  I. 1, 2] 1, 2. ‘Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by no personal merit but by God’s gracious will alone, and Timothy, our brother in the faith, to the consecrated people of God in ColossÆ, the brethren who are stedfast in their allegiance and faithful in Christ. May grace the well-spring of all mercies, and peace the crown of all blessings, be bestowed upon you from God our Father.’ 1. ?p?st????] On the exceptional omission of this title in some of St Paul’s epistles see Phil. i. 1. Though there is no reason for supposing that his authority was directly impugned in the Colossian Church, yet he interposes by virtue of his Apostolic commission and therefore uses his authoritative title. d?? ?e??at?? Te??] As in 1 Cor. i. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1, Ephes. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1. These passages show that the words cannot have a polemical bearing. If they had been directed against those who questioned his Apostleship, they would probably have taken a stronger form. The expression must therefore be regarded as a renunciation of all personal worth, and a declaration of God’s unmerited grace; comp. Rom. ix. 16 ??a ??? ?? t?? ?????t?? ??d? t?? t?????t?? ???? t?? ??e??t?? ?e??. The same words d?? ?e??at?? ?e?? are used in other connexions in Rom. xv. 32, 2 Cor. viii. 5, where no polemical reference is possible. ????e??] The name of this disciple is attached to the Apostle’s own in the heading of the Philippian letter, which was probably written at an earlier stage in his Roman captivity. It appears also in the same connexion in the Epistle to Philemon, but not in the Epistle to the Ephesians, though these two letters were contemporaneous with one another and with the Colossian letter. For an explanation of the omission, see the introduction to that epistle. In the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon the presence of Timothy is forgotten at once (see Phil. i. 1). In this epistle the plural is maintained throughout the thanksgiving (vv. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), but afterwards dropped, when the Apostle begins to speak in his own person (i. 23, 24), and so he continues to the end. The exceptions (i. 28, iv. 3) are rather apparent than real. ? ?de?f??] Timothy is again designated simply ‘the brother’ in 2 Cor. i. 1, Philem. 1, but not in Heb. xiii. 23, where the right reading is t?? ?de?f?? ???. The same designation is used of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12); comp. 2 Cor. viii. 18, ix. 3, 5, xii. 18. As some designation seemed to be required, and as Timothy could not be called an Apostle (see Galatians, p. 96, note 2), this, as the simplest title, would naturally suggest itself. 2. ????ssa??] For the reasons why this form is preferred here, while ???assae?? is adopted in the heading of the epistle, see above, p. 16 sq. ? ?????? ?a? p?st??? ?de?f??? ?? ???st?? ????? ??? ?a? e????? ?p? Te?? pat??? ???. ??????] ‘saints,’ i.e. the people consecrated to God, the Israel of the new covenant; see the note on Phil. i. 1. This mode of address marks the later epistles of St Paul. In his earlier letters (1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal.) he writes t? ?????s??, ta?? ?????s?a??. The change begins with the Epistle to the Romans, and from that time forward the Apostle always uses ?????? in various combinations in addressing Churches (Rom., Phil., Col., Ephes.). For a similar phenomenon, serving as a chronological mark, see the note on ? ?????, iv. 18. The word ?????? must here be treated as a substantive in accordance with its usage in parallel passages, and not as an adjective connected with ?de?f???. See the next note. ?a? p?st??? ?de?f???] This unusual addition is full of meaning. Some members of the Colossian Church were shaken in their allegiance, even if they had not fallen from it. The Apostle therefore wishes it to be understood that, when he speaks of the saints, he means the true and stedfast members of the brotherhood. In this way he obliquely hints at the defection. Thus the words ?a? p?st??? ?de?f??? are a supplementary explanation of t??? ??????. He does not directly exclude any, but he indirectly warns all. The epithet p?st?? cannot mean simply ‘believing’; for then it would add nothing which is not already contained in ?????? and ?de?f???. Its passive sense, ‘trustworthy, stedfast, unswerving,’ must be prominent here, as in Acts xvi. 15 e? ?e????at? e p?st?? t? ????? e??a?. See Galatians p. 155. ?? ???st?] most naturally connected with both words p?st??? ?de?f???, though referring chiefly to p?st???; comp. Ephes. vi. 21 p?st?? d?a????? ?? ?????, 1 Tim. i. 2 ???s?? t???? ?? p?ste?. For the expression p?st?? ?? ???st?, ?? ?????, see also 1 Cor. iv. 17, Ephes. i. 1. The Apostle assumes that the Colossian brethren are ‘stedfast in Christ.’ Their state thus contrasts with the description of the heretical teacher, who (ii. 19) ?? ??ate? t?? ?efa???. ????? ?.t.?.] On this form of salutation see the note to 1 Thess. i. 1. pat??? ???] The only instance in St Paul’s epistles, where the name of the Father stands alone in the opening benediction without the addition of Jesus Christ. The omission was noticed by Origen (Rom. 1. § 8, IV. p. 467), and by Chrysostom (ad loc. XI. p. 324, Hom. in 2 Cor. XXX, x. p. 651). But transcribers naturally aimed at uniformity, and so in many copies we find the addition ?a? ?????? ??s?? ???st??. The only other exception to the Apostle’s usual form is in 1 Thessalonians, where the benediction is shorter still, ????? ??? ?a? e?????, and where likewise the copyists have supplied words to lengthen it out in accordance with St Paul’s common practice. 3–8. ‘We never cease to pour forth our thanksgiving to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ on your account, whensoever we pray to Him. We are full of thankfulness for the tidings of the faith which ye have in Christ Jesus, and the love which ye show towards all the people of God, while ye look forward to the hope which is stored up for you in heaven as a treasure for the life to come. This hope was communicated to you in those earlier lessons, when the Gospel was preached to you in its purity and integrity—the one universal unchangeable Gospel, which was made known to you, even as it was carried throughout the world, approving itself by its fruits wheresoever it is planted. For, as elsewhere, so also in you, these fruits were manifested from the first day when ye received your lessons in, and apprehended the power of, the genuine Gospel, which is not a law of ordinances but a dispensation of grace, not a device of men but a truth of God. Such was the word preached to you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow-servant in our Master’s household, who in our absence and on our behalf has ministered to you the Gospel of Christ, and who now brings back to us the welcome tidings of the love which ye show in the Spirit.’ 3. e??a??st??e?] See the notes on 1 Thess. i. 2. pat??] If the ?a? be omitted, as the balance of authorities appears to suggest, the form of words here is quite exceptional. Elsewhere it runs ? ?e?? ?a? pat?? t?? ??????, Rom. XV. 6, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Ephes. i. 3 (v.l.), 1 Pet. i. 3; comp. Rev. i. 6: and in analogous cases, such as ? ?e?? ?a? pat?? ???, the rule is the same. See the note on Clem. Rom. § 7. In iii. 17 however we have t? ?e? pat??, where the evidence is more decisive and the expression quite as unusual. On the authorities for the various readings here see the detached note. ? ??? ??s?? ???st?? p??t?te pe?? ??? p??se???e???? p??t?te ?.t.?.] We here meet the same difficulty about the connexion of the clauses, which confronts us in several of St Paul’s opening thanksgivings. The words p??t?te and pe?? ??? must clearly be taken together, because the emphasis of pe?? ??? would be inexplicable, if it stood at the beginning of a clause. But are they to be attached to the preceding or to the following sentence? The connexion with the previous words is favoured by St Paul’s usual conjunction of e??a??ste?? p??t?te (see the note on Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage ?? pa??a? e??a??st?? ?p?? ??? in Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will mean ‘We give thanks for you always in our prayers.’ For this absolute use of p??se???e??? see Matt. vi. 7, Acts xvi. 25. 4. ????sa?te?] ‘having heard’ from Epaphras (ver. 8); for the Apostle had no direct personal knowledge of the Colossian Church: see the introduction, p. 27 sq. ?? ???st? ??s??] to be connected with t?? p?st?? ???. The strict classical language would require t?? ?? ?. ?., but the omission of the article is common to the New Testament (e.g. ver. 8); see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1, and Winer § xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton). The preposition ?? here and in the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the sphere in which their faith moves, rather than the object to which it is directed (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5); for, if the object had been meant, the natural preposition would have been ?p? or e?? (e.g. ii. 5). This is probably the case also in the passages where at first sight it might seem otherwise, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15; for compare 2 Tim. i. 13 ?? p?ste? ?a? ???p? t? ?? ???st? ??s??, where the meaning is unambiguous. There is however authority in the LXX for the use of ?? with p?st??, p?ste?e??, to denote the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps. lxxviii. 22, and perhaps in Mark i. 15, Rom. iii. 25, and (more doubtfully still) in Joh. iii. 15. ?? ??ete] See the detached note on the various readings. 5. d?? t?? ??p?da] ‘for the hope,’ i.e. looking to the hope. The following reasons seem decisive in favour of connecting d?? t?? ??p?da, not with e??a??st??e?, but with t?? p?st?? ?.t.?., whether ?? ??ete be retained or not. (1) The great distance of e??a??st??e? is against the former connexion; (2) The following clause, ?? p??????sate ?.t.?., suggests that the words d?? t?? ??p?da describe the motives of the Colossians for well-doing, rather than the reasons of the Apostle for thanksgiving: (3) The triad of Christian graces, which St Paul delights to associate together, would otherwise be broken up. This last argument seems conclusive; see especially the corresponding thanksgiving in 1 Thess. i. 3, ????e???te? ??? t?? ????? t?? p?ste?? ?a? t?? ??p?? t?? ???p?? ?a? t?? ?p????? t?? ??p?d?? ?.t.?., with the note there. The order is the same here, as there; and it is the natural sequence. Faith rests on the past; love works in the present; hope looks to the future. They may be regarded as the efficient, material, and final causes respectively of the spiritual life. Compare Polycarp Phil. 3 p?st?? ?t?? ?st? ?t?? p??t?? ???, ?pa????????s?? t?? ??p?d??, p??a???s?? t?? ???p??. The hope here is identified with the object of the hope: see the passages quoted on Gal. v. 5. The sense of ??p??, as of the corresponding words in any language, oscillates between the subjective feeling and the objective realisation; comp. Rom. viii. 24 t? ??? ??p?d? ?s???e?? ??p?? d? ?ep???? ??? ?st?? ??p??? ? ??? ??pe? t?? ?.t.?., where it passes abruptly from the one to the other. ? ??p?da t?? ?p??e????? ??? ?? t??? ???a????, ?? p??????sate ?? t? ???? t?? ????e?a? t?? e?a??e????, t?? ?p??e?????] ‘which is stored up.’ It is the ??sa???? ?? ???a?? of the Gospels (Matt. vi. 20, 21, Luke xii. 34, xviii. 22). p??????sate] ‘of which ye were told in time past.’ The preposition seems intended to contrast their earlier with their later lessons—the true Gospel of Epaphras with the false gospel of their recent teachers (see the next note). The expression would gain force, if we might suppose that the heretical teachers obscured or perverted the doctrine of the resurrection (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 18); and their speculative tenets were not unlikely to lead to such a result. But this is not necessary; for under any circumstances the false doctrine, as leading them astray, tended to cheat them of their hope; see ver. 23. The common interpretations, which explain p??- as meaning either ‘before its fulfilment’ or ‘before my writing to you,’ seem neither so natural in themselves nor so appropriate to the context. t?? ????e?a? t?? e?a??e????] ‘the truth of the Gospel,’ i.e. the true and genuine Gospel as taught by Epaphras, and not the spurious substitute of these later pretenders: comp. ver. 6 ?? ????e??. See also Gal. ii. 5, 14, where a similar contrast is implied in the use of ? ????e?a t?? e?a??e????. 6. t?? pa???t?? e?? ??? ‘which reached you.’ The expression pa?e??a? e?? is not uncommon in classical writers; comp. pa?e??a? p??? in Acts xii. 20, Gal. iv. 18, 20. So also e??e???a? e?? (Acts viii. 40), ?e??s?a? e?? (e.g. Acts xxv. 15), and even e??a? e?? (Luke xi. 7). See Winer § l. p. 516 sq. ?? pa?t? t? ??s?] For a similar hyperbole see Rom. i. 8 ?? ??? t? ??s?; comp. 1 Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14, ?? pa?t? t?p?. More lurks under these words than appears on the surface. The true Gospel, the Apostle seems to say, proclaims its truth by its universality. The false gospels are the outgrowths of local circumstances, of special idiosyncrasies; the true Gospel is the same everywhere. The false gospels address themselves to limited circles; the true Gospel proclaims itself boldly throughout the world. Heresies are at best ethnic: truth is essentially catholic. See ver. 23 ? eta?????e??? ?p? t?? ??p?d?? t?? e?a??e???? ?? ????sate, t?? ????????t?? ?? p?s? ?t?se? t? ?p? t?? ???a???. ? ?a?p?f????e??? ?a? a??a??e???, ?a??? ?a? ?? ???, ?f’ ?? ???a? ????sate ?a? ?p????te t?? ????? t?? ? ?st?? ?a?p?f????e???] ‘is constantly bearing fruit.’ The fruit, which the Gospel bears without fail in all soils and under every climate, is its credential, its verification, as against the pretensions of spurious counterfeits. The substantive verb should here be taken with the participle, so as to express continuity of present action; as in 2 Cor. ix. 12 ?? ???? ?st?? p??sa?ap?????sa ?.t.?., Phil. ii. 26 ?p?p???? ??. It is less common in St Paul than in some of the Canonical writers, e.g. St Mark and St Luke; but probably only because he deals less in narrative. Of the middle ?a?p?f??e?s?a? no other instance has been found. The voice is partially illustrated by ??d???f??e?s?a?, s?d???f??e?s?a?, t?pa??f??e?s?a?, though, as involving a different sense of -f??e?s?a? ‘to wear,’ these words are not exact parallels. Here the use of the middle is the more marked, inasmuch as the active occurs just below (ver. 10) in the same connexion, ?a?p?f?????te? ?a? a??a??e???. This fact however points to the force of the word here. The middle is intensive, the active extensive. The middle denotes the inherent energy, the active the external diffusion. The Gospel is essentially a reproductive organism, a plant whose ‘seed is in itself.’ For this ‘dynamic’ middle see Moulton’s note on Winer § xxxviii. p. 319. ?a? a??a??e???] The Gospel is not like those plants which exhaust themselves in bearing fruit and wither away. The external growth keeps pace with the reproductive energy. While ?a?p?f????e??? describes the inner working, a??a??e??? gives the outward extension of the Gospel. The words ?a? a??a??e??? are not found in the received text, but the authority in their favour is overwhelming. ?a??? ?a? ?? ??? The comparison is thus doubled back, as it were, on itself. This irregularity disappears in the received text, ?a? ?st?? ?a?p?f????e??? ?a??? ?a? ?? ???, where the insertion of ?a? before ?a?p?f????e??? straightens the construction. For a similar irregularity see 1 Thess. iv. 1 pa?a?a???e? ?? ????? ??s?? ??a, ?a??? pa?e??ete pa?’ ??? t? p?? de? ??? pe??pate?? ?a? ?p?s?e?? ?e?, ?a??? ?a? pe??pate?te, ??a pe??sse??te ?????, where again the received text simplifies the construction, though in a different way, by omitting the first ??a and the words ?a??? ?a? pe??pate?te. In both cases the explanation of the irregularity is much the same; the clause reciprocating the comparison (here ?a??? ?a? ?? ???, there ?a??? ?a? pe??pate?te) is an afterthought springing out of the Apostle’s anxiety not to withhold praise where praise can be given. For the appearance of ?a? in both members of the comparison, ?a? ?? pa?t? t? ??s? ... ?a??? ?a?, comp. Rom. i. 13 ?a? ?? ??? ?a??? ?a? ?? t??? ???p??? ???es??; and in the reversed order below, iii. 13 ?a??? ?a? ? ?????? ??a??sat? ???, ??t?? ?a? ?e?? (with the note): see also Winer liii. p. 549 (ed. Moulton). The correlation of the clauses is thus rendered closer, and the comparison emphasized. ????sate ?a? ?p????te] The accusative is governed by both verbs equally, ‘Ye were instructed in and fully apprehended the grace of God.’ For this sense of ????e?? see below, ver. 23. For ?p?????s?e?? as denoting ‘advanced knowledge, thorough appreciation,’ see the note on ?p????s??, ver. 9. t?? ????? t?? Te??] St Paul’s synonyme for the Gospel. In Acts xx. 24 he describes it as his mission to preach t? e?a??e????t?? ????t?? t?? ?e??. The true Gospel as taught by Epaphras was an offer of free grace, a message from God; the false gospel, as superposed by the heretical teachers, was a code of rigorous prohibitions, a system of human devising. It was not ????? but d??ata (ii. 14); not t?? ?e?? but t?? ??s??, t?? ?????p?? (ii. 8, 20, 22). For God’s power and goodness it substituted self-mortification and self-exaltation. The Gospel is called ? ????? t?? ?e?? again in 2 Cor. vi. 1, viii. 9, with reference to the same leading characteristic which the Apostle delights to dwell upon (e.g. Rom. iii. 24, v. 15, Eph. ii. 5, 8), and which he here tacitly contrasts with the doctrine of the later intruders. The false teachers of ColossÆ, like those of Galatia, would lead their hearers ??ete?? t?? ????? t?? Te?? (Gal. ii. 21); to accept their doctrine was ??p?pte?? t?? ????t?? (Gal. v. 4). ? Te?? ?? ????e??, ?? ????e?? i.e. ‘in its genuine simplicity, without adulteration’: see the note on t?? ????e?a? t?? e?a??e????, ver. 5. 7. ?a??? ???ete] ‘even as ye were instructed in it,’ the clause being an explanation of the preceding ?? ????e??; comp. ii. 7 ?a??? ?d?d????te. On the insertion of ?a? before ???ete in the received text, and the consequent obscuration of the sense, see above, p. 29 sq. The insertion however was very natural, inasmuch as ?a??? ?a? is an ordinary collocation of particles and has occurred twice in the preceding verse. ?paf??] On the notices of Epaphras, and on his work as the evangelist of the Colossians, see above, p. 29 sq., p. 34 sq., and the note on iv. 12. s??d?????] See iv. 7. The word does not occur elsewhere in St Paul. ?p?? ???] As the evangelist of ColossÆ, Epaphras had represented St Paul there and preached in his stead; see above, p. 30. The other reading ?p?? ??? might be interpreted in two ways: either (1) It might describe the personal ministrations of Epaphras to St Paul as the representative of the Colossians (see a similar case in Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18), and so it might be compared with Philem. 13 ??a ?p?? s?? ?? d?a????; but this interpretation is hardly consistent with t?? ???st??. Or (2) It might refer to the preaching of Epaphras for the good of the Colossians; but the natural construction in this case would hardly be ?p?? ??? (of which there is no direct example), but either ??? (Rom. xv. 8) or ??? (1 Pet. i. 12). The balance of external authority however is against it. Partly by the accidental interchange of similar sounds, partly by the recurrence of ?p?? ??? in the context (vv. 3, 9), and partly also from ignorance of the historical circumstances, ??? would readily be substituted for ???. See the detached note on various readings. 8. ? ?a? d???sa?] ‘As he preached to you from us, so also he brought back to us from you the tidings, etc.’ ?? p?e?at?] to be connected with t?? ??? ???p??. ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love,’ Gal. v. 22. For the omission of the article, t?? ?? p?e?at?, see the note on ver. 4. ? 9–14. ‘Hearing then that ye thus abound in works of faith and love, we on our part have not ceased, from the day when we received the happy tidings, to pray on your behalf. And this is the purport of our petitions; that ye may grow more and more in knowledge, till ye attain to the perfect understanding of God’s will, being endowed with all wisdom to apprehend His verities and all intelligence to follow His processes, living in the mind of the Spirit—to the end that knowledge may manifest itself in practice, that your conduct in life may be worthy of your profession in the Lord, so as in all ways to win for you the gracious favour of God your King. Thus, while ye bear fruit in every good work, ye will also grow as the tree grows, being watered and refreshed by this knowledge, as by the dew of heaven: thus will ye be strengthened in all strength, according to that power which centres in and spreads from His glorious manifestation of Himself, and nerved to all endurance under affliction and all long-suffering under provocation, not only without complaining, but even with joy: thus finally (for this is the crown of all), so rejoicing ye will pour forth your thanksgiving to the Universal Father, who prepared and fitted us all—you and us alike—to take possession of the portion which His goodness has allotted to us among the saints in the kingdom of light. Yea, by a strong arm He rescued us from the lawless tyranny of Darkness, removed us from the land of our bondage, and settled us as free citizens in our new and glorious home, where His Son, the offspring and the representative of His love, is King; even the same, who paid our ransom and thus procured our redemption from captivity—our redemption, which (be assured) is nothing else than the remission of our sins.’ 9. ??? t??t?] ‘for this cause,’ i.e. ‘by reason of your progressive faith and love,’ referring not solely to ? ?a? d???sa? ?.t.?. but to the whole of the preceding description. For d?? t??t? ?a? ?e?? in an exactly similar connexion, see 1 Thess. ii. 13; comp. Ephes. i. 15 d?? t??t? ???? ?.t.?. In all these cases the ?a? denotes the response of the Apostle’s personal feeling to the favourable character of the news; ‘we on our part.’ This idea of correspondence is still further emphasized by the repetition of the same words: ?a? ?? ??? ?f’ ?? ???a? ????sate (ver. 6), ?a? ?e?? ?f’ ?? ???a? ????sae? (ver. 9). ?a? a?t??e???] The words have an exact parallel in Mark xi. 24 (as correctly read) p??ta ?sa p??se??es?e ?a? a?te?s?e. ??a] With words like p??se??es?a?, a?te?s?a?, etc., the earlier and stronger force of ??a, implying design, glides imperceptibly into its later and weaker use, signifying merely purport or result, so that the two are hardly separable, unless one or other is directly indicated by something in the context. See the notes on Phil. i. 9, and comp. Winer § xliv. p. 420 sq. t?? ?p????s??] A favourite word in the later epistles of St Paul; see the note on Phil. i. 9. In all the four epistles of the first Roman captivity it is an element in the Apostle’s opening prayer for his correspondents’ well-being (Phil. i. 9, Ephes. i. 17, Philem. 6, and here). The greater stress which is thus laid on the contemplative aspects of the Gospel may be explained partly by St Paul’s personal circumstances, partly by the requirements of the Church. His enforced retirement and comparative leisure would lead his own thoughts in this direction, while at the same time the fresh dangers threatening the truth from the side of mystic speculation required to be confronted by an exposition of the Gospel from a corresponding point of view. The compound ?p????s?? is an advance upon ???s??, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge. So Chrysostom here, ????te, ???? de? t? ?a? ?p?????a?. Comp. Justin Mart. Dial. 3. p. 221 A, ? pa?????sa a?t?? t?? ?????p???? ?a? t?? ?e??? ???s??, ?pe?ta t?? t??t?? ?e??t?t?? ?a? d??a??s???? ?p????s??. So too St Paul himself contrasts ????s?e??, ???s??, with ?p?????s?e??, ?p????s??, as the partial with the complete, in two passages, Rom. i. 21, 38, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. With this last passage (??t? ????s?? ?? ?????, t?te d? ?p????s?a?) compare Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 369, pa?? t?? ??a???? p??f?t?? ??? t?? ????e?a? ?? ?at’ ?p????s?? ?a??te?, where ?at’ ?p????s?? is commonly but wrongly translated ‘without proper recognition’ (comp. Tatian ad GrÆc. 40). Hence also ?p????s?? is used especially of the knowledge of God and of Christ, as being the perfection of knowledge: e.g. Prov. ii. 5, Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6, Ephes. i. 17, iv. 13, 2 Pet. i. 2, 8, ii. 20, Clem. Alex. PÆd. ii. 1, p. 173. ? p?s? s?f?? ?a? s???se? p?e?at???, s?f?? ?a? s???se?] ‘wisdom and intelligence.’ The two words are frequently found together: e.g. Exod. xxxi. 3, Deut. iv. 6, 1 Chron. xxii. 12, 2 Chron. i. 10 sq., Is. xi. 2, xxix. 14, Dan. ii. 20, Baruch iii. 23, 1 Cor. i. 19, Clem. Rom. 32. So too s?f?? ?a? s??et??, Prov. xvi. 21, Matt. xi. 25, and elsewhere. In the parallel passage, Eph. i. 8, the words are ?? p?s? s?f?? ?a? f????se?, and the substitution of f????s?? for s??es?? there is instructive. The three words are mentioned together, Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 13, as constituting the intellectual (d?a???t??a?) virtues. S?f?a is mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense; Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 7 ? ????est?t? t?? ?p?st??? ... ?spe? ?efa??? ????sa ?p?st?? t?? t???t?t?? (see Waitz on Arist. Organ. II. p. 295 sq.), Cicero de Off. i. 43 ‘princeps omnium virtutum,’ Clem. Alex. PÆd. ii. 2, p. 181, te?e?a ... ?pe???a??sa t? ??a. The Stoic definition of s?f?a, as ?p?st?? ?e??? ?a? ?????p???? ?a? t?? t??t?? a?t???, is repeated by various writers: e.g. Cic. de Off. ii. 5, Philo. Congr. erud. grat. 14, p. 530, [Joseph.] Macc. 2, Clem. Alex. PÆd. ii. 2, p. 181, Strom. i. 5, p. 333, Aristob. in Eus. PrÆp. Ev. xiii. 12 p. 667). And the glorification of s?f?a by heathen writers was even surpassed by its apotheosis in the Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon. While s?f?a ‘wisdom’ is thus primary and absolute (Eth. Nic. vi. 7 ? ???? t? ?? t?? ????? e?d??a? ???? ?a? pe?? t?? ????? ????e?e??), both s??es?? ‘intelligence’ and f????s?? ‘prudence’ are derivative and special (Eth. Nic. vi. 12 t?? ?s??t?? ?a? t?? ?a?’ ??ast??). They are both applications of s?f?a to details, but they work on different lines; for, while s??es?? is critical, f????s?? is practical; while s??es?? apprehends the bearings of things, f????s?? suggests lines of action: see Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 11 ? ?? ??? f????s?? ?p?ta?t??? ?st?? ... ? d? s??es?? ???t???. For s??es?? see 2 Tim. ii. 7 ??e? ? ????, d?se? ??? s?? ? ?????? s??es?? ?? p?s??. This relation of s?f?a to s??es?? explains why in almost every case s?f?a (s?f??) precedes s??es?? (s??et??), where they are found together, and also why in Baruch iii. 23 ?? ????t?ta? t?? s???se??, ?d?? d? s?f?a? ??? ????sa?, we find s??es?? implying a tentative, partial, approach to s?f?a. The relation of s?f?a to f????s?? will be considered more at length in the note on the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 8. p?e?at???] The word is emphatic from its position. The false teachers also offered a s?f?a, but it had only a show of wisdom (ii. 23); it was an empty counterfeit calling itself philosophy (ii. 8); it was the offspring of vanity nurtured by the mind of the flesh (ii. 18). See 2 Cor. i. 12 ??? ?? s?f?? sa?????, where a similar contrast is implied, and 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 5, 6, 13, iii. 19, where it is directly expressed by s?f?a t?? ??s??, s?f?a ?????p??, s?f?a t?? a????? t??t??, ?????p??? s?f?a, etc. 10. pe??pat?sa? ????? ?.t.?.] So 1 Thess. ii. 12, Ephes. iv. i; comp. Phil. i. 27. The infinitive here denotes the consequence (not necessarily the purpose) of the spiritual enlightenment described in ??a p??????te ?.t.?.; see Winer § xliv. p. 399 sq. With the received text t?? pe??pat?sa? ??? ????? ?.t.?. the connexion might be doubtful; but this reading is condemned by external evidence. The emphasis of the sentence would be marred by the insertion of ???. The end of all knowledge, the Apostle would say, is conduct. t?? ??????] i.e. ‘of Christ.’ In 1 Thess. ii. 12 indeed we have pe??pate?? ????? t?? Te??; but St Paul’s common, and apparently universal, usage requires us to understand ? ?????? of Christ. ???s?e?a?] i.e. ‘to please God in all ways’; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 1 p?? de? ??? pe??pate?? ?a? a??s?e?? Te?. As this word was commonly used to describe the proper attitude of men towards God, the addition of t?? Te?? would not be necessary: Philo Quis rer. div. her. 24 (I. p. 490) ?? ?p?de?????? (t?? Te?? t?? ????? ????s??? ??es?e?a?, de Abrah. 25 (II. p. 20) t?? p??? ???s?e?a? ????, de Vict. Off. 8 (II. p. 257) d?? pas?? ???a? t?? e?? ???s?e?a? ?d??, with other passages quoted by Loesner. Otherwise it is used especially of ingratiating oneself with a sovereign or potentate, e.g. Polyb. vi. 2. 12; and perhaps in the higher connexion, in which it occurs in the text, the idea of a king is still prominent, as e.g. Philo de Mund. Op. 50 (I. p. 34) p??ta ?a? ???e?? ?a? p??tte?? ?sp??da?e? e?? ???s?e?a? t?? pat??? ?a? as?????. Towards men this complaisance is always dangerous and most commonly vicious; hence ???s?e?a is a bad quality in Aristotle [?] (Eth. Eud. ii. 3 t? ??a? p??? ?d????) as also in Theophrastus (Char. 5 ??? ?p? t? e?t?st? ?d???? pa?as?e?ast???), but towards the King of kings no obsequiousness can be excessive. The ???s?e?a of Aristotle and Theophrastus presents the same moral contrast to the ???s?e?a here, as ?????p??? ???s?e?? to Te? ???s?e?? in such passages as 1 Thess. ii. 4, Gal. i. 10. Opposed to the ???s?e?a commended here is ?????pa??s?e?a condemned below, iii. 22. ?? pa?t? ?.t.?.] i.e. ‘not only showing the fruits of your faith before men (Matt. vii. 16), but yourselves growing meanwhile in moral stature (Eph. iv. 13).’ ? ??a?? ?a?p?f?????te? ?a? a??a??e??? t? ?p????se? t?? Te??? t? ?p????se?] ‘by the knowledge.’ The other readings, ?? t? ?p????se?, e?? t?? ?p????s??, are unsuccessful attempts to define the construction. The simple instrumental dative represents the knowledge of God as the dew or the rain which nurtures the growth of the plant; Deut. xxxii. 2, Hos. xiv. 5. 11. d??a??e???] A word found more than once in the Greek versions of the Old Testament, Ps. lxvii (lxviii). 29 (LXX), Eccles. x. 10 (LXX), Dan. ix. 27 (Theod.), Ps. lxiv (lxv). 4 (Aq.), Job xxxvi. 9 (Aq.), but not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, except in Heb. xi. 34 and as a various reading in Ephes. vi. 10. The compound ??d??a??? however appears several times in St Paul and elsewhere. ?at? t? ???t??] The power communicated to the faithful corresponds to, and is a function of, the Divine might whence it comes. Unlike d??a?? or ?s???, the word ???t?? in the New Testament is applied solely to God. ? ???t?? t?? d???? a?t?? e?? p?sa? ?p????? ?a? a??????a? et? ?a???? 12 t? ??a??sa?t? ???. t?? d???? a?t??] The ‘glory’ here, as frequently, stands for the majesty or the power or the goodness of God, as manifested to men; e.g. Eph. i. 6, 12, 17, iii. 16; comp. ver. 27, below. The d??a, the bright light over the mercy-seat (Rom. ix. 4), was a symbol of such manifestations. God’s revelation of Himself to us, however this revelation may be made, is the one source of all our highest strength (?at? t? ???t?? ?.t.?.). ?p????? ?a? a??????a?] ‘endurance and long-suffering.’ The two words occur in the same context in 2 Cor. vi. 4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10, James v. 10, 11, Clem. Rom. 58, Ign. Ephes. 3. They are distinguished in Trench Synon. § liii. p. 184 sq. The difference of meaning is best seen in their opposites. While ?p???? is the temper which does not easily succumb under suffering, a??????a is the self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong. The one is opposed to cowardice or despondency, the other to wrath or revenge (Prov. xv. 18, xvi. 32; see also the note on iii. 12). While ?p???? is closely allied to hope (1 Thess. i. 3), a??????a is commonly connected with mercy (e.g. Exod. xxxiv. 6). This distinction however, though it applies generally, is not true without exception. Thus in Is. lvii. 15 a??????a is opposed to ?????????a, where we should rather have expected ?p????; and a?????e?? is used similarly in James v. 7. et? ?a???] So James i. 2, 3, p?sa? ?a??? ???sas?e ... ?ta? pe??as??? pe??p?s?te p????????, ????s???te? ?t? t? d?????? ??? t?? p?ste?? ?ate????eta? ?p????? ?.t.?.: comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see below i. 24. This parallel points to the proper connexion of et? ?a???, which should be attached to the preceding words. On the other hand some would connect it with e??a??st???te? for the sake of preserving the balance of the three clauses, ?? pa?t? ???? ??a?? ?a?p?f?????te?, ?? p?s? d???e? d??a??e???, et? ?a??? e??a??st???te?; and this seems to be favoured by Phil. i. 4 et? ?a??? t?? d??s?? p????e???: but when it is so connected, the emphatic position of et? ?a??? cannot be explained; nor indeed would these words be needed at all, for e??a??st?a is in itself an act of rejoicing. 12. e??a??st???te?] most naturally coordinated with the preceding participles and referred to the Colossians. The duty of thanksgiving is more than once enforced upon them below, ii. 7, iii. 17, iv. 2; comp. 1 Thess. v. 18. On the other hand the first person ???, which follows, has led others to connect e??a??st???te? with the primary verb of the sentence, ?? pa??e?a ver. 9. But the sudden transition from the second to the first person is quite after St Paul’s manner (see the note on ii. 13, 14, s??e???p???se? ??? ... ?a??s?e??? ???), and cannot create any difficulty. t? ??a??sa?t?] ‘who made us competent’; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. On the various readings see the detached note. ? ??? e?? t?? e??da t?? ?????? t?? ????? ?? t? f?t?? t?? e??da t?? ??????] ‘the parcel of the lot,’ ‘the portion which consists in the lot,’ t?? ?????? being the genitive of apposition: see Winer § lix. p. 666 sq., and comp. Ps. xv (xvi). 5 ?????? e??? t?? ????????a? ??. In Acts viii. 21 e??? and ?????? are coordinated; in Gen. xxxi. 14, Num. xviii. 20, Is. lvii. 6, e??? and ????????a. The inheritance of Canaan, the allotment of the promised land, here presents an analogy to, and supplies a metaphor for, the higher hopes of the new dispensation, as in Heb. iii. 7-iv. 11. See also below, iii. 24 t?? ??tap?d?s?? t?? ????????a?, and Ephes. i. 18. St Chrysostom writes, d?? t? ?????? ?a?e?? de????? ?t? ??d??? ?p? ?at?????t?? ???e??? as??e?a? t?????e?, referring to Luke xvii. 10. It is not won by us, but allotted to us. ?? t? f?t?] best taken with the expression t?? e??da ?.t.?. For the omission of the definite article, [t??] ?? t? f?t?, see above, vv. 2, 4, 8. The portion of the saints is situated in the kingdom of light. For the whole context compare St Paul’s narrative in Acts xxvi. 18 t?? ?p?st???a? ?p? s??t??? e?? f?? ?a? t?? ????s?a? t?? Sata?? ?p? t?? Te??, t?? ?ae?? a?t??? ?fes?? ?a?t??? ?a? ?????? ?? t??? ???as?????, where all the ideas and many of the expressions recur. See also Acts xx. 32, in another of St Paul’s later speeches. As a classical parallel, Plato Resp. vii. p. 518 A, ?? te f?t?? e?? s??t?? e??sta???? ?a? ?? s??t??? e?? f??, is quoted. 13. ‘We were slaves in the land of darkness. God rescued us from this thraldom. He transplanted us thence, and settled us as free colonists and citizens in the kingdom of His Son, in the realms of light.’ ???sat?] ‘rescued, delivered us’ by His strong arm, as a mighty conqueror: comp. ii. 15 ???ae?sa?. On the form ???sat? see A. Buttmann, p. 29: comp. Clem. Rom. 55, and see the note on ??e????se?, ib. 6. ????s?a?] here ‘arbitrary power, tyranny.’ The word ????s?a properly signifies ‘liberty of action’ (??est?), and thence, like the corresponding English word ‘license,’ invokes two secondary ideas, of which either may be so prominent as to eclipse the other; (1) ‘authority,’ ‘delegated power’ (e.g. Luke xx. 2); or (2) ‘tyranny,’ ‘lawlessness,’ ‘unrestrained or arbitrary power.’ For this second sense comp. e.g. Demosth. F.L. p. 428 t?? ??a? ta?t?? ????s?a?, Xenoph. Hiero 5 t?? e?? t? pa??? ????s?a? ??e?a (speaking of tyrants), Plut. Vit. Eum. 13 ???????? ta?? ????s?a?? ?a? a?a??? ta?? d?a?ta??, Vit. Alex. 33 t?? ????s?a? ?a? t?? ????? t?? ??e???d??? d???e??, Herodian ii. 4 ?a?a??es?? t?? ???t?? ????s?a?. This latter idea of a capricious unruly rule is prominent here. The expression ? ????s?a t?? s??t??? occurs also in Luke xxii. 53, where again the idea of disorder is involved. The transference from darkness to light is here represented as a transference from an arbitrary tyranny, an ????s?a, to a well-ordered sovereignty, a as??e?a. This seems also to be St Chrysostom’s idea; for he explains t?? ????s?a? by t?? t??a???d??, adding ?a?ep?? ?a? t? ?p??? e??a? ?p? t? d?a???? t? d? ?a? et’ ????s?a?, t??t? ?a?ep?te???. et?st?se?] ‘removed,’ when they were baptized, when they accepted Christ. The image of et?st?se? is supplied by the wholesale transportation of peoples (??ast?t??? or ??asp?st??? p??e??), of which the history of oriental monarchies supplied so many examples. See Joseph. Ant. ix. 11. 1 t??? ????t??a? a??a??t?sa? et?st?se? e?? t?? a?t?? as??e?a?, speaking of Tiglath-Pileser and the Transjordanic tribes. ? s??t???, ?a? et?st?se? e?? t?? as??e?a? t?? ???? t?? ? t?? ????] Not of inferior angels, as the false teachers would have it (ii. 18), but of His own Son. The same contrast between a dispensation of angels and a dispensation of the Son underlies the words here, which is explicitly brought out in Heb. i. 1-ii. 8; see especially i. 2 ?????se? ??? ?? ???, compared with ii. 5 ?? ??? ???????? ?p?ta?e? t?? ????????? t?? ?????sa?. Severianus has rightly caught the idea underlying t?? ???? here; ?p? t?? ????????? ?s??, ??? ?p? t??? ????ta?. t?? ???p?? a?t??] ‘of His love.’ As love is the essence of the Father (1 Joh. iv. 8, 16), so is it also of the Son. The mission of the Son is the revelation of the Father’s love; for as He is the ????e???, the Father’s love is perfectly represented in Him (see 1 Joh. iv. 9). St Augustine has rightly interpreted St Paul’s words here, de Trin. XV. 19 (VIII. p. 993) ‘Caritas quippe Patris ... nihil est quam ejus ipsa natura atque substantia ... ac per hoc filius caritatis ejus nullus est alius quam qui de ejus substantia est genitus.’ Thus these words are intimately connected with the expressions which follow, e???? t?? Te?? t?? ????t?? (ver. 15), and ?? a?t? e?d???se? p?? t? p????a ?at????sa? (ver. 19). The loose interpretation, which makes t?? ???? t?? ???p?? equivalent to t?? ???? t?? ??ap?????, destroys the whole force of the expression. In the preceding verses we have a striking illustration of St Paul’s teaching in two important respects. First. The reign of Christ has already begun. His kingdom is a present kingdom. Whatever therefore is essential in the kingdom of Christ must be capable of realisation now. There may be some exceptional manifestation in the world to come, but this cannot alter its inherent character. In other words the sovereignty of Christ is essentially a moral and spiritual sovereignty, which has begun now and will only be perfected hereafter. Secondly. Corresponding to this, and equally significant, is his language in speaking of individual Christians. He regards them as already rescued from the power of darkness, as already put in possession of their inheritance as saints. They are potentially saved, because the knowledge of God is itself salvation, and this knowledge is within their reach. Such is St Paul’s constant mode of speaking. He uses the language not of exclusion, but of comprehension. He prefers to dwell on their potential advantages, rather than on their actual attainments. He hopes to make them saints by dwelling on their calling as saints. See especially Ephes. ii. 6 s????e??e? ?a? s??e????se? ?? t??? ?p???a????? ?? ???st? ??s?? ?.t.?. ? ???p?? a?t??, 14 ?? ? ?s??e?. 14. ???e?] For the reading ?s??e?, which is possibly correct here, and which carries out the idea enforced in the last note, see the detached note on the various readings. In the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7, there is the same variation of reading. t?? ?p???t??s??] ‘ransom, redemption.’ The image of a captive and enslaved people is still continued: Philo Omn. prob. lib. 17 (II. p. 463) a?????t?? ?p???? ... ?p?????? ?p???t??s??, Plut. Vit. Pomp. 24 p??e?? a??a??t?? ?p???t??se??. The metaphor however has changed from the victor who rescues the captive by force of arms (ver. 13 ???sat?) to the philanthropist who releases him by the payment of a ransom. The clause which follows in the received text, d?? t?? ??at?? a?t??, is interpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7. t?? ?fes?? t?? ?a?t???] So in the parallel passage Ephes. i. 7 the Apostle defines t?? ?p???t??s?? as t?? ?fes?? t?? pa?apt??t??. May not this studied precision point to some false conception of ?p???t??s?? put forward by the heretical teachers? Later Gnostics certainly perverted the meaning of the term, applying it to their own formularies of initiation. This is related of the Marcosians by IrenÆus i. 13. 6 d?? t?? ?p???t??s?? ???at?t??? ?a? ????t??? ???es?a? t? ???t? ?.t.?., i. 21. 1 ?s?? ??? e?s? ta?t?? t?? ????? ?sta?????, t?sa?ta? ?a? ?p???t??se??, ib. § 4 e??a? d? te?e?a? ?p???t??s?? a?t?? t?? ?p????s?? t?? ????t?? e?????? (with the whole context), and Hippolytus HÆr. vi. 41 ?????s? t? f??? ????t?, ?p?t????te? ?e??a t? t?? ?p???t??s?? ?a??t? ?.t.?. (comp. ix. 13). In support of their nomenclature they perverted such passages as the text, Iren. i. 21. 2 t?? ?a???? ??t?? f?s???s? t?? ?? ???st? ??s?? ?p???t??s?? p??????? e??????a?. It seems not improbable that the communication of similar mystical secrets, perhaps connected with their angelology (ii. 18), was put forward by these Colossian false teachers as an ?p???t??s??. Compare the words in the baptismal formula of the Marcosians as given in Iren. i. 21. 3 (comp. Theodt. HÆr. Fab. i. 9) e?? ???s?? ?a? ?p???t??s?? ?a? ???????a? t?? d???e??, where the last words (which have been differently interpreted) must surely mean ‘communion with the (spiritual) powers.’ Thus it is a parallel to e?? ??t??s?? ???e?????, which appears in an alternative formula of these heretics given likewise by IrenÆus in the context; for this latter is explained in Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 974, e?? ??t??s?? ???e?????, t??t?st??, ?? ?a? ???e??? ????s??. Any direct historical connexion between the Colossian heretics and these later Gnostics of the Valentinian school is very improbable; but the passages quoted will serve to show how a false idea of ?p???t??s?? would naturally be associated with an esoteric doctrine of angelic powers. See the note on i. 28 ??a pa?ast?s?e? p??ta ?????p?? t??e???. ? 15 sq. In the passage which follows St Paul defines the Person of Christ, claiming for Him the absolute supremacy, (1) In relation to the Universe, the Natural Creation (vv. 15–17); (2) In relation to the Church, the new Moral Creation (ver. 18); and he then combines the two, ??a ????ta? ?? p?s?? a?t?? p??te???, explaining this twofold sovereignty by the absolute indwelling of the pleroma in Christ, and showing how, as a consequence, the reconciliation and harmony of all things must be effected in Him (vv. 19, 20). As the idea of the Logos underlies the whole of this passage, though the term itself does not appear, a few words explanatory of this term will be necessary by way of preface. The word ????? then, denoting both ‘reason’ and ‘speech,’ was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God, the Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Whether this ????? was conceived merely as the divine energy personified, or whether the conception took a more concrete form, I need not stop now to enquire. A fuller account of the matter will be found in the dissertation at the end of this volume. It is sufficient for the understanding of what follows to say that Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) ‘The Word is a Divine Person,’ ? ????? ?? p??? t?? Te?? ?a? Te?? ?? ? ?????; and (2) ‘The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ,’ ? ????? s??? ????et?. It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the ?????; and that therefore their use in Alexandrian writers, such as Philo, cannot be taken to define, though it may be brought to illustrate, their meaning in St Paul and St John. With these cautions the Alexandrian phraseology, as a providential preparation for the teaching of the Gospel, will afford important aid in the understanding of the Apostolic writings. 15–17. ‘He is the perfect image, the visible representation, of the unseen God. He is the Firstborn, the absolute Heir of the Father, begotten before the ages; the Lord of the Universe by virtue of primogeniture, and by virtue also of creative agency. For in and through Him the whole world was created, things in heaven and things on earth, things visible to the outward eye and things cognisable by the inward perception. His supremacy is absolute and universal. All powers in heaven and earth are subject to Him. This subjection extends even to the most exalted and most potent of angelic beings, whether they be called Thrones or Dominations or Princedoms or Powers, or whatever title of dignity men may confer upon them. Yes: He is first and He is last. Through Him, as the mediatorial Word, the universe has been created; and unto Him, as the final goal, it is tending. In Him is no before or after. He is pre-existent and self-existent before all the worlds. And in Him, as the binding and sustaining power, universal nature coheres and consists.’ 15. ?? ?st?? ?.t.?.] The Person of Christ is described first in relation more especially to Deity, as e???? t?? Te?? t?? ????t??, and secondly in relation more especially to created things, as p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se??. The fundamental conception of the Logos involves the idea of mediation between God and creation. A perverted view respecting the nature of the mediation between the two lay, as we have seen, at the root of the heretical teaching at ColossÆ (p. 34, p. 101 sq., p. 181 sq.), and required to be met by the true doctrine of Christ as the Eternal Logos. e????] ‘the image.’ This expression is used repeatedly by Philo, as a description of the Logos; de Mund. Op. 8 (I. p. 6) t?? ???at?? ?a? ???t?? ?e??? ????? e????a ???e? Te??, de Confus. ling. 20 (I. p. 419) t?? e????a a?t??, t?? ?e??tat?? ?????, ib. § 28 (I. p. 427) t?? ??d??? e?????? a?t?? ????? t?? ?e??t?t?? ?.t.?., de Profug. 19 (I. p. 561) ? ?pe???? t??t?? ????? ?e??? ... a?t?? e???? ?p????? Te??, de Monarch. ii. 5 (II. p. 225) ????? d? ?st?? e???? Te?? d?’ ?? s?pa? ? ??s?? ?d??????e?t?, de Somn. i. 41 (I. p. 656), etc. For the use which Philo made of the text Gen. i. 26, 27, ?at’ e????a ?et??a?, ?at’ e????a Te??, see the note on iii. 10. Still earlier than Philo, before the idea of the ????? had assumed such a definite form, the term was used of the Divine s?f?a personified in Wisd. vii. 26 ?pa??asa ??? ?st? f?t?? ??d??? ... ?a? e???? t?? ??a??t?t?? a?t??. St Paul himself applies the term to our Lord in an earlier epistle, 2 Cor. iv. 4 t?? d???? t?? ???st?? ?? ?st?? e???? t?? Te?? (comp. iii. 18 t?? a?t??e????a eta??f??e?a). Closely allied to e???? also is ?a?a?t??, which appears in the same connexion in Heb. i. 3 ?? ?pa??asa t?? d???? ?a? ?a?a?t?? t?? ?p?st?se?? a?t??, a passage illustrated by Philo de Plant. 5 (I. p. 332) sf?a??d? Te?? ?? ? ?a?a?t?? ?st?? ??d??? ?????. See also Phil. ii. 6 ?? ??f? Te?? ?p?????. Beyond the very obvious notion of likeness, the word e???? involves two other ideas; (1) Representation. In this respect it is allied to ?a?a?t??, and differs from (????a. In ????a the resemblance may be accidental, as one egg is like another; but e???? implies an archetype of which it is a copy, as Greg. Naz. Orat. 30 (I. p. 554) says ??t? ??? e?????? f?s?? ??a e??a? t?? ???et?p??. So too Io. Damasc. de Imag. i. 9 (I. p. 311) e???? ?st?? ????a ?a?a?t?????? t? p??t?t?p??; comp. Philo de Mund. Op. 23 (I. p. 16). On this difference see Trench N. T. Synon. § xv. p. 47. The e???? might be the result of direct imitation (??t???) like the head of a sovereign on a coin, or it might be due to natural causes (f?s???) like the parental features in the child, but in any case it was derived from its prototype: see Basil. de Spir. Sanct. 18 § 45 (III. p. 38). The word itself however does not necessarily imply perfect representation. Thus man is said to be the image of God; 1 Cor. xi. 7 e???? ?a? d??a Te?? ?p?????, Clem. Rom. 33 ?????p?? ... t?? ?a?t?? e?????? ?a?a?t??a. Thus again an early JudÆo-Christian writer so designates the duly appointed bishop, as the representative of the divine authority; Clem. Hom. iii. 62 ?? e????a Te?? p??t???ta?. The idea of perfection does not lie in the word itself, but must be sought from the context (e.g. p?? t? p????a ver. 19). The use which was made of this expression, and especially of this passage, in the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries may be seen from the patristic quotations in Petav. Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 11. 9 sq., vi. 5. 6. (2) Manifestation. This idea comes from the implied contrast to t?? ????t?? Te??. St Chrysostom indeed maintains the direct opposite, arguing that, as the archetype is invisible, so the image must be invisible also, ? t?? ????t?? e???? ?a? a?t? ???at?? ?a? ????? ???at??. So too Hilary c. Const. Imp. 21 (II. p. 378) ‘ut imago invisibilis Dei, etiam per id quod ipse invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago esset.’ And this was the view of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers generally. But the underlying idea of the e????, and indeed of the ????? generally, is the manifestation of the hidden: comp. Philo de Vit. Moys. ii. 12 (II. p. 144) e???? t?? ????t?? f?se?? ?fa???. And adopted into Christian theology, the doctrine of the ????? expresses this conception still more prominently by reason of the Incarnation; comp. Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘Scientes filium semper retro visum, si quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut imaginem ipsius,’ Hippol. c. Noet. 7 d?? ??? t?? e?????? ???a? t???a???s?? e????st?? ? pat?? ???eta?, ib. § 12, 13, Orig. in Ioann. vi. § 2 (IV. p. 104). Among the post-Nicene fathers too St Basil has caught the right idea, Epist. xxxviii. 8 (III. p. 121) ? t?? e?????? ?ata???sa? ?????? ?? pe?????? t?? ???et?p?? ???eta? ... ??pe?? d?? t??t?? ??e???? ... t? ??????t?? ?????? ?? t? ?e???t? ?at?pte?sa?. The Word, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, is the revelation of the unseen Father: comp. John i. 18 Te?? ??de?? ???a?e? p?p?te? ????e??? Te??, ? ?? e?? t?? ???p?? t?? pat???, ??e???? ?????sat?, xiv. 9, 10 ? ??????? ?? ???a??? t?? pat??a? p?? s? ???e??, ?e???? ??? t?? pat??a; (compared with vi. 46 ??? ?t? t?? pat??a ???a??? t?? ?.t.?.). The epithet ????t?? however must not be confined to the apprehension of the bodily senses, but will include the cognisance of the inward eye also. p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se??] ‘the First-born of all creation.’ The word p??t?t???? has a twofold parentage: (1) Like e???? it is closely connected with and taken from the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos. The word however which Philo applies to the ????? is not p??t?t???? but p??t??????: de Agric. 12 (I. p. 308) p??st?s?e??? t?? ????? a?t?? ????? p??t?????? ????, de Somn. i. 37 (I. p. 653) ? p??t?????? a?t?? ?e??? ?????, de Confus. ling. i. 28 (I. p. 427) sp??da??t? ??se?s?a? ?at? t?? p??t?????? a?t?? ?????: comp. ib. i. 14 (I. p. 414) t??t?? p?es?tat?? ???? ? t?? ??t?? ???te??e pat??, ?? ?t????? p??t?????? ???ase: and this designation p?es?tat?? ???? is several times applied to the ?????. Again in Quis rer. div. her. § 24 (I. p. 489) the language of Exod. xiii. 2 ???as?? ?? p?? p??t?t???? p??t??e??? ?.t.?. is so interpreted as to apply to the Divine Word. These appellations, ‘the first-begotten, the eldest son,’ are given to the Logos by Philo, because in his philosophy it includes the original conception, the archetypal idea, of creation, which was afterwards realised in the material world. Among the early Christian fathers Justin Martyr again and again recognises the application of the term p??t?t???? to the Word; Apol. i. 23 (p. 68) ????? a?t?? ?p????? ?a? p??t?t???? ?a? d??a??, ib. § 46 (p. 83) t?? ???st?? p??t?t???? t?? Te?? e??a? ... ????? ??ta ?? p?? ????? ?????p?? et?s?e, ib. § 33 (p. 75 C) t?? ????? ?? ?a? p??t?t???? t? Te? ?st?. So too Theophilus ad Antol. ii. 22 t??t?? t?? ????? ??????se? p??f??????, p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se??. (2) The word p??t?t???? had also another not less important link of connexion with the past. The Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix. 28, ??? p??t?t???? ??s?a? a?t?? ?.t.?., seems to have been generally allowed. So at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan in Shemoth Rabba 19, fol. 118. 4, ‘God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make king Messiah a first-born (Ps. lxxxix. 28).’ Hence ‘the first-born’ ? p??t?t???? (????), used absolutely, became a recognised title of Messiah. The way had been paved for this Messianic reference of p??t?t???? by its prior application to the Israelites, as the prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘Israel is my son, my first-born’: comp. Psalm. Salom. xviii. 4 ? pa?de?a s?? ?f’ ??? ?? ???? p??t?t???? ????e??, 4 Esdr. vi. 58 ‘nos populus tuus, quem vocasti primogenitum, unigenitum,’ where the combination of the two titles applied in the New Testament to the Son is striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the note on Gal. iii. 16 ?a? t??? sp??as?? ?.t.?.), the terms are transferred from the race to the Messiah, as the representative, the embodiment, of the race. As the Person of Christ was the Divine response alike to the philosophical questionings of the Alexandrian Jew and to the patriotic hopes of the Palestinian, these two currents of thought meet in the term p??t?t???? as applied to our Lord, who is both the true Logos and the true Messiah. For this reason, we may suppose, as well as for others, the Christian Apostles preferred p??t?t???? to p??t??????, which (as we may infer from Philo) was the favourite term with the Alexandrians, because the former alone would include the Messianic reference as well. The main ideas then which the word involves are twofold; the one more directly connected with the Alexandrian conception of the Logos, the other more nearly allied to the Palestinian conception of the Messiah. (1) Priority to all creation. In other words it declares the absolute pre-existence of the Son. At first sight it might seem that Christ is here regarded as one, though the earliest, of created things. This interpretation (2) Sovereignty over all creation. God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler, the acknowledged head, of God’s household. The right of primogeniture appertains to Messiah over all created things. Thus in Ps. lxxxix. 28 after p??t?t???? ??s?a? a?t?? the explanation is added, ?????? pa?? t??? as??e?s?? t?? ???, i.e. (as the original implies) ‘above all the kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic reference this secondary idea of sovereignty predominated in the word p??t?t????, so that from this point of view p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se?? would mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all creation by virtue of primogeniture.’ The ????e? ????????? p??t?? of the Apostolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly corresponds to the ??s?a? p??t?t???? of the Psalmist (lxxxix. 28), and doubtless was tacitly intended as a paraphrase and application of this Messianic passage. So again in Heb. xii. 23, ?????s?? p??t?t????, the most probable explanation of the word is that which makes it equivalent to ‘heirs of the kingdom,’ all faithful Christians being ipso facto p??t?t????, because all are kings. Nay, so completely might this idea of dominion by virtue of priority eclipse the primary sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some of its uses, that it is given as a title to God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pentateuch, fol. 124. 4, ‘Who is primogenitus mundi,’ ???? ????? ?? ????, i.e. ?? ?st?? p??t?t???? t?? ??s??, as it would be rendered in Greek. In this same work again, fol. 74. 4, Exod. xiii. 2 is falsely interpreted so that God is represented as calling Himself ‘primogenitus’: see SchÖttgen p. 922. For other instances of secondary uses of ???? in the Old Testament, where the idea of ‘priority of birth’ is over-shadowed by and lost in the idea of ‘pre-eminence,’ see Job xviii. 13 ‘the first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the first-born of the poor’. p?s?? ?t?se?? ‘of all creation,’ The genitive case must be interpreted so as to include the full meaning of p??t?t????, as already explained. It will therefore signify: ‘He stands in the relation of p??t?t???? to all creation,’ i.e. ‘He is the Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.’ The connexion is the same as in the passage of R. Bechai already quoted, where God is called primogenitus mundi. Another explanation which would connect the genitive with the first part of the compound alone (p??t?-), comparing Joh. i. 15, 30, p??t?? ?? ??, unduly strains the grammar, while it excludes the The history of the patristic exegesis of this expression is not without a painful interest. All the fathers of the second and third centuries without exception, so far as I have noticed, correctly refer it to the Eternal Word and not to the Incarnate Christ, to the Deity and not to the humanity of our Lord. So Justin l.c., Theophilus l.c., Clement of Alexandria Exc. Theod. 7, 8, 19 (pp. 967, 973), Tertullian adv. Prax. 7, adv. Marc. v. 19, Hippolytus HÆr. x. 33, Origen c. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, in Ioann. i. § 22 (IV. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p. 305), xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian Test. ii. 1, Novatian de Trin. 16, and the Synod of Antioch (Routh’s Rel. Sacr. III. pp. 290, 293). The Arian controversy however gave a different turn to the exegesis of the passage. The Arians fastened upon the expression p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se??, and drew from it the inference that the Son was a created being. The great use which they made of the text appears from the document in Hilary, Fragm. Hist. Op. II. p. 644. The right answer to this false interpretation we have already seen. Many orthodox fathers however, not satisfied with this, transferred the expression into a new sphere, and maintained that p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se?? describes the Incarnate Christ. By so doing they thought to cut up the Arian argument by the roots. As a consequence of this interpretation, they were obliged to understand the ?t?s?? and the ?t??es?a? in the context of the new spiritual creation, the ?a??? ?t?s?? of 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15. Thus interpreted, p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se?? here becomes nearly equivalent to p??t?t???? ?? p?????? ?de?f??? in Rom. viii. 29. The arguments alleged in favour of this interpretation are mainly twofold: (1) That, if applied to the Divine nature, p??t?t???? would contradict ????e??? which elsewhere describes the nature of the ? p?s?? ?t?se??? 16. ?t? ?.t.?.] We have in this sentence the justification of the title given to the Son in the preceding clause, p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se??. It must therefore be taken to explain the sense in which this title is used. Thus connected, it shows that the p??t?t???? Himself is not included in p?sa ?t?s??; for the expression used is not t? ???a or t? ???p?, but t? p??ta ??t?s??–words which are absolute and comprehensive, and will admit no exception. ?? a?t?] ‘in Him,’ as below ver. 17 ?? a?t? s???st??e?. For the preposition comp. Acts xvii, 28 ?? a?t? ??? ??e? ?a? ?????e?a ?a? ?se?. All the laws and purposes which guide the creation and government of the Universe reside in Him, the Eternal Word, as their meeting-point. The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal Word as holding the same relation to the Universe which the Incarnate Christ holds to the Church. He is the source of its life, the centre of all its developments, the mainspring of all its motions. The use of ?? to describe His relations to the Church abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom. viii. 1, 2, xii. 5, xvi. 3, 7, 9, etc., 1 Cor. i. 30, iv. 15, 17, vii. 39, xv. 18, 22, etc.), and more especially in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians (e.g. below ii. 7, 10). In the present passage, as in ver. 17, the same preposition is applied also to His relations to the Universe; comp. Joh. i. 4 ?? a?t? ??? ?? (more especially if we connect the preceding ? ?????e? with it). Thus it is part of the parallelism which runs through the whole passage, and to which the occurrence of p??t?t???? in both relations gives the key. The JudÆo-Alexandrian teachers represented the Logos, which in their view was nothing more than the Divine mind energizing, as the t?p?? where the eternal ideas, the ???t?? ??s??, had their abode; Philo de Mund. Op. 4 (I. p. 4) ?sape? ?? ??e??? ???ta, ib. § 5 (p. 4) ??d? ? ?? t?? ?de?? ??s?? ????? ?? ???? t?p?? ? t?? ?e??? ????? t?? ta?ta d?a??s?sa?ta, ib. § 10 (p. 8) ? ?s?at?? ??s?? ... ?d???e?? ?? t? ?e?? ????; and see especially de Migr. Abr. I. p. 437) ????? ?? ? d?a?t?ta? ... ?sa ?? ?????ata t???, ?spe? ?? ???? t? ???? d?a?e??. The Apostolic teaching is an enlargement of this conception, inasmuch as the Logos is no longer a philosophical abstraction but a Divine Person: see Hippol. HÆr. x. 33 ??t??? t??? ????????? ????? ??, ?? ?a?t? f???? t? ???e?? t?? ?e?e?????t?? ... ??e? ?? ?a?t? t?? ?? t? pat?? p??e?????e?sa? ?d?a? ??e? ?e?e???t?? pat??? ???es?a? ??s?? t? ?at? ?? ????? ?pete?e?t? ???s??? Te?: comp. Orig. in Ioann. i. § 22, IV. p. 21. ??t?s??] The aorist is used here; the perfect below. ??t?s?? describes the definite historical act of creation; ??t?sta? the continuous and present relations of creation to the Creator: comp. Joh. i. 3 ????? a?t?? ????et? ??d? ?? with ib. ? e????e?, 1 Cor. ix. 22 ??e???? t??? ?s???es?? ?s?e??? with ib. t??? p?s?? ?????a p??ta, 2 Cor. xii. 17 ? t??a ?? ?p?sta??a with ver. 18 ?a? s??ap?ste??a t?? ?de?f??, 1 Joh. iv. 9 t?? ????e?? ?p?sta??e? ? Te?? e?? t?? ??s?? ??a ??s?e? d?’ a?t?? with ver. 10 ?t? a?t?? ???p?se? ??? ?a? ?p?ste??e? t?? ???? a?t??. t? p??ta] ‘the universe of things,’ not p??ta ‘all things severally,’ but t? p??ta ‘all things collectively.’ With very few exceptions, wherever this phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands in a similar connexion; see below, vv. 17, 20, iii. 11, Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, xi. 12, xii. 6, xv. 27, 28, 2 Cor. v. 18, Eph. i. 10, 11, 23, iv. 10, Heb. i. 3, ii. 8, Rev. iv. 11. Compare Rom. viii. 32 t? p??ta ??? ?a??seta?, 2 Cor. iv. 15 t? p??ta d?’ ???, with 1 Cor. iii. 22 ??te ??s?? ... ???; and Phil. iii. 8 t? p??ta e??????? with Matt. xvi. 26 ?? t?? ??s?? ???? ?e?d?s?. Thus it will appear that t? p??ta is nearly equivalent to ‘the universe.’ It stands midway between p??ta and t? p??. The last however is not a scriptural phrase; for, while with t? p??ta it involves the idea of connexion, it suggests also the unscriptural idea of self-contained unity, the great world-soul of the Stoic pantheist. ? ?? t??? ???a???? ?a? [t?] ?p? t?? ???, t? ??at? ?a? ta ? ?? t??? ???a????, ?.t.?.] This division of the universe is not the same with the following, as if [t?] ?? t??? ???a???? were equivalent to t? ???ata and [t?] ?p? t?? ??? to t? ??at?. It should rather be compared with Gen. i. 1 ?p???se? ? Te?? t?? ???a??? ?a? t?? ???, ii. 1 s??ete??s??sa? ? ???a??? ?a? ? ?? ?a? p?? ? ??s?? a?t??, xiv. 19 ?? ??t?se? t?? ???a??? ?a? t?? ???, Rev. x. 6 ?? ??t?se? t?? ???a??? ?a? t? ?? a?t? ?a? t?? ??? ?a? t? ?? a?t?. It is a classification by locality, as the other is a classification by essences. Heaven and earth together comprehend all space; and all things whether material or immaterial are conceived for the purposes of the classification as having their abode in space. Thus the sun and the moon would belong to ??at?, but they would be ?? t??? ???a????; while the human soul would be classed among ???ata but would be regarded as ?p? t?? ???; see below ver. 20. It is difficult to say whether t? ... ta should be expunged or retained. The elements in the decision are; (1) The facility either of omission or of addition in the first clause, owing to the termination of p??ta: (2) The much greater authority for the omission in the first clause than in the second. These two combined suggest that t? was omitted accidentally in the first clause, and then expunged purposely in the second for the sake of uniformity. On the other hand there is (3) The possibility of insertion in both cases either for the sake of grammatical completeness or owing to the parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. 10. On the whole the reasons for their omission preponderate. At all events we can hardly retain the one without the other. t? ??at? ?.t.?.] ‘Things material and immaterial,’ or, according to the language of philosophy, fa???e?a and ???e?a: comp. Plato PhÆd. 79 A ??e? ???, e? ???e?, ?f?, d?? e?d? t?? ??t??, t? ?? ??at??, t? d? ?e?d??, ?.t.?. e?te ?.t.?.] ‘whether they be thrones or lordships, etc.’ The subdivision is no longer exhaustive. The Apostle singles out those created beings that from their superior rank had been or might be set in rivalry with the Son. A comparison with the parallel passage Ephes. i. 21, ?pe???? p?s?? ????? ?a? ????s?a? ?a? d???e?? ?a? ?????t?t?? ?a? pa?t?? ?.t.?., brings out the following points: (1) No stress can be laid on the sequence of the names, as though St Paul were enunciating with authority some precise doctrine respecting the grades of the celestial hierarchy. The names themselves are not the same in the two passages. While ????, ????s?a, ?????t??, are common to both, ?????? is peculiar to the one and d??a?? to the other. Nor again is there any correspondence in the sequence. Neither does d??a?? take the place of ??????, nor do the three words common to both appear in the same order, the sequence being ???. ??. [d??.] ???. in Eph. i. 21, and [????.] ???. ???. ??. here. (2) An expression in Eph. i. 21 shows the Apostle’s motive in introducing these lists of names: for he there adds ?a? pa?t?? ???at?? ???a?????? ?? ???? ?? t? a???? t??t? ???? ?a? ?? t? ?????t?, i.e. ‘of every dignity or title (whether real or imaginary) which is reverenced,’ etc.; for this is the force of pa?t?? ???at?? ???a?????? (see the notes on Phil. ii. 9, and Eph. l.c.). Hence it appears that in this catalogue St Paul does not profess to describe objective realities, but contents himself with repeating subjective opinions. He brushes away all these speculations without enquiring how much or how little truth there may be in them, because they are altogether beside the question. His language here shows the same spirit of impatience with this elaborate angelology, as in ii. 18. (3) Some commentators have referred the terms used here solely to earthly potentates and dignities. There can be little doubt however that their chief and primary reference is to the orders of the celestial hierarchy, as conceived by these Gnostic Judaizers. This appears from the context; for the words t? ???ata immediately precede this list of terms, while in the mention of p?? t? p????a and in other expressions the Apostle clearly contemplates the rivalry of spiritual powers with Christ. It is also demanded by the whole design and purport of the letter, which is written to combat the worship paid to angels. The names too, more especially ??????, are especially connected with the speculations of Jewish angelology. But when this is granted, two questions still remain. First; are evil as well as good spirits included, demons as well as angels? And next; though the primary reference is to spiritual powers, is it not possible that the expression was intended to be comprehensive Thus guided, we may paraphrase the Apostle’s meaning as follows: ‘You dispute much about the successive grades of angels; you distinguish each grade by its special title; you can tell how each order was generated from the preceding; you assign to each its proper degree of worship. Meanwhile you have ignored or you have degraded Christ. I tell you, it is not so. He is first and foremost, Lord of heaven and earth, far above all thrones or dominations, all princedoms or powers, far above every dignity and every potentate—whether earthly or heavenly—whether angel or demon or man—that evokes your reverence or excites your fear.’ See above, pp. 103 sq. Jewish and JudÆo-Christian speculations respecting the grades of the celestial hierarchy took various forms. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi 3), which as coming near to the Apostolic age supplies a valuable illustration (see Galatians p. 307 sq.), these orders are arranged as follows: (1) ??????, ????s?a?, these two in the highest or seventh heaven; (2) ?? ???e??? ?? f????te? t?? ?p????se?? t??? ???????? t?? p??s?p?? in the sixth heaven; (3) ?? ???e??? t?? p??s?p?? in the fifth heaven; (4) ?? ????? in the fourth heaven; (5) a? d???e?? t?? pa?e???? in the third heaven; (6) t? p?e?ata t?? ?pa????? (i.e. of visitations, retributions) in the second heaven: or perhaps the denizens of the sixth and fifth heavens, (2) and (3), should be transposed. The lowest heaven is not peopled by any spirits. In Origen de Princ. i. 5. 3, ib. i. 6. 2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. 1, ib. p. 74), we have five classes, which are given in an ascending scale in this order; (1) angels (sancti angeli, t???? ???e????); (2) princedoms (principatus, d??a?? ??????, ???a?); (3) powers (potestates, ????s?a?); (4) thrones (throni vel sedes, ??????); (5) dominations (dominationes, ?????t?te?); though elsewhere, in Ioann. i. § 34, IV. p. 34, he seems to have a somewhat different classification in view. In Ephrem Syrus Op. Syr. I. p. 270 (where the translation of Benedetti is altogether faulty and misleading) the ranks are these: (1) ?e??, ??????, ?????t?te?; (2) ??????e???, ???a?, ????s?a?; (3) ???e???, d???e??, ?e????, se?af?; these three great divisions being represented by the ????a????, the ??at??ta????, and the pe?t????ta???? respectively in Deut. i. 15, on which passage he is commenting. The general agreement between these will be seen at once. This grouping also seems to underlie the conception of Basil of Seleucia Orat. 39 (p. 207), who mentions them in this order; ??????, ?????t?te?, ???a?, ????s?a?, d???e??, ?e????, se?af?. On the other hand the arrangement of the pseudo-Dionysius, who so largely influenced subsequent speculations, is quite different and probably later (Dion. Areop. Op. I. p. 75, ed. Cord.); (1) ??????, ?e????, se?af?; (2) ????s?a?, ?????t?te?, d???e??; (3) ???e???, ??????e???, ???a?. But the earlier lists for the most part seem to suggest as their common foundation a classification in which ??????, ?????t?te?, belonged to the highest order, and ???a?, ????s?a? to the next below. Thus it would appear that the Apostle takes as an illustration the titles assigned to the two highest grades in a system of the celestial hierarchy which he found current, and which probably was adopted by these Gnostic Judaizers. See also the note on ii. 18. ??????] In all systems alike these ‘thrones’ belong to the highest grade of angelic beings, whose place is in the immediate presence of God. The meaning of the name however is doubtful: (1) It may signify the occupants of thrones which surround the throne of God; as in the imagery of Rev. iv. 4 ??????e? t?? ?????? ?????? e???s? t?ssa?e? (comp. xi. 16, xx. 4). The imagery is there taken from the court of an earthly king: see Jer. lii. 32. This is the interpretation given by Origen de Princ. i. 5. 3 (p. 66), i. 6. 2 (p. 70) ‘judicandi vel regendi ... habentes officium.’ Or (2) They were so called, as supporting or forming the throne of God; just as the chariot-seat of the Almighty is represented as resting on the cherubim in Ezek. i. 26, ix. 3, x. 1 sq., xi. 22, Ps. xviii. 10, 1 Chron. xxviii. 18. So apparently Clem. Alex. Proph. Ecl. 57 (p. 1003) ?????? ?? e?e? ... d?? t? ??apa?s?a? ?? a?t??? t?? Te??. From this same imagery of the prophet the later mysticism of the Kabbala derived its name ‘wheels,’ which it gave to one of its ten orders of Sephiroth. Adopting this interpretation, several fathers identify the ‘thrones’ with the cherubim: e.g. Greg. Nyss. ad Eunom. i (II. p. 349 sq.), Chrysost. de Incompr. Nat. iii. 5 (I. p. 467), Theodoret (ad loc.), August. in Psalm. xcviii. § 3 (iv. p. 1061). This explanation was adopted also by the pseudo-Dionysius de Coel. Hier. 7 (I. p. 80), without however identifying them with the cherubim; and through his writings it came to be generally adopted. The former interpretation however is more probable; for (1) This highly symbolical nomenclature accords better with a later stage of mystic speculation, like the Kabbala; and (2) It seems natural to treat ?????? as belonging to the same category with ?????t?te?, ???a?, ????s?a?, which are concrete words borrowed from different grades of human rank and power. As implying regal dignity, ?????? naturally stands at the head of the list. ?????t?te?] ‘dominations,’ as Ephes. i. 21. These appear to have been regarded as belonging to the first grade, and standing next in dignity to the ??????. This indeed would be suggested by their name. ???a?, ????s?a? as Ephes. i. 21. These two words occur very frequently together. In some places they refer to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11, Tit. iii. 1 (comp. Luke xx. 20); in others to a spiritual hierarchy. And here again there are two different uses: sometimes they designate good angels, e.g. below ii. 10, Ephes. iii. 10; sometimes evil spirits, e.g. ii. 15, Ephes. vi. 12: while in one passage at least (1 Cor. xv. 24) both may be included. In Rom. viii. 38 we have ???a? without ????s?a? (except as a v. l.), and in 1 Pet. iii. 22 ????s?a? without ???a?, in connexion with the angelic orders. ? ????s?a?? t? p??ta d?’ a?t?? ?a? e?? a?t?? ??t?sta?? ? d?’ a?t?? ?.t.?.] ‘As all creation passed out from Him, so does it all converge again towards Him.’ For the combination of prepositions see Rom. xi. 36 ?? a?t?? ?a? d?’ a?t?? ?a? e?? a?t?? t? p??ta. He is not only the a but also the ?, not only the ???? but also the t???? of creation, not only the first but also the last in the history of the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13. For this double relation of Christ to the Universe, as both the initial and the final cause, see Heb. ii. 10 d?’ ?? t? p??ta ?a? d?’ ?? t? p??ta, where d?’ ?? is nearly equivalent to e?? a?t?? of the text. In the Judaic philosophy of Alexandria the preposition d?? with the genitive was commonly used to describe the function of the Logos in the creation and government of the world; e.g. de Cherub. 35 (I. p. 162) where Philo, enumerating the causes which combine in the work of Creation, describes God as ?f’ ??, matter as ?? ??, and the Word as d?’ ??; comp. de Mon. ii. 5 (II. p. 225) ????? ... d?’ ?? s?pa? ? ??s?? ?d??????e?t?. The Christian Apostles accepted this use of d?? to describe the mediatorial function of the Word in creation; e.g. John i. 3 p??ta d?’ a?t?? ????et? ?.t.?., ib. ver. 10 ? ??s?? d?’ a?t?? ????et?, Heb. i. 2 d?’ ?? ?a? ?p???se? t??? a???a?. This mediatorial function however has entirely changed its character. To the Alexandrian Jew it was the work of a passive tool or instrument (de Cherub. l.c. d?’ ??, t? ???a?e???, ???a??? ... d?’ ??); but to the Christian Apostle it represented a cooperating agent. Hence the Alexandrian Jew frequently and consistently used the simple instrumental dative ? to describe the relation of the Word to the Creator, e.g. Quod Deus immut. 12 (I. p. 281) ? ?a? t?? ??s?? e?????et?, Leg. All. i. 9 (I. p. 47) t? pe??fa?est?t? ?a? t??a??est?t? ?a?t?? ???? ??at? ? Te?? ?f?te?a p??e?, comp. ib. iii. 31 (I. p. 106) ? ????? ... ? ?a??pe? ?????? p??s???s?e???. This mode of speaking is not found in the New Testament. e?? a?t??] ‘unto Him.’ As of the Father it is said elsewhere, 1 Cor. viii. 6 ?? ?? t? p??ta ?a? ?e?? e?? a?t??, so here of the Son we read t? p??ta d?’ a?t?? ?a? e?? a?t??. All things must find their meeting-point, their reconciliation, at length in Him from whom they took their rise—in the Word as the mediatorial agent, and through the Word in the Father as the primary source. The Word is the final cause as well as the creative agent of the Universe. This ultimate goal of the present dispensation in time is similarly stated in several passages. Sometimes it is represented as the birth-throe and deliverance of all creation through Christ; as Rom. viii. 19 sq. a?t? ? ?t?s?? ??e??e????seta?, p?sa ? ?t?s?? ... s???d??e?. Sometimes it is the absolute and final subjection of universal nature to Him; as 1 Cor. xv. 28 ?ta? ?p?ta?? a?t? t? p??ta. Sometimes it is the reconciliation of all things through Him; as below, ver. 20 d?’ a?t?? ?p??ata????a? t? p??ta. Sometimes it is the recapitulation, the gathering up in one head, of the Universe in Him; as Ephes. i. 10 ??a?efa?a??sas?a? t? p??ta ?? t? ???st?. The image involved in this last passage best illustrates the particular expression in the text e?? a?t?? ... ??t?sta?; but all alike enunciate the same truth in different terms. The Eternal Word is the goal of the Universe, as He was the starting-point. It must end in unity, as it proceeded from unity: and the centre of this unity is Christ. This expression has no parallel, and could have none, in the Alexandrian phraseology and doctrine. ? 17. ?a? a?t?? ?.t.?.] ‘and HE IS before all things’: comp. Joh. viii. 58 p??? ??a? ?e??s?a?, ??? e?? (and perhaps also viii. 24, 28, xiii. 19). The imperfect ?? might have sufficed (comp. Joh. i. 1), but the present ?st?? declares that this pre-existence is absolute existence. The a?t?? e?t?? here corresponds exactly to the e?? e?? in St John, and this again is illustrated by Exod. iii. 14. The verb therefore is not an enclitic, but should be accentuated ?st??. See Basil adv. Eunom. iv (I. p. 294) ? ?p?st???? e?p??, ???ta d?’ a?t?? ?a? e?? a?t?? ??t?sta?, ?fe??e? e?pe??, ??? a?t?? ????et? p?? p??t??, e?p?? d?, ?a? a?t?? ?st? p?? p??t??, ?de??e t?? ?? ?e? ??ta t?? d? ?t?s?? ?e??????. The a?t?? is as necessary for the completeness of the meaning, as the ?st??. The one emphasizes the personality, as the other declares the pre-existence. For this emphatic a?t?? see again ver. 18; comp. Ephes. ii. 14, iv. 10, 11, 1 Joh. ii. 2, and esp. Rev. xix. 15 ?a? a?t?? p??a?e? ... ?a? a?t?? pate?. The other interpretation which explains p?? p??t?? of superiority in rank, and not of priority in time, is untenable for several reasons. (1) This would most naturally be expressed otherwise in Biblical language, as ?p? p??t?? (e.g. Rom. ix. 5, Eph. iv. 6), or ?p?? p??ta (Eph. i. 22), or ?pe???? p??t?? (Eph. i. 21, iv. 10). (2) The key to the interpretation is given by the analogous words in the context, esp. p??t?t????, vv. 15, 18. (3) Nothing short of this declaration of absolute pre-existence would be adequate to introduce the statement which follows, ?a? t? p??ta ?? a?t? s???st??e?. p?? p??t??] ‘before all things.’ In the Latin it was translated ‘ante omnes,’ i.e. thronos, dominationes, etc.; and so Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, si non primogenitus conditionis?’ But the neuter t? p??ta, standing in the context before and after, requires the neuter here also. ? s???st??e?. s???st??e?] ‘hold together, cohere.’ He is the principle of cohesion in the universe. He impresses upon creation that unity and solidarity which makes it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus (to take one instance) the action of gravitation, which keeps in their places things fixed and regulates the motions of things moving, is an expression of His mind. Similarly in Heb. i. 3 Christ the Logos is described as f???? t? p??ta (sustaining the universe) t? ??at? t?? d???e?? a?t??. Here again the Christian Apostles accept the language of Alexandrian Judaism, which describes the Logos as the des?? of the Universe; e.g. Philo de Profug. 20 (I. p. 562) ? te ??? t?? ??t?? ????? des?? ?? t?? ?p??t?? ... ?a? s??e?e? t? ??? p??ta ?a? sf???e? ?a? ????e? a?t? d?a??es?a? ?a? d?a?t?s?a?, de Plant. 2 (I. p. 331) s?????? t? ??? p??ta ?a? sf?????? des?? ??? a?t?? ?????t?? t?? pa?t?? ? ?e???sa? ?p??e? pat??, Quis rer. div. her. 38 (I. p. 507) ???? sf???eta? ?e??? ????a ??? ?st? ?a? des?? ??t?? t? p??ta t?? ??s?a? ??pep???????: and for the word itself see Quis rer. div. her. 12 (I. p. 481) s???st??e ?a? ??p??e?ta? p?????? Te??, Clem. Rom. 27 ?? ???? t?? e?a??s???? a?t?? s??est?sat? t? p??ta. In the same connexion s???e?ta? is used, Ecclus. xliii. 26. The indices to Plato and Aristotle amply illustrate this use of s???st??e?. This mode of expression was common also with the Stoics. 18. ‘And not only does He hold this position of absolute priority and sovereignty over the Universe—the natural creation. He stands also in the same relation to the Church—the new spiritual creation. He is its head, and it is His body. This is His prerogative, because He is the source and the beginning of its life, being the First-born from the dead. Thus in all things—in the spiritual order as in the natural—in the Church as in the World—He is found to have the pre-eminence.’ The elevating influence of this teaching on the choicest spirits of the subapostolic age will be seen from a noble passage in the noblest of early Christian writings, Epist. ad Diogn. § 7 t?? ????? t?? ????? ... ?????p??? ???d??se ... ??, ?a??pe? ?? t?? e???se?e?, ?????p??? ?p???t?? t??? p??a? ? ???e??? ? ?????ta ? t??a t?? d?ep??t?? t? ?p??e?a ? t??a t?? pep?ste????? t?? ?? ???a???? d????se??, ???’ a?t?? t?? te???t?? ?a? d???????? t?? ???? ... ? p??ta d?at?ta?ta? ?a? d????sta? ?a? ?p?t?ta?ta?, ???a??? ?a? t? ?? t??? ???a????, ?? ?a? t? ?? t? ?? ?.t.?. See the whole context. ?a? a?t??] ‘and He,’ repeated from the preceding verse, to emphasize the identity of the Person who unites in Himself these prerogatives: see on ver. 17, and comp. ver. 18 a?t??, ver. 19 d?’ a?t??. The Creator of the World is also the Head of the Church. There is no blind ignorance, no imperfect sympathy, no latent conflict, in the relation of the demiurgic power to the Gospel dispensation, as the heretical teachers were disposed consciously or unconsciously to assume (see above, p. 101 sq., p. 110 sq.), but an absolute unity of origin. ? ?efa??] ‘the head,’ the inspiring, ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the centre of its unity, and the seat of its life. In his earlier epistles the relations of the Church to Christ are described under the same image (1 Cor. xii. 12–27; comp. vi. 15, x. 17, Rom. xii. 4 sq.); but the Apostle there takes as his starting-point the various functions of the members, and not, as in these later epistles, the originating and controlling power of the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph. i. 22 sq., ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 15 sq., v. 23, 30. ? t?? ?????s?a?? ?? ?st?? ????, p??t?t???? ? t?? ?????s?a?] in apposition with t?? s?at??: comp. i. 24 t?? s?at?? a?t??, ? ?st?? ? ?????s?a, Eph. i. 23. ????] ‘the origin, the beginning.’ The term is here applied to the Incarnate Christ in relation to the Church, because it is applicable to the Eternal Word in relation to the Universe, Rev. iii. 14 ? ???? t?? ?t?se?? t?? Te??. The parallelism of the two relations is kept in view throughout. The word ???? here involves two ideas: (1) Priority in time; Christ was the first-fruits of the dead, ?pa??? (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23): (2) Originating power; Christ was also the source of life, Acts iii. 14 ? ??????? t?? ????; comp. Acts v. 31, Heb. ii. 10. He is not merely the principium principiatum but the principium principians (see Trench Epistles to the Seven Churches p. 183 sq.). He rose first from the dead, that others might rise through Him. The word ????, like p??t?? (see the note on Phil. i. 5), being absolute in itself, does not require the definite article. Indeed the article is most commonly omitted where ???? occurs as a predicate, as will appear from several examples to be gathered from the extracts in Plut. Mor. p. 875 sq., Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 10. 12 sq. Comp. also Aristot. Met. x. 7, p. 1064, t? ?e??? ... ?? e?? p??t? ?a? ?????t?t? ????, Onatas in Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 2. 39 a?t?? ??? [?e??] ???? ?a? p??t??, Tatian. ad GrÆc. 4 Te?? ... ???? ??a???? ?? ?a? a?t?? ?p????? t?? ???? ????, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 25, p. 638, ? Te?? d? ??a????, ???? t?? ???? pa?te???, ????? p???t????, Method. de Creat. 3 (p. 100, ed. Jahn) p?s?? ??et?? ????? ?a? p???? ... ??? t?? Te??, pseudo-Dionys. de Div. Nom. v. § 6 ???? ??? ?st? t?? ??t??, § 10 p??t?? ??? ???? ?a? te?e?t? t?? ??t?? ? p????. The text is read with the definite article, ? ????, in one or two excellent authorities at least; but the obvious motive which would lead a scribe to aim at greater distinctness renders the reading suspicious. p??t?t????] Comp. Rev. i. 5 ? p??t?t???? t?? ?e???? ?a? ? ????? t?? as????? t?? ???. His resurrection from the dead is His title to the headship of the Church; for ‘the power of His resurrection’ (Phil. iii. 10) is the life of the Church. Such passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 17, where the p??t?t???? is called ???? t????? and superior privileges are claimed for him as such, must necessarily be only very faint and partial illustrations of the connexion between ???? and p??t?t???? here, where the subject-matter and the whole context point to a fuller meaning of the words. The words p??t?t???? ?? t?? ?e???? here correspond to p??t?t???? p?s?? ?t?se?? ver. 15, so that the parallelism between Christ’s relations to the Universe and to the Church is thus emphasized. ? ?? t?? ?e????, ??a ????ta? ?? p?s?? a?t?? p??te???? ??a ????ta? ?.t.?.] As He is first with respect to the Universe, so it was ordained that He should become first with respect to the Church as well. The ????ta? here answers in a manner to the ?st?? of ver. 17. Thus ?st?? and ????ta? are contrasted as the absolute being and the historical manifestation. The relation between Christ’s headship of the Universe by virtue of His Eternal Godhead and His headship of the Church by virtue of His Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection is somewhat similarly represented in Phil. ii. 6 sq. ?? ??f? Te?? ?a???? ... ??f?? d????? ?a?? ... ?e??e??? ?p????? ???? ?a??t?? ... d?? ?a? ? Te?? a?t?? ?pe????se? ?.t.?. ?? p?s??] ‘in all things’ not in the Universe only but in the Church also. ?a? ???, writes Theodoret, ?? Te??, p?? p??t?? ?st? ?a? s?? t? pat?? ?st?, ?a? ?? ?????p??, p??t?t???? ?? t?? ?e???? ?a? t?? s?at?? ?efa??. Thus ?? p?s?? is neuter and not masculine, as it is sometimes taken. Either construction is grammatically correct, but the context points to the former interpretation here; and this is the common use of ?? p?s??, e.g. iii. 11, Eph. i. 23, Phil. iv. 12. For the neuter compare Plut. Mor. p. 9 spe?d??te? t??? pa?da? ?? p?s? t????? p??te?sa?. On the other hand in [Demosth.] Amat. p. 1416 ???t?st?? e??a? t? p??te?e?? ?? ?pas? the context shows that ?pas? is masculine. a?t??] ‘He Himself’; see the note on ?a? a?t?? above. 19, 20. ‘And this absolute supremacy is His, because it was the Father’s good pleasure that in Him all the plenitude of Deity should have its home; because He willed through Him to reconcile the Universe once more to Himself. It was God’s purpose to effect peace and harmony through the blood of Christ’s cross, and so to restore all things, whatsoever and wheresoever they be, whether on the earth or in the heavens.’ 19. ?t? ?? a?t? ?.t.?.] The eternal indwelling of the Godhead explains the headship of the Church, not less than the headship of the Universe. The resurrection of Christ, whereby He became the ???? of the Church, was the result of and the testimony to His deity; Rom. i. 4 t?? ???s???t?? ???? Te?? ... ?? ??ast?se?? ?e????. e?d???se?] sc. ? Te??, the nominative being understood; see Winer § lviii. p. 655 sq., § lxiv. p. 735 sq.; comp. James i. 12 (the right reading), iv. 6. Here the omission is the more easy, because e?d???a, e?d??e?? etc. (like ????a) are used absolutely of God’s good purpose, e.g. Luke ii. 14 ?? ?????p??? e?d???a? (or e?d???a), Phil. ii. 13 ?p?? t?? e?d???a?, Clem. Rom. § 40 p??ta t? ????e?a ?? e?d???se?; see the note in Clem. Rom. § 2. For the expression generally comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 35 s?, ????e, e?d???sa? ?a?? t?? s?? ?atas????se?? ?? ??? ?e??s?a?. The alternative is to consider p?? t? p????a personified as the nominative; but it is difficult to conceive St Paul so speaking, more especially as with e?d???se? personification would suggest personality. The p????a indeed is personified in Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 43 (p. 979) s??a???sa?t?? ?a? t?? p????at??, and in Iren. i. 2. 6 ???? ?? ?a? ???? t? p?? p????a t?? a????? ?.t.?., i. 12. 4 p?? t? p????a ??d???se? [d?’ a?t?? d???sa? t?? p?te?a]; but the phraseology of the Valentinians, to which these passages refer, cannot be taken as an indication of St Paul’s usage, since their view of the p????a was wholly different. A third interpretation is found in Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 19, who translates ?? a?t? in semetipso, taking ? ???st?? as the nominative to e?d???se?: and this construction is followed by some modern critics. But, though grammatically possible, it confuses the theology of the passage hopelessly. t? p????a] ‘the plenitude,’ a recognised technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes; comp. ii. 9. See the detached note on p????a. On the relation of this statement to the speculations of the false teachers at ColossÆ see the introduction, pp. 102, 112. Another interpretation, which explains t? p????a as referring to the Church (comp. Ephes. i. 22), though adopted by several fathers, is unsuited to the context and has nothing to recommend it. ?at????sa?] ‘should have its permanent abode.’ The word occurs again in the same connexion, ii. 9. The false teachers probably, like their later counterparts, maintained only a partial and transient connexion of the p????a with the Lord. Hence St Paul declares in these two passages that it is not a pa?????a but a ?at????a. The two words ?at???e??, pa????e??, occur in the LXX as the common renderings of ??? and ??? respectively, and are distinguished as the permanent and the transitory; e.g. Gen. xxxvi. 44 (xxxvii. 1) ?at??e? d? ?a?? ?? t? ?? ?? pa????se? ? pat?? a?t?? ?? ?? ?a?a?? (comp. Hos. x. 5), Philo Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 10 (I. p. 170 M) ? t??? ?????????? ????? ?pa????? pa????e? s?f??, ?? ?at???e?, Greg. Naz. Orat. xiv. (I. p. 271 ed. Caillau) t?? t?? ??t? s????? ?a? t?? ??? p????; t?? pa?????a? ?a? ?at????a?; comp. Orat. vii. (I. p. 200). See also the notes on Ephes. ii. 19, and on Clem. Rom. § 1. ? 20. The false teachers aimed at effecting a partial reconciliation between God and man through the interposition of angelic mediators. The Apostle speaks of an absolute and complete reconciliation of universal nature to God, effected through the mediation of the Incarnate Word. Their mediators were ineffective, because they were neither human nor divine. The true mediator must be both human and divine. It was necessary that in Him all the plenitude of the Godhead should dwell. It was necessary also that He should be born into the world and should suffer as a man. d?’ a?t??] i.e. t?? ???st??, as appears from the preceding ?? a?t?, and the following d?? t?? a?at?? t?? sta???? a?t??, [d?’ a?t??]. This expression d?’ a?t?? has been already applied to the Preincarnate Word in relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it is now used of the Incarnate Word in relation to the Church. ?p??ata????a?] sc. e?d???se? ? Te??. The personal pronoun a?t??, instead of the reflexive ?a?t??, is no real obstacle to this way of connecting the words (see the next note). The alternative would be to take t? p????a as governing ?p??ata????a?, but this mode of expression is harsh and improbable. The same double compound ?p??ata???sse?? is used below, ver. 21 and Ephes. ii. 16, in place of the usual ?ata???sse??. It may be compared with ?p??at?stas??, Acts iii. 21. Tertullian, arguing against the dualism of Marcion who maintained an antagonism between the demiurge and the Christ, lays stress on the compound, adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘conciliari extraneo possent, reconciliari vero non alii quam suo.’ The word ?p??ata???sse?? corresponds to ?p????t???????? here and in Ephes. ii. 16, implying a restitution to a state from which they had fallen, or which was potentially theirs, or for which they were destined. Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5 remarks that the word used of the ????es?a is not accipere (?a??e??) but recipere (?p??a??e??). See the note there. t? p??ta] The whole universe of things, material as well as spiritual, shall be restored to harmony with God. How far this restoration of universal nature maybe subjective, as involved in the changed perceptions of man thus brought into harmony with God, and how far it may have an objective and independent existence, it were vain to speculate. ? a?t??, e?????p???sa? d?? t?? ??at?? t?? sta???? a?t??, d?’ a?t?? ??te t? ?p? t?? ??? ??te t? ?? t??? ???a????, e?? a?t??] ‘to Him,’ i.e. ‘to Himself.’ The reconciliation is always represented as made to the Father. The reconciler is sometimes the Father Himself (2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ?? t?? Te?? t?? ?ata????a?t?? ??? ?a?t? d?? ???st?? ... Te?? ?? ???st? ??s?? ?ata???ss?? ?a?t?), sometimes the Son (Ephes. ii. 16: comp. Rom. v. 10, 11). Excellent reasons are given (Bleek Hebr. II. p. 69, A. Buttmann Gramm. p. 97) for supposing that the reflexive pronoun ?a?t?? etc. is never contracted into a?t?? etc. in the Greek Testament. But at the same time it is quite clear that the oblique cases of the personal pronoun a?t?? are there used very widely, and in cases where we should commonly find the reflexive pronoun in classical authors: e.g. Ephes. i. 4, 5 ??e???at? ??? ... e??a? ??? ?????? ?a? ????? ?ate??p??? a?t?? ... p?????sa? ??? e?? ????es?a? d?? ??s?? ???st?? e?? a?t??. See also the instances given in A. Buttmann p. 98. It would seem indeed that a?t?? etc. may be used for ?a?t?? etc. in almost every connexion, except where it is the direct object of the verb. e?????p???sa?] The word occurs in the LXX, Prov. x. 10, and in Hermes in Stob. Ecl. Phys. xli. 45. The substantive e?????p???? (see Matt. v. 9) is found several times in classical writers. d?’ a?t??] The external authority for and against these words is nearly evenly balanced: but there would obviously be a tendency to reject them as superfluous. They are a resumption of the previous d?’ a?t??. For other examples see ii. 13 ???, Rom. viii. 23 ?a? a?t??, Gal. ii. 15, 16 ?e??, Ephes. i. 13 ?? ? ?a?, iii. 1, 14 t??t?? ?????, where words are similarly repeated for the sake of emphasis or distinctness. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 there is a repetition of ??a ? ?pe?a???a?, where again it is omitted in several excellent authorities. 21–23. ‘And ye too—ye Gentiles—are included in the terms of this peace. In times past ye had estranged yourselves from God. Your hearts were hostile to Him, while ye lived on in your evil deeds. But now, in Christ’s body, in Christ’s flesh which died on the Cross for your atonement, ye are reconciled to Him again. He will present you a living sacrifice, an acceptable offering unto Himself, free from blemish and free even from censure, that ye may stand the piercing glance of Him whose scrutiny no defect can escape. But this can only be, if ye remain true to your old allegiance, if ye hold fast (as I trust ye are holding fast) by the teaching of Epaphras, if the edifice of your faith is built on solid foundations and not reared carelessly on the sands, if ye suffer not yourselves to be shifted or shaken but rest firmly on the hope which ye have found in the Gospel—the one universal unchangeable Gospel, which was proclaimed to every creature under heaven, of which I Paul, unworthy as I am, was called to be a minister.’ 21. ?p????t????????] ‘estranged,’ not ????t?????, ‘strangers’; comp. Ephes. ii. 12, iv. 18. See the note on ?p??ata????a? ver. 20. ? ??????? t? d?a???? ?? t??? ?????? t??? p???????, ???? d? ?p??at??????te 21 ???? d? ?p??at???a?e?. ???????] ‘hostile to God,’ as the consequence of ?p????t????????, not ‘hateful to God,’ as it is taken by some. The active rather than the passive sense of ??????? is required by the context, which (as commonly in the New Testament) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the sinner: comp. Rom. v. 10 e? ??? ?????? ??te? ?at??????e? t? Te? ?.t.?. It is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected. t? d?a???"?] ‘in your mind, intent.’ For the dative of the part affected compare Ephes. iv. 18 ?s??t????? t? d?a????, Luke i. 51 ?pe??f????? d?a???? ?a?d?a? a?t??. So ?a?d??, ?a?d?a??, Matt. v. 8, xi. 29, Acts vii. 51, 2 Cor. ix. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 17; f?es??, 1 Cor. xiv. 20. ?? t??? ?????? ?.t.?.] ‘in the midst of, in the performance of your wicked works’; the same use of the preposition as e.g. ii. 23, iv. 2. ????] Here, as frequently, ??? (????) admits an aorist, because it denotes not ‘at the present moment,’ but ‘in the present dispensation, the present order of things’: comp. e.g. ver. 26, Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31, xvi. 26, Ephes. ii. 13, iii. 5, 2 Tim. i. 10, 1 Pet. i. 12, ii. 10, 25. In all these passages there is a direct contrast between the old dispensation and the new, more especially as affecting the relation of the Gentiles to God. The aorist is found also in Classical writers, where a similar contrast is involved; e.g. Plato Symp. 193 A p?? t??, ?spe? ????, ?? ?e?? ???? d? d?? t?? ?d???a? d????s??e? ?p? t?? ?e??, IsÆus de Cleon. her. 20 t?te ?? ... ???? d? ... ???????. ?p??at??????te] The reasons for preferring this reading, though the direct authority for it is so slight, are given in the detached note on the various readings. But, whether ?p??at??????te or ?p??at???a?e? be preferred, the construction requires explanation. If ?p??at???a?e? be adopted, it is perhaps best to treat d? as introducing the apodosis, the foregoing participial clause serving as the protasis: ‘And you, though ye were once estranged ... yet now hath he reconciled,’ in which case the first ??? will be governed directly by ?p??at???a?e?; see Winer Gramm. § liii. p. 553. If this construction be adopted, pa?ast?sa? ??? will describe the result of ?p??at???a?e?, ‘so as to present you’; but ? Te?? will still be the nominative to ?p??at???a?e? as in 2 Cor. v. 19. If on the other hand ?p??at??????te be taken, it is best to regard ???? d? ?p??at??????te as a direct indicative clause substituted for the more regular participial form ???? d? ?p??ata??a???ta? for the sake of greater emphasis: see the note on ver. 26 t? ?p??e??????? ... ??? d? ?fa?e????. In this case pa?ast?sa? will be governed directly by e?d???se?, and will itself govern ?a? p?te ??ta? ?.t.?., the second ??? being a repetition of the first; ‘And you who once were estranged ... but now ye have been reconciled ... to present you, I say, holy and without blemish.’ For the repetition of ???, which was needed to disentangle the construction, see the note on d?’ a?t?? ver. 20. 22. t?? sa???? a?t??] It has been supposed that St Paul added these words, which are evidently emphatic, with a polemical aim either; (1) To combat docetism. Of this form of error however there is no direct evidence till a somewhat later date: or (2) To combat a false spiritualism which took offence at the doctrine of an atoning sacrifice. But for this purpose they would not have been adequate, because not explicit enough. It seems simpler therefore to suppose that they were added for the sake of greater clearness, to distinguish the natural body of Christ intended here from the mystical body mentioned just above ver. 18. Similarly in Ephes. ii. 14 ?? t? sa??? a?t?? is used rather than ?? t? s?at? a?t??, because s?a occurs in the context (ver. 16) of Christ’s mystical body. The same expression, t? s?a t?? sa????, which we have here, occurs also below, ii. 11, but with a different emphasis and meaning. There the emphasis is on t? s?a, the contrast lying between the whole body and a single member (see the note); whereas here t?? sa???? is the emphatic part of the expression, the antithesis being between the material and the spiritual. Compare also Ecclus. xxiii. 16 ?????p?? p????? ?? s?at? sa???? a?t??. Marcion omitted t?? sa???? as inconsistent with his views, and explained ?? t? s?at? to mean the Church. Hence the comment of Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 19, ‘utique in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per carnem, mortuus est, non per ecclesiam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus commutando pro corpore, carnale pro spiritali.’ ? t?? ?a??t?? [a?t??], pa?ast?sa? ??? ?????? ?a? ????? ?a? ??e????t??? ?ate??p??? a?t??, pa?ast?sa?] If the construction which I have adopted be correct, this is said of God Himself, as in 2 Cor. iv. 14 ? ?????a? t?? ?????? ??s??? ?a? ??? s?? ??s?? ??e?e? ?a? pa?ast?se? s?? ???. This construction seems in all respects preferable to connecting pa?ast?sa? directly with ?p??at??????te and interpreting the words, ‘Ye have been reconciled so that ye should present yourselves (???) ... before Him.’ This latter interpretation leaves the ?a? ??? p?t? ??ta? ?.t.?. without a government, and it gives to the second ??? a reflexive sense (as if ??? a?t??? or ?a?t???), which is at least harsh. ?????] ‘without blemish’ rather than ‘without blame,’ in the language of the New Testament; see the noteon Ephes. i. 4. It is a sacrificial word, like t??e???, ?????????, etc. The verb pa??st??a? also is used of presenting a sacrifice in Rom. xii. 1 pa?ast?sa? t? s?ata ??? ??s?a? ??sa? ???a? ?.t.?., Lev. xvi. 7 (v. l.): comp. Luke ii. 22. ??e????t???] an advance upon ?????, ‘in whom not only no blemish is found, but against whom no charge is brought’: comp. 1 Tim. vi. 14 ?sp????, ??ep???pt??. The word ???????t?? occurs again in 1 Cor. i. 8, 1 Tim. iii. 10, Tit. i. 6, 7. ?ate??p??? a?t??] ‘before Him,’ i.e. ‘Himself,’ as in the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 4; if the construction here adopted be correct. For this use of the personal pronoun instead of the reflexive see the note on e?? a?t??, ver. 20. But does ?ate??p??? a?t?? refer to God’s future judgment or His present approbation? The latter seems more probable, both because the expression certainly has this meaning in the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 4, and because ?ate??p?a?, ???p???, ?at??a?t?, etc., are commonly so used; e.g. Rom. xiv. 22, 1 Cor. i. 29, 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2, vii. 12, xii. 19, etc. On the other hand, where the future judgment is intended, a different expression is found, 2 Cor. v. 10 ?p??s?e? t?? ?at?? t?? ???st??. Thus God is here regarded, not as the judge who tries the accused, but as the ??s??p?? who examines the victims (Polyc. Phil. 4, see the note on Ephes. i. 4). Compare Heb. iv. 12, 13 for a closely allied metaphor. The passage in Jude 24, st?sa? ?ate??p??? t?? d???? a?t?? ????? ?? ??a????se?, though perhaps referring to final approval, is too different in expression to influence the interpretation of Paul’s language here. 23. e? ?e] On the force of these particles see Gal. iii. 4. They express a pure hypothesis in themselves, but the indicative mood following converts the hypothesis into a hope. ?p???ete] ‘ye abide by, ye adhere to,’ with a dative; the common construction of ?p???e?? in St Paul: see the note on Phil. i. 24. In this connexion t? p?ste? is perhaps ‘your faith,’ rather than ‘the faith.’ te?ee??????? ?.t.?.] ‘built on a foundation and so firm’; not like the house of the foolish man in the parable who built ????? ?ee????, Luke vi. 49. For te?ee??????? comp. Ephes. iii. 17. The consequence of te?ee??????? is ?d?a???: Clem. Rom. 33 ?d?ase? ?p? t?? ?sfa?? t?? ?d??? ????at?? ?e?????. The words ?d?a???, ?d????, etc., are not uncommonly applied to buildings, e.g. ?d?a??a 1 Tim. iii. 15. Comp. Ign. Ephes. 10 ?e?? ?d?a??? t? p?ste?. ? eta?????e???] ‘not constantly shifting,’ a present tense; the same idea as ?d?a??? expressed from the negative side, as in 1 Cor. xv. 58 ?d?a??? ???es?e, ?eta????t??, Polyc. Phil. 10 ‘firmi in fide et immutabiles.’ ? ?p? t?? ??p?d?? t?? e?a??e???? ?? ????sate, t?? ????????t?? ?? p?s? ?t?se? t? ?p? t?? ???a???, ?? ??e???? ??? ?a???? d???????. ? t?? ??p?d?? ?.t.?.] ‘the hope held out by the Gospel,’ t?? e?a??e???? being a subjective genitive, as in Ephes. i. 18 ? ??p?? t?? ???se?? (comp. iv. 4). ?? p?s? ?t?se?] ‘among every creature,’ in fulfilment of the Lord’s last command, Mark xvi. 15 ?????ate t? e?a??????? p?s? t? ?t?se?. Here however the definitive article, though found in the received text, ?? p?s? t? ?t?se?, must be omitted in accordance with the best authorities. For the meanings of p?sa ?t?s??, p?sa ? ?t?s??, see the note on ver. 15. The expression p?sa ?t?s?? must not be limited to man. The statement is given in the broadest form, all creation animate and inanimate being included, as in Rev. v. 13 p?? ?t?sa ... ?a? t? ?? a?t??? p??ta ????sa ?????ta ?.t.?. For the hyperbole ?? p?s? ?t?se? compare 1 Thess. i. 8 ?? pa?t? t?p?. To demand statistical exactness in such a context would be to require what is never required in similar cases. The motive of the Apostle here is at once to emphasize the universality of the genuine Gospel, which has been offered without reserve to all alike, and to appeal to its publicity, as the credential and guarantee of its truth: see the notes on ver. 6 ?? pa?t? t? ??s? and on ver. 28 p??ta ?????p??. ?? ??e???? ?.t.?.] Why does St Paul introduce this mention of himself so abruptly? His motive can hardly be the assertion of his Apostolic authority, for it does not appear that this was questioned; otherwise he would have declared his commission in stronger terms. We can only answer that impressed with the dignity of his office, as involving the offer of grace to the Gentiles, he cannot refrain from magnifying it. At the same time this mention enables him to link himself in bonds of closer sympathy with the Colossians, and he passes on at once to his relations with them: comp. Ephes. iii. 2–9, 1 Tim. i. 11 sq., in which latter passage the introduction of his own name is equally abrupt. ??? ?a????] i.e. ‘weak and unworthy as I am’: comp. Ephes. iii. 8 ??? t? ??a??st?t?? p??t?? ?????. ? 24–27. ‘Now when I see the full extent of God’s mercy, now when I ponder over His mighty work of reconciliation, I cannot choose but rejoice in my sufferings. Yes, I Paul the persecutor, I Paul the feeble and sinful, am permitted to supplement—I do not shrink from the word—to supplement the afflictions of Christ. Despite all that He underwent, He the Master has left something still for me the servant to undergo. And so my flesh is privileged to suffer for His body—His spiritual body, the Church. I was appointed a minister of the Church, a steward in God’s household, for this very purpose, that I might administer my office on your behalf, might dispense to you Gentiles the stores which His bountiful grace has provided. Thus I was charged to preach without reserve the whole Gospel of God, to proclaim the great mystery which had remained a secret through all the ages and all the generations from the beginning, but which now in these last times was revealed to His holy people. For such was His good pleasure. God willed to make known to them, in all its inexhaustible wealth thus displayed through the call of the Gentiles, the glorious revelation of this mystery—Christ not the Saviour of the Jews only, but Christ dwelling in you, Christ become to you the hope of glory.’ 24. ??? ?a???] A sudden outburst of thanksgiving, that he, who was less than the least, who was not worthy to be called an Apostle, should be allowed to share and even to supplement the sufferings of Christ. The relative ??, which is found in some authorities, is doubtless the repetition of the final syllable of d?a?????; but its insertion would be assisted by the anxiety of scribes to supply a connecting link between the sentences. The genuine reading is more characteristic of St Paul. The abruptness, which dispenses with a connecting particle, has a parallel in Tim. i. 12 ????? ??? t? ??d??a?sa?t? e ???st? ?.t.?., where also the common text inserts a link of connexion, ?a? ????? ??? ?.t.?. Compare also 2 Cor. vii. 9 ??? ?a???, ??? ?t? ?.t.?., where again there is no connecting particle. The thought underlying ??? seems to be this: ‘If ever I have been disposed to repine at my lot, if ever I have felt my cross almost too heavy to bear, yet now–now, when I contemplate the lavish wealth of God’s mercy—now when I see all the glory of bearing a part in this magnificent work—my sorrow is turned to joy.’ ? ??ta?ap???? t? ?ste??ata t?? ????e?? t?? ???st?? ? ??ta?ap????] ‘I fill up on my part’, ‘I supplement.’ The single compound ??ap?????? occurs several times (e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, xvi. 17, Gal. vi. 2); another double compound p??sa?ap?????? twice (2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9; comp. Wisd. xix. 4, v.l.); but ??ta?ap?????? only here in the LXX or New Testament. For this verb compare Demosth. de Symm. p. 182 t??t?? t?? s?????? ???st?? d?e?e?? ?e?e?? p??te ??? ?at? d?de?a ??d?a?, ??ta?ap??????ta? p??? t?? e?p???tat?? ?e? t??? ?p???t?t??? (where t??? ?p???t?t??? should be taken as the subject to ??ta?ap??????ta?), Dion Cass. xliv. 48 ??’ ?s?? ... ???de?, t??t? ?? t?? pa?? t?? ????? s??te?e?a? ??ta?ap??????, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 12 p. 878 ??t?? ... t?? ?p?st?????? ?p??s?a? ??ta?ap?????, Apollon. Constr. Or. i. 3 (p. 13 sq.) ? ??t????a ??ta?ap?????sa ?a? t?? ??s?? t?? ???at?? ?a? t?? t???? t?? ??at??, Ptol. Math. Comp. vi. 9 (I. p. 435 ed. Halma) ?pe? d’ ? ?? ???e?pe?? ?p??e? t?? ?p??at?stas?? ? d? p?e????e?? ?at? t??a s??t???a? ?? ?s?? ?a? ? ?ppa???? ??ta?ap????????? p?? ?ata?e????e? ?.t.?. The substantive ??ta?ap????s?? occurs in Diog. Laert. x. 48. So too ??ta?ap???e?? Xen. Hell. ii. 4. 11, 12 ???et??a?t?, ?ste ?p??sa? t?? ?d?? ... ?? d? ?p? t?? f???? ??ta??p??sa? ... t?? ?d??. Compare also ??ta??s??? Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 43 B ??d?? ????e? ?at? ta?t?? ?????? p?? eta???e?? ???a e?? ?d?? ?a? ??ta??s??s?a? t?? s?pa?ta ?????, and ??ta??s?a Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9. 7. The meaning of ??t? in this compound will be plain from the passages quoted. It signifies that the supply comes from an opposite quarter to the deficiency. This idea is more or less definitely expressed in the context of all the passages, in the words which are spaced. The force of ??ta?ap?????? in St Paul is often explained as denoting simply that the supply corresponds in extent to the deficiency. This interpretation practically deprives ??t? of any meaning, for ??ap?????? alone would denote as much. If indeed the supply had been the subject of the verb, and the sentence had run t? pa??at? ?? ??ta?ap????? t? ?st???ata ?.t.?., this idea might perhaps be reached without sacrificing the sense of ??t?; but in such a passage as this, where one personal agent is mentioned in connexion with the supply and another in connexion with the deficiency, the one forming the subject and the other being involved in the object of the verb, the ??t? can only describe the correspondence of these personal agents. So interpreted, it is eminently expressive here. The point of the Apostle’s boast is that Christ the sinless Master should have left something for Paul the unworthy servant to suffer. The right idea has been seized and is well expressed by Photius Amphil. 121 (I. p. 709 Migne) ?? ??? ?p??? f?s?? ??ap????, ???’ ??ta?ap????, t??t?st??, ??t? desp?t?? ?a? d?das????? ? d????? ??? ?a? a??t?? ?.t.?. Similar in meaning, though not identical, is the expression in 2 Cor. i. 5, where the sufferings of Christ are said to ‘overflow’ (pe??sse?e??) upon the Apostle. The theological difficulty which this plain and natural interpretation of ??ta?ap?????? is supposed to involve will be considered in the note on t?? ????e??. t? ?ste??ata] ‘the things lacking.’ This same word ?st???a ‘deficiency’ occurs with ??ap?????? 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 30, and with p??sa?ap?????? 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9. Its direct opposite is pe??sse?a ‘abundance, superfluity,’ 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14; comp. Luke xxi. 4. Another interpretation, which makes ?st???a an antithesis to p??t???a, explaining it as ‘the later’ as opposed to the earlier ‘sufferings of Christ,’ is neither supported by the usage of the word nor consistent with ??ta?ap????. t?? ????e?? t?? ???st??] ‘of the afflictions of Christ,’ i.e. which Christ endured. This seems to be the only natural interpretation of the words. Others have explained them as meaning ‘the afflictions imposed by Christ,’ or ‘the afflictions endured for Christ’s sake,’ or ‘the afflictions which resemble those of Christ.’ All such interpretations put a more or less forced meaning on the genitive. All alike ignore the meaning of ??t? in ??ta?ap???? which points to a distinction of persons suffering. Others again suppose the words to describe St Paul’s own afflictions regarded as Christ’s, because Christ suffers in His suffering Church; e.g. Augustine in Psalm. cxlii. § 3 (IV. p. 1590) ‘Patitur, inquit, adhuc Christus pressuram, non in carne sua in qua ascendit in cÆlum, sed in carne mea quÆ adhuc laborat in terra,’ quoting Gal. ii. 20. This last is a very favourite explanation, and has much to recommend it. It cannot be charged with wresting the meaning of a? ????e?? t?? ???st??. Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul’s mode of speaking elsewhere. But, like the others, it is open to the fatal objection that it empties the first preposition in ??ta?ap???? of any force. The central idea in this interpretation is the identification of the suffering Apostle with the suffering Christ, whereas ??ta?ap???? emphasizes the distinction between the two. It is therefore inconsistent with this context, however important may be the truth which it expresses. The theological difficulty, which these and similar explanations are intended to remove, is imaginary and not real. There is a sense in which it is quite legitimate to speak of Christ’s afflictions as incomplete, a sense in which they may be, and indeed must be, supplemented. For the sufferings of Christ may be considered from two different points of view. They are either satisfactoriÆ or ÆdificatoriÆ. They have their sacrificial efficacy, and they have their ministerial utility. (1) From the former point of view the Passion of Christ was the one full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. In this sense there could be no ?st???a of Christ’s sufferings; for, Christ’s sufferings being different in kind from those of His servants, the two are incommensurable. But in this sense the Apostle would surely have used some other expression such as t?? sta???? (i. 20, Eph. ii. 16 etc.), or t?? ?a??t?? (i. 22, Rom. v. 10, Heb. ii. 14, etc.), but hardly t?? ????e??. Indeed ??????, ‘affliction,’ is not elsewhere applied in the New Testament in any sense to Christ’s sufferings, and certainly would not suggest a sacrificial act. (2) From the latter point of view it is a simple matter of fact that the afflictions of every saint and martyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ. The Church is built up by repeated acts of self-denial in successive individuals and successive generations. They continue the work which Christ began. They bear their part in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 7 ???????? t?? pa???t??, Phil. iii. 10 ???????a? t?? pa???t??); but St Paul would have been the last to say that they bear their part in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This being so, St Paul does not mean to say that his own sufferings filled up all the ?ste??ata, but only that they went towards filling them up. The present tense ??ta?ap???? denotes an inchoate, and not a complete act. These ?ste??ata will never be fully supplemented, until the struggle of the Church with sin and unbelief is brought to a close. Thus the idea of expiation or satisfaction is wholly absent from this passage; and with it is removed the twofold temptation which has beset theologians of opposite schools. (1) On the one hand Protestant commentators, rightly feeling that any interpretation which infringed the completeness of the work wrought by Christ’s death must be wrong, because it would make St Paul contradict himself on a cardinal point of his teaching, have been tempted to wrest the sense of the words. They have emptied ??ta?ap???? of its proper force; or they have assigned a false meaning to ?ste??ata; or they have attached a non-natural sense to the genitive t?? ???st??. (2) On the other hand Romanist commentators, while protesting (as they had a right to do) against these methods of interpretation, have fallen into the opposite error. They have found in this passage an assertion of the merits of the saints, and (as a necessary consequence) of the doctrine of indulgences. They have not observed that, if the idea of vicarious satisfaction comes into the passage at all, the satisfaction of St Paul is represented here as the same in kind with the satisfaction of Christ, however different it may be in degree; and thus they have truly exposed themselves to the reproach which Estius indignantly repudiates on their behalf, ‘quasi Christus non satis passus sit ad redemptionem nostram, ideoque supplemento martyrum opus habeat; quod impium est sentire, quodque Catholicos dicere non minus impie calumniantur hÆretici.’ It is no part of a commentator here to enquire generally whether the Roman doctrine of the satisfaction of the saints can in any way be reconciled with St Paul’s doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ. It is sufficient to say that, so far as regards this particular passage, the Roman doctrine can only be imported into it at the cost of a contradiction to the Pauline doctrine. It is only fair to add however that Estius himself says, ‘quÆ quidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis probetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco nobis non videtur admodum solide statui posse.’ But Roman Catholic commentators generally find this meaning in the text, as may be seen from the notes of À Lapide. ? ?? t? sa??? ?? ?p?? t?? s?at?? a?t??, ? ?st?? ? ?????s?a? t?? s?at?? a?t?? An antithesis of the Apostle’s own flesh and Christ’s body. This antithetical form of expression obliges St Paul to explain what he means by the body of Christ, ? ?st?? ? ?????s?a; comp. ver. 18. Contrast the explanation in ver. 22 ?? t? s?at? t?? sa???? a?t??, and see the note there. 25. t?? ???????a? ?.t.?.] ‘stewardship in the house of God.’ The word ???????a seems to have two senses: (1) ‘The actual administration of a household’; (2) ‘The office of the administrator.’ For the former meaning see the note on Ephes. i. 10; for the latter sense, which it has here, compare 1 Cor. ix. 17 ???????a? pep?ste?a?, Luke xvi. 2–4, Isaiah xxii. 19, 21. So the Apostles and ministers of the Church are called ????????, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2, Tit. i. 7: comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10. ? ???????a? t?? Te?? t?? d??e?s?? ?? e?? ???, p????sa? t?? ????? t?? Te??, e?? ???] ‘to youward,’ i.e. ‘for the benefit of you, the Gentiles’; e?? ??? being connected with t?? d??e?s?? ??, as in Ephes. iii. 2 t?? ???????a? t?? ????t?? t?? Te?? t?? d??e?s?? ?? e?? ???; comp. Rom. xv. 16 d?? t?? ????? t?? d??e?s?? ?? ?p? t?? Te?? e?? t? e??a? e ?e?t?????? ???st?? ??s?? e?? t? ????. p????sa?] ‘to fulfil,’ i.e. ‘to preach fully,’ ‘to give its complete development to’; as Rom. xv. 19 ?ste e ?p? ?e???sa?? ?a? ????? ???? t?? ????????? pep???????a? t? e?a??e???? t?? ???st??. Thus ‘the word of God’ here is ‘the Gospel,’ as in most places (1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2, etc.), though not always (e.g. Rom. ix. 6), in St Paul, as also in the Acts. The other interpretation, ‘to accomplish the promise of God,’ though suggested by such passages as 1 Kings ii. 27 p???????a? t? ??a ??????, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 p???????a? ????? ??????, etc., is alien to the context here. 26. t? ?st?????] This is not the only term borrowed from the ancient mysteries, which St Paul employs to describe the teaching of the Gospel. The word t??e??? just below, ver. 28, seems to be an extension of the same metaphor. In Phil. iv. 12 again we have the verb e??a?: and in Ephes. i. 14 sf?a???es?a? is perhaps an image derived from the same source. So too the Ephesians are addressed as ?a???? s??sta? in Ign. Ephes. 12. The Christian teacher is thus regarded as a ?e??f??t?? (see Epict. iii. 21. 13 sq.) who initiates his disciples into the rites. There is this difference however; that, whereas the heathen mysteries were strictly confined to a narrow circle, the Christian mysteries are freely communicated to all. There is therefore an intentional paradox in the employment of the image by St Paul. See the notes on p??ta ?????p?? t??e??? below. Thus the idea of secresy or reserve disappears when ?st????? is adopted into the Christian vocabulary by St Paul: and the word signifies simply ‘a truth which was once hidden but now is revealed,’ ‘a truth which without special revelation would have been unknown.’ Of the nature of the truth itself the word says nothing. It may be transcendental, incomprehensible, mystical, mysterious, in the modern sense of the term (1 Cor. xv. 51, Eph. v. 32): but this idea is quite accidental, and must be gathered from the special circumstances of the case, for it cannot be inferred from the word itself. Hence ?st????? is almost universally found in connexion with words denoting revelation or publication; e.g. ?p??a??pte??, ?p????????, Rom. xvi. 25, Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 2 Thess. ii. 7; ??????e?? Rom. xvi. 26, Ephes. i. 9, iii. 3, 10, vi. 19; fa?e???? Col. iv. 3, Rom. xvi. 26, 1 Tim. iii. 16; ?a?e?? iv. 3, 1 Cor. ii. 7, xiv. 2; ???e??, 1 Cor. xv. 51. But the one special ‘mystery’ which absorbs St Paul’s thoughts in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians is the free admission of the Gentiles on equal terms to the privileges of the covenant. For this he is a prisoner; this he is bound to proclaim fearlessly (iv. 3, Ephes. vi. 19); this, though hidden from all time, was communicated to him by a special revelation (Ephes. iii. 3 sq.); in this had God most signally displayed the lavish wealth of His goodness (ver. 27, ii. 2 sq., Ephes. i. 6 sq., iii. 8 sq.). In one passage only throughout these two epistles is ?st????? applied to anything else, Ephes. v. 32. The same idea of the ?st????? appears very prominently also in the thanksgiving (added apparently later than the rest of the letter) at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, xvi. 25 sq. ?st????? ... e?? ?pa???? p?ste?? e?? p??ta t? ???? ?????s???t??. ? ?p? t?? a????? ?a? ?p? t?? ?e?e??, ??? d? ?fa?e???? t??? ?????? a?t??, ?p? t?? a????? ?.t.?.] The preposition is doubtless temporal here, being opposed to ???, as in the parallel passage, Ephes. iii. 9: comp. Rom. xvi. 25 ?at? ?p???????? ?st????? ??????? a??????? ses???????, 1 Cor. ii. 7 Te?? s?f?a? ?? ?st???? t?? ?p??e??????? ?? p?????se? ? Te?? p?? t?? a?????. So too ?p’ a?????, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18, Ps. xcii. 3, etc.; ?p? ?ata???? ??s??, Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 34, etc. t?? ?e?e??] An a??? is made up of many ?e?ea?; comp. Ephes. iii. 21 e?? p?sa? t?? ?e?e?? t?? a????? t?? a?????, Is. li. 9 ?? ?e?e? a????? (where the Hebrew has the plural ‘generations’). Hence the order here. Not only was this mystery unknown in remote periods of antiquity, but even in recent generations. It came upon the world as a sudden surprise. The moment of its revelation was the moment of its fulfilment. 27. ?????se?] ‘willed,’ ‘was pleased.’ It was God’s grace: it was no merit of their own. See the note on i. 1 d?? ?e??at?? Te??. ??? d? ?.t.?.] An indicative clause is substituted for a participial, which would otherwise have been more natural, for the sake of emphasizing the statement; comp. ver. 22 ???? d? ?p??at??????te, and see Winer § lxiii. p. 717. t? p???t??] The ‘wealth of God,’ as manifested in His dispensation of grace, is a prominent idea in these epistles; comp. ii. 2, Ephes. i. 7, 18, iii. 8, 16; comp. Rom. xi. 33. See above p. 43 sq. St Paul uses the neuter and the masculine forms indifferently in these epistles (e.g. t? p???t?? Ephes. i. 7, ? p???t?? Ephes. i. 18), as in his other letters (e.g. t? p???t?? 2 Cor. viii. 2, ? p???t?? Rom. ix. 23). In most passages however there are various readings. On the neuter forms t? p???t??, t? ?????, etc., see Winer § ix. p. 76. t?? d????] i.e. ‘of the glorious manifestation.’ This word in Hellenistic Greek is frequently used of a bright light; e.g. Luke ii. 9 pe??e?a?e?, Acts xxii. 11 t?? f?t??, 1 Cor. xv. 41 ?????, se?????, etc. 2 Cor. iii. 7 t?? p??s?p?? [???s???]. Hence it is applied generally to a divine manifestation, even where there is no physical accompaniment of light; and more especially to the revelation of God in Christ (e.g. Joh. i. 14, 2 Cor. iv. 4, etc.). The expression p???t?? t?? d???? occurs again, Rom. ix. 23, Ephes. i. 18, iii. 16. See above ver. 11 with the note. ? ???es??, ? ?st?? ???st?? ?? ???, ? ??p?? t?? d????? 27 ?? ?st??. ?? t??? ???es??] i.e. ‘as exhibited among the Gentiles.’ It was just here that this ‘mystery,’ this dispensation of grace, achieved its greatest triumphs and displayed its transcendant glory; fa??eta? ?? ??? ?a? ?? ?te????, writes Chrysostom, p???? d? p???? ?? t??t??? ? p???? t?? ?ste???? d??a. Here too was its wealth; for it overflowed all barriers of caste or race. Judaism was ‘beggarly’ (Gal. iv. 9) in comparison, since its treasures sufficed only for a few. ? ?st??] The antecedent is probably t?? ?st?????; comp. ii. 2 t?? ?st????? t?? Te??, ???st?? ?? ? e?s?? p??te? ?.t.?. ???st?? ?? ???] ‘Christ in you,’ i.e. ‘you Gentiles.’ Not Christ, but Christ given freely to the Gentiles, is the ‘mystery’ of which St Paul speaks; see the note on ?st????? above. Thus the various reading, ?? for ?, though highly supported, interferes with the sense. With ???st?? ?? ??? compare e?’ ??? Te?? Matt. i. 23. It may be a question however, whether ?? ??? means ‘within you’ or ‘among you.’ The former is perhaps the more probable interpretation, as suggested by Rom. viii. 10, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, Gal. iv. 19; comp. Ephes. iii. 17 ?at????sa? t?? ???st?? d?? t?? p?ste?? ?? ta?? ?a?d?a?? ???. ? ??p??] comp. 1 Tim. i. 2; so ? [?????] ??p?? ??? Ign. Eph. 21, Magn. Philad. 5, etc., applied to our Lord. 28, 29. ‘This Christ we, the Apostles and Evangelists, proclaim without distinction and without reserve. We know no restriction either of persons or of topics. We admonish every man and instruct every man. We initiate every man in all the mysteries of wisdom. It is our single aim to present every man fully and perfectly taught in Christ. For this end I train myself in the discipline of self-denial; for this end I commit myself to the arena of suffering and toil, putting forth in the conflict all that energy which He inspires, and which works in me so powerfully.’ 28. ?e??] ‘we,’ the preachers; the same opposition as in 1 Cor. iv. 8, 10, ix. 11, 2 Cor. xiii. 5 sq., 1 Thess. ii. 13 sq., etc. The Apostle hastens, as usual, to speak of the part which he was privileged to bear in this glorious dispensation. He is constrained to magnify his office. See the next note, and comp. ver. 23. ? ?a? d?d?s???te? p??ta ?????p?? ?? p?s? s?f??, ??a pa?ast?s?e? p??ta ?????p?? t??e??? ?? ???st?? ? ?? ?e?? ?.t.?.] as in St Paul’s own language at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 3 ?? ??? ?ata?????? ???, and at Athens, Acts xvii. 23 t??t? ??? ?ata?????? ???, in both which passages, as here, emphasis is laid on the person of the preacher. ????et???te?] ‘admonishing.’ The two words ????ete?? and d?d?s?e?? present complementary aspects of the preacher’s duty, and are related the one to the other, as et????a to p?st??, ‘warning to repent, instructing in the faith.’ For the relation of ????ete?? to et????a See Plut. Mor. p. 68 ??est? t? ????et??? ?a? et????a? ?p?????, p. 452 ? ????es?a ?a? ? ????? ?p??e? et????a? ?a? a?s?????. The two verbs ????ete?? and d?d?s?e?? are connected in Plato Protag. 323 D, Legg. 845 B, Plut. Mor. p. 46 (comp. p. 39), Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiii. p. 369; the substantives d?da?? and ?????t?s?? in Plato Resp. 399 B. Similarly ????ete?? and pe??e?? occur together in Arist. Rhet. ii. 18. For the two functions of the preacher’s office, corresponding respectively to the two words, see St Paul’s own language in Acts xx. 21 d?aa?t???e??? ... t?? e?? Te?? et????a? ?a? p?st?? e?? t?? ?????? ??? ??s???. p??ta ?????p??] three times repeated for the sake of emphasizing the universality of the Gospel. This great truth, for which St Paul gave his life, was now again endangered by the doctrine of an intellectual exclusiveness taught by the Gnosticizers at ColossÆ, as before it had been endangered by the doctrine of a ceremonial exclusiveness taught by the Judaizers in Galatia. See above pp. 77, 92, 98 sq. For the repetition of p??ta compare especially 1 Cor. x. 1 sq., where p??te? is five times, and ib. xii. 29, 30, where it is seven times repeated; see also Rom. ix. 6, 7, xi. 32, 1 Cor. xii. 13, xiii. 7, xiv. 31, etc. Transcribers have been offended at this characteristic repetition here, and consequently have omitted p??ta ?????p?? in one place or other. ?? p?s? s?f??] The Gnostic spoke of a blind faith for the many, of a higher ???s?? for the few. St Paul declares that the fullest wisdom is offered to all alike. The character of the teaching is as free from restriction, as are the qualifications of the recipients. Comp. ii. 2, 3 p?? p???t?? t?? p????f???a? t?? s???se?? ... p??te? ?? ??sa???? t?? s?f?a? ?a? ???se??. pa?ast?s?e?] See the note on pa?ast?sa?, ver. 22. t??e???] So 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 s?f?a? d? ?a???e? ?? t??? te?e???? ... Te?? s?f?a? ?? ?st???? t?? ?p??e???????. In both these passages the epithet t??e??? is probably a metaphor borrowed from the ancient mysteries, where it seems to have been applied to the fully instructed, as opposed to the novices: comp. Plato PhÆdr. 249 C te????? ?e? te?et?? te???e??? t??e?? ??t?? ???? ????eta?... 250 B, C e?d?? te ?a? ?te????t? te?et?? ?? ???? ???e?? a?a???t?t?? ... ???e??? te ?a? ?p?pte???te? ?? a??? ?a?a??, Symp. 209 E ta?ta ... ??? s? ???e???? t? d? t??ea ?a? ?p?pt??? ... ??? ?? d’ e? ???? t’ ?? e???, Plut. Fragm. de An. vi. 2 (v. p. 726 Wyttenb.) ? pa?te??? ?d? ?a? e?????? (with the context), Dion Chrys. Or. xii. p. 203 t?? ????????? ?a? t? ??t? te?e?a? te?et?? ???e???; see Valcknaer on Eurip. Hippol. 25, and Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 33 sq., p. 126 sq. Somewhat similarly in the LXX 1 Chron. xxv. 8 te????? ?a? a??a???t?? stands for ‘the teachers (or the wise) and the scholars.’ So also in 2 Pet. i. 16 ?p?pta? ?e?????te? t?? ??e???? e?a?e??t?t?? we seem to have the same metaphor. As an illustration it may be mentioned that Plato and Aristotle called the higher philosophy ?p?pt????, because those who have transcended the bounds of the material, ???? ??te?? [l. ?? te?et?] t???? ??e?? f???s?f?a? [f???s?f?a?] ??????s?, Plut. Mor. 382 D, E. For other metaphorical expressions in St Paul, derived from the mysteries, see above on ?st????? ver. 26. Influenced probably by this heathen use of t??e???, the early Christians applied it to the baptized, as opposed to the catechumens: e.g. Justin Dial. 8 (p. 225 C) p??est?? ?p?????t? s?? t?? ???st?? t?? Te?? ?a? te?e?? ?e????? e?da???e??, Clem. Hom. iii. 29 ?p????e?? ?? ?e?e?sa?, ?? ?p? e???f?t? t? p??? s?t???a? ?pt?sa, t??? ?d? te?e???? ?f? ?.t.?., xi. 36 apt?sa? ... ?d? ???p?? t??e??? ??ta ?.t.?.; and for later writers see Suicer Thes. s. vv. te?e???, te?e??s??. At all events we may ascribe to its connexion with the mysteries the fact that it was adopted by Gnostics at a later date, and most probably by the Gnosticizers at this time, to distinguish the possessors of the higher ???s?? from the vulgar herd of believers: see the passages quoted in the note on Phil. iii. 15. While employing the favourite Gnostic term, the Apostle strikes at the root of the Gnostic doctrine. The language descriptive of the heathen mysteries is transferred by him to the Christian dispensation, that he may thus more effectively contrast the things signified. The true Gospel also has its mysteries, its hierophants, its initiation: but these are open to all alike. In Christ every believer is t??e???, for he has been admitted as ?p?pt?? of its most profound, most awful, secrets. See again the note on ?p????f??, ii. 3. ? 29. e?? ?] i.e. e?? t? pa?ast?sa? p??ta ?????p?? t??e???, ‘that I may initiate all mankind in the fulness of this mystery,’ ‘that I may preach the Gospel to all without reserve.’ If St Paul had been content to preach an exclusive Gospel, he might have saved himself from more than half the troubles of his life. ??p??] This word is used especially of the labour undergone by the athlete in his training, and therefore fitly introduces the metaphor of ???????e???: comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10 e?? t??t? ??? ??p??e? ?a? ???????e?a (the correct reading), and see the passages quoted on Phil. ii. 16. ???????e???] ‘contending in the lists,’ the metaphor being continued in the next verse (ii. 1), ?????? ????a; comp. iv. 12. These words ????, ?????a, ??????es?a?, are only found in St Paul and the Pauline writings (Luke, Hebrews) in the New Testament. They occur in every group of St Paul’s Epistles. The use here most resembles 1 Thess. ii. 2 ?a??sa? p??? ??? t? e?a??????? t?? Te?? ?? p???? ?????. ??e????????] Comp. Eph. iii. 20. For the difference between ??e??e?? and ??e??e?s?a? see the note on Gal. v. 6. ? II. II. 1–3. ‘I spoke of an arena and a conflict in describing my apostolic labours. The image was not lightly chosen. I would have you know that my care is not confined to my own direct and personal disciples. I wish you to understand the magnitude of the struggle, which my anxiety for you costs me—for you and for your neighbours of Laodicea and for all who, like yourselves, have never met me face to face in the flesh. I am constantly wrestling in spirit, that the hearts of all such may be confirmed and strengthened in the faith; that they may be united in love; that they may attain to all the unspeakable wealth which comes from the firm conviction of an understanding mind, may be brought to the perfect knowledge of God’s mystery, which is nothing else than Christ—Christ containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden away.’ 1. T??? ?.t.?.] as in 1 Cor. xi. 3. The corresponding negative form, ?? ???? [????e?] ??? ????e??, is the more common expression in St Paul; Rom. i. 13, xi. 25, 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13. ????a] The arena of the contest to which ???????e??? in the preceding verse refers may be either outward or inward. It will include the ‘fightings without,’ as well as the ‘fears within.’ Here however the inward struggle, the wrestling in prayer, is the predominant idea, as in iv. 12 p??t?te ???????e??? ?p?? ??? ?? ta?? p??se??a?? ??a sta??te ?.t.?. t?? ?? ?a?d????] The Laodiceans were exposed to the same doctrinal perils as the Colossians: see above pp. 2, 41 sq. The Hierapolitans are doubtless included in ?a? ?s?? ?.t.?. (comp. iv. 13), but are not mentioned here by name, probably because they were less closely connected with ColossÆ (see iv. 15 sq.), and perhaps also because the danger was less threatening there. ?a? ?s?? ?.t.?.] ‘and all who, like yourselves, have not seen, etc.’; where the ?a? ?s?? introduces the whole class to which the persons previously enumerated belong; so Acts iv. 6 ???a? ? ????e???? ?a? ?a?afa? ?a? ??a???? ?a? ????a?d??? ?a? ?s?? ?sa? ?? ?????? ????e?at????, Rev. xviii. 17 ?a? p?? ??e???t?? ?a? p?? ? ?p? t?p?? p???? ?a? ?a?ta? ?a? ?s?? t?? ???assa? ???????ta?. Even a simple ?a? will sometimes introduce the general after the particular, e.g. Acts v. 29 ? ??t??? ?a? ?? ?p?st????, Ar. Nub. 413 ?? ????a???? ?a? t??? ????s?, etc.; see KÜhner Gramm. § 521, II. p. 791. On the other hand ?a? ?s??, occurring in an enumeration, sometimes introduces a different class from those previously mentioned, as e.g. in Herod, vii. 185. As a pure grammatical question therefore it is uncertain whether St Paul’s language here implies his personal acquaintance with his correspondents or the contrary. But in all such cases the sense of the context must be our guide. In the present instance ?a? ?s?? is quite out of place, unless the Colossians and Laodiceans also were personally unknown to the Apostle. There would be no meaning in singling out individuals who were known to him, and then mentioning comprehensively all who were unknown to him: see above p. 28, note 84. Hence we may infer from the expression here, that St Paul had never visited ColossÆ–an inference which has been already shown (p. 23 sq.) to accord both with the incidental language of this epistle elsewhere and with the direct historical narrative of the Acts. ???a?a?] For this ending of the 3rd pers. plur. perfect in -a? see Winer § xiii. p. 90. The received text reads ?????as?. In this passage the ? form has the higher support; but below in ver. 18 the preponderance of authority favours ???a?e? rather than ???a?e?. On the use of the form in ? see Buttmann Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. § 84, I. p. 325. 2. pa?a?????s??] ‘encouraged, confirmed,’ i.e. ‘comforted’ in the older and wider meaning of the word, (‘confortati’), but not with its modern and restricted sense: see pa?????s?? Phil. ii. 1. For pa?a?a?e?? t?? ?a?d?a? comp. iv. 8, Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess. ii. 17. ? a?t??, s??as???te? ?? ???p? ?a? e?? p?? p???t?? t?? p????f???a? t?? s???se??, e?? ?p????s?? t?? ?st????? t?? Te??, ???st?? a? ?a?d?a?] They met the Apostle heart to heart, though not face to face. We have here the same opposition of ?a?d?a and p??s?p?? as in 1 Thess. ii. 17, though less directly expressed; see ver. 5. a?t??] where we should expect ???, but the substitution of the third person for the second is suggested by the immediately preceding ?a? ?s??. This substitution confirms the interpretation of ?a? ?s?? already given. Unless the Colossians are included in ?s??, they must be excluded by a?t??. Yet this exclusion is hardly conceivable in such a context. s??as???te?] ‘they being united, compacted,’ for s????e?? must here have its common meaning, as it has elsewhere in this and the companion epistle: ver. 19 d?? t?? ?f?? ?a? s??d?s?? ... s??a??e???, Ephes. iv. 16 p?? t? s?a s??a???????e??? ?a? s??a??e???. Otherwise we might be disposed to assign to this verb here the sense which it always bears in the LXX (e.g. in Is. xl. 13, 14, quoted in 1 Cor. ii. 16), ‘instructed, taught,’ as it is rendered in the Vulgate. Its usage in the Acts is connected with this latter sense; e.g. ix. 22 s?????? ‘proving,’ xvi. 10 s??????te? ‘concluding’; and so in xix. 33 s??e?asa? ????a?d??? (the best supported reading) can only mean ‘instructed Alexander.’ For the different sense of the nominative absolute see the note on iii. 16. The received text substitutes s??as???t?? here. ` ?? ???p?] for love is the s??des?? (iii. 14) of perfection. ?a? e??] ‘and brought unto,’ the thought being supplied from the preceding s??as???te?, which involves an idea of motion, comp. Joh. xx. 7 ??tet???????? e?? ??a t?p??. p?? p???t??] This reading is better supported than either p?? t? p???t?? or p??ta p???t??, while, as the intermediate reading, it also explains the other two. t?? p????f???a?] ‘the full assurance,’ for such seems to be the meaning of the substantive wherever it occurs in the New Testament; 1 Thess. i. 5 ?? p????f???? p????, Heb. vi. 11 p??? t?? p????f???a? t?? ??p?d??, x. 22 ?? p????f???? p?ste??, comp. Clem. Rom. 42 et? p????f???a? p?e?at?? ?????. With the exception of 1 Thess. i. 5 however, all the Biblical passages might bear the other sense ‘fulness’: see Bleek on Heb. vi. 11. For the verb see the note on pep????f??????? below, iv. 12. ?p????s??] See the note on i. 9. t?? ?st????? ?.t.?.] ‘the mystery of God, even Christ in whom, etc.,’ ???st?? being in apposition with t?? ?st?????; comp. i. 27 t?? ?st????? t??t?? ... ? ?st?? ???st?? ?? ???, 1 Tim. iii. 16 t? t?? e?see?a? ?st?????, ?? ?fa?e???? ?.t.?. The reasons for adopting the reading t?? Te?? ???st?? are given in the detached note on various readings. Other interpretations of this reading are; (1) ‘the God Christ,’ taking ???st?? in apposition with Te??; or (2) ‘the God of Christ,’ making it the genitive after Te??: but both expressions are without a parallel in St Paul. The mystery here is not ‘Christ,’ but ‘Christ as containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom’; see the note on i. 27 ???st?? ?? ???. For the form of the sentence comp. Ephes. iv. 15, 16 ? ?efa??, ???st?? ?? ?? p?? t? s?a ?.t.?. 3. p??te?] So p?? p???t?? ver. 2, p?s? s?f?? ii. 28. These repetitions serve to emphasize the character of the Gospel, which is as complete in itself, as it is universal in its application. ? t?? s?f?a? ?a? ???se?? ?p????f??. s?f?a? ?a? ???se??] The two words occur together again Rom. xi. 33 ? ???? p???t?? ?a? s?f?a? ?a? ???se?? Te??, 1 Cor. xii. 8. They are found in conjunction also several times in the LXX of Eccles. i. 7, 16, 18, ii. 21, 26, ix. 10, where ????? is represented by s?f?a and ??? by ???s??. While ???s?? is simply intuitive, s?f?a is ratiocinative also. While ???s?? applies chiefly to the apprehension of truths, s?f?a superadds the power of reasoning about them and tracing their relations. When Bengel on 1 Cor. xii. 8 sq. says, ‘Cognitio [???s??] est quasi visus; sapientia [s?f?a] visus cum sapore,’ he is so far right; but when he adds, ‘cognitio, rerum agendarum; sapientia, rerum aeternarum,’ he is quite wide of the mark. Substantially the same, and equally wrong, is St Augustine’s distinction de Trin. xii. 20, 25 (VIII. pp. 923, 926) ‘intelligendum est ad contemplationem sapientiam [s?f?a?], ad actionem scientiam [???s??] pertinere ... quod alia [s?f?a] sit intellectualis cognitio aeternarum rerum, alia [???s??] rationalis temporalium’ (comp. xiv. 3, p. 948), and again de Div. QuÆst. ad Simpl.> ii. 2 § 3 (VI. p. 114) ‘ita discerni probabiliter solent, ut sapientia pertineat ad intellectum Æternorum, scientia vero ad ea quÆ sensibus corporis experimur.’ This is directly opposed to usage. In Aristotle Eth. Nic. i. 1 ???s?? is opposed to p?????. In St Paul it is connected with the apprehension of eternal mysteries, 1 Cor. xiii. 2 e?d? t? ?st???a p??ta ?a? p?sa? t?? ???s??. On the relation of s?f?a to s??es?? see above, i. 9. ?p????f??] So 1 Cor. ii. 7 ?a???e? Te?? s?f?a? ?? ?st????, t?? ?p??e???????. As before in t??e??? (i. 28), so here again in ?p????f?? the Apostle adopts a favourite term of the Gnostic teachers, only that he may refute a favourite doctrine. The word apocrypha was especially applied to those esoteric writings, for which such sectarians claimed an auctoritas secreta (Aug. c. Faust. xi. 2, VIII. p. 219) and which they carefully guarded from publication after the manner of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes (see above p. 89 sq.): comp. Iren. i. 20. 1 ????t?? p????? ?p????f?? ?a? ????? ??af??, Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 15 (p. 357) ????? ?p????f??? t??d??? t??de ?? t?? ???d???? et???te? ???es?? a????s? ?e?t?s?a?, ib. iii. 4 (p. 524) ????? d? a?t??? t? d??a ?? t???? ?p????f??. See also the application of the text Prov. ix. 17 ??t?? ???f??? ?d??? ??as?e to these heretics in Strom. i. 19 (p. 375). Thus the word apocrypha in the first instance was an honourable appellation applied by the heretics themselves to their esoteric doctrine and their secret books; but owing to the general character of these works the term, as adopted by orthodox writers, got to signify ‘false,’ ‘spurious.’ The early fathers never apply it, as it is now applied, to deutero-canonical writings, but confine it to supposititious and heretical works: see Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible s.v. In the text St Paul uses it ?ata???st????, as he uses ?st?????. ‘All the richest treasures of that secret wisdom,’ he would say, ‘on which you lay so much stress, are buried in Christ, and being buried there are accessible to all alike who seek Him.’ But, while the term ?p????f?? is adopted because it was used to designate the secret doctrine and writings of the heretics, it is also entirely in keeping with the metaphor of the ‘treasure’; e.g. Is. xlv. 3 d?s? s?? ??sa????? s??te????? ?p????f???, 1 Macc. i. 23 ??ae t??? ??sa????? t??? ?p????f???, Dan. xi. 43 ?? t??? ?p????f??? t?? ???s?? ?a? t?? a??????: comp. Matt. xiii. 44. The stress thus laid on ?p????f?? will explain its position. It is not connected with e?s??, but must be taken apart as a secondary predicate: comp. ver. 10 ?st? ?? a?t? pep????????, iii. 1 ?? ? ???st?? ?st?? ?? de??? t?? Te?? ?a??e???, James i. 17 p?? d???a t??e??? ?????? ?st??, ?ataa???? ?.t.?. 4–7. ‘I do not say this without a purpose. I wish to warn you against any who would lead you astray by specious argument and persuasive rhetoric. For I am not an indifferent spectator of your doings. Although I am absent from you in my flesh, yet I am present with you in my spirit. I rejoice to behold the orderly array and the solid phalanx which your faith towards Christ presents against the assaults of the foe. I entreat you therefore not to abandon the Christ, as you learnt from Epaphras to know Him, even Jesus the Lord, but to walk still in Him as heretofore. I would have you firmly rooted once for all in Him. I desire to see you built up higher in Him day by day, to see you growing ever stronger and stronger through your faith, while you remain true to the lessons taught you of old, so that you may abound in it, and thus abounding may pour forth your hearts in gratitude to God the giver of all.’ ? #????, ??a ?de?? ??? pa?a??????ta? ?? p??a???????? 4. t??t? ???? ?.t.?.] ‘I say all this to you, lest you should be led astray by those false teachers who speak of another knowledge, of other mysteries.’ In other connexions t??t? ???? will frequently refer to the words following (e.g. Gal. iii. 17, 1 Cor. i. 12); but with ??a it points to what has gone before, as in Joh. v. 34 ta?ta ???? ??a ?e?? s???te. The reference in t??t? ???? extends over vv. 1–3, and involves two statements; (1) The declaration that all knowledge is comprehended in Christ, vv. 2, 3; (2) The expression of his own personal anxiety that they should remain stedfast in this conviction, vv. 1, 2. This last point explains the language which follows, e? ??? ?a? t? sa??? ?.t.?. pa?a??????ta?] ‘lead you astray by false reasoning’, as in Daniel xiv. 7 ?d??? se pa?a??????s?? (LXX): comp. James i. 22, Ign. Magn. 3. It is not an uncommon word either in the LXX or in classical writers. The system against which St Paul here contends professed to be a f???s?f?a (ver. 8) and had a ????? s?f?a? (ver. 23). ?? p??a???????] The words p??a?????e?? (Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 1), p??a??????a (Plat. TheÆt. 162 E), p??a????????? (Epictet. i. 8. 7), occur occasionally in classical writers, but do not bear a bad sense, being most frequently opposed to ?p?de????, as probable argument to strict mathematical demonstration. This contrast probably suggested St Paul’s language in 1 Cor. ii. 4 ??? ?? pe????? s?f?a? ?????? ???’ ?? ?p?de??e? p?e?at?? ?.t.?., and may possibly have been present to his mind here. 5. ????] frequently introduces the apodosis after e? or e? ?a? in St Paul; e.g. Rom. vi. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 16, v. 16, xi. 6, xiii. 4 (v. l.). t? p?e?at?] ‘in my spirit’, not ‘by the Spirit’. We have here the common antithesis of flesh and spirit, or body and spirit: comp. 1 Cor. v. 3 ?p?? t? s?at?, pa??? d? t? p?e?at?. St Paul elsewhere uses another antithesis, p??s?p? and ?a?d??, to express this same thing; 1 Thess. ii. 17. ?a???? ?a? ??p??] ‘rejoicing and beholding’. This must not be regarded as a logical inversion. The contemplation of their orderly array, though it might have been first the cause, was afterwards the consequence, of the Apostle’s rejoicing. He looked, because it gave him satisfaction to look. ? ??? e??, ?a???? ?a? ??p?? ??? t?? t???? ?a? t? ste???a t?? e?? ???st?? p?ste?? ???. t?? t????] ‘your orderly array’, a military metaphor: comp. e.g. Xen. Anab. i. 2. 18 ?d??sa t?? ?ap??t?ta ?a? t?? t???? t?? st?ate?at?? ??a?ase, Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 16 ?at?d?? t???? te ?a? f??a??? ?a? ??s?? a?t?? ?a? t? s??a t?? st?at?pede?a? ??a?ase. The enforced companionship of St Paul with the soldiers of the prÆtorian guard at this time (Phil. i. 13) might have suggested this image. At all events in the contemporary epistle (Ephes. vi. 14 sq.) we have an elaborate metaphor from the armour of a soldier. t? ste???a] ‘solid front, close phalanx’, a continuation of the metaphor: comp. 1 Macc. ix. 14 e?de? ???da? ?t? ?a???d?? ?a? t? ste???a t?? pa?e???? ?? t??? de?????. Somewhat similar are the expressions ste?e??? t?? p??e?? 1 Macc. x. 50, ?at? t?? ste???s?? t?? ???? Ecclus. xxviii. 10. For the connexion here compare 1 Pet. v. 9 ??t?st?te ste?e?? t? p?ste?, Acts xvi. 5 ?ste?e???t? t? p?ste?. 6. ?? ??? pa?e??ete ?.t.?.] i.e. ‘Let your conviction and conduct be in perfect accordance with the doctrines and precepts of the Gospel as it was taught to you’. For this use of pa?e??ete ‘ye received from your teachers, were instructed in’, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, 3, Gal. i. 9, Phil. iv. 9, 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 6. The word pa?a?a??e?? implies either ‘to receive as transmitted’, or ‘to receive for transmission’: see the note on Gal. i. 12. The ?? of the protasis suggests a ??t?? in the apodosis, which in this case is unexpressed but must be understood. The meaning of ?? pa?e??ete here is explained by the ?a??? ???ete ?p? ?paf?? in i. 7; see the note there, and comp. below ver. 7 ?a??? ?d?d????te. t?? ???st??] ‘the Christ’, rather than ‘the Gospel’, because the central point in the Colossian heresy was the subversion of the true idea of the Christ. ??s??? t?? ??????] ‘even Jesus the Lord’, in whom the true conception of the Christ is realised: comp. Ephes. iv. 20, 21, ?e?? d? ??? ??t?? ???ete t?? ???st??, e??e a?t?? ????sate ?a? ?? a?t? ?d?d????te, ?a??? ?st?? ????e?a ?? t? ??s??, where the same idea is more directly expressed. The genuine doctrine of the Christ consists in (1) the recognition of the historical person Jesus, and (2) the acceptance of Him as the Lord. This doctrine was seriously endangered by the mystic theosophy of the false teachers. The same order which we have here occurs also in Ephes. iii. 11 ?? t? ???st? ??s?? t? ????? ??? (the correct reading). 7. ??????????] Two points may be noticed here; (1) The expressive change of tenses; ?????????? ‘firmly rooted’ once for all, ?p????d???e???, ea???e???, ‘built up and strengthened’ from hour to hour. (2) The rapid transition of metaphor, pe??pate?te, ??????????, ?p????d???e???, the path, the tree, the building: comp. Ephes. iii. 17 ?????????? ?a? te?ee???????. The metaphors of the plant and the building occur together in 1 Cor. iii. 9 Te?? ?e??????, Te?? ????d??. The transition in this passage is made easier by the fact that ?????? (Plut. Mor. 321 D), ???????? (Jer. i. 10, 1 Macc. v. 51), p???????? (Jos. B.J. vii. 8. 7), etc., are not uncommonly used of cities and buildings. ? ?p????d???e???] ‘being built up,’ as in 1 Cor. iii. 10–14. After this verb we might have expected ?p’ a?t? or ?p’ a?t?? (1 Cor. iii. 12) rather than ?? a?t?; but in this and the companion epistle Christ is represented rather as the binding element than as the foundation of the building: e.g. Ephes. ii. 20 ?p????d?????te? ?p? t? ?ee??? t?? ?p?st???? ?a? p??f?t??, ??t?? ????????a??? a?t?? ???st?? ??s??, ?? ? p?sa [?] ????d?? a??e? e?? ?a?? ????? ?? ?????, ?? ? ?a? ?e?? s??????d?e?s?e. The ?p? in ?p????d?e?? does not necessarily refer to the original foundation, but may point to the continued progress of the building by successive layers, as e.g. [Aristot.] Rhet. ad Alex. 4 (p. 1426) ?p????d????ta t? ?te??? ?? ?p? t? ?te??? a??e??. Hence ?p????d?e?? is frequently used absolutely, ‘to build up’ (e.g. Jude 20, Polyb. iii. 27, 4), as here. The repetition of ?? a?t? emphasizes the main idea of the passage, and indeed of the whole epistle. t? p?ste?] ‘by your faith’, the dative of the instrument; comp. Heb. xiii. 9 ?a??? ??? ????t? ea???s?a? t?? ?a?d?a?. Faith is, as it were, the cement of the building: comp. Clem. Rom. 22 ta?ta p??ta ea??? ? ?? ???st? p?st??. ?a??? ?d?d????te] i.e. ‘remaining true to the lessons which you received from Epaphras, and not led astray by any later pretenders’: comp. i. 6, 7 ?? ????e??, ?a??? ???ete ?p? ?paf??. ?? a?t? ?.t.?.] The same ending occurs in iv. 2. Thanksgiving is the end of all human conduct, whether exhibited in words or in works. For the stress laid on thanksgiving in St Paul’s epistles generally, see the note on Phil. iv. 6. The words e?????st??, e??a??ste??, e??a??st?a, occur in St Paul’s writings alone of the Apostolic epistles. In this epistle especially the duty of thanksgiving assumes a peculiar prominence by being made a refrain, as here and in iii. 15, 17, iv. 2: see also i. 12. ? 8. ? t?? ?sta? ???. 8–15. ‘Be on your guard; do not suffer yourselves to fall a prey to certain persons who would lead you captive by a hollow and deceitful system, which they call philosophy. They substitute the traditions of men for the truth of God. They enforce an elementary discipline of mundane ordinances fit only for children. Theirs is not the Gospel of Christ. In Christ the entire fulness of the Godhead abides for ever, having united itself with man by taking a human body. And so in Him—not in any inferior mediators—ye have your life, your being, for ye are filled from His fulness. He, I say, is the Head over all spiritual beings—call them principalities or powers or what you will. In Him too ye have the true circumcision—the circumcision which is not made with hands but wrought by the Spirit—the circumcision which divests not of a part only but of the whole carnal body—the circumcision which is not of Moses but of Christ. This circumcision ye have, because ye were buried with Christ to your old selves beneath the baptismal waters, and were raised with Him from those same waters to a new and regenerate life, through your faith in the powerful working of God who raised Him from the dead. Yes, you—you Gentiles who before were dead, when ye walked in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your unchastened carnal heathen heart—even you did God quicken into life together with Christ; then and there freely forgiving all of us—Jews and Gentiles alike—all our transgressions; then and there cancelling the bond which stood valid against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged us to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless tyrant. Ay, this very bond hath Christ put out of sight for ever, nailing it to His cross and rending it with His body and killing it in His death. Taking upon Him our human nature, He stripped off and cast aside all the powers of evil which clung to it like a poisonous garment. As a mighty conqueror He displayed these His fallen enemies to an astonished world, leading them in triumph on His cross.’ 8. ???pete ?.t.?.] The form of the sentence is a measure of the imminence of the peril. The usual construction with ??pe?? ? is a conjunctive; e.g. in Luke xxi. 8 ??pete ? p?a????te. Here the substitution of an indicative shows that the danger is real; comp. Heb. iii. 12 ??pete ?p?te ?sta? ?? t??? ??? ?a?d?a p????? ?p?st?a?. For other instances of ? with a future indicative comp. Mark xiv. 2 ?p?te ?sta? ??????, Rom. xi. 21 ?p?? ??d? s?? fe?seta?; and see Winer § lvi. p. 631 sq. t??] This indefinite t?? is frequently used by St Paul, when speaking of opponents whom he knows well enough but does not care to name: see the note on Gal. i. 7. Comp. Ign. Smyrn. 5 ?? t??e? ???????te? ??????ta? ... t? d? ???ata a?t??, ??ta ?p?sta, ??? ?d??? ?? ??????a?. s??a?????] ‘makes you his prey, carries you off body and soul’. The word appears not to occur before St Paul, nor after him, independently of this passage, till a late date: e.g. Heliod. Aeth. x. 35 ??t?? ?st?? ? t?? ??? ????te?a s??a????sa?. In Tatian ad GrÆc. 22 ?e?? d? ?p? t??t?? s??a???e?s?e it seems to be a reminiscence of St Paul. Its full and proper meaning, as appears from the passages quoted, is not ‘to despoil,’ but ‘to carry off as spoil’, in accordance with the analogous compounds, d???a???e??, s?e?a???e??. So too the closely allied word ?af??a???e?? in Plut. Mor. p. 5 p??e?? ??? ?? ?af??a???e? ??et??, Vit. Galb. 5 t? ?? Ga?at??, ?ta? ?p??e????? ?????ta?, ?af??a????ses?a?. The Colossians had been rescued from the bondage of darkness; they had been transferred to the kingdom of light; they had been settled there as free citizens (i. 12, 13); and now there was danger that they should fall into a state worse than their former slavery, that they should be carried off as so much booty. Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 6 a??a??t????te? ???a?????a. For the construction ?sta? ? s??a????? see the notes on Gal. i. 7, iii. 21. The former passage is a close parallel to the words here, e? ? t???? e?s?? ?? ta??ss??te? ??? ?.t.?. The expression ? s??a????? gives a directness and individuality to the reference, which would have been wanting to the more natural construction ?? s??a????se?. d?? t?? f???s?f?a? ?.t.?.] ‘through his philosophy which is an empty deceit’. The absence of both preposition and article in the second clause shows that ?e??? ?p?t?? describes and qualifies f???s?f?a?. Clement therefore (Strom. vi. 8, p. 771) had a right to contend that St Paul does not here condemn ‘philosophy’ absolutely. The f???s?f?a ?a? ?e?? ?p?t? of this passage corresponds to the ?e?d????? ???s?? of 1 Tim. vi. 20. But though ‘philosophy’ is not condemned, it is disparaged by the connexion in which it is placed. St Chrysostom’s comment is not altogether wrong, ?pe?d? d??e? se??? e??a? t? t?? f???s?f?a?, p??s????e ?a? ?e??? ?p?t??. The term was doubtless used by the false teachers themselves to describe their system. Though essentially Greek as a name and as an idea, it had found its way into Jewish circles. Philo speaks of the Hebrew religion and Mosaic law as ? p?t???? f???s?f?a (Leg. ad Cai. 23, II. p. 568, de Somn. ii. 18, I. p. 675) or ? ???da??? f???s?f?a (Leg. ad Cai. 33, II. p. 582) or ? ?at? ??"?s?? f???s?f?a (de Mut. Nom. 39, I. p. 612). The system of the Essenes, the probable progenitors of the false teachers at ColossÆ, he describes as ? d??a pe??e??e?a? ????????? ????t?? f???s?f?a (Omn. prob. lib. 13, II. p. 459). So too Josephus speaks of the three Jewish sects as t?e?? f???s?f?a? (Ant. xviii. 1. 2, comp. B.J. ii. 8. 2). It should be remembered also, that in this later age, owing to Roman influence, the term was used to describe practical not less than speculative systems, so that it would cover the ascetic life as well as the mystic theosophy of these Colossian heretics. Hence the Apostle is here flinging back at these false teachers a favourite term of their own, ‘their vaunted philosophy, which is hollow and misleading’. The word indeed could claim a truly noble origin; for it is said to have arisen out of the humility of Pythagoras, who called himself ‘a lover of wisdom’, ?d??a ??? e??a? s?f?? ?????p?? ???’ ? Te?? (Diog. Laert. Prooem. § 12; comp. Cic. Tusc. v. 3). In such a sense the term would entirely accord with the spirit and teaching of St Paul; for it bore testimony to the insufficiency of the human intellect and the need of a revelation. But in his age it had come to be associated generally with the idea of subtle dialectics and profitless speculation; while in this particular instance it was combined with a mystic cosmogony and angelology which contributed a fresh element of danger. As contrasted with the power and fulness and certainty of revelation, all such philosophy was ‘foolishness’ (1 Cor. i. 20). It is worth observing that this word, which to the Greeks denoted the highest effort of the intellect, occurs here alone in St Paul, just as he uses ??et?, which was their term to express the highest moral excellence, in a single passage only (Phil. iv. 8; see the note there). The reason is much the same in both cases. The Gospel had deposed the terms as inadequate to the higher standard, whether of knowledge or of practice, which it had introduced. On the attitude of the fathers towards philosophy, while philosophy was a living thing, see Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible s.v. Clement, who was followed in the main by the earlier Alexandrian fathers, regards Greek philosophy not only as a preliminary training (p??pa?de?a) for the Gospel, but even as in some sense a covenant (d?a????) given by God to the Greeks (Strom. i. 5, p. 331, vi. 5, p. 761, ib. § 8, p. 771 sq.). Others, who were the great majority and of whom Tertullian may be taken as an extreme type, set their faces directly against it, seeing in it only the parent of all heretical teaching: e.g. de Anim. 2, 3, Apol. 46, 47. In the first passage, referring to this text, he says, ‘Ab apostolo jam tunc philosophia concussio veritatis providebatur’; in the second he asks, ‘Quid simile philosophus et Christianus?’ St Paul’s speech at Athens, on the only occasion when he is known to have been brought into direct personal contact with Greek philosophers (Acts xvii. 18), shows that his sympathies would have been at least as strong with Clement’s representations as with Tertullian’s. ? t?? f???s?f?a? ?a? ?e??? ?p?t??, ?at? t?? pa??d?s?? ? ?at? ?.t.?.] The false teaching is described (1) As regards its source–‘the traditions of men’; (2) As regards its subject matter–‘the rudiments of the world’. t?? pa??d?s?? ?.t.?.] Other systems, as for instance the ceremonial mishna of the Pharisees, might fitly be described in this way (Matt. xv. 2 sq., Mark vii. 3 sq.): but such a description was peculiarly appropriate to a mystic theosophy like this of the Colossian false teachers. The teaching might be oral or written, but it was essentially esoteric, essentially traditional. It could not appeal to sacred books which had been before all the world for centuries. The Essenes, the immediate spiritual progenitors of these Colossian heretics, distinctly claimed to possess such a source of knowledge, which they carefully guarded from divulgence; B.J. ii. 8. 7 s??t???se?? ????? t? te t?? a???se?? a?t?? ???a ?a? t? t?? ??????? ???ata (see above pp. 89, 90 sq., 95). The various Gnostic sects, their direct or collateral spiritual descendants, almost without exception traced their doctrines to a similar source: e.g. Hippol. HÆr. v. 7 ? f?s? pa?aded????a? ?a????? t?? ?????? t?? ?????? t?? ?de?f??, vii. 20 fas?? e??????a? ?at??a? a?t??? ?????? ?p????f??? ??? ????se pa?? t?? s?t????, Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17 (p. 898) ?a??pe? ? ?as??e?d??, ??? G?a???a? ?p????f?ta? d?d?s?a???, ?? a????s?? a?t??, t?? ??t??? ?????a? ?sa?t?? d? ?a? ??a?e?t???? Te?d? d?a??????a? f????s??, ??????? d? ??t?? ??e???e? ?a????. So too a later mystic theology of the Jews, which had many affinities with the teaching of the Christianized Essenes at ColossÆ, was self-designated Kabbala or ‘tradition’, professing to have been handed down orally from the patriarchs. See the note on ?p????f??, ii. 3. ? t?? ?????p??, ?at? t? st???e?a t?? ??s??, ? t? st???e?a] ‘the rudiments, the elementary teaching’; comp. ver. 20. The same phrase occurs again Gal. iv. 3 (comp. ver. 9). As st???e?a signifies primarily ‘the letters of the alphabet’, so as a secondary meaning it denotes ‘rudimentary instruction’. Accordingly it is correctly interpreted by Clement Strom. vi. 8 (p. 771) ?a???? ... ??? ?t? pa???d??e?? ????? ?p? t?? ????????? f???s?f?a?, st???e?a t?? ??s?? t??t?? ?????????, st???e??t???? t??a ??sa? (i.e. elementary) ?a? p??pa?de?a? t?? ????e?a? (comp. ib. vi. 15, p. 799), and by Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘secundum elementa mundi, non secundum cÆlum et terram dicens, sed secundum literas seculares’. A large number of the fathers however explained the expression to refer to the heavenly bodies (called st???e?a), as marking the seasons, so that the observance of ‘festivals and new-moons and sabbaths’ was a sort of bondage to them. It would appear from Tertullian’s language that Marcion also had so interpreted the words. On this false interpretation see the note on Gal. iv. 3. It is quite out of place here: for (1) The context suggests some mode of instruction, e.g. t?? pa??d?s?? t?? ?????p?? here, and d??at??es?e in ver. 20; (2) The keeping of days and seasons is quite subordinate to other external observances. The rite of circumcision (ver. 11), and the distinction of meats (ver. 21) respectively, are placed in close and immediate connexion with t? st???e?a t?? ??s?? in the two places where it occurs, whereas the observance of days and seasons (ver. 16) stands apart from either. t?? ??s??] ‘of the world’, that is, ‘belonging to the sphere of material and external things’. See the notes on Gal. iv. 3, vi. 14. ‘In Christ’, so the Apostle seems to say, ‘you have attained the liberty and the intelligence of manhood; do not submit yourselves again to a rudimentary discipline fit only for children (t? st???e?a). In Christ you have been exalted into the sphere of the Spirit: do not plunge yourselves again into the atmosphere of material and sensuous things (t?? ??s??).’ ? ?a? ?? ?at? ???st??? ?? ?at? ???st??] ‘not after Christ’. This expression is wide in itself, and should be interpreted so as to supply the negative to both the preceding clauses; ‘Christ is neither the author nor the substance of their teaching: not the author, for they listen to human traditions (?at? t?? pa??d?s?? t?? ?????p??); not the substance, for they replace Him by formal ordinances (?at? t? st???e?a t?? ??s??) and by angelic mediators‘. 9 sq. In explaining the true doctrine which is ‘after Christ’, St Paul condemns the two false principles, which lay at the root of this heretical teaching; (1) The theological error of substituting inferior and created beings angelic mediators for the divine Head Himself (vv. 9, 10); and (2) The practical error of insisting upon ritual and ascetic observances, as the foundation of their moral teaching (vv. 11–14). Their theological speculations and their ethical code alike were at fault. On the intimate connexion between these two errors, as springing out of a common root, the Gnostic dualism of these false teachers, see the introduction, pp. 33 sq., 79, 87, 180 sq. ?t? ?.t.?.] The Apostle justifies the foregoing charge that this doctrine was not ?at? ???st??; ‘In Christ dwells the whole pleroma, the entire fulness of the Godhead, whereas they represent it to you as dispersed among several spiritual agencies. Christ is the one fountain-head of all spiritual life, whereas they teach you to seek it in communion with inferior creatures.’ The same truths have been stated before (i. 14 sq.) more generally and they are now restated with direct and immediate reference to the heretical teaching. ?at???e?] ‘has its fixed abode’. On the force of this compound in relation to the false teaching, see the note on i. 19. p?? t? p????a] ‘all the plenitude’, ‘the totality of the divine powers and attributes’. On this theological term see i. 19, and the detached note at the end of the epistle. t?? ?e?t?t??] ‘of the Godhead’. ‘Non modo divinÆ virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura’, writes Bengel. For the difference between ???t?? ‘deitas’, the essence, and ?e??t?? ‘divinitas’, the quality, see Trench N. T. Syn. § ii. p. 6. The different force of the two words may be seen by a comparison of two passages in Plutarch, Mor. p. 857 A p?s?? ????pt???? ?e??t?ta p????? ?a? d??a??s???? a?t???sa? (where it means a divine inspiration or faculty, and where no one would have used ?e?t?ta), and Mor. 415 C ?? d? ????? e?? da???a? a? e?t???e? ???a? t?? eta???? ?a????s??, ?? d? da????? ????a? ?? ?t? ????? p???? d?’ ??et?? ?a?a??e?sa? pa?t?pas? ?e?t?t?? et?s??? (where ?e??t?t?? would be quite out of place, because all da???e? without exception were ?e???, though they only became ?e?? in rare instances and after long probation and discipline). In the New Testament the one word occurs here alone, the other in Rom. i. 20 alone. So also t? ?e???, a very favourite expression in Greek philosophy, is found once only, in Acts xvii. 29, where it is used with singular propriety; for the Apostle is there meeting the heathen philosophers on their own ground and arguing with them in their own language. Elsewhere he instinctively avoids a term which tends to obscure the idea of a personal God. In the Latin versions, owing to the poverty of the language, both ???t?? and ?e??t?? are translated by the same term divinitas; but this was felt to be inadequate, and the word deitas was coined at a later date to represent ???t??: August. de Civ. Dei vii. § 1, VII. p. 162 (quoted in Trench) ‘Hanc divinitatem vel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem: nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de GrÆco expressius transferant id quod illi ?e?t?ta appellant etc.’ s?at????] ‘bodily-wise’, ‘corporeally’, i.e. ‘assuming a bodily form, becoming incarnate’. This is an addition to the previous statement in i. 19 ?? a?t? e?d???se? p?? t? p????a ?at????sa?. The indwelling of the pleroma refers to the Eternal Word, and not to the Incarnate Christ; but s?at???? is added to show that the Word, in whom the pleroma thus had its abode from all eternity, crowned His work by the Incarnation. Thus while the main statement ?at???e? p?? t? p????a t?? ?e?t?t?? of St Paul corresponds to the opening sentence ? ????? ?? p??? t?? T??? ?a? Te?? ?? ? ????? of St John, the subsidiary adverb s?at???? of St Paul has its counterpart in the additional statement ?a? ? ????? s??? ????et? of St John. All other meanings which have been assigned to s?at???? here, as ‘wholly’ (Hieron. in Is. xi. 1 sq., IV. p. 156, ‘nequaquam per partes, ut in ceteris sanctis’), or ‘really’ (Aug. Epist. cxlix, II. p. 513 ‘Ideo corporaliter dixit, quia illi umbratiliter seducebant’), or ‘essentially’ (Hilar. de Trin. viii. 54, II. p. 252 ‘Dei ex Deo significat veritatem etc.’, Cyril. Alex. in Theodoret. Op. V. p. 34 t??t?st??, ?? s?et????, Isid. Pelus. Ep. iv. 166 ??t? t?? ??s??d??), are unsupported by usage. Nor again can the body be understood of anything else but Christ’s human body; as for instance of the created World (Theod. Mops. in Rab. Op. VI. p. 522) or of the Church (Anon. in Chrysost. ad loc.). According to these two last interpretations t? p????a t?? ?e?t?t?? is taken to mean the Universe (‘universam naturam repletam ab eo’) and the Church (t?? ?????s?a? pep???????? ?p? t?? ?e?t?t?? a?t??, see Ephes. i. 23) respectively, because either of these may be said to reside in Him, as the source of its life, and to stand to Him in the relation of the body to the head (s?at????). But these forced interpretations have nothing to recommend them. St Paul’s language is carefully guarded. He does not say ?? s?at?, for the Godhead cannot be confined to any limits of space; nor s?at?e?d??, for this might suggest the unreality of Christ’s human body; but s?at????, ‘in bodily wise’, ‘with a bodily manifestation’. The relation of s?at???? to the clause which it qualifies will depend on the circumstances of the case: comp. e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 424 E ???peta? t????? t? ?s?? ?? t?p???? ???? s?at???? ???es?a?, i.e. ‘ratione corporis habita’, Athan. Exp. Fid. 4 (I. p. 81) ???te?a t????? t? pe?? t? ?t?sa ??t? s?at???? e?? t?? ??s??? ????apta?, i.e. ‘secundum corpus’, Ptolem. in Epiphan. HÆr. xxxiii. 5 ?at? ?? t? fa???e??? ?a? s?at???? ??te?e?s?a? ???????. 10. ?a? ?st? ?? a?t?] ‘and ye are in Him’, where ?st? should be separated from the following pep????????; comp. John xvii. 21, Acts xvii. 28. True life consists in union with Him, and not in dependence on any inferior being; comp. ver. 19 ?? ??at?? t?? ?efa???, ?? ?? ?.t.?. ? pep????????, ?? ?st?? ? ?efa?? p?s?? ????? ?a? ? pep????????] ‘being fulfilled’, with a direct reference to the preceding p????a; ‘Your fulness comes from His fulness; His p????a is transfused into you by virtue of your incorporation in Him’. So too John i. 16 ?? t?? p????at?? a?t?? ?e?? p??te? ????e?, Ephes. iii. 19 ??a p??????te e?? p?? t? p????a t?? Te??, iv. 13 e?? ?t??? ?????a? t?? p????at?? t?? ???st??, comp. Ign. Ephes. init. t? e???????? ?? e???e? Te?? pat??? p????at?. Hence also the Church, as ideally regarded, is called the p????a of Christ, because all His graces and energies are communicated to her; Ephes. i. 23 ?t?? ?st?? t? s?a a?t??, t? p????a t?? t? p??ta ?? p?s?? p?????????. ??] For the various reading ? see the detached note. It was perhaps a correction made on the false supposition that ?? a?t? referred to the p????a. At all events it must be regarded as an impossible reading; for the image would be altogether confused and lost, if the p????a were represented as the head. And again ? ?efa?? is persistently said elsewhere of Christ; i. 18, ii. 19, Ephes. i. 22, iv. 15, v. 23. Hilary de Trin. ix. 8 (II. p. 264) explains the ? as referring to the whole sentence t? e??a? ?? a?t? pep?????????, but this also is an inconceivable sense. Again it has been suggested that ? ?st?? (like t??t?st??) may be taken as equivalent to scilicet (comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 22); but this would require t? ?efa??, even if it were otherwise admissible here. ? ????s?a?? ? ?efa??] The image expresses much more than the idea of sovereignty: the head is also the centre of vital force, the source of all energy and life: see the note on ver. 19. p?s?? ????? ?.t.?.] ‘of every principality and power’, and therefore of those angelic beings whom the false teachers adopted as mediators, thus transferring to the inferior members the allegiance due to the Head: comp. ver. 18 sq. For ????? ?a? ????s?a?, see the note on i. 16. 11. The previous verses have dealt with the theological tenets of the false teachers. The Apostle now turns to their practical errors; ‘You do not need the circumcision of the flesh; for you have received the circumcision of the heart. The distinguishing features of this higher circumcision are threefold. (1) It is not external but inward, not made with hands but wrought by the Spirit. (2) It divests not of a part only of the flesh, but of the whole body of carnal affections. (3) It is the circumcision not of Moses or of the patriarchs, but of Christ’. Thus it is distinguished, as regards first its character, secondly its extent, and thirdly its author. pe??et???te] The moment at which this is conceived as taking place is defined by the other aorists, s??taf??te?, s????????te, etc., as the time of their baptism, when they ‘put on Christ’. ??e???p???t?] i.e. ‘immaterial’, ‘spiritual’, as Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1. So ?e???p???t??, which is used in the N. T. of material temples and their furniture (Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, Heb. ix. 11, 24, comp. Mark l.c.), and of the material circumcision (Ephes. ii. 11 t?? ?e?????? pe??t??? ?? sa??? ?e???p???t??). In the LXX ?e???p???ta occurs exclusively as a rendering of idols (?????, e.g. Lev. xxvi. 1, Is. ii. 18, etc.), false gods (????? Is. xxi. 9, where perhaps they read ??????), or images (????? Lev. xxvi. 30), except in one passage, Is. xvi. 12, where it is applied to an idol’s sanctuary. Owing to this association of the word the application which we find in the New Testament would sound much more depreciatory to Jewish ears than it does to our own; e.g. ?? ?e???p???t??? ?at???e? in St Stephen’s speech, where the force of the passage is broken in the received text by the interpolation of ?a???. For illustrations of the typical significance of circumcision, as a symbol of purity, see the note on Phil. iii. 3. ?? t? ?.t.?.] The words are chosen to express the completeness of the spiritual change. (1) It is not an ??d?s?? nor an ?p?d?s??, but an ?p??d?s??. The word ?p??d?s?? is extremely rare, and no earlier instances of it are produced; see the note on ver. 15 ?pe?d?s?e???. (2) It is not a single member but the whole body, which is thus cast aside; see the next note. Thus the idea of completeness is brought out both in the energy of the action and in the extent of its operation, as in iii. 9 ?pe?d?s?e??? t?? pa?a??? ?????p??. ? ?? t? ?pe?d?se? t?? s?at?? t?? sa????, ?? t? pe??t?? t?? ???st??, t?? s?at?? ?.t.?.] ‘the whole body which consists of the flesh’, i.e. ‘the body with all its corrupt and carnal affections’; as iii. 5 ?e???sate ??? t? ???. For illustrations of the expression see Rom. vi. 6 ??a ?ata????? t? s?a t?? ?a?t?a?, vii. 24 t?? s?at?? t?? ?a??t?? t??t??, Phil. iii. 21 t? s?a t?? tape???se?? ???. Thus t? s?a t?? sa???? here means ‘the fleshly body’ and not ‘the entire mass of the flesh’; but the contrast between the whole and the part still remains. In i. 22 the same expression t? s?a t?? sa???? occurs, but with a different emphasis and meaning: see the note there. The words t?? ?a?t???, inserted between t?? s?at?? and t?? sa???? in the received text, are clearly a gloss, and must be omitted with the vast majority of ancient authorities. 12. Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. This it is, because it is not only the crowning act of his own faith but also the seal of God’s adoption and the earnest of God’s Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ. See Apost. Const. iii. 17 ? ?at?d?s?? t? s??ap??a?e??, ? ???d?s?? t? s??a?ast??a?. For this twofold image, as it presents itself to St Paul, see especially Rom. vi. 3 sq. ?? t? apt?s?] ‘in the act of baptism’. A distinction seems to be observed elsewhere in the New Testament between ?pt?sa ‘baptism’ properly so called, and apt?s?? ‘lustration’ or ‘washing’ of divers kinds, e.g. of vessels (Mark vii. 4, [8,] Heb. ix. 10). Even Heb. vi. 2 apt?s?? d?da???, which at first sight might seem to be an exception to this rule, is perhaps not really so (Bleek ad loc.). Here however, where the various readings apt?s? and apt?sat? appear in competition, the preference ought probably to be given to apt?s? as being highly supported in itself (see the detached note on various readings) and as the less usual word in this sense. There is no a priori reason why St Paul should not have used apt?s?? with this meaning, for it is so found in Josephus Ant. xviii. 5. 2 apt?s? s?????a? (of John the Baptist). Doubtless the form ?pt?sa was more appropriate to describe the one final and complete act of Christian baptism, and it very soon obtained exclusive possession of the ground in Greek; but in St Paul’s age the other form apt?s?? may not yet have been banished. In the Latin Version baptisma and baptismus are used indiscriminately: and this is the case also with the Latin fathers. The substantive ‘baptism’ occurs so rarely in any sense in St Paul (only Rom. vi. 4, Eph. iv. 5, besides this passage), or indeed elsewhere in the N. T. of Christian baptism (only in 1 Pet. iii. 21), that we have not sufficient data for a sound induction. So far as the two words have any inherent difference of meaning, apt?s?? denotes rather the act in process and ?pt?sa the result. ? t? apt?s?, ?? ? ?a? s????????te d?? t?? p?ste?? t?? ??e??e?a? t?? Te?? t?? ??e??a?t?? a?t?? ?? [t??] ? 12. t? apt?sat?. ?? ?] i.e. apt?s?. Others would understand ???st? for the sake of the parallelism with ver. 11 ?? h? ?a? ... e? ? ?a?. But this parallelism is not suggested by the sense: while on the other hand there is obviously a very close connexion between s??taf??te? and s????????te as the two complementary aspects of baptism; comp. Rom. vi. 4 sq. s??et?f?e? a?t? d?? t?? apt?sat?? ??a ?spe? ?????? ???st?? ... ??t?? ?a? ?e?? ... e? ??? s?f?t?? ?e???ae? t? ????at? t?? ?a??t?? a?t??, ???? ?a? t?? ??ast?se?? ?s?e?a, 2 Tim. ii. 11 e? ??? s??ape????e?, ?a? s????s?e?. In fact the idea of ???st? must be reserved for s????????te where it is wanted, ‘ye were raised together with Him’. d?? t?? p?ste?? ?.t.?.] ‘through your faith in the operation,’ ??e??e?a? being the objective genitive. So St Chrysostom, p?ste?? ???? ?st??? ?p?ste?sate ?t? d??ata? ? Te?? ??e??a?, ?a? ??t?? ??????te. Only by a belief in the resurrection are the benefits of the resurrection obtained, because only so are its moral effects produced. Hence St Paul prays that he may ‘know the power of Christ’s resurrection’ (Phil. iii. 10). Hence too he makes this the cardinal article in the Christian’s creed, ‘If thou ... believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ (Rom. x. 9). For the influence of Christ’s resurrection on the moral and spiritual being, see the note on Phil. l.c. Others take t?? ??e??e?a? as the subjective genitive, ‘faith which comes from the operation etc.’, arguing from a mistaken interpretation of the parallel passage Ephes. i. 19 (where ?at? t?? ?????e?a? should be connected, not with t??? p?ste???ta?, but with t? t? ?pe?????? ??e??? ?.t.?.). The former explanation however yields a better sense, and the genitive after p?st?? far more commonly describes the object than the source of the faith, e.g. Rom. iii. 22, 26, Gal. iii. 22, Ephes. iii. 12, Phil. i. 27, iii. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 13. 13. In the sentence which follows it seems necessary to assume a change of subject. There can be little doubt that ? Te?? is the nominative to s??e???p???se?: for (1) The parallel passage Ephes. ii. 4, 5 directly suggests this. (2) This is uniformly St Paul’s mode of speaking elsewhere. It is always God who ?????e?, s??e????e?, ???p??e?, s?????p??e?, etc., with or in or through Christ. (3) Though it might be possible to assign s?? a?t? to the subject of s??e???p???se? (see the note on i. 20), yet a reference to some other person is more natural. These reasons seem to decide the subject of s??e???p???se?. But at the same time it appears quite impossible to continue the same subject, ? Te??, to the end of the sentence. No grammatical meaning can be assigned to ?pe?d?s?e???, by which it could be understood of God the Father. We must suppose therefore that a new subject, ? ???st??, is introduced meanwhile, either with ???e? or with ?pe?d?s?e??? itself; and of the two the former seems the easier point of transition. For a similar instance of abrupt transition, which is the more natural owing to the intimate connexion of the work of the Son with the work of the Father, see e.g. i. 17 sq. ?a? ???] i.e. ‘you Gentiles’. This will appear from a study of the parallel passages iii. 7, 8, Ephes. i. 13, ii. 1 sq., 11, 13, 17, 22, iii. 2, iv. 17; see the notes on Ephes. i. 13, and on t? ?????st?? just below. ? ?e????? t??? pa?apt?as?? ?.t.?.] ‘by reason of your transgressions etc.’ The pa?apt?ata are the actual definite transgressions, while the ?????st?a t?? sa???? is the impure carnal disposition which prompts to them. For the dative comp. Ephes. ii. 1, 5, where the same expression occurs; see Winer Gramm. § xxxi. p. 270. On the other hand in Rom. vi. 11 ?e????? ?? t? ?a?t??, ???ta? d? t? Te?, the dative has a wholly different meaning, as the context shows. The ?? of the received text, though highly supported, is doubtless an interpolation for the sake of grammatical clearness. t? ?????st?? ?.t.?.] The external fact is here mentioned, not for its own sake but for its symbolical meaning. The outward uncircumcision of the Gentiles is a type of their unchastened carnal mind. In other words, though the literal meaning is not excluded, the spiritual reference is most prominent, as appears from ver. 11 ?? t?? ?pe?d?se? t?? s?at??. Hence Theodore’s comment, ?????st?a? (????ese?) t? pe???e?s?a? ?t? t?? ???t?t?ta. At the same time the choice of the expression shows that the Colossian converts addressed by St Paul were mainly Gentiles. s??e???p???se?] It has been questioned whether the life here spoken of should be understood in a spiritual sense of the regeneration of the moral being, or in a literal sense of the future life of immortality regarded as conferred on the Christian potentially now, though only to be realised hereafter. But is not such an issue altogether superfluous? Is there any reason to think that St Paul would have separated these two ideas of life? To him the future glorified life is only the continuation of the present moral and spiritual life. The two are the same in essence, however the accidents may differ. Moral and spiritual regeneration is salvation, is life. ???] The pronoun is repeated for the sake of emphasis. The omission in some good copies is doubly explained; (1) By the desire to simplify the grammar; (2) By the wish to relieve the awkwardness of the close proximity between ??? and ???. This latter consideration has led a few good authorities to substitute ??? for ???, and others to substitute ??? for ???. For instances of those emphatic repetitions in St Paul see the note on i. 20 d?’ a?t??. s?? a?t?] ‘with Christ’, as in Ephes. ii. 5 s??e???p???se? t? ???st?. On the inadmissibility of the reading ??t? see the note on e?? a?t?? i. 20. ?a??s?e???] ‘having forgiven’, as in Luke vii. 42 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xii. 13, Ephes. iv. 32; see also the note on iii. 13 below. The idea of sin as a debt incurred to God (Matt. vi. 12 t? ?fe???ata ???, comp. Luke xi. 4) underlies this expression, as it does also the commoner term for pardon, ?fes?? ‘remission’. The image is carried out in the cancelled bond, ver. 14. ???] The person is changed; ‘not to you Gentiles only, but to us all alike’. St Paul is eager to claim his share in the transgression, that he may claim it also in the forgiveness. For other examples of the change from the second to the first person, see i. 10–13, iii. 3, 4, Ephes. ii. 2, 3, 13, 14, iv. 31, 32, v. 2 (the correct reading), 1 Thess. v. 5, where the motive of the change is similar. See also Gal. iii. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6, where there is the converse transition. ? ??? s?? a?t?, ?a??s?e??? ??? p??ta t? pa?apt?ata, 14. ??a????a?] ‘having cancelled’. The word ??a???fe??, like d?a???fe??, signifying ‘to blot out, to erase’, is commonly opposed to ?????fe?? ‘to enter a name, etc.’; e.g. Arist. Pax 1181, Lysias c. Nicom. p. 183, Plato Resp. vi. p. 501 B. More especially is it so used in reference to an item in an account, e.g. Demosth. c. Aristog. i. p. 791 ?????f??ta? p??te? ?? ?f??s?????te? ... ??a????pta? t? ?f??a. t? ?a?’ ??? ?.t.?.] ‘the bond standing against us’. The word ?e?????af??, which means properly an autograph of any kind, is used almost exclusively for a note of hand, a bond or obligation, as having the ‘sign-manual’ of the debtor or contractor: e.g. Tobit v. 3 (comp. ix. 5) ?d??e? a?t? t? ?e?????af??, Plut. Mor. p. 829 A t?? ?e??????f?? ?a? s???a???. It is more common in Latin than in Greek, e.g. Cic. Fam. vii. 18 ‘Misi cautionem chirographi mei’, Juv. Sat. xvi. 41 ‘Debitor aut sumptos pergit non reddere nummos, vana supervacui dicens chirographa ligni’ (comp. xiii. 137). Hence chirographum, chirographarius, are frequent terms in the Roman law-books; see Hesse Handlexicon zu den Quellen des rÖmischen Rechts s.v. p. 74. In the case before us the Jewish people might be said to have signed the contract when they bound themselves by a curse to observe all the enactments of the law (Deut. xxvii. 14–26; comp. Exod. xxiv. 3); and the primary reference would be to them. But ???, ???, seem to include Gentiles as well as Jews, so that a wider reference must be given to the expression. The d??ata therefore, though referring primarily to the Mosaic ordinances, will include all forms of positive decrees in which moral or social principles are embodied or religious duties defined; and the ‘bond’ is the moral assent of the conscience, which (as it were) signs and seals the obligation. The Gentiles, though ‘not having a law, are a law to themselves’, ??t??e? ??de?????ta? t? ????? t?? ???? ??apt?? ?? ta?? ?a?d?a?? a?t??, s?a?t????s?? a?t?? t?? s??e?d?se??, Rom. ii. 14, 15. See the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 11. Comp. Orig. Hom. in Gen. xiii. 4 (II. p. 96). t??? d??as??] ‘consisting in ordinances’: comp. Ephes. ii. 15 t?? ???? t?? ??t???? ?? d??as??. The word d??a is here used in its proper sense of a ‘decree’, ‘ordinance’, corresponding to d??at??es?e below, ver. 20. This is its only sense in the N. T.; e.g. Luke ii. 1, Acts xvii. 7, of the Emperor’s decrees; Acts xvi. 4 of the Apostolic ordinances. Here it refers especially to the Mosaic law, as in Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 t? ?????sta t?? d???t?? ?a? t? ?s??tata t?? ?? t??? ?????, Philo Leg. All. i. 16 (I. p. 54) d?at???s?? t?? ????? d???t??, 3 Macc. i. 3 t?? pat???? d???t??. Comp. Iren. Fragm. 38 (p. 855 Stieren) where, immediately after a reference to our text, t??? t?? ???da??? d??as? p??s???es?a? is opposed to p?e?at???? ?e?t????e??. In the parallel passage, Ephes. ii. 15, this is the exclusive reference; but here (for reasons explained in the last note) it seems best to give the term a secondary and more extensive application. The dative is perhaps best explained as governed by the idea of ?e??a???? involved in ?e?????af?? (comp. Plat. Ep. vii. p. 243 A t? ?e??a??a t?p???); as in 1 Tim. ii. 6 t? a?t????? ?a????? ?d????, where ?a????? depends on an implied ea?t???????. Otherwise it is taken as closely connected with ?a?’ ???, ‘the bond which was in force against us by reason of the ordinances’: see Winer § xxxi. p. 273, A. Buttmann p. 80. Possibly an ?? has dropped out of the text before t??? d??as??, owing to the similar ending ?e?????af??e? (comp. Ephes. ii. 15); but, if so, the omission must date from the earliest age, since no existing authorities exhibit any traces of such a reading; see the note on ver. 18 ? ???a?e?, and comp. Phil. ii. 1 e? t?? sp?????a. A wholly different interpretation however prevails universally among Greek commentators both here and in Ephes. ii. 15. They take t??? d??as??, ?? d??as??, to mean the ‘doctrines or precepts of the Gospel’, and so to describe the instrument by which the abrogation of the law was effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret, followed by the later commentators Œcumenius and Theophylact. Strangely enough they do not allude to the correct interpretation; nor (with the exception of the passage ascribed to IrenÆus which is quoted above) have I found any distinct traces of it in any Greek father. The grammatical difficulty would be taken to favour this interpretation, which moreover was characteristic of the age when the battle of creeds was fought. But it has been universally abandoned by modern interpreters, as plainly inappropriate to the context and also as severing the substantive d??a here from the verb d??at??e?? in ver. 20. The Latin fathers, who had either decretis or sententiis in their version, were saved from this false interpretation; e.g. Hilar. de Trin. i. 12 (II. p. 10), ix. 10 (II. p. 265 sq.), Ambros. Apol. Dav. 13 (I. p. 698), de Fid. iii. 2 (II. p. 499), August. de Pecc. Mer. i. 47 (X. p. 26): though they very commonly took t??? d??as??, ?? d??as??, to refer to the decree of condemnation. Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15 (VII. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The later Christian sense of d??a, meaning ‘doctrine’, came from its secondary classical use, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical ‘sentences’ of the philosophers: comp. Just. Mart. Apol. i. 7 (p. 56 D) ?? ?? ????s? t? a?t??? ??est? d??at?sa?te? ?? pa?t?? t? ??? ???at? f???s?f?a? p??sa???e???ta?, ?a?pe? t?? d???t?? ??a?t??? ??t??, Cic. Acad. ii. 9 ‘de suis decretis quÆ philosophi vocant d??ata’, Senec. Epist. xcv. 10 ‘Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, quÆ GrÆci vocant dogmata, nobis vel decreta licet adpellare vel scita vel placita’. See the indices to Plutarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations of the use of the term. There is an approach towards the ecclesiastical meaning in Ignat. Magn. 13 ea?????a? ?? t??? d??as?? t?? ?????? ?a? t?? ?p?st????, Barnab. § 1 t??a ??? d??at? ?st?? ?????? (comp. § 9, 10). ? d??as??, ? ?? ?pe?a?t??? ???? ?a? a?t? ???e? ?? ? ? ?? ?.t.?.] ‘which was directly opposed to us’. The former expression, t? ?a?’ ???, referred to the validity of the bond; the present, ? ?? ?pe?a?t??? ???, describes its active hostility. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the first preposition in ?pe?a?t??? mitigates its force, as in ?p?d???s??, ?p??e????, ?p?a???a?, ?p?s?a??e??, etc. Neither in classical writers nor in the LXX has the word any shade of this meaning. It is very commonly used for instance, of things which are directly antagonistic and mutually exclusive: e.g. Aristot. de Gen. et Corr. i. 7 (p. 323) ??????t?? ... f?s? ... t? a?t? ?a? ????? e??a? t? te p????? ?a? t? p?s??? ... ????as? d? ?? t??t?? t?? t??p?? ?????te? ?pe?a?t?a (i.e. self-contradictory) fa??es?a? ???e??? a?t??? d? t?? ??a?t??????a? ?.t.?., [Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 C SO. ?? a??es?a? ??a ?pe?a?t??? s?? d??e? t? f???e??; ??. ???? ?? ???.... 139 B SO. ?a? ?? d?? ?e ?pe?a?t?a ??? p???at? p?? ?? e??; (i.e. how can one thing have two direct opposites?), where the whole argument depends on this sense of ?pe?a?t???. In compounds with ?p? the force of the preposition will generally be determined by the meaning of the other element in the compound; and, as ??a?t??? (??a?t?) implies locality, a local sense is communicated to ?p?. Thus ?pe?a?t??? may be compared with ?pa???sse??, ?pa?t??, ?pa?t???e??, ?p?t???e?? (Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 12 ??st?? ?p?d?ae??, ‘to hunt down’), ?pe????e?? (Xen. Anab. i. 8. 15 ?pe??sa? ?? s??a?t?sa?, ‘riding up’), ?f?st??a? (Polyb. i. 50. 6 ?p?st?se t?? ?a?t?? ?a?? ??t?p????? t??? p??e????, ‘he brought up’ his own ship). With this meaning, ‘over against,’ ‘close in upon,’ the preposition does not weaken but enhance the force of ??a?t???, so that the compound will denote ‘direct,’ ‘close,’ or ‘persistent opposition.’ ?a? a?t? ???e? ?.t.?.] ‘and He, i.e. Christ, hath taken it away’. There is a double change in this clause: (1) The participles (?a??s?e???, ??a????a?) are replaced by a finite verb. (2) The aorists (s??e???p???se?, ?a??s?e???, ??a????a?) are replaced by a perfect. The substitution of ??e? for ???e? in some copies betrays a consciousness on the part of the scribes of the dislocation produced by the new tense. As a new subject, ? ???st??, must be introduced somewhere (see the note on ver. 13), the severance thus created suggests this as the best point of transition. The perfect ???e?, ‘He hath removed it’, is suggested by the feeling of relief and thanksgiving, which rises up in the Apostle’s mind at this point. For the strong expression ???e?? ?? [t??] ?s??, ‘to remove and put out of sight’, comp. LXX Is. lvii. 2, Epictet. iii. 3. 15, Plut. Mor. p. 519 D; so 2 Thess. ii. 7 ?? ?s?? ????ta?. ? t?? ?s??, p??s???sa? a?t? t? sta???? p??s???sa? ?.t.?.] ‘The abrogation was even more emphatic. Not only was the writing erased, but the document itself was torn up and cast aside.’ By p??s???sa? is meant that the law of ordinances was nailed to the cross, rent with Christ’s body, and destroyed with His death: see the notes on Gal. vi. 14 d?’ ?? [t??] sta???? ??? ??s?? (the world, the sphere of material ordinances) ?sta???ta? ???? ??s?, where the idea is the same. It has been supposed that in some cities the abrogation of a decree was signified by running a nail through it and hanging it up in public. The image would thus gain force, but there is no distinct evidence of such a custom. 15. ?pe?d?s?e??? ?.t.?.] This word appears not to occur at all before St Paul, and rarely if ever after his time, except in writers who may be supposed to have his language before them; e.g. Hippol. HÆr. i. 24 ?pe?d?s?e??? t? s?a ? pe???e?ta?. In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 ?pe?d?? is only a variation for ete?d?? which seems to be the correct reading. The word also appears in some texts of Babrius Fab. xviii. 3, but it is merely a conjectural emendation. Thus the occurrence of ?pe?d?es?a? here and in iii. 9, and of ?p??d?s?? above in ver. 11, is remarkable; and the choice of an unusual, if not a wholly new, word must have been prompted by the desire to emphasize the completeness of the action. The force of the double compound may be inferred from a passage of Lysias, where the two words ?p?d?es?a? and ??d?es?a? occur together; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) f?s??? ????t??? ?p?ded?s?a? ? t?? ??t???s??? ??ded?s?a?. Here however the sense of ?pe?d?s?e??? is difficult. The meaning generally assigned to it, ‘having spoiled, stripped of their arms’, disregards the middle voice. St Jerome is chiefly responsible for this common error of interpretation: for in place of the Old Latin ‘exuens se’, which was grammatically correct, he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his revised version. In his interpretation however he was anticipated by the commentator Hilary, who read ‘exuens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Discarding this sense, as inconsistent with the voice, we have the choice of two interpretations. (1) The common interpretation of the Latin fathers, ‘putting off the body’, thus separating ?pe?d?s?e??? from t?? ????? ?.t.?. and understanding t?? s???a or t? s?a with it; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3 ??d?s?e???. So Novat. de Trin. 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros. Expos. Luc. v. § 107 (I. p. 1381) ‘exuens se carnem’, comp. de Fid. iii. 2 (II. p. 499); Hilar. de Trin. i. 13 (II. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix. 10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians se carne’ (comp. ix. 11, p. 266); Augustin. Epist. 149 (II. p. 513) ‘exuens se carne’, etc. This appears to have been the sense adopted much earlier in a Docetic work quoted by Hippol. HÆr. viii. 10 ???? ?????? ?? t? s?at? t?afe?sa, ?pe?d?sa??? t? s?a ?a? p??s???sasa p??? t? ????? ?a? ???ae?sasa ?.t.?. It is so paraphrased likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the Gothic. The reading ?pe?d?s?e??? t?? s???a ?a? t?? ????s?a? (omitting t?? ????? ?a?), found in some ancient authorities, must be a corruption from an earlier text, which had inserted the gloss t?? s???a after ?pe?d?s?e???, while retaining t?? ????? ?a?, and which seems to have been in the hands of some of the Latin fathers already quoted. This interpretation has been connected with a common metaphorical use of ?p?d?es?a?, signifying ‘to strip’ and so ‘to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut. Mor. 811 E p??? p?sa? ?p?d??e??? t?? p???t???? p?????, Diod. Sic. ii. 29 ?p? f???s?f?a? ?p?d??te?. The serious objection to this rendering is, that it introduces an isolated metaphor which is not explained or suggested by anything in the context. (2) The common interpretation of the Greek fathers; ‘having stripped off and put away the powers of evil’, making ?pe?d?s?e??? govern t?? ????? ?.t.?. So Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. This also appears to have been the interpretation of Origen, in Matt. xii. § 25 (III. p. 544), ib. § 40 (p. 560), in Ioann. vi. § 37 (IV. p. 155), ib. xx. § 29 (p. 356), though his language is not explicit, and though his translators, e.g. in Libr. Ies. Hom. vii. § 3 (II. p. 413), make him say otherwise. The meaning then will be as follows. Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat. In the wilderness He was tempted by Satan; but Satan retired for the time baffled and defeated (Luke iv. 13 ?p?st? ?p’ a?t?? ???? ?a????). Through the voice of His chief disciple the temptation was renewed, and He was entreated to decline His appointed sufferings and death. Satan was again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 ?pa?e ?p?s? ??, Sata??, s???da??? e? ???: comp. Matt. viii. 31). Then the last hour came. This was the great crisis of all, when ‘the power of darkness’ made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 ? ????s?a t?? s??t???; see above i. 13), when the prince of the world asserted his tyranny (Joh. xii. 30 ? ????? t?? ??s??). The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane; it ended with the cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the victory of Christ. In His cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death; t? ?p???s?a? t?? ???t?t?ta, says Theodore, ?? ?p?? t?? ?????? ?fe??e? e?e??es?a?, ?ped?sat? ???e???? (i.e. t?? ??t??e????? d???e??) t?? a??e?te?a? ?pe? ???????t? ?a?’ ???. For the image of the garments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially Zech. iii. 1 sq., ‘And he showed me Joshua the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.... And He answered and spake unto those that stood before Him saying Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him He said Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee’. In this prophetic passage the image is used of His type and namesake, the Jesus of the Restoration, not in his own person, but as the high-priest and representative of a guilty but cleansed and forgiven people, with whom he is identified. For the metaphor of ?pe?d?s?e??? more especially, see Philo Quod det. pot. ins. 13 (I. p. 199) ??a?ast??te? d? ?a? d?e?e?s?e??? t?? ??t?????? a?t?? pe??p????? e?a??? ??d?s?e?a, where the image in the context is that of a wrestling bout. This interpretation is grammatical; it accords with St Paul’s teaching; and it is commended by the parallel uses of the substantive in ver. 11 ?? t? ?pe?d?se? t?? s?at?? t?? sa????, and of the verb in iii. 9 ?pe?d?s?e??? t?? p??a??? ?????p?? ?.t.?. The ?p??d?s?? accomplished in us when we are baptized into His death is a counterpart to the ?p??d?s?? which He accomplished by His death. With Him indeed it was only the temptation, with us it is the sin as well as temptation; but otherwise the parallel is complete. In both cases it is a divestiture of the powers of evil, a liberation from the dominion of the flesh. On the other hand the common explanation ‘spoiling’ is not less a violation of St Paul’s usage (iii. 9) than of grammatical rule. ? t?? ????? ?a? t?? ????s?a? ?de???t?se? ? t?? ????? ?.t.?.] What powers are especially meant here will appear from Ephes. vi. 12 p??? t?? ?????, p??? t?? ????s?a?, p??? t??? ??s????t??a? t?? s??t??? t??t??, p??? t? p?e?at??? t?? p?????a? ?.t.?. See the note on i. 16. ?de???t?se?] ‘displayed’, as a victor displays his captives or trophies in a triumphal procession: Hor. Epist. i. 17. 33 ‘captos ostendere civibus hostes’. The word is extremely rare; Matt. i. 19 ? ????? a?t?? de??at?sa? (where it ought probably to be read for the more common word pa?ade??at?sa?), Act. Paul. et Petr. 33 ??e?e p??? t?? ?a?? ??a ? ???? ?p? t?? t?? S????? ?p?t?? f???s?? ???? ?a? de??at?s??s?? a?t??. Nowhere does the word convey the idea of ‘making an example’ (pa?ade??at?sa?) but signifies simply ‘to display, publish, proclaim’. In the context of the last passage we have as the consequence, ?ste p??ta? t??? e??ae?? ??d?a? de??ttes?a? S???a t?? ???? ?a? ???s??? a?t?? ?ata?????e??, i.e. to proclaim his impieties. The substantive occurs on the Rosetta stone l. 30 (Boeckh, C. I. 4697) t?? s??tete?es???? t? p??? t?? de??at?s?? d??f??a. ? ?? pa???s??, ???ae?sa? a?t??? ?? a?t?. ? ?? pa???s??] ‘boldly’, not ‘publicly’. As pa???s?a is ‘unreservedness, plainness of speech’ (pa?-??s?a, its opposite being ????s?a ‘silence’), so while applied still to language, it may be opposed either (1) to ‘fear’, as John vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to ‘ambiguity, reserve’, Joh. xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29; but ‘misgiving, apprehension’ in some form or other seems to be always the correlative idea. Hence, when it is transferred from words to actions, it appears always to retain the idea of ‘confidence, boldness’; e.g. 1 Macc. iv. 18 ???ete t? s???a et? pa???s?a?, Test. xii. Patr. Rub. 4 ??? e???? pa???s?a? ?te??sa? e?? p??s?p?? ?a??, Jos. Ant. ix. 1O. 4 ?p’ a?s????? te t?? s?e???t?? de???? ?a? t?? ???t’ a?t? pa???s?a? e??a?. The idea of publicity may sometimes be connected with the word as a secondary notion, e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where ?? pa???s?? e??a? ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is opposed to ?? ???pt? p??e?? (comp. xviii. 20); but it does not displace the primary sense. ? 16. ? ?? p?se?. ???ae?sa?] ‘leading them in triumph’, the same metaphor as in 2 Cor. ii. 14 t? p??t?te ???ae???t? ??? ?? t? ???st? ?.t.?., where it is wrongly translated in the A. V. ‘causeth us to triumph’. Here however it is the defeated powers of evil, there the subjugated persons of men, who are led in public, chained to the triumphal car of Christ. This is the proper meaning and construction of ???ae?e??, as found elsewhere. This verb takes an accusative (1) of the person over whom the triumph is celebrated, e.g. Plut. Vit. Arat. 54 t??t?? ??????? ?????e?se, Thes. et Rom. Comp. 4 as??e?? ?????e?se: (2) of the spoils exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian c. GrÆc. 26 pa?sas?e ?????? ????t????? ???ae???te? ?a?, ?spe? ? ???????, ??? ?d???? ?p???s??e??? pte????: (3) more rarely of the substance of the triumph, e.g. Vit. Camill. 30 ? d? ??????? ?????e?se ... t?? ?p??????a? s?t??a pat??d?? ?e??e???, i.e. ‘in the character of his country’s saviour’. The passive ???ae?es?a? is ‘to be led in triumph’, ‘to be triumphed over’, e.g. Vit. C. Marc. 35. So the Latins say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘triumphari’. ?? a?t?] i.e. t? sta???: comp. Ephes. ii. 16 ?p??ata????? t??? ?f?t????? ... d?? t?? sta????. The violence of the metaphor is its justification. The paradox of the crucifixion is thus placed in the strongest light—triumph in helplessness and glory in shame. The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s car. 16–19. ‘Seeing then that the bond is cancelled, that the law of ordinances is repealed, beware of subjecting yourselves to its tyranny again. Suffer no man to call you to account in the matter of eating or drinking, or again of the observance of a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only shadows thrown in advance, only types of things to come. The substance, the reality, in every case belongs to the Gospel of Christ. The prize is now fairly within your reach. Do not suffer yourselves to be robbed of it by any stratagem of the false teachers. Their religion is an officious humility which displays itself in the worship of angels. They make a parade of their visions, but they are following an empty phantom. They profess humility, but they are puffed up with their vaunted wisdom, which is after all only the mind of the flesh. Meanwhile they have substituted inferior spiritual agencies for the One true Mediator, the Eternal Word. Clinging to these lower intelligences, they have lost their hold of the Head; they have severed their connexion with Him, on whom the whole body depends; from whom it derives its vitality, and to whom it owes its unity, being supplied with nourishment and knit together in one by means of the several joints and attachments, so that it grows with a growth which comes from God Himself.’ 16 sq. The two main tendencies of the Colossian heresy are discernible in this warning (vv. 16–19), as they were in the previous statement (vv. 9–15). Here however the order is reversed. The practical error, an excessive ritualism and ascetic rigour, is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the theological error, the interposition of angelic mediators, follows after (vv. 18, 19). The first is the substitution of a shadow for the substance; the second is the preference of an inferior member to the head. The reversal of order is owing to the connexion of the paragraphs; the opening subject in the second paragraph being a continuation of the concluding subject in the first, by the figure called chiasm: comp. Gal. iv. 5. ?????t?] not ‘condemn you’, but ‘take you to task’; as e.g. Rom. xiv. 3 sq. The judgment may or may not end in an acquittal; but in any case it is wrong, since these matters ought not to be taken as the basis of a judgment. ?? ??se? ?.t.?.] ‘in eating and in drinking’; Rom. xiv. 17 ?? ??? ?st?? ? as??e?a t?? Te?? ??s?? ?a? p?s??, ???? d??a??s??? ?.t.?., Heb. ix. 10 ?p? ??as?? ?a? p?as?? ?a? d?af????? apt?s???, d??a??ata sa????, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8 ??a d? ??? ?? pa?ast?se? t? Te? ?.t.?. The first indication that the Mosaic distinctions of things clean and unclean should be abolished is given by our Lord Himself: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct reading in ver. 19 being ?a?a????? p??ta t? ??ata). They were afterwards formally annulled by the vision which appeared to St Peter: Acts x. 11 sq. The ordinances of the Mosaic law applied almost exclusively to meats. It contained no prohibitions respecting drinks except in a very few cases; e.g. of the priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids contained in unclean vessels etc. (Lev. xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows (Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken in connexion with the rigid observances which the later Jews had grafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24), would be sufficient to explain the expression, when applied to the Mosaic law by itself, as in Heb. l.c. The rigour of the Colossian false teachers however, like that of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes, doubtless went far beyond the injunctions of the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether: see the introduction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions in St Paul to similar observances not required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2 ? d? ?s?e??? ???a?a ?s??e?, ver. 21 ?a??? t? ? fa?e?? ???a ?d? p?e?? ????? ?.t.?., 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3 ??????t?? ... ?p??es?a? ???t?? ? ? Te?? ??t?se? ?.t.?., Tit. i. 14 ? p??s????te? ... ??t??a?? ?????p?? ... p??ta ?a?a?? t??? ?a?a????. The correct reading seems to be ?a? ?? p?se?, thus connecting together the words between which there is a natural affinity. Comp. Philo Vit. Moys. i. § 33 (II. p. 110) desp???a?? ?a?epa?? s??e?e?????? ??se? ?a? p?se?, Ign. Trall. 2 ?? ??? ???t?? ?a? p?t?? e?s?? d???????. ? ?? ??e? ???t?? ? ?e????a? ? sa?t??, 17 ? ?st?? s???. ?? ??e?] ‘in the matter of,’ etc.; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3 ?? t? ??e? t??t?. The expression seems originally to mean ‘in the division or category’, and in classical writers most commonly occurs in connexion with such words as t????a?, p??e?s?a?, ????e??, etc.: comp. Demosth. c. Aristocr. § 148 ?sa ... st?at??t?? ?? ?? sfe?d???t?? ?a? ????? ??e? ... ?st??te?ta?, i.e. ‘in the capacity of.’ Hence it gets to signify more widely, as here, ‘with respect to’, ‘by reason of’: comp. Philo Quod det. pot. ins. § 2 (I. p. 192) ?? ??e? ????? t?? p????pt??t?? ?at? t?? p?te?a ??s???ta?, in Flacc. 20 (II. p. 542) ?sa ?? ??e? ????t?? ?a? d??e?? ??a??. But Ælian V. H. viii. 3 ??????te? ??ast?? ?? t? ??e? f????, quoted by the commentators, is a false parallel: for f???? is there governed by ??????te? and ?? t? ??e? means ‘in his turn’. ???t?? ?.t.?.] The same three words occur together, as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times among the Jews, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xlv. 17, Hos. ii. 11, Justin Dial. 8, p. 226; comp. Is. i. 13, 14. See also Gal. iv. 10 ???a? pa?at??e?s?e ?a? ??a? ?a? ?a????? ?a? ???a?t???, where the first three words correspond to the three words used here, though the order is reversed. The ???t? here, like the ?a???? there, refers chiefly to the annual festivals, the passover, pentecost, etc. The ?e????a here describes more precisely the monthly festival, which is there designated more vaguely as ??e?. The s?ata here gives by name the weekly holy-day, which is there indicated more generally by ???a?. ?e????a?] See Num. xxviii. 11 sq. The forms ?e????a and ??????a seem to be used indifferently in the common dialect, though the latter is more common. In the Attic ??????a alone was held to be correct; see Lobeck Phryn. p. 148. On the whole the preference should perhaps be given to ?e????a? here, as supported by some authorities which are generally trustworthy in matters of orthography, and as being the less usual form in itself. sa?t??] ‘a sabbath-day’, not, as the A.V., ‘sabbath days’; for the coordinated words ???t??, ?e????a?, are in the singular. The word s?ata is derived from the Aramaic (as distinguished from the Hebrew) form ????, and accordingly preserves the Aramaic termination in a. Hence it was naturally declined as a plural noun, s?ata, sa?t??. The general use of s?ata, when a single sabbath-day was meant, will appear from such passages as Jos. Ant. i. 1. 1 ???e? t?? ???a?, p??sa???e???te? a?t?? s?ata, ib. iii. 10. 1 ?d??? ???a? ?t?? s?ata ?a?e?ta?, Plut. Mor. 169 C ???da??? sa?t?? ??t?? ?? ????pt??? ?a?e??e???, ib. 671 F ??a? d? ?a? t?? t?? sa?t?? ???t?? ? pa?t?pas?? ?p??sd????s?? e??a?, Hor. Sat. i. 9. 69 ‘hodie tricesima sabbata’. In the New Testament s?ata is only once used distinctly of more than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning is brought out by the attached numeral; Acts xvii. 2 ?p? s?ata t??a. On the observance of days and seasons see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv. 5, 6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the subject is expressed in the Epist. ad Diogn. § 4. Origen c. Cels. viii. 21, 22, after referring to Thucyd. i. 70 ?te ???t?? ???? t? ??e?s?a? ? t? t? d???ta p???a?, says ? t??e???, ?e? ?? t??? ?????? ?? ?a? t??? ?????? ?a? t??? d?a???as? t?? t? f?se? ?????? ????? Te??, ?e? ?st?? a?t?? ?? ta?? ???a?? ?a? ?e? ??e? ????a??? ???a?, and he then goes on to explain what is the pa?as?e??, the p?s?a, the pe?te??st?, of such a man. The observance of sacred times was an integral part of the old dispensation. Under the new they have ceased to have any value, except as a means to an end. The great principle that ‘the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath’, though underlying the Mosaic ordinances, was first distinctly pronounced by our Lord. The setting apart of special days for the service of God is a confession of our imperfect state, an avowal that we cannot or do not devote our whole time to Him. Sabbaths will then ultimately be superseded, when our life becomes one eternal sabbath. Meanwhile the Apostle’s rebuke warns us against attributing to any holy days whatever a meaning and an importance which is alien to the spirit of the New Covenant. Bengel on the text writes, ‘Sabbatum non laudatur, non imperatur; dominica memoratur, non prÆcipitur. Qui profundius in mundi negotiis hÆrent, his utilis et necessarius est dies definitus: qui semper sabbatizant, majori libertate gaudent’. Yes: but these last are just they who will most scrupulously restrict their liberty, so as ?p??s??p?? ???es?a?. 17. Two ideas are prominent in this image. (1) The contrast between the ordinances of the Law and the teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow and the substance respectively; Philo de Conf. ling. 37 (I. p. 434) ???sa?ta? t? ?? ??t? t?? ???s?? s???? t??a? ?sa?e? s??t?? e??a?, Joseph. B.J. ii. 2. 5 s???? a?t?s?e??? as??e?a? ?? ??pase? ?a?t? t? s?a; comp. Philo in Flacc. 19 (II. p. 541) s??? p?a??t?? ??’ ?sa?, ?? p???ata. (2) The conception of the shadow as thrown before the substance (? d? s??? p??t???e? t?? s?at??, says a Greek commentator), so that the Law was a type and presage of the Gospel; Heb. x. 1 s???? ???? ? ???? t?? e????t?? ??a??? (comp. viii. 5). Thus it implies both the unsubstantiality and the supersession of the Mosaic ritual. ?] ‘which things’, whether distinctions of meats or observances of times. If the other reading ? be taken, it will refer to the preceding sentence generally, as if the antecedent were ‘the whole system of ordinances’. ? t?? e????t??, t? d? s?a t?? ???st??. t? d? s?a ?.t.?.] As the shadow belonged to Moses, so ‘the substance belongs to Christ’; i.e. the reality, the antitype, in each case is found in the Christian dispensation. Thus the passover typifies the atoning sacrifice; the unleavened bread, the purity and sincerity of the true believer; the pentecostal feast, the ingathering of the first fruits; the sabbath, the rest of God’s people; etc. 18. The Christian’s career is the contest of the stadium (d????, Acts xx. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the umpire, the dispenser of the rewards (2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay wreath, the victor’s prize (?ae???, 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Colossians were in a fair way to win this prize; they had entered the lists duly; they were running bravely: but the false teachers, thrusting themselves in the way, attempted to trip them up or otherwise impede them in the race, and thus to rob them of their just reward. For the idea of ?ata?ae?et? compare especially Gal. v. 7 ?t???ete ?a???? t?? ??? ??????e? ?.t.?. ? ??? ?ata?ae??t? ????? ?? tape???f??s??? ?a? ? ?ata?ae??t?] ‘rob of the prize, the ?ae???’; comp. Demosth. Mid. p. 544 (one of the documents) ?p?st?e?a St??t??a ?p? ?e?d??? ?ata?ae????ta ?a? pa?? p??ta t? d??a?a ?t?????ta, which presents a close parallel to the use of ?ata?ae?e?? here. See also Eustath. in Il. i. 403 sq. (p. 43) ?ata?ae?e? a?t??, ?? fas?? ?? p??a???, ib. Opusc. 277, etc. The false teachers at ColossÆ are not regarded as umpires nor as successful rivals, but simply as persons frustrating those who otherwise would have won the prize. The word ?ata?ae?e?? is wide enough to include such. The two compounds ?ata?ae?e?? and pa?a?ae?e?? (Plut. Mor. p. 535 C ?? pa?a?ae???te? ?? t??? ???s?) only differ in this respect, that deprivation is the prominent idea in the former word and trickery in the latter. Jerome, Epist. cxxi. ad Algas. (I. p. 879), sets down this word, which he wrongly interprets ‘bravium accipiat adversum vos’, as one of St Paul’s Cilicisms. The passages quoted (whether the document in the Midias be authentic or not) are sufficient to show that this statement is groundless. ????? ??] ‘taking delight in’, ‘devoting himself to’. The expression is common in the LXX, most frequently as a translation of ??? ??, 1 Sam.??? xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. cxi. 1, cxlvi. 10, but in one passage of ??? ??, 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. So too Test. xii. Patr. Asher 1 ??? ??? ? ???? ???? ?? ?a??. Comp. also 1 Macc. iv. 42 ?e??t?? ????, and see ??e?????s?e?a below. Against this construction no valid objection has been urged. Otherwise ????? is taken absolutely, and various senses have been assigned to it, such as ‘imperiously’ or ‘designedly’ or ‘wilfully’ or ‘gladly, readily’; but these are either unsupported by usage or inappropriate to the context. Leclerc (ad loc.) and Bentley (Crit. Sacr. p. 59) conjectured ??????; Toup (Emend. in Suid. II. p. 63) more plausibly ?????; but the passages quoted show that no correction is needed. tape???f??s???] Humility is a vice with heathen moralists, but a virtue with Christian Apostles; see the note on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which (with ver. 23) forms the sole exception to the general language of the Apostles, the divergence is rather apparent than real. The disparagement is in the accompaniments and not in the word itself. Humility, when it becomes self-conscious, ceases to have any value; and self-consciousness at least, if not affectation, is implied by ????? ??. Moreover the character of the tape???f??s??? in this case is further defined as ???s?e?a t?? ???????, which was altogether a perversion of the truth. ? ???s?e?? t?? ???????, ? ???a?e? ?ate???, e??? f?s???e??? ? ???s?e??] This word is closely connected with the preceding by the vinculum of the same preposition. There was an officious parade of humility in selecting these lower beings as intercessors, rather than appealing directly to the throne of grace. The word refers properly to the external rites of religion, and so gets to signify an over-scrupulous devotion to external forms; as in Philo Quod det. pot. ins. 7 (i. p. 195) ???s?e?a? ??t? ?s??t?t?? ????e???, Plut. Vit. Alex. 2 d??e? ?a? t? ???s?e?e?? ???a ta?? ?ata?????? ?e??s?a? ?a? pe???????? ?e??????a??: comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and see the well-known remarks of Coleridge on James i. 26, 27, in Aids to Reflection p. 14. In the LXX ???s?e?e??, ???s?e?a, together occur four times (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27), and in all these examples the reference is to idolatrous or false worship. Indeed generally the usage of the word exhibits a tendency to a bad sense. t?? ???????] For the angelology and angelolatry of these Colossian false teachers, more especially in its connexion with Essene teaching, see the introduction, pp. 89 sq., 101 sq., 110, 181 sq. For the prominence which was given to angelology in the speculations of the Jews generally, see the Preaching of Peter quoted in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 5 (p. 760) ?d? ?at? ???da???? s?es?e, ?a? ??? e?e???? ... ??? ?p?sta?ta? ?at?e???te? ???????? ?a? ???a???????, Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. v. 6 (i. p. 580) p??t?? ??? t?? ???da??? ?a???e?? ?????, e? t?? ?? ???a??? ?a? t??? ?? t?de ???????? s???s? ?.t.?., comp. ib. i. 26 (p. 344). From Jews it naturally spread to Judaizing Christians; e.g. Clem. Hom. iii. 36 ??????? ???ata ??????e??, viii. 12 sq., Test. xii. Patr. Levi 3 (quoted above on i. 16). The interest however extended to more orthodox circles, as appears from the strange passage in Ignat. Trall. 5 ? ?? d??aa? t? ?p??????a ????a?; ... d??aa? ??e?? t? ?p??????a ?a? t?? t?p??es?a? t?? ???e????? ?a? t?? s?st?se?? t?? ?????t???? ?.t.?. Of angelology among Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32. 5, Orig. c. Cels. vi. 30 sq. (I. p. 653), Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 970 sq., Pistis Sophia pp. 2, 19, 23, etc. ? ???a?e? ?.t.?.] literally ‘invading what he has seen,’ which is generally explained to mean ‘parading’ or ‘poring over his visions’. For this sense of ?ate?e??, which takes either a genitive or a dative or an accusative, comp. Philo de Plant. Noe ii. 19 (i. p. 341) ?? p??s?t??? ??????te? t?? ?p?st??? ?a? ?p? p???? ?ate???te? a?ta??, 2 Macc. ii. 30 t? ?? ?ate?e?? ?a? pe?? p??t?? p??e?s?a? ????? ?a? p???p?a???e?? ?? t??? ?at? ????. At a later date this sense becomes common, e.g. Nemesius de Nat. Hom. p. 64 (ed. MatthÆi) ???a??? ?ate?e? t? ?e????. In Xen. Symp. iv. 27 ?? t? a?t? ???? ?f?te??? ?ate?et? t?, the reading may be doubtful. But though ? ???a?e? singly might mean ‘his visions’, and ?ate??? ‘busying himself with’, the combination ‘invading what he has seen’, thus interpreted, is so harsh and incongruous as to be hardly possible; and there was perhaps some corruption in the text prior to all existing authorities (see the note on Phil. ii. 1 for a parallel case). Did the Apostle write )???? (or a????) ?e?eate???? In this case the existing text ae??a?e?e ate??? might be explained partly by an attempt to correct the form )e??? into a???? or conversely, and partly by the perplexity of transcribers when confronted with such unusual words. This reading had suggested itself to me independently without the knowledge that, so far as regards the latter word, it had been anticipated by others in the conjecture ? ???a (or ? ???a?e?) ?e?eate???. The word ?e?eate?? ‘to walk on emptiness’, ‘to tread the air’, and so metaphorically (like a???ate??, a??e??ate??, a??e?eate??, etc.) ‘to indulge in vain speculations’, is not an uncommon word. For its metaphorical sense especially see Plut. Mor. p. 336 F ??t?? ???et? ?e?eat??? ?a? sfa???e??? ?p’ ??a???a? t? ??e??? a?t??, Basil. Op. I. p. 135 t?? ???? ... ???a p?a?????ta ?a? p???? ?e?eat?sa?ta ?.t.?., ib. I. p. 596 s?? d? ? ?e?eat??t? ? ????, Synes. de Insomn. p. 156 ??te ??? ?e?eat???ta? t??? ?????? ????e??a?. Though the precise form ?e?eate?e?? does not occur, yet it is unobjectionable in itself. For the other word which I have ventured to suggest, ???? or a????, see Philo de Somn. ii. 6 (I. p. 665) ?p?t?f??e??? ?p’ a???a? f?e??? ?a? ?e??? f?s?at??, ib. § 9 (p. 667) t?? ?p’ a???a? f???????? ?e??? d??a?, Quod Deus immut. § 36 (I. p. 298) ?spe? ?p’ a???a? t???? ?e?d??? ?a? ?ea??? d???? f??e?s?a? ?at? ?e??? a????ta. The first and last passages more especially present striking parallels, and show how germane to St Paul’s subject these ideas of ‘suspension or balancing in the air’ (???a or a???a) and ‘treading the void’ (?e?eate?e??) would be, as expressing at once the spiritual pride and the emptiness of these speculative mystics; see also de Somn. ii. 2 (p. 661) ?fa??eta? ?a? t? t?? ?e??? d????, ?f’ ??, ?? ?f’ ??a, d?? t? ???f?? ??aa??e?, f?s?e??? ?a? et????? ??????? ?a?t??. The substantive, ???a or a???a, is used sometimes of the instrument for suspending, sometimes of the position of suspension. In this last sense it describes the poising of a bird, the floating of a boat on the waters, the balancing on a rope, and the like. Hence its expressiveness when used as a metaphor. In the received text a negative is inserted, ? ? ???a?e? ?ate???. This gives a very adequate sense ‘intruding into those things which he has not seen’; ?? ??? e?de? ????????, says Chrysostom, ?a? ??t? d???e?ta? ?? ?d??: comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 ???? t??? p??f?te???s?? ?p? ?a?d?a? a?t?? ?a? t? ?a????? ? ??p??s??. But, though the difficulty is thus overcome, this cannot be regarded as the original reading of the text, the authorities showing that the negative was an after insertion. See the detached note on various readings. For the form ???a?e?, which is better supported here than ???a?e?, see the note on ii. 1. ? ?p? t?? ???? t?? sa???? a?t??, e??? f?s???e???] ‘vainly puffed up.’ Their profession of humility was a cloke for excessive pride: for, as St Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. viii. 1), ? ???s?? f?s???. It may be questioned whether e??? should be connected with the preceding or the following words. Its usual position in St Paul, before the words which it qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 2, Gal. iv. 11; there is an exceptional reason for the exceptional position in Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter construction. t?? ???? ?.t.?.] ‘the mind of his flesh’, i.e. unenlightened by the Spirit; comp. Rom. viii. 7 t? f????a t?? sa????. It would seem that the Apostle is here taking up some watchword of the false teachers. They doubtless boasted that they were directed ?p? t?? ????. Yes, he answers, but it is ? ???? t?? sa???? ???. Compare Rev. ii. 24, where the favourite Gnostic boast ????s?e?? t? a??a is characterized by the addition of t?? Sata?? (see Galatians p. 298 note 3). Comp. August. Conf. x. 67 ‘Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? Ambiendum mihi fuit ad angelos? Qua prece? quibus sacramentis? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt hÆc et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum et digni habiti sunt illusionibus. Elati enim te quÆrebant doctrinÆ fastu, etc.’ 19. ?? ??at??] ‘not holding fast.’ This is the most common construction and meaning of ??ate?? in the New Testament; e.g. Mark vii. 8 ?f??te? t?? ??t???? t?? Te?? ??ate?te t?? pa??d?s?? t?? ?????p??; comp. Cant. iii. 4 ????? ?? ???p?se? ? ???? ??, ????t?sa a?t?? ?a? ??? ?f??a a?t??. ? ??at?? t?? ?efa???, ?? ?? p?? t? s?a d?? t?? ?f?? ? t?? ?efa???] ‘the Head’ regarded as a title, so that a person is at once suggested, and the relative which follows is masculine, ?? ??; comp. the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 ?? ?st?? ? ?efa??, ???st?? ?? ?? p?? t? s?a ?.t.?. The supplication and worship of angels is a substitution of inferior members for the Head, which is the only source of spiritual life and energy. See the introduction pp. 34, 78, 101 sq., 181 sq. d?? t?? ?f?? ?.t.?.] ‘through the junctures and ligaments.’ Galen, when describing the structure of the human frame, more than once specifies the elements of union as twofold: the body owes its compactness partly to the articulation, partly to the attachment; e.g. Op. II. p. 734 (ed. KÜhn) ?st? d? ? t??p?? t?? s????se?? a?t?? d?tt?? ?at? ?????, ? ?? ?te??? ?at? ??????, ? d? ?te??? ?at? s?f?s??. Similarly, though with a more general reference, Aristotle speaks of two kinds of union, which he describes as ?f? ‘contact’ and s?f?s?? ‘cohesion’ respectively; Metaph. iv. 4 (p. 1014) d?af??e? d? s?f?s?? ?f??? ???a ?? ??? ????? pa?? t?? ?f?? ?te??? ?????? e??a?, ?? d? t??? s?pef???s?? ?st? t? ?? t? a?t? ?? ?f??? ? p??e? ??t? t?? ?ptes?a? s?pef????a? ?a? e??a? ?? ?.t.?., Phys. Ausc. iv. 6 (p. 213) t??t??? ?f? ?st??? s?f?s?? d?, ?ta? ?f? ??e??e?? ?? ?????ta? (comp. ib. v. 3, p. 227), Metaph. x. 3 (p. 1071) ?sa ?st?? ?f? ?a? ? s?f?se?. The relation of contiguous surfaces and the connexion of different parts together effect structural unity. This same distinction appears in the Apostle’s language here. Contact and attachment are the primary ideas in ?fa? and s??des?? respectively. Of the function of ?f?, ‘contact’, in physiology (pe?? ?f?? t?? ?? t??? f?s?????) Aristotle speaks at some length in one passage, de Gen. et Corr. i. 6 (p. 322 sq.). It may be mentioned, as illustrating St Paul’s image, that Aristotle in this passage lays great stress on the mutual sympathy and influence of the parts in contact, describing them as pa??t??? ?a? p???t??? and as ????t??? ?a? ????t? ?p’ ???????. Elsewhere, like St Paul here, he uses the plural a? ?fa?; de CÆlo i. 11 (p. 280) t? ??e? f????? ?t? ?? ?? ?t? d? ? ??, ???? t?? ?f??, ?t? ??e? t?? f?e??es?a? p??te??? ??sa? ?ste??? ??? e?s??, de Gen. et Corr. i. 8 (p. 326) ??te ??? ?at? t?? ?f?? ??d??eta? d????a? d?? t?? d?afa??? ??te d?? t?? p????, ib. § 9 (p. 327) e? ??? d?a????es?a? d??ata? ? ?a? s??d?s?? ?p????????e??? ?a? s???a??e??? ? ?at? t?? ?f??, ?spe? fas? t??e?, ??? ?p? ? d????????, ?sta? d????????? d??at?? ??? d?a??e???a?: comp. [Plat.] Axioch. p. 365 A s??e??e????? t?? ?f?? ?a? t? s?at? ??a????. It is quite clear from these passages of Aristotle, more especially from the distinction of ?fa? and p????, that a? ?fa? are the joinings, the junctures. When applied to the human body they would be ‘joints,’ provided that we use the word accurately of the relations between contiguous limbs, and not loosely (as it is often used) of the parts of the limbs themselves in the neighbourhood of the contact. Hippocrates indeed used ?fa? as a physiological term in a different sense, employing it as a synonyme for ?ata i.e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen Op. XIX. p. 87), but this use was quite exceptional and can have no place here. Thus a? ?fa? will be almost a synonyme for t? ????a, differing however (1) as being more wide and comprehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing so strongly the adaptation of the contiguous parts. The considerations just urged seem decisive as to the meaning of the word. Some eminent modern critics however explain a? ?fa? to be ‘the senses’, following Theodoret on Ephes. iv. 16 ?f?? d? t?? ??s??s?? p??s????e?se?, ?pe?d? ?a? a?t? ?a t?? p??te a?s??se??, ?a? ?p? t?? ????? t? p?? ???ase. St Chrysostom had led the way to this interpretation, though his language is less explicit than Theodoret’s. To such a meaning however there are fatal objections. (1) This sense of ?f? is wholly unsupported. It is true that touch lies at the root of all sensations, and that this fact was recognised by ancient physiologists: e.g. Aristot. de Anim. i. 13 (p. 435) ??e? ?? ??? ?f?? ??de?a? ??d??eta? ????? ??s??s?? ??e??. But here the connexion ends; and unless more cogent examples not hitherto adduced are forthcoming, we are justified in saying that a? ?fa? could no more be used for a? a?s??se??, than in English ‘the touches’ could be taken as a synonyme for ‘the senses.’ (2) The image would be seriously marred by such a meaning. The ?fa? and s??des?? would no longer be an exhaustive description of the elements of union in the anatomical structure; the conjunction of things so incongruous under the vinculum of the same article and preposition, d?? t?? ?f?? ?a? s??d?s??, would be unnatural; and the intrusion of the ‘senses’ would be out of place, where the result specified is the supply of nourishment (?p????????e???) and the compacting of the parts (s??a??e???). (3) All the oldest versions, the Latin, the Syriac, and the Memphitic, explain it otherwise, so as to refer in some way to the connexion of the parts of the body; e.g. in the Old Latin it is rendered nexus here and junctura in Ephes. iv. 16. s??d?s??] ‘bands,’ ‘ligaments.’ The Greek s??des??, like the English ‘ligament,’ has a general and a special sense. In its general and comprehensive meaning it denotes any of the connecting bands which strap the body together, such as muscles or tendons or ligaments properly so called; in its special and restricted use it is a ‘ligament’ in the technical sense; comp. Galen Op. IV. p. 369 s??des?? ??? ?st??, ? ???? ?d???, ?? ?????? ???a??e???, s?a ?e???de? ?? ?st?? ?? ???e??? p??t?? d?apef???? d? ? e?? ?st??? ? e?? ??. Of the s??des?? or ligaments properly so called Galen describes at length the several functions and uses, more especially as binding and holding together the d?a????se??; Op. I. 236, II. 268, 739, III. 149, IV. 2, etc., comp. Tim. Locr. de An. Mund. p. 557 s??d?s??? p?tt?? ???as?? t??? ?e????? s????e t? ????a (Opusc. Mythol. etc. ed. Gale). In our text indeed s??des?? must be taken in its comprehensive sense; but the relation of the ?fa? to the s??des?? in St Paul still remains the same as that of the d?a????se?? to the s??des?? in Galen. ?p????????e??? ?.t.?.] The two functions performed by the ?fa? and s??des?? are first the supply of nutriment etc. (?p????????e???), and secondly the compacting of the frame (s???a??e???). In other words they are the communication of life and energy, and the preservation of unity and order. The source of all (?? ??) is Christ Himself the Head; but the channels of communication (d?? t?? ?.t.?.) are the different members of His body, in their relation one to another. For ?p????????e??? ‘bountifully furnished’ see the note on Gal. iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle speaks of s?a ?????sta pef???? ?a? ?e??????????, Pol. iv. 1 (p. 1288). For examples of ??????a applied to functions of the bodily organs, see Galen Op. III. p. 617 ?? ta?? e?sp??a?? ??????? ?????? p???t?t??, Alex. Probl. i. 81 t? p?e?st?? t?? t??f?? ???da???e??? ?????e?ta? p??? ???es?? t?? p?????. For s???a??e???, ‘joined together, compacted’, see the note on ii. 2. In the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16, this part of the image is more distinctly emphasized, s??a?????e??? ?a? s???a??e???. The difference corresponds to the different aims of the two epistles. In the Colossian letter the vital connexion with the Head is the main theme; in the Ephesian, the unity in diversity among the members. ? a??e? t?? a????s?? t?? Te??. a??e? t?? a???s?? ?.t.?.] By the two-fold means of contact and attachment nutriment has been diffused and structural unity has been attained, but these are not the ultimate result; they are only intermediate processes; the end is growth. Comp. Arist. Metaph. iv. 4 (p. 1014) a???s?? ??e?d’ ?t???? t? ?ptes?a? ?a? s?pef????a? ... d?af??e? d? s?f?s?? ?f??, where growth is attributed to the same two physiological conditions as here. t?? Te??] i.e. ‘which partakes of God, which belongs to God, which has its abode in God.’ Thus the finite is truly united with the Infinite; the end which the false teachers strove in vain to compass is attained; the Gospel vindicates itself as the true theanthropism, after which the human heart is yearning and the human intellect is feeling. See above p. 183 sq. With this conclusion of the sentence contrast the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 16 t?? a???s?? t?? s?at?? p??e?ta? e?? ????d??? ?a?t?? ?? ???p?, where again the different endings are determined by the different motives of the two epistles. The discoveries of modern physiology have invested the Apostle’s language with far greater distinctness and force than it can have worn to his own contemporaries. Any exposition of the nervous system more especially reads like a commentary on his image of the relations between the body and the head. At every turn we meet with some fresh illustration which kindles it with a flood of light. The volition communicated from the brain to the limbs, the sensations of the extremities telegraphed back to the brain, the absolute mutual sympathy between the head and the members, the instantaneous paralysis ensuing on the interruption of continuity, all these add to the completeness and life of the image. But the following passages will show how even ancient scientific speculation was feeling after those physiological truths which the image involves; Hippocr. de Morb. Sacr. p. 309 (ed Foese) ?at? ta?ta ????? t?? ????fa??? d??a?? p?e?st?? ??e?? ?? t? ?????p? ... ?? d? ?f?a??? ?a? t? ??ata ?a? ? ???ssa ?a? a? ?e??e? ?a? ?? p?de?, ??a ?? ? ????fa??? ????s??, t??a?ta ?p??et??s? ... ?? d? t?? s??es?? ? ????fa??? ?st?? ? d?a??????? ... d??t? f?? t?? ????fa??? e??a? t?? ????e???ta t?? s??es??, a? d? f???e? ????? ???a ????s? t? t??? ?e?t????? ... ?????s? d? t??e? ?? f?????e? t? ?a?d?? ?a? t? ????e??? t??t? ?st? ?a? t? f???t????? t? d? ??? ??t?? ??e? ... t?? ... f????s??? ??det??? ?test?? ???? p??t?? t??t??? ? ????fa??? a?t??? ?st?? ... p??t?? a?s???eta? ? ????fa??? t?? ?? t? s?at? ??e??t?? (where the theory is mixed up with some curious physiological speculations), Galen Op. I. 235 a?t?? d? ? ????fa??? ?t? ?? ???? t??? ?e????? ?pas? t?? d???e?? ?st??, ??a???? ????e? ... p?te??? d? ?? a?t?? t??? ?e?????, ??t? ?????? p???? ?te??? t? ????? ?p?p?pe?, ? p??? t?? a?t?? ?st??, ?t’ ?d????, ib. IV. p. 11 ???? ?? ??? a?t?? (i.e. t?? ?e????) ? ????fa??? ?st?, ?a? t? p??? e?? a?t?? f??e?, ???? e?? ??????? t??a t?? ????st???? ?????? ??f?s?? d’ ??te??e?, ???? p????? t???? e?? d??d??? ??????t?? ??a, ? ??t?a??? ?st? ?e??? ... s?pa? d’ ??t? t? s?a eta?a??e? d?’ a?t?? p??t?? ?? ?a? ???sta ????se??, ?p? t??t? d’ a?s??se??, XIV. p. 313 h??t? ??? (i.e. ? ?efa??) ?a??pe? t?? ????p???? ?st? t?? s?at?? ?a? t?? t???t?t?? ?a? ??a??a??t?t?? ?????p??? a?s??se?? ????t?????. Plato had made the head the central organ of the reason (Tim. 69 sq.: see Grote’s Plato III. pp. 272, 287, Aristotle II. p. 179 sq.), if indeed the speculations of the TimÆus may be regarded as giving his serious physiological views; but he had postulated other centres of the emotions and appetites, the heart and the abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly refusing to localize the mind as mind, had taken a retrograde step physiologically, when he transferred the centre of sensation from the brain to the heart; e.g. de Part. Anim. ii. 10 (p. 656). Galen, criticizing his predecessors, says of Aristotle d???? ?st? ?ate?????? ?? a?t?? (i.e. t?? ???ef???? te??a? ????st?a?, fa?e??? d’ ?????e?? a?d??e??? (Op. III. p. 625). The Stoics however (????? ?a? ???s?pp?? ?a t? sfet??? ???? pa?t?) were even worse offenders; and in reply to them more especially Galen elsewhere discusses the question p?te??? ????fa??? ? ?a?d?a t?? ????? ??e?, Op. V. p. 213 sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity of opinion among ancient physiologists, we cannot fail to be struck in the text not only with the correctness of the image but also with the propriety of the terms; and we are forcibly reminded that among the Apostle’s most intimate companions at this time was one whom he calls ‘the beloved physician’ (iv. 14). 20–23. ‘You died with Christ to your old life. All mundane relations have ceased for you. Why then do you—you who have attained your spiritual manhood—submit still to the rudimentary discipline of children? Why do you—you who are citizens of heaven—bow your necks afresh to the tyranny of material ordinances, as though you were still living in the world? It is the same old story again; the same round of hard, meaningless, vexatious prohibitions, ‘Handle not,’ ‘Taste not,’ ‘Touch not.’ What folly! When all these things—these meats and drinks and the like—are earthly, perishable, wholly trivial and unimportant! They are used, and there is an end of them. What is this, but to draw down upon yourselves the denunciations uttered by the prophet of old? What is this but to abandon God’s word for precepts which are issued by human authority and inculcated by human teachers? All such things have a show of wisdom, I grant. There is an officious parade of religious devotion, an eager affectation of humility; there is a stern ascetic rigour, which ill-treats the body; but there is nothing of any real value to check indulgence of the flesh.’ 20. From the theological tenets of the false teachers the Apostle turns to the ethical—from the objects of their worship to the principles of their conduct. The baptism into Christ, he argues, is death to the world. The Christian has passed away to another sphere of existence. Mundane ordinances have ceased to have any value for him, because his mundane life has ended. They belong to the category of the perishable; he has been translated to the region of the eternal. It is therefore a denial of his Christianity to subject himself again to their tyranny, to return once more to the dominion of the world. See again the note on iii. 1. e? ?pe???ete] ‘if ye died, when ye were baptized into Christ.’ For this connexion between baptism and death see the notes on ii. 11, iii. 3. This death has many aspects in St Paul’s teaching. It is not only a dying with Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11 e? ??? s??ape????e?; but it is also a dying to or from something. This is sometimes represented as sin, Rom. vi. 2 ??t??e? ?pe????e? t? ?a?t?? (comp. vv. 7, 8); sometimes as self, 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ??a ?? p??te? ?p??a??? ... ??a ?? ???te? ??et? ?a?t??? ??s??; sometimes as the law, Rom. vii. 6 ?at??????e? ?p? t?? ???? ?p??a???te?, Gal. ii. 19 d?? ???? ??? ?p??a???; sometimes still more widely as the world, regarded as the sphere of all material rules and all mundane interests, so here and iii. 3 ?pe???ete ???. In all cases St Paul uses the aorist ?p??a???, never the perfect t?????a; for he wishes to emphasize the one absolute crisis, which was marked by the change of changes. When the aorist is wanted, the compound verb ?p????s?e?? is used; when the perfect, the simple verb ??s?e??; see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 114. This rule holds universally in the Greek Testament. ? ?p? t?? st??????? t?? ??s??, t? ?? ???te? ?? ??s? ? ?p? t?? st???e??? ?.t.?.] i.e. ‘from the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordinances, whose sphere is the mundane and sensuous’: see the note on ver. 8. For the pregnant expression ?p??a?e?? ?p? comp. Gal. v. 4 ?at??????te ?p? ???st?? (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6), 2 Cor. xi. 3 f?a?? ... ?p? t?? ?p??t?t??, and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note. ? d??at??es?e; d??at??es?e] ‘are ye overridden with precepts, ordinances.’ In the LXX the verb d??at??e?? is used several times, meaning ‘to issue a decree,’ Esth. iii. 9, 1 Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Macc. x. 8, xv. 36, 3 Macc. iv. 11. Elsewhere it is applied most commonly to the precepts of philosophers; e.g. Justin Apol. i. 7 ?? ?? ????s? t? a?t??? ??est? d??at?sa?te? ?? pa?t?? t? ??? ???at? f???s?f?a? p??sa???e???ta? (comp. § 4), Epict. iii. 7. 17 sq. e? ???e?? e??a? f???s?f?? ... d??at???? t? a?s???. Here it would include alike the d??ata of the Mosaic law (ver. 14) and the d??ata of the ‘philosophy’ denounced above (ver. 8). Both are condemned; the one as superseded though once authoritative, the other as wholly vexatious and unwarrantable. Examples are given in the following verse, ? ??? ?.t.?. For the construction here, where the more remote object, which would stand in the dative with the active voice (2 Macc. x. 8 ?d???t?sa? ... t? t?? ???da??? ???e?), becomes the nominative of the passive, compare ???at??es?a? Matt. ii. 12, 22, d?a???e?s?a? Mark x. 45, and see Winer § xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163, KÜhner § 378, II. p. 109. 21. ?? ??? ?.t.?.] The Apostle disparagingly repeats the prohibitions of the false teachers in their own words, ‘Handle not, neither taste, neither touch.’ The rabbinical passages quoted in SchÖttgen show how exactly St Paul’s language reproduces, not only the spirit, but even the form, of these injunctions. The Latin commentators, Hilary and Pelagius, suppose these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s own, thus making a complete shipwreck of the sense. So too St Ambrose de Noe et Arca 25 (I. p. 267), de Abr. i. 6 (I. p. 300). We may infer from the language of St Augustine who argues against it, that this was the popular interpretation in his day: Epist. cxix. (II. p. 512) ‘tanquam prÆceptum putatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, gustare, attaminare, prohibentis.’ The ascetic tendency of the age thus fastened upon a slight obscurity in the Greek and made the Apostle recommend the very practices which he disparaged. For a somewhat similar instance of a misinterpretation commonly received see the note on t??? d??as?? ver. 14. Jerome however (I. p. 878) had rightly interpreted the passage, illustrating it by the precepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier date Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v. 19, gives the correct interpretation. These prohibitions relate to defilement contracted in divers ways by contact with impure objects. Some were doubtless reenactments of the Mosaic law; while others would be exaggerations or additions of a rigorous asceticism, such as we find among the Essene prototypes of these Colossian heretics, e.g. the avoidance of oil, of wine, or of flesh-meat, the shunning of contact with a stranger or a religious inferior, and the like; see pp. 85 sq. For the religious bearing of this asceticism, as springing from the dualism of these heretical teachers, see above pp. 79, 104 sq. ? ?st?? p??ta e?? f????? t? ?p????se?, ?at? t? ? ???] The difference between ?ptes?a? and ??????e?? is not great, and in some passages where they occur together, it is hard to distinguish them: e.g. Exod. xix. 12 p??s??ete ?a?t??? t?? ??a??a? e?? t? ???? ?a? ???e?? t? a?t??? p?? ? ???e??? t?? ????? ?a??t? te?e?t?se?, Eur. Bacch. 617 ??t’ ????e? ???’ ??a?’ ???, Arist. de Gen. et Corr. i. 8 (p. 326) d?? t? ?? ????eta? ???e?a ??, ?spe? ?d?? ?dat?? ?ta? ????"; Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiv. (II. p. 50) ?? d’ ?? pa?????? p??s?as?? ?pt?e??? ???? t?? p???at??, ?spe? ?? sp??d?? ????????te?, Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 95 t?? d? ?f?? a?t?? ?ptes?a? t?? a?s??t?? ??a??a???? ?a? ??? t????a a?t?? ?? t?? ?ptes?a? ?a? ??????e??. But ?ptes?a? is the stronger word of the two. This arises from the fact that it frequently suggests, though it does not necessarily involve, the idea of a voluntary or conscious effort, ‘to take hold of’–a suggestion which is entirely wanting to the colourless word ??????e??; comp. Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 94 ? t?? ???? ?f? ???s?? ?st? ?a? ??t?????? t?? ????????t??. Hence in Xen. Cyrop. i. 3. 5 ?t? se, f??a?, ???, ?ta? ?? t?? ??t?? ???, e?? ??d?? t?? ?e??a ?p???e???, ?ta? d? t??t?? t???? ?????, e???? ?p??a?a??e? t?? ?e??a e?? t? ?e???a?t?a ?.t.?. Thus the words chosen in the Latin Versions, tangere for ?ptes?a? and attaminare or contrectare for ???e??, are unfortunate, and ought to be transposed. Our English Version, probably influenced by the Latin, has erred in the same direction, translating ?ptes?a? by ‘touch’ and ???e?? by ‘handle’. Here again they must be transposed. ‘Handle’ is too strong a word for either; though in default of a better it may stand for ?ptes?a?, which it more nearly represents. Thus the two words ??? and ????? being separate in meaning, ?e?s? may well interpose; and the three together will form a descending series, so that, as Beza (quoted in Trench N. T. Syn. § xvii. p. 57) well expresses it, ‘decrescente semper oratione, intelligatur crescere superstitio’. On the other hand ??? has been interpreted here as referring to the relation of husband and wife, as e.g. in 1 Cor. vii. 1 ???a???? ? ?ptes?a?; and the prohibition would then be illustrated by the teaching of the heretics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 ??????t?? ?ae??. But, whatever likelihood there may be that the Colossian false teachers also held this doctrine (see above p. 85 sq.), it nowhere appears in the context, and we should not expect so important a topic to be dismissed thus cursorily. Moreover ??????e?? is used as commonly in this meaning as ?ptes?a? (see Gataker Op. Crit. p. 79, and examples might be multiplied); so that all ground for assigning it to ?ptes?a? especially is removed. Both ?ptes?a? and ??????e?? refer to defilement incurred through the sense of touch, though in different degrees; ‘Handle not, nor yet taste, nor even touch.’ 22. ‘Only consider what is the real import of this scrupulous avoidance. Why, you are attributing an inherent value to things which are fleeting; you yourselves are citizens of eternity, and yet your thoughts are absorbed in the perishable’. ?] ‘which things’, i.e. the meats and drinks and other material objects, regarded as impure to the touch. The antecedent to ? is implicitly involved in the prohibitions ? ??? ?.t.?. ?st?? e?? f?????] ‘are destined for corruption’. For similar expressions see Acts viii. 20 ??? e?? ?p??e?a? (comp. ver. 23 e?? ????? p????a? ?a? s??des?? ?d???a? ... ??t?, 2 ?et. ??. 12 [G?ee?: ?e?e?????a ... e?? ???s?? ?a? f?????. For the word f????, involving the idea of ‘decomposition’, see the note on Gal. vi. 8. The expression here corresponds to e?? ?fed???a ?????eta? (??p??e?eta?, Matt. xv. 17, Mark vii. 19. t? ?p????se?] ‘in the consuming’. While the verb ?p????a? is common, the substantive ?p????s?? is extremely rare: Plut. Mor. p. 267 F ?a??e?? ta?? t????ta?? ?p????ses? ?a? s?st??a?? t?? pe??tt?? (i.e. ‘by such modes of consuming and abridging superfluities’), Dion. Hal. A. R. i. 58 ?? ?p????se? ??? ???a?. The unusual word was chosen for its expressiveness: the ???s?? here was an ?p????s??; the things could not be used without rendering them unfit for further use. The subtlety of the expression in the original cannot be reproduced in any translation. On the other hand the clause is sometimes interpreted as a continuation of the language of the ascetic teachers; ‘Touch not things which all lead to ruin by their abuse’. This interpretation however has nothing to recommend it. It loses the point of the Apostle’s argument; while it puts upon e??a? e?? f????? a meaning which is at least not natural. ?at? ?.t.?.] connected directly with vv. 20, 21, so that the words ? ?st?? ... t? ?p????se? are a parenthetical comment. ? ??t??ata ?a? d?das?a??a? t?? ?????p??? ? t? ??t??ata ?.t.?.] The absence of both preposition and article before d?das?a??a? shows that the two words are closely connected. They are placed here in their proper order; for ??t??ata describes the source of authority and d?das?a??a? the medium of communication. The expression is taken ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where the words run in the LXX, ?t?? d? s???ta? e, d?d?s???te? ??t??ata ?????p?? ?a? d?das?a??a?. The Evangelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quoting the passage, substitute in the latter clause d?d?s???te? d?das?a??a? ??t??ata ?????p??. The coincidences in St Paul’s language here with our Lord’s words as related in the Gospels (Matt. xv. 1–20, Mark vii. 1–23) are striking, and suggest that the Apostle had this discourse in his mind. (1) Both alike argue against these vexatious ordinances from the perishableness of meats. (2) Both insist upon the indifference of such things in themselves. In Mark vii. 19 the Evangelist emphasizes the importance of our Lord’s words on this occasion, as practically abolishing the Mosaic distinction of meats by declaring all alike to be clean (?a?a?????; see the note on ver. 16). (3) Both alike connect such ordinances with the practices condemned in the prophetic denunciation of Isaiah. ? 23. ‘All such teaching is worthless. It may bear the semblance of wisdom; but it wants the reality. It may make an officious parade of religious service; it may vaunt its humility; it may treat the body with merciless rigour; but it entirely fails in its chief aim. It is powerless to check indulgence of the flesh.’ ?t??a] ‘which sort of things’. Not only these particular precepts, ? ??? ?.t.?., but all precepts falling under the same category are condemned. For this force of ?t??a as distinguished from ?, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent here is not ??t??ata ?a? d?das?a??a? ?.t.?., but the prohibitions given in ver. 21. ????? ?? ?.t.?.] ‘having a reputation for wisdom’, but not the reality. The corresponding member, which should be introduced by d?, is suppressed; the oppositive clause being postponed and appearing later in a new form, ??? ?? t?? t??? ?.t.?. Such suppressions are common in classical writers, more especially in Plato; see KÜhner § 531, II. p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766, and comp. Winer § lxiii. p. 719 sq. St Jerome therefore is not warranted in attributing St Paul’s language here to ‘imperitia artis grammaticÆ’ (Epist. cxxi, Op. II. p. 884). On the contrary it is just the license which an adept in a language would be more likely to take than a novice. In this sentence ????? ????ta s?f?a? is best taken as a single predicate, so that ?st?? is disconnected from ????ta. Otherwise the construction ?st?? ????ta (for ??e?) would be supported by many parallels in the Greek Testament; see Winer § xlv. p. 437. The phrase ????? ??e?? t????, so far as I have observed, has four meanings. (A) Two as applied to the thinking subject. (i) ‘To take account of, to hold in account, to pay respect to’: e.g. Æsch. Prom. 231 ??t?? d? t?? ta?a?p???? ????? ??? ?s?e? ??d??a, Demosth. de Coron. § 199 )??pe? ? d???? ? p??????? ? t?? ?????t?? a????? e??e ?????, Plut. Vit. Philop. 18 p?? ????? ??????? ????? ??e?? t?? ??d??? ?.t.?. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or account or definition of’, ‘to have a scientific knowledge of’; Plato Gorg. p. 465 A t????? d? a?t?? ?? f?? e??a? ???’ ?pe???a?, ?t? ??? ??e? ????? ??d??a h?? p??sf??e?, ?p??a ?tta t?? f?s?? ?st??, and so frequently. These two senses are recognised by Aristotle, Eth. Nic. i. 13 (p. 1102), where he distinguishes the meaning of the expressions ??e?? ????? t?? pat??? ? t?? f???? and ??e?? ????? t?? a??t????. (B) Two as applied to the object of thought. (iii) ‘To have the credit or reputation of’, as here. This sense of ??e?? ?????, ‘to be reputed’, is more commonly found with an infinitive: e.g. Plato Epin. 987 B a?t?? ?f??d?t?? e??a? s??d?? ??e? ?????. (iv) ‘To fulfil the definition of, to possess the characteristics, to have the nature of’; e.g. Philo Vit. Cont. 4 (II. p. 477) ???te??? d? p???? ????? ????, Plut. Mor. p. 637 D t? d? ??? ??te ????? ??e? ?????, ?? ??? ?f?stata? p??t??, ??te ???? f?s??, ?te??? ??? ?st??, ib. 640 F de? p??? t? ?f?te??e??? ???a? ????? ??e?? t? de??e???. The senses of ????? ??e?? with other constructions, or as used absolutely, are very various, e.g. ‘to be reasonable’, ‘to hold discourse’, ‘to bear a ratio’, etc., but do not come under consideration here. Nor again does such an expression as Plut. Mor. p. 550 C ?te t?? ????? ???? t?? ?????t??, ‘not being in possession of, not knowing, the intention of the legislator’; for the definite article removes it from the category of the cases considered. ?? ??e?????s?e??] ‘in volunteered, self-imposed, officious, supererogatory service’. One or both of these two ideas, (i) ‘excessive readiness, officious zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’ are involved in this and similar compounds; e.g. ??e??d???e?a, ??e??????s??, ??e?????d????, ??e????f???, ??e????t??, ??e??p???e???: these compounds being used most frequently, though not always (as this last word shows), in a bad sense. This mode of expression was naturalised in Latin, as appears from Augustine Epist. cxlix. 27 (II. p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sapientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi’. Epiphanius, when writing of the Pharisees, not content with the word here supplied by St Paul, coins a double compound ??e??pe??ss????s?e?a, HÆr. i. 16 (p. 34). tape???f??s???] The word is here disparaged by its connexion, as in ver. 18 (see the note there). The force of ??e??- may be regarded as carried on to it. Real genuine tape???f??s??? is commended below; iii. 12. ?fe?de?? s?at??] ‘hard treatment of the body’. The expression ?fe?de?? t?? s?at?? is not uncommon, being used most frequently, not as here of ascetic discipline, but rather of courageous exposure to hardship and danger in war, e.g. Lysias Or. Fun. 25, Joseph. B.J. iii. 7. 18, Lucian Anach. 24, Plut. Vit. Pericl. 10; in Plut. Mor. p. 137 C however of a student’s toil, and ib. p. 135 E, more generally of the rigorous demands made by the soul on the body. The substantive ?f??de?a or ?fe?d?a does not often occur. On the forms in -e?a and -?a derived from adjectives in -?? see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 119, II. p. 416 sq. The great preponderance of manuscript authority favours the form ?fe?de?? here: but in such questions of orthography the fact carries less weight than in other matters. The ?a? before ?fe?de?? should probably be omitted; in which case ?fe?de?? becomes an instrumental dative, explaining ????? ????ta s?f?a?. While the insertion would naturally occur to scribes, the omission gives more point to the sentence. The ??e?????s?e?a ?a? tape???f??s??? as the religious elements are thus separated from the ?fe?de?a s?at?? as the practical rule. ??? ?? t?? ?.t.?.] ‘yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh.’ So interpreted the words supply the oppositive clause to ????? ?? ????ta s?f?a?, as the presence of the negative ??? naturally suggests. If the sentence had been undisturbed, this oppositive clause would naturally have been introduced by d?, but the interposition of ?? ??e?????s?e?? ?.t.?. has changed its form by a sort of attraction. For this sense of ?? t?? comp. Lucian Merc. cond. 17 t? ?a??? t?? ?p?d??t?? ?? t?? t??? ?a? ?p?e?e?? ?st??: similarly Hom. Il. ix. 319 ?? d? ?? t?? ?.t.?. The preposition p???, like our English ‘for’, when used after words denoting utility, value, sufficiency, etc., not uncommonly introduces the object to check or prevent or cure which the thing is to be employed. And even though utility may not be directly expressed in words, yet if the idea of a something to be remedied is present, this preposition is freely used notwithstanding. See Isocr. Phil. 16 (p. 85) p??? t??? a?????? ???s???, Arist. H. A. iii. 21 (p. 522) s?f??e? p??? t?? d?a????a? ? t????t? ???sta, de Respir. 8 (p. 474) ?????? ???es?a? ?at??????, e? ???e? te??es?a? s?t???a?? t??t? ??? ???e? p??? t??t?? t?? f?????, Lucian Pisc. 27 ???s??? ???? ?a? p??? ???????? t? t????t??, Galen Op. XII. p. 399 ?????? ?e t??? p??? t? p???? ???t??? st?at?, p. 420 [G?ee?: t?? d??t?? a?t? p??? ???pe??a? fa?a???se?? ?.t.?., p. 430 s??????a? ... f??a?a p??? ?e??sa? t???a?, p. 476 ?a??t?t?? ????t? d??a?? ?? p??? t? p?????e??? s?pt?a, p. 482 t??t? d? ?a? p??? t? ?? ??? t? s?at? ??a???ata sf?d?a ???s??? ?st??, p. 514 ???st??? d? p?s? t??? ??a?e??a????? ????as? p??? t?? ??????a? d?’ ???a?s?? ?efa?a???a?, p. 601 ?????st?? p??? a?t?? f??a??? ?????e??? ???d???? ????. These examples from Galen are only a few out of probably some hundreds, which might be collected from the treatise in which they occur, the de Compositione Medicamentorum. The language, which the Colossian false teachers would use, may be inferred from the account given by Philo of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics, who may be regarded, not indeed as their direct, but as their collateral ancestors (see p. 86, note 246, p. 94), the Therapeutes of Egypt; de Vit. Cont. § 4 (II. p. 476 sq.) t??f?s?? ?p? s?f?a? ?st??e??? p???s??? ?a? ?f????? t? d??ata ???????s??, ?? ?a? ... ???? d?’ ?? ?e??? ?p??e?es?a? t??f?? ??a??a?a? ... s?t???ta? d? ... ??t?? e?te??, ?a? ???? ??e? ... p?t?? ?d?? ?aat?a??? a?t??? ?st?? ... p??s???? ?? ?????? te ?a? ?p?????? ??t?ep?e??? ????? ?a? s?at??. St Paul apparently has before him some similar exposition of the views of the Colossian heretics, either in writing or (more probably) by report from Epaphras. In reply he altogether denies the claims of this system to the title of s?f?a; he disputes the value of these d??ata; he allows that this p??s??? is the great evil to be checked, the fatal disease to be cured; but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any substantial and lasting efficacy. The interpretation here offered is not new, but it has been strangely overlooked or despised. The passages adduced will I trust show the groundlessness of objections which have been brought against it owing to the use of the preposition; and in all other respects it seems to be far preferable to any rival explanation which has been suggested. The favourite interpretations in ancient or modern times divide themselves into two classes, according to the meaning assigned to p??? p??s???? t?? sa????. (1) It is explained in a good sense: ‘to satisfy the reasonable wants of the body’. In this case ??? ?? t?? t??? is generally interpreted, ‘not holding it (the body) in any honour’. So the majority of the fathers, Greek and Latin. This has the advantage of preserving the continuity of the words ??? ?? t?? t??? p??? p??s???? ?.t.?.: but it assigns an impossible sense to p??s??? t?? sa????. For p??s??? always denotes ‘repletion’, ‘surfeiting’, ‘excessive indulgence’, and cannot be used of a reasonable attention to the physical cravings of nature; as Galen says, Op. XV. p. 113 p??t?? e????t?? ?? ???? ?at??? ???? ?a? t?? ????? ??????? t? t?? p??s???? ???a ????? p?? ?p?f??e?? ta?? ?pe???a?? t?? s??t??? p?s?t?t??: and certainly neither the Apostle nor the Colossian ascetics were likely to depart from this universal rule. To the long list of passages quoted in Wetstein may be added such references as Philo Leg. ad. Cai. § 1 (II. p. 546), Clem. Hom. viii. 15, Justin Dial. 126, Dion. Alex. in Euseb. H.E. vii. 25; but they might be increased to any extent. (2) A bad sense is attached to p??s???, as usage demands. And here two divergent interpretations have been put forward. (i) The proper continuity of the sentence is preserved, and the words ??? ?? t?? t??? p??? p??s???? t?? sa???? are regarded as an exposition of the doctrine of the false teachers from their own point of view. So Theodore of Mopsuestia, ?? t???? ??????ta? t? d?? p??t?? p?????? t?? s???a, ???? ??? ????? a????????? ?p??es?a? t?? p????? d?? t?? t?? ???? pa??d?s??. This able expositor however is evidently dissatisfied, for he introduces his explanation with the words ?saf?? ?? ?st?, ???eta? d? e?pe?? ?.t.?.; and his explanation has not been adopted by others. Either the sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat and unmeaning, though it is obviously intended to clinch the whole matter; or the Apostle is made to confirm the value of the very doctrines which he is combating. (ii) The sentence is regarded as discontinuous; and it is interpreted, ‘not of any real value’ (or ‘not consisting in anything commendable’, or ‘not holding the body in any honour’) but ‘tending to gratify the carnal desires’ (or ‘mind’). This in some form or other is almost universally adopted by modern interpreters, and among the ancients is found in the commentator Hilary. The objections to it are serious. (a) The dislocation of the sentence is inexplicable. There is no indication either in the grammar or in the vocabulary that a separate and oppositive clause begins with p??? p??s???? ?.t.?., but on the contrary everything points to an unbroken continuity. () The sense which it attaches to p??s??? t?? sa???? is either forced and unnatural, or it makes the Apostle say what he could not have said. If p??s??? t?? sa???? could have the sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est’, or indeed if it could mean ‘the mind of the flesh’ in any sense (as it is generally taken by modern commentators), this is what St Paul might well have said. But obviously p??s??? t?? sa???? conveys a very different idea from such expressions as t? f?s???s?a? ?p? t?? ???? t?? sa???? (ver. 18) or t? f????a t?? sa???? (Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride, self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry, and generally everything that is earth-bound and selfish. On the other hand, if p??s??? t?? sa???? be taken in its natural meaning, as applying to coarse sensual indulgences, then St Paul could not have said without qualification, that this rigorous asceticism conduced p??? p??s???? t?? sa????. Such language would defeat its own object by its extravagance. ? III. III. 1–4. ‘If this be so; if ye were raised with Christ, if ye were translated into heaven, what follows? Why you must realise the change. All your aims must centre in heaven, where reigns the Christ who has thus exalted you, enthroned on God’s right hand. All your thoughts must abide in heaven, not on the earth. For, I say it once again, you have nothing to do with mundane things: you died, died once for all to the world: you are living another life. This life indeed is hidden now: it has no outward splendour as men count splendour; for it is a life with Christ, a life in God. But the veil will not always shroud it. Christ, our life, shall be manifested hereafter; then ye also shall be manifested with Him and the world shall see your glory’. 1. e? ??? s????????te ?.t.?.] ‘If then ye were raised’, not ‘have been raised’. The aorist s????????te, like ?pe???ete (ii. 20), refers to their baptism; and the e? ??? here is a resumption of the e? in ii. 20. The sacrament of baptism, as administered in the Apostolic age, involved a twofold symbolism, a death or burial and a resurrection: see the note on ii. 12. In the rite itself these were represented by two distinct acts, the disappearance beneath the water and the emergence from the water: but in the change typified by the rite they are two aspects of the same thing, ‘like the concave and convex in a circle’, to use an old simile. The negative side—the death and burial—implies the positive side—the resurrection. Hence the form of the Apostle’s resumption, e? ?pe???ete, e? ??? s????????te. The change involved in baptism, if truly realised, must pervade a man’s whole nature. It affects not only his practical conduct, but his intellectual conceptions also. It is nothing less than a removal into a new sphere of being. He is translated from earth to heaven; and with this translation his point of view is altered, his standard of judgment is wholly changed. Matter is to him no longer the great enemy; his position towards it is one of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules, ritual ordinances, have ceased to have any absolute value, irrespective of their effects. All these things are of the earth, earthy. The material, the transitory, the mundane, has given place to the moral, the eternal, the heavenly. t? ??? ??te?te ?.t.?.] ‘Cease to concentrate your energies, your thoughts, on mundane ordinances, and realise your new and heavenly life, of which Christ is the pole-star’. ?? de??? ?.t.?.] ‘being seated on the right hand of God’, where ?a??e??? must not be connected with ?st??; see the note on ?p????f??, ii. 3. This participial clause is pertinent and emphatic, for the session of Christ implies the session of the believer also; Ephes. ii. 4–6 ? d? Te?? ... ??? ... s??e???p???se? ... ?a? s????e??e? ?a? s??e????se? ?? t??? ?p???a????? ?? ???st? ??s?? ?.t.?.; comp. Rev. iii. 21 ? ?????, d?s? a?t? ?a??sa? et’ ??? ?? t? ????? ??, ?? ???? ?????sa ?a? ?????sa et? t?? pat??? ?? ?? t? ????? a?t??, in the message addressed to the principal church of this district: see above p. 42. ?aa?, says Chrysostom, p?? t?? ???? ?p??a?e t?? ??te???; p?? f????at?? a?t??? ?p????se e?????; ??? ???e? ?? ??? e?pe??, ??d?, ?? ? ???st?? ?st??, ???? t?; ?? de??? t?? Te?? ?a??e???. ??e??e? ???p?? t?? ??? ???? pa?es?e?a?e. ? 2. t? ???] The same expression repeated for emphasis; ‘You must not only seek heaven; you must also think heaven.’ For the opposition of t? ??? and t? ?p? t?? ??? in connexion with f???e??, comp. Phil. iii. 19, 20 ?? t? ?p??e?a f??????te?, ??? ??? t? p???te?a ?? ???a???? ?p???e?; see also Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 17. Extremes meet. Here the Apostle points the antithesis to controvert a Gnostic asceticism: in the Philippian letter he uses the same contrast to denounce an Epicurean sensualism. Both alike are guilty of the same fundamental error; both alike concentrate their thoughts on material, mundane things. 3. ?pe???ete] ‘ye died’ in baptism. The aorist ?pe???ete denotes the past act; the perfect ?????pta? the permanent effects. For ?pe???ete see the notes on ii. 12, 20. ?????pta?] ‘is hidden, is buried out of sight, to the world’. The Apostle’s argument is this: ‘When you sank under the baptismal water, you disappeared for ever to the world. You rose again, it is true, but you rose only to God. The world henceforth knows nothing of your new life, and (as a consequence) your new life must know nothing of the world.’ ‘Neque Christum’, says Bengel, ‘neque Christianos novit mundus; ac ne Christiani quidem plane seipsos’; comp. Joh. xiv. 17–19 t? p?e?a t?? ????e?a? ? ? ??s?? ?? d??ata? ?ae??, ?t? ?? ?e??e? a?t? ??d? ????s?e? a?t?, ?e?? [d?] ????s?ete a?t? ... ? ??s?? e ??? ?t? ?e??e? ?e?? d? ?e??e?t? e? ?t? ??? ??, ?a? ?e?? ??sete. ? 4 ? ??? ???. 4. ? ???st??] A fourth occurrence of the name of Christ in this context; comp. ver. 2 t? ???st?, ? ???st??, ver. 3 s?? t? ???st?. A pronoun would have been more natural, but less emphatic. ? ??? ???] This is an advance on the previous statement, ? ??? ??? ?????pta? s?? t? ???st?, in two respects: (1) It is not enough to have said that the life is shared with Christ. The Apostle declares that the life is Christ. Comp. 1 Joh. v. 12 ? ???? t?? ???? ??e? t?? ????, Ign. Ephes. 7 ?? ?a??t? ??? ??????? (of Christ), Smyrn. 4 ??s??? ???st?? t? ???????? ??? ???, Ephes. 3 ??s??? ???st?? t? ?d?????t?? ??? ???, Magn. 1 ??s?? ???st?? t?? d?apa?t?? ??? ???. (2) For ??? is substituted ???. The Apostle hastens to include himself among the recipients of the bounty. For this characteristic transition from the second person to the first see the note on ii. 13. The reading ??? here has very high support, and on this account I have given it as an alternative; but it is most probably a transcriber’s correction, for the sake of uniformity with the preceding. t?te ?a? ?e?? ?.t.?.] ‘The veil which now shrouds your higher life from others, and even partly from yourselves, will then be withdrawn. The world which persecutes, despises, ignores now, will then be blinded, with the dazzling glory of the revelation’. Comp. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2 ? ??s?? ?? ????s?e? ???, ?t? ??? ???? a?t??. ??ap?t??, ??? t???a Te?? ?s??, ?a? ??p? ?fa?e???? t? ?s?e?a? ??dae? ?t? ??? fa?e????, ????? a?t? ?s?e?a ?.t.?., Clem. Rom. 50 ?? fa?e????s??ta? (or fa?e??? ?s??ta?) ?? t? ?p?s??p? t?? as??e?a? t?? ???st??. ?? d???] Joh. xvii. 22 t?? d??a? ?? d?d???? ??, d?d??a a?t???, Rom. viii. 17 ??a ?a? s??d??as??e?. ? 5–11. ‘So then realise this death to the world; kill all your earthly members. Is it fornication, impurity of whatever kind, passion, evil desire? Or again, is it that covetousness which makes a religion, an idolatry, of greed? Do not deceive yourselves. For all these things God’s wrath will surely come. In these sins ye, like other Gentiles, indulged in times past, when your life was spent amidst them. But now everything is changed. Now you also must put away not this or that desire, but all sins whatsoever. Anger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy abuse; banish it from your lips. Be not false one to another in word or deed; but cast off for ever the old man with his actions, and put on the new, who is renewed from day to day, growing unto perfect knowledge and refashioned after the image of his Creator. In this new life, in this regenerate man, there is not, there cannot be, any distinction of Greek or Jew, of circumcision or uncircumcision; there is no room for barbarian, for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ has displaced, has annihilated, all these; Christ is Himself all things and in all things’. 5. The false doctrine of the Gnostics had failed to check sensual indulgence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of the Apostle has power to kill the whole carnal man. The substitution of a comprehensive principle for special precepts—of the heavenly life in Christ for a code of minute ordinances—at length attains the end after which the Gnostic teachers have striven, and striven in vain. ?e???sate ???] i.e. ‘Carry out this principle of death to the world (ii. 20 ?pe???ete, iii. 3 ?pe???ete), and kill everything that is mundane and carnal in your being’. t? ??? ?.t.?.] Each person has a twofold moral personality. There is in him the ‘old man’, and there is in him also ‘the new’ (vv. 9, 10). The old man with all his members must be pitilessly slain. It is plain that t? ??? here is used, like ?????p?? in ver. 9, not physically, but morally. Our actual limbs may be either t? ?p? t?? ??? or t? ?? t??? ????????, according as they are made instruments for the world or for Christ: just as we—our whole being—may identify ourselves with the pa?a??? ?????p?? or with the ???? ?????p?? of our twofold potentiality. For this use of the physical, as a symbol of the moral of which it is the potential instrument, compare Matt. v. 29 sq. e? d? ? ?f?a??? s?? ? de???? s?a?da???e? se, ??e?e a?t?? ?.t.?. I have ventured to punctuate after t? ?p? t?? ???. Thus p???e?a? ?.t.?. are prospective accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as ?p??es?e. But several dependent clauses interpose; the last of these incidentally suggests a contrast between the past and the present; and this contrast, predominating in the Apostle’s mind, leads to an abrupt recasting of the sentence, ???? d? ?p??es?e ?a? ?e?? t? p??ta in disregard of the original construction. This opposition of p?t? and ??? has a tendency to dislocate the construction in St Paul, as in i. 22 ???? d? ?p??at??????te (or ?p??at???a?e?), i. 26 ??? d? ?fa??????: see the note on this latter passage. For the whole run of the sentence (the parenthetic relative clauses, the contrast of past and present, and the broken construction) compare Ephes. ii. 1–5 ?a? ??? ... ?? a?? p?t? ... ?? ??? ?a? ... p?te ... ? d? Te?? ... ?a? ??ta? ??? s??e???p???se?. With the common punctuation the interpretation is equally awkward, whether we treat t? ??? and p???e?a? ?.t.?. as in direct apposition, or as double accusatives, or in any other way. The case is best put by Severianus, s???a ?a?e? t?? ?a?t?a?, ?? ?a? t? ??? ?ata???e? ... ? pa?a??? ?????p?? ?st?? t? f????a t? t?? ?a?t?a?, ??? d? a?t?? a? p???e?? t?? ?a?t??t??; but this is an evasion of the difficulty, which consists in the direct apposition of the instruments and the activities, from whatever point they are viewed. p???e?a? ?.t.?.] The general order is from the less comprehensive to the more comprehensive. Thus p???e?a is a special kind of uncleanness, while ??a?a?s?a is uncleanness in any form, Ephes. v. 3 p???e?a d? ?a? ??a?a?s?a p?sa; comp. Gal. v. 19 p???e?a, ??a?a?s?a, ?s???e?a, with the note there. Thus again p????, though frequently referring to this class of sins (Rom. i. 26, 1 Thess. iv. 5), would include other base passions which do not fall under the category of ??a?a?s?a, as for instance gluttony and intemperance. p????, ?p????a?] The two words occur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 ? ?? p??e? ?p????a?. So in a passage closely resembling the text, Gal. v. 24 ?? d? t?? ???st?? ??s?? t?? s???a ?st????sa? s?? t??? pa??as?? ?a? ta?? ?p????a??. The same vice may be viewed as a p???? from its passive and an ?p????a from its active side. The word ?p????a is not used here in the restricted sense which it has e.g. in Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 4, where it ranges with anger, fear, etc., being related to p???? as the species to the genus (see Gal. l.c. note). In the Greek Testament ?p????a has a much more comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44 t?? ?p????a? t?? pat??? ??? ???ete p??e??. Here, if anything, ?p????a is wider than p????. While p???? includes all ungovernable affections, ?p????a ?a?? reaches to all evil longings. ?d??, says Chrysostom, ?e????? t? p?? e?pe? p??ta ??? ?p????a ?a??, as?a??a, ????, ??p?. The epithet is added because ?p????a is capable of a good sense: comp. 1 Cor. x. 6 ?p????t?? ?a???. ?a? t?? p?e??e??a?] ‘and especially covetousness’. Impurity and covetousness may be said to divide between them nearly the whole domain of human selfishness and vice; ‘Si avaritia prostrata est, exsurgit libido’ (Cypr. de Mort. 3). The one has been already dealt with; the other needs now to be specially denounced; comp. Ephes. v. 3 p???e?a d? ?a? ??a?a?s?a p?sa ? p?e??e??a. ‘Homo extra Deum’, says Bengel (on Rom. i. 29), ‘quÆrit pabulum in creatura materiali vel per voluptatem vel per avaritiam.’ Comp. Test. xii Patr. Jud. 18 f????as?e ???, t???a ??, ?p? t?? p???e?a? ?a? t?? f??a?????a? ... ?t? ta?ta ?f?st? ???? Te??. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (Epistol. GrÆc. p. 602, ed. Hercher) ?????a?? d’ ?? a?t?? [i.e. the vices] p??t?? ?pe???? t?? at??a?, ???as?a? te ?a? p?e??e??a?? ?f? d? p???????? pef??a?t?. It must be remembered that p?e??e??a is much wider than f??a?????a (see Trench N. T. Syn. § xxiv, p. 77 sq.), which itself is called ???a p??t?? t?? ?a??? (1 Tim. vi. 10). The attempt to give p?e??e??a here and in other passages the sense of ‘impurity’ (see e.g. Hammond on Rom. i. 29) is founded on a misconception. The words p?e??e?te??, p?e??e??a, will sometimes be used in relation to sins of uncleanness, because such may be acts of injustice also. Thus adultery is not only impurity, but it is robbery also: hence 1 Thess. iv. 6 t? ? ?pe?a??e?? ?a? p?e??e?te?? ?? t? p???at? t?? ?de?f?? a?t?? (see the note there). In other passages again there will be an accidental connexion; e.g. Ephes. iv. 19 e?? ???as?a? ??a?a?s?a? p?s?? ?? p?e??e???, i.e. ‘with greediness’, ‘with entire disregard for the rights of others’. But no where do the words in themselves suggest this meaning. Here the particles ?a? t?? show that a new type of sin is introduced with p?e??e??a?: and in the parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted above) the same distinction is indicated by the change from the conjunctive particle ?a? to the disjunctive ?. It is an error to suppose that this sense of p?e??e??a is supported by Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 12 (p. 551 sq.) ?? ??? ? p?e??e??a p???e?a ???eta?, t? a?ta??e?? ??a?t??????. On the converse error of explaining ??a?a?s?a to mean ‘greediness’, ‘covetousness’, see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3. ? ?t?? ?st?? e?d????at?e?a, ?t?? ?.t.?.] ‘for it is idolatry’: comp. Ephes. v. 5 p?e????t??, ? (or ??) ?st?? e?d?????t???, Polyc. Phil. 11 ‘Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur’ (see Philippians p. 63 on the misunderstanding of this passage). The covetous man sets up another object of worship besides God. There is a sort of religious purpose, a devotion of the soul, to greed, which makes the sin of the miser so hateful. The idea of avarice as a religion may have been suggested to St Paul by our Lord’s words, Matt. vi. 24 ?? d??as?e Te? d???e?e?? ?a? a???, though it is a mistake to suppose that Mammon was the name of a Syrian deity. It appears however elsewhere in Jewish writers of this and later ages: e.g. Philo de Mon. i. 2 (II. p. 214 sq.) pa?ta???e? ?? ???????? ?a? ???s??? ??p??????s?, t? d? p???s??? ?? ??a?a ?e??? ?? ?d?t??? ??sa???f??a???s?? (with the whole context), and Shemoth Rabba fol. 121. 3 ‘Qui opes suas multiplicat per foenus, ille est idololatra’ (with other passages quoted by Wetstein and SchÖttgen on Ephes. v. 5). St Chrysostom, Hom. in Johann. lxv (VIII. p. 392 sq.), enlarges on the cult of wealth—the consecration of it, the worship paid to it, the sacrifices demanded by it: ? d? f??a?????a ???e?, T?s?? ?? t?? sa?t?? ?????, ?a? pe??e?? ???? ????? ??e? ????, ??a d??eta? ??ata (p. 393). The passage in Test. xii Patr. Jud. 18 ? f??a?????a p??? ??d??a ?d??e? is no real parallel to St Paul’s language, though at first sight it seems to resemble it. For ?t??, ‘seeing that it’, see the note on Phil. iv. 3. 6, 7. d?’ ? ?.t.?.] The received text requires correction in two points. (1) It inserts the words ?p? t??? ????? t?? ?pe??e?a? after t?? Te??. Though this insertion has preponderating support, yet the words are evidently interpolated from the parallel passage, Ephes. v. 6 d?? ta?ta ??? ???eta? ? ???? t?? Te?? ?p? t??? ????? t?? ?pe??e?a?. We are therefore justified in rejecting them with other authorities, few in number but excellent in character. See the detached note on various readings. When the sentence is thus corrected, the parallelism of d?’ ? ... e? ??? ?a? ... may be compared with Ephes. i. 11 ?? h? ?a? ????????e? ... ?? h? ?a? ?e?? ... ?? h? ?a? p?ste?sa?te? ?sf?a??s??te, and ii. 21, 22 ?? h? p?sa [?] ????d?? ... ?? ? ?a? ?e?? s??????d?e?s?e. (2) The vast preponderance of authority obliges us to substitute t??t??? for a?t???. 6. ???eta?] This may refer either to the present and continuous dispensation, or to the future and final judgment. The present ???es?a? is frequently used to denote the certainty of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11, Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence ? ????e??? is a designation of the Messiah: see Winer § xl. p. 332. ? t?? Te??? ?? ??? ?.t.?.] The clause ?p? t??? ????? t?? ?pe??e?a? having been struck out, ?? ??? must necessarily be neuter and refer to the same as d?’ ?. Independently of the rejection of the clause, this neuter seems more probable in itself than the masculine: for (1) The expression pe??pate?? ?? is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion epistle; iv. 5, Ephes. ii. 2, 10, iv. 17, v. 2; (2) The Apostle would hardly denounce it as a sin in his Colossian converts that they ‘walked among the sons of disobedience’; for the Christian, though not of the world, is necessarily in the world: comp. 1 Cor. v. 10. The apparent parallel, Ephes. ii. 3 ?? ??? ?a? ?e?? p??te? ??est??f??? p?te ?? ta?? ?p????a?? t?? sa???? ??? (where ??? seems to be masculine), does not hold, because the addition ?? ta?? ?p????a?? ?.t.?. makes all the difference. Thus the rejection of the clause, which was decided by textual considerations, is confirmed by exegetical reasons. 7. ?a? ?e??] ‘ye, like the other heathen’ (i. 6 ?a? ?? ???), but in the next verse ?a? ?e?? is rather ‘ye yourselves’, ‘ye notwithstanding your former lives’. ?te ???te ?.t.?.] ‘When ye lived in this atmosphere of sin, when ye had not yet died to the world’. ?? t??t???] ‘in these things.’ We should have expected a?t???, but t??t??? is substituted as more emphatic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes. v. 6 d?? ta?ta ??? ???eta? ?.t.?. The two expressions ??? ?? and pe??pate?? ?? involve two distinct ideas, denoting the condition of their life and the character of their practice respectively. Their conduct was conformable to their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25 e? ??e? p?e?at?, p?e?at? ?a? st????e?. 8. The errors of the past suggest the obligations of the present. Thus the Apostle returns to the topic with which the sentence commenced. But the violence of the contrast has broken up the grammar of the sentence: see the note on ver. 5. t? p??ta] ‘not only those vices which have been specially named before (ver. 5), but all of whatever kind.’ The Apostle accordingly goes on to specify sins of a wholly different type from those already mentioned, sins of uncharitableness, such as anger, detraction, malice, and the like. ? ?????, ????, ?a??a?, ?asf??a?, a?s???????a? ?? t?? st?at?? ???? ?????, ????] ‘anger, wrath’. The one denotes a more or less settled feeling of hatred, the other a tumultuous outburst of passion. This distinction of the two words was fixed chiefly by the definitions of the Stoics: Diog. Laert. vii. 114 ? d? ???? ?st?? ???? ???????. So Ammianus ???? ?? ?st? p??s?a????, ???? d? p?????????? ??s??a??a, Greg. Naz. Carm. 34 (II. p. 612) ???? ?? ?st?? ?????? ??s?? f?e???, ???? d? ???? ?????. They may be represented in Latin by ira and furor; Senec. de Ira ii. 36 ‘Ajacem in mortem egit furor, in furorem ira’, and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 ‘Furor incipiens ira est’: see Trench N. T. Syn. § xxxvii, p. 123 sq. On other synonymes connected with ???? and ???? see the note on Ephes. iv. 31. ?a??a?] ‘malice’, or ‘malignity’, as it may be translated in default of a better word. It is not (at least in the New Testament) vice generally, but the vicious nature which is bent on doing harm to others, and is well defined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) ‘animi pravitas, quÆ humanitati et Æquitati est opposita’. This will be evident from the connexion in which it appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 3. Thus ?a??a and p?????a (which frequently occur together, e.g. 1 Cor. v. 8) only differ in so far as the one denotes rather the vicious disposition, the other the active exercise of it. The word is carefully investigated in Trench N. T. Syn. § xi. p. 35 sq. ?asf??a?] ‘evil speaking, railing, slandering’, as frequently, e.g. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v.l.), x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 2. The word has the same twofold sense, ‘evil speaking’ and ‘blasphemy’, in classical writers, which it has in the New Testament. a?s???????a?] ‘foul-mouthed abuse’. The word, as used elsewhere, has two meanings: (1) ‘Filthy-talking’, as defined in Clem. Alex. PÆd. ii. 6 (p. 189 sq.), where it is denounced at length: comp. Arist. Pol. vii. 17, Epict. Man. 33, Plut. Mor. 9, and so commonly; (2) ‘Abusive language’, as e.g. Polyb. viii. 13. 8, xii. 13. 3, xxxi. 10. 4. If the two senses of the word had been quite distinct, we might have had some difficulty in choosing between them here. The former sense is suggested by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 4 a?s???t?? ?a? ???????a ? e?t?ape??a; the second by the connexion with ?asf??a here. But the second sense is derived from the first. The word can only mean ‘abuse’, when the abuse is ‘foul-mouthed’. And thus we may suppose that both ideas, ‘filthiness’ and ‘evil-speaking’, are included here. 9. ?pe?d?s?e??? ?.t.?.] ‘putting off’. Do these aorist participles describe an action coincident with or prior to the ?e?des?e? In other words are they part of the command, or do they assign the reason for the command? Must they be rendered ‘putting off’, or ‘seeing that ye did (at your baptism) put off’? The former seems the more probable interpretation: for (1) Though both ideas are found in St Paul, the imperative is the more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. ?p???e?a ??? t? ???a t?? s??t???, ??d?s?e?a d? t? ?p?a t?? f?t?? ... ??d?sas?e t?? ?????? ??s??? ???st??, Ephes. vi. 11 ??d?sas?e t?? pa??p??a? with ver. 14 st?te ??? ... ??d?s?e??? ?.t.?., 1 Thess. V. 8 ??f?e? ??d?s?e??? ?.t.?. The one exception is Gal. iii. 27 ?s?? ??? e?? ???st?? ?apt?s??te, ???st?? ??ed?sas?e. (2) The ‘putting on’ in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is imperative, not affirmative, whether we read ??d?sas?a? or ??d?sas?e. (3) The participles here are followed immediately by an imperative in the context, ver. 12 ??d?sas?e ???, where the idea seems to be the same. For the synchronous aorist participle see Winer § xlv. p. 430. St Paul uses ?pe?d?s?e???, ??d?s?e??? (not ?pe?d??e???, ??d??e???), for the same reason for which he uses ??d?sas?e (not ??d?es?e), because it is a thing to be done once for all. For the double compound ?pe?d?es?a? see the notes on ii. 11, 15. ? t?? pa?a??? ?????p?? s?? ta?? p???es?? a?t??, pa?a??? ?????p??] as Rom. vi. 6, Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression compare ? ???, ? ?s? ?????p??, Rom. vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16; ? ???pt?? t?? ?a?d?a? ?????p??, 1 Pet. iii. 4; ? ????? ?? ?????p??, ‘my insignificance’, Polycr. in Euseb. H.E. v. 24. 10. t?? ???? ?.t.?.] In Ephes. iv. 24 it is ??d?sas?a? t?? ?a???? ?????p??. Of the two words ???? and ?a????, the former refers solely to time, the other denotes quality also; the one is new as being young, the other new as being fresh: the one is opposed to long duration, the other to effeteness; see Trench N. T. Syn. § lx. p. 206. Here the idea which is wanting to ????, and which ?a???? gives in the parallel passage, is more than supplied by the addition t?? ??a?a????e??? ?.t.?. The ???? or ?a???? ?????p?? in these passages is not Christ Himself, as the parallel expression ???st?? ??d?sas?a? might suggest, and as it is actually used in Ign. Ephes. 20 e?? t?? ?a???? ?????p?? ??s??? ???st??, but the regenerate man formed after Christ. The idea here is the same as in ?a??? ?t?s??, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp. Rom. vi. 4 ?a???t?? ????, Barnab. 16 ??e??e?a ?a????, p???? ?? ????? ?t???e???. t?? ??a?a????e???] ‘which is ever being renewed’. The force of the present tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv. 16 ? ?s? ??? [?????p??] ??a?a????ta? ???? ?a? ????. Compare also the use of the tenses in the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 22 sq. ?p???s?a?, ??a?e??s?a?, ??d?sas?a?. For the opposite see Ephes. iv. 22 t?? pa?a??? ?????p?? t?? f?e???e??? ?.t.?. e?? ?p????s??] ‘unto perfect knowledge’, the true knowledge in Christ, as opposed to the false knowledge of the heretical teachers. For the implied contrast see above pp. 44, 99 sq. (see the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for the word ?p????s?? the note on i. 9. The words here are to be connected closely with ??a?a????e???: comp. Heb. vi. 6 p???? ??a?a????e?? e?? et????a?. ?at’ e????a ?.t.?.] The reference is to Gen. i. 26 ?a? e?pe? ? Te?? ????s?e? ?????p?? ?at’ e????a ?et??a? ?.t.?.; comp. ver. 28 ?at’ e????a Te?? ?p???se? a?t??. See also Ephes. iv. 24 t?? ?a???? ?????p?? t?? ?at? T??? ?t?s???ta. This reference however does not imply an identity of the creation here mentioned with the creation of Genesis, but only an analogy between the two. The spiritual man in each believer’s heart, like the primal man in the beginning of the world, was created after God’s image. The ?a??? ?t?s?? in this respect resembles the ???a?a ?t?s??. The pronoun a?t?? cannot be referred to anything else but the ???? ?????p??, the regenerate man; and the aorist ?t?sa?t?? (compare ?t?s???ta in the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24) refers to the time of this ??a?????s?? in Christ. See Barnab. 6 ??a?a???sa? ??? ?? t? ?f?se? t?? ?a?t??? ?p???se? ??? ????? t?p?? ... ?s?? d? ??ap??ss??t?? a?t?? ???, after which Gen. i. 26 is quoted. The new birth was a recreation in God’s image; the subsequent life must be a deepening of this image thus stamped upon the man. The allusion to Genesis therefore requires us to understand t?? ?t?sa?t?? of God, and not of Christ, as it is taken by St Chrysostom and others; and this seems to be demanded also by the common use of ? ?t?sa?. But if Christ is not ? ?t?sa?, may He not be intended by the e???? t?? ?t?sa?t??? In favour of this interpretation it may be urged (1) That Christ elsewhere is called the e???? of God, i. 15, 2 Cor. iv. 4; (2) That the Alexandrian school interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as denoting the Logos; thus Philo de Mund. Op. 6 (I. p. 5 M) t? ????t?p?? pa??de??a, ?d?a t?? ?de?? ? Te?? ????? (comp. ib. §§ 7, 23, 24, 48), Fragm. II. p. 625 M ???t?? ??? ??d?? ?pe?????s???a? p??? t?? ???t?t? ?a? pat??a t?? ???? ?d??at?, ???? p??? t?? de?te??? T??? ?? ?st?? ??????? ????? ?.t.?. Leg. Alleg. i. 31, 32 (I. p. 106 sq.). Hence Philo speaks of the first man as e???? e?????? (de Mund. Op. 6), and as pa?????? pa?ad???at?? p???a??? ??a (ib. § 48). A pregnant meaning is thus given to ?at?, and ?at’ e????a is rendered ‘after the fashion (or pattern) of the Image’. But this interpretation seems very improbable in St Paul; for (1) In the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 24 the expression is simply ?at? Te??, which may be regarded as equivalent to ?at’ e????a t?? ?t?sa?t?? here; (2) The Alexandrian explanation of Gen. i. 26 just quoted is very closely allied to the Platonic doctrine of ideas (for the e????, so interpreted, is the archetype or ideal pattern of the sensible world), and thus it lies outside the range of those conceptions which specially recommended the Alexandrian terminology of the Logos to the Apostles, as a fit vehicle for communicating the truths of Christianity. 11. ?p??] i.e. ‘in this regenerate life, in this spiritual region into which the believer is transferred in Christ.’ ? ??? ??? ????? ?a? ???da???, pe??t?? ?a? ?????st?a, ? ??? ???] ‘Not only does the distinction not exist, but it cannot exist.’ It is a mundane distinction, and therefore it has disappeared. For the sense of ???, negativing not merely the fact but the possibility, see the note on Gal. iii. 28. ????? ?.t.?.] Comparing the enumeration here with the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28, we mark this difference. In Galatians the abolition of all distinctions is stated in the broadest way by the selection of three typical instances; religious prerogative (???da???, ?????), social caste (d?????, ??e??e???), natural sex (??se?, ????). Here on the other hand the examples are chosen with special reference to the immediate circumstances of the Colossian Church. (1) The Judaism of the Colossian heretics is met by ????? ?a? ???da???, and as it manifested itself especially in enforcing circumcision, this is further emphasized by pe??t?? ?a? ?????st?a (see above, p. 73). (2) Their Gnosticism again is met by ??a???, S?????. They laid special stress on intelligence, penetration, gnosis. The Apostle offers the full privileges of the Gospel to barbarians and even barbarians of the lowest type (see p. 99 sq.). In Rom. i. 14, the division ????s?? te ?a? a?a???? is almost synonymous with s?f??? te ?a? ????t???. (3) Special circumstances, connected with an eminent member of the Church of ColossÆ, had directed his attention at this moment to the relation of masters and slaves. Hence he cannot leave the subject without adding d?????, ??e??e???, though this has no special bearing on the Colossian heresy. See above p. 33, and the note on iii. 22, together with the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. pe??t?? ?.t.?.] Enforcing and extending the lesson of the previous clause. This abolition of distinctions applies to religious privilege, not only as inherited by birth (????? ?a? ???da???), but also as assumed by adoption (pe??t?? ?a? ?????st?a). If it is no advantage to be born a Jew, it is none to become as a Jew; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15. ? ??a???, S?????, d?????, ??e??e???, ???? t? p??ta ? ??a???] To the Jew the whole world was divided into ???da??? and ?????e?, the privileged and unprivileged portions of mankind, religious prerogative being taken as the line of demarcation (see notes Gal. ii. 3). To the Greek and Roman it was similarly divided into ?????e? and ??a???, again the privileged and unprivileged portion of the human race, civilization and culture being now the criterion of distinction. Thus from the one point of view the ????? is contrasted disadvantageously with the ???da???, while from the other he is contrasted advantageously with the ??a???. Both distinctions are equally antagonistic to the Spirit of the Gospel. The Apostle declares both alike null and void in Christ. The twofold character of the Colossian heresy enables him to strike at these two opposite forms of error with one blow. The word ??a??? properly denoted one who spoke an inarticulate, stammering, unintelligible language; see Max MÜller Lectures on the Science of Language 1st ser. p. 81 sq., 114 sq., Farrar Families of Speech p. 21: comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Hence it was adopted by Greek exclusiveness and pride to stigmatize the rest of mankind, a feeling embodied in the proverb p?? ? ????? ??a??? (Servius on Verg. Æn. ii. 504); comp. Plato Polit. 262 E t? ?? ????????? ?? h?? ?p? p??t?? ?fa?????te? ?????, s?pas? d? t??? ?????? ???es?? ... ??a??? ?? ???se? p??s??p??te? a?t? ?.t.?., Dionys. Hal. Rhet. xi. 5 d?p???? d? t? ?????, ????? ? ??a??? ?.t.?. So Philo Vit. Moys. ii. 5 (II. p. 138) speaks of t? ??s? t?a t?? ?????p?? ??????, t? a?a?????, as opposed to t? ?????????. It is not necessary to suppose that they adopted it from the Egyptians, who seem to have called non-Egyptian peoples berber (see Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s Herod. ii. 158); for the onomatopoeia will explain its origin independently, Strabo xiv. 2. 28 (p. 662) ??a? d? t? ??a??? ?at’ ????? ??pef???s?a? ??t?? ?at’ ???at?p???a? ?p? t?? d?se?f???? ?a? s?????? ?a? t?a???? ?a????t??, ?? t? atta???e?? ?.t.?. The Latins, adopting the Greek culture, adopted the Greek distinction also, e.g. Cic. de Fin. ii. 15 ‘Non solum GrÆcia et Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria’: and accordingly Dionysius, Ant. Rom. i. 69, classes the Romans with the Greeks as distinguished from the ‘barbarians’—this twofold division of the human race being taken for granted as absolute and final. So too in v. 8, having mentioned the Romans, he goes on to speak of ?? ????? ?????e?. The older Roman poets however, writing from a Greek point of view, (more than half in irony) speak of themselves as barbari and of their country as barbaria; e.g. Plaut. Mil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 ‘poeta barbaro’ (of NÆvius), Asin. Prol. II. ‘Maccus vortit barbare’, Poen. iii. 2. 21 ‘in barbaria boves’. In this classification the Jews necessarily ranked as ‘barbarians’. At times Philo seems tacitly to accept this designation (Vit. Moys. l.c.); but elsewhere he resents it, Leg. ad Cai. 31 (II. p. 578) ?p? f????at??, ?? ?? ????? t?? d?aa????t?? ??p??e? ??, a?a?????, ?? d’ ??e? t? ??????, ??e??e???? ?a? e??e????. On the other hand the Christian Apologists with a true instinct glory in the ‘barbarous’ origin of their religion: Justin Apol. i. 5 (p. 56 A) ???? ?a? ?? a?????? ?p’ a?t?? t?? ????? ??f????t?? ?a? ?????p?? ?e??????, ib. § 46 (p. 83 D) ?? a?????? d? ???a ?.t.?., Tatian. ad GrÆc. 29 ??afa?? t?s?? ??t??e?? a?a???a??, ib. 31 t?? d? (???s??) p?s?? a????? s?f?a? ???????, ib. 35 t?? ?a?’ ??? a????? f???s?f?a?. By glorying in the name they gave a practical comment on the Apostle’s declaration, that the distinction of Greek and barbarian was abolished in Christ. In a similar spirit Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 16 (p. 361) endeavours to prove that ?? ???? f???s?f?a? ???? ?a? p?s?? s?ed?? t????? e??et?? ??a???. ‘Not till that word barbarian’, writes Prof. Max MÜller (l.c. p. 118), ‘was struck out of the dictionary of mankind and replaced by brother, not till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was recognised, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science. This change was effected by Christianity.... Humanity is a word which you look for in vain in Plato or Aristotle; the idea of mankind as one family, as the children of one God, is an idea of Christian growth: and the science of mankind, and of the languages of mankind, is a science which, without Christianity, would never have sprung into life. When people had been taught to look upon all men as brethren, then and then only, did the variety of human speech present itself as a problem that called for a solution in the eyes of thoughtful observers: and I therefore date the real beginning of the science of language from the first day of Pentecost.... The common origin of mankind, the differences of race and language, the susceptibility of all nations of the highest mental culture, these become, in the new world in which we live, problems of scientific, because of more than scientific interest’. St Paul was the great exponent of the fundamental principle in the Christian Church which was symbolized on the day of Pentecost, when he declared, as here, that in Christ there is neither ????? nor ??a???, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he himself was a debtor equally ????s?? te ?a? a??????. The only other passage in the New Testament (besides those quoted) in which ??a??? occurs is Acts xxviii. 2, 4, where it is used of the people of Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they would be of Phoenician descent. S?????] the lowest type of barbarian. There is the same collocation of words in Dionys. Halic. Rhet. xi. 5, 6 pat??, ??a???, S?????, ????, Æsch. c. Ctes. 172 S?????, ??a???, ????????? t? f??? (of Demosthenes). The savageness of the Scythians was proverbial. The earlier Greek writers indeed, to whom omne ignotum was pro magnifico, had frequently spoken of them otherwise (see Strabo vii. 3. 7 sq., p. 300 sq.). Æschylus for instance called them ?????? S???a?, Fragm. 189 (comp. Eum. 703). Like the other Hyperboreans, they were a simple, righteous people, living beyond the vices and the miseries of civilisation. But the common estimate was far different, and probably far more true: e.g. 3 Macc. vii. 5 ???? S????? ?????t??a? ... ??t?ta (comp. 2 Macc. iv. 47), Joseph. c. Ap. ii. 37 S???a? ... ?a?? t?? ?????? d?af????te?, Philo Leg. ad Cai. 2 (II p. 547) Sa?at?? ???? ?a? S?????, ?pe? ??? ?tt?? ???????ta? t?? Ge?a?????, Tertull. adv. Marc. i. 1 ‘Scytha tetrior’. In Vit. Moys. ii. 4 (I. p. 137) Philo seems to place the Egyptians and the Scythians at the two extremes in the scale of barbarian nations. The passages given in Wetstein from classical writers are hardly less strong in the same direction. Anacharsis the Scythian is said to have retorted ??? d? p??te? ?????e? s???????s??, Clem. Strom. i. 16 (p. 364). The Jews had a special reason for their unfavourable estimate of the Scythians. In the reign of Josiah hordes of these northern barbarians had deluged Palestine and a great part of Western Asia (Herod. i. 103–106). The incident indeed is passed over in silence in the historical books; but the terror inspired by these invaders has found expression in the prophets (Ezek. xxxviii, xxxix, Jer. i. 13 sq., vi. 1 sq.), and they left behind them a memorial in the Greek name of Beth-shean, S????? p???? (Judith iii. 10, 2 Macc. xii. 29: comp. Judges i. 27 LXX) or S????p????, which seems to have been derived from a settlement on this occasion (Plin. N.H. v. 16; see Ewald. Gesch. III. p. 689 sq., Grove s.v. Scythopolis in Smith’s Bibl. Dict.). Hence Justin, Dial. § 28 (p. 246 A), describing the largeness of the new dispensation, says ??? S????? ? t?? ? ???s??, ??e? d? t?? t?? Te?? ???s?? ?a? t?? ???st?? a?t?? ?a? f???sse? t? a????a d??a?a ... f???? ?st? t? Te?, where he singles out two different but equally low types of barbarians, the Scythians being notorious for their ferocity, the Persians for their licentiousness (Clem. Alex. PÆd. i. 7, p. 131, Strom. iii. 2, p. 515, and the Apologists generally). So too the Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris 17, satirising Christianity, ??. t?de e?pe, e? ?a? t? t?? S????? ?? t? ???a?? ???a??t??s?. ??. p??ta, e? t???? ?e ???st?? ?a? ?? ???es?. From a misconception of this passage in the Colossians, heresiologers distinguished four main forms of heresy in the pre-Christian world, a?a??s??, s????s??, ??????s??, ???da?s??; so Epiphan. Epist. ad. Acac. 2 saf?? ??? pe?? t??t?? t?? tess???? a???se?? ? ?p?st???? ?p?te?? ?f?, ?? ??? ???st? ??s?? ?? ??a???, ?? S?????, ??? ?????, ??? ???da???, ???? ?a??? ?t?s??: comp. HÆr. i. 4, 7 sq., I. p. 5, 8 sq., Anaceph. II. pp. 127, 129 sq. t? p??t? ?.t.?.] ‘Christ is all things and in all things.’ Christ has dispossessed and obliterated all distinctions of religious prerogative and intellectual preeminence and social caste; Christ has substituted Himself for all these; Christ occupies the whole sphere of human life and permeates all its developments; comp. Ephes. i. 23 t?? t? p??ta ?? p?s?? p?????????. For t? p??ta, which is stronger than ?? p??te?, see Gal. iii. 22 s?????e?se? ? ??af? t? p??ta ?p? ?a?t?a? with the note. In this passage ?? p?s?? is probably neuter, as in 2 Cor. xi. 6, Phil. iv. 12, 1 Tim. iii. II, 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5, Ephes. iv. 6, vi. 16. In the parallel passage Gal. iii. 28 the corresponding clause is p??te? ?e?? ??? ?st? ?? ???st? ??s??. The inversion here accords with a chief motive of the epistle, which is to assert the absolute and universal supremacy of Christ; comp. i. 17 sq., ii. 10 sq., 19. The two parts of the antithesis are combined in our Lord’s saying, Joh. xiv. 20 ?e?? ?? ???, ???? ?? ???. ? ?a? ?? p?s?? ???st??. 12–15. ‘Therefore, as the elect of God, as a people consecrated to His service and specially endowed with His love, array yourselves in hearts of compassion, in kindliness and humility, in a gentle and yielding spirit. Bear with one another: forgive freely among yourselves. As your Master forgave you His servants, so ought ye to forgive your fellow-servants. And over all these robe yourselves in love; for this is the garment which binds together all the graces of perfection. And let the one supreme umpire in your hearts, the one referee amidst all your difficulties, be the peace of Christ, which is the destined goal of your Christian calling, in which is realised the unity belonging to members of one body. Lastly of all; show your gratitude by your thanksgiving.’ 12. ??d?sas?e ???] ‘Put on therefore’, as men to whom Christ has become all in all. The incidental mention of Christ as superseding all other relations gives occasion to this argumentative ???: comp. iii. 1, 5. ?? ???e?t?? t?? Te??] ‘as elect ones of God.’ Comp. Rom. viii. 33, Tit. i. 1. In the Gospels ???t?? and ???e?t?? are distinguished as an outer and an inner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 p????? ??? e?s?? ???t??, ?????? d? ???e?t??), ???t?? being those summoned to the privileges of the Gospel and ???e?t?? those appointed to final salvation (Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31, Mark xiii. 20, 22, 27, Luke xviii. 7). But in St Paul no such distinction can be traced. With him the two terms seem to be coextensive, as two aspects of the same process, ???t?? having special reference to the goal and ???e?t?? to the starting-point. The same persons are ‘called’ to Christ, and ‘chosen out’ from the world. Thus in 1 Thess. i. 4 e?d?te? t?? ??????? ??? ?.t.?. the word clearly denotes election to Church-membership. Thus also in 2 Tim. ii. 10, where St Paul says that he endures all things d?? t??? ???e?t???, adding ??a ?a? a?t?? s?t???a? t???s?? ?.t.?., the uncertainty implied in these last words clearly shows that election to final salvation is not meant. In the same sense he speaks of an individual Christian as ‘elect’, Rom. xvi. 13. And again in 1 Cor. i. 26, 27 ??pete t?? ???s?? ??? ... t? ??a t?? ??s?? ??e???at?, the words appear as synonymes. The same is also the usage of St Peter. Thus in an opening salutation he addresses whole Christian communities as ???e?t?? (1 Pet. i. 1; comp. v. 13 ? s??e??e?t? ?? ?a?????, i.e. probably ?????s?a), as St Paul under similar circumstances (Rom. i. 6, 7, 1 Cor. i. 2) designates them ???t??; and in another passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he appeals to his readers to make their ???s?? and ?????? sure. The use of ???e?t?? in 2 Joh. 1. 13 is apparently the same; and in Apoc. xvii. 14 ?? et’ a?t?? ???t?? ?a? ???e?t?? ?a? p?st?? this is also the case, as we may infer from the addition of p?st??, which points to those who have been true to their ‘calling and election’. Thus the Gospels stand alone in this respect. In fact ?????? denotes election by God not only to final salvation, but to any special privilege or work, whether it be (1) Church-membership, as in the passages cited from the epistles; or (2) The work of preaching, as when St Paul (Acts ix. 15) is called s?e??? ???????, the object of the ‘election’ being defined in the words following, t?? ast?sa? t? ???? ?? ???p??? [t??] ????? te ?a? as????? ?.t.?.; or (3) The Messiahship, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; or (4) The fatherhood of the chosen people, as in the case of Isaac and Jacob, Rom. ix. 11; or (5) The faithful remnant under the theocracy, Rom. xi. 5, 7, 28. This last application presents the closest analogy to the idea of final salvation: but even here St Paul treats ???s?? and ?????? as coextensive, Rom. xi. 28, 29 ?at? d? t?? ??????? ??ap?t?? d?? t??? pat??a?? ?eta???ta ??? t? ?a??sata ?a? ? ???s?? t?? Te??. ? t?? Te??, ????? [?a?] ??ap?????, sp?????a ???t????, ? ????? ?.t.?.] These are not to be taken as vocatives, but as predicates further defining the meaning of ???e?t??. All the three terms ???e?t??, ?????, ??ap?????, are transferred from the Old Covenant to the New, from the Israel after the flesh to the Israel after the Spirit. For the two former comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9 ????? ???e?t?? ... ????? ?????; and for the sense of ?????, ‘the consecrated people of God’, see the note on Phil. i. 1. For the third word, ??ap?????, see Is. v. 1 ?s? d? t? ??ap???? ?.t.?., Hos. ii. 25 t?? ??? ??ap????? ??ap????? (as quoted in Rom. ix. 25). In the New Testament it seems to be used always of the objects of God’s love: e.g. 1 Thess. i. 4 e?d?t??, ?de?f?? ??ap????? ?p? Te??, t?? ??????? ???, 2 Thess. ii. 13 ?de?f?? ??ap????? ?p? ?????? (comp. Jude 1); and so probably Rev. xx. 9 t?? p???? t?? ??ap?????. For the connexion of God’s election and God’s love see Rom. xi. 28 (quoted above), 1 Thess. l.c. The ?a? is omitted in one or two excellent copies (though it has the great preponderance of authorities in its favour), and it is impossible not to feel how much the sentence gains in force by the omission, ???e?t?? Te??, ?????, )??ap?????; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6. sp?????a ???t????] ‘a heart of pity’. For the meaning of sp?????a see the note on Phil. i. 8, and for the whole expression comp. sp?????a ?????? Luke i. 78, Test. xii Patr. Zab. 7, 8. ? ???st?t?ta, tape???f??s????, p??"?t?ta, a??????a?? ? ???st?t?ta ?.t.?.] The two words ???st?t?? and tape???f??s???, ‘kindliness’ and ‘humility’, describe the Christian temper of mind generally, and this in two aspects, as it affects either (1) our relation to others (???st?t??), or (2) our estimate of self (tape???f??s???). For ???st?t?? see the note on Gal. v. 22; for tape???f??s???, the note on Phil. ii. 3. p??"?t?ta ?.t.?.] These next two words, p??"?t?? and a??????a, denote the exercise of the Christian temper in its outward bearing towards others. They are best distinguished by their opposites. p??"?t?? is opposed to ‘rudeness, harshness’, ?????t?? (Plato Symp. 197 D), ?a?ep?t?? (Arist. H. A. ix. i); a??????a to ‘resentment, revenge, wrath,’ ???? (Prov. xvi. 32), ???????a (Herm. Mand. v. 1, 2). For the meaning of a??????a see above, on i. 11; for the form of p??"?t?? (p???t??), on Gal. v. 23. The words are discussed in Trench N. T. Syn. § xlii. p. 140 sq., § xliii. p. 145 sq., § liii. p. 184 sq. They appear in connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign. Polyc. 6 a??????sate ??? et’ ??????? ?? p??"?t?t?. ? 13. ???????, ?a?t???] The pronoun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32 ???es?e e?? ???????? ???st?? ... ?a????e??? ?a?t??? ?.t.?., 1 Pet. iv. 8–10 t?? e?? ?a?t??? ???p?? ??te?? ????te? ... f????e??? e?? ???????? ... e?? ?a?t??? a?t? [t? ????sa] d?a??????te?. The reciprocal ?a?t?? differs from the reciprocal ??????? in emphasizing the idea of corporate unity: hence it is more appropriate here (comp. Ephes. iv. 2, 32) with ?a????e??? than with ??e??e???; comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 16 ??t? ?? t?? s??e??e?? ?a?t??? t? s?f????ta, ?p???a???s?? ????????, ?a? f?????s?? ?a?t??? ????? ? t??? ?????? ?????p??? ... ?a? p??a?????ta? ????? ??t? ?e?da??e?? ?p’ ??????? ? s???fe????te? a?t???, where the propriety of the two words in their respective places will be evident; and ib. ii. 7. 12 ??t? ?f??????? ?a?t?? ?d??? ?????a? h?????, where the variation is more subtle but not less appropriate. For instances of this use of ?a?t?? see Bleek HebrÄerbrief iii. 13 (p. 453 sq.), KÜhner >Griech. Gramm. § 455 (II. p. 497 sq.). ?a????e???] i.e. ‘forgiving’; see the note on ii. 13. An a fortiori argument lurks under the use of ?a?t??? (rather than ????????): if Christ forgave them, much more should they forgive themselves. ? ??? t?? p??? t??a ??? ?f??? ?a??? ?a? ? ?????? ??a??sat? ???, ??t?? ?a? ?e??? ?f??] ‘a complaint’. As ?fes?a? is ‘to find fault with’, referring most commonly to errors of omission, so ?f? here is regarded as a debt, which needs to be remitted. The rendering of the A. V. ‘a quarrel’ (= querela) is only wrong as being an archaism. The phrase ?f?? ??e?? occurs several times in classical Greek, but generally in poetry: e.g. Eur. Orest. 1069, Arist. Pax 664. ?a??? ?a? ?.t.?.] This must not be connected with the preceding words, but treated as an independent sentence, the ?a??? ?a? being answered by the ??t?? ?a?. For the presence of ?a? in both clauses of the comparison see the note on i. 6. The phenomenon is common in the best classical writers, e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 6. 3 ?spe? ?a? t?? ????? ????? ?? d?d?s?a??? ... ??t? ?a? s? ?.t.?.; see the references in Heindorf on Plato PhÆdo 64 C, Sophist. 217 B, and KÜhner Griech. Gramm. § 524 (II. p. 799). ? ??????] This reading, which is better supported than ? ???st??, is also more expressive. It recalls more directly the lesson of the parable which enforces the duty of fellow-servant to fellow-servant; Matt. xviii. 27 sp?a????s???? d? ? ?????? t?? d????? ??????? ?p???se? a?t?? ?a? t? d??e??? ?f??e? a?t? ?.t.?.: comp. below iv. 1 e?d?te? ?t? ?a? ?e?? ??ete ?????? ?? ???a??. The reading ???st?? perhaps comes from the parallel passage Ephes. iv. 32 ?a????e??? ?a?t???, ?a??? ?a? ? Te?? ?? ???st? ??a??sat? ??? (or ???). ??t?? ?a? ?e??] sc. ?a???es?e ?a?t???. 14. ?p? p?s??] ‘over and above all these’, comp. Luke iii. 20 p??s????e? ?a? t??t? ?p? p?s??. In Luke xvi. 26, Ephes. vi. 16, the correct reading is probably ?? p?s??. Love is the outer garment which holds the others in their places. ? t?? ???p??, ? ?st?? s??des?? t?? te?e??t?t??. t?? ???p??] sc. ??d?sas?e, from ver. 12. ?] ‘which thing’, i.e. ‘love’; comp. Ephes. v. 5 p?e????t??, ? ?st?? e?d?????t???, Ign. Rom. 7 ??t?? Te?? ????, ? ?st?? s??? ???st??, Magn. 10 et???es?e e?? ??a? ???? ? ?st?? ??s??? ???st??, Trall. 7 ??a?t?sas?e ?a?t??? ?? p?ste? ? ?st?? s??? t?? ??????. Though there are various readings in the passages of the Ignatian Epistles, the ? seems to be right in every case. These instances will show that ? may be referred to t?? ???p?? alone. Otherwise we might suppose the antecedent to be t? ??d?sas?a? t?? ???p??, but this hardly suits the sense. The common reading ?t?? is obviously a scribe’s correction. s??des?? ?.t.?.] ‘the bond of perfection’, i.e. the power, which unites and holds together all those graces and virtues, which together make up perfection. ???ta ??e??a, says Chrysostom, h??t? s?sf???e?? ?pe? ?? e?p?? ??a???, t??t?? ?p??s?? ??d?? ?st?? ???? d?a??e?: comp. Clem. Rom. 49 t?? des?? t?? ??ap?? t?? Te?? t?? d??ata? ?????sas?a?; Thus the Pythagoreans (Simplic. in Epictet. p. 208 A) pe??ss?? t?? ????? ??et?? t?? f???a? ?t??? ?a? s??des?? a?t?? pas?? t?? ??et?? ??e???. So too Themist. Orat. i. (p. 5 C) as????? (??et?) pa?? t?? ???a? e?? ?? ???d???ta? ?a? a? ???pa?, ?spe? e?? ?a? ????f?? ?????a?. The word will take a genitive either of the object bound or of the binding force: e.g. Plato Polit. 310 A t??t?? ?e??te??? e??a? t?? ???des?? ??et?? e??? f?se?? ??????? ?a? ?p? t??a?t?a fe??????, where the ??et? ???de? and the ??? f?se?? ???de?ta?. We have an instance of the one genitive (the objective) here, of the other (the subjective) in Ephes. iv. 3 ?? t? s??d?s? t?? e?????? (see the note there). Another explanation makes s??des?? = s???es?? here, ‘the bundle, the totality’, as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 p??ta t?? s??des?? t?? ?p?st???? (comp. Ign. Trall. 3 s??des?? ?p?st????); but this unusual metaphor is highly improbable and inappropriate here, not to mention that we should expect the definite article ? s??des?? in this case. With either interpretation, the function assigned to ???p? here is the same as when it is declared to be p????a ????, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp. Gal. v. 14). See also the all-embracing office which is assigned to it in 1 Cor. xiii. 15. ? e????? t?? ???st??] ‘Christ’s peace’, which He left as a legacy to His disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 e?????? ?f??? ???, e?????? t?? ??? d?d?? ???; comp. Ephes. ii. 14 a?t?? ??? ?st?? ? e????? ??? with the context. The common reading ? e????? t?? Te?? has a parallel in Phil. iv. 7. ?ae?et?] ‘be umpire’, for the idea of a contest is only less prominent here, than in ?ae??? 1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the note there). St?d??? ??d?? ?p???se? ?? t??? ????s???, writes Chrysostom, ?a? ????a ?a? ????s?? ?a? ?ae?t??. Wherever there is a conflict of motives or impulses or reasons, the peace of Christ must step in and decide which is to prevail; ?? ???? ?ae?et?, says Chrysostom again, ? f????e???a, ? ?????p??? e?????? ? ??? ?????p??? e????? ?? t?? ???es?a? ???eta?, ?? t?? ?d?? p?s?e?? de????. For this metaphor of some one paramount consideration acting as umpire, where there is a conflict of internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3 ?pa? t? ?????e??? ?p? t?? Ga??t?? ??? ????? ? ????s? ?ae?es?a?, Philo de Migr. Abr. 12 (I[. p. 446) p??e?eta? ? ?f??? d?’ ?f?t???? ???? te ?a? ?p????a? )a?? ... t?? ??????? ?a? ?ae?t?? ????? ?p?a??? (comp. de Ebriet. 19, I. p. 368), Jos. B. J. vi. 2. 6 ???e?e t?? t??a? ? ... f???. Somewhat similarly t??? (Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or f?s?? (Athen. xv. p. 670 A) are made ?ae?e??. In other passages, where ? Te?? or t? ?e??? is said ?ae?e??, this implies that, while man proposes, God disposes. In Philo ????e?a ?ae???sa (Qui rer. div. her. 19, I. p. 486) is a rough synonyme for ????e?a d??????sa (de Abrah. 14, II. p. 10, etc.): and in Josephus (Ant. vi. 3. 1) d????e?? and ?ae?e?? are used together of the same action. In all such cases it appears that the idea of a decision and an award is prominent in the word, and that it must not be taken to denote simply rule or power. e?? ?? ?.t.?.] Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15 ?? d? e????? ??????e? ??? ? Te??. ?? ??? s?at?] ‘As ye were called as members of one body, so let there be one spirit animating that body’: Ephes. iv. 4 h?? s?a ?a? h?? p?e?a. This passage strikes the keynote of the companion Epistle to the Ephesians (see esp. ii. 16 sq., iv. 3 sq.). e?????st??] ‘And to crown all forget yourselves in thanksgiving towards God’: see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The adjective e?????st??, though not occurring elsewhere in the Greek Bible, is not uncommon in classical writers, and like the English ‘grateful’, has two meanings; either (1) ‘pleasurable’ (e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1); or (2) ‘thankful’ (e.g. Boeckh C. I. no. 1625), as here. ? ???es?e. 16, 17. ‘Let the inspiring word of Christ dwell in your hearts, enriching you with its boundless wealth and endowing you with all wisdom. Teach and admonish one another with psalms, with hymns of praise, with spiritual songs of all kinds. Only let them be pervaded with grace from heaven. Sing to God in your hearts and not with your lips only. And generally; whatever ye do, whether in word or in deed, let everything be done in the name of Jesus Christ. And (again I repeat it) pour out your thanksgiving to God the Father through Him’. 16. ? ????? t?? ???st??] ‘the word of Christ’, t?? ???st?? being the subjective genitive, so that Christ is the speaker. Though ? ????? t?? Te?? and ? ????? t?? ?????? occur frequently, ? ????? t?? ???st?? is found here only. There seems to be no direct reference in this expression to any definite body of truths either written or oral, but ? ????? t?? ???st?? denotes the presence of Christ in the heart, as an inward monitor: comp. 1 Joh. ii. 14 ? ????? t?? Te?? ?? ??? ??e?, with ib. i. 10 ? ????? a?t?? ??? ?st?? ?? ???, and so perhaps Acts xviii. 5 s?????et? t? ???? (the correct reading). ?? ???] ‘in your hearts’, not ‘among you’; comp. Rom. viii. 9, 11 t? ???????? a?t?? p?e?a ?? ???, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14, and Lev. xxvi. 12, as quoted in 2 Cor. vi. 16, ??????s? ?? a?t???. p???s???] See above p. 43 sq., and the note on i. 27. ?? p?s? s?f??] ‘in every kind of wisdom’. It seems best to take these words with the preceding clause, though Clem. Alex. PÆd. ii. 4 (p. 194) attaches them to what follows. For this position of ?? p?s? s?f??, at the end of the sentence to which it refers, comp. i. 9, Ephes. i. 8. The connexion here adopted is also favoured by the parallel passage Ephes. v. 18, 19 (see the note below). Another passage i. 28 ????et???te? p??ta ?????p?? ?a? d?d?s???te? p??ta ?????p?? ?? p?s? s?f?? has a double bearing: while the connexion favours our taking ?? p?s? s?f?? here with the following words, the order suggests their being attached to the preceding clause. d?d?s???te? ?.t.?.] The participles are here used for imperatives, as frequently in hortatory passages, e.g. Rom. xii. 9 sq., 16 sq., Ephes. iv. 2, 3, Hebr. xiii. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 12[?], iii. 1, 7, 9, 15, 16. It is not, as some insist, that the participle itself has any imperatival force; nor, as maintained by others, that the construction should be explained by the hypothesis of a preceding parenthesis or of a verb substantive understood or by any other expedient to obtain a regular grammatical structure (see Winer, § xlv. p. 441 sq., § lxii. p. 707, § lxiii. p. 716, § lxiv. p. 732). But the absolute participle, being (so far as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour from the general complexion of the sentence. Thus it is sometimes indicative (e.g. 2 Cor. vii. 5, and frequently), sometimes imperative (as in the passages quoted), sometimes optative (as above, ii. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 11, comp. Ephes. iii. 17). On the distinction of d?d?s?e?? and ????ete?? see the note on i. 28; they describe respectively the positive and the negative side of instruction. On the reciprocal ?a?t??? see the note on iii. 13. ? ?a?t??? ?a???? ????? ?da?? p?e?at??a?? ?? t? ? ?a???? ?.t.?.] to be connected with the preceding sentence, as suggested by Ephes. v. 18 sq. ???? p?????s?e ?? p?e?at?, ?a????te? ?a?t??? [??] ?a???? ?a? ????? ?a? ?da?? [p?e?at??a??], ?d??te? ?a? ??????te? t? ?a?d?? ??? t? ?????. The datives describe the instruments of the d?da?? and ????es?a. The three words ?a???, ????, ?d?, are distinguished, so far as they are distinguishable, in Trench N.T. Syn. § lxxviii. p. 279 sq. They are correctly defined by Gregory Nyssen in Psalm. c. iii (I. p. 295) ?a??? ?? ?st?? ? d?? t?? ??????? t?? ??s???? e??d?a, ?d? d? ? d?? st?at?? ?e????? t?? ????? et? ???t?? ?p?f???s?? ... ???? d? ? ?p? t??? ?p?????s?? ??? ??a???? ??at??e??? t? Te? e?f??a; see also Hippol. p. 191 sq. (ed. de Lagarde). In other words, while the leading idea of ?a??? is a musical accompaniment and that of ???? praise to God, ?d? is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once ?a???, ????, and ?d?. In the text the reference in ?a????, we may suppose, is specially, though not exclusively (1 Cor. xiv. 26), to the Psalms of David, which would early form part of the religious worship of the Christian brotherhood. On the other hand ????? would more appropriately designate those hymns of praise which were composed by the Christians themselves on distinctly Christian themes, being either set forms of words or spontaneous effusions of the moment. The third word ?da?? gathers up the other two, and extends the precept to all forms of song, with the limitation however that they must be p?e?at??a?. St Chrysostom treats ???? here as an advance upon ?a???, which in one aspect they are; ?? ?a???, he says, p??ta ????s??, ?? d? ???? p???? ??d?? ?????p????? ?ta? ?? t??? ?a???? ???, t?te ?a? ????? e?seta?, ?te ?e??te??? p???a. Psalmody and hymnody were highly developed in the religious services of the Jews at this time: see Philo in Flacc. 14 (II. p. 535) p??????? d? d?ate??sa?te? ?? ????? ?a? ?da??, de Vit. Cont. § 3 (II. p. 476) p????s?? ?sata ?a? ????? e?? Te?? d?? pa?t???? ?t??? ?a? e???, ? ?????? se??t????? ??a??a??? ?a??tt??s?, § 10 (p. 484) ? ??ast?? ???? ?de? pep??????? e?? t?? Te??, ? ?a???? a?t?? pep?????? ? ???a??? t??a t?? p??a? p???t??? ?t?a ??? ?a? ??? ?ata?e???pas? p???? ?p?? t???t???, p??s?d???, ????, pa?asp??de???, pa?a????, stas???, ???????, st??fa?? p???st??f??? e? d?aeet?????? ?.t.?., § 11 (p. 485) ?d??s? pep???????? e?? t?? Te?? ????? p?????? ?t???? ?a? ??es? ?.t.?., with the whole context. They would thus find their way into the Christian Church from the very beginning. For instances of singing hymns or psalms in the Apostolic age see Acts iv. 24, xvi. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26. Hence even in St Paul’s epistles, more especially his later epistles, fragments of such hymns appear to be quoted; e.g. Ephes. v. 14 (see the note there). For the use of hymnody in the early Church of the succeeding generations see Plin. Epist. x. 97 ‘Ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem,’ Anon. [Hippolytus] in Euseb. H.E. v. 28 ?a??? d? ?s?? ?a? ?d?? ?de?f?? ?p’ )a???? ?p? p?st?? ??afe?sa? t?? ????? t?? Te?? t?? ???st?? ????s? ?e???????te?. The reference in the text is not solely or chiefly to public worship as such. Clem. Alex. PÆd. ii. 4 (p. 194) treats it as applying to social gatherings; and again Tertullian says of the agape, Apol. 39 ‘Ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere,’ and of the society of husband and wife, Ad Uxor. ii. 8 ‘Sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo provocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.’ On the psalmody etc. of the early Christians see Bingham Antiq. xiv. c. 1, and especially Probst Lehre und Gebet p. 256 sq. ?? t? ????t?] ‘in God’s grace’; comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ??? ?? s?f?a sa????? ???’ ?? ????t? Te??. These words are perhaps best connected with the preceding clause, as by Chrysostom. Thus the parallelism with ?? p?s? s?f?? is preserved. The correct reading is ?? t? ????t?, not ?? ????t?. For ? ?????, ‘divine grace’, see Phil. i. 7 s??????????? ?? t?? ????t?? with the note. The definite article seems to exclude all lower senses of ????? here, such as ‘acceptableness’, ‘sweetness’ (see iv. 6). The interpretation ‘with gratitude’, if otherwise tenable (comp. 1 Cor. x. 30), seems inappropriate here, because the idea of thanksgiving is introduced in the following verse. ? ????t?, ?d??te? ?? ta?? ?a?d?a?? ??? t? Te?? ?d??te? ?.t.?.] This external manifestation must be accompanied by the inward emotion. There must be the thanksgiving of the heart, as well as of the lips; comp. Ephes. v. 19 ?d??te? ?a? ??????te? t? ?a?d?? (probably the correct reading), where t? ?a?d?? ‘with the heart’ brings out the sense more distinctly. 17. p?? ? t? ?.t.?.] This is probably a nominative absolute, as Matt. x. 32 p?? ??? ?st?? ??????se? ... ??????s? ???? ?? a?t? (comp. Luke xii. 8), Luke xii. 10 p?? ?? ??e? ????? ... ?fe??seta? a?t?, John xvii. 2 p?? ? d?d??a? a?t?, d?s? a?t??? ?.t.?.; comp. Matt. vii. 24 (v.l.). p??ta] sc. p??e?te, as the following e??a??st???te? suggests; comp. ver. 23. ?? ???at? ?.t.?.] This is the great practical lesson which flows from the theological teaching of the epistle. Hence the reiteration of ?????, ?? ?????, etc., vv. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24. See above p. 104. e??a??st???te?] On this refrain see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. t? Te? pat??] This, which is quite the best authenticated reading, gives a very unusual, if not unique, collocation of words, the usual form being either ? Te?? ?a? pat?? or Te?? pat??. The ?a? before pat?? in the received text is an obvious emendation. See the note on i. 3, and the appendix on various readings. 18–21. ‘Ye wives, be subject to your husbands, for so it becomes you in Christ. Ye husbands, love and cherish your wives, and use no harshness towards them. Ye children, be obedient to your parents in all things; for this is commendable and lovely in Christ. Ye parents, vex not your children, lest they lose heart and grow sullen’. 18 sq. These precepts, providing for the conduct of Christians in private households, should be compared with Ephes. v. 22–vi. 9, 1 Pet. ii. 18–iii. 7, Tit. ii. 1 sq.; see also Clem. Rom. 1, Polyc. Phil. 4 sq. ?? ???a??e?] ‘Ye wives’, the nominative with the definite article being used for a vocative, as frequently in the New Testament, e.g. Matt. xi. 26, Mark v. 41, Luke viii. 54; see Winer § xxix. p. 227 sq. The frequency of this use is doubtless due to the fact that it is a reproduction of the Hebrew idiom. In the instances quoted from classical writers (see Bernhardy Syntax p. 67) the address is not so directly vocative, the nominative being used rather to define or select than to summon the person in question. t??? ??d??s??] The ?d???? of the received text may have been inserted (as it is inserted also in Ephes. v. 24) from Ephes. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 1, 5, in all which passages this same injunction occurs. The scribes however show a general fondness for this adjective; e.g. Mark xv. 20, Luke ii. 3, Acts i. 19, Ephes. iv. 28, 1 Thess. ii. 15, iv. 11. ? ?? ?????. ????e?] The imperfect, as Ephes. v. 4 ? ??? ????e? (the correct reading); comp. Clem. Hom. Contest. 3 t??de ? etad???a? ?????, ?? ?? p??s??e?, Xen. de Re Equestr. xii. 14 ? ?pp???? p??s??e? e?d??a? te ?a? p??tte??; and see D’Orville on Charito viii. 2 (p. 699 sq.). The common uses of the imperfect ?de?, ?p?epe?, etc., in classical writers do not present a very exact parallel; for they imply that the thing which ought to have been done has been left undone. And so we might interpret Acts xxii. 22 ?? ??? ?a???e? a?t?? ??? (the correct reading). Here however there can hardly be any such reference; and the best illustration is the English past tense ‘ought’ (= ‘owed’), which is used in the same way. The past tense perhaps implies an essential À priori obligation. The use of ????, ?????, occasionally approximates to this; e.g. Eur. Andr. 423. The idea of ‘propriety’ is the link which connects the primary meaning of such words as ????e??, p??s??e??, ?a???e??, ‘aiming at or pertaining to’, with their ultimate meaning of moral obligation. The word ????e?? occurs in the New Testament only here and in the contemporary epistles, Ephes. v. 4, Philem. 8. ?? ?????] probably to be connected with ?? ????e?, rather than with ?p?t?sses?e; comp. ver. 20 e???est?? ?st?? ?? ?????. 19. ? p???a??es?e ?.t.?.] ‘show no bitterness, behave not harshly’; comp. Lynceus in Athen. vi. p. 242 C p???a??e?? p??? t??a t?? s????t??, Joseph. Ant. v. 7. I de???? p??? t??? t?? d??a??? p???sta????? ??p???a???e???, Plut. Mor. p. 457 A p??? ???a?a d?ap???a????ta?. So also p???a??es?a? ?p? t??a in the LXX, Jerem. xliv (xxxvii). 15, 3 Esdr. iv. 31. This verb p???a??es?a? and its compounds occur frequently in classical writers. 20. ?at? p??ta] as ver. 22. The rule is stated absolutely, because the exceptions are so few that they may be disregarded. e???est?? ?st??] ‘is well pleasing, commendable’. The received text supplies this adjective with a dative of reference t? ????? (from Ephes. v. 10), but ?? ????? is unquestionably the right reading. With the reading thus corrected e???est??, like ????e? ver. 18, must be taken absolutely, as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 t? ????a t?? T??? t? ??a??? ?a? e???est?? ?a? t??e???: comp. Phil. iv. 8 ?sa se?? ... ?sa p??sf???. The qualification ?? ????? implies ‘as judged by a Christian standard’, ‘as judged by those who are members of Christ’s body.’ 21. ??e???ete] ‘provoke, irritate’. The other reading pa??????ete has higher support, but is doubtless taken from the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 4. ‘Irritation’ is the first consequence of being too exacting with children, and irritation leads to moroseness (????a). In 2 Cor. IX. 2 ??e???e?? is used in a good sense and produces the opposite result, not despondency but energy. ????s??] ‘lose heart, become spiritless’, i.e. ‘go about their task in a listless, moody, sullen frame of mind’. ‘Fractus animus’, says Bengel, ‘pestis juventutis’. In Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 13 ????a is opposed to p?????a, and in Thuc. ii. 88 and elsewhere ???e?? is opposed to ?a?se??. ? t??? ?at? s???a ???????, ? ?? ?f?a??d???e?? ?? ?????p??es???, ???’ ?? ?p??t?t? ?a?d?a?, f???e??? t?? ??????. 22. ?? ?f?a??d???e?a??. 22.–iv. 1. ‘Ye slaves, be obedient in all things to the masters set over you in the flesh, not rendering them service only when their eyes are upon you, as aiming merely to please men, but serving in all sincerity of heart, as living in the sight of God and standing in awe of Him. And in every thing that ye do, work faithfully and with all your soul, as labouring not for men, but for the great Lord and Master Himself; knowing that ye have a Master, from whom ye will receive the glorious inheritance as your recompense, whether or not ye may be defrauded of your due by men. Yes, Christ is your Master and ye are his slaves. He that does a wrong shall be requited for his wrong-doing. I say not this of slaves only, but of masters also. There is no partiality, no respect of persons, in God’s distribution of rewards and punishments. Therefore, ye masters, do ye also on your part deal justly and equitably by your slaves, knowing that ye too have a Master in heaven’. 22. ?? d?????] The relations of masters and slaves, both here and in the companion epistle (Ephes. vi. 5–9), are treated at greater length than is usual with St Paul. Here especially the expansion of this topic, compared with the brief space assigned to the duties of wives and husbands (vv. 18, 19), or of children and parents (vv. 20, 21), deserves to be noticed. The fact is explained by a contemporary incident in the Apostle’s private life. His intercourse with Onesimus had turned his thoughts in this direction. See above, p. 33, and the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon: comp. also the note on ver. 11. ?f?a??d???e??] ‘eye-service’, as Ephes. vi. 6: comp. Apost. Const. iv. 12 ? ?? ?f?a??d????? ???’ ?? f???d?sp?t??. This happy expression would seem to be the Apostle’s own coinage. At least there are no traces of it earlier. Compare ??e?????s?e?a ii. 23. The reading ?f?a??d???e?? is better supported than ?f?a??d???e?a??, though the plural is rendered slightly more probable in itself by its greater difficulty. ?????p??es???] again in Ephes. vi. 6. It is a LXX word, Ps. lii. 6, where the Greek entirely departs from the Hebrew: comp. also ?????pa?es?e?? Ign. Rom. 2, ?????pa??s?e?a Justin Apol. i. 2 (p. 53 E). So ????a??s??? or ????a?es???, Timo Phlias. in Diog. Laert. iv. 42 (vv. 11.). ?p??t?t? ?a?d?a?] as in Ephes. vi. 5, i.e. ‘with undivided service’; a LXX expression, 1 Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd. i. 1. t?? ??????] ‘the one Lord and Master’, as contrasted with t??? ?at? s???a ???????: the idea being carried out in the following verses. The received text, by substituting t?? Te??, blunts the edge of the contrast. 23. ?????es?e] i.e. ‘do it diligently’, an advance upon p???te. ??? ?????p???] For the use of ?? rather than ? in antitheses, see Winer § lv. p. 601 sq. The negative here is wholly unconnected with the imperative, and refers solely to t? ?????. ? t? ?????, ?a? ??? ?????p???,] 24. ?p? ?????? ‘However you may be treated by your earthly masters, you have still a Master who will recompense you.’ The absence of the definite article here (comp. iv. 1) is the more remarkable, because it is studiously inserted in the context, vv. 22–24, t?? ??????, t? ?????, t? ?????. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8 it is pa?? ??????: for the difference between the two see Gal. i. 12. t?? ??tap?d?s??] ‘the just recompense’, a common word both in the lxx and in classical writers, though not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament; comp. ??tap?d?a Luke xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double compound involves the idea of ‘exact requital’. t?? ????????a?] ‘which consists in the inheritance’, the genitive of apposition: see the note on t?? e??da t?? ??????, i. 12. There is a paradox involved in this word: elsewhere the d????? and the ????????? are contrasted (Matt. xxi. 35–38, etc., Rom. viii. 15–17, Gal. iv. 1, 7), but here the d????? is the ?????????. This he is because, though d????? ?????p??, he is ?pe?e??e??? ?????? (1 Cor. vii. 22) and thus ????????? d?? Te?? (Gal. iv. 7); comp. Hermas Sim. v. 2 ??a s??????????? ????ta? ? d????? t? ??? (with the context). t? ????? ?.t.?.] i.e. ‘you serve as your master the great Master Christ.’ This clause is added to explain who is meant by the preceding ?p? ??????. For this application of ?????? compare (besides the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 6–9) 1 Cor. vii. 22 ? ??? ?? ????? ??????? d????? ?pe?e??e??? ?????? ?st?? ?.t.?. It seems best to take d???e?ete here as an indicative, rather than as an imperative; for (1) The indicative is wanted to explain the previous ?p? ??????; (2) The imperative would seem to require ?? t? ?????, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the correct text). On the other hand see Rom. xii. 11. 25. ? ??? ?d???? ?.t.?.] Who is this unrighteous person ? The slave who defrauds his master of his service, or the master who defrauds his slave of his reward? Some interpreters confine it exclusively to the former; others to the latter. It seems best to suppose that both are included. The connexion of the sentence ? ??? ?d???? (where ???, not d?, is certainly the right reading) points to the slave. On the other hand the expression which follows, t? d??a??? ?a? t?? ?s?t?ta ?.t.?., suggests the master. Thus there seems to be a twofold reference; the warning is suggested by the case of the slave, but it is extended to the case of the master; and this accords with the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 8 ??ast?? ? ?? p???s? ??a??? t??t? ???seta? pa?? ??????, e?te d????? e?te ??e??e???. The recent fault of Onesimus would make the Apostle doubly anxious to emphasize the duties of the slave towards the master, lest in his love for the offender he should seem to condone the offence. This same word ?d???se? is used by St Paul to describe the crime of Onesimus in Philem. 18. But on the other hand it is the Apostle’s business to show that justice has a double edge. There must be a reciprocity between the master and the slave. The philosophers of Greece taught, and the laws of Rome assumed, that the slave was a chattel. But a chattel could have no rights. It would be absurd to talk of treating a chattel with justice. St Paul places the relations of the master and the slave in a wholly different light. Justice and equity are the expression of the Divine mind: and with God there is no p??s?p?????a. With Him the claims of the slave are as real as the claims of the master. ???seta?] For this sense of the middle, ‘to recover’, ‘to get back’, and so (with an accusative of the thing to be recompensed), ‘to be requited for’, see e.g. Lev. xx. 17 ?a?t?a? ??????ta?, 2 Cor. v. 10 ???s?ta? ??ast?? t? d?? t?? s?at??; comp. Barnab. ? ?d???se?, ?a? ??? ?st?? p??s?p?????a. IV. § 4 ? ?????? ?p??s?p???pt?? ????e? t?? ??s??? ??ast??, ?a??? ?p???se?, ???e?ta?. In the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 8, the form is certainly ???seta?: here it is more doubtful, the authorities being more equally divided between ???e?ta? and ???seta?. See however the note on ?????s??s?? iv. 9. p??s?p?????a] On this word see the note Gal. ii. 6. This p??s?p?????a, though generally found on the side of rank and power, may also be exercised in favour of the opposite; Levit. xix. 15 ?? ???? p??s?p?? pt???? ??d? ? ?a??s?? p??s?p?? d???st??. There would be a tendency in the mind of the slave to assume that, because the p??s?p?????a of man was on the side of the master, there must be a corresponding p??s?p?????a of God on the side of the slave. This assumption is corrected by St Paul. IV. 1. t?? ?s?t?ta] ‘equity’, ‘fairness’; comp. Plut. Sol. et Popl. Comp. 3 ???? ?s?t?ta pa?e???t??. Somewhat similarly Lysias Or. Fun. 77 (speaking of death) ??te ??? t??? p??????? ?pe???? ??te t??? ??a???? ?a???e?, ???’ ?s?? ?a?t?? pa???e? p?s??. It seems a mistake to suppose that ?s?t?? here has anything to do with the treatment of slaves as equals (comp. Philem. 16). When connected with t? d??a???, the word naturally suggests an even-handed, impartial treatment, and is equivalent to the Latin Æquitas: comp. Arist. Top. vi. 5 (p. 143) ? t?? d??a??s???? (?????) ???? ?s?t?t?? p???t???? ? d?a?e?t???? t?? ?s??, Philo de Creat. Princ. 14 (II. p. 373) ?st? ??? ?s?t?? ... ?t?? d??a??s????, Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 6 (p. 764) et? d??a??s???? ?a? ?s?t?t?? t?? p??? t??? ep?st??f??ta?. Thus in Arist. Eth. Nic. v. 1 t? d??a??? and t? ?s?? are regarded as synonymes, and in Plut. Mor. p. 719 the relation of ?s?t?? to d??a??t?? is discussed. The word here is used in the same sense in which the adjective occurs in the common expressions ?s?? d??ast??, ?s?? ????at??, etc. Philo, describing the Essene condemnation of slavery, says, Omn. prob. lib. 12 (II. p. 457) ?ata????s???s? te t?? desp?t??, ?? ???? ?? ?d????, ?s?t?ta ??a???????, ???? ?a? ?? ?se?? ?.t.?., but he possibly does mean ‘equality’ rather than ‘equity.’ pa???es?e] ‘exhibit on your part.’ The middle pa???es?a?, ‘to afford from oneself,’ will take different shades of meaning according to the context, as ‘to furnish one’s quota’ (e.g. Herod. viii. 1, 2) or ‘to put forward one’s representative’ (esp. of witnesses, e.g. Plato Apol. 19 D). Here the idea is ‘reciprocation’, the master’s duty as corresponding to the slave’s. ??ete ??????] as Ephes. vi. 9; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 22 ? ??e??e??? ??????? d????? ?st?? ???st??. ? 2–6. ‘Be earnest and unceasing in prayer; keep your hearts and minds awake while praying: remember also (as I have so often told you) that thanksgiving is the goal and crown of prayer. Meanwhile in your petitions forget not us—myself Paul—my fellow-labourer Timothy—your evangelist Epaphras—all the teachers of the Gospel; but pray that God may open a door for the preaching of the word, to the end that we may proclaim the free offer of grace to the Gentiles—that great mystery of Christ for which I am now a prisoner in bonds. So shall I declare it fearlessly, as I am bound to proclaim it. Walk wisely and discreetly in all your dealings with unbelievers; allow no opportunity to slip through your hands, but buy up every passing moment. Let your language be always pervaded with grace and seasoned with salt. So will you know how to give a fit answer to each man, as the occasion demands.’ 2. p??s?a?te?e?te] ‘cling closely to’, ‘remain constant to’ (comp. Mark iii. 9, Acts viii. 13, x. 7), and so ‘continue stedfast in’. This word occurs again with t? p??se???, ta?? p??se??a??, Acts i. 14, ii. 42, vi. 4, Rom. xii. 12. The construction is with a simple dative both in the New Testament (ll. cc.) and in classical writers, except where it stands absolutely (Acts ii. 46, Rom. xiii. 6). The injunction here corresponds to the ?d?a???pt?? p??se??es?e of 1 Thess. v. 17. ?????????te?] Long continuance in prayer is apt to produce listlessness. Hence the additional charge that the heart must be awake, if the prayer is to have any value. The word is not to be taken literally here, but metaphorically. In Matt. xxvi. 41 etc., ??????e?te ?a? p??se??es?e, the idea is not quite the same. ?? e??a??st??] as the crown of all prayer; see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. 3. ???] ‘us’, ‘the Apostles and preachers of the Gospel’, with reference more especially to Timothy (i. 1) and Epaphras (iv. 12, 13). Where the Apostle speaks of himself alone, he uses the singular (ver. 3, 4 d?dea?, fa?e??s?). Indeed there is no reason to think that St Paul ever uses an ‘epistolary’ plural, referring to himself solely: see the note on 1 Thess. iii. 1. ??a ?.t.?.] On the sense of ??a after p??se??es?a? etc., see the note on i. 9. ???a? t?? ?????] ‘a door of admission for the word’, i.e. ‘an opportunity of preaching the Gospel’, as 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ???a ??? ?? ?????e? e???? ?a? ??e????, 2 Cor. ii. 12 ???a? ?? ??e?????? ?? ?????: comp. Plut. Mor. p. 674 D ?spe? p???? ????????s??, ??? ??t?s??? ... s??e?s???s? pa?t?dap??? ????aas??. Similarly )??s?d?? is used in 1 Thess. i. 9, ii. 1. The converse application of the metaphor appears in Acts xiv. 27 ?????e? t??? ???es?? ???a? p?ste??, where the door is opened not to the teachers, but to the recipients of the Gospel. According to another interpretation (suggested by Ephes. vi. 19 ??a ?? d??? ????? ?? ?????e? t?? st?at?? ??) it is explained ‘the door of our speech’, i.e. ‘our mouth’: comp. Ps. cxli (cxl). 3, Mic. vii. 5, Ecclus. xxviii. 25. But the parallel passages do not favour this sense, nor will the words themselves admit it. In that case for ??? ???a? t?? ????? we should require t?? ???a? t?? ????? [???]. ‘The word’ here is ‘the Gospel’, as frequently. ?a??sa? ‘so as to speak’, the infinitive of the consequence, like e?d??a? ver. 6 ; see Winer § xliv, p. 400. t? ?st????? ?.t.?. i.e. the doctrine of the free admission of the Gentiles. For the leading idea which St Paul in these epistles attaches to ‘the mystery’ of the Gospel, see the note on i. 26. d?’ ? St Paul might have been still at large, if he had been content to preach a Judaic Gospel. It was because he contended for Gentile liberty, and thus offended Jewish prejudices, that he found himself a prisoner. See Acts xxi. 28, xxii. 21, 22, xxiv. 5, 6, xxv. 6, 8. The other reading, d?’ ??, destroys the point of the sentence. ?a? d?dea? 2 Tim. ii. 9 ???? des??, Philem. 9 ???? d? ?a? d?s???. 4. ??a fa?e??s? ?.t.?. This is best taken as dependent on the previous clause ??a ? Te?? ... t?? ???st??. For instances of a double ??a, where the second is not coordinated with, but subordinated to, the first, see the note on Gal. iii. 14. The immediate purport of the Colossians’ prayers must be that the Apostle should have all opportunities of preaching the Gospel: the ulterior object, that he should use these opportunities boldly. ? a?t?, ?? de? e ?a??sa?. 5. ?? s?f??] Matt. x. 16 ???es?e ??? f?????? ?? ?? ?fe??. t??? ???] ‘those without the pale’ of the Church, the unbelievers; as in 1 Cor. v. 12, 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. So ?? ????e?, 1 Tim. iii. 7. The believers on the other hand are ?? ?s?, 1 Cor. v. 12. This mode of speaking was derived from the Jews, who called the heathen ???????? (SchÖttgen on 1 Cor. l.c.), translated ?? ??t?? Ecclus. Prol. and ?? ????e? Joseph. Ant. xv. 9. 2. ??a???a??e??? ?.t.?. ‘buying up the opportunity for yourselves, letting no opportunity slip you, of saying and doing what may further the cause of God’: comp. Ephes. v. 16. The expression occurs also in Dan. ii. 8 ??da ?t? ?a???? ?e?? ??a?????ete, i.e. ‘are eager to gain time’. Somewhat similar are the phrases t?? ?????? ?e?da??e??, t? pa??? ?e?da??e??. In much the same sense Ignatius says, Polyc. 3 t??? ?a????? ?ata???a?e. For this sense of ??a?????? ‘coemo’ (closely allied in meaning to s??a??????), see Polyb. iii. 42. 2 ??????ase pa?’ a?t?? t? te ??????a p???a p??ta ?.t.?., Plut. Vit. Crass. 2. More commonly the word signifies ‘to redeem’ (see the note on Gal. iii. 13), and some would assign this sense to it here; but no appropriate meaning is thus obtained. In Mart. Polyc. 2 d?? ??? ??a? t?? a?????? ???as?? ??a???a??e??? it means ‘buying off’, a sense in which ????e?s?a? occurs several times. The reason for the injunction is added in Ephes. v. 16, ?t? a? ???a? p????a? e?s??: the prevailing evil of the times makes the opportunities for good more precious. 6. ?? ????t?] ‘with grace, favour’, i.e. ‘acceptableness’, ‘pleasingness’; comp. Eccles. x. 12 ????? st?at?? s?f?? ?????, Ps. xliv (xlv). 3 ??e???? ????? ?? ????es? s??, Eccles. xxi. 16 ?p? ??????? s??et?? ???e??seta? ?????. In classical writers ????? ????? is a still more common connexion; e.g. Demosth. c. Phil. i. 38, Dionys. Hal. de Lys. §§ 10, 11, Plut. Vit. Mar. 44. ? ??? p??t?te ?? ????t?, ??at? ??t?????, e?d??a?, ??? p?? de? ??? ???st? ?p?????es?a?. ??at?] comp. Mark ix. 50 ??? d? t? ??a? ??a??? ????ta?, ?? t??? a?t? )a?t?sete? ??ete ?? ?a?t??? ??a. The salt has a twofold purpose. (1) It gives a flavour to the discourse and recommends it to the palate: comp. Job vi. 6 e? ????seta? ??t?? ??e? ????? e? d? ?a? ?st? ?e?a ?? ??as? ?e????; in which passage the first clause was rendered by Symmachus ?t? ????seta? ????t?t?? t? ? ??e?? ??a; This is the primary idea of the metaphor here, as the word ??t????? seems to show. (2) It preserves from corruption and renders wholesome; Ign. Magn. 10 ???s??te ?? a?t? ??a ? d?af?a?? t?? ?? ???, ?p?? ?p? t?? ?s?? ??e????ses?e. Hence the Pythagorean saying, Diog. Laert. viii. I. 35 ?? ??e? p?? s????s?? ? t? ?a? pa?a???s?. It may be inferred that this secondary application of the metaphor was present to the Apostle’s mind here, because in the parallel epistle, Ephes. iv. 29, he says p?? ????? sap??? ?? t?? st?at?? ??? ? ??p??e?es?? ?.t.?. In the first application the opposite to ??at? ??t????? would be ???? ‘insipid’ (Luke xiv. 34); in the second, sap??? ‘corrupt’. Heathen writers also insisted that discourse should be ‘seasoned with salt’; e.g. Cic. de Orat. i. 34 ‘facetiarum quidam lepos quo, tanquam sale, perspergatur omnis oratio’. They likewise dwelt on the connexion between ????? and ??e?; e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 514 F ????? t??? pa?as?e?????te? ????????, ?spe? ??s? t??? ?????? ?f?d????s? t?? d?at????, p. 697 D (comp. p. 685 A) ?? p????? ????ta? ?a???s?? [t?? ??a], ?t? ?p? t? p?e?sta ????e??? e????sta t? ?e?se? ?a? p??sf??? p??e? ?a? ?e?a??s??a, p. 669 A ? d? t?? ???? d??a?? ... ????? a?t? ?a? ?d???? p??st???s?, Dion. Chrys. Or. xviii. § 13. Their notion of ‘salt’ however was wit, and generally the kind of wit which degenerated into the e?t?ape??a denounced by St Paul in Ephes. v. 4 (see the note there). The form ??a? is common in the LXX and Greek Testament. Otherwise it is rare: see Buttmann Gramm. I. p. 220, and comp. Plut. Mor. 668 F. e?d??a?] ‘so as to know’; see the note on ?a??sa? ver. 3. ??? ???st?] ‘Not only must your conversation be opportune as regards the time; it must also be appropriate as regards the person’. The Apostle’s precept was enforced by his own example, for he made it a rule to become t??? p?s?? p??ta, ??a p??t?? t???? s?s? (1 Cor. ix. 22). 7–9. ‘You will learn everything about me from Tychicus, the beloved brother who has ministered to me and served with me faithfully in the Lord. This indeed was my purpose in sending him to you: that you might be informed how matters stand with me, and that he might cheer your hearts and strengthen your resolves by the tidings. Onesimus will accompany him—a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of yourselves, a Colossian. These two will inform you of all that is going on here.’ 7. ?? ?at’ ?? p??ta] ‘all that relates to me’; see the note on Phil. i. 12, and comp. Bion in Diog. Laert. iv. 47. So Acts xxv. 14 t? ?at? t?? ?a????. ?????se?] On this word see the note Phil. i. 22. ???????] Tychicus was charged by St Paul at this same time with a more extended mission. He was entrusted with copies of the circular letter, which he was enjoined to deliver in the principal churches of proconsular Asia (see above, p. 37, and the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians). This mission would bring him to Laodicea, which was one of these great centres of Christianity (see p. 8); and, as ColossÆ was only a few miles distant, the Apostle would naturally engage him to pay a visit to the Colossians. At the same time the presence of an authorised delegate of St Paul, as Tychicus was known to be, would serve to recommend Onesimus, who owing to his former conduct stood in every need of such a recommendation. The two names ??????? and ???s??? occur in proximity in Phrygian inscriptions found at Altentash (Bennisoa?) Boeckh 3857r sqq. appx. Tychicus was a native of proconsular Asia (Acts xx. 4) and perhaps of Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12: see Philippians p. 11). He is found with St Paul at three different epochs in his life. (1) He accompanied him when on his way eastward at the close of the third missionary journey A.D. 58 (Acts xx. 4), and probably like Trophimus (Acts xxi. 29) went with him to Jerusalem (for the words ???? t?? ?s?a? must be struck out in Acts xx. 4). It is probable indeed that Tychicus, together with others mentioned among the Apostle’s numerous retinue on this occasion, was a delegate appointed by his own church according to the Apostle’s injunctions (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4) to bear the contributions of his brethren to the poor Christians of JudÆa; and if so, he may possibly be the person commended as the brother ?? ? ?pa???? ?? t? e?a??e??? d?? pas?? t?? ?????s??? (2 Cor. viii. 18): but this will depend on the interpretation of the best supported reading in Acts xx. 5 ??t?? d? p??se????te? ?e??? ??? ?? ????d?. (2) We find Tychicus again in St Paul’s company at the time with which we are immediately concerned, when this epistle was written, probably towards the end of the first Roman captivity A.D. 62, 63 (see Philippians p. 31 sq.). (3) Once more, at the close of St Paul’s life (about A.D. 67), he appears again to have associated himself with the Apostle, when his name is mentioned in connexion with a mission to Crete (Tit. iii. 12) and another to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12). For the legends respecting him, which are slight and insignificant, see Act. Sanct. Boll. April. 29 (III. p. 619). Tychicus is not so common a name as some others which occur in the New Testament, e.g. Onesimus, Trophimus; but it is found occasionally in inscriptions belonging to Asia Minor, e.g. Boeckh C. I. 2918, 3665, [3857 c], 3857 r, (comp. 3865 i, etc.); and persons bearing it are commemorated on the coins of both Magnesia ad MÆandrum (Mionnet III. p. 153 sq., Suppl. VI. p. 236) and Magnesia ad Sipylum (ib. IV. p. 70). The name occurs also in Roman inscriptions; e.g. Muratori, pp. DCCCCXVII, MCCCXCIV, MMLV. Along with several other proper names similarly formed, this word is commonly accentuated ??????? (Chandler Greek Accentuation § 255), and so it stands in all the critical Seditions, though according to rule (Winer § vi. p. 58) it should be ???????. ? ?de?f?? ?a? p?st?? d?a????? ?a? s??d????? ?? ?????? ?a? p?st?? ?.t.?.] The connexion of the words is not quite obvious. It seems best however to take ?? ????? as referring to the whole clause p?st?? d?a????? ?a? s??d????? rather than to s??d????? alone: for (1) The two substantives are thus bound together by the preceding p?st?? and the following ?? ????? in a natural way: (2) The attachment of ?? ????? to p?st?? d?a????? is suggested by the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 21 ??????? ? ??ap?t?? ?de?f?? ?a? p?st?? d?a????? ?? ?????. The question of connecting ?? ????? with ?de?p?? as well need not be entertained, since the idea of ?de?p??, ‘a Christian brother’, is complete in itself: see the note on Phil. i. 14. The adjective p?st?? will here have its passive sense, ‘trustworthy, stedfast’, as also in ver. 9: see Galatians p. 154 sq. d?a?????] ‘minister’, but to whom? To the churches, or to St Paul himself? The following s??d????? suggests the latter as the prominent idea here. So in Acts xix. 22 Timothy and Erastus are described as d?? t?? d?a??????t?? a?t?. Tychicus himself also was one of several who ministered to St Paul about that same time (Acts xx. 4). It is not probable however, that d?a????? has here its strict official sense, ‘a deacon’, as in Rom. xvi. 1, Phil. i. 1, 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12. s??d?????] The word does not occur elsewhere in St Paul, except in i. 7, where it is said of Epaphras. It is probably owing to the fact of St Paul’s applying the term in both these passages to persons whom he calls d?a?????, that s??d????? seems to have been adopted as a customary form of address in the early Church on the part of a bishop, when speaking of a deacon. In Ignatian letters for instance, the term is never used except of deacons; Ephes. 2, Magn. 2, Philad. 4, Smyrn. 12. Where the martyr has occasion to speak of a bishop or a presbyter some other designation is used instead. 8. ?pe?a] ‘I send,’ or ‘I have sent,’ ?pe?a being the epistolary aorist; see the note on ???a?a, Gal. vi. 11. Tychicus appears to have accompanied the letter itself. For similar instances of the epistolary ?pe?a, ?p?ste??a, etc., see 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, ix. 3, Ephes. vi. 22, Phil. ii. 25, 28, Philem. 11, Hebr. xiii. 22, Polyc. Phil. 13. ? ???te t? pe?? ??? ?a? pa?a?a??s? t?? ?a?d?a? ???, It is urged indeed, that this is a scribe’s alteration to bring the passage into accordance with Ephes. vi. 21. But against this it may fairly be argued that, on any hypothesis as regards the authorship and relation of the two letters, this strange variation from ???te t? pe?? ??? to ??? t? pe?? ??? in the author himself is improbable. On the other hand a transcriber was under a great temptation to substitute ??? for ???te owing to the following pa?a?a??s?, and this temptation would become almost irresistible, if by any chance pe?? ??? had been written for pe?? ??? in the copy before him, as we find to be the case in some MSS. See the detached note on various readings. pa?a?a??s? ?.t.?.] i.e. ‘encourage you to persevere by his tidings and exhortations’. The phrase occurs again, Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess, ii. 17: see above ii. 2. The prominent idea in all these passages is not comfort or consolation but perseverance in the right way. 9. s?? ???s??] See above, p. 33, and the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. t? p?st? ?.t.?.] The man whom the Colossians had only known hitherto, if they knew him at all, as a worthless runaway slave, is thus commended to them as no more a slave but a brother, no more dishonest and faithless but trustworthy, no more an object of contempt but of love; comp. Philem. 11, 16. ?????s??s??] This form has rather better support from the MSS than ???????s??: see also above, iii. 25. On the Attic future from verbs in -??? in the Greek Testament generally see Winer § xiii. p. 88, A. Buttmann p. 32 sq. Is there any decisive instance of these Attic forms in St Paul, except in quotations from the LXX (e.g. Rom. x. 19, xv. 12)? 10–14. ‘I send you greeting from Aristarchus who is a fellow-prisoner with me; from Marcus, Barnabas’ cousin, concerning whom I have already sent you directions, that you welcome him heartily, if he pays you a visit; and from Jesus, surnamed Justus; all three Hebrew converts. They alone of their fellow-countrymen have worked loyally with me in spreading the kingdom of God; and their stedfastness has indeed been a comfort to me in the hour of trial. Greeting also from Epaphras, your fellow-townsman, a true servant of Christ, who is ever wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, that ye may stand firm in the faith, perfectly instructed and fully convinced in every will and purpose of God. I bear testimony to the earnestness with which he labours for you and the brethren of Laodicea and those of Hierapolis. Greeting also from Luke the physician, my very dear friend, and from Demas.’ ? 10. The salutations to Philemon are sent from the same persons as to the Colossians, except that in the former case the name of Jesus Justus is omitted. ???sta????] the Thessalonian. He had started with St Paul on his voyage from Jerusalem to Rome, but probably had parted from the Apostle at Myra (see Philippians p. 33 sq.). If so, he must have rejoined him at Rome at a later date. On this Aristarchus see Philippians p. 10 and the introduction to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. He would be well known in proconsular Asia, which he had visited from time to time; Acts xix. 29, xx. 4, xxvii. 2. s??a?????t?? ??] In Philem. 23 this honourable title is withheld from Aristarchus and given to Epaphras. In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul’s kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias, are so called. On the possibility of its referring to a spiritual captivity or subjection see Philippians p. 11. In favour of this meaning it may be urged, that, though St Paul as a prisoner was truly a d?s???, he was not strictly an a?????t?? ‘a prisoner of war’; nor could he have called himself so, except by a confusion of the actual and metaphorical. If on the other hand s??a?????t?? refers to a physical captivity, it cannot easily be explained by any known fact. The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly adequate. The most probable solution would be, that his relations with St Paul in Rome excited suspicion and led to a temporary confinement. Another possible hypothesis is that he voluntarily shared the Apostle’s captivity by living with him. ??????] doubtless John Mark, who had been associated with St Paul in his earlier missionary work; Acts xii. 25, xv. 37 sq. This commendatory notice is especially interesting as being the first mention of him since the separation some twelve years before, Acts xv. 39. In the later years of the Apostle’s life he entirely effaced the unfavourable impression left by his earlier desertion; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ?st?? ??? ?? e????st?? e?? d?a????a?. This notice is likewise important in two other respects. (1) Mark appears here as commended to a church of proconsular Asia, and intending to visit those parts. To the churches of this same region he sends a salutation in 1 Pet. v. 13; and in this district apparently also he is found some few years later than the present time, 2 Tim. iv. 11. (2) Mark is now residing at Rome. His connexion with the metropolis appears also from 1 Pet. v. 13, if ?a???? there (as seems most probable) be rightly interpreted of Rome; and early tradition speaks of his Gospel as having been written for the Romans (Iren. iii. 1. 1; comp. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39). ? ??, ?a? ?????? ? ??e???? ?a???a, pe?? ?? ???ete ? ? ??e????] ‘the cousin’. The term ??e???? is applied to cousins german, the children whether of two brothers or of two sisters or of a brother and sister, as it is carefully defined in Pollux iii. 28. This writer adds that a?ta?????? means neither more nor less than ??e????. As a synonyme we find ???de?f??, which however is condemned as a vulgarism; Phryn. p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of ??e???? are found in different authors of various ages (e.g. Herod, vii. 5, 82, ix. 10, Thucyd. i. 132, Plato Charm. 154 B, Gorg. 471 B, Andoc. de Myst. § 47, IsÆus Hagn. Her. § 8 sq., Demosth. c. Macart. § 24, 27, etc., Dion. Hal. A. R. i. 79, Plut. Vit. Thes. 7, Vit. CÆs. 1, Vit. Brut. 13, Lucian Dial. Mort. xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in Euseb. H.E. iv. 22), where the relationship is directly defined or already known, and there is no wavering as to the meaning. This sense also it has in the LXX, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas Chron. xvii. p. 424, Io. Damasc. adv. Const. Cab. 12, II. p. 621; but in Theodt. H.E. v. 39, which is also quoted by E. A. Sophocles Gr. Lex. s.v. for this meaning, the text is doubtful) the word comes to be used for a nephew, properly ?de?f?d???; and to this later use the rendering of our English versions must be traced. The German translations also (Luther and the ZÜrich) have ‘Neffe’. The earliest of the ancient versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian) seem all to translate it correctly; not so in every case apparently the later. There is no reason to suppose that St Paul would or could have used it in any other than its proper sense. St Mark’s relationship with Barnabas may have been through his mother Mary, who is mentioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental notice here explains why Barnabas should have taken a more favourable view of Mark’s defection than St Paul, Acts xv. 37–39. The notices in this passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 11 show that Mark had recovered the Apostle’s good opinion. The studious recommendation of St Mark in both passages indicates a desire to efface the unfavourable impression of the past. The name of Mark occurs in five different relations, as (1) The early disciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 39; (2) The later companion of St Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11; (3) The companion and ‘son’ of St Peter, 1 Pet. v. 13; (4) The evangelist; (5) The bishop of Alexandria. Out of these notices some writers get three or even four distinct persons (see the note of Cotelier on Apost. Const. ii. 57). Even Tillemont (Mem. Eccl. II. p. 89 sq., 503 sq.) assumes two Marks, supposing (1) (2) to refer to one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another. His main reason is that he cannot reconcile the notices of the first with the tradition (Euseb. H.E. ii. 15, 16) that St Mark the evangelist accompanied St Peter to Rome in A. D. 43, having first preached the Gospel in Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons however this early date of St Peter’s visit to Rome will appear quite irreconcilable with the notices in the Apostolic writings, and therefore with them Tillemont’s argument will carry no weight. But in fact Eusebius does not say, either that St Mark went with St Peter to Rome, or that he had preached in Alexandria before this. The Scriptural notices suggest that the same Mark is intended in all the occurrences of the name, for they are connected together by personal links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas); and the earliest forms of tradition likewise identify them. ?a???a] On the affectionate tone of St Paul’s language, whenever he mentions Barnabas after the collision at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and the separation of missionary spheres (Acts xv. 39), see the note on Gal. ii. 13. It has been inferred from the reference here, that inasmuch as Mark has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must have died before this epistle was written (about A. D. 63); and this has been used as an argument against the genuineness of the letter bearing his name (Hefele Sendschr. d. Apost. Barnab. p. 29 sq.); but this argument is somewhat precarious. From 1 Cor. ix. 6 we may infer that he was still living, A. D. 57. The notices bearing on the biography of Barnabas are collected and discussed by Hefele, p. 1 sq. ???ete ??t????] These injunctions must have been communicated previously either by letter or by word of mouth: for it cannot be a question here of an epistolary aorist. The natural inference is, that they were sent by St Paul himself, and not by any one else, e.g. by St Peter or St Barnabas, as some have suggested. Thus the notice points to earlier communications between the Apostle and ColossÆ. But what was their tenour? It seems best to suppose that this is given in the next clause ??? ???? ?.t.?. By an abrupt change to the oratio recta the injunction is repeated as it was delivered; comp. Ps. cv (civ). 15 ??e??e? ?p?? a?t?? as??e??? ? ???s?e ?.t.?. After verbs signifying ‘to command, charge, etc.’, there is a tendency to pass from the oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v. 14, Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22. The reading d??as?a? gives the right sense, but can hardly be correct. If this construction be not accepted, it is vain to speculate what may have been the tenour of the injunction. ? ??t????, ??? ???? p??? ???, d??as?e a?t??, 11. ?a? ??s???] He is not mentioned elsewhere. Even in the Epistle to Philemon his name is omitted. Probably he was not a man of any prominence in the Church, but his personal devotion to the Apostle prompted this honourable mention. For the story which makes him bishop of Eleutheropolis in Palestine, see Le Quien Oriens Christ. in III. p. 633. ???st??] A common name or surname of Jews and proselytes, denoting obedience and devotion to the law. It is applied to two persons in the New Testament, besides this Jesus; (1) Joseph Barsabbas, Acts i. 23; (2) A proselyte at Corinth, Acts xviii. 7. It occurs twice in the list of early Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusalem, in Euseb. H.E. iii. 35, iv. 5. It was borne by a Jew of Tiberias who wrote the history of the Jewish war (Joseph. Vit. §§ 9, 65), and by a son of the historian Josephus himself (ib. § 1). It occurs in the rabbinical writings (????? or ?????, SchÖttgen on Acts. i. 23, Zunz Judennamen p. 20), and in monumental inscriptions from Jewish cemeteries in various places (Boeckh C. I. no. 9922, 9925; Revue ArchÉologique 1860, II. p. 348; Garrucci Dissertazioni Archeologiche II. p. 182). So also the corresponding female name Justa (Garrucci l.c. p. 180). In Clem. Hom. ii. 19, iii. 73, iv. 1, xiii. 7, the Syrophoenician woman of the Gospels is named ???sta, doubtless because she is represented in this Judaizing romance as a proselytess p??s???t?? xiii. 7) who strictly observes the Mosaic ordinances ( t?? ????? ??ade?a??? p???te?a? ii. 20), and is contrasted with the heathen ‘dogs’ ( t? ???? ?????ta ??s?? ii. 19) who disregard them. In some cases Justus might be the only name of the person, as a Latin rendering of the Hebrew Zadok; while in others, as here and in Acts i. 23, it is a surname. Its Greek equivalent, ? d??a???, is the recognised epithet of James the Lord’s brother: see Galatians, p. 348. ?? ??te? ?.t.?.] i.e. ‘converts from Judaism’ (see the note Gal. ii. 12), or perhaps ‘belonging to the Circumcision’; but in this latter case pe??t???, though without the article, must be used in a concrete sense, like t?? pe??t???, for ‘the Jews’. Of Mark and of Jesus the fact is plain from their name or their connexions. Of Aristarchus we could not have inferred a Jewish origin, independently of this direct statement. ????] i.e. of the Jewish Christians in Rome. On this antagonism of the converts from the Circumcision in the metropolis, see Philippians p. 16 sq. The words however must not be closely pressed, as if absolutely no Jewish Christian besides had remained friendly; they will only imply that among the more prominent members of the body the Apostle can only name these three as stedfast in their allegiance: comp. Phil. ii. 20 ??d??a ??? ?s?????? ... ?? p??te? ??? ?.t.?. (with the note). ? ??e????s?? ?? pa??????a. t?? as??e?a? ?.t.?.] See the note on i. 13. ??t??e? ?.t.?.] ‘men whom I found etc.’; comp. Acts xxviii. 15 ??? ?d?? ? ?a???? e??a??st?sa? t? Te? ??ae? ???s??, and see Philippians p. 17. For ??t??e?, not specifying the individuals, but referring them to their class characteristics, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iii. 7, iv. 3. pa??????a] ‘encouragement’, ‘comfort’. The range of meaning in this word is even wider than in pa?a???a or pa?????s?? (see the note Phil. ii. 1). The verb pa?????e?? denotes either (1) ‘to exhort, encourage’ (Herod. v. 104, Apoll. Rhod. ii. 64); (2) ‘to dissuade’ (Herod. ix. 54, 55); (3) ‘to appease’, ‘quiet’ (Plut. Vit. Pomp. 13, Mor. p. 737 C); or (4) ‘to console, comfort’ (Æsch. Eum. 507). The word however, and its derivates pa??????a, pa??????a, pa?????????, pa??????t????, were used especially as medical terms, in the sense of ‘assuaging’, ‘alleviating’; e.g. Hippocr. pp. 392, 393, 394, Galen XIV. p. 335, 446, Plut. Mor. pp. 43 D, 142 D; and perhaps owing to this usage, the idea of consolation, comfort, is on the whole predominant in the word; e.g. Plut. Mor. p. 56 A t?? ?p? t??? ?t???as? pa????p?a?, p. 118 A t??? ?fa????????? t?? ??pa? d?? t?? ?e??a?a? ?a? se??? pa??????a?, Vit. Cim. 4 ?p? pa??????? t?? p??????. In Plut. Mor. p. 599 B pa??????a and s???????a are contrasted, as the right and wrong method of dealing with the sorrows of the exile; and the former is said to be the part of men pa???s?a?????? ?a? d?das???t?? ?t? t? ??pe?s?a? ?a? tape????? ?a?t?? ?p? pa?t? ?? ????st?? ?st? ?.t.?. 12. ?paf???] His full name would be Epaphroditus, but he is always called by the shortened form Epaphras, and must not be confused with the Philippian Epaphroditus (see Philippians p. 60), who also was with St Paul at one period of his Roman captivity. Of Epaphras, as the evangelist of ColossÆ, and perhaps of the neighbouring towns, see above, pp. 29 sq., 34 sq. ? ?? ???] ‘who belongs to you’, ‘who is one of you’, i.e. a native, or at least an inhabitant, of ColossÆ, as in the case of Onesimus ver. 9; comp. Acts iv. 6, xxi. 8, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, 1 Cor. xii. 16, Phil. iv. 22, etc. d????? ?. ?.] This title, which the Apostle uses several times of himself, is not elsewhere conferred on any other individual, except once on Timothy (Phil. i. 1), and probably points to exceptional services in the cause of the Gospel on the part of Epaphras. ???????e???] ‘wrestling’; comp. Rom. xv. 30 s??a????sas?a? ?? ?? ta?? p??se??a??. See also the great ?????a of prayer in Luke xxii. 44. Comp. Justin Apol. ii. 13 (p. 51 B) ?a? e???e??? ?a? pa???? ???????e???. See also i. 29, ii. 1, with the notes. sta??te] ‘stand fast’, doubtless the correct reading rather than st?te which the received text has; comp. Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 11, where also the received text substitutes the weaker word. ? ?a? pep????f??????? ?? pa?t? ?e??at? t?? Te??. pep????f???????] ‘fully persuaded’. The verb p????f??e?? has several senses. (1) ‘To fulfil, accomplish’; 2 Tim. iv. 5 t?? d?a????a? s?? p????f???s??, ib. ver. 17 t? ?????a p????f?????, Clem. Hom. xix. 24 pep????f??????? ??? ?d? t???? ?e???. So perhaps Hermas Sim. 2 p????f????s? t?? p???t?? a?t?? ... p????f????s? t?? ????? a?t??, though it is a little difficult to carry the same sense into the latter clause, where the word seems to signify rather ‘to satisfy’. (2)‘To persuade fully, to convince’; Rom. iv. 21 p????f??????? ?t? ? ?p???e?ta? d??at?? ?st?? ?a? p???sa?, xiv. 5 ?? t? ?d?? ??? p????f????s??, Clem. Rom. 42 p????f??????te? d?? t?? ??ast?se?? ?.t.?., Ign. Magn. 8 e?? t? p????f??????a? t??? ?pe?????ta?, ib. 11 pep????f???s?a? ?? t? ?e???se? ?.t.?., Philad. inscr. ?? t? ??ast?se? a?t?? pep????f?????? ?? pa?t? ???e?, Smyrn. 1 pep????f???????? e?? t?? ?????? ???, Mart. Ign. 7 p????f???sa? t??? ?s?e?e?? ??? ?p? t??? p???e????s??, Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Iac. 10 pep????f??????? ?t? ?? Te?? d??a???, ib. xix. 24 s??et????? ?? p????f????e???. So too LXX Eccles. viii. 11 ?p????f????? ?a?d?a t?? p???sa? t? p??????. (3) ‘To fill’; Rom. xv. 13 p????f???sa? ??? p?s?? ?a??? (a doubtful v. l.), Clem. Rom. 54 t?? pep????f??????? ???p??; Test. xii Patr. Dan 2 t? p?e??e??? ?p????f?????? t?? ??a???se?? a?t??, where it means ‘I was filled with’, i.e. ‘I was fully bent on’, a sense closely allied to the last. From this account it will be seen that there is in the usage of the word no justification for translating it ‘most surely believed’ in Luke i. 1 t?? pep????f??????? ?? ??? p?a??t??, and it should therefore be rendered ‘fulfilled, accomplished’. The word is almost exclusively biblical and ecclesiastical; and it seems clear that the passage from Ctesias in Photius (Bibl. 72) p?????? ?????? ?a? ?????? p????f???sa?te? ?e?????? is not quoted with verbal exactness. In Isocr. Trapez. § 8 the word is now expunged from the text on the authority of the MSS. For the substantive p????f???a see the note on ii. 2 above. The reading of the received text here, pep????????, must be rejected as of inferior authority. ?? pa?t? ?.t.?.] ‘in every thing willed by God’; comp. 1 Kings ix. 11. So the plural t? ?e??ata in Acts xiii. 22, Ephes. ii. 3, and several times in the LXX. The words are best connected directly with pep????f???????. The passages quoted in the last note amply illustrate this construction. The preposition may denote (1) The abode of the conviction, as Rom. xiv. 5 ?? t? ?d?? ???; or (2) The object of the conviction, as Ign. Magn. II ?? t? ?e???se?, Philad. inscr. ?? t? ??ast?se?; or (3) The atmosphere, the surroundings, of the conviction, as Philad. inscr. ?? pa?t? )e??e?. This last seems to be its sense here. The connexion sta??te ... ??, though legitimate in itself (Rom. v. 2, 1 Cor. xv. 1), is not favoured by the order of the words here. 13. p???? p????] ‘much toil’, both inward and outward, though from the connexion the former notion seems to predominate, as in ????a ii. 1; comp. Plat. PhÆdr. p. 247 B p???? te ?a? ???? ?s?at?? ???? p???e?ta?. Of the two variations which transcribers have substituted for the correct reading, ????? emphasizes the former idea and ??p?? the latter. The true reading is more expressive than either. The word p???? however is very rare in the New Testament (occurring only Rev. xvi. 10, 11, xxi. 4, besides this passage), and was therefore liable to be changed. ?a? t?? ?.t.?.] The neighbouring cities are taken in their geographical order, commencing from ColossÆ; see above, p. 2. Epaphras, though a Colossian, may have been the evangelist of the two larger cities also. ? ??? ?a? t?? ?? ?a?d???? ?a? t?? ?? ?e?ap??e?. ?a?d????] This form has not the same overwhelming preponderance of authority in its favour here and in vv. 15, 16, as in ii. 1, but is probably correct in all these places. It is quite possible however, that the same person would write ?a?d???a and ?a?d??e?a indifferently. Even the form ?a?d???a is found in Mionnet, Suppl. VII. p. 581. Another variation is the contraction of ?a?d- into ?ad-; e.g. ?ad??????, which occurs frequently in the edict of Diocletian. 14. ??????] St Luke had travelled with St Paul on his last journey to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 1 sq.). He had also accompanied him two years later from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2 sq.). And now again, probably after another interval of two years (see Philippians p. 31 sq.), we find him in the Apostle’s company. It is not probable that he remained with St Paul in the meanwhile (Philippians p. 35), and this will account for his name not occurring in the Epistle to the Philippians. He was at the Apostle’s side again in his second captivity (2 Tim. iv. 11). Lucas is doubtless a contraction of Lucanus. Several Old Latin MSS write out the name Lucanus in the superscription and subscription to the Gospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is written in full Apollonius. On the frequent occurrence of this name Lucanus in inscriptions see Ephem. Epigr. II. p. 28 (1874). The shortened form Lucas however seems to be rare. He is here distinguished from ?? ??te? ?? pe??t??? (ver. 11). This alone is fatal to his identification (mentioned as a tradition by Origen ad loc.) with the Lucius, St Paul’s ‘kinsman’ (i.e. a Jew; see Philippians pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). It is equally fatal to the somewhat later tradition that he was one of the seventy (Dial. c. Marc. § 1 in Orig. Op. I. p. 806, ed. De la Rue; Epiphan. HÆr. li. 11). The identification with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 13) is possible but not probable. Though the example of Patrobius for Patrobas (Rom. xvi. 14) shows that such a contraction is not out of the question, yet probability and testimony alike point to Lucanus, as the longer form of the Evangelist’s name. ? ?at???] Indications of medical knowledge have been traced both in the third Gospel and in the Acts; see on this point Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul p. 6 sq. (ed. 2). It has been observed also, that St Luke’s first appearance in company with St Paul (Acts xvi. 10) nearly synchronizes with an attack of the Apostle’s constitutional malady (Gal. iv. 13, 14); so that he may have joined him partly in a professional capacity. This conjecture is perhaps borne out by the personal feeling which breathes in the following ? ??ap?t??. But whatever may be thought of these points, there is no ground for questioning the ancient belief (Iren. iii. 14. 1 sq.) that the physician is also the Evangelist. St Paul’s motive in specifying him as the physician may not have been to distinguish him from any other bearing the same name, but to emphasize his own obligations to his medical knowledge. The name in this form does not appear to have been common. The tradition that St Luke was a painter is quite late (Niceph. Call. ii. 43). It is worthy of notice that the two Evangelists are mentioned together in this context, as also in Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11. ? ??ap?t??] ‘the beloved one’, not to be closely connected with ? ?at???, for ? ??ap?t?? is complete in itself; comp. Philem. 1, Rom. xvi. 12 (comp. vv. 5, 8, 9), 3 Joh. 1. For the form compare the expression in the Gospels, Matt. iii. 17, etc. ? ???? ??, ? ??ap?t?? ?.t.?.; where a comparison of Is. xlii. 1, as quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show that ? ??ap?t?? ?.t.?. forms a distinct clause from ? ???? ??. ????] On the probability that this person was a Thessalonian (2 Tim. iv. 10) and that his name was Demetrius, see the introduction to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. He appears in close connexion with St Luke in Philem. 24, as here. In 2 Tim. iv. 10 their conduct is placed in direct contrast, ???? e ???at???pe? ... ????a? ?st?? ???? et’ ???. There is perhaps a foreshadowing of this contrast in the language here. While Luke is described with special tenderness as ? ?at???, ? ??ap?t??, Demas alone is dismissed with a bare mention and without any epithet of commendation. ? 15–17. ‘Greet from me the brethren who are in Laodicea, especially Nymphas, and the church which assembles in their house. And when this letter has been read among you, take care that it is read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and be sure that ye also read the letter which I have sent to Laodicea, and which ye will get from them. Moreover give this message from me to Archippus; Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received from me in Christ, and discharge it fully and faithfully.’ 15. ??f??] as the context shows, an inhabitant of Laodicea. The name in full would probably be Nymphodorus, as Artemas (Tit. iii. 12) for Artemidorus, Zenas (Tit. iii. 13) for Zenodorus, Theudas (Acts v. 36) for Theodorus, Olympas (Rom. xvi. 15) for Olympiodorus, and probably Hermas (Rom. xvi. 14) for Hermodorus (see Philippians p. 174). Other names in a? occurring in the New Testament and representing different terminations are Amplias (Ampliatus, a v. l.), Antipas (Antipater), Demas (Demetrius?), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Lucas (Lucanus), Parmenas (Parmenides), Patrobas (Patrobius), Silas (Sylvanus), Stephanas (Stephanephorus), and perhaps Junias (Junianus, Rom. xvi. 7). For a collection of names with this contraction, found in different places, see Chandler Greek Accentuation § 34; comp. Lobeck Pathol. p. 505 sq. Some remarkable instances are found in the inscriptions; e.g. ?s????, ???s???, ?????, ??????, ??????, ???s??, ???f??, etc.; see esp. Boeckh C. I. III. pp. 1072, 1097. The name Nymphodorus is found not unfrequently; e.g. Herod. vii. 137, Thuc. ii. 29, Athen. i. p. 19 F, vi. p. 265 C, Mionnet Suppl. VI. p. 88, Boeckh C. I. no. 158, etc. The contracted form ??f?? however is very rare, though it appears to occur in a Spartan inscription, Boeckh C. I. no. 1240 )??t???? ???f?. In Murat. MDXXXV. 6, is an inscription to one Nu. Aquilius Nymphas, a freedman, where the dative is Nymphadi. Other names from which Nymphas might be contracted are Nymphius, Nymphicus, Nymphidius, Nymphodotus, the first and last being the most common. Those, who read a?t?? in the following clause, take it as a woman’s name (??fa?, not ??f??); and the name Nymphe, Nympha, Nympa, etc., occurs from time to time in Latin inscriptions; e.g. Inscr. Hisp. 1099, 1783, 3763, Inscr. As. Prov. etc. 525, Murator. CMXXIV. 1, MCLIX. 8, MCCXCV. 9, MDXCI. 3. But a Doric form of the Greek name here seems in the highest degree improbable. t?? ?at’ ????? ?.t.?.] The same expression is used of Prisca and Aquila both at Rome (Rom. xvi. 5) and at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), and also of Philemon, whether at ColossÆ or at Laodicea is somewhat uncertain (Philem. 2); comp. Acts xii. 12 t?? ????a? t?? ?a??a? ... ?? ?sa? ??a??? s???????s???? ?a? p??se???e???, and see Philippians p. 56. Perhaps similar gatherings may be implied by the expressions in Rom. xvi. 14, 15 t??? s?? a?t??? ?de?f???, t??? s?? a?t??? p??ta? ?????? (Probst Kirchliche Disciplin p. 182, 1873). See also Act. Mart. Justin. § 3 (II. p. 262 ed. Otto), Clem. Recogn. x. 71 ‘Theophilus ... domus suÆ ingentem basilicam ecclesiÆ nomine consecraret’ (where the word ‘basilica’ was probably introduced by the translator Ruffinus). Of the same kind must have been the ‘collegium quod est in domo SergiÆ PaulinÆ’ (de Rossi Roma Sotteranea I. p. 209); for the Christians were first recognised by the Roman government as ‘collegia’ or burial clubs, and protected by this recognition doubtless held their meetings for religious worship. There is no clear example of a separate building set apart for Christian worship within the limits of the Roman empire before the third century, though apartments in private houses might be specially devoted to this purpose. This, I think, appears as a negative result from the passages collected in Bingham VIII. I. 13 and Probst p. 181 sq. with a different view. Hence the places of Christian assembly were not commonly called ?a?? till quite late (Ignat. Magn. 7 is not really an exception), but ????? Te??, ????? ?????s???, ????? e??t?????, and the like (Euseb. H.E. vii. 30, viii. 13, ix. 9, etc.). a?t??] The difficulty of this reading has led to the two corrections, a?t?? and a?t??, of which the former appears in the received text and the latter is supported by one or two very ancient authorities. Of these alternative readings however, a?t?? is condemned by its simplicity, and a?t?? has arisen from the form ??fa?, which prima facie would look like a woman’s name, and yet hardly can be so. We should require to know more of the circumstances to feel any confidence in explaining a?t??. A simple explanation is that a?t?? denotes ‘Nymphas and his friends’, by a transition which is common in classical writers; e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7 p??s?e? ?? (?????d?t??) ... p??? t??? ?????a?? ?p?? d’ ????? ??????t? ?.t.?., iv. 5. 33 ?p?? d’ ????? p??? ?e???s?f??, ?ate??a??? ?a? )e??????? s??????ta?: see also KÜhner Gramm. § 371 (II. p. 77), Bernhardy Syntax p. 288. Or perhaps t??? ?? ?a?d???? ?de?f??? may refer not to the whole body of the Laodicean Church, but to a family of Colossian Christians established in Laodicea. Under any circumstances this ?????s?a is only a section of ? ?a?d????? ?????s?a mentioned in ver. 16. On the authorities for the various readings see the detached note. ? ??a???s?? pa?’ ??? ? ?p?st???, p???sate ??a ?a? ? 16. ? ?p?st???] ‘the letter’, which has just been concluded, for these salutations have the character of a postscript; comp. Rom. xvi. 22 ???t??? ? ????a? t?? ?p?st????, 2 Thess. iii. 14 d?? t?? ?p?st????, Mart. Polyc. 20 t?? ?p?st???? d?ap??as?e. Such examples however do not countenance the explanation which refers ???a?a ??? ?? t? ?p?st??? in 1 Cor. v. 9 to the First Epistle itself, occurring (as it does) in the middle of the letter (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8). p???sate ??a] ‘cause that’; so John xi. 37, Apoc. xiii. 15. In such cases the ??a is passing away from its earlier sense of design to its later sense of result. A corresponding classical expression is p??e?? ?? or ?p??, e.g. Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 18. A similar charge is given in 1 Thess. v. 27. The precaution here is probably suggested by the distastefulness of the Apostle’s warnings, which might lead to the suppression of the letter. ? ?? t? ?a?d????? ?????s?? ??a???s??, ?a? t?? ?? ?a?d???a? ??a ?a? ?e?? ??a???te. t?? ?? ?a?d???a?] i.e. ‘the letter left at Laodicea, which you will procure thence’. For this abridged expression compare Luke xi. 13 ? pat?? ? ?? ???a??? d?se? p?e?a ?????, xvi. 26 (v. l.) ?d? ?? ??e??e? p??? ??? d?ape??s??, Susann. 26 ?? d? ????sa? t?? ??a???? ?? t? pa?ad??s? ?? ?? t?? ????a?, e?sep?d?sa? ?.t.?. For instances of this proleptic use of the preposition in classical writers, where it is extremely common, see KÜhner Gr. § 448 (II. p. 474), Jelf Gr. § 647, MatthiÆ Gr. § 596: e.g. Plat. Apol. 32 B t??? ??? ??e??????? t??? ?? t?? ?a?a??a?, Xen. Cyr. vii. 2. 5 ??pas?e??? t? ?? t?? ??????, Isocr. Paneg. § 187 t?? e?da????a? t?? ?? t?? ?s?a? e?? t?? )????p?? d?a???sa?e?. There are good reasons for the belief that St Paul here alludes to the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians, which was in fact a circular letter addressed to the principal churches of proconsular Asia (see above p. 37, and the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians). Tychicus was obliged to pass through Laodicea on his way to ColossÆ, and would leave a copy there, before the Colossian letter was delivered. For other opinions respecting this ‘letter from Laodicea’ see the detached note. ??a ?a? ?e?? ?.t.?.] ‘see that ye also read’. At first sight it might seem as though this ??a also were governed by p???sate, like the former; but, inasmuch as p???sate would be somewhat awkward in this connexion, it is perhaps better to treat the second clause as independent and elliptical, (??pet? ??a ?.t.?. This is suggested also by the position of t?? ?? ?a?d???a? before ??a; comp. Gal. ii. 10 ???? t?? pt???? ??a ????e??e? (with the note). Ellipses before ??a are frequent; e.g. John ix. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 13, 2 Thess. iii. 9, 1 Joh. ii. 19. 17. ??? )??pate] Why does not the Apostle address himself directly to Archippus? It might be answered that he probably thought the warning would come with greater emphasis, when delivered by the voice of the Church. Or the simpler explanation perhaps is, that Archippus was not resident at ColossÆ but at Laodicea: see the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon. On this warning itself see above, p. 42. ???pe] ‘look to’, as 2 Joh. 8 ??pete ?a?t??? ??a ? ?.t.?. More commonly it has the accusative of the thing to be avoided; see Phil. iii. 2 (with the note). t?? d?a????a?] From the stress which is laid upon it, the d?a????a here would seem to refer, as in the case of Timothy cited below, to some higher function than the diaconate properly so called. In Acts xii. 25 the same phrase, p?????? t?? d?a????a?, is used of a temporary ministration, the collection and conveyance of the alms for the poor of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 29); but the solemnity of the warning here points to a continuous office, rather than an immediate service. pa???ae?] i.e. probably pa?’ ???. The word suggests, though it does not necessarily imply, a mediate rather than a direct reception: see the note Gal. i. 12. Archippus received the charge immediately from St Paul, though ultimately from Christ. ‘Non enim sequitur’, writes Bengel, ‘a Domino (1 Cor. xi. 23), sed in Domino’. p??????] ‘fulfil’, i.e. ‘discharge fully’; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5 t?? d?a????a? s?? p????f???s??. ? 18. ‘I add this salutation with my own hand, signing it with my name Paul. Be mindful of my bonds. God’s grace be with you.’ ? ?spas?? ?.t.?.] The letter was evidently written by an amanuensis (comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salutation alone, with the accompanying sentence ????e?ete ?.t.?., was in the Apostle’s own handwriting. This seems to have been the Apostle’s general practice, even where he does not call attention to his own signature. In 2 Thess. iii. 17 sq., 1 Cor. xvi. 21, as here, he directs his readers’ notice to the fact, but in other epistles he is silent. In some cases however he writes much more than the final sentence. Thus the whole letter to Philemon is apparently in his own handwriting (see ver. 19), and in the Epistle to the Galatians he writes a long paragraph at the close (see the note on vi. 11). t? ?? ?e??? ?a????] The same phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17, 1 Cor. xvi. 21. For the construction comp. e.g. Philo Leg. ad Cai. 8 (II. p. 554) ??? ?st? t?? ???????? ????? G????, and see KÜhner § 406 (II. p. 242), Jelf § 467. t?? des??] His bonds establish an additional claim to a hearing. He who is suffering for Christ has a right to speak on behalf of Christ. The appeal is similar in Ephes. iii. 1 t??t?? ????? ??? ?a???? ? d?s??? t?? ?. ?., which is resumed again (after a long digression) in iv. 1 pa?a?a?? ??? ??? ??? ? d?s??? ?? ????? ????? pe??pat?sa? ?.t.?. (comp. vi. 20 ?p?? ?? p?ese?? ?? ???se?). So too Philem. 9 t????t?? ?? ?? ?a???? ... d?s??? ???st?? ??s??. These passages seem to show that the appeal here is not for himself, but for his teaching—not for sympathy with his sufferings but for obedience to the Gospel. His bonds were not his own; they were t? des? t?? e?a??e???? (Philem. 13). In Heb. x. 34 the right reading is not t??? des??? ??, but t??? des???? s??epa??sate (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat similar is the appeal to his st??ata in Gal. vi. 17, ‘Henceforth let no man trouble me.’ See the notes on Philem. 10, 13. ? ????? ?.t.?.] This very short form of the final benediction appears only here and in 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22. In Tit. iii. 15 p??t?? is inserted, and so in Heb. xiii. 25. In Ephes. vi. 24 the form so far agrees with the examples quoted, that ? ????? is used absolutely, though the end is lengthened out. In all the earlier epistles ? ????? is defined by the addition of t?? ?????? [???] ??s?? [???st??]; 1 Thess. v. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Gal. vi. 18, Rom. xvi. 20, [24], Phil. iv. 23. Thus the absolute ? ????? in the final benediction may be taken as a chronological note. A similar phenomenon has been already observed (t? ?????s??, ta?? ?????s?a??) in the opening addresses: see the note on i. 2. On some Various Readings in the Epistle |
|
