug- gested by the state in which he found them), while the circumstantial βλέπων x.7.X. adds a more special, and, in fact, explanatery accessory : for this use of καὶ (special after gene- ral), comp. notes on Eph. v. 18, and on Phil. iv. 12. τάξιν] ‘order,’ z.e. ‘orderly state and conduct ; τὴν τάξιν, τὴν εὐταξίαν φησί, Chrys. ; specification of their state outwardly considered, in reference to church- fellowship, and to the attention and obedience of the good soldier of Christ: ὡς yap ἐπὶ παρατάξεως 7 εὐταξία τὴν φάλαγγα στερέαν καθί- στησιν οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τὴς ἐκκλησίας, ὅταν εὐταξία ἢ, τῆς ἀγάπης πάντα καθιστώσης καὶ μὴ ὄντων σχισμάτων, τότε καὶ τὸ στερέωμα γίνεται, Theoph. The allusion may be to a well orga- nized body politic (Mey., Alf.; comp. Demosth. de Rhod. Lib. 200) or per- haps more probably, in accordance with the Apostle’s metaphors else- where (Eph. vi. 11 sq.), to military service ; see Wolf. zm loc. στερέωμα] ‘solid foundation,’ ‘ firm attitude,’ καθάπερ πρὸς στρατιώτας εὐτακτῶς ἑστῶτας καὶ βεβαίως, Chrys. ; specification of their state inwardly considered: not ‘firmitas, Syr., ith. [both which languages have another word more exactly answering to the concrete], followed by Huth., De Wette, al., but, ‘fundamentum,’ Vulg., ‘firmamentum,’ Copt.—there being no lexical ground for regarding the more concrete στερέωμα (‘ effect of the verb as a concretum,’ Buttm. Gr. § 119. 7; nearly = part. in - μενον) as identical in meaning with the purely abstract orepedrns. The word (an dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T.; comp. 1 Pet. v. 9, Acts xvi. 5) occurs fre- quently in the LXX, and nearly 150 COLOSSIANS II. 5—v. τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. © Ὥς οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον, ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε, 7 ἐῤ- 7. ἐν αὐτῇ] So Rec. and Lachm. with BD***(E**2)JK ; great mass of mss.; Vulg. (Clarom., ‘in illo,’ as also D*(E* ὃ, and perhaps some Vv., the inflections of which often leave it uncertain whether ἐν αὐτῇ or ἐν αὐτῷ was in the original) ; Chrys., Theod., al., and Lat Ff. Tisch. omits ἐν αὐτῇ with AG 5: TE MIRE S55 )a''9 2 Am. Tol. (certainly not Copt., as Tisch. Alf.); Archel. Such authority seems clearly insufficient, especially when the difficulty of the construction might easily suggest the omission. always in its proper sense, though occasionally showing the tendency of later Greek in a partial approximation to the verbal in -σις ; comp. Esth. ix. 29. The gen. may be a gen. of apposition (comp. notes on Eph. vi. 14), but seems more naturally a gen. subjectt referable to the general cate- gory of the possessive genitive. On the constr. of πίστ. with eis, see notes on τ Tim. i. τό, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 14, Vol. II. p. 129. After these words we have no reason for doubting that the Church of Colosse, though tried by heretical teaching, was substantially sound in the faith. 6. ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε] ‘As then ye received ; exhortation founded on the words of blended warning and encouragement in the two preceding verses, οὖν having its common collec- tive 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. Ρ, 717, comp. Donalds. Gi. § 604. On ὡς see notes on Tit. i. 5. The mapeddBere can hardly be ‘from me,’ Alf. (see on ver. 1), but from Epaphras (ch. i. 7) and your first teachers in Christianity. Though the reference seems mainly to reception by teaching (comp. ἐδιδά- χθητε, ver. 7), the object is so em- phatically specified, τὸν Xp. Inc. τὸν Kup., as appy. to require a more in- clusive meaning ; they received not merely the ἀκήρατον διδασκαλίαν (Theod.), the ‘doctrinam Christi’ (Daven.), but Christ Himself, in Himself the sum and substance of all teaching (Olsh., Bisp.); comp. Eph. iv. 20, and notes in loc. τὸν Κύριον] ‘THE Lorp ;’ not with- out emphasis; yet not so much as ‘for your Lord,’ Alf., after Huth. and Mey.,—an interpretation which, independently of grammatical diffi- culties (Κύριον, 2 Cor. iv. 5, not τὸν Κύρ., see Middleton, Gr. Art. IM. 3. 4) would make παραλαβεῖν imply rather the recognition of a principle 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 ; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 305. ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε] ‘walk in Him,’ as the sphere and element of your Christian course. Christ is not here repre- sented as an ὁδός (7) προσάγουσα els Tov Ilarépa, Chrys.), but as an en- sphering ‘ Lebens-Element’ (Mey.), to which the περιπατεῖν, i.e. life and all its principles and developments, was to be circumscribed ; comp. Gal. ii, 20, Phil. i. 20. 7. €ppfopévor καὶ ἐποικοδομού- μενοι] ‘having been rooted and be- ing built up in Him, modal de- ' who truly walk in Christ. “να... COLOSSIANS II. 7, 8. 151 es , tS , 9 ° ~ A , ῥιζωμένοι καὶ ἐποικοδομούμενοι ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ βεβαιούμενοι a , A 9 , / 3. ἊΝ 2 τῆ πίστει καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, περισσεύοντες ἐν αὐτῆ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. Let not worldly wisdom lead you away from Him rT... 8 Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλα- who is the Head of all, who has quickened you, and forgiven you, and triumphed over all the Powers of evil. finitions 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 con- tinually up-rising building (hence the pres. part.), marking the stable growth and organic solidity of those The ἐν αὐτῷ is attached to both: Christ, as Mey. observes, is both the ground in 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 continued to en- hance the idea ἐν Χριστῷ that per- vades the passage; comp. Eph. ii. 21, 22. The accessory idea of the foundation is admirably conveyed by the émi in the compound verb ; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 12, Eph. ii. 20. In a 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 W.), faith being naturally regarded as the prin- ciple which needed βεβαίωσιν, and to which it might most appropriately be restricted: see notes on Gal. i. 22. The prep. ἐν is inserted before πίστει in Rec. [with ACD***EJK], but is apparently rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch., though only with BD* ; 4mss.; Vulg., the probability of an insertion being very great. καθὼς ἐδιδάχθ.] ‘even as ye were taught ; scil. to become firmly esta- blished in faith: this they might have been taught by Epaphras (ch. i. 7) or by some of their early instruc- tors. περισσ. ἐν αὐτῇ κι τ.λ.] ‘abounding in tt with thanks- giving :’ participial clause subordinate to βεβαιούμ., mainly reiterating with a quantitative, what had been pre- viously expressed with a qualitative, reference. Of the two prepositional adjuncts, the first ἐν αὐτῇ is united closely with περισσ., specifying the element and item in which the in- crease takes place (equiv. to abundare 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., (icum.), the περίισσ. ἐν πίστει was associated and, as it were, environed : comp. Luke xiv. 31, Eph. vi. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 21, in which the gradual transition from the more distinct idea of environment to the less defined idea of accompaniment may be easily traced ; see Green, Gr. p. 289, and notes on ch, iv. 2. 8. βλέπετε μή τις K.T.A.] 6 Take heed lest there be any one that shall make You his booty,’—yow as well as the others that have been led away ; ὑμᾶς, as the order suggests, being slightly emphatic: see critical note. The cautionary imper. βλέπετε is 152 ‘COLOSSIANS II. 8. aA Aw nw lA * ‘5 . ιν γωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης κατὰ τὴν ’ A 9 , ν κ a pe παράδοσιν των ἀνθρώπων, KaTa Ta TTOLXELA TOU κοσμου 8. ὑμᾶς ἔσται] It is curious that appy. no critical editor except Wetst. has noticed the doubtful order of these two words. Tisch. silently reads ἔσται ὑμᾶς with Lachm.; so AD (if we can trust the reprints of Woide and Tisch.) and E (Wetst.). The order of the text is that of B (Buttm.; probably e sil.) and C ; and is appy. to be preferred as the less obvious order ; so Rec. and Scholz. found in at least six combinations in the N.T. ; (a) with a simple accus., Mark iv. 24, Phil. iii. 2; (6) with ἀπὸ and a gen., Mark viii. 15, xii. 38; (ὁ) with πῶς and the indic., Luke viii. 18, 1 Cor. iii. τὸ ; (d) with iva and the subj., 1 Cor. xvi. 10; (¢) with μὴ and the subjunctive,—the prevailing construction, Matth. xxiv. 4, Gal. v. 15, al.; (f) with μὴ and the future, only here and Heb. 111. 12. The last construction is adopted in the present case as implying the fear that the case contemplated will really occur, ‘ne futurus sit qui,’ &c.; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 56. 2, p. 446, Hartung, Partik. μή, 5. 6, Vol. τι. p. 140, and comp. Herm. Soph. Elect. 992. Nu- merous exx. of μὴ in different con- structions after ὅρα κιτ.λ. will be found in Gayler, Partik. Neg. p. 316 Sq. συλαγωγῶν] ‘ bearing away as a booty; an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N.T., found only in later Greek, both directly with an accus. persone, e.g. παρθένον, Heliod. Mth. x. 35, and, in a more derivative sense, with an accus. rei, 6. 9. οἶκον, Aristzen. Ep. τι. 22. There seems no reason for diluting ὑμᾶς (συλαγωγῶν τὸν νοῦν, Theoph.) or adopting the weaker force of the verb (ἀποσυλῶν τὴν πίστιν, Theod.): the false teachers sought to lead them away captive, body and mind; the former by ritualistic re- strictions (ver. 16), the latter by heretical teaching (ver. 18). On the use of the art. after the indef. τις, see notes on Gal. 1. 7. διὰ τῆς φιλοσ. K.7.A.] “ὃν means of phi- losophy and vain deceit,’ i.e. a philo- sophy that is essentially and intrinsi- cally so, the absence of both prep. and article before κενῆς ἀπάτης show- ing that it belongs to the same cate- gory as the foregoing φιλοσοφία, and forms with it a joint idea; ἐπειδὴ δοκεῖ σεμνὸν εἶναι τὸ τῆς φιλοσοφίας προσέθηκε, καὶ κενῆς ἀπ., Chrys.: see Winer, Gr. § 19. 4, p. 116. Such φιλοσοφία was but a κενὴ ἀπάτη, an empty, puffed-out [comp. Benfey, Wurzellex, Vol. 11. p. 165] system of deceit and error; comp. Eph. v. 6. The term φιλοσοφία in this passage has been abundantly dis- cussed. There seems no sufficient reason for referring it, on the one hand, to Grecian philosophy, whether Epicurean (Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 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. 1. p. 322; so Loesn. and Krebs.), —but, as the associated terms and the general contrast seem to suggest, to that hybrid theosophy of Jewish birth and Oriental aifinities (τῆς φιλοσ., the popular, current, philos. of the day), which would be likely to have taken nowhere firmer root than among the speculative and mystery-loving Phry- gians of the first century ; see Nean- der, Planting, Vol. I. p. 321 sq. (Bohn), In estimating the errors combated in St. Paul’s Epp. which were allied with Judaism, it becomes COLOSSIANS _ II. 8, 9. 159 Ἀν ere Ἁ Χ ; 9 4 9 . κ = κ Q καὶ OU Κατα βίιστον,. OTL ἐν αὐτῷ Κατοικει παν TO very necessary to distinguish between, (a) Pharisaical Judaism, such as that opposed in the Ep. to the Gala- tians; (Ὁ) Christianity tinged with Jewish usages and speculations as condemned in the Pastoral Epp.,— not heresy proper, but an adulterated Christianity (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 4) which afterwards merged into (c) speculative and heretical Judaism, as noticed in this Ep.; perhaps of a more decided Cabbalistic origin, and asso- ciated more intimately with the various forms of Oriental theosophy : see Neander, /.c. Rothe, Anfédnge, p. 320 sq., Burton, Lectwres, 111. Vol. 1. p- 76 (ed. 2), Reuss, Théol. Chrét. V1. 13, Vol. 11. p. 642 sq. ; κατὰ τὴν παράδ. τῶν ἀνθ.] “ accord- ing to the tradition of men,’ modal predication attached, not to τῆς φιλο- σοφίας x.7.’. (a construction in a high degree grammatically doubtful), but to the part. συλαγωγῶν, defining, first positively and then negatively, the characteristics of the συλαγωγία. Philosophy was the ‘causa medians,’ mapas. τῶν ἀνθρ. the ‘norma’ and ‘modus agendi.’ The gen. τῶν ἀνθρ. is appy. that of the origin (Har- tung, Casus, p. 23), the παράδοσις took its rise from, and was received from, men ; comp. Gal. i. 12,2 Thess. iii. 6. Meyer presses the art. τῶν ἀνθρ. (΄ τῶν markirt die Kategorie, die ‘traditio humana’ als solche der Offenbarung entgegengesetzt’), but appy. unduly: the article is probably only introduced on the regular prin- ciple of correlation ; see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6, p. 48 (ed. Rose). κατὰ τὰ στοιχ. K.T.A.] ‘according to the rudiments of the world ; second modal predication parallel to the foregoing. The antithesis οὐ κατὰ Xp. seems clearly to show that this expression here includes all rudi- mental religious teaching of non- Christian character, whether heathen or Jewish, or a cOmmixture of both, —the first element possibly slightly predominating in thought here, the second in ver. 20. On the various meanings assigned to this difficult expression, see notes on Gal. iv. 3. κατὰ Χριστόν] ‘according to Christ ; clearly not, as Grot., Corn. a Lap., ‘secundum doctrinam Christi,’ but ‘secundum Christum,’ ws τοῦ Χριστοῦ xwplfovras, Theod. (comp. Chrys.): Christ himself, the personal Christ, was the substance, end, and norma of all evangelical teaching. 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 con- nexion 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 (comp. Huth.), to which, however, the em- phatic ἐν decidedly opposed. κατοικεῖ] “ doth dwell,’—now and evermore: observe both the tense and the compound - form. The former points to the present, continuing, κατοίκησις of the Godhead in the glorified son of God (comp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τι. I, p. 24); the latter to the permanent indwelling, the κατοικία, not παροικία, of the πλήρωμα θεότητος, comp. Dey- ling, Obs. Iv. 1, Vol. Iv. p. 591, and see notes on ch. i. 19, and on Eph. 1 τῇ: πᾶν τὸ πληρ.] ‘all the fulness of the Godhead,’ all the exhaustless perfections of the essential being of God ; not without emphasis, ἐν ἡμῖν μὲν yap ἀπαρχὴ Kal ἀῤῥαβὼν θεότητος κατοικεῖ, ἐν Χρ. δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλήρ. τῆς θεότητος, Athan. : αὐτῷ seems 154 πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς COLOSSIANS Ἐκ) 26. Io δι. Die So « 95 ὧδ KQt ΕσΤΕ Ἐν αὐτῷ 9 , a , πεπληρωμένοι; Os ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πασῆης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας" see notes on ch. i. 19, where the meaning of πλήρωμα in this connexion is briefly investigated. 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 not be confounded with θειότης (Rom. i. 20) as Copt., Syr., Aith., and what is more to be wondered at, Vulg., which has cer- tainly two distinct words: the former is Deitas, ‘die Gottheit,’ ‘statum [essentiam] ejus qui sit Deus,’ August. Civ. Dei, vil. 1, and points to the nature of God on the side of its actual essentia (τὸ εἶναι Oedv); the latter ‘divinitas,’ ‘die Géttlichkeit,’ ‘conditionem ejus qui sit θεῖος,᾽ and points to the divine nature on the side of its qualitas (τὸ εἶναι θεῖον); see Fritz. Rom. i. 20, Vol. 1. p. 62. The real difficulty of the verse is in the next word, σωματικῶς] (00 a» ‘in bodily fashion,’ Dafascaoy [corporaliter], Syr., corporaliter,’ Vulg. The meanings assigned to this word are very numerous. If we follow the plain lexical meaning of the word and the true qualitative force of the termination -ixos (‘like what? Donalds. Cratyl. § 254), we must cer- tainly decide that it signifies neither ἀληθῶς, sc. οὐ τοπικῶς ἢ σκιατικῶς, ‘vere, non umbratice’ (August., comp. Hammond 2), -—édws, ‘totaliter’ (Capell.),—ovcw5ds se. οὐ σχετικῶς, ‘essentialiter, non relative’ (Gicum., Usteri, Lehrb. p. 308), —nor even ὑπο- στατικῶς, ‘personaliter’ (comp. 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 (Hofmann, Schriftb, Vol. 11. 1, p. 25),-—‘bodily-wise,’ ‘in bodily fashion,’ in the once mortal, and now glorified, body of Christ; comp. Phil. iii. 21. The πλήρωμα θεότητος, which once dwelt οὐ κατὰ σωματικὸν εἶδος in the Λόγος ἄσαρκος, now dwells for ever- more σωματικῶς (Chrys. calls attention to the precision of the language ; μὴ νομίσῃς Θεὸν συγκεκλεῖσθαι, ws ἐν σώματῷ in the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος : comp. Mey. ὧν loc., and Hofm. Schriftb. i.e. So De W., Eadie, Alf., and most modern commehtators, and anciently Aith., ‘in carne s. corpore hominis,’ and appy. Athan. contr. Arian, MI. 8, de Susc. Hum. Vol. I. p. 60, Damase. Orth. Fid, 1. 6, except that the reference is perhaps not suffi- ciently extended to the present glori- fied body of our Redeemer: see the copious reff. in Suicer, 7hesaur. 5.0. Vol. I. p. 1216. 10. Kal ἐστε κ. τ. Δ. ‘and (because) ye are ὧν Him filled full ; not exactly, ‘ye are made full in Him,’ Eadie, but, as the position of ἐστὲ and the order of the words seem to require, ‘ ye are in Him made full,’ there being in fact a double predication, ‘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 definite genitive, τῆς θεότητος (Theoph.), τοῦ πληρ. τῆς θεότ. (De W.), τῆς ζωῆς (Olsh.) : all wherewith Christ is full, all His gifts, and graces, and commu- nicable perfections, are included in the πλήρωσις; compare the somewhat parallel text Eph. 111, 19, and see notes i loc. Grotius and a few others regard ἐστὲ as an imper. parallel to βλέπετε, but are rightly opposed by all modern commentators, COLOSSIANS ΓΙ ὅς ἐστιν κι τ. λ.1 ‘who is, ὦ. 6. seeing He is, the head of all (every) Princi- pality and Power,’ the és having a slight explicative force (see notes on ch. i. 25, and on 1 Tim. 11. 4), and tacitly evincing the folly of seeking a πλήρωσις from any subordinate source, or by any ceremonial agency (comp. ver. 11). The reading is somewhat doubtful: Zachm. reads ὃ with BDE FG; Clarom., al., and encloses καὶ —év αὐτῷ in a parenthesis, but as the neuter relative would seem to have arisen from a mistaken ref. of ἐν αὐτῷ to πληρ., we seem justified in retain- ing ὃς with ACJK; nearly all mss. ; Chrys., Theod., al., followed by Ree. and Tisch. On the use of the abstract terms ἀρχὴ and ἐξουσία to denote orders of heavenly Intelligences, see notes and reff. on Hph. i. 21, and Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. ἄγγελος, Voli. p. 30-48. τι. ἐν ᾧ] ‘im whom,’ ὁ. 6. ‘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 ὃς in the foregoing clause: all that the believer can receive in spiritual blessings is already given to him in Christ, Olsh. Kal περιετμήθητε] ‘ye were also cir- cumcised,’ viz. at your conversion and baptism, ‘quum primum facti estis Christiani,’ Schoettg. : not ‘in whom too, ye &.,’ Eadie, which tends to separate καὶ from the verb on which it throws emphasis. The Colossians seem to have been exposed to the influence of two fundamental errors ; Jjirst, the belief that they were under the influence, or at any rate needed the assistance, of intermediate intelli- gence ; secondly, the persuasion that circumcision, the symbol of purifica- tion appointed by God, must still be necessary. Both are in fact met by Wax 155 9 a a , mi OD ? 5) a ἐν ᾧ και περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ, ἐν TH the single clause καί ἐστε---πεπληρ. (see above) ; this, however, is further expanded in two explanatory relatival clauses, ὅς ἐστιν, x.T.X., being directed against the first error, ἐν ᾧ καὶ x. T.X. against the second; see Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 153. ἀχειροποιήτῳ)] ‘not hand-wrought ; they were indeed circumcised—in a spiritual and anti-typical manner, as the two characterizing definitions which follow still more clearly show. The epithet aye. puts in obvious contrast the spiritual περιτομὴ [ Bap- tism, see below] with the legal, typical, περιτομὴ χειροποίητος, performed out- wardly ἐν σαρκί, Eph. 11. 11. Several reff. to a spiritual circumcision will be found in Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 815; comp. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, al. The form ἀχειροπ. occurs again Mark xiv. 58 (in expressed contrast) and 2 Cor. v. I. ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει K. T. X.] “ὧν the putting off of the body of the flesh » not ‘by means of &e., Mey., the prep. ἐν not having any quasi-instrumental force but simply specifying that in which the περιτομὴ consisted (De W.), the external act ὧν which it took place ; comp. notes on ver. 7, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 345. In all such cases the real use of the preposition is local, but the application ethical. The σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς has been somewhat differently explained. Grammatically considered, | , the expression is exactly the same as in ch. i. 22 ; σαρκὸς is the gen. of the material or specifying element (see notes), but its meaning and application are necessarily different. There it was the material σὰρξ of the Redeemer without any ethical significance ; here it is the material σάρξ, qud the seat of sinfulmotions, practically synonymous with the more generic σῶμα ἁμαρτίας ἐω- 156 COLOSSIANS II. τι, τῶ. ; 9 \ 7 : + ¥ A , a Pe py ~ ἀπεκδύσει TOU σώματος τῆς σάρκος, ἐν TH περιτομῇ του Χριστοῦ, (Rom. vi. 6), and designedly used in this place to keep up the antithetical 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 ἀπεκ- δυσις of the whole σῶμα τῆς σαρκός ; see Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. I. 2, Ῥ. 154. It is somewhat perverse in Muller, on Sin, Vol. 1. p. 359 ‘(Transl.), p. 455 (Germ.), to salve his general interpr. of σὰρξ by here giving to σῶμα a figurative meaning (‘massa,’ Calv., al.), which, even if lexically admissible, is obviously out of har- mony with the concrete references (συνταφέντες, συνηγέρθητε) in the con- text. No writer has more ably vindi- cated the prevailing meaning of σάρξ (see notes on Gal. v. 5), but that there are some passages in the N. T. in which σὰρξ has a reference to sensa- tionalism generally, to weakness, fleshliness, and sinful motions cannot safely be denied ; comp. with this ex- pression, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρ. κ. τ. Δ. ch, iii. 9, and see esp. the excellent article of Tholuck in Stud. wu. Krit. for 1855, p. 488-492. The reading of Rec., σώμ. τῶν ἁμαρτ. THs σ. with D***E**JK, is rightly rejected by Tisch. [correct his curious misprint ἔπεκδ. | and most modern critics. ἐν τῇ περιτ. TOD Xp.] ‘in the circum- cision of Christ,’ communicated by, and appertaining unto, Christ; second characterizing definition parallel to ἐν τῇ amex. K.T.\. specifying more exactly the nature of the περιτομὴ ἀχειροποίη- Tos. Χριστοῦ is not exactly a gen. auctoris (ὁ Χριστὸς περιτέμνει ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι Theophyl.), but of the origin, or perhaps still more exactly, the originating cause (see Hartung, Casus, p. 17, and notes on ch. i. 23) ; 12 4 2 DS Φ ΄οὸ B , Ω συνταῷφεέντες QUT εν τῷ απτισματι. ἐν τουτῶν αἴτιος ὁ δεσπότης, Χριστός, Theod. : Christ, by unfénpwith Him self, brings about the circumcision and imparts it to believers. To give the gen. a strongly possessive ref., 6.0. ‘the circumcision undergone by Christ,’ Schoettg., seems, exegetically consi- dered, very unsatisfactory; comp. Olsh. in loc. The reference of ἀπεκ. κι τ. Δ. and περιτ. τοῦ Xp, to the death of Christ (Schneckenburger, Theol. Jahrb. for 1848, p. 286 sq.) is convin- cingly refuted by Meyer. Even Miller (on Sin, Vol. 1. p. 359) will take no refuge in such an interpreta- tion. 12. συνταφέντες) ‘having been buried together with Him,’ ‘when you were, &c.,’ the action described in the participle being contemporaneous with that of περιετ. (Mey.); comp. ch. 1. 20, and see Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p- 383, Stalb. on Plato, Phedo, 62 Ὁ. The temporal force seems, however, hereclearly secondary and subordinate, the primary force of the part. being appy. modal, and serving to define the manner in which the περιτομὴ Xp. was communicated to the believer: comp. esp. Rom. vi. 4. There seems no reason to doubt (with Eadie) that both here and Rom. /.c. there is an allusion tu the κατάδυσις and ἀνάδυσις in Baptism ; see Suicer, 7’hesaur. s. v. ἀνάδ. Vol. 1. p. 259, Bingham, Antiq. XI. 11. 4 and comp. Jackson, Creed, ΧΙ. 17.6. That this burial with Christ is spiritually real and actual (τὸ βάπ- τισμα κοινωνοὺς ποιεῖ τοῦ θανάτου Xp. Theod. Mops. on Rom. l.c.), not sym- bolical or commemorative, seems cer- tain from the plain unrestricted lan-, Ψ guage of the Apostle; comp. Waterl. Euchar. vu. Vol. Iv. p. 577. ἐν ᾧ Kal συνηγ.] ‘wherein ye were t COLOSSIANS | II. 12. 157 a 4 , 0 A) A A , ~ 9 , ~ Θ = ῳ και συνήηγερ ῦΤΕ OLA Τῆς TWLAOTEWS Τῆς ενεργειας του εου also raised with Him: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τάφος μὸνον ἐστί [τὸ βάπτισμα], ὅρα γὰρ τί φησι, Chrysost. (comp. Theoph.),— noticed by Mey., Alf. and others as referring @ to Χριστός, but appy. without sufficient reason. The refer- ence of @ to Xp., (Mey., Eadie) is at first sight structurally plausible (és, ἐν ᾧ, ἐν @), but on a closer conside- ration certainly not exegetically satis- factory; the two spiritual charac- teristics, the τὸ συνταφῆναι as shown in the κατάδυσις, the τὸ συνεγερθῆναι as shown in the ἀνάδυσις, must surely stand in close reference and connexion with Baptism. The counter-argu- ments of Mey. founded on the use of the prep. (ἐν @ not ἐξ οὗ), and the parallelism of the prepositional clauses (cuvrad. διὰ K.T.r., συνηγερθ. διὰ κι τ. Δ.) are not convincing. In the first place no other prep. would be so appropriate as the semilocal @; and in the second place, διὰ x.7.X., the statement of the causa medians, can scarcely be conceived as forming any logical parallelism with the foregoing semi-local ἐν τῷ Barr, Lastly the καὶ seems to keep both συντ. and συνηΎ. in close correlative reference to each other. By comparing Rom. vi. 4, it would seem that the primary ref. of cvvyy. is clearly to a present and spiritual resurrection, but again by comparing Eph. ii. 6 (in which the converse seems true ; see notes), it would also appear that a secondary ref. to a future and phy- sical 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 first resurrection,’ Creed XI. 17. 7; comp. Waterl. Euchar. vu. Vol. Iv. p. 577, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 21, p. 235. διὰ τῆς πίστεως] ‘through faith? subjective medium by which the ob- jective 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; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. τι. τ. 3, p. 216. The image of Alf., ‘the hand which held on, not the plank that saved,’ is, in more than one respect, not dogmatically satisfac- tory. τῆς ἐνεργείας κ. τ. A. | ‘(in) the effectual working of God? not gen. of the agent or causa efficiens (De Wette, al.), but more simply and intelligibly the gen. objecti ; d ~ J cs cchascans [qui credidistis in] Syr., sim. Aith. ‘in fide, in auxilio’ (Platt ; Pol. inverts), ἐπιστεύσατε ὅτι δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἐγεῖραι, καὶ οὕτως ἠγέρθητε, Chrys.,—as in 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. 1. 27,2 (Chess: 11. 15... 5 1ΠῸ statement of Mey., endorsed by Eadie, and Alf. (but comp. the latter on Gal. ili. 2), that this is true in every case except where the gen. refers to the believer, does not seem perfectly cer- tain ; see notes on Gal. ii. 16, iii. 22, and Stier on Eph. Vol. 1. p. 477. τοῦ ἐγείραντος κ. τ. A.] Clause ap- pended, 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 loc.) ; —‘that nothing may be done or suffered by our Saviour in these great 158 ~ , ° A 9 “A ~ TOU ἐγείραντος QUTOV εκ τῶν νεκβῶων" COLOSSIANS | II. 12, 12. 13 \ eae 4 καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς “- , A (eh | , “ A ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς transactions but may be acted in our souls and represented in our spirits,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. i. p. 265 (ed. Burt.) 13. Kal ὑμᾶς] ‘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 συνεΐζ. in a merely copulative sense ; see notes on Eph. ii. τ. The pronoun is repeated after συνεΐζ. with ACJK (B, al., as) ; more than 40 mss. ; Copt., Aith., al. ; Theod. (ms.), Dam., C£cum., and rightly adopted by Zi%sch. and most modern editors ; the omission (Kec. with DE &c.) was obviously suggested by the apparent syntactic difficulty. This, however, is very slight, as a rhe- torical pleonasm of the pronoun for the sake of emphasis is not uncommon ; see Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 4, p. 275. νεκροὺς ὄντας] ‘who were dead,’ Alf., or more exactly, ‘when you were dead,’ —not ‘being dead,’ Auth. (see notes on Transl. of Eph. ii. 1), the past sense attributed to ὄντας being justi- fied by the aorists which are associ- ated with it in the sentence ; comp. Wier, Gr. § τ 1, Bp... 505... αὖ seems extremely unsatisfactory in Mey. both here and Eph. ii. 1, to give vexpovs a proleptic reference to physical death, 5011, ‘certo morituri,’ ὑπὸ τὴν δίκην ἔκεισθε ἀποθανεῖν, Chrys.: a remote, inferential, reference to phy- sical death may possibly be included (see Alf. on Lph. l.c.), but any pri- mary ref. seems wholly irreconcileable with the context. ἐν τοῖς παραπτ. | ‘in your transgressions ,᾽ the prep. as usual marking the element in which the dead state was experienced : contrast Eph. ii. 1, where the ἐν is omitted and the dat. is instrumental. The prep. isactually omitted in BJ ; 20° mss.; Goth.; Greek Ff., but appy. either by accident, or conformation to Eph. l.c. There does not seem reason for receding from the general distinc- tion between παραπτ. and ἁμαρτ. (esp. when associated) advanced in notes on Eph. 1. ὁ. τῇ ἀκροβ. τῆς σαρκός] ‘the uncircumcision of your jlesh,’ 2. e. that appertained to, was the distinctive feature of—the gen. not being either of apposition (Storr), or quasi-material (B. Crus., comp. 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 assign- ing some ethical reference to σάρξ,---- not merely your material (Eadie), but your sinful, unpurified, flesh, of which the dxpoBvorla was the visible and external mark ; they were heathens, unconverted, sinful, heathens as their very bodies could attest: this ἀκρο- βυστία, however, had now lost its sig- nificance; they were περιτετμημένοι in Christ. ᾿Ακροβυστία is thus not necessarily spiritual (Deut. x. 16, Jer. iv. 4), but retains its usual and proper sense; on the derivation (not ἄκρον, βύω, but a corruption of ἀκροποσθία) see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 136. ovvelwotro(naev| ‘ He together quick- ened,’ spiritually, —with ref. to the life of grace; a secondary and inferential « reference to the physical resurrection need not, however, be positively ex- cluded : see above, and notes on Eph. ii. 5, where the force of the aor. (what is wrought in Christ is wrought ‘ipso facto’ in all united with Him) is briefly noticed ; see esp. Waterland, Euchar, 1X, Vol. Iv. p. 643. The great difficulty in this clause is COLOSSIANS _ II. 5,72 159 , = ͵ ᾿ Pie e ᾿Ξ 4 e ΄“ , Cas ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑυμας σὺν αὐτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμιν 4 3 , A 3 e ~ πᾶντα τὰ παραπτώματα, *4 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χει- the subject. On the one hand, ἃ com- parison with Rom. viii. 11, and still more Eph. ii. 5, seems to point to the last subst. 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 supplying a nom. from the subordinate gen. Θεοῦ, —the obvious prominence given to Christ throughout the preceding por- tion—the peculiar acts described in the participles (esp. ἐξαλ. x.7.. com- pared with Eph. ii. 15, and even χαρισ. compared with Col. iii. 13),— the relation of Christ to dpxal and ἐξουσίαι (ver. 15, comp. i. 16, 11. Το), —and lastly, the extreme difficulty of referring the acts described in ver. 14, 15, to God the Father, are arguments so preponderant, as to lead us, some- what unhesitatingly, to refer cuveg. and its associated participles to Christ, who, as of the same essence and power with the Father and the Holy Ghost, did infallibly raise Himself (Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. I. p. 302, ed. Burt.): so Chrys. (here e sil., but elsewhere expressly), appy. Syr. and Goth. (certainly in ver. 15, see below), perhaps ith. (Platt), and recently Heinr., Baur, Paulus, p. 452 note, and very decidedly, Donalds. Chr. ‘ Orthod. p. 76. It is somewhat singular that the Greek commentt. Theod., Theoph., and Gicum., silently adopt Θεὸς as the subject of ver. 13, and 6 Geds Adyos (Theod.), as that of ver. 14, 15: such an interpr. is dog- matically defensible on the ground of the ‘communicatio idiomatum,’ (comp. Ebrard, Chr. Dogm. § 385), and deserves consideration, but viewed logically and grammatically seems somewhat artificial and unsatisfac- tory. 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 elsewhere ascribed by the Apostle to God (Eph. ii. 5, comp. Rom. viii. 11), are here wnrestrictedly ν΄ predicated of Christ. tion that the above interpr. is opp. 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 atte] ‘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 misunderstanding, the aspirated form may be properly adopted ; comp. notes on Eph. i. 4. χαρισάμε- γος K.7.A.] ‘having forgiven us all our transgressions ; modal participle de- scribing the preliminary act which conditioned the realization of the συζωποίησις, by removing the true cause of the vexpérys: πάντα παραπτ. Meyer's objec- ποῖα ; ἃ τὴν νεκρότητα ἐποίει, Chrys. ; comp. ch. ili, 13, 2 Cor. v. 19, Eph. iv. 32, and observe that in these two last passages Θεὸς is the subject, yet with the noticeable addition, ἐν Χριστῷ. For the reading ὑμῖν (Elz., not Steph.), there is but little critical authority. Both external and internal arguments suggest the more inclusive ἡμῖν. 14. ἐξαλείψας] ‘having blotted out ; modal participle contemporary with, surely not prior to (Mey)., χαρισάμενος, and detailing it more fully and circumstantially. Christ for- gave us our sins when he took them upon Himself and suffered for us ; the mode of forgiveness was by cancelling the χειρόγραφον, Surely if this part. a ὦ 160 COLOSSIANS II. 14. > Ν a 4] S - - { ρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἣν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ = 9 A , , 5 ΤῊΝ m~ s ΄ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου, προσηλώῶσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυῤῷ, be applied to God, arguments might be founded on it not only in support of Patripassian doctrines, but in oppo- sition to the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. If God the Father did all this, what was the precise effect of the expiatory death of Christ? To answer, with Eadie, ‘what Christ did, God did by Him,’ only evades, but does not meet, the difficulty. The form ἐξαλ. (Acts iii. το, Rev. 111. 5, vil, 17, xxi 4; comp. Psalm 1. (li.) 9, eviii. (cix.) 13), as its derivation suggests [d=dvd, and Sanscr. lip, ‘illinere,’ Pott, tym. Forsch. Vol. τ. 258, Vol. 11. 153], properly denotes “cera obducta delere’ (comp. Krebs, Obs. p. 337), and thence, ‘to expunge,’ ‘ wipe out,’ generally, in opposition to γράφειν, Euripid. ap. Stob. Floril. XCIII. £0, p.. 507 (ed. Gesn.), or ἐγγράφειν, Plato, Rep, VI. 501 B, comp. Xen. Hell. τι. 3. 51. τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρ. K.7.A.] ‘the hand- writing in force against us by us decrees ; the dative δόγμασιν be- longing closely to τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμ. χειρ. and falling under the general head of the dat. ‘of reference to’ (notes on Gal. i, 22); the δόγματα were that in which the τὸ καθ’ ὑμῶν (the hostile aspect or direction, opp. to ὑπέρ., see Winer, Gr. § 47. k, p. 341) of the hond was specially evinced: see Winer, Gr. § 31. 10. 1, p. 197. The usual explanation, ‘consisting of δόγ- para,’ ‘rituum chirographo,’ Beza,— in which the dat. would be equiv. to akind of gen. materia, or involve a tacit ellipsis of ἐν (comp. Eph. ii. 15),—seems distinctly ungrammatical, and that of Mey., Eadie, and Alf.,— according to which the dat. is governed by the verbal element in χειρόγρ.,--- more than doubtful, as χεὶρ. is a syn- thetic compound (Donalds. Gi. § 369), and appy. incapable of such a decom- position; comp. Tobit v. 3, ix. 5, Polyb. Hist. xxx. 8. 4. The refe- rence of χειρόγραφον has been very differently explained. The context would seem to suggest that χειρόγρ. is clearly not the command given to Adam (Theophyl. 2), nor the law of conscience (Luth.), nor even specially, the moral law (Calv.; comp. Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 462), nor yet the ceremonial law (Schoettg.; see esp. Deyling, Obs. Part Iv. p. 596, sq.), but the whole law, ‘nam beneficium chirographi ad omnes spectat, tam Gentiles quam Judzos: ergo hujus- modi chirogr. ponere oportet, quo ex aliquaé parte tenentur omnes,’ Daven.; comp. Andrewes, Serm. Iv. Vol. I. p. 54 sq. (A.C. L.), and Vel. m1. p. 66, where he curiously terms it the ‘ragman roll:’ so De W., Mey. and most modern commentators. The χειρόγρ. was καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, Jews and Gentiles; immediately against the former, mediately and inferentially (as founded on immutable principles of justice and rectitude) against the latter, Rom, ii. 15, comp. 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: comp., on the prohibitive side, Rom. vii. 7, sq. The law was thus appropriately designated, being a ‘bond,’ an ‘obligatory docu- ment’ (comp. Plut. Mor. 829 Δ, and see exx. in Wetst.), by which all were bound, and which brought penalty in case of non-fulfilment ; comp. Pear- son, Creed, Art. Iv. Vol, 1. p. 248 (ed. Burt.), Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 1. 2, p. 175, Reuss, 7'héol. Chrét. tv. 17, Vol. Il. p. 190. ὃ ἣν ὑπε- COLOSSIANS _ IT. 15. 161 15 " ὃ , 4 9 A A A ΕῚ , 20 ATEKOVUGAMEVOS τας apxXas καὶ «Τὰς ἐξουσίας. ε εἰγ- ναντίον ἡμ.]7 ‘which was against us ;’ expansion of the preceding τὸ καθ᾽ ὑμῶν : it was hostile not merely in its direction and aspects, but practically 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, Lex. s.v. Vol. τι. p. 2064. Perhaps the prep. may have primarily in- volved an idea of locality, local oppo- sition (compare Hesiod, Scut. 347, ἵπποι ὑπεναντίοι ἀλλήλοισιν ὀξεῖα χρέ- μισαν, τ Macc. xvi. 7) which in the metaphorical applications of the word necessarily became obliterated. Thisis further confirmed by the fundamental meaning of ὑπό, which, it may be ob- served, isnot ‘under,’ but appears to be that of ‘motion tothe 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 insuffi- cient authority] to express the en- during and permanent nature of the act ; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 242, and notes on Eph. ii. 20. The addi- tion ἐκ μέσου expresses still more fully the completeness of the ἦρκεν (ἐποίησε μηδὲ φαίνεσθαι, Theophyl., μὴ ἀφεὶς ἐπὶ χώρας, Gicum.), and perhaps also the impedimental character (Mey.) of the thing taken away ; exx. of αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου will be found in Kypke, Obs. Worth ps 323. προση- λώσας K.T.A.] ‘having nailed it to the cross ; modal participle, contempo- raneous with the commencement of the ἦρκεν (Alf.), describing the manner in which Christ removed the xetpd- ypapov: He nailed the Mosaic law with all its decrees to His cross, and it died with Him; αὐτὸς κολασθεὶς ἔλυσε καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν Kal τὴν κόλασιν, Chrys. The reference to a bond cancelled by striking a nail through it (Pearson, Creed, Art. Iv. Vol. I. p. 248), comp. διέῤῥηξεν, Chrys., κατέσχισεν, 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 καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, for ever extin- guished and abrogated ; comp. Rom. vii. 6, Rom. iii. 13, and Andrewes, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 55 sq. (A. C. Libr.). 15. Gmekduc. τὰς ἀρχὰς «.T.A. ] ‘having stripped away from Himself the (hostile) principalities and powers ; neither ‘exspolians,’ Vulg., silently followed by appy. all modern writers except Deyling (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 609), Donalds. (Chr. Orth. p. 68), Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 305), and Alf., nor even, ‘having stripped for himself,’ ‘deponere jubens,’ Winer, de Verb. Comp. IV. 15,—both interpretations wholly unsupported by the lexical usage of ἀποδύω, ἐκδύω, and ἀπεκδ. (see Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. s. vv.), and opposed to St. Paul’s own use of the word, ch. iii. 9,—but ‘exuens se,’ Clarom., Copt.[mistransl. by Wilkins], Auth. (Platt), Chrysost. 2, more dis- tinctly Theoph. 2, and with a special ” ¥ o Vv Syr. NO pes [per exspoliationem corporis 5881], Goth., ‘andhamonds sik leika,’ and perhaps Theod., followed by Hil., August., Pacian, and reflected in the ancient gloss ἀπεκδ. τὴν σάρκα, FG ; The rare binary com- M reference, Boern., al. 162 μάτισεν. ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ; pound ἀπεκδ. was appy. chosen rather than the simpler ἐκδ. to express, not only the act of ‘divestiture,’ but that of ‘removal ;’ see Winer, 1.56. It is singular that an interpr. of such an- tiquity, so well attested, and so lexically certain, should in modern times have been completely, if not contemptuously, ignored. The mean- ing of the expression is, however, somewhat obscure: it appears most probably to imply that, as hinted at by Theod., and appy. 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 condescended to assume, to win for themselves a victory, ἀπεκδύσατο τὴν λαβήν [τὸ ἄνθρωπος εἶναι], ἀνάληπτος εὑρέθη ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις, Theoph. 2, comp. Theod. When He died on the cross, when He dissolved that temple in which they, both in earlier (Matth. iv. 1 sq., Luke iv. 1 sq., obs. πρὸς καιρόν, ver. 13), and later, and per- haps redoubled, efforts of temptation (see John xiv. 30, and esp. Luke xxii. 53), had vainly endeavoured to make sacrilegious entry, He reft them away for ever, and vindicated 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 triumph and victory. Thus all seems clear, consistent, and theo- logically profound and _ significant ; while our Saviour bore the curse of the law, He destroyed its condemn- atory power for ever (περιέπειρεν ἐκεῖ, Chrys.), while He underwent sufferings and death, and the last efforts of bafiled demoniacal malignity, He destroyed τὸν TO κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ᾽ ΟΟΙΟΞΒΙΑΝΒ II. 15. , " 4 9 ° θριαμβεύσας αὐτοὺς ἐν αὐτῳ. ἔστι τὸν διάβολον, Heb. ii. 14 ; comp. 1 John iii. 8. τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξ. ‘the Principalities and the Powers (that strove against Him)? these abstract terms being used, as always in the N.T., with ref. to spi- ritual beings (αὐτοὺς) and Intelligences (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 Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 2, p. 176, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. τι. p. 226 sq. The opinion of Hofm. (Schriftb. Vol. I. p. 305), Alf., al., that good angels only are here referred to, and that amex. refers to God putting aside from Him the nimbus of the Powers which shrouded Him from the heathen world (Hofm.), is ingenious, but rests on the assumption that this verse re- fers to Θεός, not Χριστός. ἐδειυγμάτισεν ἐν παῤῥ.] ‘He made a show of them with boldness; not -e2 +5 [diffamavit] Syr., sim. Goth., ἠσχημόνησε, Chrys., compare Aith. (Platt) and Theod., — but simply, ‘fecit eos manifestos,’ Copt., ‘ostentui esse fecit,’ Hil.: it was an open mani- festation, and that too, ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ, ‘with boldness,’,— not opp. to ἐν κρυπτῷ (John vii. 4), sc. δημοσίᾳ, πάντων ὁρώντων, Chrys., but, as the formula seems always used by St. Paul, ‘ confidenter, Vulg.; see notes on Phil. i. 20. The word δειγματίζειν (Matth. i. 19, Lachm., Tisch.), appa- rently confined to the N.T., does not much differ in meaning from the com- pound παραδειγματίζειν, except that it confines the idea to an open exhibition (as the context shows) in triumph, without any further idea of shame or ignominy (Polyb. Hist. XVII. 1. 5, XXIX. 7. 5). ‘To connect COLOSSIANS II. τό. 109 Let no one judge you 16 Ae ee pe , ᾽ , ἘΠ 515] obser- Μὴ ουν Tig υμας Κρίνετω εν βρώσει vances, holding not the Head. Submit not to outward austerities that are inwardly vain and carnal. τό. ἢ ἐν] Tisch. reads καὶ ἐν only on the authority Β : Copt. Syr. ; Orig. (1) ; Hier., Tich. (Tertull. ‘et’ 4 times). This does not seem sufficient external evidence, especially as the common association of βρῶσις and πόσις would readily suggest the displacement of ἢ for the more usual καί : ZLachm. and Ree. rightly retain the disjunctive 7. ἐν παῤῥ. with θριαμβ. (Hofm. Schrift. Vol. I. p. 305) seems very unsatis- factory, but has appy. arisen from the assumption that ‘openly’ is the cor- rect translation. θριαμβ. αὐτούς] ‘having triumphed over them; contemporaneous with édelyu. (see notes on ver. 12), explaining more fully the circumstances of the action. The expression θριαμβεύειν Twa occurs again 2 Cor. ii. 14, and appy. there (see Mey. in loc.) as necessarily here, mot in a factitive sense, but with an accus. of the object triumphed over, or led in triumph ; comp. Plut. Comp. Thes. c. Rom. 4, βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε καὶ ἡγεμόνας, and exx. cited by Wetst. on 2 Cor. l.c. On the deriva- tion of the word [θρι-, cogn. with θυρ--, connected with τρεῖς, and ἴαμβος or duos, ‘procession,’ or ‘close dance’], see Donalds. Cratyl. § 317, 318, and comp. Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. τῇ p. 260. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in it; 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., An- drewes, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 66, which would form an almost unnecessary addition; but (0) ‘in it,’ scil. τῷ σταυρῷ (ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ, Orig.) with the Greek commentators and majority of modern expositors: τὸ γὰρ τοῦ κόσμου ὁρῶντος ἄνω ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ τὸν ὄφιν σφα- γιασθῆναι, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ θαυμαστόν, Chrys.; see Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p- 291, and esp. notes, Vol. 11, p. 217, 218 (ed. Burt). 16. μὴ οὖν] ‘Let not then,’ &e. ; 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 ver. 6. Kpt- νέτω ἐν βρώσει] ‘judge you in eating,’ pass a judgment upon what may or may not be eaten; ἐν referring to the item am which the judgment was passed, see Rom. ii. 1, Βρῶσις is not here ‘cibus,’ Vulg., Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. II. p. 200, but as appy. always in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. xiv. 17, 1 Cor. vill. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 10), ‘esus,’ ‘actus edendi,’ Copt., Tittm. Synon. I. p. 159, the passive verbal being regularly used by the Apostle in ref. to the thing eaten; comp. I Cor. ill. 2, vi. 13, viii. 8, 13, x. 3, 1 Tim. iv. 3. The distinction is, however, not observed in St. Jobn (comp. iv. 32, vi. 27), nor indeed always in classical writers, comp. Hom. Od. I. 191, VI. 176; Plato, Legg. V1. 783 ©, cited by Mey. does not seem equally certain. The rule of Thom. M., Bpwmara’ πληθυντικῶς, οὐ βρῶμα, οὐδὲ βρῶσις, cannot be sub- stantiated; see notes collected by Bern. inloc. p. 174. ἢ ἐν πόσει] ‘or in drinking,’ 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 comp. John vi. 55. As there is no command in the Mosaic law relative to πόσις ex- cept in the case of Nazarites (Numb. M 2 KEV woe 164 COLOSSIANS II. τό, 17. A 3 ’ «ἷ > , ς a a , « , ἢ εν πόσει. ἢ EV MEPEL EOPTNS ἢ νουμῆνιας ἢ σαββατων, , ‘ “ A A A ΄ 17 ἅ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. μ μα Χρ vi. 3) and priests before going into the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), and as πόσει seems certainly to form a dis- tinct member (opp. to Alf.), we are driven to the conclusion that the Colossian heretics adopted ascetic practices in respect of wine and strong drinks, perhaps of a Rabbinical origin. The Essenes, we know, only drank water; ποτὸν ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, Philo, de Vit. Cont. § 4, Vol. τι. p- 477 (ed Mang.). ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς] ‘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,’ Dav., nor ‘ in segrega- tione’ (¢.e. setting apart one day rather than another), Calv., comp. Syr. ~ a» es [in divisionibus 5. distinc- Φ tionibus], nor specifically, ‘in the {Talmudical] tract upon,’ Hamm. after Oassaub. and Scal.,—but, simply and plainly, ‘in the matter of,’ μέρος point- ing to the ‘class’ or ‘ category’ (Mey.) ; see Plato, Republ. τ. 348 E, ἐν ἀρετῆς καὶ σοφίας τίθης μέρει τὴν ἀδικίαν, Theet. 155 B, al., exx. in Loesn. Obs. p- 367, and comp. 2 Cor. iii. ro. The three objects in the matter of which judgment is forbidden, are enumerated in reference to the frequency of their occurrence ; ἑορτὴ referring to one of the greater feasts, νουμηνία to the monthly festival of the new moons (Numb. x. 10; see Jahn, Archeol. ὃ 351, Winer, RWB. s.v. ‘ Neumonde,’ Vol. 11. p. 149), and σάββατα to the weekly festival ; comp. Gal. iv. ro. 17. ἅ ἐστι] ‘which things are; relative clause showing the justice of the preceding command, the relative having a slight explicative force ; see notes on ch, i. 25, 27. That ἃ refers not merely to the three last items but to the whole verse, ὁ.6. to all legal or traditionary ceremonies, seems clear from the context, The reading 6, with BFG ; Clarom., Goth., al. (Lachm.), is not improbable, but is insufficiently attested, σκιά] ‘shadow ; not ‘an outline,’ in ref. to a σκιαγρα- gla, ‘beneficia Christi ac doctrinam evangelicam obscure delineabant,’ Daven.,—a meaning doubtful even in Heb. x. 1, but, as the antithesis σῶμα obviously requires, Jai sg ρρ om [umbrz] Syr., shadows opposed to substance (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ΤΙ. 2. 5, σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας, ἧς ἥρπα- σεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα), and with perhaps some further reference to the typical character of such institutions, shadows flung forward (‘ preenunciativee obser- vationes,’ Aug.) from the τὰ μέλλοντα, (scil. τὰ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, Theoph.), from the future blessings and realities of the Christian covenant ; προλαμ- βάνει δὲ ) σκιὰ τὸ σῶμα ἀνίσχοντος τοῦ φῶτος, Theod. The use of the present ἐστι must not be unduly pressed ; ‘loquitur de illis ut consi- derantur in sud naturd, abstracte a circumstantiis temporis,’ Davenant. τὸ δὲ σῶμα Xp.] ‘but the body (their substance) is Christ’s;? the σῶμα scil. τῶν μελλόντων, belongs to Christ in respect of its origin, existence, and realization ; ‘in Christo habemus illa vera et solida bona que erant adum- brata et figurata in preedictis cerimo- niis,’ Daven. The nominative might at first sight have been expected ; the possessive gen. Χριστοῦ [so Tisch. rightly with DEFGJK, not τοῦ Xp. with ABC ; Lachm.], is however of more real force, as marking that the true σῶμα τῶν μελλόντων not merely COLOSSIANS II. 18. 165 18 μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω, θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνη was Christ, but belonged to, was de- rived from Him, and so could only be realized by union with Him. A refe- rence of this clause to ver. 18 (comp. August. L£pist. 59) destroys the ob- vious antithesis and is wholly unten- able. The assertion of Alf. (comp. Olsh.)—that if the ordinance of the Sabbath had been in any form of lasting observation in the Christian Church, St. Paul could not have used such language,—cannot be substan- tiated. The σάββατον of the Jews, as involving other than mere national reminiscences (with Deuteron. v. 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 considera- tions as old as the Creation; that that seventh portion of the week should be the first day, rests on Apostolical, and perhaps inferentially (as the Lord’s appearances on that day seem to show) Divine, usage and appoint- ment; see Bramhall, Lord’s Day, Vol. v. p. 32 sq. (Angl. C. Libr.), and Huls. Essay for 1843, p. 69. 18. KkataBpaBeverw | ‘ beguile you of your reward ; so distinctly, Zonar. on Can. xxxv. Concil. Laod. (Suicer, Thesawr. 8.v.),kaTaBpaBevew ἐστὶ τὸ μὴ νικήσαντα ἀξιοῦν τοῦ βραβείου, ἀλλ’ ἑτέρῳ διδόναι αὐτό, ἀδικουμένου τοῦ νικήσαντος, the κατὰ marking the hos- tile feeling towards the proper reci- pient, which dictated the consequent injustice, and τὸ. παραβραβεύειν ; see Demosth. Mid. 544, ἐπιστάμεθα Στρα- Tova ὑπὸ Μειδίου καταβραβευθέντα καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα, and Buttm. ὧν loc. (Index, p. 176), who pertinently remarks, ‘verbum in trans- lato sensu aliter usurpari non. potuisse quam de eo qui debitam alteri vic- toriam eripit.. The many _ render- ings, either insufficient (κατακρινέτω, Hesych.), incorrect (καταπαλαιέτω, Castal. ap. Pol. Syn.), or perverted (e.g. κατακυριευέτω, Corn. a Lap.), that have been assigned to this word will be found in Pol. Synops., and in Meyer in loc. which the false teachers sought to de- fraud the Colossians was not their Christian freedom (Grot.),—at first sight a plausible interpr.,—but, as the context and the grave nature of the error it reveals seem certainly to sug- gest, ‘vita eterna,’ Gom.,7d βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως (Phil. iii. 14), and with a more exact allusion, the ἄφθαρτον στέφανον (1 Cor. ix. 25), the στέφανον τῆς δικαιοσύνης (2 Tim. iv. 8), τῆς ζωῆς (James i. 12), τῆς δόξης (1 Pet. v. 4), which the Lord, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής (2 Tim. J. 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 media- tors, that they would eventually be- guile and defraud of the βραβεῖον, those who were misled enough to join them: ‘nihil aliud moliuntur nisi ut palmam ipsis intercipiant, quia abdu- cunt eos a rectitudine cursus sui,’ Calv.,—who, however, does not appear to have felt the precisely correct ap- plication of καταβραβεύειν. θέλων] ‘ desiring (to do it),’ scil. κατα- βραβεύειν ; modal participle defining the feelings they evinced, and hinting at the studied course of action they followed out in the καταβράβευσις ; τοῦτο τά νυν συνεβούλευον ἐκείνοι γίγνε- σθαι, ταπεινοφροσύνῃ δῆθεν κεχρημένοι, Theod., who, however, somewhat over- presses θέλων, comp. notes on 1 Tim. v. 14. These feelings, however, were not directly, but indirectly, hostile to The βραβεῖον, of γ΄ 166 COLOSSIANS | II. 18. 4 ’ A > , A ‘ ¢? 3 , ς αὶ Kal θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἃ μη Ewpakev ἐμβατεύων, εἰκῆ the καταβραβευθησόμενοι ; the purpose was to secure the στέφανος for them- selves and their followers ; the result, to lose it themselves, and to defraud others of it. Two other interpretations have been proposed ; (a) the Hebrais- tic construction, θέλειν ἐν Tarew.,= a yor (1 Sam. xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings xv. 26, 2 Chron. ix. 8, only, however, with a personal pro- noun), adopted by Aug., al., and re- cently Olsh., but contrary to all an- alogy of usage in the N. T.; and, still less plausibly, (6) the connexion xa- ταβρ. θέλων perhaps favoured by Syr., and, with varying shades of meaning assigned to the part., Beza, Zanch. Tittm. (Synon. I. p. 131), al, and most recently, Alf. The former is distinctly untenable, as contrary to all analogy of usage of θέλειν in the N. T. The latter is structurally and grammatically defensible, comp. 2 Pet. iii. 5, but even in the transl. of Alf, ‘of purpose defraud you,’ exegetically unsatisfactory. Surely if ‘of pur- pose’ is to have any meaning at all, it will impute to the false teachers a frightful and indeed suicidal malice, which is neither justified by the con- text, nor in any way credible. They sought to gratify their vanity by gain- ing adherents, not their malice by compassing, even at their own hazard, their ruin. The καταβράβευσις was perhaps recklessly risked, but not ma- liciously designed beforehand. ἐν ταπεινοφρ. ‘in luwiliness ;’ ele- ment in which he desires tu do it, the prep. év not being so much instrumen- tal (Mey.), as modal, πῶς, ἐν ταπειν. ; ἢ πῶς, φυσιούμενος ; δείκνυσι κενοδοξίας ὃν τὸ πᾶν, Chrys. It seems clear that ταπεινοφρ. is not here proper Christian humility (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 ws ἀόρατος ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεός, ἀνεφικτός τε καὶ ἀκατάληπτος, καὶ προσήκει διὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τὴν θείαν εὐμένειαν πραγματεύεσθαι, Theod.; see also Zonaras on Can. Xxxv. Cone. Laod. (A.D. 363 ? see Giesel. Kirchen- gesch. Vol. I. 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. subjectt (James i. 26), ‘que angelos deceat,’ Wolf, with ref. to the ultra-human cha- racter of devotion which the false teachers affected, (see Noesselt, Dis- put., Hale, 1789), but gen. objecté (Wisdom, xiv. 21, εἰδώλων θρησκεία, and exx. in Krebs, Obs. p. 339), wor- ship paid to angels; see Winer, Gr. § 20, I, p. 168, and Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 44. Theodoret notices the prevalence of these practices in Phry- gia 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 im loc. Whether this had originally any connexion with Essene practices, can- not satisfactorily be determined, as the words of Joseph. Bell. Jud. τι. 8. 7, are ambiguous ; see Whiston im loe. That it was practised by Gnostic sects is attested by Tertull. Prescr. 33, Iren. Her. 1. 31. 2, Epiph. Her. xx. 2% see further reff. in Wolf. in loc. The evasive interpr. of θρησκ., ‘talem angelorum cultum qui Christum ex- cludat,’ Corn. a Lap., ‘impiwm angelo- rum cultum,’ Just., is wholly opposed to the simple and inclusive meaning of the word ; comp. Browne, Articles Art. XXII. p. 539. COLOSSIANS II. 18, 109. , Ἁ ~ ‘ ΄ Α ΕῚ “ φυσιούμενος ὑπο τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτου; 107 4 3 109. καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν ἃ μὴ ἑώρ. ἐμβ.7 ‘intruding into the things which he hath not seen; μὴ not ov, as the dependence of the sen- tence on μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβρ. leaves the objects naturally indeterminate, and under subjective aspects ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 55.3, p. 426; comp. Exod. ix. 21, ὃς μὴ προσέσχε TH διανοίᾳ εἰς TO ῥῆμα. Thereadingissomewhat doubtful. The negative is omitted by Lachm. [with ABD*: 3 mss.; Clarom., Sang., Copt. ; Tertull., Ambrst., al.J, but rightly retained by Tisch. [with CD***EJK (FG οὐκ); nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both), Vulg., Boern., Goth., Atth. (Platt), al., Orig., Chrys., Theod. ], asin 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 interpr. (‘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). ᾿Εμβατεύειν, with an accus, objecti, has properly a local sense, e.g. πόλιν, EKurip. Electr. 595, ναόν, ib. Rhes. 225 (see further exx., in Krebs, Obs. p. 341), and thence by a very intelligible application an ethical reference, the accus. denoting the imaginary realm to which the action extended ; comp. (but with a dat.) Philo, Plant. Noe, § το, Vol. 1. p. 341 (ed. Mangey), ἐμβα- TEVOVTES ἐπιστήμαις. εἰκῆ φυσιούμ..] ‘vainly puffed up ;’ modal clause, more fully defining ἐμβατεύων. The false teachers were inflated with a sense of their superior knowledge, but it was εὐκῇ (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 2, Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11), boot- lessly, without ground or reason. On the derivation [from εἴκειν, perhaps Sanscr. vican, ‘recedere’] comp., with caution, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. I. p- 349. De Wette, following Steig., joins εἰκῇ with the preceding clause ; this is a possible, but not probable, connexion, as it would throw an em- phasis on the adverb (comp. Gal. iil. 4) which really seems solely confined to ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν. ὑπὸ τοῦ voos K.T.A.] ‘by the mind of his flesh,’ i.e. the higher spiritual principle in its materialized and corrupted form, the gen. probably being simply possessive (comp. notes on Eph. iv. 23), and the contradictory form of the combination being chosen to depict the abnormal condition : the flesh was, as it were, endued with a νοῦς (instead of vice versd), and this was the ruling prin- ciple ; see Olsh. Opuse. p. 157, De- litzsch Psychol. Iv. 5, p. 144, and for the normal meaning of vots in the N. T., notes on 1 Tim. vi. 5. The σὰρξ appy. stands in latent anti- thesis to the πνεῦμα (comp. Chrys. ὑπο σαρκικῆς διανοίας οὐ πνευματικῆς) and seems here clearly to retain its ethical sense, ‘ his world-mind,’ Mil- ler (Vol. 1. p. 356, Clark), his devotion to things phenomenal and material ; comp. Tholuck, Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p- 492, Beck, Seelent. 11. 18, p. 53. 19. καὶ οὐ κρατῶν x.7.A.] ‘and not holding fast the Head ; οὐ not μή, the negation here becoming direct and objective ; comp. Acts xvil. 27, 1 Cor. ix. 26, and see Winer, G7. ὃ 55. 5, Ρ. 430, and esp. Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 287 sq., where there is a good collec- tion of examples. Kpareiv is here used with an accus. in the same sense asin Acts ili. rr, comp. Cant. ili. 4, ἐκράτησα αὐτόν, καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα αὐτόν, and Polyb. Hist.viit. 20. 8, and denotes the individual adherence to Christ the 168 COLOSSIANS Π. το. A , 9 A ‘ , + καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγοῦμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει Head which alone can constitute life and salvation ; τί τοίνυν τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀφεὶς ἔχῃ τῶν μελῶν, Chrys.: comp. the possible physiological reference, alluded to in notes on Eph. iv. 16. ἐξ ob] ‘from which ;’ not neut., either in ref. to τὸ κρατεῖν, Beng., or under an abstract and generalized aspect (Jelf. Gr. § 820. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 7. 9), to κεφαλήν, Mey., Eadie, but, as the exactly parallel passage Eph. iv. 16 so distinctly suggests, — masc. in ref. 10 “Χριστοῦ, the subject obviously referred to in κεφαλήν. The assertion of Mey. that the ref. is not to Christ in His personal relations cannot be substantiated. The follow- ing verse seems to imply distinctly the contrary. Nor again, does it seem necessary, with the same commen- tator, to refer ἐξ οὗ both to the parti- ciples and the finite verb, as in Eph. iv. 19; the connexion seems naturally with avée:,—the prep. ἐξ marking the source and ‘ fons augmentationis ; see notes on Gal. ii. 16. πᾶν τὸ σῶμα] ‘the whole body ;’ surely not necessarily, ‘the body in its every part,’ Alf.: between τὸ πᾶν σῶμα (a position of the art. very rarely found in the N. T.) and πᾶν τὸ σῶμα no distinction can safely be drawn. If πᾶς had oceupied the position of a secondary predicate (comp. Matth. x. 30, Rom. xii. 4) there would have been some grounds for the distinction. διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν Kal συνδϑ.] ‘by means of its joints and bands ; media of the ἐπι- χορήγησις and συμβίβασις. The adal and σύνδεσμοι, as the common article seems to hint, are the same in genus ; the former referring, not to the ‘nerves,’ Mey., in opp. to Syr., Auth. (Platt), Copt., and all the best Vvy., but to the joints, the ‘ commissure’ of the frame (comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. m1. p. 96); the latter to the varied ligatures of nerves and muscles and sinews, by which the body is) bound together. The distinctions adopted by Mey., al., according to which the agai are specially associated with émvxop. and referred to Faith, the σύνδ. with συμβ. and referred to Love, are plausible, but perhaps scarcely to be relied upon. As in Eph. 1. ¢., the passage does not seem so much to involve special metaphors, as to state forcibly and cumulatively a general truth; πᾶσα ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἕως ἂν ἔχῃ τὴν κεφαλὴν, αὔξει, Chrys. ἔπιχορ. καὶ συμβ.] ‘being supplied and knit together ; passive and pres.; the action was due to communicated influ- ences, and the action was still going on. To give ἐπίχορ. 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. II. 75. 3,/ Vl. 15..4, 3 Mace. ieee The force of ἐπὶ is not imtensive but directive, pointing to the accession of the supply, ‘cui, que sunt ad incre- mentum necessaria, sufficiuntur,’ Noesselt (see notes on Gal. iii. 5), but it does not seem improbable that both in xopyy. and ἐπίχορ. some trace of the primary meaning, some ref. to the free and ample nature of the sup- ply, is still preserved, comp. 2 Pet. i. 5, with ver. 8, and Winer on Gal. iii. 5, p- 76. On the meaning of συμβ. see notes on Eph. iv. 16. τὴν αὔξ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘ with theinerease of God,’ ze. the increase which God supplies, τοῦ Θεοῦ being the gen. auc- toris or originis, Hartung, Casus, 17, 23; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7 al. To regard the expression as a periphrasis is wholly untenable ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 36. 3, p. 221. The accus. αὔξησιν is that of COLOSSIANS II. 19—21. τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου; τί ὡς A A , \ , 21 Μὴ ἅψη, μηδὲ γεύση, μηδὲ θίγῃς δογματίζεσθε the cognate subst. (not merely ‘of re- ference,’ Alf.) and serves to give force to, and develop, the meaning of the verb ; see Winer,, Gr. ὃ 32.2, p. 200, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501 sq., where this etymological figure is elaborately discussed. 20. ἐι ἀπεθ. κιτ.λ.] ‘If ye be dead with Christ ; warning against false as- ceticism ; see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 3, and comp. generally Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 878 sq., Vol. 11. p. 120, sq. The Apostle grounds his gentle expostula- tion 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., have the authority of all the MSS. against them, and are properly rejected by all modern editors. ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχ. τοῦ κόσμου] ‘from the rudiments of the world,’ ‘from ritualistic observ- ances 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 νόμου, when he fulfilled all its claims and bore its curse. The ‘ constructio pregnans’ dre). ἀπὸ only occurs here in the N.T.; it is probably chosen in preference to the dat. (Rom. vii. 14, Gal. ii, 19), as ex- pressing a more complete severance,— not only death to it, but separation and removal from it; comp. Winer, Gr. § 47, Ρ. 3961. 109 20 Ki ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῳ ~ 9 , ζῶντες εν κοσμῷ ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ] ‘as if ye were living in the world,’ ὦ.6. as if ye were in antithetical relations; you are dead with Christ ; why do you live as if in a character exactly the reverse, as ina non-Christian realm, from all the rudiments of which ye are really dead ? Soypariter Oe] ‘do ye submit to ordinances ; ὑπόκεισθε τοῖς στοιχείοις, Chrys., τῶν ταῦτα διδα- σκόντων ἀνέχεσθε, Theod.: middle,— certainly not active, ‘decernitis,’ Vulg., ‘urredip,’ Goth. (a meaning here not only inappropriate but lexically in- correct), and appy-. not passive, ‘placitis adstringimini,’ Beza; (comp. Syr. esis 3 Tso [judicamini]; Copt. and Auth. paraphrase), as this, though perfectly lexically admissible (observe 2 Mace. τῷ ἔθνει), seems somewhat less in harmony with the tone of this para- graph, than the ‘doceri vos sinitis’ (Grot.) of the middle; dpa δὲ καὶ πῶς ἠρέμα αὐτοὺς διακωμωδεῖ δογματίζεσθε εἰπών, Theophyl.: so Winer, G7. ὃ 39. 4, p- 295 (ed. 5), though appy. 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 x. τ. A.] ‘ Handle not, neither taste, nor touch ;’ examples of the δογματισμὸς to which they allowed themselves to submit; ‘ recitative hzec proferuntur ab Apostolo,’ Daven. With regard to the grammatical asso- ciation, the coarser ἅψῃ at the begin- ning, the interposed γεύσῃ, and the more delicate θίγῃς at the end might seem to justify the distinction of Meyer that the first μηδὲ is more adjunctive (see notes on Gal. i. 12 and on Eph. x. 8, ἐδογμάτισαν παντὲ 170 COLOSSIANS | II. 22. 22 “ 9. i 9 a) 4 la ο , 4 4 (a €OoTL TAVTA ES φ opav TH ἀποχρήσει) Κατα TA iv. 27) the second more ascensive, if such a distinction in so regular a se- quence as μὴ---μηδὲ--- μηδὲ be not some- what precarious ; consider Rom. xiv. 21, and esp. Luke xiv. 21, where there is a similar slight disturbance of the climax. The essential character of such quasi-adjunctive enumerations, is that the ‘apte connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu accedentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 707. With regard to the objects alluded to, the interposed yevon and the terms of ver. 23 seem certainly to suggest a reference of all three verbs to ceremonial distinctions in items are not βρῶσις and πόσις (ver. 16); see esp. Xenoph. Cyr. 1. 3. 5. (cited by Raph.) where all three verbs are used in refe- rence to food, and for exx. of ἅπτεσθαι, see Kypke, Obs. p. 324, Loesn. Obs. p- 372. More minute distinctions, e.g. ἅψῃ, women (Olsh.), corpses (Zanch.) ; θίγῃς, oil (Boehm.; comp. Joseph. Bell. 11. 8. 3), sacred vessels (Zanch.), al., seem very doubtful and On the distinction be- tween the stronger ἅπτεσθαι and the uncertain. weaker θιγγάνειν [@IT, TAT, tango, Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 235], comp. Trench, Synon. ὃ XVIL. 22. ἅ ἐστι κιτ.λ.1 ‘which things, almost, seeing they are things which are all to be destroyed in their con- sumption ; parenthetical observation of the Apostle on the essential charac- ter of the meats and drinks which the false teachers invested with such cere- monial characteristies ; ‘ratio ducitur ab ips& natura et conditione harum rerum, Daven.: they were ordained to be consumed and enter into fresh physical combinations ; comp. Matth. xv. 17. To refer this either to the preceding commands, ‘quod totum genus preceptorum,’ Aug., Saunder- son (Serm. vit. ad Pop.), al., or to the preceding clause as the continued statement of the false teachers, Neand.» (Planting, Vol. 1. p. 328), De W., al., seems to infringe on the meaning of ἀπόχρησις (see Mey.), and certainly gives a less forcible turn to the paren- thesis. The objection urged by De W., and appy. felt in some measure by Chrys. and Theoph. —that St. Paul would thus be furnishing an argu- ment against restrictions generally, even those sanctioned by divine autho- rity, may be diluted by observing (a) that a very similar form of argument occurs in 1 Tim. iv. 3 sq., and (0) that these restrictions and observances are not condemned per se, but in relation to the new dispensation, in which all ceremonial distinctions were done away, and things remanded (so to say) to their primary conditions. εἰς φθοράν] ‘ for destruction, decom- position,’ the prep. marking the desti- nation, and φθορὰ having apparently a simply physical sense ; comp. Syr. Ψ |13., Δ 30» | Dna om {usus corrupti- δ ων 2 ν bilis], and very distinctly Theod., εἰς κόπρον yap ἅπαντα μεταβάλλεται, and (Heum., φθορᾷ γάρ, φησιν, ὑπόκειται ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρῶνι. ἐν τῇ ἀποχρήσει] ‘in their consumption,’ in their being used completely up; οὐ σκοπεῖτε ws μόνιμον τούτων οὐδέν, Theod. The compound ἀποχρ. has here a somewhat similar meaning to διαχρ. (comp. Rost τ. 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. §; comp. Plutarch. Cesar, ὃ 58, καινῆς ἔρωτα δόξης ἀποκεχρημένῳ τῇ παρούσῃ, and see Suicer, Thesawr. Vol. 1. p. 489, where several pertinent exx. COLOSSIANS II. 22, 22. ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων; 1171 δ ’ 23 ἁτινα ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ καὶ are collected from the Eccl. writers. κατὰ τὰ évTdAp.] ‘according to the commandments and teachings of men ; further definition and specification of the preceding δογματίζεσθε ; they had died with Christ, they were united with a divine Deliverer, and were yet ready to submit to the ordinances and doctrines of conscience-enslaving men. The διδασκ., as the exceptional omis- sion of the article (Winer, Gr. ὃ 10. 3, p. 113) shows, belonged to the same general category as the ἐντάλμ.; and are added probably by way of amplification ; they were submitting to a δογματισμὸς not only in its pre- ceptive, but even in its doctrinal, Alford presses τῶν ἀνθρ. as describing the aspects ; comp. Mey. zm loc. authors ‘as generally human: this is doubtful ; the article, the principle of correlation re- as ἐντάλμ. has quires that ἀνθρ. should have it afso ; see Middleton, Gr. Art. 111. 3. 6. 23. ἅτινα] ‘all which things, ‘a set of things which ; in ref. to the preceding ἐντάλμ. καὶ διδ., and speci- fying the class to which they belonged. On this force of ὅστις, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The difference between ὃς and ὅστις is here very clearly marked ; ἃ (ver. 22) points to its an- tecedents 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, character of the ἔχειν ; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 45.5, p. 311. The exact meaning of λόγον ἔχειν is somewhat doubtful, as λόγος in this combination admits of at least three different meanings; (a) ‘speciem,’ σχῆμα, Theod., Auth, De W.; comp. Demosth. Leptin. 462, λόγον τινὰ ἔχον opp. to ψεῦδος dv φανείη, see Elsner, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 265 ; (8) ‘rateonem,’ scil. ‘grounds for being considered so,’ Vulg., Clarom.,and pro- bably Syr. JANSs ; comp. Polyb. Hist. XVI. 14. 5, δοκοῦν πανουργό- τατον εἶναι πολὺν ἔχει λόγον τοῦ φαυλό- τατον ὑπάρχειν, and other exx. in Lex. Polyb. s.v.3 (y) ‘famam,’ scil. ‘has the repute of,’ Mey., Alf., and perhaps Chrys., λόγον φησίν, ἄρα οὐκ ἀλήθειαν ; comp. Herod. v. 66, ὅσπερ Schweigh. οὐ δύναμιν" δὴ λόγον ἔχει τὴν Πυθίην ἀναπεῖσαι (cited by Raph.). Of these, though in fact all ultimately coincide, (y) is perhaps to be preferred; “τὰ λόγ. ἔχ. Sunt res ejusmodi que quidem vulgo sapientiz nomen habent, sed a vera sapientid absunt longissime,’ Raphel, Annot. Vol. IL. p. 533. μὲν has here no corresponding δέ, but serves to prepare the reader for a com- parison (Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 656,) which is involved in the phrase λόγον ἔχειν (λόγον, οὐ δύναμιν, Chrys.), and is substantiated by the context; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 63. 2. 6, p. 507, where other omissions of δὲ are enumerated and carefully classified. ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ] ‘in self-imposed wor- ship,’ ἐν pointing to, not the instru- ment by which (Mey.), but as usually, the ethical domain iz which the λόγος σοφίας was acquired, or the substra- tum on which the τὸ ἔχειν κ. τ. X. takes place ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a, p. 345. The word ἐθελοθρ. is appy. an ἅπ. δ Ι _——_— bapte: 172 COLOSSIANS Π 23. , A 3 δί ’ κι τ wn 4 ταπεινοφροσύνη καὶ ἀφειθίᾳ σώματος, οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι; πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. λεγόμ.; but by a comparison with similar compounds, ἐθελοδουλεία, ἐθε- λοκάκησις, K.T.A. (see Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. Vol. 1. p. 778), and the verb ἐθελοθρησκεῖν as expl. by Suid. (ἰδίῳ θελήματι σέβειν τὸ δοκοῦν), may be clearly assumed to mean, ‘an arbitrary self-imposed, service, —which, as the similar association with ταάπειν. in ver. 18 seems to suggest, was evinced in the θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων. ταπειν. Kal ἀφειδ. σώμ..] “ lowliness and disregard, or unsparing treatment, of the body :’ the two other perverted elements in which the λόγος σοφίας was acquired, On7azewv., which here also obviously implies a false, per- verted, humility, see notes on ver. 18. The aged. σώμ. marks the false spirit of asceticism, the unsparing way (comp. Diod. Sic. x1. 60, ἀφειδεῖν σώματοϑ), in which they practised bodily auste- rities, the σωματικὴ γυμνασία in which Jewish Theosophy so emulously in- dulged; comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 8. The omission of καὶ after ταπειν. and the reading ἀφειδείᾳ [B; [Lachm.], Steig.]isstrenuously supported by Hof- mann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 64, who takes it as an adjective (comp. ἀφει- delws, Apoll. Rhod. 11. 897), but seems botlf unsatisfactory and impro- οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ K.T.A. | ~enpt i any real value, serving (only) ae satisfying of the flesh.’ The ex- planations of this very obscure clause are exceedingly numerous. With regard to the first portion, two only seem to deserve consideration ; (a) that of the Greek commentators, ac- cording to which τίμῃ is understood to point antithetically to the preceding ἀφειδ., and to refer to the same gen. (οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τῷ σώματι χρῶνται Theophyl.), the clause οὐκ ἐν τιμῃ being regarded a continuance on the negative side of what had previously been expressed in the positive: ἐθεὰλ, κι τ. Δ. were the elements in which the λόγος σοφίας was, and τιμῇ τινι the element in which it was not acquired ; (b) that adopted by Syr. and appy. Aith. (Platt), according to which τιμὴ approaches to the mean- ing of ‘pretium,’ and suggests that there was something which might be a true substratum for the τὸ ἔχειν k.T.X., if properly chosen,—‘ a repu- tation of wisdom evinced in é@eX. kK.7.., not in any practices of true value and honour; so Beza, Beng., al., and with slight variations in detail Huther, Meyer, and Neand. Planting, 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 πλῆσμ. ‘so that the natural wants of the body are satisfied’ (Chrys., al.), or a retrospective connexion of the clause with ἐστι, or, still less likely, with δογματίζεσθε (Alf.), it seems better to adopt (Ὁ), to which also the use of τινι, almost, ‘no value of any kind,’ seems decidedly to lean. II pds πλησμόνην, added somewhat loosely, then defines gravely and conclusively the real object of all these perverted austerities,—‘ the satisfying of the un- spiritual element, the fleshly mind ν᾿ σαρκὸς having a retrospective reference to νοὸς THs σαρκὸς in ver. 18, and con- trasting, with great point, the means pursued and the end really in view ; they were wasparing (ἀφειδ.) with the σῶμα, that they might satisfy (πρὸς wAnop.)—the σάρξ. Syr, and Ath. insert ἀλλὰ before πρὸς πλησ. ; this is not necessary; the exposure of the motive is rendered more forcible and COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. τ, 2. Mind the things above, for your life is hidden with Christ: when He is manifested so shall ye be also. Nef TA AVW emphatic by the omission of all con- necting particles. Cuapter III. τ. εἰ οὖν] ‘Jf then; with retrospective reference to εἰ ἀπεθ., ch. ii. 20, οὖν being slightly in- ferential (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 problemati- cal, but logical (Mey.), introducing in fact the first member of a conditional syllogism ; comp. Rom. v. I5, ‘and see Fritz. in loc. In such cases instead of diminishing, it really enhances the probable certainty of the supposition ; comp. notes ow Phil. i. 22. συνηγέρθητε] ‘ye were raised together,’ 8011. in baptism ; not merely in a moral sense (De W.), which would render the injunction that follows somewhat superfluous: εἰπών, ὅτι ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χρ. διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος δηλαδή, καὶ κατὰ τὸ σιωπωμένον δοὺς νοεῖν ὅτι καὶ συνηγέρθητε (τὸ γὰρ βάπτισμα, ὥσπερ διὰ τῆς καταδύσεως θάνατον, οὕτω διὰ τῆς ἀναδύσεως τὴν ἀνάστασιν TvTO), νῦν εἰσάγει κ.τ.λ., Theoph. ; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. U. τ. 3, p.220. On the force and deep reality of these expressions of mystical union with Christ, comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 16, Vol. τί. p. 164. τὰ ἄνω] ‘the things above; all things pertaining to the πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρα- vots, Phil. iii. 20, and to the Christian’s true home, the ἡ ἄνω ‘Iepovcad7u, Gal. iv. 26; the contrast being τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς yis, ver. 2; comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. vi. Vol. 1. p. 322 (ed. Burt.) οὗ 6 Xp. x. τ. Χ.1 ‘where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God ;’ not exactly, where Christ sitteth’ Auth., δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος" 179 IT. Ἐπ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ, a ry. γε xX , 9 3 ζητεῖτε, OU O βίστος ΕΟ eV 2 τὰ ἄνω as there are really two enunciations, ‘ Christ is there, and in all the glory of His regal and judiciary power ;’ οὐκ ἠρκέσθη δὲ τῷ ἄνω εἰπεῖν, οὐδέ, οὗ ὁ Xp. ἐστίν. ἀλλὰ προσέθηκεν, ἐν δεξ, καθημ. 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. vi. Vol. 1. p. 328, and on its real and literalsignificance, Jackson, Creed, Book x1. 1. The student will find a good sermon on this text by Andrewes, Serm. Vu. Vol. 1. p. 309-322 (A.C, Libr.), and another by Farindon, Serm. XXXv. Vol. I. p. 995. 2. τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε] ‘mind the things above ; expansion of the pre- ceding command, φρονεῖν having a fuller meaning than ζητεῖν ; they were not only querere but sapere. On the force of φρονεῖν comp. notes on Phil. ili, 15, Beveridge, Serm. CXXXVII. Vol. vi. p. 172 (A. C. Libr.), and esp. the able analysis of Andrewes, Serm. vil. Vol. II. p. 315. τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] ‘ the things on the earth ;’ all things, conditions, and interests that belong to the terrestrial; comp. Phil. ill. 19, of τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. There is here certainly not (a) any po- lemical allusidn to the earthly rudi- ments of the false teachers (Theoph., Cicum.), for as Meyer observes, the remaining portion of the Epistle is not anti-heretical but wholly moral and practical,—nor (b) any specially ethi- cal reference with ref. to ver. 5 (Estius), for the antithesis τὰ ἄνω ob- viously precludes all such limitation. The command is unrestricted and comprehensive, ‘superna curate non 174 a 4 A A φρονεῖτε, μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. ς ~ , A n~ x nn . “ὦ Θ ΠΝ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Ἀριστῷ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ terrestria ;’ see Calv. im loc., and the sound sermon by Beveridge, Serm. Vol. vi. p. 169 sq. (A. C. Libr). 3. ἀπεθάνετε yap] ‘For ye are dead,’ or perhaps ‘ye died,’ Alf., as the reference seems still to the past act, ch. ii. 20. Conyb. urges that the associated κέκρυπται shows that the aor. is here used for a perfect. Surely this is inexact ; the aor. may, and ap- parently does, point to the act, the perfect to the state which ensued thereon and still continues. The na- ture of θνήσκω, however, is such as to preclude any rigorous translation on either side. ἡ Cor ὑμῶν] ‘your life,’—which succeeded after the ἀπεθάνετε ; your real and true life, — not merely your ‘resurrection life,’ Alf., τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀναστάσεως τὸ μυσ- τήριον, Theod., but, with the tinge of ethical meaning which the word ζωή, from its significant antithesis to θάνατος, always seems to involve (comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 22, Vol. 1. p. 252), ‘your inward and heavenly life,’ of which Christ is the essence, and, so to speak, impersona- tion (ver. 4), and with whom it will at last receive all its highest develop- ments, expansions, and realizations ; comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 8. On the meaning of ζωή, see the good treatise of Olshausen, Opuse. Art. VIII. p. 187 sq., and on its distinetion from βίος, Trench, Synon. ὃ xxvii. κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Xp.] ‘hath been (and is) hidden with Christ; its glory and highest characteristics are con- cealed from view,—not merely ‘ laid up,’ Alf., but shrouded in the depths of inward 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 COLOSSIANS TIT. 2—4. 3 5 , 4 NR. 4 ἀπεθάνετε yap, Kat 7 Con On ce 4 oTav will be revealed in all its proportions and all its blessed characteristics : the manifestation which is now at best only partial and subjective, will then be objective and complete ; comp. the thoughtful remarks of Delizsch, Bibl. Psych. V. 3, p. 298. ἐν τῷ Θεῷ] ‘in God ; He is the element and sphere in which the ζωὴ is con- cealed : in Him, as φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσι- Tov (τ Tim. vi. 6), as the Father in whom is the Eternal Son (John i. 18, xvii. 21), and with whom He for ever reigns (ver. 1), the life of which the Son is the essence lies shrouded and concealed. Considered under its in- herent relations our {wi is concealed ἐν Θεῷ ; considered under its coherent relations it is concealed σὺν Χριστῷ ; comp. Meyer im loc., whose interpr. of ζωὴ (‘das ewige Leben), is, how- ever, narrow and unsatisfactory. 4. φανερωθῇ] ‘shall be manifested ;’ 5011, at His second coming, when He shall be seen.as He is, and when His present concealment shall cease ; οὔτε yap vp ὑμῶν ὁρᾶται, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπίστων παντελῶς ἀγνοεῖται, Theod. : comp. 2 Pet. iii. 4. ἡ Lor ἡμῶν} ‘our Life,’ almost, ‘being our Life,’ the ‘przdicatio,’ as Daven. acutely observes, being ‘causalis non essentialis.’ Christ is not merely the author of it (Daven.), or the cause of it (Corn. a Lap.), much less ‘in the character of it’ (Eadie), but—our Life itself, the essence and the impersona- tion of it; comp. Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i. 21. Thus Christ is termed ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν, 1 Tim. i. 1 (comp. 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 B (6 sil.) D¥** E**JK; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), al. ; COLOSSIANS IIL. 4, 5. 175 ‘ ne Che A , a Mee ex \ me Χριστὸς φανερωθῆ. ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ. Mortify your mem- bers and the evil prin- 5 ’ ων Ἁ , e A A 9 *& Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μελη ὑμῶν TA ETL ‘ciples in which ye once walked : put off the old man and put on the new, in which all are one in Christ. 5. Ta μέλη ὑμῶν] So Rec., Lachm., with AC***DEFGJK ; nearly all mss. ; Vulg. Clarom. Syr. (both), Copt. Auth. (Pol. and Platt), Goth. al.; Chrys., Theod., al. (Meyer, De Wette). The pronoun is omitted by Tisch., Alf., with BC τ 67.**71'; Clem. (1), Orig. (5), al. The great preponderance of MSS. and accordant testimony of appy. all the Vv. seem to render this otherwise not improbable omission here very doubtful and precarious. 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 read- ing], Goth., Ath. (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 the ὑμεῖς in the pre- sent verse, critical principles seem to decide for the reading of the text. Kal ὑμεῖς] ‘ye also; ye Colossian converts as well as all other true Chris- tians. The more verbally exact op- position would have been ‘ your hid- den life’ (comp. Fell) ; but this the Apostle perhaps designedly neglects, to prevent ζωὴ being applied, as it has been applied, merely to the resurrec- tion life. Alford urges this clause as fixing that meaning to ζωή; but surely the avoidance of the regular antithe- ‘sis seems to hint the very reverse ; ὑμεῖς φανερ. is the natural sequel of your inward and heavenly life, and is its true development. ἐν ϑόξῃ] ‘in glory; comp. Rom. viii. 17, εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν iva καὶ συν- δοξάσθωμεν. 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: ‘ hujus eterne vite promissa gloria sita est in duplici stol; in stola anime et stola corporis,’ Daven. The conjunction of body and soul, soul and spirit, will then be complete, har- monious, and indissoluble ; ζωὴ will become 7 ὄντως ζωή, and will reflect the glories of Him who is its element and essence: comp. Olsh. Opusc. p. 195 sq. 5. νεκρώσατε οὖν] ‘Make dead then; as you died, and your true lite 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.’ Οὖν is thus, as commonly, re- trospective and collective (‘ad ea que antea revera posita lectorem re- vocat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 719), and vexpwoare in pertinent reference to the ἀπεθάνετε and 7 ζωὴ ὑμῶν which have preceded. τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν] ‘your members,’ the portions of your bodily organization (comp. Rom. vii. 5), qué the instru- ments and media of sinfulness and lusts ; comp. with respect to the pre- cept, Rom. viii. 13, Gal. v. 24, and with respect to the image and form of expression, Matth. v. 29, 30. These are more specifically defined as τὰ ἐπὲ τῆς ys (comp. ver. 2), as defining the sphere of their activities (‘ubi suum habent pabulum,’ Beng.), and as jus- tifying the preceding command. πορνείαν Kal ἀκαθάρσιαν] * fornica- tion and uncleanness ; specific and 176 COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. 5, 6. a A ’ 9 ’ ’ 9 ' , A τῆς γῆς: πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν. παθος. ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία; 6 δι᾽ ἃ ἔρχεται 6. ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ἀπειθ.1 Tisch. [Lachm.], and Alf. omit these words with B ; Sahid. Auth. (Pol., but not Platt); Clem. (1), Ambrosiast (Text). On the one hand, it is certainly possible that they may be inserted from the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 6 ; still, on the other, the overwhelming weight of external evidence, and the probability, that in two Epp. where so much is alike, even individual expressions might be repeated, seems to render the omission on such evidence more than doubtful. generic products of the τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μέλη on the side of lust and carnality ; comp. Eph. v. 3. There is no need to mentally supply vexpwoare, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 379, or to paraphras- tically introduce a prep., ‘a scorta- tione,’ Aith.; the four accusatives stand in an appositional relation to τὰ μέλη κιτ.λ., as denoting their evil products and operations ; see Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470, and comp. Matth. Gr. § 432. 3. πάθος, ἐπιθυμ. κάκην] ‘lustfulness, evil concu- piscence;’ further and more generic manifestations. It does not seem proper, on the one hand, to extend πάθος to ‘motus vitiosos, quales sunt ἔχθραι, pers, ζῆλοι x.7.r.,’ Grot., or on the other, to limit it to more fright- ful 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 lust, but lustfulness ; πάθος ἡ λύσσα τοῦ σώματος, Kal ὥσπερ πυρετός, ἢ τραῦμα, ἢ ἀλλὴ νόσος, Theoph. The last, ἐπιθυμία κάκη, is still more inclusive and generic ; ἰδοῦ γενικῶς τὸ πᾶν εἶπε; Chrys. τὴν πλεονεξίαν] ‘ Covetousness,’—with the article, as the notorious form of sin (‘die bekannte, hauptsiichlich ver- meidende Unsittlichkeit,’ Winer, ΟἿ". § 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 neither spe- cially ‘base gains derived from un- cleanness’ (comp. Storr, Flatt, al.), nor generically, ‘insatiabilem cupi- ditatem voluptatum turpium’, Est., ‘the whole longing of the creature,’ Trench (Synon. ὃ XXIV.—a _ very doubtful expansion), but simply ‘ co- vetousness,’ ‘inexplebilem appetitum animi querentis divitias,’ Daven. (comp. Theod., Theoph.), a sin that especially depends on the τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (‘maxime affigit ad terram,’ Beng.), and makes, not sensational cravings per se, but the means of gra- tifying them the objects of its interest ; see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sim, 1. τ. 3. 2, Vol. 1. p. 169 (Clark), and notes on Eph. iv. 20. ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλ. 7 “ the which is, seeing it is idolatry; explicative force of ὅστις, see notes on Gal. iv. 24. The remark of Theod. is very pertinent, ἐπειδὴ τὸν μαμμωνᾷ κύριον ὁ σωτὴρ προσηγόρευσε διδάσκων, ὡς ὁ τῳ πάθει τῆς πλεονεξίας δουλεύων ὡς θεὸν τὸν πλοῦτον τιμᾶ. The very improbable reference of ἥτις to μέλη (Harl. on Eph. v. 5), or to all that precedes (Heinr.), is rightly rejected by Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 150. 6. 80 &] ‘on account of which sins ; clearly not δι᾿ ἃ, sc. μέλη (Biihr.), but in ref. to ‘peccata preecedentia aliaque flagitia,’ Grot.: comp. notes on Eph. v. 6. The reading is doubtful: 6 is COLOSSIANS | III. 6—8. e 5" A -“ ΄ ο A A CNX ~ ᾿ , ἢ οργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας" Ase A , , 9 “ 9 ze και ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατε ποτε: ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις" 177 2 @. 7 εν Ol? A 8 νυνι A 5 , 4A € a Ἁ , 2 , ’ I / δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα. ὀργήν. θυμόν, κακίαν, found in C*D*E*FG; Clarom., Sang.; @ in AB (e sil.) C*¥*D*** E**JK; al., and appy. rightly adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. after Rec. Though an emendation is not improbable, the preponderance of ex- ternal evidence seems too distinct to be safely reversed. ἔρχεται) ‘doth come ;’ emphatic, both position and tense. The present hints at the enduring principles of the moral government of God ; see notes on Eph. v. 5. ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ] Not only here, but here- after ; καὶ 7 μέλλουσα ὀργὴ καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι πολλάκις καταλαμβάνουσι τοὺς τοιούτους, Theoph. jects this, but without reason ; see notes on Eph. v. 6. Meyer re- sufficient τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθ.} ‘the sons of disobedience ἡ 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 combination, and on the force of the Hebraistic circumlocution, notes on ἐὖ, ii. 2. 7. ἐν οἷς] ‘among whom,’ scil. υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας,---τιοῦ neuter ‘in which,’ in ref. to the foregoing vices: see Eph. ii. 2, ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνεστρά- φημεν, 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 ἀπειθ. as converts, seems easily answered by observing that περιπατεῖν, St. Paul’s favourite 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 τούτοις] ‘ye were living in these sins,’ ‘these things were the sphere of your existence and activi- ties ; the verb ἐζῆτε referring to the preceding ἀπεῦ. (ver. 3), and its tense portraying the then continuing state ; comp. Jelf, Gr.§ 401. 3. Hutherand others regard τούτοις as masc.: this does not seem satisfactory, as ὅτε ἐΐζ. would be but a weak and tautologous explanation of the preceding ἐν οἷς περίεπ. ποτε, and as ζῆν ἐν (except in its deeper meanings, ¢.g. ζῆν ἐν Xp. k.T.X., Rom. vi. 11, Gal. ii. 20) is always used by St. Paul with things; comp. Rom: vi. 2, ‘Gal? tix: 20,.. Phil? 1.- 23, Col. ii. 20. See the exx. collected by Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 327) ζῆν ἐν ᾿Οδυσσείᾳ, ἐν φροντίσιν, ἐν λόγοις, ἐν ἀρετῇ, ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ x.T.r. in all of which the non-personal substantives similarly define the sphere to which the activities of life were confined ; see also exx. in Wetst. ὧν loc. The reading of Rec. αὐτοῖς [D***E**F GJK] has insufficient critical sup- port. 8. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε] ‘but Now lay aside; emphatic exhortation sug- gested by their present state, the forcible νυνὲ (Hartung, Partik. Vol. II, 24) standing in sharp opposition On the figurative ἀπόθεσθε, opp. to ἐνδύσασθε, comp. notes on Lph.iv. 22. The trans- lation of Eadie, ‘ ye too have put off,’ perhaps suggested by a misunder- standing of Auth., can only be re- garded as an oversight; such mis- takes, however, seriously weaken our confidence in him as a grammatical expositor. καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘ye also,’ ye as well as other Chris- tians, the καὶ putting them here in contrast with their fellow-converts, as N to the preceding τότε, ὅτε. 178 βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν, ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν, COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. 8, 9. 9 μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρω- in ver. 7 with their fellow-heathens ; comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. τὰ πάντα] ‘the whole of them; all previously (τούτοις, ver. 7), and here- after, to be mentioned. Winer (G7. § 18.1, p. 98) refers τὰ πάντα, with an intensive force, only to what had been already adduced: the enume- ration which follows seems to require a more comprehensive and prospective reference; see Meyer in loc. So similarly Syr., Goth. (A£th. omits), ‘hee omnia’ (comp. Theod.), except that this is perhaps too exclusively prospective. There is no full stop after this word in Tisch., as is asserted by Alf., nor appy. in any edition. κακίαν] ‘malice,’ ‘badness of heart,’ the evil habit of the mind as con- trasted with πονηρία, the more de- finite manifestation of it ; comp. Eph. iv. 31, and Trench, Synon. § x1. On the distinction between the preceding ὀργὴ (the more settled state) and θυμός (the more eruptive and tem- porary), see notes on Eph. iv. 31, and Trench, Synon. ὃ Xxxvil.; add also (Ecum., who correctly remarks, ἔστι γὰρ θυμὸς. μίασις ὀξεῖα τοῦ παθοῦς, ὀργὴ δὲ ἔμ- μονος λύπη. βλασφημίαν may be either against God or against men, according to the context (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 13); here the as- sociated vices seem to limit the refe- rence to the latter ; τὰς λοιδορίας οὕτω λέγει, Theoph. ; see notes on the very similar passage, Eph. iv. 31. αἰσχρολογίαν] ‘coarse (reproachful) speaking. It is somewhat doubtful whether we are to adopt (a) the more limited meaning ‘ turpiloquium,’ Cla- rom., sim. Vulg., Syr., ‘aglaitivaur- dein,’ Goth., ‘turpitudo,’ Auth. ; or (Ὁ) the more general, ‘foul-mouthed .. . ἔξαψίς τις καὶ ἀναθυ- ‘do not indulge in the practice. abusiveness,’ Trench (comp. Copt., where, however, it seems confounded with μωρολογία), ‘schandbares Reden, Meyer. As aicxp. is an ἅπ. λεγόμ. in N.T., and does not occur in LXX, and as both interpretations have good lexicalauthority,—theformer, Xenoph. Laced. v. 6, Poll. Onomast. 1v. τού, Clem. Alex. Peed. τι. 6, comp. Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 136, Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 535; the latter, Polyb. Hist. vitl. 13. 8, and XXXI. to. 4, where it is associated with Aovdopia,—the context alone must de- cide. As this appy. refers mainly to sins against a neighbour (comp. ver. 9), the balance seems in favour of (0), according to which αἰσχρ. will be an extension of βλασῴ., and will imply all coarse aud foul-mouthed language, whether in abuse or otherwise. ἐκ τοῦ στόματος is not to be referred solely to αἰσχρολ. (Aith.), but to the two preceding substantives, ἀπόθεσθε being mentally supplied. It seems doubtful whether the addition marks specially the pollution (ῥυποῖ yap τὸ els δοξολογίαν Θεοῦ πεποιημένον στόμα, (Ecum., comp. Chrys.), or the wrsuit- ableness (Mey.), of the actions which are here described: the latter is per- haps slightly the most probable ; comp. James 111, 10. 9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε] ‘do not lie ;’ pres., The addition εἰς ἀλλήλους specifies the objects teward which the practice was forbidden (compare Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353), and stamps it as a social wrong. On the frightful character of untruthfulness, and its evolution from selfishness and lust, see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 1. 3. 2, Voki. p. 171 sq. (Clark). It seems best with Lachm., Tisch., and appy. most COLOSSIANS _ III. 9, τό. A a , τ las Io TOV συν. Tals πράξεσιν QAUTOU, 179 \ 9 ὃ , A καί ενουσαμένοι TOV ’ ‘ 9 , 5 Dee ᾽ 2 7 a VEOV TOV AVYAKQALVOUKEVOV ELS επιγνῶσιν και εἰιἰκόονὰ TOU modern editors, to place only acomma between ver. 8 and 9. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι) ‘secing that ye have put off,’ Auth.; causal participle, giving the reason for the precept, and in point of time being prior to (Mey.), not contemporaneous with (‘exspo- liantes,’ Vulg., Clarom.), the preceding aor. inf. ἀπόθεσθε. Such a reference is not superfluous or inappropriate (De W.); the part. serves suitably to remind them that the conditions into which they had now entered rendered a selfish and untruthful life, a self- contradiction. To consider ἀπεκδ. as beginning a new period, interrupted, and resumed in ver. 12, as Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 268, seems very harsh and improbable. On the double compound ἀπεκδ. see notes on chap. ii. ΕἸ; τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρ.] ‘the old man;’ not merely τὴν προτέραν πολιτείαν, Theod., but, with a more individualizing refe- rence, our former unconverted self, our state before regeneration; see notes on Eph. iv. 22. Davenant (comp. Calv.) refers the term to the ‘insita nature nostre corruptio,’—a special and polemical reference, to which the context, which seems to point simply to their ante-Christian, as contrasted with their present, state, (τότε, νυνί), seems to yield no sup- port. σὺν ταῖς Tp. | ‘with his deeds ;’ slightly explanatory, marking the practical 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 con- nected with the preceding clause, and presenting, on the positive side, the act succeeding to the ἀπεκδ. on the negative. The νέος ἄνθρ. stands in contrast with the παλαιὸς as specifying the newly entered and fresh state of spiritual conditions after conversion and regeneration. In Eph, iv. 23 the term is καινός, as marking rather the new state in respect of quality ; comp. Tittmann, Synon. I. p. 59, notes on Eph. iii. 16, iv. 24. It is not improbable that the reference in the two passages is slightly different, there (Eph.) as the hortatory tone suggests, the ref. is primarily to renovation ; here, as the argumentative allusion seems to imply, primarily to regenera- tion, yet in neither, as the noticeable combinations (ἀνανεοῦσθαι --- καινὸν ἄνθρ., νέον ἄνθρ.----τὸν ἀνακαιν.) further suggest, is the reference exclusive. On the distinction, see Waterl. Regen. Vol. IV. p. 433 sq., comp. Trench, Synon. ὃ XVIII. TOV d&vakaty. | ‘who is being renewed ;’ cha- racteristic, not merely of ἄνθρωπος (De W.), but of the νέος ἄνθρωπος, as the prominence of the epithet clearly requires. ‘This process of ava- καίνωσις, of which the causa instru- mentalis and agent (Tit. 111. 5, comp. Eph. iv. 23,) is the Holy Spirit, is re- presented as continually going on; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16, ὁ ἔσωθεν (ἄνθρ.) The prep. ἀνὰ appears to mark restoration ἀνακαινοῦται ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ. to a former, not necessarily a primal, state ; see Winer, de Verb. Comp. Ul. Ῥ. 10, comp. notes on Eph, iv. 23. εἰς érrlyvwow] ‘unto complete know- ledge,’ appy. of God, and the mystery of redemption (τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τῶν θείων, Theoph.) ; comp. ch. i. 9, li. 2, Eph. I. 17; ‘in eo quod ait qui renov. cw agnitionem demonstrabat quoniam ipse ille qui ignorantiz erat homo, id est, ignorans Deum, per (?) eam que in eum est agnitionem renovatur,’ weZ 180 , i] , KTLOQVTOS αὐτον" περιτομὴ ἐλ εύθερος. Iren. Her. v. τῷ, On the full mean- ing of ἐπίγν. (‘ accwrata cognitio’) see notes on Lph. l.c., and comp. on Col. ii, 2. This was the object towards which the ἀνακαιν. tended (not the sphere zn which, Auth., Copt.),—the result which it was designed to attain; comp. Eph. iv. 13. κατ᾽ εἰκόνα κ.τ.λ.7 ‘after the image of Him that created him.’ By a compa- rison with the similar and suggestive passage, Eph. iv. 23, there can scarcely be a doubt that this clause is to be connected with ἀνακαιν., not with ἐπίγνωσιν (Meyer, comp. Hof- mann, Schriftb., Vol. 1. p. 252),—a construction grammatically admissible (see Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126), but exegetically unsatisfactory. Kara 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 Christ (Chrys. ; comp. Miller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. I. 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,’ Pear- son, Creed, Art. 11. Vol. I. p. 149 (ed. Burt.); ‘in eo quod dicit secundum imag. conditoris, recapitulationem ma- nifestavit ejus hominis qui in initio secundum imaginem factus est Dei,’ Iren. Her. Vv. 12, comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. Wu. 2, p. 51, who con- ceives that with the spiritual, a physical depravation of the image was also included. To assert that a refe- rence to a restoration of the image of God in the first creation involves ‘an idea foreign to Scripture,’ (Alf., comp. Miller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 11. p. 393, Clark,) seems somewhat sweeping ; see notes on Eph. iv. 24, and the COLOSSIANS 1Π| ro, 11, Π ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι “ἄλλην καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖος» καὶ ἀκροβυστία, βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, 5 4 4 lA 4 ΄ ἀλλὰ τὰ παντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός. passages collected from the early Ff. in Bull, Engl. Works, Disc. v. p. 478, sq., and esp. p. 492. On the mean- ing of εἰκών, see Trench, Synon, Xv. αὐτόν] Scil. νέον dvOp.; not merely ἄνθρ. (De W.), which seems opposed to the logical and grammatical con- nexion, and is not required by the preceding interpretation. Whether God be defined as ὁ κτίσας in ref, to the jirst, or the second, creation (avd- κτισις, Pearson, Creed, Vol. τι. p. 80, Burt.), does not alter the doctrinal truth involved in the words ‘quod perdidimus in Adam, idest secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu recipimus,’ Ive- neus, Her, m1. 18. 11. ὅπου] ‘where;’ ‘qua in re’ (‘apud quem,’ Adth.), scil. in which condition of ἀπέκδυσις of the old, and ἔνδυσις of the new, man; comp. Xenoph. Mem. 11. 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 character of this con- traction is briefly discussed. “Ἕλλην καὶ Τουδ.] ‘Greek and Jew, an- tithesis involving national distinctions, followed by a second (7epit. καὶ ἀκρ.) involving ritual characteristics, by a climax (βαρβ., Σ κυθ.} in ref. to habits and civilization (‘Seythe barbaris barbariores,’ Beng., βραχὺ τῶν θηρίων διαφέροντες, Joseph. contr, Ap. Il. 37 ; see exx. in Wetst. dv loc.), and lastly, by a third unconnected antithesis (δοῦλος, ἐλεύθ.) involving social rela- tions. Between the two last Lach. inserts καί, with AD*EFG: 3 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., al. : the external au- thority is fair, but the probability of a conformation to the preceding very COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. 12. Put on mercy, be for- giving and loving, and let the peace of God rule in you. Sing 181 im) ~ 12 ᾿Ηνδύσασθε οὖν, ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ ne , Θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι; σπλάγχα οἰκτιρ-- aloud, and in your hearts, to God, and give thanks. 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 transl. (Scholef. Hints, p. 113) seems quite unnecessary. ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα K.T.A.| ‘but CHRIST is all, and in all; similar in meaning to πάντες ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Xp. Ἴησ., Gal. iii. 28, but with a somewhat more comprehensive enunciation : ‘ Christ’ (placed with emphasis at the end, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 902, 2) is the aggregation of all things, distinctions, preroga- tives, blessings, and moreover is in all, dwelling in all, and so uniting all in the common element of Himself; πάντα ὑμῖν ὁ Χριστὸς 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 indt- vidual, see the very large collection in Wetst. on 1 Cor. xv. 28. 12. ἐνδύσασθε οὖν] ‘Puton then ; exhortation naturally following from the fact that the νέος ἄνθρωπος which involved all the above blessings had been put on ; ‘as you have put on the new man, put on all its characteristic qualities.’ The οὖν has thus appa- rently more of its reflexive force ; ‘it takes up what has been said and con- tinues it,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 192; comp. notes on Phil. ii. 1. ὡς ἐκλ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘as chosen ones of God ; as being men who enjoy and value so great and so singular a bless- ing as to have been called out of heathen darkness to the knowledge of Christ, comp. Tit. i. 1. Meyer acutely calls attention to the fact that ws ἐκλεκτοὶ echoes the preceding argumentative ἀπεκδυσ., and thus stands in logical and exegetical connexion with what precedes. It is doubtful whether ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημ. are to be regarded as used substantively (‘ut sancti et dilecti,’ Alth.,—Pol., but not Platt), and as co-ordinate to, or as simple predicates to, the preceding ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The pure substantival use of the latter expression in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. viii. 33, Tit. i. 1, comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10), coupled with the fact that the force of the exhortation rests on their character as ἐκλεκτοί, not as being ἅγιοι καί ἥγαπ. renders the lat- ter connexion most plausible ; so Beng., and after him Mey., and the majority of modern editors and expo- sitors. Chrysost. and Theoph. appear to have regarded them as three attri- butes ; so Daven., Huther, al. σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ)] ΄“ bowels of mercy ,᾿ bowels which are charac- terized by, are the seat of, mercy, the gen. being that of the ‘ predominating quality,’ and probably falling under the general head of the gen. possessi- vus; see Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 16. 3, p. 115, and comp. 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 examples of the tropical use of σπλάγχνα, which, however, is here not necessarily required (comp. Mey.), see Phil. i. 18, ii. 1, and notes in loce. The plural οἰκτιρμῶν (Rec.) has only the support of B (e sil.) K; mss. ; Theod., al., and is rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. XP; στότητα) ‘kindness: ‘ benevolence and sweetness of disposition as shown 182 COLOSSIANS III. 12, 13. μοῦ, χρηστότητα, ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραὕτητα;, μακρο- θυμίαν, 13 3 4 ἀλλ aN ἡ , > e a AVENOMEVOL a λῶν Και χάρι OMEVOL EQAUTOLS, 5.7 ’ cA , \ Q ςε Ν CQY. Τί 7 Pos να EX] μομφήν, καθὼς kat O Χριστὸς in intercourse with one another ;’ 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 lowly of ourselves be- cause we are so; ἂν ταπεινὸς ἧς καὶ ἐννοήσῃς Tis ὧν πῶς ἐσώθης ἀφορμὴν πρὸς ἀρετὴν λαμβάνεις τὴν μνήμην, Chrys. on Eph. iv. 2, here more exact than in his definitions collected in Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. On the true meaning of this word see the valuable remarks of Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. 483, Trench, Synon. ὃ XLI., and notes on Eph. iv. 2. TpavTyTA | ‘ meekness,’ in respect of God, and to- ward one another ; see notes on Gal. v. 23, and on Eph. iv. 2, in which latter passage it occurs in exactly the samme position with respect to Tazew. Eadie objects to the primary reference to God, but appy. without sufficient reason: that πραΐὕ- Ts is frequently used in purely human relations is quite true (comp. Tit. ili. 2, πραῦτ. πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, but that its basis is a meek acceptance of God’s dealings with us seems clearly shown in Matth. xi. 29, where it is an attribute of the Saviour, and in Gal. vi. 1, and perhaps 1 Cor. iv. 21 and 2 Tim. 11. 25, where a sense of depen- dence on God forms the very ground- work of the exhortation, In such passages mere gentleness seems quite insufficient. and mpairns. On μακροθυμία opp. to ὀξυθυμία (James 1. 19), see notes on Eph. iv. 2. 13. ἀνεχόμενοι GAA.] ‘ forbearing one another ; exhibition of the two last, and perhaps more particularly, of the last of the above mentioned vir- tues ; comp. Eph. iv. 2, μετὰ μακροθ., ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλ. ἐν ἀγάπῃ There does not seem any necessity for enclos- ing the whole verse (Griesb., Lachm., Buttm.), nor even καθὼς καὶ---ὑμεῖς (Winer, Gr. § 64, ed. 5), in a parenthe- sis. 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 comp. Eph. iv. 32. The change to the reflexive pronoun in two members so perfectly similar (Eph. l.c. is a litile different) is perhaps not accidental ; while ἀλλήλων marks an act to be done by one Christian to his fellow Christian, ἑαυτοῖς may suggest the performance of an act faintly re- sembling that of Christ’s, namely, of each one toward all,—yea even to themselves included (‘ vobismet ipsis,’ Vulg.), as Christians are members of one another ; dca 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, lc. (Cramer, Cat. Vol. I. p. 311), here perhaps more appropriate. μομφήν] ‘(ground of) blame.’ This form is an ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in the N.'T., but, especi- ally in combination with ἔχω, suffi- ciently common in classical Greek ; see exx. in Wetst. in loc., and in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The glosses μέμψιν (D* E?) and ὀργὴν (FG) are obvi- ously suggested by the non-appearance of the word elsewhere in the N. T. or inthe LXX. καθὼς kal ὁ Xp. ] ‘even as Christ also COLOSSIANS III. 13, 14. , a / δι - ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς" ᾽ forgave you ; comp. ch. ii. 13, where the same divine act is, as it would there seem, similarly attributed to Christ ; contrast Eph. iv. 32, where it is referred to ὁ Θεὸς ἐν Xp. Καθώς (comp. on Gad. iii. 6), associated with the καὶ of comparison (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635) and balanced by the following οὕτως καί, here simply in- troduces an example (μιμεῖσθε τὸν Δεσπότην, Theod.): in Eph. l.c., 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 ms.; 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 participal : see Winer, Gr. § 62. 4, p. 499. The principal Vv., Syr. pees. [condonate ]), Cla- rom. (‘ita et vos facite’), Goth. (‘ tau- jaip’), ath. (‘facite’), and Theod. sup- ply the imperative, which in some MSS [D*E*FG; al., ποιεῖτε] is ac- tually expressed : this, however, cer- tainly seems at variance with the structure, and interrupts the otherwise easy sequence of clauses ; so rightly De Wette and Meyer. On the double καὶ in sentences composed of cor- relative members, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 635, and notes on Eph. νυ. 23, where the usage is briefly investi- gated. 14. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις] ‘but over all these things ; not, asin Eph. vi. 14 (see notes 7 loc.), with a simple force of accession or superaddition, Syr. cents -σ = [cum his om- nibus]|, Auth., but as the more distinct expression and esp. the foregoing 183 14 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις image seem to require with ἃ semi- local force (‘super,’ Vulg., ‘ufar,’ Goth.), the dative with ἐπὶ as usual conveying the idea of closer and less separable connexions ; see notes on Eph. ii. 20, but transpose the accident- ally 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. ὅ] ‘which (element ;’) neuter, the ante- cedent being viewed under an abstract and generalized aspect ; see Jelf, Gr. § 820. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 7. 9. The reading is not perfectly certain ; ἥτις (Rec.) is fairly supported [D*** EJK ; many Ff.] and is certainly in accordance with St. Paul’s (explica- tive) use of the similar passages, still the probability indef. relative in of a grammatical gloss seems here so great, that the reading of Lachm. and Tisch. is to be distinctly pre- ferred. σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος ‘ the bond of perfect- ness,’ Auth., not ‘of completeness,’ Alf., which would be a more suitable transl. of ὁλοκληρία ; comp. Trench, Synon. ὃ xxit. The genitival rela- tion has been somewhat differently explained ; the abstract gen. may be (a) the gen. of quality, in which case τελειοτ. would be little more than an epithet, ‘the most perfect bond,’ Hamm., Grot., and even Green, (7. p. 247 ; (Ὁ) the gen. of content, ‘amor complectitur virtutum universitatem,’ Beng., comp. Bull, Exam. Cens. 11. 5,-τῆς Tedelor. marking that which the σύνδ. inclosed within it, De W., Olsh., comp. Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 4, p- 242; or (c) the gen. objecti ; τῆς τελειότ. being that which is held to- gether by it, and on which it exercises its conjunctive power ; πάντα ἐκεῖνα, 184 ᾿ 5 , ἘΠ cd 4 , ὃ “ iN , THY AYATHVY, ὁ ETTLY TUVOETMOS TIS TEAELOTITOS. COLOSSIANS TIL 14, 15. ν σὰ τὰν 15 καὶ 4 εἰρήνη TOU Χριστοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, εἰς , , ην καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι καὶ εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε. αὕτη συσφιγγεῖ, Theophyl.: so Chrys., Φ Theod., appy. Syr. to μὲ [cinctorium ], 2 and more recently Steig., and Meyer. Of these (c) has clearly the advantage, as not involving either a doubtful gen, or an unsatisfactory, if not inde- monstrable, meaning of σύνδεσμος (comp. Mey.): as however it assigns a questionable collective force to τελειότης, scil. τὰ τὴν τελειότητα ποι- ovvra, Chrys., Theoph., it seems more exact to regard the gen. as, (d) a gen. subjecti belonging to the general category of the gen. possess.; love is the bond which belongs to, is the dis- tinctive feature of perfection: contrast Eph. iv. 2, and comp. notes 7 /oe. The omission of the article may be due tothe verbsubstantive ; see Middleton, Gr. Art. III. 3. 2; p. 43, (ed. Rose). T5. εἰρήνη τοῦ Xp.] ‘the peace of Christ ; gen. qauctoris, or perhaps rather originis (Hartung, Casus, p. 17, see on ch.-i, 23), ‘the peace which comes from Him who is our peace (Eph. ii. 14), and who solemnly left His peace to His church’ (John xiv. 27); ἐκείνην (εἰρήνην) ἣν ὁ Χριστὸς ἀφῆκεν αὐτός, Chrys. The peace of Christ must not be restricted merely to ὁμόνοια, tnough this is appy. the more immediate reference in the pre- sent passage, but includes that deep peace and tranquillity which is His blessed gift, and emanates from His Cross ; comp. 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 anxious worldliness (see notes in 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 (Rec.) is fairly supported [C**D***EJK ; nearly all mss.; Goth., al.], but in all probability a correction. BpaBevére | * rule,’ 34 (ducat, regat] Syr., ‘sit eubernatrix,’ Beza. The verb fpa- Bevew [Bpa=mpo, see notes on Phil. iii. 14] has here received different ex- planations, ‘exultet,’ Vulg., Goth., ‘stabiliatur,’ Copt., Aith., ‘ abundet,’ Clarom., all perhaps endeavouring to retain some shade of the original meaning (ἀγωνοθετοῦσάν Te καὶ Bpa- βεύουσαν, Theod.), but obscuring rather than elucidating. The later and secondary meaning ‘administrare,’ ‘gubernare,’ Hesych. ἐἰθυνέσθω (Ra- phel, Annot. Vol. IL. p. 533 8q., and Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s.v.), seems here the most simple and natural ; ‘let the peace which comes from Christ order all things in your hearts.’ For confirmation of this later mean- ing, see also the exx. collected by Krebs (Obs. p. 343), and Loesn. (Obs. Ῥ. 373), one of the most pertinent of which is Joseph. Antig. IV. 3: 2, πάντα σῇ προνοίᾳ διοικεῖται Kal... . κατὰ βούλησιν βραβευόμενον τὴν σὴν εἰς τέλος ἔρχεται, Where the association with διοικεῖσθαι renders the meaning very distinct. On the use of καρδία to denote the subject in his inner re- lations, see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 23, p. 80, comp. p. 107. εἰς 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 which, the εἰς marking the immediate (not ultimate) object of the καλεῖν (1 Cor. i. 9, I Tim. vi. 12, comp. notes) and thus COLOSSIANS III. τό. 185 6 Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλουσίως. ἐν ‘ a ¢ 4 n πάση σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες και νουθετοῦντες EAUTOUS ψαλμοῖς 16. ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις) So Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., with ABCD*FG ; τὸ mss.; appy. all Vv.; Chrys., Theod. (comm.); Lat. Ff. The reading ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ (Rec., Tisch. ed. 2) is (4) so feebly supported,—only by D***EJK (MSS. here of doubtful authority from showing other traces of conformation to Eph. v. 19) ; great mass of mss.; Clem., Theod. (text), al., and (ὦ) so very probably an assi- milation to Eph. /.c. (Εἰ, however, there reads ἐν ταῖς xapé.) that it is difficult to conceive what principle, except that of opposition to Lachm., induced Tisch. to retain so very questionable a reading, and to reverse the judgment of his first edition. differing but little from ἐπὶ with dat., by which Chrys. here explains it. The latter perhaps involves more the idea of approximation (Donalds. Cratyl. § 172), the former of direction. The ascensive καὶ marks the κλῆσις as also having the same object as the Apostle’s admonition. ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι) ‘in one body,’ t.e., so as to abide in one body ; not marking the object contemplated, ‘ut unum essetis corpus’ (comp. Grot.), nor the manner of the calling (Steig., comp. x Cor. vii. 15), but, as the more con- erete term seems to require, simply the result to which it tended ; ᾧκονό- βησεν ὁ Xp. τοὺς πάντας ἕν σῶμα ποιῆσαι, cum. ; comp. Eph. ii. 16, and Winer, Gr. § 50. 5, p. 370. Kal εὐχάρ. γίν.] ‘and be (become) thankful,’ scil. to God (Chrys., Theo- phyl.) as ὁ καλῶν (see notes on Gal. i. 6), less probably to Christ, as Theod. and expressly Syr. and Ath. The meaning ‘amabiles,’ εὐχάριτοι (Olsh.), though lexically defensible (comp. Xenoph. @eon. v. 10), seems here wholly inappropriate. Evyapioria was a duty ever foremost in the , thoughts of the great Apostle, 1 Thess. v. 18; observe his frequent _use of εὐχαριστεῖν (25 times) and _ εὐχαριστία (12 times), the latter of which only occurs thrice elsewhere | (Acts xxiv. 3, Rev. iv. 9, vii. 12) in ‘the whole N.T. τό. ὃ λόγος τοῦ Xp.] ‘the word of _ Christ,’ as delivered in the Gospel, “Χριστοῦ being the gen. subjecti, the word spoken and proclaimed by Him, i ΡΗΘΒΗΙ 15. 9: ἵν, ἘΡ’ 2) hess. au. 1s eomp. Winer, Gro § 30. ΠΡ τ It is perfectly unnecessary, with Lachm. (ed. ster.), to enclose this clause in brackets. The previous more general exhortations to love and peace which conclude with evyap. γίνεσθε are suitably accompanied by amore special one which shows the efficacy of the Gospel in such respects, and more fully expands the last pre- cept; παραινέσας εὐχαρίστους εἶναι καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν δείκνυσι, Chrys. ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλ.] ‘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,’ Mey., Alf., which really comes to the same thing, —but, as usual, ‘within 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 described by the participles. Compare Rom. vili. 11, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, the only other passages in St. Paul’s Epp. (2 Cor. vi. 16, is a quotation) in which ἐνοικεῖν ἐν ὑμῖν occurs, and which, though the τὸ ἐνοικοῦν is ditferent, go far to fix the meaning in the present case. This indwelling was to be 186 COLOSSIANS III. τό. 4 a an a , f 9 bs ὕμνοις @Oais πνευματικαῖς, ἐν TH χαριτι ἄδοντες ἐν ταῖς πλουσίως, ‘richly,’ ‘not with a scanty foothold, but with a large and liberal occupancy,’ Eadie. év πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is not to be connected with what precedes (Syr.,—but appy. mot Chrys., as asserted by Mey., Alf.) but with what follows, as in ch. i. 28. The construction is then per- fectly harmonious ; ἐνοικείτω has its single adverb πλουσίως, and is sup- ported and expanded by two co-ordi- nate participial clauses, each of which has its spiritual manner or element of action (ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἐν χάριτι), more exactly defined ; see notes on ch. i. 28. διδάσκ. καὶ νουθετ. éavt.] ‘teaching 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 pro- bably simply for ἀλλήλους ; see Winer, Gr. § 22. 5, p. 136. On the very in- telligible participial anacoluthon, see Green, G7. p. 313, notes on Lph. iii. 18, and on Phil. i. 30. ψαλμοῖς ὕμνοις k.7.A.] ‘with psalms, hymns, spiritual songs ;’ instrument by which, or vehicle in which (Mey.), the διδαχὴ and γνουθέτησις were to be communicated, Mil! and Tisch. con- nect these datives with the following words, but not with propriety, as ἄδοντες has already two defining mem- bers associated with it. On the dis- tinction between the terms, and the force of πνευματ. (‘such as the Holy Spirit inspired’), see notes on the parallel passage, Eph. v. 19. Meyer remarks that the singing, &c., here alluded to, was not necessarily at divine service, but at the ordinary social meetings; see Clem. Alex. Pad. it. 4. 43, Vol. I. p. 194 (ed. Pott.), where this passage is referred to, comp. Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 11. p. 1568. On the hymns used by the ancient church in her services, see Bingham, Antig.XIv.2.1. Thecopula καὶ after ψαλμοῖς [C**D***EJK] and after ὕμνοις [AC***D***HJK] seems to have come from the sister passage, and is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors. ἐν τῇ χάριτι G&S. | ‘in Grace singing ; participial clause coordinate to the foregoing, specifying another form of singing, viz., that of the inward heart ; see Eph. v. 19, and notes im loc. “Ev τῇ xdp. (Rec. omits τῇ with AD***E*#*#JK; al.] is obviously parallel to ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, and serves to define the characteristic element to which the déew was to be circum- scribed (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, icum., διὰ τῆς παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος δοθείσης χάριτος, both of which, however, are rather coarse, paraphrases of the preposition. The interpretations ‘quod se_ utilitate commendet,’ Beza, ‘with becoming thankfulness,’ De W., &c., are un- satisfactory, and χαριέντως, Grot., ‘in dexteritate quadam gratiosa,’ Deven. 2, untenable, as the singing was not aloud, but in the silence of the heart (Mey.). ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν] ‘in your hearts ,᾽ locality of the @déev, This ἄδειν ἐν ταῖς καρδ. is not an expansion of the preceding, defining its proper charac- teristics or accompaniments (μὴ μόνον τῷ στόματι, Theod.),—in which case the clause would be subordinate,— but specifies another kind of singing, viz., that of the inward heart to God, the former being ἑαυτοῖς : see notes on Eph. v. το. The reading Κυρίῳ [Rec. with C**D***KJK] seems COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. 16—18. 187 OL er a“ Θ A 17 Α “ Φ 94 A . καρ Lalo υμῶν τῷ EW, Kat ταν ὁ τί εν TOLNTE EV ’ ay “ἃ 4 , 9 9 ’ Ἵ lant xX A 3 λόγῳ y EV EPY®s TAVTA EV OVOKATL σου βιστου ευχα- A la ~ κ 9 3 a βίστουντες τῷ Θεῴ πατρι δι αὐτοὺ- Wives and husbands, children and parents, observe your duties. ε a € “ an " 18 Ac YVUVALKESs ὑποτασσεσθε “τοῖς με Servants, obey your masters and be faithful; masters, be just. 17. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So Lachm., with ACD*FG; mss.; very many VV. ; some Ff.: Rec., followed by Tisch. and Alf., reads Κυρίου ’Iyncot with B (8 sil.) D***EJK ; great mass of mss.; Amit. Goth. Syr. (Philox.), al. ; Clem. (!), 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 local comparisons. It will be seen that JK present distinct traces of conformation, E less so, ADFG perhaps still less, and B scarcely any at all; C has a lacuna at Eph. l.c. clearly to have arisen from the parallel passage. 17. πᾶν ὅτι-- ἔργῳ] An absolute nom. standing out of regimen and placed at the beginning of the sen- tence with a slight emphatic force ; see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 477. τ. This seems slightly more correct than to regard it as an accus. reflected from the follow- ing πάντα, as appy. Steiger and De Wette. πάντα is cer- tainly not adverbial (Storr, comp. 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 ; comp. notes on Eph. v. 22. What ad been stated individually in πᾶν 6 τι κιτ.Ὰ. is now expressed more fully and collectively by πάντα. It is diffi- cult to understand how the reverse can be the case (Eadie), and the plural ‘ individualizing.’ ἐν ὀνό- ματι Ἴ. Χρ.] “ὧν the name of Jesus Christ " not ‘invocato illius adjuto- rio,’ Daven. (καλεῖ τὸν Tidv, Chrys.), but as in Eph. v. 20, ‘in the name, in that holy and spiritual element which His name betokens ;’ see notes on Eph. l.c., on Phil. ii. τὸν, and comp. Barrow, Serm. xxx. 6, Vol. II. p. 323, where every possible mean- ing is stated and exhausted. edxap. τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ.1 ‘giving thanks to God the Father through Him; at- tendant service with which the (ποιεῖτε) πάντα K.T.N. is to be ever as- sociated ; comp, Eph. v. 20, and see notes on ver. 15, and on Phil. iv. 6; add Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 336, who less probably limits the εὐχαρ. to thankfulness for ability thus to do all ἐν ὀνόμ. κιτ.λ. The reading Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ (Rec.) is well supported [DEFGJK; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., 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. at 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 beginning of ch. vi. of the Ep. to the Ephesians. Such a similarity, often extending to words and phrases, is noticeable and not very easy to ac- count for, except on the somewhat obvious supposition that social pre- cepts of this nature addressed, in the | first instance, to the Christians of Co- 188 δράσιν, ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν Kupio. a ‘ Q ’ yvvatkas καὶ μὴ πικραίνεσθε T Pos auras. COLOSSIANS : IIL 18—2o. 19 Of ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς Ν , 20 Ta τέκνα, , A A A , κ , "}} , ὑπακούετε τοις yovevaly κατα TQaVTQA* TOUTO γὰρ ευὐαβέστον 20. εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν So Tisch. (ed. 1), Lachm., Alf., al., with ABCDE; 3 mss. (Vv. in such cases are hardly to be relied on). Tisch. (ed. 2) adopts the reversed order with FGJK ; and great majority of mss.,—appy. very insufficient ‘authority. lossee and Laodicea, were known and felt by theApostle to be as fully necessary and applicable to the church of Ephe- sus and the Christians of Lydia. The exhortations in the Past. Epp. are urged under somewhat different as- pects. A comparison of the two Epis- tles will here be found very instructive ; it seems to lead to the opinion that the shorter Epistle was written first ; ‘comp. notes on Hph. vi. 21. Alford in loc. seems of the contrary opinion, but is in some degree at issue with his Prolegomena, p. 42. ὑὕποτ. τοῖς ἀνδρ.] ‘submit yourselves to your husbands ; see notes on Eph. v. 22, where the same precept occurs nearly in the same language. The addition ἐδίοις [Rec. with J ; many mss.; Vv. and Ff.] is opposed to the authority of all the other uncial manuscripts. ὡς ἀνῆκεν] ‘as it became Jitting,’ ‘as at should be,’ as was still more your duty when you entered upon your Christian profession. The imperf. (surely not perf., Huther) is not for the present (comp. Thom. M. 5. v., p. 751, ed. Bern.), but, as the associated ἐν Ἰζυρίῳ still more clearly shows, has its proper force, and points to condi- tions that were simultaneous with their entrance into Christianity, but which were still not completely fulfilled ; see Winer, Gv. ὃ 40. 3, p. 242, and Bern- hardy, Synt. X. 3, p.. 373, add also Herodian, s. v., p. 468, (ed. Piers.), where in the similar forms προσῆκε, ἔχρην, ἔδει, the tense is properly re- cugnised.- On the frequently recur- ring ἐν Κυρίῳ, here to be connected with ἀνῆκεν (comp. ver. 20), not ὑποτάσσ. (Chrys., Theoph.), see notes on Eph. iv. 16, vi. 1, Phil. ii. 19, al. 19. ot ἄνδρες k.7.4.] Repeated in Eph. v. 25, but there enhanced by a comparison of the holy bond between Christ and His Church. The ency- clical letter enters into greater and deeper relations. μὴ πικραίνεσθε) ‘do not be embittered ; comp. Eph. iv. 31. The verb occurs in its simple sense, Rev. viii. 11; x. 9, ΤΟ ; here in its metaphorical sense, as occasionally both in classical (6. g. Plato, Leg. ν. 731 D, associated with ἀκραχολεῖν, [Demosth.] Epist. 1464, joined with μνησικακεῖν), and post- classical, writers, e.g, Exod. xvi. 20, ἐπικράνθη ἐπ᾽ αὐτᾶς, al., comp. Joseph. Antig. V. 7. αὐτούς. ‘The form is appy. pass. with a middle force (‘ medial-pass.,” Krii- ger); comp. Theocr. Jdyll. v. 120, and Schol. inloc., πικραίνεται" λυπεῖται, and see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 6. 5, where a large list of such verbs is given, with examples. On the derivation of πικρός [from a root ΠΙΚ- ‘pierced’], see Butt- mann, Lexil. § 56, comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 266. 20. ὑπακ. Tots γον. K.T. XA. 7 ‘ be obe- dient to your parents in all things ; comp. Eph. vi. 1. There the exhor- tation is accompanied with a special reference to the fifth commandment ; here that ref. is implied only, and in- volved in the argumentative clause. The comprehensive τὰ πάντα is obvi- 1, ἐπικραινόμενος πρὸς COLOSSIANS II. 20—22. ἐν Κυρίῳ. τι 5) ΕΟ Τιν ς & ef A 3 wn ὑμῶν, wa μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν. 189 Οὲ πατέρες, μὴ ἐρεθίζετε τὰ τέκνα YY ~ Ἕ bh! 22° Of δοῦλοι. ὑπακούετε κατὰ , = | , , A 9 3 , e TAVTA τοῖς KATA σάρκα κυρίοις. μὴ EV ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις ως ously to be regarded as the general rule; exceptional cases (τοῖς γε ἀσέβεσι πατράσιν οὐ κατὰ πάντα δεῖ ὑπακούειν, Theophyl.) would be easily recognised ; the great Apostle was ever more occu- pied with the rule than with the ex- ceptions to it. On the exceptions in the present case, see Taylor, Duct. Dub. 1. 5, Rule τ and 4 sq. The form ὑπακούειν, if not stronger than ὑποτασσ. (De W.), has a more inclu- sive aspect as implying ‘dicto obtem- perare,’—not merely submission to au- thority, but obedience to a command ; see Tittmann, Synon. I. p. 193. τοῦτο yap «.t.A.] ‘for this is well- pleasing in the Lord ; obviously not ‘to the Lord,’ (Copt., perhaps follow- ing a different reading), ἐν not being a 0 ‘nota dat.,” nor even ‘ coram’ 0 ,o Syr., ‘apud,’ Ath. (Pol.), but, as in ver. 18 and elsewhere, ‘in Domino,’ Vulg., Clarom., Goth., the prep. de- fining the sphere in which the τὸ εὐάρεστον was especially felt and evinced to be so. The reading of Rec., τῷ Kupiw, has not the support of any uncial MS. and is rejected by all modern editors. 21. μὴ ἐρεθίζετε] ‘do not irritate ; duty of fathers, expressed on the ne- gative side ; comp. Eph. vi. 4. The commane there is μὴ mapopyifere, be- tween which and the present the dif- ference is perhaps scarcely appreciable. The former verb perhaps points to pro- vocation to a deeper feeling, the latter (‘irritare’) to one more partial and transitory. The derivation of ἐρεθίζω and ἐρέθω is not perfectly certain, it is commonly referred to ἔρις [Lobeck, Pathol. p. 438, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. I. p. 102], μὴ φιλονεικοτέρους αὐτοὺς ποεῖτε, Chrys.,—but comp. Pott, Zt. Forsch. Vol. τι. p. 162, and Benfey, 7b. Vol. 11. p. 340. Lachm. here, according to his principles, reads παροργίζετε with ACD*EFGJ ; al. Though well supported, it can scarcely be doubted that it isa conformation to Eph. J..¢. ἵνα μὴ ἀθυμ.] ‘im order that they may not be dis- heartened ; that they may not have a broken spirit and pass into apathy and desperation, by seeing their parents so harsh and difficult to please ; comp. Corn. a Lap. wm loc. The verb ἀθυμεῖν is an dar. λεγόμ. in the N. T., but. suf€ciently common both in the LXX (1 Sam. i. 7, xv. 11), and else- where ; see exx. in Wetst., who cites a pertinent passage from Aineas Tact. [Fabric. 11. 30. 10], Poliorcet. 38, ὀργῇ δὲ μηθένα μετιέναι τῶν τυχόντων ἀνθρώπων" ἀθυμότεροι γὰρ εἶεν ἄν. 22. οἱ δοῦλοι] Duties οἵ slaves, more fully detailed, yet closely similar, both im arguments and language, in the parallel passage in Eph. vi. 5 sq., where see notes. On the general drift and object of these frequently re- curring exhortations to slaves, see note on 1 Tim. vi. 1 sq. τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα Kup.] ‘your mas- ters according to the flesh ; your bodily earthly masters; you have another Master in heaven: ‘oi κατὰ σάρκα kup. tacite distinguuntur a Christo,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 270. There is ΔΌΡΥ. no consolatory force in the ad- dition (πρόσκαιρος ἡ δουλεία Chrys., Theoph. ; sim. Theod., Gicum.); see notes on Eph. l.c. On the neglected distinction between κύριος and δεσπό- Tns, see Trench, Synon. ὃ XXVII., comp. Ammon. Diff. Voc. p. 39 (ed. Valck?) ἐν ὀφθαλμοδου- 150 COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. 22—24. ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας φοβούμενοι τὸν Κύριον. Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις. ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας. λείαις] “ὧν acts of eye service; κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοδουλείαν, Eph. vi. 6; the pri- mary ref, to the master’s eye (Sanders. Serm. Vil. 67, ad Pop.), passes into the secondary ref. to false-hearted and hypocritical service generally. For exx. of this use of the plural, comp. James ii. 1, ἐν προσωποληψίαις, and the long list in Gal. v. 20, where see notes and grammatical references. Lachm. here reads ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ with ABDEFG; 6 mss.; Dam., Theoph., Chrys. (varies) : in spite of this preponderance of uncial authority it seems more critically exact with CJK; great mass of mss. ; Clem., Theod., Gicum. (Z%sch.), to retain the plural, which, even independently of the parallel passage, was so likely to be changed to a supposed easier read- ing. ἐν ἁπλότ. καρδίας] ‘in singleness of heart,’ in freedom from all dishonesty, duplicity, and false show of industry; see Eph. vi. 5, where the meaning is slightly more limited by the preceding clause μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου. On the scriptural meaning and application of ‘ double- ness of heart,’ see Beck, Seelenl. 111. 26, p. 106. Here, as Meyer observes, ἐν ἁπλότ. in the negative clause an- swers to ἐν ὀφθαλμοδ. in the posi- tive, and the following φοβούμ. τὸν Kup. to ws ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι. The read- ing is again slightly doubtful. Ree. has Θεόν, with D***E**K; mss. ; Lachm. and Tisch., Κύριον, with ABCD*E*FGJ,—which is certainly to be preferred, as there seems nothing in Eph. 1. 6. to which it could bea conformation. 23. ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε] more specific ex- ΄ an , n~ 23 ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ex ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε ὡς τῷ 24. εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ Κυρίου τῷ planation 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 Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι ἐὰν is feebly supported [D***EJK], and possibly a reminiscence of ver. 17. Alford pre- fixes καί, apparently by an oversight. ἐκ ψυχῆς) ‘from the heart (soul) 7 stronger than ἐν ἁπλότ. καρδ. above, 501, ἐξ εὐνοίας καὶ ὅση δύναμις, (£cum., and as opposed to any out- ward constraint, Delitzsch, Psychol. IV. 7, p. 162: comp. on Eph. vi. 7. ὡς τῷ Kup. «.t.d.] ‘as to the Lord and not to men; dat. of “ interest,’ Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 48. 4. The ὡς serves to mark the mode in which, or the aspects under which, the service was to be viewed; see Bernhardy, Synt. VIL. 1, p. 333, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 360, and notes on Eph. v. 22, where this interpretation of ὡς is more fully investigated. It is objected to by Eadie (on Col. p. 258), but appy. without full reason, being grammati- cally exact and appy. exegetically sa- tisfactory. The negative οὐκ, as usually in such oppositive 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. Ῥ. Ἴ21. Βα. 24. εἰδότες] ‘ seeing ye know:’ causal participle, giving the reason for the preceding command; comp. ch. iv. 1, and the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 8. ἀπὸ ἸΚυρίου] ‘from the Lord,’ not perfectly identical with mapa Kuplov COLOSSIANS III. 24, 25. Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε: 191 e κ ἃ “ [; a oO yap QOLKWY Κομιίισεται O 9 la , ἠδίκησεν, Kal οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπολημψία. Eph. vi. 8, but, with the proper force of the prep., expressive of procedure from, as from the more remote object: see Winer, Gr. 47. b, p. 326, see notes on Gal. i. 11. The remark of Eadie that ἀπὸ marks that the gift ‘comes immediately from Christ,’ is thus wholly untenable. In παρὰ (more usual in personal relations) the pri- mary idea of simple motion from the subject passes into the more usual one of motion from the immediate neigh- bourhood of the object ; see Donalds. Crat. § 177, Winer, l. c. p. 327. τὴν ἀνταπ. τῆς KAnp.| ‘the recom- pense of the inheritance,’ i.e. the re- compense which is the inheritance, THs KAnpov. being the gen. of identity or apposition, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, peeevos, Winer, σ᾽. ὃ 59. 8. a; p: 470. This κληρονομία is obviously the κληρον. (ἐν TH βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Xp. καὶ Θεοῦ, Eph. ν. 5), which was reserved for them hereafter; comp. 1 Pet. i. 4, and on the meaning of the term, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. p- 249. The double compound ἀντα- πόδοσις is an dz. λεγόμ. in the N. T., but not uncommon elsewhere (Isaiah Ixi. 2, Hosea ix. 7, Polyb. Hist. vt. 5. 3, and with a local ref., Iv. 43. 5, al.): the verb is found several times in the N. T., and the passive com- pound, ἀνταπόδομα, twice, Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9 (quotation). The gloss μισθαποδοσίαν only occurs in cursive mss. τῷ Kup. Xp. Sova. ] ‘serve ye the Lord Christ,’ brief yet comprehensive statement of the duty of δοῦλοι, regarded in its true light, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, ver. 23. So distinctly, imper., Vulg., Copt. (ari-bok), Aith. (Pol. ; mistrans- lated); Clarom. less probably adopts the present. he reading is scarcely doubtful: Rec. inserts yap with D*** (E?)JK; Syr. (both), Auth. (Platt), Goth., al., but with but little probabi- lity, being weaker than the text in uncial authority [A BCDE (?) C*C**], and suspicious as helping out the seeming want of connexion. 25. ὃ yap ἀδικῶν] ‘ for the wrong- doer.’ It is slightly doubtful whether ὁ ἀδικῶν refers to the master (Theod.), the slaves (Theoph.), or, more com- prehensively, to both (Huther). The prevailing meaning of ἀδικεῖν in the N. TT. (‘injuriam facere,’ Vulg:; except Rey. xxii. 11, but surely not Philem. 18, as Eadie) and still more the succeeding clause, οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπ. seem decidedly in favour of the former ; so that the verse must be regarded as supplying encouragement and conso- lation to slaves when suffering op- pression or injustice at the hands of theirmasters ; ὥστε φησί, κἂν μὴ TUXNTE ἀγαθῶν ἀντιδόσεων παρὰ τῶν δεσποτῶν, ἐστὶ δικαιοκρίτης ὃς οὐκ οἷδε δουλοῦ καὶ δεσπότου διαφοράν, ἀλλὰ δικαίαν εἰσφέρει τὴν ψῆφον, Theod. κομίσεται] ‘shall receive back,’ as it were a deposit : not so mucha brachy- logy as a pregnant statement, ‘he shall receive back ὃ ἠδίκησε in the form of just retribution,’ Winer, Gr. § 66. τ. Ὁ, p. 547 (ed. 6). The future refers to the day of final retribution ; see on Eph. vi. 8. προσωπο- Anphia] ‘respect of persons ; see notes on Gal, ii. 6, and on the (Alexandrian) insertion of « Tisch. Prolegom. p. xx. In the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 9, mapa αὐτῷ (Rom. 11. 11, ix. T4,) 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 (Lat. in) of the 192 COLOSSIANS _ IV. 1, 2. £Ve Os κύριοι; τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις , θ ὃ , ΡΟ i € a + Kd ς Ε rn TAPEXET €, ELOOTES OTL Καί UME EXETE υρίιον εν ουρᾶνῳ. Pray for us and for our success in the - Ty προσευχῆ προσκαρτερεῖτε, ὙΡΉΞ Gospel. Walk wisely, speak to the point, and be ready to answer them that ask. quality alluded to ; comp. Matth. Gr. § 588. b. CuHapTer IV. 1. Ot κύριοι] The duties of masters are here enunciated on the positive side; in the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 9, the addition, ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν, defines also the negative side. τὴν ἰσότητα] ‘equity.’ The association of this word with τὸ δίκαιον and the undoubted oc- currence of it in a similar sense else- where, (see Philo, de Just., § 4, Vol. 11. p- 363 (ed. Mang.), and esp. ὃ 14, ib. p. 374, where it is termed the μήτηρ δικαιοσύνηΞ5) seem fully to justify the more derivative meaning adopted above: so Syr., Vulg., Ath. (Pol.), appy. Copt., and distinctly Chrys., and the Greek commentators ; ἐκάλεσε THY προσήκουσαν ἐπιμέλειαν, Theod.: so De W., Neand. (Planting, Vol. 1. p. 488), Alf., and the majority of modern expositors. Meyer and after him Eadie (with modifications), con- tend for the more literal meaning ‘equality’ (2 Cor. viii. 13. 14, comp. Job xxxvi. 29), 7.6. the equality of condition in spiritual matters which Christianity brought with it ; comp. Philem. 16: so perhaps Goth. ibnassu [similitudinem ; cogn. with ‘ even’). This is ingenious and plausible, but, on account of the association with τὸ δίκαιον, not satisfactory. acase we may with some profit refer to the ancient Vv. and Greek com- mentators. Trapex eo Oe | ‘supply on your side ;’ Acta; Bik, ga). Tit. ii.. .7; elsewhere in the N. T. of the middle voice, ἰσότητα In such middle, active In this form some- what conveniently termed by Kriiger (Spracht. § 52. 8) the ‘dynamic’ middle, the reference to the powers put forth by the subject is more dis- tinct than in the act., which simply the action. Such delicate shades of meaning can searcely be ex- pressed in translation, but no less exist; see esp. Kriiger, l.c., where this verb is particularly noticed, and Kuster, de Verb. Med. § 49. The ditference appears to have been par- tially appreciated by Ammonius, in his too narrow distinction, παρέχειν states μὲν λέγεται τὰ διὰ χειρὸς διδόμενα, παρέχεσθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς διαθεσέων, οἷον προθυμίαν, εὔνοιαν [but see Acts xxviil. 2, al.], de Diff. Voce. p- 108 (ed. Valck.). εἴδοτες K.T.A.] ‘seeing ye know that ye also ;’ causal participle, as in ch. 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, Theoph. The reading in the last word of the verse is not quite certain ; Rec. with good uncial autho- rity[ DEFGJK] reads οὐρανοῖς, but not without suspicion, on account of the parallel passage, Eph. vi. 9. The singular is found in ABC; al.(Lachm., Tisch.) 2. TH προσευχῇ poo. | ‘continue instant in your prayer ; Rom. xii. 12, Acts i. I4. occurs several times in the N.T., and in the majority of cases, as here, with a dat., in which combination it appears to denote an earnest adherence and attention, whether to a person (Acts The verb προσκαρτερεῖν vill. 13), or thing ; προσκαρ. τῇ προσ- εὐχῇ, ws περί τινος ἐπιπόνου, Chrys. It is found in the LX X (Num. xiii. 21, COLOSSIANS | IV. 2, 3. γορουντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, 199 , / > προσευχόμενοι ἅμα \ Ms Ὁ “A 6 e Θ \ 3 Υ͂ ἘΠ κα , lal , καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ Oeos ἀνοίξη ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λογου: λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι, absolutely), and in Polvb. (Hist. τ. 55. 4, I. 59. 12, al.) both absolutely and with a dat. rei or persone. yenyopotvres ἐν αὐτῇ] ‘being watch- ful mut, modal clause to προσκαρ- Tepe: they were not to be dull and heavy in this great duty, but wakeful and active; comp. Eph. vi. 18, 1 Pet. iv. 7. Ἔν is here not instrumental (De W.), 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 the participle, and as in Eph. vi. 18 (see notes) specifies the particular accompaniment, or concomitant act with whch 7 προσ. was to be associated ; τουτέστι μετὰ εὐχαριστίας ταύτην ποιοῦντες, Theoph. This not uncommon use οἵ ἐν in the N. T. (ἐν adjunctive) to denote an attendant act, element, or circum- stance, has scarcely received 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 εὐχαρι- στία see notes on ch. 111. 15, and on Phil. iv. 6. 3. Kal περὶ ἡμῶν] ‘for us also ;’ scil. for the Apostle and Timothy, not for the Apostle alone (Chrys., Theoph,): the change to the singular in the last clause of the verse (δέδεμαι) would otherwise seem pointless; see notes on ch. i. 3. On the almost in- terchangeable meanings of περὶ and ὑπὲρ in this and similar formule, see notes on Phil.i. 7, and on Eph. vi. 19. ἵνα «.t.A.] Subject of the prayer blended with the purpose of making it : secondary-telic use of iva ; see notes on Phil. i. 9, and on Eph, i. 17. ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν K.7.A.] ‘may open to us ὦ door of the word, ὁ.6. remove any obstacle to the preaching of the Gospel. The θύρα is thus not exactly εἴσοδος καὶ παῤῥησία (Chrys., Gicum.), but involves a figurative represen- tation of obstructions and impedi- ments that barred the way to preach- ing the Gospel, which were removed when the θύρα was opened; comp. Acts iv. 77, 1 Cor? xvi. Ὁ, 2u€@or. i 12, Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 1415, and exx. in Wetst. on 1 Cor. L.c. λαλῆσαι] Infin. of purpose and in- tention ; see notes on ch. i. 23, where this construction is discussed. On the meaning and derivation of λαλεῖν, ‘vyocem ore emittere,’ see notes on Tit. li. 1, and on the distinction be- tween λαλεῖν (τὸ τεταγμένως προφέρε- σθαι τὸν λόγον) and λέγειν (τὸ ἀτάκτως ἐκφέρειν τὰ ὑποπίπτοντα ῥήματα), ---ἃ distinction, however, which cannot be always maintained in the N.T., see Ammonius, Diff. Voc. p. 87 (ed. Valck.). μυστήριον τοῦ Xp.| ‘the mystery of Christ; not ‘the mystery relating to Christ,’ gen. objectti (De W., comp. Eph. i. 9), but gen. subjecti, ‘the mystery of which He is the sum and substance ;’ see notes on Eph. iii. 4, and comp. on Col. ii. 2. On the meaning of μυστή- ptov, see on Eph. v. 32, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 9, Vol. τι. p. 89. δι᾿ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι}] ‘for which I have also been bound, ‘which I have preached even μέχρι δεσμῶν᾽ (2 Tim. ii. 9), the ascensive καὶ marking the extreme to which he had proceeded in his evangelical labours: he had en- dured privations and sufferings, and now beside that, bonds. The perf. δέδεμαι (‘I have been and am bound’ oO 194 ‘ a A 4 ἵνα φανερώσω αὐτὸ ws δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. COLOSSIANS IV. 4, 5. 5 Ἔν σοφίᾳ an 3 ἡ TEPLTATELTE πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω, τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι. seems clearly to evince that the Apo- stle was now in captivity: that this was at Rome, not at Caesarea (Mey. Finl. p. 5), is satisfactorily shown by Alford, Prolegom. p. 20 sq. compared with p. 39. The reading δι’ ὅν, adopted by Lachm. with BFG ; Boern., has not sufficient external support. 4. ἵνα φανερώσω] ‘in order that I may make it manifest.’ It is some- what doubtful whether this telic clause depends (a) on δέδεμαι, Chrys., Beng., al.; comp. Phil. i. 12, 2 Tim. ii. 9; (Ὁ) on προσευχόμενοι, De W., Baumg. Crus., al.; or (c) on the pre- ceding telic clause in ver. 3, ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν κιτ.λ., Huth., and, in effect, Mey. Of these (a) involves a para- doxical assertion, which here, without any further explanation or expansion, seems somewhat ἀπροσδόκητον and out of place: (Ὁ) impairs the con- tinuity of the sentence, and puts a prayer referring to subjective capa- bilities in somewhat awkward paral- lelism with one for the removal of objective hindrances: (c) on the con- trary, keeps up the continuity, and carries out with proper modal addi- tions (ὡς de? με λαλῆσαι) the λαλῆσαι which was the object involved in the prayer ; ἀπαλλαγῶ τῶν δεσμῶν, GAN ὅπως λαλήσω τὸ μυστή- ριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Theoph. ὡς Set με λαλῆσαι) ‘as J ought to speak ;’ so, but with a slightly diffe- rent reference, Eph. vi. 20. This was not to be μετὰ πολλῆς THs παῤ- pnolas καὶ μηδὲν ὑποστειλάμενον (Chrys.), while in prison, nor with any subjective reference to his inward duty (Daven., Hammond), but, as the previous ἀνοίξῃ θύραν seems to suggest, simply and objectively, ‘as οὐχ ὅπως I ought to do it (scil. freely and un- restrainedly) so as best to advance and further the Gospel.’ While dede- μένος he could not λαλῆσαι ws ἔδει αὐτὸν λαλῆσαι: see Meyer im loc. Eadie unites both the subjective and objective reference: the phrase is confessedly general, still the context seems to point, mainly and principally, if not exclusively, to the latter. 5. ἐν σοφίᾳ] ‘in wisdom ; element and sphere in which they were to walk, Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346: μηδεμίαν αὐτοῖς πρόφασιν δίδοτε βλά- βης, πάντα ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτῶν μηχανᾶσθε σωτηρίας, Theod. On the meaning of σοφία, not merely ‘prudence,’ but practical Christian wisdom, comp. 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. v. 12, 13, 1 Thess. iv. 13 5 see Keypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 198, and notes on I Tim. iii. 7. The prep. πρός, both here and 1 Thess. ζ.6., marks the ‘social relation (Mey.) in which they were to stand with οἱ ἔξω, the proper meaning of ‘ ethical direction toward’ (Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. h, p. 360) being still distinctly apparent. For exx. of this use of πρός, see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 265, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. I. 2, Vol. ΤΠ, p. 1157, where this prep. is extremely well discussed. τὸν καιρὸν éfay.] ‘buying up for yourselves the (fitting) season ,᾿ see on Eph. v. 16, where this formula is in- vestigated at length. The exhortation in this verse is extremely similar to that in Eph. v. 15, 16, except only that the precepts expressed there in a negative, are here expressed in a posi- twe, form. The reason for the present COLOSSIANS IV. 6, 7. 6 195 e , e A , ς , of - , ο λόγος ULWV πάντοτε EV χάριτι. αλατι ἡρτυμενος- δέ - ὃ ἀφ, “ eae , Ε , θ ELOEVAL πῶς Οοει ὑμας EVEL EKAT TW AT OK OLVET al. You will learn my state and all matters and Onesimus. \ , ’ ἔς ἴα 7 Ta κατ᾽ ἐμὲ σαντα γνωρισει υμιν . 4 A here from Tychicus Τύχικος ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς Kal TWloTOS clause is there specifically noticed, ὅτι αἱ ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν : here nothing more is stated than a general precept (ἐν 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 every opportunity of obeying the command. 6. ὃ λόγος ὑμῶν] ‘ your speech,’ not only generally, but as the close of the verse shows, more especially πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. ἐν χάριτι] ‘with grace,’ 5011, ἔστω: χάρις was to be the ele- ment im which, or perhaps the garb with which the λόγος was to be in- vested ; χάρις was to be the ‘habitus orationis ;᾿ comp. notes on τ Tim. i. 18. ἅλατι ἠρτυμ.] “ sea- soned with salt; further specification. Their discourse was not to be profit- less and insipid but, as food is seasoned with salt to make it agreeable to the palate, 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. τι. p. 181. An in- direct caution and antithetical ref. to λόγος campos (‘ne quid putridi sub- sit,’ Beng., comp. Chrys.) is plausible (comp. Eph. iv. 29 sq.), but not in ac- cordance with πῶς δεῖ ἀποκρίνεσθαι, which points to λόγος under forms in which σαπρότης could scarcely have been intruded. The later classical use of ἅλς, ‘sal, sales, salinze,’ seems here out of place. On the later form ἅλας, see Buttm. Gramm. Vol. 1. p. 227. εἰδέναι] ‘to know,’ 1.6. ‘so that you may know ; loosely appended infin. expressive of consequence ; comp. Mad- vig, Gr. 8143, rem. For exx. of this ‘infin. epexegeticus,’ which is more usually found in clauses expressive of purpose or intention (gee on ch. 1. 22), but is also found in laxer combina- tions (Acts xv. 10, Heb. v. 5), see Winer, Gr. § 44. I, p. 284. πῶς Set ἀποκρ.] ‘how you ought to return answer ;’? the πῶς embracing all the various forms of answer which the occasion might require. The Apostle further adds, not without significance, ἑνὲ ἑκάστῳ ; each indivi- dual, whether putting his questions from malice or ignorance, sincerity or insincerity, was separately to receive the appropriate answer to his inquiry ; comp. I Pet. iii. 15. The context, as Mey. observes, seems to limit the pre- sent reference to the intercourse of Christians with non-Christians, though the command has obviously an uni- versal application: Chrys. notices the case of the Apostle at Athens; Meyer 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 Eph. vi. 21, and on the force of κατὰ in this collocation, notes on Phil. i. 12. Τύχικος] not Τυχικός, Mill, Griesd. 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 ref. to the Christian com- munity, a πιστὸς διάκονος in ref. to his missionary services to St. Paul (not in the ministry generally, Alf.), and oO 2 196 διάκονος Kat σύνδουλος ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὃ COLOSSIANS IV. 7—o. a + Ἁ ον ἔπεμψα προς ΄ Ε] cM ἢ “ ~ A ὃ. ue ~ 4 , ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο; ἵνα γνῷ Ta περὶ ὑμῶν καὶ παρακαλέση A , ε “ τας καρδίας υμῶὼν9 9 A Ὀ , ΄σ la A Ε] συν νήσιμῳ τῷ πιστῷ Kal aya- aoe ete) ἴω Φ 9 5 e A , ee - πήτῳ ἀδελφῷ, OS εστιν ἐξ υμῶων' πάντα ὑμὶν γνωριουσιν τὸ ὧδε. further, with a graceful allusion to similarity of duties, a σύνδουλος ἐν Kuplw, a co-operator with, and coad- jutor of the Apostle in the service of the same Master ; compare notes on Eph. vi. 21. ἐν Κυρίῳ] may be associated with all three de- signations (De W., comp. Eph. J/.c.), or with the two last (Mey.), or with σύνδουλος (ΖΦ. [Pol.], and perhaps Syr.) As the two former have defin- ing epithets, perhaps the last connex- ion is slightly the most probable. 8. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] ‘for this very purpose, viz., as further defined and expanded in the following clause, ‘that he should gain a knowledge of of your state, and comfort you.’ On the ref. of αὐτὸ τοῦτο to what follows, comp. Eph. vi. 22, Phil. i. 6, and notes inloc. The reading is doubtful. Griesb. and Lachm. read γνῶτε and ἡμῶν, with ABD*FG; to mss.; Clarom., Aith. (both Pol. and Platt) ; Theod. (text), al., to which Mey. adds the ‘paradiplomatic’ argument (Pref. to Gal. p. xvi.) that TE might have been dropped before TA. The text (Rec., Tisch.) is found in CD***EJK ; great majority of mss., and (what is very important), Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt., Goth. ; Chrys., Theod. (comm.), al. The weight of uncial authority is clearly in favour of γνῶτε, still the distinct preponderance of Vv., and the probability of a conformation to Eph. vi. 22, induce us to retain the reading of Tisch. ; so De W. and Alf. παρακαλέσῃ] ‘comfort ;’ in reference to their own state; δείκνυσι δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐν πειρασμοῖς ὄντας, Kal παρακλήσεως δεομένους, Theophyl.: according to the other reading the reference would be to St. Paul ; comp. on Eph. vi. 22. 9. σὺν ᾽᾿Ονησίμῳ] ‘with Onesimus,’ scil., ἔπεμψα. “There seems no reason to doubt (Calv.) 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, Ephes. § 1, as affirmed by Ado (ap. Usuard. Martyrol. Ῥ. 272, ed. Soll.), is very doubtful ; see Pearson Vind. Ign. τι. 8, p. 463 (A. C. Libr.), The name was not un- common, added to which the tradition of the Greek Church (Const. Apost. vil. 46) represents the ‘ Onesimus Philemonis’ to have been Bishop of Bercea in Macedonia; comp. Winer, RWB. Vol. τι. p. 175. There appear to have been two at least of this name in the early martyrologies, the legend- ary notices of whose lives have been mixed up together; see Acta Sanct, Feb. 16, Vol. I. p. 855, sq. bs ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν] ‘who is of you,’ ‘who belongs to your city.’ This ad- dition seems to have been made not to indirectly honour and praise the Colos- sians (iva καὶ ἐγκαλλωπίζωνται ὡς τοιοῦτον προενεγκόντες, Theoph.), but to commend the tidings and the joint- bearer of them still more to their at- tention. τὰ ὧδε] ‘ the things here, the matters here at Rome, of which τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, ver 7, would form the principal portion, The addition COLOSSIANS ΤΥ. to. Aristarchus, and others, and your faithful Epa- phras salute you. In- terchange epistles with 197 10 "AoraCerar ὑμᾶς ᾿Αρίσταρχος ὃ , , A Ma ε κι συναιχμαλωτὸς μου, καὶ Μάρκος ὁ ἀνε- the church of Laodicea, Tell Archippus to be diligent, πραττόμενα [FG; Vulg., Clarom. ; Lat. Ff. ] is a self-evident gloss. το. *Apiorapxos] A native of Thessalonica (Acts xx. 4), who ac- companied St. Paul on his third mis- sionary 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 at- tendant on him (see below) or a fellow sufferer. According to some tradi- tions of the Greek Church he is said to have been Bishop of Apamea in Phrygia: according to the Roman martyrologies, Bishop of Thessalo- nica; see Martyrol. Rom. p. 343 (Antwerp, 1589), Acta Sanct. Aug. 4, Vol. 1. p. 313. In the Menol. Grec. (April 15, Vol. 111. 57) he is said to have been one of the 70 disciples. ὃ συναιχμάλωτός μου] ‘my fellow- prisoner. It is certainly singular that in the Ep. to Philemon, written so closely at the same time with the present Ep., 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 solu- tions ; either that their positions had become interchanged by the results of some actual trial, or that their cap- tivity was voluntary, and that they took their turns in sharing the Apostle’s captivity, and in minister- ing to him in his bonds. The latter solution, which is that of Fritz. (Rom. Vol. I. p. xxi., followed by Mey.), seems the most natural; comp. also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 417, note. To regard the term as semi-titular, and as referring to a bygone captivity (Steiger, comp. Rom. xvi. 7), does not seem satisfactory. The term is slightly noticeable (‘ designat hasta superatum et captum,’ Daven.), as carrying out the metaphor of the soldier of Christ ; comp. Mey. in loc. Mapkos] Almost certainly the same with John Mark the son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), whom St. Paul and St. Barnabas took with them on their first missionary journey, who left them when in Pamphylia, and who was afterwards the cause of the con- tention between the Apostle and St. Barnabas (Acts xv. 39); comp. Blunt, Veracity of Evang. ὃ xxtv, where the connexion between John Mark and St. Barnabas, and esp. the history of the latter, is ably elucidated. There seems no reason for doubting (Grot., Kienlen, Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 423 sq.) that he was identical with St. Mark the Evangelist; see Meyer, Einleit 2. Evang. d. Markus, p. 2, Fritz. Proleg. in Mare. p. 24. Ac- cording to ecclesiastical tradition, St. Mark was first Bishop of Alexandria, and suffered martyrdom there; see Acta Sanct. April 25, Vol. m1. p. 344. ἀνεψιός] ‘cousin, ἦτ ‘2, [Numb. xxxvi. 11, ἀνεψιοί. τῶν ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, Ammon. Voc. Dif. 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 ἀνεψιός is well discussed. St. Mark was thus not the ‘ nephew’ (Auth., but ? see remarks in Transl.), but the ‘consobrinus’ (Vulg., Clarom.) the moO σι)» 5.29 (Syr.) of St. Barnabas ; see Υ exx. in Wetst. in loc. 198 COLOSSIANS — IV το, τι. ψιὸς BapvaBa, περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς (ἐὰν ἔλθη πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δέξασθε αὐτόν). ΤΙ καὶ ᾿ΙΪησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος ᾿Ιοῦστος; οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς: οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν μοι παρηγορία. ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς] ‘ye received com- mands ; what these were cannot be determined. The conjectural expla- nations,—messages from Barnabas (Chrys.), letters of commendation (‘literee formate’), either from St. Paul (Daven.) or the Church of Rome (Est.), &c., are very numerous, but do not any of them seem to deserve particular attention. To find in ἐὰν κιτ.Ὰ. the ‘summa illorum mandato- rum,’ Beng., is grammatically un- tenable; the person of the aor. pre- cludes the assumption of its use as an epistolary present. The parenthetical clause, however, so immediately fol- lowing the ἐλάβετε ἐντολὰς does cer- tainly seem to suggest that these ἐντο- Aal were of a commendatory nature ; comp. Wieseler, Chronol. p. 452, note. A few MSS. [D*FG; Syr., Arr.] read δέξασθαι, probably 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. 45, John iv. 45). The historical deduc- tion, founded on the use of the simple δέξασθε (contrast Acts xxi. 17), that St. Mark had not been in the neigh- bourhood of Colossz, and would not have been recognised as an assistant of St. Paul’s (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 567), seems not only precarious but improbable. ὁ 11. ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ dey. ᾿Ιοῦστος] Men- tioned only in this place; appy. not identical with Justus of Corinth (Acts xviii. 7). Tradition represents him as afterwards bishop of Eleutheropolis. ‘ol ὄντες ἐκ περιτ. ‘who are of the circumcision ;’ participial predication in reference to the three preceding nouns. Meyer, Lachm., and Buttm. (ed. 1856) remove the stop after περιτομῆς, and regard the clause as in the nom. (‘per anacoluthon), instead of the more intelligible parti- tive gen. 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 men- tioned ; ‘ these only of that class are my helpers :’ comp. 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 éx retains its primary meaning of origin, comp. notes on Gal. iil. 7, and Fritz. on Rom. ii. 8, Vol. 1. p. 105. εἰς τὴν βασιλ.} ‘unto, towards, the kingdom of God - ‘adjuverunt Paulum ad regnum Messianum qui ei, quum homines idoneos redderet qui im illud regnum aliquando reciperentur, opi- tulati sunt,’ Fritz. Rom. xiv. 17, Vol. 11. p. 201. On the term βασι- λεία Θεοῦ, see an elaborate paper by Bauer (C. G.) in Comment. Theol. Part 11. p. 107—172, and Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 22, Vol. τι. Ὁ, 244. οἵτινες ἔγεν.} ‘men who have proved ;? the indefinite ὅστις being here used in what has been termed its classific sense, and pointing to the category to which the antecedents belong; see notes on Gal. ii. 4, iv. 24. The pas- sive form ἐγενήθ., condemned by Thom. M. p. 189 (ed. Bern.), and rejected by Phryn. p. 108 (ed. Lobeck), as a Doric inflexion, occurs COLOSSIANS IV. τῷ. 12 195 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Επαφρᾶς ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ~ , 9 , e A e ~ ’ A ᾿Ιησοῦ, TAVTOTE ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπερ ὑμῶν EV ταις προσεὺυ- an ef ζω , 4 χαι»ν ἐνα OTNTE τέλειοι Kal not uncommonly in the N.T. (notice- ably in 1 Thess.), sometimes perhaps with a slight tinge of passive mean- ing : the passive form, however, can- not safely be pressed ; comp. Buttm. Irreg. Verbs, p. 50. παρηγορία] ‘a comfort; an ἅπαξ Aeyou. in the N.T. but not un- common elsewhere, see the exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 330; add also Aisch. Agam. 95, where the term seems to involve a slightly medical allusion. The distinction of Beng. “ παραμυθία in meerore domestico, παρηγορία in forensi periculo,’ does not seem substantiated by lexical usage. Perhaps the only real distinc- tion is that παρηγορεῖν and its deriva- tives admit of physical and quasi- physical references which are not found with the more purely ethical παραμυθεῖσθαι; see the good lists of exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.vv. 12. ᾿᾽Ε'παφρᾶς] See notes on ch. i. 7; he is specified in the same way as Onesimus, as a native of Colosse. For the probable reason of the addi- tion, see notes on ver. 9. SotAos Xp. *Ino.] Meyer, and after him Alf., following Griesb. (who, how- ever, reads only Χριστοῦ), join these words with ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν : this certainly seems unnecessary, the title δοῦλος "Ino. Xp. is quite of sufficient weight and importance to stand alone as a title of honour and distinction ; so appy. Copt., as it inserts the def. art. before δοῦλος. In Ath. (Polygl.) the position of the pronoun of the 3rd. pers. [appy. here for the verb subst., Ludolfi, Gr. p. 135] might seem in favour of the other mode of punctua- tion; Syr. seems in favour of the text. The insertion of Ἰησοῦ after , 9 A πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν παντί “Χριστοῦ (Lachm., Tisch.) has good critical support [ABCJ; τὸ mss.; Vulg., Copt., Arm.] and is rightly adopted by most modern editors. ἀγωνιζόμενος] “ striving earnestly ? comp. Rom. xv. 30, where the com- pound συνάγων. occurs in a similar con- text ; comp. ch. 11. 1, and notes 7 loc. ἵνα στῆτε] ‘that ye may stand fast ;’ purpose of the ἀγωνιζόμενος, the more emphatic ἀγωνιζόμ. ἐν mpocevx. (not merely προσευχόμενος) not requiring any dilution of the usual telic force of wa; comp. notes on Eph. i. τῇ. Στῆναι has here, as in Eph. vi. 11, 13, al., the meaning of standing jirm and unshaken amidst trials and dangers (see notes on Eph. ll, cc.), and is more nearly defined by the following adjec- tives and their associated semi-local predication ἐν πάντι θελήματι. τέλειον καὶ πεπληροφ.} ‘perfect and fully assured ; secondary predicates of manner (Donalds. Cratyl. § 303), the first referring to their maturity and perfectness (ch. i. 28, Eph. iv. 13), the second to their firm persua- sion, and the absence of all doubtful- ness or scrupulosity. On the dis- tinction between τέλειος and ὁλόκληρος (‘omnibus numeris absolutus’), see Trench, Synon. ὃ XXII, and between τέλ. and ἄρτιος, notes on 2 Tim. iii. 17. Thereading πεπληροῴ. is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. [with ABCD* FG ; 6 mss.], and both on external and on internal grounds is to be pre- ferred to πεπληρωμένοι (Rec.) ἐν πάντι θελήματι] ‘in every (mani- festation of the) will of God,’ ἐ.6. ‘in everything which God willeth’ (Winer, Gr. ὃ 18. 4, p. 1ο1) which though not grammatically, yet in common usage becomes equivalent to, ‘in all the will 200 θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. COLOSSIANS IV. 1r2—r4. 13 a Ya IT ὅτι ἔχει μαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ὅτι eX \ , A “ Q A ’ ’ A a > πολυν TOVOV ὑπερ ὑμῶν καὶ “iwDy ey Λαοδικείᾳ KQL TWV EV “Ἱεραπόλει. of God,’ Auth. It is doubtful whether these words are to be joined with the finite verb (Mey., Alf. ; comp. Rom. v. 2, 1 Cor. 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 πληροφορία was to be evinced and find its realiza- tion; so Chrys., Theoph., and perhaps Copt., Goth., who even with πεπλη- ρωμένοι (comp. on Eph. vy. 18) con- nect ἐν πάντι θελ. with the secondary predicates. The Vv., however, in such cases cannot be appealed to with confidence, as they commonly pre- serve the ambiguous order of the original. 13. μαρτυρῶ γάρ] Confirmatory (yap) testimony to the earnestness and activity of Epaphras. πολὺν πόνον] ‘much labour; not such as that which attends a combat (Eadie), but as its etymological affinities [con- nected with πένομαι, and probably derived from s11A-, see Benfey, Wur- zellec. Vol. τι. p. 360] seem to sug- gest, such as implies a putting forth all one’s strength (intentio); comp. Suid. πόνος" σπουδή, ἐπίτασις. The word is rare in the N.T., only here and Rev. xvi. Io, 11, xxi. 4. This may account for the variety of read- ing; κόπον, D*FG; fHr\ov, D***E JK (hee.). The text is supported by ABC; 80; Copt. (emkah), and in- directly by D*FG : so Lachm., Tisch. «Λαοδικείᾳ] For a brief notice of this city, see notes on ch, ii. 1. “Ἱεραπόλει] An important city of Phrygia, about twenty English miles NNW. (surely not ‘ éstlich,’ Winer) of Colossz, celebrated for its mineral springs, and a mephitic cavern called , a σ΄ π΄ Ν τῶν. 4 ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς 6 ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγα- Plutonium, which was appy. con nected with the worship of the ‘Magna Mater ; see Strabo, Geogr. XIII. 4. 14 (ed. Kramer), Pliny, Hist. Nat. 1. 93 (ed. Sillig). The site of Hierapolis appears to have been close to the modern Pambuk- Kulasi, round which extensive ruins are still to be traced ; see Forbiger, Alt. Geograph. Vol. m1. p. 348, 349, Arundell, Seven Churches, Ὁ. 79 sq., ib. Asia Minor, Vol. 11. p. 200 sq., and a good article in Kitto’s Bibl. Cyclop. Vol. τι. p. 848. It is curious that this city should appy. have been left un- noticed in Pauly, Real-Hncycl. 14. Λουκᾶς] The Evangelist, who according to ancient tradition (Ire- neus, Her. Il. 14. 1, ‘creditus est referre nobis evangelium’) has been regarded identical with the ἰατρὸς ἀγαπητὸς here mentioned. The tra- dition that he was a painter (Nice- phor. Hist. Eccl. 11. 13) is late and — untrustworthy. There seem no ety- mological grounds whatever for iden- tifying him further with the Lucius mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21 (Orig.): 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. II. The addition ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς may possibly have been in- tended to distinguish the Evangelist 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). Anpas] Mentioned as one of the Apostle’s συνεργοί (Philem. 24), but too well remembered as having de- COLOSSIANS πητὸς καὶ Anpas. IV. τ4----τ6. 201 ΕῚ ’ A ° , 15 ἀσπασασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ lal A > 9 aA ἀδελφοὺς καὶ Νυμφᾶν καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν. - 3 16 καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῆ παρ serted him in the hour of need ; see notes on 2 Tim. iv. το. Whether the omission of a title of honour or affec- tion is accidental, or owing to his having already shown symptoms of the defection which he was afterwards guilty of (Mey.), cannot be determined. The latter does not seem improbable, especially as he here occupies the last place in the enumeration ; contrast Philem. 24. 15. kal Νυμφᾶν] them) Nymphas,’ καὶ being here used to add the special to the general (see notes on Eph. v. 18, vi. 19), and to particularize Nymphas, who appy. belonged to Laodicea and, as the fol- lowing words seem to show, was a person of some importance ; dpa γοῦν πῶς δείκνυσι μέγαν Tov ἄνδρα, Chrys., —who, however, adds too restrictively, ‘and (among εἴ ye ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησία ; comp. notes on Philem.2. The repetition of the more generic τῇ Aaod. ἐκκλ. in verse 16 would seem to show that the church in the house of Nymphas did not comprehend all the Christians of Laodicea. The form Νύμφας (Lachm., Butim., with B**) is not correct; the last syllable is circumflexed, and marks a probable contraction from Nymphodorus (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vit. 2), aS ᾿Ολυμπᾶς (Rom. xvi. 15) from Olympiodorus, Ζηνᾶς (Tit. iii. £3) from Zenodorus ; comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. II, p. 309. κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτοῦ] So Rom. xvi. 5, in reference to Prisca and Aquila, who had also at Corinth (x Cor. xvi. 19) devoted their house to a similar righteous use; comp. on Philem. 2, and see esp. Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 151, note (Bohn). The reading is some- what doubtful. The text is supported e a e τὰ , , UMLY ἡ ἐπιστολή, ποιήσατε DEFGJK ; great majority 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 difficult 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 Nymphas. If αὐτῶν be adopted (Mey., Alf.), then the plural must be referred to ‘ Nymphas and his family,’ involved κατὰ σύνεσιν in the preceding substantive; see Jelf Gr. § 379. b, comp. Winer, Gr. δ. 22. 3, p. 132. Lachm. reads αὐτῆς, but on authority [B; 67**] mani- festly insufficient. 16. ἡ ἐπιστολή] ‘the (present) letter comp. Rom. xvi. 22,1 Thess. v. 27. Several cursive mss. add αὐτή, but quite unnecessarily ; see Winer, Gr § 18. 15. pa 97: ποιήσατε ἵνα] ‘cause that; a for- mula of later Greek (John xi. 37, comp. Rey. iii. 9), though not without parallel in the ποιεῖν ὅπως (Jelf, Gir. § 666, obs.) of the classical writers. The proper force of ἵνα, though weakened and somewhat approximat- ing to the lax use of τοῦ with the inf. after ποιεῖν (Acts iii. 12, Josh. xxii. 26, al.), is not wholly lost ; see Winer, Gr. §:44. δ᾽ We 308. τὴν ἐκ Aaod.] ‘that from Laodiced,’ not vy =x ~ Υ vy ~ bee -3ῷ A>l52}> [que ΓΝ scripta est ex Laodicensibus] Syr.,— but corrected in Philox., or ‘quam scripsi ex Laod.’ Auth. (comp. Theod.), but with the usual and proper force of the preposition, ‘that out of Laodicea,’ ‘ Ρ oei ist us Laud.,’ Goth., ‘ebolchen Laod.’ Copt.,—two prepp. 202 COLOSSIANS. IV. τό, 17. 4 ϑ a , 5» , ς o 4 4 , ἵνα καὶ ev TH Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῆ, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Υ͂ [νὴ A ε a 9 A Λαοδικείας wa Και υμεις aAVaAYVWTE. 17 καὶ εἴπατε ᾿Αρ- χίππῳ Βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἵνα ς A a αὐτὴν πληροῖς. being really involved 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 un- common attraction, alone expressed ; comp. Luke ix. 61, xi. 13, and see Winer, Gr. § 66. 6, p. 553, Jelf, Gr. § 647. a. The real difficulty is to de- termine what letter is here referred to- Setting aside attempts to identify it with the rst Ep. to Tim. (Theophyl.), the 1st Ep. of St. John (Lightf.), the Ep. to Philemon—an essentially private letter (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 452), two opinions deserve considera- tion ;—(a) that it is the Epistle to the Ephesians; (0) that it is a lost Epistle. For (a) we have the simi- larity of contents, and the probability, from the absence of greetings and local allusions, that the Ep. to the Ephe- sians was designed for other readers than those to whom it was primarily addressed. Against it the great im- probability that the Apostle should know that his Ep. to the Eph. 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 probable circumstance that Tychicus might have been the bearer of the two letters to the two neigh- bouring cities, leaving that to Laodicea first, with orders for the interchange, and then continuing his journey. Against it there is‘the ὦ priori impro- bability that a letter which, from its apparent 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, Mey.), should have been lost to the Church of Christ. The fact that the 4 orthodox early Church (comp. Jones, on Canon, Part 11. 6) does not seem to have ever acquiesced in (b) makes the decision very difficult; as, how- ever, 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 farther destination than to the churches dependent on Ephesus. (see crit. note on Eph. i. 1), —as- there does scem a trace of another lost Ep. (1 Cor. v. 9),—as the close neighbourhood of Colosse and Lao- dicea might prepare us to admit a great similarity in contents, and con- sequently a very partial loss to the Church,—and lastly, as a priori argu- ments on such subjects are always to be viewed with some suspicion, we decide in favour of (Ὁ) and believe that an actual Ep. to the Laodiceans - is here alluded to, which, possibly from its close similarity to its sister- Epistle, it has not pleased God to preserve to us: see Meyer, Linl. z. Eph. p. 9 8q., where the question is fairly argued. The forged Ep. to the Laodiceans de- serves no notice, being a mere cento out of St. Paul’s Epp.; see Jones on Canon, Part τη. 6. 17. ᾿Αρχίππῳ] A church officer of Colosse, not of Laodiceea (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 452, comp. Const. A post. vit. 46), possibly an instructor (Theod. Philem. 2), but more probably a friend (Chrys., Theophyl. ib.) of the house- hold of Philemon,—if, indeed, on account of the position of Arch. in the salutation (Philem. 2), not more nearly related (comp. Olsh.). What the διακονία of Archippus was, cannot be determined ; that he was ἃ διάκο- COLOSSIANS _ IV. 18. Autograph salutation and benediction. , , ~ A μνημονεύετε μου τῶν δεσμῶν. vos in the literal meaning, does not seem improbable. Tradition repre- sents him to have suffered martyrdom at Chone; see Menolog. Grecum, Nov. 23, Vol. 1. p. 206. A brief notice will also be found in the Acta Sanctorum, March 20, Vol. m1. p. 82. On the somewhat unusual (Ionic) form εἴπατε (Matth. x. 27, xxi. 5), see Winer,,Gr.§ 15, p. 78. βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν] ‘sce to, take heed to, the ministry ; somewhat too strongly Syr., Vv 302}] [diligens esto], though rightly preserving the construction: for exx. of this meaning of βλέπειν see Elsner, Obs. Vol. If. p. 272, and comp. on Eph. v.15. Grot. and others assume here a Hebraistic inversion for βλέπε iva m\np.,—a needless violation of the order of the words and the more usual meaning of iva; the object of the βλέπειν τὴν διακονίαν on the part of Archippus was to be ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖ; comp. 2 John 8, and notes on Gal. iv. τι. Theexpression πληροῦν διακονίαν occurs again Acts xii. 25 ; see exx. in Raphel, Annof. Vol. I. p. 538, Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 331, and Wetst. ὧν loc. παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘ didst receive in the Lord ; not ‘per Dominum,’ Daven., nor ‘se- cundum Domini precepta,’ Grot., but as always, ‘in Domino,’ Vulg., Clarom., al. The Lord was, as it were, the sphere in which he had received his διακονία, and out of which it found no 209 τ Ὃ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου. ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. place ; see notes on Eph. iv. 16, vi. τ, Phil. ii, 19, and elsewhere. The ad- dition, as Meyer well observes, still more enhances the obligation of Ar- chippus to fulfil a διακονία so received. 18. ὁ ἀσπασμὸς k.7.A.] Autograph salutation of the Apostle, to attest the authenticity of the document (2 Thess. lil. 17, contrasted with ib. ch. ii. 2) ; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, and notes on Gal. vi. τι. The gen. Παύλου is in apposition to the personal pronoun in- volved in ἐμῇ ; see exx. in Jelf, Gr. § 467. 4. μνημονεύετε μοῦ τῶν δεσμῶν] ‘ REMEMBER MY BONDS.’ A touching exhortation speaking vi- vidly to the hearts of his readers, and breathing patience, love, and encour- agement; μεγίστη δὲ παράκλησις αὐτοῖς εἰς πᾶσαν θλίψιν τὸ μνημονεύειν Παύλου δεδεμένου, Theoph., comp. Chrys. 'The remark of Eadie is just, that as the Apostle used his hand to write he felt his bonds yet more keenly, but he should have remem- bered, that it was (in all probability) not the left but the right hand that was bound to the soldier that guarded him; see Smith, Dict. Antiq. s.v. ‘Catena,’ p. 207. ἡ χάρις] ‘Grace,’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν ; see notes on Eph. vi. 24, and on the various mean- ings of χάρις, Waterl. Kuchar. x. Vol. Iv. p. 666. The ἀμὴν of Ree. is found in DEJK; Vv. and Ff., but is rightly rejected by modern editors on preponderant uncial authority. we elt aug ae eae: ay Be i ῸΓ hei Gl bia ©. ΩΝ THE EPISTLE PHILEMON. THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. CHAPTER TE ' Apostolic address and salutation. ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν I. δέσμιος Xp. ᾽Τησ.7 ‘a prisoner of Jesus Christ,’ ‘whom Christ Jesus and His cause have made a prisoner; gen. of the author of the captivity ; see Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 170 (ed. 6), and notes on βρῆ. iii. 1, 2 Tim. i. 8. Considering the subject of the Epistle no title could be more appropriate, or more feelingly prepare Philemon for the request which the Apostle is about to make tohim. On the titles adopted by St. Paul in his salutations, see notes on Phil. i. 1, and esp. on Col.i.1. καὶ Τιμόθεος] Associated with the Apostle in the same way as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1, each having a separate, and not as in Phil. i. 1 (comp. 1 and 2 Thess. i. 1), a common title; see notes on Phil. i. 1, and on Col. i. τ. The association of Timothy in a letter which has the character of a private communication was perhaps, as Chrys. suggests, ὥστε κἀκεῖνον ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἀξιούμενον μᾶλλον εἶξαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν χάριν. Φιλήμονι) Philemon was a member of the Church of Colosse (comp. Col. iv. 9), who owed his conversion to St. Paul (ver. 19), and who by his zeal in the Chris- tian cause (ver. 5), showed himself worthy of the consideration and re- ete δέσμιος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ι]ησοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς Φιλήμονι τῷ 2 καὶ ᾿Απφίᾳ TH ἀδελφῆ gard which the Apostle evinces to him in this Epistle. There does not seem any good ground for the opinion of Wieseler (Chronol. p. 452) that Phile- mon belonged to Laodicza ; his house at Colosszee was shown in the time of Theodoret (Argum. ad Phil.), and tra- dition (Const. Apost. viI. 46) repre- sents him as having been bishop of that city,—not of Laodicea, as Al- ford, Prolegom. p. 114. Inthe Menol. Grecum, Nov. 23, Vol. τ. p. 206, he is said to have suffered martyrdom with Archippus at Chone. συνεργῷ ἡμῶν} ‘our fellow-helper ;’ more special designation suggested by the zeal of Philemon for the Gospel. The gen. ἡμῶν, as the single article hints, belongs both to συνεργῷ and the verbal ἀγαπητῷ, comp. Rom. 1, 7. Both titles are dwelt upon by Chrys. and Theophyl.; the latter says, εἰ ἀγαπητός, δώσει τὴν χάριν" εἰ συνεργός, οὐ καθέξει τὸν δοῦλον ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀποστελεῖ πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν τοῦ κηρύγ- ματος. 2. ᾿Απφίᾳ] Most probably, as sug- gested by Chrys. and the Greek com- mentators, the wife of Philemon. If this be so, it is not improbable that Archippus may have been their son ; 208 PHILEMON 2-----4. A τοι ld f ’ eae οὗ “ ς > 90 Kal Αρχίππῳ TW OVVOTPATLWOTH μων. Καὶ TH KAT OLKOV 9 ’ 3 ’ ρ΄ ln κ an τ δος Θ es κι σου ἐκκλησίᾳ. χάρις υμιν Και εἰρηνή απτόὸο εου TAT pos =~ 4 , 3 ‘al a ἡμῶν καὶ Kupiov Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. A ~ “ ’ Τ theek God τὰς thy 4 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου, πάντοτε progress in faith, and ¢ ¢ : pray that it may prove beneficial to others : the proofs of thy love to the saints gladden me. 2. ἀδελφῇ] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with AD*E*FG ; 3 mss.; Clarom. Amit. Tol. Copt. Auth. (Platt); Hes., Hier. (Meyer). In his second edition Tisch. reverts to the reading of Rec. with D***E**JK ; nearly all mss.; Syr. (both, but Philox. with asterisk) ; Theod. Mops. (expressly), Chrys., Theod., al. The external authorities are thus very nearly balanced ; it does not, however, seem improbable that the supposed connexion between Philemon and Apphia might have led to the same title being applied to each. see notes on Col. iv. 17. The name ? Ardila, which in some mss. appears in the form ᾿Αππίᾳ (see Acts xxviii. 15), is the softened form of the Latin * Appia’ (Grot.). ᾿Αρχίππῳ] Supposed by Wieseler (Chronol. p. 452), but without sufficient reason, to have been of the church of Laodicea ; see notes on Col. iv. 17. He is here distinguished by the honourable title of συνστρατιώτης with the Apostle ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 3. On the Alexan- drian form cuvotp. see Winer, Gr. ὃ Bay Ῥ. 40; τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλ.} ‘the church in thy house ;’ not merely the household of Phile- mon, οὐδὲ δούλους παρῆκεν ἐνταῦθα, 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; comp. on Col. iv. 15, and Pearson, Creed, Art. Ix. Vol. I. p. 397. 3. χάρις ὑμῖν κιτ.λ.] Scil. εἴη, not ἔστω (Koch); see notes on Eph, i. 2: the regular form of salutation in St. Paul’s Epp. On the spiritual mean- ing of the blended form of address, see notes on Gal. i. 2, Eph. i. 2; add also on Phil.i. 1. Kal Κυρίου] Scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυρίου κιτ.λ. as ex- yo ~ pressly in Syr. p20 Te) [et a Domino]: the Socinian interpretation καὶ (πατρὸς) Kvplov seems very impro- bable ; see notes on Phil. i. 2. 4. εὐχαριστῶ) Usual eucharistic commencement in reference to the spiritual state of his convert; ‘a gra- tulatione more suo incipit,’ Calv.: see Rom. i. 9, 1 Cor. i. 4, and notes on Phil. i. 1, where this mode of address is briefly alluded to. For the meaning and uses of εὐχαριστεῖν (‘ gratias agere’) in earlier and later Greek, see notes on Col. i. 12. As in Rom. 1, 8, x Cor. 1, 4) eee the thanks are returned τῷ Θεῷ pov, to Him ‘ whose he was and whom he served’ (Acts xxvii. 23), a particula- rizing 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 labours ; comp. on Phil. i. 3. πάντοτε K.T.A. | Participial sentence, defining more closely both when the εὐχαριστία took place, and the circumstances under which it was offered to God; ‘nun- quam oro quin tui meminerim,’ Est. The adverb is here, as also in Phil. 1. 4, Col. i. 3, more naturally joined with the participle (Chrys., Theod.) PHILEMON 4, s. , “ A A A μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου: 209 5 , , QKOUW) 4 CR iY ‘ / A cy \ A ik σου τὴν αγαπην καὶ Τὴν TWlOTLVY HV EXELS προς τον υρίιον than with the preceding εὐχαριστῶ (Syr. Aith.), see notes on Phil. i. 4, where the reasons for a connexion with the participle are more distinct than in the present case. μνείαν σοῦ] ‘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. 317 E, and a little more strongly ib. Pheedr. 254 A), and, as Koch remarks, is an expansion of ἔχειν μνείαν τινος (theses. mi. 6. 2 Tim. i. 3), the ‘dynamic’ middle ποιεῖσθαι not being without its force and significance ; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8. 1 sq. 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., 561]. when engaged in offering them ; see Bernhardy, Synt. Vv. 23. a, p. 246, and notes on Eph. i. 16. 5. ἀκούων] ‘as 7 am hearing; causal participle (Donalds. Gr. § 616), giving the reason for the εὐχαριστῶ, or, perhaps, more exactly, the circum- stances which more especially led to its being offered ; τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς σοῖς κατορθώμασιν ἀνυμνῶ, Theod.: contrast Rom. i. 8, where evxap. is followed by the more definite ὅτι, and the causal sen- tence is expressed in a passive form. ἣν ἔχεις] ‘ which (faith) thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and dost evince toward all the saints.” There is some diffi- culty in these words. In the first place the reading is doubtful; Lachm., with ACD*E; 17. 137, reads εἰς τὸν Κύριον, and with DE; 1omss. ; Syr., al. inverts the etd of ice and πίστιν. Both, however, seem correc- tions suggested by the somewhat un- usual πίστις πρὸς Κύριον, and the apparently anomalous connexion 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 last ed. of his grammar (ὃ 50. 2, p. 365), according to which πίστις is taken as equiv. to ‘fidelity,’ and justified by Rom. iii. 3, Gal. v. 22, and Tit. ii. 3, 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 zn loc.), and in the third is associated 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 χιασμὸς Welf, Gr. § 904. 3) to εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, and τὴν πίστιν alone to τὸν Κύριον. Of these (a) does not seem tenable, as itis surely very improbable that, in combination with ἀγάπη, πίστις should revert to a meaning so very unusual, and in St. Paul’s Epp. so very feebly supported, as that of ‘ fidelitas.’ The second (ὦ), grammatically considered, is admissible (see Winer, Gr. § 50. 2, p- 365), but the distinctive ἣν ἔχεις (see Mey.) and the repetition of the art. with both substt. make it very un- plausible. In this difficulty a third view seems to deserve consi- deration according to which πίστις πρὸς τὸν Kip. =‘a faith directed to- wards the Lord’ (comp. 1 Thess. i. 8), in a purely spiritual reference, while πίστις εἰς πάντας κ.τ.λ.- ἃ faith evinced towards (erga) the Saints,’ with a more practical reference, scil. as shown in contributions to their necessities, —a meaning suggested to Ὥ 210 4 al 4 9 ’ 4 e , Ιησοῦν Kat Εἰ TAVTAS Τοὺς αγίους9 PHILEMON 5, 6. 6 ὁ e Ις οπῶς ἢ KOLYMVLA a 4 , Ψ 4 Ἁ τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς the reader by the preceding ἀγάπην, and conveyed by the studied preposi- tional interchange. The prepp. then substantially preserve the distinction alluded to in notes on Eph. iv. 12, Tit. i. I; πρὸς refers to a more remote, εἰς to a more immediate, application of the specified action, whether erga (2 Cor. viii. 24, 1 Pet. iv. 9), contra (Rom. viii. 7), or with a more neutral ref. (2 Cor. x. 1, Col. ili. 9) ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. a, p. 353. This seems also confirmed by etymology, for while in, εἰς (évs) incorporates the idea of locality, of having reached the place (comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 170), πρὸς primarily presents little more than the idea of simple motion for- wards ; see Donalds. 2b. § 169, 171. On the various constructions of πίστις and πιστεύω, see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. ἵν. 15; Vol. ΠΡ t29. 6. ὅπως] ‘in order that; depen- dent on εὐχαριστῶ, or perhaps more immediately on μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν, and conveying the object of the prayer (2 Thess. i. 12), perhaps slightly blended with the sub- ject of it ; εὔχομαι, φησίν, ἵνα ἡ Koww- vila τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται, Chrys., and more distinctly Theod., δέομαι καὶ ἀντιβολῶ τὸν κοινὸν εὐεργέ- την, τελείαν σοι δοῦναι τὴν κτῆσιν τῶν To give the particle an ‘ec- batic’ sense (Estius; comp. Tittm. Synon. Il. p. 55, 58), or to refer it to ver. 5 as giving the ‘tendency’ of ἣν ἔχεις (Beng., Meyer), is very unsatis- factory. It is singular that two such good commentators as Beng. and Mey. should agree in an interpretation so utterly pointless ; see Winer, Gir. ὃ 53. 6, p. 410. κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου] ‘communication of thy faith; 5011, ‘participation in thy ἀγαθῶν. faith enjoyed by others,’ πίστεως being not a gen. subjecti, but, as more com- monly (except with a personal pro- noun), a gen. objecti; comp. Phil. ii. I, iii. το, al. The clause thus serves to clear up, and indeed indirectly con- firm the interpretation of, the prece- ding πίστιν eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. The meaning assigned to κοινωνία by (Ecum., ἡ κοινὴ πίστις, ἣ κοινοποιός, ‘fides tua, quam communem nobis- cum habes’ (Beng.), or the more con- crete, ‘ beneficentia ex fide profecta’ (Estius, comp. Beza), do not seem in accordance with the use of κοινωνία in St. Paul’s Epp. when associated with a gen. rev; comp. notes on Phil, ii. τ. ἐνεργὴς γένηται] ‘might become ope- 7 Oo v a = Qo ρ rative,’ 501]. | Pet = [slo |>o1. [reddens fructus in operibus]Syr.; γίνε- Tat ἐνεργὴς ὅταν ἔργα ἔχῃ, Chrys. The translation ‘evidens,’ Vulg., ‘mani- festa,’ Clarom., appears to have arisen from a mistaken reading ἐναργής. ἐν ἐπιγνώσει πάντος ay.] ‘in the (complete) knowledge of every good thing ; sphere and element in which the ἐνέργεια was to be displayed (sce notes on Phil. i. 9), serving also in- directly to define the ‘modus ope- randi; πῶς δὲ ἔσται ἐνεργής ; διὰ τοῦ ἐπιγνῶναι σε καὶ πράττειν πᾶν ἀγαθόν, Cicum., who however unnecessarily in- troduces καὶ πράττειν, and incorrectly limits it to Philemon, whereas the previous interpretation of κοινωνία shows that the reference is to others, to the κοινωνοὶ τῆς πίστεώς gov; 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 ; comp. on Col. i. 9. τοῦ PHILEMON 6, 7. 211 7 χαρὰν γὰρ 4 “ A , 9 ON “ τ , (4 \ πολλὴν εσχον Και παράκλησιν €Tl TH AYATH TOV, OTL TA ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. σπλάγχνα τῶν ἁγίων ἀναπέπαυται διὰ σοῦ, ἀδελφέ. 7. χαράν] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, with ACDEFG ; to mss.; appy. all Vv.; Lat. Ff. (Griesb., Scholz, Mey.). In his second edition, Tisch. reads χάριν with JK; great majority of mss.; Chrys. (ms.), Theod., Dam., Theoph., al. (approved by Giresb., and adopted by Alf.). This latter reading has some little claim on our attention, on the principle ‘ proclivi lectioni prestat ardua,’ still as χάριν might have been suggested by the εὐχαριστῷ which precedes, it does not appear safe to reverse so great a preponderance of Uncial authority. This is one of the many cases in which the judgment of Tisch. ed. 1 is to be preferred to that of Tisch. ed. 2. ἔσχον] So Lachm. and Tisch. ed. τ with ACFG; 5 mss.; Vulg. Copt. (ai-shi), Aith. (Pol. and Platt), al.; Theod.; Lat. Ff. The plural ἔσχομεν is found in D*E; Clar. Sang.; Hier., al. (Mey., Alf.); the pres. ἔχομεν (before πολλὴν) is found in D***JK; great majority of mss.; Syr. (both); Chrys., Dam., Theoph., al., and adopted by Tisch. ed. 2. 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 ἧμιν, we retain the best attested reading. ἐν ἡμῖν] ‘which is in us; with special reference to them as Christians, and as recipients of the good gifts and graces of God. The reading is slightly doubtful. Lachmann omits rod with AC; 17, but on authority manifestly insufficient. Again ec. reads ὑμῖν with FG; Vulg. (ed.), Syr. (both), Copt., 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. εἰς Xp. “Ino. ] ‘unto Christ Jesus,’ not merely ‘in reference to Him,’ but with a closer adherence to the primary force of the preposition, ‘for the work of,’ ‘to the honour of,’ ‘erga Christum,’ Erasm. (compare notes on ver. 5) ; ‘bonum nobis exhibitum redundare debet in Christum,’ Beng. The words obviously belong to ἐνεργὴς γένηται, not to what immediately precedes (Syr., Vulg., and more distinctly Auth. (Platt), εἰς being assumed = ἐν), still less to the more remote τῆς πί- στεώς gov, as Grot. Lach, omits Ἰησοῦν with AC; 2 mss.; Copt., Ath. (Pol., but not Platt); Hier., al., but without sufficient external authority. 7. yap] It is somewhat doubtful whether this gives the (subjective) reason for the εὐχαριστία, ver. 4 (Jerome, Mey.), or for the prayer im- mediately 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 K.T.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 Timothy ; σύ μοι παῤῥησίαν ἔδωκας ἐκ τῶν εἰς ἑτέρους γενομένων, Chrys. ἔσχον] “7 had,’ scil. when I first heard of your ἀγάπην and πίστιν, ver. 5. The πολλήν, as Mey. ob- serves, appears to belong to both sub- stantives; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 39. I. obs. ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου] ‘in thy love ;’ literally, ‘ based on thy love,’ ἐπὶ with the dat., as usual, P 2 212 I beseech thee for Ones. thy once unpro- fitable servant, who left thee a servant, »» 5 ’ νυ; -᾿ EX OV επιτασσειν GOL TO AVIKOV, PHILEMON 8, 9. 8 Διὸ πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παῤῥησίαν 9 διὰ τὴν to return a brother : receive him as myself. ΤΠ be ἃ defaulter I will repay thee. marking the basis and foundation upon which the xdpa and παράκλ. rested ; see notes on Phil. i. 3. ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘because the hearts; explanation of the preceding ἐπὶ τῇ ay.; πολλῆς yap ἐμπίμπλαμαι θυμη- δίας ὅτι παντοδαπὴν τοῖς ἁγίοις θερα- πείαν προσφέρεις, Theod. On {Π6 semi- Hebraistic σπλάγχνα (ver. 20, 2 Cor. vi. 12 al.), see notes on Phil. 1. 8: there, however, the idea of ‘ affection’ (πνευματικὴ φιλοστοργία, Theod. im loc.) is more predominant; here the term only serves to specify the imaginary seat of it; comp. Liicke on τ John iii. 17. As σπλάγχνα is a somewhat comprehensive term (‘ pro- prie sunt viscera illa, nobiliora vocata, cor, pulmones, hepar et lien,’ Titt- mann, Synon. I. p. 68), the ethical applications may obviously be some- what varied; see Suicer, Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. II. p. 997. ava- πέπαυπαι] ‘have been refreshed ; so 1 Cor. xvi. 18, 2 Cor. vii. 3. On the distinction between ἀνάπαυσις, ‘ pause or cessation from labour,’ and ἄνεσις ‘relaxation of what had been tightly strained,’ see Trench, Synon. § XL. ἀδελφέ] Not ‘ Bruder in Wahrheit,’ De W., Koch, but as A®th., ‘frater mi,’—in tones of earnest affection: ‘hoc in fine positum multum habet πάθος ; conf. Virg. din. νι. 836,’ Scip. Gent. ap. Poli Syn. 8. 86] ‘On which account,’ ‘as I have so much joy and consolation in thee ;’ not in connexion with παῤῥ. ἔχων (δυνάμενος, φησί, θαῤῥεῖν ws θερμῶς πεπιστευκότι, Theod.) as Syr. and the Greek commentators, but in ref. to the preceding χαρὰν ἔσχον---ἐπί τῇ ἀγάπῃ, expressing more fully the motive of the διὰ τὴν ay. μᾶλλον mapax. which follows; so De W., Meyer, Alf. On the use of διό, see notes on Gal. iv. 31, and for its dis- tinction from οὖν and dpa, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 173, but on the two latter particles contrast the more correct remarks of Donalds. Gr. § 604, Cratyl. § 192. παῤῥ. ἔχων] ‘though T have boldness ;’ con- — cessive use of the simple participle, see Donalds. Gr. ὃ 621, and compare — the remarks of Winer on the transla- tion of participles, Gr. § 46. 12, p. 413,—ed. 5, appy. omitted in ed. 6. On the meaning of mapp., here in its derivative sense of ἐξουσία, ἄδεια, Hesych., see notes on 1 Tim. iil. 13. This παῤῥησία was ἐν Xp.; He was the element iz which (not διὰ τὴν πίστιν τὴν eis Xp., Chrys.) it was entertained, and out of which it did not exist: comp. on Lph. iv. 1. ἐπιτάσσ. σοι τὸ ἀνῆκον] ‘to enjoin upon thee that which is fitting,’ epexe- getic infin. following a phrase expres- sive of ability or capability ; comp. Madvig, Synt. § 145. 1. The verb ἐπιτάσσ. though not uncommon else- where in the N.T. is only found here in St. Paul's Epp.: ἐπιταγή, on the contrary occurs seven times in these Epp., 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,’ Copt., db oO 2519 Ba illa que justa] Syr. $7712. ΡΝ 7 Syr., τὸ πρέπον, Suid., marks the category (Mey.) to which the receiving back of Onesimus is to be referred. 9. Sia τὴν ἀγ.7 ‘on account of love.’ ‘for love's sake,’ Auth.; partially ex- planatory of the preceding διό, but with a more general reference, the ἀγάπη here not being, ἣν κἀγὼ ἔχω PHILEMON 9, το. ἀγάπην μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ. πρεσβύτης, νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πρός σε, Theoph., or, ἣν ἀγαπῶ τέ σε καὶ ἀγαπῶμαι, (ἔοαμῃι., even ‘ charitas tua in Christum,’ Just., but, as the omission of all defining geni- tives 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. Vv. ἘΠῚ P. 80, βῆ. τοιοῦτος av] “ Being such an one,’ ‘As I am 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 connexion of this participial clause. It is usually re- garded as preparatory to the ws Παῦλος which follows, and is conceived to more nearly explain it. ever (whose note on this clause is very nor Meyer, how- persuasive), shows that the undefined τοιοῦτος, though often more nearly explained and defined by οἷος, ὥστε, neither is, nor scarcely can be, asso- ciated with ws, which naturally pre- sumes a more defined antecedent, and always ‘aptius conjungitur cum sequentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. Ῥ. 757. This being appy. the case, τοιοῦτος ὧν must be referred to ver. 8, while ws Παῦλος πρεσβύτης, enhanced by νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος *I.X., belongs to the second παρακαλῶ (so Lachm., De W., and recently, Butim., Alf.), and states the capacity in which the Apostle makes his affectionate request. Lachm. it may be observed, encloses ws Παῦλος in a parenthesis; Buttm. isolates it by commas (so Chrys., ἀπὸ τῆς ποιότητος τοῦ προσώπου᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡλικίας" ἀπὸ τοῦ δικαιοτέρου πάν- τῶν ὅτι καὶ δέσμιος κιτ.λ., Comp. πῃ. [Platt] ); both however unsatis- factorily: Παῦλος seems more naturally 213 , ~ ov, ὡς [Παῦλος 10 TOLOUTOS παρα- to stand in immediate union with πρεσβύτης (Syr., Copt.) and to hint at the title he might have assumed, ‘ Paul the Apostle.’ πρεσβύτης] ‘the aged,’ Auth., ‘senex,’ Vulg., Db oO tam Syr., and appy. all Vv. It is quite unnecessary to attempt to ex- plain away the simple meaning of this word (‘non etatem sed officium significat’ Calv., ‘ein Senior der Christenheit,’ Koch), or to evade the almost obvious reference to age ; see Wolf in loc. If with Wieseler we assume as late a year as A.D. 39 for the martyrdom of Stephen, and con- sider the veavias at that time as no more than 25 or 26, the Apostle would now (probably a.D. 62) be nearly 50, which, broken as he was with labour, suffering, and anxieties (2 Cor. xii. 24- 28), might well entitle him to the ap- pellation of πρεσβύτης. If we follow the tradition in Pseud.-Chrys. Orat. de Petr. et Paulo (Vol. vil. spur. p. Io, 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 at- tempts, however, to fix the year in which St. Paul was born are hopeless, comp. Winer, RWB. Vol. τι. p. 217. δέσμιος ᾽1.Χ.1 Not διὰ Χριστὸν dede- μένος, Chrys., but, as in ver. 1, ‘ one whom Christ and His cause have bound ;’ see notes above, and Winer, Gr. § 30.2, p.« 179: το. Tod 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 ; comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14, Gal. iv. 1g, and Loesn. Οὐδ. p. 431; who cites the partially parallel μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἢ οὐχ ἧττον τῶν γονέων γεγέννηκα, Philo, 214 PHILEMON το, τι. ἊΝ A AL? aA is 4] " ’ ° n rn καλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ TEKVOU, ὃν ἐγέννησα EV τοῖς δεσμοῖς. . δ Ὄ , \ , 3, A δὲ . A νήσιμον:. TOV ποτὲ σοι ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ VE TOL καὶ 10. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] So Rec. with D***EFGJK ; appy. great majority of mss.; Vulg. Clarom. Syr. Auth. (Platt), al.; Chrys., Theod. Zachm.and Tisch. reverse the order with AC; a few mss.; Copt. Auth. (Pol.), Iber., al. The authority does not seem sufficient to justify the reversed order, especially as the best authorities give Xp. Ἴησ. in ver. 1, which might easily have suggested the correction. 11. dvéreupd σοι] So Lachm. and Tisch. 1, with ACD*E; 17; Syr. Copt. (ha-pok). Ath. (both); Chrys. (πρὸς cé); Lat. Ff. (Meyer). ‘In his second ed. Tisch. omits col with D***FGJK ; nearly all mss.; Amit. Goth. Syr. (Philox.); many Ff. (Rec., Alf.). Independently of the external authority which seems to preponderate against the omission, it does not seem improbable that coi should have been omitted on account of the two preceding repetitions in the same verse, and the σὺ δὲ which immediately follows. Cai. § 8, Vol. 11. p. 554 (ed. Mang.). The pronoun ἐμοῦ seems here emphatic. Lachm. and Mey. introduce ἐγὼ before ἐγέννησα, but though on in- ternal grounds not improbable, the external authority [A ; 2 mss.; Slav. (ms.), Chrys. (1) ] does not seem nearly sufficient to warrant the insertion. ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς] With feeling allu- sion to the circumstances in which he was when Philemon was converted, and in which he now is again while urging his request; πάλι oi δεσμοὶ δυσωπητικοί [exorandi vim habent], Chrys. The addition μοῦ after δεσμοῖς [Ree., Scholz, with CD***JK ; al.] seems rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. ᾿᾽Ονήσιμον] Accusative, owing to an inverted form of attraction; the relative which would more usually (comp. Winer, Gr. § 24. I, 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, and attracting it into its own case; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. 2, p. 149, ὃ 66. 5» Ρ. 552. II, τὸν ποτέ σοι ἄχρ.]7 ‘who was once unprofitable,’ ‘unserviceable,’ 501]. who once did notanswer 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. λεγόμ. In the N.T. (εὔχρηστοι; 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11), and is defined by Tittmann (Synon. 11. p. 12) as ‘quo uti recte non possumus, qui nullum usum prebeat.’ The distinction between this and ἀχρεῖος (Matth. xxv. 30, Luke xvii. 10) is not very palpable: perhaps 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 ἀνωφελές, Xen. Mem. I. 2. 54, while ἄχρηστος has less of a negative sense (οὐ χρή- gysov) and more approximates to that of πονηρός. It would seem, how- ever, that ἀχρεῖος belongs mainly to earlier, ἄχρηστος mainly to later, Greek. The play on the name, ᾿Ονήσιμον, τόν ποτε ἄχρηστον (not noticed by the Greek commentators) has been recognised by the majority of modern expositors; see Winer, G7. δ 68.2, p.561. Any further allusion, χρηστὸς as compared with Χριστιανός (Koch), seems improbable and even untenable, comp. Mey. i loc. σοὶ Kat ἐμοὶ εὐχρ.] ‘profitable, service- able, to thee and me.’ The εὐχρηστία = PHILEMON 11—13. ᾿ A » εἴ ch ree 4 al , ἐμοι EVUXPNTTOV, OV ἀνεπέμνψα σοι. + 4 5) 4 ’ ἔστιν τὰ ema σπλαγχνα, 215 4 A 5 , rote hd 12 σὺ δὲ αὐτόν, TOUT 13. ὃν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς x ’ f ς A A eS 19 A n € LAUT OV κατέχειν» ἵνα ὑπερ TOU μοι διακονῆ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς here alluded to has obviously a higher reference than to mere 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 ἐμοὲ (‘ Philemonem civiliter preeponit sibi,’ Beng.) itis somewhat coarse (Theoph., Corn. a Lap.) to find a hint that Phile- mon was to send him back to the Apostle. ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι] ‘J have sent back to thee,’ or even ‘I send back, &c.,’—epistolary aor. ; present to the writer, but aoristic to the receiver of the letter; comp. ἔπεμψα, Phil. ii, 28, and see exx. 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 προσλαβοῦ | Rec. with CDEJK ; al.] is well attested, but considering the tendency of St. Paul, esp. in relatival sentences, to pass into anacolutha (see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 63. 1, p. 500), rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern expositors as an ancient gloss. Lachm, also omits σὺ δέ [with AC ; 17], but with but little probability, as the omission was probably the result of an attempt to evade the anacoluthon by joining ἀνέπεμψα and αὐτόν: comp. Meyer (crit. note), p. 173. τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘mine own heart,’ ‘meinos brusts,’ Goth.; οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὸν ἀγαπῶ καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ περιφέρω, Theoph. The meaning adopted by Syr. Bie Vg F ἐτῶν [jocks »αἱ [sicut natum == 5 Υ meum], Auth. (Platt; Polygl. para- phrases), Theod., ἐκ τῶν ἐμῶν γεγέν- νηται σπλάγχνων, al., though per- fectly defensible (see Suicer, Thesaur’. s.v., and the pertinent exx. in Wetst.), does not here seem requisite or in- deed satisfactory, as the paternal rela- tion of St. Paul to Onesimus was a purely spiritual one, and as σπλάγχνα appears nearly always in St. Paul to involve some special idea of affection, or, as here, of the seat of it: Meyer (after Grot.) quotes ‘meum corculum,’ Plaut. Cas. Iv. 4. 14 (16): comp. notes on ver. 7. 13. ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην] “1 (on my part) was purposing ;’ contrast ἠθέ- Anoa, ver. 14, where not only the general distinction between the verbs βούλομαι and θέλω (see notes on τ Tim. v. 14), but, as Meyer remarks, be- tween the tenses, is accurately pre- served. The imperf. points to the time when the design was formed, and to its non-fulfilment; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. X. 3, p. 373. The use of ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3 (Alf), though analogous, is not exactly similar, as this belongs to use of the imperf. where there is a more distinct reference to a suppressed conditional clause ; see notes on (al. v. 20. πρὸς ἐμαυτόν] ‘with myself; the proper and primary meaning of the preposition (‘motion toward,’ comp. Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 169) is often ob- scured in connexion 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 216 PHILEMON 13, 14. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου: 14 χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης οὐδὲν ἠθέ- A “A ed A ς 4.43 , ‘ 5 θ , > 174 TOTAL, LVA μή WS κατὰ avayKyvy TO ayalov σοὺ ἢ». usual meaning of the prep. ‘in the place of, and thereby beneficially to, thee ; comp. Eurip. Alcest. 700, κατ- θανεῖν ὑπὲρ σοῦ, and see Green, Gr. p- 301. This more derivative mean- ing of the prep. cannot be denied (see Winer, Gr. § 47. 1, p. 342), but has been unduly pressed in doctrinal pas- sages; comp. notes on Gal. 111. 13, and Usteri, Zehrb. 1. 1. 1, p. I1g. The exquisite turn that St. Paul gives to his intention of retaining Onesimus, viz. as a representative of his master (va τῆς σῆς wor διακονίας ἐκτίσῃ τὸ χρέος, Theod.), should not be left unnoticed. διακονῇ] ‘might minister; present, idiomati- cally 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. Ὁ. I, p. 258, and Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. Ῥ. 618: compare also Gal. i. 16, but observe that the use of the pres. 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 τοῦ εὐαγγ. ] ‘bonds of the Gospel; scil. ‘bonds which the Gospel brought with it,— which preaching the Gospel entailed on me,’ evayy. being a gen. auctoris ; see Winer, (Gr. ὃ 30. 2. B. note, p. 170, Hartung, Casus, p.17. The same de- licate allusion to his sufferings (comp. ver. 9), and to a state which could not fail to touch the heart of Philemon. 14. χωρὶς δὲ k.7.A.] ‘but without thy own approval ;’ comp. Raphel, A nnot. Vol. 11. p. 642, who very appropri- ately cites Polyb. Hist. p. 983 (xv. 18. 4), χωρὶς τῆς Ῥωμαίων γνώμης ; comp. ὁδ. Ill. 21. 7, χωρὶς τῆς αὐτοῦ γνώμης, ib. Χχτ. 8. 7, ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης (οἰ θα in Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 89). Τνώμη occurs a few times in the N.T., and in slightly varied senses ; comp. Acts xx. 3, where it has appy. the stronger sense of ‘ design,’ and 1 Cor, i. 7, Vil. 25, 40, 2 Cor. viii. 20, where it has its more regular meaning of ‘sententia’ or ‘judicium ;’ comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. i. 7, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. τε p. 205. ἠθέλησα] ‘was willing; aor., see notes on ver. 13. ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην] ‘as ἡ} by necessity,’ ‘com- pulsion-wise ; the κατὰ marking pri- marily the norma or manner accord- ing to which the action was done (see notes on Tit. 111. 5), and thence the prevailing principle to which it was to be referred (comp. exx. in Winer Gir. ὃ 49. d, p. 358), while ὡς marks the aspect which the action would have worn; see Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 2, p. 333, and notes on Eph. v. 22,-Col. iii. 23. Chrys., and more fully Theophyl. and £cum., rightly call attention to this insertion of the particle. τὸ ἀγαθόν σου] ‘thy good, ‘thy beneficence,’ ‘the good emanating from or per- formed by thee,’ the gen. perhaps being not so much a mere possessive gen. as a gen. auctoris or cause effi- cientis ; see notes on Col. i. 23. The exact meaning of the words is slightly doubtful ; there seems certainly no reference to any manumission of One- simus (Estius, Koch ; contrast Mau- rice, Unity of N.T. p. 659), nor merely to the kind reception which Philemon was to give him on his arrival (Hof- mann, Schriftb. Vol. 1. p. 387), nor even to the ‘ beneficium’ which in this purticular instance Philemon was to confer on the Apostle, but, as the PHILEMON 14, 15. 9 4A 4 ς ’ ἄλλα κατα εκούσιον. more abstract term suggests, ‘ bene- ficentia tua’ (Calv.), whether as shown in this or in other good and merciful 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 (ws) of a kind of constraint ; St. Paul, how- ever wished, as in this so in all other matters, that Philemon’s τὸ ἀγαθὸν should be μὴ ws κατὰ ἀνάγκην ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον. On the doubt- ful distinction in the N.T. between τὸ ἀγαθὸν and τὸ καλόν, see notes on Gal. vi. το. ‘voluntarily.’ κατὰ ἑκούσιον] The more usual peri- phrasis for the adverb appears in earlier Greek to have been καθ᾽ éxov- σίαν, Thucyd, vitl. 27, or ἐξ ἑκουσίας, Soph. Trach. 724, by an ellipse of γνώμη. In the present case there may have been originally an ellipse of τρόπον (Porphyr. de Abs. τ. 9, καθ᾽ ἑκούσιον τρόπον) ; the expression, how- ever, would soon become purely adver- bial: comp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 4. 15. τάχα γάρ] ‘For perhaps ; reason that influenced the Apostle in sending back Onesimus. The inser- tion of τάχα (Rom. v. 7, more usually τάχ᾽ ἄν, in classical Greek) gives a softening and suasive turn to the ad- mission of his convert’s fault, no less sound in principle (‘occulta sunt judicia Dei, et temerarium est quasi de certo pronunciare quod dubium est,’ Hieron.) than judicious in its present use ; καλῶς τό, τάχα, ἵνα εἰξῇ ὁ δεσπότης, Chrys.; τάχα γὰρ κατὰ θείαν 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, —‘ preestabilius ducere Deum οἰκονομίαν 217 15 τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη de malis bona facere, quam mala nulla facere,’ Justin. im loc., see August. Enchir. § 3, Vol. Vi. p. 349 (ed. Ben. 1836). ἐχωρίσθη] ‘he de- parted ; he does not say ἔφυγεν lest he should rouse up any angry remem- brances in the mind of Philem.: so Chrys., Gicum., and Theophyl., all of whom have admirably illustrated the delicate touches in this beautiful Epistle. For exx. of this sort of ‘ medial- passive,’ in which, however, not only the passive form, but passive meaning, is clearly to be recognized, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 6. 1. πρὸς ὥραν] ‘for a season ; 2 Cor. vii. ὃ, Gal. ii. 5, and more definitely, t 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; comp. Theophyl. i loc. The proper force of the prep. (‘motion towards’) may be easily recognized in the formula, especially when compared with its more appreciable force in such ex- pressions as πρὸς ἑσπέραν (Luke xxiv. 20), al.; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 31, p. 564. uncertain ; it has been connected with the Sanscr. vdra, ‘time’ (Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. τι. p. 328), but, per- haps more probably, with the Zend. The derivation of ὥρα is jare, Germ. ‘Jahr,’ as appy. evinced in the Lat. ‘horno; comp. Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. τ. p. δ, 123. αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἀπ.] ‘mightest receive him eternally, everlastingly,’ not merely ‘perpetuum,’ Beza (Grot. compares Hor. Epist. I. 10. 41, ‘ser- viet eternum’), nor with any allusion to ‘ perpetua mancipia,’ Exod. xxi. 6, Deut. xv. 17 (Beza, Gent.) but ‘in eeternum,’ Clarom., ‘aiveinana,’ Goth. ; οὐκ ἐν τῷ παρόντι μόνον καιρῷ ἀλλὰ 218 ‘ e 6 97 Sk > , Tpos WAV, tVA αἰώνιον AUTOV ATTEX Ns 16 PHILEMON 15, τό. οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον, 2 Iu anh χω \ U , / ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερ δοῦλον. ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, μάλιστα ἐμοί, πόσῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, ἵνα διαπαντὸς ἔχῃς αὐτόν, οὐκέτι δοῦλον ἀλλὰ τιμιώτερον δούλου, Chrys.: so pertinently Estius, ‘servitus omnis hac vita finitur, at fraternitas Christiana manet in eter- num.’ Thesecondary predicate of time, αἰώνιον, is not an adverb (Mey.), but, as its position suggests, an adverbial adjective involving a proleptical state- ment of the result; comp. Donalds. Gr. ὃ 443, and see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 54. 2, p. 412. On the compound ἀπέχειν, in which, as in ἀπολαμβάνειν k.7.r., the prep. does not appy. so much mark the ‘receiving back,’ as the ‘having for one’s own’ (‘sibi habere,’ Bengel, ‘hinweghaben,’ Mey.) see notes on Phil. iv. 18, comp. Winer, Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 8. 16. οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον] Changed spiritual relation in which he now would stand to his master; ὥστε καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ κεκέρδακας καὶ TH ποιότητι, Chrys. The particle ὡς almost con- vincingly shows that there is here no reference to manumission (comp. on ver. 14): though actually a slave, he is not to be regarded in the ordinary aspect of one (see ver. 14); the in- ward relation was changed, the out- ward remained the same; comp. Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. τι, 1, p. 318, ὑπὲρ δοῦλον] ‘ above a slave, more than a slave,’ ‘ ufar 4 skalk,’ Goth. oe pole [ preestantior quam] Syr., sim. Aith. (Platt), Copt.; not ‘pro servo,’ Vulg., Clarom., which obscures the force of the pre- position ; comp. Matth. x. 24, 37, Acts xxvi. 13, in which the force of ὑπὲρ is somewhat similar, and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. 6, 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 beloved brother ; ἀντὶ δοῦλου ἀχρή- oTov, χρηστὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀπείληφας, (cum. μάλιστα ἐμοί] ‘especially, above all others, to me; not directly dependent on ἀγαπητόν (Mey.), but, as ἀγαπητὸς in the N.T. has to a great degree lost its verbal character, a dative ‘of interest’ (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4) attached to adedp. ἀγαπ.; comp. Syr., Beng. He stood in the light of an ἀδελῴ. aya. 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, comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. το. καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ κιτ.λ.] ‘both im the jlesh and in the Lord; the two spheres in which Onesimus was to be πόσῳ μᾶλλον an ἀδελφὸς ἀγαπητὸς to Philemon than to the Apostle,—‘in the flesh,’ ὁ.6. in earthly and personal relations (Mey.), as having inter- course and communication with him on a necessarily somewhat altered footing,—‘in the Lord,’ as enjoying spiritual communion with him which he never enjoyed before,—nearly cat ἐν Tals σωματικαῖς ὑπερησίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς πνευματικαῖς, Schol., except that the idea must not be limited to ὑπηρεσία ; comp. Theod., Gcum. To more nearly define ἐν σαρκὶ (comp. Grot., al.) is neither here necessary nor in harmony with its general use in St. Paul’s Epp.; see notes on Gal. v. τό, and the elaborate notes of Koch, p. 99 sq.; ‘die Gegensiitze, als Mensch und als Christ sind in ihrer ganzen Weite zu belassen,’ Meyer. On PHILEMON 16—1o. P , δὲ μᾶλλόν σοι καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν Κυρίῳ. 4 , a > Sere e 3 , EXELS KOLY@VOV, προσλαβοῦ QUTOV ὡς EME. 219 3 4) 17 εἰ οὖν με ’ IS ef δέ τι a 5 4A ~ ἠδίκησέν σε ἢ ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα. 19 ἐγὼ [Παῦλος the force of καὶ---καί (‘as well the one as the ether’), see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 46: 17. εἰ οὖν] ‘if then ;’ summing up what has been urged, and resuming the request imperfectly expressed in verse 12. Qn the ‘vis collectiva’ of οὖν (Gal. iv. 15, Phil. ii. 29, see notes) and its resumptive force (Gal. 11]. 5, see notes), both here united, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 717, 718. κοινωνόν] ‘a partner,’ scil. in faith and love and Christian principles generally,—not merely in sentiments (εἰ τὰ αὐτά μοι φρονεῖς, ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς τρέχεις, εἰ φίλον ἡγῇ, Chrys., Just.), or, still less likely, in community of property (‘ut tua sint mea, et mea tua,’ Beng., comp. Beza, Pagn.), interpretations which here improperly limit what seems purposely left unrestricted. προσλαβοῦ ὡς ἐμέ] ‘receive him to thee as myself,’ ‘as you would me;’ in my spiritual affection towards him he is a part of my very self, comp. ver. 12. The form προσλαμβ. occurs in a very similar sense, Rom. xiv. I, 3, xv. 7, the idea not being so much of a mere kindness of reception (comp. Acts xxviii. 2) as of an admission to Christian love and fellowship ; see Meyer on Rom. xiv. 1, and Fritz. in loc. who, however, in his translation ‘in suum contu- bernium recipere,’ somewhat puts out of sight the Christian character of the reception which the context seems to imply. 18. εἰ δέ] ‘But if; contrasted thought (comp. Alf.), suggested by the remembrance of what might militate against the warmth of the reception. The δὲ thus does not seem μεταβατικόν (Mey.), but preserves its usual appo- sitive force; ‘qui loquitur, etiam si nihil positum est in oratione, tamen aliquid in mente habet, ad quod respi- ciens illam oppositionem infert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 365. ἠδίκησεν σε] ‘wronged thee,’ more specifically explained by the ‘ mitius synonymon’ (Beng.) ἢ ὀφείλει. The Greek commentators draw attention to the tender way in which St. Paul notices that misdeed of the repentant Onesimus which would have tended most to keep up the irritation of Phile- mon (οὐκ εἶπεν ἔκλεψεν, ἀλλ᾽ εὐφη- μότερον, ἠδίκησεν ἢ ὀφείλει, Theoph.) and further, the kind and wise way in which he keeps it to the end of his letter ; ὅρα ποῦ τέθεικε καὶ πότε τὸ ἀδίκημα" ὕστερον μετὰ τὸ πολλὰ ὑπὲρ τούτου προειπεῖν, Chrys. τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα] ‘this set down to my account,’ scil. ὅ τι ἠδίκησέν σε ἢ ὀφείλει ; ‘id meis rationibus imputa,’ Grot. Though there is no certacm lexical authority for é\\oydw (it does not appear in the new ed. of Steph. Thesaur.), and though its existence has been somewhat peremptorily denied (Fritz. Rom. v. 13, Vol. I. p. 311), yet still as the desiderative Aoydw (Lucian, Lexiph. § 15) is an acknow- ledged form, and as peculiarities of orthography or errors of transcription cannot be made to satisfactorily ac- count for the assumed permutation of ec and a [Bastius ap. Greg. Cor. p. 706 (ed. Scheef.) cited by Fritz. is not in point, as here referring to cursive mss.; see exx. and plates referred to], we seem bound to follow the preponde- rant uncial authority, ACD*FG ; 17. 31; so Lachm., Tisch., and also Meyer, Alf. 19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγρ.] “7 Paul have 220 PHILEMON to, 20. ᾿ a las ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῆ χειρί, ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω: ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι ὅτι \ , Ul Kal σεαυτὸν μοι προσοφείλεις. 20 Ναί, ἀδελφέ, ἐγώ Ἀν, ἢ 9 ’ Ἂς Ων , κ ! 5) σοὺυ οναιμὴν εν Κυρίῳ: αναπταῦυσον μου τὰ σπλαγχνα εν : Χριστῷ. written ,᾿ scarcely ‘I write,’ De W. Conyb., Green (Gr. p. 17), as this epistolary aorist in the N. T. does not appear used simply in reference to what follows, but always more or less retrospectively, whether in refe- rence to a former letter (2 Cor. ii. 3), preceding passages in an all but con- cluded letter (Rom. xv. 15, see Meyer in loc.), or an immediately foregoing portion of one in progress (1 Cor. ix. 15): when the ref. is to what is definitely present, the simple γράφω is used in preference to the idiomatic aorist ; see Winer, Gr. § 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., llieron.) the whole Epistle. It does not thus seem desirable with Lachm. and Buttm. to make this verse the commencement of a new paragraph. ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω] “7 will repay,’ obvi- ously not with any serious meaning, as if the Apostle expected that Phile- mon 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 Gua καὶ χαριέντως (Chrys.); compare Theod., ἀντὶ γραμ- ματίου τήνδε κάτεχε τὴν ἐπιστόλην᾽ πᾶσαν αὐτὴν ἐγὼ γέγραφα. The addition ἐν Κυρίῳ [D*E*; Clarom., Sang.] is an improbable repetition of ἐν Kuplw below. ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι] ‘ that 7 may not say to thee; a rhetorical turn,—oyjua ἐπιτρεπτικῶς παρασιωπήσεως, Grot., or παραλείψεως, Gent., ‘ rhetorica preeteritio,’ Est.,— in which what might be said is par- tially suppressed, or only delicately brought to the remembrance of the person addressed. The ἵνα does not seem strictly dependent on ἔγραψα--- amoticw (Mey.), nor yet on a sup- pressed imper. ‘ yield me this request,’ (Alf.), which would impair the grace- ful flow of thought, but rather, as Chrys., Theoph., and Gicum. seem to suggest, on a thought ealled up by the ἀποτίσω, .-- ‘repay ; 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, ver. 14. προσοφείλεις]) ‘thow owest unto me be- sides Philemon was not only an actual debtor to the Apostle of any trifle that he thus (μετὰ χάριτος τῆς πνευματικῆς, Chrys.) offers to make good, but im addition to it (mpos-), even (καὶ ascensive) his own self, his own Christian existence. © Raphel adduces somewhat similar uses of προσοφείλειν in Xen. Cyr. Ul. p. 59 (111. 2. 16), Qeon. p. 684 (20. 1); the meaning, however, 18 sufficiently obvious. A curious metaphorical use of προσοῴ. (‘longe inferiorem esse’) will be found in Polyb. Hist. xxx1x. 2. 6. 20. val, ἀδελφέ] ‘yea, brother ;’ certainly not ‘precantis’ (Grot.), or ‘vehementer obsecrantis’ (Gent.), but with the usual force of the particle in the N.T., ‘serio affirmantis’ (comp. Erasm.), in reference to the request embodied in ver. 12 sq.: ἀφεὶς τὸν χαριεντισμὸν πάλιν ἔχεται τῶν προτέ- ρων, τῶν σπουδαίων, Chrys., comp. Theoph. and Gicum. On the use of ee PHILEMON 21, 22. I am confident that thou wilt fully comply withmy request. Pre- pare ny a lodging. a 221 ἸΠεποιθὼς τῆ ὑπακοῆ σου ἔγραψγά oNA ΦΨ A ς \ εἴ , Be εἰδὼς OTL Kal UTEP Oo ASY@ “ποιήσεις. 22 ἅμα δὲ καὶ ὁτοίμαζέ μοι ἕενίαν' ἐλπίζω γὰρ ὅτι διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν. ναὶ in the N.T., see notes on Phil. iv. 3: ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην] ‘may I reap profit from thee ; —JI, not with- out emphasis; the Apostle again (comp. ver. 12, 17) makes it a matter between himselfand Philemon, putting for the time Onesimus almost out of sight; it was a favour to himself. The somewhat unusual ὀναίμην [2 aor. opt., see Buttm. Jrreg. Verbs, p. 189 Transl. ], coupled with the significant ἐγώ (J not merely Ones.), seems to confirm the view of most modern com- mentt., except De W., again a play on the name of Onesi- see Winer, Gr. ὃ 68. 2, p. 561. The form ὀναίμην is similarly used by Tenatius (Polyc. τ. 6, Magn. 12, al.),— once (Eph, 2) curiously enough, but appy. by mere accident, after a men- tion of an Onesimus. that there is MUS ; ἐν Kup(w denotes, as usual the sphere of the ὄνησις (see on Eph. iv. 17, Phil. ii. 19, al.), just as ἐν Χριστῷ, which follows, specifies that of the ἀνάπαυσις ; both were to be characterized by being im Him, they were to be such as implied His hallowing influences. It may be here observed that év Xp. has distinctly preponderating authority [ACD*FGJ ; al. ; Clarom., Syr. (both), Ath. (beth), Copt., Goth.], and is adopted by nearly all modern editors. τὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘my heart ; not One- simus, as in ver. 12 (Hieron.), which would here be wholly out of place, nor τὴν περί ce ἀγάπην (Theoph., Céicum.), but simply the σπλάγχνα of the Apostle, —the seat of his love and affections ; see notes on ver. 7. 21. πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπαικ. Concluding allusion to his Apostolic authority, but how delicately introduced, how tenderly deferred, and how encourag- ingly echoing the commendations with which he commenced ; ὅπερ καὶ ἀρχό- μενος εἶπε, παῤῥησίαν ἔχων τοῦτο καὶ ἐνταῦθα λέγει εἰς τὸ ἐπισφραγίσαι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, Chrys. ἔγραψα] ‘I 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 ; comp. Eph. iii. 20. It is very doubtful whether this alludes, however faintly, to the manumission of Onesi- mus (Alf.) The tenor of the Epistle would seem to imply nothing more than encouraging confidence on the part of the Apostle (ἅμα καὶ διήγειρεν εἰπὼν τοῦτο, Chrys.), that Philemon would show to the fugitive even greater kindness and a more affectionate re- ception than he had pleaded for ; compare notes on ver. 14 and τύ, Lachm. here reads ὑπὲρ ἃ with AC; 3 mss; Copt., Syr. (Philox.),—not without some reason, as_ the single request might have suggested the correction (comp. Alf.) ; still it is perhaps more safe to retain the text as best supported by external autho- rity. 22. ἅμα δὲ καὶ «.7.A.] ‘moreover at the same time also provide me ὦ lodging ;᾿ ἃ commission appended to his request: in addition to complying with the subject of the letter, Phi- lemon was also to make this provision for the expected Apostle. Chrysost. and Theod. (comp. Alf.) find in this message a last thought of Onesimus, and a direction tending to secure him a kind reception; προσδοκῶν αὐτοῦ 222 Salutations. μάλωτός μου ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, PHILEMON 23—25,. Ls a 23 ᾿Ασπαζεταί σε ᾿Επαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχ- 24. Μάρκος, ᾿Αρί- “ Δ a e , TTAPXOS, Anas, OUKGS, Ol συνεργοι μου. Benediction. 9H χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿]ησοῦ A 4 lal / e ~ Χριστοῦ μετὰ TOV TVEUKLATOS υμῶν. τὴν παρουσίαν αἰδεσθῇ [Φιλ.] καὶ τὰ γράμματα, Theod. Τύτηδν be doubted, however, whether the first view of Theoph. and (ic. is not more pro- bable, and more worthy both of Phi- lemon and the Apostle,—viz., that Philemon was not to consider the Epistle a mere petition for Onesimus (εἰ μὴ διὰ ᾿Ονήσιμον οὐδὲ λόγου pe ἠξίου, Theoph.) but as containing special messages on other matters to himself. The word ξενία (Hesych. ὑποδοχή, κατάλυμα) only occurs here and, also in ref. to St. Paul, Acts XXVili. 23. διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν) ‘through your prayers; inref. to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and those mentioned in ver. 2. The same expectation of re- covering his liberty appears in Phil. i, 25, 11. 24; there, however, the journey contemplated is to the Philip- pians, and the date when it is formed, according to the general view, a year or two later; comp. Wieseler, Chro- nol. p. 456. 23. ἀσπάζεται] Greetings from the same persons as those mentioned in the Ep. to the Col. (ch. iv. 10 sq.), with the exception of Justus. The order observed is substantially the same, Mark and Aristarchus (οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, Col. iv. 11) preceding Luke and Demas, except that Epa- phras is here placed first. The read- ing ἀσπάζονται, Rec. [with D***JK] is rightly rejected by most modern editors as a grammatical correction. ὃ συναιχμάλ. μου] ‘my fellow pri- soner ;᾽ more specifically defined as ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ; see on Eph. iv. τ. The title here given to Epaphras is, in Col. iv. 10, given to “Aplorapxos, while the latter is afterwards named as a συνεργός; for the probable reasons, see notes on Col. l.c. 24. Μάρκος] Probably John Mark, and the Evangelist. For ἃ brief notice of him, and those mentioned in this verse, see notes on Col. iv. το and 14. 25. ἡ χάρις «.7.A.] Precisely the same form of salutation as in Gal. vi. 18, with the exception of the signifi- cant conclusion ἀδελῴοί. As there, so here (comp. also 2 Tim. iv. 22), the Apostle prays that the grace of the Lord may be μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, ‘with the spirit’ of those whom he is addressing, with the third and highest portion of our composite nature ; see notes on Gal. l.c., and comp. Olshaus. Opusc. VI. p. 145 86. οὐ δῇ ΓΞ Ο ΤΒΑΝΘΒΙΜΤΊΙΟΝ. rai. gale WO TICE. THE following translation is based on the same principles as those adopted in the portions of this Commentary that have already appeared. The increased and increasing interest in the subject of revision has, however, induced me to be a little fuller in the citations from the eight Versions, which are here compared with the Authorized, and has also suggested the insertion of a few com- ments on general principles of translation, and of a few brief reasons for changes, which the notes on the original might not fully supply. My humble endeavour has been to avoid everything that might seem arbitrary and capricious, and to cling with all possible tenacity to fixed principles of correction ; still there both are and must be many passages in which the context and general tone of the original render one of two apparently synonymous translations not only more appropriate, but even more faithful and correct than the other. Of the older English Vv., I would especially direct the attention of the student to that of Coverdale, which, considering the time and circumstances under which it was executed, appears remarkably vigorous and faithful. This venerable Version has now become accessible by the reprint of Coverdale’s Bible, pub- lished by Messrs. Bagster ; but a small and cheap edition of the New Testament alone, with perhaps the Version in the ‘ Duglott’ edition [Cov. (Test.)], would, I am confident, be very acceptable to many students who may be deterred by the size and price of the reprint above alluded to. Some interesting remarks on these Versions, and on the subject of Revision generally, will be found in a recent tract by ‘ Philalethes,’ entitled Zhe Lnglish Bible, 8vo, Dublin, 1857. THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. Cuarpter I. 1. AUL and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: ὅ grace de unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. * I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, * always, im every supplication of mine for you all, making my supplication with joy, ° for your fellowship shown to- ward the gospel from the first day until now; ° being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun in you a good work, will perfect ἐξ up to the day of Christ CHAPTER I. 1. Servants| So Wicl.: ‘the servants,’ Awth. and the other Vy. On the designation Timothy (‘Timotheus,’ Awth.), see notes on Col. i. 1 (Transl.). Christ Jesus (1%) 1 ‘* Jesus Christ,’ Awth. 2. And the Lord] So Cov. (Test.): ‘and from the Lord,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘of.’ It is perhaps more exact to omit the prepo- sition in the second member as in the Greek: here it is unimportant, but in some cases the sense and construction are impaired by the repetition ; comp. Blunt, Lect. on Par. Priest, p. 55, 56. 4. Supplication] ‘Prayer,’ Auth. and all Vv.; it is perhaps better to retain the more special meaning, as evincing the earnest nature of the Apostle’s prayer ; comp. notes on 1 Tim. ii. τ, and notice below, Wicl., Cov. (Test.), in the translation of the second δέησις. It is curious that all the Vy. except Auth. change to the plural, ‘all my prayers; this cer- tainly preserves the παρήχησις (comp. on Eph. v. 20), but at the expense of accuracy. My supplication | ‘Request, Auth.; ‘bisechynge,’ Wiel.; ‘instaunte prayer,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ pe- tition,’ Rhem.; the remaining Vv. adopt the simple verb ‘and praye’ (Tynd., Cov., Cran.), or ‘praying’ (Cran., Bish.). 5. Shown toward] ‘In,’ Auth. and all Vv. except Cran., ‘ of.’ 6. In you a good work] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘a good work (‘that g. w.,’ Cov., ‘the,’ Cov. (Test.), ‘this,’ Bish.) in you,’ Auth. and the other Vy. Perfect] So Rhem.,andsim. Cov. (Test.), ‘fulende :’ ‘perform,’ Auth., Wicl., Cran., Bish. ; ‘go forthe with it,’ 7'ynd., Cov., Gen. Up to] Sim, Rhem, ‘unto: ‘ until,’ Q 226 PHILIPPIANS ἢ ὁ Jesus: ‘even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in my defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers with me of my grace. δ For God is my witness, how I do long after you all in the bowels of Christ Jesus. " And this I pray, that your love may yet more and pray y see more abound in clear knowledge and in all discernment, ” to the intent that ye may prove things that are excellent, that ye may be pure and without offence against the day of Christ ; “ being filled with the fruit of righteousness, which is by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. * Now I would have you know, brethren, that matters Auth. and remaining Vv. except Wicel., ‘til in to.’ Christ Jesus] ‘*Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 7. My defence] So Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish.: ‘the,’ Auth. Cran., Rhem.; ‘in defendynge,’ Wicl., Cov.; ‘as I defende,’ Tynd. Par- takers with me] So Cov. and sim. Tynd., Cran., ‘companions of grace with me:’ ‘partakers of my grace,’ Auth., Gen., Bish., and sim. Wicl., ‘felowis of my joie; ‘partakers of my joye,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 8. Witness] So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘re- cord,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Tynd., Gen., ‘beareth me re- corde.’ Do long] So Cov. (Test.), andsim. Cov., Bish. : ‘ greatly long,’ Auth. and other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘coueite.’ The inser- tion of the auxiliary seems to throw a slight emphasis on the action expressed by the verb, which is not inappropriate after the solemn adjuration. Christ Jesus] ‘* Jesus Christ,’ Auth. 9. Yet more and more abound] Sim. Rhem., ‘may more and more ab.;’ ‘abound yet more and more,’ Auth., and, with similar position of the adverbs, the other Vv. The inversion seems a little more closely to preserve the Greek order and the connexion of περισσεύειν with the particulars in which the increase takes place. Clear knowledge] ‘ Knowledge,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘kunnynge.’ Cov. correctly preserves the ‘extensive’ force of πάσῃ, but mars it by the untenable attraction, ‘in all manner of kn. and in all expe- rience.’ Discernment| ‘ Judg- ment,’ Auwth., Gen., Bish.; ‘wit,’ Wicl.; ‘fealinge,’ Tynd.; ‘expe- rience,’ Cov.; ‘understandyng,’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., Rhem. 10. Jo the intent that] ‘That,’ Auth. and all other Vv. It seems de- sirable to make some difference in translation between the more imme- diate εἰς τὸ κιτ.λ. and the further and final iva ἦτε κ.τ.λ. Prove] So Wicl., Cov.: ‘approve,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘accepte,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘alowe,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ diserne,’ Gen., Bish. Pure| So Tynd. and all Vv. except Wicl., Auth., Rhem., ‘sincere ;’ Wicl., ‘clene.’ Against] So Cov. (Test.): ‘till,’ Awth. and sim. Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish., “ΠΟΥ ‘in,’ Wicl.; ‘unto,’ Cov., Rhem. 1t. Fruit] ‘*Fruits,’ Auth. Is] ‘are,’ Auth. 12. Now] ‘But,’ Auth., Coverd. (Test.); ‘for,’ Wicl.; ‘and,’ Rhem.; the rest omit, Have you know) ΡΗΠΙΡΡΊΑΝΗ: 1{12:.-:3 17. ἡ ὐοὴ with me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; “so that my bonds in Christ have become manifest in the whole Preetorium, and to all the rest; “and that the greater part of the brethren having in the Lord confidence in my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife ; and some too from good will: ” they that are of love so preach, because they know that I am set for the defence of the gospel ; “ but they that are of contentiousness proclaim Christ, not sincerely, supposing thus to raise up So Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘have you to wite:’ ‘wole that ye wite,’ Wicl.; ‘ye should understand,’ Auth., Cran., and sim. Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish., ‘wolde ye understode.’ Matters with me] Somewhat similarly, Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘the thingis that ben aboute me:’ ‘the things about me,’ Rhem.; ‘the things which hap- pened unto me,’ Auth., Cran., Gen., (‘have h.’), Bish. (‘have come’); ‘my busynes,’ T'ynd., Cov. 13. Have become] Sim. Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘weren made: ‘are,’ Auth, and remaining Vv. The whole Pretorium] ‘All the palace,’ Auth.; ‘eche moot halle,’ Wicl.; ‘all the judgment hall,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘every judgment house,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘al the court,’ Rhem. To all the rest | Sim. Rhem., ‘in all the rest:’ Auth. (Marg.), ‘to all others ;’ ‘in all other places,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. 14. That the greater part] ‘Many,’ Auth, and all other Vv. except Wicl., ‘mo.’ All however except Auth. prefix ‘that.’ Having in the Lord, &c.| ‘Brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds,’ Awth. and, with some variations, the other Vyv., except Wiel., Cov. (Test.), which connect ἐν Κυρίῳ with πεποιθότας. 15. From] ‘Of,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘for,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘through,’ Bish. Too| ‘Also,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem.; the rest omit. From| ‘Of,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem., for.’ 16. They that are, &c.] ‘But the other of love,’ Auth., but with a transposition of ver. 15 and τό. Because they know] So Cran., and sim. Tynd., Cov., ‘because they se: ‘knowing,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘witynge,’ Wicl. 17. But they that are, &c.] ‘The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds,’ Auth., but with a transposition of ver. 15 and 16. There is some little difficulty in find- ing a suitable translation for ἐριθεία. On the one hand, the older transla- tion, ‘strife,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., is certainly open to the objection of confounding ἔρις and ἐριθεία, from which that of Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem., viz., ‘ conten- tion,’ is scarcely free: on the other hand, the more lexically exact, ‘a spirit of intrigue,’ here certainly pre- sents an inadequate antithesis to In this difficulty perhaps the term chosen in the text sufficiently maintains the antithesis, while in its etymological formation it approaches Gen., ἀγάπη. lexical accuracy by keeping in view the spirit, the spirit of faction and dissension, that actuated the oppo- Q 2 228 PHILIPPIANS I. 17——22. affliction unto my bonds. ™ What then? notwithstanding, in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and therein I do rejoice: yea, and I shall rejoice ; “ἢ for I know that this shall issue to me unto salva- tion, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, * according to my steadfast expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be put to shame, but that with all boldness, as always so now also, Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. 2 Yer TO ME to live zs Christ, and to die és gain. ™ But if to live in the flesh,—if ru1s is to me the fruit of my labour, then nents. Proclaim] ‘Preach,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cuv. (Test.), ‘schewen.’ To raise up| “ *To add,’ Auth. 18. In every way] ‘Every way,’ Auth.; ‘on alle maner,’ Wicl.; ‘all maner wayes,’ Tynd., Cov. (‘of wayes’), Gen., Bish; ‘by every meane,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘anye maner of waye,’ Cran.; ‘by al meanes,’ Rhem. Proclaimed| ‘ Preached,’ Auth. and other Vv. except Wicl. ‘schewid.’ Therein 71 “1 therein,’ Auth.: changed to avoid any false emphasis on the pronoun. Shall] So Wiel. and Cov. (Test.): ‘will,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 19. Issue to me unto salv.] Sim. Rhem., ‘shall fall out to me unto salv.:’ ‘turn to my salv.’? Auwth., Gen., Bish.; ‘come to me in to helthe,’ Wicl.; ‘shall befal unto me to saluacion,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘shall chaunce to my salv.’ Zynd., Cov., Cran. Supplication] ‘ Prayer,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 20. Steadfast expectation] ‘ Expec- tation,’ Auth., Cran., Rhem. ; ‘ abid- ynge, Wicl.; ‘as I hertely loke for,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘waytynge for,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘as I loke for,’ Bish. Hope| So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Rhem. : ‘my hope,’ Auth. ; ‘and hope’ (verb), Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. Put to shame] ‘ Ashamed,’ Auth. and all Vv. except Rhem., ‘ confounded:’ it seems desirable to preserve and ex- press the passive αἰσχυνθήσομαι. 22. But if to live, &e.] ‘ But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour,’ Auth., and somewhat similarly as to construction, Tynd., Cran. : the other Vv. are perplexed and unsatis- factory, except Cov., “" but in as moch as to live in the flesh is fruteful to me for the worke,’ and better Cov. (Test.), ‘ yf to live here in the flesh is the frute of my labour, what,’ &c., in which though the τοῦτο is overlooked, that division between protasis and apo- dosis is preserved which seems, on the whole, most probable; so simi- larly Wicl., Ehem. Then what] ‘Yet what,’ Auth. ; ‘lo what,’ Wicl. ; ‘and what,’ Yynd., Cran. Gen., Bish. ; “1 wote not what,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘what,’ Cov. (Test.) Should ] ‘Shall,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Tynd., Gen., Bish., ‘to chose,’— an idiomatic translation, but tending to obscure the deliberative future. Wot not] So Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; scarcely exact, yet for- cible and firm in cadence. The transl. of Cov. (Test.), ‘I cannot tel,’ is idio- matic, and preferable to ‘knowe not,’ Wicl., Bish., Rhem. PHILIPPIANS I. 22—27. what I should choose I wot not. 229 8 Yea I am held in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart, and to be with Christ, for it is very far better: “ yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sakes. » And being per- suaded of this, I know that I shali abide and continue here with you all for your furtherance in and joy of Faith; * in order that your ground of boasting may abound in Jesus Christ in me by my coming to you again. * Only let your conversation be worthy of the gospel of Christ; that whether having come and seen you, or else 23. Yea] ‘*For,’ Auth. Tam held in @ strait] ‘I am in a strait,’ Auth.; ‘I am constreyned,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cran.; ‘both these thinges lye harde upon me,’ Cov.; ‘I am in distresse with twothings,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘I am greatly in doubte,’ Gen., Bish., ‘T am straitened,’ Rhem. The two] ‘Two,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. and Rhem., which (the former somewhat too strongly) express the article. The desire] ‘A desire,’ Awth., Cov. (Test.); ‘desire’ Rthem.; ‘I haue desire,’ Wicl.; ‘I desyre,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘ desir- ing,’ Gen., Bish. For it as, &c.| ‘ Which is far better,’ Auwth.; ‘it is myche more better,’ Wiecl.; ‘which thinge is best of all,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘which thinge were moch more better,’ Cov.; the ‘whyche is much more better,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘and to be with Christ is moch better,’ Cran.; ‘which is best,’ Bish.; ‘a thing much more better,’ Rhem. 24. Yet] ‘Nevertheless,’ Auwth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘but,’ Wicl. and the remaining Vv. For your sakes] So Cov. (Test.): ‘for you,’ Auth. aud the other Vv. 25. Being persuaded of ‘Having this confidence,’ Awth.; ‘trustynge,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Ethem.; ‘am I sure of,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Continue here with} ‘Continue with,’ Auth., this] with a difference of reading which, however, does not affect the transla- tion. The Vv. are nearly all iden- tical with Auth. except Wicl., ‘dwelle and perfightli dwelle,’ and Cov. (Test.), ‘continue with you all unto the end.’ Furtherance in] ‘Your furtherance and joy,’ Auwth., Cran. (‘youre faith’), Khem. (‘the faith’); ‘youre profight and joie of faith,’ Wicl.; ‘the furth. and joye of youre f.,’ Z'ynd., Cov.; ‘to youre pro- fite and rejoycynge of f.’, Cov. (Test.); ‘the furtherance and joy of your f.’, Gen., Bish. (‘ your furth.’) 26. In order that] ‘That,’ Auth. and all Vv. Ground of boasting | ‘Rejoicing, Auth. Cov. (Test.), Cran.; ‘thanke’ Wicl.; ‘may moare abundantly rejoyce,’ Tynd., Cov. (om. ‘moare’), Gen., Bish.; ‘your gratula- tion,’ Rhem. Abound] So Wicel., Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘be plenteous ’ ‘be more abundant,’ Auth. Cran. (‘the more.) For Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish., see above. In one] So Wicl., Cran. (but ‘tho- rowe J. C.’), Rhem.: ‘for me,’ Auth., Gen., Bish.: ‘thorowe me,’ Tynd., Cov.; ‘by me,’ Cov. (Test.) 27. Worthy of] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and sim. Wiel. ‘ worthili to :’ ‘as it becometh,’ Awth. and remain- ing Vy. Having come] ‘I come,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘whanne I come,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘1 230 TT.#r. remaining absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye are standing in one spirit, with one soul striving together for the faith of the gospel, * and not being terrified in any thing by your adversaries ; the which is to them an evidence of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God* * because unto you was granted, in behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also in behalf of Him—to suffer ; 80 having the same conflict as ye saw in me, and now hear of in me. PHILIPPIANS 1. 27—20. Cuarpter II. Ir then there be any exhortation in Christ, if any love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels aud com- shal come;’ Cov. (Test.). And | ‘on Him,’ Auth., and remaining Vv. seen] ‘And see,’ Auth. Remain- | It seems very desirable, on account ing absent] Somewhat sim. Cov. | of the etymological affinity of εἰς (évs) (Test.), ‘beynge absent:’ ‘be absent,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl.,’ ethir absent.’ Are standing] ‘Stand fast,’ Auwth., and sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘stande stedfaste ;’ “ye stonden,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘con- tynue,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Soul] So Tynd., Cov., Cran.: ‘minde,’ Auth., Gen., Bish., Rhem., and sim. Cov. (Test.) ‘one mynded ;’ ‘ wille,’ Weel. 28. Not being terrified] ‘In no- thing terrified,’ Auth.; ‘in no thing be ye aferd,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), ‘afraid; ‘in nothynge Tynd., Cov. Cran.; ‘in nothing feare,’ Gen., Bish.; ‘in nothing be ye terrified,’ Rhem. The which] So Cov. (Test.): ‘which,’ Auth. and all remaining Vv. Evidence] ‘Evident token,’ Awth.; ‘cause,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Cran., Rhem.; ‘token,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. This from] Sim. Rhem., ‘this of :’ ‘that of,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘this thing is of.’ 29. Because} ‘ For,’ Auth. and all Vy. Was granted] “ It is given,’ Auth. and all Vv. In Him) So Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. : . ἢ ᾽ fearinge, and ἐν (Donalds. Cratyl. § 170), to translate πιστεύειν εἰς, ‘believe in’ (where a more literal translation is not possible), and to reserve ‘on’ for πιστεύειν ἐπί; for the construction of this verb in the N.T., see notes ont Tim. i. τό, Reuss, Théol. Ohrét. Iv. 14, Vol. I. p. 129, and Rev. Transl. of St. John, p. X. In behalf of Him, &c.] ‘Suffer for His sake,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘for Him.’ For the reasons fur this change, see notes, 30. As ye saw] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem. (‘have seen’), and sim. Cran., ‘soch a fyght as yesaw:’ ‘which ye saw,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. (Cov. ‘have sene.’). Hear of | ‘Hear to be,’ Auth., Gen. (‘have heard’), Bish.; ‘han herde of me,’ Wiel., Rhem.; ‘hear of me,’ Zynd., Cov. (both), Cran. CuarrerR 11. 1. Jf then there be} ‘If there be therefore,’ Awth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘therfor if ony comf. is,’ Wicl.; ‘if therfore there be,’ Rhem.; Tynd. and Cov. omit οὖν. Exhortation] ‘ Con- PHILIPPIANS II. 1—6, passions, 291 > fulfil ye my joy, that ye mind the same thing, having the same love, with united souls minding the one thing; * minding nothing in the way of contentious- ness, nor in the way of vain glory, but with due lowliness of mind esteeming other superior to themselves; * regard- ing each of you not your own things, but also each of you the things of others. δ Verily have this mind within you, which was also in Christ Jesus: * who, though existing in the form of God, esteemed not the being equal with God a solation,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov., ‘ comfort.’ Compassions| ‘Mercies,’ Auth., and sim. Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘mercy ; ‘inwardnesse of merci doynge,’ Wicl.; ‘entier mocion of pytie,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘bowels of com- miseration,’ Rhem. 2. Mind the same thing] Sim. Wicl., ‘undirstonde the same thing :’ ‘be like minded,’ Auth., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘drawe one way,’ Tynd., Cov. ; ‘mynde one thing,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘be of one meaning,’ Rhem. With united souls, &c.] ‘ Being of one ac- cord, of one mind,’ Auth., and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran. (‘and of’); ‘of o wille and felen the same thing,’ Wiel. ; ‘of one mynde meanynge one thynge,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ of one accorde and of one judgment,’ Cran., Bish.; ‘of one mind, agreeing in one,’ Khem. 3. Minding, ὧς.) ‘ Let nothing be done through,’ Auth., Coverd. (Test.), and sim. Zynd., Cov. (‘there be’), Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘that nothinge be done ;’ ‘no thing bi,’ Wicl., Rhem. Contentiousness] Sim. Bish., Rhem., ‘contention :’ ‘strife,’ Auth., and the remaining Vy.; see notes on ch. i. 17 (Transl.). Nor in the way of | **Or,’ Auth. With due low- liness| ‘In lowliness,’ Auth.; ‘in mek- nesse,’ Wicl.; ‘in mekeness of mind,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘thorow mekeness,’ Cov.; ‘in humblenesse,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘in humilitie, Rhem. As the art. does not appear merely used to give ταπειν. its more abstract force, but to mark the ‘due, befitting’ lowliness by which the Philippians were to be influenced, the insertion would seem justifiable. Esteem- ing| So Coverd. (Test.): ‘let each esteem,’ Awth., and sim. the remain- ing Vv. except Wicl. (‘demynge’), Rhem. (‘ counting’), which retain the participial construction. Superior to] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘the superiores of :’ ‘better than,’ Auth. and other Vv. except Wicl., ‘higher than.’ 4. Regarding, &c.| ‘*Look not *every man on,’ Auth., and sim. in the imperative, Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘not beholdynge,’ Wicl.; ‘and that no man consider,’ Zynd.; ‘and let euery man loke not for his awne profet,’ Cov.; ‘euery one consydering not,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. But also each of you] ‘ But* every man also on,’ Auth.,and sim. Gen., Bish., the only twoVv. that notice in translation the ascensive Καί. 5. Verily] Auth. and all the Vv. omit the translation of ydp, except Wicl., ‘and ; Rhem., ‘for.’ Have this, &c.] ‘*Let this mind be in you,’ Awth., sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘let the same mind, &c.,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘that mind,’ &c.; ‘fele ye this thing in you,’ Wicl.; ‘this think in yourselves,’ Rhem. 6. Though existing] ‘Being,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish.; ‘whanne 232 PHILIPPIANS II. 6—12. prize to be seized on, 7 but emptied Himsutr, taking upon Him the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men: ὃ and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea unto death on the cross. " Wherefore God did also highly exalt Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name, ™ that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; ™“ and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 7s Lorp, to the glory of God the Father. * So then, my beloved, as ye were always obedient, not He was,’ Wicl. and remaining Vv. Esteemed not, &c.| ‘Thought it not robbery to be equal with God,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Cran., Gen., Bish., Rhem., ‘no rob- bery, &c.;’ ‘demed not raueyn, that him silf were euene to God,’ Wicl. 7. Emptied HIMSELF | ‘ Made Him- self of no reputation,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘lowede Him self . Rhem., ‘exinanited Him self.’ Taking.| So Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Cran., Rhem.: ‘and took,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. There is some little difficulty in the translation of the modal (aor.) participle, when, as in the present case, the action of the parti- ciple is synchronous with that of the finite verb. On the whole, the pres. part. in English seems the best and most idiomatic equivalent, especially as in practice the tense of the finite verb seems so far reflected on the pavr- ticiple, that though really present in form, it becomes almost aoristic in sense. Being made] ‘ Was made,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish.; ‘became lyke,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘made into,’ Rhem. 8. Becoming] ‘And _ became,’ Auth. and the other Versions except Wicl., ‘and was made ;’ ‘ was made,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘made,’ Rhem. Yea unto death] Sim. Wicel., ‘ye to the death:’ even the death, Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov., which inserts ‘ unto,’ as in text. On the cross] ‘ Of the cross,’ Auth. and all the other Vv.: the slight change seems to add somewhat to perspicuity, and is compatible with the present use of the gen., which is one of ‘ more re- mote relation.’ 9. Did also, &c.] So Cov. (Test.): ‘God also hath,’ Auth., Cran., Rhem.: ‘God enhauncid,’ Wicl.; ‘God hath exalted,’ Zynd.; ‘hath God, &c.,’ Cov. ; ‘God_hath highly ex.,’ Gen. ; ‘God hath also highly ex.,’ Bish. The change in the text seems to have the advantage of placing the contrasting kat in more distinct connexion with ὑπερύψωσεν. Gave] So Wiel., Cov. (Test.): ‘given,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Ahem., ‘ hath given.’ 10. In the name] So Wicel., Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran., Gen.; ‘at the name,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. On earth] Sim. Coverd., ‘upon erth:’ ‘in earth,’ Auth. and remaining Vy. ex- cept Wicel., ‘erthely thingis ;’ Rhem., ‘ terrestrials,’ 12. So then] ‘Wherefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ therefore.’ Were always οὗ. ‘ Have always obeyed,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- PHILIPPIANS II. 12—17. 233 as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. % For it is God which effectually worketh in you, both to will and to perform, of His good pleasure. ™“ Do all things without murmurings and doubtings; ” that ye may be blameless and pure, children of God without rebuke, amidst a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye appear as heavenly lights in the world, ™ holding forth the word of life; that I may have whereof to boast against the day of Christ, that I did not run in vain nor yet laboured in vain. 7 Howbeit if I be even poured out in the sacrifice and cept Wicl., ‘evermore ye han obe- ischid.’ 13. Effectually worketh| ‘ Worketh,’ Auth. and all Vv. To perform] So Wicl., Cov, (Test.), and sim. Rhem., ‘accomplish :’ ‘to do,’ Auth.; ‘the dede,’ Z'ynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 14. Doubtings] So Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), and sim. Rhem., ‘staggerings:’ ‘disputings,’ Awth. and, in the sing., Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; Gen., Bish. 15. Pure] So Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish.: “harmless, Auth. (Marg. ‘sin- cere’); ‘simple,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘unfayned, Cran. Children of | So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘the sons of, Auth. and remaining Vy. except Cran., ‘unfayned sonnes of. | Amidst|** In the midst, Auth. Generation] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘nation, Awth. and remaining Vv. Appear] ‘Shine,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Heavenly lights] ‘Lights,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Wicl., « geuers of light.’ 16. Have whereof, ἀς. “ Rejoice, Auth., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘to my glorie, Wicl., Rhem.; ‘unto my re- joysynge,’ Tynd., Cov. (both). Against] ‘In, Auth. and all Vv. Did not run] ‘ Have not run,’ Auth. and all the Vv. The change to the aoristic form seems in this case clearly Pe : ᾽ reasonings, proper and necessary: the form with the auxiliary is here chosen for the sake of preserving the rhythm of the Auth. Ver., which can rarely be ne- glected without some loss to the gene- Modern translators have paid far too little at- ral cadence of the verse. tention to this not unimportant ele- ment in a good version of the Scrip- tures. Nor yet] ‘Neither,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Rhem., ‘nor; Cov. (Test.) omits. The change is here made in accordance with the rule generally followed in this revision —to adopt the weaker translation (‘nor,’ or ‘neither’), of the disjunctive οὐδέ, where the meanings of the words it disjoins are more similar and accordant, the stronger and more em- phatic (‘nor yet),’ where they are less so ; see notes on 1 Tim.i. 4 (Transl.). 17. Howbeit] ‘Yea and,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘ but though;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘ but although ; Rhem., ‘ but and if,’—an archaic, but not otherwise unsatisfactory, transla- tion. Be even poured out] ‘ Be offered,’ Auth., and sim. Z'ynd. (adds ‘or slayn’), Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘be offered up; ‘am off. up,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘be immoiated,’ Khem. In the] ‘Upon the,’ Auth, and all the Vv. (Wicl. ‘on the’); it seems, how- ever, desirable to mark in translation 234 PHILIPPIANS II. 17—23: service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all. ™ Yea for the same cause do ye also joy, and rejoice with me. * Yet I hope in the Lord Jesus to shortly send to you Timothy, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. * For I have no man likeminded, who will have a true care for your state. ™ For they all seek their own things, not the things of Christ Jesus. 5 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a child to a father, he served with me in furthering the gospel. that ἐπὶ has here probably not a local but an ethical reference; the more exact ‘unto’ (see notes) would here be hardly intelligible. 18. Yea for] ‘For, &c.,’ Auth, and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘and the same thing have ye joie; Cov. (Test.), “be ye glad also of the same;’ Rhem., ‘and the self same thing do you also rejoice. The regimen of αὐτὸ is somewhat more exactly expressed by Cov. (Test.) than by Auth. and the Text, but there seems scarcely suffi- cient reason to introduce the change, especially as the sense would remain substantially the same, while the rhythm would certainly suffer. Do ye also) Sim. Rhem., ‘do you also; ‘also do ye,’ Auth., Cran. ; ‘also, rejoice ye,’ Tynd.; ‘be ye glad also,’ Cov. (both); ‘also be ye glad,’ Gen., Bish.: Wicl. omits ‘also.’ 19. Yet I hope] ‘But I trust,’ Auth. (Marg. ‘moreover’); ‘and I hope,’ Wicl., Rhem. ; ‘I trust,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen.; ‘and I trust,’ Bish. To shortly, cc. | ‘To send Tim. shortly unto you,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘schal sende Tymothe soone to you;’ Rhem., ‘to send T. unto you quickly.’ The change is made to endeavour to show that ὑμῖν is the transmissive da- tive, and not the same as πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ver. 25; see notes. 20. Will have true care] ‘ Will na- turally care,’ Awth, ; ‘is bisie for you Ξ Him with clene affection;’ ‘with so pure affeccion careth,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen. ; ‘be careful for you with sincere affec- cion,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘with so pure aff. will care,’ Cran. ; ‘wil faithfully care,’ Bish.; ‘with sincere affection is care- ful,’ Rhem. 21. They all] So Cov. (Test.), and somewhat sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.: ‘all,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘all men,’ Wiel. Own things] ‘own, Auth, and the other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., Rhem., ‘the things that ben her owne,’ and sim. Cov. (Test.). Of Christ Jesus] ‘Which are *Jesus Christ’s,’ Auth., Cran., Cov. (Test.), (‘that be’), Rhem. (‘that are’); “ that ben of Crist Jhesus,’ Wicl.; ‘that which is Jesus Christes,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. The change in the text seems to leave the translation equally uncircumscribed with the Greek: the possessive gen. in English seems more limited. 22. The proof| So Auth. and all the Vv. except Wicl., ‘assaie ; Rhem., ‘an experiment: the meaning really amounts to ‘proved character,’ (see notes), but as so many of the Vy. re- tain the literal meaning of δοκιμή, a change may be deemed unnecessary. Child toa father] Sim. Cov. (both), ‘a chylde unto the father;’ ‘a son with the father,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘a sone to the ΠΡ Bish., ‘that as father he hath, &c.;’ Rhem., ‘a sonne the father.’ PHIEIPPIANS If. 39—~97. 239 then I hope to send forthwith, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. also shall come shortly. * But I trust in the Lord that I myself » Yet I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epa- phroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger and minister to my need, 26 Served] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘dyd he serve,’ and sim. as to aoristic form, Tynd., Cran., Gen.: ‘hath served,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish., Rhem.; ‘hath he ministred,’ Cov. In furthering the gospel] ‘In the gospel,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Tynd., ‘be- stowed his labour upon the gospel.’ 23. Then] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Tynd., Cov., which omit οὖν in translation. Forthwith| ‘Presently,’ Auth.; ‘im- mediately,’ Rhem.; the rest omit. The concluding words of the verse are due to the version of 7 γηά., and have been retained by all succeeding Vv. except Rhem., ‘that concern me.’ The sense is expressed with sufficient accuracy (see notes) to render it un- desirable to alter a translation so thoroughly idiomatic. 24. Myself also] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem. (omits ‘1I’): ‘also myself,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 25. Unto you) So Cov., and, after ‘Epaphr.,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. : | “to you,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) omits. It seems desirable to attempt to make a distinction between πρὸς ὑμᾶς and the transmissive dative ; see notes on ver. 10. Minister, d&ec.] Sim. Wiel., ‘the mynistre of my nede:’ Rhem., ‘minister of my necessitie ; 7 γηά., Cov. [‘nede’], ‘my minister at my nedes:’ ‘he that mi- nistered to my wants,’ Auth.; ‘the | servant of my nede,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘which also mynystreth unto me at since he was longing after you all, and was full of heavi- ness, because that ye heard that he had been sick. 7 For nede,’ Cran. ; ‘he that ministred unto me such things as I wanted,’ Gen., Bish. 26. Since] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Cov., ‘for so moch as,’ an archaic, but not inexact, transla- tion; Rhem., ‘ because.’ He was longing] ‘He longed,’ Auth. and | the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘he de- sired ;’ Rhem., ‘he had a desire.’ Ye heard] So Wiel.: ‘had heard,’ Awth. and the remaining Vv. In the next member the English idiom seems clearly to require the pluperfect in translation ; in the for- mer member it may apparently be dispensed with. 27. Like unto] ‘Nigh unto,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘sike to the deeth,’ Wicl.; ‘untyll death,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ very neere unto,’ Bish. ; ‘even to death,’ Rhem. Howbeit | ‘But,’ Auth. and all Vv. That I should not] ‘Lest I should have,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘leest I hadde ;’ Ζ7γηά., Cov., ‘I shuld have had.’ 28. Send] So Cov. (both) ; ‘sent,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The change seems necessary, as ἔπεμψα is in all probability the epistolary aorist (see notes on Philem. 11) Epaphr. be- ing appy. the bearer of this Epistle. Therefore] So Auth. and all the Vv. ; and appy. rightly, as this seems one of the cases in which οὖν has a slightly inferential force, which is inadequately | expressed by ‘then ;’ see notes on I 290 PHILIPPIANS Τ|. 27—230: indeed he was sick like unto death: howbeit God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, that I should not have sorrow upon sorrow. * I send him there- fore the more diligently, that, when ye see him ye may rejoice again, and that I also may be the less sorrowful. “ Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold such in henour ; Tim. ii. 1. Diligently] So Tynd., Bish., and sim. Cran., Gen., ‘diligentliar ;’> comp. 2 Tim. i. 17: ‘carefully,’ Auth.; ‘haistli,’ Wécl., Cov. ¢ ‘spedely,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. The translation of the text, though not wholly free from ambiguity, per- - haps shows a (little more clearly than Auth. al., that the Apostle showed 1 also] So Cov.: ‘I,’ Auth. and remaining Vy. The inserted pronoun (‘I on my side’) perhaps suggests this slight ad- dition. Rejoice again] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Rhem., and similarly Wicl., Cov. (Test.): ‘again, ye may rejoice,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. Perhaps the insertion of the adverb between the auxiliary and the verb might seem more consonant with the order of the Greek, and perhaps also with our pre- sent modes of expression: as, how- ever, it has a tendency to suggest an undue emphasis on ‘again,’ and is, perhaps, a modern collocation, we re- tain the order of the older version. This is one of many minor points that would need careful consideration in any formal revision of our present Version. 5 29. Then) ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and all Vv.: see notes in loc. Joy| So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘gladness,’ Auth, and the remaining Vv. It certainly seems undesirable to depart from the usual and almost semi- theological meaning of χαρά. In honour] So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Wicl., Rhem. : ‘in reputation,’ Awth. ; ‘make moch σπουδὴ in sending Ep. Ὁ because for the work of Christ he went nigh of soche,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 30. Went nigh, &c.] ‘Was nigh unto death,’ Awuth., Gen., Bish. (‘neere’); ‘he wente to deeth,’ Wicl.; ‘he went so farre, that he was nye unto deeth,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘came nye unto,’ Cov. ; ‘went to even untyll death,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘came to the point of death,’ Rhem. Having hazarded| ‘ Not regarding,’ Auth. ; ‘geuynge his liif,’ Wicl. ; ‘and regarded not his lyfe, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘geuyng over his lyfe,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘yelding his life,’ Rhem. The trans- lation of the aor. part., when asso- ciated with the finite verb, requires Besides the usual periphrastic translations by means of temporal or causal particles, we have three forms of translation— (a) the present participle; (6) the past participle, with the auxiliary ‘having ;’ (c) the idiomatic conversion into the finite verb with ‘and.’ Of these, (α) is especially admissible when the part. defines more closely the manner of the action expressed by the finite verb, or the circumstances under which it took place (see notes on ch. ii. 7) ; (b) is often useful when it is neces- sary to mark the priority of the action of the part. to that of the finite verb ; (c) suitably marks their contempora- neity. In the present case the choice seems to be between (b) and (0), as the παραβολ. may be regarded as partly accompanying, and partly as having preceded, the ἤγγισεν. As, very careful consideration. PHILIPPIANS II. 30. ΠΙ. 237 j ee even unto death, having hazarded his life, to supply that which you lacked in your service to me. Cuarpter III. Finatty, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed és not irksome, while for you zt zs safe. look to the coNcIsIon. 2 Look to the dogs, look to the evil-workers Qo 2 ᾿ ὁ For we are the ΟἸΚΟΟΜΟΙΞΙΟΝ, which by the Spirit of God do serve Him, and make our boast in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh ; logically considered, the latter idea seems here distinctly more prominent, we adopt the second form of transla- tion. That which, 6.1] So somewhat similarly Zynd., Cov., Gen., Bish., ‘that service which was lack- ing on your part to me; ‘your lack of service to me,’ Auth. ; ‘that that falid of you anentis my service,’ Wicl. —not an incorrect view of the gen. (see notes); ‘it that was wantynge unto you toward my willynge ser- vyce,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘that which was lackynge on youre part toward me,’ Cran. ; ‘that which on your part wanted toward my service,’ Ahem. CHaPreR III. 1. Jrksome] ‘Griev- ous, Auth. ; ‘it is not slowe,’ Wiel. ; ‘it greveth me not,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘no grefe,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘ tedious,’ Rhem. While} ‘But,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘and,’ Wicl., Cov., Gen., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘for to you it is, &e.,’ Tynd., Cran. It would at first sight seem desirable to suppress the μὲν in translation ; as, however, the opposition μὲν.---δὲ is sparingly used in the N.T., and only when a somewhat decided contrast is intended, it is best to retain Awth. 2. Look to (3 times)] Sim. Wiel. ‘se ye; hem. ‘beware,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. “see: The dogs] So Rhem.: ‘dogs,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The presence of the article with the two following substantives, seems to show that here the article is not merely generic, but distinctive and definitive; ‘indicat eum de certis quibusdam loqui, quos 111 noverint,’ Erasmus. The evil] So Rhem.: Auth. and the remaining Vv. omit the article. By the Spirit of &c.| ‘ Worship *God in the spirit,’ Auth. It seems permissible to add ‘ Him’ to the absolute λατρεύοντες in accordance with Auth. in Luke ii. 37, Acts xxvi. 7. The translation of Cov., ‘even we that serve,’ &c., by which the appositional character of οἱ Πνεύμ. x.7.d. 15 fully preserved, is not undeserving of notice: there seems, however, scarcely sufficient reason for a change. Make our boast] Sim. Wiel., Rhem., ‘glorien: ‘rejoice,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Put] ‘Have,’ Auth. On account of the next clause, it seems desirable to here avoid the use of ‘ have.’ 3. Myself possessed of | ‘Though I might also have,’ Bish., Auth., and sim. Rhem. (‘albeit I also have’); ‘though I have trist,’ Wicl.; ‘though I also have confidence,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘though I have wher of I myght re- joyce,’ Tynd., Cov. Gen.; ‘though I myght also rejoyce,’ Cran. The change 298 PHILIPPIANS ΠῚ. 4—8. 4 though myself possessed of confidence even in the flesh. If any other man deemeth that he can put confidence in the flesh, I more: ὅ circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as regards the law, a Pharisee ; δ as regards zeal, persecuting the church; as regards the righteousness which is in the law, living blameless. 7 Howbeit what things were gain to me, these for Christ’s sake I have counted loss. to ‘ possessed of,’ is an endeavour to mark the ‘habens, non utens’ implied here by ἔχων, and to draw a distinc- tion in translation between πεποιθὼς and ἔχων πεποίθησιν. Even in the] ‘In the flesh,’ Awth., and all the Vv. except Wicel., ‘in flesh.’ 4. Deemeth] ‘Thinketh,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except, Wicl., ‘is seyn to trist;) Cov. (Test.) ‘semeth to have; Rhem. ‘seeme to have.’ The slightly stronger ‘ deeineth,’ appears best to coincide with the view of δοκεῖ adopted in the notes. Can put conf.] ‘Hath whereof he might trust,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘is seyn to trust,’ Wicl.; ‘wherof he might rejoyce,’ Cov.; ‘seemeth to have confidence,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. (‘seeme’). The literal translation, ‘that he hath confidence,’ is here slightly ambiguous, and appy. war- rants our adopting the slight peri- phrasis in the text. 5. As regards] ‘As touching,’ Auth.; ‘bi,’ Wicl., Bish.; ‘as con- cernynge, Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘after,’ Cov. (Test.), ‘by profession a Ph.,’ Gen.; ‘according to,’ Rhem. It will be seen (from next verse) that Wicl. and Rhem. are the only two which preserve the same translation of κατὰ in the three clauses: this certainly seems desirable, as more clearly direct- ing the reader’s attention to the three theological characteristics of the Apostle, which are not improbably * Nay more and I do also count them all climactic in arrangement. As regards] ‘Concerning,’ Auth.; ‘as concernynge, Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish.; ‘after,’ Cov. ‘according to,’ Rhem. 6. As regards] ‘Touching,’ Auth. ; ‘bi,’ Wicl.; ‘as touchynge, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; Bish. (omits ‘as’); ‘according to,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Living blameless] Sim. Wiel. ‘lyuynge without playnte :’ Cov. (Test.) ‘I have walked wythout blame ;’ Rhem., ‘con- versing without blame;’ ‘ blameless,’ Auth.; ‘I was unrebukeable,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. The addi- tion of Wicl. serves to mark, though not quite adequately, the γενόμενος which Auth. leaves unnoticed. 7. Howbeit] ‘But,’ Auth, and all the Vv. The adversative ἀλλὰ seems here to require a stronger translation than the merely oppositive ‘ but.’ These] So Wiclif: ‘those,’ Auth., Cran., Rhem.; ‘the same,’ Tynd., Cov. (both).; Gen., Bish. For Christ's sake] So Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish., but at the end of the sentence: ‘for Christ,’ Awth., Wicl., Rhem.—also at the end. The change of order perhaps keeps up the antithesis κέρδος and (mula with a little more emphasis. Have counted] So sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘have I counted; Wicl., ‘I have demede; Rhem., ‘have I esteemed:’ ‘counted,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 8. Nay more] *‘Yea doubtless,’ Cran., (Test.); PHILIPPIANS III. 8—10. 239 to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whose sake I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them to be dung, that I may win Christ, ° and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through Faith in Christ, even the righteousness which cometh of God by Faith. “ That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘netheless,’ Wicl. ; ‘ye,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘neverthe- lesse,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘yea but,’ Rhem. The most literal translation would perhaps be ‘nay indeed as was said,’ but is obviously too heavy for an idio- matic version ; comp. notes. Do also count them αἰ] ‘I count ail things,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.); ‘I gesse alle thingis,’ Wicl.; ‘I thinke all thynges,’ 7γηά., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; “1 esteeme al things,’ Rhem. The insertion of ‘them,’ and the change to ‘do also count,’ seem re- quired to show that the real emphasis does not rest on πάντα, but on ἡγοῦμαι as contrasted with ἥγημαι, while πάντα refers back to the pre- ceding ἅτινα x.r.d.; comp. Meyer in loc. To be loss] So Cov. (Test.) and sim. Wicl., ‘to be peirement:’ ‘but loss,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. For whose sake] So Cov. (Test.): ‘for whom,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv.: change for the sake of accordance with the transl. of διὰ τὸν Xp., ver. 7. Suffered| ‘Have suffered; Auth., and similarly with the auxiliary ‘ have,’ all Vv. except Wicl., ‘I made alle thingis peirement.’ To be dung] So Bish.: ‘but dung,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish.; ‘as drit,’ Wicl. ; “as dounge,’ Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. ; “but vyle,’ Cran. 9. Faith in] Sim. Tynd., ‘the fayth which is in Christ: ‘the faith of,’ Auth. andthe remaining Vv. Even] So Cran., Bish., and sim. Wicl., ‘ that is: Tynd., Gen., ‘I meane;’ Cov., ‘namely; Auth. omits, and Cov. (Test.) and Rhem. alter the construc- tion. The insertion, thus sanctioned by six of the Vv., seems to add slightly both to the perspicuity and emphasis, Cometh of] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.: ‘is of,’ Auth., Wicl., Bish., Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) alters the con- struction. The concluding words, ‘by faith,’ Auth. (‘in faith,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘ thorowe faith,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.), are scarcely an exact translation of ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει (see notes), but are perhaps a sufficiently close approximation to it to be prefer- able to any periphrasis (‘ grounded on faith,’ ‘resting on faith’) which an adhesion to the literal meaning of the prep. would render necessary. to. In His] ‘Of His,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Fashioned to, &c.| Somewhat sim. Wicl., ‘made liik to :’ Cov. (Test.), ‘lyke fashioned with :’ ‘*made conformable unto,’ Auth, and the remaining Vy. except Rhem. The expression in the original (συμμορφίζεσθαι θανάτῳ) though per- fectly intelligible, is so far unusual as to require some slight periphrasis in English. The shorter translation, ‘being conformed to,’ is perhaps open to objection as involving a use of ‘conform,’ which, though sanctioned by Hooker, is now of rare occurrence. The transl. of Conyb., ‘sharing the likeness of,’ is objectionable as obli- terating the passive. | 240 PHILIPPIANS III. το---τῇ. fashioned to the likeness of His death, ™ if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead. * Not that I have already attained, or have already been made perfect ; but I am pressing onward if that I may lay hold on that for which also I was laid hold on by Christ. * Brethren, I count not MysEL¥F to have gotten hold: but one thing 7 do, forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth after the things that are before, “ I press on toward the mark for the prize of the heavenly calling of 11. May] So Cov. (both), Rhem. : ‘might,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘if . . . I come.’ From the dead| So Cov.: ‘* of the dead,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wiclif, Cov. (Test.), Rhem., which follow the reading in the text. These three Vv. all translate τήν (‘that is fro,’ Wiclif, Cov. (Test.) ; ‘which is from,’ Rhem.): the insertion of the article is certainly intended to emphatically specify, but appy. falls short of the very distinctive force conveyed by the parallel insertion of the relative in English. 12. Not that] So Wici., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem.: ‘not as though,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish. I have] So Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem.: ‘I had, Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish. On the use of the auxiliary ‘have’ in the translation of the aor. with ἤδη see notes on Eph. iii. 5 (Transl.), and on 1 Tim. i. 20 (Transl.) Or have already, &c.| ‘ Kither were already perfect,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish. ; ‘or now am p.,’ Wicl.; ‘or that I am all ready p.,’ Cov., Cran.; ‘or that I be now p.,’ Cov, (Test.); ‘or now am p-, Rhem. ‘Am pressing] ‘fol- low after,’ Auth.; ‘sue,’ Wiclif; ‘folowe,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘follow upon,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘pursue,’ Rhem. Lay hold on —was laid hold on] ‘Apprehend—am apprehended of,’ Auth. ; ‘ compre- hende—am comprehendide of,’ Wicl., and the remaining Vv. ‘* Christ Jesus,’ Awth. 13. Gotten hold] So Cov. (Test.), and sim. T'ynd., Cov., Cran., ‘ gotten it:’ ‘apprehended,’ Awth.; ‘ compre= hendide,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘ atteyned to the mark,’ Gen.; ‘attained to it.’ Bish. One thing] So Wiel., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish, Rhem.: ‘this one thing,’ Auth., Cran. The things| So Wiel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘those things,’ Auth., Cran. ; ‘that which,’ Zynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. That are (twice)] So Wiclif, Cov. (Test., once), Rhem.: ‘ which,’ Auth., and the remaining Vy. If the dis- tinction alluded to on Eph. i. 23, be ‘that’ would seem here slightly more exact than ‘ which.’ Stretching forth after] Sim. Wicl., ‘strecche forth my silf to; Tynd., Cov., ‘ stretche my silfe unto; Cov. (Test.), ‘stretchynge myself to;’ Rhem., ‘stretching forth my self to:’ ‘reach- ing forth unto,’ Auwth.; ‘endeuore myself unto,’ Cran., Gen., Bish. 14. Press on] ‘Press,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran.; ‘ pursue,’ Wicel., Rhem.; ‘follow hard,’ Gen., Bish. In this verse the simple English present is more suitable than the auxiliary with the part., as in ver, 12. There the adverb ἤδη and the past tenses ἔλαβον and τετελείωμαι suggested a contrast in point of time; here the iterative force involved in the English Christ | correct, | present (Latham, HLngl. Lang. § 573), PHILIPPIANS IIL. ry4—er. 941 God in Christ Jesus. Let us then, as many as be perfect, be of this mind: and if in any thing ye are differently minded, even this will God reveal unto you. 7' Nevertheless whereto we have attained,—in the same direction walk ye onward. % Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which are walking so as ye have us for anensample. ™ For many walk, of whom I used many times to tell you and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: "Ὁ Whose end is perdition, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who are minding earthly things. Ὁ For ouR commonwealth is in heaven ; from whence also we tarry for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ : is more appropriate. Heavenly] ‘High,’ Awth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Rhem., ‘supernal.’ 15. Then] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and all the Vv. Of this mind] ‘Thus minded,’ Awth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘feele we this thing,’ Weel. ; ‘thus wyse minded,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. Are differently] ‘Be , otherwise,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘understonden in other maner ony thing.’ This will God, &c.| ‘God shall reveal even this unto you,’ Awth. and, in the same order, with some slight variations of language, the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘this thing God schal schewe ; Rhem., ‘this also God hath reuealed,’—a sin- gular mistranslation. 16. Attained] ‘ Already attained,’ Auth.; ‘han commun,’ Wicl.; ‘are come, TZynd., Cov., Gen., Bish., Rhem. In the same direction, &c.| ‘* Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing,’ Awth. The verse is obscure from its brevity ; the translation ‘to what point we have attained, —in the same direction, &c.,’ perhaps may slightly clear it up, but is inferior to Auth. in giving too special a meaning to εἰς 0. 17. Arewalking| ‘ Walk,’ Auth. 1 Who shall transform the body of our humiliation and all the Vv. It seems desirable to make some slight distinction be- tween the pres. participle in this verse and the pres. indic. in ver. 18. 18. Used many times, &c.] ‘Have told you often,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘I have seide ofte to you;’ Rhem., ‘often I told you of.’ Change to preserve the true force of ἔλεγον, and the παρήχησις, πολλὰ--- πολλάκις. 19. Perdition] ‘Destruction,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘deeth,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘dampnacion,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Compare ont Tim. vi. 9- Are minding] ‘Minde,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ;‘ saueren,’ Wicl. ; ‘are worldely mynded,’ 7 γηά., Cran., Gen. ; ‘areearthly minded,’ Cov. 20. Commonwealth] ‘Conversa- tion,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Wiel., ‘lyuyng.’ We also tarry for, &c.] ‘Also we look for the Saviour,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘also we abiden the sauyour,’ Wicl.; ‘we loke for a saveour, even &c.,’ Tynd., Cov. (‘the sav. J.C.’); ‘we do wayte for the saueoure the Lord J.C.,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘we loke for the s., even the Lord J.C.,’ Cran.; ‘we expect the Saviour our Lord J.C., Rhem. 21. Transform] ‘Change,’ Auth, R 242 PHILIPPIANS JIL. ar. IV. 1—6. so that it be fashioned like unto the body of His glory, ac- cording to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself. CuapTer LV. Wuererorz, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, dearly beloved. > I exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syutyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. * Yea I entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, give them aid, since they laboured with me in the gospel, in company with Clement also, and the rest of my fellowlabourers whose names are in the book of life. * Rejoice in the Lord alway: again I will say, Rejoice. ἢ Let your forbearance be known unto all men. is at hand. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘refourme : Cov. (Test.), ‘restore.’ Body of our humiliation] Sim. Rhem., “body of our humilitie ; Wicl., ‘bodi of oure mekenesse :’ ‘ vile body,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. So as to be] ‘* That it may be,’ Auth. Body of His glory] So Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘bodi of his clereness ;’ ‘glorious body,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘hys cleare body.’ CuHarPteR ITV. τ. Wherefore] So Cov. (both): ‘therefore,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The more exact translation, ‘so then,’ is here some- ‘what awkward, on account of the fol- lowing ‘so.’ Dearly bel. (2nd)] Auth. prefixes ‘my,’ with Lhem. ; ‘most dere britheren,’ Wicl.; ‘ye beloved,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. 2. LExhort} ‘Beseech,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.); ‘preie,’ Wicl. and the re- maining Vv. except Rhem., ‘desire.’ As παρακαλῶ is a word of very fre- quent occurrence in St. Paul’s Epp. The Lord δ Be anxious about nothing; but in every (comp. notes on 1 Tim. i. 3), the translation must vary with the con- here perhaps the slightly ‘exhort’ is more suitable than the (now) weaker ‘beseech.’ 3. Yea] ‘*And,’ Auth. (καὶ ép.) Give them aid, &c.| ‘Help those wo- men which,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. (‘that’); ‘the ilke wymmen that,’ Wicl. ; ‘the wemen which,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. In company with] ‘With,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The rest of | Sim. Rhem., ‘the rest my: ‘with other,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘and other,’ Wiel.; ‘my other,’ Cov. (both). 4. Again] So Rhem., Cov. (Test.), Bish., and sim. Wicl., ‘efte:’ ‘and again,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 1 will say| ‘I say,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 5. Forbearance] “ Moderation,’ Auth. ; ‘pacience,’ Wicl. ; ‘ softe- ness,’ Z'ynd., Coverd. (both), Cran. ; ‘patient mynde,’ Gen., Bish. ; ‘mo- destie,’ Rhem. 6. Anxious about] text : stronger ‘Careful for,’ PHILIPPIANS IY. 6—10. 243 thing by your prayer and your supplication with thanks- giving let your requests be made known before God. 7. And the peace of God, which passeth all understandings, shall keep your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus. 5. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are seemly, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. ° The things, which ye also learnt and received, and heard, and saw in me, the same do: and the God of peace shall be with you. 1 Now I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye flourished again as concerning your care for me, wherein ye Auth., Cran. ; ‘no thing bisie,’ Wicl. ; ‘not carfull,’ Tyad., Cov., Gen. ; ‘no- thynge carefull,’ Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. Your (twice)|] Auth. and the other Vy. simply, ‘prayer and suppl.’ (Wicel., The Versions which erroneously connect πάντι with προσευχῇ are Wicl., Cov. (Test.), and, what is singular, Cran., as this Version was not from the Vul- gate, and was preceded by the correct translations of Tynd. and Cov. Before] So Cov.: ‘unto,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘at ;’ fthem., ‘with.’ Though not perfectly exact, the above translation of πρὸς is slightly preferable to ‘unto,’ as not seeming to imply to the English reader that a dat. is used in the ori- ginal. 7. All understandings) ‘All un- derstanding,’ Auth. and all the Vv. (Wicel., ‘witte’). As these words are so familiar to Christian ears, it seems desirable to introduce the slightest possible change consistent with accu- racy. This seems to be the change to the plural, as it approximately con- veys the meaning of πάντα νοῦν (comp. notes on Col. ii. 15, p. 124, col. 1.), and precludes the ordinary miscon- ception that ‘understanding’ is a par- ‘bisechinge’). ticiple. Your thoughts] ‘Minds,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘undirstondingis;’ Rhem., ‘intelligences.’ In| So Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘through,’ Auth., Gen. 8. Seemly] ‘ Honest,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicel., ‘ chast.’ 9. The things] So Cov. (Test.), where also it is similarly resumed as in text by ‘the same:’ ‘those things,’ Auth.; ‘which,’ Zynd. and the re- maining Vv. except Wecel., ‘that.’ Learnt also] Similarly Wéel., ‘also ye han lerned:’ ‘have both learned,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Saw] ‘Seen,’ Auth. The same do| So Cov. (Test.) ‘do the same,’ and sim. Z7'ynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘those thynges do;’ Rhem., ‘these things do ye,’ (Wicl. inverts order): ‘do,’ Auth. το. Now]So Bish. : ‘but,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.); ‘and,’ Rhem.; the rest omit. At length] Sim. Rhem., ‘at the length: ‘at the last,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wecel., ‘sumtyme aftirward.’ 76 flow- rished again, &c.| ‘ Your care of me hath flourished again,’ Auth.; ‘ye flouriden agen to fele for me,’ Wiel. ; “ye are revived agayne to care for R 2 244 were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. PHILIPPIANS IV. το---ἴ] 1: “ Not that I speak in consequence of want: for I have learned, in what state I am, therein to be content. 2 17 know how to be abased, I know also how to abound: in every thing and in all things I have been fully taught both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. all things in Him that strengtheneth me. 3 T can do 14 Notwithstand- ing ye did well that ye bare part with my affliction. me,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish.; ‘ye are flouryshynge agayne to regarde me,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘your care is re- uyued againe for me,’ Cran.; ‘you have reflourished to care for me,’ Rhem. 11. Im consequence of | ‘In respect of,’ Auth.; ‘as for,’ Wicl.; ‘because of,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘as because of,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘as it were for,’ Rhem. The translation in the text is probably a modern form of expression, but is apparently exact: the Auth. though not incorrect is somewhat ambiguous. What state] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘what cases: ‘whatsoever state,’ Awth. and the remaining Vv. (‘estate’) except Wicl., ‘to be sufficient in whiche thingis I am; Rhem., ‘to be content with the things that I have.’ Therein} ‘Therewith,’ Awth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem. (see above), and Cov. (Test.), which omits. 12. Know also] ‘*Know both,’ Auth. Rhem.; ‘can also,’ Wiel.: ‘can both,’ Zynd., Cov. (Test.), Cran. ; ‘can,’ Cov., Gen., Bish. It may be here remarked that sometimes the po- sition of καὶ in Greek, and that of ‘also,’ ‘even,’ or. ‘too,’ in English, will not always exactly correspond. Here, for instance, καὶ belongs to ταπεινοῦσθαι (see notes), whereas in English the ‘ also’ seems idiomatically to take an earlier place in the sen- tence, and in position to connect itself with ‘know:’ the translation in the notes, ‘know how also to be abased, or to be abased also,’ is literal, but scarcely idiomatic. The attention of the student is directed to this point, as it requires some discrimination to perceive when it is positively necessary to retain in translation the position of καί, and when to yield to a more usual English collocation. I know too] ‘And I knew,’ Auth.; ‘I can also,’ Wicl., Tynd.; ‘and I can,’ Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘I know also,’ Rhen. In everything, &c.]} ‘Everywhere and in all things,’ Auth. and the other Vv. (Gen., Bish. omit ‘and’). Have been fully taught] Sim. Wiel., Coverd. (Test.), ‘I am taughte:’ ‘am instructed,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 13. In Him that) ‘* Through Christ which,’ Awth., Cov., Cran. ; ‘thorow the helpe,’ Zynd., Gen., Bish. Strengtheneth| So Auth. and all Vy. except Wicl. and Cov. (Test.), ‘coumfortith.’ The force of ἐνδυν. cannot be expressed without weakening the emphasis of the verse, and impairing the rhythm. 14. Did well] ‘Have well done,’ Auth, and the other Vy. except Wict., Cov. (both), Rhem., ‘han don wel.’ Bare part with} So Coverd. (Test.), ‘bearynge parte wyth,’? and sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘ye bare part with me in:’ ‘communi- cated with,’ Auwth.; ‘ communicating to,’ Rhem. PHILIPPIANS PVs) ¥5 =o. 245 % Moreover, Philippians, yourselves also know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from, Macedonia, no church communicated with me as touching any account of giving and receiving, but ye only: “because even in Thes- salonica ye sent to me both once and again unto my necessity. % Not that I seek after your gift; but I seek after the fruit that aboundeth unto your account. * But 1 have all things and abound: I am full, now that I have received from 15. Moreover Philippians, cc.]} * Now ye Phil. know also,’ Auth., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish., ‘and ye, &c.;’ ‘for ye filipensis witen also,’ Wicl.; ‘ye of Philippos knowe that,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. (‘also that’); “and you also know O Phil.,’ Rhem. Astouching any, το. ‘ As concerning giving and receiving,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (omits ‘as’), Cran., Gen.; ‘in resoun of thing gouun and takun,’ Wicl.; ‘in the way of gyfte and re- ceate,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘as concerning the matter of &c.,’ Bish.; ‘in the account cf, &.,’ Rhem. Perhaps the insertion of the indefinite ‘any’ may be considered permissible as serving slightly to clear up the meaning; neither ‘an account’ or ‘ the account’ (Rhem.), is free from objections. 16. Because] ‘For,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., which omits the conjunction. To me} So Wicl.: Auth. and all the other Vv. omit. Both once] ‘ Once,’ Auth. and the other Vv. Unto| So Auth. and all Vv. (Wicel., ‘in to,’ Rhem., ‘to’) except Cov. (Test.), ‘to my behofe. Τὺ is a matter of grave consideration whether, in a literal but idiomatic translation like the Authorized Ver- sion, we can consistently introduce here and in similar passages such periphrastic yet practically correct translations of εἰς as, ‘to supply,’ ‘ to meet, ἄορ. As there might seem to be some difficulty in fixing the limits of such periphrases, and as the older Vv. do not seem to have re- cognised such translations, it is per- haps best to retain the more literal, though translation. 17. That] So Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘ because,’ Auth.; ‘for,’ Wiel. Seck after (twice) ] ‘ Desire,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem., ‘seke.’ Your gift] ‘A gift,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘gifte,’ Wiclif, Cov.; ‘oyftes,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘the gifte,’ Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘a rewarde,’ Gen. It is doubtful whether the plural translation of Tynd. and Cran. does not practically convey more clearly than the text the meaning of the present article, ‘the gift in the particular case,’ 2.6. ‘gifts,’ or even sometimes less intelligible, ‘any gift ; comp. notes: such trans- lations, however, involve principles of correction that should be admitted with great caution. The fruit] So Cov., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘fruit,’ Auth., Wicl. ; ‘aboundant frute,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘plentyfull frute,’ Cov. (Test.). That aboundeth] Sim. Wicl., Rhem., ‘abounding :’ ‘that may abound,’ Auth., and sim. Gen., ‘which may for- ther ;’ ‘that it be abundaunt,’ Bish. Unto] ‘To,’ Auth. 18. All things] So Wicl., Rhem. : ‘all,’ Auth. and the remaining VV. The present translation of ἀπέχω (Auth., Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.) is unduly weak (Zynd., Cran. Gen., 246 PHILIPPIANS IV. 18—23. Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, a savour of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. " But my God shall supply every need of yours according to His riches, with glory in Christ Jesus. ἡ Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Ἢ Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. which are with me salute you. The brethren 2 All the saints salute you, but especially they that are of Czsar’s household. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Bish., ‘I receaved’) ; but the more literal translation, ‘I have in full,’ ‘I have for my own,’ seems as unduly strong, and somewhat interferes with the brief and climactic character of the first portion of the verse. Now that, ἀς.1] Sim. Tynd., Gen., Bish., ‘after that I had rec.:’ Cov., ‘whan I rec. ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘ whan I had rec. ; Cran., ‘after that I rec. ;’ Rhem., ‘after I rec.’ From] ‘Of,’ Auth. and all Vv. Which came] So Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. : ‘which were sent from,’ Auth., Cran. ; ‘which ye senten,’ Wecl., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Savour of sweet smell] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘a savoure of swetness:’ ‘of a sweet smell,’ Auth., Cran. ; ‘odour of swet- nesse,’ Wicl. ; ‘ an odour that smelleth swete,’ Tynd., Gen., Bish.; ‘odour of sweeteness, Cov., Rhem. 19. With glory] So Bish.: ‘in glory,’ Awth., Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘glorious riches,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. In] So Wiel., Tynd., Coverd. (both), Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cran. 21. Salute you] So Coverd. (both), ' Rhem.: ‘greet,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vy. A change of translation in the same verse does not seem de- sirable. 22. But especially] So Cov. (both), Rhem.: ‘chiefly,’ Auth. ; ‘moost sothli,’ Wicl.; ‘and most of all,’ Tynd., Gen., Bish.; ‘most of all,’ Cran. 23. The Lord] ‘ *Our Lord,’ Auth. Your Spirit] ‘*You all, Amen,’ Auth. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. CuaprTer I. AUL, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, ὁ to the saints in Colosse and faithful brethren in Christ: Grace de unto you, and peace, from God our Father. ὁ We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, * since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, *by reason of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, Cuap. I. τ. Christ Jesus] ‘* Jesus Christ,’ Auth. Timothy] So Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. : ‘Timothy,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The principle put forward in the preface to Auth., though appy. 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 popu- larly known. 2. Saints in Colosse] Sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran., ‘sayntes which are at Colosse :’ ‘to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Co- losse,’ Auth. and, with slight varia- tions in order, the remaining Vv. God our Father| Auth. adds ‘*and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ 3. God the Father] ‘*God and the Father,’ Auth. _. 4. Since] Temporal; seenotes, If it be thought that ‘since’ involves any ambiguity, a more distinctly tem- poral periphrasis of the participle, e.g. ‘after that,’ must be adopted. The older Vv. vary; ‘herynge,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘since we hearde,’ Auth., Tynd., Coverd., Gen., Bish.; ‘for we haue hearde,’ Cran. Hammond suggests ‘hearing,’ or ‘having heard.’ To all] So Auth. A few of the Vv., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem., retain the more literal ‘toward.’ 5. By reason of] ‘For,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘for the hope’s sake,’ Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish; ‘because of,’ Cov. (Test.). Word of Truth, &c.] So Cov. except that ἐν (1%) is translated ‘by,’ and similarly Gen., Bish., ‘the worde of truth which is in the gospel:’ ‘ word of the truth of the gospel,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘true worde of the gospel,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘worde of Truth of the gospel,’ Cov. (Test.). The true relation of the genitives thus seems expressed by three of the older Vv.; see notes. The article preceding ἀληθείας appears only to mark that ἀλήθ. is used in its most 248 COLOSSIANS 1. 5—11. whereof ye heard before in the word of Truth in the Gospel ; δ which is come unto you, as it is also in all the world; and is bringing forth fruit and increasing as it is also im you, since the day ye heard of it, and came to know the grace of God in truth: 7 even as ye learned of Epaphras our beloved fellow-servant, who is in your behalf a rarrHruL minister of Christ ; ὃ who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit. 9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard zt, do not cease to pray for you, and to make our petition that ye may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding ; ™ that ye may: walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, bringing forth fruit in every good work, and increasing by the knowledge of God; ™ being abstract sense. This use of the article in the case of abstract nouns is commonly marked in this Revision by a capital letter. 6. His also (1) ] So Cov. (Test.), and sim. Wicl., ‘also it is;’ Rhem., ‘also in the whole world it is:’ ‘it is,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Is bringing forth fruit] ‘ Bringeth forth fruit,’ Auth., Cov., Test. (omits ‘forth’); ‘makith frute,’ Wicl.; ‘is frutefull,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., “ fructifieth,’ Rhem. And increasing] Auth. *omits. Is] ‘Doth, Auth. Came to know | ‘Knew, Auth. and the remaining Vv. (Coverd. Test. ‘haue knowen’) except Z'ynd., Cran., ‘had experience’ —a translation which similarly with text endeavours to express the force of ἐπέγνωτε (see notes on ver. 9), and deserves consideration. 7. Lven as ye] Auth. adds ‘*also,’ and omits ‘even.’ The translation of καθώς, whether ‘as’ or ‘even as’ must depend on the general tone of the passage: here the latter seems to connect the present verse a little more closely with the concluding words of ver. 6. Beloved) ‘ Dear,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran.,Gen., Bish. ; ‘moost dereworthe,’ Wicl.; ‘mooste beloued,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘deerest,’ Rhem. In your behalf] ‘For you,’ Auth., and the remaining Vv. It seems desirable to select a translation that should prevent ὑπὲρ being possibly understood as ‘in your place ;’ see notes. 9g. Make our petition] “ Desire’ Auth. and the other Vv. (Tynd., Rhem., ‘desyringe’) except Wiclif, ‘to axe;’ Cov. (Test.) ‘axing.’ May] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘might,’ Auth., and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘that ye be filled.’ Spiritual wisdom, and d&e¢.] So Cov. (Test.): ‘wisdom and spiritual under- standing,’ Auth. and al] the remain- ing Vv. 10. May] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘might,’ Awth. and the remaining Vv. except Wiel., ‘that ye walke.’ Bringing forth fruit] ‘So Coverd. (Test.): ‘being fruitful,’ Awh. It seems desirable to preserve the same translation as in ver. 6. By the| ‘*In the,’ Auth. Being strengthened] So Cov. (Test.): ‘strengthened,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. except Wicl., ‘and be com- fortid ;’ Cov., ‘and to be strong.’ Strength] ‘Might,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘vertu;’ Cov, (both), COLOSSIANS Τ 11—16: 249 strengthened with all strength, according to the might of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering with joy ; © giving thanks unto the Father, which made us meet for the portion of the inheritance of the saints in ight: ἡ who delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated ws into the kingdom of the Son of His love; ™ in whom we are having Redemption, even the forgiveness of our sins. ” Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature : © because in Him were all things created, the things that ‘power,’ It is perhaps desirable to retain the παρήχησις of the original. The might of His glory| So Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘migt of His clerenesse :’ Cov. (both): ‘glorious power,’ Awth., and the remaining Vv. Joy] So Wiel, Rhem., and, with a different collocation, Cov. (Test.): ‘joyfulness,’ Auth., and the remaining Vv.: comp. notes on Phil. ii.29. (Transl.), 12. Made]|So Wicl.: ‘hath made,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. For the portion] ‘To be partakers of,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish; 4 to the part of,’ Wicl.; ‘mete for the enheritance,’ Cov.; ‘worthy of the parte of the enh.,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘ worthy unto the part of the lot,’ Rhem. 13. Delivered] So Wicl.: ‘hath delivered,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘hath drawen us oute.’ Translated] So Wicl., Cov.: ‘hath translated,’ A uth., and the remaining Vv. The Son of His love] So Rhem., and sim. Wicl., ‘the sone of his louynge:’ ‘His dear Son,’ Awth. and the re- maining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘ Hys beloued Sonne.’ 14. Ave having] ‘Have,’ Auth, and the other Vv. Redemption] Auth. adds ‘*through His blood.’ ‘Our sins] ‘Sins,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 15. Lirst-born] So Auth., Cov. (Test), Bish., Rhem.; ‘first begotten,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.: It is appy. 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 translation. Of the older Vvy., Cov. alone adopts ‘before’ instead of ‘of.’ This is co- incident with the opinion expressed in the present commentary, but it seems doubtful whether we are fully justified, in a passage of this nature in depart- ing from the most nakedly literal meaning of the words. 16. Because] ‘For,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. In] So Wiel., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. The things that be] ‘That are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible,’ Auth, Cran., Bish., and with some slight variations, Wicl., Coverd., Gen., Rhem.: Tynd. alone inserts ‘ things’ four times as in the text. The repetition seems to give emphasis to the enumeration; see notes on Eph. i. 10 (Transl.). Are created] So Tynd., Cov. (both); and sim. Wiel., ‘ ben made of nought ; ‘were created,’ Awth. and the remain- ing Vv. As the Greek perfect ex- presses both ‘have been’ and ‘are ; there is sometimes a difficulty in knowing which of the two to select : perhaps as a general rule (where idiom will permit and there is no 250 COLOSSIANS 1. 16—21. are in heaven, and the things that are on earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers,—all things are created by Him, and for Him; ” and He is before all things, and in Him all things subsist. ‘ And He is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that in all things He might have the pre-eminence: ™ because in Him it pleased the whole fulness of the Godhead to dwell, * and by Him to recon- cile all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; by Him, J say, whether they be the things on earth, or the things in heaven. *t And you also, though you were in times past alienated and enemies in your understanding im wickED works, yet danger of misconception) it is best to adopt the former when past time seems to come more in prominence, the latter when present effects are more imme- diately the subject of consideration. On the translation of δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, see Revised Transl. of St. John, p. xiii. 17. In]|So Wicl., Tynd., Cov. (both), Gen., Bish., Rhem.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cran. Subsist] ‘Consist,’ Auth. 18. Who] So Auth., Rhem., Wicl., and Cov. Test. (‘whyche’); ‘he is the beg.’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. The relative translation is scarcely sufficient, as it does not fully convey the explicative force in the relative, ‘being as He is.’ As, however, the translation in the commentary ‘seeing He is’ though per se expressing clearly this force of és, is perhaps somewhat too strong when placed in connexion with what precedes and follows, it seems better to leave Auth. un- changed. In order that] ‘That,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The occasional insertion of ‘in order’ seems useful where it is required to exhibit clearly the purpose involved in the antecedents. 19. For in Him, &c.| So simi- larly Wicl., ‘in Hym it plesid alle plentee to enhabite :’ Cov. (Test.), ‘it hath pleased alle fulnesse of the God- heade to dwel in Hym; Rhem. ‘it hath wel pleased al fulness to inhabite :’ ‘for it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell,’ Auth., and the remaining Vv. (Cov. ‘shuld dwell all f.’). 20. Having made—cross] Auth. places this clause in the first part of the verse immediately after ‘and.’ All the other Vv. 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 yow also] ‘And you,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. On this translation of καί, see notes on Zph. tists Though you were &c.] Similarly Rhem., ‘whereas you were ;’ comp. Wicl., Cov. (Test.) ‘whanne ye weren:’ ‘that were,’ Auwth.; ‘whiche were,’ Z'ynd. and the remain- ing Vv. In times past] So Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish: ‘s0me- time,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Understanding] So Auth. in Eph. iv. 18: ‘mind,’ Auwth., and sim. remain- ing Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.) 251 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. *4 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and am filling fully up the lacking measures of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body’s sake, which is the church: » whereof I became a minister, according to the dispen- sation of God which was given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; * even the mystery which hath lain hid from the bygone ages and from the bygone generations, but COLOSSIANS 1. 21—27. now hath been made manifest to His saints: ” to whom it ‘witte ᾿ Rhem. ‘ sense.’ In) So Wicl., Rhem., and, with a different construction, Tynd., Coverd., Cran., Gen., Bish.: ‘by,’ Auth.; ‘ geuen to &e.’ Cov. (Test.). 22. His death] ‘ Death,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Blameless and without charge] “ Unblameable and unreproveable,’ Auth.; ‘un- wemmed and without repreef,’ Wicl. ; ‘unblameable and without faut,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘un- spotted and unblameable,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘immaculate and blameless,’ Rhem. 23. If at least] ‘If, Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘if nethe- les:’ Rhem., ‘if yet.’ Stable] So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘settled,’ Auth. ; ‘stablysshed,’ Tynd. and the remain- ing Vv. Without being] ‘ Be not,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ‘ unmoua- ble.’ Heard] ‘ Have heard,’ Auth, and all the other Vv. In the hearing of | ‘To,’ Auth., Gen., Bish.; ‘in al creaturis, Wicl.; ‘amonge all creatures,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Rhem.; ‘among euery crea- ture,’ Cov. (Test.). Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘am I Paul be- come: ‘am made,’ Auth. and the re- mainiug Vv. except Bish., ‘am.’ 24. Now I] ‘ *Who now,’ Auth. Am filling fully up] ‘ Fill up,’ Auth. ; ‘fille,’ Wiéel.; fulfill,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘accom- plish,’ Rhem. The lacking measures of | ‘That which is behind of,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘the thingis that failen of,’ Wicl.; ‘the thynges that are wantynge of,’ Cov. (Test.), sim. Rhem.; ‘the rest of,’ Gen., Bish. 25. Became] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘am become:’ ‘am made,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Bish., ‘am.’ Was given] So Tynd., Cran.: ‘was given,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 26. Lain] ‘Been,’ Auth. Perhaps the slight change may better convey the force of the perf. participle. The bygone (bis)] Auth., Wiel., Rhem. omit; Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen, and in part Bish., paraphrase ; ‘from euerlastynge and the generacions,’ Cov. (Test.). Hath been] ‘Is,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 27. It was God's will] ‘God would,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 252 COLOSSIANS I. 27—29. Π, 1—4. was God’s will to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ among you, the hope of Glory: * whom we proclaim, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ: * to which end I : also toil, striving according to His working, which worketh in me with power. Cuarpter II. For I would have you to know what great conflict I have for you, and for them in Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my. face in the flesh; * that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love and unto all the riches of the full assurance of the understanding, unto the complete knowledge of the mystery of God, even Christ ; * in whom are hiddenly all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Among (2d)] So Cov. (Test.): ‘in,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 28. Christ] ‘*Christ Jesus,’ Auth. Proclaim] ‘Preach, Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘schewen.’ 29. To which end] ‘ Whereunto,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘in whiche thing,’ Wicl.; ‘ wherin,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem. Toil| Comp. on 1 Tim. iv. 10: ‘labour,’ Auth. and all Vv. except Wicl., ‘ traueile.’ With power] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘by power;’ Khem., ‘in power:’ ‘mightily,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘in vertu.’ Cuaptrer 11. 1. Would have you &c.] Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘would have you to know ;’ Rhem., ‘ wil haue you know:’ ‘would that ye knew,’ Auth., Cran. ; ‘wole that ye wite,’ Wicl.; ‘wolde ye knewe,’ T'ynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. In] “Αἱ; Auth., Wicl., Cran., Cov. (Test.) Rhem. ; ‘of,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. 2. May} So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘might,’ Auth. and the remaining * Now this I say, that no one may beguile Vv. except Wiel., ‘that her hertis counforted.’ They being ce. | ‘*Being knit together, Auth. The riches] So Wict., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘riches,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vv. The understand- ing| Auth. and all the other Vv. omit the article; ‘full understondinge,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘persuaded un- derst.,’ Gen. Unto] ‘ To,’ Auth.: change to preserve parallelism with the preceding eis Complete know- ledge] ‘ Acknowledgement,’ Auth. ; ‘knowynge,’ Wicl.; ‘for to knowe,’ Tynd., Cran. Gen.; ‘knowledge,’ Cov. (both), Cran.; ‘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,’ Awth. 3. Hiddenly] ‘ Hid,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 4. Now] ‘And,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘for, Wicl.; ‘but,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; Tynd., Cov., Cran. omit. That no one] ‘ Lest *any one,’ Auth. COLOSSIANS II. 4—10. 253 you with enticing speech. ° For if I am absent verily in the flesh, yet still 1 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 THE Lorn, so walk ye in him: ’ rooted and being built up in Him, and being stablished in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8. Beware lest there be any one that shall make you his booty through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. the fulness of the Godhead. May] *Should,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘that no man disceyue you.’ Enticing speech] “ Enticing words,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Weel., Coverd. (Test.), ‘higthe of wordis ;’ Rhem. ‘loftines of wordes.’ 5. If 1 am absent verily ὧτ.] ‘Though I be absent,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Yet still I am] ‘Yet am I,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Cov. (Test.), ‘but yet am I;’ Rhem., ‘yet in spirit I am: Wiel. omits. Joying with you] ‘Joy- ing,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem., ‘rejoy- cynge.’ Firm foundation] ‘Stedfastness,’ Awth., Cov. (both); ‘sadnesse, Wicl.; ‘stedfast faytb,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; stancie,’ Rhem. 6. As then ye] ‘As ye have there- fore,’ Awth. and all the other Vv. (Wiclif, Rhem., ‘therfor as ye han’). 7. Being built up| Auth. and all the other Vy. either omit ‘being,’ or slightly change the construction. The insertion is an attempt to mark the difference of tense in the two parti- ciples. Being stablished| So Cov. (Lest.): Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. either omit ‘being’ or slightly ‘con- * Because τιν Him doth dwell in bodily fashion all Ὁ And ye are in Him made change the construction. Your faith] ‘The faith,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘the bileue ;’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., " faith.’ 8. There be any one that, &c.] Somewhat similarly Bish., ‘lest there be any man that spoile:’ ‘any man spoil you,’ Auth., Cov.; ‘that no man disceyue you,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘eny man come and spoyle you,’ Zynd., Gen.; ‘ony man deceaue you,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘lest be eny man spoyle you,’ Cran. 9. Because] ‘For,’ Auth., and all the other Vv. Doth dwell] ‘Dwelleth,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The introduction of the auxiliary appears to add a slight force to the important verd κατοικεῖ. The princi- pal emphasis apparently falls on ἐν αὐτῷ; the verb, however, both from meaning and position is not without prominence. In bodily fashion] ‘Bodily, Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Rhem., ‘ corporally.’ 10. In Him made full] Sim. Rhem., ‘in him replenished :’ ‘complete in Him,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘filled in Him.’ Who] ‘ Which,’ Auth. The otherwise unnecessary change adds here to per- spicuity. Every] ‘All,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 254 COLOSSIANS II. 1o—13. full; who is the head of every principality and power: ” in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not wrought with hand, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; “ἢ being buried with Him in your Baptism, wherein ye were also raised with» Him through your faith in the effectual working of God, who raised Him from the dead. ™ And you also who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He quickened together with Himself, having forgiven us 11. Ye were also circumcised] ‘Also | (Transl.). Your baptism] ‘ Bap- ye are cire.,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Rhem., ‘al you are,’ &e. A circumcision] So Cov. (Test.), and similarly all the other Vv. (except Auth.), ‘circumcision : Auth. inserts the definite article. Not wrought with hand] ‘Made without hands,’ Auth., Tynd., Gen., Bish.; “4 not made with hond,’ Wiclif, Rhem. (‘by’) ; ‘circ. without hondes,’ Cov. ; ‘not made with handes,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘done without handes,’ Cran. In the putting off, ἀς.} ‘In putting off” &c., Auth.; ‘in dispoilynge of (off), Wiel. ; ‘by puttinge of (off),’ Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish.; ‘in rob- byng of,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘for asmoch as, &e.,’ Cran. ; ‘in spoiling of,’ Rhem. The insertion of the articles 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 Cran. Body of the flesh] ‘Body * of the sins of the flesh,’ Auth. In the circumcision | So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Wicl., ‘in circumcision :’ ‘ by the cir- cumcision, Auth.; ‘thorow the cire.,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘with the cire.,’ Cov. 12. Being buried] So Cov. (Test.) : ‘buried,’ Auwth., Rhem.; ‘and ye ben biried,’ Wicl.; ‘in that ye are buried, &e.,’ Z'ynd. and the remain- ing Vv. Comp. notes on Phil. ii. 7 tism,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Ye were also raised] ‘Also ye are risen,’ Awth., and with slight varia- tions the other Vv.: the καί, however, is rightly joined in translation with συνηγερθ. by Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish, Your faith] “ Faith,’ Auth. and, with some variations in construc- tion, the other Vv. except Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem., ‘the faith.’ The per- sonal address seems here to render the use of the article by the possessive pronoun correct and appropriate ; there are, however, many cases in which such attempts at accuracy over- load and embarrass the sentence ; con- sider Rom. xii. 7 sq., where, as in many other passages, it requires much discrimination to decide when the article has a pronominal force, and when it is merely associated with an abstract noun. In the effectual working] ‘Of the operation,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘wrought by the ope- racion of,’ Z'ynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; ‘of God’s workynge,’ Cov. (Test.) - 13. You also] Auth. and the other Vv. omit ‘also :᾿ see, however, notes on Eph. ii. τ. Who were dead] So Tynd., Cran.: ‘being dead,’ Auth. ; ‘whanne ye weren,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., Rhem. Though as a general rule the participle without the article should never be translated as the participle with it (Donalds,) COLOSSIANS IL 13—16. 255 all our trespasses; “ blotting out the handwriting in force against us by its decrees, which was contrary to us, and hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; " and stripping away from Himself principalities and powers, he made a shew of them with boldness, triumphing over them Th τῇ. 6 Let not any man then judge you in eating or in drinking, or in the matter of an holy day, or of a new yet, in cases like the present, where the pronoun is in union with the par- ticiple we must be guided by the con- text. Here, as in Eph. ii. 1 (see notes, T’ransl.), the insertion of any temporal particle seems to cali away at- tention both from the ὑμᾶς, andfrom the fact of their being dead (νεκροὺς ὄντας, in Eph. ὄντας vexpovs), and to direct it to the time when they were so, which certainly seems to come less in promi- nence. Trespasses| So Auth., in Eph. ii. 1, and in the present verse : ‘sins,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Bish. ; ‘ giltis,’ Wicl. ; ‘synne,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘the offenses,’ Rhem. He quick- ened| So Wicl., Cov., and sim. Rhem., ‘did he quicken:’ ‘hath he,’ &c., Auth. and the remaining Vv. Himself | ‘Him,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 778] ‘*You,’ Auth. Our trespasses| So Tynd., Cran., Gen. (‘your’), Bish. (‘your’): ‘trespasses,’ Auth.; ‘giltis,’ Wiécl.; (both); ‘ offenses,’ Rhem. 14. Blotting out] So Auth. As this participle seems contemporary with the preceding, and to mark the circum- stances under which the preceding act took place, the present participle in English may be properly retained ; comp. notes on Phil. ii. 7. (Transl.) The more exact, ‘by having,’ &c., is open to the objection of being cum- brous, and perhaps unduly modal. In force against us, &c.| ‘Of ordi- nances that was against us,’ Auwth. ; ‘that writynge of decre that was agens ‘sins,’ Cov. us,’ Wicl.; ‘ the handwriting that was agaynst us contained in the lawe writ- ten,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘the hande wrytynge that was againste us of the decre,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘the handwryting of ceremonies that was agaynst us,’ Gen., Bish. (‘ordinances’) ; ‘the hand- writing of decrees,’ Rhem. Hath taken| So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Rhem.: ‘took,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 15. Stripping kc. | ‘Having spoiled,’ Auth., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ‘spoiling ; ‘and hath spoyled.’ Tynd. and the remaining Vy. With bold- ness| Similarly Cov. (Test.), ‘boldely ;’ Rhem. ‘ confidently:’ ‘openly,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 16. Let not, &c.] ‘Let no man therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘therfor no man juge.’ Eating or in drinking] ‘Meat or in drink,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.) (omits ‘in’), Rhem.; ‘meate and drinke,’ T'ynd., Cov. (‘or’), Cran., Gen., Bish, In the matter of | ‘In respect of,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘in part of,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘for pece of,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘in a part of,’ Cov. (Test.) A new moon] ‘The &c.,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘neomynye.’ A sabbath] ‘Sabbath days,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.); Rhem. ‘Sabotis.’ As cd8Sarais used with the force of a singular (Matth. xii. 1, Luke iv. 16, al.), and as the preceding terms are in the singular, it seems better to revert to that form in translation. 256 COLOSSIANS 1]. 16—21. moon, or of a sabbath: ” which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is Christ’s. ™ Let no man beguile you | of your reward, desiring to do it in false lowliness and worshipping of the angels, intruding into the things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, 19. and not holding fast the Head, from which the whole body by means of its joints and bands having nourishment minis- tered, and being knit together, imcreaseth with the increase of God. *™ If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as if ye were living in the world, do ye submit to ordinances, ἢ Handle not, neither taste, nor touch 17. Christ's] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘of Christ, Auth., Wicel.; ‘is in Christ,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran. Gen, Bish. 18. Desiring to do it, &c.] ‘Ina voluntary humility,’ Awth. ; ‘willynge to teche in mekeness,’ Wicl.; ‘which after his awne ymaginacion walketh in the humblenes and holynes of angels,’ Tynd., sim. Cov.; ‘by the humblenes and holynes of angels,’ Cran.; ‘by humblenes, and worshipping of an- gels,’ Genev., Bish. (‘humblenes of mynde’); ‘wyllynge in humblynesse,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 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. article is perhaps not a certain correc- tion, as it may be used only to specify the genus. The things] So Wiel., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Rhem.: ‘those things,’ Auth., Bish. ; ‘thinges,’ Tynd., Cov. The mind of his flesh| Sim. Wicl., ‘with wit of his fleisch:’ Cov. (Test.), ‘in the meanynge of hys fleshe :’ Rhem., ‘by the sense of his flesh:’ ‘his fleshly mind,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. (Cov. ‘his owne.’) 19. Holding fast] ‘Holding,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ; ‘holdeth,’ T'ynd., and the remaining Vv. The whole body] So Cov. (both), Rhem.: ‘all the The insertion of the body,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. By means of its joints] ‘ By joints,’ Auth, and the other Vy. except Cov. (Test.), ‘by knottes and jointes ; Wicl., ‘bi boondis and joinynges.’ Being knit together] ‘ Knit together,’ Auth., Gen., Bish. ; ‘made,’ Wiel. ; ‘and is knet together,’ Z'ynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘fastened together,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘compacted,’ Rhem. 20. If] ‘*Wherefore if,’ Auth. As if ye were living] ‘As though liv- ing,’ Auth.; Wiel. (very exactly), ‘as men living ;’ ‘as though ye yet lived,’ Tynd., Gen. (Bish. and Cov. omit ‘yet.’). Do ye submit] ‘Are ye subject,’ Awth.; ‘demen ye,’ Wiel. ; ‘are ye ledde with tradicions,’ 7ynd., Cran. ; ‘ holden with soch trad.,’ Cov. ; ‘what do ye yet use decrees,’ Coverd. (Test.); ‘are ye burdened with tra- ditions,’ Gen., Bish. ; ‘decree,’ Rhem. The change in the text is intended to express that δογματίζεσθε is here taken as in the middle voice, 21. Handle not, &e.| ‘Touch not ; taste not; handle not,’ Awth. and the other Vv. (Zynd. and Gen. prefix ‘ of them that say,’ Bish. ‘as,’) except Wicl., ‘that ye touche not, nether taast, nether trete with hondis the thingis ;’ Cov., ‘as when they say, touch not this, taste not that, handle not that.’ COLOSSIANS II. 22, 23. 22 ΠῚ τ. 257 (which are all to be destroyed in their consumption), after the commandments and doctrines of men ? * Which things have indeed the repute of wisdom in self-sought worship, and humility and unsparing treatment of the body, yet in no observances of value, serving only to satisfy the—flesh. Cuapter III. Ir then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, sitting on the right hand of Are all] So Rhem., and in a similar collocation Coverd. (Test.): ‘all are,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Cov., ‘all these things do.’ made to preserve not only the order but a distinction between the definite and the indefinite relative; see next Change verse. To be destroyed, &c.| ‘To perish with the using,’ Awth.; ‘in to deeth by the ilke use,’ Wiel.: ‘perysshe with the usyng of them,’ Tynd., Gen., Bish. (omits ‘of them’); ‘do hurte unto men because of the abuse of them,’ Cov.,—an unusually incorrect translation, esp. for Cov. ; ‘do all hurte with the very use,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘perysshe thorow the very abuse,’ Cran.; ‘unto destruction by the very use,’ Rhem. 23. All which things] ‘Which things,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., Coverd. (Test.) ; Rhem., ‘which.’ The repute] ‘A shew,’ Auth., Bish., Gen., Rhem.; ‘a resoun,’ Wicl. ; ‘the similitude,’ Tynd., Cran. ; ‘shyne,’ Coverd. (both). The definite article with ‘repute’ seems required by usage and ordinary English idiom. Self-sought worship] Similarly Gen., ‘ volontarie worshipping ;’ Bish., ‘ vo- luntarie religion :’ ‘ will worship,’ Auth. ; ‘veyn relegioun,’ Wiel. ; ‘chosen holynes,’ Yynd. ; ‘chosen spirituality,’ Cov. ; “ supersticion,’ Cov. (Test.), Gen., Rhem. Unspar- ing treatment] ‘Neglecting,’ Auth. ; ‘not to spare,’ Wicl., Rhem.; ‘in that they spare not,’ Tynd., Cov.; ‘in not sparyng,’ Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish. Observances of value] Similarly Gen., ‘yet are of no value; ‘in any ho- nour,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘do the flesshe no worshype,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘counting it not worthy of ony honoure,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘have they it in estimation,’ Bish. It will be observed (see below) that Gen. ap- proaches most nearly to the view taken in the text, but that it tacitly assumes a change of construction and an ellipsis of the verb substantive. To avoid this, and to be intelligible, we seem forced to some paraphrase like that in the text. Serving only, d&c.] ‘To the satisfying of,’ Auth., and sim. the other Vv. except Gen., which thus paraphrases, ‘ but apper- teine to those things wherwith the fleshe is crammed.’ CuapTeR III. 1. Uf then] ‘If ye then,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., Rhem., ‘therfor if ye; Cov. (Test.), ‘ yf ye are therfore.’ Were raised together] ‘Be risen,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem.; ‘han rise to gidre,’ Wicl.; ‘be then rysen agayne,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘be risen now with,’ Cov.; ‘are therfore rysen with,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘be rysen agayne with,’ Gen. ; The things that are above] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘those things which 5 COLOSSIANS HI. 1—7. God. *Set your minds on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth. * For ye died, and your life hath been hidden with Christ in God. * When Christ, our Life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. δ Make dead then your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness, evil concu- piscence, and covetousness, the which is idolatry: ° for which things’ sake the wrath of God doth come on the children of disobedience; 7 among whom ye also walked are, Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl. ‘the thingis that ben.’ The lighter relative ‘that’ seems here more suitable, and accords with the translation in ver. 2. On the sup- posed distinction between ‘that’ and ‘which,’ comp. notes on Eph. i. 23 (Transl.), and Brown, Gramm. of Grammars, Il. 5, p. 293 (ed. 1). Per- haps, as a very rough rule, it may be said that ‘which’ is a little more ap- propriately used when the clause in- troduced by the relative tends to form a distinct and separable predi- cation in reference to the antecedent ; ‘that,’ when the relative so coalesces with its concomitants as either to form with them a species of epithet, or to express a predominant and pre- vailing, rather than an accidental, characteristic. Christ is, sitting] So Cov.: ‘sitteth,’ Auth. Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘is sitting at,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 2. Set your minds| So Cov. (Test.), and Cov. (‘minde’): ‘set your affec- tion,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘sauer tho thingis ;᾽ Bish., ‘ affections’ (plural). The things that are (bis)] So Rhem.: ‘things,’ Auth. (bis); ‘tho thingis that ben aboue not tho that ben &c.,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.); ‘thynges that are above, and not on thinges which are,’ Tynd., Cov. (inverts relatives), Cran., Gen., Bish. (‘ which,’ bis.). 3. Died] ‘Are dead,’ Auth., and all Vv. ; see notes. Hath been) ‘Is,’ Auth. 4. Christ our Life] So Cov.: Auth. inserts ‘whois; Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. insert ‘ which is ;’? Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘yoare liif.’ Be manifested] ‘Appear,’ Auth., Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. ; ‘ shewe him silfe,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. The change seems necessary to keep up the antithesis between the κέκρυπται and φανερωθῇ. 5. Make dead then] ‘ Mortify there- fore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘therfor sle ye.’ Which] So Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘that,’ and Cran., ‘erthy membres.’ Here ‘that’ seems inexact ; the original is, τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν Lustfulness] Similarly Rhem., ‘lust:’ ‘inordinate affection,’ Auth.; Bish. (prefixes ‘the’) ; ‘leccherie,’ Wicl. ; ‘unnaturall lust,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran.; ‘ wanton- ness,’ Gen. The which] ‘Which,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 6. Doth come] So Cov, (Test.), and, somewhat similarly, Cran., ‘ useth to come:’ ‘cometh,’ Auth, Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘cam,’ Wiel. 7. Among whom] So Cran.: ‘in the which,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Gen. ; ‘in whiche,’ Wicel., Rhem. ; ‘in which thynges,’ Tynd.; ‘wherein,’ Bish. τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. COLOSSIANS II. 7—13. 259 sometime, when ye were living in these sins. * But now do ye also put away from you all these; anger, wrath, malice, railing, coarse speaking out of your mouth; ° do not lie one to another, seeing that ye have put off from you the old man with his deeds ; * and have put on the new man, which is renewed unto knowledge after the image of Him that created him: ™ where there is neither Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond- man, free-man; but Curist is all, and in all. “Put ye on, then, as elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, lowliness of mind, meekness, longsuffering ; * forbearing one another, and forgiving each other, if any man have a complaint against any, as Christ Were living] ‘Lived,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘did live.’ These sins| ‘*Them,’ Auth. 8. Do ye] ‘Ye also,’ Auth.: the other Vy. adopt the simple impera- tive form, ‘put ye’ &c., but thereby somewhat obscure the connexion of Bish. even transfers Put away from you] So, in slightly varied order, Tynd., Cov., Cran.; Wicl., Gen., and Bish. omit ‘from you:’ ‘put off,’ Auth.; ‘lay away,’ Coverd. (Test.), Rhem. It seems desirable to preserve a slight distinction between ἀπόθεσθε and ἀπεκδυσάμενοι, ver. 9. Railing| ‘ Blasphemy,’ Auth., Wicel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘cursed speak- ing,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Coarse speaking] ‘ Filthy communica- tion,’ Axth., Cov. (Test.), Cran.; ‘foule word,’ Wicl.; ‘filthy speak- ynge,’ Tynd., Gen., Bish.; ‘filthy wordes,’ Cov.; ‘filthie talke,’ Rhem. 9. Do not lie] ‘ Lie not,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘nyle ye lie.’ Off from you] Auth. omits ‘from you,’ and similarly the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘spuyle ye you ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘robbyng yourselves ;’ Rhem., ‘spoiling yourselves of,’ καὶ with ὑμεῖς, the καὶ to τὰ πάντα. το. Unto] So Rhem., and simi- larly Wielif, Cran., ‘in to:’ ‘in,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 11. And (bis)] So Wiéicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘nor,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Cov., which omits. Bondman, freeman | Similarly Wicl., ‘bonde man and fre man: ‘bond nor free,’ Auth. ; ‘or’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘and,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; Cov., Gen., Bish., omit ‘nor.’ 12. Put ye] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and similarly Wiel.: Auth. and the remnaining Vv. omit. The insertion of the pronoun is perhaps desirable at the beginning of a new paragraph. Then] ‘Therefore,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Elect| So Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Gen.: ‘the elect,’ Auth., Cov., Bish., Rhem.; ‘the chosun,’ Wicl. Perhaps a more exact translation would he ‘chosen ones,’ as giving to ἐκλεκτοὶ its substantival foree without the inaccuracy of the inserted article. Mercy | ‘*Mer- cies,’ Auth. Lowliness of mind] So Auth. in Phil. ii. 3: ‘ humbleness of mind,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘mekenes ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘lowlinesse ;’ Rhem., ‘ humilitie.’ 13. Hach other] Similarly Wicel., Cov. (Test.), both of which make a g 2 260 COLOSSIANS ΠΙ. 13—18. forgave you, even so doing also yourselves. ™“ But over all these put on Love, which is the bond of perfectness. "ἢ And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to the which ye were also called in one body; and be ye thankful. 7” Let the word of Christ dwell within you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, in Grace singing in your hearts to God. ” And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. ** Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as it difference of translation between ἀλ- λήλων and ἑαυτοῖς (‘ech oon other— you silf,’ ‘eche other—amonge your- Selves’); see notes. Auth. and the remaining ν., ‘one another.’ Complaint] So Cov. (Test.): ‘quarrel,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vv. As] ‘Even as,’ Auth. In the attempt to express the true participial struc- ture, idiom seems to require the union of ‘even’ with the latter member ; comp. Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. Even so &c.| ‘So also do ye,’ Auth.; ‘so also ye,’ Wicl.; ‘even so do ye,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.; “80 do ye also,’ Cov. (both); ‘so you also,’ Rhem. 14. But] So Cov., Rhem.: ‘and,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish.; Tynd., Cran. omit. Over | So, with appy. similar local force, Wicl., ‘upon ; ‘above,’ Awth. and the re- maining Vv., some of which, as Cov. (both), ‘above all things,’ probably here gave to ἐπὶ a decided ethical re- ference. These] Auth. adds ‘things,’ and so the other ἦν. Per- haps the indeterminate ‘these,’ 1. 6,, ‘qualities,’ ‘ principles,’ ‘ virtues,’ is more exact. Love] So Tynd., Coverd. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘charity,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem. See notes on 1 Tim. i. 5 (Transl.). 15. Christ] ‘*God,’ Auth. Were ‘Are,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. Also called] Sim. Cov., ‘called also:’ Auth. (‘which also’) and Rhem. (‘wherein also’) connect with the pronoun. 16. Within] ‘In,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. In all wisdom] Auth, and all the other Vv. place these words after, and connect them with, the adverb. With] So Cov., Rhem.: ‘in,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vv. Hymns] Auth. prefixes ‘*and ; so also before ‘ spi- ritual songs,’ but with but little critical probability. In grace] So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘with grace,’ Auth., Cran. The change seems desirable to obviate such misunderstandings as Tynd., Cov:, ‘songes which have fa- vour with them ; Cov. (Test.), ‘ gra- ciously ;’ Gen., ‘with a certeyn grace ;’ Bish., ‘with a grace.’ Singing in your hearts} So Wicl., Rhem.: ‘singing with grace in,’ Auth. and similarly the remaining Vv. It seems especially desirable here to preserve the order of the Greek, as ddew ἐν ταῖς καρδ. stands in distinet contrast with another and audible singing. . 17. Jesus Christ] ‘*Lord Jesus,’ Auth. God the Father] ‘God *and the F.,’ Auth. Through | ‘By,’ Auth., and all the other Vv. 18. Your husbands] ‘ Your *own husbands,’ Auth. It should be} COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. 18—2s. should be in the Lord. ™” Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them. ~* Children, obey your parents in all things ; for this is wellpleasing in the Lord. * Fathers, provoke not your children, lest they be disheartened. “ Bond-servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with acts of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. * Whatever ye do, do zt from the heart, as to the Lord and not to men; “seeing ye know that of the Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance. Serve ye the Lord Christ : * for the wrong-doer shall receive back that which he did wrongfully; and there is no respect of persons. Cuar. [V.—Masters, deal out unto your servants justice and equity; seeing ye know that ye also have a Master in IV. i. Boe heaven. ‘It is fit,’ Auth. ; ‘it bihoueth,’ Wicel., Rhem.; ‘it is comly,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘it is due,’ Cov. (Test. ) το. Towards] So Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘against,’ Auth.; ‘to,’ Wicel.; ‘unto,’ Zynd., and the remaining Vv. The change seems desirable, if only to escape the hexameter, which per- haps few would wish to retain. 20. Inthe Lord] ‘* Unto the Lord,’ Auth. 21. Provoke] Auth., Cov. (Test.), Cran., Gen., Bish. add ‘to anger’ after ‘children.’ This seems unne- cessary ; as in present practice ‘ pro- yoke,’ when used absolutely, nearly always involves the notion of ‘anger’ or ‘indignation.’ Disheartened | ‘Discouraged,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘be not made febil herted,’ Wicl. ; ‘be of a desperate mynde,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran. ; ‘ ware not feble mynded,’ Coverd., (Test.) ; ‘cast downe their harte,’ Gen. 22. Bond servants} ‘Servants,’ Auth., Wicl., Tynd., Gen., Bish., them. ; ‘ye servants,’ Cov. (both), Cran. Acts of eyeservice] ‘ Eye- service,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., ‘seruynge of the iye; Cov. (Test.), Rhem. (‘ to the.’) The Lord| ‘ *God,’ Auth. 23. Whatever] “ And whatsoever,’ Auth. From the heart| So Rhem. : ‘heartily,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wiel., ‘of wille.’ To men] “ Unto men,’ Auth. 24. Seeing ye know] Similarly Tynd., ‘for as moche as ye knowe:’ ‘ know- ing,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish., Rhem. ; ‘wittynge,’ Wicl.; ‘and ye be sure,’ Cov., Cran. (omits ‘ye.’) Recompense| ‘Reward,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘gildynge’ giving]; Rhem., ‘ retribution.’ Serve ye] ‘*For ye serve,’ Auth. 25. For] ‘*But,’ Auth. The wrong-doer| ‘He that doeth wrong,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen., Bish. ; ‘he that doeth injurie,’ Wécl., Rhem. ; ‘whoso doth wronge,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘he that doth sinne,’ Cran. Receive back] Sim. Wicl., Cov. (‘Test.), Rhem. ‘resceyue that,’ &c.: ‘receive for the wrong which he hath done,’ Auth. CHAPTER TV. 1. Deal out] ‘Give,’ 262 COLOSSIANS IV. 2—8. ? Persevere in your prayer, being watchful therein with thanksgiving ; * withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for the sake of which I am also in bonds, * in order that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. ὅ Wall in wisdom toward them that are without, buying up the time. ° Let your speech Je alway with grace, seasoned with salt, so that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. 7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, our beloved brother, and faithful minister, and fellowservant in the Lord: ὃ whom I send unto you for this very purpose, that he may know your estate, and comfort your hearts ; Auth., Wicl., Coverd. (Test.); ‘do,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. Justice and equity] ‘That which is just and equal,’ Awth. and all the Vv. (Cov. (Test.) omits ‘ which’) except Wicl., ‘that that is just and euene.’ Seeing ye know] So Tynd.: ‘know- Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘“witynge,’ Wicl.; ‘and knowe,’ Cov. ‘beynge sure,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘and be sure,’ Cran. 2. Persevere in] ‘Continue in,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘be ye bisie in ;’ Rhem., ‘be instant.’ Your prayer] ‘In prayer,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Being watchful] Sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. ‘watching :’ ‘and watch, Awth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘and wake.’ Therein| So Cov, (Test.): ‘in the same,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘in it.’ 3. Of the word] So Cov. (both), and sim. Wicl., ‘of word:’ ‘of utterance,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Rhem., ‘of speech.’ For the sake of which| ‘ For which,’ Auth., Wiel. ; ‘wherfore,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘for the whyche thynge,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘for the which,’ Rhem. 4. In order that] ‘That, Auth. and all the other Vv. - ᾽ ing,’ Auth., 5. Buying up] ‘Redeeming,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘agen biynge,’ Wicl. ; ‘and redeme,’ Zynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘lose no opportunite,’ Cran. 6. So that] ‘That,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. The slight change is made to express distinctly the infin. of consequence, and to prevent ‘that’ being regarded as indicative of puwr- pose, and as a translation of iva with the subjunctive. 7. Our beloved] So Gen., Bish., and sim. Rhem., ‘our dearest:’ ‘a be- loved,’ Auth.; ‘moost dere’ (no art.), Wicl.; ‘the deare,’ Tynd., Cov.; ‘the mooste deare,’ Coverd. (Test.) ; ‘the beloved,’ Cran. Faithful) So Wicl., Cov. (both), Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘a faithful,’ Auth. Tynd., Gen. 8. Send] Epistolary aorist; ‘have sent,’ Auth. and the other Vv. ex- cept Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘sent.’ Ty- chicus appears certainly to have been the bearer of this letter ; comp. notes on Phil. ii. 28, and on Philem. 2. This very] ‘The same,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘this same ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘ therfore.’ May] ‘Might,’ Auth. Change to preserve the ‘ succession’ of tenses, 263 9 with Onesimus our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here. ” Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, touching whom ye received com- mandments (if he come unto you, receive him) ; ἢ and Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, men who have proved a comfort unto me. ” Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, saluteth you, always striving earnestly for you in his prayers, that ye may stand COLOSSIANS IV. 9—13. fast, perfect and fully assured in all the will of God. 3 For I bear him witness, that he hath much labour for you, and 9. Our faithful] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘our mooste beloued and faythful : ‘a faithful,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wiecl., ‘moost dere and feithful ;> Rhem., ‘the most dere and faithful.’ Which are done] So Auth., except that in the more ap- proved editions ‘are,’ which is neces- sary for the construction, is in italics, while ‘ done,’ which is a mere exegeti- eal insertion, is in the ordinary cha- racter. A better, but now antiquated, translation is that of Tynd., al., ‘ which are adoynge here.’ το. Mark] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘Marcus,’ Auth., and the re- maining Vv. ; see notes on ch. 1. 1. The cousin of] So Wicl., and sim. Rhem., ‘the cosin-german of ;’ ‘sister’s son to Barnabas,’ Awth., and sim. Tynd., (‘ Barnabassis systers sonne’), and the other Vy. Itseems very doubt- ful whether this is to be considered a mistake: it is not improbably an ar- chaic mode of expression, equivalent to the ‘Geschwisterkind’ of the Ger- man. The following words Auth. in- cludes in a parenthesis; this seems hardly correct ; see notes. 11. Men who have proved] ‘Which have been,’ Auth., Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘that when,’ Wicl.; ‘ which were, Tynd., Cov., comforted,’ Cov. (Test.) 12. Christ Jesus] ‘*Christ,’ Auth. Striving earnestly] Similarly Marg. ‘striving ; Bish., ‘striveth:’ ‘labour- ing fervently,’ Awth., and sim. T'ynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., ‘laboreth fer- vently;? ‘bisie for you,’ Wiel. ; ‘al- waye carefull,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. His prayers] Auth. omits ‘his.’ Stand fast] ‘Stand,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Fully assured | **Complete,’ Auth. 13. Witness] Sim. Wicl., ‘witness- ynge:’ ‘record,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vv. except Rhem., ‘ testimo- nie.’ Much labour] ‘*A great zeal,’ Auth. Them that are] So Auth., Cov. (Test.); the other Vv. vary: Wiel. inserts ‘ that ben’ in both clauses ; ‘them of L. and them of H..,’ Tynd., Gen., Bish.; ‘them at L. and at H.,’ Cov.; ‘that are of’ (in both clauses), Cran.; ‘that be at L., and that are at H.,’ Rhem. In this variety the translation of Cov. (Test.) and Auth. is, on the whole, most sa- tisfactory ; the insertion ‘ that are,’ in the first clause, obviates any miscon- ception, while its omission, in the second, prevents the sentence being unduly heavy. Gen.; ‘which 264 COLOSSIANS’ IV. 13—18. them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis. ™ Luke, the beloved physician, saluteth you, and Demas. ” Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. ' And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. ™ And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou receivedst in the Lord, that thou fulfil it. ’* The salutation by the hand of me Paul. RemEemMBER MY BONDS. 14. Saluteth you] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and, in the same order, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish., ‘ greteth :’ ‘ greet you’ (at the end of the verse), Auth., Wiel. GRACE BE WITH YOU. and the other Vv. Change to pre- serve a uniform translation with ver. 13: : 17. Receivedst] “ Hast received,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl.; 15. That are] So Wielif, Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘which are,’ Auth. ‘hast takun.’ 18, With you] Auth. adds ‘* Amen.’ THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. AUL, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved and fellow- labourer, * and to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house; * grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. * I thank my God, always making mention of thee in my prayers, ἢ hearing, as I do, of thy love and the faith, which thou hast toward the Lord, and dost show toward all the saints; ° that the communication of thy faith may become effectual unto Christ Jesus in the full knowledge 1. Beloved and] ‘ Beloved, and &c.’ Auth. The comma should be re- moved, as ἡμῶν appy. belongs to both ἀγαπητῷ and συνεργῶ. 2. Οὐ sister] ‘*Our beloved Ap- phia,’ Auth. To Arch. So all the Vv. except Auth. and Cov. (Test.), which omits the ‘ to.’ 3. Be unto you] ‘Grace to you,’ Auth. The insertion of ‘be’ with‘ to’ or ‘unto’ is the form adopted by Awth. elsewhere in St. Paul’s Epistles. 4. Always making mention] So, in point of order, Rhem. The other Vv. differ in their mode of placing the adverb: Auth. places it after ‘of the: Viel. connects it with the fore- going clause; Jynd. and the re- maining Vv. insert it directly after ‘mention.’ It seems best to follow the order of the Greek, and so to re- tain the slight emphasis which the position implies. 5. Hearing as I do] ‘ Hearing,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘when I heare,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bisk.; ‘for so moch as I heare,’ Cov. The participle explains the cir- cumstances which led to the prayer being offered. The faith | So Cov. (Test.): ‘faith,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Lord | ‘Lord *Jesus,’ Auth. Dost show toward] ‘And toward,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘and to ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘and unto.’ The saints] So Rhem.: ‘saints,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘holi men.’ 6. Unto Christ Jesus] ‘In Chr. Jesus,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and at the end of the verse. So, in point of order, Tynd., ‘by Jesus Christ ;’ Cran., ‘towarde J. C.;’ ‘the good that ye have in J. C.,’ Cov.: Gen. and Bish. with a trans- posed order, ‘whatsoever good thing is in you throughe Christ may be In the full know- ledge] Sim. Wiclif, ‘in knowinge ;’ Cov. (Test.), Cran., ‘in the know- ledge ; Rhem., ‘in the agnition of :’ ‘by the acknowledging of, Auth.; ‘thorow knowledge,’ Z'ynd., Cov. ; Gen. knowen.’ ( \ 266 PHILEMON 6—r4. of every good thing which is in us. 7 For I had great joy and consolation in thy love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by thee, brother. * Wherefore, though I have much boldness in Christ to enjoin thee that which is becoming, ° yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee. Being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ, ' I beseech thee for my own child Onesimus, whom I begat in my bonds; ™ which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and tome; “whom I send back to thee. But do thou receive him, that is, mine own bowels; * whom I was purposing to retain with myself, that in thy stead he might minister unto me in the bonds of the gospel: “ but without thine approval would I do nothing, that the good thou doest should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. and Bish. change the construction ; see above. Us| **You,’ Auth. 7. [had] ‘*We have,’ Auth. Hearts] So Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.: ‘bowels,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘entrailis,’ Wicl., Coverd. (Test.); ‘are hertely refreszhed,’ Cov. Hawe been] ‘Are,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘restiden;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘dyd reste ;’ Rhem., ‘ haue rested.’ 8. Have much boldness] Sim. Wicel., ‘hauyng myche trist ;’ Rhem., ‘hauing great confidence:’ ‘might be bold,’ Auth., Cran.; ‘be bold,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘have great boldnes,’ Cov.; ‘I beynge bold,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘bee very bold,’ Bish. Enjoin thee] So Auth. following Tynd. and Gen.: an archaism which it does not seem ne- cessary to remove. Becoming | Sim. Zynd., Cov., Gen., ‘that which becometh the:’ ‘convenient,’ Auwth., Bish.; ‘that that perteyneth to pro- fete,’ Wicl.; ‘that maketh matter,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘that which was thy dewtye to do,’ Cran.; ‘that which perteyneth to the purpose,’ Ahem. 9. Thee} Auth. places a comma after ‘thee,’ and a full stop at the end of the verse ; so very similarly all the other Vv.: Wicl. (‘sithen thou art suche as, &c.’) and hem. (‘ whereas thou art such an one, &e.’) refer the τοιοῦτος ὧν to Philemon. το. Own child] ‘Son,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Begat| So Wicl., Tynd., Gen.: ‘have begotten,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 12. Send] ‘Have sent,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Cov., ‘ sente.’ Back to thee] Auth. omits ‘*to thee.’ But do, &c. | ‘ Thou therefore,’ Auth. 13. Was purposing to retain] ‘Would have retained,’ Awth., Rhem.; ‘woold with hoold,’ Wiel.; ‘wolde fayne have retayned,’ Z'ynd., Cran., Gen.; ‘wolde haue kepte,’ Cov. (both) ; ‘would have fayne retayned,’ Bish. Myself] ‘Me,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Might minister] So Rhem.: ‘might have ministered,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl., ‘schulde serve.’ 14. Thine approval] ‘Thy mind,’ Auth, and the other Vv. except Wiel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘ counceil.’ The good thow doest| Sim. Cov. (both: PHILEMON 267 % For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou mightest receive him eternally; “no longer as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? ” If therefore thou countest me a partner, receive him as myself. "ἢ But if he wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, this set down to my account; “I Paul have written with mine own hand, I will repay zt: that 1 may not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own I5——