£ ^ »

lit'

^)^^

ft

»«*¦*•
^_^ Z^''^'

¦ I*
•r" 'i A.. f
' f il .W' , ]^
^'SS
,1 V*'^$«i;S'> ,.
r^^

/S93.

O^^ /y^a^

'inJ-zS'"

/^^

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HAND-BOOK TO
THE EPISTLES
TO THE
PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS,
AND TO
PHILEMON. BY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Th.D.,
OBEROONSISTORIALEATH, HANNOVEE.

TKANSLATED FEOM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BT
Eev. JOHN C. MOOEE, B.A.
THE TRANSLATION RE-^ISED AND EDITLD BT
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE KNIVERSITY OP GLASOOW.
WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BT
TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PEOFESSOK OF SACRED LITERATURE IN TALE COLLEGE.

NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS. Publishebs,
10 AND 12 Dey Street.
1885

Entered, according to Aot of Congress, In the year 1885,
By FUNK & -WAGNALLS,
In the Offlce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.

V.8

PREFACE
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

The present volume of Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Hand
book to the New Testament contains the Commentaries on the Epistles
to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon, by Meyer himself,
and the Commentary on the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, by his
coadjutor, Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann. According to the arrangement
of the New Testament books which is found in the English Version,
and also that of the editions of the Greek text which differ in some
respects from the English Version, the Epistle to Philemon is placed
after the Epistle to Titus. It has been deemed best, however, to insert
the commentary upon this Epistle in the present volume, rather than
in the one which includes the Pastoral Epistles, for two reasons : first,
because the Epistle itself was written at the same time with the Epistle
to the Colossians, and secondly, because the commentary upon it was
prepared by Meyer, while the Pastoral Epistles were assigned by him
to one of his fellow-workers. Dr. Huther. It may be added, that the
superintendence of the English translation of the Hand-book by Dr.
Dickson extended to all the parts of which Meyer himself was the
author, but not to those parts which were written by others.
The English Editor, Dr. Dickson, has prefixed to the volume on
Philippians and Colossians no formal preface, but only a brief prefatory
note. AU that is of any present interest in this note is the following
passage : — " The Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians was
translated from the third edition of the German by the late Mr. G. H.
Venables ; but, as it became necessary to incorporate the numerous
alterations and additions made by Dr. Meyer for the fourth edition,
the work of revising and completing the version of Mr. Venables has
been entrusted to the Rev. John C. Moore, who has also executed
independently the greater portion of the translation, from the fourth
German edition, of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians,
I have myself translated a small portion of the latter, and, as in pre
vious volumes, have revised the whole with some care, and carried it
through the press. It is stated by Dr, Meyer's son, in the Preface to

IV PEEFACE TO THE AMEEICAN EDITION.
the new edition of this volume, that his father had, before his fatal
illness, despatched the one half of the manuscript of his revision to the
printers, and that the other half was found labelled ' ready for the
press.' The book, therefore, although issued subsequently to the
author's death, is entirely his own work.'' The Commentary on the
Epistle to Philemon, which was published in the English Edition, as
also in the original German work, in the same volume -with that on the
Epistle to the Ephesians, was translated by the Rev. Maurice J.
Evans, B.A.
Of the general characteristics of Meyer's work, and of the few
changes made in the American Edition, in the way of transferring
citations, references to authors, and lists of names from the text to the
footnotes, it will be unnecessary to say anything in this volume, in
addition to what has been fully set forth in the parts of the work
already given to the public. With reference to Dr. Liinemann and
his commentary, the translator. Dr. Gloag, has expressed his views in
his Preface, which will be found at the beginning of that part of the
volume which relates to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. Dr. Gloag's
translation was made from the third edition of Liinemann's work. A
fourth edition has since been pubhshed in Germany, but with very few
and unimportant additions. These additions have been incorporated
in the present volume,* so that the reader has before him the trans
lation of the fourth German edition.
In my own work, as the editor of the American Edition of this
portion of the Commentary, I have been influenced by the same feeling
¦with that which affected me when I undertook the preparation of the
volume on the Epistle to the Romans — namely, that if additional notes
were to be inserted in the American Edition, they should be of such a
character, and so extended, as to give the edition a value of its own,
and thus a reason for its existence. Within the necessarily Umited
number of pages allowed me, I have endeavored, according to my
ability, to do what this feeling prompted me to undertake. "Whether
* One or t-wo wholly insignificant additions, of two or three lines each, -were
accidently overlooked until the pages of this volume "were in press, and, as they
would be of no use to the readers, it was thought unnecessary to record them on an
appended page. The most noticeable of these is the expression of the opinion
that Hofmann's explanation of a certain point connected with 1 Thess. iv. 11 is
without any foundation. As this opinion respecting Hofmann's interpretations is
pronounced in forty or fiifty different places in Liinemann's Commentary, indeed
on almost every page of the work — not to mention equally numerous instances in
Meyer's notes, — it is hoped that the editor may be pardoned by the indulgent
reader (indulgent to Hofmann, if not to himself), for having omitted this newly-
added case from the fourth edition ; — especially, as the reader will recall to mind

PEEFACE TO THE AMEEICAN EDITION. V
the task has been successfully accomplished, the scholarly reader will
judge for himself, but I trust that he will not find my annotations
altogether unworthy of a place in connection with those of the authors
of the original work.
The plan of my annotations is slightly difierent from that which was
followed in the volume on the Epistle to the Romans. Instead of
selecting particular Greek words or sentences, sometimes separated
from one another by a considerable space in the original text, I have,
in the present volume, arranged my notes according to the verses of
each chapter continuously from beginning to end. In this way, I have
covered the ground of the whole Epistle in each case. The reader,
however, will not demand of me an examination of every word or
phrase, or even a full presentation of every difiicult question. To
meet such a demand required, in the case of Meyer and Liinemann,
more than five times the space which has been given to me, and it
will be readUy understood, therefore, that my work could only have
completeness within the limitations imposed. Such completeness — in
some measure, at least — I have made an effort to secure. I have pur
posely avoided all discussion of the interesting subjects connected with
the Introduction to the Epistles, and have considered but few points of
textual criticism. It seemed better to do one part of the work more
fully, than all parts less fully, and I confined myself, from the outset,
to the explanation of the text in its thought and meaning.
As in the notes on the Epistle to the Romans, I have made but few
references to commentators, and, in general, only to those who are of
quite recent date, and, on this account, are not often, or not at all,
alluded to by Meyer and Liinemann. For the purpose of saving space,
I have usually abbreviated the names of these writers, but they will be
easily recognized by all who are familiar with their works, and by
others on examining the List of Exegetical Literature at the beginning
of the Commentaries on Philippians and Thessalonians. The occa
sional references to Winer's and Buttmann's Grammars, in my o-wn
notes, are to the pages of the American translations of those works.
The same is the fact with the references marked [E. T.] in the notes
by Liinemann and Meyer. The letters tr. following the names of
Noyes, Davidson, and one or two others, in my own annotations, will
be understood as referring to the translations of the New Testament by
the persons mentioned.
the fact that Hofmann is now dead, and -ivill realize that, though so unfortunately
misguided in his opinions in his life-time, he may be presumed, in the clearer
Ught of liis present existence, to have brought his views of Paul's meaning, in
every instance, into complete harmony with those expressed by Dr. Liinemann.

VI PEEFACE TO THE AMEEICAN EDITION.
I have only to add my commendation of the volume, so far as the
work of Meyer and Liinemann fills its pages, to all theological students
and ministers throughout the country, and the expression of my
hope that all who may examine it wUl find some help from what I
have myself written. I am sure that the book will have a kindly
reception on the part of those who have, at any time within the past
twenty-seven years, studied the Pauline Epistles with me, in the
Divinity School of Yale CoUege ; and to them I dedicate my own por
tion of it — as I did my part of the volume on the Epistle to the
Romans — with a renewed assurance of my interest in their work and
welfare. TIMOTHY DWIGHT.
New Haven, Aug. 15th, 1885.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES
TO THE
PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS,
and to
PHILEMON.

[For commentaries or collections of notes embracing the whole New Testament,
see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for those which
deal with the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see Preface to the Com
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes only those
which concern the, Epistle to the Philippians or the Epistle to the Colossians, or
the Epistle to Philemon, or in which one of these Epistles holds the first place
on the title-page. Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a
few exceptions, been excluded, since, however valuable they may be on their own
account, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the
present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by
Meyer m loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes
that the book has been more or less frequently reprinted : f marks the date of the
authoi-'s death.]
Ajeay (Henry), f 1616, Provost of Queen's College, Oxford : Lectures upon the
whole Epistle to the Philippians ... 4°, Lond. 1618, al.
Atteesoll (William), Minister at Infield, Sussex : A Commentary upon the
Epistle to Philemon. Lond. 1612, 2d ed. 1633.
Am Ende (Johann Gottfried), f 1821, Superintendent at Neustadt on the Orla :
Pauli Epistola ad Philippenses Graece . . . nova versione Latina et
annotatione perpetua illustrata. 8°, Viteb. 1798, al.
Babe (Carl Christian Wilhelm Felix), Ministerialrath, Baden : Commentar iiber
den Brief Pauli an die Colosser, mit stater Berucksichtigung der iiltern
und neuern Ausleger. 8°, Basel, 1833.
Baeey (Alfred D.D.), Principal of Kings College, London : Commentary on
Philippians, on Colossians, and on Philemon (in EUicott's Commentary
for English Eeaders).
Batjmgaeten (Sigmund Jakob). See Galatians.
Baumgaeten-Crtjsius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), f 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena:
Commentar fiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser und Kolosser ... 8°,
Jena, 1845. — Commentar fiber die Briefe au die Philipper und Thessa-
lonicher ... 8°, Jena, 1848.
vii

Vlli EXEGETICAL LITERATUEE.
Bayne (Paul), f 1617, Min. at Cambridge : A Commentarie upon the I. and II.
chapters of Saint Paul to the Colossians ... 4°, Lond. 1634, al.
Beblbn (Jean-Theodore,) E. C. Prof. Or. Xang. at Louvain: Commentarius in
Epistolam S. Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lovanii, 1852.
Bleek (Friedrich), f 1859, Prof Theol. at Bonn: Vorlesungen fiber die Briefe
an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser ... 8°, Berl. 1865.
BoHMEK (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Breslau : Theologische Auslegung des paul-
inischen Sendschreibens an die Colosser. 8°, Breslau, 1835.
Bbaune (Karl), Superintendent at Altenburg in Saxony : Die Briefe S". Pauli
an die Epheser, Kolosser, Pliilipper. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbei
tet. [In Lange's Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867. [Translated from
the German, with additions (Philippians), by Horatio B. Hackett, D.D.,
and (Colossians) by M. B. Eiddle, D.D.] 8°, New York and Edin. 1870.
Beeithaupt (Joachim Justus), f 1732, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Animadversiones
exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in Epistolam ad Philippenses. 4°, Halae, 1703.
Beenz [or Bebntixis] (Johann), f 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: Explicatio Episto-
lae ad Philippenses. 8°, Francof. 1548.
Byfield (Nicholas), f 1622, Vicar of Isleworth : An Exposition upon the Epistle
to the Colossians ... 4°, 1617, al.
Calixtus (Georg). See Eomans.
Caetwkight (Thomas), f 1603, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Commentary on the
Epistle to the Colossians. 4°, Lond. 1612.
Daille (Jean), f 1670, Pastor at Paris : Exposition sur la divine Epitre de I'apo-
tre S. Paul aux Filippiens. 8°, Genev. 1659.
Dalmer (Karl Eduard Franz) : Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Colosser.
8°, Gotha, 1858.
Danaeus [Danaeu] (Lambert), f 1596, Pastor at Orthes : Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Philemonem. 8°, Geneva, 1579
Da VENANT (John,) f 1641,. Bishop of Salisbury : Expositio Epistolae Pauli ad
Colossenses, 2°, Cantab. 1627, al. [Translated, with notes, by Josiah
AUport. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1831.]
Da vies (John Llewelyn), Eector of Christ Church, Maryleboue : The Epistles
of St. Paul to the Ephesians, tlie Colossians, and Philemon, with intro
duction and notes, and an essay on the traces of foreign elements in the
theology of these Epistles. 8°, Lond. 1867.
Demmb (Jacob Friedrich Ignaz) : Erklarung des Briefes an den Philemon.
8°, Breslau, 1844.
Dyke (Daniel), f c. 1614, Minister at St. Albans : A fruitful Exposition upon
Philemon. 4°, Lond. 1618.
Eadie (John), D.D., f 1876, Prof Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian Church : A
Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Philip
pians. 8°, Edin. 1859.
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Colossians.
8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1856.

EXEGETICAL LITEEATURE. IX
Ellicott (Charles John), D. D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol : A Critical and
Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, Colos
sians, and Philemon, with a revised translation. 8°, Lond. 1857, al.
Elton (Edward), Minister at Bermondsey : An Exposition of the Epistle to the
Colossians . . 4°, Lond. 1615, al.
Ferguson (James), f 1667, Minister at Kilwinning : A Briefe Exposition of the
Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians. 8°, Edin. 1656, al.
Flatt (Johann Friedrich), f 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tubingen : Vorlesungen fiber
die Briefe PauU an die Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher, und den
Philemon, herausgegeben von Chr. F. Kling. 8°, Tubing. 1829.
Gentilis (Scipione), f 1616, Prof. Law at Altdorf : Commentarius in Epistolam
ad Philemonem. 4°, Norimb. 1618, [Crit. Sac. vii. 2.]
Hagexbach (Karl Eudolph), f 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Pauli Epistolam ad
Philemonem interpretatus est C. E. Hagenbach. 4°, Basil, 1829.
Hetneichs (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf : Testamentum Novum
Graece perpetuo annotatione iUustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol. vii. p. 2. Com
plectens Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses et Colossenses. Continuavit
J. H. Heinrichs. 8°, Getting. 1803, ed. IL, 1826,
Hengel (Wessel Albert van). Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius perpetuus
in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1839.
HoELEMANN (Hermann Gustav), Teacher in Gymnasium at Zwickau : Commen
tarius in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses. [Theile : Comment.
in N. T., vol. xxii.] 8°, Lips. 1839.
Hofmann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Die Heilige
Schrift des N. T. zusammenhangend untersucht. IV. 2. Die Briefe
Pauli an die Kolosser und Philemon. IV. 3. Der Brief Pauli an die
Philipper. 8°, Nordlingen, 1870-2.
HOLTZMANN (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Strassburg : Kritik der Epheser
und Kolosserbriefe auf Grtmd einer Analyse ihres Verwandschafts-
verhaltnisses. 8°, Leipzig, 1872.
Hummel (Johann Heinrich), f 1674, Dean at Berne : Explanatio Epistolae ad
Philemonem. 2°, Tiguri, 1670.
Huther (Johann Eduard), Pastor at Wittenforden, Schwerin: Commentar fiber
den Brief Pauli an die Colosser. 8°, Hamb. 1841.
Jatho (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim : Pauli Brief
an die Philipper. 8°, Hildesheim, 1857.
Jones (William, D. D.): A Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon and the
Hebrews. 2°, Lond. 1635.
Junker (Friedrich) : Historisch-kritischer und philologischer Commentar fiber
den Brief PauU an die Colosser ... 8°, Mannheim, 1828.
Kahlbr (C. B.) : Auslegung der Epistel an die Philipper. 8^, Kiel, 1855.
Klopper (Albrecht) : Der Brief an die Kolosser kritisch untersucht und in
seinem Verhaltnisse zum Paulinischen LehrbegriflT exegetisoh und bib-
lisch-theologisch erortert. 8°, Berlin, 1882.

X EXEGETICAL LITEEATUEE.
Koch (August) : Kommentar fiber den Brief Pauli an den Philemon. 8°, Zurich, 1846.
Koppe. See Ephesians.
Keause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), f 1827, Tutor at Vienna : Die Briefe an
die Philipper und Thessalonicher fibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen
begleitet. 8°, Frankf 1790.
Keatjse (Johann Friedrich), f 1820, Superintendent at Weimar : Observationes
critico-exegeticae in Pauli Epistolae ad Philippenses c. i. et ii.
4°, Eegimont. [1810].
KiJHNE (Franz Eobert) : Die Epistel Pauli an Philemon iu Bibel-stunden .
ausgelegt, 2 Bandchen. 8°, Leipzig, 1856.
Lightfoot (Joseph Barber), D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge :
St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. A revised text, with introductions,
notes, and dissertations. 8°, Lond. and Camb. 1868, al.
St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon. A revised text, with
introductions, notes, and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1875.
LuMBY (J. Eawson, D.D.), St. Catharine's College, Cambridge; Commentary on
Philippians, and also on Philemon. (In Schaff''s Popular Commentary).
New York, 1882.
Manouey (A. F.). See Pastoeal Epistles.
Matthias (Konrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Erklarung des Briefes
Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Greifswald, 1835.
Mayerhoff (Ernst Theodor) : Der Brief an die Kolosser mit vornehmlicher
Berucksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe kritisch gepriift. 8°, Berl. 1838.
Melajstchthon (Philipp), f 1560, Eeformer: Enarratio Epistolae Pauli ad
Colossenses. 8°, Viteb. 1559, al.
Michaelis (Johann David). See Galatians.
MiJLLER (Cornelius) : Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistolae ad Philippenses.
4°, Hamburgi, 1844.
MuscuLUS [or Meusslin] (Wolfgang), f 1563, Prof Theol. at Berne : In Epis
tolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses ambas et primam ad
Timotheum commentarii. 2°, Basil, 1565, al.
Neaotjer (Johann August Wilhelm), f 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Der Brief
Pauli an die Philipper praktisch erlautert ... 8°, Berl. 1849.
Peirce (James), 1 1726, Minister at Exeter : A Paraphrase and Notes on the
Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews, after
the manner of Mr. Locke ... 4°, Lond. 1727, al.
Eettig (Heinrich Christian Michael), f 1836, Prof Theol. at Ziirich : Quaestiones
Philippenses. 8°, Giessen. 1831.
Ehbinwald (Georg Friedrich Heinrich), f 1849, Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Com
mentar fiber den Brief Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Berl. 1827.
BlDDLB (Matthew B., D.D.), Prof Exeg. at Hartford : Commentary on Colossians.
(In Sohaflfs Popular Commentary). New York, 1882.

EXEGETICAL LITEEATUEE. XI
Billiet (Albert), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentaire sur I'^pttre de rap6tre
Paul aux Philippiens . . . 8°, Gfe6ve, 1841.
BOELL (Herman Alexander), f 1718, Prof Theol. at Utrecht : Brevis Epistolae
Pauli ad Colossenses exegesis. 4°, Traject. 1731.
Bollock (Eobert), f 1598, Principal of the Univ. of Edinburgh : In Epistolam
ad Philemonem Commentarius. 8°, Geneva, 1602.
EoTHE (Moritz) : Pauli ad Philemonem Epistolae interpretatio historico-exegetica. 8°, Bremae, 1844.
ScHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Die Briefe an die Epheser,
Philipper, Kolosser. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [In Lange's
Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1862.
ScHlNZ (Wilhelm Heinrich) : Die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi. 8°, Zurich, 1833.
Schmid (Lebereoht Christian Gottlieb), f 1836, Pastor at Glosa : Pauli ad Phile
monem Epistola Graece et Latine illustrata. 8°, Lips. 1786.
Schmid (Sebastian). See Eomans.
ScHOTANUS (Meinardus H.), f 1644, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Analysis et Commen
taria in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 4°, Franek. 1637.
Speaker's [Bible] Commentary : On Philippians, by the very Eev. J. Gwynn,
Dean of Eaphoe, with selections from notes by Dean Jeremie. On
Colossians and Philemon, by the Lord Bishop of Derry.
Steiger (Wilhelm), f 1836, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Der Brief Pauli an die
Colosser ; Uebersetzung, Erklarung, einleitende und epikritische Abhand-
lungen. 8°, Erlangen, 1835.
Store (Gottlob Christian), f 1805, Prof. Theol. at Tfibingen: Dissertatio exegetica
in Epistolam ad Philippenses. . . . Dissertatio exegetica in Epistolae ad
Colossenses partem priorem [et posteriorem] . . . 4°, Tubing. [1783-87].
Expositions of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians by
John Calvin and D. Gottlob Christian Storr. Translated from the orig
inal by Eobert Johnston. [Biblical Cabinet.] 12°, Edin. 1842.
SuiCEEUS [Schvteitzee] (Johann Heinrich), Prof, of Greek iu Heidelberg : In
Epistolam ad Colossenses commentarius critico-exegeticus. 4°, Tiguri, 1699.
Ta-yloe (Thomas), f 1632, Minister in London: Commentarius in Epistolam ad
Philemonem. - 2°, Lond. 1659.
Til (Salomon van). See Eomans.
Van Oosteezee (Johannes Jacob), Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Die Pastoralbriefe
und der Brief an Philemon Theologisch-Homiletisch bearbeitet, Lange's
Bibelwerk ; Vol. XL 8°, Bielefeld, 1861.
On Philemon, translated from the German, with additions, by Prof H.
B. Hackett, D. D. (In SchaflTs Ed. of Lange). 8°, New York, 1869.
Vaughan (C. J.) Lectures on St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. 8°, Lond. 1882.

xn EXEGETICAL LITEEATUEE.
Velasquez (Juan Antonio), S. J. : In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses commen
taria et adnotationes. 2°, Lugd. et Paris. 1628-33.
VrCTOEiNUS (C. Marius), about a. d. 360, teacher of rhetoric at Bome : In Epis
tolam ad Philippenses liber unicus. [In Mai's Scrip. Vet. Nov. CoU. iii. 1.]
Vincent (Jean) : Explicatio familiaris in Epistolam D. PauU ad Philemonem. 2°, Paris, 1647.
WeiffenbAch (Prof Dr. Wilhelm) : Zur Auslegung der Stelle Philipper u.
5-11. 8°, Karlsruhe, 1884.
Weiss (Bernhard), Prof Theol. at Kiel : Der Philipperbrief ausgelegt, und die
Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt. 8°, Berl. 1859.
WiESlNGEE (J. C. August), Pastor at Untermagerbein, near Nordlingen : Die
Briefe des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus und
Philemon erklart. [In Olshausen's Commentar.] 8°, Konigsb. 1850.
[Translated by the Eev. John Fulton, A. M. 8°, Edin. 1851. The trans
lation revised, -with additional notes, by Prof A. C. Kendrick, D. D.
New York, 1858.]
Zachaeiae (Gotthilf Traugott). See Galatians.

THE
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

INTRODUCTION.
SEC. I.— THE PHILIPPIAN COMMUNITY.^
HE fortified city of Philippi'^ was situated in Macedonia, on
the borders of Thrace ; in earlier times, as a Thasian colony, it
was called, from its site abounding in springs, Kprjvidec (Diodor.
S. xvi. 3. 8 ; Strabo, vii. p. 490), but it changed this name for
that of its enlarger and fortifier, Philip, the son of Amyntas. It was rich
in gold mines (Herod, vi. 46 ; Appian. Bell. civ. iv. 15 ; Strabo, vii. p. 511) ;
and the -victory over Brutus and Cassius made it a landmark in the history
of the world. Through this overthrow of Koman freedom it acquired a
high rank as a Roman colony with the Jus Italicum (see on Acts xvi. 11) ;
but it obtained another and higher historical interest, attended by a greater
gain for the Roman Empire, through the fact that it was the first city in
Europe in which Paul, under the divine direction in a nocturnal vision
(see on Acts xvi. 9 f.), and amid ill-treatment and persecution (Acts xvi.
16 ff. ; 1 Thess. ii. 2), planted Christianity. Thus did the city vindicate its
original name, irf a higher sense, for the entire West. This event took
place in the year 53, during the second missionary journey of the apostle,
who also, in his third journey, labored among the Macedoni.an churches
(Acts XX. 1 f.), and especially in Philippi (Acts xx. 6). With what rich
success he there established Christianity is best shown by our epistle itself,
• See generally, Mynster, Einleit. in d. Br. St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, Lond. 1868,
an d. Philipper, in his Kl. theol. Schriften, p. 46 ff.
p. 169 fr. ; Hoog, de coetus Christ. Philipp. ' Now the village of Felibah. On the site
condiiione, etc., Lugd. Bat. 1825 ; Rettig, and the ruins, see Cousinery, '7oyage dans la
Quaest. Philipp.,Gieaa. ISSl ; Schinz, d. christi. Macid., Paris, ISSl, 11. oh. x. p. Iff.; Perrot
&em. i. Phil., Zurich, 1833; J. B. Lightfoot, in the Rexue archeolog. 1800, II. pp. 44 ff., 67 ff.
1

2 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
which exhibits a more cordial, affectionate, and undisturbed relation
between the church and the apostle, and bears a more unalloyed testimony
to the distinction of the church (comp. especially iv. 1), than we find in
any other apostolic letter. This peculiar mutual affection also explains
the fact that Paul, contrary to his usual custom, accepted aid on more than
one occasion from the Philippians (iv. 10 ff. ; 2 Cor. xi. 9) ; from which,
however, on account of this very love, we are not entitled to infer that they
were specially wealthy. The Jews were so few in number that they had
only a ¦n-poaevxv (see on Acts xvi. 13), and the Christian church was one
consisting mostly of those who had been Gentiles. The view which dis
covers a Judaizing faction (iii. 2) in it (Storr, Flatt, Bertholdt, Eichhorn,
Rheinwald, Guericke, and others), seems all the more unwarrantable,
when we consider how deeply the apostle was concerned to ward off from
his beloved Philippians the danger, at that time everywhere so imminent,
of the intrusion of Judaistic disturbance, and how susceptible the Philip
pians themselves were to such a danger, owing to a certain spiritual con
ceit' which had already impaired their unanimity (i. 12-ii. 16, iv. 2).
Comp. i. 28. See, against the -view of heretical partisanship, Schinz, p. 48
ff. ; Eilliet, Commentaire, Geneva, 1841, p. 352 ff. ; ^^'eiss, Introduction to
his Ausleg., Berl. 1859 ; compare, however, Huther in the MecMenb. theolog.
Zeitschrift, 1862, p. 623 ff.
SEC. 2.— PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION, OCCASION, AND
CONTENTS.
It is justly the universal tradition (Chrysostom ; Euthalius, in Zacagni,
Coll. vet. mon. pp. 547, 642, 648 ; Synopsis of Athanasius, Syrian Church, the
subscriptions), and the almost unanimous view of modern writers, that the
epistle was written in Rome. We are pointed to Rome by the o'lKia Kaiaapoc
(iv. 22), and by the crisis between life and death in which Paul was placed,
— a crisis which presupposes his appeal to the emperor, as the ultimate
legal resort (i. 20 ff., ii. 17), — as well as by the entire conformity of his
position and work (i. 12 ff.) to what we find recorded in Acts xxvin. 16 ff.
The epistle must, moreover, have been written during the later period of
the Roman captivity ; for the passages, i. 12 ff., ii. 26 ff., betoken that a
somewhat lengthened course of imprisonment had elapsed, and the apostle
was already abandoned by all his more intimate companions (ii. 20), ex-
1 Credner, g 158 f., represents the conoeit of the statement in Acts xvi. 12, which besides
¦the Philippians as apparent also in " the servile is purely historical, gives no warrant for the
courting of the rank of a irpoiTi} irdXis." But charge of any arbitrary assumption of rank.

INTRODUCTION. 3
cept Timothy (i. 1). A more precise specification, such as Hofmann in
particular gives (that the apostle had then been transferred from his hired
dwelling to the prison-house), is not deducible either from i. 12 ff., or from
the mention of the Praetorium and the imperial house. We must reject
the isolated attempts to transfer its composition to Corinth (Acts xviii. 12 ;
Oeder, Progr., Onold. 1731) or to Caesarea (Acts xxiii. 23-xxvi. 32; Paulus,
Progr., Jen. 1799 ; and Bottger, Beitr. I. p. 47 ff. ; favored also by Rilliet,
and Thiersch, KircJie im, apost. Zeiialt. p. 212). Concerning and against
these views, see particularly Hoelemann, Commentar, 1839, p. iii. ff. ; Nean
der, Gesch. d. Pflanzung, etc., p. 498 f.
We are to assume, therefore, as the date of composition, not indeed the
full expiration of the dieria bXrj of Acts xxviii. 30 (Hofmann), but the latter
portion of that period, — in the year 63 possibly, or the beginning of 64.'
See on Acts, Introd. § 4.
The occasion of the epistle was the fact that the Philippians had sent
Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid to Paul, who, on the return of the former
after his recovery from " a sickness nigh unto death," made him the bearer
of the letter (ii. 25-28). In the utterances of the epistle, however, there is
nothing to suggest any special change in the situation of the apostle as hav
ing afforded a motive for this gift on the part of the church ; and it is an
uncertain reading between the lines to assume, with Hofmann, not merely
that the apostle was transferred to the prison-house, but that with that
transference the process had reached the stage of its judicial discussion, in
which the Philippians believed that they could not but discern a change
to the worse for Paul, whom they regarded as suffering privations in
prison. Those traces, also, which Hofmann has discovered of a letter of the
church brought to Paul by Epaphroditus along with the contribution, and
expressing not only the concern of the Philippians for the apostle, but also
their need of instruction regarding the assaults to which their Christianity
was exposed, and regarding various other matters of theirs that required
to be settled and arranged, are so far fi-om being warranted by the exegesis
of the passages in question, that there is neither direct occasion nor any
other sufficient reason for going beyond the oral communications of Epa
phroditus in order to account for the apostle's acquaintance with the cir
cumstances of the Philippians. And just as the aid tendered by the care
ful love of the church had furnished the occasion for this letter to them, so
also does its entire tenor breathe forth the heartfelt and touching hve,
1 Marcion properly assigned to our epistle the laet place, in point of time, among his ten
Pauline epistles.

4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
which the captive apostle cherished towards his Philippians. Not one of
his epistles is so rich as this in hearty effusions of affection and in tender
references ; and not one of them is so characteristically epistolary, without
any rigid arrangement, almost without dogmatic discussion, as also with
out quotations from the Old Testament or dialectic chains of reasoning.
Not one is so eminently an epistle of the feelings, an outburst of the
moment, springing from the deepest inward need of loving fellowship
amidst outward abandonment and tribulation; a model, withal, of the
union of tender love, and at times an almost elegiac impress of courageous
resignation in the prospect of death, with high apostolic dignity and
unbroken holy joy, hope, and victory over the world. " Summa epistolae :
Gaudeo, gaudete," Bengel; comp. Grotius: "laetior alacriorque etblandior
ceteris." After the apostolic salutation (i. 1 f.), Paul, with heart-winning fervor,
expresses thanks, intercession, and confidence as regards his readers (i. 3-
11), and then enlarges on his present position, with his hope of a speedy
return (i. 12-26) ; after which he exhorts them to unanimity and humility,
and generally to the Christian life (i. 27-ii. 18). He promises to send
Timothy to them soon, yet trusts that he himself shall also soon come
to them (ii. 19-24) ; in the meantime he sends away to them Epaphro
ditus, their messenger, who is delicately and touchingly commended to
them (ii. 25-30). On the point, apparently, of passing on to a conclusion
(iii. 1) he proceeds to deal with his Jewish opponents, with whom he
compares himself at some length, thereby inciting his readers to be
like-minded with him, to keep in view the future salvation, and so to
maintain their Christian standing (iii. 2-iv. 1). After a special exhorta
tion to, and commendation of, two women (iv. 2, 3), the apostle subjoins
the concluding words of encouragement (iv. 4r-9), to which he had
already set himself in ui. 1, adds yet g,nother grateful effusion of his
heart on account of the aid given to him (iv. 10-20), and ends with
a salutation and a blessing (iv. 21-23).
SEC. 3.— GENUINENESS AND UNITY.
The genuineness of this epistle is estabUshed externally by the continuous
testimonies of the ancient church from Polyearp, iii. 11, onward; see
Marcion in Epiph. Haer. 42; Canon Murat.; Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19,
de praescr. 36 ; literal use made of it, as early as the epistle from Vienne
and Lyons, in Ens. v. 2 ; direct quotations fi-om it in Iren. iv. 18. 4, v. 18.
3; Cypr. Test. iii. 39; Clem. Paed. i. 107; Tert. de resurr. 23, 47,— in the

INTRODUCTION. O
presence of which testimonies it is unnecessary to adduce uncertain
allusions from apostohc Fathers and Apologists. Internally it bears the
seal of genuineness in the thoroughly Pauhne character of its contents,
of its spirit, of its emotions, of its delicate turns and references, of its
whole diction and form, and in the comparative absence, moreover, of
doctrinal definition properly so called, as well as in the prominence
throughout of the features characteristic of its origin as a cordial and
fi-esh occasional letter. Nevertheless, Baur, after repeated threats (see
die sogen. Pastoralbr. pp. 79, 86, and Tab. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, p. 196), has
directed his bold attacks against this epistle also (see his Paulus der Ap.
Jesu Christi, 1845, p. 458 ff., and second ed. II. p. 50 ff. ; also in the theol.
Jahrb. 1849, p. 501 ff., 1852, p. 133 ff. ') ; and Schwegler, nachapostoL Zeitalt.
II. p. 133 ff., has adopted the same views. See, against these attacks,
now hardly worth the trouble of refutation, beside the Commentaries
and Introductions, Liinemann, Pauli ad Phil, epist. contra Baurum defend.,
Gott. 1847 : Briickner, Ep. ad Phil Paulo auctori vindicaia contra Baur.,
Lips. 1848; Ernesti in the Stud. u. KrU. 1848, p. 858 ff., 1851, p. 595 ff.;
•Grimm in the Lit. BI of the AUg. K. Z. 1850, No. 149 ff., 1851, No. 6 ff.;
Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 309 ff. According to the opinion of
Baur, the epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions, to
which it attaches itself; but the only passage adduced as a proof is ii. 5 ff.,
and this 'entirely under mistaken explanations or arbitrary references
of the several elements of that passage. Comp. the commentary on this
passage, and the remark after ii. 11. The further charges — ^that the
epistle labors under feeble repetitions (copies of passages in other epistles,
as iii. 4 ff. fi-om 2 Cor. x. 18, el al), under a want of connection, and
poverty of ideas (in proof of which stress is laid on iii. 1, as the author's
own confession) — rest entirely on uncritical presupposition, and on a
mistaken judgment as to the distiiictive epistolary peculiarity of the letter,
and as to the special tons of feeling on the part of the apostle in his pres
ent position generally and towards his Philippians. Lastly, we must
reckon as wholly fanciful the doubt thrown upon what is said at i. 12,
for which a combination of this passage with iv. 22 is alleged to furnish
ground, and to which the mention of Clement, iv. 3, who is taken to
be Clement of Rome, and is supposed to weave the bond of unity round
Paul and Peter, must supply the key ; while the supposed anachronism in
the mention of the bishops and deacons in i. 1, the Euodia and Syntyche
in iv. 2, and the ciivyoc yvyaiog in iv. 3, are hkewise -wrongly adduced against
1 Compare also Planck in the same, 1847, p. 481 f ; K6stlin in the same, 1850, p. 263 ff.

6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the Pauline authorship. Indeed, even the historical occasion of the
epistle — the aid sent to Paul— is made to appear as a fictitious incident
at variance with 1 Cor. ix. 15. The special arguments of Baur are set
aside by an impartial interpretation of the passages to which they refer,
and the same may be said with regard to the latest attacks of Hitzig
(sur Kritik d. paulin. Briefe, 1870) and of Hinsch (in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift,
1873, p. 59 ff.) on the genuineness. The latter, though independent in
his movement, stands on the ground occupied by Baur; the former has
no ground whatever. Against Hinsch, see Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr.
1873, p. 178 ff.
Heinrichs, vrith whom Paulus in the main concurred, Heidelb. Jahrb.
1817, 7, has sought to do away with the unity of the epistle by the assump
tion that there were originally two epistles, — one exoteric, addressed to the
whole church, consisting of i. 1-iii. 1, ;ira''p«i"« ^^ "^P'V, and the salutations,
iv. 21-23 ; the other esoteric, to the apostle's more intimate friends, which
contained from iii. 1, to aird ypd<fitiv, down to iv. 20.' But this idea is noth
ing but a consequence of misconceiving the free epistolary movement,
which, especially in a letter like this called forth by a special occasion, and
addressed to a community so dear to him, might naturally be most unfet
tered (see on iii. 1) ; and in this case, the distinction of exoteric and
esoteric elements is a mistake, which is no less unhistorical than contrary
to all psychological probability.
From iii. 1 we must, moreover, assume that, prior to our epistle, Paul
had addressed another letter to the Philippians, which is not now extant ;
and this is ccnfirm-cd by Polyearp (Phil. 3). See on iii. 1, remark.
1 without auy grounds whatever, Weisse based on style, to regard the portion from
(see hia Beitrage z. Krit. d. paulin. Bnefe, chap. iii. onward as the fragment of a second
edited by Sulze, 18G7) has found himself Epistle to the Philippians.
forced, in accordance with his criticism

IlauXou iinaroly] npdg 0dimr-ijaiou(s.^
A B D E F G X have merely irpbg ^iXiirmjaiovc.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. 'Jr/aoii Xpiarov'] Lachm. and Tisch. read Xptarov Itjcov. The same in
vv. 6 and 8. This is to be preferred on account of the strong attestation of B D
E X (the latter, however, only in w. 1 and 8), which is reinforced in ver. 8 by
A ; it was readily supplanted by the more usual 'I. X. — Ver. 7. EIz. has merely
rj drroXoy. mthoiU h. Lachm. has h>, which Griesb., Matth., Scholz, and Tisch.
adopt, in brackets. It is found in B D** E K L P K , min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg.
It. and some Fathers. Looking at this indecisive attestation, and seeing that h>
might more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than omitted,
it should be deleted. — Ver. 8. eariv'] after pov is defended by Griesb., bracketed
by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., following B F G X*, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Chrys.
An addition made from a reminiscence of Eom. i. 9. — Ver. 9. rrepiaaevril BDE
have rrepuar^evay. So Lachm., who has placed rrepiaaevri in the margin, and Tisch.
7. With the considerable testimony which exists in favor of the Becepta, restored
also by Tisch. 8, it should be retained, as irepiaaevai) might very easily originate
in the similarity of sound in the following final syllables : £7riyvu2EI, -ttoXHI,
and a'lodfj'ZEL. The Mecepla is also supported by the readings ¦n-epiaaevei and
rrepiaaevoi. — Ver. 11. Elz. has icapirijv . . . rav, against decisive testimony. An
emendation. — ^Ver. 14. Lach. and Tisch. 8 have rov Qeov after Myov, although,
according to testimony of some weight (such'as A B N, Clem.), only an explana
tory addition, which some Codd. give in a different position, while others change
it into rob Kvpiov. — Vv. 16, 17. Elz. reverses their position : ol piv ef epidsiac - . .
pov oi ds ef dydirrjc . . . nelpai, against decisive testimony. A transposition
intended to produce uniformity with ver. 10. — ^Instead of syeipeiv (Griesb.,
Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has iirupepew, which is defended by Matth. and Scholz, and
vindicated by Eeiche. But iyelp. is decisively attested by the preponderance of
uncials (including X) and vss. ; iirujiepuv, instead of which Theophyl. ms. has
irpoaijikpsiv, is an ancient gloss. — Ver. 18. rr'Xfjv'] B has dri; A F G P N, min. some
vss. and Fathers : ttA^v on. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the
irXfpi not being understood, it was explained by the on written on the margin,
which has in some cases (B) supplanted the ir2.^, and in others passed into the
text along with it. — Ver. 21 . Xpiardg'] xpiordv was so isolated and weak in attesta
tion (Ar. poi.), that it should not have been recommended by Griesb., following
earlier authority. — Ver. 23. Elz. has ydp instead of di, against decisive testimony.
1 The Philippians are also called <tiAt7rjr^(j-iot ing to Steph. Byz.), ^tKinirtts in the Corp.
by Steph. Byz'., ^iAhttttjooi by Polyb. (accord- lusoript. 7

8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
The ydp after mUCi is neither critically nor exegetically to be rejected. See
Eeiche, Comm. criL^Yer. 24. iv ry aapKi] iv is wanting in A C P K, min. Clem. Or.
Petr. alex. Cyr. Chrysost. Wrongly condemned by Griesb. and Tisch. 8 ; for iv
might easily be absorbed by the final syllable of impevciv, especially aii it is fre
quently used elsewhere with the simple dative.— Ver. 25. avprrapapeva'] Lachm.
and Tisch. 8 read rrapapevoi, which Griesb. also approved of, following A B C D*
F G N, min. A neglect of the doubly compound verb, attested certainly more
weakly, but yet by D*'"^* E K L P, Chrys al. and many min., which took place all
the more readily, because the word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and
even its meaning might be offensive.— Ver. 27. Instead of aKoiiaoi, Lach. and
Tisch. 8 read d/couw, but without a preponderance of testimony in its favor. — Ver.
28. iarlv aiirolg] Elz. has avrol^ piv iariv, against decisive testimony. — vplv'] A B
C** X, min. vss. Aug. read vpCiv. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the dative is
a mechanical alteration in accordance with the preceding avrolg and the following
ifuv.—Mev. 30. Elz. has Were. But dSers is attested by A C D"* E* X, min. and
Fathers, and was supplanted by Idtre through Itacism.
Contents. — After the greeting to his readers (vv. 1, 2), Paul assures them
of his gratitude towards God on account of their condition as Christians
(vv. 3-5), while as regards the future also he has confidence, in accordance
with his heartfelt love towards them, as to the continued work of God in
their case (vy. 6-8). His prayer is, that their love may increase yet more
and more on behalf of Christian perfection to the glory of God (vv. 9-11).
He then declares how his present position redounds to the furtherance of
the gospel, to which even the preaching of those who are actuated by
impure motives contributes (vv. 12-18), because Christ in fact is preached,
which must tend to his — the apostle's — salvation, since now nothing else
but the glorification of Christ in his case will be the result, whether he
remains alive in the body or not (vv. 19-21). Which of the two he should
prefer, he knows not; since, however, the former is more needful for the
sake of his readers, he is convinced that it will be the case for their fur
therance and joy (vv. 22-26). Only their conduct should be in conformity
with the gospel, in order that he, if he should come again to them, or
should be absent, might learn their Christian unity and fearlessness
(vv. 27-30).
Vv. 1, 2. Kai Tipdd.] [On vv. 1, 2, see Note I. pages 46, 47], not as aman
uensis, although he may have been so (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; 2 Thess. iii.
17; Col. iv. 18; and see on Gal. vi. 11), for from Rom. xvi. 22 we must
assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the superscription ;
nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting (Estius, Weiss), for ver. 1 is
the address of the epistle, and as such names those from whom it emanates;
but as subordinate ^'omMmier of the letter (comp. on 1 Cor. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 1;
Col. i. 1 ; Philem. 1), who, as a distinguished helper of the apostle, and
well known to the readers, adopts the teachings, exhortations, etc. of the
letter, which the apostle had previously discussed with him, as his own.
At the same time, the apostle himself remains so completely the proper
and principal writer of the epistle, that so early as ver. 3 he begins to
speak solely in his own person, and in ii. 19 speaks of Timothy, who was

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 9
to be sent to them, as a third person. Nevertheless this joint mention of
Timothy must have been as accordant -with the personal relation existing
between the latter and the readei-s (Acts xvi. 10 ff., xix. 22), as it was
serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of Timothy (ii.
19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a testimony of the inti
mate fellowship between the apostle and his subordinate feUow-laborer ^ —
dovhii X. 'I] The fact that Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic
dignity by the side of Timothy (as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1), may be explained
by the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the Philippians ;
for in regard to them he saw no external cause, and felt no internal need,
for making this assertion ; and we may assume the same thing in Philem.
1. The non-mention of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second
Epistles to the Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they
were composed, to be similarly explained (see Liinemann on 1 Thess. i. 1).
In their joint designation as dov'hii 'I. X. (see on Rom. i. 1), — a designation
resulting from the deep consciousness of the specific vocation of their
lives (1 Cor. iv. 1), — both the apostleship of Paul and the official position
of Timothy (comp. Rom. x\-i. 21 : TipdB. d awepydg pou ; Col. iv. 12) are
included. Compare civdov/iog, Col. i. 7, iv. 7. — roig dy'ioiQ iv X. 'I.] see on Rom.
i. 7, and on ^yiaapivog iv X. 'I., 1 Cor. i. 2. — aiiv iwioK. K. diaicdv.] along with
overseers and deacons. Paul writes to aW the Christians at Philippi (comp,
Rom. i. 7), bishops and deacons being expressly included (ovv, comp. Acts
xiv. 5). As official designations, the words did not require the article
(Kuhner, ad. Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 7 : arparrfyol di xai fuixayoi), although par
ticular persons are meant (in opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded,
however, just as office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially
mentioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, must
be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the aid which had been
1 In general, when Paul names others be- tioned with him (Silvanus being named with
aides himself in the address, the ground for the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a
it mast be sought for in the relation in which proof that Timothy was the apostle's most
those named — who were then present with intimate companion, and was highly esteemed
Paul — stood to the churches concerned, and among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only,
not in any wish on hia part to give by that Sosthenes, and not Timothy, is mentioned
means to the epistles an official and public along with Paul in the address.
character (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom 2 For all had, jn fact, by their common
Corn. Miiller agrees, Commentnt. de loc. readiness in offering given occasion to the
quibusd. ep. ad Phil., Hamb. 1843, p. 5) ; for in apostolic letter. Thus the decorum of reply
that case the Epistles to the Romans and naturally gave rise to the insertion of the
.Kphesians would least of all bear the Apos- otherwise superfluous n-atri, without its imply-
?.le's name alone. To him, too, with his ingany special design of not putting to shame
jersonal consciousness of his high apostolic those who possibly had not contributed (van
standing (Gal. i. 1), the need of any confirma- Hengel). And when Paul still further in this
tion or corroboration by others must have Epistle makes mention repeatedly and ear-
been an idea utterly foreign. Lastly, this nestly of all his readers (i. 4, 7 f , 2ri, ii. 17, 26,
very Epistle to the Philippians bears less iv. 25), the simple and natural explanation is
of the official and more of the familiar to be sought in the feeling of special ali-
character than any of the others. — The fact, embracing love, by which he was attached to
moreover, that in almost all the epistles, this well-constituted church not divided by
in the superscription of which Paul does any factions. Hence there is no ground for
not name -himself alone, Timothy is men- seeking further explanation, as e. g. de Wette

10 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
conveyed to Paul could not have been -collected without the guidance,
and co-operation otherwise, of these office-bearers.' They might even
have transmitted to him the money by means of an accompanying letter in
the name of the church (Ewald; compare Hofmann); there is, however,
no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Cornelius
a Lapide and Grotius : that he thus arranged the salutation ¦with reference
to Epaphroditus, who was one of the irriojcoTrot ; by Matthias : that the
irriaKoiroL and didkovoi had specially distinguished themselves among the
Philippians by their zeal and energy ; by Rilliet and Corn. Miiller : that
the intention was to describe the church as a regularly constituted one, or
as an undivided whole (Rheinwald), a collective body organized into unity
(Hofmann) (which, in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were
also); or that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to
suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to self-
exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet other expla
nations. — The writing of the words as one : awETnandTroiQ (B*'* D*** K,
Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be rejected, because ovv would be without
appropriate reference, and the epistle is addressed to the whole community.
See already Theodore of Mopsuestia. — As to the bishops, called from their
official duty imoKorroi (Acts XX. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 7), or figuratively
rroipeveg (Eph. iv. 11), and after the Jewish-theocratic analogy irpeajivTepoi,
see on Acts xx. 28, Eph. iv. 11. And how much the plural is at variance
with the Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The absence
also of any mention of presbyters '' strikingly shows that the latter were
still at that time identical with the bishops.^ As to the Sianovia, the care of
the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on Rom. xii. 7, xvi. 1 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28.
We may add that the placing of the officials after the church generally,
which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by ovv,
are characteristic of the relation between the two, which had not yet
undergone hierarchical dislocation. Comp. Acts xv. 4; Heb. xiii. 24.
Cornelius a Lapide, following Thomas Aquinas, sagely observes, that "the
shepherd who rules goes behind thefloclc ! " — xdpK ip'v "• r. A.J See on Rom.
i. 7. Ver. 3f. [On vv. 3-11, see Note II pages 47-50] Comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Cor.
i. 4; Eph. i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 4; Col. i. 3. — iirl irdai} r-g pvetfip.]
not : in every recollection, but, as the article requires : in my whole
recollection of you, so that the sense is not : as often as I remember you
(so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther), but : my remembrance of
does, by suggesting erroneously that " Paul 2 jq the Epistle of Polyearp to the Philip-
wished to manifest his impartiality with plans, Trpeo-jaiirepoL and SiaKovot are spoken of
regard to the dissension in the church." as existing in Philippi, but no eirifTKOTros. See
'There is therefore the less ground for especially chap. v. 6. Therefore even at this
Baur bringing forward the mention of bishops later period bishops and presbyters were
and deacons in this passage to help the proof identical in Philippi,
of a posl^apostolic composition of the epistle, 3 Comp. particularly Acts xx. 17, 28 ; and
as is also done by Hinsch in the passage see Bitschal, altkath. Kirche, p. 400 ff ; also J.
specifled. See, against this, Hilgenfeld in his B. Lightfoot, p. 9.3 ff., and Jul. MQUer, dogmat.
Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 f. Abh. p. 681. Mistaken view in Bollinger's

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 11
you in its entire tenor and compass is mingled with thankfulness towards
God. On irrl with the dative, comp. ii. 17. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce,
Michaelis, Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making vpiiv geni
tive of the subject (and cti as stating the ground, 1 Cor. i. 4) : "tliat ye are
constantly mindful of me,", ov "on account of your collective remembrance"
(Hofmann), which is supposed to imply and include the aid transmitted to
him as a single pveia. Tlmtfor which Paul thanks God— and it is here, as
in the openings of the other epistles, something of a far higher and more
general nature — does not follow until ver. 5. — pveiif] is to be rendered in
the usual sense of remenibrance (comp. 1 Thess. iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 3), and
not, as by van Hengel, in that of mention, which it only obtains in the
passages — certainly otherwise corresponding— Rom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1
Thess, i. 2, Philem. 4, by the addition of rroieiadai. In this case it is the
pvdav szeiv (1 Thess. iii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i, 3 ; Plat, Legg. vii. p. 798 A), and not
the pv. TToieiaBai, that is thought of — rravrore] [II b.] cannot belong to
evxaptoTGi in such a way that the following iv irdari def/oEi k. t. A. should be
separated from it and joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann ' desires.
It is true that irdvrore down to ¦lipuv is closely linked with what precedes ;
but the connection is of such a character that irdvrore already finds the
befitting limitation through irrl rrdar} r. pveia vpav, and now by iravrore K. T. 1.
can be announced, when the dixapiara r. 0. p. iirl ir. r. pv. vij,. takes place,
namely, " at all times, in every request which I make for you all, thanksgiving
towards my God is joined with my entire remembrance of you." Nega
tively expressed, the sense up to this point therefore is : "J neuer (iravTore)
make my intercessory prayer for you all, without always (irdvrore, as in Rom.
i. 10, Col. i. 4) in it associating thanks towards my God with my entire remem
brance of you." This does not render the ndvruv inappropriate, as
Hofmann objects, the fact being that the apostle constantly bears all his
Philippians upon his heart, and cannot help praying for them all; he feels
this, and expresses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many others,
including Weiss, connect as follows : " whilst I at all times in all my praying
for you all make the prayer luithjoy," the expression iv irdaij dtijau rip/ diriaiv
noiovpevog, as thus linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology.
Instead of perd xap. r. d. iroiovp., Paul would have simply and naturally
written the mere x'^'P'^^- This applies also to the view of Huther, who^
substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly connects iirip
rrdvr. ip. with evxapiarij (Rom. i. 8; Eph. i, 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3),
Against this it may be urged, that the otherwise too general iv irdari defiau
pov needs^ an addition more precisely defining it; and the words perd xap.
Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed, 2, who extravagant even to falsehood, because im-
makes out of o-iifu-ye yvi^aie the bishop Kar plying an impossibility.
^oxv". ^I" the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p, 400,
1 According to whom Paul is supposed to say s This applies also in opposition to Ewald,
that " he thanks his God for their collective re- who attaches un-ep ttoii'twi^ vfiSiv, and to Hof-
m&mbrance at all times, in each of his intercessory mann, who at the same time joins Iv irdtrj}
prayers making the request for them all with Sevjo-et, to the participial clause. The partici-
joy." Thus, however, the apostle would in pial clause only begins with the emphatically
fact have expressed himself in a manner prefixed /xera xapas-

12 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
r^ diria. iroiovp. which follow, show that the thought is still occupied with
the prayer, and has it as yet in prospect to express the object of the thanks.
Lastly, the article in rf/v dirimv points back to a mare precisely defined derimg,
the specification of which is contained in this very vir. ir. vp. Comp, Col,
i, 3, — As to the distinction between Sir/aiQ and irpgaevxv (ver, 9, iv, 6), see on
Eph. vi. 18. — On the emphatic sequence of irdar/, irdvrore, irdari, ndvroiv,
comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations,
but the fullness of his heart suggests them to him ; comp. 2 Cor. ix, 8, —
perd xopag k. t. A.] His heart urges him, while mentioning his prayer for
them all, to add : " when I make with joy the (mentioned) prayer
(r^f d.)'' — a feature which is met with in the opening of this epistle only.
Ver. 4 is not to be placed in a parenthesis (as by Luther), nor yet from
perd xap. onwards, for noiovp. is connected with evxapiard (in opposition to
Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic definition of mode for derjaiq
int. irdvr. vp.
Ver 5 f. 'ETTt ri) Koivav. ip. fif rb eva-y}'.] is to be taken together with
evxapiara, ver. 3 (1 Cor. i. 4), and not with perd xap. k. r. X (Calvin, Grotius,
van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann) ; for in that case, with
the right explanation of etj irdari r. pv. ip., the specification of the ground
for thanks would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only
indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your fellowship in
respect of the gospel; [II c] by this Paul means the common brotherly
colierence (Acts ii. 42) which united the Philippians together for the gospel
(as the aim to which the noivavia has reference), that is, for its further
ance and efficiency. The great cause of the gospel was the end at
which, in their mutual coherence, they aimed; and this, therefore,
gave to their fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy
destination. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the
context in ver. 9, where that which is here expressed by v Kotvavia ipav is
characterized, under the category of the disposition on which this Koivamia is
based, as v dydirr] ipav. As this view is in full harmony with both words
and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, it excludes
divergent interpretations. We must therefore reject not only the expla
nation which refers noivavia to the aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a
Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be
taken actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, 287),
although it is never so used in the N. T. (comp. on Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. vi. 6 ;
Philem. 6), but also the view of Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius,
Heinrichs, and others: "quod evangelii participes facti estis," as if it ran
TOV eva-yysXinv (Theodoret: Koivuviav Si rov evayyeViov r?/v iriariv indleae). Chry
sostom and Theophylact, who are followed by most of the recent
interpreters,' understand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle,
that is, on Kowuvoi pov yivecBe k. avppcpiaral rav iirl rCi eiiayy. rrdvav, Theophylact -
consequently, their co-operation with him in spreading the gospel, in which
case also a reference to the aid rendered is included. In this case, since
> Including Schinz, Weiss, Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann.

CHAP. L 5, 6. 13
ihe text says nothing about a "service" devoted to the gospel (Hofmann),
an addition like per' ipov (1 John i. 3, et al), or some other more precise
definition, like that in ver. 7, would be an essential element — not arising (as
in Gal. ii. 9) out of tbe context — which therefore must have been expressed,
as indeed Paul muse have said so, had he wished to be understood
as referring to fellowship with all who had the cause of the gospel at heart
(Wiesinger). The absolute " your fellowship," if no arbitrary supplement
is allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the members of the
church themselves. — The article is not repeated after ipav, because noivavia elg
rb evayy. is conceived as forming a single notion.' — drrb icpdrrjQ f/p. axpi rov vvv]
is usually connected with r^ Koivavia k. r. X This connection, is the true one,
for the constancy of the noivavla, that has been attested hitherto, is the
very thing which not only supplies the motive for the apostle's thankful
ness, but forms also the ground of his just confidence for the future. The
connective article (ry before dirb) is not requisite, as iirl rfi Koivovia ipav was
construed as iiri ra Kotvaveiv ipag (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 135]). It cannot be
connected with r. dirjaiv iroiovp. (Weiss), unless irrl r. amvav. li. r. Ti. is also
made to belong hereto. If joined with irerroiduq (Rilliet, following
Lachmann, ed. min.), it would convey an emphatically prefixed definition
of the apostle's confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the
previous cotiduct of the readers, which by the connection with ireiroid.
would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with eixapiara (Beza,
Wolf, Bengel), the words — seeing that the expression irdvrore iv irdcij defiaei
has already been used, and then in irrl r-g Koivav'ia k. r. A. a transition has
already been made to the object of the thanks — would contain a definition
awkwardly postponed. — The first day is that in which he first preached the
gospel to them, which was followed by immediate and decided results.
Acts xvi. 13 fF. Comp. Col. i. 6. — irerroLeCig] confidence by which Paul
knows his evxapiare'w, vv. 3-5, to be accompanied. [II d] Without due
ground, Hofmann confuses the matter by making a new prolonged
paragraph begin with irciroidag} — avro rtwro] if taken according to the
common usage as the accusative of the object (comp. ve^. 25), would not
point to what follows, as if it were rovro merely (Weiss), but would mean,
being confident of this very thing, which is being spoken of (ii. 18 ; Gal. ii.
10; 2 Cor. ii. 3). But nothing has been yet said of tbe contents of the
confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken as ob id ipsum,^
for this very reason,* namely, because your noivavia eig rb evayy., from the
1 Comp. on Koiviovelv eli, iv. 15 ; Plato, Bep. winded period would be most of all out of
.eg A place in this epistle ; and what reader would
2 He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute a have been able, without Hofmann's guidance,
protasis, whose apodosis is again divided into to detect it and adjust its several parts ?
the protasis KaSm ia-Tiv SUaioi' iv-ol and the ' Hofmann also adopts this explanation of
apodosis corresponding thereto. But this oiio toCto.
(^odosis of the apodosis begins with Sea to *2 Pet i. 5; Plato, Symp. p. 204 A, and
Ixeii- (le, ver. 7, and yet is only continued aft«r Stallb. od Uc. ; Prot. p. 310 E ; Xen. Anab. i.
the words ij,il>rv! y- o Oeos, is iwirroeSi i/ii,;, 9. 21, and Kuhner in loc, also his Gramm. IL
which are a parenthem, in vv. 8, 9. Such a 1, p. 267 ; see also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 142],
dialectically involved and complicated, long- and comp. on Gal. ii. 10.

14 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
first day until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my con
fidence for the future, 'tin 6 ivapidpevoi ,i.r.2. — 6 ivap^dpevog K.r./..] God.
Comp. ii. 13. That which He has begun He will complete, namely, by
the further operations of His grace. The idea of resistance to this grace,
as a human possibility, is not thereby excluded; but Paul has not to fear
this on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in the case
of the Galatians. Gal. i. 6, iii. 3. [II e.] — iv iplv]. That Paul did not
intend to say among you (as Hoelemann holds), but in you, in animis vestris
(comp. ii. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 6), is shown by virip irdvrav i/iuv following, by
which the languj,ge 6 ivap^. iv vpTv k.t.1. expresses a confidence felt in respect
to all individuals. — epyov dyadtiv] without article, hence : an excellent work,
by which is meant, in conformity with the context, the Koivavia ip. elg ro
evayy. — dxpig vpipaQ 'I. X^ corresponding to the dirb irpiorrjg f/pep. dxpi rov
vvv, ver. 6, presupposes the nearness of the irapovala (in opposition to Wies
inger, Hofmann, and others), as everyAvhere in the N. T., and especially
in Paul's writings ('\A'eiss, bibl Theol p. 297, cd. 2). Comp. ver. 10, iii.
20. [II/.] The device by which the older expositors (see even Pelagius)
gratuitously introduce qualifying statements, " Perseverat autem in ilium
usque diem, quicunque perseverat usque ad mortem suam " (Estius), where
by is meant not " continuitas usque ad ilium, diem," but " terminus et cmn-
plem,entum perfectionis, quod habituri is'o die erimus " (Calovius), is just as
un-Pauline as Calvin's makeshift, " that the dead are still in profectu,
because they have not yet reached the goal," and as Matthies' philo
sophical perverting of it into the continual and eternal Parousia.
Ver. 7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed in ver. 6.
How should he otherwise than cherish it, and that on the ground of his
objective experience (airo rovro), since it was to him, through his love to
his readers, a duty and obligation! Not to cherish it would be wrong.
" Caritas enim omnia sperat," Pelagius. — As to icadag, which, in the con
ception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, comp. on iii. 17 ; 1
Cor. i. 6; Eph. i. 4; Matt, vi, 11, — On diKaiov, comp. Acts iv, 19; Eph. vi.
1 ; Phil, iv, 8 ; Col, iv, 1 ; 2 Pet, i, 12 ', — rovro <ppovelv] to have this feeling, this
practical bent of mind in favor of you, by which is meant the confidence
expressed in ver, 6, and not his striving in prayer for the perfecting of his
readers' salvation (ver, 4), which the sense of tbe word ippovelv does not
admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is not equivalent to ^^eiv (comp.
on Col. iii. 2). See besides, Huther, I.e. p. 405 f. — On iirep, comp. iv. 10; 2
Mace. xiv. 8; Eur. Archelfr. xxv. 2 f. ; Plut. Phil c. Flam. 3; on rovro <pp..
Gal. V. 10, oidiv d?.Ao (t>p. The special reference of the sense of ^poveiv : to be
mindful about something, must have been suggested by the context, as in
iv. 10 ; but is here insisted on by Hofmann, and that in connection with
the error, that with nadiiQ the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The
(ppovelv is here perfectly general, cogitare ae sent ire, but is characterized by
roijro as a ev (ppovelv, which Paul feels himself bound to cherish in the inter
est of the salvation of all his readers (iirip irdvrav ipav). — did rb exeiv ue iv
^ A classical author would have written : Uicaiov e/ie touto ppovelv (Herod, i. 39 - Bern.

CHAP. I. 7. 1.5
ry Kopdia ipa.(] An expression of heartfelt love (comp. 2 Cor. vii, 3) on tlie part
of the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers towards him,'^
thus making ipa; the subject ; although the sing. KapSia (comp. Eph. iv.
18, V. 19, -vi. 5 ; Rom. i. 21 ; 2 Cor. iii. 15, and elsewhere) is not against
this view, the position of the words is opposed to it, as is also the context,
see ver. 8. The readers are present to the apostle in his loving heart. —
iv re ro'i; deapolg K.r.\.] [Ilg.] so that, accordingly, this state of suffering,
and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, cannot dislodge you
from my heart. See already Chrysostom and Pelagius, These words,
h> re ro'ig deapolQ K.r.?.., set forth the faithful and abiding love, which even his
heavy misfortunes cannot change into concern for himself alone. They
contain, however, the two points, co-ordinated by re . . . Kai (as well . . . as
also) : (1) The position of the apostle, and (2) his employment in this position.
The latter, which, through the non-repetition of the article before /3t/3., is
taken as a whole (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both anti
thetical, the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it,
that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc., its verifica
tion? For an instance of this kind of ^efSaiaaic during the earhest period
of the apostle's capti\-ity at Rome, see Acts xx\-iii. 23. Hofmann, taking
a groundless objection to our explanation from the use oi ri . . . Kai (see,
however, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 225), refuses to connect the re -with the fol
lowing Kai ; he prefers to connect with the one exeiv, namely with the ixew
iv ry Kapdia, another, namelj' an exeiv avyKoivavovg. This is an artificial con
junction of very difierent references of the ixeiv, yielding the illogical
formalism : I have you (1) in my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc.
The latter would indeed be only a more precise quahtative definition of
the former. The question, moreover, whether in ry diroX k. fle^S. rov evayy.
Paul intended to speak of his judicial examination (Heinrichs, van Hen
gel), or of his extra-judicial action and ministry during his capti-\-ity, can
not be answered -without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were
meant. For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial defence'
since the drroyjiyla might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists,
but also to Gentile judges [II /;.] — rov evayy.] belongs to ry diroX ». jiePaiaaei,
and not to /3e,3. only; the latter view would make ry a-oZ. denote the
personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, and others), but is decisively
opposed by the non-repetition — closely coupling tne two words — of the
article before ,3£,3. But to interpret diroloyia and fiefiaiaaii: as synonymous
(Rheinwald), or to assume an iv did Svoiv for diro'Xiyia el; pefiaiwciv (Hein
richs), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the connection. It
is also contrary to the context (on account of ry diroloyia) to understand
the ,5f,5a/u(Tif T. evayj. as the actual confirmation afforded by the apostle's
sufferings (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others). — cvyKoivavov; pov
198. 8 ; Plat. Symp. p. '.. .4 C), or : SiKotoi elm " Comp. Heb. vi. 16 ; Eom. xv. 8 ; Mark xvi.
ToijTo Vp. (Herod, i. 32; Dem. 1409. 18, and 20; Thucyd. i. 14o. 6, iv. 87.. 1; Plat Polit. p.
frequently ; Thuc. i. 40. 3.) 309 C : Wisd. v. 18.
1 Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, RosenmuUer, am s wieseler, (Jhronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p.
Ende, Flatt. **"¦

16 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
K.r.X] characterizes the ipd;, and supplies a motive for the exetv pe iv ry
Kapdia vpd; K.r.X. : since you, etc. This love to you, unalterable even in my
affliction, is based on the real sympathy, which results from all of you being
joint-partakers with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on
avyK. and then on irdvra;, which is correlative with the previous ttqituv.
The idea of the grace which the apostle had received (rfj; xdpiro;) is defined
solely from the connection, and that indeed by the two points immediately
preceding, iv re roi; Seapol; pov and rff diroX k. fiefi. rov evayy., namely, as
God's gift of grace enabling them to suffer for the gospel (comp. ver. 29 f. ;
see also Acts v. 41 ; 1 Pet. ii. 19), and therewith to defend and confirm
instead of falling away from and denying it, "Magnus in hac re honos,
magna praemia" (Grotius). Paul knew that the experience of this grace
— for the setting forth of which the context itself amply suffices, without
the need of any retrospective rahrri; (as is Hofmann's objection) — ^had
been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all his Philippian con
verts, who like him had had to suffer for Christ (ver. 29 f ) ; and thus, in
his bonds, and whilst vindicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of
the holy similarity in this respect between his and their experience,
sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his fellow-sharers of this
grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he was suffering, and defending
and confirming the gospel, he had all his readers as avpirdaxovre;, awairolo-
yovpevoL, avpliepaiovvre; rb evayyiXwv, and that in virtue of the above-named
grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had recognized his bonds,
and his activity for the gospel in these bonds. Others interpret it much
too generally and vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of
the context, as the "gratiosa evangelii donatio" (Hoelemann, comp. Wolf,
Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likevnse without any more imme
diate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is- its explanation of
the apostolic office (Rom. i. 5, et al), the Philippians being said to be active
promoters of this through their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia) ; along
with which a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr, am
Ende, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Hofmann; comp. also Weiss) — which assist
ance has come to be regarded as a Koivuvia el; rb eiayyiXov (but see on ver.
5), as Hofmann expresses it. Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does
not mention at the very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered
to him, prescribe a certain line for the apostle ; which, however, he does
not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the Philippians
in subjects of a higher and more general interest, and puts off his expres
sion of thanks, properly so called, to the end of the epistle. Lastly, the
translation gaudii (Vulgate, Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius,
Sedulius) is derived from another reading (xapd;). — The oiv in ovyKoivavov;
refers to pov, my joint-partakers (iv. 14) of the grace, thus combining avyK.
with a double genitive of the person and the thing, of the subject and the
object (Kiihner, IL 1, p. 288 ; Winer, p, 180 [E, T. 191]), and placing it
flrst -with emphasis ; for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in
question, — As to the repetition of ipd;, see Matthise, p. 1031, and on Col.
ii. 13 ; comp. Soph, 0. C. 1278, and Reisig in loc.

CHAP. I. 8. 17
Remark. — ^Whether ev re rot; Seapol; . . . evayy. should be connected with the
preceding Sid rb exeiv pe iv ry KapSia ipd; (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther,
and many ; also Huther), or with ovyK. K.r.X which follows (Beza, Calvin, Cal
ovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, Wies
inger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be determined. Still the
former, as of a less periodic character, is more in harmony with the fervent tone of
feeUng. Besides, the repetition of ipd; betrays a break in the flow of thought
after r. evayy.
Ver. 8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance, that he had
his readers in his heart, etc. [II i.] Comp., on the connection, Rom. i.
9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly observes : ovx "f dmarovpevo; pdprvpa
Ka7^l rbv Qetiv, a/,/ld ryv iroUyv diddeaiv ovk exav irapaaryaai Sid Xdyov. — a; imiroda
K.r.X] how much I long after you all, etc., which would not be the case if I
did not bear you in my heart (ydp), as announced more precisely in ver,
7. On irrnroea, comp, Rom, i. 11; Phil, h. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 4.
The compound denotes the direction^ not the strength of the irodelv (comp.
on 2 Cor. v. 2), which is conveyed by a; ; comp. Rom. i. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 10. —
iv airldyxvoi; Xpiarov 'Ir/aov] [II j.] is not, with Hofmann,^ to be con
nected with what follows (see on ver. 9) ; it is an expression of the hearti
ness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest possible terms, iv,
on account of the sensuous expression which follows (airldyxva, like D'ipn^,
as seat of the affections, especially of heartfelt love, ii. 1 ; Col. iii. 12 ;
Philem. 7, 12, 20 ; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally : in the
heart of Jesus Christ; that is, so that this longing of mine is not my own
individual emotion, but a longing which I feel in virtue of tlie dwelling and
working of Christ in nfie. Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his
inmost life is not that of his human personaUty, of himself, but that Christ,
through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal principle and
agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings. Comp. on Gal. ii. 20. Filled
with the feeling of this holy fellowship of life, which threw his own
individuality into the background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual
Zafi was thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances of his
iiriTToSelv, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him, as if Christ's heart
throbbed in him for his Philippians,' Not doing justice to the Pauline
consciousness of the unio mystica which gives rise to this expression, some
have rendered iv in an instrumental sense, as in Luke i. 78 (Hofmann) ;
others have taken it of the norma : " according to the pattern of Christ's
love to His people " (Rosenmiiller, Rilliet) ; and some have found the
sense of the norma in the genitival relation : " in animo penitus aff'ecto ut
animus fuit Christi " (van Hengel).* The merely approximate statement
J Plat. Legg. ix. p. 8.55 F ; Herod, t. 93 ; Diod. » Bengel aptly says : " In Paulo non Paulus
8ic. xvii. 101; Ecclus. xxv. 20, vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non
2According to Hofmann, namely, ev o-n-A. in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur visceri-
X, 'I asserts with reference to the following bus." Comp. Theodoret : ouk avdpiinnvov to
KOL rovro irpouevx- that Christ's heart towards ^i\rpov, irvev^aTiKov.
those who are His produces such prayer in * So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and earlier
the apostle, and manifests itself therein. expositors ; whilst Storr refers cv trirK. 'I. X.
2

18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
of the sense, given by Grotius and others : " amore non illo communi, sed
vere Christiano,'' is in substance correct, but fails to give its full develop
ment to the consciousness of the Xpiarb; iv yplv (Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19 ; Rom.
viii. 10; 2 Cor. xni. 5; Eph. in. 17); notwithstanding which Hofmann
regards the identification of Paul's own heart with the heart of Christ as
suapVy impossible ; thus, however, applying to the mysticism of deep pious
feeling, and the living immediate plastic form in which it finds expression,
a criterion alien to its character, and drawing around it a hteral boundary
which it cannot bear.
Ver. 9. After having stated and discussed, in ^w. 3-8, the reason why he
thanks God with respect to his readers, Paul now, till the end of ver. 11,
sets forth what it is that he asks' in prayer for them.' — Kai] the simple and,
[II k.] introducing the new part of ^ and thus continuing, the discourse :
And this (which follows) is what I pray, — so that the object is placed first in
the progress of the discourse ; hence it is koI rovro irpoaevxopai, and not n..
irpoaevx- rovro. Hofmann's explanation of the Kai in the sense of also, and
his attaching iv a-?.. X. 'I. to ver. 9, are the necessary result of his per
verse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running on from ireiroida; in
ver, 6, into a lengthened protasis and apodosis, — a construction in which
the apodosis of the apodosis is supposed to begin with iv air?.. X. 'I. ; comp.
on ver. 6. — 'tva] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under
the form of its design (Col. i. 9; 1 Thess. i. 11; Matt. xxiv. 20), and thus
explains the preparatory rovro. Comp. on John vi. 29. " This I pray,
that your love should more and more," etc. — y d-)dirr!'vpdv], [II ?.] not love to
Paul (van Hengel, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel,
and others), — a reference which, especially in connection with in adlXav k.
pdXkov, would be all the more unsuitable on account of the apostle ha-\-ing
just received a practical proof of the love of the PhiUppians. It would
also be entirely inappropriate to the context which follows {iv iiriyvaaei
K.r.?.). Nor is it their love generally, Aritbout specification of an object for
it, as a proof of faith (Hofmann) ; but it is, in accordance with the context,
the brotherly love of the Philippians one. to another, the common dis
position and feeling at the bottom of that Koivuvia el; rb evayy., for which
Paul has given thanks in ver. 5.' This previous thanksgiving of his was
based on the confidence, on 6 ivap^dpevo; k.t.X., ver. 6, and the contents of his
even to the readers (se. ovra^). For many former portion is (ronc^uded by the fervent and
other interpretations, see Hoelemann and solemn ver. 8. Jatho also (Br. an d. Phil.,
Weiss. Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with tl)?, namely
1 " R«dit ad precationem, quam obiter tan- thus: and how I pray for ihi3, namely, to
tum uno verbo attigerat (namely, ver. 4) ; come to you, in order that I may edify you.
exponit igitur summam eorum, quae illis But to extract for toDto, out of Jiriirofli u^Ss,
petebat a Deo " (Calvin). the notion : " my presence with you," is
ii The word irpoo-eiixojLLat, which now occurs, much too harsh and arbitrary ; for Paul's
points to a new topic, the thanksgiving and words are not even en-tiro9ti iSelv ujuds as in
-its grounds having been previously spoken Rom. i. 11.
of. Therefore k. t. Trpouevx. is not to be s The idea that " your love " means the
attached, with Eilliet and Ewald, to the pre- readers themselves (Bullinger), or that this
ceding verse ; and (how I) pray this. Two passage gave rise to the mode of addressing
different things would thus be joined. The the hearers that has obtained since the

CHAP. I. ,9. 19
prayer now is in full harmou}' with that confidence. The connection is
misapprehended by Calovius and Rheinwald, who explain it as love to
God and Clirist ; also by Matthies (comp. Billiet), who takes it as love to
everything, that is truly Christian; comp. Wiesinger: love to the Lord,
and to all that belongs to and serves Him ; Weiss : zeal of love for the
cause of the gospel, — an interpretation which faUs to define the necessary
personal object of the dydirri, and to do justice to the idea of co-operative
fellowship which is imphed in the Koivavia in ver. 5. — en pd?iAov] quite our :
still more.^ With the reading irepiaaevy note the sense oi progressive develop
ment. — i V iiriyvaaei n. irday a'ladyaei [II m. J constitutes that in which — i. 6.
respecting which — the love of his readers is to become more and more
abundant.'' Others take the irv as instrumental : through (Heinrichs, Flatt,
Schinz, and others) ; or as local : in, i. e. in association u'ith (Oecumenius,
Calvin, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others), — -epiaa. being supposed to
stand absolutely (rnay be abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the
i-iyvaai; and aladyai;, and not to the love, shows that Paul had in view not
the growth in love, but the increase in i-iyvaat; and aicBr/m;, which the love
of the Philippians was more and more to attain. The less the love is
deficient in knowledge and aladyai;, it is the more deeply felt, more moral,
effective, and lasting. If ei7i}vaai; is the penetrating (see on 1 Cor. xiii.
12 ; Eph. i. 17) cognition of divine truth, both theoretical and practical, the
true knowledge of salvation,' which is the source, motive power, and
regulator of love (1 John iv. 7 ff.) ; aiadriai; (only occurring here in the New
Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either through
the bodily senses * (Xen. 3Iem. i. 4. 5, Anab. iv. 6. 13, and Kiiiger in loc. ;
Plat. Tfieaet p. 156 B), — ^^-hich are also called alaeyaei; (Plat. Theaet.
p. 156 B), or spiritually' (Plat. Tim. p. 43, C; Dem. 411. 19, 1417,
5), must be, according to the context which follows, the perception
which fakes place with the ethical senses, — an activity of moral perception
which apprehends and makes conscious of good and e-\-il as such (comp.
Heb. V. 14). The opposite of this is the dullness and inaction of the inward
sense of ethical feeling (Rom. xi. 8 ; Matt. xiii. 15, et al), the stagnation of
the aladyrypia ry; KapSia; (Jer. iv. 19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility,
incapacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about.* Paul desires
for his readers every (-day) aloByai;, because their inner sense is in no given
relation to remain -without the corresponding moral activity of feeling,
which may be very diversified according to the circumstances which form
Fathers (very frequently, e. g. in Augustine) (Rheinwald), which leads to the right objects,
in the language of the church (Bengel), is aims,means,andproofsof love(Weiss; comp.
purely fanciful. Hofmann). This, as in Col. i. 9, would have
1 Comp. Homer, Od. i. 322, xviii. 22; Herod. been expressed by Paul. Neither can liriyv.
i. 94; Pino. Pyth. x, 88, Olymp. i. 175; Plat be limited to the knowledge of men (Chrysos-
Euthyd. p. 283 C: Xen. Anab. vi, 6. 35; Diog. tom, Erasmus, and others).
L ix 10. 2. See instances of jiaAAoi/ icoi ii.SX- * " Nam etiam spiritualiter datnr visus, audi-
Xov in Kypke, II. p. SOT. t«s. olfactus, gnstus, tactus, i. e. sensus inves-
2 Comp Eom. xt. 13; 2 Ck)r. iii. » (Elz.), tigatl-vl et fruitiv* " (Bengel).
viii 7 - Col. iL 7 ; Ecclus. xix. 20 (24). ' Comp. LXX. Prov. i. 7 ; Ex. xxviii. 5 ; Ee-
3 Xot a mere knowledge of the divine wiU clus. xx. 17, Rec. (olaOjiaii hpifj) ; 4 Mace. ii. 2L

20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
its ethical conditions. The relation between i-'iyvaoi; and alodyci; is that
of spontaneity to receptivity, and the former is the yyepovmov for the
efficacy of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and misappre
hending are not correlative to the former, and deception to the latter
(Hofmann) ; both contrast with both.
Vv. 10, 11. Ejf rb SoKipd^eiv K.r.?^.] states the aim of the irepwo. iv iiriyv. n.
ir. alcB., and in Iva yre eiliKp. k.t.?,. we have the ultimate design [II n.]. doKi-
pd(,etv rd diaifiipovTa is to be understood, as in Rom. ii. 18 : in order to approve
that which is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodore
of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Grotius, Calovius, Estius,
Bengel, Michaelis, Flatt, Rheinwald, Rilliet, Ewald, and others.' Others
understand it as a testing of things which are morally different (Theodoret,
Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and others ; also Matthies, Hoelemann, v.an Hengel,
de Wette, Corn. Miiller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point of usage,
this is equally correct ; see on SoKipdC.., in both senses, 1 Thess. ii. 4. But
in our view the sense which yields a definition of the aim of the words
irepiao. iv eniyv. k. it. a'lad., as well as the antecedent of the elliKpiveia which fol
lows, seems more consistent with the context. The testing of good and
evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of the i-iyvaai; and
aladTjai;. Looking at the stage of Christian life which must be assumed
from vv. 5 and 7 (different in Rom. xii, 2), the former, as an aim, does not
go far enough ; and the eiXiKpiveia is the result not of that testing, but of
the approbation of the good. Hofmann's -view is therefore unsuitable, that
it means the proving of that which is otherwise ; otherwise, namely, than
that towards which the Christian's love is directed. This would amount
merely to the thought of testing what is unworthy of being loved (= rd irepa)
— a thought quite out of keeping with the telic mode of expression, — e't?.iKpi-
vel;], pure, sincere = KaOapo;; Plat, Phil p. 52 D.'' — dirpdaKorroi] practical
proof of the eiliKpiveia in reference to intercourse with others (2 Cor. vi. 3) :
giving no offence; 1 Cor. x. 32; Ignat. Trail interpol 7; Suicer, Thes. s. v.
As Paul decidedly uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. l c. (comp.
Ecclus. xxxv. 21), this meaning is here also to be preferred to the in itself
admissible intransitive, — viz. not offending (Acts xxiv. 16 ; comp. John xi,
9), — in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Hoelemann, de AVette,
Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and others [II o.] — el; ypip. A'.], to, i. e.for, the
day of Christ, when ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judg
ment-seat. Comp. ii. 16; Eph. iv. 30; Col. i. 22; 2 Pet. h. 9, iii. 7; 2 Tim.
i. 12; also Jude 24 f. These passages show that the expression is not
equivalent to the dxpi; fipipa; X. in ver. 6 (Luther, Erasmus, and others),
but places what is said in relation to the decision, unveiling, and the like
of the day of the Parousia, which is, however, here also looked upon as
near. — ^Ver. 11. ireirX. Kaprrbv SiK.] -modal definition of the eiXKpiv. «.. drrpSoK.,
and that from the positive side of these attributes, which are manifested
1 See on Biai^ipetv, praestantiorem esse (Dem. Comp. fitat^epovTwj, eximie (Plat, Prot. p, 349
1466, 22 ; Polyb, iii, 87. 1 ; Matt x. 31), and tA D, and frequently). For aomjiij., comp. Rom.
5ia4tepovTa, praestantiora (Xen. Sier. i. 3; xiv. 22, eZ ai.
Dio Cass. xliv. 25), Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 711 f. ^Comp., on its ethical use. Plat. Phaedr. p.

CHAP. L 10-12. 21
and tested in this fruitfulness — i. e. in this rich fullness of Christian -virtue
in their possessors. Kapirb; SiKaioa. is the fruit which is the product of right
eousness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state. [II p.]. Comp.
Kapir. rov irvevparo;, Gal. V. 22 ; k. rov (jxjrd;, Eph. V. 9 ; K. diKaioavvr/;, Jas. iii.
18, Heb. xii. 11, Rom. vi. 21 f., Prov. xi. 30. In no instance is the genitive
with Kaprrd; that of apposition (Hofmann). The diKaioavvr/ here meant,
however, is not justitia fidei (jiistificatio), as many, even Rilliet and Hoele
mann, would make it, but, in conformity with ver. 10, a righteous moral
condition, which is the moral consequence, because the necessary vital
expression, of the righteousness of faith, in which man now Kapiroijiopel ra
Oeu iv Kaivdryn irvevparo;, Rom. ^^i. 5 f. ; comp. vi. 2, viii. 2; Col. i. 10. We
must observe that the emphasis is laid not on SiKatoavvr;;, but on Kapirdv, —
which therefore obtains more precise definition afterwards, — so that SiKai-
oavvy; conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already conveyed
in ver. 10. of the right moral condition.' — rbv Sid ' I. X.] sc. dvra, the more
exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar sacred essence and dignity
of which are made apparent, seeing- that it is produced, not through
observance of the law, or generally by human power, but through Christ,
who brings it about by virtue of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit (Gal. ii. 20,
iii. 22 ; Eph. iv. 7 f., 17 ; John xv. 14, et al). — el; Sd^av /c.r.A.] belongs to
ireir?iyp. k.t.X, not specially to rbv did 'I. X. Holo far this fruitfulness tends
to the honor of God (comp. John xv. 8), see Eph. i. 6-14. God's S6^a is
His majesty in itself; eiraivo; is the praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph. i.
6, 12, 14. This eiraivo; is based on matter of fact (its opposite is dnpd^eiv r.
0edv, Rom. ii. 23), in so far as in the Christian moral perfection of believers
God's work of salvation in them, and consequently His glory, by means
of which it is effected, are manifested. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The whole
work of redemption is the manifestation of the divine dd^a. See John xii.
27 f. The gloi-y of God is, however, the ultimate aim and constant refrain
of ah Christian perfection, ii. 11; 1 Cor. x. 31; Eph. in. 31; 1 Pet. iv. 11;
Rom. xi. 36.
Ver. 12. [On -w. 12-14, see Note IIL, pages 50-52,] See, on -w,
12-26, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p, 558 ff. — Paul now pro
ceeds by the Si of continuation to depict his own position down to ver. 26.
See the summary of contents. — ^The element of transition in the train of
thought is that of the notification which Paul now desires to bring before
them; yivaoKeiv is thereiove pla,ced first : but ye are to know. It is otherwise
in 2 Tim. iii. 1, also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 1. — rd mr' e/ie] my circumstances,
my position.'' — pdX?Mv] not to the hindrance, but much tlie contrary. See
Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 243]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed
66 A, and Stallbaum in loc, 81 C ; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229]. A classical author
1 Cor. V. 8 ; 2 Cor. i, 12, ii, 17 ; Wisd. vii. 25, would have used the genitive (Elz.) or the
and Grimm in loc. dative.
J Comp, <)n Si-Kawavvr,, Eph. v. 9; Rom. vi. 2 As in Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7; Tob. x. 9;
13 18 20 xiv. 17, et al.— On the accusative of 2 Mace. iii. 40, et. al. ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 16 ;
the remote object, comp. Ps. cv. 40, cxlvii. 14; Ael. V. H. ii. 20.
Ecclus. xvii. 6; Col. L 9 (not 2 Thess. i. 11) ;

22 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as existing, on
the part of his readers, which, before going further, he wishes to relieve.
There is no trace even here of a letter received from them with the con
tribution (Hofmann ; comp. Wiesinger) ; comp. on ver. 1. Hoelemann :
"magis, quam antea contigerat;" but this meaning must have been
intimated by a vvv or ySr). — irpoKoirrpi] progress, i. e. success. Comp. ver. 25 ;
1 Tim, iv. 15,' In consequence of the apostle's fate, the gospel had
excited more attention, and the courage of its preachers had increased ;
see ver. 13 f. As to whether a change had taken place in his condition,
which the readers regarded as a change for the worse, as Hofmann
requires us to assume, we have no specific hint whatever. The situation
of the apostle generally, and in itself, abundantly justified their concern,
especially since it had already lasted so long, — ilylvdev] evenit, i. e. has
redounded.^ So the matter stands; note the p«/eci,
Ver, 13. "S.are k.t.A.] so that my bonds became manifest in Christ, etc. This
aars introduces the actual result of that irpoKoiry, and consequently a more
precise statement of its nature.' [Ill, b.]. ' Ev Xptara does not belong to
rov; deapov; pov, alongside of which it does not stand ; but (pavepov; iv Xpiar.
is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on ipavepov;, so that the
Seapol did not remain Kpvirroi or dTtdKpv(poi iv Xpia-a, as would have been the
case, if their relation to Christ had continued unknown, and if people had
been compelled to look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary
prisoner detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not
exist; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ,' in so far,
namely, that in their causal relation to Christ — in this their specific peculiarity
— ^^v.^s found information and elucidation with respect to his condition of
bondage, and thus the specialty of the case of the prisoner, became noto
rious. If Paul had been only known generally as deapio;, his bonds would
have been oi/c ipipavel; iv Xptara ; but now that, as Siapm; iv Kvpla or tov
Kvpiov (Eph. iv. 1, iii. 1 ; Philem. 9), as irdaxav a; Xpiarmvo; (1 Pet. iv. 16),
he had become the object of public notice, the favepaai; of his state of
bondage, as resting iv Xpiara, was thereby brought about, — a (pavepbv ytvec-
6ai, consequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the iv
Xpiari;!. It is arbitrary to supply ovra; with ev Xpiara (Hofmann). Ewald
takes it as: "shining in Christ," i. e. much sought after and honored as
Christian.* But, according to New Testament usage, <pavep6; does not con
vey so much as this ; in classical usage ^ it may mean conspicuous, eminent.
¦ — iv b?iiii riji irpaiTaptiii] irpairapiov is not the imperial palace in Rome,* which
1 As to the later Greek character of this the greatness, but the salutary effect, is indi-
word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85. cated.
2 Comp. Acts xix. 27; Wisd. xv. 6 ; Herod, i. -i Comp. also Calvin, and Wieseler, Chronol.
120 ; Soph. Aj. lllY (1138) ; Plat. Gorg. p. 487 B. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 457.
3 " Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis s Thuc. i. 17. 2, iv. 11. 3 ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 6. 58,
significatione definit," Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. Anab. vii. 7. 22 and KrQger in loc.
p. 1012. Hofmann's view, that it stands in « Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, The-
the sense of eis toBto Hart, also amounts to ophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Es-
this. But Hoelemann is in error in making tins, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and
it assert the greatness of the jrpoKoiri). Not many others, also Mynster, Rheinwald, and

• CHAP. I. 13, 23
is denoted in iv. 22 by ij Kaiaapo; o'lda, but was never called praetorium.^ It
could not well, indeed, be so called, as rb irpairiipiov is the standing appel
lation for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Matt, xx-vii. 27 ;
John xviii. 28, xix. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 35) ; hence it might and must have been
explained as the Procurator's palace in Caesarea, if our epistle had been
written there (see especially Bottger, Beitr. I. p. 51 f,). But it is the
Roman castrum praetorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard,''
whose chief was the praefectus praetorio, the arparoiriSav irrapxo;, to whom
Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Rome (Acts xxviii. 16). It was
built by Sejanus, and was situated not far from the Porta Viminalis, on
the eastern side of the city.^ rb irpairapwv does not mean the troop of
praetorian cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to ol irpair-
apiavoi (Herodian, viii. 8, M).-* — The becoming known in the whole praetorium
is explained by the fact, that a praetorian was always present with Paul aa
his guard (Acts xxviii, 16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his
preaching without hindrance (Acts xxviii, 30 f.). — ml roi; Xonrol; irdai] not
in the sense of locality, dependent on iv (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin),
but : and to all the others, besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inex
act way of putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known among
the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be left without any
more specific definition. This extensive proclamation of the matter took
place in part directly through Paul himself, since any one might visit
him, and in part indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, dis
ciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like,^ Van Hengel, moreover,
Sehneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. be proved that after the times of Tiberius, in
1855, p. 300. whose reign the castrfi praetoriana were built
^Act. Thorn. 13, 17, 18, 19, in Tischendorf, in front of the Viminal gate (only three
Act. apocr. pp, 192, 204 f,, cannot be cited in cohorts having previously been stationed in
favor of this designation (in opposition to the city, and that sine cnsiris, Suetonius, Ociau,
Rheinwald) ; the irpairiipin fiaoiKiKi there 49), anything else than these castra is to be
spoken of (§ 3) are royal castles, so designated understood by the wonted term praetorium,
after the analogy of the residences of the a-rparoweSov, when mentioned without any
Roman provincial rulers. Comp, Sueton, Aug. further definition (as Joseph, Antt. xvi'ii. 6. 1 :
72 ; Tib. 39, et al. ; Juvenal, x, 161. irpo toD poo-iAetou).
2Camerarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Eisner, iNot even in such passages as Tacitus,ifis(.
Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Matthies, ii. 24, iv. 46; Suetonius, Ner. 7; Plin. H. N.
Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet, xxv. 2, 6, et al., where the prepositional ex-
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, pression (in praetorium, ei praetorio) is always
[III c] and others. local.
3 See Suet. Tib. 37 ; Tao. Ann.iv.'i; Pitiscus, ^ This suffices fully to explain the situation
Thesaur. antiq. III. 174; and especially Peri- set forth in ver. 13. The words therefore
zonius, de orig., signif. et usu voce, praetoris et afford no ground for the historical combina-
praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his Disquisitin tion which Hofmann here makes; that dur-
de praetorio ae vero sensu verborum Phil. i. 13, ing the two years, Acts xxviii. 30, the apostle's
Franeq. 1090 ; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. case was held in abeyance ; and that only now
Lightfoot, p. 97 fF. Doubtless there was a had it been brought up for judicial discussion,
praetorian guard stationed in the imperial whereby first it had become manifest that
palace itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the his captivity was caused, not by his having
time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16). See committed any crime against the state, but
Wieseler Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404, by his having preached Christ, which might
who understands the station of this palace- not be challenged (?) on the state's account
guard to be here referred to. But it cannot As' if what is expressly reported in Acts

24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
understands it incorrectly, as if ol ?uiiiroi were specially " homines exteri,"
" Gentiles," — a limitation which could only be suggested by the context,
and therefore cannot be established by the use of the word in Eph. ii. 3,
iv. 17 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of Hofmann :
that it refers to those, who already knew about him.
Ver. 14. rov; irXeiova;] the majority, 1 Cor. x, 5, xv, 6, et al It is not to
be more precisely specified or limited. — iv Kvpia] belongs not to ddef^av
(Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, van Hengel, de
Wette, Ewald, Weiss, and others) — in which case it would not indeed have
needed a connecting article (Col, i, 2, iv, 7), yet would have been entirely
superfluous — but to rreiroMra;, along with which, however, it is not to be
rendered : relying upon the Lord with respect to my bonds (Rheinwald, Flatt,
Billiet, comp, Sehneckenburger, p. 301), It means rather : in the Lord
trusting my bonds, so that iv Kvpia is the specific modal definition of ireiroid.
roi; d. p., which trust is based and depends on Christ. [Ill d.]. Comp. ii. 24 ;
Gal. V. 10 ; Rom. xiv. 14 ; 2 Thess, iii, 4, On the dative, comp, 2 Cor. x.
7 ; Philem. 21, and the ordinary usage in the classics ; in the New Testa
ment mostly with ETt or EV. ' Sv Kvpia is placed first as the correlative of
the iv XpioT., ver. 13. As the apostle's bonds had become generally known
as in Christ, so also in Christ (who will not abandon the work of His
prisoner that had thus become so manifest) may be found the just ground
of the confidence which encourages the brethren, Paul's fellow-Christians
in Rome, d(fi6j3a; r. X. XoXjAv. They trust the bonds of the apostle, [III e.j,
inasmuch as these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging exam
ple of patience (Grotius), but also (comp, iii. 8 ; Col. i. 24 f. ; 2 Tim. ii. 8
f. ; Matt. V. 11 £, and many other passages) a practical guarantee, highly
honorable to Christ and His gospel, of the complete truth and justice, power
and glory of the loord,'- for the sake of whioh Paul is in bonds; thereby,
instead of losing their courage, they are only made all the bolder in virtue
of the elevating influence of moral sympathy with this situation of the
apostle in bonds. Weiss explains as if the passage ran ry <pavepaaei -av
Seapav pov (which would tend to the recommendation of the gospel) ; while
Hofmann thinks that, to guard themselves against the danger of being
criminally prosecuted on account of their preaching, they relied on the apos
tle's imprisonment, in so far as the latter had now shown itself, in the
judicial process that had at length been commenced, to be solely on account of
Christ, and not for anything culpable. The essential elements, forsooth,
are thus introduced in consequence of the way in which Hofmann has
construed for himself the situation (see on ver. 13), — wepiaaor.] i. e. in a
higher degree than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in
bonds. Their a^o/3(a in preaching had increased. This, however, is
xxviii, 31 were not sufficient to have made with Hofmann, among these Tr\eiovt^ all
the matter known, and as if that iitrta iv those who " eiien now before the conclusion of
'iSiif iLitriLiip-ari precluded the judicial prepar- the trial were inspired with such courage
ation of the case (ver. 7) ! As if the increased by it 1 "
courage of the irXeiove^, ver, 14, were intelli- 'Oecumenius well says: ei yap v-ri Belov V,
gihle only on the above assumption ! As if, <^7)<rl, to K-fipvyp-a, ovk av 6 HaSAo? riveixero
finally, it were admissible to understand, iinip avroi) 6e6ea-eai. Comp, ver 16.

CHAP. I. 14, 15. 25
explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above hjrpothesis, by the
fact that the political guiltlessness of preaching Christ had now been estab
lished, — thus referring, in fact, the increase of their fearless boldness to a
sense of legal security. But the reason of the increased d^oflia lay deeper,
in the sphere of the moral idea, which manifested itself in the apostle's
bonds, and in accordance -with which they trusted those bonds in the Lord,
seeing them borne for the Lord's sake. They animated the brethren to
boldness through that holy confidence, rooted in Christ, with which they
imbued them. — -rbv^yav ?mX£iv] i. e. to let the gospel become kno-wn, to
preach. Acts xi, 19, and frequently. On d(^6jia;, comp. Acts iv. 31.
Ver. 15. [On -w. 15-17, see Note IV. pages 52, 53.] This is not indeed
the case with all, that they iv Kvpia irerroiddre; roi; deap. pov irepiaaor. roXp. K.r.X.
No, some in Rome preach with an improper feeling and design ; but some
also with a good intention. (Both parties are described in further detail
in w. 16, 17.) In either case — Christ is preached, wherein I rejoice_,and
will rejoice (ver. 18).— t^vec /jhi koI did ipdtivov k. ipiv]. These do not form a
part of those described in ver. 14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and
others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are character
ized by hi Kvpia irerroiB. roi; deap. pap quite Otherwise, and indeed in a way
which excludes the idea of en-vy and contention (comp. also Huther, I. c),
and -appear as the majority to which these rivi; stand in contrast as excep
tions; but they are the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must
have pursued their practices in Rome, as in Asia and Greece, and exer
cised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and his gospel.' We
have no details on the subject, but from Rom. xiv. we see that there was
a fruitful field on which this tendency might find a footing and extend its
influence in Rome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the
Pauline school, who nevertheless hated the apostle personally (Wiesinger,
comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputation, and impugned his
mode of action (Weiss), is at variance with the previous iv Kvpia, assumes
a state of things which is in itself improbable, and is not required by the
utterance of ver. 18 (see the remark after ver. 18). See also Sehnecken
burger, p. 301 f. — Kai] indicates that, whilst the majority were actuated by
a good-disposition (ver. 14), an evil motive also existed in several, — expresses,
therefore, the accession of something else in other subjects, but certainly not
the accession of a subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same
persons designated in ver. 14 (Hofmann). — did <pe6vov k. spiv] [iv. a. b. page
53] on account of envy and strife, that is, for the sake of satislying the
strivings of their jealousy in respect to my influence, and of their conten
tious disposition towards me. Comp. ver. 17." — livi; di Kai] But some also ;
there also are not warding such as, etc. Observe that the di Kai joins itself
I For the person to whom individually their period, when the guarding of the apostle's
<l,06vos and epts (as likewi.se the subsequent personal position alone was concerned. See
eOSo/cia) had reference was self-evident to against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873,
the readers, and Paul, moreover, announces p. 180 f.
it to them in ver. 16 f. Without due reason ^On 6ia .()edi'o>', comp. Matt, xxvii. 18; Mark
Hinsch finds in this the mark of a later xv. 10; Plat iJep. p. 586 D: i(i9o;'iii aii ijnAoTijiiai-.

26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
-with nvi;, whereas in piv Kai previously the Kai is attached to the foUo-wing
did (p66vov. The nvi; here are they who in ver. 14 were described as irXeio-
ve;, but are now brought forward as, in contrast to tbe nvi; piv, the other
portion of the preachers, without any renewed reference to their prepond
erance in numbers, which had been already intimated.' — di' evdoKiav] on
account of goodwill, that is, because they entertain a feeling of goodwill
towards me. This interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the
antithesis did (pBdvov k. ipiv, and also in ver. 16 : cf dydiry;'} Others take it,
contrary to the context, as : " ex benevolentia, epia desiderant hominum
salutem " (Estius, comp. already Pelagius) ; or, " quod ipsi id probarent,"
from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and others), from taking delight in
the matter generally (Huther), or in the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or
in his preaching (Weiss).
Vv. 16, 17. \^'e have here a more detailed description of both parties in
respect to the motives which actuated them in relation to tbe deapoi of the
apostle. — ol piv . . . oi Si] corresponds to the two parties of ver. 15, but —
and that indeed without any particular purpose — in an inverted order (see
the critical remarks), as in 2 Cor. ii. 16, and frequently in classical authors
(Thuc. i. 68. 4. ; Xen. Anab. i. 10. 4). In -^-er. 18 the order adopted in ver.
15 is again reverted to, — ol tf dydirri;] [IV, c] sc. ovre;, a genetic description
of the ethical condition of these people : those who are of love, i. e, of loving
nature and action; comp, Rom, ii. S ; Gal. iii. 7 ; John xviii. 37, et al We
must supply what immediately precedes : rbv Xpiarov Kr/pvaaovaiv, of which
eiSdre; K.r.X. then contains the particular moving cause (Rom. v. 3, 6, 9 ; Gal.
ii. 16 ; Eph. vi. 8 f., et al). We might also take oi fzev (and then ol de) abso
lutely : tlie one, and then bring up immediately, for if dydiry;, the sub
sequent r, Xpiarbv KarayyiXXovaiv (so Hofmann and Others). But this would
be less appropriate, because the progress of the discourse does not turn on
the saying that the one preach out of love, and the other out of contention
(for this has been said in substance previously), but on the internal deter
mining motives which are expressed by elddre; K.r.X. and o'lopevoi K.r.X. ;
besides, ovx dyyoi; would then follow as merely a weak and disturbing
auxiliary clause to £f ipideia;. — bn el; dwoX. rov eiayy. Kelpai] that I am destined,
1 Van Hengel has not taken this into ac- have desired to say this, aud does not say it;
count, when he assumes that in tij-e; 6e Kai but he could describe in general, as he has
Paul had in view only a portion of those done, the ethical antitheses which character-
designated in ver. 14. It is an objection to ized the two parties. Moreover, e>ig means
this idea, that what is said subsequently in everywhere in the K. T., and especially here
ver. 16 of the nvis Si Kal completely harmon- in its conjunction with iiBovos (comp. Rom. i.
izes with that, whereby the itKeioves generally, 29 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4), not rii-ah!/— the weaker
and not merely a portion of them, were sense assigned to it here, without a shadow
characterized in ver. 14. (iv Kvp. weir. t. Seap,.). of justification from the context, by Hofmann
This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, (" they wish to outdo him ")— but strife, con-
according to whom the two nvis, ver. 15 f., tention. Just as little is ipi.eeia to be reduced
belong to the irKeloves of ver. 14, whom they to the general notion of egotism, as is doue by
divide into two cl,\sses. Hofmann's objection Hofmann ; see ou ver. 17.
to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say 2 As to the linguistic use of eiSoKia in this
that the one party preach solely out of envy sense (ii. 13), see Fritzsche, ad Eom. IL p.
and strife, and the other solely out of good- 372. Comp. on Rom. x. 1.
will, is irrelevant He could not, indeed.

CHAP. L 16, 17. 27
am ordained of God for (nothing else than) the defence of the gospel— a,
destination which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me,
feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labor sympathetically hand
in hand with me. — Keluai] as in Luke ii. 34; 1 Thess. iii. 3.' Others render : 1
lie in prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, ^A'olf, am Ende, Huther, and othei-s) ;
but the idea of lying under fettere, which Kel/iai would thus convey^, does not
harmonize -n-ith the position of the apostle any more than the reference of
its meaning thereby introduced : they know that I am hindered in my preach
ing, and therefore they " suppleiit hoc meum impedimentum sua praedicar
tione," Estius. See, on the contrary. Acts xx-i-iii. 30, 31 ; Phil, i, 7. Van
Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss) : " me ad causam rei Christianse, ubi
urgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hic in miseria jacere." ' — oi
di ef ipi6.] sc. ovre;, the factious, the cdbal-makers. See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor.
xii. 20 ; Gal. v. 20.* It corresponds with the <pddvov k. ipw, ver. 15. — rbv X.
Karayy. ovx dyvij;] 'belong together, Karayy. is, in substance, the same as
Kypiiaaeiv, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the Mes
siah (Acts xvii. 3, 23 ; Col. i. 28, et al). The words t. Xpiarbv Kora-^yf/.Tuivaiv
might have been left out, following the analogy of ver. 16, but are inserted
to bring out the tragic contrast which is implied in preaching Christ, and
yet doing so ovx dyvci;, non caste, not in purity of feeling and purpose.
Kadapii; is s>iionymous (Hom. H. in Apoll 121), also with a mental refer
ence (Hesiod. ipya, 339).* — oUpevoi K.r.?.. [IV rf.] thinking to stir up affliction
for iny bonds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they intend to
do, and that is the immoral mo\ing spring of their unworthy conduct ;
but (observe tbe distinction between oidpevoi and eldore; in ver. 16) Paul
hints by this purposely-chosen word (which is nowhere else used by him),
that what they imagine /aife to happen. On olpai with the present infinitive,
see Pflugk, ad Eur. Rec. 2S3. The future infinitive would not convey
that what is meant is even now occurring.'^ How far they thought that
they could effect that injurious result by their preaching, follows from ver.
15 and from ef ipiBeia;; in so far, namely, that they doubtless, rendered
the more unscrupulous through the captivity of the apostle, sought by
their preaching to prejudice his authority, and to stir up controversial
and partisan interests of a Judaistic character against him, and thus
thought thoroughly to embitter the prisoners lot by exciting opponents
to vex and wrong him. This was the cabal in the background of their
dishonest preaching. That by the spread of the gospel they desired to pro
voke the hostility of the heathen, especially of Nero, against Paul, and
thus to render his captivity more severe, is a groundless conjecture
imported (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others; comp.
1 Comp. Plat. Legg x. p. 909 ; Thuc. iii. 45, 2, » Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46 ; Soph. Aj. 316 (323) ;
47, 2; Ecclus. xxxviii. 29, and other passages Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 496.
in which "icEto-flai tanquam passivum verbi * So also Ignatius, ad PAiioddpft. 8.
iToieiueai. vel riBivaL videtur," Ellendt, Lex. 'Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D; 2 Cor.viL
Soph I. p. 943. ". ^'- 2; Phil. iv. 8, et al. ; 2 Cor. vi. 6.
2 Comp. Eur. Phoen. 1033; Aesch. Ag. « See generally .Stallbaum, od Pio«. OKt. p.
j^^g2 52 C , comp. Phaed. p, 116 E.

28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
already Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius), — On iyeipeiv
(see the critical remarks) comp, ey. ijdiva;. Plat. Theaet. p. 149 C, and
similar passages.
Ver. 18. [On vv. 18-21, see Note V. pages 54, 55.] On ri ydp, scil. ian,
comp. on Rom. iii. 3, where, however, ydp is not, as here, conclusive (see
on 1 Cor. xi. 22'); comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered
necessary by the ir?.yv that the mark of interrogation should not be placed
(as it usually is) after ri ydp, but the question goes on to Karaii iXX^rai
(comp. Hofmann) ; and it is to be observed that through ir?.yv the
ri ydp receives the sense of ri ydp d?i?.o^ [V a.] Hence: what else takes
place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc., i. e. what
else than that by every sort oi preaching, whether it is done in pretence
or in truth, Christ is proclaimed? and therein, that it is always Christ
whom they preach, / rejoice, etc. How magnanimous is this liberality
of judgment as to the existing circumstances in their reference to
Christ! Bv irpoipdasi and dXr/deig, is indicated the characteristic differ
ence in the two kinds of preachers, vv. 15-17, and thus -avrl -pdira
receives the more precise definition of its respective parts. As regards
the first class, the preaching of Christ was not a matter of sincerit)' and
truth — wherein they, in accordance with their sentiments, were really
concerned about Christ, and He was the real a'lria of their working (see
on the contrast between a'lria and irpdijiaai;, Polyb. iii. 6. 6 ff".) — ^but a matter
oi pretence, under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts en-vy,
strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavors. For instances of
the antithesis between 7rp6<j>aat; and dXf/Beia or rd?^y6i;, see Raphel, Polyb.;
Loesner and Wetstein. To take irpdipaai; as opportunity, occasion^, — as, fol
lowing the Vulgate, Luther, Estius, Grotius ("nam occasione illi Judaei,
dum nocere Paulo student, multos pertrahebant ad evang."), and others
understand it, — is opposed to the context in vv. 15-17, in which the want
of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic mark of these persons.
On rrXyv in the sense of 7, comp, Kiihner, II. 2, p. 842. — iv -ovra] the
neuter: therein, in accordance with the conception of that in which the
feeling has its basis.* [V 6. c] In the Xpiaro; Kara-jjiXXerai lies the apos
tle's joy. — dAP^a Kal xopyaopai] surpassing the simple xo'P" bj- a plus, and
therefore added in a corrective antithetical form (imo etiam) ; comp, oil 1
Cor. iii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xi. 1. To begin a new sentence with dX?M (Lachmann,
Tischendorf), and to sever x''PV"opai from its connection with iv roira
(Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert generally that he will con
tinue to rejoice also in the future), interrupts, without sufficient reason, the
flow of the animated discourse, and is also opposed by the proper refer-

1 According to Weiss, -yap is intended to "Is it then so, as they think f^
establish the oio^eroi k. t. X., so far as the aggg Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C.
latter is only an empty imagination. But
this is an unnecessary seeking after a very ^ Herod, i. 29, 30, iv. 145, vi. 94 ; Dem. xx. 26 ;
obscure reference. The ri yip draws, as it A^tiph. v. 21; Herodian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14.
were, the result from vv 15-17. Hence also «Comp. Col. i. 24; Plat. Bep. x. p. 603 C;
we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense: Soph. Tr 1118; Kuhner, II. 1, p. 403.

CHAP. I. 18, 19. 29
ence of olda ydp in ver. 19. [V d.] This applies also in opposition to
Hinsch, p. 04 f.
Remakk, — Of course this rejoicing does not refer to the impure intention of
the preachers, but to the objective result. See, already, Augustine, u. Faust, xxii,
48 ; c. Ep. Farm. ii. 11. Nor does iravrl rpova apply to the doctrinal purport of
the preaching (Gal. i. 8), but to its ethical nature and method, to disposition and
purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow him. Nevertheless the apostle's
judgment may excite surprise by its mildness (comp. iii. 2), since these opponents
must have tiiught what in substance was anti-PauUne. But we must consider,
first, the tone of lofty resignation in general which prevails in this passage, and
which might be titled to raise him more tlian elsewhere above antagonisms;
secondly, that in this c;ise the danger did not affect as it did in Asia aud Greece,
in Galatia and Corinth, his personal sphere of apostolical minisli'y.; thirdly, that
Borne was the very place in which the preaching of Christ might appear to him
in itself oi such preponderating importance as to induce him in the meantime,
while his own ministry was impeded and iu fact threatened with an imminent
end, to allow — in generous tolerance, the lofty philosophical spirit of which Chry
sostom has admired — of even un-PauUne admixtures of doctrine, in reliance on
the discriminating power of the truth ; lastly, that a comparison of iii. 2 permits
the assumption, as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of a less
important grade of anti-Pauline doctrine,' and especially of a tenor of teaching
which did not fundamentally overthrow that of Paul. Comp. also on iii. 2. All
the less, therefore, can the stamp of mildness and forbearance which our passage
bears be used, as Baur and Hitzig ^ employ il, as a weapon of attack against the
genuineness of the epistle. Comp. the appropriate remarks of Hilgenfeld in his
Zeitschr. 1871, p. 314 ff. ; in opposition to Hinsch, see on ver. 15. Calvin, more
over, well says : " Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis, nun
quam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales-ordinasset ministros."
Ver. 19. Reason assigned not only for the a/?.d koI xapijaopai, but for the
entire conjoint assertion : ev roira ;tfa<'pu, aZld >.. xop. For both, for his
present joy and for his future joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground
in the certaintj^ now to be expressed. — rovro] [V e.] the same thing that
was conveyed by iv roirra in ver. 18, this fact of Christ's being preached, from
whatever different motives it may be done, — not : my present, rd kot' ipi
(Hofmann). — el; aonipiav] is, in conformity with the context, not to be
explained of the deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Mus-
culus,. Heinrichs), or of the preservation of the apostle's life (Oecumenius),
or of the triumph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of the salvation multorum
hominum (Grotius); nor is it to be more precisely defined as the eternal
Messianic redemption (van Hengel, A^^eiss ; comp. IMatthies and Hoele
mann), or as spiritual salvation (Rheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary,
the expression : " it -will turn out to my salvation " (comp. Job xiii. 16), will
be salviary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel, to be left without
1 Comp. Lechler, apdst. Zeitalt p. 388. " Optimus quwque amore et fide,pessimi malig-
2 Who thinks that he recognizes here an nitate et livore.'^
indistinct shadow of Tacitus, Agnc. 41:

30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
any more precise modal definition; for Paul himself only announces, as the
discourse proceeds (ver. 20), how far he expects salutary results for him
self to arise out of the state of things in question. [V e-] Bengel aptly
remarks : " non modo rwn in pressuram," ver. 17.' — Through the entreaty of
his Philippians, Paul knows, it wiU be salutary for him (comp. 2 Cor. i. 11 ;
Rom. XV. 31 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12 ; Philem. 22), and through supply of the Spirit
of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supplying him with help,
strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on 'einxoprry., Eph. iv. 16). [V /.]
The words did rrj; ipav der/aea; . . . Xpiarov, embrace, therefore, two elements
which work together and bring about the dirojSija. e't; aarr/p., one of these
on the part of the readers themselves (hence ipav is placed first), the other
on the part of the Holy Spirit. After Kai, did is to be again understood ;
the article, however, is not repeated before imxop-, not because the entreaty
and the 'eirixopiiyia are to be taken together as one category, which in this
passage would be illogical,^ but because Paul conceived the second member
of the clause avithout the article : supply (not tlie supply) of the Spirit, rov
Kvevparo; is the genitive of the subject ; .a,s genitive of the object (M'iesinger,
in accordance with Gal. iii. 5) the expression would be inappropriate,
since Paul already has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40), and does not merely
expect it to be supplied, though in his present position he does expect the
help, comfort, etc., which the Spirit supplies.^ [V ^.] Respecting the irvevpa
Xpiarov, see on Rom. viii, 9 ; Gal, iv, 6 ; 2 Cor, iii. 17. Paul here designates
the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the inmost conscious
ness of the apostle, the main interest and aim of his entire discourse, ver.
18 ff'.
Ver. 20. It will prove salutary for me in conformity with my earnest
expectation (see, regarding aTro/capaJo/d'a, on Rom. viii. 19) a7id my hope, that
I, etc. (object of the earnest expectation and hope). Others take on as
argumentative (Vatablus, Estius, Matthies) ; but by this interpretation the
Kara r. diroK. k. i?.ir. p. seems, after the olda already expressed, to be an
addition for which there is no motive, and the flow of the discourse is
interrupted. No, when Paul saj-s with bn k.t.X. what it is tliat he earnestly
expects and hopes (comp.- Rom, viii. 20 f ), he thereby supplies the precise
definition of the former merel}' general expression el; aa-rjpiav. — This is
neither clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of diroKapad., as Hofmann
thinks, who goes back with 6-i to the far distant olda, and finds it convenient
to co-ordinate it with the first on. Paul would have made this alleged
conjunction convenient iind at the same time intelligible, only in the event
of his having written koI on. — iv ovdevl aiaxwdrjaopai] that I shall in no point
(2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4), in no respect, be put to shame; that is, in no

1 On aTTo^na-fTaL, will turn out, issue, comp. in dependence on rrjs vp-Stv (so Buttmann,
Luke xxi. 13; Job xiii. 16; 2 Mace. ix. 24; neut. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers
Plat. Lys. p. 200 A ; de virt. p. 379 C ; Rep. p. would at all events appear as those com-
495 C; Dem. 1412. 10. municating, which would yield an incongru-
2 Bengel well says: "precationem in caelum ous idea.
ascendentem ; exhibitionem de coelo venientem." s Comp. Theodoret : too Belov iloi irveviiarot
If, however, eTTLxopTfiylas is still to be included x^I'W^vvtos ijiv x°^P'v.

CHAP. I. 20. 31
respect -will a result ensue tending to my shame, — a result which would
expose me to the reproach of ba-ving failed to accomplish my destiny
(comp. the sequel).' Matthies understands it differently : " in nothing
shall I show myself shamefaced and fearful;" comp. van Hengel : " pudore
confusus ab officio deflectam." But the context, in which Paul desires to
explain more in detail (comp. ver. 21) the words poi dirojU/aerai e't; carripiav,
ver. 19, will not harmonize wilh any other than the above-named purely
passive interpretation ; not even with the sense that Paul would not
" stand disgraced " (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful to
his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the glorifying of
Christ. The connection requires a description, not of Paul's behavior, but
of the/(rfe in which the rovro of ver. 19 would issue for him. Hoelemann
takes iv ovdevi as masculine, of the preachers described in ver. 15 ff., who in
their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, "ita esse versa-
turos, ut inde non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat quum ipse, tum
etiam in re sua quasi Christus." This interpretation is opposed both by
the context, which from ver. 18 onwards brings forward no persons at all;
and also by the sense itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made
to express a confidence in the labors of those teachers which, as regards
the malicious portion of them (ver. 17, comp. ver. 15), would not be befit
ting. The a'laxvveadai of the apostle was indeed the very object which they
had in view ; but, he means to say, ovk a'laxvvopai, rovreanv oi irepiiaovrai,
Chrysostom, — dX.X' 'ev irday ira'p'priaia K.r.?.^ [V /l.] the contrast tO 'ev ovSevi
a'laxvvdrjcopai ; for the apostle can receive no greater honor and triumph
(the opposite to the a'laxiveaBat) than to be made the instrument of glorify
ing Christ (iii. 7 f ) : but uAth all freeness, as always, so also now, Christ will be
magnified in my body. — 'ev iraari ira'p'pria.] 'ev irdari corresponds to the previous
ev ovdevi, so that every kind oi freeness, which is no way restrained or
limited (comp. Acts iv. 29, xxviii. 31 ; 2 Cor. iii. 12), is meant, which
amounts substantially to the idea, " une pleine liberte " (Rilliet and older
expositors) ''. The subject of the freeness is Paul himself, inasmuch as it
was in his body that the fearless glorifying of Christ was to be manifested
(see below) ; but he expresses himself in the passive (peyaXvvSyaerai) and
not in the active, because, in the feeling of his being the organ of divine
working, the /loi dirofUjaerai e'l; aarrjpiav (ver, 19) governs his conceptions
and determines his expression. Hofmann's view, that iv n-. irappija. means
" in full publicity," as an unmistakable fact before the eyes of all, is lin
guistically erroneous. See, in opposition to it, on Col. ii. 15, — a; irdvrore
Kat virv.] [V i.], SO that the present circumstances, however inimical they
are in part towards me (vv. 15-18), will therefore bring about no other
result than this most happy one for me, which has always taken place. —
ev ra aapari pov] instead of saying : ev ipoi, he says : in my body, because
the decision was now close at hand, whether his body should remain alive
1 Comp. on aWx^veaOai, 2 Cor. X. 8, 1 John 6; Plut. Mor. p. 1118 E.
ii. 28, and the passages of the LXX. in « Comp. Wunder, aa 5opA. PAiJ. 141 f.
Schleusner, I. p. 98 i. ; also Xen. Cyr. vi. 4.

32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
or be put to death. But whichever of these possible alternatives should
come to pass, he earnestly expected and hoped that the glory of Christ
would be thereby secured (elre did C,afj; elre did Bavdrov), in SO far, namely, as
through his remaining in the body his apostolic labors would be continued
to the glory of Christ, and by the slaying of his body there would take place,
not the mere closing of his witness for Christ, as Hoftnann, in opposition
to the text (vv. 21-23), refines away this point, but his union with Christ.
Thus, therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death ; but, on
the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely, practically glori
fied, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great gain which he shall acquire
through death (ver. 21), will with unwavering joyfulness — with the frank joy
ful courage of the martyr who is being perfected — die to the glorifying of
Christ. Comp. John xxi. 19. In any case, accordingly, the result must
ensue, that in his body, just as it has always hitherto been the living per
sonal instrument of Christ's glory, now also the free glorification of Christ
shall be made manifest, whether this result be secured through its being
preserved alive or being slain.'- Hoelemann erroneously refers, iv irday ira'p'p.
to the bold preaching of the various teachers described in vv. 15-18, from
which now, as always, the glory of Christ shall result ; and that indeed,
through the influence which such a fearless working would have on the
fate of the apostle, in his body, whether Christ grant to him a longer
course of life or death, in either of whi-ch cases the Lord will manifest
Himself to him as augustissimum auxiliatorem. But against this view it
may be urged, th.at 'ev oidevi does not refer to the teachers (see above) ; that
ira'p'pija'ia is the contrast to o'laxwdr/aopai, so that the subject of the latter
must be also the subject of the former; and lastly, that Paul would thus
be made to say that the fearless working of others had always shown forth
Christ's honor in his body, — an expression which, as regards the last point,
might be suited to the present position of the apostle, but not to the a; irdv
rore. Rilliet takes peyaXmdr/nerai not in the sense of praising (Luke i. 46 ;
Acts V. 13, X. 46, xix, 17 ; Thuc, viii, 81 ; Xen, Hell vii. 1. 13), but in the
material signification of grandir (Matt, xxiii. 5 ; Luke i. 58 ; 2 Cor. x. 15),
making it apply to the mental indivelling of Christ (CtuI. ii. 20; Rom. viii.
10 ; Gal. iv. 19) ; so that Paul is made to hope that Christ may grow ever
more and more in him, that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the
principle of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he
himself live or die. But 'ev irday irappijaia would be an inappropriate defini
tion of this idea ; and 'ev ra aapari pov would also be inappropriate, as if
Christ would have, even by the apostle's death, to grow in his body ; lastly,
neither the foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar
mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human body; while the similar idea
in Gal. iv. 19 is there very peculiarly and cleariy suggested by the context.
Ver. 21. Justification not of the joy, ver. 18 (Weiss), which has already
been justified in ver. 19 f., but of the elre did C.aij; elre Sid davdrov just ex
pressed : [V. j.] For to me the living is Christ, that is, if I remain ahve, my
' " Nam et corpus loquitur et corpus moritur," Grotius.

CHAP. I. 21. 33
prolonged life will be nothing but a life of which the whole essential ele
ment and real tenor is Christ (" quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum
vivo," Bengel), as the One to whom the whole destination and activity of
my life bear reference (comp. on Gal. ii. 20) ; and the dying ^ is gain, inas
much as by death I attain to Christ; see ver. 23. Whichever, therefore,
of the two may come to pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ ;
the former, inasmuch as I continue to labor freely for Christ's glory ; the
latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall suffer death with
joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Miiller, who, however, assumes that in the
second clause Paul had the thought : " et si mihi moriendum est, moriar
Christo, ita etiam morte mea Christus celebratur," but that in the emotion of
the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to be carried
away by the conception of the gain involved in the matter. This assump
tion is altogether superfluous; for, to the consciousness of the Christian
reader, the reference of the Kipdo; to Christ must of itself have been clear
and certain. But the idea of KipSo;, which connects itself in the apostle's
mind with the thought of death, j^revents us from assuming that he
meant to say that it was a matter of no moment to him personally whether
he lived or died (Wiesinger); for on account of the Kipdo; in death, his
own personal wish must have given the preference to the dying (see ver.
23). Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatchbull,
et al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in the second clause,
been led to the still more erroneous assumption, in opposition both to the
words and linguistic usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject
and Kipdo; the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to be
explained by irpd; or Kard, so that Christ " tam in mta quam in morte lucrum
esse praedicatur." Lastly, in opposition to the context, Rheinwald and
Rilliet take rb ^ijv as meaning life in the higher, spiritual sense, and Kai as :
and consequently, which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the
preceding alternative elre. . . elre. This explanation is refuted by the very
TO t^ijv iv aapKL which follows in ver. 22, since 'ev aapd contains not an anti
thesis to the absolute rb Zijv, but on the contrary a more precise definition
of it. Although the did davdrov and rb diroBavelv contrasted with the f^,
as also ver. 20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the view that
takes rb i;,rjv in the higher ethical sense, that -view has still been adopted by
Hoftnann, who, notwithstanding the correlation and parallelism of rb t;ijv
and rb diroBavelv, oddly supposes that, while to diroBavelv is the subject in
the second clause, rb i;^ is yet predicate in the first. Like rb diroBavelv,
rb i^ijv must be subject also. — 'eyoi^ is emphatically placed first : to me, as
regards my o^wn person, though it may be diff'erent from others. Comp.
the emphatic iipav, iii. 20.^
» Not <Ae6einj dead (Huther, Schenkel). Ou 12; 2 Cor. vii. 3. See generally Matzn. ad
the combination of the Inf pres. (continuing) Antiph. p. 153 f ; KQhner, IL 1, p. 159. The
and aor. (momentary), comp, Xen. Mem. iv. being dead would have been expressed, as in
4. 4 : TTpoei\ero v.a\kov toi? vop-ois eiJLp.evuv arro- Herod, i. 31, by reQvavai.
Bavelv ri irapavop-Hiv irjv, Eur. Or. 308 : iriiv o-ol * For profane parallels to the idea, though
KarSavelv alpija-ofiai Kal fti-, Epictet Enchir. of course not to the Christian import, of to
3

34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ver. 22. [On vv. 22-24, see Note VI. pages 55-57.] A^] carrying onward
the discourse to the comparison between the two cases as regards their
desirability. Weiss understands de as antithetic, namely to rb diroBavelv
Kipdo;, and Hofmann as in contrast also to the ipol rd i^yv Xpiard;, but both
proceed on an erroneous view of what follows ; as does also Huther. —
According to the rb diroBavelv KepSo; just expressed, the diroBavelv was put as
the case more desirable for Paul personally ; but because the fsyv, in which
indeed Christ is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official
labors, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, as con
sequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in doubt respecting a choice
between the two. — The structure of the sentence is accordingly this, that the
apodosis sets in with koI rl a'tpr/aopat, and nothing is to be supplied : " But
if the remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work, I refrain
from a making known what I should choose." We have to remark in detail :
(1) that el does not render problematical that which was said of the Zvv ev
aapd, but in accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul's
writings, frequent (Rom. v. 17, vi. 15, and often) syllogistic usage (Herbst
and Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5, 1), posits the undoubted certainty (Wilke,
Rhetor, p. 258), which would take place in the event of a continuance of
life; (2) that Paul was the more naturaUy led to add here the specially
defining 'ev aapd to rb ^ijv (comp. Gal, ii. 20; 2 Cor, x, 3), because, in the
previously mentioned Kipdo;, the idea of life apart from the body (comp,
2 Cor, V. 8) must have been ffoating in his mind ; (3) that rovro again
sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. Rom, vii. 10) the rb f^v iv
aapKL which had just been said, and calls attention to it,' for it was the
remaining in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the
diroBavelv), which was necessarily to the apostle Kapirb; ipyov; (4) that
Kapiro; is correlative to the preceding Kipdo;, and embodies the idea emolu-
mentum (Rom, i, 13, vi. 21, et al ; Wisd. iii. 13), which is more precisely
defined by ipyov : work-fruit, gain of work, i. e. advantage which accrues to my
apostolical work ; comp. on the idea, Rom. i. 13; (5) that koI, at the com
mencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, showing that if the one
thing takes place, the other also sets in ;^ (6) that ri stands in the place of
the more accurate irdrepov, » and that the future a'lpvaopai (what I should
prefer) is quite in order,* while also the sense of the middk, to choose for
himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overiooked;" (7) that oi yvapll^a
is not to be taken, as it usually has been, according to the common Greek
usage with the Vulgate, in the sense oiignoro, but, following the invariable
usage of the N. T.,"* as : L do not make it known, L do not explain myself on
aTToeavelv icepSos, (compare also Spiess, Logos ,s Xen, Cyrop. i. 3. 17 ; Stallbaum, ad Phileb.
Spermaticos, isn, -p. 330 f.) see Wetstein. p. 168 ; Jacobs, ad DeJ. eptj;?-. p. 219 ; Winer, p.
Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f. ; 159 [E. T. 109,]
Eur. Med. 145. 4See Eur, Hel. 031, and Pflugk in loc. ; and
1 Bernhardy, p, 283 ; Kuhner, II. 1, p. 5G8 f. ; Winer, p. 280 [E. T. 299].
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 210. 6 Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 13 '; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29 :
2SeeHarmng,Pcrr«M,I.p.l30f.; Baeum- ol «J ^ e'Mre, 6 ti tto.oCo-c, «a«is 6i aipov-
dein, Partik. p. 140; Krigelsbach, z. Bias, p. p.evoi. Soph. Ant. 551 : <n> p.iv yip elXov i^v.
164, ed. 3; eomp. ou 2 Cor. ii. 2. 6 Comp. also 3 Mace. ii. 6; 3 Esr. vi, 12

CHAP. I. 22. 35
the point, give no information upon it.' Paul refrains from making and
declaring such a choice, because (see ver, 23 f,) his desire is so situated
between the two alternatives, that it clashes with that which he is com
pelled to regard as the better, — The conformity to words and context, and
the simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation,^ — in
which, however, Kaprr. epyov is not to be taken as operae pretium (Cal-vin,
Grotius, and others), nor Kai as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and
others), nor ov yvapic,a as equivalent to ovk olda (see above), — exclude decis
ively all other interpretations, in which rovro and the Kal of the apodosis
have been the special stumbling-blocks. Among these other explanations
are (a) that of Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp, Lach
mann, who places a stop after ipyov), that ia-i is to be understood with
ev capKi, that the apodosis begins with rovro, and that koI ri alp. K.r.X. is a
proposition by itself: "if the living in the flesh is appointed to me, then this
has no other aim for me than by continuous labor to bring forth fruit," etc,
(Huther, I.e. p. 581 f). But how arbitrarily is the simple 'earl, thus sup
plied, interpreted (mihi constitutum est) ! The words rovrd poi Kapirb; epyov,
taken as an apodosis, are — ^immediately after the statement ipol ydp rb fyv
Xpiard;, in which the idea of Kapirb; epyov is substantially conveyed
already — adapted less for a new emphatic inference than for a supposition
that has been established ; and the discourse loses both in flow and force.
Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explanation.'
(6) Beza's \'iew, that el is to be taken as whether : " an vero vivere in came
mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro." This is linguistically incor
rect (Kapirb; epyov), awkward (el . . . Kal ri), and in the first member of the
sentence un-Pauline (vv, 24-26), (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis
after ipyov : if life, etc., is to me Kapirb; epyov, " non repugno, non aegre fero "
(so Corn. Muller), or, "je ne dois pas desirer la mort" (Rilliet).* This is
quite arbitrarj', and finds no support in the emotional character of the
passage, which is in fact very calm, (d) Hoelemann's explanation — ^which
supplies Kapnd; from the sequel after (yv, takes roOro, which applies to the
diroBavelv, as the beginning of the apodosis, and understands Kapirb; epyov as
an actual fr'uit : "but if life is a fruit in the flesh (an earthly fruit), ihis (death)
Aesch. Pram. 487 ; Athen. xii. p. 539 B ; Diod. Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette,
Sic. i. 6. Wiesinger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld,
1 Comp, van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schen- » Jf it be life in the flesh, namely, which I
kel, also Bengel, who, however, without any have to expect instead of dying (?\ then this,
ground, adds mihi. Not as if Paul intended namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce
to say that " he kept it to himself, " a sense of labor, in so far as by living I produce fruit,
which Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this and thus then (fcat) it is to me unknown, etc,
declaration. He intends to say rather that This interpretation of Hofmann's also is lia-
he refrains from a decision regarding what he ble to the objection that, if Paul intended to
should choose. The dilemma in which he say that he produced fruit by his life, logically
found himself (comp. ver. 23) caused him he must have predicat«d of his irjv ev irapici,
to waive the giving of such a decision, in order not that it was to him icapirb; epyov, but rather
not to anticipate in any way the divine pur- that it was ipyov <apn-oi, a work (a working)
pose by his own choice. ' which produces fruit
2 So, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theo- « See Winer, p. 657 f. [E. T. 599 f.] ; Meineke,
doret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Er.asmus, Menand. p. 238,
Luther, Calvin, and many others, including

36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
'is also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantial, real fruit)" — is involved, artificial,
and contrary to the genius of the language (icapir. ipyov !), (e) The ex
planation of Weiss is that, after ev aapd, Kipdo; is to be again supplied as a
predicate, so that rovro, which is made to apply to the entire protasis,
begins the apodosis : " but if life is a gain, that is a fruit of his labor,
because the successes of his apostolic ministry can alone nnake his life
worth having to him" (ver. 24). This supplying of Kepdo;, which was
predicated of the antithesis of the Z'nv, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably
forced ; and, indeed, according to ver. 21, not Kipdo; merely would have to
be supplied, but 'epol KepSo;; and, since Kepdo; is not to be taken from
diroBavelv, of which it is predicate, we should have to expect an also before
rb C,TJv, so that Paul would have written : sl di (or dXX' e'l) Kal rb f^v iv aapKi
ifiol Kipdo; K.r.X.
Ver. 23. Respecting the rl alp^aopai ov yvapii^a, [VI c, page 56], Paul
expresses himself more fully in -w, 23, 24, proceeding with the explicative
di; for de is not antithetical (Hofmann: "on the contrary "), but, in fact,
the reading ydp is a correct gloss, since the situation now follows, which
necessitates that relinquishment of a choice. But I am held in a strait^ of
the two points, namely the diroBavelv and the ^vv,'' of which he has just said,
TI a'lp. ov yvap. These dvo are not conceived in an instrumental sense, which
is expressed with awix-, by the dative,^ but as that from which the amexeadai
proceeds and originates,* — ryv iiriBvp. exav K.r.X.'] since my longing is to
die, [See note VI. page 56.] The article denotes, not " votum jam com-
mem,oratum" (Hoelemann), for Paul has not indeed as yet expressed an
iiriBvpelv, but doubtless the desire, which Paul has. He says that his desire
tends towards dying, etc.,^ but that life is more necessa,ry ; and therefore
he knows that not that for which he longs, but that which is the more
necessary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (ver. 25).
Augustine aptly observes : " Non patienter moritur, sed patienter vivit et
delectabiliter moritur." — dvaXvcaf] comp, 2 Tim. iv. 6; Isa. xxxviii. 12.
Dying is conceived as a breaking up (a figure taken from the camp) for
the departure, namely, from this temjioral life to Christ (comp. iirdyeiv,
Matt, xxvi, 24 ; eiiSripelv, 2 Cor, v, 8 f , ; and similar passages) ; hence the
Kal avv Xpiara elvai immediately added.* — Tro?iXCi y. pdXX. Kpelaaov] by much in
a higher degree better ; a cumulative expression in the strength and vivid-
1 Comp. Luke xii. 50 ; Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. self in a dilemma between two opposite alter-
V. 14 ; Wisd. xvii, 11 ; Dem, 396, 22, 1484, 23 ; natives.
Plat Legg. vii, p, 791 E, Theaet. p, 165 B ; 3 Matt iv. 24 ; Luke viii, 37 ; Acts xviii, 5 ;
Heind, ad Plat. Soph. 46, Plat, Soph. p. 250 D ; Eur. Heracl. 034,
¦ 2 It is therefore more in harmony with the * Bernhardy, p, 227 f, ; Sehoem, ad Is. p, 348 ;
context to refer e/c riiiv 6uo to what precedes Matzner, ad Antiph. p, 107,
than to what follows (Luther, Rheinwald, Corn. 6 It is thus explained why Paul did not
Miiller, and others). Note that the emphasis write Toi> avaXvirai (as Origen reads), eis is
is laid on a-vvexoii,ai, which is the new climac- not dependent on tj}v eTTid. {ewid. is never so
tic point in the continuation of the discourse. construed ; comp. Corn. Muller) ; but tjii.
The word owex- itself is rightly rendered cttiS. is absolute, and eis to avaK. expresses
by the Vulgate : coarctor. The mere teneor the direction of r'riv ewi9. Ix"" : having my
(Weiss and earlier expositors) is not sufficient longing towards dying. Comp, Thuc, vi, 15. 2.
according to the context. Paul feels him- * Bengel: " Decedere "Sanctis nunquam non

CHAP. L 23-26. 37
ness of feeling.' If here interpreted as potius (ver. 12), it would glance
at the preference usually given to life; but nothing in the context leads
to this. The predicate Kpelaaov (a much better, i. e. happier lot) refers to
the apostle hiinself; comp. below, Si' ipd;.'
Ver. 24. ''Empeveiv involves the idea : to remain still (still further), to
stay on, comp. Rom. vi. 1. — iv ry aapKt] in my fiesh. Not quite equivalent
to the idea involved in iv aapd without the article (ver. 22). The reading
without the 'sv (see the critical remarks) would yield an ethical sense
here unsuitable (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22; Col. i, 23), — dvayKaidr^ namely, than
the for me far happier alternative of the dvaXvaai k. u. X. elvai. The neces
sity for that is only a subjective want felt by the pious mind. But the
objective necessity of the other alternative has precedence as the greater;
it is more precisely defined by de ipd;, regarded from the standpoint of
love.^ — di' ipd;] applies to the Philippians, who would naturally understand,
however, that Palil did not intend to refer this point of necessity to them
exclusively. It is the individualizing mode of expression adopted by special
love. Vv. 25, 2G, [On vv. 25, 26, see Note VII, page 57.] Tovro ireiroiB.]
¦I ovro does not belong to olda, but to ireiroiB., and refers to the case of neces
sity just expressed; having which as the object of his confidence, Paul
knows that, etc, so that bn is dependent on olda alone, — in opposition to
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, under whose
¦\'iew the olda would lack the specification of a reason, which is given in this
very roiiro irsiroiB., as it was practically necessary,*- — peva] I shall remain;
contrast to the dvaXvaai, which was before expressed by impiveiv iv r. capKi.
Comp, John xii, 34, xxi. 22 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 6. The loving emotion of the
apostle (ver. 8) leads him to add to the absolute peva : koI avpirapapeva irdaiv
vplv, and I shall continue together with all of you; I shall with you all be pre
served in temporal life. From vv. 6 and 10 there can be no doubt as to
the terminus ad quem which Paul had in view ; and the irdaiv (comp. 1
Cor. XV. 51 ; Rom. xiii. 11) shows how near he conceived that goal to be
(iv. 5). [VII c] Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this view, which is
both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic, and invents instead one
which makes Paul mean by fievdi the remaining alive without his co-opera
tion, and by irapapsvu, which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see
the critical remarks)', his\ remaining willingly, and which assumes that the
apostle did not conceive the koI napapevd irdaiv vplv as dependent on 'dn,
but conveys in these word? a promise to remain with those, "from whom he
could witlidraw himself." What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas
optabile fuit,. sed cum Christo esse ex novo 2, p. 24 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 5 ; Borne-
testamento est" This Christian longing, mann, ad Cyrop. p. 137, Goth.
therefore, has in view anything rather than a 2 Eur. Hec. 214: Qavelv plov ^vvtvxIo. Kpeitrtriiiv
*' having emerged from the limitation of per- eKupTjo-ei.-
sonality" (Schleiermacher). — The translation '"Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua
djssotoi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to causa, sed eorum, quibus utilis est." Seneca,
another reading {ivaKvefivaC). ep. 98 ; eomp. ep. 104.
* As to p.aKkov with the comparative, see on * On the accusative of the object with ire-
Marlc TJi. 36 ; 2 Cor. vii. 13 ; and Kiihner, II. rroiS., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Kiihner, II. 1,

38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
and separation of things that belong together ! and what a singular
promise from the apostle's lips to a church so dear to him : that he will
not withdraw himself, but will remahi faithful to them (Schneider and
Kruger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 2) ! If irapapsva is the true reading, Paul says
quite simply : / k7iow that I shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and
continue with you all, i. e. and that I shall be preserved to you all.' — irapapeva,
to continue there, just like peva in the sense of in vita manere, Herod, i. 30.
Hence cvpirapapivsiv (Thuc. vi. 89. 3 ; Men. in Stob. Ixix. 4, 5), to continue
there with, to remain alive along with.^ — e'l; rfjv ipdiv . . . iriar.] vpav, as the
personal subject of the irpoKoiry and xo-pd rij; irlarsa;, is placed first, with
the emphasis of loving interest ; the latter genitive, however, which is the
real genitive of the subject, belongs to both words, irpoKoiryv k. xopdv.
Hence : for your faith — -furtherance and joy. [VII d.] Both points are to
be advanced by the renewed labors of the apostle among them (ver. 26).
The blending of them together by an iv did dvolv (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erro
neous. Weiss, however, is also in error in urging that rij; irlar. cannot
belong to irpoKoiryv also, because it would be in that case tliQ genitive of
the object; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive thing,
2 Cor. X. 15. — Ver. 26. 'ira rb Kaiixvpa K.r.X.] [VII 6,] the special and con
crete aim of the general proposition e'l; rijv ipav irpoK. k. x- r. iriar., Avhich is
consequently represented as the ultimate aim of the peva koI avpurapap.
. Trao-, vp. Comp. ver. 10. The Kaixvpa, because ipiiv is placed along with it
(comp. 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14, ix. 3), is that of the readers and not
of the apostle (Chrysostom : peit^dva; sxa KovxdaBai ipav imSdvrav, Ewald :
iny pride in you at the last day) ; nor is it equivalent to Kavxiai;, gloriatio
(Flatt and many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does,^ materies
gloriandi (Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 14, v. 12; Gal. vi. 4).
Hence : that the matter in which you have to glory, i. e., the bliss as Chris
tians in which you rejoice (compare previously the xopd rfi; iriarea;), may
increase abundantly (comp. previously the irpoKorrij rrj; irlarsa;). The iv
Xptara 'ir/ooi that is added expresses the sphere in which the irepiaasieiv is to
take place, and characterizes the latter, therefore, as something which
only develops itself in Christ as the element, in which both the joyful
consciousness and the ethical activity of life subsist. If the irepiooeveiv
took place otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally abnor
mal and aberrant thing ; as was the case, for example, with some of the
Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians, whose KavxdoBai was based and
grew upon works of the law. The normal irepimreiieiv of the Kaixvpa of the
Philippians, however, namely, its irepiaceveiv 'ev Xpiara 'lyaov, shall take
place — and this is specially added as the concrete position of the matter —

p, 267 ; also Wunder, ad Soph. 0. T. 259 f, Gregory of Nazianzus, I, p. 74 (joined with
Observe that we may say : TreTToiQ-tioiv TrinoiQa, trvv^iaiuiviieiv).
2 Kings xviii. 19. Comp. on ii. 18. 3 This applies also against Huther, I.e. p.
¦Comp. Heb. vii. 23; Ecclus. xii. 15; Hom. 685. who, in support of the signification
11. xii. 402; Plat Menex. p. 235 B; Lucian. gloriatio, appeals to Find. Isth. v. 65: Kav-
i\r!-.9r. 30 ; Herodian. vi. 2. 19. XW« •'ara^pexe o-iyf But in this passage
2 Thus LXX. Ps. Ixxii, 5; Basil, I, p, 49; also navxyv-a means i\ia.Hn which one glories.

CHAP. L 25, 26. 39
iv ifioi did r^; sfiij; irapovala; ir. irpo; ipd;, that is, it shall have in me by my
coming again to you its procuring cause; inasmuch as through this return
in itself, and in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the
occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your Kavxipa,
and thus the irepiaaeveiv will rest in me. Consequently the iv in iv X. 'I,,
and the iviniv ipoi, are differently concei've,d; the former is the specific,
essential definition of irepiaaeiy, the latter the statement of the personal pro
curing ground for the irspiaa. iv 'I, X,, which the apostle has in view in refer
ence to the Kaixvpa of his readers, — a statement of the ground, which is
not surprising for the service of an instrument of Christ (Hofmann), and
which quite accords with the concrete species facti here contemplated, the
personal return and the apostolic position and ministry. The interpreta
tion of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that the increase of
their glorying is given to the readers in the person of the apostle, in so far
as the hamng him again among them would be a matter of Christian joy and
pride to tliem. Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object
and contents of the Kavxdadai, which would neither be consistent with the
logical relation of the 'iva to the preceding e'l; r. ip.. npoKoirf/v K.r.X., nor with
Paul's own deep humility (1 Cor. iii. 21, xv, 9 ; Eph. iii. 8), which he satis
fies also in 2 Cor. i. 14 by the mutual nature of the Kaixvpa between him
self and his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many' iv X. 'I.,
and by some even iv ipol '' are referred, contrary to the position of the
words, to rb Kaixvpa ipdiv, with various arbitrary definitions of the sense,
e.g. Flatt : " so that ye shall have still more reason, in reference to me, to
glorify Jesus Christ (who hath given me again to you) ; " Rheinwald : " If
I shall be delivered by the power of Christ, ye will find abundant cause
for praising the Lord, who has done such great things for me." — rrdXiv] is
connected, as an adjectival definition, with rrapova. See on 2 Cor. xi. 23;
Gal. i. 13 ; 1 Cor. viii, 7.
Remahk, — From vv. 20-26 we are not to conclude that Paul at that time was
in doubt whether he should live to see the Parousia (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p, 355, and
others). For in ver. 20 he only supposes ihe case of his death, and that indeed, in
ver, 21, as the case which would be profitable for himself, and for which, therefore,
he protests in ver, 23 that he longs. But on account of the need for his life being
prolonged (ver. 24), he knows (ver, 25) that that case will not come to pass. This
Olda (ver. 25) is not to be weakened into a, probabilitei' sperare or the like (Beza,
Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald ; comp. Matthies,
van Hengel, Eilliet), with which Grotius, from connecting olda irsiroiB., even
brings out the sense, " scio me haec sperare, i. e. mulle ; " whilst others fall back upon
the arcjumentum a silentio, viz. that Paul says nothing here of any revelation (see
Estius, Matthies, and others), but only expresses an inference in itself liable to
error (Weiss). No, although he has supposed the possibility (comp. ii. 17) of his
being put to death, he nevertheless knew that he should remain alive; and it
as the Scholiast has appropriately explained 'See Calvin, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Rilliet,
it : ei Kal rri\lKavra eiirt rwv Ai-ytinjTwi' Ta and Others.
Karopduiiara, jSpexe nal eTriKoKvme ry triniirij. 2 Storr, Flatt, Huther.

40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
must withal be confessed that the result did not correspond to this definite olda,
which Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen propheticum. By no
means, however, is an imaginary situation^ to be suspected here (Baur), and just as
little can a second imprisonment at Rome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and many
others, also Wiesinger) ; as to the relation of this passage to Acts xx. 25, see on
Acts. — We have further to notice that Paul, according to ver. 23, assumes that,
in case he should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into heaven to
Christ, — a conviction of the bliss attending martyrdom which is found in 2 Cor.
V. 8 and in the history of Stephen, Acts vii. 59, and therefore does not occur for
the first time in the Apocalypse (vi. 9 ff., vii. 9 ff.).'' Wetstein's idea is a mere
empty evasion, that by dvaXvoai is doubtless meant the dying, but by ovv X. elvai
only the time following the resurrection (comp. also Weitzel, Stud. u. Krit. 1836,
p, 954 ff.) ; as also is that of Grotius, that avv X. sivai means : " in Christi custodia
esse," and " nihil hinc de loco definiri potest." It is also altogether at variance with
the context (see vv, 20, 21), if, with Kaeuffer, w-e interpret dva?.vc;ai as the change
that takes place at the Parousia ("ut quasi eximeretur carne"). Comp. on the
contrary, Polyearp: ad Phil Q, bn s'l; rbv bijietXdpevov airoi; rdirov e'lCl irapd ra
Kvpia, a Kal avviiraBov, Clem. Eom. 1 Cor. 5, of Peter ; paprvprjaa; iiropsvBv e'l; rbv
'oipeiXdpevov rdirov rrj; Sd^vS^, and of Paul: s'l; rbv dyiov rdirov irropevBv, Martyr.
Ignat, 26. It is an intermediate state, not yet the fully perfected glory, but in
heaveii, where Christ is (iii. 20 f.), Georgii, in Zeller's theolog. Jahrb. 184-5, I. p.
22, following Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 368, erroneously discovers in our passage a
modification oi the New Testament view, developed only when the hope of a speedy
Parousia fell into the background. Comp. Neander and Baumgarten Crusius
(whose view araotmts to an inconsistency of the conceptions). Opposed to these
views, even apart from 2 Cor. v. 8 and Acts vii. 59, is the fact that the speedy
Parousia appears still to be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particu
larly iii. 20 f. But we find nothing said in the New Testament as to an inter
mediate body between death and resurrection. See remark on 2 Cor, v, 3. There
is a vague fanciful idea in Delitzsch, Psychol p. -443 f., who in p. 419 ff., however,
forcibly shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul.
I Hinsch even assigns, I. c. p. 71, to the John xi. 25 f. They remain in fellowship
passage with its vivid emotion the character with Christ; but as to the mode and place of
oi 3. historico-critical reflection. He represents this fellowship, of which they might indeed
the author of the epistle as having in view be partakers even in Hades (Paradise, Luke
the various opinions current in his age xvi. 22 ff., xxiii. 43; Phil. ii. 10), as little is
regarding the close of the apostle's life, said in that passage as in viii. 3S, xiv. 8. But
in other words, the question, whether his in the passage we are considering, the words
captivity at that time ended in his being o-ui- Xpio-T<p elrm point to an actual being with
put to death, or in his being set at liberty the Lord in heaven (eomp. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17 ;
and beginning a new course of labor. The Acts vii. 59 ; 2 Cor I. c), and do not therefore
author adduces the grounds of both views, apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to
putting them in the mouth of the apostle, and Guder, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. Ill,
in ver. 24 decides in favor of the second; and others); see also 2 Cor. v. 8. This union
the original, of which the present passage with Christ, however, is not the S6(a as the
is an imitation, is to be found (as Baur also ultimate goal of hope ; see iii. 20 f. ; Col. iii. 3.
thinks) in 2 Cor. v. 8, Rom. xiv. 8. See Hii- To the latter belongs also the bodily trans-
genfeld, in opposition to Baur and Hinsch. figuration, which ean only take place at the
2 All we can gather from Rom, viii. 10 f. Parousia, 1 Cor xv. 23. This applies also m
is merely that the life of believers remains , opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff.,
unaffected by the death of the body; as at whose distinction between corporeality and

CHAP. I. 27. 41
Ver. 27. [On vv. 27-30, see Note VIII. page 58.] To these accounts
regarding his own present position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations
to right conduct for his readers. — pdvov] [VIII a.] without connecting
particle, as in Gal. ii. 10, v. 13. With the above assurance, namely, that
he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object of this preser-ving
of his life (ver. 25) may be accomplished in them, needs only to summon
them to be in a way worthy of the gospel members of the Christian commu
nity (iroXireveaBs) ; nothing further is needed. Hoftnann, in consequence
of his finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously, the
only counter-demand made for it. — rov Xpiaroi] of Christ. See on Mark i. 1.
— rroXirsieoBe] [VIII 6.J comp. On Acts xxiii. 1.^ The word, which is not
used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles to express the conduct of life, is
here purposely chosen, because he has in view the moral Ufe, internal and
external, of the Christian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of
the gospel (-oXi-eisaBai, to be citizen of a state, to live as citizen). See the
sequel. It is also selected in Acts xxiii. 1, where the idea of the official
relation of service Ls involved (iroXirsvsaBai, to administer an office in the
state). Comp. 2 Mace. vi. 1, xi. 25 ; 3 Mace. iii. 4. In the absence of such
references as these, Paul says wspiirarsiv (Eph. iv. 1 ; Col. i. 10, with d^ia;)^' —
sirs i?Jlcjv K.r.X.] a parenthetic definition as far as dir6v, so that dKovaa then
depends on iva : in order that I — whether it be when I have come and seen yoii,
or during my absence from you — may hear, etc. The two cases sire . . . sirs
do not refer to the liberation and non-liberation of the apostle ; but they
assume the certainty of the liberation (ver. 25 f.), after which Paul desired to
continue his apostohc journej'S and to come again to the Philippians ; and
indeed trusted that he should come (ii, 24), but yet, according to the
circumstances, might be led elsewhere and be far away from them (elre
dirav). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that he may come
to learn the affairs of the church in their excellence as described by on
arr/Ksrs K.r.X. It cannot surprise us to find the notion of learning expressed
by the common form of the zeugma,^ corresponding to the sirs dirav , and
from the dKovaa accordingly employed there naturally suggests itself a
word of kindred import to correspond -with elrs iXjBiJv K.r.X., such as yva.
The rash opinion, repeated even by Hofmann, that dKoiaa only refers to
the second case, does the apostle the injustice of making his discourse
" hiulca " (Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being
supposed that he intended to write either ¦ " ut sive veniens videam vos,
sive absens audiam,'' or : " sive quum venero et videro vos, sive absens
audiam de statu vestro, intelligam utroque modo," etc. Calvin allows a
materiality [Leibluihkeit und Korperltchlceiti is 54: TroXirevoiievo^ ttiv ap.eTap.e\TiTov TroXneiav
not in harmony with the New Testament, rov 0cot), ch. 21- afius auroO TToknevop-evoi.
which distinguishes rather between u-ufxa ^ it is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p
and <rapf. 578 [E. T. 622]) to suppose that in a zeugma
1 See also 2 Mace. vi. 1, xi. 25 ; 3 Mace. ilL the directly appropriate verb must be joined
4 ; Joseph. Antt. iii. 5- 8, Vit 2 ; Wetstein to the first memben It can also be joined
ttd loc, and Suicer, Thes. IL p. 709. ff. with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anab.
'Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3; rroki- vii. 8. 12, and Kuhner tn loc, Plat, Eep. p.
¦eaBat n-ara rb KaerJKOv ria Xpiora, and ch. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc ; Hom, n. iiL 327,

rev

42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
choice between these two interpretations ; the latter is approved of by de
Wette and Weiss (comp, Rilliet and J. B, Lightfoot), Hofmann also
accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written sire diriiv oKovoa rd
irspi vpav (which words are to be taken together), as if he had previously
put sirs 'eXBiiv bfopai ipd; ; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply
the verbs that should have depended on 'iva, and of which two ^ would have
been needed!' The passage employed for comparison, Kom, iv. 16, with
its close, concise, and clear dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkward
ness. Hoelemann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary
way, as if Paul had written : Iva, sire iXBiJv k. 'idiiv ipd;, sirs dirijv koI OKovaa;
rd irspl ipav, crvKvrs k.t.X., thus making the participles absolute nominatives.
— rd irspl ipav] the object of oKovaa, SO that on crr/Ksre K.r.X., that, namely, ye
stand, etc., is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence
of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction oldd'oe ri; eZ, and the
like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 625]. It has been awkwardly explained as
absolute : " quod attinet ad res vestras '' (Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies,
and others), while van Hengel not more skillfully, taking elrs dirijv oKovca r.
ir. ip. together, afterwards supplies oKovaa again. Grotius, Estius, and am
Ende take rd even for ravra, and Hoelemann makes Paul express himself
here also by an anakoluthon (comp. above on sirs e?S!jv k.t.X), so that
either 'on should have been omitted and arr/Kvrs written, or ra should not
have been inserted. — 'ev ivi irveipan] is to be joined with gtvusts, alongside
of which it stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it abso
lutely (2 Thess. ii, 15), It is the common element, in which they are to
stand, i e. to remain steadfast (Rom, v, 2 ; 1 Cor, xv. 1, xvi. 13) , irvevpan,
however, refers not to the Holy Spirit;' but, as the context shows by pta
ipvxv, to the human spirit; comp. 1 Thess. ^'. 23. The perfect accord of
their minds in conviction, volition, and feeling, presents the appearance
of one spirit which the various persons have in common. ' De Wette well
says : " the practical community of spirit." Comp. Acts iv. 32. It is, as a
matter of course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of the
human spirit is brought about by the Holy Spirit (see on Eph, iv, 3 f,, 23),
but svl irvshp. does not say so. Moreover the emphasis is on this 'sv svi irv.,
and therefore pia f. is subsequently placed first, — The special mode which
this standing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is con
tained in the sequel down to avrmsip. — pm fvxv owaBX. k.t.X.] The tl>vxv, as
distinguished from the rrvsvpa, is the principle of the individual personal
life, which receives its impressions on the one hand from the irveipa as the
principle of the higher divine ^ay, and on the other hand from the outer
world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and emotion, the sympathetic
unity of which in the church is here described (comp. on Luke i, 46 f,).'
and Faesi in loc. , generally Nagelsbach, z discourse, in the confused form in whioh
Ihas, p, 179, ed. 3 ; Bremi, ad Lys. p, 43 ff, ; Hofmann makes it run , and there would
Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1075 f. be no necessity whatever for two verbs.
iButwhyiKJO? He would only have needed 'Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Hein-
to insert p.a0ii> or yvH before oti. This would riohs,Rheinwald, Matthies,van Hengel, Weiss.
have suited both halves of the alternative scomp. io-oi^/uj^os ii. 20; ovu^fiuxoi, ii. 2;

CHAP. J. 28. 43
But pia Tp. does not also belong to ari/Kere (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther,
Er, Schmid, and others), for omaHX. requires a modal definition in harmony
with the context. — avvaBXovvre;] in keeping with arrjKere, according to the
conception of a contest (comp. ver, 30), under which the activity of Christian
faithfulness is presented in relation to all hostile powers,' The compound,
striving together (comp, iv, 3, and avmyarv'i^ecBai, Rom, xv, 30), is not to be
overlooked, as if avvaSX., with the dative of the thing expressed merely the
entering or stepping into tlie lists for it (Hofmann), It does not refer, how
ever, to the fellowship of the Philippians themselves (" quasi facto agmine
contra hostes evang.," Grotius.)' Paul looks upon himself as a combatant
(ver. 30, comp. ver. 7), and the PhiUppians as striving with him, and afford
ing him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) as his aiivaBXoi in defending the faith (object
ively viewed), protecting it and rendering it victorious. [VIII c] That
they were to do this with one accord, is stated emphatically by pig, fvxfi, but
is not conveyed by amadX. in itself. If, however, Paul is the combatant,
the passage cannot be understood in the sense : " adjuvante^ decertantem
adversus impios evangehi fidem," Erasmus, Paraphr. ; ^ even apart from
the fact that such a personification of iriari; is unprecedented, and must
have been suggested by the text, as in the case of r^ d?.vBeia, 1 Cor. xiii. 6.
— rff iricTsi is the dative commodi (comp. Jude 3), [VIII d.] not instru-
menti,* which pig ipvxy was. As to the genitive of the object with irlan;,
see on Rom. iii. 22.
Ver. 28. On irrvpsaBai, to become frightened (of horses, Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 34;
Plut. Fab. 3 ; 3Iarc. 6), to be thrown into consteiiiation (Diod. x-^di. 37 f. ; Plat.
Ax. p. 370 A ; Plut. 3Ior. p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Gen. xli. 8
Aquila has Kara-ripeaBai. — ev pvdev't] in no point, nulla ratione, ver. 20; 2
Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9 ; Jas. i. 4. — ^The dvriKeipsvoi (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9) are the
non-Christian opponents of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the
Judaizers and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent /a&e teachers (Mat
thies). This follows from ver, 30, since the whole position and ministry
of the apostle was a conflict with such adversaries, comp. ver. 7. — ijnc iarlv
avrol; K.r.?..] [VIII e.] which is indeed, etc,, refers to the preceding yv irripso-
Bat irrb rav dvriKsiy., to which Paul desires to encourage them. This undaunt-
edness in the awaXBsiv, and not the latter itself (Hofmann), is now the lead
ing idea, with which what has further to be said connects itself; hence
ijn; is not to be taken as referring to the sufferings, as it is by Ewald (comp,
2 Thess. i. 5), who subsequently, although without critical proof, would
read d-a?jia; ipav, vplv Si. — avrol;] roi; dvriKsipevoi; is to be taken simply as
dative of reference: which is to them an indication of perdition. The fn;
Herodian. viii. 5. 15 : jii? re -yvajjiu Kai ij/vxri, ' Comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, Flatt,
Rom. XV. 6, bv.o9vv.a56v, 4 Mace. xiv. 20, ojudi/n;- Lightfoot.
xos, 1 Pet. iii. 8, 6iJi64ipu>v. * Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner,
1 Comp. Col. iL 1 ; 1 Thess. ii, 2 ; 1 Tim. vi. Eheinwald, and others
12, 2 Tim. iv. 7, ei al. ; also Soph. O. C 504; S-Otoj. yap ISoiotv, on lt.vpia rexva^QlLevoi
Eur. Suppi 317; Aesch. Prow. 95. ou6e TrTvpat ivas ^vvavrai ov Seiyp.a roiiro
2 Comp, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wie- aaipks k^ovtriv, ort Ta p,ev avrOiV aTiO^ovvrai,
singer, Weiss, and others, following Chrysos- tA 58 i^erepa lirxvpa nai iraAuTa Kal auToSex
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius. ex""^" "I" ^MTiipiav ; Theophylact.

44 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
involving a reason is just as in Eph. iii. 13^ See on that passage. This
would be still more emphatically expressed by ijn; ys (Klotz, ad Devar. p,
305), But the fact that the avriKeipevoi do not recognize in the undaunted-
ness of those persecuted a proof (not : cau,sa, as in the Vulgate ; but comp,
Rom. iii. 25 £ ; 2 Cor. viii, 24 ; Plat, Ep. vii, p. 341 E ; Legg. xii. p. 966 C)
of their own perdition, and on the other hand of the salvation of the per
secuted (ipiiiv di aarvpia;), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that
the prj TiTvpeaBai is in reality objectively such an ivdsi^i; to them. It is,
indeed, the av,ueiov of the righteous divine cause, and of its necessary final
victory. Perdition and salvation: both without more precise definition;
but the reader knew what reference to assign to each, viz. the Messianic
perdition and salvation.' — nal tovto hub Qsov] and tliat (see on Rom. xiii, 11)
of God, thus certain, therefore, and infalKble, It adds force to the
encouragement conveyed by ipav di aarvpia; ; for the context shows by the
vplv which is emphatically placed first in ver. 29, — ^^vithout making the
reading iplv necessary, however, in ver. 28 (Hofmann); see the critical
remarks, — that tovto refers only to this second and main part of ijn; k.t.X.
(Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann),
and not to both halves of ijn; (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wies
inger, Weiss, and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any
purpose of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the
Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what follows (on, that}
(Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, and recently
Rilliet) ; in whioh case the (preparative) rovro would receive an uncalled-
for importance, and yet oko Oeov would be obviously intelligible through
ixaploBv. Ver. 29. "Ore is argumentative, " Kal tovto dirb 6eov," I say, " since indeed
to you it was granted," etc. This grant distinguishing you is the practical
proof, that the just expressed dirb Bcow is indubitably right, and that con
sequently the evSsi^i; of your final salvation which is afforded to the adver
saries in your undauntedness is a divine evSet^i;, a token given by God.'
Hofmann's view, that 'on specifies the reason why God imparts to them
what has been before stated, is based upon the erroneous reading iplv in
ver. 28 ; and is itself erroneous, because 'on would introduce merely the
self-evident thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully, but
had had it given to them by God, and because, for the purpose of marking
the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not ipv, but dirb Oeov again would
have been emphatically prefixed, and consequently Paul must have writ
ten : on dirb Osov vplv ixapiaBv k.t.X. Hofmann cUiiously explains the
emphasized iplv, as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their suffer
ings the cade stood exactly as ivith his own. In that case he must at least
have written, in prospect of ver. 30, /cat vplv, to you also. — iplv] emphatically
put first, corresponding to the previous vpav ds aurepia;. — ixapiaBv] donatum
1 Comp. on the matter, 2 Thess. i. 6 ff. ; Rom. ing to the final salvation of believers was in
viii. 17; 2Tim. ii. 12; Luke xii. 32, ei a?. fact before the adversaries, and that their
2 At the same time it is to be observed here non-recognition of it altered nothing in this
also (comp. on ver. 28) that this divine point- objective relation.

CHAP. I. 29, 30. 45
est; by whom, is self-evident^ 1 Cor. ii. 12. — rb irrip Xpiaroii] as if the
irdaxeiv was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this unwrit
ten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the first place the idea
of iirep, as Hofmann artificially explains. But here his full heart inter
poses, after r, irrip Xpiarov, and before he writes irdaxeiv, .the fresh thought
ov pdvov rb el; air. iriareveiv, SO that a/,/la Kal must now be also added ; and,
on account of the different prepositional relation (e'l;) introduced, the rb
iirep Xpiarov already expressed is again taken up by rb iirip avrov. Thus ov
pdvov . . . virep airov appears as a parenthesis of more special definition,
after which the irdaxeiv, which had been prepared for by rb iirip Xptarov, but
is only now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis : " to you the
gift of grace is granted, in behalf of Christ — not only to believe on Him, but
also for Hira — to suffer." ^ It is an awkward construction, to take ro iirip
X. absolutely and (notwithstanding the subsequent iirip airov) in the sense :
as to what concerns Christ (Beza, Camerarius, Calovius, and others, includ
ing Matthies and Rilliet), For the conception of suffering for Christ as a
high divine distinction, see already Acts v. 41 ; comp. Matt. v. 11 f. Comp.
on ver. 7.
Ver. 30. [VIII/.]. So that ye have the same conflict, etc, serves to charac
terize the iplv ixap. rb v-ip X. irdaxeiv just asserted ; and Pitul's intention
in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the high dignity and distinction
of suffering for Christ, which is involved in the consciousness of fellowship
in conflict -with the apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true
explanation of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in rbv avrdv, that
they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as little as the apos
tle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have received it as a gift of grace
from God (Hofmann). The participle might have been put by Paul in the
nominative (instead of the dative), because ipsi; was floating before his
mind as the logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Eph. iii.
18, iv, 2; 2 Cor. i. 7; Col. ii. 2, iii. 16; Phil. iii. 19; Kuhner, II. 2, p. 661 f.
There is therefore neither a logical nor a grammatical reason, with Ben
gel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. also Buttman, Neut. Gr. p. 256
[E, T. 299]), to treat ijn; . . . irdaxeiv as a parenthesis, — a construction
which would be only an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse.
— -bv avrdv] namely, in respect of the object ; it is the conflict for Christ
(ver, 29) and His gospel (ver, 7). — oiov slSsrs k.t.X.] as ye have seen it in my
person (viz. whilst I was still with you in Philippi ; see scenes of this con
flict in Acts xvi. 16 ff. ; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2), and now (from my epistle
which is read out to you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks
to the Philippians as if they were listening to him in person ; thus they
hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in the statements
of the apostle. This explanation is all the less unfitting, as Hofmann
terms it (comparing the iv i/piv in 1 Cor. iv, 6), since Paul must necessarily
have assumed that the statements in the epistle regarding his suflferings

1 Plat. Legg. x. p. 802 C : ei Se tftavritrerai T015 ye-yevTjjLte'vTj. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de
tiuYTj jrpiiiTov, oil Trup ovS'e arip, ^vxn 68 ev irpia- cor. p. 431 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p, 501.

46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
would not fail to receive more detailed description in Philippi on the part
of Epaphroditus. The rendering de me for the second 'sv ipoi, adopted by
Peschito, 'S'ulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including
Flatt, is erroneous. Notes by American Editok.
I. Vv. 1, 2.
The salutation of this Epistle corresponds, in its general characteristics, with
those of the other Pauline Epistles. Its only peculiarity, as distinguishing it
from all the rest, is the special mention of the church officers among those who
are addressed. The reason for thus alluding to them may, not improbably, be
the one suggested by Meyer (with whom Weiss, Ellicott and others agree), but
it may be connected with the particularly intimate relations which the Apostle
sustained to all the membership of this Church, the evidence of which is mani
fest throughout the Epistle. That these officials are placed in the salutation
after the company of believers, may be due to the fact that the gift sent to
Paul was the result of a general contribution. It would seem, however, that
he could hardly have written thus, if he had not esteemed the believing body
as of more importance than its officers.
The Church is not designated here by the word sKKXvaia, as it is not in the
opening words of any of the letters which are later in date than 2 Cor. and Gal.
As the Ep. to the Romans, in w-hich this term first disappears from the saluta
tion, was probably not separated in time from either of those Epistles by a period
of more than from three to six months, the change in expression must undoubt
edly have been accidental, rather than the result of any settled purpose or new
ideas. The natural effect of a progress in church organization, it would seem,
would rather have been in the opposite direction. For this reason, as well as
because the earliest officers of the churches were presbyters and deacons, conclu
sions as to the date of this Epistle, or as to any peculiar or established church
constitution, can scarcely be founded upon the words here used.
With regard to the absence of the word dirdaroXo; in this salutation, it may,
after the same manner, be said that no altogether satisfactory account can be
given of its insertion or omission. It occurs in letters addressed to individuals
(Tim. and Titus), as well as in those written to churches ; and, among the latter,
it is found not only in cases where Paul's apostolic authority was assailed (Gal.,
2 Cor.), but where there is little evidence of any intended reference to such
opposition, (Bom., 1 Cor.). It is omitted, on the other hand, in 1st aud 2d
Thess., Phil., and Philem. Perhaps the best sug£;estion which can be offered
is that the letters, whether to churches or individuals, whose opening words
contain this term, have a somewhat more official charatter than those in which
it does not appear.
With respect to the relation of Timothy to the Epistle, the view of AVeiss,
Ellicott, Lightfoot and others, seems more probably to be the correct one — that
he simply " takes part in the greeting." No doubt, that if he had not agreed
with Paul in opinions and feelings, his name would not have been inserted.
But there appears to be no sufficient ground for supposing, with Meyer, that
the Apostle had had any special or formal discussion with him as to the exhort-

NOTES. 47
ations and teachings which were to be addressed to the Philippians in the
letter. Timothy was well known to the church and was about to visit it on
behalf of Paul, but the Apostle is apparently in this case, as in all others where
he associates his companions with himself in his words of address, the sole author
of the Epistle in every sense. II. Vv. 3-11.
With reference to the construction and meaning of these verses, the following
points may be noticed : (a) As evxapiara ig the leading verb and apparently ex
presses the feeling whioh was uppermost in the Apostle's mind, it is most natural
to hold that the words 'sirl r^ Koivuvig are to be connected with it. This view gains
support from the following verses, which set forth the confidence which he has for
the future respecting the continuance of what now constitutes the ground of his
thankfulness. It is also confirmed by the fact that in the beginning of other
epistles where eixapiara occurs, it is followed hy the same preposition with a
dative, or by clauses of another form, expressing the reason or occasion of his
grateful feeling (1 Cor. i. 4, 5 ; Rom. i. 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 3 ; Col. i. 3, 4 ; Philem. 4, 5),—
(6) The connection of irdvrore k.t.X. — whether with eixapiara or with perd x- r. d.
irotovpevo; — is more doubtful". Hdvrore is, in some similar cases in Puul's writings,
evidently to be joined with six. (e.g. 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13). In other
cases, however (e.g. Col. i. 4; Philem. 4; cf. Rom, i,9, 10), it may qualiiy the partici
pial word, and it is to be observed that the present sentence has peculiarities which
render any conclusions drawn from comparison with kindred passages uncertain.
There is no other instance where the accumulation of phrases conveying the idea
of "all," and the twofold use of dsvai;, are found. The sentence may, therefore,
be properly determined in its construction by the probabilities belonging to itself.
These, on the whole, favor the uniting of irdvrors K.r.X. with iroiovpsvo;. After
the insertion of eirl irdari rij pveig vpav, the addition of these words would seem
unnecessary and antecedently improbable, as connected with evxapiarCi; while, as
modifying iroiovp., they are very suitable and natural. The participial clause, if
including these words, is more easily accounted for than if they are separated from
it. If the writer says, that he thanks God in all his remembrance of them always
in every praj-er on their behalf, there is little emphasis to be gained by adding,
parenthetically, that he offers these prayers with joy. But, on the other hand, if
his words are, "I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, in every prayer
of mine on behalf of you all making the prayer with joy," the added clause serves •
a purpose corresponding in some measure, though not precisely, with that of Rom.
i. 9, 10 as related to eix. in Rom. i. 8. It shows how natural it was — as he was
always joyfully offering prayers for them — to give thanks, when he called them to
mind, for their fellow-ship in respect to the gospel.
(c) The determination of the meaning of Koivavia ipav (ver. 5) seems to depend
on two points : 1. The absence of any defining words giving these words a special
application, as e. g. to gifts of money, and also (as Meyer suggests) of any such
words as /ief epov, which would indicate fellowship on their part with himself,
and this alone ; and 2. The fact that in iv. 14, 15, the Apostle, by the use of the
corresponding verb, refers distinctly to their contributions for his benefit, and
speaks of these contributions, as he does here of the Koivavia, as having been made
also at the beginning of their Cliristian life (iv dpxy rov sva-yysXiov, iv. 15 ; dirb rij;

48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
irparv; vpipa;, i. 5). In view of these facts, we must hold, with Meyer, that the
words mean the fellowship of the Philippians with one another, but that, in using
the expression, the writer had in mind the thought that, as this fellowship worked
out to the end of furthering the gospel, it directed itself towards the supply of his
wants as a means to the end. Koivavla is not, therefore, to be understood here in
the sense of contribution, and it does not, in and of itself, suggest cooperation with
Paul, but only with one another. But, in the outgoing of their mutual coopera
tion, their aliiaction fur him led them to help the cause which they had at heart
by helping hira,
(d) ireiroiBa; avrb rovro (ver, 6), The participle here appears to be circum
stantial (as Mey,), rather than causal (as EIL, Lightf , and others). It is not pre
cisely parallel with iroiovpsvo; (Alf., de W.), but it denotes the feeling w-hich
accompanies his thanksgiving. Confidence in the future naturally unites itself
with his knowledge of the past and the present, and thus is ever in his mind when
he expresses his gratitude to God, The view of Meyer with regard to avrb tovto — •
that it means /or this very reason — is to be rejected, both because of the order of the
words in the clause (so Lightf,), and because the argument which Meyer urges has
no sufficient basis, — namely, that " nothing has heen yet said of the contents of the
confidence, which are to follow," This is true, if we are to understand the state
ment in the strictest, and most precise sense. But the subject respecting which the
Apostle is confident lor the future is so far indicated in the preceding verse as to
justify the use of airb rovro as it is used in Eph. vi. 22, Col, iv. 8. The "good
work" is the Koivavia.
(e) With the thought in iirireXiaei k.t.X. (ver, 6) as related to the preceding,
we may compare 1 Cor, i, 8 and 6. Passages of this character express confidence
as to the perseverance of the particular persons referred to ; whether they can be
regarded as, in themselves, establishing the doctrine of the perseverance of all
Christians is doubtful. This doctrine must find its main support elsewhere. —
(/) The words dxpi vpipa; 'Ivaov Xpiarov correspond very nearly with ia; riXov;
. . .ev Ti} vpipa r. k. Tjp. 'I. Xp. of 1 Cor. i. 8, and in connection with iv. 5 (comp. 1
Cor. XV. 51, 52, xvi. 22) they favor the view that in his later epistles, as in his
earlier ones, Paul held that the Lord's second coming was near at hand. His ex
pectation of this event as probably to occur in the early future, if this view is
adopted, did not change as he advanced in life, although he naturally became more
doubtful as to whether he should himself live to witness it. — (g) Meyer's view of the
connection of sv re dsapol; . . . evayyeXlov (ver. 7) is favored by De W., Alf, Noyes
tr., and others, but is opposed by Treg., W. and Hort., Ell., Lightf, Eadie, Bisping,
Lumby, Davidson tr., and others, who join the words, as do A. \. and R. V., with the
following. The consideration which Meyer urges has force. The order of the sen
tence, also, and the fact that the position of these words, in case of the other ex
planation, gives them an emphasis which appears almost too great, supports his
view. But the development of thought as related to Koivavia (ver, 4), and the
repetition of ipd;, which is more easily accounted for if the new clause begins with
iv TS deap., may be regarded as overbalancing these considerations and rendering
the connection of the words with what follows, on the whole, more probable.
(A) The close connection of deap. with diroX. and ;Sc/3. makes it almost certain
that the Apostle has in mind only that diroX. and /3t-j3. which belonged to his
present period of imprisonment. For this reason it is probable th.it in rij; xdpiro;
he refers to that manifestation of- the Divine grace which fitted them, as it fitted

NOTES. 49
him, for the furtherance of the gospel even in times of trial and suffering, and
which also made them ready to help him in his defence and confirmation of the
gospel while a prisoner at Rome. The defence and confirmation are the negative
and positive side of the same thing. The defence, therefore, does not mean a
defence at the time of his judicial trial, but that which was a part of the work of
preaching which, according to Acts xxviii. 30, 31, he was permitted to carry for
ward without hindrance. — (i.) ydp (ver. 8) is, as Meyer intimates, to be connected
with did rb exeiv pe iv rri Kapdia ipd; — this verse being the confirmation of those
words and not of what precedes them. — (j.) The view of Meyer with respect to
iv airXdyxvoi; Xp. 'Iva. is adopted by Ell,, Lightf., Ead., Alf., de W., Bisp., Jatho,
Gwynn, and others, and is doubtless correct.
(k) Kal of ver. 9 is rightly explained by Meyer as simply adding the new part
of the discourse. But whether (as he supposes, with Ell., Alf., Lightf, de W.,
and others) the thought is carried back to ver. 4, as if taking up and explaining a
prayer alluded to there, is doubtful. It is more probable that he merely intends
to add to what he has said of his thankfulness and confidence a statement of what
he prays for with reference to their future growth and progress. The emphasis
on TOVTO does not seem to require a reference to ver. 4 of the soi-t indicated, but is
sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the dydirv and the Koivavia are so closely
related. That these two words are thus related is proved by the fact, that, other
wise, the unity of the introductory passage is broken. — (I) The meaning of
dydirv is, accordingly, love as connected with Koivavia, that love which brought the
Philippians into fellowship for the furtherance of the gospel. The reference does
not seem to be (as Meyer holds) simply to their love to one another, but to
Christian love which, existing as a power in each individual soul, led them to work
together as the opportunity and call for such working came to them. — (m) " The
intensive preposition (iiri) heiore 'yvaaei,'' says Lightfoot, ''answers to the adjective
before a'laBvasi." He appears, thus, to give irdari an intensive force, and with this
view Eadie and some others agree. De W., Ell., AVeiss, Alf., Lumby, Harless on
Eph,, and many other comm, regard this adjective as extensive, as Mej-er also does :
every (" every form of," EU.). To say the least, it may be affirmed that the writer
has in mind the application of the knowing and perceptive love to the demands
made upon it in the work of carrying forward the gospel, and there can be no
doubt that the extensive sense brings the phrase into closest accord with this
thought. Paul's desire and prayer was that their love might abound in full,
accurate knowledge, and in moral perception in all lin&s.
(n) e'l; rb doKipdCsiv k.t.X. (ver. 10). In respect to this phrase it may be said,
(1) that the original meaning of both the verb and the participle favors the
interpretation of de Wette and others (who understand it of a testing of things
which are morally different), as against that of Meyer ; (2) that the function of
the perceptive faculty in the moral sphere is, primarily, that to which this inter
pretation points ; (3) that the two passages which are in nearest parallelism to
this may be best explained in this way : namely, Rom, ii, 18, where the claim of
the Jew which is referred to is, that, inasmuch as he is taught by the law, he is
able to know the will of God (i. e. to distinguish what is right from what is
wrong), and thus to guide others, and Heb. v. 14, where the writer speaks of
mature Christians as having their perceptive faculties exercised by reason of use
to discriminate between what is good and what is bad. It is claimed, indeed, by
manv, and by Meyer himself, that in Rom. ii. 18, we must translate "approvest
4

50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the things that are excellent," on account of a certain climactic character belong
ing to that passage. But the fact that the phrase is there preceded by the words
knowest ids will, and followed by words which simply point to instruction, and to
the possession of the form or exact outline of truth in the law as qualifying for
such instruction, and not at all to any approval or preference — the whole context,
so far as the Jew's claim for himself is concerned, referring to the sphere of the
understanding and the capacity to teach others — seems to be decisive against this
translation. If these words, therefore, are not to be explained in the present
verse as meaning " to distinguish the things that differ," it must be for some such
reason as that suggested by Meyer in his note. His suggestion is not without
force, as Alibrd claims, who calls it " mere trifling ; " but it is doubtful whether it
can be properly regarded as having weight enough to over-balance the considera
tions on the other side.
(o) Grimm and Robinson in their Lexicons, as well as Lightf., Ell,, Alf.,
Gwynn, and others among recent commentators, give the passive or intransitive
sense to dirpooKoiroi. Eadie agrees with Meyer, Lumby includes both senses.
The objection of Lightf., Ell., and Alf., to Meyer's view, that a reference to their
relation to others is out of place, because, as Lightf. expresses it, the question is
solely of tlieir fitness to appear before the tribunal of Christ, is not conclusive for
the reason that their attitude toward other men is a part of that which is passed
upon at that tribunal. The prominence of the thought, of Kotvavta el; rb svay. in
the paragraph, on the other hand, favors, though it does not fully prove, the
transitive sense. — (p) That dmatoavvv; (ver. 11) is here used in its ordinary, not
in its peculiar Pauline sense, is admitted by almost all recent commentators. The
correctness of this view is made apparent by the clauses which precede. This
moral rectitude or conformity to what is right, however, is defined as that which
is by means of Jesus Clirist, and thus is that which begins in the soul at its
entrance into the new life through faith. Faith works by love, and the result is
right living. The fruit of righteousness grows more abundantly as the love
abounds more and more in knowledge and all perception, until the man appears
at the tribunal full of this fruit. Sik. may be a genitive of origin, as Jlever, or of
apposition, aa Huther on Jas. iii. 18, and Liinemann on Heb. xii. 11 (in Meyer's
Comm.), take it. III. Vv. 12-14.
(«) The letter being one of friendship and affection, rather than one written
for the purpose of discussing doctrinal questions or matters of practical life, the
writer naturally turns from his introductory passage, which has reference to the
readers, to a statement of his own condition and success. In giving this state
ment he very naturally, also, makes prominent the matter which had been
emphasized in the preceding paragraph— namely, the furtherance of the gospel.
The connecting point between the two passages is found in the words Koivavia s'l;
rb evay. of vv. 3-11 and e'l; irpoKoirijv rov eiay. of ver. 12 f. (comp. also 'sv roi;
Seapol; pov . . . . avyKoivavoi; pov K.r.X. ver, 7, rov; deapov; pov (pavepov; k.t.X.
ver. 13),— (6) Meyer regards wore . . . ysveaBai (ver. 13) as indicating the salutary
effect, and not the greatness, of the irpoKoiri]. May it not be better to include both
ideas ? The following words seem to suggest the thought of the wide-reaching
effect — " in the whole praetorium and to all the rest ; " " the majority of the

NOTES. 51
brethren ; " " more abundantly bold." — (c) Meyer refers to Bp. Lightfoot as
holding tliat irpairapiov means here the castrum prcetorianorum, but the view of
Lightf. is that the word denotes "the praetorian regiments, the imperial guards"
— a body of men, not a place. Grimm, as also, among recent English commen
tators, Eadie, Ellicott, and, apparently, Lumby, agree with Meyer, Alford wavers
in opinion somewhat, but finally favors Meyer's explanation, Lewin, in his
"Life and Epistles of St, Paul," regards the explanation of the Auth, Yer. as
most probably the correct one, but prefers that of Lightfoot to that of Meyer.
R. V. apparently adopts L.'s view, translating in the text " throughout the whole
praetorian guard," with a marginal note, " Gr. in the whole Praetorium." Among
the recent translations of the X, T,, that of Davidson has: "among all the
praetorian guard " ; those of the Bible Union, Green, and Darby : " in all the
(or, the whole) Prsetorium ; " that of Dr. G. R. No.yes : " in the whole camp of the
imperial guards." Meyer claims that the prepositions in the passages cited for
the reference to the praetorian regiments themselves are always local, and seems
thus to deny the propriety of any such reference. The passages quoted by Light
foot and in Freund's Lexicon (Harper's Ed,) may, however, be regarded as proving
that the word was used of the regiments, and Lightfoot even goes so far as to
deny that any decisive instance is produced in which the great camp of the prae
torian soldiers is designated by " pr^torium,'' L. and S. (7th Ed,) say, "At Rome,
Praetorium generally meant the Castra Prmtoriana." Amid this marked variety
of views, and in a case where certainty seems scarcely attainable, it is difficult to
pronounce a decision with much confidence. But as the Apostle, having now
been in Bome not improbably nearly two years, may be supposed in his employ
ment of the word to follow the Roman, not the provincial, usage ; as this usage
appears to have allowed, if not indeed to have required, the application of the
term to the guards ; and as, by general consent, roi; Xoiirol; irdaiv is taken as desig
nating persons, not places, the view advocated by Bp, Lightfoot may be considered
as the one best sustained. — (d) iv Kvpia (ver. 14) is connected with rav ddeXfdv by
R. V. as well as A. V. J* If. and Lumby agree with the writers mentioned in
Meyer's note, who favor this construction. Eadie, EU., Lightf,, Gwynn, Jatho, v.
Hofm. AV, and AA'ilk., make the words qualify ireiroiBdra;, as Meyer does. The
oi-der of the words, the fact that in all other cases irirroi-da precedes the adverbial
phrase wluch modifies it, and the unnecessary emphasis which the reverse
arrangement gives in this sentence to iv Kvpia, sustain the rendering of the Revised
Version. It is affirmed, on the other side, that iv Kvpia is not found elsewhere in
the N. T. with ddeXtpoi (comp. however, Col. i. 2, 'sv Xpiara : Lightf. maintains that
this verse is not . parallel with the present one because of the adjective iriarol;
added there to dd.) ; that it is thus united with irerr. (e. g. ii. 24) ; and that dd.
alone would here mean all that dd. 'ev k. means — ev k. being thus superfluous.
The explanation of the emphasis on iv k. as qualifying ireir. which Meyer gives in
his note — that it is placed first as the correlative of 'ev Xpiara, of ver. 13 — is
hardly satisfactory. The same may be said of EUicott's similar explanation —
that it must have been in Christ, and in Him only, that confidence could be felt.
This may be true, but that it is true in such a sense as to demand the insertion of
hi Kvpia at all as qualifying ireiroiB., and especially with such marked emphasis, is by
no means evident. The suggestion of the preceding verse was abundantly sufficient
to carry with it this thought into the irsiroiB., and thus no such additional promi
nence was required. The construction with ddeTi/jioni appears, on the whole, to be

52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
simpler and better. — (e) ireiroi-dora; roi; deapoi; pov (ver. 14). — The explanation of
these words must be sought for in the context. Ver. 13 sets forth the fact that
his bonds had become manifest in Christ, i. e. as connected with and caused by
his relation to Christ, and ver. 16 refers to his defence of the gospel. A^er. 7, in
like manner, connects the ideas of the defence and the bonds. The reason,
accordingly, for the confidence which tlie iT?Move; thus gained, .and which strength
ened them to preach fearlessly, was their knowledge that his imprisonment had
been the means, not of hindering, but of furthering the gospel.

IV. Vv. 15-17.
Two important questions present themselves in connection with these verses.
The first is, whether the writer divides the irXeiove; of ver. 14 into two sections
here, — rive;, nvi;, and again, ot pev, ol di, — or whether, on the other hand, the
nvi; pev (to which words ol ds correspond) are a class quite distinct from the
ir?islove;. There are considerations which may be urged on both sides. The fact
(1) that irXeiovs;, as united with the words which follo-.v it in ver. 14, implies that
the remainder of the brethren were not active in preaching, whereas the nvi; piv
evidently were thus active ; (2) that ordinarily such divisions (nve; k.t.X.), when
they are introduced after a more general descriptive word, are naturally referred
by the re-ader to divisions making up the general class alluded to ; and (3) that
nvi; Se, while exactly fitted to describe a second section of the ir?-eiove;, is a singu
lar, if not indeed altogether unsuitable, expression as designating the whole body
of that majority, must be admitted to have weight in favor of the former supposi
tion. But it must be observed, on the contrary, (1) that ver. 13 apparently
points, in its whole statement, to persons in whose working the Apostle could feel
unalloyed satisfaction; (2) that, if the nvi; piv were a portion of the irXeiove;, we
seem compelled to give a different explanation to ireiroiB. r. deapoi; as related to
them (comp. ver. 17) from that which we give in connection with the nvi; di —
whereas these words, as they stand in ver. 13, appear to have but one sense and
application ; (3) that Kal following nvi; pev may — not to say, certainly does — indi
cate a new and independent class of persons as now brought forward. In the case
of a carefully developed argument, or rhetorical treatise, the points favoring the
view that the nve; pev and nvi; di are parts of the ir?^iove; would be almost decis
ive. But, in a friendly letter telling of experiences and feelings, the writer might
easily by a sudden and slight turn leave the thought of ver. 13 at its close, and
make a new beginning, and thus he might readily speak of two classes of
preachers — the one already alluded to, and- a different one of an opposite charac
ter. Not improbably, therefore, the correct view is that of Meyer. But it must
be admitted that he and the many modern commentators who agree with him fail
to recognize the full force of the arguments urged by tlieir opponents.
The second question has reference to the persons indicated by the rtvi; pev. Who
or what were they? The answer to this question must be sought primarily in the
passage itself. This presents to us two facts respecting them : namely, that they
preached Christ, and that they did so did (ji-d-Svov Kal ipiv and ff ipiBeta; — oldpsvoi k.t.X.
As these latter words, according to all the evidence in the case, refer to their atti
tude or feeling towards the Apostle himself, it follows that they were preachers
of Christ who had bitter personal opposition to Paul. The passage, however, adds

NOTES. 53
another point — the Apostle's declaration that, notwithstanding their envy, etc., he
rejoices and will rejoice that Christ is proclaimed by them, as well as by his own
friends. It is, certainly, difficult to suppose that Judaizers such as those who ap
pear in the Ep. to the Galatians, or enemies like the ones described in 2d Cor., could
have been here before his mind. Moreover, the language which he uses in iii. 2
is so much stronger and more severe than that of these verses — so much more after
the manner of 2d Cor. aud Gal., that we can scarcely believe him to be speaking
in the two chapters of the same persons. And, still .further, it seems almost im
possible that, even at this late period of his life, he could say that he rejoiced in
the preaching of such men. That they were, however, of the Jewish-Christian,
rather than the Pauline party, is rendered probable by their opposition to him.
In doctrine, therefore, we must believe them to have been less anti-Pauline than
the teachers in Galatia, who were preaching a different sort of gospel — a perversion
of the true gospel, and on whom the Apostle pronounces an anathema (Gal. i. 6—8).
Meyer seems to admit this in his "Remark" at the close of ver. 18. AVith respect
to feeling, on the other hand, they must have had the bitterness of the Judaizing
orthodoxy to such a degree, that jealousy and the desire to trouble the Apostle
became the chief impulse prompting them in their work. The word irpoifidasi, as
contrasted with dXrfts'ig, proves that they were neither honorable nor honest ad
versaries, and gives evidence both of the Apostle's sentiments towards men of this
character and of the expressions which he felt free to use respecting them.
AVith regard to the words and phrases of this passage, the following remarks
may be added: (a) (pBdvov not improbably here includes the feelings both of envy
and jealousy in view of the Apostle's fame and success.-^(6) The strife, ept;, which
is alluded to is evidently, by reason of the corresponding clause in ver. 17, that
which was connected with ipiBeia, that is, with selfish and factious partisanship.
It belonged thus, like the f^dvo;, to the baser sort of opposition, and was directed
towards the Apostle personally. — (c) if dydirv;, ^f ipi-Bs'ia; are joined with the verbs
by R. v., A. \., and some comm, (as Lightf, Alf., Eadie, Gwynn, also by Hofm., as
stated by Meyer). De AV., Weiss, Ell., Lumby appy., v. Heng., and others agree
with Meyer. A. R. A^. inserts Meyer's rendering in the margin. The reasons
presented by Aleyer may be regarded as justifying his view. Alf. objects that, if
this construction had been in Paul's mind, "the words rbv Xpiarbv KaTayyi?J.ovaiv
would hardly have been expressed in ver. 17," and Lightf. regards these words, in
this case, as too emphatic. Alay it not be, however, that there is a designed em
phasis in placing these w-ords in this clause, rather than in the preceding, as con
nected with ovx dyva;"! The Christ-preaching of these factious adversaries is so
insincere, that the verv contrast between their state of mind and their action car
ries their condemnation with it.— (f?) didpsvoi -dXiipiv iysipeiv roi; deapoi; pov (ver.
17). As these words are closely related to ff 'epi^sla;, and, through that phrase, to
did ^Bdvov Kal epiv, and as the paraUel clause in the preceding verse, e'lddrs; . . . Kelpai,
is connected with the suggestion as to aiding him in his work as a preacher, the
thought of "raising up affliction for his bonds" on the part of this hostile party
must, in all probability, have a similar and immediate reference to his work and
infiuence. They thought to take advantage of the fact of his bonds, and of what
ever hindrance these occasioned in the unlimited freedom of his preaching, to ad
vance other doctrines or views, to promote the interests and increase the numbers
of their own party, and to diminish his authority and influence. Thus they ex
pected to make his bonds more grievous.

54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

V. Vv. 18-21.
(a) AVith respect to the construction and explanation of the words ri yap irXr/v
K.r.X., Meyer gives a different view from that of most other commentators, and
also of his own third edition. The claim which is made by him, and by Hof
mann, who in this instance — contrary to what we observe in most other cases —
seems to have favorably influenced his mind, that ttA^v renders it necessary to place
the interrogation-mark after KarayyiXX^rai, and not after ydp, can hardly be sus
tained. It is evidently possible, however, to give this explanation of the words. The
grounds for adopting the more common view are the frequent occurrence in Paul's
writings of ti ovv and ri ydp as independent questions ; the fact that we find no paral
lel expression to ri irXijv bn in his Epistles as equivalent to ri dXXb oti ; the use of
irXipi elsewhere (iii, 16, iv, 14, 1 Cor. xi, 11, Eph. v. 33) in the sense of only or nei<er-
theless (comp., however, Paul's words in Acts xx. 23) ; and the simple and more
natural construction of koI ev r. xo-'^P", if united with irXt/v . . . Karayy. in one
clause, than if taken as an answer to a question ri . . . Karayy. In view of these
consider.atlons, it is probably safer to place the interrogation-mark after ydp. AVith
this construction, the true explanation of irXi/v on (which is probably the correct
reading), is that which makes it an answer to the question ri ydp, and gives the
meaning " AVhat then, i. e. such being the state of the facts, what follows, so far as
my thought and feeling are concerned ? Nothing except that," &c. — (h) iv rovra
Xaipa (ver. 18). The thing in which the Apostle rejoices, as inferred from the
context, is not simply the fact that Christ is preached, but that, in that preaching
which goes forward during his imprisonment, and is even furthered by it, Christ
is proclaimed both by the one party and the other, who have been mentioned. His
bonds, thus, do not hinder, but help the work of the gospel. — (c) In connection with
this meaning of rovra, the following rovro (ver. 19) is to be explained. It refers
to the same thing. This view of roiiro is sustained by the fact that the reader's
mind is naturally, and almost necessarily, carried back to the same pronoun in the
next preceding sentence, and also by the fact that, in this way, the thought of the
paragraph moves forward, witiiout a break or parenthesis, from ver. 12 to ver, 21, —
(d) Tisch, and Lachm,, as Meyer says, place a period after X'^'P'^, and a comma
after xapi/aopai, and thus connect olda ydp with the aAAd koi xapf/aopai clause only.
AV. aud H, have the same punctuation, except that they put a colon after jaipu.
R, v., on the other hand, joins the two clauses, "and therein I rejoice, yea and will
rejoice." Meyer's view is probably correct, because the statement of ver. 19 gives
a reason which applies as fully to his present joy as to that which should be in
the future, and also because the emphatic addition of " yea and," etc., to " I re
joice" is thoroughly in accordance with Paul's style. In bis third edition Meyer
adopts Tisch.'s punctuation. — (e) In his explanation of aurvplav, Meyer differe
from many of the best recent commentators, and his arguments seem insufficient.
Paul does not elsewhere use the word in the sense which Meyer gives to it here.
He uses it only of the Messianic salvation, either as experienced by the soul in its
beginnings on earth or in its completeness in heaven. The words are not im
probably a designed or accidental quotation from Job xiii. 16, LXX., where the
meaning is open to questioning. But there is apparently no such reference to that
passage, as to make the interpretation given to it determinative of the interpre
tation to be adopted here. — (/) did rv; . . . 'e-ixopvyia; k.t.?,.. — The union of divai;
and 'eirix- under one article points towards the uniting of ipav with both genitives.

NOTES. 55
but inasmuch as, in case rov irv. 'I. Xp. is a subjective gen., as not improbably it is,
there are two personal agents mentioned cooperating to the same end, this union
cannot be considered as decisive of the question. If, however, we do not connect
vpdiv directly with iirix., we may accept the position of Lightfoot (comp. also
Eadie), who says, " The two clauses are fitly connected by the same article ; for the
supply of the Spirit is the answer to their prayer." The view of Lightf, on the
other hand, that the gen. rov irvsiparo; may include both the subjective and ob
jective relations — the Spirit being both the giver and the gift — can hardly be
accepted. The ISpirit may, no doubt, be conceived of in both ways, but the N. T,
writers, like other writers, seem to have only one of the two conceptions in any
one passage, according to the suggestions or demands of the subject before their
minds at the particular time, — (g) The supply of the Spirit is probably to be
specially connected in thought with the irappvaia spoken of in ver, 20. The
Apostle's mind seems to be, throughout the entire passage, on " the furtherance
of the gospel " through his own actions or his experiences of whatever kind ; and
he is confident that by means of the prayers of the Philippians and the supply of
courage, boldness, freedom, etc., which the Spirit should bestow in answer to those
prayers, Christ will be magnified in his body, whether by life or by death. That
this is his thought, is indicated by the form of his sentence. His confidence, which
gives him joy in the present circumstances, is that the result will be according to
his hope ; and his hope is, that in all boldness, etc. As the confidence, therefore,
is founded on the supply to be given by the Spirit, this supply has especial refer
ence to the boldness. — (h) irappvaia (ver, 20) seems to pass beyond the strict sense
of freedom of speech to the more general meaning of boldness (courage), but the
thought still moves in the sphere of the Apostle's relation to the gospel as a
preacher, — (() viv refers to the time which was just upon him, the time when his
fate was to be decided, and, as the question was that of life or death, the words
iv ra aapan are naturally used, — ( j) ipol ydp . . . Kepdo; (ver, 21), — The connection
of these words with did ^aij; k.t.X. cannot be doubted, but ydp introduces them, not
in the way of directly proving the statement, " Christ will be magnified," etc., but
rather, on the other hand, as giving the ground of the Apostle's hope and confi
dence that He will be thus magnified. The emphasis on epoi is thus accounted
for : " I have confidence that Christ will be glorified — that I shall honor Him — in
my body whether by life or by death, for to me — to my apprehension and plan of
living — to live is Christ, and to die is gain. The relation of the idea of Kepdo; to
the magnifying of Christ by the Apostle's death is explained in the simplest and
best way by Meyer. W. and H. begin a new half-paragraph with ver. 21, but this
verse seems to be in closest relation to the preceding verses, and the turn of thought
is not at the opening of this verse, but of the next.

VI, Vv. 22-24.
As stated in the preceding note, the new semi-paragraph begins most appro
priately with ver. 22. The writer has steadily followed his one main thought
from ver, 12 to ver. 21. He now tums to what is subordinate and secondary as
related to what goes before — namely, to his own feeling and confidence respecting
the issue of his trial (vv. 22-26 ;) and he then passes to another and similar semi-
paragraph in which he gives an exhortation to his readers as to their Christian

56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
living, both in the period of his absence and, if his hopes shall prove to be realized,
after he is restored to them.
The turn to the thought of the first of these half-paragraphs is very easy and
natural, and in the manner of the transition we may see an indication of the true
construction of ver, 22, In the development of the preceding thought, as has
been already explained, the Apostle has been led to give the ground of his confi
dence that Christ will be magnified, etc., in the words of ver, 21. He now takes
up these words in their bearing, not upon the honoring of Christ, but upon him
self and his own happiness. The words ro Cvv « " aapKl, therefore, correspond with
rb i^vv of ver, 21, and the words Kapirb; ipyov with Xpiard; ¦ and the whole of that
verse is taken up under the particle el — its entire statement being assumed as a
fact — and the question as to his own preference is raised. The emphatic rovro,
repeating and summing up in itself the words rb t^ijv 'sv aapKi, is thus easily
accounted for. As " to live is Christ," it is the continuance of life in the flesh —
this and this only — which will bring the fruit of work. Everything in the
context and connection points to this arrangement of the sentence, which makes
Sl . . . epyov the protasis and Kal rl k.t.X. the apodosis.
As to the individual words of this verse, (a) di may be regarded as equivalent
to however or the logical now ; (6) Kapiro; is prevailingly used of that which
appertains to Christian life and effort, but whether the idea of emolumentum is
necessarily contained in it (Meyer) is doubtful ; ipyov evidently here refers to
Paul's apostolic labors in Christ's cause ; Kal is to be explained as Meyer explains
it in his note, Ellicott says, with a kindred statement, " if life certainly serve to
apostolic usefulness, there will also be a difficulty as to choice.'' (c) Tvupl^a (ver.
25). R. V, and AV, & H. place rl alpvaopai with an interrogation mark in the
margin, thus suggesting a construction by which ov yvapli^a becomes an answer to
the question, what shall I choose. This construction, though possible, is much
less simple than the ordinary one, which they have in the text. As to the
meaning of yvapi^a in this place, the fact that Paul uses this word elsewhere
in seventeen places and in seven of his Epistles — and always in the sense ¦
to make known — and the fact that this is the only meaning of the verb as
found in the N. T. [there are, however, but six passages where it occurs outside
of Paul's writings], favor Meyer's view somewhat strongly. But, ou the other
hand, the more common meaning of the verb as employed by Greek authors
is to know ; this meaning is found in the LXX. ; and it is much the more
natural sense, if ever allowable, in this passage. As Hofmann remarks, why
should the apostle be limited to the use of the word with a single meaning, when
it had in itself two meanings ? R. V. places / do not make known in the margin
as an alternate rendering. A. R. V, rejects this marginal note. Noyes translates,
I cannot say, Darby, / cannot tell, Deans Jeremie and Gwynn, in Bib, Comm,, I
declare nol, or make not known; the other recent English translators and commen
tators, generally, regard the verb here as meaning I do not know.
The intimation of ver, 23, as of 2 Cor. v. 8, is that, in case of his dying at this
time, he would immediately be with Christ, and thus that he would pass at death,
not into a condition of sleep or unconsciousness, but into one of conscious union
with his Lord. Lightf caUs attention to the other conception of death as found
in 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, and 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16, and says that "the one mode of repre
sentation must be qualified by the other," May not the true explanation of the
matter be this : — that, as related to the body, the figure of sleep was before the

NOTES. 57
Apostle's mind, and, inasmuch as the full consummation of blessedness was not, in
his view, to be reached until the resurrection, he sometimes views the whole inter
mediate period as connected with the condition of the body. At other times —
thinking only of the living spirit — he gives his actual and truer idea, that the life
moves on unbroken into the future, changing its place, indeed, and still waiting
its completeness, but never ceasing in its activity aud its powers. (Comp. Rom.
viii. 10, 11, 23).
As we compare this verse with the one cited from 2 Cor,, we discover, appar
ently, a certain change in the Apostle's feelings, which is readily accounted for hy
the advance of years. In 2 Cor. v. 1 ff,, he seems to contemplate death only as a
possibility, and, in the expression of his desire to be with the Lord, he yet
earnestly longs to live to the end and be " changed " (1 Cor. xv, 51), so that he
may not pass through the experience which must come to those who die. The
burdens and trials of the time which intervened between the two epistles, the
progress of life towards old age, and the uncertainty of the result of his imprison
ment, of which he must have often thought during his two years at Rome, may
well have made him welcome more fully the idea of dying, and have carried his
mind more and more towards the future things as very far better. These things
may well have made continued life seem desirable to him, not for himself, but
only in view of the possibiUty of usefulness to others.
VII. Vv. 25, 26.
(a) Lightfoot apparently regards irsiroi-da; as having an adverbial force, and
translates " of this I am confidently persuaded." Alf., EU., Ead., and most of the
recent comm., agree with Meyer. — (b) The examples given by van Hengel (Iliad
vi. 447f. ; Isoc. Busir. Laud. c. 19 ; 2 Kings viii. 12 ; Acts xx. 29 ;) seem to show
that olda need not be taken as affirming absolute knowledge, as Meyer asserts but
may express strong conviction. That this is the force of the word here is held
by De AV., Weiss, Lightf, and others. — (c) That by the word peva Paul refei-s to a
remaining alive until the Parousia, and by the introduction of irdaiv into the sen
tence he shows that he thought it was near, is claimed by Meyer as beyond doubt,
A'v. 6 and 10 may point to this as possible or probable, but hardly as certain. It does
not appear necessary to extend the continuance of psva to the time indicated in
those verses, as it is so far separated from them and occurs in an entirely different
paragraph. — (d) irpoKOirrjv (ver. 26) has a certain connection of thought, no doubt,
with the same word in ver. 12. The Apostle's continued life would be for the
furtherance of the faith of the Philippians, as his recent experiences, and indeed
all his working, had been for the furtherance of the gospel. — (e) AVith reference
to the relation of the Iva and e'l; clauses, the similar construction in ver. 10 may
be compared. Iva introduces the final end of his remaining, etc., e'l; rryv irpoK.
K.T.?.. The Kavxv/^a is, as Meyer says, the materies gloriandi. This is, according to
Meyer, " the bliss as Christians which they enjoy " (comp. xopd ¦--iarea;) ; accord
ing to EU., " their condition as Christians ; " according to Alford, their " profession
of the gospel." Perhaps we may better say, as suggested by the immediate con
nection of the thought with the preceding verse, it is the irian; whose advance
ment was to be secured. The glorying indicated in Paul's use of Kavxdadai and
its kindred nouns is, as AVeiss and others remark, not a self-glorification in a com
parison of one's self with other men, but rather an exultation in the blessings and

58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
privileges bestowed by Divine grace. Grimm regards Kaixvpa, in this place, as
equivalent to Kavxvai;. VIIL Vv. 27-30.
These verses have a connection both with what precedes and what follows. As
related to the preceding context, they constitute a new half-paragraph, in which
the Apostle, still keeping his mind on the prominent thought from ver. 12
onward, urges upon the Philippians, whether he shall himself be able to come
to them or not, to conduct themselves in a manner becoming their heavenly
citizenship, and w-orthily of the gospel, by striving together for the faith without
fear of enemies, even if called to conflict and suflering. He gives them, thus, an
exhortation to move onward, as he himself had done and was doing, with boldness
and with confidence that even the opposition of their enemies would result
in their own salvation. As related to the following chapter, vv. 1—18, on the
other hand, it is a general exhortation, afi'uc . . . iro?j.Tsiead-s, which is subse
quently carried out into some of its details.
(a) Mdvov, in the connection in which it stands, seems to imply that notmth-
standing his confidence that, through his continued life, he might be of service to
them, there was one exhortation whicli he would press upon them ; but that, in
view of his confidence, there was only one. (b) The force of iroXirsvec&e is prob
ably given by Aleyer correctly, though it is possible that the word, as here used,
may have passed beyond the meaning belonging to it by derivation into the more
general sense, coiidixt yourselves. — (c) Swa-^Xovvre;, means .'striving together with one
another — uniting in a common earnest eflbrt. Meyer refers it, with less proba
bility, to a striving together with Paul. — (d) rii irlarsi is, as Aleyer says, the dative
commodi. R. V. reads for ihe faith in the text, with a marginal note " Gr. with."
This marginal note, which assumes that tbe dative is to be taken in the original
as meaning with, is hardly to be justified. The most that can be said is that the
Greek may mean with, but it must be admitted, also, that it may not. The prob
able construction, indeed, is that given by Meyer, Lightf makes iriarsi depend
on avva^X., and regards the Apostle as personifying faith. — («) vpav de aarvpia; (ver.
28) — If this text is adopted, as it should be according to the weight of authority,
the meaning may be that the intrepidity of the Philippians is a sign to the
enemies of two things:— their own destruction and the salvation of the Philip
pians ; or the thought of the writer may be (as if he had inserted a vplv before
ipav), to ihem of destruction, but to you of your salvation. The first sense answers
most exactly to the words, and is adopted by Meyer and some others, — (/) irdaxeiv
and the 30th verse [rbv airbv dyava — vvv — iv ipoi) make it very clearly manifest
that the writer has especially in mind the furtherance of the gospel by the
Philippians in, aud notwithstanding, experiences simUar to his own, i, e. persecu
tion, etc.

CHAP. n. 59

CHAPTEE IL
Ver. 1. Instead of ei ri irapap., D"* L, min. have: eiri; irapap. Approved by
Griesb,, adopted by Matth, It is nothing but a mechanical repetition of the pre
ceding El rir. The same judgment must be passed on the reading : el n; airXdyxva,
although this ri; (instead of which the Recepta nva is to be restored) has the
greatly preponderant attestation ofABCDEFGKLPX, min, Bas. Chrys. (?)
Damusc. Gee. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm, and
Tisch, liva (as early, as Clem, Al, Srom, iv, p, 604, Pott, ; also Theodoret) is,
notwithstanding its small amount of cursive attestation, we do not say absolutely
necessary ,1 but requisite for such an understanding of the entire verse as naturally
offers itself to the reader ; see the exegetical remarlcs. — Ver. 3. if] Lachm. and
Tisch. read, and Griesb. also recommended : pvSi Kard, following A B C ><. min.
vss. and Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings v Kard,
Kal Kard, pr/Ssv Kara. — A''er. 4. Elz. Scholz, have 'sKoaro; in both places, which is
defended also by Reiche. But 'sKaaroi, which is confirmed by preponderating testi
mony even before oKoirovvre; (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the
singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T. — Elz. has oKoirslre in
stead of aKoirovvre;, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 5. rovro ydp] A B C"*- K"*",
min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have rovro only. But what led to the
omission of ydp was, that, fpovelre being subsequently read, the preceding eKaaroi
was loolced upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A C i<). Moreover, the
commencement of a lesson at rovro favored the omission. — fpoveiaBa] The reading
ippovslrs appears to have decisive attestation from the uncials, of which only
C*** K L P favor the Recepta ippovelaBa. But it is incredible, if the well-known
and very common imperative form ippovelrs was the original reading, that it
should have been e-vchanged for the otherwise unusual passive form fpoveiaBa,
merely for the reason that it was sought to gain a passive form to be supplied
with the following words d koi iv X. 'I. (where the supplying of rjv would have
been sufficient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek authorities
since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and nearly all min., is in favor of
IppovelaBa, we must retain it as the original, which has been made to give way to
the more current (ppovelre. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following
Lachmann. — A'^er. 9 Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have ovopa alone instead of rb dvopa,
in opposition to A B C X, 17, and several Fathers. The article has been sup
pressed by the preceding syllable. — Instead of i^opoXoyvavrai the future
egopoXoyr/aerai is decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before Bed; (Elz,
Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony, — Ver. 15. yivvaBs]
1 Reiche, Comment, crit. p, 213, would read quid valet"), — The old Latin versions, with
Tt instead of nva; but the former is found their si gua or si quid, leave us uncertain as
only in min,, and is scarcely susceptible of a to their reading. But the Vulg, Lachm,
forced explanation (" si qua est vobis," or " si has : si quis.

60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
A D* E* F G, Vulg. It. Cypr. have vre. So also Lachm. But the testimony is
not decisive, and there is the more reason for defending the Recepta, because
yivvcBe might be more readily glossed by ijrs than the converse, both in itself,
and also here on account of the following iv ol; ijialveaBe k.t.X. — dpupvra] Lachm.
Tisch. 8 have dpapa, following A B C N> min. Clem. Cyr. But the latter is the
prevaiUng form in the N. T., and readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Pet. iii. 14). —
ev piaa] ABC D* F G S, min. (Jlem. have piaov. Approved by Griesb., and
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the Recepta is explanatory. — A'er. 19.
Kvpia] Lachmann reads XpiarCi, upon too weak authority. — Ver. 21. Elz, -. rd rov
Xpiarov 'Ivaov. But rd 'Ivaov X. (Tisch, : rd Xpiarov 'Ivaov) has the preponderance
of evidence in its favor, — Ver, 26. After ipd;, A C D E X* min. vss. and some
later Fathers have 'idslv, which Lachm. places in brackets. To be adopted ; be
cause, after i. 8, its omission would be very probable, and there is no reason why
it should have got in as a gloss here and not at i. 8. — Ver. 27. Elz. : iirl ?,virri,
against decisive testimony in favor of iirl Xvirrjv. — Ver. 30. rb epyov tuv Xpiarov]
Tisch. 7 reads rb ipyov merely ; following, indeed, only C, but correctly, for the
bare rb ipyov appeared to need some defining addition, which was given to it by
roil Xpiaroii or Xpiarov (Tisch. 8), or even by Kvpiov (A S). — irapa,3ovX.] The form
irapafioX. has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred. See the exegetical
remarks. Ver. 1. [On vv. 1^, see Note IX. pages 106, 107]. Ovv] infers from i.
30 what is, under these circumstances, the most urgent duty of the readers.
[IX a.] If they are engaged in the same conflict as Paul, it is all the more
imperatively required of them by the relation of cordial aff'ection, which
must bind them to the apostle in this fellowship, that they should fulfill
his joy, etc. Consequently, although, connecting what he is about to say
with what goes immediately before (in opposition to Hofmann), he cer
tainly, after the digression contained from ijn; in ver. 28 onwards, leads
them back to the exhortation to unanimity already given in ver. 27, to
which is then subjoined in ver. 3 f. the summons to mutual humility. —
el n; k.t.X.] four Stimulative elements, the existence of which, assumed by
el (comp. on Col. iii. 1), could not but forcibly bring home to the readers
the fulfillment of the apostle's joy, ver. 2.' [IX 6.] AVith each iarl simply
is to be supplied (comp. iv. 8) : If there he any encouragement in Christ, if
any comfort of hve, etc. It must be noticed that these elements fall into
two 'parallel sections, in each of which the first element refers to the objective
principle of the Christian life (ev Xpiara and irveipara;), and the second to
the subjective principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (dydirv;
and airXdyxva Kal o'lKnppoi). Thus the inducements to action, involved in
these four elements, are, in equal measure, at once objectively binding and
inwardly affecting (irij; aipodpa;, ira; perd avpiraBeia; iroX?.fi; ! ChrysoStom). —
irapoKX. 'ev X.] iv X. defines the irapaKX. as specifically Christian, having its
1 Hitzig, z. Krit. Paul. Briefe, p. 18, very and the four times repeated if is to cover
erroneously opines that there is here a made the defect— in connection with which an
excitement, an emphasis in which not so utterly alien parallel is adduced from Tacit.
much is felt as is put into the words; Agric.iQ.

CHAP. II. 1. 61
essence and activity in Clirist ; so that it issues from living fellowship -with
Him, being rooted in it, and sustained and determined by it. Thus it is
in Christ, that brother exhorteth brother. irapdKXvai; means exhortation,'^ i. e.
persuasive and edifying address ; the more special interpretation consolatio,
admissible in itself, anticipates the correct rendering of the irapapvBiov
which follows (in opposition to A'ulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecume
nius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others;
and recently Hoelemann and E-wald). — el nrrapap. d-)d-.] irapapvBiov^ cor
responds to the fourth clause (an-Xdyxva k. o'ikt.), and for this reason, as well
as because it must be different from the preceding element,' cannot be
taken generally^ as address, exhortation,^ but definitely as comfort.^ 'Aydrrv;
is the genitive oi tlie subject: a consolation, w/iic/! tot'e^iws, which ffows
from the brotherly love of Christians. In order to make out an allusion
to the Trinity in the three first points, dogmatic expositors like Calovius,
and also Woli, have understood dydirv; of the love of God (to us). — el n;
Koivav. irv.] if any fellowship of the Spirit ( i. e. participation in the Spirit)
exists ; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii. 13. This is to be explained of the Holy Spirit,
not of the animorum conjunctio,' which is inconsistent -u-ith the relation
of this third clause to the first (iv Xpiara), and also with the sequel, in
which (ver. 2) Paul encourages them to fellowship of mind, and cannot
therefore place it hi ver. 1 as a motive. — el nva a-?., k. o'ikt ^ if there be any
heart and compassion. The former used, as in i. 8, as the seat of cordial
lo-ving affections generally; the latter, specially as misericordia (see on
Rom. ix. 15), which has its seat and life in the heart.* It must further be
remarked, with regard to all four points, that the context, by virtue of the
exhortation based upon them irXvpaaari pov rijv xopdv in ver. 2, certainly
presupposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the general expres
sion (if there is) forms a mare momng appeal, and is not to be limited by
the addition of in you (Luther, Calvin, and others). Hence the idea is :
" If there is exhortation in CArisi, wherewith one brother animates and
incites another to a right tone and attitude ; if there is comfort of love,
whereby one refresheth the other; if there is fellowship in the Spirit, which
inspires right feelings, and confers the consecration of power ; if there is a
heart and compcussion, issuing in sj-mpathy with, and compassion for, the
afflicted, — manifest all these towards me, in thsd ye make full my joy (fiov
rrfv xapdv)." Then, namely, I experience practically from you that
11 Cor. xiv. 3; Rom. xii, 8 ; Acts iv. 36, ix. Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J. B.
31, xiii. 15, XV. 31. Lightfoot, and Hofmann.
2 See generally Schaefer ad Bos. p. 492; s p]at. Xe^. vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. 880 A.
Lobeck ad PAnyn. p. 617 ; Jacobs ad .4cA. Tat. «Thuc.T.103; Theocr. xxiii. 7; Anth. Pal.
p^ 708. vii. 195, 1 ; Wisd. iii. 18 ; Esth. viii. 1,5; comp,
8 Hofmann erroneously makes the quite irapaiivOia, Plat, Axioch. p, 375 .\ : Luc, Nigr.
arbitrary distinction that irapanA. refers to 7; Ps, Ixv. 12; Wisd. xix. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 3.
the will, and napap.. to the feelings. The will, ' Michaelis, RosenmuUer, .am Ende, Baum-
feelings, and intellect are called into exercise garten-Crusius, de Wette, Hoelemann, Wies-
byboth. Comp., especially on ?rapa/ivO., Stall- inger, Hofmann, and others; Usteri and
baum, od Plat. Sep. p. 476 E ; PAoed. p. 70 B ; Rilliet mix up the two.
Muthyd. p. 272 B; Thuc. viii. 80, 1. 'See also on Col. iii. 12; comp. Luke i. 28;
4 With Calovius, Flatt, Matthies, de Wette, Tittmann, Synon, p. 68 £

62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Christian-brotherly exhortation,^ and share in your comfort of love, and so
ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the Spirit and the cordial
sympathy, which makes me not distressed, but glad in my painful posi
tion. — There is much that is mistaken in the views of those who defend
the reading n; before airX. (see van Hengel and Reiche), which cannot be
got rid of by the assumption of a constructio ad synesin (in opposition to
Buttmann, JS^eui. Gr. p. 71 [E. T. 81]). Hofmann is driven by this reading,
which he maintains, to the strange misinterpretation of the whole verse
as if it contained only protases and apodoses, to be thus divided : si n; oiv
irapaKXi/ai;, iv Xpiara' el n irapapvBiov, dydirr/;' el ri; Koivavla rrveiparo;, el ri;,
airXdyxva k. o'lKnppoi ; this last el n; being a repetition of the previous one with
an emphasizing of the el. Accordingly the verse is supposed to mean :
" If exhortation, let it be exhortation in Christ ; if consolation, let it be a
consolation of love ; if fellowship of the Spirit, if any, let it be cordiality
and compassion.'' A new sentence would then begin with ir?.vpuaaTs}
Artifices such as this can onlj- serve to recommend the reading el nva.
Ver. 2. The joy which Paul alreadj- feels in respect to the Philippians
(i. 4), they are to make full to him, like a measure (comp. John iii. 29,
XV. 11, xvii. 13; 1 John i. 4; 2 John 12; 2 Cor. x. 6). For the circum
stances of the case, comp. i. 9. The pov represents, as it very often does
in the N. T. (e.g. iv. 14; Col. iv. 18; Philem. 20), and in Greek authors,
the dative of interest. — 'iva] The mode in ivhich they are to make his joy
full is conceived in telic form, as that which is to be striven for in the action
of making full ; and in this aim of the irXvpovv the reg-ulative standard for
this activity was to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the rb airb
ippovelv in the imperative, and the rrXvpoiv rijv xapdv in the telic form ; but
the immediate relation to himself, in which he had conceived the whole
exhortation, induced him to place the irXvpovv r. x- in the foreground, —
rd airb (ppovijrs] denotes generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely
iln the application of the general ei tls would accordingly say ; "If any exhortation is
jrapaKATjo-ts ei- X., the subjects of this TTapafcA-yjo-is exhortation in Clirist, if any comfort is comfort
must, foUowingtheruleoftheother elements, of love, if any fellowship is fellowship of the
be the P'nilippians ; Paul (Wiesinger, comp. Spirit, if any (fellowship) is cordiality and
Ewald) cannot be conceived as the TrapaKaXOtv. compassion (that is, full of cordiality and com-
2 From this interpretation of the whole passion) fulfill ye," etc. The apostle would
passage he should have been deterred by the thus give to the element of the Kotvuivia, be-
forlorn position which is assigned to the et sides the objective definition of its nature
TIS before oivXayxva as the stone of stum- (n-yeu/xaTos, referring to the Holy Spirit), also
bling, as well as by the purposelessness and a subjective one (o-n-A. k. o'lKripp..), and mark the
even inappropriateness of an oddly empha- latter specially by the repetition of el tis sc.
sized pro6?emaitra^ sense of this el tls. — If it Kotvwi'ia,as well asdesignateitthemoreforci-
be thought that the reading ei tis cttA. must bly by the nominative expression (otrKayxva
be admitted, I would simply suggest the fol- k. oIkt., not another genitive), inasmuch as
lowing by way of necessary explanation of the latter would set forth the ethical nature of
the passage : — 1st, Let the verse be regarded such a Koti/uvia (comp. such passages as Rom.
as consisting of a series of four protases, on vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 17) in the form of a direct
which the apodosis then follows in ver. 2 ; 2d, predicate. The ei, moreover, would remain
Let ev Xpiarcp, ayamjs, irvevpiaros and oirKdy- uniformly the Syllogistic el in all the four
xva K. o'lKTipp-oL be taken uniformly as predU clauses, and not, as in Hofmann's view, sud-
cative specifications; 3d, Let Kotvuivia be denly change into the problematic sense iu
again understood with the last el Tts. Paul the fourth clause.

CHAP. II. 2, 3. 63
defined by the sequel here as identity of sentiment} Hoelemann interprets
TO aird as illud ipsum, that, namely, which was said in ver. 1, the rrapaKXvai;
iv X. down to o'lKTippoi. This is at variance with the context (see the fol
lowing .-. air. 'aydrr. and iv (ppov.), and Contrary to the wonted use of the
expression elsewhere (Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 2). — t^
avrijv dy. sx., a'vpiji. rb ev ippov.] Two more precise definitions of that like-
mindedness, so far as it is identity o/ (mutual) love, and agreement of feeling
and active impulse, sympathy (aiiprpvxoi, only found here in the X. T. ; but
see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on i. 27, also on 'ladfvxov, ver. 20). This
accumulation oi definitions indicates earnestness; Paul cannot sever himself
from the thought, of which his heart is so full.^ The following rb ev fpovovvre;
is to be closely connected with aiptli., so that aip^xoi has the emphasis
and adds the more precise definition of the previously mentioned unity of
mind : with harmony of soul cherishing the one sentiment. There are there
fore only two, and not three, special explanations of the rb avrb (ppovvrs ; and
ev with the articVi points back to the previous rb aird, which is now repre
sented by rb sv without any essential difference in sense. Expo.-^itors, not
attending to this close connection of avp^. with rb ev (ppov. (which AA'ie.sin-
ger, AVeiss, Ellicott, and Schenkel have acknowledged), have either made
the apostle say the very same thing tvdce over (Oecumenius : Snr?MaidC,si
rb dpoippovslv), or have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between rb aird
and rb sv <ppov. — e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the same
objects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same sentiment itself; Titt
mann, I. c, that the former is idem sentire, velle et quaerere, and the latter
in uno expetendo consentire ; Beza and others, that the former means the
agreement of unll, the latter the agreement in doctrine; while others put
it inversely; Hofmann thinks that sv with the article means the one
thing, on which a Christian must imvardly be bent (comp. Luke x. 42). It
means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been designated by
rb avrb ippavijTe (as in iv. 2 ; Rom. xii. 16 ; and other passages) ; the context
affords no other reference for the article. — It is usual, even in classical
authors, for the participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself,
in such a way that one of the two conveys a more precise specification.^
Ver. 3 f. [IX c] Jl^dew Kara ipiB. ij KfvwSof .] sc. (ppovovvrs; (not iroiovvrs;,
Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende, Rheinwald, Flatt,
van Hengel, and others) ; so that, accordingly, what was excluded by the
previous requirement rb airb ippov^rs . . . fpovovvrs;, is here described. To
take, as in Gal. v. 13, pvdiv . . . KevoSo^iav as a prohibition by itself, with
out dependence on tppovovvre; (see on Gal. /. c), as J. B. Lightfoot does, is
inappropriate, because the following participi.-il antithesis discloses the

1 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 67 ; Fritzsche, ad 2 Comp. Chrysost-om : fiafiai, woo-oKts to aiiTo
fiom. III. p. 87 f. ; comp. Herod, i. GO, ix. 54, KeyeiaTvo Sladea-euii n-oAA^s! He also well
and the passages inAVetstein. The opposite: remarks on t. avr. d-yan-. ex- '. rovreori o/xotus
ap-^is <pP', Hom, II. xiii, 345; aWji ijip., hymn. (^lAeif Kal 0tAet(rdat,
Ap. 469; ai^oifipoi'eiv, Plut, Mor. p. 7C3 E; 'See Stallb. ad Flat. Hipp. m. p. 292 A;
8lx^v,t]tii, Nonn. ev. Joh. xx. 29 ; and similar Bornemann, ad Cyrop. viii. 4. 9 ; Lobecic,
forms. Paral. p. 63'^ f.

64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
dependence of the pvdiv k.t.X. on the previous participle ; hence also Hof
mann's view, that there is an intentional leaving the verb open, cannot be
admitted, Hoelemann combines it with yyoip., and takes pvSev as neuti-
qiiam ; but incorrectly, for vyoip. k.t.?.. affirms the esteeming others better
than oneself, ^x\\ich, therefore, cannot take place in a factious (koto ipiBsiav,
see on i, 17) or in a vainglorious (v Ksvodo^lav) waj-. The Kara denotes that
which is regulative of the state of mind, and consequently its character, and
is exchanged in the antithetic parallel for the dative of the instniment : by
means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a generic
idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual brotherly humil
ity (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12; Acts xx. 19) is the dletermining principle, by
which, for example, Caius is moved to regard Lucius as standing higher,
in a moral point of view, than iiimself, and, on the other hand, Lucius to
pronounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself (;'. e.
dXXi/Xov; . . eavrav). Hoelemann erroneously refers rii rawsivoipp. to i-spix-,
so that it " excellentiae designet praesidium,'' — a view which the very jjost-
tion of the words should have warned him not to adopt. — Ksvodo^ia] ostenta
tion, onlj' here in the N. T.' — A'er. 4. pij rd eavrav eKaaroi okok.] [IX d.] The
humble mind just indicated cannot exist together with selfishness, which
has its own interests in view.'-' Others consider that the having regard to
gifts and merits is intended (Calvin, Hamniond, Raphel, Keil, Commented.
1803, in his Ojmsc. p. 172 ff., Hoelemann, Corn. Miiller), which, after the
comprehensive rii rarretvo(pp. K.r.X., would yield a very insipid limitation,
and one not justified by the context. — sKaoToi] It is usually, and in other
passages of the N. T. invariably, the singular that is used in this distribu
tive apposition ; the plural, however, is not unfrequently found in classical
authors.^ — aAAa Kal k.t.?.] a weaker contrast than we should have expected
from the absolute negation in the first clause ; * a softening modification
of the idea. In strict consistency the Kai must have been omitted (1 Cor.
X. 24).^ The second eKaaroi might have been dispensed with ; it is, how
ever, an earnest repetition. — The influences disturbing unity in Philippi, dis
closed in vv. 2-4, are not, according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal
kind, nor do they refer to the strength and iveakne.is of the knowledge and
conviction of individuals, as was the case in Rome (Rom. xiv.) and Corinth
(1 Cor. viii. and x.)— in opposition to Rheinwald and Schinz ; — but they
were based upon the jealousy of moral self -estimation, in which Christian
1 Comp. Wisd. xiv. 14; Polyb. iii. 81. 9 ; Luc- ii. 4, .38 ; Herodian, iii. 13, 14.
ian, D. Mort. a. 8, xx. i ; and see on Gal. v. 26. * In which, in fact, it is not merely the limit-
2 See instances of a-Koirelv tA Ttfos, to be ation (Hofmann) to one's own that is forbid-
mindful of any one's interests, in Herod, i. den, as if noi'oi' stood along with it. What
8; Plat Phaedr. p. 232 D; Thuc. vi. 12. 2; Hofmann at the same time deduces from the
Eur. Supp. 302, Comp. Lucian, Prom. 14; reading esao-Tos (before o-Kojroui/Tes), which he
ri.p.avToO p.6va cTKotrd. The opposite of tA follows, as distinguished ft-om the subsequent
eauTii- OK. may be seen in 2 Mace. iv. 5 : to 5e eKaaroi (with a here wholly irrelevant com-
(rvp.(l>epov KOLvrj . . . a-KOTrOiv. Comp, fijTeii/ ra p.arison of Plat. Apol. p. 39 A), is sophistical,
iavroii, 1 Cor. X, 24, 33, xiii, 5; Phil, ii, 21, and falls, moreover, with the reading itself.
where irireZv presents no essential difference 6 Comp. Soph. Aj. 1292 (131.3) ; 6pa p.^ roip.ov
m sense. aAAa Kal to oov ; and see Fritzsche, ad Marc
s Hom. Od. ix, 164 ; Thuc. i. 7. 1 ; Xen. Sell. p. 788 ; Winer, p. 463 f. [E. T. 498.]

CHAP. II. 4, 5.

65

perfection was respectively ascribed and denied to one another (comp.
ver. 12, iii. 12 ff.). Although this necessarily implies a certain difl'erence
of opinion as to the ethical theory, the epistle shows no trace either of any
actual division into factions, or of oscdic jealousy (which de AA'ette assumes
as cooperating). But the exhortations to unity are too frequent (i. 27,
ii. 2 f., iii. 15, iv. 2 f.) and too urgent to justify us in questioning generally
the existence (Weiss) of those disturbances of harmony, or in regarding
them as mere ill humor' and isolation disturbing the cordial fellowship of
Hfe (Hofmann).i [IX page 107.]
A'er. 5. Enforcement of the precept contained in ver. 3 f. by the example
of Jesus (comp. Rom. xv. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 21; Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of
humility, kept not His own interest in vieio, l«t in self-renunciation and
self-humiliation sacrificed it, even to the endurance of the death of the
cross, and was therefore exalted by God to the highest glory;' this ex
tends to ver, 12.' — ippovelaBa ev ip.] sentiatur in animis vestris. The parallel
ism with the iv which follows prohibits our interpreting it intra vestrum
caelum (Hoelemann, comp, ^latthies). The passive mode of expression is
unusual elsewhere, though logically unassailable, Hofmann, rejecting
the passive reading, as also the passive supplement afterwards, has sadly
misunderstood the entire passage.* — 8 Kal ev x. 'I.] sc. iippovyBv. On iv,

iComp. Huther, in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr.
1862, p. 640 ff.
2 Christ's example, therefore, in this passage
is one of self-denial, and not of obedience to
God (Ernesti), in which, in truth, the self-
denial only manifested itself along with other
things. It is, however, shown by the very
addition of xat, that Paul really intended to
adduce the example of Christ (in opposition
to Hofmann's view) ; eomp. Rom. xv. 3.
Christ's example is the moral ideal, histori
cally realized. Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. II.?
-2-24 ; Schmid, Sittenl. p, 355 ff, ; and as early as
Chrysostom, 'See on this passage Kesler in Thes.rwv. ex
mus. Sas. et Iken. II, p, 947 f ; Schultens,
Disscrtatt. philol. I, p. 443 ff, ; Keil, two Com-
mentat. 1803 (Opusc. p. 172 ff,) ; Martini, in
Gabler's Joum. f. auserl. theol. Lit. IV. p. 34
ff. ; von Ammon, Magaz. f. Pred. IL 1, p. 7 ff. ;
Kraussold in the Annal. d. gesammt. Theol.
1835, II. p. 273 ff.; Stein in the Stud. u. Krit.
1837, p. 165 ff. ; Philippi, d. thatige Gehors. Chr.
Berl. 1841, p. 1 ff. ; Tholuck, Disp. Otristol. de
I. Phil. ii. 6-9, Halle 1848 ; Ernesti in the Stud.
u. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff., and 1851, p. 695 ff. ;
Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 502 ff., and
1852, p. 133 ff., and in his Paulus, II. p. 51 ff.
ed. 2; Mebner, CTiristoi. p. 325 ff. ; Raebiger,
Christol. Paulin. p. 76 ff. ; Lechler, Apost. u.
nachapost. Zeitalt. p, 58 ff. ; Sehneckenburger
in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 3.33 ff. ; Wetzel
in the Monatschr.f. d. Luth. Kirche Preuss.
5

1S57 ; Kahler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 99
fF. ; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p.
431 ff, and his Christol. d. N. T. 1866, p. 233 ff. ;
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 1870, p. 1C3 ff ;
J. B. Lightfoot's Excursus, p. 125 ff ; Pflei-
derer in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871, p. 519 ff ;
Grimm in the same Zeitschr. 1873, p. 33 flF.
Among the more recent dogmatic writers,
Thomasius, II. p. 148 ff ; Philippi, IV. 1, p.
469 ff ; Kahnis, I. p. 458 ff.
* Reading ^povelre, and subsequently ex-
pl.-^ining the ei/ Xpta-Tto 'Irja-ov as a frequent
expression with Paul for the ethical Christian
quality (Uke ei'Kupiw in iv. 2), Hofmann makes
the apostle say that the readers are to have
their mind so directed' within them^ that it shall
not he lacking in this definite quality which
makes it Christian. Thus there would be
evolved, when expressed in simple words,
merely the thought ; " Have in you the mind
which is also the Christian one.*' As if the
grand outburst, which immediately follows,
would be in harmony with such a general
idea I This outburst has its very ground in
the lofty example of the Lord. And what,
according to Hofmann's view, is the purpose
of the significant Kat? It would be entirely
loithout correlation in the text ; for in ei- i/fiiv
the ev would have to be taken as local, and in
the ev Xpio-Tw, according to that misinterpre
tation, it would have to be taken in the sense
ot ethical fellowship^ and thus relations not nt
aU analogous would be marked.

66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
comp. the Homeric evl (ppeal, evl Bvpip, which often occurs with ppovelv, Od.
xiv. 82, vi. 313 ; II. xxiv. 173. Kai is not eum maxime, but the simple also
of the comparison (in opposition to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern
of Christ.
Ver. 6. [On vv. 6-11, see Note X. pages 107-111.] The classical passage
which now follows is like an JSpos in calm majestic objectivity ; nor does
it lack an epic minuteness of detail. — '6;] epexegetical ; subject of what
follows ; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the pre-human state, in which
He, the Son of God, and therefore according to the Johannine expression
as the X6yo; daapKo;, was with God.' The human state is first introduced by
the words iav-dv iKivaas in ver, 7,^ It has been objected* that the name
Christ Jesus is opposed to this view ; also, that in vv. 8-11 it is the exalta
tion of the earthly Christ that is spoken of (and not the return of the
Logos to the divine dd^a) ; and that the earthly Christ only could be held
up as a pattern. But Xpiarb; 'Ivaov;, as subject, is all the more justly used
(comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 14 ff. ; 1 Cor. x. 4), since the sub
ject not of the pre-human glory alone, but at the same time also of the
human abasement' and of the subsequent exaltation, was to be named.
Paul joins on to o; the ivhole summary of the history of our Lord, includ
ing His pre-human state (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 : errraxevas irXoiaio; av) ; there
fore w, 8-11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as regards the defi
nition of the subject; and the force of the example, which certainly comes
first to light in the historical Christ, has at once historically and ethically
its deepest root in, and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matt. v.
48 ; Eph. V. 1), obligation from, just what is said in ver, 6 of His state
before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context introduces the
incarnation only at ver, 7, and introduces it as that by which the subject
divested Himself of His divine appearance, and as the earthly Jesus
never was in the form of God (comp, Gess, p, 295), it is incorrect, because
at variance with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran

1 That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-exist- Zanchius, -Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius,
ence was already the eternal Principle and Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraus-
Prototype of humanity (as is urged by Bey- sold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Muller, and
schlag), is self-evident; for otherwise He most expositors, including Lunemann, Tho-
would have been one essentially different luck, Liebner, Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thoma-
from Him who in the fullness of time ap- sius, Raebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis, Bey-
peared in the flesh. But this does not entitle schlag (18S0), Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p,
us to refer the pre-existenoe to His whole 306, Messner, Lehre d. Ap. 233 f,, Lechler,
dlvine-huma n person, nr\d to spenk of a.n eternal Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 f.. Rich, Schmidt,
humanity, — paradoxes which cannot exegeti- I.e., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm ; eomp. also Hof-
cally be justified by our passage and other ma,nn and Diisterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. III.
expressions such as 1 Cor. xv. 47; Rom. v. 12 p. 65 ff.
S., viii. 29; Col. i. 15. The Logos pre-existed sgee especially de Wette and Philippi, also
as the dttiine principle and diuine prototype of Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrb. f. D.
humanity ; @e'oi ^v 6 A0705, and this, apart Th. 1856, p. 394 f.
from the form of expression, is also the * Hence Philippi's objection, that (f>poi/eri' is
teaching of Paul. Only in time could He elsewhere applied to man only, and not to
enter upon the human existence; the notion God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded
¦of eternal humanity would refute itself. is also Beyschlag's objection (1866) drawn
« So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, from the word a-x^iiari. ; see below.

CHAP. II. 6. 67
orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos,' to regard the
incarnate historical Christ, the Xoyo; ivaapKo;, as the subject meant by of.'
Liebner aptly observes that our passage is "the Pauline 6 X6yo; aap^ iyivsro;"
comp. on Col. i. 15. — sv popipy Bsov irrapxav] not to be resolved, as usually,
into "although, etc.," which could only be done in accordance with the
context, if the apiraypov vyslaBai k.t.X. could be presupposed as something
proper or natural to the being in the form of God ; nor does it indicate
the possibility of His divesting Himself of His divine appearance (Hof
mann), which was self-evident ; but it simply narrates the former divinely
glorious position which He afterwards gave up : when He found Himself in
the form of God, by which is characterized Christ's pre-human form of
existence. Then He was forsooth, and that objectively, not merely in
God's self-consciousness — ^as the not yet incarnate Son (Rom, i. 3, 4, viii, 3;
Gal. iv, 4), according to John as Xoyo; — with God, in the fellowship of the
glory of God (comp, John xvii, 5), It is this divine glory, in which He
found Himself as laa QsCi uv and also s'lKiiiv Qeov — as such also the instru
ment and aim of the creation of the world. Col, i. 15 i. — and into which,
by means of His exaltation. He again returned ; so that this divine dd^a,
as the possessor of which before the incarnation He had, without a body
and invisible to the eye of man,* the form of God, is now by means of
His glorified body and His divine-human perfection -visibly possessed by
Him, that He may appear at the irapovala, not again without it, but in and
with it (iii. 20 f,), jComp. 2 Cor, iv, 4; Col, i. 15, iii. 4. Mopfv, therefore,
which is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine dd^a (comp.
Justin, Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne of God, and not a
" fanciful expression " (Ernesti), is neither equivalent to ipiai; or oiaia;* nor
to status:' nor is it the god-like capacity for possible equality with God
(Beyschlag), air interpretation which ought to have been precluded both
by the literal notion of the word pop<pv, and by the contrast of popipij doiXxiv
in ver. 7. But the popf^ Qeov presupposes^ the divine (piai; as dpdaroXa;

^ According to which Christ had the full Beyschlag (1866), Dqrner, and others ; see the
divine majesty "statim in sua conceptione, historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., and J.
etiam in utero matris " (Form. Cone. p. 767). B. Lightfoot
But He had it in His state of humiliation 3 Comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655.
secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, * Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, The-
quoties ipsi visum fuerit. In opposition to ophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many
this, Liebner rightly observes, p. 334 : "This others; comp. also Rheinwald and Corn.
is altogether inadequate to express the pow- Miiller. * Calovius, Storr, and others.
crful N. T. feeling of the depth and greatness "Bengel well says: "Ipsa natura divina
of our Lord's humiliation. This feeling decorem habebat infinitum, in se, etiam sine
unmistakably extends to the unique per- ulla creatura ilium decorem intuente."-.-
sonal essence of the God-man, and in con- What Paul here designates simply by ev
formity with this, to the very heart of the act juopi^?) ©eoiJ inrapxt^v is pompously expressed
of incarnation itself." by Clement, Cor. 1. 16 : to trKriTrrpov t^? ixeyoj-
2 Novatian, de Trin. 17^ Ambrosiaster, Pela- Afcxru'i^j? tou @eov. The forma mentis aeterna,
gius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron, however, in Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception
Piscator, Hunnius, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, utterly foreign to our passage (although ad-
Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and others, includ- duced here by Hitzig), and of similar import
ing Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hen- with Propertius, iii. 1, 64 : " ingenio stat sine
gel, de Wette, Sehneckenburger, Philippi, morte decus."

68 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
pop<pv; (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the divine status,
namely, as form of being, corresponding to the essence, consequently to
the homoousia, and exhibiting the condition, so that pop^ij Qeov finds its
exhaustive explanation in Heb. i. 3 : airavyaapa rrj; dd^vc ". xopoKTvp
rrj; iKoardaea; rov Qeov, this, however, being here conceived as predi
cated of the pre-existent Christ.' AMiat is here called popipv Qeov is
sldo; Qsov in John v. 37,^ which the Son also essentially possessed in
His pre-human <56fa (John xvii. 5). The explanation of (piai; was
promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a number
of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in triumph ; hence,
also, there is much polemical matter in them. For the later controversy
with the Socinians, see Calovius. — virdpxav] designating more expressly
than iiv the relation of the subsisting .state (iii. 20 ; Luke vii. 25, xvi. 23 ; 2
Pet. iii. 11) ; and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in the
divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of the pre-human
existence. See above on o;. Those who understand it as referring to His
human existence (comp. John i. 14) think of the divine majesty, which
Jesus manifested both by word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus,
Heinrichs, Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and others), especially by His miracles
(Grotius, Clericus) ; while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest that the
transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would be more in harmony
with the context to understand the possession of the complete di'vine image
(without arbitrarily limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral
attributes alone, as de Wette and Sehneckenburger do) — a possession
which Jesus (" as the God-pervaded man," Philippi) had {potentialiter) from
the very beginning oi His earthly life, but in a latent manner, without
manifesting it. This view, however, would land them in difficulty "with
regard to the following savr. iKsvaae k.t.X., and expose theni to the risk of
inserting limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of the passage ;
see below. — ovx apiraypov fiyrjaaro ro sivai laa Qsa] In order tO the right
explanation, it is to be observed : (1) that the emphasis is placed on dpiray-
piv, and therefore (2) that ro elvai laa Qea cannot be something essentially
different from iv poptp^ Qeov iirdpxeiv, but must in substance denote the same
thing, namely, the divine habitus of Christ, which is expressed, as to its
form of appearance, by 'ev popipy Qeov i-apx-, and, as to its internal nature, by
TO elvai laa Qea ; ' (3) lastly, th'a,taprrayu6; does not mean praeda, or that which
1 In Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C, Mopi^^ is also to be Paul would, instead of to eti/ai lira ©ew, have
taken strictly in its literal signification, and written merely toOto, or even nothing at all.
not less so in Eur. Bacch. 54; Ael. //. A. iii. He might have done so, but there was no
24; Jos. li. Ap. ii. 16, 22. Comp. also Eur. necessity for his taking that course, least of
Bacch. 4: i^op<p'r}v a/ieii//as eK 0eoO ^porrialav, all for Paul! He, on the contrary, distin-
Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2: i^uo-ii. ij.ir Sri T^! 'pvxfis K. guishes very precisely and suitably between
t^s (iop<fi^s, the two ideas representing the same state, by
2 Comp, Plat, Sep. p. 380 D ; Plut. Mor. p, saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human
1013 C, form of life, did not venture to use this his God-
8 An entirely groundless objection has been equal being for making booty. Both, there-
made (even by Liinemann) against the view fore, express the very same divine habitus;
which takes to elvai la-a 06(2 as not essentially but the elvai i<ra ©etp is the general element,
different from ev liopipH ©eoi/ elvai, viz, that which presents itself in the divine (xopcfi^ as

CHAP. II. 6. 69
is seized on (which would be dpirdyipov,^ or dpiraypa or apiraapa, and might
also be dpirayv), or that which one forcibly snatches to himself (Hofmann and
older expositors) ; but actively : robbing, making booty. In this sense,
which is a priori probable from the termination of the word which usually
serves to indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane
pass.age in which it is extant, Plut, de pueror. educ. 15 {Mor. p, 12 A) : Kal
rov; piv Qijjiriai Kal roii; * 'RXldi (pevKTSov ipara; Kal rbv iK Kpvrv; KaXovpevov dpiray-
p6v, where it denotes the Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly
to be explained : Not as a robbing did He consider'' the being equal urith God,
i. e. He did not place it under the point of view of inaking booty, as if it
was, with respect to its exertion of activity, to consist in His seizing what
did not belong to Him,. In opposition to Hofmann's earlier logical objec
tion {Schriftbew. I. p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a doing,
comp. 1 Tim. vi. 5 ; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recognized
the linguistically correct explanation oi dpiraypa;, but leaves the object of
the dpirdt^siv indefinite, though the latter must necessarily be something
that belongs to others, consequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise
than in the active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I.
p. 25 (in Wetstein) : ovx apiraypov ' r^ irapatrvaiv a; i^ ddpavov; Kal idapsaripa;
eiroislro ippsvd; ; further, Eus. in Luc. vi. in Mai's Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165,
and the passage in Possini Cat. in Marc, x, 42, p, 233, from the Anonym.
Tolos. : on OVK ianv dpiraypo; v ripr/ ; * as also the entirely synonymous form
dpiraapd; in Plut, Mor. p. 644 A, and Xv'iapd; in Byzantine writers; also
aKvX.svu6; in Eustathius; comp. Phryn, App. 36, where dprraypd; is quoted as
equivalent to dpiraai;. The passages which are adduced for dpiraypa vyeiaBai
or iroielaBal n (Hehod. vii. 11, 20, viii, 7 ; Eus, H E. viii, 12 ; Vit. C. ii, 31)
— comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic. Verr. v. 15 ; Justin, ii, 5, 9, xiii, 1.
8) — do not fall under the same mode of conception, as they represent the
relation in question as something made a booty of, and not as the act of
making booty. Vi'e have still to notice (1) that this ovx apiraypov vyvaaro
corresponds exactly to pv rd iavrov oKoirovvre; (ver, 4), as well as to its con
trast eavrov sKsvaas in ver. 7 (see on ver. 7) ; and (2) that the aorist vyr/aaro,
indicating a definite point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connec
tion (see the contrast, dXX' iavrov iKivaas k.t.X.), transports the reader te thai
moment, when the pre-existing Christ was on the point of coming into the world
with the being equal to God. Had He then thought : " When I shall have
come into the world, I will seize to myself, by means of my equality with
God, power and dominion, riches, pleasure, worldly glory," then He would
have acted the part of dpiraypbv VyeiaBai TO eivai laa QtCi ; to which, however.
He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-renunciation,
etc. It is accordingly self-e-vident that the supposed case of the dpiraypS;
its substratum and lies at its basis, so that the point of view of a qualitative category, comp.
two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Kriigor on Thuc. ii. 44. 3.
Comp. also Liebner, p. 328. 'Lot did not let the refusal of the angels
1 Callim. Cer. 9 ; Pallad. ep. 87 ; Philop. 79. be a making of profit to himself.
SQn rf/eldeai, in this sense of the mode of * Where, according to the connection, the
regarding, which places the object under the sense is : Not a seizing to oneself is the posi-

70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
is not conceived as an action of the pre-existing Christ (as Eichard Schmidt
objects), but is put as connecting itself with His appearance on earth.
The reflection, of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage,
represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God (see below,
yevdp. i-rjKoo;), although the apostle has only conceived it as an abstract
possibility and expressed it in an anthropopathic mode of presentation, is
decisive in favor of the personal pre-existence ; but in this pre-existence
the Son appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout the
entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag objects) at
variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in the Biblical sense. By
the dp-aypbv i/yeiaBai k.t.X., if it had taken place, He would have wished to
relieve Himself from this subordination. — The linguistic correctness and
exact apposite correlation of the w-hole of this explanation, which harmo
nizes with 2 Cor. viii. 9,' completely exclude the interpretation, which is
traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite incapable of proof, that
dp-aypd;, either in itself or by metonymy (in which van Hengel again
appeals quite inappropriately to the analogy of Jas. i. 2, 2 Pet. iii, 15),
means praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation of dpiraypo;, the
idea of elvai laa Ofu has either been rightly taken as practically identical
with 'sv popipy Qsov iirdpxeiv. Or not. (A) In the former case, the point of
comparison of the figurative praeda has been very differently defined;
either, that Christ regarded the existence equal -with God, not as a some
thing usurped and illegitimate, but as something natural to Him, and that,
therefore. He did not fear to lose it through His humiliation (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and other Fathers; see ^^'etsteul
and J, B, Lightfoot) ; comp, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others, who, how
ever, give to the conception a different turn ; ^ or, that He did not desire

tion of honor, as among the heathen, but a pedantic, but is simply linguistically demanded.
renouncing and serving after the example of Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 426, ed, 2, erroneously
Christ. objects to our view of ap7ra-y/x6s, that, in that
1 Riibiger and Wetzel, and also Pfleiderer, case, it would be impossible to conceive of
I. c, have lately adopted this view ; likewise any object, and that thus an utterly empiy
Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. antithesis to the giving up of Christ's own
Hofmann also now explains the passage in a possession is the result. As if there were
way not substantially different. But Grimm, not given in the very notion of ipirayndt its
I. c. p. 38, very unjustly describes the reten- object, viz. that which does not belong to the
tion of ipi-a-i/nd; in the sense which it has in subject of the action, and this, indeed, in its
Plutarch, as petty grammatical pedantry. unrestricted and full compass, just because
The ideas, spoil, booty, occur in countless nothing special is added as an object.
instances in all Greek authors, and in the 2 Beza: "Non ignoravit, se in ea re (i.e.
LXX., and are very variously expressed quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) nullam in-
{apirayrt, aprrayiia, Hpnacri^a, At)15, ITKiiKevpua, juriam Cuiquam faCere, sed SUO jUrC Utl;
<rv\ov, \eia), but never by apiray/xos, or any nihilominus tamen quasi jure suo cess'd." So
other form of word ending with /xos. It is also Calvin, substantially, only that he erro-
true that various substantives ending in not neously interprets ny^traro as arbitratus esset,
may denote the result of the action ; not, " Xon fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo appar-
however, as we may be pleased to assume, uisset." Estius : " that He had not recog-
but solely in accordance with evidence of nized the equality with God as an usurped
empirical usage, and this is just what is want- possession, and therefore possibly desired to
ing for this sense in the case of apnaypd^. lay it aside, but had renounced Himself,"
Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not etc.

CHAP. n. 6. 71
periinaeumsly to retain for Himself this equality -with God, as a robber his
booty, or as an unexpected gain ; ' or, that He did not conceal it, as a
prey;^ or, that He did not desire to display it triumphantly, as a con
queror his spoils^; whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but also
Usteri and several) mix up very various points of comparison. The very
circumstance, however, that there exists so much divergence in these
attempts at explanation, shows how arbitrarily men have endeavored to
supply a modal definition for dprr. vyva., which is not at all suggested by the
text. — (B) In the second case, in which a distinction is made between rb
slvai laa Oeu and 'ev popipy Qeov iirdpxeiv, it is explained : non rapinam duxit,
i. e. non rapiendum sibi duxit, or directly, non rapuit ; * that Christ, namely,
though being iv pop^y Qeoii, did not desire to seize to Himself the elvai laa
Qea, to grasp eagerly the possession of it.= In this view expositors have
understood the laa elvai ecu as the di-vine plenitudinem et altitudinem (Ben
gel) ; the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos) ; the divine honor (Cocceius, Stein,
de Wette, Grau) ; the vitam vitae Dei aequalem (van Hengel) ; the existendi
modum cum Deo aequalem (Liinemann); the coli et beate vivere ut Deus
(Krause) ; the dominion on earth as a visible God (Ewald) ; the di-vine
autonomy (Ernesti) ; the heavenly dignity and gloi-y entered on after the
ascension (Raebiger, comp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag, Weiss), cor
responding to the ovopa TO iirip irdv ovopa in ver. 9 (Rich. Schmidt) ; the
nova jura dimna, consisting in the Kvpwrv; irdvrav (Briickner) ; the divine
do^a oi universal adoration (Sehneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner) ;
the original blessedness of the Father (Kahnis); indeed, even the identity

1 Ambrosiaster, Castalio, "Vatablus, Kesler, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt, Rheinwald.
and others; aud recently, Hoelemann, Tho- To this belongs also Pelagius, "Quod erat,
luck, Reuss, Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, humilitate ce^avif, dans nobis exemplum, ne
Gess, Messner, Grimm; comp. also Usteri, p. in his ffZortewiur, quae forsitan non habemus,"
314. In this class we must reckon the inter- 4 Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Eisner, Clericus,
pretation of Theodoret (comp. Origen, ad Bengel,andmany others, including am Ende,
Rom.v.2, X. 7, Eusebius, and others); that Martini, Krause, Opusc. p. 31, Schrader, Stein,
Christ, being God by nature, did not hold His Rilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de
equality with God as something specially Wette, Ernesti, Raebiger, Sehneckenburger,
great, as those do who attain to honors nap' Ewald, Weiss, Schenkel, Philippi, Thomasius,
a^iav; but that He, ttji- iflav KaraKpvil/at, Beyschlag, Kahnis, Rich. Schmidt, and
chose humiliation. To this comes also the others.
view of Theodore of Mopsuestia: m<>p<(>'I>' y^P *So also Liinemann, who, in the sense of
fiovXou Aa)3uf rnv a^iav eKelvriv a.weKpv>pev, rovro the divine pre-existence of Christ, para-
Toi? optocrti/ elvai vo^t^djtteco?, oirep eiftaiveTo. — phrasesthus: " Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde
Tholuck compares the German expression: dignitate creatoris et domini rerum omnium
als ein gefundenes Essen (einen guten Fund) frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnifi-
ansehen. According to him, the idea of the centia eorum patre eonsideret, nihilo tamen
whole passage i.s," Tantum aberatjUt Christus, minus baud arripiendum sibi esse autumabat
quatenus Adyo? est, in gloria atque beatitate existendi modum eum Deo aequalem, sed
sua acquiesoeresibique soli placere vellet, ut ultro se exinanivit." In a sense opposed to
amore erga mortales ductus servi formam the divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag
induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine says, Christol. p. 236 f. : " Christ possessed the
ulla haesitatione sustineret. (top.jiij ©eoS (that is, ' the inner form of God ') ;
2 Matthies. He might have but stretched out His hand
sLuther, Erasmus, Cameron, -Vatablus, Pis- towards the lo-a ©eu e'^/ai; He disdained,
cator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and however, to seize it for Himself, and chose
manyothers, including Michaelis, Zachariae, quite the opposite; therefore it was given

72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIAJTS.
with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), and the like, which is to
sustain to the popipv Oeov the relation of a plus, or something separable, or
only to be obtained at some future time by humiliation and suffering' (ver.
9), So, also, Sabatier, l' apotre Paul, 1870, p, 223 ff.^ In order to meet the
oi;i; dpir. vy. (comparing Matt, iv, 8 ff,), de Wette (comp. Hofmann, Schrift-
bew. p, 151) makes the thought be supplied, that it was not in the aim of
the work of redemption befitting that Christ should at the very outset
receive divine honor, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have
been a seizure, an usurpation. But as iv popipfi Oeov iir. already involves
the divine essence,' and as laa elvai Qea has no distinctive more special
definition in any manner climactic (comp, Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has
estimated this whole mode of explanation very justly : el vv Qsd;, -n-wf slxsv
dpirdaai ; Kal ira; ovk direptvovrov rovro ; rl; ydp av eliroi, 'on 6 dslva dvBpairo; oiv
ovx ijpiraae rb elvai dvBparro; ; ira; ydp dv n; b ire p iarlv, dpir da sie v. Moreover,
in harmony with the thouglit and the state of the case, Paul must have
expressed himself conversely: b; laa Qea iirdpxav ovx opir. ijy. rb elvai iv
popipfi Oeov, so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature (laa), by way
of climax, that of the same form of appearance {popfr/), of the divine dd^a
also, — With respect to ro elvai laa Oeu, it is to be observed, (1) that laa is
adverbial : in like manner, as we fitid it, although less frequently, in Attic
writers,* This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment,
even so early as Homer, ^ of laa as the case of the object or predicate,^
But as eivai, as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial
laa, pari ratione, therefore (2) to elvai must be taken in the sense of existere ;
so that rb elvai laa Qsa does not mean the being equal to God (which would
be rb slvai laov Qsa), but the God-equal existence, existence in the waj' of
parity with God,' Paul might have written laov (as mascuL) Qea (John
v. 18), or 'ladBsov ; but, as it stands, he has more distinctly expressed the
metaphysical relation, the divine mode of existence,^ of the pre-human Christ,
(3) The article points back to ev yopipfi Qeov iirdpxav, denoting the God-equal
Him as the reward of His obedience, etc," lement par le libre dSveloppement de sa vie
Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 197 f., morale."
says: the Pauline Christ is indeed the heav- 3 Not merely the simi(art(i/, from which is
enly man, but no divine being ; the equality there distinguished the equality by etrai lo-a
with Ood was attained by Him only through (in opposition to Martini and others).
the renunciation, ete. 4 Thuc. iii, 14; Eur, Or. 880 al. ; eomp.
1 The lead in this mode of considering i>p.ola, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108, and often in
the passage was taken by Arius, who.se the later Greek, and iu the LXX. Job v. 14, x.
party, on the ground of the proposition Uelvo 10, xi. 12, xiii. 12; Wisd. vii. 3, according to
apTTa^ei Tt9, o oiiK exei, declared : OTt ©eos Civ the usual reading.
ekarriav oux T]pTrafje TO elvai ica Ttp ©cw tw ^11. v. 71, XV. 439; Od. xi. 304, XV. 519 al.
/ie-yiXo) K.p.eiiovi. See Chrysostom. «See Ellendt, iex. Soph. I. -p. S¥i ; Kriiger,
2 He thinks that the divine /iop^i) of Christ II. § xlvi. 6. 8.
stands to the io-a e'vai %eS, in the relation of [' The German is : nicht das Gotte gleich

tia to actus. " Christ Halt des Torigine sein, sondern das gottgleiche Sein, das Sein auf
en puissance ce qu' fi la fin il devint en rialiti ;" gottgleiche Weise, die gottgleiche Existenz.]
the iiop4:'ri ©eoC denotes the general form of 8 Which, therefore, was not essentially dif-
being of Christ, but "une forme vide, qui ferent from that of the Father. The io-n jTi-iii
doit fitrS remplie, c'est-ft-dire spirituellement ©eu is the Pauline 0«oi V 6 Ad-yo?. Hofmann
realisSe." This higher position He had not erroneously, although approved by Thoma-
wished to usurp, but had attained to it " rSel- sius, makes the objection (Schriftbew. p. 150)

CHAP. II. 7. 73
existence inanifesting itself in that popipv ; for the popipij Qeov is the appearance,
the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal existence. (4) Ernesti (in
controversy with Ba,ur), who is followed by Kahler, Kahnis, Beyschlag,
and Hilgenfeld, entertains the groundless opinion that our passage
alludes to Gen. ii. f., the laa elvai Qsa pointing in particular to Gen, iii, 5.
In the text there is no trace' of any comparison of Christ with the first
human beings, not even an echo of hke expression; how different
from the equality with God in our passage is the eaeaBe a; Beoi in Gen.
iii. 5! Certainly, any such comparison lay very remote from the
sublime idea of the divine glory of the pre-existent Christ, which was
something quite different from the image of God in the first human
beings.^ Ver. 7. 'A^A' iavrbv iKivaas] The emphatically prefixed iavrdv is correla
tive to the likewise emphatic dpiraypdv 'in ver. 6. Instead of the dpirdi;eiv,
by which he would have entered upon a foreign domain. He has, on the
contrary, emptied Himself, and thiit, as the context places beyond doubt,
of the divine popipv, which He possessed but now exchanged for a popipv
doiXov; He renounced the divine glorious form which, prior to His incar
nation, was the form of appearance of His God-equal existence, took
instead of it the form of a servant, and became as a man. Those who
have already taken ver. 6 as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on b;,
ver. 6) are at once placed in a difficulty by 'sKivaae, and explain away its
simple and distinct literal meaning. ^ De Wette, in accordance with his
distinction between popipv Qsov and elvai laa Gfu (comp. Sehneckenburger,
p. 336), referring it only to the latter (so also Corn. Miiller, Philippi, Bey- ,
schlag, and others), would have this elvai laa Geu meant merely in so far as
it would have stood in Jesus' power, not in so far as He actually possessed it,
so that the iavr. eKiv. amounts only to a renunciation of the elvai laa Oeu,
which He might have appropriated to Himself; while others, like Grotius,
alter the signification of Kevovv itself, some making it mean : He led a life
of poverty (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and otliers : depressit (van Hen
gel, Corn. Miiller, following Tittmann, Opusc. p. 6-42 f., Keil, comp,
that an existence equal to divine existence to guide the readers. — The passages quoted
can only be predicated of Him, who is not by Hilgenfeld from the Clementine Homilies
God. It may be predicated also of Him who affirm the /aop^tj ©eoO of the body of man, and
is not the very same person, but of equal are therefore irrelevant.
divine nature. Thus it might also be asserted '' Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, p. 172 ; Grimm,
of the Holy Spirit The appeal by Hofmann p. 42 f.
to Thuc. iii. 14 is here without any bearing ^ As, for instance, Calvin: " supprimendo . . .
whatever. deposuit;" Calovius (comp. Form. Cone, pp,
1 Ritschl indeed also, Altkath. Kirche, p, 80, 608, 707) : "veluti (?) deposuit, quatenus eam
requires, for the understanding of our pass- (gloriam div.) non perpetuo manifestavit atque
age, a recognition that Christ, as ev ii.optpfl exseruit;" Clericus: "non magis en usus est,
©eov iiTTapxi^v, is put in comparison with the quam si ea destitutus fuisset:" comp. Quen-
earthly Adam. But why should Paul, if this stedt. Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Rheinwald, and
coinparison was before hia mind, not hsive manyothers. Beyschlag also finds expressed
written, in accordance with Gen. i, 26, Kar' here merely the idea of the self-denial exer-
e'lKova ©., or Ka$' bp-oliadiv ©., instead of ev cised on principle by Christ in His earthly
fiopiJ>!5 0. ? This would have been most natural life, consequently substituting the N. T, idea
for himself, and would also have been a hint of airapi'eia-Sat eauTdi'.

74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine: "Non amittens quod
erat, sed accipiens quod non erat ; forma servi accessit, non forma Dei
discessit." But iKevaae means nothing but exinanivit (Vulgate),' and is
here purposely selected, because it corresponds with the idea of the dprraypd;
(ver. 6) all the more, that the latter also falls under the conception of
Kevovv (as emptying of that which is affected by the dpiraypo; ; comp. LXX.
Jer. XV. 9 ; Plat. Rep. p. 560 D ; Ecclus. xiu, 5, 7), The specific reference
of the meaning to making poor (Grotius) must have been suggested by the
conte-xt (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Ecclus. /. c), as if some such expression as
'ev irXovTa Qeov iirapx- had been previously used. Figuratively, the renun
ciation of the divine popipy might have been described as a putting it off
(iKdvsaBai). — The moi'e precise, positive definition oi the mode in which He
emptied Himself, is supplied by popipf/v doiXov Xapav, and the latter
then receives through 'ev dp, dvBp. ysvdpevo; koI ax'iip. eip. a; dvBp. its specifica
tion of mode, correlative to elvai laa Ofu. This specification is not co-or
dinate (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate
to popipf/v dovX. Xa(3av, hence no connecting particle is placed before iv 6p.,
and no punctuation is to be placed before koI axnpan, but a new topic is to
be entered upon with eraireivaaev in ver. 8 (comp. Luther). The division, by
which a stop is placed before koI axvpari . . . dvBpairo;, and these words are
joined to irairelvaasv k.t.X.'' is at variance with the purposely-chosen
expressions axvpan and sipeBsl;, both of which correspond to the idea of
popipv, and thereby show that /i. ax- eip. a; dvBp. is still a portion of the
modal definition oi popipyv doijXov ?.ajidv. Nor is the ax'iip. sip. a; dvBp. some
thing following the Ksvaai; (Grimm), but the empirical appearance, which
was an integral part of the manner in which the act of self-emptying was
completed. Besides, irairsivaaev iavrov has its own more precise definition
following ; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of structure
in the two statements, governed respectively by iavrbv eKevaae and erairslv-
aasv iavrdv, would be unnecessarily disturbed. This applies also in oppo
sition to Hofmann, who (comp, Grotius) even connects iv opuiapan dvBp.
yevop. with eraireivaaev iavrdv, whereby no less than three participial defini
tions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann discovers in iv
dpoiapan k.t.X, a second half of the relative sentence attached to Xpiara
'Ivaov, it is at variance with the fact, that Paul does not by the interven
tion of a particle (or by b; koI, or even by the bare of) supply any warrant
for such a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily,
simply to support the scheme of thought which Hofmann groundlessly
assumes : (1) that Jesus, when He was in the divine popipv, emptied Himself;
1 See Rom, iv, 14 ; 1 Cor, i, 17, ix, 15 ; 2 Cor, reduce the idea of the /te^-uo-is merely to that
ix. 3; and the passages in the LXX. cited by of the renunciation of the appearance of ma-
Schleusner; Plat. Cone. p. 197 0, ieep. p. 500 D, jcsty, which would have been befitting the
Phil. p. 35 E ; Soph. 0. E. 29 ; Eur. Ehes. 914 ; divine form and parity, this inner greatness
Thuo. viii. 57. 1 ; Xen. Dec. 8. 7. Comp. Hasse and dignity of Jesns Christ.
in the Jahrb f. Deutsclie Tlieol. 1S5S, p. 394 f, 2 Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others; in-
(in opposition to Dorner's reference of the eluding Hoelemann, Billiet, van Hengel,
idea to that of e^oveevelv). Dorner, in the Lachmann, Wiesinger, Ewald, Rich, Schmidt
same Jahrb. 1856, p, 395, is likewise driven to J. B, Lightfoot, Grimm.

CHAP. II. 7. 75
and (2) when He had become man, humbled Himself.' — yopipyv dovX,ov Xapdiv]
so that He took slave-form, now making this lowly form of existence and
condition His own, instead of the divine form, which He had hitherto pos
sessed. How this was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist participle
denotes, not what was previous to the iavr. 'sksv., but what was contemporor
neous with it. See on Eph, i, 9. So also do the two following participles,
which are, however, subordinated to the popipyv doiXov Xajidv, as definitions
of manner. That Paul, in the word doiXov, thought not of the relation of
one serving in general (with reference to God and men, Matthies, Rhein
wald, Rilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or that of a servant of
others, as in Matt, xx. 28 (Sehneckenburger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236,
following Luther and others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the
will of another (Plofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Acts iii. 13 ; Isa.
lii.), as is self-evident from the relation to God described in ver. 6, is plain,
partly from the fact that subsequently the assumption of the slave-form is
more precisely defined by ev opoiap. dvBp. yevdp. (which, regarded in itself,
puts Jesus only on the same line with inen, but in the relation of service
towards God), and partly from iirr/Koo; in ver. 8. To generalize the definite
expression, and one which corresponds so well to the connection, into
" miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet " (Heinrichs, comp. Hoelemann ;
and already, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others), is pure
caprice, which Erasmus, following Ambrosiaster (comp. Beyschlag, 1860,
p. 471), carries further by the arbitrary paraphrase: "servi nocentis, cum
ipsa esset innocentia," comp. Rom. viii. 3. — 'ev dpoidy. hvBp. yevdp. k.t.X.] the
manner of this aop^. doiXov Xafielv : so that He came in the likeness of man,
that is, so that He entered into a form of existence, which was not different
from that which men have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects iv
bpoidpan k.t.X. with iraireiuaasv k.t.X. see above.'-' This entrance into an
existence like that of men was certainly brought about by human birth;
still it would not be appropriate to explain ysvSp. by natus (Gal, iv, 4; Ril
liet);" or as an expression for the "beginning of existence" (Hofmann),
since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous conception is, not
withstanding Rom, i.3, also thought to be included, was really human, as
it is also described in Gal, iv, 4. Paul justly says: iv Spoidpart dvBp.,
because, in fact, Christ, although certainly perfect man (Rom, v. 15; 1
Cor. XV, 21 ; 1 Tim, ii, 5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the laa elvai
Qea) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not a pwrus putus homo,
but the incarnate Son of God (comp, Rom, i. 3 ; Gal. iv, 4; and the Johan
nine 6 Xdyo; adp^ iyevero), b; eipavepdBv iv aapKi (1 Tim. iii. 16), SO that the
power of the higher divine nature was united in Him with the human
appearance, which was not the case in other men. The nature of Him
who had become man was, so far, not fully idmfea? with, but substantially
1 Comp, in opposition to this, Grimm, p, 46, Mace, i. 27 ; 2 Marc. vii. 9 ; Ecclus. xliv. 20 ;
and Kolbe in the Luther. ^eifscAr. .1873, p. 31 4. and frequently in Greek authors after Homer
2 On yiveuSai ev, in the sense, to come into a (Xen. Anab. i. 9. 1 ; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13.
position, into a state, comp. 2 Cor. iii. 7; 1 21); see Nagelsbach, zur /iios. p. 295 f. ed. 3.
Tim. ii. 14; Luke xxii, 44; Acts xxii, 17; 1 ^ Comp, Gess, p, 295 ; Lechler, p, 60,

76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
conform {ev opoidp.) to, that which belongs to man.' Comp. on Rom, -viii.
3, i, 3 f,, and respecting the idea of dpoiapa, which does not convey merely
the conception of analogy, see on Rom, i, 23, v, 14, vi, 5, viii, 3, The
e-xpression is based, not upon the conception of a quasi-man, but upon the
fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Rom, v. 15) there was the superhuman
life-basis of divine 'tadrv;, the elvai laa Qsa not indwelling in other men.
Justice, however, is not done to the intentionally used bpoidpan (comp.
afterwards axvyan), if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He
(not appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition, — a con
sequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the time after the
incarnation. This drove also the ancient dogmatic expositors to adopt
the gloss, which is here out of place, that Christ assumed the accidentales
infirmitates corporis (yet without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex oIkov-
opia; Ubertate (Calovius).^ By others, the characteristic of debile et abjectum
(Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded upon the word
dvBpdiruv, which is here to be taken in a purely generic sense ; while Grotius
understood dvBp. as referring to the first human beings, and believed that
the sinlessness of Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in oppo
sition also to Castalio, Liinemann, Schenkel, and others), but the whole
divine nature of Jesus, the popipv of which He laid aside at His incarnation,
which constitutes the point of difference that lies at the bottom of the
expression iv bpoidpan {did rb pv ipiXbv dvBpairov slvai, Theophylact, comp.
Chrysostom), and gives to it the definite reference of its meaning. The
explanation of the expression by the unique position of Christ as the
second Adam (Weiss) is alien from the context, which presents to us the
relation, not of the second man to the first man, but of the God-man to
ordinary humanity. — Kal axvp. sip. d; avBparr^ to be closely connected with
the preceding participial affirmation, the thought of which is emphatically
exhausted: " and in fashion was found as a man," so that the divine nature
(the Logos-nature) was not perceived in Him. axijpa, Jwbitus, which
receives its more precise reference from the context,' denotes here the
entire outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the phe
nomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor, vii. 31.'' Men saw in Christ a
1 Our passage contains no trace of Docetism, particularly when we consider the thoroughly
even if Paul had, instead of ivSpJiTiwv, used ethical occasion and basis of the passage as an
the singular, whioh he might just as well exhibitionof the loftiest example of humility
have written here as <is ivSpioTros in the (eomp. Rich. Schmidt, p. 178). Nevertheless
sequel, in place of which he might also have Beyschlag has repeated that objection,
used <L5 ivOpoiTroi. This applies in opposition 2 Xo this also amounts the not so precisely
to Lange, apost. Zeiialt. I, p. 131, and Lechler, and methodically expressed explanation of
p, 66, Even Philippi, Glaubensl. TV. 1, p. 472, Philippi : Since Christ remained in the divine
is of opinion that the above-named interpre- form. His assumption of the slave-form cou-
tation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was sisted " in the withdrawal of the rays of the
in fact, although perfect man, nevertheless divine glory which continued to dwell in Hxs
something so much more exalted, that tho flesh, and which He only veiled and subdued with
phrase ev 'op-oiiip.. ivOp. must have vindicated the curtain of the flesh." Thus also does Calvin
itself to the believing consciousness of the depict it : the carnis humilitas was instar
readers without any misconception, and veil, quo divina majestas tegebatur.
especially without that of Docetism, which spflugi^^ ^^ ^„,.^ jy,,^ gjg^
Baur introduces into it {neutest. Theol. p. 209), 4 Comp. to t^s eeoii o-xw" k. ayakiia. Plat.

CHAP. II. 8. 77
human form, bearing, language, action, mode of life, wants and their satis
faction, etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that in
tbe entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known and was
recognized {sipsB.) as a man. In His external character, after He had laid
aside the divine form which He had previously had,' there was observed
no difference between His appearance and that of a man, although the
subject of His appearance was at the same time essentially dmne. The d;
with dvBp. does not simply indicate what He was recognized to be (Weiss) ;
this would have been expressed by avBp. alone ; but He was found os a
man, not investedwith other qualities. The Vulgate well renders it, "inventus
ut homo." This included, in particular, that He presented and manifested
in Himself the human aap^, human weakness and susceptibility of death
(2 Cor. xiii. 4; Rom. vi. 9; Acts xxvi. 23).
Ver. 8. "Erarrsivaasv] is placed with great emphasis at the head of a new
sentence (see on ver. 7), and without any connecting particle : He has
humbled Himself. 'Eavrov is not prefixed as in ver. 7 ; for in ver. 7 the
stress, according to the object in view, was laid on the refiexive reference of
the action, but here on the reflexive action itself. The relation to iKsvaae
is climactic, not, however, as if Paul did not regard the se\i-n-enunciation
(ver. 7) as being also seM-humiliation, but in so far as the former manifested
in the most extreme wa}' the character oi Tarrsivaai;'in the shameful death
of Jesus. It is a cUmactic parallelism (comp. on. iv. 9) in which the two
predicates, although the former in the nature of the case already includes
the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept apart as respects the
essential points of their appearance in historical development, Bengel
well remarks : " Status exinanitionis gradatim profiindior." Hoelemann,
mistaking this, sa^'s ; " He humbled Himself even below His dignity as
man." — ysvdp. iirvKoo;] The aorist participle is quite, like the participles
in ver. 7, simultaneous with the governing verb : so that He became obedient.
This iirvKoo; is, however, not to be defined by " capientibus se, damnantibus
et interficientibus" (Grotius); nor is it to be referred to the law. Gal. iv. 4
(Olshausen), but to God (Rom. v. 19; Heb. v. 8 f.), whose -will and counsel
(comp. e.g. Matt. xxvi. 42) formed the ground determining the obedience.
Comp. ver. 9 : dib koi b Qed; k.t.X. The expression itself glances back to
popip. dovXov ; " obedientia servum decet," Bengel. — pixpi- Bavdrov] belongs
to virr]K. yeiou., not to 'srarr. iavr. (Bengel, Hoelemann) — which latter con
nection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the discourse, and would leave
a too vague and feeble definition for irair. iavr. in the mere irrr/K. yevdp.
By pexpi death is pointed out as the culminating point, as the highest degree.
Up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van Hengel).
Comp. 2 Tim, ii, 9; Heb. xii. 4 ; Acts xxii. 4; Matt, xx-vi. 38. This extreme
Oif. p. IIOB; Tvpavi-ov irxijpm, Soph. jlni. 1154 ; 'Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f . : itfjeute
Eur. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267 C: o-x^/x« &eov ev axvi^aTi avBpiiitiTov. Comp. p. 744; Ti>.
BairiliiKOV, p. 290 D : Twf 'lepimv axvf^^ ', Dem. ^ao-lAea rHiv ovpavOiv, toj. ejrl yr]^ ijiavevTa ev
690, 21: VTTTjpeTou ffx^j^o; Lucian, Cyn. 17: to fiop^-ji avOpi^Trov Tajreiviittreia^. How these pas-
ilibv <Txvi^°,ro S' vfierepov; also, in the plural, sages agree with the Nazaraic character of
Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 7 ; Lucian, D, M. xx. 5. the book, is not a point for discussion here.

78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
height reached by His obedience was, however, just the extreme depth of
the humiliation, and thereby at the same time its end; comp. Acts viii.
33 ; Isa. liii. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes iirrjK. yiveaBai m the sense of
showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The obedience of Christ was
an ethical becoming (Heb. v. 8), — Bavdrov di aravp.] rovrian rov iiriKarapdrov
(comp. Gal. iii. 13 ; Heb. xii. 2), rov roi; dvdpoi; dipapiapivov, Theophylact.
The di, with the repetition of the same word (comp. Rom, iii, 22, ix, 30),
presents, just like the German aber, the more precisely defined idea in
contradistinction to the idea which is previously left without this special
definition : unto death, but what kind of death '? unto the most shameful
and most painful, unto the death of the cross.^
Remark 1. — According to our explanation, vv. 6-8 may be thus paraphrased :
Jesus Christ, when He found Himself in the heavenly mode of existence of divins glory,
did not permit Himself tlie thought of using His equality 'with Ood for the purpose of
seizing possessions and honor for Himself on earth: No, He em,plied hiinself of the
divine glory, inasmuch as, notnithslanding His God-equal nature. He took upon Him
the mode of existence of a slave of God, so that He entered into the likeness of men, and
in His outii'ard bearing and appearance manifested Himself not otherwise than as a
man. He humbled Himself, so that He became obedient unto God, etc. According to
the explanation of our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6-8 to the earthly life of
Christ, the sense csmes to this : " Christum jam 'inde a primo conceptionis mmnento
divinam gloriam et majestatem sibi secundum humanam naturam communicatam plena
usurpatione exserere et tanquam, Deum se gerere potaisse, sed abdicasse se plenario ejus
usu et humilem se exhibuisse, patrique svo coelc^ii obedientem factum esse usque ad
mortem cruris'' (Quenstedt), The most thorough exposition of tbe passage and
demonstration in this sense, though mixed -ft-ith much polemical matter against
the Reformed and the Socinians, are given by Calovius, The point of the orthodox
view, in the interest of the full Deity of the God-man, lies in the fact that Paul
is discoursing, not de humiliatione incabxationis, but de humitiatione incaknati.
Among tbe Reformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed with
our [Lutheran] orthodox expositors.
Remark 2. — On a difference in the dogmatic understanding of vv. 6-8, when
men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine of the Church {Form. Cone. 8),
was based the well-known controversy carried on since 1616 bet-ween the theolo
gians of Tubingen and those of Giessen. The Latter (Feuerborn and Menzer)
assigned to Jesus Christ in His state of humiliation the Kryai; of the divine attri
butes, but denied to Him their XPVOi;, thus making the Kevuai; a renunciation of
the xpijoi;. The Tubingen school, on tbe other hand (Thummius, Luc, Osiander,
and Nicolai), not separ:iting the Krijai; and xPVOi;, arrived at the conclusion of a
hidden and imperceptible use of the divine attributes, and consequently made the
Kivaai; a Kpiiln; rrj; xPV^ea;. See the account of all the points of controversy in
Dorner, II, 2, p, 661 ff , and especially Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, II. p.
429 ff". The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part with the Giessen divines, rejected
tbe Kpvipi;, without thoroughly refuting it, and even without avoiding unnecessary
concessions to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 60S, 767), so that the
1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 301, and Baeumlein, Partikell. I. p. 168 f. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p.
Partik. p. 97 ; and the examples in Hartung, 388.

CHAP. H. 6-8. 79
disputed questions remained open and the controversy itself only came to a close
through final weariness. Among the dogmatic writers of the present day,
Philippi is decidedly on the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaubensl. IV, 1,
p, 279 ff, ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of the Kevuai;
is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the reducing of it to a Kpifi;
rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers tbe iavrbv eKevuae to the popipv Qeoii,
and consequently to the divine mode of appearance, while he makes the eliai laa
Qsa to subsist with the assumption of the popipv dovXov, just as subsequently the
Incarnate One appears only as sv bpoidpan dvBp. and as axvpari a; dvBp.;
and since, further, in the case of the Krijai; of the divine attributes thus laid
down, the non-use of them — ^because as divine they necessarily cannot remain
dormant (John v. 17, ix. 4) — is in itself inconceivable and incompatible with the
Gospel history ; the Kr'ijai; and the XPW'C must therefore be inseparably kept
together. But, setting aside the conception of the Kpifi; as foreign to the N. T.,
this possession and use of the divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by
the renunciation of the popipv Qeov in virtue of the incarnation, entered upon a
human development, consequently as conditioned, not as absolute, but as thean-
thropic. At the same time, the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ necessarily
remained the self-consciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly,
or (according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that liad become flesh, who
was the povoyevij; irapd irarpo; ; see the numerous testimonies in John's (jospel,
as iii. 13, viii, 58, xvii. 5, v. 26. " Considered from a purely exegetical point of
view, there is no clearer and more certain result of the interpretation of Scripture
than the proposition, that the Ego of Jesus on earth was identical with the Ego
which was previously in glory with the Father ; any division of the Son speaking
on earth into two Egos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other
the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of Scripture, how
ever intimate we may seek to conceive the marriage of the two during the earthly
life of Jesus ;" Liebner in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which
the divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation ¦was, according to our passage, the
popipv Qeov, that is, the divine dd^a as a form of existence, and not the elvai laa
QeCi essentiallj' and necessarily constituting His nature, which He retained,' and
to which belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine — and conse
quently in Him who had become man the divine-human — self-consciousness.^
But as this cannot find its adequate explanation either in the absolute consciousness
of Gad, or in the archetypal character which Schleiermacher assigned to Christ, or
in the idea of the reUgious geni'us (Al. Schweizer), or in that of the second Adam
created free from original sin, whose personal development proceeds as a gradual
incarnation of God and deification of man (Eothe), so we must by no means say,
with Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f , that in becoming incarnate the Logos had
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only in the gradual
course of development of a human soul,^ and that merely in the form of a human
self-consciousness. See, in opposition to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers, u. 'Werk,
' Comp. Dusterdieck, Apolog. Abh. III. p. the Christology, may at least be regarded as
67 ff. probable from his frequent and long inter-
2 Paul agrees in substance with the Logos course with Asia, and also from his relation
doctrine of John, but has not adopted the to Apollos. His conception, however, is just
form of Alexandrine speculation. That the as little ApoUinarian as that of John; comp.
latter was known to him in its application to on Rom. i. 3 f. ; Col. i. 15.

80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
II, p, 193 f ; Schoeberlein in the Jahrb. f D. Th. 1871, p, 471 ff,, comp, the tatter's
Oelieimnisse des Glaubens, 1872, 3, The various views which have been adopted
on the part of the more recent Lutheran Christologists,' diverging from the
doctrine of the Formula Concordiae in setting forth Christ's hurailiaticm (Dorner:
a gradual ethical blending into one another of the divine and human li;e in immanent
development; Thomasius: self-limitation, i.e. partial self-renunciation of the divine
Logos ; Liebner : the entrance of the Logos into a process of becoiiiing, that is, into
a divine-liuman development), do not fall to be examined here in detail ; they
belong to the province of Dogmatics, See the discussions on the subject by
Dorner, in the Jahrb. f Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the
Kirchl. Zeitschr. of Kliefoth and Mcjer, 18-57, p. 144 ff, ; Liebner, in the Jahrb. f.
Deutsche Theol. 1858, p, 349 fl^; Hasse, ibid. p. 336 ff;; Schoeberlein, I.e. p. 409 &.;
Thomasius, Chr. Fers. u. Werk, II. pp. 192 ff., 542 fF.; Philippi, Dogmat. IV. 1,
p. 364 ff'. — According to Sclioeberlein, the Son of God, wlien He became man, did
not give up His operation in govei-ning the world in conjunction with the Father
and the Holy Spirit, but continued to exercise it with divine consciousness in
heaven. Thus the dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a dual person
ality of Clirist, OT of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven is not local. Not
only the former, however, but the latter view also, would be opposed to the
entire N. T.
Ver. 9. The exaltation of Christ, — by the descriiDtion of which, grand in
its simplicity, His example becomes all the more encouraging and animat
ing. — did] for a recompense, on account of this self-denying renunciation
and humiliation in obedience to God {Kai, also, denotes the accession of
the corresponding consequence, Luke i. .35; Acts x. 29; Rom. i. 24, iv. 22;
Heb. xiu. 12). Comp, Matt, xxiii. 12 ; Luke xxiv. 26. Nothing but a dog
matic, anti-heretical assumption could have recourse to the interpretation
which is at variance with linguistic usage : quo facto (Calvin, Calovius,
Glass, Wolf, and others). The conception of recompense (comp. Heb. ii. 9,
xii. 2) is justified by the voluntariness oi what Christ did, vv. 6-8, as well
as by the ethical nature of the obedience with which He did it, and only
excites offence if we misunderstand the Subordinatianism in the Christ
ology of the Apostle. Augustine well says : " Humilitas claritatis est
meritum, claritns humilitatis praemium." Thus Christ's saying in Matt.
xxiii. 12 was gloriously fulfilled in His own csise.-—v-spvipaae] comp.
Song of Three Child. 28 ff.; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10; Dan. iv. 34;
iSohenkel's ideal transference of Christ's as the principle of a person ;— while Keerl
pre-existence simply into the se;/-consrioii5iiess (d. Oottmensch. das Ebenbild Oottcs, 1866), in
of God, which in the person of Christ found a unperceived direct opposition to our passage
perfect self-manifestation like to humanity, and to the entire N. T., puts the Son of God
boldly renounces all the resul ts of historical already as Son of man in absolute (not earthly)
exegesis during a whole generation, and goes corporeality as pre-existent into the glory of
back to the standpoint of Loffler and others, heaven. From 1 Cor. xv. 47 the conception
and also further, to that of the Socinians. of the pre-existence of Christ as a heavenly,
Comp. on John xvii. 5. Yet even Beyschlag's pneumatic man aoi archetype of humanity
Christology leads no further than to an ideal (Holsten, Biedermann, and others) ean only
pre-existence of Christ as archetype of liu- be obtained through misapprehension of the
manity, and that not as a person, but merely meaning. See on 1 Cor. ;. c, and Grimm, p. 51 ff.

CHAP. IL 9, 10. 81
Synes. Ep. p. 225 A ; it is not found elsewhere among Greek authors, by
whom, however, irrepvijiv^-o;, exceedingly high, is used. He made Him very
high, exceedingly exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the pre
vious eraireivaaev, of the exaltation to the fellowship of the highest glory and
dominion, Rom, viii, 17; 2 Tim, ii. 12; Eph. i, 21, al.; John xii, 32, x-vii.
."i,' This exaltation has taken place by means of the ascension (Eph. iv.
10), by which Jesus Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi.
19; -Acts vii. 55 f.; Rom. viii. 84; Eph. i. 20 f.; Col. iii. 1 ; Heb. i. 3, viii. 1,
X, 12, xii. 2 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22), although it is not this local mode,
but the exaltation viewed, as a state which is, according to the context,
expressed by iirspvf. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without
lexical authority, to take iirip as intimating : more than previously (Grotius,
Beyschlag). — ixapiaaro] He granted (i. 29), said from the point of view of
the subordination, on which also what follows {Kipio; . . . e'l; dd^av Qeov
irar/io;) is based. Even Christ receives the recompense as God's gift of
grace, and hence also He prays Him for it, John xvii. 6. The glory of the
exaltation did not stand to th.at possessed before the incarnation in the rela
tion of aphis, but it affected the entire divine-human person, that entered
on the rcgnum gloriae. — rb ovopa] is here, as in Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4, to be
taken in the strictly literal sense, not as dignitas or gloria (Heinrichs,
Hoelemann, and many others), a sense which it might have ex adjundo
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against which here
the following iv ™ ivdpan 'Iriaoii is decisive. The honor and dignitj' of
the name of Jesus are expressed by ro virip irdv dvopa, but are not implied
in ro ovopa of itself. Xor is it to be understood of an appellative name, as
some have referred it to Kvpio; in ver. 11 (Michaelis, Keil, Baumgarten-
Crusius, van Hengel, Sehneckenburger, A^'eiss, Hofmann, Grimm) ; others
to vib; Qeoii (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius); and some even to Qsd; (Am
brosiaster, Oecumenius, and again Schultz ; but see on Rom. ix. 5). In
accordance with the context — ver, 11, comp. with ver. 6 — the thought is :
" God has, by His exaltation, granted to Him, that the name ' Jesus Christ '
surpasses all names in glory." The expression of this thought in the form :
God has granted to Him the name, etc., cannot seem strange, when we take
into account the highly poetic strain of the passage.
Ver. 10 f, "Iva] This exaltation,- ver. 9, was to have, in accordance with
the divine purpose, general adoration and confession as its result, — a con
tinuation of the contrast with the previous state of self-renunciation and
humiliation. In the mode of expression there may be detected a remin
iscence of Isa. xlv. 23 (Rom, xiv. 11). — The 'ev ra bvdp. 'I., emphatically
prefixed, affirms that, in the iiame of Jesus, i. e. in what is involved in that
most glorious name " Jesus Christ," and is present to the conception of
the subjects as they bend their knees, is to be found the moving ground
of this latter action (comp, Ps, Ixiii. 5 ; 1 Kings xviii. 24 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 10,
iln the conception of the "exaltation" tion to the doctrine of pre-exi.stence (in
Paul agrees with John, but does not convey opposition to Pfleiderer, /. c. p. 617), but a
expressly the notion of the return to the consequence of the more dialectically acute
Father. This is not an inconsistency in rela- distinctionof ideas in Paul, since that change
6

82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
al; 1 Cor, vi, 11; Eph, v. 20; Col, iii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16; Jas. v. 14).
The bowing of the knee represents adoration, of which it is the symbol (Isa.
xlv. 23; Rom, xiv, 11, xi, 4; Eph. iii. 14; 3 Esdr. viii. 73; 3 Mace. ii. 1;
and in Greek writers from Homer onward), and the subject to be adored
is, according to the context {ev ra bvdp. '1., and comp, ver, 11), none other
than Jesus, the adoring worship of whom has its warrant in the fellowship
of the divine government and of the divine <5ofa to which He is exalted
(comp, the habitual iiriKaXsiaBai rb ovopa Kvpiov, Rom, X, 12 f. ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2
Tim, ii, 22 ; Acts vii, 59, ix, 14, 21, xxii. 16), but has also at the same time
its peculiar character, not absolute, but relative, i. e. conditioned by the
relation of the exalted Son to the Father ', — a peculiarity which did not
escape the observation of Pliny {Ep. x. 97 : " Christo quasi Deo "), and was,
although only very casually and imperfectly, expressed by him. This
adoration (comp. ver. 11, sl; dd^av Qsov irarpd;) does not infringe that strict
monotheism, which could ascribe absolute deity to the Father only (John
xvii. 3 ; Eph. iv. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 6, viii. 6 ; 1 Tim. vi, 15 f ) ; the Father only
is 6 dv iirl irdvrav Qed;, Rom.' ix. 5 (comp. Ignat. Tars, interpol. 5), 6 Qed;
absolutely, God also of Christ (see on Eph. i, 17), the Qsb; b iravroKpdrap (2
' Cor, -vi, 18 ; Rev, i, 8, iv, 8, al.) ; and the Son, although of like nature, as
avvBpovo; and partaker of His dd^a, is subordinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv.
27 f), as in turn the Spirit is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18); the honor which
is to be paid to the Son (Rev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and
aim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former is to be honored as
the Father, and God in, Christ fills and moves the consciousness of him
who prays to Christ. According to van Hengel, it is not the adoration
of Jesus which is here intended, but that of God under application of the
name of Jesus; and de AA'ette also thinks it probable that Paul only
intended to state that ever}- prayer should be made in the name of Jesus
as the Mediator {Kvpio;). Comp. also Hofmann: "the praying to God,
determined in the person praying by tlie consciousness of his relation to Jesus
as regulating his action." Instead of this we should rather say : the pray
ing to Jesus, determined by the consciousness of the relation of Jesus to
God (of the Son to the Father), as regulating the action of the person
praying. All modes of explaining away the adoration as offered to Jesus
Himself me at variance not only with the context generally, which has to
do with the honor of Jesus, making Him the object of the adoration, but
also with the word iirovpavlav which follows, because the mediatorship of
Jesus, which is imphed in the atonement, does not affect the angels as its
objects (comp., on the contrary, Heb. i. 4, 6). The two sentences may
not be separated from one another (in opposition to Hofmann) ; but, on
the contrary, it must be maintained that the personal object, to whom the
bowing of the knee as well as the confession with the tongue applies, is
Jesus. Linguistically erroneous is the view which makes iv ™ bvdp. equiva-
of condition affected the entire Christ, the iSee Liieke, de invocat. Jes. Ch. Gott. 1843
God-man, whereas the subject of the pre- p. 7 f. ; comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sunde, I.
existence was the Logos. p. 218.

CHAP. II. 10. 83
lent to s'l; to dvopa, for the glorification of His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and
others), or as a paraphrase for in 'Ivaov (Estius; Rheinwald leaves either of
the two to be chosen) ; while others, by the interpretation " quoties auditur
nomen^ brought out a sense which is altogether without analogy in the
N, T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin : " quasi vox (the word Jesus) esset
inagica,, quae totam in sono vim haberet inclusam." — iirovpavlav k.t.X.] every
knee of heavenly beings (those to be found in heaven), and those on earth,
aild those under the earth, is to bow, none is to remain unbent ; that is, every
one from these three classes shall bow his knees (plural), iirovp. includes
the angels (Eph. i. 20 f., in. 10; Heb. i. 4, 6; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii. 22); iiriy. the
human beings on earth (comp. Plat. Ax. p. 368 B : iirlysio; dvBpairo;) ; and
KaraxB. the dead in Hades (comp. Hom, II. ix, 457 : Zsv; KaraxBdvio;, Pluto:
KaraxBdvioi daipovs;, the Manes, Anthol. vii, 333),^ The adoration on the part
of the latter, which Grotius and Hofmann misinterpret, presupposes the
descensus Ch. ad inferos,^ Eph. iv, 9, in which He presented Himself to the
spirits in Hades as the Kvpio;. Our passage, however, does not yield any
further particulars regarding the so-called descent into hell, which
Schweizer has far too rashly condemned as " a myth without any foundation
in Scripture." Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and
many others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have incor
rectly understood by KaraxB. the Daemones, which is an erroneous view,
because Paul does not regard the Daemones as being in Hades (see, on
the contrary, at Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12). There is an arbitrary rationalizing in
Heinrichs, who takes the words as neuters : " omnes rerum ereatarum com-
plexus " (comp. Nosselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza : " quae
cunque et supra mundum sunt et in mundo." We meet with the right
view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred KaraxB. to those who
are in purgatory ; so Bisping still, and Dollinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p.
262, ed. 2. — As regards the realization of the divine purpose expressed in
"iva K.T.X., respecting the 'smyslav, it was still in progress of development, but
its completion (Rom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the Apostle near at
hand, in keeping "with his expectation of the near end of the a'ldiv oiro;.
1 Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Bretschneider, gested reflection. He views the bowing of the
and others, arrived at this interpretation knee, as it has been done and is continuously
simply by understanding ei* rtp 'ovop^. as ad being done, and not as it vnll be done by an
nomen (comp. Grotius : " nuncupato nomine") ; entire class on\y in the future, after the Parou-
but Hoelemann, with forced subtilty, by the sia. Wiesinger, however, has also placed the
analysis: "quasi circumsonitum appellatione realization of the iva irav -yoio; Kap.^n k.t.A. at
Dominis." the end of the world, when the knees, which
2 Comp. Eev. V. 13 ; Ignat. Troll. 9, and the hitherto had not willingly bent, would be
similar classical use of inrox^ovios, ii-no yaiav forced to do so (1 Cor. XV. 25 f.). On this point
(Eur. Hec. 149, and Pflugk in loc). he appeals to Kom. xiv. 11, where, however,
3 To transfer, with Grotius, Hofmann, and the whole text is dealing with the last judg-
Grimm, the genuflexion of the dead to the ment, which is not the case here. Besides,
period a/terifteresu-rreciton, so that, according er tw hvoiian is far from leading us to the
to Hofmann, the KaToxSoj'tot " sZeep betow and ideaof an adoration partially /orced; itrather
await their resurrection and shall them adore presupposes the faith, of which the bowing
and confess," would be entirely erroneous, of the knee and the confession which fol-
mixing up with the direct, poetically plastic lows are the free living action ; eomp. Kom.
description of the apostle a remotely sug- i. 9.

84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the universality of the divine pur
pose (iva) with regard to the bowing the knees and confession with the
tongue so strongly by irdv ydw and irdaa yXaaaa, that the arbitrary limitation
which makes him mean only those who desire to give God the glory (Hof
mann) is out of the question.
Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the adoration in
ver. 10, in doing which the concrete form of representation is continued,
comp. Rom. xiv. 11 ; Isa. xlv. 23 ; hence yXdaaa is tongue, correlative to the
previous ydw, not language (Theodoret, Beza, and others). — 's^opoX^ a
strengthening compound. Comp. on Matt. iii. 6. Respecting the future
(see the critical remarks) depending on Iva, see on Gal. ii. 4 ; Eph. vi. 3 ; 1
Cor. ix. 18. — Kupio;] predicate, placed first with strong emphasis . that Lord
is Jesus Christ. This is the specific confession of the apostolic church (Rom.
X. 9 ; 2 Cor. iv. 5 ; Acts ii. 36), whose antithesis is : avdBepa 'Ivaov; 1 Cor.
xii. 3. The Kvpwv elvai refers to the fellowship of the divine dominion
(comp. on Eph. i. 22 f , iv. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27 f ) ; hence it is not to be limited
to the rational creatures (Hoelemann, following Flatt and others), or to the
church (Rheinwald, Schenkel). — el; dd^. Qeoii warp.] may be attached to the
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however, in the
second part a modification of the expression is introduced by the future, it
is more probably to be joined to this portion, of which the telic destination,
i. e. the final cause, is specified. It is not to be connected merely with
Kipio; 'I. X., as Bengel wished : " J. Ch. esse dominum, quippe qui sit in
gloria Dei patris,'' making s'l; stand for iv, for which the Vulgate, Pelagius,
Estius, and others also took it. Sehneckenburger also, p. 341 (comp. Cal
vin, Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann), joins it with Kvpio;, but takes s'l;
dd^av rightly : to tlie honor. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self-
evident that the Kvpidrv; of the Son tends to the honor of the Father ; and
the point of importance for the full conclusion was not this, but to bring
into prominence that the universal confessing recognition of the Kvpidrv; of
Jesus Christ glorifies the Father (whose will and work Christ's entire work
of salvation is ; see especially Eph. i. ; Rom. xv. 7-9 ; 2 Cor. i. 20), whereby
alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a recompense from the
Father, appears in its fullest splendor. Comp. John xii. 28, xvii. 1. The
whole contents of ver. 9 f. is parallel to the iv popipy Qsov, namely, as the
recompensing re-elevation to this original estate, now accorded to the
divine-human person after the completion of the work of humiliation.
Complicated and at variance -with the words is the view of van Hengel, that
i^opoX. e'l; dd^av Qeov is equivalent to i^opoX. ecu, to praise God (Gen. xxix. 34,
al. ; Rom. xv, 9 ; Matt, xi, 25 ; Luke x, 21), and that 'on is quod ; hence : " lau-
dibus celebrarent, quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini."
Remabk. — From vv, 6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows, derives his argu
ments for the assertion that our epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and
expressions,' and must therefore belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic
1 Its idea is, that Christ " divests Himself, receive back that of whioh He has divested
of that which He already is, in order to Himself, with the full reality of the idea

CHAP. n. 6-11. 85
speculation. But with the true explanation of the various points these arguments '
fall to pieces of themselves. For (1) if rb slvai laa Qsa be related tc ev yopipy Qeov
elvai as the essence to its adequate manifestation, and if our explanation of dprray
pd; be the linguistically correct one, then must the Gnostic conception of the Aeon
Sophia — which vehemently desired to penetrate into the essence of the original
Father (Iren. Haer. i. 2. 2), and thus before the close of the world's course {Theol.
Jahrb. 1S49, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp forcibly something not de jure belonging
lo it {Paulus, II. p. 51 K) — be one entirely alien and dissimilar to the idea of our
passage. But this conception is just as inconsistent with the orthodox explanation
of our passage, as with the one which takes the elvai laa Qea as something future
and greater than the popipv (^eov ; since in the case of the popipv, as well a.s in that
of the laa, the full fellow-sliip in the divine nature is already the relation assumed
OS existing. Consequently (2) the iavrbv iKivaas cannot be explained by the idea,
according to which the Gnostics made that Aeon, which desired to place itself in
unw-arranted union with the Absolute, fall from the Pleroma to the Kivapa — as to
which Baur, in this alleged basis for the representation of our passage, lays down
merely the distinction, that Paul gives a moral turn to what, with the Gnostics,
had a purely speculative signification (" Whilst, therefore, in the Gnostic view,
that dprraypd; indeed actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutral
izes itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this case, in virtue
of a moral self-determination, matters cannot come to any such dprraypd;; and
the negative, wliich even in this case occurs, not in consequence of an act that has
failed, but of one which has not taken place at all, is the voluntary self-renuncia
tion and self-denial by an act of the will, an iavrbv ksvovv instead of the ysviaBai 'sv
Ksvdpan"). (3) That even the notion of the popipv Qeoii arose from the language
used by the Gnostics, among whom the expressions popipv, popipovv, pdpipaai;, -were
very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by Baur, since these expres
sions were very prevalent generally, and are not specifically Gnostic designations ;
indeed, pop^v (^eov is not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among
other authors, including philosophers {e. g. Plat. Rep. p. 381 C : pevei del dirXa; iv
T?; avTov popiiij, comp. p. 381 B : fiKiar' dv iroXXd; popipd; iaxoi d Qsd;). Further,
(4) the erroneousness of the view, which in the phrases hi bpoidpan dvBpdrrav and
Bxvpari sipsBsi; a; dvBp. discovers a Gnostic Docetism, is self-evident from the
explanation of these expressions in accordance with the context (see on the
passage) ; and Chrysostom and his successors have rightly brought out the essen
tial difference between what the apostle says in ver, 7 and the Docetic conceptions
(Theoohylact : oiK vv de rb ipaivdpsvov pdvav, namely, man, aXXa koI Qed;, ovk ryv
fiXb; dvBpairo;. Aidroird ipriaiV ivdpoidpari dvBpdrrav vpsl; piv ydp ijivxv nal adipa,
EKslvo; di fvxr/ Kal aapa Kal Qsd; K.T.X. Theodoret : irspl rov Myov ravra (pvaiv, on
Qsb; dv ovx eapdro Qsb; rijv dvBpoirsiav irspiKeipsvo; ipiaiv k.t.X.), Cbmp. on Bom.
¦viii. 3. Lastly, (5) even the three categories iirovpaviav koI iiriy. koI KaraxB., and
also the notion of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged by
Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent to Hades is not dis
tinctively Gnostic ; it belongs to the X. T., aud is a necessary presupposition lying
at the root of many passages (see on Luke xxiii. 43 ; Matt. xii. 40 ; Acts ii. 27 ff. ;
filled with its absolute contents," Baur, Neu- bnt yet thinks it nn-Pauline that the incarna-
iest Theol p ^65. tion of Christ is represented de^ncAed /rom ite
1 Hinsch, (. c. p. 76, does not adopt them, reference to humanity. This, however, is not

86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Bom. X. 6 ff, ; Eph, iv. 8 ff.) ; it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief in
Christ's i-esurrectiou iK vsKpdv. That threefold division of all angels and men
(see also Rev. v. 13) was, moreover, so appropriate and natural in the connection
of the passage (comp. the twofold division, Kal veKpdv Kal (dvrav, Rom. xiv. 9,
Acts X. 42, 1 Pet. iv. 5 f., where only men are in question), that its derivation
from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event of the Gnostic character of
our p-Ass.ige being demonstrated on other grounds. The whole hypothesis is
engrafted on isolated expressions, which only become violently perverted into
conceptions of this kind by the presupposition of a Gnostic atmosphere. Accord
ing to tlie Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said of the Aeon Sophia: b;
iv poppij Qeov vrrdpxuv oi irpodXXeaOai yyvaaro e'l; rb irXripapa rov Qsov k.t.X. The
apostle's expressions agree entirely with the Christology of his other epistles ; it is
from these aud from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that his words
are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the theosophie phantasma
goria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever.
Ver. 12.' [On vv. 12, 13, see Js"ote XI. pages 111, 112,] To this great
example of Jesus Paul now annexes another general admonition, which
essentially corresponds with that given in i, 27, with which he began all
this hortatory portion of the epistle (i. 27-ii. 18). — aars'] [XI &.] itaque,
draws an inference from the example of Christ (vv. 6-11), who by the path
of self-renunciation attained to so glorious a recompense. Following this
example, the readers are, just as they had always been obedient, etc., to
work out their own salvation with the utmost solicitude. iirvKovaars is not,
indeed, correlative with yevdp. irrrjKoo; in ver. 8 (Theophylact, Calovius,
Bengel, and others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory
definition ; but the aarvpia is correlative with the exaltation of Christ
described in ver. 9, of which the future salvation of Christians is the
analogue, and, in fact, the joint participation (Rom. viii. 17; Eph. ii. 6;
Col. ii. 12 f., iii. 3 f ). Since, therefore, dars has its logical basis in what
immediately precedes, it must not be looked upon as an inference //-o-ni all
tlie previous admonitions, i. 26 ff,, from which it draws the general result (de
Wette), It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous
exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhortation
which follows, see on ver. 14) as in iv. 1 ; 1 Thess. iv. 18 ; Rom, vii. 12 ; 1
Cor. iii. 21, iv. 5, v. 8, xi. 33, xiv. 39, xv. 58, but in such a way that it joins
on to what was last discussed. It is least of all admissible to make, with
Hofmann, ijare point backwards to irXvpdaare pov r. xapdv in ver. 2, so that
this prayer " is repeated in a definitive manner " by the exhortation intro
duced with Ciare. In that case the apostle, in order to be understood, must
the ease, as may be gathered from the con- as a parenthesis, and, finally, the apodosis to
nection of the passage in its practical bearing follow in iravra k.t.X. Against this view may
with ver. 4 (ri eTepiuj-). be simply urged the fact, that nij m (2 Thess.
1 Linden, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 7,50, iii. 15; Philem. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 5) cannot be
attempted a new explanation of vv. 12-14. equivalent to is ^i), and that there must have
According to this, ixt] wy is to stand for il>9 ^^, been used not even w9 jllt}, but, on account of
Karepya^. to be indicative, fti) is . . Karep-y. the negation of a purely actual relation, tus
to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated ouk ; to say nothing of the involved construe-

CHAP. IL 12. 87
at least have inserted a resumptive oiv after Ciars, and in the following
exhortation must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element
of the making joy. — KaBd; -dvrore virvKovaars'] whom f is neither a question to
be left unanswered (Matthies), nor one which does not require an answer
(Hofmann). The context yields the supplement here, aa well as in Rom.
vi. 16, Philem. 21, 1 Pet. i. 14; and the right supplement is the usual one,
viz. mihi, or, more definitely, m£0 evangelic, as is plain, both fi-om the words
which follow prj a; . . . airovala pov, and also from the whole close personal
relation, in which Paul brings home to the hearts of his readers his admo
nitions (fi-om i. 27 down till ii. 18) as their teacher and friend. "On Trdvrore,
comp. dirb irparv; vpepa; dxpi rov vvv (i. 5). We cannot infer fi-om it a refer
ence to earlier epistles which have been lost (Ewald). — pv d; . . . dirovaia aav']
belongs not to vrrvKoiaars (Luther, Wolf, Heumann, Heinrichs, and others),
as is evident from yv d; and vvv, but to Karspyd^saBs, so that the comma
before ysra ipd^ov is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp. Grotius. — d;
had to be inserted, because Paul would not and could not give an admo
nition for a time when he would be present. Not perceiving this, B, min,,
vss., and Fathers have omitted it. If d; were not inserted, Paul would
say : that they should not merely in his presence work out their salvation.
But with d; he says : that they are not to work out their own salvation in such
a way as if they were doing it in His presence^ merely (neglecting it, therefore,
in His absence) ; ''oay, much more now, during His absence from them, they
are to work it out with fear and trembling. There is nothing to be supplied
along with d;, which is the simple modal a,s, since pv a; is connected with
the governing verb that follows in the antithesis {r. iavr. aar. Karspyd^saBs)
as its prefixed negative modal definition : not as in m,y presence only (not as
limiting it to this only) work out your salvation. And the dXXd is the anti
thetic m,uch more, on the contrary, nay. Erasmus, Estius, Hoelemann,
Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly join pdvov with pv, and take d; in
the sense of the degree : not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it,
in my absence ; comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two com
parisons, as does also J. B. Lightfoot. It is arbitrary not to make pdvov
belong to iv r. irap. /xoi>, beside which it stands; comp. also Rom, iv, 16
(where ra sk rov vdpov forms one idea), iv. 28 ; 1 Thess. i, 5. Still more
arbitrary is it to hamper the flow of the whole, and to break it up in such
a way as to insert the imperative iiraKoiiere after vrrvKovaars, and then to
make yerd <pdpov k.t.X. a sentence by itself (Hofmann). Moreover, in such
a case the arrangement of the words in the alleged apodosis would be
illogical ; vim (or, more clearly, kcCi virv) must have begun it, and ydvov must
have stood immediately after pv. [XI d.] — iro/.Xo pdX/jiv] than if I were
present ; for now {vim), when they were deprived of the personal teaching,
stimulus, guidance, and guardianship of the apostle, moral diligence and
zealous solicitude were necessary for them in afar higher measure, in order
tion, and of the so special tonor of the alleged more than in i. 26, a reference tothe Parousia
apodosis after a preparation of so grand and of Christ, which Kahler (" ye know what this
general a nature by the al leged protasis. word would properly tell us ") reads between
1 The word napovala does not contain, any the lines.

88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to fulfill the great personal duty of working out their own salvation. That
iavrdv, therefore, cannot be equivalent to 'aXXiiXav (Flatt, Matthies, and
older expositors), is self-evident. — pera ipdpov k. rpdpov} [XI c.J that is, with
such earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing enough
in the matter.' Awe before the presence of God (Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss), the feeling of dependence on
God (de Wette), a reverential devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hen
gel), and similar ideas, must be implied in the case, but do not constitute
the sense oi the expression, in which also, according to the context, we are
not to seek a contrast to spiritual pride (Schinz, Rilliet, Hoelemann,
Wiesinger), as Augustine, Calvin, Bengel, and others have done. — Karepyd-
(saBs] bring about, peragite (Grotius), " u,sque ad metam " (Bengel), express
ing, therefore, more than the simple verb,^ The summons itself is not at
variance with the principle that salvation is God's gift of grace, and is
prepared for, predestined, and certain to believers ; but it justly claims the
exercise of the new moral power bestowed on the regenerate man, with
out the exertion of which he would fall away again from the state of grace
to which he had attained in faith, and would not actually become partaker
of the salvation appropriated to him by faith, so that the final reception
of salvation is so far the result of his moral activity of faith in the Kaivdrti;
(av;. See especially Rom. vi. 8, 12 ff., and 2 Cor. vi. 1. Our passage
stands in contrast, not to the certitudo salutis, but to the moral securitas,
into which the converted person might relapse, if he do not staftd fast (iv.
1 ; 1 Cor, X, 12), and labor at his sanctification (1 Thess, iv, 3, 7 ; 2 Cor. vii.
1 ; 1 Tim. ii, 15), etc' The demand is expressed all the more earnestly, the
more that the readers have conflict and suffering to endure (i. 27-30).
Ver, 13, [XI e,J Ground of encouragement to the fulfillment of this pre
cept, in which it is not their own, but God's power, which works in them,
etc. Here Qed; is placed first as the subject, not as the predicate (Hof
mann) : God is the agent. It is, however, unnecessary and arbitrary to
assume before ydp (with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus,
and others) an unexpressed thought (" be not terrified at my having said:
with fear and trembling "). Bengel gratuitously supplies with Qsd; the
thought: "praesens vobis etiam absente me" (comp. also van Heno-el) while
others, as Calvin, Beza, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Wiesinger, who found in psrd
<pdl3. K. rp. the antithesis of pride (see on ver. 12), see in ver. 13 the motive to
humility ; and de Wette is of opinion that what was expressed in ver. 12
under the aspect of fear is here expressed under the aspect of confidence.
In accordance -with the unity of the sense we ought rather to say : that
the great moral demand perd rpdjU. k. rp. rryv iavrdv aar. Karspyd(eaBai con
taining as it did the utmost incentive to personal activity, needed for the
readers the support of a confidence which should be founded not on tlieir
own, but on the divine working. Accorchng to Ewald, the perd ipd/Sov k.
iComp. onl Cor. ii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. ^Comp. Eph. vi. 13; Dem. 1121. 19; Plat.
vi. 5. AeI yap ^o^elireai «. rpiiieiv iv tu > iejr?. vii. p. 791 A ; Eur. Herari. 1046 : jroAei o-io-
ipyi-ivrBai Ttjv 'liiav ui^ir-qp'iav inaa-TOV, /iri iroTe rrifiiav icaTepyao-io-eai ; and see On Eom. i. 26.
vTroiriicKKreeU eicjreoT) ravri)!, Oecumenius. » Comp. Wuttke, sittenl. II. | 266.

CHAP. n. 13. 89
rpdpov is to be made good by pointing to the fact that they work before God,
who is even already producing in them the right tendency of will. But
the idea of the ivdmov roii Qeoii was so familiar to the apostle, that he
would doubtless have here also directly expressed it. Kahler (comp.
Weiss) imports a hint of the di-vine punishment, oi which, however,
nothing is contained in the text. So also Hofmann : with fear in presence
of Him who is a devouring fire (Heb. xii. 28 f.), who will not leave unpun
ished him who does not subordinate his own will and working to the
divine. As if Paul had hinted at such thoughts, and had not, on the
contrary, himself excluded them by the iirip rij; eidoda; which is added !
Tlie thought is rather " duldssima sententia omnibus piis mentibus," Form,.
Cone. p. 659. — Calvin (comp, Calovius) rightly observes on the subject-
matter : " intelligo gratiam supematuralem, quae provenit ex spiritu regen-
erationis ; nam quatenus sumus homines, jam in Deo sumus et vivimus
et movemur, verum hic de alio motu disputat Paulus, quam illo univer-
sali." Augustine has justly (in opposition to the Pelagian rationalizing
interpretation of a mediate working : " velle operatur suadendo et praemia
promittendo "), in conformity with the words, urged the efiicaciter operari,
which Origen, de Pnnc. iii. 1, had obliterated, and the Greeks who fol
lowed qualified with synergistic reservations, — iv iplv'] not intra coetum
vestrum (Hoelemann), but in animis vestris (1 Cor, xii, 6; 2 Cor, iv. 12;
Eph. ii. 2 ; Col. i. 29 ; 1 Thess. ii, 13), in which He produces the self-
determination directed to the KarspydC,saBai of their own aurvpia, and the
activity in carrying out this Christian-moral volition,' This activitj', the
ivepyelv, is the inner moral one, which has the Karepyd(saBai as its consequence,
and therefore is not to be taken as equivalent to the latter (Vulgate,
Luther, and others, including Matthies and Hoelemann), jSTote, on the
contrary, the climactic selection of the two cognate verbs. The regenerate
man brings about his own salvation {Karepyd(erai) when he does not resist
the divine working {ivspydv) of the willing and the working {ivspyslv) in his
soul, but j-ields steady obedience to it in continual conflict with the oppos
ing powers (Eph. vi. 10 ff. ; Gal. v. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 8, al.) ; so that he irepi-
rrarsi, not Kara adpKa, but Kara rrvsvpa (Rom. viii. 4), is consequently the
child of God, and as child becomes heir (Rom. viii, 14, 17, 23).
According, therefore, as the matter is viewed from the standpoint
of the human activity, which yields obedience to the divine working of
the Bi'ksiv and ivspyslv, or from that of the di'vine activity, which works
the BsX^iv and ivspyslv, we may say -with equal justice, either that God
accomplishes the good which He has begun in man, up to the d.ay of
Christ ; or, that man brings about his own salvation. " Nos ergo volumus,
sed Deu,s in nobis operatur et velle ; nos ergo operamur, sed Deus in nobis
operatur et operari," Augustine. How wholly is it otherwise with the
unregenerate in Rom. -vii. ! — The repetition by Paul of the same word,
ivspydv . . . rb evspys'iv, has its ground in the encouraging design which he
1 " Velle quidem, quatenus est actus volun- etiam nostrum est, sed quatenus volentes facti
tatis, nostrum est ex creatione: bene velU per conversionem bene volumus," Ca.\ov'i\i3.

90 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
has of making God's agency felt distinctly and emphatically ; hence, also,
he specifies the tiuo elements of all morality, not merely the ivepyelv, but
also its premiss, the BiXeiv, and keeps them apart by using Kai twice : God
is the worker in you, as of the willing, so of the working. From His
working comes man's working, just as already his willing.' — vKsp rij; eido
da;] for the sake of goodwill, in order to satisfy His own benignant dispo
sition. [XI f,]. On the causal iirip, which is not secundum, comp, Rom.
XV. 8 ; Kdhner, II, 1, p, 421 ; Winer, p. 359 [E, T, p. 383] ; and on eidoda,
which is not, with Ewald, to be taken in a deterministic sense, comp, i, 15;
Rom, X, 1,^ The explanation : " for the sake of the good pleasure, which
He has in such willing and working " (Weiss), would amount to some
thing self-evident. Hofmann erroneously makes iwip , . sidoK. belong to
7rdj;ra rroieire, and convey the sense, that they are to do everything for the
sake of the divine good pleasure, about which they must necessarily be
concerned, etc. In opposition to this view, which is connected with the
misunderstanding of the previous words, the fact is decisive, that rij;
eidoda; Only obtains its reference to God through its belonging to d ivspydv
K.r.X. ; but if it be joined with what follows, this reference must have been
marked,^ and that, on account of the emphasized position which iir. i . svdoK.
would have, with emphasis (as possibly by irrip rij; airov svdoda;).
Ver, 14, [On vv, 14-18, see Note XII, pages 112-114.] With ver, 13 Paul
has closed his exhortations, so far as the matter is concerned, [XII a.]
He now adds a requisition in respect to the mode of carrying out these
admonitions, namely, that they shall do everything (which, according to
the admonitions previously given, and summarily comprised in ver. 12,
they have to do, 1 Cor, x, 31) willingly and without hesitation, — an injunction
for which, amidst the temptations of the present (i. 27-30), there was
sufiicient cause, — x"Pk yoyyvay.] without (far removed from) murmuring.
The yoyyvapd;,'' that fault already prevalent in ancient Israel (Ex, xvi. 7 ff, ;
Num, xiv, 2), is to be conceived as directed against God, namely, on
account of what He imposed upon them both to do and to suffer, as
follows from the context in vv. 13 and 15 ; hence it is not to be referred
to their fellow- Christians (Calvin, Wiesinger, Sehneckenburger), or to their
superiors (Estius), as Hoelemann also thinks. Comp. on 1 Cor. x. 10. —
dia'Xoyiapdv] not : without disputes (Erasmus, Beza, and many others,
including Sehneckenburger), de imperatis cum imperatoribus (Hoelemann,
comp. Estius), or among themselves (Calvin, Wiesinger), and that upon
irrelevant questions (Grotius), and similar interpretations, which, althouo-h
not repugnant to Greek usage generally,^ are at variance with that of the
N, T. (even 1 Tim. ii. 8), and unsuitable to the reference of yoyyvap. to
1 This is God's creative moral action in sal- ie iraj-Ta; avBpiijrov^ naiifvai k.t.K.
vation, Eph. ii. 10. Comp. Thomasius, Chr. ' Hofmann groundlessly compares Luke ii.
Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 287. Incorrectly, however, 14 (but see on that passage) and even Ecclus.
the Reformed theologians add : " quae pro- xv. 16, where Fritzsche, Bandb. p. 74 f., gives
hiberi non potest." the right view.
2 Theodoret aptly says : eiSoKiav Skrh aya- * Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 358.
$bv TOV SeoO Trpoo-Tjydpeuo-e SeXijfia- fleAei • Plut. iKbr. p. 180 C ; Ecclus. ix. 15 xiii, 35.

CHAP. n. 14, 15. 91
God. It means : -without hesitation, -without your first entering upon
scrupulous considerings as to whether you are under an}- obligation thereto,
whether it is not too difficult, whether it is prudent, and the like.' The
Vulgate renders it rightly, according to the essential sense : " haesitationi-
bus." The yoyyvapoi would presuppose aversion towards God; the diaXo-
yiapoi, uncertainty in the consciousness of duty.
Ver. 15. [XII b.] If to their obedience of the admonitions given down
to ver. 13 there is added the manner of obedience prescribed in ver. 14,
they shall be blameless, etc. This, therefore, must be the high aim, which
they are to have in -view in connection with what is required in ver. 14. — ¦
dpspirroi k. oKipaioi] blameless and sincere; the former represents moral
integrity as manifesting itself to the judgment of others; the latter represents
the same as respects its inner nature (comp. on Matt. x. 16 and Rom. xvi,
19).- — TSKva Qeov dpdp.] comprehending epexegetically the two former pre
dicates. Children of God (in virtue of the v'wBeaia that took place in
Christ, Eom. viii. 15, 23 ; Gal. iv. 5 ; Eph. i. 5) they are (Rom, -viii, 16,
ix. 8). They are to become such children of God, as having nothing with
which fault can be found; which in children of God presupposes the
inward moral oKspaidrv;, since they are led by the Spirit of God (Rom.
viii. 14). This ethical -view of the v'loBeala, prominent throughout the N. T.,
and ahead)- implied in the mode of contemplating Israel as the people of
adoption (Rom. ix, 4) in the O. T. and Apocrypha, necessarily involves,
in virtue of the ideal character of the relation, the moral development
towards the lofty aim — implies, therefore, in the being the constant task
of the becoming ; and hence the sense of showing themselves is as little to
be given, with Hofmann, to the yivvaBs here as in Matt, x. 16, John xv. 8,
et al. ; comp. also on Gal. iv. 12, 'Apdpvro;, qui vituperari non potest, occur
ring elsewiiere in the N, T. only at 2 Pet. iii. 14 (not equivalent to dpupo;
oi dpsprrro;).'' Its opposite is : riKva pdpvra, Deut. xj(.xii. 5 ; the recollection
of this latter passage has suggested the subsequent words, which serve as
a recommendation of the condition to be striven for by contrasting it with
the state of things around. — peaov (see the critical remarks) is adverbial, in
the midst of.' — oKoXid; k. diearpapp.] crooked and perverted, a graphic figurative
representation of the great moral abnormUy of the generation.-* — 'ev ol;]
i. e. among the people of this yeved ; = — ipaivsaBe] not imperative,^ but the
existing relation, which constitutes the essential distinctive character of the
Christian state as contrasted with the non-Christian, Eph. v. 8, al. The
aim of the 'sv ol; ipalvsaBs k.t.X. is, by means of an appeal to the true Chris-
' Comp. Luke xxiv. 38, and on Rom. xiv. 1 ; B, Oorg. p. 625 A ; and on Sieo-Tp., Matt, xvii.
Plat, Ax. p. 367 A: ((>povTi'5ts . . . ««' StoAo- 17; Deut. xxxii. 20; Polyb, viii.^, 3, v, 41. 1,
yuriioi, Tim. p. 69 C : ovrSSi- ttoiic^^ov sti SiaXo- ii. 21. 8 ; also Siio-Tpoi^os, Soph. Aj. 442.
yl,ra,rSai. Ecclus. xl. 2. 5 See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 242 [E, T. p.
' But see Hom. H. xii. 109 ; Herod, iii. 82; 282] ; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 213 f. ; Kuhner, IL
frequently in the Anthol. 1. P- 49 f.
3 Hom. 17. xii, 167; Od. xiv. 300; Eur. JZAea. 6 Cyprian, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Theo-
531 (jiea-a) ; LXX. Num. xxxv. 5. phylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius,
4 Comp. on <TKoXioi, Acts ii. 40 ; 1 Pet. ii. 18 ; and others, including Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald,
Prov. iv. 24; Wisd. i. 3; 'Plo.t.Legg. xii. p, 945 Baumgarten-Crusius,

92 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
tian sense of honor (the consciousness of their high Christian position
towards them that are without), to assist the attainment of the end in
view ; this is misunderstood by Bengel, when he suggests the addition of
" servata hac admonitione," a view in which he is followed by Hofmann.
The meaning is not lucetis (so usually), but (comp, also Weiss, Schenkel,
and J. B, Lightfoot) : ye appear,^ come into view, apparetis.'^ Lucetis (Vulgate)
would be ipaivere.' — ipaarvpe;] light-givers (Rev, xxi, 11), here a designation, not
of torches (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide) or lamps (Hofmann), which would
be too weak for ev ra Koapa, and without support of linguistic usage ; but,
in accordance with the usage familiar to the apostle in the LXX,, Gen.
i, 14, 16, of the shining heavenly bodies.^ — iv Kdapa] is to be taken in refer
ence to the physical world, and closely connected with faar. [XII c]. As
light-bearers in the world (which shine in the world, by day the sun, by night
the moon and stars), the Christians appear in the midst of a perverted genera
tion. Comp. Matt, v. 14; also classical expressions like irdrpa; ipiyyea {Antlwl.
vi, 614, 2), etc, litpaiveaBs be rightly interpreted, 'ev Kdapa cannot be joined
with it (de Wette, Weiss, who takes Kdapa in the ethical sense), or be supple
mented by ipalvovrai (Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel), It is erroneous,
further, to make iv Koapa mean in heaven (Clericus, Rheinwald*), and also
erroneous to attach a pregnant force to iv, making it mean " within the
world," in contrast to the lights of heaven shining from above; thus Hof
mann, connecting it with Xdyov ^arj; iirix, and bringing out with emphasis
something quite self-evident. On Kdapo; without the article, see Winer, p.
117 [E. T. p. 123]. On the whole passage, comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 577 :
iysl; 01 ipaarijps; rov oipavov d; d rfXio; Kal v atXryvv' rl iroivaovai irdvra ra sdvv edv
ipel; aKoncBvaeaBe iv daejiela. k.t.X. Paul, however, has put ipaaryps; without
the article, because he has conceived it qualitatively.
Ver. 16. Adyov ^aij; iirexovrs;] a definition giving the reason for ipalvsaBs d;
ipuar. iv k. : since ye possess the word of life. [XII d.]. This is the Gospel,
iiretdrj rfiv a'ldviov irpo^evsi i^avv, Theodoret, See Rom, i, 16 ; comp, John vi.
68 ; Acts V. 20 ; it is the divinely efficacious vehicle of the irvsvpa rv; i;a?j;
which frees from sin and death (see on Rom. viii. 2), and therefore not
merely " the word concerning life " (Weiss), Christ Himself is the essential
Xdyo; tv; Cwvf(l John i, 1), His servants are bapij l^oij; s'l; t;a^ (2 Cor, ii.
16), therefore the ivord preached by them must be Xdyo; ^aij; in the sense
indicated. Paul does not elsewhere use the e.xpression. As to fu^ with-
1 So also Homer, II. i. 200, which Hofmann D, D. iv. 3 ; also Xen. Symp. i. 9 Anab vii 4 16 •
compares and brings out for our passage the hence ri ,paiv6ii.^va, the heavenly appearances'.
sense: "stand in the light proper to them." 3 John i. 5, v. 36; 1 John ii 8 - 2 Pet i 19-
Comp., however, II. xix. 10, x.^^ii. 28, and I. c. ; Eev, i, 16, xxi, 23 ; 1 Mace, iv, 40 ; Plat' Km'
Duncan, iej:, ed. Eost, p, 1148 f. In the former p. 39 B ; Arist. Nub. 586; Hes.' Oper. 528'-
passage, 1.200, the sense is: her eyes (Athene's) Theoc. ii. 11. ' " '
appeared terrible. Comp. Nagelsbach, p. 87, <Wisd. xiii. 2; Ecclus. xliii 7- Heliod 87-
ed. 3. The same sense, according to another Anthol. xv. 17; Constant Ehod. 'ep. in Par<^
explanation, is found in Faesi. Up. 206.
s Matt. ii. 7, xxiv. 27 ; Jas. iv. 14 ; Rev. xviii. 6 The designation of the heavens by koct^o,
23 ; Hom. II. 1. 477, xxiv. 786, 788, Od. ii. 1, 11. flrst used by Pythagoras (see Bremi ad Isoc
ix. 707; Hes. Oper. 600; Plat Eep. p. 517 B; Paneg. p. 90), did uot enter into the Biblical
Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 10; Polyb. ix. 16. 7; Lucian, usus loquendi.

CHAP. n. 16. 93
out the article, of eternal life in the Messiah's kingdom (iv, 3), see Kaeuffer,
de i^av; a I. not. p. 73 f. As possessors of this word, the Christians appear
hke (paarrjpe; in a world otherwise dark ; without this possession they would
not so present themselves, but would be homogeneous with the perverted
generation, since the essence of the gospel is light (Eph. v. 8; Col. i, 12; 1
Thess, V. 5; 1 Pet, ii, 9; Luke xvi. 8; Acts xx-^-i. 18, al), just as Christ
Himself is the principal light (John i. 4, 5, iii. 19, viii. 12, xii. 35, al.); but
the element of the unbelieving yeved, whose image is the Kdapo; in itself
devoid of light, is darkness (2 Cor. iv. 6, vi. 14 ; Eph. v. 8, vi. 12 ; Col. i. 13 ;
John i. 5, iii. 19), "E-ixsiv, to possess,^ to have in possession, at disposal, and
the hke."-' Not: holding fast (Luther, Estius, Bengel, and others, including
Heinrichs, Hoelemann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Sehneck
enburger) ; nor yet : sustinentes (Calvin), so that the conception is of a light
fixed on a candlestick. Others understand it similarly: holding forth
(Beza, Grotius, and others, including Rheinwald, Matthies, Wiesinger,
Lightfoot), namelj', "that those, who have a longing for life, may let it be
the light which shall guide them to life," as Hofmann explains more
particularly; comp. van Hengel. This would be linguistically correct,'
but not in harmony -with the image, according to which the subjects them
selves appear as shining, as self-shining. Linguistically incorrect is Theo
doret's view : ru ?.dya rrpoaexovrs; {attendentes), which would require the
dative of the object.* Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact take iirix.
correcti}", but understand /.dyov C,av; as equivalent to airippa f. or ivexvpa f.,
and indicate, as the purpose of the words : opa, -n-uf evBia; rlBvai rd iiraBXa
(Chrysostom). This view is -ndthout sanction from the usus loquendi.
Linguistically it would in itself be admissible (see the examples in Wet
stein), but at variance -with the N. T. mode of expression and conception,
to explain with Michaelis, Storr, Zachariae, and Flatt: supplying the place
of hfe (in the world otherwise dead), so that ?.6}ov iirixsiv would mean : to
hold ths relation. Comp. Syr. — el; Kavxvpa k.t.X. [XII c] the result which
the yiveaBai dyiprrrov; k.t.X. on the part of the readers was to have for the
apostle; it was to become for him (and what an incitement this must have
been to the Philippians!) a matter of glorying (i. 26) for the day of Christ
(see on i. 10), when he should have reason to glory, that he, namely {bn),
had not labored in vain, of which the excellent quality of his Philippian
converts would afford practical evidence, on roiovrov; ipd; iiratdevaa, Theo
phylact, Comp, 1 Thess. ii. 19 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 14. Thus they were to be to
him on that day a areipavo; Kavxvaea; (1 Thess. I. c), Paul cannot mean a
present KavxdoBai in prospect of the day of Christ (Hofmann), for s'l; Kavxvpa
K.r.X. cannot be the result accruing for him from the iv ol; ipalvsaBs k.t.X.
1 Hofmann erroneously pronounces against 1 ; Thuc, i. 48, 2, ii, 101, 3 ; Anth. Pal. vii. 297.
this, representing that eircxtiv could only be 4; Polyb. iii. 37. 6, 112. 8, v. 5, 6; Lucian,
thus used in the sense of having under one's Necyom. 14.
control. Compare, in opposition to this, espe- ^ Hom, 11. ix. 489, xxii, 43 ; Plut, Mor. p. 265
cially such passages as Thuc. iii. 107. 4, where A; Pind. 01. ii. 98 ; Poll. iii. 10.
the word is quite synonymous with the par- < Acts iii. 5 ; 1 Tim. iv. 16 ; Ecclus, xxxi. 2 ;
allel simple ix"-"', a'so Anth. Pal vii. 276. 6. 2 Maoe. ix. 25; Job xxx. 26 ; Polyb. iii. 43. 2,
! See Herod. L 104, viii. 35 ; Xen . Symp. viii. xviii. 28. 11.

94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
(since by it the position of the Christians generally is expressed), but only
the result from the ethical development indicated by 'iva yivvaBs dpepirroi k.t.X.
Hence also 'on cannot be a statement of the reason (Hofmann) ; it is explica
tive : that. — The twofold,'^ yet climactic, figurative description of his apos
tolical exertions (on edpap., comp. Gal. ii. 2 ; Acts xx, 24 ; on iKoiriaaa, comp.
1 Cor. XV. 10 ; Gal. iv. 11), as well as the repetition oi e'l; Ksvdv (see on Gal.
u. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 1; Polyc. Phil. 9), is in keeping with the emotion of joy,
of triumph,
Ver, 17. The connection of ideas is this : Wliat Paul had said in ver. 16 :
s'l; Kaixvpa k.t.X., presupposed, in the first place, that he himself would live io
see the further development described in ver. 15 : 'Iva yivvaBs dpspirroi. Now,
however, he puts the opposite case, so as to elevate his readers to the right
point of view for this also, and says : " But even if I should be put to death
in my vocation dedicated to your faith,'' etc. Van Hengel finds in these
words the contrast to the hope of living to see the Parousia. But this hope
is not expressed in what precedes, since the result e'l; Kaixvpa k.t.X. was
conditioned, not by the apostle's living to see the Parousia, but only by
his living to see the described per/iscfion of his readers; inasmuch as, even
when arisen at the Parousia, he might glory in what he had lived to see
in the Philippians. Many others are satisfied with inaking these words
express merely a climax (in relation to 'sKoiriaaa), see especially Heinrichs
and Matthies; but this is erroneous, because 'sKorriaaa in the preceding
verse is neither the main idea, nor specially indicative of tribulation.
Arbitrary and entirely unnecessary is, further, the assumption of an oppo
nent's objection {" at vero imminent tristissima ! ") to which Paul replies ; or
the explanation of dX.Xd by the intervening thought : " non, je n'ai pas
travaille en vain, mats au contraire," etc., Rilliet; comp. also Erasmus,
Paraphr. In a similar but direct way Hofmann gains for dXXd the expla
nation, but on the contrary, by connecting it antithetically with the pre
ceding negative clauses 'on ovk s'l; ksvov k.t.X.., which, with the right expla
nation of the following- words, is impossible. According to de Wette
(comp. also Storr and Flatt), ver. 17 connects itself with i. 26, so that dXXd
forms a contrast to ver. 25, and all that intervenes is a digression. But
how could any reader guess at this ? The suggestion is the more ground
less, on account of the xaipa in ver. 17 corresponding so naturally and appo
sitely with the Kaixvpa in ver. 16, — ei koI k.t.X.] if I even (which I will by
no means call in question) should be poured out, etc. On the concessive
sense of ei koI (1 Cor. iv. 7 ; 2 Cor. iv, 3, 16, v, 16, vii. 8, al), see Herm. ad
Viger. p. 832 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519. The case supposed is thus rendered
more probable than by the reading of E G, koI el (even assuming that /)."
The protasis beginning with dXX' el koi extends to r. irlar. vpav. As in ver.
12, so also here Hofmann makes the violent assumption that the apodosis
already begins at iirl r. Bvaiif k.t.X. with airivdopai again to be supplied, whilst
at the same time there is imputed to this 'ercl r. Bvala k.t.X., in order to give
1 Comp, Anthol. Pal. xi, 66, 2 : ji!) rpixe, nij " Stallbaum, od Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A ; Gorg.
Koria. p. 609 A ; Schmalf. Syntax d. Verb. see. 99 f.

CHAP. II. 17. 95
an appropriate turn to the assumed antithesis for dXXd, a tenor of thought
which the words do not bear ; see below. — airivdopai] I become offered as a
libation, poured out as a drink-offering (2 Tim. iv. 6), frequently in all class
ical writers.' The sense stripped of figure is : if even my blood is shed, if
even I should be put to death.^ Paul represents his apostolic exertions for
the faith of the PhiUppians as an offering (comp. Rom. xv. 16) ; if he is
therein put to death, he is, by means of the shedding of his blood in this
sacrifice, made a libation, just as among the Jews' in the sacrifices, together
with meat-offerings, libations of wine were made, which were poured upon
the ground from sacred vessels {airovdela) at the altar.* The present tense
is used, because Paul has strongly in view his present danger (i. 20 ff.) ;
Kiihner, II. 1, p, 119 f. Rilliet (comp, AVetstein) takes the passive erro
neously : I am besprinkled (which also does not correspond with the present
tense), making Paul say, " que la libation preparatoire du sacrifice a
COule sur sa tete," Confusion with KaraairivdsaBai.^—eiri r. Bva. k. Xeir. T. ir.
ip.] at the sacrifice and priestly service of your faith, that is, whilst I present
your faith as a sacrifice and perform priestly service in respect to it ; the
sense of this, stripped of the figure, is : whilst I, by furtherance of your faith in
Christ, serve God, as by the offering and priestly ministration of a sacrifice.
[XII/,] rij; irlar. is the object which is conceived as sacrificed and under
going priestly ministration ; Bvaia and ?.sirovpyia have one article in com
mon, and are thereby joined so as to form one conception. But Xsirovpyla
(priestly function) ^ is added by the apostle as a more precise definition, because
the mere Bvaia would leave it uncertain whether he was to be considered
as a priest, whereas Paul desires expressly to describe himself as such,
Bvaia, as always in the N. T,, is sacrifice, so that the idea is : at the sacrifice
and priestly service of your faith ; hence there is no necessity for taking
it as sacrificing, or the act of sacrifice.'' The eiri, however, is simply to be
taken as at, as in i. 3 and frequently ; not as to, in addition to (Beza,
Raphe], Matthies, de Wette, Weiss, and many others; comp, also Hof
mann), or with the Vulgate as supra (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, van Hen
gel), in the sense of the (heathen) mode^ of the libation, an interpretation
which should have been precluded by the addition of the abstract k. Xeir-
1 See also Schleusner, T?ies, V, p, 79 ; Suicer, blood as a a-TrovSri, eomp. Anthol. ix. 184. 6:
Thes. II. p. 993. f tf^of oVa rvpdvvnjv einreiaev, Ignatius, Bom. 2 ;
2 This (since the time of Chrysostom) unani- a-Trovdta-drjvat 0ew ws en dviriainrjpiov kroip-ov
mous interpretation of the figurative expres- lirri.
sion has been abandoned by Otto, Pastoralbr. 5 plut. Alex. 50, de def. orac. 46 ; Strabo, iv. p.
p. 214 f, who expl.ains it as referring, not to 197 ; Eur. Or. 1239 ; Antip. Sid. 73 (Anthol. vii,
the shedding of blood, but to the severance of 27).
the apostle's life in his vocation from inter- « Comp. Luke i. 23 ; Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21, and
course with the world by his imprisonment. frequently in the LXX.; see Schleusner,
An abortive suggestion, the forced result of Thes. ; comp. also Diod. Sic. i. 21, and, for the
incorrect assumptions. figurative use of the word, Rom. xv. 16, 27.
' Num. xxviii. 7, xv. 4 ff. ; Joseph. Antt. iii. i Herod, iv. 60, viii. 99 ; Herodian, viii, 3, 5,
9. 4; see generally, Ewald, Alterth. p, 46 f.; i. 36. 12, al.
Saalschutz, M. P. p. 314 f. *0n this mode of libation rests the expres-
* As to the Hellenic sacrificial libations, see sion eTriimivSsiv, to pour a libation over some-
Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. ? 25, 15 f. On the thing (Herod, ii. 39, iv. 60, 62, vii. 167 ; Aesch.
figurative representation of the shedding of Ag. 1396 ; Plut Eom. 4).

96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
ovpy. Finally, although Paul's official activity concerned the faith of all
his churches, he says ipav with the same right of individualizing reference
as in di' ipd; Sit i. 24 and many other passages. The passage is peculiarly
misunderstood by Hofmann, who holds that iiri has the sense in association
with; that rij; irlarsa; ip. is the genitive of apposition to Bvala and 7.sirovpy. ;
that the sacrificing and ministering subject is not the apostle, but the Phil
ippian church, which, when it became believing, had presented its own
sacrifice to God, and has been constantly honoring Him with its own ivork
of service. Accordingly Paul says that, even though his labors should end
in a violent death, yet the shedding of his blood luould not be an isolated drink-
offering, but would associate itself with their sacrifice. But this would only
make him say, with artificial mysteriousness, something which is perfectly
self-evident (namely : after that ye became believers, and whilst ye are
believers). Moreover, iirl would thus be made to express two very differ
ent relations, namely, with rij Bvala after, after that, and with the Xsirovpyla at,
during. And how could a reader discover from the mere iiri k.t.X. the
alleged antithetical reference of an isolated drink-offering, especially as no
antithesis of the persons is even indicated by ipdv being placed first (imme
diately after iirl) ? The entire explanation is a forced artificial expedient
in consequence of the mistaken assumption that an apodosis begins after
airivdopai, and a new section sets in with x^'P"-^ — Xo-'P"] [XII g.] Apodosis
down to vplv : I rejoice, not at the Bvala «.. Xeirovpylg rij; irlar. ip. (Chrysos-
tom, who connects ewl r. 6va. k.t.X. with xo'pi^ ', comp. Oecumenius ; so also
Rilliet), for it is mere arbitrariness to separate the sacrificial expressions
airivdopai and 'eirl r. Bvaia k.t.X. and attach them to different parts of the
sentence, and because xaipa, as the point of the apodosis, would have been
placed before irrl r. Bva. k.t.X. ; but ai theairsvdsaBai: I rejoice to be employed
for so sacred a destination."^ The ground of the apostle's joy, assumed by
many (including Flatt, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette) : because my
death will tend to tlie advantage of the gospel (i. 20), and also the interpre
tation of Weiss : that joy at the progress of the Philippians towards perfection
is intended, are both quite gratuitously imported into the passage. The
explanation of it as referring generally to inward joyfidness of faith (Wies
inger) or divine serenity (Ewald), does not correspond with the protasis,
according to which it must be joyfulness in the prospect of death. " Even
if I am compelled to die in this sacrificial service, I rejoice therein," .and
that, indeed, now for the case supposed ; hence not future. — koI avyx. irdaiv
iplv] is wrongly explained by most commentators : " and I rejoice with you
all" (so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, Matthies,
van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Sehneckenburger, Weiss,
Hofmann, and many others) ; along with which explanation Chrysostom,
1 In which x<"'p»> "¦ o-vyxaipm iraaiv iiilv are church whose heart is joyful (all this is sup-
supposed to serve merely as an introduction posed to be implied in iri.n.i' vjiii.!),
for the exhortation which fohows ; thus Paul ^ Theophylact appropriately remarks: oix
would be made to say, that even for that sup- ws 6 airodavovixevo^ Aun-oO/xai, aKKa koX xi^'-P'^
posed case of the airivietreai he is in a joyful , , , Sti o-ttoi/Sij yivop-ai, and Theodoret:
mood, and he rejoices with any person in the raira 6e Ae'vci i/zuxa-ycoYwi. ovtous k. SiSao-KojK

CHAP. IL 18. 97
Theophylact, and various of the older' expositors, bring forward another
ground for this joint joy than for the xaipu (Chrysostom : xoipa piv, bn airovdij
yivopar avyxaipu de on Bvalav rrpoasveyKdv ; comp. Sehneckenburger). Decisive
against this interpretation is the xo-'i-P^^ which follows in ver, 18, — a sum
mons which would be absurd, if avyx. V- meant : " I rejoice with you." The
Vulgate already rightly renders : congratulor} I congratulate you all,
namely, on the fact that I am poured out in the service of your faith. Such a
martyrdom, namely, for the sake of their faith, how it must have elevated and
honored the readers, their whole church; for such a martyr death con
cerned them all ! Comp. on Eph. iii. 13 ; it redounds to their glory, if the
apostle sheds his blood on account of their Christian standing established
by him. It is in this light that Paul wishes his airivdsaBai, should it occur,
to be regarded by his readers, and therefore gracefully and ingeniously
represents it (though Hofmann holds this to be impossible) as something
on which he must congratulate them all. Pauline linguistic usage is not
to be urged in objection to this view (Weiss), as Paul employs avyxaipu
elsewhere only in the passages 1 Cor. xii. 26, xiii. 6, and these are balanced
by vv. 17 and 18 here. Van Hengel and de Wette have erroneously
objected that it would have been avyxaipopai (3 Mace. i. 8). The active as
well as the m,iddle may convey either meaning, to rejoice along with, or
gratulari *
Ver. 18. And upon the same (upon my possibly occurring airivdsaBai iirl r.
Bva. K.r.X., ver. 17) rejoice ye also (because it takes place for the sake of your
faith), and congratulate me thereon, (on such a sacred destination). The
verbs are imperatives. " Postulat enim Paulus parent avpndBsiay a Philipp.,"
Beza. The ground of the xoipere may not be arbitrarily introduced (Hof
mann : whatever untowardness may occur), but must by logical necessity
be- the same which, in ver. 17, suggested the avyxaipu iplv; and that of the
avyxaipers poi must be the same as caused Paul to say xaipu in ver. 17."
The expositors, who do not take avyxalpeiv as gratulari, are here placed in
the awkward position of making the apostle summon his readers to a joy
which, according to ver. 17, they would already possess. By this impos
sibility Weiss, in spite of the rb air(i,'allows himself to be driven into taking
the joy ill ver. 18, not as in ver. 17, but (comp. also Hofmann) quite gen
erally, of a joyful frame of mind. — rb aird] in the same (on the accusative,
comp. Matt. ii. 10) rejoice ye also ; see also on i. 25. Hence it is not to be
taken as equivalent to daaira; (Beza, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, Rheinwald,
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann) (comp. on i. 6), in order
thereby to avoid identifying it with the joy mentioned in ver. 17. As to
tou tiaprvpiov rh jite-yeflos. Comp. Gro- Hofmann) urges, that the readers "vix aut
tius, Heinrichs. ne vix quidem induci potuerunt de hujus viri
1 Comp. Jerome, Beza, Castalio, Grotius, morte violenta gaudentes vel gavisnri," en-
Storr, Flatt, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Bisping, tirely mistakes the lofty standpoint of the
Ellicott, Lightfoot. apostle, who looks death in the face with a
2 Polyb. xxix. 7. 4, xxx. 10. 1 ; Plut Mor. p. holy joy (comp. the frequent corresponding
231 B ; 3 Mace. i. 8, See -Valckenaer, Schql. sentiments in the epistles of Ignatius), and
I. p, 64. also attributes to his readers a corresponding
'The difficulty which van Hengel (comp. modeoflookingatthepoasibilityof hisdeath.
7

98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
xaipeiv with the accusative in classical authors, see generally Lobeck, ad
Aj. 131 ; Kuhner, II. 1, p. 255 f.
Ver. 19. [Onvv. 19-24, see Note XIII, pages 114, 115,] The apostle now,
do-wn to ver, 24, speaks of sending Timothy ^ to them, and states that he
himself trusted to visit them shortly, [XIII a.] [iAin'fu di k.t.X.] [XIII
6.] The progressof thought attaching itself to ver. 17 (not to ver. 12) is :
However threatening, according to ver. 17 f., and dangerous to life my
situation is, nevertheless I hope soon to send Timothy to you, etc. — He
hopes, therefore, for such a change in his situation, as would enable him
soon to spare that most faithful friend for such a mission. Here also, as
in i. 21-26, there is an immediate change from a presentiment of death
to a confidence of his being preserved in life and even liberated (ver, 24),
The right view of vv, 17, 18 debars us from construing the progress of the
thought thus : for the enhancement of my joy, however, etc, (Weis.s), Others
take different views, as e. g. Bengel : although I can write nothing definite
regarding the issue of my case, — an imported parenthetic thought, which
is as little suggested in ver, 17 f. as is the antithetical relation to xo'psrs
K. airy xaip. poi discovered by Hofmann, viz. that the apostle is anxious as to
whether all is well in tlie church. — 'ev Kvpiu] making the hope causally rest in
Christ. Comp. on 1 Cor, xv. 19. — iplv] not equivalent to the local irpo;
ipd; (van Hengel), nor yet the dative commodi (" vestros in usus, vestra in
gaudia," Hoelemann, comp. de Wette and Hofmann), whereby too special
a sense is introduced; but the dative of reference (1 Cor. iv. 17 ; Acts xi.
29), indicating the persons concerned as those for whom the mission gen
erally is intended. — Kaya] [XIII c] I also, as ye through the accounts ^ to
be received of me, namely, those which ye shall receive through this
epistle, through Epaphroditus, and through Timothy. — ev-ilwxelv] to be of
good courage, occurs here only in the N, T, See Poll. iii. 135 ; Joseph.
Antt. xi. 6. 9.' — -a irepi ip.] the things concerning you, quite generally, your
circumstances. Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8.*
Ver, 20, [XIII d.] Reason why Timothy is the person sent. Hof
mann erroneously takes it, as : the reason why he sends no one at the time.
As if vvv ydp or dpn ydp ovdiva K.r.X. were written, — 'ladipuxov] like-minded,
namely, with me ; in what respect, is stated in the sequel, Castalio, Beza,
Calvin, Rilliet, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, -wrongly interpret it : no one who
1 Hofmann's hypothesis, that the church and thus he hopes to receive the desired
had expressed a desire that the apostle would news about them which shall make him be
send them one who should aid them, with of good courage. Hofmann introduces the
word and deed, in their affairs, has no hint comparative sense : fresher courage, under
of it given at all in the text; least of all in Iva the assumption which he reads between the
Kayia einlnixOi k.t.A. Why should Paul not lines, that the apostle is concerned about
have mentioned, in some way or another, the various things in the church, which Timothy
wish of the church ? — Baur and Hinsch find rpould succeed in settling and arranging. PauVs
no motive mentioned for the mission of Time- cordial, loving interest in the welfare of the
thy. As if the motive of love conveyed by Philippians is quite sufficient to explain the
'iva Kayui k.t. A. were not enough ! evi^u;^(L.
2 There is a delicate compliment implied in 3 Comp. the €u>/*ux€t in epitaphs (like x°-'ip^)
this Kayiii ; for Timothy was to come back again in Jacobs, ad Anthol. xii. p. 304.
to the apostle (but not Epaphroditus, ver. 26), * See Heindorf, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 68 A.

CHAP. n. 19-21. 99
would be so minded as he (Rheinwald combines the two references). As
avra is not added, the text gives no other reference for lao; (ic IootIvx) than
to the subject of sxa (see also ver. 22) ; as, indeed, Paul could not give a
better reason for the choice of Timothy, and could not more effectively
recommend nim to his readers, than b3- setting forth his hkemindedness
with himself; comp. Deut. xiii. 6 : piXo; lao; rfj fvxv pov. [XIII e.] The
word occurs only here in the X. T. ; see LXX. Ps. Iv. 14 ; Aesch. Agam.
1470. Comp. on the subject-matter, 1 Cor. xvi. 10. — ban; k.t.X.] the em
phasis is laid on yvvaia;, and ban;, quippe qui, ita comparatum ut, introduces
the character of an lad-dmxo;, such as is not at his disposal. — ymiclu;] in gen
uine, sincere fashion, tvith one care without guile,' the selfish contrast to
which is described in ver. 21. Comp. 2 Cor. \-iii. 8. — pspipvvaei] namely,
when I shall have sent him. The caring is not to be more precisely defined;
it necessarily manifested itself according to the circumstances in watch
ing, correction, encouragement, counsel, and action. Comp. 1 (3or. xii.
25 ; 2 Cor. xi. 2S.
Ver. 21. Ot rrdvre;] all (except Timothy), of those whom I now have
with me and at my disposal for sending ; see ver. 20. We have the less
warrant to modify this judgment in any way, expressed, as it is, so very
clearly and decidedly by the absolute antithesis rd iavrdv t^rjroiaiv, cv rd 'I.
X., seeing that we are unacquainted -viith the circle surrounding the
apostle at that particular time, and do not know to what extent the anti-
Pauline tendency, i. 15, 17, had then spread in the immediate neighbor
hood of the apostle. The only limitation of the general expression,
which is in accordance -R-ith the text, lies in the fact that Paul does not
mean the Christians generally in Bome, but such assistant teachers as
would otherwise, if they had been pure and honest, have been qualified
for such a mission. The trustworthy ones among these otherwise quali
fied fellow-laborers must have been absent at the time, especially Luke,
who could by no means have been included among oi rravrs; (in opposition
to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 427) ; hence the PhiUppians are
not saluted specially either by Luke or by any ©ther, and the omission of
such salutations by name at the end of this epistle receives in part its
explanation from this passage. Consequently, ol rrdvr. cannot be under
stood as many or the most (Beza, Wolf, Hammond, Drusius, Estius, Gro
tius, Comehus a Lapide, and others, including Heinrichs, Rheinwald,
Flatt) ; nor is it : " all, whom lean spare " (Erasmus), or : " who are known
to you " (van Hengel). Xeithe,r is the negation to be taten relatively: they
seek more their own interest, etc. (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others,
also Flatt, Hoelemann, comp. the reservations of Weiss), to which Hof
mann's -view * also ultimately comes ; nor is it to be explained by assum
ing an intention of distinguishing Timothy (Matthies) ; nor yet is the judg
ment to be restricted, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact,
ipem. 14S2, 14; Polyb. ir. 30. 2; 2 Mace. even ttiough it be consecrated totfie kingdom of
xiv, 8. • ^od (?), by special personal aims, instead of
* The latter says : they allow themselves fo devoting tfiemselves ai.w.a.yb ohly (^ ov ra'l.X.)
be inftuenced in t^ direction of their activity, to ttiat which is most advantageous for the

100 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to the hardships of the long journey, to which they preferred their own
repose. Bengel rightly defends the full seriousness of the utterance, and
adds : " subtilissima erat alaBvai;, qua hoc percepit Paulus." But Biiur
erroneously discovers here merely an exaggeration, which arose from the
subjectivity of a later author. What an uncalled-for fiction that would
have been !
Ver. 22. Contrast, not of the person (which would have run rijv di
airov doK. or avrov ds rijv doK), but of the qualification, in order further to
recommend him, whom he hopes soon to be able to send ; not to m,ake up
for the disadvantage, that they can in the first instance only hope, etc. (as
Hofmann artificially explains). But the approved character {indoles spectata,
comp. Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13) of him ye know; for Timothy had
himself been in Philippi (Acts xvi. 1, 3, xvii, 14) ; hence yivdoK. is not the
imperative ' — bn k.t.X.] that he, namely, etc. — d; irarpl riKvov] Comp. 1 Cor.
iv. 17. The apostle had here idoiXevaev before his mind, but altera the con
ception in such a way, that he thinks upon the service as rendered no
longer to him, but with him, in a humble glance at Clu-ist (ver. 21), whom
he himself also serves, so that the apostle's servant is at the same time
his avvdovXo;.'' Hofmann labors without success to remove the incongru
ity, which cannot be got rid of unless, with Vatablus, we were at liberty
to supply aiv before irarpl. But, however frequently the Greeks put the
preposition only once in comparisons,' its omission does not occur in the
clause placed first. The poetical use of such an omission in the case of
words which are connected by koI, re, or 7 * does not concern us here. — e'l;]
in respect to the gospel (comp. i. 5), the serving in question having reference
to the preacrdng, defence, etc., thereof. [XIII/.]
Ver. 23. Miv oiv] oiv resumes ver. 19, and to the piv corresponds the di
in ver. 24. — d; dv dirldu k.t.X.] when (of the time, see Klotz, ad Devar. p.
759, that is, as soon as, comp. on 1 Cor, xi, 34 ; Rom, xv. 24) I anyhow (by
dv the matter is left to experience) shall have seen to the end (Jonah iv. 5).
The latter, which expresses the perceiving from a distance ^ denotes the
knowledge of the final course of matters to be ex^iected,— only after which
could it be decided whether or not he could spare the faithful Timothy
for a time. The form dfidu (Lachmann and Tischendorf) in A B* D* F
G K is, on account of this weighty evidence, to be considered not as a
copyist's error, but as the original, and to be derived from the pronuncia
tion of 'idslv (with the digamma), Comp, on Acts iv. 29, and see Winer,
p. 44 [E. T. p. 45] ; J. B, Lightfoot ad loc. ; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 7 [E.
T. p. 7], — rd irepi ipi] the things about me, that is, the state of my affairs.
Substantially not diff'erent from rd irspl ipov (ver, 19 f.).^
cause of Christ (oii ra 'I. X.!). Thus there is < Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. i, 38; Lobeck, ad
imported into the passage what is not at all Aj. 397 ff.
to be found in it. . ?¦ ....„„ t^ , .„„ ,
,,,,,„,, „ . ,¦ r. V 5 Herod, vm, 37 ; Dem, 1472, 15 ; Lucian, D,
1 Vulgate, Pelagms, Castalio, Cornelius * n vi 2
Lapide, Clericu.=i, Rheinwald, Hoelemann.
2 See Winer, pp. 393, 537 [E. T. pp. 422, 677.] " See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20 ; Winer,
2 See Bernhardy, p. 204 f.; Kiihner, II. 1, P- 379 [E. T. p. 406].
p. 479.

CHAP, n. 22-2.5. 101
Ver. 24. Eat ai-rof] afeo mi/se//" personally. [Xlllgr.] Tl'^i Paul shall
see, therefore, is, as he confidently trusts (not merely hopes), his liberation
(comp. i. 25 f.) ; that it wiU make it possible for him to come soon.^ The
terminus a quo of the raxia; is, as ui ver. 19, the then present time, although
the sending of Timothy and his return (ver. 19) are to precede his own
coining. The raxiu; as a relative definition of the time is not opposed to
this view. But that Kal aird; includes also tlie case of his coming at the
same time rvith Timothy (Hofmann), is, according to ver. 19 ff., not to be
assumed. Ver. 25 f. [On vw. 25-30, see Xote XIV. pages 115, 116]. About Epa
phroditus; the sending him home, and recommendation of him, down to
ver. 30 — dvaryK. Si i/y.] [XIV a. b.] I have, however , judged it necessary, al
though Epaphroditus, namely, according to w. 19-24, might have re
mained here still, in order to have made his return-journej^ to you later,
either in company with Timothy, or eventually T\-ith myself. For the
special reason, which Paul had for not keeping him longer T\ith himself in
Rome, see vv. 26, 2S. — ''E-aopddiroi] other-n-ise not further known. The
name (signifying Yenu-itus) was a common one,' also-written'E-a^piiferof;'
but to regard the man as identical w-ith ''Erraopd; (Col. i. 7, iv. 12 ; Philem.
23) (Grotius, Paulus, and othere) is all the more arbitrai-y, since Epaphras
was a Colossian teacher. — ^The grouping together oi five predicates '^'hich
follows, has arisen out of lo^-ing and grateful regard for Epaphroditus, as
an honorable testimonj' to him in his relation to the apostle as well as to
the church. — ddeXg., awepy., avarpar.] [XIV c] a climactic threefold de
scription of companionship, advancing fi-om the most general category,
that of Christian brotherhood {ddeXodc), to a twofold more special relation.
On aivrpar., which sets forth the joint working {avvefry.) in relation to the
hostile powers, comp. Philem. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 3. — ipdv di d-dar. n. Xsirovpy. r.
Xp. pou.] [Xr\' d.] still belonging to rdv ; hence iydv, placed in contrast to
the yov, belongs to Xsirovpy. . . x- f- as well (in opposition to de Wette and
others). 'Airdaro/ui; here means delegate (2 Cor. viii. 23), and not apostle, *
which would necessitate the genitive ipdv being taken as in Rom. xi. 13,
against which the context, by the union -with Xsirovpy. r. x. p., is decisive ;
as, indeed, Paul uses d-dar. as an official designation only in the sense of the
actual apostolic rank, based upon a direct call by Christ, in its narrower
and -nider reference (comp. on Gal. i, 19; Rom, xvi. 7 ; 1 Cor. xv, 7), and
hence there is no necessity to seek even an allusion to his " quasi "-apos
tohc position towards the Philippiiins (Matthies). — k. Xsirovpy. r. x. fi-] the
sacrificial minister of my need, d; rd -ap' avrav d-oaraXivTa Kopiaavra xpvpara,
Theodoret. By sending aid they had cared for the apostle's need (iv. 16);
and that gift of love being regarded as a sacrifice offered to God, Epaph-
iHow could this confidence, which the 5 Tac. ^hti. xv. 55 ; Suet DomtH, 14 ; Joseph.
result did not justify, have been put by any ViL 76; Wetstein tn loc.
Iat«r author into the apostle-? month ? Only » Boeclih, Corp. inscr. 1811, 2562.
Paul himself conld have written in snch a 4Vulgate,Hilarins,Theodoret,Lnther,Era3-
way as h.=re and in L 25 f. See, in opposition mu=. Calovins, Wetstein : " mei muneris vica-
to Hinsch, Hilgenfeld, 1S73, p. 185 t rium apud vos," am Ende, and others.

102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
roditus, who had been entrusted by them with the conveying of it, was
the Xeirovpyd; in the matter, that is, he who performed the priestly service
in the bringing of this offering (comp. ver, 17). Such is also the con
ception in 2 Cor, ix. 12. On rij; xP"o; p. comp. iv. 16; Rom. xii. 13. —
iripipai] as also in Greek authors frequently, in the sense of dimittere
domum, to send home,^ consequently equivalent to dirorripirsiv or dvarriprreiv
(Philem. 12). ^
Ver. 26. State of mind {vv with participle) of Epaphroditus, which sup
plied the motive for the dvayK. vyva. k.t.X}— The imperfect is used {vv),
because Paul transports himself to the time when the readers shall
receive this epistle. [XIV e.] Then is Epaphroditus again among them ;
but he was previously longing, etc. — ddvpovdv] in anxiety. Comp. on
IVIatt. xxvi. 37.— ori vaB.] that he was sick. How the Philippians received
this information, remains an open question, as also how Epapliroditus
learned that they had heard it.
Ver. 27. Confirmation of that riKovaare, on ^aB. — koi yap k.t.X.] for he has
also (really, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132 ; Baeumlein, p. 150) been sick.
— irapairX. Bavdra] adds the specification of the mode : in a way almost equiv
alent to death. There is neither an ellipsis (de Wette : dipUsro or some such
word is to be understood before rrapairX. ; comp. van Hengel) nor a solecism
(van Hengel) ; iraparrX. is adverbial (equivalent to irapairXvala;, see Polyb.
iv. 40. 10, iii. 33. 17 ; Lucian, Cyn. 17 ; comp. rrapairXvaialrspov, Plat. Polit.
p. 275 C), and the dativus congruentiae (instead of which the genitive might
also have been used, Bernhardy, p. 148) is governed by it. — '/.virvv iirl
Xiiirvv] [XIV /.] grief upon grief (superadded). LXX. Ezra vii. 26 ; Ps.
Ixix. 27 ; Isa. xxviii. 10.* The first Xvirvv refers to the dreaded death of his
friend ; the second, to the apostle's affliction over the painful position in
which he found himself, as a prisoner, and also through the doings of the
adversaries (ver. 20 f., i. 15, 17, 30), not over the sickness of Epaphroditus
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, and others, also
Weiss), to which would be added that for his death. 'AXv-orepo; in ver.
28 is fatal to the latter view, for it appears that, even after Epaphr. had
been sent away, a Xvirv still remained, which, therefore, could not be

1 That Paul, however, here writes Trdp.\liai s The supposition that Paul, in specifying
irpbs iip-as, and, on the other hand, tt. iifxlv in this ground, wished to prevent the so speedy
ver. 19, is an accidental and undesigned return of the man from being interpreted to
variation. Hofmann thinks that by tt. ujnii. is his disadvantage (Hofmann), assumes the
meant the sending of a representative of the existence of a certain distrust, for which
apostle to the Church, and by it. irpos ujuas the there is no basis in the text. Besides, Epa-
sending of a representative of the Church to the phroditus had in fact accomplished the purpose
apostle. This distinction is involved in the of his mission.
state of the case, but has nothing to do with * Comp. expressions with the dative (as
the diiference between the vilZv and Trpb? Ecclus. xxvi. 16) in classic Greek, e. g. oyxv-q
i/ia^. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. vi. 22; Col. eirl o-yx"!? (Horn. Od. vii. 120), eo-Ai err' eo-Aoi!
iv. 8 ; Tit. iii. 12 ; 2 Cor. xii. 17. (Pind. 01. viii. 84), (()6i.os en-l <f>i)i'u (Eur. Iph.
a Xen. Bell. ii. 7. 9 ; Soph. O. B. 1518 ; Polyb. T. 197) ; Polyb. i. 67. 1. See also Eur. Hec. 686 :
V. 100. 10 ; and frequently in Homer. See Aun-ij ns aAAij 5ia5oxos KaKCiv kokoIs, Soph. El.
especially Od. xv. 74 ; XPV ^^'ivov Trapeovra 235 : drav arats, Eur. Trood. 175 ; eir' dXyeiri &'
^lAetu, e9i\ovra Se ireiLTreiv. aKyvvSHi.

CHAP. n. 26-30. 103
referred to the latter's sickness. Van Hengel errs in understanding the
aifiiction as pain concerning this sickness, and the first 7.v-rrv as " cogitatio
anxietatis vestrae." See, in opposition, on ver. 28, Calvin's remark
suffices to justify the double Xmrv : " Xon jactat Stoicorum drrdBeiav, quasi
ferrous esset et immunis ab humanis affectibus.'^ Comp. John xi. 35 f. —
axd] not optative. See Winer, p. 270 [E. T. p. 288].
Ver. 28. The more urgently, therefore (in consequence of this sickness
which he had had and recovered fi-om, of which ye received tidings, vv.
26, 27), I have brought about his return, which otherT\-ise I would still
have delayed. — rrduv] belongs to xapvre, as Paul usually places it before the
verb, or, at least, makes it follow immediately after.' And the context
affords no ground for departing from the usual mode, and for joining it
-with 'iddvrs; airdv (Beza, Grotius, and others, also Baumgarten-Crusius and
de Wette). — Kayd d/.i-— dr. d] 'Edv ydp ipel; xaprjrs, Kal iryd xo'po, Oecumenius.
He is not d/.viro;, for he is in captivity and surrounded by adversaries ;
but the joy which he is aware is aheady prepared for his beloved Philip
pians by the return of Epaphroditus, lessens his /.irrv. This tender inter-
weawing of his own alleviation with the rejoicing of his readers is lost, if
we refer d?.vrror. to the removal of the vexation of seeing tlie recovered one
so full of longing and so uneasy (Hofmann), which, regarded as Xi--ri,
would be sentimental. Accorduig to Weiss, Paul intends to say : still
more dXviro;, than I have already become in consequence of Epaphroditus'
recovery. An unsuitable idea, because the comparative necessarily pre
supposes a certain degree of the Xinrri still remaining. In the conscious
ness of this Paul has written dXvrrdr. ; if it had been otherwise, he would
perhaps have used, as in ver. 19, Kaya siipvxd or Kdyd xaipa.
Ver. 29 f. Ovv] Let, then, the reception which he meets with among you
be in accordance with my purpose in accelerating his return {Iva 'iddvre;
K.T.X) ; receive him with all joy. — 'sv Kvpia] denotes, as in Eom. xvi. 2, the
Christian character of the rrpoadixeaBai, the nature and action of which
have their distinctive quaUty in Christ, in whose fellowship Christians hve
and move. — ysrd rrda. xop] excludes every kind of sullen or indifferent
temper and expression : " with all joyfulness." — koX rov; roioinov; k.t.X^ and
the people of such a sort, etc. 'Iva pv id^y aira pdva xapi^eaBai, Koivd; irapaivsl
irdvra; rov; r^ avrfpi dperrpi 'siriSsiKwyivov; ripdv, Theophylact. But Epa
phroditus is in his view, as in the given case, the person belonging to the
class thus to be held in honor.^
Ver. 30. Sia ro spy.] [XIV gi] emphatically prefixed : on account of
nothing else than for this great sacred aim. The work (see the critical
remarks) is, according to the context (comp. Acts xv. 38), obvious,
namely, that of labor for the gospel; the addition in the Eec. roi Xpiaroi is
a correct gloss, and it is this ipyov nar' 's^ox'fp' (comp. irrip roi bvdparo;, ActS
I See Gcrsdor^ Beitr. p. 491 f., and van to hold in honor people of another sorHsach
Hengel. *s ^^ described in chap, iii-) more than the
« There is no ground for the reference, toiovtovs. For this assumption there would,
which Hoftnann discovers here,toan assumed at the most, be occasion only if Paul had
inclination, on the part of the Philippians, used the comparative instead of ivripjivt.

104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
V. 41) in the service of which Epaphroditus incurred so dangerous an
illness, namely, when he, according to the testimony of the predicates in
ver. 25, as the awspyd; and avarpandrv; of the apostle, with devotedness and
self-sacrifice, united his exertions for the gospel and his striving against
the movements of its adversaries (i. 15, 17, 30, ii, 20) with a similar activity
on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which refers ipyov to the
business of conveying the bounty (de "N^'ette, following older expositors,
comp, Weiss), does not suffice for the more special characteristic descrip
tion ; and the reference to the enmity of Nero against Paul, the dangers
of which Epaphroditus had shared, in order to reach the apostle and to
serve him, finds no warrant either in the context or in Acts xxviii. (in
opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, comp, Theodoret), —
pexpi Bav. V'yy.] as in Ps, Cvii, 18 : vyyiaav ia; rdv irvXdv rov Bavdrov, EccluS, li.
6 : su; Bavdrov, Rev. xii. 11. The expression with yixpi is more definite
than the dative would be (as in Ps. Ixxxviii. 3 : y i^av pov ra gdv vT,iae), or
s'l; Bdvar. (Job xxxiii. 22) ; he came near even unto death. — -apajiov7.. ry ijivx.]
Such is the Text. Sec, which Bengel, Jlatthaei (vehement in opposition to
Wetstein and Griesbach), Rinck, van Hengel, Reiche, and others defend,
and Tischendorf still follows in the 7th ed. Justly, however, Scaliger,
Casaubon, Salmasius, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and others, including Gries
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, ed. 8, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet,
Winer, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, h.ave preferred
irapapoX. r. f. The latter has the authority of A B D E F G x, 177, 178, 179
in its favor, as well as the support of the Itala by " parabolatus est de anima
sua," and of Vulgate, Aeth, Pelagius, by " tradens (Ambrosiaster : in
interitum tradens) animam suam.'' Since fioXtieaBai was unknown to the
copyists, whilst jSovXsisaBai was very current, instead of the one diraf Xeydp.
another crept in, the form of which, on account of the prevalence of the
simple word, had nothing offensive, irapafioXsisaBai, which is nowhere
certainly preserved (in opposition to Wetstein's quotations from the
Fathers, see IMatthiae, ed, min, p, 341 f., and Reiche, Comment, crd. p. 220
f.), is formed from the very current classical word irapdjSoXo;, putting at
stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to irapdfioXov elvai, to be
venturous, to be an adventurer, as irepirepsveaBai equivalent to iripirspov elvai
(1 Cor. xiii. 4), aXoyeieaBai equivalent to dXoyov elvai (Cic. Alt. vi. 4),
dirooKoirsisiv and iiriOKoirsisiv (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), KupiKsveaBai
(Luc. Philop. 22).' Hence the irapaj3oXsvadpevo; k.t.X., which is to be
regarded as a modal definition to p. Bav. i/yyiae, means : so that he was ven
turesome with his sold (dative of the more definite reference), i.e. he hazarded
his life;^ in order to supply, etc. In this sense rrapapdXXsaBai is current

Besides, the emphasis is not on tovs toioutoub ot forfeit. Comp, irapa^6\iov in Poll, viii. 63
(Hofmann), but on ivriii-ovs, correlative to the Phrynich. p. 238. On the subject-matter comp.
preceding ij.era rriir. xn-P^^- also irpotcireai ris ^vxM (Pausanias, iv. 10. 3) ;
I See more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn. the animae magnae prodigus of Horace {Od. i.
p. 67, and comp. generally Kuhner, I. p. 696, 12. 37) ; and the vitam profundere pro patria
II. 1, p. 98. of Cicero {de Off. i. 24).
',^ The matter is conceived as staking a price

CHAP. n. 30. 105
among Greek authors, and that not merely with accusative of the object,'
but also with dative of reference,^ in the sense of pifoKivdwslv (Schol. Thuc.
iv. 57) and rrapappirrreiv (Soph. fr. 499. Dind.).* Hence, also, the name
parabolani for those who waited on the sick (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 2, p.
173, ed. 4). Taking the reading of the Text. Rec, irapa^ovXeieaBai would
have to be explained : male consulere vitae (Luther aptly renders : since
he thought light of his life). See especially Reiche. This verb, also, does
not occur in profane Greek authors ; but for instances fi-om the Fathers,
especially Chrysostom, and that in the sense specified, see Matthiae, I.e. ;
Hase in Steph. Thes. VI. p. 220, — Iva dvairX. k.t.X.] The object, to attain which
he hazarded his hfe. We have to notice (1) that ipdv belongs to varipvpa ;
and (2) that rrj; irpd; pe Xsirovpy. can denote nothing else but the function, —
well known and defined by the context (ver. 25), and conceived of as a
sacrificial service, — with which Epaphroditus had been commissioned by
the Philippians in respect to Paul {irpd; ys). AH explanations are there
fore to be rejected, which either expressly or insensibly connect ipdv with
Xsirovpy., and take the latter in the general sense of rendering service
{diaKovsiv). We must reject, consequently, Chrysostom's explanation (comp,
Theophylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castaho, Vatablus, and othei-s) : rd oiiv
varipvpa rv; iperipa; Xsirovpyla; dveir/.vpaasv . . . birep ixpvv irdvra; iroirjaai, rovro
irrpa^sv airo; ; * also the similar view taken by Erasmus and many others
(comp, Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Rilliet) : " quo
videlicet pensaret id, quod ob absentiam vestro erga me officio 'videbatur
deesse ; '' the arbitrary explanation of IMatthies : "in order that he might
perfect the readiness of service which you have shown on various occasions ; "
and several other interpretations, Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the
simple literal sense, takes rb ipdv iarip. as defeetus cui subvenistis, and rij;
rrpd; ps ?£iTovpy. as : rerum necessariarum ad me subministrando deferendarum.
Xo; of the two genitives, referring to different things (comp, ver, 25, and
see Winer, p. 180 [E. T. p. 191]), by which rd iaripvpa is accompanied, the
firet conveys who were wanting {ipdv, ye were wanting, ye yourselves were
not there, comp. 1 Cor. x^i. 17), and the second to what this want applied.
Consequently the passage is to be explained : in order to compensate for the
circumstance, that ye have been wanting at the sacrificial service touching me ,-
that is, for the circumstance, tliat this sacrificial service, which lias been made
through your love-gifts in my support, was completed, not jointly by you, but
without you, so that only your messenger Epaphroditus was here, and not
ye yourselves in person. How delicate and winning, and at the same time
how enhsting their grateful sympathy in the fate of Epaphroditus, was it to
1 Hom. n. ix. 322; so usually, as in 2 Mace. namely, in so far as the church had ordy coU
3;i^._ 38_ leeted the aid, but not conveyed it. How indeli-
2 Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii. 94. 4; Diod. Sic. iii, 35: cate would such a thought have been! Be-
Upivav wapafiaXiaeai Tots ifrvxois. sides, it was, in fact, an impossibility for the
' Comp. iropa^iAAo/iot Tg e/iavToC <ei))aAi7 in church to have come personally. Hence
Phryn. ed. Lob. p. 238. the church was wanting, indeed, at the
* Hofmann substantially reverts to this. He transmission of the bounty, but it did not
takes vfi<">- as the subject, which had allowed thereby alloii anything to be wanting in the
something to remain lacliing in the service, latter.

106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
represent the absence of the Philippians as something that had heen lack
ing in that Xsirovpyla, and therefore, as something which Paul had missed,
to supply which, as representative of the church, the man had (as his deadly
sickness had actually shown) hazarded his life ! He did not therefore con
tract the illness on his journey to Rome (de Wette, Weiss, and older
expositors), as Hofmann thinks, who represents him as arriving there in
the hot season of the year ; but through his exertions did rb epyov in Rome
itself during his sojourn there, when his sickness showed that he had
risked his life in order to bring the offering of the Philippians, and thus
compensate the apostle for the absence of the church. On dvairX. rb ip.
iarip., comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17, The compomid verb is appropriately
explained by Erasmus : " accessione implore, quod plenitudini perfectae
deerat." See on Gal. -vi. 2. — It was a foolish blunder of Baur to hold the
entire passage respecting Timothy and Epaphroditus as merely an
imitation of 2 Cor, viii, 23 i. Hinsch very erroneously, because misconceiv
ing the delicate courtesy of the grateful expression, thinks that in ver. 30
the aid is described as a duty incumbent on the readers, — ^which would be
un-Pauline ; iv. 10 is far from favoring this idea.

Notes by American Editor.
IX. Vv. 1-5.
(o) ovv is best understood as connecting this opening passage of the second
chapter with rroXiTsisa-^s (i. 27), as related to and modified by the 'Iva . . . sia-yysXiov
clause. To such a conformity in living to the gospel as would make them strive
together for the faith with one soul, unanimity of sentiment and oneness of heart
were necessary. The Apostle urges this upon them, therefore {oiv), as the first
element of Christian life, of which he would speak. To this unanimity humility,
such as he describes in ver. 3, was essential. He accordingly adds an exhortation
to this virtue also, which, because of the close relation between the two, he joins
with the pre-vious one in an added clause of the same sentence. — (&) - The fourfold
conditional portion of the sentence and the fourfold expression of the idea of har
mony, as, indeed, also the asking the readers to make his joy complete by following
his exhortation, show the urgency and emphasis with which he desired to make
his appeal.— (c) The clauses from pvdiv to iavrdv incidentally suggest the causes
of want of harmony which the Apostle had in mind. The former word, as Light
foot remarks, is connected with "the exaltation of party;" the latter, with "the
exaltation of self." The fact, however, that the clause ry rairsivafpoavvy k.t.X. is
placed in contrast with both ipiBelav and Ksvodofiav, points to the conclusion that
the " exaltation of party " here alluded to is inspired by the spirit of self-exalta
tion, and the latter idea is, thus, the one that is prominent. — {d) The words pv . ¦ .
OKoirovvTs; k.t.X. (ver. 4) are, by reason of their connection with what precedes, to
be regarded as having reference to the same thing. The looking upon the thino-s
of others is opposed to that exclusive consideration of one's own thino-s which is
characteristic of a self-exalting spirit. That this is the thought is indicated, also
by the passage (w. 6-11) which refers to Christ. A very similar phrase to the
one here used is found in 1 Cor. x. 24, and a similar idea to that contained in

NOTES. 107
these words, as viewed in themselves alone, is expressed in other places by the
Apostle ; but the special thought and application are suggested, in dififerent cases,
by the context. — -{e)- The emphasis of the appeal, and the distinctness with which
the thing to be laid aside is brought out,'render it probable, that the writer was
giving here, not a general exhortation to harmony as based upon humility, but a
special and personal one to the Philippians, which had reference to some division,
or tendency to division, among them, — at least, to some ipi-d-ela springing out of
Ksvodo^ia. At the same time, there is no evidence or probability of contending
doctrinal divisions in the Philippian Church, or of parties like those in Corinth.
The divisions, if such they should be called, or the want of harmony (as the lan
guage employed seems more probably to justify us in describing tlie condition of
things), was a minor matter in comparison with what was seen in some of the
other churches. They were not so divided as to prevent their fellowship for the
furtherance of the gospel (i, 5), or the -Ipostle's joy on their behalf (i. 4).
With respect to individual words or minor points in these verses, the following
remarks may be added : — (1) The exhortation of -yv. 1, 2, as presented in the form
of the sentence, is fidjitl my joy, while the harmony of the church is the end in view
or result of such fulfilling. But, in the writer's mind, the latter was the main thing
which he desired and aimed at. It seems probable, therefore, that the four points
mentioned in the si clauses are intended by the Apostle to bear upon iva ippavfjre
rb avrd, rather than upon irXvpdaars yov r. xap. If there is any exhortation in
Christ, etc., as there surely is, which may legitimately bear upon your relations to
one another, I beg you, he says, to let it influence you to be thoroughly united.
Meyer connects these clauses somewhat more directly with irXvpdaare. — (2) R. V.
has comfort, A. V., consolalitm, as the rendering of irapdKXvai;; but most of the
best recent commentators (including not only Meyer, but Ell., Lightf, Alf., Eadie,
and others), agree ivith A. R. V. in translating it by exhortaium. This is probably
correct. — (3) irapayirSiov is regarded by Grimm (Lex. X. T.), as well as by the
writers mentioned by Meyer in his note, and some others, as meaning persuadens
aUocpiium, persuasion, encouragement, incentive. This, also, seems more in accordance
with the character of the passage than consolation (R. V.) or comfort (Meyer and
many others). The reasons urged by Meyer for the latter meaning do not appear
to be conclusive. — (4) "With Meyer's view respecting the supply of ippovovvre; be
fore pvdiv { ver. 3) most recent comm. agree. The movement of the v?hole sentence
in the sphere of thinking, rather than doing, strongly favors this view. The other
participles and the verb ippovelre of ver. 5 confirm it. The right state of mind —
harmony of thought and feeling — would make the church ready for united action,
such as that indicated in i. 27. X. Vv. 6-11.
(a) These verses are evidently introduced as commending the exercise of hu
mility. The Apostle presses upon his readers the exhortation just given by pre
senting before them the example of Christ and bidding them have the same mind
which He had. The setting forth of what Christ was and is, of what He gave up
and has received, is therefore for the purpose of exhibiting His mind and example,
and this for a practical end. But this is only the primary purpose, as related to
the particular line of thought along which he is moving. It is clear that the
verses contain a more detailed statement concerning Him than was necessary for

108 THE EPISTLE OP PATTL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
the accomplishment of such an object. They must have, by reason of this fact,
something beyond what their subordinate grammatical position would indicate.
In the declarations which they make describing Christ in Himself, they must have
a certain independence. As they go jback in these declarations to the past and
forward to the future, they must be designed to set before the readers not merely
His example, but Himself That this is the fact is confirmed by the relationship
in thought wldch exists between this passage and Eph! i. 20 ff. and Col. i. 15 ff , for,
though the statements of the three passages are occasioned by different causes
and addressed to men exposed to different influences, it cannot be reasonably
doubted that, in the mind of the Apostle, they belonged together as expressing
his view of Christ. The verses here, as well as those in the other Epistles,
must be examined in this light. Examining them thus we find — (i) that the
writer traces out a progressive development in the matter of which he is speaking.
His primary object, as connected with his exhortation to the readers, is to show
how Christ by His voluntary humbling of himself reached the exaltation which
He has attained. For the setting forth of this, he tells what He gave up in
thus humbling Himself, what He did while here on earth in the same line of
self-renunciation, and what is the greatness and glory of His reward. This
progressive character of the statements is an important element in the question
of the interpretation, — (e) The progressive development alluded to points, in and of
itself, most naturally to a condition antecedent to what is indicated by 'sKsvaasv
of ver. 7 ; to what took place in and at the time of the act of emptying Himself;
to that humiliation and death which followed upon the Kirvaai; and completed
the self-renunciation ; and to the exaltation at the end, with all that it involved. —
{d) The most natural interpretation of the clauses as related to each other, and
of the individual words and phrases, accords with and confirms the understanding
of the passage which the observation of its general progress would suggest.
In the consideration of these individnal words and phrases we may notice the
following points : — (1) The natural interpretation of the words eavrov iKsvaaev
suggests a giving up, not of something which He might assume, but of something
which He already possessed. This is confirmed b_y the contrast of iirdpxav with
ysvdpevo;, and of 'sv yopifiy Beov with 'Xajidv popijirpi dovXov, and perhaps, also by
the emphatic position of iavrdv. The indication of these words is that, at a certain
time, the question arose whether He should retain something which He had had
before and still had, or whether He should lay it aside for something else which
was lower, and which even involved an emptying of Himself; and that He volun
tarily chose the latter course. He could not, either in the strict sense or figura
tively, empty Himself of what did not previously appertain to Him. — (2) That
which thus previously appertained to Him, and of -n-hich He emptied Himself, is
indicated by popfrj Bsov as contrasted with popipv dov/.ov. He emptied Himself by
giving up the former and taking the latter. The condition designated by iv popipy
Beov must, therefore, be a condition antecedent to 'eKevaaev, and iirdpxav k.t.X. must
refer to the pre-incarnate state, — (3) The significance of popiprj in the N. T. and
the writings of Greek authors, as distinguished from ax'vpa, cannot perhaps be
determined with absolute certainty in all cases. It is in general well established,
however; and, in a case like the present, where the use of the two words shows the
writer's intention, there can be no reasonable doubt that popipv has its own peculiar
force — denoting that form which is the outward expression of, and is conceived
of as immediately connected with, the inward nature. 'Zx'vpa, on the other hand,

NOTES. 109
has the sense of fashion, appearance, form, as not thus closely and vitally related
to essence. — (4) It must be noticed, however, that Paul does not use in these vei-ses
avala or ipiai; — that is, words directly expressing the notion of essence or nature, but
that he limits himself to words which relate to form, popipv and axvpa. The con
trast is one of popipv, and not of oia'ia, so far as the expressions of the sentence set
it forth. It is also noticeable that, in connection with the idea of assuming the
uopi^ doi/Mv, words of less significance than popipr^ are added — namely, dpoiapa and
axijpa. — (5) The indication as to the Apostle's thought which the facts give is,
that in emptying Himself Christ did not lay aside His divine nature, but that form
which would, of itself, immediately lead the one who beheld it to the belief that
He had this nature. The terms and precision of scientific doctrinal statement are
not to be looked for in a passage where the language employed is intentionally of
another character, i. e., the language of ordinary letters and discourse. Within
the possibilities of the style which he adopts, the Apostle is careful to use words, to
add suggestions of Umitation, to repeat, in some measure, with modifying clauses
or expressions, to guard against misunderstanding ; and his words and statements,
when taken together, all show that what he intended to declare was this — that
Christ had in the pre-incarnate state the popipv Osov which implied divine nature,
but that, in emptying Himself, He laid aside the form, but not the nature ; that
He assumed the human, but did not give up the divine in every sense. The
Pauline idea as to the divine nature of Christ is thus expressed by iv popipv Bsov
vrrdpxav. (6) A further expression of the idea is found in rb slvai laa Bsu, and also in
connection with the word dpiraypdv. The phrase rb slvai laa Bsa must, from the form
of the sentence, have an immediate relation to ev popip. Bsov inr. As pop^v impUes
divine nature, — only in its exliibition outwardly, — rb slvai k.t.?.. cannot be other
wise than consistent with this idea. And this, whether laa be taken, with Meyer
and others, in the simple adverbial sense aud sivai be understood as equivalent to
existere — so that the meaning is the God-erpicd existence (existence in the way of
parity with God) ; or whether, with Lightf. and others, laa be regarded as a predi
cate and eivai as having its ordinary sense — to be on an eguality with God. This
phrase conveys the idea, on the more internal side, of that which, on the external
side, is set forth by popipij. The two together, as Meyer remarks in his foot-note
(page 69), exhaust the idea of divinity ; and, as he also remarks in the foot-note
on page 72, the rb s'lvcu laa ^eu is the Pauline i?eof tv 6 Xdyo;. As regards the
exact force of the words, the use of the iaa in a predicative way is legitimate, as
proved by Job xi. 12 and other examples. But the connection and progress of
the thought in the verses may be regarded as, on the whole, favoring Meyer's
¦view, and as showing that Paul had in mind the divine mode of existence. That
laa has the sense of equality, and not mere likeness, is made evident by all the in
dications of the passage. — (7) The word dprraypd; must be understood either (i) as
having the active sense of the po; termination of verbal nouns, a robbing; or {y) as
equivalent to the passive form in pa, a thing robbed or seized, prceda, res rapta; or
{z) as holding a sort of intermediate position between the two, a thing to be grasped,
res rapienda. If either a; or y is adopted as the true explanation, the phrase indi
cates, in itself, that the equality spoken of was a thing already belonging to Him :
He did not look upon it as a thing which was a foreign possession, which He could
only possess by an act of robbing, or as something robbed. If z is adopted, two
suppositions are possible — either He did not count it a thing already in possession,

110 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
which was to be grasped as if he would not let it go ; or a thing not already pos
sessed, which was to be eagerly laid hold of While both of these are possible,
however, the following verb iKevaasv, which is adapted to express the divesting
one'sself of whatone has, rather than the refusal to seize upon what one has not, and
the preceding words iv popipv ^sov iirdpxav show the former of the two to be the
correct one. In whichever of the three ways dpiraypdv is explained, therefore, this
phrase, as well as the other two already considered, sets forth the di-vinity of Christ.
The explanation designated by z is to be preferred as meeting most satisfactorily
the demands of the strong adversative conjunction dXXd. Emptying Himself by
taking the form of a servant was the direct opposite to the regarding ro slvai laa
¦Ssa as a thing to be firmly held in possession. — (8) The word dovX.ov (ver. 7) is
evidently contrasted with 'Bsov, and the words iv dp. dvdp. ysvdpevo; are explanatory
of the way in which He took the popipv doiXav. The view of Meyer with respect
to this point must be regarded as correct, as also his explanation of the use of the
word dpoiapa. " Christ, although certainly perfect man, was by reason of the divine
nature present in Him, not simply and merely man, but the incarnate Son of God."
This is the Pauline o Xdyo; adp^ iyivsro. The carefulness in the selection of the
language, within the limits of the figures, etc., which are used, is very striking.
He assumes the nature of man, as suggested by popipv, but not so as to exchange
the divine nature for it and thus divest Himself of the divine nature (ev dp. ysv. —
(9) This latter idea is still further brought out by koI axvpan svps-^sl; d; dvBpairo;.
If there words are, as Meyer holds, to be connected immediately with the preceding
participial clause (a new sentence beginning with irairslvaasv), they must be intro
duced with this special design. If, on the other hand, the connection is with this
verb, the same suggestion is contained in them, only that it is less direct and
prominent. As regards the question of connection, the natural force of the words,
considered in themselves and in relation to the other participial clauses, favors
Meyer's view — He was not simply a man, but -was in the likeness of men (entered
into a form of existence like that of men), and was found in fashion as a man
(there was no observed difiference between His appearance and that of a man — the
divine nature in Him was not perceived). The abruptness of the introduction of
irairslvaasv w-ith no connecting particle is, however, a serious objection to this view.
A new participial clause seems fitted, also, to the turn of thought from the self-re
nunciation and humility manifested by Christ in assuming human nature to that
which He showed after He had assumed it (10) did of ver, 9 introduces the ex
altation as the reward of the humiliation. The verbs virspvijiaasv and ixapiaaro
are used, thus, from the standpoint of the work of Christ and His condition upon
the earth, and do- not carry with them any necessary indication as to His relation
to God the Father in His daapKo; state. The subordination of Christ suggested in
this passage is only that connected with His jNIessianic position and His carrying
out of the Father's plan of salvation.
(11) The reference of rb ovopa (ver. 9), may be to honor and dignity (comp, Eph.
i, 21) ; or to a particular name given to Christ, The fact that the article is used
points to the latter as more probable. If some special name is intended, the pass
age suggests only two — Kipio; and 'Ivaov;. The indications of the verses (9-11),
when taken together, favor the view that the name is 'Ivaov; ; because the bowing
is declared to be in tlie name of Jesus, and because the confession that He is Kvpio;
does not seem to be the recognition by the worshipers of a divinely given name
but rather the expression of the worship itself. The name Jesus, however, cannot

NOTES. Ill
be undei-stood here simply as the name given to Him at the beginning (Matt. i.
21), but as having its final and full significance in the universal honor given to it
and the universal acknowledgment that He is Lord. — (12) Vv. 10, 11 set forth
(tva) the purpose of God in thus giving Christ the name which is above every
name. With respect to these two verses, it may be noticed (w) that the expression
EV ra bv. 'Ivaov declares that the homage is to move in the sphere of his name, and,
if interpreted most strictly, it w-onld seem to point towards a wilhng and true wor
ship. The latter sense, however, cannot be insisted upon as certainly in the words;
(i) that the worship is declared to be on the part of all — either all intelligent be
ings in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, or all things, i. e. all creation. The
language employed {irdv ydw, irdaa yXdaaa),favoTS the reference to inteUigent beings,
but can hardly be said, in a passage of this character, to prove it. This, however,
is probably the true view of the meaning; {y) that Karax'Boviav is to be taken as
referring to the dead in Hades, as Meyer and others hold ; (z) that i^opoXoyvasrai
means confess in full or openly, and that it is also a word which may be used of
hearty, willing confession. — (13) The main thought of yy. 10, 11, for the expres
sion of which they are -written, is evidently that of the exaltation of Christ, and
not that of the union of all intelligent beings with Him as wiUing subjects. This
fact must be bome in mind in the consideration of any points in the verses, which
may appear to indicate such voluntary subjection on the part of all. In view of
this fact, also, the inquirer as to Paul's doctrine of the futm-e should carefully ex
amine all his statements on the subject, and should discover in the present passage
only what it clearly aflirms. The PauUne view of Christ's exaltation can be
proved from these verses. AVhat the PauUne view of the eternal condition of men
is to be, must be sought for in other passages taken in connection with this one, and
not in this one alone. XI. Vv. 12, 13.
(a) In relation to iro?uTsvsa6s of i. 27, Vv. 12-18 contain the third point in
which the Apostle would urge the Philippians to conduct themselves, as citizens
of tbe new kingdom, in a manner worthy of the gospel. Firmness in contending
for the gospel faith, accompanied by unity of spirit ; unity of spirit among them
selves, accompanied by humility and self-renunciation ; self-renunciation, inspired
by and in imitation of the example of Christ, as leading to the most careful and
earnest effort to fail in nothing which might be essential to the attainment of
salvation; — these are the three things which he presses upon their attention.
They are the things which the readers needed, in their condition and circum
stances to make them " children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked
and perverse generation,'' and thus to give him a ground of gloryin.g in them in
the day of Christ ; and for this reason, doubtless, they are the only things which
he mentions as elements of the iroXireisaBai k.t.X. — {b) The immediate connec
tion of ver. 12 with what precedes through aars is, as Meyer rightly says, with
vv. 6-11. The example of Christ, who reached His glorious reward and exalta
tion through self-abasement, is urged as the ground of the new exhortation., --is
the Head of the kingdom had thus acted, they, as its citizens, should he moved
to earnestness to do everything, and solicitude to leave nothina; undone, which the
end in view demanded. — (c) The emphasis of the exhortation in ver. 12, con
sidered simply as an exhortation, is lai^ely upon the words psrd ipoiiov koi rpdpov.

112 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
and the connection of thought with what goes before is, thus, partly through the
fact that such solicitude would, in one Une of its influence, naturally manifest
itself in self-renunciation.
{d) The emphasis on pv a; iv ry irapovala pov K.r.X. is due to the fact that this
is the real ground of his giving the exhortation, so far as their relation to him
is concerned. The explanation which Meyer gives of d; and of this entire clause
(with which Ell. and some others also agree), is simpler and better than that
which he mentions as favored by Weiss, de Wette, Lightf, and others. — (e) Ver.
13 is subordinate to ver. 12, the main thought moving on in ver. 14. The rela
tion of ver. 13 to ver. 12 is that of a reason for the carrying out of the exhortation.
Work oul, etc., and the reason given is, as Meyer says, in the line of encourage
ment. Whatever general theological statement may be properly founded upon
the words of this verse, it must be observed that they are directly applied to,
and spoken of, those who have aheady entered upon the Christian life. The
Apostle in this passage, does what the X, T, writers generally do when they speak
of God's election of men. His predestinating purpose, His working for the accom
pUshment of that purpose, so far as this working lies back of man's working.
He does not allude to the subject in its relation to unbelievers or to men before
their conversion, but solely as a ground of confidence and comfort to those who
have already believed. He tells the Christian that he may have joyful and vic
torious hope in his living and working, because he can rest upon the eternal
purpose of God, — (/) iirip rv; eidoKia; is to be connected with ivspydv. 'EvdoKia,
with its kindred verb svdoKslv, when used of God, seems to tend, in the N. T.,
towards the idea of good pleasure rather than good ivill, and to refer to free,
unconditioned will, or favoring will. That the meaning in this case may be good
¦will, as Meyer understands it — that is, " in order to satisfy His own benignant
disposition," cannot be doubted. But the peculiar character of the statement,
" worketh in you both to will and to work iirip rij; sid.," as well as the more com
mon usage, may lead us to believe that the thought of the Divine purpose was in
the writer's mind, and that the word here means benevolent purpose, iirip — on be
half of, for the advantage of, for, in fulfillment of. Grimm (Lex. N.T.) says
benevolentim {suce) salisfaciunis.

XII. Vv. 14-18.
(a) Ver. 14 may be regarded as presenting the opposite side of the exhortation
of ver. 12. To act with that earnest solicitude which fears lest something may be
left undone is directly contrary to murmuring and questioning, irdvra is, thus, to be
determined in its limits of application by Karepyd^ea-Be k.t.X., and yo-yy. and diaX. are
to be explained as murmurings, etc. againsit God, not against other men. There is
nothing in the context which, either certainly or probably, indicates such differ
ences or parties as would suggest tbe latter reference. diaXoyiapdv is, accordingly,
to be understood, w-ith Meyer, as meaning questionings (so A. E. V. and many
comm.), and not disputings, as K. V. As Lightf well says, "yoyy. is the moral,
dia7.. the intellectual rebellion against God." — (6) 'iva ysvva-Bs k.t.X. — As, in i. 27 ff.,
they were to act worthily of the gospel to the end of standing boldly and without
fear before their enemies, so here they are to do all things to the end of being
examples of the true life, blameless children and light bearers, in the midst of

NOTES. 113
evil men. — (c) ev Kdaua is more probably to be taken as qualifying ipaivea-ds d;
0(JOT., than owcrr. alone, as Meyer takes it. — (d) Meyer differs from most comm. in
giving to i-ixovrs; (ver. 16) the sense of possessing. It is doubtful whether any
of the passages cited by him fully justify his view ; certainly most of them, even
Thuc. iii. 107. 4 mentioned in his foot note, do not. Bob. (Lex. X. T.), agreeing
with Luther, de Wette and others, makes it mean holding m-?i / (so also W. and
AVilk., Gwynn). Grimm (Lex. X. T.), Ell., Alf, Eadie, v. Heng. and others under
stand it in the sense assigned to it by Beza, Grot., Lightf, etc., holding forth. This
last meaning (given, also, by E. V. and A. V.), is probably correct. Weiss agrees
with Meyer. Lightf. regards ev oif . . Kdapa as a parenthesis, and irrix as un
connected with it and belonging to Iva yivva&e k.t.'/.. But this construction is
unnecessary, and is even less natural than that which joins the participle with ipaiv
a; 6aar. The Phil. Christians are luminaries as and because they hold forth, etc.
(e) It can hardly be doubted that in his use of the words e'l; Kaixvpa (ver. 16),
the Apostle had in mind a thought kindred to that of i. 20. As his renewed
presence with them, in case his Ufe should be continued, would be, through its
beneficial influence upon their Uves, n, cause of glorying on their part, so their
progress and Christian development would be a cause of similar glorying on his
part. We may beUeve, therefore — for this reason, as well as because of ver. 17 —
that he refers here to the probability of his surviving the present uncertainties.
Whether si; vp. Xp. impUes a hoped-for continuance of life until the Parousia is
more doubtful. It cannot be regarded as certain that it does, and no inference on
this point can be drawn from this verse, taken by itself. — (/) Lightf. regards the
Philippians as the priests who offer the sacrifice of their own faith, the Apostle's
life-blood being the accompanying Ubation. This view harmonizes with the pre
ceding thought. As their becoming blameless, etc., would, in case he Uved, be a
ground of glorying for him, so, on the other hand, if, in connection with their
advance in faith and Christian Uving, his death should occur, he wUl stUl rejoice.
It is also favored by the fact that, if Paul presents himself as the priest, we have
the figure of a priest offering his own blood, which is somewhat improbable. But
passages such as Eom. xv. 16, 17 represent the Apostle in the exercise of the
priestly office, making an offering to God of his Gentile converts, and the paral
lelism of these passages with this one is noticeable. Most recent comm. adopt the
view of Meyer, but that of Lightf, which is advocated by some others, is worthy
of serious consideration.
{g) The progress of the verses shows that the joy which the Apostle speaks of
in ver. 17 (;ra''p"V is not joy in the fact that death is gain to himself (i 21), but
in the fact that even his death, if it comes, wiU be immediately connected with
the development of their faith. His congratulation of the Philippians, therefore,
or uniting of liis joy with theirs, is not on account of the honor which " such a
martyrdom for the sake of their faith " would give them (so Meyer), but because
his martyrdom, like his Ufe's labors (ver. 16), was for the furtherance of the
gospel, as related to the furtherance of their faith. , ^ovxaipa may mean congratu
late, as Mey., Grimm, Eadie, Lightf., and many others take it, or rejoice with, as
EU., de W., Weiss, E. V., A. V., and others hold. Tbe objection made by Meyer
to the latter meanuig cannot be regarded as conclusive. In the simple, affectionate
style of this Epistle, we may naturally expect expressions of this sort ("I rejoice
and rejoice with you, and do you rejoice and rejoice with me"), without any
thought of the difficulty suggested. Lookmg at ver. 18 alone, it would seem
8

114 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
more probable that Paul would ask the Philippians to rejoice with him in the joy
which he felt, than to congratulate him on the happiness which is alluded to as
appertaining to his death. E. V. renders rb aird in tlie same manner, A. \.for the
same cause. The tendency of recent comm. is rather towards the latter view, the
words being regarded, grammatically, as a sort of objective accusative depending
on xoipers. XIII. Vv. 19-24.
(a) The object which the Apostle had in sending Timothy to Philippi was two
fold : — first, that whioh is indicated by Iva . . ipdv of ver. 19, and secondly, the
one referred lo in rd irepi ipdv pepipvvaei of ver. 20, The same two-fold thought
appears here, therefore, which has appeared in the preceding context and else
where in the Epistle, Tlie Christian progress of the Philippian Church is viewed
as the thing primarily and earnestly lo be desired ; but it is thus desired as a
source of joy and comfort to Paul himself He thinks of the subject in this light
because of his peculiar affectionate interest in them, and because, in his present
condition of uncertainty respecting the future, his mind naturally turns to the
contemplation of the results of his own work, — (6) That there is a connection of
thought between these verses and those w-hich immediately precede (vv. 12-18),
is not to be questioned. As for the particle di at the beginning of ver, 19, the
explanation given by Meyer (" However threatening my situation is (ver, 17),
nevertheless I hope "), may be satisfactory. But, when the whole passage (19-24)
is considered, we must believe that Paul was thinking, not merely of continued
life, as opposed to the possibility of speedy death, but also, and prominently, of
the growth in Christian character on the part of the PhiUppians, and of his own
satisfaction in that growth as connected with his own labors, — (c) Kayd of ver. 19,
however, is not to be expLained as if the two ideas just mentioned were in the
Apostle's mind in writing this clause. Had this been the case, he could scarcely
have left one of them, and that so important a one, altogether unnoticed. On the
other hand, the fact that the clause contains but one verb, eitjivxd, — whioh by the
emphatic iya with its connective Kal is most naturally carried over, in its appro
priate form, to the ipel; to be supplied in thought, — confirms the explanation given
in Meyer's note as the true one. Timotliy Avas to comfort Paul by what he should
have to report of the Philippians, and the Philippians by what he should have
to report of Paul. The service which he was to render by ministering to the
faith and life of the church in Philippi is not referred to until the next verse. —
{d) Tlie allusion to this service is brought out in a sentence which gives the
reason why Timothy was chosen by Paul to be the messenger. This reason, how
ever, presents so emphatically the .Ipostle's desire to send the most competent
person possible, that the grammatical subordination of the sentence connected •
with the ydp is more than counterbalanced.
(e) That Meyer's view respecting the word to be supplied with 'ladi^ioxov (ver.
20), (namely, poi), is correct, as against the view of those who would supply avra, is
proved (1) by the evident intimation (comp. ver. 20 with ver. 24) that Timothy was
sent to fill Paul's place until he should, perhaps, be able to visit the Church himself;
(2) by the d; irarpl reKvov avv ipol idoiXevasv of ver. 22 ; and (3) by the fact that
the whole matter is introduced as relating to Paul's own satisfaction in what the
Church should gain.— (/) s'l; rb siayyiXiov (ver. 22)— comp. the same words in i. 5.

NOTES, 11.5
The Apostle's thought is evidently moving, throughout these two chapters, in
the sphere of this " furtherance of the gospel," and the e.xplanation of many
points must be determined, more or less directly and entirely, by this fact. — {g)
Vv. 23, 24 indicate, once more, the confidence which he felt in his release from
imprisonment. This release was also, as he beUeved, to come soon. The date
of the Epistle cannot be proved from these indications, but they must be regarded
as strongly favoring" the conclusion that it was written not long before the actual
decision of his case. XIV. Vv. 2.5-30,
(a) The marked emphasis on dvayKoIov points to some connection between this
statement and what has been said about Timothy, Probably a certain contrast to
iX-l^o of ver. 19 is intended. The special reason for sending Epaphroditus is
given, as Meyer says, in vv, 26, 2S; but, in -view of the word dvayK. and the stress
laid upon it, we may believe that there was a necessity, to Paul's feeling, to hear
again from the PhUippian Church, and to give them an inspiring message and
helpful aid from himself, for the setting forward of their faith. Though he hoped
to send Timothy soon, and even had confidence that he might, somewhat later, go
to them himself, he felt the weight of this " necessity " so strongly, that he must
send back Epaphroditus at once. — (6) rp/Tiadpvv (ver. 25) and inspilia (ver. 2S) are
quite generally regarded as epistolary aorists. If so, when taken in connection
with ver. 29, they m:ike it probable that Epaphroditus was the bearer of Paul's
letter. As such aorists, they should be translated as presents, rather than as in
A. V. and E. V. ; or, as the former verb precedes iu time the latter, rfivadpriv should
perhaps be rendered as a perfect. — (c) In the words miepydv and awarpandrvv may
be found another indication of the thought underlying the whole development of
these chapters. — (d) It is doubtful whether Xeirovp-; dv is to be pressed here to its
sense of sacrijicial minister, as Afeyer holds. The more general meaning of minister
would seem to meet the demands of the passage. Ell., Alf., and others take it in
the latter sense. — (e) v^ oi ver. 26 is regarded by Meyer as used from the stand
point of the time of the reception of the Epistle. Even if this be so, the time of
the beginning of this feeUng and of the sickness of Epaphroditus would seem
clearly to have been before the date of writing the letter. ;May not nv iirirroBdv,
therefore, be more properly rendered by the perfect — the feeling of longing and
distress having continued to the time when the Apostle takes his resolution here
alluded to ? — (/) The first Xi-ip> of ver. 27 evidently refers to the loss of Epaphro
ditus, from which Paul h-id now been saved. The second Xi-vi' is more doubtful,
but the view of Meyer seems more probable than that of Weiss and others men
tioned in Meyer's note. The objection made by Weiss to ^leyer's view, that Paul
expresses a feeUng of joy elsewhere in connection with the matter of his imprison
ment, does not seem conclusive, for the reason, first, that the joy was not in the
imprisonment itself, but in the fact that it h.-id resulted in good, and, secondly, that
the limitations and trials of imprisonment could not, in themselves, have been
other than a grief to him. He might have rejoiced in the death of Epaphroditus
in a similar way, if it had been the means of good to the Christian cause, aud yet
he would have felt it to be a ground of sorrow, and naturally might have some
where spoken of it as such. His mind was here upon his own grievous trial ; in
the other places to which Weiss alludes, it was upon what had so remarkably been

116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
effected by it, — {g) If the textual reading did rb ipyov, adopted by Tisch, 7th ed., Alf,
Mey., Lightf, is correct, ipyov refers undoubtedly to the work of the gospel (called,
absolutely, the work). Ii, however, Kvpiov (W. and H.), Xpiarov (Tisch, Sth ed,), or
roi; Xpiarov (T, E,) is to be added, there may be in this general expression an in
tended allusion to the bringing of the contribution from the PhUippian Church, or
to some special service or attendance given to the Apostle. The connection of
thought with avvspydv and arn'orpandrvv, which is suggested by Meyer, is not im
probable, if we adopt Meyer's view of the text, and not impossible, though perhaps
less probable, if w-e read with the majority of the MSS.

CHAP. m. 117

CHAPTER in.
Ver, 3. Instead of Qsdv Elz, has Qea, against decisive testimony, although
again defended by Eeiche. A clumsy emendation in order to complete the /.a'p. —
Ver. 6. iv'r^ov'] Lachm. and Tisch. read ivXo;, foUowing A B D* F G n* A
copyist's error ; comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Cor. ix. 2. — ^^'er. 8. Instead of ph>
oi'v Elz. and Tisch. S have ycvcm) s, which, although supported by A P s, is
opposed by very preponderating testimony. — The second slvai is wanting in B D*
EG X*, 17, Arm. Vulg. It. Lucif., et al. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by
Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have been
left out before the simUar iva \ — Ver. 10. The second t^v is wanting in A B K* ;
omitted by Lachm. ; overlooked as unnecessary. — Instead of aipuopoi^dusvo; (so
Lachm. and Tisch.), which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scholz have avppopipoipsvo;.
But the former has in its favor A B D* P K,* min. Or. ms. Bas. Macar., as also
awoopn^dpsvo; in F G. It. Lucif Ir. The Recepta substitutes an analogous form
more familiar. — Ver. 11. rdv vesp.'] A B D E P Si min., and many vss. and
Fathers, have rf/v ek i-e/cp., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by
Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses dvdaram; with merely the
genitive rdv vsKpdv, or only vsKp. The £k was written on the margin here to
explain the word i^avaar., which does not occur elsewhere in the X, T,, and
subsequently the erroneous insertion of this 'sk after ruv (so stiU F G) produced
the reading rrpi sk vsKp. — Ver. 12. The Xpiarov alone (Elz. gives rov X. 'Ivaov) has
preponderant evidence. — Ver. 14. e-i] Lachm, and Tisch. read eif, following A B
K, min. Clem. Aeth. Eightly ; e-< is explanatory. — Ver. 16. After aroixelv, 'Elz.,
Scholz have Kavdvi, rb airb ippovelv, which is wanting in A B K*> min. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Hilar. Aug., et al. There are, besides, several variations, and
differences in the arrangement of the words. The Recepta has arisen from glosses
(foUowing Gal. -ri. 16 ; PhU. ii. 2\ and has far too Uttle homogeneousness in a
critical point of view, to enable it to be defended on the ground of homoioteleuton
(so Ma;th. and Einck). — Ver. 21. After '',udy, Elz. has eif rb ysviaBai avrd, which
(although defended by Matth.) is omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient
supplement. — iavra] Following A B D* F G K P K* min. Eus. Theophyl., avrii
is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read ; iavra is a more precise definition.
In ui. 1 Paul seems already preparing to close his epistle ; but at this
point his attention is directed, perhaps bj' some special momentary
occasion, to the partv- of anti-Pauline teachers, against which he at
once breaks forth with vehemence and irony in ver. 2, warning his
readers against them ; and thereafter, from ver. 4 to 14, he sets forth in
detail his own bearing as contrasted with the character of those false
teachers.

118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ver. 1. [On Ver. 1, see Note XV. page 152.] T6 Xoiirdv'] introduces what
is still to be done by the readers in addition to what has been hitherto com
municated ; see on Eph. vi. 10. Hence it is of frequent occurrence
towards the close of the epistles, as bringing in a further request, exhorta
tion, etc.^ To the closing address thus introduced, but at once abandoned
again in ver. 2, Paul would have attached his giving of thanks for the aid
sent to him (comp. iv. 8, 10 ff.). This is contrary to the view of Schinz
and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul has not yet expressed his
thanks, conclude that he did not at this point desire to proceed to the .
closing of the letter. We need not search for a connection with what
precedes.'' The preceding topic is closed, and the exhortation beginning
with rb Xoiir. which now follows stands by itself; so that we are not even
justified in saj-iiig that Paul here passes from the particular to tlie general
(Schinz, Matthies), but must simply assume that he is proceeding to the
conclusion, which he desired to cornmence with this general encourage
ment. — x<',ipeTs iv Kvpia\ [XV a.] is a summons to Christian joyfulness,
which is not koto Koapov (see Chrysostom), but has its ground in Christ, and
is thereby specifically defined, inasmuch as Christ — through the Holy Spirit
— rules in the believing heart; hence the xapd irvsiparo; dyiov (1 Thess. i. 6)
or iv irvsvpan dyia (Eom. xiv. 17) are in substance not different from this
(comp. Gal. v. 22). The subsequent double repetition of this encourage
ment (iv. 4) is the result of the apostle's special love for his readers, and
of the whole tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in 'sv Kvpia
we are not to seek for a new special element, preparing the way for the
transition to the explanations which follow (Weiss, Hofmann) ; for Paul
could not in what went before mean any otlwr jo-y, either on his own part
(i. 18) or on the part of his readers (ii. 17 i, 28), and in other passages also
he does not add to xoipere the self-evident definition ev Kvpia (2 Cor. xiii.
11 ; 1 Thess. v. 16). Another joy in the Christian life he knew not at all. —
TO avrd ypdipeiv'] [XV 6.] " Hic incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere," Calvin.
After xe^'P- ev K. there is a pause ; Paul breaks off. rd aird has been erron
eously referred to xo'p. iv «-., and in that case the retrospective reference
which Paul had in view is either not explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae),
or is believed to be found in ii. 18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in i. 27 f.
(Matthies, Eilliet), or in i. 27-ii. 16 (Storr). This view is at variance, not
indeed with the plural ra aird,^ but with the facts, first, that there is no
express summons whatever to Christian joyfulness generally, given in the
previous portion of the epistle (not even in ii. 18); secondly, that so sim
ple and natural a summons — which, moreover, occurs again twice in iv. 4 —
would certainly have least of all given rise to an apology for repetition;
and lastly, that daipaXi;, in accordance with its idea {without danger), points
not to the repetition of a summons of this kind, but to a warning, such as
1 Comp. iv. 8 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; Oeeumenins, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius,
2 Thess. iii. 1. Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, and others.
' Chrysostom : ix'rt "EiraiPpoSirov, Si' of a See, on the contrary, Stallbaum, ad Plat.
riXytlrt, exert TiiioQeov, Ipxof-al /ciyu, to tvay- Apol. p. 19 D ; Matzner, ad Antiph. p, 153 •
ye'Atov €7rt6t5u«ri- ri Vfi.lv Aetirct Aotirdi.; comp. Kiihner II. 1, p. 60.

CHAP. III. 1. 119
follows immediately in the context.' The accusation oi poverty of thought
(Baiu-) is therefore all the more groundless here. And as the altogether
vague reference of Theodoret and Erasmus {Annotat.) to the numerous
exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the fundamental tone of,
the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance with the literal import of
the words, -rd aird cannot be interpreted as appUcable to anything but the
subsequent warning against the false teacliers. This warning, however, has
not occurred previously, either at i, 15 f,, or indirectly in i, 27, as Liine
mann thinks, or in i. 27-ii, IS, as Ew.ald assumes. Hence many have
caught at the explanation: "eadem repetere, quae praesens dixeram.'"'
"Rnt this quae praesens dixeram is quite gratuitously imported ; it must at
least have been indicated by ni aird Kal yp. ip. or in some other way. The
same objection applies against Wieseler,' who takes rd aird as contrasted
with the oral communications, which would be made to the readers by
Epaphroditus and especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation,
therefore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is expressly
rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already written what follows
in an earlier epistle to the Philippians*' -\tliich is not preserved, and that he
here repeats the same.^ It must remain uncertain, however, whether this
repetition covei-s ver. 2 only, or ver, 3 also, or a still larger portion of the
sequel ; as also, how far the repetition is a literal one, which seems to be
the case with ver, 2 from its peculiar character, — oKvvpdv'] irksOme, matter
of scruple.^ — daoa/.ef] safe, so that ye will the more firmly rely thereon for
the determination of your conduct,' Hofmann, without any precedent of
usage, assigns to oKvvpdv the sense of indolent cowardice, and takes daipa?.i;
as prudtiit, which linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph, p, 231
A), but would be unsuitable to the iylv. The apostle wishes to say, that
the repetition is for himself not irksome {okvo;, haesitatio), and is for his
readers an d'aoaXJ; reKpypiov (Eur. Rhes. 94.) to be attended to.
ZSToTE. — This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle, Paul had already written
another lo the Philippians,'* is confirmed by Polyearp,' who, ad Phil. 3, says : rov
iThe expedient to which Wiesinger has «Dem. 777. .5; Theoer. xxiv. 35; Pind.JVem.
recourse is gratuitously introduced, when he xi. 23; Herodian vi. 9, 7; Soph. O. R. SM,
connects the x^'pei-e ev k. more closely with comp. oiic oKvTireov, Polyb. i. 14. 7, also Plat
the warning that follows by imagining that, Ep. II. 310 D : TiAijSi \iyei.v oure 'onvijira oure
in x'="P- ^^ '^¦1 ^^ detects already the idea on a'taxwovixai,
which the sequel is based, namely the irri'«Te 'Comp. Acts xxv. 26; Heb. vi. 19; Wisd.
iv uup.-o), iv. 1. vii. 23 ; Plat. Bep. 450 E ; Phaed. p. 100 D E ;
' Pelagius, Theodore of Jtopsuestia, so also Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15.
Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin, 8 Ewald also acknowledges the composition
Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others; of more than one epistle to the Philippians,
de Wette undecidedly. hut finds traces of them not here, but at u.
- ' Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f. 12, iii. 18.
• Comp. also Credner, Einl. I. p. 333. ° I cannot at once accept the 'view that the
6So.\e.eidiusHunnius,Haenlein,Bertholdt, passages in question, ch. iii. and xi., are in<er
Flatt, Kohler, in the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834, polated (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. oSS ff.).
III. 1, p. 18 f.; Feilmoser, Bleek, Jatho, The interpolations in the Ignatian epistles
Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann ; de are at any rate of another kind. Besides, we
Wette undecidedly. have from Polyearp only the one epistle ; and

120 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
paKapiov K. ivdd^ov UavXov, o; ysvdpsvo; iv iplv Kara irpdaairov rdv rdrs dvBpdrruv idi-
da^ev dKpifid; k. jSsfia'iu; rbv irspl dXvBsla; Xdyov, b; Kal dirdv iplv iypaipev iiriaroXd;,
e'l; a; idv iyKvirrvrs, dwvaeaBe o'lKodopelaBai k.t.X. It is true that the plur. in this
passage {iiriaroX^;, e't; a;) is usually explained as referring to one epistle (see Cote
lerius in loc.; and Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. II. p. 914 f.; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Viiter,p.
210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as is it well known that also in profane
authors iinaroXai (comp. literae) is used of one despatch (Thuc. i 132. 6, viii. 39,
2), sometimes generally in a generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes
specially of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI, p, 446 ; Blomf. and
Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3 ; Eettig, Quaest. Pliil. II. p. 37 f. But there is the less
ground for assuming this construction here, since doctrinal epiiUc6, both in the X, T,
and also in the apostolic Fathers, are always described by the singular when
only one epistle is intended, and by the plural (as in 1 Cor, xvi, 3 ; 2 Cor, x, 9-11 ;
2 Pet. iii. 16 ; comp. Acts ix. 2, xxii. 5) if more than one are meant, — a practice
from which there is no exception (not even in 1 Cor. xvi. 3), as, in fact, Polyearp,
in regard to iirioToXi], elsewhere very definitely distinguishes between the singular
and plural. See ch. xiii. : rd; iiriaroXd; 'lyvarlov rd; irepipBeiaa; ijplv iir' airov
Kal dXXa; baa; elxopev irap' vplv, iiripipapev iplv, KaBd; evere'iXxLaBe- alnve; v-oreray-
pivai e'lal rij 'ir laroXy ravTij. In order to prove that Polyearp in ch. iii. did not
mean more than one epistle to the Philippians, an appeal has been made to ch. xi.,
where, in the Latin version, which alone has been preserved, it is said : " Ego
autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui
estis (non-genuine addition: laudati) in principio epistolae ejus; de vobis enim
gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quae Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem non
dum noveramus." But epistolae ejus cannot here be the epistle to the Philippians,
for the idea: "ye are in the beginning of his epistle," would be simply absurd;
epistolae is, on the contrary, the nominative plural, and the sense is : " Ye are origi
nally his epistles," that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase allusion is
made to 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff.' The correctness of this explanation, which Wieseler has
substantially adopted, is corroborated by the sequel : de vobis enim gloriatur, etc. —
we have therefore no sufiicient objective and others after it, each therefore being
standard of comparison, in the absence of marked by name in the order of its date. What
which a judgment founded on taste is very a different picture this would yield from that
uncertain. But even assuming the interpo- presented in 2 Cor. iii., and one, too, deline-
lation, we should still have the result that ated singularly enough ! And how unsuitable
the interpolator was acquainted with several would such a precedence, as to time, be for
epistles of Paul to the PhiUppians. Other- the church at Philippi! By how long a
wise he would have had no reason for using period had the establishment of all the
the plural, especially as it was already dis- churches of Asia preceded it I Hofmann's
tinetion enough for the church to have had objection to our view, viz. that the present
one epistle addressed to it by the apostle. estis would be unsuitable, does not apply,
1 Hofmann also explains the expression since Polyearp realizes the state of matters as
from 2 Cor. iii. 1 AT., but errs in taking epis- it stood with the church in principio {iv ipxfi,
tolae as the genitive ; he makes this epistle to i.e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as
he the whole of the Christians gathered by Paul, present; hence also he subsequently says
and thus represents Polyearp as declarinp, in gloriatur (not gloriabatur). The conception
reference to the Philippian church, that it is this: Paul in all the churches of that early
stands first in this epistle, because it is reckoned Christian age boasts of the excellent Philip-
among his earliest acquisitions. According to plan church, and so this church serves him
this interpretation, a vast aggregate of asso many letters of recommendation, which
churches would be depicted as one epistle, in by his gloriari he communicates, and as it
which one church would stand written first, were reads before, those other churches.

CHAP. m. 2. 121
It is, moreover, d priori intelligible and Ukely enough that Paul should have cor
responded with this church — which enjoyed his most intimate confidence, and the
founding of which marked his entrance on his European labors — at an earlier
period than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Polyearp was suffi
ciently close to the time of the apostle, not merely to have inferred such a corres
pondence from our passage, but to have had a historical knowledge of it (in opposi
tion to Hofmann).
Ver. 2. [On Vv. 2 ff., see Xote XVI. pages 152, 153.] This is now the rd
aird which he had pre\iously written, and probably in the very same
words. At least this s§ems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in
themselves ; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the relation of
contrast, which this vehement " fervor pii zeli " (Calvin) presents to the
tender and corcUal tone of our epistle. That lost epistle had probably
expressed the apostle's mind at length, and with all the warmth of con-
trovei-sy, for the warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers.
How entirely different is the tone in which, in the present epistle, he
speaks (i. 15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauhne type, and laboring,
indeed, at that time in his immediate neighborhood ! Comp., moreover,
the remark after i. 18. Those who refer rd aird to the xoipers iv Kvpla,
labor in very different ways to establish a connection of thought with
P'Xirrsrre k.t.X. ; as, for instance, Wiesinger ; that Paul wished to suggest, as a
ground for the reiterated summons to joy in the Lord, the danger which
was threatening them from the men described ; Weiss : that the readers
were to learn e contrario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what
it was not, based. — ,3/I-sts] not : be on your guard against, etc. (which
would be ,3/.. d-6, Mark viii. 15. xii. 38), but as a calling attention to : behold !
(1 Cor. i. 26, X. IS), with a view, however, to warn the readers against
these men as pernicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which
they present themselves. — roi-f Kvva;'\ a term of reproach among the Jews
and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, also uses it without
any dishonorable reference ; see Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 674) ; used by
the latter specially to denote impudence, furious boldness (Hom. JJ. viii.
289; Od. xvii. 248; Anth. Pa?, ix. 302), snappishness (Pollux, On. v. 65),
low vulgarity (Lucian, Xigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs, ad Anthol.
VI, p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein ; used also among the
Jews in similar special references (Isa. hd. 10 f. ; Deut, xxiii. 18; Eev.
xxii. 15, et al.), and, because dogs were unclean animals, generally to
denote the profane, impure, unholy (Matt. yH. 6; Ps. xxii. 17; Eev. xxii. 15;
Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 11-45) ; hence the Gentiles were so designated (see
on Matt. x\-. 26). In this passage also the profane nature and demeanor
of the false teachers, as -contrasted -nith the holy character of true Chris
tianity, is to be adhered to as the point of comparison '. Any more
special reference of the term — as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and many
others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), covetousness (both
1 chrvsostom : ovKeri reKva 'lovSalot . . . Tou oAAoTptot rfirav, ourm koX outoi ycydvoo-t
Sitnrep oi eBviKOi Kai Tou ©eou Kot Too Xpta- vvv.

122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
combined by Grotius), snappishness (Eilliet, and older expositors, following
Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Pelagius), envy, and the like; or to the
disorderly wandering about in selfishness and animosity towards those who
were living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which
Lange fiincifuUy adds a loud howling against Paul, — is not furnished by
the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up with yet another general
designation, subjoining, namely, to that of the low, unholy character
{Kvva;) that of the evil working : roi'f kokov; ipydr. Comp, 2 Cor. xi. 13. The
opposite : 2 Tim. ii. 15 ; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 57 '. They, in fact, labored in
opposition to the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith. — rijv
KaTaropvv] the cutting in pieces^' a word formed after the analogy of irspiropv,
and, like the latter in ver. 3, used in a concrete sense '.those who are cut in
pieces ! A bitter paronomasia, because these men were circumcised merely
as regards the body, and placed their confidence in this fieshly circum
cision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision, which that
of the body typified (see ver, 3 ; Eom, ii, 28 f, ; Col, ii, 11 ; Eph,'ii, 11;
Acts vii, 51). Comp, Gal. v. 11 f. In the absence of this, their character
istic consisted simply in the bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal
point of view which Paul here occupies, was not circumcision, but conr
cision ; whilst, on the other hand, circumcision, as respected its moral
idea, was entirely independent of the corporeal operation, ver. 3. Comp.
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction between irspir.
and Korar. has been misunderstood by Baur, who takes the climax as
quantitative, and hence sees in it a warped and unnatural antithesis, which
is only concocted to give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his
own person. Chr3'SOStom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress
on the abolition of the legal circumcision as such brought about through
Christ (the end of the law, Eom. x. 4), — a presupposition which gives to
this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.' A description of idolatry, with
allusion to Lev. xxi. 5, 1 Kings xviii. 28, et al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot ;
comp. Beza), is quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to dis
cover here any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther's
gloss), or a cutting in pieces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Grotius,
Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others), against which the
necessary (comp. ver. 3) passive signification of the word (not cutters in
pieces, but cut in pieces) is decisive. — The thrice repeated pxiirsrs belongs sim
ply to the iiripovij of earnest emotion,^ so that it points to the same dan-

1 'Epya^ovTat jue'v, prjaiv, aW €Trl KaKw, Kat Jurisperditos ; also in proper names, snch as
apyta? iroAAui x^tpov ep-yo*-. <iva(Tj7wvTes Ta KaAws Schwenlifeld, whom he called *^Stenkfeld."
Keijieva, Chrysostom ; eomp. Theodoret, Oecu- In ancient authors, comp. what Diog. L. vi. 2,
menius, Theophylact 4 relates of Diogenes : tiju Eu/tAei'Sov axoMtv
2 Theophr. H. pi. iv. 8. 12. IXcye ^^oXtjv, ttjv Se nAoLTujuo? StaTptfiTjv icaTaTpt-
s Luther's works abound in sarcastic poro- p^v. Thuc. vi. 76. 4 : ov/t dJuvETioTepov, icaitof u-
nomasiae. Thus, for instance, in the preface vertarepov Se. See s.lso Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr.'p.
to his works, instead of Decret and Decretal, 276 ; Jacobs, Delect, epigr. p. 188. For the
he has written "Z)recket" and "Drecketal " Latin, see Kiihner, ad Cic. Tusc. p. 291, ed. 3.
[Germ. Dreck = dregs, filth]; the Legmden * Dissen, ad i3»n. de cor. p. 315 ; Buttmann,
he calls Lagenden, the Jurisperitos he terms Neut. Chr. p. 341 [E. T. 398].

CHAP. in. 3. 123
gerous men, and does not, as van Hengel misconceives, denote three
different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. the apostate, the heretical, and the
directly inimical. The passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. ii.
1, does not bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of
sflXsijis are divided by piv . . . di. Weiss also refers the three designations
to three different categories, namely : (1) the unconverted heathen, with
their immoral life ; (2) the self-seeking Christian teachers, i. 15-17 ; and
(3) the unbelieving Jews, with their carnal conceit. But the first and third
categories mtroduce alien elements, and the third cannot be identified
-with those mentioned at i. 15-17, but must mean persons much more
dangerous. In opposition to the whole misinterpretation, see Huther in
the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. p. 626 ff. All the three terms must characterize one
class of men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the
Judaizing false teachers. As is evident from r. Kararopryv and ver. 3 ff., they
belonged to the same fundamentally hostile party against which Paul
contends in the Epistle to the Galatians. At the same time, since the
threefold repetition of the article pointing them out may be founded upon
the very notoriety of these men, and yet does not of necessity presuppose a
personal acquaintance with them, it must be left an open question,
whether they had already come to Philippi itself, or merely threatened
danger from some place in its vicinity. It is certain, however, though
Baur still regards it as doubtful, that Paul did not refer to his opponents
in Rome mentioned m i. 15 ff. (Heinrichs), because in the passage before
us a line of teaching must be thought of which was expressly and in
principle anti-Pauline, leading back into Judaism and to legal righteous
ness; and also because the earnest, demonstrative pjrrere, as well as
daipaX,i; (ver. 2), can only indicate a danger which was -visibly and closely
threatening the readers. It is also certain that these opponents could not
as yet have succeeded m finding adherents among the Philippians ; for if
this had been the case, Paul would not have omitted to censure the
readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians and Second Corin
thians), and he would have given a very different shape generally to his
epistle, which betrays nothing but a church as yet undi-vided in doctrine.
His language directed against the false teachers is therefore merely wa'm-
ing and precautionary, as is also sho-wn in ver. 3.
Ver. 8. Justification of the preceding ,. KararoyTyv; not, however, "an
evident copy " of 2 Cor. xi. 18 f. (Baur), but very different from the latter
passage amidst the corresponding resemblances which the similarity of
subject suggested ; in both cases there is Pauline originality. — vpei;2 with
emphasis : we, not they. The Kararopv being not the unconverted Jews,
but Christian Judaizers, the contrasted vpei; cannot mean the Christians
generally (Weiss), but only those who, in the apostle's sense, were true and
right Christians, whose more definite characterization immediately fol
lows. The vpei; are the 'lapayX roi Qeov oi Gal. vi. 15 f., the members of
the people of God in the sense of the Pauline gospel, and not merely Paul
and the true teachers of the gospel (Hoftnann),— a restriction which the
exclusiveness of the predicate, especially furnished as it is -with the

124 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
article, does not befit ; in iii. 17 the context stands otherwise. — v irspiropv]
If this predicate belongs to us, not to those men, then, in regard to the
point of circumcision, nothing remains for the latter but the predicate
Kararopvl As the vyei;, among whom the readers also were included, were
for the most part uncircumcised (Gal. ii. 9, iii. ; Eph. ii. 11), it is clear that
Paul here takes irepiropv purely in the antitypical spiritual sense, according
to which the circumcised are those who, since the reception of baptism, are
regenerated by ihe Holy Spirit, and therefore members of the true people of
God ; the investiture with their new moral condition is typically pre
figured by the legal bodily irspiropv of the Jewish theocracy. Comp. Eom.
ii. 29, iv. 10 £; Eph. h. 11; Col. ii. 11; Acts vii. 51. Whether the bodily
circumcision was present or not, and whether, therefore, the subjects were
Jewish or Gentile Christians, was in that case matter of indifference,
1 Cor. vii. 19 ; Gal. iii. 28, v. 6. Comp, the further amplification of the
thought in Barnab, Ep. 9, — oi irvsvpan 6sov k.t.'a.'] We who serve through ihe
Spirit of God, in contrast to the external, legal /larpeia (Eom, ix. 4).'
Comp. Heb. ix. 10, 14 ; Eom. xii. 1 f. With this Xarpsia, wrought by the
Holy Spirit,^ there takes place on the part of man (comp. Eom. i. 9), but
m virtue of that very working of the Holy Spirit, the worship which is
required in John iv. 24. The article oi extends also to the two participles
which follow; and the arthrous participles {quippe qui coiinius, etc.) con
tain the experimental proof that the vyel; are the irepiroyv. The dative
irveipan denotes neither the standard (van Hengel) nor the object (Hilgen
feld), which latter view would amount to the conception, foreign to the
N, T,, of a worship of the Holy Spirit — but is instrumental, expressing the
inward agent (Eom, v, 5, viii, 14 f , et al.) : vi spiritus divini (Eom, viii, 13,
et al.). On the absolute ?MTpeisiv, to render dimne worship, comp, Luke ii.
57; Acts xxvi. 7; Heb. ix. 9, x, 2; Eom. ix. 4; 3 Esdr. iv. 54. — Kavxdp. iv
X. 'I,] and who glory in Christ Jesus (as Him through whoin alone we have
attained righteousness, etc, see ver, 9; comp. Gal. vi. 14), not in our own
privileges and legal performances, as those false teachers do, who place
their confidence in what is fleshly, i. e. in that whioh belongs to material
human nature and has nothing in common with the divine blessings of
-Che Christian (such as circumcision, descent, outward observance of the
law, comp. vv. 4r-6). Hence the contrast : koI ovk iv aapKi irerroiBdrs;, -with
which the disposition of mind contrary to th.e KavxdaBai iv X. 'I. (from which
disposition the Kavxdadai, opposed to that Christian KavxdaBai, of itself
results) is negatived ; so that this contrast is pregnant, belonging, however,
by way of antithesis, to the second statement, and not containing a separ
ate third one (Hofmann). If k. oi/c en o. -jreTr. were merely a more precise ,
definition of purport added to kovx. 'sv X. I. (Weiss), it must have been
added without koI. As to ovk in the passage, referring to concrete persons
1 True Christianity is, according to Paul v. 17, in which the letter has yielded to the
also, the true continuation of Judaism, and spirit.
that not merely of the promise given in it, ^ if we adopt the reading rrueii/xaTt 0c^, n-t-eu-
but also of the law ; the latter, however, fiart must be understood as in Rom. i. 9. See
according to the idea of the TrA^ptoo-t?, Matt. Eeiche, Comment, crit. p. 229 if.

CHAP. III. 4. 125
and a definite fact, and negati-ving not merely the iv aapd (Hofmann), but
the actual position ev a. -erroiB., see Winer, p. 451 f. [E, T, 485] ; Baeum
lein, Partik. p, 276 f.
^'er. 4, [On Vv. 4-11, see Note XVII, pages 1,33-15.3.] Bv the oiK iv aapia,
rrsiroiB., which he had just used, Paul finds himself led to his own personal
position ; for he was, in fact, the proper organ of the anti-Judaizing tend
ency expressed in ver. 3, and the real object against which the whole con
flict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by the words ovk iv aapd
ireiroiB. he by no means intends to concede that he is destitute of that
rreiroWvai; which Was founded on externals ; ' no, in this respect also he has
more to show than others, down to ver. 6.'^ So no one might say that he
was despising what he himself did not possess. — The classical Ka'iirep with
the participle (only used here by Paul ; and elsewhere in the N. T. only
in Heb. v. 8, et al. ; 2 Pet. i. 12), adds to the adversative sentence a limit
ing concessive clause (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 201 f.), and that in such a
way, that from the collective subject of the former the apostle now with
emphasis singles out partitively his own person {eyd).^ If, .following the
Homeric usage, he had separated the two particles, he would have written :
Kal iyd rrsp. ; if he had expressed himself negatively, he would have said :
oidiirep 'eyd oiK sxav. — The confidence also in flesh, i. e. m such circum
stances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in sxav (comp.
2 Cor, iii, 4) conceived as a possession ; he has this confidence, namely,
from his personal position as an Israelite — a standpoint which, laying out
of view for the moment his Christian transformation, he boldly adopts, in
order to measure himself with his Judaistic opponents on their own
ground of proud confidence, and thereupon in ver. 7 ff. yet again to
abandon this standpoint and to make those Israelitish advantages vanish
mto nothing before the light of his vital position as a Christian. Hence
the irsirolBvai;, his possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not
fiduciae argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including
Flatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss) ; nor is the possession of it to be viewed as
something which he might have (Storr, Eilliet, Matthies, Ewald) ; nor is it
to be referred to the pre-Christian period of the apostle's life (van Hengel).
The latter is also the view of Hofmann, who holds sxav (and then didKav
also) as the imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the in
volved misinterpretation : that Kalirsp introduces a protasis, the apodosis of
which follows with dXXd in ver. 7. In accordance -^vith this view, ver. 4 is
supposed to mean: "Although I possessed a confidence, and that, indeed,
based on such matters as are flesh, if any other ventures to trust in such things,
I for my part possessed confidence in a higher degree.'' This is erroneous;
first, because the familiar dXXa of the apodosis is used indeed after koItoi
(-wifii finite tense; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 68 E; Pami. p. 128 C), but
I Kal iv o-opiti, namely, in addition to the full stop; and after anenn-Tos in ver. 6 another
higher Christian relations, on which I place full stop So also Lachmann and Tisehen-
my confideuoe. dorf. In opposition to Hofmann's confusing
2 Only a comma is to be placed after iren-oi- construction of the sentence, see below.
«dT« in ver, 3 ; but after iv aapici in yer. 4 a » Comp. Kuhner, II. 1, p. 246. 8.

126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
not after the common Kaiirep with participle, attaching itsejf to a govern
ing verb ; secondly, because koI before iv aapd means nothing else than
also, which does not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to
force upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed; thirdly, be
cause the present doKel presupposes the present sense for exav also ; and
lastly, because with iyd pd/iXov the present (in accordance with the preced
ing doKei), and not the imperfect, again suggests itself as to be supplied.
And how awkward would be the whole form of expression for the, after
all, very simple idea! — n; . . . dXXo;2 quite generally: any other person, but
the intended application to the above-mentioned Judaizers was obvious to
the reader. See the sequel. The separation by doKel lays all the stronger
stress on the ri;. — doKsl'] not : " thinks to be able to confide " (de AVette and
many others) ; nor yet : " si quis alius videtur " (Vulgate), since it is a
matter depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his own
fancy, according to the connection. Hence : if any one allows himself to
think, if he presumes. Just in the same way, as in the passage parallel also
in substance, Matt. iii. 9. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16. — iyd pdX?.^^ sc. doKo ireir. ev
aapKi, I for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression im
plies a certain boldness, defiance; bomp. 2 Cor. xi. 21. -
Vv. 5, 6. Predicates of the 'syd, by which that 'syd pd?Mv is justified. — -If
those Judaizers were, .is may be inferred from our passage, iiartiy prosel'ytes
(to these the -n-cpir. bK-avp. stands in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish
descent was not so noble and pure as that implied in 'sk yivov;. . . . ''E[3paiav,
and if they could not boast of any such law-strictness, zealous activity, and
righteousness, as is described in Kara vdpov . . . dpeprr-o; ; and if, on the other
hand, there were found conjoined in the case of Paul the elements here
adduced of ancient theocratic legitimacy and perfection ; the 'syd pdX'Xov in
ver. 4 was completely made good. — -epiropy oKravy.J in respect to circum
cision an eighth-day-one. not older, as were the proselytes who were only cir
cumcised at a later period of life. The eighth-day clmracter in the relation
specified by ireptropy is conceived as a quality of the persons concerned,
which distinguishes them from those circumcised later.^ The reading
irepiropv as nominative (some min. and Fathers, Era.smus, Vatablus, Corne
lius a Lapide, Mill, Bengel, Matthies, Heinrichs, and otliera, also Elz. 1624,
1633, not 1641), so that it would stand in the concrete sense {circumcisus),
is erroneous, because this usage occurs onl-y collectively. — e/c yevovf 'Icrp,] that
is, a descendant of Jacob, not, therefore, possibly of Idumaean blood. The
theocratic name 'lap. corresponds entirely with the design of the passage.
Comp, on Eph, ii, 12. On what folloAvs, comp. 2 Cor. xi, 22 ; Eomc xi. 1.
— ipv?,v; Beviap.] therefore not, possibl}-, an Ephraimite (Ezra iv. 1) ; a cli
mactic more precise definition of the siyiveia^ For its fuller exhibition
Paul finally specifies the last feature of his lineage: 'Eppalo; ef 'E/Sp., that
is, a Hebrew bom of Hebreiv parents, so that his mother also was a Hebrew

1 For instances of the personal use of such p. 234 f.
noniina dialia, see especially Wet.stein on 2 evyevr]^ yap ij <^uo-ts icaf evyevHiv, Soph. Phil.
John xi. 39 ; comp. generally Kuhner, II. 1, 802 (874),

CHAP. III. 5, 6. 127
woman. His lineage is not carried further back in respect to both parents,
because it was not the custom to trace back the genealogy of the wives.
Inappropriate to the context is the rendering of Michaelis, following
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact : " one speaking Hebrew, born
of Hebrew-speafciTig' parents," It is also erroneous, following the Greek
Fathers, to take ef 'E Jp. of the tota majorum series,^ because this was after
the two previously specified points self-evident. If, among his ancestors,
Paul had had one who was a non-Hebrew, he would not have been de
scended from Jacob and Benjamin, but from the non-Hebrew and his
forefathers. For instances of expressions quite similar to 'E/3p. ef ''Epp.,
used to denote the identity, as conditioned by birth, of a man's position
with that of his parents, see Wetstein and Kypke ; they occur very fre
quently in classic authors. — Kara vdpov k.t.'/ .] After his Jewish eiyiveia there
now foUows his distinguished personal position in Judaism, set forth in a
threefold cUmactic gradation : (1) In respect of the law (of Moses) a Phari
see. Comp. Acts xxvi. 5, xxii. 6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and .
strictest relation to the law, as thej- with their traditions were regarded as
the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and observers of it. The inter
pretation oivdpirv, not in its habitual historic sense, but generally as regu
lar rule (Beza) or disciplina {alpeai;) (Castaho, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Hein
richs, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, and others), is all the more erroneous,
since the vahdity of the Mosaic law in Christianity was the very principle
upheld by those Judaizers ; see also below, dmaioa. r. iv vdyu. (2) In respect
of zeal (zealous maintenance and championship of the law-religion, 1 Mace-
ii. 58 ; Acts xxi. 20 ; Gal. i. 14), a persecutor of the church. Comp. Gal. i.
13 f. The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gal. i. 23.
What Paul, to his deep grief, had been (1 Cor. xv. 8 f. ; 1 Tim. i. 13), he,
with a bitter recalling of his former distinction in Judaism, throws, by way
of confronting the Jewish zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic pre
dicate not yet extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any irors
as in Gal, i. 23, it carries from the standpoint to which he has now attained
very strong weight (in opposition to Hofmann, who holds the present
sense to be impossible here), (3) In respect to righteousness, which is
grounded on the law [XVII a.] having become blameless pCVII 6,] (ii. 15),
having carried it so far (not : having bome myself so, as Hofmann renders
it; comp. on ii. 15). that human judgment j?rids nothing in me to blame in
this respect ! That which is here denoted by dm. ij hi vdya is not substan
tially different from diK. v « vdpov in ver. 9 ; comp. Eom. x. 5. It has its
basis in the law, so far as it consists in the accordance of its nature with
the character and the rules of that institute (Gal. iii. 11, v. 4), and pro
ceeds /rom the law, so far as it is produced by the precepts of the latter
which man follows. In opposition to the correlation with ver. 9 de Wette
interprets : " the righteousness valid in the state of law (comp. Eom. ii.
12)," Cal-vin appropriately observes that Paul means "totam justitiam
legis," but " communi hominum existimatione; " that it is not, therefore, the
> Beza, Grotius, Storr, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crasius, and others.

128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
real -mo-caX fulfillment of the law, but its justitia externa literalis. Comp. J.
Miiller, v. d. S'imde, I. p. 59, ed. 5.
Ver. 7. Now, with the antithetic dX'Xd, the apostle comes again to his
r&al standpoint, far transcending any rrsiroiBivai 'sv aapd, and says : No !
everything that was gain to me, etc. — dnval, quaecunque, the category of the
matters specified in vv. 5 and 6.' The emphasis is to be placed on this
word; comp. Tavra subsequently. — vv poi Kipdv~\ yoi is not the dative of
opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including Heinrichs, Ehein
wald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Plofmaim ; comp. van Hengel,
who takes Kipdv as lucra opinata) ; but such things were to the apostle in
his pre-Christian state really gain (/card adpica). By means of them he was
within the old theocracy put upon a path which had already brought him
repute and influence, and promised to him yet far greater honors, power,
and wealth in the future ; a career rich in gain was opened up to him.
The plural Kipdv denotes the various advantages dependent on such things
as have been mentioned. Frequently used also in the classical writers. —
Toira] emphatically ; these very things. — did rbv X.] for the sake of Christ, who
had become the highest interest of my life. Paul explains himself more
particularly in vv. 8, 9, explanations which are not to be here anticipated.
— i^vpiavl as harm, that is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to Kipdo^ ; ^
because, namely, they had been impediments to the conversion to Christ,
and that owing to the false moral judgment and confidence attaching to
them.' This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he is
speaking ; hence the plural is not again used here as previously in Kepdv.
The Tjyvpai {perfect), however, has occurred, and is an accomplished fact
since his conversion, to which the apostle here glances back.* <
Ver. 8. 'A?Jm [XVII c.j is the climactic but, still, much more, giving a
corrective reference of the sense, signifying that with the previous dnva . . .
C,vpiav there has not yet been enough said, Comp. on 2 Cor. vii. 11. In
the piv ovv it is implied, that "piv rem praesentem coiifirmet, oiv autem con-
clusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficiat," Klotz, ad Devar. p. 663. Hence
dAAd piv oiv : at quidem igitur. The koI before vyovpai (after oAAd p. ovv)
serves also to help the climactic sense, outbidding what has been said pre
viously : etiam, i. e. adeo. It is consequently to be explained : but, accord
ingly, I am even of opinion that everything (not merely what was meant by
dnva in ver, 7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the following
did TO iirepixov k.t.X. that irdvra is meant indeed witliout resti-iction, of all
things, goods, honors, etc. [XVII d.] (comp. also Hofmann), but in so far
as they are not made subordinate to tlie knowledge of Christ. The cxplana-
1 The later heretical enemies of the law ap- ! Comp. Plat, de lucri cup. p. 226 E, Leg viii.
pealed to this passage, in which also, in their p, 835 B,
view, the law was meant to be included. On a Comp. Form. Cone. p. 708 ; Calvin on ver. 8
the other hand, Chrysostom and his suo- * On ^iyeio-flai iriv.iav, comp. Sturz, Lex. Xen.
eessors asserted that the law was meant only II. p. 464 ; Lucian, Lexiph. 24 , on the relation
m comparison with airist. Estius, however, of the singular to the plural KepS-q, Eur. 0yd.
justly observes : " non de ipsa lege loquitur, 311 : jroXAoio-i KepSr, mvripa iiiijiiav iiieixparo.
eed deJustit^a, quae in lege est."

CHAP. III. 7, 8. 129
tion of others, according to which dX'?M piv ovv is intended to oppose the
present vyovpai by way of correction to the perfect vyvpai (Calvin and others,
including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 442], and the explanation hitherto given
by me), is incorrect, because vyvpai, and not the aorist vyvadpvv, was em
ployed previously, and the perfect already involves the continuance of
the opinion in the present, so that no contrast of the tenses would logically
be elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the second
vrysiaBai Zvpiav is a much more comprehensive one than the first, in fact, one
without exception {irdvra). — did rb iirspixov k.t.X.'] on account of the surpass-
ingness of the knowledge of Christ ; that is, because this knowledge, to
which I have attained, is a possession which excels in value everything
else ; the eminent quality of a possession attained is the ground {did) for
estimating other possessions according to their relation to that one, and
consequentlj", if they stand to the latter in a relation hindersome to us,
for looking upon them no longer as something advantageous, but as hurt
ful. As to the neuter adjective used as a substantive with the genitive, in
order to the more prominent setting forth of the attribute, see Bernhardy,
p. 155 f. ; Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 235]. — Xpiarb; 'Ivaov; d Kvpid; yov ; this is the
fundamental sum of the whole contents of Christian knowledge. This sav
ing knoAvledge is the necessary intelligence of faith (comp. on John viii.
32), and grows -with the experience of faith (ver. 10 ; Eph. iii. 16 ff.). — di' 6v]
for the sake of whom, i. e. for the sake of possessing Him ; comp. after
wards Iva Xpiarbv . . . aira. — rd irdvra] the whole, not general like irdvra pre
viously (Hofmann), but : which I possessed, vv. 5-7. This more precise
definition by the article results from 'sl^vpidiBvv, in connection with which
the aorist is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical turn
ing-point in his life, the event of his conversion; through that event he
has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions,^ and thenceforth he has
them no more. Luther erroneously interprets: "considered as harm;"
and the emotion and force of the expression are only weakened by the
frequently given reflexive sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Flatt, Hoele
mann, van Hengel, and many) : I have made myself lose, — a meaning, be
sides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form of the aorist
of this verb (not even in Luke ix. 25). The future passive form (^.vpia-
Biiaopai '' is invariably damno afficiar.- — koI vyovpai k.t.?..] not to be taken as
independent (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss), but, in keeping
with the climactic flow of the discourse, as still in continuous connection
with di' bv K.T.X. [XVII e.] ; hence di' bv r. ir. ei;vp. is not, with van Hengel,
to be put in a parenthesis. Paul had become, loser of all these things for
Christ's sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession, but as
rubbish! aKi/laXav,' refuse (such as sweepings, dung, husks, and the hke);
1 Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived quem omnium detrimentum (i.e. jacturam)
correspondence of^ijfjuav in ver. V f , and e^q/xi- passus sum censeoque ea esse quisquilias."
uOriv in ver. 8, in which the former expresses ' See Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 12, Thuc.
the idea of damnum, detrimentum, and the iii. 40. 2.
latter; I have become loser of. It might be re- 'Not to be derived from toii «uo-i piXAcii.,
produced in Latin ; " etiam censeo omnia det- quod canibus projicitur, but from o-niip (o-xdc).
nmentum (i.e. detrimentosa) esse . . . propter See Lobeck, Pathol, p. 92.
9

130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ecclus. xxvii. 4; Plut. Mor. p, 352 D; and see Wetstein ad loc.^ Comp, the
similar figurative expressions irepiKdBappa and rrepiipvpa, 1 Cor, iv, 13. — iva
X. /cep(5.] The design in the vyovpai oKvp. elvai : in order to gain Christ, not
the aim of rd irdvra i^vpidiBvv (Hofmami), there being no reason for such a
retrospective reference. The gaining of Christ, i. e. the appropriation of
Him by means of the fellowship brought about through faith, is that,
which for him is to take the place of those former Kipdg which he has hst,
and so he looked to this gain in his ijyovpai aKijSaXa slvai ; it is present to
his view as the one and highest gain at which he has to aim. It is true
that Paul has Christ already long ago (Gal, ii, 20 ; Eph, iii, 17 ; 2 Cor, xiii.
3) ; nevertheless, this Kspdalvsiv is from its nature a development, the com
pletion of which still lies before him, Comp, ver. 12 ff,
Ver, 9, Kai sipeBd iv aira] [XVII/,] and to be found in Him. The em
phasis, which previously lay upon Xpiarov, is laid not upon ev avra (Hof
mann), but upon the eipeBd placed first for that reason, and introducing a
new feature of the relation aimed at, annexing to the (subjective) gaining
of Christ the (objective) moulding of life corresponding to it. The apostle
desires to be found in Christ, as in the element of his life ; by this he
means (comp. Ignatius, Eph. 11) the whole perceptible manifestation of
his Christian being and nature ; so that eip. must neither be limited to the
judicium Dei (Beza, comp. Flatt), nor taken as sim (Grotius and others).
Calvin erroneously makes sipeBd active: Paulum renuntiasse omnibus
quae habebat, ut recupemret in Christo. — pij Ixav k.t.X.] Specific modal
definition to eip iv aira : so that I, in accordance with this design, may not
have, etc. Van Hengel erroneously connects (Lachmann, also, and Tisch
endorf have omitted the comma after aird) pij ixav k.t.X. inimediately with
sip. iv aira : et depreheiidar in communione ejus non meam qualemcunque
habere probitatem. Thus, indeed, cv aira would be utterly superfluous !
The subjective negation yij flows from the conception of design (iva), see
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 295 ; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 302 [E. T. 351] ; and
exav is the simple habens, possessing, not : holding fast (am Ende, Ehein
wald, Baumgarten-Crusius). — ipvv diK. rijv iK vdpov] See on ver, 6 ; comp,
Eom, X, 3, It is the righteousness acquired as a self-achievement {epvv),
which proceeds from the law by means of a justifying compliance with it
(Eom, ii, 13), As to the nnture of this righteousness, and the impossi
bility of attaining it, comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 10 ; Eom. iii. 19 I, iv. 4, vii. 7
ff., ix. 31, et al. — rvv did iriar. Xpiarov] contrast to ipvv : that procured by faith
in Chrisf (as the causa apprehendens). The causa efficiens is God (His
grace, see Eph. ii, 8) ; hence, for the complete exhaustion of the matter,
rvv iK Oeov diK. is added, in which « esov, correlative to the preceding e/c
vdpov, expresses the causal issuing from God, As to the ivay in which
this eK Qeov takes place, namely, by God's imputing faith as righteousness,' '
1 Frequently in the Anthol, see Jacobs, Ach. ' In this passage also, therefore, justification
Tat. p, 622, ad Anthol. -VII. p, 173, IX. p. 208. by faith is the basis and presupposition of
2 On the genitive of the object with tti'o-tis, further Christian development up to the
comp. i. 27. Against taking it as the genitive blessed consummation, ver. 11. Comp. Kost-
auctoris, see on Rom. iii. 22. lin, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 121 f.

CHAP. IIL 9, 10. 131
see Eom. i. 17, iii. 24 f., iv. 3 ff ; 2 Cor. v, 19 ; Gal. iii. 6.— iirl rf, irtarei] on
the ground of faith (Acts iii, 16), added at the end with solemn emphasis,
and dependent on ixav, which is again to be supplied after dXXd. [XVII
g.] So also Weiss, The repetition of ixav after eTri r. rrlarei, which Hof
mann feels the want of in this explanation, would be simply superfluous
and clumsy. 'Eirl r. ir. is usually attached to diKaioaivryv ("justitiam super-
structam fidei," Hoelemann, Wiesinger), some having taken 'eiri as " in
fide " (Vulgate, Calvin), or in fide sitam (Castalio) ; others as "per fidem "
(Beza, Grotius); others, /or the sake of faith (de Wette); ofneis, upon the
condUion of faith (Storr, Flatt, Matthies, Eilliet, van Hengel, J. B, Light
foot). But it may be urged against this connection, first, that, in accord
ance with the previous definitions, we could not but expect the repetition
of the article; secondly, that diKamiaBai with iirl nowhere occurs in the
N. T, ; and lastly, that diKaioavvv in its quality as righteousness of faith was
already distinctly designated by t^v did iriar. X,, so that the same attribute
of it would be expressed t'wice, and, on the other hand, the sxav which is
to be repeated after dXXd (the basis of which is stiU iirl r. ir.) would be
without any more precise definition. In opposition to Hofmann, who
makes eirl r. irlarsi belong to the following infinitive clause, see on ver. 10.
Ver. 10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by pij Ixav k.t.X. in ver.
9. Paul has not the righteousness of the law, but the righteousness of
faith, in order to know, eta. [XVII h.] This knowledge would fail him if,
on the contrary, instead of the righteousness of faith, he had that of the
law. So he reverts to a more detailed illustration of rb iirspixov rv; yvdasa;
X., ver. 8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great personal
contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteousness of faith {rov
yvdvai avrdv), and next, more particularly, the most important — especially
to the apostle in his position infinitely important — matters which were its
objects {rijv dvvapiv K.T.X), developing them from his own richest experience,
which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the iirspixov
rrj; yvdasa; X. The rem yvdvai might also be conceived as dependent on
evpsBd hi aira (Wiesinger, Sehneckenburger, Schenkel) ; but the more pre
cise definition of this sipeBd iv aira by pv sxav k.t.X. is SO important, earnest,
and solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the statement of
aim which follows. Chrysostom joins irrl ry rriarsi to ver, 10 : ri di iarlv irrl
r^ iriarsi rov yvdvai airdv ; dpa did iriarsa; 7 yvdai;, Kal rriarea; dvev yvdvai
avrbv oiK ian. So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann,^
who, in doing so, takes eiri in and by itself correctly as on the ground of faith.
But such cases of emphatic prefixing, while they are certainly found with
Iva (see on Gal, ii. 10 ; Eph. iii. 18), are not found before the genitive of the
infinitive with the article, which represents the expression with Iva, but in
such infinitive clauses only between article and infinitive; hence Paul
would have written tov eirl r^ iriarsi yvdvai. Comp. Rom. -viii. 12 ; 1 Cor.
x-vi. 4. Hofmann improperly appeals, not any longer indeed to Eev. xii.
7, but, doing -violence to the position of the words in the LXX., to 2 Sam.
',} Comp. also his Schriftbem. I. p. 618.

132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
vi, 2; Isa. x, 32, According to Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and
others, the genitive rov yv. is meant to depend on ry iriarsi ; " describit vim
et naturam fidei, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio " (Calvin), But irian; is
never joined with the genitive of the infinitive with the article ; and, besides,
not the nature, but the object of the faith (ver. 9) would be denoted by the
genitive (Col. ii, 12; 2 Thess, ii, 13, et al). Nor is roi yvdvai airdv to be
regarded as parallel with iva X. Kepdvaa k. eip. iv avra,^ since it is in itself
arbitrary to despise the appropriate dependence on what immediately
precedes, and to go back instead to riyovyai oKipaXu slvai ; and since in Iva
Xpiarbv Kspd. k. sipeBd iv aira two elements are given, a subjective and an
objective one, so that thus there would be presented no parallel corres
ponding with the subjective rov yvdvai k.t.X. Moreover, Paul is in the habit
of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a double Iva (Rom. vii.
13 ; Gal. iii. 14 ; 2 Cor. ix. 3). — ^The yvdvai, which both conditions the faith
and also in fuller development follows it (see on ver. 8), is not the discur
sive, or generally theoretical and speculative knowing-, but the inwardly
salutary, experimental becoming-acquainted-with (" qui expertus non fuerit,
non intelliget," Anselm), as is plain from rvv dvvapiv k.t.X. Comp. 1 Cor. ii.
8, viii. 2 ; Gal. iv. 9, et al. ; frequently so used in John.'' — koi rvv divapiv rij;
dvaar. avrov Kal r. Koivuv. r. iraB. air.] and (that is, and especially) the power
of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings. The divay. r. dvaar.
air. is not the power by which He has been raised (Vatablus, Grotius ; comp.
Matthies), which would be quite unsuitable to the context, 'but the power
which the resurrection of Christ has, its vis et efficacia in respect to believers.
[XVII t.] The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the
context through what is said immediately before of the righteousness of
faith, to which rov yvdvai k.t.X. refers. He means the powerful guarantee
of justification and salvation which the resurrection of Christ affords to
believers ; see Rom. iv. 25, v. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 17 ; Acts xiii. 37, 38. This
power of the resurrection is experienced, not by him that is righteous
through the law, but by him that is righteous through faith, to whom the
resurrection of the Lord brings the constant energetic certainty of his
reconciliation procured by Jesus' death and the completion of eternal hfe
(Rom, viii, 11 ; 1 Cor, vi, 14 ; Col. iii. 1 ff. ; Phil. iii. 21), Comp, also Rom.
viii. 34, where this dvvapi; rij; dvaar. is triumphant in the apostle. As a
matter of course, this power, in virtue of which the resurrection of Christ,
acc9rdiiig to 1 Cor, xv, 17, Rom, iv, 25, might be described as " comple-
mentum redemtionis " (Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally
known, as is Christ generally {air&v) ; but Paul speaks from the conscious
ness that every element of the regenerate life, which has riyv 'sk Qsov diKaioc-
vvvv eirl ry iriarsi, is an ever new perception of this power. The view which
understands it of the moral power of awakening (Beza and others, also van
Hengel; comp, Eilhet), according to Rom, vi, 4, Col, ii, 12, or the living
power of victory, which lies for the believer in the resurrection of Christ,
1 Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, in- Wette, Winer.
eluding Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de a See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 421, ed, 2.

CHAP. III. 10. 133
according to 2 Cor, iv. 10, Gal. ii. 20, Phil. iv. 13, — by means of which the
Christian, " through his glorified Lord, himself also possesses an infinite
new power of acquiring victory over the world and death " (Ewald, comp.
de Wette, Sehneckenburger, Wiesinger, Schenkel ; substantially also Hof
mann), — does not accord either with the words themselves (for so under
stood it would be the power of the risen Christ, not the power of His resur
rection), or with the following k. rijv Koivuvlav rdv rraBvp. airov, which, in a
logical point of view (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10-12), must either have gone before,
or have been expressed by iv ry Koivavla k.t.X. The certainty of our own
resurrection and glory ' is necessarily included also in the divapi;, without,
however, being exclusively meant. By the series sermonis Bengel (comp.
Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be misled into explaining dvdaraai;,
not of the resurrection at all, but of the exortus or adventus of the Messiah.
References of various kinds are mixed up by Rheinwald, Flatt, Schinz,
Usteri, and others. — Kal riyv Koivav. rdv rraBvp. avrov] In these words Paul
intends to express — and he does so by the repetition of the article with a
certain solemnity — a second, highly valuable relation, conditioned by the
first, to the experimental knowledge of which the possession of the right
eousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the fellowship of the
sufferings of Christ, in which he sees a high proof of divine grace and dis
tinction (i. 29, ii. 17 f.). Comp. Col. i. 24. Suffering for the sake of Christ's
cause is a participation in Christ's sufferings (a avpirdaxeiv, Rom. viii. 17),
because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of suffering, one
suffers the same that Christ suffered (according to the ethical category,
diinks of the same cup which Christ drank. Matt, xx, 22)," The expla
nation which makes it : suffering iviih such a disposition of mind as He
suffered (as steadfastly, etc), given by Flatt and others, is imported from
a rationalistic point of view; and the view which takes it in the sense of:
the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ (Calo-vius, Rheinwald, and
others), is opposed to the words, and at variance with the habitual con
ception of a real cvyrrdaxsiv with Christ, under which the sufferings of
Christian martyrs were regarded, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,
have already in substance the correct view. Observe, moreover, that Paul
hasnot written r^v Sivayiv rrj; Koivavia; k.t.X. (Hoelemann : " -vim ac pondus;"
de Wette : " all that this fellowship involves ," comp. Corn, a Lapide :
" dulcedinem ac sanctitatem ") ; the yvdvai, on the contrary, relates to the
matter itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith can
attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an unknown
element; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the latter, though the object
ive suffering is present. It was otherwise with the previous element ; for
the resurrection of Chnst in itself— the fact as such— is known also by him
who IS righteous through the law, but not so its divapi;, of which only the
righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of this divapi;, in virtue
' Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Hein- = Comp. 1 Pet iv. 13. and see on 2 Cor. i. 5,
richs, Hoelemann, and others; comp. Pela- Col. i. 24; also on rr,v viKpiomv to5 •lriaoi,2
gius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Cor. iv. ID.
and Theophylact

134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
of which he experiences in the resurrection of Christ the abiding divinely
effectual guarantee of his justification and eternal life, makes him capable
also of recognizing in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a fellowship
in the sufferings of Christ ; the latter knowledge is conditioned by the
former ; he would not have it without the former, because he would be
driven to look upon his faith as vain and idle, and upon himself, so far as
he suffers, as 'eXssivdrspov rrdvrav dvBpdrrav (1 Cor. XV. 14, 17, 19.) The enthu
siastic feeling of drinking the cup of Christ is not possible, unless a man
bears in his heart the mighty assurance of salvation through the resurrec
tion of the Lord. — avppopipi^dpsvo; rd Bavdra airov] denotes the corresponding
situation (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10), in which Paul was conscious that he should
know, as one righteous by faith, the Koivavlav rdv iraB. Xpiarov : inasmuch as
I am made like to His death ; for his position then was such that he saw
himself threatened with martyrdom, consequently (comp. ii. 17) his state
of suffering developed itself into similarity to the death of Christ. This
present state of development of the being made like to Christ is indicated by
the present participle. The interpretation, which takes it of the fellowship
in suffering generally, which is here more precisely described (Calvin,
Estius, and others ; also Wiesinger and ^'\'eiss), does not satisfy the pro
gression from the general iraBvpdrav to the definite Bavdra. And the sense :
" non detrectando mortem ejus morti similem " (Vatablus ; comp. Matthies
and de Wette) is imported into the words, which by Grotius, van Hengel,
Rilliet, Sehneckenburger, and others, are interpreted quite in opposition
to the context, as referring to the ethical dying to the world, its lusts, etc.
(Rom. vi. ; Gal. ii. 19). The nominative avppopf., which is to be explained
as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on sipsBd (Grotius,
Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on rov yvdvai k.t.X., refers to its
logical subject. See Eph. iv. 2.
Ver. 11. El ira;] if possibly, designating the aim, the attainment of which
is before the apostle's mind in the avppopipii^dpsvo; rd Bav. airov. In this
case, however, the deliberative form of expression (comp. Eom. i. 10, xi.
14 ; Kiihner, II. 2, p, 1034) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will
attain to the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live
to see the Parousia), but of humility under the conception of the greatness
of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on man's part, it is subject.^
This suffices also in opposition to Baur's doubt {Paulus, II, p. 79 f,) whether
Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all. The expression
excludes moral security, but not the certitudo salutis in itself, as, following
Estius and other Catholic expositors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty
of salvation is founded on God's decree, calling (Rom, viii. 29 f.), promise,
and attestation by the Spirit (Rom. ^-iii. 10), in faith on the saving facts of
redemption (Rom. viii. 32 ff,). Comp, Calovius, — ^The reader could not
feel any doubt as to what i^avdaraai; riiv vsKpdv Paul means namely
the first, in which ol rov Xpiarov ev ry napovala airov (1 Cor. XV. 28) shall
» oO »app5 yap, ifiTiiriv, outtco- outo! iraireivo- p\eweTa f»>i ireffj), Theophylact : Comp. Chry-
^povei, ojrep aWaxov Aeyei- o SqkSiv eirrdvai, sostom.

CHAP. in. 11, 12. 135
arise.^ Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16. It is the resurrectiou of the dead /car" i^oxvv,
not different from the dvdaraai; rdv diKaiai: See on Luke xiv. 14. Xeverthe-
less, we must not find this resurrection denoted by the double compound
efdvdffT., the i; in it conve\-ing the idea iK tv; yy; s'l; -bv dipa (Theophylact).
This i; is simply to be explained by the conception es r^; -^ij;, so that
neither in the substantial meaning nor even in style (Bengel: " Paulinus
enim stylus Christo adscribit dvaaraoiv, i^avdaraciv Christianis ") is efavdtrr.
to be distinguished from dvdirr. ; but the former is to be explained solely
from the more vividly imaginative view of the event which the apostle
has before him. Comp. on 1 Cor. -vi. 14. The dou'ole compound substan^
iive does not occur elsewhere in tlie X. T. (the verb, Mark xii. 19 ; Luke xx.
2S ; Acts XV. 5) ; but see Polyb. iii. 55. 4, ii. 21. 9, ii. 35. 4 ; Gen. m. 4.
Oompl. We may add, that while it has been explained, at variance with
the context, as referring to the ethical resurrection, Rom. vi. 4 f," it is
also erroneous to find in it the sense : "if perchance I should remain alive
until the resurrection of the dead " (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld) ; since, on the
contrarj-, essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luke xx. 34 by
OJ KarayujBiiTs; . . . r^; dvatrrdcsa;, and it is conceived as a possible case
(comp. i. 20 ff., ii. 17) that Paul wiU not remain aUve until the Parousia.'
Karavr. sl; (comp. Eph. iv. 13) denotes the attaining to a goal,* which, how
ever, is here not a point of time, but a bliss which is to be attained. Comp.
Acts xxvi. 7.
Vv. 12-14. [On Vv. 12-16, see Xote X:\TII. pages 155, 156.] Protest, that in
what he had said in w. 7-11 he had not expressed the fenciful idea of a Chris
tian perfection alreadj- attained ; but that, on the contraiy, his efforts are
still ever directed forward towards that aim — whereby a mirror for self-con
templation is held up before the Philippians in respect to the moral conceit
which disturbed their unity (h. 2-4), in order to stir them up to a Uke
humOitv' and diUgence as a condition of Christian perfection (ver. 15).
Ver. 12. Ovx dri] By this I do not mean io say that, etc.* He might
encounter such a misconception on the part of his opponents ; but " in
summo fervore sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus," Bengel. —
viv iXa^] that I have already grasped it. The object is not named by Paul,
but left to be understood of itself from the context. The latter represents a
prize-runner, who at the goal of the orafJuxfpo/ua grasps the lipa^eiov (ver. 14).
1 It is incorrect to ascribe to the apostle the judgment, at p. 301 ff^ as regards the persons
idea that none but believers will rise at the subjected to it, in a way that is exegetically
resurrection, and that unbelievers will re- altogether unjustifiable.
main in Hades (Weiss). The resurrection of * Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others ;
aU, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught comp. Schrader.
it (see on John v. 28 f. ; Luke xlv. 14), is also ^ This also applies against the view of Otto,
in Paul's view the necessary premiss of the Pastoralbr. p. 233. who has altogether misun-
judgment of all, of believers and also of unbe- derstood w. 11 and 12.
lievers (of the too-|to?, Rom. iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. "vl * Frequently in Polybius, see Schweighaa-
2,xi.3-2). That view, moreover, is at variance ser. Lex. p. 332; see also the passages from
with the apostle's distinct declaration in the LXX. and Apocr. in Schlensner, III. p.
Acts xxiv. 15, eomp. xvii. 31. Gerlach proper- 234 f.
ly declares himself (LetzU Dinge, p. 147 ff.) 'See on 2 Cor. L 24, iii. 5; John vL 46.
opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final Aken, Lehre v. Temp. u. Hod. p. 91 ff.

136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
This Ppaj^slov typifies the bliss of the Messiah's kingdom (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24;
2 Tim. iv. 7, 8), which therefore, and that as ppapsiov, is here to be con
ceived as the object, the attainment of which is denied to have already
taken place. And accordingly, iXajiov is to be explained of the having
attained in ideal anticipation, in which the individual is as sure and certain
of the future attainment of the Ppafteiov, as if it were already an accom
plished fact. What therefore Paul here denies of himself is the same
imagination with which he reproaches the Corinthians in 1 Cor. iv. 8 (see
in loc). The reference to the ppafieiov (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo
phylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Heinrichs, Rilliet, and others) is not proleptic;'
on the contrary, it is suggested by the idea of the race just introduced in
ver. 12, and is prepared for by the preceding Karavrvaa s'l; rijv i^avdaraaiv r.
vsKp., in which the Messianic aarvpia makes its appearance, and the grasp
ing of the jSpafieiov is realized ; hence it is so accordant with the context
that all other references are excluded. Accordingly, we must neither supply
metam generally (Beza, comp. Ewald) ; nor rvv dvdaraaiv (Rheinwald) ; nor
rbv Xpiardv (Tlieodoret ; comp. Weiss) ; nor moral perfection (Hoelemann,
following Ambrosiaster and others) ; nor the right of resmrection (Grotius);
nor even " the knowledge of Christ which appropriates, imitates, and strives
to follow Him " (de Wette) ;^ nor yet the Karavrdv of ver. 11 (Matthies). — v
Tjdv rersXeiupai] or — ill Order to express without a figure that which had been
figuratively denoted by vdv iXaf}ov — were already perfected? [XVIII 6. c]
For only the ethically perfected Christian, who has entirely become and is
(observe the perfect) what he was intended to become and be, would be
able to say with truth that he had already grasped the jipapsiov, however
infallibly certain might be to him, looking at his inward moral frame of
life, the fiiture aarvpia. He who is not yet perfect has still always to run
after it; see the sequel. The words ^ vdv .dediKalapai, introduced in con
siderable authorities before 7, form a correct gloss, when understood in an
ethical sense. For instances of reXeiovaBai — which is not, with Hofmann, to
be here taken in the indefinite generality of being ready — in the sense of
spiritual perfection (comp. Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, xii. 23), see Ast, Lex. Plat. Ill,
p, 369; comp, Philo, Alleg. p, 74 C, where the (ipajieia are adjudged to the
soul, when it is perfected. To be at the gaal (Hammond, Wolf, Loesner,
Heinrichs, Flatt, Rilliet, and others), is a sense, which rsrsX. might have
according to the context. In opposition to it, however, we may urge, not
that the figure of the race-contest only comes in distinctly in the sequel,
for it is already introduced in ver, 12, but that Paul would thus have
expressed himself quite tautologically, and that rsXsioi in ver, 15 is correla
tive with rereXe'iapai. — didKu di] [XVIII d,] but I pursue it, i.e. I strive after

» As also Hofmann objects, who finds the 2 Comp, Ambrosiaster, Calvin, "Vatablus, van
notion of the verb alone sufiicient for express- Hengel, Wiesinger,
ing what is to be negatived, but yet likewise ^This being perfected is not the result of
ultimately comes to eternal life as a supple- the IXa^ov (Wiesinger, Weiss), but the moral
ment; for that which is not yet attained is condition oi him who can say eAajSor. Note
one and the same with that which is oue day that JJ is used, and not Kai ; Kai might have
to be attained. been taken as annexing the result.

CHAP. m. 12. 137
it -with strenuous ruiming ; see ver. 14. Tlie idea of urgent haste is con
veyed.' The di has the force of an d/-?-d in the sense of on the other hand ;
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 95, and comp. on Eph. iv. 15. We must understand
TO /Spa,3ejov as object to diuKa, just as in the case of e/.a,3oi.' and Kara'/.dSu ;
hence <5«jicij is not to be taken absolutely (ROliet ; comp. Eheinwald, de
Wette, Hofinarm), although this in itself would be linguistically admissible
(in opposition to van Hengel), see on ver. 14.' — sl koI Kara'/.d^a] This ei is,
as in ei -a;, ver. 11, dehberative ; if I also, etc., the idea of oKorrsiv or some
similar word being before his mind ; the compound KaTaj.d3u is more (in
oppositioii to Weiss) than i'/.aSov, and denotes the apprehension which
takes posession ; ' and Koi impUes : I not merely grasp {i7xi3ov), but also
actually apprehend.^ — e o' a Kal KarsXJioBriv i-b X.] ° because I was also appre
hended by Christ. This is the ddermining ground of the dioKu, and of the
thought thereto annexed, ei koX Kard/.d3u. Theophylact (comp. Chrjsostom
and Theodoret) aptly remarks : deiKvv;, on bosiX.v iarl rb -pa-,aa, oriaC diSn Kal
nars/iiod. fed X. Otherwise, in fact, this having been apprehended would
not have been responded to on my part.^ Respecting eo' a, on the ground
of this, that, i.e. propterea cpiod, see on Eom. v. 12 ; 2 Cor. v. 4. [XVIII e.j
The Ul terpretation : for which, on ichich behalf (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius,
Rheinwald, Rilliet, Weiss, and others), just as in iv. 10, is indeed linguis
tically correct and simple ; but it- assigns the conversion of Paul, not to
the general object which it had (Gal. i. 16), but to a personal object. In
tins case, moreover, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger supply toIto pre^'iously,
which is not in accordance ^-ith the objectless iXaSav. iMore artificial are
the explanations : ichereunto, in the sense of obligation (Hoelemann) ;
under which condition (Matthies) ; in so far as (Castaho, Ewald) ; in the
presupposition, that (Baur); ichich is certain from tfie fact, that (subjective
ground of knowledge ; so Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sdnde. II. p. 217), According
to Hofmann, Paul desires to give the reason why, and for what purpose, he
contemplates an apprehension. But thus the reference of eo' 6 K.r.7.. would
be limited to e« k. KaraXa^a, although the positive leading thought has been
introduced in didoj Si. 'Eo' a k.t.'/.. serves tliis leading thought along with
that of its accessory definition ei k. Koray.dpa. — azi] also, subjoins to the active
Ka-a}.d3a the ingeniously corresponding passive relation KareX^ifv. And
by KarsXijoB. Paul expresses what at his conversion he experienced from
Christ (hence the aorist) ; there is no need for suggesting the idea, foreign
to the context, of an apprehended fugitive (Chrysostom, Theophylact,
lAbresch, ad Aesch. Sept. 90; Blomfield, course, "exemplum occipieTiiis jam jamque,'*
Gloss. Pers. 86. BengeL
- Phavorinus : BitiKeiv eviore ro aa-Aws KaTa 5 Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 38 D ; oBev Ka-aXatiPa-
Fsov^iiv eAawcty; also Eustathius, ad IL vovaC re Kot KaraXafi^dvovrat,! Cor. xiii. 12:
xxiii. 344. ejrfyvM<ro;Mit Kojdai^ KOL eTTeyvwr&ijjV, Ignatius,
3 Comp. on Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, where PUmi. 8 : 6ekyi<ra~e, Xva KoXiiixel^ 9eXT}&rire, TralL
we have the same progression from \afifi. to 5 : =-oAAa yap rifnTv Xei^et, Iva ©tou ^i; Aetjrw/iffla.
kutoJuhlP.; Herod, ix. 58: £ciu«r£oi tial «S » Paul is conscious that, being apprehended
Ka-aXati(it0evrei. hv Christ, he may not and cannot do other-
4 2 Tim. iv. 7 does not conflict with otir -wise. Comp. Bengel: quoniam; sensus vir-
passage but is the confession at the end of the tntis Christi accendit Christiannm.

138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Theodoret, and others, including Flatt and van Hengel). The fact that at
that time Christ laid hold of him on his pre-Christian career, and took him
into His power and gracious guidance as His own, is vividly illustrated by
the figure, to which the context gave occasion, KarsXvipB. iirb X.
Vv. 13, 14. [XVIII /] Once more, and with loving earnestness
{ddeXfol), Paul says what he had already said in ver. 12 with oii;i; on . . .
KaraXd^a ; and in doing so, he brings more into relief in the first portion the
element of seZ/-estimation, which in his own case he denies ; and, in the
second part, he sets forth more in detail the idea : didKa di ei k. KaraX. —
syd ipavrdv] ego me ipsum, an emphatic mode of indicating one's own esti
mation, in which one is both subject and object of the judgment. Comp.
John V. 30 f., vii. 17, viii. 54; Acts xxvi. 9, et al. A reference to the judg
ment of others about him (Bengel, Weiss, and others ; comp. also Hof
mann) is here out of place. — Xoyi(;o,uai] I judge, I am of opinion,' Bom. iii.
28, viii. 18, xiv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 5, et at.; Xen. Anab. ii, 2, 13; Dem, Ixiii.
12, — ev de] Comp, Anthol. Pal. vii. 455 : ev d' dvri irdvrav, also the frequent
ev pdvov ; see Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 548 C. It is here
usually supplemented by iroid (Chrysostom appears to have undei-stood
noidv). So also Winer, Buttmann, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ellicott, But
how arbitrarily, seeing that the context by what immediately precedes
suggests simply the supplying of Xoyl^opat [XVIII g.] (not Xoyli^. KorsiXvipivai,
Oecumenius, Weiss), and this is in perfect harmony with the sense !
Hence we take it thus : " but one thing I think, unum censeo." This one
thing which Paul thinks regarding the matter in question, in contrast to
the previous negative {di, as in ver. 12), is then directly expressed by all
that follows from rd ^ev bwiau to iv X. 'I. Nearest to this contextual sup
plement comes the Syriac, which has added olda, and Luther, who has
added Xiyu. The supplying of Xoyi^opai is confirmed by the cognate
^povdpsv, ver. 15. Without supplying anything, ev de has either been con
nected with diuKu (thus Augustine, Serm. de divers, i, 6, Pierce, Storr, van
Hengel, and others), or has been taken absolutely: ''unum contra!" see
Hoelemann, comp, Rheinwald, But Une former isto be rejected, because
the subsequent diuKu carries its own complete definiteness ; and the latter
would render the discourse abrupt without reason, since it is not written
under emotional excitement, and would, withal, require a supplement,
such as Beza gives by 'sari. Hofmann also comes at length in substance
to this latter supplement, mixing up an imaginary contrast to that which
the adversaries imputed to the apostle : over-against this, his conduct sub
sequently described was the only thing which was quite right (?), — ra piv brriau]
what is behind, cannot be referred to what has been mentioned in w. 5 and
6 and the category of those pre-Christian advantages generally (so in sub
stance, Pelagius ; nve; in Theodoret, Vatablus, Zeger, Wolf, and others,
also Ewald and Hofmann) ; this would be at variance with the context,
for TO piv biriau iiriXavB. corresponds to the negation of the having already
1 oil belongs to Aoyi^ofiai. The erroneous ing oCiru (AD X min, vss, and Fathers), which
reference to KareiKiti^evai produced the read- Tischendorf 8, has adopted.

CHAP. in. 13, 14. 139
attained or being perfect in ver. 12, and must therefore apply to the pre
vious achievements of the Christian life, to the degrees of Christian moral
perfection already reached, which are conceived as the spaces already left
behind in the stadium of the runner still pressing forward ; and not to
what had belonged to his pre-Christian conduct (Hofmann). Comp.
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact. — imXavBav.] forgetting, like the
runner who dismisses from his mind the space already traversed, and fixes
his thoughts only on what still lies before him. This is surely no break in
the internal connection (as Hofmann objects) ; on the contrary, like the
runner pressing forward, Paul in his continuous restless striving overlooks
the degree of moral perfection already attained, which he would not do,
if he reckoned it already as itself perfection. 'einXavBdveaBai is joined with
the genitive and accusative ; the simple verb, on the contrary, only with
the genitive. See Kuhner, II. 1, p. 313. On the use of the Word in the
sense of intentional forgetting, comp. Herod, iii, 75, iv, 43 ; 1 Mace, i, 49.
It thus amounts to the sense of nullam rationem habere.^ — roi; di epirpoaBev
iireKTeivdp.] but stretching myself out towards that which is before. The dative
is governed by the verb compounded with iiri,'' the iiri intimating the
direction. In the case of such an one running "prono et quasi praecipiti
corpore" (Beza), "oculus manum, manus pedem praevertit et trahit,"
,Bengel,^ Ta iyirp. represent the higher stages of Christian perfection not
yet attained.* — /card aKoirbv diuKu] I hasten towards the goal, therefore in a
straight course towards the prize of victory. The opposite : dirb oKorrov,
Hom. Od. xi. 344, xxii. 6; Plat. Theaet. p. 179 C, Tim. p. 25 E; Xen. Conv.
ii. 10 ; Lucian, Icarom. 2 ; and irapd oKo-dv, Pind. 01. xiii. 144. On diuKo
without an accusative of the object (in opposition to van Hengel), comp. Xen.
Anab. vii, 2. 20, vi. 5. 25 {dpdpu diuKeiv) ; Aesch. Sept. 89 ; Buttmann, Lexil.
p, 219 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX, p, 213, Comp, on ver. 12. The prize of
victory {rb ppafielov, see on 1 Cor. ix. 24 ; Clem. Cor. I. 5 ; Schol. min. ad
Soph. El. 680 ; Oppian, Cijneg. iv. 196 ; Lycophr. 1154) represents tlie sal
vation of the Messiah's kingdom (see on ver. 12), to which God has called
man. Ksnce : rij; dva Kkvaeu;, a genitive which is to be taken not as appo-
sitional (de Wette, Schenkel), but as the genitive of the subject: the
jSpaftslov, to which the calling relates. Comp. Luther : " which the heavenly
calling holds out." This is therefore the object of the iXirl; rv; KXriasa;
(Eph. i. 18, iv, 4),° — v dva KXijai; rov Qsov [XVIII h.] is tlie calling which issued
from God above in heaven (on dva, comp. Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26 ; and on the
subject-matter, Heb. iii. 1), by which He has called us to the aarvpia of
His kingdom. The general form of expression, not even limited by a
pronoun (such as rv; 'syv;), does not allow us to think only of the miracu-
i Sturz Lex. Xen. II, p, 294. that which lay before him in consequence of his
'Kruger, ? 48. 11. 5; Nagelsbach, zur Ilias, conversion (contrasting with his pre-Christian
30 ed 3.' efforts), aa Hofmann thinks. It is the ever
3 On the verb, comp. Strabo, xvii. p. 800 ; new, greater, and loftier task which he sees
Aristot. Poe«. 21;' Plut. J/or. p. 1U7 A. before him, step after step.
*Ta e^npoaSev, is thus conceived by the 6 Comp. the Platonic icaAbi. to aflXor /cal i)
apostle s.s,thatwhichstilllies further in prospect iXn'n (leyiAij, Phaed. p. 114 0.
after every advance in the ethical course; not as

140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
lous calling of the apostle himself; this is rather included under the general
category of the d^u k^ivoi; roi Qsov, which in the individual cases may have
taken historically very different forms. The dvu, which in itself is not
necessary, is added, because Paul is thoroughly filled with the conscious
ness of the divine nature of the KXijai; in its exaltedness above everything
that is earthly. Lastly, the KXijai; itself is, as always (even in 2 Thess. i.
11), the act of calling; not that whereto one is called (de Wette), or "le
bonheur celeste meme " (Rilliet) ; and the general currency of the idea
and expression forbids us also, since no indication of the kind is given, to
conceive of God as Ppajjsvrv; or ppapd;, as the judge of the contest,' who
through the herald summons the runners to the race (Grotius, Wolf,
Rosenmiiller, am Ende, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Wiesinger) ; rv; dva kX.
r. e. serves to define more accurately that which is figuratively denoted by
ppafielov, but does not itself form a part of the allegory. — ev X. 'I.] is rightly
(so also Weiss) joined by Chrysostom to didKu'' [XVIII f]. This thought,
that the diaKeiv just described is done by him in Christ, as the great
upholding and impelling element of hfe in which amidst this activity he
moves, is emphiitically placed at the end as that which regulates all his
efforts. The usual connection of these words with . , dvu kXvocu; t. Qsov, in
which the calhng is understood as brought ' about through Christ (rather :
having its causal ground in Christ), yields a superfluous and self-obvious
definition of the kXvoi; already so accurately defined ; although the con
necting article would not be necessary, since, according to the construc
tion KaXslv iv X. (1 Cor, vii. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), ev X. 'I. might be joined with
KXyasa; SO as to form one idea.^ A contrast to the calling issued to Israel
to be God's people on earth, is groundlessly suggested by Hofmann.
Ver, 15, Application of the passage vv, 12-14 for the benefit of the
Philippians, down to ver, 17, — riXsioi] [XVIII j.] denotes not perfection,
like rereTiz'iuyai in ver. 12. but the moral ripeness which, with differences of
degree in the case of individuals, belongs to the true Christian state that
has advanced beyond the novitiate — that Christian maturity in which one
is no longer viiirio; iv Xpiard ; comp, on 1 Cor. ii. 6, iii. 1 ; Eph. iv. 13.
The rsrsXsiapai is the ideal goal of the development of this riXswv slvai,
contradistinguished from the vviridrv;. The special aspect of this maturity,
which Paul had in -view in using Ti?^eioi, is to be regarded, not as
theoretical knowledge, — the doctrine of righteousness by faith being con
ceived to be specially referred to (Erasmus, Wolf, Rheinwald, and
others), — but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears
from ver. 13 f,, along -with which the corresponding relation of practical
insight is self-evident as a necessary presupposition (comp. Col, iv, 12, i.
28) ; although there is no reason to suppose that particular questions in
this domain (such as those relating to sacrificial flesh, fasts, feasts, and the
hke) had arisen in Philippi and occasioned division, of which no trace

'Pollux, iii. 145; Blomf. QloSS. ad Aesch. evi Xi^p'i^ rri^ eKelvov ponri^ TOo-ouTOv SieXdelv
Pers. 307. StaaTTjjita. Comp. Theodoret and Oecumenius.
8 iv Xpio-ToJ 'Itjitov TOUTO TTOtw, ^rjiTiv. OV yap s Comp. Clem, Cor. I, 46,

CHAP. IIL 15. 141
exists. The jealousy and partial disunion in the church arose from a
moral conceit, which was prejudicial to mutual humility (ii. 3 ff.) and to
personal genuine striving after holiness (ii. 12 ff.). In using baoi — with
which we are to supply sumus simply, and not volumus esse — Paul leaves
it to the conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his part,
belongs to the number of the riXeioi ; but by including himself in this
predicate, and yet having pre-viously negatived the vdv rersXsiapai in his
own case (ver. 12), the apostle removes all idle misunderstanding and
abuse of his words which might tend to moral pride, and then by rovro
ippovupsv leaves room onlj- for the consciousness : d; reXslov rb yv vuplCsiv
iavrbv riXsiov slvai, Chrysostom. A tone of irony (Schenkel) is utterly alien
to the heartfelt character of the whole discourse, which is, moreover,, in
this apphcation, ver. 15, so expressed as to include the apostle in cornmon
with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfection the pas
sage is in direct opposition. — rovro ippovdysv] [XVIII k.] let vs have this
frame of mind, namely, which I, in ver. 13 £, have just expressed as mine ;
the frame of humble self-estimation, and at the same time incessant
pressing forward. Grotius holds quite arbitrarily that Paul reverts to
what he had said in ver. 3, But it is also wrong to seek the reference of
rovro ippov. in the passage from ver. 4 onwards : " renunciandum esse splen-
didis -virtutibus Judd. (vv, 4-7), contra in solo Christo acquiescendum
(vv. 8-10) et ad -victricem palmam studio indefesso annitendum
(vv. 12-14)," Hoelemann ;' similarly Hofmann, who makes it refer to the
entfre presentation — joining on to ver. 3 — of a frame of mind which is
opposed to the dispositioii of those against whom they are to be on their
guard. Vv. 4-11 are certainly said by way of warning against the false
teachers, and are opposed to these ; but this opposition is of a dogmatic
nature, for the upholding of the Pauline fundamental doctrine against
Judaism, and it is only ver. 12 that begins what has regard to the moral
progress of the Church in the right way pressing onward to the goal, in
which respect Paul desires to serve for their model (ver. 17), — as which he
has sketched himself in ver. 13 f., when he begins -vi-ith ddsXipoi and intro
duces his iyd. Besides, the ippovdyev, which is correlative with the Xoyi^opai,
does not point back beyond ver. 13 f. Therefore, not even the appropria
tion of Christ, vv. 8-11, is to be included in the reference of the rovro (in
opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger). Van Hengel is inclined to refer
rovro to rb jipa^slov ; but the readers needed the exhortation to the right
mode of striving after the (Spajislov, and not tlie summons generally, that
they should have the PpajS. in view. This applies also against the similar,
although more exact, interpretation of Fritzsche {Diss. II. in 2 Cm: p. 92) :
" hac mente simus sc. ut. rb jSpajS. rij; avo KXyaea; consectemur." — Kal el n iripa;
ippov.] and if as to any point {rl, accusative of the object) ye be otherwise
minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely, from that
specified in rovro fpavdpsv. A man may, forsooth, have in general the
1 Comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Eilliet,
and Beiche.

142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
same frame of mind which Paul has represented in himself, and to which
he has summoned his readers ; but at the same time an isolated concrete
case {rl) may occur, v/hich a man cannot fit into the (ppovslv in question,
and regarding which he is of opinion that he ought to be differently
minded, so that in such a state of things he becomes morally inconsistent
in his frame of mind, inasmuch as he lacks the befitting iiriyvaai; and
alaBvai; s'l; rb doKipd^eiv k.t.?^., i. 9, in the moral judgment which deter
mines the (ppovelv. Hofmann arbitrarily limits the rl to some matter inde
pendent of the essential disposition of the Christian life. This sense would
have required a more precise definition, in order to be found. And the
hope which is uttered in the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the
prayer in i. 9 f. ; hence Hofmann's objection, that the readers must have
themselves corrected the fault which according to our -view here emerges, is
quite groundless. The subject addressed is the readers generally (see ver.l7),
not the viiirioi (Hunnius, Wolf, Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt,
Rheinwald, Hoelemann, RiUiet, Reiche), whom several expositors have
regarded as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure right
eousness of faith excluding the law (see Rheinwald and Reiche), or who
had allowed themselves to be led away by false teachers (see Hunnius,
Grotius, Storr). But setting aside the arbitrariness generally with which
this contrast is introduced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not
assume any thorough and essential diversity in the ippovslv, but only such
a variation as might affect some one or other isolated point {rl), and that
not ill the doctrinal, but in the moral province of Christian conduct.
Moreover, if persons led astray were here in question, nothing would be
less in h.armony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful toler
ance which is expressed in the words koI tovto . . . diroKaXifsi. Lastly,
the change of person (in opposition to Bengel) was necessary, because
Paul, speaking of a partial iripu; (ppovelv, could not include himself. — In
irepa;, otherwise (not occurring elsewhere in the X. T.), there is implied,
according to the context, an unfavorable sense, the notion of incorrectness,
secius quam oportet;'^ just as 'erspo; (comp. on dXXo, Gal. v. 10) may denote
even that which is bad or hostile,'' It is here the irspodo^slv (Plat. Theaet.
pp, 190 E, 193 D), us frame of mind. This has not been attended to by
van Hengel, when he takes ivith equal unsuitableness rl in an emphatic
sense, and ppovslv as to strive for: " si quid boni 'per aliam viam. expetitis,
quam ego persequor." — koI rovro d Qsb; ip. diroK.] Expression of the hope
that such variations will not fail to be rectified, on the part of God, by His
revealing operation. Certainly, therefore, the variations, which Paul so
forbearingly and confidently and without polemical handling commits to
revealing correction on the part of God, were not on matters of principle
or of an anti-Pauline character. — koI tovto] this also, like other things
which He has already revealed unto you ; so that in Kal is contained the

' 1 Comp. Horn. Od. i. 234 ; Dem. 298. 22, 597. ' Wisd. xix. 3 ; Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. viii. 3,
3; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448. 2; Soph, Pkil. 503 ; Pyth. iii. 54; Wyttenbach, ad Plat Phaed. p.
¦Valckenaer, Diatr. p. 112. 321.

CHAP. IIL 15, 16. 143
idea also still (Hartung, Partikell. 1. p. 135). Hofmann erroneously says
that Kal implies : there, where the disposition is present, which I require. It
in fact belongs to rovro. This roiiro, however, is not : that ye,' but what ye
wrongly think ; ihe frame of mind in question, as it ought to be instead of
the erepuf ppovelv, not : " whether you are right or I " (Ewald).^ The
passage is very far from betraying uncertainty or want of firmness (Baur).
— ^The diroKaXiipei, which is to be taken as purely future, is conceived by
Paul as taking place through the Holy Spirit (see Eph. i. 17 ; Col. i, 10), not
by human instruction (Beza), He might also have written didd^si (comp,
BeodidaKToi, 1 Thess, iv. 9 ; also John vi. 45), by which, however, the special
kind of instruction which he means would not have been indicated. This
is the inward divine unveiling of ethical truth, which is needed for the
practical reason of him who in any respect otherwise (ppovsl than Paul has
shown in his own example : for oi rrspl doypdruv ravra slpvrai, dX'/A rrspi
piov TsXsidTvTo; Kal rov pv vopi^siv eavrorb; rs?.siov; slvai, Chrysostom. Where-
ever in this moral respect the right fi-ame of mind is not yet completely
present in one or the other, Paul trusts to the disclosing operation of God
Himself, whose Spirit rules and works in the Church and its individual
members.' Ver. 16, [XVIII e.] A caution added to the precept given in ver, 15,
and the promise coupled -with it : Only let there be no deviation in the
prosecution of the development of j'Our Christian life from the point to
which we have attained! Xeither to the right nor to the left, but forward
in the same direction ! This warning Paul expresses briefly and precisely
thus : " Only whereto we have attained, — according to the same to direct your
walk!" — that is, '¦ however ye maybe in some point otherwise minded
and, therefore, maj- have to await further revelation, at all events ye ought
not to deviate— this must in every case be your fundamental rule — -from
that whereto we have already attained in the Christian life; but, on the con
trary, should let the further direction of your moral walk be determined by thai
same.'' Such a general precept addressed to the Philippians conveys an
honorable testimony to the state of their moral constitution on the whole,
however different in individuals we may conceive the point to be from
which Paul says eif 5 iipB., as is evident from the very fact that he includes
himself in the sl; 8 iipB., which could not but honor and stimulate the
readers. On ir?.^, nisi quod, comp. i. 18 ; on ipBdveiv eif, to attain to anything,
comp. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 26; 1 Thess. ii. 16 {iiri); Rom, ix, 31; Dan.
iv. 19 ; Tob. v. 18 ; Plut. 3Ior. p. 338 A ; Apollod. xii. 242. It denotes the
having come forward, the having advanced. Ewald takes it: if we had the
advantage (see 1 Thess, iv, 15, and the common classical usage), that is :
"in what we already possess much better and higher than Judaism,"
But this reference to Judaism is not given in the text, which aims to

' Oecumenius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, ratio et Veritas,"
Fritzsche, (. c. p, 93, ° 1 Cor. ii. 14, iii. 16 ; Eph. i. 17, ii. 21 £ ; Rom.
s Calvin aptly says : " Nemo ita loqui jure viii. 9, 15, 26 ; Gal. v. 22, 26, et al.
posset, nisi cui certa constat suae doctrinae

144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
secure generally their further progress in the development of Christian
life. On aroixelv with the dative of the rule: to advance (march) according
to something, that is, to direct oneself in one's constant conduct by some
thing, see on Gal. v. 16, 25. The infinitive, however, as the expression of
a briefly measured wish or command, without supplying X,iyu, del, or the
like (which Buttmann requires, Neut. Gr. p. 233 [E. T. 272]), stands in
place of the imperative, as in Rom. xii. 15 ; ' Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 86.
Fritzsche, however, Diss. II. 2 Cor. p. 93, has erroneously made the infini
tive dependent on diroKaXiipei : "praeterea iiistituet vos, ut, quam ego con-
secutus sum ra ppajSeia rij; dvu KXijaea; intentam mentem, ejusdem parti
cipes fieri ipsi annitamini." Comp. Oecumeuius. Decisive against this
view is the plural iipBdaapsv, which, according to the context (ver. 15), can
not apply merely to Paul, as well as the fact that the antithesis of persons
{ego . . . ipsi) is gratuitously introduced, Michaelis, who is followed by
Rilliet, closely unites ver, 16 with the sequel,^ but in such a way that only
an awkward arrangement of the sentences is attained, and the nervous
vigor of the concise command is taken away, — The eif 6 i(pBda. — ^which
cannot in accordance with the context denote the havdng attained to
Christianity, to the being Christian (Hofmann's view, which yields a mean
ing much too vague and general) — ^has been rightly explained by Chry
sostom and Theophylact as relating to the attainments in the Christian life,
which are to be maintained, and in the further development of which
constant progress is to be made (5 KarapBdaapsv, Karsxapev, Theophylact).
Comp. Schinz and van Hengel, This view is corroborated by the sequel,
in which Paul represents himself as model of the wa-lk ; and therefore it
is not to be referred merely to the measure of the right frame of mind
attained (Weiss), Most expositors understand the words as signifying the
measure of Christian knowledge acquired (so also Heinrichs, Flatt, Rhein
wald, Matthies, Hoelemann, de Wette, Wiesinger), in conformity with
which one ought to live. In connection with this, various arbitrary defi
nitions of the object of the knowledge have been suggested, as, for instance,
by Grotius : " de circumcisione et ritibus ; " Heinrichs and de Wette :
concerning the main substance of the Christian faith apart from secondary
matters ; Sehneckenburger : " that man is justified by fiiith, and not by
the works of the law ; " along with which de Wette lays stress on the point
¦ that it is not the individual more or less perfect knowledge (so usually ;
see Flatt, Rheinwald, Matthies) that is meant, but the collective conviction,
the truths generally recognized. But the whole interpretation which
refers it to knowledge is not in keeping with the text ; for iipBdaapsv, correl
ative with aroixelv, presents together with the latter a unity of figurative

1 See Hom, II. i, 20, and Nagelsbach in loc. ; a prefixed designation of that in doing which
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Bep. p, 473 A; Pflugk, ad they are to be his imitators and to have their
Eur. Heracl. 314, attention directed io those, etc. Thus the
' This is thrown out as a suggestion also by infinitive would come to stand as infinitive of
Hofmann, according to whom the infinitive the aim. But even thus the whole attempt
clause ought " perhaps more correctly " to be - would be an artificial twisting of the passage
coupled with {7u/i/ii/i>)Tai k,t,A,, and taken as without reason or use.

CHAP. in. 16, 17. 145
\-iew, the former denoting the point of the way already attained, and ru
avrip aroixelv, perseverance in the direction indicated by that attainment.
Therefore, if by aroixelv there is clearly (see ver, 17) intended the moral
conduct of hfe, this also must be denoted by eif 6 iipB. as respects its
quality attained up to the present time. Moreover, if eif 8 iipB. is to be
understood as referring to knowledge, there would be no motive for the
prominence given to.the identity by ra aira.
Remark.— What Paul means in ver. 16 may be illustrated thus :
-D

A  _^

E

Here B is the point of the development of Christian life eif 8 'eipBdaapsv, which,
in the case of different individuals, may be more or less advanced. The rd oiru
aroixelv takes place, when the path traversed from A to B is continued in the
direction of C. If any one should move from B in the direction of either D or E,
he would not ru avrij aroixelv. The reproach of uncertainty which AViesinger
brings against this canon, because a iripa; (ppovelv may take place which does not
lie in the same direction, and generally because the power of sin might hinder
the following out of this direction, would also apply in opposition to every other
explanation of the eif 8 'e(pB., and particularly to that of the knowledge attained ;
but it is altogether unfounded, first, because the iripa; (ppovslv only refers to one
or another concrete single point {n), so that the whole of moral attainment — the
collective development — w-bicli has been reached is not thereby disturbed ; and,
secondly, because Paul in this case has to do with a church already highl-y advanced
in a moral point of view (i. 5 ff.), which he might, at all events generally, enjoin
to continue in the same direction as the path in which they had already travelled.
Very groundless is also the objection urged by Hofmann, that the eif 8 e^0. must
necessarily be one and the same for all. This is simply to be denied ; it is an
utterly arbitrary assumption,
Ver, 17, [On Vv, 17-21 , see Xijte XIX. pages 157, 158.] In carr^-ing out this
command they are to follow his example, which he has pre-viously held
up to their view, especially from ver. 12 onwards, — avpyipvral] [XIX a.]
co-imitators, is a word not elsewhere preserved. Comp., however, avapi-
poiptvoi. Plat, Polit. p, 274 D, avv is neither superfluous (Heinrichs, comp,
Hofmann), nor does it refer to the imitation of Christ in common with the
apostle (Bengel, Ewald),— a reference which cannot be derived from the
remote i, 30-ii. 8, and which would be expressed somewhat as in 1 Cor. xi,
1 • 1 Thess. i. 6. Xeither does it refer to the obligation of his readers col
lectively to imitate him (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Matthies,
Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette), so that " omnes uno consensu et una
mente " (Calvin) would be meant ; but it means, as is required by the con
text that follows : '' una cum aliis, qui me imitantur (Estius ; comp. Eras
mus, Annxit., Vatablus, Comehus a Lapide, Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and
10

146 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
others). Theophylact aptly remarks : avyKoX?.g. airov; roi; Ka?id; irspiirarovai,
whereby the weight of the exhortation is strengthened. — okottsIts] direct your
view to those who, etc, namely, in order to become imitators of me in like
manner as they are. Other Christians, not Philippians, are meant, just as
ver. 18 also applies to those of other places. — KaBd;] [XIX 6.] does not
correspond to the ovra, as most expositors think, but is the argumentative
' " as " (see on i. 7), by which the two previous requirements, avppipvral k.t.X.
and oKoirslrs K.T.X., are established : in measure as ye have us for an example.
This interpretation (which Wiesinger and Wii^s adopt) is, notwithstand
ing the subtle distinction of thought which Hofmann suggests, required
both by the second person £;i;e-e (not ixovai) and by the plural vyd; (not
e,ui). This vpd; refers not to the apostle alone [XIX c] (so many, and still
de Wette ; but in this case, as before, the singular would have been used),
nor yet generally to the apostle and his companions (van Hengel, Baum
garten-Crusius, Lightfoot), especially Timothy (Hofmann), or to all tided
Christians {'SVj.tthies) ; but to him and those ovra {in this manner, imitative
of me) wspi-arovvra;. This view is not at variance with rv-ov in the singu
lar (de Wette) ; for the several riiroi of individuals are conceived collectively
as Ti'TTOf, Comp. 1 Thess, i, 7 (Lachmann, Liinemann),' This predicative
rvirov, which is therefore placed before vpd;, is emphatic.
Ver, 18. [XIX d.] Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in ver.
17. — irspiiraTovaiv] is not to be defined by /ca/cuf (Oecumenius), or longe aliter
(Grotius ; comp. Syr.) ; nor is it to be taken as circulantur (comp. 1 Pet. v.
8) (Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), which is at variance with the context in ver.
17. Calvin, unnaturally breaking up the plan of the discourse, makes
the connection : " ambulant terrena cogitantes " (which is prohibited by the
very article before iiriy. ippov.), and puts in a parenthesis what intervenes
(so also Erasmus, Schmid, and Wolf) ; whilst Estius quite arbitrarily over
leaps the first relative clause, and takes irepi-. along with uv ro riXo; k.t.X.
Erasmus (see his Annot.) and others, including Rheinwald, van Hengel,
Rilliet, de Wette, ^A'iesiuger, and Weiss, consider the discourse as
broken off, the introduction of the relative clauses inducing the writer to
leave out the modal definition of irepnr. Hofmann transforms the simple
Xeyeiv (comp. Gal, i, 9) into the idea of naming, and takes roi; ixBpoi; as its
object-predicate, in which case, however, the mode of the -spnrarelv would
not be stated. On the contrary, the construction is a genuine Greek mode
of attraction,^ so framed, that instead of saying : many walk as the enemies
of the cross, this predicative definition of mode is dra-wn into the relative
clause ov; iroXXdu; k.t.X.^ and assimilated to the relative ; comp. Plat, Rep.
p. 402 C, and Stallbaum in loc. It is therefore to be interpreted : 2Iany, of
whom I have said that to you often, and nmv tell you even weeping, walk as the
enemies, etc. The iroXXdKi;, emphatically corresponding with the iroXXol (2
iSaealso 2 Thess. iii. S ; comp. generally, 3 Hence also the conjecture of Laurent
Bernhardy, p. 58 f. ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 12 f. (Neut. Stud. p. 21 f.), that ot? ,To>.Ki<U . .
2 See Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. 15; Pflugk. ad in-iiXeia is & supplementary marginal note in-
Eur. Hec. 771 ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 925; Buttm. serted by the apostle, is unwarranted
Neut. Gr. p 08 [E. T. 77].

CHAP. JII. 18, 19. 147
Cor. viii. 22), refers to the apostle's presence in Philippi ; whether, at an earlier
date in an epistle (see on iii. 1), he had thus characterized these enemies of
the cross (Flatt, Ewald), must be left undecided. But it is incorrect to make
these words include a reference (Matthies) to ver. 2, as in the two passages
di/feren/ persons (see below) must be described. — i-iv de Kal K?M.iiM] did rl;
on irrersLvs rb /ca/cov, on daKpvuv d^ioi oi roiovroi . . ovra; earl avprroB-
VriKo;, oirra ippovri^ei rravrav dvOpdirav, Chrysostom. The deterioration of
these men, which had in the meanwhile increased, now extorts tears from
the apostle on account of their own ruin and of their ruinous influence.
— roi; ixBp. ,. ar. .. X.] The article denotes the class of men characteris
tically defined. We must explain the designation as referring, not to
enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theodoret : d; diddoKovra; on dixa rij;
vopiKv; rroXurela; ddirvarov aarvpia; rvxslv, SO in substance Luther, Erasmus
Estius. Calo«us, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many othera ; also Hein
richs, Rheinwi.ll, Matthies). so that passages such as Gal. v. 11, vi. 12,
would have to be compared; but, as required by the context which fol
lows, to Christians of Epicurean tendencies {iv dvicsi ^dvre; k. rpvoij, Chry
sostom ; comp. Theophylact and Oecumenius), who, as such, are hostile
to the fellowship of the cross of Christ (comp. iiL 10), whose maxims of
life are opposed to the rra0rjpara roi Xpiarov (2 Cor. L 5), so that it is hate-
fill to them to suffer with Christ (Rom. viii. 17). Comp, ver. 10, also Gal.
vi. 14, In opposition to the context, RiUiet and Weiss understand non-
Christians, who reject Christianity with hostile disdain, because its founder
was crucified (comp. 1 Cor. i. IS, 23), or because the preaching of the cross
required the crucifixion of their own lusts (Weiss) ; Cah-in interpreted it
generally of h}-pocritical enemies of the gospel. This misunderstanding
ought to have been precluded by the verj- use of the tragic rro'/JM, the mel
ancholy force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but
Christians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that which is re
quired tu ver, 17.' We have still to notice that the persons here depicted
are not the same as those who were described in ver. 2 {contrary to the usual
view, which is also followed bv Schinz and Hilgenfeld) ; for those were
teachers, while these iroXXoi are Christians generally. The former might
indeed be characterized as ixBpol r. aravpov r. X., according to Gal. ^d. 12,
but their Judaistic standpoint does not correspond to the Epicureanism
which is affirmed of the latter in the words dv d Qeb; >/ Koi'/.ia, ver. 19,
Hoelemann, de Wette, Liinemann, Wiesinger, .Schenkel, and Hofmann
have justly pronounced against the identity of the two ; Weiss, however,
foUo-wing out his wrong interpretation of Kin>s; in ver. 2 (of the heathen),
maintains the identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct
of those Kvve; is here described ; while Baur makes use of the passage to
deny freshness, naturalness, and objectivity to the polemic attack here
made on the false teachers.
Ver. 19. A more precise deterrent delineation of these persons, having
the most deterrent element put foremost, and then those points by which it
1 See, besides, in opposition to Weiss, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 630 ff.

148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
was brought about. — dv rb riXo; dirdX.] By this is meant Messianic perdi
tion, eternal condemnation (comp. i. 28), which is the ultimate destiny ap
pointed (rd) for them {riXo; is not : recompense, see Rom. vi. 21 ; 2 Cor. xi.
15 ; Heb. vi. 8). For corresponding Rabbinical, passages, see A^'etstein
and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 801. — dv 6 Qeb; i) KoiXia] Xarpsvovai ydp a; Geu rairi}
Kal irdaav Bepairelav irpoadyovat, Theophylact. Comp. Bom. xvi. 18 ; Eur.
Cycl. 334 i. ; Senec. de benef vii. 26 ; and the maxim of those whose highest
good is eating and drinking, 1 Cor. xv. 32. It is the yaarpiyapyla (Plat.
Phaed. p, 81 E ; Lucian, Amor. 42) in its godless nature,' — Kal tJ do^a k.t.X.]
also dependent on dv. and whos" honor is in their shame, that is, who find
their honor in that which redounds to their shame, as for instance, in
revelling, haughty behavior, and the like, in which the immoral nian is
fond of making a show, v dd^a is subjective, viewed from the opinion
of those men, and ry aiaxvyy is objective, viewed according to the reality of
the ethical relation.^ On slmi iv, versari in, to be found in, to be contained
in something, comp. Plat, Gorg. p, 470 E : ev roin,! ii iraaa eidaipovia iarlv,
Eur. Phoen. lolOi: ovk iv a'laxvvri rd ad. The view, foreign to the context,
which refers the words to circumcision, making a'lax- signify the genitals
{Scliol. Ar. Equ. 'oQ-i; Ambrosiaster; Hilary; Pelagius ; Augustine, de-yerft.
apost. XV. 5; Bengel; Michaelis; Storr), isalreadyrejectedbyChrysostomand
his successors. — oi rd 'erriytia (ppovovvre;] [XIX e.] wlio bear the earthly (that
which is on the earth ; the opposite in ver. 20) in thrir mind (as the goal
of their interest and effort). Conqi. Col. iii. 2. Thus Paul closes bis
delineation with a summary designation of their fundamental immoral
tendency, and he puts this, not in the (;e?j(Y(iie (uniformly with the uv), but
mOre independently and emphatically in the nominative, lia\'ing in view the
top'JcaZ subj ect of what precedes (comp. on i. 30), and that with the individu
alizing {ii, qui) article of apposition.'
Ver. 20. After Paul has, bj' way of confirmation and warning, subjoined
to his exhortation given in ver. 17 the deterrent example of the enemies
of the cross of Chri-t in ver. 18 f., he now sketches by the side of that
deterrent delineation — in outlines few, but how clear! — the inviting picture
of those whom, in ver. 17, he had proposed as riJ-of. — ydp] [XIX/.] The
train of thought runs thus : " Justlj' I characterize their whole nature by
the words ol rd iiriyeia (ppovovvrs; ; for it is the direct opposite of ours ; our
iro7drevpa, the goal of ott)- aspiration, is not on earth, but in heaven." ^dp
therefore introduces a confirmatory reason, but not for his having said that
the earthly mind of the iroXXol necessarilj- involves such a walk (Hofmann);
for he has not said this, aud what follows would not be a proof of it. The
apostle gives, rather, an experimental proof e contrario, and that for what
immediatelj- precedes, not for the remote uv ro riXo; d-dXeia (Weiss). — vydv]
1 They were /cotAioSatjaovej (Eupolis in veaOai KaO' UTrepjSoATji/, eirt TOuTOts' (1)9 (caXoi?
Athen. iii. p. 100 B), ra? tt}? yaa-rp'o^ r]Sova^ a-efxvveaBai. Kai p.eyaKavxelv, and also Plat.
rL$ifievot fierpov eiiSaifjiOvla,; (Lucian, Patr. !77/erte(. p. 176 D ; ayaWovTai yap 7iZ bveiSet.
enc. 10) ; TJJ yaa-Tpt ti-erpovvre^ /eai Toiy aio-xt'cr- 3 Comp. Winer, p. 172 [E, T, 183] ; Buttmann,
To« T7J1/ evSaiiioviav (Dem, 524. 24.) Neut. Gr. p. 69 [E. T. 79],
8 Comp. Polyb, xv, 23. 5 ; etp' at? exPl*" o,'i(rxv-

CHAP. III. 20. 149
emphatically placed first ; contrast of the persons. These vpsi;, however,
are the same as the ripd; in ver, 17, consequently Paul himself and the
ovra nspiirarovvTs;. — rb iroXirevya] the commonwealth, which may bear the
sense either of: the state ; ' or the state-administration ; '' or its principles ; ' or
the state-constitution.* Here, in the first sense : our commonwealth, that is,
the state to which ice belong, is in heaven. By this is meant the Jlissiah's
kingdom which had not yet appeared, which will only at Christ's Parousia
(comp, ff oi K.T.X. which follows) come down from heaven and manifest
itself in its glory on earth. It is the state of the heavenly Jerusalem (see on
Gal. iv. 26 ; comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 190 ; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 59.),
of which true Christians are citizens (Eph. ii, 19) even now before the
Parousia in a proleptic and ideal sense {iir' iXrrldi tv; dd^v;, Rom. v. 2 ;
comp. viii. 24), in order that one da\-, at the e-updvsia rij; irapovala; rov Kvpiov
(2 Thess. ii. 8), they may be so in complete reality (comp. Heb, xii, 22 f.,
xiii. 14), as koivuvoI rrj; psXXoiav; diroKaXvirrtaBai dd^v; (1 Pet, V. 1 ; Col, iii, 4),
nay, as avpPaaiXsvovre; (2 Tim. ii. 12; comp. Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 8).
Hence, according to the necessary psychological relation, " where your
treasure is, there will your heart be also " (Matt. vi. 21), they ippovovaiv, not
rd irrlysia, but rd dva (Col. iii. 1 f ), which serves to explain the logical cor
rectness of the ydp in its relation to ol rd iiriy. (ppov. Others, following the
Vulgate {conversatio), render it : our walk, making the sense, " tota
vita nostra quasi jam nunc apud Deum naturasque coelestes puriores
versatur, longe remota a roif i-iyeioi; eorumque captatione " (Hoelemann).
So Luther (who up till 1528 rendered it " citizenship "), Castalio, Erasmus,
Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Matthies, van Hengel, de
Wette ; while Rheinwald mixes up interpretations of various kinds. This
rendering is not justified by hiiguistic usage, which indeed vouches for
iroXirsieaBai (i. 27) in this sense, and for iroX.iTela (Clem. Cor. I. 54 : iroXirsieaBai
rroXtrelav Qsov, Ep. ad Diogn. 5), but not for iroXirevya, not even in Eus. H.
E. V. prooem. Xor does linguistic usage even permit the interpretation :
citizenship. So Luther, in the Postil. Epist. D. 3, post f pasch. : "Here on
earth we are in fact not citizens . . . ; our citizenship is with Christ in
heaven . . ., there we are to remain for ever citizens and lords ; " comp.
Beza, Balduin, Erasmus Schmid, Zachariae, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald,
Weiss, and others. This would be iroXirsla.'' Theophylact's explanation,
rrjv rrarplda (which is used also for heaven by Anaxagoras in Diog. L. ii. 7),
must be referred to the correct rendering state (comp. Hammond, Clericus,
and others"), while Chrysostom gives no decided opinion, but Theodoret
{rbv oipavov (pavra^dpsBa) and Oecumenius {arparsvdpsBa) appear to follow the
rendering conversatio. — ef ov koi k.t.X.] And what a happy change is before
12 Mace. xii. 7; Polyb. i. 13. 12, li. 41. 6; v. 9. 9, iv. 25. 7; see generally Raphel, Poiyft.
Lucian, Prom. 15; Philo, de opif. p. 33 A, de in loc; Schweigh, Lex. Polyb. p. 486; Sehoe-
Jos. p. 536 D.- mann, ad Plut Cleom. p. 208.
spiat. Legg. 12, p. 945 D; Aristot. Pol. iii. 4; 'Acts xxii. 28; Thuc. vi. 104. 3; Dem. 161.
Polyb. iv. 23. 9 ; Lucian, Dem. enc. 16. 11 ; Polyb. vi. 2. 12 ; 3 Jlace. lit 21.
» Dem. 107. 25, 262. 27 ; Isocr. p. 156 .4. 'The Gothic Version has : " unsara bdu^ins "
<Plut. Them. 4; Arist. Pol. iii. 4. 1; Polyb. (that is, building, dwelling).

150 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
US, in consequence of our thus belonging to the heavenly state ! From the
heaven (scil. ii^ovra, comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) we e.xpect, etc. The neuter oi,
which is certainly to be taken in a strictly local sense (in oppositioii to
Calovius), is not to be referred to iroX'ir. (Wolf, Schoettgen, Bengel,
Hofmann); but is correctly rendered by the Vulgate : '^ unde." Comp.
on fj oi. Col. ii. 19, and Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 20: vpipa; rpel;, 'sv
(j. — Kal, also, denotes the relation corresponding to the foregoing (namely,
that our iroXirsvaa is to be found in heaven), not a second one to be added
(Hofmann). — aarijpa] [XlXgr.] placed first with great emjDliasis, and that not
as the accusative of the object (Hofmann), but — hence without the article —
as predicative accusative : as Saviour, namely, from all the sufferings and
conflicts involved in our fellowship with the cross of Christ (ver. 18), not
from the dirdXeta ("\^'eiss), which, indeed, the vyel; have not at all to fear.
Comp. on the subject-matter, Luke xviii. 7 i., xxi. 28 ; Tit. ii. 13 ; 2 Tim.
iv. 18. — direKdex-] comp. 1 Cor, i, 7; Tit, ii, 13. As to the signification of
the word : perseveranter expectare, see on Rom. viii. 19 ; Gal. v. 5.
Ver. 21. As a special feature of the Lord's saving activity at His
Parousia, Paul mentions the bodily transfiguration of the ijpel;, in significant
relation to what was said in ver. 19 of the enemies of the cross. The latter
now lead an Epicurean life, whilst the vpel; are in a condition of bodily
humiliation through affliction and persecution. But at the Parousia —
what a change in the state of things ! what a gloi'ification of these bodies
now so borne down ! — ueraaxvpar.] shall transform.^ What is meant is the
dXXdaaeiv of the body (1 Cor. xv. 51 f.) at the Parousia, which in this
passage, just as in 1 Cor. xv. 52, Paul assumes that the I'lpsl; will live to see.
[XIX h.] To understand it at the same time of the resurrection of the
dead (so most expositors, including de Wette, Wiesinger, V'eiss), is inap
propriate both to dirsKdexdpsBa and to the definition of the quality of the
body to be remodelled : r^f raireiv yudv, both these expressions being used
under the conviction of being still alive in the present state when the
change occurs. Jloreover, the resurrection is something more than a
psraaxvpdnai; ; it is also an investiture w-ith a new body out of the germ
of the old (1 Cor. xv. 3(i-38, 42-44. — rij; raireivda. vpdv] [XIX i.] Genitive
of the subject. Instead of saying vpdv merely {our body), he expresses it
with more specific definition: the body of our humiliation, that is, the
hoA-y which is the vehicle of the state of our humiliation, namely, through
the privations, persecutions, and afflictions which affect the body and are
exhibited in it, thereby reducing us into our present oppressed and lowly
1 As to the nature of this transformation, ly human, hut will also belong to the identity
see 1 Cor. xv. 53. The older dogmatic exe- of the persons. See 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff. Comp.
getes maintained in it the identity of sub- Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sande, I. p. 127 f. Blore
stance. Calovius: " Ille neTotrxwaTur/ios non precise definitions, such as those in De-
substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, litzseh's Psychol, p, 4.59 ff,, lose themselves in
non ratione quidditatis corporis nostri, sed the misty region of hypothesis. The inap-
ratione quaUtatum salva quidditate importat." propriateness of the expression employed in
This is correct only so far as the future body, the Confession : Resurrection of the flesh, bas
although an organism without o-opf and aVd, been rightly pointed out by Luther in the
1 Cor. XV. 60, will not only be again speeifloal- Larger Catechism, p. 501.

CHAP. IH. 21. 151
position ; rroXXd rrdaxei virv rb aapa, deapeirai, paari^erai, juvpla rrdaxei dsivd,
Chrysostom. This definite reference of r. ra-. rip. is required by the context
through the contrast of the vpsi; to the ixBpov; roi aravpoi- r, X,, so that the
sufferings which are meant by the o-oss of Christ constitute the ra-eivuai;
of the vyel; (comp. Acts viii. 33) ; in which case there is no ground for our
taking rarreivuai;, contrary to Greek usage (Plat, Legg. vu, p. 815 A ; Polyb.
ix. 33. 10 ; Jas. i. 10), as equivalent to -a!retvd-;?f, lowliness, as in Luke i. 48
(Hofmann), On this account, and also because vydv applies to subjects
distinctly defined in comformity with the context, it was incorrect to explain
ra-siv. generally of the constitution of our life (Hofmann), of weakness and
frailty (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others ; including
Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, Schrader, Rilliet, Wiesinger, ^^'eiss) ;
comparison being made with such passages as Col, i, 22 ; Rom, vii, 24 ; 1
Cor. XV. 4r4. The contrast lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the
one hand and of dd^a on the other ; hence rjpdv and avrov are neither to be
joined with adua (in opposition of Hoelemann), nor with . . adpa r. rarr. and
r. a. rij; dd^vi as ideas forming an unity (Hofmann), which Paul would
necessarily have marked by separating the genitives in position (Winer,
p, 180 [E, T. 192]). — aiippopipov] Result of the ysraaxny-, so that the reading
etf rb ysviaBai avrd is a correct gloss.' The thing itself forms a part of the
awdo^d^saBai, Rom. viii. 17. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 48 i. ; Rom. viii. 29. '^ —
T^f (Jdf . airov] to be explained like r^f -a-, riy. : in which His heavenly glory
is sho^vn forth. Comp. iyslpsrai iv dd^y, 1 Cor. xv. 44.— /card -. ivipy. K.T.X.]
removes every doubt as to the possibility ; according to the working of Sis
being able (comp. Eph, i, 19) also to subdue all things unto Himself; that is,
in consequence of the energetic efficacy which belongs to His power of also
subduing all things to Himself. Comp. Kara r. ivipy. rij; dwdy. airov, Eph.
iii. 7, also Eph. i. 19 ; as to the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25 f ; as
to the expression with the genitive of the infinitive, Onosaud. I. p. 12 : v rov
d'waaBai iroislv i^ovala. — Kal ] adds the general element iirord^ai aird rd ir. to
the psraaxvpar. K.r.X} Bengel aptly says : " non modo comforme facere
corpus nostrum suo." — rd irdvra] all things collectively, is not to be limited ;
nothing can withstand His power ; a statement which to the Christian
consciousness refers, as a matter of course, to created thiags and powers,
not to God also, from whom Christ has received that power (Matt, xxviii.
18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27), and to whom He will ultimately deliver up again the
dominion (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Chrysostom and Theophylact have already
with reason noticed the argumentum a majori ad minus.
I See on Matt. xii. 13 and 1 Cor. L 8 ; Fritz- 3 Hoelemann takes /tai as and, so that the
sche, Diss. IL in 2 Cbr. p. 159 ; LQbcker, gram- sense would be, " that Christ can do all things,
mat. Stud. p. 33 f. and subdues all things to Himself." The very
2 We may add Theodoret's appropriate re- aoristuTroTafaishouIdhavewithheldhimfrom
mark : ov Kara tijv Troir6rj]ra t^? So^n^, oAAo making this heterogeneous combination, as
Kara ttjv iroiorrira. it betrays itself to be dependent on SvvatiQai.

152 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Notes by Ajiekican Editoe.
XV. Ver. 1.
(a) rd Xoirrdv evidently indicates that the writer's intention was to close his
epistle shortly, but it is not necessary to infer from this fact, that xo-'pere means
fareicell, as some hold. The addition of ev Kvpia and the corresponding phrase in
iv, 4 make it more probable tliat it means rejoice (so R, V,) — (6) rd uird k.t.X. —
The things referred to in these words must be things which the Apostle had
already written to the Philippians {ypdipeiv) ¦ they must have such an exact
correspondence with what he had written, as to allow of the application of rd
aird to them ; and they must be of such a character that he could use respecting
the renewed mention of them the expressions " to me, not irksome," "for you, safe."
The last of these points is fatal to the view that they refer to the exhortation to
Christian joy. Neither of the two adjectives would be expected with such a
reference. The first point is exclusive of the idea that he is repeating what he
had said to the church when personally present with them. As Meyer remarks,
had this been his idea, he must, at least, have placed a Kal before ypdipeiv. "We
are compelled, therefore, either to suppose, that he is speaking of some prev
ious letter to the Philippians (so Meyer), or of something in this letter which can
appropriately suggest the words 'oKvripdv and da(paXi;, In either case, the reference
must be to some evil connected with the life of the Church, Meyer holds that
this evil is indicated in what follows — ver. 2, or vv 2, 3, or vv, 2 ff, Lightf
holds that it is the dissensions alluded to in ii, 1 ff,, which related to social rather
than doctrinal questions. The former view is favored by the fact that vv. 2 ff.
immediately follow these words, and might, thus, naturally be explanatory of
them. The latter, by the fact that there seems to be no satisfactory evidence
that the Judaizing party had been active in Philippi. Indee;l, if they had been
thus active, so that he was obliged to give a renewed and repeated warning
against them, it is improbable that he -would have passed over the subject with
60 brief an allusion to it. On the whole, it must be regarded as doubtful whether
this passage proves the existence of an earlier letter,
XVL Vv. 2ff,
(a) The persons alluded to in ver. 2 (comp. ver. 3) are of the Judaizing faction.
This is evident from the word Kararoyv, as contrasted with irspiropv of ver. 3, — see,
also, Gal. V, 12; Gal, vi, 12-14; Rom, ii, 28, 29, — and from the words rov; kokov;
ipydra;, which, in connection with 2 Cor. xi. 13, can hardly refer to any other
class. As two of the three descriptive phrases have this reference, the third must,
undoubtedly, have the same. — (6) With respect to the question whether these per
sons are the only ones alluded to in the chapter, the words of ver. 19 seem to be
decisive. The descriptive phrases, whose god is the belly, and lohose glory is in their
shame, point rather to persons of Gentile than Jewish origin.
(c) The progress of thought, however, is such that the passing from the refer
ence to the one party to the mention of the other is not strongly marked or ab
rupt, Vv, 12-14 belong, in a sense, to both sections of tbe chapter, and form tiie
transition from the one to the other. The following points in the development

NOTES. 153
may be noticed: — (1) There is evidently a very close connection between ver, 3
and ver, 4 through the words " confidence in the flesh," common to both, (2) The
suggestion of this as belonging to the Judaizing party leads to a presentation of
the emphatic contrast between righteousness by faith and by the law, and of the
blessed result to be attained through the former. So far we have the direct refer
ence to the Judaizers, first introduced in ver, 2, (3) In immediate union with the
allusion to the result, the Apostle adds some words, ver, 12 ff,, for the purpose of
guarding himself against a misapprehension as to what he claimed to have already
attained — a misapprehension which, he feared, might arise in view of the self-
commendatory expressions of vv, 4 ff. (4) These verses (12 ff,), at the same time,
become, and are intended to become, through their setting forth of his determina
tion to press forward to the attainment of what lies yet before hira, preparatory to,
and a foundation for, the exhortation of ver, 17, to imitate him, (5) This ex
hortation is then given, but it is urged upon the readers in view of a new and addi
tional reason (ver. 18), namely, the fact that "many walk,'' etc. The warning
against the one class (ver. 2), which is designed to lead them to an imitation of
himself, passes over thus, naturally and easily, tothe call to such imitation of him
self in contrast with the couree and actions of another class.
{d) In the earlier part of this section the Epistle draws near in its thought to
Grab and 2 Cor. It is evident, however, that the Apostle neither has it in mind
to enter upon a doctrinal discussion, as in the former of those epistles, nor makes
allusion to his claims as a Jew in the same way and for the same purpose as in
the latter. In 2 Cor. xi, he plunges earnestly into conflict with the Judaizing
teachers who bitterly opposed him, and sets forth his superiority to them even in
the region of their own self-glorying. It is a personal controversy. Here, on the
other hand, his mind is looking forward, from the beginning, to the exhortations
of vv. 15, 17. He has everything — every ground of confidence iu the flesh — which
any of the Judaizers have, but he has counted these as nothing and sought a bet
ter course, and he would have the Philippians think with him and follow him.
The pecuUar personal element of 2 Cor. is thus wanting, and the passage is free
from the vehemence and irony belonging to the similar verses in that epistle. —
(e) The friendly and loving character of the letter accordingly does not disappear,
even in this section which introduces the adversaries. Here, as elsewhere, he tries
to bring the readers into a union with himself in Christian living ; and, to the end
of accomplishing this, he sets before them his own example. His example, more
over, is presented in a loving and Christian way — with a presentation of what he
had given up for faith and Christ, and yet a renouncing of all claims to an at
tained perfection.— (f) The prominence in his mind of the exhortation, as com
pared with the mere opposition to the Judaizers, accounts for the fact that he
passes beyond the statement of what he had done (ver. 7) to a settmg forth of the
great thought and endeavor of his Christian fife (vv. 8-11).
XVII. Vv. 4-11.
With reference to individual words and phrases m this passage, the following
points mav be noticed : (a) That vdyo;, as here used (ver. 6), means not law, but
the (Mosaic) law, is indicated (1) by the fact that the persons with whom the
Apostie is contrasting himself are Judaizers; (2) by the aUusions to circumcision,
concision, confidence in the flesh, etc.; (3) by the fact that in all the words con-

154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
nected with vdpov oi ver. 5 there is an immediate and direct reference to the Jew
ish race and ideas ; (4) by the correspondence of the phrase diKaioaivrpi iK vdpov
with similar phrases in Gal, and Eom,, where the Mosaic law is referred to (e.g.
Gal. iii. 11, 12) ; (5) by the fact that what Paul had So fully devoted himself to as
to become blameless in it, and what he had abandoned for the righteousness of
faith, was the righteousness of the Mosaic system. — (6) dpspirro; is determined in
its meaning by the character of the sentence in which it stands. In all the phrases
the Apostle is, evidently, speaking of himself from the Jewish standpoint. He was
blameless as viewed from tlie same standpoint, i. e. in the more external sense, and
according to the ordinary manner of human judging. — (c) a/.Pid of ver, 7 (w-hich is
read by W. and H., and placed in brackets by Lachm,, but omitted by Tisch, 8),
presents this verse in a direct contrast to the preceding ; dX'/.d of ver, 8, on the
other hand, is that which affirms even more than the preceding statement has
contained. {d ) Meyer justly holds that irdvra is not limited in its reference to ravra of ver.
7, The contrast in the tenses in vyvpai and vyoiuai, however, can hardly be with
out emphasis, and the former must, therefore, have an especial, though not, in
deed, an exclusive, reference to the period of his conversion. Beyond the estimate
which he then put upon what had been gain to him, and which he has continued
to put upon it until the present, the permanent state of his mind as a Christian is
to place a similar estimate on all things, because he has come to see the surpass-
ingness of the knowledge of that Divine Friend for whose sake he gave up all that
he had before, rd irdvra is to be referred, with Meyer, to the things mentioned iu
vv, 5-7, If we make jrdvra equivalent to ravra, and rd rrdvra universal, or if we
make the sole difference between ver, 7 and ver, 8 to lie iu ravra — rrdvra, and not
at all in the different tenses of the verb, we lose the force and progress of the
thought, — (e) A large portion of the recent commentators agree "ndth Meyer that
the words Kal vyovpai aKvjiaXa are to be taken as dependent on di' 'uv. Tlie sentence
becomes less cumbersome and repetitious, if they are connected w-ith the preceding
Kal r'lyovpai — "I count all things as loss on account of the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom, etc.; and I count them as refuse
(worthless and not worthy of a thought) in order that I may gain Him and be
found in Him," (Comp, Weiss, Farrar, W, and H, appy,), — (/) sipe-Bu is, proba
bly, explained correctly by Meyer as not limited to the time of the final judgment,
because the result at the end seems to be first spoken of in ver, 11, — {f) ileyer's
view of 'sirl Tij irlarei, on the other hand, is improbable. The reader could not be
expected readily to join these words with a participle which was merely implied in
one so remote as pv ejuv — a repeated ixuv would be almost necessary to make the
connection clear to him. Moreover, while, if the words are united with rf/v iK
¦deov diK., the doubling of the phrase which describes the righteousness is after tbe
manner of Paul, such a sentence as "having on the ground of faith the righteous
ness through faith" is harsh and unnatural. — (A) rov yvdvai airdv (ver. 10) is
taken up again from rij; yvdasa; of ver. 8, but is now set forth, in two of its most
important aspects {Kal, as in Gal. iv. 2, being explanatory rather than strictly
additional) as the end in view of eips-Bd k.t.X. The selection of these two, rather
than others, was probably due to the present experience and hopes of the Apostle,
which are brought before us in the Epistle. His experience of affliction and im
prisonment suggested the fellowship of Christ's sufferings; his confident hope of the
future, in case the imprisonment should terminate in his death, carried his thought

NOTES. 155
to the power of Christ's resurrection. In the words avppopip. r. iJav. air. may, per
haps, be found a combining of the two ideas of Rom. vi. 5 and 2 Cor. iv. 10, and
there is, probably, some suggestion in them of the present dangers.
(i) The resurrection to which Paul desires to attain is so plainly the rising of
the fuUow-ers of Christ to the perfected life of the future, — as indicated by the
whole context, — that the readers could have had no doubt respecting the meaning.
The element of doubt or uncertainty suggested by ira; cannot, therefore, be re
garded as showing that there is no resurrection of others than Christ's follow-ers.
Nor can this verse, in any view of it, be made to contradict the statement of Acts
xxiv. 15, where Paul declares the resurrection of the wicked as well as the right
eous. In the epistles he makes no such general statement, and no distinct declara
tion that the unrighteous wiU be raised from the dead, except in 1 Cor. xv., and
possibly not even in that passage. But this may be accounted for by the fact that
his allusions to the subject of the resurrection occur, ordinarily, in an incidental
way, and in the course of expressions respecting the Christian life and hopes.
XVIII. Vv, 12-16.
(a) The emphasis and fullness with which the Apostle sets forth, in opposition
to any wrong inference which might be drawn from vv. 4 ff, the fact that he
does not claim to have obtained perfection, but that, on the other hand, he is
ever pressing forvyard earnestly to attain it, is satisfactorily explained as we see
in these verses a transitional passage, looking forward, also, to the following
context. — (6) The change of tenses from sXajSov to rsrsXsiayai is generally regarded
by comm, as of no special significance, or it is explained, as by Winer (Gram, E, T.
p, 276) — the former denoting merely the attaining of the goal as an honorable
achievement, the latter denoting its consequences; or as by Meyer — the latter
expressing w-ithout a figure that which had been figuratively denoted by the
former. Lightf, on the contrary, regards the former verb as referring to the
time of Paul's convereion' and the latter as describing his present state. The
repeated ijdv may be urged as an objection to this view, but it is not a de
cisive one. The adverb means already; that is, it covers what is before
and up to the present. The former of the two verbs may single out a par
ticular time within this period, and the latter extend over the whole: — In
what I have said, I do not maintain that the thing is already accomplished,
either by a receiving of the prize at once, at the moment of my entrance
upon the new course, or by a progress which, beginning then, has now reached
its end. This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation, — (c) The object
of i?iJz^ov is, probably, rd Ppafisiov. He has not obtained this as yet, but he
presses on towards the goal to obtain it, — (d) As didKu of ver, 14 is used abso
lutely, without an objective word, it is better to take it in the same way in ver, 12,
than to hold that it governs a pronoun referring to rb l3paj3elov, as Meyer does.
{e) Meyer admits that the more common explanation of e<^' u, as meaning for
which or on which behalf, is linguistically sunple and correct. He objects to it only
on the ground that it assigns the conversion of Paul, not to the general object
which it had (Gab i. 16: "tiiat I might preach Him among the Gentiles"), but
to a personal object. This objection, however, has little weight, for (1) it is evi
dent that his conversion had a personal, as well as a general, object ; (2) this being
so, he might naturally, on one occasion, make special allusion to the former, and,
on another, to the latter; (3) the context here deals altogether with what is per-

156 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
sonal to himself. R. V. places that for which in the text, and gives Meyer's render
ing in the margin. This course, adopted by the Revisers, recognizes, in the best
manner, both the possibilities and the probabilities of the case. — (/•) The turn of
the thought towards the following context is found in the dds?^oi of ver. 13, and
in the emphasis on iyu ipavrdv. By the repetition of what he had already stated
with sufficient definiteness, and by calling the attention of the readers to himself
;is an example, he show-s that he is preparing for a new exhortation. — {g) Meyer
holds that Xoyi^opai is to be supphed with ei' di. But, as what follows is not, like
what precedes, a matter of thinking, but of doing, it is better, w-ith AViner, Buttm.,
and most comm., to supply iroid. — (A) r^f qku KXrjaeu;. The simplest explanation
of these words, grammatically, is as a gen. possess. The prize appertains to tlie call
ing in the sense that it is oflered when the call comes, and secured when the final
result of the call is reached. As kXvoi; everywhere appears to mean (as Meyer
also says), the act of calling on God's part, dvu is best taken as equivalent to ctrov-
pdvio; ; — it is heavenly, as it comes from God. But, as it offers the prize which it
has in its possession, it summons the man, of course, to press onward earnestly
towards the heavenly life. This heavenly life, viewed in its blessedness and as a
reward, is the fipajielov. — (i) The connection of iv Xp. 'Ivaov with didKu, which
Meyer favor,-^, seems less probable than that w-liich is more commonly adopted
(with KXriasu;), both because of the position of the words, and because, if ev Xp. 'I.
were intended to indicate "the great upholding and impelling element of life" in
which he presses on (as Mey. holds), it w-ould seem to demand a position of em
phasis nearer to diuKu.
{j) riXsioi, in accordance with the general usage of Paul, describes those who
are mature in the Christian life, in contrast with viimoi. They are of the class
designated by -vevpariKol in 1 Cor. iii. 1, cf. 1 Cor. ii, 13-16, In 1 Cor,, however,
they are spoken of with reference to the possessiou or comprehension of the Divine
aoipla, as e.vhibited in the deeper parts of Uie plan of salvation. Here, on the
other hand, the primary, if not exclusive, reference is to a course of action founded
on the due estimate of the Christian's present attainments. — {k) fpovdpev, ver. 15.
This verb seems to refer here, first, to the thought of the mind witli respect to the
true view of the Cliristian life as indicated in the preceding verses, and secondly to
a setting of the mind upon the course of action to which it leads. If the readers,
or any of them — having this state of mind as their prevailing and permanent one —
do not find themselves able to see, and therefore to act, altogether as he does, he
has confidence tliat God will make the right view and right course plain to them
in due time. It would appear to be almost necessary to hold that the (fpovdpev
lies, in a certain sense, back of the (ppovelrs, or, in other words, that the Apostie
conceives that every mature Christian must have, in all its essentials, the same view
with himself, and only supposes that there may be cases where, in minor points, a
different one could be held. He can hardly have in mind, therefore, as he writes
this verse, an opposition to his own ideas of so vital a character, as that which
would be involved in adopting the doctrine of salvation by works. Ver. 15 be
longs with vv. 12-14, and does not bear upon vv. 2, 3. This exhortation of this
verse, with its accompanying word of assurance and the appeal in ver. 16, is ex
pressed in the gentle and friendly style of the whole Epistle.— (i) The explanation
of the thought and purpose of ver. 16 is given, in the most simple and satisfactory
way, by Meyer in the first t^venty Unes of his note on the verse. See, also, his
"Remark" at the close of his note.

NOTES. 157

XIX. Vv. 17-21.

(c() Ivuuipvral is better taken as meaning, be one and all, unitedly, imitators of me
(so Eadie; Lightf. Alf, De W., v. Heng.), than as Meyer, AVeiss, Ell., and others
hold, co-imitators with others who imitate me. Meyer claims that the latter view is
rendered necejsary by the following context, but evidently this is not the case, for
it is a perfectly natural and legitimate form of exhortation, to say : Unite together
in imitating me and attentively observe those who w-alk as you see me walking. —
(6) It is also a much more simple construction of the /ca-tfuf clause, as well as of tlie
while sentence, if that word is made to correspond with ovru, than if it is taken,
with ileyer, as having an argumentative force, ''establishing the two require
ments avyp. and oKorr." They were to imitate him and those who lived in ac
cordance witli what they knew, from their long-continued knowledge of him, to
be his example. — (c) vpd;, if Ka-&u; is explained according to Meyer's view, may
not improbably refer to Paul and those who walked as he walked ; but, if Ka^d;
is connected with oira, vpa; probably refers to his associates, such as Timothy and
Epaphroditus, who were or had been with him in Rome, These associates in his
missionary labors sympathized with his Christian thinking, and naturally modeled
their lives after the pattern of his in the great things here alluded to.
{d) The rro'/'/.oi of ver. IS, as apparently indicated by the use of the verb irspnra-
Tovaiv, are members of the Christian churches, not persons outside of the Christian
body. The descriptive words which follow are partly consistent with the suppo
sition that thev are of the same general class with those who are spoken of in ver.
2, but partly not sp. The view of Meyer and others that they were persons of
Epicurean tendency, and not of the Judaizing party, is, accordingly, to be adopted.
Avhether they were of the number of those who abused the Pauline doctrine of
liberty, as Lightf holds — Uke those alluded to in 1 Cor., but more extreme in
their antinomianism — is uncertain. Some of this class may have been in Philippi.
The earnestness of feeling manifested in the language used -vvould seem, indeed, to
indicate that this was the fact. — (e) oi rd iiriysia ippovovvre; (ver. 19). These words
are intended, as we may believe, to present a marked contrast with that ippovdysv
which had been urged upon the readers in ver. 15, and which would lead them
to press on towards the attainment of the prize of their heavenly calling. To
bring out this contrast, as well as to mark them in distinction from the r/pdv oi the
following verse, the words are put in the nominative. They mind the earthly
things, we the heavenly (rd 'srrqeia, dvu, ev oipavol;).
(/) The use of ydp (ver. 20) is similar to that in Gal. v. 5, proving the state
ment respecting one party by showing that the other party pursue an opposite
course, or have an opposite character. This peculiarity in the -,dp, and the em
phasis just mentioned as connected with oi r. sir. ippov., show clearly that ileyer is
correct in making the ydp give the proof of that last preceding clause alone.-
{g) aarvpa is bette°r taken as a predicate accusative, as Meyer and others hold, than
as an accusative of the object. The word Sariour is to be explained in its special
reference here, bv the suggestions of the context. AVe may notice with respect to
these, (1) that the next verse concentrates the thought on tiie change in the loly.
This, accordin.- to Eom, viu. 23, is the final consummation of the work of redemption.
The verb d-sKdixopai is, also, use! in that passage; (2) that the distinguishing
characteristic of the enemies of the cross alluded to in ver. 19 is their giving them
selves up to fleshly indulgences. They make a god, as it were, of this fleshly ele-

158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
ment connected with the body ; (3) that the end to which the course of life of these
enemies will bring them, is dirdXsia. The thought of the Apostle, in view of these
facts, would seem to be this : that he is waiting for the appearance of the Lord
Jesus Christ, as one who shall perfect the great work of salvation from sin, and its
consequences, by that ^vonderful transformation of the body which delivers it from
the fleshly element and carnal passions, and makes it like His own — a spiritual body
fitted for the uses and the abode of the glorified spirit. — {h) Meyer holds that d-c/cde-
xdpeBa (ver, 20) and the words of ver, 21 are to be understood as implying that
Paul expected the vyel; to live until the Parousia. Alf holds the same view.
The words are undoubtedly consistent with this view, and they have an especial
fitness (as e. g. raTreivuo-euf ) if this view is adopted, but they do not, in themselves,
prove beyond question that such was the Apostle's expectation. — (i) r^f rarreivdasa;
is opposed to r^f dd^vc. It describes the body as appertaining to this earthly con
dition of humiliation, as contrasted with the future body appertaining to the glori
fied state of the heavenly life. The change takes the body out of the bondage to
corruption and the law of decay, and brings it into the freedom from that law
which belongs to the glorified state of the children of God (Rom. viii. 21). The
humiliation is not the "fleshly" element, and it does not by any means involve the
necessity of coming under the dominion of the fleshly pow-er. But so long as the
body of our humiliation continues, there is an exposure to the assaults of that
power, and we earnestly look for the Saviour who shall transform it. — {j) The
closing words of ver. 21 are added, not improbably, as showing the ground of con
fidence which the follower of Christ has, in his pressing on towards the reward, and
in his triumphant hope of the final completeness of his redemption. The readers
might well, therefore, stand fast iu the Lord.

CHAP. IV. 159

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 3. Instead of vai Elz. has Kai, against decisive witnesses. — Instead of
ai\irys yvvais, yvvait av^vye should be w-ritten, with Lachm, and Tisch,, upon pre
ponderating evidence, — On decisive testimony, in ver. 12, instead of olda de rair.
(Elz.) olda Kal rair. is to be received. The di has taken its rise from the last syl
lable of Olda ; hence we also find the reading di Kal. — Ver. 13. After ae Elz. has
Xpianp, in opposition to A B D* N, vss. (also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended
by Eeiche, but it is an addition from 1 Tim. i. 12, from which passage also are
found the amplifications in Or., X. 'Ivaov and X. 'I. rip Kvpi(j riydv. — Ver. 16. eif]
wanting in A D* E**, min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But after
dlS, elS might the more readily be omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might,
indeed, on account of the absence of an object for eiripip., appear offensive. — Ver.
19. AVith Lachm. and Tisch., the form rd TrAoii-of is to be adopted upon decisive
testimony. See on 2 Cor. viii. 2.— A'er. 23. irdvrav iydv] A B D E F G P «**,
min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. A^ulg. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pel. have tov
irysvparo; ipdv. So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Gal. vi. 18, whence also in
Elz. vpdv has likewise crept in after Kvplov.
Ver. 1. [Onw, 1-3, see Note XX. pages 188, 189,] Conclusion dra-wn from
what precedes, from ver. 17 onwards. AVe are not justified in going fur
ther back (de AA'ette refers it to the whole exhortation, iii. 2 ff., comp.
also AAlesinger, AA'eiss, Hofmann), because the direct address to the
readers in the second person is only introduced at ver. 17, and that with
ddeX^oi, as in the passage now before us ; secondly, because the predicates
dyarrryroi . . . ariipavd; yov place the Summons in that close personal rela
tion to the apostle, which entirely corresponds -with the words avpuipvral
pov ¦} IvsaBs in ver. 17 ; thirdly, because dars finds its logical reference in
that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is connected with
the exhortation avyyipvrai K.r.X. in ver. 17 ; and lastly, because ovru in
ver. 1 is correlative to the oij-u in iii. 17.' — dare] [XX a.] accordingly;
the ethical actual result, which what has been said of the vyei; in iii. 20 f.
ought to have with the readers. Comp. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 58. — dyairvroi
K.r.X^ " blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat, quae tamen
non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris," Calvin.— How might they dis
appoint and grieve such love as this by non-compliance ! — iirnrdBvroi]
longed for, for whom I yearn (comp. i. 8) ; not occurring elsewhere in the
N". T. ;' — a-e^avof] comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19"; Ecclus. i. 9, vi. 31, xv. 6; Ez. xvi.
'In opposition to which Hofmann quite thought and spoken thus mechanically 1 The
groundlessly urges the objection, that Paul o-T^/ceTe is in fact substantially just a irepin-aTeii-
in that case would have written irepuraTeiTe which maintains its ground.
instead of <tt^k£t£. As if he must have 2 Comp. App. Sisp.43; Eust. Opusc. p. 367.

160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
12, xxiii. 42 ; Prov. xvi. 31, xvii. 6 ; Job xix. 9, The honor, which accrued
to the apostle from the excellent Christian condition of the church, is
represented by him under the figure of a crown of victory.^ The reference
of xo-pa to the present time, and of ariip. to the future judgment (Calvin
and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbitrarily a reflective distinction
of ideas, which is not in keeping with the fervor of the emotion. — ovru]
[XX 6.] corresponding to the ri'Trof that has just been set forth and re
commended to you (iii. 17 ff.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius,
Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret : so, as ye stand, so that Paul
" praesentem statum laudando ad perseverantiam eos hortetur," Calvin,
This is at variance with the context, for he has just adduced others as a
model for his readers ; and the exhortation would not agree with avppiy.
p. ylvsaBs, iii, 17, which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally ad
vanced community, still does not presuppose the existence already of a
normal Christian state, — iv Kvpia] Comp, 1 Thess, iii, 8. Christ is to be the
element in which the standing fast required of them is to have its specific
character, so that in no case can the moral life ever act apart from the
fellowship of Christ, — dyarrvroi] " irspiiraBv; haec vocis hujus dvaipopd," Gro
tius, In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied the ex
pressions of love and praise of his readers ; a strong testimony certainly
,is to the praiseworthy condition of the church, fi-om which, however,
Weiss infers too much. Here, as always (Rom, xii, 19 ; 2 Cor, vii. 1, xii,
19 ; Phil, ii, 12 ; 1 Cor, x, 14 ; Heb. vi. 9, et at.), moreover, dyairriroi stands as
an address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is not
to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with ev Kvpia.
Yer. 2/. [XX c] After this general exhortation, ver. 1, the apostle,
still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to him, finds it
requisite to give a special admonition to and for two meritorious women,^
through whose disagreement, the details of which are unknown to us, but
whicli probably turned on differences of their working in the church, a
scandal had occurred, and the ariiKsiv iv Kvpici might more or less be im
perilled. AA'hether they were deaconesses in Philippi (as many conjecture),
must remain undecided. Grotius has erroneously considered both names,
Hammond and Calmet only the second, to be masculine,^ and in that case
39; Aq. Ez. xxiii. 11 (eiriTrd9i7<rts) ; Ps. cxxxix. ap. vii. 46. 1 (according to which Peter ap-
9 (eTTiTrdeij/ia) ; Ael. iV. .4. vii. 3 (iro9i)Tds). pointed an Euodius, and Paul Ignatius, as
iComp. uTeifiavov eu/cAei'as jLLeyai., Soph. Aj. Bishop of Autioch), this discovery has been
4C5; Eur. Suppl. 313; Iph. A. 193, Here. F. amplified with further caprice by "Volkmar
1334; Thuc. ii. 4G; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. in the Theol. Jahrb. 186Y, p. 147 ff. But exe-
30; Lobeck (^dAj.l.c; also iTreii)avoiJv (Wes- getical fiction in connection with the two
seling, ad Xiiofi. 5ic. I. p. 684), o-Te(/)K»'u/Aa, Pind. feminine names has been pushed to the
Pyth. i. 96, xii. 9, nre^avnitopelv, Wisd. Iv. 2, Utmost by Hitzig, z. Krit. Paulin, Br. p. 6 ff.,
and Grimm in loc. according to whom they are supposed to have
2 According to Baur, indeed, they are their origin in Gen. xxx. 9 ff. ; he represents
alleged to be two parties rather than two our author as bavins; changed Asher and
women ; and Schwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt. Gad into women in order to represent figura-
II. p. 135) makes out that Euodia represents tively two parties, and both of them Gentile-
the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the Gen- Christian.
tile-Christian party and th.it yKijo-ios crii^uyo! ^Theodore of Mopsuestia quotes the opinion
applies to Peter I On the basis of Constituit. that the two were husband and wife.

CHAP. IV. 2, 3. 161
airaZf in ver. 3 is made to apply to others (viz, alnvs; k.t.X.). For the two
feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori. AA^ith Tischen
dorf and Lipsius {Gramm. Unters. p. 31), Ivirvxv is to be treated as oxy-
tone. Comp. generally Kiihner, I. p. 2-56. The tiviee used irapaK. : " quasi
coram adhortans seorsum utram-vis, idque summa cum aequitate," Ben
gel. An earnestly individuahzing einpovv (Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 400). —
TO aird (ppov.] see on ii. 2. — ev Kvp.] characterizes the specifically Christian
concord, the moral nature and effort of which are grounded on Christ as
their determining vital principle. Paul does not desire a union of minds
apart from Christ. — AATiether the disunion, which must be assumed, had its
deeper root in moral pride on account of services in the cause of the
gospel (Schinz) is not clear.
Ver. 3. Indeed, I entreat thee also, etc. This bringing in of a third party
is a confirm,ation of the previous admonition as regards its necessity and
urgency ; hence the vai ; comp. Philem, 20, See also on Matt. xv. 27. —
ai\v)s [XX d.] is erroneously understood by Clemens Alexandrinus, Isido
res, Erasmus, Musculus, Cajetanus, Flacius, and others, as referring to the
wife of the apostle ; an idea which, according to 1 Cor. vii, 8, compared
-with ix. 5, is at variance w-ith history (see, already, Chrysostom, Theodo
ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact), and at the same time at variance with
grammar, as the adjective must in that case have stood in the feminine,'
Others understand the husband of one of the two women (so, although VNdth
hesitation, Chrysostom, also Theophylact, according to whom, however,
he might have been a brother, and Camerarius ; not disapproved by Beza) ;
but what a stiangely artificial designation would "genuine conjux" hel
AA'eiss prefers to leave undecided the nature of the bond which connected
the individual in question v\-ith the two women. But if, in general, a
relation to the women w-ere intended, and that apart from the bond of
matrimony, by the term ai^r/ys Paul would have expressed himself very
awkwardly ; for the current use of the word ai^vyo;, and also of avi;vyv; (3
Mace. iv. 8) and cisif (Eur. Ale. 924), in the sense of conjux (comp. av^evy-
vivai, Xen. Oec. 7. 30; Herodian, iii, 10. 14), must have been well known
to the reader. The usual mode of interpreting this passage^ has been to
refer it to some distinguished fellow-laborer of the apostle, well known, as a
matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his abode in Phil
ippi and deserved well of the church there by special services. Some
have arbitrarily fixed on Silas (Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on
Timothy (Estius), and even on Epaphroditus (A'atablus, Grotius, Calovius,
Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hoftnann also
would have us understand as referred to, inasmuch as he regards him as
the amanuensis of the epistle, who had therefore heard it dictated by the
apostle, and then heard it again when it came to be read in the church,.
so that he knew himself to be the person addressed. AATiat accumuhited
invention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all, unsuitable
> Test. XIL Patr. p. 526; Bar. Alc.3U,3i2,38S. thies, d e Wette, foUowing Pelagius and The-
»So Flatt, Eheinwald, Hoelemann, Mat- odoret
11

162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS,
confession before the church that he was himself the person thus dis
tinguished by the apostle ! According to Luther's gloss, Paul means " the
most distinguished bishop in Philippi." Comp. also Ewald, who compares
avpirpeapirepo;, 1 Pet. v. 1. But how strange would such a nameless desig
nation be in itself! How easily might the preferential designation by
yvrjaio; have seemed even to slight other fellow-laborers in Philippi ! Be
sides, Paul, in describing his official colleagues, never makes use of thia
term, ai^vyo;, which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., aud which
would involve the assumption that the unknown individual stood in quite
a special relation to the apostle corresponding to this purposely-chosen
predicate. Laying aside arbitrariness, and seeing that this address is
surrounded by proper names (vv. 2, 3), we can only find in trufvye a proper
name, in which case the attribute yvvaie corresponds in a delicate and
winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp. Philem. 11) ; gen
uine Syzygus, that is, thou who art in reahty and substantially that which
thy name expresses : " fellow-in-yoke," i. e. yokefellow, fellow-laborer. We
may assume that Syzygus had rendered considerable services to Christi
anity in Philippi in joint labor with the apostle, and that Paul, in his
appellative interpretation of the name, followed the figurative conception
of animals in the yoke ploughing or thrashing (1 Cor. ix. 9 ; 1 Tim. v. 18),
a conception which was suggested to him by the very name itself. The
opposite of yvriaio; would be : ovk ovru; dv (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 E),
so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be iirdvvpo; (Eur. Phoen.
1500 ; Soph. Aj. 430), Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. p, 272 f. He bore this his
name, however, as bvopa irvrvpov {Del. Epigr. v, 42), This view of the
word being a proper name — to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent
decidedly defends ' in his Neut. Stud, p, 134 ff, and Grimm approves of in
his Lexicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects ^ simply on
account of the usus loquendi of yvvaio; not being proved — was already held
by nvi; in Chrysostom ; comp, Niceph, Call, ii, p, 212 D ; Oecumenius
permits a choice between it and the explanation in the sense of the hus
band of one of the two women. It is true that the name is not preserved
elsewhere; but with how many names is that the case? Hence it was
unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of the name KoXXvyd;
(Joseph, Bell, vii, 3, 4), in connection with which, moreover, it would be
hard to see vsfhy Paul should have chosen the word avi^vyo; elsewhere not
used by him, and not awepyd;, or the like,' To refer the word to Christ,
1 In doing so, Laurent takes the reference we refer it thus to o-u^uye as an appellative
of avv contained in the name as general: yrord, or d,s the appellative contents of a name
" helper of all labor in the vineyard of the ^is a matter which leaves the linguistic use
Lord," More thoughtful, however, is the of yvrjo-Lo^ altogether untouched. As is well
reference to the apostle himself, whose true known, fdflos has the same general linguistic
yoke-fellow is to supply his place with his usage in the opposite sense (see e. g. Plat,
former female fellow-strivers {avvr/dK. /lot); Pep. p. 536 A; Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. i.
comp. also subsequently awepyCiv ^ov. 103. 3).
2 According to our view, yvriinos is, in fact, ^ This holds at the same time against the
taken in no other sense than that which is view of Pelagius: "Germanws dictus est
current in all Greek authors, viz. a\Ti6iv6^, nomine, qui erat eompar officii." He is fol-
verus, as Hofmann himself takes it. Whether lowed by Lyra.

CHAP. IV. 3. 1C3
who helps every one to bear his j'oke (Wieseler), was a mistake. —
avXXapp. airal;] lay hold along with them, that is, assist them,^ namely, for
their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious action. — alnvs;]
vtpote quae, giving the motive, comp. i. 28 ; see on Rom. i. 25, ii. 15, vi. 2,
et al. — 'sv ra ei'a)7.] the domain, in which they, etc. Comp. Eom. i. 9; 1
Thess. iii. 2. It was among women that the gospel had first struck root in
Philippi (Acts xvi. 13), and it is to be assumed that the two women named
had rendered special service in the spread and confirmation of Christi
anity among their sex, and therein had shared the conflict of affliction
and persecution with Paul (1 Thess. ii. 2). On awvBXr/aav, comp. i. 27. —
psrd Kal K?.vpsvTo; /c.-.X.] and in w-hat fellowship, so honorable to them, have
they shared my conflict for Christ's sake ? in association also %mth Clement
and, etc. The reference of the koI is to poi ; their joint-striving with
Paul had been a fellowship in striving also with Clement, etc. ; they had
therein stood side by side with these men also.'' The connection of psrd k.
KX. K.T.X. with av?.Xau3 airal; (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, J. B.
Lightfoot, Hofinarin) is opposed by the facts, that Paul has committed
the service of mediation to an individual, -with which the general impress
now given to this commission is not in keeping, and tliat the subsequent
uv TO bvdpara k.t.X., in the absence of any specification of the churches,
would neither be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and
would be strangest of all in the event of Paul's having intended, as Hof
mann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons mentioned in i. 1.
The Xoiiroi awspyoi, as well as generally the more special circumstances of
which Paul here reminds his readers, were — if psra koi k.t.X. he joined
¦with amirfiXvadv poi beside which it stands — historically known to these
readers, although unknown to us. — That Clement was a teacher in Philippi
(so most modern expositors ; according to Grotius, a presbyter in Philippi,
but " Eomanus aliquis in Macedonia negotians "), must be maintained in
accordance with the context, seeing that with him those two Philippian
women labored as sharing the conflict of the apostle ; and of a traveling
companion of this name, who had labored -with the apostle in Macedonia,
there is no trace to be found ; and seeing that the Xxiirrol cwepyol also are
to be regarded as Philippians, because thus only does the laudatory ex
pression uv rd bvdpara K.r.X. appear in its -vf-vid and direct set purpose of
bespeaking for the two women the esteem of the church. The more fre
quent, however, in general the name of Clement was, the more ariiitrary
is the old -view, although not yet known to Irenaeus (iii. 3. 3), that Cle
ment of Rome is the person meant.' So most Catholic expositors (not
'Lukev. 7; Herod, vi. 12.5 ; Xen. Ages. 2.31; builds up a whole fabric of combinations,
'Waridei,adSoph.Phil.-2S0;Lex.Plat.lll.p.29i. whioh are intended to transfer the date of
' On Kal . . . Kai, the first xat meaning also, our epistle to the post-apostolie age, when the
eomp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 891 ; on its rarer Flavins Clemens known in Roman history, who
position, however, between preposition and was a patruelis of Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15),
noun, see Schaefer, Ind. ad Gregor. Cor. p. and a Christian (Lami, de erud. apost. p. 104;
1064; Hartung, PartikeU. I. p. 143; Kuhner, Baur, IL p. 68), had already become the well-
XL 1 p. 480 f. known Clement of Roman tradition. Comp.
sNevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur Volkmar in the Theolog. JaArd. 1856, p. 309,

164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Dollinger), following Origen, ad Joh. i. 29 ; Eusebius, H. E. iii. 15; Epiph
anius, Haer. xxvii. 6 ; Jerome, Pelagius, and others ; so also Francke, in
the Zeitschr. f Luth. Theol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff"., and van Hengel, who con
jectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman women who had
assisted the apostle in Pome, and had traveled with Epaphroditus to
Philippi. See generally, besides Liinemann and Briickner, Lipsius, de
Clem. Rom. ep. p. 167 ff. ; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff. ; and Hilgenfeld, Apost.
Vater, p. 92 ff. — uv rd bvdy. k.t.X.] refers merely to rdv Xionrdv k.t.X., whom
Paul does not adduce by name, but instead of this affirms of their names
something so great and honorable. God has recorded their names in
His book, in which are written down the future partakers of the everlast
ing Messianic life ; so surely and irrevocably is this life assigned to them.
AVhat Paul thus expresses by this solemn figure, he knew from their
whole Christian character and action, in which he recognized by experi
ence " quasi electionis ' absconditae sigilla " (Calvin). See, moreover, on
Luke X. 20, and Wetstein on our passage ; it is different in Heb. xii. 23
(see Liinemann in loc). 'eai i must be supplied, not the optative, as Bengel
thinks ; and it must remain an open question, whether the persons re
ferred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be regarded as
already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be inferred from dv rd
bvdpara k.t.X. ; see Luke X, 20 ; Hermas, Pastor i. 1. 3. It is at all events
certain that this predicate, which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially
honorable one, and does not simply convey what holds true of all Chris
tians (so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of lUerd kcu,
K.r.X.). At Luke X. 20, and Rev. xiii. 8 also, it is a mark of distinction.
Ver. 4 f. [On vv. 4-9, see Note XXI. pages 189, 190.] AVithout any par
ticle of transition, we have once more general concluding admonitions,
which begin by taking up again the encouraging address broken off in
iii. 1, and now strengthened by Trdvrore — the key-note of the epistle.
[XXI a.] They extend as far as ver. 9 ; after which Paul again speaks
of the assistance which he had received. — rrdvrors] not to be connected
with 7rd;i(v ipd (Hofmann), which would make the irdXiv very superflu
ous, is an essential element of the Christian xo'peiv ; comp. 1 Thess. v.
16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10. Just at the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in
significantly. Paul desires joyfulness ai all times on the part of the be
liever, to whom even tribulation is grace (i. 7, 29) and glory (Rom. v. 3),
and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by the certainty of atonement
(Rom. viii. 1) ; to whom everything must serve for good (Rom. viii. 28 ; 1
according to whom the Roman Clement is to i The detailed discussion of the question as
be here already assumed as a mitrti/r-. Indeed, tothe ground of ihe divine electiotieTe por-
according to Schwegler and Hitzig, z. Krit. trayed (the Reformed theologians, " the decre-
paulin. Br. p. 13, a first attempt is made here tum absolutum ;" the Lutherans, " the praeeisa
to connect this Clement also with Peter (for fides; " the Catholics, "the praevisa op ei-a") is
nootherin their view is the (Tii^uyos). Thus, out of place here. Flacius, Ctou. s. r. " liber,"
no doubt, the way is readily prepared for justly observes that it is not fatalis quaedum
bringing down our epistle to the days of electio which is pointed to, but ob veram jus-
Trajan. Round the welcome name of Clement titiam, qualis Christi est, credentes eo referri et
all possible fictions crystallize. inscribi.

CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 165
Cor. iii. 21 f.), and nothing can separate him from the love of God (Rom.
viii. 38 f.). — -dXiv ipd] once more I will say. Observe the future, which
exhibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer ; consequently
not equivalent to irdXiv '/-s}a, 2 Cor. xi. 16; Gal. i. 9.' — To imeiKi; ipdv]
[XXI b.] your mildness [LindigkeU, Luther], that is, your gentle character,
as opposed to undue sternness.^ As to the neuter of the adjective taken
as a substantive, see on iii. 8 ; comp. Soph. 0. C. 1127. It might also
mean : your becoming behavior.' But how indefinite would be such a
requirement as this I The general duty of the Christian walk (which
Matthies finds in the words) is not set forth tiU ver. 8. And in the X. T.
iirisuc. always occurs in the above-named special sense. — yvaaBryra irdaiv
avBp.] let it be known by all men, through the acquaintance of experi
ence with your conduct. Comp. Matt. v. 16. The universality of the
expression (which, moreover, is to be taken popularly: "let no man
come to know you in a harsh, rigorous aspect ") prohibits our referring
it to their relation to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they
should not be hatefiilly disposed (Chr3-sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact),
or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius, Theodoret, Erasmus, and
others), or to the Judaists (Rheinwald), although none of these are ex
cluded, and the motive for the exhortation is in part to be found in the
outward circumstances full of tribulation, face to face -with an inclination
to moral pride. — ^The succession of exhortations without any outward link
may be psychologically explained by the fact, that the disposition of
Christian joyfulness must elevate men quite as much above strict insist
ing upon rights and claims as above sohcitude (ver. 6). Xeither with the
former nor -with the latter could the Christian ftindamental disposition of
the x^'peiv ev Kvpici subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding
love and casts all care upon God. — d Kvpm; iyyi;] [XXI c] points to the
nearness of Christ's Parousia, 1 Cor. xvd. 22. Comp. on eyi if. Matt. xxiv.
32 f, ; Luke xxi. 31 ; Rev. i. 8, xxu. 10 ; Rom. xiu. 11. The reference to
God, by which Paul would bring home to their hearts, as Cal-vin expresses
it, " divinae provideniiae fiduciam," * is not suggested in xx. 1, 2, 4 by the
context, which, on the contrary, does not refer to God until ver. 6.
L'sually and rightly, following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have
been attached to u-hat precedes.^ K the Lord is at hand, who is coming
as the Vindex of every injustice endured and as the aarfip of the faithfiil,
1 KoAis tSiTrXaaiairev, 'eireiZj, rOiv ^payiaariov also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zanchius,
i *virt5 AvTTijv iTLK-e, Sci ToS Si-\a,r(a<r p-oO Wolf, Eheinwald, Matthies, Eilliet, Cornelius
SeiKwcriv, OTI -iiTus Ser x<"'P«"'. Chrysostom. Muller, and others.
2 Polyb. T. 10. 1 : i i^ieiKcia itai ^o^avipiaida, * They do not belong, by way of introduc-
Lueian Phal. pr. 2 : 'e-iei^ K. p.e-pioi. Hero- Hon, to nhat follows, as Hofmann thinks, who
dian, iL 14. 5, ix. 12: 1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit iii. 2; understands " the helpful nearness of the
Jas.iii.17: IPet.ii.lS: P=.lxxxv.5; A-Jd. to Lord" (Matt xxviii. 20; Jas. iv. 6) in the
Esth. vi. 8; 2 Jtacc. ix. 271. Comp. on 2 Cor. pres'.nt, and consequently the assurance of
x.l. The'opposite: «piBoa«<i.o;, Arist. SA. being heard in the individual case. Comp.,
Nie V 10 8 o-<Ai;pds. rather, on the iyyvt habitually used of the
'See e-V- the passages from Plato in Ast, future final coming, in addition to the above
Xer I p 77.1 pas^aees, Matt, iii. 2, iv. 17, x. 7 : Jfark i. 15 ;
iComp.'ps' xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 18 ; so Luke xxL 8, 2S ; Eom. xiii 12 ; Heb. x. 25 ;

166 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
how should they not, in this prospect of approaching victory and blessed
ness (iii. 20), willingly and cheerfully renounce everything opposed to
Christian iirieUsia I The words therefore convey an encouragement to the
latter. What follows has its complete reference, and that to God, pointed
out by the antithesis dXX' iv iravrl k.t.X.
Ver. 6. The pspiyvdrs is not to be limited in an arbitrary way (as by
Grotius, Flatt, AA^eiss, and others, to anxious care) ; about nothing (neither
want, nor persecution, nor a threatening future, etc.) are they at all to
give themselves concern, but on the contrary, etc. ; yvdev, which is em
phatically prefixed, is the accusative of the object (1 Cor. vii. 32 ff., xii.
25 ; Phil. ii. 20).' [XXI d.] Caring is here, as in Matt, vi,, the contrast
to full confidence in God, Comp. 1 Pet. v. 7. " Curare et orare plus
inter se pugnant quam aqua et ignis," Bengel. — ev rravri] opposed to the
pvdiv ; hence : in every case or affair (comp. Eph. v. 24 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8 ; 1
Thess. v. 18 ; Plat. Euthyd. p. 301 A), not : at all times (Syriac, Grotius,
Bos, Flatt, Rheinwald). — rrj irpoaevxri k. ry dsvast] by prayer and supplica
tion. On the distinction between the two (the former being general, the
latter supplicating prayer), see on Eph. vi. 18. The article indicates the
prayer, which ye make; and the repetition oi the article, otherwise not re
quired, puts forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kuhner,
II. 1, p. 529), — perd svxap.] belongs to yvupiZ. k.t.X., which, excluding all
solicitude in the pr.ayer, should never take place (comp, 1 Thess, v, 18 ;
Col, iii, 17) without thanksgiving for the proofs of divine love already re
ceived and continually being experienced, of which the Christian is con
scious under all circumstances (Bom, viii, 28). In the thanksgiving of the
suppliant there is expressed entire surrender to God's will, the very
opposite of solicitude. — rd a'trvpara ip.] whcd ye desire^' that is, in accord
ance with the context : your petitions.^ — yvapi^iaBa irpb; r. Bedv] must be
made known towards God; irpd;, versus ; it is the coram of the direction,*
The expression is more graphic than the mere dative would be ; and the
conception itself {yvapi^.) is popularly anthropopathic ; ilatt. vi. 8. Ben
gel, moreover, aptly remarks on the subject-matter : '' qui desideria sua
praepostero pudore ac diffidenti modestia . . . velant, suffocant ac
retiuent, curis anguntur ; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expro-
munt, expediuntur. Confessioiiibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi."
Ver. 7. The blessed result, which the compliance with ver. 6 will have for
the inner man. How independent is this blessing of the concrete grant
ing or non-granting of what is prayed for ! — v elpvvv r. Beov] the peace of
soul produced by God (through the Holy Spirit ; comp. ;t;apd ev irveipan
dyiip, Rom. xiv, 17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God's

Jas, v.8; 1 Pet. iv. 7; and the epxop.ai raxv « Plat. iJep. viii. p. 566 B ; Dionys. HaI..4nM,
of the Apocalypse. The simply correct ren- vi. 74 ; Luke xxiii, 24.
dering is given after Chrysostom by Erasmus 31 John v. 15; Dan. vi. 7, 13; Ps. xix. 6,
(" instat enim adventus Christi "), Grotius, and xxxvi. 4, et al. ; Schleusner, Thes. I. p,
others, 100.
1 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 12 : to iroAAi * Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265 ; Sehoem, ad Is.
fxeptfivav icai to jlltj SvvauQai ijavxiav e^eLV. iii, 25.

CHAP. IV. 6, 7. 167
counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and variance are
excluded, such as it is expressed e.g. in Rom. vui, 18, 28, So in substance
most expositors,' This view— and not (in opposition to Theodoret aud
Pelagius) that explanation of peace in the sense of hannony with the
brethren (Rom, xv, 33, xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. v. 23 ; 2 Thess. iii.
16), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the correlative 6 Gedf rv;
s'lprjvv; in ver. 9 — is here required on the part of the context, both by the
contrast of pspipvdre in ver. 6, and by the predicate v i-epixovaa iravra vovv.
The latter, if applicable to the peace of harmony, would express too much
and too general an idea ; it is, ou the other hand, admirably adapted to
the holy peace of the soul which God produces, as contrasted with the
pipipva, to which the feeble voi; by itself is hable ; as, indeed, in the clas
sical authors also (Plat. Rep. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), aud elsewhere (Wisd.
iii. 3), s'lprrvv denotes the tranquillUas and securitas, the mental yaX^w (Plat.
Legg. -vii. p. 791 A) and iiavxia — a rest, which here is invested by rov esov
-with the consecration of divine life. Comp. s'lpvvv rov Xpiarov, Col. iii. 15 ;
John xiv. 33 ; and, on the other hand, the false e'lpvvv k. daipdXsia, 1 Thess.
V. 3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Rom. v. 1, as " pax,
qua reconciliaii estis Deo" (Erasmus, Paraphr.);'' which would be too general
and foreign to the context. The peace of reconcihation is the pre^supposi-
tion of the divinely produced moral feeling which is here meant ; the
former is e'lpfyvri irpb; rbv Qsdv, the latter s'lpryvv rov Bsov. — ^ irrspixovaa rrdvra
vovv] [XXI e.] which surpasses every reason, namely, in regard to its
salutary power and efficacy ; that is, which is able more than any reason to
elevate above all solicitude, to comfort and to strengthen. Because the reason
in its moral thinking, -willing, and feehng is of itself too weak to confront
the power of the o-dpf (Bom. vii. 23, 25 ; Gal. v. 17), no reason is in a posi
tion to give this clear holy elevation and strength against the world and
its afflictions. This can be eftected by nothing but the agency of the
divine peace, which is given hy means of the Spirit in the believing heart,
when by its prayer and supplication with thaiiksgi\-ing it has elevated
itself to God and has confided to Him all its concerns, 1 Pet. v. 7. Then,
in virtue of this blessed peace, the heart experiences what it could not have
experienced by means of its own thinking, feeling, and -ndlling. Accord
ing to de AA'ette, the doubting and heart-disquieting vojif is meant, which is
surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is based upon faith and
feeling. In opposition to this, however, stands the vrdv-a, according to
which not merely all doubting reason, but every reason is meant. No one,
not even the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its
action what he has through the peace of God. Others have explained it
in the sense of the incomprehensibleness of the peace of God, " the greatness
of which the understanding cannot even grasp " (Wiesinger).' Comp.
1 Including Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten- Estins, Wetstein, and others, including Storr,
Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wies- Matthies, and van Hengel.
inger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer. * So Chi-ysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
* So Chrysostom, ^ KaraWayn, i] aydin] r. Erasmus. Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoele-
Oeoi;; and Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, mann and Weiss.

168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Eph. iii. 20. But the context, both in the foregoing yvdev pspipvdrs and in
the ippovpvasi K.T.X. which follows, points only to the blessed influence, in
respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of reason whatever,
and consequently is more efficacious than it. It isa iirspixsiv ry dwdpsi;
Paul had no occasion to bring into prominence the incomprehensibleness
of the slpvvv Geov.' — (ppovpr/aei k.t.X.] [XXI/.] not custodial (Vulgate, Chrysos
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact: datpa'/.taatro, Luther, Calovius, Cornelius a
Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), but custodiet (Cas
talio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection against all injurious influences
(comp. 1 Pet. i. 5) is promised.^ This protecting vigilance is more pre
cisely defined by ev X. 'I., which expresses its specific character, so far as
this peace of God is in Christ as the element of its nature and life, and
therefore its influence, protecting and keeping men's hearts, is not other
wise realized and carried out than in this its holy sphere of life, which is
Christ. The ippovpd which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, as
it were, the ippovpapxia (Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 17). Comp. Col. iii. 15, where the
elpvvv rov Xpiarov ppafieisi in men's hearts. Others consider ev X. 'I. as that
which takes place on the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God
would keep them, namely " in unity with Christ, in His divinely-blessed,
holy life," de Wette ; or dars pivsiv koI pij 'sKrrsaeiv airov Oecumenius, comp.
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, and others, including Hein- '
richs, Storr, Flatt, Eheinwald, van Hengel, Matthies, Rilliet, AA'iesinger,
Weiss. But the words do not affirm wherein watchful activity is to keep
OT preserve the readers (Paul does not write rvpvasi; comp. John x-vii. 11),
but wherein it will take place; therefore the inaccurate rendering per
Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so far more correct.
The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann (" Christo fere cinguli instar rdf
Kapdia; ipdv k.t.X. circumcludente," etc.) is all the less warranted, the more
familiar the idea cv Xpiard was to the apostle as representing the element
in which the life and action, as Christian, move. — The pei-nicious influences
themselves, the withholding and warding off of which are meant by ippovpvaei
K.r.X., are not to be arbitrarily limited, e. g. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to
Satan (Beza, Grotius, and others), or sin (Theophylact), or pravas cogita
tiones (Calvin), or " omnes insultus et curas " (Bengel), and the like ; but to
be left quite general, comprehending all such special aspects. Erasmus
well says {Paraphr.) : " adversus omnia, quae hic possunt incidere formi-
danda." — rdf Kapd. ip. k. rd vovy. ipdv.] emphatically kept apart. It is
enough to add Bengel's note : "cor sedes cogitationum." ^ The heart is
the organ of self-consciousness, and therefore the moral seat of the
activity of thought and will. As to the voijpara (2 Cor. iii. 14) as the inter
nal products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore includ-
iQn iiTiepexeiv v{iVa the accusative (usually fiiafoiats. 'Em. Suppl. QQ2: €<f)poupet (ttoXXou?)
with the genitive, ii. 3), see Valckenaer, inriSev e^aixaprivew. "^m'mat eos hae fiducia,"
ad Eur. Hippol. 1365; Kiihner, II. 1, p. Erasmus, jtraioi.
337. 3Comp. Eoos, jFVndaro psychol. ex sacr. script.
2 Comp. Plat. Pep. p. 560 B. : ol . . . apia-rot III. §6: "causa cogitationum interna eaque
^povpol re Kal ipvKaKe^ ev av&pdv deo^tl^Oiv eio-l libera."

CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 169
ing purposes and plans (Plat. Polit. p, 260 D ; 2 Cor. ii, 11), comp. Beck,
Ubi. Seelenl. p. 59, and Delitzsch, Psychol, p, 179, The distinction is. an
arbitrary one, which applies r Kapd. to the emotions and will, and r. vovp.
to the intelligence (Beza, Calvin),
Ver, 8 i. [XXI (/,] A summary closing summons to a Christian mode of
thought and (ver. 9) action, compressing everything closely and succinctly
into a few pregnant words, introduced by rb Xoirrdv, with which Paul had
already, at iii, 1, wished to pass on to the conclusion. See on iii, 1, This
rb Xoirrdv is not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the old
expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in iii. 1 (Hofmann), for in
that passage it introduced quite a different summons ; but, without any
reference to iii. 1, it conveys the transition of thought : " what over and
above all the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is : every
thing that," etc. According to de AA^ette, it is intended to bring out what
remained for man to do, in addition to that which God does, ver. 7. But
in that case there must have been expressed, at least by ipel; before ddsX^ol
or in some other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be
(kine on the part of man. — baa] nothing being excepted, expressed asyn-
detically six times with the emphasis of an earnest impovv. Comp. ii. 1,
iii. 2 ; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398].—dXvBv] The thoroughly
ethical contents of the whole summons requires us to understand, not
theoretical truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally true; that is, that
which is in harmony with the objective standard of morality contained in the
gospeU See 1 John i. 6 ; John iii. 21 ; Eph. v. 9 ; 1 Cor. v. 8. To limit it
to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself arbitrary, and not in
keeping with the general character of the predicates which follow, in
accordance with which we must not even understand specially unfeigned
sincerity (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) ; '' though this essentially
belongs to the morally true. — aepvd] worthy of honor, for it is in accordance
with God? — d'lKaia] upright, as it ought to be ; not to be limited to the rela
tions " erga alios " (Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the
narrower sense would be meant (so Calvin : " ne quem laedamus, ne
quem fraudemus ; " Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others). Comp., on
the contrary, Theogn. 147 : ev diKaioaivij avXXiipdvv irda" dpsrri 'ean. — dyvd]pure,
unstained, not : chaste in the narrower sense of the word (2 Cor. xi. 2 ;
Dem. 1371. 22 ; Plut. Mor. p, 268 E, 438 C, et al), as Grotius, Calo-vius,
Estius, Heumann, and others would explain it, Calvin well says : " cas-
timoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus," Comp, 2 Cor. vi, 6, vii,
11 ; 1 Tim, v. 22 ; Jas, iii, 17 ; 1 Pet, iii, 2 ; 1 John iii, 3 ; often so used in
Greek authors,* — irpoaipiX'Sj] dear, that which is loved. This is just once more
1 Chl-ysostOm ; 17 aperrf i//ei}So5 5e ^ KaKia. Xen, Oec. vi, 14 : to iTep.vov ovofia to koXqv tw
Oecumenius : aATjflij Se <fii)o-i. Td e^-opeTa, Comp. Kiyoeoi'. Dem. 385. 11 ; Herodian, i. 2. 6 ; Ael.
also Theophylact. V- H, ii. 13, viii. 35 ; Polyb. ix. 36. 6, xv. 22. 1,
2 Comp. Eph. iv. 21 ; Plat. Phil. p. 59 C : to xxii. 6. 10.
iX7,e« «ixl o Si) Kiyop-ev e'i.\iKpivet. * Comp. Menand. in Clem. Strom, vii. p.
3Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2: evcre/Seio Kal o-e/AVOTijTi. 844: tto? ayi/ds e(rriv 6 jUTjSec eavTu KaKov
Plat. Soph. p. 249 A: (reinvov Kal ayiov voOv. irvviSiiv.

170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Christian morality, which, iu its whole nature as the ethical KaXdv, is worthy
of love.^ The opposite is the a'laxpdv, which deserves hate (Rom. vii. 15).
Chrysostom suggests the supplying roi; iriarol; k. rd Bsa ; Theodoret only
TU Bsa. Others, as Calovius, Estius, Heinrichs, and many : " amabilia
hominibus." But there is no necessity for any such supplement. The
word does not occur elsewhere in the K. T., although frequently in clas
sical authors, and at Ecclus. iv. 8, xx. 13. Others understand kindliness,
benevolence, friendliness, and the like. So Grotius ; comp. Erasmus,
Paraphr. . " quaecumque ad alendam concordiam accommoda." Lin
guistically faultless (Ecclus. I. c. ; Herod, i. 125 ; Thuc. vii, 86 ; Polyb, x.
5, 6), but not in keeping with the context, which does not adduce any special
virtues, — siipvpa] not occurring elsewhere either in the N, T,, or in the
LXX,, or Apocrypha ; it does not mean : " quaecumque bonam famam
conciliant " (Erasmus ; comp, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius,
Heinrichs, aud others, also Rheinwald) ; but : that which sounds well
(Luther) which has an auspicious (faustum) sound, i. e. that which, when it
is named, sounds significant of happiness, as, for instance, brave, honest,
honorable, etc. The opposite would be : diaipvpa.^ Storr, who is followed
by Flatt, renders it : '' sermones, qui bene aliis precantur." So used in later
Greek authors (also Symmachus, Ps. Ixii. 6) ; but this meaning is here too
special. — si n; k.t.X.] comprehending all the points mentioned: if there be
any ¦virtue, and if there be any praise; not if there be yet another, etc. (de
Wette). — dpsTv used by Paul here only, and in the rest of the N. T. only
in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 3, 5,' in the ethical sense : moral aptitude in disposi
tion and action (the opposite to it, /ca/c/a : Plat, Rep. 444 D, 445 C, 1, p,
348 C), Comp, from the Apocrypha, AAlsd, iv, 1, v. 13, and fi-equent
instances of its use in the books of Mace. — eTrajvof] not : res laudabilis
(Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, and many others ;
comp. AA'eiss), but praise (Erasmus : '' laus virtutis comes "), which the
reader could not understand in the apostle's sense otherwise than of a
laudatory judgment actually corresponding- to the moral value of the
object. Thus, for instance, Paul's commendation of love in 1 Cor. xiii, is
an iiraivo; ; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble, the
peacemakers, the merciful, etc, or the like, " Vera laus uni virtuti
debetur," Cic. de orat. ii. 84. 342 ; virtue is Kaff airvv iiraiveri], Plat. Def. p.

1 Plat. i2ep. p. 444 E ; Soph. .E^. 972: ^iXel yap as the reason why Paul does not use this
wpbs Ta xp>7o-Ta 7rcl9 opal'. " Nihil est amabiifMS word elsewhere, that it is " verbum nimium
virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligen- humile, si cum donis Spiritus Sancti com-
dum," Cic. ine^. 28. Comp. ad i^ami^ ix. 14 ; paretur." The very passage before us shows
Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 33. Luther well renders it: the contrary, as it means no other than Chris-
"lieblich," and the Gothic: " liubaleik ;" the tian morality. Certainly in Paul's ease, as
Vulgate: '^amabilia." with the N.T. authors generally and even
2 Comp. Soph. Aj. 362; Eur. Iph. T. G87: Christ Himself, the specific designations of
cv'iirip.a (piiivei. Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A : TO T^s the idea of virtue, which correspond more
o)5^5 ye'i/os evipnp^ov i}fj.Lv. Aesch. Suppl. 694, closely to the sphere of theocratic O. T. ideas,
Agam. 1168; Polyb. xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, such as SiKaioavvij, vTraKori, aytorrj^, ayitiKrvvri,
Prom. 3. oo-io'TTis,K.T.A.,toonecessarilysuggestedthem-
8 We are not entitled to assume (with Beza) selves to his mind to allow him to use the

CHAP. IV. 8, 9. 171
411 C. Mistaken, therefore, were such additions as iinarvpv; (D* E* F G)
or disciplinae (Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius). — ravra Xoyl^saBs] consider
these things, take them to heart, in order (see ver. 9) to determine your
conduct accordingly. " Jleditatio praecedit, deinde sequitur opus," Cal
vin.' — Ver, 9. The Christian morality, which Paul in ver. 8 has com
mended to his readers by a series of predicates, he now again urges upon
them ill special reference to their relation to himself, their teacher and
example, as that which they had also learned, etc. The first Kai is therefore
also, prefixing to the subsequent ravra rrpdaasrs an element corresponding
to this requirement, and imposing an obligation to its fulfillment. " AAliat-
soever also has been the object and purport of your instruction, etc., that
do." To take the four times repeated koI as a double as well . . . as also
(Hofmann and others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of
separation. Kai in the last three cases is the simple and, but so that the
whole is to be looked upon as bipartite : " Duo priora verba ad doctrinam
pertinent, reliqua duo ad e.remj;?!(Hi " (Estius). — d] not baa again; for no
further categories of morality are to be given, but what they are bound to
do generally is to be described under the point of view of what is known
to the readers, as that which they also have learned, etc. — -ape?.dj3sTs] have
accepted. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; John i, 11; Polyb, xxxiii. 16. 9, The inter
pretation : " have received,' which makes it denote the instruction commu
nicated (1 Thess, ii, 13, iv, 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 23; Gal. i. 9, 12;
Col. ii, 6)^ would yield a twofold designation for the one element,* and on
the other hand would omit the point of the assensus, which is so import
ant as a motive; moreover, from a logical point of view, we should
necessarily expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp.
Gal. i. 12).— 7Koic7are] does not refer to the proper preaching and teaching
of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Eisner, Rheinwald, Matthies), which is
already fully embraced in the tvyo previous points ; nor does it denote :
" audistis de me absente " (Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Rilliet,
Hofmann), for aU the other points refer to the time of the apostle's pres
ence, and consequently not merely the " de me," but also the " absente "
would be purely imported. Xo, by the words riKoiaars and sldsre, to both
of which ev e/ioi belongs, he represents to his readers Ais own example of
Christian morality, which he had given them when he was present, in its
two portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him (ev ipoi, comp. i. 30)
general term for morality, aperri, as familiar, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Hofmann.
however worthily and nobly the Platonic ^Comp. Plat. Theaet. p. 198 B: irapoAaji-
doctrine, in particular, had grasped the idea poi.oi.Ta Se iiavOiveiv.
of it (els oa-ov Svi-ttToc avOpwirtft bfxoiov(r9ai * Peal distinctions have, indeed, been made,
eeC; Plat. Pep. p. 613 A, 500 C, et al.). but how purely arbitrary they are! Thus
iQn l^oyiieaBai., eomp. Ps. lii. 2; Jer. xxvi. Grotius (comp. Hammond) makes ejiiS. apply
3- Xah i. 9 - Ps. xxxv. 4; xxxvi. 4; 3 JIacc. tothe primam institutionem, and irape^ip. to
iv. 4; Soph. O. JS. 461; Herod, viii. 53; Dem. the exactiorem doctrinam. Eilliet explains it
63 12 : Sturz Lex. Xen. III. p. 42 ; the opposite : diflferently, making tbe former denote : " son
Bi^ri XoyiCeaBai, Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 3. enseignement direct," and the latter: "les in-
s Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most structions, qu'il leur a transmises sous une forme
expositors, including Eheinwald, Rilliet, quelconque."

172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
partiy by hearing, in his whole oral behavior and intercourse with them,
partiy by seeing, in his manner of action among them ; or, in other words,
his example both in word and deed. — ravra jrpdao-ere] these things do, is not
related to raira Xoyl^eaBs, ver, 8, as excluding it, iu such a way that for
what is said in ver. 8 the ?j}Xii;saBai merely would be required, and for
what is indicated in ver. 9 the irpdaaeiv ; on the contrary, the two opera
tions, which in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses, are
formally separated in accordance with the mode of expression of the par
allelism. Comp. on ii. 8 and Rom. x. 10. — koI b Bed; k.t.X.] in substance
the same promise as was given in ver. 7. God, who works peace (that holy
peace of soul, ver. 7), will be with you, whereby is meant the help given
through the Holy Spirit; and His special agency, which Paul here has in
view, is unmistakably indicated by the very predicate r^f s'lpiyvv;.
Eemaek. — It is to be noticed that the predicates in ver. 8, dXvBij . . svipvya
do not denote different individual virtues, but that each represents the Christian
moral character generally, so that in reality the same thing is described, but according
to the various aspects ¦which commended it. Comp. Diog. Laert. ii 106: ev rd dyaBdv
rroXXol; bvopaai KaXovpsvov. Cic. de fin. iii. 4. 14 : " una virtus unum istud, quod
honestuvi appellas, rectum, Uiudahile, decorum." That it is Christian morality which
Paul has in view, is clearly evident from ver. 9 and from the whole preceding
context. Hence the passage cannot avail for jjlacing the morality of the moral
law of nature (Eom. ii. 14 i.) on an equality with the gospel field of duty, which
has its specific definition and consecration — as also, for the reconciled whom it
embraces, the assurance of the divine keeping (vv. 7, 9) — in the revealed w-ord
(ver. 9), and in the enlightening and ethically transforming power of the Spirit
(comp. Kom. xii. 2).
Ver. 10. [On Vv, 10-19, see Note XXII, pages 190, 191,] Carrying on his
discourse with di, Paul now in conclusion adds, down to ver, 20, some
courteous expressions, as dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid
which he had received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work
of love briefly and casually (ii, 25, 30), In the aid itself Baur discovers a
contradiction of 1 Cor, ix. 15, and conjectures that the author of the
epistle had 2 Cor. xi. 9 in view, and had inferred too much from that
passage. But, in fact, Baur himself has inferred too much, and incor
rectly, from 1 Cor, ix, 15 ; for in this passage Paul speaks oi payment for his
preaching, jiot of loving gifts from persons at a distance, which in point of
fact put him in the position to preach gratuitously in Achaia, 2 Cor, xi. 8
ff. There is, besides, in our passage no mention of regular sendings of
money, — 'ev KvpiiS] as in iii, 1, iv, 4, It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart
frmn Christ ; oi KoapiKu; exdpvv, (pvaiv, oidi jiiariKd;, Chrysostom, — ysyd'Xa;]
mightily. Comp, LXX,, 1 Chron. xxix. 9; Neh. xii. 42; Polyb. iii. 87. 5;
Polyc. Phil. 1. The position at the end is emphatic' — 'on rfiv irori k.t.X.] is
to be rendered : " that ye have at length once again come into the flourishing
condition of taking thought for my benefit, in behalf of which ye also TOOK
' See on Matt. ii. 10 ; and Stallbaum, od Plat. Phaedr. p. 256 E, Menex. p. 235 A.

CHAP. r\'. 10. 173
thought, but had no favorable opportunity." — r,dv rrore] taken in itself may
mean : already once; or, as in Rom. i. 10: tandem aliquando. The latter
is the meaning here, as appears from eo' u k.t.?.. Chrysostom justly
observes (comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes xpdvov
paKpdv, when namely that BdXXeiv had not been present, which has now
again (comp. ver. 15 f.) set in.' This view of r/dv irori is the less to be
evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in the
passage {i-iTlur:at;. Chrysostom) is not by any means conveyed in it, as
indeed fi-om the delicate feeling of the apostle we might expect that it
would not, and as is apparent from the correct explanation of the
sequel. — dveddXers] [XXII c.J ye have again become green {refloruistis,
Vulgate), like a tree or an orchard which had been withered, and has
again budded and put forth new shoots {Ha?J.ov;).^ It cannot be the revival
of their care-taking hve which is meant, so that the readers would have
previously been d-ouapavBsvre; iv ry iX^ripoaivri (Oecumenius, also Chrysos
tom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Cah-in, Beza, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt, AA'iesinger, Ewald, and most expositors,
who rightly take dvsBdX. as intransitive, as well as all who take it ^ransi'^/rrfy;
see below) ; for how indelicate would be such an utterance, which one
could not, with AA'eiss, acquit from implying an assumption that a different
disposition pre\-iously existed; and how at variance t\ith the ep' a
iippovslrs K.T.X. which immediately follows, and by which the continuous
care pres-iously exercised is attested ! Xo, it is the flourishing anew of their
prosperity (comp. Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Schenkel, Hoftnann, and others), the opposite of which is after
wards expressed by vicaipslaBs, that is denoted, as prosperous circum
stances are so often represented under the figure of becoming green and
blooming.^ It is therefore inconsistent, both with delicate feeling and
¦with the context, to take dvsBdX. transitively : " revirescere sivistis solitam
vestram rerum mearum procurationem" (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus,
Grotius. Heinrichs, Hammond, and others, including Rilliet, de AA'ette,
AA'eiss), although the transitive use of dvaBdX'/.siv in the LXX. and also in
the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezek. xra. 24; Ecclus. i. 16, xi. 20, 1.
10; see generally Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 220 f.) ; and that oiBdX.Xsiv is also
current in classical authors.* An unfounded objection is brought against
the- view which explains it of the re\ival of prosperity, that it is inappro
priate as a subject of joy in the Lord (see AA'eiss) ; it is appropriate at aU
events, when such a use is made of the revived prosperity. — rd irrip ipov
1 Comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 140. "Wisd. iv. 3 f. ; Hes. Op. 231 : reffij^e n^oAis, Pind.
'The conjecture, on the ground of this Isth. iii. 9: oA^os . . . SiAAioi., Path. vii. 22:
figurative expression, that the Philippians SiWovaav eiSaLiioviav. Plat. ieyj. xii. p.945D:
might have sent to the apostle in spring, and i irio-ot oirep e<£AAei -i Kal eiSaii±ovei x^P" "¦
that TiKaLptlaBe Si applies to the icinter season s-dA.i. Of frequent occurrence in the trage-
(Bengel), is far-fetched and arbitrary. The dians; comp. also Jstcohs, ad Del. Epigr. viii.
figurative iveeix.. does not even need to be an 97.
imageofspr.7ig,asCalTin, Estius, Weiss, and «Pind. 01. iii. 24: .4esch. Pers. 62-2 (608);
others nnderstand it. Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 103 ; KOhner, II. 1.
a Comp. Ps. xxviii. 7 : aviOaXev i aopf p-ov, p. 265.

174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Ippovelv] [XXII d.] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of
dveSdA.,' SO understood that rd is taken together with ippovelv, and this must
be regarded as the accusative of more precise definition, which is only
distinguished by its greater emphasis from the mere epexegetical
infinitive.^ Comp. van Hengel : " negotium volo mihi consulendi." But
the whole view which takes rd with (ppovslv is set aside by the following e^'
u K. i(ppovsiTs ; seeing that 'eip' ili, unless it is to be rendered at variance with
linguistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr), or just as
(Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its u the previous rd iirep
ipov (ppovelv, and would consequently yield the logically absurd con
ception : i(ppovslTS iirl rd iirip ipov (ppovslv, whether ep' u be taken as
equivalent to oi svsko (Beza) or qua de re (Rheinwald, Matthies, de AA'ette,
AA'iesinger, Ewald, and others), or in eo quod (Erasmus), in qua re (Cor
nelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or et post id (Grotius), and the like.
Recourse has been had, by way of helping the matter, to the suggestion
that (Ppovslv iiri is a thinking ivithout action, and (ppovelv iirip a thinking uiith
action (de AA'ette, AA'iesinger ; comp, Ewald) ; but how purely arbitrary is
this view ! Less arbitrarily, Calvin and Rilliet (" vous pensiez bien a
moi ") have referred u to ipov. by which, no doubt, that logical awkward
ness is avoided; but, on the other hand, the objection arises, that i(p' u is
elsewhere invariably used by Paul as neuter only, and that it is difiicult to
see why, if he desired to take up vTrep ipoi in a relative form, he should
not have written vnip oi, since otherwise in e;r/, if it merely went back to
ipov, the more precise and definite reference which he must have had in
view would not be expressed, and since the progress of the thought
suggested not a change of preposition, but only the change of the tenses
{iial iippovelre). AA^eiss, interpreting i(p' iii as : about which to take thought,
refers it back to dvsBdXere — a reference, however, which falls to the ground
with the active interpretation of that word. Upon the whole, the only
right course seems to be to take to iirip ipov together (comp. rd Trepi ipdv, ii,
20 ; also rd Trap' ipdv, ver. 18 ; ' and that as the accusative of the object to
ppovelv (comp. Bengel, Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann) : " to take into
consideration that which serves for my good," to think of my benefit ; on
VTrep, comp. i. 7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal, logical, and
delicately-turned reference, namely, when cp' a applies to rb iirip iyov.
Taking this view, we have to notice : (1) that iirl is used in the sense of
the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 435) : on behalf of
which, for ivhich, comp. Soph. 0. R. 569 ; (2) that Paul has not again written
the mere accusative (a koI 'eipp.), because ep' a is intended to refer not alone
to K. iippovslrs, but also to the antithesis vKaipsiaBs di, consequently to the
entire k. iipp., vKoip. di;* (3) that the emphasis is placed on cppov. as <A,e
1 In the transitive interpretation (see, against 2 See Bernhardy, p. 356 ; Schmalfeld, Syntax
it, swprn) the TO ^poi-eii^, which would likewise d. Griech. Verb, p, 401f,; Ellendt, Lex. Soph.
be taken together, would be the accusative II. p. 222.
forming the object of kveSi)-.. See Buttmann, a And see generally, Kriiger, g 50. 5. 12 ;
JVeii(. Gr. p. 226 [E.T. 263]; Kuhner, II. 2, p. Kiihner, IL 1, p. 231 f.
603. -"All the more groundless, therefore, ia

CHAP. IV. 11. 175
imperfect, and Kai indicates an element to be added to the ippovelv which has
been just expressed ; hence koI iipp. intimates : " in behalf of which ye not
only are taking thought (that is, since the dveBdXers), but also were taking
thought (namely, rrpdaBsv, before the aveBdXere) ;" lastly, (4) that after efp.
there is no piv inserted, because the antithesis is meant to emerge unpre
pared for, and so all the more vividly. — vKaipslaBe] [XXII e.] ye had no
favorable time; a word belonging to the later Greek.' Unsuitably and
arbitrarily this is explained : " deerat vobis opportunitas mittendi " (Eras
mus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and others). It refers, in keep
ing with the dvsBdXers, not without dehcacy of description, to the unfavor
able state of things as regards means (Chrysostom : ovk slxsre 'ev xepalv, oidi iv
aipBovia ryrs ; SO also Theophylact ; while Oecumenius adduces this inter
pretation alongside of the previous one) which had occurred among the
Philippians, as Paul might have learned from Epaphroditus and
otherwise.^ Ver. 11. [XXII/. g.] Obvdating of a misunderstanding.' — oix on] as in
iii. 12 : my meaning is not, that I say this in consequence of want, that is, this
my utterance of joy in ver. 10 f. is not meant as if it were the expression
of felt want, from which your aid has delivered me. On Kara, secundum,
in the sense of propter, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 413, and ad Xen. Mem. i. 3.
12. According to van Hengel's interpretation : " ut more receptum est
penuriof, s. hominibus penuria oppressis," Kard, could not have been
united -with an abstract noun (Rom. iii. 5, etal.). — iyd ydp ipaBov k.t.X.] for I,
as regards my part (although it may be diiferent with others), have learned
in the circumstances, in which I find myself, to be self-contented, that is, to
have enough independently without desiring aid from others. It is
e"vident from the reason thus assigned that in oix. Sri koB' var. X. he has
meant not the objective, but the subjective state of need. — 'eyd] with noble
self-consciousness, there being no need to supply, -with Bengel, "in tot
advei-sis." — ipaBov] signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat.
Symp. p. 182 C : ipyij di rovro ipaBov Kal oi ivBdds rvpawoi), and all that
accordingly he can, he owes to the strengthening influence of Christ, ver.
Hofmann's objection, that ippovelv e«-t Tivt not directly given in the text, it would be
means : to be proud about something. This much simpler to take e<p' il as in Rom. v. 12,
objection, put thus generally, is even in itself Phil. iii. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4, in the sense of propte-
incorrect For <j>povelv eiri nvi does not in rea quod, and that as a graceful and ingenious
itself mean: to be proud about something, 'but specification of the reason for the great Joy of
only receives this signification through the the apostle, that they had flourished again to
addition of iieya, tieyaXa, or some similar take thought for his benefit; for their pre-
more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 vious omission had been caused not by any
D, Ale. 1. p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p. lack of the if>povelv in question, but by the
217 A : Dem. 181. 16, 836, 10), either expressly unfavorableness of the times.
specified or directly suggested by the con- iDiod. exc. Mai. p. 30; Phot., Suid. The
text, "Very artificial, and for the simple opposite: eiiKaipeXv, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p,
reader hardly discoverable, is the view under 125,
which Hofmann takes the fact expressed by 2 Comp, eiiKaiptlv Toii ^I'ots in Polyb, xv. 21.
Ka:i.eifipovelrensi't\eground,"upon,oronaccount 2, xxxii. 21. 12 ; and also the mere evitaipeZi/ in
of, which their re-anergence from an unfavorable the same sense, iv. 60. 10; evKaipia: xv. 31. 7,
position has heen a revival unto care for him." i. 59. 7 ; i«aipia : Plat. Legg. iv. p. 709 A ; Dem.
If the reference of eip' i to to iirep e'fioC were 16. 4; Polyb. iv. 44. 11.

176 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
13. — ev oif s'lpi] in the situation, in which I find myself. '^ Not merely his
position then, but, generally, every position in which he finds himself, is
meant, although it is not exactly to be taken as : "in quocunque statu sim"
(Raphel, AVetstein, and others), which would be ungrammaticaUy
expressed. In opposition to the context (see ver, 12), Luther : among
whom {ol;, masculine) I am. As to airdpKeia as applied to persons, the
subjective self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not make the satis
faction of his needs dependent upon others, but finds it in himself, comp.
Ecclus. xl. 18 ; Xen. 2Iem. iv. 7. 1 ; Dem, 450. 14 ; Stob. v. 43 ; and see on
2 Cor. ix. 8.
Ver. 12. Paul now specifies this his airdpKeia (in Plat. Def. p. 412 B,
termed rsXeidrv; Krvaeu; dyaBdv). — olda] I understand how (1 Thess. iv. 4; Col.
iv. 6; 1 Tim. iii. 5; Matt. vii. 11; Soph. Aj. 666 I ; Anth. Pal. vii. 440. 6
ff.) ;^ result of the ipaBov. — koI raireiv.] also to be abased, namely, by want,
distress, and other alloted circumstances which place the person affected
by them in the condition of abasement. Paul understands this, inasmuch
as he knows how to bear himself in the right attitude to such alloted cir
cumstances, namely, in such a waj- that, independently thereof, he finds
his sufficiency in himself, and does not seek it in that which he lacks.
AA''e find a commentary on this in 2 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 9, 10. olda koI irepiaasieiv
is to be understood analogously, of the right attitude to the matter, so that
one is not led away by abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter
instead of in himself. Pelagius well sa5-s : " ut nee abundantia extollar,
nee frangar inopisi." — The first koI adds to the general ev ol; s'lpi the special
statement on the one side, to which thereupon the second " also " adds the
counterpart. The contrast, however, is less adequate here than subsequently
in irsptaaeieiv Kal iarepelaBai, for rairsivovaBai is a more comprehensive idea than
the counterpart of irepiaasvsiv, and also contains a figurative conception.
Some such expression as vipovaBai would have been adequate as the con
trast of ra-siv. (Matt, xxiii. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; Phil. ii. S, 9 ; Polyb. v. 26. 12).
There is a livel}- versatility of conception, from not perceiving which some
have given to this irspiaaeisiv {to have a superfiuity) the explanation excellere
(Erasmus, Vat;iblus, Calvin), or to rairsiv. the meaning to be poor, to be in
pitiful plight, bXiyoi; Ke;i;p^crea/, Theophylact (Estius, and others; comp. also
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Rheinwald, IMatthies, Baumgarten-Crusius,
de AA'ette, Hofmann), which even the LXX., Lev. xxv. 39, does not justify,
• — In what follows, ev Travri d, ev irdat is not to be regarded as belonging to
raireivovaBai and irepiaaeveiv (Hofmann), but is to be joined with pspvvpai.
AVe are dissuaded from the former connection by the very repetition of
the Olda ; and the latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which
rests upon ev iravrl k. 'sv irdai heading the last clause, as also by the cor
relative Tfdvra at the head of ver. 13. Further, no comma is io be placed
after pspvvpai, nor is ev Travri . . , pspvvpai to be explained as meanuig : " into

1 See examples in Wetstein and Kypke ; seat in the character. Comp, Ameis, Anh. i.
comp. also Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 131, Horn. Od. ix. 189.
2 It is the moral understanding, having its

CHAP. IV. 12, 13. 177
everything I am initiated," and then koI xoprdl^eaBai k.t.X. as elucidating the
notion of " everything " : " cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate
et fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi faniiliaritatem, ut
rationem teneam iis bene utendi," van Hengel ; comp, de Wette, Rilliet,
AA'iesinger; so also, on the whole, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many
others, but with different interpretations of Travri and irdaiv. This view is at
variance with the fact, that pveiaBai has that into which one is initiated
expressed not by means of 'sv, but— and that most usually — in the accusa
tive (Herod, ii, 51; Plat, Gorg. p, 497 C, Symp. p, 209 E; Aristoph, Plut.
845 {ippvelaBai) ; Lucian, Philop. 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11),
or genitive (Heliod. i. 17 ; Herodian, i, 13. 16) ; hence irdv «.. irdvra, or Travrt
It. Trdffiv, or Travrdf k. irdvrav must have been written (in 3 Mace. ii. 30, it has
Kard with the accusative). Xo ; Paul says that in everything and in all, that
is, under every relation that may occur and in all circumstances, he is
initiated into, that is, made completely familiar with, as well the being satis
fied, as the being hungry, as well the having superfluity as want; in all
situations, without exception, he quite understands how to assume and
maintain the right attitude to these different experiences, which in ver.
11 he characterizes by the words airdpKv; elvai. 'Ev iravrl k. iv iraai is
accordingly to be taken after the analogy of ev oif e'lpi, ver. 11, and there
fore as neuter. It was purely arbitrary to render ev iravrl : ubique (Vulgate,
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others), or to refer it to time (Chrysostom,
Grotius), or to time and place (Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, also
Matthies). Luther and Bengel explain Travri correctly as neuter, but make
irdaiv (as in 2 Cor. xi. 6) masculine (Bengel: "respectu omnium homi
num "). It is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words;
and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which only indicates
the total absence of any exception (comp, analogous expressions in
Lobeck, Paral. p. 56 ff.), there is no occasion for artificial explanation. —
In German we say : in Allem und Jedem [iu all and each]. Comp. on ev
irdai on Col. i. 18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes ev iravrl k.
iv irdai denote everything that is a necessary of life (in detail and in whole).
In that case certainly the contrast of xop'd^. and ireivdv is unsuitable ! —
peyivpai] the proper word for the various grades of initiation into the
mysteries ' is here used in a figurative sense, like iniliatum esse, of a special,
unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar acquaintance with some
thing.'' The opposite is dpivro;. — The climax should here be noticed,
iyaBov . . . olda . . . peyivpai. A'er. 13 places beyond doubt to whom the
apostle owes this lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circum
stances. As to the later form rreivdv instead of Treiv^v, see Lobeck, ad
Phryn. p. 61 ; Jacobs, ad Ael. II. p. 261.
Ver. 13. After the special statement, the consciousness of the airdpKeia
now finds fresh utterance generally; and in the grand brevity of the latter
how marked is the assurance, and, at the same time, the humihty \—'iax'v'^]
1 Casaubon, Exerc. Baron, p. 390 fF. ; Lobeck, 2 See ¦^lunthe, Oiiss, p. 383 ; Jacobs, odAtUhoL
Aglaoph. I. p. 3Sff. IIL p. 488.
12

178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
[XXII h.] of moral strength, homogeneous as to category with ipaBov in
ver. 11, and with olda and yepvvpai iu ver. 12, because these predicates also
were dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice. There
is therefore the less reason for limiting Trdvra in any way (van Hengel :
^' omnia memorata;" comp. AA'eiss); there is nothing ioi which Paul did
not feel himself morally strong ; for every relation he knew himself to be
morally adequate. Trdvra is the accusative of the object. Gal, v. 6 ; Jas, v.
16. The opposite to it : pvdiv 'wxiaaiv. Plat. Crit. p. 50 B, Ael. V. H. xii.
22, et al. — ev nl ivdw. ps] Not in his own human ability does Paul feel this
power, but it has its basis in Chri.-it, whose divapi; the apostle experiences
in his fellowship of hfe with Him (2 Cor. xii. 9). Comp. 1 Tim. i. 12; 2
Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17. Thus he is able to do all things ev -u Kpdrei rv; 'laxio;
airov, Eph. vi. 10.
Ver. 14. W.riv] Nevertheless (1 Cor. xi. 11 ; Eph. v. 33), apart from the
fact that with such moral power I am equal to all emergencies, and there
fore, as far as want is concerned, do not need aid (comp. ver. 11). " Cavet,
ne fortiter loquendo contemsisse ipsorum beneficium videatur," Calvin.
Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. — Ka7d;] in the m,oral sense. — avyKoiv.
pov rij S/./i/i.] characterizes the work according to its high ethical value {bpa
aoiplav, ird; irraipei rb irpdypa, Theophylact) : that ye became partakers with
me in my affliction. [XXII ;.] He who renders the aid enters into the
relation of a participant in the position of the afflicted one, inasmuch as
by his very work of love he, in common with the latter, shares and bears
his BXlipi;. Comp. Rom. xii. 13. It is a practical participation, and not
merely that of feeling and emotion, Comp. Eph, v, 11 ; Rev, xviii, 4, i. 9.
By t?; BX'lip., Paul means his position at the time as a whole, not: want
(which also in 2 Cor, viii. 13 it does not mean). The dative is governed by
avyKoiv. (Eph. V. 11 ; Kev. xviii. 4 ; Rom, xii, 13, xv, 27, et al.) ; and yov is,
in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken as if poi were .in the
text (comp, on ii. 2).' The aorist participle coincides as to time with iiroivaare
(see on Eph. i. 9) ; as to the participle with KaXd; iroielv, see AViner, p. 323 f
[E. T. 345].
Ver. 15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the very beginning of
the gospel the Philippians had distinguished themselves by such manifestation
of love towards Paul. — di] carrying the discourse onward : But what ye
have done connects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no
other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very first ! — uldare
di K.r.X.] but it is known also to you, Philippians, that, etc, Hofmann very
erroneously derives the object of oidare from what precedes, and takes bn
in the sense of because. He makes the apostle say, namely, to the Philip
pians : That they had done well in helpfully taking part in his affliction
they knew also, as otlier churches knew that it was well done ; by experience
they knew it, because it was not the first time that they had sent similar
gifts to him, etc. This explanation is erroneous, because invariably where
olda {oldapev, oidare, k.t.X.) is accompanied, not with an accusative of the
1 And stallbaum, ad Plat. Pep. p. 518 C, Symp. p. 215 C,

CHAP. IV. 14, 15. 179
object, but -with on, the latter conveys the contents {that), and not the
reason or the cause {because), of the olda (comp. i. 19, 25 ; Rom. iii. 2 ; 1
Cor. iii. 16, xii. 2 ; Gal. iv, 13, and innumerable other passages) ; secondly,
because the previously attested KaXd; iiroivaare, while perfectly suitable to
be expressed by the grateful apostle, was not so suited to be transferred to
the consciousness of the donors, to which it was self-evident, and to be ap
pealed to by them ; thirdlj', because the koI in the alleged reference to
other churches would be very unsuitable, since the question here con
cerns merely a work of love of the Philippians, but other churches could
only know generally that it was weU done to aid the apostle, into which
general idea, therefore, Hofmann insensibly transforms the object of
oidare, instead of abiding strictly by the concrete Ka/.d; iiroivaare as its
object ; finally, it would be strange and not in keeping with the thoughtful
manner of the apostle, to furnish the idea : " ye know that ye did well
therein " (which oidare is supposed to convey) -with the altogether exter
nal specification of a ground for it : " because ye have already formerly
and repeatedly supported me." The contents attributed by Hofmann to
oidare needed no assignment of a causal ground, or — ^if any— one internal,
ethical, and in harmony with the subtle delicacy of the apostle. — Observe,
moreover, in connection -with oidare k. vyel;, that in that which the
readers also know (consequently in on k.t.X.) the stress lies upon the
negative oidspia k.t.X. — koI vyel;] ye also, as I.' — iiXi-rriiaioi] addressing them
by name, not because he desires to assert something of them which no
other church had done (Bengel : for in this case Paul would have written
on ipsi;, ^iXtrr-.), but in his increasing earnestness. Comp, 2 Cor. vi. 11. —
ev dpxv ''¦ eiayy.] glancing back, certainly, to the second missionary
journey (AA'eiss) : but the relative expression is used from the standpoint
of the time then present, behind which lay the founding of the Macedonian
churches about ten years back ; a long past which seemed, in relation to
the present and to the wider development of the church now attained, as still
belonging to the period of the beginning of the gospel. Comp. Clement.
Cor. I. 47. An epexegetical more precise definition of this expression —
which does not betray the hand of a later author (Hinsch) — ^for the date
intended is: brs 's^v'/jBov drrb Maxed., when I departed from JIacedonia, Acts
xvii. 14. Paul, therefore, immediately on leaving that country, received aid
from the infant church, when the brethren rdv Ilav?.ov i^airiarsiXav
iropsveaBai d; irrt r^v BdXaaaav and vjayov so; 'ABryvdv, ActS I.e. Doubtless
the money which Paul subsequently received in Corinth (see 2 Cor. xi. 9)
through Macedonian delegates was sent, if not exclusively, at least jointly
by the Philippians, so that they thereby gave continued active proof of the
fellowship eif Xdyov dda. k. Xrpji., into which they had entered with the
apostle at his very departure. But this receipt of money at Corinth is not
the fact meant by sKoivdvvasv k.t.X.., in which case 'e^fiXdov would have to
1 To express this, Paul was not at all under different conception, namely : ye know with-
the necessity of writing oliare airroi, as Hof- out my reminding you (Acts il. 22; 1 Thess. u.
mann objects. The latter would convey a 1, ili. 3 ; 2 Thess. iii. 7).

180 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
be taken, with Estius, Flatt, van Hengel, de Wette, Wiesinger, AA'eiss,
Hofmann, and others, in the sense of the pluperfect (Winer, p. 258 [E. T.
275] ; for the latter would be the more unwarranted in the context, see
ing that Paul himself by ev dp;^^ rov eiayy. carries them back to the
earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (ver. 16) to a period even
antecedent to the bre l^rjXBov. The aorist, however, has its justification in
this purely historical statement of fact, although the imperfect also, but
following a different conception, might — not, however (in opposition to
Hofmann's objection), must—ha\e been used. — 'sKoivdvvasv eif Xdyov ddaea;
K. Xij-ipl] [XXII 7'.] entered into fellowship with me in reference to account of
gi'ving and receiving, — a euphemistic indication, calculated to meet the
sense of delicacy in the readers, of the thought : " has entered into the rela
tion of furnishing aid towards me." On Koivuvelv eif, comp. on i. 5, The
analysis of the figurative description is this : The Philippians keep an
account of expenditure on Paul and income from him ; and the apostle like
wise keeps account of his expenditure on the Philippians and income from
them. This mutual account-keeping, in which the ddai; on the one part,
agrees with the Xyipi; on the other, is the Koivuvia eif X.dyov k.t.X. It is
true that iii this case no money-nnio'u.nt is entered in the account of the
Philippians under the heading of Xijfi;, or the account of the apostle under
the heading of ddai; ; instead of this, however, comes in the blessing, which
the readers were to receive from their gifts of love, according to ver. 17, as
if it were an income corresponding to this expenditure, and coming in
from it. AA'e are therefore not justified in adopting the view, that dda. and
^-vf. apply to Paid alone (Schrader), or that ddasu; applies to the Philip
pians and Xyiji. to Paul {" Ego sum in vestris expensi tabulis, vos in meis
accepti," Grotius; comp. Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and
others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet,
Ewald) ; for the words require the idea of an account under both headings
on the side of both parties. Others, maintaining indeed this reciprocity,
but arbitrarily introducing ideas from 1 Cor. xi. 11, comp. Rom, xv, 27,
consider that the ddai; on the part of the apostle, and the /.vfi; on the
part of the Philippians, consisted in the spiritual benefits brought about by
the preaching of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pel
agius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius, Zeger, Estius, Hammond,
AA^iesinger, AA'eiss, Hofmann, and others) ; whilst others, again, import
into the words the thought : " Quae a Philippensibus accepit in rationes
Dei remuneratoris refert Paulus" (AA'etstein, RosenmuUer; comp, '\\6\i,
Schoettgen, and already Ambrosiaster), Eheinwald finds the Xijiln; of
the Philippians and the ddai; of the apostle even in the assumption that
he also had assisted them, namely, out of the sums of money collected in
the churches, — an error which is at variance with the context, and which
ought to have been precluded both by the prominence given to the state
ment of the date, and also by the exclusion of all other churches, as well
as by the inappropriateness of the mention just in this passage of such a
XijTpi; on the part of the Philippians, — On 7Myo;, ratio, account, comp. Matt.
xii. 36 ; Luke xvi. 2 ; Rom. xiv. 12 ; 1 Mace. x. 40 ; Dem. 227. 26 ; Diod.

CHAP. rv. 16. ISl
Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv. 34. 2. The rendering which takes eif Xdyov. in
respect to (Bengel, Heinrichs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Lune-
mann), would no doubt be linguistically correct,' but is to be rejected
on account of the context, as expressions of accounting follow (comp. Cic.
Lael. 16: "ratio acceptorum et datorum"). For instances from Greek
writers of ddai; koi Xvtpi; (Ecclus. xli, 14, xlii. 7) as expenditure and income,
see Wetstein,' As to the corresponding ]jiai XiyD, see Schoettgen, Hor. p.
804. Ver. 16. 'Ori] since, indeed, ye also already in Tliessalonica, etc. It is argu
mentative, namely, outbidding the early definition of date ev dpxy . . .
MaKsdovia;, in ver. 15, by one even antecedent, and thus serving more amply
to justify that specification of time,-* for which purpose the or; specifying
the reason was quite sufficient, and (in opposition to Hofmann's objec
tion) no ydp was necessary. The opinion of AA'iesinger, that on k.t.X. is
intended to explain that it was onlj- with the aid sent after Paul at a dis
tance that the readers had entered into such a connection with the
apostle as is previously mentioned, is bound up with the untenable inter
pretation of 's^ijXjBov as pluperfect. The rendering of on by that (Rhein
wald, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilliet, de AVette, Lunemann,
AA'eiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic oidare koI ipsi;, ver.
15, accords doubtless with the exclusion of other churches in ver. 15, it
docs not accord with ver. 16 (" ye also know that ye have sent ... to me ! "),
to which it would stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the un
called-for inversion of the order of time, which would result. Hofmann's ex
planation, which makes on in ver. 16 parallel to the bn in ver. 15 and places
it in causal relation to oidare, falls -with his erroneous view of ver. 15. — The
Kai before cv Bsaaa?.., for which Hinsch, following Baur, thinks that he finds
a reference in 2 Cor. xi. 9, is the simple also in the sense of also already ;
a climax as regards time.* — ev BsaaaX.] is not used, in the sense of the
bearers having arrived, for eif, for there is no certain instance of d-oariX-
Xeiv or rripirsiv with ev in this sense (Thuc. vii. 17 must, with Becker and
Kriiger, be read : ef ryv XiKeXiav) ; but the preposition is used from the
standpoint of the receiver : " also at Tliessalonica (when I was there) ye sent
to me." Thus this sending took place in Thessalonica.^ — koI d-of /eai dif]
Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18. The conception is : " when the first aid arrived,
the iKiyijiare had taken place once; when the second arrived, it had taken
place both once and twice." Paul has not written dif merely, nor yet oTraf
1 Dem. .385. 11; 2 Mace. i. 14; and see Kru- lio, and others) have thought. This view is
ger on Time. iii. 46. 3. also at variance with the specification of time
2 Comp. Plat. Eep. p. 332 A. B: i i:roSocrc5 Sre ifrikBov, ver. 15; for Paul abode several
«. if a; All. weeks in Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 2), and then
3 If Baur had noticed this correct logical there still followed his sojourn in Beroea
connection, he would not have made an im- (Acts xvii. 10 ff-.), ere he quitted Macedonia
proper use of our passage to fortify his opinion and traveled to Athens.
of the affair of the aid being on invented inci- *See Hartung, Partik. I. p. 135; Kuhner,
dent. — The same assistance which is meant in II. 2, p. 797.
ver. 15 cannot be meant in ver. 16, as some sComp. on Blatt. i. 16; Poppo and Kruger
not attending to the Kai (comp. Luther, Casta- on Thuc. iv. 27. 1.

182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
K. di; (1 Mace, iii, 30 ; Xen. Anab. iv. 7, 10), but by koI dir. k. dl; he sets
forth the repetition of the matter mm-e emphatically, to the praise of his
readers (Hartung, Partikell. I. p, 144),' — eif r. xp^^ov] on behalf of the neces
sity, in order to satisfy it ; comp. ii. 15. The article indicates the neces
sity that had been existing in Paul's case. On iriyifiai, used absolutely,
comp. Acts xi. 29. What they sent, they knew,
Ver. 17, Just as in ver. 11 Paul anticipated a possible misunderstand
ing in respect to ver, 10, so here in reference to the praises contained in
ver, 14 ff. This, he would say, is not the language of material desire,
but, etc, — oix 'd'Ti K,r,A,] as in ver, 11 , I do not mean by this to convey
that my desire is directed towards the gift (the emphasis being laid on rd
ddpa) — this, namely, taken in and by itself — in which case the article
means the donation accruing to him as the case occurred, and the present
iiril^vrd denotes the constant and characteristic stri-i^ing after (Bernhardy, p.
370) : it is not my business,- etc. The compound verb indicates by 'sirl the
direction. Comp. on 'emrroBd, i. 8, and on Matt, vi, 33 ; Rom, xi, 7. The
view which regards it as strengthening the simple verb {studiose quaero, so
Hoelemann and others) is not implied in the context any more than the
sense : insuper quaero (Polj-b. i, 5. 3) ; so van Hengel, who indelicately,
and notwithstanding the article, explains to ddya as still more gifts. — dXX'
iirii^vrd] The repetition of the verb after dXXd makes the contrast stand
out independently with special emphasis ; comp, Rom, viii, 15 ; 1 Cor, ii.
7 ; Fritzsche, ad Pom. II. p. 137. — rdv Kapirbv k.t.X.] This is what Paul
desires, towards which his wishes and endeavors are directed : the fruit
which abounds to your account ; not, therefore, a gain which he wishes to
have for himself, but gain for the Philippians. So completely' is his
emt^vrelv devoid of any selfish aim, — which, however, would not be the case,
if the iiri^vrd rb ddpa were true. This applies against Hofmann's objec
tion, that the Kapird; must be something which Paul himself desires to
have ; the notion of iin^vrd is anquiro, appeto, and this indeed applies to
personal possession in the negative half of the sentence ; but then the
second half expresses the real state of the case, which does away with the
notion of selfishness. — The Kapird; itself cannot be the fruit of the gospel
(Ewald), or of the labor of the apostle (Weiss) ; but, in accordance with the
context, only the fruit of the ddya, that is, the blessing which accrues from
the gift to the givers; comp. on ver, 15. By this is meant * the divine re
compense at the judgment (2 Cor. ix. 6), which they will then receive, as if
it were the product of their account, for their labor of love (Matt, xxv.
34 ff,). This produce of their ddpa is figuratively conceived as fruit,
which is largely placed to the credit of their account, in order to be
drawn by them at the day of harvest (comp. also Gal. vi. 7 ff.). Comp.
I Comp. Kal a'n Kal Tpis, Plat. Phaed. p. 63 bins, Musculus, Piscator, Zanchius ; Flatt and
D, PAii. p. 59 E; Herod, ii. 121, iii. 148. The Eheinwald mingle together heterogeneous
opposite: oux airaf oirSi Ul, Plat. CUt. p. ideas) ; for only the fruit o/ ^Ae Sofia Can be
410 B. meant, not the Sofia itself os fruit, which is
s Not the active manifestation of the Christian produced in the shape of the love gift (Hof-
life (Matthies, Rilliet, Hofmann ; comp. Vata- mann).

CHAP. IV. 17, 18. 183
ver. 19. In substance it is the treasure in heaven that is meant (Matt, xix,
21, vi. 20), which will be received at the Parousia. Comp. on Col. i. 5.
The figurative eif Xdyov ipdv, which here also is not to be understood
with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Rilliet, and others, as equivalent to eif ipd;, is
the completion of the figure in ver. 15 ; although there is no need to ex
plain Kapird; as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in wXeovdi;. of
compound interest, Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difiicult to see why
Paul, if he used this figure, should not have apphed to it the proper
term {toko;), and because the idea of interest is quite alien to that of the
ddya {a present). — r, irXsovd:;. eif Xdyov iydv] [XXII k.] to be taken
together (see above) ; eif states the destination oi the irXeovd^. Van Hen
gel and de Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling eif Xdy. iy.
with iiri^vrd, because 7r;ieovdCeiv with eif is not used elsewhere by Paul
(not even 2 Thess. i. 3). The preposition is in fact not determined by the
word in itself, but by its logical reference, and may therefore be any one
which the reference requires.
\'er. 18. [XXII L] Ae] The train of thought is : " not the gift do I
seek, but the fruit (ver. 17) ; and as regards what has been received from
you in the present instance, I have everything already, and need nothing
further." That this refers to the desire of the church to know what he
possibly still needed (Hofmann), is a very unnecessary assumption, —
drrexa di Travra] not : habeo autem omnia (Vulgate) ; not a mere acknmv-
ledgment of receipt (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs,
and others) ; nor yet equivalent to irspiaasia (Rheinwald) ; but, in keep
ing with the sense of the compound : I have everything atvay, so that I
have nothing left to desire at your hands.' Udvra, therefore, according
to the context {iini^vrd -i . ddpa, ver. 17), is : everything which I could desire,
although there is no necessity for introducing specially, with Chrysostom
and Oecumenius, rd 'sXXeupBivra 'ev ra irapeXddvn ;i;pdvu. The emphasis,
moreover, is laid, not on Trdvra, but on dTre;ifu, in contrast to im^vreiv. —
Kal rrepiaasia] and my wants are thus so fully satisfied, that I have over. —
rrerrXfipapai] forms a climax to irspiaa. . I ain full, I have abundance. The
gift must have been ample ; but gratitude sets this forth in all the
stronger a light. To ire-Xvp. is attached de^dyevo; k.t.X. — bayijv eiadia;
K.T.X.] This apposition to rd Trap' ipdv, expressing a judgment as to the
latter (see on Rom. xii. 1), sets forth, to the honor of the givers, the rela
tion in which the gifts received stand towards God, by whom they are
esteemed as a sacrifice well-pleasing to Him. As to bapij siadia;, smell of a
sweet savor, nn'J n'1 (genitive of quality), which is used oi free-will offer
ings, see on Eph. v. 2. It describes the thing according to its effect on
God, namely, that it is acceptable to Him ; Bvalav k.t.X., however, describes
it according to what it is. — dsKrvv, evdpear.] acceptable, well-pleasing, a
vividly asyndetic chmax (on the former, comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 7) ; ra Geu,
however, applies to the whole apposition bapiyv . . . siap. The asyndetic
IComp. Philem. 15; Matt vi. 2, 6, 16; Luke iii. 24. 17; Jacobs, ad Anthol. "VIL pp. 276,
Ti. 24; Callim. ep. 22; Arnan. Epict. iii. 2. 13, 298.

184 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
juxtaposition of several eiiithets is frequent also in classical authors, from
Homer onward,' As to the view, originating in the 0. T., which regards
works well-pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see the expositors on
Rom, xii, 1; 1 Pet, ii, 5 ; Heb. xiii, 16.^
Ver. 19, The thought starts from rd eeu. But God, to whom your
gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will recompense you. — Paul
says d de Gedf pov (comp. i. 3), because lie himself had been the recipient
of that which they had brought as a sacrifice pleasing to God ; as his God
(to whom he belongs and whom he serves, comp. on Bom. i. 8), therefore,
will God carry out the recompense. — -/.vpuaei] used with significant ref
erence to -e~?.yp., ver. 18, according to the idea of recompense. Not,
however, a ivish (hence also in Codd. aud in the A'ulgate tiie reading
irXvpdaai), as Chrysostom, Luther, and others take it, but a promise. — •
Trduav xpeiav ipdv] likewise corresponding to the service which the
readers had rendered ; for they had sent eif 7;)v xp^'ov (ver. 16) of the
apostle. To be understood as : evei'y need which ye have, not nierely
bodily (so usually, following Chrysostom, who explains it as the fulfillment
of the fourth petition, also van Hengel, de AA'ette, AA'iesinger), and not
merely spiritual (Pelagius, Rilliet, also mainly AA'eiss), but as it stands ;
every need. It is not, however, an earthly recompense which is meant
(Hofmann), but (comp. on ver. 17) the recompense in the Messiah's king
dom, where, in the enjo3'ment of the aarvpia, the highest satisfaction of
every need (comp. on TrA^p. xpeiav, Thuc. i. 70. 4, and AA'etstein in loc.)
shall have set in amidst the full, blessed sufficiency of the eternal Cu^
(comp. Rom. viii. 17 f ; Rev. xxi. 4).' There are specifications of this
satisfaction in the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v. ;
comp. especially the x°P'^<"'^>loeaBs and ye?MaeTs, Luke vi. 21, also the oi
pv di-ijiiiarj eif ror aiuva ill John iv. 14, and the sarcastic KSKopsayivoi in 1
Cor. iv. 8. That it is the Messianic satisfaction in the 'sXsvBep'ia rij; dd^vQ
TUV rsKvav rov Bsov (Rom. viii. 21), in the possession of the TrAovrof tv;
dd^Vi rij; KXvpovoyia; avrov (Eph. i. 18), wllich is tO be thought of, Paul
himself states by ev dd^ri, which is to be taken as instrumental (Eph. i. 23,
V. 18) and dependent on irXvp. : with glory, whereby the Messianic is indi
cated. Hofmann also, though he rejects the instrumental view, comes
ultimately to it : " Therewith and thus will God fulfill all their need, in that
He gives them glory."*' Others, who also correctly join the words with
1 Ameis z. Od. iv., Anh.. eternal life, where man even beholds God.and
2 Comp. Philo, de vit. Mos. II. p. l,il:-^yap where He is aM in all,isanything buta"mon-
oAijei)! 'lepovpyia Ti; av elij TrAiiJ. i|/vx^5 Seo^iXoiii strous thought."
eiiae^eia; pas.5ages from the Rabbins in ¦• In order, however, to bring out of the pas-
Sphoettg. Hor. p. 1006. sase, notwithstanding this iv B6ir,, the idea
a Hofmann very irrelevantly objects that it of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes
is out of place to speak of tcant in that king- S6(i mean tho glory of the children of God
dom. But just, in fact, on that account is the ^l>hich is hidden.from the world, and which is the
bliss of tlie kingdom the complete satisfaction fulfillment of every want only in proportion
ofeveryneed. Comp. Rev. vii. IGf; 2Tim.iv. "as there is lacking in us what, either corporalltj
7 f. Thus also is the perfect then put in the or spirituallii. is necessary for ihe completion of
place of that which is in part Consequently our divine sonship." Insteadof such arbitrary
the idea of the satisfaction of every xpeia in inventions, let us keep clearly before us how

CHAP. IV. 19-23. 185
rrXvp., take them as a modal definition : in a glorious way, that is, amply,
splendide, and the like. See Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many othei-s, in
cluding Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilhet, de AVette, AA'iesinger, AA'ei.ss.
But what an indefinite yet peculiarly affected, and withal — by its so
habitual reference elsewhere to the final judgment — misleading expres
sion would this be for so simple an idea I — And how far would it be
fi-om the apostle's mind, considering his expectation of the nearness of
the Parousia (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29, 31), to promise on this side of it a hearty
recompense, which was to take place, moreover, iv Xptara 'Ivaov ! An
appeal is wrongly made to 2 Cor. ix. 8, where an increase of means for
further well-doing, to be granted through God's blessing, and not the
recompense, is the point under discussion. Others erroneously join iv
dd^Ti -n-ith rb -XxniTo; airov (Grotius, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, and others) :
"pro amplissimis suis divdiis, id est, potestate sua omnia excedeute,"
Heinrichs. It is true that sv dd^ij might be attached without a connect
ing article (according to the combination rrXjrvrslv 'sv nvi, 1 Tim. \i. 8 ;
comp. 1 Cor. i. 5 ; 2 Cor. ix. 11) ; but Paul alwaj-s connects TrAovrof with
the genitive of the thing, and rr'/xivro; rij; dd^v; in particular, said of God,
is so constantly used by him, that it seems altogether unwarranted to as
sume the expression -'/.ovro; iv ddfj in this passage. See Rom. ix. 23 ;
Eph. i. IS, iii. 16 ; Col. i. 27. He would have written : icard rb rrXovro;
rv; dd^v; airoi; comp. Rom. ix. 23. — Kara rb -Xovro; airov] that is, in con
formity with His being so rich, and consequently having so much to give.
Comp. Eom. x. 12, xi. 33. This assures what is promised. — cv Xpiard
'Ivaoi] definition annexed to -Xvpdaei . . . ddfj ; that which is promised
has its causal ground in Christ, who by His work has acquired for be
lievers the eternal dd^a. Chi-ist is, in fact, v iX-l; rv; dd^v;, Col. i. 27.
A'er. 20. The conception of the superabundant salvation, which Paul
has just promised from God, forces fi-om his heart a doxology. — ;ro-pi]
through Christ, in virtue of our vioBsaia, Rom. vdii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 5. As to r.
ecu ;.. -arpi fia. comp. on Gal. i. h.—v ddfa] sc. siv, the befitting glory. See
on Eph. iii. 21 ; Eom. xi. 36, xvi. 27. et al. — eif roi-f a'liiv. ruv aiuv,] Gal. i,
5; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11, v. 11, and
frequently in Rev. As to the analysis of the expression, see on Eph. m.
21. ,
Vv. 21-23. ndvra d> tov] every one, no one in the church being excepted,
—a point which is more definitely expressed by the smgular.'— iv X. 'L]
is not to be joined to dyiov (so usually, as by Rhemwald, Hoelemann,
Matthies, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to
darrda. (comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. x^•i. 19), denotmg the specifically
great a weight in the very word of primise, - Since Paul does not here express ss in
which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies other cases (Rom. xvi. 1, ; ^ y°^-^^\^''
in the fact that the grand aim of all promise and Cor. xiiL 12), the conception o( mutual _ alul^
*opa,le.the gloryof eternal life (Rom. v. 2, tion (iAA^AovO, he has '.^ ."'^3';«; ^^^tle
vm. IS, 21, ix 2371 Cor. XV. 4,3; 2 Cor. iv. 17; view the immedia e recipients of the e^i^tle
Col. iii. 4: and many other pa^.^ases), is once (pr..shyters and deacons, l 1). So also
more presented to the reader's view. Thess. v. 26.

186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Christian salutation, iu conveying which the consciousness lives in Christ.
This is the connection adopted by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Heinrichs, Rilliet,
Wiesinger, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot, and it is the right one, since
with d)'(ov it is self-evident that Christians are meant, and there would be
no motive for specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in
the address i. 1, where roi; dyloi; iv X. 'I. bears a cert&in formal character.'
— 01 avv ipol ddsXip.] is the narrower circle of those Christians who were
round the apostle in Rome, including also the official colleagues who were
with him, though there is no ground for understanding these alone (Chry
sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even point
ing distinctly to Timothy, Linu^, and Clement. The difficulty, which has
been raised in this case by a comparison of ii. 20, is unfounded, since, in
fact, the expression in ii. 20 excludes neither the giving of a salutation
nor the mention of brethren ; groundless, therefore, are the attempted
solutions of the difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either
ii, 20 is meant oi irspl rdv ev ry irdXei, or that Paul oi irapairslrai Kal roirav;
dde7iipov; KaXslv (comp, Oecumenius, who brings forward the latter as a
proof of the ar:'Xdyxva of the apostle). Misapprehending this second and
in itself correct remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction
being drawn between two classes of companions in office, namely, travel
ing companions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas, and those who were
resident in the places where the apostle sojourned (among whom van Hengel
reckons in Rome, Clement, Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epaphroditus),
and holds that only the latter class is here meant. The limits of the
narrower circle designated by ol avv iyol dd. are not at all to be definitely
drawn, Estius well says : " Qui , . . mihi vincto ministrant, qui me visi
tant, qui mecum hic in evangelic laborant." — irdvre; ol dyioi] generally,
all Christians who are here ; comp, on 2 Cor, xiii, 12 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20. —
pdXiara di] but most of all, pre-eminently ; they have requested the apostie
to give special prominence to their salutation.' AAHiether these persons
stood in any personal relations to the Philippians, remains uncertain. It
is enough to assume that Paul had said to them much that was honor
able concerning the church to wliich he was about to write. — oi 'sk rij;
Kaiaapo; o'lKia;] SC. dytoi, as is plain from the connection Avith the preceding
(in opposition to Hofmann) : those from the emperor's house (from the Pala-
tium, see Bottger, Beitr. II. p. 49) who belong to the saints. We have to
think of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to Grotius,
Hitzig, and others : freedmen), who dwelt, or at least loere employed, in the
palace. In this way there is no need for departing from the immediate
meaning of the word, and taking it in the sense of household (Hofmann).
In no case, however, can we adopt as the direct meaning of o'lma the sense
of domestic sei-vants, a meaning which it does not bear even in Xen. Mem.
ii. 7. 6; Joseph. Antt. xvi. 5. 8; and Tac. Hist. ii. 92;" domestic servants

I Comp. Plat. Critias, p. 108 D : tous re oWoos service of the emperor : " in domum Caesaris
Kk-ririov Kai 5r) Kal Ta p.aKiara MKijfioo'iJi'i)!/. transgressi." Como. Herodian, iii. 10. 9 :
2 Where it is said of those who entered the nplv e'l, r'ov ^aaiKeiov oikov rrapeKSelv

CHAP. IV. 21-23. 187
would be oiKETem. Others have taken o'lKia, in accordance -with current
usage, a.s family (1 Cor. xvi. 15, and frequently), and have understood kins-
Wien of the emperor, a meaning which in itself seems by no means shown
by i'hilo in Flacc. p. 190 A to be at variance A\-ith linguistic usage ' (in
opposition to Hofmann). So recently Baur, who needed this point for his
combinations against the genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengel,^ But
apartfrom the fact that through Xero himself this family was greatly dimin
ished, and that conversions among those related to the emperor were a
priori (comp. also 1 Cor. i. 26 ff.) very improbable, doubtless some histori
cal traces of such a striking success would have been preserved in
tradition.' Matthies, quite arbitrarily, understands the Praetorians, as if
Paul had written : oi iK rov irpairapiov (i. 13). This also applies, in oppo
sition to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420, who, considering the
Praetorium to be a portion of the palace (see remark on i. 13), thinks the
apostle aUudes especially to the Praetorians. Those who transfer the
epistle to Caesarea (see Introduction, ? 2), suppose the Praetorium of Herod
in that place to be intended, and consequently also think of Praetorians,
Acts xxiii. 35 (Paulus, Bottger) ; or (so Eilliet) taking o'lKia as familia, of
administrators of the imperial private domain, called Caesariani or Pro-
curatores — a wiew against which the plural should have warned them ; or
even of " the family of the imperial freedman Felix " (Thiersch). AMiat
^erso?i«, moreover, were meant (various of the older expositors have even
included Seneca* among them), is a point just as unknown to us, as it was
1 For in Philo I. c it is .said regarding Herod from believing members of the imperial house in
Agrippa : " Even though he were not king, but the plural," etc. Thus does eriticifm, depart-
only one of the emperor's kinsmen (e« t^j ing from the solid ground of history, lose it-
Kalaapos oUias), it would still be necessary to self in the atmosphere of subjective mven-
prefer and honor him." tion^- ''^here hypothesis finds no longer either
s Whether Chrysostom and his successors support or limit Indeed, Baur now goes
nnderatood hereniembers of the imperial fam- furtlier beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and dis-
ily, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chry- covers that the mention of Clement even
sostom does not take the word itself, oitio, as throws a neic Ught over the whole plan of the
family, but explains it bv ri ^a<ri\eta, palace, epistle. With this Clement, namely, and the
knd finds in the salutation a purpose of en- participation, as attested by him, of the impe-
couragement: ei yip ol ev toU fiaaL\eio., iriv- rial house in the gospel, is given the ^poKo^
To.^ KaTeit>p6v^av Sti Tbv fiairiXia rihv oipavCv, To5 eiayy. (l. 12), and with the latter the feel-
.ToAAi ^iAAo- aiTo.:5 xp^ ^°Sro .rotetv. Comp. ing of Jo^ulnes-s, which expresses itself
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact. throughout the epistle as the ground-tone of
3 Certainly Baur believes that he has found the apostle (ii. 17 f , comp. iii. 1, iv. 1, 4, 10), and
these trace* in sufficient number. Flarius which is again and again the refrain of each
Clemens namelv was a kinsman of Domitian separate section. Only by the preponderance
(see on ver 3) "xow since out of this Clement of this feeling is it to be explained that the
grew the Clemen* Bomanus of Christian tra- author makes his apostle even express the
dition the latter also mast have been a kins- hope of a speedy liberation (u. 24). But mth
man of the imperial family, as indeed the this joy there is also blended, ivith a neutral-
HomiL aement iv. 7. comp. xiv. 10, designate izing effect, the idea of a nearly approaching
him as iviip ,po, yivov, Tipepioo Kaiaapo,. death, i. -3^24, and this divided state of mmd
He therefore would be exactly the man, in between life and death betrays an author
whom Christianity was represented in the " u^ho had already before his eyes as an actual
circle of the imperial house iteelf. "Cbn- facttheendo/theapostle,ichichrcasso far from
eluding frmn one tliat there uiere several, the harmoniring uiith all tlusepresupp^tions.''
authJofVieepisttemightmakehisaposUeuiHte <See gener^Uy on Paul and Seneca, and
earnest' salut^ions to the church in Philippi the apocij-phal fourteen Latin letters ex-

188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIaJsS.
well known to the Phihppians or became known to them through Epaph
roditus. The general result is, that people from the imperial palace were
Christians, and that those could obtain access to the apostle probably with
special ease and frequency ; hence their especial salutation. The question
also, whether one or another of the persons saluted in Rom. xvi, should
be understood as included here (see especially J. B. Lightfoot, p. 173 ff,),
must remain entirely undecided. Calvin, moreover, well points to the
working of the divine mercy, in that the gospel "in illam scelerum
omnium et flagitiorum abyssum penetraverit," — v xopic r. Kvp. 'I, X,] see
on Gal, i, 6, — perd irdvrav iy.] Comp, Eom, xvi. 24 ; 1 Cor, xvi, 24 ; 2 Cor.
xiii, 13 ; 2 Thess. iii. 18 ; Tit. iii. 15.

JfoTES BY American Editok,
XX, Vv, 1-3,
(a) The direct connection of dars is, evidently, with the verses immediately
precedino;, and through them with iii, 17. The exhortation of that verse, how
ever, is founded, as we must believe, upon the verses which next precede it — at
least, upon vv. 12-10 ; and as these verses are but the development of what goes
before them, the thought is carried back to the early part of the third chapter. —
(6) ovra; anJKsrs. The connection being as above, oiiruf must refer to a standing
fast in the Lord after the same manner with himself, and thus after the manner
indicated in the preceding chapter, especially vv. 7-11 and 12-16. The allusion
in iii. 20 to the fact that " our iroXirevya is in heaven " as a reason for their imi
tating him, may possibly suggest that the Apostle had still in his mind the thought
of iroXirei'ea&e dfiuf rov siayjeXiov (i. 27) — but iroXirevya probably varies in its
immediate sense here from that found in the verb ofi. 27. The same thing moy
possibly be suggested, also, by the fact, that, as he turns to individual exhortations
in ver. 2 H., his first expression is ippovelv rb avrd (comp. ii. 2). — (c) The fact that
a digression or an inserted passage begins with iii. 2 and extends through the third
chapter, or even includes iv. 1, and the fact that ver. 4 takes up the closing words
of iii. 1 a, xaipere iv Kvpia, point to the conclusion that vv. 2, 3 have a somewhat
closer connection -\vith ver. 1, and thus that the exhortations of these verses are
special ones tn the individuals named, which are deemed essential to their stand
ing in the Lord as they should. — (d) The view of Meyer with regard to the -word
aii,vys is adopted by Canon Farrar (Life of St. Paul) and considered favorably by
Alford, who hesitates between it and that which supposes some fellow-laborer of
the Apostle (as Timothy or Epaphroditus) to be referred to. Conyb. and Howsou
say it is " not without plausibility." Grimm (Lex. N. T.), as Meyer states in his
note, adopts it. So also Jatho. W. and H. place the word as a proper name
in their margin. It is not improbably the correct view. The reference of the
word to Epaphroditus seems very improbable, especially if he was the bearer of the
epistle to Philippi, It is difficult to believe that the Apostle would have written
in his letter an exhortation of this character, and in this form, to a person who
changed between them, Baur in Hilgenfeld's p, 268 ff., 327 ff. ; latest edition of the text of
Zeitschr. 1858, 2. 3; Eeuss in Herzog's Ency- these epistles in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1867,
iipp. XIV. p, 274 ff, ; J, B, Lightfoot, Exc. IL p, 609 ff.

NOTES. 189
was with him at the time of writing, and was himself to carry it to the church.
The supposition that there was a chief bishop in PhiUppi, and that Epaphroditus
held this office, wliich is favored by some writers, cannot fairly be regarded as finding
any sure support in this verse. If we consider the word as a proper name, every
difficulty is removed, and there is no objection to this view except the fact that
the name is not found elsewhere. This fact must be allowed its proper weight,
but is by no means decisive. XXI. A>. 4-9.
(a) E. A', translates xoipere rejoice, in the text, but adds a marginal note. Or
farewell. A. E. \. omits this marginal note. Lightf. combines the tw-o meanino-s
in the word, regarding it as both a parting benediction and an exhortation.
This view, however, is opposed by the following considerations: (1) the fact that
joy and rejoicing appear as very prominent thoughts in the epistle ; (2) the
improbability that, after having once used the expression in the sense of farewell,
and then, under some influence, having been led to add a passage covering a,
whole chapter, he should again use it S3 long before the end of the letter; (3) the
somewhat close connection of vv. 6-8, in their fundamental thought, with the
idea of joy in the Lord ; (4) the use of the words rejoiced (or, as epist. aorist,
rejoice) in the Lord in ver. 10, where the words, of course, cannot have the sense of
farewell. The ird'/uv points backward to iii. 1, and so the xaipere of that ver^e
also has only the meaning rejoice. — (6) rd imeiKi; {^=ti 's-te'iKzia 2 Cor. x. 1 ; Acts
xxiv. 4) is explained by Trench (Syn. X. T.) as "that yieldingness which recog
nizes the impossibility which formal law -will be in, of anticipating and providing
for all those cases that will emerge and present themselves to it for decision, . , ,
which therefore urges not its own rights to the uttermost." He derives it from
elKu to yield. Webster (.Syn. X. T.) gives the adjective the sense of making allow
ance, forbearing, not insisting on, just rights. Grimm, L & S, and others, deriving
from ci/cdf, regard the adj. as meaning fitting, suitable, reasonable, gentle, and the
noun as signifying rea-ionableness, fairness, equity, gentleness. Tlie word moderation
by which it is translated in this place by A. V., though akin to it, is a more gen
eral word, and does not answer to its distinctive meaning. In Acts xxiv. 4, it
means clemency ; in 2 Cor. x. 1. gentleness. This latter word is given by K. V. as
a marginal rendering here, while forbearance is placed in the text. Possibly the
two ideas may be combined, or possibly the Apostle had in mind the thought of
reasonableness, as contrasted with the strict pressing for, and insisting upon, one's
own rights in one's dealing with others.
(c) Ver. 5 b. In view of the usage of Paul respecting the word Kipio; and the
kindred expressions elsewhere (comp. especially Bun. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. xvi. 22 ^,
there can be little doubt that the reference in this sentence is to the second coming,
which Bp. Ellicott says, "the inspired apostle regards as nigh," though he adds "yet
not necessarily as immediate, or to happen in his own life-time." W. and H,
place a period before these words and a colon after them: thus apparently indi
cating their opinion to be that they belong with the following exhortation.
Tirch., on the other hand, places a colon before the words and a period after them,
and favors a connection with what goes before. Alf, Ell., and some others would
connect with both the preceding and following sentences. This last view may
probablv be correct, as, in this way, the words become a sort of uniting link, to
bind the whole passage together. In relation to what precedes — the fact of the

190 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Lord's coming would be a natural motive for the reasonableness referred to. The
right adjustment of all things would then take place, and, in the intervening time,
the Christian might well be imeiKv;. With regard to what follows— the same
thought would tend to free their minds from anxiety and give them peace in all
circumstunces. (d) The view of Meyer respecting pspipvdrs (which he also maintains in Matt.
vi. 2-5) is inconsistent with the N. T. idea of this word— which is not that of care,
but of anxious care which distracts and harasses the soul. Comm. generally give
the word the latter sense.— (e) Lightf. agrees substantially, though not precisely,
with Meyer as to the meaning of irrspixovaa irdvra vovv. He says "surpassing
every device or counsel of man, i.e. which is far better, which produces a higher
satisfaction, than all punctilious self-assertion, all anxious forethought." Lumby,
with a similar vie-iv, saj-s, " It is better than all that the wit of man or his fore
thought can devise, and therefore to be preferred before the results -ivhich can be
gained by over-anxiety for worldly things." The explanation of Meyer, if this
general view be adopted, is perhaps nearer to the exact sense of the words: —
" which is able more tban any [human] reason to elevate above all solicitude."
The iirepixeiv according to this view is, as Meyer says, a virepixeiv rij dmdpsi. The
decision between this explanation of the words and the more common one — "passes
the power of the human understanding to comprehend it " — will depend largely
on the question whether the words " and the peace of God," &c,, are to be regarded
as a ground for the exhortation " be not anxious, but," &c., or simply as an added
assurance or promise. If the latter is what the Apostle intends, as seems probable,
the incomprehensibleness of the Divine peace may most fitly be presented to the
reader's thought, — (/) ippovpvaei is, as Meyer remarks, quite general in its appli
cation ; and yet w-e can scarcely doubt, in ^view of the main idea of the two
verses, that the guarding w-hicli should keep the mind tranquil, whatever might
occur, was prominent in the Apostle's thought as he made use of the general ex
pression which would also cover the whole sphere of life,
{g) That vv, 8, 9 belong to the same passage or paragraph with the preceding
verses is rendered probable both by rb Xoiirdv and the closing words of ver, 9. Td Xoi
rrdv, by the position which it holds, must — even if suggested by the same phrase in iii.
1, and looking towards an ending of the epistle — have a certain final relation to
the exhortations just given. The designation of God as the God of peace un
doubtedly points backward to the peace spoken of in ver, 7, These verses, thus,
contain a concluding and comprehensive exhortation, which most appropriately
gathers up into itself the whole sum of Christian morality — the -whole sum of what,
in such an affectionate and personal letter, the writer would urge upon his readers.
To think of and to do these things — to meditate upon them as characteristic of
Christian living, and practise them as they had heard them presented in his
teachins. or seen them exemplified in his manner of life — would make them
always rejoice in the Lord, and would make his on-n joy complete ; and this re
sult — the perfecting of their joy and his — was w-hat he hoped to accomplish by
his letter. XXII, Vv. 10—19,
(a) di (ver. 10) introduces this passage as something which he would not close
his letter without mentioning. — (6) ixapryv may be an epist. aor., or it may refer
to the feeling which he had when the gift arrived. — (c) Meyer's explanation of

NOTES. 191
ive^dXsTs as used intransitively is, undoubtedly, to be adopted. His arguments
for the reference of it to the revival of their prusperity, rather than of their care-
taking love, are strong and render that reference not improbable. But they cannot
be regarded as decisive, inasmuch as the impulse to aid him, which was awakened
mto activity by the opportunity offered through the journey of Epaphroditus to
Rome, might suitably be spoken of as a reviving of their interest, and this without
denymg the continued existence, during all the past period, of such an interest as
would have been eqhidly active, had a similar opportumty presented itseh at any
time.— (d) As to Meyers view respecting the construction of rd i-ip ipov as re
lated to oporeii.-, there is much more room for question. His explanation of this
point is ingenious, and it must be allowed to le pcssibly correct. But the separa
tion of the infinitive from the article ii not in accordance with the ordinary usage
in snch cases, and, as Ell, remarks, it involves a somewhat undue emphasis on
-d iirip ipoi. It is certainly not necessary to adopt Meyer's construction because
of the point which he urges in connection with the relative u, for this pronoun-
even if TO belongs to opoi-eii — may refer, not indeed grammatically, but accord
ing to the sense, to that which is suggested in irrip ipov, namely, Paul's well-
being. — (e) The determination of the reference of vKoipslaBs — whether to the un
favorable condition of their means, or to the want of an opportunitv for sending a
gift — will be in accordance with the view taken of di-ei?d/.ere. In itself considered,
the verb ijKaip would seem, by its derivation and fundamental meaning, to favor
the latter idea rather than the former. — (/) iaTipr,aiv (ver. 11) refei?, as Mever
says, to the subjective state of need, the felt want. This is indicated by the whole
passage from ver. 11 to ver. 13. — g) sua-&ov. This verb shows that the result here
mentioned was what his experience and the pro2:ress ¦ f years had accomplished
for him. He had learned to be in that state of mind which he had just commended
to his readers in vv. fi, 7. He had been fully initiated into the mystery of it
{.usyi-Tjucu). — (h) 'laxia iravra is a general expression, starting, no doul t, from the
thought of the things just alluded to. but reaching out beyond these into the whole
range of the Christian life. — (i) ¦^'/.i-i'si. The Apostle has learned to be content in
tribulation, but not to regard it as other than it is ; to be self-sufficing, so far r.s
dependence on aid from other men is concerned, bnt not to be indifferent to the
love shown in such aid, or regardless of the Christian duty and fitness of rendering
it to those in distress. — {j) It seems unnecessary to explain ddasu; Kal /Jp-sac as
Meyer dora. The giving of money on the part of the Phihppians and the re
ceiving of it on Pauls part make the two sides of the account and sufficiently an
swer the demands of the figure. — k) In ver. 17 the words eif /Jr/ov vpav must be
connected in thought wilh the same expression in ver. 1-5. We must explain Kap-
~d» accordingly. He declares that he does not desire the gift, as« placed on the
receiving side of the account between himself and them, but, in the blessing which
it wlU bring to the giver, as placed on the giving side. 'Kap-ov refers to the recom
pense to be divinely bestowed at the end : perhaps also, to the blessing which at
tends and foUows benevolence in this Ufe. Ver. 19 makes the former reference
probable, to the exclusion of the latter. — d' The ISth and 19th verses very
strikinglv exliibit the love which the Apostle had for the PhUippian Church and
the close relations of friendship in which they stood to each other. The ground
of the doxolo2-v in ver. 20, as we may believe, is the joy which he had in the
thought, that such an abundant supply of every want of the hearts of these loved
and generous friends would be given them by God in the glory of the future.

THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

INTRODUCTION.'
SEC. I.— THE CHUECH.

ITH the exception of the Epistle to the Eomans, the letter now
before us is the only one of all the epistles of Paul that have
been preserved, which is addressed to a church that was
neither founded by Paul himself nor even subsequently visited
by him in person (see on i. 7, ii. 1), although the Colossian Philemon
was his immediate disciple (Philem. 19), and the Book of Acts relates
that the apostle passed through Phrygia on two occasions (Acts xvi. 6,
xviii. 23). There, in Phrjgia Magna on the Lycus, was situate Kolossae,
or Kolossae (see the critical remarks on i. 2). It is designated by Herodo
tus, -vii. 30, as rrdXt; yeydXv, and by Xenophon, Anab. i. 2. 6, as sidalpav k.
psydXv ; but, subsequently, as compared with the cities of Apamea and
Laodicea which had become great {psyicrai . . . irdXsi;, Strabo xii. 8, p. 576),
it became so reduced, that it is placed by Strabo, I. c, only in the list of
the Phrygian rroXiayara, and by Phny, N. H. v. 41, only among the oppida,
although celeberrima. According to the Eusebian Chronicle and Oros. vii.
7, italso was visited by the earthquake which,'according to Tacit. Ann. xix.
27, devastated Laodicea. This took place not so late as the tenth year of
Nero's reign (Eus. Chron,), or even the fourteenth (Orosius), but, accord
ing to Tacitus, in the seventh — about the same time t\ith the composition
' See Hofmann, Introduct. in lectionem ep. P. Introd. inep.ad Col. 1841 ; Klopper, De orig. ep.
ad Cbi. Lips. 1749 ; Bohmer, Isagoge inep.ad ad Eph. et Col. 1S53; 'Vf eissin Herzog's Encykl.
Col. Berol. 1829; Mayerhoff, Der Brief and. XIX. p,717ff.; Schenkel in his Bibeltex. III.
Kol. Icritisch gepriift, Berlin, 1838 ; Wiggers, d. p. 565 ff. ; Holtzmann, Krit. der Epheser- und
PerA. d. Ap. P. zu d. christi. Gem. in Kol. in the Kolosserbriefe, 1872.
Stud. u. KHL 1838, p. 165 ff.; Leo Montet,
13 193

194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
of our epistle, perhaps shortly afterwards, as the earthquake is not
mentioned in it. In the Middle Ages the city was again flourishing
under the name Chonae (Theophylact and Oecumenius on i. 2 ; Constant.
Porphyr. Them. i. 8) ; it is in the present day the village of Chonus (see
Pococke, Morgenl. III. p. 114 ; and geiieralh-, Mannert, Geogr. VI. 1, p.
127 f. ; Bohmer, Isag. p, 21 ff, ; Steiger, p. 13 ff,).
By whom the church — which consisted for the most part of Gentile
Christians, i. 21, 27, ii, 13 — 'was founded, is not unknown; Epaphras is
indicated by i. 7 f. as its founder, and not merely as its specially faithful
and zealous teacher. See the remark after i. 7 f. That it had received
and accepted the Pauline gospel, is certain from the whole tenor of the
epistle. It may be also inferred as certain from ii. 1 compared with Acts
xviii. 23, that the time of its being founded was subsequent to the visit to
Phrygia in Acts xviii. 23. From the address (i. 2) we are not warranted
to infer (with Bleek), that the body of Christians there had not yet been
constituted into a formal church; comp. on Eom. i, 7, It was so
numerous, that it had a section assembling in the house of Philemon
(Philem, 2).
SEC. IL— OCCASION, AIM, TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION,
CONTENTS.
The apostle had received through Epaphras, who had come to him (i,
7 f,, iv. 12; Philem. 23), detailed accounts of the condition of the church,
and of its perils and needs at that time, whereby he found himself
induced — and the removal of Epaphras from the church at the moment
certainly made the matter appear all the more urgent — to despatch
Tychicus, an inhabitant of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 4), to Colossae, and to
send with him this epistle (iv. 7 f., comp, Eph. vi, 21 f.). Tychicus was
also to visit the Ephesians, and to convey the letter written at the same
time to them (see on Eph. Introd. ^ 2). Tychicus was despatched at the
same time with Onesimus, the Colossian slave (iv. 9), who had to deliver
to his master Philemon the well-known letter from the apostle (Philem,
11 f.). Doubtless Onesimus also — who had come, although stiU as a
heathen, from Colossae to Paul — brought with him accounts as to the
state of matters there, as he had been a servant in a Christian household
amidst lively Christian intercourse (Philem. 2).
In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to the letter,
the aim of the apostle was not merely to confirm the church generally in
its Christian faith and life, but also to wain it against heretical perih by

INTRODUCTION. 1 9.5
which it was threatened. The false teachers whom he had in -s-iew were
Jeicish-Christians ; not, however, such as those who, as in Galatia and in
the neighborhood of PhiUppi (PhU. iii. 2 S.), restricting themselves to
the sphere of legal requii-ement and especially of the necessity of circum
cision, did away mth Christian freedom, the foundation of which is
justification by faith, — ^but such as had mixed up Christian Judaism with
theosophie speculation. While they likewise adhered to circumcision (u.
11), and to precepts as to meats and feasts (u. 16), to the prejudice of
Christ's atoning work (ii. 13 ff.), they at the same time — and this forms
their distinctive character — put forward a philosophy as to the higher spirit-
icorld, with the fancies and subtleties of which (u. 18) were combined, as
practical errors, a conceited humility, worship of angels, and unsparing
bodily asceticism (u. 2(.V2o) — extravagances of an unhealthy Gnosis, that
could not Ml to find a fruitful soil in the mystico-fenatical character of
the Phrygian people, which served as an appropriate abode formerly for
the orgiastic eultus of Cvbele, and subsequently for 3Iontaiiism.' These
theosophists, however, came most keenly into conflict with the exalted
rank and the redeeming work of Christ, to whom they did not leave His
fiiU di-^-ine dignity (as siKdw rov Oeov k.t.X., i. 1.5 ff.). but prefen-ed to as?ign
to Him merelj^ a rank in the higher order of spirits. whUe they ascribed
to the angels a certaiu action in bringing about the Messianic salvation,
entertaining, probably, at the same time, demiurgic ideas as to the creation
of the world. We must not conclude frijm i. li-. ii. 12, that they also
rejected the resurrection of Christ : into such an important point as this Paul
would have entered directly and at length, as in 1 Cor. xrs-. But that in
dualistic fashion they looked on matter as evil, may be reasonably inferred
from their adoration of spirits, and from their asceticism morti^dng the
body, as weU as from the at all events kindred phenomenon of later
Gnosticism. Attempts have been made in very different w.iys fo ascertain more
precisely the historical character of the Colossian false teachers, and on
this point we make the foUowing remarks : (1) They appear as Jewish-
Chrislians, not as Jews (in opposition to which see u. 19), which they were
held to be by Schoettgen, Eichhorn, and others, some looking on them as
Pharisees (Schoettgen ; comp. Schulthess, Engelwdt, p. 110 f.) ; others, as
indirect opponents of Chiistianity through the semblance of more than
iJhe theosoplue tendency, which haunted Galatians, of ai^nments denied from the 0. T.
Colossse, may help to explain the feet that Paul The epistle contains no quotation from Scrip-
does not make use, as in the Epistle to the ture.

196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
earthly sanctity (Eichhorn) ; others, as adherents of the Alexandrine Neo-
Platonism (doctrine of the Logos) (so Juncker, Kommentar, Introd. p. 43
ff.); others, as Chaldaeans or Magians (Hug); others, as syncretistic
universalists, who would have allowed to Christ a subordinate position in
their doctrinal structure and passed Christianity off as a stage of Judaism
(Sehneckenburger, last in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 840 f. ; in opposition
to him, Eheinwald, de pseudodoct. Coloss. Bonn, 1834). Just as little were
they adherents of a heathen philosophy, whether they might be looked upon
as of the Epicurean (Clemens Alexandrinus), or of the Pythagorean
(Grotius), or of the Platonic and Stoic (Heumann) school, or of no definite
school at all (Tertullian, Euthalius, Calixtus). (2) The right view of these
false teachers, in accordance with history, neeessarilj- carries us back to
Essenism. In opposition to the opinion that they were Christian Essenes
(so Chemnitz, Zachariae, Storr, Flatt, Credner, Thiersch, histor. Standp.
p. 270 f., Ritschl, Ewald, Holtzmann, et al), it is not to be urged that the
Essene washings, and various other peculiarities of Essenism, remain
unnoticed in the epistle ; or that the secluded and exclusive character
peculiar to this society, and the limitation of their abode to Syria and
Palestine, do not suit the case of the Colossian heretics; or that the
hypocrisjf, conceit, and persuasiveness which belonged to the latter do not
harmonize with the character of the Essenes, as it is otherwise attested.
These difficulties are got rid of by comparison with the Eoman ascetics
(Rom, xiv,), who likewise were Essene Jewish-Christians, only more
unprejudiced and inoffensive than these Asiatics, whose peculiar character,
which had already received a more Gnostic development and elaboration,
was of a philosophic stamp, addicted to rhetorical art, full of work-piety
and hypocrisy, and therefore fraught with more danger to Pauline Chris
tianity, the greater the opportunity they had, just then whilst the great
apostle was himself far away and in bonds, of raising their head. Now,
if at that time the Essene influence was not at all unfrequent among the
Jews, and thence also among Jewish-Christians (see Ritschl, altkath Kirche,
p. 232 ff,, and in the Theolog. Jabrb. 1855, p. 355), and if, beyond doubt, the
theosophy of the Essenes — kindred with the Alexandrine philosophy,
although in origin Jewish — and their asceticism (see Joseph. Bell, u, 8 ;
Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, p. 876 ff. ; Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 11 ff.), as
well as their adherence to their tradition (Joseph. I.e. ii. 8. 7 ; comp.
Credner, Beitr. I, p, 369), are very much in accord with the characteristic
marks of our heretics (comp, generally Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I, p. 286 ff.), the
latter are "with justice designated as Jewish-Christian Gnostics, or more

LNTEODUCnON. 197
accurately, as Gnostics addicted to an Essene tendency.' This designation
however, is not to be taken in the sense of any subsequentiy elaborated
System, but must be undei-stood as intimating that in the doctrines of our
theosophists there were apparent the -widely-spread, and especiaUy in
Essenism strongly-asserted, elements of Gnosticism, out of which the
formal Gnostic systems were afterwards gradually and variously developed
(comp. Bohmer, Isag. p. 56 ff. ; Neander, Gelegenheitsschr. p. 40 ff. ; Schott,
Isag. p. 272 ; Weiss, I.e. p. 720 ; Grau, I.e. ; Holtzmann, p, 296 ff, ; Clemens in
Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871, p. 418 ff,). Among the latter, the Cerinthian
doctrine in particular is, in various points, closely aUied with that com
bated in our epistle (comp. F. Nitzsch on Bleek, Varies, p, 15 f, ; Lipsius,
d. Gnosticismus, 1860, p. 81 f.), although we are not justified in
considering with Mayerhoff that this polemic was already directed
against Cerinthus and his adherents, and thence arguing against the
genuineness of the epistle. A similar judgment is to be formed regarding
their relation to the Valentinians, who often appealed to the Epistle to the
Ephesians ; and Baur leaps much too rapidly to a conclusion, when he
thinks {Paulus, II, p. 4 ff.) that in the Colossian false teachers are to be
found the Gnostic Ebionites (who no doubt originated from Essenism) —
thereby making our epistle a product of the fermentation of the post-
apostolic age, and connecting it as a spurious twin-letter with that to the
Ephesians. Holtzmann forms a much more cautious judgment, when he
takes his stand at a preliminary stage of Gnosticism ; but even this he
places in the post-apostolic age, — a. position which the less admits of proof,
seeing that we have no other letter from the later period of the apostle's
life before the letters of the capti-vity and subsequent to that to the
Romans, and possess for comparison no letter of Paul at all addressed to
those regions where the Gnostic movements had their seat. The false
teachers have, moreover, been designated as Cabbalistic (Herder, Kleuker,
Osiander in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 1S34, 3, p, 96 ff,) ; but this must likewise be
restricted to the effect that the theosophie tendency generally, fhe special
E^ene-Christian shape of which Paul had to combat, may have probably
been at bottom akin to the subsequently developed Cabbala, although
the origin of this Jemsh metaphysics is veiled ia obscurity, (3) We must
decidedly set aside, were it only on account of the legal strictness of the
men in question, the assumption of Michaelis, that they were disciples of
Apollos, to whom Heinrichs adds also disciples of John, as well as Essenes
IComp. Grau, Entwictcelungsgesch. d. n. t. Schriftth. U. p. 145 ff.; Lipsius in Schenkel's
Bibel-Lexu. IL p. 498.

198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and other Judaistic teachers, and even a malevolum hominum genus ex
ethnids—oi which, in itself extremely improbable, medley the epistie itself
contains no trace. (4) In contrast to all previous attempts to classify the
Colossian false teachers, Hofmann prefers to abide by the position that
they were Jewish Christians, " who, starting from the presupposition that
the Gentile Christians, in their quality as belonging to Ethnicism, were
subject to the spirits antagonistic to God which ruled therein, recom
mended — with a view to complete their state of salvation, which, it was
alleged, in this respect needed supplement — a sanctification of the out
ward life, based partiy on the Sinaitic law, partly on dogmas of natural
philosophy." But this cannot be made good as an adequate theory by
the explanation of the characteristic individual traits, since, on the
contrary, that theosophico-Judaistic false teaching presents sufficient
evidences of its having its historical root in Essenism, and its further
development and diversified elaboration in the later Gnosticism, provided
that with unprejudiced exegesis we follow the apostle's indications in
regard to the point ; see especially on ii. 16-23.
In date and place of composition our epistle coincides with that to the
Ephesians, and is, like the latter, to be assigned not, in conformity with
the usual opinion, to the Roman, but to the Caesarean captivity of the
apostle. See on Eph. Introd. I 2. In opposition to this view,' de Wette,
Bleek, and others attach decisive importance specially to two points : (1)
That what Paul says in Col, iv, 3, 11 of his labors for the gospel harmo
nizes with Acts xxviii, 31, but not with his sojourn in Caesarea, Acts xxiv,
23, But iv, 11 contains no special statement at all as to the labors of the
apostle in captivity, and as to iv, 3 we must observe that he there expresses
the longing for future free working. The latter remark applies also in
opposition to Wieseler {Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420) and Hofmann,
who likewise regard iv. 3 f. as decisive in favor of the Roman captivity,
while Hofmann finds the statement as to Mark and Jesus contained in iv.
11 incompatible with the situation in Caesarea (but see in loc). In assum
ing that the conversion of the Gentile Onesimus (Philem, 10) is incom
patible with the statement in Acts xxiv, 23, Wieseler infers too much from
the words ruv 'tdlav airov (Acts xxiv, 23), especially as the intention of a
liberal custody is obvious in the arrangement of Felix, (2) That in Pome
Paul might have thought of the journey to Phrygia hoped for at Philem.
iWliich.withHausrath, Laurent, and others, Hofmann rejects our view, and Holtzmann
Sabatier also {I'apUre Paul, 1870, p, 193 ff,) pre- does not find it the more probable,
fers, while Weiss leaves the point undecided.

INTEODUCriON. 199
22, but not in Caesarea (comp. Hofinann, p. 217), where, accorduig to Acts
xix. 21, Eom. i. 13, xv. 23 ff.. Acts xxiu. 11, he had the design of gouig to
Kome, but a return to Asia Minor would have been, after his languao-e in
Act,? XX. 25, far from his thoughts. But although certainly, when he
spoke the words recorded iu Acts xx. 25. a return to Asia was far from his
thoughts, nevertheless this idea might subsequently occm- to him just as
easily at Caesarea as at Pome; indeed more ea.sily, for, if Paul had been
set free at Caesarea, he could combine his intended jom-ney to Rome -with
a passage through Asia. There is no doiibt that when at Rome he
expressed the hope (PhU. u. 24) of again visiting the scene of his former
labors ; but why should he not have done the same when at Caesarea, so
long, namely, as his appeal to the emperor had not taken place ? See also
on PhUem. 22. — If our epistle was written in Caesarea, the time of its com
position was the year 60 or 61, while the procuratorship was still in the
hands of Felix.
As regards the contents of the epistie, after the salutation (i. 1 f.), a
thanksgiving (i. 3^S). and intercessoiy prayer (i. 9-12), Paul passes on
(ver. 12) to the blessedness of the redemption which his readers had
obtained through Chi-ist, whose dignity and work are earnestly and very
sublimely set before then- minds with reference to the dangers arising from
heresy (i. 13-23). Next Paul testifies to, and gives the grounds for, the joy
which he now felt in his sufferings as an apostle (i. 24-29). By way of
preparation for his warnings against the false teachers, he next expresses
his great care for his readers and all other Chiistian? who do not person-
aUy know him, as concerns their Christian advancement (ii. 1-3), and
then subjoins the warnings themselves in detail (U. 4-23). Next follow
moral admonitions (iii. 1-iv. 6) ; a commendatory mention of Tychicus
and Onesimus (iv. 7-9) ; salutations -n-ith commendations and injunctions
(iv. 10-17) ; and the conclusion appended by the apostle's o-wn hand (ver.
18). SEC. IH.— GENTTNENESS.
Even if it be aUowed that the apparent allusions to our Epistle which
one might find in the apostohc Fathers (CTement, Bamabas, Ignatius) are
uncertain, and that even the mention of -oi^-totoko; rrdav; ktIosu; in Justin
Mart. c. Tryph. p. 311 (comp. p. 310, 326), and TheophU. ad Autol. ii. 31,
may be independent of Col. i. 15, still the external attestation of our Epistle
is so ancient, continuous, and general (Marcion, the school of Valentinus ;
Irenaeus, Haer'.ni. 14. 1 and v. 14. 2, who first cites it by name; Canon
Murat. ; Clem. Al, Strom, i. p, 277, iv. p. 499, v. p. 576, \i. p. 645 ; Tert.

200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Praescr. 7, de resurr. 23 ; Origen, c. Cels. v. 8, etc.), that no well-founded
doubt can from this quarter be raised.
But modern criticism has assailed the Epistle on internal grounds ; and
the course of its development has been as follows. Mayerhoff {d. Brief an
die Kol. mit vornehml. Berucksicht. d. Pastoralbr. kritisch gepriift, Berl. 1838)
assumed the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, to the prejudice
of our Epistle (de Wette inverts the procedure to the prejudice of the
Ephesian Epistle) ; Baur, on the other hand {Paulus, II, p. 8 ff.), rejected
both the cognate Epistles ; comp, also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. II. p.
325 ff. According to Weisse {philos. Dogmat. I. p, 146), our Epistle, like
most of the Pauline letters, is pervaded by interpolations, Hitzig also {zur
Kritik paulin. Briefe, 1870, p, 22 ff,) asserts their presence, and ascribes
them to the author of the (un-Pauline) Ephesian Epistle, who, after the
composition of his own work, had manipulated afresh a Pauline letter to
the Colossians, the genuine text of which he misunderstood. In assign
ing his reasons for this view, Hitzig does not go beyond the bounds of
bare assertions and misunderstandings on his own part, Hoenig (in Hil
genfeld's Zdtschr. 1872, p. 63 ff.), after comparing the two kindred letters,
propounds the view that all those passages of the Epistle to the Colossians
are to be regarded as interpolations, regarding which it can be shown that
the author of the (not genuine) Epistle to the Ephesians did not know
them. But Hoenig has reserved to a future time the exhibition of the
detailed grounds for this bold view, and has consequently for the present
-withdrawn it from criticism. After thorough investigation, Holtzmann
{Kritik d. Epheser- u. Kolosserbriefe, 1872) has arrived at the hypothesis of
a great series of interpolations, the author of which was none other than
the .author of the Epistle to the Ephesians written, according to Holtz
mann, somewhere about the year 100, who, with the help of this writing
of his own, had worked up the short and genuinely Pauline letter to the
Colossians, which he found in existence, into a new and amplified form,
and thereby rescued it in a second enlarged edition from obhvion. But
neither can the course of interpolation thus set forth be exegetically
verified, nor can it — seeing that all the witnesses from the beginning prove
only the present shape of the letter, and no trace has been left of any
earlier one — be without arbitrariness rendered critically intelligible, as in
fact such a procedure on the part of an interpolator, who had withal so
much mastery of free movement in the sphere of Pauline thought and
language that he could write the Epistle to the Ephesians, would yield a
laborious and — as overlaying and obscuring the given nucleus — somewhat

INTKODUCTION. 201
clumsy mosaic patchwork, which, from a psychological point of view,
would be hardly conceivable.
Mayerhoff, in order to characterize the Epistle as a production of
possibly the second century epitomized from the Epistle to the Ephesians
with the addition of some controversial matter, lays stress on {a) differ
ences in language and style, (6) deviations from the PauUne character
both of conception and of representation, (c) the comparison ^dth the
Epistle to the Ephesians, and (d) the supposed reference of the polemics
to Cerinthus, But, first, the stamp of language and the style are so
entirely Pauline, that particular expressions, which we are accustomed to
in Paul's -writings but do not find here {diKcuoaimv k.t.X., aarvpia k.t.'/.., diroKO.-
/.vipi;, inraKOV, dpa, did, didri, sri, et al.). Or drra^ /.erydpeva which OCCUr (as iBeXji-
6pi,aiisia, -idavoXoyia, et al.), cannot furnish any counter argument, since, in
fact, they are fully outweighed by 'similar phenomena in epistles which
are indubitably genuine. There is the less ground for urging the occur
rence onh- six times of >'dp {Text. Rec), as even in the larger Epistle to the
Ephesians it occurs only eleven times, and in the Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians only five times. And how httle are such mechanical stand
ards of comparison at all compatible with a mind so free in movement
and rich in language as was that of Paul ! In his case even the order of
the words ''S.'/'/.ryv koI 'loidalo; (iii. 11) cannot seem surprising, nor can the
combining of designations similar in ineaning (as i. 6, 10, u. IS. 23) appear
as a strange hunting after s}Tionyms. See, besides, Huther, Schlussbe-
tracht. p. 420 ff. ; Hofinann, p. 179 f. Secondly, un-Pauline conceptions
are only imported into the Epistle by incorrect interpretations ; and the
pecuUar developments of doctrine, wliich Paul gives only here, but which
are in no case without their preliminary conditions and outlines in the
earlier Epistles, were suggested to him b^' the special occasion of the letter
(as, in particular, the development of the relation of Christ to the angel-
world). And if the Efiistle is said to lack in its dogmatic portion the
logical arrangement which ¦ is found in the hortatory portion (the revei-se
being the case in the genuine Epistles) ; if Pauline freshness and \igOT are
said to be wanting, and poverty of thought to prevaU ; these are judg
ments which in some cases are utterly set aside by a right exegesis, and in
others are of a partisan character and aesthetically incorrect. The com
plaint, in particular, of " poverty of thought " is characteristic of the pro
cedure of such criticism towards its victims, no matter how precarious a
subjective standard must ever be in such questions, or how various may
be the judgments which are put forth as based on taste (according to

202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Bohmer, Isag. p, 160, our Epistle is " viva, pressa, solida, nervis plena, mas-
cula"). Thirdly, the affinity of our Epistle with that to the Ephesians in
style and contents is explained by their composition at the same time, —
as respects which, however, the priority lies with our letter, — and by the
analogy of the circumstances giving occasion to write, which in either case
the apostle had in view,' See on Eph, Introd, § 3. Lastly, the assertion
that Cerinthus is assailed is erroneous — a cvitical prothysteron ; see § 2,
Baur,^ who describes the Epistle to the Ephesians and that to the Col
ossians, which are held at any rate to stand or fall together, as un-Pauline,
and places the former in a secondary relation to the latter, looks upon
this latter as combating an Ebionitism, which would have nothing to do
-with a recognition of the universalism of Christianity at the cost of renoun
cing everything that was incompatible -with the absoluteness of the Chris
tian principle. He holds, however, that this universalism was not that
based on the Pauline anthropology, but only the external universalism,
which consisted in the coiihtion between Gentiles and Jews effected by the
death of Christ, and in which, alongside of the forgiveness of sin, the Cle
mentines placed the aim of Christ's death. Thus, according to Baur, the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians are to be placed in the post-apos
tolic period of a conciliation between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.
The highest expression of this conciliatory destination is the Christology
of the Epistles, in so far, namely, as Christ appears as the primordial prin
ciple of all being, and His whole work onward to His exaltation as the self-
realization of this idea, according to which the pre-existence is the main
point of the Christology, The arguments of Baur are mostly derived from
the Epistle to the Ephesians ; those that particularly affect our Epistle,
and are supposed to attest a Gnostic stamp impressed on it (such as the
idea of Christ as the central point of the whole kingdom of spirits, the
notion of the irXvpuya, etc), will be shown by the exposition to be a homo-.
geneous development of elements of doctrine already presented in the
earlier Eiiistles,' Concerning these Christological doubts, see, moreover,
especially Raebiger, Christol. Paul, p, 42 ff,, and generally Klopper, de orig.
1 The assertion isbeiug constantly repeated, ^Planck, Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, Hockstra (in
thatPauleouldnothave copied himself. But, the Theolog. Tij'dschrift, ISGS), as well as
in fact, we have not amongthe apostle's letters Schwegler, agree in substance with Baur,
any other two, vyhich were written so imme- 3 The exegesis of the Epistle will also dis-
diately at the same time, and to churches pose of what Hilgenfeld, who rejects the
whose wants were similar. If we had had genuineness of the Ephesian and Colossian
two such, who knows but that they would letters, adduces by way of establishing his
have presented an analogous resemblance ? assertion, that " the new and characteristic

INTEODUCTION. 203
epp. ad Eph. et (Doloss. Grj'phisw. 1853 ; Hofmann, p, 181 ff, ; Rich. Schmidt,
Paul. Christol. p, 196 ff.; Sabatier, I'apdtre Paul, p, 207 ff,' It may be
observed in general, that if our Epistle (and that to the Ephesians) is
nothing more than a pseudo-apostolic movement of Gnosis against Ebion
itism, then every other Epistle is so also, since every other writing in the
N, T. may, -nith almost equal justice, be brought under some such category
of subjective presupposition; and that it is in reahty inconsistent, if the
whole N, T, is not (and for the most part it has already been) made out to
be a coUection of later books written with some set purpose, which, by
means of thefr pseudo-epigraphic names, have succeeded in deceiving the
vigUance of centuries. The fabrication of such an epistle as that to the Col
ossians would be more marvelous than its originaUty, " Non est cujusvis
hominis, Pauhnum pectus effingere; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas
loquitur Paulus," Erasmus, Annot. ad iv. 16.
Ewald has modified the theoi-v- of its composition by the apostle in a
peculiar way. In his view, the Epistle is indeed planned and carried out
quite after the maimer of the apostle ; but after the contents had been
settled by preliminary discussion, Paul committed the composition to
Timothy (i. 1), again, however, towards the end, dictating the words more
in person, and adding the final salutation (iv. IS) with his own hand.
But, first, this hj-pothesis is afready rendered doubtful by the fact that it
is not made to extend uniformly to chap, iv. Secondly, it may be urged
against it, that a Timothy himself, even after preliminary discussion with
the apostle, could hardly have appropriated or imitated the completely
Pauhne stamp in such measure, as in this Epistle it recurs at every sen
tence and in ever}- turn. Thirdly, the conjectttred course of procedure
does not appear in any other of Paul's Epistles, and yet the present was one
of the shortest and the easiest to be dictated. Fourthly, such a procedure
can scarcely be reconciled with the high value and authority, well under
stood by the apostle, which an Epistle from him could not but possess for
any Christian chtrrch, especiaUy for one not founded by himself.
Fifthly, we cannot but naturaUy regard the concluding salutation
by his own hand (iv. 18) as simply the token of his own, and
not of a merely indirect, composition (2 Thess. in. 17). Sixthly,
feature of the Colossian Epistle consists sim- Inism in this ease not merely repelling, but
ply in this, that it represents Paulinism no even in part oiippfing. Gnostic elements.— For
longer merely in contradistinction to Jewish Baur's Gnostic interpretation of the irA^'pu/io,
Christianity, but also in eontradi-=tinction see especially his Paulus, II. p. 12 ff., and
to Gnosticism (proper) ; " see Hilgenfeld's Xeutest. Theol. p. 257 ff.
Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f. We see, he says, Paul- ' Compare, also generally, in opposition to

204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
according to iv. 16, a similar merely indirect composition on his part
would have to be attributed also to the Epistle to the Laodiceans, since
the two Epistles, as they were to be read in both churches, must have
been, as it were, cast in the same mould, and of essentially the same
import. Lastly, the peculiar dangerous character of the spiritualistic
Judaism, which had to be opposed in the Epistle, was precisely such as to
claim the undivided personal action of the apostle, which was certainly,
even in the enforced leisure of his imprisonment, sufficiently within his
power for the purpose of his epistolary labors. The grounds on which
the foregoing hypothesis is based ' — and in the main the assailants of the
genuineness have already used them — are in part quite unimportant, in
part framed after a very subjective standard, and far from adequate inthe
case of a letter--writer, who stands so high and great in many-sided wealth
both of thought and diction and in its free handling as Paul, and who,
according to the diversity of the given circumstances and of his o'SN'n tone
of feeling, was capable of, and had the mastery over, so ample and mani
fold variety in the presentation of his ideas and the structure of his sen
tences. Nor do those linguistic difficulties, which Holtzmann, p, 104 ff.,
has brought forward more discreetly than Mayerhoff, and to some extent
in agreement with Ewald, -with a view to separate the portions of the
letter pertaining to the genuine Paul fi-om those that belong to the
manipulator and interpolator, suffice for his object.^ They could only be

the hypothesis of a positive influence of more by simple little relational words and in
Gnosis on N, T, doctrinal ideas, Heinrici, d. excessively long series, like the links of a
'Valent. Gnosis u. d. heil. Schr. 1S71. chain, alongside of which is also frequently
1 Ewald appeals (presupposing, moreover, found the merely rhetorical accumulation of
the non-genuineness of the Epistle to the sentences left without links of connection
Ephesians) to the longer compound words, (such as i, 14, 20, 25 f , 27, ii, 8, 11, 23, iii, 6) ;
such as avravaTTl^ripotii, aTrOKaTaXXdcraw, aTraA\o- that we meet delicate but still perceptible
Tptow, TrapaXoyiCop.ai, eOeKodprjiTKeia, O(|)0aAjao- distinctions of thought, such as the non-
Sov\eia ; to unusual modes of expression, mention of SiKaioovvri and Si.Kai.oiv, and the
such as eiKu ifiSs e'lSevai (ii, 1), 5 ecrTii. for the description of the Logos by the word :rX^pa>(ia
explanatory that is (i. 24 [27], ii, 10, iii. 14), in itself (i. 19, ii. 9) ; that we find a multitude of
connections capable of being easily mis- words and figures peculiarly Pauline, but that
understood ; to the circumstances, that iu the we miss all the more the whole apostle in his
progress of the discourse and in the structure most vivid idiosyncrasy throughout the main
of sentences we entirely miss "the exceed- portions of the Epistle; and that- many a
ingly forcible flow and the ex ult.int ebullition, word and figure, in fact, appears imitated
and then, again, the quick concentration and from the Epistles of Paul, especially that to
the firm collocation of the thoughts;" that the Romans.
the words Si, yip, and i.K\a are less frequently = When we take fully into account the sin-
found, and that the sentences are connected gularly ample storehouse of the Greek Ian-

INTKODUCTION. 205
of weight, in the event of their exhibiting modes of expression beyond
doubt un-Pauline, or of the interpolated character of the passages in ques
tion being aheady established on other grounds.
guage, from which the apostle knew how to in the undisputed letters, at once betray
draw his materials with so much freedom another author; or, on the other hand, to
and variety in all his letters, wc shall not be reckon that such as are characteristic of, and
too hastily ready to hold that such expres- currently used by, the apostle, are due to an
sions, phrases, or turns, as have no parallels assumption of the Pauline manner.

206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

IlauXou inifTToXij rrpo^ KoXoirtrasI^.
A B K min. Copt, have the superscription Trpof 'K.oXaaaael;. So Matth. Lachm.
and Tisch. Comp. on ver, 2.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 1. The arrangement Xpiarov 'Ivaov (Lachm, Tisch,) has preponderant tes
timony in its favor, but not the addition of 'Ivaov after Xpiarov in ver, 2 (Lachm,).
— Yer. 2. Ko'Maaal;] K P, also C and N in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt,
Or, Nyss. Amphiloch. Theodoret, Damasc. et. a!, have KoXaaaal;. Approved by
Griesb,, following Erasm, Steph, "Wetst, ; adopted by Matth, Lach. Tisch. 7. The
Recepta is supported by B D E F G L N, min. ^'ulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl.
Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag. The matter is to be judged thus : (1) The name in
itself correct is undoubtedly ls.oXoaaai, -which is supported by coins of the city
(Eckhel, Doctr. num. III. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod, vii. 30 (see AYessel.
and Valck. m loc.) ; Xen, Anah. i. 2, 6 (see Bornem. in loc.) ; Strabo, xii, 8, p,
57G ; Plin, N. H. v, 32, (2) But since the form KoXaaaai has so old and consid
erable attestation, and is preserved in Herodotus and Xenophon as a various read
ing, as also in Polyaen, viii, 16, and therefore a mere copyist's error cannot be
found in the case — the more especiallj' as the copyists, even apart from the
analogy "which suggested itself to them of the well-kno-vvn KoXoaad;, would naturally
be led to the prevalent form of the name KoXoaaai, — we must assume that, although
KoXoaaai -was the more formally correct name, still the name KoXaaaal was
also (vulgarly) in use, that this was the name which Paul himself wrote,
and tliat KoXoaaal; is an ancient correction. If tbe latter had originally a
place in the text, there would have been no occasion to alter the generally known
and correct form of the name, — After irarpb; vpuv, Elz, (Lachm, in brackets) has
Kal Kvpiov ''ivaov Xpiarov, in opposition to B D E K L, min, vss, and Fathers, A
complementary addition in accordance with the openings of other epistles, espe
cially as no ground for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Reiche,
Comm. crit. p, 3,51 f ), — Yer, 3, Kal irarpl] Lachm, and Tisch, 7 : irarpl. So B C"*",
vss, and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys, have ru irarpl. Since, however, Paul
always writes 6 Qeb; Kal irarvp rov Kvpiov (Eom, xv, 6 ; 2 Cor, i, 3, xi, 31 ; Eph. i.
3 ; also 1 Cor, xv. 24 ; Eph. v. 20), and never 6 Gedf 6 rrarvp r. k. or 6 Qsb; irarvp
T. K., the Recepta, which has in its favor A C"*"* D-*** E K L P x, min. Yulg. and
Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to be retained. The Kai was readily omitted in a
mechanical way after the immediately preceding Qeov irarpd;. — Instead of irepi,
Lachm. reads iirep, which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* E* FG,
min, Theophyl, Not attested by preponderating, evidence, and easily introduced
in reference to ver. 9 (where iirip stands without variation), — Ver. 4, Instead of
ffv sxsrs (which is recommended by Griesb,, adopted by Lachm, and Tisch,), Elz.
Matth, Scholz have rvv merely, but iu opposition to A C D* E-* F G P *<, min.

CHAP. I. 207
vss. (including Yulg. It.) Fathers. If rvv were originally written, why should it
have been exchanged for i,v 'exerrs ? On the other hand, ?,v ixsrs, as it could be
dispensed with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word preceding
concludes with the syllable HN, and the word following (f'f), like 'sxs^s, begins
-with E. The grammatical gap would then, following Eph. i. 1-5, be filled up by
rryv. — Yer. 6, koX sotC] Kal is wanting in A B C D* E^ P X, min. and some vss. and
Fathers ; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, But, not being
understood, this koI, which has the most important vss, and Fathers in its favor,
-was omitted in the interest of simphcity as disturbing the connection. — Kal
av^avdysvov'] is wanting in Elz. Matth., who is of opinion that Chrys. introduced
it from ver. 10. But it is so decisively attested, that the omission must be looked
upon as caused by the homoeoteteuton, the more especially as a similar ending aud
a similar beginning here came together (ONKA). — Yer. 7. koBIj; ko.] koI is justly
condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence, and is omitted by Laclim. and Tisch.
A mechanical repetition from the preceding. — ipdiv'] A B D*G F **% min, : vp"^ ',
approved by Griesb,, adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both precedes
and follows {vyav . . . ipiv), it was put here also by careless copyists. — Yer. 10.
After -£pi-aTi',cai. Elz. Tiseh. 7 have ipd;, against decisive testimony ; a supple
mentary addition. — e'l; rifv i-i-j-vaaiv] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. 8 have ry
'smyvuasi. ,So A B C D* E* F G P x, miu, Clem. Cyr, Maxim. But it lacks the
support of the vss., which (Yulg. It. in scientia Dei) have read the Recepta s'l; r.
e~r,v. attested by D*t» E** K L and most min., also Theodoret, Dam. Theophyl,
Oec, or witli j<** and Chrys. iv ry imyvaaei. The latter, as well as the mere ry
irrtyv., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult eif . . i-Qv.. which, we may
add, belongs to the svmmetrical structure of the whole discourse, the participial
sentences of which all conclude with a destination introduced by eif. — Yer. 12.
'iKavdiaavTi] Lachm. . KaXiaavrt Kal 'iKavaaavri, according to B, whilst D^ F G, min.
Arm. Aeth. II. Didym. Ambrosiast, Yigil. have Ka'/Jaavri merely. Looking at the
so isolated attestation ko/.. k. Ikov., we must assume that KaXiaavri w.is written on
the margin by way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with Kat,
and in others without kuI substituted for 'mavdia. — Instead of vpa;, Tisch. 8 has
ipa; ; but the latter, tco weakly attested by B s, easily slipped in by means of the
connection with siixap. — Yer. 14. After d-o'/.vrp. Elz. has did rov alyaro; avroi,
against decisive testimony ; from Eph. i. 7. — Yer. 16. rd iv roi; oipavol; Kai rd]
Lachm. has erased the first ra and bracketed the second. In both cases
the rd is wanting in B x* Or. ; the first rd only is wanting in D'^
E"^ F G P and two min. But how easily might TA be absorbed in the
final syllable of -dvTA; and this would then partially involve the omission
of the second re ! The assumption that the final syllable of -dvra was
written twice would only be warranted, if the omitting witnesses, especially in
the case of the second rd, were stronger. — Yer. 20. The second di' airov is wauling
in B D* F G L, min. Yulg. It. Sahid. Or. Cyr. Chrys. Theophyl. and Latin
Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. It was passed over as superfluous, obscure, and
disturbing the sense. — Yer. 21. Instead of the Recepta drroKariiXXa^sv, Lachm.,
follon-ing B, has arromr^/./ a}-7re. D* F G, It. Goth. Ir. Ambrosiast. Sedul. have
drroKaraXXa} sits;. Since, according to this, the passive is considerably attested,
and the active drroKarrf/JXL^sv , although most strongly attested (also by x), ™ay
well be suspected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between the
two passive readings drroKarrf/J.d^iVJs and drroKara'/Jxir,i:vTs;, in favor of the former.

208 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
because the latter is quite unsuitable. If the Recepta were original, the construc
tion would be so entirely plain, that we could not at all see why the passive
should have been introduced. — Ver. 22. After Bavdrov, A P x, min, vss, Ir, have
avTov, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested so weakly, as to
seem nothing more than a familiar addition. — Ver. 23. ry before ktIosi is, with
Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted, following ABC D* F G x. min, Chrys, —
Instead of didKovo;, P x have Kvpv^ k. dirdaroXo;. A gloss ; comp. 1 Tim, ii, 7, In A
all the three words Kripv^ k. dir. k. dioK. are given, — Ver. 24. vvv] D* E* F G,
Yulg, It, Ambrosiast, Pel, have of vvv. Eightly ; the final syllable of didKovo; in
ver 23, and the beginning of a church-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of of,
which, however, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole progress
of the discourse, — After iraBvy. Elz, has yov, against decisive testimony, — 5 ianv]
C D* E, min, : of ianv. So Lachm. in the margin. A copyist's error. — Ver, 27.
The neuter rl rb ir?MvTo; (JIatth, Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and
Fathers sufiiciently to make the masculine appear as an emendation : comp. on 2
Cor. viii. 2 — 8f ianv] A B F G P, min. {quod in Vulg. It, leaves the reading uncer
tain) : b ianv. So Lachm, A grammatical alteration, which, after ver, 24, was
all the more likely, — Yer. 28. After diddoK., irdvra dvBpairov is wanting in D* EI*
F G, min. vss, and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb,, but is to be defended. The whole
Kal diddoK. irdvra dvBpair. -was omitted owing to the homoeoteteuton (so still in L,
min. Clem.), and then the restoration of the words took place incompletely. —
After Xpiara Elz. has 'Ivaov, against decisive testimony.
Vv. 1, 2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XXIII. pages 263, 264.] Aid BeXr,y. Qsoi] see
on 1 Cor. i. 1. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1. — koI TipdB?^ see on 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Phil,
i. 1, Here also as s\xbor^na,te joint-author of the letter, who at the same tinie
may have been the amanueiisis, but is not here jointly mentioned as such
(comp, Rom, xvi, 22), See on Phil, i, 1. — 6 ddeXipd;] see on 1 Cor, i, 1 ;
referring, not to official (Chrys, : oiKovv koI airb; dirdaroXo;), but generally to
Christian brotherhood, — roif iv KoX. dy. k.t.X.] to the saints who are in Colos
sae [XXIII 6, c]. To this theocratic designation, which in itself is not as
yet more precisely defined (see on Rom, i, 7), is then added their distinc
tively Christian character : and believing brethren in Christ. Comp, on Eph,
i, 1, dyioi; is to be understood as a substantive, just as in all the com
mencements of epistles, where it occurs (Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. ; 2 Cor. ; Eph. ;
Phil.) ; and iv Xpiara is closely connected with mar. dd., -svith which it blends
so as to form one conception (hence it is not roZf iv X.), expressly designat
ing the believing brethren as &hristians, so that 'sv X. forms the element of
demarcation, in which the readers are believing brethren, and outside of
which they would not be so in the Christian sense. Comp. on 1 Cor. iv.
17 ; Eph, vi, 21 ; in which passages, however, mard; is faithful, — a meaning
which it has not here (in opposition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dal
mer), because everywhere in the superscriptions of the Epistles it is only
the Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt ev
Xpiara was in itself hardly necessary ; but the addresses have a certain
formal stamp. If dyloi; is taken as an adjective : " the holy and believing
brethren" (de Wette), iv Xpiara being made to apply to the whole
formula, then maroi'; coming after dyioi; (which latter word would already

CHAP. I. 1-3. 209
have, through 'sv X., its definition in a Christian sense, which, according
to our view, it still has not) would be simply a superfluous and clumsy
addition, because dyioi; w-ould already presuppose the rriarol;. — The fact
that Paul does not expressly describe the church to which he is writing as
a church (as in 1 Cor, ; 2 Cor, ; Gal, ; 1 and 2 Thess.) has no special motive
(comp. Rom., Eph., Phil.), but is pui-ely accidental. If it implied that he
had not founded the church and stood in no kind of relation to it as such,
and especially to its rulers (de Wette, by way of query), he would not have
written of a AaodiKiav iaJ.ria'ia (iv. 16). Indeed, the principle of address
ing as churches those communities only which he had himself founded, is
not one to be expected from the apostle's disposition of mind and -wisdom ;
and it is excluded by the inscription of the Epistle to the Ephesians
(assuming its genuineness and destination for the church at Ephesus), as
also by Phil, i. 1 (where the mention of the bishops and deacons -would not
compensate for the formal naming of the church). It is also an accidental
matter that Paul says hi Xpiara merely, and not 'ev X. 'Ivaov (1 Cor. ;
Eph. ; Phil. ; 2 Thess.). although >Iayerhoff makes use of this, among
other things, to impugn the genuineness of the epistle ; just as if such a
mechanical regularity -n-ere to be ascribed to the apostle ! — xopi; vp'i'"
K.T.X.] See on Rom. i. 7. [XXIII d.]
Yer. 3 f. TOn Yv. 3-8, see Note XXIA'. pages 264-266.] Thanksgiving for the
Christian condition of the readers, do'wn to ver. 8. — sixapiarbvyev] [XXR' a.]
I and Timothy ; plural and singular alternate in the Epistle (i. 23, 24, 28. 29 fif.,
iv. 3) ; but not without significant occasion. — Kal irarpl k.t.X.] who is at the same
time the Father, etc. See on Eph. i. 3. — Trdvro-e] [XXIV 6.] belongs to si xap.,
as in 1 Cor. i. 4; 1 Thess. i, 2; 2 Thess, i. 3; Philem. 4, and not to rrepi ip-
rrpoa^x} — a connection opposed to the parallel Eph. i. 16, as well as to
the context, according to which the thanksgiving is the main point here,
and the prayer merely a concomitant definition ; and it is not tiU ver. 9
that the latter is brought forn-ard as the object of the discourse, and that
as unceasing. This predicate belongs here to the thanking, and in ver. 9
to the praying, and rrspl iydv rrpoasvx- — ^words which are not, with Bahr,
to be separated from one another (whereby rrpoasi'x- would unduly stand
-without relation) — ^is nothing but a more precise definition of -dvrore :
" always {each time. Phil. i. 4 ; Rom. i, 10 % when ive pray for you."—dKoiaav-
rs; K.T.X.] [XXR' c] with reference to time; after having heard, etc.
Comp. ver. 9. In that, which Paul had heard of them, hes the ground of
his thanksgiv-ing. The nian; is faith (Rom. i. 8; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i.
3) not faithfulness (Ewald), as at Philem, 5, where the position of the words
is different. That Paul has heard their faith praised, is self-evident from
the context. Comp. Eph. i. 15 ; Philem. 5.—iv X. 'I.] on Christ, in so far,
namely, as the faith has its basis in Christ. See on :Mark i. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26 ;
Eph. i. 13, 15. As to the non-repetition of rrpi, see on Gal. iii. 26. — m'
' 1 Chrysostom, Oeenmenins, Theophylact, Bohmer, Olshausen, Dalmer.
Erasmus, Lnther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Gro- = For a like use of iei, see Stallbaum. aa
tins, Bengel, and many others, including Plat Eep. p. aHO .k.
14

210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
exsrs] Paul SO writes, — not by joining on immediately {rf/v dydrrvv sl;
irdvra; k.t.X.), nor yet by the mere repetition of the article, as in Eph. i. 15
(so the Recepta, see the critical remarks), — because he has it in view to
enter more fully upon this point of dydirv, and indeed definitely upon the
reason ivhy they cherished it.
Ver. 5. A/d riiv iXirida k.t.X.] [XXIV d.] on account of the hope, etc. does
not belong to evxap. ver. 3,' because the ground for the apostolic thanks
giving at the beginnings of the Epistles, as also here at ver. 4, always con
sists in the Christian character of the readers,'-' and that indeed as a
ground in itself,^ and therefore not merely on account of what one has in
future to hope from it ; and, moreover, because sixapiarslv with did and
the accusative does not occur anywhere in .the N. T. It is connected with
vv exere k.t.X., and thus specifies the motive ground of the love ; for love
guarantees the realization of the salvation hoped for.-* The more faith is
active through love, the richer one becomes eif Qedv (Luke xii. 21), and
this riches forms the contents of hope. He who does not love remains
subject to death (1 John iii. 14), and his faith profits him nothing (1 Cor.
xiii 1-3). It is erroneous to refer it jointly to irlari;, so as to make the
hope appear here as ground of the faith and the love ; so Grotius and
others, including Bahr, Olshausen, and de Wette ; comp. Baumgarten-
Crusius and Ewald. For iyv exere (or the Rec. rvv) indicates a further
statement merely as regards rfiv 'aydrrryv ; and with this accords the close
of the whole outburst, which in ver. 8 emphatically reverts to rfyv ipdv
dydirrpi. — The iXiri; is here conceived objectively (comp. iXir. fiXeiropevv,
Rom. viii. 24) : our hope as to its objective contents, that which we hope for.*
— rvv drroKeip. iplv iv r. oip.] What is meant is the Messianic salvation
forming the contents of the hope (1 Thess. v. 8 ; Rom. v. 2, viii. 18 S. ;
Col. iii. 3 i), which remains deposited, that is, preserved, laid up (Luke xix.
20), in heaven for the Christian until the Parousia, in order to be then
given to him.* On diroK. comp, 2 Tim, iv, 8 ; 2 Slacc, xii, 45 ; Kypke, II,
p, 320 f,; Loesner, p, 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p, 678, Used of death,
Heb, ix, 27 ; of punishments. Plat. Locr. p. 104 D, 4 Mace. viii. 10. As to
the idea, comp. the conception of the treasure in heaven (Matt. vi. 20,
xix, 21 ; 1 Tim, vi, 19), of the reward in heaven (see on Matt. v. 12), of the
iroXirsvpa ill heaven (see on Phil. iii. 20), of the KXiipovopia rsrvpvpivn iv
oipav. (1 Pet. i. 4), and of the Ppajislov rij; dva KXvaea; (Phil. iii. 14). — iiV
irpovKoiaare k.t.X.] [XXIV c] Certainty of this hope, which is not an un-
iBengel, "ex spe patet, quanta sit causa *Socorreetly,Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu-
gratias agendi pro dimo fidei et amoris;" menins, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Es-
comp. Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Eisner, tius, Steiger, Bleek, and others.
Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr, RosenmuUer, 6 Comp. Job vi. 8; 2 Mace. vii. 14, and
Hofmann, and others. see on Rom. viii. 2i and Gal. v. 5 ; Zock-
2 Rom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 4 ff. ; Eph. i. 16 ; Phil. ler, de vi ac notione voc, iKnii, Giss. 185C, p.
i. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess, i, 3; 2 Tim, i, 6 ; 26 ff.
Philem, 5, « It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no
3 In opposition to the view of Hofmann, that longer occurs in our Epistle, It is the sub-
Paul names the reason why the news of the stratum of the iXirl? irroK. ev r. oip. Comp,
faith and love of the readers had become to iiL 1 ff. (in opposition to Mayerhoff, and Holtz-
him a cause of thanksgiving, marm, p, 203 f,).

CHAP. I. 3-6. 211
warranted subjective fancy, but is objectively conveyed to them
through the word of truth prevlousl}" announced. Tlie irpd in
wpovKoiaars^ does not denote already formerly, whereby Paul premises
se nihil allaturum novi (Calvin and many), but must be said with
reference to the /»?«re, to which the hope belongs; hence the sense im
ported by Ewald : ichereirith the u'ord of truth began among you (Mark i. 15),
is the less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents of the
i?-i;, the heavenly salvation, is the great /u^w re blessing, the infallible ^e-
announcement of which they have heard. As previously announced, it is also
previously heard. — r;;f dX.vBeia; is the contents of the Xdyo; (comp. on Eph.
i. 13) ; and by roi- siay., the dXrjBsia, that is, the absolute truth, is specifi
cally defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that which is announced in the
gospel, [XXIV/.] Both genitives are therefore to be left in their substan
tive form,'-" so that the expression advances to gi-eater definiteness. The
circumstantialit}- has something solemn about it (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4); but
this is arbitrarily done away, if we regard rov eia-j-y. as the genitive of
apposition to ra '/.dyip rrj; d'/.vB. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including
Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Bohmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann) ;
foUowing Eph. i. 13, Paul would have written ra evayyeXici.
Yer. 6. In what he had just said, vv npovKoiaars . . . evayyeXiov, Paul now
desires to make his readers sensible of the great and blessed fellowship in
which, through the gospel, they are placed, in order that they may by this
very consciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the
gospel, in presence of the heretical influences ; iirsidv paXiara oi iro?.Xol eK
roil Koivuvov; ixsiv rroXXov; rdv doypdruv arvpi^ovrai, Chrysostoni. Comp.
Oecumenius : rrpoBvyoripov; airov; irspl rryv rriariv iroisi iK rov sxsiv irdvra;
koivuvov;. — eif iyd;] not er iplv, because the conception of the previous
arrival predominates ; 1 Mace. xi. 63. Often so -n-ith irapslvai in classical
authors (Herod, i. 9, vi. 24, viii. 60 ; Poljb. xviii. 1. 1 ; comp. Acts xii. 20).'
Observe, moreover, the emphasis of rov irapdvro; ; it is there 1 it has not
remained away; and to the presence is then added the bearing fruit. — KoBdi;
Kal iv rravri r. Koapif] A popular li}-perbole. Comp. Rom. i. 8 ; Acts x%-ii.
6, and see ver. 23. The expression is neither arbitrarily to be restricted,
nor to be used against the genuineness of the Epistle (Hilgenfeld), nor
yet to be rationalized by " as regards the idea " (Baumgarten-Crusius) and
the like ; although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianitj' is ex
pressed in the passage (comp. Rom. x. 18; Mark xiv. 9, x-vi, 15; Matt. xxiv.
14), — KUl son Kaprrorp. K.r.X.] [XXIV ^r.] Instead of continuing : koI Kapiro-
ipopovyevov K.r.X.. Paul carries onward the discourse with the finite verb, and
thus causes this element to stand out more independently and forcibly : *
'Herod.viii.79; Platie3ff.vii.p.797-\: Xen. 'See Bornemann and Kiihner, ad Xen.
Mem. ii. 4. 7; Dem. 750. 26, 955. 1; Joseph. Anrib. L 2. 2; Bremi, od Aeschin. p. 320; and
Antt. viii. 12. 3. generally, Nagelsbach, z. Pios, p. 158 f., ed. 3.
^Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, 'If «<u is not genuine, as Bleek, Hofmann,
and many others understand t^i oAijfl. as and others consider (see the critical remarks),
adjectival : sermo verax ,- comp. on the con- the passage is to be translated : as it also in
toaiy, on iXije. toO evo-yy,, Gal. ii. 5, 14. the whole world is fruit-bearing, by which Paul

212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
" and it is fruit-bearing and growing," ^ by which is indicated the
fact, that the gospel, wherever it is present, is also in course of living
dj-iiamical development, and this state of development is expressed by ian
with the participle. This general proposition based on experience : koI
ian Kopiroip. K. ai^av., is then by KaBtJ; k. 'ev iplv confirmed through the
experience found also among the readers; so that Paul's view passes, in the
first clause {rov irapdvro; . . Koayij), from the special to the general aspect,
and in the second, from the gener.al to the special. With Kaprroipop. (not
occuring elsewhere in the middle) is depicted the blissful working in the
inward and outivard life (compi. Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9); and with ai^avdp.
the continuous diffiusion, whereby the gospel is obtaining more and more
adherents and local extension.^ Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain
from deciding Avhether oif. is intended to refer to the outivard growth or to
the inward (so Steiger), or to both. See Acts vi. 7, xii, 24, xix, 20, Comp.
Luke xiii, 19; Matt. xiii. 32. The pdXXov arvpli^saBai, which Chrysostom
finds included in aif ., is not denoted, but presupposed by the latter. Comp.
Theophylact, The figure is taken from a tree, in which the Kapiroipopia does
not exclude the continuance of growth (not so in the case of cereals), — if
v; vyep. K.T.X.] since the first beginning of your conversion wliich so
happily took place (through true knowledge of the grace of God), that
development of the gospel proceeds among you ; how could ye now with
draw from it by joining yourselves to false teachers? — riyv xdpiv rov Qsov]
contents of the gospel, wliich they have heard; the object of vKoia. is the
gospel, and . . xopi'" r- Qeoii belongs to iirsyvurs ; and by ev dXvBela (2 Cor,
vii, 14), equivalent to d/.vBd; (John xvii, 8), the qualitative character of this
knowledge is affirmed : it was a true knowledge, corresponding to the
nature of the x^pi;, without Judaistic and other errors. Comp. on John
xvii, 19. Holtzmann hears in rjKovaare . . .'•d?i.vBu; "the first tones of the
foreign theme," which is then in vv, 9, 10 more fully entered upon. But
how conceivable and natural is it, that at the very outset the danger which
threatens the right knowledge of the readers should be present to his
mind !
Ver, 7 f, [XXIV h.] KaBu;] not quandoquidem (Flatt, comp, Bahr),
but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just been
affirmed by iv dXvBeiii th.it they had known the divine grace, had they
learnedit (comp. Phil. iv. 9) from Epaphras. Notwithstanding this appro
priate connection, Holtzmann finds in this third KaBa; a trace of the
interpolator. — Nothing further is known from any other passage as to
Epaphras the Colossian (iv. 12) ; according to Philem. 23, he was awaix-
would say that the gospel is present among Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after eariv. But
the readers in the same fruit-bearing quality how utterly superfluous would this eari then
which it developes on all side.?. But in that be !
case the following /caSws Kai ev vfi.Lv would i See Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Leocr. p. 108 ;
necessarily appear as very superfluous. No Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222 B; Winer, p.
doubt we might, after the preceding TupovTos, 633 [E. T. 573].
take the eari, with F. Nitzsch, as equivalent scomp. Theodoret: KapiroiPopLav rov eiiayy.
to Trapco-Tt (see Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B) ; KeicK-rjKe rr^v eTraLvQVp.evrjv TToKiretav aii^ijdLV Se
and to this comes also the punctuation in rOiv inirTevovTiav to ttA^^os.

CHAP. I. 7, 8. 213
pa?MTo; of the apostle. That the latter circumstance is not mentioned in
our Epistle is not to be attributed to anj- special design (Estius : that Paul
was un^-illing to make his readers anxious). See, on the contrary, on iv.
10. Against the identity of Epaphras with Epaphroditus, see on Phil. ii.
25. The names even are not alike (contrary to the view of Grotius and
Ewald, who look upon Epaphras as an abbreviation) ; 'E-aippd; and the
corresponding feminine name ''Erra^pa sue found on Greek inscriptions. —
awdoiXov] namely, of Christ (comp, Phil, i, 1). The word, of common
occurrence, is used elsewhere by Paul in iv, 7 only, — of ianv k.t.X.] This
faithfulness towards the readers, and also, in the sequel, the praise of their
love, which Epaphras expressed to the apostle, are intended to stir them
up " ne a doctrina, quam ab eo didicerant, per novos magistros abduci se
patiantur," Estius, The emphasis is on -tard;. — inrip iydv] iov, as their
teacher, he is the servant -of Christ for them, for their benefU. The inter
pretation, instead of you (" in prison he serves me in the gospel," Michae-
Us, Bohmer), would only be possible in the event of the ser-vice being
designated as rendered to the apostle {didKovd; pari 'sv xpiara, or something
similar). Comp. Philem. 13. Even with Lachmann's reading, t'-. r/pdv
(Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take irrip as
instead ; it might equally weU be taken as for in the sense of interest, as
opposite of the anti-Pauline working (comp. Luke ix. 50). The present
iari (Paul does not put ryv) has its just warrant in the fact, that the merit,
which the founder of the church has acquired by its true instruction, is
limng and continuous, reaching in its efficacy do\\'n to the present time.
This is an ethical relation, which is quite independent of the circumstance
that Epaphras was himself a Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but
also makes it unnecessary to find in 'san an indirect continuance of Epa
phras' work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek), — d koI dv7Maa;
/c.r,/.,] who also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful service)
has made us to know ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 11, The dyd-v is here understood
either of the love of the Colossians to Paul (and Timothy), as, following
Chrysostom, most, including Huther, Bleek, and Hofmann,' explain it,
or of the brotherly hve already commended in ver. 4 (de Wette, Olshausen,
Ellicott, and others). But both these modes of taking it are at variance
with the emphatic position of ipiiv (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7,
viii. 13, et al.), which betokens the love of the readers to Epaphras as
meant. [XXIV ?.] There had just been expressed, to wit, by irrip
vpdv, the faithful, loving position of this servant of Christ towards the Col-
.ossians, and correlative to this is now the love which he met with from
them, consequently the counter-love shown to him, of which he has in
formed the apostle. A delicate addition out qf courtesy to the readers. —
'tv irvsvpan] attaches itself closely to dydrrvv, so as to form one idea, de
noting the love as truly holy — ^not conditioned by anything outward, but
divinely upheld — ^which is in the Holy SpirU as the element which
> Who, at the same time, makes the ev -veil- place in a manner personally untnoi™— which
luLTt suggest the reference, thatthe iyiinj took must have been conveyed in the context

214 ' THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
prompts and animates it ; for it is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal, v. 22 ;
Eom, XV. 30), oi aapKiKv, dA;i:d irvevpariKv (Oecumenius). Comp. xopd iv
irv., Rom. xiv, 17.
Remakk.  Since if y; vyepa; vKovaare k.t.X., ver. 6, refers the readers back
to the first commencement of their Christianity, and KaBoi; ipdBsre dirb ''Eiraqipd
K.r.X., ver, 7, cannot, except by pure arbitrariness, be separated from it as regards
time and regarded as something later, it results from our passage that Epaphras
is to be considered as the .^rs< preacher of the gospel at Colossae, and consequently
as founder of the church. This exegetical result remains even if the Recepta koBci;
Kai is retained, Tliis Kai would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. u. Krit.
1838, p, 185), place the preaching of Epaphras in contradistinction to an earher
one, and make it appear as a continuation of the latter (in this case KaBiJ; Kal
dirb 'Eira(pp. ipdBsre or KaBili; ipdBers Kal drrb ''Eira(pp. -would have been em
ployed) ; but it is to be taken as also, not otherwise, placing the iydBere on a parity
wilh the iireyvure. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger, in Herzog's
Encyld. iv, p. 79 f.
Yer. 9 [On vv. 9-14, see Note XXV. pages 266, 267.] Intercession, down
to ver. I'J.. — did rovro] [XXV a.] on account of all that has been said
from oKovaavrs; in ver. 4 onward : induced thereby, we also cease not, etc.
This reference is required by dip' v; vpipa; i/Kovaapev, which cannot corre
spond to the dvXdaa; vplv, belonging as that does merely to an accessory
thought, but must take up again (in opposition to Bleek and Hofmann)
the aKoiaavre; which was said in ver. 4. This resumption is emphatic, not
tautological (Holtzmann). — koI ¦vpel;] are to be taken together, and it is not
allowable to join Kai either with dia rovro (de Wette), or even with .
irpoaevx. (Baumgarten-Crusius). The words are to be rendered : We also
(I and Timothy), like others, who make the same intercession for you,
and among whom there is mentioned by name the founder of the church,
who stood in closest relation to them. — irpoaevx.] " Preeiim mentionem
generatim fecit, ver. 3; nunc exprimit, quid precetur " (Bengel). — koI
a'lTovpevoi] adds the special {asking) to the general {praying).^ — Iva irXvpuB^
Contents of the asking in the form of its purpose. Comp. on Phil, i, 9,
The emphasis lies not on irXypaB. (F, Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the ob
ject (comp, Rom. xv. 14, i. 29, al), -which gives to the further elucidation
in vv. 9, 10 its specific definition of contents. — riyv iirlyv. rdv BeX. airoi]
[XXV &,] with the knowledge of His will, accusative, as in Phil, i, 11 ;
airov applies to God as the subject, to whom prayer and supplication are
addressed. The context in ver. 10 shows that by the BiXvpa is meant, not the
counsel of redemption (Eph, i, 9 ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but, doubtless (Matt. vi.
10), that which God wills in a moral respect (so Theodoret, who makes out
a contrast with the vopiKal; iraparvpr/asaiv).^ The distinction between
I Comp. 1 Mace. iii. 44 ; Matt. xxi. 22 ; Mark to be taken with k. aiTou^., comp. Lys. c. Ale.
xl. 24; Eph. vi. 18; Phil. iv. 6. As to the p. 141.
popular form of hyperbole, ou iraud/i., comp. 2 Comp. Rom. ii. 18, xii. 2; Eph. v. 17, vi. 6;
on Eph, i, 16, Ou inrep iifitiiv, so far as it is also Col. iv. 12.

CHAP. L 9, 10. 215
yvdat; and i-iyvoat;, which both here and also in ver. 10, ii. 2, iii. 10, is
the knowledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly
denied by Olshausen. See on Eph. i. 17. — er -day k.t.X.] instrumental
definition of manner, how, namely, this rr'/jipadvvai rvv 'sm-^v. -. BsX. airov
(a knowledge wliich is to be the product not of mere human mental
acti\'ity, but of objectively divine endowment by the Holy Spirit) must
be brought about : by every kind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the
commtmication of these from God; comp. on Eph. i. 8. A combination
with the following rrsptirarvaai (comp. iv. 5 : iv aorpig. irspiir.), such as Hof
mann suggests, is inappropriate, because the two parts of the whole
intercession stand to one another in the relation of the divine ethical
foundation (ver. 9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life
(ver. 10 f.); hence the latter portion is most naturally and emphatically
headed by the expression of this Christian practice, the iTspi7raTf,aai, to
which are then subjoined its modal definitions in detail. Accordingly,
-spi-ariiaai is not, with Hofrnann, to be made dependent on roi BsXvy.
avroii and taken as its contents, but r, BeX. r. Q. is to be left as an absolute
idea, as in iv. 12. On irvsvyaruid;, proceeding from the Holy Spirit,^ comp.
Rom. i. 11 ; 1 Cor. ii. 13, xii. 1 ; Eph. i. 3, v, 19, et al. The ai vsai; is the
insight, in a theoretical and (comp. on ^lark xii. 33) practical respect,
depending upon judgment and inference, Eph. iii. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 7. For
the opposite of the pneumatic ai-veai;, see 1 Cor. i. 19. It is related to the
(70010 as the special to the general, since it is peculiarly the expression of
the intelligence in the domain of truth,^ while the 0^0910 concerns the col
lective faculties of the mind, the acti^-ities of knowledge, -n-illing, and feel
ing, the tendency and working of which are harmoniously subser^'ient to
the recognized highest aim, if the wisdom is rrvsvuariKii ; its opposite is the
aooia aapKudi (2 Cor. i. 12; Jas. iii. 15), being of man, and not of God, in
its aim and efl'orts. According as (fpdvvau; is conceived subjectively or
objectivized, the avvsai; may be considered either as S3TionjTnous with it
(Eph. i. 8 ; Dan. ii. 21 ; Plat. Orat. p. 411 A), or as an attribute, of it
(Ecclus. i. 4 : airvsai; ippov7Jas(j;).
Yer. 10. The practical aim ' which that rrXvpa&vvai k.t.?.. is to accom-
phsh ; ast ry rriarsi cn.\n')vvci rr/v rroXcrsiav, Chrj'SOStom. The Vulgate
renders correctly : ut ambuletis (in opposition to Hofinann, see on ver. 9).
— d-ia; TOV Kvpiav] SO that your beha^-ior may stand in moralh" appropri
ate relation to your belonging to Christ, Comp. Rom. xv-i. 2 ; Eph, iv, 1 ;
Phil. i. 27 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 3 John 6. The genitive (and in the N. T. snch
1 Hence Vj ivia&ev ao^ia, Jas. iii. 15, 17. The ' Not to be attached as object of the request
predicate, although in the case of divine en- immediately t.5 — poo-evxo/ievoi, and all that
do\rment with (jo<pia and a-ivenK; obvious of intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator
itself (as Hoftnann object^), was yet all the (Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet, according to Holtz-
more apposite for expressly bringing the mann, p. 123, ev -ami epy<^ down to tou Oeov
point into prominence, the greater the danger is alleged to be simply an interpolated dn-
vhich threatened Colossae from non-divine, plicate of ver. 6 ; in which o.i.se, however,
fleshlv wisdom ; comp. ii. -23. it would not he ea.sy fo see why icop-o.^opou^e-
* Comp, Dem. 2t,9. 24: crvveo-is, g ra icoAa icai voi was not written, after the precedent of
ouTXpa ii^yivi^Kerai.. ver. 6, but on the contrary Kapiro^opovvres..

216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
is always used with dilu;) does not even " perhaps " (Hofmann) belong to
the following eif ir. dpsoK., especially as dpeoKsla, in the Greek writers and
in Philo (see Loesner, p. 361), stands partly with, partly without, a geni
tival definition, and the latter is here quite obvious of itself. Such a
combination would be an unnecessary artificial device. Comp. Plat.
Conv. p. ISO D : d^ia; rov Qeov. — eif irdaav dpeoKeiav] on behalf of every kind
of pleasing, that is, in order to please Him in every way. The word
only occurs here in the N. T., but the apostle is not on that account to be
deprived of it (Holtzmann) ; it is found frequently in Polybius, Philo,
et al. ; also Theophr. Char. 5 ; LXX, Prov, xxix, 30 (xxx, 30) ; Symma
chus, Ps. Ixxx. 12.' Among the Greeks, dpeoKsla (to be accentuated thus,
see Winer, p. 50 [E. T, 51] ; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p, 11 [E, T, 12]) bears,
for the most part, the sense of seeking to please. Comp, Prov, xxix, 30 :
rfisvdel; dpeoKslai. — iv iravrl epya k.t.?:..] There llOW foUow three expositions,
in order to define more precisely the nature and mode of the irepiirarvaai
d^'iu; K.T.X. We must, ill considering these, notice the homogeneous plan
of the three clauses, each of which commences -with a prepositional rela
tion of the participial idea, viz. (1) iv iravrl ipyip k.t.X., (2) 'sv irdav
dmidpei, (3) ,ue-d x^pd;, and ends with a relation expressed by eif, viz. (1)
eif r, 'sir'iyv r. Qsov, (2) eif irda. irroy. k. paKpoBvp., (3) eif rvv yspida k.t.X.
The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the third clause,
iv irday xapd (Rom. XV. 32) had been written instead of psrd x°-pd; — ^which
was easily prevented by the versatility of the apostle's form of concep
tion. — 'ev iravrl ipya dyaBCi Kapiroip. is to be taken together [XXV c] (and
then again, ai^avdp. el; rfiv iiriyv. r. Qeoii), inasmuch as ye by every good
work (by your accomplishing every morally good action) bear fruit, as
good trees, comp. Matt. vii. 17. But not as if the Kapiroipopslv and the
ai^dvsaBai were separate things ; they take place, as in ver. 6, jointly and at
the same time, although, after the manner of parallelism, a special more
precise definition is annexed to each. Moreover, iv iravrl ipy. dy. is not
to be connected with eif irdaav dpeoK. (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Eras
mus, and others, also Steiger) ; otherwise we mistake and destroy the
symmetrical structure of the passage. — koI ai^avdy. sl; r. iiriyv. r. 9.]
and, inasmuch as with this moral fruit-bearing at the same time ye in
crease in respect to tlie knowledge of God, that is, succeed in knowing Him
more and more fully. The living, effective knowledge of God, which is
meant by iiriyv. r. Qsov (ver. 6, iii. 10, ii. 2), sustains an ethically necessary
action and reaction with practical morality. Just as the latter is pro
moted by the former, so also knowledge grows through moral practice in
virtue of the power of inward experience of the divine life (the fu^ rov
Qsoi, Eph. iv. 18), by which God reveals Himself more and more to the
inner man. The fact that here rov Qsov generally is said, and not rov
6s7.vpaTo; Qeov repeated, is in keeping with the progressive development
set forth ; there is something of a climax in it. On eif, used of the tehc
reference, and consequently of the regulative direction oi the growth,
1 On jTairav ap. Comp. Polybius, xxxi, 26, 5 : nav ¦yei'Oj ipefficeia! irpoo-cjiepofiej-os.

CHAP. L 11. 217
comp, on Eph, iv. 15 ; 2 Pet, i. 8. The reading ry i-iyvdasi r. Q. would
have to be taken as instrumental, with Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, de
Wette, Bleek, who follow it, but would j-ield after ver. 9 something quite
self-evident. "We may add that av^dv., with the dative oi spiritual in
crease by something, is frequent in Plato and classic writers. — As to the
nominatives of the participles, which are not to be taken "with ir'/.vpuB.
(Beza, Bengel, Reiche, and others), but relate to the logical subject of
rrspirrar. oftuf, comp. on Eph. iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 7.
Yer. 11 is co-ordinate with the foregoing iv iravrl ipya . . . Qsoii. — iv
irday dii: dwap.] [XXV d.] iv is instrumental, as in ver. 9 (Eph. A-i. 10 ;
2 Tim. ii. 1); hence not designating that, in the acquiring of ivhich the in-
¦vigoration is supposed to consist (Hofinann), but : by means of every (moral)
power (by its bestowal on God's part) becoming einpouered.^ — Kara rb Kpdro;
rij; do;, avr^ according to the might of His majesty ; with this divine might
(see as to Kpdro; on Eph. i. 19), through the powerful influence of which
that strengthening is to be imparted to them, it is also to be correspondent
—and thereby its eminent strength and efficacy are characterized (/card in
Eph. i. 19 has another sense). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; Phil. iii. 21. And rb
Kpdro; T. ddi. air. is not His glorious power (Luther, Castalio, Beza, and
others ; also Flatt and Bahr), against which airoi} should have been a
sufficient warning ; but rd Kpdro; is the appropriate attribute oi the di^"ine
majesty (of the glorious nature of God). Comp. Eph. iii. 16 ; Ecclus.
xviii. 5. The Kpdro; therefore is not the glory of God (Bohmer), but the
latter has the former, — and the ddfa is not to be referred to a single
aspect of the di\ine greatness (Grotius : power ; Huther : hve), but to its
glorious whole. Comp. on Rom. v-i. 4. — eif irdaav i-op. k. paKpoB.] in respect
to every endurance (in afldiction, persecution, temptation, and the like,
comp. Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. i. 6, v-i. 4; Jas. i. 3 f. ; Luke viii. 15; Rom, ii, 7,
et al.) and long-suffering (towards the offenders and persecutors), that is, so
as to be able to exercise these virtues in every way by means of that
divine strengthening. The distinction of Chrysostom : poKpoBvysl n; irpb;
iKeivov; oil; dwarbv Kal dpivaaBai' i-ouivei di, ov; ov divarai dpivaaBai, IS
arbitrary. See, on the contrary, for instance, Heb. xii. 2, 3. Others
understand it variously ; but it is to be observed, that vrroprmv expresses
the more general idea of endurance, and that yoKpoBvpia, the opposite of
which is b;v6vyia '' and b^vBvyvai; ' always refers in the N, T. to the rela
tion of patient tolerance towards offenders. Comp. iii. 12; Gal. v. 22;
Rom. ii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; also Heb. vi. 12; Jas. v. 10.— uerd x<^pdc] [XXV e.]
is joined with irdaav irroy. K. paKpoB. by Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Castalio,
Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Heinrichs, and many others, including
Olshausen, Bahr, Steiger, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, so that
the trae, joyful patience (comp, ver. 24) is denoted. But the symmetry
of the passage (see on ver, 10), in which the two preWous participles are
1 Swa^6<o (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 605) does not Ixvii, 31 ; in Aquila ; Job xxxvi, 9 ; Ps. Ixiv.
occur in Greek authors, and is only found 4. Paul elsewhere uses evSwaiioiv.
here and at Heb. xi. 34, Lachm. in the N. T. ; in 2 Eur. Andr. 729 ; Ja.-=. i. 19.
the LXX. at Eccles. x. 10; Dan. ix. 27; Ps. ^Artem. iv. 69. ,

218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
also preceded by a prepositional definition, points so naturally to the con
nection with what follows ' that it cannot be abandoned without arbitrari
ness. Even in that case, indeed, the thought of _;o2^((/ patience, ^\•llicll is
certainly apostolic (Rom. v. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 6 ; Rom. xii. 12 ; comp. Matt. v.
12), is not lost, when the intercession rises from patience to joyful thanks
giving. Observe also the deliberate juxtaposition of perd xapd; sixapiar.
Ver. 12. While ye give thanks with joyfulness, etc., — a third accompanying
definition of irspi-arvaai d^'ia; k.t.X. (ver. 10), co-ordinate with the two
definitions preceding, and not to be connected with ov iravdpsBa k.t.X.
(Chrj'SOStom, Theophj-lact, Calvin : " iterum redit ad gratulationem,"
Calovius, BiJhmer, Baumgarten-Crusius). — ru irarpi] of Jesus Christ ; comp.
ver. 13, and rov Kvplov in ver. 10, not : " the Fniher absolutely " (Hofmann).
It is always in Paul's writings to be gathered from the context, whose
Father God is to be understood as being (even at Eph. i. 17) ; never does
he name God absolutely {in abstracto) b irarvp. Comp. ver. 3, which, how
ever, is held by Holtzmann to be the original, suggesting a repetition by
the editor at our passage, in spite of the fact that the two passages have
different subjects. Just as little does eif rvv pspida k.t.X. betraj- itself as an
interpolation from Eph. i. 18 and i. 11 (Holtzmann), seeing that, on the
one hand, the expression at our passage is so wliolly peculiar, and, on the
other hand, the idea of KXripovopia is so general in the N. T. Comp. espe
cially Acts xx\-i. 18.^ — ra IKavaaavri k.t.X.] Therein lies the ground of the
thanksgiving, quippe qui, etc. God has made us fit {vpd; applies to the
letter-writers and readers, so far as they are Christians) for a share in the
Messianic salvation through the light, inasmuch as, instead of the darkness
which previously prevailed over us, He has by means of the gospel
brought to us the dXvBsia, of wliich light is the distinctive element and the
quickening and saving principle (Eph. v. 9) of the Christian constitution
both in an intellectual and ethical point of view (Acts xxvi, 18) ; hence
Christians are children of the light (Eph, v, 8 ; 1 Thess, v. 5 ; Luke xvi, 8).
Comp, Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9, In Christ the light had
attained to personal manifestation (John i, 4 ff,, iii. 9, viii. 12; Matt, iv,
16, et al.), as the personal revelation of the divine nature itself (1 John i.
5), and the gospel was the means of its communication (Eph, iii, 9 ; Heb.
-Vl. 4; 2 Cor, iv. 4, Acts xxvi, 23, et al.) to men, who without this enlight
enment were unfit for the Messiiinic salvation (Eph. u. 1 fF., iv. 18, v, 11,
vi, 12 , 1 Thess, v, 4, et al). The instrumental definition iv ra ipuri is
placed at the end, m order that it may stand out with special emphasis;
hence, also, the relative sentence which follows refers to this very element.
An objection has been wrongly urged against our view (which is already
adopted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp, Estius and
1 Syr , Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- sion with Col, i. 12-14, may be sufiiciently ex-
laet, Erasmus, Estius, and others, including plainedbytheoiroumstancethatinAetsxxvi,
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bohmer, Huther, also Paul is the speaker, Holtzmann justly
Ewald, Ellicott, Bleek, Hofmann, advises caution with reference to the apparent
liThe mode in which Acts xxvi. 18 comes echoes of the Book of Acts in general, as
into contact as regards thought and expres- Luke originally bears the Pauline stamp.

CHAP. L 12, 13. 219
others, including Flatt and Steiger), that Paul must have used irvevpa
instead of (pd; (see Olshausen). The 'ikovovv iv ra (purl is, indeed, nothing
else than the KaXe'iv eif rd ipu; (1 Pet. ii. 9) conceived in respect of its moral
'efficacy, and the result thereof on the part of man is the elvai ipd; ev Kvpii^
(Eph V. 8), or the slvai v'lbv rov ipard; (1 Thess. V. 5; John xii. 36), a;
(puarfjps; 'sv Kdapa (Phil. ii. 15). But the light is a power ; for it is rb ipd; rij;
t;av; (John viii. 12), has its armor (Roin. xiii. 12), produces its fruit (Eph.
V. 9), effects the Christian iXiyxeiv (Eph. v. 13), endurance in the conflict of
attlictioii (Heb. x. 32), etc. 'Ev ra (purl [XXV/.] is usually connected
with roi kXvpov rdv dylav, SO that this KXrjpo; is described as existing or to be
found in light, as the kingdom of Ught; in which case we may think either
of its glory (Beza and others, Bohmer, Huther), or of its purity and perfec
tion (Olshausen, de Wette, and Dalmer) as referred to. But although the
connecting article rov might be wanting, and the KXrjpo; , . dy. iv ra ipuri
might thus form a single conception, it may be urged as an objection that
the heritage meant cannot be the temporal position of Christians, but only
the future blessedness of the Messianic glorious kingdom; comp, ver, 13,
ripi paai/i. tov viov. Hence not iv ra (pari, but possibly 'sv rfj dd^y, iv ry fuf;, 'sv
roi; oipavol;, or the like, would be a fitting definition oi" K?i^po;, which,
however, already has in rdv dylav its definite description (comp, Eph, i, 18;
Acts XX, 32, xxvi, 18), Just .as little — for the same reason, and because r.
pspida already carries with it its own definition (share in the KXypo;) — is 'sv
ra (pari to be made dependent on ryv pspida, whether iv be taken locally
(Bengel : " Lux est regnum Dei, habeiitque fideles in hoc regno partem
beatani ") or as in Acts viii, 21 (Ewald), in which case Hofmann finds the
sphere expressed (comp, also Bleek), where the saints have got their peculiar pos
session assigned to them, so that the being in light stands related to the future
glorj'as that which is still in various respects conditioned stands to plenitude
— as if KXrjpo; (comp. on Acts xxvi. 18) had not already the definite and full
eschatological sense of the possession of eternal glory. This KXijpo;, of
which the Christians are possessors {rdv aylav), ideally before the Parousia,
and thereafter really, is the theocratic designation {rhni) of the properly
of tlie Messianic kingdom (see on Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 11), and the yepl; (p'7n)
roi kXvpov is the share of indimduals ' in the same. Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 23.
Ver. 13. A more precise elucidation of the divine benefit previously
e.xpressed by rdi 'iKavaaavri . . . (purl. This verse forms the transition, by
which Paul is led on to the instructions as to Christ, which he has it in
view to give down to ver. 20.^ — e/c r^f i^ova. rov okot.] [XXV g.] rov aKor. is not
IComp. also Bleek. Hofmann incorrectly conceivedasMep'-nisof theicAiiposofthesaints,
says that to5 kAtjpou serves only to designate in which he for his part (rup.p.erexei.
the ^epis as destined for special possession. In 2 This Christological outburst runs on in the
that case, at lea.st, the qualitative genitive of form of purely positive statement, although
the abstract must have been put (rij? «X,po..o- having already in view doctrinal dangers of
p.iai as in Ps xvi. 5). But the concrete roii the kind in Colossae, According to Holtz-
«Aip'ou T. iy. is, as the literal sense of /xepi?, mann,theChristologybelongstothecomp«er;
portio, most naturally suggests, the genitivus the whole passage, vv. 14^2(1, is. forced and with-
partitivm (G. totius), so that the individual is out motive, and it is only in ver 21 that we find

220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
genitive of apposition (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the eif ryv ISaaiXeiav
that follows, genitive of the subject: out of the power, which darkness has.
The latter, as the influential power of non-Christian humanity (of the
Koapo;, which is ruled by the devil, Eph. ii. 2), is personified ; its essence is
the negation of the intellectual and ethical divine dyjfisia, and the affirm
ation of the opposite.' The act of -the 's'p'pvaaro has taken place by
means of the conversion to Christ, which is the work of God, Rom. viii.
29 f. ; Eph. ii. 4 ff. It is to be observed, that the expression eK r. efow. r.
oKdrov; is choseii as the correlative of iv ra furl in ver. 12. — koI yeriarvasv]
The matter is to be conceived locally { e'l; irspov rdrrov. Plat. Legg. vi. p. 702
B), so that the deliverance from the power of darkness appears to be
united with the removing away into the kingdom, etc.^ — eif ttjv /SaaiX k.t.X.,
that is, into the kingdom of the Messiah, (XXV h.] Eph. v. 5 ; 2 Pet. i. 11 ;
for this and nothing else is meant bj- )/ fiaaiXeia Xpiarov {rov Qeov, rdv oipavdv)
in all passages of the N. T.^ The aorist ysriar. is to be explained by the
matter being conceived proleptically {ry ydp i?,.iridi iauBypev, Bom. viii. 24),
as something already consummated (comp. on idd^aae, Rom. viii. 30). Thus
the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of their fellowship of life with
their Lord (Eph. ii. 6), as certain to the redeemed as if they were already
translated into it. The explanation which refers it to the Christian church
(so still Heinrichs, Biihr, Huther, and most expositors) as contrasted with
the Kdapo;, is just as unhistorical as that which makes it the invisible
inward, ethical kingdom (see especially Olshausen, following an erroneous
view of Luke xvii. 21), to which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately
come. Certainly all who name Christ their Lord are under this king
(Hofmann) ; but this is not yet his paaiXeia ; that belongs to the future a'lav,
Eph. V. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f., xv. 24, 50; Gal. v. 21, et al. ; John xviii. 36.— rw
aydrrv; airov] in essential meaning, indeed, nothing else than roi moi airoi
roi dyairyrov (Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5, et al.), or roi i;ioi rov dyarryrov avrov
(Matt. xii. 18; Mark xii. 6), but more prominently singling out the attribute
(Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 141 [E. T 162]) : of tlie Son of His love, that is, of
the Son who is the object of His love, genitive of the subject. Comp. Gen.
xxxv. 18 : v'lb; bdiivy; pov. Entirely parallel is Eph. i. 6 f. ; 'sv ra yyarryyiva,
iv a sxoysv k.t.X. Augustiue, de Tnn. XV. 19, understood it as genitive of
origin, making dydiry airov denote the divine substantia.* So again Olshau
sen, in whose view the expression is meant to correspond to the Johan
nine povoyevij;. This is entirely without analogy in the N. T. mode of con
ception, according to which not the procreation (ver. 15), but the sending
of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act ; and the love is not the
the direct sequel to ver. 13. The latter state- xxvi. 18 ; Rom. xiii. 12 ; Eph. v. 8, vi. 12, et al.
ment is incorrect. And why should this ex- 2 Comp. Plat Eep. p. 518 A: Ik ts (pmris eis
cursus, as a grand basis for all the exhorta- aKoroi p.ediiTrap.evi.3v icai ex o-jcotouc eis (pOi^.
tions and warnings that follow, be held with- scomp. iv. 11 ; and see on Rom. xiv. 17 ; 1
out due motive f Holtzmann forms too harsh Cor. iv. 20; Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10.
a judgment as to the whole passage i. 9-23, * Theodore of Mopsuestia finds in the ex-
when he declares it incompatible with any pression the contrast that Christ was the Son
strict exegetical treatment. of God ov ipHireL, dAV ayaiTj] t^s uioflecrtas.
1 Comp. Luke xxii. 53 ; Matt iv. 16 ; Acts

CHAP. J. 14, 15. 221
essence of God (in the metaphysical sense), but His essential disposition
(the essence in the ethical sense), even in 1 John iv. S, 16. Consequently
it might be explained : " of the Son, whom His love has sent," if this were
suggested by the context ; so far, however, from this being the case, the
language refers to the exalted Christ who rules {3aaiXslav). The expression
itself, d i-idf r^f d}d-. airoi, is found in the N. T. only here, but could not
be chosen more suitably or with deeper feeling to characterize the opposite
of the God-hated element of ^Korof, which in its nature is directly opposed
to the divine love. The view, that it is meant to be intimated that the
sharing in the kingdom brings mth it the vioBeaia (Huther, de Wette),
imports what is not expressed, and anticipates the sequel, Holtzmann
without ground, and unfairlj-, asserts that in comparison with Eph, i. 6,
our passage presents " stereotyped modes of connection and turns of an
ecclesiastical orator," under which he includes the Hebraizing d mdf rf/;
dydirr,; air. as being thoroughly un-Pauline — as if the linguistic resources
of the apostle could not even extend to an expression which is not
indeed elsewhere used by him, but is in the highest degree appropriate to
a specially vivid sense of the divine act of love ; something sentimental
in the best sense,
Yer, 14. Not a preliminary condition of the vioBsala (de Wette), nor the
benefit of which Christians become partakers in the kingdom of the
Son of God (Huther; against which it may be urged that the, SaaiXsia does
not denote the kingdom of the church) ;. nor yet a mark of the deliverance
fi-om darkness having taken place,' — since this deliverance neces-arily
coincides with the translation into the kingdom ; but it is the abiding
{ixousv, habemus, not accepimus) relation, in which that transference into the
kingdom of God has its causal basis. The ransoming (from the punishment
of sin, see the explanatory ryv dipsciv rdv dpapr.) we have in Chri-it, inas
much as He, by the shedding of His blood as the purchase-price (see on
1 Cor. vi. 20; Gal. iii. 13, iv. 5). has given Himsebf as a /irpov (Matt. xx.
28; Mark x. 4-5 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6); and this redemption, effected by His
i?Manjpiov (Rom. iii. 21 ff.), remains continually in subsistence and efficacy.
Hence : hi a, which specifies wherein the subjective ixoysv is objectively
based, as its causa meritoria (Rom. iii. 24). Comp., moreover, on Eph. i. 7,
whence did rov aiparo; airov has found its way hither as a correct gloss.
But the deleting of this addition by no means implies that we should
make ruv duapndv also belong to rfyv drroXiTpaaiv (Hofrnann), as in Heb. ix.
15, especiaUy as Paul elsewhere only uses drroXirpuai; either absolutely
(Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7. iv. 30) or with the genitive of the
subject (Rom. viii. 23 ; Eph. i. 14). The expression dosai; . . dpapr. is not
used by him elsewhere in the epistles (comp., however, Rom. iv. 7), but at
Acts xiii. 38, xxvi. 28. Holtzmann too hastily infers that the wi-iter had
read the Svnoptics.
Ver. 15.^ [On \w. 15 ff., see Note XX^T:. pages 267, 268.] After having stated,
1 Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. '- As to w. 15-20, see Schleiermacher in the
„„ .,, Stud. u. Krit. isai, f.i31ff,i.TVerkt z.Theol.11.

222 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
in ver. 14, what we have in Christ (whose state of exaltation he has in "view,
see ver. 13, ryv jiaaiXeiav), Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epex
egetical relati\-e clause, depicts what Christ is, namely, as regards His
divine dignity — having in view the influences of the false teachers, who
with Gnostic tendencies depreciated this dignity. The plan of the dis
course is not tripartite (originator of the physical creation, ver. 15 i. ; maiii-
tainer of everything created, ver. 17; relation to the new moral creation,
ver. 18 ff., — so Biilir, while others divide differently)', but bipartite, [XXVI
a.] in such a way that vv. 15-17 set forth the exalted metaphysical rela
tion of Christ to God and the world, and then ver. 18 ff.. His historical
relation of dignity to the church.'' This division, which in itself is logically
correct (whereas ver. 17 is not suited, either as regards contents or form,
to be a separ.ate, co-ordinate part), is also externally indicated by the two
confirmatory clauses on iv aira k.t.X. in ver. 16 and ver. 19, by which tlie
two preceding " affirmations in ver. 15 and ver. 18 are .shown to be the proper
parfs of the discourse, [XXVI 6,] Others* have looked upon the twice-
expressed Of ianv in ver, 15 and ver, 18 as marking the beginning of the
two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the second 6f ianv;
for the main idea, which governs the whole effusion, \-v, 15-20, is the glory
of the dominion of the Son of God, in the description of wliich Paul evidently
begins the second part with the words Kal avrd;, ver. IS, passing over from
the general to the special, namely, to His government over the church to
which He has attained by His resurrection. [XXVI c] On the details,
see below. [On vv. 15-17, see Note XXVII. pages. 269-271.]— 6f ianv k.t.X.]
It is to be observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His present
existence, consequently as regards the presence and continuance of His
state of exaltation (comp. on vv. 13, 14) ; hence he afiirms, not what Christ
was, but what He is. On this iariv, comp. vv. 17, 18, and 2 Cor. iv. 4.
Therefore not only the reference to Chriit's temporal manifestation (Calvin,
Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), but also the limit
ation to Christ's divine nature or the Logos (Calovius, Estius, "\'\'olf, and
many others, including Biihr, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther) is incorrect.
The only correct reference is to His whole person, [XXVII a.], which, in

p. 321 a.), and, in opposition to his ethical ence to the incarnation, and in vv. 18-20, with
interpretation (of Christ as the moral Re- reference to the same.
former of the world), Holzhausen in the 7Yi6. 3 In conformity with the confirmatory func-
Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 236 ff. ; Osiander, ibid. tion of the on, according to which not the
1833, 1, 2; Bahr, appendix to Komment. p. clause introduced by on, but the clause which
321 tf.; Bleek on Heb. i. 2. See generally it is to confirm, contains the leading thought,
also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 153 ff., If. 1, to which on k.t.K. is logically subordinated.
p. 357 ff. ; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. Hence the two pnrt« are not to be begun with
18G0, p. 446f. the two clauses on ev aiirif themselves (so
le. jr. Calovius: "Redemptoris descriptio a Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 182), in
Deitafe: a.h opere creationis," and " quod capii* which case, moreover, ver. 16 is supposed to
ecclesiae sit." Comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. U. be quite aloof from this connection— a suppo-
p, 299 f. sition at variance with its even verbally evi-
2 Olshausen brings the two divisions under dent association with ver. 16.
the exegetically erroneous point of view that, 4See especially Bengel, Schleiermacher,
in vv. 15-17, Christ is described without refer- Hofmann, comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 77.

CHAP. I. 1-5. 223
the divine-human state of its present heavenly existence, is continually
that which its di\-ine nature — this nature considered in and by itself — was
before the incarnation ; so that, in virtue of the identity of His divine
nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ as to the Logos.
See Phil. ii. 6 ; John xvii. 5. — eiittiv -oi Qsov rov dopdrov] image of God the
invisible. [XX^'II 6.] Comp. on 2 Cor. iv. 4. As, namely, Christ in His
pre-existence' down to His incarnation aheady possessed the essential
divine glory, so that He was as to nature laa Geu, and as to form of appear
ance ev yopipi Qsov i-dpxav (see on Phil, ii, 6) ; so, after He had by means
of the incarnation divested Himself, not indeed of His God-equal nature,
but of His di\-ine ddfa, and had humbled Himself, and had in obedience
towards God died even the death of the cross. He has been exalted again
by God to His original glory (Phil. ii. 9 ; John xvii. 5), so that the divine
d6;a now exists (comp. on ii. 9) in His glorified corporeal manifestation
(Phil. iii. 21) ; and He — the exalted Christ — in this His glor)', which is
tnat of His Father, represents and brings to view by exact image God,
who is in Himself invisible. He is airai')aapa ttj; dd^y; Kai xapoKryp rf,;
i-oardasa; Qeov (Heb. i. 8),' and, in this majesty, in which He is the exactly
similar visible revelation of God, He will present Himself to aU the world
at the Parousia (Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31 ; Phil. iii. 20 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Pet.
iv. 13 ; Tit. ii. 13, et al.). The predicate rov dopdrov, placed as it is in its
characteristically significant attributive position ' behind the emphatic roi
Seoi-, posits for the conception of the exact image risibility (Heb. xii. 14 ; 2
Cor. iii. IS ; Acts xxii. 11) ; but the assumption that Paul had thus in view
the Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and
manifest God *, the less admits of proof, because he i* not speaking here
of the pre-existence, but of the exalted Christ, including, therefore. His
human nature ; hence, also, the comparison with the angel Metatron of
Jewish theolog}- (comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is irielevant.
The Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly laid
stress upon the fact= that, according to the entire context, e'lKuv rov Qeov is
meant in the eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently
consubstantial, image of God (pdvo; ... xai drrapa'/XoKra; s'lKov, Theophy
lact), and not as man (Gen. i. 26 ; comp. also 1 Cor. xi. 7 ; Col. iii. 10) or
1 Sabatier, p. 290, without reason represents icn'o-., however, has nothing to do with irpioro-
the apo.=tle as in a state of indistinct su,;pense to>co5, Heb. i. 6, where the absolute word is
in regard to his conception of this pre-exist- rather to be explained in accordance with
ence. AndPfleiderer(inHilgenfeld'sZrifacftr. Rom.viiL29. We make this remark in oppo-
l.«Tl. p. ,T.33) sees in the pre-e,xistence a sub- sition to Holtzmann, according to whom "the
jective product, the consequence, namely, of autor ad Ephesios as to his Christology walks in
the fact that Christisthei-doi/o/M«desrtnvo/ the track opened bythe Epistle to the He-
Me human mind, hypostasized in a single per- brews." Other apparent resemblances to this
son, to which is transferred the eternity and letter are hnmaterial.and similar ones can be
unchanged self-eqnality of the idea. gathered from all the Pauline letters.
' This is the chief point of agreement be- ' Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvi, ; Bem-
tween our Epi>tle and the Epi.-tle to the He- hardy, p. 322 f.
brews: and it i= explained by the Piviline <See Vsteri, Lehrbegr. p. 308; comp. Bahr,
basis and footinsr, on which the author of the Olshausen, Steiger, Huther,
latter stood. The subsequent spoiTorosos irou. ' See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 415.

224 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the creation (Rom. i, 20) is God's image. In that case, however, the invis-
ihility of the eiKav is not at all to be considered as presupposed (Chrysos
tom Calovius, and others) ; this, on the contrary, pertains to the Godhead
in itself (1 Tim, i, 17 ; Heb. xi. 27), so far as it does not present itself in its
s'lKdv; whereas the notion of s'ikuv necessarily involves perceptibility (see
above) ; " Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago," Grotius, This visibility — and
that not merely mental (Rom, i, 20)— had been experienced by Paul him
self at his conversion, and at Christ's Parousia will be fully experienced
by all the world, Diflerent from this is the (discursive) cognoscibility of
God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and working.
John i. 18, xiv, 9. This applies against the view of Calvin, Clericus, and
many others, including de ^^'ette : " in His person, appearance, and oper
ation . , , God has made Himself as it were visible."'^ Thus the substan
tiality of the exact image is more or less turned into a quasi or quodam
modo, and the text is thus laid open to every kind of rationalizing caprice.
AVe may add that Christ was already, as Xdyo; daapKo;, necessarily the
image of God, but iv yopipy Qeov, in purely divine glory ; not, as after His
exaltation, in divine-human dd^a ; consequently, the doctrine of an eternal
humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based on s'ikuv tov Qeov.' The
idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which is held by Bej'schlag here to
underlie that of the image of God (comp, his Christol. p, 227), is foreign to
the context. Certainly God has in eternitj' thought of the humanity which
in the fullness of time was to be assumed by His Son (Acts xv, 18) ; but
this is simply an idecd pre-existence (comp, Delitzsch, Psychol, p, 41 ff,),
such as belongs to the entire history of salvation, very different from the
real antemundane existence of the personal Logos, — -purdroKo; irday; kt'i-
oewf]! [XXVII c] After the relation of Christ to God now follows His
relation to what is created, in an apologetic interest of opposition to the
Gnostic false teachers,^ The false teachers denied to Christ the supreme
unique rank in the order of spirits. But he is first-bom of every creature,
that is, born before every creature — having come topersoncd existence,* entered
upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created was extant (Rom, i, 25, viii,
39 ; Pleb, iv, 13), [XXYII d. e.] Analogous, but not equivalent, is Prov.
viii, 22 f. It is to be observed that this predicate also belongs to the entire
Christ, inasmuch as by His exaltation His entire person is raised to that
state in which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed before the
1 Comp, Grotius : " Adam imago Dei fait, sed ^ According to Hofmann {Schriftbew,), the ex-
valde tenuis; in Christo perfectissime appa- pression is also intended to imp]y that the ex-
ruit, quam Deus esset sapiens, potens, bo- istence of all created things was brought about
nus;" Baumgarten-Crusius: "the affinity to through Him. But this is only stated in iwAtti
God (which is held to consist in the destina- follows, and is not yet contained in ttputoto-
tion of ruling over the spirit-world) as Christ ko? by itself, which only posits the origin of
showed it upon earth," Christ (as Aoyos irpoipopiKo^) in His temporal re-
;' Comp, Wisd, vii, 26, and Grimm, Handb. p. lation to the creature ; and this point is the
161 f. more purely to be adhered to, seeing that
3)3ouAeTcit6eT^aton irpo irdo-T)? ryj^ Krtrreias ea- ChrlstHlmself does not belong to the category
Tiv 0 utdg, TTWS OiV, Sta yevrfireuis' oilKOvv Kal tOiv of the KTto-iy. Calvin also has understood it
ayyeKujv irpdrepoy, Kat oi!Tt.>s titrre Kal avrbs Ik- as Hofmann does ; com p. also Gess, V. d. Pers.
Ttcrei' auTotis, Theophylact. Chr. p, 79, and Beyschlag. p, 446, according to

CHAP. I. 15. 225
creation of the world, corresponding to the Johannine expression ev dpxy
ryv 0 Xdyo;, which in Substance, although not in form, is also Pauline;
comp. Phil. ii. 6. Philo's term rrpuTo^ovo;, used of the Logos, denotes the
same relation ; but it is not necessary to suppose that Paul appropriated
from him this expression, which is also current among classical authors, or
that the apostle was at all dependent on the Alexandrian philosophic
view. The mode in which he conceived of the personal pre-existence of
Christ before the world as regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the
figurative irpardroKo; more precisely than as procession from the di\-ine
nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the Logos, by saj-ing
that the Father dvirsO^v Him), whereby the premuiidane Christ became
subsistent iv popoy Qsov and laa Gedi (Phil. ii. 6). The genitive irdi7;?f Kriasa;,
moreover, is not the partitive genitive (although de Wette still, -with Usteri,
Reuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because the anarthrous -daa
KTiai; does not mean ihe whole creation, or everything ivhich is created (Hof
mann), and consequently cannot affinn the category or collective ivhole' to
which Christ belongs as its first-bom indi^¦idual (it means : every creature;
comp. on irdaa o'lKodoyri, Eph. ii. 21 ') ; but it is the genitive of comparison,
corresponding to the superlative expression: " the first-born in comparison
with every creature" (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that is, born earlier than every
creature.^ In Rev. i. 5, irpurdroK. ruv vsKpdv, the relation is different, , . vsk-
pdv pointing out the categorj* ; comp. rrpaToroK. 'sv itoXXm; dd., Rom. viii.
29. The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative genitive
with rrpdroc ; see on John i. 15, and generally, Kuhner, II. 1, p. 335 f. The
element of comparison is the relation of time (-pd rov rbv Koapov slvai, John
x\-ii. 5), and that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case
of every ktIoi; is different fi-om w-hat it is in the case of Christ, neither irpard-
KTiaro; nor -purd-XuiaTQ; is made use of,-* — ^terms which would indicate for
whom Christ is at the same time to be de.=ig- Tipiaroyovo^. Hofmann indeed {Heil. Schr. in
nated a.* the principle of the creature, whose loc.) opines that iracni? Kn'tretus is simply geni-
origin bears in it-el f that of the latter. live " of the detinition of relation." But this,
5 Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Eep. p. 60S C. The in fact, explains noi/iing, because the question
article would necessa.-ily be added, as Traaa remains. What relation is meant to be defined
il Kno-if, Judith xvi. 14, or il ^raaa Kn'o-is, 3 by the genitive ? The "piuTorOKOs -aoTjs icri-
Macc. vi. 2, or ^ Kntn? irao-o. Comp. also o\rj o-eo? is not at all to be got over so easily as
T] K-itns, Wisd. xix. 6. it is by Hoffmann, namely, with a grammati-
» Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. n. 156 : " In relation cally erroneous explanation of the anarthrous
to all that is created, Christ occupies the posi- -^in^ «""¦«. and '^ith appeal to Ps. Ixxxix. 25
tion which a first-born has towards the house- (where, in fact, :7p<.,TdTOKos stands without
hold of his father." Essenti.-illy similar is his genitive, and ^U3 i° the sense of the first
view in his Heil. .Schr. X. T., p. W. where ir. rank).
Kritr. is held to mean "all creation," and to 'Comp. Bahr. and Bleek, Ernesti, Vrspr. d.
signify"all that is created in iis unitu," 'trhich Sunde, I. p. 241; Weiss, £!()(. TTieo;. p. 424;
is also the opinion of Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2.
Cnristol. p. 211. The interpretation of Hof- *How much, however, the designations
mann (comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 79) is incorrect, -ptoTOKnoros, nriaiLa, Kn<eti. k.t.X., as applied
because there would thereby be necessarily to the origin of the Son, were in use among
afBrmed a *omojen«)u6 relation of origin for the Alexandrians (following Prov. viii. 22,
Christ and all the Kno-15. The Kno-« would where Wisdom says : Kupioi «no-e p-e, comp.
stand to Christ in the relation of the /xera- Ecclus. i. 4, xxiv. 8 f.), may be seen in Giese-
T£x»"! to the TrpcoToTOKos, of thc iniyovof to the ler, Kirchengesch. 1. 1, p. 327, ed. 4.
15

226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Christ, who is withal Son of God, a similar mode of origin as for the
creature — but the term rrpardroKo; is chosen, which, in the comparison as
to time of origin, points to the peculiar nature of the origination in the
case of Christ, namely, that He was not created by God, like the other
beings in whom this is implied in the designation ktIoi;, but bom, having
come forth homogeneous from the nature of God. And by this is
expressed, not a relation homogeneous with the ktIoi; (Holtzmann), a
relation kindred to the world (Beyschlag, Christol. p, 227), but that which is
absolutely exalted above the world and unique, Theodoret justlj- obseiwes -
oix "C ddsXipiiv ixuv ryv KTiaiv, a)J' u; irpb irday; Kriasu; yswyBsi;. At variance
with the words, therefore, is the Arian interpretation, that Christ is desig
nated as the first creature; so also Usteri, p. 315, Schwegler, Baur, Reuss,
With this view the sequel also conflicts, which describes Christ as the
accomplisher and aim of creation; hence in His case a mode of origin
higher and different from the being created must be presupposed, which is,
in fact, characteristically indicated in the purposely-chosen word irpardro
Ko;. The Socinian interpretation is also incorrect^ (Grotius, Wetstein,
Nosselt, Heinrichs, and others), that icriat; denotes the new ethical creation,
along with which there is, for the most part, associated the reference of
rrpardroK. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, IMelanchthon, Cameron, Ham
mond, Zachariae, and others, including Storr and Flatt ; comp. de Y'ette),
which is assumed also by many who undert<tand it of the physical creation.
It is decisive against this interpretation, that ktIoi; would necessarily
require for the moral notion a more precise definition, either by a pre
dicate {kolvv, 2 Cor, V, 17 ; comp, Barnabas, ep. c, xvi, : '/.afidvTe; rijv dipeaiv
rdv dpapridv Kal iXiriaavrs; i-l ra 'ovdpari rov Kvpiov, iyevdpeBa Kaivol, irdXiv ef
dpxv( KTit^opsvoi), or at least by a context wliich admitted of no doubt; also,
that irpuTOTOKo; never means the most excellent, and can only have this sense
ex adjundo (as at Ps. Ixxxix. 28; Rom. viii. 29), which in this passage is
not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and irpb irdvrav in
ver 17 ; comp. also irpardroKo; iK rdv vsKpuv in ver. 18) brings prominently
'forward the relation of time.^ This irpurdroKov elvai belongs to the high
dignity of Christ (comp. Rev. iii. 14. y dpxv "/£ Kriasu; rov Qeov), but it
does not signify it." The ethical* interpretation of the passage appears all
the more mistaken, since according to it, even if -purdroK is understood
temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius . " kt'iou; is that which is remodelled, and
1 The Socinian doctrine argues thus " pn- ^eeAijo-ev 6 0eo9 Troiijo-at oo-a i^ovXevaaro, TOUTOV
mogeiiitum unum ex eorum numero,quorum tou Koyov eyevvya-t :rpo(#ioptK6u, jrpioToToKou ira-
primogenitus est, esse necesse est," but o-ij; KTio-eia^.
Christ could not be " unus e rebus conditis s Comp. Justin, c. Tr. 100-: irpioroTOKou fiJu
creationis veteris," — an assumption which tou 0eou k Trpb jriunju Tiu Kno-ftiiTaju.
wouldbeArian, Hemustconsequentlybelong 4Both errors of the Socinians, etc., are al
to the neio creation, from which it follows, at ready present in Theodore of Jlopsuestia,
the same time, that He does not possess a di- namely, that ttpojtotokos iritr ktio- does not
vine nature See Catech Racov 167, p 318, ed stand eiri i^povov, but eiri n-poTt/i^o-€tas, and sig-
Oeder nifies irapa Trdaav T7)u KTiaiv rtp-uifj-evo? , and
2Chrysostom]ustlysays ouxi if Jas k ti^^!, that the following eu auT<3 k.t A does not de-
aXAa xpououjiouou eo-Tt oTjuauTtKou, and already note tiju irptoriju, but T^u eu avrii yevop-evriv
Theophilus, ad j4ii(o; h. 31, p 172 iirore Sk aviKTiaiv Comp. also Photius, jmj)^!!. 19^.

CHAP. L 16. 227
rrpardroKo;, He who has come first under this category, has first received
this higher spiritual dignify "), Christ is made to be included under the ktIoi;,
which is at variance both with the context in ver. 16 f., and with the whole
X. T. Christology, especially the rinlessness of Christ. If, however, in
order to ob\-iate this ground of objection, rrpurdroKo; is combined as an
adjective with e'lKav, we not only get a comphcated construction, since both
words have their genitival definition, but -purd-o/cof (instead of rrparrdrviro;)
would be an inappropriate predicate for s'ikuv. This apphes against Schlei
ermacher, who, taking Kriai; as " di:^positiijn and arrangement of human
things," educes the rationalizing interpretation, that Christ is in the whole
compass of the spiritual world of man the first-born image, the original
copy of God; that all believers ought to be formed in the image of Christ,
and thence the image of God would likewise necessarily ari.se in them —
an image of the second order. In the interest of opposition to heresy,
some, folio-wing Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. iii, 31, p. 237, and Ba-;il the Great,
c. Eanom. iv. p. 104, have made the fiKl-bom even into the hrst-bringer-forth,
irparordKo;, as paroxytone, according to the classical usage,' as, with Erasmus
in his An-no?. (but only permi.-^ively) Erasmus Schmid and Michaelis did,
although rrpuroTOKo; in an active sense occurs only of the female sex, and
the verj' •;rp6)rdro/cof eK r. vsKp. of ver. 18 ought to have dissuaded from such
an idea, to say nothing of the unfitness and want of delicacy of the
figure^ as relating to Christ's agency in the creation of the world, and of
the want of reference in the irparov to the idea of a deirspov — an idea which,
t\-ith the usual interpretation, is implied in Kriasu;. — ^^'er. 15 f. is, more
over, strikingly opposed to that assumption of a world without beginning
(Schleiermacher, Rothe).
Ver. 16. For in Him were all things created, — ^the logically correct con
firmation of irporrdTOKo; rrda. Kriasa;. For if the creation of all things took
place in Christ, it is e%-ident that He must stand brfore the series of created
things, and be -pwrdroKOf -dc^f KT,asa;. — ev ai'T(p] [XX"\'II/.] is not eqivalent
to dl- airov (Chrvsostom, Oecumenius. Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Bleek,
and many others), but . on Christ depended (causally) the act of creation,
so that the latter was not done independently of Him — in a causal con
nection apart from Him — but it had m Him the ground essentially con
ditioning it. In Him lay, in fact, the potency of life, from which God
made the work of creation proceed, inasmuch as He was the personal
principle of the divine self-revelation, and therewith the accomplisher of
the divine idea of the world. A well-known classical usage to denote the
dependence of a state of things, the causality of which is contained in any
one.^ X"ot as if the "causa principalis" oi the creation lay m Christ, but
the organic causality of the worid's becoming created was in Him ; hence
the following dr' airov affii-nis not a different sfn^e o/ ^/i i»;7s, but the same
thing under a varied form of conception and designation, by which it is
iHom. Jl. xvii 5; Plat. Tlteaet p. 161 A, vani,v K-i(riv, Isidore. I.e.
151 C Valckenaer, Schol.ll. p. 389. 3 gee Bernhardy, p. 210 j KQhner, II. 1, p. 403
SirpiTou aurou tctokcuo., toOt' eon .e^oiy.e- I. ; from the -X. T., Winer, p. 364 [E. T. 389].

228 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
brought out in greater definiteness. The primary ground of creation is
ever God, Rom. xi. 36 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Heb. xi. 3. The speculative inter
pretation of scholastic theology, wliich found here the " causa exemplaris,"
according to which the idea omnium rerum was in Chnst, is indeed
followed ill the main again by Beyschlag, as earlier by Kleuker, Bohmer,
Biihr, Neander, Schleiermacher, Steiger, Julius Miiller, Olshausen (the
latter saying : " the Son of God is the intelligible world, the Kdapo; voyrd;,
that is, things in their very idea ; He bears their essence in Himself "),
but is destitute of confirmation from the modes of conception and expres
sion elsewhere in the X. T., and, as iKrlcBy denotes the historical fact of the
having been created, it would require not 'sv aira, but ef airoii, by which the
coming forth of the real from the ideal existence in Christ might be expressed.
Huther finds the inward connection indicated by ei; at>ru in the idea, that
the eternal essence of the universe is the divine essence itself, which m
Christ became man. This idea in itself has no biblical ground ; and Paul is
speaking here, not of the existence and essence of the universe in Christ,
but of the becoming created, which took place in Christ {iv aira t^uy yv,
John i. 4), consequently of a divine act depending on Christ; comp. John
1. 3 : ;t"P'r airov 'eyevero oidi iv b yi}ovsv; Heb. i. 2; and Bleek in loc.
Lastly, de Wette finds in ei' besides the instrumental agency at the same
time something of a telic idea (comp. also Ewald and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p.
424 f ) ; but this blending together of two heterogeneous references is not
justified by the dt' airov koI si; airdv that follows. — SKrlaBv] physical act of
creation , Schleiermacher ought not to have called in question the linguistic
usage to this effect, with a view to favor the ethical interpretation of the
founding of the church.^ The word may have the ineaning adopted by
Schleiermacher : to obtain its arrangement and constitution,^ and that
according to the relative nature of the notion implied in the word
condere; ' but not here, where it is correlative with irday; Kriasa;, and
where the quite general and in no way to be restricted rd irdvro follows.
Throughout the N. T., in general ktiI^u, ktIci;, Kriaya, denote the original
bringing forth, never merely the arrangement of that which exists ; and
even in such passages as Eph. ii. 10, 15, iv. 24, the relation is conceived,
only in a popular manner, as actual creation. — Observe, moreover, the
distinction of the tenses ¦ iKriaBy, which denotes the act that took place ; and
then iKTiarai, which denotes the creation which has taken place and now
subsists.^ — rd irdvra] the collective ivhole, namely, of what is created. This is
then sjpecified in a twofold way, as well in regard to place as in regard to
nature. — rd ei' toZc oipavol; «.r.;i.] tlie things to be found in the heavens ar^d
those to be found on earth. This is certainly a less exact designation of all
created things than that in Rev. x, 6 (rdi^ ovpavov Kal rd iv airiji k.t.X, ; comp.
iSee Wisd, i. 14, x, 1, xi. 18; Deut, iv. 32; Choeph. 484; Soph Ant. 1101 •, Pind 01. vi
comp. Gen. vi, 7; Ecclus xxiv, 9, comp, xv. 116; 3 Esdr iv. 53
14 ; Judith Xlii. IS ; comp Gen. i. I ; 1 Cor. xL ' Comp. Blomf Oloss in Aesch. Pers. 294.
9; Eph. iil. 9; Rom. i 25; Kev. x. 6, comp. *See Winer, p. 255 [E,T. 272]; Kuhner, II
xiv. 7. 1, p. 143 f., and ad Xen. Mem, ill. 1. 4, iU.
2Herod. i. 149, 167, 168 ; Thuc. 1. 100 ; Aesch. 7. 7.,

CHAP. L 16. 229
Xeh. ix. 6 ; Gen. ii, 1, et al.), but does not differ from it, as it does not
exclude heaven and earth themselves, the constituent elements of which,
in the popular view, are included in these two categories, Comp. 1
Chron. xxx, 11, It is incorrect, therefore, to press this expression in
opposition to the explanation which refers it to the creation of the world
(Wetstein : " non dicit d oipavb; koI y yij 'eKr'iaBy sed rd -dira, etc, quO
habitatores significantur, qui reconciliantur,'' comp, Heinrichs and others,
also Catech. Racov. 132, p, 214, ed, Oeder), and to think, with Schleier
macher, of the kingdom of heaven ; but it is arbitrary also, especially after
-d irdvra, to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bahr, de Wette)
or rational creatures. The expression embraces everything; hence there
was neither need for the mention of the lower world, nor, looking at the
bipartite form of enumeration, occasion for it (it is otherwise in Phd.
ii, 10 ; Rev. v, 3). The idea that Paul could not have adduced those under
the earth as a special class of created beings, because God had not created
them with the view of their being under the earth (de Wette), would
imply a reflection alien to the vivid flow of the passage before us, — rd
dpard k. rd ddparo]. By the latter is meant the heavenly world of spirits, the
angelic commonwealth, as is evident from the more precise enumeration
which follows, aaid not the souls of men (Chrysustom, Theophylact, and
others), which, on the contrar\", as animatmg a portion of the dpard, are
included among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts that even rd
dpard applies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and stars) ; it apphes to every
thing visible, as in Plat. Pliaed. p. 79 A : Bdpsv oiv, sl yioi/^i, ioy, dvo sidy rdv
dvrav rb piv dpardv, rb di deidi;. — The ddpara are now more precisely specified
disjunctively by s'lrs, sive . . . sive (put more than twice ; comp. Plat. Rep. p.
612 A, 493 D; Ecclus. xli. 4). As to the four denominations of angels
which follow [XXYII g.] — ^^vhose difference of rank Hofrnann ground
lessly denies,^ understanding thereby merely " spirits collectively, of u'hat-
ever name they may be " — see on Eph. i. 21 ; Rom. viii. 38. In accordance
with Eph. i. 21, where the grades of angels are mentioned in descending
order, the arrangement here must be understood so, that the Bpdvoi are
the highest and the Kvptdrryrs; the lowest class, the dpxal and the i^ovalai
being two middle orders lying between these two extremes. At Eph. I.e.
Paul names also four grades of the angelic hierarchy ; but neither there
nor here has he intended to give a complete enumeration of them, for in
the former case he omits the Bpdvoi, and in the latter the dwdysi;. The
Bpavoi are not mentioned elsewhere in the X. T. (nor yet in Ignat. ad Trail.
5), but they occur iu the Test. Levi, p. .548, in which they are placed in the
seventh heaven (ev u dei ipvoi ra Bsa rrpoarpipovrai), also in Dionys. Areop.
Hier. ccel. 6. ff., and in the Rabbins.^ As regards the expression, the last
three denominations are to be taken as abstracts, which represent the
respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun Bpdvoi is used for
'See, on the other hand, Hahn, Theol. d. 2 Buxtorf, iei. Talm.. p. 1097; Schoettgen,
N. T. 1. p. 292 f. ; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. Hor. p. 808.
308 f. ; Kahnis, Dogm. L p. 559.

230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
those to be found on the thrones (for those enthroned).^ In this case the very
natural supposition that the angels, whose designation by the term Bpdvoi
must have been in current use, were, in the imagery wliich gave sensuous
embodiment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be called
in question (in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 226). They were
probably conceived as enthroned round the throne of God (comp. Rev. iv.
4, XX. 4). It is to be observed, moreover, generally that Paul presupposes
the various classes of angels, which he names, as well known; although we
are unacquainted with the details of the case, this much is nevertheless
certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy fancies
indulged in on this point by the later Rabbins.'-' But very soon after the
apostolic age (comp. Hermas, Past. vis. iii. 4), instruction as to roiroBsaia;
rd; dyyeXiKd; was regarded as teaching for the more perfect. See Ignatius,
ai Trail. 5. For the Christian faith there remains and suffices the
testimony as to different and distinctively designated stages and
categories in the angelic world, while any attempt to ascertain more than
is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy. —
With i^ovalai is concluded the confirmatory sentence {on), so that a full stop is
to be placed after i^ova. With rd irdvra begins a new sentence, in which
rd irdvra and airdf correspond to one another; hence a comma only must
stand after iKnarai. There is no reason for placing (with Lachmann) rd
irdvra down to 'sKKXya. ill a parenthesis. — rd irdvra di airov /c.r.A.] a solemn
recapitulation,^ but in such a way that, instead of the act of creation
previously mentioned, there is now presented the finished and ready
result {eKTiarai) ; the causal relation which was previously denoted by iv is
now more precisely indicated as a relation of mediate agency {di' airov,
comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6) ; then in eif airdv a new element is added, and the
emphasis which in ver, 16 lay on 'sKriaBy, is now laid on rd rrdvra Avhich
stands at the head of the sentence. We cannot say with Hofmann, that
by dl' airov and eif airdi' the Son comes to stand in contradistinction to
what has been created as Creator, after by 'ev aira the creative act has
been presented as one that had taken place only not without the Son. By the
latter, ei; avra would become too general and indefinite a thought ; while
dc avTov in fact leaves the Father as the Creator, which He is, and predi- '
cates of the Son merely the " causa medians " of the execution of the work,
just as eif airdv predicates the '' causa finalis " of the same, — eif airdv]
in reference to Him, for Him, as the aim and end, " in quo Pater acqui
escit," Beza. Comp. Rom. xi. 86; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Barnab. Ep. 12: iv avra
rd irdvra Kal eif avrdv. The more exact purport of this relation is apparent
from all that follows down to ver. 20. Everything, namely, is created, in
order to be dependent on Christ and to serve His will and aim.* Comp, on
1 Comp, Kuhner, II, 1, p, 11 ; Ruhnken, ad so as once more to express as clearly as possi-
Tim. p. 190, tie the whole in all conceivable temporal
2 See Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II, p. relations."
^1^- * And, if the world was created not merely
"Ewald well says: "Just at this point the SC aurou, but also et; auniu, consequently
discourse breaks forth as if with fresh force, in telic reference to Him, it is certain thai with

CHAP. I. 17. 231
Eph. i. 23, iv. 10 ; Phil. ii. 9 ff. The final cause of the world, referred in
Rom. xi. 36 to God, is here affirmed of Chi-ist, and with equal right; for
He, as He was the organ of God in creation, is the commissioned ruler to
whom the Kvpidry; rdv rrdvrav is committed (Matt, xxviii. 18 ; Phil. ii. 9 ; 1
Cor. XV. 27 ; Heb. ii. 8), in order that everything created may have the
ethical telic destination of serving Him.^ More special definitions of the
meaning of eif airdv are without due warrant, and in particular, the often-
repeated one : to His glorification (Beza, Flatt, Bohmer, and others) ; it lays
down Christ in general as the legitimus finis (Calvin). — The expositors,
who explain the words as referring to the new moral creation, have sum
moned to their aid all kinds of arbitrary conjectures in detail^^a remark
which applies not merely to Xosselt, Heinrichs, and others, but also to
Schleiermacher, who holds (comp, Baumgarten-Crusius) that rd 'sv r. ovp.
is everything that belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and rd 'srrl , . yij;
everything which belongs to ci\il order in earthly kingdoms ; that rd
dpard and rd ddpara apply only to the latter; that the Bpdvoi k.t.X. are
magisterial offi^xs, and the like,
Yer. 17. Kai ai-df] [XXVII h.] which is to be separated from the pre
ceding by a comma only (see on ver, 16), places, in contradistinction to
the created objects in ver, 16 (rd irdvra), the subject, the creating self: " and
He Himself, on His part, has an earlier existence than all things, and the
collective whole subsists in Him," Xever is airdf in the nominative '-' the
mere unemphatic " he " oi the previous subject (de "\^'ette), either in Greek
authors or in the X. T,, not even in passages such as Buttmann [Xeut. Or.
p, 94 [E, T, 107] brings forward,' — -pb rrdvrurv] like irpardroKo;, referring to
time, not to rank (as the Socinians, Nosselt, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others hold) ; Paul thus repeatedly and empliati-
cally lays stress on the pre-existence of Christ, Instead of 'earl, he might
have written yv (John i. Vp; but he makes use of the former, because he
the counsel of creation there was also posited, et? auTtju eKri,(TTai is the necessary- prelimi-
in prospect of the entry of sin, the counsel nary condition, on God's part, to the universal
of redemption. Comp. Thomasius, Christi dominion which he has destined for Christ,
Pel's. i(. irer^-, I, p. 196 f. ; Julius Muller, Dogm. and which the latter shall one day, at the
Abhaiid. p. 121. ff, goal of consummation, hand over to the
1 This et? auTou is wrongly found incom- Father (I Cor. xv. 24, 28). ^Moreover, what
patible with 1 Cor. viii. 6 (see, after Mayerhoff, Paul says of the Krla.iq in Rom. viii. is essen-
Baur, and other.s, especially Holtzmann, p. tially connected with that ei? avrov, which
219), where, in fact, it is said of the ethical does not go beyond Paul or come at all into
existence of Christians that they exist for God opposition to him. The resemblance of our
through Christ, inasmuch as the subject of passage to 6 Trpwro? Kat 6 eaxaro?. Rev.
eis auTou (for God) and of Si avrou (through i. 17, xxii. 13, rests upon the Christological
Christ) is not the universe, but the inets. The basis of their common faith, not upon a
relation of subordination between Father and dependence of our epistle on the Apoca-
Son would be only done away with at our lypse, which would doubtless imply a post-
passage, in the event of its being said of Pauline date (in opposition to Holtzmann,
Christ that tA iravra were created ii airov. p 247).
Bnt by eu auT.;, and bythe more precise « Bengel correctly observes on ver. 16:
definition Si' auroS, itis guarded; and the "Ipse hic saepe positum magnam significat
subordination remains unaffected by the eir- majestatem et omnem excludit creaturam."
ctunstanoe that the ei? auTou is laid down 'See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 47 ; Winer, p.
by God for the world as its telic aim. This 141 f. [E. T. 150] ; KQhner, II, 1, p, 503.

232 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
has in view and sets forth the permanence of Christ's existence, and does
not wish to narrate about Him historically, wliich is done only in the
auxiliary cjauses with bn, vv, 16 and 19, On the present, comp, John viii.
58, His existence is more ancient than that of all things {irdvrav, not
masculine, as the Vulgate aud Luther translate), — iv ainj] as in ver, 16,
referring to the causal dependence of the subsistence of all existing things
on Christ. — awianiKs] denotes the subsistence of the whole, the state of lasting
interdepeiulence and order, — an idea which is not equivalent to that of crea
tion, but presupposes it,' It expresses that there is iu Christ not merely
the creative cause, but also the cause which brings about organic stability
and continuance in unity (preserving and governing) for the whole of exist
ing things, Comp. Heb. i. 3. Of attempts at explanation under the moral
interpretation, we may note that of Schleiermacher : the consolidating of
earthly relations and institutions ; and that of Baumgarten-Crusius : " in
this new w-orld He is Lord in recognition and in sway. "
Remabk. — The intentional prominence given to the fact of the creation of all
things through Christ, and in particular of the creation of the angels in their
various classes, justifies the supjiosition that the false teachers disparaged Christ
in this respect, and that they possessed at least elements of the Gnost'ic-demiurgic
doctrine which was afterwards systematically elaboi-ated. There is no evidence, how
ever, of their particular views, and the further forms assumed by the Gnostic ele
ments, as they showed themselves according to the Fathers in Simon Magus (Iren.
Haer. i, 20 : " Eunoiam , , , generare angelos et potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc
factum dixit ; " comp, Epiph. Haer. xxi. 4), Cerinthus, etc., and especially among
the Valentinians, while certainly to be recognized as fundamentally akin to the
Colossian doctrinal errors (comp. Heinrici, Valcntinian. (3nosis, 1S71), are not to
be identified with them ; nor are those elements to be made use of as a proof of the
post-apostolic origin of the epistle, as still is done by Hilgenfeld (see his Zeitschr.
1870, p. 246 f ), and more cautiously by Holtzmann. Of Ebionitism only Essene
elements .are to be found in Colossae, mingled with other Gnostic doctrines, which
which were not held by the later Ebionites. In particular, the irpb irdvrav slvai,
on which Paul lays so much stress, must have been doubted in Colossae, although
a portion of the Ebionites expressly and emphatically taught it {?ieyovaiv dvuBev
piv ovra irpb irdvrav di KnaBivra, Epiph. Haer. xxx. 3). Moreover, the opinion
that Paul derived the appellations of the classes of angels in ver. 16 from the
language of the heretics themselves (Bohmer, comp. Olshausen) is to be rejected,
because in other passages also, where there is no contrast to the Gnostic doctrine
of Aeons, he makes use in substance of these names (Rom. viii, 38 ; 1 Cor, xv, 24 ;
comp. Eph, i. 20 ff,, iii, 10, vi, 11 ff,). They are rather to be regarded as well-
known and generally-current appellations, which were derived from the termin
ology of later Judaism, and which heretics made use of in common with the
1 Reiske, Ind. Dem. ed. Schaef. p. 481 : " Cor- B : tj TroAtreia ^vvearyKe' jatjttTjtrts rod KoAAt'trTou
pus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum con- . . . )3tou. Herod, vii. 225 ; Philo, quis rer. div
sentiens esse et perm.anere." Comp. 2 Pet. haer. p. 489 : 6 e'uatjio; ovko?, ej eaurou SiaXvr'os
iii. 5 ; Plat. Pep. p. 530 A : fuuetrTduat T<5 TOU wu Kal ueKpb?, o-uue-o^TijKe k. ^wirupeiTat Trpouot^
ovpavov SyfJ^LOvpyw auTou Te Kat Ta eu auTui, Tim. @eov K.T.K
p. 61 A : yriv . . . ^uueo-TijKutau, Leejg. vii, p, 817

CHAP. I. 18. , 233
orthodox. The anti-Gnostic element is contained, not in the technical expres
sions, but in the doctrinal contents of the passage ; and it was strong enough to
induce Marcioii, who took offence at it, to omit vv, 15-17 (Tertullian, c, Marcion,
V, 19). See, besides, Riibiger, Christol. Paul. p. 51 f. ; Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 55 f. ;
Klopper, I. c.
Ver, 18, [Onvv. 18-20, see Note XXVIII, pages 271-275,] Second part (see
on ver, 15) of the exhibition of the exaltedness of Christ, [XXVIII a.]
To that which Christ is as irpardroKo; irday; Kriasa; (vv. 16, 17) is now
added what He is as irpardroKo; iK rdv vsKpuv, namely, the Head of the
Church, and thus His irparsisiv has its consummation (ev rrdaiv). The
latter, namely, 'Iva yivyrai . . . irparsiav, embraces also a retrospect to that
Trpurdroicof rrday; Kriasa;, and includes it in iv irdaiv, without its being neces
sary, however, to attach ver, 18 to the carrying out of the relation to the
world expressed in irpurdroK. ir. Kria. (Hofmami, comp. Rich, Schmidt),
The pei-sjiective proceeds from the dignity of the original state of our Lord
to that of His state as Saviour, from His cosmical to His soteriological glory,
and so at length exhibits Him to view as the iv ndai irpursvuv. — That ver.
18, with its confirmation in ver, 19 f,, has an apologetic reference to the
Gnostic false teaching, must be assumed from its connection with what
goes before. The passage is to be looked upon as antagonistic to the
worship of angels (ii. 18), which disparaged Christ in His dignity as Head of
the Church, but not (in opposition to Bahr and Huther) as antagonistic to
a theological dogma, such as is found in the Cabbala, according to which
the body of the Messiah (the Adam Kadmon) is the aggregate of the
emanations. For the emphasis of the passage and its essential point of
doctrine lie in the fact that Christ is the Head of the church, and not in
the fact that He is the head of the church ; it is not the doctrine of another
adpa, hut that of any other rrpursiav, which is excluded, — iml airdf] stands
again, as k. aird; in ver, 17, in significant reference to rd irdvra : et ipse, in
quo omnia consistunt, est caput, etc., so that the passage continues to divide
itself as into the links of a chain, — roi adparo; ry; e/c/cA^cr,] to be taken
together ; the second genitive is that of apposition CWiner, p, 494 [E. T.
531]), which gives to the word governing it concrete definiteness.' On the
familiar Pauline mode of considering the church of believers, livingly and
-actively ruled by Christ as the head (Eph, iii, 10 ; Phil, iii, 6 ; Acts ix, 31),
as His body,' comp, 1 Cor, x. 17, xii. 12 ff., 27 ; Eph. i. 23, iv. 12, v, 23, 30;
Rom. xii, 6, — 6f ianv K.r.X.] expexegetical relative clause (as in ver. 15), the
contents of which are related by way of confirmation to the preceding
statement,^ Hke our : he, who, etc., which might be expressed, but not neces-
1 Comp. Muller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, that of the Epistle to the Ephesians, into
p. oil ff. which the interpolator is supposed by Holtz-
2 In which is expressed the idea of the in- mann again to enter here, after he has mani-
visible church. Comp. Julius Muller, Dog- fested a comparative independence in vv.
mat. Abh. p. 316 ff. And this conception and 15-18.
representation belong quite to the apostle's » Matthiae, p. 1061 f. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem.
general sphere of ideas, not specially to i, 2, 64 ; Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 f.

234 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
sarily, by 'dan; (or bays). Comp, on Epli, i, 14. If Christ had not risen. He
would not be Head of the church (Acts ii. 24-36 ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Rom, i. 4, et
al). — dpx'ii] beginning; wliich, however, isnot to be explained either as
" initium secundae et novae 'creationis " (Calvin), progenitor of the regen
erate (Bisping), or " author of the church " (Baumgarten-Crusius), or even
" ruler of the world " (Storr, Flatt) ; but agreeably to the context in such a
way, as to make it have with the appositional rrpardroKo; its definition in e/c
Tdii' veKpdv, [XXVIII 6,] just as if the words ran : dpxv rdv veKpdv, irpurdroKo;
ef airdv, although Paul did not express himself thus, because at once upon
his using the predicate dpxv in and by itself the exegetical rrpardroKo; sug
gested itself to him. Accordingly Christ is called dpxv {rdv veKpdv), inas
much as He is among all the dead the first arisen to everlasting life. It is
arbitrary to discover in dpxv an allusion to the offering of first-fruits sancti-
, fying the whole mass (Chrysostom, Beza, Ewald, and others) ; especially
as the term dirapxv, which is elsewhere used for the first portion of a sacri
fice (Rom. xi. 16), is not here employed, although it has crept iu from 1
Cor. XV. 20, 23, in a few minusculi and Fathers, as in Clement also, Cor. I.
24, Christ is termed 'airapxv rfj; dvaardaeu;. To assume a reminiscence of 1
Cor, XV, (Holtzmann) is wholly unwarranted, especially as drrapx-y is not
used. On dpxli, used oi persons, denoting the one who begins the series, as
the first in order of time, comp. Gen. xlix. 3, where dpxv riKvav yov is
equivalent to irpardTOKo; pov, as also Deut. xxi. 17. In what respect any one
is dpxv of those concerned, must be yielded by the context, just as in this
case it is yielded by the more precisely defining irpardroKo; 'eK r. veKpdv ;
hence it has been in substance correctly explained, following the Fathera :
dpxil, (p'laiv, ian ry; dvaardasa;, irpb rrdvrav dpaffrdf,' Theophylact. Only
T^f dvaardasa; is not to be mentally supplied, nor is it to be conjectured (de
Wette) that Paul had intended to write dpxi) r. dvaardaeu;, but, on account
of the word rrpardroKo; presenting itself to him from ver. 15, did not com
plete what he had begun. It follows, moreover, from the use of the word
rrpardroKo;, that dpxv is to be taken in the temporal sense, consequently as
equiviilent to primus, not in the sense of dignity CVVetstein), and not as
principile (Biihr, Steiger, Huther, Dalmer, following eariier expositors).—
irpurdroKo; iK r.veKp.] [XXVIII c] « r. vek/d'. isconceivedinthesameway asin
dvaariivai iK r. vsKp. (Eph. V. 14), SO that it is the dead in Hades among whom
the Risen One was, but/ro»i whom He goes forth {separates Himself from
them, hence also dTrd r. vsKp. Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64, xxviii. 7), and returning
into the body, with the latter rises from the tomb. Comp. irpdro; ef dvaardaeu;
vsKpdv, Acts xxvi. 23, also 1 Cor. xv. 22 f. This limng exit from ihe grave is
figuratively represented as birth ; comp. Rev. i. 5, where the partitive
genitive rdv vsKp. (not « r. v.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not
materially different. Calvin takes irpardroKo; Ik. t. v. as specifying the
ground for dpxv '¦ "principium (absolutely), quia primogenitus est ex mortuis ;
•TheFathershavealreadycorrectlyjudged mains the first-risen, Theophylact- el y'ap
that even iu regard to the isolated cases of Kai iKKoi ^pi toutou iueo-T,,rau, iwi riXiv
rising from the dead, which have taken place a^eSavov abrh. Si r'riv reKeiav dludo-ratnu ivdcrri.
through Christ and before Him, Christ re- Comp, ou 1 Cor, xv, 20.

CHAP. L 18. 235
nam in resurrectione est rerum omnium instauratio," Against this it
may be urged, that dpxv has no more precise definition ; Paul must have
written either dpxv I'VS naivy; Kriaeu;, or at least ij; instead of 6f, Calvin was
likewise erroneously of opinion (comp, Erasmus, Calovius) that Christ is
called Primogenitus ex mortuis, not merely because He was the first to rise,
but also "quia restituit aliis vitam." This idea is not convej-ed either by the
word or by the context, however true may be the thing itself; but a belief
in the subsequent general resurrection of the dead is the presupposition of
the expression irpardroKo; {a'lv'irrerai di d 'Aoyo; Kal ryv irdvrav ypdv dvdaraaiv,
Theodoret). This expression is purposely chosen in significant reference to
ver, 15, as is intimated by Paul himself in the following Iva yevyrai iv iraaiv
K.r.X. But it is thus all the more certain, that irpardroKo; iK r. veKp. is to be
taken independently, and not adjectivally together with dpxv (Heinrichs,
Schleiermacher, Ewald), which would only amount to a tautological ver-
boseness {first-bom beginning) ; and, on the other hand, that e/c rdv veKpdv
may not be separated from Trpurdro/cof in such a way as to emphasize the
place, issuing forth from which Christ is what He is, namely, dpxv, irpardroKo;;
the former, "as the personal beginning of what commences with Him ; "
the latter, " in the same relation to those who belong to the world there
with coming into life as He held to the creation " (Hofmami), In this
way the specific more precise definition, which is by means of e/c r. veKpdv
in significant reference to ver. 15 attached to the predicates of Christ, dpxv
and irpurdro/cof, would be groundlessly withdrawn from them, and these
predicates would be left in an indefiniteness, in which they would simply
be open vessels for receiving a gratuitously imported supplement. — Iva
yevyrai k.t.X.] [XXVIII d.] not to be restricted to the affirmation e/c rdv
veKpdv (Hofmann),' but to be referred to the whole sentence that Christ is
dpxv, irpardroKo; iK r. vsup., expressing the divine teleology oi this posi
tion of Christ as the Risen One : in order that He may become, etc. ;
not : in order " that He may he held as " (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor yet
" that He may he " (Vulgate, and so most expositors), as ylyvsaBai and elvai
are never synonymous. The iv irdaiv airb; rrpursvsi is looked upon by Paul
as something which is still in course of development (comp. Steiger and
Huther), and is only to be completed in the future, namely, when the
Risen One shall have conquered all the power of the enemy (1 Cor. xv.
25 f.) and have erected the kingdom of the Messiah— but of this result His
resurrection itself was the necessary historical basis, and hence the future
universal irpureieiv is the divinely intended aim of H^is being risen.— ct irdaiv]
in all points, without excepting any relation, not, therefore, merely in the
relation of creation (vv. 15-17). Comp. Phil. iv. 12 ; 1 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 15 ;
2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5 ; Tit. ii. 9 ; Heb. xiii. 4, 18. 'Bv iravrl is more commonly
used by Paul (1 Cor. i. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8, et al). According to Beza, irdaiv is
masculine: "inter omnes, videhcet /raires, ut Rom. viii. 29." So also
Kypke and Heinrichs. But this would be here, after the universal bear-
1 So that it would express the design, which Christ Himself had in His coming forth from
the dead.

236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ing of the whole connection, much too narrow an idea, which, besides, is
self-evident as to the Head of the church. According to Pelagius, it
denotes : " tam in visibilibus quam in invisibilibus creaiuris." At variance
with the text ; this idea was conveyed by vv, 16, 17, but in ver, 18 another
relation is introduced which does not refer to created things as
such, — aird;] emphatic, as in vv, 17, 18. — npareiuv] hamng the first rank,
not used elsewhere in the N. T,' This precedence in rank is to be the final
result of the condition which set in with the irpurdroKov slvai iK r. vsKp. ; but
it is not contained in this irparoTOKov elvai itself, — an idea against which
the very 'iva yivyrai is logically decisive (in opposition to de 'Wette's double
signification of irpardroK.).
Ver, 19,^ "0-(] Confirmatory of the 'Iva yivyrai k.t.X., just said : " about
which divinelj' intended ylyveaBai iv irdaiv airbv irpareiiovra there can be no
doubt, for it has pleased, tha,t in Him, etc,'' How could He, who was thus
destined to be possessor of the divine fullness and reconciler of the world,
have been destined otherwise than to become ev irdaiv irparevuvl This
confirmation, therefore, does not refer to the statement that Christ is the
Head of the church (Steiger, Huther, comp, Calovius), which has already
its confirmation by means of 6f ianv dpxv k.t.X., nor at all to e/c rdv vsKpdv
(Hofmann, following up his incorrect explanation of these words), as if
the reason were specified why Christ should have gone to His high dig
nity as beginner of a new world by tlie path of deepest abasement — a thought
which Paul would have known how to express quite differently (comp,
Phil, ii, 7 f,) than by the bare eic tuv vsKp., which is currently used every
where of resurrection from death, and without conveying any special
significance of humiliation. Nor yet does Paul move m a circle, by put
ting forward in ver, 19 as ground of proof that from which in ver, 15 ( of
'eanv euiiiv k.t.X) he had started (de "VVette) ; for ver, 19 is a historical state
ment (observe the aorists), whereas ver. 15 expressed what Christ is. His
habitual being. — iv aira] although belonging to kutoik., is prefixed in em
phatic transposition (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1101). — eidoKyae] He was pleased,
placuit ei, that, etc. As to this use of eidoialv in the later Greek (1 Cor. i.
21 ; Gal. i. 15, et al), for which, in the classical language, doKslv merely was
employed, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 370. On the accusative with infini
tive, comp. 2 Mace. xiv. .35 ; Polyb. i. 8. 4. The subject, whose pleasure it
is, is not expressed ; but that it is God, is obvious from the context, which
in 'Iva yivyrai k.t.X. has just stated the divine purpose. Among Greek
authors also 6 Qed; is not unfrequently omitted, where it is self-evident as
the subject. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 30 c. According to Ewald and Elli
cott,' irdv rb irXypapa is the subject ; and the whole fullness is a new expres-
5 But see Esth. v. 11 ; 2 Mace. vi. 18, xiii. 15 ; there is then attached in ver. 21, as object,
Aquila, Zech. iv. 7; Plat. Legg. iii. p. 69:i D, Kal iina^, also i/ou, with reference to rip-ag in
Dem. 1416. 25: n-piijTeuetu eu a^ao-t Kpariarov. ver. 13. How daring and violent, and yet
Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 28 ; Mem. ii. 6. 20. how paltry (rescuing merely the Kat u/xas),
-.^ Holtzmann, after having rejected vv. 14-18 would the procedure of the author thus have
entirely as an interpolation, allows to stand been.
as original in vv. 19, 20 only the words : or. ev ^ Also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2, and
oiiTtji eiiSoKyaev KaraWd^ai, to which KaraAA, Rich, Schmidt, Paul. Clinstol. p. 208.

CHAP. L 19. 237
sion for the Godhead, inasmuch as, going as it were out of itself, it fills
something separate and thus becomes visible (=nin' nOD, dd^a, Xoyo;,
rrvevya). [XXVIII p,] Without support from N, T, usage; irdv, too,
would be unsuitable for the subject of eidoKyas ; and eif airdv in ver, 29
clearly shows that Gedf is conceived as subject, to which e'lpyvorrotyaa; then
refers. According to Hofmann,' Christ is meant to be the subject of eidoK.
Ver. 20 itself, and Eph. i. 9, ought to have precluded this error. Through
out the whole of the N. T, it is never Christ, but always ihe Father, who in
respect to the work of redemption to be executed gives the decree, while
' Christ executes it as obedient to the Father; hence also Paul, "beneficium
Christi commemorans, nunquam dimittit memoriam Patris," Bengel," —
irdv rb irXypupa KaroiK.] [XXVIII/,] that in Hi-m the whole fullness was to
take up its abode. The more precise definition of the absolute irdv rb
irXijpapa is placed beyond doubt by the subject to be mentally supplied
with siddKr,as^ namely, rd irXripupa rov Qsov (Eph, iii, 19; COmp, rb irXyp.
ry; Bedryro;, Col, ii, 9), Td irXypuya, the signification of which is not to be
defined actively : id quod rem implet,* but passively : id quo res impletur (see
generally on Eph, i, 10, iii, 19, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II, p. 469), has here, as
in Eph. iii. 9, the derivative general notion of copia, irXovro;, like the Ger
man F'iille. "VMiat is meant, namely, is the whole charismatic riches of
God, His whole gracious fullness of siXoyia irvsvpariKy (Eph. i. 3), of which
Christ became permanent {KaroiKyaai) possessor and bearer, who was
thereby capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation (see the fol
lowing Kal dl' airov diroKaraXXd^ai k.t.X.). The Case is Otherwise in ii, 9,
where the divine essence {ry; Bedryro;) is indicated as the contents of the
irXypapa, and the KaroiKslv of the same in Christ is affirmed as present and
with reference to His state of exaltation. It would be an utterly arbitrary
course mentally to supply here the r^f Bsdryro;, ii, 9, and to regard both
passages as an echo of Eph, i, 23, where the notion of irXypapa is a very
different one (in opposition to Holtzmann), Inasmuch as the charismatic
irXypapa of God, meant in our passage, dwelt in Chi-ist, and consequently
Christ was the possessor and disposer of it, this divine fullness is not in
substance different from the irXypapa Xpiarov, out of which grace passed
over to men (John i, 16 ; Eph, iv, 13), The thought and expression in 1
Cor, XV, 28 are different from our passage, and different also from Eph, i,
23, Beza aptly observes ; " cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum
copia, quam scholastici gratiam habitualem . . . appellant, ex qua in
Christo, tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos pro cujusque
membri modulo deriventur ; " comp, also Bleek, Observe, at the same
time, the stress lying on the irdv, in contrast to a merely partial impart
ing out of this fiillness, which would have been inadequate to the object of
reconciling the universe. The ontological interpretation of the " fullness of
the nature oi God " (Huther, Dalmer, Weiss ; Oecumenius, and Theodoret :
1 Comp, also his Schriftbew. II, 1, p, 367 f, Paul, p. 209,
2 Comp, Reiche, Comment, crit. p. 263. *ln opposition to Storr, Opusc. I, p, 144 ff,,
s Hence not: "fa totaliU de I'ltre qui doit Bahr,. Steiger.
6tTe realisfee dans le monde," Sabatier, I'apdtre

238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the nature of the Sedf Xdyo; ; Calovius and others : of the communimti.
hypostatica, that is, of the absolute immanence of God in Him, comp.
Ernesti, Urspr. d. SttJide, I. p. 222 ; Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p, 201)
does not correspond to the idea of siddKyaev, ior doubtless the sending of
the Son, and that with the whole treasure of divine grace, into the world
(John iii, 17) for behoof of its reconciliation and blessedness, was the act
oi the diYine pleasure and resolve ; but not so the divine nature in Christ,
which was, on the contrary, necessary in Him,' although by His incarna
tion He emptied Himself of the divine mode of appearance {dd^a or popijiv,
Phil, ii, 6 ff,). The divine nature is presupposed in what is here said of
Christ, Comp, Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p, 85, Some (see 'especially Steiger,
Biihr, and Eeuss) have regarded rd irXypuua as derived from the Gnostic
terminology of the false teachers, who might perhaps, like Valentinus, have
given this name to the aggregate of the Aeons (see Baur, Gnosis, p, 157),''
and in opposition to whom Paul maintains that in Jesus there dwells the
totality of all divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated
spirit ; but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul himself
does not intimate any such polemical destination of the word; on the
contrary, in Eph, iii, 19 also he uses irdv rb irXypapa r. Qsov evidently
without any reference of the kind. And if he had wished to place the
whole fullness of the etfiux of divine power in contrast to an asserted single
emanation, he must have prefixed, not iv aira {in Him and in none other),
but irdv {the whole irXypapa, not merely a single constituent element oi it) with
the main emphasis, and have logically said : on irdv rb irXypapa siddKyaev
'ev aira KaroiKyaai. Hofmann (comp, his Schriftheio. p,29, 359), who in gen
eral has quite misunderstood ver, 19 i. (comp, above on siddKyaev), takes

1 As in the Son of God in the metaphysical position of the universal reconciliation, ver.
sense ; hence the original being of God in 20.
Him cannot be conceived merely as ideal, 2 B^ur himself (Paw^u^, II. p. 12 ff.) likewise
which was to develop itself into reality, and explains TrAiJpiij^aa from the technical language
the realization of which, when it at length of the Gnostics, especially of the \'aleatinian
became perfect, made Him the absolute abode doctrine of Aeons, but finds the Gnosticism
of the fullness of C-rodhead. So Beyschlag, to belong to the (post-apostolic) writer of the
Christol. p. 232 f , according to whom Christ epistle. According to Baur (see his Neutest.
would be conceived as " man drawing doivn Theol. p. 2.58), Christ is the TrX^pwjtta of God as
upon himself" this indwelling of God. He is He " in whom that which God is in Iiimself, ac-
conceived as the incarnate Son (comp. ver. cording to ihe abstract idea of His nature, is
13ff.), who, in accordance with the Father's fitted with its definite concrete contents." Comp.
decree, has appeared as bearer of the whole also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 247, ac-
fullness of salvation. For He was its dwelling cording to whom our passage is intended to^
not merely in principle, but in fact and reality, affirm that the Pleroma of divine nature is to
when He appeared, and He employed it for he soM^hi not inthe prolix scries of the Aeons of
the work, which the Father desired to accom- ihe Gnostics, but in Christ alone. Holtzmann,
plish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4: with more caution, adheres to the view that
Rom. viii. 3. The indwelling of the irav to the idea of the Tr\ripiap.a forms a .tirst step
TT\i}p(ov.a He had not, indeed, to achieve by towards the extended use which the Gnostics
his own effort ; but He had, in obedience to- make of the word; whereas Hilgenfeld
wards the Father, to preserve (comp. Heb. iv. {Zeitschr. 1873, p. 19.") finds the idea here al
ls), apply, communicate it; and so this iu- ready so jirra^i/ e5(<ii)(i5Ae£i, "that the irXiiptofta
dwelling is — not merely in the risen One, but emerges as in a certain measure holding an
in His very work on the cross— the presup- mdependeret position between God and Christ."

CHAP. I. 19. 239
vrdv rb rrXfipapa as "the One-like totality of that whichis;" and holds that
the will of Christ (to which sidoK. applies) can only have been, " that that
may come to dwell in Him, whioh otherwise would not be in Him, consequently
not what is in God, but what is out of God." This idea of the immanent
indwelling of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of
Christ being the archetype, would be entirely alien to the N. T. view of the
relation of Christ to the world, and is not indicated either at Eph. i. 10 or
here in the context by rd irdvra iv aira avviarvKsv. Christ is not the place
fcrr the world, so that ultimately all comes to dwell in Him, as all has been
created in Him and has in Him its subsistence; but the world originated
and maintained through Him, which He was to redeem, is the place for
Him} If Paul had really entertained the obscure paradoxical conception
attributed to him by Hofmann, he would have known how to express it
simply by rd ttov (or rd rrdvra) KaroiKyaai, or by rb rrXypupa rov iravrb; (or
rdv irdvrav) Karowya. Lastly, at utter variance with both the word and the
context, some have based on Eph. i. 22 f. the interpretation of nXypuya as
the church. So already Theodoret : rrXyp. r^ SKKXyaiav 'ev ry irpb; ''Eipeaiov;
iKdXedev, a; rdv Belov xapiapdrav irsirXypupivyv. Tairyv i(j}y eidoKyaai rbv Qebv
'sv ra Xpiara KaroiKyaai, rovrianv aira awy^Bai, and recently in substance
Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others; comp. also Schleiermacher,
who, in accordance with Eom. xi. 12, 25, understands "the fullness of the
Gentiles and the collective whole of Israel," the dwelling of whom in Christ is
the "definitive abiding state," which the total reconciliation (see the
sequel) must necessarily have preceded, as this reconciliation is condi
tioned by the fact that both parties must have become peaceful. — Karoi
Kyaai] The irXypapa is personified, so thatthe abiding presence, which it was to
have according to the divine sidoKia in Christ, appears conceived under
the form oi taking up its abode; in wliich, however, the idea of the Shechi
nah would only have to be presupposed, in the event oi the irXypapa being
represented as appearance (nirr ^^^2D). See on Eom, ix, 5. Comp. John
i. 14. Analogous is the conception of the dwelling of Christ (see on Eph.
iii. 17) or of the Spirit (see Theile on Jas, iv, 5) in believers, Comp. also 2
Pet. iii, 13. In point of time, the indwelling of the divine fullness of grace
according to God's pleasure in Christ refers to the earthly life of the Incar
nate One, who was destined by God to fulfill the divine work of the diroKa-
raXXd^ai rd irdvra, and was to be empowered thereto by the dwelling in
Him of that whole divine irXypapa. 'Without having completed the per
formance of this work. He could not become iv irdaiv irpursiuv ; but of
this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be completed
through Him (6r(, ver. 19), Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I, p, 215 f, (comp.
also "Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed, 2), refers siddKyae k.t.X. to the heavenly
state of Christ, in which God, by way of reward for the completion of His
work, has made Him the organ of His glory (Phil, ii, 9) ; he also is of
opinion that diroKaraXU^ai in ver, 20 does not apply to the reconciliation
through His blood, but to the reunion of all created things through the
1 Comp, Rich, Schmidt, I. c. p, 208,

240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
exalted Lord, as a similar view is indicated in Phil. ii. 10. But this idea
of the 'arroKaraX'/ d£,ai is just the point On which*this view breaks down.
For ver, 21 clearly shows that hrroKaraXXd^ai is to be taken in the usual
sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the 'iXaarypiov oi
Christ, Moreover, that which Christ received through His exaltation
was not the divine irXypapa, but the divine dd^a.
Ver. 20.' " Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis," Ben
gel. Hence Paul continues : Kal dC airov diroKaraX^.d^ai rd rrdvra, and
through Him to reconcile the whole. [XXVIII g.] As to the double com
pound dn-o/faraAA., prorsus reconciliarej' see on Eph. ii. 16. The considera
tions which regulate the correct understanding of the passage are : (1)
that rd Trdira iii.ay not in any way be restricted (this has been appropri
ately urged by Usteri, and- especially by Huther) ; that it consequently
cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings generally (the usual
view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
others), especially the Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the "universam ecclesiam"
(Beza), but is, according to the context (see ver. 16 ff.), simply to be taken
as quite general: the whole of that which exists (has been created) ; (2) that
the reconciling subject is here not Christ (Hofmium, in accordance with
his incorrect reference of siddicyas in ver. 19), but God, who through Christ
{dl' avroi') reconciled all things ; (3) that consequently diroKaraXXd^ai can
not be meant of ihe transforming of the misrelation between the world and
Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just as little of the reconcilia
tion of all things with one another, of the removal of mutual hostility
among the constituent elements composing rd irdvra, but only of the uiii-
' versal reconciliation with the God who is hostile to sin," as is clearly evident
from the application to the readers in ver. 21. The only correct sense
therefore is, that the entire universe has been reconciled with God through Christ.
But how far f [XXVIII h.] In answering this question, which cannot
be disposed of by speculation beyond the range of Scripture as to the
1 According to Holtzmann, p. 92, the author derstanding and of heterogeneous ideas, and
is assumed to have worked primarily with the contains nothing un-Pauline. The extension
elements of the fundamental passage 2 Cor. v. of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres,
IS f , which he has taken to apply to the cos- in particular, has been regarded as un-Paul-
mical aivoKaraWayri. But, instead of appro- ine (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.).
hendmg tliis as the function of the rfsen But even in the epistles whose genuineness
Christ, he has by Sta roi) a't/Aaro? k.t.X. occa- is undisputed it is not difficult to recognize
.sioned the coincidence of two dissimilar the presuppositions, from which the sublime
spheres of conception, of which, moreover, extensionof the conception to an universality
the one is introduced as form for the other. of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue.
The interpolator reproduces and concen- We may add, that Eph. i. 10 is not "the lead-
trates the thought of Eph. i. 7, 10, ii. 13-17, ing thought of the interpolation " at ver. 16 ff.
bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation (Holtzmann, p. 151); in ver. 16 ff. much more
(Eph. i. 10) into expression in such a way is said, and o/o//ier import
" that he, led by the sound of the terminology, 2 As if we might say in German, abversblmen,
takesupatthesametimeandincludesthethought that is: to finish quite the reconciliation.
of ihe reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles." Comp. iii<)iAdo-Keo-flat, Plat, Legg. ix, p, 873 A.
In opposition to this view, the exegesis of the 8 God is the subject, whose hostility is re-
details in their joint bearing on the whole will moved by the reconciliation (comp, on Eom.
avail to show that the passage with all its dif- v, 10) ; ra irivra is the object, which was af-
ficulty is no such confused medley of misun- footed by this hostility grounded of necessity

CHAP. I. 20. 241
having entered into the finite and having returned again to the infinite
(Usteri), nor by the idea imported into diro/caraAA, of gathering up into the
unity of absolute final aim (Baur, neut. Theol. p, 257), the following con
siderations are of service : (a) The original harmony, which in the state
of innocence subsisted between God and the whole creation, was annulled
by sin, which first obtained mastery over a portion of the angels, and in
consequence of this (2 Cor. xi, 3), by means of the transgression of Adam,
over all mankind (Rom, v, 12), Comp, on Eph. i. 10, {b) Not only had
sinful mankind now become alienated from God by siu and brought upon
themselves His hostility (comp, ver, 21), but also the whole of the non-
rational creation (Eom, viii, 19 fi',) was affected by this relation, and given
up by God to paraidry; and dovXsia ry; (fBopd; (see Oil Eom, I. c). (c) Ill-
deed, even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with God
as it originally existed, since a portion of the angels — those that had
fallen — formed the kingdom of the devil, in antagonism to God, and
became forfeited to the wrath of God for the everlasting punishment
which is prepared for the devil and his angels, {d) But in Christ, by
means of His 'iXaarypiov, tlirough which God made peace {dpyvorroiyaa;
K.r.X.), the reconciliation of the whole has taken place, in virtue of the
blotting out, thereby effected, of the curse of sin. Thus not merely has
the fact efl'ecting the reconciliation as its causa meritoria taken place, but
the realization of the universal reconciliation itself is also entered upon,
although it is not yet completed, but down to the time of the Parousia is
only in course of development, inasmuch, namely, iis in the present a'tdv
the believing portion of mankind is indeed iu possession of the reconcilia
tion, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the taresj among the wheat) are not
yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the non-intelligent creation still re
mains in its state of con-uption occasioned by sin (Eom. viii.); and lastly, in
asmuch as until the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the
devil which has issued from it still — although the demoniac powers have been
already vanquished by the atoning death, and have become the object of di
vine triumph (ii. 15) — not annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph.
vi. 12) against the Christian church. But through the Parousia the recon
ciliation of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach its
consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will be sepa
rated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in virtue of the
Palingenesia (Matt, xix, 28) will be transformed into its original perfec
tion, and the new heaven and the new earth will be constituted as the
dwelling of diKatoabvy (2 Pet, iii, 13) and of the dd^a oi the children of
God (Rom, viii, 21) ; while the demoniac portion of the angelic world
will be removed fi-om the sphere of the new world, and cast into hell.
Accordingly, in the whole creation there will no longer be anything
on the holiness and righteousness of God, ndvra would not be suitable: because the
If the hostile disposition of men towards God, whole universe might, indeed, be affected by
which had become removed by the reeon- the hostility of God against sin, but could not
ciljaiion, were meant (KitschI In the Jahrb.f. itself be hostilely disposed towards Him
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p, 515), the universal tA See, moreover, on ver, 21,
16

242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
alienated from God and object of His hostility, but rd irdvra will be in
harmony aud reconciled with Him ; and God Himself, to whom Christ
gives back the regency which He has hitherto exercised, will become the
only Ruler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 21, 28), This collective reconcilia
tion, although its consummation will not occur until the Parousia, is yet
justly designated by the aorist infinitive drroKaraXXd^ai, because to the
telic conception of God in the sidoKyas it was present as one moment in
conception. — The angels also sjre necessarily included in rd irdvra (comp,
subsequently, rd iv roi; oipavol;) ; and in this case— seeing that a recon
ciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who are holy aud minister to
Christ (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 269 ff.), considered in themselves as in
dividuals, cannot be spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T,' —
it is to be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to category,
in so ftxr, namely, as the hostile relation of God towards the fallen angels
affected the angelic world viewed as a whole. The original normal rela
tion between God and this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so
long as the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God still subsists —
which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the death of Christ
(ii, 14 f ; Heb.' ii, 14), but will undergo at length utter separation — a result
which is to be expected in the new transformation of the world at the
Parousia, The idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the several
objects included in rd irdvra, meant partly in an immediate sense (in ref
erence to mankind), partly in a mediate sense (in reference to the Kriai;
affected by man's .sin, Eom, viii,, and to the angelic world affected by its
partial fall) ;'¦" the idea of diroKaraXXd^ai, in the presence of the all-embrac
ing rd rrdvra, is as it were of an elastic nature.^ At the same time, how-

1 According to Ignatius, fi'7rti/rn, 6, the angels enervating weakening of the idea into that
also, eaf /li) TTto-Teiio-tocrtf et? TO atjua XpttTToy, in- of transposition from ihe misrelation into a
cur judgment. But this conception of angels good one, or oi ^^ an action, which makes one,
needing reconciliation, and possibly even un- ^vho stands ill to another, stand welt to him."
believing, is doubtless merely an abstraction. In such a misrelation (namely, io Clirist, ac-
just as is the idea of an angel teaching falsely cording to the erroneous view of eiiSoKTja-e)
(Gal. i. 8). Ft is true that, according to 1 Cor. stand, in Hofmann's view, even the ^^spiriis
vi. 3, angels also are judged ; but this presup- collectively," in so far as they 6ear sway in the
poses not believing and unbelieving angels, world-life deteriorated by human sin, insfead
but various stages of moral perfection and of in the realization of salvation. — Richard
purity in the angelic world, when confronted Schmidt, Z. c. p. 19.5, also proceeds to dilute the
with the absolute ethical standard, which in notion of reconciliation into that of the fcrini/-
Christianity must present itself even to the ing io Christ, inasmuch as he explains the
angels (Eph. iii. 10). Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 3. KaTa\\dcra-et.v as effected by the fact that
2 The iiiea of ctn-oKaraAAafat is uot in this Christ has become the head of all, and all has
view to be altered, but has as its necessary been put in dependence on him. Hilgenfeld,
presupposition the ideaot hostility, as is clear I.e. p. 251 f, justly rejects this alteration of the
from eipijcoTTot^o-a? and from ex^povg, ver. 21, sense, wliich is at variance with the following
compared with Eph.ii.16! Compare Fritzsche, context, but adheres, for his own part, to the
ad Pom. I. p. 276 ff. ; Eur. Med. 870: SiaKkayy- statement that here the author in a Gnostic
vat TTJ5 ex^pa?. Soph. Aj. 731 (744) : Beolatv iti9 fashion has in view disturbances of peace in
KaraWax^fj x^^iv. Plat. Pep. p. 560 E : irpb? Touy the heavenly spheres (in the n-A^pw^ita).
^^ e\0poii^ roi^ IJ.evKaTa\\ayfi,ro\j^5eKa'LSiaij). 3 Comp. Philippi, Qlaubensl. IV, 2, p, 269 f,,
Scipij, This applies also against Hofmann's ed, 2,

CHAP. I. 20. 243
ever, drroKaraXX. is not to be made equivalent (Melanchthon, Grotius, Corne
lius a Lapide, Flatt, Bahr, Bleek, and others) to dwoKeipaXaiuaaaBai (Eph, i.
10), which is rather the sequel of the former ; nor is it to be conceived as
merely completing the harmony of the good angels (who are not to be
thought absolutely pure. Job iv. 18, xv. 15 ; Mark x. 18 ; 1 Cor. vi, 3) with
God (de Wette), and not in the strict sense therefore restoring it^ — an in
terpretation which violates the meaning of the word. Calvin, neverthe
less, has already so conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the ele
ment — foreign to the literal sense — of confirmation in righteousness :
" quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi Christi gratia
fuissent confirmati." According to Eitschl, in the Jahrb.f. Deutsche Theol.
1803, p. 522 1',, Paul intends to refer to the angels that had been active in
the law-gimng on Sinai (Deut, xxxiii. 2 ; Ps. Ixvii, 18, LXX,), to whom he
attributes " a deviation from God's plan of salvation," But this latter
idea cannot be made good either by ii. 15, or by Gal. iii. 19, or by Eph. iii.
10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the context to indicate any such refer
ence to the angels of the law in particular. The exegetical device tra/-
ditionally resorted to, that what was meant with respect to the angels was
their reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on account of
sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodo
ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, Cameron, Calovius, Estius,
Bengel, Michaelis, Bohmer, and others), is an entirely erroneous make
shift, incompatible with the language of the passage, — eif airdv] is indeed
to be written with the spiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from the
standpoint of the author, and because a refiexive emphasis would be with
out a motive ; but it is to be referred, not to Christ, who, as mediate agent
of the reconciliation, is at the same time its aim (Bahr, Huther, Olshau
sen, de "Wette, Eeiche, Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others ; comp, Estius,
also Grotius : "ut ipsi pareant "), but to God, constituting an instance of
the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek writers
(Kuhner, II, 1, p, 471) and in the N, T, (Winer, p. 577 [E. T, 621]), the
constructio praegnans : to reconcile to Godward, so that they are now no
longer separated from God (comp. dirv?JMTp., ver. 21), but are to be united
vMh Him in 'peace. Thus eif air., although identical in reality, is not in
the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph. ii. 16 , Eom.
V. 10 ; 1 Cor, vii, 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20), as Beza, Calvin, and many
others take it. The reference to Christ must be rejected, because the
definition of the aim would have been a special element to be added to
dl' airov, which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by Kal e'l; airdv,
and also because the explanation which follows {sipyvoiror^aa; k.t.X.) con
cerns and presupposes simply the mediate agency of Christ {di airoi). —
e'lpyvorroiyaai., [XXVIII i.] down to aravpov avrov, is a modal definition of
dl' airov airoKaraXXd^ai (not a parenthesis) : so that He concluded peace, etc.,
inasmuch, namely, as the blood of Christ, as the expiatory offering, is
meant to satisfy the holiness of God, and now His grace is to have free
course Rom. v. 1 ; Eph. vi. 15. The aorist participle is, as ver. 21 shows,
to be understood as contemporary with d7ro/caraA;i. (see on Eph. i. 9, and

244 TUB EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Kiihner, II, 1, p, 161 f. ; Miiller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1872, p, 631 ff,),
and not antecedent to it (Biihr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in
consistency with his explanation of ver, 19 (see on ver. 19), who, more
over, without any warrant from the context, in accordance with IJph, ii,
14-16, thinks of the conclusion of peace between Jews and Gentiles. The
nominative refers to the subject; and this is, as in the whole sentence
since the siddKyaev, not Christ,^ but God. The wexb .sipyvoirotsiv, occurring
only here in the N, T,, which has elsewhere iroislv e'lpyvyv (Eph. ii, 15;
Jas. iii. 18), and also foreign to the ancient Greek, which has slpyvoirolo;, is
nevertheless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Eel. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX.
Prov. X. 10. — did rov dip. r. aravpov airov] that is, by means of the blood to
he shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacrificial blood reconciling
with God (comp, 2 Cor, v, 21), became the causa medians which procured
the conclusion of peace between God and the world, Eom, iii, 25, v. 9 f,;
Eph. 1. 7. The reason, wliich historically induced Paul to designate the
blood of Christ with such specific definiteness as ihe blood of His cross, is
to be sought in the spiritualism of the false teachers, who ascribed to the
angels a mediating efiicacy with God, Hence comes also the designation
—so intentionally material — of the reconciling sacrificial death, ver. 22,
which Hofmann seeks ' to avoid as such, namely, as respects its definite
character of a satisfaction,^ — di airov] not with the spiritus asper, equiva
lent to di iavTov, as those take it who refer elpyvoiroiyaa; to Christ as sub
ject {iavrbv iKdov;, Theophylact), siiice this reference is erroneous. But
neither can di avroi be in apposition to did -rov alpaTo; r, ar. airoi (Cas
talio, " per ejus sanguinem, h, e, per eum "), for the latter, and not the
former, would be the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of ihe
above-given dr avrov, after the intervening definition elpiivoToiyaa; k.t.X., in
order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, and that by once
more emphatically bringing forward the dt airov which stood at the com
mencement; "through Him," I say, to reconcile, whether they be things

1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Lu different in substance are Hofmann's utter-
ther, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, .Steigtr, Hof- ances in his Heil Schr. N T But when we
mann, and many others, find it there stated '^how far Chnst has
2 According to Hofmann, Schriftbew II 1, p hereby (namely, by His having allowed Him-
362 ff,, by the blood of the cross, ver 20, the self to be put to death as a transgressor by
death of Christ is meant to be presented as a men) converted the variance, which subsisted
judicial act of violence, and "what befell Hun " between Him and the world created for Him,
as an ignominy, which He allowed to be lu- \r\i.Q\isoppos'\te,isnotherespec\jiedindetail,"—
flicted on Him with the view of establishing that is an unwarranted evasion, for the strict
a peace, which brought everything out of idea of reconciliation had so definite, clear,
alienation from Him into fellowship of peace firm, and vivid (comp, ver, 14, ii 13 f,) a place
with Him. Ver. -l-l does not affirm the expia- in the consciousness of the apostle and of the
tion of sin, but the transition of mankind, church, which was a Pauline one, that it did
which had once for all been effected in Christ, not need, especially in express connection
from the condition involved in their sin into with the blood of the cross, any more precise
that which came into existence with His mention in detail. Comp. GaL iii. 13, Rom.
death. Christ has, in a body like ours, and by iii. 25. Calvin well says ^^ Ideo pignus et pre-
moans of tho death to which we are subject, tmm nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis
done that which we have need of in order that Christi, quia in cruee fusus,"
we may come to stand holy before Him Not

CHAP. I. 21. 245
on earth or whether they be things in heaven, Comp, on Eph, i, 11 ;
Eom. viii. 23, — elre rd iirl r. y., sirs rd ev r. oio.] divides, without
" affected tautology " (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting
the close of this part of the epistle, the rd irdvra into its two component
parts. As to the quite universal description, see above on rd irdvra ; comp.
on ver. 16, We have, besides, to notice : (1) that Paul here (it is other
wise in ver, 16, where the creation was in question, comp. Gen. i. 1) names
the earthly things first, because the atonement took place on earth, and
prima?-j?i/ affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive expression eire
. . . ei-e renders impossible the view of a reconciliation of the two sections
one with another (Erasmus, Wetstein, Dalmer, and others). To the cate
gory of exegetical aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleier
macher, who understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes
among the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental tenden
cies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto : " Jews and Gentiles were at
variance as to both, as to the heavenly and earthly things, and were now
to be brought together in relation to God, after He had founded peace
through the cross of His Son," The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also
an utter misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing meant ;
and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in the consciousness
given back to men of being worthy of connection with the higher spirits,
— Lastly, against the reference to universal restoration, to which, according
to Olshausen, at least the tendency oi Christ's atonement is assumed to
have pointed, see on Eph, i, 10, remark 2.'
Ver, 21. [On Vv, 21-23, see Note XXIX, page 275,] As far as ver 23, an
application to the readers of what had been said as to the reconciliation,
in order to animate them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to
stedfastness in the faith (ver, 23), — koI ipd; k.t.X.] [XXIX a.] you also, not :
and you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma from
the preceding verse, and vwl di . . . Bavdrov would, notwithstanding its
great importance, come to be taken as parenthetical (Lachmann), or as
quite breaking off the discourse, and leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It
begins a new sentence, comp. Eph. ii. 1; but observe, at the same time,
that Eph. ii. is much too rich in its contents to admit of these contents
being here compressed into vv. 20, 21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p.
150), As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate connection
with what precedes, see on ver. 19. The construction {ioilowing the read
ing diroKaryXXdyyre, see the critical notes) has become anacoluthic,
inasmuch as Paul, when he began'the sentence, had in his mind the active
verb (which stands in tne Recepta), but he does not carry out this formation
of the sentence; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he had begun
with Kal ipsi; k.t.X.^ — dirvX?MTp. k.t.X.] when ye were once in the state of
iCo'mp.s.lso Schmid in the Jahrb. fd. Theol. T, 507 fl',]; ,and upou the aori.st, Buttmann,
1870, p, 133. -i^™'- Gr, p, 171 [E, T, 107],
2 See Matthiae, p, 1524; Winer, p, 527 ff, [E,

246 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
estrangement, characterizes their heathen condition. As to airyXXmo., see
on Eph. ii. 12 ; from which passage otto r^f rroXirsla; r. 'lap. is here as
unwarrantably supplied (Heinrichs, comp, Flatt), as is from Eph, iv, 14
rij; i^aij; rov Qsov (Bahr), In conformity with the context, seeing that
previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation, the being
estranged from God {tov Qeov), the being excluded from His fellowship, is
to be understood. Comp. ddeoi iv •. /cdcraw, Eph, ii. 12, On the subject-
matter, Rom. i, 21 ff. — ixBpoi;] sc. ra Qsa, in a passive sense (comp, on Rom.
V. 10, xi. 28) : invisos Beo,^ as is required by the idea of having become
reconciled, through which God's enmity against sinful men, who were
riKva ipiasi bpyy; (Eph. ii, 3), has changed into mercy towards them,^ This
applies in opposition to the usual active interpretation, wliich Hofmann
also justly rejects : hostile towards God, Rom, viii, 7; Jas, iv. 4 (so still
Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be com
bined with the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek), — ry diavoia and iv roi; ipyoi; r.
ir. belong to both the preceding- elements ; the former as d.ative of the
cause: on account of their disposition of mind they were once alienated
from God and hateful to Him ; the latter as specification of the overt, actual
sphere of life, in which they had been so {in the wicked works, in which their
godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus information
is given, as to arryXX. and ixBpoi;, of an internal and of an external kind.
The view which takes ry diavoia as dative of therespect (comp. Eph. iv. 18) :
as respects disposition (so, following older expositors, Huther, de Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), would no doubt suit the erroneous active
explanation of ixSp-, but would furnish only a superfluous definition to it,
as it is self-evident that the enmity towards God resides in the disposition.
Luther incorrectly renders : " through the reason ; " for the didv. is not the
reason itself, but its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263
E), and that here viewed under its moral aspect ; comp. on Eph. iv. 18.
Beza (" mente operibus malis intenta "), Michaelis, Storr, and Bahr
attach ei- TOif spyoi; k.t.X. to ry diavoia. This is grammatically admissible,
since we may say diavoelaBai iv, animo versari in (Ps. Ixxiii. 8 ; Ecclus. vi.
37; Plato, Prot. p. 341 E), and therefore the repetition of the article was
not necessary. But the badness of the disposition was so entirely self-
evident from the context, that the assumed more precise definition by ev
roif spy. I. 7roi>7p. would appear tediously circumstantial. — The articles r??
and roif denote the disposition which they have had, and the works which
1 Compare the phrase very current in the Comp. Luke xviii. 13 ; 2C'->r v. 19. So long as
classical writers, from Homer onward, ex^po? His wrath is not changed, and consequently
Qeoi^, quem Dii oderunt. He is not reconciled, men remain unrecon-
2 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 570 ff., who ciled. 2 Mace vii. 33; o ^iav /ciiptos . jSpa^etut
aptly explains /caTaAAairo-eaflat Tti^. In alien- eTTuipyiarai Kai Trakiv KaTaWayijaerai rots eav-
JUS favorem venire, qui antea succensuerit. roii SoilAois corn p. viii. 29, i. 5, v 20; Clem
Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 265 ff, ed. Cor. I. 48. (.Kerevovre^ aurdv (God), ottui^ 'iAetiis
2. The reconciliation of men takes place ycvtjjLtevo? €Tri/caTaAAavi7 tjvlIv In Constt Apost.
when God, instead of being further angry at viii. 12. 14, it is said of Christ that He roi Koap.!*
them, has become gracious towards them, — KarijAAaf e God, and § 17, of God ; troU KaraAAa-
when, consequently. He Himself is reconciled, ¦yerTos avrots (with believers).

CHAP. I. 22. 247
they have done. In the iaiter ca&e the subjoined '3.ttvihntive furnished with
the article {roi; rrovypol;) is not causal (" because they were bad," Hofmann),
but emphatically brings into prominence the quality, as at Eph, vi. 13; 1
Cor. vii. 14, and often (Winer, p, 126 [E, T, 132]), — vwi Si diroKaryXXdyvre]
as if previously iyel; k.t.X. were used (see above) ; Ye also . . . have neverthe
less now become reconciled. On di after participles which supply the place
of the protasis, as here, where the thought is : although ye formerly, etc, ¦
see Klotz, ad Devar. p, 374 ff, ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 136 ; Kiihner, ad.
Xen. Mem. iii, 7, 8, Anab. vi. 6, 16, On vwi, with the aorist following,
comp, ver. 26 ; Bom. vii, 6 ; Eph, ii, 13 ; Plat, Symp. p, 193 A , Trpd rov . . .
EV ypev, vwl di did ryv ddiKiav diipKioBypev irrb r. Beov. Ellendt. Lex Soph. II. p.
176 ; Kuhner, II, 2, p, 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in
with the diroKaryXX. (comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197]) ; and
the latter has taken place objectively through the death of Christ, ver. 22,
although realized subjectively in the readers only when they became
believers — whereby the reconciliation became appropriated to them, and
there existed now for them a decisive contrast of their vwl with their
irore} The reconciling subject is, according to the context (vv, 19, 20), not
Christ (as at Eph, ii, 16), through whom (comp, Rom, v, 10 ; 2 Cor, v. 18)
the reconciliation has taken place (see ver, 20), but, as at 2 Cor, v, 19,
Godi'' For the reference to Christ even the reading 'arroKaryXXa^sv would
by no means furnish a reason, far less a necessity, since, on the contrary,
even this adive would have, according to the correct explanation of
eidoKvae in ver, 19, to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to
Hofmann). Vev, 22, 'Ev TU aapan k.t.X.] that, by means of which they have been
reconciled ; corresponding to the di airov and did roi aiparo; rov aravpov airov
oi ver, 20 : in the body of His flesh by means of death. Since God is the
reconciling subject, we are not at liberty, with Elzevir, Scholz, and others,
to read airov (with the spiritus asper), which would not be justified, even
though Christ were the subject. We have further to note : (1) did r, Bavdrov
informs us whereby the being reconciled ev ni aapan r. a. ai. was brought
about, namely, by the death occurring, without which the reconciliation
would not have taken place in the body of Christ, (2) Looking to the
concrete presentation of the matter, and because the procuring element
is subsequently brought forward specially and on its own account by did,
the ev is not, with Erasmus and many others, to be taken as instrumental,
but is to be left as local ; not however, in the sense that Christ accom
plished the drroKaraXXdaaeiv in His body, which was fashioned materially
like ours (Hofmann, comp, Calvin and others, including Bleek) — which,
in fact, would amount to the perfectly self-evident point, that it took place
in His corporeally-human form of being, — but, doubtless, especially as did
rov Bavdrov follows, in the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the

'Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p, Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calovius,
403. Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette
2 In opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ewald.

248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
death therein accomplished, our reconciliation was objectively realized,
which fact of salvation, therefore, inseparably associated itself with His
body; comp. ev rj) aapKi pov, ver. 24, see also 1 Pet. ii. 24 and Huther ira
loc. The conception of substitution, however, though involved in the
thing (in the 'iXaarypiov), is not to be sought in ev (in opposition to Bohmer
and Baumgarten-Crusius). (3) Thp reason for the intentional use of the
moto-idZ description : "in the body -icAic/i consisted of His flesh" {coni'p. ii.
ll ; Ecclus. xxiii, 16), isto be sought in the apologetic interest of antago
nism to the fabe teachers, against whom, however, the charge of Docetism,
pos.sibly on the ground of ii. 23, can the less be proved (in opposition to
Beza, Balduin, Bohmer, Steiger, Huther, and Dalmer), as Paul nowhere
in the epistle expressly treats of the material Incarnation, which he would
hardly have omitted to do in contrast to Docetism (conlp, 1 John). In
fact, the apostle found sufiicient occasion for writing about the reconcilia
tion as he has done here and in ver, 20, in the faith in angels on the part
of his opponents, by which they ascribed the reconciling mediation with
God ill part to those higher spiritual beings (who are without adyn r^f
aapKd;). Other writers have adopted the view, without any ground what
ever in the connection, that Paul has, thus written in order to distinguish
the real body of Christ from the spiritual adpa of the church (Bengel,
Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen), The other adpa of Christ, which contrasts
with His earthly body of flesh (Rom. i. 3, viii. 3), is His glorified heavenly
body, Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv, 47 ff. References, however, such as Calvin,
e. g., has discovered (" humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium
corpus "), or Grotius (" tantasres perfecit instrumento adeo tenui ; " comp.
also Estius and others), are forced upon the words, in which the form of
expression is selected simply in opposition to .sjiiriiwdisiic erroneous doc
trines. Just as little may we import into the simple historical statement of
the means did rov Bavdrov, with 'Roimann, the ignominy of shedding His blood
on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect is subjoined or indicated,
— rrapaarrjaai vpd; k.t.X^ Ethical definition of the object aimed at in the
diroKoryXX. : ye have been reconciled , . in order to present you, etc. The
presenting subject is therefore the subject of diroiiaryXX., so that it is to be
explained : "iva irapaaryayTe vpd;, ut sisterctis vos, and therefore this continua
tion of the discourse is by no means awkward in its relation to the read
ing diroKaryXXdyyTs (in opposition to de Wette). We should be onlj' justified
in expecting iavrov; (as Huther suggests) instead of ipd; (comp. Rom. xii.
1) if (comp. Eom. vi. 13 ; 2 Tim. ii. 15) the connection required a reflexive
emphasis. According to the reading diroKaryXXa^sv the sense is ut sisteret
vos, in which case, however, the subject would not be Christ (Hofmann),
but, as in every case since siddKvcs in ver. 19, God. — The point of time at
which the wapaar. is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judg
ment, in which they shall come forthho\y, etc, before the Judge. Comp, ver.
28, and on Eph. v, 27, This reference (comp, Bahr, Olshausen, Bleek) is
required by the context in ver. 23, where the iraoaaryaai. k.t.X. is made
dependent on continuance in the faith as its condition : consequently there
cannot be meant the result already accomplished by the reconciliation itself,

CHAP. X. 22. 249
namely, the state of diKaioaivy entered upon through it (so usually, includ
ing Hofmann). The state of justification sets in at any rate, and uncon
ditionally, through the reconciliation; but it may be lost again, and at the
Parousia will be found subsisting only in the event of the reconciled
remaining constant to the faith, by means of which they have appropri
ated the reconciliation, ver. 23. — dyiov; k.t.X.] does not represent the sub
jects as sacrifices (Eom. xii. 1), which would not consist with the fact that
Christ is the sacrifice, and also would not be in harmony with dvsyKX. ; it
rather describes without figure the moral holiness which, after the justifica
tion attained by means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Eom. vii.
6, viii. 2, 9, et al), and which, on the p.art of man, is preserved and main
tained by continuance in the faith (ver. 23), The three predicates are not
intended to represent the relation " erga Deum, respectu vestri, and
respectu prorawi" (Bengel, Biihr), since, in point of fact, dydyov; {blameless,
Eph, i. 4, V, 27 ; Herod, ii, 177 ; Plat, Rep. p. 487 A : oid' dv d Mdpos t6 ys
roicvTov pipipairo) no less than dvsyKX. {reproachless, 1 Cor, i, 8) points to an
external judgment : but the moral condition is intended to be described
with exhaustive emphasis positively {dylov;) and negatively {dpuy. and
dvsyKX.). The idea of the moral holiness of the righteous through faith is
thoroughly Pauline; comp, not only Epli, ii, 10, Tit, ii. 14, iii, 8, but also
such passages as Rom, vi, 1-23, viii, 4 ff, ; Gal, v. 22-25 ; 1 Cor, ix, 24 ff, ;
2 Cor, xi, 2, et al. — Karevd-iov airoi] refers to Christ,^ to His judicial appear
ance at the Parousia, just as by the previous airoi) after aapKo; Christ also
was meant. The usual reference to God (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgar
ten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with the reading d7ro/£ar^A;iafev
taken as so referring ; comp, Jude 24 ; Eph, i, 4, The objection that
Karevuiriov elsewhere occurs only in reference to God, is without force; for
that this is the case in the few passages where the word is used, seems to
be purely accidental, since 'evuinov is also applied to Christ (2 Tim. ii. 14),
and since in the notion itself there is nothing opposed to this reference.
The frequent use of the 'expression "before God" is traceable to the theo-
cratically national currency of this conception, which by no means
excludes the expression " before Christ." So epirpoaBev is also used of Christ
in 1 Thess, ii, 19. Comp, 2 Cor, V, 10 : epirpoaBev roi (Syparo; rov Xpiarov,
which is a commentary on our Karevumov airoi; see also Matt, xxv, 82,
REMARK. — The proper reference of irapaaryaai k.t.X. to the judgment, as also
the condition appended in ver. 23, place it beyond doubt that what is meant here
(it is otherwise in Eph. i. 4) is the holiness and blamelessness, which is entered
upon through justification by faith actu judiciali and is positively wrought by the
Holy Spirit, but which, on the other hand, is preserved and maintained up to the
judgment by the self-active perseverance of faith in virtue of the new life of the
reconciled (Eom. vi.) ; so that the justitia inhaerens is therefore neither meant
alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, and others), nor excluded
(Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, and others), but is included. Comp. Calovius.
1 So also Holtzmann, p, 47, though holding syntactically the reference is made to Christ,
in favor of the priority of Eph, i. 4, that the But, in fact, the one is just as consistent with
sense requires a reference to God, although the sense aa the other.

250 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Ver. 23. [XXIX b.c] Requirement, with which is associated not,
indeed, the being included in the work of reconciliation (Hofmann), but
the attainment of its blessed final aim, which would otherwise be for
feited, namely the irapaaryaai K.r.X. above described : so far at any rate as
ye, i. e. assuming, namely, that ye, etc. A confidence that the readers
will fulfill this condition is not conveyed by the elye in itself (see on 2
Cor, V. 3 ; Gal, iii. 4 ; Eph, iii, 2), and is not implied here by the context;
but Paul sets forth the relation purely as a condition certainly taking place,
which they have to fulfill, in order to attain the irapaaryaai k.t.X. — that
" fructus in posterum laetissimus " of their reconciliation (Bengel), — ry
iriaTsi] belonging to imyiv. . abide hy the faith, do not cease from it.' See
on Rom, vi, 1, The mode of this abiding is indicated by what follows
positively {reBsy. k. idpaloi), and negatively {k. yy ysroKiv. K.r.X.), under the
figurative conception of a building, in which, and that with reference to
the Parousia pointed at by irapaaryaai k.t.X., the hope of the gospel is
conceived as the foundation, in so far as continuance in the faith is based
on this, and is in fact not possible without it (ver, 27), " Spe amissa per-
severantia concidit," Grotius, On rsBsysX., which is not interjected
(Holtzmann), comp, Eph, iii, 17 ; 1 Pet, v, 10 ; and on idpaloi, 1 Cor, xv.
58, The opposite of reBepeX. is x"pk BspsXiov, Luke vi, 49 ; but it would
be a contrast to the rsBspsX. koI idpaloi, if they were peraKivoipevoi k.t.X. ;
concerning py, see Winer, p, 443 [E. T, 475] ; Baeumlein, Part, p, 295, —
peraKivobp.] passively, through the influence of false doctrines and other
seductive forces, — djrd] away . . . from, so as to stand no longer on hope
as the foundation of perseverance in the faith, Comp, Gal, i, 6, — The
eATrif rov siayy. (which is proclaimed through the gospel by means of its
promises, comp, ver, 5, and on Eph, i, 18) is the hope of eternal life in
the Messianic kingdom, which has been imparted to the believer in the
gospel, Comp, vv, 4, 5, 27 ; Rom, v, 2, viii. 24 ; Tit. i. 2 f., iii, 7,^oi
yKovaars k.t.X^ three definitions rendering the py psraKivslaBai k.t.X. in its
universal obligation palpably apparent to the readers ; for such a psra-
KiveiaBai would, in the case of the Colossians, be inexcusable (oi yKoiaare,
comp. Rom. x. 18), would set at naught the universal proclamation of the
gospel (roi KypvxB. k.t.X.), and would stand in contrast to the personal
weight of the apostle's position as its servant (oi iyev. k.t.X.). If, with
Hofmann, we join rov KypvxBivro; as an adjective to roi eiayyeXiov, oi
yKovaars, we w-ithdraw from the oi yKoiaars that element of practical sig
nificance, which it must have, if it is not to be superfluous. Nor is justice
done to the .third point, oi iysvdpyv k.t.X., if the words (so Hofmann, comp.
1 In our Epistle faith is by no means post- Ephesians), asHoltzmann conceives, p,216ff.;
poned to knowing and perceiving (comp, ii, on the contrary,, it was owing to the attitude
5, 7, 12), as Baur asserts in his Neut. Theol. p. of the apostle towards the antagonistic philo-
272, The frequent emphasis laid upon know- sophical speculations. Comp. also Grau, .E/it-
ledge, insight, comprehension, and the like, wickelungsgesch. d. N. T. II. p, 153 ff. It was
is not to be put to the account of an Intel- owing to the necessary relations, in which the
lectualism, which forms a fundamental pe- apostle, with his peculiarity of being all
culiarity betokening the author and age of things to all men, found himself placed
this Epistle (and especially of that to the towards the interests of the time 'and place.

CHAP. I. 23, 24. 251
de Wette) are meant to help the apostle, by enforcing what he is thence
forth to write with the weight of his name, to come to his condition at that
time. According to this, they would be nierely destined as a transition.
In accordance with the context, however, and without arbitrary tamper
ing, they can only have the same aim with the two preceding attributives
which are annexed to the gospel ; and, with this aim, how appropriately
and forcibly do they stand at the close ! ' Xoiirbv ydp piya yv rb IlaiAov
bvopa, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Comp, on iyii RaiXo;, with a
-view to urge his personal authority, 2 Cor, x, 1; Gal, v, 2 ; Eph, iii, 1 ; 1
Thess. ii. 18 ; Philem. 19. It is to be observed, moreover, that if Paul
himself had been the teacher of the Colossians, this relation would cer
tainly not have been passed over here in silence. — ev rrday Kriasi (without
ry, see the critical remarks) is to be taken as : in presence of {coram, see
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 701 ; Winer, p. 360 [E. T. 385] every creature, before
everything that is created {kt'wi;, as in i, 15), There is nothing created
under the heaven, in whose sphere and environment (comp. Kuhner, II,
1, p, 401) the gospel had not been proclaimed. The sense of the word
must be left in this entire generality, and not limited to theheathen (Biihr),
It is true that the popular expression of universality may just as little be
pressed here as in ver, 6,'^ But as in i, 15, so also here irdaa ktIoi; is not
all creation, according to which the sense is assumed to be : " on a stage
embracing the whole world " (Hofmann), This Paul would properly have
expressed by ev irday ry Kriasi, or iv rravri rCi Koapu, or iv bXa rCi k. ;
comp. ver. 6. The expression is more lofty and poetic than in ver. 6, ap
propriate to the close of the section, not a fanciful reproduction betray
ing an imitator and a later age (Holtzmann), Omitting even oi yKoiaars
(because it is not continued by oi /eai 'eyu), Holtzmann arrives merely at
the connection between ver. 23 and ver. 25 : yy yeroKiv. dirb rov eiayy. ov
iyev. iyd Tl. dioK. Kara rijv oikov. i . Beoi riyv doBeladv poi eif ipd;, just as he
then would read further thus : irXypuaai r. Xdy. r. Bsov, s'l; b koI Koirid
ayavi^dy. Kara i . ivipy. airov riiv ivepyovp. iv ipoi. — dioKovo;] See on Eph.
iii. 7. Paul has become such through his calling. Gal. i. 15 f, ; Eph, iii, 7.
Observe the aorist.
Ver, 24,^ [On Vv, 24-29, see Note XXX. pages 275-278,] A more precise
description of this relation of service, and that, in the first place, with
respect to the sufferings which the apostle is now enduring, ver, 24, and
then with respect to his important calling generally, vv. 25-29. — df (see the
critical remarks) [XXX a.] viv xaipu k.t.X.: I who now rejoice, etc. How
touchingly, so as to win the hearts of the readers, does this join itself with
the last element of encouragement in ver, 23 ! — viv] places in contrast with
the great element of his past, expressed by oi eyev, k.t.X., which has im
posed on the apostle so many sorrows (comp. Acts ix, 16), the situation as
it now exists with him in that relation of service on his part to the gospel!

1 According to Baur, indeed, such passages ^comp, Herm, Pas( sim. viii. 3; Ign. ijom.2.
as the present are among those which betray ^See upon ver. 24, Liicke, Progr. 18.33; Hu-
the double personality of the author, ther in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p, 189 ff.

252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
This present condition, however, he characterizes, in full magnanimous
appreciation of the sufferings under which he writes, as joyfulness over
them, and 8.S a becoming perfect in the fellowship of tribulation with
Christ, which is accomplished through them. It is plain, therefore, that
the emphatic vvv is not transitional (Bahr) or inferential (Liicke : " quae
cum ita sint"); nor yet is it to be defined, with Olshausen, by arbitrary
importation of the thought: now, after that I look upon the church as firmly
established (comp, Dalmer), or, with Plofmann, to be taken as standing in
contrast to the apostolic activity. — ev roi; iraByp.] [XXX 6,] over the suffer
ings; see on Phil, i. 18; Rom, v, 3, This joy in suffering is so entirely in
harmony with the Pauline spirit, that its source is not to be sought (in
opposition to Holtzmann) in 2 Cor, vii, 4, either for the present p.assage or
for Eph, iii, 13; comp, also Phil, ii, 17. — i;rep ipdv] joins itself to iraBypaaiv
so as to form one conception, witliout connecting .article, Comp, on -w,
1,4; 2 Cor, vii, 7; Eph, iii, 13; Gal. iv. 14. Since iirip, according to the
context, is not to be taken otherwise than as in iirip roi adp. airoi, it can
neither mean jnsiead o/ (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius a
Lapide or Estius), nor on account of (Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt ; comp,
Eph, iiv 1 ! Pliil. i, 29), but simply : in commodum,^ namely, 'iva ipd; cKjieX-
rjaai dwyBu, Oecumenius, and that, indeed, hy that honorable attestation and
glorifying of your Christian state, which is actually contained in my tribula
tions ; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers, for the sake of
which the apostle has undertaken and borne the suffering, as the holy
divine thing which is worthy of such a sacrifice, Comp, Phil, i, 12 ff, ;
Eph. iii. 13. The reference to the example, which confirms the readers'
faith (Grotius, Wolf, Biihr, and others), introduces inappropriately a reflec
tion, the indirect and tame character of which is not at all in keeping with
the emotion of the discourse. — The iydv, meaning the readers, though the
relation in question concerns Pauline Christians generally, is to be explained
by the tendency of affectionate sympathy to individualize (comp. Phil, i,
25, ii. 17, et al). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply rdv iBvdv here from
Eph. iii. 1 (Flatt, Huther); but that Paul, nevertheless, has his readers in
view as Gentile Christians, and as standing in a special relation to himself
as apostle of the Gentiles, is shown by vv. 25-27. — koI] not equivalent to koi
ydp (Heinrichs, Biihr), but the simple and, subjoining to the subjective
state of feeling the objective relation of suffering, which the apostle sees
accomplishing itself in his destiny. It therefore carries on, but not from
the speci.al {ipdv) " ad totam omnino ecclesiam " (Liicke), since the new
point to be introduced is contained in the specific avravairXypu . . . Xpiarov,
and not in iirip r. aup. airov. The connection of ideas is rather : " 1 rejoice
over my sufferings, and what a ho\'y position is theirs! through them /
fulfill," etc. Hence the notion of xoipu is not, with Huther, to be carried
over also to dvravnrrJ.ypd : and I supplement ivith joy, etc. At the same
time, however, the statement introduced by m/' stands related to i^aipa as
elucidating and giving information regarding it.—dvravairXripd] [XXX c.J.
1 So also Bisping, who, however, explains it of the vieritoriousness of good works availing for otliers.

CHAP. I. 24. 253
The double compound is more graphic than the simple dvairXypd, Phil. ii.
30 ; 1 Cor, xvi, 17 (I fill up), since dvri {to fill up over against) indicates what
is brought in for the making complete over against the still existing iarepyyara.
The reference of the dvri lies therefore in the notion of what is lacking ;
inasmuch, namely, as the incomplete is rendered complete by the very
fact, that the supplement corresponding to what is lacking is introduced
in its stead. It is the reference of the corresponding adjustment,^ of the
supplying of what is still wanting,^ The distinction of the word from the
simple dvarrXypoiv does not consist in this, that the latter is said of him,
who " iaripvpa a se relictum ipse explet," and dvravaTrA, of him, who " alte
rius iaripvpa de SUO explet;"' nor yet in the endurance vicing with Christ,
the author of the afflictions;' but in the circumstance, that in dvravaTrA.
the filling up is conceived and described as defectui respondens, in dvarrX.,
on the other hand, only in general as completio.^ — rd iarepypara] The plural
indicates those elements yet wanting in the sufferings of Christ in order to
completeness. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10; 2 Cor. ix. 12. — tuv BXiiji. roii Xpiarov]
TOV X. is the genitive of the subject. Paul describes, namely, his o-wn suffer
ings, in accordance with the idea of the Koivavslv roi; roi Xpiarov iraBypaai (1
Pet. iv, 13 ; comp. Matt, xx, 22 ; Heb, xiii, 13), as afflictions of Christ, in so
far as the apostolic suffering in essential character was the same as Christ
endured (the same cup which Christ drank, the same baptism with which
Christ was baptized), Comp. on Rom, viii. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Phil. iii. 10.
The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived in the form of a definite
measure, just as the jihrases dvamy.irXdvai KOKd, dvair?iijaai KOKbv olrov, and the
like, are current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative con
ception (Hom. II, viii. 34. 354, xv. 132), Schweigh. Lex. Herod. I. p. 42. He
only who has suffered all, Ivas filled up the measure. That Paul is now, in
his captivity fraught with danger to life, on the point (the present dvravairX.
indicating the being in the act, see Bernhardy, p. 370) of filling up all that
still remains behind of this measure of affliction, that he is therefore
engaged in the final full solution of his task of suffering, without leaving a
single iaripvpa in it, — this he regards as something grand and glorious, and
therefore utters the dvravairXypd, which bears the emphasis at the head of
this declaration, with all the sense of triumph which the approaching com
pletion of such a work involves. " / rejoice on account of the sufferings
1 Many ideas are arbitrarily introduced by the idea is, that the poverty of the latter is
commentators, in order to bring out of the compensated for by the wealth of the former) ;
dvrl'iridvTavanK.areciprocalrelation. Seec.g. so also drTai^an-ATjpojo-is, Epicur. a/i. Diog. L.
Clericus : " Ille ego, qui olim ecclesiam Christi x. 48 ; Dio Cass. xliv. 48 ; oo-ov . . . evdSet, Toi}To
vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus utilitatem en ri)? n-apa rOiv d\\iav awreKela^ dvravaT\y~
pergo multa mala perpeti." Others (see al- p<.>S/). Comp. ivTeintriTrKruii, Xen. Anab. iv.B.
ready Oecumenius) have found in it the 28; avravanXrideLv, Xen. Hell. ii. 4. 12; and
meaning: for requital of that which Christ aj/Tt7rA>jpo5i/, Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 26.
suffered for us; comp. also Grimm in his ' ^So'V/iner, de verbor.c. praeposin N. T.usu,
Lexicon. Wetstein remarks shortly and 1838, III. p. 22.
riglitly: " avrl iia-repyp-aTor succedit TrKripoi- * Fritzsche, ad i2owi. III. p. 27.5.
)ia,"— or rather ivawKrjpu>ii.a. 5 See 1 Cor, xvi, 17 : Phil, ii, 30 ; Plat, Legg.
^ Comp, Dem, 182, 22 : avravaw\ripoiivTet rrpos xii. p, 9,')7 A, Tim. p, 78 Jl, et al. Comp, also
TOI. eiiropiirarov iei Toe's iiTroptuTtiTov! (where Tittmann, Synon. p. 230.

254 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
which I endure for you, and— -so hignly have I to esteem this situation of
affliction — I am in the course of furnishing the complete fulfillment of
what in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of affliction with Christ."
This lofty consciousness, this feeling of the grandeur of the case, very
naturally involved not only the selection of the most graphic expression
possible, dvravairXypd, to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description,
in the most honorable and sublime manner possible, of the apostolic
afflictions themselves as the BXiipei; rov Xpiarov,^ since in their kind and
nature they are no other than those which Christ Himself has suffered.
These sufferings are, indeed, sufferings /or Christ's sake,^ but they are not
so designated by the genitive ; on the contrary, the designation follows the
idea of ethical identity, which is conveyed in the ladpoipov elvai ra Xpiara, as
in Phil. iii. 10. Nor are they to be taken, with Liicke (comp. Fritzsche,
I.e.), as : " aiflictiones, quae Paulo apostolo Christo auctore et auspice Chrido
perferendae erant," since there is no ground to depart from the primary
and most natural designation of the suffering subject {BXlfi;, with the geni
tive of the person, is always so used in the N. T., e.g. in 2 Cor. i. 4, 8, iv.
17; Eph. iii. 12; Jas. i. 27), considering how current is the idea of the
Koivav'.a of the sufferings of Christ. Theodoret's comment is substantially
correct, though not exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the
genitive : Xpiarb; rbv iirip r^f iKKXyala; Karedi^aro Bdvarov . . . Kal rd dX'Xa
baa iiripeive, Kal d Beio; dirdaroXo; aaaira; iirip airy; iiriarv rd iroiKiXa iraBy-
para. Ewald imports more, when he says that Paul designates his suffer
ings from the point of view of the continuation and further accomplish
ment of the divine aim in the sufferings of Christ. Quite erroneous, how
ever, because at variance with the idea that Christ has exhausted the
suffering appointed to Hira in the decree of God for the redemption of the
world (comp. also John xi. .52, xix. 30; Luke xxii. 37, xviii. 31; Rom. iii.
25 ; 2 Cor. v. 21, et al.), is not only the view of Heinrichs : " qualia el Christ
us passurus fuisset, si diutius vixisset,"^ but also that of Hofmann, w-ho
explains it to ineaii : the supplementary continuation of the afflictions which
Christ suffered in His earthly hfe — a continuation which belonged to the
apostle as apostle of the Gentiles, and consisted in a suffering which could
not have affected Christ, because He was only sent to the lost sheep of
Israel. As if Christ's suffering were not, throughout the N. T., the one
perfect and completely valid suffering/or all mankind, but were rather to
be viewed under the aspect of two quantitative halves, one of which He
bore Himself as didKovo; irepiropy; (Rom. xv. 8), leaving the other behind to'
be borne by Paul as the diddoKoXo; iBvdv; so that the first, namely, that
which Jesus suffered, consisted in the fact thai Israel brought Him to the
cross, because they would not allow Him to be their Saviour; whilst the
other, as the complement of the first, consisted in this, that Paul lay in cap-
1 When de Wette describes our view of on t. e\. r. X.
exiifi. T. X. as tame, and Schenkel as tautologi- 2So Vatablus, Schoettgen, Zachariae, Storr,
ca?, the incorrectness of this criticism arises RosenmuUer, Flatt, Bohmer, and others;
from their not observing that the stress of comp. Wetstein.
the expression Ues on avravarrKypiii, and not s So substantially also Phot, Amphil. 143.

CHAP. I. 24. 255
iimty with his life at stake, because Israel would not permit him to proclaim
that Saviour to the Gentiles, Every explanation, which involves the idea
of the suffering endured by Christ in the days of His flesh having been
incomplete and needing supplement, is an anomaly which offends against
the analogy of faith of the N. T, And how incompatible with the deep
humility of the apostle (Eph. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 9) would be the thought of
being supposed to supplement that, which the highly exalted One (ver. 15
ff.) had suffered for the reconciliation of the universe (ver. 20 ff.) ! Only
when misinterpreted in this fashion can the utterance be regarded as one
perfectly foreign to Paul (as is asserted by Holtzmann, pp. 21 f., 152, 226) ;
even Eph. i, 22 affords no basis for such a view. As head of the Church,
which is His body, and which He fills. He is in statu gloriae in virtue of
His kingly office. Others, likewise, holding the genitive to be that of the
subject, have discovered here the conception of the suffering of Christ in the
Church, His body,^ so that when the members suffer, the head suffers also?
But the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people (Olshausen :
" Christ is the suffering God in the world's history I") is nowhere found in
the N. T,, not even in Acts ix, 4, where Christ, indeed, appears as the One
against whom the persecution of Cliristians is directed, but not as affected
by it in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal, ii, 20), speaks in
them (2 Cor. xiii. 3) ; His heart beats in them (Phil. i. 8) ; He is mighty in
them (ver. 29), when they are weak (2 Cor. xii. 9), their hope, their life,
their victory; but nowhere is it said that He suffers in them. This idea,
moreover — which, consistently carried out, would involve even the con
ception of the dying of Christ in the mart3'rs — -would be entirely opposed
to the victoriously reigning life of the Lord in glory, with whose death all
His sufferings are at an end. Acts ii. 34 ff. ; 1 Cor, xv, 24 ; Phil, ii, 9 ff, ;
Luke xxiv. 26 ; John xix, 30, Crucified ef doBsvsia;, He lives 'sk dmdpea;
Qeov, 2 Cor, xiii, 4, at the right hand of God exalted above all the heavens
and filling the universe (Eph, i. 22 f,, iv, 10), ruling, conquering, and
beyond .the reach of further suffering (Heb, iii, 18 ff,). The application
made by Cajetanus, Bellarmine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation
for the purpose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists
of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and saints, is a
Jewish error (4 Mace. vi. 26, and Grimm in loc), historically hardly worthy
of being noticed, though still defended, poorly enough, by Bisping. — ev ry
aapd pov] belongs to dvravarr?.., as to which it specifies the more precise mode;
not to ruv BXlip. r. X. (so Storr, Flatt, Biihr, Steiger, Bohmer, Huther), with
which it might he combined so as to form one idea, but it would convey a
more precise description of the Christ-sufferings experienced by the apos
tle, for which there was no motive, and which was evident of itself. Belong-
iComp. also Sabatier, I'apdtre Paul, p. Theodore ofMopsuestia, Augustine, Erasmus,
213, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, Cl.aritis,
2So Chrysostom and Theophylact (who Cornelius a Lapide, -Vitringa, Bengel, Mi-
compare the apo.stle with a lieutenant, who, chaeli.s, and others, including Steiger, Bahr,
when the general-in-chief is removed, takes Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel, Dalmer;
the latter's place and receives his wounds), comp. Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek.

256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ing to dvravair?^., it contains with i-n-ep rov aup. a. a pointed definition {adp^
. . . adpa) of the mode and of the aim,^ Paiil accomplishes that dvTavairXy-
povv in his flesh,' which in its natural weakness, exposed to suff'ering and
death, receives the afiaiction from without and feels it psychically (comp.
2 Cor. iv. 11 ; Gal. iv. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 1), for the benefit of the body of Christ,
which is the church (comp. ver. 18), for the confirmation, advancement,
and glory of which (comp. above on irrip ipdv) he endures the Christ-
sullcrings. Comp, Eph, iii, 13. The significant purpose of the addition
of ev rf; aapKi k.t.X. is to bring Out more clearly and render palpable, in
connection with the dvravairXypd K.T.X., what lofty happiness he experiences
in this very dvravairXvpoiv. He is therein privileged to step in with his
mortal odpf for the benefit of the holy and eternal body of Christ, which is
the church. .
Ver. 23. That He suffers thus, as is stated in ver, 24, for the good of the
church, is implied in his special relation of service to the latter ; hence the
epexegetical relative clause y; iysvdyyv k.t.X. (comp, on ver, 18) : w7to.se
servant I have become in conformity with my divine appointment as
preacher to the Gr«niifes (/card r. o'ikov. k.t.X). In this way Paul now brings
this his specific and distinctive calling into prominence after the general
description of himself as servant of the gospel in ver, 23, and here again he
gives expression to the consciousness of his individual authority by the
emphasized eyw. The relation of the testimony regarding hims'elf in ver,
25 to that of ver, 23 is climactic, not that of a clumsy duplicate (Holtz
mann), — /card ryv oiKovop. k.t.X.] [XXX d.] in accordance with the steward
ship of God, which is given to me with reference to you. The olnovopia . . Qsov
is in itself nothing else than a characteristic designation of the apostolic
oliice, ill so far as its holder is appointed as administrator of the household
of God (the oiKodsaKorv;), by whioh, in the theocratic figurative conception,
is denoted the church (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15). Comp. 1 Cor. i-x. 17, iv. 1 ;
Tit. i. 7. Hence such an one is, in consequence of this office conferred upon
him, in his relation to the church the servant of the latter (2 Cor. ix. 5), to
which function God has appointed him, just because he is His steward.
This sacred stewardship then receives its more precise distinguishing defi
nition, so far as it is entrusted to Paul, by the addition of eif i|Udf k.t.X. It
is purely arbitrary, and at variance with the context (r7)v doB. poi), to
depart from the proper signification, and to take it as institution, arrange
ment (see on Eph. i. 10, iii. 2).^ — eif iyd;] although the office concerned Gen
tile Christians generixhy; a concrete appropriation as in ver. 24. Comp. on
Phil. i. 24. It is to be joined with r. doBeladv poi, as in Eph, iii, 2 ; not with irXypd-
aai K.r.X. (Hofmann), with the comprehensive tenor of which the individual-
iSteiger rightly perceived that €1. T, o-ap/ct /A, k,t,A,, we ought to join ev rri a-apKi fiou with
and virep T, a. d. belong together; but he er- riiiv 9Xi^. r. X,, as the latter would otherwise
roneously coupled both with tHiv d\. r. X. be without any reference to the person of the
("the sufferings which Christ endures in my apostle, Ithas. in fact, this reference through
fiesh for His body"), owing to his incorrect the very statement, that the avTavaTrA^jpouv
view of the 0Aii//ets t, X, k.t.K. takes place in the tiesk of ihe apostle.
2 Hofmann thinks, without reason, that, sgo chrysostom and his successors (with
according to our explanation of avravairKypia much wavering), Beza, Calvin, Estius, Rosen-

CHAP. L 25, 26. 257
izing "for you " is not in harmony, when it is properly explained (see
below). — -Xypdaai K.r.XI] telic infinitive, depending on ryv doBeladv poi s'l;
vpd;, beside which it stands (Rom. xv. 15 f.) ; not on y; iysv. didK. (Huther).
Paul, namely, has received the office of Apostle to the Gentiles, in order
through the discharge of it to bring to completion the gospel (rdv Xdyov r.
Qeoi, 1 Cor, xiv. 36 ; 2 Cor, ii, 17, iv, 2 ; 1 Thess, ii. 13 ; Acts iv, 29, 81, vi.
2, and frequently), obviously not as regards its contents, bnt as regards its
universal destination, according to which the knowledge of salvation had
not yet reached its fullness, so long as it was only communicated to the
¦ Jews and not to the Gentiles also. The latter was accomplished through
Paul, who thereby made full- the gospel — conceived, in respect of its pro
clamation in accordance with its destiny, as a rneasure to be filled — just
because the divine stewardship for the Gentiles had been committed to
him. The same conception of irXypaai; occurs in Rom. xv. 19,^ Partly
from not attending to the contextual reference to the element, contained
in T. doB. yoi eif vpd;, of the rrXypaai; oi the gospel which was implied in the
Gentile-apostolic ministry, and partly from not doing justice to the verbal
sense of the selected expression nXypdaai, or attributing an arbitrary
meaning to it, commentators have taken very arbitrary views of the
passage, such as, for example, Luther : to preach copiously ; Olshausen,
whom Dalmer follows : " to proclaim it completely as respects its whole
tenor and compass ; " Cornelius a Lapide : "ut compleam praedicationem
ev,, quam coepit Christus;" Vitringa, Storr, Flatt, Bahr: rrXypovv has
after inj the signification of the simple docere; Huther : it means either
to diffuse, OT (as Steiger also takes it) to " realize," to introduce into the
life, inasmuch as a doctrine not preached is empty ; '' de 'Wette : to
"execute" the word of God being regarded either as a commission or
(comp. Heinrichs) as a decree; Estius and others, following Theodoret:
" ut omnia loca impleam verbo Dei " (quite at variance with the words
here, comp. Acts v. 28) ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275 ; to supplement,
namely, by continuing the instruction of your teacher Epaphras. Others,
inconsistently with what follows, have explained the Xdyo; r. Qsov to
mean the divine promise ("partim de Christo in genere, partim de
vocatione gentium," Beza, comp. Vatablus), in accordance with which
rrXyp. would mean exsequi. Chrysostom has rightly understood t. Xdy. r.
Qeoi of the gospel, but takes irXypdaai, to which he attaches eif ipd;, as
meaning : to bring to full, firm faith (similarly Calvin)— a view justified
neither by the word in itself nor by the context.
Ver, 26, Appositional more precise definition of the Xdyo; roi Qsov, and
miiller, and others. It is well said by Corne- dit," Similarly Bengel : "ad omnes perdu-
lius a Lapide : " in domo Dei, quae est ecele- cere ; P, ubique ad summa tendit."
sia, sum oeconomus, ut dispensem . . . bona ' In a similar artificial fashion, emptying
et-dona Dei domini mei." Comp. on 1 Cor. the purposely chosen expression of its mean-
J.J. ] ing, Hofmann comes ultimately to the bare
1 Comp, Erasmus, Parap/ir, ; also Caloviu.s, sense: "to proclaim God's word," asserting
who rightly says: "Nimirum impletur ita that the word is o /art, and .so he who yro-
verbum non ratione sui eeu imperfectum, sed claims the fact fulfills it.
ratione hominum, cum ad plures sese diffun-

17

258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
that as regards its great contents. — As to rb pvarypiov k.t.X. [XXX e,] the
decree of redemption, hidden from eternity in God, fulfilled through Christ,
and made known through the gospel, see on Eph, i. 9, It embraces the
Gentiles also ; and this is a special part of its nature that had been veiled
(see Eph, iii, 5), which, however, is not brought into prominence till ver.
27. Considering the so frequent treatment of this idea in Paul's w-ri tings,
and its natural correlation with that of the yvdai;, an acquaintance with
the Gospel of Matthew (xiii, 11) is not to be inferred here (Holtzmann),' —
airb Tdv a'tdvav k. dirb rdv yevedv] This twofold description, as also the repeti
tion of dird, has solemn emphasis : from the ages and from the gener-ations.
The article indicates the ages that had existed (since the beginning), and
the generations that have lived. As to dirb rdv a'lavav, comp, on Eph, iii.
9, Paul could not write irpb rdv a'tav., because while the divine decree
-^as, formed prior to all time (1 Cor, ii, 7 ; 2 Tim, i, 9), its concealment is not
conceivable before the beginning of the times and generations of mankind,
to whom it remained unknown. Expressions such as Bom, xvi, 25, xp^'^oi;
a'luvioi;^' and Tit. i. 2 (see Huther in loc), do not conflict Avith this view.
dird , . yevedv does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. ; but comp. Acts xv.
21, The two ideas are not to be regarded as synonymous (in opposition
to Huther and others), but are to be kept separate {times — men). [XXX/,]
— vwl de iijiavepdiBy] A transition to the finite tense, occasioned by the im
portance of the contra,st, Comp, on i, 6, Respecting vwl, see on ver, 21.
The ipavipact; has taken place differently according to the different sub
jects; partly by diroKdXvijii; (Eph, iii, 5; 1 Cor. ii, 10), as in the case of
Paul himself (Gal, i, 12, 15 ; Eph, iii, 3) ; partly by preaching (iv, 4 ; Tit, i.
8; Rom, xvi, 26); partly by both. The historical realization {de'W ette;
comp, 2 Tim, i, 10) was the antecedent of the (jiavipuai;, but is not here
this latter itself, which is, on the contrary, indicated by roZf dyioi; airoi as
a special act of clearly manifesting communication. — roif dyloi; airov] i. e.
not : to the apostles and prophets of the N. T. (Flatt, Biihr, Bohmer, Steiger,
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following Estius and older expositors,
and c >-eii Theodoret, who, however, ' includes other Christians also), — a
view which is quite unjustifiably imported from Eph, iii, 5,^ whence also
the reading drroardXoi; (instead of dyioi;) in F G has arisen. It refers to the
Christians generally. The mystery was indeed announced to all (ver, 23),
but was made manifest only to the believers, who as such are the k7ivtoI

1 Just as little ground is there for tracing tempted to be proved by the tones (quite
Kara Ta evTaXfiara k,t,a,, in ii, 22, to Matt, XV. Pauline, however) which Rom. xvi. 15-27 has
9 ; oil /tparii', in ii. Iti, to Matt. vii. 3, 4; iTraTij, in common with Col. i. 20 f. ; Eph. iii. 20, iii. 9,
in ii. 8, to Matt. xiii. 22; and in other in- 10, v. 21; and in support of it an erroneous in
stances. The author, who manifests so much terpretation of Std ypai^iHiv n-poi^ijTt/cwv, in
lively copiousness of language, was certainly Rom. xvi. 26, is invoked.
not thus confined and dependent in thought 8 Holtzmann also, p. 49, would have the
and expression, apostles thought of "first of all." The re-
2 According to Holtzmann, indeed, p, 309 ft,, semblances to Eph, iii, 3, 5 do uot postulate the
the close of the Epistle to the Romans is to similarity of the conception throughout,
be held as proceeding from the post-apostolic This would assume a mechanical process of
auctor ad Ephesios, — a position which is at- thought, which could not be proved.

CHAP. I. 27. 259
dyioi belonging to God, Rom, i. 7, viii, 30, ix, 23 f Huther wrongly desires
to leave roif ayioi; indefinite, because the pvarypiov, so far as it embraced
the Gentiles also, had not come to be known to many Jewish-Christians,
But, apart from the fact that the Judaists did not misapprehend the desti
nation of redemption for the Gentiles in itself and generally, but only the
direct character of that destination (without a transition through Judaism,
Acts XV, 1, et al), the 's^avepuBy roi; dyioi; airov is in fact a summary asser
tion, which is to be construed a potiori, and does not cease to be true on
account of exceptional cases, in which the result was not actually
realized, Ver, 27. [XXX g,] Not exposition of the 'sipavsp. roi; dy. airov, since
the yvapiaai has for its object not the pvarypiov itself, but the glory of the
latter among the Gentiles. In reality, oif subjoins an onward movement of
the discourse, so that to the general rb pvarypiov ifavepuBy roi; dy. airov a
particular element is added : " The mystery was made manifest to His
saints, — ^to them, to whom {quippe quibus) God withal desired especially to
make known tlmt, which is the riches of the glory of this mystery among
the Gentiles." Along with the general 'sipavspuBy roi; dyioi; airoi God had
this special definite direction of His will. From this the reason is plain why
Paul has written, not simply oif iyvdpiaev d Qsd;, but oif yBeXsasv b Geo;
yvapiaai. The meaning that is usually- discovered in yBiXyaev, free grace,
and the like (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, and many others,
including Bahr, Bohmer, de "Wette ; Huther is, with reason, doubtful), is
therefore not the aim of the word, which is also not intended to express
the jo-yfulness of the announcement (Hofmann), butsimplj' and solely the
idea: "He had a mind." — yvapiaai] to make known, like iijiavepdBv, from
which it differs in meaning not essentially, but only to this extent, that
by eipavep. the thing formerly hidden is designated as openly displayed
(Rom. i. 19, iii, 21, xvi, 26 ; Eph. v. 13, et al), and by yvapiaai that wliich
was formerly unknown as brought to knowledge.^ The latter is not related
to 's^avep. either as a something more (Biihr : the making fully acquainted
with the nature) ; or as its result (de "Wette) ; or as entering more into
detail (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; or as making aware, namely by experience
(Hofmann). — rl rb irXovro; ry; dd^y; k.t.X,] what is tlie riches of the glory of
this mystery among the Gentiles, i. e, what rich fullness of the glory contained in
this mystery exists among the Gentiles, — since, indeed, this riches consists in
the fact (df ian), that Christ is among you, in whom ye have the hope of
glory. In order to a proper interpretation, let it be observed : (1) ri occu
pies with erwphasls the place of the indirect d, n,'' and denotes " quae sint
di-vitiae " as regards degree : how great and unspeakable the riches, etc.
Comp. on Eph. i. 18, iii. 18. The text yields this definition of the sense
from the very connection with the quantitative idea rd irXovro;. (2) All the
substantives are to be left in their full solemn force, without being
resolved into adjectives (Erasmus, Luther, and many others : the glorious
IComp. Rom. xvi. 26, ix. 22; Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, "See Poppo,0(iXera. Q/rop. i.2.10; Kiihner,
8, 10, vi, 19 ; Luke ii, 15, et al. ad Mem. i, 1, 1 ; Winer, p, 158 f, [E, T, 168],

260 THE EPISTLE OF PAITL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
riches; Beza: ''divitiae gloriosi hujus mysterii").' (3) As r^f dd^y; is
governed by rd rr'XoiTo;, so also is tov pvarypiov governed by r^f dd^y;, and
ev Toif sBv. belongs to the iarl which is to be supplied, comp. Eph. i. 18. (4)
According to the context, the dd^a cannot be anything else (see immedi
ately below, ri 'eXirl; ry; dd^y;) than the Messianic glory, the glory of the
kingdom (Rom. viii. 18, 21 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17, et al), the glorious blessing of
the KXypovopla (comp. ver. 12), which before the Parousia (Rom. viii. 30;
Col. iii. 3 f.) is the ideal {eXiri;), but after it is the realized, possession of
believers. Hence it is neither to be taken in the sense of the glorious
effects generally, which the gospel produces among the Gentiles (Chrysos
tom, Theophylact, and many others, including Huther, comp. Dalmer),
nor in that specially of their conversion from death to life (Hofmann),
whereby its glory is unfolded. Just as little, however, is the dd^a of God
meant, in particular His wisdom and grace, which manifest themselves.
objectively in the making known of the mystery, and realize themselves
subjectively by moral glorification and by the hope of eternal glory (de
"Wette), or the splendor internus of true Christians, or the bliss of the latter
combined with their moral dignity (Bohmer). (5) The genitive of the sub
ject, rov pvarypiov rovrov, defines the ddfa as that contained in the pvarypiov,
previously unknown, but now become manifest with the mystery that has
been made known, as the blessed contents of the latter. Comp. ver. 23 :
e^Trif rov eiayyeXiov. To take the dd^a as attribute of the mystery, is forbid
den by what immediately follows, according to which the idea can be
none other than the familiar one of that glory, wliich is the proposed aim
of the saving revelation and calling, the object of faith and hope (in oppo
sition to Hofmann and many others) ; iii, 4, Comp. on Rom. v. 2. — ev roZf
sBvsaiv] [XXX h.] ^aivsrai di iv iripoi;, rroXXa de irXiov 'sv rovroi; y iroXXy
rov pvarypiov dd^a, Chrysostom. " Qui tot saeculis demersi fuerant in
morte, ut viderentur penitus desperati," Calvin. — 8f 'san Xpiarb; 'sv ipiv]
" Christus in gentibus, summum illis temporibus paradoxon," Bengel.
According to a familiar attraction (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 166]), this 6f
applies to the previous subject rb irXovro; ry; dd^y; roi yvar. r., and intro
duces tliat, in which this riches consists. Namely : Christ among you, — in
this it consists, and by this information is given at the same time how great
it is (rt eartv). Formerly they were x"pk Xpiarov (Eph, ii, 12) ; now Christ,
who by His Spirit reigns in the hearts of believers (Bom, viii, 10 ; Eph.
iii. 17 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17, et al), is present and active among ihem.
The proper reference of the relative to rd 7r;ioirof k.t.X., and also the cor
rect connection of ev i/.iiv with Xpiard; (not with ^ eXirt;, as Storr and
Flatt think), are already given by Theodoret and Oecumenius (comp, also
Theophylact), Valla, Luther, Calovius, and others, including Bohmer and
Bleek, whereas Hofmann, instead of closely connecting Xpiarb; iv iplv,
makes this ev iplv depend on iari, whereby the thoughtful and striking
presentation of the fact " Christ among the Gentiles " is without reason
1 Chrysostom aptly remarks : (rep-vOi; etire <rets ^ijrtbi' iiriraaeinv. Comp, Calvin : " magnilo-
Kat oY/coi. «Tre-fl7j/c€i' airo iroAXijs SiaBiaeoi^, eTTiTflt- guus est in extollenda evangelii dignitate,"

CHAP. L 28. 261
put in the background, and ev iplv becomes superfluous. Following the
Vulgate and Chrysostom, df is frequently referred to rov pvaryp. roirov :
" this mystery consists in Christ's being among you, the Gentiles," Huther,
comp, Ewald. The context, however, is fatal to this view ; partly in gen
eral, because it is not the mystery itself, but the riches of its glory,
that forms the main idea in the foregoing; and partly, in particular,
because the way has been significantly prepared for df 'ean through rl,
while iv iplv corresponds ' to the ev roif sBvsaiv referring to the ir7\xivro;,
and the following y 'eXrrl; rij; dd^y; glances back to the tt'Xovto; ry; dd^y;. —
Xpiard;] Christ Himself, see above. Neither y roi X. yvdai; (Theophy
lact) is meant, nor the doctrine, either of Chi-ist (Grotius, RosenmiiUer, and
others), or about Clirist (Flatt), On the individualizing i|UZv, although the
relation concerns the Gentiles generally, comp, iyd; in ver, 25, "Aecom
modat ipsis Colossensibus, ut efficacius in se agnoscant," Calvin, — y iXirl;
ry; dd^vs] characteristic apposition (comp, iii, 4) to Xpiard;, giving infor
mation how the Xpiarb; ev iylv forms the great riches of the glory, etc.
among the Gentiles, since Christ is the hope of the Messianic dd^a, in Him
is given the possession in hope of the future glory. The emphasis is on y
iXirl;, in which the probative element lies,''
Ver. 28. Christ was not proclaimed by all in the definite character just
expressed, namely, as " Christ among the Gentiles, the hope of glory ; " other
teachers preached Him in a Judaistic form, as Saviour of the Jews, amidst
legal demands and with theosophie speculation. Hence the emphasis with
which not the simply epexegetic dv (Erasmus and others), but the yyei;,
which is otherwise superfluous, is brought forward ; " by which Paul has
meant himself along With Timothy and other like-minded preachers to
the Gentiles {we, on our part). This emphasizing of yysl;, however, requires
the 'bv to be referred to Christ regarded in the Gentile-Messianic character,
precisely as the vyel; make Him known (comp. Phil, i, 17 f ), thereby
distinguishing themselves from others ; not to Christ generally (Hofmann),
in which case the emphasizing of ypei; is held to obtain its explanation
only from the subsequent clause of purpose, 'iva rrapaar. k.t.X. — The
specification of the mode oi announcement vovBsrovvre; and diddoKovre;',
admonishing and teaching, corresponds to the two main elements of the
evangelical preaching psravoelre and marevere (Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18 ; Rom.
iii. 3 ff, ; Mark i, 15), Respecting the idea of vovBerslv, see on Eph, vi. 4.
It occurs also joined with diddaK.'' in Plato, Legg. viii. p. 845 B, Prot p, 323
'Hence also to be rendered not irt vobis finds the use of the plural disturbing, and
(Luther, Bahmer, Olshausen), but inter vos. the whole verse tautological as coming after
The older writers combated the rendering in ver. 25, It is difficult, however, to mistake
vobis from opposition to the Fanatics, the full and solemn-style of the passage, to
^Compare on the subject-matter, Rom, viii. whioh also the thrice repeated irivra afSpiuTrov
24: rfj yap e\iziSi eau:0rip.ev, and the contrast belongs.
iKirls'a p.7, Ixovres in Eph. ii. 12; 1 Thess. iv. -tlniii.icthe two words, stand in the inverse
13 ; and on the concrete expression, 1 Tim, i, order, because there it is not the /leTavoeif
1; Ignat, Eph. 21; Magnes. 11; Ecclus, xxxi preceding the Tri'o-Ti!, which is the aim of the
14- Thuc, iii, 67, 4; Aesch, Cft, 230, 776, vovSeuia, but mutual improvement on the
8 Without due reason, Holtzmann, p. 153, psirt o{ believers.

262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
D, Apiol p, 26 A ; Dem, 130, 2, — iv irday aoipii;i] belongs to vovBsr. and diddoK. :
by means of every wisdom (comp, iii. 16) which we bring to bear thereon.
It is the ird; of the process of warning and teaching, comp, 1, Cor, iii, 10,
in which no sort of wisdom remains unemployed. The fact that Paul,
in 1 Cor. i, 17, comp, ii, 1, 4, repudiates the co^t'a 'Xdyov in his method of
teaching, is not — taking into consideration the sense in which aoijila there
occurs — at variance, but rather in keeping, with the present assertion,
which applies, not to the wisdom of tlie world, but to Christian wisdom in
its manifold forms.- — The thrice repeated irdvra dvBpairov [XXX i.] in
opposition to the Judaizing tendency of the false teachers) " maximam
habet dsivdryra ac vim," Bengel. The proud feeling of the apostle of the
WOl'ld expresses itself.' — Iva rrapaarya. /c.r.A,] The purpose of the dv vpsl;
Ka-ayyiXXopev down to aoipia. This purpose is not in general, that man
may so appear (Bleek), or come to stand so (Hofmann), but it refers, as in
ver, 22, and without mixing up the conception of sacrifice (in opposition
to Biihr and Baumgarten-Crusius), to the judgment (comp, on 2 Cor, iv,
14), at which it is the highest aim and glory (1 Thess, ii, 19 f,) of the
apostolic teachers to make every man come forward reXeiov iv X, 'Ev Xpiara
contains the distinguishing specialty of the rsXsidry;, as Christian, which is
not based on anything outside of Christ, or on any other element than
just on Him. It is perfection in respect of the whole Christian nature ;
not merely of knowledge (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, including
Bohmer), but also of life. Moreover, this ev X. is so essential to the
matter, and so current with the apostle, that there is no ground for finding
in it an opposition to a doctrine of the law and of angels (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and others). Theophylact, however (comp. Chrysostom),
rightly observes regarding the entire clause of purpose : rl Xiyei; ; irdvra
dvBpairov ; val, (jiyai, rovro airovdd^oysv' el de yy yivrirai, oidiv irpb; ypd;.
Ver, 29, On the point of now urging upon the readers their obliga
tion to fidelity in the faith (ii, 4), and that from the platform of the
personal relation in which he stood towards them as one unknown
to them by face (ii, 1), Paul now turns from the form of expression
embracing others in common with himself, into which he had glided at ver,
28 in harmony with its contents, back to the individual form (the first
person singular), and asserts, first of all, in connection with ver. 28, that
for the purpose of the irapaaryaai K.T.X. { el; 6, comp. 1 Tim, iv. 10) he also
gives himself even toil {Komd, comp. Rom. xvi. 6, 12 ; 1 Cor, iv, 12), striving,
etc. — Kal] also, subjoins the Koiridv to the KorayyiXXsiv k.t.X., in which he
subjects himself also to the former ; it is therefore augmentative, in harmony
with the climactic progress of the discourse; not a mere equalization of
the aim and the striving (de "Wette). Neither this Kal, nor even the
transition to the singular of the verb, — especially since the latter is not
1 Which Hofmann groundlessly calls in cKao-Tov (Acts xx, 31), or through the addition
question, finding in iravra avSpunrov the idea: of /ta0' 'eva, or otherwise ; eomp, also 1 Thess,
" every one singly and severally." This is gra- ii, 11, Calvin hits the thought properly : " tt(
tuitously introduced, and would have been sig- sine exceptione iotus mundus ex me discat."
nificautly expressed by Paul through cVa

CHAP. I. 29. • 263
emphasized by the addition of an iya, — can justify the interpretation of
Hofmann, according to which eif 8 is, contrary to its position, to be
attached to dyavi^dpsvo;, and KOma is to mean; " J become weary and faint "
(comp, John iv. 6; Rev, ii, 3, and Diisterdieck in toe), Paul, who has often
impressed upon others the yy 'skkoksIv, and for himself is certain of being
more than conqueror in all things (Rom. viii, 37 ; 2 Cor. iv, 8, et al), can
hardly have borne testimony about himself in this sense, with which,
moreover, the dyavi^saBai in the strength of Christ is not consistent. In his
case, as much as in that of any one, the oi/t iKorriaaa; of Rev. ii, 3 holds
good. — dyuvifd/ievof] Compare 1 Tim. iv. 10. Here, however, according
to the context, ii. 1 ff., the inward striving (comp. Luke xiii. 24) against
difficulties and hostile forces, the striving of solicitude, of watching, of
mental and emotional exertion, of prayer, etc., is meant; as respects
which Paul, like every regenerate person (Gal. v. 17), could not be raised
above the resistance of the adp^ to the rrvevya ruling in him.' It is not :
"tot me periculis ac malis objicere " (Erasmus, comp, Grotius, Estius,
Heinrichs, Bahr, and others), which outward struggling, according to Flatt,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, should be understood along
with that inward striving ; ii, 1 only points to the latter ; comp, iv. 12 —
Kara rfpi ivipysiav k.t.X.] for Paul does not contend, amid the labors of his
office, according to the measure of his own strength, but according to the
effectual working of Christ {airov is not to be referred to God, as is done by
Chrysostom, Grotius, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which
uorketh in him. Comp, Phil, iv, 13, How must this consciousness, at
once so humble and confident of victory, have operated upon the readers
to stir them up and strengthen them for stedfastness in the faith ! — ryv
ivspyovy.] is middle; see on 2 Cor, i, 6 ; Gal, v. 6 ; Eph. iii. 20. The modal
definition to it, ev dwdpsi, mightily (comp. on Rom. i. 4), is placed at the
end significantly, as in 2 Thess. i. 11; it is groundlessly regarded by
Holtzmann as probably due to the interpolator.

Notes by Ameeican Editoe.
XXIII. Vv. 1-3.
(a) The presence of the word dirdaroXo; here, as contrasted with its absence in
the salutation of the letter to the Philippians, may be accounted for in connection
with the fact that Paul had not ever visited Colossae, while with the Philippian
Church he had long been on terms of very close friend.ship. The use of the simple
word dov/M as including the two names in Phil., and the designation of Timothy
by the word ddeXipd; here, may, perhaps, be explained in the same way. (See
also note I. on Phil. i. 1, 2. — (6) That dyioi; is here used as a substantive, is
rendered probable by the fact that it is evidently thus used in Eph. i. 1 — that
Ep. having been written at the same time with this one. As to the meaning of
Trtcrroif— whether believing or faithful, the argument presented by Meyer against the
^ Comp. Chrysostom : /cat ovx airAws trirou- p.evo^ fiera iroAA^s t^s inrovSri^, A^era iroAA^s ttjs
ia^ui, ifiydiv, oiSi tis ervx^v, iMa /coirii ayioviio- aypvirvias.

264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
latter signification (that it is only the Christian standing of the readers that the
Apostle describes in the superscriptions of the Epistles) is worthy of consideration.
The argument which Lightf urges against the former meaning, on the other hand,
(that the epithet would add nothing which is not already contained in dy. and ddc/l^.),
is not decisive ; for, as Meyer says of the addition of ev xi>,, though hardly neces
sary in itself, the word is quite in harmony with the formal character of the Pauline
addresses. Certainly, the Apostle does not anywhere, in his other salutations, single
out the stedfast members only, as Ligh tf supposes him to do here. If the word
vaeaus faithful in this passage, it is, no doubt, applied to all the church. But not
improbably it means believing. — (c) In Eph,, Paul addresses rotf dytotf roif ovaiv iv
'E^, Kal iriarol;; in Phil,, roif dyioi; ro'l; ovaiv iv. $, j here, roif ev, K, dyloi; Kal iria
rol; dd. We can scarcely doubt that he has the same idea of the kindred words
in the different cases. It is noticeable, also, that ev Xpiara is connected in Eph.
with iriarol;, and in Phil, with dyioi;, which may have some bearing upon the
question of the connection here. — {d) The omission of the words Kal Kvpiov 'I Xp.,
which are found in T. E, and in K A C and some other authorities, is favored by
the best recent comm. and textual critics. If these words are omitted, the saluta
tory address in this part of it — the prayer for grace and peace to rest upon the
readers — differs not only from the salutations of Eph, and Phil,, which are so
similar to it in other respects, but from those of all the other Pauline Epp,, in that
the name of God the Father alone is used.
XXIV. Vv. 3-8.
(a) The use of the singular sixapiard in Phil, may readily be explained by a
desire on the Apostle's part to express his own thankfulness as a personal friend;
the plural used here is natural, as there was no such peculiar personal relation.
It is doubtful, however, whether we are, in all cases, to ask for a special reason for
such variations of expression in different epistles. Comp, e, g, 1 Cor, and 1 Thess,,
in both of which Paul addresses the church in the name of one or more companions,
as well as in his own, yet employs the singular of this verb in the former and the
plural in the latter. It will be noticed, however, — in this Ep., as in all the others, —
that when emphatic exhortations or authoritative directions are given, the singu
lar is always used, — (6) The position taken by Meyer with regard to the connection
of irdvrors with six, is probably, yet not certainly, correct. His view respecting
rrspl ipdv is less probable. If, (joining Trdvrore with eix,), we Unite these words with
irpoaevx,, it seems to give them an undue emphasis. The participle is, rather, to
be taken absolutely, as by Lightf,, and as equivalent to m our prayers. The pro
gress of the thought from thanksgiving in prayers for what had been attained by
the readers (ver. 3f ) to prayer on their behalf for future attainments (ver. 9), is
similar to what we find iu Phil. (i. 3 f. 9 f ). — (c) d/toi/CTavref ryv irlanv k.t.X. This
clause evidently contains the ground of the thanksgiving ; but whether in sjich a
way that dKoia. is to be regarded as a causal participle, is doubtful. The fact that
the participle is in the aorist tense, (as contrasted with the present in Philem. 5),
and the words dip' y; ypepa; yKoiiaapev in ver 9 favor very strongly the view that
the meaning is having heard, i. e. after having heard. Comp. Eph. i. 15. — {d) As to
'the construction of did ryv eXir'ida, the following points may be noticed : — (1) 'eXir'ida,
because of the participial phrase which follo-«'S, is here equivalent to the thing
hoped for, It thus does not stand in that exact parallelism with faith and love,

NOTES. 265
which we find in 1 Cor. xiii. 13; 1 Thess. i. 3; (2) this hoped for thing is made
prominent as that which the readers had heard when the gospel was proclaimed to
them ; (3) the gospel is referred to (ver. 6) especially in respect to its fruit-bearing
power ; (4) this fruit in the lives of the readers, so far as it is presented in these
verses, consists in faith and love ; (5) the faith and love, therefore, which are the
fruit of the eATrif, rather than the eXirl; itself, are the ground of the Apostle's
thankfulness. These considerations are sufficient in themselves to make it prob
able that the writer intended to connect did r. iXir. k.t.X., with the words immedi
ately preceding, and not with six. The reasons given by Meyer, when added to
these, show this construction to be almost certainly the correct one. It seems
better, however, to connect these words with both irlanv and dydiryv, than with
dydiryv alone as Meyer does, because both faith and love are the fruits. — (e) irpoy-
Koiaare is regarded by Ell., Alf, Lightf., Eadie, Bid., and others as meaning heard
formerly or in the earliest proclamation to them of the gospel ; by Huther and
others, as meaning before the writing of the present letter ; by Grimm, Blk., de W.,
Olsh., and others, as having a sense similar to that given by Meyer. The verb does
not occur elsewhere in the N. T. The use of the word in other authors favors
Meyer's view. — (/) The description of that which had been preached to them as
the word of the truth of the gospel, and of the gospel as everywhere bearing fruit
and increasing, and the allusion to their having known the grace of God in truth,
are peculiar elements iu this earlier part of the introductory passage. The prayer
in the later part ( vv. 9-14j refers apparently to the same things — " bearing fruit
and increasing in the knowledge of GodJ' " who delivered us, etc. . . . the forgive
ness of our sins." We may, accordingly, believe that these ideas were suggested
to Paul's mind in connection with the condition of things in Colossae, and that he
intended to contrast the truth of the gospel as related to grace and forgiveness, in
this Epistle as in that to the Galatians, with the doctrines held by persons of whom
he speaks in later chapters. The contrast, however, is not set forth in these
verses as definitely as in Gal. It is hinted at, rather than expressed. The sug
gestion of the teachings of the heretics is only incidental, and probably designedly
60, the main purpose being to commend, with thanksgiving, the Christian develop
ment of the Church. — {g) The koi before eoriv Kaprroipopovpsvov which Meyer reads
(see his textual note) is rejected, on the authority of the oldest MSS,, by Tisch, Sth
ed., Treg,, W. & H., Alf,, and others, and is an insertion of the copyists, probably,
for the purpose of simplifying the construction of the sentence. The insertion is
more easily accounted for in this way than the omission, though Meyer claims the
opposite, "Whether we read Kal, however, or not, there can be little doubt that the
substance of the Apostle's thought is this : — that the gospel had come to and was
still abiding with them, with that growing and fruit-bearing power which it liad
in all places which it reached,— that it had had this power ever since the day
when they first heard its message. The insertion or omission of the Kal will only
affect the question of the particular way in which the thought is set forth, as
Meyer explains in his foot-note page 211,— (A) The correspondence of ver, 7 with
ver. 6 makes it altogether probable that Epaphras was the founder of the Colos
sian church. If iirip yydiv (not iydv), which has the weight of MSS, authority in
its favor, is the true text, Epaphras must have been an assistant of Paul, who
preached the gospel in Colossae for him and in his stead. Tisch, agrees with
Meyer in reading iydiv. W. and H,, Treg,, Alf, read ypuv,—{i) In his 3d ed.,
Meyer says, with de W., Olsh., and others, that ryv vpdv dydiryv refers to the love

266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
mentioned in ver, 4. In his 4th ed. he understands by it the love of the Colossians
towards Epaphras, assigning as his reason for his change of view the emphatic
position of ipdv. Had the Apostle meant this love for Epaphras, ho-»'ever, he
would hardly have left the expression in so general a form. The English comm.
of recent date generally agree with Meyer's 3d ed. (so Ell., Lightf, Alf, Eadie,
Rid,, Farrar (Life of St, P.). W, and Wilk,, however, the writer in Elk's Comm, for
English Readers, and appy. the Bible (Speaker's) Comm. take the view of Blk,, Hof
mann and Huther. Blk, urges, with some force, that, if the allusion were to ver. 4,
faith, as well as love, would be mentioned. He urges, also, the opening -ivords of
ver, 9, did rovro Kal yyel;, claiming that did r. is best explained as referring to this
Sth verse. It is better, however, to take dtd r. as pointing to all which precedes (vv.
3-8), because the idea of fruit-bearing, which is so prominent in these verses, is
also prominent in the passage beginning with ver. 9, The emphatic position of
iydv may, perhaps, be satisfactorily explained by understanding the words to mean
your love towards me. The general character of the expression and the absence of
such words as eif yyd; favor the reference to Christian love in general.

XXV, Vv, 9-14.
(a) As in Phil, i, 9 ff,, the prayer here follows along the line of the thanksgiv
ing, but it reaches out more widely as the writer thinks of the possibilities of
future growth. The introductory passages of the four epistles written while the
apostle was in Rome, though differing from one another in many points, have
some marked common characteristics. The very close connection of thanksgiv
ing with prayer (Eph, i, 16; CoL i. 3; Philem. i. 4; PhiL i. 3, 4); the
similarity and yet variety in the forms of expression used in thus connecting the
two ; the allusion to the reports which he had heard of the faith and love of the
persons addressed (Eph,, CoL, Philem., — love only, in PhiL, that church being
peculiarly united in affection and friendship with himself) ; the designating of
this faith as in the Lord Jesus (Eph, Col, Philem,), and of the love as towards
the saints (CoL, Philem. ; Eph. T. R., Tisch., Treg.) ; tlie prayer for their develop
ment in knowledge iirlyvuai; (Eph., CoL, Philem., Phil.) ; the desire for their
increase in the fruits of Christian living, and the looking forward to the consum
mation at the end ; all these points indicate the same general thought and feeling
in the author's mind, with which he is so filled that he is impelled to give them
utterance. (6) The apostle prays, in PhiL, that the love of the church may
more and more abound ev iiriyvuaei Kal a'laByasi unto the end of distinguishing
between right and wrong ; here, that the church may be filled with the iirlyvuai;
oi God's will in all aoijiia Kal avviaei. For the connection of rd BeXypa Qsov with
doKiyd^eiv and doK. rd dtaipipovra, see Rom, xii, 2 ; ii, 18. AiaByai; and avveai;
are kindred words, the former denoting intelligence as connected with perception,
the latter, as connected with a putting together in the mind — " bringing the out
ward object into connection with the inward sense,'' The knowledge is here
spoken of as "in all spiritual wisdom and understanding;" comp. Phil. i. 9, "in
knowledge and all discernment," and Eph. i. 17 "may give you the Spirit of wis
dom and revelation in the knowledge of him." And all was to be, Phil. i. 10, 11, to
the end that they might be void of offence, being filled with the fruit of righteous
ness, while, here, all was to be, that they might walk worthily of the Lord to all

NOTES. 267
pleasing, in every good work bearing fruit. — (c) ev Travri ipyij dyaBa is, with
Meyer, to be joined to what follows. The two participles go together. In their
hving worthily of the Lord, they will in the sphere of good works both bear fruit
and increase (grow in the life itself as they bear fruit), by means of their full-
knowledge of God. Tisch. Sth ed,, Treg,, Lachm,, W. & H,, Alf,, read, with the
best MSS., ry iiriyvuaei, as against Meyer, w-ho reads eif ryv iiriy. — {d) The
position of ev Trda?; dmdpsi, together with the use of the adjective all, shows
clearly a, designed parallelism with ev Travri ipy. dy. The strength or power
referred to is moral power especially with respect to stedfast endurance and long-
suffering, — that is, to characteristics of Christian living which are emphatically
set forth in the N, T. writings. In the midst of the oppositions and persecutions
to which the churches were, in those days, so much exposed, these virtues needed
peculiar cultivation. The strength from God was largely demanded to this end,
and the prayer might well be for the imparting of it in accordance with, and after
the measure of, the power of God's own glorious majesty, — (e) The connection of
ysrd xeipoi with the preceding words, rather than with those which follow, is to
be preferred, as bringing out the peculiar characteristic of Christian endurance —
it is an enduring with joy, (comp. Eom. v. 3). — (/)The simplest construction of
ev rCi (jiari is with KXypov. The light is the sphere within which the inheritance
of the saints is found, as darkness is the sphere in which those who are outside of
the kingdom of God live. To make the words instrumental, as Meyer does, takes
(^d; out of that relation of contrast to a/cdrof, which is suggested by the verses. —
{g) Lightf says that i^ovala; has here the senseof arbitrary porver or tyranny, and that
'¦ the transference from darkness to light is represented as a transference from an
absolute tyranny, an i^ovaia, to a well-ordered sovereignty, a paaiXeia." It is doubt
ful, however, whether this meaning of i^ovala can here be insisted upon, and this
peculiar sense does not, apparently, belong to the word elsewhere in the N. T.
Vi'hether any such contrast between the two terms employed is intended by the
writer is very questionable. — {h) Whether the "kingdom" is to be understood
here (as Meyer claims it must be everywhere), as meaning " nothing else than
the Messiah's kingdom, tbe erection of which beprins with, the Parousia " (Meyer
on Eom. xiv, 17), or whether this view is to be rejected, vv. 12-14, taken together,
indicate that the apostle has in his thought a present participation in the bless
ings and life of that kingdom, in some beginning of it, or in an anticipatory way
at least, (comp. the aor. yerearyasv and the pres. e;i;o/iev).
XXVI. Vv. 15 ff.
(a) The bipartite arrangement of this passage adopted 'by Meyer seems to be the
one which Paul had in mind — vv. 15-17, presenting Christ's relation, as Meyer
expresses it, to God and the world ; vv. 18-20, his relation to the Church ; or, as
Lightf. says, to the Universe, the Natural Creation, and to the Church, the new
Moral Creation ; or, perhaps better, to God, vv, 15-17, as viewed in connection
with the Divine plan and work in the Natural Creation, and vv. 18-20 as viewed
in connection with the Divine plan and work in the Moral Creation, This passage
is kindred with Eph, i, 20-23 and Phil, ii. 6-11, though somewhat more detailed in
its statements than either of these. It is worthy of notice that these more definite
declarations respecting the Person of Christ, in which Paul approaches very

268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
nearly to the expressions of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John,
occur in the Epistles of this later epoch in the Apostle's life. This fact is consist- -
ent with that progress of Christian thought and discussion which was naturally to
be expected. Questions concerning the time of Christ's second coming and the
full establishment of the I\Iessianic Kingdom, and such as related to the right way
of entering into the Kingdom — whether through faith or works of the law, — must
have preceded those which arose from reflections onthe Divine-human nature of
Christ, or from philosophical speculathig as to the means by which the unseen
God can come into connection with the world. Those who would demand of the
N. T. writers a declaration of the Divinity of Christ on every page mistake the
order of growth in the thought and work of the earliest apostolic days.
(6) As compared with the passages in Phil, and Eph. just alluded to, some
points in these verses may be specially noticed : — (1) In Eph., the reference is
exclusively to the exaltation of Christ in the future and His relation to the Church,
In PhiL, the humiliation of Christ in laying aside the popipy ^sov, and in becoming
a man and suffering death, is presented as preparatory to, and as the ground of, the
future exaltation. His existence in the form of God and equality with God are
thus mentioned only incidentally to the main purpose of the passage. Here, on
the other hand, a, more full and, as it were, dogmatic declaration is made, which
finds its end in itself, and is doubtless intended to meet the false views of the
errorists in Colossae. It becomes, in this way, a more definite theological state
ment in its form, if not in its suggestions, — (2) In accordance with the main
thought in each case, the reference to Christ's exaltation as above thrones, domin
ions, etc, is connected with the future triumph of His Kingdom, in Eph,, but with
His having been their creator, in Col, A corresponding thought may be found,
perhaps, in the words of Phil, ver. 10, " that every knee should bow, of things in
heaven, on earth and under the earth," These words are closely related to the
expression " the name above every name," which in Eph, is, in nearly the same
form, attached to " authority, power, dominion " (" and every name that is named,"
etc). The bond uniting the three Epistles can scarcely fail to be observed. — (3)
The headship of Christ as related to the Church as His body is declared both in
Eph. and Col. But here again, as might naturally be suggested by the peculiar
develojjment of thought in the two Epistles, the position of Christ in the moral
creation is connected with, and founded upon. His position in respect to the natural
creation in Col. only. — (4) The connection in thought of Col. i. 20, with Eph. i. 10
(and possibly with Phil, ii. 10 in the words " things in heaven,'' etc.) is indicated by
the similarity of the expressions used, — (5) The several points of correspondence
suggest that the passages have, each one of them, a light to throw upon the others,
and that they may properly all be considered with care in the attempt to interpret
them individually,
(c) The principal statements of this passage in CoL, in vv, 15 and 18, ¦who is the
image of Ood ; He is the head of the body, the church ; who is the beginning, etc., are
declarations respecting Christ, which have the form of propositions. Hence the
present tenses. They have a permanent truth, reaching forward and backward as
far as the nature of the case allows with regard to each, Tlie other verbs and
clauses introduce the relations of time and succession. This form of declaration is
connected with the object which the Apostle has in view — to set forth what Christ
Ls, i, e. what is the true doctrine of Christ.

NOTES. 269
XXVIL Vv. 15-17.
(a) Meyer (as also Weiss, Bib. Theol N. T. ? 103. d. n. 10, and others), sup
poses Of ianv s'ikuv rov ¦Beov to refer to the risen and exalted, not to the pre-exist
ent Christ. The ground of this supposition is that in vv. 13, 14 Christ is spoken
of in His relation to the work of redemption and the kingdom. This fact, how
ever, is not a decisive proof that He must be spoken of only in the same way in
all the clauses which follow those verses. At least, it does not prove, that, in
describing the one who is thus related to the work of redemption, no statement
can be made which applies to Him in Plis personality, and by its suggestion carries
the mind beyond the limits of the present to the past. We are not limited by the
verses which precede, but must consider also the context which immediately
follows, if we are seeking for the true idea of the author in using these words.
The correct view of the present tense here is, probably, that which is given in the
preceding note. It is a permanent and descriptive present. Indeed, Meyer
admits that the proposition is applicable to tbe past as well as the present, only
that here it is used of the present alone. He says : " In virtue of the identity of
His divine nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ as to the
Logos.'' If we take his view, therefore, we may still afiirm that there is in this
passage an approximation to the Logos doctrine as contained in the Gospel of
John. Lightf says that the Logos idea " underlies the whole passage, though
the term itself does not appear ; " and, in some sense at least, we may hold this to
be true. The difference between these verses (15-20) and the corresponding ones
in Eph, (i. 18 fl.) shows a wider range, in the present passage, in the reference to
Christ's person and work.
(5) If we consider 6f 'eanv sikciv tov -Beov in its relation to the Person of
Christ, and not as referring only to Him in His present exalted state, the corres
pondence of the words of vv. 15-17 with Heb. i. 3 cannot fail to be noticed.
"With that verse on the one side and John i, 1-3 on the other, it must be supposed
that Paul was moving near, or in, the same sphere of thought, and that he
declares Christ to be the image of God in some such deep meaning as that which
is indicated by diraiyaapa ry; dd^y; Kal xapaKryp rif; iiroardasa; (Heb,), or even
by d Xdyo; (John), Comp, the reference to the fact of creation through the Son
both in Heb. and John, and the ipepuv oi Heb. i. 3, which, like awsaryKsv of ver.
17 in this passage, adds to the idea of creating, that of sustaining the universe.
The inference which may properly be drawn, as bearing upon this passage, from
Phil, ii, 6-8, whatever weight we may be justified in giving to it, tends to con
firm this interpretation of the words here used. It may be added, that the em
phatic rov dopdrov and the following phrase, rrpirrbroKo; rrday; Kriaeu;, which is
also, like e'lKav, predicate of of ecrriv, point towards the same conclusion; for the
former expression, by its emphasis, suggests the idea of the unseen God as reveal
ing Himself, and the latter brings out distinctly the idea of pre-existence.
(c) With respect to the -n-ords irpurdroKo; irday; Kriaeu;, it must be noticed : —
(1) that the Son, of whom this descriptive phrase is used, is set apart from created
things by the clause ev aira iKrla-dy rd rrdvra ; (2) that He is exalted above the
highest created beings by sire d-p'dvoi k.t.X. — (3) that all created things are said
to be etf avrOv, as they are said elsewhere to be for (eif) God the Father. In
view of these points, as well as because the words connected with irpar. are Trdtr^f
KTiaea; and not Trdo-;?f riyf Kriaeu;, and because the proof given that He is irpar.

270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
K.r.X. {on) is that all things were created ev airCi, the genitive Kriaeu; cannot be
regarded as a partitive genitive, as if the Son were a part of the creation, but
must be taken, with Meyer, as a genitive of comparison, or as Ell. says, of the
point of view, or as Lighft. expresses it, " He stands in the relation of irpurbroKo;
to all creation." — {d) That the primary idea of irpurbroKo;, as here used, is that
of priority in time — " born before every creature," as Meyer says — is clearly indi
cated by the original sense of the adjective; by the fact that the following on
with its clause seems to suggest this meaning; and by Trpd irdvrav oi ver. 17.
The evidence that the Apostle designed here to include in the word itself the
additional idea, which according to the O. T. usage it sometimes has, of exalta
tion as connected with the privileges and rights of the first-born son, is much less
direct and manifest. That the idea of exaltation is implied in the context,
cannot be doubted ; but, in respect to the word, the most that can be confidently
aflirmed is, that the sense of priority may be regarded as certainly belonging to
it in this place, while the other sense is only possible or probable. — (e) Whether
we give the word the former signification onlj- or add the latter also, the thought
of the writer is not so much that of the origin of the Son as contrasted with the
creation, as of His relation to the creation and exaltation above it as its creator.
This adjective, as several writers suggest, is like povoyevy; -when applied to the
Son, only it describes Him as existing before, and so able to bring into being,
created things, while povoy. refers to Him as related to the Father. So far as
origin is concerned, the word, if designed to express this idea, would imply a
complete difference between Him and the creation. He was not created. He
was born of God, He is the only begotten Son, But these terms are probably
employed as connected with the idea of His peculiar sonship, and not with refer
ence to the mode of becoming Son, or to an eternal generation,
(/) On the words ev aira, Lightf, remarks, " The use of iv to describe Christ's
rebitions to the Church abounds in St, Paul, and more especially in the Epistles
to the Colossians and Ephesians, In the present passage, as in ver, 17, the same
preposition is applied also to His relations to the Universe," He also says, " The
Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal Word as holding
the same relation to the Univei-se which the Incarnate Christ holds to the Chruch.
He is the source of its life, the centre of all its developments, the mainspring of
all its motions,'' In these verses, the truth of this statement is seen in the
earnestness of the Apostle's effort — by means of emphasis, the use of universal
expressions, repeated declarations of similar import, but slightly varied forms,
combinations of words tending to set it forth — to express the idea of supremacy
and dignity. All things were created in Him, and through Him, and for Him,
and in Him all things subsist. He is above them all and before them all. The
" all things " cover the earthly and the heavenly, the visible and the invisible,
the thrones and dominions and principalities and powers. He is the image of
God, the invisible one. In and through Him alone, is everything accomplished
which the erroneous teachers believed to be wrought through the intermedi-ate or
angelic beings. Not merely as first or highest among these beings does He have
His place, but beyond them, in a more exalted sphere. They are all dependent
on Plim for the beginning and continuance of their life. They have no existence
except as resting upon Him and in Him,
{g) The words etre -Bpdvoi k.t.X. are probably to be connected (as Meyer holds)
with rd ddpara, not with rd dpard, for the following reasons : — (1) The reference

NOTES. , 271
of similar combinations of words elsewhere in Paul's Epistles is generally to
angelic, and not to earthly beings. It must be admitted, however, that this is not
always the case, (see below), — (2) The intended allusion to the theories of the
heretical teachers respecting angels, etc, points towards this understanding of the
words. — (3) The emphasis of the setting forth of the exalted position of the Son,
whioh seems evidently designed by the writer, is most striking, if this view is
adopted. We find combinations of words corresponding with those of this verse
in several places in Paul's writings, but in more or less varied forms. In Eph, i.
21 and this passage, the form is fourfold ; in 1 Cor, xv, 24 ; Eom, viii, 38 (T. E,),
it is threefold ; in Eph. iii. 10 ; Col, ii, 10, 15 ; Tit, iii. 1, it is twofold. By com
parison of these passages, we notice that they refer for the most part, to angelic
powers, good (Eph. i. 21 ; Col. ii. 10 ; Eom, viii, 38), or bad (Eph, vi. 12 ; Col. ii,
15) ; yet in Tit. iii. 1 the reference is to earthly magistrates (comp. dvvdpei; Eom.
viii. 88, if the text -which reads this word after piXXovra be adopted). In 1
Cor. XV. 24, the apostle is, not improbably, speaking of all powers, whether
superhuman or human, including even death conceived of as a power. We may
also notice that the arrangement of the words varies, in different cases, to some
extent. Thus, in Eph, i, 21 we find dpxij; Kal i^ovaia; placed first in the fourfold
list, while in Col. i. 16 these words are placed last. In Eph, vi, 12, again, they
have the first place. Substitutions of one word for another also occur in some
cases, as in Eph. i, 21 dwdyea; takes the place of -Bpdvoi in Col. i. 16 ; in Eph. vi. 12
KoapoKpdropa; is possibly used in a similar sense to that of each of the two words just
mentioned, and to that of Kvpidry; in both of the other passages. In 1 Cor, xv, 24 we
find dpxiyv, i^ovaiav, divayiv ; in Eom, viii. 38, dyyeXoi, dpxai, dwdysi; (T. E.) ;
in 1 Pet. iii. 22, dyyiXav, i^ovaidv, dmdysav. It is difficult, under these circum
stances, to make any definite aflirmations as to the precise distinctions in meaning
of the several words, as thus used. The fact should be observed, however, that
wherever dpxil and i^ovala occur, the latter word always follows dpx^, and that
divapi;, when occurring with either of the two, follows it, or, when occurring with
both, follows both. There would seem, therefore, to be some definiteness of order,
or something connected with the words, which made it natural for the apostle to
write them in this way. With the exception of 1 Pet, iii. 22, Luke xii. 11, and
the scarcely parallel passage Luke xx. 20, where we find t^ dpxij Kal , rfi i^ovaia
rov vyeydvo;, these combinations are peculiar to Paul,
{h) The introduction of the word airdf in ver, 17 cannot be satisfactorily
accounted for, unless especial emphasis is laid upon it, Lightf, says that airdf
ianv oi this verse exactly corresponds with eyd elpi of John viii, 58 (comp, Exod.
iii. 14). He accordingly affirms that 'eanv is not an enclitic in this place, but should
be accented eanv. W. & H, give it the accent. Commentators and textual
editors in general, however, regard it as an enclitic, (so Tisch,, Treg,, Lachm,, EIL,
Mey., de W,). Whatever may be held with regard to this point, the emphatic
airdf, the Trpd irdvrav, and the rd Trdvra . . . avvearyKev, show His pre-existence and
His superiority to created things. Had there not been an intention to make these
ideas peculiarly prominent, no such repetition as that of this verse and ver. 16
could have been given. XXVIII. Vv. 18-20.
(a) In the second part of the statements with respect to the Son, vv. 18-20, the
connection with Eph. i. 20 ff. is manifest. The forms of expression in the two

272 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
cases, however, are somewhat different because of the fact that, in Eph,, the whole ,
passage is limited to what follows the resurrection of Christ, while here it covers
also the pre-existent state. The declaration that He is the head of the Church is
placed at the beginning here, at the end in Eph. The headship is presented
under different forms of expression. In Eph., where the exaltation above all
authority and power, etc., and the subjecting of all things under Hira, are set forth
first, and the mention of the headship follows, the words are such as we might
naturally expect — " and Him He gave as head over all things to the Church which
is His body." Here, on the other hand, the headship is mentioned first, and the
exaltation connected with it afterwards. Accordingly, we have here, as the open
ing words of the passage, " And He Himself is the head of the body the Church,"
and then the statement " who is the beginning, the first-born," etc In both
cases, and most distinctly here, the word head is connected with the application of
the word body to the Church, It has, thus, a figurative sense, and the two passages
accord with others in Paul's writings in which the Church is called Christ's body,
and individual Christians members of His body. In Eph, i, 23, this figurative
representation may be extended so far, that the body, the Church, is conceived of
as that by which Christ {rov irXypovpevov k.t.X.) is, as the head, filled up to the
completeness of a man — the head .and body making an entire man, Td irXypapa,
iu that verse, however, may have a different sense, according to some writers (e,g.
see Meyer on Eph. i, 23), and may mean that which is filled by Christ {roi irXyp-
ovp. being a genitive as if of the agent). Or, as some take it, the plenitude of
Christ's graces being communicated to the Church, the latter becomes, in a certain
sense, His fullness.
{b) The fact of the co-ordinate bipartite arrangement of the entire pa.ssage (vv.
15-20) favors the view that dp;i;i7 is not simply equivalent to and explained by
irpurdroKo;, as Meyer holds, but that it contains the idea of source or beginning of
the spiritual creation — as, in the earlier verses, the Son is said to be the agent in the
natural creation. If apx^i is understood thus, Trpurdroicof k.t.X. indicates the way in
which He becomes the dp;^^, — (c) irpurdroKo; oi ver, 18 has a certain parallelism
with the same word in ver, 15, but the parallelism of the whole expression in the
two verses is not complete. This is proved by the form of expression, and also by
the added clauses in the two cases. He is first-born from the dead, as having been
Himself one of the dead ; but He is not first-born of every creature, as being Him
self created. The writer himself has made the distinction clear by the very careful
ordering of his phraseology, — {d) The final clause 'Iva yivyrai iv irdaiv airb; rrparei-
av indicates that the apostle has a progress of development in his mind — a progress
from a beginning to a consummation, — and in this the rising from the dead and
being head of the body, the Church, is an essential step. He moves forward in his
thought from the pre-existent state, before the creation of all things, to the final
result, -when the reconciliation of all things shall have taken place. This clause
thus points to the eternal Divine purpose, which is in process of accomplishment.
That this is the Divine purpose is proved by the following dn k.t.X. (so ileyer).
(e) The arguments presented by Meyer against the view of Ell, and Ewald,
that Trdv rd rrX^pupa is the subject of eidoKyaev, are satisfactory. Lightf urges, in
addition, that, with siddKyaev, personification such as would be required by that
view of Tr, t. Tr;i. would suggest personality. — (/) As to the meaning of rd irXypapa,
it must, from all the indications of the context, refer to God's fullness, i. e. that by
which He is filled. But whether we are to understand by it, with Mey,, the

NOTES. 273
fullness of the Divine grace, or the fullness of the Godhead {-Bedryro; ii, 9), it is
more difficult to determine. In favor of the former supposition is the fact that
the clause which is co-ordinated with this {diroKaraXXd^ai k.t.X.) refers to the work
of Divine grace, and the context, as far as ver. 23, deals with this subject. On the
other hand, the latter view is favored by ii, 9, where r^f i?edr. is added ; by the
possible or probable allusion to the doctrines of the false teachers ; and by what
ever evidence may exist that this expression was a technical term meaning the
fullness of Deity. There is possibly a sort of parallelism in thought between e'lhOiv
roil Bsov of ver. 15, as related to 'sKria-By 'sv airij of ver, 16, and this expression
with naroiKyaai iv aira as related to drroKaraXXd^ai dl airov. If so, an additional
ground for the second view may be found in this fact. The objection that Paul
would hardly have omitted r^f bedryro; when he first uses rrXypupa in the Epistle,
if he had desired to have the expression thus understood, and this particularly in
a passage where the reader's thought might connect it with another idea, is one
of considerable force. It must be borne in mind, however, that this is the only
instance in the Pauline Epistles in which to irXypapa occurs without a defining
genitive, whatever may be its reference or connection. The absence of such a
genitive here is remarkable on any explanation of the meaning. It must also be
remembered, that this is the Epistle in which the early beginnings of the Gnostic
theories are most clearly indicated. On whichever side the probabilities of the
meaning here may lie, there can be no doubt in respect to ii. 9. The Apostle's
doctrine is, therefore, not dependent on this verse. The view of rd ttA,, in the
present passage, which refers it to the Divine grace is adopted by Meyer, Alf,,
Eadie, de W,, and others ; that which makes it refer to the fullness of Deity, or
of the nature of God, is maintained by Ell., Weiss, Bib. Theol. N. T., Lightf, Hu
ther, and others. Meyer's claim that " it would be an utterly arbitrary course men
tally to supply here r^f Sedryro;," cannot be sustained. No such affirmation can
properly be made on either side.
{g) With respect to diroKaraXXd^ai k.t.X. the following points should be con
sidered : — (1) The fundamental idea of the verb is reconciliation, a changing
from enmity to friendship, — (2) This idea is confirmed in the present case by
s'lpyvoiroiyaa; k.t.X. of this verse; by the evident meaning of the verb in ver.
21 ; and by ovraf drryXX. koi ix^Bpoi; (ver, 21) compared with duapov; k.t.X. (ver.
22), — (8) The things in the heavens must refer to, or at least they must include,
the good angels, as is manifest from ver. 16. There seems, however, to be no
possibility of applying the word reconcile, in its strict and proper sense, to these
angels. The verb arroKaraXXM^ai must therefore have, so far as it refers to them,
a certain " elasticity " of meaning, as Meyer says.— (4) The end in view of the
reconciliation mentioned in ver. 21 is to perfect holiness in the reconciled per
sons — "to present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable before
him." — (5) In Eph. i. 10, which, if not altogether parallel to the present passage,
must be regarded as having some immediate connection with it in thought, the
word avaKefaXaidaaa&ai is used in place of diroKaraXXd^ai. The former verb is
not, indeed, equivalent in meaning to the latter, but is rather the sequel to it, as
Meyer says. Nevertheless, it may suggest the thought which is to be found in
diroK., so far as that verb has reference to the heavenly beings. In connection
with the consummation of the work of Christ in overcoming the power of sin in
this world, there may, not impossibly, be some exaltation in holiness, and, not
improbably, some perfection of blessedness unknown before, secured to those
18

274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
beings who have never sinned. — (6) Whether rd Trdvra in this connection is to
be understood as limited to intelligent beings, or as extended so as to cover the
whole of that which exists (Meyer), or the totality of created things (EIL), is
somewhat doubtful. The universality of the neuter and the correspondence of
the phraseology with ver. 16 favor the latter view. Such passages as Eom, viii,
19 ff, ; 2 Pet, iii, 13 may, also, furnish some support for it. On the other hand,
it is clear that the following context refers only to persons (vv. 21 ff,), and it is
also evident that, at ver. 18, the general thought turns from the natural to the
spiritual creation. The passage in Eph., also, (i. 10) follows upon a line of
thought which has reference to God's purpose and work in redemption.
{h) As to the meaning and extent of the reconciliation here spoken of — how
far it is actually realized in the subjective experience of individuals, and whether
the idea of universal restoration or salvation is suggested — we may remark : — (1)
Meyer claims that God is the subject, whose hostility is removed by the reconcili
ation, as in Eom. v. 10, He asserts this on the ground of the universal rd Trdvra
— all things that exist ; it being impossible that the whole universe should be
hostilely disposed towards God, This ground would not be sufficient, of course,
if rd Trdvra refers to intelligent beings. According to this view the reconciha
tion is viewed from the side of God and the Divine plan, as in all probability it
is in Eom. v, 10 and 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, If it be adopted, the universality may be
found in the provisions of the plan, rather than in its realized results. There is
so much in this passage, however, which apparently points towards actual con
summation, that we can hardly suppose the thought of this to have been absent
from the writer's mind, even if he was looking at the plan. The passages in
Eom, and 2 Cor. are not parallel in this regard. — (2) The realized result seems
evidently to be referred to in vv. 21, 22, It must be admitted, however, that this
result may there be suggested in the other words, while dironaraXX. may point
more particularly towards the Divine side and the plan of redemption, — (3) It is
worthy of notice that in this passage, and in the corresponding one in Eph,, the
statement of this universality is connected, in the surrounding context, with allu
sions to those only who are in the Christian body. The same is true of Phil. ii.
1 0, These declarations do not occur in any passage where the author's primary
purpose is, to show how universally the plan of redemption results in securing the
salvation of individual men. — (4) It is not inconsistent with a reasonable view of
either of the two passages in Eph, and CoL, or of the one in PhiL, to suppose that
the writer leaves out of consideration the finally unbelieving portion of mankind
and the evil angels, Weiss {Bihl Theol N. T. Vol, ii, p, 109, n, 8 (Eng, Ti-.)
says, " evil spirits and unbelievers, being incapable of final union to Christ, are,
it is self-evident, left out of account," — (5) The intimations in the Pauline Epis
tles, as well as elsewhere in the N, T., in regard to the ultimate fate and loss of
unbelievers, must be allowed their proper influence in connection with these pas
sages. This is especially true, in view of what has already been said in the fore
going remarks, — (6) The explanation of Weiss referred to above is more satisfac
tory than the elaborate one given by Meyer on page 242, because it can hardly
be said with accuracy that, after the demoniac portion of the angelic -vvorld and
the unbelieving portion of mankind have been consigned to Gehenna, there will
be no longer anything alienated from God and the object of His hostility. This
view either makes subjection in the case of these angels and men equivalent to
reconciliation, which cannot be affirmed, or limits rd irdvra as Mever here

NOTES. 275
apparently does, to the new heaven and new earth, which, to say the least, is a
doubtful limitation. Ta Trdvra in ver. 16, and again as connected with ver, 20,
apparently includes not merely the heaven and the earth, but the intelligent
beings in them. Unless, therefore, the writer is confining his thought either to
the Divine provision of redemption, without regard to individual acceptance of
it, or to those who accept it, as suggested by the surrounding context, it seems
arbitrary to exclude from rd Trdvra, in ver, 20, any of those included in it in ver. 16.
(i) s'lpyvorroi-fiaa; is connected immediately with the idea of diroKaraXXd^ai,
and accordingly refers to peace with God. It is noticeable that this suggestion of
peace occurs here before the allusion to the readers as having been called into the
Christian life from among the Gentiles, while in Eph. ii. 11 ff. it is introduced
after a similar allusion. By reason of this fact, in Eph. the word takes hold not
only of the idea of peace with God, but also, and especially, of peace (the destruc
tion of the enmity) between Gentiles and Jews. In a similar way, the word
diryXXorpiapivoi in Eph. ii. 12 is connected with " the commonwealth of Israel
and the covenants of the promise," while here the reference is not thus hmited.
The genitive, if supplied here, would, as Meyer says, be Beov.
XXIX. Vv. 21-23.
(o) The construction of iyd; k.t.7^. oi ver. 21, as well as the textual reading in
the case of the last word of this verse (whether drroKar-riXXa^ev or diroKaryXXdyvre), is
uncertain. If -n-e read the second person plural of the verb, it seems better, on the
whole, to make the clause from -wvi to bavdrov parenthetical, and to connect
irapaaryaai, by the Kal at the beginning of ver. 21, with aTro/cara/lAdfai of ver. 20 — -
ipd; of ver. 21 being the object of irapaaryaai, and being repeated in ipd;
of ver. 22, This construction must be regarded as more simple and natural
than that which is given by Meyer, who makes rrapaariiaai, the object aimed at in
the reconciliation. With the text diroKaryX?ia^ev, Meyer's view would apparently be
correct (so Ell, and some others), but Meyer reads the verb in the 2d pers.
W, & H, give the parenthetical character to the sentence commencing with vwl
di, even with the verb in the 3d pers. sing,, but this is less probable, — (6) The
23d verse does not indeed necessarily, but may quite probably have an incidental
reference to the danger, to which the readers were exposed, of being led away
from the truth by the errorists.— (c) The connection of ver, 23 with vv, 5, 6, can
scarcely fail to be observed — r^f iXirido;, rov eiayye?uov oi yKoiaars, rov KypvxBivro;
'sv irday Kriaei, (comp. didKovo; ver, 7 ).—{d) Ell. Lightf. Bid., and others agree
with Mey., that irda-ri Kriaei means every creature, not the whole creation.
XXX, Vv. 24-29.
(a) The textual reading df, which Meyer adopts, is rejected by Tisch,, Treg.,
W. & H., Alf., E. v., Hofm,, Ell. Lightf. and others. The oldest MSS. omit it,
and its insertion is easily accounted for by the final syllable of dtd/covof of ver, 23,
and the desire to make an easy transition to ver, 24. Meyer's view, that it fell
out by reason of didKovo;, or by the fact that a Church lesson began here, is less
probaWe.— (6) The sufferings here alluded to, as may be inferred from Eph. iii.
1-13, are especially those connected with his imprisonment. This is indicated
by the similarity in various phrases between the passage in Ephesians and these

276 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
verses. Comp, the use of BXlipei; in both passages, eyevdyyv {^-Byv) didKovo;, o'lKovoyta,
rb pvarypiov rb diro/ce/cp,, dirb rdv aiuvav, etc,
(c) dvravairXypd rd iarepypara tuv •BXl-ifisav rov Xpiaroi. — 'With reference to
these words we may observe: (1) The "afllictions" are designated by the word
BX'i-ipsi;, which, according to the general usage of the N. T,, denotes outw-ard
calamities or troubles. The suffering of Christ for sin, distinctly so called, is
evidently not included in the word ; iraffyyara of this verse must, accordingly,
be explained in the same way, and also ira-B-ypara of 2 Cor. i, 5, — (2) In 2 Cor, i,
5 the sufferings of Christ appear to be represented as so abounding that they over
flow from Him upon His disciples. That verse seems, in a certain sense, to pre
sent the opposite iide of the thought here presented. The argument becomes a
strong one, therefore, that the genitive Xpiarov in this place, as well as in 2 Cor.,
is a gen. of the subject, and in the strict sense of belonging to Him., being His. —
(3) The reference to the Church, in ver. 24, as Christ's body naturally carries
back the thought to /¦) KsipaXy rov adparo; ver. 18, and to the similar expression
in Eph. i. 23. This relation of the body to the head may, therefore, be properly
taken into consideration in the explanation of the -n'ords " fill up," etc. It sug
gests how the sufferings of the body may be conceived as belonging primarily to
the head, and as '' abounding unto " (overflowing from the head to) the body, —
(4) The verb dvravairXypd carries in it the idea of filling up or supplying
what belongs to one person by another, as a substitute. It represents the taking
hold, as it were, over against another, and bearing up what he does not or cannot
bear, and thus supplying his place and his want, and in this way filling up what
is lacking, — (5) It -will be noticed that, in 2 Cor, i, 3-5, the abounding or over
flowing of the sufferings of Christ to the apostle is placed in a parallelism with
the passing over of the comfort which the Apostle had received from God, in his
sufferings, to the Corinthian Christians in theirs. The suggestion derived from
this fact may have a bearing on the present verse. In view of these considera
tions, we may conclude that the Apostle's conception is that all the sufferings and
afflictions which are involved in the carrying on of Christ's work in the world,
whether experienced by Himself or Plis followers, are His own, and that, as He
was not able, in His earthly life, to bear them all, they overflow to His followers.
As filling up that which remains from Him, His followers, in a certain figurative
sense, supply His place, after His death, so far as these experiences are concerned.
They may rejoice in tribulations, therefore, — and the Apostle himself does rejoice,
— not only because they tend (as in Rom, v, 3 ff.) to the confirmation of the hope
of future glory, and not only because they are endured for the welfare of the
Church and the progress of the Gospel (Eph. iii. 1, 13; Phil. i. 12, and other
passages), but also because in the endurance of them the disciple is brought, in
a most intimate way, into fellowship with Christ, Comp. on this whole subject
Matt. XX. 23 ; Eom, viii, 17 ; Gal, vi, 17 ; Phil, ui. 10 ; Heb. xiii, 13 ; 1 Pet. iv.
13 ; and on the genitive, as subjective, 2 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. iii. 13; Jas. i. 27, with
¦BXlipi;, and 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Phil, iii, 10 ; 1 Pet, i, 11, iv, 13, v, 1, with ira-Byyara.
{d) O'lKovoplav — That this w-ord is correctly explained by Meyer is indicated by
a comparison of the passage with 1 Cor. iv, 1, and Eom. xv, 15 ff. These two pas
sages, when taken together, present in a striking way the ideas and expressions of
vv, 25, 26: — the o'lKovopia as connected with the pvariipiov (in 1 Cor,), the
entrusting of the office, and the fulfilling of the word with reference to preaching
to the Gentiles (in Eom,) ; (comp. also -w. 26, 27 with Eom, xvi. 25, 26). The

NOTES. 277
word o'lKovopiav is found in Eph. i. 10, where it cannot have this sense of steward
ship. In Eph. iii. 2, in a passage somewhat similar to the one before us, it prob
ably does not have this meaning. But in Eph. i. 10, the connection and thought
are entirely different, and in Eph, iii, 2 it will be observed that the development
of the subject is more in detail than it is here. The development there proceeds
from the thought of the economy of grace which had been made known to the
apostle (vv. 2-6), to that of the office and commission which had been given to
him to proclaim this economy (vv. 7 ff,). Here, on the other hand, the passage
begins with the latter point, and all that is said is brought into subordination to
this. The fact mentioned by Meyer in his notes on Eph. iii, 2, that the participle
is there connected with xdpiro; {doHsiaii;), while here it agrees with o'lKovop'iav {do-
Sslaav), shows the different conception in the two cases, — (e) The same peculiar
reference of the pvarypiov which we find in these verses is indicated also in Eph.
iii, 1-12. In the latter passage this is more distinctly presented than it is here —
that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-
partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. But that the writer
thinks of this bearing of the gospel on the Gentiles here, is sufficiently manifest.
The two passages were, doubtless, written with the same general thoughts in
mind, and should be interpreted in connection with each other. Yet certain indi
vidual characteristics belong to each. The development of the passage in Eph. is
influenced by the thought of the Divine plan and eternal purpose with which
that Epistle opens, and by that of the removal of the separation between Jews
and Gentiles which does not belong so definitely in the present letter.
(/) It is doubtful, to say the least, whether Meyer's view of yevedv, that it
refers to men while a'luvav refers to times, can be affirmed. A comparison with
Eph. iii, 21 favors the reference of both words to time. — {g) "With respect to ver,
27, the following points may be noticed : — (1) whether ri means what in the sense
of how great, as, Meyer holds, or simply what, the question, as a whole, suggests the
former idea. (2) The antecedent of o (or df , if this is adopted as the true text) is,
probably, uvarypiov, and not (as Meyer) rd irXovro; k.t.X. This may be inferred from
the fact that Christ is spoken of as the mystery in ii, 2 ; from the fact that pvarypiov
is the most prominent word — it is the mystery, to which the riches of the glory
belong ; and from the fact that the idea of the wealth of the glory does not seem to be
exhausted by the hope of the glory. The revelation makes known the mystery
— what had been unknown — that Christ is among or in the Gentiles the hope of
the future heavenly glory, and it opens the knowledge of what the greatness and the
richness of this glory are, (3) Meyer is apparently correct in referring the dd^y;
before pvarypiov and the dd^y; aiter iXiri; to the same thing, i, e, the glory of the
Messianic Kingdom — of the KXypovopla — to which the e^Trif points, — (A) 'Ev with
roif sBvsaiv has, doubtless, the sense of among ; with iplv it may mean among or
in. The correspondence in form and the nearness to each other of the two phrases
favor the former meaning for the second ev. But as the writer is speaking, in
the first clause, pf making known to the saints what is, etc, he naturally uses in
that place the word among i. c, as manifested among. In the second case, on the
other hand, he is giving an explanation of what the mystery is, and he says that
it is Christ, as the hope, etc. The clauses, therefore, are not parallel ; and, as
hope is a subjective thing within the individual mind, we should more naturally
expect him to use in here,
(i) The thrice repeated Trdvra dv-Bpurrov is noticed by Meyer as emphasizing

278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the idea of universality. Lightf. remarks upon this as follows : " This great truth
[the universality of the Gospel], for which St. Paul gave his life, was now again
endangered by the doctrine of an intellectual exclusiveness taught by the Gnosti-
cizers at Colossae, as before it had been endangered by the doctrine of a ceremo
nial exclusiveness taught by the Judaizers in Galatia." The apostle had met
with new adversaries, but not in every sense new. They assailed the same great
peculiarity of his teaching — the gospel for all nations and all men. The stand
point of attack changed, but the attack came upon the same doctrine. And the
new errorists were not wholly new, in the sense of being entirely unconnected with
the old ones. They had the old Jewish element, though it was mingled with,
and affected by, new influences, which had come from the Oriental or Greek phi
losophy. The progress and the growth from the time of the earlier epistles were
a natural advance, and in the natural order. They were not greater, nor was the
state of thought at the end further removed from that at the beginning, than
might have been expected in those earliest days of the Church.

CHAP. n. 279

CHAPTER n.
Ver. 1. rrspi] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read vTrcp, following ABC D* P k min.
But how easily may VTrep have been suggested to the copyists by i. 24 and iv. 12 ! —
The form edpuKav (Lachm, and Tisch. 7) or idpoKav (Tisch. 8) is more than
sufficiently attested by A B C D* x* etc., to induce its reception in opposition to
the usage elsewhere. Respecting this Alexandrian form see Winer, p. 73 [E, T.
76] ; and on idp., Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Th. 32, — Ver, 2, Instead of avp/SilSaaBivrs;,
Elzevir has avp^i^aaBhiruv, in opposition to decisive testimony ; an emendation, —
Trdvra irXovrov] A C min. have Trdv rd irXovro; (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are ;ilso
joined by B x* Clem, with rrdv irXovro; (so Tisch, 8). Here also (comp. i. 27) the
neuter is the original ; in thinking of the more common d irXovro; the IIANTO
became IIANTA, in accordance with which TrAoirov also came to be written. The
reading of Tisch. 8 is a restoration of the neuter form after the article had been
lost. — Instead of the simple rov Qsov (so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. 7, Einck ; among
modern expositors, Biihr, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald), Elzevir has roii Qsov Kal
irarpb; Kal rov Xpiarov, while Lachm. reads rov Qsov Xpiarov, and Tisch. 8 roi; Qsol,
'Kptarov. Among the numerous various readings, rov Qeoi Xpiarov (also adopted by
Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is certainly strongly enough attested by B. Hilar.
(but without vss.), while the simple rov Qeov has only 37, 67**, 71, 80*, 116, Arm.
ed. Venet. in its favor. A C x* 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have rov Qsov irarpb; {rov) X.,
which Bohmer and Reiche prefer, whilst K** Syr. p. have r. Qsov Kal rrarp. rov X.,
and others still, such as Syr. Copt. Chrys. read r. 6. irarpb; Kal rov Xpiarov, and
consequently come nearest to the Recepta ; but a few authorities, after the mention
of God, insert ev Xpiara, as Clem. Ambrosiaster : rov Qeov iv X. Eegarding these
variations we must judge thus : (1) the far too weak attestation of the bare rov
Qsov is decisive against it ; (2) the reading of Lachm. : rov Qsov Xpiarov, is to be
regarded as the original, from which have arisen as glosses the amplifications roi
Qsov irarpb; rov X.,^ and rov Qeov rrarp. Kal rov X., as well as the Recepta ; (3) the
reading rojr Qeov iv Xpiara arose out of a gloss (ev Xpiara) written on the margin
at ev a, in accordance with i. 27, which supplanted the original Xpiarov ; (4) the
£v XpiarC thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated, without, however,
the original Xpiarov being reinserted, and thus arose the reading of Griesb, rov
Qsov, which therefore — and with this accords its late and weak attestation —
appears to be merely a half completed critical restoration.- Ver. 4. di] is wanting
in B X*, Tisch. 8 ; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before the syllable
K'E.—pfi ri;] Lachm. and Tisch. read pydel;, which, following preponderant codd.
(A B C D E P x), is to "^6 preferred, — Ver. 7. ev ry iriar.] Lachm. and Tisch.
1 If this reading, relatively so strongly must have given rise to dogmatic scruples,
attested, were the original one, it would not and only the description of God as toO 0eoB
be ea.sy to see why it should have been XpitzToi) could have done so,
glossed or altered. The original expression

280 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
have only ry marti, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast. TheophyL
Properly ; the iv was mechanically introduced from the adjoining text. — ev air^]
though suspected by Griesb., and rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C x*
min. Copt. Toi. AroheL), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned
by the fact that irspiaa, ^vas found to be already accompanied by a more precise
definition expressed by ev. The ev airi^ read by D* x'*'*, 1, Pel, vss,, though only a
mechanical repetition of the preceding ev airu, testifies indirectly to the fact
that originally ev airy was in the text, — Ver. 10. df ianv] Lachm. reads d
ianv, following B D E F G Germ, Hilar, A mistaken correction, occasioned by
the reference of the preceding ev airdi to rd irXypapa. — Ver, 11. After adparo; Elz.
has rdv dpapridv ; an exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony,
Comp, Eom. vi. 6. — Ver, 13, The second i«df is indeed wanting in Elz,, but
receives so sufficient attestation through A C K L x*. min, vss, and Fathers,
that its omission must be explained on the ground of its seeming superfluous. B
min, Ambr. have ypd;, which is conformed to the following yplv. Instead of this
yplv, 'Elz. has i|aiv, in opposition to decisive testimony, — Ver, 17. d] Lachm, reads
6, following B F G It. Goth. Epiph. Ambrosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch
as the plural was naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the
things previously mentioned. — Ver. 18. d py iupoKsv] py is wanting in A B D*
X*, 17, 28, 67*-^ Copt. Clar. Germ, codd, in Aug,, Or, ed. Tert, ? Lucif Ambrosiast,,
while F G have oiK. The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb,, Steiger,
Olshausen, Huther, Ewald ; deleted by Tisch, 8 (bracketed by Lachm,), although
defended specially by Eeiche, whom Hofmann also follows. An addition owing
to misapprehension. See the exegetical remarks, — ^Ver. 20, ei] Elz, reads ei oiv,
in opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of connecting, after
the analogy of ver. 16 and iii. 1,
Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for the salva
tion of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces (vv, 1-3) what he has to
urge upon them in the way of warning against the seduction of false
teachers (vv. 4, 6), of exhortation to faithfulness (vv, 6, 7), and then, again,
of w-arning (ver, S), He then supports w-hat he has urged by subjoining
the relative soteriological instructions and reniindings (vv, 9-15), from
which he finally draws further special warnings as respects the dangers
theatening them on the part of the false teachers (vv, 16-23),
Ver, 1, [On Vv, 1-5, see Note XXXI, pages 831-334,] rdp] [XXXI a.]
The apostle now confirms,j)i concrete the eif d k. kott. ayovi^dysvo; k.t.X., which
has just been affirmed of himself in general: in proof of that assertion I
would have you to know, etc, Hofmann holds erroneously, in con
sequence of his mistaken expLaiiation of Koirid in i, 29, that Paul desires
to explain why he has said that he is becoming weary over the exertion,
etc— Instead of the more frequent oi BiXa ipd; dyvosiv (see on Rom, xi, 25,
i, IS), Paul uses the OsXa ip. s'ldivai, also in 1 Cor, xi, 3 ; comp, Phil, i, 12, —
yX'iKov] what a great, vehement conflict, Paul nowhere else uses this word,
which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX, or in the
Apocrypha ; in the N, T, it is only found again at Jas, iii, 5, That by the
confiict is meant the internal pressure of solicitude and apprehension, etc.
(comp, i, 29, also Rom, xv, 30), is plain [XXXI 6,] — when we remember

CHAP. IL 1. 281
the imprisoned condition of the apostle, who now could not contend out
wardly with the false teachers themselves — from ver, 2, It is at the same
time self-evident that the wrestling oi prayer was an eminent way of conduct
ing this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to regard iv, 12 as a
criterion for determining the sense in our passage, — koI rdiv ev AaodiK.]
The neighboring Laodiceans (Rev, iii. 14 ff.) were without doubt exposed
to like heretical dangers; hence also the injunction as to the mutual
communication of the Epistles, iv, 16. — koI 'oaoi k.t.X.] The sense is : and
generally {koi, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p, 786, 870) for all to whom I am
personally unknown. It adds the entire category, to which the i^eif and
those ev AaodiKsla, both regarded as churches, were reckoned to belong, Comp.
Acts iv, 6. It is plain from our passage that Paul had not been in Colossae
and Laodicea, It is true that Wiggers, in the Stud. u. Krit 1838, p, 176,
would have baoi k.t.X. understood as referring to a portion of ihe Colossians
and Laodiceans, in which case /cat would mean even; but the text itself is
decisively opposed to this view by the following airdv, ver, 2, which, if the
daoi K.r.X. to which it refers be not the class in which the readers and
Laodiceans were included, would be liltogether unsuitable ; as, indeed, the
bare even does not suffice to' give special prominence to a particular
portion (we should expect ydXiara di or the like), and the comprehensive
dijot withal does not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held
already by Theodoret in the Hypothes. and in the Commentary, though Cred
ner, Einl I 154, erroneously denies this) of Baronius, Lardner, and David
Schultz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 535 ff,), that the do-oi k.t.X. were otherth'nn
the iysl; and ot cv AaodiK. ; Paul having been personally known to both the
latter. The subsequent airdv is fatal to this theory likewise ; and how singu
larly without reason would it have been, if Paul had designated as the obj ects
of his anxiety, along with two churches of the district which are supposed
to have known him personally, all not knowing him personally, without
distinction of locality ! With how many of the latter were there no such
dangers at all existing, as the Colossians and Laodiceans were exposed to !
To this falls to be added the fact, that in the entire Epistle there is not a
single hint of the apostle having been present in Colossae. See, on the
contrary, on i. 8 and on i. 23.' According to Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr.
1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was personally unknown to the
Colossians betrays the composition of the Epistle at a later time, when the
recollection of his labors there had been already superseded and had
vanished from the memory of the churches. As if such a forgetfulness
were even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the
apostle was held! — That Paul should have been so concerned about the
Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know him personally, is
natural enough, seeing that they were not in a position to oppose the
living impression of the apostle's personal ministry, and his direct
authority, to the heretical seductions. Comp. ver. 5.— ev aapKli] not
belonging to iapoKaai — in which case it would be a contrast to seeing ev
1 Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 440.

282 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
irvsipan (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius) — joins itself, so
as to form one idea, with rb rrpdaarrdv pov (Wilier, p. 128 [E. T, 135]). See
ver. 5. The addition, which might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Gal,
i. 22 ; 1 Thess. ii, 17), serves the purpose of conci-ete representation, without
its being necessary to import into it a contrast to the " spiritual
physiognomy " (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance in a
spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in- connection with which Estius even
discovers a certain rairslvuai; through a higher estimation of the latter ;
although generally the idea of a spiritual mode of intercourse, independent
of bodily absence, very naturally occasioned the concrete description :
my bodily face. There is all the less ground for assigning iv aapd, as an
anticipation of ver, 5, to the hand of the manipulator, and that in such a
way as to betray an author who knows the apostle to be already snatched
away from the flesh and present in heaven (Holtzmann),
Ver, 2. The end aimed at (tva) in this conflict : in order that their hearts
may be comforted, viz, practically by the fact, that they are united in love, etc.
Accordingly, avpfiifiaaB. k.t.X. contains the mode of that comforting, which
ensues, when through loving union the evil of heretical division, whether
threatening or already rampant, is removed. Most thoughtfully and
lovingly Paul designates the concern of his solicitude as irapdKXyai; rdv
Kapdiuv airdv, not impeaching them on account of the heretical seductions,
but making those temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence
of which one requires comfort (Vulgate : " ut consolentur ").^ The explana
tion which makes irapaKaX. mean, like ]'nx (LXX, Deut, iii, 28 ; Job iv, 3),
to strengthen, confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), is
quite opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to exhort
(so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann ; comp. Bleek), to
entreat, to encourage, to comfort; the latter in particular when, as here,
it is joined with /captSia. Comp, iv, 8; Eph, vi, 22; 2 Thess, ii. 17 (also
Ecclus. xxx. 23). — avp^ipaaBsvre;] referred to the logical subject of the fore
going, i.e. to the persons, of whom ai Kapdlai airdv was said. See on Eph.
iv. 2, It means here not instructi (Vulgate ; comp, 1 Cor, ii, 16, and the
LXX,), nor yet introduced,'' which linguistic usage does not permit, but
brought together, united, compacti? In connection therewith, ev dydxy,
which denotes Christian brotherly love, is the moral element, in which the
1 Chrysostom remarks aptly (comp. Theo- either of itself or in vv. 5-7, falls to he coi>
phylact) : »]5y) AoiTTof a-7r6u5et /cal ajStvet eii.fia\elv sidered as a preliminary stage, as if the n-Aijpo-
«is TO 567/Aa, oiire KaTTj-yopuv oijre aTraAAaTTWi. ^opia /c.T.A., like a new stadmm, had Jo be en-
auTous Karyyopla,;. tered upou through s.secotid introduction ; on
2 So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense the contrary, this 7rAijpo(/)opia is the full rich
with €15 Trav TO ttAovtos, taking ev ayairy ad- development of faith in the inner life. We
verbially, and explaining the Kai, which may add that (rujupt^a^etv=^o introduce is
stands in the way, in the sense of "even," to nothing but a lexicographical Jiction invented
the effect that this introduction into all riches by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says
of the undersianding has as its presupposition rightly: 'iva eviadOiirL.
another introduction, viz. that into the faith. ^ver. 19; Eph. iv. 16; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Herod.
This is a sophistieally forced mode of dis- 1.74; and see Wetstein and -Valckenaer, &Aoi.
posing of the Kai, suggested by nothing in tne I, p, 453 f,
context, especially since faith by no means,

CHAP. II. 2. 283
union is to subsist ; to which is then added the telic reference of avyPtpaaB.
by Kal eif K.r.X. : united in love and for behoof of the full richness, etc., i.e.
ill order, by that union, to attain the possession of this full richness,
which could not be attained, but only hindered, by division and variance,
[XXXI c] — Koi eif is not to be joined with rrapuKX. (Storr, Flatt), since the
Kal rather adds to the ev-relation of the avypifi. its eif -relation, and is there
fore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann) ; but not to be
explained either as et quidem (Bahr, Bohmer), or by an iXBaai to be
supplied (Olshausen permits a choice between the two). — ri7f irXypoip. ry;
awia.] The full certainty of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole
riches of which, i.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, so
that in no element of the oivcatf and in no mode thereof does there
remain any lack of completely undoubting conviction ;' comp. 1 Thess.
i. 5; Heb. vi, 11, x. 22; Rom. iv. 21, xiv, 5. On the conception of
irXypoipopelv, see Bleek on Hebr. II, 2, p, 233 f. As to aiveotf, intelligence,
both theoretical and practical, comp, on i, 9 ; that here also what is
specifically Christian is meant kot' i^ox^v, is plain from the context. See
the sequel. The cumulative fullness of the description Trdv ro irX. r. rrXyp. r.
awia. is naturally and earnestly called forth by the consideration of the
dangers which tl;ireatened the nXypoip. r. awia. through the attempts of
false teachers (ver. 4),^ — eif inlyvaaiv k.t.X.] parallel to the preceding eif
Trav TO irXmiro; k.t.X., and destined to bring in with emphasis the great
object oi the aiveai; {the divine counsel of redemption, rb pvarypiov, see on i.
26) ; so that what was previously set forth at length by eif ;rav rb rrXovro; r.
irXypoip. -I . awia. is now succinctly summed up for the sake of annexing
the object by eif iiriyvaaiv. Thus the distinction between iiriyvaai; and
yvdai; (ver, 3) is brought out clearly.* Comp. on i, 9, But roi yvar. r. Q.
is not to be attached also to r^f awiaeu; (Hofmann), so that the t^v
eirlyvuatv would occupy an interrupting position, — rov Qsov] Genitive of the
subject ; it is God, whose decree the yvar. is. The reading to be approved,
rov Qsov Xpiarov [XXXI d.] (see the critical remarks), means : of the God
of Christ, i. e. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to His Father,
Sender, Head, etc.; [XXXI e.] see on Eph, i. 17; comp. John xx. 17;
Matt, xxvii. 46. The separatfen of Xpiaroi, however, from r. Qeov, and the
taking it as apposition to rov yvaryp. rov Qeoii, SO that Christ Himself appears
as the personal secret of God, " because He is personally the truth con
tained in God and revealed from God " (Hofmann, comp. Holtzmann, p.
215), must be rejected, because Paul would thus have expressed himself
in a way as much exposed to misapprehension as possible. He would
1 Neither Greek authors, nor the LXX., nor <ro0ia and cruvecri?, of yviapi^eiv and ^lari^eiv,
the Apocrypha have irATjpoi^opitt. InFtoLTetr. of juvo-TjJpiov an-o/ceicpu^ju, and ipavepiairi^ rov
p, 4, 9, irKypoipopyaii is found. /ivo-T., we may detect already the terminology
2 OlSa, OTt morevere, ak\a 7rAi)po<()oprj»i)i'<ii of the Grecian mysteries. As if these ideas
i/iat ^ov\op,ac oiiK etj tov itAovtov fiovov, aAX' and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline,
t'l^Ttavra t'ov irKovrov, 'iva Ka'i'evrraaiKaiiijire- and their intentional application were not
rap.evm ¦ntirXypojiopyv.evoi J)re, Chrysostom. sufHciently intelligible in the light of theo-
3 According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the fre- sophic aberrations. Comp. also on i. 23 ; and
quent mention ot yviaai^ and irriyviairK, of Weiss, Bibl, Theol, p. 420, ed, 2,

284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
either have inserted an 6 'ean after roi Qsov (i, 24 ; 1 Cor, iii. 11), or have
omitted roi Qsov, which would have made rb pvarypiov Xpiarov, as in Eph.
iii, 4, the mystery contained personally in Christ, But as the apostle has
actually written, the reader could only understand the mystery of the God
of Christ, If Christ is God's (see on 1 Cor, iii, 23 ; comp, Luke ii, 26, ix,
20 ; Acts iv. 26), then God is also the God of Christ, After Qeov, therefore,
no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of Hilary {" Deixs
Christus sa.cra.m.entu'm est"), that b Qed; is Christ Himself {so Steigei and
Bisping,') is wholly without Pauline analogy, and is not to be supported
by such passages as Rom, ix, 5 ; Tit, ii, 13 ; Eph, v, 5 ; in fact, even the
lofty predicates employed in i, 15 ff,, ii, 9, draw the line of distinction
between God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher
(de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more unsuitable and
obscure (Reiche), than the phrase 6 Geof roi Kvpiov yp. 'lyaov X. in Eph. i,
17 ; since in connection with the notion " the God of Christ," the designa
tion of the latter as our Lord is unessential. The addition Xpiarov finds its
motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that God formed the
decree of redemption (the pvarypiov), and has carried it out (Eph, iii. 10 f,,
et al). Whosoever has known God as the God of Christ, has the di'vine
pvarypiov therewith unveiled to him,
Ver. 8. 'Ev a] [XXXI /,] is to be referred to rov pvarypiov — a remark
which applies also in the case of every other reading of the foregoing
words — not to Christ, ^ as is commonly done with the Recepta, and by
Bohmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even with our reading. The correct
reference is given, in connection with the Recepta, by Grotius (against
whom Calovius contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis ; and in
connection with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek ; its cor
rectness appears from the correlation in which drroKpvfoi stands to rov
yvaryp. The destination of this relative clause is to bring out the high
value of the irri-yvuai; rov pvarypiov {since in Him, etc.), and that in con
trast to the pretended wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers ;
hence also the emphatic Travref ol Bya. k.t.X. — The aoipla and yvdai; are
here conceived objectively, and the genitives indicate wherein the treasures
consist. The distinction between the two words is not, indeed, to be
abandoned (Calvin : " duplicatio ad augendum valet ; " comp, Huther
and others), but yet is not to be defined more precisely than that yvdai; is
more special, knowledge, and aoijiia more general, the whole Christian
wisdom, by which we with the collective activity of the mind grasp divine
relations and those of human morality, and apply them to right practice.
Comp. on. i. 9.' — oTr/i/cpu^ot] [XX^XI ^.] is not the predicate to eio-i (so
most writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were diroKSKpvppevoi
e'laiv instead of eitriv dirdKpvipoi ; for, as it stands, the unsuitable sense
would be conveyed : " in whom all treasures . . . are hidden treasures. "
1 Also Philippi, Qlaubensl. YV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2. s On e-r\(Tavpoi, comp. Plato, Phil. p. 15 E : m
2 Older dogmatic expositors (see especially nva o-o<|>ia? eiipyKuiq Or/aavpov, Xen. Mem. ir. 2.
Calovius) discover here the omniscience of 9, i. 6. 14 ; Wisd. vii. 14 ; Ecclus. i. 22 ; Bar. iii.
Christ. 15.

CHAP. II. 3, 4. 285
But neither is it a description of the qualitative how of their being in Him,^
in so far, namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hof
mann) ; for this adverbial use of the adjective ^ would be without due
motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned, not about the mode of
the ev u e'lai, but about the characterizing of the treasures themselves,
whereupon the how in question was obvious of itself. We must tiierefore
take dirdKpvipoi simply as an attributive adjective to dyaavpol, placed at
the end with emphasis : in whom the collective hidden treasures . . . are
contained.^ The treasures, which are to be found in the mystery, are not
such as lie open to the light, but, in harmony with the conception of the
secret, hidden (comp. Matt. I. c), because unattainable by the power of
natural discernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who attain
eif iiriyvaaiv roi pvarypiov, whereby they penetrate into the domain of
these secret riches and discover and appropriate them. The objection to
this view of diroKp. as the adjective to By;., viz, that there must then
have been written ol diroKp. (Bahr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous ; the
article might have been (1 Mace, i. 23), but did not need to be, inserted,
"With the article it would mean : quippe qui ahsconditi sunt ; without the
article it is simply : " thesauri ahsconditi " (Vulgate), i. e. drrdKpvipoi bvrs;,
not 01 bvrs; dirdKpvipoi.
Ver, 4, After this affecting introduction, testifying to his zealous striv
ing for the Christian development of his readers, and thereby claiming
their faithful adherence to his gospel, the warning now follows, for the
sake of which Paul has prefixed vv, 1-3 {rovro), [XXXI h,] That roiro
does not refer merely to ver. 3 * is in itself probable, since vv. 1-3 form a
connected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport for what
follows, and is confirmed by ver. 5, which glances back to ver. 1. Hence:
This contained in vv. 1-3, which ye ought to know,T say with the design
that, etc.— 'iva yydei; (see the critical remarks) ; comp. Mark v, 43 ; Tit,
iii, 12 ; Rev, iii, 11, et al — irapaXoyit;.] In N, T,, only found elsewhere in
Jas, i, 22 (see Theile in loc.) ; frequent in the later Greek writers since
Demosthenes (822, 25, 1037, 15), It indicates, by a term borrowed from
false reckoning, the deception and overreaching that take place through
false reasoning. What particular sophistries the false teachers, whose
agitations at all events tended (see ver, 8 f,) to the disadvantage of the
Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It is certain, however,
that they were not those suggested by Bohmer (nothing good can come
out of Nazareth ; one who was crucified cannot have possessed divine
-wisdom), since the false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did
these beguiling sophistries affect the person of the apostle, as if he were
not concerning himself about the confirming and training of churches
I In connection with which Bahr, Baumgar- sComp. LXX. Isa. xlv. 3; 1 Mace. i. 23;
ten-Crusius, and Bleek convert the notion of Matt, xiii, 44,
being hidden into that of being deposited for * So Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Zan-
preservation (.inoKeiueai, i. 5). chius, Estius, and others, including Bahr and
0 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab, i. iv. 12, ii. 2. 17 ; Bohmer ; Huther is undecided
Kruger, g 67. 5.

28(3 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
not planted by himself, as Hofmann thinks. In that case we should
have in vv. 1-3 only a self-testimony to the contrai'y, which, as assertion
against assertion, would neither have been skillful nor delicate ; nor do
we in what follows find any defence in opposition to personal calumnia
tion. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 177, The ydp in
ver, 5 by no means requires this interpretation,- — ev iriBavoXoyla] by means
of persuading speech ; Luther's " with rational discourses " misapprehends
the meaning. It occurs in this place only in the N, T.^
Ver. 6. A special reason, having reference to his bodily absence, by
which his readers are encouraged not to allow themselves to be deceived,
— ry aapd] with respect to the flesh, i. e. bodily, Comp, 1 Cor. v. 3. — dXXd]
at, yet am I on the other hand, beginning the apodosis ; see on Rom. vi. 5
and 1 Cor. iv. 15. — ra irveipan] with respect to the spirit, i. e. mentally;
my spirit, translating itself in thought into your midst, is along with you.
Erroneously Grotius : " Deus Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent," so that.
irvevpa would be meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the
Stud, u: Krit. 1838, p, 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog's Encyklop. IV. p. 79,
drrsiai takes for granted the apostle's having been there previously. A
quite groundless assumption ; the verb expresses {dird) the being away
from, but does not indicate whether a person had been previously
present or not, wliich can only be gathered from the connection or other
circumstances of the case. In this case the context directly indicates, by
ver. 1, that a bodily rrapelvai had not occurred. It is otherwise in 1 Cor,
V. 3 ; 2 Cor, x, 1, 11, xiii, 2, 10 ; Phil, i, 27. From the similar expression
in 1 Cor, v, 3, Theodoret nevertheless infers that Paul a; Bsaadysvo;
aurov; iypaipsv riiv iirisroXyv. — avv iplv] in your society, among you, Comp,
Luke viii, 38, x.xii, 56 ; Phil, i, 23 ; 1 Thess, iv, 17 ; 2 Pet, i, 18, et al—
xalpav K. pXiirav] There is here no illogical prefixing of the xoipivv in the
lively feeling of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette) ; xoip"v rather expresses
joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and koI jBXiirav vp, ryv
rd^iv K.r.X. then adds what at this joyful being with the Colossians he sees in
them, so that the description thus advances with k. pXiir. : in spirit I am
along with you, rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc.
Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, imports into jiX.srrav the pregnant
meaning not convej-ed by the simple verb ; it is as plainly present to my
soul, as if I saw it with my eyes. This would be k. ii; piirrav, or «., a; 'sv
'oifBaXpol; jiX. Renderings blending the ideas, such as gaudeo videns (Gro
tius, Wolf, Bahr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or beholding
with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance "with the words as they
stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell iii. 10. 2, where ;t:aipu koi
[iXsrrav (not fiXiiru) means : I rejoice, when I even see it. 'Winer, p. 438
[E. T. 469 f], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 425, supply with xo,ipi^v the
words : concerning you. But the supplying of e^' iylv is not justified by

1 But see Plato, Theaet. p. 162 E ; comp. Dem. iriflaviJ! \eyeiv, Lucian, Amor. 1, Hence the
928. 14 : Ad-yovy 0aUjaatria)s iriOavov^, also jri^avo- art of persuasion : y Trifiai^oAoYt/c^, Arr. Epict.
Koyelv, 'Diog. L. X. 87; Diod. Sie. i. 39; and i. 8. 7.

CHAP. II. 4. 287
the context, which naturally suggests joy at the being together wilh the
readers, for ;i;atp. stands alongside of this as an accompanying relation
without any other definition of object. And according- to this view there
is no ground at all for an explicative rendering of /cat, which Winer still
admits (so also Bohmer and Olshausen). — The testimony, moreover, which
is given to the readers by pXiiruv k.t.X. is npt inconsistent with the
anxious conflict in ver. 1 ; but, on the contrary, makes the latter, in a
psychological point of view, all the more conceivable, when the dangers
which threatened a state of things still even now so good are considered,
— ipdv r. rd^iv] The prefixed pronoun owes this position to the favor
able expectation which the Colossians, more than many others, have
awakened in the apostle. The roftf is order, orderly condition. Its anti
thesis is dra^la, Plato, Tim. p, 30 A, For the idea see Plato, Gorg. p, 504
A : rdfeuf . . . Kal Kdapov rvxovaa o'lKia, Polyb, i, 4, 6 : y avprraaa axiai; «..
rdftf T^f o'lKovyivy;, iii, 36, & : y . . . diaipsai; k. rd^i;. It is often used of
the organized condition of the state, Dem. 200, 4, Plat, Ont p, 109 D ; else
where also (see Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV- P- 245) of the army, sometimes to
designate a section of it (a company of two /Idjoi), and sometimes to ex
press its regular arrangement in rank and file (Thuc, iii, 87, 2, iv. 72, 2, 126,
4, viii, 69. 1). Hofmann' takes both rd^. and arspeapa in a military
sense. But the two words have not in and of themselves the military
sense ; they would receive it from the context, which is not the case here.
Moreover, the meaning fortress, military bulwark, is expressed not by
arspsupa generally, but by ipvya or bxvpupa, 2 Cor, x. 4, Hence, if we
would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view that here rdftf
means the orderly state of the Christian church, which has hitherto not been
disturbed by sectarian divisions or forsaken by the readers, Comp, 1 Cor,
xiv, 40, To this outward condition Paul then subjoins the inner one, by
which the former is conditioned : and the solid hold of your faith in Christ.
arepiuya, firmamentum, that which has been made firm{Ar\st.partt. an. ii, 9;
Theophr. H. pi. v, 7, 3), a late word, often found in LXX,, Aquila, The
odotion, Symmaciius, and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Thes. V, p, 102 £),
represents the stedfastness and immovableness of faith in such a way,
that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with solid founda
tion, masonry, etc) from injury (Ezek, xiii, 5 ; Ps, xviii, 2 ; 3 Esdr, viii.
81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts xvi, 5 : iarepeoivro ry irlarei, 1 Pet.
V. 9 : dvrlaryrs arspeoi r-y irlarei. The abstract firmness, however (Huther,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would
be arepedry;, is never designated by the word, Chrysostom explains
rightly : ore rroXXd awayaydv avyicoXX^aei; irvicvd; Kal ddiaarraarrii;, rdrs arspsupa
yivsrai. The genitive ry; rriarsu;, finally, is not to to be taken in such a way
as to make faith the arspeapa (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as if
it were rb iydv arepiapa ; but as the genitive of the subject, in such a way
that their faith has the arspaaya securing it, which Paul spiritually sees, —
To call in question the unseducedness here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius,
iWhom Holtzmann, p. 177, has too rashly followed.

288 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
who leaves it a question whether the sense is not merely : " if it is so "),
or to refer it to only a part of the church (Flatt), is a quite arbitrary result
of unduly pressing the general utterance of commendation.
Ver, 6 f. [XXXI i,] From the warning given in ver, 4 and having its
ground assigned in ver, 5, follows {ovv) the positive obligation to make
Christ, as He had been communicated to them through the instruction
which they had received, the element in which (ev aira) their conduct of
the inner and outer life moves {irepiirarsire), whereupon the more precise
modal definitions are subjoined by ippii;uyivoi k.t.X. — a;] according as.
Observe that in the protasis irapeXdjiere and in the apodosis irepirrareirs (not
ev airu, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in which case the addition
of an oira; was not necessary. Their walk in Christ is to be in harmony
with the instruction, by means of which they have through Epaphras
received Christ, — 7rape;id/3ere] have received (i, 7 ; Eph, iv, 20), comp. Gal, i,
9, 12 ; 1 Thess, ii, 13, iv, 1 ; 2 Thess, iii, 6 ; 1 Cor, xi, 23, Christ was com-
municated to them as the element of life.' The rendering : have accepted
(Luther, Biihr, Bohmer, Huther, Hofmann), is not contrary to Pauline
usage (de Wette ; but see on Phil. iv. 9 ; 1 Cor, xv, 1) ; but it is opposed to
the context, in whioh after ver, 4 (see especially ver, 7 : Kadd; ididdxByrs,
and ver, 8 : Kara r-yv rrapddoaiv ruv dvBp,) the contrast between true and false
Christian instruction as regulative of the walk, and not the contrast between
entrance into the fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hof
mann), predominates,^ — rbv X. 'I, rov Kvpiov] A solemnly complete designa
tion, a summary of the whole confession (1 Cor. xii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 11), in which
TOV Kipiov, conformably with its position and the entire connection, is to be
taken in the sense : as the Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere appo
sition (de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann includes
also 'lyaovv, a view which is not warranted by Eph, iii, 1, — Ver, 7, 'e'p'pi(,up.
K. eiroiKod. iv aira] introduces the ethical habitus in the case of the required
rrepiirarslv iv X. But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly
exhausting the important point, combines very dissimilar elements ; for
the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are inconsistent as such both
with irepiirareiTe and with one another, Comp. Eph, iii, 17 f. By beginning
a new sentence with i'ppii;apsvoi k,t.7^., and thus construing it in connection
with ver, 8 (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in symmetry,
and should only lose without sufficient reason in simplicity of construc
tion ; while we should leave the ev air^ rrepiiraTsire in ver, 6 in a dispropor
tionately bald and isolated position. This conjunction, moreover, of heter
ogeneous figures might quite as legitimately have been made by the
apostle himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks that
he here discovers, — Observe further the difiference in time of the two par-
1 To this conception ev aiirw refers subse- extremely common Pauline idea of the ev
quently, Chrysostom and his followers take Xpta-rcp elvai is in harmony,
this ev so, that Christ is regarded as the tcai/. ' Eph, iii, 17 f,, by comparing which Holtz-
Bat this Johannine conception nowhere oc- mann discovers in our passage the hand of
curs in Paul's writings; nor does it accord the interpolator, is both as regards contents
with TrapeAdjSeTe, with which, however, the and form too diverse for that purpose.

CHAP. IL 6, 7. 289
ticiples, whereby the stedfastness of the iv Xpiarip slvai (figuratively repre
sented by i'p'piC.ap.) is denoted as a subsistent state, which must be present in
the case of the ir spnrarelv 'ev aira, while the further development of the Christian
condition (figuratively represented by irroiKod) is set forth as a continuing
process of training ; comp. Acts xx. 32, — 'eiroiKodI] becoming built up, in
which cTTt exhibits the building rising on the foundation.' The building up
may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through conversion),
as in Eph, ii, 20: iiroiKodoyyBivre;, which, however, as modal definition of
rrspirrar., would not have suited here. The progress and finishing of the
building (de Wette, following Acts xx. 32, where, however, the simple form
o'lKod. should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by iiroiKod. in itself
(comp, Eph. ii, 22). Nor does the latter represent the readers as stones,
which are built up on the top of those already laid (Hofmann) ; on the con
trary, they are in their aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. I.e.) represented
as an o'lKodopy in the course of being built {i.e. of a more and more full
development of their Christian common life), in regard to which the 'sirl in
'srroiKod. presupposes the foundation laid by Epaphras, namely, Christ (1
Cor. iii. 11) ; and the building materials, including the stones, are not the
persons, but the doctrines, by means of which the builders accomplish their
work (see on 1 Cor. iii, 12), — ev aira] belongs to both participles, so that
Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the soil for the roots striking down
wards (Eph, iii. 17), and as the foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11) for the building
extending upwards ; but the expression is determined by the conception of
the thing signified, namely, fhe ev XpiarCi slvai, as in cv aira irepirrar., and
not by the figures; hence Paul has not written iir' airdv (1 Cor. iii. 12), or
eTT' aira (Eph, ii, 20), which would have been in harmony with the latter
participle, but he exhibits Christ as the Person, m whom that which is
meant by the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being
and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and growth.^
Comp, on Eph, ii, 21, — Kal psjiaiovy. rfi irlar.] And to this being rooted
and becoming built up there is to be added the beiiuf stahlished bythe faith,
as the development of quality in the case, in order that no loose rooting
may take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative rj; Trioret (see
the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, not : with respect to (in
opposition to de 'Wette), .since the following modal definition Trepiffo. ev
air^ specifies, not how they are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but
how they are to be stablished by it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich
in faith ; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring about that estab
lishment. In like manner we should have to take the reading ev r. iriarsi,
which Hofmann defends. He, however, joins this ev r. iriarsi not with
Pe^aioip., but with the following irepiaaeiovTs;,—a, connection which is
excluded by the genuineness of ev airy, but which is, even apartfrom this,
to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairiy intelligible, have
1 Comp, 1 Cor, iii, 10, 12 ; Eph, ii, 20;'-Xen. case of eiroucoS, at any rate we have to think
Anab, iii, 4, 11 ; Plat Legg, v. p. 736 E. ' of the foundation, takes ev airif in the sense
a Hofmann inappropriately, since in the that Christ st<rroit«ds the building,
19

290 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
inserted the ev aird only after jisj3aiohpsvoi, to which it would also refer, —
KaBd; 'ediddxB^ namely, to become stahlished hy the faith. For this they have
received (from Epaphras, i, 7) the instructions which are to guide them. —
irepiaaeiovrs; /c,r,A,] is subordinate to the fisfiaioip., and that as specifying
the measure of the faith, which must be found in them in order that they
may be stablished through faith ; while at the same time the requisite
vital expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing heart is
brought out by ev svxap. : whil^ ye are abounding in the same amidst thanks-
gimng, i.e. while ye are truly rich in faith, and at the same time giving
thanks to God for this blessing of fullness of faith. The emphasis is upon
TreptuCT,, in which lies the more precisely defining element; rrspiaasisiv 'sv is
nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have abundance of some
thing (Rom, XV, 13 ; 1 Cor, viii, 7 ; Phil. i. 9, et al), and ev ei;i;ap. indicates
an accompanying circumsta.nce in the case, the ethical consecration of grate
ful piety, with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp. iii.
17, i, 12, It is well explained, in substance, by Theophylact : irepiaadv ri
ivdsiK-vvaBai 'ev r^ irlarei, sixapiarovvre; ra Bed, bn y^iuaev yyd; roiairy; xopiro;,
Kal pv iavrol; ryv rrpoKOiryv iiriypdijiovTa;. Rightly also by Oecumenius, who
takes iv eixap. as equivalent to avv eixap.' Others, however, regard cv
ei;t:ap, as belonging to irepiaa. Such is the view not only of the majority
who reject ev airy oil Critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther,
Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Huther (that the Colossians in their faith towards
God , , , are to show themselves abundantly grateful). De Wette favors
this rendering on the ground that the clause is not attached by koI, which,
however, is quite in keeping with the circumstance that irepiaa. k.t.X. is
subordinate to the ISsfiaioip. k.t.X. In opposition to the combination irepiaa.
'sv eixap. there may be urged, first, the arrangement of the words in itself;
secondly, the fact that ev airy would be superfluous ; and thirdly, that all
the other elements of the verse refer to the nature oi faith, and hence the
latter, in harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last par
ticipial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas ev ei;i;ap, is to be treated
as a relation associated with the faith,
Ver, 8, [On vv, 8-10, see Xote XXXII. pages 334-336,] Be upon your
guard, lest there shall he some one carrying you away as a prey. In that case,
how grievously would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts,
in vv, 6, 7, be rendered fruitless ! [XXXII a,] The future earai after yy
(comp, Heb, iii, 12) has arisen from the apprehension that the case may
yet actually occur.' As to the participle ivith the article, comp. on Gal, i, 7 :
rtvef eiatv oi rapdaaovre;. — Respecting avXayayslv, belongipg to the later
Greek, see Eustath, ad II v, p, 393, 52. [XXXII b.] Very inaccurately
rendered by the Vulgate : decipiat. In Aristaeii, ii, 22, joined "with oIkov, it
means to rob ; and is so taken here by Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret
{diroavXdv r^v irlanv), Theophylact {rbv vovv), Luther, Wolf, and many others,
iComp, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 2 gee Stallbaum, ad Piai, iJep,p, 451 A; Hart-
Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bahr, Steiger, ung, Partikell. II, p, 139 f , ; Ellendt, Lex.
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Soph. II, p, 104, Comp, also on Gal, iv, 11.
Hofmann, and others.

CHAP. II. 8. 291
including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of the word prae
dam abigere' is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation, rrepiira-
rslrs, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar expression in itself, which
is more significant than the classical avXdv or avXeisiv, and serves vividly to
illustrate the idea of the seduction, through which one falls under extra
neous power, as respects its disgracef ulness. — did ry; (fuTMao^ia; k. ksvv; drrdry;]
through philosophy and empty deceit. .It is to be observed that neither the
preposition nor the article is repeated before Ksvy;'' because with tcai ksv
dirar. there is added no further element different from r^f (piXoaoiji. (in oppo
sition to Hofmann), but only that which the philosophy in its essence is; it is
empty •deception, that is, having no real contents ; the iriBavoXoyla (ver, 4),
with which it is presented, is a Ksveayopia (Plat, Rep. p, 607 B), and /ccvoAoy/a
(Plut, Mor. p, 1069 C).* The ipiXoaoijila, however, against which Paul utters
his warning, is not philosophy generally and in itself, — a view at variance
with the addition k. Ksvy; dirar. closely pertaining to it, however much the
wisdom of the world in its degeneracy,* as experience was conversant with
its phenomena in that age,* may have manifested itself to the apostle as
foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the gospel (1 Cor. i. 18 ff.,
ii, 6). Rather, he has in view (comp. ver, 18) the characteristic specula
tion, well known to his readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the
surrounding district," and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up with
Judaism (Essenism), This is, on account of its nature directed to the
supersensuous and its ontological character, correctly designated by the
term philosophy in general, apart from its relation to the truth, wliich is
signalized by the k. Ksvy; drrdry; appended,' (Plat, Def. p. 414 C : r^f rdv
dvrav del iiriaryyv; bpe^i;' S^i; BeapyriKy roi dXriBav;, ird; dXyBi;). Possibly it was
also put forward by the false teachers themselves expressly under this
designation." The latter is the more probable, since Paul uses the word
only in this passage,' The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be
1 Heliod, X, 35 ; Nicet Ann. 6, p. 96 D. tainment, it is not a icevri inriTy, but an imper-
2 See Kuhner, II. 1, pp. 476, 628; Buttmann, fectio. Fathers of the Church also, as e.g.
Neut, Or. p. 86 [E. T. 100]. Clemens AI. (comp. Spiess, Logos spermat. p.
3 On the idea of /tevos (1 Cor. xv. 14 ; Eph. v. 341), aptly distinguish philosophy itself from
6), comp. Dem, 821. 11. : Keviararov iravriav Xo- the phenomena of its abuse. The latter are
yviv'Xeyovai, and on iirinj. Plat 5opA, p, 260 C : philosophy also, but not in accordance with
ofTog Se ye ifieiiSov^ eanv airdry . . ,, /cal firiv the truth of the conception,
aJTary^ 01/(7175 etSwAojv re /cat e'lKovifiv ySy Kal 1 These words K. Kev. cnr., characterizing the
^avTaaiaq jrdvTa dvdyKf} p.eaTd elvai. philosophy meant, are therefore all the less
*Comp. Herm. gottesd. Alterth. §12; and to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tauto-
Culturgesch. d, Qriech. u. Bom. I. p. 236 ff., II. logical insertion ; and it is mere arbitrariness
p. 132. - to claim the words Kara r. jrapdS. Twc dvdpunr.
5 Comp. Luther's frequent denunciations for the Synoptical Gospels (Matt. xv. 2 f.) ; as
of philosophy, under which he had present if irapiSoo-is (comp. especially Gal. i. 14) were
to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian not sufficiently current in the apostle's
scholasticism. writings.
8 Comp. also Calovius, The latter rightly 8 Comp, the Sophists as the .Jxio-zcovTei c|)tAo-
remarks how a(()iAoi76.|>(.)5 and deeoXoyoii men o-o^eir, Xen, Mem. i, 2, 19; and oi6p.evoi irdvr'
would proceed, who should regard philosophi- e'lSevai, in i, 4, 1).
cal and theological truth as oppasites; and s Comp. Bengel: "quod adversarii jactabant
points out that if Greek philosophy do not esse philosophiam et sapientiam (ver. 23), id
teach the doctrine of eternal life and its at- Paulus inanem fraudem esse dicit."

292 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
regarded as Judaistic- Oriental ; ^ we are under no necessity to infer from
the word (fiiXoao(pia a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius did, suggesting
the Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought of the Epicureans, and
Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul had to do with at Athens). The
idea that the " sacrarum literarum earumque recte interpretandarum scien
tia " ^ is meant, is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of
heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the apostle, who
never so designates the 0. T. teaching and exposition, however frequently
he speaks of it; although Philo gives it this name (see Loesner, Obss. p.
364), and Josephus (see Krebs, p. 2,36) applies it to the systems of Jewish
sects, and indeed the Fathers themselves apply it to the Christian doctrine
(Suicer, Thes. s.v.) ; see Grimm on 2 Mace. i. 1, p. 298 f. — Kara r. irapdd. r.
dvBp.] might be^ — and this is the common view — closely joined with drrdry;
(Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 135 f.]) [XXXII c] But the oi Kara Xpiardv
would not suit this connection, since airdry is already in itself a definite
and proper idea, in association with which a Kara Xpiardv would be incon
ceivable ; whereas the figurative avXayayslv still admits also the negative
modal statement (oi /eara X.) for greater definiteness. Accordingly Karo r.
irapdd. k.t.X. (comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode to
avXayaydv. Paul, namely, having previously announced whereby the avXay
ayslv takes place, now adds for the still rhore precise description of that .
procedure, in order the more effectively to warn his readers against it,
that in accordance with which it takes place, i. e. what is the objective regu
lative standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. He does
this positively {koto ryv . . . Kdayov) and negatively (/c, oi koto Xpiardv). The
genitive rdv dvBp. is to be explained : yv irapiXajSs irapd rdv dvBp. (comp, 2
Thess. iii. 6), and rdv denotes the category, the traditio humana as such,
opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark vii. 8. What is meant,
doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp.
on Matt. XV. 2), the latter being excluded by rdv dvBp, ; but Paul designates
the thing quite generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as
human. — /card rd aroixela rov Kdapov] Parallel of the foregoing : according to
the elements of the world, i. e. according to the religious rudiments, with which
non-Christian humanity occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces
the ritual observances^ both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in com
parison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only " puerilia rudi-
menta " (Calvin), as it were the A B C of religion, so that Paul therefore in
this case .also, where he warns his readers against Judaistic enticing, charac
terizes the matter according to its category. As to the designation itself
and its various interpretations, see on Gal, iv, 3, Among the latest
expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann explains: " because
it (the philosophy which is described as deceit) permits the material things,
iThe speculations of Essenism are also ^Oalvin well says: "Quid vocat elementa
designated as philosophy in Philo, Comp. mundit Non dubium quin ceremonias ; nam
Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292. continue post exempli loco speciein unam
a Tittmann, de vestigiis Qnosticor. in N. T. adduoit, circumc-isionem scilicet."
frustra quae&itis, p. 86 ff.

CHAP. II. 9. 293
of which the created world consists, to form its standard," See in opposition
to this on Gal. Z.c. Both expressions, ryv irapdd. -i . avS-p. and rd aroix, r.
Kdapov, have it as their aim to render apparent the worthlessness and
unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint (comp. Gal. iv. 9). Hence,
also, the contrast which, though obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic :
KOt oi Kard Xpiardv. The activity of that avXayayslv has not Christ for its
objective standard; He, in accordance with Plis divine dignity exalted
above everything (see ver. 9), was to be the sole regulative for all activity
in Christian teaching, so that the standard guiding their work should be
found in the relation of dependence upon Him ; but instead of this the
procedure of the avXayuydv allows human tradition, and those non-Christian
rudiments which the Christian is supposed to have long since left behind,
to serve as his rule of conduct ! How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow
such seduction !
Ver, 9, [XXXII d,] Since indeed im, Him dwells, etc. This is not "a
peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts " (Holtzmann),
On the contrary, Paul assigns a reason for the oi Kara Xpiardv just said, with
a view more effectually to deter them from the false teachers. The force
of the reason assigned lies in the fact that, if the case stand so with Christ,
as is stated in vv, 9 ff,, by every other regulative principle of doctrine that
which is indicated in the words Kara Xpiardv is excluded and negatived.
Others make the reason assigned refer to the warning : flXeirsrs k.t.X., so
that on adduces the reason why they ought to permit this warning to be
addressed to them (Hofmann, comp, Huther and Bleek) ; but, in opposi
tion to this view, it may be urged that the ev airu placed emphatically
first {in Him and in no other) points back to the immediately preceding
oi Kara Xpiardv (comp, Chrysostom and Calvin) ; there is therefore noth
ing to show that the reference of bn ought to be carried further back (to
P'Xiirere). In Christ the whole fullness of Godhead — what a contrast to the
human irapddoai; and the aroixeia of the world !— /carot/cei] The present, for
it is the exalted Christ, in the state of His heavenly dd^a, that is in view.
Comp, i, 15, In Him the entire rrXfipapa has its KaroiKyrypiov (Eph, ii, 22),
so that He is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential
presence, — Trdv rb irXiipupa [XXXII e.] (comp, on i, 19) is here more pre
cisely defined by the " vocabulum abstractum significantissimum " (Bengel)
ry; Bedryro;, which specifies what dwells in Christ in its entire fullness, i, e.
not, it may be, partially, but in its complete entirety. [XXXII /,] On
the genitive, comp. Bom, xi, 25, xv. 29, It is not the genitive auctoris;^
the very abstract Bsdryr. should have been a sufficient warning against
this view, as well as against the interpretation : "id quod inest Bsdryn"
(Bahr), ¦y Bsdry;, the Godhead (Lucian, Icarom. 9 ; Plut, Mor. p, 415 C),
the abstract from d Qsd;, is to be distinguished from )J Bsidry;, the
abstract from Bslo; (Rom, i, 20; Wisd. xviii. 19; Lucian, de calumn.
17). The former is Deitas, the being God, i. e. the divine essence. Godhead;
1 Nosselt: "universa comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines
transferre."

294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the latter is divinitas, i. e. the divine quality, godlikeness. See on Rom. i.
20. Accordingly, the essence of God, undivided and in its whole fullness,
dwells in Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and ade
quate image of God (i, 15), which He could not be if He were not pos
sessor of the divine essence. The distinction between what is here said
about Christ and what is said about Him in i, 19 is, that the rrXypupa is
here meant metaphysically, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage
charismatically, of the divina gratia, and that kotoiksIv is conceived here
as in present permanence, but in the former passage historically (namely,
of Christ's historical, earthly appearance). See on i. 19, The erroneous
attempts that have been made to explain away the literal meaning thus
definitely and deliberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in i. 19.
One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it to the
church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation (Heinrichs, Baum
garten-Crusius, Schenkel) which has its dwelling-place in Christ.' Already
Theodoret (comp. rtvef in Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation
that Christ signifies the church in which the ir7ivpaya dwells, but on account
of aapariKu; hesitates to agree to it, and rather accedes to the common
view, thereby deviating from his interpretation of i. 19. Theophylact is
substantially right (comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius) : ei rl ianv d
Qeb; Xdyo;, iv aira o'lKsl, SO that the fulliiess of the Godhead in the ontolog
ical, and not in the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is
meant, — But how does it dwell in Christ ? aaparmd;, in bodily fashion, i. e.
in such a way that through this indwelling in Christ it is in a bodily form
of appearance, clothed ivith a bodyi' It is not in Christ {daaydra;), as
before the Incarnation it was in the Xdyo; {Qsb; yv 6 X.dyo;, John i, 1), but
(comp, also Gess, Pers. Chr. p, 260 ff,) it is in His glorified body (Phil, iii.
21), so that the ev pop(p-ri Qsov and laa Geu eivat, which already existed in
the Xdyo; daapKo; (Phil, ii, 6), now in Christ's estate of exaltation — which
succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the pop^y Qeov was affected —
have a bodily frame, are in bodily personality.^ Of course the Bedry; does
not thereby itself come into the ranks of the aupariKal oiaiai (Plat, Locr.
p. 96 A), but is in the exalted Christ after a real fashion aayariKa eldsi
Luke iii, 22), and therefore Christ Himself is the visible divine-human
image of the invisible God (i, 15), In this glory, as Possessor of the God
head dwelling in Him bodily, He will also appear at the Parousia — an
appearance, therefore, which will manifest itself visibly (1 John iii. 2) as

'Thus, indeed, the fullness of the Godhead Christ (Eom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19).
has been removed from Christ, but there has 2 Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schrift-
only been gained instead of it the unbiblical bew. II, 1, p, 29; Weiss, Bibl. Thtol. p. 428,
idea that the church dwells in Christ. The ed. 2,
church has its support in Christ as the cor- " It is now only worth remarking histori-
ner-stone (Eph. ii. 20, 21), but it does not dwell cally, but is almost incredible, how the So-
in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells in the cinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in
chwrch, which is His body, and the irA^puna their view is: "quod in doctrina ipsius tota
Jilkd by Him (see on Eph. i. 23), namely, in Del voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta,'''
virtue of the Spirit dwelling in the church Catech. Bacov. 194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius
(see on Eph. ii. 22), which is the Spirit of gives a refutation in detail.

CHAP. II. 10. 295
the actual iirupdvsia ry; dd^y; rov yeydXov Qeov (Tit. ii. 13). The reference
of the whole statement, however, to the exalted Christ is placed beyond
question by the use of the present KaroiKsl, which asserts the presently
existing relation, without requiring a viv along with it (in opposition to
Huther), The renderings : essentialiter, oiaiadd;,' in which case some
thought of a contrast to the divine ivipysia in the prophets (see Theophy
lact), and : realiler,^ in which was found the opposite of rvrriKd; (ver. 17),
are linguistically inappropriate ; for aapariKd; never means anything else
than corporeus. Comp, on the adverb, Plut. Mor, p. 424 D. The less
justifiable is the hypothesis of Rich, Schmidt {Paul Christol p, 191), that
in the term aayariKo; the contrast of ver. 17 was already present to the
apostle's mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explanation of irX-ypaya
as referring to the church, assign to gapariKd; the meaning : '' so that the
church stands related to Him as His hody" (Baumgarten-Crusius and
Schenkel), which issues in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to
dwell in Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His
body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His body, not,
however, in so far as it dwells in Him (and, according to the context, this
must have been the case here, if the explanation in question be adopted),
but either in so far as He dwells in it, or in so far as He is its Head, which
latter thought is quite foreign to the connection of the passage ; for even
in ver. 10 Christ is not called the Head of the church. It is, moreover, to
be observed, that the adverb is placed emphatically at the end. The
special reason, however, on account of which the KaroiKsiv k.t.X. is thus
prominently set forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have
been supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is nevertheless
to be recognized in an apologetic interest of opposition to the false
teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the angels (comp. ver. 10 :
dpxv; K. i^ova.) must have broken up, in a spiritualistic sense, the irXypuya
ry; Bedryro;.
Ver. 10. Kat iare iv aira rrerrXyp.] [XXXII g. A.J still depending on bn :
and {since) ye are filled in Him, i. e. and since the rrXypdry; which ye pos
sess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the divine rrX^papa. [XXXII i,]
The two are correlative : from the rrXiipupa rij; Bedryro;, which dwells in the
exalted Christ, flows the irsirXypaysvov slvai of the Christian, which has its
basis, therefore, in no other than in Christ, and in nothing else than just
in fellowship with Him. Filled with what ? was self-evident to the con
sciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charismatic rrXypuai;, which
Christians, in virtue of their union of Kfe with the Lord, whose Spirit and
i^aii are in them, have received, and continuously possess, out of the
metaphysical irX-ypupa dwelling in Christ, out of the rrXypupa ry; Bedryro;: —
The emphasis is not upon iare, hut, as shown by the subsequent relative
definitions, upon iv avrip. If the rrsrrXypapivov 'Ivai depends on Him, on noth-
' Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and ^ Augustine, Erasmus, -Vatablus, Cornelius
others, including Usteri, Steiger, Olshausen, a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgen, Wolf, Nosselt,
Huther, Bisping. Bleek, and others.

296 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ing and on no onehnton Him, then everything else which men may teach
you, and with which they may wish to seize you and conduct you in leading
strings, is oi /card Xptorov, With due attention to this emphasis of ev airu, we
should neither have expected iyel; (in opposition to de Wette; comp. Estius
and others : " et vos ") nor have explained iari, in an imperative sense (in
opposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann) ; which latter view is to be
rejected, because the entire connection is not paraeiietic, and generally
because, whilst a irXypoiaBe (Eph, V, 18) or yivsaBs rrerrXyp. may, 'ears rrerrXyp.
cannot, logically be enjoined,^ There is, moreover (comp, also Hofmann),
nothing to be supplied with ireirX.yp. {usually : ry; Bedryro;, sete Theophylact
and Huther; de Wette, Bleek: roi irXypdy. r. Bsdr.), since the specifically
ontological sense of the purposely-chosen Bsdryro; would not even be con
sistent with the supposed equalization of the Christians with Christ,^ and
this equalization does not exist at all, because Paul has not written /tai
ipsi;. In what their being filled consisted, was known to the readers
from their own experience, without further explanation ; their thoughts,
however, were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended
on Clirist, those labors of the false teachers were of quite another charac
ter than Kara Xpiardv. — of eanv y KSipaXy k.t.X.] This, as also ver. 11, now
supplies confirmatory information regarding the fiict that they have their
being filled not otherwise than just in Christ ; namely, neither through
dpxal K. i^ovaiai, since Christ is the head of every dpxv and i^ovaia ¦ nor
yet through circumcision, since they have received in Christ the real
ethical circumcision. — rrday; dpx, k. i^ova.] is not more precisely defined
as in Eph. iii. 10; hence, in virtue of the munus regium of the Lord quite
generally : every principality and power, but with the tacit apologetic refer
ence : consequently also of the angelic powers (i. 16) belonging to these
categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation, to be attained
through BpyaKs'ia, the false teachers direct you, — a reference which Hof
mann, understanding the expressions in the sense of spiritual beings rul
ing arbitrarily and in opposition to God especially over the Gentile world
(notwithstanding the fact that Christ is their Head .'), groundlessly denies ;
see ver. 18. If Christ be the Head of every dpxv and i^ovaia, i. e. their
governing sovereign, the Christian cannot have anything to expect from
any angelic powers subordinate to Christ, — a result involved in the union
in which He stands to the Higher, to Christ Himself. — With the reading
6 'eanv (see the critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,' Lach
mann has placed /cat core ev airu irsrrXyp. in a parenthesis. But, while
this important thought would neither have motive nor be appropriate as
a mere parenthesis, it would also be improper that the neuter subject rb

1 Calovius has well said : " Beneficium voi itai ip.el^ iare t^s OedniTos, Theophylact.
Christi, non nostrum ofBcium ; " comp. Wolf. 3 Inasmuch as he takes o eanv directly as
In complete opposition to the context, Gro- scilicet, utpote, and regards this usage as a
tius brings out the sense : "tiiofonJe/titestoJs," linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But
which he supports by the remark : " quia quod this rendering is not required either in i. 24
plenum est, nihil aliud desiderat." or in iii. 17 ; and respecting i. 27, see the eriti-
2 ouSev eAaTTOv exere aiirov, dWd TreTrATjpwute- cal remarks.

CHAP. IL 11. 297
rrXypupa r. Bedr. should be designated as ¦y KS-faXy K.r.X., which applies
rather to the personal possessor of the irXypuyia, to Christ,
Ver. 11, [On Vv, 11-15, see Note XXXIII, pages 336-338,] Respecting the
connection and its reference to the false teachers, so far as they " legem
evangelic miscebant " (Calvin), see on ver, 10, [XXXIII a,] — ev w] like
ev avrip in ver. 10 ; On whom it also causally depends that ye, etc. This
applies to the point of time of their entrance into the union with Christ,
as is clear from the historical rrspierp., which took place on them through
their conversion (comp. ver. 12). — koi] also circumcised were ye. The /cat
is the simple also, which, however, does not introduce an element in
cluded under irsirXypap. iare (Hofmann), but to the previous relative state
ment (of ianv k.t.X.) appends another ; comp. ver. 12. Hofmann's objec
tion, that the foregoing relative statement has indeed reference to the
readers, but is made without reference to them, is an empty subtlety, which
is connected with the erroneous rendering of irday; dpxv; k. i^ova. — rrepiropy
axeipoir.] is not supplementary and parenthetical (Hofmann), as if Paul
had written irspiroyy di dxsipoir., but appends immediately to irepiery-fB.
its characteristic, whereby it is distinguished from what is elsewhere meant
by circumcision ; hence the thought is : " in your union with Christ there
has also taken place a circumcision upon you (Gentiles), which is not (like the
Jewish circumcision) the work of hands; " comp. Eph. ii. 11. On the word
dxsipoir. itself (which is similar to dxsipoipyyro;. Poll ii. 154), in analogous
antithetical reference, comp. Mark xiv. 58 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; and on the idea
of the inner ethical circumcision, of which the bodily is the type, comp,
Deut, x. 16, XXX, 6; Ezek. xliv. 7; Acts vii. 51,' — ev r?) dirsKdvaei k.t.X.]
[XXXIII b.] This characteristic rrepisTpyByrs irspir. dxeip. tooK place by
means of the putting ofi' of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in
your case (observe the passive connection), i. e. in that the body, whose
essence and nature are flesh, was taken ofif' and put away from you hy God.^
With reference to sv rfi dirsKdiasi k.t.X., which is to be coupled not merely
with irepisrpyByre (Hofmann), but with the entire specifically defined con
ception of circumcision irepierp. irspir. dxsipoir., it is to be noticed : (1) that
the genitive ry; adpno; is the genitivus materiae, as in i, 22 ; (2) that the
(jdpf here is not indifferent, but means the flesh os the seat of sin, and of
its lusts and strivings (Rom, vii, 23, 25, viii, 3, 13; Gal, v. 16; Eph, ii, 3;
Col, iii, 6, et al) ; so that Paul (3) might have conveyed the idea of ro adpa
ry; aapK. also by rb adpa ry; dpapria; (Rom, vi, 6), but the description by
ry; aapKo; was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision (Rom.
ii, 28 ; Eph. ii. 11), (4) The significant and weighty expresion drreKdiasi
(the substantive used only here, the verb also in ver, 15, iii, 9 ; Josephus,
Antt. vi. 14. 2) is selected in contrast to the operation of the legal circum
cision, which only wounded the adya r. aapKd; and removed a por
tion of one member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely
'See Michaelis in loc, and the expositors aTre/tSvo-i? cannot have passive significance.
on Rom. ji. 29 ; Schoettgen, Bor. I, p, 815. But this it is not alleged to have : God is the
2 Compare Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 171. dneKMuiv, i.e.. He who, as author of regenera-
The same writer, however, now objects that tion, puts off from man the body of flesh.

298 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
performed, consisted in a complete parting and doing away with this body,
in so far as God, by means of this ethical circumcision, has taken off and
removed the sinful body from man (the two acts are expressed by the
double compound), like a garment which is drawn off and laid aside.
Ethically circumcised, i. e. translated by conversion from the estate of sin
into that of the Christian life of faith and righteousness (see ver. 12), con
sequently born again as Kaivy Krlai;,^ as a Kaivb; dvBpairo; created after God
(Eph. iv. 24), man has no longer any adpa ry; aapKd; at all, because the
body which he has is rid of the sinful adp^ as such, as regards its sinful
quality ; he is no longer ev ry aapd as previously, when lust ivypyelro iv
roi; yiXeaiv (Rom. vii. 5 ; comp. ver. 23) ; he is no longer adpKivo;, rrsrrpa-
psvo; irrb rijv dyaprlav (Rom, vii, 14), but is dead for sin (Rom. vi. 11); he
has crucified the adp^ (Gal. v. 24), and no longer walks /card adpKa, but ev
Kaivdryri irvevparo; (Rom. vii. 6) ; by the law of the Holy Spirit he is freed
from the law of sin and death (Rom. viii. 2), ev irvsipan (Rom. viii. 9),
dead with Christ (Gal. ii. 19; 2 Cor. v. 14; Col. iii. 3), and risen, so that
his members are iJTrAa diKaioaivy; rd Qsa (Rom. vi. 13). This Christian
transformation is represented in its ideal aspect, which disregards the
empirical imperfection, according to which the adp^ is still doubtless even
in the regenerate at variance with the irvsvpa (Gal. v. 17). Our dogma
tists well describe regeneration as perfecta a parte Dei, but as imperfecta a
parte hominum recipientium. To take adpa in the sense of massa or aggre
gate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and others, including Steiger and Biihr ^),
is opposed as well to the context, in which the discourse turns upon cir
cumcision and (ver. 12) upon burial and resurrection, as also to the linguis
tic usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion in ques
tion in the physical sense,^ and in later writers may also denote generally
a whole consisting of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Alt ii. 1. 4). In opposition
to the erroneous assumption that ddpa must have a figurative meaning
here, as Julius Muller, v. d, Sunde, I. p, 459 f,, still in the 5th ed., thinks,*
see on Rom. vi. 6 ; comp, also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I, p. 560 f,— ev r-y
irspiropy roi X.] by means of the circumcision of Christ, parallel to the pre
vious ev ry dirsKdiaei k.t.X., naming specifically (as different from that of
the Old Testament) the circumcision described previously according to its
nature. The genitive roi Xpiarov is to be rendered : the circumcision,
which is produced through Christ. The context requires this by the further
explanation of the thing itself in ver. 12. Comp. above, iv ci. But Christ
I The epoch of this transformation is bap- stands (Tiiip.a of the " toto quasi vitiositatis (t,
tism (see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed, 2 ; aapKo^) corpore," so that the putting away of
comp, Holtzmann, p, 178), by which, however, all immorality is denoted. Similarly Dal-
the baptism of Christian children is by no mer,
means assumed as the antit.ype of circum- ^ e.g. Pint. Tim. p. Z2C: to toO /coo-fiov o-u/xa
cision (Steiger, Philippi), Comp, on 1 Cor, (comp, p. 31 B, Hipp. ma.i. p, 301 B),
vii, 14 ; Acts xvi, 15, * Miiller also holds that Paul here conceives
2 Comp, also Philippi, Glaubensl. V, 2, p, 225, the old sinful nature as a body which, in re-
who declares my explanation to be forced, generation, the Christian puts off; and that
without proof, and contrary to the Scripture; cdp^ is to be understood only of the earthly-
and Beiche, Comm. crit. p. 274, who under- human life.

CHAP. II. 12. 299
is not conceived of as Himself the circumciser, in so far, namely, as by bap
tism (Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek), He accom
plishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on ver. 12) ; but as
the One through whom, in virtue of the effective living union that takes
place in conversion between man and Himself, this divine irspiroyy, in its
character specifically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practi
cally brought about and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based on Christ
as its atrtof (Theodoret). It is not, however, baptism itself (Hofmann, fol
lowing older expositors) that is meant by the circumcision of Christ,
although the predicate a;i;eipoTr, would not be in opposition to this view,
but the spiritual transformation, that consecration of a holy state of life,
which takes place in baptism ; see ver, 12 : ev ru pairrlayan. According
to Sehneckenburger,^ the diriKdvai; r. ady. r. aapK. is meant of the death of
Christ, and also the rrspiropy rov X. is meant to denote this death, so that
the latter is an explanation by way of application of the former, in oppo
sition to the heretical recommendation of a bodily or mystical rrspiroyy.
It may be decisively urged against this view, that after r^f aapKd; there is
no airoi, (comp. i. 22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader was
to think of another subject than that of irspisry-yByrs ; further, that ry
aKpo^varia ry; aapKb; ipdv, in ver. 13, stands in significant retrospective
reference to the diriKdvai; r. adp, ry; aapKd; ; and that avnaifiivTe; k.t.X. in
ver, 12 is synchronous with rrepieryyByre k.t.X., and represents substantially
the same thing. Moreover, the description of the death of Christ as His
circumcision would be all the more inappropriate, since, in the case of
Christ, the actual circumcision was not absent. According to Holtzmann,
the entire clause : ev r. drrsKd. roi ady. r, aapK., 'ev i . irspir. r. X,, should be
deleted as an addition of the interpolator, because the expression adya r^f
aapKd; has occurred at i, 22 in quite another — namely, an indifferent, gen
uinely Pauline — reference. This reason is incorrect, because in i. 22 it is
not Ti7f aapKd;, but ry; aapKb; airov, and this airoi makes the great essen
tial difference between the expression in that passage and that employed
in our present one.
Ver, 12 supplies further information as to how the irspierp^Byrs, so far as
it has taken place by means of the circumcision of Christ, has been accom
plished, — awra^svre; K,r.X^ synchronous with irspisry. (comp, on i. 20,
e'lpyvorroiiiaa;) : in that ye became buried with Him in baptism. The immer
sion in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is — seeing that
baptism translates into the fellowship of the death of Christ (see on Rom.
vi, 3)— a burial along mth Christ, Rom, vi. 4, Through that fellowship of
death man dies as to his sinful nature, so that the adpa r^f aapKd; (ver, 11)
ceases to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off (ver, 11).
The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as in the whole context.
In the burial of Christ this joint burial of all that confess Him as respects
their sinful body was objectively completed ; but it takes place, as respects
each individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism, prior
1 In the Theol, Jahrb. 1848, p, 286 ff.

300 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
to which the realization of that fellowship of burial was, on the part of
individuals, still wanting, — ev u koi awyyipByrs] [XXXIII c] A new bene
fit, which has accrued to the readers cv Xpiard, and which in their case
must bring still more clearly to living consciousness their ev Xpiara ire-
irXypapsvov elvai ; SO that cv a here is parallel to the ev iJ in ver, 11, and
refers to Christ, as does also airdv subsequently. It is rightly taken thus,
following Chrysostom and his successors, by Luther and most others,
including Flatt, Bahr, Huther, Ewald. Others have referred it to ev ru
pairr. ; ' but, in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry
of the discourse (6f , , , ev cj Kai iv (J Kai) ; secondly, and specially,
the fact that, if ev a refers to baptism, ev could not be the proper prepo
sition, since ev np fiairr., in accordance with the meaning of the word and
the figure of burial, refers to the dipping into (not overfioiving, as Hofmann
thinks), whilst the spiritual awakening to new life, in which sense these
expositors take awyyipB,, would have taken place through the emerging
again, so that we should expect ef oi, or, at all events, the non-local di' oi ;
and, thirdly, the fact that just as amraijiivre; has its own more precise defi
nition by ev ru (3arrT., SO also has awyyepB, through did ry; iriarea; k.t.X.,
and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again for awyyepB.
the more precise definition of the previous point, viz. ev ra Sarrriayart.
No, the first benefit received in Christ which Paul specifies, viz. tne moral
circumcision, accomplished by God through the joint burial in baptismal
immersion, has been fully handled in ver. 11 down to pairriapan in ver.
12, and there now follows a second blessing received by the readers in
Christ (ev u Kal) : they have been raised up also with Christ, which has
taken place through faith, etc. The previous joint burial was the necessary
moral preliminary condition of this joint awakening, since through it the
adpa rii; aapKd; was put off. This awyyepB. is to be Understood in the
sense of the fellowship of the bodily resurrection of Christ, into which fellow
ship man enters by faith in such a way that, in virtue of his union of life
and destiny with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his
own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christ — a benefit of
joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the Parousia, an ideal posses
sion, but through the Parousia becomes real (whether its reahzation be
attained by resurrection proper in the case of the dead, or by the change
that shall take place in those who are still alive). Usually awyyepB. is
taken in the ethical sense, as referring to the spiritual awakening, viz. from
moral death, so that Paul, after the negative aspect of the regeneration
(ver. 11 ; pairriapan, ver. 12), now describes its positive character ; comp.
also Huther, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But in opposition to this view is
the fact that the fresh commencement ev u /cat, corresponding -with the
similar commencement of ver. 11, and referring to Christ, makes us expect
the mention of a new benefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the
previous one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeating
iBeza, Calixtus, Estius, Michaelis, Hein- de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann,
richs, and others, including Steiger, Bohmer, Dalmer, Bleek.

CHAP. II. 12. 301
the iv (J Ka. ; as also, that the inference of participation in the proper res
urrection of Christ from death lies at the basis of the following roi iysipav-
ro; airbv iK vsKpdv. Comp. on Eph. ii. 1, and ii, 5, 6, Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and Oecumenius have already correctly explained it of the
proper resurrection (/cat ydp iyv}ipysBa ry dwdpsi, si Kal p-y rij ivepyela), but
Theophylact makes it include the ethical awakening also : holding that
it is to be explained /card dvo rpdrrov;, of the actual resurrection in spe, and
at the same time bri irvsvpariKd; riiv viKpaaiv rdv epyav rii; dpapria; direppl-
ipapev, — tJid T^f iriarea; k.t.X.] The r^f rriarea; is described by Holtzmann,
p, 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive ; he regards it as an interpola
tion borrowed from Eph, i. 19 f, Groundlessly; Paul is describing the sm6-
jective medium, without which the joint awakening, though objectively
and historicallj' accomplished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be
appropriated individually, the XyirriKdv for this appropriation being want
ing. The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with Christ,
because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with Christ, just as also
he has not the reconciliation, although the reconciliation of all has been
accomplished objectively through Christ's death. The genitive r^f ivep
yela; r. Q. is the object of faith; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cor
nelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Baumgar
ten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed, of the Schriftbew.
II, 2, p, 174 f. But others, such as Luther (" through the faith which God
works "), Bengel, Flatt, Biihr, Steiger, de Wette, Bohmer, Huther, et al,
take Tiyf evspy. r. Q. as genitivus causae, for which, however, Eph, i, 19 is
not to be adduced (see m loc), and in opposition to which it is decisive
that in all passages, where the genitive with Triartf is not the believing
subject, it denotes the object,' and that the description of God as the Being
who has raised up Christ from the dead stands most naturally and directly
in significant reference to the divine activity which procures, not the
faith, but the avveyeipsaBai, and which is therefore set forth in a very appro
priate manner as the special object^ of faith (comp, iv, 17, 24, vi. 8, x, 9;
2 Cor, iv. 13, 14; Eph. i. 19 f ; 1 Pet. i. 21). At the basis, namely, of the
roi eyeipavro; air. iK vsup. lies the certainty in the believer's consciousness :
since God has raised up Christ, His activity, which has produced this
prindpale and majus, will have included therein the consequens and minus,
my resurrection with Him. To the believer the two stand in such essential
connection, that in the operation of God which raised up Christ he
beholds, by virtue of his fellowship of life with Christ, the assurance of
his own resurrection having taken place along with that act; in the
former he has the pledge, the ivixvpov (Theodoret) of the latter, Hof
mann now again (as in the first ed, of the Sahriftbeweis) explains r^f evepy.
¦I, Q. as in apposition to r-rj; iriareu;, in such a way that Paul, " as if correct
ing himself," makes the fornier take the place of the latter, in order to
1 Mark xi. 22 ; Acts iii. 16 ; Eom. iii. 22 ; Gal. ^ xhe efficacy of the divine power shown in
ii. 16, 20, iii. 22 ; Eph. iii. 12 ; Phil. i. 27, iii, 9 ; the resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of
2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Jas, ii, 1 ; Bev, ii, 13, xiv. 12. the certainty of salvation.

302 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to themselves faith as
a conduct on man's part making possible the participation in the resurrec
tion of Christ by God, while in reality it is nothing else than the product
of the ivipysia of God. A quite gratuitously invented self-correction, with
out precedent, and undiscoverable by the reader ; although the thought,
if it had entered the mind of Paul, might have been indicated with the
utmost simplicity and ease (possibly by did r^f irlarsa;, ydXXov di did ry;
ivspy. 1 . 6.).
Ver. 13. Since that awyyipByrs was the awaking to eternal life, Paul now
goes on to give special prominence to this great blessing, the making alive,
and that in reference to the (reniife-Christian position of the readers ; and
to this he annexes, in ver. 14 f., an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement
reminding them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law. — To
attach Kal ipd; . . . aapKb; ipdv still to ver. 12, and to make it depend on
iyslpavTo; (Steiger), is rendered impossible by the right explanation of ry;
rrlarsa; rij; ivepyela; r. Q. in ver, 12,' to say nothing of the abrupt position
in which aws^aoir. would thus appear, Kai i^df goes along with awe^aoir.,
so that ipd; is then repeated,'' the repetition being here occasioned by the
emphasis of the aws^uoir. : " You also, when ye were dead , , , He made
you alive together with Him," The /cat therefore is not the copula and, but,
in harmony with the iyd; placed in the front emphatically : also, as in
Eph, ii, 1, It has its reference in this, that the readers had been Gentiles
liable to eternal death, but the aws^uoir, had been extended, as to all believ
ers, so also to them. The correctness of this reference is shown by the
context as well through ry oKpofivariif rij; aapK, ip., as through the pronoun
of the first person which is introduced after xapiadp. Extremely arbitrary
is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in ver, 11 f, the readers are
addressed as representatives of tlie collective com-rnunity, but by koI iyd; in ver.
13 personally ; while Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the
position of the words, joins /cat, not to ipd;, but to the verb : "also He has
called you to the new life that abideth." — To arrive at a proper understand
ing of what follows we must observe : (1) That aweZuoiroiyaev is not to be
taken, any more than amiyjipByre previously, in an ethical sense, as referring
to regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as e.g. Grotius : " sicut
Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et nobis novam
ex morte animorum;" comp. also Bleek and Hofmann), but in its
proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer, de ^uy; a'lav. not. p. 94 f.) as

1 This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, on the contrary, it would only have expressed
who takes ver. 13 likewise as a continuation the alleged idea conformably to the con-
of the description ot God given in tov iyeip. struction clearly and definitely. The compari-
auTov etc veKp., and therein makes the apostle son of i. 26 is unsuitable. Holtzmann follows
guilty of a clumsy change of construction, sub.stantially the view of Hofmann, but re-
viz. that he intended to make o-u^ojoTroiiJa-av- gards the change of structure as the result
TOS follow, but, because this word would have otdictation. There is no change of structure
been ^Hnconvenient" after veKpoii^ ovras k.t.X., in the passage at all.
exchanged it fcir an independent sentence. i See Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 14 ; Borne-
But o-vJiuoirotiio-iii'Tos would have been in- mann in the SacAs.Siud. 1846, p. 66: Kuhner,
serted without any inconvenience whatever : II. 1, p. 568 ; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 148].

CHAP. II. 13. 303
referring to the everlasting life to which God ' raised up Christ, and which
He has thereby also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship
with Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the Parousia).
[XXXIII d,] See also Eph. ii. 5. The reconciliation (whioh de Wette
understands) is not the ^uoirolyai; itself, as is plain from the compound
awe^uoir., but its precursor and medium. The av^uorroielv stands in the
same relation to the awsyslpeiv as the nature of the act to its process; but
the reason why awyyipB. here stands before the av^uoiroie'iv (it is different in
Eph, ii, 5) is, that the awyyipByrs was correlative with the awraijievrs; in ver.
12, hence that word is used first, while in Eph. I.e. the being dead preceded,
with which the avC.aoiroieiv primarily corresponds, (2) Like awst^uoir., so
also vsKpov; is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here and
in Eph. ii. 1, as e.g. Calvin, who thinks that the alienatio a Deo is meant),
but, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, in its proper sense ; the readers have
been — this is the conception — prior to their conversion to Christ a prey of
death. This is by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of
physical death (for that comes from Adam's sin, see on Rom. v. 12), but in
that of eternal death, to which they were liable through their sins, so that
they could not have become partakers of the eternal fui? (comp, on Rom.
vii. 9 f.). See also on Eph, ii, 1, What is meant, therefore, is riot a death
which would have only become their eternal death in the absence of the quick
ening (Hofmann), but the eternal death itself, in which they already lay, and
out of which they would not have come without that deliverance, nay,
which on the contrary — and here we have a prolepsis of the thought —
would only have completed itself in the future a'ldv.^ (3) This being dead
occurred in the state {iv) of their sins {roi; indicates the sins which they had
committed) and of the uncircumcisionof their flesh, i. e, when as respects their
sinful materially-psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and had not
yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly constitution.' The aKpopvaria
' in itself they even now had as Gentile Christians, but according to ver, 11 it
was no longer aKpd/B. ry; .aapKd; in their case, but was now indifi^erent (iii,
11 ; 1 Cor, vii, 19 ; Gal. v. 6, vi. 15), since they had been provided with the
ethical circumcision of Christ and emptied of the adya r^f aapKd;. The
ethical reference of the expression does not lie, therefore, in dKpojSvarla
itself, but in the characteristic r^f aapKb; iydv (genitive of the subject) ; in
this uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion, but
were so no longer as Christians, Consequently oKpop. is not to be taken
1 God is the subject of trvve^iaoTToiyaev, not mains so till the close of ver, 15.
Christ (Ewald and the older expositors); for ^Q^jte correlative is the conception of the
God has raised up Christ, and God is, accord- iia-ff as eternal life, which the righteous man
ing to the present context (it is different in already has, although he has still in prospect
iii. 13), the forgiver of sins, and has brought the glorious perfection of it in the future
about the remission of sins through the oXtav.
'iKaaT-ripiov of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it ^ The ev is not repeated h-'iore rfi aiepofi. be-
is not to be written o-. a-iiria (with the aspirate). cause the two elements coupled by Kai are
Just as God was obviously the acting subject conceived together so as to form the single
in a-epteT/i^^TjTe, in awTaii)evT€i, a,nd in avvij- idea of unconversion ; Kuhner, II. 1, p. 476.
yepS,, so also He is introduced in the same This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann,
character emphatically in ver. 12, and re- p. 156.

304 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
figuratively (Deut. x. 16 ; Ezek. xliv. 7 ; Jer. iv. 4) as a designation of vii-
iositas (so Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Bahr, Bleek, and most expositors),
but in its proper sense, in which the readers as aKpdpvaroi could not but
have understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of uncleanness
(Huther), or of the alienatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann), or the like ;
on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on riyf aap/c, ip. The idea of
original sin (Flacius and other dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel : " exqui-
sita appellatio peccati origin,") is likewise involved, and that according to
its X, T, meaning (Rom, vii, 14 ff,), not in d/cpo/3vo-r,, but doubtless in ry;
aapK. ipdv. Xevertheless this r^f aapK. ipdv belongs only to ry dicpofivarla,
and not to roif iraparrrupaai as well (Hofmann) ; comp, Eph, ii, 11. Other
wise we should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous
ill sense for the genitive ; besides, the notion of irapdirrapa presupposes not
the adp^, but the Ego in its relation to the divine law as the subject; hence
also the exj)ression irapdwr. ry; aapK. (or dpapria r. a.) does not occur, while
we find ipya rij; aapKd; in Gal. v. 19, Holtzmann, p, 71, ascribes the words
Kal ry d/cpo/3, . , aapKb; ip. to the interpolator's love for synonj-ms and tauto
logical exjjressions, and wishes to condemn them also in consequence of
what in ver. 11 belongs to the latter (p. 155). But thej' are not at all tauto
logical; andseeonver.il. — xeipiodpevo; k.t.X.] [XXXIII p.] after having
granted to us, i. e. forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin
was necessarily prior to the aweCaoir. ipd; avv aird. By the fact, namely,
that He remitted to us all the sins which we had committed {irdvra rd irapairr.),
the causa efficiens oi the being (eternally) dead was done away. Comp,
Chrysostom : rd irapairrdyara, d ryv veKpdryra irroiei. This xopiodpsvo; k.t.X.
is the appropriation of the reconciliation on the part of God, which believers
experienced when they believed and were baptized; the objective expiatory act
through the death of Christ had preceded, and is described in ver. 14. —
yylv] applies to believers generally.' This extension, embracing himself in
common with others, is prepared for by /cat iyd;, but could not have been
introduced, if xapiadp. k.t.X. had been conceived as synchronous with aws-
fcjoTT, in which case Paul must logically have used iylv (not yplv), as the
reading is in B 'A** Vulg. Hilary. On xapti^saBai, comp, 2 Cor, ii, 10, xii.
13 ; Eph, iv, 32, On the subject-matter : 2 Cor, v, 19 ff.
Ver, 14, [XXXIII e.] The participle, which is by no means parallel and
synchronous with xo-piodpevo; in ver, 13, or one and the same with it (Hof
mann), is to be resolved as : after that He had blotted out, etc. For it is the
historical divine reconciling act of the death of Christ that is meant, with
which xapiadusvo; k.t.X. cannot coincide, since that woris of reconciliation
iNot specially to Jewish Christians (Hof- ues the discourse from the standpoint of the
mann, who discovers here the same idea common Christian consciousness, Comp, i,
that is expressed iu Heb, ix, 15, and makes 12 ; Gal, iv, 6, 6 ; Eph, ii, 1, 4, e( al. ; Winer, p.
a new period begin with xipio-i/ievos), since 539 [E, T, 580], Nor does the idea of the fig-
Paul does not express a contrast with the urative x^^l"iypuit>ov, which Hofmann urges,
Gentile-Christians, but very often passes by any means require such a limitation—
from the second person, which refers to the which there is nothing to indicate — of the
readers, to the first, in which he, in aecord- ijfilv embracing himself and others,
ance with the sense and connection, contin-

CHAP. IL 14. 305
had first to be accomplished before the xo-pi^saBai /c.r. A. could take place
through its appropriation to believers. — efaAei^eiv] is to be left quite in its
proper signification, as in Acts iii. 19, Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4, and
frequently in LXX. and Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to
something written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous
form of blotting out, even more forcibly than by diaypdipsiv {to score out; see
Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81).' — rb KaB' ^ydv xetpdypaipov] the handwriting existing
against us. What is thus characterized is not the burden of debt lying
upon man, which is, as it were, his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosaic
law. A xeipdypaipov, namely, is an obligatory document of debt,'' for
which the older Greek writers use a-uyypaiji-y or ypappareiov Dem. 882. 7,
956. 2.* And the law is the xeipdypaipov confronting us, in so far as
men are bound to fulfill it perfectly, in order to avoid the threatened
penal curse; and consequently because no one renders this fulfillment,
it, like a bill of debt, proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We
are not to carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the
halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound has not him
self written the xeipdypaipov.^ Hofmann maintains that this element also,
namely, man's hamng written it with his own hand, is retained in the con
ception of the figurative x^'P^ypoipov. But the apostle himself precludes
this view by his having written, not : rd yydv xeipdyp. (which would mean ;
the document of debt drawn by us), but ; rb koB' ypdv xeipdyp. ; which purposely
chosen expression does not affirm that we have ourselves written the docu
ment, but it does affirm that it authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is
consequently against us. The words roif ddyyaaiv appended (see below)
also preclude the conception of the debt-record being written by man's
own hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral whole,
and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonial law (Calvin, Beza,
Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law (Calovius), are altogether in
opposition to the connection (see above, Trdvra rd irapairr.), and un-Pauline.

1 Comp. Plat. Bep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B : e^aKei- without some more precise indication.
<f)otev , , , -irdl IV eyypd^oiev, Ep. 7, p, 342 C : Indeed, that promise of the people in Ex,
TO i(oypa4io-iip,ev6v re Kai e^a\eL(p6p.evov, Dem. xxiv. 3 has by no means the mark of being
468. 1 in reference to a law : el xpv tovtov self-written, but contains only the se\f-obliga-
eia^eliliai, Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 61 : Lucian, Imag. tion, and would not, therefore, any more than
26; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp. Valckenaer, the amen in Deut xxvii. (which Castalio sug-
ad Act. iii. 19. gests), suffice for the idea of the xetpo-ypa^ov,
2 Tob. V, 3 ix, 5 ; Polyb, xxx, 8, 4; Dion. if the latter had to contain the debtor's own
Hal. V. 8; and the passages in Wetstein; handwriting. In accordance with the apos-
also the passages quoted from the Eabbins tie's words (to /ca9 r/fiir xeipoyp., see above),
in Schoettgen. and with the type of his doctrine regarding
3 See also Hermann, Privatalterth. I 49, 12. the impossibility of legal righteousness, his
«The relation of obligation and indebtedness readers eould think only of the ypdp.p.a of
in which man stands to the law (comp. Gal. the law itself as that which proves man a
iii. 10) is quite sufficient to justify the con- debtor; comp. Eom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii,
ception of the latter as the xeipo-yP«*»v, with- 6, Wieseler, on Gal, p, 258 (appealing to Luke
out seeking this specially in the promise of xvi, 5 ff,), Bleek, and Holtzmann, p, 64, also
the people. Ex, xxiv. 3 (Chrysostom, Oecu- erroneously press the point that the X'<-P°y9-
menius, Theophylact, and others; also Hof-' muf-t necessarily be written or signed bythe
mann); whioh the reader could not guess debtor himself.
20

306 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. "
The explanation referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanch
thon, and others) is also at variance both with the word and with the con
text.^ The conscience is the medium for the knowledge of the law as the
handwriting which testifies against us ; without the activity of the con
science, this relation, in which the law stands to us, would remain
unknown. Exception has been taken to its being explained of the
Mosaic law on account of the use of ypdv, seeing that this law existed only
for the Jews. But without due ground ; for it is in fact also the schedule
of debt against the Gentiles, in so far, namely, as the latter have the
knowledge of the dmaiupa rov Qeov (Rom. i. 32), have in fact rb ipyov rov vdpov
ypairrbv 'ev ral; Kapdiai; airdv (Rom. ii. 15), and, consequently, fall likewise
under the condemning sentence of the law, though not directly (Rom. iii.
19, ii. 12), but indirectly, because they, ha-ving incurred through their own
fault a darkening of their minds (Rom. i. 20-23), transgress the'" koivov
dirdvrav dvBpdrrav vdpov " (Dem. 689. 22), The earnest and graphic descrip
tion of the abrogation of the condemning law in ver, 14 is dictated by an
apologetic motive, in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers ; hence
it is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a Lapide and
others the covenant of God with Adam in Gen, ii. 16.^ — -rotf ddypaaiv] Respect
ing ddypa, command, especially of legal decrees, see on Eph, ii, 15 ; Wet
stein on Luke ii, 1 ; the dative is closely connected with ;tfetp(5>'pa^ov, and is
instrumental : what is written with the commands (therein given), so that
the ddyuara, which form the constituent elements of the law, are regarded
as that wherewith it is written. Thus the tenor of the contents of what is
written is indicated by the dative of the instrument {ahlativus modi), just
as the external constituent elements of writing, e. g. ypdypaai in Gal, vi, 11,
and rviroi; in Plat, Ep. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the same dative.
Observe the verbal nature oi xeipdypaipov, and that the dative is joined to it,
as to rb yeypappivov (comp. Plat. I. c. : rd yeypappiva rviroi;). This direct
combination of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is
such an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek ^ that
the connection in question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh
(Winer, Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann) ; nor should it have
been regarded as something " welded on " by the interpolator (Holtzmann,
p. 74), who had desired thereby to give to xeipdyp, its reference to the law.
The explanation given by many writers,* which hits nearly the true sense:
the x^^poi'P'^'i>o'>'t consisting in the ddyyaai, is to be corrected grammatically in
accordance with what we have said above. It is in complete variance
with the arrangement of the words to join rotf ddyy. to rd koB' ypdv by

1 Luther's gloss : "Nothing is so hard against -Ks was already proposed by Chrysostom,
us as our own conscience, whereby we are Oecumenius, Theophylact (comp, Iren, Haer.
convinced as by our own handwriting, when v, 17, 3, and Tertullian),
the law reveals to us our sin." Melanchthon: 3 See Matthiae, II. p. 890; Heindorf, ad Piat
" sententia in mente et corde tanquam scripta Cratyl. p. 131, and especially Kuhner, II. 1, p
lege et agnitione lapsus," in connection with 374.
which he regards the conscience as "syllo- * Calvin, Beza, ^Vitringa, Wolf, Michaelis,
gismus practicus ex lege ductus." Heinrichs, and others, comp. Luther,

CHAP. IL 14. 307
supplying an ov (Calovius).^ Bahr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette)
regard it as a more precise definition of the entire rb koB' yy. xeipdyp., so
that Paul explains what he means by the x^vdyp., and, at the same time,
how it comes to be a debt-document testifying against us. So also Winer,
p, 206 [E, T, 220], This, however, would have been expressed by rb roi;
ddyyaai KaB' -yyuv xeipdyp,, or in some other way corresponding gramma
tically with the sense assumed. Ewald joins roif ddyp. as appropriating
dative (see Bernhardy, p. 88 f.) to xeipdyp. . our bond of obligation to ihe
statutes.'' But if xeipdyp. were our bond of obligation (subjectively), the
expression rb KaB" riydv xeip. would be inappropriate, and Paul would
have said merely rb ypdv xeip. / . ddyy. It is incorrect as to sense, though
not linguistically erroneous, to connect roif ddyp. with i^aXsi-ipa;, in which
case it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph. ii. 15) that the abro
gation of the law had taken place either as regards its statutes (Steiger) ; or
by the evangelical doctrines of faith (the Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius,
Hammond, Bengel, and others) ; or nova praecepta stahiliendo (Fritzsche,
Diss, in 2 Cor. II, p, 168 f,). In opposition to these views, see Eph, ii. 15.
Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek, 'and Hofmann have
attached it to the following relative clause,^ in opposition to the simple
order of the words, without any certain precedent in the X. T. (with regard
to Acts i, 2, Rom, xvi, 27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an
emphasis to the roif ddyp. which is not warranted (for the law as such con
tains, in fact, nothing else than ddypara). — 6 yv iirevavrlov yplv] an emphatic
repetition — bringing into more marked prominence the hostile relation —
of the thought already expressed by KaB' yydv, with the view of counter
acting the legalistic efforts of the false teachers, Bengel's distinction, that
there is here expressed ipsa pugna, and by /caff' ypdv, status belli, is arbitrary
and artificial. It means simply : which was against us, not : secretly against
us, as Beza and others, including Bohmer, interpret the word, which Paul
uses only in this place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers,
in the Apocrypha and LXX,, and in the N. T, again in Heb. x, 27. The
relative attaches itself to the entire rd koB" yy. xeipdyp. roi; ddyp. — /cat aird
ypKev /cr./"!..] Observe not only the emphatic change of structure (see on i.
6) which passes from the participle, not from the relative (Hofmann), over
to the further act connected with the former in the finite tense, but also
(comp. on i. 16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem. 786, 4) : and itself (the
bill of debt) he has taken out of the way, whereby the abrogation now stands
completed. A graphically illustrative representation : the bill of debt was
blotted out, and it has itself been carried away and is no longer in its place ;
ilpKsv avrb 'sk tov piaov prj dipsl; iiri x^pd^t Oecumenius. aird denotes the

iSo also Wieseler in RosenmuUer's Bep, law of Moses."
II, p, 135 ff, : TO x^i-PiyP- rb rois S6y^l. icaQ' ^So also Thomasius, Cftr, Pers, it, TFerft, III,
fip,(iiv ov. 1, p, 110, He considers as the xetpdvpo^ov not
2Comp. Wieseler on Gai, p, 258: "with refer- the Mosaic law itself, but the bill of debt
ence to the statutes," He takes Paul's mean- which the broken law has drawn up against us.
ing to be, " our testimony with our own hand. The very parallel in Eph. ii. 15 is decisive
that we have transgressed the statutes of the against this view.

308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
handwriting itself, materialiter, in contrast to the just mentioned blotting out
of its contents. For He has nailed it, etc, ; see the sequel. Hofmann
imports the idea : it in this (hostile) cjnulity ; as if, namely, it ran /cat roiovro
bv (Xen, Anab. vi, 5, 13 ; Philem, 9), — The e/c roi yicov is our : " out of the
way,'' said of obstructions which are removed.' The opposite : ev piaip s'lvai,
to be in the way, Dem, 682, 1 ; Aesch, Suppl. 735 ; Dorv, ad Charit. vii, 8, p.
601. Thus the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the xo-(ii-
C.eadai k.t.X. in ver. 13. — irpoayXdaa; k.t.X.] irpoayXovv only found here in the
N, T,'-* Since the law which condemned man lost its punitive force through
the death of Christ on the cross, inasmuch as Christ through this death
suffered the curse of the law for men (Gal, iii, 13), and became the end of
the law (Rom, x, 4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as 'iXaarypiov
to the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased to be ev yiaip.
Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the aorist participle to the perfect
vpKsv. The latter is the state of the matter, which has emerged and exists
after God has nailed, etc. The k. airb ypKsv iK piaov takes place since that
nailing. In the strong expression irpoayXdaa;, purposely chosen and placed
foremost, there is involved an antinomistic triumph, which makes the dis
arming of the law very palpably apparent. Chrysostom has aptly
observed on the whole passage: oidayov ovru; ysyaXoipdvu; iipBsy^aro.
'Opa; arrovdyv roi dipaviaByvai rb xeipdypaipov bayv iiroiyaaro ; o}ov irdvrs; ypsv
ip' dpaprlav k. Kd?iaaiv' airb; KoXaaBsl; sXvas Kal riyv dpaprlav Kal ryv KdXaaiv.
Nevertheless, rrpoayXdaa; neither figuratively depicts the tearing in pieces
of the xeipdyp, (Chrysostom, 'Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor is there
any allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated
laws (Grotius), According to Hofmann (comp, also his Schriftbew. II, 1,
p, 870 i,), a public placarding with a vieiv to observance is meant; the
requirement of Israelitish legal obligation has become changed into the
requirement oi faith in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross,
and this transformation is also the pardon of transgressions of the law.
This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the point of which
is merely the blotting out and taking away of the law, as the debt-docu
ment hostile to us, by the death of the cross. The entire representation
which is presented in this sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be
expanded into the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just
referred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the forgiveness of sins
introduced by xopiadpsvo; k.t.X. in ver, 13, and nothing more, Comp, 1
Pet, ii, 24, It is to be observed, at the same time, that the efaPuei^etv and
the alpsiv iK r. peaov do not represent two acts substantially different, but
the same thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by way
of climax with particularizing vividness,
Ver, 15,'. In this doing away of the law was involved the victory and
triumph of God over the devilish powers, since the strength of the latter,
1 Comp, Plat, Eryx. p. 401 E ; Xen, Anab. i, jrpos) ; Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (tb Kau-
5. 14 ; de praef ect. 3. 10, and the passages in Kdai^ n-pooTjAw/xevo?) ; Galen. f-V. p. 45, 9 : t^
Kypke, II. p. 323. aravpii, 3 Mace. iv. 9.
'See, however. Plat. Phaed. p. 83 D (with ^ Holtzmann, p. 156 f,, rejects this verse

CHAP. H. 15. 309
antagonistic to God, is in sin, and the strength of sin is in the law (1 Cor.
XV, 56) ; -with the law, therefore, the power of the devil stands or falls. — If
drrsKdva. ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with irpoayXdaa;, there must
have been a Kai inserted before idsiyydr., as in ver. 14 before the finite verb,
because otherwise no connection would be established. Hence a full stop
(Beza) must be placed before dirsKdva., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek) ;
and without any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the
more forcibly the description of this final result expressed with triumphant
fullness : Having stripped the lordships and powers, he has made a show of them
boldly, holding triumph over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical
emphatic prefixing of dirsKdva., ideiypdr., and Bpiapf}. The subject is still
always God, not Christ,' as Baur and Ewald hold, following Augustine,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, and many others ;
hence the reading dirsKd. ryv adpKa in F G (which omit r. dpx k. t. i^ova.)
Syr, Goth, Hii, Aug, was an erroneous gloss ; and at the close, not aira
(Syr, Vulg, It, Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir, Griesbach, and
Scholz), instead of which G has savr^, but aira should be written ; see
Wolf in loc. The figurative dnsKdva,, [XXXIII/,] which illustrates the
deprivation of power that has taken place through the divine work of recon
ciliation, represents the dp;i;df koI i^ova. as having been clothed in armour
(comp, Rom, xiii. 12 ; Eph, vi, 11 ; 1 Thess, v, 8), which God as their con
queror stripped off and took from them ; Vulg, : exspoliansi' Moreover,
we might expect, in accordance with the common usage of the middle,
instead of dirc/ccJwd/tevof, which is elsewhere used intransitively (comp, ih, 9),
the active direKd-haa; (comp. Matt, xxvii, 28, 31 ; Luke x, 30) ; yet even in
Plat, Rep, p, 612 A, the (right) reading dirsdvadpeBa is to be taken in the
sense oinudavimus; and Xenophon uses the perfect drrodidvKev, which is
likewise intransitive elsewhere (see Kiihner, I, p, 803), actively, see Anah.
I c. : iroXXov; ydy dirodidvKsv, multos veste spoliavit ; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47.
Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious self-interest of the action
{sibi exspoliavit), is here selected even with nicety, and by no means con
veys (as Hofmann, in order to refute this explanation, erroneously lays to
its charge) the idea : in order to appropriate to Himself this armor.' The
disarming in itself, and not the possession of the enemy's weapons, is the
interest of the victor. Lastly, the whole connection does not admit of any
intransitive interpretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 350 i
(and substantially also in his Heil Schr. in loc), has attempted, making
because it interrupts the transition of thought i Through this erroneous definition of -the
to ver. 16 (which is not the case); because subject it was possible to discover in our
Seiyp.ariieiv is un-Pauline (but in what sense passage the descent into hell (Anselm and
is it un-Pauline ? it is in any sense a very rare others).
word) ; because flpia/n/Seveiv is used here other- 2 Comp. on exSveiv and iTroSiieiv, used from
wise than in 2 Cor. ii. 14 (this is incorrect) ; Homer's time in the sense of spoliare, Dem.
but, especially, because ver. 15 can only be 763. 28,1259. 11; Hesiod, Sciti!. 447; Xen. Anab.
explained by the circle of ideas of Eph. iii. v. 8. 23; 2 Maec. viii. 27; and on the subjeet-
10 and Col. i. 10; Eph. iv. 8, ii. 15 f. (passages matter. Matt. xii. 19; Luke xi. 22.
which touch our present one either not at all, ' See on the contrary generally, Kruger, §
or at the most very indirectly). 62. 10. 1 ; Kuhner, II. 1, p. 93 f.

310 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
the sense : God has laid aside from Himself the powers ruling in the Gentile
world — which were round about Him like a veil concealing Him from the
Gentiles — by manifesting Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such
as this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has put an end
to the ignorance of the Gentile world and revealed Himseh to it, Paul
must necessarily have said; no reader could unravel it from so strange a
mode of veiling the conception, the more especially seeing that there is no
mention at all of the victorious word of Christ' converting the Gentiles, as
Hofmann thinks, but on the contrary of what God has effected in refer
ence to the dpxal and e^ovalai by the /ac< of reconciliation accomplished on
the cross ; He has by it rendered powerless the powers which previously
held sway among mankind ; comp. John xii. 30 f., xvi. 11. — That these
dpxai and i^ovaiai are two categories of evil angels (comp. Eph. vi. 12), corres
ponding to two classes of good angels similarly named (comp. ver. 10), is
taught by the context, which has nothing to do with mediating beings
intervening between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human
rulers. Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol 1863, p. 522, understands
the angels of the law-giving (comp. on i. 20), of whom God has divested Him
self (middle), i. e. from whose environment He has withdrawn Himself. Even
apart from the singular expression dirsKdvadp. in this sense, this explana
tion is inappropriate, because the dpxai and i^ovalai appear here as hostile
to God, as beings over whom He has triumphed ; secondly, because the
angels who ministered at the law-giving (see on Gal. iii. 19) have no share
in the contents of the law, which, as the vdyo; Qsov, is holy, righteous, good,
and spiritual (Rom. vii.), and hence no deviation from God's plan of
salvation can be attributed to the angels of the law ; and, finally, because
the expression rdf dpxd; k. rdf i^ovala; is so comprehensive that, in the
absence of any more precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially
limited to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must denote
the collective angelic powers — hostile, however, and therefore devilish.
Them God has disarmed, put. io shame, and triumphed over, through the
abrogation of men's legal debt-bond that took place by means of the aton-
mg death. The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this state
ment was, doubtless, specially occasioned by those speculations regarding
the power of demons, with which the false teachers were encroaching on
the work of Christ. — dsiyyarii^eiv, preserved only here and in Matt. i. 19,^*
denotes, in virtue of its connection with the conception of triumph, the
making a show' for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chry
sostom), not in order to exhibit the weakness of the conquered (Theodoret,
Bohmer), but simply their accomplished subjugation; comp. Nah. iii, 6:
Byaoyai ae eif irapddsiypa. — ev nappyala] is Usually rendered publicly, before the
iln which sense also Grotius explained ^comp, however, -irapaSeiyp.aTt^eLv, espe-
it, though he takes d-ireKSvadp.. rightly as cially frequent in Polybius; see Schweig-
exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calo- hauser. Lex. p. 429.
vius. Hofmann's explanation is also followed Sj^xigugtine, ejp. 59: "exemplavit;" Hilary,
by Holtzmann, p. 222 ; it is an unfortunate de trin. 9 : " ostentui esse fecit."
attempt at rationalizing.

CHAP. IL 16. 311
eyes of all, consequently as equivalent to ^avepd; in John vii. 10 (the oppo
site : ev Kpmrrip, John vii. 4 ; Matt. vi. 4 ; Rom. ii. 28) ; but this the word
does not mean (see on John vii, 4) ; moreover, the verb already implies
this idea -f and the usage of Paul elsewhere warrants only the rendering :
boHly, freely and frankly. '' The objection that this sense is not appropri
ate to the action of God (Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here
represented just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with
remorseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects the con
quered to ignominious exhibition,' — Bpiappsiaa; air. 'sv aira] synchronous
with edeiyp. : while He triumphed over them. Respecting Bpiaylieisiv nva,
to triumph over some one, see on 2 Cor. ii, 14. Comp, the passive BpiaypeieaBai,
to be led in triumph, Plut, Coriol 35. airoif refers /card aivetrtv to the devils
indimdually, who are conceived as masculine (as dalyove;, KoayoKpdrops;, Eph.
vi, 12), see generally Winer, p. 138 [E. T, 146] ; and ev avnp is referred
either to the cross (hence, also, the readings iv ra ^iXip or aravpa) or to
Christ The former reference is maintained by the majority of the Fathers
(Theophylact : cv rd aravpip rov; daiyova; yrrypivov; dsi^a;), Bcza, Calvin,
Grotius, and many others, including Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald,
Weiss, Bihl Theol p. 432, ed. 2 ; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther,
Melanchthon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt,
Bahr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek, Hofmann,
Rich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous, because Christ is
not mentioned at all in ver. 14, and God pervades as subject the entire
discourse from ver. 11 onwards. We must hold, therefore, by the refer
ence to r^ aravpa, so that cv airc^ once more places the cross significantly
before our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the previous
sentence. At the cross God celebrated His triumph, inasmuch as through
the death of Christ on the cross obliterating and removing out of the way
the debt-bill of the law He completed the work of redemption, by which
the devil and his powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on
the law and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included.
Ver. 16. [On vv. 16-19, see Note XXXIV. pages 338-340.] Oiv] since ye,
according to vv. 11-15, are raised to a far higher platform than that of
such a legal system. [XXXI'V a.] — Kpivira iv dpdaei] [XXXIV 6.] No
one is to form a judgment (whether ye are acting allowably or unallowa-
1 Hence Hofmann joins it with Qpiaix^evoas, " cum fiducia ;" "Vulgate : " confidenter palam."
in which, however, the idea of publicity is ^it jg an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann
obviously already contained. Hofmann, in- to say, by way of controverting our expla-
deed, assumes a reference of contrast to the nation : Who would be surprised, that the
invisible triumphs, which God has ever been triumpher should make a show of the con-
celebrating over those powers. But thus the quered, " without previously asking their perr-
idea of dpta/ij3evetv is extended to an unwar- mission " ? As if such a thought, no doubt
ranted amplitude of metaphorical meaning, very silly for the victor, were necessarily
while,nevertheless,the entire anthropopathic the contrast to the frank daring action, with
imagery of the passage requires the strict which a general, crowned with victory, is in
conception of the public epta/ifios. Moreover, a position to exhibit his captives without any
the pretended contrast is altogether foreign scruple, without sparing or hesitation I He
to the context. has the efovo-t'a for the 6ei-y/iaTt^eiv, and uses
sComp. Eph. vi, 19; Phil, i, 20, Hilary: itei. irappt|iri^.

312 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ably, rightly or wrongly) concerning you in the point of eating {iv, comp.
Rom, ii, 1, xiv. 22 ; 1 Pet, ii, 12), There is hereby asserted at the same
time their independence of such judgments, to which they have not to
yield (comp, Eph, v, 6), With Paul, fipda.; is always actio edendi, and is
thus distinct from jipdya, cibus (Rom, xiv, 17 ; 1 Cor, viii, 4 ; 2 Cor. ix. 10;
also Heb. xii, 16), although it is also current in the sense of Ppdya with
John (iv, 32, vi, 27, 55), and with profane authors,' This we remark in
oppositioii to Fritzsche, ad Rom. Ill, p, 200, The case is the same with
rrdai; (Rom, xiv, 17) and rrdya (1 Cor, X, 4 ; Heb, ix, 10), — ev rrdaei] Since
the Mosaic law contained prohibitions of meats (Lev. vii. 10 ff), but not
also general prohibitions of drinks, it is to be assumed that the false
teachers in their ascetic strictness (ver 23) had extended the prohibition
of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num, vi, 3), and for the
period of priestly service (Lev. x. 9), to the Christians as such (as dyiov;).
Comp. also Bom. xiv, 17, 21. De Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was
added doubtless in consideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules
as to drinks. Matt, xxiii, 24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols
(oiv does not jDoint to such things), but still mainly on account of the simi
larity of sound (Rom, xiv, 17 ; Heb, ix. 10, and Bleek in loc). — cv pipsi sopry;
K.r.X.] ev yipsi, with the genitive, designates the category, as very frequently
also in classical authors,^ The three elements : festival, new moon, and
Sabbath, are placed side by side as a further classis rerum; in the point (ev)
of this category also no judgment is to be passed upon the readers (if,
namely, they do not join in observing such days). The elements are
arranged, according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals
in the year {iopry;) or monthly {vovyyv.), or weekly {aajijidr.). But they are
three, co-ordinated ; there would be only one thing with three connected
elements, if /cat were used instead of y in the two latter places where it
occurs. The three are given in inverted order in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31 ; 2
Chron. ii. 4, xxxi. 3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iv, 10. Respecting
the Jewish celebration of the new moon, see Keil, Arch'dol, 1, I 78;
Ewald, Alterth. p. 470 f, ; and on adp^ara as equivalent to adjijiarov, comp.
Matt, xii. 1, xxviii. 1 ; Luke iv. 16, et al. 'ev yepei has been erroneously
understood by others in the sense of a partial celebration (Chrysostom :
i^svreXil^Ei Xiyav' y ev pepei iopry;' oi ydp dy irdvra Karslxov rd irpdrspa,
Theodoret : they could not ha-ve kept all the feasts, on account of the long
journey to Jerusalem ; comp. Dalmer), or : vicibus festorum (Melanchthon,
Zanchius), or, that the participation in the festival, the taking part in it is
expressed (Otto, dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio,
"nam qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt"
(Calvin). Jlany, moreover inaccurately, hold that ev yipsi means merely :
in respect to (Beza, Wolf, and most expositors, including Bahr, Huther,
and de Wette) ; in 2 Cor, iii, 10, ix, 3, it also denotes the category. Comp.
Aelian. V. H. viii, 3 ; Kpivovrs; SKaarov 'sv rip yepei (pdvov.
1 Hom, 11, xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x. 176, et al. ; 638. 5, 668. 24 ; comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 10, and see
Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 0; Hesiod, Scut. 396. Wyttenbach, ad Plut. I. p. 65.
2 Plat. Theaet. p. 155 E, Bep. p. 424 D; Dem,

CHAP. II. 17. 313
Ver. 17,' An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the ground for
what has just been said. [XXXIV c] — 5, which (see the critical remarks),
is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observance of feasts and
days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things of the law mentioned in ver.
16 generally, all of which it embraces, — aiud] not an outline {amaypaip'ia,
GKiaypdipvpa), as in the case of painters, who " uon exprimunt primo ductu
imaginem vivis coloribus et e'lKovuid;, sed rudes et obseuras lineas primum
ex carbone ducunt," Calvin (so also Clericus, Huther, Baumgarten-
Crusius, and others), which a/ctd does not mean even in Heb, viii, 5, x, 1,
and which is forbidden by the contrast of rb adya, since it would rather be
the perfect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline. It
means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating, namely, the relation
of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced in ver. 16, to that which is future,
i, e, to those relations of the Messianic kingdom, which are to be manifested
in the aitjv yiXXuv (neither dyaBdv from Heb, x. 1, nor anything else, is to
be supplied with rdv psXXdvrav), and in doing so he follows the figurative
conception, that the yiX'Xovra, which therefore, locally considered, are in
front, have cast their shadow behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual
constitution, — a conception which admirably accords with the typical
character of the latter (Heb, viii, 5, x. 1), of which the constitution of the
Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted further: (1) The
emphasis of confirmation lies not on rdv peXXdvrav (Beza), but on a/ctd, in
contrast to rd adya. If, namely, the things in question are only the shadow
of the Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are — in
accordance with this relatively non-essential, because merely typical
nature of theirs — not of such a kind that salvation may be made depend
ent on their observance or non-observance, and adjudged or withheld
accordingly, (2) The passage is not to be explained as if ^v stood in the
place of 'eari, SO that rd piXXovra would denote the Christian relations
already then existing, the Kaivy diaByKy, the Christian plan of salvation, the
Christian life, etc, (so usually since Chrysostom) ; but, on the contrary,
that which is spoken of is shadow, not, indeed, as divinely appointed in
the law (Hofmann) — for of this aspect of the elements in question the text
contains nothing — but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual condition still at
that time present. The piXXovra have not yet been manifested at all, and
belong altogether (not merely as regards their completion, as de Wette
thinks, comp, also Hofmann) to the a'ldv piXXav, which will begin with
the coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom — a coming, however,
which was expected as very near at hand. The yiX'Xovra could only be
viewed as having already set in either in whole or in part, if yv and not

IHoltzmann, without assigning his reasons, difficulty of ver. 18 (whioh Holtzmann con-
regards the entire verse as an "extract from siders utterly unintelligible) and ver. 22 f , as
the Epistle to the Hebrews" (Heb. ix. 6, 9 f., well as the alleged un-Pauline character of
25 X. 1, 11, viii. 6); he thinks that the whole some expressions in ver. 19, does not furnish
polemic of vv. 16-23 was intended to introduce a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp.
the more developed features of later heresy on vv, 18, 19, 22, 23.
into the picture of the apostolic age, Butthe

314 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
eari were used previously, and thereby the notion of futurity were to be
taken relatively, in reference to a state of things then already past (comp.
Gal, iii, 23 ; 1 Tim. i. 16), or ii earl were toeant to be said from the stand
point of the divine arrangement oi those things (Hofmann), or if this
present tense expressed the logical present merely by way of enabling the
mind to picture thera (Rom. v. 14), wliich, however, is inadmissible here,
since the elements indicated by aud still continued at this time, long after
Christ's earthly appearance, and were piesent really, and not merely in
legal precepts or in theory. (3) The characteristic quality in which the
things concerned are meant to be presented by the figurative aud, is deter
mined solely by the contrast of rd adya, namely, as unsuhstantiality m a
Messianic aspect : shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, there
fore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and void of its
reality. The reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de legit, rit. p. 214 f,,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely imported, — rd di adpa] sail ruv
peXXdvrav, but the body of the future,' Inasmuch as' the legal state of
things in ver, 16 stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation
than that of the shadow to the living hody itself, which casts the shadow,
Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates as the hody of the
future that which is real and essential in it, which, according to the con
text, can be nothing else than just the piXXovra themselves, their concrete
reality as contrasted with the shaclo"wy form which preceded them.
Accordingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but without
its figurative garb, in this way : 8 eort rvTrof rdv peXXdvrav, aird de rd piXXovra
Xpiarov. — Xpiaroi] scil iari, belongs to Christ. The piXXovra, namely, viewed
under the figurative aspect of the adpa which casts the shadow referred
to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the body stands m to the
Head (ver. 19) ; as the body now adumbrating itseff, they must belong to
Christ the Head of the body, in so far, namely, as He is Lord and ruler of
all the relations of the future Messianic constitution, i. e. of the Messianic
kingdom, of the j3aaiXeia rov Xpiaroi (i. 13 ; Eph. v. 5). Whosoever, there
fore, holds to the shadow oi the future, to the things of the law (as the false
teachers do and require), and does not strive after the piXXovra themselves,
after the hody which has cast that shadow, does not hold to Christ, to whom
as Head the adpa (r^f o/cidf) belongs as His own. This view, which is far
removed from "distorting" the thought (as Hofmann objects), is required
by the natural and obvious correlation of the conception of the body and
its head, as also by ver. 19. There is much inaccuracy and irrelevancy in
the views of expositors, because they have not taken rd piXXovra in the
sense, or not purely in the sense, of the relations of the a'ldv piXXav, but in
that of the then existing Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to
the aifjv oirof, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take up
with clearness and precision the contextually necessary relation of the
>The explanation of Hilgenfeld, 1873, p, as with the apostle's cherished conception of
199 : " the mere o-w/xa Xpiirrov, a purely somatic the <rai/xa of Christ, which is contained imme-
Christianity," is at variance with the anti- diately in ver, 19.
thetical correlation of tr/cta aud aui/ia, as well

CHAP. IL 18. 315
genitive Xpiaroi as denoting Him, whose the adpa is, but resolve it into
what they please, as e. g. Grotius (so also Bleek) : " ad Christum pertinet,
ab eo solo petenda est ; '' Huthef : " the substance itself, to which those
shadowy figures point, has a;PP«ared ill Christ;" EAvald : "so far as there
is anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the 0, T,, it belongs to
Christ and to His Spirit;" Hofmann: "the body of the future is there,
where Christ is, present and given with Hira " (consequently as if cv Xpiara
were used,)'
Ver, 18,'^ Warning against a further danger, with which they were
threatened on the part of these false teachers, — yyds'i;] not different from
pyri; in ver, 16, as if the latter emphasized the verb and the former the
subject (Hofmann), This would be correct, if in ver, 16 it were lUi? oiv
Kpivera ri; ipd;. Comp, on yyn;, ver. 8, and on pydel;, ver. 4. Moreover,
the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a duplicate proceeding
from the interpolator, especially as they contain a new warning, and in
such a peculiar form {Karappa/}.). — KarafSpajSevira] [XXXIV d.] Let no one
depi-ive you of the prize. Karappajieieiv, -which is not a Cilician word (Je
rome ; see, on the contrary, Eustath, ad II. i. 93, 33 : Karafipapeiei airbv, d;
ipaaiv ot TraAatoi), is Only now preserved among ancient Greek authors
ill Dem, C, Mid. 544, ult. : imardyeBa 'Zrpdruva irrb Msidlov Kara^papisvBivra
Kal Trapd Trdvra rd dUaia driyaBivra, where it expresses the taking away of
victory in a judicial suit, and the procuring of a sentence of condemna
tion, and that in the form of the conception : to bring it about to the injury
of some one, that not he, but another, shall recdve the prize from the Ppajisv;.
Midias had bribed the judges. The /card intimates that the prize was due
to the person concerned, although it has been in a hostile spirit (not
merely unrighteously, which would be irapal3paj3eisiv,^ Plut, Mor, p, 535 C;
Polyb, xxiv, 1. 12) withdrawn from him and adjudged to another. The
right view substantially, though not recognizing the distinction from
irapafipali,, is taken by Chrysostom {irapajSpapsvByvai ydp ianv, brav irap'
eripov yiv ri viKy, Trap' iripav di rb /3pa/3eiov) and Theophylact, also Suidas :
rd d/lAov dyuvi^opivov dXXov arsipavovaBai "Xiyii d dirdaroXo; KaTa(3pa[3eieaBai.*
The conception is : (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the Messi
anic prize of victory, — this is the assumption upon which the expression
is based ; (2) The false teachers desire to deprive ihem of the prize of
victory and to give it to others, namely, to themselves and their adherents,

1 On TO trCipa in contrast to tr/tta, comp, Jose- 277 ff,
phus. Bell, 11, 2, 5 : ir/ctav atnjo-d/nevo? j8aa-t\€ia?, 3 With which Theodoret confounds it (dfit/cu$
^y Tjpn-ao-ev eavrio To (r(iip,a, Philo, de conf, ppa/Seuetv) ; he makes it the unrighteous
ling, p, 434: rd p.ev pyjra TWV xp-fio-p-Stv (rKidi awarding of the prize of victory : erreiSv} roivw
Tivai aiaave'i (Tbip.driiiv eXvaC Ta5 5' ip.^aivop.e- /cat ot Tas vo/xi/fac Trapa-rljp^o-ets Tw eiiayyeKitf
va<; Svvdp.eii rd inpedTilira d\T]6eia Trpdyfiara. irapapiLyvvVTe^ djrb twv /epelTTOvwv aVT0v9 en-t
Lucian, Hermot. 29, Observe, hpwever, that rd eAarTw p.eTe^epov, et/cdrw? e^y jui)5eis u/iat
o-w/ia invariably retains its strict literal sense Karafipa^evera.
of body, as a sensuous expression for the sub- * Comp, also Zonaras, ad Condi, Laod, can,
stantially real, in contrast to the unsubstan- 35, p, 351 : to p.n r'ov vnc-fiiravTa d^iovv roii ^pa-
tial shadow of it, pelov, d\K' erepw StSdvat aUTO dSiKOVtiivov rou
'See upou ver. 18, Eeiche, Comm. Crit, p. viKya-avros.

316 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
and that through their service of angels, etc, ; (3) Just as little, how
ever, as in the case of the Kpiveiv in ver, 16, ought the readers to give heed
to, or let themselves be led astray by, this hostile proceeding of the
KaraPpafieieiv, which is based upon subjective vanity and is (ver. 19) sepa
ration from Christ and His body, — this is implied in the imperatives.
Consequently, the view of Jerome, adAglas. p. 10, is not in substance erro
neous, althoug-h only approximately corresponding to the expression :
" Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat ; " Erasmus is substantially cor
rect : "praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis intervertat; " comp. Calvin,
Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and others ; while the
Vulgate {seducat), Luther (" to displace the goal "), and others content them
selves with a much less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengel
imports into the passage the sense of usurped false leading and instruction,
as Beza similarly took it.' The fipajielov, to which Karapp. refers, is not
Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it praemium exigere), nor yet :
" the honor and prize of the true worship of God " (de Wette), but, in accord
ance with the standing apostolic conception (comp. Phil. iii. 14 ; 1 Cor.
ix. 24) : the bliss of the Messianic kingdom, the incorruptible areipavo; (1 Cor.
ix. 25), the arsip. ry; diKaioaivy; (2 Tim. iv. 8), T^f dd^y; (1 Pet. V. 4), r^f ^uij;
(Jas. i. 12) ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 5. With reference to the ppapslov, Eisner,
Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others, including Bahr, Bohmer,
Beiche, Huther, and Bleek, following Photius in Oecumenius {jiydsl; ipd;
KaraKpivera), have taken iiarappa/S. in the sense of to condemn, parallel to the
Kpiviru in ver. 16, or to refuse salvation to (Hofmann). This rendering is
not, indeed, to be rejected on linguistic grounds, since Hesychius and
Suidas both quote the signification /cara/cpiveiv in the case of Karajipajisisiv ;
but it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in opposi
tion to the context through the following BiXuv k,t.X., which presupposes
not a, judgment of the opponents, but an ctcfton, something ^raciica?, which,
through their perverse religious attitude, they would fain accomplish. — •
BeXav] sc. Karajipafieveiv vpd; : while he desires to do this, would willingly
accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Find. 01 ii. 97) by humility, etc. So
rightly Theodoret {rovro rolvw auve/5oiAevov 'sKslvoL yiveaBai rairsivoippoavvy
dyBev icexpypevoi), Theophylact {BiXovaiv ipd; Karajipafisisiv did rairsivopp.),
Photius in Oecumenius, Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Huther
and Buttmann, Neut. Gr, p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The " hmguidum et frigidum,"
which Reiche urges against this view, applies at the most only in the
event oi Karajipap. being explained as to condemn; and the accusation of
incorrectness of sense (Hofmann) is only based upon an erroneous explana
tion of the subsequent cv rairsivopp. k.t.X. The interpretation adopted by
others : taking delight in humility, etc,,^ is based upon the extreraely
i"Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi analogy of irapa^pa^eveiv, would justify the
ultro sumat," He starts from the common adoption of this sense in the ease of the eom-
use of Bpa^eveiv in the sense of regere ac mo- pound Karafipap.
dercri (see Dorvill, ad Citarii. p, 404), Comp, 2 Augustine, Castalio, "Vatablus, Estius,
on iii, 15. But neither the passage of Dem. Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including
i.e., nor the testimony of the Greek Fathers, Storr, Flatt, B,^hr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-
of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the Crusius, Bleek, Hofmann, and Hilgenfeld.

CHAP. IL 18. 317
unnecessary assumption of an un-Greek imitation of 3 fan, such as occurs,
indeed, in the LXX,' but not in the N, T, ; for in Matt, xxvii, 43, BiXsiv is
used with the accusative, conn^, on Rom, vii, 21, Moreover, in the 0, T,
passages the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only exception
being Ps. cxlvii, 10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha that abnormal
mode of expression does not occur. Others, again, hold that it is to be
joined in an adverliial sense to Kara.pp. It would then (see Erasmus,
Annot,) have to be rendeied cupide or studiose '' or unconstrained, volunr
tarily, equivalent to i8s?,ovTi, 'eBe'>MVTfyv, 'sBsXovry;, ivhich sense, here certainly
quite unsuitable, has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage
into the idea : " hoc munus sibi a nullo tributum exercens " (Beza), or :
unwarrantably (Bohmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice (Luther,
who, like Ewald, couples it with epPareiav), or : arbitrarily (Ewald), or :
capriciously (Reiche), etc. ; consequently giving it the sense of ckuv,
airoBeX-ri;, airoKeXsvaro;, or airoyvdyav. Even Tittmann, Synon, p. 131, COmes
at length to such an ultro, erroneously quoting Herod, ix. 14, where
Bi'Xav must be taken as in Plat. Theaet. I. c — ev rarreivorpp. k. BpyoK. rdv dyyeX.]
'sv is not propter, which is supposed to have the meaning: because
rairsivoipp. k.t.X. is necessary to salvation (Reiche) ; nor does it denote the
condition in which the KarappajSeietv takes place (Steiger, Huther) ; but, in
keeping with the BiXav, it is the means by which the purpose is to be
attained : hy virtue of humility and worshiping of angels. Thereby he wishes
to effect that the Ppafielov shall be withdrawn from you (and given to him
self and his followers), r. dyyiXav is the genitive of the object^ and belongs
only to BpyaK., not to raireivoipp. That the latter, however, is not humility
in the proper sense, but is, viewed from the perverse personal standpoint
of the false teachers, a humility in their sense only, is plain from the con
text (see below, e'lK-y ovaiohy. k.t.X.), although irony (Steiger, Huther) is not
to be found in the word, Paul, namely, designates the thing as that, for
which the false teachers held it themselves and desired it to be held by
others, and this, indeed, as respects the disposition lying at the root of it,
which they sought to exhibit (cv rairsivoipp.), and as respects the abnormal
religious phenomenon manifested among them {k. BpyaK. r. d-yyiXav) ; and
then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these together
according to their true character in a theoretical (d . . . e/t/3ar,) and
in a moral {e'lKij (pva, . . ryv Ke^aXyv) respect, Hoiv far the false
teachers bore themselves as raireivdippove;, is correctly defined by Theo
doret ; Xiyovre;, a; ddparo; b rdv bXuv Qeb;, dviipmro; re Kal dKardXyrrro;, Kai
irpoaiiKsi did tuv dyyi'Xav r^v Bslav sipivsiav Trpay/tarcieaSat, so that they thus
regarded man as too insignificant in the presence of the divine majesty to be
able to do without-'* the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure
11 Sam, xviii, 22 ; 2 Sam, xv, 26 ; 1 Kings x, by Sturz, Lex, II. p. 21.
9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Ps. cxlvii. 10. <Comp. Wisd. xiv. 27; Herodian, iv. 8. 17;
2 Plat. Theaet. p. 143 D ; and see Eeisig, Conr Clem. Cor, 1.46; see also Grimm on 4 Mace.
iect p, 143 f, ^- *'» ^"'^ *^® passages from Josephus in
splat, Symp, p, 183 A, very fiequent lu Krebs, p, 339,
Homer, Soph, Phil, 1327, Aesch, Choeph. 19, e Compare Augustine, Conf. i. 42: "Quem
790 and the passages from Xenophon quoted invenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi? Abe-

318 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
through BpyoKsla (comp. 4 Mace. iv. 11), thereby placing the merit of
Christ (Rom, v, 2) in the background. It is differently explained by
Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp, also Photius in Oecumenius) : the
false teachers had declared the mcy'esii/ of the Only-Begotten to be too exalted
for lowly humanity to have access through Him to the Father, and hence
the need of the mediation of angels for that purpose. In opposition to
this view it may be urged, that the very prominence so frequently and
intentionally given to the majesty of Christ in our Epistle, and especiallj'
as above the angels, rather goes to show that they had depreciated the
dignity of Christ, Reiche and Ewald (comp. Hofmann's interpretation
below) find the rairsivoippoavvy in the dipsidla adparo; of ver, 23, where, how
ever, the two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see on
ver. 23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels in the post-
apostblic church sire found in Justin, Ap, I. 6, p. 56,' Athenagoras, and
others ; among the Gnostic heretics (Simonians, Cainites) : Epiph. Haer.
XX. 2; Tertullian, praescr. 83 ; Iren. Haer. i. 31. 2; and v/ith respect to the
worshiping of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies : iysivs di
rovro rb rrdBo; iv ry ^pvyig Kal Jiiaid'ni pixpi iroX'Xov' ov dy xapiv Kal awsXBovaa
aivodo; 'sv AaodiKeia ry; <bpvy'ia; (a, D, 364, Can. 35) vdyci kskuXvkc rb roi;
d-yyiXoi; irpoasixeaBai, Kal yexpi di roi viv eiKrypia rov dylov MixaiiX irap'
'sKslvoi; Kal roi; bydpoi; 'sKeivav 'eariv 'idelv. The Catholic expedients for evading
the prohibition of angel-worship in our passage (as also in the Condi.
Laod., Mansi, II, p, 568) may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide,
who understands not all angel-worship, but only that which places the
angels above Christ (comp, also Bisping), and who refers the Laodicean
prohibition pointing to a "KSKpvppevy s'lduXoXarpela " (" ort oi dei Xpianavov;
iyKaraXs'trrsiv ryv iKKXyalav rov Qeov Kal diriivai Kal dyyi'Xav; bvoydC,siv " /c,t,A,), in
accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the eultus latriae, not
duliae, consequently to actual adoration, not npyriKyv irpoaKvvyaiv, In
opposition to the words as they stand (for BpyoKsia with the genitive of the
subject would necessarily be the eultus, which the angels present to God,
4 Mace, V, 6, 12; Joseph Anil xii. 5, 4; comp. Acts xxvi, 5), and also in
opposition to the context (see ver, 19), several have taken rdv dyyiXav as
the genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious condition,
which desired to be like that of the angels, e. g. Luther : " spirituality of the
angels," co-m-p. Melanchthon, Schoettgen ("habitus aliquis angelicus "),
Wolf, Dalmer, Nevertheless, Llofmann, attempting a more subtle defini
tion of the sense, has again taken rdv dyyiXav as genitive of the subject, and
joined with it not only BpyaKsig,,, bnt also rairsivoippoavvy. The rarreivoippoavvv
of the angels, namely, consists in their willingly keeping within the bounds
assigned to them as spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect
has beyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world. And the
undum mihi fuit ad angelos ? Multi conantes (^poo-uvTj was the subjective source of their
ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, going astray to angel-worship,
sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt i Hasselbach gives substantially the right
in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni interpretation of the passage in the St-ud. u,
habiti sunt illusionibus." The (false) rarreivo- Krit, 1839, p, 329 ff.

CHAP. IL 18. • 319
BpyaKsia of the angels is a self-devotion to God, in which, between them and
Him, no other barrier exists than that between the Creator and His creatures.
That rarrsivoippoavvv and this BpyoKsla man makes into virtue on his part,
when he, although but partially, renounces that which belongs to Him in dis
tinction from the angels {raireivoipp.), and, as one who has divested himself as
much as possible of his corporeality, presents himself adoringly to God in
such measure as he refrains from what was conferred upon him for bodily
enjoyment. I do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle
could wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to hira in words so
enigmatical, nor, on the other, how the readers could, without the guid
ance of Hofmann, extract them out of these words. The entire expasi-
tion is a labyrinth of imported subjective fancies, Paul might at least
have written cv iyKpareia irrl ru bpoidpan (or KaB' dpolaaiv, or KaB' dpoidryra) ry;
raireivoipoavvy; koi BpyoKela; rdv dyyiXav ! Even this would still have been far
enough from clear, but it would at least have contained the point and a
hint as to its interpretation,' — d eupa/cev ipparsvuv] [XXXIV e,]. Subor
dinate to the Bi'XiM K.r.X. as a warning modal definition to it : entering upon
what he has beheld, i. e. instead of concerning himself with what has been
objectively given (ver. 19), entering the subjective domain of visions with
his mental activity, — ^by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupa
tion of the mind with God and the angels,'^ so that idpoKsv (comp, Tert, c.
Marc. V, 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes, but a mental beholding,^
which belonged to the domain of the ipavrdC,eaBai, in part, doubtless, also to
that of visionary ecstasy (comp. Acts ii, 17 ; Rev. ix, 17 ; opa^a in Acts ix.
10, 12, X, 3 ; 2 Chron, ix, 29, et al ; Luke i, 22), This reference must have
been intelligible to the readers from the assertions put forth by the false
teachers,* but the failure to observe it induced copyists, at a very early
date, to add a negative (sometimes yy and sometimes oi) before eupanev.
''Epparsisiv (only used here in the N, T. ; but see Wetstein, also Reisig, ad
Qed. Col praef . p. xxxix,), with accusative of the place conceived as object
(Kiihner, II, 1, p. 257), also with the genitive, with the dative, and with
eif, means to step upon, as e. g. vyaov, Aech, Pers. 441 ; rrdXiv, Eur. El, 595 ;
yyv, Josh. xix. 49 ; also with reference to a mental domain, which is trod
den by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo, de plant. Noe, p .
iSee, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, relative, besides obscuriijg the sense, is with-
Eich. Schmidt, Paul, Christol, p. 193 f. out precedent in the N. T. Comp. on ver. 14.
SThis fanciful habit could not but be fost- Besides, the thought itself is far from clear;
ered and promoted by the Jewish view, and respecting OeXuv. see above.
according to which the appearances of angels * For the sphere of vision of the iiipaKtv lay
were regarded as (i.«vT<io-/xaT<i<Gieseler, Kirch- not outside of the subiects, but in the hollow
engesch. 1. 1, p. 163, ed. 4). mirror of their own fancy. This applies also
» Ewald regards iiipaKev as more precisely in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who now (1873, p.
defined by 'ev raneivo^ip, k.t.K., as if it ran d iv 198 f.) properly rejects the p,-/,, but takes h. ewp.
raweivo^p /ctA iJipaKiv: "while he enters ip.^aT. inaorTectly: " abiding by the sensuous."
arUtrarily upon that, which he has seen in Opposed to this is the very use of the perfect
hummty arid angel^orship (consequently has ewp, and the significant expression ^/^Sar.vwv,
notactually himself experienced and known), The apostle does not mean the opt^ra, but the
and desires to teach it as something true," dopara ,(i, 16), in,to which they ascend by
But such a hyperbaton, in the case of the visions whioh they profess to have had.

320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
225 C, et al. ; see Loesner, p, 369 f, ; 2 Mace. ii. 30; comp. also Nemes. de
nal hom. p, 64, ed, Matth, : oipavbv ipjSareiei r-y Bsupia, but not Xen. Conv. iv.
27, where, with Zeunius, iyaarsisrs ought to be read. Phavorinus : iy^ar-
evaai'TO svdov s^spswyaai y aKOiryaat. It is frequently used in the sense of
seizing possession.' So Budaeus and Calvin {se ingerens), both with the
reading py, also Huther {establishing himself firmly in the creations of
fancy) ; still the context does not suggest this, and, when used in this
sense, iyfjar. is usually coujjled with eif.'' In .the reading of the Recepta,
a py idp., the sense amounts either to : entering into the unseen transcendental
sphere,^ wherein the assumption would be implied that the domain of
sense was the only field legitimately open, which would be unsuitable (2
Cor. V. 7, xiii, 12) ; or to ; entering into things, which (although he dreams
that he has seen them, yet) he has not seen — a concealed antithetical refer
ence, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indicated. The
thought, in the absence o/the negative, is not weak (de Wette), but true, in
characteristic keeping with the perverseness of theosophie fancies (in oppo-
tion to Hofmann's objection), and representing the actual state of the case,
which Paul could not but know. According to Hofmann, the a p^
idpoKsv wllich he reads is to be taken, not with iyParsvuv, but with what
goes before : of which, nevertheless, he has seen nothing {and, consequently,
cannot imitate it). This is disposed of, apart even from the incorrect
inference involved in it,-* by the preposterousness of Hofmann's exposi
tion of the raireivoippoabvy k. BpyaKela rdv dyy., with which the connection, hit
upon by him, of eiKy with iyParsvuv {" an investigation, which results in noth
ing "), also falls to the ground, — ei/o; ipvaiovy. k.t.X., and then /cat oi Kpardv,
K.r.X., are both subordinate to the d idpoKsv ipparsiuv, and contain two
modal de.finitions of it fraught with the utmost danger, — e'my ipvaioiy.]
[XXXIV/,] for the entering upon what was seen did not rest upon area!
divine revelation, but upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggeration. Td di
ye ipvaiovpsvo; ry raireivoippoavvy ivavriov oiK ian' ryv piv ydp iaKyirrovro, rov
di rvipov rb irdBo; dKpijid; irspiiKstvro, Theodoret. On sIkij, temere, i. e. with
out ground, comp. Matt, v, 22; Rom, xiii, 4; Plat, Blenex. p, 234 C; Xen.
Cyrop. ii. 2, 22, It places the vanity, that is, the objective groundlessness
of the pride, in contradistinction to their presumptuous fancies, emphati
cally in the foreground. Even if ipjiar. is not taken absolutely with Hof
mann, we may not join it with s'lKy (in opposition to Steiger, de Wette,
Reiche ; Bohmer is doubtful), since it is not the uselessness (in this sense
e'lKv would require to be taken, 1 Cor. xv, 2 ; Gal, iii, 4, iv, 11) of the iyjSa-
reisiv a idp. (or d py iap.), but this iy^arsisiv in and of itself, that forms
the characteristic perversity in the conduct of those people — a perversity
1 Dem. 894. 7 ; Eur. Heracl. 876 ; Schleusner, < For even the unseen, whioh may in any
rites. II. 332; Bloomfield, ©ioss. 171 ^escii, Pers, other way have been brought to our knowl-
p, 146 f, edge, we may and under certain circumstan-
2 Dem, 894, 7 ; 1035, 24, 1086, 19 ; Isa. ix. 3, et ees should imitate (comp. e. g. Eph. v. 1).
al. ; 1 Mace. xii. 25. And even the angels and their actions have
8 Comp. Chrysostom: they have not seen been included among the objects of the divine
the angels, and yet bear themselves as if they revelation as to the history of salvation and
had seen them. its accomplishment.

CHAP. IL 19. 32-1
which is set forth by e'lKy ipvaioip. k.t.X., and in ver, 19 as immoral and
antichristian. — vTrd roi vodf r^f aapK. airov] becoming puffed up by (as opera
tive principle) the reason of his fiesh. This is the morally determined
intellectual faculty in its character and activity as not divinely regulated,
in which unennobled condition (see on Eph, iv, 23) it is the servant, not
of the divine rrvevya, whose organ it is designed to be, but of the materio-
physical human nature, of the adp^ as the seat of the sin-power, and is
governed by its lusts instead of the di-vine truth,' The voif does not
belong to the essence of the adp^ (in opposition to Holsten) ; but, be it
observed, the matter is so represented that the cdp^ of the false teacher,
in accordance with its dominant superiority, appears personified (comp.
Rom. viii, 6), as if the voif, influenced by it, and therewith serviceable to
it, were its own. In virtue of this non-free and, in its activity, sinfully-
directed reason, the man, who is guided by it, is dvdyro; (Gal. iii, 1, 3 ; Tit,
iii, 3), loses his moral judgment (Rom, xii. 2), falls into 'smBvpia; dvoyrov;
(1 Tim. vi. 9), and withstands Christian truth and purity as KareipBapyivo;
rbv vovv (2 Tim. iii. 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3), and iaKonayivo; r-g diavoia (Eph, iv.
18). — The pufiiing up of the persons in question consisted in this, that with
all their professed and apparent humility they, as is commonly the case
with mystic tendencies, fancied that they could not be content with the
simple knowledge and obedience of the gospel, but were capable of attain
ing a special higher wisdom and sanctit}'. It is well said by Theophylact :
Truf ydp oi aapuKov vob; k. iraxio; rb dBsryaai rd iirb Xpiarov XsxBivra, John
iii. 16, 17, 19, X. 26 f., /cat pvpla 'daa I
Ver, 19, [XXXIV g,] Kai] annexing to s'lKy (pvaioiysvo; k.t.X. a further,
and that a negative, modal form of the d idpoKsv iyParsiav. This epparsi-
siv into what is seen takes place, namely, in such a way, that one is
puffed up by fleshly reason, and does not hold the Head, etc. So much is
it at variance with the nature and success, as respects unity, of tlie church ! ''
— oi Kpardv /c.r,l.] not holding fast (but letting it go, comp. Song of Sol, iii.
4: 'zKpdryaa airbv koi ovk dipyKa airdv) the Head, inasmuch, namely, as they
seek angelic mediation. Bengel aptly observes : " Qui non unice Christum
tenet, plane non tenet." — if oi k.t.X.] represents the whole objection.able-
ness of this oi Kpardv r. Keip,, and the absolute necessity of the opposite.
This oi is not to be referred to the verbal idea (Bengel's suggestion : " ex
quo sc. tenendo caput "), but applies objectively (comp. Eph. iv. 15 f.) to
that which was designated by riiv KsipaX. In this view it may be mascu
line, according to the construction Kara aivsaiv (Kuhner, II, 1, p, 49), as it
is usually taken, but it may also— and this is preferable, because here the
personality is not, as in Eph, iv. 15 f., specially marked — ^be neuter, so that
it takes up the Head, not personally (though it is Christ), but in accord-
¦ Comp. Rom. i. 21, 28, iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, xii. The compressed characterizing of this artic-
2- Eph. iv. 17 f. ; see also Kluge in the Jahrb. ulated organism is therefore as suitable here
/. D, Theol, 1871 p. 329 ff. ^s in Eph. iv. 16, and by no means an op-us
2 The conduct of those men is the negation supererogationis on the part of the author
of this holy relation, a separation from the (Holtzmann).
organism of the body of Christ as an unity.
21

322 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
ance with the neuter idea : from which. See Matthiae, p, 988 ; , Kuhner, II,
1, p. 55, Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p, 201, The . , KsfaX. might also be
taken attributively : not holding fast as the Head Him, from whom, etc,
(Ewald), which would be, however, less simple and less forcibly descrip
tive, cf denotes the causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed
relation, comp, Eph, iv, 16, — rrdv rd adpa] consequently no member is
excepted, so that no member can expect from any other quarter what is
destined for, and conveyed to, the whole body from the head. The con
ception of the church as the body of Christ, the Head, is not in our
Epistle and the Ephesian letter different from that of the other Epistles
(in opposition to Holtzmann, p, 239 ff,), Comp, on 1 Cor, xii, 12 f,, vi,
15 ; Rom, xii, 4 f. ; also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Any pressing contrary to the
author's design of the thought of a adya, which strictly taken is a trunk,
is in this particular case excluded by the graphic delineation of the con
stantly living and active connection of the members with the Head,
Every comparison, indeed, when pressed, becomes halting, — did rdv dipdv
K. awdeapdv iirixop. k. avyPip.] The participial relation to the following
verb is this : from the Head the whole body is furnished and bound
together and grows in this way, so that ef oi therefore is to be referred
neither to the participles only, nor to the verb only, but to both; and did
¦I , df. K. awdsay. specifies by what means the 'emxop.- k. avpPip., proceeding
from the Head, is brought about, viz, through the (bodily) nerve-impulses (not
joints, as it is usually explained; see on Eph, iv, 16), which are conveyed
from the Head to the body, and through the bands, which, proceeding
from the Head, place the whole in organic connection. Observe that
imxop. refers to did r. dipdv, and avpPip. to K. awdeay. Theophylact (comp.
Theodoret) has aptly illustrated the former by the action of the nerves
wllich is diffused from the head through the entire body, so that drrb rij;
KsipaXij; ian irdaa alaByai; K. irdaa Kivyai;. As, therefore, the body receives
its efficiency from the head through the contact of impulses effected by
means of the network of nerves, so would the church, separated from
Christ — from whom the feelings and impulses in a spiritu.al sense, the
motions and activities of the higher Zu-fi, are conveyed to it — be without
the supply in question, Comp, the idea of the figure of the vine.
Further : as, starting from the head, the whole body, by means of the
bands whioh bind member to member, is bound together into one organic
whole; so also is the entire church, starting from Christ, by means of the
bands of Christian communion {koivuvIo), which give to the union of indi
viduals the coherence of articulate unity. Faith is the inner ground of the
di^ai, not the latter themselves (in opposition to Bengel) ; so also is love the
inner ground oi the avvdeapoi of the mystical body, not these latter them
selves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius, Bengel, and others) ;
and the operative principle on the part of Christ the Head is the Holy
Spirit (Eph, iv. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 3 f., 7, et al), Theodoret erroneously (comp.
Ewald) explains the awdeayoi as the dirdaroXoi k. irpoipyrai k. diddaKaXoi, and
Bohmer takes the dipai and cwdeap.. as the believers. The latter, as also
the teachers, are in fact the members, and share in experiencing what is

CHAP. II. 20. 323
here asserted of the entire body, — iinxopyyovp,] receiving supply, being fur
nished. Comp. on the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtz
mann), but in harmony with the general passive usage,' Kuhner II. 1. p. 109.
The compound, not expressing " in addition besides " (Bleek), denotes that
the yopeyia is coming to, is being conveyed towards. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 10 ; Gal.
iii, 5 ; Dion, Hal. x, 54. But it is not said with what the body is provided,
as xopvyelv (comp. also iinxop,, Ecclus. xxv. 22) is often used absolutel-y
(see e. g. the passages from Polybius in Schweighauser, Lex. p, 663), and
admits of its more precise definition being supplied from the context,
which, however, here points not to nourishment (Grotius, de Wette), but
to that which is accomplished through the feelings {dipdv), namely, the
mtal activity, of which the body would be destitute in the absence of the
different impulses.' — ryv ai^yaiv rov Qeov] denoted by the article as the
divine growth absolutely ; rov Qsov is the genitive auctoris : which God
confers (1 Cor, iii. 6, 7), with which cf oi is not at varianqe (as Bahr
thinks), since God is ranked above Christ (1 Cor. xi, 3), and is the supreme
operating principle in the church (1 Cor. xii. 6 ; Eph. iv, 6), At once
weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view : " incrementum,
quod Deus probat " (Calvin, Bahr '), What is meant is the gradual growth
of Christians collectively toward Christian perfection. The circumstance
that oifet as an intransitive only occurs again in Eph, ii, 21, comp, iv, 15,
and av^yai; only in Eph, iv. 16, cannot prove it to be an un-Pauline mode
of expression (Holtzmann).*
Ver, 20 f [On Vv, 20-23, see Note XXXV. pages 340, 341,] After these
warnings, vv, 16-19, which were intended to secure his readers against
the seduction threatening them, the apostle now returns for the same
purpose once more to the two main foundations of the Christian life, to
the fellowship with Christ in death, (ver, 20), and fellowship with
Him also in resurrection (iii. 1). [XXXV a.] His aim is to show,
in connection with the former, the groundlessness and perversity
of the heretical prohibitions of meats (vv, 20-23), and to attach to the
latter — to the fellowship of resurrection — the essence of Christian
morality in whole and in detail, and therewith the paraenetic portion of
the Epistle (iii. 1-iv. 6), the tenor of which thereby receives the character
of the holiest moral necessity. — ei drrsBdvsrs k.t.X.] [XXXV, 6.] the legal
abstinence required by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradic
tion with the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into
the fellowship o/the death of Christ, and thereby had become loosed from
the croixsta rov Kdauov (see On ver. 8), i, e. from the ritual religious ele
ments of non-Christian humanity, among which the legal prohibition of

1 Polyb, iv, 77, 2: n-oAAai? a^op/nais eK ^iiaeui^ 8 Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who
Kexopriyyfjiivo^, ill. 75, 3, et al, ; Diod, Sic, i, explain rov ©eoi) by Kara ®e6v,
73 ; Ecclus, xliv, 6 ; 3 Mace. vi. 40. * Respecting the connection ot the verb
2 Comp. Chrysostom: to .eivat Kal to xaXws with the more precisely defined cognate noun,
tlvai, Theophylact : rraira aIcr97jo-t5 k, rraoa see Winer, p. 210 [E, T, 224] ; Lobeck, Paralip.
Kivyir^t, and in the application : \aii^ivei rb p. 507 f, ; Kuhner, II, 2, p. 262 I.
iljv K. au^etv TTveVjUOTt/cwy.

324 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
meats and the traditional regulations founded thereon are included. How
far the man who has died with Christ has passed out of connection with
these elementary things, is taught by ver. 14, according to which, through
the death of Christ, the law as to its debt-obligation has been abolished.
Consequently, in the case of those who have died with Christ, the law, and
everything belonging to the same category with it, have no further claim
to urge, since Christ has allowed the curse of the law to be accomplished
on Himself, and this has also taken place in believers in virtue of their
fellowship of death with Him, whereby the binding relation of debt which
had hitherto subsisted for them has ceased,' — drroBvyansiv, with drrd, mean
ing to die away from something, moriendo Uberari a (Porphyr. de ahstin. ah
esu anim. i. 41), is only met with here in the N, T. ; elsewhere it is used
with the dative, as in Gal. ii. 19, Rom. vi. 2, whereby the same thing is
otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to be observed, that
Christ Himself also is by death released from the aroixeia, since He was
made under the law, and, although sinless, was destined to take upon
Himself the curse of it; [XXXV c] hence it was only by His death in
obedience to the Father (Phil, ii. 8 ; Rom. v. 19), that He became released
from this relation. Comp, on Gal, iv, 4, Huther erroneously denies that
such an diroBavelv can be predicated of Christ, and therefore assumes
(comp, Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachylogy : "if, by your dying with
Christ, ye are dead from the aroixeia rov Koayoi." — rt a; t^dvrs; K.T.Xl] why
are ye, as though ye were still alive in the world, commanded : Touch not, etc.
Such commands are adapted to those who are not, like you, dead, etc.
As diroBavdvre; avv X. dirb r. croix. r. Kdap., ye are no longer alive in the
domain of the non-Christian Kdapo;, but are removed from that sphere of
life (belonging to the heavenly iroXirsvpa, Phil, iii, 20), The word doyparl-
Ceiv, [XXXV d.] only found here in the N, T,, but frequently in the LXX.
and Apocrypha, and in the Fathers and decrees of Councils (see Suicer,
Thes. I, p, 935), means nothing more than to deci-ee,'' and doyyarl^eaBe is
passive : why are ye prescribed to, why do men make decrees for you {vobis) ?
so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed by the expression affects
rather the false teachers), but a warning to those readers (comp, vv, 16, 18)
who were not yet led away (i, 4, ii, 5), and who ought not to yield any
compliance to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive sub
ject, is quite according to rule, since the active has the dative along with
it, doypari^eiv nvi (2 Macc, X. 8) ; comp, also Hofmann and Beza, The
usual rendering takes doyuar. as middle, and that either as : why do ye
allow commands to he laid down for you (Huther), rules to be imposed upon
you (de Wette), yourselves to be entangled with rules (Luther) ? and such
like ; ^ or even : why do ye make rules for yourselves (Ewald) ? comp, Vul
gate : decemitis. This, however, would involve a censure of the readers, and
df ^dvre; iv Kdapip would express the unsuitableness of their conduct with
1 Comp, Gal, ii. 19, iv, 3, 9 ; Rom, vii. 4, e« aJ, sComp. Chrysostom: iriJ! to"? o-toix"'""
a Diod. Sie. iv, 83 ; Diog, L, iii, 51 ; Anth, Pal, inoKeiaee; similarly Theodoret, Beza ; and
lx, 576, 4; Arrian, Epict. iii, 7; Esth, iii, 9; 3 recently, Biihr, Bohmer, Olshausen, Baum-
Esdr, vi. 34 ; 2 Macc. x. 8, xv. 36 ; 3 Macc. iv. 11, garten-Crusius, Bleek, and others.

CHAP. IL 21. 325
their Christian standing — a reproach, which would be altogether out of
harmony -with the other contents of the Epistle. On the contrary, tjf
{(jvref cv 11. indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Christian standing
of the readers was regarded by the false teachers, who took up such an
attitude towards them, as if they were not yet dead from the world, which
nevertheless (comp. ver. 11 f,) they are through their fellowship with
Christ (iii, 3 ; Gal. ii. 19 f, ; 2 Cor. v, 14 f ), The eif fcjvrcf ev Kdap(p, more
over, is entirely misunderstood by Bahr : " as if one could at all attain to
life and salvation through externals." Comp,, on the contrary, the thought
of the sivai iv r-y aapKi in Rom. vii. 5 and Gal. vi. 14, Observe, further,
that this t^yv iv Kdapip is not one and the same thing with eZvat iTrd rd aroi-
xsia roi Koapov (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation of crrot-
;i:eia in the sense of the material things of the world) ; but the fsyv ev jc. is
the more general, to which the special slvai irrb r. aroixeia r. k. is subordi
nate. If the former is the case, the latter also takes place by way of con
sequence. — pv dipy K.T.X.] a vivid concrete representation of the ddyyara
concerned, in a " compepdiaria mimesis " (Flacius). The triple descrip
tion brings out the urgency of the eager demand for abstinence, and the
relation of the three prohibitions is such, that ayds both times means nor
even; in the second instance, however, in the sense of ne quidem, so that
the last point stands to the two former together in the relation of a cli
max : thou shalt not lay hold of, nor even taste, nor once touch ! What was
meant as object of this enjoined direxeaBai (1 Tim. iv. 3) the reader was
aware, and its omission only renders the description more vivid and terse.
Steiger's view, that the object was suppressed by the false teachers them
selves from fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words
themselves, however {ysiay), and from the subsquent context (see ver. 23),
it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain meats and drinks (comp,
ver. 16) ; and it is entirely arbitrary to mix up other things, as even de
Wette does, making them refer also to sexual intercourse {Biyydvsiv ywaiKd;,
Eur. Hipp. 1044, et al) ; ' while others distinguish between d-ipy a.ndi'Biyy;
in respect of their objects, e,g. Estius: the/ormer refers to unclean objects,
such as the garments of a menstruous woman, the latter to the buying
and selling of unclean meats ; Erasmus, Zanchius : the former concerns
dead bodies, the latter sacred vessels and the like ; Grotius : the former
refers to meats, the latter to the " vitandas feminas," to which Flatt and
Dalmer, following older writers, make dipy refer (1 Cor. vii, 1), Others
give other expositions still ; Bohmer arbitarily makes Blyy; refer to the
oil, which the Essenes and other theosophists regarded as a labes. That
Paul in dijiy and Bly. had no definite object at all in view, is not even prob
able (in opposition to Huther), because ysiay stands between them, and
ver. 23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same time to any
thing else, — Following the more forcible dipy, lay hoUpf, the more subtle
eiyy;, touch, is in admirable keeping with the chmax : the object was to
be even oBiktov (Soph. 0. C. 39).'' Hofmann erroneously holds that dTrro-
1 See Monck, ad Eur. Hipp. 14; -Valckenaer, ^ Comp, on the difference between tha^ two
ad Phoen. 303. words, Xen, Cyrop, i, 3. 5 ; oian juev toO dprov

326 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
pai expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at something, Biyydvu
rather his arriving at the object. In opposition to this fiction stands the
testimony of all the passages in the Gospels (Matt, viii. 3, ix. 20 ; John
XX. 17, and many others), in which drrreaBai signifies the actual laying
hold of, and, in Paul's writings, of 1 Cor, vii, 1, 2 Cor, vi, 17, as also the
quite common Grecian usage in the sense of contrectare {attingere et
inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten to, to make
to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698 ; Duncan, Lex, Hom. ed, Rost, p, 150).
The mere stretching out the hand towards something, in order to seize it, is
never drrreaBai. Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of
the three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon ysiay, that this
might even happen more unintentionally, and upon B'lyy;, that this might
happen involuntarily.'
Ver, 22, We are not to put in a parenthesis p^ d-ipy . . . diroxpyaei (Eras
mus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely d ianv . . . diroxp. (Gries
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald) ; for the construction proceeds uninter
ruptedly to Blyy;, is then only broken by the judgment d ean ir. e'l; <pB. r.
diroxp., and thereafter runs on with /card rd ivrdXp. k.t.X. — d coti , . , diroxp, is
an inserted '' judgment of the apostle anent that which the false teachers
interdicted by y?i d-ipy k.t.X. : which all are destined to destruction^ through the
using, — from which it is to be rendered palpably apparent, how preposter
ous it is to make such things a condition of eternal bliss by urging absti
nence from them. We have here a similar line of argument to that in
Matt. XV. 17. Comp, 1 Cor, vi, 13, Hence fBopd is meant to denote the
perishing which takes place through the natural dissolution (digestion)
of the meats and drinks ; and with this conception quite accords the pur
posely-chosen compound ry diroxpyasi, which, like abusus, indicates the
using up, the consuming (Plut. Mor. p. 267 E ; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60).
So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (eif Kdirpov ydp
drravra perapdXXerai), Oecumenius {fBopa ydp, fyaiv, iiroKeirai ev ra dfsdpdvi),
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis,
and many others, including Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hof
mann. But, according to others, who likewise regard d . . . diroxp. as a
parenthetical judgment, the d is to be referred to the prohibitions, oTroxp.
to the use, i. e, the following of them, and ipBopd (comp. Gal. vi. 8) to the

dipy, «U ouSev tyjv x^'ipi^ diroilnoiievov {ae opiij), accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg.
irav Se Toiirwv (these dainty dishes) tivo; 6iyyt, Cor. p. 990, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 804 ; Kiih-
etrfius aTTOKa^aipT) rrjV x^'P^ *^5 Ta x^ipop-aKrpa, ner, I. p. 833.
also V. 1. 16. In an inverted climax, Eur. j j.„j, jj is on\y an incidental observation in
Bacch. 617. oiT iiiyev oM' n4,ae' ^^wv. See opposition to the above Soyp.aTiCeaeai; the
also Ex. xix. 12, where the LXX. delicately ^^^^ g^„„„^ „f opposition to the latter lies in
and aptly render ?n^p3 i}J), to touch the jj i„e8i„. ^;,„ x.
outer border of the mountain, by the free trans- s i^rly el; <l,Bopdv, it serves for destruction,
lation elyeiv Tl aiiToC, but then express the t, e, it serves for the purpose o/ Seinp (iesiro,ved,
general in3 J?J JH by the stronger o dipdp,e- Bee generally Winer, p, 173 [E, T. 183] ; Butt-
vo! Toij opou!, mann, Neut. Gr. p. 131 [E. T. 150 f.]. Comp.
iRespecting the aorist Oiyeiv (a present Wisd. iv. 18; Ecclus. xxxiv. 10; Judith v. 21,
eiyeiv instead of Oiyydveiv can nowhere be 24, viii. 22.

CHAP. IL 22. 327
destruction of the persons who follow them : all which ddypara by their use
tend to (eternal) destruction. So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a
Lapide, Calixtus, Heumann, Junker. Erroneously; because drrdxpyoi;
never means merely use, and even the simple xpvoi;, in the sense of rypyai;,
would be an unsuitable designation ; in fact, the entire addition, " by the
use,'' would be utterly superfluous. On account of djro;i;p-, the expedient
must also be rejected, on linguistic grounds, that d . . . dTro;i;p. are still words
of the false teachers, which Paul repeats with irony : " omnia haec (vetita)
usu suo perniciem afferunt," Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, who,
like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, the whole down
to dvBpunav is taken together : all this, which the false teachers forbid,
tends through the using to (" moral,'' de Wette) destruction , " si sc. ex
doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur," '
Kypke ; so also Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius (Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But
in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound diroxpyasi would
be entirely without a motive, since not the consumption, but the use at all
would be soul-destroying according to the maxims of those people. Our
view alone supplies a motive for the use of diroxpyasi, and that through the
point of its connection with etf ipBopdv, in which case, however, the object
affected by diroxp, and eif (pBop. must be the same (the things forbidden).
De Wette's objections are irrelevant, since the thought of the parenthesis
d . . . drroxp. is expressed not strangely, but with Pauline ingenuity, the
words /card rd ivrdXp. k.t.X. annexed to doypari^saBs are by no means super
fluous (see below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the paren-
tnesis with yi) a-ijiy and thereby to include heterogeneous elements together;
for py d-ijiy k.t.X. still belongs closely to doypar., of which it is the contents,
and Kara rd ivrdXp, k.t.X is then annexed, after the brief incidentally
inserted remark, to doypar. and its contents {yi; d-ijiy k.t.X.). — /card rd ivrdX-
para k.t.X.] [XXXV 6,] The article before ivrdXp., and extending also to
didaoKaX., is generic. The pij aipy k.t.X, was decreed by the false teachers
conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men, not in consequence
of what God had commanded and taught. This element, annexed to doy-
par'ii;., is by no means superfluous (in opposition to de Wette), since, in
fact, ddyya in itself is a command generally, and may be one based upon
divine authority ; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the
conflicting relation, in which that doyyarli;ea6ai stands to the drrsBdvsrs avv
Xptara k.t.X. For what the false teachers decreed was not the prohibitions
of meats contained in the law of Moses as such, and these alone (although
they too would have been incompatible with the dirsBdvere aiv X. k.t.X.), but
such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, and
amplifications of the former (/card ryv rrapddoaiv rdv dvBpdrruv, ver, 8). It was
in this, and not in the mere setting up again of the Mosaic law abolished
1 Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes ry found in the sense of abuse («aTaxpi)o-n, irapa-
airoxp. in the sense of abuse, joining it imme- xp^iri;), iTroxpijtru is not, though it was so
diately to Kara rat SiUitk. k.t.\. But while taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, Zach-
oTroxP^treat (Dem, 215. 8 ; Herodian, v. 1. 13) is ariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon.

328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
through Christ (Chrysostom and many others), that the doyyari^ea-Bai was
regulated by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant.
Moreover, didaoK. is not synonymous with evrdXp., but has a wider sense (in
Matt. XV. 9 and Mark vi. 7, the narrower idea comes after as a more pre
cise definition), so that the two together specify the preceptive and generally
{ko'i) the doctrinal standard. Comp. Isa. xxix. 13.
Ver, 23. And of what nature and quality is that, which I have just termed
rd ivrdXpara k. didaoKaX rdv dvBp. ? — dnva] quippe quae, i. e, ita comparata,
ut (Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 30), The conception was different in d of
ver. 22, where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, as
mere object. — 'sar'i] belongs to exovra, without, however, being with this
equivalent to e;i;et ; it introduces what the dnva are as regards their quality.
If it belonged to oi/c cv nyy rivi (Bahr), or to irpb; rrXyay. r. a. (Bengel), or
to ev iBeXoBpyaKsig, k.t.X. (that which moves and has its being in 'sBsXoBp. k.t.X.),
as Hofmann thinks, taking Xdyov p. ixovra aof. parenthetically — why
should it not have been actually placed beside that to which it would
belong? Apart from this, Hofmann's connection of it with ev 'sBsXo-Bp.
could alone deserve consideration, since from cv i-BsXoB^p. onwards all that
follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be abandoned,
because the sphere of subsistence indicated by ev i-BsXo-Bp. k.t.X. would be
too wide for such special prohibitions, ver, 21, as are conveyed by dnva,
and because we have no right to put aside from the connection, as a mere
incisum, the important thought (comp, ver, 8) expressed by /Idy r, ix. aofla;,
which comes in with iarl so emphatically at the very head oi the judg
ment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, attaches to itself all that
follows, — Xdyov ixsiv, explained by many since Jerome aiDproximately in
the sense of speciem or praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer,
and others ; also Koster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p, 318), may, according
as we adopt for Xdyo; the signification ratio or sermo, mean either : to have
ground,'^ in which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one,
a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p, 36) ; further, to have an insight
into something (often thus in Plato, e. g. Rep. p, 475 C), to have regard to
(Herod, i, 62 ; Plat, Tim. p. 87 C) ; or : to have a reputation, so that one is
in any relation the subject of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumor,
etc,^ The latter signification is here to be adhered to, because .the sub
sequent oi/c cv riu^ nvi, when correctly rendered, accords with it as bear
ing on the matter in hand, and is in sense appropriately correlative.
Hence : that which has a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom.
Comp. 6vo,aa e;i;etv (Rev. iii, 1) and bvoyd^saBai (1 Cor. v. 11), — ^^ev] without a
subsequent di ; there was before the apostle's mind the contrast : repute,
1 So in the passages from Demosth,, Dionys, impossibility of this interpretation is self-
Hal,, and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat, iu evident,
Ast, Lex. II. p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweig- 2 Bee e. jr. Plat. Epin. p. 987. B: 'Eweri^dpos
hauser, Lex, p. 370. So Hilgenfeld, in his .. .'AiPpoSirri! eivat irxeSbv sx" J^ovnv (dicitur),
Zeitschr, 1870, p. 250, holding that what is Herod, v. 56 : Xoyov e'xf t rnv nvBi-riv dvaireiaal
rejected in the legal sense in ver. 22 is here comp. ix, 78; Xen. Oec. 11. 4. (the same thing
"permitted as voluntary asceticism." See, conceived under another form : Aoyoff cxei
however, on the sequel, from which the rtva, Herod, vii. 5, aud frequently).

CHAP. II. 23. 329
truly, but not the reality, oi divapiv, ovk dXyBsiav, Chrysostom. He omitted
to express this, however, led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that
instead of bringing in the antithesis of Xdyov by cJe, he makes oi/c cv riyy
rivi follow without di, and in contrast not to the 'Xdyov, but to the cv i-BsXo&p.
K.r.X., — from which we are to gather in substance, what in starting with
Xdyov pev it was intended to express,' The linguistic phenomenon of this
piv without an adversative word following is so common, that there is no
ground for requiring before oi/c cv Ttpy r. an dXXd (Hofmann), which might
have been used (Baeumlein, p, 170), but not necessarily. Holtzmann also
takes too much offence at the absence of a formal contrast, and finds in Trpdf
irXyap. r. aapKd; an ill-inserted remnant of the original, — cv i-BsXo-BpyaKsia]
[XXXVI /,] instrumental, specifying by what means it is brought about, on
the part of those who lay down the commandments and doctrines referred
to, that the latter have a repute of wisdom : through self-chosen worship, i. e.
through a eultus, which is not divinely commanded, but is the work of
their own self-determination. What was meant by this, the reader was
aware; and ver. 18 places it beyond doubt that the worship of angels
formed an essential and chief part of it, though it need not, from the
general character of the expression in our passage, have been meant
exclusively; other forms of capricious eultus may have been included
with it. The substantive e6e7.oBp. does not occur elsewhere except in eccle
siastical writers ; but the verb i-BeXo-BpyoKelv is explained by Suidas ; trfty
^eXypari aipeiv rb doKovv, and Epiph, Haer. i. 16 explains the name Phari
sees: did rb dipapiapivov; slvai avroi; dirb rdv dX?MV did ryv i-BeXoirspiaao-
¦BpyaKeiav irap' avrol; vevopiapevrpj} Hofmann erroneously takes away
from the word in itself the bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of
's-BsXoirovia and i-BeXovpyia) : worship, which one interests himself in. This
view is prohibited by the evident retrospective reference of this word and
the following one to ver, 18, where, according to the right interpretation,
the BpyaKela was certainly something bad. The unfavorable meaning,
according to Hofmann's present explanation (he gave a different but also
erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II, 2, p, 72 ; see, in opposition to it, my
third edition), is only got by the addition of adparo;, which belongs to all
the three points, so that 'e-BeXo-BpyoKsla adparo; must be understood as a
worship gladly and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with
bodily demeanor. But adparo; does not suit either with 'e-BeXo-Bp. or raireivofp.^
but only with dfsidia. For it is plain from dipsidla adparo; that adyaro; is
the genitive of the object, from which it follows that -BpyaKsla adparo; would
yield the opposite sense : a BpyaKsla rendered to the body (comp, -BpyoK. riiv
1 See Erasmus, .4nwo^, and generally Winer, /cat p.!) KeAeua-0ets /c.r.A.), and various others.
p. 634 f. [E. T, 575]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 2 According to Hofmann, namely, rairetvo-
313 [E. T. 365] ; Klotz, ad Deroar. p. 656 ; Maetz- (ppoa-xivy (riip-aro! is a disposition of self-humil-
ner, ad Antiph. p. 153 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. iation, which, howeoer, only weakens the body
les f. by abstinences. But it would rather have the
2 Comp. eOeKoSovXeia (Plat. Symp, p. 184 C, absurd sense: humility of the body ; tov ranei-
Rep. p. 562, D), eSekoKdicycTi^, eOeKoKivivvo,:, voc<)poo-i;vrj neither means humiliation nor
c«eAd?ropo5e9eA.o7rpofevo!(Thuc, iii, 70, 2,where self-humiliation, but humility, weakness, ver,
ihe scholiast explains : a<^' eauroi) yevofievo^ 18, iii. 12 ; Phil, ii, 3,

330 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
dyysXuv in ver. 18), which would come ultimately to the idea of the Xarpsisiv
ry ydovy (Luciaii, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C : Xarpsia roi auparo;,
and on the matter conceived as -BpyoKila. Phil. iii. 19. — rairsivofpoa,] from
the point of view of the fiilse teachers (comp. ver. 18), what they thus
designated; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as in all false
humility, they with sjoiritual conceit (comp. ver. 18, and subsequently Trpdf
rrXyapov. r. aapKd;) took pleasure in Unduly undervaluing themselves — an
ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the 's-BeXo^pyaKela,
and towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and
mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty.' — oi/c ev ripy
nvi.] [XXXV g.] Not through anything whatever that is an honor, not
through anything honorable, by which that repute would appear founded
in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make
the Xdyo; aoipla; appear as repute without honor, i. e, without any morally
estimable substratum on the part of the iDcrsons concerned. The follow
ing Trpdf irXyapovyv ry; aapKd; is also purposely chosen ; in it irXyapov. signifi
cantly glances back to dipeidia, and r^f aapKd; to adparo;, and there is pro
duced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron : for the sake of
fully satisfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a
repute of wisdom, etc, in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to tlie mate
rial-psychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured
among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied ; the fleshly
sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it,
when they see that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise.
What lust of the flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt
by the case itself and also by ver. 18, namely, that of religious conceit and
pride, which through the Xdyov aofia; exeiv feels itself flattered and gratified
in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have
given of oi/c cv nyy nvi, irpb; rrXyapovrjv ry; aapKd;, is held in substance, fol
lowing Hilary ("sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est"), by Bengel,
Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, Steiger, Bahr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others.
Most, however, refer ev nyy nvi to the honor to be shown to the body (or
the odpf, see Luther), and Trpdf irXyay. r. aapK. to bodily satisfaction, so that
the sense results : not in some esteeming of the hody to the satisfying of bodily
wants;'' " sentit apost,, sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, pej quae
corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, i. e. justam refectionem
carnis, subtrahatur," Estius,* It is fatal to this view : — (1) that ev nyy rivi,
as is shown by the repetition of cv, is the contrast not merely to 'sv dipeidla
adparo;, but to the entire connected ev i-BeXo-BpyoKela . . . adyaro;, and hence
the reference to the honor to be shown to the body does not seem justified

1 On dipeiSia, comp. Plat, Defln.p. 412 D ; Plut. fasting, labor, or impossible chastity, as the
Mor. p. 762 D ; further, dipeiSelv ^iov, Thuc. ii, doctrine of men would do," Luther's gloss,
43. 3 ; ipvxv^i Soph. El. 968 : a-w/iarw;. , Lys. ii, 3 So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of
26, Diod, Sic, xiii, 60, Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo-
2 "God will have the body honored, t,e, it is phylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanch-
to have its food, clothing, etc, for its neces- thon, Calvin, Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Eras-
sitics, and not to be destroyed with intolerable mus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius,

NOTES. 331
by the context ; ' (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfac
tion at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a irpdvoiav ry;
aapKd; in view, as in Rom, xiii. 14, the term irXyapovyv would be very inap
propriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false
teachers, since it denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Ex, xvi, 3 (see
generally the passages from the LXX, and Apocrypha quoted by Schleus
ner, Thes. IV, p. 375 f,) ; '' (3) finally, that the interchange of adyaro; and
aapKd;, in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character,
would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, aapKd;
stands in as ingenious correlation with auparo;, as irXyapovyv with dfsidla.
These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewald's view; "what seems
very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfac
tion of the fiesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not
wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it " (2 Cor. x. 3).
Hofmann finally takes rrXyapov^ r. aapKd; rightly, but explains oi/c ev npy
nvi in such a way as to make nvi masculine, and to attach it as appropriat
ing dative to npy : " not so that honor accrues to any one." This is to be
rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing nyy nvo;,
would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be mis
understood by rivl, which every reader was led to join as a feminine with
Tt^T; (" in honore aliquo," Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what sub
jects, beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to
conceive to ourselves under rtvi taken as masculine.

Notes by Amebican Editor.
XXXI. Vv. 1-5.
(a) ydp of ver. 1 evidently connects this verse with ii. 29, because of the words
dydva and dyavi^dysvo;. The "conflict," however, is to the end (etf & i, 29) of
presenting every man perfect in Christ, We may believe, therefore, that in ver,
1 the Apostle confirms and unfolds the idea of dyavi^dpsvo; as bearing upon all, by
calling attention to the great dyav which he has even for those whom he had never
seen. The connection of the thought, accordingly, as well as the indications of the
verse itself which are pointed out by JVIeyer, proves that Paul had no personal
acquaintance with the Colossians— that is, that the Colossians and Laodiceans were
of the same class of persons with the 'daoi.—{b) That dydva and dycjvif , refer promi
nently to inward struggle— anxiety, prayer, etc— is rendered probable both by the
Apostle's condition at the time and by the words used in iv, 12. But the connec
tion of thought with the beginning of the paragraph in which these verses should
be included (i. 24^ii. 7), suggests a reference, also, to roi; ira-Bypaaiv iirip ipdv . . .
dvravairXyp K.r.X. of i, 24,— (c) Meyer apparently regards cv dydiry as suggesting
Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nosselt, regard to Trpbs ttAtio-/!, t, crap/c, follows our
Rosenmiiller, and others, including de Wette view,
and Baumgarten-Crusius, ''Comp. Plat, Legg. viii, p, 837: Xen, Mem.
iThis applies also in opposition to OLshau- iii, 11, 14, rep. Lac. 2, 6, Cyrop. iv, 2. 40, Ages.
sen, who in the case of iv Tt/ti) nvi follows the 6, 1 ; Lucian, Nigr. 33, Ep. Saturn. 28 ; Polyb.
explanation of respect for the body, but with ii, 19. 4.

332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
that union of love which is connected with the removal of heretical division.
That there is a reference in the following words to the mystery of God as contrasted
with the ideas of the heretics, can hardly be doubted, but whether this is intended
in dydrry is more questionable. There seems to be no objection to the under
standing of this word in its ordinary more general sense. (Comp. iii. 14).
{d) The textual reading at the end of ver. 2 which adopted by most of the recent
critics and commentatoi-s is rov -Beov Xpiarov. So Tisch., Treg., W. & H., Lachm,,
R, V,, Mey,, Blk,, Huther, Hofm,, Lightf, Ell,, and others. That the various
other readings which are found are derived from this one, or from the simple roi
•Beov (whioh Alf. favors), is evident to any one who will observe how easily and
naturally they grow from the shorter into the longer forms. W. & H. claim that
the latter of these two readings, as well as the others, is unquestionably derived
from the former. It must be admitted that the omission of Xpiarov by copyists is
somewhat more easily accounted for, than its insertion. But whether the omis
sion can be affirmed as, beyond question, the origin of the reading tov iJeoi may be
doubted. Dr. Hort suggests that rov iv Xptara may not improb;:bly have been the
original text, and Dr, "VVestcott, who apparently does not agree with him in this
view, joins him in excepting the reading roi -Beov iv Xpiara from those which are
clearly derived from roi iJeoi Xpiarov. This derivation would seem, however, to
be a very natural one — some copyist attempting to explain the difficulty of the
genitive Xp, by ev Xp. Dr. Hort's view hardly accounts satisfactorily for the
appearance of Beoi in the several texts, for, if the original reading had been roi
pvarypiov rov iv Xpiara, this expression which is simple and Pauline would not
have been likely to suggest a change, and especially a change to so difficult a
reading as rov Qsov Xpiarov. Dr, Scrivener, in his Introd, to the Criticism
of the N. T., 3d Ed., p. 635 f. says, " We may unhesitatingly reject the short
est form roi Beoi . . , "We would gladly adopt rov Qeov Xpiarov, so powerfully
do internal considerations plead in its favor, were it but a little better sup
ported : the important doctrine which it declares. Scriptural and Catholic as that
is, will naturally make ns only the more cautious in receiving it unreservedly.
Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows upon us, as the source
from which all the rest are derived. At present, perhaps, roi i?eoi irarpb; rov
Xpiarov may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of
so many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice to turn the
critical scale." This is the reading of S *AC 4, Sahid. Vulg. am. fu. (i<* omitting
Toi before Xp.), but it is so difficult to suppose that irarpd; should have been omit
ted if this were the first text, and so easy to account for its insertion if the original
text were rov Beoi Xpiarov, that we must agree with W. & H., wdio would place
this reading among those which are undoubtedly derived from roi -Beoi Xpiarov.
On tbe whole, r. &. Xp, is to be regarded as the true text, though not sustained by
as many authorities as might be desired (B. Hilar,), and involving considerable
difficulties, (e) If the reading roi -Bsov Xpiarov is adopted, what is the construction of the
word "S-piarov ? This question has received three answers, which are mentioned
by Meyer and which seem to exhaust the probabilities of the case. These are (1)
that which makes Xp, appositional with -Beori ; (2) that which makes it apposi
tional with yvarypiov ; (3) that which makes it depend on i?coi, — the God of Christ.
Huther mentions (4) that which makes it depend on pvarypiov, in whioh case
the meaning apparently is, God's mystery belonging to Christ, or the divine mystery

NOTES. 333
of Christ, This fourth explanation is so improbable, however, that it may be set
aside, the form of expression being a strange and unnatural one to set forth the
idea. Of the other three, Meyer adopts the third. That this construction is
allowable must be admitted. That it is in harmony, as to the idea involved, -with
the expression the God of our Lord Jesus Christ in Eph, i, 17, must also be
granted. It is to be observed, however, that there is no occasion here for speak
ing of the God of Christ, whereas, on the other hand, the object which the
Apostle has in view in the preceding and following context is to represent Christ,
in His relation to God, as the exact image of God and as having in Himself the full
ness of Deity, and, in 'His relation to Divine truth, as containing in Himself the
completeness of the pvarypiov. Everything in the context, therefore, would sug
gest to the intelligent reader the connection of yLpiarov in the way of apposition
either with -Beov or pvarypiov; and the Apostle might well suppose, under the
circumstances, that the reader would not be misled by reason of the possibility,
or — as viewed with respect to many sentences — the naturalness, of making it
dependent on i^coi. The probabilities of the case, accordingly, are strongly
against Meyer's view. The decision of a question of this sort is peculiarly de
pendent on the character of the thought which an author is developing in the
passage under consideration.
Assuming, then, that the gen, Xp, is a genitive of apposition, the first and
second explanations already mentioned present themselves. As between them,
preference must be given, we think, to the second, for the following reasons: (1)
because the purpose of the Apostle in setting forth the Divine in Christ, in this
Epistle, seems to be to present Him as the one who reveals God, as the image of
the invisible one, as the one by whom God works in creation and redemption, as
having embodied, as it were, in Himself the treasures of Divine wisdom, as pos
sessing, indeed, the fullness of Deity, which dwells in Him bodily ; but not to pre
sent Him as d &ed; ; — to set Hira forth, that is, as having Deity indeed, yet in His
distinction from God the Father. To understand the words of this second verse
as meaning the God Christ seems out of harmony with the particular purpose of
the writer. This purpose was determined, undoubtedly, by the position and
views of the heretical teachers, who thought of a large number of emanations or
angels as the means by which the hidden God comes into contact with the world,
Paul, on the contrary, proclaims the one Divine Son of God's love as the creator
and redeemer, the revealer of God and His truth. To call Him the God Christ was
outside of his line of thought, and might even appear to interfere with its best and
most direct progress ; (2) because this expression, the God Christ, is not found else
where in the Epistles of this period of Paul's life, or, indeed, in any of his Epistles,
The word ^ed; is applied to Christ, probably, in Bom, ix, 5 ; possibly or probably,
in Tit, ii. 13 ; according to some interpreters, in 2 Thess, i, 12 ; Eph, v, 5 ;
according to what is not improbably the correct reading, in Acts xx. 28 ; accord
ing to some authorities, in 1 Tim, iii, IC ; but we do not discover such a phrase as
this— <Ae God Christ, rov -Bsov Xpiarov— in use by Paul; (3) because the passage in
the preceding context which apparently draws nearest in thought to the present
yerse— namely i. 27— sets before us God as willing to make known the mystery
which is Christ. In view of the fact that the words now under consideration fol
low so soon after this sentence whose meaning cannot be mistaken, as well as of
the fact that the prominent words in the two verses are the same, and that the pos-
sibiUties of construction allow of the same interpretation in the latter as in the

334 THE EPISTLE OP PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
former, it must be regarded as quite improbable that the writer gives expression
here to a different and new idea. The explanation of the genitive Xp, as in appo
sition with pvarypiov, the mystery of God, even Christ, is favored by B. V,, Lightf,
Ell,, Davies, "W, & H. appy., Davidson tr. appy., and others.
(/) 'Ev u is referred by !Meyer to pvarypiov. If his view of rov Bsov Xpiarov
is adopted, this reference may probably be regarded as correct. But if Xpiarov is
to be taken as ;ippositional with yvarypiov, u in all probability has Xp, as its
antecedent, Christ is the mystery, and in Him all the treasures are hidden, — (</) i
Meyer regards dirdicpvipoi as an attributive adjective to Byaavpoi, being placed at
the end simply for emphasis. It is evidently possible to explain it in this way,
but the adjective may be, also, a secondary predicate, as Lightf, and several others
take it, — {h) Iovto of ver, 4 is to be referred to vv. 1-3 (as Meyer says) ; 'Iva
denotes the end in view with which those verses were -written ; and the following
words may be regarded as- having reference to the deceiving and misleading per
suasive discourse of the Colossian errorists. These errorists were drawing the
members of the church away from faith in Christ to the idea of a Jewis^h Alex
andrian or Oriental philosophizing- -worship of angels, mysteries, etc., which
denied the true idea of Christ and the true view of the Divine my.stery, —
(i) Vv. 6, 7, press upon the readers, in view of the fact that in Christ are the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and of the danger of their being led astray
by harmful persuasions, the exhortation to continue steadily and firmly in that
knowledge and apprehension of Christ which had been given them at the begin
ning. — {j) rbv Kvpiov has, apparently, a certain emphasis (whether correctly ex
plained by Meyer or uot) indicative of Christ's exaltation.
XXXII. Vv, 8-10.
(a) It may be regarded as somewhat doubtful whether a new paragraph should
begin at ver, 8 or ver. 6, B, V. makes a paragraph begin with each of these
verses, W, & H, with ver. 6 (though they also make a half-paragraph at ver. 8),
Treg. with ver. 6, Tisch, Sth ed. has no paragraph at either verse, Lightf makes
one at ver, 8, The view of Lightf is, on the whole, to be preferred, Vv, 6, 7,
are best explained as an exhortation drawn immediately from the suggestions of
the preceding verses and forming an appropriate conclusion for them, Vv. 8 ff,,
on the other hand, turn more directly and emphatically to warnings against the
false teachers, their influence and teachings, and at the opening of the 8tli ver,
the second part of the Epistl% begins,
(6) The very strong word avXayaydv carrying off as prey, which is used in the
N, T, only in this place, indicates the spirit and effectiveness of the errorists, and
the completeness of the separation from the Gospel which would re.sult for the
Colossians, if their efforts should not be resisted. It is a stronger expression, if
possible, even than tliose which we find describing the work of the Judaizing
teachers in Galatia, — (c) The two phrases, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, occur again, though not precisely in the same form or
connection, in vv, 20, 22, The expression rd aroixsla Toy Kdapov occurs, also,
in Gal, iv. 3. In that passage, as may be inferred from the indications of the
chapter, it has reference both to the Gentile and Jewish religious systems — the
latter, so far as it had been ceremonialized and turned into a mere human system
by the Pharisees or others of the time. Out of the former of those systems the

NOTES. 335
Galatian converts had mainly come into Christianity ; into the latter they were
in danger of falling away. But they were going back into the aroixeia, as they
had come out of them, Gal, iv. 9. In this Epistle, the two elements of Gentil-
ism and Judaism seem to be joined in one, making up the system opposed to the
Christian truth, a Judaico-Gnostic theosophy and asceticism. But the later and
compounded system waa /ctird rd aroixeia roi iidapov as truly, and for the same
reason, as either of the earlier and simpler systems. In all the places where the
words occur, aroixeia apparently refers to the rudimentary character of the sys
tems alluded to, as contrasted with the higher and more complete doctrine re
vealed throtgh Christ, and Koapov refers to the world (i. e. mankind) apart from
God. This meaning of Kdapov seems more probable than that which connects it
with external or sensuous things, — {d) 'dn of ver, 9 is immediately connected
with oi Kara Xpiardv, but, at the same time, it introduces that which is the
ground of the warning against the deceitful philosophy.
(e) "Whether we take rrX-ypupa as signifying that by ¦which the person or thing
expressed by the following genitive is made full, (which is the only signification
derived from rrXypda in the sense of to fill, that will satisfy the demands of
every passage where the word occurs in the X. T.), or that which is completed, and
thus equivalent to the plenitude (from irXypda as meaning to complete), the
declaration of this verse is, that the Divine essence in its fullness is in Christ.
This is proved by every indication and element of the passage — by this word
irXypapa as connected with Bedryro; ; by Bsdry;, the full significance of which,
as distinguished from Betdry; (as in Bom, i, 20), cannot be set aside ; by the fact
that, in the following verse. He is said to be the head of every principality and
power, i, e. exalted above the highest angels; by the apparent contrasting of
Christ, as h.aving in Himself the irXypuya, with the angelic mediators as con
ceived of by the heretics. This indwelling in Him of the ir2.vpupa ry; Bsdryro;
is the verv truth from which the false philosophy, (comp. the yvdai; falsely so
called, 1 Tim, vi, 20) was endeavoring to draw the Colossians away. To Paul's
mind it was a vital and central truth of that system in whioh, as they had
received Christ, he would have the readers continue firmly established ; and be
cause it was so vital and central, every opposing system was Kara aroixsla rov
Kdapov — a mere rudimentary, imperfect, even deceitful, philosophy of the unspir
itual world, — (/) KaroiKsi is a continuous present, like iarlv of i, 15, 18, Though
spoken from the standpoint of the present, it extends in its meaning over the
past and as Lightf. says /carot/cet , . . Bsdryro; answers to John i. 1, and aapa-
TiKu; to John i. 14. The approximation of the Pauline thought, in this Epistle,
to that of John, in the Prologue of the Gospel, can scarcely fail to be observed by
the careful student.
{g) R, V. and many commentators agree with Meyer in making eari of ver.
10 depend on bn, and there can be little doubt that this is the correct view.
Meyer's view with respect to ireirXypayivoi is also correct. This participle is
suggested by and closely connected with nXfipuya oi ver. 9, but it does not re
quire the supply of a genitive from i^edr^rof, nor does the connection between
the two words show that irXypapa r^f pedryro; must be understood in such a
sense as to be equally applicable to Christians and Christ, The word -Bedrv; is,
on the other hand, exclusive of any supposition of this sort. Indeed, we may
beheve that the Apostle has here a similar twofold-thought to that which we find
in the first chapter, — Christ being first presented in relation to what He has or is

336 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLO.SSIANS.
in Himself (also what He does in creation, ch. i.),and then in His relation to His
followers and the Church. — (A) The emphasis on cv avrd of ver. 10, and its
correspondence or parallelism with iv aird of ver, 9 must be noticed (comp.
airdf i. 17, 18), As in Him dwells the irXyp. -Bsdr., (and because it dwells in
Plim), the Church is in Him made full. It is made full out of His fullness, but does
not, in being made full, exhaust it. It receives only that which it can receive —
not the Divine essence, but that grace and likeness to Himself which He is able
to impart to those who are united with Him.
(i) As opposed to the errorists and their views of angels, therefore, the Apostle
in every way brings out the exaltation of Christ and His all-sufficiency. In Him
and Him alone is contained and revealed the whole mystery of God, His great
plan of redemption ; through Him is the work of reconciliation to be carried to
its final result, so that all on earth and in heaven are to reach in Him their per
fected state ; He is the possessor and bestower of the divine gifts and grace in
their completeness ; He is the head of the Church and the one pre-eminent in all
things ; He is the creator of all things, even of the highest angelic powers ; He
is before all things and the head of every authority and dominion ; He has
abiding in Him the fullness of what God gives forth from Himself and is in Him
self ; He is the image of God, the exact expression and complete revelation of
God, As it was such an One that they had received as Lord, the readers were
exhorted, with all emphasis to be established, rooted, built up in Him, and to take
earnest heed that no one should, through a deceitful philosophy, deprive them of
His fullness, by the outgoing of wliich they might hope to be made full. The
bearing of what is declared concerning Christ in these passages, in this Epistle,—
and of the near approach of the statements made in them to what is found in the
Gospel of John, — on the question of the application of the word -Bsd; to Christ
in Rom, ix, 5, may well be considered. XXXIII. Vv, 11-15.
(a) In the words of ver, 11, following after irday; dpxv; Kal i^ovaia; of ver, 10,
and in rdf dpxd; k.t.X. of ver, 15, may be found an allusion to the Jewish element,
combined with the Oriental or Gnostic, in the heresy, as we find the two also
united in vv, 16-19, and again in vv, 20-23. This close combination proves that
the writer was contending, not against two separate and distinct errors, but against
one compounded doctrine. The Jewish element, however, had not only taken
into union with itself what came from a philosophy beyond its own limits ; it had
developed within itself, also, into something more than it had been in its
earlier stages. Nevertheless this element preserved its own striking peculiarities,
and thus we have, here as in earlier Epistles, e. g. in Gal. and Rom., circumcision,
the observance of days, the bondage to rules and ordinances,
{b) The correspondence of the underlying thought in vv. 11, 12 wdth that in
Rom. vi, 2-6, in some of the minor points, is worthy of notice, though the main
thought in the two cases is quite different. Thus the putting off of the body of
the flesh {rov adparo; ry; aapKo;), which belongs to the true circumcision, leads to
the figure of burial with Christ in baptism and a resurrection to new life, as, in
Rom. vi,, the same figure is found in connection with a doing away or destroying
of the body of sin (rd adpa r-ri; dpapria;). The two expressions, bod-y of the flesh
and of sin, are nearly, but not precisely, equivalent to each other. In the latter,

NOTES. 337
the body is conceived of as belonging to a master — so far forth as sin rules over
it, it is destroyed ; in the former, aapKd; denotes the evil principle, carnality, and
this has its dwelling in the body, or the body is conceived of so far forth as it is
fleshly. The figure of burial and resurrection, on the other hand, is precisely
the same in both passages. The reference of amraipivrs; to baptism by immersion
is not necessary here, as it is not in Rom. vi. 4, At the same time, there is
evidently less to suggest such a figure in the other words of this passage, than in
the surrounding verses in Rom,, in which the author, apparently, is endeavoring
to set forth the idea of death by a variety of expressions. This verse, accordingly,
may be regarded as strengthening, in some degree, the probability of such a
reference,— (c) Meyer regards awyyipByrs as referring to the awaking to eternal
life — a resurrection which is, " prior to the Parousia an ideal possession, but through
the Parousia becomes real." It seems better, however, to understand it in an
ethical sense, as most others do, because of the connection with baptism, and
because of the clear use of a-wsTdxpyrs in a figurative sense, and the correspondence
in expression with Rom. vi. 4. In connection with this view of awyyepB., Meyer
holds that cv u /eai of ver. 12 refers to Christ. His reasons, however, seem
insufficient, for, although there is another ev u /cat, in ver. 11, which evidently
refers to Christ, it is not inconsistent with Paul's style to use a similar form in a
new clause with another reference ; and although -we might have cf oi to designate
rising out of the baptismal water, this was not necessary in the present case, since
the whole experience, (being buried and rising), is in the sphere of baptism. The
fact that burial and resurrection are parts of one change points strongly to making
Parrr'iapari the antecedent of a. — {d) After the same manner, Meyer's view that
amisl^uoiroivasv and vsKpov; of ver, 13 have reference to eternal life and eternal
death is to be rejected, and that which explains them of spiritual life and death is
to be preferred. The corresponding passage in Eph, ii. 1 ff. may be compared.
That passage, in all its earlier part, seems to have the spiritual sense ; but, in
avvsKd-Biasv 'sv rdi; iirovpavloi;, it carries the thought, also, forward to the future.
This phrase is wanting in the present passage, and the only suggestion of the
future, if there be any, is in the fact that the spiritual life and death naturally
reach on into the future,
(e) xo,piadysvo; denotes the forgiveness which accompanies, and in thought
precedes, the establishment of the new spiritual life in the soul; i^aXei-ipa; is
really antecedent to xo-P; having been accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ, but
in its application to yplv is contemporaneous with it. rb xeipdypaipov roi; ddypaam
is an expression which is founded upon the thought of the Mosaic Law and
suggested by it. This can scarcely be doubtful, in view ofEph, ii. 15. At the
same timfe, the writer is speaking here largely of Gentiles (ipdf ) and the ddypara
are not conceived of, as in Eph., as separating the Jews from them. There is,
therefore, in the present passage, a probable reference to the Jewish element in
the compound heresy which had invaded this Gentile Church. ypKsv and
rrpoayXdaa; are added to i^aXeifa; as emphasizing the entire doing away with the
law, after the manner of Paul in opposing the Judaistic errors, yet wilh more of
repetition and earnestness than in most other places, because of the greater
seriousness or larger development of the error.
(/) airsKdvadpevo; — with respect to this word, the following points may be
noticed : (1) The word does not occur in Greek writers before Paul, and the deter
mination of its meaning from dirodia and iKdia is doubtful. (2) The verb, in itself,
22

338 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
naturally means to put off from oneself, as clothing, etc. (3) This is the meaning
of the participle in iii, 9, and of the kindred active noun (aTre/ccSvo-tf) in ver, 11,
These are the only places, except the present verse, in which the noun or verb
occurs in the N. T, (4) On the other hand, the representation, which this mean
ing would require, of Jesus stripping off from Himself the powers of evil, as if
they had surrounded Him like a garment, involves a figure which is not found
elsewhere in the N. T,, and which appears scarcely to be in the line of the thought
in this context. The figure in -BpiapPeiaa; is that of triumphing over an enemy
or of leading a conquered enemy in triumph ; idsiypdnasv is also adapted to the
idea of such a triumph. The combination of so different a figure as that of putting
off a garment with this of triumphing as a conqueror, seems antecedently impro
bable, (5) If, however, drreK. can have the sense of spoliare, spoiled of their armor, it
will suit the connection with the other figurative words in a most satisfactory man
ner. Grimm, Rob,, L, & S,, A, V,, and very many comm. agree with Meyer in
giving this latter meaning to the participle, R, V., EU,, Lightf, Farrar (Life of
St, P,) and some others hold the former view, Alf. gives this meaning to the par
ticiple, but refers the dpxai, etc., to the angelic powers as connected with the ideas
of the Colossian heretics. A. B. V, reads despoiled in the text, and put off from
himself in the margin. XXXIV. 16-19.
(a) At the 16th verse, the Apostle tums to a more particular application of the
exhortation, which had been already set forth in a general form. We have here
again, as was natural because of the relation of the verses which now follow to
those which precede, a reference to each of the two elements in the heresy ; vv.
16, 17 and vv. 18, 19. — (6) In connection with the Jewish element, the two points
are mentioned, to which allusion is made in earlier epistles : — the subject of
meats and the observance of days ; and the same position is taken withrespect to
both which Paul everywhere assumes. The Colossian Christian, like the Roman
and Corinthian, was not to be subject to the condemnation of others in these
matters — he was not to let any one sit in judgment upon him {Kpiviru). That Paul
does not here present the obligation of love resting upon the " strong party " in
relation to the weak, and also does not treat the subject on all sides as far as he
does in Rom and 1 Cor., is, probably, owing to the character of the heresy and the
dangers arising from its presence in the Church. As to the general subject,
some suggestions are offered in the Amer. Ed. of Meyer's Comm, on Romans pp.
523-530, — (c) The reason given in ver, 17 for the injunction of ver, 16 is different
from the reasons which are hinted at in the earlier epistles, and the form of
expression is related to what we find in Heb, x, 1. The general thought, however,
that the ordinances of this sort in the law of Moses pass away with the coming of
the Christian dispensation, is abundantly set forth in the N, T, The use of these
words in this verse may be accounted for as showing the exaltation of Christ above
the Mosaic system, just as on the other hand, in connection with the worshiping
of angels. His exaltation above all principalities aud powers is declared.
{d) The verb Karappapeveiv conveys the idea of an unfair judgment against a
person by a judge in the games, which deprives him of the prize that properly
belongs to him. It cannot here have its strict and full sense, because the false
teachers, indicated by pydel;, were not the awarding judges. "With this exception.

NOTES. 339
however, it would seem that we ought to give the word its legitimate signification.
It will, therefore, suggest the notion of hostility (as Meyer says), and of a certain
unfairness or selfishness. The charactei of these false teachers -was, accordingly,
similar, in this regard, to that of those who appeared in the Galatian churches. The
meaning of the verb, as thus given, favors the explanation of ^eXuv which Meyer
adopts. The use of e-BeXo-BpyaKsia in ver. 23 on the other hand, — where the
order of the words it-or.sAip and humility is transposed, and where the force of the ei?eAo
may, not improbably, have been intended by the writer to pass over, also, to
raireivoippoavvy, — may be regarded as pointing towards a somewhat more immediate
connection of this participle with ev raireiv. Kal -BpyaK, — the movement of his will
(desire), as well as of the action KaraPp., being in the sphere of humility, etc. This
connection seems, also, to be favored by the following participles, which are
further explanatory.
(e) The textual reading which omits the negative before ctOpa/cev is adopted
by Tisch,, Sth ed,, Treg,, "W. & H,, Alf., and undoubtedly has the weight of
evidence in its support. The insertion of yy by a copyist is much more easily
accounted for than its omission. If omitted, the explanation of the words given
by Meyer is the best one. The antecedent probability that Paul would have
spoken of intruding into things not seen, rather than dwelUng upon things seen,
¦which has been affirmed by many, may be questioned. All religious ' thought
moves in the sphere of the unseen, but errors like the one at Colossae are readily
connected with visions and, as Meyer says, " the mystico-theosophic occupation of
the mind with God and the angels." The use of the simple idipoKev in such a
sentence as descriptive of mental visions presents, however, a certain difficulty or
improbability, which must be allowed. The word (pvaioiysvo;, with its clause which
follows, would adapt itself easily to either text in this clause. — (/) The connection
of s'lKy with ipvaioipsvo; is to be preferred, as compared with making it qualify
the preceding clause. It sets forth the groundlessness and vanity of the
intellectual pride of the false teachers. The voif of these teachers was not
illuminated by and under the guidance of the divine irvsvpa, but under the rule
of the adp^, the evil principle. It was the adp^ which led thera not to hold fast
the Head, but to move only in the sphere of the unenlightened voif, and, moving
thus, they became puffed up with self-conceit and pride as they gave themselves
up to speculations and visions — thinking of and dweUing in what they believed
themselves to have seen by meaiis of the voif.
{g) The correspondence of the phraseology in ver. 19 with that of Eph, iv. 16
is very noticeable. At the same time, there are differences to be observed. From
the correspondence we may infer, (1) that the relative in ef oi is to be taken as
masculine {KsifaX-y having a certain element of personification in its use) ; (2)
that dipdv belongs more particularly, in the thought, with iirixopyy., (Eph. Trdff^f
aipv; rij; eirixopyyla;), but not so exclusively as to make it necessary to unite it
in the grammatical construction with that participle alone. More probably there
is here, as in Eph,, a corabining of the difl'erent elements into one compound
phrase or statement. The differences, on the other hand, are seen (1) in the
effect upon the general structure of the verses in each case, which is due to the
difference in the connection and purpose of the passages in the two Epistles, In
Eph,, the Apostle is setting forth the object of the gifts and officers appointed by
Christ for the Church, and is thus led to present, under this figure, the growth
of the Church, in the persons of "all its individual members, towards the perfec-

340 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
tion of Hira who is its head. Here, on the contrary, he is speaking of the cause
and characteristics of a certain erroneous doctrine. Those who teach it fail to
hold fast the Head, The relation of dependence of the body on the Head for
its true life, is thus, naturali}', brought out with more emphasis and with an ex
clusion of every other thought, — (2) In this way we easily explain the absence,
in this place, of such words as kot' ivipysiav ev yerpCi ivi; SKdarov yepov; —
oiKodopffv iavrov — and cv dydiry, -which are. found in Eph, — (3) There is, proba
bly, a reference in the word Head here (as there is not in Eph,), to Christ as
head, as contrasted with the ideas respecting the angels which the false teachers
had — not such a reference, indeed, as if this were the only occasion of the figure,
but an incidental one. XXXV. Vv, 20-23.
(a) The passage ii. 20 — iii. 4 is correctly arranged by "W. & H, in their text, as
one paragraph made up of two half-paragraphs (ii, 20-23 ; iii. 1-4), The one
ness of the paragraph is shown by the contrast of the verbs dTrciJdveTC and
awyyip-Byrs, which piesent, in the Pauline figure found in the preceding verses
and elsewhere, the two sides of the change from the unchristian to the Christian
life. The division into half-paragraphs is indicated by the manifest relation of
the earlier portion to what goes before, and of the later to what follows. The
true account of this passage is, probably, this : that it is designed to be a sum
mary statement on both sides, forming a transition from the earlier chapters to
the more distinctly practical part of the Epistle, which begins with iii, 5, The
centering of the thought in the two verbs mentioned above, and the element of
repetition in vv. 20-23, as compared with vv, 16-19, are thus explained,
(6) The same kind of argument is used in ver. 20, which we find in Rom. vi.
2 with regard to continuance in sin. How can we still live in a life to which we
have died ? There, it is sin, to which the Christian is conceived of as having com
pletely terminated his relations, by becoming a Christian ; in Rom. vii. 6, it is
the law. Here, on the other hand, it is the aroixsla rov Kdapov ; but the same
reasoning applies. The fact that the Colossian Christians had died, at their con
version, to all religious systems of the world apart from God, made it unsuitable
that they should allow themselves to have any such system again imposed upon
them. How is it that you are turning again to the weak and beggarly elements ?
(Gal, iv, 9), — (c) The idea, which Meyer suggests, that Christ is also conceived
of by the Apostle as dying to the aroixsla, since He " was born under the law,"
seems improbable. Indeed, the law, as He lived under it, was scarcely of the
aroixeia ; it is only of the Mosaic system as transformed by the Pharisees, etc,
into a mere external system, that this term seems to be applied to it. That be
cause they are said to have died with Christ from, etc, He also must have died
from, etc, does not necessarily follow. By dying with Him they became sepa
rated from these " rudiments of the world,"
{d) doyparlCea-Bs may be either passive or middle. The objection made by
Meyer to the middle, that it involves a censure of tbe readers, is not conclusive,
for the earnestness of the Apostle in urging the matter, -ndth so much of repeti
tion even, may be indicative of an impulse on the part of some of the readers
at least, to yield, and the form of the sentence may be only that of argument,
without implying that they were actually yielding. Apart from this objection,

NOTES. 341
the middle sense is, apparently, more natural : why do you allow commands to
be laid upon you, or, why do you subject yourselves to ordinances — the former, as
presenting more prominently the action of the false teachers, is to be preferred, —
(e) " The commandments and teachings of men " answer to the " rudiments of
the world," The aroixeia are religious systems devised hymen, and what they teach
and enjoin is the doctrine and commands of men. The words as here employed,
however, refer only to one section of these commands, etc, namely, those relating
to such matters as meats, and hence, of course, they are not co-extensive in mean
ing with aroixeia.
(/) The ev before e-BsXo-B pyaKsla is better taken as in than by — denoting the
sphere in which, rather than the means by which. The noun 's-BsXo-BpyaK. is
here placed before rairsivoippoavvy, instead of following it as in ver. 18. The
force of the i-BeXo. may go over to the other noun, and thus define it. If this
is not so, the position of the words is, in itself, indicative of the sort of humility
of which the writer is speaking. The compounds with i-BeXo. which most nearly
correspond with the one here used {s^eXj}(luXdao(po;, i^BeXdaoipo;, woulddie philoso
pher, would-be wise), involve the idea of pretence or falseness. This idea, however,
does not appear to be essential to the i-BeXo, element. In some or even most of
the compounds, the voluntary idea is all that is added to the meaning of the
simple word (e- g. ei?e/lo(5oi/lof, i^BeXoKOKo;, e-BsXdrrovo;, voluntarily serving, will
fully bad, willing to work). The indications of the passage {Xdyov aoipla;, ovk iv
ripy nvi) suggest the former idea as a possibility, but do not render it certain ; the
latter idea is beyond question. The word points, thus, to that sort of religious
service which is characterized by self-imposed rules and worship, and a self-im
posed and, therefore, ostentatious humility, and with reference to the body, by
dipsidia. {g) The rendering of the last clause of verse 23 given in R. V, : " but
are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh " is favored hy Lightf,
Bid,, Bib. Comm., Farrar, and is deserving of serious consideration, if, indeed, it
should not be adopted. The apparently intended contrast of oi/c ev riyfi to ev
i-BsX. K,r,X. ; the greater probability that riy-y means honor, rather than value ;
and the probability that -rrpdf in such sentences has the sense oi with a view to,
as looking towards, the thing expressed by the following substantive is an end,
and not with a view to removing or remedying that thing (Lightf.) or against
(R. v.), are grounds of objection to it.

342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

CHAPTEE III.
Veb, 4. Instead of ipdv, which Griesb, approves, and Lachm. puts in the
margin, but Tisch, 8 in the text, ypdv is read by Elz. Scholz, and Tisch, 7, in
opposition to C D* E-* F P G x min. Arm, Slav, ed, Vulg, It. and many Fathers
(not Origen). A is defective here. Considering this weighty evidence in favor
of iydv, and seeing that the following /cat vpsl; suggested the change of person to
the copyists, as indeed the beginning of a lesson -svith ver. 4 could not but have
favored the insertion of the general yydv, we have stronger grounds for regarding
iydv as original than as a repetition from ver. 3, — Ver, 5, ipdv] is wanting,
indeed, in B C* x* min, Clem. Or. (five times) Eus,, but has all the vss, in its
favor ; hence the evidence against it is not sufficient to warrant its rejection,
with Tisch. 8, as an inserted supplement, — di' d] C* D* E F G Clar. Germ, read
cSt' 0 or c5td. Rightly ; the Recepta, though strongly attested, is an alteration to
correspond with the plurality of the preceding objects under comparison of Eph.
V. 6. — CTTi roif vioijf r, dirsiBsla;'] is wanting in B D* (?) Sahid. Aeth, Clem, Cypr.
Ambrosiast,, bracketed by Lachm, and omitted by Tisch, The evidence against
it is too weak to justify its rejection, especially in the face of the agreement of the
passage otherwise with Eph, v. 6, and of the incompleteness of the thought which
would remain, in case those words were omitted ; Reiche properly defends
them, — -Ver, 7. Instead of roiroi; Elz, and Scholz have airoi;, in opposition to
decisive Codd,, although defended by Reiche, — Ver, 11. Before 'sXsvB. Lachm.
inserts /cat ; considerably attested, it is true (not by B C x); but nevertheless an
addition which crept in easily in consequence of the first two clauses of the verse ;
nearly all the same authorities (not A) have it also before ^KvBy;. — Ver. 12.
Instead of diKrippov Elz, has o'lKrippdv, in opposition to decisive testimony, — Ver,
13, d Xptardf] Lachm, reads d Kipio;, following A B D* F G 213, Vulg. It. Aug.
(once) Pel. Rightly; the Recepta is an interpretation, instead of which d Btdf (x)
and Deus in Christo (Arm. Aug. once) are also found. — Ver. 14. of] A B C F G P
Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. read o, which is approved by Griesb. and adopted by
Lachm. and Tisch. of (x"*) and the Recepta iiri; (x'""*) are emendations. — Ver. 15.
Instead of roi Xpiarov Elz. has rov Qsov, in opposition to decisive evidence, from
Phil. iv. 7. — Ver 16, The /cat before vpv. and iddal; should in both cases be
omitted (Scholz omits only the first), in accordance with preponderating evidence.
Borrowed from Eph. v. 19. — cv x^-p,] Lachm. and Tisch. : ev r-y x^P-i which, on
the authority of B D* E* F G «¦** Clem. Chrys, Theodoret, is to be preferred.
The article was passed over as superfluous. — Following far preponderant testimony
(also s), we must read subsequently with Lachm, and Tisch. 8 : cv raif Kapdiai;
ip. rip Qsa, not; ev ry Kapdia ip. ra Kvpl(p (Elz. Reiche), or: ev ry Kapdia ip, i.
Qsi^i (Tisch, 7). Comp, Eph. v. 19, — Ver. 17. Kvpiov 'lyaov] Lachm.: 'lyaov
Xpiarov, which is to be adopted on the authority of A C D* F G min, vss, and
Fathers ; x has /cup, 'iT^troi Xp, — /cat Trarpi] /cat is to be omitted, with Lachm, and
Tisch,, following ABC x min. vss. and Fathers; from Eph. v. 20, — Ver. 18.

CHAP. HI. 1. 343
After Toi£ Elz. reads Wt'otf, in opposition to decisive evidence ; from Eph, v, 22, —
Ver, 19. After ywalKa; Lachm. has iydv, which, with considerable evidence in its
favor, is the more especially to be adopted, as in Eph. v. 25 iavrdv is found. The
omission easily occurred, because roif dvdpdaiv previously was also without
genitival definition, — Ver, 20. Instead of iv Kvpiip Elz. has rO /cvpiu, which is to
be regarded on decisive evidence as an omission of the apparently superfluous
cv, — Ver. 21. ipsBl^srs] Lachm, and Scholz, as also Griesb,, recommend : irap-
opy'iC.ere, following, it is true, ACD*E-*FGKLx {irapopyl^erai) min, Vulg, It.
Theodoret, ms. Theoph. ; but it comes from Eph. vi. 4. — Ver. 22, Elz. and Tisch.
have bipBaXpodovXsiai;, which Reiche approves. But b(pBaXyodovXsia (recommended
by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm, and Scholz) is the reading in A B D E F G
min. Damasc, Theoph, ; and Chrysostom also by Kar' bipBaXpodovXslav testifies in
favor of the singular. The singular is to be preferred as preponderantly attested,
and because the final syllable AI (a) might very easily bring about the conversion
into the plural. If the singular had come in from Eph. vi, 6, Chrysostom's
reading, /car' bipB., would be more frequent, — Instead of Kipiov Elz. has Bedv,
contrary to decisive witnesses. — Ver. 23. /cat Trdv d, ri idv] The reading 6 edv,
which Griesb. approves, and Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. have adopted, is decisively
attested; the Recepta is from ver. 17. — Ver. 24. rtj ydp] ydp has so decisive
witnesses against it (also x); that, with Lachm. and Tisch. (Griesb. also condemns
it), it is to be deleted as a current connective addition. — Ver. 25. d c!c] d ydp is
decisively attested (also by x) ; h is approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm.
and Tisch. The antithetical de crept in from misunderstanding. — Kopis'irai] The
form Kopiaerai (Lachm.) is found in B D'*** E K L x** min. Fathers. To these
may be added F G, which have Kop'i^erai. The Recepta must give way to the
more strongly attested Koyiasrai. Comp. on Eph. vi. 8.
Contents. — The generally hortatory second portion of the Epistle,
preceded in ii. 6 merely by a special exhortation against the danger of
heresy, does not begin with ii. 6 (Hofmann), but only now, and seeks to
promote in the readers the essential moral direction of the Christian life (vv,
1^) ; after which they are encouraged to lay aside and abandon every
thing which is contrary to that direction (vv, 5-11), and to adopt and
follow all that is good and edifying in a Christian sense (vv, 12-17), Then
follow exhortations in reference to the various relations of the household
(ver. 18-iv. 1).
Ver. 1. f. [On Vv. 1-4, see Note XXXVI. pages 372, 373.] Bt] does not make
the relation problematical any more than in ii. 20, but sets it forth as an
undoubted fact (ii. 12), from which the subsequent duty results, m
syllogistic form, as is frequently the case in Paul's writings (see Fritzsche,
ad Rom. I, p. 325), and also in the classics (Hartung, Partikell. I, p, 259 f, ;
Kiihner and Herbst, ad Xen, Mem. i. 5, 1), The being risen with Christ,
namely, is not meant in the sense of the regenerate moral life (see on ii.
12), but as the relation of real participation in the resurrection of Christ,
which involves as its ethical correlate the obligation rd dvtj t^yreiv.
[XXXVI 6, c] To be risen with Christ and not rd dvu i;vtsIv, would be a
contradiction,— oiv] therefore, points back to ver. 20, and with logical
propriety, since fellowship in the resurrection of Christ is the necessary

344 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
consequence '¦ of fellowship in His death, — a fact which Paul had in view
also in ver, 21, in writing d; t^dvre; 'ev Koaya. The ovv is not intended to
be resumptive, namely, of what was said in ii. 12 (Hofmann) ; otherwise
what comes after that verse down to the present one must have had the
nature of a parenthesis, or a digression, — rd dvu] [XXXVI d,] the
opposite to rd cTrt r^f yy; : that which is in heaven (comp, John viii. 23 ;
Gal. iv. 26; Phil, iii. 14), by which is indicated the Messianic salvation
which, with its future blessings (ii, 17), is preserved in heaven to be
manifested and communicated at the Parousia (vv, 3, 4). Comp. Matt, vi,
33, and the conceptions of the treasure in heaven (Matt, vi, 20), of the
heavenly ;3pa/3etov (ii, 18; Phil, iii, 14), TroAircv/za (Phil, iii, 20), Jerusalem
(Gal. iv. 26). It is substantially the same as dd^av k, ripyv k. dipBapalav t^yrelv
in Rom, ii, 7, As a philosophical analogy, comp. especially the dvtj odd;
in the beautiful close of Plato's Republic, and the farewell of Socrates in
the Phaedo, A liturgical coloring, which such expressions as rd dva (also
rd iv roi; oipavol; k,t.X. in i. 16, 20) are alleged to have (Holtzmann), is
arbitrarily assumed as a criterion of a later age. — oi b X. 'eanv k.t.X.]
furnishing a motive encouraging them to perfect the fellowship. " Par est
enim illuc tendere studia curasque membrorum, ubi jam versatur caput,"
Erasmus. The event of the bodily ascension (but not a definite form of
the process) is here, as in every case where the exalted Christ is the sub
ject of discourse, presupposed. Comp. especially Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv.
48. Notwithstanding the local oi, Hofmann thinks that Paul has con
ceived the supramundaiie existence of Christ not at all locally. Comp.,
however, on Eph, i, 20 and Mark xvi, 19; and see the frequent and
significant ottov 'eyd iirdya and ottov eipi eyd from the lips of Jesus in John,
— ^Ver, 2, rd dvtj] repeated with emphasis, and then still further strengthened
by the negative contrast. The (ppovelre is more comprehensive than (^yrelre,
expressing- not only the striving (comp, Rom, ii 7), but the whole practical
bent of thought and dispositioii (comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p, 62), the moral
meditari, Phil, ii, 5, — rd cTrt r, yij;] e.g. money and estate, honors, comforts,
etc, Comp, Phil, iii, 19 : ot rd iiriyeia cppovovvrs;, also 1 John ii.
15, et al. Neither the contrast nor the subsequent text warrants us in
finding here a further reference to the requirements of the false teachers.
So Theophylact : rd Trept Ppaydrav K. ypipav ; Calvin : " adhuc persequitur
suam disputationem de ceremoniis, quae similes tricis facit, quae nos humi
repere cogant ; " comp, Beza, Michaelis, and others. The hortatory
portion of the Epistle proceeds' no longer at all in the form of statements
1 It is therefore with all the less reason that from iv, 17. Combinations such as these are
Hitzig, p. 23 ff., would have vv. 1, 2 regarded beyond the reach of criticism. According to
e,s"aportionof the reviser's woik," at the same Holtzmann, vv. 2,3 presuppose the destruc-
time denying the integrity of the text in ii. tion of all hopes connected with the eon-
22, 23, declaring ii. 19 to be an interpolation, tinuance of the theocracy, and directly
and very arbitrarily remodelling ii. 17, 18. allude to Heb. xii. 22; even the "sitting
He thinks that the interpolation of iii. 1 f. at the right hand" (as in Eph. i, 20) is
betrays times subsequent to the destruction withal, notwithstanding Eom, viii, 34, as-
of Jerusalem, when earthly grounds of hope sailed. Of the entire chapter, Holtzmann
had vanished, but not extending beyond the only leaves vv, 3, 12, 13, 17 to stand as
period of Trajan, — which is assumed to result original.

CHAP. III. 2, 3. 345
opposed to the false teachers, but in that of general moral exhortations, —
We have to observe, further, that the earthly is not of itself placed under
the point of view of the sinful, which would be quite un-Pauline (1 Cor,
vi. 12, X, 23), but is so as the contents of the striving which is opposed to
the rd dv6) (ppovslv. Coinp, the idea in Matt, vi, 21.
Ver. 3, [XXXVI e.] Assigning a reason for the requirement of ver.
2, — For ye are dead; how then could your mind be directed towards
earthly things I and your life does not belong to the realm of the visible
world, but it is hidden with Christ in God: how should you not then rd dva
(ppovslv ! It is a guide to a correct and certain interpretation of the pas
sage, that this statement of a reason must affirm the same thing as was
already contained, only without special development, in ct awyyepB. r. X.
of ver, 1. This special exposition Paul now gives. Whosoever is risen,.
namely, has died and I'mes, and these are the two points to which ver, 3
refers, — dTre9dvcre] namely, by your having entered into the fellowship of
the death of Christ, This being dead has dissolved in the consciousness
of the Christian the ties that hitherto bound him to earthly things. He
finds himself still in the realm of the earthly, but he no longer lives therein,
ii, 21. Comp. Phil, iii, 20 ; Gal. ii, 20, — ^ t;,uri ipdv] must necessarily be
the life, which has followed the being dead ; consequently the eternal life,
comp, ver. 4, which set in through the resurrection (of which Christians,
in' fact, have become partakers with Christ, ver. 1) — a life which the
believer has, prior to the Parousia, as a possession that has not yet been
manifested but is still in secret {oirra 'eipavepdBy, 1 John iii. 2), a treasure in
heaven, possessed in hope and still unrevealed, destined to appear in
glorious manifestation only at the Parousia. — avv rip Xpiar^] For Christ
Himself, apart from fellowship with whose life the t^uy of Plis believers
cannot have its being and essence, is hidden till the Parousia ; and only
, then sets in His (pavipuat; (ver. 4), drroKdXv-ipi; (1 Cor. i. 7 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1
Pet. i. 7, 13, iv. 13), imipdvsia (1 Thess. ii. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 14), with which also
the drroKdXvipi; rdv v'ldv r. Qsov (Rom. viii. 19) will take place, ver. 4.
Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10 f. ; 1 John iii. 2. — cv ra Betj] in God, in so far, namely,
as Christ, who, according to John (i. 18), is etf rbv koXitov tov irarpd;, remains
hidden in God till the Parousia, as aivBpovo; of God (ver. 1), living united
with God in His glory hitherto unseen, in order thereafter to proceed
from God and to manifest Himself with the full divine glory. But, as
with Christ, so also with our life, which is hidden aiv rtj Xpiara, and there
fore can only issue forth at His second coming from God, and be received
by us in real glorious communication and manifestation through our
amdo^aaByvai (Rom, viii, 17, comp, v. 2, 10). If the coherence of the rela
tion expressed by KiKpvirrai was asserted by avv rd X., so also is its inherence
by cv ra QeCi. The essential part of our explanation, viz. that y t^ay yp, is
eternal life, is held also by Chrysostom, Theodoret {iKeivov ydp dvaardvro;
rrdvre; yyipBypev dXX' oidiira dpdpev rdv irpaypdrav ryv iKpaaiv), Oecumenius
(rcJv ydp dXyBd; Xpiariavuv t^uy ianv pevovaa, ii pev roi rrdpovaa s'lKdva
ydXXov Bavdrov fj l^ay; sxei), Theophylact (Paul wished to show airoif
KaByyevov; dvu Kal d/.X?7V (avra; l^ayv, ryv 'ev rip Qsa, t?)v pfi ipaivopivyv),

346 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Calvin, Beza, Erasmus, Schmid, Grotius, and others, including Baum
garten-Crusius, The accurate contextual connection of this view with
what precedes, and with ver. 4 (see above), excludes the explanation
adopted by many, of ("7 in the ethical, spiritual sense. So Erasmus,
Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Flatt ('¦ the inner, new, blissful life of true
Christians "), Biihr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen,' and others, including
Huther,'' Bleek, and de Wette, who apprehends this life as being hidden
in two respects : namely, as regards the disposition and striving, it is,
because directed to the heavenly, internal and ideal, whereas the life of
worldly men in the common sense is real or manifest ; as regards the
imputation or recompense, it lacks outward happiness, but enjoys internal
peace, and is therefore in this respect also hidden or ideal, whereas the
worldly life, in unison with the outer world, leads to external peace or to
happiness, and is so far, therefore, real or manifest also; the avv ra X.
denotes not merely the spiritual fellowship, but is " at the same time to a
certain extent " to be understood in a local sense (comp, ver, 1), and ev ru
Beu denotes the sphere of the Christian life, or " its relation to the sj-stem
of the universe, that it belongs to the invisible world, where God Himself
lives," Of all this there is nothing in the words, the historical sense of
which neither requires nor bears such a spiritualistic idealization with
more senses than one, but, on the contrary, excludes it as caprice. The ^
C,uy ipdv does not refer to the ethical life of Christians at all, neither alone
nor along w'dh eternal life (Cornelius a Lapide, Estius ; comp. Bleek and
Ewald). On the contrary, it is aptly said by Kaeuffer, de i^ay; a'lav, not. p.
93 : " vitam enim piam et hoiiestam, quam homo Christianus in hac terra
-vivere possit ac debeat, P. dicere non poterat nunc cum Christo in Deo
(in coelis puta, in quibus Christus nunc est) reconditam esse, atque olim
in spleiidido Jesu reditu de coelo revelatum iri ; haec non nisi vitae
coelesti conveiiiuiit." Hofmann's distinction is less clear and definite : the
l^ay is meant as the blessing, in which Christians have an advantage over
the world, by their having participated in the death and resurrection of
Christ, — a life, which is indeed life in the full sense of the word, but which
does not appear before the world as what it is, so long as Christ is hidden
fi-om the world and in God. Notwithstanding, Hofmami properly rejects
the explanations referring it to the holy life of the Christian, and to the
holy and blissful life together. — Observe, further, the difference in the
tenses, the aorist drrsBdvsrs denoting the accomplished act of dying at con
version, by which they entered into the fellowship of the death of Christ ;
and the perfecl iiiKp., the continuous subsisting relation in reference to the
present up to the (near) Parousia.
1" The Hfe of believers is said to be hidden, world knows nothing about it (eomp. Eras-
inasmuch as it is internal, and what is exter- mus : "juxta judicium mundi ") ; in fact, to
nal does not harmonize with it ;" and in 6v ToJ the Christian himself its full glory is not
0ea: God is conceived as the element, " into manifest (comp. Bengel); and by (rvv tw X.
whose essence believers, like Christ Himself, it is shown that the Christian leads such a
are assumed and enwrapped." life not of himself, but only in his fellowship
2 In whose view the Christian leads a life in with Christ. Dalmer gives an obscure and
God, and this is a hidden life, because the heterogeneous explanation.

CHAP. III. 4, 5. 347
Ver, 4, And what a hiissiul future is connected with the y ^uy iydv KSKp.
K.r.X. ! This bright, favorable side of the previous thought is the continua
tion of the proof of ver. 2 begun in ver, 3, detaching them thoroughly
from earthly pursuits and elevating them to the courage of victory;
vividly introduced without connecting particle (/cat) : " repentina luce
percellit," Bengel, which Hofmann fails to perceive, when he objects to
the absence of <ie. The relation is not antithetical at all, — ipavepuBy] shall
have become manifest, have come forth from His present concealment,
namely, by His Parousia. See on ver. 3, — y t^uy iydv] your life, Christ
Himself is thus designated (comp, y iXirl; in i, 27), because He is the per
sonal author, possessor, and bearer of the eternal life of His believers
(comp. John xiv. 6, xi. 25), and this, according to the context, inasmuch as
they have entered into the fellowship of His resurrection : they are ahve '
viith Him {aiv r. X., ver. 3) ; His life is their life. The definite object of
this apposition, moreover, is argumentative, for the following rdrs k.t.X, —
Kal ipsi;] as Christ, so also ye with Him, The two subjects have the
emphasis, — (pavspuB. 'sv dd^y] Comp, awdd^aaBdyev in Roiii. viii, 17. It
means nothing else than the glory of the Messianic kingdom, in which
believers (also glorified bodily, 1 Cor. xv, 43 ; 2 Cor, v, 1 ff, ; Phil, iii, 21)
shall be manifested visibly. The offence which Holtzmann takes at the
use of (pavepovaBai (instead of drroKaXvirrsaBai, Rom, viii, 17 S.) and C"v, pre
supposes a too limited range for Paul's manipulation of language. Our
passage has nothing to do with 2 Cor. iv, 10 f. Nor does it even " almost
look " (Holtzmann) as if the author were conceiving the readers as already
dead at the Parousia. The ipavspaByvai iv dd^y takes place in the case of
those still alive through their being changed, as the reader was aware.
Ver, 5:' [On vv, 5-11, see Note XXXVII, pages 373-375,] Oiv] draws the
inference from vv, 3, 4, in order now to lead to that which must be done
with a view to the carrying out of the pij rd iirl r. yy;. [XXXVII a,] The
inference itself is : " Since, according to vv. 3, 4, ye are dead, but have
your life hidden with Christ in God and are destined to be glorified with
' Christ, it would be in contradiction of all this, according to which ye
belong no longer to the earth but to the heavenly state of life, to permit
your earthly members still to live ; no, ye are to put them to death, to make
themdie" (Rom, iv, 19; Heb, xi. 12; Plut, Mor. p, 954 D) !— ve/cpciaore]
[XXXVII b,] prefixed with emphasis as the point of the inference ; the
term is selected in significant reference to dirsBdvere and y t^uy ipdv, vv. 3,
4. — rd piXy ipdv] means nothing else, and is not to be explained otherwise
than : your members (hand, foot, eye, etc). That these were not to be put
to death in the physical sense, but in an ethical respect (comp. ii, 11) —
seeing, namely, that they, as the seat and organs of sinful lusts (Rom. vii,
23), which they still are even in the case of the regenerate (Gal, v, 17, 24),
are to lose their vigor of life and activity through the Christian moral will
'Comp, Ignatius, .E^jA, S, where Christ is relation to Eph, iv, 1-5, 20, finds the stamp of
designated to dSti/eptTov ryiCiv (yv, also Mag- originality, Holtzmann discovers the conceu-
nes, 1 Smyrn. i. trating labor.of the inier-potofor, whose second
2 In the section vv, 5-17, in which Hfinig, in (and better) effort is the passage in Colossians.

348 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
governed by the Holy Spirit, and in so far to experience ethical deadening
(comp. Rom. vii. 5, 23, viii. 13, and the analogous representation by Jesus
as to plucking out the eye, etc., Matt. v. 29 f., xviii. 8 /. ; comp. also xix.
12) — was self-evident to the reader, as it was, moreover, placed beyond
doubt by the following appositions nopvslav k.t.X. Hence there was neither
ground nor warrant in the context to assume already here (see ver. 9) the
conception of the old man, whose desires are regarded as members (Beza,
Flacius, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, and others, includ
ing Bohmer, Olshausen, and Bleek), although the required putting to
death presupposes that the old man is still partially alive. Nor is sin
itself, according tC its totality, to be thought of as body and its individual
parts as members (Hilary, Grotius, Bengel, Biihr, and others) ; ' — a concep
tion which does not obtain even in ii. 11 and Rom. vi. 6, and which is
inadmissible here on account of ipdv. The view of Steiger, finally, is
erroneous (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), that the entire human existence is
conceived as adya. We may add that the viKpuai; oi the members, etc., is
not inconsistent with the death {drrsBdvsrs, ver, 3) already accomplished
through conversion to Christ, but is required by the latter as the necessary,
ever new act of the corresponding moralitj', with which faith lives and
works,' And in view of the ideal character of this obligation the com
mand vsKpuaars k.t.X. — this requirement, which is ever repeating itself, of
the ethical mortificatio — is never superfluous, — rd iirl ry; yy;] which are upon
the earth, corresponds to the rd iirl r. y. in ver, 2 ; in contrast, not to the
glorified human nature of Christ (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I, p, 560), but to
the life hidden with Christ in God. In this antithetical addition is involved
anelement which j'i(s<i/?es the requirement ve/cptjoare r. p. ip., not expressing
the activity of the piXy for what is sinful (de Wette, comp, Flatt and others, in
connection with which Grotius would even supply rd (ppovovvra from ver.
2), which the simple words do not affirm, but : that the yeXy, as existing
upon earth, have nothing in common with the life which exists in heaven,
that their life is of another kind and must not be spared to the prejudice
of that heavenly i^uy ! Comp, also Hofmann's present view. The context
does not even yield a contrast of heavenly members (Huther), i. e. of a life of
activity for what is heavenly pervading the members, or of the members
of the new man (Julius Miiller), since the t^uy is not to be understood in the
sense of the spiritual, ethical life, — iropveiav k.t.X.] Since Paul would not
have the members slain as such absolutely and unreservedly, but only as
regards their ethical side, namely, the sinful nature which dwells and
works in them (Rom, vii, 23), he now subjoins detailed instances of this
sinful nature, and that with a bold but not readily misunderstood direct
ness of expression appositionally, so that they appear as the/or??i.s of immor
ality cleaving to the members, with respect to which the very members are
to be put to death. In these forms of immorality, which constitute no
1 Comp, atso Julius Muller, v. d. Siinde, I, p, and brightened statue, which, however, needs
461, ed. 5, and Flatt. to be afterwards cleansed afresh from new
2 Chrysostom illustrates the relation by accretions of rust and dirt.
comparing the converted person to a cleansed

CHAP. IH. 5. 349
such heterogeneous apposition to rd piXy iy. as Holtzmann thinks, the
life of the piXy, which is to be put to death, is represented hy its paris.
Paul might have said : Xiyu di iropveiav ; but by annexing it directly, he
gave to his expression the form of a distributive apposition (see Kuhner,
IL 1, p, 247), more terse and more compact after the axvya koB' oXov koI
pipo;. It is neither a sudden leap of thought nor a metonymy, — dKoBapa,]
in reference to lustful uncleanness; comp. on Rom. i, 24; Gal, v. 19; 2
Cor. xii, 21 ; Eph, iv, 19, v, 3. Paul gives, namely, from rropv. to kokvv,
four forms of the _^rs< Gentile fundamental vice, unchastity, beginning with
the special {iropvsiav), and becoming more and more general as he pro
ceeds. Hence follows : irdBo;, passion (the yrrdaBai irrb r-y; ydovy;, Plat.
Prot, p. 352 A; Dem, 805. 14; Arist. Eth, ii. 4), heai; Rom, i, 26; 1 Thess.
iv, 5 ; and Lunemann in loc.^ And finally : 'siriBvp. KaKyv (Plat, Legg, ix, p.
854 A), evil desire, referring to unchaste longing, Comp, Matt. v. 28 ;
Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. 6. 2. Unnatural unchastity (Rom. i. 26 f ; 1
Cor. vi. 9) is included in aKot)., iraB., and 'sm6. kok., but is not expressly
denoted (Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, Bohmer) by ird&o; (comp.
pathici, Catullus, xvi. 2 ; iraBiKsisaBai, Nicarch. in Anth. xi. 73), 'a meaning
which neither admits of linguistic proof, nor is, considering the general
character of the adjoining terms {aKoBapa, imB. kok.), in keeping with the
context, cTrti9-, /ca/c, is to be distinguished from rrd-Bo; as the more
general conception ; the irdBo; is always also err i-Bvpla and relatively
iiriB. KOK-f], but not the converse, since a yyela-Bai or Kparelv ry; iiriBvpla;
may also take place, — k. ryv irXsovs^lav] [XXXVII c] After the vice
of uncleanness comes now the second chief vice of the Gentiles (comp.
on Eph, iv. 19) : covetousness. Hence the connection here by means
of /cat, which is not even, but (in opposition to Hofmann) the simple and,
and the article, which introduces the new category with the description of its
disgraceful character,'-' associating this descriptive character as a special
stigma with the vice of TrAeovefta. In opposition to the erroneous inter
pretations : insatiabU lust (Estius, Michaelis), or : the gains of prostitution
(Storr, Flatt, Biihr), see on Eph. I. c, and Huther. The TrAeovefia is not
separated by the aHicle from the appositional definitions of the piXy, and
co-ordinated with rd peXy, so that the latter would only be "the memberu
which minister to unchaste lust " (Huther) ; for rd piXy ip. can only denote
the members generally, the collective members ; and ev rotf piXsaiv (Rom.
vii. 5, 23) understood generically, and not as referring to particular indi
vidual members, sin is operating with all its lusts, as, in accordance with
this ethical mode of viewing the matter, the collective members form the
adpa Tfi; aapKd; of ii, 11. Bengel remarks aptly that the article indicates
1 Comp. also Plat. Phaed. p. 265 B : to epi^ri- creaturely honor (?) of man," niOo,, the passion
k'ov TrdSoi Phaedr. p. 252 C. which enslaves through excitement of the blood,
2 Looking to the so closely marked twofold and iiriBvpia KaK-ij, all evil desire, ivhich is, as
division of the vices adduced, it is inconsist- such, a morbid excitement of the blood. The
ent with the text to take, with Hofmann, the eM!(emen«o/tte6tooci, thus .sanguinely enough
three elements, dKaeapo-., irdOo,, and e^iSvp., invented without any hint whatever from the
KaK in such a genernl sense as to make dKa- text, is then held to convert the second and
BapHa mean every "action which mars the third elements into cases in which one sins

350 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
totum genus mtii a genere commemoratarum modo specierum diversum. — yri;
iarlv e'ldaXoXarp^ quippe quae est, etc, further supports the veKpucare sjDecially
in reference to ihis vice, which, as the idolatry of money and possessions,
is icar' i^oxyv of a heathen nature.' In 1 Cor, v. 11, the e'ldaXoXarp. isto be
taken differently (in opposition to Holtzmann), Moreover, see on Eph, v,
5. Observe, further, that the addition of the irXeove^ia to unchastity (comp.
1 Cor. V. 11) can aflx)rd no ground for supposing that the author of the
Ephesians borrowed this combination from 1 Thess. ii. 3, and that it was
taken into our present Epistle from that to the Ephesians (Holtzmann).
Comp. also 1 Cor. vi, 9 f,
Ver. 6. This relative afflrm.ation stands in a confirmatory reference to
the ve/cptiaare /c,r,A, above, the emission of which would draw down upon
the readers, instead of the ipavepu-B-fjvai iv dd^y of ver, 4, a fate such as is
here described, — di' b (see the critical remarks) has the significant stress
of the relative clause i on account of this immo-rality mentioned in ver, 5, The
Recepta di' d is to be taken just in the same way, and not to be referred to
the piXy (Biihr), since it is not the latter themselves, but their life -activi
ties specified by iropveiav k.t.X., which call forth the wrath of God, — epxerai]
namely, at the judgment, Comp, Eph, v. 6; 1 Thess, i. 10: y bpyy -y
ipxoysvv ; Matt, iii, 7 : -y piXXovaa bpyy. Hence : ypspa bpyy; in Rom, ii, 5 ;
Rev, vi, 17, Chrysostom well says : Paul warns did rdv ysXXdvruv ef uv
diryXXdyv pev KOKdv. See also on Eph. V. 6. The frequent reference to
the manifestation of the divine wrath (comp. Rom. i. 18 ff.) in the course
of this temporal life (Huther and many others) overlooks the correlation
with ver. 4, and the apostle's conception of the nearness of the Parousia. -
Hence, also, the combination of the two references (Theophylact and
others, also Flatt) is to be rejected. — Respecting the v'loi; r-y; direiB. (the
Jews and Gentiles, who reject the gospel and thereby disobey God), comp.
on Eph. V. 6, and as to this mode of expression generally, Steiger on 1
Pet. i, 14, [XXXVII d,],
Ver. 7, Transition to the following exhortation ; and how touching
through the effect of the contrast ! — cv oif] is, with the reading di' b in
ver, 6, necessarily to be referred to the vioif r. diret-B. : among whom ye also
walked once, by which is meant, not external association (which in fact was
not cancelled by conversion, 1 Cor, v. 10), but the fellowship of moral con
duct. But, even with the reading di' d in ver, 6, ev ol; is to be taken
(comp, Eph, ii. 2 i.) as inter quos (Vat.ablus, Rosenmiiller, de Wette,
Schenkel, Bleek), and not to be referred, as it commonly is (Chrysostom,
however, seems to understand it as masculine) to the vices named in ver.
5, because the relative most naturally attaches itself to what immediately
precedes, in order to continue the discourse, and because, if ev oif refer to
the sins, then ef^re cv roiroif once more asserts substantially the same
against his mon body,— a characteristic point, ' It has been well said by Theodoret : eireiSij
which Paul has not in view at all in connec- to p.ap.uivd Kipiov 6 o-arnp Trpoo-ijydpevo-e, SiSa-
tion with the apposition to tA fteXT, k.t.K., as a-xiav, <is 6 rw TrdBei Ti)9 wAeoveJias SovKevav <os
Is plain from the appended k. ,. nKtove^iav ®eov r'ov -irKoinov ri.p.d.
belonging to the same apposition.

CHAP. III. 6-8. 351
thing, so that the discourse gains nothing in thoughtfulness through the
two verbs, as in Gal. v. 25, but is unduly amplified. The distinctions
which in this case have been attempted between irspnrarsiv and Cv^" still
make the one or the other appear as self-evident. See e.g. Calvin : vivere
and ambulare are distinguished from each other like potentia (comp.
Grotius : " moveri ") and actus, the former preceding and the latter fol
lowing ; Beza (and Estius) : vivere denotes naturae hahitum, ambulare,
ivipysiav ipsam ; Biihr (comp, Olshausen and Reiche) : the former refers
more to the disposition, the latter to the outward conduct ; Hofmami :
the state of life {O^yrs), with which the conduct in detail {irepieirar,) harmon
ized, — 'ore a^yre ev roiroif] i^yrs stands emphatically and pregnantly first :
when ye lived in these, i. e, when ye were alive therein, inasmuch as the
arrs-Bdvers of ver. 3 had not yet set in in your case, the requirement of the
vsKpovv in ver, 6 was still strange to you, and these disgraceful things
formed the element and sphere of activity of your life. On l^yv, to be alive,
in contrast to the being dead, comp, Rom. vii, 9 ; 2 Cor, xiii, 4; also Col.
ii, 20; ev rovroi;^ is neuter, grouping together demonstratively, and setting
forth contemptuously, the states of vice spoken of. According to Flatt,
Bohmer, and Huther, it is masflM?me.- "then, when ye belonged io the chil
dren of disobedience,'' so that (yv iv Kdapa (ii. 20) and dvaarpiipsiv iv ra Kdap(ji
(2 Cor. i, 11) would have to be compared. In opposition to this view it
maj' be urged that ore i^yre iv roiroi;, in this sense, would be a very mean
ingless and superfluous more precise designation of the ttotc, whereas,
according to the view above adopted, it is thoughtful and characteristic,^
On the change from the merely historical aorist to the descriptive imper
fect, lending a lively color to the representation, and claiming the closer
attention of the reader who had passed more rapicUy over the irepieirar.,
comp, Kuhner, II, 1, p, 133, and Reisig, ad Soph. 0. C, p, 254 f,
Ver. 8, Nvvi di] In contrast to the past, which has just been described :
hut now, when ye are no longer alive in those things, — /cat i,ucif] does not
refer to the fact that the Ephesians also are thus exhorted (Eph, iv, 22, 25,
81), as Holtzmann here contrives critically to suggest ; but as /cat vp. in
ver. 7 reminded the readers of the immoral pre-Christian society, which
they also had formerly resembled, so this koi ipel; reminds them of the
moral Christian society, which they also ought to resemble now, — rd Trdvra]
the whole oi these, i. e. the things indicated by ev roiroi; without any
exception; ye shall retain nothing of them, "ne quid veneni resideat"
(Grotius). To this rd Trdvra the apostle then annexes directly and in
rapid asyndetic continuation yet other sins, which are likewise to be left off.
Bleek erroneously takes bpyyv k.t.X. as in apposition to rd irdvra; for the
latter can only be retrospective (comp. Hofmann), and cannot, consist
ently with the text, be taken as meaning, " everything that belongs to the
old man."—drrdBea6s] like garments (see on Eph. iv, 22) ; a lively change
of figures ; the conception of members is laid aside.— Bvpdv] distinguished
1 With the Becepta avrot? any other refer- "Hence not to be attributed, with Holtz-
ence than that, whioh 0I5 has, is excluded; mann, to the tautological style of the author,
hence the origin of avrolt. in remembrance of 1 Cor. vi. 11.

35'2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
from bpyiiv as the ebullition, the effervescing of the latter (Eustath, ad li.
i. p. 7. 17).' — KOKiav] wickedness, malicious nature. Comp, on Rom, 1, 29 ;
Eph, iv, 31. — pXaaipypiav] slander, not against God, but against others, as
oral outbreak of the evil dispositions mentioned,^ — -aicT;(;po;ioyi'av] only used
here in the N, T, : shameful discourse, which, in accordance with the cate
gory of all the sins here named, is not to be understood of unchaste dis
course, as following the Fathers ' it has commonly been taken (Hofmann :
" obscene " discourse),* Rather : railing speech (Polyb, viii, 13. 8, xxxi. 10.
4), forming one genus with pXaaipyy'iav, but a wider idea.* All the ele
ments in ver. 8 specify the malevolent and hostile disposition ; and the two
last, especially the oral manifestation thereof; hence the addition of c/c rov
ardparo; ip., which, without arbitrariness, cannot but be referred to ftofA words
(so also Bleek), not to a'laxpoX. alone, and is, with Grotius, to be conceived
as depending on the still operative idea of dirdBiaBs, so that it may not be
characterized as a " secondary malformation " (Holtzmann). The readers
are to la,y aside, generally, dpy^v, Bvpbv, kokIov ; and to lay aside from tlieir
mouth pXaaipvyiav, a'laxpoXoy'iav. We are not to suppose any special pur
pose in connection with the addition ; it serves merely for the concrete
representation ; but, if we should regard it as the more precise definition
of a'laxpoX. (Hofmann), or should even, as is often done, by supplying an
sKwopsvopivyv, join it with a'laxpoXoy., or with pXaaii. and a'laxpoXoy., it would
be utterly void of meaning. The special idea of thai which defiles (Chry
sostom), or of the opposite of Christian praise to God (Hofmann), does not
form the basis of the e/c r. ardp. iy. ; on the contrary, it is the conception
in general of what is unsuited and foreign (comp. on vwt cJe) to Christian
fellowship and intercourse, which serves as the presupposition for the
entire exhortation. Comp, Eph, iv. 29.
Ver. 9. Mi? -ipsvdeaBe eif dW.] i. e. lie not one to another, so that eif expresses
the direction of the ipsideaBai (comp, ip. Kard nvo; in the sense of the hostile
direction. Plat, Euthyd. p, 284 A, al. ; Jas, iii. 14), like Trpdf in Xen, Anab.
i. 3, 5; Plat, Legg. xi, p, 917 A ; Lev, .vi. 2, It is different in Susann, 55,
59, It connects itself with what precedes, and hence it is to be separated
only by a comma from ver, 8 (with Lachmann and Tischendorf) ; the
following dirsKdvadpevoi K.r.X. adds a determining motive for the whole dird-
BeaBs . . . dXXyXov;: since ye have put ofif the old man . . . and put on the new,
etc, with which the retaining of wrath, etc, and the further lying (observe
the present ipsid.) would not be consistent; on the contrary, this trans
formation which, in principle, has taken place in and with the conver
sion to Christ, must manifest itself practically by the laying aside of those
vices. Accordingly, the aorist participles are not synchronous with the
1 See on Rom, ii, 8 ; comp, Eph, iv. 31 ; Eev, < Comp, Epictet Enchir. 33, 16 ; Xen, de Lac.
xvi, 19; Ecclus. xlviii. 10; 1 Macc. ii. 49; rep. 5. 6; aicrxpoAoyoOvTM in Plat. iJep. p. 395
Horn. P. ix. 029: Plat. Phil. p. 47. E: Tois E; Pollux, iy. 105; and the passages in Wet-
evno(9K. TOt! opyats. stein; also aurxpoeireoi in Athen. xiii. p. 671
2 Comp. Eph. I. c. ; 1 Cor, iv, 13 ; Rom . iii, 8 ; A ; and respecting the aiaxpol^oyia e<ji' iepois,
Tit iii, 2; frequently in classic writers; in see Lobeck, .A.gtoop/i. p. 689.
Dem. 312. 19 joined with avKoipavTia. 6 Comp. aiaxP'^ ijrea,lJora. H iii. 38, xxiv.
3 See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 136, 238.

CHAP. ra. 9, 10. 353
foregoing {exuentes, etc, so Vulgate, Luther, Calovius, and others, includ
ing Flatt, Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Ewald, and Bleek), bnt precede it ;
they are not included in the exhortation, for which reason 1 Bet, v. 6 f. is
inappropriately appealed to, but assign a ground for it. This is clear, even
in a linguistic point of view, from the fact that -ipsideaBe is the present;
and also, as regards the sense, from the circumstance that if the words be
regarded as part of the exhortation itself, as a definition of the mode of
what is required, the exuentes only, and not the induentes, would correspond
with the requirement to lay aside and to abstain from lying. Besides, ver,
11 is inappropriate as a constituent part of an exhortation, but suits well
as an argumentative , enlargement. Finally, the assumed figurative
exhortation only comes in expressly at ver, 12, and that by way of infer
ence {oiv) from what had been said previously from drrcKdvadp. onwards
in the same figure, though not yet lin paraenetic form, [XXXVII e.]
Without any sufficient reason, and out of harmony with the simple parae
netic form of the entire context, Hofmann begins with direKdvady. a new
period, whose protasis ends in ver, 11, and whose apodosis begins with ovv
in ver, 12 (comp, on Rom, ii, 17 ff.) ; by this we gain only a more clumsy
complication of the discourse, especially as the supposed apodosis has
again participial definitions. The entire practical part of the Epistle pro
ceeds in plain sentences, not dialectically joined together. Comp., more
over, on ver. 12. — Respecting the double compound drrsKdva., comp. on ii,
11, — The terminus ante quem for iraXaid;, is the adoption of Christianity, so
that, by the whole expression d iraXatb; dvBpurro; generically the collective
pre-Christian condition in a moral respect ' is presented as personified.^
Comp. on Rom. vi, 6 ; Eph, iv. 22. — avv ral; irpd^eaiv airoi] not generally :
with his doing (Hofmann), but in the bad sense : along with his evil prac
tices, with his bad tricks, Comp. on Luke xxiii, 51 and Rom, viii, 13,
Ver, 10, The positive aspect of the transformation (regeneration)
wrought by God througji conversion to Christ ; and since ye have put on,
etc, — rdv viov] The collective new Christian ethical condition, conceived as
personified and set forth objectively, so that it appears as becoming individu
ally appropriated by the' putting on. It might, with equal propriety, be
designated from the point of view of time as the homo recens in contrast to
the decayed and worn-out nature of the pre-Christian moral condition
(comp, the veov ipipaya in 1 Cor, V, 7), as from the point of view of the
new, altogether different, and previously non-existent quality as the homo
novus. It is the former here,^ the latter in Eph. iv, 23 (comp, also ii. 15),
1 Original sin is not denoted by the expres- life of humanity, the old has passed away,
sion and the conception to which it is sub- and all things have become new (2 Cor. v.
servient (in opposition to Calvin: "veteris 17). But the old man was individually put
hominis nomine, intelligi pravitatem nobis off by the several subjects through their own
ingenitam-" comp. Calovius: concupiscen- historical conversion to Christ. The XpterTov
tiam pravam congenitam"); it is, however, iveSiuraoee of Gal. iii. 27 is not in substance
according to the biblical view (Rom, vii, 14 differentfrom the having put on the new man,
fl,), its presupposition and the regulative agent ' In the ethical sense Christians are, as it
in the moral character of the old man, were, the veoXaia (Blomfield, Gloss. Pers. 674)
2 With the entrance of Christianity into the of humanity,
23

354 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
where Kaivb; dvBp. is used,' The specification of quality is then further
added by rdv dvoKaivoip. K.r.X. The notion of not growing old (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus) is not implied in veov. — rdv dvoKaivoi-
yevov] [XXXVII/,] The homo recens, so far, namely, as the converted person
has appropriated it as his moral individuality, is not something ready-made
and finished, but (comp-, 2 Cor, iv, 16) in a state of development (through
the Holy Spirit, Rom, vii, 6, viii, 2; Tit. iii, 5), by means of which there
is produced in him a new character and quality specifically differentfrom
that of the old man, Comp, Rom. xii. 2, Hence the present participle,
which is neither to be taken as imperfect (B,-Crusius), nor as renewing itself
(Bleek) ; and dva does not refer to the relation of re-establishment,'
namely, of the justitia originalis (since roi Kriaavro; does not directly
mean the first creation), but only to the old constitution, the transforma
tion and new-moulding {renewal) of which forms the process of develop
ment of the veof dvBpurro;. Conip, Wilier, de verb, c, praepos, compos, p, 10
f. The Kaivdry; of the veof dv-Bp. is relative. In Greek authors dvanaivdo is
not found, but dva/catvtfcj is (Isocr. Areop. 3, App. 2, p. 13; Plut. Marcell.
6), Heb. vi. 6 ; also in the LXX. — eif iiriyvaaiv] is to be taken along with
the following /car' ei/c. r. ktio. airdv, and with this expresses the end aimed
at by the dvoKaivoia-Bai. Through the latter there is to be produced a
knowledge, which accords with the image of God. Comp. Beza. God, as
respects His absolute knowledge, i. e, a knowledge absolutely adequate to
its objects, is the model, with which the relative knowledge of the regener
ate to be attained in the course of their being renewed, i. e. their increas
ing penetration into divine truth, is to be accordant. And the more it is
so — the more fully it has developed itself in accordance with the divine
ideal — the more is it also the determining power and the living practical
agent of the whole conduct, so that all those vices enumerated in ver. 8
are excluded by it, and even become morally impossible, Hofmann
rightly takes /car' ei/c, rov KTia. avrov as the more precise description of
eir'iyvuaiv, though defining the sense to this effect, that the new man
" everywhere looks to, and estimates everything hy the consideration, ivhether he
finds the stamp of this image," But, in that case, an object (Trdvrtjv) would
necessarily stand with iiriyvaaiv, and the idea of dva/cpivctv or doKipd^eiv
-would be substituted for that of iirlyvuai;. The kot' s'ikovo k.t.X. is usually
connected with dvoKaivoiy. and eif 'sir'iyv. taken by itself, in connection
with which Steiger, Huther, de Wette, and Bleek (comp, also Ewald)
arbitrarily adopt the view, that the prominent mention of the knowledge
1 See regarding the difference between the a new life that the believer is regenerated,
two words, Tittmann, Synon, p, 59 ff, raised up, etc, by God, This new creation
2 ^^Renovatus autem dicitur novus ille homo, is not the redintegratio of the first, though it
quia novus guondam fuit in prima creatione," is its antitype, as Christ Himself," so far as in
Calovius- Comp. Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Him the new creation is founded aud begun
Philippi, Doqm. II. p. 375 ff., ed. 2, and many (how, see Rom. v. 15, 17-19, vi. 1 ff.), is the
others. Thus we should have for the veoy antitype of Adam (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 45).
ai-SpajTro?, not the conception of a nova creatura Consequently this passage is only indirectly
.((catvl) KTiai^, 2 Cor. V. 17; Gal. vi. 15), but probative for the doctrine of the image of
that of a redintegrata creatura. But it is to God as innate.

CHAP. III. 10. 355
was occasioned by a polemic opposition to the false teachers and their
tendencies to false gnosis. But how abrupt, isolated, and indefinite would
the etf 'err'iyv. thus stand I No; the subsequent /car' ei/cdva /c.t.X. just serves
as a more precise characteristic definition for the — in theory and practice
so extremely important — point of Christian knowledge. [XXXVII g.]
The expression of this definition in this particular way comes very natur
ally to Paul, because he is speaking of the homo recens creatus, in connec
tion with which, after the analogy of the creation of Adam, the idea of the
image of God naturally floated before his mind, — the image which that
first-created man had, and which the recens creatus is to attain and present
by way of copy in that towards which he is being developed, in the iirlyvu
ai;. This development is only completed in the aiuv piXX.uv, 1 Cor, xiii,
12 ; for its aim before the Parousia, see Eph, iv. 13 f, — roi Kriaavro; airdv]
A description of God, harmonizing with the conception of the veof dv-Bpa-
TTOf, who is God's creature. Comp, on Eph, iv, 24. It is erroneous, with
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ewald, and others, to understand Christ''- as
referred to ; for creating is invariably represented in Scripture as the work
of God (even in i, 16), and especially here where a parallel is instituted
with the creation of Adam after God's image. Comp. Eph. ii, 10, iv, 24,
Olshausen, indeed, understands roi ;crta, air, to mean God, but would
have the image of God, in accordance with i, 15, taken of Christ, who is
the archetype of man. There is no ground for this view in the context,
which, on the contrary, reminds us simply of Gen, i, 27; comp, /card Bedv,
in Eph. iv, 24, a simpler expression, which has found here a significant
more precise definition out of the riches of the apostle's store of ideas
(not a fanciful variation, as Holtzmann thinks) in vivid reproduction, —
airdv] must refer to the vio; dv-Bpurro;, whom God has created by regen
eration, not to r. dv-Bpuirov alone (" which is the substance, on which the
old and new qualities appear as accidents," de Wette), as the orthodox
explanation is forced to assume contrary to the text ; see e. g. Calovius :
" Per irtiaginem ejus, qui cre.avit ipsum, imago Dei, quae in prima
creatione nobis concessa vel concreata est, intelligitur, ad quam nos renova-
mur, quaeque in nobis reparatur per Spiritum sanctum, quae ratione
intellectus consistebat in eognitione Dei, ut ratione voluntatis in justitia
et sanctitate, Eph. iv, 24. Per verbum itaque rov Kriaavro; non nova
creatio, sed vetus ilia et pn'maei/a intelligitur, quia in Adamo conditi omnes
sumus ad imaginem Dei in eognitione Dei." Rather, the divine creation
oi the new n\iin had that primaevam creationem iov its sacred historical
type, and is the work of salvation antitypically corresponding with it,
which the Creator has done in Christ ; hence also Paul has not written
KTlZovro; (as Philippi, I.e. p, 376, thinks might have been expected), but
Kriaavro;, comp, iv, 24, ii, 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; also Jas. i. 18.
Ver, 11, [XXXVII hi] Where all the separating diversities have ceased,
by which those phenomena of malevolence and passion mentioned in
ver, 8 were occasioned and nourished. Comp, Gal. iii, 28, of which pass-
'So also Julius Muller, v. d. Siinde, II, p, 496, ed, 5; see, on the other hand, Ernesti, Vrspr.
der Siinde, II. p. 133 ff.

356 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
age Baur indeed sees here only an extended and climactic imitation. —
brrov] where there is not, etc, ; namely there, where the old man has been
put off, and the veof k.t.X. put on, ver. 10, It represents the existing
relation according to local conception, like the Latin ubi, i. e, qua in re,
or in quo rerum statu, like the local iva,' The relation is one objectively
reed, historically occurring (comi). Gal, iii, 28; Rom, x, 12; 1 Cor, xii, 13),
present in renewed humanity. Consequently ottov is not to be referred
to the iiriyvaai;, and to be interpreted within which, i. e. in the Christian
consciousness (Schenkel) ; but just as little i§ the relative clause to be
joined immediately with eif iiriyvaaiv kot' ei/cdva k.t.X. so that it affirms
that there, where this image is found, all contrasts, etc., have vanished ; so
Hofmann in connection with his erroneous explanation of eif iiriyvaaiv
Kar' s'mdva k.t.X., see Oil vcr, 10, — Respecting ivi, equivalent to svsan, see
on Gal, iii, 28, — "'EXXyv k. 'IovcJ,] national diversity, without taking "'EXXyv,
however, with' Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, in the sense of
'proselyte. — Trept-. k. dKpop.] theocratic diversity.^ — pdppapo; k.t.X.] In the
increasing vividness of conception the arrangement by pairs is dropped,
and the nouns are placed beside each other asyndetically, Paul does not
couple with pdppapo;, as he does again in the case of doiAof, its opposite,
which was already adduced {^'EXXyv, comp, on Rom, i, 14), but proceeds
by way of a climax : Skv-Bv;. Bengel (comp, Grotius) well says :
" Scythae . . . barbaris barbariores ; " they were included, however, among
the barbarians (in opposition to Bengel, who thinks that the latter term
indicates the Numidians). For instances in Avhich the Scythians are
termed pappapdraroi (comp. .also 2 Macc. iv. 47 ; 3 Macc. -vii. 5), see Wet
stein. We may infer, moreover, from the passage, that among the
Christians there were even some Scythians, possibly immigrants into Greek
and Roman countries. — dAAd rd irdvra . , . Xpiordf] the dividing circum
stances named, which, previous to the putting on of the vcof dviJptJTrof,
were so influential and regulative of social interests and conduct, have
no^v — a fact, which was beyond doubt not recognized by the Jewish prejudice
of the false teachers — since the Christian renovation (comp, 2 Cor. v. 17)
ceased to exist in the fellowship established by the latter (ideal expression
of the thought : their morally separating influence is abolished) ; whereas
Christ is the sum total of all desires and strivings, and that in all individuals,
without distinction of nations, etc. ; He '' solus proram et puppim, ut
aiunt, principium et finem tenet " (Calvin). All are one in Christ, Gal.
iii. 28, V. 15 ; Rom. x. 12 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Eph. ii, 14.-'— Xptu-df] the sub-
iComp. Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. iii, 5, 1; mechanically, as is evident from the second
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 331 f. clause. Holtzmann, however, justly denies,
sPor even a 'EWriv might be circumcised in opposition to Mayerhoff and Hokstra, that
and thereby received into the theocracy. the arrangement is so inserted in antagonism
—The fact that'EXAijv stands before 'lovS. (it to the Jewish people.
is otherwise in Gal. iii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 13; 'Comp. on this use of the ri rrdvra in the
Rom. X. 12, et al.) ought not to be urged, sense of persons, who pass for everything, 1
with Holtzmann, following Baur and Hok- Cor. xv. 28; Herod, iii. 167, vii. 156; Thuo,
Btra, against the originality of the passage, viii, 95, 1; Dem. 660. 7; Hermann, ad Viger.
^aul does not arrange the designations p. 727.

CHAP. III. 11, 12. 357
ject put at the end with great emphasis. He, in all His believers (cv Trdot)
the all-determining principle of the new life and activity, is also the con
stituent of the new sublime unity, in which those old distinctions and
contrasts have become meaningless and as it were no longer exist. The
Plelleiie is no longer other than the Jew, etc., but in all it is only Christ,
who gives the same specific character to their being and life.
Ver. 12. [On vv. 12-17, see Note XXXVIII. pages 375, 376,] oiv] for
these virtues are in keeping with the veof dv-Bpuiro;, according to what
has been said in ver. 11 ; it would be a contradiction to have put on the
new man, and not to have put on these virtues. The new moral condUion,
into which ye have entered by your conversion, passing thereby into the
fellowship of equality and unity in Christ described in ver. 11, hinds you to
this by the necessity of moral consistency. The oiv therefore serves for
the introduction of the direct summons by way of inference from its fore
going premises, just like the oiv in ver, 6, but not for the introduction
of the apodosis (Hofmann ; see on ver. 9), as if it were resumptive.
[XXXVIII a.] — ivdiaaa-Bs] ior, although the putting on of the vcof dvBp. ¦
has taken place as a fact historically through the conversion to Christ,
nevertheless it has also, in accordance with the ethical nature of the veof
dv-Bp. (comp. rbv dvaKaivoipevov k.t.X. in ver. 10), its continued acts, which
are to take place, namely, by appropriation of the virtues which the new
man as such must have. — di; iKXeKrol k.t.X.] as it becomes such ; e/cA, r.
Qeov is the subject, and dy. k. dyair. its predicates. The consciousness of
this distinguished bliss, of being the elect of God — chosen by God from
profane humanity for eternal Messianic salvation (Eph, i. 4 ; Rom. viii.
33; Tit, i, 2, aZ,), who as such' are AoZy (through the dyiaayb; rrveiyaro;,2
Thess. ii. 13), and beloved of God (Rom. v. 5 ; Eph. i. 6), — ^how could it
fail to touch the consciences of the readers, and incite them to the very
virtues, corresponding to so high a position, — ^virtues of that fellowship
described in ver. 11, which are required from them as renewed men 1
Observe, moreover, that the iKXoyy r. Qeoi is the presupposition of what
is said by dirsKd-vadyevoi k.t.X. in VV. 10, 11, and that therefore if iKXsKroi
K.r.X. is not inserted without significant connection with what goes before.
It is likewise admissible to take the words dyioi k. yyair. substantively,
either as co-ordinate with the sicXsktoI t. Q. and explanatory of this idea
(" as the elect of God, holy and beloved," Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and
the majority, including Biihr, Bohmer, Pluther, de Wette, Hofmann), or
so that 'sKXeKT. r. Qsov stands in adjectival relation to them (Bleek :
" elect holy and beloved ones of God ") ; but it is more in keeping with
the purposely chosen order of the words to concentrate the whole stress
on 'skXsktoi Qeov. Bengel, connecting as we do, aptly observes: "Ordo
verborum exquisite respondet ordini rerum : electio aeterna praecedit
sanctificationem in tempore; sanctificati sentiunt amorem et deinceps
imitantur." Theophylact (comp. also Steiger) took dyioi as the chief
» For the act of the divine e/cXo-yi), which in calling (comp. ver. 1.5), Comp, generally,
itself is before time, has come into temporal Weiss in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theoh. 1867, p.
realization and manifestation through the 78 ff., and Bibl. Theol. g 88, ed. 2.

358 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
word, wllich is more precisely defined by e/c?.. r. Qsov and ryyarr. {iyivovro
yev ydp dyioi, dXX' oiK eKXeKTOi oidi yyairvpivot. vyel; di ravra irdvra). Neither
supported by the position of the words nor by the context, which does
not suggest any contrast. — airXdyxva oiKnppov] o'ikt. is the genitive of
quality, and the expression is quite similar to that in Luke i, 78, airXdyxva
iXeov; ; see in loc. Hence airXd-} xva is not to be taken here in the abstract
sense {love, so usually), but in its proper sense : viscera, as the seat of
sympathy; consequently : a heart, the moving feeling of which is sym
pathy, Comp. Ewald and Hofmann. The two are separated in Phil, ii.
1. As to the conception of oiKnpp., comp. on Rom, ix, 15 — xpvardrvra]
kindliness, the opposite is diroroyia, Rom, xi. 22, Comp, Eph, iv. 32.'
raireivoipp., humbleness, which is meant here, however, according to the
entire context, not towards God (Bohmer), but (see ver. 11) in relation to
others, as the opposite of haughtiness {i-ipyXoippovelv); Ejph. iv. 2; Phil, ii, 3.
— On irpadr., gentleness {opposite : Eph, iv, 31, and dypidry;. Plat, Conv. p.
197 D), and poKpoB,, long-suffering, bearing with immoral opposition
(comp, Eph, iv, 2, and on Gal, v, 22), ver, 13 throws fuller light,
Ver. 13. Neither the second part of the verse, Ka-Bd; . . . ipel;, nor
dvsxdysvoi . . pop(priv, is to be parenthesized ; for the whole is an uninter
rupted continuation of the construction. [XXXVIII c] — dvsxdp. dXX,]
modal definition of the ivdiaaaBai of the last two virtues, informing us
how the required appropriation of them is to manifest itself in active con
duct : so that ye, etc. This conduct is conceived as developing itself in
and with the completion of the required 'evdhaaa-Be ; hence dvexdpevoi
dXXljX. is not to be regarded as only " loosely appended " (Hofmami) to
yanpo-B. — Kal xapit^dpsvoi k.t.X.] for the endurance (comp, Eph, iv, 2) is to
advance to j)0sitive forgiveness, and not to remain a mere passive attitude.
Observe here the alternation of dX?JiXav {one the other) and iavrol; {your
selves each other) ; the latter is used, because to the xopi^eaBai of the Chi-is-
tians, which they are to show to themselves mutually, there is proposed as
pattern the xapi^eaBai which they have experienced from above, from
Christ. Comp, Kiihner, ad Xm, Mem, ii, 6. 20, — popipyv] hlame, reproach,
only here in the N, T., not found at all in the Apocrj'pha and LXX., but
very common in the classics, especially the poets, also with ejetv, .to find
fault with something-,^ — koBu; nal /c.r.A.] The duty of the xopO^eaBai iavr.
is so essentially Christian and important, that Paul goes on further to
hold up before the readers the great motive and incitement for its fulfill
ment, namely, the forgiveness which they themselves have experienced,
which Christ (d Kvpio;, see thp critical remarks) has bestowed upon them.
Comp. Eph. iv. 32, where, however, the principal subject of the xapiC,eaBai
is indicated, namely, God (comp, ii, 13), who has pardoned in Christ. To
the expression in our passage — .and a consideration of the circumstances
of the Colossian church naturally prompted the emphasizing of the
merit of Christ — corresponds the frequent y x^pK roi Kvpiov -ripdv, Rom.
xvi. 20, 24 ; 1 Cor, xvi, 23 ; 2 Cor, viii, 9, xii, 9, xiii, 13 ; Gal, i. 6, vi, 18 r
iSee generally, Tittmann, Synon. p, 140 ff, Aj. 179, and Schneidewin in loc. ; Pind, Isthm.
»Eur, Phoen. 780, Ale. 1012, Or. 1009; Soph. iv. 61.

CHAP. IIL 13, 14. 359
Phil, iv, 23, There is no trace here of " an advanced Christology "
(Holtzmann). The divine pardon obtained for us by Christ in His work
of atonement (Rom, v, 6 f , 15), and continuously procured through His
intercession (Rom. viii, 34), is in so far His (in the sense that He is the
pardoning s'abject) as He is the procurer, bearer, and accomplisher of the
divine grace (Eph. ii, 16 ; Col, i. 19 f,), and God's love is His love (Rom.
viii, 35, 39 ; Eph. iii. 19 ; Rom. v. 7 f,). The pardon received from
Christ, however, binds us by moral necessity (Matt, xviii, 33; and gen
erally, Rom, viii, 9) to forgive also upon our side; — anything beyond
this, namely, what is contained in Matt, vi, 12, as de Wette thinks, is not
conveyed in the words, but results as a consequence, — /cat ipel;] sc, xo-pi-
^dpsvoi. The context suggests th(is, and not the imperative ; hence the
orderly connection is not broken, and the whole verse contains accom
panying participial definitions, after which, in ver, 14, the discourse con
tinues uninterrupted, — Respecting the double Kai of the comparison, see
on Rom, i, 13, — It is to be observed, moreover, that KaBd; refers only to
the pardon itself, and does not concern the service hy which Christ has
procured the pardon, the death, namely, which the Christian ought to be
ready to undergo for the brethren, John xiii, 34, as Chrysostom, Theophy
lact, and others think, but which would be hei-e an irrelevant importation.
Ver, 14. Ln addition to all this, however, put on love, by which Christian
perfection is knit. In making .-. 'aydnyv dependent on ivdiaaaBs, Paul
abides by his figure : becoming added (Kiihner, II, 1, p, 433) to all those
virtues (regarded as garments), love is to be put on like an upper gar
ment embracing all, because love brings it about, that the moral perfec
tion is established in its organic unity as an integral whole. Thus love is
the bond of Christian perfection, its awderiKpv bpyavov ; without love, all the
individual virtues, which belong in themselves to that perfection, would
not unite together into that necessary harmonious entirety, in which per
fection consists. Not as if the latter were already existent without love i(a8
Schenkel objects to this view), but love is the aivdeapo; constituting its per
fection ; apart from love there is no reXeidry;, which has its conditio sine
qua non only in the inclusion of its other factors in love ; how love ac
complishes this, no one has better shown than Paul himself in 1 Cor. xiii,'
Nor is it as if the genitive would necessarily be a plurality (as Hofmann
objects) ; on the contrary, the rsXsidry; according to its nature and to the
context is a collective idea, with which the conception of a aivdsapo; well
corresponds. It might, moreover, occasion surprise, that love, which is
withal the principle and presupposition of the virtues ' enumerated, is
rdentioned hxst, and described as being added; but this was rendered
necessary by the figurative representation, because love, from its nature,
in so far as it includes in principle the collective virtues and comprehends
them in itself, necessarily had assigned to it in the figure of putting on
garments the place of the upper garment, so that Paul rightly proceeds in
his description from the under garments to the upper one which holds
1 Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49 £

360 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
all the others together, and with whose function love corresponds. Ac
cordingly the absolute y dydrry is not to be taken in any other sense than
the general and habitual one of Christian brotherly love (i. 8, ii. 2 ; 1 Cor.
xiii. ; Phil. i. 9) ; nor yet in any sort of reference limiting it to special
qualities, e. g. as by de Wette : " as active, beneficent, perfecting love." — 6
(see the critical remarks), which, namely love, conceived of as neuter, as
in our "that is." Comp. on ef oi, ii. 19. — aivdsayo; r-y; re'Xsidr^ bond of
perfection, i. e. what binds together the Christian moral perfection into
the totality of its nature, awdeapeiei, Polyb. iii. 42. 8 ; fwcJci /cat ^vyirXiKsi,
Plat. Polit, p. 309 B.' The genitive, which is that of the object, denotes
(it is otherwise in Eph. iv. 3 ; comp. Acts viii. 23 ; LXX. Isa. Iviii. 6)
that which is held together by the bond.^ Taken as the genitive of
quality, it would yield the adjective sense: the perfect bond, "animos sc.
conjungens," Grotius. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius, Estius, Wolf,
Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others. But how arbitrary this would
be in itself, and especially in view of the fact that, in the event of r.
reXeidr. being disposed of as an adjective, the more precise definition of
aivdsapo; would have to be gratuitously introduced! Taken as the genitivus
causae (Schenkel), it would not correspond with the figure, though it is in
substance correct that that, which as a bond envelopes perfection, only
thereby brings about its existence (comp. above). According to Huther,
the sense is : " by man's putting on love he is girt with perfection ; who
soever lives in love is perfect.'' Thus the genitive would have to be con
ceived as genitive of apposition, which would yield an incongruous analy
sis of the figure, induced by the opinion that o does not refer to the
dydiry itself, but to the ivdiaaaBat ryv dydiryv.^ According to Hofmann
(comp. Ellicott), the genitive is meant to be that of the subject, and the
rsXeidry; is to indicate the completeness of the Christian state, of which
love is the bond, inasmuch as it binds Chi-istians together among themselves,
wherever that completeness exists (John xiii. 35). This is erroneous ; for if
in some curious fashion the abstract y rsXsidry; (consequently an aggre
gate of attributes) were to be the acting subject, which makes use of love
as a bond (consequently for the purpose of binding), yet ihe Christians
among themselves could not be conceived as the object of that binding,
but only the Trdvra ravra in accordance with the immediate context (cTrt
rrdai ds roiroi;). The apostle would have been able to express the tenor

1 Chrysostom (though mingling with it the girdle, as Clericu,s, Ewald, and Schenkel make
foreign figure of the root) aptly says : ovyKpd- it do. But to that view the ev&caaaQe to be
Tijo-ts Tojv rr,v TeKetoTTjra TToioiivTuiv. Comp, supplied would be contextually less suitable
Theophylact: Trdvra exeivd, i^irjaiv, aiirn (Tva- (comp, Eph, vl, 14) ; while after what has gone
.^t'yyei irapovira- airoutnjs 5e SloKiiovTat /cat e\ey- before the reader wouid most naturally think
;^ovTat v-iToKpim-r ovra KoX oiiSev. of love simply as a garment, and not as the
2Comp, Plat, Rep. p. 616 C: eivat ydp TOVTO girdle, "which holds together all individual
TO ipCi^ ^vv8ea-p.ov rov oiipavoH . . . Trao-av ^vvexov efforts towards perfection " (Ewald). Besides,
Ti)v Trepi0opdv, also p. 520 A : tov ^iivSeap-ov Tr/i it would not at all be easy to see why Paul
TToAeo)?, Polit. p. 310 A ; tov ^livSeap-ov dperrji should not have used the definite word ^wvrj
p.epijiv (^vo-efa)? dvOjLLOt'a/v. instead of o-iJvSeiTjLLOs.
3 tn/vSeo-fAos, namely, would apply to the

CHAP. in. 15. 361
of thought forced upon him by Hofmann simply and clearly by some
such phrase as 6 (or of, or -ijn;) 'san aivdeapo; rdv iv Xpiarip reXeluv (comp,
i, 28), Others take it as the sum of perfection. So Bengel, Zachariae,
Usteri, Bohmer, Steiger, de Wette, Olshausen (" inasmuch as it compre
hends in itself — bears, as it were, bound up in itself — all the individual
a.spects of the perfect life, all virtues "). Comp. on the subject-matter.
Bom. xiii, 10, This explanation cannot be justified linguistically (not
even by Simplic, Epictet. p, 208, according to which the Pythagoreans
termed friendship : aivdeayov rraadv ruv dperdv, i. e. the bond which knits
all the virtues together), unless we take avvdeapo; in the sense of a bundle,
as Herodian uses it, iv, 12, 11 (Trdvra rdv aivdsayov rdv imaroXdv), which,
however, even apart from the singular form of the conception in itself,
would be unsuitable to the context, since love is to be added to all the
previously enumerated elements of perfection, and may therefore well
be termed the bond that holds them together, but not their bundle, not
the sum of them. The word aivdeapo; itself, which except in our two
parallel epistles does not occur in Paul's writings, is too hastily assigned ¦
by Holtzmann " to the range of language of the Auctor ad Ephesios." As if
we had the whole linguistic range of the copious apostle in the few
epistles which bear his name I Indeed, even cTrt Trdat di rohroi; (comp,
Eph, vi, 16) is alleged to betray the auctor in question, — In opposition to
the Catholic use of our passage to support the jiistificatio operum, it is
enough to observe that the entire exhortation has justification as its pre
supposition (ver, 12), and concerns the moral life of those who are already
justified. Irrelevantly, however, it is urged in the Apol. Conf. Aug. 3, p.
104 f. (comp. Calovius and other.s), in oppositioii to the Catholics, that
reXsidry; is the inlegritas ecclesiae, and that through love the church is kept
in harmony, as Erasmus, Melanchthon, and others also explained it.
Ver, 15, All these virtues, however, along with the love which binds
them together, must have their deep living foundation in the peace of
Christ, whioh reigns in the heart, and their abiding incitement in gratitude
towards God for the salvation received in Christ. Hence now the further
summons — appended by the simple /cat — to the readers, to let that peace
reign in their hearts and to be thankful. The s'lpyvy rov Xpiaroi is the holy
satisfaction of mind wrought hy Christ through the Spirit, the blessed inner
rest, of which the atonement and justification appropriated in faith (Rom.
V, 1) are the presupposition and condition. See on Phil. iv. 7. Comp.
Luther, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, Huther, de
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. To understand
the peace of mutual concord (the Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius,
Calovius, and many others, also Reiche, Comm. Crit, p. 297), is less in
accordance with the universality of the connection, w-hich here descends
to the deepest ground of the Christian life in the heart ; and besides, the
concord in question already follows of itself on the virtues recommended.
Moreover, there is implied in Ppap. the determining and regulating power,
the supreme authority, which the peace of Christ is to have in the Christian
heart, which suits most fully the above interpretation alone.— /3pa/3evcT(j]

362 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Ppapsisiv only found here in the N. T., but as little un-Pauline as KoraPpap.
in ii. 18 (in oppositioii to Holtzmann) ; it means primarily : to arrange and
conduct the contest (Wisd. x. 12, and Grimm in loc) ; then : to confer the prize
of victory, to be ppapsv;, i. e. umpire (Plut. Mor. p. 960 A; Diod. Sic. xiii,
53); finally: to govern'^ generally," Considering its very frequent occur
rence in the latter sense, and its appropriateness in that sense to ev r. Kapd.
ip., and seeing that any reference to the Messianic ppapelov (comp, ii. 18)
is foreign to the context, the majority of modern expositors have rightly
interpreted it : the peace of Christ must rule, govern in your hearts,' The
conception involves the superintending, arranging, and administering
activity, and that in supreme deciding competence (comp, Ewald and Hof
mann), as it ought to be exercised by the elpiyvy r. X, in the heart, quite
like the German verf'dgen [to dispose of]. Bremi says aptly, ad Dem.Ol. p.
179, Goth, : it is not simply equivalent to dioiKsiv, "sed pleiio jure et ex
arbitrio dioiKslv.'' Chrysostom and his followers have retained the mean
ing : to confer the prize of victory, but with ideas introduced to which
nothing in the text points,* Comp, also Erasmus, Vatablus, and Calvin,
who, however, explain it erroneously : palmam /(?rai, Grotius: "dijudicet,
nempe si quid est inter vos controversuin." So also, substantially, Ham
mond, Kypke, and others ; similarly, Melanchthon ; " gubernet omnia cer
tamina." Comp, Ppapsisiv ipiv (Plut. Rom. 9) and the like.^ But the con
text points to deeper matters than disputes, upon which the peace of
Christ in the heart is to decide. — eif yv k. iKX. k.t.X.] argumentative, sup
porting the exhortation just uttered ; for which ye also {koI expressing the
corresponding relation) were called, etc. ; eif ijv, in behalf of which, i. e. to
possess which pdace, is not the final (vim of the calling, which is rather
participation in the Messianic kingdom, but a mediate aim. Comp. 1 Pet.
ii. 21.— iv ivi aapan] not instead of eif ev atj^a (Grotius, Flatt, and many
others) ; nor yet : " as growing to he members of a single body " (Hof
mann, gratuitously importing), but (comp. Ellicott and Bleek) as the result
of cKXyd-yre, announcing the relation of fellowship, into which the indivi
duals are translated through their calling, and in which they now find
themselves continuously. This abiding condition was the predominant con
ception; hence the pregnancy of the expression (Kiihner, IP, 1, p. 469); so
that ye are in one hody, namely, as its members. The element of unity,
added with emphasis, and that quite in Pauline form (Rom. xii, 5; 1 Cor.
X, 17 ; in opposition to Holtzmann), stands in appropriate reference to
the entire requirement. To have become by the calling one body with
1 The Vulgate incorrectly renders : exultet. hausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Baum-
So also the Gothic, garten-Crusius, Dalmer, and Bleek,
2See for the last signification especially *Theophylact: ii^piaQripev TroAXd/ci5 vird rt-
Dem, 36. 7, 1231. 19 ; Eur. Hel. 1079 ; Isocr. vos- dyiavi^ovTai irap' ijp.iv Koyiap-oi &vo, 6 fiev
.Areop. p. 144 B ; Polyb. vi. 4. .3, xiii. 1. 5, xxvii, ets dp.vvav kivOiv, 6 Se ets p-anpodvpiiav. 'Edv
14, 4, et al. ; passages from Josephus in Krebs, y eip^vrj t, ©eoO o-ttJ ev rjp.iv, iiiinTep tis jSpo-
and from Philo in Loesner, ^evTT]s St'/caios, Tovreari /cptrljs /ca'i dyiavoOenj'i,
3 So Luther (" let it be master and keep you /cal 6(3 to jSpa^eiov t^s vt/c7)s tw /ceAeiiovrt juaicpo-
in all tribulation"), Castalio, Beza, Bengel, ev/xeiv, Trau'o-eTat 6 avTa^tovtoT^s,
and many others, including Flatt, Bahr, 01s- ^ See Dorville, ad Charit. p, 445.

CHAP. IIL 16. 363
those who share in that calling, and yet not to let the holy moral dis
position, for the sake of which we are called, be the common ruling
power of life — what a contradiction I In that case there would be want
ing, to the ev adpa the ev irvevpa accordant with the calling (Eph, iv, 4; 1
Cor, xii, 13), — The mention of this calling — the great blessing which makes
everything, that is at variance with what has hitherto been demanded
(ver. 12 ff,), apjjear as ingratitude' towards God — induces the apostle to add
still further the highest motive of all for every Christian virtue (comp, ii,
7, i. 12) : K. sixdpiaroi yivec-Bs : and become ye thankful (comp, on Eph, iv,
32) ; in which the ylvsaBs (not equivalent to iari) requires the constant
striving after this exalted aim as something not yet attained ; comp, e. g.
John XV. 8. It was nothing but a misconception of that inner connection
and of this significance of ylvea-Be, which led to the taking sixdp. as ama-
biles, friendly, and the like (comp. Eph. iv. 32 ; Prov. xi. 15).^ The lin
guistic use of ei;i;dpfarof in this sense in the classical writers is well known
(Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1, Oec. v, 10), but equally so is also its use in the sense of
thankfid (Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 49 ; Herodian, ii, 3. 14 ; Diod. Sic, xviii. 28) ;
and the N, T., in which, moreover, the adjective is nowhere else found,
has, like the Apocrypha, eixapiartlv and eixapiarla only in the latter signi
fication (comp, ver, 17), the reference of which in our passage to God after
eif fiv K. 'sKX-yB. (it is God who calls) is self-evident, but not (in opposition
to Grotius and Calovius) the mutua gratitudo. The ascription of the words
K. sixdp. yiv. to the interpolator, who is also supposed to have inserted ev
eixapiarla in iv. 2 (Holtzmann), is destitute of ground either in the language
or in the matter of the passage. It is not at all easy to see why ci^dpttrrof
should be "as un-Pauline as eiairXayxvo; in Eph. iv. 32."
Ver. 16 f. The series of exhortations begun in ver. 12 is now closed,^ and
Paul proceeds to give, before going on in ver, 18 to the duties of particular
callings, an encouraging allusion to the Christian means of grace for further
ing the common life of piety, namely, the word of Christ. This ought to
dwell richly among them, so that they might by means of its op'eration
(1) instruct and admonish each other in all wisdom with psalms, etc.; (2) by
the divine grace sing to God in their hearts; and (3) let all that they do, in
word or deed, be done in the name of Jesus with thanksgiving to God.
Accordingly, the previous paraenesis by no means ends in a " loose aggre
gation" (as Hofmann objects), but in a well-weighed, steadily-progressive,
and connected conclusion on the basis of the Xdyo; of Christ ^ placed at the
iSo Jerome, Erasmus (not in the Parap'nr,), mann, p. 54 {,, who finds in ver. 16 an echo of
Calvin -Vatablus, Beza, (()ene./ici), Cornelius a Eph, v. 19, which at the same time interrupts
Lapide,WoIf, Krebs, and many others, includ- the entire connection, and presents some-
ing Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, and Reiche, thing un-Pauline almost in every word (p.
2 Lachmann and Steiger have put 6 \6yoi 164), Un-Pauline, in his view, is o Adyos r.
. . , ttAouo-iius in a parenthesis, which just as Xpio-roS (but see 1 Thess, i, 8, iv, 15) ; un-Paul-
arbitrarily sets aside the new and regulative ine the juxtaposition of i/taAjiois, vp-vom, tjijats
idea introduced by 6 Xd-yos, as it very unnee- (the reason why it is so, is not plain); un-
essarily comes to the help of the construe- Pauline the i&eiv itself, and even the adverb
jjqjj TrAouo-i'cus, How strangely has the apostle, so
3 This applies also in opposition to Holtz- rich in diction, become impoverished I

364 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
very beginning. According to Hofmann, ver, 16 f. is only meant to be an
amplification of the sixdpiaroi yivsa-Bs in ver, 15, This would be a dispro
portionate amplification — especially as ei;i^, yiv. is not the leading thought
in the foregoing — and eould only be plausibly upheld by misinterpretations
in the details ; see below, — d X,dyo; r. Xpiaroi] i. e. the gospel. The genitive
is that of the subject ; Christ causes it to be proclaimed, He Himself speaks
in the proclaimers (2 Cor, xiii, 3), and has revealed it specially to Paul
(Gal, iv. 11 i.) ; it is His word. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 15 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1 ;
Heb. vi. 1, The designation of it, according to its pri-ncipal author : d X.
TOV Qeoi, is more current, — ivoiKsira ev iylv.] [XXXVIII d.] not : among
you (Luther and many others), which would not be in keeping with the
conception of mdwelling ; nor yet : in animis vestris (Theodoret, Melanch
thon, Beza, Zanchius, and others, including Flatt, Bohmer, and Olshausen),
so that the indwelling which depends on knowledge and faith would be
meant, since the subsequent modal definition is of an oral nature : but in
you, i. e. in your church, the ipetf, as a whole, being compared to a house, in
which the word has the seat of its abiding operation and rule (comp,
Rom, viii, 11; 2 Tim, i, 5), — irXova'iu;] in ample measure. In proportion as
the gospel is recognized much or little in a church as the common living
source and contents of mutual instruction, quickening, discipline, and
edification, its dwelling there is quantitatively various, De Wette explains
it, not comprehensively enough, in accordance with what follows : " so
that many come forward as teachers, and often." In another way Hof
mann limits it arbitrarily : the letting the word of Christ dwell richly in
them is conceived as an act of gratitude. How easy it would have been for
Paul to have indicated this intelligibly ! But the new point which he
wishes to urge upon his readers, namely, to let the divinely-powerful means
of Christian life dwell richly in them, is placed by him without any link of
connection, and independently, at the head of his closing exhortation. —
The following ev irday . . . Td Qsd is the modal definition of the foregoing :
so that ye, etc. ; construction according to the logical subject, as in ii. 2. —
ev irday aoifila] Since what precedes has its defining epithet in irXovalu;, and
that with all the emphasis of the adverb put at the end, and since, more
over, the symmetry of the following participial clauses, each of which
begins with ev (ev irday aoipla . . . iv r. xopin), ought not to be abandoned
without some special reason, the ev r. aoip. is to be referred to whatfollowsf
and not to what precedes.'' Comp. i. 28. Every sort of (Christian) wisdom
is to be active in the mutual instruction and admonition. Regarding the
details, see on i, 28, — iavrov;] mutually, among yourselves, comp, ver, 13, —
ijiaXpol; K.T.X.] [XXXVIII e.] modal definition of the mutual e!ttSdo-/cetv and
vovOsreiv, which are to take place by means of (see below, ev xop- ddovrs;
K.r.X.) psalms, etc. It is all the more arbitrary to refer it merely to vovBer.
(de Wette), seeing that the position of i;avToif binds the two participles
1 So Bos, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Beza permits this reference,
Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten- ',^80 Syriac, Chrysostom, Luther, and many
Crusius, Ewald, Dalmer, Reiche, Bleek, Hof- others,
mann, and others: Bohmer hesitates, and

CHAP. III. 16. 365
together, and seeing that inspired songs by no means exclude a doctrinal
purport. The conceivableness of a didactic activity in mutual singing (in
opposition to Schenkel and Plofmann), and that without confounding
things radically diflferent, is still clearly enough recognizable in many of
our best church songs, especially in those born of the fresh spirit of the
Reformation. Storr and Flatt, Schenkel and Hofmami join the words
with adovref, although the latter has already a definition both before and
after it, and although one does not say ipa7ipol; k.t.7,.., gdeiv {dative), but -ipaX-
poi; K.T.'A. {accusative).'^ The dative of the instrument with fdeiv would be
appropriate, if it had along with it an accusative of the object praised (as
e. g. Eur, Ion. 1091), See, moreover, on Eph, v, 19. Concerning the dis
tinction between -ipaXpoi (religious songs after the manner of the Psalms
of the 0. T., to be regarded partly as Christian songs already in use, partly
as improvised effusions, 1 Cor, xiv, 15, 26) and vyvoi (songs of praise), to
both of which iJdal irvsvyanKai {i. e. songs inspired by the Holy Spirit) are
then added as the general category,^ see on Eph, v, 19, Observe, more
over, that Paul is here also (comp, Eph, I. c.) speaking not of dimne worship^
in the proper sense of the term, since the teaching and admonition in
question are required from the readers generally and mutually, and that as
a proof of their abundant possession of the word of Christ, but rather of
the communication one with another in religious intercourse {e.g. at meals, in
the agapae and other meetings, in family circles, etc) — in which enthusi
asm makes the fullness of the heart pass from mouth to mouth, and
brotherly instruction and admonition thus find expression in the higher
form of psalms, etc, whether these may have been songs already well
known, or extemporized according to the peculiar character and produc
tive capacity of the individual enthusiasm, whether they may have been
sung by individuals alone (especially if they were improvised), or chorally,
or in the form of alternating chants (Plin, Ep. x, 97), How common
religious singing was in the ancient church, even apart from divine ser
vice proper, may be seen in Suicer, Thes. II. p, 1568 f. The existence of
a multitude of rhythmic songs, composed dir' dpxv; by Christians, is
attested by Eus, H. E. ii. 17, v, 28, Regarding singing in the agapae, see
Tertullian, Apol. 39 : " post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de
scripturis Sanctis vel proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo
canere." * The asyndetic (see the critical remarks) juxtaposition of ipaXp.,
vpv., and i^ddl; irv, renders the discourse more urgent and animated. — ev
rri xapiri adovre; /c.T.A.] is commonly regarded as subordinate to what goes
before ; as if Paul would say : the heart also is to take pari in their singing,
oix arrXd; tu ardpari, dXX' 'ev ry Kapd'uf, b 'ean psrd rrpoaoxv;, Theophylact.
1 As in Ex. xiv. 32; Plat. Symp, 197 E, Rep. songs; (3) songs sung in the house and at
p. 388 D, and in all Greek authors. work.
2 Many arbitrary more special distinctions sThis applies also in opposition to Holtz-
are to be found in expositors. See Bahr. mann, who discovers here and in Eph. v. 19
Even Steiger di.slingui.shes them very pre- an already /ar odvancecistas/e of worship.
cariously into (1) songs accompanied by *See generally, Augusti, Denlcw. II. p.
stringed instruments; (2) solemn church UO ff.

366 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
But Paul himself has not in the least expressed any such contrasting refer
ence; and how superfluous, nay, even inappropriate, would such an
injunction be, seeing that the diddaKeiv and vovBereiv takes place in fact by
the -ipaXpol K.T,X., and this is to be the outcome of the abundant indwelling
of the gospel ; and seeing, furtlier, that there is no mention at all of a
stated common worship (where, possibly, lip-service might intrude), but,
on the contrary, of mutual edifying intercourse I The entire view is
based upon the unfounded supposition of a degeneracy of worship in the
apostolic age, which, oven though it were true in itself, would be totally
inapplicable here. Moreover, we should expect the idea, that the sing
ing is to be the expression of the emotion of the heart, to be represented
not by ev r. Kapd., but by e/c rdiv Kapd. (comp, 2 Tim, ii, 22; Matt, xii, 34)
or drrb r. k. Comp. Wisd, viii, 21, also classical expressions like c/c ^pevdf
and the like. No, the participial clause is co-ordinate with the preceding
one (as also at Eph, v, 19, see in loc), and conveys — after the audible
singing for the purpose of teaching and admonition, to be done mutually
¦ — as a, further element of the pious life in virtue of the rich indwelling of
the word of Christ, the still singing of the heart, which each one must offer
to God /or himself inwardly ; i, e. the silent praising of God, which be
longs to self-edification in the inner man, Chrysostom already indicates
this view, but mixes it up, notwithstanding, with the usual one ; Theo
phylact quotes it as another (dA/luf), giving to it, moreover, the inappro
priate antithesis : py irpb; iirldei^iv, but adding with Chrysostom the cor
rect illustration : /edv ydp iv dyopa y;, dvvaaai Kara aea-vrbv adeiv pydsvb;
dKoiovro;. Bengel well describes the two parallel definitions cv rrday aoipla
K.r.X. and ev xopiri k.t.X. as distributio of the irXovalu;, and that mutuo et
seorsim. — iv ry xoptri] does not belong to i^,dal; irvsvp. (Luther: "with
spiritUial pleasant songs," also Calvin), but to dcSovrcf as the parallel ele
ment to ev rrday ao(p'ia. In the same way, namely, as the teaching and
admonition above mentioned are to take place by means of every wisdom,
which communicates and operates outwardly through them, so the still
singing of the heart now spoken of is to take place by means of the divine
grace, which stirs and moves and impels men's minds, — a more precise
definition, which is so far from being useless and idle (as Hofmann
objects), that it, on the contrary, excludes eyerything that is selfish, vain,
fanatical, and the like, Chrysostom says rightly : cTrd r^f ;t;dptrof roi
irvsvuaro;, ipyoiv, adovre; k.t.X. ; comp, Oecumenius : did ry; Trapd roi dyiov
rrveiparo; doBeiayi, xo-pii'o;, also Estius and Steiger, Hofmann's view is
erroneous : that adsiv ev nvi means to sing of something, thus making the
grace experienced the subject-matter of the songs. This it does not mean
even in the LXX, Ps. cxxxviii. 5, where 3 is taken in a local sense.'
The subject-matter of the singing would have been expressed by an accu
sative (as p-ijviv deids), or with cif.'^ Inappropriate as to sense (since the
'As in the Vulgate, and by Luther. tolerable sense, but that it is foreign to the
2 Nevertheless, Holtzmann, p. 104, adopts 'linguistic usage of Paul (no, it is foreign to
the linguistically quite incorrect explanation all linguistic usage).
of Hofmann : he thinks that it alone yields a

CHAP. III. 17. 367
discourse concerns singing in the heart) is the view of others : with grace
fulness} Even though the singing in public worship were spoken of, the
injunction to sing gracefully, and especially with the emphasis of being
placed first, would touch on too singular an element. Anselm, and in
more modern times Bohmer, Huther, de Wette, and Bleek take it : with
thankfulness, in which case the article, which Bleek rejects (see the critical
remarks), would denote not the gratitude already required in ver. 15 (so
Huther), but that which is due. But the summons to general thanks
giving towards God (in ver, 15, grateful conduct was meant by sixdp. yiv.)
only follows in ver, 17; and inasmuch as the interpretation which takes
it of the divine grace is highly suitable both to the connection and to the
use of the article (which sets forth the ;i:dptf as a conception formally set
apart), and places an admirably characteristic element in the foreground,
there is no reason for assuming here a call to thanksgiving: — As ev ratf
Kapd. ip. was contrasted with the preceding oral singing, so is ra QsCi
contrasted with the destin.ation for others; the still heart-singer sings to
God. It is just for this reason that the otherwise superfiuous ra Qsd is
added, Comp, 1 Cor, xiv, 28,
Ver, 17. 'The apostle having announced in ver. 16 the first way in which
the abundant indwelling of the word of Christ must manifest itself by cv
rrday aoipia diddaKovrs; . . . irvevparitcol;, and having set forth as the second the
ev TT) xo-pi-ri adovre; k.t.X., now adds the third, and that, indeed, as one
embracing the entire conduct of life; the /cat, and, attaches it to the
two participial clauses in ver, 16, not, however, introducing .another
participial mode of expression conformed to the foregoing, but leading
over, through the verb to be supplied, into the dired form of discourse :
And whatsoever ye do by word or by work, do all in the name of Jesus. The
Trdv 8, TI dv iroiyrs . . . ipya is the absolute nominative, placed at the begin
ning with rhetorical emphasis, and syntactically independent.^ — ev Xdya ij
iv ipyoi] Comp. Aesch, Prom. 659 : rl XP'I dpdvr' ij Xeyovra daipoaiv rrpdaasiv
(p'lXa. See Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 373 : " Diotis factisque omnis continetur
actio," For instances of Xdyo; and ipyov associated in that order and
conversely, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii, 3. 6; Lobeck, Paral. p. 64
f. — Trdvra] again emphatically prefixed, not, however, taking up again the
previous Trdv, but rather : in the case of everything which is done by word
or deed, all is to take place in the name of Jesus ;* no element of the
doing is to be out of this sphere ! The imperative Trotetre is to be supplied
from the context. Comp. on Eph. v. 21. — ev dvd/.t.] Not : with invocation
of (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Melanchthon, and others),
but : so that the name is the holy moral element, in which the action
iSo Theophylact (who, however, permits a ''See Kuhner, II. 1, p. 42; Winer, p, .531 [E,
choice between this and the true explana- T, 674],
tion), Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, ("sine sPaul, as is well known, is fond 9f placing
confusione, eio-xi/idvcus "), Castalio, Calvin, close beside each other diffei-ent forms of Trds
Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, with different references. See Wilke, iJAetor.
Wetstein, Bengel, and others, InclurJing Bahr, p. 381; comp. also on Phil. iv. 12.
Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Reiche.

368 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
proceeds, inasmuch, namely, as this name, as the sum of the faith which
moulds the new life, fills the consciousness, and gives to the action its
specific Christian quality and consecration. 'Bv Xptara 'lyaov would not
be substantially different. Comp. on Eph. v. 20 ; Phil. ii. 10 ; John xiv.
13. "IUum sapiat, ilium soiiet, ilium spiret omnis vestra vita," Erasmus,
The ideal character of the requirement is misapprehended, when, with
Cornelius a Lapide, it is lowered to a mere consilium. See, on the con
trary, Calovius, — ei';i;ap. ru Qsa K.r.Xl] [XXXVIII /,] accompanying
definition : whilst ye ai the same time give thanks, etc, Comji, ev eixapiarla
in ii, 7, iv, 2, i, 12; Phil, iv, 6, In the apostle's view, there belongs
essentially to the devoutness of Christian life the self-expressing piety of
thankfulness for all Christian bliss, in the consciousness, assurance, and
experience of which one does everything in the name of Jesus. Since
sixap, denotes thank,sgiving, Grotius ought not to have taken the participle
in a declaratory sense (" quid sit in nomine Christi omnia facere et loqui ") ;
a misinterpretation, which Hofmann rightly rejects, but substitutes
another explanation which neglects the verbal import of sixapiarslv :
namely, that Paul declares the doing here required to be a thanksgiving, etc.,
doing, wllich is practical thanks. Ei;i;apto-reiv is never in the N. T,
equivalent to ;i;dptv dirodoivat, gratias referre, — Trarpt] Father of Jesus, — di'
airoi] For Jesus, as the personal historical mediator of Messianic bliss
through the work of atonement, is therewith for the Christian conscious
ness the mediator of thanksgiving ; He it is, through whose benefit the Chris
tian can and does give thanks. Comp. Rom. i. 8, vii. 25, al. Hence in Eph.
V, 20 : cv 'ovdpari k.t.X. Both the thought and expression were so habitu.ally
in use and belonged so essentially to the circumstances of the case, that
the hypothesis of a contrast to the mediation of angels (Theodoret, Bengel,
and many others, including Biihr) is unfounded, more especially seeing
that the entire context has no polemical reference,
Ver, 18 to iv, l.^ [On Vv, 18-25, see Note XXXIX, page 376.] In
structions for the different portions of the household. [XXXIX a.] Why
Paul should have given to the churches such a table of household rules
only in this Epistle and in that to the Ephesians (comp. also 1 Tim, and
Tit,), must be left wholly undecided (Chrysostom exhausts himself in
conjectures). They are not polemical; but possibly, in the presence of a
theosophico-ascetic atmosphere, the practical rules of healthy domestic
life seemed to him the more seasonable. They do not contain traces of a
later development of church-life (Holtzmann), The circumstance that
iThis domestic code is held by Holtzmann sufficiently familiar to Paul from the LXX,
to be an insertion of the interpolator from (Ps, liii, 5) and otherwise (Lobeck, ad Phryn.
Eph, V, 21-vi, 9, He groundlessly questions p, 021), and have been used by him in the two
thegenuinenessof the expressions ei/apecTTos, parallel epistles? Is not avTaTrdSoo-is a term
aSocciv, epeOiC.eiv, tooTTjs, to 5t/<aiov, aTrAoTjjs T^s in general use since Thucydides ? Is not " to
KapSiai, and even appeals to the use of dvOpm- serve the Lord Christ" a Pauline idea, and even
TrdpeaKos, avTa7rd5oa-is, and the formula TW (comp. Rom. xvi, 18) literal expression? The
Kvpiia XpioToJ dovKeveiv as direct evidence danger of a. petitio principii. on\y too easily
against its Pauline origin. Might not, how- steals upon even the cautious and sober critic
ever, the word av5pwirdpeo-/cos have been in such points of detail. He finds what he seeAs.

CHAP. m. 18-20. 369
the precepts for the several forms of domestic society uniformly (vv. 18,
20, 22 ff.) begin with the subordinate party, as also at Eph. v, 21 ff,, is to be
regarded as having occurred without any set purpose ; the idea of obedience
was primarily present to the writer's mind. If Paul's aim had been to
counteract the abuse of Christian freedom and equality, or in other words,
perverse desires for emancipation, he would not have considered so
weighty a purpose sufficiently met by the mere mode of arrangement,
but would have entered upon the matter itself (in opposition to Huther
and de Wette) ; and this we should have to assume that he would have
done also in the event of his having had in view an attitude of resistance
on the part of those bound to obedience as the thing most to be feared (in
opposition to Hofmann). Ju.st as much might such an attitude be a thing
to be feared from the stronger party. Respecting the nominatives in the
address, see especially Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 172 A. — tjf dvrjKsv] not
the perfect (with present signification), as Huther thinks and Bleek does
not disapprove, but the imperfect, which has its logical reference in the cv
Kvpl(p to be connected with it: as was fitting in the Lord, i.e. as was becom
ing in the relation of the iv Xpiard elvai (Philem. 8), as was appropriate to
the Christian state, but had not yet been in this way realized. The
imperfect (comp. Acts xxii. 22) denotes, therefore, as also in xpv" and idsi,
the incomplete condition, which extends even into the present.' We
are not to think of an omission of dv ; see Kiihner, I.e. The connection
of ev Kvp'ioi with iirdraaaeoBe (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, Rosen
miiller, Hofmann, and others) — in which case Hofmann imparts into (J;
dvrjKsv the abstract idea : as was already in itself fitting — is opposed by the
position of the words themselves, as well as by the parallel in ver. 20 :
sidpsardv ianv iv Kvpiip.
Ver. 19. Comp, Eph. v, 25 ff,, where this love is admirably characterized
according to its specifically Christian nature, — nri/cpatvccri^c] become not
embittered, description of a spitefully cross tone and treatment.^
Ver. 20 f, Comp, Eph. vi. 1-4, where likewise is given a characteristic
development in fuller detail of what is here only succinctly stated. — /card
Trdvra not to be restricted ; for Paul is quoting the rule, that which holds
good principaliter in the relation of children, while possible exceptional
cases obviously come under the principle of obeying God rather than man
(Oecumenius : di;|;a rdv eif daipsiav ipspdvruv), Comp. Eph, V. 24. — eidpeardv
ianv iv Kvp'iip] In connection with this reading (see the critical remarks),
to supply rCi Qsa to eidp. is arbitrary (in opposition to de Wette and
Baumgarten-Crusius), since this is not suggested by the context as in
Rom. xii. 1, 2 ; nor is cv /cvptu to be taken as instead of the dative (Flatt,
Biihr, Bleek), or in the sense : coram Domino (Bohmer), but rather as in
ver, 18. We have to leave eidp. without any other more precise definition (
1 See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 176 f, ; Bernhardy, p. ilfos. II, p. 135, Comp, TriKpws ^laKeiaQai. jrpds
373, Similarly, Winer, p, 254 [E. T, 270], rtva, Polyb, iv, 14, 1 ; LXX, Ex, xvi, 20; Ruth
Comp. also Buttmann, p, 187 [E, T, 216], i, 20; 3 Esdr, iv, 31; enTriKpaiveaOai Ttvt,
2 Plat. Legg, v. p. 731 D ; Dem, 1464. 18 : /i^re Herod, v. 62.
rriKpaivecrffaL p-yre pivyiriKaKelv. Philo, Vit.
24

370 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
than what is contained in ev Kvp., so that it is affirmed of childlike
obedience, that it is well-pleasing, and that indeed not in a worldly fashion
apart from Christ, oi/c dirb ry; (piaea; pdvy; (Chrysostom), but in a definite
Christian character ; consequently the Christian ethical beauty, in which
tlie d'lKatov (Eph, vi, 1) of that virtue manifests itself. Comji. irpoa^iXy in
Phil, iv, 8, It would be a perfectly groundless violence to couple, with
Hofmami, ev Kvpici with iiraKovers -i . y. k. it., notwithstanding the clause
which is introduced by ydp. — Ver, 21, oi Tra-cpcf] they, and not the mothers,
are addressed as holding the government of the household, also in
reference to education, Comp. on Eph. vi. 4, — epei^ifere] [XXXIX 6,]
irritate, very frequent in the classics and LXX,, especially in connection
with anger, as here (comp, Eph, vi, 4). This irritation takes place through
unjust or over-severe (etrriv birov /cat avyxupelv bil>eiXere, Chrysostom) treat
ment, which the child, provoked thereby to anger, must bear without
being able to get satisfaction for its injured sense of justice ; whereby it
becomes liable to a spiritless and sullen, and therefore immoral, resig
nation, a despair paralyzing all moral power of will ; hence 'tva py d-Bvpdaiv.
This verb is only found here in the N. T,, but frequently in LXX,, also
Judith vii, 22 ; 1 Macc iv, 27 ; and in classic writers from the time of
Thucydides (v, 91, 1, vii. 21, al.). Its opposite is Ba'p'peiv. Bengel aptly
says: "fractus animus pestis juventutis,"
Ver, 22, [XXXIX c] Comp, Eph, vi, 5 ff. The minuteness with
which Paul enters into this point in comparison with the others, may
naturally have been caused by the flight and conversion of Onesimus, who
was a Colossian slave, — roif Kara adpKa Kvpioi;] the masters, who are so
after & fieshly manner, i. e. in respect to material-human nature ; a descrip
tion, which presupposes another relation belonging to the higher pneu
matic sphere, in which, namely, Christ is (ver, 24) the master, Comp,
Rom, ix. 3. — PV iv b(p8aXp. u; dvBpairdp.] See on Eph. vi. 6. The obedi
ence of Christian slaves becomes men-pleasing, and, to apjDearance, eye-ser
vice, when it is not subordinated to, and normally conditioned by, the fear
of Christ (2 Cor. v. 11) as the higher Master. See below, where cv dirXdr.
Kapdia; (see on Eph, vi, 5) corresponds to the ev btpdaXyodov?., and ipopo'vy. i.
Kipiov to the a; dvBpuirdp. Eye-service presupposes insincerity of heart,
and mm-pleasing takes for granted a want of the fear of Clirist. Comp.
on the latter, Gal, i, 10,
Ver, 23 f. More precise explanation of the cv drrXdr. Kapd., ipopoip. r. Kip.
just required, — rrot^re] in your service, — e/c ipvxv;] perd sivoia;, yij psrd
dovXiKv; dvdyKy;, dAAd psrd iXevBepia; Kai irpoaipiaeu;, Chrysostom, Comp,
on Eph, vi, 6, — spydi^eaBs] execute, carry out, not equivalent to iroieire, but
correlative with it, hence also not in the narrower sense : labor (as e,g. in
Xen, Geo, iii, 4 with reference to slaves), — u; rCi /cvp,] Point of view of the
'epydZ. ; this is to be regarded as taking place for Christ, rendered as a ser
vice to Him, Comp, Eph, vi, 6 f. And the relation to the human
masters, to whom the slaves belong, is in this higher aspect of the service
thrown so much into the background as not to be taken into account at
all, in accordance with the principle that no man can serve two masters;

CHAP. in. 21-25. 371
hence oi/c is not relatively, but absolutely negative. Respecting the con
trast of dvBp. and Xpiard;, see on Gal. i. 1. — ciddrcf k.t.X.] Ground of the
obligation in one's own consciousness for the u; rfi Kvp'iu x. oiK dvBp. :
since ye know that ye shall receive from the Lord, etc. On eiddref, comp, iv,
1. — dirb Kvp'iov, excluding the human recompense, stands first with empha
sis, and dird {on the part of) demotes, not expressly the direct giving {ifapd),
through which the recompense is received, but generally the issuing, pro
ceeding from the Lord, who is the possessor and bestower, although the
recei-ving of the recompense at the judgment will he in reality direct (Eph.
vi, 8 ; 2 Tim, i, 18). Comp, on 1 Cor, xi, 23; Winer, p. 347 [E, T, 370],—
Ti7f KXypov.] In the Messianic KXypovopla, i. e. in the future possession of
eternal bliss (see on Gal, iii, 18; Eph, i, 11; Col, i, 12; Rom, iv, 13), the
reward consists. The motive for its purposely-chosen designation by this
particular term lies in the fact, that in human relations slaves are not
usually heirs, comp. Gen, xxi, 10, Hence also this closing word, ne.xt to
the dTTo Kvp., has special empha.-is : from the Lord ye shall receive the
recompense of the inheritance, Comp, as to substance, Ignat, ad Polyc, 4:
Iva Kpeirrovo; 'sXsvBepia; dirb Qsov rixuatv.^- — ra Kvpla X. dovXsvsrs] without
ydp (see the critical remarks) embraces succinctly the whole summary of
the Christian duty of slaves in accordance with the principle already laid
down in the tif ra Kvpia k. oiK dvBpdrroi;; Xpiard is not to be taken as
appositionally equivalent to df 'san Xpiard; (Hofmann), but in accordance
with the quite common usage ; hence : to tlie Lord Christ be serviceable -,'
It is properly rendered thus imperatively in the Vulgate; also by Ewald,
Dalmer, Schenkel, and Bleek, [XXXIX d,] The whole significant
emphasis lies upon np Kvp. Xpiard ; His slaves they are to be in the rela
tion of human service. Where the ydp is regarded as not genuine,^ the
indicative interpretation (the usual one) makes the utterance — which,
moreover, would be superfluous after ver, 23— vapid, especially without
the addition of an oira;.
Ver. 25. Ground of encouragement {ydp, see the critical remarks) to fulfill
the precept tu Kvp. X. dovXeiere : for he who does wrong shall carry off {the
penal recompense of) what wrong he has done, — a locus communis, of which
the slaves were to make the application, that the unjust treatment which
they experienced from their masters would not go unpunished ; hence they
could not but feel themselves the more encouraged to be in their relation
of servitude slaves of no other than Christ, and to permit no unjust treat
ment to make them deviate from that principle. Paul therefore adds for
their further encouragement : '" /cat oi/c ian rrpoaarroXvipia, [XXXIX e,] and
iQn avranoUaii (only found here in the possible to uphold it by subjective criticism
N T,), comp, Thuc, iv, 81, 1 (where, however, (in opposition to Hofmann), proceeding on the
the sense is different); Plut. Mor, p, 72 P; supposition that its omission maybe traced
Polyb. vi. 5. 3, XX. 7. 2, xxxii. 13. 6; passages to an artificial combination of ideas, which is
from Diod. Sic. in Munthe's 06ss. p. 390; imputed to the copyist.s. Just as little is the
and from the LXX. in Schleusner, I. p. 296; Recepta Se (instead of ydp) in ver. 25 to be de-
also ivTa,rd5ona in Eom. xi. 9. fended. ,,, , „ ,
a The decisive preponderance of the wit- s Hofmann finds it incredible that Paul
nesses omitting this ydp renders it quite im- should have closed the section referrmg to

372 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
there is no partiality, of which likewise general proposition the intended
application is, that in that requital the impartial Judge (Christ, comp, ver.
24) will not favor the masters, and will not injure the slaves, comp. Eph.
vi, 9, The correct view is held substantially by Theodoret, Beza, Calvin,
Estius, Zachariae, Ewald, and otliers. Others have understood d ddiKdv
as referring to the slave who violates his duty, in which case ddmeXv is taken
either in the strict sense of the trespass of him who intentionally injures his
master (Hofmann, comp, Philem, 18), or loosely and generally in the
sense of doing wrong, comp. Rev, xxii, 11 (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ben
gel, Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others). But against this view
the K. oiK ian irpoauiroX, may be decisively urged, which assumes that the
subject to be punished is higher, of superior rank ; for the idea which has
been imported into the passage is purely fanciful : " Tenues saepe jiutant,
sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum esse pareendum ; id negatur," Bengel, in
connection with which Theophylact appeals to Lev. xix. 15. And if on
account of oi/c ean irpoauiroX. the unjust masters must be taken as meant
by d ddiKdv in the application of the sentence, the reference to both
parties, to the masters and the slaves (Erasmus, Grotius, and others, includ
ing Biihr, Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek, following Jerome and
Pelagius), is thereby excluded, since irpoauiroX. is approjiriate only to the
masters. — Kop'tasrai] shall carry off for himself (sibi), refers to the Messianic
judgment, and ydmyae to that which he, who is now ddmdv {present), has
(shall have) then done. On the expression Kopii;eaBai k.t.X., used to express
the idea of a recompense equivalent to the deed in respect of its guilt,
comp. Eph. vi. 8, and on 2 Cor. v. 10. — Respecting irpoaairoXy-ipia, see on
Gal, ii. 6.

Notes by Amebican Editob.
XXXVI. Vv, 1^,
(a) The second part of the transition passage is found at the beginning of this
chapter, vv, 1-4, (see Note xxxv, a.). These verses are introductory to the par
ticular and special exhortations which follow. — {b) Meyer maintains here, as in
ii. 12, that " the being risen with Christ is not meant in the sense of the regener
ate moral life, but as the relation of real participation in the resurrection of
Christ." The explanation of the word avvyyip-Bsrs, however, is to be deter
mined, (1) by its contrast with dTreiJdvere (ii, 20) ; which is declared to be a
dying to the aroixeia ; (2) by the fact that awyyip-Byrs, in ii. 12, is connected

the slaves with a proposition couched in rate consideration the proper soothing and
such general terms as ver. 25, which applies elevating point of view regarding theirptiss/ve
not to the staves, but to the masters. This, bearing in service also. Thus ver. 2ti also
however, is an erroneous view. For in vv. applies to the slaves, and forms merely the
22-24 the apostle has instructed the slaves transition to the precept for the masters
regarding their active bearing in service, and in iv. 1. This applies also in opposition
he Is now, in the general proposition of ver. to the doubts expressed by Holtzmann,
25, suggesting for their reflection and delibe- p. 44 f.

NOTES. 373
with faith and with a deliverance from sins ; (3) by the evident reference of the
exhortations which follow to things relating to the development of the regenerate
moral life ; (4) by i comparison with the strikingly similar passage in Rom, vi.
2 ff. All these points favor the view that the rising to the new spiritual hfe is
meant. Alf. speaks of this explanation as " stultifying the sentence " ; " for if
the participation were an ethical one," he says, " what need to exhort them to its
ethical realization ? " The true view of the meaning is — as in Rom. vi. and viii.
— ^that as, according to the idea and doctrine of the Christian life, every believer
is, at his conversion and baptism, raised to a new spiritual life — shaving died to
sin, — he is to be exhorted to conform his actual living, in all respects, to this idea.
So far from stultifying the sentence — this is a mode of exhortation which all
Christian teachers adopt, and which Paul himself uses in several of his Epistles.
— (c) This rising to a new life is here, as in Rom. vi., described as a being raised
with. Christ, and the verb is put in the aor. tense, and in the compound form with
iriv, because, by his faith and baptism, the union of the Christian with Christ
becomes so close and complete, that it is as if he had actually died upon the cross
with Him and had been actually raised with Him. The representation is, thus,
a figurative one. The real physical resurrection of the believer, which is the
result of Christ's resurrection, belongs to the future.
{d) The "things above" are the things which belong to the spiritual, heavenly
hfe. The principles and characteristics of the life of the kingdom of God have
their origin in heaven and descend, as it were, out of heaven into this world.
These things are spoken of here in their perfection and consummation, and in
their widest extent, and thus include all that belongs to the idea of the per
fected heavenly life, on which the Christian is to set his whole mind, in contrast
to earthly things. He is, accordingly, to lay aside all evil and to put on all good,
— to have love, which is the bond of perfectness, — to be a new man in the image
of God, — to look forward to the future glorj', — (e) Ver. 3 gives a reason for ver.
2, This reason includes a repeated drre-Bdvers and the statement y ^ay k.t.X.
These latter words must therefore set forth, in some sense, a contrast to the idea of
that to which they had died. The old life was an earthly one, related to and occu
pied with outward things and unspiritual desires and actions. The new life is a
hidden one, having its centre and spring with Christ in God, and only to be man
ifested in all its glory when Christ Himself shall be manifested at the end. In
view of this fact, the Cliristian should not give himself to the earthly things, but
the heavenly, Ztj^ refers, thus, to the soul-life which rests in Christ and is to be
realized in its consummation hereafter. XXXVIL Vv. 5-11.
(a) The more detailed development of the exhortation ppovelrs rd dvu now
follows in a paragraph vv, 5-17, which is divided into two half-paragraphs : vv.
5-11 giving the negative, and vv. 12-17 the positive side : the former passing
over towards the latter in vv, 10, 11,— (6) As they had died with Christ, they
should (on the negative side) put to death all that was inconsistent with the new
life. This is expressed, at the beginning of the half-paragraph, by vsKpdaare ra
uiXy rd iirl ry; yij;. That piXy here means the members, only so far as they
are used in the service of sin (Rom. vi. 13, 19), is evident from the following
words {iropveiav k,t.X.), and also from the fact that Paul never represents the

374 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
adpa or the piX^y as evil in themselves. It is only when sin, as a master, rules
them, and employs them as its instruments, that evil comes in. From this fact it
seems probable, that in the phrase rd ctti r-y; yy; there is, at least, an intima
tion of the idea of this sinful use ; and so, that the same idea is, in some degree,
connected with the same words in ver, 2 — a point which may be regarded as con
firming, in its measure, the reference of the " being raised," etc., to the new
spiritual life.
(c) The connection of covetousness and sins of unchastity with each other, and
of both of them with idolatry, is set forth in several places in Paul's writings ;
see Eph. v. 5 ; 1 Cor. v. 10, 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 3-6 (?) ; Rom. i. 20-29. In the
chief passage relating to the whole subject (Rom. i. 20 S.), the sins of unchastity
are presented as the first and great outgrowth of the idolatry of the heathen.
Here, on the other hand, covetousness is spoken of as idolatry — the word idolatry
having, however, a somewhat more specific sense. Lightf and some others sepa
rate the words iropveiav k.t.X. from rd yeXy, and make them depend on the
idea of dird-Bsa-Bs of ver. 8, the construction being changed or made irregular by
the intervening of other clauses. But it is more Pauline and, on the whole, more
simple to make them appositional with piXy, as Meyer does. — {d) The words
irri rov; v'loi; rij; direvBe'ia; at the end of ver. 6, which are found in T. R. and
retained by Meyer, R. V., Bid., Ell., de 'W., are rejected by Tisch., Treg., Alf., 'W.
& H., Lightf., and others. If they are omitted, o'l; is neuter ; if retained, it is
masculine. In either case roiroi; is neuter. Comp, Rom. i. 18 ff,, with respect
to bpyy Bsov and its coming upon sin,
(c) The view of Meyer with regard to dirsKdvadysvoi k.t.X. is strongly sup
ported by the first and fourth considerations which he presents : namely, the fact
that the verbs ipsideaBe and aird^ta^e are present, while the two participles are
in the aorist, and the fact that the exhortation of ver. 12 is introduced by oiv.
It is supported, also, by the correspondence, if the words are understood in this
way, between these participles and si diro-Bdvers, awyyep-Byre, of ii. 20, iii. 1, as
related to the exhortations there given. The comparison with Eph, iv, 22-24
cannot properly be urged against this view and in favor of making these words a
part of the command in -ipsidsa-Bs, or an independent one, because the arrangement
of the sentence in the passage is different in tbe points which are vital to this
particular question. The participial clauses, accordingly, must be understood as a
ground or motive, as Meyer says, for the whole dird-Bsa-Bs . . . dXXyXoi;. They
do not belong to ipeidea-Be alone.
(/) The participle dvaKaivoipevov is a descriptive or characteristic participle,
describing the new man with reference to that progressive renewal which is incon
sistent with the non-laying-aside of all the evils mentioned. — {g) Kar' e'lKdva is
probably to be joined with dva/catv,, not (as Meyer) with iiriyvaaiv. This is in
dicated by a comparison with Eph, iv. 24, and by the general intimations of the
N. T. respecting the conformity of the new life to God and the Divine life. The
explanation of Meyer seems artificial and is not made necessary by the position
of the words. The full knowledge here spoken of is to be understood in accord
ance with the suggestions of the several passages in which this word occurs in
this Ep, and in Eph. (Col, i. 10, ii. 2 ; Eph. i, 17, iv, 13), It is the knowledge of
God and of truth, to which the progress of the new life bears the man onward as the
end tC) be reached. — {h) In Gal. iii, 28, where the words of ver, 11 are found in
nearly the same form, they occur most naturally in the course of an argument

NOTES, 375
against Judaizers, who would limit the Divine plan by national boundaries.
Here, the reason of their use is less evident. The explanation given by Meyer,
" where all the separating diversities have ceased, by which those phenomena of
malevolence and passion mentioned in ver, 8 were occasioned and nourished," is
hardly satisfactory. The phenomena in question were not occasioned so exclu
sively by these diversities as to make it natural to bring the latter forward with
so much prominence. It would seem not improbable, that there may be some
special reference to the views of the Colossian errorists, whose system was exclu
sive — both on its Jewish and Gnostic side — with reference to Gentiles, or to those
of more barbarous and uncultured regions, and in opposition to whom Christ is
now set forth as everything in the new life, just as He is elsewhere declared to be
head of all angelic powers in whom they professed to believe.
XXXVIII. Vv. 12-17.
(a) Vv. 12-17 present (see above) the more special exhortations on the posi
tive side; the introductory oiv referring to vv. 10,11 which thus form, as
already stated, a transition passage. If Meyer's view of rairsivofpoavvy is cor
rect, as it probably is, it will be noticed that all the virtues which the readers are
exhorted to put on are those which have reference to their relations to one
another, until the end of ver. 15a. The ev eVt auyari of the close of ver. 15
suggests the same thought, and it is again brought out in 165. 17, and also in the
following verses, 18-iv, 1, which set forth the mutual obligations of husbands and
wives, etc. This peculiar prominence given to these relations may, perhaps, in
dicate a ground of the insertion of the words of ver. 11, additional to the one
referred to in the notes on that verse, — (6) irpairyra here means gentleness (so
also Meyer), rather than meekness, as it does also in 1 Cor. iv. 21 ; 2 Tim, ii. 25. —
(c) The view of Meyer with respect to the supply of a participle, and not a verb,
after ipsi; of ver. 13, is hardly to be accepted. It makes the sentence less bur
densome to supply a verb, and then to add in thought a new 'svdvaaa-Bs before
ryv dydiryv of ver. 14, — {d) 'With respect to the word Ppapsisiv the following
points are worthy of notice: (1) It is a peculiar word, not used in this simple
verbal form elsewhere in Paul's writings or in the N. T. (2) The corresponding
noun Bpapslov, found in 1 Cor. ix. 24 ; Phil, iii, 14, has its full and legitimate
meaning in both cases. The compound verb used in ii. 18 has an element of the
same meaning, though not the exactness of the sense which the derivation would
suggest. (3) The reference in the preceding context is to feelings which work
out towards others, and whioh conflict with each other in the soul. (4) The
words ev ivi adpari point to a unity which would be secured by the exercise of
the one sort of feelings and excluded by the other. These consideration? favor
the assighing to Ppafisvira of its strict sense — act us umpire or judge, as be
tween conflicting emotions, etc, — (e) ev iplv (ver, 16) is better understood in the
sense within you, than in you as a church, as Meyer takes it. The cv ratf
Kapdiai;, which precedes and follows, suggests the former meaning, though these
words are not, indeed, in the same clause, and ev rrday aoipifi favors it. ev ipiv,
in such cases, is generally equivalent to in amimis vestris.
(/) That the words ipaXyot; . . . rrvsvyariKal; are to be connected with diddoKovre;
K.r.X. is indicated by the insertion of cv xopi-n before 'adovre;, and also by the
corresponding passage in Eph. v. 19. In Eph., however, they are suggested in a

376 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
more natural connection — the outbreaking of song being the result of the work
ing of the Divine Spirit upon the emotional nature apparently, (comp. the con
trast with pe-Biaiiea-Bs olvci in that passage). The suggestion here may be, pos
sibly, of song as acconipanv-ing the teaching, etc, with all wisdom ; but such
teaching may even have been conveyed, al times, by this means. If the word of
Christ dwelt in them richly, all their utterances, even those of emotion and
praise, might become instructive and helpful in their relations to one another, — {g)
eixapiarovvTs; (ver. 17) — The emphasis which Paul lays upon thankfulness in the
Epistle, placing it at the end of his exhortations, etc., is very noticeable. Comp.
i. 12 ; ii. 7 ; iii. 15 ; iv. 2. It should abound in all their walk and growth in the
Christian life ; it should accompany every prayer ; it should attend upon their
actions and their words, as they did their work for Christ ; it should go out joy
fully to God, as He made them fit to share in the inheritance of the saints.
XXXIX. Vv. 18—25.
(a) This passage (iii. 18-iv, 1) sets forth the duties of the Christian life —
which have been urged upon the readers comprehensively in iii, 1—4, and more
in detail in iii, 12-17 — in particular domestic and social relations. In the similar
passage Eph, v, 21-vi, 9, they follow a similar exhortation with respect to speak
ing to one another in psalms, etc, and giving thanks to God through Christ, but
the words " subjecting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ " are placed
after " giving thanks," ete. These duties are, accordingly, made a part of that
general subjection to one another which is the duty of all Christians. This fact
is to be borne in mind in the interpretation of the individual exhortations. The
tendency to excess in pressing the doctrine of Christian liberty and equality at
that early period, so as to interfere with the subordinations to which society had
been accustomed, must also be considered. — {b) In connection with the general
subjection of every one to every other, the exact correspondence in the duties of
the two parties in the several cases should be observed. The child, for example,
is no more under obligation to obey the father, than the father is not to provoke
or fret the child. The whole matter is so presented as to remove all mere earthly
and governmental ideas of subjection, and to- make all the relations simply rela
tions of self-surrendering love. — (c) The suggestion made by some writers, that
the case of Onesimus led Paul to speak especially, and so fully, of slaves, seems
improbable when we consider the parallel passage in Eph., the similar one in 1
Pet. ii. 18-iii. 7, and the allusion to slaves in Tit. ii. 9 ff., and also when we ob
serve the evident intention to refer to the prominent relationships of domestic
life. — (d) dovXsvers (ver. 24), which Meyer takes as an imperative, is perhaps
better regarded as an indicative, Paul reminds the slaves that they are serving
the Lord Christ, that Christ is the master whom they serve — therefore they should
do everything as if to Him, and should know that the reward would come, — (e)
It is noticeable that the words "there is no respect of persons,'' which are made
a ground of urgency in pressing the obligations of duty upon the slaves, in this
Epistle, are made a, similar ground iu exhorting mastei-s to fulfill their obliga
tions in Eph, vi, 9.

CHAP. IV. 1. 377

CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 1. oipavol;] Lachm. and Tisch. read ovpava, following A B C x'* niin. vss,
Clem. Or. Damasc. The plural is from Eph, vi, 9. — Ver. 3. di 6] Lachm, reads
dl' bv, following B F G. Not attested strongly enough, especially as after r.
Xpiarov the masculine iuvoluntarily suggested itself. — Ver. 8, yvifi rd rrspl ipdv]
A B D* F G min. Aeth. It., and some Fathers have yvdire rd Trept ypdv.^ Recom
mended by Griesb., received by Scholz, Lachm, and Tisch, 8, approved also by
Rinck and Reiche ; and rightly, because it has preponderant attestation, and is so
necessary as regards the context that is must not be regarded as an alteration
from Eph. vi. 22 (comp. in loc.). The Reeepta is to be regarded as having arisen
through the omission of the syllable TE before TA.— Ver. 12. Instead of aryre
Tisch. 8 has araByre, only on the authority of A"* B and some min. — rrerrXypapivoi]
ABC D* F G K min. have rrsrrXypoipopypevoi. Recommended by Griesb., re
ceived by Lachm. and Tisch., and justly ; the familiar irsrrXypap. crept in invol
untarily, or by way of gloss. — Ver. 13. f^Aov ttoAvv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.
Reiche read rroXiv Trdvov, following ABC D-""*' s 80, Copt., while D* F G have
iroXiv Koirov, and Vulg, It, : multum laborem. Accordingly the Recepta is at any
rate to be rejected, and iroXiv Trdvov to be preferred as having decisive attestation ;
Trdvov was glossed partly by Kdirov, partly by f^Aov {irdBov and dydva are also
found in codd,). Neither ^yXov nor Kdirov would have given occasion for a gloss;
and in the N. T. rrdvo; only further occurs in the Apocalypse, — Ver. 15, airov] A
C P X min. have airuv ; B : avr^f. The latter is the reading of Lachm., who
with B*-* instead of 'Svpxpdv accents ^ipipav. The airdv, which is received by
Tisch, 8, is to be held as original ; the plural not being understood was corrected,
according as the name JUvyip. was reckoned masculine or feminine, into airoi or
airy;. Ver. 1. Tyv itrdr^ra] not : equity, for the word signifies aequalitas, not
aequitas, i. e. imsUeia (in opposition to Steiger, Huther, de "Wette, Ewald,
Bleek, and most expositors), but : equality, ' so that ye, namely, regard and
treat the slaves as your equals, "What is herein required, therefore, is not a
quality of the master, and in particular not the freedom from moral uneven-
ness,^ which is equivalent to diKaioaivy (Hofmann), but a quality of the rela
tion, which is to be conceded ; it is not at all, however, the equalization
of the outward relation, which would be a de, facto abolition of slavery, but
1 K* has yvio Te ra Trept v/iiav; X** deletes does not pertain to io-oTTjs at all ; and just as
the re, and is thus a witness for the Recepta. little to io-o; in Soph. Phil. 685, where lo-o; iv
2 2 Cor. viii, 13 f,; very often in Plato, Polyb, y lo-oij avijp is nothing el.ie than par inter
ii. 38. 8, vi. 8. 4 ; Lucian, Herm. 22, Zeux, 5, also pares, namely, to his friends a friend, to his
tlie passages from Philo in Wetstein, and the foes a foe, Comp. Schneidewin in loc. At
LXX. Job xxxvi. 29- Zech. iv. 1, many other passages ttros denotes the equality
8 This conception, 'coincident with «t/caio<rvvi), of right, that Which Ls impartial, and is hence

378 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
rather the equality, which, amidst a continued subsistence of all the out
ward diversity, is brought about in the Christian Koivav'ia by kindly treat-
"ment. 'While rb d'lnawv {what is right) expresses that which, according to
the Christian consciousness of right, belongs as matter of right to the slave,
ryv 'ladryra requires the concession of the parity {egalite) implied in the
Christian ddsXipdry;. Paul has in view (in opposition to Hofmann) merely
Christian slaves (whom he has exhorted in iii, 22 i.) ; otherwise, in fact,
the conception of 'ladry; would be not at all appropriate. It is just by the
Christian status of both parties that he desires to see their inequality in
other respects ethically counterbalanced. A commentary on rijv 'ladryra is
supplied by Philem, 16, At variance with the context, Erasmus,
Melanchthon, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Bohmer, and others under
stand the equality of impartial treatment, according to which the master
does not prefer one slave to another. This would not in fact yield any defi
nite moral character of the treatment in itself, nor would it suit all the
cases where there is only one slave. As to the middle rrapixea-Bs (Tit. ii.
7 ; Acts xix, 24), observe that it is based simply on the conception of the
self-activity of the subject ; Kiihner, II. 1, p, 97. — e'lddrs;] consciousness,
that serves as a motive, as in iii. 24, — /cat i^etf k.t.XA] Theophylact says
correctly : uarrep sKelvoi ipd;, ovra koi iysl; sxers Kvpiov, and that in heaven,
namely Christ.
Vv, 2-6. [On Vv. 2-6, see Note XL, pages 392, 393,] After having already
concluded the general exhortations at iii, 17, Paul now subjoins some by
way of supplement, and that in aphoristic epistolary fashion, concerning
prayer along with intercession for himself (vv, 2-A), and demeanor towards
non- Christians (vv, 5, 6), How special was the importance of both under
the circumstances then existing ! [XL a.]
Ver, 2, To prayer apply yourselves perseveringly ; comp. Bom, xii, 12;
Eph, vi, 18 ; Acts i. 14 ; also 1 Thess, v, 17 : ddiaXelirra; rrpoaevxeade, which
is substantially the same thing. Comp, Luke xviii, 1. — ypyyop. 'sv airy]
modal definition of the irpoaKoprepslv : so that ye are watchful (that is,
alacres, mentally attentive and alert, not weary and distracted, comp, 1,
Thess, V. 6 ; Eph, vi, 18 ; 1 Pet, iv, 7, v. 7 f. ; Matt, xxvi, 41) in the same.
iv, not to be taken as instrumental, is meant of the business, in the execution
of which they are to be vigilant, since it is prayer in itself, as an expression
of the spiritual life, and not as an aid to moral activity, that is spoken of.
Hence we must not interpret it, with Hofmann, as indicating how Chris
tian watchfulness ought to he (namely, a watching in prayer), but rather
how one ought to be in praying (namely, watchful therein). The point of
the precept is the praying ; and hence it is continued by Trpoffei;fo/tevot, —
cv eixap^ accompanying attitude, belonging to ypyy. iv airy ; with thanks-
often combined with SUaios {righteous in the unequal a certain equality. In such passages
narrower sense). But iaorys is always (even the conception of egalite comes into view with
inPolyb, ii, 38, 8)egMa!«i/; see e, 3. Plato.iJep. special clearness, Hofmann has explained
658 C, where it is said of the democracy : ia-6- our passage as if Itrorri,; and opaKoryi, or Aeidnjt
TTjTtt Ttva o/xoLcos 10019 T€ Ka'i dvto-ots fitavc/xovcm, (.levelness), were identical conceptions,
that is, it distributes uniformly to equal and

CHAP. IV. 2, 3. 379
giving, amidst thanksgiving, namely, for the benefits already received.
Comp. i. 12, ii. 7, iii. 17 ; Phil, iv, 6 ; 1 Thess. v, 17. This is the essential
element of the piety of prayer :^ airy yap y aXyBivy sixv y sixapiariav exovaa
irrip irdvruv dv lapsv Kal uv oiK lapev, uv si 'sirdBopev y iBXipopsv, irrip rdv
KOivuv eiepysa'iarv, Theophylact, The combination with tt; rrpoaevxy irpoaiiapr.
(Bohmer, Hofmann) is without ground in the context, although likewise
suitable as to sense,
Ver. 3. Comp. Eph, vi. 19 f, — dya Kal irepi yp.] while your prayer takes
place at the same time also (not merely for yourselves, for others, and about
whatever other affairs, but at the same time also) for us, includes us also.
This vpuv, not to be referred to Paul ahne, like the singular dedepai subse
quently and ver, 4, applies to him and Timothy, i. 1, — 'iva] contents of the
prayer expressed as its purpose, as in i, 9 and frequently, — Bipav r. Xdyov]
[XL 6,] is not equivalent to ardpa (Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and others, comp. Storr and Bohmer) — a
singular appellation which Eph, vi. 7 does not warrant us to assume — but
is rather a figurative way of indicating the thought : unhindered operation
in the preaching of the gospel. So long as this does not exist, there is not
opened to the preachers a door for the word, through which they may let
it go forth.'' The ira'p'pyaia oi the preaching (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact), however, lies not in the Bipa and its opening, but in what
follows. Hofmann incorrectly holds that the closed door is conceived as
being on the side of those, to whom the preachers wished to preach the word,
so that it would not enter in. This conception is decidedly at variance with
the immediately following XaXfjaai k.t.X., according to which the hindrance
portrayed (the door to be opened) exists on the side of the preachers.
Moreover, in this iva b Qeb; k.t.X. the wish of the ^apostle, as regards his
own person, is certainly directed to liberation from his captivity (comp.
Philem, 22), not, however, to this in itself, but to the free working which
depended on it. It was not the preaching in ihe prison which Paul m eant, for
that he lutd; but he longed after the opening of a Bipa rov Xdyov; God-wasto give
it to him. Perhaps the thought of liberation suggested to himself the choice
of the expression. Nor is the plural yydv and yplv, embracing others with
himself, at variance with this view (as Hofmann holds); for by the
captivity of the apostle his faithful friend and fellow-laborer Timothy, who
was with him, was, as a matter of course, also hindered in the freedom of
working, to which he might otherwise have devoted himself. This waa
involved in the nature of their personal and official fellowship. Observe
how it is only with didepai that Paul makes, and must make, a transition
to the singular. This transition by no means betrays (in opposition to
Hitzig and Holtzmann) the words di' 8 /cat didspai, 'Iva (pav. aird to be an
iPut Olshausen incorrectly says: "the this view the very ver. 3 is decisive, where, in
prayer of the Christian at all times, in the fact, Paul does not mean a prayer of thanks.
consciousness of the grace which he has ex- JComp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 12; Dion.
perienced, can only be a prayer of thanks- Hal, tie viiJem, p, 1026, 14: oiSi flupm IJiiv Xo-
giving," He holds the more general n-poo-eux^ Y"'. a'so Pind, 01, vi, 44; iriiAaj vfiviov avairiT-
to be more precisely defined hy iv evxap. Against ydp,ev, Bacchyl, fr. xiv, 2,

380 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
interpolation from Eph, vi. 20. The fact, that Paul elsewhere (Bom, vii.
2 ; 1 Cor, vii, 27, 39) has disiv in the figurative sense, cannot matter ; -
comp., on the contrary, the dsayd; and diapio; which he so often uses. —
XaXijaai /c.r.A.] infinitive of the aim : in order to speak the mystery of Christ.
The emphasis is on XaXyaai : not to suppress it, but to let it he proclaimed.
Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; 1 Thess, ii, 2, — roi Xpiarov] genitive of
the subject, the divine mystery contained in the appearance and redemp
tive act of Christ (comp, Eph, iii. 4), in so far, namely, as the divine
counsel of redemption, concealed previously to its being made known by
the gospel, was accomplished in Christ's mission and work (i, 26, ii, 2;
Eph, i, 9; Rom, xvi, 25), Thus the pvarypiov of God in ii. 2 is, because
Christ was the bearer and accomplisher of it, the yvarypiov rov Xpiarov. —
dl' b Kal dedepai] di' b applies to the pvaryp. ; and the whole clause serves to
justify the intercession desired. When, namely, Paul wishes XaXyaai rb yvaryp.
/ . X., he therewith desires that, which is in such sense his entire destination,
that on account of this mystery — because, namely, he has made it known
— he also bears his fetters. This /cat is consequently the also of the corres
ponding relation, quite common with relatives (Baeumlein, Partik, p, 152).
Ver, 4, 'Iva /c,r,A,] cannot, seeing that the preceding tva d eedf dvo'i^y
K.r.X. means the free preaching outside of the prison, be dependent either
on didepai (Bengel, Hofmann, comp, Theodoret) or on rrpoaevxdyevoi, so
that it would run parallel with "iva in ver, 3 (Beza, Bahr, de "Wette, Baum
garten-Crusius, Dalmer, and others) ; it is the aim of the XaXyaai rb yvar.
1. X. : in order that I may make it manifest (by preaching) as T must
speak it, Comp, also Bleek, who, however, less simply attaches it already
to iva d Qeb; dually k.t,X. The significant weight of this clause expressing
the aim lies in the specification of mode a; del ys XaXyaai, in which del
has the emphasis. To give forth his preaching in such measure, as it was
the necessity of his apostolic destiny to do {dsi) — so frankly and without
reserve, so free from hindrance, so far and wide from land to land, with
such liberty to form churches and to combat erroneous teachings, and so
forth — Paul was unable, so long as he was in captivity, even when others
were allowed access to him. There is a tragic trait in this u; del ys 'XaXyaai,
the feeling of the hindered present. [XL c] The traditional explanation
is that of Chrysostom : ^tterd iroXXrj; ry; rra'p'pya'ia; Kal pydiv viroareiXdpevov,
namely, in captivity, where Paul longed to speak in the right way (de
"Wette ; so usually), or conformably to higher necessity (Bahr, Huther, comp.
Beza, 1 Cor. ix, 16), or without allowing himself to he disturbed in his preach
ing as apostle to the Gentiles by his imprisonment occasioned by Jewish-
Christian hostility (Hofmann), But in opposition to the reference of the
whole intercession to the ministry in prison, see on ver, 3, The wish and
the hope of working once more in freedom were so necessarily bound up
in Paul with the consciousness of his comprehensive apostolic task, that
we can least of all suppose him to have given it up already in Caesarea,
where he appealed to the emperor. Even in the Epistle to the Philippi
ans (i. 25, ii, 24), his expectation is still in fact directed to renewed
freedom of working.

CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 381
Ver. 5 f. Another exhortation, for which Paul must still have had occa
sion, although we need not seek its link of connection with the preceding
one,' Comp. Eph. v. 15 f , where the injunction here given in reference to
the non-Christians is couched in a general form. — ev aotpiif] Practical
Christian wisdom (not mere prudence; Chrysostom aptly quotes Matt. x.
16) is to be the element, in which their'walk amidst their intercourse with
the non-Christians moves, Trpdf of the social direction, Bernhardy, p,
205. As to ot cftj, see on 1 Cor. v. 12. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 12. — rdv Kaipbv
efaj/op.] definition of the mode in which that injunction is to be carried
out : so thai ye make the right point of time your own (see on Eph. v. 16),
allow it not to pass unemployed. For what ? is to be inferred solely from
the context ; namely, for all the activities in which that same wise demeanor
in intercourse with the non-Christians finds expression — which, consequently,
may be according to the circumstances very diversified. Individual limit
ations of the reference are gratuitously introduced, such as " ad ejusmodi
homines meliora docendos," Heinrichs, comp. Erasmus, Beza, Calovius,
and others, including Flatt and Bohmer ; or : " in reference to the fur
therance of the kingdom of God," Huther, Hofmann. There is likewise
gratuitously imported the idea of the shortness of time, on account of
which it is to be well applied (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, and
others, including Bahr), as also the view that the Kaipd;, which signifies
the a'tuv ovro;, is not the property of the Christian, but belongs roi; i^u,
and is to be made by Christians their own through good deeds (Theodo
ret, comp. Oecumenius), or by peaceful demeanor towards the non-Chris
tians (Theophylact), Lastly, there is also imported the idea of an evil
time from Eph, v. 16, in connection with which expositors have in turn
lighted on very different definitions of the meaning ; e. g. Calvin : " in
tanta saeculi corruptela eripiendam esse benefaciendi occasionem et cum
obstaculis luctandum;" Grotius: "elFugientes pericula."— Ver, 6, d Xdy.
ip.] what ye speak, namely, rrpb; roi; i^a ; the more groundless, therefore,
is the position of Holtzmann, that ver. 6 is a supplement inserted at a
later place, when it should have properly come in at chap, iii, between
vv, 8 and 9, co-rtj is to be supplied, as is evident from the preceding im
perative irspiiraTsirs. — ev xopi'"] denotes that with which their speech is to
be furnished, ivith grace, pleasantness,^ This xopievra; slvai of speaking
(comp, Plato, Prot, p. 344 B, Rep, p. 331 A) is very different from the
;taptT07;U)a(7etv of Aesch, Prom, 294, — dXari riprvy,] seasoned with salt, a, figu
rative representation of speech as an article of food, which is communi
cated. The salt is emblem of wisdom, as is placed beyond doubt by the
context in ver, 5, and is in keeping with the sense of the following s'ldivai
K.r.X. (comp. Matt, v. 13 ; Mark ix. 49, 50), As an article of food seasoned
with salt" is thereby rendered palatable, so what is spoken receives
through wisdom (in contents and form) its morally attracting, exciting, and
•Comp, on Luke iv, 22; Ecclus, xxvi, 16, way as to provoke the palate, So-ph, Fragm,
xxxvii, 21; Hom, Od. Yiii, lib ; Dem. 61. 9. 601, Dind.; Athen. ii. p. 68 A; Theoph. de
2 The poets use dpnieiv often of articles of odor. 61 ; Symm. Cant. viii. 2, Hence aprvnn,
food or wines, whioh are prepared in such a spice.

382 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
stimulating quality. Its opposite is the stale, ethically .insipid (not the
morally rotten and corrupt, as Beza, Bohmer, and others hold) quality of
speech, the ydpov, papoXoysiv, in which the moral stimulus is wanting.
The designation of wit by d'X; {dXs;) among the later Greeks ' is derived
from the pungent power of salt, and is not relevant here. Moreover, the
relation between the two requirements, cv x^'P'n and dAart yprvpivo;, is
not to be distinguished in such a way that the former shall mean the good
and the latter the correct impression (so, arbitrarily, Hofmann) ; but the
former depicts the character of the speech more generally, and the latter
more specially. The good and correct impression is yielded by both. —
s'ldivai /c,T,/l,] taken groundlessly by Hofmann in an imperative sense (see
on Rom, xii, 15 ; Phil, iii, 16), is, as if dare stood alongside of it, the
epexegetical infinitive for more precise definition : so that ye know.'' This
cid^vat {to understand how, see on Phil, iv, 12) is, in fact, just an ability,
which would not be found in the absence of the previously-described
quality of speech, but is actually existent through the same, — iruf] which
may be in very different ways, according to the varieties of individuality
in the questioners. Hence: cvi c/cdo-ru, "nam haec pars est non ultima
prudentiae, singulorum habere respectum," Calvin, — dTro/cptvetj0at] We may
conceive reference to be made to questions as to points of faith and doc
trine, as to moral principles, topics of constitution and organization, his
torical matters, and so forth, which, in the intercourse of Christians with
non-Christians, might be put, sometimes innocently, sometimes malici
ously (comp, 1 Pet, iii, 1), to the former, and required answer. Paul does
not use the word elsewhere. Comp, as to the thing itself, his own exam
ple at Athens, Acts xvii, ; before Felix and Festus ; before the Jews in
Rome, Acts xxviii. 20, and so forth ; and also his testimony to his own
procedure, 1 Cor, ix, 20-22, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calovius, and others,
inappropriately mix up believers as included in evi iKaara, in opposition to
ver, 5.
Vv, 7-9. Sending of Tychicus, and also of Onesimus. Comp. on Eph.
vi, 21 f. — By ddeXip, Paul expresses the relation of Tychicus as a Christian
brother generally ; by didKovo;, his special relation as the apostle's official
servant, in which very capacity he employs him for such missions ; and
by avvdovXo; (i. 7) he delicately, as a mark of honor, places him as to
official category on a footing of equality with himself ; while ev /cvp/u, be
longing to the two latter predicates," marks the specific definite character,
according to which nothing else than simply Christ — His person, word,
and work — is the sphere in which these relations of service are active.
Comp, Eph, vi, 21, — e't; airo rovro] for tllis very object, having a retrospec
tive reference as in Rom, xiii, 6, 2 Cor. v. 5 (in opposition to Hofmann),
in order, namely, that ye may learn from him all that concerns me. The fol-
' Plut, Moral, p, 085 A ; Athen, ix, p, 366 C, rated from dSeKipo^, which has its special ad-
" See Matthiae, g 532 f , p, 1235 f, ; Winer, p, jective, Chrysostom, moreover, aptly re-
296 [E, T, 316], marks on the different predicates : to of to-
3 Stti/covos and trilvfiouAo? are also connected irtarov (rvvyyayev.
by the common attribute tthttos, and sepa-

CHAP. IV. 6-10. 383
lowing Iva yvdre rd tt. iydv (see the critical remarks) is explicative ; Trdvra
iy. yvap. rd dids in ver. 9 then corresponds to both, Comp, on Eph. vi.
22, — Trapa/caA.] inay comfort, in your anxiety concerning me, respecting my
position. With the reading yva rd irepi ipdv, the reference would be to
the sufferings of the readers ; ' — aiv 'OvyalpiS] belonging to eirsy-ipa. As to
this slave of Philemon, see Introd. to the Epistle to Philemon, Paul
commends him ^ as his faithful {mard;, as in ver, 7, not : having become a
believer, as Biihr would render it) and beloved brother, and designates him then
as Colossian, not in order to do honor to their city (Chrysostom, Theophy
lact), but in order to bespeak their special sympathy for Onesimus, the
particulars as to whom, especially as regards his conversion, he leaves to
be communicated orally. — cf ipdv] As a Colossian he was from among
them, that is, one belonging to their church. Comp, ver, 12, — rd ads] the
state of matters here, to which rd /car' cue, ver, 7, especially belonged,
Ver. 10, [On w. 10-18, see Note XLI, pages 393, 394,] Sending of salu
tations down to ver, 14, — 'Apt<jTap;i;of] a Thessalonian, known fi-om Acts xix,
29, XX, 4, xxvii, 2, Philem, 24, was with Paul at Caesarea, when the latter
had appealed to the emperor, and travelled with him to Rome, Acts
xxvii. 2, — d amiaixpdXard; yov] [XLI rt,] Oidcv rovrov rov eyKuyiov psl^ov,
Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter to Philemon at ver. 24, the
same Aristarchus is enumerated among the awspyoi ; and, on the other
hand, at ver. 23 Epaphras, of whose sharing the captivity our Epistle
makes no mention (see i. 7), is designated as awaixpdXuro;, so that in
Philem. I, c, the awaixpdXjjro; is expressly distinguished from the mere
awspyoi, and the former is not affirmed of Aristarchus, Hence various
interpreters have taken it to refer not to a proper, enforced sharing of the
captivity, but to a voluntary one, it being assumed, namely, that friends of
the apostle allowed themselves to be temporarily shut up with him in
prison, in order to be with him and to minister to him not merely as
¦visitors, but continuously day and night, Comp. Huther, de Wette, and
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I, p, xxi. According to this view, such friends changed
places from time to time, so that, when the apostle wrote our letter, Aris
tarchus, and when he wrote that to Philemon, Epaphras, shared his cap
ti-vity. But such a relation could the less be gathered by the readers from
the mere awaixpdXaro; (comp, Lucian, As, 27), seeing that Paul himself
was a prisoner, and consequently they could not but find in awaixydX.
simply the entirely similar position of Aristarchus as a awdsapdiry; (Plat.
Rep. p, 516 C : Thuc, vi, 60, 2), and that as being so at the same time, not,
as in Bom, xvi. 7, at some earlier period. Hence we must assume that
now Aristarchus, but when the Epistle to Philemon was written, Epaphras,
lay in prison at the same time with the apostle, — an imprisonment which
is to be regarded as detention for trial, and the change of persons in the
case must have had its explanation in circumstances to us unknown but
iSeUvvai /cat airovs ev ^etpoo-|U.otv ovras Kal had "happened with Onesimus 1 Yet Holtz-
rrapaKKvire,^, xtdiiovra,, Theophylact, comp. mann holds that of the whole verse onlv the
^ ' name Onesimus is characteristic, and recBons
8 And hTw wisely and kindly, after what the verse to owe its existence to that name.

384 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
yet, notwithstanding the proximity of the two letters in point of time,
sufficiently conceivable. It is to be observed, moreover, that as a'lxydX.
always denotes captivity in war (see on Eph, iv, 8 ; also Luke iv. 18), Paul
by awaixp. sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of
Christ). Comp, avarpanury;, Phil, ii, 25 ; Philem, 2, Plofmann (comp.
also on Rom, xvi, 7) is of opinion that we should think " of the war-cap
tive state of one won by Christ from the kingdom of darkness,'' so that awaix
pdXuro; would be an appellation for fellow- C hi-istian ; but this is an aber
ration, which ought least of all to have been put forth in the presence of
a letter, which Paul wrote in the very character of a prisoner. — Upon
ave-ipid;, consobrinus, cousin: Herod, vii, 5, 82, ix. 10; Plat, Legg. xi. p.
925 A ; Xen, Anab. vii. 8, 9, Tob. vii, 22, Num, xxxvi, 11 ; see Andoc, i.
47 ; Pollux, iii, 28, Not to be confounded either with nephew {ddeX^idov;
or with avsTpiddy;, cousin's son, in the classical writers, dve-ijitov iral;. See
generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p, 506, To take it in a wider sense, like our
" kinsman, relative " ^ there is the less reason, seeing that Paul does not
use the word elsewhere. Moreover, as no other Mark at all occurs in the
N, T,, there is no sufficient ground for the supposition of Hofmann, that
Paul had by d dvci//. Bapv, merely wished to signify which Mark he meant.
Chrysostom and Theophylact already rightly perceived that the relation
ship with the highly-esteemed Barnabas was designed to redound to the
commendation oi Mark, — rrcpi oi iXap. evroX.] in respect of wliom (Mark) ye
have received injunctions '' — a remark which seems to be made not without
a design, of reminding them as to their execution. What injunctions are
meant, hy whom and through whom they were given, and whether orally or
in writing, Paul does not say ; but the recalling of them makes it proba
ble that they proceeded from himself, and were given dypdipu; did nvuv
(Oecumenius), Ewald conjectures that they were given in the letter to
the Laodiceans, and related to love-offerings for Jerusalem, which Mark
was finally to fetch and attend to. But the work of collection was proba
bly closed with the last journey of the apostle to Jerusalem. Others hold,
contrary to the notion of ivroXy, that letters of recommendation are meant
from Barnabas (Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius) ; while others
think that the following edv iXBy k.t.X. forms the contents oiivroXd; (Calvin
— who, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some codd,, reads subsequently
di^aaBai, — comp, Beza, Castalio, Bengel, Biihr, and Baumgarten-Crusius),
a view against which may be urged the plural ivroXd; and the absence of
the article, Hofmann incorrectly maintains that Trept oi iXdp. 'svto7m; is
to be taken along with edv iXSy ir. ip. : respecting whom ye have obtained
1 So in Hom, P. ix, 464, who, however, also bas, which were now no longer to be applied,
uses it in the strict sense as in x, 519, As if the n-apof ya-/i6s of Acts xv, 39 could have
2 irepi ou is not to be referred to Barnabas, Induced the apostle to issue such an anathema
as, following Theophylact and Cajetanus (the to his churches against the highly-esteemed
former of whom, however, explains as if Barnabas, who was accounted of apostolic
-Trap" oC were read), Otto, Pastoralbr, p, 2.'>9 ff,, dignity! Paul did not act so unjustly and
has again done. The latter understands nn- imprudently. Comp,, on the contrary. Gal,
der the ivToXdi instructions formerly issued \i, 9 and (notwithstanding what is narrated at
to the Pauline churches not to receive Barna. Gal, ii, 11) 1 Cor. ix, 6.

CHAP. IV. 11. 385
instructions for the case of his coming io you. This the words could not
mean ; for edv iXBy ir. ip. signifies nothing else than : if he shall have
come to you, and this accords not with iXdp. ivroX., but only with di^aaBs
airdv,^ which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed without connect
ing link (that is, with singular abruptness), — edv s'/Sy k.t.X^ Parenthesis ;
Mark must therefore have had in view a journey, which was to bring him
to Colossae. dixsaBai oi hospitable reception, as often in the N, T, (Matt.
X, 14; John iv. 45) and in classical authors (Xen, Anab. iv, 8. 23), From
the circumstance, however, that di^aaBs stands without special modal defi
nition, it is not to be inferred that Paul was apprehensive lest the readers
should not, without this summons, have recognized Mark (on account of
Acts XV. 38 f,) as an apostolic associate (Wieseler, Chronol, des apost.
Zeitalt. p, 567). Not the simple di^aaBs, but a more precise definition,
would have been called for in the event of such an apprehension,
Ver. 11, [XLI b,] Of this Jesus nothing fiirther is known, — ol bvrs; iK
irspir. is to be attached, with Lachmann (comp, also Steiger, Pluther,
Bleek), to what follows, so that a full stop is not to be inserted (as is
usually done) after Treptr, Otherwise ol bvrs; iK irspir. would be purposeless,
and the following oiroi pdvoi k.t.X. too general to be true, and in fact at
variance with the subsequent mention of Epaphras and Luke (vv, 12-14).
It is accordingly to be explained : Of those, who are from the circumcision,
these alone (simply these three, and no others) are such fellow-laborers for ihe
kingdom of the Messiah, as have become a comfort to me. The Jewish- Christian
teachers, consequently, worked even at Caesarea to a great extent in an
anti-Pauline sense. Comp, the complaint from Rome, Phil, i, 15, 17. The
nominative ot ofTCf c/c TTcptT. puts the generic subject at the head; but as
something is to be affirmed not of the genus, but of sispecial part of it, that
general subject remains without being followed out, and by means of the
perdpaai; e'l; pipo; the special subject is introduced with oiroi, so that the
verb (here the s'lai to be supplied), now attaches itself to the latter, A
phenomenon of partitive apposition, which is current also in classical
authors,^ Hence there is the less reason fpr breaking up the passage,
which runs on simply, after the fashion adopted by Hofmann, who treats
c/c rrepiroyij; oiroi pdvoi as inserted parenthetically between ot ovrcf and
awspyoi. The comphmentary affirmation is to be referred to all the three
previously named, without arbitrary exclusion of Aristarchus (in opposi
tion to Hofmann), At any rate, Caesarea was a city so important for the
Christian mission, that many teachers, Jewish-Christian and Gentile-
1 In 1 Tim lii 14 f,, a passage to which Hof- ing the latter would logically have to be con-
mann with' very little ground, appeals, the ceived and expressed in oblique form (/rom
verb of the chief clause is, in fact, a present the point of view of the person giving the rn-
lypdiui) not, as would be the case here, a junction), in some sueh form, therefore, as:
¦praeterite, which expresses an act of the past el eMoi np'o, ipd, (comp. Acts xxiv, 19, xxvil,
iixdSere). There the meaning is : In the case 39 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p, 491 f,),
of my departure being delayed, however, this my 'See Kuhner, II 1, p 246; Nagelsbach and
letter hJs the object, etc. But Aere, if the con- Paes, on Hom, /(, in, 211. Comp. Matthiae, p,
ditional clause were to be annexed to the 1307.
past act iKd^ere, the circumstance condition-
25

386 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Christian, must have frequented it, especially while Paul was a prisoner
there ; and consequently the notice in the passage before us need not point
us to Rome as the place of writing. — rrapyyopla] consolation, comfort, only here
in the N. T. ; more frequently in Plutarch; see Kypke. 'M.iyiarov iyKupiov
rb tCi diroaTdX(p yeviaBai Bvpydla; irpd^svov, Theodoret. Bengel imposes an
arbitrary limitation : " in forensi periculo."
Ver. 12, ''Eiraippd;] See i, 7 and Introd, — It is to be observed that, accord
ing to ver, 11, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas (ver, 14) were no Jewish-
Christians, whereas Tiele in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p, 765, holding Luke to
be by birth a Jew, has recourse to forced expedients, and wishes arbitrarily
to read between the lines, Hofmann, refining groundlessly (see on ver.
14), but with a view to favor his presupposition that all the N. T. writings
were of Israelite origin,'- thinks that our passage contributes nothing
towards the solution of the question as to Luke's descent ; comp, on Luke,
Introd, 1 1, — d ef ipdv] as in ver, 9, exciting the affectionate special interest
of the readers ; iTrep ipdv afterwards thoughtfully corresponds. — dovXo; X.
is to be taken together with TrdvTore dyaviC,., but d ef ipdv is not to be con
nected with dovXo; (Hofmann) ; on the contrary, it is to be taken by itself
as a special element of recommendation (as in ver. 9) : Epaphras, your
own, a servant of Christ who is always striving, etc. — dytjvif.] Comp. Rom.
XV. 30. The n\ore fervent the prayer for any one is, the more is it a striv
ing for him, namely, in opposition to the dangers which threaten him, and
which are present to the vivid conception of him who wrestles in prayer.
Comp. also ii. 1. The striving of Epaphras in prayer certainly had refer
ence not merely to the heretical temptations to which the Colossians, of
whose church he was a member, were exposed, but — as is evident from
tva aryrs k.t.X. (purpose of the dyavii^. K.r.X.) — to everything generally, which
endangered the right Christian frame in them. — errore] designation of
stedfast perseverance ; in which there is neither wavering, nor falling, nor
giving way. To this belongs ev Travrt -BsX/ip. r. Q., [XLI c] expressing
wherein (comp, 1 Pet, v, 12) they are to maintain stedfastness ; in every will
of God, that is, in all that God wills. Comp, on aryvai iv in this sense,
John viii, 44 ; Rom, v. 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 13. This connection
(comp. Bengel and Bleek) recommends itself on account of its frequent
occurrence, and because it completes and rounds off the whole expression ;
for arrjTs now has not merely a modal definition, riX. k. ireirXyp., but also a
local detinition, which admirably corresponds to the figurative conception
of standing. This applies, at the same time, in opposition to the usual
mode of construction with reX. k. irsirXyp,, followed also by Hofmann,
according to which ev tt, BeX. r. Q. would be the moral sphere, " within which
the perfection and firm conviction are to take place," Huther,^ — riXsmi Kal
1 This postulate, wholly without proof, is sostom and Luther, ev tt, 0eA, t. ©eou to Tre-irXy-
, also assumed by Grau, Entuiickelungsgesch. d, puip.. : filled with every will of God, which, in-
neutest. Schriftth, I. p. 54. stead of being transformed into "voluntatis
2 If we follow the iSecepfa TreirX^pto/ievot (see divinae verae et integrae cognitio" (Reiche,
the critical remarks), on the other hand, we comp. Beza), is rather to be understood as
.must join, as is usually done, following Chry- denoting that the heart is to be full of all that

CHAP. IV. 12-14. 387
TrenXypoipopyyevoi] perfect and with full conviction (comp. ii. 2 ; Rom. iv, 21,
xiv. 5 ; and see on Luke i, 1) obtain through the context {ar-ijre iv ir. BeX. r.
Q.) their more definite meaning ; the former as moral perfection, such as
the true Christian ought to have (i, 28) ; and the latter, as stedfastness of
conscience, which excludes all scruples as to what God's will requires, and
is of decisive importance for the reXeidry; of the Christian life ; comp, Rom.
xiv, 5, 22 f.
Ver. 13. General testimony in confirmation of the particular statement
made regarding Epaphras in Trdvrore k.t.X. ; on which account there is the
less reason to ascribe to the interpolator the more precise definition of
dyavi^. iir. iy., which is given by ev rai; irpoaevx, (Holtzmann), The ydp is
sufficiently clear and logical, — rroXvv Trdvov (see the critical remarks) ; much
toil, which is to be understood of the exertion of mental activity — of earnest
working with its cares, hopes, wishes, fears, temptations, dangers, and so
forth. The word is purposely chosen, in keeping with the conception of the
conflict (ver. 12); for Trdvof is formally used of the toil and trouble of con
flict,^ — /cat rdv iv Aaod. k. i . iv 'lepaTr.J Epaphras had certainly labored in
these adjoining towns, as in Colossae, which was probably his headquarters,
as founder, or, at least, as an eminent teacher of the churches.
Ver. 14. Luke the physician, the (by me) beloved, is the Evangelist — a point
which, in presence of the tradition current from Iren. iii. 14. 1 onward, is
as little to be doubted as that the Mark of ver. 10 is the Evangelist. Luke
was with Paul at Caesarea (Philem 24), and traveled with him to Rome
(Acts xxvii. 1), accompanying him, however, not as physician (as if yov or
ypdv had been appended), but as an associate in teaching, as awepyd;,
Philem. 24. Hofmann calls this in question, in order to avoid the infer
ence from ver. 11, that Luke was a non-Israelite. The addition, moreover,
of d larpdf is simply to be explained after the analogy of all the previous
salutations sent, by assuming that Paul has appended to each of the per
sons named a special characteristic description by way of recommenda
tion,' The case of A^^adf is the only exception ; on which account it is the
more probable that the latter had even at this time (at the date of 2 Tim.
iv. 10 he has abandoned him) seemed to the apostle not quite surely enti
tled to a commendatory description, although he stih, at Philem. 24, adduces
him among his awspyoi, to whose number he still belonged. [XLI d.]
Hence the assumption of such a probability is not strange, but is to be
preferred to the altogether precarious opinion of Hofmann, that Demas
God wills, and that in no matter, consequently, and Nagelsbach in loc. ; comp. Rev. xxi. 4.
is any other will than the divine to rule in 2 In thecaseof Luke, the attachment of the
the believer. Respecting ev, comp. on Eph. honorable professional designation 6 iarpos to
V. 18, Bahr incorrectly renders: "by virtue the name suggested itself so naturally and
of the whole counsel of God," which is not spontaneously— considering the peculiarity
possibleonaccountoftheveryabsenceof the cf his professional position, to which there
article in the case of iravrt. Grotius, Hein- was probably nothing similar in the case of
richs, Flatt, and others, erroneously hold that any other oT/vep-yo's— that there is no reason to
iv is equivalent to els. assume any special purpose in the selection
1 See Herod, vi. 114, viii. 89 ; Plat. PAaetir, p, (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and many, suggest
247 B- Dem. 637. 18; Eur. Suppl. 317; Soph. that the object was to distinguish Luke from
TracTi. 21. 169 ; often so in Homer as iZ, L 467, others of the same name).

388 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
was the amanuensis of the letter, and had, vrith the permission of the
apostle, inserted his name (comp, Bengel's suggestion). Whence was the
reader to know that? How very different is it at Rom, xvi, 22 ! The name
itself is not Hebrew (in opposition to Schoettgen), but Greek ; see Boeckh.
Corp. inscrip. 1085 ; Becker, Anecd. 714,
Ver, 15, Messages down to ver, 17, — The first Kai is : and especially, and
in particular, so that of the Christians at Laodicea {tov; iv Aaod. ddsXip,).
Nymphas is specially' singled out for salutation by name. In the follow
ing /cat Ti^v Kar' oIkov airdv iicKX., the church which is in their house, the plural
airdv (see the critical remarks) cannot without violence receive any other
reference than to tov; iv Aaod. d6sX(pov; k. 'Svyipdv. Paul must therefore (and
his readers were more precisely aware how this matter stood) indicate a
church different from the Laodicean church, & foreign one, which, however,
was in filial association with that church, and held its meetings in the
same house wherein the Laodiceans assembled. [XLI e,] If we adopt-
the reading airoi, we should have to think, not of the family of Nymphas
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, and others), but, in accordance with
Rom, xvi, 5, 1 Cor,_xvi, 19, Philem, 2, of a portion of the Laodicean church,
which held its separate meetings in the house of Nymphas, In that case,
however, the persons here saluted would have been already included
among roif ev AaodiKsig. ddsXipov;. The plural airdiv by no means warrants
the ascribing the origin of ver, 15 to an unseasonable reminiscence of 1
Cor, xvi, 19 and Rom, xvi, 5, perhaps also of Philem, 2 (Holtzmann).
What a mechanical procedure would that be ! — The personal name
Nymphas itself, which some with extreme arbitrariness would take as a
symbolic name (Hitzig, comp. Holtzmann), is not elsewhere preserved,
but we find Nymphaeus, Nymphodorus, Nymphodotus, and Nymphius, also
Nymphis. Ver. 16.' This message presupposes essentially similar circumstances
in the two churches. — y iiriaTo2,f\ is, as a matter of course, the present
Epistle now before us; Winer, p. 102 [E. T. 107]. Comp. Rom. xvi. 22;
1 Thess. V. 27. — iroiyaars, 'Iva] procure, thut. The expression rests on the
conception ; to be active, in order tliat something maj^ happen, John xi. 37.''
The following koI ryv iK Aaod. k.t.X. is, with emphatic prefixing of the
object, likewise dependent on rroi-yaaTs, not co-ordinated with the latter as
an independent imperative sentence like Eph. v. 33 — a forced invention
of Hofmann, which, besides, is quite inappropriate on account of the stern
command which it would yield.-*— riyv c/c Aaodt/cctaf] not : that written to me
1 Nymph as appears to have been specially ^comp. Herod, i. 8: Troi'et, o/cms /c.t.X,, i, 209;
well known to the apostle, and on friendly Xen, Cyrop. vi. 3. 18.
terms with him ; perhaps a o-uvep-yds, who was -i Hofmann needed, certainly, some such
now for a season laboring in t.ie church at artificial expedient, wholly without warrant
Laodicea. in the words of the text, to favor his presup-
s See Anger, Beitr. zur histor. krit. Einl. in d. position that the Epistle to the Ephesians was
A. u. JV. T. I.; aber den Laodicenerbrief, Leip. meant, and that it was a circular letter. For
1843; Wieseler, de epistola Laodicena, Gott. a circular letter goes through the circuit
1844; and Chronol. d. apost. Zeit. p. 460 ff. ; destined for 'it of itself , 3.n A there is no ocoa-
Sartori, Ueber d. Laodicenserbrief, Liib. 1853. sion to ask or to send for it in order to pro-

CHAP. IV. 15, 16. 389
from, Laodicea. So nvi; in Chrysostom, who himself gives no decisive
voice, as also Syriac, Theodoret, Photius in Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza,
Vatablus, Calvin, Calo-vius, Wolf, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, and
others, as also again Baumgarten-Crusius, This is at variance with the
context, according to which /cat ipsi;, pursuant to the parallel of the first
clause of the verse, presupposes the Laodiceans, not as the senders oi the
letter, but. as the receivers of the letter, by whom it was read. How
unsuitable also would be the form of the message by iroiijaars 1 Paul must,
in fact, have seiit to them the letter. Lastly, neither the object aimed at
(Theophylact already aptly remarks : dXX' oiK olda rl dv 'sKe'ivy; — namely,
that alleged letter of the Laodiceans — idei airoi; irpb; psXriaaiv), nor even
the propriety of the matter would be manifest. Purely fanciful is the
opinion of Jablonsky, that Paul means a letter of the Laodiceans to the
Colossian overseers, as well as that of Theophylact: »J Trpdf TiydBeov irpdry'
airy ydp eK AaodiKsla; iypdfy. So also a scholion in Matthaei. In accordance
with the context — although Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 211 ff., denounces
the idea as a " fiction,'' and Hofmann declares it as excluded by the very
salutations with which the Colossians are charged to the Laodiceans— we
can only understand it to refer to a letter of Paul to the La.odiceans, which
not merely these, to whom it was written, but also the Colossians^ {Kal ipel;)
were to read, just as the letter to the Colossians was to be read not merely
by the latter, but also in the Laodicean church. The mode of expression, riyv
cK AaodiKsia;, is the very usual form of attraction in the case of prepositions
with the article (comp. Matt, xxiv. 17 ; Luke xi, 13), so that the two
elements are therein comprehended : the letter to be found in Laodicea, and
to be claimed or fetched from Laodicea to Cobssae,'- This letter written to
the Laodiceans has, like various other letters of the apostle, been hsti' In
opposition to the old opinion held by Marcion, and in modern times still
favored especially by such as hold the Epistle to the Ephesians to be a
circular letter (Bohmer, Bottger, Bahr, Steiger, Anger, Reuss, Lange,
Bleek, Dalmer, Sabatier, Hofmann, Hitzig, and others), that the Epjistle to
the Ephesians is to be understood as that referred to,' The hypothesis

cwre, that {iroiyirart, Iva) people may get it to the Greek text of which, we may mention,
read. But the effect of the forced separation originated with Elias Hutter (1699), who trans-
of the second 'iva from Troiijo-aTe is, that the lated it from the Latin, may be seen in Fabri-
words Tijv in AaoSt/tetas are supposed only to oius. Codex apocr. p, 873 ff,. Anger, p, 142 ff.
affirm that the letter "will come" from Lao- The whole letter,— highly esteemed, on the
dloea to Colossae, that it "toiH reach" them, suggestion of Gregory I,, during the Middle
and they ought to read it. In this way the Ages in the West, although prohibited in the
text must be strained to suit what is d priori second Council of Nice, 787 (to be found also
put into it. This applies also in opposition to in pre-Lutheran German Bibles),— which is
Sabatier, Cap PaMi,p, 201, who entirely ignores doubtless a still later fabrication than that
the connection with iroi^aare ( " la lettre qui already rejected in the Canon Muratorianus,
vous viendra de Laod, ), consists only of twenty verses, the author of
1 See generally, Kuhner, II, 1, p, 473 f , and which does not even play the part of a definite
ad Xen. Mem. iii, 6, 11, ad Anab, i, 1, 5; Stall- situation, Erasmus rightly characterizes it:
baum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 B; Winer, p. 684 "quae nihil habeat PauU praeter voculas
fE T 6291 aliquot ex ceteris ejus epistolis mendicatas."
2 The apocryphal letter to the Laodiceans, . 'See Introd. to Eph. g 1 ; Wieseler, Chronol.

390 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS,
that the Epistle to Philemon is meaiit,^ finds no confirmation either in the
nature and contents of this private letter,^ or in the expressions of our
passage, which, according to the analogy of the context, presuppose a
letter to the whole church and for it. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Schulthess, Stein, in his Comm, z. Luk,, appendix) has been fallen upon in
the vain search after the lost ! According to Holtzmann, the words are
intended to refer to the Epistle to the Ephesians, but /cat ryv iK AaodiK.
'iva K. ip. dvayv. is an insertion of the interpolator ; ^ comp, Hitzig.
Remabk. — It is to be assumed that the Epistle to the Laodiceans was com
posed at the same time with that to the Colossians, inasmuch as the injunction that
they should be mutually read in the churches can only have been founded on the
similarity of the circumstances of the two churches as they stood at the time.
Comp. ii. 1, where the /cat rdv iv AaodiKsif, specially added to Trept iydv, expresses
the similar and simultaneous character of the need, and, when compared with our
passage, is to be referred to the consciousness that the apostle was writing to both
churches. And the expression rfiv eK AaodiKela; produces the impression that,
when the Colossians received their letter, the Laodiceans would already have theirs.
At the same time the expression is such, that Paul does not expressly inform the
Colossians that he had written also to the Laodiceans, but speaks of this letter as
of something knoion to the readers, evidently reckoning upon the oral communica
tion of Tychicus. The result, accordingly, seems as follows : Tychicus was the
bearer of both letters, and traveled hy way of Laodicea to Colossae, so that the
letter for that church was already in Laodicea when the Colossians got theirs
from the hands of Tychicus, and they were now in a position, according to the
directions given in our passage, to have the Laodicean letter forwarded to
them, and to send their own (after it was publicly read in their own church)
to Laodicea.
Ver. 17. The particular circumstances which lay at the root of this
emphatic admonitory utterance * cannot be ascertained, nor do we even
know whether the diaKovia is to be understood in the narrower sense

(I. apost. Zeitalt. p. 435 ff. ; Sartori, I. c. ; Reiche, churches.
Com-m, crit, ad Eph, i. 1 ; Laurent in the Jahrb. 8 Because, if we annex tva to irotjja-aTe, an
/. D. Theol. 1866, p. 131 ff. awkward sense arises, " seeing that the Col-
1 So Wieseler, also Thiersch, Hist. Standp. ossians can only cause that they get the letter
p. 424 ; and some older expositors, see in Calo- to read, but not that they read it." That is a
vius and in Anger, p. 35. subtlety, whioh does injustice to the popular
2 For, although it is in form addressed to style of the letter. But if we take 'iva inde-
several persons, and even to the church in the pendently (as Hofmann does), then Holtz-
house (see on Philem. 1, 2), it is at any rate in mann is further of opinion that the author of
substance clear, as Jerome already remarks : Eph. iv. 29, v. 27, 33, is immediately betrayed
" Paulum tantummodo ad Philemonem sort- —an unfounded inference (comp. Winer, p.
here, et unum cum suo sermocinari," Besides, 295 [E. T. 315]), in which, besides, only the
it is to be inferred from the contents of the comparison of Eph. v. 33 would be relevant,
Colossian letter, that the Laodicean letter and that would be balanced by 2 Cor.
meant was also doctrinal in contents, and that viii. 7.
the reciprocal use of the two letters had refer- 'Bengel : " vos meis verbis dicite tanquam
ence to this, in accordance with the essen- testes. Hoc magis movebat, quam si ipsum
tially similar needs of the two neighboring Archippum appellaret."

CHAP. IV. 17. 391
of the office of decuxm (Primasius), or of any other office relating to
the church (possibly the q^ce of presbyter), or of the calhng of an evange
list, or oi some individnal business relating tothe service of the church.
We cannot gather from ev Kvplip any more precise definition of the Chris
tian diaKovia. Ewald conjectures that Archippus was a still younger man
(Bengel holds him to have been sick or weak through age), an overseer
of the church, who had been during the absence of Epaphras too indulgent
towards the false teachers. Even Fathers like Jerome and the older
expositors regard him as bishop (so also Dollinger, Christenthum u. Kirche,
ed. 2, p. 308), or as substitute for the bishop during the absence of
Epaphras (similarly Bleek), whose successor he had also become (Cor
nelius a Lapide and Estius). Comp. further as to this Colossian,' on
Philem. 2. — ^The special motive for this precise form of remipding him of
his duty is not clear,^ But what merits attention is the relation of dis
ciplinary admonitive authority, [XLI /.] in which, according to these
words, the church stood to the office-bearers, and which should here be
the less called in question with Hofmann, since Paul in the letter to
Philemon addressed jointly to Archippus would doubtless himself have
given the admonition, if he had not conceded and recognized in the
church that authority of which he invokes the exercise — and that even in
the case, which cannot be proved, of the dioKovia having been the service
of an evangelist. The expedient to which Oecumenius and others haVe
recourse can only be looked upon as flowing from the later hierarchical
feehng : 'Iva brav iirinyd "Apximro; avrol;, yy ixuaiv 'syKaXslv iKsivip a; micpa . . .
CTTCt dXXa; drorrov roi; paByral; Trept rov didaoKdXov diaXiyeaBai (Theophylact). —
pxirrs K.T.X.] Grotius, Wolf, Elatt, Bahr, and many, take the construction
to be : pXerrs 'Iva ryv diaK. ijv rrapsX. iv Kvp., irXypol;, from which arbitrary
1 Theodoret already with reason declares nition to Archippus through a strange church,
himself against the opinion that Archippus the more especially when he had written at
had been a iaodicean teacher (so Theodore of the same time to himself jointly addressed
Mopsuestia, Michaelis, and Storr), just as the with Philemon (Philem. 2).
Consiitt. apost. vii. 46. 2 make him appointed « Hitzig, p. 31 (who holds also vv. 9, 16, 16 to
by Paul as bishop of Laodicea, Recently it be nol genuine), gives it as his opinion that
has been defended by Wieseler, Chronol. des Archippus is indebted for this exhortation,
apost. Zeitalt. p, 452, and Laurent in the Jahrb. not to the apostle, but to the manipulator, who
/. D. Th. 1866, p. 130, arguing that, if Arch- knew the man indeed from Philem, 2, but
ippus had been a Colossian, it is not easy to probably had in his mind the Flavins Arch-
Bee why Paul, in ver. 17, makes him be ippus, well known from Plin, Bp, n.. 66-68, and
admonished by others ; and also that ver. 17 the proconsul Paulus, when he adjusted for
is joined by /cat to ver. 15 f., where the ioo- himself the relation between the Apostle Paul
diceans are spoken of. But the form of ex- and his fellow-warrior Archippus (Philem. 2).
hortation in ver. 17 has a motive iwt known I do not understand how any one could
to us at all ¦ and the reason based on /tat ascribe even to an interpolator so singular an
in ver. 17 would only be relevant in the event anachronistic confusion of persons. Yet Holtz-
of ver. 17 following immediately after ver. 15. mann finds the grounds of Hitzig so cogent.
Lastly, we should expect, after the analogy that he ultimately regards vv. 15-17 as the
of ver.' 15, that if Archippus had not dwelt in rivet, " by means of whioh the Auctor ad Ephe-
Colossae Paul would have caused a salutation sios has made a connected triad out of his
to be seiit to him as to Nymphas. Besides, it own work, the interpolated Colossian epistle,
would be altogether very surprising that Paul and the letter to Philemon."
should have conveyed the warning admo-

392 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
view the very air^v should have precluded them. The words are not to
be taken otherwise than as they stand : Look to the service (have it in thy
view), which thou hast undertaken in the Lord, in order thai thou mayest
fulfill ii, mayest meet its obligations ; 'Iva air. rrXyp. is the purpose, which is
to be present in the pxiireiv r. dioK. k.t.X. Comp. 2 John 8. On irXypoi;,
comp. Acts xii. 25 ; 1 Macc. ii. 55 ; Liban. Ep, 359 ; Philo, in Flacc. p, 988:
T^v diaKovlav 'sKTrXyaavrs;. — ev Kvp'iip] not : from the Lord (Biihr) ; not : for
the sake of the Lord (Flatt) ; not : secundum Domini praecepta (Grotius).
Christ, who is served by the diaKovia (1 Cor. xii. 5), is conceived as the
sphere, in which the act of the irapaXaypdvsiv ryv dioKoviav is accomphshed
objectively, as well as in the consciousness of the person concerned ; he is
in that act not out of Christ, but limng and acting in Him. The ev Kvp. con
veys the element of holy obligation. The less reason is there for joining
it, with Grotius, Steiger, and Dalmer, to the following iva air. irXyp.
Ver. 18, [XLI g.] Conclusion written with his own hand ; comp. 2
Thess, iii. 17. See on 1 Cor, xvi, 21, — Be mindful for me of my bonds,
[XLI h.] a closing exhortation, deeply touching in its simplicity, in
which there is not a mere request for intercession (ver. 3), or a hint even
at the giving of aid, but the whole pious affection of grateful love is
claimed, the whole strength of his example for imparting consolation and
stedfastness is asserted, and the whole authority of the martyr is thrown
into the words. Every limitation is unwarranted, Toiro ydp kavdv etf
Trdvra airoif irporpe-ipaaBai, Kat yevvaioripov; iroiyaai irpb; roi; dydva;' dpa Kal
o'lKeioripov; airov; iirolyae Kal rbv ipdpov iXvasv, Oecumenius, comp, Chrysos
tom, — V x^pv] naT" i^oxipi '¦ the grace of God bestowed in Christ. Comp.
1 Tim. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. iv. 22 ; Tit. iii. 5. Comp. on Eph. vi. 24.

Notes by Ameeican Emtob.
XL. Vv. 2-6.
(a) The line of exhortation which has been closely followed as far as iv. 1, is
now left, and the hortatory section closes with two suggestions of Christian duty
of a different order — both having a bearing upon the success of the Gospel,
though not altogether limited to this. Ver. 2 contains a general exhortation
respecting prayer, such as we find in other places, as mentioned by Meyer ; but
the following verses show that, in presenting this general exhortation, the apostle
had in mind the thoughts which those verses express. The readers were to pray for
him and his associates in labor, that success in the Gospel work might be given to
them, and they were themselves to live and act and speak in such a way that a
similar success would follow in their own sphere. The sphere of Paul, however,
was that of a preacher ; the sphere of the Colossians, that of private Christians,
whose influence and work were in the ordinary lines of common life. There is,
thus, a point of union in the two cases, and yet a difference. The point of union
accounts for the bringing together of the verses. — (6) That the Bipa rov Xdyov has
a certain reference to a desired release from imprisonment, as Meyer holds, is

NOTES. 393
probable. It was in this way, especially, that all hindrances in his work would
be removed. The words di' b Kal didepai favor this view ; perhaps, also, the words
of ver. 4, But it is not clear that the reference is to be limited to such u, release.
The desire for freedom, for the sake of his apostolic work, must, at the time and
under the circumstances, have been a chief desire, but he would have prayers
offered for the largest opportunities of preaching in every line. — (c) Whether the
reference in a; del ps XaX-ijaai is as exclusively to the hindrance occasioned by his
imprisonment as Meyer claims, may also be questioned. The parallel passage,
Eph. vi. 19, 20, would indicate something besides this. This idea, however, is a
part, if not the whole, of the thought, dsl, in any case, denotes the necessity of
his apostolic mission — the application being in the subjective or the objective
line, or both, according as we interpret, — i, e. referring to his own boldness (Trap-
pyaia, Eph, vi. 19), or his release from captivity. — {d) The relation of ver, 5 to
ver. 6 seems to be this : — the former presents the general idea of life and conduct
as having reference to unchristian men around them, and the latter turns this
especially into the line of speaking to such men or with them.
XLL Vv. 10-18.
(a) Meyer insists that awaixpdXaro; refers to an imprisonment of Aristarchus
with the Apostle by the authorities and for purposes of judicial trial. The fact that
Epaphras is said to be awaix. in Philem., ver. 24, while Aristarchus is not, is
made an objection to this view. It may be remarked with reference to this point,
that the Greek word naturally refers to an involuntary imprisonment or captivity;
that, as Paul was himself now in imprisonment, the readers would naturally un
derstand him by the use of aiv to mean a captivity like his own ; that in Rom.
xvi. 7 (the only other passage in the N. T, where the word is found) it is difficult
to explain it in any other way ; that the fact that Epaphras is called thus in
Philem, and Aristarchus not, while here Aristarchus is thus described and Epa
phras not, does not necessarily occasion a difficulty, by reason of sudden or fre
quent changes which it would imply, for the absence of the adjective as applied
to Aristarchus in Philem, may be accounted for on other grounds. Epaphras and
Aristarchus were both <7wat;i;|Ud/luT0t, and both amspyol and aivdov'Xm. Rea
sons unknown to us may easily have determined the use of the one adjective or
the other, independently of the question as to the particular time when they
were in imprisonment. The Ep. to Philem. was, probably, written almost on the
same day with that to the Colossians. A release of one of these men and an im
prisonment of the other in the interval (if any there was) between them, is not
altogether probable. Though Paul was not strictly an a'lxpdXaro; a prisomr of
war this fact can hardly be made an objection to the application of the word to
an association with him in his present condition, — {b) All the persons mentioned
here as joining Paul in his salutation to the Colossian Church are, also, mentioned
as saluting Philemon (Philem. ver. 24), except Jesus Justus. Of Mark we learn
three things from this passage, (1) that he was a near relative of Barnabas, which
may partly account for the action of the latter in Acts xv. 36 ff. ; (2) that he was
a Jewish convert ; and (3) that he was, at least at this time, in Rome — facts
which may have a bearing upon the correct view respecting his Gospel. The
other great fact bearing upon his Gospel— namely, his relations to Paul and the
Pauline doctrine— is indicated not only here, but elsewhere.— (c) Meyer is ap-

394 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.
parently correct in connecting ev Travri -BsXiipan of ver. 12 with ar-yrs (or
ara-Byrs). The prayer was, that they might stand firmly — be settled without
wavering — in the sphere of what is willed by God, being perfect in their fulfill
ment of it, and fully persuaded respecting it so as to be beyond doubts or ques
tionings. To this end Epaphras, he says, earnestly prayed, and had rroXvv Trdvov,
which, as he was now absent from the Colossians, probably refers wholly, as
Meyer says, or mainly, as Lightf, to internal struggle, desire, prayer, etc.— (ci)
The suggestion made by Meyer and several others, that Demas may have already
shown symptoms of his subsequent defection (2 Tim. iv. 10), and that this fact
may have occasioned the omission of any commendatory words respecting him, is
hardly probable. The interval of time between this Epistle and the 2d Epistle
to Timothy was from three to five years. Demas is called, with all the others
here mentioned, awspyd; in Philem. ver. 24, and his name is there placed before
that of Luke, — (e) The view of Meyer with respect to oirdiv — that it refers to
rov; 'ev Aaod.' ddeXip. k. Nv/t^dv, and that the allusion is to a foreign church
which met in the same house with the Laodicean Church, but was different from
it — cannot be affirmed with coniidence. The reference of airdv may be to
Nymphas and his familj'. — (/) The remarks made by Meyer respecting the mes
sage for Archippus, as indicating the " disciplinary admonitive authority " which
Paul recognized the church as having in relation to its officers, are worthy of
notice. The supposition which Lightf. makes, that Archippus lived at Laodicea
(see his Introd. to the Ep. to Philemon, p, 375), if adopted, will hardly explain
the sending of this admonition to the Colossian Church and the omission of all
allusion to any such thing in the Ep, to Philem,, in which Archippus is per
sonally addressed, — {g) The fact that in this late Epistle we have an autograph
salutation, is evidence that, from the time of his beginning to certify his letters
in this way, 2 Thess, iii, 17, Paul continued always to do so (o ccrrtv aypelov 'sv rrday
irrtaroXy). — {h) The letter closes with an allusion to his imprisonment, which in
all the Epistles of this period is naturally made so prominent. It is interesting
to notice, that it was at this time of his life, and in the midst of this experience,
that he said he had learned in whatsoever state he was to be content (Phil.
iv. 11).

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

INTEODUCTION.

HILEMON, who had been converted to Christianity by Paul
himself perhaps during his sojourn at Ephesus (ver. 19), was
a raember of the Christian community, not at Laodicea
(Wieseler, Laurent), but — ^like Archippus, ver. 2 (see on Col.
iv, 17) — at Colossae (Col, iv. 9), wherein, by his zealous Chris
tian activity, and more especially by the holding of an 'sKKXya'ia in his
house (vv. 1-7), he had gained deserved esteem, being described by Chry
sostom as Ttf rdv Bavyaardv Kal ysvvaiav. Nothing is known as to his more
definite vocation, although tradition has made him bishop in Colossae
{Constit. apost. vii, 46, 2) or in Gaza (Pseudo-Dorotheus), as it has likewise
placed him among the martyrs (under Nero). It is possible, however,
that he was one of the presbyters of the church {awspyoi, ver. 1), Of the
house where he dwelt Theodoret relates {iirdBsai;) : yixpi rov irapdvro;
psysvyKS. His slave Onesimus ' had, on account of a misdemeanor (vv. 11, 18),
fled from him through fear of punishment (ver, 15), and had come, cer
tainly of set purpose '' and not by mere accident, to the apostle, then a
captive at Caesarea, who converted him to Christ (ver. 10), and conceived
a most cordial affection for him (vv. 12, 13, 16 f.). When, therefore, Paul
was despatching Tychicus to Colossae (Col. iv. 7), he made use of this

I Tradition in one form of it makes him
subsequently bishop of Beroea in Macedonia
(.Constit. apost. vii, 46. 2), and in another iden
tifies him with the Bishop Onesimus in Ephe
sus (Ignat. ad Eph. 1 and 6), and makes him
die as a martyr in Rome.
2 In this way the circumstances of the case
find their simplest and most natural expla
nation. Comp. Bengel on ver, 11 : Onesimus
etiam antequam ad frugem veram pervenisset,

tamen bene de Paulo existimarat, et ipsius
fiagitii sui occasione ad ilium confugit. And
this serves to dispose of the curious question
of Hofmann (p. 217) : " What should induce
Onesimus to flee to Caesarea in particular?"
'We answer : He fled to the place, where Paul
was. And the reason of this may be the more
readily understood, if he had been possibly
already in Philemon's service, when the latter
was converted by the apostle, 395

396 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
opportunity tQ send Onesimus- — whom he at the same time commended
to the church there (Col, iv. 9) — ^back to his master, and to procure for
him at the hands of the latter forgiveness, welcome, and love by means
of this letter — an aim, which is pursued in it with so much Christian love ^
and wisdom, with so great psychological tact, and, without sacrifice of the
apostolic authority, in a manner so thoughtfully condescending, adroit,
delicate, and irresistible, that the brief letter — which is in the finest sense
a Xidyo; d'Xan yprvpivo; (Col. iv. 6), as a most precious and characteristic
relic of the great apostle — belongs, even as regards its Attic refinement
and gracefulness, to the epistolary master-pieces of antiquity.^
The Epistle bears so directly and vividly the stamp of genuineness, that
the doubts of Baur {Paulus, II. p, 88 ff,) would appear a whim hardly
meant in earnest, were they not in strict consistency with the assumption
that we should not have any letters of the apostle at all from the
period of his captivity, Baur, who, we may add, acknowledges the
author as profoundly pervaded by Christian consciousness, places the con
tents of the Epistle upon a parallel with those of the Clementine Homi
lies, and finds in it the " embryo of a Christian fiction," by which the idea
was to be brought home to men's minds, that what we lose temporally in
the world, we regain eternally in Christianitj' (according to ver, 15),
With equal caprice Baur propounds the view, that even should the writ
ing be Pauline, what actually took place is set forth under the point of
view of that definite idea, and the bringing of this latter into prominence
is its proper aim and import. The genuineness is externally attested — and
that the more adequately, when we consider that from its bre-vity and the
personal, not directly didactic, nature of its contents there was little occa
sion for citations — by the Canon Muratorianus, Marcion (see Tertullian, c.
Marc. V, 42 ; Epiph. Haer. xlii. 9), Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome,
etc., though the passages of Ignatius, ad Eph, 2, ad Magnes. 12, ad Polyca.
6, do not serve to prove a reference to ver. 20. Nevertheless, Jerome had
already to controvert those, who wished to infer from the non-dogmatic
character of the contents " aut epistolam non esse Pauli . . . aut etiam,
si Pauli sit, nihil habere, quod aedificare nos possit."
1 Comp. Luther's preface : " This Epistle yet so eminently significant letter."
presents a masterly and charming example " The letters of Pliny {.Epp. 9, 21, and 24)
of Christian love," etc. Ewald : " Nowhere have often been compared with ours ; but how
can the sensibility and warmth of tender greatly it excels them in point of thoughtful-
friendship blend more beautifully with the ness, delicacy of plan, and depth of affection I
higher feeling of a superior mind, nay, of a " Quid festivius etiam dici poterat vel ab ipso
teacher and apostle, than in this brief and Tullio in hujusmodi argumento?" Erasmus.

INTRODUCTION. 397
Place and time are the same as with the Epistles written from the cap
ti-vity in Caesarea (not, as is usually supposed, at Rome) to the Ephesians
and Colossians, and with the lost Epistle to the Laodiceans, which how
ever, is not to be found in the one now before us; see on Col. iv. 16.
Whether Paul wrote our Epistle before that to the Colossians (Otto), or
the converse, remains an undetermined question.

Ver. 2. Instead of adsXipy, Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have dyarryry. But the
former, which is approved by Griesb. and Reiche, is attested by A D* E* F G x,
and some min. vss. Hesych. Jerome, and was easily supplanted by the dyarr. writ
ten on the margin in conformity with ver. 1 (vss. Ambrosiast. and Pelag. have
ddeXip-ij dyarr.). — Ver. 5. Trpdf] Lachm. : eif, following A C D* E, 17, 137. An
alteration, occasioned by irlanv. — Ver. 6. Instead of yylv, Elz. has iylv, in opposi
tion to A C D E K L, min. vss. and Fathers. The latter reading is to be traced
to the mechanical copyists, who, as in the opening of the Epistle, had in view
Philemon and those around him (ver. 3). The preceding roi is deleted by
Lachm. on too weak counter-evidence (A C, 17) ; how easily might it be passed
over after the final syllable of dyaBov I — Ver. 7. Instead of x°-pdv, Elz. Tisch.
have ;i;dptv, in opposition to decisive evidence ; the latter found its way into the
text through reference to eixapiara, ver, 4. Comp. Beiche. — ixopev] Lachm. has
eaxov, which was also recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A C F G x,
min. vss. Fathers, The other witnesses are divided between ixopev and saxopsv,
but remain too weak to warrant either of these two readings. Tbe plural appears
an inappropriate following up of cv -yylv in ver, 6, and saxopsv also tells indi
rectly in favor of Lachm. The position a/i!er rroXX. is decidedly attested (Lachm.).
— Ver. 10. Before iyi-wyaa Lachm. ed. min. had iyu, following A, min. Syr. p.
Slav. ms. Chrys. Rightly ; the emphasis resting upon 'eyd, in accordance with
the context, was overlooked ; and it is more likely to have been dropped out on
occasion of the foUowdng EPE, than to have been introduced by the writing of
BP twice. — After deap. Elz. Scholz have yov,^ in opposition to decisive testimony.
— Ver. 11. After dviirsy-ipa we have, with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A
C D* E X* 57), to take in aoi, the omission of which is to be explained from the
following tri. — Ver. 12. av di] is wanting in A C x-* 17, Lachm., who, like Tisch.,
has deleted also rrpoaXaPov after arrXdyxva. This rrpoa'XaPov is wanting in A F
G ti* 'il, while some min, place it immediately after ai de ; Arm, Boem, Theo
doret, on the other hand, after airdv. It is, though afresh defended by Reiche,
to be looked upon as a supplement from ver, 17 ; the absence of the verb, how
ever, involved, by way of redressing the construction, the omisfeion of ai di, so
that airdv was regarded as governed by dvirrep-ijia (comp. Lachm. : ov dvsirsy-tpd
aoi avrdv, rovreanv rd iyd airXdyxva). — Ver. 13. The position oi yoi before diaK.
(Elz. in reverse order) is decisively attested, — Ver. IS. The form i XX dya is to
be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in conformity with A C D* (cvA.) F G «, 17,
31 ; eXXdysi was imported from the familiar passage, Rom. v. 13.— Ver. 20. Instead
of Xpiara 'Elz. has Kvpiip. Repetition from what precedes, in opposition to
decisive evidence. — Ver. 21. iTrep b] Lachm. ; iirep d, in accordance with A C X;

398 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
Copt. We have no means of deciding the point. — Ver. 23, Instead of do-Trdfe-
Tai, Elz. has daird^ovrai, which has decisive witnesses against it. An emenda
tion. Contents, — After the address and apostolic greeting (vv. 1-3), there fol
lows a glorious testimony to the Christian character of Philemon (vv, 4r-7) ;
then the proper object of the Epistle, intercession for Onesimus (vv, 8-21);
and finally, the bespeaking of a lodging, in the hope of being liberated'
(ver. 22), Salutations and concluding wish, -w. 23-25,
Ver, 1, [On vv, 1-3, see Note XLII, pages 415, 416,] Mayio; Xp. 'I,] i. e,
whom Christ has placed in bonds. See on Eph. iii, 1. T/iis self-designation
(not oTrdo-ToAof, or the like) at the head of the letter is in keeping with its
confidential tone and its purpose of moving and winning the heart, iTrep
roi Ti^v xopiv iroipdrspov Xapslv, Chrysostom, — k. lipdB^ See on Phil, i, 1 ;
Col, i, 1. — avvspyu] The particular historic relations, on which this predi
cate is based, are unknown to us ; yet comp, ver, 2 : ry kot' oIkov aov
'sKKXya. ; perhaps he was an elder of the church, — -liydv] namely, of Paul
and Timothy. It belongs to dyarr. and awspyd. Although, we may add,
the Epistle is, as to its design and contents, a private letter, yet the associ
ating of Timothy with it, and especially the addressing it to more than
one (ver. 2), are suitably calculated with a view to the greater certainty of
a successful result (comp. already Chrysostom), Hofmann incorrectly
holds that in the directing of the letter also to the relatives and to the
church in the house the design was, that they should, by the communica
tion of the letter to them, become aware of what had induced Philemon to do
that which was asked of him. This they would in fact have learned other-
-wise from Philemon, and would have believed his account of the matter.
Ver, 2. [XLII 6,] That Appia was the wife of Philemon (Chrysostom,
Tlieodoret, Theophylact, and many) does not indeed admit of proof, but
is the more probable, in proportion as the intercession for the slave was a
matter of household concern, in which case the mistress of the house came
into view. On the form of the name with tt^ instead of tttt (Acts xxviii.
15), comp, 'Airipiavd; in Mionnet, Description des medailles. III, 179, IV, 65,
67, and the forms diripi; and airipd.^ — r-y adsXipy] ill the sense of Christian
sisterhood, like ddsXipd;, ver, 1, — Archippus, too (see on Col, iv, 17), must
have belonged to the family circle of Philemon, [XLII c] But whether
he was precisely son of Philemon,'-' we cannot determine. Chrysostom
and Theophylact take him to be S3, friend of the household ; Theodoret, to
be the teacher to the household, — rd avarpar. yp.] As in Phil, ii, 25, The
relation cannot be more precisely ascertained. He may have been deacon
(according to Ambrosiaster and Jerome, he was even bishop), but must
have endured confiict and trouble for the gospel. Comp, likewise 2 Tim,
ii,3. — Kal r. Kar" oik. u, c/c«A,] not to be understood of the /ami^j/ of Philemon,'
1 See also Lobeck, Paral. p. 33. 3 chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact : irdv-
2 Michaelis, Eichhorn, RosenmuUer, Ols- ras tou? €v t^ oi/cta Trto-rous Aeyet, crujiLirapaAa-
hausen, Hofmann, and already Theodore of ^uv /cat SouAous, comp. Calvin and Storr.
Mopsuestia,

VEES. 1-4. 399
but of the section of the Christians at Colossae, which met in his house.^
See on Col. iv. 15. Wisely (see on ver, 1) does Paul — although otherwise
in -w, 4r-24 he only speaks to Philemon — enlist the interest not merely of
Appia and Archippus, but also of the church in the house, and therewith
embrace the whole circle, in which there was to be prepared for the con
verted fugitive a sanctuary of pardon and affection. But farther than this
he does not go ; not beyond the limits of the house, since the matter, as a
household-affair, was not one suited to be laid before the Christian com
munity collectively. To the latter, however, he at the same time (Col. iv. 9)
commended his protige, though without touching upon the particular cir
cumstances of his case. Correct tact on the part of the apostle.
Ver,4f. [On vv. 4-7, see Note XLIII, pages 416-418,] Comp. Rom, i, 8; 1
Cor,i,4; Phil, i, 3; Col.i,3; Eph, i. 16. — irdvrors] [XLIII, a,] belongs not to
yveiav k.t.X. (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Cal-vin, Beza, Estius, and
many others), but to svxapiard k. r.X. (comp, on Col, i, 3 ; 1 Thess, i, 2), as
the main element, for the completenesis and emphasis of which it serves.
The participial definition yveiav k.t.X. specifies whereupon Paul sees him
self always moved to give thi-inks to God, namely, when he makes men
tion of Philemon in his prayers; and the following d/coiuv k.t.X. is like-
-wise an accompanying definition to evxapiard k.t.X., stating whereby he
finds himself induced to such thanksgiving, namely, because he hears, etc.
It is not the intercession that has its motive explained by aKoiuv (de Wette,
Koch), otherwise the logically necessary statement, for what Paul gives
thanks to God, would be entirely wanting, whereas the mention of Phile
mon in the prayer had no need of a motive assigned for it, and would
have taken place even without the d/coietv k.t.X. Moreover, Paul does not
by pvsiav K.r.X. express the intercession,hut in general the mention in prayer,
wllich is a much wider notion and also may be other than intercessory
(in opposition to Hofmann), — d/coicjv] continually, through Onesimus in
particular. It is otherwise with d/coio-avTcf, Col, i, 4, — rijv dydiryv] the stand
ing notion of Christian love to the brethren, as in Col, iii, 14, — k. rijv iriariv]
is more precisely defined by the following ijv ixei; . . . dyiov;, and hence
is not specially to be understood oi faith in the dogmatic sense, to which
etf Trdvraf rov; dyiov; would not be suitable. It ia faithfulness ; comp. Gab
V. 22 ; Bom, iii, 8 ; 1 Thess. i, 8 ; Matt, xxiii. 23 ; Tit. ii, 10 ; often in the
LXX,, Apocrypha, and Greek authors. So Michaelis and Hagenbach
(Flatt with hesitation), also Winer, p, 383 [E, T, 410/,], But usually (see
already Theodoret, and especially Grotius) expositors assume a chiasmus,
so that Trpdf t. /eip. 'I. is to be referred to / . irlanv, and etf tt. t, dyiov; to
T^v dydir. (de Wette, Wilke, Rhetor, p, 872 ; Demme, Koch, Wiesinger,
Ewald), to which also Bleek and Hofmann come in the end. Against this
may be decisively urged, !jv ix^^^, whereby Trpdf r. Kipiov . . . dylov; is
attached as one whole to ti^v Trttrrtv. With r^v dydiryv the ^v ixsi; has noth-
iPerhaps it is to this part of the address, oertainlyverynumerousprivaieletters, which
which directed the letter to a congregational the apostle wrote in the prosecution of his
circle, that we are indebted for the preserva- many-sided labors.
tion of the document— the only one of the

400 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
ing whatever to do ; the former has, on the contrary, its own definition of
subject by means of aov, which again does not stand in any connection
with Tijv irlanv. [XLIII h,] Comp, Col, i. 4, The usual objection to the
interpretation /aiZ/t/uMess, namely, that the dogmatic sense of TnVTtf is the
stated one when it goes along with dydiry, does not hold good, inasmuch aa
dydTT^ stands first (comp. also Gal, v. 22) ; in the stated combination of
faith and love the faith precedes (in accordance with the inner genetic
relation, Gal, v. 6), as 1 Cor. xiii, 13; Eph. i. 15; Col, i. 4; 1 Thess. i. 8, iii.
6; 1 Tim, i, 14; 2 Tim, i. 13, al.; hence the transposition t, Tricrrtv k. t.
dydiryv is found here too in D E, min, vss. and Ambrosiaster. The inter
change of Trpdf and etf can occasion no surprise, inasmuch as Paul is
fond of varying the prepositions (see on Rom. iii. 20 ; Gal. ii. 16 ; Eph, i.
7), as this is also of frequent occurrence with classical writers, without the
design of expressing a different relation. On Trpdf, comp, 1 Thess. i. 8';
4 Macc, XV, 21, xvi, 22; Dem, 656, 19; Lucian, Tox, 41, It is to be
observed withal, that the stated notion : faith in Christ, is never indicated
by TT p d f, a fact which likewise tells against the ordinary interpretation,
Ver. 6, "OTTCJf K,T.X.] [XLIII c] cannot, as is usually held (also by Winer,
de Wette, Demme, Koch, Ellicott, Bleek, and Hofmann), introduce the
aim of the intercession, ver, 4, since pvsiav aov rroioip. k.t.X. was only an
accompanying definition, and aKoiav k.t.X. already pointed back to sixapiard
K.r.X. (see on ver. 5). It attaches itself (so rightly, Grotius, Bengel, Wie
singer, Ewald) in its telic sense (not in the sense of so that, as Flatt and
older expositors would have it taken) to ver, 5, specifying the tendency of
fiv sxei;. For the sake of making this attachment Paul has put the yv exei;,
which would be other-wise superfluous. — /) Koivavta rfj; iriarsd; aov]
[XLIII d,] is by no means to be explained as if y Koivavla aov ry; irlarsa;
(or aov e'l; rijv iriariv) stood in the text, which would have to be the case,
if we take the rendering of Hofmann ("the fellowship of faith, in which
Philemon stands with his fellow-believers"). In order to the right interpre
tation observe further, on the one hand, that Koivuv'ia is with Paul, as
mostly also with classical writers, when it is not accompanied by the geni
tive of the personal pronoun (Phil. i. 5), always so employed, that the
genitive therewith connected denotes that with which the fellowship, or in
which the participation, takes place (1 Cor. i, 9, x, 16 ; 2 Cor, viii. 4, xiii.
13 ; Phil. ii. 1, iii. 10 ; Eph. iii, 9, Elz,), consequently is the genitive not
subjecti, but objecli ; and, on the other hand, that Koivuvia signifies not oom-
municatio, but communio, consortium. Accordingly there is at once set
aside — (1) the traditional interpretation since the time of Chrysostom and
Theophylact : " fides tua, quam communem nobiscum habes," Bengel,
comp, Luther, Wetstein, and many ; in which case the genitive has been
taken subjectively, as by Wiesinger: thy faith-fellowship with all saints;
and by Ewald : " that thou believest in Christ not merely for thyself,"
And there fall also (2) all interpretations, which transform the
notion of Koivuvia into communicatio , such as that of Beza :' " offwia
1 Comp, Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Hammond, Heinrichs.

VERS. 5, 6. 401
benignitatis in sanctos promanantia ex fide efficaci," Similarly also
Cal-vin : " fidei communicationem appellat, quum intus non latet otiosa,
sed per veros effectus se profert ad homines ; " he is followed substantially by
de Wette (and Koch) : " the communion of thy faith (genitivus subjecti),
as well in the display of love towards individuals as in the advancement of the
gospel," which latter element cannot be brought hither from awspy., ver.
1, and is out of place (comp. ver. 7), As the correct interpretation there
remains only this, keeping the notion of Trt'o-rtf in consistency with ver, 5 :
the fellowship entered into with thy Christian fidelity. So faithful a Christian
as Philemon draws all other saints (ver. 6), who come into relations of
experience with him, sympathetically to himself, so that they form with
him the bond of association unto like effort, and therewith become
KOivuvoi of his rr'iari;, — 'evepyy; yivyrai k.t.X.] [XLIII e,] This fellowship
with his fidelity is not to be an idle sympathy, but to become effective^ to
express itself in vigorous action — ^this is what Philemon wishes and aims
at — and that hy virtue of the knowledge of every Christian samng-blessing,'' —
a knowledge which, in such pious fellowship, unfolds itself ever more
fully and vividly, and which must be the means of powerfully prompting
all Christian activity (Eph. i, 17 f, ; Col, ii, 2, iii, 10). And the final aim
of this activity? Toward Christ Jesus it is to take place, i.e. si; Xp. 'I,,
which is neither, with Calvin, Estius, and others, to be annexed to roi ev
ij^tv, nor, with Hofmann, to dyaBov, nor even, with Grotius, to rriarsu;, but
to ivspy. yivyrai, in which case alone it has the significance : Christ Jesus'
will, work, kingdom, honor, and so forth, are to be their holy destination
and relative aim. Consequently the whole passage might be paraphrased
something in this way : And ivith this thy Christian fidelity thou hast the
sacred goal of fellowship in view, that whoever enters into the participation
of the same, may make this partaking through knowledge of every Christian
blessing effective for Christ Jesus. An appeal to the profound Christian
consciousness of Philemon, by way of preparation for the designed inter
cession on behalf of Onesimus, whom Paul in fact was now on the point
of introducing to that Koivuvia ry; iriarea; of his friend ! Respecting the
manifold other explanations of ivepyy; yivyrai k.t.X., it is to be observed, on
the one hand, that we have not, with many (including Wiesinger and Hof
mann), arbitrarily to restrict the notion of ivepyy; to the exercise of love,
but to extend it to the collective actimty of the Christian life ; and, on the other
hand, that as the subject of the Koivuvia is not Philemon, but others (comp,
also Bleek), the latter, namely the koivuvoI ry; irlared; aov, must also be the
subject of iiriyvaai; ; by which all expositions, according to which Philemon
is held to be this knowing subject, are set aside, whether iravrb; dyaBov he
taken in the moral sense, of every virtue (Chrysostom), of good works and
the like or (although in itself correctly) of the Christian blessings of
1 The translation of the -Vulgate, evidens, is enriched us (comp, on 2 Cor, viii, 9), are faith,
based upon the reading ivapyrj;; so codd. hope, love, patience, peace, joy in the Holy
Lat. in Jerome, Pelagius (Clar. Germ, : mani- Spirit,etc, Indevoutfellowshipthesebecome
ever more fully, vividly, and experimentally

2 Such blessings, by which Christ has known as regards their nature and value,
26

402 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
salvation, which are to be known. Hence we have to reject the interpre
tation of Oecumenius : dtd roi imyvdvai as koi -rrpdrrsiv irdv dyaBdv, in
which case the doing is arbitrarily imported, as is also done by Theophy
lact, according to whom iiriyivdoKsiv is held to be equivalent to dyarrdv koI
psTaxeipiC,sa6ai. So likewise in substance de Wette, who mixes up moral
action as keeping equal pace with moral knowledge, and takes rb 'sv -vplv
as : the good which is as to principle and spirit in us Christians ; he is
followed by Demme and Koch. We have further to reject the explana
tion of Flatt (so in substance also Osiander, Calovius, Bengel) : " thy faith
shows itself active through love, by means of a grateful recognition of all the
benefits," etc, or (as Wiesinger puts it): "inasmuch as it (namely, thy
fellowship of faith) recognizes — which is possible only for love — in tlie other
the good which is in him.'' We have to set aside, lastly, the explanation of
Hofmann, who, after the example of Michaelis,' retaining the reading cv
iylv, and taking Travrdf dyaBov as masculine, finds in ev imyvdasi k.t.X. the
meaning, that every one in the Christian sense good, every true Christian among
the Colossians,^ Philemon should know as being that which he is ; only by
virtue of such knowing would his fellowship of faith show itself effectively
operative through the exercise of Christian love — which would not be the
case with those " whose Christian virtuousness he failed to know." Erasmus,
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Pricaeus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and
others, have done rightly in not referring the iiriyvaai; to Philemon as the
knowing siibject,but wrongly in understanding cTTtyv, of ftecomi-n^r/creor;;™, as e,p'.
Erasmus, Paraphr, : " adeo ut nullum sit officium Christianae caritatis, in
quo non sis et notus et probatus.'' Beza : " ut hac ratione omnes agnoscant
et experiantur, quam divites sitisin Christo," etc, — dyaBov] Comp, Rom, xiv.
16 ; Gal, vi, 6 ; Luke i, 53, xii. 18, 19 ; Heb. ix. 11, x. 1 ; Ecclus. xii. 1, xiv.
25, al, ; irdv dyaBbv rb 'sv yylv really expresses quite the same thing as is
expressed at Eph. i. 3 by Trdtra eiXoyia irvsvyariKy. — roi ev -yplv] applies tO
the Christians generally, these being regarded as a whole. The blessings
are in the Christian community.
Ver. 7. [XLIII/.] Not the assigning of a reason for the intercession (de
Wette and others ; see in opposition thereto, on ver. 6), but a statement of
the subjective ground (the objective one was contained in ver. 5 f.) of the
thanksgiving, ver, 4, Jerome already aptly remarks : " plenius inculcat
et edocet, quare dixerit ; gratias ago," etc, — japdv] emphatically prefixed.
The aorist i a xov (see the critical remarks) relates to the point of time,
at which the d/coietv, ver, 5, had hitherto taken place, — iroXXyv] applies
to both substantives, — irapdxXyaw] for Paul is diapio;, vv, 1, 9, Comp.
irapvyopia, Col, iv. 11, — oti rd arrX. k.t.X.] More precise explanation to eTrt
ry dydiry aov : because, namely, the hearts (comp, ver, 20, as also 2 Cor. -vi,
12, vii. 15 ; Phil. i. 8, al.) of the saints are refreshed by thee. There is no
more particular information as to the work of love referred to ; and it
iWho interprets: "as often as thou earnest be referred to Philemon himself and to those
to know a good man among the Colossians! " adduced along with him iu ver. 2. The Col-
2 If the reading ev vp.Zv were genuine, it ossian cterc/i is brought in after a purely arbi-
coald only, in accordance with the context, trary way by Michaelis and Hofmann.

VERS. 7-9. 403
is quite arbitrary to refer rdv dy. specially to the poor Christians (Grotius,
Rosenmiiller, .and others), or even still more specially to " the mother-
church of Christendom" (Hofmann), which is not to be made good either
by 1 Cor. xvi. 1 or by Rom. xii. 13. — ddeA^e] not emphatic (" brother
in truth," de Wette, whom Koch follows ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr),
but touching affection, Comp, Gal, vi. 18.
Ver, 8, [On Vv, 8-17, see Note XLIV. pages 418, 419,] Atd] explains the
ground for the following t5td t, dyarr. pdXXov rrapoKaXd : Wherefore (because
I have so much joy and solace from thee), although I am by no means
wanting in great boldness (1 Tim, iii, 13 ; 2 Cor, iii. 12 ; Phil, i, 20) to
enjoin upon thee what is becoming, I will rather for love's sake exhort, will
make exhortation take the place of injunction, Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact (comp, also Theodoret), Erasmus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and
others attach did to the participial assertion. This is unpsychological ;
what Paul has said in ver. 5 [7] accords not with commanding, but with
entreaty, — ev Xpiara] In Christ, as the element of his inner life, Paul
knows that his great confidence has its basis. But this fellowship of his
with Christ is not merely the general Christian, but the apostolic, fellow
ship, — TO dvfjKov] that which is fitting, that is, the ethically suitable; Suidas:
TO irpiirov ; not used in this sense by Greek writers, Comp, however, Eph,
V. 4; Col, iii. 18; 1 Macc. x. 40, 42, xi. 35; 2 Macc, xiv. 8, Thus Paul
makes that, which he desires to obtain from Philemon, already to be felt
as his duty. — did ryv dydiryv] is Understood by some of the love of Philemon
(Calvin and others, Cornelius a Lap'ide : " ut scilicet solitam tuam
caritatem in servum tuum poenitentem ostendas") ; by others, of the love of
the apostle to Philemon (Estius and others) ; by others again, ijv Kayd ixa irpd;,.
as, Kal av irpb; ipi (Theophylact ; comp, Oecumenius and others ; Grotius :
"per necessitatem amicitiae nostrae"). But all these limitations, not
expressed in the text are arbitrary ; it is to be left general : on account of
hve, in order not to check the influence of the same (which, experience
shows, is so great also over thee), but to allow it free course. It is the
Christian brotherly love in abstracto, conceived of as a power ; 1 Cor. xiii.
Ver. 9 f. [XLIV 6.] Before roiovro; we have to place a full stop ; the
participial predication rotoirof dm sums up the quality which was expressed
in ver. 8 by rroXX.yv . . . pdXXov rrapoKaXd ; and lastly, ejf UaiXo; . . . Xpiarov
supports the rrapoKaXd ae k.t.X. of ver. 10, from a consideration of the
personal position of the apostle in such a way, that the granting of the
request could not but appear to Philemon as a mailer of dutiful affection.
Consequently : Seeing that I am so constituted,^ since such is my manner
of thinking and dealing, that, namely, in place of commanding thee, I
rather for love's sake betake myself to the iri^paKaXsiv, I exhort thee as Paul,
etc, A very mistaken objection to this view of roiovro; dv is that Paul
would not have said at all that he was so constituted, but only that he did
so in the given case (Hofmann, following Wiesinger), He, in fact, says even
now with roiovro; dv itself that such is his nature. Observe, moreover, that
iThe -Vulgate erroneously referred Oiv to Philemon: "cum sis talis," which Cornelius a
Lapide unsuccessfully defends.

404 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
t
the supporting elements, a; Itai'Xo; k.t.X., &Te prefixed yiith all the emphasis
of urgency to the irapaKaXd, since in them lies the progress of the repre
sentation, namely, that which comes in as additional to the rrapoKaXd,
already said before. Usually roiovro; is taken as preparative, so that eif
ItavXo; K.r.X. is the more precise explanation of it : in which case some (as
Luther, Calvin, and others, including Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald)
find only two elements, taking a; n, irpsapOry; together; others (most
expositors since the time of Chrysostom, including Bleek and Hofmann),
three elements— Hai/lof, irpsapiry;, diapio;. Expositors have differed in
defining the significance of the particulars in their bearing on the matter in
hand,^ while recognizing on the whole the " pondus ad movendum
Philemonis animum " (Estius), According to de Wette (comp, Wetstein),
roiovro; dv k.t.X. is to be held parallel to the participial clause of ver. 8, in
accordance with which the participle would thus have to be resolved
by although. But the whole mode of interpretation, which takes
roiovro; as preparative, is untenable. It must of necessity point back,
summing up under the notion of personal quality what was said by
iroXXijv . . . rrapaKaXd in ver, 8 ; for if roiovro; is not already defined (as is
here the case by reference to ver. 8), it may, doubtless, become defined
either by an adjective immediately following, or by a folio-wing oiof,^ or of'
or dtrof,* or by oitrTe with the infinitive ' but never by a;, which neither
actually occurs (the usually cited passage from Andocides in Wetstein, de
Wette has rightly described as not here relevant^) nor can take place
logically, since d>;, that is, as (not like, which it means after roidvds in Aesch.
Pers, 180), already presupposes the definiteness of roiovro;. This more
precise definiteness is not, however, to be relegated to the mere conception
or mode of view of the writer (Wiesinger: "I, in my circumstances"),
according to which ci; is then held to introduce an appositional definition,
to which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come ; but it is to be taken
from what Paul has previously said, because it results from that quite
simply and suitably, Comp, on roiovro; dv, wllich always in classical
writers also — where it is not followed by a corresponding olof, 8f, ooof, or
dars — summarily denotes the quality, disposition, demeanor, or the like,
1 So e. g, Erasmus, Paraphr. : " Quid enim " Plato, Conv. p, 199 D ; Dem, 41, 3,
neges roganti ? primum Pawto ; cum Paulum ^ Xen. Anab. iv, 4. 2; Plat, Phaed. p, 92 B;
dico non paulum rerum tibi significo ; deinde Heb, viii. 1.
seni: nonnihil tribal solet et aetati . . . nunc ^ Isocr. Paneg. 21.
, etiam vincto .- in precibus nonnihil ponderis ^ Plato, Conv. p. 175 D, al.
habet et calamitas obtestantis ; postremo vine- *> The passage runs : o Se irdvTuiv Seivorarov
to Jesu Christi: sic vincto favere debent, qui etrrt, toioCto? Siv is euvous riZ 5ripia tous Aoyous
nrofitentur Christi doctrinam." Similarly jrotetrat. Here, precisely as in our passage,
Grotius and others; while, according to Hein- tos euvous belongs not to toioOtos iav, but to
richs, by UouuAos there was to be awakened what follows, and rotouTos wv sums up what
gratitude; hy TrpetrjS. the readiness to oblige, had been said before, — The comparison of
natural towards the aged ; and by Setr/itos 'I, Toidtrfic, Hom, Od. xvi, 205 (Hofmannj, where
Xp, compassion. Hofmann holds that " the besides no is follows, is unsuitable, partly
name Pant puts Philemon in mind of all that on the general ground of the well-known
makes it a historical one," and that the im- diversity of meaning of the two words (comp.
pression ofthis becomes thereupon confirmed Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i, 7, 5), which is not to
by the other two elements, be abandoned without special reason, partly

VERS, 10, 11. 405
more precisely indicated before.' It is further to be noted, (1) that the
true explanation of Totoirof dv k.t.X. of itself imperatively requires that we
connect these words with the following rrapaKaXd (Flatt, Lachmann, who,
however, parenthesizes a; ItavXo;, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Bleek,
Hofmann), not with that which precedes (as formerly was usual), in which
case the second rrapaKaXd is understood as resumptive, an oiv (Theophy
lact), inquam, or the like, being supplied in thought (so Castalio, Beza,
Hagenbach, and many), (2) The elements expressed by tif HaiAof , . ,
Xpiaroi stand — seeing that irpsapiry; is a substantive and has not the
article- — ^in such relation to each other, that irpsapiry; and vml di koI diapio;
K.r.X. are two attributive statements attaching themselves to UaiXo; ; con-
eequ ently : as Paul, who is an old man, and now also a prisoner, etc. (3)
The (flexible) notion of irpsapiry; must by no means have its meaning
altered, as is done e.g. by Calvin, who makes it denote " non aetatem, sed
ofiicium;" but, at the same time, may not be rigidly pressed in so con
fidential a private writing, in which "lepos mixtus gravitate" (Bengel)
prevails, especially if Philemon was much younger than Paul. Observe,
withal, that the apostle does not use some such expression as yipuv, but
the more relative term irpsap. ; comp. Tit. ii, 2 with the contrast roif
vsuripov; in ver. 6. He sets himself down as a veteran in contradistinction
to the younger friend, who was once his disciple. At the stoning of
Stephen, and so some twenty-six or twenty-seven years earlier^ Paul was
still vsav'ia; (Acts vii, 58) ; he might thus be now somewhere about fifty
years of age. [XLIV c] — diayio; 'I, X,] as in ver, 1, — tskvov] tenderly
affectionate designation of his convert (comp, 1 Cor, iv, 14 f. ; Gal, iv, 19 ;
1 Pet. V. 13), in connection with which the conception of his own child is
brought more vividly into prominence by the prefixed 'syoi and by 'syd
(seethe critical remarks), and cv rotf dsayol;'' makes the recommenda
tion yet more affecting and urgent, — 'Ovliaiyov] Accusative, in accordance
with a well-known attraction ; see Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 164] ; Buttmann, p.
68 [E, T, 78],
Ver. 11. Ingenious allusion to the literal signification of the name (cur
rent also among the Greeks) 'Ovyaipo;, useful. The objection of Estius, that
Paul expresses himself in words derived from another stem (not from
ovlvypi), presupposes a mechanical procedure, with which Paul is least of
all to be charged. We may add that, while there were not sueh forms as
dvoviiaipo; and eiovyaiyo;, doubtless he might, had he wished to retain the stem
of the name, have employed dvdvyro; and dvT^rdf (Suidas), or bv^rap (Pindar),
or 'ovyaiipdpo; (Plutarch, Lucian). An allusion, however, at the same time
to the name of Christian, as sometimes in the Fathers Xpianavd; is brought
because in that passage iyti roidrfe stands 2 That the expression: in the bonds, was
absolutely and S«t/(Tt/ciis (hicce ego talis), so suitable only to Rome and not to Caesarea, is
that the following rraSiiv k.t.K. belongs to incorrectly inferred by Wieseler, p, 420, from
riXvSov ^^^^ xxiv, 23, See on that passage. It was
1 Plato, Rep, p, 493 C; Xen. Anab, iii. 1, 30; likewise incorrect to assign the Epistle, on
Bellen. iv. 1. 38; Cyrop. i. 6, 8; Soph. Aj. 1277 account of Trpeo-pun,!, to the alleged second
(1298) ; Lucian, Cont. 20, and many other imprisonment at Eome (Calovius),
places.

406 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
into relation with xpvord;, is arbitrarily assumed by Cornelius a Lapide,
Koch, and others, and the more so, as the expressions have already their
occasion in the name Onesimus, and, moreover, by means of aot and ipoi
an individually definite reference, — dxpyarov] unserviceable, only here in
the N, T. (comp, however, doi'Xo; axpelo;. Matt, xxv, 30; Luke xvii. 10).'
A definition, wherein the uselessness of Onesimus in his service consisted
(the usual view from the time of Chrysostom : that he had robbed his mas
ter) does not appear more precisely than in the hint ver. 18 f. — vwl di . . .
svxpwrov] [XLIV d.] Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv, 11 ; Plato, Pol. iii, p, 411 B :
xpyaiyov ef dxpyarov iiroiyasv. The usefulness, which now belongs to Onesimus,
is based simply on his conversion which had taken place, ver, 10, and
consequently consists for Philemon in the fact, that his slave now will ren
der his service in a far other way than before, namely, in a distinctively
Christian frame of mind and activity (consequently without eye-service and
man-pleasing, d/f rw /cvp/'u k.t.X., as it is expressed] at Col, iii, 29 ff.), and for
Paul himself in the fact that, because the conversion of Onesimus is his
work (ver, 10), in that transformation of the previously useless slave there
has accrued to the apastle, as the latter's spiritual father, gain and recom
pense of his labor (Phil, i, 22), the joy and honor of not having striven in
vain (Phil, ii, 16), Thus the benefits, which Philemon and Paul have
respectively to 'enjoy from Onesimus as now constituted, are brought into
contact and union,^ What a weighty and persuasive appeal was urged in
the ingenious /cat ipol (comp. Rom, xvi, 13 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 18) is at once felt.
Ver. 12. The rectified text' is : ov dvirrep-ipd aoi' av ds airbv, rovrian rd
ipd arrXdyxva (without irpoa7iaPov). [XLIV e.] — On dviirep-ipa, remisi, comp.
Luke xxiii. 11, — rovrian rd eyd airXdyxva] that is, my heart, by which Onesi
mus is designated as an object of the most cordial affection. So Oecumenius,
Theophylact, and many, iyd has an ingeniously-turned emphasis, in con
trast to airdv. According to others, the thought would be : iyd; ianv vib;,
iK TtJv ipdv ysyivvyrai airXdyxvuv, Theodoret (comp, also Chrysostom).*
But in this way the relation already expressed in ver, 10 would be only
repeated, and that in a form, which would be less in keeping with that
spiritual fatherhood, Paul, moreover, statedly uses a-?Myxva for the seat
oi the affection of love {'2 Cor, vi. 12, vii. 15; Phil, i, 8, ii. 1 ; Col. iii. 12;
Philem, 7, 20 ; comp, also Luke i. 78 ; 1 John iii. 17), and so also here,
where the person to whom one feels himself attached with tender love
(which, according to ver, 10, is certainly felt as paternal; comp, Wisd, x.
5 ; 4 Macc, xvi, 20, 26) is designated by the lover as his very heart, because
its feelings and inclinations are filled by this object,* When we set aside
1 Plato, J^s. p. 204 B : ipaHKo^ /cal axpijn-Tos, 3 hand, Winer, p. 140 [E. T. 148]).
Macc. iii. 29; Ecclus. xxxvii. 19. * So too Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs,
2 Comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia: trot /eara and others, following the Syriac. See in-
TTjv inType(riav, epioi Kara tIjv ^eKTiiacriv TOU stances in Pricaeus and Wetstein, and comp.
Tpo-nov. the Latin viscera.
8 See the critical remarks. The text of ^Comp, on this expression of feeling, the
Lachmann, ov dveir. crot, aiir'ov, toOt' eo-Tiv Ta Plautine meum corculum {Cos, iv, 4. 14), meum
ep.d (T-nK., is followed by Hofmann, so that cor {Poen. i. 2. 154).
aiiTov is in apposition to ov (see, on the other

VERS. 12, 13. 407
rrpoaXapovsLS not genuine (see the critical remarks), the verb is wanting,
so that the passage is anacoluthic; the apostle is involuntarily withheld by
the following relative clause presenting itself, and by what he, in the
lively flow of his thoughts, further subjoins (ver. 13 ff.) from adding the
governing verb thought of with ci de airdv, until at length, after beginning
a new sentence with ver, 17, he introduces it in another independent con
nection, leaving the sentence which he had begun with ai di airdv in ver.
12 unclosed. Comp, on Rom, v. 12 ff. ; Gal. ii, 16,' With classic writers,
too, such anacoluthic sentences broken off by the influence of intervening
thoughts are not rare, specially in excited or pathetic discourse,'^
Ver. 13 f, 'Byd] I for my part, — ipovXdyyv] I was of the mind. Comp.
yBiXyaa, ver. 14, and observe not merely the diversity of notion {povXopai :
deliberate self-determination, see on Matt, i, 19), but also the distinction
of the tenses. The apostle formerly cherished the design and the -svish
(imperfect ipovX.) of retaining Onesimus with himself, instead of sending
him back to Philemon, but has become of the mind (historical aorist
yBiXyaa), etc. Thus yBsX. denotes that which supervened on the previous
occurrence of the ipovX., and hindered the realization of the latter.
Observe that Paul has not used ipovXdpyv dv ; that would be vellem. — vTrep
ooi] for thee, i.e. in gratiam tuam, that thou mightest not need thyself to
S£rve me. [XLIV/,] iirip accordingly is not here, any more than in any
other passage of the N. T., used as a precise equivalent to dvrt, although the
actual relation of representation lies at the bottom of the conception in
gratiam ; for Paul would have taken the service of the slave as rendered
by the master, to whom the slave belonged. Comp. Hofmann, This mode
of regarding and representing the matter has nothing harsh about it, nor
does it convey any obligation, which Philemon, had he been on the spot,
would have fulfilled (Bleek), but simply the trustful presupposition, that
Philemon himself would, if Paul had desired it, have ministered to him
in the prison, Ofthis, however, Philemon was relieved by the service of
the slave, which in this way stood him in good stead, Schweizer, in the
Stud, u, Krit. 1858, p, 430, explains likewise correctly : for thy benefit, but
takes this in the sense : " so that it would be a service rendered to thee,
imputed to thee, so that I would be under obligation to thee," But this
would only have the delicacy and tenderness which are found in it, if the
thought : " in order that he might serve me, -with a view to place me
under obligation to thee,'' contained the design oi Onesimus; if, accordingly,
Paul had written something after this manner : of ipoiXero irpb; ipavrbv
yeveiv, 'iva K.r,X,, which, however, would have asserted a self-determination
incompetent to the position of a slave. No ; as the passage is written,
there is dehcately and tenderly imphed in the iTrep eoi the same thought,
which, in accordance with Phil. ii. 30, he might have expressed by 'ivo
iSee generally, Winer, p, 528 ff, [B, T, 567 p, 442 f,, 222, who rightly observes: "Hoc
ff,] ; Wilke Rhetor, p. 217 f, anacoluthiae genus inter scriptores sacros
2 E, g. Plat, Symp. p, 218 A ; Xen, Anab, ii, 5. nuUi frequentius excidit quam Paulo ap,,
13; and Kriiger in loc; Aeschin, adv, Ctesiph. epistolas suas dictanti,"
256, and Wunderlich in loc. ; Bremi, ad Lys.

408 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
dvarrXypday rb aov iarepyya ; comp, 1 Cor, xvi, 17, Thus ingeniously does
Paul know how to justify his ipovXdyyv K.T.X. — seeing that he would, in fact,
otherwise have had no claim at all upon another's bondsman — by the
specification of design iva iTrep aoi k.t.X. — dioKov-ij] direct representation by
the subjunctive, " ita quidem, ut praeteriti temporis cogitatio tanquam
praesens efferatur," Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2, 2, — ev rotf deayol; tov
siayy.] in the bonds, into which the gospel has brought me— in a position
therefore (comp, ver, 9) which makes me as needful as deserving of such
loving service, — x"pk di k.t.X.] hut without thy consent, that is, independent
of it, J have wished to do nothing, and so have left that wish unexecuted, in
order that thy good may he not as from constraint, but from free will. The
thought of the apostle accordingly is: But as I knew not thine own
opinion, and thus must have acted without it, 1 was disposed to abstain
from the retention of thy slave, which 1 had in view : for the good, which
thou sliowest, is not to he as if forced, hut voluntary. If 1 had retained
Onesimus for my service, without having thy consent to that effect, the
good, which 1 should have had to derive from thee through the service
rendered to me by thy servant iTrep eoi, would have been shown not from
free will, — that is, not in virtue of thine own self-determination, — but as if
compulsorily, just because independently of thy yvupy (" non enim potuisset
refragari Philemon," Bengel '), Observe at the same time that rd dyaBdv
aov, thy good, that is, the good which thou showest to others, is to be left quite
ill its generality, so that not the serviceable employment of the slave
specially and in concreto is meant, but rather the category in general, under
which, in the intended application, there falls that special dyaBdv, which is
indicated iu ver, 13, The restriction to the given case is impracticable on
account of d?„Ad Kara sKoiaiov, since Paul in fact did not at all intend to pro
cure the consent of Philemon and to retain Onesimus, This in opposition
to the usual interpretation : '' rb dyaBdv, i.e, beneficium tuum hocce, quo
afficior a te, si hunc mihi servum concedis," Heinrichs; comp, Bleek, But
it is an error also, with de Wette, following Estius (who describes it as
probable), to understand under rb dyaB, aov the manumission' of the slave,
or to understand it at least as " also included " (Bleek), of which even in
ver, 16 there is no mention, and for suggesting which in so covert and
enigmatic a fashion there would not have been any reason, if he had
desired it at all (but see on 1 Cor, vii, 21), According to Hofmann (comp.
his Schriftbeweis, II, 2, p. 412), rb dyaBdv aov is, like rb xPVarbv roi Oeoi at
Bom. ii. 4, thy goodness, and that the goodness, which Philemon will show to
Onesimus when lie had returned into his position as a slave ; this only then
becomes an undoubtedly spontaneous goodness, when the apostle refrains
from any injunction of his own, whereas Philemon could not have done
otherwise than refrain from punishing the slave for his escape, if Paul
had retained him to himself, in which case, therefore, Philemon might
1 Seneca, De Benef. ii. 4 ;" Si vis scire an 2 That the manumission did take place, has
velim, effice ut possim nolle." . Luther aptly been inferred from the tradition that One-
lemarks : a constrained will is not voluntas, simus became a bishop: It may have taken
but noluntan. place, but it is not meant liere.

VERS. 14, 15. 409
have seemed to be kind compulsorily. This explanation, brought out by
the insertion of thoughts between the lines, is to be set aside as at variance
with the context, since there is nothing in the connection to point to the
definition of the notion of rd dyaBdv aov as goodness towards Onesimus,
but on the contrary this expression can only acquire its import through
the delicately thoughtful "iva irrip aov poi diaKOvy K.r.X. — a; Kara dvdyKyv]
emphatically prefixed, and ejf expresses the idea : " so that it appears
as constrained." Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II, p. 360,^
Ver. 15. Paul now supports his course of procedure in having given up
his previous plan of retaining Onesimus with him, and in sending the lat
ter back, by the consideration that the brief separation of the slave from
his master may perhaps have had the Providential destined aim, etc.
This destined aim would have been in fact counteracted by the ulterior
keeping apart of the slave from Philemon. — rdxa] easily, perhaps, Rom, v.
7. So also in classical writers, but more frequently conjoined with dv.
Comp. for a similar use of laa;, Luke xx. 13, and Buttmann, ad Soph.
Phil, p, 180,^ A categoric assertion, although appropriate to the expres
sion of a firm confidence, would have been less sparing of the feelings in
the relation of the injured master to the fugitive slave, than the problem
atic mode of expression ; it may readily be, that the way of the yolpa Qsov
has been such, etc, — ixap'iaBy] eiip^pu; koI rryv (fvyyv X"P^opbv KaXsl, Iva py
rCi 'ovdpari ry; ipvyy; rrapo^ivy rbv dsairdryv, Theophylact, The aim of Sooth
ing underlies also the choice of the passive expression, as Chrysostom
says : oi/c etTrev* ixapiaev iavrdv . . . ov ydp airov rb naraaKeiaapa rb iirl
rovra dvaxapyaai k.t.X. — a-pdf ijpav] Comp, 2 Cor, vii, 8; Gal. ii. 5; 1 ThesS.
ii. 17. This relative statement of time leaves it entirely undefined, how
long the brief stay of Onesimus with Paul lasted. — tva] divine destined
aim therein. Chrysostom and Jerome already refer to Gen. xlv. 5. —
atiivtov] not adverb, which is aitjvttjf, but accusative, so that the adverbial
notion is expressed by way of predicate, [XLIV g,] Winer, p, 433 [E,
T, 464] : Kiihner, II. 1, p, 234 f, Erasmus aptly observes : " ipsum jam
non temporarium ministrum, sed perpetuo tecum victurum," The notion
itself, however, is not to be taken as the indefinite perpetuo (Calvin, Gro
tius, and many), or more precisely per omnem tuam mtam (Drusius, Hein
richs, Flatt, Demme, and others), in connection with which Beza and
Michaelis point to the ordinances of the law with regard to the perpetua
mancipia (Ex. xxi, 6 ; Deut, xv, 17) ; but— as is alone consonant with the
N, T, use of the word concerning the future, and the Pauline .doctrine of
the approaching establishment of the kingdom— in the definite sense : for
ever embracing the expiring aiuv ovro; and the aiuv yiXXav attaching itself
thereto, and presupposing the Parousia, which is still to be expected
within the hfetime of both parties ; but not, that the Christian brotherly
union reaches into eternity (Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and others) ; so
lOn /caTo. dvayK.,by way of constraint (in ava-//cao-Tios,aA\' e/toviT-iM!; Thucyd, viii, 27, 3 :
the passive sense), by compulsion, comp, naS' inovalav y rrdvv ye dvdynTi, Plat. Prot. p,
Thucyd, vi, 10, 1; Polyb, iii, 07, 5; 2 Macc. 346 B,
XV 2 - on the contrast, comp. 1 Pet, f, 2; m " Chrysostom aptly remarks : Ka^a,5 to raxa.

410 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
in the main also Hofmann : "as one who remains to him for ever, not
merely for lifetime; " comp, Bleek. — dirixy;] Comp, Phil, iv. 18; Matt. vi.
2. The compound expression {mayest have away) denotes the definitive
final possession.
Ver, 16. Altered relation which with the a'i6viov airbv dirixeiv was to
take effect, and thenceforth to subsist, between Philemon and Onesimus.
— oi/ccTt d; dovXor] in this is implied not a hint of manumission, but the
fact that, while the external relation of slavery remains in itself unchanged,
the ethical relation has become another, a higher one (iTrep doiXov), a
brotherly relation of affection {ddeXxp. dyarr,). Christianity does not abolish
the distinctions of rank and station, but morally equalizes them (comp, on
'ladryra, Col, iv, 1 ; 1 Tim, vi. 2), inasmuch as it pervades them with the
unifying consecration of the life in Christ,^ 1 Cor, vii, 21 f,, xii. 13 ; Gal.
iii. 28; Col. iii. 11. To the cjf the following iTrep is correlative: not
further in the quality of a slave, but in a higher manner than as a slave ;
ddeX(pbv dyarr., as a beloved brother, is then the epexegesis of iirep ooiAov.
And the latter is conceived of thus : so that he is beyond and above a
dovXo;, is more than such.^ — pdXiara ipol k.t.X.] belongs to ddsX, dyair. In
that view ydXiara has its reference in the relation of Onesimus to his
fellow- Christians, with whom lie has hitherto been brought into connection;
among these it was Paul, to whom he stood most of all — that is, in higher
degree than to any other — in the relation of a beloved brother, — Trdcu di
ydXXov aol] since he is thy property, and does not enter into merely tem
porary connection with thee, such as that in which he stood with me ;
see ver. 15. — /cat ev cap/ci /cat ev Kvp.] specifies the two domains, in which Onesi
mus will be to him yet far more a beloved brother than to the apostle,
namely, in the fiesh, i, e. in the sphere pertaining to the material nature of
man, in things consequently that concern the bodily life and needs, and in
the Lord, i, e. in the higher spiritual life-sphere of fellowship with Christ.
Accordingly, ev cap/ct Philemon has the brother as a slave, and ev /cvpt'u
the slave as a brother ; how greatly, therefore, must he, in view of the
mutual connection and interpenetration of the two relations, have him,
as well iv aapKi as iv Kvpl(ji, as a beloved brother ! How much more still
(Trdcu di pdXXov) must Onesimus thus be such an one to Philemon, than
to the apostle ! The two domains of life designated by cv cap/ct and ev /cvptu
— ^which, connected by Kal . . . koI, exclude the conception of etliical con
trast ' — are to be left in all their comprehensiveness. Influenced by the
erroneous presupposition of manumission (see on ver. 15), de Wette
thinks in cv cap/ct of the family-relation into which the manumitted one
enters. Ver. 17. Oiv] resuming ; see on ver. 12, where the request, to which utter-
tva etfn o Se(nr6TT]^- eTretSJj yap aTTO aiiBaSela^ mentally supplied .(Grotius, Storr, Flatt);
yeyovev rj ^vyij Kal Steo-Tpa/it^e'vTjs fitavot'as, Kal comp. on Col. ill, 23.
ov/c dnh irpoatpeo-eios, Aeyet rd^a. 2 Comp. Plato, Rep. p, 488 A ; Legg. viii. p.
iln accordance with this Christian-ideal 839 D; ovk etrrtv vTrep avSpton-ov ; 2 Macc, ix, 8.
mode of view we have to leave ovKert abso scomp, Bklund, trapf vocabulum ap, Paul,,
lute, and not to weaken it by jxdvov to be Lund 1872, p, 47 f.

VERS. 16-18. 411
ance is only now finally given after the moving digressions vv. 18-16, was
already to be expressed. — The emphasis, and that in the way of famish
ing a motive, lies upon Koivuvdv. [XLIV h.] if thou hast me as apartner,
if thou standest in this relation to me, — according to which consequently
the refusal of the request would appear as proof of the contrary. As to
this use of ixeiv, comp, on Matt, xiv, 4. The notion of the Koivavla is not
to be restricted more narrowly than is implied in the idea of Christian
fellowship, and so of common believing, loving, hoping, disposition, work
ing, and so forth; while Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and
others bring out only the partnership of the ppovslv and the striving ;
whereas others, as Estius, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt, et al, explain
KOIVUVOV as friend, and Beza and Bengel refer it to the community of
property : " Si mecum habere te putas communia bona, ut inter socios
esse soleat " (Beza) ; comp. Grotius. The di; is : so as if thou receivedst
me, as if L now came to thee ; for see ver. 12.^ On irpoaXapoi, comp, Rom.
xiv. 1, XV. 7.
Ver. 18. [On Vv. 18-25, see Note XLV. pages 419, 420.] And herein the
offence against thee, with which Onesimus is chargeable, is not to present
an obstacle. — ei] indication in a hypothetic form, so as to spare the feel
ings : Attic politeness, see Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1 ; Bornem. ad Con-
viv. iv. 3; Winer, p. 418 [E. T. 448]. — rt yd'iKvai ce] Comp, Col, iii. 25;
Gal. iv. 12 ; Acts xxv. 10. In what the wrong done to Philemon by Onesi
mus, and without doubt confessed to the apostle by the latter, actually
consisted, is hinted in what follows, — y 'oips'iXei] or — more precisely to
describe this yd'iKyae — oweth (anything). This applies to a money-debt (see
ver. 19), Accordingly the slave had probably been guilty, not merely in
general of a fault in service which injured his master (Hofmann), but in
reality (comp, already Chrysostom) of purloining or of embezzlement,
which Paul here knows how to indicate euphemistically. The referring
it merely to the running away itself, and the neglect of sermce therewith
connected, would not be (in opposition to Bleek) in keeping with the
hypothetical form of expression, — roiro] the n, which he ydiKyai as ij bipsl-
Xei ; hence we have not, with Grotius, Flatt, and others, to explain these
two verbs of different offences (the former as referring to theft at his run
ning away, the latter to defalcation), — ipol iXXdya] set it down to my
account; " me debitorem habe," Bengel. Friendly pleasantry, which in
ver. 19 becomes even jocular {psrd xopiro; rij; rrvevpariKy;, Chrysostom),
with which the subsequent Iva py Xiyu aoi k.t.X. is very compatible (in
opposition to Hofmann), if it is correctly apprehended. On the form
'sX'Xoyda we have not, with Fritzsche, ad Rom. v, 13, at once to pronounce
against it : " nulla est " (comp. Matthies : " stultum est "), since 'sXXoyia
likewise is only with certainty preserved in Rom. I. c, and in Boeckh,
Jnscr. I. p, 850. It is true Xoyda, in Lucian, Lexiph. 15, means to be fond
of speaking; but this single passage, in which the simple form is pre-
1 Theophylact: riva. oi/c dv KureSvo-drrria-e ; Erasmus: "recipias oportet velut alterum
Tt! yip OVK dv ieihyot HavAov irporfeJacrOat, me,"

412 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
served, does not suffice to negative the use of the word in the sense of
reckoning. Ver. 19. [XLV h.] Promissory note under his own hand, in which by the
elsewhere so weighty eyd UaiXo; (Gal. v. 2 ; 2 Cor. x. 1, al,) the friendly
humor of the connection is rendered the more palpable through force of
contrast. Whether Paul wrote the whole Epistle with his own hand (the
usual view; see already Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret), or only
from this point onward, cannot be determined. In the latter case the
raillery comes out the more prominently, — 'Iva py Xiya aoi k.t.X.] Comp.
2 Cor. ii. 5, and the Latin ne dicam : " est axvpa rrapaaiurr-fjasu; sive reti-
centiae, cum dicimus omittere nos velle, quod maxime dicimus," Grotius,
The iva denotes the design which Paul has in the iypa-ipa . . . diroriau;
he will, so he represents the matter, by this his note of hand avoid saying
to Philemon — what he withal might in strictness have to say to him —
that he was yet far more indebted to the apostle, [XLV c] Without
sufficient reason, Wiesinger after a harsh and involved fashion attaches
'tva, notwithstanding the intervening clause, to roiro iyol iXXdya, and then
takes the aoi, which according to the usual view belongs without empha
sis to Xiyu, as emphatic {sc. 'sXXdya) ; " that reckon to me, not to say : to
thee," So too Hofmann, according to whose arbitrary discovery in the
repetition of the eyd the emphatic ipoi is held " to continue sounding,"
until it finds in the emphatic aoi its antithesis, which cancels it. Why
should not Paul, instead of this alleged " making it sound on," have put
the words 'iva pij Xiyu aoi, on /c,r./\, (6cca-!tse, according to Hofmann) imme
diatelj' after roiro ipol iXXdya, in Order thereupon to conclude this passage
with the weighty iyd UaiXa; k.t.X. ? Besides, there would be implied in
that emphasizing and antithetic reference of the aoi a pungent turn so
directly and incisively putting him to shame, that it would not be in
keeping with the whole friendly humorous tone of this part of the letter,
which does not warrant us in presupposing a displeasure on Philemon's part
meriting so deeply earnest a putting him to shame (Hofmann), The very
shaming hint, which the passage gives, is affectionately veiled in an appar
ent reticence by 'Iva pij Xiyu aoi k.t.X. Chrysostom already says aptly :
ivr perrriKd; dpa Kal xeipisvra;. — The cot added tO Xiya is in keeping
with the confidential tone of the Epistle. Paul would not willingly
remind his friend of his debt, — /cat asavrdv] also thine own self, di' ipov ydp,
ipyal, ry; aarypia; diryXavaa;' Kal ivrevBev dTjXov d; ry; drroaroXiKy; y^idBy
didaaKaXla; b ^iXypav, Theodoret, Through hia conversion he was indebted
to the apostle for his own self, namely, as subject of the fu^ aitiviof. The
same view is found at Luke ix, 25. See on that passage. — irpoao(psiXsi;]
insuper debes} The conception, namely, is : " not to say to thee, thai thou
(namely, because I have made thee a Christian) owest to me not merely that,
which J have just declared my wish to pay to thee, but also {Kai) thine own self
besides," With due attention to the correlation of /cat and Trpdf, the force

1 Herod, vi. 69 ; Dem. 650, 23 ; Thucyd, vii, 48, 6 ; Xen, Cyrop. iii, 2, 16, Oec. 20, 1 ; Polyb. v. 88,
4, 8, viii, 25. 4.; Lucian, Sacrif, 4,

VEES, 19-21. 413
of the compound would not have been overlooked (Vulgate, Luther, Flatt,
and others),
Ver, 20. Yea, brother, I would fain have profit of thee in the Lord. — va'i]
not beseeching (Grotius and many), but confirmatory (comp, on Matt, xv.
27), as always : verily, certainly. It confirms, however, not the preceding
K. asavr. yoi rrpoaofsiXsi; (de Wette and Hofmann, following Eisner), —
against which may be urged the emphatically prefixed iyd (it must in
that case logically have run : eoi iyu bvalp.), — ^but the whole intercession for
Onesimus, in which Paul has made the cause of the latter his oivn.^ He,
he himself, would fain have joy at the hands of his friend Philemon in the
granting of this request ; himself (not, it might be, merely Onesimus) is
Philemon to make happy by this compliance, — bvaiyyv] Expression of the
urish, that this might take place (Kiihner, II, 1, p, 193) ; hence the coimter-
remark of Hofmann that it is not " I would fain," but " may I," is un
meaning,'-' On the expression very current from Homer's time {Odyss.
xix, 68, ii. 33), bvlvayal nvo;, to have advantage from a thing or person, to
profit thereby, comp, Wetstein ; on the different verbal forms of the word,
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 12 f. ; Kiihner, I, p, 879 f. In the N. T. it is dTraf
Xsydu. ; but the very choice of the peculiar word supports the usual hypo
thesis (although not recognized by de Wette, Bleek, and Hofmann) that
Paul intended an allusion to the name Onesimus.^ There is the additional
circumstance that the emphatic eyd ingeniously gives point to the anti
thetic glance back at him, for whom he has made request ; comp, also
Wiesinger, Ellicott, Winer, — iv Kvpiu] gives to the notion of the bvaipyv its
definite Christian character. Just so the following cv Xpiara. Neither
means : for the sake of (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others). No profit of
any other kind whatever does Paul wish for himself from Philemon, but
that, the enjoyment of which has its ground in Christ as the ethical ele
ment. Comp, x^-'P^'-'" ^^ Kvpia, and the like, — dvdn-avcov k.t.'X,] [XLV d,]
let me not wish in vain this iya aov bvaip. iv Kvp. ! Refresh (by a forgiv
ing and loving reception of Onesimus) -wij/ heart: rd airXdyxva, seat of
loving emotion, oi the love concerned for Onesimus, comp, ver, 7 ; not an
expression of love to Philemon (Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor yet a
designation of Onesimus (ver. 12), as is maintained by Jerome, Estius,
Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others.
Ver. 21. Conclusion of the whole matter of request, and that " as if for
a last precaution" (Ewald), with the expression of the confidence, to
which his apostolic dignity entitled him {iiruKoy), although in accordance
with ver. 8 he has abstained from enjoining. This, as well as the ciduf on
1 With this vat, (18eA.(J>^ the humorous tone "a(()ets tov x<^fi'vTio-p,ov irdKiv Ix'rci
has died away, and, when Paul now inserts tSiv rrportpuv riiv tj-irouSot'tjv."
the need of his own heart and his hearty 2 Comp. Eur. Bee, 997: Vitrr' 6vat>7jv to5
confidence as to the compliance of his friend, iropdvTot, Ignat. Eph, 2: 'ovalp,yv <ip.S:v itd
the intercession receives the seal of its trust- iravro,, Rom, 5: 'ovaLp-yv rCv eripiav . . .
ful assurance of success, and therewith its eCxo/tat /c.r.A.
close, Chrysostom already aptly observes = The allusion would have been more easily
that the vat, dSekipe applies generally to the seized, if Paul had written in some such way
wpoa-hafiov ¦ requested, so that the apostle as : vai, aSe^^i, ip,ol <rv ovijtrt/ios eiTji. But, as

414 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
K.r.X., appended by way of climax as an accompanying definition to the
ireiroiBu; bn k.t.X., could not but entirely remove any possible hesitation
on the part of Philemon and complete the effect of the letter. Comp,
already Chrysostom and Jerome, — /cat iTrep 8 Xiyu] what, i. e. what further
deeds of Icindness over and above the receiving back which was asked for,
the apostle leaves absolutely to his friend, without, however, wishing to
hint in particular at the manumission of Onesimus (Bleek and Hofmann,
following older expositors) ; comp, on ver, 13 f. The certainty, however,
that his friend will do still more, makes him the less doubt that ai the least
what is requested will be done. Thus there is contained in this eiduf k.t.X.
a thoughtfully contrived incitement, — Xiya] namely, in that which I have
written. Observe the different tenses. — /eai] not merely that which 1 say,
but also.
Ver. 22. This further commission too — what a welcome, and wisely
closing, indirect support to the intercession for Onesimus ! iroXXij ydp y
Xdpi; Kal y nyrj 'UavXov ivdypoivro;, ChrysoStom ; and SO the apostlc, in fact,
wished soon himself to see what effect his intercession had had. — dya di Kal]
[XLV e.] that is, simultaneously with that, which thou wilt do in the case
of Onesimus. This is the sense of the adverbial dpa in all passages,' even
Col. iv. 3 ; Acts xxiv. 26 ; and 1 Tim. v. 13 (in opposition to Hofmann),
and among the Greek writers, so that it by no means expresses merely
the conception of being joined, that the one is to associate itself with the
other (Hofmann), but the contemporary connection of the one action with
the other ; Suidas : e;rt rov Kara rbv airbv Kaipdv. Bleek erroneously
renders : at the same time also I entreat thee ; so, too, de Wette, as if dpa di
Kal irapaKaXu or the like were in the text. — irolpa^i yoi ^svlav] Paul hoped
at that time for a speedy liberation ; his ulterior goal was Rome ; the
journey thither, however, he thought of making through Asia Minor, where
he also desired to come to Colossae and to take up his quarters (Acts xxviii.
23) as a guest with Philemon. Comp. Introd, to Colossians, § 2, Observe,
moreover, that dpa di nal presupposes so near a use of the ^ev'ia, as doubt
less tallies with the shorter distance between Caesarea and Phrygia, but
not with the distance from Rome to Phrygia, specially since, according to
Phil. i. 25 i,, ii. 24, Paul thought of journeying from Bome to Maxxdonia;
hence it would have been inappropiate and strange on his part, if, start
ing from Rome, he had already bespoken a lodging in Colossae, and that,
too, one to be made ready so without delay, — ipdv and iplv apply to
the persons already named, vv. 1, 2. To extend the reference further,
namely, to " the body of Christians amidst which Philemon lives " (Hof
mann), is unwarranted. The expression is individualizing. On xopujS.,
may be granted, i.e. liberated in favor of you, comp. on Acts iii. 14, xxvii.
24; on did r. rrpoasvx- iy-, Phil, i, 19. This hope was not fiilfiUed.
Calvin leaves this doubtful, but aptly adds : " Nihil tamen est absurdi, si
he has expressed it, it is more delicate and combination of two expressions of activity,
yet palpable enough, especially for the friend which takes place or ought to take place (as
of whom he makes the request, here). What bp.ov is as Ton-t/cdv, dp.a is as
1 Where, namely, there is mention of the \povik6v (Ammonius, p, 13).

NOTES. 415
spes, qualem de temporali Dei beneficio conceperit, eum frustrata
fuerit." Ver. 23 i. Salutations from the same persons, Col. iv. 10-14. — 6 awaix-
pdXard; yov] See on Col. iv. 10. Here it further has expressly the
specifically Christian character.' Comp, diapio; iv Kvpiip, Eph, iv, 1, — The
Jesus Justus mentioned at Col. iv. 11 does not here join in the greeting.
The reason for this cannot be ascertained. It is possible that this man
was absent just at the moment of Paul's writing the brief letter to
Philemon, According to Wieseler, p, 417, he was not among those in
the abode of the apostle under surveillance (in Rome).
Ver. 25. See on Gal. vi. 18.

Notes by Amemcan Editor.
XLII. Vv. 1-3.
(a) The use of the word deayio; in the salutation, instead of dirdaroXo; as in the
other Epp, addressed to individuals (1 Tim,, 2 Tim., and Tit,), may be explained, as
Meyer also suggests, in connection with the peculiarly personal and private character
of this letter. Its use instead of dovXo; is not improbably designed to affect the mind
and feeling of Philemon, as lie should read the request which the letter conveyed.
That the union of Timothy with himself belongs to the salutation only (see
Note I. on the Ep, to the Philippians), is made evident in this Epistle, by the fact
that the urgency of the appeal in the following ver.ses is founded on what Paul,
not Timothy, had done, and on Paul's friendship alone. Moreover, the Apostle
speaks only in the first person singular, not at all in the first person plural. The
word diapio;, -which applies to Paul alone, may also, so far as it is correctly
explained above as employed rather than dovXo;, indicate the same thing. We
may thus get from this Epistle a certain degree of confirmation of the view, that,
in all the Paulir>e Epistles, the companions who are associated with the Apostle
in the opening address have little share in anything beyond this, — (6) That Phile
mon lived in Colossae is made probable, if not certain, by Col, iv. 9, where Onesi
mus is spoken of as ef ipdv. By the word awepyd he is put into the same class
with Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (ver, 24) ; and, as he had a church at
his house, we must believe him to have been a prominent worker in the Christian
cause, who had co-operated with Paul himself, Lightf says, "it is a safe infer
ence from the connection of the names that Apphia was the wife of Philemon,"
He adds: "AVith less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree of probability,
we may infer that Archippus was a son of Philemon and Apphia," All that can
be said upon this point is, that they are very closely united with the principal
person addressed, in a letter which had reference to one of his slaves. They must,
therefore have been persons in such near relationship or friendship as to be asso
ciated with him in a letter of this altogether private character. The insertion of
the name of Apphia before that of Archippus, wlio was a church officer, may be
1 Yet iv Xpto-Tip 'Iijo-oC might also be con- rating it from the nearest word, with which
ceived as connected with dandCerai (Bleek) even Chrysostom in his day expressly con-
Comp, Phil. iv. 21; Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. nected it.
10. There is, however, no reason for sepa-

416 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
considered as favoring the view that she was Philemon's wife. — (c) Lightf. sup
poses Archippus to have been connected with the church in Laodicea — his name,
in Col, iv, 17, follows immediately after the allusion to the letter to that church —
and that he was a presbyter, or perhaps an evangelist having a missionary charge.
Wieseler, also, supposes him to have belonged to that church. Ell,, Koch, Lumby,
Meyer, and others, oppose this view, and regard him as of the church at Colossae.
Meyer, in his notes on Col. iv. 17 (foot-note, page 391 ), says we should expect that
if Archippus had not lived at Colossae, Paul would have sent him a salutation, as
he does to Nymphas, Col. iv. 15, in connection with the Laodicean church, and
would not have asked another church, but rather his own, to admonish him. How
far the words in Col, iv, 17 are to be regarded as implying failure in the full dis
charge of duty on the part of Archippus, is uncertiin. Certainly, the Apostle so
far approved of him as to call him in this Epistle, which was written at the same
time with that to the Colossians, his awaTpariury;.
XLIII. Vv. 4-7.
(a) The comm. of recent date generally agree with Meyer in connecting irdvrore
with sixapiard. So Lightf, Alf, Lumby, Koch, de W,, van Oost., Hackett, Wies
inger, and others. Ell,, however, favors the connection with iroioiysvo;. R, V.
joins with the verb ; A, V, with the participle. The close correspondence of the
phraseology with that in Col, i, 3, 4, and the fact that the two letters were written
at the same time, make it altogether probable that the construction here accords
with that which we find there. See note by Am. Ed. on that verse, d/coiuv
suggests the ground of the thanksgiving ; but, of course, the thing heard of, rather
than the hearing itself, (that is, the love and faith of Philemon), are the real cause
of Paul's gratitude to God, — (6) The explanation of rijv dydiryv . . . dyiov; by assuming
a chiasmus, to which Meyer strongly objects, is supported by Alf,, Hackett, Lightf,
V. Oost, and others, in addition to those whom Meyer mentions. The correspond
ing passage in Col, i. 3, 4 favors this view. The suggestion of Lumby is worthy
of notice, and xanj perhaps give the best solution of the dilficulty. He says, " The
love was displayed towards the Christian congregation, the faith toward the Lord
Jesus Christ. But they are so knit together where they truly exist, that St. Paul
speaks of them as both exhibited alike toward Christ and toward His people," The
interpretation of jricrtv as meaning faithfulness (Meyer) is contrary to all the pro
babilities of such a passage as this. Davies thinks that "we may understand /aif^
toward'! all the saints, in the light of the phrase which follows, Koivavia ry; rr'iared;
aov, as meaning a readiness to acknowledge the community of faith with all other
believers." This, however, can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory explanation.
Ell. suggests that, connecting iriariv with both of the prepositional phrases, faith
may be understood as having a purely spiritual reference as directed towards the
Lord, and a more practical reference as directed towards th^ saints. — (c) oTruf of
ver. 6 is joined by Meyer immediately with ijv Ixei;, as specifying the tendency
of what is suggested by these words. This construction Alf. regards as " perfectly
inconceivable in a piece of Paul's writing." He also considers the sentence as
thus interpreted " flat in the extreme.'' Ell. thinks it " utterly pointless." Lightf.
declares the construction to be " altogether harsh and improbable." Van Oost,, with
a milder form of expression, says, " It seems to us by no means necessary and
affords a sense least clear and simple." The more common view is that it is to be

NOTES. 417
connected with pvsiav aov iroiovpsvo;. So, in addition to the writers mentioned by
Meyer in his note, Lightf., Alf,, Davies, v. Oost,, Hackett, and others, Hackett
claims that Eph, i, 16 furnishes an exact parallel to the present case, and shows
that OTFUf belongs with iroioip. But this can hardly be maintained, because the
insertion of the clause dKoiuv k.t.X. here, which gives the ground of the sixapiard,
separates the OTruf clause from iroioip (which is not the case in Eph,), and thus
throws the iroiovy into a much more subordinate position — making it appear, as
Meyer says, as " only an accompanying definition," The question as to the con
struction is one of much difficulty. As, ho-n-ever, in case the dfruf clause is joined
with yv sxsi;, the sentence becomes very peculiar in its form ; as the letter is of
that purely private and personal character which, more easily than other letters
or writings, allows such irregularities as the carrying over of a thought through
an intervening clause to one that follows ; and as in each of the three other letters
(Eph., Phil,, Col,), which belong to the same period of Paul's life ivith this one
addressed to Philemon, the declaration is made, after the words expressing thank
fulness, that the writenprays for the readers, and then a final particle introducing
a clause is added — it seems probable, notwithstanding the objections urged by
Meyer, that the oTruf clause is to be united with yvsiav iroioiy, iirl rdv irpoaevxdv.
— (d) With respect to the words introduced by oTruf, the following points may be
noticed: — 1. If the clause depends on pveiav iroioip. k.t.X., the fact that Paul's
prayers at the opening of his Epistles generally have reference to the individuals
addressed, and, in the case of the Epistles of this section, refer to the attainment
of iiriyvaai; on their part, points strongly towards the same understanding of this
verse, 2, The probability that this verse is, in its thought, introductory to the
request which is made on behalf of Onesimus in the following verses, favors the
reference of the words to Philemon himself The action and feeling towards
Onesimus which are asked of him will be an example of what is prayed for in this
clause. 3. The fact that in ver. 7 the thought passes again to dydiry seems to
show that, in the uniting of faith and love here, the Apostle has prominently in
mind the active power of faith in the individual as going out, through love, from
the individual towards others. 4. These considerations, which favor the reference
of Koivavla, as well as all the other words, to Philemon, are opposed by the fact
that where a genitive corresponding with r^f rriarea;, as found here, occurs in the
Pauline Epistles, it always, apparently, is objective. According to the analogy of
other cases, therefore, the phrase means here the participation [of others] in thy
jaith — unless indeed, with Hofmann, t? koiv. t. irlar. is regarded as a compound
notion, aov depending on the whole phrase, thy participation in faith, which is hardly
to be allowed. The things which point in opposite directions may, perliaps, be
reconciled either {x) by adopting communication as the meaning of Koivuvia, aiter
the analo°-y of Heb. xiii, 16 — the communication of thy faith in the way of acts
of love or {y) by understanding iwivavia as having the sense of sharing with others,
and rij; iriar. as a gen, of possession or of source — the participation with others which
appertains to, or springs from, thy faith.— {e) ivepyy; indicates the effective working
of this Koivavia in its outgoing towards others, and ev CTrty. k.t.X. denotes the sphere
in which this effectiveness has its life :— in the full knowledge of every good thing
which belongs to Christians as looking towards Christ— for His honor, and having
Him as its end. The man whose Koivavia is thus cv CTrty. ... eif Xp, will treat
others with Christian love, as Paul would have Philemon treat Onesimus, — (/)
ydp of ver. 7 gives the reason for the Apostle's expression of thankfulness as he
27

418 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
hears of Philemon's love, etc., and on the ground of that love, etc. He is thus
thankful for tliis love always, as he had had much joy in view of the fact that the
hearts of the saints were refreshed by it. There can be but little doubt that iaxov
and xopdv are to be accepted as the correct readings in this verse, instead of
laxoysv or ixopev and ;i;dptv. XLIV. Vv, 8-17.
(a) Aid, whioh refers to the thought expressed in ver, 7, and thus to the joy and
thankfulness filling Paul's heart for Philemon's love which goes out towards the
saints, shows that the request -with regard to Onesimus, which now begins, is so
immediately connected with the introductory words as to determine the question
of their interpretation. — (6) As to the connection of roiovro; dv, the passages cited
by Lightf (Plato Symp. 181 E, Alexis, in Meineke Fragm. Com, iii, p. 99), seem
to show, in opposition to what is affirmed by Meyer, that roiovro; can be followed
by d)f, and the fact, also mentioned by Lightf, that all the Greek commentators
connect the words in this way, must be allowed much weight. If this construc
tion is allowable, it is more natural and simple than that for which Meyer con
tends, who begins a new sentence with roioiro;, and translates, "Seeing that I am
so constituted, since such is my manner of thinking and dealing, / exhort thee as
Paul, etc." On Meyer's view, the roiovro; uv becomes substantially a new taking
up of iro7iXyv . . . . dydrryv, and the whole sentence as far as rrapaKaXd cc is a
repetition of what has just been said. As to the question whether (if rotoirof is to
be joined with di;) the clause is to be united with the preceding or the following
rrapaKaXd, — the close connection in idea of this clause with that of love, and the
fact that the second rrapaKaXd has a very natural emphasis if it begins the new
sentence, favor the view that it belongs with the preceding verb, — (c) Lightf.
conjectures that the word irpsaP'ury; is either a form inserted in the text in place
of rrpsapsvry;, or a form which, in the common dialect of Paul's time, was often
used as equivalent to it. The only reasons for supposing that Paul refers to him
self as an ambassador here, are the fact that he speaks of himself as such in Eph.
vi, 20, (in that passage, however, he uses the verb irpeapevu), and the difficulty,
whatever it may be, in the application to him of the term " aged man " at this
time. These reasons have no serious weight. His age at the date of this letter
may, not improbably, have been beyond sixty, and his many labors arid trials, as
all admit, may naturally have led him, at times, to feel that he was growing old,
even more rapidly than the years themselves would imply. That Paul was under
sixty at the time of writing the Epistles of this period, is hardly consistent with
the language which he makes use of in them, and also iu the Past, Epp, The
conjectural reading or meaning which Lightf suggests is to be admitted as possible
but scarcely as that which is most probable. It is recognized by R, V. in the mar
gin, — {d) The emphatic repetition of his feeling of interest in Onesimus under
different forms of expression — riicvov, iyivvyaa ev roi; deayol;, iyol svxpyarov, rd
'spa arrXdyxva, bv . . . . Karixsiv — shows that he must have become very deeply
attached to him, and also that he was desirous of urging Philemon by reason of
this fact to give him a kindly reception, — (e) Tisch, 8, Treg,, W. and H,, Alf., R.
v., agree with Lachm., in omitting av de of the text as given by Meyer at the
beginning of his note on ver. 12. If this is the correct text, that translation is
best which is given in R, V., -whom I hate sent (or, as dviirspipa is probably an epist-

NOTES. 419
clary aorist, I send) back to thee in his own person, that is, my very heart. Lightf., on
the contrary, supposes that a new sentence begins with airdv (even with this text),
and that it depends on the idea of the verb irpoaXapoi, which, however, is, by
reason of inserted clauses, deferred until it appears in another construction in ver,
17. The omission of irpoaXapoi in immediate connection with airdv, if this were
the idea in his mind, would seem remarkable even in Paul's writings. If ci di
is to be read, irpoaXapoi, or some such verb, is almost necessarily supplied in
thought, but this is not the case, if these words are omitted, — (/ ) iirep [eoi (ver.
13) is, as Meyer says, not equivalent to dvri eoi. What Onesimus might be able
to do, in case he remained with Paul, is conceived of as a service rendered on
behalf of Philemon, since, being a servant of his, he would, in a, sense, represent
him in helping and comforting the Apostle, rb dyaBdv aov refers to this same
service regarded as good or benefit coming from Philemon, Meyer, Ell,, Alf, and
others, give a more general meaning to rb dy. aov. Meyer objects to "the restric
tion of the expression to the given case," because " Paul did not at all intend lo
procure the consent of Philemon and to retain Onesimus." But Paul is speaking
of the reason why he was unwilling to act without the consent of Philemon, and
the fact that he did not intend to procure Philemon's consent does not prevent his
alluding to the service, in this way, in connection with the setting forth of that
reason. — {g) That aicjvtov means for eternity is held by most of the recent commen
tators. That this is not necessarily the signification of the word in such a case is
admitted by Bleek, and is proved by such passages as Exod, xxi. 6. But, not
improbably, this may be the correct view here, because of the contrast with Trpdf
dpav, and because the change in Onesimus had given him an entrance into the
Christian life, whioh endures eif fu^v aidivtov. The word aitjviov in this verse is,
as Meyer says, not an adverb, but an adjective. — (A) Koivavdv oi ver. 17 can hardly
mean here merely a comrade or intimate friend, as Lightf. explains it. It rather
has a sense connected with Koivavla. If thou holdest me to be (this is probably the
meaning of e;i;etf, rather than simply hast) a participator, sharer, partner with thy
self in the Christian faith, etc. If i? icoivavia k.t.X. of ver. 6 means the sharing
with otliers which appertains to or springs from thy faith (as it is suggested in
Note XLIII d that it may mean), the connection between the two kindred words
of that verse and the present one is very close.
XLV. Vv. 18-25.
{a) It would seem probable, though not certain, from the use' of the word
(Kpe'ilei, that Onesimus had robbed Philemon before running away, and it is possible
that this verb serves to define and specify the particular sense in which the more
general word ydkyasv is used here, — showing that the wrong was a taking of
money, which was still due {b^elXsi, in the present tense),— (6) The verb iypa-ipa
(ver, 19) is clearly a case of the epistolary use of the aorist. There can be no
doubt that it refers exclusively to the words iybi diroriau, and this verse, accord
ingly, furnishes a proof that this aor. can thus apply to a passage which wholly
follows it. Not improbably the whole letter may have been written by Paul with
his own hand. But this verb does not prove this to be the fact, nor does it have
any bearing upon the question. It does not even prove that he wrote with his
own hand all the following verses, — (c) Meyer makes tva py Xiyu depend on
lypaipa, iyd diroriau — I write this in order that I may not say, etc. This is pro-

420 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
bably the correct explanation of the present verse. But, as Hackett says, there
may be an omission of some such words as " accept this pledge " (which might
easily suggest themselves) before 'iva yij, and it may have been left to the reader
to supply them. — {d) The connection of dvdTravcdv yov rd airXdyxva with the
similar words in ver. 7 cannot be doubted. This fact suggests that the whole
letter is closely related to the introductory passage, and thus may have a bearing
upon the interpretation of the difiicult sentence in ver. 6, so far as the meaning of
that sentence can be affected by the following context, — (e) Ver. 22 indicates a
similar hope of release from imprisonment to that which we find expressed in
Phil. ii. 24. Meyer regards the dpa as implying a speedy liberation — " at the
same time with the fulfillment of my request respecting Onesimus [which Paul
must have expected would take place very soon after the receipt of the Epistle],
prepare me also a lodging." He finds in this d^a, also, an argument to show that
the Apostle was at Caesarea when he wrote Eph,, CoL, and Philem, This view,
however, is not made necessary by this word. The intercourse between Rome and
Colossae may have been as easy and frequent, if not indeed more so, than that
between the latter place and Caesarea. The arguments in favor of the view
that Rome was the place where the three Epistles were written are, on the whole,
satisfactory, and they are also sufficient to lead to the adoption of that view.

CEITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HAND-BOOK TO THE
EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.
BY
DR GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN,
PBOB-ESSOK OF TJBIBOLOGY IN THE UNIVEESITY OF GOTTINGEN.

TEANSLATED FEOM THE GERMAN BY
Rev. PATON J. GLOAG, D. D.
-WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES BT
TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
PBOFESSOB OF SACBED LITEBATUBBl IN YALE COLLEGE.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.

The modern school of exegesis had its rise in Germany. Its excel
lence and peculiarity consisted in a rigid adherence to the philological
characteristics of the sacred text, and its sole aim was to reproduce the
exact meaning of the original, unbiased by preconceived views.
Among modern exegetes, Meyer undoubtedly holds the first place.
His peculiar excellences, his profound learning, his unrivalled know
ledge of Hellenistic Greek, his exegetical tact, his philological precision,
his clear and almost intuitive insight into the meaning of the passage
commented on, and his deep reverential spirit, all qualified him for being
an exegete of the first order. Indeed, for the ascertainment of the mean
ing of the sacred text his commentaries are, and we believe will long con
tinue to be, unrivalled. These qualifications and acquirements of the
great exegete are well stated by Dr. Dickson, the general editor of this
series, in the general preface affixed to the first volume of the Epistle to
the Romans. The similar commentaries of de Wette are certainly of
very high merit, and have their peculiar excellences ; but I do not think
that there can be any hesitation among Biblical scholars iu affirming the
superiority of those of Meyer. Perhaps the constant reference to the
opinions of others inserted in the text, the long lists of names of theo
logians who agree or disagree in certain explanations, and the con
sequent necessity of the breaking up of sentences by means of parenthetic
clauses, are to the English reader a disadvantage as interrupting the
sense of the passage. Much is inserted into the text wllich in English
works would be attached as footnotes. Still, however, it has been judged
proper by the general editor to make as little change in the form of the
original as possible."-
Meyer himself wrote and published the Commentaries on the Gospels,
on the Acts, and on the Pauline Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon in ten
volumes — a monument of gigantic industry and immense erudition.
Indeed, the treatment of each of these volumes is so thorough, so exhaust
ive, and so satisfactory, that its composition would be regarded as suf-
1 [According to the plan of the American Edition, many references, etc., have been
transferred to the foot-notes.] 423

424 PEEFATOEY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOE.
ficient work for the life of an ordinary man ; what, then, must we think
of the labors and learning of the man who wrote these ten volumes ?
The other books of the New Testament in the series were undertaken by
able coadjutors. Dr. Liinemann wrote the Commentaries on the Epistles
to the Thessalonians and Hebrews, Dr. Huther on the Pastoral and
Catholic Epistles, and Dr. Diisterdieck on the Apocalypse.
The Commentaries of Liinemann, Huther, and Diisterdieck are
undeniably inferior to those of Meyer. We feel the want of that undefin-
able spiritual insight into the meaning of the passage which is so charac
teristic of all that Meyer has written, and, accordingly, we do not place
the same reliance on the interpretations given. But still the exegetical
acumen and learning of these commentators are of a very high order,
and will bear no unfavorable comparison with other writers on the
same books of the New Testament. Indeed, in this Commentary on the
Epistles to the Thessalonians, by Dr. Liinemann, with which we are at
present concerned, its inferiority to the writings of Meyer is not very
sensibly felt ; there is here ample evidence of jirofound learning, sound
exegesis, sober reasoning and a power of discrimination among various
opinions. The style also is remarkably clear for a German exegete ; and
although there is often difficulty in finding out the exact meaning of
those whose opinions he states, there is no difficulty in discovering his
own views. Occasionally there is a tedious minuteness, but this is refer
able to the thoroughness with which the work is executed. Of course, in
these translations the same caveat has to be made that was made in regard
to Meyer's Commentaries, that the translators are not to be held as
concurring with the opinions given ; at the same time, in this Comment
ary there is little which one who is bound to the most confessional views
can find fault with. The first edition of this Commentary was published
in 1850, the second in 1859, and the third, from which this translation
is made, in 1867.^
We have, in conformity with the other volumes, attempted to give a
list of the exegetical literature of the Epistles to the Thessalonians.
For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the New Testament,
see the preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew ; and for
commentaries on the Pauline Epistles, see the preface to the Comment
ary on the Epistle to the Romans. The literature restricted to the
Epistles to the Thessalonians is somewhat meagre. Articles and mono
graphs on chapters or sections are noticed by Dr. Liinemann in the places
to which they refer ; and especially a list of the monographs on the cele
brated passage concerning "the Man of Sin" (2 Thess. ii. 1-12), as given
by Dr. Liinemann, is to be found in p. 203 of this translation. The
1 [The fourth edition was published in 1878.]

PEEFATOEY NOTE BY THE TEANSLATOE. 425
reader is also referred to Alford's Greek Testament as being peculiarly
full on these Epistles, and as following the same track as Dr. Liine
mann. I would only further observe that the remarks made in this
Commentary on the Schriftbeweis of the late von Hofmann of Erlangen
appear to be too severe. Hofmann is certainly often guilty of arbitrary
criticism, and introduces into the sacred text his own fancied interpreta
tions ; but the Schriftbeweis is a work of great learning and ingenuity, and
may be read with advantage by every scholar. PATON J. GLOAG.
Galashiels, November 1880.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

Aretius (Benedictus), f 1574 : Commentarius in utramque Pauli Epistolam ad
Thessalonicenses. 1580.
AlJBERLEN (Karl August), f 1864, and Riggenbach (C. J.) ; Lange's Bibelwerk
N. T. Thessalonicher. Bielefeld, 1859-73.
Translated from the German by John Lillie, D. D. New York, 1869.
Baumgabten-Ceusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), f 1843: Commentar uber d.
Philipper- u. Thessalonicherbriefe. Jena, 1848.
Beadshaw (W.) : Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. London, 1620.
Case (Thomas) : Exposition of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 1670.
Chandler (Samuel), f 1766 : A critical and practical commentary on First
and Second Thessalonians. London, 1777.
Cbellius (Joannes), f 1633 : Commentarius in utramque ad Thessalonicenses
Epistolam. Opera I. 1636.
Cbocius (Joannes), f 1659 : In Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses.
DiEDElCH : Die Briefe St. Pauli an die Eph. Phil. Koloss. und Thess. 1858.
Dods (Marcus, D. D.), of Glasgow : First and Second Thessalonians ; Schaff's
Popular Commentary. New York, 1883.
Eadie (John, D. D.), t 1877, of Glasgow: A commentary on the Greek text of
the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. London, 1877.
Ellicott (Charles J.), Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol : St. Paul's Epistles to
the Thessalonians. London, 1858, 3d ed. 1866.
Ferguson (James), t 1667, Minister at Kilwinning: Exposition of First and
Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. ' 1674.
Flatt (Johann Friedrich von), t 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesun
gen in die Briefe Pauli. Tiibingen, 1829.
Hofmann (Christopher): Commentarius iu posteriorem Epistolam ad Thessa
lonicenses. Frankfurt, 1545.
Hofmann (Johann Christian Konrad von), f 1878, Prof Theol. at Erlangen :
Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zasummenhangend untersucht.
I. Theil Thessalonicherbriefe. Nordlingen, 1869.
Hunnius (Aegilius), f 1603: Expositio epistolarum ad Thessalonicenses. Frankfurt, 1603.
Jackson : Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. London, 1621.
427

428 EXEGETICAL LITEEATtTEE.
Jewell (John), f 1571, Bishop of Salisbury : An exposition of the two Epistles
to the Thessalonians. London, 1583.
JoWETT (Benjamin), Master of Balliol College, Oxford : The Epistles of St. Paul
to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, with critical notes and .
dissertations. London, 1855.
Koch (A.) : Commentar iiber d. 1 Thessalonicherbrief. Berlin, 1869.
Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), f 1827, Tutor at Vienna: Die Briefe an
die Philipper und Thessalonicher iibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen
begleitet. Frankfurt, 1790.
Landeeben (Arnold) : Erklarung iiber d. zwei Briefe an die Thess. Frankfurt, 1707.
Lillie (John, D. D.) : Revised version, with notes, of the Epistles of Paul to the
Thessalonians. New York, 1856.
Mason (A. J.), Cambridge: First and Second Thessalonians and First Peter:
EUicott's New Testament Commentary. 1879.
MoLLEE (J. A.) : De Wette's Exeget. Hanbuch z. N. T. Galater- u. Thessalon
icherbriefe. 3d Aufi. V. MoUer. Leipsie, 1864.
Musculus [or Meusslin] (Wolfgang), t 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne : In Epist.
ad Thessalonicenses ambas commentarii. BasU, 1565.
Olshausen (Hermann), f 1839 : Biblisher Commentar ii. d. N. T. Theil IV.
Galater, Epheser, Colesser u. Thessalon. Konigsberg, 1840.
Translated by a clergyman of the Church of England.T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1851.
Pateeson (Alexander S., D. D.), of Glasgow: Commentary, expository and
practical, on First Thessalonians. Edinburgh, 1857.
Pelt (Anton Friedrich Ludwig), f 1861 : Pauli Epist. ad Thess. Gryphiswaldiae, 1829.
Phillips (John) : The Greek of the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
explained. London, 1751.
ReicJhe (Johann Georg) : Authentiae posteris ad Thessalonicenses Epistolae
vindiciae. Gottingen, 1830.
RoLLOCK (Robert) : In Epistolam Paulo ad Thess. priorem comm. In Epistolam
posteriorem comm. Edin. 1598.
Lectures upon First and Second Thessalonians. Edinburgh, 1606.
SCHLEIEBMACHEE (Friedrich Daniel Ernest), f 1834 : Pauli Epistolae ad Thessa
lonicenses. Berlin, 1823.
Schlichting (Jonas), f 1564 : In Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses Commentaria. 1656.
Schmid (Sebastian), f 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg: Paraphrasis utriusque
Epist. ad Thess. Hamburg, 1691.
Schmidt (Prof Paul.), Der erste Thessalonicherbrief, neu erklart f Neben einem
Excurs uber den zweiten gleichnahmigeu Brief. 1884.

EXEGETICAL LITEEATUEE. 429
Schott (Heinrich August), f. 1835, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Epistolae Pauli ad
Thess. et Gal. Leipsie, 1834.
Sclater (Dr. W.) : A brief exposition, with notes on First and Second
Thessalonians. London, 1629.
Speakee's [Bible] Commentary : First and Second Thessalonians ; Introduction
and Commentary by the Lord Bishop of Derry. London and New York, 1882.
Tueeetini (Jean Alphonse), Prof. Theol. at Geneva : Commentarius theoretico-
practicus in Ep. ad Thess. Opera II. Basil, 1739.
Welleeus. (Hieronymus), 1 1572: Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli ad Phil, et
ad Thess. Noribergae, 1561
WiLLlCHius (lodicus) : Commentarius in utramque Epistolam ad Thessaloni
censes. Argentorati, 1545.
Zachaeiae (Gotthilf Traugott), f 1777, Prof Theol. at Kiel : Paraphrastische
Erklarung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col. und Thess.
Gottingen [1771], 1787.
Zanchius (Hieronymus), f 1590 : Commentarius in D. Pauli 1 et 2 Thessaloni
censes Epist. Opera VI. 1595.
ZuiNGLius (Ulricus), 1 1531 : Annotationes ad 1 Thessaloincenses. Opera IV.

THE
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

INTRODUCTION.'
SEC. I.— THE CHURCH.

¦ HESSALONICA,' the ancient Bippy (Herod, vii. 121 ; Thuc. i.
61, al), the Salneck celebrated by the German poets of the
Middle Ages, now Saloiiiki, situated in the form of an amphi
theatre on the slope of a hill at the north-east corner of the
The'rmaic gulf, was in the time of Christ the capital of the second
district of the Roman province of Macedonia (Liv. xlv. 29), and the
seat of a Roman praetor and questor (Cic. Plane, 41). The city waa
rebuilt, embellished, and peopled by the settlement of the inhabitants
of the surrounding districts by Cassandra, who called it Tliessalonica
(first mentioned among the Greeks by Polybius), in honor of his
wife Thessalonica, the daughter of the elder Philip. So we are informed
in Dionys. Halicarn. Antiq. Rom. i. 49; Strabo, -vii. fin. vol. i. p. 480,
ed. Falconer; Zonaras, Annal. xii. 26, vol. i. p. 635, ed. Pu Fresne.
Their account is more credible than the statement given by Stephan.
Byzant. de urb. et popul, s. v. QeaaaXoviKy, Tzetza, chil. x. 174 ff. (yet with
both along with the above view), and the emperor Julian {Oratio iii. p.
200 ; Opp, Par. 1630, 4), that the change of name proceeded from Philip
of Macedon to perpetuate his victory over the Thessalians {QsaaaXdv . . .
viKv). By its situation on the Thermaic gulf, and on the great commercial
road (the so-called via Ignatia) which led from Dyrrachium, traversed
Macedonia, extended to Thrace to the mouth of the Hebrus (Strabo, -vii.
vol. i. p. 467), and accordingly united Italy -with Asia, Thessalonica became
a flourishing commercial town, — ^great, rich, and populous by its trade
(Strabo, vii. vol. i. p. 468 : y vvv ydXiara ruv dXXuv siavdpsl), luxurious and
1 See Burgerhoudt, de coefes Cliristianorum ^Bee Tafel, de Thessalonica ejusque agro
Thessnlonicensis ortu fatisque et prioris Pauli dissertio geographica, Berol. 1839. Cousinfery,
iis scriptae epistolae consilio atque argumento, voyaye dans la Macidoine, vol. I. Par. 1831, p.
Lugd. Bat. 1826. 23 ff. 431

432 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
licentious by its riches. Greeks formed the stock of its inhabitants ; next
in number were the Roman colonists ; and there was also a considerable
Jewish population, who had been attracted by the briskness of trade, and
were so considerable that, instead of a mere rrpoasvxy (see Meyer on Acts
xvi. 13), they possessed a synagogue proper (Acts x-vii. 1).' Already in the
time of Christ Thessalonica was named by Antipater p-qryp -y . . . rrday;
'SAaKedovty; (comp. Anthol. gr., ed Jacobs, vol. II. Lips. 1794, p. 98) ; in the
fifth century it was the metropolis of Thessaly, Achaia, and other prov
inces which were under the praefectus praetorio of Illyricum, who
resided at Thessalonica. Many w.ars in subsequent ages oppressed the
city ; but as often as it was conquered and destroyed by the barbarians, it
always rose to new greatness and power. Its union with the Venetians—.
to whom, on the weakness of the Greek empire, the Thessiiloiiians sold
their city — ^was at length the occasion of its becoming, in the year 1480, a
prey to the Turks. Even at this day Thessalonica, after Constantinople,
is one of the most fiourishing cities of European Turkey.
Paul reached Thessalonica, so peculiarly favorable for a rapid and wide
diffusion of Christianity, on his second great missionary journej"- (see
Meyer on Rom., ed. iv. p. 8 f.), when for the first time he came into
Europe, in the year 58. He journeyed thither from Philippi by Amphi
polis and ApoUonia (Acts xvii. 1), accompanied by two apostolic assistants,
Silas (Silvanus) and Timotheus (see Acts xvii. 4, comp. with xvi. 3 and
xvii. 14 ; see also Phil. ii. 22 comp. with Acts xvi. 3, 12 ff.). Paul, faithful
to his custom, first turned himself to the Jews, but of them he gained only
a few converts for the gospel. He found greater access among the prose
lytes and Gentiles (Acts xvii. 4). There arose, after the lapse of a few
weeks (comp. also Phil. iv. 16), a mixed Christian congregation in Thes
salonica, composed of Jews and Gentiles, but the latter much more
numerous (i. 9 and Acts xvii. 4, according to Lachmann's correct reading).
The Jews, embittered by this success among the Gentiles, raised a tumult,
in consequence of which the apostle was forced to forsake Thessalonica
(Acts xvii. 5 fi'.). Conducted by night to the neighboring Macedonian
city of Berea, Paul found there, among Jews .ind Gentiles, the most ready
reception for the gospel. But scarcely had the news of this reached his
opponents in Thessalonica than they hastened to Berea, and, stirring up
the multitude, expelled the apostle from that city also. Yet Silas and
Timotheus remained behind, for the confirmation and fiirther instruction
of the church at Berea. Paul himself directed his steps to Athens, and
1 At present there are about 22,000 Jews in Saiontkl.

INTEODUCTION. 433
from thence, after a short residence, to Corinth, where he remained more
than a year and a half (Acts xvii. 10 if., xviii.). At a later period, the
third great missionary journey of the apostle led him repeatedly back to
Thessalonica (Acts xx. 1 K)
SEC IL— OCCASION, DESIGN, AND CONTENTS.
The persecution which had driven the apostle from Thessalonica soon
also broke out against the church (ii. 14, iii. 3, i. 6). Thus it was not the
mere yearning of personal love and attachment (ii. 17 ff.), but also care
and anxiety (iii. 5) that urged him to hasten back to Thessalonica. Twice
he resolved to do so, but circumstances prevented him (ii. 18). Accord
ingly, no longer able to master his anxiety, he sent Timotheus, who had
not suffered in the earlier persecution, from Athens (see on iii. 1, 2), in
order to receive from him information concerning the state of the church,
and to strengthen the Thessalonians by exhortation, and encourage them
to faithful endurance. The return of Timotheus (iii. 6), and the message
which he brought, were the occasion of the Epistle. This message was in
the main consolatory. The church, in spite of persecution and trial, con
tinued stedfast and unshaken in the faith (i. 6, ii. 14), so that its members
could be named as examples for Christians in all Macedonia and Achaia
(i. 7), and their heroic faith was everywhere spread abroad (i. 8). They
were also distinguished by their active brotherly love (i. 8, iv. 9, 10), and,
upon the whole, by their faithful adherence to those rules of conduct
pointed out to them by the apostle (iv. 1). Moreover, they had an afiec
tionate remembrance of the apostle (iii. 6), and their congregational life
had so flourished that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (v. 19) and prophecy (v.
20) were manifested among them. But Timotheus had also to tell of
defect and incompleteness (iii. 10). The church had not yet succeeded in
preserving itself unstained by the two cardinal vices of heathenism — sen
suality and covetousness (iv. 3 ff.) ; they had not everywhere shown to the
presbyters due respect and obedience (v. 12) ; and in consequence of their
thought and feeling being inordinately directed to the advent of Christ, an
unsettled and excited habit prevailed, which led to the neglect of the duties
of their earthly calhng, and to idleness (iv. 11 ff.). Lastly, the church was
in great perplexity concerning the fate of their deceased Christian friends,
being uncertain whether only those who were then alive, or whether also
deceased Christians, participated in the blessings of the advent (iv. 13 ff.).
Concerning this subject, it would appear, to judge from the introductory
words of iv. 13, that the Thessalonians had requested information from
the apostle. 28

434 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
The design of the Epistle accordingly was threefold. 1. The apostle,
whilst testifying his joy for their conduct hitherto, would strengthen and
encourage the church to persevering stedfastness in the confession of
Christianity. 2. He would exhort thera to relinquish those moral weak
nesses by which they were still enfeebled. 3. He would calm and con
sole them concerning the fate of the, deceased by a more minute instruc
tion in reference to the advent.
Remark. — The opinion of Lipsius {Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1854, 4, p. 905 ff.),
that the design of the Epistle is to be sought for in considering it as a polemic
directed against Judaistic opponents, is to be rejected as entirely erroneous. The
supposed traces indicating this, which the Epistle is made to contain in rich
abundance, are only forcibly pressed into the service. From i. 4-ii. 12, Lipsius
infers that the apostolical dignity of Paul had been attacked, or at least threatened,
in Thessalonica ; for it must have been for reasons of a personal nature that Paul
so repeatedly and designedly puts stress upon his mode of preaching the gospel,
his personal relation to the Thessalonians, the reception and entrance which he
had found among them. But such an inference is wholly inadmissible, as every
thing that Paul says concerning himself and his conduct has in the context its
express counterpart — its express correlative. In the whole section, i. 2-ii. 16 (for
.the whole, and not merely i. 4r-ii. 12, according to Lipsius, is closely connected
together), the corresponding conduct of the Tliessalonians is placed over against the
conduct of Paul and his companions. There is therefore no room for the suppo
sition, that in what Paul remarks concerning himself there is a tacit polemical
reference to third persons, namely, to Judaistic opponents ; rather the apostle's
design in the section i. 2-ii. 16 is to bring vividly before the Thessalonians the
facti of their conversion, in order to encourage them to stedfastness in Christianity
by the representation of the grace of God, which was abundantly manifested amid
¦ those troubles and persecutions which had broken out upon them. Besides, the
opinion of Lipsius, if we are to measure it according to the standard of his own
suppositions, must appear unfounded. According to Lipsius, the opponents, with
whom the apostle had to do in Thessalonica, were unconverted Jews, and only as a
later effect of their machinations Paul was afraid of the formation of a Judaizing
Christian party at Thessalonica, so that his labor was only directed to prevent and
to make the attempt while yet there was time, whether the formation of a Jewish-
Christian faction could not be suppressed in its iirst germs. But where in early
.Christianity is there any example of the apostolical dignity of P.aul being dis
puted by the -unconverted Jews ? Such attacks, in the nature of the case, were
raised against Paul only by the Jewish Christians ; whereas the unconverted Jews
naturally labored only to hinder him in the diffusion of the gospel, and accord
ingly manifested their hostility by acts of external violence, by opposition to his
preaching, by laying snares for his life, etc. Comp. Acts ix. 23 ff., xiii. 45, xvii.
5, 13, xxii. 22, al. — From what has been said it follows how arbitrary' it is when '
Lipsius further makes a selection from the account in ii. 3 ff., that th e mention of
rr'Xd-vy, oKaBapaia, ddXo;, dvBpdiroi; dpioKeiv, Xdyo; KoXaKe'ia;, rrpdipaai; irXsovs^la;, and
' ^yrslv ef dvBpdiruv dd^av, was designed to defend the apostle from the reproaches
which, in point of fact, had been raised against him, on the part of the Jews, at

INTEODUCTION. 435
Thessalonica ; that, according to ii. 7 ff., the purity of his motives was doubted ;
and that, according to ii. 13, it had been contended from a Judaistic point of view
that his word was a human ordinance, and not founded on divine truth. Every
thing there adduced is explained simply and without any violence from the speci
fied design of the apostle, without our being constrained to think on any polemical
subsidiary references. Where do we find a similar polemic in Paul, in which
everything is veiled in mysterious darkness, and what is really intended never
openly and decidedly brought forward ? For no unprejudiced reader would
maintain that the passage ii. 14-16, which Lipsius, entirely mistaking the whole
plan of the Epistle, calls its most characteristic section, warrants, on account of
the violent outburst against the Jews contained in it, the inferences which he
deduces from it. — Further, when Lipsius makes the yearning of the apostle after
the Thessalonians expressed in ii. 17-20, and his twofold resolution to return to
them, occasioned because he saw in spirit the church perverted and distracted by
the same hateful Judaistic opponents who caused him so much grief in Galatia, so
that he wished to be personally present in Thessalonica in order to baffle the
attacks of those enemies, all that he would here prove is forcibly introduced into
the text. Paul himself, in iii. 1 ff., states the reason of his anxiety and twofold
proposed journey quite differently. Certainly what Paul himself here says has
little authority for Lipsius. He thinks that only a " slight power of combina
tion" (!) is requisite in order to perceive that it is not here only the effect of
external trials that Paul feared ; certainly it is only of this that the apostle
directly speaks, but surely the confirmation and encouragement in the faith was a
yet deeper reason, namely, the reason given by Lipsius (!). — When, further, Lip
sius refers rrsipd^siv, iii. 5, to " the machinations of the Judaists," this is a violence
done to iii. 3 ; when, in fine, he discovers in v. 21, " an exhortation to caution in
reference to those teachers who — to obtain for themselves an undisturbed entrance
under the pretext of the free Christian xo-piapa oi prophecy — might aim at the
subversion of the faith planted by Paul," and in v. 22 a reference to " Judaistic
machinations," these special explanations' are nothing else than the vagaries of
the imagination, which are not able to stand before a pure and thoughtful inter
pretation. The same remark, moreover, holds good of the opinion recently advanced by
Hofmann {Die heil. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhangend untersucht, part 1,
Nordl. 1862, p. 270 f.), that the first part of the Epistle was occasioned by the
news brought by Timotheus to the apostle, that the Christians in Thessalonica
had been persuaded by their heathen countrymen that they had become the prey
of self-interested and crafty men, been involved by them in their Jewish machina
tions, and then given up to the misery occasioned thereby ; and also that the
Thessalonians could not understand why, during the whole time of their distress,
Paul remained at a distance from them, and on this account they felt their dis
tress the more severely. To all this the contents of the first three chapters were
an answer. They were designed to deliver the church from their depressed frame
of mind to meet the suspicions they entertained of their teachers and founders,
and to efface the evil impression which their, and especially Paul's absence, made
on them. This threefold design was sufficiently satisfied by the three sections, i.
2-10, ii. 1-12, ii. 13-iii. 13.
According to its contents, the Epistle is di-vided into two parts. After

436 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the salutation (i. 1) in the first or historical part, taken up with personal
references (i. 2-iii. 13), Paul declares first, in general terms, his joy,
expressed in thanksgiving, for the Christian soundness of the church (i. 2,
3) ; and then in separate particulars, in an impressive and eloquent de
scription, he asserts the operation of the grace of God manifested in their
conversion to Christianity ; whilst the gospel had been preached hy him,,
the apostle, with energy and confidence, with undaunted, pure, and self-
sacrificing love to his divine calling, and had been received hy them, the
Thessalonians, with eager desire, and stedfastly maintained amid sufiering
and persecution (i. 4-ii. 16). Paul then speaks of the longing which came
upon him, of the mission of Timotheus, and of the consolation which the
return of Timotheus had now imparted to him (ii. 17-iii. 13). In the
second or ethical-dogmatic part (iv. 1-v. 28) the apostle beseeches and exhorts
the Thessalonians to make progress in holiness, to renounce fornication
and covetousness (iv. 1-8), to increase yet more and more in brotherly
love (iv. 9, 10), and, instead of surrendering themselves to an unsettled
disposition and to excitement, to be diligent and laborious in their worldly
business (iv. 11, 12). The apostle then comforts them concerning the
fate of their friends who had died before the advent, and exhorts them to
be ever watchful and prepared for the coming of the Lord (iv. 13-v. 11).
Then follow divers exhortations, and the -wish that God would sanctify
the Thessalonians wholly for the coming of Christ (v. 12-24). Concluding
remarks succeed (v. 25-27), and the usual benediction (v. 28).
SEC. 3.— TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
When Paul composed this Epistle a long time could not have elapsed
since the founding of the church of Thessalonica. The apostle is as yet
entirely full of the impression which his residence in Thessalonica had
made upon him ; he lives and moves so entirely in the facts of the con
version of the Thessalonians and of his personal conduct to them, that
only events can be here described which belong to the recent past. To
this also points the fact that the longing after the Thessalonians which
came over the apostle soon after his separation from them (ii. 17), still
endures at the moment when he is composing this Epistle (iii. 11).
And lastly, the whole second or moral-dogmatic portion of the Epistle
shows that the Thessalonian Church, although in many respects already
eminent and fiourishing, as yet consisted only of novices in Christianity.
Moreover, when Paul composed this Epistle, according to i. 7, 8, he had
already preached the gospel in Achaia. According to iii. 6 {dpn), the

INTEODUCTION. 437
Epistle was written immediately after the return of Timotheus from Thes
salonica. But from Acts xviii. 5, 6, we learn that Timotheus and Silas,
returning from Macedonia, rejoined Paul at Corinth at a time when he
had rao< tow^' sojourned there; as until then the gospel was preached by
him chiefly to the Jews. Thus, then, there can exist no reason to doubt
that the composition of this Epistle is to be assigned to the commencement
of Paul's residence cd Corinth, thus in the year 53, perhaps half a year after
the arrival of the apostle in Macedonia, or after his flight from Thessa
lonica (comp. Wieseler's Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Gottingen
1848, p. 40 a,).
The subscription of the Epistle : iypdipy drrb 'AByvdv, is consequently
erroneous, arising from a careless inference drawn from iii. 1. Not only
the modification of this view by Theodoret, followed by Hemming, Bul
linger, Balduin, and Aretius, that the first visit of the apostle to Athens
(Acts xvii. 15 ff.) is here to be thought of,^ is to be rejected; but also the
suppositions of others, differing among themselves, according to which a
later residence of the apostle at Athens is referred to. According to Calo
vius and Bottger {Beitr. zur hist.-krit. Einleit. in die Paulin. Br., Gcitt. 1837,
Part III. p. 18 ff.), our Epistle was written at Athens on a subsequent
excursion which Paul made to that city during his first residence at Cor
inth (against Bottger, see Wieseler's Chron, p. 247) ; according to Wurm
{Tubing, Zeitschr. f. Theologie, 1833, Part 1. p. 73 ff.), on a journey which
Paul undertook at the time indicated in Acts xviii. 22 from Antioch to
Greece (see against him Sehneckenburger in the Studien der ev, Geistlich-
keit Wurtembergs, 1834, vol. VIL Part I. p. 137 ff.) ; according to Schrader
{Apostel Paulus, Part I. p. 90 ff., p. 162 ff.), at the time indicated in Acts
XX. 2, 3, after a third (?) visit of the apostle to the Thessalonians (see
against him Sehneckenburger, Beit, zur Einleit, in's N. T p. 165 ff. ; Schott,
proleg. p. 14 ff.) ; according to Kohler {Ueber die Ahfassungszeit der epistolis-
chen Schriften in N. T. p. 112 f ) and Whiston {Primitive Christianity Revived,
vol. IIL, Lond. 1711, p. 46 f., p. 110), at a residence in Athens at a period
beyond the history contained in the Acts, Kohler assuming the year 66,
and Whiston the year 67 after Christ as the period of composition (see
against the former, Schott, proleg. p. 21 ff. ; and against the latter, Ben
son's Paraphrase and Notes, 2d ed. p. 9 ff.).
1 Euthalius (in Zacagn. CoUectan. monument. ff. For after the words : Tav-ryv ima-reKXei
vet. t. I. p. 650), and Oecumenius following aTrb 'A07jvaii/, in giving the occasion of the
him verbatim, do not judge so. For although Epistle, they add : 'O d-iroirToKos -iroWd^ GKiipeis
they assume the place of composition to be Tra^w;* iv Btpola Ka'i iv *tAt jrirots t^s MaKeSopia?
Athens, yet they must have thought on a Kal iv KoplvBi^ , . . dn-otrWAAet Tipio&eov Trpbs
later residence in Athens than Acts xvii. 15 avrous p,eTd ry^ iirnrroKyi rav-ry^.

438 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
SEC. 4.— GENUINENESS.'
The historical attestation of the Epistle, although there are no sure indi
cations of it found in the apostolic Fathers,^ is yet so old, continuous, and
universal (Iren. Haer. v. 6. 1 ; Clem. Al. Paedag, i. p. 88 D, ed. Sylb. ; Ter
tull. de resurr, carn. 24 ; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 65 ; Canon Murat., Peschito, Mar
cion [in Tert. adv. Marc. v. 15, and Epiph. Haer, xlii. 9], etc., see van
Manen, I.e. pp. 5-21), that a justifiable reason for doubting its authen
ticity from external grounds is inconceivable.
Schrader was the first to call in question the genuineness from internal
grounds {Apostel Paulus, Part V., Leipz. 1836, p. 23 ff.). In his paraphrase
on in. 13, iv. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, v. 8, 10, 19, 23, 26, 27, he thought that he had
discovered suspicious abnormal expressions (see exposition of these pas
sages). Baur {Paulus der Ap. Jesu Chr. Stuttg. 1845, p. 480 ff., see against
him, W. Grimm in den Stud. u. Krit. 1850, IV. p. 753 ff. ; J. P. Lange, daa
apost. Zeitalter, vol. I., 1853, p. 108 ff. Davidson, Introd., N. T, London, 1868,
vol. I., p.20ff.), in a detailed justification of his formerly cherished doubts
(see Baur, die sogen. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P., Stuttg. u. Tiib. 1835), but until
then only merely asserted, questions the genuineness of the Epistle. At a
still later period he has maintained its spuri ousness in his and Zeller's Theol.
Jahrb. 1855, Part II. p. 141 ff.^ A. B., van der Vriess alone has agreed with
him {De beide Brieven aan de Thessalonicensen, historisch-Kritisch onderzoek
naar hunnen oorsprung, Leyden, 1865, see in opposition to him : Hilgen
feld, in his Zeitschr. f wiss, Theol. 1866, 2, p. 295 ff.).
The arguments insisted upon by Baur in his Apostel Paulus are the fol
lowing : — 1. In the whole collection of Pauline Epistles there is none so
inferior in the character and importance of its contents as 1 Thessalo
nians ; with the exception of the view contained in iv. 13-18, no dogmatic
idea whatever is brought into prominence. The whole Epistle consists of
general instructions, exhortations, wishes, such as are in the other Epistles
mere adjuncts to the principal contents ; but here what is in other cases
only an accessory is converted into the principal matter. This insignifi
cance of contents, the want of any special aim and of any definite occa-
1 See W. C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de dependence of our Epistle on the Corinthian
echtheid van Paulus' eersten brief aan de Thes- Epistles is more emphatically stated and
salonicensen (De echtheid van Paulus' brieven supported by some further parallels forcibly
aan de Thess. onderzocht. I,), Weesp. 1865. brought together; 2. Not, as formerly (comp
2 Sueh references are erroneously supposed Baur's Apost, Paulus, p. 488), the First, but
to be found in Clem. Rom. ep, I, ad Corinth. the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, is
38. Ignat ad Polyc. I. Polyc. ad Philipp. ii. 4. regarded as having been written first ; and
»The difference of Baur's views in reference from its spuriou.fne.ss, as it was not composed
to the First Epistle in this last^mentioned until the death of Nero, the spuriouaness of
place consists in this : — 1. That the presumed our Epistle is inferred.

LNTEODUCTION. 439
sion, is a mark of un-Pauline origin. 2. The Epistle betrays a depend
ence on the Acts of the Apostles and on the other Pauline Epistlea,
especially those to the Corinthians. 8. The Epistle professes to have
been written only a few months after the apostle's first visit to Thessa
lonica, and yet there is a description of the condition of the church which
evidently only suits a church already existing for a considerable time.
4. What the Epistle in iv. 14^18 contains concerning the resurrection of
the dead, and the relation of the departed and the living to the advent of
Christ, seems to agree very well with 1 Cor. xv. 52 ; but it goes farther, and
gives such a concrete representation of those transcendent matters as we
never elsewhere find with the apostle.
As to the first objection, according to Baur's view, our Epistle "arose
from the same interest in the advent, which is still more decidedly ex
pressed in the second Epistle." Baur, then, must have considered all the
other contents of the Epistle only as a foil for this one idea ; and as in his
representation of the Pauline doctrine (p. 507 ff.) he judged the escha-
tology of Paul not worth an explanation, it is not to be wondered at that he
considered it impossible that Paul could have made the advent the chief
subject of a whole Epistle. But apart from this, that, according to other
testimonies of the Pauline Epistles, the idea of an impending advent had
a great practical weight with the apostle ; that, fiirther, the expectation
of it and of the end of the world in connection with it, was well fitted to
produce the greatest excitement in a church the majority of which con
sisted of converted heathens, so that it was necessary to calm them con
cerning it; that, lastly, the explanation concerning the advent in so many
»pecial points, as, for example, concerning the relation of unbehevers, etc.,
is left entirely untouched, so that the interest in the advent in and for
itself cannot have been the reason for this instruction, but only a peculiar
want of the church : apart from all these considerations, the disorder exist
ing among the Thessalonians on account of the advent does not form the
cAie/ contents of the Epistle, but only one point along with others which
gave occasion to its composition. Add to this, that all the further cir
cumstances, which were the occasion of our Epistle, present themselves
before us in it, united together with such clearness and in so living a
character, as to form a distinct general picture of the Thessalonian
church, so that it cannot be asserted that there is a want of a definite
exciting occasion (comp. sec. 2). It is admitted that the didactic and dog
matic element in our Epistle recedes before the hortatory, and generally
before the many personal references of the apostle's love and care for the

440 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
church ; but the amount more or less of dogmatic explanations can never
decide whether an epistle belongs to Paul or not. The Epistles of the
apostle are not the products of Christian learning in the study, but were
called forth by the urgency of circumstances, and thus are always the
products of historical necessity. We have then only to inquire whether
our Epistle corresponds to the relations of the church, which it presup
poses ; if it does correspond with the relations and wants of the church, as
is evident to every unprejudiced mind, its contents receive thereby the
importance, and special interest which Baur misses. Lastly, it is not true
that the instructions, exhortations, and wishes in our Epistle are of so
general a nature, that what is elsewhere a mere accessory is here raised
into an essential. Rather an exhortation is never found in our Epistle,
which had not a special reference to the pecuhar condition of the Thessa
lonian church.
As regards the second argument, a use of the Acts of the Apostles by the
author of the Epistle is inferred chiefiy from the fact that the Epistle is
nothing else than an extended statement, reminding the Thessalonians of
what was already well known to them, of the history of their conversion,
known to us from the Acts. Thus i. 4 ff. nierely states how the apostle
preached the gospel to them, and how they received it; ii. 1 ff. points
more distinctly to the circumstances of the apostle's coming to Thessa
lonica, and the way in which he labored among them ; iii. 1 ff. relates only
what happened a short time before, and what the Thessalonians already
knew. Everywhere (comp. already Schrader, supra, p. 24) only such
things are spoken of as the readers knew well already, as the writer him
self admits by the perpetually recurring e'lddrs; (i. 4), avrol ydp oldars (ii. 1),
KaBd; oldars (ii. 2), pvypovsisrs ydp (ii. 9), KaBdirsp oldars (ii. 11), airoi ydp
oldars (iii. 3), koSu; koI iyivsro Kal oidare (iii. 4), oldars ydp (iv. 2). In answer
to this objection, it is to be observed: (1) Apart from the inconsistency
that what, according to Baur, should be only a foil is here converted into
the chief contents, the history of the conversion of the Thessalonians does
not form the chief contents of the Epistle, but only the contents of a por
tion of the first or historical half. (2) The remembrance of the founding
of the church was not useless, nor a mere effusion of the heart (de Wette),
but an essential part of the design of the apostle, serving as it did to
strengthen and invigorate the church in stedfastness in the faith. (3)
The often repeated appeal to the consciousness of the readers is so much
the more natural as it refers to facts which happened during the apostle's
recent visit to Thessalonica, and with which his mind was completely

INTEODUCTION. 441
occupied. (4) The supposed lengthiness is only the fullness and inspirited
liveliness of the discourse. (5) If the account of the conversion of the
Thessalonians as described in the Epistle is in agreement with the narra
tive in the Acts, this circumstance is not a point against, hnt for the
authenticity of our Epistle, inasmuch as Baur's view that the Acts is a
patched work of the second century, ransacking Christian history for a
definite purpose, and accordingly designedly altering it (see Baur, Ap.
Paulus, p. 180), merits no respect on account of its arbitrariness and want
of consistency. (6) Lastly, the harmony between the Acts and our
Epistle is so free, so unforced, and so slightly pervading (comp. iii. 1, 2,
with Acts xvii. 15, xviii. 5), that a literary use of the one by the other is
absolutely inconceivable. — The passage ii. 14r-16, on which Baur lays
peculiar stress, is neither dependent on the Acts nor un-Pauline (see
Commentary). It is also asserted that there are evident reminiscences more or
less of other Pauline Epistles, especially of the P/pistles to the Corin
thians. Thus i. 5 is manifestly an imitation of 1 Cor. ii. 4; i. 6
is taken from 1 Cor. xi. 1, and i. 8 from Eom. i. 8; the passage
ii. 4 ff. briefly condenses the principles enunciated in 1 Cor. ii. 4,
iv. 3 f., ix. 15 f., and especially 2 Cor. ii. 17, v. 11. Besides wXsovs^ta,
ii. 5, points to 2 Cor. vii. 2, dmdpevoi iv pdpei slvai, ii. 6, and pij 'smpapyaai,
ii. 9, to 2 Cor. xi. 9, and ii. 7 to 1 Cor. iii. 2. A simple comparison of these
passages suffices to show the worthlessness of the inferences derived from
them. Verbal similarities of so trifling and harmless a nature as those
adduced might easily be discerned between the Epistles to the Romans
and Galatians, both of which Baur regards as genuine. Besides, the cir
cumstances of the Thessalonian and Corinthian churches, as well as the
history of their founding, were in many respects similar; but similar
thoughts in the same writer clothe themselves easily in a certain similar
ity of expression.
Baur supports his third argument on i. 7, 8, ii. 18, iii. 10, iv. 9 £, 11 f.
But these passages do not prove what is intended (see exposition).
Lastly, in reference to the fourth argument, Baur himself confesses that
the section iv. 14-18 can only be made vahd against the authenticity of
the Epistle, provided its spuriousness is already proved on other grounds.
But as such other grounds do not exist, and as Baur has not explained
himself further on the subject, we might dismiss this argument, were it
not that it might be turned into a sharp weapon against himself. For,
according to iv. 15, 17, the author of the Epistle regards the advent of

442 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Christ as so near that Ae himself hopes to survive (comp. v. 1 ff.). What a
foolish and indeed inconceivable proceeding would it be, if a forger of the
second century were to put into the mouth of the Apostle Paul a prophetic
expression concerning himself, the erroneousness of which facts had long
since demonstrated ! Moreover, it necessarily follows fi'om 2 Thess. ii. 4
(see on passage) that the-Second Epistle to the Thessalonians at least, and,
as this (see sec. 2 of the Introduction to 2 Thess.) was composed later than
the first, our Epistle also were written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

CHAP. I. 443

IlabXoo Tipdi dsaaaXovixsXi; imaroXij Ttpuirr).
A B K, X) 3, 37, 80, et al. pier. Copt. Damasc. have Tipb; OsaaaXoviKsl; a, the
shortest and apparently the oldest title. It is also found in D E, but prefix
ing "Apxsrai.
CHAPTEE I.
Vek. 1. After s'lpiyvy, Elz. Matth. Scholz, Bloomfield {The Greek Testament, with
English notes, 9th edit. vol. IL, London 1855) add : dirb Qsov irarpb; ypdv koi
Kvplov 'lyaov Xpiarov. Bracketed by Lachm. Correctly erased by Tisch., Alford
and Ellicott, according to B F G 47, 73, 115, et at. Syr. Baschm. Aeth. Arm. Vulg.
Or. lat. seu Ruf. (dis.) Chrys. (comm.) Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. An interpola
tion, for the sake of completion, taken from the usual commencement of Paul's
Epistles. Recently the addition : dirb Oeov irarpb; yydv Kal Kvplov 'lyaov Xpiarov,
is defended by Bouman {Chartae theologicae, lib. i., Traj. ad Rhen. 1853, p. 61) and
Reiche {Commentar. criticus in N. T. tom. II. p. 321 sqq.), but on insufficient
grounds. For that the addition might easily have been erroneously overlooked
by scribes, on account of the similar preceding words: iv QeCi irarpl koI Kvpla
'lyaov Xpiara, is very improbable on account of the diiference in the prepositions
and cases of the two forms ; that it might have been erased as an inelegant repe
tition has 2 Thess. i. 2 against it, for then there also traces of similar corrections
in the critical testimonies would appear ; and lastly, that the bare xopi; iy'iv kui
s'lpyvy, without any further definition, is not elsewhere found in any of Paul's
writin-^s, would only occasion a doubt, were it in itself unsuitable ; but this is hot
the case here, as, from the directly preceding words iv Qsa irarpl Kal Kvpla 'lyaov
Xpiara, the specific Christian sense of the formula is self-apparent. — Ver. 2. iydv,
in the Receptus, after yvsiav, is wanting in A B x* 17, et at. It is found in C D
E F G K L 5{-**** in almost all min., as well as in many Greek and Latin
Fathers. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, erroneously erase it. How easily might
iydv after pvsiav be overlooked on account of ipOrv before pvsiav I Comp. Eph. i.
16, where, in a similar case, there is the same uncertainty of MSS. — Ver. 3. Elz.
has iydv tov spyov ry; rrlarsa;. Instead of this, DEFG, Syr. Arr. Aeth. Vulg.
It. Ambrosiast. have roii ipyov [F. G. rb ipyov] ry; rriarsu; ipdv. An interpre
tation from misunderstanding. — Ver. 5. irpb; vyd;] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz,
Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, Alford, Reiche, Ellicott have s'l; iyd;. Against A C** DEF
G min. Copt. Chrys. ed. Theoph. ed. — Instead of the Receptus ev iplv, A C k,
min. Vulg. MS. have iylv ; but iv was absorbed by the last syllable of iysvyBypev.
 Ver. 7 rvirov] recommended to consideration by Griesb., received by Lachm.
Tisch., Alford and Ellicott, according to B D* min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid.
Baschm. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Pel. Elz. Matth. Scholz,

444 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Reiche, read the plural rvirov; (from which riiro;, in D** E 49, proceed, which
Mill takes for a neuter form, as irXxivro;), according to A C F G K L x, most
min. and many Gr. vss. ; but it is a correction the better to adapt the predicate
to the collective subject, and thus apparently to strengthen the expressed
praise ; whilst the plural transfers to individual members of the church what the
singular predicates of them in general, considered as a unity. Otherwise Bou
man {I. c. p. 62 f.), according to whom rvirov; of the Receptus is the original, from
whioh TiJTrof was erroneously formed, and from it rvirov proceeded, being regarded
as an error of the nom. sing., and it was considered the easiest method to correct
the mistake by changing the nominative singular into the accusative singular. —
Kal iv ry is to be received, according toABGDEFGx, min. Vulg. It. Syr.
utr. Theodoret, Ambrosiast. Pel., instead of the Receptus Kal ry ; so Lachm.
Scholz (with whom it has been omitted by an error of the press), Tisch, Ellicott. —
Ver 8. Elz. has Kal 'Axata. So also Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, and Ellicott.
But Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. 8, have koI iv ry 'Axaia, according
toCDEFGKLx, miu. plur. Syr. Slav. MS. Vulg. It. Cj^r. Damasc. Oec. Am
brosiast. Pelag. Correctly ; for the repetition of the preposition and the article is
necessary, as Macedonia and Achaia were to be distinguished as separate provinces.
— The Kai of the Receptus before iv iravrl rdirip (defended by Matth. and Scholz,
suspected by Griesb.) is to be erased, according to A B C D* F G x, 17, 37, et al.
mult. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. It. Ambrosiast. ed. ; so Lachm. Tisch. and
Alford. Because, being usually after oi ydvov . . . dXXd, it was easily inserted. —
ypd; ixsiv] correctly changed by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott into
ixsiv vpd;, according toABCDEFGx, min. perm. Theodoret. The Receptus
is an alteration, for emphasis, to contrast ypd;, ver. 8, and airoi, ver. 9. — ^Ver. 9.
laxoysv] Elz. has sxopsv against preponderating evidence, and devoid of meaning.
On account of the similar form with s in uncial MSS., a might easily be omitted.
— Ver. 10. iK rdv vsKpuv] 'Elz. has sk vsKpdv, against BDE F G L x, min. plur.
and Fathers. The article rdv was lost in the last syllable of veKpdv.
Contents. — After the address and salutation (ver. 1), Paul testifies to his
readers how in his prayers he constantly thanks God for them all, men
tioning without ceasing their faith, love, and hope, being firmly convinced
of their election; for, on the one hand, the gospel was preached to them
with power and much confidence ; and, on the other hand, they, amid
many trials, had received it with joyfulness, so that they had become
examples to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia : for from them the
word of the Lord had spread, and the knowledge of their faith had pene
trated everywhere, so that he had not to relate anything about it, but, on
the contrary, he hears it mentioned by others what manner of entrance
he had to them, and how they had turned from idols to the living and
true God (vv. 2-10).
Ver. 1. [See Note XLVI. pages 458-460.] It is a mark of the very early
composition of the Epistle, and consequently of its authenticity, that Paul
does not call himself dirdaroXo;. For it was very natural that Paul, in
regard to the first Christian churches to whom he wrote, whom he had'
recently left, and who had attached themselves with devoted love to him
and his preaching, did not feel constrained to indicate himself more defi-

CHAP. I. 1. 445
nitely by an official title, as the simple mention of his name must have
been perfectly sufficient. It was otherwise in his later life. With refer
ence to the Galatians and Corinthians, in consequence of the actual oppo
sition to his apostolic authority in these churches, Paul felt himself
constrained to vindicate his full official dignity at the commencement of
his Epistles. And so the addition drrdaroXxi;, occasioned at first by imper
ative circumstances, became at a later period a usual designation, espe
cially to those churches which were personally unknown to the apostle
(Epistles to Eom. Col. Eph.), among whom, even without any existing
opposition, such a designation was necessary in reference to the future.
An exception was only natural where, as -with the Philippians and with
Philemon, the closest and most tried love and attachment united the
apostle with the recipients of his Epistles. The supposition of Chrysos
tom, whom Oecumenius and Theophylact follow, is accordingly to be
rejected, that the apostolic title was suppressed did rb veoKoryxyrov; elvai
roii; dvdpa; Kal pydiiru airov rrelpav s'lXyipivai, for then it ought not tO be
found in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. Further, the view
of Zwingli, Estius, Pelt, and others is to be rejected, that Paul omitted his
apostohc title out of modesty, as the same title could not be assigned to
Silvanus (and Timotheus) ; for, not to mention that this reason is founded
on a distorted view of the Pauline character, and that the two companions
of the apostle would hardly lay claim to his apostolic rank, such a suppo
sition is contradicted by 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1.- — koI ^iXovavb; koI TipdBeo;]
Both are associated with Paul in the address, not to testify their agree
ment in the contents of the Epistle, and thereby to confer on it so much
greater authority (Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Pelt), or to testify that the
contents were communicated to the apostle by the Holy Ghost (Macknight),
but simply because they had assisted the apostle in preaching the gospel
at Thessalonica. The simple mention of their names, without any addi
tion, was sufficient on account of their being personally kno-wn. By
being included in the address, they are represented as joint-authors of the
Epistle, although they were so only in name. It is possible, but not cer
tain, that Paul dictated the Epistle to one of them. (According to Berth-
old, they translated the letter conceived in Aramaic into Greek, and
shared in the work.) — Silvanus (as in 2 Cor. i. 19) is placed before Timo
theus, not perhaps because Timotheus was the amanuensis, and from
modesty placed his name last (Zanchius), but because Silvanus was older
and had been longer with Paul. — ''E.v Qea irarpl . . . XpiarCi is to be closely
united with r^ iKK?„yaia QsaaaXoviKeuv : to the church of the Thessalonians in
God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ,— th&t is, whose being, whose
characteristic peculiarity, consists m fellowship with God the Father (by
which they are distinguished from heathen 'eKKXyaiai) and with the Lord
Jesus Christ (by which they are distinguished from the Jewish iKK7,vaia).
Erroneously, Grotius : quae exstitit, id agente Deo Patre et Christo. The
article ry is neither to be repeated before iv Qsa nor is ry oiay to be sup
phed (Olshausen, de Wette, and Bloomfield erroneously supply oiay by
itself, without the article; this could not be the construction, as it would

446 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
contain a causal statement), because the words are blended together in
the unity of the idea of the Christian church (see Winer's Grammar, p. 128
[E. T. 136]). Schott arbitrarily refers iv QsCi k.t.X. to xo'peiv Xeyovaiv, to
be supplied before x^-pi; iy'iv ; for xopi; iylv koI eip. takes the place of the
usual Greek salutation xoipeiv Xiyovaiv. Hofmann's view ' amounts to
the same as Schott's, when he finds in iv ecu k.t.X. " a Christian extension
of the usual epistolary address," importing that it is in God the Father
and in tbe Lord Jesus Christ that the writers address themselves by letter
to the churches. Still more arbitrarily Ambrosiaster (not Theophylact)
and Koppe, who erase the concluding words : dirb Qeov k.t.X. (see critical
note), have placed a point after QeaaaXovmiav, and united iv Qsd . . . Xpi
ard with xopii iyi'v Kal elp-fivy. For (1) the thought : xopi; ipiv {eara) ev
Oeu K.r.X., instead of dirb Qsov k.t.X., is entirely un-Pauline ; (2) the placing
of iv Qsa K.r.X. first in SO Calm a writing as the address of the Epistle, and
without any special reason, is inconceivable ; (3) 2 Thess. i. 1, 2 contra
dicts the idea. — xi^pv vpi'v K-al slpfivy] See Otto, Ueber den apostolischen
Segensgruss {Jahrb, fiir Deutsche Theol, 1867, p. 678 ff.) and Meyer on
Rom. i. 7. As a Christian transformation of the heathen form of saluta
tion, the words, grammatically considered, should properly be conjoined
with the preceding in a single sentence : UaiXo; /cai S ... ry iKKXyala Q.
. . xeipiv Kal sipyvyv {sc, Xeyovaiv).
Ver. 2. [On verses 2-10, see Note XLVII. pages 460, 461.] 'Eixapiaroipsv]
The plural, which Koppe, Pelt, Koch, Jowett, and others refer to Paul
only, is most naturally to be understood of Paul, Silvanus, and Timo
theus, on account of ver. 1 compared with ii. 18, where the apostle, to
obviate a mistaken conception of the plural, expressly distinguishes himself
from his apostolic helpers. — ru Qs(p] Thanks is rendered to God, because
Paul in his piety recognizes only His appointment as the first cause of
the good which he has to celebrate. — irdvrors] even if ipdv after pvsiav (see
critical note) is omitted, belongs to sixapiaroiysv, not to yveiav iroioip., as
the expression: pveiav iroislaBai irspl rivd;, instead of rtvd;, — although not
unknown to the classical writers, (Plato Protag. 317 E.) — is un-Pauline.
It is not to be weakened (with Koppe) in the sense of iroXXaKi;, certainly
also not (with Zanchius and Pelt) to be limited to the feelings of the
apostle, that the eixapiareiv took place "non actu sed affedu" (comp.
already Nicholas de Lyra : semper in habitu, etsi non semper in actu),
but to be understood absolutely always ; certainly, according to the nature
of the case, hyperbolically. Moreover, not without emphasis does Paul
say : irepi rrdvrav iydv, in order emphatically to declare that his thanks
giving to God referred to all the members of the Thessalonian church
without exception. — pveiav iydv iroioiy. iirl rdv rrpoasvxdv ypdv] These
words are conjoined, and to be separated from the preceding by a comma.
The clause is no limitation of eixapiaroipsv irdvrore : when, or as often
as we make mention of you (Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping;
on iirl, see Meyer on Rom. i. 10); but the statement of the manner
' Die h. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhangend untersucht, Part I. NSrdl. 1862.

CHAP. I. 2, 3. 447
of evxap, : whilst we, etc. Only by the addition of this participial clause
is the statement of his 'thanks and prayer for the Thessalonians
completed. Ver. 8. As the apostle has first stated the personal object of his thanks
giving, so now follows a further statement of its material object. Ver. 3 is
therefore a parallel clause to yveiav . . . ^ydv (ver. 2), in which yvypaveiovre;
corresponds to yvsiav rroioipevoi, ipdrv rov ipyov . . . Xpiarov to iydv after
yveiav, and lastly, epirpoaBev . . . ypdv to irrl rdv irpoaevxdv yydv. Schott,
Koch, and Auberlen (in Lange's Bibelwerk, Th. X., Bielef. 1864, 2 Ed. 1867)
incorrectly understand ver. 3 as causal ; the statement of the cause follows
in ver. 4. — ddiaXsirrru;] unceasingly does not belong to the preceding pvsiav
rroioiyevoif for, as an addition inserted afterwards, it would drag, but to
yvypovsvovrs; (Calvin, Ellicott and others), so that it begins the new clause
with emphasis. — pvriyovsvsiv is not intransitive : to be mindful of (Er.
Schmid : memoria repetentes ; Fromond : memores non tam in orationi-
bus sed ubique; Auberlen), but transitive, referring to the ma-king men
tion of them in prayer. [XLVII o.] — ipdv] is, by Oecumenius, Erasmus
(undecidedly), Vatablus, Calvin, Zwingli, Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger,
Hunnius, Balduin, regarded as the object of yvypovsiovrs; standing alone,
whilst 'svSKa is to be supplied before the genitives roi ipyov r-y; iriar. k.t.X.
But this union is artificial, and the supposed ellipsis without grammatical
justification. It would be better to regard rov ipyov k.t.X . as a develop
ment of iydv in apposition ; but neither is this in itself nor in relation to
ver. 2 to be commended. Accordingly, ipdv is to be joined to the follow
ing substantives, so that its force extends to all the three following points.
What Paul approvingly mentions in his prayers are the three Christian
cardinal virtues, faith, love, and hope, in which his readers were dis
tinguished, see V. 8 ; Col. i. 4, 5 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 13. But Paul does not praise
them simply in and for themselves, but a peculiar quality of each — each
according to a special potency. First their irian;, and that their ipyov ry;
rriarea;. Ulan; is faith subjectively. That rb ipyov ry; rrlarsa; is not to be
understood periphrastically for ry; rriarea; ^ (Koppe), nor does it ccxrres-
pond with the pleonastic use of the Hebrew inn, is evident, as (1) such a
use of the Greek ipyov is not demonstrable (see Winer's Grammar, p. 571
[E. T. 615]) ; and (2) ipyov r-ij; rriarsu; must be similarly understood as the
two foUo-wing double expressions, but in them the additions Kdirov and
iiropovy; are by no means devoid of import. Also Kypke's explanation,
according to which ipyov rrlarsa; denotes Veritas fidei, is to be rejected, as
this meaning proceeds from the contrast oi ipyov and Xdyo;, of which there
is no trace in the passage. Not less erroneous is it, with Calvin, Wolf,
and others, to take ipyov r^f iriarsa; absolutely as faith wrought, i.e.
wrought by the Holy Ghost or by God, An addition for this purpose
would be requisite ; besides, in the parallel expressions (ver. 3) it is the
'Luther, Bullinger, Balduin, Er. Schmid, ttj? iriVTeoji as au epexegetical genitive, and
Hardu in, Benson, Moldenhauer,Koch,Bloom- converts the double expression into the
field, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Auberlen. unimportant saying: "Their doing or con-
2 So in essentials Hofmann, who considers duct consists in this, that they believed."

448 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
self-activity of the readers that is spoken of. In a spiritless manner Flatt
and others reader ipyov as an adjective : your active faith. Similarly, but
with a more correct appreciation of the substantive, Estius, Grotius,
Schott, Koch, Bloomfield, and others : operis, quod ex fide proficiscitur ;
according to which, however, the words would naturally be replaced by
irian; ivepyovpsvy (Gal. V. 6). So also de Wette : your moral working pro
ceeding from faith. Hardly correct, as — (1) rb ipyov can only denote work,
not working. (2) The moral working proceeding from faith, according to
Paul, is love, so that there would here be a tautology with what follows.
Clericus refers rb ipyov rij; rriarea; to the acceptance oi the gospel (Opus . . .
erat, ethnicismo abdicate mutatoque prorsus vivendi instituto, christianam
rehgionem profiteri atque ad ejusdem normam vitam in posterum institu
ere ; quae non poterant fieri nisi a credentibus, Jesum vere a Deo missum
atque ab eo mandata accepisse apostolos, ideoque veram esse universam
evangelii doctrinam); so also Macknight, according to whom the accept
ance of the gospel is called an ipyov on account of the victory over the
prejudices in which the Thessalonians were nourished, and on account of
the dangers to which they were exposed by their acceptance of Christianity.
But this reason is remote from the context. Chrysostom,^ Theodoret, Oecu
menius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bisping, and others understand the words
of the verification of faith by stedfastness under persecution. This mean
ing underlying the words appears to come nearest to the correct sense.
vpdv TOV ipyov ry; iriareu; denotes your work of faith ; but as ipyov has the
emphasis (not iriarea;, as Hofmann thinks), it is accordingly best
explained: the work which is peculiar to your faith — by which it is
characterized, inasmuch as your faith is something begun with energy,
and held fast with resoluteness, in spite of all obstacles and oppositions.
This meaning strikingly suits the circumstances of the Epistle. — Kai rov
Kdirov T^f dydiry;] the second point of the apostle's thanksgiving. 'Aydiry is
not love to God, or to God and our neighbor (Nicol. Lyr.), also not to
Christ, as if roi Kvpiov yy. 'I. X. belonged to dydrry; (Cornelius a Lapide),
still less love to the apostle and his companions (Natal. Alexander :
labores charitatis vestrae, quibus nos ex Judaeorum seditione et insidiis
eripuistis, quum apud vos evangelium praedicaremus ; Estius, Benson),
but love to fellow-Christians (comp. Col. i. 4). Kdrro; ry; dydrry; denotes
the active labor of love, which shuns no toil or sacrifice, in order to
minister to the wants of our neighbors : not a forbearing love which bears
with the faults and weaknesses of others (Theodoret) ; nor is the genitive
the genitive of origin, the work which proceeds from love (so Clericus,
Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield, and most critics) ; but the genitive
of possession, the work which is peculiar to love, by which it is
characterized. According to de Wette, Kdrro; ry; dydrry; might refer also to
the labor of rulers and teachers (v. 12). Contrary to the context, as ver.
8 contains only the further exposition of ver. 2 ; but according to ver. 2,

1 Tt ecTTt rov epyov t^5 irio-Teus ; on ovSej- B-i'o-Tews. Ei n-io-reueis, -irdvra irao-x** *' fi« f-rt
Vfiuf iTapiK\ive ryv €V(rra(Tiv' rovro ydp ipyov rrdirxtt^, oil mirreveis.

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 449
the apostle's thanksgi-ving extends to all the members of the church {irerl
rrdvrav ipdv), not merely to individuals among them. — The third point of the
apostle's thanksgiving is the 'sXrri; of his readers, and this also not in and
for itself, but in its property of iiropovy. irropovy is not the patient waiting
which precedes fulfillment (Vatablus), but the constancy which suffers not
itself to be overcome by obstacles and oppositions (Chrysostom, Oecu
menius, Theophylact). The genitive here also is not the genitive of
origin (Clericus, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield), but of possession :
your endurance of hope ; that endurance which belongs to your hope, by
which hope is characterized. iXwi; is here as usual subjective : hoping
(otherwise. Col. i. 5). — rov Kvpiov ypdv 'I. X.] does not refer to all the three
above-mentioned virtues, " in order to show that they are one and all
derived from Christ, and instilled into man by the Holy Spirit " (Olshau
sen), or are directed to Christ as their object (Cornelius a Lapide, Hof
mann), but is the object only oi iXirldo;. The hope refers to Christ, that is,
to His advent, because the judgment and retribution will then take place,
and the di'vine kingdom completed in all its glory will commence. —
syrrpoaBev roi Qeoi Kal irarpb; ypdv] belongs not tO eiddrs; (ver. 4), which
Musculus thinks possible, and as little to roi Kvpiov yp. 'I. x. ; for — (1) the
article rov before iprrpoaBev must then have been omitted, and (2) an entire
abnormal representation of Christ would occur ; also not to ry; irropovy;
ry; 'eX.irido;, or to all the three ideas, to indicate thereby these three virtues
as existing before the eyes and according to the judgment of God, and
thus as true and genuine (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Aretius, Frompnd,
Cornelius a Lapide, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jowett, Auberlen), for in this
case the repetition of the article would be expected, and besides, ivdmov
roi Qeov and similar expressions have, in the above sense, always an
adjective or corresponding clause; but it belongs — which only is
grammatically correct — to yvyyoveiovrs;, so that yvypovsiovrs; IpirpoaBsv k.t.X.
corresponds to pvsiav rroielBai 'errl rdv irpoaevxdv (ver. 2). — rov Qeoi Kal rrarpb;
ypdv] may mean Him, who is our God and our Father ; or Him, who is
God, and likewise our Father. [XLVII h. c]
Ver. 4. E'lddrs; is incorrectly referred by many (thus Baur) to the
Thessalonians, either as the nominative absolute in the sense of oidare ydp
(Erasmus), or s'lddre; iare (Homberg, Baumgarten-Crusius); or (Grotius)
as the beginning of a new sentence which has its tempus finit. in iysvyByrs
{ver. 6), "knowing that ye became followers of us." Eather, the subject
of vv. 2 and 3, thus Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, is continued in s'lddrs;.
It is further erroneous to supply Kai before elddre; (Flatt), as this participle
is by no means similar to the two preceding. Lastly, it is erroneous to
make e'lddrs; dependent on yveiav rroioipevoi (Pelt). 'E'lddre; is Only cor
rectly joined to the principal verb sixapiaroiyev (ver. 2), and adduces
the reason of the apostle's thanksgiving, whilst the preceding par
ticiples state only the mode of eixapiaroipsv. — irrb Qsov cannot be con
joined with e'lddre; (scientes a deo, i.e. ex dei revelatione), which Estius
thinks possible, against which irrd instead of irapd is decisive. Nor
does it belong to ryv sKXoy^ iydv, so that elvai would require to be
29

450 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
supplied, and dde?t.(jiol yyarrypivoi to be taken by itself,' but to yyairyyi-
voi. For — (1) this union is grammatically the most natural (see 2
Thess. ii. 13, the Hebrew ^P] 'T"l', 2 Chron. xx. 7, and dyarryrol Qsoi,
Eom. i. 7). (2) By the union of irrb Qsov ryv 'sK'Xoyyv ipdv, a peculiar
stress would be put on iirb Qsoi ; but such an emphasis is inadmissible,
as another 'sKXoy-fi than by God is in Paul's view a nonentity, and therefore
the addition irrb Qsoi would be idle. — Moreover, ddsXipol yyarrypivoi iirb Qeov
is a pure address, and not the statement of the cause of rrjv iKXoyijv ipdv
(Estius). — sKXoyfi] election or choice, denotes the action of God, according to
which He has predetermined from eternity individuals to be believers in
Clirist. KXyai; is related to iKXayy as the subsequent realization to the pre
ceding determination. Erroneously Pelt : iKXoyy is electorum ilia innova-
tio, qua per spiritum divinum mutatur interna hominem conditio ; and
still more arbitrarily Baumgarten-Crusius : eKXoyy is not " choice among
others (church election), but out of the world, with Paul equivalent to
KXijaif, and exactly here as in 1 Cor.'i. 26; not being elected, but the mode
or condition of the election " (!), so that the sense would be : " Ye know
how ye have become Christians" (!!). — iydv the objective genitive to
iKXoyyv : the election of you.
Ver. 5. [XLVII d,] Bengel, Schott, Hofmann, and others unite ver.
5 by a simple comma to the preceding, understanding 'on in the sense
of " that," or " namely that," and thus the further analysis or explication
of iKXoyfi, i.e. the statement wherein iKXoyy consists. But evidently -w. 5, 6
are not a statement wherein 'eKXoyfi consists, but of the historical facts from
which it may be inferred. Accordingly, Sri (if one will not understand it
wilh most interpreters as quia, which has little to recommend it) is to be
separated from ver. 4 by a colon, and to be taken in the sense of for,
introducing tlie reason on which the apostle grounds his own conviction
of (lie 'sKXoyy of his readers. This reason is twofold— (1) The power and
confidence by which the gospel was preaclied by him and his companions
in Thessalonica (ver. 5) ; and (2) The eagerness and joy with which it was
embraced by the Thessalonians (ver. 6 ff.). Both are proofs of grace,
attestations of the iKXoyy of the Thessalonians on the part of God. ro siay
yiXiov ripdv] our gospel, i.e. our evangelical preaching. — oiK 'eyevyBy irpb; ipd;]
was not earned into effect among you, i. e. when it was brought to you.
The passive from 'eysvi-fty, alien to the Attic, and originally Doric, but
common in the Komy;^ characterizes the being carried into effect as some
thing effected by divine grace, and the additions with 'sv following indicate
the form and manner in which the apostolic preaching was carried into
efi'ect. From this it follows how erroneous it is with Koppe, Pelt, and
others to refer 'ev Xdyi!i . . . rroXXy to the qualities of the Thessalonians
which resulted from the preaching of the apostle. According to Koppe,
the meaning is " quantam enim mea apud vos doctrina in animos vestros

1 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Mus- 2 See Lobeck, ad Pftr^/n. p. 108 ff.; Kuhner,
cuius. Hemming, Zanchius, Justinian, Vors- 1. 193; Winer's Grammar, p. 80 [E. T. 84.1.
tius, Calixtus, Clericus.

CHAP. I. 5. 451
vim habuerit, non ore tantum sed facto declara-vistis." That the conclud
ing words of ver. 5, KaBd; oidare . . . ipd;, which apparently treats of the
manner of the apostle's entrance, contains only a recapitulatory statement
of iv Xdyip . . . rroXXy, appealing to the testimony of the Thessalonians, is a
sufficient condemnation of this strange and artificial explanation. — iv Xdya
pdvov] [XLVII e.] in word only, i, e. not that it was a bare announce
ment, a bare communication in human words, which so easily fade away.
Grotius : Non stetit intra verba. But the apostle says oi ydvov, because
human speech was the necessary instrument of communication, — oAAa Kal
'sv dvvdyei k.t.X.] By dvvayi; is not to be understood miracles by which the
power of the preached gospel was attested ; ' for if so, the plural would
have been necessary. Nor is the gospel denoted as a miraculous power
(Benson), which meaning in itself is possible. Nor is the efficacy of the
preached word among the Thessalonians indicated (Bullinger : Per
virtutem intellexit efficaciam et vim agentem in cordibus fidelium). But
it forms simply the contrast to Xdyo;, and denotes the impressive power
accompanying the entrance of Paul and his followers. — 'ev irvsipan dyiif]
Theodoret, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond, B. a Piconius, Natalis
Alexander, Benson, Macknight interpret this of the communication of
the Holy Spirit to the readers. But the communication of the Holy
Spirit is beyond the power of the apostles, as being only possible on the
part of God. Besides, iv irvsipan can only contain a statement of the
manner in which Paul and his assistants preached the gospel. Accord
ingly, the meaning is : our preaching of the gospel was carried on among
you in the Holy Ghost, that is, in a manner which could only be ascribed
to the operation of the Holy Ghost, iv irvevpan dy'iip serves, therefore, not
only for the further amplification, but also for the intensification of the
idea 'ev dwdyei. It is therefore incompetent to consider iv dwdysi koi iv
irveiy. dylip as a ev did dvolv instead of iv dwdpsi rrvsip. ayiov (Calvin,
Piscator, Turretine, Bloomfield, and others). — irXypofopla] comp. Col. ii. 2 ;
Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5) denotes neither the fullness of spiritual gifts which
were imparted to the Thessalonians (Lombard, Cornelius a Lapide,
Turretine), nor the completeness of the apostohc instruction (Thomasius),
nor the completeness with which Paul performed his duty (Estius), nor
the proofs combined with his instructions, giving complete certainty
(Fromond, Michaelis), nor generally "certitudo, qua Thessalonicenses
certi de veritate evangelii ac salute sua redditi fuerant" (Musculus,
Benson, Macknight) ; but the fullness and certainty of conviction, i.e. the
inward confidence of faith with which Paul and his assistants appeared
preaching at Thessalonica. — KaBd; oldars k.t.X,] a strengthening of in . . .
rroXXy by an appeal to the knowledge of his readers.^ Pelt, entirely per
verting the meaning, thinks that the apostle in these concluding words
would hold forth his example for the emulation of his readers. This view

1 Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 2 Cecum.: ital ri, .ifniiri, p-uKpyyopH ; awoi
Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Nata- 4/i'« fidprvpU i(rre, oloi iyevrierip,€v irpbs ipi^.
lis Alexander, Turretine, etc.

452 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS,
could only claim indulgence if Koppe's connection, which, however. Pelt
rejects, were correct. Koppe begins a new sentence with koBu;, consider
ing KaBu; oldars as the protasis and koI ipsi; as the apodosis, and gives the
sense : qualem me vidistis, quum apud vos essem . . . tales etiam vos
nunc estis. But this connection is impossible. (1) Because oldars cannot
mean me vidistis, but has a purely present signification — ye know. (2)
Because if there were such an emphatic contrast of persons (qualem
me . . . tales etiam vos), then, instead of the simple iysvyBypsv, yysX; 'sysvyByysv
would necessarily be put. (3) Because 'sye-riflyre does not mean nunc estis,
hnt facti estis, (4) Instead of the asyndeton KaBd; oldars, we would expect a
connection with the preceding by some particle added to KaBd;. (5) And
lastly, the apodosis would not be introduced by /eai iysl;, but by oira; iysl;
(comp. 2 Cor. i. 5, viii. 6, x. 7). Pelt's assertion is also erroneous, that
instead of koBu; oldars o'loi iysvyBypsv, the more correct Greek phrase would
have been oiov; oldars ypd; yeyovdra;. For the greatest emphasis is put
on oIo( iysvyBvpsv, but this emphasis would have been lost by the sub
stitution of the above construction. — oloi iysvyBypsv] [XLVII /.] recapitu
lates the preceding rb eiayy. . . . rroXXy, but with this difference, that what
was before said of the act of preaching is here predicated of the preachers.
o\oi 'sysvyBypev does not denote the privations which Paul imposed upon
himself when he preached the gospel, as Pelagius, Estius, Macknight,
Pelt, and others think, making an arbitrary comparison of ii. 7, 9 ; 2
Thess. iii. 8, 9 ; also not Kivdivov;, ov; iirip airdv irriaryaav, rb aarypiov airoi;
irpoaipipovrs; Kypvypa (Theodoret), nor both together (Natal. Alexander). It
also does not mean quales fuerimus (so de Wette, Hofmann, and others),
but can only denote the being made for some purpose {proved to be,
Ellicott). It thus contains the indication that the emphatic element in
the preaching of the gospel at Thessalonica was a work of divine appoint
ment — of divine grace. Accordingly, di' vyd;, for your sake, that is, in
order to gain you for the kingdom of Christ, is to be understood not of
the purpose of the apostle and his assistants, but of the purpose of God.
Ver. 6 contains the other side of the proof for the 'sKXoyy of the Thessa
lonians, namely, their receptivity ior the preaching of the gospel demon
strated by facts. Ver. 6 may either be separated by a point from the
preceding (then the proof of ver. 6, in relation to ver. 4, lies only in
thought, without being actually expressed), or it may be made to depend
on on in ver. 5 (provided this be translated by /or, as it ought) [XLVII g.].
In this latter case KaBd; oidare . . . dl' ipd;, ver. 5, is a parenthesis. This
latter view is to be preferred, because vv. 5 and 6 appear more evidently
to be internally connected, and, accordingly, the twofold division of the
argument, adduced for the iKXoyy of the readers, is more clearly brought
forward. — pipyra'i] See 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 17; Eph. v. 1; Gal. iv.
12. — iysvyByrs denotes here also the having become as a having been made,
i. e. effected by the agency of God.^Kal roi Kvpiov is for the sake of climax.'
1 Erroneously Bullinger: Veluti correctione apostolorum imitatores esse debemus, quate-
subjeeta addit: et domini. Eatenus enim nus illi Christi imitatores sunt.

CHAP. I. 6, 7. 453
The Thessalonians became imitators of the apostle and of Christ, not in
divapi;, in rrvsiya dyiov, and in rrXypo^op'ia, as Koppe thinks ; but because
they received the evangelical preaching {rbv Xdyov, comp. Gal. vi. 6, equiva
lent to Kypvypa), allowed it an entrance among them, in much affliction,
with joy of the Holy Ghost, i, e, not merely that they received the Xiiyo;
(here the tertium comparationis would be wanting), but that they received
it iv BX'i-ipei rroXXy ysrd xapd; rrvsvy. dylov. — ds^dysvoi rbv X^yov] [XLVII h.] The
reception of the gospel corresponds to its announcement brought to the
readers (ver. 5), whilst plpyai; is explained by 'sv BXlfsi . . . dylov. The chief
emphasis is on the concluding words : psrd xapd; rrveiparo; dylov, containing
in themselves the proper tertium comparationis between Christ and the
apostle on the one hand, and the Thessalonians on the other; but iv
BXlipsi rroXXy is placed first to strengthen it, and for the sake of contrast,
inasmuch as dixeaBat rbv Xdyov ysrd xapd; irv. dy. is something high and sub
lime, but it is something far higher and more sublime when this joy is
neither disturbed nor weakened by the trials and sufferings which have
been brought upon believers on account of their faith in Christ — iv BXi-ipsi
iroXXy] Erroneously Clericus : Subintelligendum bvra, quum acceperitis
verbum, quod erat in aflflictione multa, h. e cujus praecones graviter
affligebantur. The BXifi; of the Thessalonians had already begun during
the presence of the apostle among them (Acts xvii. 6 ff.), but after his
expulsion it had greatly increased (ii. 14, iii. 2, 3, 5). The apostle has in
view both the commencement and tbe continuance of the persecution (comp.
ver. 7, and the adjective iro7^Xy attached to BXlipsi), against which ds^dysvoi
is no objection, as the two points of time are united as the spring-time of
the Christian church. — xopd irvsiparo; dylov] is not joy in the Holy Ghost,
but a joy or joyfulness which proceeds from the Holy Ghost, is produced
by Him (comp. Rom. xiv. 17 ; Gal. v. 22; Acts v. 41). In reality, it isnot
to be distinguished from xaipsiv iv Kvpla (see Meyer on Phil. iii. 1).
Ver. 7. The Thessalonians had so far advanced that they who were
formerly imitators had now become a model and an example to others. —
rvirov.] The singular is regular, as the apostle considers the church as a
unity.' — rrdaiv roi; marsiovaiv] not to all believers (de Wette), but to the
whole hody oi believers.'^ irdaiv augments the praise given, ol mareiovTs;
etre behevers, Christians (comp. Eph. i. 19). Chrysostom, whom Oecu
menius, Theophylact, and most interpreters (also Pelt and Schott) follow,
takes marsiovaiv in the sense of marsiaaaiv, finding in ver. 7 the idea that
the Thessalonians converted at a later period were /wrt/ier advanced inthe
intensity of their faith than those who had been earlier believers : Kai yyv
ev varipip riXBs irpb; airov;' dXX' oira; iXdyipare, ipyaiv, a; rdv rrpoXapdvrav ysviaBai
SidaaKaXov; ... Oti ydp slirev, aars rvirov; ysviaBai irpb; rb marsvaai, aAAd roZf iidy
marsiovai rviro; iyiveaBs. But this view would contain a historical untruth.
For in Europe, according to the Acts (comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 2), only the
Philippians were believers before the Thessalonians ; all the other churches
ISee Winer's Grammar, p. 16-1 [E. T. 175]; ^See Winer, p. 105 [E. T. 110].
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 60; Kuhner, IL p. 27.

454 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
of Macedonia and Achaia were formed afterwards. The present participle
is rather to be understood from the standpoint of the apostle, so that all
Christians then present in Macedonia and Achaia, that is, all Christians
actually existing there at the time of the composition of the Epistle, are
to be understood. — iv ry MoKsdovla Kal iv r-y 'Axata] Comp. Rom. XV. 26 ; Acts
xix. 21 : the twofold division of Greece usually made after its subjection
to the Romans (comp. Winer, Realw'brterb. 2d ed. vol. 1. p. 21). The emphasis
which Theodoret puts on the words {Hv^yae t^v eiipyyiav, dpxirvrra airov;
siaspeia; yeyevfjaBai (pyaa; eBveai psylaroi; Kal irrl aoipla Bavya^oysvoi;) is not con
tained in it. Baur's (p. 484) assertion, that what is said in ver. 7 is only
suitable for a church already existing for a longer time, is without any
justification. For to be an example to others depends on the behavior;
the idea of duration is entirely indifferent.
Ver. 8. [XLVII i.] Proof of the praise in ver. 7.' Baumgarten-Crusius
arbitrarily assumes in ver. 8 ff. an address, not only to the Thessalonians,
but also to the Philippians, in short, to "the first converts in Macedonia."
For ipdv (ver. 8) can have no further extension than ipd; (ver. 7). — dip'
ipdv] does not import vestra opera, so that a missionary activity was attri
buted to the Thessaloni.ans (Rtickert), also not per vos, ope consilioque
vestro, so that the sense would be : that the gospel might be preached by
me in other parts of Macedonia and Achaia, has been effected by your
advice and co-operation, inasmuch as, when in imminent danger, my life
and that of Silvanus was rescued by you (Schott, Flatt). For in the first
case i(p' ipdv would be required, and in the second case di' iydv, not to
mention that the entire occasion of the last interpretation is invented and
artificially introduced. Rather dip' ipdv is purely local (Schott and Bloom
field erroneously unite the local import with the instrumental), and
denotes : out from you, forth from you, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 36. Yet this can
not be referred, with Koppe and Krause, to Paul : from you, that is, when
I left Thessalonica, I found in the other cities of Macedonia and Achaia a
favorable opportunity for preaching the gospel. For (1) this would have
been otherwise grammatically expressed, perhaps by d(p' ipdv yap drrsXBdvn
Bvpa poi dvsifiye e'l; rb Kypiaasiv rbv Xdyov rov Kvpiov ; add tO this (2), which is
the chief point, that the logical relation of ver. 8 to ver. 7 {ydp) does not
permit our seeking in ver. 8 a reference to the conduct of the apostle, but
indicates that a further praise of the Thessalonians is contained in it. —
i^vxvrai] Comp. Sir. xl. 13 ; Joel iii. 14 ; an drra^ Xeydyevov in N. T., is
sounded out, like the tone of some far-sounding instrument, i. e. without a
figure : was made known with power. — b Xdyo; roi Kvpiov] is not the word
from the Lord, or the report of what the Lord has done to you,' but the
word o/ the Lord which He caused to be preached (subjective genitive),
1 See on the verse, Storr, Opus. III. p. 317 ff.; Kvptov ivTavBa oi rijy rrluriv Xe-yei, ou ydp y
Eilckert, locorum Paulinorum 1 Thess. i. 8 et wto-rts air' avriijv €Aa^e ttjc dpxvv, dKK' dvri
1 Thess. iii. 1-3, exptanaiio, Jen. 1844. toS irdvm iyvaiaav Sera virip T^s TTio-Tco)!
2 So, as it seems, Theodore Mopsuest. [in in-deere, Kal irdvres vp.!i,v to /Se/Saioi. SdUfiifovo-l
JV. T. commentariorum, quae reperiri potuerunt. t^s n^^crreus, ilo-re xa'i irpoTpoiriji' iripoK y^viaBoji
Colleg,, Fritzsche, Turici 1847, p. 145] : A670V ri iip,iTepa.

' CHAP. I. 8. 455
t. e. the gospel (comp. 2 Thess. iii. 1 ; Col. iii. 16) ; thus similar to the more
usual expression of Paul : d Xdyo; tov Qeov. But the meaning is not : The
report of the gospel, that it was embraced by you, went forth from you, and
made a favorable impression upon others (de Wette) ; but the knowledge
of the gospel itself spread from you, so that the power and the eclat which
was displayed at the conversion of the Thessalonians directed attention to
the gospel, and gained friends for it. — The words oi ydvov have given much
trouble to interpreters. According to their position they evidently belong
to iv ry 'M.aKsdorvia Kal 'ev r^ 'Axaia, and form a contrast to 'sv rravri rdrrip. But
it does not agree with this view that a new subject and predicate are found
in the contrast introduced with 'aXXd, because the emphasis lies (as the
position of oi pdvov . . . dXXd appears to demand) only on the two local
statements, so that only d(p' ipdv . . . rdrra should have been written, and
dars py k.t.X. should have been directly connected with them. This double
subject and predicate could only be permissible provided the phrases :
i^ilXVrai d Xdyo; tov Kvp'iov, and : y irlan; ipdv y irpb; r. Qsov i^eXyXvBev were
equivalent, as de Wette (also Olshausen and Koch) assumes (" the fame
of your acceptance of the gospel sounded forth not only in Macedonia and
Achaia, but also in every place the fame of your faith in God is spread
abroad ") ; but, as is remarked above, de Wette does not correctly trans
late the first member of the sentence. Zanchius, Piscator, Vorstius, Beza,
Grotius, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Schrader, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
others have felt themselves obliged to assume a trajection, uniting ot>
ydvov not with iv ry MaKsdovia koi ev ry Axata, but with i^^xvrai, and thus
explain it as if the words stood : dip' iydv ydp oi ydvov i^vxvrai K.r.X. But
this trajection is a grammatical impossibility. Bloomfield has understood
the words as a mingling of two different forms of expression. According to
him, it is to be analyzed : " For from you sounded the word of the Lord
over all Macedonia and Achaia ; and not only has your faith in God been
well known there, but the report of it has been disseminated everywhere
else." But that which is united by Paul is thus forcibly severed, and
arbitraiily moulded into an entirely new form. Lastly, Ruckert has
attempted another expedient. According to him, the apostle, after having
written the greater part of the sentence, was led by the desire of making
a forcible climax so to alter the originally intended form of the
thought that the conclusion no longer corresponded with the announce
ment. So also Ellicott essentially. Thus, then, the sense would be :
Vestra opera factum est, ut domini sermo propagaretur non solum in
Macedonia et Achaja, sed etiam — ^immo amplius quid, ipsa vestra fides
ita per famam sparsa est, ut nullus jam sit locus, quem ejus nulla dum
notitia attigerit. But against this is — -(1) that y irian; ipdv, on account of
its position after iv iravrl rdrra, cannot have the principal accent ; on the
contrary, to preserve the meaning maintained by Ruckert, it ought to
have been written, dXX' avrrj -fj rrian; ipdv y rrpb; rbv Qsov iv iravrl Tdrrip
i^eXijXvBsv ; (2) that the Wide extension of the report of the rrlan; of the
readers is not appropriate to form a climax to their supposed missionary
activity expressed in the first clause of the sentence. However, to give

456 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
oi ydvov . . . aXXd its proper force, and thereby to avoid the objection of the
double subject and predicate, there is a very simple expedient (now
adopted by Hofmann and Auberlen), namely, another punctuation ; to
put a colon after Kvpiov, and to take together all that follows. According
to this, ver. 8 is divided into two parts, of which the first part {dip' iydv . . .
Kvp'iov), in which df ipdv and i^yxvrai have the emphasis, contains the
reason of ver. 7, and of which the second part (oi /idvov . . . XaXelv ri) takes
up the preceding i^yxyrai, and works it out according to its locahty. —
From the fact that oi pdvov . . . dXXd serves to contrast the local designations,
it follows that iv iravrl rdrrij is not to be limited (with Koppe, Storr, Flatt,
Schott, and others) to Macedonia and Achaia {iv rravri rdrru ry; MaKedovia;
Kal ry; 'Axata;), but must denote every place outside of Macedonia and
Achaia, entirely apart from the consideration whether Paul and his com
panions had already come in contact with those places or not (against
Hofmann), thus the whole known world (Chrysostom : rijv oiKovyivyv ; Oecu
menius : drravra rbv Kdapov) ; by which it is to be conceded that Paul here,
as in Eom. i. 8, Col. i. 6, 23, expresses himself in a popular hyperbolical
manner. — y rrian; ipdv V irpb; rbv Qedv] your faith, that is, your believing or
becoming believers in God {rr'ian; thus subjective) ; the unusual preposi
tion rrpb; instead of e'l; is also found in Philem. 5. That here God, and not
Christ, is named as the object of faith does not alter the case, because God
is the Father of Christ and the Author of the salvation contained in Him.
But the unusual form y rrpb; rbv Qsdv is designedly chosen, in order to bring
prominently forward the monotheistic faith to which the Thessalonians had
turned, in contrast to their former idolatry. — i^sXyXvBev] has gone forth, has
spread forth, namely, as a report. Comp. on e^ipxeaBai in this sense. Matt.
ix. 26; Luke viii. 17, etc. Probably the report had spread particularly by
means of Christian merchants (Zanchius, Grotius, Joach. Lange, Baum
garten, de Wette), and the apostle might easily have learned it in the
great commercial city of Corinth, where there was a constant influx of
strangers. Possibly also Aquila and Priscilla, who had lately come from
Eome (Acts xviii. 2), brought with them such a report (Wieseler, p. 42).
At all events, neither a longer existence of the Thessalonian church fol
lows from this passage (Schrader, Baur), nor that Paul had in the inter
val been in far distant places (Wurm). As, moreover, 's^sX-r]XvBsv is con
strued not with e'l; but with 'sv, so not only the arrival of the report in those
regions is represented, but its permanence after its arrival.^ — uars yy xpeiav
ixeiv ypd; XaXelv n] so that we have no need to say anything of it {sc, of your
irlan;; erroneously Michaehs, "of the gospel;" erroneously also Koch,
" something considerable "), because we have been already instructed
concerning it by its report ; although this is contained in e^eXyXvBsv, yet it
is impressively brought forward and explained in what follows.
Ver. 9. Airoi] not : sponte, airopaBd;, of themselves (Pelt), but emphat
ically opposed to the preceding yyd; : not we, nay they themselves, that is,
according to the well-known constructio ad sensum (comp. Gal. ii. 2) : oi 'ev
1 See Winer, p. 385 [E. T. 413] ; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 208.

CHAP. L 9, 10. 457
ry MaKsdoviif koi iv ry 'Axaiif Kal 'sv ira-vri rdir(fi} Beza erroneously (though
undecidedly) refers airoj to rr dvrs; oi mareiovre; (ver. 7). — rrspi yydv] is not
equivalent to iirip ypdv, in our stead (Koppe), but means : concerning us,
de nobis; and, indeed, irspl yydv is the general introductory object of
dva-yyiXXmiaiv, which is afterwards more definitely expressed by brrolav
K.r.X. — vpdv, however, refers not only to the apostle and his assistants, (so
also Ellicott and Hofmann) but also to the Thessalonians, because other
wise Kai TTUf iirearpi-ipars in relation to ypdv would be inappropriate. This
twofold nature of the subject may he already contained in y irian; iydv y
irpb; rbv Qedv (ver. 8) ; as, on the one hand, the producing of irlan; by the
labors of the apostle is expressed, and, on the other hand, its acceptance
on the part of the Thessalonians.- — diroiav elaodov iaxopev irpb; ipd;] what
sort of entrance we had to you, namely, with the preaching of the gospel,
i, e. (comp. ver. 5) with what power and fiiUness of the Holy Spirit, with
what inward conviction and contempt of external dangers (Chrysostom,
Oecumenius, Theophylact erroneously limit brrolav to danger), we preached
the gospel to you. Most understand brrolav elaodov (led astray by the Ger
man Eingang) of the friendly reception, which Paul and his companions
found among the Thessalonians (indeed, according to Pelt, elaodo; in itself
without diro'ia denotes facilem aditum) ; and accordingly some (Schott,
Hofmann) think of the eager reception of the gospel, or of its entrance
into the hearts of the Thessalonians (Olshausen). The first view is against
linguistic usage, as elaodov ixsiv rrpd; nva can only have an active sense, can
only denote the coming to one, the entrance (comp. ii. 1) ; as also in the
classics siaodo; is particularly used of the entrance of the chorus into the
orchestra (comp. Passow on the word). The latter view is against the
context, as in iruf iirsarpiipars k.t.X. the effect of the apostle's preaching is
first referred to. — rrd;] how, that is, how joyfully and energetically. —
emarpeipeiv] to turn from the false way to the true — irpb; rbv Qedv] to be
converted to God : a well-k{iown biblical figure. It can also denote to
return to God ; for although this is spoken of those who once were Gen
tiles, yet their idolatry was only an apostasy from God (comp. Eom. i. 19
ff.).—dovXeieiv] the infinitive of design. See Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 324].— eeu
fuvri] the living God (comp. 'H D'hSk, 2 Kings xix. 4, 16, and Acts xiv. 15),
in contrast to dead idols (Hab. ii. 19). — dXy-Bivd;] true, real (comp. nnf{ 'ilSi*,
2 Chron. xv. 8 ; John xvii. 3 ; 1 John v. 20), in contrast to idols, which are
vain and unreal. The design intended by dovXsisiv Qsd (dvn koI dXy-Bivd
contains as yet nothing specifically Christian ; it is rather dovXs'ia conse
crated to the living and true God, common to Christians and Jews. The
specific Christian mark, that which distinguishes Christians also from Jews,
is added in what immediately follows.
Ver. 10. It may surprise us that this characteristic mark is given not as
faith in Christ (comp. Acts xx. 21 ; also John xvii. 3), but the hope of His
advent. But, on the one hand, this hope of the returning Christ presup
poses faith in Him, as also 'pvdysvov clearly points to faith as its necessary
ISee Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 288; Winer, p. 137 [E. T. 145.]

458 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
condition and presupposition ; and, on the other hand, in the circumstances
which occasioned the composition of this Epistle, the apostle must have
been already led to touch in a preliminary manner upon the question,
whose more express discussion was reserved to a later portion of his
Epistle. — dvapivsiv] here only in the N. T. ; in 1 Cor. i. 7, Phil. iii. 30, etc.,
dirsKdixea-Bai stands for it. Erroneously Flatt : to expect with joy. The
idea of the nearness of the advent as an eventj whose coming the church
might hope to live to see, is contained in dvayiveiv. [XLVII j.] — ™ rdv
oipavdv] belongs to dvapiveiv. A brachylogy, in the sense of dvayiveiv iK rdv
oipavdv ipxdysvov, see Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621]. — -bv yysipsv SK rdv veKpdv] is
emphatically placed before 'lyaovv, as God by the resurrection declared
Christ to be His v'ld; (comp. Eom. i. 4). Hofmann strangely perverts the
passage, that Paul by bv fyyeipsv iK rdv vsKpdv assigns a reason for 'sk rdv
oipavdv, because " the coming of the man Jesus fi-om where He is "with
God to the world where His saints are, has for its supposition that He has
risen from where He was with the dead." There is no emphasis on 'sk
rdv oipavdv, its Only purpose is for completing the idea of dvayiveiv. — rbv
¦ pvdysvov] The present participle does not stand for rbv pvadysvov (Grotius,
Pelt) ; it serves to show that pisaBai is not begun only at the judgment,
but already here, on earth, inasmuch as the inward conviction resides in
the believer that he, by means of his fellowship with Christ, the auryp, is
delivered from all fears of a future judgment. — roi; pvdpsvov] stands there
fore as a substantive. See Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 353]. — bpyy] wrath, then the
activity of wrath, punishment. It has also this meaning among classical
writers.' — Also r-y; spxopevy;] is not equivalent to iXevaoaivy; (Grot., Pelt,
and others), but refers to the certain coming of the wrath at the judgment,
which Christ will hold at His advent (comp. Col. iii. 6).
Notes by Amebican Editor.
XLVI.
The similarity in some of the leading characteristics of the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Philippians — the earliest and latest of the
letters addressed by Paul to the churches — is especially worthy of notice. As
distinguished from the other epistles, they are both letters of friendly interest, of
general practical suggestion or admonition, with no great subject occupying the
main portion of the space or of the thought, with little definiteness of plan, with
no setting forth, at the beginning, of his apostolic office. The first and last
messages to the churches are messages of affection. Controversies, rebuke of
enemies, discussions of great doctrines or grave errors, defense of his official
claims against those who denied them, all these things arise after the first, and
pass away mainly before the last. And yet it is equally interesting to notice the
differences between the two epistles, which are naturally connected with the
passing of the years that separated them, and with the progress of the writer's
thought and life. The former letter is that of a teacher in the vigor of his
working age to a small Christian community having recently entered the new life
and needing admonitions and encouragements in fundamental things. The
1 See Kypke, in den Obss, sacr,, on Rom. ii. 5.

NOTES. 459
readers were not in the conflict of doctrine, but were raising the first questions of
the early convert. When will the kingdom be established ; when will the Lord
come? The writer was hopeful for future activity, and confident that life would
continue. The latter epistle is the work of a man who views the end as possibly
in the near future, and gives his exhortations on a higher plain of Christian
development. The Church has been in existence for a long period. It has done
continuous and fruitful work. It has considered other questions, and is ready for
wider or deeper thoughts.
The principal subject treated in both of the epistles to the Thessalonians, is
the coming of the Lord. As a subject of thought or discussion, this was naturally
the first one which would arise in the churches and in individual minds, whether
the members of the churches came out of Judaism or heathenism. Jewish
thought was peculiarly occupied with the matter of the Messianic kingdom and
its establishment. As the Jewish convert to Christianity centered his belief on
Jesus as the Messiah, no question could have greater or more immediate interest
for him, than this of His second appearance to consummate His work. The
Gentile convert, also, though having previously had no such ideas, found himself,
by his new faith, connected with a kingdom the promise of whose future triumph
was the encouragement of all his hopes. He must have looked with earnest
expectation to the coming fulfillment, and have asked, with intensity of desire, for
the time when it should be realized. It will be observed, however, that, in 1st
Thessalonians, this subject is introduced only incidentally, and not as Justification
by Faith is in the Epistle to the Romans. It is presented simply in the way of
correcting a misapprehension, and of affording comfort to the members of the
church with reference to the condition of certain fellow-Christians, who had
recently died. It belongs, therefore, with other words of counsel and exhortation
which precede and follow it, to the practical and friendly suggestions of a letter
to recent converts.
The Epistle is made up of expressions of interest in the readers — including words
of thankfulness for their reception of the Gospel and their progress in the Chris
tian life, of commendation for their virtues and labors, of interest in their prosperity,
of anxiety to know of their condition in view of persecutions which had befallen them
since liis departure from their city, — and instructions and exhortations respecting
duties or questions of their Christian life. The first of these divisions covers the
first three chapters ; the second, the last two chapters. The subject of the Lord's
Coming is only a part of the second section, introduced incidentally, as remarked
above. The entire letter has, thus, a unity, but not so much the unity of a
carefully arranged plan, as that of a message of interest and affection from an
absent teacher to a church in whose early growth he is deeply interested.
It is, no doubt, because of this character of the Epistle, that it has so much of
simplicity and tenderness. The absence, not only of the word dirdaroXo; in ver. 1,
but of any descriptive word with his own name ; the close union of Silvanus and
Timothy with himself, both in the salutation and in all the remainder of the
Epistle, as if on an equality; the calling attention to his example as that of a
father to children, which is hinted at in vv. 5, 6 (comp. ii. 11) ; and the recognition
of their Christian work and growth in the brief period since their conversion,
with the generous, almost unbounded, praise which a father might give (vv. 3, 8),
may be thus explained. It is worthy of notice that the plural we, instead of the
singular 7, is used in this Epistle far more than in the later ones — I occurring in

460 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
only two or three places (ji. IS, iii. 5, v. 27). It is evident, however, from these
passages — as it is in the other epistles — that, while in the use of the plural he
associates his companions in labor with himself in a certain sense, he still intends
to send his message, commands, instructions, warnings, etc., with his own
authority, which is different from theirs and of a higher order. The salutation
of this Epistle— if the text which omits dirb . . . Xpiarov at the end of ver. 1 be
adopted, as it probably should be — is the briefest that we find in Paul's writings.
XLVII. Vv. 2-10.
(a) pvypovsvovrs;, (ver. 3), which Liinemann understands as meaning maxmg
mention of, is better taken in the intransitive sense, remembering. The more com
mon meaning of the word in the N. T., is the latter, and, as pveiav iroioiy. has
already presented the former idea, it is improbable that a repetition of it would
be given. A. V., R- V., Grimm, EU., Noyes tr., and others take the latter view;
Alf., de W., and others, the former. — (6) The explanations, on the other hand,
which are given by Liinem. of iydv of ver. 3, of the relations of iriarea;, dydrry;,
iXirldo; to the nouns on which they depend, of the connection of roi Kvplov k.t.X.
with iXirldo; only, and of the connection of iprrpoaBev with yvyyovivovre; must be
accepted as correct. The word irropovy has here, as everywhere, the sense of
stedfast endurance, which is the evidence and the characteristic of a living hope.
The two words, coming together here, make it evident that the Apostle has in
mind the hope of the Lord's coming, of which he speaks afterwards, ii. 19, etc.
Faith -works — it is a working, not an inactive Ibrce ; love toils for these towards
whom it goes forth ; hope perseveres, notwithstanding all that may come to try or
dishearten the soul. The three great principles of the Christian life are all active.
The trials and persecutions to which the Thessalonians had already been exposed
since they became Christians, had given evidence that they had these active
principles working appropriately, each in its own way, in their lives. — (c) The
relation of the several participial clauses in vv. 2-4 to eixapiaroipsv may be
determined by noticing, (1) that, everywhere, Paul seems to present the fact of
his constant habit of prayer for his converts as making it natural that he should
give thanks when he called to mind their Christian life and development ; (2)
that e'lddrs; introduces what must, almost necessarily, contain a ground of his
thankfulness ; and (3) that, if this be so, pvypoveiovre;, not being connected with
e'ld., can hardly set forth another ground. The meaning, therefore, seems to be :
I give thanks always for you — making mention, as I ever do, in my prayers —
when I remember your faith, etc., for the reason that I know your election. — (d)
R. V. renders bn (ver. 5) by how that in the text, and because in the margin. That
the marginal rendering because {or for), is the correct one, is proved by the con
sideration presented by Liinem. The success of the gospel, as he had preached it
among them, and the results of it in their lives were the proofs that they had been
divinely elected, and the Apostle gives thanks because he knows from this evidence
that they are thus chosen. The reference to election here is accordingly intro
duced, as it is uniformly in Paul's writings, in connection with the joy which comes
from.it to the thought of the Christian believer, who may have his hope and con
fidence made sure by reason of this fact. — (e) The combination of Xdyip, dwdpei and
irvsvpan suggests the similar combinations in 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5, and iv. 20. From the
passages considered iu their resemblances, and apart from their difierences, We

NOTES. 461
may infer that by divayi; is meant, both here and in 1 Cor., that power of God
which accompanies the preaching, and in the sphere of which its effectiveness
lies ; that by X&yo;'is here meant, as contrasted with the more particular reference
given by the genitive aoipia; in 1 Cor., the mere human word or utterance, of
whatever sort it may be, in which the gospel message is set forth ; and that ev jrv.
dy. is kindred to iv dirodei^si irveiyaro;, and is intended to signify the energizing force
which fills the trutli declared by the preacher, and carries it to the heart of the
hearer. The whole working of the Apostle and his companions, as they had pro
claimed Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the Thessalonians, had, accordingly, been
in the sphere of words, indeed, but not only in this- — in the sphere, also, of power
and of the Holy Spirit. And now he adds iv rrXypoipopig. rroXXfi. This full
assurance or conviction on the part of the preachers is connected with their con
sciousness of the presence of the d'vvapi; and the rrvsvpa dyiov, ov more imme
diately with the latter, if iv before irXyp. is omitted with K B 17 Sahid. Copt. W.
& H. and Tisch. Sth ed. omit ev ; Treg. brackets it. As Ell. says, irXyp. presents
the " subjective, coiresponiing tothe more oi/ecitw side presented inthe preced
ing" words. — (/) 'syevfiByysv ver. 5 refers to what they had shown themselves to
be, not in their character as exhibited in their entire life, but in their character
as preachers. It is doubtful whether the view of Liinem., that 'syev. has so much
of the passive sense as to indicate divine agency, and to imply divine purpose in
dl' ipd;, can be insisted upon. He maintains the same view with regard to 'syevfi-
Byre of ver. 6 — " were made by the agency of God," where became or showed your
selves would seem to be the more natural rendering. The fact that these sentences
are connected by 'dn with 'sK'Xoyyv does not demand this assigning of a passive
sense to the verb. — (jr) The placing of ver. 6 under the or( of ver. 5 (so Liinem.)
is favored by the correspondence of the verbs iysv^Byuev — iyev-^Byre, as well as by
the evident intention of the writer to present in the two verses the twofold reason
for elddre; K.r.X. If a period is placed after ver. 5, as is done by Tisch., R. V.,
Alf., and many others, the connection is unnecessarily broken. — {h) If the point
in which they showed themselves imitators of the Lord is to be found in the
words of the verse, Heb. xii. 2, 3, may be compared. But may not the partici
pial clause ds^dpevoi .... dylov stand simply in an evidential relation to iyev.
yipyra'i, and the latter expression have a more indefinite and general reference? —
(i) ydp of ver. 8 gives the ground justifying the statement of ver. 7 ; but it intro
duces, at the same time, the explanation of the way in which they thus became
an example, etc. By reason of the impression produced by their reception of the
word and their turning from idols to the service of God, they arrested the atten
tion of all the believers in the upper and lower sections of Greece, and became
objects of admiration and imitation. The gospel, in this way, had sounded forth
from them, and their faith had gone out in its influence in every direction — and
this to such a degree that, instead of having to tell the story of it to other
churches, Paul found these other churches ready to tell it to him. — {j) Liinem.
finds in dvayiveiv ver. 10 the idea of the nearness of the coming of the Lord. So
Alf. and others. Ell. and others, assign to the word simply the notion of patience
and confidence. There can be little doubt that the " waiting for His Son from
heaven" is here spoken of as the prominent thing in the new Christian life of
the readers, because this was the great thought occupying their minds. That they
supposed the advent to be near is evident. Whether the apostle had this view can
be hardly determined from this verb, but must be decided from other passages.

462 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

CHAPTER II.
Ver. 2. irpoiraBdvrs;] Elz. has Kal irpoirad-ovre;. Against A B C D E F G
L X, min. plur. vss. and Fathers. Kat is a gloss for the sake of strengthening.
— Ver. 3. Elz. has ovre 'sv dd'Xip. So also Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7,
Bloomfield, Alford. But it is to be read oidi 'ev ddXa, with Lachm., Tisch. 1
and 8 and Ellicott after A B C D"*- F G 5<> min., which also the gradation of
the language requires (see exposition). — Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus np Qef>,
BCD* N-x- 67** 114, et al, Clem. Bas. Oecura. require Qeip. The article is
erased by Tisch., Alford and Ellicott, bracketed by Lachmann. The omission is
not sufficiently attested. Opposed to this omission are the weighty authorities of
A !»¦"-* B F G K L X«-** min. and many Fathers. The article might easily
have been omitted, on account of the similarity of sound with the two following
words. — Ver. 7. B C* D* F G x* min. vss. (also Vulg. and It.) Orig. (once)
Cyr. et al. have vyrrioi, instead of the Receptus yirioi. Received by Lachm. But
against the unity of the figure, and arisen from attaching the v of the preceding
word iysvyBypsv. — Ver. 8. dyeipdpevoi] Elz. has iyetpdyevoi. Against A B C D
E F G K L N, min. plur. edd. Chrys. (alio.) Damasc. MS. Theophyl. dis.
Eeiche, I. 1, p. 326 ff., indeed, recognizes dpsipdysvoi as primitiva scriptura; but
he thinks that Ipsipdpevoi was the word designed to be written by Paul, whilst
dysipdpsvoi owed its origin to an error in dictation — to a mistake of the amanuen
sis in hearing or in writing. — ysyivyaBs] ABCDEFGLX, min.' plur.
Bas. al, read iysviiByre. Recommended by Griesbach. Rightly received by
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott. The Receptus ysyivyaBs is a
correction, from erroneously imagining eidoKovpev to be in the jsresent. — Ver. 9.
vvKTd;] Elz. Matth. have vvkto; ydp. But ydp is rightly erased by Griesb.
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, Ellicott, according to A B D* P G N, 23, 71,
et al. perm. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. (comm.) Theophyl. Ambrosiast.
Aug. An explanatory correction. — Ver. 12. Instead of the Receptus paprvpoi-
psvoi, B D-*** (also D-«-?) E (?) K L x, min. plur. Chrys. Damasc. Oec. have
paprvpdpsvoi. Rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 1. Correctly approved by
Matth., Fritzsche (dc conform. N. T, critica, quam Lachm. edidit, comment. I., Giessen
1841, p. 38), de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, EUicott and Reiche,
as paprvpeiaBai is everywhere used only in a passive sense (see Meyer on Acts
xxvi. 22, and Rinck, lucubr. crit. p. 95), so that paprvpoiyevoi would be without
meaning. Also paprvpdyevoi by a careless scribe might easily have been formed
into paprvpoipsvoi, on account of the preceding rrapapvBoiysvoi as the similarity
of termination gave occasion to the entire omission of koi paprvp. in A. — Instead
of the Rec. irspiiraryaai is, with Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott, to be
read irspnrarsiv, according to A B D* F G x, min. Recommended to consid
eration by Griesb. — Ver. 13. Instead of the Receptus did rovro, Lachm. Tisch.
and Alford, according to A B K, Copt. Syr. p. al. Theodoret (cd.) Ambrosiast.
read Kal did roiro, which, as the more unusual reading, merits the preference.—.

CHAP. IL 1. 463
Ver. 15. rov; rrpoffjra;] Elz. Matth. Bloomfield, Reiche read rov; 'id'iov; rrpoipfira;.
Against A B D* E* F G *<- min. vss. (also It. and Vulg.) and Fathers. A
gloss from ver. 14 for the sake of strengthening. — Ver. 16. sipBaasv] Lachm. and
Tisch. 1 read sipBaiiev, which is only attested by B D*, whilst the Receptus has
the important authority of A C D** and "*** E F G K L N. and as it appears of
all min., of Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Dam. el al, — Instead of the Receptus
Tj 'opyy DEFG, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. Sedul. have y bpyy roi Qeov ; an
explanatory addition. — Ver. 18. iudn] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield,
Reiche have did. Against preponderating testimonies (A B D* F G K, oJ,.).
Suspected also by Griesbach. — Ver. 19. 'lyaoi] Elz. Matth. Scholz have 'lyaov
Xpiaroi. Xpiarov is doubted by Griesb., correctly erased by Lachm. Tisch.
Alford and Ellicott, according to A B D E K K, miu. plur. Syr. utr. al, Theodoret,
Damasc. Oec. Ambrosiast. ed.
Contents. — The readers themselves know that the apostle's entrance
among them was not without effect : although he had just been mal
treated at Philippi, yet he has the courage to preach the gospel at Thes
salonica amid contentions and dangers ; for God Himself has called him
to preach the gospel. It is accordingly solely and entirely the approval
of God which he seeks ; impure motives for preaching the gospel, such as
vanity, covetousness, desire of honor, are far removed from him ; he has,
full of love, interested himself for the Thessalonians ; he himself day and
night worked for his maintenance, that he might not be burdensome to
them; he then, in a paternal manner, exhorts and beseeches every one of
the'm to show themselves worthy in their life of the call to eternal blessed
ness, which had been brought to them (vv. 1-12). Pie then thanks God
that the Thessalonians had actuaUy received the gospel as the word of
God, which it really is, and that it had already been so mighty in them,
that they shunned not to endure sufferings for its sake (vv. 13-16). Here
upon the apostle testifies to his readers how he, full of longing toward
them, who are no less than other Christian churches his hope, his praise,
and his joy, had wished twice to return to them, but had been hindered
by the devil (vv. 17-20).
Ver. 1. [On Vv.l-12,seeNote XLVIII. pages491-493] is referred by Grotius
to a thought to be supplied after i. 10 : Merito illam spent vitae aeternae
retinetis. Vera enim sunt, quae vobis annuntiavimus. Arbitrarily, as
airoi ydp, emphatically placed first, yea, you yourselves, must contain a
contrast of the readers to ot\^er persons ; and, besides, this view is founded
on a false interpretation of oi Kevij yeyovev (see below). Also ver. 1 can
not, with Bengel, Flatt (who, besides, will consider i. 8-10 as a parenthe
sis),' Pelt, Schott, and others, be referred to i. 5, 6 ; nor, with Hofmann,
" extending over s'lddrs; ryv inXoyiiv vpdv " (i. 4) to sixapiaroiyev rd Qeip
(i. 2), the thought being now developed, "what justification the apostle
had for making the election of his readers the special object of thanks
giving to God ; " but must, with Zanchius, Balduin, Turretin, de Wette,
Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and others, be referred back to i. 9. For to
i. 9 points— (1) airoi ydp oidare, by which the Thessalonians themselves are

464 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
contrasted to the strangers who reported their praise ; (2) ryv elaodov ypdv
rijv irpb; iyd;, even by its similarity of sound refers to oiroiav slaodov
iaxopsv irpb; ipd; (i. 9) ; (3) the greater naturalness of referring ydp (u. 1)
to the preceding last independent sentence. The relation of this reference
is as follows : in chap. ii. 1 the apostle refers to i. 9, in order to develop
the thought expressed there — which certainly was aheady contained
in i. 5, 6 — by an appeal to the consciousness of the readers. But the
thought expressed in i. 9 was twofold — (1) a statement concerning
Paul and his assistants, namely, with what energy they preached the
gospel at Thessalonica {dr^olav elaodov iaxopsv irpb; iyd;) ; and (2) a state
ment concerning the Thessalonians, namely, with what eagerness they
received the gospel {Kal -n-af k.t.X.). Both circumstances the apostle
further develops in chap. ii. : first, and most circumstantially, the man
ner in which he and his assistants appeared in Thessalonica (ii. 1-12);
and, secondly, the corresponding conduct of his readers (ii. 13-16).
But the description of himself (vv. 1-12) was not occasioned by the calum
niations of the apostle, and a diminution of confidence in him occasioned
thereby (Benson, Ritschl, Hall. A. Lit. Z. 1847, No. 125 ; Auberlen) ; also,
not so much by the heartfelt gratitude for the great blessings which God
had conferred on his ministry at Thessalonica, as by the definite design
of strengthening and confirming, in the way of life on which they had
entered, the Christian Church at Thessalonica, — which, notwithstanding
their exemplary faith, yet consisted only of novices, — by a vivid repre
sentation of the circumstances of their conversion. How entirely appro
priate was the courageous, unselfish, self-sacrificing, and unwearied
preaching of the apostle to exhibit the high value of the gospel itself, seeing
it was capable of inspiring such a conduct as Paul and his compan
ions had exhibited ! — ydp] yea, or indeed. See Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p.
463 ff. — The construction : oldars ryv elaodov, 'dn — where we, according to
our idiom, would expect oldars, 'on y siaodo; k.t.X. — is not only, as Schott
and others say, " not unknown " to classical writers, but is a regular con
struction among the Greeks. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 466. — y siaodo; y
rrpb; ipd;] denotes here nothing more than our entrance among you. —
Ksvd;] is the opposite of rrX-iipy;, and denotes empty, void of contents, null.
— oi Ksvy yeyovev] Grotius (whom Hammond follows) translates this by
mendax, fallax, { ItV), and gives the sense : non deccpturi ad vos venimus.
But although Ksvb; often forms the contrast to dXyBy; (see also Eph. v. 6),
yet it obtains only thereby the meaning falsus, never the meaning fallax;
also ver. 2 would not suit to the meaning fallax, because then the idea of
uprightness would be expected as a contrast. Oecumenius finds in vv. 1,
2 the contrast of truth and falsehood : ov Ksvy yeyovev' rovreanv oi paraia oi
pv-Boi ydp ipsvdsl; iial X-ijpoi rd yperspa Kypvypara. But he obtains this mean
ing only by incorrectly laying the chief stress in ver. 2 on rb eiayyeXiov roi
Qeov {oidi yuei; dv-Bpdmvov n 'sKypi^aysv e'l; iyd; dX'Xa Geoi Xdyov;). Simi
larly to Grotius, but equally erroneously, Koppe (veni ad vos eo consilio
et studio, ut vobis prodessem, non ut otiose inter vos viverem) and Rosen
miiller (vani honoris vel opum acquirendarum studio) refer oi Ksvy yiyovsv

CHAP. II. 2. 465
to the design of the apostle, interpretations which are rendered impossi
ble by the perfect yiyovev. With a more correct appreciation of yiyovsv,
Estius, Piscator, Vorstius, Turretin, Flatt, and others give the meaning
inuiilis, fruclu carens, appealing to the Hebrew p'1. This meaning is in
itself not untenable, but it becomes so in our passage by the contrast in
ver. 2 ; for ver. 2 does not speak of the result or effect of the apostle's
preaching at Thessalonica, but of the character of that preaching itself.
For the sake of this contrast, therefore, oi ksv^ is equivalent to dwary,
Ssi-vij (Chrys. : oiK avBparri-vy ovdi y rvxovaa), and the meaning is : the
apostle's siaodo;, entrance, among the Thessalonians was not weak, power
less, but mighty and energetic. Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, and
Bloomfield erroneously unite with this idea of oi ksv^ the idea of the
success of the apostle's elaodo;, which is first spoken of in ii. 13 ff.
Ver. 2. Calvin makes ver. 2 still dependent on bn of ver. 1 ; but with
out grammatical justification. — wporraBdvrs;] although we suffered before.
irporrdaxeiv in the N. T., an diraf Xeydyevov, denotes the sufferings previous
to the time spoken of (comp. Thucyd. iii. 67; Herod, vii. 11). As, how
ever, the compound as well as the simple verb is a vox media, and so may
denote the experience of something good (comp. Xen. Mem, ii. 2. 5), Paul
fitly adds koI iPpia-Bivre;, and were insolently treated (comp. Demosth. adv.
Phil, ui., ed. Eeisk, p. 126 ; Matt. xxii. 6 ; Acts xiv. 5), by which irpoira-
^dvre; is converted in malam partem, and likewise the idea of irdaxeiv
strengthened. [XLVIII 6.] (For the circumstance, see Acts xvi.) — KoBd;
oidare] [XLVIII C.J although airot ydp oldars had just preceded, is invol
untarily added by Paul, by reason of the lively feeling with which he
places himself, in thought, in the time whereof he speaks. — iirappijaia-
adys-Ba] is not, with de Wette, to be referred to the bold preaching of
the gospel, and to be translated : " we appeared with boldness," but is to
be rendered : " we had confiderice." irappyaid^saBai, indeed, primarily de
notes speaking with boldness (Eph. vi. 20), then, also, acting with boldness
and confidence. — ev rd Qea yydv] in our God, by means of fellowship and
union with Him, belongs to irrappyaidaapsBa, and indicates wherein this
confidence was founded — in what it had its ground.' ypdv does not de
note : eundem ipsis, idolorum quondam cultoribus, deum esse ac ipsi
(Pelt), but is the involuntary expression of the internal bond which unites
the speakers with God, with their God ; comp. Eom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 4; Phil.
i. 3, iv. 19 ; Philem. 4. — XaXyaai] cannot be united with 'srra'p'pyaiaadysBa in
the sense of yerd ira'p'pyaia; sTiaXovyev (Koppe, Flatt, Pelt) ; nor is it the
statement of design'^; nor is it an epexegetical infinitive ' ; but it is the
statement of the object attached to iirap/iyaiaadpsBa, as this gives to our
1 Cecum.: Std rhv ev^way-ovvra ®€ov roiiro II. p. 102 : non fniptra vos adii (ver. 1), sed . . .
noi^aai, re9app-riKap.cv. libere deo fretus doctrinam div. tradidi, ut
2 Scott: summa dicendilibertate usi sumus, vel magnis cum aerumnis conflictans evan-
ut vobis traderem us doctrinam divinam laeta gelium apud vos docerem; de Wette: "so
nuntiantem. that we preached the gospel to you amid
'Ambrosiaster : exerta Ubertate usi sumus much contention ; " Koch ; Ellicott: we were
in deo nostro, loguendo ad vos evangelium dei bold of speech in our God, so as to speak unto
in magno certamine ; Fritzsche, ad 2 Cor, diss. you the gospel of God in much conflict.
30

/
466 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
passage a dependent sense, and only introduces the infinitive clause, thus :
we had the confidence to pi-each to you the gospel of God amid much contention.
Prom this it follows that tbe chief stress is not to be laid on iirappyaiaadpsBa
(ver. 2) ; and thus the unbroken boldness of the apostle does not form the
contrast to oi Ksvrj yiyovsv, as de Wette thinks, but oi Kevy yiyovev has its con
trast in XaXyaai rb ei. iv rroXXip dyuvi. It is Only thus that a real relation
exists between the thought in vv. 1 and 2 (and also only thus a real rela
tion of ver. 3 to ver. 2 ; see below) ; for that the preaching of the apostle
in Thessalonica was so powerful and energetic (oi Ksvy), was by no means
proved by the boldness of his preaching at Thessalonica, though a bold
ness unbroken by the persecutions which he suffered elsewhere shortly
before ; but rather this was something great, and demonstrated the power
and energy of the apostle's preaching, that he and his companions,
though they had just undergone suffering and persecution at Philippi,
nevertheless had the courage and confidence even in Thessalonica to
preach the gospel amid sufferings and persecutions. — siayyiXmv rov Qsoi]
The genitive denotes not the object of the gospel, but its att</ior; comp.
Eom. i. 1. Moreover, eiayyeXiov roi Qeov is the usual form ; and there
fore, although Geu precedes, sia-)'yiXiov airoi is not put. — 'sv rroXXCi ajuvi]
in much contention, dydv is to be understood neither of the cares and
anxieties of the apostle (Fritzsche), nor of his diligence and zeal (ilolden-
hauer), but of external conflicts and dangers.
Vv. 3, 4 explain what enables and obliges the apostle to preach the gos
pel in sufferings and trials. The objective and subjective truth of his
preaching enables him, and the apostolic call with which God had en
trusted him obliges him. ydp, ver. 3, accordingly does not refer to ro
eiayyiXtov roi Qeov (Moldenhau er, Flatt), nor to 'srra'p'pyaiaadys-Ba (Olshau
sen, de Wette, Koch), but to XaXyaai 'sv rroXXd dydvi. — y ydp irapdKXyai;
yydv OVK 'sk rrXdvy; k.t.XT] SC. iarlv, not yv (Bloomfield), for Paul establishes
(vv. 3, 4) the manner of his entrance in Thessalonica (as the present
XaXovysv proves) by qualities which were habitual to him ; and not until
ver. 5 does he return to the special manifestation of those general quali
ties during his residence in Thessalonica. — rrapdKJ^vai;] denotes exhortation,
address. The meaning of this word is modified according to the differ
ent circumstances of those to whom the address is directed. If the ad
dress is made to a sufferer or mourner, then it is naturally consolatory,
and rrapdKXyai; denotes comfort, consolation ; but if it is directed to a
moral or intellectu.al want, then irapdKXyai; is to be tr:inslated exhortation,
admonition. Now the first evangelical preaching- naturally consists in
exhortation and admonition, — namely, in a demand to put away their
sins, and to lay hold on the salvation offered by God through the mission
of His Son (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20). Accordingly, irapdKXyai; might be used
to denote the preaching of the gospel generally. So here, whereto ad-i
here to the meaning consolatio, with Zwingli, would be unsuitable. Yet
it is erroneous to replace rrapdKXyai; with didaxv (Chrj-sostom, Oecume
nius, Theophylact, de Wette) or with didaoKaXla (Theodoret) ; for, accord
ing to the above, more is contained in rrapdKXyai; than in these ideas.

CHAP. II. 3, 4. 467

Pelt explains irapdKXyai; erroneously by docendi ratio. But rrapdKXyai;,
understood as an exhortative address, or as the preaching of the gospel,
may be taken either in an objective or subjective meaning : in the first
case, it denotes the contents or subject of the preaching ; in the second
case, the preaching itself. The latter meaning is to be preferred on ac
count of ver. 4. — The irapdKXyai; of the apostle and his assistants had its
origin not 'sk rrXdvv;. rrXdvy, error, is used in a transitive and intransitive
sense. In the former case it denotes deceitfulness (Matt, xxvii. 64) or
seduction (Eph. iv. 14) ; in the latter, which is the more usual meaning,
delusion. In both cases irXdvy is the contrast of dX-fi-Beia (1 John iv. 6) : in
the form,er case, of dXfi-Beia in a subjective sense, truthfulness; in the
latter, of dXryBeia in an objective sense, truth (thus in Eom. i. 27, where
7r^ov?7 refers to the idolatrous perversion of Monotheistic worship). Also,
here n/Avy (on account of the succeeding 'ev ddXa) is best rendered not
impostura (Erasmus, Calvin, Hemming, Estius, Beza, Turretin) or sedur-
cendi studium (Vorstius, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), but delusion.
Accordingly the sense is : the apostle and his associates avoided not
sufferings and trials in the preaching of the gospel, because their preach
ing rested not on a fiction, a whim, a dream, a delusion, — consequently it
had not such as these for its object and contents ; but it is founded on
reality, — that is to say, it has divine truth as its source.— oiiSe ef dKoBapala;]
a second reason different from the first, and heightening it. Paul turns
from the objective side of the origin of his preaching to its subjective
side, — that is, to the motive which lay at the foundation of the gospel
preaching of himself and his assistants. This motive is not dKaBapala
(see Tittmann, de synonym, in N, T, 1. p. 150 f.), uncleanness, i. e. impurity
of sentiment, as would be the case were the apostle to preach the gospel
from covetousness. vanity, or similar reasons. — oidi iv ddXa] nor also (does
it consist or realize itself) in guile or deceit (contrast to e'lXiKpiveia, 2 Cor.
ii. 17) ; a new emphasis, as it was something still worse, if not only an
impure purpose lay at the foundation of a transaction, but also reprehen
sible means {e, g, KoXoKela, ver. 5) were employed for the attainment of
that purpose.
Ver. 4. The contrast. — koBu;] not equivalent to because, quoniam (Flatt),
but according as, or in conformity with this. — doKipdt;eiv] denotes to prow, to
try, then to esteem worthy, so that it corresponds to the verb d^iovv, 2 Thess.
i. 11.' — dsdoKiydapsBa [XLVIII. d.] denotes, accordingly, not the divine act of
the purification of the human character (Moldenhauer), but the being
esteemed worthy on the part of God ; not, however, as a reward of human
merit, or a recognition of a disposition not taken up with earthly things
(Chrysostom : el py elds rravr'o; diryXXaypivov; piuriKoi, oiK dv iipd; s'lXero ;
Theophylact: oiK dv i^s?ii^aro, si prj d^'iov; iyivaoKs) ; also, not as an antici
pation that Paul and his associates would preach the gospel without pleas
ing men (Oecumenius ; b Qsb; 'sdoidpaasv ijpd; pydiv rrpb; dd^av XaXslv dvBpd
rrav piXXovra;), but as a manifestation of the free and gracious counsel of
1 Comp. Plut. Thes. 12 : ' ^hOiav oZv 6 Idyirtiii iirl to dpurrov ov/t iSoKlp.aie ippd^niv aiirov, oarii e'ly.

468 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
God (Theodoret, Grotius, Pelt, Ellicott). The chief idea, however, is not
dsdoKipdapeBa (so Hofmann), but marevByvai rb siayyiXiov. — The passive
form : iriarsvByvai rb siayyiXiov, is according tO the well-known Greek
idiom, of using in the passive the nominative of the person, even in verbs
which in the active govern the genitive or dative. Comp. Eom. iii. 2 ; 1
Cor. ix. 17; Gal. h. 7; Kiihner, II. p. 34; Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229].—
ovTu;] emphatically : even in this condition, even according to this rule. It
does not refer to the following d; (Flatt), but to the preceding KaBd;, and
denotes that the gospel preaching of the apostle and his associates was in
correspondence with the grace and obligation imparted to them. — oi;i; a;
K.r.X.] explains and defines the whole preceding sentence : KaBd; . . . oiru;
Xa'^oipsv. — dpioKsiv] is here, on account of the concluding words dXXd ra
Qsd K.r.X., not to please, to find approbation, but to seek to please. For, in
reference to God, the apostle, according to his whole religious views and
habits of thought, could only predicate of himself an endeavor to please,
but not the actual fact that he pleased Him. It would, however, be erron
eous to put this meaning into the verb itself;^ it arises only when the
present or imperfect is employed, because these tenses may be used de,
conatu.'' — a;] may either be — (1) a pure particle of comparison : not as
men-pleasers, but as such who seek to please God ; or (2) may mark the
condition : not as such who, etc. ; or lastly, (3) may emphasize the per
versity which would exist, if the apostle was accused of dvBpdiroi; dpioKsiv :
not as if we sought to please men. In the two first cases di; extends over
the second member of the sentence : dXXd tu Qsd k.t.X., in the last only
over dvBpdiroi; dpioKovre;. The second meaning is to be preferred, as
according to it oi;i; d; k.t.X. corresponds best to the qualifying words
expressive of the apostle's mode of preaching (ver. 3). — tu doKiyd^ovn rd;
Kapdia; ypdv] who proves, searches our hearts, yydv refers to the speaker.
To understand it generally, with Koppe, Pelt, Koch, and Bloomfield, is
indeed possible, but not to be commended, as the general iorm rii doKipd-
i^o-vri rd; Kapdia;, without the addition of ypdv, would be expected. Comp.
Eom. viii. 27; Eev. ii. 23; Ps. vii. 10. Moreover, Paul speaks neither
here nor in ver. 7 ff. of himself only, as de Wette thinks " very probable "
in vv. 3, 4, but " certain " in ver. 7, but includes bis associates mentioned'
in i. 1. If the apostle spoke only of himself, he would not have put rdf
Kapdia; ypdv (ver. 4) and rd; eavrdv ipvxd; (ver. 8), but would have written
both times the singular, t^v Kapdlav ypdv and ryv ipvxyv yydv.
Ver. 5. Proof of the habitual cha.ia,cteT of the gospel preaching by an
appeal to the character which it specially hud in Thessalonica. — ydp] refers
to oix "f dvBpdiroi; dpioKovre; aA?id ra QsCi. — 'eysvy-Bypsv 'sv] we proved our
selves in, or we appeared as of such a character. The passive form 'sysvyB
yysv (see on i. 5) denotes here also that the mode of appearance mentioned
lay in the plan of God, was something appointed by Him. — KoXaKsia] comp.
'So Wieseler onGal.i..lO,who,however,.6X:, sSee Pflugk, ad Eur. Eel. V.1085; Stallb.
plains it not "to seek to please," but "to live ad Plat. Oorg. p. 185, and ad Protag. p. 46j
to please; "and after him, Hofmann and Moh- KOhner, II. p. 67.
ler in the 3d ed. of de Wette's Commentary.

CHAP. II. 5. 469
Theophrast. cliaract. C. 2 : Tijv di KoXaKslav iiroXdpoi dv ri; dyiXlav a'laxpdv
elvai, avpipipovaav di r(p KoXaKeiovri. The word is not again found in the
N. T. iv Xdyip KoXaKela; cannot denote in a rumor (report) of flattery, accord
ing to which the sense would be : for never has one blamed us of flattery
(so Heinsius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis). Against this is the con
text, for the point here is not what others said of the apostle's conduct, but
what it was in reality. Also it is inadmissible to take ev Xdya KoXaKe'ia;,
according to the analogy of the Hebrew i?T with the following substan
tive, as a circumlocution for ev KoXaKs'iif (so Pelt, who, however, when he
renders the clause : in assentationis crimen incurri, involuntarily falls into
the afore-mentioned explanation). For — (1) the Hebrew use of I^T is
foreign to the N. T. ; (2) it is overlooked that Xdyo; KoXoKsla; finds in the
context its full import and reference, inasmuch as the apostle, in com
plete conformity to the contents of the preceding verses (comp. ^aA^oa;,
ver. 2 ; rrapdnXyai;, ver. 3 ; XaXaipsv, ver. 4), in the beginning of ver. 5 still
speaks of a quahty of his discourse, and only in ver. 6 passes to describe
his conduct in Thessalonica in general. Accordingly, the apostle denies
that he appeared in Thessalonica with a mode of speech whose nature or
contents was flattery (Schott falsely takes koXoks'io; as the genitive of origin),
or that he showed himself infected with it. In Thessalonica, for this limi
tation of oi . . . rrors is demanded by the accessory appeal to the actual
knowledge of the readers — KaBd; oldars, as ye know, — ovrs iv rrpoipdasi irXso-
ve^'ia;] SC. 'sysvyBypev. irpdipaai;, from rrpoipalvu (not from rrpd(pypi), denotes
that which one puts on for appearance, and with the definite design to
color or to cloak something else. It therefore denotes pretext, the out
ward show, and has its contrast (comp. Phil. i. 18) in dXyBsia.^ The mean
ing accordingly is : we appeared not in a pretext for covetousness, i. e. our
gospel preaching was not of this nature, that it was only a pretext or
cloak to conceal our proper design, namely, covetousness. Without
linguistic reason, and against the context, Heinsius and Hammond
understand rrpdipaai; as accusatio; Pelt, weakening the idea, and not
exhausting the fundamental import of irpdipaai; (see below), nunquam
ostendi avaritiam ; Wolf also unsatisfactorily considers irpdipaai; as equiv
alent to species ; similarly Ewald, " even in an appearance oi covetous
ness ; " for the emphatic even (by which that interpretation is at all
suitable, and by means of which there would be a reference to a supple
mentary clause, "to say nothing of its being really covetousness") is
interpolated, and the question at issue is not whether Paul and his associ
ates avoided the appearance of rrXeovs^la, but whether they actually kept
themselves at a distance from rrXeove^la. Lastly, erroneously Clericus (so
also the Vulg.) : in occasione avaritiae, ita ut velit apostolus se nullam
unquam occasionem praebuisse, ob quam posset insimulari avaritiae. — Qsb;
pdprv;] comp. Eom. i. 9 ; Phil. i. 8. Paul having just now appealed to the
testimony of his readers that he was removed from KoXoKeia, now takes
God for witness that the motive of his behavior was not irXeovs^ia.
ISee proofs in Kaphel, Polyb. p. 354.

470 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Naturally and 'rightly; for man can only judge of the character of an
action when externally manifested, but God only knows the internal
motives of acting.
Ver. 6. Nor have the apostle and his associates had to do in the publi
cation of the gospel with external honor and distinction. Comp., John v.
41, 44. — t^yroivTs;] SC. 'sye-viiBypev. — ef dvBpdrruv] emphatic' — According tO
Schott and Bloomfield, the preposition e/c refers to the direct and dird to
the indirect origin, — a distinction in our passage impossible, as ef dvBpd
rrav is the general expression which is by aire . . . ovre divided into sub
ordinate members, or specialized. See Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 411] .^ — A new
sentence is not to be begun with dwdyevoi, so that either, with Flatt, ypev
would have to be supplied ; or, with Calvin, Koppe, and others, dwdpsvoi
K.r.X. would have to be considered as the protasis, and dXX' iysvyBypsv (ver.
7) as the apodosis belonging to it ; or, with Hofmann, dXX' iysvyBypsv ymoi
iv piaip iydv as an exclamatory interruption of the discourse in its pro
gress, distinctions chiefly occasioned by the misunderstanding of ev pdpei.
But dwdpsvoi is subordinate to ^yroivrs; {sc. iysvyBypev) and limits it, on
account of which it is inappropriate to enclose dwdpevoi . . . drrdaroXoi,
with Schottgen and Griesbach, in a parenthesis. The meaning is : Also
in our entrance to you our motive was not in anywise to be honored or
distinguished by men, although we certainly might have demanded external
honor. Theodoret, Musculus, Camerarius, Estius, Beza, Grotius, Calixtus,
Calovius, Clericus, Turretin, Whitby, Baumgarten, Koppe, Flatt, Ewald,
Hofmann, and others take iv pdpei elvai in the sense of being burdensome
(sc. by a demand of maintenance from the church), and thus equivalent
to impapsiv (ver. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; and Karapapsiv, 2 Cor. xii. 16 ; comp.
dpapy iya-vrbv 'srypyaa, 2 Cor. xi. 9) ; but this is an arbitrary assumption
from ver. 9 — arbitrary, because tiyrovvrs; db^av and 'sv pdpei slvai must
correspond; but in the first half of ver. 6 Paul's custom of not suffering
himself to be supported by the church, but gaining his maintenance by
working with his own hands, is not indicated by a single syllable. On
account of this correspondence of 'tv pdpei with dd^av, the explanation of
Lipsius {Stud u. Krit, 1854, 4, p. 912) is wholly untenable: "As the
apostles of Christ we did not at all need glory among men, but were
rather in a position to en(^ure trouble and burden, — that is, to endure
with equanimity persecutions and trials of ah kinds which men inflict
upon us," not to mention that the idea of " not at all needing," and the
emphatic " rather," are first arbitrarily interpolated. Heinsius, after the
example of Piscator (who, however, wavers), understands 'ev pdpsi slvai of
severitas apostolica: Se igitur, iv pdpsi slvai dwdpevov, quum severitatem •
exercere apostolicam posset, lenem fuisse, eo fere modo, quo 'sv 'pdpdip
'Oecumenius: KaXOxs Si i( dvepiiirmv' ttiv manam originem hahet, ex hominibus exsistit ;
ydp in ©eoi) (.SC. So^av) Kail iiyrovv nai iKdp.^avov. So(a d^,' ipHiv, quae singulatim a voblS, vestro
« If a distinction between the two preposi- ab ore manat ac proficiscitur ; " or, with Alford,
tions is to be assumed, we can only say, with "iK belongs to the abstract ground ot the
Bouman (.Charact. theolog. I. p. 78) : "66fa ej S6(a, iTro to the concrete object, from which it
dvepuiiroiv universe est dvepanrivy, quae hu- was in each case to accrue."

CHAP. II. 6-8. 471
kXBslv Kai sv dydrry rrvsvyari te rrpavryro;, 1 Cor. iv. 21, opponit. But thus
iv pdpsi and yirioi will be erroneously opposed to each other. (See on
ver. 7.) pdpo;, heaviness, weight, occurs even among classical writers, as
the Latin gravitas, in the sense of distinction, dignity (see Wessehng, ad
Diodor. Sieul. IV. 61). iv pdpsi slvai [XLVIII e.] accordingly means to be
of weight, to be of importance, i. e. to be deserving of outward honor and
distinction.' — Paul annexes the justification oi such an iv pdpsi elvai by
the words u; Xpiaroi dirdarofuu] i. e. not sicut apostoli alii faciunt (1 Cor.
ix. 6 ; Grotius), but in virtue of our character as the apostles of Christ.
drrdaroXoi is, however, to be used in its wider sense, as Paul not only
speaks of himself, but also of Silvanus and Timotheus, as in Acts xiv. 14.
Ver. 7. Paul begins in this verse the positive description of his appear
ance and conduct in Thessalonica. — dXX' iyevi/Bypev ymoi] -[XLVIII/.] a
contrast not to dwdyevoi ev pdpei elvai (Heinsius, Turretin, and others),
but to the principal idea of ver. 6. The apostle's conduct is not that of
one dd^av ef dvBpdrruv (yrdv, but of One who was ijirio; ; God had made
him show himself {iysvyBypsv) not as master, but as sei'vant. Oecumenius :
a; sl; if iydv 'sysvyByysv. — ymo;] mild, kindly, is used of an amiable dispo
sition or conduct of a higher toward a lower, i, e. of a prince to his subjects,
of a judge to the accused, of a father to his children.'^ — iv piaa iydv] in
your midst, i, e. in intercourse with you. Erroneously Calovius, it denotes :
erga omnes pariter. Non erga hos blandi, erga illos morosi. There is,
however, no emphasis on ipdv ; the apostle does not indicate that he
behaved otherwise in other places. — A colon is to be put after iv piaa
ipdv, so that a; . . ovru; are connected as protasis and apodosis, and
describe the intensity oi Paul's love to the Thessalonians ; whilst in iysrii-
Byysv . . . iydv this love only in and for itself, or according to its general
nature, was stated as a feature of the apostle's behavior. [XLVIII g.]
— rpoipd;] a nurse {^\^.y^) here, as is evident from ro iavry; rsKva, the
suckling mother herself. Under the image of a mother Paul represents
himself also, in Gal. iv. 19, as elsewhere, under the image of a father ; see
yer. 11 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Philem. 10. — BdXrreiv] originally to warm, of birds
which cover and warm their young -with their feathers : (see Deut. xxii.
6) ; consequently an image of protecting love and anxious care generally,
our cherishing; see Eph. v. 29.
Ver 8. 'OyslpeaBai] occurs, besides LXX. Job iii. 21, and Symmachus,
Ps. Ixii. 2 (yet even in these two places mss. differ), only in the glossaries.
Hesychius, Phavorinus, and Photius explain it by imBvpelv. Theophy
lact derives it from byoi and elpeiv ; and corresponding to this, Photius
explains it by byoi ypyda-Bai. Accordingly, bysipdyevoi iydv would denote
bound with you, attached to you. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 792 f., Schott,
and others agree. But this is questionable — (1) Because the verb is here
construed with the genitive, and not with the dative ; (2) because there is
• Thus Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theo- Wette, Koch, Bisping, Alford, Ellicott, Auber-
phylact (both, however, undecidedly). Am- len, and others.
brosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, Hunnius, Wolf, ^ Comp. Hom. Od. ii. 47 ; Herodian, ii. 4,
Moldenhauer, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, de init,; Pausan. Eliac, ii. 18.

472 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
no instance of a similar verb compounded with bpoi or dpd; ; see Winer,
p. 95 f. [E. T. 101]. Now, as in Nicander {Theriaca, ver. 402) the simple
form pe'ipea-Bai occurs in the sense of 'ips'ipsa-Bai, it can hardly be doubted
that ps'ipsaBai is the original root to which 'lys'ipea-Bai and bpsipsa-Bai (hav
ing the same meaning) are related, having a syhable prefixed for euphony.
Compare the analogous forms of KiXXu and bKsXXa, dvpopai and bdipoyai,
fXiu and bipXea, aha and 'lavu, and see Kiihner, I. p. 27. Accordingly, as
ips'ipeaBai rivd; denotes primarily the yearning love, the yearning desire
for union with an absent friend, and secondarily is, according to the testi
mony of Hesychius, synonymous with ipdv, bpsipdpsvoi ipdv receives here
the suitable meaning of filled with hve to you. Beza unnecessarily, and
against the context (because the word is a verbum epariKdv), supplies :
videlicet vos ad Christum tanquam sponsam ad sponsum adducendi. —
ovru;] belongs not to bpsipdpevoi (Schrader), but to eidoKovysv ; thus it is
not intensifying: so much, but a simple particle of comparison : thvis, in
this manner. — eidoKoipev] not present, but imperfect with the augment
omitted. See Winer, p. 69 [E. T. 71]. fidoKsiv, to esteem good, here, to he
uniting, denotes that what took place was from a free determination of
will. Thus it is used both of the eternal, gracious, and free counsels of
God (Col. i. 19 ; Gal. i. 15 ; 1 Cor. i. 21), and of the free determination of
men (Eom. xv. 26 ; 2 Cor. v. 8). — rd; iavrdv -ipvxd;] not a Hebraism in the
sense of nosmet ipsos (Koppe, Flatt), but our lives (Hom. Od. iii. 74;
Aristoph. Pferf. 524); the plural ipvxd; proves that Paul thinks not of him
self only, but also of Silvanus and Timotheus. — On iavrdv, comp. Bern
hardy, Syntax, p. 272; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 150]. However, the verb
psradovvai does not Strictly apply to rd; iavrdv ipvxd;, as the idea of imparting
is here transformed into that of offering up, devoting. (Erroneously Bengel :
anima nostra cupiebat quasi immeare in animam vestram. Hofmann :
In the word preached, which Paul and his companions imparted to the
Thessalonians even to the exhaustion of their vital power, this as it were
passed over to them, just as the vital power of the mother passes over to
the child, whom she is not content with nourishing generally, but, from
the longings of love to it, desires to nourish it by suckling.) From the
compound verb psradovvai the idea of the -simple verb dowai is accord
ingly to be extracted (a zeugma ; see Kiihner, II. 606). — The thought
contained in wc . . . ovra; is accordingly : As a mother not only nourishes
her new-born child with her milk, but also cherishes and shelters it, yea,
is ready to sacrifice her life for its preservation, so has the apostle not
merely nourished his spiritual child, the Thessalonian church, -with the
milk of the gospel, but has been also ready, in order to preserve it in the
newly begun life, to sacrifice his own life. — The inducement to such a con
duct was love, which the apostle, although he had already mentioned it,
again definitely states in the words didn dyarryrol ijplv iysvyByrs, because ye
were dear and valuable to us.
Ver. 9. Vdp [XLVIII h.] refers not to dwdpsvoi iv pdpsi slvac, -ver, 6 (Flatt),
but either to iysvyBypev ymoi (ver. 7), or to evdoKovpsv psradovvai, or, finally,
to ayarryrol yplv eyev^Byrs (ver. 8). For the first reference {eyevyByysv ymoi), it

CHAP. II. 9. 473
may be argued that iysvyBypev ymoi is the chief idea, the theme as it were,
of -w. 7 and 8 ; but against this is, that the same thought which was
expressed in iyevy-Byysv ymoi is repeated and more definitely developed in
in a much more vivid and special manner by means of the parallel
sentence, attached without a copula, and thus complete. In such a
case a causal conjunction following refers rather to the more vivid and
concrete expression than to the more general and abstract. Accordingly,
we are referred to the connection with sidoKoipsv psradovvai. Neither can
this, however, be the correct connection ; for then must ver. 9 have
proved the readiness of the apostle when at Thessalonica to sacrifice his
own life for the Thessalonians, as is expressed in ver. 8. But this is not
the case, for in ver. 9 Paul speaks indeed of his self-sacrificing love, but
not of the danger of his life which arose from it. Also Auberlen, who
recently has maintained a reference to sidoKovysv psradovvai, can only
support this meaning, that Paul has adduced his manual labor mentioned
in ver. 9 as a "risking of his health and life." In the same manner;
Ellicott : " the Apostle and his followers practically gave up their
existence to these converts, when they spent night and day in toil rather
than be a burden to any of them." But how forced is this idea of the
context, and how arbitrarily is the idea of the sacrifice of life, supposed to
be expressed therein, contorted and softened down ! It is best, therefore,
to unite ydp with didn dyarryrol yylv iysvyByrs, a union which, besides, is
recommended by the direct proximity of the words. — pvypovsisrs] as ydp
proves, is indicative, not imperative. — Kdrro; and pdxBo;] labor and pains :
placed together also in 2 Thess. iii. 8 and 2 Cor. xi. 27. Musculus :
Significat se baud leviter et obiter, sed ad fatigationem usque incubuisse
laboribus. Arbitrarily separating and mixing the gradation, Balduin
interprets KdKo; " de spirtuali labore, qui consistebat in praedicatione
evangelii ; " and ydxBo; " de manuario labore scenopegiae." — wKrb; Kal
ypipa;] a concrete and proverbial circumlocution of the abstract
ddiaXe'iirra;. But vvKrd;, as usual (Acts ix. 24 is an exception), is placed
first, because the Jews (as also the Athenians, see Plin. Nat. Hist. ii. 79 ;
Funke, Real-Schullex, II. p. 132) reckoned the civil day from sunset to
sunset (see Winer's bibl. Realworterb, 2d ed. vol. II. p. 650). Pelagius,
Faber Stapulensis, Hemming, Balduin, and Aretius arbitrarily hmit
-WKrd; to ipya^dyevoi, and yyipa; to 'sKypi^aysv. — ipydl^saBai] (comp. 1 Cor.
ix. 6 ; 2 Thess, iii. 10, 12 ; Acts xviii. 13) the usual word also among the
classics (comp. Xen. Mem, i. 2. 57) to denote working for wages, especially
manual labor or working by means of a trade (therefore the addition ral;
xspai, 1 Cor. iv. 12 ; Eph. iv. 28). Paul means his working as a tent-cloth
maker Acts xviii. 3. — irpb; rb yy impapyaai nva ipdv] in order not to be
burdensome to any, sc. by a demand of maintenance. Incorrectly, Chry
sostom, Theophylact, Pelt, and others infer from this that the converted
Thessalonians were j90or. Evidently this unselfish conduct of the apostle
had its ultimate reason in an endeavor that there should be no hindrance
on his part to the diffiision of the gospel. — e'l; iyd;] represents the readers
as the local objects of Kypiaasiv; comp. Mark xiii. 10; Luke xxiv. 47.

474 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Therefore, according to the general sense, it is true that s'l; vyd; and iylv
do not differ, but the mode of looking at it is somewhat different. See
Winer, p. 200 [E. T. 212].
Ver. 10. This verse is designed to represent in a summary manner the
conduct of the apostle among the Thessalonians, which was hitherto only
represented by special features; but as thereby not merely what was
patent to external observation, that is, the visible action on which man
can pronounce a judgment, but likewise the internal disiDOsition, which is
the source of that action, was to be emphasized ; so Paul naturally
appeals for the truth o|' his assertion not only to his readers, but to God.
The apostle, however, proceeds without a particle of transition, on account
of the warmth of emotion with which he speaks. — d;] how very. — balu;
Kal diKala;] (comp. Eph. iv. 24; Luke i. 75; Wisd. ix. 3, daidry; and
diKaioaivy) is put entirely in accordance with classical usage ; the first
denotes dutiful conduct toward God, and the latter toward our neighbor.^ — •
dpipirra;] unblameahly. Turretin, Bengel, Moldenhauer interpret this of
dutiful conduct toward oneself, evidently from the desire of a logical division
of love, in order to obtain a sharply marked threefold division of the idea.
Flacius refers it to the reliqui mores besides justitia, that is, to castitas,
sobrietas, and moderatio in omnibus ; but this is without any reason. It is
the general negative designation, comprehending the two preceding more
special and positive expressions, thus to be understood of a dutiful con
duct toward God and man. Too narrowly Olshausen : that it is the
negative expression of the positive dutaia;. — iylv roi; marsiovaiv] belongs
not only to dyiprrra;, but tO the whole sentence : a; baia; Kal diK. Kal dy.
iysvyB. It is not dat. commodi;'^ " to your, the believers', behoof;" so that
it would be identical with di' iyd; roi; mareiovra;. Nor does it mean
toward you behevers (de Wette : " This, his conduct, had believers for its
object with whom he came into contact ; " Hofmann, Auberlen), for (1)
data; does not suit this meaning ; (2) as iylv roi; marsvovaiv is not without
emphasis, the unsuitable contrast would arise, that in reference to others
the apostle did not esteem the upright conduct necessary. For, with
Hamniond, to apply iplv roi; marsiovaiv, in contrast to the time. when
those addressed had not yet been brought to the faith, is grammatically
impossible, as then the participle of the aorist without the article must be
used; (3) 'sysvyBypev does not obtain its due force, as the passive form
cannot denote pure self-activity. [XLVIII i.]. iylv roi; marsiovaiv is, as
already Oecumenius and Theophylact (and recently Alford) explain it,
the dative of opinion or judgment (see Winer, p. 199 [E. T. 212] ; Butt
mann Gramm., des neutest. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 176 [E. T. 179] ; Bern
hardy, Syntax, p. 83) : for you, believers, so that this was the character,~the
light in which we appeared to you. Thus an appropriate limitation arises
by this addition. For the hostility raised against the apostle, and his
'Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 807: Kal /iV irepX pev ^ go also the Reviewer of the first edition in
ivtpiiirov^ Ti npooTiKovra nparrav SUai dy the Darmstadt Literat-Bl. zur Darmst. All"-.
irpaTToi, irepl 6e ecois oo-ia : Polyb. xxxiii. 10. Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 131, p. 1051 (Wilib.
8 ; Schol. ad Eurip. Hec. 788. Grimm [?]) and Ellicott.

CHAP. II. 10-12. 475
expulsion from Thessalonica, clearly showed how far from being general
was the recognition that God had enabled the apostle to behave baia; Kal
diKa'ia; Kal dpipirra;. Moreover, ii; da'ia; k.t.X. iysv. is not equivalent to a;
baioi K.r.X. iyev. (Schott). The adverbs bring prominently forward the
mode and manner, the condition of yevyByvai.^
Vv. 11, 12 are not a mere further digression into particulars, which we
can scarcely assume after the general concluding words in ver. 10, with
out blaming the author, notwithstanding the freedom of epistolary
composition, of great logical arbitrariness and looseness, but are a proof
of the general concluding sentence ver. 10, ex analogia. As in all that has
hitherto been said the twofold reference to the apostle and his two
associates on the one hand, and to the readers on the other, has
predominated, so is this also the case in vv. 10-12. The circumstance
that he has anxiously and earnestly exhorted his readers to a similar
conduct in baidry;, diKaioaivy, and dpspip'ia, is asserted by the apostle as a
proof that he himself heha.'wed in the -most perfect manner {d;) among the
Thessalonians ba'iu; koI diKalu; Kal dpiyirru;. For if any one be truly
desirous that others walk virtuously, this presupposes the endeavor after
virtue in himself. It is thus erroneous when de Wette and Koch, p. 172,
think that the apostle in ver. 10 speaks of his conduct generally, and in
vv. 11, 12 of his ministerial conduct particularly. In vv. 11, 12 Paul does not
speak wholly of his ministerial conduct, for the participles irapaKa2,ovvTs;,
KapayvBovpevoi, and yaprvpdysvoi are not to be taken independently, but
receive their full sense only in union with s'l; rb irspirrarslv k.t.X.,
so that the chief stress in the sentence rests on s'l; rb k.t.X., and the
accumulation of participles serves only to bring vividly forward the
earnestness and urgency of the apostle's exhortation to irspnrarsiv. Entirely
erroneous, therefore, is Pelt's idea of the connection : Eedit P. ad amorem,
quo eos amplectatur, iterum profitendum ; for the attestation of love, in
the conduct described in vv. 11, 12, is only expressed by the addition : u;
irarvp riKva savroi, and is thus only subsidiary to the main thought. —
KaBdirsp] as then, denotes the conformity of what follows to what precedes.
As regards the construction : oldars a; k.t.X., we miss a, finite tense,'^ Koppe
considers that the participles are put instead of the finite tenses, a;
rrapsKaXiaapsv Kal rrapspvByadpsBa koi spaprvpyadpeBa, an assertion whioh we
can in the present day the less accept, as it is of itself self-evident that
the participles of the present must have another meaning than tha,t which
could have been expressed by the finite forms of the aorist, i.e. of the
purely historical tense. Others, objecting to the two accusatives, eva
SKaarov and iyd;, have united i^of with the participle, and suggested a
ISee Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 466;] Bernhardy, oo-im Ka'i Sik. Kal dp.ip.TTr., ver. 10. So recently
Syntax p. 337 ff. al^" Auberlen. But this construction is
2 Certainly otherwise Schrader, who regards impossible, because KaBditep olSore is not a
Kaedir^p olSare as "a mere parenthesis which complete repetition of the preceding iip-em
refers to what goes before and what follows," laoprupes Kai 6 Oeos, but only of its first part
so that then <is irapa<aKovvret Ka'i napap.. /cal (iip.iU p.dpTvpK), and thus Can in no wise be
liapr., vv. 11, 12, would be only parallel to loj considered as a meaningless addition.

476 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
finiie tense to eva sKaarov, which, at the beginning of the period, must have
been in Paul's mind, but which he forgot to add when dictating to his
amanuensis. Vatablus, Er. Schmid, Ostermann would supply to eva
SKaarov, yyarryaapsv ; Whitby, iipiXyaaysv, or yyairyaapsv. Or iBdX-ipapsv, from
ver. 7 ; Pelt, oix dipvKapsv (?) ; Schott, a verb containing the " notio curandi
sive tractandi sive educandi." ' But (1) the two accusatives do not at all
justify supplying a special verb to iva sKoarov, as not only, among the
classics is the twofold use of personal determinations not rare (see
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 275), but also in Paul's Epistles there are similar
repetitions of the personal object (comp. Col. ii. 13 ; Eph. ii. 1, 5). (2) To
supply yyairyaapsv, or a similar idea, is in contradiction with the design
and contents of vv. 11, 12, as the chief point in these verses is to be sought
in the recollection of the impressive exhortations addressed to the Thess
alonians to aim at a conduct similar to that of the apostle. Not only the
simplest, but the only correct method, is, with Musculus, Wolf, Turretin,
Bengel, Alford, and Hofmann, to supply iysvyBy.uev, which has just pre
ceded ver. 10, to a; . . , irapoKaXoivrs; k.t.X. And jUSt because 'eyev^Bypev
precedes, the supplying of yusv, which Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others
assume, and which otherwise would be the most natural word, is to be
rejected. Accordingly, there is no anacoluthon in vv. 11, 12, but iysvy-
Byusv to be supplied in thought is designedly suppressed by the apostle in
order to put the greater emphasis on the verbal ideas, irapaKaX.slv, rrapap-u-
BeiaBai, and papripsaBai, The circumlocutionary form, iysvyBypsv rrapoK. k.t.X.,
has this in common with the form ypsv rrapoK. k.t.X., that it denotes duration
in the past, but it is distinguished from it by this, that it does not refer
the action of the verb simply as something actually done, and which has
had duration in the past; but this action, enduring in the past (and
effected by God), is described in its process of completion, i.e. in the
phase of its self-development. — iva inaarov ipdv a; rraryp rsKva iavroi] The
thought, according to Flatt, consists in this : the apostle has exhorted
and charged, " with a view to the special wants of each, just as a father
gives heed to the individual wants of his children." But iva sKaarov ipdv
denotes only the carefulness of the exhortation which is addressed to each
individual without distinction (of rank, endowment, Chrysostom : Ba/3a( 'sv
roaoira irXyBei pydiva rrapaXiirsiv, ay piKpdv, yy piyav, py irXovaiov, py irivyra), and
the addition d; rraryp riKva iavroi denotes Only paternal love (in contrast
to the severity of a taskmaster) as the disposition from which the exhorta
tions proceeded. But in a fitting manner Paul changes the image
formerly used of a mother and her children into that of a father and his
children, because in the context the point insisted on is not so much that
of tejtder love, which finds its satisfaction in itself, as that of educating love ;
for the apostle, by his exhortation, would educate the Thessalonians for
the heavenly kindom. That the apostle resided a long time in Thes
salonica (Calovius) does not follow from iva eKaarov. — irapaKaXsiv] to exhort
by direct address. Erroneously Chrysostom, Theophylact : irpb; rb ipipsiv
'Erasmus completes the clause: complexi a "balbuties apostolicae charitatis, quae se
fuerimus, and finds in the double accusatives verbis humanis seu temulenta non explicat."

CHAP. IL 12, 13. 477
irdvra. — iyd;] resumes eva eKaarov ifidv; but whilst that emphatically
precedes, this is placed after rrapaKaXoivrs;, because here the verb -irapaK. has
the emphasis (comp. Col. ii. 13). Paul adds ipd;, which certainly might be
omitted, not so much from carelessness or from inadvertence, but for the
sake of perspicuity, in order to express the personal object belonging to
the participles in immediate connection with them.^Also iraoapvBsiaBai
does not mean here to comfort (Wolf, Schott, and others), but to address,
to exhort, to encourage ; yet not to encourage to stedfastness, to exhort to
moral courage (Oecumenius, Theophylact, de Wette), for the object of
rrapapvBoipsvoL does not follow until ver. 12.
Ver. 12. MapripeaBai] (comp. Eph. iv. 17) in the sense of diapapripsaBai (1
Tim. V. 21 ; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1), earnestly conjuring ; comp. also Thucyd. -vi.
80 ; dsdps-Ba di Kal paprvpdas-Ba dpa, and viii. 53 : paprvpopivuv Kal im-BsiaC^dvTuv
py Kardysiv, which later passage is peculiarly interesting on this account,
because there (as in our verse, see critical notes) most mss. read the mean
ingless paprvpovpivav. paprvpdpsvoi strengthens the two former participles.
e'l; rb rrepirrarsiv ipd; k.t.X.] contains not the design (de Wette, Koch, Elli
cott), also not the design and effect of the exhortation (Schott), but is tbe
object to all three preceding participles. The meaning is : Calling on you,
and exhorting, and adjuring you to a walk worthy of God, i. e, to make
such a walk yours. But Christians walk d^la; rov Qsov (comp. Col. i. 10 ;
Eph. iv. 1 ; Rom. xvi. 2 ; Phil. i. 27 ; 3 John 6), when they actually prove
by their conduct and behavior that they are mindful of those blessings,
which the grace of God has vouchsafed to them, and of the undisturbed
blessedness which He promises them in the future. — roi KaXoivro;] The
present occurs, because the call already indeed made to the Thessalonians
is uninterruptedly continued, until the completion succeeds to the call and
invitation, namely, at Christ's return. The meaning of Hofmann is wide
of the mark : that by the present, the call is indicated as such that would
become wholly in vain for those who walk unworthily. — PaaiXeiav Kal
dd^av] not an sv did dvolv ; to the kingdom of His glory, or to the glory of
His kingdom (Turretin, Benson, Bolten, Koppe, Olsh. et at.). Both sub
stantives have the same rank and the same emphasis. Baumgarten-
Crusius erroneously distinguishes paaiXeia and dd^a as the earthly and
heavenly kingdom of God. Further, dofa is not the glory of the Messianic
kingdom, which is specially brought forward after the general PaaiXeiav (de
Wette) ; but God calls the readers to participate in His kingdom {i. e. the
Messianic) and in His (God's) glory, for Christians are destined to enter
upon the joint possession of the dd^a which God Himself has ; comp. Eom.
V. 2 ; Eph. iii. 19.
Ver. 13. [On -w. 13-16, see Note XLIX. pages 493, 494.] Paul in ver. 18 passes
from the earnest and self-sacrificing publication oi the gospel to the earnest
and self-sacrificing reception oi the gospel. Erroneou.sly Baumgarten-
Crusius : Paul, having taught in what manner he has heen among the
Thessalonians, shows in vv. 13-16 what he has given to them, namely, a
divine thing. — KaJ did roiiro] And even on this account. Kai, being placed
first, connects the more closely what follows with what precedes. Comp.

478 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
2 Thess. ii. 11. — did roiro] not : " quoniam tam felici successu apud vos
evangelium praedicavimus " (Pelt, Bloomfield) : for (1) from ver. 1 and
onwards the subject spoken of is not the success or effect, but only the char
acter of the apostle's preaching ; (2) the intolerable tautology would arise,
as we have preached to you the gospel with such happy success, so we
thank God for the happy success of our ministry ; (3) lastly, if Paul wished
to indicate a reference of ver. 13 to the whole preceding description, he
would perhaps have written did ravra, though certainly did rovro might be
justified, as vv. 1-12 may be taken together as one idea. According to
Schott, did rovro refers back to eif rb irepnrarelv: " Quum haec opera in
animis vestris ad vitam divina invitatione dignam impellendis niinime
frustra fuerit coUocata, quam vos ejusmodi vitam exhibueritis, ego mcissim
cum sociis deo gratias ago assiduas, bn ii." But still a tautology remains,
which Schott himself appears to have felt, since he takes koI ypsl; in sharp
contrast to vad;, ver. 12 ; besides, the ground of this explanation gives
way, inasmuch as e'l; rb irspnrarsiv can only denote the object, but in noway
the re.ntlt of the exhortations. Also de Wette refers did roiro to eif rb
irspnrarsiv, but explains it thus : Therefore, because it was so important
an object for us (so already Flatt, but who unites what is incapable of
being united) to exhort you to a worthy walk. But there is in the pre
ceding no mention of the importance of the object of the apostle's exhor
tations. Accordingly there remains for did roiro only two connections of
thought possible, namely, either to refer to the earnestness and zeal
described in vv. 11, 12, with which the exhortations of the apostle were
enforced. Then the thought would be : because we have so much applied
ourselves to exhort you to walk worthy (Flatt, Ellicott), so we thank God
for the blessed result of our endeavors. Or did roiro may be referred to the
concluding words of ver. 12 ; roi koXovvto; ipd; eif ryv iavroi paaiXeiav Kal
dd^av, SO that the meaning is : Because God calls you to such a glorious
goal, so we thank God continually that you have understood this call of
God which has cpnie to you, and that you have obeyed it. Evidently this
last reference, which is found in Zanchius, Balduin, and Olshausen, is to
be preferred as the nearest and simplest. So recently also Alford and
Auberlen. — koI y.usl;] to be taken together, we also. For not only Paul and
his companions, but every true Christian who hears ' of the conduct of
the Thessalonians, must be induced to thankfulness to God. Comp. Eph.
i. 15. Hardly correctly, Zanchius, whom Bald, and Ell. follow, places xai in
contrast to the Thessalonians : non solum vos propter hanc vocationem
debetis agere gratias, sed etiam nos. Erroneously also de Wette ; Kai
belongs to the whole clause : therefore also, which would require did koI
rovro, — sixapiaroipsv ra Qsd] For although the spontaneous conduct of the
readers is here spoken of, yet thanks is due to God, who has ordained this
spontaneous conduct. — bn rrapaXapdvre; Xdyov k.t.X.] The object of eixapia-
roipev, because that when ye received, etc. — irapaXappdvsiv] which Baumgarten-
Crusius erroneously considers as equivalent to dixeaBai, indicates the
>So specially Alford: We as well as irdvm ol marevovrei iv ry Ma/ceSon'o /cui ev r-o 'Axaia, i. 7.

CHAP. II. 13. 479
objective reception — the obtaining (comp. Col. ii. 6 ; Gal. i. 9) ; dixsa&ai, on
the other hand, is the subjective reception — the acceptance (comp. i. 6; 2
Cor. viii. 17). — dKoif] is used in a passive sense, that which is heard, i. e. the
preaching, the message (comp. Rom. x. 16 ; Gal. iii. 2 ; John xii. 38). Arbi
trarily Pelt ; it is that to which one at once shows obedience, rrap' -fiydv
[XLIX 6.] is to be closely connected with diwy; (Estius, Aretius, Beza,
Calixtus, Koppe, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Alford, Hofmann, and others),
and to the whole idea XAyov ukotj; irap' ypdv is added the more definite
characteristic rov Qsoi. Thus : the word of God which ye have heard of
us, the word of God preached by us. We must not, with Musculus, Piscator,
Er. Schmid, Turretin, Fritzsche (on 2 Cor. diss. 1. p. 3) de Wette, Koch,
Ellicott and Auberlen, unite irap' ypdv with irapaXapdvre; ; ior against this
is not only the order of the words, as we would expect irapaXapdvre; nap'
¦Ijpdv X&yov oKoy; rov Qeov, whereas in the passage there exists no reason for
the separation of the natural connection ; but also chiefly the addition of
aKoy; would be Strange, as along with rrapaXapdvre; rrap' yydv it would be
superfluous. It is otherwise with our interpretation, in which an impor
tant contrast exists, Paul contrasting himself as the mere publisher to the
proper author of the gospel ; and in which also the construction is unob
jectionable (against de Wette), as oKoieiv irapd nvo; (see John i. 41) is used,
substantives and adjectives often retaining the construction of verbs from
which they are derived. See Kuhner, II. pp. 217, 245. — roi Qeoi] not the
objective genitive, the word preached by us which treats of God, i. e, of
His purposes of salvation (Erasmus, Vatablus, Musculus, Hunnius, Bal
duin, Er. Schmid, Grotius), against which the following oi Xdyov dvBpdiruv
. . . aAAa Xdyov Qeov is decisive ; but the word which proceeds from God,
whose author is God Himself. — edi^aa-Be] ye heme received it, sc, the word of
God preached. — oi Xdyov k.t.X^ [XLIX c] not as the word of man. The
addition of a a; {oix "C Xdyov dv-Bp. a/lAa . . a; Xdyov Qeov), dispensable in
itself (see Kiihner, II. p. 226), is here the rather left out, because the apos
tle would not only express what the preaching of the word was in the
estimation of the Thessalonians, but likewise what it was in point of fact, on
which account the parenthesis Ka^d; ianv aA^iJiif , according as it is in truth,
is emphatically added. — The Thessalonians received the Xdyo; Qeoi as the
word of God, seeing they believed it, and were zealous for it. — 8f] is not to
be referred to Oeoi,' but to Xdyov Qsoi ; '' for (1) in what immediately precedes,
the subject is not Qed;, but Xdyo; Qeov. (2) Paul uses always the active
ivepyelv oi God (comp 1 Cor. xh. 6; Gab ii. 8, iii. 5; Eph. i. 11; Phil. ii.
13), and of things the middle ivspyetaBai (comp. Gal. v. 6 ; Eph. iii. 20 ; Col.
j_ 29). — ivepysirai is middle (which is active), not passive (which is made
active), as Estius, Hammond, Schulthess, Schott, Bloomfield, and others
think. [XLIX d,] — iv iylv roi; marsiovaiv] does not mean : " ex quo tempore
religionem suscepistis " (Koppe) ; for then iv iylv marsiaaaiv would have to
be put. Also not: " quum susceperitis " (Pelt), or " propterea quod fidem
1 Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Koppe, F'att, Aretius, Wolf, Tiu-retin, Benson, Fritzsche,
Auberlen and others. de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, Alford,
a Syr., Ambrose, Erasmus, Estius, Balduin, Ellicott, Hofmann.

480 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
habetis " (Schott), because or in so far as, ye believe and continue believ
ing (Olsh. Koch) ; for if it were a causal statement, the participle -Trio-Teioi/-
aiv without the addition of the article would be put. roi; marsiovaiv
rather serves only for the more precise definition of iylv, thus indicating
that marsveiv belongs to the Thessalonians.
Ver. 14 is not designed, as Oecumenius, Calvin, and Pelt think, to prove
the sincerity with which the Thessalonians received the gospel, but is a
proof of Of Kal ivepysirai, ver. 13. [XLIX e,] In not shunning to endure
sufferings for the sake of the gospel, the Thessalonians had demonstrated
that the word of God had already manifested its activity among them, had
already become a life-power, a moving principle in them. — ipsi; ydp] an
emphatic resumption of the previous iylv roi; marsiovaiv — pipyra'i] imitators,
certainly not in intention or design, but in actual fact or result. — ddeX-ipo'i^ The
frequent repetition ofthis address (comp. i. 4, ii. 1, 9, 17) is significant of
the ardent love of Paul toward the church. That Paul compares the con
duct of the Thessalonians with that of the Palestinian churches is,
according to Calvin, whom Calixtus follows, designed to remove the
objection which might easily arise to his readers. As the Jews were
the only worshipers of the true God outside of Christianity, so the
attack on Christianity by the Jews might give rise to a doubt whether
it were actually the true religion. For the removal of this doubt,
the apostle, in the first place, shows that the same fate which had
at an earlier period befallen the Palestinian churches had happened to
the Thessalonians ; and then, that the Jews were the hardened enemies
of God and of all sound doctrine. But e-vidently such a design of the
apostle is indicated by nothing, and its supposition is entirely superfluous,
as every Christian must with admiration recognize the heroism of Chris
tian resistance to persecution with which the Palestinian churches had
distinguished themselves. Accordingly, it was a great commendation of
the Thessalonians if the same heroic Christian stedfastness could be
predicated of them. This holds good against the much more arbitrary
and visionary opinion of Hofmann, that Paul, by the mention of the
Palestinian churches, and the expression concerning the Jews therewith
connected, designed to meet the erroneous notion or representation of
what happened to the readers. As the conversion of the Thessalonians
might in an intelligible manner appear in the eyes of their countrymen as
a capture of them in the net of a Jewish doctrine, and hence on that side
the reproach might be raised that, on account of this strange matter, they
had become hostile to their own people ; so it was entirely in keeping to
show that the apostolic doctrine was anything but an affair of the Jewish
people, that, on the contrary, the Jews were its bitterest enemies ! Gro
tius would understand the present participle rdv oiadv in the sense of the
participle of the preterite ; whilst, appealing to Acts -viii. 4, xi. 19, he
thinks that the Palestinian churches had by persecutions ceased to exist
as such, only a few members remaining. But neither do the Acts justify
such an opinion, nor is it in accordance with the words of Paul in Gal. i.
22. The further supposition which Grotius adds is strange and unhis-

CHAP. IL 14. 481
torical, that some Christians expelled from Palestine had betaken them
selves to Thessalonica, and that to them mainly a reference in our passage
is made. — ev Xpiarip 'lyaov] Oecumenius : siipvd; dielXev' iirsidfj ydp Kal ai
awayuyal rdv 'lovda'iav 'sv Qsip elvai doKovai, rd; rdv maruv iKKXyala; Kal iv ra
Qsd Kal ev ra v'l^ airov Xiysi elvai. — bn] for. — rd aira] the like things, denotes
the general similarity of the sufferings endured. Grotius precariously
specifies them by res vestras amisistis, pars fuistis ejecti. — avpipvXiry;]
[XLIX/.] of the same (pvXii, belonging to the same natural stock, contri-
bulls, then generally countryman, fellow-countryman, byosBv^; (Hesychius).'
By avyifvXArai we are naturally not to understand the Jews (Cornelius a
Lapide, Hamniond, Joachim Lange) ; for that the expression is best suited
to them, as Braun (with Wolf) thinks, whilst possibly Jews of a particular
tribe (perhaps of the tribe of Juda or Benjamin) were resident in Thessa
lonica, only merits to be mentioned on account of its curiosity. Also
avpipvXirai is not, with Calvin, Piscator, Bengel, and others, to be under
stood both of Jews and Gentiles, but can only be understood of Gentiles.
To this we are forced — (1) by the sharp contrast of avpipvXerdv and 'lovdaiav,
which must be considered as excluding each other ; (2) by the addition of
'idiav to avpipvXsrdv, as the great majority of the Thessalonian church con
sisted of Gentiles; comp. i. 9. However, although Paul in the expression
avpfvXsTdv speaks only oi Gentiles as persecutors, yet the strong invective
against the Jews which immediately follows (vv. 15, 16) constrains us to
assume that the apostle in ver. 14 had more in his mind than he expressed
in words. As we learn from the Acts, it was, indeed, the heathen magis
trates by whose authority the persecutions against the Christian church at
Thessalonica proceeded, but the proper originators and instigators were
here also the Jews ; only they could not excite the persecution of the
Christians directly, as the Jews in Palestine, but, hemmed in by the exist
ing laws, could only do so indirectly, namely, by stirring up the heathen
mob. This circumstance, united with the repeated experience of the
inveterate spirit of opposition of the Jews, which Paul had in Asia at a
period directly preceding this Epistle (perhaps also shortly before its com
position at Corinth), is the natural and easily psychologically explanatory
occasion of the polemic in vv. 15, 16. Erroneously Olshausen gives the
reason - he thinks it added in order to turn the attention of the Christians
in Thessalonica to the intrigues of those men with whom the Judaizing
Christians stood on a level, as it was to be foreseen that they would not
leave this church also undisturbed ; against which view de Wette correctly
remarks, that there is no trace of such a warning, and that the Thessa
lonians did not require it, as they had learned sufiiciently to know the
enmity of the Jews against the gospel.— /caStif] Instead of this, properly d
or airsp should have been put, corresponding to ro aira (comp. PhiL i. 30, rbv
avrbv . . . oiov). However, even in the classics such inexact connections
are very frequently found.'-' The double Kai {kuI vyel; . . . koI airoi) brings
IComp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 172, 471. Demosth. adv. Phil. I. p. 137; Kiihner, IL p.
a See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 426 f. ; Bremi, ad 571.
31

482 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
out the comparison. — airoi] denotes not the apostle and his assistants
(Erasmus, Musculus, Er. Schmid), as such a prominent incongruity in
the comparison is inconceivable ; but the masculine as a recognized free
construction (comp. Gal. i. 22, 23 ; Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 681]) refers to
rdv iKjcXyatdv rov Qsov, thus denotes the Palestinian Christians.
Vv. 15, 16. As to the occasion of this invective, see on ver. 14. — Ka'i] not
signifying even ; also not to be connected with the next Kal, both , . . and
(Ellicott) ; but rdv Kai means who also, and proves the propriety of the
preceding statement from the analogous conduct in ver. 15. Grotius
(comp. Chrj'SOStom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius) : Quid mirum
est, si in nos saeviunt, qui dominum nostrum interfecerunt ...?...
Non debent discipuli meliorem sortem exspectare quam magistri fuit. —
Moreover, rbv Kvpiov emphatically precedes, and is separated from 'lyaovv
in order to enhance the enormity of the deed. — Kal roi; irpoipfira;] De
Wette and Koch unite this with 'sKdiu^dvrav ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Bengel, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Baum
garten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Auberlen, and
most critics, more correctly refer it to arroKrsivdvrav. In the catalogue of
the sins of the Jews which Paul here adduces, he begins directly with that
deed which formed the climax of their wickedness — the murder of the
Son of God, of Jesus the Messiah. In order to cut off all excuses for this
atrocious deed of the Jews, as that they had done it in ignorance, not
recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, Paul adds, going backwards in time,
that they had already done the same to the Old Testament prophets,
whom, in like manner, they had murdered against their better knowledge
and conscience. Christ Himself accuses the Jews of the murder of the
prophets. Matt, xxiii. 31, 37, Luke xi. 47 ff., xiii. 34; and Stephen does
the same, Acts vii. 52 ; with which passages comp. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14 (see
Rom. xi. 8) ; Jer. ii. 30 ; Neh. ix. 26. — /eai -ypd; iKdiu^avrm] [XLIX gi] and
have persecuted us. -ypd; refers not to Paul only (Calvin), also not to Paul
and Silas only (de Wette, Koch, Alford), or to Paul and the companions
who happened to be with him at Thessalonica (Auberlen) ; but to Paul
and the apostles generally (Estius, Aretius, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt,
Schott, Ellicott). The preposition e/c in 'sKdiu^dvruv strengthens the verbal
idea. According to Bengel, Alford, Ellicott and Hofmann, the word has
the semi-local sense : qui persequendo ejecerunt. In an unjustifiable man
ner, Koppe and de Wette (the latter appealing to Luke xi. 49 and Ps. cxix.
157, LXX.) make it stand for the simple verb.^/tai Oeu p^ dpsaKdvrav]
[XLIX h,] and please not God. Erroneously Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 41,
note, and Hofmann : live not to please God ; similarly Bengel, Koppe, Flatt,
and Baumgarten-Crusius : placere non quaerentium ; for after the pre
ceding strong expressions that would be flat. Eather the result is inferred
from the two preceding statements, namely, the consequences of the
obstinacy of the Jews, with which they persecute the messengers of God, is
that they please not God, that is, are hateful to Him (eeoart/yeif, Meiosis).
—Kal irdaiv dvBpdiroi; ivavriuv] and are hostile to all men. Grotius, Turretin,
Michaehs, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch,

CHAP. II. 14-16. 483
Bloomfield, Jowett, and others, erroneously find here expressed the nar
row exclusiveness, by means of which the Jews strictly separated them
selves from all other nations, and about which Tacit. Hist. v. 5 ("adversus
omnes .alios hostile odium ") ; Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103 ff. ; Diod. Sic. xxxiv.
p. 524 ; Philostr. Apollon. v. 33 ; Joseph, c. Apion. ii. 10, 14, wrote. For
(1) that hostile odium and desire of separation among the Jews was noth
ing else than a shrinking from staining themselves and their monotheistic
worship by contact with idolaters. But Paul would certainly not have
blamed such a shrinking, which was only a fruit of their strict observance
of their ancestral religion. (2) If ver. 16 begins with an independent
assertion, kuXvovtuv , . . auBdaiv would denote nothing essentially new,
but would only repeat what was already expressed in ypd; 'sKdiu^dvrav,
ver. 15. (3) It is grammatically inadmissible to understand the words koI
irdaiv dvBpdiroi; ivavrlav as an independent assertion, and thus to be con
sidered as a general truth. For the participle KuXvdvrav (ver. 16) must
contain a causal statement, as it is neither united with /eai, nor by an
article {koI KuXvdvruv k.t.X. or rdv KuXvdvruv k.t.X., or rdv Kal KuXvdvrav
K.r.X.), and thus is closely and directly connected with the preceding, and
giving a reason for it, i. e. explaining wherefore or in what relation the Jews
are to be considered as irdaiv dvBpdiroi; ivavrioi. Thus the thought neces
sarily is : And who actually proved themselves to be hostilely disposed
to all men since they hindered us from publishing the gospel to the Gen
tiles, and thus leading them to salvation. That is to say, the gospel offers
salvation to every one, without distinction, who will surrender himself
to it. But the Jews, in opposing themselves with all their might to the
publication of this free and universal gospel, prove themselves, in point
of fact, as enemies to the whole human race, in so far as they will not suffer
the gospel, which alone can save men, to reach them. So Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bern, a Piconio, Schott,
Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, and others correctly interpret the words ; also
Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 49, iwfe, and Auberlen, only that he would incor
rectly unite Kal Qsd yij dpeaKdvTuv with KuXvdvruv, which would Only be
tenable if, instead of the simple connected clause koi 6eu py dpeoKdvruv,
the more definitely separating form rdv Qea k.t.X. had been pnti^^Kay^vdv-
Tuv ypd;] hindering us, namely, by contradictions, calumnies, laying snares
for our hfe, etc. Comp. Acts ix. 23 ff., xiii. 45, x-vii. 5, 13, xxii. 22.
Unnecessarily, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Koch, seeking to hinder; for the
intrigues of the Jews are an actual hindrance to the preaching of the
apostle, — certainly not an absolute, but a partial hindrance, conditioned
by opportunity of place and influence. — vyd;] as above, us the apostles, —
Tol; iBvsaiv ] to the Gentiles, with emphasis ; for it was the preaching to the
Gentiles that enraged the Jews, roif iBvsaiv resumes the pre-vious irdaiv
avBp6iroi;, as that expression comprehended the non-Jewish humanity, i, e.
the Gentile world. — XaXyaai] is not to be taken absolutely, so that it would

1 The article rSiv, wanting before /cal 0ew piri make the two last /cot in ver. 15 to signify,
ipcaK6vr(jiv, makes it likewise impossible to with Hofmann, "both . . . aad."

484 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
be equivalent to docere (Koppe, Flatt), or would require rbv Xdyov rov Qeov
for its completion (Piscator), but is to be conjoined with 'iva auBdaiv in
one idea, and the whole is then another expression for eia-yyeXl^eaBai, but
in a more impressive form. — eif rb dvanXypdaai K.r.Xi] to fill up their sins
always, s'l; does not denote the result=a)OTe or quo fit ut (Musculus, Estius,
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Koch, Bloomfield), but the object, the design; and that not of
KuXvdvrav (Hofmann), as this is a dependent clause, but of the whole
description. But it expresses not the ultimate design which the Jews
themselves, in their so acting, had either consciously (Oecumenius : ipyal ydp,
bn rrdvra a iirolyaav ol 'lovdaioi, aicoir^ roi dpaprdvsiv iiro'iovv, rovrianv ydsiaav,
bn dpaprdvovai Kal -fipdpravov) or unconsciously (de Wette : they do it, though
unconsciously, to the end, etc. ; Auberlen), so that an ironical expression
would have to be assumed (Schott). But in entire conformity
with the Pauline mode of thought, which delights to dive into the eternal
and secret counsels of God, it expresses the design which God has with this
sinfulness of the Jews. So, correctly, Piscator. God's counsel was to
make the Jews reach in their hardness even to the extreme point of their
sinfulness, and then, instead of the past long-suffering and patience, the
severity of anger and punishment was to commence. — dvarr7ivpdaai raf
dpapr'ia;] to fill up their sins, i, e. to fill up the measure destined for them,
to bring them to the prescribed point ; comp. LXX. Gen. xv. 16 ; 2 Macc. vi.
14.- — airav] refers to the subject of the preceding verses — the Jews. — irdvrors]
emphatically placed at the end, is not equivalent to rrdvra; or rravrsXd; (Bret
schneider, Olshausen), on all sides, in every way (Baumgarten-Crusius),
but merely involves the notion of time, cdways, that is, the Jews before
Christ, cd the time of Christ, and after Christ, have opposed themselves to
the divine truth, and thus have been always engaged in filling up the
measure of their iniquities.' When, however, the apostle says that this
dvarrXypoiv rdf dpapr'ia; is practised by the Jews ¦Aai^rore, at all times, his
meaning cannot be that the Jews had at any given moment, thus already
repeatedly, filled up the measure of their sins (Musculus), but he intends
to say that at every division of time the conduct of the Jews was of such
a nature that the general tendency of this continued sinful conduct was
the filling up of the measure of their sins. Paul thus conceives that the
Jews, at every renewed obstinate rejection of the truth, approached a step
nearer to the complete measure of their sinfulness. — iipBaae di irr' airoi; y
bpyrj eif rl'Xo;] but the wrath has come upon them even to the end. The Vul
gate, Luther, Beza, Wolf, erroneously take di in the sense of ydp. Rather,
di forms the contrast to dvarrXypdaai irdvrors (not to the whole preceding
description), in so far as the increase of the divine wrath is contrasted to
the continued wicked conduct of the Jews. — ipBdveiv] contains, in classical
usage, the idea of priority in time. Schott thinks that this idea must also
be here preserved, whilst he finds indicated therein the bpyy breaking
1 Oecumenius : Taura Se /col /rdAot €/rl tSiv iirpa^av, Iva n-ai/Tore dvairKypoiOiiKTiv al duap-
TTpo^yTuiv /col vvv en-l roU XptcrToO /col e0' yp.iljv riat, ainOiv.

CHAP. n. 15, 16. 485
forth upon the Jews citius quam exspectaverint vel omnino praeter opin
ionem eorum. Incorrectly; for when ipBdvsiv is united not with the accu
sative of the person (comp. iv. 15), but with prepositions {ipBdvsiv si; n,
Eom. ix. 31 [see Fritzsche in loco] ; Phil. iii. 16 ; ipBdvsiv dxpi nvd;, 2 Cor.
ix. 14 ; fBdv. 'srrl nva. Matt. xii. 28 ; Dan. iv. 25), then, in the later Greek,
the meaning of the verb " to anticipate " is softened into the general
meaning of reaching the intended end. The aorist iipBaae is not here to
be taken in the sense of the present (Grotius, Pelt), also not prophetically
instead of the future (Koppe : mox eveniet iis ; Flatt : it will certainly
befall them, and also it will soon befall them ; and so also Schott, Bloom
field, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. /. wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 239), but re
ports in quite a usual manner a fact which already belongs to the past. —
y 'opyy] [XLIX ii] sc. Qeov, does not mean the divine punishment, which
¦ certainly in itself it may denote (Erasmus, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide,
Flatt, Schott, de W., Ewald et al.), but the divine wrath. The article y
denotes either the wrath predicted by the prophets (Theophylact, Schott),
or generally the wrath which is merited (Oecumenius). — eif riXo;] belongs
to the whole sentence iipBaas . . bpyy, and denotes even to its (the wrath's)
end, i. e. the wrath of God has reached its extreme limits, so that it must
now discharge itself, — now, in the place of hitherto long-suffering and
patience, punishment must step in. The actual outbreak of the wrath, the
punishment itself, has thus not yet occurred at the composition of this
Epistle. To interpret the words of the destruction of Jerusalem as already
happened, would be contrary to the context. On the other hand, it is to
be assumed that Paul, from the by no means dark signs of the times, had
by presentiment foreseen the impending catastrophe of the Jewish people,
and by means of this foresight had expressed the concluding words of this
verse. It is accordingly an unnecessary arbitrariness when Eitschl {Hall,
A. IM. Z. 1847, |,No. 126) explains the words sipB. . . . riXo; as a gloss.
Incorrectly, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Homberg, Koch, and Hofmann
understand eif riXo; in the sense of reXia;, penitus. Also incorrectly,
Heinsius, Michaelis, Bolten, Wahl : postremo, tandem. Others erroneously
unite eif riXo; with y bpyy, whilst they supply ovaa, and then either ex
plain it : the wrath which will endure eternally or to the end of the world
(Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Fab. Stapulens.,
Hunnius, Seb. Schmid, and others) ; or : the wrath which will continue
to work until its full m.anifestation (Olshausen) ; or lastly : the wrath
which shall end with their (the Jews') destruction (Flatt). In all these
suppositions the article y must be repeated before eif riXo;. Erroneously,
moreover, de Wette refers eif riXo; to the Jews, although he unites it with
the vferb : " so as to make an end of them." So also Bloomfield and
Ewald : " even to complete eradication." The apostle rather preserves
the figure used in dvairXypdaat ; namely, as there is a definite measure for
the sins of the Jews, at the filling up of which the divine wrath must dis
charge itself; so also there exists a definite measure for the long-suffering
patience of God, whose fullness provokes divine punishment. Comp. also
Rom. ii. 5.

486 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Remark. — In vv. 14-16, Baur (see Introd. § 4) finds a " particularly noticeable"
criterion for the spuriousness of the Epistle. " The description has a thoroughly
un-Pauline stamp," and, besides, betrays a dependence on the Acts. First of all,
the comparison of the Thessalonian church with the Palestinian churches is "far
fetched," although nothing is more simple, more natural, and more unforced than
these very parallels, since the tertium comparationis consists simply in this, that
both were persecuted by tlieir o-wn countrymen, and both endured their persecutions
with similar heroic courage. The parallels are further " inappropriate " to Paul,
as he does not elsewhere hold up the Jewish-Christians as a pattern to the Gen
tile-Christians. As if the repeated collections which the apostle undertook for
the poor churches of Palestine had not demonstrated by fact that his love ex
tended itself equally to the Jewish as to the Gentile churches ! As if the words of
the apostle, in 2 Cor. viii. 13-15, did not express a high esteem for the Pales
tinian Jewisli-Christi;ins ! As if, in Eom. xv. 27, the Gentile churches are not
called debtors to the Jewish-Christians, because the spiritual blessings of Chris
tianity reached the Gentiles only from the mother church of Jerusalem ! As if
Paul himself, after the fiercest persecutions, and after openly manifested obstinacy,
did not always cleave to his people with such unselfish and solicitous love, that
he could wish in his own person to be banished and driven from Christ, who was
his all in all, in order by such an exchange to make his hardened and always
resisting fellow-countrymen partakers of salvation in Christ ! But if such were
his feelings toward the unconverted among his people, why should he not have
been proud of those among them who believed ? Why should he not have recog
nized the heroic faith of the Palestinian brethren, and recognized and praised the
stedfastness of a Gentile church as an imitation and emulation of the pattern given
by these ? — Further, the mention of the persecutions of the Palestinian Christians
was inappropriate, because Paul could not speak of them " without thinking of
himself as the person principally concerned in the only persecution which can
have come properly into consideration." But how little importance there is iu
such an inference is evident from this, that Paul elsewhere does not shun openly
to confess his share in the persecutions of the Christians, although with a sorrow
ful heart (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 13) ; and, besides, this very participation in
the persecution was for him the occasion that, from being the bitterest enemy of
Christianity, he became its most unwearied promoter and the greatest apostle of
Christ. If, further, " the apostle unites his own sufferings for the sake of the gos
pel with the misdeeds of the Jews against Jesus and the prophets," this serves
strikingly to represent the continuation of Jewish perversity. — Baur may be right
when he asserts that we could not expect from the apostle " a polemic against the
Jews so general and vague, that he knew not how to characterize the enmity of the
Jews against the gospel otherwise than by the well-known charge brought against
them by the Gentiles, th e odium generis humani ; " only it is a pity that this odium
generis humani is an abortion of false exegesis. — Baur infers a dependence upon the
Acts from " the expressions : 'sKdiaKsiv, KuXisiv, etc., whioh correspond accurately
with the incidents described in Acts xvii. 5 fi". and elsewhere ; " likewise from the
verb XaXsiv, which " elsewhere is never used by Paul of his own preaching of the
gospel, but is quite after the manner of the Acts (xiv. 1, xvi. 6, 32, xviii. 9)."
But that the expressions : iKdiuKsiv, KuXisiv, etc., cannot be horrowed from Acts xvii.
5 ff. is evident enough, as they are not even found there ; that, moreover, the cir
cumstances of the persecution itself are narrated in both writings, is only a proof

CHAP. II. 17. 487
of its actual occurrence ; also there is nothing objectionable in XaXslv, as it is so
used by Paul in 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 13; Col. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 20, and elsewhere. —
Lastly, if Baur, in iipBaas di iir' airov; y bpyrj eif rsXo; (so also Schrader on iii.
13), finds the destruction of Jerusalem denoted as an event that has already
occurred, this is only the result of an interpretation contrary to the context.
Ver. 17 begins a new section of the Epistle. [On Vv. 17-20, see Note
L. pages 494, 495.] — 'Rpsi; di] [L b.] is not in contrast to ipel;, ver. 14 (de
Wette, Koch, Hofmann) ; for ver. 14 is only an explanation of the main
thought in ver. 13, and, ^besides, the invective against the Jews given in
vv. 15, 16 is too marked and detailed, that di passing over it could be
referred to ipel; in ver. 14. It is therefore best to assume that yysi; di,
whilst it contrasts the writer to the Jews whose machinations have just
been described, and accordingly breaks off the polemic against the Jews,
refers to ver. 13 as the preceding main thought, and accordingly resumes
the yysi; in ver. 13. To the attestation of his thanksgimng to God on
account of the earnest acceptance of the gospel on the part of the
Thessalonians, the apostle joins the attestation of his longing ior his
readers, and his repeatedly formed resolution to return to them. The
view of Calvin, which Musculus, Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Vorstius,
Gomarus, Benson, Macknight, Pelt, Hofmann, and Auberlen maintain,
is erroneous, that vv. 17 ff. were added by Paul as an excusatio " ne se a
Paulo desertos esse putarent Thessalonicenses, quum tanta necessitas ejus
praesentiam flagitaret.'' For evidently in the circumstances that con
strained the apostle to depart from Thessalonica, such a suspicion could
not arise, especially as, according to Acts xvii. 10, the Thessalonians them
selves had arranged the departure of the apostle. Accordingly no justifica
tion was requisite. The explanation has rather its origin only in the fullness
of the apostolic Christian love, which cared and labored for the salvation
of these recent disciples of Christ. — drropijiaviaBivrs;] bereaved. bpipavll^sa-Bai
is originally used of children who are deprived of their parents by death.
It is however used, even by the classics, in a wider sense, expressing in a
figurative and vivid manner the deprivation of an object, or the distance,
the separation from a person or thing. Thus the adjective bpipavd; occurs
in Pindar (see Passow) in a wider sense {e.g. bpip. iraipav, Isthm. vii. 16) ;
also of parents, bpipavol ysvsd;, childless, 01, ix. 92.' Here also drropipaviaBivTs;
expresses the idea of distance, of separation, but is not exhausted by this
idea. We would accordingly err, if we were to find nothing further in it
than is expressed by ;t:u/9i<7i?ej.-T£f ; for the verb, in union with the feeling
of tender love which pervades the whole passage, vividly describes the
feeling of emptiness and solitude which by the separation came over the
apostle  a feeling of solitude, such as befalls children when they are
placed in a condition of orphanage. — d^' iydv] away from you. The
apostle repeats the preposition drrd, instead «f putting tbe simple genitive
vuini after the participle, in order to give prominence to the idea of local
1 Comp. Hesych.: hp^av'os 6 yoviiav eirrepyfjievo^ Kol riKviav.

488 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
severance, which was already expressed in drropibaviaBivrs;, here once more .
specified by itself,- — rrpb; Kaipbv dpa;] not subito (Balduin, Turretin), literally,
for the space of an hour ; but as an hour is relatively only a short space,
generally " for the space of an instailt,'' i.e. for a very short period,^ It is a
more definite expression for the simple Trpof dpav, Gal. ii. 5, 2 Cor. vii. 8,
Philem. 15, John v. 35, or irpb; Kaipbv, 1 Cor. vii. 5, Luke viii. 13, and corres
ponds to the Lixtin horae momentum,'' The expression does not import that
the apostle even now hopes soon to return to the Thessalonians (Flatt;
and appealing to iii. 10, de Wette and Koch). This is forbidden by the
grammatical relation of diropipaviaBivrs; to the preterite iairovddaapev,
according to which npb; Kaipbv dpa; can only be the time indicated by the
participle. Thus the sense is : After, we were separated from you for
scarcely an instant, that is, for a very short season, our longing to return
to you commenced. — rrpoad-a oi Kapdia] comp. 2 Cor. v. 12, in presence, not
in heart, ior the severance refers only to our bodies ; but love is not bound
in the fetters of place or time ; comp. Col. ii. 5. — nspiaaoripu; iarrovddaapsv] we
endeavored so much the more. airovdd(siv, to show diligence to reach some
thing, implies in itself that the apostle had already taken steps to realize
his resolution to return, and thus proves the earnestness of the design.
rrepiaoorepu; is not to be referred to oi /fapdia, " more than if I had been
separated from you in heart" (de Wette, Koch), for then there could
have been no mention of a airovddi^siv at all ; ^ but is, with Schott, to be
referred to rrpb; Kaipbv dpa;, so much the more, as the separation has only
recently occurred. For it is a matter of universal experience, that the
pain of separation from friends, and the desire to return to them, are
more vivid, the more freshly the remembrance of the parting works in
the spirit, i.e. the less time has elapsed since the parting. Therefore the
explanation of Oecumenius and Theophylact, after Chrysostom, is
unpsychological : nspiOaoripu; iarrovddaapsv y rjf s'wb; yv rov; irpb; dpav
drroXsupBivra;. Winer's view {Gram. p. 228 [E. T. 243]) is also inappro
priate, because without support in the context : The loss of their personal
intercourse for a time had made his longing greater than it would have
been, if he had stood with them in no such relation. Further, arbitrarily,
because the proximate reference of irspiaaoripu; can only result from the
directly preceding participial sentence, but not from ver. 14, Fromond. :
" magis et ardentius conati sumus, quum sciremus pericula, in quibus
versaremini ; " and Hofmann : " for the readers the time after their con-

iThe assertion of Hofm., that irpot Kaip'ov Plin. Nat. Bist. vii. 62: "Eidem (sc. Mae-
dipo! " cannot possibly denote how long it was cenati) triennio supremo jiullo horae mo-
since Paul had been separated from the Thess. mento contigit somnus."
but only how long this was to happen : as he SThis reference is iu a positive form ex-
was obliged to be separated from them, yet this pressed logically more correctly by Mus-
separation was not tor ever," etc., could only cuius : " quo magis corde praesens vobiscum
have a meaning if instead of the passive form ful, hoc abundantius faciem vestram videre
drropipavio-eevTei a participle had been put, studui;" and B-Orus: with so much the
which denoted the free action of the apostle. greater desire, because I was sincere with
2 Comp. Hor. Sat. 1. 1. 7, 8 : " horae 1 momen- you. Ell. : because our heart was with you
to aut eita mors venit aut victoria laeta." and our longing consequently greater. '

CHAP. II. 17, 18. 489
version is a time of trouble ; for their teachers it is on that account a time
of so much the more anxious endeavor to see them again." Lastly,
grammatically incorrect Turretin, Olshausen, and de Wette, ed. 1, more
than usual, i. e. very earnestly, — Schott discovers an elegance and force in
Paul, not having written iyd; 'idelv, but the fuller form rb irpdaurrov ipdv
'idslv, with reference to the preceding rrpoadmp ; but hardly correct, as rb
irpdaurrov 'idslv is a usual form with Paul. Comp. iii. 10 ; Col. ii. 1. — 'ev iroXXy
iiriBvpl^] with much desire (longing). A statement of manner added to
iairovddaaysv, ior the sake of strengthening.
Ver. 18. Aidn] on which account, that is, on account ofthis great longing
for you {did rb ev iroXXy iiriBvpia arrovdd^eiv rb irpdaurrov iy. idslv). — yBsX-yaaysv]
[L c, d,] Paul uses BiXsiv in agreement with iarrovddaapsv (ver. 17), not
PovXsaBai, as the latter word expresses only the wish, the inclination to
something; but the former the active will, the definite purpose. See
Meyer on Philem. 13 f., and Tittm. Synon. p. 124 ff. But whether this
purpose was already formed at Berea (Fromond., Baumgarten-Crusius),
or elsewhere, cannot be determined. — iyd piv llav?M;] a restriction of the
subject contained in yBsXyaapsv, as the apostle in this section intends only
to speak of himself. But that he considered the addition eyu yiv UaiXxi;
here necessary, whilst he omitted it in what preceded, is a proof that he
there regarded what was said as spoken likewise in the name of his two
associates. Moreover, iydi yiv TlaiXo; is an actual parenthesis, and is not
to be connected with Kal airaf /eai di;, as Hofmann thinks, from the
insufficient reason, because otherwise iyti yiv naiAof must have stood after
yBtXyaapsv (!) ; and as we find also with Grotius' who makes a suppressed
ds correspond to the piv, in the sense : " nempe Timotheus et Silas
semel."' — Mei/] serves only to bring the subject into prominence. See
Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 413. — /eai an-af /eai d'l;] both once and twice, a definite
expression for twice (comp. Phil. iv. 16); not in the general sense of
saepius (Grotius, Joachim Lange, Turretin, Koppe, Pelt), for then airaf koI
dl; would have been written. Calvin : " Quum dicit semel et bis voluimus,
testatur non subitum fuisse fervorem, qui statim refrixerit, sed hujus pro
positi se fuisse tenacem." A longer continuance of tlie church (Baur) is not
to be assumed from this expression, as the interval of probably half a
year, which is to be assumed between the departure of Paul from
Thessalonica and the composition ofthis Epistle (see Introd. § 3), was a
period sufficiently long to give rise to the twice formed resolution to re-
tm-n,  i^al evsKOTpsv ypd; d aaravd;] and Satan hindered us. Kai, not equivalent
with di, by which certainly this new sentence might have been introduced
(Vorstius, Grotius, Benson, Koppe, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch,
Bloomfield), mentions simply the result of the apostle's resolution in the
form of juxtapcsition. In an unnatural and forced manner Hofmann
subordinates yBatiaapsv i'xBeiv irpb; ipd; as the antecedent to Kal ivsKofsv
>J,aac b aaravd; as the principal sentence, whilst didn denotes while, and iv
1 Comp also Wurm, Tiib, Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. to visit the Thessalonians, but Paul partiou-
75 !., iy-v, /col nai\or is to be united directly larly more than once.
with /eoi dira( Kal Sii. All three had resolved

490 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
iroXXy irriBvyiif (ver. 17) is " in intention added to the sentence introduced
by didn." Accordingly the sense would be : Therefore the anxiety to
visit the church became so strong, that wdien it came to the intention to
go to Thessalonica, Satan hindering prevented it (!). — On iyKdrrniv, comp.
Rom. XV. 22 ; Gal. v. 7 ; 1 Pet. iii. 7. — d aaravd;] denotes not " the oppo
nents of Christianity, the enemies of God and men " (Schrader), but,
according to the Pauline view, the personal author of evil, the devil, who,
as he is the author of all hindrances in the kingdom of God, has brought
about the circumstances which prevented the apostle from carrying out
his purpose. But whether, under these preventive circumstances
occasioned by the devil, are to be understood the wickedness of the
Thessalonian Jews (Fromond., Schott, de Wette, Bisping), " qui insidias
apostolo in itinere struebant " (Quistorp and, though wavering, Zanchius),
or the contentions of the church where Paul was, and which prevented
his leaving them (Musculus), or even the " injecta ei necessitas disputandi
saepius cum Stoicis et Epicureis, qui Athenis erant " (Grotius), or what
else, must be left unexjilained, as Paul himself has given no explanation.
Ver. 19. [L e,] A reason not for irsp. iarrovd. k.t.X. ver. 17 and also, on
the other hand, of pyK. arsy. k.t.X., iii. 1 (Hofm.), but of the twice formed
resolution of the apostle to return to Thess., ver. 18. This earnest desire to
return is founded on the esteem of the apostle for his readers, on account
of their promising Christian qualities. Grotius : Construi haec sio debent :
Ti'f ydp ypdv iXrrl; . . . iyirpoaOsv rov Kvp'iov . . . y oixi Kal iysl; ; Certainly
correct as regards the matter and the thought, as sprrpocBsv . . irapovaia is
to be referred to the preceding predicates, but ought not to be connected
with lj oixi Kal vpsl;, as a second independent question. So also Olshau
sen, who renders it thus : " or do not ye also (as I myself and all the rest
of the faithful) appear before Christ at His coming, i. e. without hesitation,
without any doubt, ye will surely be also recognized by Christ as His, and
therefore will not fall away again at any time from the faith." But the
reason and justification for this strange position of the words consist in
this, that Paul originally conjoined the words ri; ydp . . . iyel; in thought,
and originally wrote them by themselves ; but then to present the predi
cates already put down as considered not in a worldly, but in a specifically
Christian sense, he introduces, as a closer definition and explanation of
the whole clause rl; . . . ipel;, the words iprrpoaBev . . . irapovala. There
is, accordingly, no need for the supposition of Laurent {Neutestam. Studien,
Gotha 1866, p. 28 f.), that Paul only at a later period, after he had read
through the whole Epistle once, placed these words in the margin, or
ordered them to be inserted. Accordingly, the apostle says : For who is
our hope or joy or crown of rejoicing, or are not even ye this ? before our Lord
Jesus at His coming; i. e,, if any one deserves to be called our hope,
etc., ye deserve it. As the addition sprrpoaBsv k.t.X. proves, the apostle
thinks on the judgment connected with the coming of Christ. — Paul, how
ever, calls the Thessalonians iXirl; ypdv (comp. Liv. xxviii. 39), not
because he anticipates a reward for himself on account of the conversion
of the Thessalonians effected by him (Estius, Fromond., Joachim Lange,

CHAP. IL 19. 20. 491
Hofmann, and most critics), or at least a remission of the punishment for
his early persecution of the Christian church (for the emphasis rests not
on yydv, but on the predicates 'sXrrl; k.t.X.), but because he has the confi
dent hope that the Thessalonians will not be put to shame at the trial to
be expected at the advent, but will rather be found pure and blameless,
as those who embraced the faith with eagerness, and heroically persevered
in it in spite of all contentions. — y xo-pd] or joy, as by the conversion and
Christian conduct of the Thessalonians the kingdom of God has been
promoted. — y ari^avo; Kavx^aea;] or crown of glory (comp. n'l.i^ilfl JT1.0&
Ezek. xvi. 12, xxiii. 42 ; Prov. xvi. 31, and also the LXX. ; Phil. iv. 1 ;
Soph. Aj. 460; Macrob. in somn. Scip. i. 1), inasmuch as this greatness and
glory, occasioned by the labors of the apostle for the church, is, as it were,
the victorious reward of his strivings. — ^ oi;t;i] not nonne (Erasmus, Schott,
and others), but an non, for ij here introduces the second member of a
double question. — Kal iyel;] also ye: ior, besides the Thessalonians, there
were other churches planted by Paul worthy of the same praise. Accord
ing to de Wette, to whom Koch and Bisping attach themselves, ij iyel;
should properly have followed areip. Kavxya. : " no one is more our hope
than you ; " but with /eai the apostle corrects himself, not to say too much,
and not to offend other churches. But just because y iysl; imports too
much, why should not the apostle have designed to put ti oixi Kal iysl;
from the very first ! — 'ev ry airoi irapovala] at his coming (return) to estab
lish the Messianic kingdom (comp. ui. 13, iv. 15, v. 23, et al. ; Usteri,
Lehrbegr. p. 341 ff.) ; an epexegesis to IpirpoaBsv roi Kvpiov yydv 'lyaov.
Ver. 20. An impassioned answer to the question in ver. 19. Thus
yap is not causal, but confirmatory, you or truly ye are {ipsi; iari, em
phatic) our glory and our joy. [L/.] Comp. Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 446] ;
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 473. Flatt and Hofmann refer ver. 19 to the
future, to the irapovala Xpiarov, and ver. 20 to the present : " Ye are now
our glory and our joy, therefore I hope that ye will be yet more," etc.
Without justification, as this distinction of time would have been marked
by Paul. Notes by Ameeican Editoe.
XLVIII. Vv. 1-12.
(o) The second chapter, vv. 1-12, states in a more detailed form, what has been
briefly set forth in i. 5. The word elaodov is taken up from i. 9, but the thought
goes back to the earlier verse, as is proved (1) by the fact, that vv. 1-12 refer to
the preaching and conduct of the Apostle and his companions, while i. 9 f. has
reference only to the conversion of the Thessalonians (except so far, possibly, as
the word slaodov itself is concerned) ; and (2) by the fact, that Ksvi; and eTrap-
pyaiaaapsBa are naturally connected with iysvyBy . . . iv dwdysi k.t.X. of i. 5.
In this second and more detailed development of the thought, however, we find a
more full reference to the matter of persecution, etc., not only with respect to the
members of the church, vv. 14 ff'., but also to the preachers, vei-. 2. We also find
a setting forth of the truth of the message, the sincerity and unselfishness of the

492 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
preachers, and their devotion to the welfare of the hearers. — (6) Liinem. regards
iPpioBevrs; (ver. 2) as added to rrporraSdvrs;, because the latter word is a vox media.
But irpoiraB. in such a connection as this could hardly be understood in any sense
but that of suffering, and it is more probable that iPpiaB. is added for the purpose
^ of definiteness or emphasis. — (c) ko-Bu; oldars — comp. i. 4, 5 and vv. 1, 5, 9, 10, 11
of this chapter. This repeated appeal to their own knowledge is not to be
regarded as indicating any doubt or opposition, but, in this early epistle, as
belonging to the style and character of a friendly letter. — {d ) dedoupdaps-Ba k.t.X.
(ver. 4) answers to ovk 'sk irXdvy;, which is to be interpreted as Liinem. under
stands it, and ovre . . . KoXoKsia; k.t.X., of ver. 5, corresponds with oid^ ef d/ta-
-Bapaia; k.t.X. The two meanings of doKipd^u, which occur in the N. T., prove
and approve, are found in ver. 4. Ver. 5 is introduced, however, according to the
grammatical construction and immediate connection of thought, as the proof of
ver. 4. — (e) E. V. renders dwdyevoi iv pdpei slvai (ver. 6) might have been burden
some; with a marginal note, or claimed honor. A. R. V. reads claimed authority
in the text, and been burdensome in the margin. The question is a nearly evenly
balanced one, but, for the reasons given by Liinem., the rendering of A. R. V. is,
on the whole, to be preferred. Grimm, Lex. N. T., gives this meaning. — (/) W.
& H. defend the textual reading vymoi against iimoi (ver. 7), on the ground, (1)
that " the change from the bold image to the tame and facile adjective is charac
teristic of the diiference between St. Paul and the Syrian revisers ;" (2) that "it
is not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of flattery
and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured ; '' (3) that we have
iv piaa ipdv which suits the former word, and not eif vyd; which would be
adapted to the latter. A reference to himself, however, under the two figures of
the infant and the nursing mother, in two successive clauses, seems quite improb
able. The contrast, moreover, does not seem to be with flattery, etc., but with
seeking glory and claiming authority ; and, with respect to ev piaa, it seems not
difficult to explain its use with ymoi. R. V., Tisclil, Treg., Alf., read ymoi. — {g)
Liinem. places a colon before a; 'edv of ver. 7, and a comma after rsKva ; but it
seems better to place a comma before the former words, and a colon after the
latter (so W. & H.). In either case, ovru; refers to the same general idea, but, if
Liinem.'s punctuation is adopted, it introduces the apodosis to eif edv ; — if that of
W. & H., it takes up the whole preceding statement with its figure, and unfolds
or explains it by referring to his readiness to sacrifice himself for them in his
work among them as a preacher. — {h) ydp of ver. 9 is connected by Liinem. with
the immediately preceding clause {didn k.t.X.). As this clause, however, is evi
dently very subordinate in its character, it seems better to connect this verse with
the main idea of the passage which precedes. This labor and toil which he took
upon himself was a proof of that kindly disposition towards them which made
him like a nursing-mother to her children and ready, not only to preach the
gospel, but to sacrifice himself wholly for their sake. We have here, however,
only one evidence of this kindly feeling ; the next verses give a full and general
survey of his whole life and conduct as proving it. — (i) Lunem. presses in ver. 10,
as in other cases, the passive force of 'eye-vy-Bypev, affirming that it " cannot denote
pure self-activity." This position with regard to this aorist passive in the N. T.
is quite doubtful in all cases, and here all the surrounding words indicate the
opposite. In connection with this view of 'eyevii-Bypev, as well as because of the
use of oiTiejf and the position of ipiv r. mar., Liinem. holds that these last words

NOTES. 493
are the dative of opinion — the light in which we appeared to you, as contrasted
with thise who -were hostile to us. But this contrast appears antecedently improba
ble, and, as he calls attention to their knowledge in pdprvpe; and oidare, a refer
ence in this additional expression to their opinion would hardly be called for, or
be likely to be introduced. It is better to regard it either as the dative commodi,
or the dative of interest. E. V. renders " behaved ourselves toward you.''
XLIX. Vv. 13-16.
(a) These verses answer to i. 6, as vv. 1-12 to i. 5. did rovro may be explained,
with Liinem., Alf., Auberlen, Olsh., and others, as referring to roi KaXoivro; k.t.X.
As this, however, is a mere subordinate and descriptive clause, it is more probable
that the thought of the writer goes back to the general suggestion, in the earlier
verses, of his sense of the value of the gospel to the hearers, which is connected
¦with the earnestness of his labor and zeal in preaching it to them. The view of
Vaughan, and Dods in Schafl''s Pop. Comm., that it refers to what follows, is con
trary to the ordinary usage respecting this phrase. Ell., Mason, in EU.'s Comm.
for Eng. Readers, Koch, W. & Wilk., and others, agree partly or wholly with the
view favored in this note. — (6) The construction of irap' ypdv is doubtful, but, on
the whole, the considerations mentioned by Lunem. make it probahle that his view
is correct, and that these words belong with aKoy; — the' word preached by us ; roi
Beov being an added, and by its position somewhat emphatic, genitive, and indica
ting that God is the author and source of the word of which we are the preachers.
R. V. Ell., W. & Wilk, Auberlen, agree with Koch, de W., and others in con
necting Trap' yydv with rrapaXapdvre;. Noyes tr., T. S. Green tr.. Bib. Un. tr., A. V.,
Olsh., Hofm., and others agree with Liinem. irapaXapdvrs; has evidently the sense
of passive reception (i. e. through hearing), di^aa-Be, that of active reception (i. e. into
the mind and heart, accepting it voluntarily). The thought is apparently this:
When the Thess. heard the word as it was preached by the Apostle, they willingly
received it into their hearts, not as a word coming from him, but from God. The
thought is, accordingly, such as favors the connection of rrap' ypdv with dKoy;. —
(c) Alf. holds that no as is to be supplied with Xdyov after di^aa-Be, and that Paul
is not speaking of the Thessalonians' estimate of the word. Liinem. more properly
says, that a; is omitted because the Apostle would not only express what it was in
their estimation, but also what it was in fact. But is not the true view of the
matter this, that they received it as — what it is in truth — the word of God ; Xdyov
being appositional with the objective pronoun (referring to the preceding Xdyov)
which is to be supplied after di^aaBe, and thus expressing their estimate of it, and
the Ka&di; clause being added to show that this estimate was in accordance with
the fact. — {d) It is not, perhaps, absolutely certain that ivepysla-Bai is always mid
dle (never passive) in the N. T., but this is probably the usage of the writers.
Here, at least, there can be little doubt that the verb is middle, and that 'd; refers
to Xdyo;. — (e) ydp (ver. 14) is evidently explained correctly by Liinem., and pipyrai
'syeviyByre carries back the thought to i. 6. In i. 6, however, the imitation is
spoken of as an imitating of the Apostle and his companions, and of the Lord ;
here, of the Christian churches in Judea. In the former passage, also, the idea
of meeting tribulation .with joy in the Holy Spirit is suggested, while here the
matter of persecution only is more distinctly set forth.— (/) That avpipvXsrdv of
ver. 14 is to be understood as referring to Gentiles, is rendered altogether probable

494 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
by what Liinem. says. But, as he also intimates, we can hardly account for the
severity of the language respecting the Jews in what follows, unless they had had
some relation to what had occurred in Thessalonica. So far, therefore, from
finding any want of harmony with the account in Acts xvii. in this passage, we
may discover, rather, an incidental confirmation of what is there said. — (</) e/eJiw-
^dvrav is rendered by R. V., Noyes tr., Davidson tr., and others, drove out, and this
seems to be its meaning in the Greek outside of the N. T. (comp. Thuc. i. 24).
Grimm (Lex. N. T.) gives it this meaning in Luke xi. 49, but renders it here by
persequor, calamiiatibus premo, Rob. agrees with Grimm. — (A) The participles in
the earlier part of ver. 15 refer to definite past acts (aor.) ; py dpsaKdvrav (pres.)
and the adjective ivavriuv denote the permanent condition illustrated by and con
sequent upon those acts; KuXvdvruv of ver. 16 is probably causal, introduced as
proving the declaration contained in the next preceding words. This last par
ticiple, however, is not improbably intended to carry with it, also, the idea of that
continuous hindering of the preachers of the gospel among the Gentiles, which
was the last step in the development of opposition to God and men, making the sin
of the Jews finally complete, and opening the door, at last, for the breaking forth
upon them of Divine punishment. — (i) The possibilities of signification of bpyy
(ver. 16) (whether wrath or punishment), and of eif riXo;, are such that it is difficult
to make any positive assertion respecting the precise shade of meaning belonging
to the last clause of the verse. But in view of the aorist tense in iipBaas, — of the
fact that eif reXo; may naturally mean to the end, the utmost limit, of the thing
spoken of, — and of the fact that the peculiar calamities which might specially be
called the divine punishment had not yet been inflicted on the Jews, the expla
nation given by Liinem. may be regarded as most satisfactorily meeting the
demands of the sentence. L. Vv. 17-20.
{a) These verses are immediately connected with those of the third chapter, the
new sub-section of the Epistle coyering ii. 17-iii. 13. The letter being so largely
an expression of friendly feeling, the ordinary introduction of the Pauline Epistles
(thanksgiving, etc., for the Christian life and progress of the Church) unites itself
closely with, and forms a part of, the first main division, which ends with the close
of chap. iii. This division has two principal subdivisions : i. 2-ii. 16, referring
to his preaching among them and their reception of his message ; ii. 17-iii. 13
relating to his anxiety, in his absence from them, to learn of their well-being (for
which purpose he had sent Timothy, that he might bring information concerning
them), and his joy and satisfaction at the tidings which Timothy brought.
(6) 'Hpsl; of ver. 17 is best explained by the general contrast between himself
and his companions on the one side, and the Thessalonians on the other, which is
manifest throughout the whole of this first portion of the Epistle. This contrast
and the emphasis connected with it,— as well as the strong and peculiar expres
sions diropipavia-BivTs;—irpb; Kaipbv dpa;~oi Kapdla~iairovddaapsv~iv iroXXy sm-
-Bvpiif,—helorig to the tenderness of the writer's feeling towards the church, and
his desire to give utterance to it in the most hearty manner.— (c) Lunem. holds' that
il-BeXyaapsv of ver. 18 is used, instead of the corresponding form of PoiXsa-Bat as better
answering to 'earrovddaapev, wc endeavored (" implying that he had taken steps to real
ize his resolution "),— giving thus to -BiXsiv the sense of the active will, definite pur-

NOTES. 495
pose, and to PoiXsa'Bai, that of mere wish or inclination. The reverse of this view
respecting the two verbs is held by some to be more correct. Comp. on this subject
Meyer on Matt. i. 19 and Philem. 13 f.. Ell. on 1 Tim. v. 14, Buttm. Lexil. I. p.
26, Grimm (Lex. N. T.) sub verb. -BeXu, Webster, Syntax and Syn. of the Gr. Test.,
p. 197 f. — {d) didn, which Lunem., Alf., Ell., and others regard as meaning on
which account, and thus as nearly equivalent to did (T. R.), is rendered by E. V.
because. If iarrovddaapsv is to be understood in the sense mentioned above, as it
probably should be, and y^eX. means unshed simply, the rendering of R. V. may be
regarded with favor. The fact that did follows in iii. 1 also favors this rendering
of didn. — (e) The explanation (ver. 19) given by Liinem., or that indicated by
W. and H., who arrange the text as follows : rl; . . . Kavxvaein;—y oixi Kal iyel; —
iprrpoa-Bsv k.t.X., is the simplest and best that cau be offered. The reference to the
rrapovaia here is to be accounted for in the same way as in i. 10 and elsewhere. —
(/) ydp oi ver. 20 is best rendered by for, as in ordinary cases. It gives the
affirmation of the fact as the ground of the answer implied in y oixi Kal ipsi;.

496 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

CHAPTER III.
ViiR. 1. Elz. has Sid. Aidri, found in B, is a mere error of the transcriber, occa
sioned by the following pyKiri. — Ver. 2. After rbv ddsXfbv -ypdv the Receptus has
leai didKovov rov Qeoi Kal avvepybv ypdv. Defended by Bouman {Chartae theol.
Lib. I. p. 63 f ) and Reiche. But instead of this, Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 2 and 7,
Alford and Ellicott, after D-* Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., have correctly received
into the text koI amepybv roi Qeoi, from which all variations are explained.
In order to remove the objectionable character which the expression avvepyb; rov
Qeoi appeared to have, sometimes rov Qeov was suppressed (so the reading re
ceived by Tisch. 1 koI avvspydv, in B, Arm.), at other times awspydv was changed
into didKovov {koI dioKovov roi Qsoi, A K, 67-** 71, et al,, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. Bas.
Pel. [in textu] ; approved by Scholz. and Tisch. 8), from which further grew, by
blending with the original wording, didKovov Kal awspydv roi Qeov, F G, Boem.,
and Kal didK. Kal avvspydv rov Qsov in E 17 ; lastly, there was interpolated Kal
diOKOVov Kal avvepybv yydv (Sahid.), or didKovov roii Qsoi Kal avvspydv -ripdv (Syr. ed.
Erp.), or Kal dioKovov rov Qsoi Kal avvspydv (87). — Instead of the Receptus irapa-
KaXiaai ipd;, only irapaKaXiaai is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Alford and
Ellicott, according to A B D* F G x, min. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Slav. ant.
Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret (alio.) Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag. — iirip ry; rriarea;]
Elz. has Trepi ry; rrlarsa;. Against A B D-* E* F G K X, 17, 31, et al,, Bas.
Chrys. Theodoret (alic.).— Ver. 3. Elz. has tu yydiva. But A B D E K L «,
min. plur. edd. Bas. Oecum. have ro pydiva. Correctly accepted by Matth.
Lachm. (in the stereotype edition ; in his larger edition Lachm. writes rb yydiv
daaiveatiai !) Tischendorf, Alford and Ellicott. Preferred also by Reiche. In the
pl.ice of the misunderstood rd, rd of the Receptus was put (although this is im
possible from grammatical considerations ; see notes on passage), or rov (67, 87,
al), or 'iva (F G, 73). — Ver. 7. Elz. has BX'i-^si koI dvdyKy. According to the
preponderating testimony of A B D E F G x, min. edd. Syr. utr. Copt. Arm.
Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel., to be transposed dvdyKy /eai BX'i-ipei. — Ver. 11. Instead
of the Recept. 'lyaov; Xpiard;, A B D"""* (in D-* 'lyaov; is wanting) x, 3, 17, et al.,
Aeth. Vulg. ms. Ambr. at., Lachm. Tisch. Alford, Ellicott have 'I^aoif, which is
to be preferred.— Ver. 12. Elz. has 6 Kipio;. This is wanting in Syr. Erp. Sus
pected by Mill. Apparently spurious, as in A, 73, et al, d Qed;, and in D* E-*
P G, It. b Kvpio; 'lyaoi; is found. If Paul added no subject in ver. 12, but
caused the same to be continued from ver. 11, the early insertion of additions as
glosses was natural.^ Ver. 13. 'lyaoi] Elz. has 'I»?o-oii Xpiaroi. Against it A B
D E K X, 37, 39, et al, Aeth. Germ. Vulg. ms. Damasc. Ambr.— After the Recept.
dylav airoi, A D-* E X* min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. al add dyyv. Bracketed by
Lachm. ; received by Tisch. 8. But d/i^ was inserted, as an ecclesiastical lection
ended with ver. 13.

CHAP. III. 1. 497
Contents. — No longer the master of his longing and anxiety for his
readers, Paul has sent Timotheus from Athens to them, to exhort them
to endurance under persecutions, and to bring him exact information
concerning their conduct. Timotheus has just returned, and by his mes
sage has comforted and calmed the apostle. He entreats God that he
might soon be permitted to reach Thessalonica to assist the church in its
remaining deficiencies, and that God might cause the Thessalonians so to
abound in Christian excellence, that they may be blameless at the com
ing of Christ (vv. 1-13).
Vv. 1 ff. are most closely connected with the preceding ; ^ it is therefore
to be regretted that a new chapter should commence here. On vv. 1-3,
comp. the treatise of Riickert alluded to in comment on i. 8.
Ver. 1. Aio] [On Vv. 1-10, see Note Ll. pages 509, 510.] Therefore, i. e.
Sia rb s'lvai iyd; r^v dd^av ypdv Kal ryv x'^po-v (ii. 20). — pyKiri areyovrs;] no
longer bearing it, i. e. incapable of mastering our longing for you any
longer (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 12, xiii. 7 ; Philo, in Flacc. p. 974, Opp. Lut. Par.
1640, fol. : yvKiri arsy siv dwdpsvoi rd; ivdsla;). So Erasmus, Vorstius, Cor
nelius a Lapide, Wolf, Pelt, de Wette, only the latter conjoins with the
idea of longing, that of anxiety for the Thessalonians, which, indeed, is in
accordance with fact, but anticipates the representation, as the idea of anxiety
on the part of the apostle is first added in -whsit follows. — pvKin] is not here
instead of oiKin, as Riickert thinks, appealing to an abusus of the later
Greek, which abusus we should be cautious in recognizing (see Winer, p.
443 [E. T. 486]), but as spoken from a subjective standpoint : as those who,
etc. Moreover, to take the participle ariyovrs; in the sense of occultantes,
to which Wolf and Baumgarten are inclined : '' no longer concealing my
longing," i. e. no longer observing a silence concerning it, would be flat,
and contrary to the context. — eidoKijaapev] as well as irriy-ipapsv, ver. 2, and
iirepfa, ver. 5, is a simple historical statement of a fact belonging to the
past. Grotius and Pelt erroneously take the aorists in the sense of the
pluperfect. sidoK^aayev does not denote a mere promptam animi inch na-
tionem (Calvin, Pelt); also not acting gladly (Grotius: Triste hoc, sed
tamen hoc libenter feceramus), but the freely formed resolution of the
will : accordingly we resolved. Nicolas Lyrencis, Hunnius, Grotius, Calo
vius, Turretin, Whitby, Bengel, Michaelis, Wurm,'^ Hofmann, consider
Paul and Silas as the subjects of eidoK-fjaapsv ; that Kayd (ver. 5), I also,
is a proof of this, for it contains it itself the reference to a wider
subject, so that from a plurality of the subject in ver. 1, a single indi
vidual was, in ver. 5, brought forward. However, this view cannot
be the correct one. By the insertion of iyii piv TiaiXo;, ii. 18, the
subject of ii. 17-20 is expressly restricted to Paul himself; and, as
chap. iii. is most closely connected with ii. 17-19, the subject here
must be the same as there. eiSoKyaayev must therefore, with Calvin, Hem-
1 strikingly, Calvin: Hac narratione, quae nica, accordingly we two remained behind at
sequitur, desiderii illius sui fidem facit. Athens, and sent Timotheus." As an analogy
2 In the strange interpretation : " We re- to this, the form should be oi irepi ibc aaihov.
solved that one of us should go to Thessalo- Comp. Tab. Zettschr. 1833,.,!, P- 7B.
32

498 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ming, Estius, Fromond., Koppe, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Alford, Ellicott, Riggenbach (in J. P. Lange's Bibelwerk, Part X.,
Bielef. 1864), and others, be referred to Paul only, to which Kayd, ver. 5, is
no objection (see below). — KaraXsupByvai 'ev 'AByvai; pdvoi] [LI h.] Zacha
riae, Koppe, Hug, Hemsen, also Wieseler {Chronologic des apost. Zeitalters,
p. 249) and Alford {Proleg. p. 45), understand this of Paul's being left alone
at Athens, Timotheus not having been previously there with the apostle.
They assume that Timotheus, left behind at Berea (Acts xvii. 14), either
at the time of his being left behind, or at some later period, received the
direction from the apostle, countermanding the charge given in Acts xvii.
15, that before proceeding to Athens, he should return from Berea to Thes
salonica to strengthen the church there. This view is brought forward
from a desire of reconciling our passage with the narrative in the Acts of
the Apostles. Acts xvii. 16 informs us only of a waiting for Timotheus at
Athens, but hot of his arrival there ; on the contrary, it is stated that
Silas and Timotheus did not return from Macedonia until the residence
of the apostle at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5). But this view does not correspond
with the natural wording of our passage, as KaraXsupByvai, to he left behind, to
remain behind, evidently presupposes the previous presence of Timotheus.
We must therefore, with Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza,
Wolf, Benson, Macknight, Eichhorn, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch,
Ellicott, Hofmann, and others, suppose that Timotheus actually came from
Berea to Athens, and was sent from it by the apostle to Thessalonica. To
this interpretation we appe.ar constrained by iiripfaysv, ver. 2, and irrsp-ijia,
ver. 5, as hardly anything else can be denoted with these words than a
comihission given directly by Paul to one present.
Ver. 2. Tov ddsXipbv ypdv Kal a-wspybv rov Qeov ev r. sia-yy. rov Xpiarov] our
ibrother (Christian brother) and fellow-laborer of God in the Gospel of Christ.
The aw in awepybv rov Qsov refers not to man, but to God, the chief ruler
of the church ; comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. iii. 9. In this apposition .attached to
TipdBsov, Theophylact, Musculus, and most critics (comp. already Chrysos
tom) discover the design, that Paul wished thereby to indicate what a
great sacrifice he put himself to for the sake of the Thessalonians, as he
surrendered to them at once his faithful assistant, whom he himself so
much required, in order that he might minister to their wants.' Such a
view is remote from the apostle. The epithets which he gives to Timo
theus are nothing more than a commendation of his apostolic associate,
which the apostle felt himself constrained spontaneously to express, on
account of the faithfulness and zeal which he displayed for the sake of the
gospel ; and we are the less to look for any ulterior design, as it was the
constant practice of the apostle, when he had occasion specially to men
tion his faithful associates, to designate them by some honorable appella
tion. — 'ev rip evayysX'i(p] Statement of the sphere in which he was a awspyd;. ¦
Comp. Eom. i. 9 ; Phd. iv. 3.— eif rb arypi^ai ipd;] not that we (the senders)
'Thus also Hofmann, only he finds the longed for the apostle himself might be
reason of the honorable appellation in this: tempted to undervalue tills mission of a sub-
" that the Christians of Thessalonica who ordinate associate 1 "

CHAP. III. 2, 3. 499
might (by the instrumentality of Timotheus) strengthen you (Cornelius a
Lapide, Grotius), but that he (Timotheus) might strengthen you. But
erroneously (comp. already Chrysostom) Oecumenius, whom Theophy-
phylact, Estius, Luc. Osiander, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Macknight,
and others follow : a; aaXsvopivov;, 'sip' ol; yv b diddoKaXo; iv rrsipaayol;' piya;
ydp bvra; Bdpvpo; roi; yaByral; rb slvai rbv diddoKaXov iv rrsipaayol;. — Grotius and
others -understand irapoKaXiaai in the sense of to comfort. More correctly
(on account of ver. 3), it is to be taken in the meaning of to exhort or
encourage. Schott erroneously unites both ideas. Also, arbitrarily separating
the words, Olshausen refers arypl^ai to patience in persecution, and rrapaKaXiaai
to growth in faith. — iirip. rij; rriarsu; i/ioii/] not equivalent to Trepi r:7f TrioTtejf
ipdv (de Wette and others), as if it were a mere statement of the object,
but : for the good of your faith i. e. in order that you might preserve it.'
Ver. 3. ^aiveiv] related to asltiv, — only here in the N. T., — means, to
shake, to swing hither and thither. It is used specially of dogs who wag
their tails (comp. Hom. Od, xvi. 4 ff., x. 217 ; Arist. Fq. 1081), from which
the wider acceptation of fawning or caressing is derived. Then the verb
stands generally for any act of shaking, passing from the sphere of sense
to that of mind." Thus here aalvsa-Bai denotes a being disquieted, becom
ing wavering in the faith. Chrysostom correctly explains it by Bopvpsiadai
Kal rapdrrea-Bai. With unnecessary harshness Faber Stapulensis, to whom
also Beza (adblandiri, adversarhs videlicet evangelii) is inclined, Eisner,
Observ. sacr. II. p. 275 f.. Wolf, and Tittmann, de synonym, in N. T. p. 189,
think to preserve the meaning /awjimgr (and alluring), giving the sense:
that they should not permit themselves, by " adulationes et illicitamenta
carnis " (Faber Stapulensis), to apostatize from Christianity, and relapse
into heathenism or Judaism. Also Eiickert, whom Koch follows, adopts
this view, as he will not acknowledge the meaning BopvpslaBai in the verb :
he thinks, rather, that from the meaning to fawn, the meaning hlanditiis
corrumpi in the passive is formed ; and from that, in consequence of the
toning down of the meaning, the general idea of corrumpi arose. Hof-
mann explains aalvsiv directly by to delude, a meaning which the word '
never has. — iv rat; BXi-tpeaiv rairai;] in these afflictions, sv is purely temporal,
not instrumental, although, in regard to the subject in hand, it cannot be
doubted that it was the the BXlfei; to whose influence the possibihty of a
aaiveaBai is attributed, rairai; is demriKd;, indicdtive, denoting the afflictions
which both the Thessalonians and Paul (so Cahxtus, Flatt, Schott, and
others; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander,
Benson, Macknight, erroneou.sly refer the BXtipsi; to Paul only) have just
experienced, and which are here considered as belonging to the present,
since a renewed outbreak of them was evei'y instant to be feared. The
first part of ver. 3, accordingly, contains the warning not to suffer them-
iThat Calvin here speaks of a tides Pauli sComp. Diog. Laeri. viii. 41: oi aj^o-oivo/ie-
ubique adversus Satanam et mundum victrix, vol Tor? \€yop.ivoii eSdKpv6v re ko'l ,ip,oCor,—
is because, in the oldest Greek editions of the Sophocl. Antig, 1214 : iroiSd? pt aaivei (//Wvyos.
N. T., n-io-TEiot ifiii- was put in place of rriirreiiK (Other proofs in Wetstein).

500 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
selves to apostatize from the faith in Christ in the time of trouble and of
need. — But it is asked how ver. 3 is to be connected with the preceding.
Those who read, with the Receptus, ra pydiva aaivsaBai (see critical note),
regard ru as the Dativus commodi, which, as the Hebrew 7 placed before
an infinitive, serves for the statement of the object; thus ra would be
equivalent to eif rd (Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Pelt, Olshausen).
But Td with the infinitive is used exclusively to denote the reason or the
inducing cause, never to denote the design ; comp. 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer,
p. 308 [E. T. 328]. Eiickert, indeed, retaining this grammatical use of
ru, makes it denote : " unde nascituram ripi rrapdKXyaiv speraverat, quum
Timotheum misit, apostolus ; " and although he does not decide positively,
prefers the reading ru, in order that he may find expressed therein a two
fold object in sending Timotheus, in conformitj^ with the longing of the
apostle previously stated : (1) in respect to the readers, and (2) in respect
to himself, Timotheus, Paul intends to say, is sent ''fratres ut firmaret,
sibi ut afferret ex bona illorum conditione solatium.'' But this interpre
tation is simply impossible, as, in referring rrapaKaXiaai to the apostle, it
would be indispensably necessary, on account of the preceding ipd;, to
subjoin ypd;. Accordingly, even from internal reasons, criticism requires
us to read rb pydiva aalvsa-Sai, But here, also, a different view is con
ceivable : — (1) We might, with Matthaei, supply a second eif to rd yydiva
aa'ivsa-Bai from the preceding eif ro arypi^ai. But in this case we cannot
understand why the second eif has been suppressed by Paul, as elsewhere
he does not avoid the repetition of the form eif rd ; comp. e.g, Eom. iv. 11.
Or (2) with Schott, Koch, and Bisping, we might take rb yydiva aaivsa&ai as an
absolute accusative, in the sense of quod attinet ad. But, considering the
rarity of this construction, and the misuse which is practised with its
assumption (comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 132 f. ; also Phd. iv. 10, on which
Schott founds, is no analogy, as there to iirip ipoi ppovslv is the usual objec
tive accusative to ave-Bd'Xere, used transitively), this shift should only be
resorted to when no other expedient presents itself (3) Winer, 5th ed. p.
375 whom de Wette, Eeiche, Elhcott, Buttmann, Gramm. des neutestam.
Sprachgebrauchs, p. 226 [E. T. 263 f.], Hofmann, and Eiggenbach follow,
makes rb yydiva aalvsa-Bai dependent on irapaKaXeaai, and considers it as a
further explanation of iirep r^f iriarsa;, namely, to exhort that none should
become wavering. [LI c.J But if rb pydiva aaivsa-Bai depended on Trapa-
KaXiaai, then rrapoKaXsiv, in the sense of to exhort, would be construed
with the simple accusative of the thing, an assumption the possibility of
which is to be absolutely denied. (The passages on which Eeiche sup
ports the opposite view are without force. In Luke iii. 18 both accusatives
are not governed by rrapoKaXdv, but, in agreement with Acts xiii. 32, by
siyyysX'it^sro; in 1 Tim. -vi. 2, ravra depends On d'ldaaKs, and Kal rrapoKaXei is
annexed only in a loose manner to raira didaoKe ; so also in Tit. ii. 15
ravra belongs only to XdXsi, but not also to the following verbs ; further, in
Mark v. 23 iroXXd does not depend on irapaKaXsi, but is the adverbial much,
very; lastly, Mark v. 17 and Acts viii. 31 are not analogous, as there
irapaKaXsiv is put with the accusative of the person, to which a simple

CHAP. III. 3, 4. 501
infinitive, but not an infinitive with the article r6, follows.) Besides, if rd
yydiva aa'iv. were a further explanation or epexegesis of iTrep ry; iriarsa;
ipdv, then not the accusative rb pydiva aaivsaBai would have been put, but
the genitive roi pydiva aa'iv., in agreement with iTrep r^f rrlarsa; ipdv.
Accordingly, this interpretation is also to be rejected. There consequently
remains only (4) to consider rb yydiva aaivsaBai iv ral; BX. rairai; as an appo
sition to the whole preceding sentence eif rb arypt^ai iyd; Kai rrapaKaXiaai virip
rij; iriarsa; ipdv, so that to pydiva aaiv. serves only to repeat the same
thought which was before positively expressed in a negative but better
defined form ; thus, instead of rb, rovrian might have been written. Thus
the sense is : to strengthen you and to exhort you on behalf of your faith — that
is, tiled no one may he shaken in these troubles; or, to strengthen and exhort
you on account of your faith, particularly on one point, which is con
tained in one requirement : that no one may be shaken, etc' Accord
ingly, rb pydiva aaiveaBai certainly depends on the preceding eif ; but our
interpretation is entirely different from that adduced in (1), as no second
eif can be inserted before rb yydiva aaiveaBai without injuring the indis
soluble unity which combines rb yydiva aa'iv. k.t.X. with what precedes. —
airoi ydp old. . . . Kal oidare, ver. 4, is not, with Moldenhauer, Griesbach,
Vater, Flatt, to be included in a parenthesis, as did roiro, ver. 5, is con
nected with what directly precedes. — ydp] proves the legitimacy of the
demand pydiva aaivsaBai, — oieJare] ver. 4, explains whence they knew it, —
namely, partly from previous definite intimations of the apostle, and
partly from their own experience. Contrary to the text, Theodoret : from
the previous intimation of Christ. — on eif rovro KslpeBa] that we were
appointed thereto. Comp. Phil. i. 17 ; Luke ii. 34. eif roiro, i. e. not eif rd
pydiva aaivsaBai, but eif rb BXipeaBai (comp. ver. 4), in connection with
BXlfeaiv. Moreover, KeiyeBa refers not only to Paul (Oecumenius, Estius,
Osiander, and others), or to Paul and his companions (Hofmann), nor
also to Paul and the Thessalonians (Koppe), but to Christians in general.
Ver. 4. Eeason of airoi ydp oidare, — Trpdf ipd;] The accusative, as in Gal. i.
18, ii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 7, etc. — Also piXXoyev is neither to be restricted to Paul
(Oecumenius, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander, Macknight), nor to Paul and
his companions (Hofmann), nor to Paul and the Thessalonians (Grotius,
Koppe) ; but, as KslysBa, ver. 3, to be taken generally : we Christians in
general. 'M.eXXoysv BXipeaBai, however, is distinguished from the simple
future — ^it characterizes the sufferings as inevitable, as predetermined in
the counsels of God. — oldars] from your own experience. Baumgarten-
Crusius incorrectly refers it to irposXiyoysv.
' Alford accedes to this interpretation. Bou- thei ministerio ad Thessalonicenses perfer-
man (Chartae theolog. I. p. 79 fT.) assumes a endam curabat Apostolus, jrapaKKyjaeia^ prae-
middle position between this view and that dpuumi argumentum ac summa contineri mihi
adopted by Winer, de Wette, and Eeiche: videtur. Cujus rei, ni fallor, indicium est
Ego ... ita de Wettium sequor ac Winerum, dictumque adeo acuit et a caetcris distinguit
ut p,ySeva tTalv€(T9aL cum proxime praecedente praemissus ille articulus to. Quem ibi po-
Iniinitivo TropoKoAeaoi connectendum existi- nere Graecos, ubi nos signa citationis vulgo
mem. Verum toto tertiae hujus sectionis notum est. Veluti postmodum, chap. iv. 1:
dicto : pySiva . . . KtlittQa, illius, quam Time- to itws Set /e.T.A.

502 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Ver. 5. Aid tovto] on this account, i. e. on account of the actual com
mencement of trouble. But, incorrectly, Fromond. : ne tribulationibus
meis turbaremini. — The koi in Kayd does not belong to the whole sentence :
" therefore also, no longer forbearing, 1 sent " (de Wette, Koch, Bisping),
for then Sid /eai rovro would have been written (the passages adduced by
de Wette to the contrary do not prove what is designed); rather Kai
impressively gives prominence to the person of the eyii : therefore I also.
Thus a relation must be contained in it to other persons. Schott, whom
Olsh. and Ell. follow, supposes these other the Thessalonians, finding the
thought expressed : " as ye, in consequence of the troubles which befell
me, were anxious for me, so I abo could no longer bear to be without
information concerning youi' But, according to the connection {koi
iyivsro Kal oldars, ver. 4), a relation must be contained in Kdyd to others,
of whom, as of Paul, a /i?//ee-i ariyeiv in respect of the Thessalonians is
asserted.' These others are the Christian circle with the apostle in
Athens (Acts x-vii. 34), including Timotheus sent from it to Thessalonica.
Events such as befell the Thessalonians must have awakened lively sym
pathy in every Christian who heard of them. Entirely perverted is the
view of Hofmann, who takes the singular, ver. 5, as a contrast to the
plural, ver. 1. In ver. 5 only Paul is spoken of, whereas in ver. 1 Paul
and Silvanus are referred to. He accordingly infers, that besides Timo
theus, sent by Paul and Silvanus jointly to Thessalonica, there was
another sent specially by Paul. After Timotheus was on his journey to
strengthen the Thessalonian Church against the persecution which had
broken out upon them, Paul, at a time when Silvanus was also absent,
sent a second, this time for his own sake ; his own troubled condition
making the want of news from Thessalonica insupportable, lest perhaps
the fruit of his labors among them might be entirely lost. Yet before the
return ofthis unknown messenger Silvanus and also Timotheus had rej oined
the apostle ! — eif rb yvdvai] in order to team, belongs to the subject of the verb
errsy-ipa ; thus : "in order that I, the sender, might learn; " not; in order
that he (Timotheus) might learn (Pelt, Olshausen, and others). — rijv irlanv
ipdv] your faith, i. e. how it is with it, how it stands. — pyiru;] [LI d.]
depends on yvdvai, not on irrsy-ipa, and is the introductory particle of an
indirect question : whether perhaps the tempter has tempted you. So Wahl,
Schott, and de Wette; also Bouman, Chartae theolog. I. p. 80. Without
reason, Beza, Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Winer, p.
470 [E. T. 505], supply ipopoipevo; before yyrra;: " filled with anxiety lest
the tempter should have tempted you." — b rrsipdl^av] another expression
'for b aaravd;, ii. 18. Comp. Matt. iv. 8. — eif Ksvdv] see Meyer on Gal. ii. 2.
— iirtipaasv . . yivyrai] correctly, Schott: ut cognoscerem, quomodo se
haberet persuasio vestra, num forte tentator vos tentaverit, adeo ut (quod
1 It might otherwise bo assumed that Paul S-irepupa, is explained. But this is an expedient
here anticipates what he flrst, in ver. 6, which is artificial, and is to be rejected be-
observes of the Thessalonians, namely, that cause /irj/tert aTiyciv, ver. 5, and e?rijro8eii>,
they also had a longing for him ; and thus ver. 6, are not co-extensive ideas.
Koyw, which belongs to /xTj/ceTt oTtyijiv, not to

CHAP. ni. 5-7. 503
deus avertat!) labor mens irritus^mjsossii. The aorist indicative refers
to a fact which possibly may have aheady happened ; but the conjunctive
yivyrai refers to a fact which belongs to the future, and is conceived as a
consequence of the first fact. Fritzsche {Opusc. Fritzschiorum, p. 176), to
whom de Wette and Koch adhere, explains it : ut . . . cognoscerem, an
forte Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent. He thus
takes yyrra; in the first clause as an interrogative particle, and in the
second clause as an expression of fear ; an explanation which Winer
rightly designates as harsh. — Moreover, incorrectly, Whitby, Macknight,
Baumgarten-Crusius: in iirsipaasv is implied "tempted with success,"
" seduced." The idea of seduction exists only by the addition of eif ksvov
yivyrai. •
Ver. 6. 'Apri di] [Ll e.] but now, belongs not to iXBdvro; (Grotius,
Pelt, Schott, Alford, Ewald, Elhcott, Hofmann, Eiggenbach), but is to be
separated from it by a comma, and belongs to rrapsKXijBvysv, ver. 7. For
(1) not the mission of Timotheus and his return, but the mission and the
consolation obtained from his return, is the main point on which it
depends; (2) If Paul would connect dpn di iXBdvro;, did rovro would
scarcely be inserted in ver. 7 for the recapitulation of ver. 6 ; (3) dpn ds
emphatically opposes the present to the past, to Irrsy-ipa (ver. 5) ; but dpn
would be flat if we referred it to iXddvro;, and that whether it was to be
understood in its temporal or in its logical sense ; (4) Lastly, we would
expect irapaKSKX^ysBa (which certainly is found in A and some minusculi),
but not irapsKXyByysv, in ver. 7. — iXBdvro; /e.r.A,] not after, but because; did
rovro requires this. The joyful message which Timotheus brought' refers
(1) to the Christian condition of the Thessalonian Church generally {r^v
rriariv Kal ryv dydiryv iydv), and (2) to the personal relation of the Thessa
lonians to the apostle {Kal bn ixere k.t.X.).'^ — /eai 'bn exsre yveiav yydv dyaByv]
and that ye have us in good remembrance. Arbitrarily Grotius : Est ysruw-
yia, nam per memoriam intelligit mentionem, et bonam intelligit, in
bonam partem, i. e. honorificam. For then iroieiaSai must be put instead
of ixsiv, — rrdvrors] belongs to the foregoing, not, as Koch and Hofmann
suppose, to what follows. — irrnro-Qovvre;] Comp. Eom. i. 11; Phil. i. 8, ii.
26 ; 2 Cor. ix. 14. — Strikingly Musculus (also Bengel) : Non modo amoris
hoc erat indicium, sed et honae conscientiae. The compound verb, how
ever, makes prominent the direction, not the intensity, of iro-Belv. Comp.
Fritzsche on Rom. i. 11. — ica-Bdrrsp koI yyel; iyd;] sc, 'idelv imrro-Bovpev.
Ver. 7. Aia rovro] is added in consequence of the preceding long parti
cipial sentence, and as its recapitulation. But Paul says did rovro, not did
raira^ as we would naturally expect, because he here regards the joyful
message of Timotheus as a whole or in its unity, but does not think on
1 Chrysostom : 'Opos riiv Trepixope'oj" HovXov ; |3eio! t!i /Se'^oior- ^ Si aydiry rriv Trpo/CTi/crjv
oii/t etn-ev dirayyel\avrot dW tiayye\ia-ap.evoV dperllV y &i tou MaaKoXov p,vrip.y Ka'i 6 Trepl
Tocj-oi/To;' dyaBov ijyeiTO -rriv tKeivaiv ^e^aioiiriv oOtok jro9os p-aprvpel rjj irepi ttiv SiSao-KaKlav
/col Tijv dyd-in,v. Comp. also Luke i. 19, and (rropyi, Hammond incorrectly understands
Lobeck, ad Phryn, p. 266 «, aydiryv of love to God.
2 Theodoret: AijAot ij p^ev rrirrif t5s eia-e-

504 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the separate points enumerated above. — KapsKX-y-Bypsv] the aorist, in con
nection with dpn, ver. 6, proves that this Epistle was composed immedi
ately after the return of Timotheus. — if iylv] in reference to you (comp. 2
Cor. vii. 7), is not superfluous on account of the following Sid rij; iydv
rriarsu; (Koppe, Pelt), but puts the personal object first in regard to whom
the consolation of the apostle occurred, whilst e5ia r^f iydv rrlareua brings
in afterwards the actual circumstances, by which the consolation was
called forth.' — iirl rrday ry dvdyKy Kal BXlipei yydv] on (or in) all Our necessity
and tribulation, iirl is not a causal, but a temporal statement. Comp. 2 Cor.
vii. 4; Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 392]. Erroneously Schott, in ctot/ necessity
and tribulation which we endure ; this would be expressed by eTri irday
dvdyKy k,t,X. (without an article). By BXi-ipt; Schott understands the tribu
lation caused by the Corinthian adversaries of the apostle; and by dvdyKy,
either sickness or (so also Macknight) pecuniary indigence, combined
with hard labor; whilst Bouman {Chartae theolog. I. p. 80) considers
" dvdyKyv vocabulum generate esse, quod nullum non calamitatum genus
contineat ; BXlipiv de oppressionibus singulatim dici ac persecutionihus, quibus
Christianos vel Ethnici vexarent vel Judaei." These special determine^
tions or limitations are certainly precarious; still so much is certain, that
dvdyKy and dXi-^ii; cannot here be interpreted, with de Wette and Koch, of
care and anxiety, but are to be understood of external necessity and tribula
tion. For the care and anxiety of the apostle could only, according to
the context, refer to the Thessalonians, and must have been removed by
the message of Timotheus. But im imports that the dvdyKy and BXl-ipi; of
the apostle continued in spite of the glad message of Timotheus ; on the
other hand, by reason of it they were no longer esteemed or felt by the
apostle as an evil (comp. ver. 8). For the thought can only be : We
were comforted during, or m spite of, the heavy burden of necessity and
tribulation which weighs upon us, consequently still rests upon us. With
this interpretation what follows in ver. 8 must suitably agree.
Ver. 8. Paul considers the dvdyKy and BXl-ipi; which lay upon him as a
Bdvaro;, but he does not feel this evil; the Bdvaro; is converted to him into
^6)7, when he learns bow the churches which he had founded cleave to
the Lord. External matters are, in general, indifferent to the apostle,
provided he reaches his life-aim, to lead souls to Christ ; every success in
reference to this imparts strength and fullness of life to him.- — viv] is not
to be understood in contrast to the pre-Christian life of the apostle, when
his thought and aim were entirely different ; whereby a thought entirely
foreign to the context would be introduced. The force of -viv as an adverb
of time, at present, is not to be too greatly pressed (Marloratus : Sub
adverbio nunc repetit, quod prius dixerat, se afflictione et necessitate
graviter fuisse oppressum), but has here (on account of idv) a causal refer
ence ; now, serving as an introduction to what follows : edv ipeZf aryKsrs iv

1 The opinion of Hofmann, that Sid t^s t//x«v must be translated : ** because it is your faith
irio-Tewg is to be combined with on vvv ^ujucr, by which we now live," is so monstrous that
ver. 8, whilst with the emphasis on vp.iiiv it it requires no refutation.

CHAP. m. 8-10. 505
Kupiu.' ^dysv] [LI /.] not to be referred, with Chrysostom, to the fature,
eternal life, nor weakened to " we are happy " (Pelt and others), or
"satisfied" (Grotius, Moldenhauer), but the meaning is: For now we
live, i. e. we are in full strength and freshness of life, we do not feel the
sorrows and tribulations which the outer world prepares for us. — idv ipel;
aryKyrs iv Kvplip] when, Or so soon as ye stand fast in the Lord, hold fast to
His fellowship. — i^ueif] applies specially to the Thessalonians what holds
good of Christians generally. — idv] makes the fact of the stedfastness of
the readers appear as a well-grounded supposition.' But the hypothetical
form of the sentence includes, indirectly, the exhortation to hold fast to the
Lord for the future.
Ver. 9. Eeason of i^dpev, ver. 8; ydp, consequently, is not " mera particula
transeundi " (Koppe, Pelt). In a truly monstrous construction, Hof
mann, with a renunciation of all exegetical tact, pulls to pieces the simple
and clear structure of the words, taking rlva ydp eixaptarlav dmdpsBa rd
QeCi dvrarrodovvai rrepl ipdv (ver. 9) as a parenthetic clause, the object of
which is to give beforehand the reason of Sedpevoi (ver. 10), referring ctti
Trao^ ry x^P?! V xo-ipoyev di iyd; to dedyevoi " as a statement of what he
joined to his request; " considering dsdysvoi, which is " a participle of the
imperfect," as an apodosis, which, passing over the parenthesis, is annexed
to irapenXyBypev (ver. 7), and to which <5id r^f vydv rriarsu; on vvv C,dysv (vv.
7, 8) forms the protasis ! — r'lva ydp eixapiar'iav k.t.X.] for what thanks can we
give in return to God on behalf of you for all the joy we feel for your sakes
before our God? i.e., What expression of thanks can be suflaci ently great
to be an equivalent for the fullness and super-abundance of our joy?
Theophylact : Toaairy, ipvaiv, y di ipd; xopd, bn ovdi eixapiaryaai ra Qs(j
Kaf df I'av dvvdpsBa irrip vydv, God has brought about and arranged this
joy by His higher guidance ; therefore to Him belongs the thanks ; there
fore is this thanks a return for the proof of His grace (di/Tan-ocJoii/ai). — irdaa
y xopd] cannot denote joy of every kind ; accordingly, cannot indicate the
multiphcity of objects which the joy for the Thessalonians has (which
Schott thinks possible). It means, as the article added requires, the wliole
joy— joy in its sum total. See Winer, p. 105 [E. T. 110]. A joy in its
totahty is certainly the greatest conceivable joy ; so that it may be said
that rrdaa y xo-pa denotes laetitia maxima (Flatt, Pelt, Schott). — J xo-'^poyev]
by attraction instead of yv xo-ipoyev; comp. Matt. ii. 10. — iprrpoaBev roi
Qeov ypdv] belongs not to the following (Ewald, Hofmann), but to the pre
ceding ; but not to x<^P? (Koppe, Pelt, Bloomfield), but to x^ipopsv. The
addition serves to bring forward the purity of this joy, to which nothing
earthly cleaves. Erroneously Oecumenius and Bloomfield : " Paul would
think on God as the Author of the joy."— On ypdv, comp. on h. 2.
Ver. 10. &sdyevoi[ [LI g.] is not used absolutely instead of dsdpsBa or
iayiv dedpevoi, which Cornelius a Lapide and Baumgarten-Crusius assume,
and Flatt thinks possible, but neither is it to be united with x^ipoyev
IComp. Kuhner, II. p. 385; Hartung, Por- 'See Schmalfeld, Sifntax des Griech. Ver-
titcell. II. p. 25. ''«»'«. P- 201-

506 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
(Schott, de Wette, Koch, Eiggenbach), but belongs to the main thought
rlva . . dvrairodoivai, and assigns the reason for it by the fervent longing
for the readers, and anxiety ior their Christian character : What sufficient
thanks are we able to give to God for our joy over you, as we (cleaving to you
with such paternal love that we), without ceasing, pray to see you again, and
complete the defects of your faith'? — wKrd;] See on ii. 9. Erroneously Fro
mond. : it is placed first, quia nocte praecipue propter solitudinem et silen-
tium sancti se orationi dare solent. — The accumulation of expressions
WKrb; Kal yyipa; irrepsKirepiaaov, is the natural outflow of the Strength of his
feeling ; comp. Phil. i. 23. — irrspKirspiaaoi] above -measure, is found only in
V. 13, Eph. iii. 20, and Theodoton, ad Daniel, iii. 22. Erroneously— because
grammatically impossible — Clericus insists on referring it by means of a
trajection not to dsdysvoi, but to 'idslv, defending bis opinion on the ground
that iirepeKirep, denotes something not strictly necessary, whereas prayer is
a duty, a necessity : orantes ut videamus vultum vestrum, quasi cumulum
laetitiae nostrae. Non satis erat Paulo scire Thessalonicenses constanter
evangelic adhaerere, quamvis summam laetitiam ex eo nuntio perciperit,
volebat irrspsKirspiaaoi, ex ahundanti, eos videre. — s'l; rb k.t.X,] the design of
dedyevoi ; praying to this end, in order by means of prayer (by the answer
to it) to attain the idelv and Karapriaai. — /caraprif eii/] is to place in the condi
tion of perfectness, of completeness. Thus Karaprli^eiv rd iarepyyara ry; iriareu;
signifies : to render complete the defects of faith, that is, in order to make per
fect that which is wanting in faith (Theodoret : rd iXXsiirovra irXypdaai). By
this iarspypara rij; rrlarsa; Paul understands partly defects of faith as
regards insight (particularly in respect of the impending advent ; comp.
iv. 13 ft); partly defects of faith as regards its practical verification in the
Christian life (comp. iv. 1 ff.). It follows, moreover, from Karapriaai rd
varspyyara, with what inconsiderate arbitrariness Baur misuses even this
passage in support of his assertion that the Thessalonian church had
already existed for a long time.
Ver. 11. [On vv. 11-13, see Note LII. pages 510, 511.] Air/if] is not a
general introductory subject to which the special designations are annexed
as an apposition : " but He, God our Father," etc. (Luther, de Wette,
Hofmann, Eiggenbach. According to de Wette, whom Koch and Bisping
follow, aird; serves for bringing forward the contrast with the petitioner).
But the whole designation of the subject Airof . . . 'lyaov; is most closely
connected : But God Himself, our Father and our Lord Jesus. It has its
contrast in reference to KarsvBivsiv ryv bddv. Paul thinks on a KarevBivsiv riiv
dddv, both on his (man's) side and on the side of God, The flrst does not
conduct certainly to the end, as in reference to it the power of iyKdirrsiv is
given to the devil (comp. ii. 18). Only when the KarsvBivsiv is undertaken
by God Himself and Christ is its success assured, for then the hindrances
of the devil are without power. Thus Paul contrasts simply and naturally
God and Christ to himself. — ?^pdv] may be referred both to Qed; and to
Trar^p (Hofmann, Eiggenbach), so that God is caUed our (the Christians')
God and our Fatlier : but it is best to restrict it to Trar^p, so that God is first
considered in His existence as God simply, and then afterwards in refer-

CHAP. in. 11, 12. 507
ence to us as our Father. — Kal d Kvpio; ^pdv 'lyaoi;] [Lll 6.] This addi
tion (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17), particularly -with the following KarevBvvai,
which is to be understood as the third person singular optative aorist, not
as the infinitive (see Winer, ed. 5, p. 383), might appear strange. But,
according to the Pauline view (comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 301), Christ,
exalted to the right hand of the Father, takes part in the government of
the world, and orders everything for the promotion of His kingdom. And,
inasmuch as His will is not different from the will of God, but identical
with it, the verb in the singular is suitable. — KarevBvvai] make straight, plain,
so in order that it can be trod. Without a figure : may cause it to be
realized. — rrpof ipd;] belongs not to riyv bdbv ypdv, but to Ko,Tev8vvai.
Ver. 12. To the wish as regards himself, Paul adds a further wish as
regards his readers,' — iyd; di] Bengel puts it well : sive nos veniemus, sive
minus. — If 6 Kvpio; (see critical note) is genuine, it may grammatically
refer either to God or to Christ (although the latter is the more usual) ;
also iprrpoaBev rov Qeoi, ver. 13, instead of airov, is no objection tp the ref
erence to God, as the repetition of the name in full shortly after its men
tion is not rare; comp. ii. 2; Eph. iv. 12, 16 ; Winer, p. 136 [E. T. 144].—
The optatives (not infinitives, as Bretschneider thinks, who without justi
fication supplies ddy iylv) irXeovdaai and irspiaasiaai are in a transitive sense :
but the Lord make you to become rich and abound in love. On irXeovdi^eiv, comp.
LXX. Num. xxvi. 54; Ps. Ixxi. 21 ; on rrspiaasisiv, comp. Eph. i. 8 ; 2 Cor.
ix. 8, etc. Erroneously Theodoret, whom Cornelius a Lapide follows,
takes rrXsovdaai by itself, of the external increase, of the church : evxsrat
Toi-pvv avrov; Kal ra dpiByip rrXsovdaai Kal ry dydiry irspiaasiaai, rovrian rsXsiav
avrijv KrfjaaaBai, dars pydiv iXXelrreiv airy. So also Olshausen and Koch erro
neously distinguish irXsavdCuv and irepiaasieiv as cause and effect : to increase,
and arising from this increase, abundance. Similarly Fromond. as extensio
and intensio charitatis, — eif dXXyXov;] towards fellow-Christians. — eif rrdvra;]
is not an explication oi eif dXXyXov; : erga vos invicem et quidem omnes,
which Koppe thinks possible, but means toward all men generally.
Estius : etiam infideles et vestrae salutis inimicos. Theodoret, without
reason, limits it to fellow-Christians of all places ; whilst he interprets eif
dA,;i:7Aouf of fellow-Christians in Thessahmica. — KoSdrrep koI -liysl; s'l; ipd;]
sc. ry dydiry rrXsovd^oysv Kal rreptaasioysv, as we also are rich in love and abound
towards you. Only this completion of the ehipsis corresponds to the con
text, and the objection to it, that rrXsovdt^eiv and rr epiaaeieiv is used first in a
transitive and then in an intransitive sense, is of no force, as the passage
of the one into the other here is so insensible and easy, that no reader
could take objection to it. Arbitrary are the completions of Calvin : affeoti
sumus ; Nosselt : animati sumus ; Baumgarten-Crusius : ixoysv (?) ; Pelt
and Schott : rroXXiyv dydrryv ixoyev ; Wolf (and so essentially already Mus
culus) : wepiaaeiaai, abundare nos in vos faciat; in which latter case the
accusative ^yd; (as certainly Laurent, Neutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p.
1 Entirely erroneously, Piscator begins with this verse the second or exhortative portion of
the Epistle.

508 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
188, actuahy reads, but without justification) must be put in place of the
nominative ?/|Ueif. Also, supplying the simple copula sumus (Grotius) is to
be rejected, which would suppose a form of speech entirely un-Grecian.
Correctly, according to the sense, Theophylact : ixsre yap yirpov Kal rrapd-
deiypa ry; dydrry; -ypd;.
Ver. 13. The final aim is derived from the wish, ver. 12, because love is
the fulfllhng of the law (Eom. xin. 10), and the band of perfection
(Col. iii. 14). — eif rb arypi^ai] [LII c, d.] not so that (Pelt, Baumgarten-
Crusius) ; also, not so much as koi arypi^ai (Koppe), by which the words
would only annex a new wish to the preceding. It is designed to intro
duce a majus, a greater, specifying the higher or final aim to which rrXsovd-
fetv and irepiaaeieiv are to conduct. But the subject in arypl^ai is not rijv
dydiryv (Oecumenius), but rbv Kvpiov (which, however, is not, with Theophy
lact and Schrader, to be converted into the idea rb irvevpa), or, with the
contingent spuriousness of b Kipio; in ver. 12 : God and Christ, ver. 11. —
arypi^ai denotes confirming, strengthening generally, not confirming in the
faith (Flatt, Pelt), against which is the context. — rdf leopiSiaf] Chrysos
tom : oi/e eiTrev ipd; aryp'i^ai, d/l/ld rdf Kapdia; ipdv. 'E/e ydp rij; Kapdia; i^ipxov-
rai diaXoyiayol rrovypol. — dpipirrov;] proleptic : SO that you will he blameless.
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 8 ; Phil. iii. 21 (according to the correct reading) ; Winer,
p. 579 [E. T. 624] ; Kiihner, II. p. 121. — 'ev dyiaaivy] belongs not to arypi^ai,
but to dpipirrov;, specifying the sphere in which the blamelessness is to be
shown. The expiression denotes the condition of holiness, comp. Eom. i.
4 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; erroneously Koppe : alias dyiaapd;, and Olshausen :
dyiuaiivy is the process of becoming holy, the result of which is dyiaapd;. —
epirpoaBev roi Qsoi] before God, according to His judgment. His judicial sen
tence, belongs neither to dyiuai-vy [Koppe, Pelt), nor to dyiyirrov; (de Wette,
Koch), but to the whole dyiyirrov; iv dytaavvy. — psrd irdvrav rcjii dyiuv airoi]
Flatt, with whom Hofmann, in his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, ed. 1, p. 595, agrees
(he construes the passage differently in ed. 2, p. 649, and in his H Schr.
N. T,, without altering his interpretation of ol dyioi), unites the clause with
dpipirrov; iv ayiaavvy : " in order that ye may appear blameless on that day
with all who are consecrated to God, who are the genuine members of
His people, who truly honor God and Christ." So also Musculus ; and
also Benson and Olshausen (conip. also Bouman, Chartae theol. I. p. 81
ff.), although they do not construe with Musculus and Flatt, understand by
dyioi the earlier perfected believers.^ But the difficulty which impelled
Flatt to this interpretation (and in which Schrader finds even an objection
against the authenticity of the Epistle), namely, that dyioi in the New Tes
tament never denotes the angels when it is by itself, that is, without the
addition of dyyeXoi, vanishes, as — (1) The advent is considered as glorified
by tbe appearance of angels ; comp. 2 Thess. i. 7 ; Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31 ;
Mark viii. 38 ; Luke ix. 26. (2) In the Old Testament without any further
addition D'E/ID^ and in the LXX. oi dyioi, is a designation of the angels :
1 Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford and Ellicott refer the words to the glorified believers and the
angels.

NOTES. 509
comp. e.g. Zech. xiv. 5; Dan. iv. 10; and therefore this current designa
tion cannot surprise us in Paul. Also, what Hofmann in the above-
mentioned place urges in favor of Flatt's interpretation is without force.
For to " the probability of the three prepositions 'epirpoaBev, 'sv, and psrd
being used in a similar connection," is opposed the greater naturalness
and easiness of the connection of ysrd irdvrav rdv dylav airoi with the
directly preceding iv ry rrapovaia roi Kvp'iov yydv 'lyaov. " And that also the
connection " supports Flatt's explanation, " since the brotherly love in
which the Thessalonians are to grow finds its suitable reward in sharing at
length the blessed fellowship of all the saints of God," so that hereby is
already introduced " what the apostle has particularly to teach the Chris
tians of Thessalonica for their comfort, that those believers who fell asleep
before the Advent of the Lord will not be wanting at it," can only be
maintained without arbitrariness, if not only tbe explanation in iv. 1-12,
but the section iv. 13 ff., be directly joined to iii. 13 ; and then this section
would be introduced with Oi BiXoysv ydp ipd; dyvosiv, instead of with Oi
-BiXopev di vyd; dyvoeiv. — Moreover, the concluding word airoi is more cor
rectly referred to roi Qsov, than, with Pelt, Eiggenbach, and others, to rov
Kvp'iov -ypdv 'lyaov. Notes by American Editob.
LI. Vv. 1-10.
(a) did, which Lunem. connects with iii. 20, is probably in thought, if not gram
matically, to be connected with the general idea of iii. 17-20. — (6) As to the in
consistency between Acts xvii. 14, xviii. 5 and what is stated in vv. 1, 2 of this
chapter, it depends on two things : (1) the meaning of KaraXeiipByvai ; (2) the
question as to whether the statements of the Acts exclude the supposition of a
journey of Timothy to Athens, and thence to Thessalonica, in the interval be
tween Acts xvii. 14 and xviii. 5. With reference to the latter point, it seems
quite improbable that Timothy should have gone thus to Athens, without any al
lusion being made to it by Luke, and even with intimations in his narrative which
would convey an opposite impression. If Paul had desired Timothy to go to
Thessalonica, it would seem more natural that he should have sent him a request
to do so, while he was yet in Bera;a. With reference to the former point, it must
be admitted that the verb, more naturally and according to its strict sense, means
to be left behind, as if by other persons who had been in the same place. But —
considering that Paul had requested Silas and Timothy (Acts xvii. 15) to come to
him with all speed, when he went from Beroea to Athens, and must accordingly
have waited for them with earnest desire — it is questionable whether he
might not use this verb to express the idea of being left still longer alone in
Athens, as he would be if Timothy were sent from Bercea to Thessalonica. The
possibilities of explanation in the case are such, at all events, that the difference
between Paul and Luke caniiot be justly said to be irreconcilable. As for the
words irriy-ijiapev ver. 2 and irreyfa ver. 5, they can be interpreted consistently with
either a sending from Athens, or a request communicated from Athens to Timothy
at Beroea, though, if there were nothing to suggest the opposite, they would
doubtless be naturally understood in the former way. — (c) The explanation of de

510 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
W., Buttm., EU., and others, which makes ro yydiva aaivsa-Bai of ver. 3 depend on
rrapaKaXiaai, does not seem to be " absolutely impossible," as Liinem. maintains —
'his position with regard to 1 Tim. vi. 2 is doubtful, to say the least ; — and if this
construction is allowable, it is, on the whole, the simplest and most natural. No
serious objection, however, can be made to the construction which Liinem. him
self proposes, making the words appositional to the whole preceding sentence. —
(d) Grimm (Lex. N. T.) and Meyer on G;il. ii. 2 agree with Liinem. and de W.
in giving to pyira; (ver. 5) the interrogative force. The ordinary use of this par
ticle in Paul's writings is against this view, and there are strong arguments against
it in Gal. ii. 2. Here, it may have this sense, but not improbably it should be
rendered, with E. V. and many comm., lest by any means, lest haply. — (e) The con
nection of dpTi (ver. 6) with rrapsKXfi-Bypsv, which Liinem. favors, is opposed by
two considerations : (1) the remoteness of the verb from the adverb, and (2) the
fact that the verb is introduced by did roiro. The emphasis on dpn, if connected
¦B'ith iX^dvro;, can be accounted for, by the desire to point to the arrival of Timo
thy (:md thus of the tidings concerning the church) as very recent, and by the
contrast of Timothy's present arrival with his past mission. The insertion of did
roiro is not unnatural, if dpn is connected with the participle. Whether con
nected thus or not, did roiro refers to the same thing — the news which Timothy
had brought. And, as for the use of the perfect, irapoKSKXyps-Ba, instead of the
aorist, which Lunem. claims would be expected of dpn was intended to qualify
iX-Bdvro;, all that can be properly aflirmed is that the perfect might have been
used, bnt, when we consider the uses of the aorist by the N. T. writers, and the
comparative infrequency of the perfect, the absence of the latter tense here cannot
be pressed as an argument of weight. E. V- renders : " But when Timothy came
even now unto us." Whether dpn is connected with the participle or the verb,
the indication of the passage is that the letter was written (as Liinem. also holds), ¦
immediately after the arrival of Timothy, and, as there is no indication that
Timothy went to Athens after visiting Thessalonica, and as he is stated in the Acts
(xviii. 6) to have rejoined Paul in Corinth, this verse answers to that passage and
thus harmonizes with Luke's account. There can be no reasonable doubt, there
fore, that the Epistle was written at Corinth. — (/) ^dpsv (ver. 8) is a strong
rhetorical expression, showing how dependent he was for his peace and happiness
on the condition of his converts — as if his very life rested upon their standing
firm. Whether there is a suggestion in the verb of a bdvaro; as figuratively in
volved in -BXl-ipi; and dvdyKy, as Lunem., Alf., Ell., and others suppose, is more
doubtful. The answer to this question will depend on whether on is to be con
nected solely with irapsKXy-Byysv iip' iplv did rij; iriarsa;, and iirl irday K.r.X. is a
mere clause setting forth the circumstances, or whether, on the other hand, these
last-mentioned words are made an essential and prominent part of that to which
8ti refers. — {g) The explanation of dsdysvoi (ver. 10) which Liinem. gives is to be
adopted — the relation of thanksgiving to prayer corresponding, thus, with that
in i. 2 aud elsewhere. LII. Vv. 11-13.
(o) The section closes with a prayer, which, following the course of all that
precedes, refers, first, to Paul himself in relation to his work for the readers, and,
secondly, to their personal growth in the Christian life and virtues. The request

NOTES. 511
with regard to himself is in the direct line of that expression of feeling which has
occupied the earlier verses. He desires that his way to them may be made
straight. — (6) The union of d Kipio; yp. 'Iya. with d Bsd;, as the subject of a common
verb in the singular number, is pressed by Ell. as " asserting simply and plainly,
that the Eternal Son is here distinguished from the' Father in respect of His per
sonality, but mystically united with Him in respect of His Godhead." It must be
admitted that this is one of the more striking among the passages in which the
two are thus placed together, and that this peculiar union in so many cases is a,
fact worthy of serious consideration in the discussion of the doctrine of the Divinity
of Christ. — (c) arypl^ai {ver. 13) — comp. ver. 2. The apostle had sent Timothy
for this purpose, and now prays that he may be enabled to go himself for the same
end. The establishing them thus has reference to their appearing blameless iu
holiness before God at the coming of the Lord Jesus. — {d) Though only a message
of friendly affection, and that of a somewhat repetitious character, these chapters,
as the careful reader will observe, are not without a rhetorical plan. The parts
answer to one another accurately ; they move forward from his life among them,
and its effects, to his anxiety for them in his absence, the means which he adopted
to learn of their condition, and the joy which he felt as he heard of the growth
and strength of their faith. He places, in every part, his relation to them in
parallelism with their love to him and their relation to the gospel. And he
closes each chapter with the thought which is uppermost in his own mind and in
theirs — the Lord's coming, which they were waiting for. They ha:d turned from
their old worehiping of idols to serve the living God and to wait for this coming.
He hoped to find in the time of this coming the crown of his glorying. And that
they might then appear before the God whom they served — his Father and
theirs — in the perfection of holiness, is his earnest prayer.

512 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

CHAPTER IV.
Vek. 1. Aotrrdv] Elz. Matth. read To Xoiirdv. Correctly rejected, according to
overwhelming testimony (A B* D E F G K L Xi niin. Chrys. cod. Damasc), by
Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott. Td arose from the last syl
lable of the preceding airov.— ovv in the Receptus after Xoirrdv is erased by
Tisch. 1. But the omission is only attested by B* some min. Copt. Chrys. and
Theoph., and might easily have been occasioned by the preceding ov. — After
lyacni Elz. has koBu; rrapsXdpsrs rrap' ypdv rb ird; Ssl ipd; irspirrarslv Kal dpioKeiv
Qsa Iva irspiaasvyrs pdXXov. Defended by Eeiche. But 'Iva is to be inserted before
KaBu; rrapeXdpere, with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford and Ellicott (after B
D* E-* F G, 17, 37, al, Arm. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel.), and the parenthesis KaBd;
Kal irspirrarslrs is to be inserted before 'Iva rrepiaasvyrs (after A B D E F G N, min.
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. Slav. ed. Vulg. ms. It. Plarl. Ambrosiast.). Internal
criticism also requires this. For "iva rrspiaasiyrs presupposes the earlier mention
of a prior commencement (comp. ver. 10), and such a commencement would not
be implied in the preceding text without koBu; Kal irspirrarslrs. Evidently the
apostle would originally have written iva, koBu; rrapeXdpere rrap' ypdv rb ird; K.r.X.,
ovra; Kal irspiiraryre ; but, while writing, altered this his intended expression, that
he might not say too little, wishing to notice the good beginning already made by
the Thessalonians. The repetition of iva after so long an intervening clause was
too natural, so that it might excite suspicion. — Ver. 6. rrpoeiiroysv. So Griesbach
and Schott, after A K L, most min. (as it appears) Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. ;
whilst Elz. Matth. Lachm. Tisch., Alford, Ellicott, after B (e sil.) D E F G X, oZ.
read irposlirapsv. — Ver. 8. Elz. has rbv Kal ddvra. Kal is wanting in A B D*** E,
min. edd. Syr. Arr. al., Ath. Chrys. ol. Erased by Lachm. and Tisch. 1. How
ever, it might easily have been omitted, the eye of the translator passing from rdv
to (Sdi/ra.— Instead of ddvra, B D E F G N"* 67'* et at., mult. edd. Ath. Didym. have
dtd&vra. Preferred by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8. But diddvra appears to be a
correction from a dogmatic point of view, in order, instead of the objectionable
preterite, to obtain the statement that the Holy Spirit is permanently communicated
to believers. — ipd;] Elz. has -ypd;. Against B DEFG KLX, min. plur. edd.
Syr. Arr. Arm. Syr. p. in m. It. at. Didym. Ambrosiast. An alteration in con
formity with a reference to the apostle himself implied in the preceding dv-Bpurrov.
— Ver. 9. Instead of the meaningless Rec. exere (comp. commentary on ver. 9),
ixopev is to be received, after B [eixoyev] J)* F G «**-» min. Vulg. It. Chrys
Theoph. Ambrosiast. Eecommended by Griesbach. Eeceived by Lachm. and
Tisch. 1. 'Exsrs is taken from v. 1. — Ver. 11. ral; xspalv] Elz. has ral; Idiai;
xepalv. 'Idiai;, defended by Eeiche, suspected by Griesb., and erased by Lachm.
Tisch. Alford, and Ellicott, after B D* E? F G « **** 31, 46, al, Aeth. Arm.
Vulg. It. Bas. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. Gloss for the sake of strengthen
ing, arising from rd Wia.— Ver. 13. -BeXopsv] Elz. has -BiXu. Against preponder
ating testimonies (A B D E F G L K, min. pi. vss. [also It. and Vulg.] and

CHAP. IV. 1. 513
Fathers). Instead of the Receptus KSKoipyyevuv, A B x, 39, al. Or. Damasc. Chrys.
ms. (alic.) have Koipuyivuv. So Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, 8, Alford and Ellicott. —
Ver. 16. Elz. has irpdrov. D* F G, Vulg. It. Cyr. Theoph. ed. Tert. Ambrosiast.
al. read rrpdroi. — Ver. 17- Elz. has drrdvryaiv. D* E* ? F G read irrdvryaiv. — Elz.
has roi Kvplov. D* E* ? F G, Vulg. It. Tert. al. read rO XpiortJ.
Contents. — The apostle entreats and exhorts his readers to progress
with the greatest earnestness in the Christian life, which they had begun,
according to the instructions and commandments which they had
received. God desires holiness ; they should therefore abstain from for
nication, covetousness, and overreaching their neighbors (vv. 1-8). He
has no necessity to exhort them to active brotherly love ; they practise
this already far and wide ; but he exhorts them to increase therein, and to
seek honor in distinguishing themselves by a quiet and busy life (vv.
9-12). With regard to their anxiety for the fate of their fellow-Christians
who had fallen asleep before the commencement of the advent, it may
serve for their inform.ation and comfort that those who are then alive
would receive no preference over those who are already asleep ; Christ
will descend from heaven ; then will the dead rise first, and afterward the
living also will be uplifted with them to eternal fellowship with the Lord
(vv. 13-18).
Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-12, see Note LIII. pages 538, 539.] To 7jiirrdv (see critical
remark) would now directly oppose what follows with what precedes :
" for the rest," " what is yet besides to be said ; " whereas Xioiirdv is a less
prominent particle of transition — " besides." Both forms, however, intro
duce something different from what precedes, and serve properly to intro
duce the concluding remarks of an Epistle ; comp. 2 Cor. xui. 11 ; Phd.
iv. 8 ; Eph. vi. 10 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1. Here 'Xoirrdv introduces the second por
tion of the Epistle, and that in an entirely natural and usual manner, as
this second portion is the concluding portion of the Epistle. — (Td) 'Xairrdv is
incorrectly explained by Chrysostom, Theophylact : dei piv koI eif rb diyvsKi; ;
Theodoret, to whom Oecumenius, though wavering, adheres : drroxpdivra; ;
Luther : "furthermore ; " Baumgarten-Crusius : " generally, what is the
main thing." — oiv] therefore, represents what follows as an inference from
the preceding, and especiahy from ui. 13. As it is the final destination
of Christians to be dyeprrroi 'ev dyiaavvy, in order to reach this end prayer
directed to God does not suffice, but also man's own striving is requisite ;
so the apostle beseeches and exhorts his readers to increase in striving
after a holy walk. Comp. Theodoret : Toiru Kcxpvpivoi ra aKorrd npoaipipoysv
iplv rijv, irapaiveaiv. Calixtus refers oiv to the idea of the judgment talien
from iii. 13 : Ergo, .... quum sciatis non stare res nostras fine tempo
rali aut terreno, sed exspectari adventum domini a coelis ad judicium,
precamur vos et obtestamur, etc. Incorrectly Musculus : Quum igitur
gratiam hanc acceperitis a domino, ut in fide illius firmi persistatis, quem
admodum ex relatione Timothei cum ingenti gaudio accepi : quod jam
rehquum est, rogo et hortor, etc.— ipurdv] in the classics is used only in
the sense of to inquire (see the Lexicons) ; here, as in v. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 1,
33

614 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Phil. iv. 3, John iv. 40, xiv. 16, Acts xxiii. 20, etc., in the sense of to request,
to beseech, analogous to the Hebrew /NiJ' (so also the English to ask), which
unites both meanings. ''Epurdpev denotes the entreating address of a
friend to a friend ; rrapaKaXoiysv 'sv Kvp'ii^, the exhortation in virtue of the
apostolic ofiice, thus the exhortation of a superior to subordinates. — iv
Kvpiu] in the Lord, belongs only to rrapaKaXoiysv (against Hofmann), and
means, as in Eom. ix. 1, 2 Cor. ii. 17, xii. 19, Eph. iv. 17, as found in
Christ, by means of life-fellowship with Him, Paul being only the organ
of Christ ; not for the sake of the Lord (Flatt), which would require did
rbv Kvpiov ; also not per dominum Jesum, as a form of oath (Estius, Grotius,
and others), against which is the Greek usage ; comp. Fritzsche on Rom.
ix. 1 ; Kiiliner, II. p. 307.' — iva] the contents oi the request and exhorta
tion in the form of its purpose. — rrapeXdpere] see on ii. 13. Oecumenius,
after Chrysostom (and so also Theophylact, also Pelt) : rd rrapsXdpsrs oixi
pvpdrav pdvov iarlv, dXXd Kal irpaypdrav i^ dv ydp airb; ipiov, rirro; roi; paByral;
iyivsro. But this extension of the idea is arbitrarily inserted against the
natural meaning of the word, and against ver. 2. — rb] is not superfluous
(Grotius), but specifies in a substantive sense the following words, in order
to collect them into one idea, as in Eom. iv. 13, viii. 26, xiii. 9 ; Gal. v. 14;
Phil. iv. 10 ; Luke i. 62. Comp. Winer, p. 103. [E. T. 108] ; Bremi, ad
Demosth. de Cherson. p 236. — Kal dpiaKsiv Qsa] and (thereby) to please God, is
co-ordinate to TrepiTrarei:/, although logically considered itis the consequence
of irspirrarslv ; rrepirrarelv Can only be the means of dpioKsiv. — jrepiaffei/7Tt] SC.
iv ra ovru; irspnrarsiv. Falsely Theophylact, adhering to Chrysostom : 'Iva
rrXiov ri ry; 'svroXy; ipiXonpya-Qs iroislv Kal iirepPalvyrs rd imrdypara. — pdXXov] a
further intensification, as isa favorite custom with Paul; comp. iv. 10;
Phil. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. vii. 13, etc.
Ver. 2. A strengthening of rrapsXdpsrs rrap' -yydv, ver. 1, by appealing to
the knowledge of the readers : for it is well known to you, ye will thus be
the more willing to irepiaasieiv. This appeal to their own knowledge is
accordingly by no means useless, and still less un-Pauline (Schrader,
Baur), as it is elsewhere not rare with Paul ; comp. Gal. iv. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv.
1 ff., etc., — irapayyeXiai] not evangelii praedicatio, in qua singula praecepta
semine quasi inclusa latitant (Pelt), against which is the context and the
plural form ; but commands (comp. Acts V. 28, xvi. 24 ; 1 Tim. i. 5, 18), and
that to a Christian life. The stress is on r'wa;, to which roiro, ver. 3, cor
responds. — did roi Kvp'iov 'lyaov] through the Lord Jesus, hy means of Him,
i. e. Paul did not command di iavroi, but Christ Himself was represented
by him as the Giver of the irapayyeXiai. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p.
235 f. Schott blends the ideas in a strange manner : Auxilio sive benefi
cio Christi, siquidem Paulus, ab ipso domino ad provinciam apostoli
obeundam vocatus, di diroKaXi-ipea; Xpiarov inter illos docuerat. So also de
Wette : by means of the revelation given in the Lord, so that the general
divine truth is communicated through Him. Falsely Pelt, did is equiva
lent to ev ; and Grotius, accepta is to be supplied.
1 Falsely, moreover, Theophylact : opa 5fe af iottio-toj' eavrov e'l/ot ^yuiv, aXXa t&i/ Xpio--
Tairiivo^poavvyv, ojrtos oi/fie Trpbs rb irapaKoXuv rhv TrapaKap,fidvet /c.T.A.

CHAP. IV. 2-4. 515
Ver. 3. Further specification of rtva; vapayyeXla;, according to its con
tents, roiro ydp ianv di?.vpa rov Qsoii] for this (the following) is the ivill of
God. — roiro] not the predicate (de Wette, 2d ed.), but the subject (comp.
Kom. ix. 8 ; Gal. iii. 7 ; Winer, 5th ed. p. 130) is emphatically placed first,
accordingly not superfluous (Pelt). — ^iXypa rav Qsoi] without the article, as
tbe will of God is not exhausted with what is afterwards adduced. The
words are without emphasis ; they resume only the idea already expressed
in ver. 2, although in another form. For a command given (!id rov Kvp'iov
'lyaoi is nothing else than BiXyua roi Qsoi. — d ayiaapb; ipdv] namely, your
sanctification, in apposition to roiro and the subject-matter, whereas roiro
was only a preliminary and nominal subject, dyiaapd; has an active
meaning, your sanctification, {ipdv, the genitive of the object), i, e. that you
sanctify yourselves, not passive (Est., Koppe, Usteri, p. 236; Olsh., B.-Crus),
also Huther on 1 Pet. i. 1, 2. 3d ed., so that it would be identical with dyiaavvy,
iii. 13. Calov., Wolf, Flatt, de W., Koch, Alford, and others take dyiaapd; as
a " quite general " idea, under which not only dirixea-Bai K.r.X., but also
ver. 6, are specified as particulars. This view, in itself entirely suitable,
becomes impossible by the article rd before -orrspPaiviiv,Yer. 6. This does
not permit us to consider ver. 6 as a parallel statement to dirixeaBai, ver. 3,
and s'ldivai, ver. 4, but places the statement rd py irrepPa'iveiv K.r.X. evidently
on the same level with d ayiaapb; ipdv. Accordingly roiro receives a double
specification of the subject-matter in the form of apposition — (1) in d
ayiaapb; ipdv, and (2) in rb py iireppaiveiv, ver. 6. Thus the meaning is :
For the following is the will of God, first, that ye sanctify yoursel-ves, and
then that ye overreach not, etc. But from this relation of the sentences it
follows that dyiaapd; must denote holiness in a special sense, i, e. must be
considered in special reference to sins of lust, thus must be used of striv
ing after chastity (Turretin, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and
others). — d ayiaapb; ipdv is further epexegetically explained — (1) negatively
by drrixsa^ai vyd; dirb rij; rropvsia;, and (2) positively by e'lSevai K.r.X., ver. 4.
In an entirely erroneous manner by Hofmann, according to whom the
stress is to be laid on -BiXypa rov Qsoi, roiro is to indicate drrixsaBai K.r.X.,
and d dyiaapd; is a parenthetic apposition. Moreover, " a contradiction "
to the praise of the church, expressed elsewhere in the Epistle, is
not contained in the exhortation, ver. 3 ff. (Schrader), as the reception
of Christianity never delivers, as with the stroke of a magician, from
the wickedness and lusts of the heathen world which have become
habitual ; rather a long and constant fight is necessary for vanquishing
them. Ver. 4. [LIII c.J That every one of you may know (understand, be
capable • comp. Col. iv. 6 ; Phil. iv. 12) to acquire his own vessel in sanctifi
cation and honor. By oksvo;, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus,
Oecumenius, Theophylact, TertuUian, Pelagius, Haimo, Calvin, Zeger, Mus
culus Hemming, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Drusius, Piscator, Gom
arus Aretius, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Grotius, Calixt, Calovius,
Hammond, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zachar., Flatt, Olsh., '
B.-Crus., Bloomfield, Linder, SL u. Kr., 1867, Meyer {Rom. 5th ed. p. 84), and

516 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
others, understand the body {rb adpa)} But — (1) KrdaBai cannot in any
way be reconciled with this interpretation. For that can only denote to
gain, to acquire, but not to own, to possess (for which one in vain appeals to
Luke xxi. 19; Sir. vi. 7, xxii. 23, h. 20). If one would, with Olshausen
(comp. also Chrysostom), retain the idea of acquiring, and then find the
sense : " to guide and master his body as the true instrument of the soul,"
yet, as de Wette remarks, the contrast yy ev rrdBsi imBvyla;, ver. 5, which
likewise belongs to KrdaBai, would be irreconcilable with it. (2) The body
may be compared with a aKsio;, or, when the context points to it, may be
figuratively so called, but a/eeiof by itself can hardly be put in the sense of
adya. All the passages which are usually brought forward do not prove
the contrary ; e. g. Barnabas, Ep. vii. and xi. : rd oKsio; roi irvsiparo;
{airov), where oksvo; has its usual meaning, and only the full expression
serves as a circumlocution for the body of Christ.^ How different also
from our passage is 2 Cor. iv. 7, by the addition barpaKtvoi;, according to
which the adya is only compared with a OKcio; oarpdKivov ! (3) The position
of the words rb iavrov aKevo; is against it. For iavrov can only be placed
first, because the emphasis rests on it ; but a reference to the hody of an
individual cannot be emphatic ; it would require to be written rb oksvo;
iavrov. Olshausen certainly finds in iavrui a support for the opposite view ;
but how arbitrary is his assertion, that by the genitive " the subjectivity,
the Ipvxv, is distinguished from the aKsio;," as only the belonging, the private
possession, can be designated by iavroi ! (4) The context also does not lead
us to understand o/eeiof of the body. Paul, namely, has brought forward the
dyiaapd; of his readers as the will of God, and has further explained
this dyiaapd;, first, negatively as an abstinence from fornication. If, now,
this negative specification is still further explained by a positive one, this
further positive addition can only contain tbe reverse, that is, the require
ment to satisfy the sexual impulse in chastity and honor. The words import
this, if a-/ceiof is understood in its original -meaning, " retain a vessel," and
the expression as a figurative designation of wife? How suitable does the
emphatic iavroi become through this interpretation, the apostle, in con
trast to the rropvsia, the Venus vulgivaga, urging that every one should
acquire his own vessel or means to appease the sexual impulse — ^that is,
should enter into marriage, ordained by God for the regulation of fleshly
lusts ; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2, where the same principle is expressed. To
iln a special manner Ernest Schmid ex- quidem <;Ma«t vas est aut aliquod ammi recep-
plains it: Suum vas i.e. suum corpus et in taculum. Lucretius, iii. 441: corpus, quod
specie sua membra, quibus ad dKaOapaiav vas quasi constitit ejus (sc. animae).
homo abuti potest. So also Majus, Observat. sso, in essentials, Theodore Mopsuestius
sacr. III. p. 76. Schemer, Woken, and Triller (ed. Fritzsche, p. 14.5 : 2/<€Co! r'riv 'iSiav iKda-rov
(comp. Wolf in loc), Bolten, entirely con- yapier'riv ovopditi); Ti'ves in Theodoret (r-riv
trary to the context: to eauToO o-zceOos is "his opoivya); Augustin, contra Julian, iv. 10, v. 9;
means, his vessels, or singularis pro plurali, de nupt, et concup, i. 8 ; Thomas Aquinas,
his goods, his utensils." Zwingli, Estius, Balduin, Heinsius, Seb.
'-philo, quod deter, pot. ins. p. 186: to t% Schmid, Wetstein, Schoettgen, Michaelis,
i//uxi)5 ivveioi/ to aCip-a, and de migr. Abrah. Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bisping,
p. 418: Toty a7yeioi? t^9 ^vxrr; atap-aTL Ka'i Ewald, Alford, EUicott, Hofmaun, Kiggen-
ai(7S^o-ei. Cicero, disput. Tusc. i. 22 : corpus bach, and others.

CHAP. rv. 5, 6. 517
regard the expression oksvo; as a figurative designation of wife is the less
objectionable, as this figurative designation is besides supported by Jewish
usage.' SKaarov iydv] every one of you, so. who does not possess the gift of
continence ; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2. — iv dyiaayCi Kal nyy] in chastity and
honor, belongs not to sKoarov, so that bvra would require to be supplied-
(Koppe, Schott), but to KrdaBai, and is an epexegesis to iavroi, so that after
KTaa-Bai a comma is to be put. In rd iavroi ff/eeiof Krda-Bai there is contained
Krda-Bai ev dyiaapd K.r.X. already implicitly included. Accordingly, by this
addition there is by no means expressed in what way one should marry,
which, as a too special prescription, would certainly be unsuitable ; but
ver. 4 contains only the general prescription, instead of gi'ving oneself up
to fornication, to marry, and this is opposed as honorable and sanctified to
what is dishonorable and unsanctified.
Ver. 5 brings forward the prescription 'sv dyiaayd koI npy once more on
account of its importance, but now in a negative form. — py 'sv rrdBsi imBv-
pia;] not in the passion of desire. Accordingly, Paul does not here forbid
imBvyla, for this in itself, as a natural impulse, rests on the holy ordinance
of God, but a irdBo; imBvpia;, that is, a condition where sense has been
converted into the ruling principle or into passion.^ — koI] niter KaBdrrsp is
not added for the sake of elegance (Pelt), but is the usual Kal after particles
of comparison ; see ii. 14, iii. 6, 12, iv. 6, 13 ; Eom. iv. 6, etc. ; Hartung,
Partikell, 1. p. 126. — rd yy e'lSdra rbv Qedv] of whom nothing better is to be
expected. Comp. on the expression. Gal. iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 8.
Ver. 6. The second chief point which the apostle subordinates to the
BiXypa rov Oeoi (ver. 3), adding to the prohibition of unchastity the further
prohibition of covetousness and overreaching our neighbor (Nicolas Lyrensis,
Faber Stapulus, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Luc.
Osiander, Balduin, Aretius, Vorstius, Gomarus, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus,
Wolf, Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Koch, Bouman, supra, p. 82, Bisping,
Ewald, Hofmann, Eiggenbach, and others). It is true Chrysostom, Theo
doret, John Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jerome on Eph. v.
5, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinsius, Whitby,
Benson, Wetstein, Kypke, Bengel, Baumgarten, Zachar., Michaehs, Pelt,
Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott, and others, refer it still to
the prohibition of unchastity given in vv. 4, 5, whilst they find in ver. 6 a
particular form of it designated, namely, adultery, and consider the sen
tence as dependent on e'lSivai (Pelt), or as in apposition to vv. 4, 5. But
this is without justification. For— (1) the expressions iirsppalveiv and
rrXsovsKrsiv most naturally denote a covetous, deceitful conduct in common
iThus it is said in Megilla Es-ther, i. 11: In mittit in vas non bonum, ille semen suum
convivio illius impiialiqui dixerunt :muliere3 deturpat. See Schoettgen, iTor. heb-r, p. 827.
Medicae sunt pulchriores, alii vero : Persicae Lastly, add to this that the expression /crao--
sunt pulchriores Dixit ad eos Ahasverus: Oai yvvaUa, in the sense of ducere uxorem,
vas meum. quo ego utor (U mmU 'JKtV is usual; comp. Xenoph^Conma ii. 10 : Ta,/T,.
^hj) neque Medicum neque Persioum est, (BavBiiriryv) KeKry^ai; LXX, Ruth iv. 10; Sir.
eed Chaldaicum. Comp. SoAar im<. fol. 38, xxxvi..24. ,^. ,.
col. 152: Quicunque enim semen suum im- 2 Theodore Mopsuestius (ed. .Fritzsche, p.

518 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
social intercourse. (2) If the discourse had been only of rropvsia, the words
Trepi irdvruv roiruv would scarcely have been put. Diff'erent kinds oi iropvsia
must at least have been previously enumerated. But not even this could
be the case, as then to the dissuasion from rropvsia in general, the dissuasion
from a special kind of rropvsia would be united. (3) Lastly, the article
imperatively requires us to consider rb . . . airoi as parallel to b ayiaapb;
ipdv, ver. 3, and, accordingly, as a second object diff'erent from the first.
If Pelt objects against our view that a mention of covetousness (ver. 6)
would occur " plane inexspectato," he does not consider that lust and
covetousness were the two cardinal vices of the heathen world, and that
Paul was accustomed elsewhere to mention them together ; comjj. Eph.
iv. 19, V. 3, 5; Col. iii. 5. Also, the further objection which is insisted on,
that on account of ver. 7 an exhortation to chastity must be contained in
ver. 6, is not convincing, as there is nothing to prevent us taking aKaBapaia
and dyiaayd;, ver. 7 (see on passage), in the wider sense. — rb] not equiva
lent to dars (Baumgarten-Crusius), but a second exponent of the object-
matter of BiXypa roi Qsoi (ver. 3). — irrspPaivsiv] here only in the N. T.,
stands absolutely ; justos fines migrare, to grasp too far (Luther).' What
Paul particularly understood by the entirely general py irrsppaivsiv he
himself indicates by /eai irXeovsKrelv . . . airoi, which latter words, as p-y is
not repeated before rrXsovsKrslv, can contain no independent requirement,
but must be .an explanatory speciflcation of iirspPa'ivsiv. koI is accordingly
to be understood in the sense of "and indeed." Others, as Beza, Koppe,
Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Eiggenbach, have
united both verbs with rbv dSsXipdv. But the union of irrsppalveiv with a per
sonal object is objectionable, and also in the two passages adduced for it
by Kypke (Plut., de amore prolis, p. 496, and Dem., adv. Aristocrat, p. 439)
the meaning opprimere is at least not demonstrable. Moreover, not
inaarov, from ver. 4 (B.-Crus., Alford), but nvd, is to be considered as the
subject to TO py irrsppalveiv K.r.X. — rrXsovsKrslv] expresses the Overreaching,
the fraudulent pursuit of our own gain springing from covetousness (comp.
2 Cor. vii. 2, xii. 17, 18), not the covetous encroaching upon the posses
sion of a brother, as a figurative expression for adultery. — iv nd rrpdypan]
is not verecunde pro concubitu (Estius and those mentioned above), but
means m the business (now, or at any time in hand). See Winer p. 109 f. [E.
T. 115]. Too narrow a sense, Piscator : in emendo et vendendo. Rittershus.'
Polyc. Leyser (in Wolf), and Koppe consider the article as enclitic {iv np
instead of iv nvi); unnecessary, and without any analogy in the New
Testament. Comp. Winer, p. 52 [E. T. 53J. But also erroneously, Mack
night, Schott, Olshausen, and others, ev np n pdy pari is equivalent to iv
rovnp Tip rrpdypan. — rbv dSsXipbv airov] is not equivalent to rbv rrXyalov (Schott,
166) : liirai' TOVTO iroioCrroj oi/teri TaOrT) oi? sio violenti, qualis tyrannorum et potentium
¦yvi-ai/d dvvovroi; dkh.a 6ia (lifij. p.6yriv oTrXii!, est, qui inferiores injustis exactionihus aut
oTTep udOoi i-irievp,'ia% indKeoev. aliis illicitis modis premunt," (Hemming) is
'Comp. Eurip. Ale. 1077: p.n vvv iwip^aiv, inserted, and every supplement, as that of
aAX' evato-t/Aws (Pipe ; II. ix. 501 : oTe Kev Tts Piscator, *' excedere modum iu augendia
iirepBrii) /tal afidpT)). The idea of an "oppres- rerum pretiis," is to be rejected.

CHAP. IV. 7, 8. 519
Koch, and others), but denotes fellow-Christians ; comp. ver. 10. This
limitation of the prohibition to Christians is not surprising (Schrader), as
there is no emphasis on rbv ddsXipbv airoi (for otherwise it must have been
written rd rbv ddsX(pbv airov pij K.r.X.), and accordingly the misinterpreta
tion that the conduct of Christians to those who are not Christians is to
be different, could not possibly arise. Paul simply names the circle
which stood nearest to the Christians, but without intending to exclude
thereby the wider circles. — e/edi/eof] an avenger; comp. Eom. xiii. 4. The
same reason for prohibition in Eph. v. 5, 6 ; Col. iii. 6 ; Gal. v. 21. Com
pare the saying: e;i;ei Gedf iKdiKov bppa (Homer, Batrachom,), which has
become a proverb. — KaBd; Kal] refers back to didn. — irpoeliropsv] foretold ; the
irpo refers to the time preceding the future judgment, and the preterite to
the time of the apostle's presence among the Thessalonians. — Sispaprvpd-
psBai] an intensifying of irpoeirropsv.
Ver. 7. Eeason of IkSiko; d Kipto; irepi rrdvrav roirav. — indXeaev] the fuller
form in ii. 12. — eTri dKaBapala] on condition of, or for the purpose of unclean
ness; comp. Gal. v. 13 ; Eph. h. 10; Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 894].'— dicaeaperia]
is uncleanness, moral impurity generally (comp. ii. 3), and thus includes
covetousness as well as lust. — dX.X' iv dyiaapa] gives, by means of an abbre
viation (comp. Kiihner, II. p. 316), instead of the purpose, the result of the
calling : hut in holiness, i. e. so that complete holiness of life has become a
characteristic property of us Christians. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15 ; Gal. i. 6 ;
Eph. iv. 4. But dyiaapd;, as it forms the counterpart to dKoBapaia, must
denote moral holiness in its entire compass, and is accordingly here taken
in a wider sense than in ver. 3.
Ver. 8. An inference from ver. 7 (not likewise from ver. 3, Flatt), and
thereby the conclusion of the matter treated of from ver. 3 and onwards.
— roiyapovv] (Heb. xii. 1) therefore, not : atqui (Koppe, Pelt). See Hartung,
Partikell 11. p. 354. — d dBsrdv] the rejecter (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 15 ; 1 Cor. i. 19),
stands absolutely (used as a substantive). Comp. Winer, p. 331 [E. T.
353]. What is rejected by him is evident from the context, namely, the
above exhortations to chastity and disinterestedness. So already Beza.
But the rejection of these exhortations is actual and practical, manifest
ing itself by the transgression of them. To d d&srdv Koppe erroneously
supplies : istam roi dyiaayoi legem, ver. 7 ; Pelt and Bloomfield : r^ roi
ayiaapov KXijaiv , Ernest Schmid : rbv roiaira rrapayyiXXovra ; Flatt : ipe rbv
irapaKaXovvra. It is decisive against the last two supplements, that hitherto
not the person who gave the exhortations to the Thessalonians, but only
the contents of those exhortations themselves, are emphatically brought for
ward (even on b Qsd;, ver. 7, there is no emphasis). To seek to determine
more definitely d aBerdv from the following oiK dv&parrov d-Bsrsi were arbi
trary, as the course of thought in ver. 8 would be interfered with.— oi/c
av-3-pairov d-Bersi dAAd rbv Qsdv] rejecteth not man (this may be excused) but
God, inasmuch as he who enjoins the readers to avoid lust and covetous
ness, impresses on them not his own human opinion, accordingly not a
1 Erasmus: Non vocavit nos hac lege, ut ditto vocationis erat, ut desineremua esse,
essemus immundi, siquidem causa et con- quod eramus.

620 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
mere arbitrary command of man, but delivers to them the solemn and
unchangeable wiU of God.— oi/c . . . dXXd] is here, as always, an absolute
contrast, therefore not to be weakened into " not, but especially," or, " not
only, but also " (Macknight, Flatt, and others). Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17; Acts
V. 4 ; Winer, p. 462 [E. T. 497] ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 9 f. In the anarthrous
singular dvBpairov, moreover, Paul expresses not merely the general idea
man in contrast to d Occif, but there is hkewise contained therein an (un
translatable) subsidiary reference to himself, as the person from whose
mouth the Thessalonians have heard these commandments. Others
incorrectly understand by dv-Bpurro; the defrauded brother (ver. 6); so
Oecumenius : roiyapovv d irapd ryv KXyaiv irpdrrav {ovro; ydp d dBsrdv) rbv
KaXeaavra vppiae ydXXov ij rbv irXsovsKryBivra' rovro Si elire, SeiKvv; a; ov
pdvov, ivBa b dSeXtpb; d ddiKoipsvo; -i), dsl ipeiysiv t^i/ poixeiav, dAAd Kdv airiaro;
y K.r.X. ; and Pelt ; Vestrum igitur quicunque vocationem suam spernit
fratremque laedit, quem diligere potius debuisset, is sane non hominem
contemnit, sed, etc. ; also Alford. In a manner still more mistaken,
Hofmann, referring to the whole section vv. 3-6, makes dv-Bpuirov denote
humanity, against which he sins who misuses the woman for the sake of
lust, or injures his brother for the sake of gain ; whilst with an entirely
inadmissible comparison of the Hebrew IJ-J, he arbitrarily inserts into
d-Bsrelv the idea of an " act of sin which is a breach of peace, a violation
of a holy or righteous relation," and finds in ver. 8 the impossible and
wholly abstract thought expressed, that every action which treats man as
if there were no duty towards man as such, will accordingly be esteemed
as having not man, but God for its object. — rbv /eai ddvra rb rrvevya airoi rb
dy. eif ipd;] who besides, etc., an emphatic representation of the greatness
of the crime which the Thessalonians would commit, were they to dis
obey these exhortations. In such a case they would not only set at
nought the eternal will of God, but also repay the great ^rrace which God
had shown to them with shameful ingratitude. Kai has an intensifying
force, and brings prominently forward, by an appeal to the conscience of
the readers, the inexcusableness of such conduct. — rd irvsipa airoi rb
dyiov] is the Holy Spirit proceeding from God, who transforms the believer
into a new personality, and produces extraordinary capabilities and gifts
(v. 19 f. ; 1 Cor. xii.-xiv.). — eif ipd;] is not precisely equivalent to iplv
(Koppe, Flatt, Pelt), but denotes, instead of the mere logical relation
which the dative expresses, the communication under the form of locality;
accordingly, unto you.
Eemaek. — If the present tense SiSdvra is read, the communication of the Holy
Spirit is represented as something continuing in the present. If, along with
SiSdvra, the reading of the Receptus, e'l; ijyd;, is retained, this may be either taken
in a wide sense, as ypa; in ver. 7, " to us, Christians ; " or, in a narrow sense, " to
us (me) the apostle." Iu the first case, the addition on account of its generality
would be somewhat aimless. In the second case, the following thought might be
found therein : " but God, who not only commissions us to utter such exhorta
tions, but who has also imparted to us His Holy Spirit, put us in a position to

CHAP. rv. 9. 521
speak every moment the correct thing ; " comp. 1 Cor. vii. 40. — But (1) this view
is objectionable on account of the many additions and supplements which it
requires ; (2) rbv Kal didbvra would introduce no new thought which is not already
contained in the contrast oi/e dvBpurrov . . . dAAd rbv Qsdv ; for, being commis
sioned by God to give such exhortations, speaking in His name is one and the
same with being qualified for this purpose by God's Holy Spirit ; (3) Lastly, it is
generally improbable that the addition rbv Kal K.r.X. should contain a statement
concerning the apostle, as such a statement is too little occasioned by the pre
ceding. For, in the contrast oi/c dvBpairov . . . dAAd rbv Qsdv, the general idea
not TJMiTi is contained in dv-Bpurrov as the main point, whilst the reference to the
apostle's own person in dv-Bparrov is very slight, and forms only a subsidiary point.
— If, on the other hand, eif i^df be received along with the present participle, this
might be explained with de Wette, whom Koch follows, that the apostle for the
sake of strengthening his words reminds the Thessalonians how God still con
tinues to communicate to them His Holy Spirit ; how this communicated Holy
Spirit, partly by inspired persons, partly by the voice of conscience, gives the
same exhortations which he, Paul, now enforces. But who does not see that here
also the chief matter, by whioh the addition becomes appropriate, must first be
introduced and supplied?
Ver. 9. Ae] introduces a new requirement. — ipiXadsXipla] brotherly love, i. e.
love to fellow-Christians ; Eom. xii. 10 ; Heb. xiii. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 22 ; 2 Pet.
i. 7. But the apostle thinks on this not only as a disposition, but also as
verifying itself by action, that is to say, as liberality toward needy com
panions in the faith (comp. rroisirs . . . eif, ver. 10). It is self-evident that
this brotherly love does not exclude love to man in general, comp. Gal.
-vi. 10 ; 2 Pet. i. 7. — When, moreover, the apostle says that he has no
need to exhort the Thessalonians to brotherly love, as they practise this
already, but nevertheless requires them to increase in it, this is a touch
of delicate rhetoric (praeteritio, rrapdXsiipi;, see Wilke, neutestamentliche
Rhetoric, p. 365), not unusual to Paul (comp. v. 1 ; 2 Cor. ix. 1 ; Philem.
19) in order to gain willing hearts for the fulfillment of an exhortation
whose necessity was evident.' — airoi] not equivalent to sponte (Schott),
which would not suit BsodidaKroi, but airoi ydp ipsi; are to be taken together,
and form the contrast to the person of the writer formerly named (how
ever without further emphasis). — ^sodidaKroi] an dTraf Xsydpsvov in the N. T.,
but analogous to didaKrol Qeov, John vi. 45 (Isa. liv. 13), and by no means
un-Pauline, because Paul elsewhere uses rrvevpariKol in this sense
(Schrader) ; for rrvevyariKol could not here have been put. The
expression is not to be taken absolutely in the sense of ¦Bsdirvsvaroi,
accordin"- to which eif rb dyarrdv dXXifXov; would only be a more
definite epexegesis of it — " so that ye, in consequence of this theopneustia,
love one another ; " but it contains a blending of two ideas, as properly
1 Chrysostom : Oi xpe'"'' exop-ev ypdipeiv iip.iv. ficat, eos omnino opus habuisse admonitione
.J. -„ „j„ uiMjT^crat /cal /niSei/ eiTTeli/, ei p.n superiori, quae erat de sanctimonia seu mun-
i iv Hvv Se TIU e'lnelv, oil xP^i-i 'irrl, ditia vitae ; difficile enim erat, homines gen-
i. V erroinaev n el el-irev. Erroneously tiles immunditiae peccatis assuetos a talibus
Estius, to whom Benson assents : Taoite signi- subito revocare.

522 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
only didoKroi iare is expected, but now the source of this instruction is
immediately united with the word (without any one exhorting you, you
yourselves know, namely, being taught of God, etc.). The knowledge or
the instruction is not theoretical, not a knowledge from the Old Testa
ment, not a knowledge from a word of the Lord (John xiii. 34 ; Baum
garten-Crusius), also not a knowledge from the instructions of the pro
phets, such as actuahy were, according to v. 20, among the Thessalonians
(Zachariae), but a practical knowledge which has its ground and origin
in the purified conscience of the inner man, effected by God through the
communication of the Holy Spirit ; consequently a knowledge or instruc
tion of the heart. Moreover, incorrectly Olshausen : " where God teaches,
there, the apostle says, J may be silent." For the stress lies not on the
first, but on the second half of -Bsod'iSaKroi. — eif rd dyarrdv dXXyXov;] is de
pendent on the SidaKroi in ^sod'idaKroi, and denotes, under the form of the
design at which that instruction aims, its object. Incorrectly Flatt, eif
denotes quod attinet ad.
Eemaek. — Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Ellicott, Hofmann, also Winer, p. 313 [E.
T. 339], and Buttmann, Gram. d. neut. Sprachgebr., Berlin 1859, p. 223 [E. T.259],
consider the reading of the Receptus : oi xpeiav sxsrs ypdipeiv iplv (see critical
remark), as- correct Greek, appealing to the frequent use of the infinitive active,
where one would expect the infinitive passive (see Kiihner, II. p. 339). I cannot
agree with this ; on the contrary, most decidedly deny the applicability of that
use to our passage. For, in the instances given, the characteristic distinction is
throughout observable, that the infinitive active expresses the verbal idea in a
vague generality, entirely free from any personal reference, so that this active infinitive,
in its import and value, can scarcely be distinguished from an absolute accusa
tive. Comp. for example, Sophocles, Oed. Col 37 : i^eX-B'- ixei; ydp x<^pov oi;i; dyvbv
rrarslv, — Thucydides, i. 38 : 'Hi/ . . . I QeyiaroKX-y; . . . dfiof -Bavpdaai. — Euri
pides, Med. 318 : Xeyei; dKovaai pa7.-9dii. — Comp. also Heb. v. 11 : Xoyo; dvaspyyvsv-
ro; 'Xiysiv. Entirely different from these is our passage, where ypdipeiv, by means
of iplv, instead of forming an absolute statement, is put in a special personal refer
ence to the readers ; indeed, as the subject of ypdipeiv can only be the apostle, in a
special personal reciprocal reference to Paul and the Thessalonians, and accord
ingly the whole expression acquires an individual concrete form. If ixers is not to
be without meaning, it would require accordingly either ipi ypdipeiv, or, as in v. 1,
the passive ypdipsadai to be written. For that, as Bouman, C'Aarfoe theolog. I. p. 65,
and Eeiche, p. 339, think, ipi or yyd;, or rather the indefinite nvd, readily sug
gest themselves to be supplied, and that the more so, as the necessity of some such
supplement is obvious from the following -BeodidoKroi (Bouman), can hardly be
maintained. Also Heb. v. 12, to which an appeal is made, proves nothing, for
hei-e from a similar reason nvd is to be accented (with Lachmann) instead of riva ;
whereby the reference and the relation of the words are entirely transformed.
Comp. my commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Ver. 10. An explanatory confirmation of the statement -Beod'idaKToi lars
eif TO dyarrdv dXXyTiov; by an actual historical instance. Calvin finds in ver.
10 an argumentum a majore ad minus : " nam quum eorum caritas per
totam Macedoniam se diffundat, colligit non esse dubitandum, quin ipsi

CHAP. IV. 10, 11. 523
mutuo inter se ament." But the emphasis rests not on dXXyXov; and roif
adsXipov; rov; iv bXy rJ MaKsdovtf, but On dyaTrdv and rroisirs. Also the Onin-
ion of de Wette, whom Koch follows, that an additional reason is here
adduced why the Thessalonians require no further exhortation, is to be
rejected, as then Kal rroisirs would require to be written instead of /eai yap
rroisirs, because ydp cannot be co-ordinate with the preceding ydp. — leai ydp]
not equivalent to simple ydp (so most critics), and also not quin etiam, or
imo (Calvin), but /or a&o .- comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f. Whilst
ydp is a justification of dyarrdv, the idea of didax'Byvai is carried on to the idea
of rroisiv by means of the corresponding Kai. — a-oieire] has the chief accent ;
it denotes the actual practice. — aird] scilicet, rb dyarrdv, not rd r^f ifuXadsXi'ia;
(Baumgarten-Crusius and Koch). — irepiaaeveiv pdXXov] to increase yet more,
scilicet, in brotherly love. Musculus, appealing to Phil. iv. 12, arbitrarily
takes irepiaasieiv absolutely, whilst he makes a new train of thought com
mence with rrapaKaXoiysv : " qua eos redigat in ordinem, qui doctrina
charitatis ad ignaviae suae, desidiei, curiositatis et quaestus occasionem
abutebantur, nihil operis facientes, sed otiose ac curiose circumeundo ex
aliorum laboribus victitantes," and finds the meaning : " ut abundetis
naagis, h. e. ut magis in eo sitis, ut copiam eorum, quae ad vitae hujus
sunt sustentationem necessaria, habeatis, quam ut penuriam patientes
fratribus ' sitis oneri." Equally erroneously, because unnatural, Ewald
thinks that as the following ipiXonpela-Bai, so also even irspiaae-'ueiv pdXXov,
is to be included in the unity of idea with yavxdi^eiv K.r.X., ver. 11 : " to
keep quiet still more, and zealously,'' etc. Besides, the construction of
rrspiaasisiv, with a simple infinitive following, would be wholly without
example.' — ydXXov] The same intensification as in iv. 1.
Eemaek. — After the example of Schrader, Baur (p. 484) finds also vv. 9, 10
only suitable for a church which had already existed for a considerable time.
How otherwise could the brotherly love of the Thessalonians, which they showed
to all the brethren in all Macedonia, be praised as a virtue already so generally
proved ? Certainly Paul recognizes the brotherly love of the Thessalonians as a
" virtue already proved ; " but Baur, no less than Schrader, overlooks (1) that not
eif Trdvraf roif dylov;, but eif irdvra; rov; ddsX^ov; iv bXy ry 'MaKsdovta is written ;
consequently, the exercise of that virtue is limited to the Christian circle nearest to
the Thessalonians ; (2) that Paul yet desires an increase in that virtue, thus
indicating that the exercise of it had only shortly before commenced. An interval
of half a year (see Introduction, ? 3) was accordingly a sufficient time for the
Thessalonians to make themselves worthy of a praise restricted within such bounds.
Ver. 11 is attached to the preceding in the loosest grammatical con
nection. [LIII d.] It has been thought that ver. 11 is only a further
development of the preceding exhortation. So Olshausen, who finds in
the whole section, vv. 9-12, only an exhortation to love, and in such a
1 Ewald in vain endeavors anew to defend before said that it was not necessary to write
the above construction of the words in his to the Thessalonians concerning brotherly
Jahrb d, bibl. Wissenschaft, 10 Jahrb. Gott. love, because they sufficiently practised it,
1860 p 241 if. : That the apostle, after he had could not, without self-contradiction, proceed

524 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
manner that vv. 9, 10 refer to love to fellow-Christians, and -w. 11, 12 to
love to man in general. To the latter in particular, inasmuch as the
Thessalonians were required to give no occasion to those who were not
Christians to blame anything in the professors of the gospel. But evi
dently the apostle, when he exhorts his readers to give no offence by their
conduct to those who were not Christians, considers this not as the ful
fillment of the commandment of love to man in general, but as a matter
oi prudence and discretion, in order in such a manner to counteract the
prejudices against Christianity, and so to pave the way for its diffusion in
wider circles. Comp. also Col. iv. 5, 6. Others suppose that to the exhor
tation to ^iXadeXip'ia a warning against its abuse is attached ; as some in the
church practised liberality, so others made use of this liberality as an occa
sion of leading an idle life. So already Theodoret,' and after him Estius,''
Benson, Flatt, Schott, de Wette (wavering), and Koch. But against this view
is decisive. — (1) That such a sharp division of the church into two different
classes is not justified by the context ; for, on account of the close connection
of ver. 11 with the preceding, those of whom rrspiaasisiv pdXXov is required are
the same with those to whom the exhortation to ipiXoripslaBai yavxdC,siv K.r.X.
is addressed. It accordingly follows, that as the church as such was distin
guished by active brotherly love, so also the church as such (not a mere
fraction of it) did not possess the qualities mentioned in ver. 11. (2)
According to this view, the stress is placed only on ipyd^saBai ral; xepalv
ipdv, whereas the demand to yavxdi^eiv and irpdaaeiv rd Idia is entirely left
out of consideration. And yet it apparently follows, from ipiXonpslaBai
yavxd^siv Kal rrpdaasiv rd Idia being placed first, that the main point lies on
these, whilst the idleness blamed in the readers is evidently described only
as a consequence or result of the neglected yavxd^siv Kal rrpdaasiv rd Idia. —
Accordingly, as a closer connection of ideas, than that which the form of
the grammatical construction appears to indicate, is not without force
demonstrable, we must, mindful of tbe rapid transitions which are pecu
liar to the Apostle Paul, especially in the practical parts of his Epistles,
consider vv. 11, 12 as a new exhortation, internally distinct from that in
vv. 9, 10, and which only happens to be united with it, as both refer to the
moral furtherance of the Christian life. — ipiXonpslaBai -yauxdl^eiv] is to be
taken together : to make it your ambition to live quietly, and the juxtaposi
tion of the two verbs is axi oxymoron, as in the usual course of things every
(piXonpia is properly an impulse to shine by actions.' Calvin takes ipiXon-
psia-Bai by itself, referring it back to the command to brotherly love : Post-
to say, but we exhort you yet to increase in ryjv rovriav tpiKorip-lav a/xeAelv ryr ep-yao-ia?-
brotherly love. In this Ewald is certainly et/coTws rolwv Ka/cei'rous i-iri^veae /eai tou'tois ra
right. But Paul only declared before that irp6a-<^opa avve^ou\evae.
the Thessalonians practised brotherly love— 2 Hac eorum liberalitate quidam pauperiores
that they already practised it sufficiently we abutentes, otio et inertiae vacabant, discur-
do not read; this, on the contrary, is only rentes per domos etinhiantes mensisdivitum
arbitrarily introduced by Ewald. atque in res alienas curiosi, adeo ut hoc no-
lOuK evavria Totff irpo'p'pnQeiaiv en-at'foLs i) mine etiam apud infideles male audireut."
rrapaiveais- uvve^aive ydp, Toi/9 p.kv (piXoTipioi '^ Bengel ; i^tAoTljiitapolitica erubesciti]0-vxa-
Xopyyeir roir 5eop.evoi^ r'riv xpeio^v, roili 5e Sid ^eiv.

CHAP. IV. 11. 525
quam enim admonuit, ut crescant in caritate, sanctam aemulationem illis
commendat, ut mutuo inter se amore certent, vel (?) certe praecipit, ut
se ipsum unusquisque vincere contendat, atque hoc posterius magis
amplector. Ergo ut perfecta sit eorum caritas, contentionem in illis
requirit. So also Hemming, and already Theophylact, leave this and the
usual construction a matter of choice. But the omission of /eai before
-yavxdt^siv would be harsh. On ipiAonpeia-Bai, comp. Eom. xv. 20 ; 2 Cor. v.
9 ; Kypke, II. p. 189. The counterpart of yavxa^siv is irspispyd^sa-Bai, 2 Thess.
iii. 11, and iroXvirpaypovsiv, Plat. Gorg. 526 C. — The disquiet or unsteadiness
which prevailed in the church is not to be sought for in the political (so
Zwingli : Nemo tumultuetur, nemo motum excitet ; and, but undecidedly,
Koppe : seditiones adversus magistratus Eomanos ; comp. also Schott, p.
121), but in the religious sphere. It was, as it appears, an excitement of
mind which had been called forth by the new world of thought produced
by Christianity ; but an excitement, on the one hand, risen to such an
unnatural height that worldly business was neglected, and idleness stepped
into the place of a regular laborious life ; and, on the other hand mani
festing itself by such a fanatical spiritual zeal that the Christians by such
a line of conduct must fall into discredit with those who are not Chris
tians. It is not improbable that the thought of the impending advent of
Christ formed the centre part of this excitement. At least this, by a
natural association of idetxs, would give the reason why Paul after vv. 11, 12
suddenly interrupts the course of his admonitions, in order, exactly at
this place, to attach instructions concerning the advent, whilst v. 12 ff.
shows that he intended to give various other admonitions. — The exhorta
tion of the apostle in v. 6, 8, to be prepared for the unexpected entrance
of the advent, which might be abused in favor of such an excitement, is
not decisive against the reference to an apocalyptic fanaticism (against de
Wette, who for this reason supposes only " pious excitement in general "),
because that exhortation intervenes between preceding (v. 4, 5) and suc
ceeding (v. 9 ff.) consolatory expressions, and, accordingly, loses all that is
alarming about it; the addition of that exhortation was too naturally and
necessarily required by the explanation of the circumstance itself, that
Paul should have suppressed it from mere fear of a possible abuse. —
rrpdaasiv rd ISia] same as 'iSioirpayslv, to be mindful of one's own concerns,
without, wishing to take the oversight of the concerns of our neighbor.
If the above remarks are not incorrect, Paul thinks on the unauthorized
zeal, by which they had used the advent as a means of terror, in order to
draw before their tribunal what was a matter of individual conscience,
and by which a care for the salvation of their neighbor was assumed with
an objectionable curiosity, rd iavrov n-pdao-eiv would be more correct Greek
than rd ISia irpdaaeiv} — 'epydl^sa^ai] means nothing else than to work. In
correctly, Flatt: to gain one's maintenance by work; Baumgarten-
Crusius : not to be ashamed of work. From the addition raif ;i:ep(Tii/ ipdv,
it follows that the Thessalonian church was mostly composed of the work-
iSee Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 441 f.; Kypke, II. p. 338 f. Comp. Dio Cass. Ix. 27: t));- Se Si,
yirvxlo,v dyuiv /cal ri eai/Toi) irpdrriov eiriiiero.

526 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ing class. Comp. also 1 Cor. i. 26. Calixt, Pelt, Schott, Hofmann, and
others erroneously find expressed in the words any imaginable business.
Paul mentions only tbe business of hand Labor, and to apply this to regu
lar business of any form or kind is entirely to sever it from this meaning
of the expression. — Ka^d; iplv rrapyyye'ifMyev] refers not only to epydl^ea-Bai,
but to the whole of ver. 11. It would seem from this that these disorders
already prevailed in their beginnings during the apostle's personal resi
dence in Thessalonica. There is nothing objectionable in this inference,
as (1) from 2 Thess. h. 5 it appears that at the publication of the gospel in
Thessalonica the advent had been the subject of very special explanations;
and (2) the effect of such explanations on the minds of Gentiles anxious
about salvation must have been overwhelming. Baur, p. 484, therefore is
entirely mistaken when he maintains that exhortations, such as those given
in vv. 11, 12, could not have been necessary for a church recently founded.
Ver. 12 is not the statement of an inference (Baumgarten-Crusius), but
of a purpose ; dependent, however, neither on rrapvyyeiXapev, nor on what
has hitherto been said, including the precept to ipiXadeXipia, ver. 10 (Flatt),
but on ver. 11, and in such a manner that the first half of ver. 12 refers to
(piXonpeia-Bai -fiavxd^eiv Kal rrpdaaeiv rd Idia, and the second half to ipydi^sa-Bai
ral; xspalv ipdv. — svaxvpdvu;] well-becoming , honorably, Eom. xiii. 13 ; 1 Cor.
vii. 35, xiv. 40. The opposite is drd/e-wf, 2 Thess. iii. 6. — irpdf] not coram
(Flatt, Schott, Koch), but in relation to, or in reference to those who are
s^u. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 265. — oi efu] those who are without {sc.
the Christian community), those who are not Christians, whether Jews or
Gentiles. Comp. Col. iv. 6 ; 1 Cor. v. 12, 13; 1 Tim. ih. 7. Already
among the Jews ol i^a (D'Ji:f'n) was the usual designation of Gentiles. See
Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 12 — pydsvd;] is by most considered as masculine, being
understood partly of Christians only (so Flatt), partly of unbelievers only
(Luther, Camerarius, Ernest Schmid, Wolf, Moldenhauer, Pelt), partly
both of Christians and unbelievers (Schott, de Wette, — who, however,
along with Koch and Ellicott, thinks that there is a chief reference to
Christians, — Hofmann, Eiggenbach). But to stand in need of no man, is
for man an impossibility. It is better therefore, with Calvin, Estius, Gro
tius, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, to take yydevd; as neuter, so
that a further purpose is given, whose attainment is to be the motive for
fulfilling the exhortations in ver. 10 : to have need of nothing, inasmuch
as labor leads to the possession of all that is necessary for life, whereas
idleness has as its inevitable consequence, want and need.
Ver. 13-v. 11. A comforting instruction concerning the advent. This
is divided into three sections — (1) iv. 13-18 removes an objection or a
doubt; (2) v. 1-3 reminds them of the sudden and unexpected entrance
of the advent ; and lastly, in consequence of this, v. 4-11 is an exhorta
tion to be ready and prepared for the entrance of the advent.
(1) Vv. 13-18. A removal of an objection. The painful uneasiness,
which had seized on the Thessalonians concerning the fate of their
deceased Christian friends, consisted not, as Zachariae, Olshausen, de
Wette, Hofmann., Schriftbew. II. 2, 2d ed. p. 649 f., and in his H. Schr. N.

CHAP. IV. 12, 13. 527
T. ; Luthardt, die Lehre von den leteten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 138 £, and
others assume, in anxiety lest the deceased should only be raised at the
general resurrection of the dead, and would thus forfeit the blessedness
of communion with the Lord in the interval between the advent and this
general resurrection (" the so-called reign of a thousand years," Olshau
sen). There is no trace in our section of a distinction between a first and
a second resurrection ; and the idea of a long interval of time between
the resurrection of believers and the resurrection of the rest of mankind
(Eev. XX.) is, moreover, entirely strange to the Apostle Paul, as it is evi
dent from 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff. correctly understood that the resurrection of
unbelievers takes place in immediate connection with the resurrection of
Christians. Eather it was feared that those already dead, as they would no
more be found alive at the advent of Christ, would receive no share in the
blessedness of the advent,' and accordingly would be placed in irreparable
disadvantage to those who are then alive. See exposition of particulars.
On vv. 13-18 [On vv. 13 ff., see Note LIV. a, b, a, pages 539-541] see von
Zezschwitz in the Zeitschr. f. Protestantismus und Kirche, new series, Erlangen
1863, p. 88 ff. E. Stahelin, Zur Paulinischen Eschatologie. 1 Thess. iv. 13-17
im Zusammenhang mit der Judischen Eschatologie untersucht (Jahrb. fur d.
Theol. Bd. 19. Gotha, 1874, pt. 2. 177 ff)
Ver. 13. Oi -Bi'Xoysv di iyd; dyvosiv] but we wish not that ye be in ignorance.
A recognized Pauline formula of transition to new and important com
munications; comp. Eom. i. 13, xi. 25 ; 1 Cor. x. 1, xii, 1; 2Cor. i. 8. In an
analogous manner, Paul uses also positive turns of expression : -B-iXa ipd;
s'ldivai. Col. ii. 1, 1 Cor. xi. 3, and yivdoKsiv iyd; poiXoyai, Phil. i. 12. — wspl rdv
KSKoiyypivav] [On vv. 13-18, see Note LV. pages 541, 542] concerning those that
are asleep, that is, by means of euphemism, " concerning the dead ; " comp.
1 Cor. xi. 30, XV. 6, 18, 20 ; John xi. 11 ; 2 Pet. ih. 4 ; Sophocles, Flectr. 509.
The selection of the word is the more appropriate, as the discourse in
what follows is concerning a revirification. But not the dead generally are
meant, which Lipsius {Theolog. Stud, u. Krit. 1854, p. 924), with an arbi
trary appeal to 1 Cor. xv. 29, considers possible, but the dead members of
the Thessalonian Christian church. — This is evident from all that follows,
particularly from the confirmatory proposition in ver. 14, and from the
expression oi vsKpol iv Xpiaru, ver. 16. — After the example of Weizel {Stud.
u. Krit. 1836, p. 916 ff.), de Wette (though in a hesitating manner) finds in
KSKoiyyivuv the idea indicated " of an intermediate state, i. e, oi an imper
fect and, as it were, a slumbering continuance of life of the departed
soul ¦ " whereas Zwingli, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, in express contra
diction to the idea of the sleep of the soul, insist on referring this state of
being asleep to the body exclusively. But neither, according to the one
side nor according to the other, are we jtistified in such a limitation, as
01 KSKoipypivoi only denotes those who are asleep as such, I e. according to
their whole personality. — The article in Trepi rdv KSKoiyypivuv represents the
question, to the solution of which the apostle now passes, as one well
1 Calvin: Vitam aeternam ad eos solos pertinere imaginabantur, quos Christus ultimo
adventu vivos adhuc in terris deprehenderet

528 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
known to the readers, and discussed by them. The brevity and generality
of the statement of the subject, combined with the solemn formula of
transition oi -BiXopsv di iyd; dyvosiv, renders it not improbable that a request
was directly made to Paul for explanation on the subject. — 'Iva py Xvirija-Bs]
sc. concerning those who are asleep. — ko-Bu; koI ol Xoirro'i] sc. Xvrroivrai.
Woken (in Wolf) gives the directly opposite meaning to the words : Absit
a vobis tristitia, quemadmodum etiam abest a reliquis illis, qui nempe
non tristantur ob mortuos et tamen spem nullam certam habent de felici
tate. Erroneously, because then ko-Bu; koI oi Xvrroivrai al Xoiiroi, py ixovrs;
(instead of oi pv ix-) iXirlda would require to have been written : not to
mention that Paul would hardly propose unbelievers as an example to
Christians. — Theodoret, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius
a Lapide, Calovius, Nat Alexander, Benson, Flatt, Pelt, Koch, Bisping,
Bloomfield, Hofmann, Eiggenbach find in iva py /.virija-Be ko-Bu; K.r.X. the
thought that the Thessalonians should not mourn inthe same degree, not so
excessively as oi Xoiiroi, because tbe apostle could not possibly forbid ev,-'ry
mourning for the dead. Incorrectly ; for then 'Iva py Xvrrya-Bs roaoirov u; koI
01 'Xoiiroi would require to have been written, ko^u; is only a particle of
comparison, but never a statement of gradation. The apostle forbids
Xvirsla-Bai altogether. Naturally ; for death has no more any sting for the
Christian. He does not see in it annihilation, but only the transition to
an eternal and blessed fellowship with the Lord. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54 ff.
— ol Xoiiro'i] the others, that is, the Gentiles ; comp. Eph. ii. 3. It is, how
ever, possible that Paul may also have thought on a portion of the Jews,
namelj', the sect of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Since,
as Josephus reports, the Sadducees, together with the resurrection, denied
all continued existence of the soul after death, and on the contrary made
the soul of man die at the same time with the body. Comp. Antiq. xviii. 1.4 :
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14. — ol py ixovrs; 'sXrr'id] namely, of an eternal life of bless
edness.' From this comparison with those who do not believe in a future
life in general^ it inevitably follows that also the Thessalonians feared for
their deceased Christian friends, not merely a temporary deprivation of the
eternal life of bliss to be revealed at the advent, but an entire exclusion
from it. If the comparison is to have any meaning (which Hofmann with
great arbitrariness denies), the blessing for whose loss the Gentiles mourn
must be the same as the blessing for whose loss the Christians are not to
mourn. The solution of the theme Trepi rdv KSKoiuyyivuv is therefore already
indicated by the objective sentence, and what follows has only the pur
pose of further explaining this solution.
IComp. Theocrit. Idyll, iv. 42: "EXmSe; ev « Stahelin I. c. p. 185 f, improperly objects
^lootoiv, dvekninroi Se Oavovre,;. Aeschyl. that such a Comparison with those who do not
Eumenid. 638 : aTra^ 9av6vro<; outi? c/tt' dvdara- believe in a future life in general would be in-
<Tt?. Catull. v. 4 ff.: Soles occidere et redire correctinitself,becausetheregardingofdeath
possunt. I Nobis quum semel occidit brevis as annihiljition and not believing in a con-
lux, I Nox est perpetua una dormienda. tinued life of the soul after death was even in
Lucret. iii. 942 f.: Nee quisquam expergitus ancient times alwa.vs the sad privilege of only
exstat, I Frigida quem semel est vitae pausa a few. For the view of the Apostle Paul only
eecuta. comes into consideration here. According to

CHAP. IV. 14. 529
Ver. 14. Eeason not of oi -BiXopsv iyd; dyvosiv, but of Iva py Xvrrija&e. The
Thessalonians were not to mourn, for Christ has risen from the dead ; but
if this fact be certain, then it follows that they also who are fallen asleep,
about whom the Thessalonians were so troubled, will be raised. There
lies at the foundation of this proof, which Paul uses as a supposition, the
idea that Christ and believers form together an organism of indissoluble
unity, of which Christ is the Head and Christians are the members ; con
sequently what happens to the Head must likewise happen to the mem
bers ; where that is, there these must also be. Comp. already Pelagius :
Qui caput suscitavit, etiam caetera membra suscitaturum se promittit.
From the nature of this argument it is evident (1) that those who are
asleep, about whom the Thessalonians grieved, must already have been
Christians : (2) that their complete exclusion from the blessed fellowship
with Christ was dreaded.' — ei ydp marsioysv] for if we believe, sl is not so
much a,s " quum, since, because " (Flatt), also not equivalent to quodsi :
" for as we-believe " (Baumgarten-Crusius), but is here, as always, hypo
thetical. But since Paul from the hypothetical protasis, without further
demonstrating it, immediately draws the inference in question, it is clear
that he supposes the fact of the death and resurrection of Ch-rist as an
absolute recognized truth, as, indeed, among the early Christians gener
aUy no doubt was raised concerning the reality of this fact. For even in
reference to the Corinthian church, among whom doubts prevailed con
cerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul, in combating this view, could
appeal to the resurrection of Christ as an actual recognized truth ; comp,
1 Cor. XV. 12-23. — The apodosis, ver. 14, does not exactly correspond with
the protasis. Instead of ovru; K.r.X. we should expect /eai mareiciv dsl, bn
aaairu; oi iv Xpiaru KOipy-BsvrE; dvaar-yaovrai, or bn ovra; b Qeb; Kal rov;
Koiyy-Bsvra; did rov Xpiarov iyepel. — oiruf] is not pleonastic as the mere sign
of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen) ; also not, with Flatt, to be referred
to aviary, and then to be translated " in such a condition, i. e, raised, re-
¦vived; " or to be interpreted as "then under these circumstances, i. e, in
case we have faith "(Koch, Hofmann), but denotes " even so," and,
strengthened by the following Kal, is designed to bring forward the agree
ment of the fate of Christians with Christ ; comp. Winer, p. 504 [E. T.
541], — did roi 'lyaov] is (by Chrys., Ambrosiast., Calv., Hemming, Zanch.,
Est., Balduin, Vorstius, Corn, a Lapide, Beza, Grot., Calixt, Calov, Wolf,
Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Mackn., Koppe, Jowett, Hilgenfeld {Zeitschr. f.
wissensch. Tlieol., Halle 1862, 3. p. 239, Einl in das N. T. p. 244), Eiggenbach,
Paul, however, a life in the world to come — perverted. He will not acknowledge that
apart from the case of those who are alive at from the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the
the Parousia  is brought about only through resurrection of those fallen asleep in Thessalo-
the resurrection. He therefore who, like the nica is deduced ; and— against which the oiiTcui
heathen does not believe in the latter, also xai of the apodosis should have guarded him
does not believe in the former; his hope limits —he deduces the aimless platitude, that "the
itself to the earthly life; in death he can see apostle with the words: 6 ©ebt toui KoipTiBev
onlytheabsoluteendandannihilation. Comp. ra; Sia toO 'Iijo-oC afti aiv avrJl, gives an
1 Oor. XV. 19. 32. assurance which avails us in the case of our
1 Hofmann's Tiews are very distorted and death, if we believe on the death and resur-
34

530 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
and others, comp. also Ellicott) connected with roif Koipy-Bivra;, and then
the sense is given : " those who have fallen asleep in Christ."' [LV c] But
this would be expressed by 'ev ru 'lyaov, as oi did roi 'lyaoi Koipy-Bivrs;
would at most contain a designation of those whom Christ had brought to
death, consequently of the Christian martyrs. Salmeron, Hammond,
Joseph Mede, Opp, p. 519, and Thiersch {die Kirche im ap, Zeitalt.,
Frankf. u. Erlang. 1852, p. 138) actually interpret the words in this sense.
Yet how contrary to the apostle's design such a mention of the martyrs
would be is evident, as according to it the resurrection and participation
in the glory of the returning Christ would be most inappropriately limited
to a very small portion of Christians ; not to mention that, first, the indi
cations in both Epistles do not afford the slightest justification of the idea
of persecutions, which ended in bloody death; and, secondly, the formula
Koipy-Byvai did nvd; would be much too weak to express the idea of mar
tyrdom. Also in the fact that Paul does not speak of the dead in general,
but specially of the Christian dead (Estius), there is no reason to unite roif
KOiyy-Bsvra; with did roi 'lyaov ; for the extent of the idea of 01 Koiyy-Bivrs;
in our passage is understood from the relation of the apodosis, ver. 14, to
the protasis ei mareiopev K.r.X. We are accordingly constrained to unite
did Toi 'I;;o-oi with df ei. — Christ is elsewhere by Paul and in the New Testa
ment generally considered as the instrument by which the ahnighty act
of God, the resurrection of the dead, is effected ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21 ;
John V. 28, vi. 39, 44, 54. — dfei] will bring with Him, is a pregnant expres
sion, whilst, instead of the act of resuscitation, that which follows the act
in time is given. And, indeed, the further clause avv ainz, i. e. avv 'lyaoi
(incorrectly Zachariae aud Kopp3=uf airdi;), is united in a pregnant
form with dfei. God will through Christ bring with Him those who are
asleep, that is, so that they are then united with Christ, and have a com
plete share in the benefits of His appearance. Hofmann arbitrarily
transforms the words into the thought : " that Jesus will not appear, God
will not introduce Him again into the world, without their deceased
brethren coming with Him." For the words instruct us not con
cerning Jesus, but concerning the KoipyBivre;; it is not expressed in
what manner the return of Christ wih take place, but what will be
the final fate of those who have fallen asleep. The apostle selects
this pregnant form of expression instead of the simple eyepei, because
the thought of a separation of deceased Christians from Christ was
that which so greatly troubled the Thessalonians, and therefore it was
rection of Jesus." As Hofmann misinterprets been thus privileged? Certainly 8ia toO
the words, so also do Luthardt, supra, p. 140 'Ij|o-o5), and inappropriately regarding the
£ and Stahelin. constructions eiixapiarelv Sii 'Iijo-oO Xpio-ToC,
' Also Alford connects SiA toC 'lyaov with Eom. i. 8 ; e'lp-qvyv exeiv Sia 'Iijo-oi;, Kom. v. 1 ;
Koipn^ivra,;; taut then arbitrarily (comp. oi /tai/x5o-eai Sii 'I^o-oi), Rom. ». 11, as analogous
veKpol ev Xpio-To!, ver. 16) pressing the expres- expressions, he brings out the following
sion KoipyOevra^ (ol Koip-TiOivrei are dis- grammatically impossible meaning: If we
tinguished from the merely flai-o^Tes. What believe that Jesus died and rose again, then
makes this distinction? Why are they eyen ttins a.\so those, of whom we say thai they
asleep and not dead? By whom have they sieep just because 0/ Jesus, will God, etc.

CHAP. IV. 15. 531
his endeavor to remove this anxiety, this doubting uncertainty, as soon
as possible.'
Ver. 15. A solemn confirmation of the comforting truth roi; Koipy-Bivra;
a^si avv aira, by bringing forward the equality between those living at the
advent and those already asleep. Koppe, Flatt, and Koch erroneously
assume a reference to ver. 13, making the ydp in ver. 14 parallel to the
ydp in ver. 15, and finding in ver. 15 a new reason for comfort. — roiro]
refers not to the preceding, but is an emphatic introduction to what fol
lows the first bn : this, namely, we say to you, iv Xdyip Kvp'iov, that we, the liv
ing, etc. — 'sv Xdy(p Kvp'iov] in or by means of a word of the Lord (comp.
^^gn -15-13, Esth. i. 12; nin; nana, l Kings xx. 35), that is, the following
statement on the relation of the living to those who are asleep at the
advent does not rest on my (the apostle's) subjective opinion, but on the
infallible authority of Christ. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25. — Pelagius,
Musculus, Bolten, Pelt, and others have regarded this Xdyo; Kvplov, to
which Paul appeals, as the words of Christ in Matt. xxiv. 31 (comp. Mark
xiii. 27) ; whereas Hofmann is of opinion that Paul might have inferred
it from the promises of Christ in Matt. xxvi. 25 ff. ; John vi. 39 f. But the
expressions found there are too general to be identified with the special
thought in our passage. Schott's statement, that Paul might justly appeal
to the prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 31, because it contained nothing oi a pre
rogative of the living before the dead, but on the contrary represents
simply an assembling of believing confessors with a view to the participa
tion of the Messianic kingdom, is subtle, and does not correspond to the
expression iv Xdyip Kvpiov, which points to positive information concerning
the definite subject in question. Also Luthardt's {I c. pp. 141, 57) view,
that in Xdyo; Kvpiov a reference is made to the parable of the virgins who
went out to meet the bridegroom (Matt, xxv.), and for which view eif
drrdvryaiv (ver. 17) is most arbitrarily appealed to, is evidently erroneous.
Just as little can the Xdyo; Kvpiov be found (with Stahelin I e, p. 193 f ) in
this place, i. e. in the first half of ver. 16, so that the word of the Lord,
on which Paul rests his asseveration, consists in this, that Jesus, according
to His own declaration (Matt. xxiv. 29-31) -will descend from heaven iv
KsXsiapan, iv (pavy apxayyi?MV and iv adXmyyi Beov. For the first words of
ver. 16 picture only the mode in which the entrance of the advent will be
accomplished, but they leave the central point of tne question before us
untouched. Others, as Calvin and Koch, have thought that Paul referred to
a saying of Christ not preserved in the Gospels, but transmitted by tradition.
(So, recently, also v. Zezschwitz, /. c. p. 121, according to whom the apostle
thought " on a word " which is " to be sought for in the peculiar and inti
mate communications of our Lord to His disciples, such as He would
have given them during the forty days, when He spoke with them con
cerning the paaiXsia roi Qsoii') This Supposition may certainly be sup-
iThn idea of "a general ascension of all thought "only on a kingdom ofGod on earth,"
Christians," whioh Schrader finds in this is, according to the above, introduced by him
verse, and in which he perceives a mark into the passage.
of un-PauIine composition, because PavU

532 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ported by the analogy of Acts xx. 35; but it must always remain
precarious, the more so as there was no inducement to Christ, in His
intimations concerning the period of the fulfillment of the Messianic king
dom, to make such special questions, arising only in consequence of con
crete circumstances, the subject of an anticipated instruction. It is best,
therefore, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Hunnius, Piscator (who, however,
arbitrarily supposes the fact described in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4), Aretius, Turretin,
Benson, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Gess {die Lehre von
der Person Christi, Basel 1856, p. 69 f.), Alford, Ellicott, Eiggenbach, and
others, to suppose that Paul appeals to information concerning tbe mat
ter in hand which had been communicated to him in a direct revelation
by the heavenly Christ ; comp. Gal. i. 12, ii. 2; Eph. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1. —
^^eif oi (,dvrs; ol rrspiXsirrdpsvoi eif rijv irapovaiav rov Kvpiov] we, the tiring, who
remain unto the presence (or return) of the Lord. From the construction of
these words it undoubtedly follows, that Paul reckoned himself with those
who would survive till the commencement of the advent, as indeed the
same expectation is also expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 51 f. Comp. besides, 1
Cor. vh. 26, 29-31, i. 7, 8; Eom. xin. 11, 12; Phil. iv. 5. See also Dahne,
Entwickel des Paulin. Lehrbegr, pp. 175 i, 190 ; Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr, p.
355 ; Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel, Leipz. 1856, p. 282. This expectation
is not confirmed by history : Paul and all his contemporaries fell a prey
to death. What wonder, then, if from an early period of the Christian
church this plain meaning of the word was resisted, and in its place the
most artificial and distorted interpretations were substituted? For that
Paul could be capable of error was regarded as an objectionable conces
sion, as an infringement upon the divine authority of the apostle. It has
therefore almost universally ' been maintained by interpreters, that Paul
speaks neither of himself nor of his contemporaries, but of a later period
of Christianity. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Oecu
menius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger,
Zanchius, Hunnius, Balduin, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Lauren
tius, Calixt, Calov, Joach. Lange, Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Flatt, and
many others. Whilst Calvin and Cornelius a Lapide, in order to remove
difficulties, do not scruple to charge the apostle with a pious fraud ; sup
posing that he, although he was convinced of the distance of the advent,
nevertheless represented himself as surviving, in order in this way to stim
ulate believers to be in a state of spiritual readiness at every instant ;
Oecumenius, after the example of Methodius, interprets oi f iivref K.r.X. of
the souls, and ol KoipyBivre; of the bodies of Christians.'^ Usually, however,
in order to remove the objectionableness of the words, an appeal is made
'Exceptions in early times are very rare. ai ipvxai, a; /tai rrepi\ip.-irdveaeai ip-iiai Sii to
They are found in Piscator (yet even he dSdvarov oi ydp dv, el p.^ Trepi ipvxii>v eXeyev,
hesitates), Grotius, and Moldenhauer. To elire to ^neis oi ^Oivres oi TrepiAeiTro/iej.oi, reXev-
bring the correct view to more general recog- rijo-eiv peWmv Ae-yei o5i., on oi iOivre^ ai
nition was reserved for recent times. ipvxaX ovk dv rd adip-ara irpoijiddaiapev ev r-g
2 ^Civra^ Tas ipvxd^, K0ip.y9evTa Se to aiipara dvaardaei, dXXd /Aer' aiirOlv T^s dvaaraireuli
Xeyei' ouk dv ovv irpoXdjBuiaiv ai ipvxn^i' irpOirov Tci/^u/ieda.
yd^ eyetpeTai Ta crtojaara, iva avrd d-nohA^maiv

CHAP. IV. 15. 533
to the fact that by means of an " enallage personae," or an avoKolvaai;,
something is often said of a collective body which, accurately taken, is
only suited to a part. Then the sense would be : we Christians, namely,
those of us who are alive at the commencement of the advent, i, e, the
later generation of Christians who will survive the advent. But however
often yyei; or iyel; is used in a communicative form, yet in this passage
such an interpretation is impossible, because here -yysi; ol iddvre; K.r.X., as a
peculiar class of Christians, are placed in sharp distinction from KoipyBivre;,
as a second class. Accordingly, in order to obtain the sense assumed, the
words would require to have been written : on ypdv ol iddvrs; K.r.X. oi yij
ipBdaovrai rov; KoipyBivra;, apart altogether from the fact that also in v. 4
the possibility is expressed, that the day of the Lord might break in upon
the presently existing Thessalonian church. Not less arbitrary is it, with
Joachim Lange, to explain the words : " we who live in our posterity," for
which an additional clause would be necessary. Or, with Turretin, Pelt,
and others, to understand oi ^dvrs; oi rrspiXsirrdysvoi in a hypothetical
sense : we, provided we are then alive, promded we still remain. (So, in
essentials, Hofmann : by those who are alive are meant those who had
not already died.) For then, instead of -ypei; ol ^dvrs;, ol rrspiXeirrdpevoi, it
would necessarily require -ypsl; ^dvrs;, irepiXeiirdysvoi (without an article).
The same also is valid against J. P. Lange {Das apostol, Zeitalter, I., Braun-
schw. 1853, p. 113) : " The words, ' the living, the surviving ' are for the pur
pose of making the contrast a variable one, whilst they condition and limit
the ypsl; in the sense : we, so many of us (!) who yet live and have survived ;
or (?) rather, we in so fa^r as we temporarily represent the living and
remaining, in contrast to our dead." Lastly, the view of Hoelemann {Die
Stellung St, Pauli zu der Frage um die Zeit der Wiederkunft Christi, Leipz.
1858, p. 29 and in a more extended form in his Neue Bibel-Sludien, Leipz, 1866,
p. 232 ff.) is not less refuted by the article before l^dvrs; and irspiXsiirdysvot :
•' The discourse, starting from the ypsl; and rising more and more beyond
this concrete beginning, by forming, with the next two notions oi ^dvrs;, oi
rrepiXeirrdysvoi, always wider (!) and softer circles, strives to a generic (!)
thought — namely, to this, that Paul and the contemporary Thessalonians,
while in the changing state of rrspiXe'nrsa-Bai (being left behind), might be
indeed personally taken away beforehand; although the opposite possi
bility, that they themselves might yet be the surviving generation, is
included in the -ypsl; ol fdivref with which the thought begins, and which
always echoes through it." Every unprejudiced person must, even from
those dogmatic suppositions, recognize that Paul here includes himself,
along with the Thessalonians, among those who will be alive at the advent
of Christ. Certainly this can only have been a hope, only a subjective
expectation on the part of the apostle ; as likewise, in the fifth chapter,
although he there considers the advent as impending and coining sud
denly, yet he supposes the indefiniteness of the proper period of its com
mencement (comp. also Acts i. 7; Mark xiii. 32). That the apostle here
states his surviving only as a supposition or a hope, is not nullified by
the fact that he imparts the information (ver. 15) iv Xdyip xvplov. For the

534 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
'Xdyo; Kvp'iov can, according to the context, only refer to the relation of
those who are asleep to the living ; but does not refer to the fact who will
belong to the one or to the other class at the commencement of the
advent. [LV di] Only on the first point was the comforting information
contained which the Thessalonians required.— The present participles
C,dvre; and irspiXsiirdpsvoi are not to be taken as futures (Calvin, Flatt, Pelt),
but denote the condition as it exists in the present, and stretches itself to
the advent. — oi py ipBdauysv roi; KoiyyBivra;] [LV e, /.] shall by no means
precede tliose who are asleep, so that we would reach the end (the blessed
ness of the advent), but they would be left behind us, and accordingly lose
the prize. The apostle speaks in the figure usual to him of a race, in
which no one obtained the prize who was forced half way to interrupt his
running. — On the emphatic oi yy, see Winer, p. 471 f. [E. T. 506].
Vv. 16, 17. Proof of the truth of oi py ipBdaapsv roi; Koiyy-Bivra; by a
description of the particulars in which the advent will be realized.
Ver. 16. Comp. Flatt, Opusc. acad. p. 411 ff. — on] not that, as Koch and
Hofmann think, so that vv. 16 and 17 (according to Hofmann, only ver.
16!) still depend on Xiyoysv 'ev Xdyip Kvpiov, ver. 15; but /or. — airdf d Kipio;]
the Lord Himself, avrd; is neither a mere introductory subject (" He, the
Lord,'' de Wette, Hofmann); nor added with the design to refer "the
coming of Christ expressly to His holy personality and corporality,"
accordingly designed to exclude " every manifestation of Him by mere
instruments," or by angels (so Olshausen and Bisping, and already IMus-
culus, Estius, and Fromond.') ; also is not inserted here " for solemnity's
sake, and to show that it will not be a mere gathering to Him, but He
Himself will descend, and we shall be summoned before Him " (Alford)
and also does not affirm " that the Lord Himself will descend amid occur
rences which form an essential part of God's final revelation of judgment of
the world, that His coming will be attended by such manifestations as usher
in the a'ldv yiXXuv and cause Him to appear as the one who introduces
it and is its Lord," Stahelin p. 222;— but it represents Christ as the
chief Person and actor at the advent, emphatically opposed to His faith
ful ones — both those already asleep (oi vsKpol iv Xpiard) and those still
living — as they who are acted upon. — KsXsvapa] in the N. T. an dira^
Asydysvov, denotes an imperative call, e. g. of a commander to his host to
exhort them to the conflict or to warn them to decamp, of a driver to
excite his horses to greater S23eed, of a huntsman to encourage his hounds
to the pursuit of the prey, of sailors to excite themselves to vigorous
rowing, etc. Comp. Thucyd. ii. 92; Xen. de venal, vi. 20; Lucian, Catapl.
19. Here the Ki'Xsvapa might be referred to God. Only then we must not,
as Hunnius does, identify it with the adXiny^ Qsov, and find represented
in the two expressions the " horribilis fragor inclarescentium tonitruum ; "
but, in conjunction with the statement that God only knows beforehand
the time and hour of the advent (Matt. xxiv. 3), it must refer to the
1 Koch accepts both de Wette's interpre- aiirov at the same time unaccented and
tation and the meaning of Olshausen, and emphatic.
thus falls into the contradiction of making

CHAP. IV. 16. 535
imperative call to bring about the advent. So recently Bisping and
Stahelin. This interpretation is, however, to be rejected, because the three
sentences introduced with iv are evidently similar, i.e. all three are a
statement of the mode of Karapa'ivsiv, accordingly contain the description
of the circumstances with which the descent during the course of its com
pletion will be accompanied. But, understood in the above manner, 'sv
KsXsiapan would denote an act preceding the Karapa'ivsiv, and thus another
preposition instead of iv would necessarily be chosen. Others, as Theo
doret, Oecumenius, Grotius, and Olshausen, refer iv KsXsiayan to Christ. But
in this case we would be puzzled so to define the contents of the KiXsvapa,
as to prevent them coining into collision with the ipaveiv of the dpxdyysXo;.
For that we are not justified, with Theodoret, in distinguishing the Ki-
Xsvaya and the (paa-y by a prius and post (d Kipio; . . . KsXsicei yev dpxd-yysXov
Poyaai) is evident, as both are simultaneous — both in a similar manner are
represented as accompanying the Karapa'ivsiv. It is accordingly most pro
bable that Paul places iv KsXsiapan first as a primary, and on that account
absolute ¦ expression, and then, in an epexegetical manner, more fully
develops it by iv (puvy dpxayyeXov Kal ev adXmyyi Qsoi. If this is the correct
interpretation, the apostle considers the KsXsvaya as given by the archangel,'
directly afterwards mentioned, who for the publication of it uses partly his
voice and partly a trumpet ; and, as the contents of the KiXsvapa, the impera
tive call which reaches the sleeping Christians to summon them from their
graves (comp. also the following /eai oi vsKpol K,r.X,), consequently the resur
rection-call (Theodoret, John Damascenus, Calixt, Stahelin and others). —
iv (p(My dpxa-yyiXov Kal iv adXmyyi Qsoi] with the call, namely, of an archangel,
and with (the sound) of the trumpet of God. Christ will return surrounded
by hosts of angels ; comp. iii. 13 ; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30 f.,
xxv. 31 ; Mark viii. 38, xiii. 26 f. ; Luke ix. 26. According to the post-
exile Jewish notion, the angels were distinguished into different orders and
classes, over each of which presided an dpxdyysXo;. (See Winer's bibl. Real
worterb. 2d. ed. vol. I. p. 386 f.) One of these dpxdyysXoi (D'"iK')_--whom Nicolas
de Lyra, Hunnius, Estius (appealing to Jude 9 and Eev. xii.), Bern, a Picon.,
Bisping and Stahelin suppose to be the archangel Michael ; and Corne
lius a Lapide, Michael or Gabriel ; -whilst Ambrosiaster and Olshausen,
as well as Alphen and Honert (in Wolf), understand no angel at all, but
the two first understand Christ (!), and the two last the Holy Ghost (!) — is
considered as the herald at the commencement of the advent, who with a
loud voice calls upon the dead, and arouses them by the sound of a
trumpet. The Jews used trumpets for summoning the people together ;
comp. Num. x. 2, xxxi. 6, Joel ii. 1. Also the manifestations of God were
considered as accompanied by the sound of a trumpet; comp. Ex. xix.
16 • Ps. xlvii. 6 ; Zech. ix. 14 ; Isa. xxvii. 13 ; — and as it was the opinion
of the later Jews that God will use a powerful and far-soundiug trumpet
1 Macknight incorrectly refers the /te'Xeucrjia their joy at the advent of Christ to judge the
to the w/ioie of the attendant angelic host, and world," — an interpretation whioh finds no
finds therein "the loud acclamation which support in the context, and militates against
the whole angelic hosts will utter to express the meaning of /ceAevcr/ua.

536 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
to raise the dead (comp. Eisenmenger's entdecktes Judenthum, II. p. 929 f.),
so in the N. T. mention is made of a adXmy^ in reference to Christ's
advent; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 52; Matt. xxiv. 31. The trumpet is called
' adXmy^ Qeov, either because it excels all human or earthly trumpets in the
power of its sound (so Cornelius a Lapide, Calov., Wolf, Benson, Bengel,
Baumgarten, Bolten, and several) ; or because it will be blown at the
command of God (so Balduin, Jac. Laurentius, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, and
others) ; or, lastly, because it belongs to God and is used in His service (so
de Wette, who refers to the e.xpression " harps of God," 1 Chron. xvi. 42 ;
Eev. XV. 2 [see also Winer, p. 232, E. T. 247], Koch, Alford, Ellicott and
Stahelin). — arr' oipavov] down from heaven. For the crucified and risen
Christ is enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God; comp. Eom, viii.
34; Eph. i. 20; Col. iii. 1; Phil. iii. 20. — Kal oi vsKpol K.r.X.] a consequence
of iv KsXevapari /c.r.A. KaraPyaerai, — ev Xpiara] is not tO be connected with
avaaryaovrai (Pelt, Schott), but with oi vsKpol ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 18 ; Winer,
p. 128 [E. T. 135]. For if connected with avaaryaovrai, then iv Xpiara
woiild receive an emphasis which, according to the context, it cannot
have ; as the apostle does not intend to bring forward the person by whom
the resurrection is effected, which is evident of itself, but designs to show
what relation it will have to those who sleep on the one hand, and to those
who are alive on the other. Theodoret has arbitrarily inserted into the
text : Ne/epoif roif maroi; Xeyei, oi pdvov rov; rd sva-yyeXiip rrsrriarsvKdra;, dXXd Kal
roi; 'sv vdpa Kal roi; irpb vdpov diaXdpipavra; ; and Musculus, that there are also
to be reckoned among the i/e/epoi 'sv Xpiard the dead children of Christians
before they believed on Christ, and the " patres priorum saeculorum qui
ante tempora Christi vixtjrunt. Nam et illi cum semine ipsorum propter
fidem venturi servatoris in Christo fuerunt." — irpdrov] does not denote, as
Oecumenius {oi iv Xpiard rovreanv ol iriarol, irpdrov dvaaryaovrai, oi ds Xioirrol eaxa-
Toi, a; pij dpird^eaBai pyre drravrdv piXXovre;) and Others maintain, the first resur
rection, — the so-called resurrection of the just, — in contrast to the resurrec
tion of all men following at a much later period ; a distinction which is left en
tirely unnoticed in our passage, and in the form stated would be un-Pauline.
Eather irpdrov is in contrast to erreira, ver. 17, and denotes that the first act of
Christ at His reappearance will be the resurrection of the Christian dead,
and then the doird^sa-Bai of the living, ver. 17, will follow as the second act.
Ver. 17. 2ii' airoif] i. e. with the raised vsKpol ev Xpiard. — dpirayyadys-Ba]
we will he snatched away. The expression (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 4 ; Acts viii.
39) depicts the swiftness and irresistible force with wllich believers
will be caught up. But, according to 1 Cor. xv. 50-53, the apostle
must have conceived this dprrd^eaBai as only occurring after a change
has taken place in their former earthly bodies into heavenly, to
qualify them for a participation in the etern3,l kingdom of the Messiah. —
iv veipiXai;] not instead of eif veipiXa; (Moldenhauer), but either in clouds, i. e.
enveloped in clouds, or better, on clouds, i. e, enthroned in their midst.
According to the Old Testament representation (Ps. civ. 8), God rides on
clouds as on a triumphal chariot. Also the Messiah appears on clouds
(Dan. vii. 13). According to Acts i. 9, Christ ascended to heaven on a

CHAP. IV. 17, 18. 537
cloud ; and according to Acts i. 11, Matt. xxiv. 30, He will return on a
cloud.' — eif drrdvryaiv roi Kvp'iov] to the meeting of the Lord, i. e, in order to be
led towards the Lord, eif dTrdvT)7crii>, corresponding to the Hebrew risip?
is united both with the genitive (Matt. xxv. 1, 6), as here, and with the
dative (Acts xxviii. 15). From the words it follows that the apostle did
not think of Christ descending completely down to the earth. — eif depa]
into the air, belongs to dprrayyadpe-Ba, and can as little be considered as
equivalent to eif roif oipavoi; (Flatt) as it can denote through the air, i, e.
through the air to the higher regions (Flatt). Nor, on the other hand, can
it be the apostle's meaning — although Pelt, Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr. pp,
356, 359 (hesitatingly), and Weizel in the Theol Stud. u. Krit, 1836, p. 935 f.,
also Stahelin p. 229 f. assume it — that the Christian host would be caught
up into the air, in order to have their permanent abode with Christ in the air.
For, according to 2 Cor. v. 1, the future eternal abode of Christians is iv
roi; oipavol;} Nevertheless the apostle was constrained to express himself as
he has done. For when Christ descends dUiwn from heaven, and Christians
are caught up to meet Him, the place of meeting can only be a space between
heaven and earth, i, e. the air. Comp. Augustine, de civit, Dei, xx. 20, 2 : Quod
enim ait . . . non sic accipiendum est, tanquam in aere nos dixerit semper
cum domino esse mansuros ; quia nee ipse utique ibi manebit, quia veniens
transiturus est. Venienti quippe ibitur ohmam, non manenti. But that Paul
adds nothing concerning the removal of the glorified Christian host to
heaven, following their being caught up with Christ, and of the resurrection
of all men connected with the advent along with the judgment of the
world, is naturally explained, because the description of the advent as such
is not here his object, but his design is whohy and entirely to satisfy the
doubts raised by the Thessalonians in respect of the advent.' But to effect
this purpose it was perfectly sufficient that he now, specifying the result of
the points described, proceeds : Kal ovru; irdvrors avv Kvpia iadpe-Ba] and so
shall we ever be united with the Lord. — ovru;] so, that is, after that we have
actually met with Him. It refers back to eif drrdvryaiv. — avv] imports more
than perd. It expresses intimate union, not mere companionship. — iadpeBa]
comprehends as its subject both the vcKpol ev Xpiard and the ^uvrs;. [LV g,]
Ver. 18. A concluding exhortation. — rrapoKaXeiv] not to exhort (Muscu
lus) but to comfort; comp. 'iva yy Xvrrya-Bs, ver. 13. — Xdyoi] denotes nothing
more than words. Erroneously Aretius, Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen, and
others : principles or doctrines (of faith). And iv roi; Xdyoi; roiroi; denotes
on the ground of these or the above words.
1 Theodoret: 'ESeiJe to /leyefloj Tl)! Ti/ii)5- cerningthechangeofbelieverswhohappened
iaairep ydp airot 6 Seo-TroTTjs eirl veiptXijt (poi- to be alive at the advent is justified. Against
Tell-^! dveKri4>ey, oiiria /tai oi eit aUTOi/ rre-iria- Schrader, who thinks on account of this
„ ., . silence that the author must have conceived
Tei/KOTe? /c.T.A.
2 Also on this account Paul cannot have the circumstances of the advent "in au
thought on a permanent residence on the entirely sensible manner;" "the incon-
elorified earth (Georgii in Zeller's theol. Jahrb. gruities of this representation, if it is under-
1845 I. p. 6, and Hilgenfeld in the Zeitsch, f. stood sensibly," cannot be Pauline, because
wiss' Theol, Halle 1862, p. 240). with Paul the doctrine of the last things has
s For the same reason also the silence con- a " purely (?) spiritual character."

538 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Notes by American Editob.
LIII. Vv. 1—12.
(a) In the second division of the Epistle, which begins with ver. 1 of this
chapter, and extends as far as ver. 25 of chap, v., the Apostle gives certain direc
tions and exhortations respecting the Christian life of the readers, and meets, at
length, certain questionings or difiiculties which occupied their minds. Tliese
exhortations and questionings, however, indicate the early stages of development
and thought, and belong in the line of friendly suggestion — answering, thus, to
the preceding chapters. The word Xoirrdv is suggestive of the same thing. The
writer turns from his friendly review of the past, and his expressions of hope for
the future, to the brief counsels which he has to give, as if these were only the
accidental closing remarks in a letter, which had been begun for the purpose of
simply assuring them of his deep interest in their welfare and warm affection for
themselves. The character of tbe first exhortation (vv. 1. 2), which, both in its
general form and through the oiv pointing backward to iii. 13, is closely con
nected with what has been already set forth in the earlier section, is also indica
tive of this plan and design as in the Apostle's mind. — (6) The exhortation of vv.
1, 2 evidently follows immediately upon the thought of iii. 11-13. In the former
passage, he praj-s that God would cause them to abound in love to the end of
confirming them in holiness, etc., and here he asks them, in the way of reaching
this result, to abound yet more in obeying and following the instructions which he
had himself given them, as he had been taught by Christ. These verses, accord
ingly, form a most natural transition from iii. 12, 13 to iv. 3 fil, where he enters
into some particular details. We may observe the closely connecting link, also,
which is found in the words roiro ydp ianv BiXypa rov Beov of ver. 3.
(c) The principal questions in vv. 3-6 are connected with the meaning of OKsio;
and the construction and reference of rb iirspPaivsiv K.r.X. As to the former of
these two points, the arguments presented by Lunem., in his note, may be regarded
as satisfactorily establishing his view. As to the latter, the following suggestions
may be ofl"ered : (1) The designation of adultery by the verbs used in ver. 6 is
antecedently improbable ; while, as referring to covetousness, etc., they are most
appropriately used. (2) The close connection of the sin of covetousness with that
of unchastity elsewhere in Paul's writings, makes it very natural that he should
refer to both of the two here. (3) As these two sins were chief outgrowths of
idolatry, according to his view, the combination of the two afibrds the most satis
factory contrast to that sanctification which he presents as the will of God for the
Christian. (4) The idea of Krda-Bai, modified by the words which follow, finds its
full and complete contrast in dTrexe(7i?ai. To refrain from iropvsia is the opposite
of " acquiring for oneself one's own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the
passion of lust." To introduce a further expression, relating indeed to adultery,
but. viewing it prominently in the light of overreaching or defrauding a brother,
involves an additiou'to a contrast already fully presented, and an addition which
would scarcely seem necessary in the connection. On the other hand, the con
nection of rb iirsppaiveiv with what precedes without any separating particle;
the difiiculty of accounting for ra rrpdypan as referring to business {the business
or matter on hand at any time) ; and the use of aKa-Bapaia in ver. 7, — are points

NOTES. 539
of importance as bearing in favor of the application of the words to adultery. It
must be observed, however, that the absence of any particle before rd py irrep
Pa'iveiv and the use of riji rrpdypan are not altogether easy of explanation, if the
reference to adultery is accepted. The peculiarity of the language is such that no
confident afiirmation can be made, as between the two views. Not improbably,
however, the reference of TrAcoi/e/ereii/ to covetousness is in accordance with the
meaning of the Apostle. It does not seem necessary, if we adopt this view, to
make to yy iirepp. parallel to d dyiaapd;, as Liinem. does — thus giving to dy. the
sense of holiness in the special line of chastity. More probably, the view of de
W., Koch and others, is correct — that the parallelism is with drrexea^Bai, and that
dyiaayb; is a general word covering the two particulars. — {d) In respect to ver.
11, the simplest explanation is, that rrspiaasisiv refers backward to the idea of
dyarrav and ipiXadsX^'ia, yet only in a passing way and by a single word (comp. oi
xpeiav ixers), and that then the exhortation immediately turns to a new point.
The section (vv. 1-12) accordingly contains, (1) a general exhortation to walk in a
way pleasing to God, vv. 1, 2 ; (2) an exhortation to lay aside the two great sins
of their past idolatrous lives — unchastity and covetousness, vv. 3-8 ; (3) a remind
ing them of the virtue of brotherly love, vv. 9, 10 ; (4) an exhortation to live, in
their individual lives, quietly, in the way of attending to their own aflUirs and
working for their own support — that is, in a way opposite to that of pei-sons who
might think the new life upon which they had entered, or possibly the supposed
nearness of the end, released them from the ordinary duties of their old life, (vv.
11, 12). The direction's belong, ali of them, near the beginnings of Christian
development, or are such as might naturally be given to a church recently
founded. — (e) The objection made by Liinem. against regarding pydevo; of ver.
12 as masculine — that it is an impossibility for man to stand in need of no man —
is of no force in a sentence of this sort, when understood correctly. The writer is
not speaking of need in every possible sense, but of dependence for support on
the exertions of others, rather than our own. But, although this objection is not
well taken, yydivo; is quite probably neuter. So E. V.

LIV. Vv. 13 ff.
(a) The following points with regard to these verses may be especially ob
served: — (1) The deceased persons who are here particularly alluded to had been,
friends of the readers and fellow-members of their church. This is evident from
the fact that Paul desires to prevent the readers' grief, and to enable them to com
fort one another. (2) These persons must have died since the founding of the
church in Thessalonica, and probably since the Apostle had left that city. They
must have been persons, therefore, who had died within a few months. (3) This
being the case, the number of these persons must have been small. The church
itself could not have been, at this time, a large one, and the number in the mem
bership of such a church, who had died within such a period, could not have been
large. (4) These first deaths in the little community occasioned to the survivors
not merely grief, but grief of a. peculiar sort. It was feared that, by dying so
early they had lost the future blessedness which the Christian believers hoped for
at the Lord's coming. They had died too soon. (5) The Thessalonians, who had
this distress at the supposed fate of their friends, expected the Lord's coming at an

540 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
early time. They thought that they should live to see it — otherwise their pecu
liar grief respecting these deceased persons, and their views as indicated in the 2d
Ep., cannot be explained. (6) It is to persons under these circumstances, in this
state of feeling, and with these views, that the Apostle is writing. He writes for
the purpose of correcting their misapprehension (oi BiXxiysv ipd; dyvosiv, ver. 13),
and in order that, by this means, he might keep them from losing hope for those
who had died. These points must be borne in mind in considering the questions
connected with the passage.
(6) In his attempt thus to comfort their hearts and correct their mistake, he
classes himself and his readers, by the use of the emphatic ypsl; and the contrast
of the :7^eif (as " the living," "the survivors to the coniing of the Lord") with the
dead (roif Koipy-Bivra;, ver. 15, ol vsKpol, ver. 16), among those who will be alive at
the end. The question necessarily arises whether he does this because he thought
that the Parousia was so near that the readers and himself might, not improbably,
live to see it, or whether, on the other hand, he merely unites himself by what is
sometimes called the "communicative we " with the persons, who may be alive at
the end, whenever in the indefinite and distant future (after many centuries, as it
has proved) the end shall come. With respect to this question, the following
points must be noticed : — (1) Paul nowhere else uses the communicative we in the
way of uniting himself with persons who belong exclusively, or may belong ex
clusively, to a remote future. The passages which are sometimes cited, and in
which he thus associates himself with other Christians, or with a certain party of
whom he does not altogether approve, or in which he places himself with those
of Jewish views or with sinful men, are not in point ; for, in all these cases, a pos
sibility of common experience can easily be thought of, since the persons alluded
to, or representatives of the classes to which they belong, are contemporaries with
himself (2) The proper limits of this communicative "vie" seem to be passed, when
the persons referred to, other than the writer or speaker, belong to a future age.
There must be some probability of a participation by the person using this we in
the experience of those whom he has to associate with himself in using it, or it
does not occur to the mind to adopt this form of expression. (3) It would seem
especially difiicult for the Apostle to have made this use of we in the present case
for three reasons, namely (r) because the readers, inasmuch as they believed that
they would live to the Parousia, would almost necessarily understand ypei; as re
ferring to the writer and themselves; {y) because the contrast which they made
between themselves and the Koipy^ivrs;, in this regard, would seem to them to be
confirmed by the contrast which they found him making ; (z) because there was
nothing to suggest the use of ypei;, if there was no expectation in his mind that
the readers and himself might be among the rrspiXsirrdpsvoi, — (4) The correction
which Paul makes of their error indicates his state of mind. He does not declare
their error to consist in the fact that they were expecting the Parousia in the
near future, whereas that event was to be looked for only in the remote future ; he
does not say to them, that they need not be troubled with reference to the dying
of these friends so e.arly, for death had come ta them only a little earlier than it
would come to themselves ; and that they had fallen into a mistake as to the
whole matter. On the other hand, he says, in substance, They have not lost the
future blessedness by dying before the Lord comes. When He comes, they will
rise, and we who survive, (you, who are grieving for them, and I), shall be caught
up to meet them. As he says to the Corinthians five yeare later, The dead will be

NOTES. 541
raised, and we shall be changed (1 Cor. xv. 52). — (5) It is doubtful whether any
preacher of the present day — whether believing that the Parousia is at an indefi
nite remove in the distant future, or that, though wholly uncertain as to its date,
it may possibly come within a few years — would use this form of expression to
persons having the views on the subject which the Thessalonians had, aud being
in just the state of mind, in which they were, respecting those of their number
who had recently died. The language seems to be adapted to a state of expecta
tion which borders more nearly on confidence, than that which is in the minds of
either of the classes alluded to.
(c) The following facts are to be remarked in connection with the passages in
Paul's writings which bear upon this subject: — (1) None of them are in their ex
pressions inconsistent with the expectation of the coming of the Lord at an early
period. (2) Some of them (as e.g. Eom. xiii. 11 f, 1 Cor. i. 7, 8), although not
necessarily carrying with them this idea, gain a special force and emphasis, if they
are interpreted as involving it. Others (as 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52 and the present
verses) indicate, by the peculiar language employed, such an expectation, if the
language is to be interpreted naturally and strictly. (3) If, however, the Apostle
had such an expectation, he did not have it in such a way as to involve necessarily
a helief that none of his readers would die before the Parousia, or a feeling that it
was absolutely certain that he should not himself die. Writers who afiirm, that,
if ypsl; refers to the Apostle and his readers, the verse must be understood as in
volving a declaration that not a single one of them would die, aflSrm what this
reference of T^^eif does not, by any means, necessitate. — (4) We find statements in
his writings which show that he thought that certain things were to take place
before the end — the filling up of the times of the Gentiles, the conversion of the
Jews, the manifestation of the man of sin, Eom. xi. 25 f. ; 2 Thess. ii. 2 fi". The
date of the Parousia, accordingly, must have been, to his view, so far removed
from the date of the writing of these Epistles as to allow time for the accomplish
ment of these things before it should arrive.— (5) As the time of the end is ex
pressly excluded by Christ (Acts i. 7) from the subjects on which Divine revela
tion is made, the apostles may naturally not have been enlightened in regard to
this matter, as they were with reference to other subjects.
LV. Vv. 13-18.
As to the individual words and phrases of this passage, we may notice the
followino- points: — (a) That rdv KSKoiyyysvuv refers to the Christians who had
died in Thessalonica, and not to deceased Christians generally, is evident from the
use of the aorist" Koipy-Bivra;, which is substituted for it in vv. 14, 15 ; from the
verb Xirrya-Bs ; from the 18th verse ; and from the general character and impres
sion of the passage. The same reference to the Thess. church is probably to be
understood, for the reasons mentioned, if the reading raii' Koipuyivav is adopted.
 (J) The exact state of mind of the survivors with regard to these persons is
indicated by the reference to the. heathen, who have no hope, and by the 14th
verse. They were in grief because they feared that these friends, whom they had
known as fellow-mernbers of their church, would not be with Jesus in the
kin"-dom.— (c) The objection made by many writers against connecting Sid rov
'lyaoi (ver. 14) with dfei — that this verb would, thus, have two modifying phrases
(tlirough Jesua— with Him), can haxdly be regarded as of weight, for the former

542 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
connects the resurrection of the dead with Jesus, as by means of Him (1 Cor. xv.
22), and the latter unites itself closely with the verb, as expressing, by the com
pound phrase, the thought which was designed to meet the need of the readers.
The somewhat " dragging " character of the expression, if this construction is
adopted, — which is urged as an objection by Alf and others, — is worthy of consid--
eration. E. V. reads as above iu the margin, but connects with Koiyy-Bivra; (are
fallen asleep in Jesus) in the text. — {d) Alf., who agrees with Lunem. in supposing
that Paul expected to live to the time of the Parousia, says of ver. 15, " It must
be borne in mind, that this inclusion of himself and his hearers among the
C,dvrs; does not in any way enter into the fact revealed and here announced —
which is respecting that class of persons only as they are, and must be, one portion
of the faithful at the Lord's coming ; not respecting the question, who shall and
who shall not be among them in that day." The word -riysl;, that is, is not a part of
the Xdyo; Kvp'iov. Comp. Lunem.'s remark, that the context 'shows that the 7idyo;
Kvp'iov is to be thus limited and explained. — (e) (p^daupsv seems to imply such a
"getting before'' them as involves the idea of their losing the blessedness. This
is the suggestion of the preceding context, so that the verb is not merely equiva
lent to being first, in contrast to the dead being first (in ver. 16). — (/) As com
pared with 1 Cor. XV. 51, 52, the order of the facts is the same — the rising of the
dead first, afterwards the translation of the living. In 1 Cor., however, the
bodily change which cornea to the living is made prominent ; here, on the other
hand, it is the removal from the earth to meet the Lord. In 1 Cor., also, the
appearance of the Lord is not set forth, as it does not come within the sphere of
the thought. The trumpet sound is there alluded to only as an indication of time,
and as connected with the other expressions (a moment, the twinkling of an eye)
which refer to the instantaneousness of the change. — {g) The passage does not, in
its statements, go beyond the fact of the meeting with the Lord and the subse
quent union with Him. This was all that the Thessalonians needed in order to
meet their error and consequent grief. This was the word by which they might
comfort one another. But — so far as the passage offers any suggestion at all on
the subject — the intimation of what is here said is unfavorable to the idea of a
personal reign of Christ as physically present on earth, and favorable to that of
an abiding of His people with Him elsewhere. They go to Him, and are to be
ever with Him.

CHAP, V. 543

CHAPTER V
In ver. 2 Lachm. Tisch. and Ellicott, after B D E F G S, 17, 67** et al, read
only yyipa. But the Receptus y yyipa is to be retained. The article was omitted
in consequence of the similar letter at the beginning of the following word. — Ver.
3. ' Orav X^yaaiv] Elz. Matth. read "Orav ydp Xeyaaiv. But ydp is wanting in A F
G X* 17, 44, al., m. Syr. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrosiaster, ed., and instead of it B D
E X***-* Copt. Syr. p. Chrys. Theodoret have di (bracketed by Lachm.). This
diversity of authorities makes it highly probable that Paul wrote only ' Orav
(received by Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott), but that at a later period,
after the relation of ideas was defined, a ydp or a de was inserted for explanation. —
Ver. 4. Elz. has y ypipa iyd;. Instead of this Lachm. Tisch. 1 and Ellicott
have ipa; y yyipa. Correctly ; for this position is not only required by predomi
nant attestation (A D E F G, al, Vulg. It. Chrys. in comm.), but also by the
internal design of the discourse. — Elz. has a; KXirrry;. di; KXiirra;, accepted by
Lachm. (not Tisch.), is not suflSciently attested by A B, Copt., and unsuitable by
the change of the image without any reason. — Ver. 5. irdvre; ydp] Elz. Matth.
read Trdvref. Against A B D E F G L X 17, 23, al, perm. edd. Syr. utr. Arr.
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph. Ambro
siast. Aug. Pel. — Elz. has oi/e iayiv. oiK iari, found in D* F G, Syr. It. Harl.-**
Marian, Ambrosiast., is a correction for the sake of conformity with the preced
ing. — Ver. 6 Elz. has di; koI oi Xoirrol. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read di; ol Xoiiroi.
But the omission of Kai is not sufficiently attested by A (B ?) X-* 17, al, Syr. Arr.
Aeth. Vulg. ms. Clem, (bis) Antioch. According to Schott, Kai is a gloss from iv.
13 (?). — Ver. 13. Instead of the Receptus iirspsKrrspiaaoi, B D* F G, al. have
irrspsKirspiaad;. Preferred by Lachm. Tisch., Alford and Ellicott. Probably
original : vrrspsKirspiaad;, not occurring elsewhere, being corrected according to
iii. 10 and Eph. iii. 20. —Instead of iv airoi;, which D* F G X, 47, al, pi. edd. Syr.
Erp. Aeth. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Codd. ap. Theophl. Ambrosiast.
ed. Pelag. require, Tisch. 8 has received, and Griesb. has commended to special con
sideration, iv iavroi; of the Receptus is to be retained, with Matth. Lachm. Scholz,
Tisch. 7 Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and Eeiche. 'Ev airoi; arose because s'lpyvsisrs
iv savroi; was not considered an independent exhortation (on which account a Kai
is inserted by X* before s'lpyvsisrs), since these few words are found inserted between
two exhortations, of which the first was introduced by the formula ipurdysv Si
iyd; and the second by irapaKaXoiysv di iyd;. — Ver. 15. Kal s'l; dPl/l^Aoi/f] so Elz.
Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, and Alford. Kai is disputed by Griesb. Correctly erased
by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Ellicott after A B E F G X* min.
perm. Syr. Arr. Copt. Vulg. ed. It. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag. — Ver. 18. Elz. has ToiJTo
ydp -BiXyya Qsov. Lachm. reads Toiro ydp ianv SiXyya Qeov. Although iariv is
found in D* E* F G, 37, al,, Vulg. It. Slav. Ambrosiast. Pel., yet the change of
its position (sometimes after yap, sometimes after •BiXyya, sometimes after Qsoii)

544 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
betrays it to be an insertion. — Ver. 21. Trdi»Ta di] Elz. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield read
irdvra. But dc (B D E F G K L X**** min. plur. edd. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. It. Clem.
[bis] Bas. Chrys. [in textu] Damasc. Theoph. Ambrosiast. ed. Pel., recommended
by Griesb., received by Matth. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford and
Ellicott also preferred by Eeiche) was easily absorbed by the first syllable of the
following word, doKipdi^trs. — Ver. 27. Instead of the Receptus bpK'iC,u, Lachm. Tisch.
Alford and Ellicott have correctly accepted ivopK'iC,u, after A B D"* E, 71, 80, al,
Auct. Synops. Euthal. (in h3'poth.) Damasc. roif dSsXipoi;] Elz. Matth. Scholz,
Bloomfield, Ellicott, Eeiche, Tisch. 7, read roi; dyioi; ddeXipo'i;. But dyloi; is want
ing in B D E F G^* min. Aeth. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Cassiod. Suspected
by Griesb. Correctly erased by Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, 8, and Alford.
Contents. — Concerning the period of the commencement of the advent
the readers require no instruction. They themselves well knew that the
day of the Lord will suddenly break in, as a thief in the night. Therefore
as children of the light they are to be watchful, and to arm themselves
with the spiritual armor of faith, love, and hope, comforted with the assur
ance that God has not appointed them to destruction, but to eternal sal
vation through Jesus Christ who died for us, that we, whether living or
dead, may receive a share in His glory. Therefore they are to comfort
and edify one another (vv. 1-11). They are to. esteem those who had the
rule over them, to be peaceful among themselves, to admonish the unruly,
to encourage the faint-hearted, to assist the weak, and to be forbearing
toward all men. No one is to repay evil with evil. They are always to
retain Christian joyfulness, to pray continually, to thank God for all
things. They are not to quench the Spirit, nor to despise prophecy, but
to prove all things, and to preserve the good. May God sanctify them
thoroughly, in order that they may be blameless at the coming of Christ
(vv. 12-24). After an exhortation to the readers to pray for him, to salute
all the brethren, and to read the Epistle to the whole assembled congre
gation (vv. 25-27), the apostle concludes with a Christian benediction
(ver. 28).
(2) Vv. 1-3. A reminder of the sudden and unexpected entrance of the
advent. Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-11, see Note LVI. pages 560-561.] nepi de rdv xpdvav koi
rdv Kaipdv] but concerning the times and periods, i.e. concerning the time and
hour, sc. of the advent. [LVI 6.] The conjunction of these two words
frequently occurs ; comp. e. 5'. Acts i. 7 ; Dan. ii. 21; Eccles. hi. 1. ;i;pdvof
denotes time in general; Kaipd;, the definite point of time (therefore
usually the favorable moment for a transaction). See Tittmann, de
synonym. I. p. 39 IF. Paul puts the plural, because he thinks on a plurality
of acts or incidents, in which partly preparation is made for the advent
(2 Thess. ii. 3 fif.), and partly it is' accomplished. That, moreover, the
apostle, although he has not treated of the advent in itself, but only of an
entirely special objection regarding it, feels necessitated also to make the
commencement of the advent a subject of explanation, is an evident inti
mation that this point also formed the subject of frequent discussion

CHAP. V. 1, 2. 545
among the Thessalonians. Yet on account of the relation of the second
Epistle to the first, the opinion that the return of Christ was immediately
to be expected was not yet difiused — ^oi xpeiav e;i;eTf] a praeteritio, as in iv.
9. The reason why the readers did not require instruction on the time
and hour of the advent, is neither because instruction concerning it would
not be useful to them (Oecumenius : eif aaipipopov' d di ys TiaiXo; lau; ydei
aird, 'sk rdv d'p'p-riruv Kal roiro Ka-Bdv, Theophylact, and Others), nor also
because no instruction can be given concerning it (Zwingli, Hunnius,
Estius, Fromond., Flatt, Pelt, Baumg.-Crusius, Koch, and many others), but
because the Thessalonians were already sufficiently acquainted with it from
the oral instruction of the apostle. Accordingly the apostle adds —
Ver. 2. Airoi ydp] For ye yourselves, emphatically contrasted with the
person of the writer, as in iv. 9. — oKpipd;] exactly, i. e. very well. — By the
ypipa Kvp'iov, Hammond, Schoettgen, and Harduin arbitrarily understand
the time of tbe destruction of Jerusalem ; Nicolas de Lyra, Bloomfield,
and others, the day of each man's death ; Oecumenius, Theophylact, and
Zwingli, the death of the individual and the end of everything earthly.
yyipa Kvp'iov can only be another expression for rrapovaia rov Kvpiov, iv. 15,
and denotes, as everywhere else, the near impending period, when the
present order of the world wiU come to an end, and Christ in His glory
will return to the earth for the resurrection of the dead, the general judg
ment, and the completion of the kingdom of God ; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2; 1
Cor. i. 8, v. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 14 ; Phil. i. 6, 10, ii. 16. Besides, the corresponding
expression nin^ UV, is used in the Old Testament to denote a time in
which God will manifest in a conspicuous manner His penal justice, or also
His power and goodness ; comp. Joel i. 15, ii. 11 ; Ezek. xin. 5 ; Isa. ii.
12. — d; KXiirry; iv wKri] as a thief in the night, sc, ipxerai ; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 10.
The figure is designed to depict the suddenness and unexpectedness of the
coming; comp. Matt. xxiv. 43 ; Luke xh. 39. Others, as Flatt, Schott,
and Alford (similarly also Hofmann and Eiggenbach), find expressed
therein the further reference that the day of the Lord will also be terrible
to all those who are not properly prepared for it. But this further idea is
not contained in ver. 2, but only meets us in what follows. The compari
son a; KXirrry; 'ev vvKrl was undoubtedly the chief reason of the opinion in
the ancient church, that the advent is to be expected at night (more spe
cifically, on an Easter-eve), which gave rise to the vigils, as one wished to
be overtaken in a waking condition by the return of Christ.^— oiruf] even
so, a strong resumption of the preceding a;, — The present ep;reTe is not
here used'instead of the future eXeiaerai (Vorstius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt), but
IComp. Lactantius, Institt, vii. 19: "Haec similitudinem Aegyptii temporis, quando
est Dox, quae a nobis propter adventum regis pascha oelebratum est et exterminator venit,
ac Dei' nostri pervigilio celebratur; cujus et dominus super tabernacula transiit. . . .
noctis duplex ratio est, quod in ea et vitam Unde reor et traditionem apostolicam per-
tum recepit, quum passus est, et postea orbis mansisse, ut in die vigiliarum paschae ante
terrae regnum recepturus est." Jerome on noctisdimidium populos dimittere non liceat.
Matt xxv. 6 (vol. vii. p. 203) : " Traditio Judae- exspectantes adventum Christi."
orum est, Christum media nocte venturum in
35

546 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
is designed to characterize the coming thus taking place as an absolute
and certain truth. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 371 ; Winer, p. 249 [E. T.
265]. Ver. 3. Paul carries on in a vivid manner (therefore asyndetically) the
description of the sudden and unexpected nature in which the advent is
to break in, whilst he indicates that precisely at the time when man fan
cies himself in the greatest security, the advent will occur. But with this
thought is the wider and more special thought blended, that they who dream
of security and serve earthly things will reap the fruit of their carelessness,
namely, destruction. — 'drav Xiyuaiv] when they shall say, when it is said. As
the subject of the verb, the apostle naturally thinks not on the inhabitants
of Jerusalem (Harduin), but, as is evident from the nature of the expres
sion of opinion added, and from the apodosis, unbelievers and merely
nominal Christians, the children of this world ; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38 ff". ;
Luke xvii. 26 ff. For the pious and true Christian never abandons him
self to the feeling of security, but is always mindful of his salvation with
fear and trembling ; comp. Phil. ii. 12. — elpyvy Kal daipdXsia] sc. iarlv ; comp.
Ezek. xiii. 10. — iiptararai] imminet, or it surprises them. — iKipiyuaiv] stands
absolutely. Camerarius and others unnecessarily supply rbv bXsBpov.
Moreover, de Wette justly remarks, that in the comparison of the pangs
of a pregnant woman, the supposition is contained that the advent is close
at hand ; for although the day and the hour, indeed, is not known to her,
yet the period of her bearing is proximately known.'
Eemaek. — If brav di (see critical remark) is read, we might, with Schott,
whom Koch follows, find the following contrast with airoi in ver. 2 expressed : ye
indeed know certainly that the day of the Lord will infallibly and suddenly arrive ;
but the day of the Lord, bringing destruction, will surprise the unbelieving and
ungodly, who live in carelessness and security. But were such an emphatic oppo
sition oi persons the intention of the apostle, he would have attached to the simple
verb brav di Xiyaaiv a particular personal designation. Besides, airoi, ver. 2,
already forms a contrast with the person of the writer, ver. 1 ; accordingly, it is
improbable that airoi, ver. 2, should be so emphatically placed first, in order at
the same time to introduce a contrast to third persons who are not mentioned
until ver. 3. Lastly, it is evident from the context that it is by no means the
design of the apostle to explain that the day of the Lord will befall Christians pre
pared, but unbelievers unprepared ; but he purposes to remind them only of the
sudden and unexpected entrance of tlie advent itself.
(3) Vv. 4-11. Exhortation to be ready and prepared for the coming of
the advent, occasioned and also softened by the previous indication of
their character as " of the light," which the readers by reason of their
peculiarity as Christians possessed.
IComp. Theodoret: (ripoSpa irpoaipopov rb flis eSiSdxeyp,tv. Oecumenius: /taXiis Se t6
irapaSeiypa- /<al ydp y Kvovaa olSev oti ipepei virdSeiyna rdOeiKe TiJ! ev yaarpl exovayr Kal
TO ep.?pvov, dyvoel Se toj- riav Mivuv Kaipov. ydp /(ai aiiry aypiela p.ev e'xei ToO To/cov noWd,
oiirui Kai iip.eis, on p.ev eiruJ/ni/^ireTai. rSiv oXiav airyi Se t^s ilpas y ry^ ypiepas oiiK Iti.
6 Kvpto?, lap-ev, aoupan &e aiirov r'ov Katpbi. ovfia-

CHAP. V. 3-7. 547
Ver. 4. 'T|Ueif de] but ye, in contrast to the unbelie-ving and worldly-
minded described in ver. 3. — iari] indicative, not imperative ; for other
wise /i^ iare would require to be written instead of oi/c iari (see Schmalfeld
Syntax des Griech. Verb. p. 143), not to mention that, according to the'
Pauline view. Christians as such, i. e. in their ideas and principles, are no
more o-/cdrof, but ipd; iv Kvp'iip ; comp. Eph. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ; Col. i. 12.
The expression aKdro;, darkness, [LVI d,] here occasioned by the compari
son <jf KXirrry; iv vvKr'i, ver. 2, is a designation of the ruined condition of
the sinful and unredeemed world, which in its estrangement from God is
neither enlightened concerning the divine will, nor possesses power to
fulfill it. — iva i^df -y -yyipa k.t.X.] By vyd; placed first the readers are fit
tingly and emphatically brought forward in opposition to those described
in ver. 3. — 'iva is not eKpariKu; in the sense of so that (Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and others), but rePui/cwf : that, or in order
that. But the design contained in Iva is to be referred to God. Paul
intends to say : Ye are not among the unbelieving world alienated from
God, and thus the design which God has in view in reference to that unbe
lieving and alienated world, namely, to surprise them by the day of the
Lord, can have no application to you. Why this design of God can have
no application to the readers, the apostle accordingly states. —
Ver. 6, flrst positively, and then negatively with a general reference to
all Christians. — v'lol (pard;] sons of the light, and v'lol yyipa;, sons of the day,
are Hebraisms : being '& concrete mode of expression, in order to repre
sent " belonging to." Comp. Eph. ii. 2, 3, v. 8 ; Luke xvi. 8; 1 Pet. i. 14,
and other passage':. See Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 238]. -ypipa is here used as a
synonym for ^d;. The transition from the notion of the day of the Lord
to the notion of day generally, in contrast to the darkness, was so much
the more natural, inasmuch as the day of the Lord is according to its
nature light, before which no darkness can exist, or rather by which every
impurity of the darkness will be discovered and judged. An entirely
similar transition from the yyipa roi Kvplov to yyipa generally is found in
Eom. xiii. 12, 13. — To oi/c iapiv WKrb; oidi aKdrov;, Estius, Pelt, Sohott, and
others incorrectly again supply fioi ; for slvai, with the simple genitive, is
the genuine Greek mode of expressing the idea of a possessive relation.
See Kiihner, II. p. 167 ; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 165.
Ver. 6 infers from the Christians' character as children of the light, the
duty to behave comformably to it, i. e, to be watchful and sober, that they
might not be taken unprepared by the day of the Lord. — KaBsidsiv] denotes,
under the image of sleep, carelessness about the eternal salvation of the
soul. In Eph. V. 14 it is of the sleep of sin. — ol Xoiiroi] the others (comp. iv.
13 • Eph. ii. 3), i, e, the unbelievers. — ypyyopsiv and vijipsiv are also con
joined in 1 Pet. V. 8. v^^eiv is the opposite oi yeBioKeaBai, ver. 7.'
Ver. 7. A reason for the exhortation in ver. 6 by a reference to the
practice of the outward life. — wkto; ye-Biovaiv] refers to the known custom
1 Oecumenius: i-iriraaK iypaiyopaeait TO i^'cfeii'' evl ydp Kal eypyyopevcu Kal pniSiv Siaipeptiv
lca0*vSovroi.

548 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
of devoting the evening and the night for debauchery. — peBvaKeaBai is
entirely synonymous with pe-Bieiv. It is not to be assumed that the
change of the verb is intentional, in order to denote with the first " the
act of getting drunk," and with the second "the state of being so " (Mack
night) ; since, as also the analogy of the first half of the sentence proves,
the progress of the discourse is contained in the addition of vvKrd;, and
accordingly only the idea already expressed in peBvoKdysvoi is again taken
up by peBiovaiv, The view of Baumgarten-Crusius, repeated by Koch and
Plofmann, that ver. 7 is to be understood in a flgurative sense (comp.
already Chrysostom and Oecumenius), and that Paul intends to say : " A
want of spiritual life (/eai?eideii/) and immorality {ps-BiaKsaBai) belong to the
state of darkness {wKrd;,) thus not to you," is logically and grammatically
impossible, since wKrd;, on account of the same verbs as subjects and
predicates, can only contain a designation of time. In order to justify the
above interpretatio q, oi ydp Ka-Beidovrs; koI {o'l) ys-BvaKdpsvoi vvKrd; s'laiv would
require to have been written.
Ver. 8. [LVI e, /.] The apostle passes over to a new image, whilst he,
as the proper preparation for watchfulness and sobriety, requires the put
ting on of the Christians' spiritual armor, with the help of which they are
in a condition victoriously to repel all the assaults of internal and exter
nal enemies.' The apostle delights to represent the Christian under the
image of a warrior ; comp. 2 Cor. x. 4 ff. ; Eom. vi. 13, xiii. 12 ; and espe
cially Eph. vi. 11 ff. Here the transition to this new image was very
easily occasioned either by the expression ypipa, ver. 5, inasmuch as in
the day one is not only watchful, but also completely clothed ; or by the
idea of ypyyopsiv, ver. 6, inasmuch as whoever watches must also be pro
vided with weapons. Whilst in Eph. vi. 11 ff. not only weapons of defence,
but also of offence are mentioned, the apostle here names only weapons
of tbe first description. He designates as weapons the three principal
parts of the Christian life — faith, love, and hope; comp. i. 3 and 1 Cor.
xiii. 13. — iriarsa; Kal dydiry;] are genitives of apposition, rrian; and dydiry
do not import " trust in God and Chrkt, and in connection with it
love to Him and to our fellow-men and to our fellow-Christians " (Flatt) ; but
the first is faith in Christ as the Eedeemer, and the latter love to our
neighbor. The rrlan; and the dydrry are a -Bdpa^, a coat of mail (comp. Isa.
lix. 17 ; Wisd. v. 19), i. e, they protect the Christian's heart against the
influences of evil, even as a coat of mail protects the breast of the earthly
warrior. — /cat irspiKsipaXaiav eXirida aurypia;] and as a helmet the hope of salva
tion. This hope of eternal salvation is so much the more a powerful
protection against all the attacks and allurements to evil, as it by means
of a reference to a future better world sustains our courage amidst trial
and tribulation, and communicates strength to stedfast endurance. — The
helmet is already in Isa. lix. 17 represented as a symbol of victory.

iThis design of the armor is evident from an arming against evil in order to overcome
the context. Schrader's objection to the it," is therefore without meaning.
words, that " Paul elsewhere only speaks of

CHAP. V. 8-10. 549
Ver. 9. In this verse does not follow a new reason for the duty of watch
fulness and sobriety (Musculus), but a conflrmation of tbe concluding
words of ver. 8 : 'sXrr'ida aurypia;. Hofmann strangely perverts the passage :
on is to be translated by that (not hy for), and depends on e^Trida, — a con
struction which is plainly impossible by the addition oi aurypia; to iXwlda, on
account of which the passage Kom. viii. 21, which Hofmann insists on as
an alleged analogy, cannot be compared. — The construction nBivai or
ri-Bea&ai nva ei; n, to appoint one for a purpose, to destine one to some
thing, is conformable with the Hebrew Dliy, nity^or ]ru with 7 following-
comp. Acts xiii. 47 ; 1 Pet. ii. 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 12. — eif 'opy-fpi] to urrath, i, e., to
be subject to it, to become its prey ; comp. i. 10. — dXX' e'l; rrspirroiiiaiv
carypia;] but to the acquisition of salvation, rrspirroislv means to cause some
thing to remain, to save, to acquire. The middle rrepirroisia-Bai signifies to
save for oneself. Therefore rrspiiroiyai; denotes the acquisition, and par
ticularly the possession of a people ; comp. Eph. i. 14 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; Acts
XX. 28, corresponding to the Hebrew, i^^^Q, by which the people of Israel
were denominated God's holy property ; comp. Ex. xix. 5 ; Deut. vii. 6,
etc. Here as in 2 Thess. ii. 14 rrspnro'iyai; has the meaning of acquisition
generally, — did roi Kvpiov ypdv 'lyaoi Xpiaroi] belongs to rrepiirotyaiv, not to
^iJero (Estius). Even by this grammatical relation of the words, Hof
mann's opinion, that by did roi Kvpiov yydv 'lyaoi Xpiaroi the pledge of sal
vation is prominently brought forward, is refuted. But the meaning is
not: per doctrinam eam, quam Christus nobis attulit, non rabbini, non
philosophi (Grotius), and also not : through the atoning death of our Lord
Jesus Christ (Ellicott), by which what is contained in ver. 10 would be
anticipated, but : by faith on Him.
Ver. 10. That by which the acquisition of salvation is rendered objec
tively possible is the death of Christ for our redemption. However, this
objective reason of rrspiiroiyai; aurypia; appears, according to the verbal
expression, here not in causal connection with the preceding ; for other
wise ver. 10 would have been attached with the simple participle oKoBavdv-
ro; without the article. Eather Paul adds in ver. 10 simply the fact of
the death of Christ for our redemption as an independent expression, in
order, by the addition of the final end of His death, to return to the
chief reason which led him to this whole explanation concerning the
advent, namely, to the comforting assurance that Christians who have
already fallen asleep at the entrance of tbe advent will, as well as those
who are alive, be part.akers in Christ's glory. — iirep ijpdv] for our benefit,
not in our stead (Baumgarten-Crusius). See Meyer on Eom. v. 6. —
ypyyopeiv and Ka-BeiSeiv cannot here, as formerly, be taken in an ethical
sense ; for in what precedes Ka-Bsidsiv was represented as a mark of the
unbeheving, of the children of this world, something incompatible with
Christians in their character as children of the light. But to understand
the words in their literal sense, with Musculus, Aretius, and Whitby, that
Ls, to interpret them of day and night : " whether the advent happens in
the day-time or at night," would be feeble and trifling. It only remains
that waking and sleeping here is to be regarded as a figurative designation

550 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
of life and death, whether we are yet alive at the advent, or whether we
are already dead. [LVI g.] Accordingly the same thought is expressed
in the sentence with iva, generally considered, which is contained in the
concluding words of Eom. xiv. 8 {idv re oiv C,dysv idv re diroBvyaKupsv, rov
Kvpiov iapiv).' — Oil KaBe'udsiv of death, comp. LXX. Dan. xii. 2; 2 Sam. vii.
12; Ps. Ixxxviii. 5. — On eire . . . sirs, with the conjunctive, see Winer, p.
276 [E. T. 294] Buttm. p. 191 [E. T. 221.]— d/za] does not belong to aiv air^
(Hofmann, Eiggenbach), but to l^yaapsv. It here corresponds to the
Hebrew in', altogether (Eom. iii. 12), so that it emphatically brings for
ward the similar share in the f^ aiv Xpiard for all Christians, whether
living or dead. — l^yaupsv] more specific than iadye-Ba, iv. 17 ; for being
united with the Lord is a partaking of His glory. According to Hof
mann (comp. also MoUer on de Wette), l^ijauysv is designed to denote
only a state of life-fellowship with Christ, so that there is indicated by it
not something future but the present condition of Christians. But this
weakening of the verbal idea militates against the context of our passage,
as it has for its contents questions respecting the advent, and we are re
minded of the period of the advent by eif bpyyv and eif rrspnro'iyaiv aarypia;
directly preceding. Besides, Paul, if he would have expressed nothing
more than "a fellowship of life with Christ, for which the distinction of
corporeal life and death is indifferent," would much more naturally have
written airoi dpsv (comp. Eom. xiv. 8) instead of aiv airCi ^yaapsv.
Ver. 11. Aid] therefore, sc. because we will undoubtedly be made par
takers of the glory of Christ, brings the preceding explanation to a conclu
sion ; comp. dare, iv. 18. — Trapa/eaAeii/] [LVI h.] Grotius, Turretin, Flatt,
Pelt, de Wette, Koch, Hofmann, and others interpret it as " to exhort."
More correctly, it is to be taken, as in iv. 18, " to comfort.'' For (1) the
exhortation begun in ver. 6 has already, in vv. 9, 10, been changed into
words oi comfort and consolation ; (2) vv. 10, 11 stand in evident parallelism
with chap. iv. 17, 18. — koI oUodopelre eif rdi' eva] and edify one the other.
Paul considers the Christian church, as also the individual Christian, as a
holy building, a holy temple of God which is in the course of construc
tion; comp. Eph. ii. 20 ff. ; 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Accordingly
oiKodopeiv is a flgurative designation of Christian progress generally ; comp.
1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 23, xiv. 4. — eif rbv iva] equivalent to dXXyXov;, see Kypke,
Obsei-v. sacr. II. p. 339. Comp. oi koB' iva, Eph. v. 33. Faber Stapulensis,
Whitby, and Euckert (Romerbr. IL p. 249) read eif rbv iva, but differ from
one another in their renderings. Faber Stapulensis finds the thought :
" aediflcate vos mutuo ad unum usque, h. e. nullum omittendo ; " Whitby
explains it : " edify yourselves into one body ; " lastly, Eiickert maintains
o'lKodoyeiv e'l; rbv eva is used " in order to denote the One, Christ, as the
1 By this parallel with Bom. xiv. 8, 9, the Mark and Luke say concerning it. We do
objections of Schrader against our passage not find here the words taught by the Holy
are settled, who thinks that "the manner in Spirit as we are accustomed to hear from
which the death of Christ and His coming Paul, but the words from tradition, such
again are spoken of, is not similar to what is as were at a later period prevalent among
found elsewhere iu Paul, but rather to what Christiana ! "

CHAP. V. 11, 12. 651
foundation on whom the building should be reared." But in the first
case Paul would have written su; ivd; (comp. Eom. iii. 12), in the
second eif sv (comp. Eph. ii. 14), and in the third iirl rCi ivi (comp. Eph.
ii. 19). — Ka-Bd; Kal Troieire] a laudatory recognition, that the o'lKodoye'iv had
already begun with the readers; comp. iv. 1, 10.
Vv. 12-24. Miscellaneous exhortations, and the wish that God would
sanctify the Thessalonians completely for the coming of Christ.
Ver. 12. [On vv. 12-24, see Note LVII. page 561.] The apostle com
mences with an exhortation to a dutiful conduct toward the rulers of the
church. — ds] can only be a particle of transition to a new subject. It
were possible that ver. 12 might be in the following closer connection with
ver. 11 : Certainly I have praised you, because you seek to edify one
another ; but this by no means excludes the duty of treating those who
are appointed for the government of the church with becoming esteem
and respect.' At all events, it appears from this that Paul considered this
exhortation in respect to the rulers of the church necessary, to prevent the
Thessalonians failing' in any way in the respect due to them. — eidevai] to
recognize, sc. what they are, according to their nature and position, i. e. in
other words, highly to value, highly to esteem. Comp. imyivdoKsiv, 1 Cor.
x-vi. 18, and py„ Prov. xxvii. 23; Ps. cxliv. 3; Nah. i. 7 — Paul does not by
Komdvra;, irpd'iarayivov;, and vov&sroivra; indicate different classes of persons
(Bernard a Picon and others), for otherwise the article roif would have
been repeated before the two last predicates ; but the same men, namely,
the rrpeapirspoi, whom the apostles were accustomed to place in newly
founded churches, and who in apostolic times were not different from the
iiriaKoiror comp. Tit. i. 5, 7 ; Acts xx. 17, 28 ; Winer, bibl Realwbrterh. 2d
ed. vol. I. p. 217 f. These presbyters are at first named generally Komdvra;
iv vplv] those who labor among you, i, e, in your midst (Musculus. Zanch.,
Flatt, Pelt, Hofm. et al erroneously explain it : on you, in vobis sc. docendis,
monendis, consolandis, aediflcandis), in order to make it appear before
hand that' the e'lSivai, the esteeming highly, was a corresponding duty due
to the presbyters on account of their labor for the church. The expres
sion /eoTTiuvraf might, on account of its generality, have been understood
of any member of the church they liked; therefore, in order with Komdvra;
to make them think deflnitely on presbyters, Paul adds by way of expla
nation, Kal rr po'iarapivov; Kal vov^erovvra;, by which presbyters are more
particularly described, according to the diversity of their official functions,
namely, as such to whom it belongs, first, to direct the general and exter
nal concerns of the church ; and to whom, secondly, the office of teaching
and exhortation is assigned.'-" — iv Kvplif] in the sphere of the Lord, a limita
tion of ir po'iarapivov;. Theophylact: ovk 'sv roi; KoayiKoi; rrpoiararai aov, dXX'
1 Already Chrysostom closely unites ver. XeyMr, oti Kal ip,lv i-irirpeipa o'iKoSop,eZv aXKy-
12 with ver 11, but determines the connection Aous- ou ydp Svvarov irdvra rb^ SiSdaKaXov eiwelv.
in the followi'ng form not much to be com- 2 Incorrectly Theodoret: to « npo'iarap.i-
mended- "SrreiSy eiirev o'iKoSop.e'iTe eU r'ov iva,' vovt vp.ii,v ev Kvpiif ivrl Toii UTrepeyxonei/ovt
Iva p.r, vop.iav,aiv, "on ei? rb rOiv SiSaaKaKoiv dfl- ip.S>v KaX Tai ®e,i rriv iirip ip,Siv irpea^eiav
u,p.a oiTois av>ivav., toSto i:7^vai-«, M<»'<»">''X' irpoaiPepovra,,

552 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ev roif Kara Kvpiov.—vouBsrslv] to lay to heart, then generally to instruct and
admonish. It refers particularly to the management of Christian disci
pline, yet Christian instruction generally is not excluded from it. Comp.
also Kypke, Ohs. II. p. 339 f.
Ver. 13. Koi vyeiaBai avrov;] is by Theodoret, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, Baum
garten, Koppe, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield, and others, connected with
-'virspsKrrspiaad;, " and to esteem very highly, to value much," to which 'sv
dydrry is added as a supplementary statement, to express that this esteem
is not to be founded on fear, but on love, or is to express itself in love.
But the requirement to esteem highly is already, ver. 12, expressed by
eidevai. Add to this that yyslaBai, in Order to denote the idea of high
esteem or regard, requires an additional clause, as Trepi ir'Xs'iovo;, or Trepi
rrXsiarov; but the adverb virspsKrreptaad; cannot represent that additional
clause. We must therefore, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact,
Beza, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, Hofinann, Eiggen
bach, and others, unite yyslaBai with ev dydiry, by which, along with the
duty of high esteem, ver. 12, the duty of love toward the rulers of the church
is specially brought forward. The formula yyslaBai nvd iv dydrry, to hold a
person in love, to cherish toward him a loving disposition, is not without
harshness, but has its analogy in the genuine Greek construction, sxeiv
rii<d iv bpyy (Thucyd. ii. 18). Others less suitably compare yyslaBai n iv
Kp'iasi, LXX. Job xxxv. 2. — did rd epyov airdv] for their works' (office) sake,
i. e. flrst, on account of the labor which is connected with it ; but secondly
and chiefly, because it is an ofiice in the service of Christ. — s'lpyvsisrs iv
iavrol;] preserve peace among yourselves, comp. Eom. xii. 18 ; 2 Cor. xiii.
11 ; Mark ix. 50. 'sv iavrol; is equivalent to iv dX?.yXoi;, see Kiihner, II.
p. 325 ; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 273. The words contain an independent
exhortation to be separated from the preceding, the apostle passing from
the conduct enjoined respecting rulers, to the conduct enjoined generally
of the readers fo one another, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Fabei- Stapulensis,
Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Balduin, Cornehus a Lapide, Ernest Schmid,
Fromond., and others, adopting the reading iv airoi; (see critical note),
have indeed explained it : " preserve peace with them, the presbyters;"
but without grammatical justification, because for this s'lpyvsisrs ysr' airdv
would be required, comp. Rom. xii. 18.
' Ver. 14. 'Aro/erof] is especially said of the soldier who does not remain
in his rank and file (so inordinatus in Livj-) ; then of people who will not
conform to civil regulations ; then generaUy disorderly. Here the apostle
alludes to those members of the Thessalonian church who, instead of
applying themselves to the duties of their calling, had given themselves
up to an unregulated and unsteady nature and to idleness, comp. iv. 11;
2 Thess. in. 6, 11. We are not to understand, with Chrysostom, Oecu
menius, Theophylact, Estius, Fromond., Turretin, Benson, Bolten, Bloom
field, and others, the presbyters as the subject of vovBsrsire, but, as is
already evident from the addition of ddsXipoi, and generally from the
similarity of the introductory words of ver. 14 with those of ver. 12, the
members of the church in their totahty. Paul thus here puts it out of the

CHAP. V. 13-16. 553
question that the church cus such had fallen into dra^ia (see on iv. 11). But
it also follows from these words that the apostle was far removed from all
hierarchical notions in regard to rulers (Olshausen). — Further, they were
to comfort, to calm roif bXiyo-ipixov;] the faint-hearted, the desponding. Paul
here thinks particularly on those who, according to iv. 13 ff., were pain
fully agitated concerning their deceased friends. Yet this does not pre
vent us from extending the expression also to such who failed in endur
ance in persecution, or who, conscious of some great sin, despaired of the
attainment of divine grace, etc. — The daBsvel;] the weak, whom the church
is to assist, are not the bodily sick, but fellow-Chrietians who still cling to
prejudices, and were more imperfect than others in faith, in knowledge, or
in reference to a Christian life ; comp. Eom. xiv. 1, 2 ; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 11, 12.
— yoKpoBvpslv] to he long-suffering, denotes the disposition by which we do
not fly into a passion at injuries inflicted, but bear them with patience and
forbearance, comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12. — irpb; irdvra;] to
all, is not to be limited to draKroi, bXiydipvxoi, and daBsvsl; (Koppe), nor to
fellow-Christians (Eiggenbach), but is to be understood of all men gener
ally; comp. eif aXX-yXov; koi eif rrdvra;, ver. 15.
Ver. 15. Prohibition of revenge. This is easily and fitly added to the
command of puKpoBvpla. — ^dpdre] take care, take heed. The apostle speaks
thus, because man is only too ready to gratify his natural inclination to
revenge. Watchfulness, struggle, and self-conquest are necessary to offer
resistance to it. — py n;] sc. iydv. Erroneously Fromond : " subditorum
vestrorum." Also incorrectly de Wette : " Since revenge is entirely
unworthy of the Christian, so all are not warned against it, but the better
disposed are exhorted to watch that no outbreaks of it should occur
(among others)." For (1) the prohibition of revenge is peculiarly Chris
tian, corresponding neither to the spirit of heathenism (see Hermann, ad
Sophocl Philoct. 679 ; Jacobs, ad Delect, Epigr. p. 144 ; in opposition to the
objections of Jowett, see Ellicott on this passage) nor to that of Judaism
(comp. Matt. v. 38, 43). But de Wette's reason makes the prohibition
appear as if it were something long known, something evident of itself.
(2) Also the better disposed are not free from momentary thoughts of
revenge ; accordingly also ppon them was that prohibition to be pressed.
(3) The fulfilling of that cominand appertains to the individual hfe of
every one; whereas to guard against the outbreaks of revenge among
others is only rarely possible. — /ea/cdv dvri kokov nvi aTrodoii/ai] to render to
any one evil for evil, comp. Eom. xii. 17 ; 1 Pet. iii. 9 ; Matt. v. 44.—- rd
dyaBdv] denotes not the useful or agreeable (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Olshau
sen, and others), or " what is good to one " (ED., Hofm., Moller), nor does it
contain an exhortation to benevolence (Piscator, Beza, Calixt, Pelt, Baum
garten-Crusius, and others), but denotes the moral good; see Meyer on
Gal. vi. 10. — didKsiv ri] to pursue something, to seek to reach it in the race
(Phil. iii. 12, 14), then generally a figurative expression for striving after a
thing, comp. Kom. ix. 30, 31, xii. 13, xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 1.
Ver. 16. Comp. Phil. iv. 4. Also this exhortation is closely connected
with the preceding. The readers are to be always joyfully inclined, even

554 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
when the case indicated in ver. 15 occurs — that sufferings are prepared
for them. The Christian can always feel inspired and elevated with
internal joy, as he has the assured confidence that all things promote the
good of the children of God ; comp. Eom. viii. 28 ; 2 Cor. vi. 10 ; Eom.
V. 3. In a forced manner Chrysostom, whom Theophylact and others
follow, refers ver. 16 to the disposition required in ver. 15 : "Orav ydp
roiairyv ixupsv ipvxyv, dars pydiva dpvvsaBai, dXXd irdvra; sispysrelv, rrdBsv, s'liri
poi, rb rij; Xvrry; Ksvrpov irapeiaeXBslv dmiyaerai ; — Also it deserves to be men
tioned as a curiosity that Koppe and Bolten hold it possible to consider
irdvrore xaipere as a concluding salutation (intended, but afterwards over
looked amid further additions) : " Semper bene valere vos jubeat deus ! "
(Koppe). " Farewell always !" (Bolten).
Ver. 17. One means of promoting Christian joyfulness is prayer.^ Paul
also exhorts to continued prayer in Eph. vi. 18, and to perseverance in
prayer in Col. iv. 2 ; Eom. xii. 12.
Ver. 18. Christians ought not only to pray to God, but also to give
thanks to Him, and that iv rravri] in everything i. e. under every circum
stance, in joy as well as in sorrow ; which is different only in form, but
not in meaning, from rrspl iravrb;, for everything. Incorrectly Estius : in
omnibus sc. bonis ; and Flatt : iv rravri, sc. Kaipd. — roiro] sc. rb 'sv rravri
sixapiarslv. This is the most natural meaning. Yet it were not incorrect,
with Grotius, Schott, and Bloomfleld, to refer roiro to ver. 17, as prayer
and thanksgiving form a closely connected unity; comp. Phil. iv. 6 ; Col.
iv. 2. Also to refer it even to ver. 16 (Cornelius a Lapide, Alford) may
be justifled from the same reason. On the contrary, there is no reason to
refer it to the whole passage from ver. 14 onwards (Musculus, Calovius,
and others), as then raira would require to have been written. — BiXypa]
(sc. eo-rii^) denotes will, requirement, as in iv. 3 : the article is here wanting,
because the will of God comprehends more than sixapiarslv : this is only
one requirement among many. Otherwise Schott, who flnds in BiXyya Qsov
the divine decree of salvation indicated. According to him, the meaning
is: "Hue pertinet sive hoc secum fert decretum divinum (de vobis cap-
tum, itemque in Christo positum), ut gratias deo pro omnibus agere
debeatis. Vos enim, huic servatori addictos, latere amplius non potest,
quaecunque Christianis acciderint, deo volente, eorum saluti consulere
aeternae, Kom. viii. 28 ff." But (1) the 'ear'iv to be supplied cannot denote :
hue pertinet or hoc secum fert ; (2) the article rd would not be wanting
either before BiXypa or before 'ev Xpiara ; (3) the reason alleged is intro
duced contrary to the context, and so much the more arbitrarily, as roiro
ydp BiXypa K.r.X. is a dependent clause which is founded on the preceding,
not an independent point which requires a reason of its own. Storr also
takes BiXypa as the decree of redemption, but he understands roiro in the
sense of roiovro, which is contrary to the Greek. — 'ev XpiarCi 'lyaoi] Christ
1 Theophylact : TJjl/ 65b|/ eSeif e toO ael xo-ipeiv, aiiTi^ eir'i irdaiv W9 irvpupepovria^ l7vp.paivovffl,
Tl]!' dSidXeiTTTOv irpoaevxi}V Kal eiFxapto-Tiav- b rrpoSrjKov, oTc xapdj/ efet SiyveKy.
ydp ediaOe'ii opul^elv TcjJ ©eoj Kal eixapiareiv

CHAP. V. 17-21. 555
is, as it were, the vehicle of this requirement, inasmuch as it is made
known through Him.
Ver. 19. Comp. Noesselt, in locum P. ap. 1 Thess. v. 19-22 disputatio
{Exercit. p. 265 ff.). — Lasch, de sententia atque ratione verborum Pauli, rrdvra
ds SoKiy., rb KaXbv Kar., 1 Thess. v. 19-22, Lips. 1834. — ^The prayer of the
Christian is an outflow of the Holy Spirit dwelhng and working in him ;
comp. Eom. viii. 16, 26. Accordingly the new admonition, ver. 19. is united
in a natural manner to the exhortations, vv. 17, 18. Schrader's view
requires no contradiction. He, indeed, finds in this admonition a genuine
Pauline reminiscence; but also an objection against the composition ofthis
Epistle by Paul, because " if such an admonition had been necessary for
the Thessalonians, itis not elsewhere noticed in the whole Epistle." — rd
rrvsiya] is the Holy Spirit, and that as the source of extraordinary gifts-
speaking with tongues, prophecy, etc., as they are more fully described in
1 Cor. xii. 7 ff. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius will have rd
rrvsiya to indicate either spiritual illumination which fits us for the exer
cise of Christian -virtues, but may be lost by immoral living,^ or specially
prophecy (so also Michaelis and others). Both are erroneous on account
of ver. 20. — py apivwrs] extinguish not, quench not. The rrvevya is conceived
as a flame, whilst there is particular reference to the strained and inspired
speech in which those who were seized by the Spirit expressed themselves.''
Ver. 20. Paul passes from the genus to a species. — Trpoipyrsla] denotes
prophetic discourse. Its nature consisted not so much in the prediction
of future events, although that was not excluded, as in energetic, soul-
captivating, and intelligent expression of what was directly communi
cated by the Holy Ghost to the speaker for the edification and nioral ele
vation of the church. See Meyer on Acts xi. 27 ; Euckert on 1 Cor. p.
448 f. ; Fritzsche on Eom. xii. 6. The Thessalonians were not to despise
these prophetic utterances ; they were rather to value them as a form of
the revelation of the Holy Spirit ; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5. The undervaluing
of the gifts of the Spirit, of which some members of the church must at
least have been guilty, had its reason probably in their abuse, whilst partly
deceivers who pursued impure designs under the pretext of having
received divine revelations, and partly self-deceivers who considered the
deceptions of their own fancy as divine suggestions, appeared (see 2 Thess.
ii..2), and thus spiritual gifts in general might have been brought into dis
credit among discerning and calmer characters.
Ver. 21. The apostle therefore adds to the prescription, to prove all
things, whether they have their origin from God or not, and to retain the
good. — Trdvra de] but all things, namely, what is brought forward in inspired
1 Similarly Noesselt : irvevt^a denotes " vim iraai Sel ipvkdrreaBat ro (Pdpp,aKov p,eliov ydp
divinam, Christianis propriam, h. e. quidquid ianv aiir^s t^s Svvdp,eoi! ro /ievefloi toS .(/ap-
rerum divinarum, deo ita providente, cogno- p,dKov Kal Sia\vei paSi'u? to aiiip,a nai to e^^^v-
vissent " ^°*' irvevp,a Ta\€Ws a^evvvaiv, liiairep 5tj Kal riiiv
:i On the figurative expression, comp. Galen. Kvxvalav (pxdya rb eXaiov, tou Tri/pbs irAeoi/
od Pison. de Ther, i. 17 t,0pp. T. xiii. p. 966, yev6ii.evov, evKokm iiroafievvvaiv.
Lut. Par. 1039 fol.) : eirl SSi rSiv rraiSim iravrd-

556 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIAJSS.
discourse. — SoKipd^sre] Paul expresses the same requirement of testing in
1 Cor. xiv. 29, and according to 1 Cor. xii. 10 there was a pecuhar gift of
testing spirits, the SioKpiai; rrvevydrav. That, moreover, this testing can
only proceed from those who are themselves illuminated by the Holy
Spirit was evident to the apostle. The fundamental principle of ration
alism, that the reason as such is the judge of revelation, is not contained
in these words. — rd KaXdv] the good, namely, that is found in the Trdvra.
Hofmann arbitrarily thinks that " the good generally " is meant, which
the Thessalonians "as Christians already have, and do not now merely
seek or expect."
Ver. 22. With ver. 22 the discourse again reverts to what is general,
whilst the requirement to hold fast that which is good in the discourses of
the inspired very n.aturally required the transition to the further require
ment to keep at a distance from every kind of evil, accordingly also from
that which was perhaps intermixed in these discourses. Usually ver. 22
is referred exclusively to the discourses of the inspired, so that Trdvra di
doKipdl^sre contains the chief point Avhich is then unfolded according to its
two sides, first positively (rd koXAv Karixsre), and then negatively (ver. 22).
But dn-d iravrb; elSov; rrovypov is against this view : drrb roi irovypoi would
require to have been written. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Drusius, Pisca
tor, Grotius, Cali.xt, Calovius, Seb. Schmid, Michaelis, and others find in
ver. 22 the ineaning : avoid all evil appearance. But (1) etdof never signifies
appearance. (2) A distorted thought would arise. For as the apostle has
required the holding fast not that which has the appearance of good, but
that wllich is actually good ; so also in ver. 22, on account of the close
reference of irovypoi to the preceding KaXdv, the discourse must also be of
an abstinence from that which is actually evil. (3) To preserve oneself
from all appearance of evil is not within the power of man. — Eidof denotes
very often the particular kind of a class (the species of a genus).' — Trov?/poi]
is not to be taken, with Bengel, Pelt, Sohott, and others, as an adjective (ab
omni mala specie), but as a substantive (ab omni specie mali). What
Bengel, Schott and Lasch object against this meaning, that the article roi
would be required before rrovypov, would be correct if the discourse were
specially of the irovypdv contained in the Trdvra, ver. 21 ; but is erroneous,
as irovypoi is taken in abstract generality. See Kuhner, II. pp. 129, 141.
Comp. Heb. v. 14 ; Joseph. Ant. -vii. 4. 2 : ttSv eidof piXov; ; ibid. x. 3. 1 :
Trdv eidof irovypia;. — Ver. 22, as well as ver. 21, is peculiarly interpreted by
Hansel {Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1836, Part 1, p. 170 ff.).^ Vv. 21, 22 are
repeatedly cited by Cyril Alexandrinus as an expression of the Apostle
Paul, in such a manner that with this citation, and indeed as its contents,
the words yivsaBs SdKiyoi rpairs^irai are united. Also these words are else
where frequently by the Fathers united with our passage, being quoted
1 Comp. Porphyry, isagoge de quinque voahus o-xtjuoto; e'5o5.
2 : Xeyerai Si e'5o9 Kal to iirb rb i7ro6o9e>. 2 Baumgarten-Crusius accedes to the inter-
vevo9- Kaff o e'iMap.ev XeyeiK Tbj. p.'ev dvBpuiirov pretation of Hansel ; Koch strangely rejects
ei5o! ToC fuioi/, ve"""/! ovTO% tou ^liou- rb &e it for ver. 22, but adopts it for ver. 23.
KevKbv rov xfn^V-n^ro^ elfioff- to 6^ rpiyuivov tou

CHAP. V. 22, 23. 557
sometimes as a saying of Christ, sometimes generally as a say
ing of Scripture, and sometimes specially as a saying of the
Apostle Paul.' On this Hansel supports his opinion. He regards
the words yivsaBs ddKipoi rparrsQrai as a saying of Christ, and thinks
that this dictum dypaipov of the Lord was in the mind of the Apostle Paul,
and in consequence of this the expressions in vv. 21, 22 were selected by
him, which were usual in the money terms employed by antiquity. So
thatthe sense would be: "Act as experienced exchangers; everything
which is presented to you as good coin, that test ; preserve the good coin
(what actually is divine truth), but guard against every false coin (reject
all false doctrine)." But evidently only the expression doKipdCsrs was the
occasion for the Fathers uniting the dictum dypaipov of Christ, handed
down by tradition, with our passage. Paul, on the contrary, could not
have thought of it, even supposing it to have been known to him. For
although the verb doKiydC,siv would well suit, if otherwise the refer
ence was to the figure of exchangers, yet in an actual reference to the
same the words rd KaXbv sldo; Karixsre, drrb di rov rrovypov dirixea-Be would
have been written. Lastly, add to this that eidof cannot import in itself a
coin, voylayaro; must be added, or money must have been spoken of in what
goes before.
Ver. 23. If what the apostle requires in ver. 22 is to be actually realized,
God's assistance must supervene. Accordingly, this benediction is fitly
added to the preceding. — airdf de b Qsb; rij; s'lpipiy;] the God of peace Him
self; an emphatic contrast to the efforts of man,—b Qsb; rij; e'lp^vy;] the
God of peace, i. e, who communicates Christian peace. Neither the con
nection with ver. 22 nor the contents of the benediction itself will permit
us to understand e'lpiyvy of harmony. To refer to eip^veiere, ver. 13, for this
meaning is far-fetched.— d;ioreA^f] here only in the N. T. spoken of what
is perfect, to which nothing belonging to its nature is wanting. Jerome,
ad Hedih. 12, Ambrosiaster, Koppe, Pelt, and others understand bXoreXei;
in an ethical sense, as an accusative of result : " so that ye be entire, that
is, pure and blameless." But it is better, on account of what follows, to
ta'ke d/,ore;ieif as an adverb of quantity, uniting it closely with iyd;, and
finding the whole personality of the Thessalonians denoted as if the simple
bXov; were written : " in your entire extent, through and through."— /eai
oXdKXypov . . . rypy^sty] a fuller repetition of the wish already expressed.
—Ka'i] and indeed.— dXdKXypo;] means, as dXors7,ii;, perfectly, consisting of all
its parts. bXdKXypov refers not only to rd irvsvpa, although it is governed by
it, as the nearest noun, in respect of its gender, but also to ipvxfi and adpa.
Comp. Winer, p. 490 [E. T. 527]. The totahty of man is here divided into
three parts : spirit, soul, and body.« We are not to assume that this
trichotomy has a purely rhetorical signification, as elsewhere Paul also
deflnitely distinguishes rrvevya and -^vxij (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, xv. 44, 46). The
ISee Suicer Thesaurus, II. p. 1281 flF. (.Sacr. N. T. scriptoribus recepta in s. Opusc. theol,
Observ. p. 140 if.) ; Fabricius, Cod, Apocr, N, T, Berol. 1834, p. 143 ff. ; Messner, die Lelire der
I. p. 330 ff.. III. P- 624. Apostd, Leipz. 1856, p. 207.
2 See Olshausen, de naturae hum. trichotomia

558 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
twofold division, which elsewhere occurs with Paul (1 Cor. vii. 34 ; 2 Cor.
vii. 1), is a popular form of representation. The origin of the trichotomy is
Platonic ; but Paul has it not from the writings of Plato and his scholars,
but from the current language of society, into which it had passed from
the narrow circle of the schools.— 7rvei/ia denotes the higher and purely
spiritual side of the inner life, what is elsewhere called by Paul voif
(reason) ; -ipvxv is the lower side, which comes in contact with the region
of the senses. The spirit is preserved blameless in its totality at the
advent, i. e, so that it approves itself blameless at the advent {ayipirru; is a
more exact definition of bXdKXypov rypy-Beiy), when the voice of truth always
rules in it ; the soul, when it strives against all the charms of the senses ;
and, lastly, the hody, when it is not abused as the instrument of shameful
actions.^ Ver. 24. Paul knows that he does not implore God in vain. For God is
faithful ; He keeps what He promises ; if He has called the Thessalonians
to a participation in His kingdom. He will preserve them pure and fault
less even to its commencement. — Trio-rdf] comp. 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; 1 Cor. i. 9,
X. 13. Td TTiiTTdf dvri rov dXy-B-y;, Theodoret. — b KaXdv ipd;] not equivalent
to d KaXsaa; ipd; (Koppe and others), but the present participle used as a
substantive, and therefore without regard to time : your Caller. See
Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 353]. — df koi iroiiiasi] who also will perform it, sc. rb
dpiyirru; vyd; rypy-Syvai.
Vv. 25-27. Concluding exhortations of the Epistle.
Ver. 25. Comp. Eom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. iii. 1.—
Trepi ^pdv] for us, namely, that our apostolic work may be successful.
Ver. 26. 'Aairdaaa-Bs rov; ddsX^oi; Trdvraf] That here individuals'' are
exhorted to salute the other members oi the church, whilst in the parallel
passages, Kom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 12, it is dairdaaa-Bs dXXy
Xov;, is a proof that this Epistle was to be received by the rulers of the
church. (So also Phil. iv. 21.) By them it was to be read to the
assembled church (ver. 27). Erroneously, because in contradiction with
the entire character of the Epistle, Schrader infers from roif ddshpov;
rrdvra; that " the writer of the Epistle wished to impart to it a general des
tination." — ev (piXyyan dy'ia] with a holy kiss. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20- 2 Cor.
xiii. 12 ; Eom. xvi. 16 ; also 1 Pet. v. 14 {(f'lXypa dydrry;) ; Constit, ap. ii. 57
(rd ev Kvp'iip (p'lXyya) ; Tertullian, de orat. 14 (osculum pacis). The brotherly
kiss, the usual salutation of Christians, proceeded from the custom of
antiquity, particularly in the East, to unite a salutation with a kiss. But
Paul calls it dyiov, as a symbol of the holy Christian fellowship. In the
Greek church it is still used at Easter.
1 According to Schrader, ver. 23 contains an blemish." But the discourse is not of the holy
un-PauIine thought, because when Paul dis- Divine Spirit which rules in man, but of a part
tinguishes the ^ux^ from the spirit, the latter of man, himself, of the voi, ; but the ..oOs may
is considered as something "divine," as fall into ;aaTaidT7,! (Eph. iv.17), maybe dabKt;ao!
" unutterably good," as " eternally opposed to (Rom. i. 28), p.eii.iaap.evo, (Tit. i. 16), Kare,p»ap-
every perversity." Paul, accordingly, could p-evos (2 Tim. iii. 8), etc.
not have assumed, "besides the soul in man, a Contrary to the sense, Hofmann, whom
a mutahle spirit which must he preserved from Riggenbach follows, makes the whole church

CHAP. V. 24-28. 559
Ver. 27. This comm.and has not its reason in any distrust of the rulers
of the church ; nor, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact think,
in the yearning love of the apostle, who, in compensation of his bodily
absence, wished this letter read to all ;¦ nor, as Hofmann supposes, in the
anxiety of the apostle lest they should not properly value a mere epistle
which he sent, instead of coming in person to Thessalonica : but simply
because Paul regarded the contents of his Epistle of importance for all
without exception. How, moreover, Schrader can infer from ver. 27 that
the composition of the Epistle belongs to a time when already a clerus
presided in the churches, surpasses comprehension. Completely ground
less and untenable is also Baur's opinion (p. 491), that " the admonition
so emphatically given in 1 Thess. v. 27 was written from the opinions of
a time which no longer saw in the apostolic Epistles the natural means of
spiritual communication, but regarded them as sacred objects, to which
due reverence was to be shown by making their contents known as accu
rately as possible, particularly by public reading. How could the apostle
himself ha,\'e jniged it necessary so solemnly to adjure the churches, to
which his Epistles were directed, not to leave them unread ? An author
could only say this who did not write from the natural pressure of exist
ing circumstances, but in writing placed himself in an imagined situation,
and sought to vindicate for his pretended apostolic Epistle the considera
tion which the apostolic Epistles received in the practice of a later age."
But does the author adjure the church to leave his Epistle not unread?
What a mighty difference is there between such a command and his
urgent desire that the contents of the Epistle should be made known to all
the members of the church ! If the former were objectionable, the latter
is natural and unobjectionable. And further, how is it possible that ver.
27 is the reflex of a time in which the apostolic Epistles were valued as
sacred objects, and to which due honor must be paid by public reading,
since dvayvaaByvai is in the aorist, and accordingly a single and exclusive
act of reading is referred to ! And what a wrong method would the post-
apostolic author have employed to secure for his letter the consideration
of an apostohc Epistle, when he did not select the inflnitive of the present,
and did not fail to add rrdaiv \—rbv Kipiov] Comp. Mark v. 7 : Acts xix. 13 ;
LXX. Gen. xxiv. 3.' — dvayvaad^ijvai] that it he read to (Luke iv. 16 ; 2 Cor.
iii. 15 ; Col. iv. 16), not that it be read by. Incorrectly also Michaelis,
appealing to 2 Thess. ii. 2 (!) : there is here intended the recognition of the
Epistle as a genuine Pauline Epistle, by means of a conclusion added by
his own hand. — rijv imamXyv] comp. Eom. xvi. 22 ; Col. iv. 16. — rrdaiv roi;
ddeXipol;] to the whole of the brethren, sc. in Thessalonica ; not also in all
Macedonia (Bengel, Flatt) ; still less also in neighboring Asia (Grotius), or
even the churches of all Christendom (Seb. Schmid).
Ver. 28. Paul concludes with the usual benediction. — ^ x^P'^ roi Kvpiov
^y. 'I. Xp.] See Meyer on Gal. i. 6.— /^eff iydv] sc. sly.
the dStkiPoi irdvre,, be addressed in daird- i See IWatthiae, p. 766. On the Greek idiom
caaSe ; thus the church is to salute itself. ivopKiiw, see Lobeck, ad Phryn, p. 360 ff.

560 THE FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Notes by American Editor.
LVL Vv. 1-11.
(a) These verses are evidently connected with iv. 13-18, but they form a new
paragraph, and, as they move forward, the tliought turns more and more away
from the direct line of the former passage, and towards exhortation to that moral
life which is in accordance with their eternal hopes. — (6) The words xpdvoi koI itaipol
(ver. 1) are the same with those found in Acts i. 7, where Jesus declares that the
time of the end is reserved by God the Father within His own knowledge. They
have, doubtless, a similar reference here. Two points may here be noticed : (1)
that, in iv. 13-18, not the time, but only certain circumstances connected
with the Parousia, are set forth ; and (2) that in this passage, not the time, but
the suddenness of the coming of the day, is mentioned. The reason why they did
not need to have him write to them on this matter of the time, was not because
they already knew it, but because they knew that, when it should come, the day
would come as a thief in the night. The suggestions and exhortations which
follow, however, seem to imply that both he and they looked for it as near at hand,
though uncertain as to its exact date. — (c) Ver. 3 stands in a causal relation to
ver. 2, explaining and justifying the expression as a thief in the night. It is intro
duced, however, abruptly and without any causal particle, ydp of T. E. is
undoubtedly to be rejected. — (d) The word a/edrei (ver. 4) is a transitional word
in the development of the thought of the passage. Its connection with what goes
before seems to be this : — that they are not in that darkness of the night season,
when the thief surprises the sleeper. The connection with what follows is in the
figurative use of darkness as applied to the evil moral condition. The full
meaning of oi/c iari iv oKdrei is, therefore : you are not in that evil moral condi
tion in which the day can come upon you with terrible surprise. The positive
side of this idea is then presented in ver. 5, with a repeated setting forth of the
negative also — iapiv being in the latter substituted for iars of the former, and
thus including with the readers the Apostle himself By this means, the hortatory
verses 6 fF. are easily introduced. — (c) The turn of the thought to the new figure
of armor belongs to the hortatory part of the passage, but the limitation to the
breastplate and helmet (i. c. defensive armor) is probably connected ^vith the idea
of guarding against sudden surprise, and of watching. — (/) The only two places
in the N. T. where the word rrspuieipa'Xaia is used are ver. 8 and Eph. vi. 17. In
the latter verse, the helmet is spoken of as salvation ; here, as the hope of salva
tion. The expression here used seems to be the more exact one. — {g) The refer
ence of -ypvyopiipsv and Ka-Beidapsv, of ver. 10, to life and death is undoubtedly
correct. Whether the words are intended simply to express an idea similar to
that of Eom. xiv. 8 — that we may be the Lord's, whether we live or die ; or
whether the reference is to the day of the Lord— that, whether we are among the
living or the dead at that time, we may thereafter live with Him, is somewhat
doubtful. It does not appear necessary to understand the words in the latter way.
That view is favored, however, by the prominence in the passage of the day of
the Lord ; by the correspondence of i^yaupsv aiv aira, with iadys-Ba avv airCi of
iv. 17 ; and perhaps by the use of dpa, in both verses, in the sense of " all together."
This sense of dya seems probable in v. 10, but somewhat more doubtful in iv. 17.
—{h) If rrapoKaXslrs is taken as meaning comfort (as Lunem. takes it), this word

NOTES. 561
would favor the understanding of the 10th verse as referring to the time of the
Parousia. This sense^ of the verb gives an appropriate close to the whole passage
iv. 13-v. 11, and, as it corresponds with the meaning iu iv. 18, it is quite prob
ably to be adopted. LVII. Vv. 12-24.
(a) The miscellaneous exhortations which are now introduced and with which
the Epistle closes are, like all that precedes, of a character adapted to a friendly
letter and to a church in its earliest history. The exhortations are also, as we
might naturally anticipate in such a letter, given very briefly. In connection with
them we may observe : (1) That they move in the first section, vv. 12-15, in a
natural order, — to esteem and love their church leaders and teachers ; to be at
peace among themselves ; in order to this end, to treat each class according to their
needs ; to have no spirit of revenge, but seek moral good for all. (2) That the
second section (vv. 16-18) corresponds with Phil. iv. 4, 6. The earliest exhorta
tion addressed to the churches by the Apostle was, thus, the same with the latest —
to rejoice always, to pray always, to give thanks always and in everything. (3)
That the third section (vv. 19-22) opens with an apparent reference to the remark
able spiritual gifts (comp. 1 Cor. xiv.), but closes with what is more general — ^the
transition being possibly through Trdvra SoKiyd^ere, r. KaX, Karix, which may take
hold upon both what precedes and what follows. — (d) eidovf (ver. 22) undoubtedly
means /orro, not appearance, and the latter meaning should hardly have been recog
nized in the margin of E. V. The points mentioned by Liinem. are decisive with
respect to this word. — (c) The allusion to the Parousia in ver. 23 — in the closing
prayer of the Epistle, and almost its closing sentence — is very striking, in connec
tion with what has been already noticed in earlier parts of the letter, as showing
how prominent this subject was in the thoughts of the readers and the writer at
this time. It was the subject which, as a matter of inquiry and discussion, most
interested the mind of the church.

36

THE
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

INTRODUCTION.
SEC. 1.— OCCASION, DESIGN, CONTENTS.
AUL, after having sent away his flrst Epistle, received fiir
ther information concerning the state of the Thessalonian
church. The church had actively progressed on the path
of Christianity ; their faith had been confirmed ; their
brotherly love had gained in extent and intensity; and their
enduring stedfastness under persecution, which had broken out
afresh, had been anew gloriously displayed (i. 3, 4). But along
with this the thought of the advent had given rise to new
disquietude and perplexity. The question concerning this Christian
article of faith had advanced another stage. The former anxiety concern
ing the fate of their Christian friends who were already asleep at the time
of the commencement of the advent had disappeared ; on this point the
instructions of the apostle had imparted complete consolation. But the
opinion now prevailed, that the advent of the Lord was immediately at
hand, that it might daily, hourly be expected. Accordingly, on the one
hand fear and consternation, and on the other hand an impatient and
fanatical longing for the instant when by the coming of the Lord the
kingdom of God would be completed, had taken possession of their spirits ;
and it was no wonder that in consequence of this the unsteadiness and
excitement, which at an earlier period had afflicted the church, and its
result, the neglect of their worldly business, had increased to an alarming
extent. This opinion, that the commencement of the advent was close
at hand, had seized upon them the more readily, as men had arisen
among them who maintained that they had received divine revelations
concerning it, and they had even proceeded so far as to forge an epistle in
the name of the apostle, in order by its contents to establish the truth of
that doctrine (ii. 2). An appeal was also made to the alleged oral state-
663

564 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ment of the apostle (ii. 2), and it is not inconceivable that even the expla
nations which the genuine Epistle of the apostle contained concerning the
advent may have promoted that view. It is true that there nothing is
expressly said concerning the immediateness of the advent, but on the
one hand it is described as sudden and unexpected (1 Thess. v. 2, 4), and
on the other hand it is so characterized as if Paul himself, and his con
temporaries, might hope still to survive (1 Thess. iv. 15, 17).
Such was the state of matters which gave occasion ior the composition
of the second Epistle. Its design is threefold. First, The apostle wished
— and this is the chief point — to oppose the disturbing and exciting error
as if the advent of Christ was even at the door, by further instructions.
Secondly, He wished strongly and emphatically to dissuade from that
unsettled, disorderly, and idle disposition into which the church had
fallen. Thirdly, He wished by a laudatory recognition of their progres
sive goodness to encourage them to stedfast perseverance.
The Epistle is divided, according to its contents, aiter a salutation (i. 1,2)
and introduction (i. 3-12), into a dogmatic (ii. 1-12) and a hortative por
tion (ii. 13-iii. 15). In the introduction the apostle thanks God for the
great increase of the church in faith and love, praises their endurance
under fresh persecutions, comforts them with the recompense to be
expected at the coining of Christ, and testifles that the progress and com
pletion of the Thessalonians in Christianity was the constant object of
his prayer. In the dogmatic portion, for the refutation of the fancy that
the day of the Lord already daWns, the apostle directs attention to the
historical pre-conditions of its commencement. Christ cannot return
until the power of evil, which certainly already begins to develop itself,
is consolidated and has attained to its maximum by the appearance of
Antichrist. Lastly, In the hortative portion Paul exhorts his readers to
hold fast to the Christianity delivered to them (ii. 13-17), claims their
prayers for his apostolic work (iii. 1 ff.), earnestly and decidedly warns
them against unsteadiness and idleness (iii. 6-15), and then the Epistle is
closed with a salutation by his own hand, and a twofold benediction (iii.
16-18). SEC. 2.— TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
Interpreters and chronologists agree that this so-called Second Epistle
was composed shortly after the First, with the exceptions of Grotius,
Ewald {Jahrb. d. bihl. Wissenschaft. Gott. 1851, p. 250 ; Die Sendschreihen des
Ap, Paulus, Gott. 1857, p. 17 ; Geschichte des apost, Zeitalters, Gott. 1858, p.
455 ; Jahrb. d. bibl Wiss., Gott. 1860, p. 241), Baur {Theol Jahrb,, Tub.

INTEODUCTION. 565
1855, 2, p. 165), Laurent {Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1864, 3, p. 497 ff. ; Neutest.
Stud., Gotha 1866, p. 49 ff.), A. B. van der Vriess {De beide brieven aan de
Thessalonicensen, historiscli-kritisch onderzoek naar hunnen vorsprung, Leyden,
1865), and Davidson {An introduction to the study of the New Testament,
London, 1868, vol. I. p. 30 ff.), who hold that the Second Epistle was the
flrst composed. This view has nothing for it, but much against it. Grotius
relies chiefly on the following reason : that in iii. 17 a mark is given by
which the genuineness of the Epistles of Paul may be recognized, but
such a mark belongs properly to the first Epistle, not to a second ; and
that ii. 1-12 is to be referred to the Emperor Caius Caligula. But there
is not the slightest reason for the reference of ii. 1-12 to Caligula (see on
passage), entirely apart from the fact that on such an assumption, as
Caligula was already dead in the beginning of the year 41 after Christ, the
Epistle must have been composed more than ten years before Paul,
according to the narrative of the Acts, arrived at Thessalonica ! The
mark of authenticity in 2 Thess. iii. 17 was not required until, as we learn
from ii. 2, attempts had occurred to forge epistles in the name of the
apostle. According to Ewald,^ the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
was placed after the First " on account of its brevity." He thinks that it
is manifestly a flrst Epistle written to a church which Paul had shortly
before founded. It has indeed been attempted to show that, according to
ii. 2, Paul had previously written an epistle to the church ; but this
might easily have been possible in the number of letters which the apos
tle had indisputably already then written ; on the other hand, however,
Paul for the flrst time directs them in this Epistle to give heed to his act
ually genuine letters to them as to his hving word (ii. 15, in. 17). Further,
with regard to the advent, the error as if it were close at hand— and this,
according to the existing state of matters and of doctrine generally,
would be the first error which would have arisen — had then broken
out in the church, which was the chief occasion of this Epistle. The
very correction of it might easily have given rise to a second error, that
the fate of the many who had died previously was sad, which the fol
lowing Epistle corrects (1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.). Also it would not at that
time have been necessary to send Timotheus to the church, in order to
1 Baur has not entered upon the reasons of dependent on the First, as marks of an oppo-
his subsequent opinion. He judged differ- site relationsihip. Laurent in all essentials
ently in his Paulus der Ap, Jesu Christi, p. agrees with Ewald. The peculiarity of his
488. He only remarks that there is no view is so manifestly erroneous, that it does
difBculty (!) in considering those passages in not need a special refutation.
which the Second Epistle ia regarded as

566 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
correct the increasing disorders within it ; this would only happen in the
interval between this and the larger Epistle, which might be about four
or six months.^ Lastly, 1 Thess. iv. 10, 11 contains a reference to 2 Thess.
iii. 6-11. Accordingly Ewald makes the Second Epistle to the Thessalo
nians to have been composed during the residence of Paul at Berea, suc
ceeding his residence at Thessalonica.
But that in the smaller compass of the Second Epistle a definite reason
is to be sought for its position after the First, is historically completely
undemonstrable, and not even probable, because — just as with the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians — the internal relation of the lesser Epistle to
the greater necessarily required that position. Ewald's assertion, that our
Second Epistle manifestly declares itself to be a first Epistle written by
Paul to a church recently founded, is thoroughly erroneous. On the con
trary, our Second Epistle undoubtedly and evidently refers back to the
First, serves for its completion, and makes known a progress fi-om an
earlier condition to one partially more advanced. If the First Epistle
describes the eager desire of salvation with which the Thessalonhans
received the publication of the gospel, and dwells in vivid and detailed
recollection of the facts of their conversion belonging to the immediate
past, — contents which are suitable only for the Epistle composed first
according to time ; in the Second Epistle, i. 3 ff., mention is made of a
hles&ed progress in their Christian life. If in the First Epistle the prox
imity of the advent is presupposed without anticipation of a possible mis
understanding, in the Second Epistle tlie correction .and the further
explanation in respect of this truth was necessary, namely, that the
advent was not to be expected in the immediate present. So also the
exhortation to a quiet and industrious life, which was already contained
in the First Epistle, was more strongly and categoricahy expressed in the
Second. Add to this, that the words /eat -ypdv imawayayij; iif airdv, 2 ThesS.
h. 1, are apparently to be referred to 1 Thess. iv. 17 ; whereas to obtain,
with Ewald, a reference in 1 Thess. iv. 10, 11, to 2 Thess. iii. 6-16, you
must first have recourse to an ungrammatical and in the highest deo-ree
unnatural construction (see commentary on 1 Thess. iv. 10, p. 119).
1 otherwise Baur. According to him, the how many /tc/coi/iij/jei/ous— already deceased
larger Epistle was not written shortly after members of the church— could there be?
the lesser. On the supposition of the authen- The question as regards the deceased Chri.s-
ticity of the Epistle, taking into consider- tians was naturally only then (?) an object of
ation the church of Thessalonica scarcely lively interest the greater the number of the
founded, and the Epistle of the apostle de.ad, perhaps after a whole generation had
written only a few months after its founding, passed away from the midst of Christendom.

INTRODUCTION. 567
I-
Lastly, over and above, it follows from ii. 15 that Paul before our Second
Epistle had already sent another letter to the Thessalonians ; and thus to
maintain that the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians manifestly shows
itself as a, first epistle of Paul to a church recently founded, is in contra
diction with the apostle's own testimony. To explain the epistle to the
Thessalonians preceding our Second Epistle as not identical with our First
Epistle, but as having been lost, would be in the controverted circum
stances of the case a mere shift justified by nothing. Moreover, it is not
even correct that the apostle in 2 Thess. ii. 15 " for the first time directed
the church to give heed to his genuine letters written to them as to his
living word." For only the exhortation is there given to hold fast the
instructions in Christianity, which Paul had already at an earlier period
given to his readers both orally and in an epistle. A direction how to
recognize the genuineness of epistles written at a later period to the
Thessalonians only follows from iii. 17. But this notice has in the fact
recorded in 2 Thess. ii. 2 its sufficient explanation. Further, as regards
the eschatological explanations in both Epistles, the possibility of such a
development as Ewald assumes is not to be denied, but its necessity is by
no means to be proved. The actual fact that individual instances of
death — for there is no mention " of many dying before the advent " — ^had
occurred -within the church might very well, form the point of departure
for the eschatological discussions of the apostle ; and then to it the refii-
tation of the error, that the advent was in the immediate present, might
be added, as the later form of error, especially as the apostle's own expres
sions in 1 Thess. v. 2, 3 were so framed that they might have contributed to
the origin of that error. Lastly, " increasing disorders " -within the church
are by no means supposed in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Timotheus was not sent to Thessalonica " to correct increasing disorders,"
but to exhort the Thessalonians to stedfastness in persecution. Comp. 1
Thess. in. 1 ff. But even supposing that the " correction of increasing
disorders " was the reason for the mission of Timotheus, yet nothing can
be inferred from this regarding the priority of the one Epistle to the
other. For -with the same truth with which it might be said it was not yet
necessary to send Timotheus to the church, it might be affirmed that it
was no longer necessary to send him thither.
The following reasons prove that the Second Epistle was coifiposed not
long after the sending away of the First. Silas and Timotheus are still in
the Company of the apostle (i. 1), but the Acts of the Apostles at least
never inform us that after Paul left Corinth (Acts xviii. 18) these two

568 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
apostolic assistants were again together with him. We find Timotheus
again in the apostle's company, first at Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), whilst
there is no further mention of Silas in the Acts of the Apostles after his
Corinthian residence. Besides, the relations and wants of the church are
throughout analogous to those which are presupposed in the First Epistle.
The same circle of thought occupies the apostle; similar instructions,
similar praises, similar exhortations, warnings, and wishes are found
throughout in both Epistles. It is accordingly to be assumed that also
the Second Epistle was composed during the first residence of the apostle at
Corinth, but, according to iii. 2, at a time when he had already suffered
hostility on the part of the Jews, and, according to i. 4 (raif iKKXyalai;,
comp. 1 Cor. i. 2 ; ' 2 Cor. ii. 1 ; Kom. xvi. 1), when branch churches had
already been founded from Corinth — probably at the commencement of
the year 54. SEC. 3.— GENUINENESS.
With respect to the external attestation of Christian antiquity, the
authenticity of the Epistle is completely unassailable. Polyc. ad Phil. 11
fin. ; Just. Mart, dial c, Tryph. Col. 1686, p. 336 E, p. 250 A ; Iren. adv.
Haer. iii. 7. 2 ; Clem. Alex. Strom, v. p. 554, ed. Sylb. ; Tertull. de resurr.
cam. c. xxiv. ; Can, Mural, Peschito, Marcion, etc. Doubts from internal
grounds did not arise until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The
first who objected to the Epistle was Christian Schmidt. In his Bibliothek
f. Kritik und Exegese des N. T, Hadamar 1801, vol. II. p. 380 ff., he con
tests the genuineness of 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, and then in his Einleit in's N. T,
Giess. 1804, Part 2, p. 256 f , he proceeds to call in question the authenti
city of the whole Epistle. De Wette, in the earlier editions of his Intro
duction to the New Testament, assented to the adduced objections ; but
latterly, in the first edition of his Commentary to the Thessalonian Epis
tles, in the year 1841, and in the fourth edition of his Introduction to the
New Testament (1842), he withdrew them. See against these objections,
Heydenreich in the Neuen krit. Journal der theol. Literatur, by Wirier and
1 The words avv irdaiv Tot5 eiriKaXovpevois it is marvellous that it is not to be found in
/c.T.A., 1 Cor. i. 2, 1 take as a continuation of any interpretation — the addition, otherwise
the address of the Epistle, airCiv re Kal ypiCiv entirely inexplicable, ev iravr'i roiria, airCiv
as dependent on ev iravrl tottci), and ev iravn re Kal i}p.uiv, receives its full import and pro-
ToTTti/ as closely connected with toG Kvpiov priety, whilst the words obtain a suitable
Ti/ia/r 'iTjaoiJ Xp., "Jesus Christ who is our (sc. reference to the Corinthian factions, by
Christians') Lord in every place, both in theirs means of which Christ, who is everywhere
and ours." Only with this explanation — the only and the same Lord of Christianity,
which is in itself so simple and unforced that is divided ; eomp. 1 Cor. i. 13.

INTEODUCTION. 569
Engelhardt, Sulzb. 1828, vol. viii. p. 129 ff. ; Guerike, Beitr. zur historisch
krit. Einl in's N. T., Halle 1828, p. 92 ff. ; Hemsen, der Ap. Paulus, Gott.
1830, p. 175 ff. ; and especially Reiche, authentiae posterioris ad Thess.
epistolae vindiciae, Gott. 1829.
The following reasons are chiefly insisted on : — 1. The Second Epistle
contradicts the First, inasmuch as it disputes the opinion of the nearness
of the advent which is presupposed in the First Epistle. But the Second
Epistle does not dispute that opinion, — it rather presupposes it, — whilst
only the view of the directly immediate nearness of the advent is contested
as erroneous. 2. When the author lays down, in iii. 17, a mark of authen
ticity for the Pauline Epistles in general, which yet is found neither in
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians nor elsewhere, he seems thereby to
wish to cast suspicions on the First Epistle as un-Pauhne. But it is
entirely a mistake to flnd in iii. 17 a mark which Paul would affix to all
his Epistles generally ; the meaning of these words can only be, that in all
those epistles which he would afterwards write to the Thessalonians he
would add a salutation by his own hand as an attestation of genuineness.
3. The doctrine of Antichrist, ii. 3 ff., is un-Pauline ; it points to a Mon-
tanist as the author. But this idea is by no means peculiar to the Mon
tanists. It has its root already in Jewish Christology (see Bertholdt,
christologia Judaeorum Jesu apostolorumque aetate, p. 69 ff. ; Gesenius in
Ersch and Gruber's allg. Encyclop, vol. iv. p. 292 ff.), and is elsewhere not
foreign to the N. T. ; comp. 1 John ii. 18, 22, iv. 3 ; 2 John 7 ; Eev. xii. 13.
Accordingly we are not entitled, because this view does not occur else--
where with Paul, to maintain that it is un-Pauline, the less so as it neither
contradicts the other statements of the apostle concerning the advent, nor
did an occasion occur to Paul in his other Epistles, as in this, to describe
it more minutely. 4. The Epistle is defective in peculiar historical refer
ences. But, according to sections 1, 2, the state of matters which the
Second Epistle supposes was throughout a more developed state, .and con
sequently, of course, a peculiar one. 5. The author carefiilly seeks to
represent himself as the Apostle Paul. But the personal references which
are contained in the Second Epistle do not make this impression, as they
are analogous to those in the First Epistle, and the words, ii. 2, 15, iii. 17,
are fully explained by the actual abuse which occurred of the apostle's
name. In more recent times the authenticity of the Epistle has again been
disputed, flrst by Schrader in scattered remarks in his paraphrase to the
Epistle (see the exposition), then by Kern in the Tubing. Zeitschr. f. Theol.

570 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
1829, Part 2, p. 145 ff. ; further, by Baur in his Paulus der Ap. Jesu
Christi, Stuttg. 1845, p. 480 ff., iind in his and Zeller's Theol Jahrbiicher,
1855, Part 2, p. 141 ff. ; likewise by Hilgenfeld in his Ztschr. fur wiss,
Tlieol, 5th year, Halle 1862, p. 242 ff., also 1866, p. 299 ff., as well as
in his Einleitung in das N. Test. Leipzig. 1876, p. 642 ff. ; by v.an der
Vries, 1. c. ; and lastlj^, by W. C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de echtheid
van Paulus' tweeden brief aan de Thessalonicensen {De echtheid van Paulus'
brieven aan de Thess. onderzocht, IL), Utrecht 1865, whose chief argument,
however, that the opinion contested in 2 Thess. ii. 2, namely, that the
advent'was to be expected in the immediate present, was the opinion of the
Apostle Paul himself, evidently rests on an error.^ Against Kern, see
Pelt in the Theolog, Mitarbeiten, 4th year, Kiel 1841, Part 2, p. 74
ff. ; against Baur, in the place flrst mentioned, see Wilibald Grimm in
the Theol. Stud, u. Krit, 1850, Part 4, p. 780 ff. ; J. P. Lange, das apost.
Zeital vol. i., Braunschw. 1853, p. Ill ff.
The reasons on which Kern relies are the follffwing : —
1. From the section 2 Thess. ii. 1-12 it follows that the Epistle could
not have been composed until after the death of Paul. ,»For even if it be
not granted, what yet is most probable, that Paul perished in the Neronian
persecution, during the imprisonment recorded in the Acts, in the year
64, — even if a second Roman imprisonment be maintained, — yet all the
traditions of antiquity agree on this point, that Paul suffered martyrdom
under Nero (p. 207). But the author of the Epistle makes his announce
ment of Antichrist and its adjuncts from the state of the world as it was
immediately after the overthrow of Nero, when Nero was believed to be still
alive, and a speedy return of him to the throne was expected, and that
from the East, or more precisely fi-om Jerusalem (Tacit. Hist. ii. 8 ; Sueton.
Nero, c. 57, compared with c. 40). The Antichrist whose appearance is
described as impending, is Nero ; that which withholdeth him are the
existing circumstances of the world ; the -withholder is Vespasian with his
son Titus, who then besieged Jerusalem ; and what is said of the apostasy
is a reflection of the horrid wickedness which broke out among the Jewish
people in their war against the Romans (p. 200). Accordingly the Epistle
could not have been composed about the year 53 or 54, but only between
the years 68-70 (p. 270). Moreover, Kern thinks that " the Epistle might
lAlso Weiss {Philosophische Dogmatik oder the exception of tlie conclusion, is through-
Philosophie des Christenthu/ms, vol. I., Leipz. out " unapostolic in its verbal construction,"
1855, p. 146) has declared that the Second without, however, entering into a justification
Epistle to the Thessalonians, with perhaps of this judgment.

INTEODUCTION. 571
be called Pauline in the wider sense '' — ^that a Paulinist was its author.
For in general the Epistle agrees with the Pauline mode of thought. A
Paulinist, affected with a view of the present, that is, of the circumstances
of the times between' the years 68-70, saw in spirit the apocalyptic picture
which he describes in ii. 1-12. In order to impart it to his Christian
brethren, he has drawn it up in a letter to which he has given thb form
of a Pauline Epistle. As the already existing Epistle to the Thessalonians
was of such a nature that to carry out that purpose a second could be
attached to it, the author of the second Epistle has presupposed the first.
He has surrounded his apocalyptic picture, ii. 1-12, the proper germ of
the whole, with a border which he has formed from what he has sketched
from the genuine Pauline Eijistle, so that he has made the first part serve
as an introduction to the section chiefly intended by him (ii. 1-12), and
the second part as a continuation of his thoughts passing over into the
hortative (ii. p. 214).
This view of Kern, which is certainly carried out with acuteness, falls
into pieces of itself, as it proceeds on an entirely mistaken interpretation
of ii. 1-12. It is entirely erroneous to seek the Antichrist, who belongs to
the purely religious sphere, in the political — among the number of the
Roman emperors. Accordingly ii. 1-12 contains nothing which in any
way transcended the circle of the Apostle Paul's vision (see the interpre
tation). The additional arguments, which Kern insists on as marks of the
spuriousness of the Epistle, are sought by him only in consequence of the
result which to him followed from the passage ii. 1-12 ; they would even
to himself, were it not for that flrst argument, have been of hardly any
weight. They are the following : —
2. The suspicion resulting from 2 Thess. iii. 17, as if by the addition of
6 'san aypelov a safer reception was designed to be procured for the spurious
Epistle, arises from the fact that Paul could not possibly have appealed
to irdaav 'emaroXyv, especially if we consider the Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians as one of the earliest of his Epistles. But we have already
adverted to the correct meaning of ev rrday 'emaroXy and the addition 6
'san ayyslov is, moreover, sufficiently occasioned by the notice in ii. 2,
which Kern, without right, denies, understanding the 'smaroXy d; di ypdv,
ii. 2 entirely arbitrarily, not of a forged epistle, but of the First Epistle of
Paul to the Thessalonians, which was only falsely interpreted.
3. The Second Epistle betrays an intentional imitation of the First.
The whole first chapter of the Second Epistle rests on the groundwork of

572 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the First Epistle ; its beginning corresponds to the beginning of the First
Epistle ; what is said concerning the BXi-ipi; for the sake of the gospel, has
many parallels in 1 Thess. ii. and iii. ; ver. 6 ff. entirely depends on 1
Thess. iv. 13 ff. (!) ; lastly, vv. 11, 12 are similar to 1 Thess. iii. 12 f., v. 23
ff. Also what follows the section ii. 1-12 (which is peculiar to the Second
Epistle) is also dependent on the First Epistle. Thus ii. 13-17 is depend
ent on 1 Thess. i. 4, 5, iii. 11 ff. The address : ddsXipol yyarryyevoi irrb
Kvp'iov, ver. 13, is borrowed from 1 Thess. i. 4. Further, 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 is an
extension of 1 Thess. v. 25, but where in ver. 2 an additional clause is
added, which neither as regards 'Iva pvaBdpsv K.r.X., nor as regards oi ydp
rrdvrav y rrlan;, can properly be explained from the condition which Paul
was supposed at that time to be in, when he was thought to have written
the second Epistle soon after the first (!). Vv. 3-5 point back to 1 Thess.
V. 24, ih. 11-13 ; vv. 6-12 rest entirely on 1 Thess. ii. 6-12, iv. 11, 12, v. 14;
and ver. 16 is borrowed from 1 Thess. v. 23. However, on a more exact
examination, a great diversity will be seen in manj^ of those compared
passages ; and the resemblance and similarity remaining — which, more
over, is not greater than that between the Epistles to the Colossians and
Ephesians, and between many passages in the Epistles to the Galatians
and the Eomans — has its complete explanation in the analogous circum
stances of the church which occasioned both Epistles, and in the short
interval which intervened between their composition.
4. Lastly, much that is un-Pauline is seen in the Epistle. To this
belongs sixapiarslv 'ofe'iXopev, i. 3, which is repeated in ii. 13, and in the
first passage, moreover, is the more prominently brought forward by
KaBd; d^idv ianv ; whilst Paul elsewhere, out of the fullness of his Christian
consciousness, simply says: "we thank God." Directly following it
virspav^dvsi y rrlan; ipdv is surprising, which does not rightly agree with 1
Thess. iii. 10 {Karapriaai rd iarep-fipara rij; rrlareu;) ; and evof iKdarov rrdvruv
ipdv, which agrees not with what they are reminded of in the second
Epistle itself (iii. 11) (!). Ver. 6 reminds us not so much of Paul as of
Rev. vi. 9, 10. In ver. 10 the expression imarsi-By rb papripmv yydv i(p'
ipd; is un-Pauline ; in ver. 11 the phrase rrdaa eidoda dya-Buaivy;, and still
more ipyov iriarea;, is remarkable. In the section ii. 1-12, koI did rovro,
which never elsewhere occurs, is placed instead of <!ia roiro, elsewhere
constantly used by Paul In the same section, ver. 8, imipdvsia ry; irapov
ala;, and ver. 10, dixsaBai rijv dydrryv ry; dXyBs'ia;, instead of the simple
dixeoBai rbv Xdyov, r^v dX-yBsiav, are peculiar. The idea of election is
entirely Pauline, but it is never (?) otherwise expressed than by 'sKkoyy,

INTEODUCTION. 573
sKXiysadai ; but in ii. 13 aipslaBai is found for it. In chap. iii. 13, Ka'Xorroislv,
not found elsewhere in the N. T., is a transformation of the Pauline rb
KaXbv iroislv. Gal. vi. 9. Lastly, the addition Sid rij; 'emaroXy;, in ver. 14, is
remarkable, as it purposely directs attention to the present Epistle. — But
these expressions partly have their analogies elsewhere with Paul, partly
they belong to those peculiarities which are found in every Pauline Epistle
blended with the general fundamental type of Pauline diction, which this
Epistle also possesses ; and lastly, partly they are deviations so unim
portant, that the reproach of being un-Pauline can in no way be proved
by them.
Further, as regards Baur's objections to this Epistle, these, in the first-
mentioned place {Apostel Paulus), consist essentially only in a repetition
of those already made by Kern. Only the assertion (p. 487) is peculiar to
him, that the representation of Antichrist given in 2 Thess. ii. directly
conflicts with the expectation of the apostle in 1 Cor. xv. For in 1 Cor.
XV. 52 the apostle supposes that he himself will be alive at the advent,
and will be changed with the living. In 2 Thess. ii., on the contrary, it is
attempted by means of a certain theory to give the reason why the advent
cannot so soon take place. Christ, according to that passage, cannot
appear until Antichrist has come, and Antichrist cannot come so long as
that continued which must precede the commencement of the last epoch.
How far is one thereby removed, not only beyond the standpoint, but
also beyond the time of the apostle !
The wantonness and superficiality of such an opinion is evident. Even
iviarvKev (ii. 2) suffices to show its worthlessness. For that by means of
this expression " the day of the Lord is only removed from the most
immediate present, but by no means from being near at hand ; and that
accordingly he also could have thus expressed himself who expected the
day of the Lord as near, as very near, only not precisely as in the present,''
Baur, already from the treatise of Kern (p. 151), which he indeed else
where so carefully follows, might have learned. Indeed, it inevitably
follows from the emphatic position of iviaryKev, that not only also he, but
rather only he, who considered the advent as near could thus express him
self as to how it should take place. If the author had wished to refute
the error that the day of the Lord has dawned, whereas he himself con
sidered the circumstances preceding it, instead of occurring in a short
space of time and rapidly succeeding one another, only developing themselves
in long periods, he would not have put the chief stress of the sentence on
iviaryKev, and would have required to have written a; bn y ypipa roi Kvpiov

574 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ivearyKsv instead of a; bn iviarynsv y ypipa rov Kvpiov. And, Only to men
tion one other particular, might not one with the same argument of Baur
call in question the authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans? For,
according to the Romans, the return of Christ was not to be expected
until the completion of the kingdom of God, until all Israel will be con
verted (Eom. xi. 26) ; but all Israel cannot be converted until the fullness
of the Gentiles be come in (Rom. xi. 25). "How far is one thereby
removed, not only from the standpoint, but also from -the time of the
apostle ! "
Moreover, whilst Baur in the first-mentioned place {Apostel Paulus, p.
485), differing from Kern, had assumed that the representation of Anti
christ given in 2 Thess. ii. rested entirely on Jewish ground, and contained
only a repetition of the thoughts which were already expressed in their
chief points, particularly according to the type of the prophecies of Daniel,
and that accordingly the author moved only in the sphere of Jewish
eschatology, and that even the Apostle Paul might have shared these
views; in the last-mentioned place (Baur and Zeller's Tub. Jahrb'uch. p.
151 ff.) he maintains, in agreement with Kern, that in the section 2 Thess. ii.
such a representation of Antichrist occurs as could only have been formed
on the soil of Christian ideas, and also on the ground of events which
belong to a later period than that of the Apostle Paul. According to
Baur's subsequent opinion, the author borrowed the colors for his picture
of Antichrist from the Apocalypse, and accordingly has imparted to the
image of Antichrist features which are evidently borrowed from the his
tory and person of Nero. But to think of the dependence of the author
on the Apocalypse is so much the more erroneous, as the description in
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, compared with that in the
Apocalypse, is one very simple and slightly developed. The Apocalypse,
therefore, can only have been written at a period later than the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians. So also Baur's argument from 2 Thess. ii.
2 is destitute of any foundation. For it is manifestly an exegetical impos
sibility to find, with Baur, in the expression eif rb py raxia; aaXsv-Byvai an
indication " of an historical circumstance," such as that which most
naturally presents itself, the " pseudo-Nero disturbances " mentioned by
Tacitus, Hist, ii. 8. For the author himself expressly tells us, by the three
clauses commencing with pyre, by what this aaXsvByvai and Bpoela-Bai of the
readers was historically occasioned. Therefore no place remains in the
context for such a historical reason of aaXevBijvai and BpoelaBai as Baur
demands.

INTEODUCTION. 575
Lastly, Hilgenfeld removes the origin of the Epistle still farther than
Kern and Baur. According to Hilgenfeld— who, however, holds fast to
the genuineness of the First Epistle— it was not composed until the time
of Trajan. The Epistle is a clear monument of the progress of the primi
tive Christian eschatology at the beginning of the second century. But
his reasons for this view are extremely weak. Exactly taken, they are
only the following :—(l) The first rise of the Gnostic heresies falls to the
time of Trajan; (2) The continued persecution mentioned in 2 Thess. i.
4 ff. suits the time of Trajan; (3) Also to this time the prophetical
announcement in 2 Thess. ii. 2, that the day of the Lord had already
commenced, agrees. But the opinion, that by the already working mys
tery of iniquity, 2 Thess. ii. 7, the rise of the Gnostic heresies is meant, is
entirely untenable, as it has elsewhere no support in the Epistle ; it is as
arbitrary as is the further assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the expression : 6
av&purro; ry; dpapria;, 2 Thess. ii. 3, refers back to the blood-stained life of
the matricide Nero, as Antichrist who had already existed. The two
additional arguments can only lay claim to respect, provided the new
outbreak of persecution presupposed in chap, i., and the opinion discussed
in chap. ii. 2, that the advent was in the immediate present, were not
sufficiently explicable from the natural development of the historical
situation of the First Epistle, or provided it could otherwise have been
proved that Paul could not be the author-of the Epistle. But neither of
these is the case. Also the notion, preserved to us in Hippolytus, refwt.
ornn. haerfs. ix. 13, p. 292, ix. 16, p. 296, that the Ebcai-book, in the third
year of Trajan, proclaimed the eschatological catastrophe as occurring
after other three years of this emperor, is, in reference to eif bn iviaryKev
¦lj ijpipa rov Kvplov, 2 Thess. ii. 2, wholly without value.

576 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS,

IlauXou Tipdi; deaaaXovixui; imarolrj deuripa.
A B K X, Copt. 80, 87 have only : Ilpof eeeroaAovi/ceif P'. The simplest and
apparently oldest title.
CHAPTER I.
Veb. 2. Elz. Tisch. 8, have rrarpb; ypCrv. But yydfv is wanting in B D E, 17,
49, 71, al, Clar. Germ. Theophyl. Ambrosiast, ed. Pel. Bracketed by Lachm.
Eightly erased by Tischendorf 2, 7, and Alford. An addition from the usual
epistolary commencements of the apostle. — Ver. 4. Kavxdadai] So Elz. Griesb.
Matt, and Scholz, after D E K L, min. vers. But in the diversity of testimonies
(F G have KavxyaaoBai), iyKavxda-Bai, after A B X, 17 al, received by Lachm.
Tisch. 1, 2, Alford and Ellicott (in the 7th and Sth edd. Tisch. writes ivKavxda-Bat),
merits the preference as the best accredited and the rarer form. — Ver. 8. Instead
of the Receptus irvpl (pXoyd; (approved by Tiseh. 2, 7 and 8, Bloomfield, Alford,
and Eeiche), Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 1 and Ellicott read (p'Xoyl rrvpd;. For the
latter overwhelming authorities decide (B D* E F G, 71, Syr. utr. Copt. Aeth.
Arm. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Macar. Theodoret [in comm.], Theophyl. [in
comm.J Oec. Tert. Aug. Pel.).- — 'lyaoi] Elz. Matth. Scholz read 'lyaov Apiarov.
Against B D E K L, min. plur. Copt. Aeth. Syr. p. Ar. poi. Theodoret, Damasc.
Theophyl. Oec. Xpiaroi is impugned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., and
rejected by Tischendorf, Alford and Ellicott. — Ver. 9. Instead of the Receptus
bXe-Bpov, Lachm., after A, 17, 73, al,, Slav. ms. Chrys. ms. Ephr. Tert., reads
'oXe-Bpiov. But 'oXi-Bpiov is simply an error of the scribe, occasioned by the follow
ing a'ldviov. — roii of the .Receptus before Kvp'iov is wanting in D E F G, 3, 39, al,
Chrys. (in textu) Theoph. It was absorbed in the last syllable of rrpoadrrov. —
Ver. 10. iv-Bavpaa-Byvai, found in D* E* F G, instead of the Receptus -BavyaaByvai,
is an error of the scribe, occasioned by the two preceding and the following ev. —
marsiaaaiv] Elz. reads marsiovaiv, against A B D E F Ggr. L X, 31, al, plur. edd.
Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theoph. Oec.
Ambrosiast. Pel. — Ver. 12. roi Kvpiov ypdv 'lyaov] Elz. Matth. have roi Kvplov
yydv 'lyaoi Xpiaroi. But Xpiaroi is wanting in B D E K L K, 37, at., plur. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Clar. Germ. Theodoret, ms. Oec. Doubted by Griesb., bracketed by
Lachm., and rightly erased by Tisch., Alford and Ellicott.
Vv. 1, 2. Address and salutation. See on 1 Thess. i. 1. — drrb Qsoi irarpb;
Kal Kvp'iov 1. Xpi]from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ; not :
from God who is the Father and Lord of Jesus Christ. For, according to
the Pauline custom, the fullness of Christian blessings is derived in com
mon from God and Christ. The absolute irarpof (comp. Gal. i. 3 ; 1 Tim.
i. 2 ; 2 Tim. i. 2 ; Tit. i. 4) is equivalent to rrarpb; iiydv, more frequently
used elsewhere in similar places ; comp. Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i.
2; Eph. i. 2; Phil i. 2; Col. i. 2 ; Philem. 3.

CHAP. I. 1-3. 577
Vv. 3-12. [On vv. 1-12, see Note LIV. pages 588-590.] Introduction of the
Epistle. Commendatory recognition of the progress of the church in faith
and love, as well as in the stedfastness which proved itself anew under
persecution (vv. 3, 4), a comforting and encouraging reference to the
recompense commencing at the advent of Christ (vv. 5-10), and an assur
ance that the progress and completion of the Thessalonians in Christianity
was continually the subject of the apostle's prayer (vv. 11, 12).
Ver. 3. 'OipslXopev] namely, 1 Paul, together with Silvanus and Timo
theus. — Ka-Bd; af idv ecrriv] as it is meet, as it is right and proper, is usually.
considered as a mere parenthesis, resuming bipelXoysv, so that on is con
sidered in the sense of tlmt dependent on sixapiarslv. However, as the
discourse afterwards follows quickly on bn, so Ka&d; d^idv ianv would sink
into a mere entirely meaningless interjection and parenthesis; but as
such, on account of the preceding bipslXopev, it would be aimless and super
fluous. In direct contrast to this view, Schott places the chief emphasis
on K,a^d; d^idv 'eanv, which he rightly refers back to sixapiarslv instead of
to bipslXopsv. According to Schott, Ka-Bd; is designed to denote " modum
eximium, quo animus gratus declarari debeat," and the thought to be
expressed is " oportet nos deo gratias agere, quales conveniant praestantiae
benefioii, i. e. eximias." ' But neither can this interpretation be the correct
one. For (1) ko-Bu; is never used as a statement of gradation ; (2) it is hardly
conceivable that Paul should have concentrated the emphasis of the sen
tence on Ka-Bd; d^idv ianv. If he had wished to do so, he would at least
have written 'Eixapiareiv 'oipeiXopev ra 6eu Trepi ipdv, Ka-Bd; dfidv et7riv, but
would not have inserted irdvrors and ddeXfoi. Taking this insertion into
consideration, we are obliged to decide that after .ddeXipol a certain pause
in the discourse commences, so that Eixapiareiv . . . ddsXipoi is placed first
as an independent general expression, to which ko-BOi; d^idv ianv is added
as a connecting clause, for the explanation and development of the pre
ceding by what follows. But from this it follows that bn belongs not to
sixapiarslv, but to KaBd; d^idv ianv, and denotes not that, but because. The
meaning is : We ought to thank God always on your behalf, as it {sc. the
sixapiarslv) is right and proper, because, etc. As by this interpretation
Ka-Bd; dfidv ianv is neither unduly' brought forward nor unduly placed in
the shade, so also every appearance of pleonasm vanishes. For bfelXopev
expresses the duty of thanksgiving from its subjective side, as an internal
conviction ; Ka-Bd; a^idv ianv, on the other hand, from the objective side, as
something answering to the state of circumstances, since it is meet, since
it is fit and proper, to give thanks to God for the di-vine proof of His
grace. — irrspav^dvsi] grows above measure, exceedingly. The compound
verb is an airaf Xsydpsvov in the N. T. But Paul loves such intensifying
compounds with virip. They are an involuntary expression of his over-
^ Comp. already Ambrosiaster : ut non qua- /leydXui? e^aKovareov, Iva ^ /leyaAw? /caflu? d^iov
lecumque esse debitum ostenderet, sicut dig- ni iieydXa' Trapexoi-Ti.— Theophylact ; f, 8ti koI
num est, ait, ut pro tam infinite dono magnas Std \6yav Kal St* epyijiv ai/TTj -yap ^ d^ia euxa-
gratias referendas deo testarentur.— Oecume- picrTi'a. Comp. also Erasmus' paraphrase, and
nius : y, on ^yai SiKaiov ean, voyaeiq' y rb Fromond.
37

578 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
flowing feelings. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 851. Olshausen cer
tainly represents it otherwise. He finds in the compound verb a forbear
ing allusion to the fact that the Thessalonians were guilty of extravagance
in their rehgious zeal, — an allusion which, as at all events it would con
tain a certain degree of irony, it is impossible to assume here, where Paul
speaks of the reasons of his thanksgimng to God. Such an interpretation
is not ingenious, as Baumgarten-Crusius judges, but meaningless. — evof
iKdarov rrdvruv ipdv] instead of the simple ipdv, emphatically strengthens
the praise bestowed. Fromond. : non tam totius ecclesiastici corporis, "sed
uniuscujusque membri, quod mirum est et rarissimae laudis. But Hof
mann, in a strangely erroneous manner, thinks that rrdvrav ipdv does not
depend on evof iKdarov, but is in apposition to it. — eif dXX^Xov;] does not
belong to irXeovdi^ei. It is the further objective specification of dydrry, as evdf
'sk. rrdvr. ip. is the subjective. dXXi/X/iv; denotes the fellow-Christians in
Thessalonica. Therefore erroneously. Pelt : Nee vero sine causa Paulus
tam multus est in commendanda eorum caritate in omnes effusa ; quum
enim sciret, quam facile tum temporis accideret, ut Christiani se invicem
diligerent, exteros vero aspernarentur, hac potissimum laude ad omnium
hominum amorem eos excitare studuit.^
Ver. 4. The progress of the Thessalonians in Christianity so rejoiced the
heart of the apostle, that he expresses this joy not only in thanksgiving
before God, but also in praises before men. — dars] refers back to irrsp-
av^dvsi . . . dXXifXov;. — ypd; airoiif]. This empA.a<ic designation of the subject
might be thus explained, that other-wise such praise was not the usual
custom of the speakers, but that the glorious success of the gospel in
Thessalonica caused them to forget the usual limits of moderation and
reserve. This opinion is, however, to be rejected, because it would then
without any reason be supposed that Paul had inaccurately written -ypd;
airoi; {we ourselves) instead of airoi; ypd; {even we)? It is therefore more
correct to see in -ypd; airoi;, that although it was true that the praise of
the Thessalonians was already sufficiently spread abroad by others, yet
that they themselves, the writers of the Epistle, in the fullness of their joy
could not forbear to glory in their spiritual offspring. A reference to 1
Thess. i. 8 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius) is not to be assumed. Schott
erroneously attempts to justify the emphasis on yyd; airoi;, by under
standing the same of Paul only in contrast to Silvanus and Timotheus,
the subjects along with Paul of the verb b(ps'iXoyev, ver. 3 ; for to
maintain such a change of subject between ver. 3 and ver. 4 is
impossible. Equally incorrect is also the notion of Hofmann, that airoiif
added to ypd; denotes " of ourselves " " unprompted." For it is absurd to
attempt to deny that -vyd; airoi; must at all events contain a contrast to
others. — ev iylv 'eyKavxda-Bai] boast of you. iv iplv is a preliminary object to
syKavxda-Bai, which is then more completely unfolded in irrip ry; irroyovy;

I So also arbitrarily Schrader : from the > The latter, however, is actu&Uy found in B
limitation of love to Christians is to be inferred K and some min.
an abliorrenee of Qentiles.

CHAP. L 4. 579
K.r./l. — ev Taif sKKXya'iai; roi Qsoi] in Corinth and its filiated churches. The
cause which gave occasion to Paul's boasting of his readers is more spec
ially expressed, being what was formerly represented as the motive of the
apostolic thanksgiving ; whilst formerly faith in Christ and brotherly love
were mentioned (ver. 4), the latter is here left entirely unmentioned,
whilst the first is named in its special operation as Christian stedfastness
under persecution. — irrip ry; irropovy; ipdv koi Trioreuf] [LIV c.J is not,
with Grotius, Pelt, and others, to be understood as a iv did dvolv, in the sense
of irrip r-y; irropovy; vpdv iv iriarsi, or iirip ry; rriarsu; iydv irroysvoiay;. Nor
is stedfastness, as Calvin, Hemming, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Bouman, Chartae theol Lib. 1. p. 83 ff.,' Alford, and others think, particu
larly brought forward by the rrian; mentioned in ver. 3 ; and then, in
addition, Tricrrif is once mor« insisted on as the foundation on which
irropovy rests, which would indeed be a strange proceeding, and would
greatly interfere with the clearness of thought. But Triorif is here used in
a diff'erent sense from that in ver. 3. Whilst Tricrrif in ver. 3 denoted faith
in Christ, the expression here, as the article r^f only placed once proves,
is of a similar nature with iiroyov^ ; whilst the reference to Christ as the
object of faith steps into the background, and the idea of "faith" is trans
formed into the idea of "fidelityi' This rendering is the less objectionable
as Paul elsewhere undoubtedly uses Tricrrif in the sense of fidelity (comp.
Gal. V. 22; Rom. iii. 3; Tit. ii. 10; comp. also the adjective Triareif, 1 Thess.
V. 24; 2 Thess. ih. 3; 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 18; 2 Tim. h. 13) ; and,
besides, the notion of fidelity in this passage implies the more general
notion oi faith in Christ ; rr'ian; here denoting nothing else than faith in
Christ standing in a special and concrete relation, i. e. proving itself under
persecutions and trials. — rrdaiv] belongs only to diuyyol; iydv. This is
shown by the article repeated before ^Xi-ipeaiv, and by the additional clause
aif avixsa-Be, which is parallel with iydv. — Clearer distinctions between
diayyoi a,nd -BXi-ipsi; (as "pericula, quae totum coetum concernunt" and
" singulorum privata infortunia," Aretius ; or " open and hidden distress,''
Baumgarten-Crusius) are precarious. Only so much is certain that
Siaypol is spedale nomen, -BXl-ipsi; generalius (Zanchius). — aif dvixea&s] an
attraction for av avixsa-Bs (so, correctly, also Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest,
Sprachgebr. p. 140 [E. T. 161]), — not, as Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, and
Hofmann maintain, instead of af dvixea^e ; for dvixopai always governs
the genitive in the N. T., never the accusative; comp. Matt. xvii. 17;
Mark ix. 19; Luke ix. 41 ; Acts xviii. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 1, 19; Eph. iv. 2; Col.
iii. 13 • 2 Tim. iv. 3 ; Heb. xiii. 22. Fritzsche's opinion (on 2 Cor. diss. II.
p. 53 ff.), that there is no attraction at all, and that avixsa-Bai is here (as in
iBut Bouman ultimately adds (p. 85): Quidni igitur primum singularem iiroixovnt
"Cujus (so. dicti Paulini) intacta vulgari consfoniioe, virtutem celebrare potuit aposto-
utriusque substantivi significatione, expli- lus, atque hinc ad universae vitae Christianae
candi alia etiam in promptu est, ab ilia, quam moderatricem fidem. Domino habilam, prae-
memoravimus, paullo diver.sa via ac ratio. dicandam gressum facere ? But also against
Etenim optimis quibusque scriptoribus non this the non-repetition of the article before
raro placuisse novimus, ut a singularibus irio-Teus decides.
ad gmeraliora nunoupanda progrederentur.

580 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THB THESSALONIANS.
Eurip. Androm. 981, avp(popal; yvsixdpyv) construed with the dative, and
denotes " sustinendo premi calamitatibus h. e. perferre mala,'' is contra
dicted by the above N. T. usage. — ^The present ave;t:eo-i^e represents the per
secutions and the trials as belonging to the present. Accordingly a new
outbreak of persecution must be meant, as the First Epistle describes the
persecutions as past.'
Ver. 5. Judgment of the apostle concerning the conduct of his readers
described in ver. 4. Their stedfastness in the sufferings of the present is
a guarantee of future glory. Ver. 5 is a sentence in apposition, which
is united to the preceding' in the nominative, not in the accusative, to
which Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 134 [E. T. 153],, is
inclined. See Winer, p. 496 [E. T. 533]. But ivdsiypa refers not to the
subject of dvixeaBs, that is, to the Thessalonians, as if alf dvixsaBs, bvrs;
ivdsiypa were written (comp. Erasmus, Annot,, Camerarius, Estius) ; for
however simple and easy such a connection might be grammatically, yet
logically it is objectionable. Besides, Paul would hardly have put /earaf-
luByvai iyd; instead of the simple infinitive, if he thought on no differ
ence of subject in ivdsiypa and Kara^iuBijvai. But also ivdsiypa is not to be
referred to Trao-iv roif diayyol; . . . dvixsaBs (Ambrosiaster, Zwingli, Calvin,
Bullinger, Aretius, Wolf, Koppe, Pelt, Schrader, Ewald, Bisping, and
others), but to the whole preceding principal and collective idea irrip rij;
iiroyovij; . . . dvexeaBe. Accordingly it is to be analyzed as follows : 8 (that
is to say, Kal roiro, bn iv irropovy Kal ir'iarei irdvruv rdv diaypdv iydv Kal
rdv BXi-ipsav dvexeaBe) ianv ivdeiyya ry; SiKa'ia; Kp'iasa; roi Qsov. — evdsiyya] is
found here only in the N. T. It denotes a sign, guarantee, proof (comp.
the active svdsi^t;, Phil. i. 28) ; here, according to the context, a prognostic.
— T^f diKaia; Kp'iasu; rov Qeov] cannot, with Olshausen and Riggenbach, (in
opposition to them : Linder in rL Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 3, p. 522 ff.),
be understood of the present judgments executed on the earth, and
• whioh befall believers in order to perfect them and to make them worthy
of the kingdom of God. Not only the article ry;, pointing to the judg
ment Kar' i^oxyv, but also the explanation in ver. 6 ff., decides against
this view. The future judgment is meant which God will execute by
Christ at the advent. — eif rb Kara^iuBijvai ipd; K.r.X.] whose result will be that ye
will he esteemed worthy of the kingdom of God, depends not on alf dvixsaBs,
so that ivdsiypa rij; diKa'ia; Kp'iasa; rov Qsov would become a parenthetic
exclamation (Bengel, Zachariae, Bisping, Hofmann 1st ed., and others), nor
does it also belong to the whole sentence ivdsiypa . . . Qsoi : in refer-
1 That a critic such as Baur knows how to tp have forgotten that at that instant the
convert this deviation from the First Epistle 'Thessalonians were in great tribulation."
into a dependence upon it is not strange (see But Paul dwells on this subject throughout
Apostel Paulus, p. 488). " This piesent tense the whole of the first chapter. Why should
evidently shows how the author transfers he tarry longer on it, or recur to it anew,
what had been said in 1 Thess. to his own since it referred to a virtue of the Thessa-
time." Also Schrader draws from ver. 4 an lonians already proved, whereas the chiif
objection against the authenticity of the ' object of his Epistle consisted in supplying
Epistle, but for this reason : " because later the actual and considerable wants of the
in the course of the Epistle the writer appears church in knowledge and conduct ?

CHAP. I. 5-7. 581
ence to which ye, etc., but only to r^f diKaia; Kpiasu;. Accordingly eif rb
Kara^iaB. K.r.X. is not a statement of purpose (thus Alford, Ewald, Linder,
as above, Hofmann 2d ed.), but, for which view Ellicott has recently
decided, an epexegetical statement of result, eif rd, with the infinitive,
also stands for the result in 2 Cor. viii. 6, etc. Comp. Winer, p. 309 [E. T.
828]. — The infinitive aorist Kara^ta-Bijvai expresses the verbal idea simply,
without any regard to time. See Kiihner, II. p. 80. — virip y; nal rrdaxers]
for strimng to obtain which ye suffer, an additional statement of the cause
whose corresponding result will be Kara^ia^ijvai. The Thessalonians, by
their enduring stedfastness, the motive of which was striving after the
kingdom of God, made themselves worthy of participation in this king
dom, for they thereby showed how precious and dear Christ is to them ; it
is thus certain that the judgment of God to be expected at the return of
Christ -will recognize this worthiness, and will exalt the Thessalonians to be
fehow-citizens of His kingdom. Comp. PhU. i. 28 ; Eom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12.
Ver 6. The suitableness and naturalness of this result to be expected
from the righteousness of God, the mention of which was to comfort the
Thessalonians and encourage them to continued endurance, is further car
ried out by an intimation of the retribution to be expected at the return
of Christ. To assume a parenthesis from ver. 6 to ps-B' ypdv, ver. 7 (Gro
tius), or to ver. 10 inclusive (Moldenhauer), is unnecessary arbitrariness.
— eiTrep] provided, does not express any doubt, but introduces by means of
an elegant expression, under the form of suspense, a saying whose truth
is fully acknowledged. Comp. viii. 9, 17. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834;
Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 343 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 528. — dmaiov] right
eous, joined to Smala; Kp'iasa;, ver. 5- The apostle here places himself upon
the standpoint of the strict righteousness of God, which is conceived
according to the analogy of human jus talionis, and is also so asserted in
Rom. ii. 5 ff. ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Eph. vi. 8, 9 ; Col. ih. 24, 26. It is accordingly
inadmissible to interpret Skaiov, with Pelt and others, of the manifesta
tion of divine grace. The idea that one may obtain eternal salvation by
his own merits, which recently Bisping finds here expressed, is removed
from the Pauline mode of thought generally, and also from this passage.
Certainly, as all men are subject to sin as a ruling power, the possibility
of obtaining salvation can Only be contained in Christ ; and that God
revealed this possibility of salvation, and by the mission of Christ in-vited
us into His kingdom, is a pure contrivance of His free grace; but with
this grace His holiness and righteousness-sire not abolished. There remains
room for the exercise of the strict righteousness of God, as only he can
enter into His eternal kingdom who, with the desire of salvation, accepts
the call ; whereas whoever closes himself against it, or rises up in enmity
against it, must incur righteous punishment at the last day.
Ver. 7. QXi/Soyivoi; is passive. Bengel erroneously considers it as mid
dle. — avecrif] from dviyyi, denotes the relaxing which follows exertion, the
erriraai;,^ passing over to the idea: comfort, refreshment, rest. Comp. 2 Cor.
1 Plat. Eep, 1. p. 349 E: ev r^ emrdaei Kal dveael riiv xopSHv. Plutarch, LyC, 29: oi/c dveaii ^v
dW eiriraaii; rYil iro\iTcia^.

582 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ii. 13, vii. 5, viii. 13, and the analogous expression avd-ipvgi;, Acts iii. 19.
Here dvsai; characterizes the glory of the kingdom of God according to
its negative side as freedom from earthly affliction and trouble. — ysB' ypdv]
along with us. From this it follows that the apostle and his companions
belonged to the -BXifidyevoi. pe.B' yydv accordingly contains a confirma
tion of the notice contained in iii. 2. Others (as Turretin, comp. also de
Wette) understand ye-B' yydv entirely generally : with us Christians in gen
eral. But the dveffif which will likewise be imparted to the yysi; presup--
poses a preceding ^X'l-ipi;, that is, according to the context, persecution by
those who are not Christians. But such persecutions do not befall Chris
tians everywhere. Strangely, Bengel (and also Macknight), psB' ypdv
denotes : " nobiscum i. e. cum Sanctis Israelitis." Ewald : " with us, i. e.
with the apostles and other converted genuine Jews of the Holy Land, so
¦ that they shall have no preference." — ev ry drroKaXiipsi roi Kvpiov 'lyaoi] a
statement of the time when dvrarrodoivai will take place, equivalent to
brav drroKaXvip-By d Kvpio; 'lyaov;. drroKoXv-ipi; (1 Cor. i. 7) is a more definite
expression for rrapovaia. The return of Christ is the period at which He,
so long hitherto concealed, will as Euler and Judge be manifested, will
publicly appear.' — drr' oipavoi per" ayyiXuv d-wdysa; airoti] a Specification
of the mode of the drroKaXiipei. — arr' oipavoi] see On 1 Thess. iv. 16. — per"
dyyi'Xav dmdpea; airov] with the angels of His power, i. e. through whom His
power manifests itself, inasmuch as the angels are the executors of His
commands, by their instrumentality e.g. the resurrection-call to the dead
is issued (1 Thess. iv. 16). Calvin : Angelos potentiae vocat, in quibus suam
potentiam exseret. Angelos enim secum adducet ad illustrandam regni
sui gloriarn. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Piscator, Benson, Flatt, and
others erroneously explain it : " with His mighty angels ; " still more
erroneously Drusius, Michaelis, Krause, Hofuiann, and others : " with His
angelic host.'' For this the Hebrew i<?y is appealed to. But dvva^uif never
occurs in this sense in the N. T. ; the proofs to the contrary, which Hof
mann flnds in Luke x. 19, Matt. xxiv. 29, Mark xiii. 35, Luke xxi. 26, are
entirely inappropriate. It would then require to have been written psrd
dwdpea; dyyeXav airov. It is a wanton error, proceeding from a want of
philological tact, when Hofmann separates airoi from the words per"
dyyiXuv dvvdysu;, refers this pronoun to God, and joins it with diddvro;
'sKd'iKyaiv into a participial clause, of which ev tt; diroKoXiipsi K.r.X. forms the
commencement. Granted that ysr' dyyiXav dmdysa;, without the addi
tional airoi), might denote with an angelic host, yet Paul, in order to express
the thought assigned to him by Hofmann, if he would be at all under
stood, would at least have entirely omitted airoi, and would have put the
dative diddvn instead of the genitive diSdvro;.
Ver. 8. 'Bv (pXoyl rrvpd;] is not, as Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Seb. Schmid,
Harduin, Moldenhauer, Macknight, Hilgenfeld {Zeitsch. f. wissensch. Theol
1862, Part 3, p. 245), Hofmann, and others' assume, a statement declaring
> That also we are not here to think, with a Thus also Theodoret must have united the
Hammond, on the destruction of Jerusalem words. For although he does not clearly
is evident. express himself concerning this union, yet

CHAP. I. 7-9. 583
the instrument of SiSdvro; sKS'iKyaiv, but is a farther specification of the
mode of drroKaXi-ipsi, ver. 7: in flaming fire (tJ'K ^nSa, Jsa. xxix. 6, xxx. 30,
etc.). In the O. T. God is described as appearing in flames of flre, and
especially His coming to judgment is described as a coming in fire ; comp.
Ex. iii. 2 ff., xix. 18 ; Dan. vii. 9, 10, etc. What is there asserted of God
is here transferred to Christ. (Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 13, where of the doy
of Christ, i. e. oi His advent, it is said : ev irvpl diroKaXirrrerai.) The addi
tional clause accordingly serves for a fiirther exaltation of the 'majesty and
glory in which Christ will return. More special statements, that Paul
thought on thunder and lightning (Zachariae, Koppe, Bolten), on a fire
consuming the ungodly, or the world, or both together (Zwingli, Hemming,
Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond., Sebastian Schmid, and others), are
to be discarded, from want of data to decide on.— SiSdvro;] is joined, not to
rrvpd;, but to rov Kvpiov 'lyaoi, ver. 7. The formula Siddvai sKdiKya'iv nvi, to
impart vengeance, that is, punishment, to any one, is only found here in
the N. T. But comp. the LXX. Ezek. xxv. 14 ; Num. xxxi. 3 (npDj [nj).
Paul does not mention only one class of persons who are to be punished
(Cal-vin, Hemming, Turretin, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Riggenbach), but two
classes of persons. This is required by the article repeated before^:?
irraKoiovaiv. These were the two classes of persons from whom the church
of Thessalonica had to suffer persecution — Gentiles and Jews. By roif py
e'lddaiv Qedv Paul means the former, and by roif py irroKoiovaiv rij siayy.
K.T.X. the latter, so that the general roif ^Xlfiovaiv ipd;, ver. 6, is now special
ized. The correctness of this interpretation is further e-vident from the
fact that elsewhere yij s'lddrs; Qsdv is with Paul a characteristic designation
of the Gentiles (1 Thess. iv. 5 ; Gal. iv. 8 ; comp. Rom. i. 28 ; Eph. ii. 12) ;
whereas the characteristic of the theocratic nation of the Jews, as shown
by experience, was disobedience to God and His plan of salvation ; comp.
Eom. X. 3, 16, 21, etc. This reference to Gentiles and Jews is already
found in Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Quistorp, Benson, Bengel, Koppe, Baum
garten-Crusius; and also recently, in Alford, Ewald, Ellicott, and Bisping.
On the other hand, Harduin and Hofmann interpret the first clause of
G-entiles, and the second of Jews and Gentiles ; Schrader, the first of Gen
tiles, and the second of Christians ; Aretius, the first of " manifesti Christi
hostes, sive Judaei sint sive ethnici," and the second of " pestes in sinu
ecclesiae latitantes." But with the first view the division, which the
article repeated requires, becomes illusory; and the context decides
against the last two views. For when, as here. Christians are comforted
on account of the afflictions which they suffer from those who are not
Christians by an intimation of a future retribution, the discourse cannot
possibly have reference to a punishment which is impending on Chris
tians, — rov Kvp'iov -rjpdv 'lyaov] a repetition of the subject already con
tained in (JicSiivrof in a fuller form, on account of the preceding Qsdv.
Ver. 9. Paul names eternal destruction as the punishment which those
ungodly ones will have to endure. [LIV c.J — o'invef] nimirum qui, refers
he finds in iphoyl irvpos expressed : rrit njuwpias to elSos, and adds : ^Koy'i ydp irupbs rrapaii&ovrai.

584 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
back to the characteristics of the two classes named in ver. 8, and accord
ingly recapitulates the reason for d'lKyv riaovaiv.'- — iiTrd rrpoadrrov roi Kvpiov
K.r.X.] has received a threefold interpretation. Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Fromond., and others interpret
dird oi time : inimediately after the appearance of the irpdaurrov roi Kvplov
and of the dd^a rij; 'laxio; avrov. The swiftness and facility of the punish
ment are thereby described, inasmuch as it required Christ merely to
become risible. The artificialness of this interpretation is evident. For
however often dird denotes the point of commencement of a period, yet
the bare dirb irpoauirov cannot possibly be considered as parallel with such
constructions as drrb Kr'iasu; Kdapov, Rom. i. 20 ; dirb ry; irpdry; -yyipa;, Phil.
i. 5, and the like. At least ott' drroKaXi-ipsu; roi rrpoadrrov or something simi
lar would require to have been written. Add to this that drrb wpoauirov
K.r.X., on account of its position at the end of the sentence, cannot have
such an emphasis, thatthe idea of the swiftness and facility of the punish
ment can be derived from it. drrd is understood as a statement of the
operating cause by Grotius, Harduin, Benson, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Flatt,
Pelt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and Hofmann : "from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power " (comp. Acts iii.
19). Pelt (and so also Castalio, Koppe, Bolten, and others) arbitrarily
considers dirb rrpoadrrov roi Kvp'iov as equivalent to the simple aTrd roi
Kvp'lov ; and equally arbitrarily Harduin, Benson, and Moldenhauer (comp.
also Hofmann) understand irpdaurrov oi a wrathful or gloomy countenance.
But there is an essential inconvenience to this second mode of interpre
tation, inasmuch as by its assumption without the introduction of a new
idea there is only a repetition in other words of what has already been
said ill vv. 7, 8 from ev rij diroKaXi-ipsi to diddvro; eKS'iKyaiv ; the whole of the
9th verse would only contain a'ldviov as a new point. Accordingly the
third mode of explanation, adopted by Piscator, Ernest Schmid, Beza,
Calixt, Koppe, Krause, Schott, Bloomfleld, Alford, Bisping, Ellicott, and
Riggenbach, is decidedly to be preferred, according to which drrd expresses
the idea of separation, of severance from something. Comp. ii., 2 ; Rom. ix.
8 ; Gal. v. 4. According to Flatt and de Wette, the expression icr;i;iof is
opposed to this explanation, which directly points to an operating cause.
But r^f 'laxio; is to be rendered the genitive of origin, and the Sb^a is to
be understood, not of the glory of Christ, but of the glory which is to be
imparted to believers. The meaning is : apart or separated from the face of
the Lord, and apartfrom the glory which is a creation of His power. By this
explanation irpdaairov receives its full import ; " to see the face of the
Lord " is a well-known biblical expression to denote blessedness (comp.
Ps. xi. 7, xvii. 6 ; Matt. v. 8, xviii. 10 ; Heb. xii. 14 ; Rev. xxii. 4), whereas
distance from it is an expression of misery.
Ver. 10. Further, with this explanation ver. 10 agrees best, since in it,
as the counterpart to ver. 9, the discourse is not so much of a glorification
of Christ as of a glorification of Christians — a glorification certainly which
•See Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. E. 688.

CHAP. L 10. 585
necessarily reflects on Christ Himself as its producer. — 8rav iX-By] when
He shall have come, a statement of the time of dUyv rlaovaiv, ver. 9. Schott
less simply unites it with diSbvro; iKdUyaiv, ver. 8. — ivdo^aaBijvai] the inflni
tive of design. See Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 318]. The ayioi are not the
attending angels (Macknight, Schrader), but Christians, iv roi; dyloi; airoi
does not, however, import through His saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Kypke, II. p. 341, Vater, Pelt, Schott, and others), nor among
them, but in them, so that the gloriflcation of Christians becomes a
glorification of Christ Himself. So also Christ is admired in all believers,
because the admiration of the blessedness to which behevers have been
exalted has as its consequence an admiration of Christ as the Creator of
that blessedness.' — bn 'emarei-By . . . iip iyd;] is a parenthesis : ^ for our tes
timony brought to you has been believed. This is occasioned by marsiaaaiv.
It is designed to bring forward the certainty that also the Thessalonians
belong to the marsiaavrs;. In a peculiar — intermixing much that is
strange — and unnatural manner Ewald: "As the subject particularly
treats of the truth of the apostolic testimony concerning divine things (!),
or whether the gospel, as the apostles and first witnesses proclaimed it,
will or will not one day be confirmed in its entire contents and promises
by God Himself at the last judgment (?), so Paul summarizes the chief
contents (?) of that glory and admiration in a lively reference to his im
mediate readers directly in words in which one might almost then exclaim :
' Our testimony among you was verified (?).' And it is as if the apostle had
put here this somewhat strange short expression, the rather because he
has said directly before that God (?) will be admired in those who believed,
as if a verification or complete confirmation (?) of the contents of faith must
at last justly correspond to the human faith regarding them." — rb papripiov
ypdv] our testimony, i, e. the testimony proclaimed by us. Really different,
neither from yapripiov roi Xpiaroi, 1 Cor. i. 6 : the testimony whose subject
is Christ; nor from yapripiov roi Qeoi, 1 Cor. ii. 1 : the testimony which
God published through the apostles concerning Christ. To limit, -with
Bretschneider, yapripiov to the instructions of the apostle concerning the
advent of Christ contained in the First Epistle, instead of taking it entirely
generally in the sense of Kypvypa or eiayy iXiov, is rendered impossible by
the relation of 'bn imarsi-By to marsiaaaiv. — s(p' ipd;] is connected -with rb
papripiov yydv into one idea; and hence the article rd, whose repetition
before iip' iyd; might have been expected, is omitted. See Winer, p. 128
[E. T. 135J. Comp. on eiri with papripiov, Luke ix. 5. Ingenious, but
erroneous, Bengel : ei^' vyd; denotes : ad vos usque, in occidente. — ev ry
¦ypipif 'sKs'ivy] [LVllI c] belongs not to iX-By (Zeger, Pelt, Olshausen), but to
1 Certainly otherwise Hofmann. According iip' v^aj; to this statement of design also iv
to him, OTI iiriareiiBy to p.aprvpiov ypiSiv iiP' T17 ijuepo e/tei'i-n belongs ; this is placed before
vjUajistobeaddedasareasontoaj-TairoSoOvat 'iva tor the sake of emphasis, and eii 6 /tai
ifilv dveaiv p.eB' yp-Hv, ver. 6 f. (!)¦ But this irpoaevxop-eSa irdvrore irepi ip,ii>v forms a mere
is not yet enough. Besides the statement of parenthesis— suppositions which are cer-
design, 'iva vp.d; d^iiiay /c.T.A., ver. 11, is made tainly worthy of an exegesis like that of Hof-
also to depend on iiriarevOy to napTiipio^ yp-Oiv mann, but ^re only possible to it.

586 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
-Bavpachyvai, whilst by it the indication of time, brav iX-B-rj, is resumed. The
Peshito, likewise Pelagius, John Damascenus, Estius, Lucius Osiander,
Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Harduin, Storr, Koppe, Krause,
RosenmuUer, Nosselt, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, not assum
ing a parenthesis, unite ev ry ypipif 'sKs'ivy with the directly preceding, either
with papripiov Or with 'smarsi-By. The interpretations resulting from this
mode of connection vary much from each other ; but are all arbitrary,
inasmuch as, on the one hand, in order to preserve the statement of time
in ev ry -yyipg, iKeivy, one feels himself constrained to consider the aorist
imarsiBy. as placed for the future, and thus to alter the import of the verb
(will be authenticated) ; or, on the other hand, in order to preserve eTricr-
Tsv-By in the sense of the aorist, one has recourse to the expedient of con
struing iv ry yyipf 'eKel-vy as the objective statement belonging to papripiov,
in the sense of rrspl r:7f ypipa; 'sKs'ivy;. — But wherefore did Paul add ev Ty
ijyipq, 'sKs'ivy, after the sentence beginning with onl Perhaps only for the
sake of parallelism. But possibly also Calvin is correct when he says :
" repetit in die ilia . . . Ideo autem repetit, ut fidelium vota cohibeat, ne
ultra modum festinent."
Ver. 11. Eif o] in reference to which, namely, that such a glori
flcation of Christ in His people is to be expected. Comp. Bernhardy,
Syntax, p. 220; Kuhner, II. p. 279. Philologically incorrect, Grotius,
Flatt, Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius take eif o as equivalent -with qua-
propter, and Koppe as " mera particula transeundi," equivalent -with
itaque. Logically incorrect, de Wette, Bloomfield, Hofmann, and Riggen
bach : " to which endi' For, since eif & must refer to the chief thought in
ver. 10, this could only be analyzed by : " in order that the ivdo^aa-Byvai
and the -Bavpaa-Byvai of Christ may be realized in believers." But this fact
in itself is clear to the apostle as a settled truth ; he cannot think on it as
dependent on his prayer ; he can only have it in view in his prayers, that
the Thessalonians also may find themselves in the number of those among
whom Christ will be glorified. — Ka'i] belongs not to eif 6, so that the suita
bleness of this (supposed) design was denoted (de Wette), but to Trpocr-
svxdps-Ba. It imports that the prayer of the apostle was added on behalf of
the Thessalonians to the fact of the 'svdo^aa-Byvai. — ivaj The contents of the
prayer in the form of a purpose, d^ioiv rij; Klyaea; is that to which Paul
would attain through his prayer. Comp. Meyer on Phil. i. 9. — d^miv]
means to judge ^oxth-y; comp. 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. iii. 3, x. 29. It never
has the meaning to make worthy, which Luther, Grotius, Flatt, Olshausen,
Ewald attribute to it. From this it follows that KXijai; cannot express the
aet^ of the divine calling, already belonging to the past, but must denote
something future. KXijai; is accordingly to be understood, as in. Phil. iii.
14, in a passive sense, as the good thing to which we are called, i. e. the
iSo also Meyer on Phil. iii. 14; likewise ence to them ineTameA^Tos (Rom. xi. 29)
Grimm in the Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part because the Christian can again make him-
4, p. 806 f. : " The Christians are declared self unworthy of the divine grace which he
worthy of the call already promulgated to has received (Rom. xi. 20 ff. ; 2 Cor. vi. 1 •
them, or the Khyaii tov Seov may be in refer- Gal. v. 1)."

CHAP. I. 11, 12, 587
future heavenly blessedness of the children of God.^ Col. i. 5 (see Meyer
on that passage) is entirely analogous, where iXrri;, elsewhere active, is
used in a passive or objective sense. — ^With icai rrXypdai} k.t.X., which is
grammatically subordinate to d^iday, Paul adds, logically considered, the
means which is to lead to the result of being judged worthy. [LVllI c.J —
rrXypovv] to bring to completion or perfection. — irdaav sidodav dya-Baavvy;] can
not be referred to God, as if it meant all His good pleasure, and denoted
the divine decree of election (Oecumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Estius, Justi
nian, Beza, Calixt, Wolf, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt,
Bisping, and others). It is against this that ipyov rr'iarsu;, which forms an
additional accusative to rrXypday, is undoubtedly to be referred to the
Thessalonians ; that dyaBoaivy is never used by Paul of God ; and lastly,
that irdaav ryv sidoKiav would require to have been written instead of Trocrav
sidodav. Others refer Trdtrav evSodav partly to God and partly to the Thes
salonians.'' This second explanation is even more inadmissible than the
first. It is not even supported by the appearance of justification, as at
least rrdaav ayaBaaivyv evSoda; must be put, in order to afford a point of con
nection for it. The exclusively correct meaning is to understand both
evSodav and dya^uaivy; of the Thessalonians. But dya-Buaivy does not denote
benevolence (Chandler, Moldenhauer, Nosselt, Sohott), but moral goodness
generally. Comp. Rom. xv. 14 ; Gal. v. 22 ; Eph. v. 9. Accordingly, with
iracfa sidoda dyaBuavvy; is expressed every satisfaction in moral goodness. —
epyov Tricrreof J here, as in 1 Thess. i. 3, represents faith as an Ipyov, i. e. as
something begun with energy, and persevered in amid persecution. — ev
dwdysi] belongs to rrXyp&ay, and takes the place of an adverb. See Bern
hardy, Syntax, p. 209. Comp. Rom. i. 4 ; Col. i. 29. Thus powerfully.
Ver. 12. To 6vO|Ua rdv Kvplov yp. 'lyaov] The name of our Lord Jesus, i. e.
so far as He is the Kipio;, the iord; comp. Phil. ii. 9ff. Arbitrarily, de
Wette : Christ, so far as He is recognized and known. Still more arbi
trarily Turretin, Moldenhauer, Koppe, and others : bvoya Kvpiov is a mere
circumlocution for Kipio;. — ev avrd] refers not to 'lyaoi (so Alford and
Ellicott), but to rb bvoya ; and the giving prominence to the mutual recip
rocity, iv vplv Kat ipsi; iv aira, is an exhaustive representation. Comp. Gal.
vi. 14 ; 1 Cor. vi. 13. — /eara rijv x^P''" rov Qsov fjydiv Kal Kvpiov 'I^croiJ [LVIII c]
according to the grace of our God and of the (see Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 124)]
Lord Jesus. According to Hofmann and Eiggenbach, Christ is here
•Alford incorrectly objects to the passive sThus Theophylact: iva irdaa eiSo/ti'a toO
interpretation adopted by me, that the &eov, rovrian irdaa dpeaKeia, irk-itpaey iv ip.lv
position of the words would require to be ttjs koi irdv iyaeoi/ SiaupdrryaBe, /cal OVTU! Jire lis
KAijo-eco! d^iiiay. For the emphasis rests on /3oi/AeTai 6 ©eos, uriSei/bs ip,iv AeiiToi/TOB. Gro-
diiiiiay placed flrst, whilst with t^s Khyaeias tius: Omnem bonitatem sibi gratam . . .
the idea, already supposed as well known by dyaBuiavvyv, iii ianv avToO eiSoKia. Olshausen,
Kara^iiaeiivai, vfia! T^s paxriXeian Toii ©ejO, ver. with whom Bloomfield agrees: May God fill
5 as well as by the contents of ver. 10, is only you with all the good which is pleasing to
resumed, although under a different form. Him. In an excess of arbitrariness, Olshau-
Alford, appealing to 1 Cor. vii. 20, understands sen besides takes ei&oKiav and ep-yov as
icAio-is" not merely as the first act of God, but absolute accusatives, whilst he unites i/ias
as the enduring state produced by that act, not only with o{uuo-j|, but likewise with
the normal termination of whioh is glory.''' irXypairn.

588 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
named both our God and our Lord, — an interpretation which, indeed,
grammatically is no less allowable than the interpretation of the doxology,
b uv iirl irdvrav Qsb; siXoyyrb; eif roif a'ldva;, Rom. ix. 5, as an apposition
to 0 Xpiard;, but is equally inadmissible, as it would contain an un-Pauline
thought; on account of which also Hilgenfeld, Ztschr, f, d. wiss, Theol,
Halle 1862, p. 264, in the interest of the supposed spuriousness of the
Epistle, has forthwith appropriated to himself this discovery of Hofmann.

Notes by American Editoe.
LVIII. Vv. 1-12.
(a) The Second Epistle has the same general character as the First, both in re
spect to the fact that it is a letter of friendly feeling and suggestion, and in respect
to the main subject which is treated of. It differs from the former Epistle, how
ever, in that it was apparently written for the purpose of correcting a single error,
into which the Thessalonians had been led since Paul had written to them, and
perhaps in connection with some misapprehension as to the meaning of what he
had written. It is thus a letter of explanation and correction on a single point, to
which, both at the beginning and end, certain exhortations or expressions of
friendly sentiment are added. The centre and substance of the Epistle are, thus,
in the second chapter, and the other parts are united with this in a subordinate
way. (6) In the expression of thankfulness, with whioh the letter opens, we find evi
dence of progress in the church, even since the date of the former epistle. This
is indicated by the stronger words used (as compared with 1 Thess. i. 2 ff.) :
iirspav^dvsi, irXeovd^si, 'syKavxda-Bai. We also find evidence that the church had
met with still further persecutions, as seen in the addition to irropovy; ipdv Kal
rriarsu; (ver. 4) of the words ev Trdiri. . . . dvsxea-Bs, — and in the long passage re
lating to the subject (vv. 5-10). A careful comparison of the expressions in the
two letters, however, will show that there is only such a progress indicated as
might easily have been seen within a brief period. Indeed, the movement of the
thought, in chap, i, in the line of faith, love and stedfastness ; in chap, ii., in
the line of the Parousia ; and in chap. iii. in the line of similar exhortations
makes it clear that the two letters could not have been widely separated in
time. (c) As to individual words and phrases, the following points may be noticed: 
(1) While the possibility of using ¦n-iurif in the sense of fidelity may be allowed it
seems altogether improbable that it is to be understood in this sense in ver. 4 (as
Liinem. takes it), because of the natural and easy connection of the ideas of
stedfastness and faith, and because Triorif of ver. 3 undoubtedly means faith. 
(2) With ivdsiypa of ver. 5 we may compare evdsi^i; of Phil. i. 28. The suggestion
of the passage in Phil, points to the active, not the mere passive element, con
tained in irropovy as that which constituted the ivdsiypa. The fact that the
Christians endured persecutions, etc., not terrified or overpowered by any thino-
which their adversaries could do, was a token or proof {prognostic, Liinem.) of the
righteous judgment of God. The idea of justice in God, as thus recompensing,
seems to be connected with two ideas, which we find presented in the New Testa-

NOTES. 589
ment: — the legal principle of reward according to works, which belongs to the
legal system, and that justice or righteousness which consists in the fulfillment of
promises and covenants— God has promised His people a blessed reward (comp.
Heb. vi. 10).— (3) The connection of the idea of sufiering with that of being
counted worthy of the kingdom, which we find here and 'elsewhere in Paul's
writings (comp. Eom. viii. 17 and other passages), seems to show, not only how
inseparable from the Christian life such suff'ering (which was then largely in the
line of persecution, etc.) appeared to the apostolic mind, but also how the mind
of that age turned to the recompenses of the future as a sustaining and encouraging
fact. — (4) This Epistle opens, as also 1 Thess., with the thought of the Parousia,
as seen in the word drroKaXvipi; of ver. 7.— (5) The words added to diroKaXv-ipsi 'arr"
oipavoi' here, as compared with those added in 1 Thess. iv. 16. are apparently de
termined by the particular thought which the writer has in mind. There, it ig
the summoning of the Christians at the end, whether living or dead, to meet Him
in their new life. Hpre, it is the execution of His purposes of judgment with re
gard to enemies and friends. The words here employed (cv irvpl ipXoyd;, ysr' d-yyi-
Xav dwdpsa; airoi) do not, however, apparently refer to the idea of punishment.
They set forth majesty and power, which may secure either glory to obedient sub
jects or destruction to enemies. — (6) Ver. 9 is the only passage in Paul's writings
in which the phrase bXe-Bpo; a'ldvio; occurs, and the only one in which the word
aiijviof occurs as applied to the future of unbelieving men. This particular phrase
is not found elsewhere in the N. T., but the adjective a'ldvio; is connected with Trip
Matt, xviii. 8, xxv. 41, Jude 7, with KdXaai; Matt. xxv. 46, with Kp'iai; (T. E.) or
dydprypa Mark iii. 29, and with -Kplpa Pleb. vi. 2. The adjective is found forty-
four times in the N. T. qualifying the word life, and twenty times (including those
just mentioned) with other words — generally, as connected either with the idea
of salvation, or with God, His Spirit, purpose, etc. That the adjective carries with
it the idea of duration, and is not a mere qualitative word, is indicated by its use
in many cases. The argument in proof that it has this idea of duration in the
phrases which refer to the penalty of the future life, is a strong one, and one not
easily set aside. The declaration here given by Paul in respect td this penalty is
the most definite one which he makes, in his Epistles, in a positive form ; but there
are statements in a negative form (as e. g. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10), which may be regarded
as conveying the same idea. — (7) The preposition ott^ (ver. 9), for the reasons
given by Liinem., contains the idea of separation from; and, this being the case,
eSofa is to be interpreted as meaning that glory which is connected with the mani
festation of His person when he accomplishes the complete triumph of His king
dom. This is indicated as the meaning, also, by the following words, iirav K.r.X. — •
(8) ev TT7 yyipa 'sKslvy (ver. 10), which is to be connected with -Bavpaa-Bijvai and the
words which precede it, refers to the diroKdXvipi;, and thus to the Parousia. There
is, apparently, nothing either here, or in any statement of either of the two
Epistles, to indicate that Paul had in mind an Advent which was to be separated
by a long interval from the day of Final Judgment, or that the idea of Farrar
(Life of St. Paul, Vol. I., p. 607) — that this "aeonian exclusion" takes place at the
time of the former, and not of the latter, is to be found in the passage. — (9) The
explanation of eif oof ver. 11, which is given by Liinem., is the most satisfactory
one — these words referring to the fact thh,t the glorification of Christ in His people
is to be expected, and the following part of the verse relating to the worthiness
of the readers to participate in the blessedness connected with it. — (10) The rela-

590 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
tion of rrXypday to d^iuay, which Lunem. makes that of means leading to the result
of being judged worthy, is to be thus understood, if KXyasu; is taken, as he takes
it, in the sense of the good thing to which we are called — the future blessedness.
This is probably the correct view. If, on the other hand, KXyasu; is referred, with
Alf., to " the enduring state produced by the first act" of calhng, rrXyp. may be re
garded as that which accompanies the d^idcy, — (11) Most of the recent comm.
agree with Liinem. that ver. 12 is not to be interpreted as if both -Beov and Kvplov
were intended by the writer to describe Christ — Christ receiving, thus, the name
of God. As Kvpio; seems evidently to have somewhat of the character of a proper
name in its N. T. use, the two words do not fall under the ordinary rule of appella
tive words united by Kal under a single article. Accordingly, the phrase only unites
God and Christ in a common relation to grace, and does not give to Christ the name
^sd;. The passage, however, is not parallel with Rom. ix. 5, as Lunem.'s remark
might seem to imply. In that passage, all the indications of the sentence and its
construction point to the connection of d av k.t.X. with 'X.piard;, and the supposed
"un-Pauline thought" is the only argument of weight against it. Here, on the
other hand, the grammatical usage with regard to proper names favors the dis
tinction between ^sd; and Xpiard;.

CHAP. n. 591

CHAPTER II.
Veh. 2. Elz. has airb rov vod;. Instead of it, D E 43, al., Syr. Erp. Syr. p. c.
ast. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Hier. Pel. have dirb rov vob;
iydv. An interpretation. — Instead of the Receptus pijrs Bposladai, A B D* P G «,
Or. require yydi Bposladai. Correctly preferred by Lachm. Tisch. Bloomfield,
Alford and Ellicott, for ^posia-Bai contains a new point, intensifying the dis
course. — Kvp'iov] Elz. Matth. read Xpiaroi. Against the preponderating authority
of A B D* E (?) F G L N, min. plur. vers, and Fathers.- Ver. 3. Instead of the
Receptus dpapr'ia;, B X 3, al, perm. Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. Or. ms. (bis et ih edd.
qu.) Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Nicephor. Tert. Ambrosiast. ed. Ambr. have dvoyia;.
Adopted by Tisch. 8. But dvoyia; is taken from dvoyia;, ver. 7, and dvoyo;, ver.
S.^Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus iirspaipdysvo;, F G, Or. (semel) Prosop. (ap.
Niceph. semel) demand iiraipdysvo;. But the directly following eTri decides
against its genuineness. — Before Ka-Blaai Elz. Matth. add c5f Qsdv. A gloss for the
sake of strengthening. Correctly erased by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.,
Alford and Ellicott, to whom also Eeiche agrees, after A B D* N, min. perm. Erp.
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. (ter.) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Severus,
Chrys. ms. Theodoret (alic.) Polychronius, Methodius jun., Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr.
Aug. Ambrosiast. Euf. Primas. Cassiod. al — Instead of the Receptus dirodsiKvivra,
A F G, 3, 23, at., edd. Or. (semel) Cyr. utr. Theodoret (ter.) Damasc. (semel) have
airodeiKvvovra. — Ver. 8. d Kipio; 'I^croif] Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, and
Eeiche read only 6 Kvpio;, after B (e sil.) D*** E** K L* min. pi. Arab, in
polygl. Sl. ms. Or. (semel vel bis) Macar. Cyr. hier. Theodoret (sem.) Damasc.
(sem.) Oec. Vig. al But b Kipio; 'lyaov; (received by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.
Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford, Ellicott) is required by A D* E* F G L*» N, 17, 31, ai.,
perm. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Or. (semel vel
bis) Hippol. Constitut. Ath. Bas. Cyr. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret (saepe), Damasc,
Theoph. Ir. (semel) Tert. Hier (saepe) Fulgent. Hilar. Ambros. Aug. Eufin. Am
brosiast. Primas. Pelag. — Elz. has ava/lcicrei. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read ave/lei,
after A B D* 17, 23, al., mult. Or. (semel) Hipp. Macar. Method, jun., Andreas
caesar. Cyr. hieros. Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theophylact. But avaXdasi is the more
unusual form, and avsXsl is taken from the LXX. Isa. xi. 4. — Ver. 10. ddida;]
Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz read r^f ddida;. The article is wanting in A B F G K*
min. Or. (sexies) Cyr. hieros. The last syllable of the preceding drrdry gave occa
sion to this addition. — roif aTro/l)lv/ievoif] Elz. Griesbach, Matth. Bloomfield read
ev roif arroXXvyivoi;. Against A B D"* F G «* 17, 71, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg.
It. Or. (quinquies) Cyr. hieros. Damasc. (semel) Ir. Tert. Aug. Ambrosiast. al. —
Ver. 11. Instead of the Receptus rrspipsi, A B D-* F G X* 67** al., Vulg. ms. Or.
(bis vel ter) Bas. Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Ir. Ambrosiast. ed. require iriyrrsi. Eecom
mended by Griesb. Eeceived by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott. Cor
rectly. The present only suits ver. 7, according to whioh the wickedness had
already begun to work. — ^Ver. 12. ry aSidg,] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and

592 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
7, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott read ev ry ddida, after A D*** E K L S-x*** min. pi.
Copt. Syr. utr. al, m. Or. (bis) Chrys. Theodoret (semel) Damasc. (semel) al, Cypr.
Hier. Lachm. has bracketed ev. It is wanting in B D-* F G N* min. perm. edd.
Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. (bis) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Theodoret (alic), Damasc. Ir. Tert.
Aug. Ambrosiast. al Erased by Tisch. 1 and 8. But the addition was most
natural for a N. T. writer, on account of its agreement with the Hebrew, whilst at
a later period the parallel member in the first half of the verse might easily have
been the occasion of its omission. — Ver. 13. an-' dpxv;] B F G 35, al, Didym.
Damasc. (comm.) Vulg. Ambr. Pel. read drrapxyv. So Lachm. and Tisch. 1. Not
only do A D E K 4 S, almost all min., many vers, and Fathers attest the reading
of the Receptus arr' dpxv;, but Paul could not possibly have written drrapxryv, as
the Thessalonians were not the first who became believers, either generally or
even in Macedonia. — Ver. 17. arypi^ai] Elz. Matth. read arypi^ai ipd;. But ipd; is
wanting in A B D* E* P G K, min. mult. Syr. utr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. Oec.
Ambrosiast. al, and is a supplementary addition. — Instead of epycj Kal Xdya, Elz.
and Matth. have Xdya koi ipyci. Against decisive testimony (A B D E L 5<, min.
mult. Copt. Aeth Syr. p. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. Theodoret, Oec.
Ambrosiast. Vigil, al).
Vv. 1-12. [Onvv. Iff., seeNoteLV. pages 541, 54:2.] Dogmatic portion of the
Epistle. Information, by way of correction concerning the commence
ment of the advent. The day of the Lord is not yet. It will only then
occur when Antichrist, whom now a preventing power hinders from
appearing, will be manifested.^
Ver. 1. 'Epurdpsv di] passing from what the apostle prays for the
Thessalonians (i. 11, 12) to what he requires of them. On ipurdv,
see on 1 Thess. iv. 1. [LV a.] — ddeXipoi] an affectionate and winning ad
dress. — virip] is in the Vulgate'" understood as a form of adjuration {per
adventum) ; and then the meaning attributed to it is either : si vobis dies
ille tremendus est . . . obtestor vos per ilium (Zwingli), or : si vobis animo
carus est adventus domini, si desiderabile est vobis ad ipsum dominum
1 See on tv. 1-13, Noesselt, Opusc, ad inter- p. 420 ff. ; v. Dollinger, Christenthum u, Kirche
pretationem sacrarum scriptur, fascic, II., Hal. in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. ISGO, p.
1787, p. 257 if. : Seger, Diss, philol. ad locum 2 277 ff., 422 ff. ; Luthardt, die Lehre von den
Thess. ii. 1-12, Hal. 1791; Tychsen in Henke's letzten Dingen, Leipz. 18G1, p. 145 ff. ; J. Arm-
Mngazin f. Religionsphilos., Exeges. und Kirch- strong. The Apocalypse and St. Paul's prophecy
en/jesc/i. vol. VI., Helmst. 1796, p. IVl ff. ; Storr, of the Man of Sin (2 Thess. II.), critically
Opusc. acad. vol. III., Tub. 1803, p. 323 ff. ; examined and historically illustrated, Dublin,
Nitzsch, De'revetatione religionis externa eadem- 1S68; Weiss, ind, Tlieol, Stud. u. Krit., 1869, 1,
que puUica, Lips. 1808, p. 223 ff. ; Heydenreich p. 20 ff. ; W. Engelhardt, der Antichrist. Eine
in the Neue Krit. Journal der theol. Litera- Studie iiber 2 Thess, 2. 1-12 ; in d. Zeitschr. fiir
tur, by Winer and Engelhardt, Bd. 8, Sulzb. d. gesammte tilth. Theol. u. Kirche von Delitzsch
1828 ; Kern in the Tubing. Zdtschr. f. theol. und Ouericke. 1877, 1, p. 52 ff. ; older literature
1839, Part 2, p. 145 ff. ; Wieseler, Chronologie in Wolf.
des apost, Zeitalters, Gott. 1848, p. 257 ff. ; Baum- a As well as by Pelagius, Faber Stapulensis,
garterx, die Apostelgeschichte Oder der Entwickel- Bugenhagen, Clarius, Erasmus, Zwingli, Cal-
ungsgang de-" Kirche von Jerusalem iis Pom,, vin. Hemming, Hunnius, Justinian, Estius
2d ed. vol. i., Braunschw. 1859, p. 603 ff. ; Piscator, Balduin, Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide,
Schnecken'DurgerontheZeAreDOTn.A)iJic^r!-sf. Beza, Fromond., Calixt, Bern, a Piconius
Treated of by Ed. Bohmer in the Jahrb. f. Nat. Alexander, and many others.
Deutsche Theol, von Liebner, etc., Gotha 1859,

CHAP. IL 1, 2, 593
colligi, etc. (Hemming), or lastly : quamvereexspectatis domini adventum,
etc. (Beza). Certainly vTrep, as elsewhere rrpd;, sometimes occurs in pro
testations with the genitive ; comp. Hom. II xxiv. 466 f. — Kai piv irrip
rrarpb; Kal yyripo; yvKdyoio Alaaso Kal riKso;, Iva ol avv Bvpbv bp'ivrj; Bern
hardy, Syntax, p. 244. But (1) such a usage is entirely foreign to the N.
T. (2) It is hardly conceivable that Paul shopld have chosen that as an
object of adjuration, concerning which he was about to instruct them in
what follows. Therefore Zeger, Vorstius, Grotius, Hammond, Wolf,
Noesselt, Koppe, Storr, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pelt, Sohott, de Wette, Winer
(p. 359 [E. T. 383]), Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Bloomfield, Alford,
Ewald, Bisping, Eiggenbach, and others more correctly take vTrep in the
sense of Trepi, in respect of. Comp. Eom. ix. 27 ; 2 Cor. i. 8 ; Passow, A 3 ;
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 244 ; Kuhner, II. p. 288. Yet this does not prevent
the maintenance of the special import of the preposition also here. The
meaning is in the interest of the advent, namely, in order to preserve it
from everything that is erroneous. When, then, the apostle says : we
entreat you in the interest of the advent, the meaning of this abbreviated
form of expression is : we entreat you in the interest of the advent,
namely, to guard it against all misrepresentations, not to deviate from the
correct view concerning it. — irapovala roi Kvplov] here also, as everywhere
with Paul, is nothing else than the personal coming (return) of Christ at
the completion of the kingdom of God. — imawayuy-y] points back to 1
Thess. iv. 17, denoting the act by which all believers are caught up to
Christ, or gathered together to Him, to be then eternally united to Him,
following the resurrection and change. — ypdv] is placed first in order to
obtain a more direct contrast to Kvplov, — eTr' airdv] up to Him. Incorrectly
Grotius, Koppe, Heydenreich, Pelt, Alford, and others, that it is equiva
lent to Trpof airdv.
Ver. 2. A statement of the object of the whole sentence, ver. 1. — aaXsus-
aBai] from adXo;, which is especially used of the sea agitated by a storm
(comp. Luke xxi. 25), denotes being placed in a state of commotion and
vacillation. It is spoken both in a natural sense of circumstances in the
external world (comp. Matt. xi. 7; Acts iv. 31, xvi. 26; Heb. xii. 26, etc.),
and also transferred to mental conditions (comp. Acts xvu. 13). aaXsvByvai
drrb roi vod; is a pregnant construction, including two ideas : to be put in
a state of mental commotion away from the voif, i. e. so that the voif goes
astray, does not attain to its proper function. Comp. Eom. ix. 3 : dvd-Beya
slvai drrb rov Xpiardv. — voif] is to be taken quite generally. It denotes the
reasonable, sober, and considerate state of mind, mentis tranquillitas (Turre
tin). Others, contrary to the' meaning of the word, understand by voif
the more correct view or conviction, received by the personal instruction
of the apostle concerning the advent, from which the Thessalonians were
not to suffer themselves to be removed. So Hemming, Bullinger, Estius,
Lucius Osiander, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Fromond., Bern.
a Piconius, Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Flatt, Heydenreich, and many
others; whilst, in an equally erroneous manner. Wolf interprets the
expression of the " sensus verborum Pauli, de hoc argumento in superiore
38

594 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
epistola traditorum." — p^ Ta;i;euf] not suddenly. This does not import,
" so soon after my departure " (Joachim Lange), or so shortly after the
instructions received from us (Piscator, Calovius, Olshausen, and others),
but : suddenly, so soon after the matter in question was spoken of. — pyds
^poslaBai] nor yet he frightened, A new and stronger point, which is more
definitely described or divided by the following yyrs, according to a three
fold statement of the cause. See on this distinction between pydi and
.u^rs, Winer, p. 454 [E. T. 488]. — yyrs did irvsiparo;] [LV C.J neither hy
inspiration. Falsely-understood prophecies of the O. T. (Krause), or signa
quasi per spiritum facta (Pelagius), or deceitful revelations by spiritual
appearances (Ernest Schmid, Schrader), or by dreams (Schrader), are not
meant; but inspired prophetical discourses, delivered by the members of
the church in Christian assemblies, and whose contents were falsely given
out as divine revelations. To understand, with Chrysostom, Bugenhagen,
Vatablus, Koppe, Storr, Bolten, Heydenreich, and others (Flatt and de
Wette give the alternative), rrvevya as an abstract noun, instead of the
concrete irvsvpariKd;, SO that the persons who delivered the inspired dis
courses are to be understood, although not without analogy, is yet objection
able in itself, and has the want of harmony occasioned by it with the
following Xdyov and imaroXij; against it. — yyrs did Xdyov] is by Baumgar
ten-Crusius referred to a traditional (falsified) word of Jesus, more specifi
cally by Noesselt to the prophecy of Christ in Matt, xxiv., Mark xiii., Luke
xxi. But if Paul had in view a saying of Christ, he would have indicated
it (perhaps by pyrs did Xdyov a; Kvplov, or something similar). Others, as
Michaelis and Tychsen, translate Xdyo; by "reckoning," and suppose
that one made a reckoning of the times on the ground of the
Book of Daniel, and in consequence inferred that the advent of Christ
was directly at hand. But Xdyov by itself certainly does not justify such
an artificial hypothesis. Lastly, others, in distinction from prophecy
dehvered by inspiration, take Xdyo; in the sense of a calm and didactic
discourse, whether aiming at conviction or seduction. * So, after the
example of Chrysostoni, Oecumenius (iJid m^avoXoyia;), Theophylact {did
didaaKaX'ia; i^day (puvy yivoyivy;), Clarius (oratione persuasoria), Zeger (per
doctrinam viva voce prolatam), Ewald (" by word ; that is, by discourse
and doctrine [_didaxv, 1 Cor. xiv. 26] ; whilst one sought to prove the error
in a learned manner by a clever discourse, perhaps from the Holy Scrip
tures "), Hofmann, Eiggenbach, and many others. However, from the
parallel arrangement in ver. 15, which opposes the true to the false
expressed in ver. 2, it is evident that dia Xdyov and di' imaroXij; are closely
connected ideas, of which the first denotes the oral, and the second the
written statement. It is accordingly most natural to construe did Xdyov
not by itself, but to unite a; di' ^pdv, as proceeding from us, both with <5ia
Xdyov and with di' 'smaroXy; ; and to understand the first of oral expressions
which were imputed to the apostle,' and the latter of written expressions
1 But not, as Macknight (comp. also Bloom- explains it, of " rumorcs de nobis, quasi aliud
field) thinks, of a pretended oral message of nunc dioeremus, quam antehac diximus."
the apostle to his readers; nor, as Grotius

CHAP. II. 3, 4. 595
which were imputed to him by means of a forged epistle. On the other
hand, with Erasmus, to refer eif dc ypdv also to did rrveiparo; is impossi
ble ; as, although Xdyoi and eTrioToAai may be placed in the category of
those things whioh proceed from one absent, yet this cannot be the case
with inspired prophetical discourses, as with these the personal presence
of the speaker was requisite.' — d; di' ^ydv] simply denies that such a say
ing or letter, containing such an assertion, arose from Paul and his two com
panions, or proceeded from them. The apostle accordingly supposes, that as
there were actually in Thessalonica prophetical announcements {irveipa)
which had the assertion which follows as their contents, so there were also
actually present a Xdyo; and an 'smaroXy containing the contents here stated.
Accordingly, it is a completely arbitrary assumption when Kern, p. 149
f. ; Eeuss, Gesch. der heil Schriften N. T, 4th edit., Braunschw. 1864, p. 71;
Bleek, Einleit. in d. N, T, Ber. 1862, p. 385 f. ; and Hilgenfeld, in d. Ztschr.
f, wiss. Theol, Halle 1862, p. 249, after the example of Beza (but he not
decidedly), Hammond, and Krause, refer the 'emaroXii to the apostle's First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was -wrongly understood, or, as Hil
genfeld thinks, from which an inference suggested by it was drawn. — tjf
on iviaryKev y ypipa rov Kvpiov] [LV d.] as if, or, like as if the day of the
Lord is already present, or, is even on the point of commencing' (comp. Eom.
viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii. 26 ; Gal. i. 4), gives the contents of the communi
cations unsettling and terrifying them, eif placed before 'on brings into
prominence the fact that this notion was completely unfounded and
purely imaginary. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 81, and Winer, p. 574 [E. T. 618].
Completely erroneous Hofinann : eif bn is equivalent to eif idv, 1 Thess. ii.
7. — When, moreover, the apostle says that these illusions unsettled and
terrified the Thessalonians, this effect might be produced both on those
who regarded the advent with longing desire and on those who regarded
it with fear. For what is eagerly expected pi|its a man in a state of excite
ment, and if it is something decisive of his fate, into a state of fear, as
soon as he believes that the moment of its realization has come.
Vv. 3, 4. [See Note LV e-k.] An emphatically-repeated exhortation,
and the reason of it. The readers were by no means to be misled into
the fancy, that the day of the Lord was now to dawn ; for the apostasy
and the appearance of Antichrist must precede it. — i^arrardv] does not
precisely convey the idea of a deceit occurring from wicked intention,
whilst it may be correctly imagined that nothing evil was seen in the
mode of deception mentioned in ver. 2 — rather it was considered as an
excusable vehicle for the diffusion of views which were believed to be
reco<mized as true ; only the idea of delusion, i. e. of being misled into a
false and incorrect mode of contemplation, is expressed by the verb. —
1 Correctly Theodoret: irapeyyv^ rolvw b it e( airoB ypaipeiaav ewiaToKyv :rpo(J>e'poiev,
fleio! an-do-roAos, p,il iriare-ieiv Toit \eyovaiv liijre ei dypd^m air'ov eipyKevai Xeyoiei/.
ivearyKivai rbv t^! avvrefieia, Kaipov, Kal irap- « Incorrectly Hoelemann, Die Stellung St,
avriKa rov Kvpiov iiriitavyaeaeai, p,yre ei irpoa- Pauli tu der Prage um die Zeit der Wiederkunft
iroiori/To xPlo-jicpStt^ /cal irpoijiyreveui- toCto yip Christi, Leipa. 1858, p. 14: " as if the day of
^e-yei (iiJTe Sid irv€vp,aroi- M" «' irluuripevot the hold was at hand.'"

596 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
When, then, the apostle says, Let no man befool you, it is, similar to a
form of representation usual to him, in the meaning of suffer yourselves
to be befooled by no one. Comp. Eph. v. 6 ; Col. ii. 16, 18. — /card yydiva
rpdrrov] not Only recapitulates the three modes of misleading mentioned
in ver. 2 (Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius), but is an absolute expression, so
that accordingly it may be supposed that some other mode of deception
might be employed. — The sentence vv. 8, 4 is grammatically incomplete.
The finite verb to on is wanting, which Paul intended to accompany the
conjunction, but easily forgot as he added to d dv-Bpairo; rij; dpapria; a
longer description. It is perfectly clear from the connection that oi/e
iviaryKsv y ypipa roi Kvp'iov from ver. 2 is to be supplied to on. In a very
forced manner Knatchbull attempts to remove the incompleteness of the
construction by placing a comma after 8ri, supplying iviaryKsv to bn, and
uniting it with pii n; . . . rpdrrov into one sentence. " Suffer yourselves
to be deceived by no one that (the day of the Lord is at the door), unless
first there shall have come," etc. To maintain this meaning iviaryKsv
must necessarily be added to bn. But still more arbitrary is the attempt
of Storr and Flatt to remove the ellipsis by explaining edv yii as analo
gous (!) to the Hebrew ^ ' DX, in the sense oimost certainly, most positively .
— bn] is to be separ.ated from the preceding by a colon, and does not
denote indeed (Baumgarten-Crusius), but for, — diroaraaia] a later Greek
form for the older dTrdurao-if.' The expression is to be left in its absolute
ness, not, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustin {de civitate
dei, XX. 21), and Bolten, to be taken as abstractum pro concreto, so that
Antichi-ist himself is to be understood. But no apostasy in the political
sense, but entirely religious apostasy — that is, a falling away from God and
true religion — can have been meant by diroaraaia. (1) What is said of
the dvBpurro; rij; dpapria; in direct internal connection with the apostasy,
(2) the characteristic of the diroaraaia, ver. 8, by dvopia, ver. 7, and (3) the
constant biblical usage, constrain us to this view. Comp. LXX. 2 Chron.
xxix. 19; Jer. ii. 19; 1 Macc. h. 15, etc.; Acts xxi. 21; 1 Tim. iv. 1.
Accordingly, also, Kern's view (comp. already Aretius and Vorstius) is to
be rejected as inadmissible, that we are to think of a mixture of political
and religious apostasy.— Moreover, the apostle speaks of iJ diroaraaia (with
the article), and also d dvBpurro; ry; dpapria; k.t.X., either because the
readers had already been orally instructed concerning it (comp. ver. 5), or
because the Old Testament prophets had already foretold the apostasy
and the appearance of Antichrist. But the apostasy is not the consequence
of the appearance of Antichrist, so that Paul by /cat drroKaXvip^y k.t.X. goes
backwards from a statement of its effect to a specification of its author (so
Pelt and de Wette, appealing to vv. 9, 10); but it precedes the appearance
of antichrist, so that this is the historical climax of the aTrocrracria, and
serves for its completion (vv. 7-10).— The apostle considers Antichrist as
a parallel to Christ ; therefore he here speaks of an drroKaXvxpi; (comp. i.
7), a revelation of what was hitherto concealed, as well as, in ver. 9, of an
'See Lobeck, ad Phryn, p. 528.

CHAP. II. 4. 597
advent of the same. [Onw. 3-12, see Note LX. page 622.]— d dv-Bparro; ry;
ayaprla;] the man of sin, i. e. in whom sin is the principal matter, and is, as
it were, incorporated— \iho thus forms the chmax of wickedness.— d vidf
r^f drraXs'ia;] the son of perdition, i. e. who on account of his wickedness
falls a prey to perdition. Comp. John xvii. 12. See Winer, p. 223 f. [E.
T. 238 f.]. Schleusner and Pelt erroneously take the expression as tran
sitive : " who will be the cause of perdition to others." Equally errone-'
ously Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others ; also Heydenreich, Schott and
Engelhardt : the transitive sense is to be united with the intransitive.
Ver. 4. '0 dvri/cei>evof] is not to be united by zeugma with iirspaipdysvo;,
so that out of eTri Trdvra K.r.X. the dative Travri Xsyoyivip Qsd ij as^dayari is tO
be taken (Benson, Koppe, Krause, Eosenmiiller, Flatt, Pelt, Bloomfield,
Hofmann, Eiggenbach), but is absolute, in the sense of a substantive— <A«
opposer. It has been erroneously maintained by Pelt, that the article
being only put once necessitates the assumption of a zeugma. But all that
follows from the single insertion of the article is only that the two state
ments, dvriKslaBai and irrspaipsaBai, must contain something related to each
other, which is summed up in a common general idea. This general idea is
extremely evident from what follows. Accordingly, the person of whom
Paul speaks was designated according to his internal nature by b dv-Bparro;
rij; dpapria;, then characterized according to his ultimate fate by d v'l'o; ry;
drraXsia;, and now — whilst Paul in his delineation takes a step backward
(comp. ver. 8 and ver. 9) — the mode and manner of his public external appear
ance and conduct is described. — But if d dvriKslpsvo; denotes simply and
absolutely the opposer, the question is asked, whom does he oppose ? Baum
garten and Michaelis erroneously answer : the human race ; for this inter
pretation has no point of contact in the context, and would explain away
the form so deflnitely brought before us by Paul by a vague generality.
De Wette and others more definitely answer : God and Christ, And cer
tainly the description that immediately follows shows that the opposer
opposes himself in the highest degree to God, But this fact does not
justify such a wide ineaning, if another is opposed to it in the context.
Now the context specially points to the opposer of Christ (thus Heyden
reich, Schott, and Kern). For the man of sin stands in the closest and
strictest parallelism with Christ. He is the forerunner of Christ's advent,
and has, as the caricature of Christ, like Him an advent and a manifesta
tion : he raises the power of evil, which exalts itself in a hostile manner
against Chi-ist and His kingdom, to the highest point; his working is
diametrically the opposite of the working of Christ, and it is Christ's
appearance which destroys him. Accordingly, the opponent can be none
other than the Antichrist (d dvrixpiaro;, 1 John ii. 18). This Antichrist is
not the devil himself (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from
him (ver. 9) ; but according to ver. 9 he is an instrument of the devil. — In
Kal iirspaipdysvo; k.t.X. he is further described as he who, in frivolous arro
gance, exalts himself above all that is called God. With this description
the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes, in Dan. xi. 36, 37, was before the
mind of the apostle, where it is said : Kal b paaiXev; v-ipaByasrai Kal ysyaX.m-
l

598 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Byasrai 'srrl rrdvra Qsdv, Kal XaXyasi irripoyKa ... /eai 'srrl rrdvra; Beov; tuv rrarepav
airoi oi crvv^ffei . . . Kal irrl Trdv Gedv oi avriiasi, on irrl rrdvra; ysyaXwByasrai.
Comp. Dan. vii. 25 : /cat XAyov; rrpb; rbv vipiarov XaXyaei. — eirt Trdvra Xeydpsvov
Qsdv] includes the true God as well as the false gods worshipped by the
heathen ; but Xeydyevov is a natural addition from Christian caution, as
Trdvra Bedv would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous expres
sion for a Christian — y ai^aapa] serves for a generalization of the idea
Oedv. Accordingly the meaning is : or whatever else is an object of adora
tion, sc, of divine adoration (= numen).— wcrTe k.t.X,] The arrogant wicked
ness of Antichrist proceeds so far that he claims divine adoration for him
self— nakaai] intransitive, seats himself; accordingly not airdv (Grotius,
Koppe, Pelt), but airdv is to be written, airdv is placed for the sake of
emphasis : he, who has lost all reverence for the divine, in whose form he
wishes to appear. — d vadf roi Oeoi] is not, as Theodoret, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew
Osiander, Aretius, Vorstius, Cahxt, Calovius, Wolf, Benson, Moldenhauer,
Bolten, and others, also Heydenreich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford,
Bisping, and Hilgenfeld {Ic, p. 253) assume, a figurative representation of
the Christian church, but, on account of the definite expression Ka-Blaai,
cannot be otherwise understood than in its proper sense. But on account
of the repetition of the article can only one definite temple of one definite
true God— that is, the temple of Jerusalem — be meant (Grotius, Clericus,
Schottgen, Whitby, Kern, de Wette, Wieseler, v. Dohinger, Ic, p. 282,
Davidson, Introduction to the study of the N. Test. vol. I., p. 13).' —
drrodeiKvivra iavrbv on iarlv Qed;] exhibiting himself that he is a god, i. e.
whilst he not only actually takes possession of the temple of the only true
God as Ais own, as a dwelling-place belonging to him, but also publicly
predicates of himself divine dignity, and accordingly requires to be adored.
The interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others,
also Heydenreich, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Bisping, and Eiggenbach :
" who shows himself or seeks to show himself as a god by deceitful mira
cles " (ver. 9), agrees not with the preceding KaBiaai.
Ver. 5. Estius : " Est . . . tacita objurgatio, quasi dicat : quum haec vobis
praesens dixerim, non debebatis commoveri rumoribus aliquorum dicen-
tium instare diem domini." — On Trpof i^df] see on 1 Thess. iii. 4. — raira]
namely, the contents of vv. 8, 4. To assume, however, a parenthesis from
ver. 5 to oldars in ver. 6 (so Heinsius) is arbitrary.
Ver. 6. Td Karixov] is that which keeps back, that which hinders {rb kuXvov,
Chrysostom). But it does not denote; as Heinsius thinks (here and in ver.
7), that which hinders ihe apostle from speaking freely of Antichrist;^ also
not that which hinders the commencement of the advent of Christ
(Noaok, der Ursprung des Christenthums, Bd. 2, Leipz. 1857, p. 315), but
1 Schrader certainly finds in 6 vaos a aperte vetat loqui ; " and on ver. 7 : " ille, qui
7iea(/ien temple ; and by the addition tou ©eoO nunc obstat, quo minus aperte loquar."
its interior is denoted, the place where the Heinsius makes the words refer to the apos-
god had its seat 1 tie's fear of offending Nero I
8 "Neque ignoratis, quid sit, quod me nunc

CHAP. II. 5, 6. 599
that which hinders the appearance of Antichrist. This follows from the
additional sentence s'l; rb k.t.X., in which (1) airdv can only be referred to
the dvBpurro; rrj; dpapria;, and (2) drroKaXvip-Bijvai ev rCi iavroi Kaipa forma a
contrast to fhe idea of keeping back contained in Karixov. rb Karixov is
therefore, according to its objective side, to be completed by rd rdv avBpurrov
rij; dpapria; Karixov. What, on the other hand, the apostle supposes to be
the subject of this preventing power can only be explained at the conclu
sion of this section. — eif rd k.t.X.] not donee, usque dum, but in order that
{the aim of God in the Karixsiv), — ev Tp iavroi KaipCi] in his time, i. e. in the
time appointed for him by God. More difficult than these determina
tions is the solution of the question. In what connection this verse is con
joined to the preceding by means of /eai viv. Storr, with whom Flatt
agrees, finds in viv a contrast to en, ver. 5. The thought would then be,
that the advent cannot commence until Antichrist appears, this I have
told you by word of mouth ; but now, after my written declaration (ver.
8); you know also why the appearance of Antichrist is still delayed, namely,
by the circumstance that the drroaraaia must precede his a,ppearance. But
if Paul had actually wished to have expressed this contrast, he would
have been obliged to write in ver. 5, on raira yiv in uv rrpb; iyd; eXsyov
vyiv, and in ver. 6, viv de /eai rd Karixov oldars. Eelated to Storr's view is
the interpretation of Kern, with whom Hilgenfeld {I.e. p . 247) agrees :
" That the advent of Christ does not take place until the man of sin be
revealed, is already known to you : and now, in reference to what the present
presents to you, ye know also that which hinders." The same objection is
decisive against this view. Further, according to Hofmann, who consid
ers vv. 5 6 as " two halves of one question united with Kai " viv stands not,
indeed, in opposition to in, ver, 5, but must express " the present in refer
ence to that future which was known to the readers," that they know that
in the present by which its commencement is still hindered. But the
temporal viv can never form a contrast to raira in ver. 5 ; and to assume
that the words in ver. 6 are stih contained in the question in ver. 5 is
entirely erroneous, because in this case koi viv k.t.X could only be consid
ered as dependent on bn,^ but it is not necessary t6 recah to mind what is
actually known in the present.— viv is also understood as a particle of
time, by Whitby, Macknight, Heydenreich, Schrader, Olshausen, Baum
garten-Crusius, Wieseler, and Bisping, but they do not connect it with
oidare, but with TO Karixov: "and ye know that which at present hinders."
But only a grammatical impropriety would be expressed thereby, as /cat
rd viv Karixov would be required. For it is inconceivable that an adverb,
whose proper place is between the article and the participle, should by a hyper
baton be placed first, because it has already in its natural position the same
emphasis which it would receive by its being placed first. The passages
appealed to, as ver. 7, 1 Cor. vii. 17, Eom. xii. 3, etc., are not analogous.
And as little do the temporal particles apn and ^dy, ver. 7, decide for this
1 For if in the presumed question, not olS/iTt correspond, /tal ov/c olSare viiv to leaTifxoi'
and i^eyov, but oiSaT. and p-vypiovevere were to would require to have been written.

600 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
construction. For the emphasis lies not on dpn, but on Karixav, so that
dpTi might be omitted without injury to the sense ; and ijdy is not put in
exchange for viv, but for ev rd iavroi Kaipip. Likewise viv is understood
by Schott as a temporal and consecutive particle, but Kai is then taken in the
sense of also : " For ye know also now (not only have ye learned it at that
time when I was with you), why the appearance of Antichrist is still
delayed." But (1) rd oiv Karixov oldars Kal vvv would require to have been
written ; (2) rb Karixov must refer to a point formerly already explained;
but it is entirely a new point, as in what goes before what hindered the
appearance of Christ, but not what hindered the appearance of Antichrist,
was spoken of; (3) lastly, to what an idle, dragging, and trivial addition
would ver. 6 be degraded ! The only correct view is to take /cat viv in a
logical sense, but not, with Koppe and Krause, as an inferential particle
(" and accordingly "), but with de Wette, Alford, Ewald, and Ellicott, as a
particle of transition to a new communication : and now, comp. Acts vii. 34,
X. 5, xiii. 11, XX. 25, etc. ; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 26. Accordingly,
the emphasis does not lie on viv, but on Karixov. The meaning is : and
now — to pass onto a further point — ye know what hindereth,na,Tne[^y,^\heTein
it consists, and why the appearance of Antichrist is still prevented, that
it should be revealed in its appointed time, marked out by God. The
Thessalonians knew this point from the apostle's oral instructions, so that
they required only to be reminded of it.
Ver. 7.' An explanatory justification of eif rb drroKaXvip-Byvai airbv 'sv ra
iavrov Kaipd, but not a parenthesis (Hemming). The m,ystery of wicked
ness is certainly even now active, but Antichrist cannot be manifest until
the power preventing him be overcome. — pvarypiov] is contrasted with
diroKoXvipByvai, and ydy with ev rd iavroi Kaipa. But the chief emphasis of
the sentence lies on yvarypiov, which on that account is not only placed
first, but is besides separated from its further definition rij; dvopia; by the
verb and adverb." dvoyia] means lawlessness, then ungodliness or wicked
ness generally. — The expression corresponds to dTroo-Tao-ia, ver. 3. For the
dvBpurro; rij; dpapria; was mentioned in ver. 3 as the historical crown of
the drroaraaia ; whilst here, in like manner, dvoyia appears as its forerun
ner {ydy). The genitive rij; dvopia; is not a genitive of the working cause —
wickedness, which lays its concealed snares (Theodoret), or which works
under the appearance of good intentions, but uses secret unworthy means
for its object (Flatt)'; or the pZare of ungodliness (Baumgarten-Crusius);
or the secret counsel of the supernatural power of darkness {kot' ivipysiav roi
aaravd, ver. 9), which is placed in parahelism -with God's eternal counsel
or yvarypiov in reference to Christ and His kingdom (Kern) ; but is the
genitive of apposition. But neither is Antichrist himself meant, who, as
Christ, because God manifest in the flesh, is called in 1 Tim. iii. 16 : rb rf];
siasjis'ia; pvarypiov, is likewise named rb pvarypiov rij; dvoyia;, because he is
iComp. C. Th. Beyer, de Karexovn rriv dvo- Programm), 1861.
liiav, 2 Thess. ii. 7, commentatio. Lips. 1824.— 2 cotnp. Gal. ii. 6, 9 ; Arrian, Exp, Al, i. 1. 16 :
J., Grimm, the Karexmv of the Second Epistle /cai eipiaOai <n/7vi'"/J.1i' t^ rrK-riBei Til^ eij/Son'cui-
to the Thessalonians (Regensburger Lyceal- t^s diroardaem.

CHAP II. 7. 601
an incarnation of the devil (Olshausen) ; nor is yvariipim a mere intensifi
cation of the idea dvopia, so that a hitherto unheard of, unexampled godless-
ness was designated (Krebs, Hofinann, comp. also Heydenreich, p. 4],
and Schott, p. 22).' Eather, taking into consideration the emphatic anti
thesis which yvarypiov forms tO' diroKoXvipBijvai, the natural meanino- of the
words can only be the mystery of wickedness, i. e. wickedness in so far as it
is still a mystery, something concealed, not yet publicly brought to light.
Paul thinks on the detached traces of wickedness, recognizable in their
true import only to a few as to himself, which already appeared, but
which only at a later period will concentrate themselves, and reach their
climax in Antichrist.— evepycZrai] is not passive, as Estius, Grotius, Kypke,
Nosselt, Storr, Schott, Bloomfield, and others assume, but middle, is active,
begins to bestir itself or to develop its activity. The subject of ivepysirai is rd
yvarypiov, not Antichrist, as Zeger thinks — pdvov] is still by Heinsius '' and
Kypke connected with the preceding, and separated from what follows by
a comma. Erroneously, as ydvov is irreconcilable with r/d?? in the same
clause: But also pdvov does not begin a protasis to which /eai rdre, ver. 8,
introduces the apodosis (Koppe). Eather a comma is to be put after
dvopia;, and a colon after yivyrai. Accordingly ver. 7 is divided into two
halves, of which the first forms a concession, and the second a limitation.
The meaning is : as a mystery wickedness certainly works even now, only,
before Antichrist can be manifested, we must wait until, etc. — 'iu;] until tlmt,
should properly stand before d Karixov ; but it is placed after, in order to
bring forward more emphatically d Karixuv as the chief idea. Comp. Gal.
ii. 10 : pdvov rdv rrraxdv 'iva pvypovsvapsv. See Winer, p. 511 f. [E. T. 550].
Erroneously Tychsen : the construction is " somewhat distorted ; " it
should have been pdvov b Karixuv ea; dpn. Others, equally erroneously,
assume that for the completion of the sentence an additional verb is to
be taken from the participle d Karixorv. Thus, in conformity with the Vul
gate (tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donee de medio flat), Nicolas de
Lyra, Erasmus, Zwingli, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew
Osiander, Balduin, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, who sup
ply Karsxira ; Jac. Cappellus, Beza, Calixt, Joachim Lange, Whitby, who
supply KaBi^si ¦ Bengel, Storr, Pelt, who supply Karixsi. Not less arbitra
rily do Knatchbull, Benson, and Baumgarten proceed, who would add
ecrriv after pdvov. For not the mere copula iarlv, but the em,phatic and inde
pendent ianv, would warrant the sense assumed by them ; but a word
which has the emphasis cannot be left out. — d Karixuv] must be essentially
the same as what was designated in ver. 6 by the neuter rb Karixov. For
the same function is ascribed to both, whilst in a similar manner as rb Kari
xov formerly, so now also d Karixuv (comp. ver. 8) appears as that by which
the drroKdXvipi; of Antichrist is still delayed. Tlie restraining power, on
which Paul thought, must accordingly have been so constituted that it
2 For this meaning an .appeal is made to ^ Heinsius iinds the thought expressed:
Joseph, de bdlo Jud, i. 24. 1: /cal toi. 'Ai/ti- what was only begun in the time of Nero,
irdrpov plov ov/c dv dp.dproi Ti! e'liriov Kaxiai Antichrist will at a later period bring to a
pvarypiov. conclusion.

602 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
can be brought under a twofold form of description, and be represented
both as a thing and as a person. To make d Karixuv denote the ruling power
(qui obtinet, i. e. rerum potitur, Beza, and so also Whitby, Noesselt, and
others) is as contrary to the context as it would be to supply fidem as an
accusative to it (Nicolas de Lyra : " qui tenet nunc fldem catholicam, teneat
eam firmiter "), or fidem atque caritatem (Zeger), or Christum et veram
ejus religionem (Estius), or Christi adventum (Vatablus), or ryv dvoplav
(Flatt, Pleydenreich, Schott), and the like. — dpn] is closely connected with
d Karixav, and brings specially forward the reference already contained in
the present participle to the immediate present time of the writer. Schott,
after Flatt and Pelt, thinks that if dpn is to be limited to the time of the
speaker, it is not suitable to the view of the apostle (see on 1 Thess. iv.
15) ; that it may accordingly be understood generally : " tempus efficient-
iae Toi Karixovro; opportunum, quod porro elapsurum sit ad initium usqe
temporis illi oppositi i. e. donee, remote ra Karexovn, palam sit proditura
ydrroaraa'iai' — e/c piaov yiveaBai] is not necessarily to be considered of death
or violence (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius). It can denote any removal
or being- taken out of the way, however it may happen.' The opposite
of e/e piaov ylvsaBai or alpsaBai is ev yiau elvai, to be in the way, or to be
obstructive.^ Ver. 8. What was left to the readers themselves to supply to ybvov,
ver. 7, from the conclusion of ver. 6, is now, in its essence, although in an
altered form, expressly indicated by /eai rdre drroKaXvipB-yasrai b dvoyo;, — /eat
rdre] and then, namely, as soon as the Karixav is taken out of the way.
The emphasis is on Kal rdrs, not on d dvoyo; (Grotius), nor on diroKaXv^-Byas-
rai. — d dvoyo;] the lawless one, is not a different person from dv-Bparro; ry;
dpapria; (Grotius), but identical with him. For koi rdrs drroKaXvip-Byasrai
points back to ydvov, ver. 7, and by this to diroKaXv(p-Bijvai airdv, ver. 6. The
expression dvopia, just used, afforded the easily explained occasion for
calling Antichrist dvoyo;. — With the relative sentence ov d Kipio; . . . irapov
ala; avroi (which is incorrectly enclosed in a parenthesis by Benson,
Moldenhauer, Schott, and Kern) the apostle immediately adds the ultimate
fate which Antichrist has to expect. That Paul so directly passes over
to this, although he has it yet in view to speak of the working of Anti
christ before his destruction (comp. vv. 9, 10), is an involuntary impulse of
his Christian heart which causes him immediately to resolve the horror
which the announcement of such an event as the diroKdXvfi; roi dvdyov has
into comfort and consolation, as a discord into harmony, comp. vv. 3, 4. —
In a soaring and poetical form of expression, the members of which have
their Plebrew parallels, Paul describes the fate of Antichrist. Not im
probably Isa. xi. 4 was present to his mind, where it is declared of the
promised Deliverer of the seed of Jesse : /eai rrard^ei yyv rip Xdyip roi ardyaro;
airov, Kal 'ev rrveipan did xeiXeav dvsXsi daep-y. — dvaAicr/ceiv] to consume, to
IComp. 1 Cor. v. 2; Col. ii. 14; Plutarch, dv el iry ye Svvaivro avp.iLi(ai, Ti a' iv p,ea(a,
Timol, p. 238: eyv(^ iyv /ca9' iavr'ov e/c pieaov eipy, eari Toi) avp.p.i(ai; 'Aaavpioi, eipaaav, to
yev6p.evo^. ailrb eBvo^, St oHirep vHv iropevp.
3 Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 2. 26: /eat aipoSp'

CHAP. II. 8-10. 603
destroy. — ru irvsiyan roi ardyaro; airov] describes the power and irresistible
might of the reappearing Christ, the breath of whose mouth suffices to bring
His opponents to nothing. More definite interpretations, as the sentence
of condemnation^ or a command or address' are to be rejected; for they
destroy or weaken the picturesque directness and strength of the figure.*—
Korapyslv] to Overthrow, to annihilate. On account of Eev. xix. 20, Calovius
and Olshausen interpret the verb of a mere "rendering inefficient"
depriving Antichrist of his influence ; but the parahel dvaXdasi decides
against this meaning, and a comparison of the Pauhne form of expression
with that of the Apocalypse is useless labor.— r^ imipave'ig. rij; rrapovaia;
avToi] by the appearance of His presence. The majestic brightness of the
advent is not described by iirupdvsia* also rrapovaia and imipdvsia are not to be
distinguished, as Olshausen strangely thinks, as objective and subjective, i. e.
as "the actual fact of the appearance of Christ," and "the contemplation
of it on the part of man, the consciousness of His presence ; " but the
placing the two together has the same design as formerly, rip irvsvpan roi
ardyaro; airoi, namely, vividly to represent the power of Christ, inasmuch
as the mere advent of His presence suffices to annihilate His adversaries.
Comp. Bengel : " apparitio adventus ipso adventu prior est, vel certe prima
ipsius adventus emicatio, uti iirupdvsia ry; ypipa;i'
Vv. 9, 10. The apostle has in ver. 8 not only said when Antichrist will
appear, but he has also immediately added what/oife awaits him. He now
goes backward in point of time, whilst in addition he describes the char
acter of tlie working which Antichrist will develope before his destruction,
brought about by the appearance of Christ. — oi] so. rm dvdpov. ParaUel
with dv, ver. 8. — ecrriv] the present describes the certainty of the coming in
the future. See Winer, p. 249 [E. T. 265]. Incorrectly Koppe, it imports :
"jam agit et mox apertius majoreque cum vi aget." — /car' ivipysiav rov
aaravd] does not belong as an independent statement to iarlv (so Hofm. as
before him already Georgii, in Zeller's theol. Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 8, who gives
the meaning that the act of the appearing of the dvoyo; will itself be a
work of Satan ; Engelhardt), but is a subsidiary statement to the principal
clause eariv ev k.t.X., assigning the reason of it. It does not import " after
the example of the working of the devil" {similiter ao si satanas ageret,
Michaelis), but in conformity with it, that an evipyeia roi aaravd is its char
acteristic, that is, that the devil works in and through him. — elvai iv nvi] to
consist in something, to prove or make itself known in something. Against
Hofmann, who arbitrarily denies this use of the phrase, comp. Winer, p.
361 [E. T. 386]. — ihvdysi Kal aypsiot; Kal ripaaiv] a rhetorical enumeration,
as in Acts ii. 2, for the exhaustion of the idea. But as irday (see Winer, p.
1 -Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide. oZv /crei/et a' eiros.
2 Theodoret: (pOeylerai iilovov; Theodore * Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Heinsius,
Mopsuestia, ed. Fritzsche, p. 148 : p.6vov iiri- Andrew Osiander, Cornelius a Lapide, Eras-
j3o^tra5 . . . toOto yap Aeyet to tw irvevp,an rov mus Schmid, Calixt, Clcrlcus, Bernard »
irropiaro^ avroli dvri Tov rfj ipiovy, dn'o roO irap' Piconius, Sebastian Schmid, Schoettgen, Tur-
ryiiv avro e'lpyKi*"!, iireiSr} yfieZ^ Tt2 iTvevp,an retin, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, Koppe,
tnivepyia Ke\p-fjp.eOa irpb? tJji/ evapdpov KaXtav, Krause, Bolten, Heydenreich, Pelt, Schott,
' Comp. moreover, Eurip. Med. 588 : ev ydp Kern, Wieseler, and others.

604 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
490 [E. T. 527]), so also ipsidov;] belongs to all three substantives. The
genitive may import : in every kind of power, and in all signs and won
ders whose nature is falsehood, or which proceed from falsehood, or which
lead to falsehood, whose aim is falsehood. The last meaning is, with
Aretius, de Wette, Elhcott, and others, to be preferred, as Antichrist is
indeed the first to bring evil to its climax. — -ipeido;] falsehood, belongs to
the essential nature of the devil (comp. John viii. 44). It represents evil
as the counterpart of divine truth (the dXy-Beia).
Ver. 10. Kat ev rrday dirdry ddiKia;] and in every deceit which leads to or
advances unrighteousness, i. e. ungodliness (Estius, Aretius, Grotius, de
Wette, and others). — -But this energetic working of Antichrist by no means
describes his power as irresistible ; only the diroXXiyevoi succumb under
it.' — Toif diroXXvpevoi;] is dativus incommodi, and belongs not only to ev rrday
drrdry ddida; (Heydenreich, Flatt, Hofmann), but to the whole sentence
from ver. 9 onwards. — oi diroXXiyevoi] are they who perish, who fall into eter
nal dird'Aeia (comp. 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 3), and the present par
ticiple characterizes this future fate as already decided, Comp. Bern
hardy, Syntax, p. 371. But the addition dv0' uv k.t.X. denotes that this was
occasioned by their own fault. — dvS' dv ryv dydrryv rij; dXyd ela; oiK 'sdi^a-vro] in
requital for this' that they have not received in themselves the love of the truth.
To interpret, with Bolten : ryv dydrryv ry; dXy-Bsia;, " the lovable and true
religion," is naturally as impossible as, with Chrysostom, Theodoret,'
Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to find therein a circumlocution for Christ
Himself, y dXyBeia denotes moral and religious truth generally, not, as is
usually supposed. Christian truth specially. Thus every objection which
Kern (p. 212) takes to it vanishes, that ryv dydrryv rij; dXyBs'ia; oiK idi^avro
was written instead of the simple ryv dX-fiBsiav oiK idi^avro. For in a simi
lar manner, as the apostle in Gal. v. 5, instead of the simple diKaioaivyv
airsKdexdpeBa, which One would expect, put the apparently strange iXirida
diKaioaivy; drrsKdsxdps-Ba, but did SO designedly, in order to oppose to the
arrogant feeling of the legally righteous the humble feeling of tbe true
Christian ; so here the expression t^v dydrryv rij; dXyBs'ia; oiK idi^avro is
designedly chosen to bring forward the high degree of guilt. Not only have
they not received the Christian truth presented to them ; for it might be
stih conceivable thatthey highly esteemed the truth itself and felt themselves
drawn to it, although in consequence of spiritual blindness they had not
known and recognized Christianity as an embodiment and full expression
of the truth ; but they have not even received into their hearts the love of
the truth under whatever form it may be presented to them ; they have
rendered themselves entirely unsusceptible of the truth, they have liardened
themselves against it.^eif rd auBijvai airoif] in order that they might be saved,
brings still more prominently forward this hardness. They ought to have
received that dydrry ry; dXyBs'ia;, to the end that they might receive aarypia,
1 Theodoret: Ou ydp iravrmv Kpar-fiaei, dXXd LXX. I Kings xi. 11; Joel iii. 5; Xen. Anab.
rOiv dirta\eia? d^Ltoi', ot Kol Sl'xa T^s tou'tou i. 3. 4, ibid, V. 5. 14.
Trapouo-ia? o-</)as aUToys T^s abirypla,; eaieprjaav. '^'Aydiryv d\-ri0eia^ rhv Kvpiov KEKKvicev, cos
2 Comp. Luke i. 20, xix. 44; Acts xii. 23; aXTjSis ^(iS; /cat yvyaiiai aya/nio-ai/Ta.

CHAP. IL 11, 12. 605
eternal salvation. But the attainment of such an end did not trouble them,
was something indifferent to them,
Ver. 11. Kai did roiro] and on this account, refers to dvB' dv rf/v dydiryv rrj;
dXyBs'ia; ovk idi^avro, ver. 10, and Kai serves to bring forward the reciprocal
relation between cause and effect. — iriprrsi airoi; b Qsb;] the present is
chosen, because according to ver. 7 the beginnings of lawlessness even now
appeared. But the verbal idea is not' to be weakened into the idea of the
divine permission, but must be taken in its proper sense. For according to
the Pauline view it is a holy ordinance of God that the wicked by their
wickedness should lose themselves always the more in wickedness, and
thus sin is punished by sin. But what is an ordinance of God is also
accomplished hy God Himself. See Meyer on Eom. i. 24. — evepyeiav Tr?udv)?f]
active power of seduction. On rrXdvy, see on 1 Thess. ii. 3. — eif rb marsiaai
K.T.X.] not a statement of the consequence (Macknight and others), but of
the design of God. In a forced manner, Hofmann : eif rd marsiaai belongs
to ivipysiav.
Ver. 12. "Iva] dependent on eif rb marsiaai k.t.X., not on iriyrrsi, as Hof
mann thinks. A statement oi the further or higher design. — iva KpiBdai] in
order that they may be judged, i, e. according to the context, condemned. —
The truth is the Christian truth, and the unbelief, shown against it, is the
consequence of the love for the truth in general being wanting (ver. 10).

CONCLUDING EEMAEKS ON CHAP. II. 1-12.
Tlie apocalyptic teaching of the apostle in chap. ii. 1-12 has occupied
Christians of all times, and has been very variously interpreted. A chief
distinction in the interpretations consists in this, that this Pauline pre
diction may be considered either as that which wiU be fulfilled in the
near or more distant future, or as having already received its fulflllment.
I. The Church Fathers belong to the representatives of the first view
(Irenaeus, adv. haer. v. 25, 29, 30; Tertullian, de resur. cam, c. 24; Chry
sostom in loco; Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. 15; Augustine, de eivit, dd,
XX. 19 ; Theodoret in loco, and epit. decret. div. c. 23 ; Theodoras Mopsues
tius, and others). They correctly agree in considering that by the advent
(vv.'l, 8), or the day of the Lord (ver. 2), is to be understood the personal
advent of Christ /or the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic
Ungdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here
described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will
embody itself. Yet Augustin already remarks, that " nonnuUi non ipsum
principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus i. e. ad eum perti-
1 With Theodoret, John Damascenus, Theo- Justinian, Wolf, Turretin, Whitby, Molden-
dore Mopsuestius, p. 148, Oecumenius, Theo- hauer, Koppe, Heydenreich, Flatt, and others.
phylact, Pelagius, Nicolas de Lyra, Hunnius,

606 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
nentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco
intelligi Antichristum volunt." The restraining power by which the
appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered to be the con
tinuance of the Eoman Empire {rb Karixov) and its representative the
Eoman emperor (d Karixav). Some, however, as Theodoras Mopsuestius
and Theodoret, understand by it roi Oeoi rbv 'bpov, i, e, more exactly, the
counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist until the gospel
is proclaimed throughout the earth. This latter interpretation is cer
tainly unsuitable enough. For although the difference of gender to Kari
xov and b Karixuv may be to distinguish God's counsel and God Himself,
yet e/e piaov ylvsadai is not reconcilable with the masculine d Karixuv.
Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power
is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But he
directly refutes this by the fact that if so. Antichrist must have already
appeared, as those gifts have long since disappeared in the Christian
church. The temple of God, in which Antichrist will place himself, is
referred either to the Christian church (so Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Augustin), the expression being taken figuratively, or to the actual temple
of Jerusalem (so Irenaeus and Cyril) ; in which latter case the objection,
that this temple was already destroyed, is met by the shift that a new
temple rebuilt in place of the old one by Antichrist is to be thought on.
Lastly, some, as Chrysostom,' — although in contradiction to the chronol
ogy of the Epistle, — interpret the yvarypiov rij; dvoyia;, which already
begins to work, of Nero, the forerunner and type of Antichrist in St.
Paul's time ; and others, as Theodoret, of the outbreak of heresies.
The common and grave error in the explanations of the Fathers, by
means of which they run counter to the Ptiuline representation, consisted
in their not doing sufficient justice to the point of nearness of the event
predicted by Paul. It is incontestable, as the result of correct exegesis,
that Paul not only considered Antichrist as directly preceding the advent,
but also regarded the advent as so near, that he himself might then be
alive. It was natural that the Fathers, as the prophecy of the apostle had
not been fulfilled in their times, should disregard this point ; but they
held that in this prophecy a picture of the last things, fully correspond
ing to the reality in the future, must have been given. They therefore
satisfied themselves with the consideration that the prediction had already
begun to be fulfiUed in the apostolic times, but that the apostle could not
possibly give an exact statement of time, as he only says that Antichrist
will be revealed in his appointed time.^
The view of the Fathers remained in the following ages the prevalent
one in the Christian church. It was necessary, however partially to
1 Nepojj/a ivraied .fpTjo-ti., iiaavel tuitoi; ofra 2 Comp. AugUstin, Bpist. 80 (Bp, 199, ed. Be-
Tov 'AvnxplaTov Kal ydp oCtos e^ovXero vopi- ned.) : ... ita sane obscure sunt et mystice
^eadai ©ed?. Kal /ca\b/; etire To p.var-fipiov- oil dicta, ut tamen appareat, eum nihil de statn-
ydp ^avepSis w? eKeivoi;, oilSe dirypvdpiaap.evbis, tis dixisse temporibus, nullumque eorum in-
Ei ydp irpo toC xp^vov cKeivov dvevpeOri, ^yaiv, tervallum spatiumque aperulssc. Ait enim :
o9 ou iroAu TOU 'Ai/Tixpio-Tou eAeiTrero Kard rriv ut reveletur in suo tempore, nee dixit, post
ica/ciai., ri Bavp-aarov, el yiy.earai; quantum temporis hoc futurum sit.

CHAP. II. 1-.12. 607
change and transform it, the relation of Christianity to the Eoman
state having altered, as the Christian church, instead of being exposed
to renewed hostilities from the secular power, had obtained the sovereignty
of the state, and, penetrating larger portions of the world, represented
itself as the kingdom of God on earth, and an imposing hierarchy
was placed at its head. Whilst, accordingly, the idea of the advent
stepped more and more into the background in the church gener
ally, and especially with the hierarchy, on the other hand, those who had
placed themselves in opposition to the hierarchy believed themselves
obliged to apply to it the description of the apostle, as well as the flgures
in the Apocalypse of St. John. Thus arose — whilst the early view con
cerning the irapovala roi Kvpiov was held with only the modification that
its entrance was to be expected in the distant future — the view, flrst in the
eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is
to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul. At first this view
was expressed in the conflict between the emperors and the popes by the
partisans of the imperial power ; but was then repeated by all those who
had placed themselves in opposition with the hierarchy, because they
wished, instead of the rigid ecclesiastical power, a freer spirit of Christian
ity to rule ; thus by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the followers of
Wickliffe and Huss. The empire — which was regarded as nothing else
than a re-vival and renewal of the old Eoman Empire — was considered as
the restraining power which still delayed the destruction of the Papacy.
This reference ' of Antichrist to the papal hierarchy became specially
prevalent toward the time of the Reformation, and after that event was
almost regarded as a dogma in the evangelical church. It is found in
Bugenhagen, 'Zwingli, Calvin, Victorin Strigel, Hemming, Hunnius,
Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Camero, Balduin, Aretius, Er. Schmid,
Beza, Quistorp, Calixt, Calovius, Newton, Wolf, Joachim Lange, Turretin,
Benson, Beng., Mackn., Zacha., Michaelis, Engelhardt, and others. Accord
ingly it is expressed in the Lutheran symbolical books ; comp. Articul.
Smalcald. II. 4 (ed. Meyer, p. 189 £) : Haec doctrina praeclare ostendit,
papam esse ipsum verum Antichristum, qui supra et contra Christum sese
extulit et evexit, quandoquidem Christianos non vult esse salvos sine sua
potestate, quae tamen nihil est, et adeo nee ordinata nee mandata est. Hoc
proprie loquendo est se efferre supra et contra deum, sicut Paulus 2 Thess.
ii. loquitur. — De pot. et prim. pap. (p. 210) : Constat autem, Eomanos ponti-
fices cum suis membris defendere impiam doctrinam et impios eultus.
Ac plane notae Antichristi competunt in regnum papae et sua membra.
Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Antichristum, vocat eum
adversarium Christi, extoUentem se super omne, quod dicitur aut cohtur
deus sedentem in templo dei tanquam deum. Also Luther's powerful
treatise against the papal buU bore the title : " Adversus exsecrabilem
buUam Antichristi." It was thought that the Papacy would go on more
and more developing what was anti-Christian in it, and that then the last
ISee against this view, Koppe, Excurs. II. p. 120 ff.

608 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
judgment would overtake it. The drroaraaia was the falling away from the
pure gospel to the traditions of men. The singular d dvBpairo; rij; dpapr'ia;
/c.T.A. is to be understood collectively as a series et successio hominum, inas
much as the question is concerning an imperium monarchicum which
remains one and the same, although its temporal head may be changed.
The godlessness of Antichrist, described in ver. 4, is historically proved
by the pope placing himself above all human and divine authority, 'the
words jrdvra Xsydpsvov Qsbv K.r.X., in accordance to biblical usage, being
referred to the princes and great men of the world, and an allusion being
discovered in aijiaapa to the Eoman imperial title "^sjjaard;. The objec
tion, that there have been pious popes, is removed by the proverb : " a
potiori fit denominatioi' vab; rov Qsoi is referred to the Christian church,
and the KoBlaai to the tyrannical power usurped over it. By rd Karixov is
nearly universally understood the Eoman Empire, and by d Karixuv the
Eoman emperor, for which proof is deduced from history, that the papal
power sprang from the ruins of the Eoman Empire, whilst in reference
to the continuation of the empire in German)', iti is observed that praeter
titulum nihil fere remains. The declaration rd pvarypiov ydy ivspysirai ry;
dvopia;, ver. 7, is considered as justified by the fact that at least the semina
erroris et ambitionis, which paved the way for the Papacy, were present in
the time of the apostle ; for which Camero appeals to Gal. i., ii., and
others to other proofs. For an enumeration of ripara ipsidov;, ver. 9,
relics, transubstantiation, purgatory, etc., afford rich material. The
annihilation of Antichrist by the irveipa tov ardyaro; of the Lord, is under
stood to denote the annihilation of his importance in the minds of men
by the divine word of Scripture being again opened up and diffused in its
purity by means of the Eeformation ; whilst the Karapyyasi ry irrupavsla ry;
irapovaia; airov denotes the final and material destruction of Antichrist by
the coming of Christ to judgment.
In the presence of such polemics used against them, the Catholics are
certainly not to be blamed that in retaliation they interpreted drroaraaia as
the defection from the Eoman church and from the pope, and Antichrist
as the heretics, especially Luther and the evangelical church. Comp.
Estius, Fromond., Bern, a Piconio.
. Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained,
Mohammed'' -Vi as already regarded by the divines of the Greek church
(latterly by Faber Stapulensis and others) as the Antichrist predicted by
Paul, and in the drroaraaia was seen the defection of several Oriental and
Greek churches from Christianity to Mohammedanism. This interpreta
tion at least so far exercised an influence on the evangelical church, that
some of its theologians have assumed a double Antichrist — one Oriental,
'Engelhardt recently, in the article referred still possesses is veiled in an impenetrable
to above, p. 60, finds the movement towards the cloud of fiction; that there remains in fact
final and extreme point, that at last a pope will but a single further step to the last and most
appear who makes himself God, already blasphemous proclamation of the Dogma;
having become manifest iu the dogma of The Pope is God.
infallibility. He holds that the significant " See against this view, Turretin, p. 615 ff.
remnant of truth which the Romish Church

CHAP. II. 1-12.

609

viz. Mohammed and the Turkish power, and the other Western, viz. the
pope and his power. So Melanchthon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Pisca
tor, and Vorstius.
Eelated to this whole method of interpretation is the assumption,'
made in our own century, that by the apostasy is to be understood the
enormities of the French Eevolution ; by Antichrist, Napoleon ; and by
him that restraineth, the continuation of the German Empire — an inter
pretation which the extinction of the German Empire in 1806 has already
condemned. In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to deter
mine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accord
ingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general,
ideal, or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe,
according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, sup
ported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the
last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take
place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the Karixav.'

1 See Leutwein, das Thier war und ist nicht,
und wird viiederkommen aus dem Abgrunde,
Eine Abhandlung fur nachdenkende Leser, Lud-
wigsb. 1825.
2 To prove this view of the /caTe'xwr by
Koppe as the correct one by a closer exposi
tion, is the object of the above-mentioned
treatise of Beyer (on II. 7). Also Heyden
reich, Schott, and Grimm (Stud, u. Krit. 1860,
Part 4, p. 790 if.) fO far agree with Koppe, that
they understand the neuter as the multitude
of the truly pious and believers (Heyden
reich), or as the veri religionis doctores (Schott),
or as the apostolorum chorus (Grimm). For
the removal of the objection, that Paul hoped
to survive the advent, and that accordingly
iK p.eaov yiveaBai would be unsuitable, Schott
and Grimm consider it probable that by this
expression we are to think not on death, but
on "alia res externa, e.g. captivitas dura."
Akin to this interpretation of the xarexoiv is
Wieseler's view (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt,
Getting. 1848, p. 272 f ), that Paul would denote
with it the pious in Jerusalem, particularly
the Christians, or in case Karexiov necessarily
denoted an individual, the Apostle James the
Just. Comp. also Bohme, de spe messiana
apostolica, Hal. 1820, p. 30, according to whom
the apostolic circle are denoted in general,
and in particular the most prominent mem
ber, perhaps the Apostle James. Hofmann
judges differently upon to Karixov and 6
Karixov, Schriftbeweis, Part 1, 2d ed. Nord-
ling. 1857, p. 352 f , and in his h. Schr. N, T,,
Part 1, p. 318 ff., with whom Baumgarten, i.e.
p. 609, Luthardt, l,c. p. 159 f., and Riggenbach
eoinoide. According to Hofmann, as through-
39

out the whole passage 2 Thess. ii. 5-7 Paul
refers apparently to the visions of Daniel, he
must have spoken to the Thessalonians of
that which hinders the man of sin from com
ing sooner than his proper time with refer
ence to these prophecies of Daniel. There
fore, in agreement with Daniel, a spiritual
power is to be thought of which rules in the
secular world and in the various governments
in agreement with the divine will, and opposes
the influences of the spirit of nations and
kingdoms working contraryto the divine will.
This power may be designated both as neuter
and as masculine, as /cuptoTrjs and as /cu'pios,
and the words p.dvov 6 Karexov dpn ews e/c
jueo-ou 7e'fTjTat- /cat Tore diroKa\vtp9yaeTai o
ai/op.os are sufficiently similar to those of
Daniel: S3 pff^'P Hiini KV'V 'JXl (Dan.
X. 20), in order to be recognized as a transfer
of the same to those last times when the
spiritual power whioh now preserves the
earthly commonwealth in agreement with
the kingdom of God entirely recedes, in order
that every form of secular power may enter
which will allow no more place for the church
of God on earth. Still differently, Ewald,
Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, Jahr. 3, Gott.
1861, p. 250 f. (comp. Sendschrelben des Ap.
Paulus, Gott. 1857, p. 27) : " We have here a
mystery before us whioh in the early apostolic
times only believers loved to talk over and to
diffuse among themselves, so that Paul may
have been unwilling to speak openly upon it.
The appearance of Antichrist was expected
according to Matt. xxiv. 15 (?), and Paul here
describes it, only more openly and freely
than it is there indicated in the prophecy of

610 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Similarly Storr (/. c), who understands by the dvBpairo; ry; dpapria; '' po-
testas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae penitus incognita et
future demum tempore se proditura sit," and by the preventing power
the " copia hominum verissimo amore inflammatorum in christianam
religionem." — Further, Nitzsch (/. c.) thinks on the power of atheism first
come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally.
Further, the opinion of Pelt is entirely peculiar, who in his Commentary,
p. 204,' sums up his views in the following words : " Mihi . . . adversarius
illi principium esse -videtur sive vis spiritualis evangeUo contraria, quae
hue usque tamen in Pontiflciorum Eomanorum operibus ac serie luculen-
tissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in ecclesia
compareant, ad eandem Antichristi ivipysiav sint referenda. Ejus vero
rrapovaia, i. e. summum fastigium, quod Christi reditum qui nihil aliud est,
nisi regni divini victoria j' antecedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum
illud tempus procul etiamnum abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae
in eo erunt, ut ad Christi sacra transeant. Kare;^'"^ vero cum Theodoreto
putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, ne erum-
pat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tempore maxime
imperii Eomani vis, et quovis aevo ilia resistentia, quam malis artibus,
quae religionem subvertere student, privati commodi et honoris augen-
dorum cupiditas opponere solet." Pelt thinks that the symptoms of the
future corruption of the Christian church were already present in the
apostolic age in the danger of falling away from Christian freedom into
Jewish legalism, in the mingling of heathenism with Christianity, in the
false gnosis and asceticism, in the worship of angels, and in the fastus a
religione Christiana omnino alienus. To the same class belongs Ols
hausen,' who considers the Pauline description only as a typical repre
sentation of future events. According to him, the chief stress lies on rb
pvarypiov ydy ivspysirai ry; dvopia;. Antichrist is a union of the individu-
Christ;butanopinionmusthavebeenformed of Elijah in heaven) ; and by him who hith-
in the bosom of the mother church at Jeru- erto hindered, and who must he taken out of
salem why Antichrist had not as yet appeared, the way before the last atrocious wickedness
which was imparted only to believers. We of Antichrist, is meant Elijah himself." Still
may, however, pretty nearly guess what it otherwise Noack (Der Ursprung des Christm-
was from other signs. If we reflect that, thums, vol. II., Leipz. 1857, p. 313 ff.), who by
according to Rev. xi. 3 ff.. Antichrist was not him that hindereth— arbitrarily identifying
to be considered as coming until the two the same with the man of sin— understands
martyrs of the old covenant had appeared, Simon Magus and his machinations. Still
and their destruction was the true beginning differently Jowett, according to whom (after
of his extreme rage ; further, that instead of the suggestion of Ewald, Jahrb. X., Gott.
these two assumed martyrs, it was also, or 1860, p. 236) to Karixov is designed to indicate
rather (/riginally, still more commonly sup- the Mosaic law.
posed that only Elijah must return before i t«  i .. ,,
J^u • J J- 1 , t^ ... ' In only an unessentially modifled form
Christ, and accordingly also before Anti- p.,. >,„=, 7„t„ ™ • i • .,,.,.
u ¦ i T.,- u. . • * . n J • J "" ™^ ^"^"^ maintained the same view
Christ. Elijah's return IS not actually denied inth~Ti»„/„„ i\r-j i. ¦. x i . „.
.... I ^,. i i. . ^^i-ae -Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. i, Kiel l&tl
in that passage, where this expectation is H 2 d 114 ff ti i ^ ..oia,
treated of in the freest manner (Matt. xvii.
11 f., comp. xi. 13 f.), so it is most probable " Comp. Pelt, p. 185 : . . . " tenentes, ilium
that by that which hindereth the appearance p*"''sti adventum a Paulo non visibilem hab-
of Antichrist the coming of Elijah is meant ' "'"¦
(Sendschr, des Ap. Paulus, p. 27 : the tarrying ' Bisping follows him in all essential points.

CHAP. IL 1-12. 611
ality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the
Jews from the Eomans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power,
the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Eevolu
tion of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of
prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world, as well as the con
stantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and
morality, qf the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and like
wise the self-deification of the ego in the internal world, — all these phe
nomena are the real precursors of Antichrist ; but they contain only some
of his characteristics, not all; it is the union of all these characteristics
which shall make the full Antichrist. The preventing power is to be
understood of the preponderance of the Christian world in its German
and Eoman constituents over the earth ; i. e. of the whole political condi
tion of order, with which, on the one hand, there is the constant repres
sion of all drroaraaia and dvopia, and on the other hand, the continued and
peaceful development of Christianity. Of this condition the Eoman
Empire, as the strongest and most orderly secular organization which
history knows, is the natural type. Baumgarten-Crusius is also here to be
named. According to him, the Pauline prediction contains no new
teachings peculiar to the apostle, but only representations from the old
Messianic pictures in the prophets, especially in Daniel. The apostle's
design is practical, to make the Thessalonians calmly observant, attentive
to the times, prepared and strong for the future ; the passage has a per»
manent value in this reference, and in the chief thought that the devel
opment and determination of these things can only gradually take place.
The passage is indeed historical and for the near future, but Paul has no
deflnite or personal manifestations, whether present or future, in view, at
least not in dvriKsiysvo;, which he describes as still entirely concealed ; and
it is even doubtfiil whether he understood by it an individual person.
Only rd Karixov has a definite reference, but not to a person ; on the con
trary, the new spirit of Christianity is meant. The difference in gender,
d Karixuv and rb Karixov, is used either only to correspond with avriKsiysvo;,
or Paul thinks on "S-piarb; 'sv airoi;. Col. i. 27 ! Lastly, to the same class
belong Bloomfield and Alford.' According to the former, the yvarypiov
•Comp. also Diisterdieck, die drei .johan- throughout the whole historical development
neisc'nen Briefe, 'bd. I., G6tt. 1852, p. 306 : "John, ofthe kingdom of Christ; for that generation,
as Paul (2 Thess. ii. 1-12), in conformity to the as our Lord had predicted, survived the
instruction of the Lord, recognizes in the destruction oftheholycity,aneventof whose
powerful errors of the present the signs of an importance in the history and judgment of
approaching decision. The last hour is the world there ean be no doubt. Moreover,
present, the advent is at hand. The last hour in reference to 1 Thess. iv. 15 (i/iteij oi (Hvret
is the concluding period of a'liov oCtos, the /c.t.A.), Diisterdieck (I.e. p. 308) recognizes
period of travail, which continues in an unbroken that there Paul has shortened the chrono-
connection from its commencement, the destruc- logical perspective too much ; but then he
tion of Jerusalem, even to the end, to which the thinks, referring to 2 Thess. ii. 1 ff. and Rom.
advent directly succeeds." John has not erred xi. 25 ff., that this is an imperfection which
in that he soon expected the real commence- was gradually overcome in the apostle bythe
ment of the crisis, continually carried on moral development of his life in God, and

612 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
rij; dvopia; is something still continuing ; the prediction of the apostle wiU
obtain its complete fulflllment only at the end of time, when only then
the preventing power — which is most probably to be understood, with
Theodoret, of the counsel of divine Providence — ^will be removed. Accord
ing to the latter (see Proleg. p. 67 ff.), we stand, though 1800 years later,
¦with regard to the dvoyo; where the apostle stood ; the day of the Lord not
present, and not to arrive until the man of sin be manifested ; the yvarypiov
r-y; dvopia; still working, and much advanced in his working; the pre
venting power not yet taken out of the way. All this points to a state in
which the dvoy'ia is working on underground, under the surface of things,
gaining an expansion and power, although still hidden and unconcen-
trated. It has already partially embodied itself in Popery, in Nero and
every Christian persecutor, in Mohammed and Napoleon, in Mormonism,
and such like. The Karixov and the Karixuv are to be understood of the
fabric of human polity and those who rule that polity, by which hitherto all
outbursts of godlessness have been suppressed and hindered in their
course and devastations.
It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline
description is so deflnitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole
compass so much the idea oi nearness for its supposition, that it can by no
means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away.
II. Others have regarded the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle as a
prophecy already fulfilled. Thus Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus,
Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin.' The reference of
the rrapovaia Toi Kvp'iov to the coming of the Lord in judgment at the
destructicm of Jerusalem, is common to all these writers. In reference to
the other chief points of the Pauline representation they differ as
follows : —
Grotius'-' understands by Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula, notor-
that it was changed for the real truth. But it authenticity of the Epistle, and even its com-
is assumed, without right, that an entirely position in the year 53, are perfectly recon-
different view of things lies at the foundation cilable. According to Dollinger, the pro
of the section 2 Thess. ii. 1-12 than of the phecy in all its essentials was fulfilled close
section 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff., as the Second upon the apostle's days, although a, partial
Epistle to the Thessalonians was written only fulflllment at the end of time is not excluded
a few months after the First ; and besides, 2 by this assumption. Already Paul has recog-
Thess. ii. 5 points to the agreement of the nized the youthful Nero as the future Anti-
written explanations there given with the oral christ, whose public appearance was already
instructions to the Thessalonians given even prepared, but was yet prevented by Claudius
previously to the First Epistle. Further on, as the then possessor of the imperial throne.
DQsterdieck (p. 330) concedes that because The coming of Christ is His coming to exe-
Paul in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff. has abbreviated the cutejudgmenton Jerusalem. Nero.although
interval to the advent, he was also in 2 Thess. he personally undertook nothing against the
ii. 1 ff. constrained to represent the personal temple of Jerusalem yet entrusted Vespasian
appearance of the opponent incorrectly in with the guidance of the war, and accord-
point of chronology. ingly broughf^certainly only after his death
iWhat is necessary to be said on Kern's —the abomination of desolation into the
view has already been observed in the Intro- holy city. Lastly, the apostasy is the being
dnction, sec. 3. Dollinger (I. c), who like led astray into the false doctrines of the
Kern understands by Antichrist iVero, thinks, Gnostics.
however, that with this assumption the ^Seeagainst him, Tun-etin, p. 483ff.

CHAP. n. 1-12. 613
ious for his ungodliness, who, according to Suetonius, Caligul. xxii. 33,
ordered universal supplication to himself as the supreme God, and accord
ing to Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 8, and Philo, legal, ad Caj. p. 1022, wished to
set up his colossal statue in the temple of Jerusalem ; by the KorixiM, L.
Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria and Judea, who dissuaded from the erec
tion of the statue ; and by the dvopo;, Simon Magus. — This opinion is suffi
ciently contradicted, partly by the impossibihty of distinguishing the
dvopo; from dvBparro; ry; dpapria; as a separate person, and partly by its
incongruity with the period of the composition of the Epistle. See sec. 2
of the Introduction.
According to Wetstein, the dv-Bparro; rij; dpxipria; is Titus, whose army,
according to Joseph, de hello Jud. vi. 6. 1, brought idols into the captured
temple of Jerusalem, sacriflced there, and saluted Titus as imperator.
The Karixav is JSfero, whose death must precede the rule of Titus ; and the
drroaraaia is the rebellion and murder of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But
how can Titus, the ornament of the Eoman emperors, pass for Antichrist ;
and Nero, that monster in human form, the power which hinders the out
burst of Antichrist?
Hammond' understands by the man of sin Simon Magus and the Gnos
tics, whose head he was. The imamayayy irr' airdv, ver. 1, is the " major
libertas coeundi in ecclesiasticos coetus ad colendum Christum ; " the
dTToerraota is the falling away of Christians to the Gnostics (1 Tim. iv. 1);
drroKaX-uipByvai denotes the casting off the mask of Christianity ; ver. 4 refers
to the fact that Simon Magus " se dictitaret summum patrem omnium
rerum, et qui ipsum Judaeorum deunl creaverat." Td Karixov is the cir
cumstance that the apostles and orthodox Christians still preserved union
-with the Jews, and had not yet turned themselves to the Gentiles. The
neuter icarixov and the masculine Karixav are equivalent ; or if a distinc
tion is to be maintained, d Karixav must be regarded as the same as d
vdyo;. The pvarypiov rij; dvopia; is the " duplicis generis scelera horum
hominum, libidines nefariae et odium in Christianos.'' Ver. 8 refers to
the contest of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus in Eome, which ended
in the death ofthe latter. — The exegetical and historical monstrosity of
this interpretation is at present universally acknowledged.
The interpretations of Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause,
and Harduin have a greater resemblance between them.
According to Clericus,'-' the apostasy is the rebellion of the Jews against
the Eoman yoke ; the man of sin is the rebelhous Jews, and especially
their leader, Simon the son of Giora, of whose atrocities Josephus informs
us. Trdf Xsydyevo; Qeb; K.r.X. denotes the government. To Karixov is
whatever hindered the open outbreak of the rebelhon, partly the fear of
the proceres Judaeae gentis, who mistrusted the war because they expected
no favorable result, partly the fear of the Roman army ; d Karixuv on the
one side " praeses Eomanus," on the other side " gentis proceres, rex
Agrippa et pontiflces plurimi." The yvariipiov rij; dvoy'ia; which already
IComp. against him, Turretin, p. 493 ff. sgee against him, Turretin, p. 601 ff.

614 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
works consists in the rebellious ambition which conceals itself under the
pretext of the independence of the Jewish people, yea, under the cloak of
a careful observance of the Mosaic law, until at length what strives in
secret is openly manifested.
Whitby' considers the Jewish people as Antichrist, and finds in the
apostasy the rebellion against the Eomans, or also the falling away from
the faith ; and in the Karixuv the Emperor Claudius, during whose life the
Jews could not possibly think of a rebellion, as he had shown himself
favorable to them.
According to Schoettgen, the Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis are Anti
christ. The drroaraaia is the rebellion excited by them, of the Jews against
the Eomans ; Trdf Xsydpsvo; Qsd; refers likewise to the rulers ; rd Karixov
and d Karixav are probably the Christians who by their prayers effected a
respite from the catastrophe, until, in consequence of a divine oracle, they
left Jerusalem, and betook themselves to Pella; yvarypiov rij; dvoyia;
denotes ipsa doctrina perversa.
Noesselt, whom Krause follows, understands Antichrist of the Jewish
zealots, but interprets the preventing power, as Whitby does, of the Em
peror Claudius,
Lastly, Harduin explains the drroaraaia of the falling off of the Jews to
heathenism. He considers the high priest Ananias (Acts xxiii. 2) as the
dvBpurro; r^f ayaprla;, and his predecessor in offlce as the Karixuv, who must
first be removed by death in order to make place for Ananias. At the
beginning of his high-priesthood the dvBparro; rij; dpapr'ia; will appear as a
deceitful prophet, and be destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus. All these interpretations of the second class avoid, it is true, the com
mon error of the interpretations of the flrst class, as they give due promi
nence to the point of the nearness of the catastrophe described by Paul ;
but, apart from many and strong objections which may be brought against
each, they are all exposed to this fatal objection, the impossibility of
understanding the coming of the Lord, mentioned by Paul, of the period
of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Tychsen (Z.c.) has endeavored to divest the Pauline representation of
its prophetic character, by assuming that the apostle follows step by step
the course of an Epistle received from Thessalonica, from which he per
ceived that the church had been led astray into the erroneous notion that
the advent of Christ was already at hand. The apostle cites passages
from that writing, and adds each time his refutation. For the state
ment of this opinion, which only claims attention on account of its
strangeness, it wih be sufficient to give the translation from ver. 3
and onwards, in which Tychsen (p. 184 f.) sums up the view he has already
stated at length. It is as follows : " You certainly wrote to me, ' This day

' See against him, Turretin, p. 508 ff.

CHAP. II. 1-12. 615
cannot come until the great apostasy will occur ; when a thoroughly law
less and corrupt man will publicly appear, who in hostile pride exalts
himself above aU that man caUs divine and honorable, who also intrades
even into the temple of God, and gives himself out as a god.' But do you
not remember that I, when I was with you, told you something of this ?
and besides, you know what is in the way of that lawless one, so that he
can only appear in his time, not yet at present. ' This wickedness,' you
say further, ' even now secretly works.' Only that hindrance must first
be removed out of the way ! ' And when this is removed,' ye think, ' the
wicked one wiU soon fearlessly show himself.' Now let him do it ! The
Lord Jesus will annihilate him with His divine power, and destroy him
by His solemn appearance. ' When this lawless one comes,' ye continue,
' so will his appearance be accompanied by the assistance of Satan with
deceiving miracles, delusions, and everything which can lead to blas
phemy.' Yet all this cannot seduce you, but only those unhappy per
sons who have no love for true religion, and accordingly are helplessly
lost by their own fault. God for a punishment to them permitted seducers
to rise up, that they might believe the lie. A merited punishment for all
friends of vice who are prepossessed against true doctrine ! "

For a correct judgment of the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle, it
is firmly to be maintained that Paul could not possibly -wish to give a
representation of the distant future. On the contrary, the events which
he predicted were for him so near, that he himself even thought that he
would survive them. He hoped to survive even to the personal return
of the Lord for judgment and for the completion of His kingdom ; His
return shall be preceded by the appearance of Antichrist, whom he con
sidered not as a collective idea, but as an individual person, and not in
the political, but in the religious sphere, and specially as a caricature of
Christ and the culmination of ungodliness ; but Antichrist can only
appear when the preventing power, which at present hinders his appear
ance, will be removed. As, now, these circumstances, which Paul thinks
were to be reahzed in the immediate future, have not actually taken place,
so it is completely arbitrary to expect the fulflllment of the prophecy only
in a distant future ; rather it is to be admitted, that although, as the very
kernel of Paul's representation, the perfectly true idea lay at the bottom,
that the return of the Lord for the completion of the kingdom of God
was not to be expected until the moral process of the world had reached
its close by the complete separation of the susceptible and the unsuscept
ible, and accordingly also until the opposition to Christ had reached its
climax, yet Paul was mistaken concerning the nearness of the final catas
trophe, and, carried along by his idiosyncrasy, had wished to settle more
exactly concerning its circumstances and moral conditions than is allotted
to man in general to know, even although he should be the apostle, the
most filled with the Spirit of Christ. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Mark xiii.
32 ; Acts i. 7. — We can thus only determine the meaning and interpreta-

616 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
tion which Paul himself connected with his prophecy, and how he came
to the assertion of such a prophecy. It rests on the apocalyptic views of
the Jews. It was a prevalent opinion of the Jews in the time of Christ,
that a time of tribulation and travail and an Antichrist were to precede
the appearance of the Messiah. Comp. Gfrorer, das Jahrhundert des
Hi-ih, Part 2, p. 256 ff., 300 ff., 405 ff. The description of Antiochus
Epiphanes in Dan. vin. 23 ff., xi. 36 ff., and the apocalyptic representation
of Gog and Magog in Ezek. xxxviii. 39, were esteemed as types of Anti
christ. From these passages it is further explicable how Paul conceived
Antichrist as a personality, as an individual.
Accordingly, it remains only still to determine, for the explication of the
Pauline prophecy, what is to be understood by the preventing power,
which still delayed the appearance of Antichrist. Without doubt, the
Fathers have already correctly recognized by rd Karixov the Eoman Em
pire, and — in another form of_ expression for it — ^by d Karixav the Eoman
emperor, as the representative of the empire. This is the more probable
as, according to the Book of Daniel, the whole history of the world was
to fall within the four monarchies of the world, but the fourth was by
Josephus and others regarded as the Eoman Empire, whose impending
ruin the apostle might not without reason think himself justified in infer
ring from many symptoms.

Ver. 13-iii. 15. Hortatory portion of the Epistle.
Vv. 13-17. Exhortation to the readers to hold fast to the Christianity
delivered to them (ver. 15), grounded on the comfortable fact that they
belonged not to those who perish, but were fore-ordained by God to salva
tion, and called to it by the gospel (vv. 13, 14), and united with a pious
wish that Christ and God Himself would comfort their minds, and
strengthen them to all goodness (vv. 16, 17).
Ver. 13. [On vv. 13-17, see Note LXI. pages 622, 623.] 'H/teif di] but we,
namely, I, Paul, together with Silvanus and Timotheus, in contrast to the
persons described in vv. 10-12. — d^eiAouev] denotes here, as in i. 13, the
subjective obligation, an internal impulse. — ddsXipol rpyarrypivoi iirb Kvpiov]
comp. 1 Thess. i. 4. The Kipio; here is Christ, because np Qsa directly pre
cedes and d Oedf directly follows, consequently another subject was evi
dently thought on by the apostle. — bn s'lXaro ipd; k.t.X.] the material object
of sixapiarslv for the purpose of a further statement of the personal
object Trepi ipdv, that, namely, etc. — a'lpsia-Bai] in the sense of divine election
(Deut. xxvi. 18, vh. 6, 7, x. 15), does not elsewhere occur with Paul. He
uses 'sKXiysadai (Eph. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28), or rrpoyivdoKsiv (Eom. viii. 29,
xi. 2), or rrpoopii;eiv (Eom. vin. 29 ; Eph. i. 11). alpelaBai is found in Phil. i.
22 in the related sense of "to choose between two objects the prefertible."
— dir' dpxij;] from the beginning, i. e. from eternity. Comp. 1 John i. 1, ii.
13. The following forms are analogous : dn-d rdv aldvav, Eph. iii. 9 ; dird
rdv a'i6vav Kal dirb rdv ysvsdv, Col. i. 26 ; Trpd rojv a'ldvuv, 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Trpd Kara-
poXij; Kdapov, Eph. i. 4 ; Trpd ;i;pdvuv a'laviov, 2 Tim. i. 9. Others, as Vorstius

CHAP. II. 13, 14. 617
and Krause, interpret drr' dpxv; oi the beginning of the publication of the
gospel, so that the Thessalonians were reckoned as the first who embraced
the gospel in Macedonia. But this does not suit e'iAaro, for the election on
the part of God belongs to the region of eternity ; the calling (ver. 14) is
its realization in time. Besides, an addition would be necessary to dTr'
dpxv;, as Phil. iv. 15 proves, ev dpxyroi siayy sX'iov. Lastly, the objection of
Vorstius : " absurdum est, per principium intelligere aeternitatem, quippe
in qua nullum est principium," overlooks the fact that ott' dpxv; is noth
ing more than a popular expression.' — eif o-ur^pi'av] is by Flatt referred to
salvation in this life, whilst he considers included therein the forgiveness
of sins, the assurance of God's peculiar love, and the freedom from the
dominion of sinful inclinations. Incorrect on this account, because the
aaryp'ia of the Thessalonians is in undeniable contrast with the condemnation
of the ungodly (ver. 12), and thus likewise must be referred to the result to
be expected at the advent of Christ, accordingly must denote eternal sal
vation. — ev dyiaapa rrveiparo; Kal rriarsi dXyBs'ia;] belongs neither to aurypiav
alone (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Eiggenbach),
nor to slXaro alone (de Wette), but to the whole idea slXaro eif aurypiav, and
states the means by which the election, which has taken place to eternal
salvation, was to be realized.^ To assume, with de Wette, that ev is placed
for eif, and to find the next aim denoted by ev dyiaapd k.t.X., is unmaintain
able. For if eif aarypiav and ev dyiaapd were co-ordinates, then (1) eif
aurypiav, because the highest aim, would be put not in the first, but in the
second place ; and (2) the sudden transition from a preposition of motion
to one of rest would be inexplicable, rrvsipa is not the spirit of man, to
which the being sanctified waste be referred (genitive of the object : "by
the improvement of the spirit," Koppe, Krause, Schott), but the Holy
Spirit, irom whom the sanctification of the whole man is to proceed, or
by whom it is to be effected (genitive of origin). Accordingly it is also
evident wherefore the apostle mentions the belief in the Christian truth
only after dyiaapd;, although .otherwise the sanctification of man follows
only on his reception of the divine word. For Paul considers a twofold
means of the realization of the divine election— ^rs<, the influence of the
Holy Spirit upon man, and secondly, man's own reception. But the
former already precedes the latter.
Ver. 14. :e'i; 'd] to which. Incorrectly, Olshausen: i/iere/org. Bif ii does
not refer to Tricrret (Aretius), also not to ev dyiaapd Kal irlarsi (Estius, Cor
nelius a Lapide, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Flatt,
Schott, Schrader, de Wette, Hofman 1st ed.), stih less to the " electio " and
the " animus, quo eadem digni evadimus " (Pelt), or to s'lXaro ipd; d Bsd;,
as " the historical act of God, through whioh the readers have become
1 Also Schrader's assertion, that the author a mistake of the actual use Df the preposition
(the pseudo-Paul) betrays by i/r' dpxn^ " that iv narrowing its meaning, Hofmann objects-
he considered the time when the gospel was and MoUer shou/d not have followed him-
flrstnreaohedinThessalonicaasalreadylong against the above interpretation, that then
past " has no meaning according to the above. the means would be taken for the act of the
8 ill a manner entirely incorrect, and with election itself

618 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
partakers of salvation," (Hofmann 2d ed.) but to eif aarypiav iv dyiaayip
K.r.X. (Theophylact, Ellicott) ; whilst to the aim of the election, and tothe
means by which it was to be realized according to God's eternal counsel,
is added the actual call of the readers occurring in time. Accordingly,
eif 0 is to be completed by eif rd aadyvai iyd; di' dyiaayoi irveiyaro; Kal iriarea;
dXyBs'ia;. — dtd roi siayysX'iov yydv] through our publication of the gospel. Comp.
1 Thess. i. 5. The historical condition of Triartf. — eif rrspnrolyaiv dd^y; roi
Kvplov] an appositional resumption of eif aarypiav, in order further to
characterize the salvation, whose reception God had predetermined to the
readers, as an acquisition (see on 1 Thess. v. 9) of the glory which Christ
possesses. So in essentials, Pelagius, Musculus, Hunnius, Piscator, Vors
tius, Grotius, Wolf, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Alford, Ewald, Bisping,
Ellicott, Eiggenbach, and others. Less suitably, because weakening the
force and the important contents of the expression, Luc. Osiander, Ben
son, Moldenhauer, and Pelt explain dd^a tov Kvplov of the glory, of which
Christ is the source or bestower. Against the reference to God as the sub
ject in rrspiirolyaiv, and to Christ as the receiver of the tJdfa (Oecumenius :
tva dd^av rrspirroiyay r'f via airoi-, Theophylact, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide),
is the circumstance, that although eif irepirroiyaiv might stand instead of
eif rd with the inflnitive, yet the dative rd Kvp'iip ripdv would require to be
placed instead of the genitive roii Kvplov ypdv. Lastly, the passive signifi
cation of rrepirroiyai; ; " ut cssetis gloriosa possessio domini nostri Jesu
Christi " (Menochius, Harduin ; also Luther : " to the glorious inherit
ance," and Calvin), has against it the weakening of the substantive dd^y;
into an adjective, and the parallel passage in 1 Thess. v. 9. Besides, the
context decides against the two last-mentioned views. For the object of vv.
13, 14 is to bring forward the glory of the lot which is assigned to the
Thessalonians, in order thereby to lead to the exhortation in ver. 15.
Ver. 15. 'Apa oiv] wherefore then, as such an end awaits you. — ari/Ksrs]
standfast, comp. 1 Thess. ui. 8. The opposite of aaXsvBijvai, ver. 2. — /cat
Kparslrs rdf Trapaddoeif] and holdfast to the traditions, instructions in Chris
tianity. As Kparelv here (comp. Mark vii. 3), so does Karixeiv rd; irapaddasi;
stand in 1 Cor. xi. 2. — df ididdx^rrrs] See Winer, p. 214 f, [E. T. 229]. — eire
did X4yov] whether by oral discourse. — di' imaroXy;] refers to the First Epistle
to the Thessalonians.
Vv. 16, 17. The apostle rises from his evangelical activity (ver. 15) up
to Christ, the Lord and Euler ofthe Christian church, and concludes -with
the mention of God, who is the final reason and contriver of the Christian
salvation. The unusual (2 Cor. xiii. 13) naming of Christ first and of
God second, is sufficiently explained from the fact that Christ is the Medi
ator between God and man.— On the union of the two nominatives, Christ
and God, with a verb in the singular, see on 1 Thess. iii. 11.— d dyarryaa;
iiyd; Kal doi; rrapoKX. K.r.X.] a fittingly-selected characteristic, in order to
mark the confldence with which Paul expects the hearing of his suppli
cations.— d dyarrfiaa; iiyd; Kal doi;] refers exclusively to d Gedf /cat TraTf}p
ypdv. Baumgarten-Crusius incorrectly refers only the second participle
to God, and the first to Christ. But the participle amist dyairyaa; must not

NOTES. 619
be weakened into " qui nos amat et quovis tempore amavit " (so Schott,
after Flatt and Pelt), but refers to the divine proof of love already belong
ing to the past, — accomplished, i. e. to the fact by which the love of God to
mankind is /car' i^oxyv proved, — to the mission of His Son in order to rescue
sinners from destruction. — /eai doi;] and has thereby communicated to us. —
rrapdKXyaiv] comfort. This is called eternal,^ not, perhaps, on account of the
blessings of eternal life which Christians have to expect (Chrysostom,
Estius, Vorstius, Grotius, Fromond., and others), but because Christians
have become the sons of God, and as such are fiUed with indestructible
confidence that all things, even the severest affliction which may befall
them, infallibly serves for their good, because God has so ordained, and
that nothing in the world will be able to separate them from the love of
God in Christ ; comp. Eom. viii. 28, 38 f. The opposite of this eternal
consolation is the fleeting and deceptive consolation of the world (Olsh.,
Ellicott). rrapdKXyai; accordingly refers to the present. On the other hand
(vv. 13, 14), sXrrl; dyaBy refers to the blessedness and glory to be expected
in the future. — ev xopm] in grace, i, e. by means of a gracious appointment,
belongs not to iXrrlda, but to the participles. The opposite is man's
own merit. — rrapaKaXiaai] may comfort or calm, refers particularly to the
disquiet ofthe readers in reference to the advent (ii. 2). — /eai arypl^ai] sc.
vyd; (see critical remarks), which is in itself evident from the preceding
vydv. — ev iravrl ipya koi Xdyip dyaBa] in every good work and word. Grotius
incorrectly takes it in the sense of eif Trdv ipyov /eai Trdvra Xdyov dya-Bdv.
But, with Chrysostom, Calvin, Turretin, Bolten, Flatt, and others, to limit
Xdyo; to teaching is erroneous, on account of the universal Travri and its
being placed along with ep/u. The apostle rather wishes an establish
ment in every good thing, whether manifested in works or in words.

Notes by American Editor.
LIX. Vv. 1 ff.
(a) Liinem., in his note on 1 Thess. iv. 1, distinguishes ipurdysv as an address
of a friend to a friend, from irapaKaXoiysv iv Kvp'op as an exhortation in virtue of
the apostohc office ; and it will be noticed, on examination of the passages iu which
the former verb occurs in the N. T., that it can very commonly be talcen in this
sense. Assuming this to be the sense of the verb here, we easily account for the
force of VTrep, as distinguished from Trept : We present to you our friendly request
or entreaty on behalf of that great event in which the Lord is to consummate Hia
work for us — that you should not be led away by any misrepresentation respecting
it. — (6) imavvayayy; undoubtedly refers to that meeting with the Lord which is
spoken of in 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. Whether irr' airdv is to be insisted upon as
meaning up to Him, as distinguished from Trpdf airdv (so Liinem.), is doubtful. —
(c) That irvsiparo; refers to some prophetic, i. e. supposed prophetic, utterance in
the presence of the church, can hardly be questioned. That Xdyov may mean
some word in the way of teaching in the presence of the church, as distinguished
1 The feminine form aicjrt'a is found only here in the N. T. and in Heb. ix. 12.

620 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
from prophecy, is possible. But, as we should more naturally expect didaxv;, if
this were the meaning, and as Xdyov is apparently united with imaTO?iij; ypdv in
ver. lb, it is probable that the latter connection is intended here. As to the word
imaroXij;, the possibilities of reference seem to be the following : (1) to the First
Epistle ; (2) to some forged letter ; (3) to some letter " which professed to report
his exact opinions, while in reality it misunderstood them," but yet not forged
in his name (Farrar). The objections to (1) are that there is no article with
imaroXij; ; that there is no statement in 1 Thess., which implies that the Parousia
iviaryKsv ; and that, if such a reference had been intended, there would probably
have been some distinct intimation that that letter contained no declaration of
this kind. The objections to (2), on the other hand, are the improbability that
such a forged letter would have been written at this early period, so soon after the
first epistle, and to a church in such close relations with himself, and the improb
ability that, if such a letter had been written, he would have passed over the fact
with no rebuke. The objection to (3) is that iii. 17 would seem to imply that a
forgery had occurred. Either (2) or (3) is the more prob:ible view. If we adopt
(3), it is possible to account for iii. 17, and the difficulty in the supposition of a
forged letter is removed. Some word or letter, however, must have been brought
to their notice which professed to give Paul's view as set forth in iviaryKsv k.t.X.,
and which, either purposely or through misunderstanding, misrepresented him.
The eJf which precedes <5i' -ypdv here, and is wanting in ver. 15, makes it probable
that it was not a letter (like the first epistle) written by himself.
{d) The verb iviaryKsv evidently means either "is now present" (E. V.), or
"is just at hand" (A. E. V.). In either case, it denotes not Tiear, as contrasted
with in tlie remote or uncertain future, but already come ox in the time immediately at
hand. The Thessalonians had fallen into an error — supposing that the end was
just upon them — which might naturally have led some of them to believe that it
was useless to think of earthly business any longer. It was an error of this sort
which the Apostle corrected. He makes his statements to show them that the
Parousia was not to come, as they supposed, perhaps within a year or two, but
only after the occurrence of certain developments of evil, which were to be
expected. The question whether the Apostle himself thought of the Parousia as
probably to take place within twenty or thirty years or not, must be determined,
so far as this passage is concerned, not from the fact of his denying the iviaryKsv
for the negative of this would only prove its non-occurrence within a very much
briefer period, but by the length of time which must be allowed for the occurrence
of what he declares is to take place before the day of the Lord. — {e) The things
which are mentioned as to occur before the end are the apostasy and the revela
tion of the man of sin. The former of these, apparently, is to precede, or at
least to be consummated in, the latter. The apostasy seems to stand in the rela
tion to the mystery of lawlessness, spoken of in ver. 7, of an effect to a cause ; or
this lawlessness is that which, when reaching its full development, becomes'the
apostasy. The mystery of lawlessness is already in operation, but is restrained as
to the outbreaking of its full force by an outside power. The progress of things,
therefore, is, first, the partial, perhaps in some measure hidden, working of the evil
forces, which has begun already, and is to go on until the restraining power is
removed ; then, their development in the apostasy ; then, the consummation of
the apostasy in the revelation of the man of sin ; and then, the P.arousia.— (/) In
regard to the length of time which is to be allowed, two points may be noticed in

NOTES. 621
the passage : — (1) that the mystery of lawlessness is said to be already working,
and (2) that the restraining power is spoken of as already exercising- its force, at
the time when the words were written. Beyond these indications, the passage
affords nothing definite respecting this question. — (jr) The designations of the man
of sin are so marked and distinct, that there can be no reasonable doubt that the
Apostle is speaking of the Antichrist. This is proved (1) by the connection with
drroaraaia, (2) by the genitive dvoyia;, comp. dvopo; (ver. 8), (3) by the words
d vidf r^f 'arru'Xs'ia;, (4) by d 'avriKs'ipevo; k.t,X., {h) by the reference to sitting in
the temple of God, etc., (6) by the the connection of his coming with the working
of Satan, (7) by the application to him of the word irapovaia, and other words
which are used of Christ's coming, (8) by the contrast of the deceit of unrighteous
ness with the truth. The combination of all these things, when compared with
what is said in other parts of the N. T. respecting the Antichrist, establishes this
reference as in the Apostle's mind. — {h) By the use of the words rrapovaia, drro-
KaXv(p-9ri, 'smipavs'iif, etc., which are to be accounted for primarily by the desire to
present a striking contrast of Antichrist to Christ, the Apostle intends, no doubt,
to suggest the idea of some sudden and wonderful manifestation of evil power.
{i) The view which is to be held with regard to what the Apostle had in mind
in this passage can hardly be determined from the passage in itself alone. The
other passages in the N. T. where this and kindred subjects are alluded to must be
considered, and by an examination of them all -sve must ascertain, as we best may,
the general thought of the Apostolic mind on such questions. The conclusions
thus derived will have an important bearing here. As for the passage itself, its
indications are (1) that the error of the Thessalonians consisted in supposing the
end to be in the very nearest future— just upon them ; (2) that that which was to
precede the end had already begun its work ; (3) that this was an evil develop
ment in the religious, not in the political sphere ; (4) that the restraining force,
evidently not being the true religion or the Divine power (see the closing words
of ver. 7), was probably political or governmental ; (5) that the final extreme de
velopment of the evil, which was to follow the removal of the restraining force, was
such that it could be described as the revelation of the man of sin, i. e. the descrip
tion involves either striking personification or definite personality; (6) that the
man of sin was to continue in the exercise of his power until the Parousia, when
he was to be destroyed by the manifested power of Christ. These indications point
towards a continuous development of evil from the time which was present to the
writer and readers (but in a somewhat hidden way, or under special limitations
from a power beyond itself), and towards a subsequent sudden outburst of its force,
which outburst was to be in the form of an apostasy, i. e. a falling away within the
Christian body itself. There is evidently here somewhat of a kindred conception
to that which we discover in certain parts of the book of Eevelation, and which is
hinted at in I. John, II. Peter, and elsewhere.— (j) The Apostle speaks of the
temple of God, which may refer to the temple at Jerusalem. He also uses the
two phrases, rd Karixov and d Karixav, which may refer to the Eoman government
and the Eoman emperor. He also refers to the restraining power as known to
the readers, which fact may easily find an explanation for itself— and may, at (he
same time, furnish an explanation for the indefinite character of the expression
used to describe it— if it be taken as meaning the Eoman government. It can
hardly be affirmed, however, that these different expressions must have the refer
ence mentioned.— (&) If the Apostles expected the Parousia in their own life-time,

622 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
or thought of it as possibly coming within a short period, it would be very natural
for them to think of, and picture before their readers, the approaching evils and
calamities by means of words which were applicable to powers or developments
of their own age. This would, also, be natural — at least, to some degree — even
if they regarded the Parousia as belonging to the remoter and altogether uncertain
future. LX. 3-12.
With reference to the words and phrases in these verses, the following points
may be noticed : — (1) ayaprla; (ver. 3) is a characteristic, oTrcj^eiaf, a possessive
genitive. — (2) The text-reading dvopia; is placed in the text by W. and H., Treg.,
Tisch. 8, with the authorities mentioned in Liinem.'s textual note. — (3) rdv vadv
roii i?eov is referred by Liinem. to the temple at Jerusalem, and he regards this
reference as proved by the repetition of the article. Alf. claims that there is no
force in this, and cites 1 Cor. iii. 17, where he alleges that d vadf roi -Bsoi is used
in a figurative sense. It may be questioned, however, whether the use is figura
tive in 1 Cor. iii. 17, — whether the statement of that verse is not made with regard
to the actual temple as a holy building, and the application added in oinvs; iysl;
ears, of which {holy) character you are — therefore one cannot injure or destroy your
Christian life without being exposed to Divine punishment. The cases in which
vodf or vadf ^eoi are used without the article, in a figurative sense, are not in point
against Liinem.'s position. The form of expression is favorable to the definite
reference given by Liinem., but whether this reference can be absolutely affirmed
may be considered doubtful. — (4) The change from rb Karixov to b Karixuv is in
dicative of a person as exercising the restraining power. Like the dvoyo; and the
Lord, this third power is presented as a person. The conception of the writer is
after this manner; but, while this conception may accord with reality, the repre
sentation may perhaps, on the other hand, be figurative, i. e. personification only.
— (5) In ver. 7, E.V. supplies iarl alter pdvov, in the text, ("only there is one
that restraineth until," etc.), but adopts, in the margin, the other construction
("the mystery of lawlessness doth already work, only until," etc.). The latter in
terpretation, which is probably correct, recognizes a special emphasis in the word
pvariipiov. It is working as a mystery ; it will afterwards come to a revelation. —
(6) Evidently vv. 9, 10 relate to what follows the rrapovaia of the lawless one and
precedes that of Christ. There is a period of open working of dvoyia, after the
working as a mystery is ended and the restraining power has been taken out of the
way. What is to be the length of this period is not stated, but the first impression
upon the reader would naturally be that it was not to be very long-continued. The
parallelism between the working of the dvopo; and Christ, is still kept up in these
verses by ayys'ioi;, etc. — -ijisidov; and aTrdr;? ddida; mark the contrast.
LXI. Vv. 13-17.
(a) The connection of the Hortatory Section of the Epistle, ii. 13-iii. 15, with
what precedes is only through the contrast between the persons alluded to in vv.
11, 12, and the Apostle and his readers — that which befalls the former and that
for which the latter have been chosen of God. There is no exhortation which
connects itself immediately with the suggestions of vv. 2 ff., — at the most, only a
general one, such as we find in ver. 15. — (6) The hortatory section opens with

NOTES. 623
thanksgiving — in its form precisely like that of i. 3 ; and the mingling of thanks
and exhortation is similar to what may be observed in 1 Thess. This inter
mingling of the two belongs, in both alike, to the character of the letters. The
use of bipsiXopsv -with sixapiarslv, here and in i. 3, is peculiar, being found in no
other Epistle. It expresses, whh friendly feeling, his sense of the fitness and
duty of giving thanks on their behalf; (comp. Ka-Bd; a^idv ianv i. 3). — (c)
That eil^aro dTr' dp;i;^f (ver. 13), though Paul does not use these words elsewhere
in this sense, refers to God's election from eternity, is put beyond any considerable
doubt, by the fact that it is a choice to salvation (eif aarypiav), and by the fact
that the divine call follows it (eif o iKdXeasv). The ground of thankfulness in
the Apostle's mind probably included both the choice and the call. The choice of
God is said to move in the sphere of sanctification, etc., as, in 1 Cor. vii. 15, His
call is said to move in the sphere of peace (comp. also 1 Thess. iv. 7, caUed in
sanciification), because there is no divine purpose of salvation except as the sancti
fying power of the Spirit and belief of the truth have their true influence in the
soul. 'Ev of this verse is, thus, rather the common ev denoting the sphere iu
which, than an instrumental preposition. — {d) In view of this divine election to
salvation in the sphere of sanctification and faith, the exhortation of ver. 15 is given
to stand fast, and also to hold fast the irapaddasi; which they had been taught.
As these instructions include those which were <5t' imaroXij;, that is, the First
Epistle, and as that epistle contains suggestions with regard to the Parousia, it
may be that there is some reference to the errors into which they had fallen on
this subject, and which he was writing this letter especially to correct. But such a
reference, if this be the fact, is only incidental, and the exhortation is intended to
cover all the instructions which he had given them. Comp. arypi^ai iv iravrl
epya Kal Xdya dyaBa (ver. 17). — {d) The union of God and Christ as the subject
of a verb in the singular number, which has been already noticed in Note LII.
(1 Thess. iii. 11), is found again in ver. 16 of this chapter; and here it will be
observed that Christ is placed first. In the uniting of Christ with God, in
sentences which refer to the divine work in the soul and in redemption, the Apostle
thus, in these earliest letters, goes as far as is possible. It is interesting to notice
how, under the influence of circumstances which more fully called forth the
expression of his thought in the latest letters addressed to the churches, he rises
in his statements to the highest limits which epistolary and popular language
allowed. The movement of expression from the one to the other is in the line of
the setting forth of the same idea of Christ's relation to the Father. The line
begins with the close union of the Father and Christ as the common subject of one
verb ; it ends with the declaration that the fullness of "Bsdry; dwells in Christ.
The union of the two in the words, at the beginning, may not necessarily involve
their oneness in essence. But the declaration, at the end, may lead us to the con
viction, that, in thus uniting them at the beginning, Paul did so because he
beUeved them to be one. — (e) The word a'laviav (ver. 16) is used, probably,
because the consolation or comfort of the Christian life takes hold upon the
eternal life.

624 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

CHAPTER III.
Vee. 3. Instead of the Receptus d Kvpio;, A D-* F G 71, Vulg. It. Copt. Arm. in
marg. and some Latin Fathers have d Gedf. Accepted by Lachm. But Trtcrrdf di
ianv b Kipio; does not elsevvhere occur, whilst marb; d Oedf is a usual form.
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 13. Therefore the former might have been
corrected according to the latter, d Kvpio; is attested by B (e sil.) D*^-** E K L
X , almost all min., most versions, many Greek Fathers, and Hier. — Ver. 5. ryv
irroyovfiv] The Elz. reads irropovipi. Against all uncial MSS. (also X), most min.,
and many Greek Fathers. Ver. 6. Instead of rrapiXafiov (D""-* D"*"-* E K L X****
23, 31, al, pi. edd. Aeth. Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Bas. [alicubi] al,, Cypr.
[ter] Lucif Aug. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag. received by Matth. and Scholz, preferred
also by Eeiche), Elz. reads rrapeXa[3s (very weakly attested, namely, only by 3, 49,
57, 71, Syr.) ; Lachm. reads rrapsXdjisTs (after B F G 43, al, Copt. Arm. Antonius,
Theodoret [sem.], Ambrosiast. ed. Auct. de sing, cler.) ; Griesbach, Tisch. Alford
and Ellicott read rrapeXdpoaav {aiter A ^* Bas. ; D* has for it the simple verb
iXdfloaav). irapiXaj3e and irapeXdjiers are corrections, and not so well attested as the
third person plural. But the Alexandrian form rrapsXd^oaav merits the prefer
ence before irapeXajiov, as the less usual form in the N. T., which on that account
might easily have led to an alteration. — Ver. 8. Instead of the Receptus vvkto /eat
ypipav, B F G X 17, al, Chrys. ms. Damasc. (sem.) have vvKrb; Kal ypepa;. Ee
ceived by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Against the preponderating authority of A D E
K L, the great majority of min., and many Fathers, and the probable conformity
to 1 Thess. ii. 9, iii. 10. — -Ver. 12. Elz. Tisch. 2 read did roi Kvp'iov ^ydv 'lyaov
'S.piaroi. Lachm. Tisch., 1, 7 and 8, Alford and Ellicott read ev Kvp'iu 'lyaoi
Xpiaru. The latter is required by A B D* E* F G N-» 17, 31, al., Vulg. It. Goth.
Copt, al, Damasc. (sem.) Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel. — Ver. 13. Elz. reads yy iKKaKyayrs.
Instead of this, Lachm. Schott, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott have preferred pij
iyKaiiiiarjre, after A B D* i< (Tisch. 7 : yy ivKaKyayrs). But the latter is a probable
correction, as the writing iKKOKsiv, instead of iyKOKslv, never occurs with certainty else
where than in the N. T. and in the writings of the Fathers. Comp. Meyer on 2
Cor. iv. 1. — Ver. 16. Elz. Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, and Ellicott read rpdiru, Lachm. and
Tisch. 1 read tottu, after A* D* F G, 17, 49, Vulg. It. Goth. Chrys. Ambrosiast.
Pel. Commended to attention by Griesb. ; already preferred by Piscator, Beza,
and Grotius. But rpdiru (attested by A"""* B [e. sil.] D**-* E K L N, almost all
min. Syr. utr. Copt. al. m. Theodoret, Damasc. al.) decidedly merits the prefer
ence on account of the sense, and might, on account ofthe more frequent form iv
rravri Tdrr(j (1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14 ; 1 Tim. ii. 8), be easily transformed into
rdTTu. Also Bouman {Chartae theologicae, lib. I. p. 67) considers rpdTru as the
original ; but then he advances the following supposition for the origin of the
false reading rdTrcj : " Proxime cum praeoessisset dtd iravrdf omni tempore, dictionis
elegantiam ac concinnitatem hoc requirere putarunt librarii, ut nihil potius adji-
ceretur quam ev Travri rdTru omni loco ; quippe qui tempm-is ae spatii notiones fre-
qnentissime conjungi, pro sua scilicet sapientia, optime novissent."

CHAP. III. 1, 2, 625
Vv. 1-5. Paul requests the Thessalonians to pray that the gospel may
be more widely difl'used, and that he himself (and his companions) might
be delivered from the persecutions to which he was exposed. He then
expresses his trust that the Lord will assist the Thessalonians, and also
declares his confidence that they will obey his (the apostle's) command
ments, and he unites therewith ari additional benediction.
Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-5, See Note LXII. page 632.] Td Xoirr&v] see on 1
Thess. iv. 1. — rrspl ypdv] on our behalf. But the apostle's wish is com
pletely unselfish, as he refers to the promotion of Christianity, and to him
self only so far as he stands in connection with that object. — "iva] comp. on
i. 11. — d Xdyo; tov Kvplov] Genitivus subjectiuus ; see on 1 Thess. i. 8. — rpixy]
may run. A representation of quick and unimpeded advancing. — do^dt;yrai\
is passive : may he glorified. Pelt erroneously understands it as middle.
But the gospel is only glorified when it is recognized as what it is,
namely, as a dvvayi; Qsoi eif aurypiav rravri Tip marsiovn (Eom. i. 16).
Nicolas de Lyra arbitrarily limits the verb to the " miracula, veritatem
ejus declarantia." — Ka-Bd; Kal rrpb; iyp;] even as it is a/mong you. A lauda
tory recognition of the eager desire for salvation, -with which the Thessa
lonians surrendered themselves to the preaching of the gospel. Comp. 1
Thess. i. 6 ff. The words are closely connected with /eai do^dt^yrai. Accord
ing to Hofinann, with whom Moller, although wavering, coincides, the
words are to be united with rpixy, passing over /eai do^d^yrai. Incorrectly,
because dofdfyroi is a higher idea than rpixy, whilst it adduces that point
by which the external act of Tpc;t:etv can only receive its internal value.
Accordingly Kal do^d^yrai is too important to be considered only as a sub
sidiary point ¦'¦'appended " to rpexv- — ""pof iyd;] see on 1 Thess. iii. 4.
Ver. 2. In deliverance from his adversaries lay the condition that he,
the apostle, could work the more eflfectively for the diffusion of the gos
pel.' — droTTOf] is used of that which is not in its right place. Used of per
sons, it denotes one who does or says that which is inappropriate under
the circumstances. Thus it is equivalent to ineptus (Cic. de orat. ii. 4).
From "propriety" it passes to its wider ethical meaning, and is used of
men who act contrary to human or divine laws. Thus it receives the
general signification of bad or godless.^ — But the Thessalonian Jews are
not to be understood by the droTrot koI rrovypol dvBpurroi, from whose perse
cution the apostle had already, at an earlier period, frequently suffered
(so, as it would seem. Pelt), for their influence hardly extended to
Corinth. Persons must be meant who were then present in Corinth itself.
But we are not to think on Christians who were only so in name (Zwingli,
Musculus, Hemming, Flatt, Schrader, and others), and particularly on false
teachers among the Jewish Christians (Schott), but on fanatical Jews.^ Comp.
Acts xviii. 6, 12 ff. That the adversaries of the apostle could not have
been already Christians, follows from the inferential clause setting forth
1 Theodoret: Aiirky p.ev ^ airyait ehai So/cei, ^See examples in Kypke, Observ. II. p. 146
aia Se oftto9 i(Triv- ruiv ydp irovyipOiv dvdpiiairuv f. ; Loesner, and Wetstein.
r}rriop.ivo3v, a/cwAvrtos /cat o ToO Kypiiyp,aroi * Hammond also finds here another refer-
avvrpexei A0705. euce to the Gnostics I
40

626 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the naturalness of the existence of such people, oi ydp irdvrav y rrian;, for
faith is not an affair of all, i. e. it finds not a place among all, all have not a
susceptible heart for it.' — y rr'ian;] on account of the article, can only
denote tlie Christian faith simply and generally. To understand the expres
sion oi fidelity or honesty, with Schoettgen, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Bolten,
Krause, Flatt, and others, is as incorrect as to interpret it of true faith,
with Schott. For in the first case oi ydp rrdvre; maroi would require to
have been written, and in the second case ov ydp rrdvrav y rr'ian; dXyBy;.
Ver. 3. A contrast to oi ydp rrdvrav y rr'ian;, -with a play upon the word
Trierrif, and a return to the statement in ii. 16, 17. — d Kvpio;] not a designa
tion of God (Schott, Schrader, Olshausen, and Hilgenfeld, Ztschr. f. wiss.
Theol, Halle 1862, p. 261), but of Christ. His faithfulness consists in this,
that He, as Protector of the church, watches over the continuance of the
faith, and effects its diffusion in .spite of all droiroi and rrovypol. Strikingly,
Calvin : " Ceterum de aliis magis quam de se anxium fuisse Paulum,
osteftdunt haec ipsa verba. In eum maligni homines improbitatis suae
aculeos dirigebant, in eum totus impetus irruebat : curam interea suam ad
Thessalonicenses convertit." — roi rrovypov] is, by Calvin, Musculus, Estius,
Piscator, Menochius, Nat. Alexander, Benson, Bengel, Baumgarten, Mol
denhauer, Macknight, Olshausen, Hofmann and Ellicott, also Cornelius a
Lapide, Er. Schmid, and Beza, though not decidedlj^ held by the latter,
understood as masculine, accordingly as a designation of the devil. In
itself nothing can be objected against this interpretation, as in Matt. xiii.
19 and elsewhere frequently in the N. T., also with Paul in Eph. -vi. 16,
d rrovypd; is found in this sense. But here this interpretation is untenable,
because of arypl^si iyd; Kal (pvXd^si drrb rov rrovypov evidently resumes
crypi^ai ev rravri ipyip Kal Xbyip 'ayaBip, ii. 17, and only arranges it positively
and negatively. But if roi rrovypov corresponds to the negation of the
position ev TravTt ipyip koi Xdyoi dyaBd, it must be neuter, and denote moral
eril generally. But it would be arbitrary to make this neuter equivalent
to Tciv irovypdv dvBpdiruv, to which Koppe and Flatt give their countenance.
Ver. 4. The apostle has confidence in Christ that He will come to the
assistance of the Thessalonians, promoting their faith and protecting them ;
but he is likewise confident in them, that they on their part -will not fail in
obedience to the apostle's commands. Thus the apostle paves the way for a
suitable transition to the exhortation in ver. 6 ff. — ev /cvpiu] a state
ment of the element of his confidence an-ftexed to rrsno'idayev if iyd;, in
order to express that the apostle's confidence in his readers was one
founded on Christ, caused by the participation of Christianity. Comp.
Gal. V. 10 ; Phil. ii. 24 ; Eom. xiv. 14. — e^' ipd;] see Meyer on 2 Cor. ii. 3. —
Kal Trotetre] does not still belong to the protasis (see Erasmus on the pas
sage), but begins the apodosis.
Ver. 5. A fresh involuntary effusion oi piety on the part of the apostle,
by means o{ which he calls down the di'vine blessing on every action of
*0n the form of the expression, compare Edpifdoi/ ia9' 6 ttAoO? (Strabo, viii. 6. 20, ed.
¦ the well-known proverb; OO iravrbi dvSpos is Siebenk.; Suidas, T. 2, p. 739).

CHAP. II. 3-6. 627
man as a condition of its success.' To assume that ver. 5 was added by
Paul, because he could not yet entirely trust the Thessalonians (de Wette),
is without foundation. — b Kipio;] Christ, as in vv. 3, 4. — /caTeveivai iydv rd;
Kapdia; eif r^v dydrryv roi Qsov] direct your hearts to the love of God, namely,
in order to be filled and pervaded by it, not in order to remain contem
plating it (Koppe, Olshausen). — y dydrry roi Qsoi] is not " amor a deo prae-
ceptus " (Clericus), or " amor, quem deus hominum quasi infundit ani
mis " (Pelt), also not the love of God to men, which was to be the pattern
for Christian brotherly love (Macknight, Koppe), or, more specially, the
manifestation of the love of God in Christ and in His work of redemp
tion (Olshausen, Eiggenbach) ; but love toward God {Gen. object). Paul
, wishes the Thessalonians to be inspired with it, because it is the centre
uniting all commandments ; comp. Matt. xxii. 37 ff. — koI el; ryv irropovyv
roi Xpiaroi] Oecumenius, Ambrose, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vata
blus, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Bernard a Piconio, and Benson, to whom
recently Hofmann has attached himself, understand by this the patient
waiting for Christ, that is, for His coming. Erroneous, because — (1)
dvapovyv (comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) would require to be written instead of
irropovyv ; and (2) the idea oi patient waiting, by which addition the state
ment becomes only suitable, would require to be expressly brought forward
by an additional clause. The stedfastness of Christ {Gen. possessiv.) is meant,
inasmuch as the endurance which the Christian manifests in tribulation
for the sake of the gospel is in its nature nothing else than the stedfastness
which was peculiar to Christ Himself in His sufferings. Comp. the analo
gous expression rd rra-Bypara roi Xpiarov, 2 Cor. i. 5, and Meyer in loco.
The simple genitive cannot express stedfastness /or tlie sake of Christ, as it is
usually explained.
Vv. 6-15. Dehortation from a disorderly and idle life in the church. Paul
had already touched upon this subject in his First Epistle (iv. 11, 12, v.
14). But here it is more expressly treated, and also with greater severity,
because, without doubt, in the restless and fanatical excitement of spirits
on account of the advent, this evil had greatly increased instead of dimin
ishing. Paul represents the core of the church as free from this fault ;
he exhorts them to withdraw themselves from every Christian brother
living disorderly, in order to bring him to shame and amendment. Only
in ver. 12 does he direct his apostolic word to the erring brethren them
selves. Ver. 6. [On vv. 6-18, see Note LXIII. pages 632, 633.] UapayyiXXoyev di]
An application of the general d rrapayyiXXoyev, ver. 4, to a special case. — ev
bvdyan roi Kvpiov yydv 'I. Xp.] belongs to rrapa-yysXXopsv, not to what follows.
A solemn reference to the high authority for this injunction. Comp. 1
Cor. V. 4. — ariXXsaBai dird nvo;] to unthdraw himself from every one, to avoid
his company. Comp. iiroariXXsiv iavrdv. Gal. ii. 12, and viroariXXsa^ai, Heb.
X. 38. — drdKTu;] see on 1 Thess. v. 14. — Kara t^v rrapddoaiv, yv K.r.X.] refers
not to instruction by the example of the apostle (Chrysostom, Theodoret,
1 Theodoret: ^Kpiporipiav yplv xpeim, ko'i rrpoQiaemi; dyaQys /cat rys dviaSev avvepyelas.

628 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Hofmann), which is first mentioned in what
follows, but to the definite instruction which the apostle had given to them
orally, during his presence at Thessalonica (comp. ver. 10; 1 Thess. iv.
11), and thfen confirmed by writing 1 Thess. iv. 11, 12). — rrapsXdj3oaav] A
well-known constructio ad sensum adapted to the collective form drrb rravrb;
ddeXipoi. See Kuhner, II. p. 42.'
Ver. 7. Confirmation of Kara ryv rrapddoaiv, yv rrapeXd^oaav. The instruc
tion imparted was sufficiently known to the readers : what Paul com
manded, he practically exhibited by his own conduct. — airo'i] ye yourselves,
without it being necessary for me to speak much about it. — rrd; del pipsl-
aBai r'lyd;] a concise expression, meaning : What is your incumbent walk,
and how, in consequence of it, ye will be my imitators,- — 'on] for. Unnatur
ally, Hofmann : 8ri is to be tr.anslated by that, and is added as a parallel
expression to Trejf dsl yipsiaBai ypd;, in which also ver. 9 is absorbed. —
droKTsiv] equal to drd/ercjf irspirrarslv, ver. 6. Only here in the N. T.
Ver. 8. See on 1 Thess. ii. 9. — dupsdv] by way of gift, — dprov ipaysiv] to eat
bread (Mark iii. 20 ; Luke xiv. 1 ; dprov iaBlsiv, Matt. xv. 2), has as the
Hebrew Dq'? Sdn (Gen. xliii. 25 ; 2 Sam. ix. 7 ; Prov. xxiii. 6, etc.) the
idea of eating generally, so that it is not to be distinguished from the simple
payeiv (Mark vi. 31) or eai9ieiv (ver. 10). dprov (payslv Trapd rivof denotes : to
have maintenance from any one, without care on our part. — epyafd/ievoi] is
not to be taken in the sense of temp, finit. (Flatt and others), but ev Kdrra
. . . ipyai^dpevoi is to be taken together, and forms a statement of mode
attached to 'dprov 'sipdyopsv in contrast to eJupedv. Yet we may, with Winer,
p. 329 f. [E. T.351], de Wette, EUicott, and Hofm., assume thattoe^dyopev,
as a contrast to dupsdv, are added flrst 'ev Kdrr(p Kal ydxBu taking the place of
an adverb, and then to this vi/era koI ypipav ipyat^dpsvoi as a parallel clause.
Ver. 9. Paul has indeed the right to be maintained by the churches, but
he freely renounces this right, in order to present believers with a good
example. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 ff — oi;t: bn] My meaning is hy no means
'that; by no means as if. A restriction of the previous statement, in order
to prevent a possible misunderstanding. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 24, iii. 5; Phil.
iii. 12, iw. 11, 17 ; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 153 f. — e^ovalav] power or
authority, sc. rov dupsdv (payslv dprov. — oAA'] sc. iv Kdrr(j Kal pdxBa vi/era Kal
ypipav ipya^dpsvoi dprov 'saB'io ysv. —On iavroi;, comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p.
272 ; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 150].
Ver. 10. A further reason, along with the example of the apostle, which
should preserve them from drd/cruf irspirrarslv. — ydp] co-ordinate with the
ydp in ver. 7. Kai cannot serve to bring out tire ypsv rrpb; vyd; (so Hof
mann), so that it would be explained, with Theodoret : Oidev /eaivdv iylv
ypdipopsv, dXX' drrsp ef dp;t;7f ipdf edidd^apev. For dre ypsv rrpb; ipd; is no
new additional idea, but only again resumes what was at least already
implied in vv. 7 and 8. Kai must accordingly be taken with roiro rrapyy-
yeXXoysv iylv, and the emphasis lies on roiro, which is placed first. The
meaning is : for even when we were with you, this we commanded you. — roiro]
lOn the verbal form, comp. Sturz, de dial. Alex. p. 60; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 349.

CHAP. IIL 7-14. 629
namely, what follows : in sl n; k.t.X. — ei Ttf oi BiXsi epyd^sadai, pydi iaBi-
ira] was a Jewish proverb ; see Schoettgen and Wetstein in loco. It has
its root in the expression in Gen. iii. 19, that man in the sweat of his brow
shall eat his bread. — oi BiXsi] Bengel : Nolle vitium est.
Ver. 11. The reason for reminding them of this saying, ver. 10. Arbi
trarily, Hofmann : ydp refers to the whole section vv. 6-10. The verb
rrspispyd^saBai is Only found here in the N. T. (but comp. rrspispyo;, 1 Tim.
V. 13, and rd irsplepya rrpdaasiv, Acts xix. 19). It denotes a bustling disposition
busy in useless and superfluous things, about Which one should not trouble
himself. Paul thinks on the fanatical excitement, on account of which
one busied himself about everything except the fulflllment of the duties
of his earthly calling, rrspispyatiopivoy; forms a paronomasia with pydiv
'spya^opivov;}- Comp. Quintihan, inst. orat. vi. 3.54: Afer enim venuste
Mallium Suram, multum in agendo discursantem, salientem, manus
jactantem, togam dejicientem et reponentem, non agere dixit sed satagere.
Ver. 12. Kai Trapa/eaAoii/iev] SC, airov;. — perd yavx'ia; ipya^dpsvoi] with quiet
ness, i.e. applying yourself to your earthly calling, subjectively with a quiet
and collected mind, and objectively with noiseless modesty. Contrast to
yydiv spydC,ea6ai dXAd irspispydiieaBai. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 11. — iavrdv] em
phatic, their own bread, that is to say, their self-earned sustenance, avoid
ing a maintenance which depends on the charity of others.
Ver. 13. The apostle again turns himself to those who had kept them
selves free from this fault. — c/cKa/eetv] with the following participle (see
Kiihner, II. p. 369) denotes to he weary in doing something. — KaXoiroislv]
cannot signify " to be charitable " (Calvin, Estius, Flatt, Pelt, de Wette,
Bloomfield, Ewald, Bisping, and most critics), so that the sense would be :
But suffer not yourselves, through those who abuse your charity, to be
restrained from exercising charity in general. The verb can only denote,
so act as is right and proper. Comp. Gal. vi. 9. As Paul stiU speaks, even
in vv. 14, 15, of the special matter which he treated of in the preceding
words, KaXorroisiv cannot be understood in its most general sense, but must
be referred to the matter in question. Accordingly, the apostle requires
that those who had kept themselves free from this fault should not be
weary in doing what is right and proper, that is to say, thai they should not
suffer themselves to be infected ivith the eml example given:'
Ver. 14. Aid r^f 'smaroXy;] iS, by Nicolas de Lyra, Luther, Calvin, Musculus,
Hemming, Bullinger, Lucius Osiander, Balduin, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus,
Sebastian Schmid, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Zachariae, Koppe, Krause, Pelt,
Winer, p. 113 [E. T. 119], and others, united with what follows. It is
usuaUy explained : If any obey not my word, note that man to me in
writing, sc. in order that I may direct what punishment is to be inflicted
on him'. But this interpretation is to be rejected— (1) on account of the
article r:7f, which, if unforced, can only denote a definite epistle lying
1 Ewald translates it: "nicht Arbeit trei- refers it— because anticipating the contents
bend, sondern sich herumtreibend." of ver. 15-to the loving and forbearing treat-
2 Also Olshausen understands Kakoiroulv ment of the brethren.
only of doing, good in general, but arbitrarily

630 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
before them, not an epistle to be written only at a later period ; (2) as the
inversion of the words : did r:7f eTrtcrroA^f Toiirov aypsiovaBs, instead of the
natural order : roirov did ry; imaroXij; ayyeioiaBe, would not be justified ;
(3) lastly, because it is very improbable that Paul should stiU have
retained for himself a statement of the punishment, as he has already hi
ver. 6 stated the mode of punishment, and again repeated it in this verse,
commanding them to withdraw from the society of every brother acting
contrary to his admonitions. But interpretations in this connection, as
that of Bengel : " notate iiot& censoria, hanc epistolam, ejus admonendi
causa, adhibentes eique inculcantes, ut, aliorum judicio perspecto, se
demittat," or that of Pelt : " eum hac epistola freti severius tractate," alter
the idea of the verb aypsioiaBai. We are obliged to unite did rij; 'smaroXy;
with tCi Xdya ypdv} It was not necessary to repeat the article ra before
did r^f imaroXij;, because ru Adyu ypdv did ry; imaroXy; is blended into the
unity of the idea of a written command. Comp. Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 135].
y imaroXy denotes the definite Epistle, i, e, our Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians (comp. 1 Thess. v. 27; Eom. xvi. 22; Col. iv. 16); and the
command expressed by that Epistle is the admonition in ver. 12. The
meaning is : But if any one acts contrary to my prohibition repeated in
this Epistle, note that man, i. e. 'mark him, sc. in order to avoid intercourse
with him (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9, 11), and thereby to bring him to shame (and
amendment) ; as Paul, explaining himself, expressly adds : /eai yij awava-
piyvvaBe avrd 'Iva ivrparry. This meaning also remains, if, instead of the
Receptus Kal yy awavapiyvvaBs, we read, with Lachmann and Tischendorf
1, after A B D-* x, the infinitive pij awavaplywaBai, only the form of expres
sion being changed. — ivrparry] is passive, not middle (Pelt). Comp. Tit. ii.
8 ; 1 Cor. iv. 14, vi. 5, xv. 24.
Ver. 15. But no hostile feeling against the erring was to be conjoined with
this avoidance of social intercourse ; on the contrary, as he is a Christian
brother, advice and admonition are not to be omitted in order to convert
him from his error by convincing reasons. — d;] united with yyslaBai, other
wise unusual, brings stfll more prominently forward the subjective notion
or representation implied in the verb. In a corresponding manner uairsp
occurs with YyslaBai in the LXX. Comp. Job xix. 11, xxxiii. 10.
Ver. 16. The apostle, hastening to a conclusion, annexes a benediction
to the exhortation. By d Kipw; rij; s'lpyvy; is meant not God, but Christ,
and the genitive designates Him as the Creator and Producer of s'lpijvy. —
T^f eip7;v;7f and rijv e'lpyvyv] are usually interpreted, either of mutual har
mony or oi peace of mind (or even, as e.g. by Schott, of both together, exter
nal and internal peace). The firstmentioned interpretation is untenable,
because there is in ithe Epistle not the slightest trace of dissensions in the
church ; and the shift that the fanatical excitement in the church, and
1 So, correctly, Chrysostom, Clarius, Estius, Bolten, Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette,
Piscator, Andrew Osiander, Aretius, Meno- Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford,
chius, -Vorstius, Cotnelius a Lapide, Beza, Ewald, Bisping, Ellicott, Buttmann, Qramm.
Fromond., Hammond, Nat. Alexander, Joa- des neutest Sprachgebr. p. SO [E. T. 92]; Hof-
chioa Lange, Harduin, Whitby, Benson, mann, Eiggenbach, and others.

CHAP. III. 15-18. 631
the idleness consequent upon it, might lead to external disquiet, and
accordingly the wish of the apostle was occasioned with a view to the
future, is far-fetched and arbitrary, because Paul prays for what was
immediately to occur. There is nothing against the second interpretation,
as calmness of mind or peace of soul is undoubtedly indicated by elplivy
(Phil. iv. 7). See Meyer and Weiss in loco. Yet it is also admissible to
understand e'lpyvy both times (corresponding to the Hebrew U)hw ¦ see
Fritzsche, ad Rom. 1. p. 22 ff.) in the sense of salvation or blessing, and,
indeed, on account of the article r^f and r:^v, of the definite, — ^that is to
say, the specifically Christian blessing or salvation. This interpretation is
also supported by the fact, that as x^-pi^ nai eipryvy at the commencement of
the apostolic Epistles corresponds to the Salutem or ei rrpdrrsiv of profane
writers, so the apostolic benediction at the conclusion oi the Epistles is
nothing else than the Christian transformation of the usual Valete or
i'p'pua^s. — did Travrdf] always, Eom. xi. 10 ; Matt. xviu. 10 ; Acts ii. 25. —
ysrd rrdvrav vpdv] accordingly even with the drdKru; rrspirrarovvrs;.
Vv. 17, 18. Autographic salutation, with a repeated benediction. Paul
had not written the letter with his own hand, but dictated it. Comp. Eom.
xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18. — o] does not stand by attraction for
Of, nor also does it bring forward a simple special point from the foregoing
(so Wieseler on Gal. -vi. 11 ; and Laurent in the Stud, u, Krit. 1864, p. 639 ;
Neutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p. 5 ; " which, namely, the autographic
writing "), but it refers to the whole preceding idea : which circumstance of
the salutation now written. — ayyslov] a sign, i. e. a mark of authenticity, Comp.
ii. 2. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Bullinger, Estius, Piscator,
Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, Beza, Joachim Lange, Har
duin, Benson, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Zachariae, Baur {Paulus, p. 489),
Hofmann, Eiggenbach, and most critics, incorrectly find this mark in the
addition of the words following in ver. 18 ; for the autographic salutation
is expressly designated as this mark. But a salutation and a benediction are
different from each other. — ev rrday emaToXff] in every Epistle, can only be
referred to all the Epistles which the apostle has, perhaps, at a later
period, still to write to the Thessalonians. For only for the Thessalonians,
who had already been actuaUy deceived by a false Pauhne Epistle, and
led into error, was such a precaution of practical importance against a new
deception. Besides, if ev irday 'smaroXy is to be understood absolutely
instead of relatively, the autographic salutation would be found in all the
Epistles of the apostle. But it is only found in 1 Cor. xvi. 21 and Col. iv. 18.—
oircjf ypdipa] thus— that is to Say, in such characters as are given in vv. 17
and 18 — I write. The handwriting of the apostle was accordingly stiU
unknown to the readers. From this it foUows, that also the First Epistle
to the Thessalonians was not written by the apostle's own hand. More
over, Zeltner {de monogrammate Pauli, Altorfii 1721), Bengel, and Molden
hauer erroneously — ^because transferring a modern custom into antiquity —
consider that we are here to think on characters artificially twisted into a
monogram by the apostle and rendered incapable of imitation. Against Zelt
ner, see Wolf, p. 402 ff.

NOTES. 633'
— (6) Ver. 10 seems to show that this tendency to give up this world's work was
an attendant, in many cases, upon the entrance into the Christian life — the new
thoughts, the spiritual atmosphere, the future, making the daily duties in earthly
things seem unnecessary. Warnings against tendencies to such errors in different
lines are given in the N. T., and must have been found needful by the Apostolic
preachers. — (c) irspiepya^oyivov; (ver. 11) as contrasted with ipya^opevov;, implies
a busying themselves with things belonging to the sphere of others, and neglect
ing those of their own sphere. The very strong word dXXorpiosrr'iaKorro; used in 1
Pet. iv. 15 may be compared. — {d) The fact that the exhortation and suggestion
of vv. 6 ff. and the exhortation in ver. 12 (fiva ysrd yavxiaa k.t.X.) are in each of
the two Epistles so closely connected with the passage which relates to the Parou
sia — that of ver. 12 following it in this Ep., and immediately preceding it in 1
Thess. (iv. 11) — ^is, not improbably, indicative of a connection between the mis
taken notions, which members of the Thess. church had respecting the time of that
great event, and their neglect of their earthly business. These mistaken notions
may have been a cause of this neglect. But the most that can be affirmed with
respect to such a connection is a possibility or probability, not a certainty. — (c) The
reference of eJtd r^f imaroXy; (ver. 14) to the present letter is satisfactorily proved
by the considerations which Liinem. sets forth. The reference of levpiof (ver. 16)
which he gives is, also, to be adopted as probably correct. Elsewhere, when re
ferring to God in such a phrase, the Apostle uses the words d -Bsb; rij; s'lpfyvy;, as
Alf. remarks. — (/) The addition of the autograph passage vv. 17, 18 is perhaps
connected with the fact that a letter had been received by the church which
claimed to be his, but was not actually so (see ii. 2). It is probable that such
autograph additions were made in his subsequent epistles generally or always, and
not merely in letters to this church. That he has special reference, however, in
the words as here used, to what he might have occasion to write to the Thess., is
not improbable.

TOPICAL INDEX.

A

Abstinence from meats and drinks, 325.
Advent, Second. See Second Coming
and Parousia.
American Editor, Notes by. See Notes
by American Editor.
Angels, Worship of, 233, 318 ; to be
judged, 241, 242.
Antichrist, 595-616, 621.
Antiochus Epiphanes, 597, 598, 616.
Apostasy, beibre the Lord comes, 595,
596, 613, 614
Apostolic Constitutions, 246.
Appearing, or Appearance of the Lord.
See Parousia.
Appia, 398, 415.
Aquila and Priscilla, 456.
Archippus, 391, 394, 395, 398, 415.
Aristarchus, 383, 385, 393.
Arius, 68, 72.
Athanasius, referred to, 2.
Augustine, referred to or quoted, 29, 67,
70, 74, 80, 88, 89, 122, 138, 148, 255,
295, 310, 316, 317, 327, 537, 605, 606.
B
Baptism, buried with Christ in, 299, 300.
Barnabas, and Epistle of, 199, 230, 384,
516.
Bishops and Deacons, in Philippi, 9, 10.
C
Ca;sarea, 385, 386.
Caius, 64.
Caligula, 565 ; as Antichrist, 612, 613.
Christ Jesus, example of,_ 65; his
humiliation in the incarnation, 66-78,
107-110; the Saviour, 157; Head of
the Church, 233-236, 272; eternal
sonship, 511.
Christology, 219, et seqq.
Chrysostom, referred to or quoted, 2, 8,
10, 12, 15, 17, 18,20,22,23, 29,35, 40,
43, 44, 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 74, 76, 83,
88, 93-96, 99, 102, 105, 121, 122, 147,
149, 151, 160, 161, 165, 168, 170, 172,
177, 178, 180, 183, 184, 208, 209, 210,

214, 217, 218, 226, 244, 247, 255, 260,
262, 263, 282, 288, 301, 308, 323, 330,
345, 348, 350, 352, 359, 362, 367, 370,
372, 380, 389, 398, 400, 403, 409, 445,
446, 449, 459, 471, 472, 497, 498, 502,
504, 509, 510, 584, 585, 594, 598, 605,
606, 619, 627, 630, 631.
Circumcision, Christian, 297-299.
Clement, 5, 163, 164, 186.
Clement of Alexandria, 4, 44, 161, 196,
199, 246, 291, 438, 568.
Clement of Eome, 40, 41, 163, 164, 187,
199, 438.
Colossae, city of, in Phrygia, 193, 194.
Colossians, Epistle to, 193, etseqq.; occa
sion and aim of writing, 194-198;
date of, and where written, 198, 199 ;
genuineness of, 199-205 ; exegesis of
Chap. I., 208-263 ; notes, by American
Editor, 263-278 ; exegesis of Chapter
IL, 280-331 ; notes by American Edi
tor, 331-341 ; exegesis of Chapter
IIL, 343-372 ; notes by American
Editor, 372-376 ; exegesis of Chapter
IV., 377-392; notes by American
Editor, 392-394.
Covetousness, warned against as idolatry,
349, 350. D
Daniel, prophecies of, 609, 616.
Deaconesses, 160.
Demas, 386, 387, 394.
Devil, ruler of the Cosmos, 220.
Docetism, 76, 85, 248.

E

Epaphras, 101 ; founder of the Church in
Colossae, 194, 212, 213, 265, 290, 383-
387 393
Epaphroditus, 3, 4, 10, 22, 101-105; 115,
157, 161, 175, 186, 188, 189, 191._
Epicurean corruption among Christians,
146, 147.
Epiphanius, 232, 396, 438.
Episcopate, doctrine of the, 10.
Essenes, 196, 232.
Euodia aud Syntaohe, 5, 164, 186.
Exegetical literature, 427-429. 635

636

TOPICAL INDEX,

Fathers, and their children, 370, 376.
Felix, imperial freedman, 187.
Fellowship, 47, 48, 50.
Flavius Clemens, 187.
Freedmen of the emperor at Eome,
186, 187. G
Gain (to die is), 32, 33, 35.
Glory of the Messianic kingdom, 218-
220.
Gnostic ideas charged upon the Epistle
to the Philippians, 84-86.
Gnosticism in Colossae, 195-198.

H
Hades, 40, 56 ; the dead in, 83 ; descent
of Christ into, 83.
Hermas, Sliepherd of, 230, 251.
Hippolytus, 575.
Holy Spirit. See Spirit, Holy.

Ignatius, referred to or quoted, 27, 83,
119, 130, 229, 242, 261, 347, 371, 438.
Incarnation, the, 75-77.
Intermediate state, 40, 56, 83.
Irenaeus, referred to or quoted, 4, 85,
199, 232, 438, 568, 605.

Jesus Justus, 385, 393, 415.
Judaizing false teachers, in Philippi,
119-124, 152, 153; in Colossae, 195-
198, 232, 317. K
Kingdom, the Messianic, 218-220.

Lactantius, 545.
Laodiceans, Epistle to, 204, 281, 388-
90.
Life, hidden with Christ, 345-347.
Linus, 186.
Logos, doctrine of the, 79, 80, 110, 223-
226, 269.
Lucius, 64.
Luke, 186, 386, 387.
Lying, to be put off and away, 352, 353.
M.
Macedonia and Achaia, 454-456.
Man of sin, 597. See Antichrist.

Marcion, 3, 4, 199, 396, 568.
Mark, 186, 385, 393.
Masters, duties of toward sla-ves, 377,
378.
Messianic salvation and kingdom, 218-
220, 344, 347.
Millennial reign of Christ, 527, 542.
Mohammed, as Antichrist, 608, 609.

N.

Napoleon as Antichrist, 609.
Nero, 187,193, 670, 606 ; as Antichrist.
612.
Notes, by American Editor, 46-58
106-116; 152-158; 188-191; 263-
278 ; 331-341 ; 372-376 ; 392-394
415^20; 458-461; 491-495; 509-
511; 538-542 ;¦ 560, 561 ; 588-590
619-623 ; 632, 633.
Nymphas, 388. ' O.
Onesimus, 194, 199, 376, 382, 383, 395,
405, 406-408, 412, 413, 419.
Ontology, 237, 238.
Origen, 89, 200, 396, 438.
Original sin, 353.

Papal hierarchy and Protestants, 607,
608.
Paradise, 40, 56, 57.
Parousia of the Lord, 14, 20, 39, 57, 67,
87, 94, 150, 158, 165, 210, 241, 249,
250, 300, 344-347, 355, 491, 529, 540,
541, 545, 561, 582, 588, 589, 612, 621.
Paul, the Apostle, visits Philippi, 1 ;
writes from Eome Epistle to the
Philippians, 2, 3 ; strong feeling ex
pressed, 4; another Epistle by to the
Philippians, 6, 119-121, 152; posi
tion of at time of writing, 21-24;
factious opposition to, 25-27; spirit of
under this trial, 29, 30 ; expectation
and hope of, 30-32 ; confidence in re-
suU of trial, 32-38; exhortations, etc.,
41-46; 58 ; on the second coming of
the Lord, 48 ; claim of as to origin,
position, character, etc., 126, 127 ; the
prize, the race, the contest, the strug
gle, 136-140, 155 ; supposed letters of
to Seneca, 187, 188 ; sufferings of for
Christ, 253-256, 276; on the resur
rection of believers and unbelievers,
526-537 ; expectation of being alive
at the parousia of the Lord, 532-534,
539-542; martyrdom of, 570; auto
graphic salutation in Epistles, 631.

TOPICAL INDEX.

637

Pauline and anti-Pauline parties in
Philippi, 25-29, 53, 117.
Pelagius, 14, 15, 35, 81, 84, 119, 138,
148, 161, 162, 165, 167, 176, 180, 184,
236, 592, 594, 618.
Perseverance of saints, 48.
Philemon, 194, 383, 415 ; Epistle of
Paul to, 395-420 ; genuineness, date,
etc., 396, 397 ; contents of Epistle,
398 ; exegesis, 398—415 ; notes by
American Editor, 415-420.
Philippi, in Macedonia, Eoman colony,
1 ; first city in Europe visited by
Paul, 1 ; the church planted there, 1,
2.
Philippians, Epistle to, written in
Eome, 2 ; date of composition, 2, 3 ;
occasion of writing the Epistle, 3;
exhibits Paul's love towards the Phil
ippians, 3, 4 ; synopsis of contents, 4 ;
genuineness and unity, 4, 5 ; attacks
on by rationalists, 5, 6 ; another Epis
tle written before by Paul not now
extant, 6, 119-121 ; contents of chapter
I., and exegesis, 8-46 ; notes by Amer
ican Editor, 46-58 ; exegesis of chap
ter IL, 60-106; notes by American
Editor, 106-116 ; the classical passage
or epos, 66, 78 ; exegesis of chapter
III., 117-151 ; notes by American
Editor, 152-158 ; exegesis of chapter
IV., 159-188 ; notes by American
• Editor, 188-191.
Polvcarp, Epistle of to Philippians, 4,
6; 10, 40, 11^-121, 438, 568.
Pope of Eome as Antichrist, 607, 608.
Praetorium, 22, 23, 51, 186, 187.
Praetorium of Herod, 187.
Prayer, perseverance in, 378, 379.
Preaching through envy, etc., 52-55.
Psalms and hymns. Christian songs,
365, 375, 376. E. '
Eeoonciliation, 240-243, 273-2'75.
Eegeneration, new life in Christ, 353-
357.
Eesurrection, the general, 134, 135,
155 ; resurrection of believers and
unbelievers, 527.
Eesurrection body, the, 150, 151.

8.
Salutation, apostolic, 631.
Salvation, 31, 54.
Saviour, the, 157, 165, 166.
Second coming of the Lord, 48, 459.
See Parousia.

Seneca, the' philosopher, letters of to
Paul, 187, 188.
Silas (Silvanus), 161, 186, 432, 437,
445, 446, 449, 459, 470, 472, 498, 502,
567, 568, 577.
Singing by Christians, 365-367.
Socinian errors, 226, 231.
Socrates and Plato, referred to, 344.
Spirit of Christ, 30, 54, 55, 294.
Spirit, Holy, 30, 42, 55, 61, 118, 124^
166, 213, 215, 322, 365, 520, 521.
Syntache, 5. See Euodia.
Syzygus, 162, 188. T.
Teleology, 235.
Temperance commended and urged, 325.
Tertullian, referred to or quoted, 4, 196,
199, 200, 322, 365, 396, 438, 568, 605.
Thankfulness, duty and privilege of,
368, 376.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, referred to or
quoted, 10, 16, 20, 22, 71, 133, 220,
330, 517, 518, 605.
Theodoret, referred to or quoted, 12, 15,
17, 20-23, 30, 35,- 40, 43, 44, 61, 67,
71, 74, 84, 85, 101, 105, 119, 122, 131,
133, 136, 137, 147, 149, 151, 161, 165,
167, 168, 170, 210, 212,217, 243, 247,
255, 258, 281, 301, 315, 318, 330, 345,
350, 364, 372, 391, 398, 448, 449, 451,
452, 454, 468, 470, 483, 503, 507, 613,
515, 517, 524, 528, 532, 535, 536, 537,
546, 552, 558, 582, 595, 597, 600, 603,
604, 605, 606, 615, 625, 627, 631.
Theophylact, referred to or quoted, 12,
17, 18, 29, 35, 37, 43, 67, 70, 71, 76,
81, 83, 88, 93, 96, 118, 119, 122; 133,
136, 137, 144, 146, 151, 160, 161, 165,
168, 173, 176, 177, 178, 180, 186, 209,
214, 218, 223, 227, 234, 243, 249, 255,
260, 262, 295, 296, 301, 311, 321, 323,
326, 330, 344, 345, 350, 357, 359. 362,
365, 367, 372, 383, 389, 391, 398, 400,
403, 411, 445, 448, 449, 450, 451, 453,
457, 466, 467, 471, 473, 474, 476, 482,
483, 498, 499, 513, 514, 517, 551, 552,
554, 555, 582, 584, 585, 587, 594, 598,
612, 628, 631.
Thessalonians, First Epistle to. Intro
duction, 431—442 ; occasion, design,
contents, 433-436 ; date and place of
writing, 436, 437 ; genuineness, 438-
442 ; exegesis, chapter I., 444-458 ;
notes by American Editor, 458-461 ;
contents, chapter IL, 463 ; exegesis,
463-491 ; notes by American Editor,
491-495 ; contents, chapter IIL, 497 ;
exegesis, 497-509 ; notes by American
Editor, 509-511 ; contents, chapter

638

TOPICAL INDEX.

IV-, 513 ; exegesis, 513-537 ; notes
by American Editor, 538-542; con
tents, chapter V., 544 ; exegesis, 544-
559 ; notes by American Editor, 560,
561.
Thessalonians, Second Epistle to. Intro
duction, 563-575 ; occasion, design,
contents, 563, 564 ; date and place of
writing, 564^568 ; genuineness, 568-
575 ; exegesis, chapter I., 576-588 ;
notes by American Editor, 588-590 ;
exegesis, chapter IL, 592-605; fur
ther remarks on chaper IL, 1-12,
605-616 ; hortatory portion, 616-619 ;
notes by American Editor, 619-623 ;
exegesis, chapter III., 625-631 ; notes
by American Editor, 632, 633.
Thessalonica, city of, 431, 432 ; church
in, planted by Paul, 432, 433.

Timothy, 3, 8, 9, 46, 98-101, 106, 114,
131, 136, 140, 141, 144, 157, 161, 181,
213, 214, 263, 398, 432, 437, 445, 446,
449, 459, 471, 472, 497, 498, 502,504,
609, 510, 565, 567, 568, 577.
Titus, 186.
Trichotomy (spirit, soul, body), 557, 558.
Tychicus, 194, 199, 382, 395.
U
Uncleanness, Christians warned against,
348, 349. W
Women, holy, in Philippi, 160, 163.
Worship in the primitive Church, 365.
Wrath of God at the day of judg
ment, 360.

3 9002 08844 4642

,*!W»«E3S£r*V

s rt* *^^. ''*^-
I-l. .- s . ^ I
' ', ¦^* ./
- '.A'
,.-^'
- 'A
.1
iff >'
'"r*
^t* 5-,*
V "v
p 4
J
-i
•¦^l
,^«5
i
^
¦s
V-
^