Skip to main content

Full text of "Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes"

See other formats 


Google 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 


It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 


Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 


Usage guidelines 


Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 


We also ask that you: 


+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 


+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 


+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 


About Google Book Search 


Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 


atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/ 


> 
home 
re) 
=v 
5 2 
re) 
Qo 
fa 
a 
O ov 
— } 





LIBRARY 


OF THE 


Divinity School. 


—__—- 


RECEIVED Nov. 1884, 
FROM THE LIBRARY OF EzRA ABBOT, 


LATE PROFESSOR IN THE SCHOOL. 














CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY 
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TeD., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
From the German, with the Danction of the Author. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 


WILLIAM P. DICKSON, DD. 
AND 


FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D. 


PART IX. 
THE EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 


EDINBURGH: 


T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
MDCCCLXXV. 


PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB, 
FOB 


T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 


LONDON, . . . . «. HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
DUBLIN, . . . . +» ROBERTSON AND CO. 
NEW YORK, . . . « SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HANDBOOK 


TO 


THE EPISTLES 


TO THE 


PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 


BY 
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tx.D., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
REV. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


EDINBURGH: 
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
MDCCCLXXV. 


PREFATORY NOTE. 


ee 


es Sy |HE Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians 
was translated from the third edition of the 
German by the late Mr. G. H. Venables; but, as 
it became necessary to incorporate the numerous 
alterations and additions made by Dr. Meyer for the fourth 
edition, the work of revising and completing the version of 
Mr. Venables has been entrusted to the Rev. John C. Moore, 
who has also executed independently the greater portion of the 
translation, from the fourth German edition, of the Commen- 
tary on the Epistle to the Colossians. I have myself trans- 
lated a small portion of the latter, and, as in previous volumes, 
have revised the whole with some care, and carried it through 
the press. 

It is stated by Dr. Meyer’s son, in the Preface to the new 
edition of this volume, that his father had, before his fatal 
illness, despatched the one half of the manuscript of his 
revision to the printers, and that the other half was found 
labelled “ ready for the press.” The book, therefore, although 
issued subsequently to the author’s death, is entirely his own 
work. I have reserved the biographical sketch of Dr. Meyer 
given by his son for the first volume of the series. The Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to Philemon, which in the German 
accompanies those now issued, will also appear subsequently. 

It is scarcely necessary to say that the explanations given 
in preceding volumes as to the principles on which this 
translation is issued, and the caveat inserted regarding the 
views or opinions occasionally expressed by Dr. Meyer, are 
equally applicable to the present. | 





W. P. Dz 


GLASGOW COLLEGE, 
October 1875. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES 


TO THE 


PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 


[For commentaries or collections of notes embracing the whole New 
Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; 
for those which deal with the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see 
Preface to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The following 
list includes only those which concern the Epistle to the Philippians or the 
Epistle to the Colossians, or in which one of these Epistles holds the first 
place on the title-page. Works mainly of a popular or practical character 
have, with a few exceptions, been excluded, since, however valuable they 
may be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strictly 
exegetical character of the present work. Monographs on chapters or 
sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are 
usually the earliest; ai. appended denotes that the book has been more or 
less frequently reprinted ; + marks the date of the author's death. ] 


Array (Henry), f 1616, Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford : Lectures upon 
the whole Epistle to the Philippians .. . 4°, Lond. 1618, al. 
Am Enpve (Johann Gottfried), + 1821, Superintendent at Neustadt on 
the Orla: Pauli Epistola ad Philippenses Graece . . . nova versione 
Latina et annotatione perpetua illustrata. 8°, Viteb. 1798, al. 


Bane (Carl Christian Wilhelm Felix), Ministerialrath, Baden : Commentar 
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Cologer, mit stater Beriicksichtigung 
der dltern und neuern Ausleger. * 8°, Basel, 1833. 

BAUMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob). See GALATIANS. 

BauMGARTEN-Crusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), t 1848, Prof. Theol. at 
Jena: Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser und Koloeser 
.-. 8°, Jena, 1845.—Commentar iiber die Briefe an die Philipper 
und Thessalonicher .. . 8°, Jena, 1848. 


Vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES TO 


BaYne (Paul), ¢ 1617, Min. at Cambridge: A Commentarie upon the I. 

and II. chapters of Saint Paul to the Colossians .. . 

4°, Lond. 1634, al. 

BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R. C. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commen- 

tarius in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lovanii, 1852. 

BLEEK (Friedrich), ¢ 1859, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Vorlesungen iiber die 
Briefe an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser . . . 

8°, Berl. 1865. 

Bouwer (Wilhelm), Prof. Theol. at Breslau: Theologische Auslegung des 

paulinischen Sendschreibens an die Colosser.. 8°, Breslau, 1835. 

BravneE (Karl), Superintendent at Altenburg in Saxony: Die Briefe S*. 

Pauli an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper. Theologisch-homil- 

etisch bearbeitet. [In Lange’s Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867. 

[Translated from the German, with additions (Philippians), by 

Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., and (Colossians) by M. B. Riddle, D.D.] 

8°, New York and Edin. 1870. 

BrREITHAUPT (Joachim Justus), tf 1732, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Animadver- 

siones exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in Epistolam ad Philippenses. 

4°, Halae, 1703. 

Brenz [or BRENTIUS] (Johann), ¢ 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: Explicatio 


Epistolae ad Philippenses. 8°, Francof. 1548. 
ByYFIELD (Nicholas), ¢ 1622, Vicar of Isleworth: An Exposition upon the 
Epistle to the Colossians . . . 4°, 1617, al. 


CaLixtus (Georg). See Romans. 
CARTWRIGHT (Thomas), t 1603, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Commentary 
on the Epistle to the Colossians. 4°, Lond. 1612. 


DaILLE (Jean), ¢ 1670, Pastor at Paris: Exposition sur la divine Epttre 
de l’apdtre 8. Paul aux Filippiens. 8°, Genev. 1659. 
DALMER (Karl Eduard Franz): Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Colosser. 
8°, Gotha, 1858. 
DAVENANT (John), t 1641, Bishop of Salisbury: Expositio Epistolae Pauli 
ad Colossenses, 2°, Cantab. 1627, al. [Translated, with notes, by 
Josiah Allport. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1831.] 
Davirs (JOHN LLEWELYN), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone: The 
Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Phile- 
mon, with introduction and notes, and an essay on the traces 

of foreign elements in the theology of these Epistles. 
8°, Lond. 1867. 


EapieE (John), D.D., Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian Church : 
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the 
Philippians. 8°, Edin. 1859. 
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Cologsians. 

8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1856. 








THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 1x 


E.uicotr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A Criti- 
cal and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philip- 
pians, Colossians, and Philemon, with a revised translation. 

8°, Lond. 1857, ai. 

Exton (Edward), Minister at Bermondsey: An Exposition of the Epistle 

to the Colossians .. . 4°, Lond. 1615, al. 


FERGUSON (James), t 1667, Min. at Kilwinning : A Briefe Exposition of the 
Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians. 
8°, Edin. 1656, al. 
Fiatr (Johann Friedrich), ¢ 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tibingen : Vorlesungen 
tiber die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher, und 
den Philemon, herausgegeben von Chr. F. Kling. 
8°, Tiibing. 1829. 


Hemvricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Testamentum 
Novum Graece perpetuo annotatione illustravit J.P. Koppe. Vol. 
vii. p. 2. Complectens Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses et Colossenses. 
Continuavit J. H. Heinrichs. 8°, Gotting. 1803, ed. II., 1826. 
HENGEL (Weesel Albert van), Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius per- 
petuus in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1839. 
HoELEMANN (Hermann Gustav), Teacher in Gymnasium at Zwickau : Com- 
mentarius in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses. [THEILE: Com- 
ment. in N. T., vol. xxii. ] 8°, Lips. 1839, 
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die 
Heilige Schrift des N. T. zusammenhiingend untersucht. IV. 2. Die 
Briefe Pauli an die Kolosser und Philemon. IV. 8. Der Brief Pauli 


an die Philipper. 8°, Nordlingen, 1870-2. 
Hotuer (Johann Eduard), Pastor at Wittenfoérden, Schwerin : Commentar 
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Colosser. 8°, Hamb. 1841. 


JaTHO (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: Pauli 
Brief an die Philipper. 8°, Hildesheim, 1857. 
JUNKER (Friedrich): Historisch-kritischer und philologischer Commentar 
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Colosser ... . 8°, Mannheim, 1828. 


Kanter (C. R.): Auslegung der Epistel an die Philipper. 
8°, Kiel, 1855. 
Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), ¢ 1827, Tutor at Vienna: Die Briefe 
an die Philipper und Theasalonischer iibersetzt und mit Anmerk- 
ungen begleitet. 8°, Frankf. 1790. 
Krause (Johann Friedrich), ¢ 1820, Superintendent at Weimar: Observa- 
tiones critico-exegeticae in Pauli Epistolae ad Philippenses c. i. et ii. 
4°, Regimont. [1810]. 


x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES TO 


LiGHTFooT (Joseph Barber), D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity at 
Cambridge: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. A revised 
text, with introductions, notes, and dissertations. 

8°, Lond. and Camb. 1868, al. 
St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon. A revised text, 
with introductions, notes, and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1875. 


Matraias (Konrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifawald: Erklirung des 
Briefes Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Greifswald, 1835. 
MAYERHOFF (Ernst Theodor): Der Brief an die Kolosser mit vornehmlicher 
Beriicksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe kritisch gepriift. 
8°, Berl. 1838. 
MELANCHTHON (Philipp), ¢ 1560, Reformer: Enarratio Epistolae Pauli ad 
Colossenses. 8°, Viteb. 1559, al. 
MICHAELIS (Johann David). See GALATIANS. 
MULLER (Cornelius): Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistolae ad Philip- 
penses. 4°, Hamburgi, 1844. 
MuscuLus [or MEvussLin] (Wolfgang), ¢ 1568, Prof. Theol. at Berne: 
In Epistolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses ambas et 
primam ad Timotheum commentarii. 2°, Basil. 1565, al. 


NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), ¢t 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Der 
Brief Pauli an die Philipper praktisch erldutert . . . 
8°, Berl. 1849. 


PEIRCE (James), ¢ 1726, Minister at Exeter: A Paraphrase and Notes on 
the Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews, 
after the manner of Mr. Locke... 4°, Lond. 1727, al. 


Rettia (Heinrich Christian Michael), ¢ 1836, Prof. Theol. at Ziirich : 

Quaestiones Philippenses. 8°, Giessen. 1831. 

RHEINWALD (Georg Friedrich Heinrich), ¢ 1849, Prof. Theol. at Bonn: 
Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Philipper. 

8°, Berl. 1827. 

Rivuret (Albert), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentaire sur l'épitre de 

Yapétre Paul aux Philippiens .. . 8°, Généve, 1841. 

Rogrt~t (Herman Alexander), ¢ 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Brevis 

Epistolae Pauli ad Cologsenses exegesis. 4°, Traject. 1781. 


SCHENKEL (Daniel), Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Die Briefe an die Epheser, 
Philipper, Kolosser. Theologisch - homiletisch bearbeitet. [In 
Lange's Bibelwerk. ] 8°, Bielefeld, 1862. 

Scuinxz (Wilhelm Heinrich): Die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi. 

8°, Zurich, 1883. 

Scuurp (Sebastian). See Romans. 








THE PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS. Xl 


Scnoranus (Meinardus H.), t 1644, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Analysis et 
Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 

4°, Franek. 1687. 

STEIGER (Wilhelm), ¢ 1836, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Der Brief Pauli an 

die Colosser; Uebersetzung, Erklarung, einleitende und epikritische 


Abhandlungen. 8°, Erlangen, 1835. 
Srorr (Gottlob Christian), ¢ 1805, Prof. Theol. at Tubingen: Dissertatio 
exegetica in Epistolam ad Philippenses. . . . Dissertatio exegetica 


in Epistolae ad Colossenses partem priorem [et posteriorem] .. . 
4°, Tiibing. [1788-87]. 
Expositions of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians 
by John Calvin and D. Gottlob Christian Storr. Translated from the 
original by Robert Johnston. [Biblical Cabinet.] 12°, Edin. 1842. 
Suicerus [ScHWEITZER] (Johann Heinrich), Prof. of Greek in Heidelberg : 

In Epistolam ad Colossenses commentarius critico-exegeticus. 

4°, Tiguri, 1699. 


Tit (Salomon van). See Romans. 


VELASQUEZ (Juan Antonio), 8. J.: In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses 
commentaria et adnotationes. - 2°, Lugd. et Paris. 1628-88. 

Victorivs (C. Marius), about a.p. 360, teacher of rhetoric at Rome: In 
Epistolam ad Philippenses liber unicus. [In Mai’s Scrip. Vet. Nov. 
Coll, iii. 1.] 


Weiss (Bernhard), Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Der Philipperbrief ausgelegt, 
und die Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt. 
8°, Berl. 1859. 
WIESINGER (J. C. August), Pastor at Untermagerbein, near Nordlingen: 
Die Briefe des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus 
und Philemon erklart. [In Olshausen’s Commentar.] 8°, Kénigsb. 
1850. [Translated by the Rev. John Fulton, A.M. 
8°, Edin. 1851.] 


ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott). See GALATIANS. 


THE 


EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


ne 


INTRODUCTION. 
§ 1. THE PHILIPPIAN coMMUNITY. 


IHE fortified city of Philippi? was situated in Mace- 
donia, on the borders of Thrace; in earlier times, 
ag a Thasian colony, it was called, from its site 
abounding in springs, Kpnvides (Diodor. S. xvi. 
3. 8; Strabo, vii p. 490), but it changed this name for that 
of its enlarger and fortifier, Philip, the son of Amyntas. It 
was rich in gold mines (Herod. vi. 46; Appian. Bell. civ. iv. 
15; Strabo, vii. p. 511); and the victory over Brutus and 
Cassius made it a landmark in the history of the world. 
Through this overthrow of Roman freedom it acquired a high 
rank as a Roman colony with the Jus Italicwm (see on Acts 
xvi 11); but it obtained another and higher historical interest, 
attended by a greater gain for the Roman Empire, through the 
fact that it was the first city in Europe in which Paul, under 
the divine direction in a nocturnal vision (see on Acts xvi. 





1 See generally, Mynster, Einleit. ind. Br. an d. Philipper, in his Kl. theol. 
Schriften, p. 169 ff. ; Hoog, de coetus Christ. Philipp. conditione, etc., Lugd. 
Bat. 1825; Rettig, Quaest. Philipp., Giess. 1831; Schinz, d. christl. Gem. 2. 
Phil., Zirich, 1833; J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, Lond. 
1868, p. 46 ff. 

* Now the village of Felibah. On the site and the ruins, see Cousinéry, Voyage 
dans la Macéd., Paris, 1831, II. ch. x. p. 1 ff. ; Perrot in the Revue archéolog. 
1860, II. pp. 44 ff, 67 ff. 


PHIL, A 


2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


9 f.), and amid ill-treatment and persecution (Acts xvi. 16 ff. ; 
1 Thess, 1. 2), planted Christianity. Thus did the city vindi- 
cate its original name, in a higher sense, for the entire West. 
This event took place in the year 53, during the second 
missionary journey of the apostle, who also, in his third 
journey, laboured among the Macedonian churches (Acts xx. 
1 f.), and especially in Philippi (Acts xx. 6). With what 
rich success he there established Christianity is best shown 
by our epistle itself, which exhibits a more cordial, affectionate, 
and undisturbed relation between the church and the apostle, 
and bears a more unalloyed testimony to the distinction of the 
church (comp. especially iv. 1), than we find in any other 
apostolic letter. This peculiar mutual affection also explains 
the fact that Paul, contrary to his usual custom, accepted aid 
on more than one occasion from the Philippians (iv. 10 ff ; 
2 Cor. xi 9); from which, however, on account of this very 
love, we are not entitled to infer that they were specially 
wealthy. The Jews were so few in number that they had 
only a mpocevyy (see on Acts xvi. 13), and the Christian 
church was one consisting mostly of those who had been 
Gentiles. The view which discovers a Judaizing faction 
(iii. 2) in it (Storr, Flatt, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Rheinwald, 
Guericke, and others), seems all the more unwarrantable, when 
we consider how deeply the apostle was concerned to ward off 
from his beloved Philippians the danger, at that time every- 
where so imminent, of the intrusion of Judaistic disturbance, 
and how susceptible the Philippians themselves were to such 
a danger, owing to a certain spiritual conceit! which had 
already impaired their unanimity (i. 12-i1. 16, iv. 2). Comp. 
i, 28. See, against the view of heretical partisanship, Schinz, 
p. 48 ff.; Rilliet, Commentaire, Geneva, 1841, p. 352 ff; 
Weiss, Introduction to his <Ausleg.,, Berl. 1859; compare, 
however, Huther in the Mecklenb. theolog. Zeitschrift, 1862, 
p. 623 ff. 


1 Credner, § 158 f., represents the conceit of the Philippians as apparent also 
in ‘“‘the servile courting of the rank of a wpeen widss.” But the statement in 
Acts xvi. 12, which, besides, is purely historical, gives no warrant for the charge 
of any arbitrary assumption of rank. 





INTRODUCTION, 3 


§.2. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION, OCCASION, AND 
CONTENTS. 


It is justly the universal tradition (Chrysostom ; Euthalius, 
in Zacagni, Coll. vet. mon. pp. 547, 642, 648; Synopsis of ' 
Athanasius, Syrian Church, the subscriptions), and the almost 
unanimous view of modern writers, that the epistle was written 
in Rome. We are pointed to Rome by the oixla Kaicapos 
(iv. 22), and by the crisis between life and death in which 
Paul was placed,—a crisis which presupposes his appeal to the 
emperor as the ultimate legal resort (i 20 ff, ii. 1'7),—~as 
well as by the entire conformity of his position and work 
(i 12 ff.) to what we find recorded in Acts xxviii. 16 ff The 
epistle must, moreover, have been written during the later 
period of the Roman captivity; for the passages, 1. 12 ff.,+i1 
26 ff, betoken that a somewhat lengthened course of impri- 
sonment had elapsed, and the apostle was already abandoned 
by all his more intimate companions (11. 20), except Timothy 
(i. 1). A more precise specification, such as Hofmann in 
particular gives (that the apostle had then been transferred 
from his hired dwelling to the prison-house), is not deducible 
either from i. 12 ff., or from the mention of the Praetorium 
and the imperial house. We must reject the isolated attempts 
to transfer its composition to Corinth (Acts xvii. 12; Oeder, 
Progr., Onold. 1731) or to Caesarea (Acts xxiii, 23-xxvi 32; 
Paulus, Progr, Jen. 1799; and Bottger, Beir. L p. 47 ff; 
favoured also by Rilliet, and Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. 
p. 212). Concerning and against these views, see particularly 
Hoelemann, Commentar, 1839, p. ii ff.; Neander, Gesch. d. 
Pflanzung, ete., p. 498 f. 

We are to assume, therefore, as the date of composition, not 
indeed the full expiration of the Sieria 6dn of Acts xxviii. 30 
(Hofmann), but the latter portion of that period,—in the year 
63 possibly, or the beginning of 64.’ See on Acts, Introd. § 4. 

The occasion of the epistle was the fact that the Philippians 
had sent Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid to Paul, who, on 


* Marcion properly assigned to our epistle the last place, in point of time, 
among his ten Pauline epistles. 


4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the return of the former after his recovery from “a sickness 
nigh unto death,” made him the bearer of the letter (i. 25-28). 
In the utterances of the epistle, however, there is nothing to 
suggest any special change in the situation of the apostle as 
having afforded a motive for this gift on the part of the 
church; and it is an uncertain reading between the lines to 
assume, with Hofmann, not merely that the apostle was trans- 
ferred to the prison-house, but that with that transference 
the process had reached the stage of its judicial discussion, 
in which the Philippians believed that they could not but 
discern a change to the worse for Paul, whom they regarded 
as suffering privations in prison. Those traces, also, which 
Hofmann has discovered of a letter of the church brought to 
Paul by Epaphroditus along with the contribution, and ex- 
pressing not only the concern of the Philippians for the apostle, 
but also their need of instruction regarding the assaults to 
which their Christianity was exposed, and regarding various 
other matters of theirs that required to be settled and arranged, 
are so far from being warranted by the exegesis of the passages 
in question, that there is neither direct occasion nor any other 
sufficient reason for going beyond the oral communications of 
Epaphroditus in order to account for the apostle’s acquaintance 
with the circumstances of the Philippians. And just as the 
aid tendered by the careful love of the church had furnished 
the occasion for this letter to them, so also does its entire 
tenor breathe forth the heartfelt and touching love, which the 
captive apostle cherished towards his Philippians. Not one 
of his epistles is so rich as this in hearty effusions of affection 
and in tender references; and not one of them is so charac- — 
teristically epistolary, without any rigid arrangement, almost 
without dogmatic discussion, as also without quotations from the 
Old Testament or dialectic chains of reasoning. Not one is so 
eminently an epistle of the feelings, an outburst of the moment, 
springing from the deepest inward need of loving fellowship 
amidst outward abandonment and tribulation ; a model, withal, 
of the union of tender love, and at times an almost elegiac 
impress of courageous resignation in the prospect of death, 
with high apostolic dignity and unbroken holy joy, hope, and 





INTRODUCTION. 5 


victory over the world. “Summa epistolae: Gaudeo, gaudete,” 
Bengel; comp. Grotius: “ laetior alacriorque et blandior 
ceteris.” 

After the apostolic salutation (i 1 f.), Paul, with heart- 
winning fervour, expresses thanks, intercession, and confidence 
as regards his readers (i 3-11), and then enlarges on his 
present position, with his hope of a speedy return (i. 12-26) ; 
after which he exhorts them to unanimity and humility, and 
generally to the Christian life (i. 27-ii. 18). He promises to 
send Timothy to them soon, yet trusts that he himself shall 
also soon come to them (ii 19-24); in the meantime he 
sends away to them Epaphroditus, their messenger, who is 
delicately and touchingly commended to them (ii 25-30). 
On the point, apparently, of passing on to a conclusion (ill. 1), 
he proceeds to deal with his Jewish opponents, with whom he 
compares himself at some length, thereby inciting his readers 
to be like-minded with him, to keep in view the future salva- 
tion, and so to maintain their Christian standing (iii 2—iv. 1). 
After a special exhortation to, and commendation of, two 
women (iv. 2, 3), the apostle subjoins the concluding words of 
encouragement (iv. 4-9), to which he had already set himself 
in i 1, adds yet another grateful effusion of his heart on 
account of the aid given to him (iv. 10-20), and ends with a 
salutation and a blessing (iv. 21-23). 


§ 3. GENUINENESS AND UNITY. 


The genuineness of this epistle is established externally by 
the continuous testimonies of the ancient church from Polycarp, 
iil. 11, onwards; see Marcion in Epiph. Haer. 42; Canon Murat.; 
Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19, de praeser. 36; literal use made of it, as 
early as the epistle from Vienne and Lyons, in Eus. v. 2 ; direct 
quotations from it in Iren. iv. 18. 4, v. 13. 3; Cypr. Zest. ii. 39; 
Clem. Paed. i. 107; Tert. de resurr. 23, 47,—in the presence 
of which testimonies it is unnecessary to adduce uncertain 
allusions from apostolic Fathers and Apologists. Internally it 
bears the seal of genuineness in the thoroughly Pauline cha- 
racter of its contents, of its spirit, of its emotions, of its delicate 


6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


turns and references, of its whole diction and form, and 
in the comparative absence, moreover, of doctrinal definition 
properly so called, as well as in the prominence throughout 
of the features characteristic of its origin as a cordial and fresh 
occasional letter. Nevertheless, Baur, after repeated threats 
(see die sogen. Pastoralbr. pp. 79, 86, and Tub. Zeitschr. 1836, 
3, p. 196), has directed his bold attacks against this epistle 
also (see his Paulus der Ap. Jesu Christi, 1845, p. 458 ff, 
and second ed. II. p. 50 ff.; also in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, 
p. 501 ff, 1852, p. 133 ff"); and Schwegler, nachapostol. 
Zetalt. II. p. 133 ff, has adopted the same views. See, 
against these attacks, now hardly worth the trouble of refuta- - 
tion, besides the Commentaries and Introductions, Liinemann, 
Pauli ad Phil. epist. contra Baurum defend. Gott. 1847; 
Briickner, Zp. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicuta contra Baur., 
Lips. 1848; Ernesti in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff, 
1851, p. 595 ff.; Grimm in the Zit. Bl. of the Allg. KZ. 
1850, No. 149 ff, 1851, No. 6 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his Zecéschr. 
1871, p. 309 ff According to the opinion of Baur, the 
epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions, to 
which it attaches itself; but the only passage adduced as a 
proof is ii. 5 ff., and this entirely under mistaken explanations 
or arbitrary references of the several elements of that passage. 
Comp. the commentary on this passage, and the remark after 
iii 11. The further charges—that the epistle labours under 
feeble repetitions (copies of passages in other epistles, as ii. 4 ff. 
from 2 Cor. x. 18, e¢ al.), under a want of connection, and 
poverty of ideas (in proof of which stress is laid on i. 1, as 
the author’s own confession)—rest entirely on uncritical pre- 
supposition, and on a mistaken judgment as to the distinctive 
epistolary peculiarity of the letter, and as to the special tone of 
feeling on the part of the apostle in his present position gene- 
rally and towards his Philippians. Lastly, we must reckon as 
wholly fanciful the doubt thrown upon what is said at 1. 12, 
for which a combination of this passage with iv. 22 is alleged 
to furnish ground, and to which the mention of Clement, iv. 3, 


1 Compare also Plank in the same, 1847, p. 481 f. ; Késtlin in the same, 1850, 
p. 268 ff. 


INTRODUCTION. 7 


who is taken to be Clement of Rome, and is supposed to weave 
the bond of unity round Paul and Peter, must supply the key ; 
while the supposed anachronism in the mention of the bishops 
and deacons in i. 1, the Euodia and Syntyche in iv. 2, and the 
outuyos yunovos in iv. 3, are likewise wrongly adduced against 
the Pauline authorship. Indeed, even the historical occasion 
of the epistle—the aid sent to Paul—is made to appear as a 
fictitious incident at variance with 1 Cor. ix. 15. The spe- 
cial arguments of Baur are set aside by an impartial interpre- 
tation of the passages to which they refer, and the same may 
be said with regard to the latest attacks of Hitzig (zur Kritik 
d. paulin. Briefe, 1870) and of Hinsch (in Hilgenfeld’s Ze:t- 
schrift, 1873, p. 59 ff.) on the genuineness. The latter, 
though independent in his movement, stands on the ground 
occupied by Baur; the former has no ground whatever. 
Against Hinsch, see Hilgenfeld in his Zetéschr. 1873, p. 178 ff. 

Heinrichs, with whom Paulus in the main concurred, Heidelb. 
Jahrb. 1817, 7, has sought to do away with the unity of the 
epistle by the assumption that there were originally ¢wo epistles, 
—one exoteric, addressed to the whole church, consisting of 
i. 1-iii. 1, yalpere év xupip, and the salutations, iv. 21-23 ; the 
other esoteric, to the apostle’s more intimate friends, which con- 
tained from iii, 1, ra adTa ypadew, down to iv. 20.) But this 
idea is nothing but a consequence of misconceiving the free 
epistolary movement, which, especially in a letter like this called 
forth by a special occasion, and addressed to a community so 
dear to him, might naturally be most unfettered (see on iii. 1); 
and in this case, the distinction of exoteric and esoteric 
elements is a mistake, which is no less unhistorical than con- 
trary to all psychological probability. 

From ii. 1 we must, moreover, assume that, prior to our 
epistle, Pan! had addressed another letter to the Philippians, 
which is not now extant; and this is confirmed by Polycarp 
(Phi. 3). See on iit 1, remark. 


1 Without any grounds whatever, Weisse (see his Beitrdge z. Krit. d. paulin. 
Briefe, edited by Sulze, 1867) has found himself forced, in accordance with his 
criticism based on style, to regard the portion from chap. iii, onwards as the 
fragment of a second Epistle to the Philippians. 


Digitized by Google 





IIavXov émiotovy mpos Pidsrarnoious.* 
ABDEFGNS have merely pis dirscarnoious. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. "Ijoot Xpsorod] Lachm. and Tisch. read Xpierod Inooi. 
The same in vv. 6 and 8. This is to be preferred on account of 
the strong attestation of BD ER® (the latter, however, only in 
vv. 1 and 8), which is reinforced in ver. 8 by A; it was readily 
supplanted by the more usual ’I. x.— Ver. 7. Elz. has merely 
ry aworoy. without iv. Lachm. has jv, which‘Griesb., Matth., 
Scholz, and Tisch. adopt, in brackets. It is found in BD** 
EKLPR, min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. 
Looking at this indecisive attestation, and seeing that iv might 
more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than 
omitted, it should be deleted. — Ver. 8. ioriv] after wou is de- 
fended by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., fol- 
lowing BF Gr*, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Chrys. An addition 
made from a reminiscence of Rom. i. 9.— Ver. 9. xepsoosiy | 
BD E have aepiooevan, So Lachm., who has placed sepsccevy in 
the margin, and Tisch. 7. With the considerable testimony 
which exists in favour of the Recepta, restored also by Tisch. 8, 
it should be retained, as wap:oosion might very easily originate in 
the similarity of sound in the following final syllables: tayvs2EI, 
«do3HI, and aistfZEI. The Recepta is also supported by the 
readings sspicceves and wepsoottos. — Ver. 11. Elz. has xaprav .. . 
ray, against decisive testimony. An emendation.— Ver. 14. 
Lach, and Tisch. 8 have rot Osot after Aéyov, although, according 
to testimony of some weight (such as A Br, Clem.), only an 
explanatory addition, which some Codd. give in a different 
position, while others change it into rot xupiou.— Vv. 16,17. 
Elz. reverses their position: of wiv && ipibeiag . . . wou’ of Ob 8 
dydang ... xejecs, against decisive testimony. A transposition 
intended to produce uniformity with ver. 10.— Instead of 
éysipev (Griesb., Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has izi:pipsv, which is de- 
fended by Matth. and Scholz, and vindicated by Reiche. But 

‘The Philippians are also called #:asewiews by Steph. Byz., d:asrenves by 
Polyb. (according to Steph. Byz.), #:aswrwtis in the Corp. Inscript. 

9 


10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


fyeip. is decisively attested by the preponderance of uncials 
(including &) and vss. ; éa:gipsy, instead of which Theophyl. ms. 
has spocgepsm, is an ancient gloss. — Ver. 18. rajv] B has &r; 
AFGPR, min. some vss. and Fathers: raqjv és. So Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the #Ajv not being under- 
stood, it was explained by the ér: written on the margin, which 
has in some cases (B) supplanted the xAyyv, and in others passed 
into the text along with it.— Ver 21. Xpiorés] xpnoréy was 80 
isolated and weak in attestation (Ar. pol.), that it should not 
have been recommended by Griesb., following earlier authority. 
— Ver. 23. Elz. has ydp instead of 3%, against decisive testimony. 
The ydp after roAA@ is neither critically nor exegetically to be 
rejected. See Reiche, Comm. crit. — Ver. 24. tv rj capxi] iv is 
wanting in ACP, min. Clem. Or. Petr. alex. Cyr. Chrysost. 
Wrongly condemned by Griesb. and Tisch. 8; for év might easily 
be absorbed by the final syllable of ia:uévew, especially as it is 
frequently used elsewhere with the simple dative. — Ver. 25. 
cuprapamev| Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read rapayueva, which Griesb. 
also approved of, following ABCD*FGRx, min. A neglect of 
the doubly compound verb, attested certainly more weakly, but 
yet by D*** EK LP, Chrys. al. and many min., which took place 
all the more readily, because the word does not occur elsewhere 
in the N. T., and even its meaning might be offensive. — Ver. 27. 
Instead of d&xotew, Lach. and Tisch. 8 read é&xobw, but without a 
preponderance of testimony in its favour. — Ver. 28. éoriv ar 
Elz. has arog wiv éoriv, against decisive testimony. — tus 

ABC**x, min. vss, Aug. read way. So Lachm. and Tisch. - 
Rightly ; the dative is a mechanical alteration in accordance 
with the preceding airo% and the following iz%.— Ver. 30. Elz. 
has 7dere. But <iders is attested by AC D* E*x&, min. and 
Fathers, and was supplanted by ‘ders through Itacism. 





ConTENTS.—After the greeting to his readers (vv. 1, 2), Paul 
assures them of his gratitude towards God on account of their 
condition as Christians (vv. 3-5), while as regards the future 
also he has confidence, in accordance with his heartfelt love 
towards them, as to the continued work of God in their case 
(vv. 6-8). His prayer is, that their love may increase yet more 
and more on behalf of Christian perfection to the glory of God 
(vv. 9-11). He then declares how his present position redounds 
to the furtherance of the gospel, to which even the preaching 
of those who are actuated by impure motives contributes 


CHAP. I. 1, 2. 11 


(vv. 12-18), because Christ in fact is preached, which must 
tend to his—the apostle’s—salvation, since now nothing else but 
the glorification of Christ in his case will be the result, whether 
he remains alive in the body or not (vv. 19-21). Which of the 
two he should prefer, he knows not; since, however, the former 
is more needful for the sake of his readers, he is convinced that 
it will be the case for their furtherance and joy (vv. 22-26). 
Only their conduct should be in conformity with the gospel, 
in order that he, if he should come again to them, or should 
be absent, might learn their Christian unity and fearlessness 
(vv. 27-30). 

Vv. 1, 2. Kal Tipo8.] not as amanuensis, although he may 
have been so (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. iii. 17; Col iv. 
18; and see on Gal. vi. 11), for from Rom. xvi. 22 we must 
assume that the amanuensis as such is not included in the 
superscription ; nor yet merely as taking part in the greeting 
(Estius, Weiss), for ver. 1 is the address of the epistle, and 
as such names those from whom it emanates ; but as subordi- 
nate joint-writer of the letter (comp. on 1 Cor.i.1; 2 Cor.i.1; 
Col. i 1; Philem. 1), who, as a distinguished helper of the 
apostle, and well known to the readers, adopts the teachings, 
exhortations, etc. of the letter, which the apostle had pre- 
viously, discussed with him, as his own. At the same time, 
the apostle himself remains so completely the proper and 
principal writer of the epistle, that so early as ver. 3 he 
begins to speak solely in his own person, and in ii. 19 speaks 
of Timothy, who was to be sent to them, as a third person. 
Nevertheless this joint mention of Timothy must have been 
as accordant with the personal relation existing between the 
latter and the readers (Acts xvi. 10 ff, xix. 22), as it was 
serviceable in preparing the way for the intended sending of 
Timothy (ii. 19), and generally edifying and encouraging as a 
testimony of the intimate fellowship between the apostle and 
his subordinate fellow-labourer.' — So0A0¢ X. I] The fact that 


1Jn general, when Paul names others besides himself in the address, the 
ground for it must be sought for in the relation in which those named—who 
were then present with Paul—stood to the churches concerned, and not in any 
wish on his part to give by that means to the epistles an official and public cha- 


12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic dignity by the side 
of Timothy (as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1), may be explained by 
the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the 
Philippians ; for in regard to them he saw no external cause, 
and felt no internal need, for making this assertion; and we 
may assume the same thing in Philem. 1. The non-mention 
of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second Epistles to the 
Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they were 
composed, to be similarly explained (see Liinemann on 1 Thess. 
i, 1). In their joint designation as SotAo: “I. X. (see on 
Rom. i. 1),—a designation resulting from the deep conscious- 
ness of the specific vocation of their lives (1 Cor. iv. 1),—both 
the apostleship of Paul and the official position of Timothy 
(comp. Rom. xvi. 21: Tipo8. o cuvepyos pov; Col. iv. 12) 
are included. Compare ovvdounos, Col. i. 7, iv. 7. — robs 
arylows év X. "I.] see on Rom i. 7, and on srytacpévos ev X. 'I., 
1 Cor. i. 2.— ody émicn. w. Staxov.] along with overseers and 
deacons. Paul writes to all’ the Christians at Philippi (comp. 
Rom. i. 7), bishops and deacons being expressly included (ovy, 


racter (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom Corn. Miiller agrees, Commentat. de 
loc. quibusd. ep. ad Phil., Hamb. 1843, p. 5); for in that case the Epistles to 
the Romans and Ephesians would least of all bear the apostle’s name alone. 
To him, too, with his personal consciousness of his high apostolic standing 
(Gal. i. 1), the need of any confirmation or corroboration by ofhers must have 
been an idea utterly foreign. Lastly, this very Epistle to the Philippians bears 
less of the ficial and more of the familiar character than any of the others. 
—The fact, moreover, that in almost alJ the epistles, in the superscription of 
which Paul docs not name himself alone, Timothy is mentioned with him 
(Silvanus being named with the latter in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), is a proof that 
Timothy was the apostle’s most intimate companion, and was highly esteemed 
among the churches. In 1 Corinthians only, Sosthenes, and not Timothy, is 
mentioned along with Paul in the address. 

1 For all had, in fact, by their common readiness in offering given occasion to 
the apostolic letter. Thus the decorum of reply naturally gave rise to the inscr- 
tion of the otherwise superfluous wz, without its implying any special design of 
not putting to shame those who possibly had not contributed (van Hengel). And 
when Paul still further in this Epistle makes mention repeatedly and earnestly of 
all his readers (i. 4, 7 f., 25, ii. 17, 26, iv. 25), the simple and natural explana- 
tion is to be sought in the feeling of special all-embracing love, by which he was 
attached to this well-constituted church not divided by any factions. Hence 
there is no ground for seeking further explanation, as e.g. de Wette does, by sug- 
gesting erroneously that ‘‘ Paul wished to manifest his impartiality with regard 
to the dissension in the church.” 











CHAP. I. 1, 2. 13 


comp. Acts xiv. 5). As official designations, the words did not 
require the article (Kiihner, ad. Xen. Anab. iii. 5. '7: orparn- 
rot 5é xat Aoyaryot), although particular persons are meant (in 
opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded, however, just as 
office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially men- 
tioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, 
must be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the 
aid which had been conveyed to Paul could not have been 
collected without the guidance, and co-operation otherwise, of 
these office-bearers.| They might even have transmitted to 
him the money by means of an accompanying letter in the 
name of the church (Ewald; compare Hofmann); there is, 
however, no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are 
made by Cornelius a Lapide and Grotius: that he thus 
arranged the salutation with reference to Epaphroditus, who 
was one of the émrioxo7rot; by Matthias: that the ésrloxorrot 
and d:axovoe had specially distinguished themselves among the 
Philippians by their zeal and energy; by Rilliet and Corn. 
Miller: that the intention was to describe the church as a 
regularly constituted one, or as an undivided whole (Rheinwald), 
a collective body organized into unity (Hofmann) (which, 
in fact, other churches to whom Paul wrote were also); or 
that, with the view of preventing disunion, Paul wished to 
suggest to them the recognition of the office as an antidote to 
self-exaltation (Wiesinger). Other expositors have given yet 
other explanations.—The writing of the words as one: oup- 
erioxotrois (B¥* D*** K, Chrysost. Theophy]. min.) is to be re- 
jected, because ovy would be without appropriate reference, and 
the epistle is addressed to the whole community. See already 
Theodore of Mopsuestia.—As to the bishops, called from their 
official duty emloxorro: (Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i 7), 
or figuratively arocuéves (Eph. iv. 11), and after the Jewish- 
theocratic analogy mpeoBvrepor, see on Acts xx. 28, Eph. 
iv. 11. And how much the plural is at variance with the 


1 There is therefore the less ground for Baur bringing forward the mention 
of bishops and deacons in this passage to help the proof of a post-apostolic com- 
position of the epistle, as is also done by Hinsch in the passage specified. See, 
against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 f. 


14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


Catholte doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The 
absence also of any mention of presbyters’ strikingly shows 
that the latter were still at that time identical with the 
bishops. Comp. particularly Acts xx. 17, 28; and see 
Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 400 ff.; also J. B. Lightfoot, p. 
93 ff, and Jul. Miller, dogmat. Abh. p. 581. Mistaken view in 
Dollinger’s Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who makes 
out of ovluye yujote the bishop xar’ é£oyjv. As to the 
Scaxovia, the care of the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on 
Rom. xii 7, xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xii, 28. We may add that the 
placing of the officials after the church generally, which is not 
logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by ov», 
are characteristic of the relation between the two, which 
had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation. Comp. Acts 
xv. 4; Heb. xiii 24. Cornelius a Lapide, following Thomas 
Aquinas, sagely observes, that “the shepherd who rules goes 
behind the flock !” — ydpws byiv x.7.r.] See on Rom. i. 7. 

Ver. 3 f. Comp. Rom. 1.9; 1 Cor. i 4; Eph. i 16; 1 
Thess. i 2; Philem. 4; Col. i 3.— éwi waon TH pveia ip] 
not: in every recollection, but, as the article requires: in my 
whole recollection of you, so that the sense is not: as often as 
I remember you (so usually, following Chrysostom and Luther), 
but: my remembrance of you 7 «ts entire tenor and compass is 
mingled with thankfulness towards God. On é/ with the 
dative, comp. ii. 17. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, Michaelis, 
Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making duar geni- 
tive of the subject (and é7? as stating the ground, 1 Cor. i. 4): 
“that ye are constantly mindful of me,” or “ on account of your 
collective remembrance” (Hofmann), which is supposed to imply 
and include the aid transmitted to him as a single prela. That - 
for which Paul thanks God—and it is here, as in the openings 
of the other epistles, something of a far higher and more 
general nature—does not follow until ver. 5. — pea] is to 
be rendered in the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1 Thess. 


1In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, epseBirspes and dstxeves are 
spoken of as existing in Philippi, but no iwiexewss. See especially chap. v. 6. 
Therefore even at this later period bishops and presbyters were identical in 
Philippi. 








CHAP. L 8 4 15 


iii, 6; 2 Tim. i. 3), and not, as by van Hengel, in that of 
mention, which it only obtains in the passages—certainly 
otherwise corresponding—Rom. 1 9, Eph. 1 16, 1 Thess. 1 
2, Philem. 4, by the addition of srotetoGar. In this case it is 
the pveiay éyew (1 Thess. iii 6; 2 Tim.i 3; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 
798 A), and not the pv. rrovicGas, that is thought of. — ady- 
rore| cannot belong to evyapior® in such a way that the 
following év mdon Senoet x.7.d,. should be separated from it and 
joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann’ desires, It is 
true that wdyrote down to typo is closely linked with what 
precedes; but the connection is of such a character that 
qavrote already finds the befitting limitation through émi 
waon 7T. pvela tpov, and now by madvyrote «.7.r. can be 
announced, when the ebyapiota 7. O. pw. eri am. 7. uy. dp. takes 
place, namely, “at all times, in every request which I make for 
you all, thanksgiving towards my God is joined with my entire 
remembrance of you.” Negatively expressed, the sense up to 
this point therefore is: “Z never (rdyrore) make my interces- 
sory prayer for you all, without always (srayrore, as in Rom. i. 
10, Col. i. 4) im %& associating thanks towards my God with 
my entire remembrance of you.” This does not render the 
advroy inappropriate, as Hofmann objects, the fact being that 
the apostle constantly bears a// his Philippians upon his heart, 
and cannot help praying for them all; he feels this, and ex- 
oresses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many 
others, including Weiss, connect as follows: “whilst I at all 
times in all my praying for you all make the prayer with joy,” 
the expression éy mrdaoy Sejoes tiv Sénow trovovpevos, as thus 
linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology. In- 
stead of wera yap. r. 6. mrowovp., Paul would have simply and 
naturally written the mere yaipwy, This applies also to the 
view of Huther, who (in the Mecklend. Zeitschr. 1863, p. 
400) substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly 


3 According to whom Paul is supposed to say that ‘‘ he thanks his God for 
their collective remembrance at all times, in each of his intercessory prayers 
making the request for them all with joy.” Thus, however, the apostle would in 
fact have expressed himself in a manner eeeren even to falsehood, because 
implying an impossibility. 


16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


connects urép wavr, vu. with evyapior@ (Rom. i. 8; Eph. i. 
16; 1 Thess. i 2; 2 Thess. i. 3). Against this it may be 
urged, that the otherwise too general éy waoy Senoes pov - 
needs’ an addition more precisely defining it; and the words 
peta yap. thy Séno. wovovp. which follow, show that the 
thought is still occupied with the prayer, and has it as yet in 
prospect to express the object of the thanks. Lastly, the article 
in r7v Sénow points back to a more precisely defined Sénacs, 
the specification of which is contained in this very um. qm. vp. 
Comp. Col. i. 3. — As to the distinction between Sénou and 
mpocevy7 (ver. 9, iv. 6), see on Eph. vi. 18.—On the empha- 
tic sequence of 1acy, mavrote, tacn, tTavrwv, comp. Lobeck, 
Paral. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations, but 
the fulness of his heart suggests them to him; comp. 2 Cor. 
ix. 8.— peta yapas x.7.r.] His heart urges him, while men- 
tioning his prayer for them all, to add: “ when I make with 
joy the (mentioned) prayer (rv 6.),"—a feature which is 
met with in the opening of this epistle only. Ver. 4 is not 
to be placed in a parenthesis (as by Luther), nor yet from 
peta yap. onwards, for qrovovp. is connected with etyapiora 
(in opposition to Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic 
definition of mode for dSénous var. rat. vp. 

Ver. 5 f. "Emi tr xowav. ty. eis To evaryy.] is to be taken 
together with evyapiora, ver. 3 (1 Cor. i. 4), and not with 
peTa yap. x.7.r. (Calvin, Grotius, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, 
Weiss, Hofmann) ; for in that case, with the right explanation 
of emt mdon T. pv. dp., the specification of the ground for thanks 
would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only 
indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your 
fellowship in respect of the gospel; by this Paul means the 
common brotherly coherence (Acts ii, 42) which united the 
Philippians together for the gospel (as the aim to which the 
xowwvia has reference), that is, for its furtherance and efficiency. 
The great cause of the gospel was the end at which, in their 
mutual coherence, they aimed ; and this, therefore, gave to their 


1 This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who attaches isip wdyruy iuey, and 
to Hofmann, who at the same time joins ivy wéen dsheu, to the participial clause. 
The participial clause only begins with the emphatically prefixed psed yapas. 

















CHAP. I. 6, 6.° 17 


fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy 
destination. The correctness of this interpretation is con- 
firmed by the context in ver. 9, where that which is here 
expressed by 9 xowvwvia toy is characterized, under the cate- 
gory of the disposition on which this xowwyla is based, as 7 
dydirn vpov. As this view is in full harmony with both words 
and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, 
it excludes divergent interpretations. We must therefore 
reject not only the explanation which refers xo:vwvia to the 
aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, 
Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be taken 
actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, 
287), although it is never so used in the N. T. (comp. on 
Rom, xv. 26 ; Gal. vi. 6 ; Philem. 6), but also the view of Theo- 
doret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Heinrichs, and others : 
“quod evangelit participes factt estis,’ as if it ran Tov evay- 
yertou (Theodoret: xowwmmay S& tod evayyedou THY wlarev 
éxddece). Chrysostom and Theophylact, who are followed by 
most of the recent interpreters (including Schinz, Weiss, 
Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann), under- 
stand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle, that 
is, 6te Kotvwvot pou yiverOe x. ouppepiotat Tov él TH evayy. 
movev, Theophylact ; consequently, their co-operation with him 
in spreading the gospel, in which case also a reference to the aid 
rendered is included. In this case, since the text says nothing 
about a “ service” devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), an addition 
like per’ éuod (1 John i. 3, e¢ al.), or some other more precise 
definition, like that in ver. '7, would be an essential element— 
- not arising (as in Gal. ii. 9) out of the context—which there- 
fore must have been expressed, as indeed Paul must have said 
so, had he wished to be understood as referring to fellowship 
with all who had the cause of the gospel at heart (Wiesinger). 
The absolute “your fellowship,” if no arbitrary supplement is 
allowable, can only mean the mutual fellowship of the members 
of the church themselves—The article is not repeated after 
buoy, because xowwvia eis TO evayy. is conceived as forming a 
single notion (comp. on Kotvwveiv eis, iv. 15; Plato, Rep. p. 
453 A). — amd mperns ny. dxpt Tod viv] is usually connected 
PHIL, B 


18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


with rH xowwwvia x... This connection is the ¢rue one, for 
the constancy of the xowwvia, that has been attested hitherto, 
is the very thing which not only supplies the motive for the 
apostle’s thankfulness, but forms also the ground of his just 
confidence for the future. The connective article (77 before 
a7ro) is not requisite, as émi rH xowwwvia tpov was construed as 
ért TS xowwvety das (Winer, p. 128 [E.T.171]). It cannot 
be connected with +. Sénow zrocovp. (Weiss), unless én r. 
xowvov. «.T.r. is also made to belong hereto. If joined with 
merovlws (Rilliet, following Lachmann, ed. min.), it would 
convey an emphatically prefixed definition of the apostle’s 
confidence, whereas the whole context concerns the previous 
conduct of the readers, which by the connection with crerroc8. 
would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with evya- 
ptora (Beza, Wolf, Bengel), the words—seeing that the expres- 
sion wravrore éy radon Senoe has already been used, and then 
in ért TH Kowovia «7d. a transition has already been made 
to the object of the thanks—-would contain a definition 
awkwardly postponed.—The /irst day is that in which he first 
preached the gospel to them, which was followed by immediate 
and decided results, Acts xvi. 13 ff. Comp. Col 1. 6.— 
merrovas] confidence by which Paul knows his evyapioteiy, 
vv. 3-5, to be accompanied. Without due ground, Hofmann 
confuses the matter by making a new prolonged paragraph 
begin with zrerrovOas.! — adré tobro] if taken according to the 
common usage as the accusative of the object (comp. ver. 25), 
would not point to what follows, as if it were rovro merely 
(Weiss), but would mean, being confident of this very thing, 
which is being spoken of Gi. 18; Gal. ii, 10; 2 Cor. ii. 
3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the 
confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken 


1 He makee ver. 6, namely, constitute a protasis, whose apodosis is again divided 
into the protasis xaos iri dizaser iot and the apodosis corresponding thereto. 
But this apodosis of the apodosis begins with 3 ré izes» yes, Ver. 7, and yet is only 
continued after the words zdpeus y. § Orcs, bs iaivela Seas, Which are a parenthesis, 
in vv. 8, 9. Such a dialectically involved and complicated, long-winded period 
would be most of all out of place in ¢his epistle ; and what reader would have 
been able, without Hofmann’s guidance, to detect it and adjust its several 
parts ? 





CHAP. I. 7. 19 


as ob id ipsum; for this very reason (2 Pet. i 5; Plato, Symp. 
p. 204 A, and Stallb. ad loc.; Prot. p. 310 E; Xen. Anas, i. 
9. 21, and Kiihner ¢x loc., also his Gramm. IL. 1; p. 267; see 
also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 178], and comp. on Gal ii. 10), 
namely, because your xowwvla eis To evayy., from the first day 
until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my 
confidence for the future, dre o évapEduevos #.7.A.— 0 éevapkd- 
pevos «.7..] God. Comp. i. 13. That which He has begun 
He will complete, namely, by the further operations of His 
grace. The idea of resistance to this grace, as a human possi- 
bility, is not thereby excluded; but Paul has not to fear this 
on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in 
the case of the Galatians, Gal. i. 6, 111. 3. — ev opty] That Paul 
did not intend to say among you (as Hoelemann holds), but 
an you, im animis vestris (comp. i. 13; 1 Cor. xu. 6), is shown 
by trép mavrav ipov following, by which the language 
o évapé. éy ipw x«.7.d. expresses a confidence felt in respect 
to all individuals.— Epyov dyaov] without article, hence: 
an excellent work, by which is meant, in conformity with 
the context, the xowwvia ip. els Td evayy.— aypis nuépas 
"I. X.] corresponding to the dé mpwrns nyuép. dype Tod viv, 
ver. 5, presupposes the nearness of the zapovcia (in oppo- 
sition to Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in 
the N. T., and especially in Paul’s writings (Weiss, bibl. Theol. 
p. 297, ed. 2). Comp. ver. 10, iii 20. The device by 
which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) gratuitously in- 
troduce qualifying statements, “ Perseverat autem in illum usque 
diem, quicunque perseverat wsgue ad mortem suam” (Estius), 
whereby is meant not “ continuitas usgue ad illum diem,” but 
“terminus .et complementum perfectionis, quod habituri isto die 
ertmus” (Calovius), is just as un-Pauline as Calvin’s makeshift, 
“that the dead are still in profectu, because they have not yet 
reached the goal,” and as Matthies’ philosophical perverting of 
it into the continual and eternal Parousia. 
Ver. 7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed 
A+in ver. 6. How should he otherwise than cherish it, and 
that on the ground of his objective experience (av7é rofro), 
1 Hofmann also adopts this explanation of airs rovre. 


20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


since it was to him, through his love to his readers, a duty 
and obligation ! Not to cherish it would be wrong. “Caritas 
enim omnia sperat,’ Pelagius——-As to xa@ws, which, in the 
conception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, 
comp. on iii 17; 1 Cor. i 6; Eph. i. 4; Matt. vi 11. 
—On Sixatov, comp. Acts iv. 19; Eph. vi 1; Phil iv. 8; 
Col. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i. 12. A classical author would have 
written: Sleavov éuée totro dpovety (Herod. i. 39; Dem. 198. 
8; Plat. Symp. p. 214 C), or: Sixacos eis todro pp. (Herod. 
i. 32; Dem, 1469. 18, and frequently; Thuc. i. 40. 3). — 
Touro dpoveiy| to have this feeling, this practical bent of mind 
in favour of you, by which is meant the confidence expressed 
in ver. 6, and not his striving in prayer for the perfecting of 
his readers’ salvation (ver. 4), which the sense of the word 
gpovety does not admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is 
not equivalent to fnrety (comp. on Col. iii. 2). See besides, 
Huther, Jc. p. 405 f—On trep, comp. iv. 10; 2 Macc. xiv. 8; 
Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f.; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3; on todto $p., 
Gal. v. 10, oddév GdXo dp. The special reference of the sense 
of dpovety: to be mindful about something, must have been sug- 
gested by the context, as in iv. 10; but is here insisted on by 
Hofmann, and that in connection with the error, that with 
xa0ws the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The dpovety 
is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized 
by rovro as a ev dpoveily, which Paul feels himself bound to 
cherish in the interest of the salvation of all his readers (i7rép 
mdvrov bydv).— dia 76 yew we ev TH xapdia das] An ex- 
pression of heartfelt love (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 3) on the part of 
the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers 
towards him (Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmiiller, am Ende, 
Flatt), thus making tas the subject; although the sing. 
xapodia (comp. Eph. iv. 18, v. 19, vi 5; Rom. i 21; 2 Cor. 
iii, 15, and elsewhere) is not against this view, the position of 
the words is opposed to it, as is also the context, see ver. 8. 
The readers are present to the apostle in his loving heart. — 
éy te trois Seopots x.7.r.|] so that, accordingly, this state of 
suffering, and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, 
cannot dislodge you from my heart. See already Chrysostom 





CHAP. IL. 7. 21 


and Pelagius. These words, é re trois Seopots x«.7.r, set 
forth the faithful and abiding love, which even his heavy 
misfortunes cannot change into concern for himself alone. 
They contain, however, the two points, co-ordinated by ré... 
wal (as well ...as also): (1) The position of the apostle, and 
(2) his employment in this position. The latter, which, through 
the non-repetition of the article before Sef., is taken as a whole 
(Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both antithetical, 
the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it, 
‘that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc., 
its verification ; comp. Heb. vi 16; Rom. xv. 8; Mark xvi. 
20; Thucyd. i 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 309 C; 
Wisd. v. 18. For an instance of this kind of BeBaiwars 
during the earliest period of the apostle’s captivity at Rome, 
see Acts xxviil. 23. Hofmann, taking a groundless objection 
to our explanation from the use of té... «at (see, however, 
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 225), refuses to connect the ré with the 
following «ai; he prefers to connect with the one éyew, namely 
with the éyew év rH xapdia, another, namely an éyew ovyro- 
vevovs. This is an artificial conjunction of very different 
references of the éyewv, yielding the illogical formalism : I have 
you (1) in my heart, and (2) for my companions, etc. The 
latter would indeed be only a more precise qualitative defini- 
tion of the former. ‘Phe question, moreover, whether in 77 
amor, x. BeB. rod evayy. Paul intended to speak of his judicial 
examination (Heinrichs, van Hengel), or of his extrajudicial 
action and ministry during his captivity, cannot be answered 
without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were meant. 
For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial 
defence (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 430), since the 
arroXoyia might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists, 
but also to Gentile judges.—rov evaryy.] belongs to rH azron. x. 
BeBaweoe, and not to Be8. only; the latter view would make 
7TH ator, denote the yersonal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, 
and others), but is decisively opposed by the non-repetition 
—closely coupling the two words—of the article before Bef. 
But to interpret a7roAoyia and BeBalwors as synonymous (Rhein- 
wald), or to assume an éy dua Suoiy for dmodoyia eis BeBalworv 


22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


(Heinrichs), is logically incorrect, and without warrant in the 
connection. It is also contrary to the context (on account of 
TH amonoyia) to understand the BeSaiwous 7. evaryy. as the: 
actual confirmation afforded by the apostle’s sufferings (Chry- 
sostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others). — ovyxowvwvovs pou 
«.T.X.] characterizes the duds, and supplies a motive for the 
Exew pe év tH xapdia tas «.7.r.: since you, etc. This love to 
you, unalterable even in my affliction, is based on the real 
sympathy, which results from: all of you being joint-partakers 
with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on ovye. 
and then on mdyras, which is correlative with the previous 
qavrov. ‘The idea of the grace which the apostle had received 
(THs xaperos) is defined: solely from the connection, and that 
indeed by the two points immediately preceding, é& te rots 
Sexpots ov and TH amon. x. Be. tod evaryy., namely, as God’s 
gift of grace enabling them to suffer for the gospel (comp. 
ver. 29 f.; see also Acts v. 41; 1 Pet. ii, 19), and therewith 
to defend and confirm instead of falling away from and denying 
it. “Magnus in hac re honos, magna praemia” (Grotius). 
Paul knew that the experience of this grace—for the setting 
forth of which the context itself amply suffices, without the 
need of any retrospective ravrns (as is Hofmann’s objection) — 
had been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all 
his Philippian ‘converts, who like him had had to suffer for 
Christ (ver. 29 f.); and thus, in his bonds, and whilst vin- 
dicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of the holy 
similarity in this respect between his and their experience, 
sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his féellow- 
sharers of this grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he 
was suffering, and defending and confirming the gospel, he 
had all his readers as cupmrdoyovres, cuvatrodcyovpevot, oup- 
BeBavoivres To evayyéNov, and that in virtue of the above- 
named grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had 
recognised his bonds, and his activity for the gospel in 
these bonds. Others interpret it much too generally and 
vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of the 
context, as the “ gratiosa evangeliz donatio” (Hoelemann, comp. 
Wolf, Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any 








CHAP. L & 23 


more immediate reference to the context, and inappropriate, is 
its explanation of the apostolic office (Rom. i. 5, e al.), the 
Philippians being said to be active promoters of this through 
their faith (see Theodore of Mopsuestia); along with which 
a reference is introduced to the assistance rendered (Storr, 
am Ende, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Hofmann; comp. also Weiss)— 
which assistance has come to be regarded as a cowwwvia eis TO 
evaryyédvov (but see on ver. 5), as Hofmann expresses it. 
Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does not mention at the 
very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered to him, 
prescribe a certain line for the apostle ; which, however, he does 
not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the 
Philippians in subjects of a higher and more general interest, 
and puts off his expression of thanks, properly so called, to 
the end of the epistle. Lastly, the translation gaudit (Vulgate, 
Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Sedulius) is derived 
from another reading (yapas).—The ody in cvyxowwvous refers 
to pov, my joint-partakers (iv. 14) of the grace, thus com- 
bining ovyx. with a double genitive of the person and the 
thing, of the subject and the object (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 288 ; 
Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239)), and placing it first with emphasis ; 
for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in question. 
—As to the repetition of duds, see Matthiae, p. 1031, and on 
Col. ii 13; comp. Soph. 0. C. 1278, and Reisig in loc. 

REMARK.—Whether #v rs ro%g deopory . .. ebayy. should be con- 
nected with the preceding dia rd tye ws tv 1H xapdiqg twas (Chry- 
sostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, and many; also Huther), 
or with ovyx. x.A. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Storr, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be 
determined. Still the former, as of a less periodic character, 
is more in harmony with the fervent tone of feeling. Besides, 
the repetition of iué> betrays a break in the flow of thought 
after r. stayy. 

Ver. 8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance, 
that he had his readers in his heart, etc. Comp., on the 
connection, Rom. i 9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly 
observes: ovy as amioTovpevos pdptupa Karel Tov Bear, GAA 
my mworrny Sidbeow obk éxwv Twapacticar Sia rAoyou, — ws 


24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIIE PHILIPPIANS. 


émimoa@ «.T.r.| how much I long after you all, etc., which 
would not be the case if I did not bear you in my heart 
(y@p), a8 announced more precisely in ver. 7. On ézuroba, 
comp. Rom. i 11; Phil. ii. 26; 1 Thess. iii, 6; 2 Tim. 1 4. 
The compound denotes the direction (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 855 F; 
Herod. v. 93; Diod. Sic. xvii. 101; Ecclus. xxv. 20), not the 
strength of the aofeiy (comp. on 2 Cor. v. 2), which is conveyed 
by #s; comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Thess. ii, 10.— & omAdyxvors 
Xporod "Incotv] is not, with Hofmann,’ to be connected with 
what follows (see on ver. 9); it is an expression of the 
heartiness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest 
possible terms. éy, on account of the sensuous expression 
which follows (o7Aadyyva, like D°DM, as seat of the affections, 
especially of heartfelt love, ii. 1; Col iii, 12; Philem. 7, 
12, 20; also in classical authors), is to be taken locally : 
in the heart of Jesus Christ ; that is, so that this longing of 
mine is not my own individual emotion, but a longing which 
I feel in virtue of the dwelling and working of Christ in me. 
Paul speaks thus from the consciousness that his inmost life 
is not that of his human personality, of himself, but that 
Christ, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, is the personal 
principle and agent of his thoughts, desires, and feelings. 
Comp. on Gal. ii. 20. Filled with the feeling of this holy 
fellowship of life, which threw his own individuality into the 
background, he could, seeing that his whole spiritual fw was 
thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances 
of his esrerofetv, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him, 
as if Christ's heart throbbed in him for his Philippians. Bengel 
aptly says: “In Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus ; 
quare Paulus non in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur vis- 
ceribus.” Comp. Theodoret: ova dvOpwrwov ro dirrpoy, 
aveupatixov. Not doing justice to the Pauline consciousness 
of the wnio mystica which gives rise to this expression, some 
have rendered év in an instrumental sense, as in Luke i. 78 
(Hofmann); others have taken it of the norma: “ according 

' According to Hofmann, namely, tv ewa, X. "I. asserts with reference to the 


following xai rotce xperstdx. that Christ’s heart towards those who are His pro- 
duces such prayer in the apostle, and manifests itself therein. 


CHAP. I. 9. 25 


to the pattern of Christ’s love to His people” (Rosenmiiller, 
Rilliet) ; and some have found the sense of the norma in the 
genttival relation : “in animo penitus affecto ut animus fwt 
Christi” (van Hengel). So also Wetstein, Heinrichs, and 
earlier expositors ; whilst Storr refers évy od. ’I. X. even 
to the readers (sc. dyras). For many other interpretations, 
see Hoelemann and Weiss. The merely approximate state- 
ment of the sense, given by Grotius and others: “amore non 
ilo communi, sed vere Christiano,” is in substance correct, but 
fails to give its full development to the consciousness of the 
Xpioros ev juiv (Gal. ii, 20, iv. 19; Rom. viii. 10; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 5; Eph. iii. 17); notwithstanding which Hofmann regards 
the identification of Paul’s own heart with the heart of Christ 
as simply impossible ; thus, however, applying to the mysti- 
cism of deep pious feeling, and the living immediate plastic 
form in which it finds expression, a criterion alien to its 
character, and drawing around it a literal boundary which 
it cannot bear. ; 

Ver. 9. After having stated and discussed, in vv. 3-8, 
the reason why he thanks God with respect to his readers, 
Paul now, till the end of ver. 11, sets forth what it is that he 
asks in prayer for them. “Redit ad precationem, quam obiter 
tantum uno verbo attigerat (namely, ver. 4); exponit igitur 
summam eorum, quae illis petebat a Deo” (Calvin).—-xat] the 
simple and, introducing the new part of,’ and thus continuing, 
the discourse: And this (which follows) 7s what I pray,—so 
that the oljcct is placed first in the progress of the discourse ; 
hence it is xal tobro wrpocevxopat, and not x. mpocevy. TovTo. 
Hofmann’s explanation of the xa¢ in the sense of also, and his 
attaching ev oA. X. ‘I. to ver. 9, are the necessary result of 


1 The word apersivopas, which now occurs, points to a new topic, the thanks- 
giving and its grounds having been previously spoken of. Therefore x. ¢. 
wperwsy. is not to be attached, with Rilliet and Ewald, to the preceding verse : 
and (how I) pray this. Two different things would thus be joined. The 
former portion is concluded by the fervent and solemn ver. 8. Jatho also 
(Br. an d. Phil., Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with 6s, namely thus : and 
how I pray for this, namely, to come to you, i order that I may edify you. 
But to extract for retre, out of iwsarels suas, the notion : ‘‘my presence with 
you,” is much too harsh and arbitrary ; for Paul’s words are not even iwiwela 
sduy sees, a3 in Rom. i, 11. 


26 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


his perverse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running 
on from zreroOes in ver. 6, into a lengthened protasis and 
apodosis,—a construction in which the apodosis of the apodosis 
is supposed to begin with éy oma. X.’I.; comp. on ver. 6.— 
tva] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under 
the form of its design (Col. 1 9; 1 Thess.1.11; Matt. xxiv. 
20), and thus explains the preparatory rovro. Comp.on John 
vi. 29. “This I pray, that your love should more and more,” 
etc. — 7 aydin tov), not love to Paul (van Hengel, follow- 
ing Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, and others),—a 
reference which, especially in connection with ét: padAov x. 
parrov, would be all the more unsuitable on account of the 
apostle having just received a practical proof of the love of 
the Philippians. It would also be entirely inappropriate to 
the context which follows (év émvypeoe «.7..). Nor is it 
their love generally, without specification of an object for it, as 
a proof of faith (Hofmann) ; but it is, in accordance with the 
context, the brotherly love of the Philippians one to another, 
the common disposition and feeling at the bottom of that 
Kowovia eis TO evaryy., for which Paul has given thanks in 
ver. 5. This previous thanksgiving of his was based on the 
confidence, drs o évapEdpevos x.t.d., ver. 6, and the contents of 
his prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The 
connection is misapprehended by Calovius and Rheinwald, 
who explain it as love to God and Christ; also by Matthies 
(comp. Rilliet), who takes it as love to everything, that is truly 
Christian ; comp. Wiesinger: love to the Lord, and to all that 
belongs to and serves Him; Weiss: zeal of love for the cause 
of the gospel,—an interpretation which fails to define the 
necessary personal object of the dydzrn, and to do justice to 
the idea of co-operative fellowship which is implied in the 
cowvwvia in ver. 5, — ére padrov] quite our: still more. Comp. 
Homer, Od. i. 322, xviii. 22 ; Herod. i 94; Pind. Pyth. x. 88, 
Olymp. i. 175; Plat. Huthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anad. vi. 6. 


1 The idea that ‘‘your love’ means the readers themselves (Bullinger), or 
that this passage gave rise to the mode of addressing the hearers that has 
obtained since the Fathers (very frequently, e.g. in Augustine) in the language 
of the church (Bengel), is purely fanciful. 











CHAP. L. 9. 27 


35; Diog. L. ix. 10. 2. See instances of wadrov rab pGddov 
in Kypke, II. p. 307. With the reading aepsocedy note the 
sense of progressive development. — év émiyvoce: x, don aic- 
Onoer] constitutes that in which—.c. respecting which—the love 
_of his readers is to become more and more abundant. Comp. 
Rom. xv. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (iz), viii. 7; Col ii 7; Ecclus. 
xix. 20 (24). Others take the éy as instrumental: through 
(Heinrichs, Flatt, Schinz, and others); or as local: in, ze. 
in association with (Oecumenius, Calvin, Rheinwald, Hoele- 
mann, and others),—7repioo. being supposed to stand absolutely 
(may be abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the 
érrvyvwcis and alc@nats, and not to the love, shows that Paul 
had in view not the growth in love, but the increase in ézri- 
yvwows and aic@now, which the love of the Philippians was 
more and more to attain. The less the love is deficient in 
knowledge and aic@nats, it is the more deeply felt, more 
moral, effective, and lasting. If ériyvwots is the penetrating 
(see on 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Eph. i. 17) cognition of divine truth, 
both theoretical and practical, the true knowledge of salvation,’ 
which is the source, motive power, and regulator of love 
(1 John iv. 7 ff.); atc@nous (only occurring here in the New 
Testament), which denotes perception or feeling operating either 
through the bodily senses? (Xen. Mem. i. 4. 5, Anab, iv. 6.13, 
and Kriiger in loc.; Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), which are also 
called aicOnjoeu (Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B), or spiritually ? (Plat. 
Tim. p. 43 C; Dem. 411. 19, 1417. 5), must be, according 
to the context which follows, the perception which takes place 
with the ethical senses,—an activity of moral perception which 
apprehends and makes conscious of good and evil as such 
(comp. Heb. v. 14). The opposite of this is the dulness and 
maction of the inward sense of ethical feeling (Rom. xi. 8; 
Matt. xiii. 15, et al.), the stagnation of the aic@nrijpia tijs 
xapdlas (Jer. iv. 19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility, in- 

1 Not a mere knowledge of the divine will (Rheinwald), which leads to the 
right objects, aims, means, and proofs of love (Weiss; comp. Hofmann). This, 
as in Col. i. 9, would have been expressed by Paul. Neither can iss». be 
limited to the knowledge of men (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others). 

2 Nam etiam spiritualiter datur visus, auditus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, 
i.e. sensus investigativi et fruitivi’”’ (Bengel). 


28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


capacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about. 
Comp. LXX. Prov. i. 7; Ex. xxviii. 5; Ecclus. xx. 17, Rec. 
(alcOnows op6y) ; 4 Macc. ii. 21. Paul desires for his readers 
every (don) alaOnors, because their inner sense is in no given 
relation to remain without the corresponding moral activity 
of feeling, which may be very diversified according to the 
circumstances which form its ethical conditions. The relation 
between émriyvwots and alaOnows is that of spontaneity to 
receptivity, and the former is the yeywovixoy for the efficacy 
of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and mis- 
apprehending are not correlative to the former, and deception 
to the latter (Hofmann); both contrast with both. 

Vv. 10,11. Els 76 Soxcpafew «.7.r.] states the atm of the 
meptoc. éy emvyy. x. 1. aicO., and in iva are etdixp. w.7.r. We 
have the ultimate design. Soxipdtew ta Suadépovta is to 
be understood, as in Rom. 1. 18: 2 order to approve that 
which is (morally) excellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, 
Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Flatt, Rheinwald, 
Rilliet, Ewald, and others. See on dsadépey, praestantiorem 
esse (Dem. 1466. 22; Polyb. iii. 87. 1; Matt. x. 31), and 
Ta Stadépovra, praestantiora (Xen. Heer. i. 3; Dio Cass. xliv. 
25), Sturz, Lex, Xen. I. p. 711 f. Comp. Ssadepovrars, eximie 
(Plat. Prot. p. 349 D, and frequently). For dSoxuaf., comp. 
Rom. xiv. 22, e¢ al. Others understand it as a@ testing of 
things which are morally different (Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, 
Wolf, and others; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de 
Wette, Corn. Miiller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point 
of usage, this is equally correct; see on doxuuat., in both 
senses, 1 Thess. ii. 4. But in our view the sense which yields 
a definition of the aim of the words srepioc. éy érruyy. x. 1. aic8,, 
as well as the antecedent of the eirexplveca which follows, 
seems more consistent with the context. The desting of good 
and evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of 
the ériyvwors and atcOnots. Looking at the stage of Christian 
life which must be assumed from vv. 5 and 7 (different in 
Rom. xii. 2), the former, a3 an aim, does not go far enough ; 
and the eiAccpiveva is the result not of ,that testing, but of the 


CHAP. I. 10, 11. 29 


approbation of the good. Hofmann’s view is therefore unsuit- 
able, that it means the proving of that which is otherwise ; 
otherwise, namely, than that towards which the Christian’s 
love is directed. This would amount merely to the thought 
of testing what is unworthy of being loved (=Tda érepa)—a 
thought quite out of keeping with the éelic mode of expression. 
—eirsxpivels|, pure, sincere = xaBapos; Plat. Phil. p. 52 D. 
Comp., on its ethical use, Plat. Phaedr. p. 66 A, and Stall- 
baum tn loc, 81 C; 2 Pet. ui. 1; 1 Cor. v. 8; 2 Cor. i. 12, 
ii 17; Wisd. vii. 25, and Grimm in loc. — ampocKorot] 
practical proof of the eéAccpiveca in reference to intercourse 
with others (2 Cor. vi. 3): giving no offence; 1 Cor. x. 32; 
Ignat. Trall. interpol. 7; Suicer, Thes. sv. As Paul decidedly 
uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. Jc. (comp. Ecclus. 
xxxv. 21), thig meaning is here also to be preferred to the 
in itself admissible intransitive,—viz. not offending (Acts xxiv. 
16; comp. John xi. 9),—in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza, 
Calvin, Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and 
others. — eis 7pép. X.], to, ie. for, the day of Christ, when 
ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judgment- 
seat. Comp. ii. 16; Eph. iv.30; Col L 22; 2 Pet. ii 9, iii. 
7; 2 Tim.i.12; alsoJude 24 f. These passages show that 
the expression is not equivalent to the dypis tuépas X. in 
ver. 6 (Luther, Erasmus, and others), but places what is said 
in relation to the decision, unveiling, and the like of the day 
of the Parousia, which is, however, here also looked upon as 
near. — Ver. 11. aremd. xaprrov Sex.] modal definition of the 
eihexpty. x. arpoox., and that from the positive side of these 
attributes, which are manifested and tested in this fruitful- 
ness—1.¢e. in this rich fulness of Christian virtue in their pos- 
sessors. xaptros Suxatoc, is the fruit which is the ‘product of 
righteousness, which proceeds from a righteous moral state. 
Comp. capi. Tod avevpartos, Gal. v. 22; «. tod gwros, Eph. 
v. 9; «. Sexacoovvns, Jas. iii. 18, Heb. xii. 11, Rom. vi. 21 f, 
Prov. xi. 30. In no instance is the genitive with xapzros 
that of apposition (Hofmann). The S:xavoovvn here meant, 
however, is not justitia jider (justificatio), as many, even 
Rilliet and Hoelemann, would make it, but, in conformity 


30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


with ver. 10, a righteous moral condition, which is the 
moral consequence, because the necessary vital expression, of 
the righteousness of faith, in which man now xapmogopel te 
Oca ev xawornte mvevparos, Rom. vii. 5f.; comp. vi 2, 
viii. 2; Col i.10. We must observe that the emphasis is 
laid not on Sieavoctyns, but on xapmréy—which therefore 
obtains more precise definition afterwards,—so that Siaavoovyns 
conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already 
conveyed in ver. 10, of the right moral condition. Comp. on 
Sicatoovvn, Eph. v. 9; Rom. vi 13, 18, 20, xiv. 17, e al. 
—On the accusative of the remote olject, comp. Ps. cv. 40, 
exlvii, 14; Ecclus. xvii 6; Col. i. 9 (not 2 Thess. 1 11); 
Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 287]. A classical author would have 
used the genitive (£iz.) or the dative. —rov da ’I. X.] sc. 
dvra, the more exact specific definition of this fruit, the peculiar 
sacred essence and dignity of which are made apparent, seeing 
that it is produced, not through observance of the law, or 
generally by human power, but through Christ, who brings it 
about by virtue of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit (Gal. ii 20, 
iii, 22; Eph, iv. 7 f.,17; John xv. 14, e¢ al.).—els So€ay 
x.T.d.] belongs to memAnp. «.7.r., not specially to roy dua I. X. 
How far this fruitfulness tends to the honour of God (comp. 
John xv. 8), see Eph. i 6-14. God's d0fa is His majesty in 
atself ; Sratvos is the praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph. i 6, 
12,14. This éracos is based on matter of fact (its opposite 
is ariatlew t. Geov, Rom. ii. 23), in so far as in the Christian 
moral perfection of believers God’s work of salvation in them, 
and consequently His glory, by means of which it is effected, 
are manifested. Comp. 1 Cor. vi 20. The whole work of re- 
demption is the manifestation of the divine Sofa. See John 
xii. 27f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim 
and constant refrain of all Christian perfection, ii. 11; 1 Cor. 
x. 31; Eph ni. 31; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rom. xi. 36. 

Ver. 12. See, on vv. 12—26, Huther in the Mecklenb. 
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 558 ff—Paul now proceeds by the Sé of 
continuation to depict his own position down to ver. 26. See 
the summary of contents—The element of transition in the 
train of thought is that of the notification which Paul now 





CHAP. L 13. 31 


desires to bring before them; yevwoxe is therefore placed 
first: but ye are to know. It is otherwise in 2 Tim. i 1, 
also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 1.— 1d war’ eué] my circumstances, 
my position, asin Eph. vi 21; Col. iv. 7; Tob. x. 9; 2 Macc. 
iii, 40, e¢ al. ; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1.16; Ael. V. H. ii. 20. — parrov] 
not to the hindrance, but much the contrary. See Winer, p. 228 
[E. T. 304]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed 
to exist, and certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as 
existing, on the part of his readers, which, before going further, 
he wishes to relieve. There is no trace even here of a letter 
received from them with the contribution (Hofmann; comp. 
Wiesinger) ; comp. on ver. 1. Hoelemann: “ magis, guam antea 
contigerat ;” but this meaning must have been intimated by a 
vov or dn. — mpoxorny] progress, t.e, success. Comp. ver. 25; 
1 Tim. iv. 15. As to the later Greek character of this word, 
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85. In consequence of the apostle’s 
fate, the gospel had excited more attention, and the courage 
of its preachers had increased ; see ver. 13 f. As to whether 
a change had taken place in his condition, which the readers 
regarded as a change for the worse, as Hofmann requires us to 
assume, we have no specific hint whatever. The situation of 
the apostle generally, and in itself, abundantly justified their 
concern, especially since it had already lasted so long. — éAn- 
Avoey] eventt, i.e. has redownded. Comp. Acts xix. 27; Wisd. 
xv. 5; Herod. i. 120; Soph. 47. 1117 (1138); Plat. Gorg. 
p. 487 B. So the matter stands; note the perfect. 

Ver. 13. “Note x«.7...] 80 that my bonds became manifest in 
Christ, etc. This @ore introduces the actual result of that 
apoxomry, and consequently a more precise statement of tts 
nature. "Ev Xpwot@ does not belong to rots Secpous pou, 
alongside of which it does not stand; but davepods ev Xpior. 
is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on davepous, 
so that the Seopot did not remain xpumroi or drroxpido. ev 
Xptor@, as would have been the case, if their relation to Christ 


1 **Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit,” Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. Il. p. 1012. Hofmann’s view, that it stands in the sense of sis votre 
éers, also amounts to this. But Hoelemann is in error in making it assert the 
greatness of the wpoxews, Not the greatness, but the salutary effect, is indicated. 


32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS., 


had continued unknown, and if people had been compelled to 
look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary prisoner 
detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not 
exist ; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ, in so 
far, namely, that tn their causal relation to Christ—in this their 
specific peculiarity—was found information and elucidation with 
respect to his condition of bondage, and thus the specialty of 
the case of the prisoner, became notorious. If Paul had been 
only known generally as déoptos, his bonds would have been 
oux éudavets ev Xprorm; but now that, as Séopeos ev xupio 
or Tod xupiov (Eph. iv. 1, iii 1; Philem. 9), as waoyov as 
Xptotvavos (1 Pet. iv. 16), he had become the object of public 
notice, the davépwors of his state of bondage, as resting év 
Xpior@, was thereby brought about,—a davepoy yivec Gat, con- 
sequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the 
éy Xptor@. It is arbitrary to supply dvras with &y Xpiore 
(Hofmann). Ewald takes it as: “ shining in Christ,” @.e. much 
sought after and honoured as Christian. Comp. also Calvin, and 
Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 457. But, according to 
New Testament usage, havepos does not convey so much as this ; 
in classical usage (Thue. i. 17. 2, iv. 11.3; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58, 
Anab. vii. 7. 22 and Kriiger in loc.) it may mean conspicuous, 
eminent, — év Bde TO arpasreopins] mpattwpiov is not the im- 
perial palace in Rome (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, also Mynster, 
Rheinwald, and Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zettschr. 
1855, p. 300), which is denoted in iv. 22 by 4 Kaécapos 
oixla, but was never called practorium.’ It could not well, 
indeed, be so called, as ro mrpactwptoy is the standing appellation 
for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Matt. xxvii. 
27; John xviii. 28, xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35); hence it might 
and must have been explained as the Procurator’s palace in 


1 Act. Thom. § 8, 17, 18, 19, in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f., 
cannot be cited in favour of this designation (in opposition to Rheinwald) ; the 
wparepe BaciAsxe there spoken of (§ 3) are royal castles, so designated after the 
analogy of the residences of the Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. Aug. 
72; Tid. 39, et al. ; Juvenal, x. 161, 


CHAP, I. 12. 33 


Caesarea, if our epistle had been written there (see especially 
Bottger, Beitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the Roman castrum 
praetorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard (Came- 
rarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Heinrichs, 
Flatt, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, and others), whose 
chief was the praefectus praetorio, the orpatorédwmv erapxos, 
to whom Paul was given in charge on his arrival in Rome 
(Acts xxviii. 16). It was built by Sejanus, and was situated 
not far from the Porta Viminalis, on the eastern side of the 
city! See Suet. 77. 37; Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Pitiscus, Zhesaur. 
antig. III. 174; and especially Perizonius, de orig., signif. et 
usu voce. practoris et practorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his 
Disquisitio de praetorio ac vero sensu verborum Phil. 1 13, 
Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. Lightfoot, 
p. 97 ff. 1d mpacrwpioy does not mean the troop of practorian 
cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to o¢ 
mpatwpavol (Herodian, viii. 8. 14). 7-The becoming known 
an the whole praetorium is explained by the fact, that a 
praetorian was always present with Paul as his guard (Acts 
xxviii 16), and Paul, even in his captivity, continued his 
preaching without hindrance (Acts xxviii. 30 f.).— «al rots 
Aoutrots aot] not in the sense of locality, dependent on éy 
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), but: and to all the others, 
besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inexact way of 
putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known 
among the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be 
left without any more specific definition. This extensive pro- 

1 Doubtless there was a praetorian guard stationed in the imperial palace 
itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liii. 16). 
See Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 404, who understands the station of 
this palace-guard to be here referred to. But it cannot be proved that after 
the times of Tiberius, in whose reign the casira praetoriana were built in front | 
of the Viminal gate (only three cohorts having previously been stationed in the 
city, and that sine castris, Suetonius, Octav. 49), anything else than these casira 
is to be understood by the wonted term praetorium, erparéwsdor, when mentioned 
without any further definition (as Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6.7: wpe cov BasiAsion), 

2 Not even in such passages as Tacitus, Hist. ii. 24, iv. 46; Suetonius, Jer. 


7; Plin. H. N. xxv. 2, 6, e¢ al., where the Epeeone expression a prae- 
torium, ex praetorio) is always loca. 


PHIL. 0 


34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


clamation of the matter took place in part directly through 
Paul himself, since any one might visit him, and in part 
indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, dis- 
ciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like? Van 
Hengel, moreover, understands it incorrectly, as if of Docrroé 
were specially “homines extert,” “ Gentiles,"—a limitation 
which could only be’suggested by the context, and therefore 
cannot be established by the use of the word in Eph. ii. 3, 
iv. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of 
Hofmann: that it refers to those, who already knew about him. 

Ver. 14. tovs mdelovas] the majority, 1 Cor. x. 5, xv. 6, e 
al. It is not to be more precisely specified or limited. — éy 
xupio| belongs not to adeAfav (Luther, Castalio, Grotius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, 
Weiss, and others)—in which case it would not indeed have 
needed a connecting article (Col. i 2, iv. 7), yet would have 
been entirely superfluous—but to zremooras, along with which, 
however, it is not to be rendered: relying upon the Lord with 
respect to my bonds (Rheinwald, Flatt, Rilliet, comp. Schnecken- 
burger, p. 301). It means rather: in the Lord trusting my 
bonds, so that éy xupip~ is the specific modal definition of 
qemroO, Tots 5. p., which trust is based and depends on Christ. 
Comp. ii 24; Gal. v.10; Rom. xiv. 14; 2 Thess iii 4. On 
the dative, comp. 2 Cor. x. 7; Philem. 21, and the ordinary 
usage in the classics; in the New Testament mostly with éri 
or év, ’Ev xupip is placed first as the correlative of the ev 
Xpior., ver. 13. As the apostle’s bonds had become generally 


1 This suffices fully to explain the situation set forth in ver. 18. The words 
therefore afford no ground for the historical combination which Hofmann here 
makes: that during the two years, Acts xxviii. 80, the apostle’s case was held 
in abeyance ; and that only now had it been brought up for judicial discussion, 
whereby first it had become manifest that his captivity was caused, not by his 
having committed any crime against the state, but by his having preached Christ, 
which might not be challenged (?) on the state’s account. As if what is expressly 
reported in Acts xxviii. 81 were not sufficient to have made the matter known, and 
as if that discia iv Bin uisdeears precluded the judicial preparation of the case 
(ver. 7)! As if the increased courage of the wasievss, ver. 14, were intelligible 
only on the above assumption! As if, finally, it were ddmissible to understand, 
with Hofmann, among these waséevss all those who ‘‘even now before the con 
clusion of the trial were inspired with such courage by st” / 


CHAP. I. 14. 35 


known as ¢n Christ, so also in Christ (who will not abandon 
the work of His prisoner that had thus become so manifest) 
may be found the just ground of the confidence which encou- 
rages the brethren, Paul’s fellow-Christians in Rome, adofas 
T.r. Aadelvy. They trust the bonds of the apostle, inasmuch as 
these bonds.exhibit to them not only an encouraging example 
of patience (Grotius), but alsd (comp. iii, 8; Col 1. 24 f.; 
2 Tim. ii. 8 £; Matt. v. 11 f, and many other passages) a 
practical guarantee, highly honourable to Christ and His gospel, 
of the complete truth and justice, power and glory of the word, 
for the sake of which Paul is in bonds; thereby, instead of 
losing their courage, they are only made all the bolder in virtue 
of the elevating influence of moral sympathy with this situation 
of the apostle in bonds. Weiss explains as if the passage ran 
TH pavepwce Tov Secpov pou (which would tend to the recom- 
mendation of the gospel) ; while Hofmann thinks that, to guard 
themselves against the danger of being criminally prosecuted on 
account of their preaching, they relied on the apostle’s imprison- 
ment, in so far as the latter had now shown itself, in the 
judicial process that had ut length been commenced, to be solely 
on account of Christ, and not for anything culpable. The 
essential elements, forsooth, are thus introduced in consequence 
of the way in which Hofmann has construed for himself the 
situation (see on ver. 13). — aepiocor.] zc. in a higher degree 
than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in 
bonds. Their adoSéa in preaching had increased. This, how- 
ever, is explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above 
hypothesis, by the fact that the political gutltlessness of preach- 
ing Christ had now been established,—thus referring, in fact, 
the increase of their fearless boldness to a sense of legal security. 
But the reason of the increased agoPia lay deeper, in the sphere 
of the moral idea, which manifested itself in the apostle’s 
bonds, and in accordance with which they trusted those bonds 
in the Lord, seeing them borne for the Lord’s sake. They ° 
animated the brethren to boldness through that holy confidence, 
rooted in Christ, with which they imbued them.—roy Aoyov 


? Oecumenius well says: si yap wh Oster 4, Qnol, eo wipuypa, ovx ky é Tavares 
Avsizsre bwlp aired dsdieba:. Comp. ver. 16. 


36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


rarely] ze. to let the gospel become known, to preach, Acts 
xi. 19, and frequently. On ddoSws, comp. Acts iv. 31. 

Ver. 15. This is not indeed the case with all, that they 
év xupip tremobores tots Seop. pou mepiocor. Tod. «.7.4. No, 
some in Rome preach with an improper feeling and design; 
but some also with a good intention. (Both parties are de- 
scribed in further detail in vv. 16,17.) In either case—Christ 
is preached, wherein I rejoice and will rejoice (ver. 18).— 
rives pev Kat 51a POovoy x. épcv] These do not form a part of 
those described in ver. 14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and 
others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are 
characterized by éy cupip mrerrac8, rots Seo. pou quite otherwise, 
and indeed in a way which excludes the idea of envy and con- 
tention (comp. also Huther, /.c.), and appear as the majority to 
which these rivés stand in contrast as exceptions ; but they are 
the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must have 
pursued their practices in Rome, as in Asia and Greece, and 
exercised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and 
his gospel.' We have no details on the subject, but from 
Rom. xiv. we see that there was a fruitful field on which 
this tendency might find a footing and extend its influence 
in Rome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the 
Pauline school, who nevertheless hated the apostle personally 
(Wiesinger, comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputa- 
tion, and impugned his mode of action (Weiss), is at variance 
with the previous éy xupi@, assumes a state of things which is 
in itself improbable, and is not required by the utterance of 
ver. 18 (see the remark after ver. 18). See also Schnecken- 
burger, p. 301 f. — xa1] indicates that, whilst the majority were 
actuated by a good disposition (ver. 14), an evil motive also 
existed in several,—expresses, therefore, the accession of some- 
thing else in other subjects, but certainly not the accession of a 
subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same persons 


1 For the person to whom individually their Qééres and ips (as likewise the 
subsequent sé3exsa) had reference was self-evident to the readers, and Paul, more- 
over, announces it to them in ver. 16f. Without due reason Hinsch finds in this 
the mark of a later period, when the guarding of the apostle’s personal position 
alone was concerned. See against this, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1878, p. 180 f. 


CHAP. L 18 37 


designated in ver. 14 (Hofmann). — da GOovov x. Epi] on 
account of envy and strife, that is, for the sake of satisfying 
the strivings of their jealousy in respect to my influence, and 
of their contentious disposition towards me. Comp. ver. 17. 
On 61a GOovov, comp. Matt. xxvii. 18; Mark xv. 10; Plat. 
Rep. p. 586 D: POovm Sd hiroripiay. — Tweés Se ral] But 
some also; there also are not wanting such as, etc. Observe 
that the 6é xa/ joins itself with rivés, whereas in pév nai pre- 
‘viously the xa/ is attached to the following 5:a ¢@ovoy. The 
twes here are they who in ver. 14 were described as wAe/oves, 
but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the reves pév, 
the other portion of the preachers, without any renewed refer- 
ence to their preponderance in numbers, which had been already 
intimated.’ — 8 evddoxiav] on account of goodwill, that is, 
because they entertain a feeling of goodwill towards me. This 
interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the anti- 
thesis d:a POovov x. Epw, and also in ver. 16: && aydmns. 
As to the linguistic use of evdoxia in this sense (ii 13), see 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 372. Comp. on Rom. x. 1. Others 
take it, contrary to the context, as: “ex benevolentia, gua desi- 
derant hominum salutem” (Estius, comp. already Pelagius) ; or, 
“quod tpst id probarent,” from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and 
others), from taking delight in the matter generally (Huther), or in 
the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or in his preaching (Weiss). 


1'Van Hengel has not taken this into account, when he assumes that in rivis 
33 xai Paul had in view only a portion of those designated in ver. 14. Itis an 
objection to this idea, that what is said subsequently in ver. 16 of the ruvis 32 
zai completely harmonizes with that, whereby the waAsiovss generally, and not 
merely a portion of them, were characterized in ver. 14 (iv xup. ws. ¢. 3eep.). This 
applies also in opposition to Hofmann, according to whom the éwo ewvis, ver. 
15 f., belong to the wAsievss of ver. 14, whom they divide into two classes. Hof- 
mann’s objection to our view, viz. that the apostle does not say that the one 
party preach solely out of envy and strife, and the other solely out of goodwill, 
is irrelevant. He could not, indeed, have desired to say this, and does not say 
it ; but he could describe in general, as he has done, the ethical antitheses which 
characterized the twoparties. Moreover, ips means everywhere in the N. T., and 
especially here in its conjunction with 9ééves (comp. Rom. i. 29; 1 Tim. vi. 4), 
not rivalry—the weaker sense assigned to it here, without a shadow of justifica- 
tion from the context, by Hofmann (‘‘ they wish to outdo him”)—but strife, con- 
tention. Just as little is kpdsia to be reduced to the general notion of egotism, as 
is done by Hofmann ; see on ver. 17. 


38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. - 


Vv. 16, 17. We have here a more detailed description of 
both parties in respect to the motives which actuated them in 
relation to the Seco of the apostle. — ot pév ... of é] cor- 
responds to the two parties of ver. 15, but—-and that indeed 
without any particular purpose—in an inverted order (see the 
critical remarks), as in 2 Cor. ii, 16, and frequently in classical 
authors (Thuc. 1. 68. 4.; Xen. Anad. i. 10. 4). In ver. 18 
' the order adopted in ver. 15 is again reverted to.—ot é& 
ayaTrns] sc. ovres, a genetic description of the ethical condition of 
these people: those who are of love, i.e. of loving nature and 
action; comp. Rom. ii. 8; Gal. iii 7; John xviii. 37, e al. 
We must supply what immediately precedes: tov Xpictov 
xnpvocovoty, of which eidores «.7.d. then contains the particular 
moving cause (Rom. v. 3,6,9; Gal 1.16; Eph. vi 8 f, ef a.). 
We might also take of uéy (and then of 8€) absolutely: che 
one, and then bring up immediately, for é& aydans, the subse- 
quent 7. Xpuorov xatayyéAXovow (so Hofmann and others). 
But this would be less appropriate, because the progress of 
the discourse does not turn on the saying that the one preach 
out of love, and the other out of contention (for this has been 
said in substance previously), but on the internal determining 
motives which are expressed by eiSdres «7.A. and olopevor 
x.T.r ; besides, oby ayvas would then follow as merely a weak 
and disturbing auxiliary clause to ¢& épeOelas. — dre eis arron. 
Tov evayy. xetuar] that I am destined, am ordained of God for 
(nothing else than) the defence of the gospel—a destination 
which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me, 
feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labour sympa- 
thetically hand in hand with me.—x«etyac] as in Luke ii. 34; 
1 Thess, iii 3; comp. Plat. Legg. x. p. 909; Thue iii. 45, 
2, 47, 2; Ecclus, xxxviii, 29, and other passages in which 
“ <etoOat tanquam passivum verbi zoveioPas vel riOévar vide- 
tur,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 943. Others render: Z lie in 
prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf, am Ende, Huther, and 
others); but the idea of lying under fetters, which xefpace 
would thus convey (comp. Eur. Phoen. 1633; Aesch. dg. 1492), 
does nof harmonize with the position of the apostle any more 
than the reference of its meaning thereby introduced: they 








CHAP. I. 16, 17. 39 


know that I am hihdered in my preaching, and therefore they 
“ gupplent hoc meum impedimentum sua praedicatione,” Estius. 
See, on the contrary, Acts xxviii. 30, 31; Phil i 7. Van 
Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss) : “ me ad causam rei Chris- 
tianae, ubi urgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hic iz 
miseria jacere.” Comp. Hom. Od. i. 46 ; Soph. 47, 316 (323) ; 
Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 496. — ot 8¢ é& ép.0.] sc. évres, the factious, 
the cabal-makers. See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii, 20; Gal. 
v. 20. So also Ignatius, ad Philadelph. 8. It corresponds 
with the ¢0ovoy x. pw, ver. 15.— Tov X. xataryy. oy dyvas] 
belong together. xararyy. is, in substance, the same as xnpic- 
oe, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the 
Messiah (Acts xvii 3, 23; Col. 1 28, e¢ al). The words +. 
Xpicrov xarayyéAnNovew might have been left out, following 
the analogy of ver. 16, but are inserted to bring out the tragic 
contrast which is implied in preaching Christ, and yet doing 
80 ovy ayvas, non caste, not in purity of feeling and purpose. 
xaGapas is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a 
mental reference (Hesiod. épya, 339). Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. 
p. 840 D; 2 Cor. vii. 11, xi 2; Phil. iv. 8, ¢ al.; 2 Cor. 
Vi 6. — oldpevos x.7.r.] thinking to stir up affliction for my 
bonds, to make my captivity full of sorrow. This they intend 
to do, and that is the immoral moving spring of their unworthy 
conduct; but (observe the distinction between oiopevoc and 
eidores in ver. 16) Paul hints by this purposely-chosen word 
(which is nowhere else used by him), that what they imagine 
fails to happen. On olpae with the present infinitive, see 
Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 283. The future infinitive would not 
eonvey that what is meant is even now occurring. See gene- 
rally Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p, 52 C; comp. Phaed. p. 116 E. 
How far they thought that they could effect that injurious 
result by their preaching, follows from ver. 15 and from é£ 
éptGeias ; in so far, namely, that they doubtless, rendered the 
more unscrupulous through the captivity of the apostle, sought 
by their preaching to prejudice his authority, and to stir up 
controversial and partisan interests of a Judaistic character 
against him, and thus thought thoroughly to embitter the 
prisoner’s lot by exciting opponents to vex and wrong him. 


1 


40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


This was the cabal in the background of their dishonest preach- 
ing. That by the spread of the gospel they desired to provoke 
the hostility of the heathen, especially of Nero, against Paul, 
and thus to render his captivity more severe, is a groundless 
conjecture imported (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and 
others; comp. already Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Pelagius). — On éyetpecy (see the critical remarks) comp. éy. 
wbdivas, Plat. Theaet. p. 149 C, and similar passages, 

Ver. 18. On ti yap, scil. dort, comp. on Rom. iii. 3, where, 
however, yap is not, as here, conclusive (see on 1 Cor. xi. 22"); 
comp. also Klotz, ad Devar. p. 245. It is rendered necessary 
by the mA that the mark of interrogation should not be 
placed (as it usually is) after ri ydp, but the question goes on 
to xatayyéAAeras (comp. Hofmann); and it is to-be observed 
that through Av the ri ydp receives the sense of ré yap d\Xo 
(see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C). Hence: what else 
takes place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc., 
_ 46. what else than that by every sort of preaching, whether « is 
done in pretence or in truth, Christ 1s proclaimed ? and therein, 
that it is always Christ whom they preach, I rejoice, etc. How 
magnanimous is this liberality of judgment as to the existing 
circumstances in their reference to Christ! By wpoddce and 
adnOGeia is indicated the characteristic difference in the two 
kinds of preachers, vv. 15-17, and thus wavr) rpor@ receives 
the more precise definition of its respective parts. As regards 
the first class, the preaching of Christ was not a matter of 
sincerity and truth—wherein they, in accordance with their 
sentiments, were really concerned about Christ, and He was the 
real airia of their working (see on the contrast between airia 
and mpddacts, Polyb. iii. 6. 6 ff.)—but a matter of pretence, 
under the cloak of which they entertained in their hearts 
envy, strife, and cabal, as the real objects of their endeavours. 
For instances of the antithesis between mpodacts and ad7- 


1 According to Weiss, yép is intended ¢o establish the siéusves x,¢.4., 80 far as 
the latter is only an empty imagination. But this is an unnecessary seeking 
after a very obscure reference. The « ydp draws, as it were, the result from 
vv. 15-17. Hence also we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense: ‘‘ /s # 
then so, as they think?” 











CITAP. I. 18, Al 


Gea or tadnOés, see Raphel, Polyb.; Loesner and Wetstein. 
To take mpodacts as opportunity, occasion (Herod. i. 29, 
30, iv. 145, vi 94; Dem. xx. 26; Antiph v. 21; Hero- 
dian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14),—as, following the Vulgate, Luther, 
Estius, Grotius (“ nam occasione illi Judaei, dum nocere Paulo 
student, multos pertrahebant ad evang.”), and others under- 
stand it,—is opposed to the context in vv. 15-17, in which | 
the want of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic 
‘mark of these persons. On wmAnv in the sense of 7, comp. 
Kiihner, II. 2, p. 842.—&y rovr] the neuter: therein, in 
accordance with the conception of that in which the feeling 
has its basis. Comp. Col.i. 24; Plat. Rep. x. p. 603 C; Soph. 
Tr. 1118; Kihner, IL 1, p. 403. In the Xpuortos xatay- 
yédXerat lies the apostle’s joy.—dAAd wat yapnoopuat] sur- 
passing the simple yaipw by a plus, and therefore added in a 
corrective antithetical form (imo etiam) ; comp. on 1 Cor. ili. 2 ; 
2 Cor. xi. 1. To begin a new sentence with adAa@ (Lachmann, 
Tischendorf), and to sever yapyoozas from its connection 
with év rovrm (Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert 
generally that he will continue. to rejoice also in the future), 
interrupts, without sufficient reason, the flow of the animated 
discourse, and is also opposed by the proper reference of oléa 
ydp in ver. 19. This applies also in opposition to Hinsch, 
p-. 64 f. 


TRemarK.—Of course this rejoicing does not refer to the 
impure intention of the preachers, but to the objective result. 
See, already, Augustine, c. Faust. xxii. 48; c. Bp. Parm. i. 11. 
Nor does zavri spérw apply to the doctrinal purport of the 
preaching (Gal. i. 8), but to its ethical nature and method, to 
disposition and purpose. See Chrysostom and those who follow 
him. Nevertheless the apostle’s judgment may excite surprise 
by its mildness (comp. ili. 2), since these opponents must have 
taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must con- 
sider, first, the tone of lofty resignation in general which prevails 
in this passage, and which might be fitted to raise him more 
than elsewhere above antagonisms ; secondly, that in this case 
the danger did not affect, as it did in Asia and Greece, in Galatia 
and Corinth, his personal sphere of apostolical ministry ; thirdly, 
that Rome was the very place in which the preaching of Christ 


42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


might appear to him in itself of such preponderating import- 
ance as to induce him in the meantime, while his own ministry 
was impeded and in fact threatened with an imminent end, 
to allow—in generous tolerance, the lofty philosophical spirit of 
which Chrysostom has admired—of even un-Pauline admixtures 
of doctrine, in reliance on the discriminating power of the 
truth ; lastly, that a comparison of iii. 2 permits the assumption, 
as regards the teachers referred to in the present passage, of & 
less important grade of anti-Pauline doctrine,’ and especially of 
a tenor of teaching which did not fundamentally overthrow 
that of Paul. Comp. also on iii. 2. All the less, therefore, can 
the stamp of mildness and forbearance which our passage bears 
be used, as Baur and Hitzig ? employ it, as a weapon of attack 
inst the genuineness of the epistle. Comp. the appropriate 
remarks of Hilgenfeld in his Zezischr. 1871, p. 314 ff. ; in oppo- 
sition to Hinsch, see. on ver. 15. Calvin, moreover, well says: 
“Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis, 
nunquam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset 
ministros,” 


Ver. 19. Reason assigned not only for the dAAa xal yap7- 
covet, but for the entire conjoint assertion: év rovr@ yalpm, 
adda x. Xap. For both, for his present joy and for his future 
joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground in the certainty 
now to be expressed. — todro] the same thing that was con- 
veyed by ey rovrw in ver. 18, this fact of Christ's being 
preached, from whatever different motives it may be done,— 
not: my present, Ta xar’ évé (Hofmann). — ets cwrnpilar] is, 
in conformity with the context, not to be explained of the 
deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Musculus, 
Heinrichs), or of the preservation of the apostle’s life (Oecu- 
menius), or of the ériumph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of 
the salvation multorum hominum (Grotius); nor is it to be 
more precisely defined as the eternal Messianic redemption (van 
Hengel, Weiss ; comp. Matthies and Hoelemann), or as spiritual 
salvation (Rheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary, the expres- 
sion: “it will turn out to my salvation” (comp. Job xiii. 16), 
will be salutary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel, 


1 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 388. 
7 Who thinks that he recognises here an indistinct shadow of Tacitus, Agric. 
41: ‘* Optimus quisque amore et fide, pessimi malignitate et livore.” 


CHAP. L. 19. 43 


to be left without any more precise modal definition ; for Paul 
himself only announces, as the discourse proceeds (ver. 20), 
how far he expects salutary results for himself to arise out of 
the state of things in question. Bengel aptly remarks: “ non 
modo non in pressuram,” ver.17. On dtroBnoerat, will turn 
out, issue, comp. Luke xxi. 13; Job xiii. 16; 2 Mace. ix. 24; 
Plat. Lys. p. 206 A; de virt. p. 379 C; Rep. p. 425 C; Dem. 
1412. 10.—Through the entreaty of his Philippians, Paul knows, 
it will be salutary for him (comp. 2 Cor. i 11; Rom. xv. 
31; 2 Thess. iii, 12; Philem. 22), and through supply of the 
Spirit of Christ, that is, through the Spirit of Christ supply- 
ing him with help, strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on 
émtyopryy., Eph. iv. 16). The words 8a ris tua Sejocws 
... Aptorav, embrace, therefore, two elements whick work to- 
gether and bring about the azoPio. eis owrnp., one of these 
on the part of the readers themselves (hence tuo is placed 
first), the other on the part of the Holy Spirit. After xa, 
dia is to be again understood ; the article, however, is not 
repeated before ézrvyop., not because the entreaty and the 
éxvyopnyla are to be taken together as one category, which 
in this passage would be illogical,’ but because Patil conceived 
the second member of the clause without the article: supply 
(not the supply) of the Spirit. tod wvevparos is the genitive 
of the subject ; as genitive of the olject (Wiesinger, in accord- 
ance with Gal. iii 5) the expression would be inappropriate, 
since. Paul already has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40), and does 
not merely expect it to be supplied, though in his present 
position he does expect the help, comfort, etc., which the Spirit 
supplies. Comp. Theodoret: rod Oelov pot mvevpatos yopn- 
ryouvros tiv xdpw. Respecting the mvedyua Xpiotod, see on 
Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 17. Paul here designates. 
the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the 
inmost consciousness of the apostle, the main interest and aim 
of his entire discourse, ver. 18 ff. 


1 Bengel well says: ‘‘ precationem in coelum ascendentem ; exhibitionem de 
coelo venientem.”” If, however, iwszegnyias is still to be included in dependence 
On ca tues (so Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers would at all 
events appear as those communicating, which would yield an incongruous idea. 


44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PIILIPPIANS. 


Ver. 20. It will prove salutary for me in conformity with 
my earnest expectation (see, regarding azroxapadoxia, on Rom. 
viii. 19) and my hope, that I, etc. (object of the earnest expec- 
tation and hope). Others take d67¢ as argumentative (Vatablus, 
Estius, Matthies) ; but by this interpretation the xara r. drrox.. 
x. édor, pw. seems, after the oléda already expressed, to be an 
addition for which there is no motive, and the flow of the 
discourse is interrupted. No, when Paul says with dre «7A, 
what it 1s that he earnestly expects and hopes (comp. Rom. 
vii. 20 f.), he thereby supplies the precise definition of the 
former merely general expression eis cwrnpiav.—This is neither 
clumsy nor wnsuited to the meaning of dzroxapad., as Hofmann 
thinks, who goes back with rz to the far distant oléa, and 
finds it convenient to co-ordinate it with the first dr. Paul 
would have made this alleged conjunction convenient and at 
the same time intelligible, only in the event of his having 
written xalb Gre. — ev ovdevl aioyuvOnoopat] that I shall 
an no point (2 Cor. vi. 3, vii 9; Jas. 1. 4), in no respect, 
be put to shame; that is, in no respect will a result ensue 
tending to my shame,—a result which would expose me 
to the reproach of having failed to accomplish my destiny 
(comp. the sequel). Comp. on aloyuveorbar, 2 Cor. x. 8, 
1 John ii, 28, and the passages of the LXX. in Schleusner, 
I. p. 98 f.; also Xen. Cyr. vi 4. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 1118 E. 
Matthies understands it differently: “in nothing shall J show 
myself shamefaced and fearful ;” comp. van Hengel: “ pudore 
confusus ab officio deflectam.” But the context, in which Panl 
desires to explain more in detail (comp. ver. 21) the words 
pot amoBnoeras eis cwrnpiav, ver. 19, will not harmonize with 
any other than the above-named purely passive interpretation; 
not even with the sense that Paul would not “stand dis- 
graced” (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful 
to his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the 
glorifying of Christ. The connection requires a description, 
not of Paul’s behaviour, but of the fate in which the rovro of 
ver. 19 would issue for him. Hoelemann takes éy ovdevi as 
masculine, of the preachers described in ver. 15 ff., who in 
their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, “ ita 





CHAP. I. 20. 45 


esse versaturos, ut inde non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat 
quum ipse, tum etiam in re sua quasi Christus.” This inter- 
pretation is opposed both by the context, which from ver. 18 
onwards brings forward no persons at all; and also by the sense 
itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made to express 
a confidence in the labours of those teachers which, as regards 
the malicious portion of them (ver. 17, comp. ver. 15), would 
not be befitting. The aioydveorOar of the apostle was indeed 
the very object which they had in view; but, he means to say, 
ovx aloyvvopat, Tovréotw ob meptécovrat, Chrysostom.—dAX’ 
éy racy Tappnoia «.7.d.| the contrast to dy ovdevd aloyuvhhj- 
cozat; for the apostle can receive no greater honour and 
triumph (the opposite to the aicyvverOa:) than to be made 
the instrument of glorifying Christ (iii, 7 f.): but with all 
Sreeness, as always, so also now, Christ will be magnified in my 
body.—éy racy wappne.] év macy corresponds to the previous 
év ovderi, so that every kind of freeness, which is no way re- 
strained or limited (comp Acts iv. 29, xxviii. 31; 2 Cor. iii. 12), 
is meant, which amounts substantially to the idea, “ une pleine 
liberté ” (Rilliet and older expositors) ; comp. Wunder, ad Soph. 
Phil. 141 f. The subject of the freeness is Paul himself, inas- 
much as it was in his body that the fearless glorifying of Christ 
was to be manifested (see below); but he expresses himself in 
the passive (weyaduvOnceras) and not in the active, because, in 
the feeling of his being the organ of divine working, the pov 
aroPnoeras eis owTnpiav (ver. 19) governs his conceptions and 
determines his expression. Hofmann’s view, that év 7. wappne. 
means “in full publicity,’ as an unmistakeable fact before the 
eyes of all, is linguistically erroneous. See, in opposition to 
it, on Col. ii. 15. — @s mavtote xa viv] so that the present 
circumstances, however inimical they are in part towards me 
(vv. 15-18), will therefore bring about no other result than this 
most happy one for me, which has always taken place.—éy 7@ 
cwpatt pov] instead of saying: éy éewol, he says: in my body, 
because the decision was now close at hand, whether his body 
should remain alive or be put to death. But whichever of these 
possible alternatives should come to pass, he earnestly expected 
and hoped that the glory of Christ would be thereby secured 


46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


(etre Sia Smijs elre Sta Oavarov), in so far, namely, as through 
his remaining in the body his apostolic labours would be con- 
tinued to the glory of Christ, and by the slaying of his body 
there would take place, not the mere closing of his witness 
for Christ, as Hofmann, in opposition to the text (vv. 21-23), 
refines away this point, but his union with Christ. Thus, 
therefore, he will not be put to shame even by his death ; but, 
on the contrary, Christ will be freely glorified by it, namely, 
practically glorified, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great 
gain which he shall acquire through death (ver. 21), will with 
unwavering joyfulness—with the frank joyful courage of the 
martyr who is being perfected—dze to the glorifying of Christ. 
Comp. John xxi 19. In any case, accordingly, the result 
- must ensue, that in his body, just as it has always hitherto 
been the living personal instrument of Christ's glory, now 
also the free glorification of Christ shall be made manifest, 
whether this result be secured through its being preserved alive 
or being slain; “nam et corpus loquitur et corpus moritur,” 
Grotius. Hoelemann erroneously refers éy racy mapp. to the 
bold preaching of the various teachers described in vv. 15-18, 
from which now, as always, the glory of Christ shall result ; 
and that indeed, through the influence which such a fearless 
working would have on the fate of the apostle, in his body, 
whether Christ grant to him a longer course of life or death, 
in either of which cases the Lord will manifest Himself to 
him as aigustissimum ausiliatorem. But against this view it 
may be urged, that év ovdevd does not refer to the teachers 
(see above) ; that rrappnola is the contrast to aicyuvOncopat, 
so that the subject of the latter must be also the subject of 
the former ; and lastly, that Paul would thus be made to say 
that the fearless working of others had always shown forth 
Christ’s honour in his tody,—an .expression which, as regards 
the last point, might be suited to the present position of the 
apostle, but not to the ds mdytore. Rilliet takes peyaduvOn- 
cera: not in the sense of praising (Luke i. 46; Acts v. 13, 
x. 46, xix. 17; Thue. viii. 81 ; Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 13), but in the 
material signification of grandir (Matt. xxii. 5; Luke i. 58; 2 
Cor. x. 15), making it apply to the mental indwelling of Christ 











CHAP. L 21. 47 


(Gal. ii 20; Rom. viii 10; Gal. iv. 19); so that Paul is made 
to hope that Christ may grow ever more and more in him, 
that is, may more and more reveal Himself as the principle 
of his life, and that this growth will be perfected whether he 
himself live or die. But éy wdoy mappyoia would be an 
inappropriate definition of this idea; and & T@ cwpartil pov 
would also be inappropriate, as 1f Christ would have, even by 
the apostle’s death, to grow in his body; lastly, neither the 
foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar 
mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human body ; while 
the similar idea in Gal. iv. 19 is there very peculiarly and 
clearly suggested by the context. 

Ver. 21. Justification not of the joy, ver. 18 (Weiss), which 
has already been justified in ver. 19 f., but of the efre did wis 
etre 5:a Oavarov just expressed: For to me the living is Christ, 
that is, if I remain alive, my prolonged life will be nothing 
but a life of which the whole essential element and real 
tenor is Christ (“ quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum vivo,” 
Bangel), as the One to whom the whole destination and 
activity of my life bear reference (comp. on Gal. ii 20); and 
the dying’ 1s gain, inasmuch as by death I attain to Christ ; 
see ver. 23: Whichever, therefore, of the two may come to 
pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ; the former, 
inasmuch as I continue to labour freely for Christ's glory ; 
the latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall 
suffer death with joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Miiller, who, 
‘however, assumes that in the second clause Paul had the 
thought: “ e s miht moriendum est, moriar Christo, ita etiam 
morte mea Christus celebratur,” but that in the emotion of 
the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to 
be carried away by the conception of the gain involved in 
the matter. This assumption is altogether superfluous ; for, 
to the consciousness of the Christian reader, the reference of 

1 Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On the combination of the Inf. 
pres. (continuing) and aor. (momentary), comp, Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 4: wpesiasee 
BaAACY eis vipers iumiver dwobarsiy A wapavear Suv, Eur. Or. 808: civ ool xarta- 
viv aipnoomeas nal Cav, Epictet. Hnchir. 12; 2 Cor. vii. 8. See generally Miatzn. 


ad Antiph. p. 153 f. ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 159. The being dead would have been 
expressed, as in Herod. i. 31, by rsévavas, 


48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the xépdos to Christ must of itself have been clear and certain. 
But the idea of xépé0s, which connects itself in the apostle’s 
mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming 
that he meant to say that «f was a matter of no moment 
to him personally whether he lived or died (Wiesinger) ; for 
on account of the «épdos in death, his own personal wish 
must have given the preference to the dying (see ver. 23). 
Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatch- 
bull, e¢ al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in 
the second clause, been led to the still more erroneous 
assumption, in opposition both to the words and linguistic 
usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject and xépdos 
the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to 
be explained by mapos or xatd, so that Christ “tam in vita 
quam in morte lucrum esse praediatur.” Lastly, in opposition 
to the context, Rheinwald and Rilliet take ro &jy as meaning 
life in the higher, spiritual sense, and xai as: and consequently, 
which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the pre- 
ceding alternative e/re...eire. This explanation is refuted 
by the very ro jv év capxi which follows in ver. 22, since 
€y capxé contains not an antithesis to the absolute ro fjv, but 
on the contrary a more precise definition of it. Although 
the dca @avdrov and ro drofaveiy contrasted with the &p, 
as also ver. 20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the 
view that takes ro &v in the higher ethical sense, that view 
has still been adopted by Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the 
correlation and parallelism of +o Cy and 70 dmoGaveiy, oddly 


supposes that, while to aroOavety is the subject in the second . 


clause, To Sj is yet predicate in the first. Like 10 dzroOaveiy, 
70 mv must be subject also.— é¢uor] is emphatically placed 
first: to me, as regards my own person, though it may be 
different with others. Comp. the emphatic 20», iii 20.— 
For profane parallels to the idea, though of course not to 
the Christian import, of ro dmo@avety xépdos, see Wetstein. 
Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f.; Eur. Med. 
145. 

Ver. 22. dé] carrying onward the discourse to the compari- 

1 Compare also Spicas, Logos Spermaticos, 1871, p. $80 f. 











CHAP. I. 22, 49 


sen between the two cases as regards their desirability. Weiss 
understands 3é as antithetic, namely to 76 arroOavety xépdos, and 
Hofmann as in contrast also to the éuot ro Sv Xpicros, but 
both proceed on an erroneous view of what follows ;- as does 
also Huther.—According to the 76 dzrofavety xépdos just ex- 
pressed, the dzrofavety was put as the case more desirable for 
Paul personally; but because the fj, in which indeed Christ 
is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his offcial 
labours, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, 
as consequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he 1s in 
doubt respecting a choice between the two.—The structure of the 
sentence is accordingly this, that the apodosis sets in with 
xai ti aipjoouat, and nothing is to be supplied: “ But if the 
remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work, 
L refrain from a making known what I should choose.” We 
have to remark in detail: (1) that ef does not render proble- 
matical that which was said of the &y év capxi, but in 
accordance with the well-known and, especially in Paul’s 
writings, frequent (Rom. v. 17, vi. 15, and often) syllogistic 
usage (Herbst and Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1), posits the 
undoubted certainty (Wilke, Rhetor. p. 258), which would take 


_ place in the event of a continuance of life; (2) that Paul was 


the more naturally led to add here the specially defining éy capxi 
to ro Sy (comp. Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. x. 3), because, in the pre- 
viously mentioned xépdos, the idea of life apart from the body 
(comp. 2 Cor. v. 8) must have been floating in his mind; (3) 
that rovro again sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. 
Rom. vii. 10) the ro S%y év capxl which had just been said, 
and calls attention to it (Bernhardy, p. 283; Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 568 f.; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219), for it was the remain- 
ing in life, just this, this and nothing else ‘(in contrast to the 
aroOavetv), which was necessarily to the apostle xapirés Epyov ; 
(4) that sxapzrds is correlative to the preceding xépdos, and 
embodies the idea emolumentum (Rom. i. 13, vi 21, e al. ; 
Wisd. iii. 13), which is more precisely defined by épyou: work- 
fruit, gain of work, ie. advantage which accrues to my apos- 
lolical work ; comp. on. the idea, Rom. 1.13; (5) that «ai, at 
the commencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, 
PHIL. D 


50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


showing that if the one thing takes place, the other also sets 
in; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 f£.; Baeumlein, Partzh. 
p. 146; Nagelsbach, 2. Ilias, p. 164, ed. 3; comp. on 2 Cor. 
ii, 2; (6) that +/ stands in the place of the more accurate 
aorepoy (Xen. Cyrop. i. 3.17; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p..168 ; 
Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 219 ; Winer, p. 159 [E. T. 211), and 
that the future atpnoopar (what I should prefer) is quite in order 
(see Eur. Hel. 631, and Pflugk in loc.; and Winer, p. 280 
[E. T. 3'74]), while also the sense of the middle, to choose for 
himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked ; comp. 2 
Thess. ii. 13 ; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29: of 5 ph eiSores 8 re rrowover, 
— kaxds 88 alpovpevos, Soph. Ant. 551: od pev yap etrou Sv; (7) 
that ov yvwplfw is not to be taken, as it usually has been, ac- 
cording to the common Greek usage with the Vulgate, in the 

cense of zgnoro, but, following the invariable usage of the N. T. 
' (comp. also 3 Macc. ii. 6; 3 Esr. vi. 12; Aesch. Prom. 487; 
Athen. xii. p. 539 B; Diod. Sic. i. 6), as: Ido not make it known, 
I do not explain myself on the point, give no information upon 
it.. Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schenkel, also Bengel, 
who, however, without any ground, adds mihi. Paul refrains 
from making and declaring such a choice, because (see ver. 
23 f.) his desire is so situated between the two alternatives, 
that it clashes with that which he is compelled to regard as 
the better—The conformity to words and context, and the 
simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation 
(so, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, and many others, in- 
cluding Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, Wies- 
inger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld)—in which, however, xapzr. 
Epyou is not to be taken as operae pretium (Calvin, Grotius, 
and others), nor «aé as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and 
others), nor ov yvwpifo as equivalent to ov« olSa (see above), 
—exclude decisively all other interpretations, in which tovro 


1 Not as if Paul intended to say that ‘‘ he kept it to himself,” a sense which 
Hofmann wrongly ascribes to this declaration. He intends to say rather that he 
refrains from a decision regarding what he should choose. The dilemma in which 
he found himself (comp. ver. 28) caused him to waive the giving of such a deci- 
sion, in order not to anticipate in any way the divine purpose by his own choice. 








CHAP, I, 22 51 


and the «aé of the apodosis have been the special stumbling- 
blocks. Among these other explanations are (a) that of 
Pelagius, Estius, Bengel, Matthies, and others (comp. Lach- 
mann, who places a stop after épyov), that éoré is to be under- 
stood with év capxi, that the apodosis begins with rovro, and 
that xat ri aip. «.7.r. is a proposition by itself: “if the living 
in the flesh 18 appointed to me, then this has no other aim for me 
than by continuous labour to bring forth fruit,” etc. (Huther, l.c. 
p. 581 f.). But how arbitrarily is the simple éor/, thus sup- 
plied, interpreted (mzhi constitutum est)! The words todré pos 
xapTros épyou, taken as an apodosis, are—immediately after the 
statement eyol yap ro Shiv Xpsoros, iti which the idea of sxap- 
qos épyou is substantially conveyed already—adapted less for 
a new emphatic inference than for a supposition that has been 
established ; and the discourse loses both in flow and force. 
Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explana- 
tion.’ (6) Beza’s view, that e is to be taken as whether: “an 
vero vivere in carne mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro.” 
This is linguistically incorrect (aprés Epyov), awkward (e... 
xat vf), and in the first member of the sentence un-Pauline 
(vv. 24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis after Epryou: 
if life, etc., is to me xapiros Epyou, “ non repugno, non aegre fero” 
(so Corn. Miiller), or, “ze ne dois pas désirer la mort” (Rilliet). 
See Winer, p. 557 f. [E. T. 751]; Meineke, Menand. p. 238. 
This is quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional 
character of the passage, which is in fact very calm. (d) Hoele- 
mann’s explanation—which supplies xapzes from the sequel 
after Sjv, takes to#ro, which applies to the azro@aveiv, as the 
beginning of the apodosis, and understands xapzos épryov as 
an actual fruit: “but of life is a fruit in the flesh (an earthly 
fruit), this (death) is also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantial, 
real fruit)” —is involved, artificial, and contrary to the genius 

1 Uf it be life in the flesh, namely, which I have to expect instead of dying (?), 
then this, namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce of labour, in so far as by 
living I produce fruit, and thus then (xa/) it is to me unknown, etc. This inter- 
pretation of Hofmann’s also is liable to the objection that, if Paul intended to 
say that he produced fruit by his life, logically he must have predicated of his 


las iv capni, not that it was to him xapwés ipyov, but rather that it was ipyer xay- 
wev, a work (a working) which produces fruit. 





52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


of the language (xapz7r. épyou!). (e) The explanation of Weiss 
is that, after év capxl, xépSos is to be again supplied as a pre- 
dicate, so that rotro, which is made to apply to the entire 
protasis, begins the apodosis: “but if life is a gain, that is a 
fruit of his labour, because the successes of his apostolic 
ministry can alone make his life worth having to him” (ver. 
24). This supplying of xépdes, which was predicated of the 
antithesis of the jv, is as arbitrary as it. is intolerably 
forced ; and, indeed, according to ver. 21, not xépdos merely 
would have to be supplied, but dwol xépdes; and, since xépdos 
is not to be taken from dzroGavety, of which it is predicate, we 
should have to expect an also before ro Sj, so that Paul 
would have written: e¢ 5é€ (or GAA’ ei) al To Cav éy capki 
€uol xépdos «.7.2. 

Ver. 23. Respecting the r/ aipyoopas ob yvwpitw, Paul ex- 
presses himself more fully in vv. 23, 24, proceeding with the 
explicative 5¢; for dé is not antithetical (Hofmann: “on the 
contrary”), but, in fact, the reading ydp is a correct gloss, 
since the situation now follows, which necessitates that relin- 
quishment of a choice. But I am held in a strait (comp. 
Luke xii. 50; Acts xviii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 14; Wisd. xvii. 11; 
Dem. 396. 22, 1484. 23; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 E, Theaet. 
p. 165 B; Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 46) of the two points, namely 
the azro@avetv and the fjv," of which he has just said, ri aip. 
ov yvwp. These dvo are not conceived in an instrumental 
sense, which is expressed with ovvéy., by the dative (Matt. 
iv. 24; Luke vill. 37; Acts xvii. 5; Plat. Soph. p. 250 
D; Eur. Heracl. 634), but as that from which the cupeyéoOas 
proceeds and originates (Bernhardy, p. 227 f.; Schoem. ad Js. 
p. 348; Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 167).—-rnw erribup. Exov 
K.T.d.] since my longing 7s to die. The article denotes, not 
“vyotum jam commemoratum” (Hoelemann), for Paul has. not 


1 It is therefore more in harmony with the context to refer ix cay dve to what 
precedes than to what follows (Luther, Rheinwald, Corn. Miiller, and others). 
Note that the emphasis is laid on cvrizeza:, which is the new climactic point in 
the continuation of the discourse. The word svvsy. itself is rightly rendered by 
the Vulgate: coarctor. The mere éeneor (Weiss and earlier expositors) is not 
sufficient according to the context. Paul feels himself in a dilemma between two 
opposite alternatives, 











CHAP. I. 24 53 


indeed as yet expressed an émiOupety, but doubtless the desire, 
which Paul has. He says that his desire tends towards dying, 
etc.,! but that life is more necessary ; and therefore he knows that 
not that for which he longs, but that which is the more neces- 
sary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (ver, 25). 
Augustine aptly observes : “ Non patienter moritur, sed patien- 
ter vivit et delectabiliter moritur.” — dvaddoas| comp. 2 Tim. 
iv. 6; Isa. xxxviii. 12. Dying is conceived as a breaking up 
(a figure taken from the camp) for the departure, namely, from 
this temporal life té Christ (comp. vmdyev, Matt. xxvi. 24; 
exdnuety, 2 Cor. v. 8 f.; and similar passages); hence the «at 
civ Xpior@ elvas immediately added.?— morAr\@ .y: parr. 
apeiccoy] by much in a higher degree better ; a cumulative ex- 
pression in the strength and vividness of feeling. As to padXov 
with the comparative, see on Mark vii. 36; 2 Cor. vi. 13; 
and Kiihner, II. 2, p. 24 f, and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 13. 5; 
Bornemann, ad Cyrop. p. 137, Goth. If here interpreted as 
potius (ver. 12), it would glance at the preference usually given 
to life; but nothing in the context leads to this. The pre- 
dicate xpetcoov (a much betier, z.e. happier lot) refers to the 
apostle himself ; comp. below, 60 buds. Eur. Hec. 214: Oavety 
pou Euyruyia xpeloowy exvpnoer. 

Ver. 24. "Esrtpévery involves the idea: to remain still 
(still further), to stay on, comp. Rom. vi. 1.— év rH capxi] in 
my flesh. Not quite equivalent to the idea involved in é& 
capxi without the article (ver. 22). The reading without the éy 
(see the critical remarks) would yield an ethical sense here 
unsuitable (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22 ; Col. i. 23).—dvayxator.] namely, 
than the for me far happier alternative of the dvadicar x. co. 
X. elvast, The necessity for that is only a subjective want 


1 It is thus explained why Paul did not write eet évadtveas (as Origen reads). 
sis is not dependent on ray inf. (iwié. is never so construed ; comp. Corn. 
Miiller) ; but cay iwsd. is absolute, and sis «4 &vna. expresses the direction of ed» 
iwst, Ivav: having my longing towards dying. Comp. Thue. vi. 15. 2. 

2 Bengel : ‘‘ Decedere sanctis nunquam non optabile fuit, sed cum Christo esse 
ex novo testamento est.” This Christian longing, therefore, has in view any- 
thing rather than a ‘“‘having emerged from the limitation of personality ’”’ 
(Schleiermacher).—The translation dissolvi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to 
another reading (4A vfiva:). 


a4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILLIPIANS. 


felt by the pious mind. But the objective necessity of the 
other alternative has precedence as the greater; it is more 
precisely defined by 5: ipés, regarded from the standpoint of 
love. “ Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua causa, sed eorum, 
quibus utilis est.” Seneca, ep. 98; comp. ep. 104. — & ipnas] 
applies to the Philippians, who would naturally understand, 
however, that Paul did not intend to refer this point of 
necessity to them exclusively. It is the itndividualizing mode 
of expression adopted by special love. 

Vv. 25, 26. Totro meo8.) robro does not belong to otéa, 
but to me7ro@., and refers to the case of necessity just ex- 
pressed; having which is the object of his confidence, Paul 
knows that, etc, so that &7: is dependent on oida alone — 
in opposition to Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, 
Flatt, and others, under whose view the otSa would lack the 
specification of a reason, which is given in this very rovro 
qerrov0., as it was practically necessary. On the accusative of the 
object with seroi8., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106 ; Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. O. T. 259f. Observe that 
we may say: wemroiOnow mérola, 2 Kings xviii. 19. Comp. 
on it 18.— peva] J shall remain; contrast to the avadicat, 
which was before expressed by émripéve ey tr. capxi. Comp. 
John xii. 34, xxi. 22f,; 1 Cor. xv. 6. The loving emotion . 
of the apostle (ver. 8) leads him to add to the absolute peva: 
Kal ouprapapeva tracw vpiv, and I shall continue together 
with all of you ; I shall with you all be preserved in temporal 
life. From vv. 6 and 10 there can be no doubt as to the ter- 
minus ad quem which Paul had in view; and the waow (comp. - 
1 Cor. xv. 51; Rom. xiii. 11) shows how near he conceived 
that goal to be (iv. 5). Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this 
view, which is both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic, 
and invents instead one which makes Paul mean by peva the 
remaining alive without his co-operation, and by mapapevo, 
which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see the critical 
remarks), his remaining willingly, and which assumes that 
the apostle did not conceive the xal twapayevo tacw vpiv as 
dependent on Sre, but conveys in these words a promise to 
remain with those, “from whom he could withdraw himself.” 








CHAP, I. 25, 26 55 


What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas and separa- 
tion of things that belong together! and what a singular pro- 
mise from the apostle’s lips to a church so dear to him: that 
he will not withdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them 
(Schneider and Kriiger, ad Yen. Anab. . 6.2)! If wapapeva 
is the true reading, Paul says quite simply: J know that I 
shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and continue with 
you all, ze. and that I shall be preserved to you all; comp. 
Heb. vii. 23 ; Ecclus. xii. 15; Hom. Zi. xii. 402; Plat. Menez. 
p. 235 B; Lucian. Nigr. 30 ; Herodian. vi. 2. 19.—7rapapeva, 
to continue there, just like wev@ in the sense of in vita manere, 
Herod. i, 30. Hence cuprrapapévew (Thuc. vi 89. 3; Men. 
in Stob., lxix. 4, 5), to continue there with, to remain alive 
along with. Thus LXX. Ps. lxxii. 5; Basil, I. p. 49; Gregory 
of Nazianzus, I. p. 74 (joined with ovvdsarwrifvew). — eis tH 
ipov...mlor.| due, as the personal subject of the spoxomy7 
and yapa tijs mictews, is placed first, with the emphasis of 
loving interest ; the latter genitive, however, which is the real 
genitive of the subject, belongs to both words, sarpoxomny «x. 
yapdy, Hence: for your faith—furtherance and joy. Both 
points are to be advanced by the renewed labours of the apostle 
among them (ver. 26). The blending of them together by an 
_ & da Svoty (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erroneous. Weiss, however, 
is also in error in urging that rs wior. cannot belong to 
mpoxoTny also, because it would be in that case the genitive of 
the olject ; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive 
thing, 2 Cor. x. 15.—Ver. 26. Wa 70 xavynua «.7.d.] the 
special and concrete aim of the general proposition eis tay byway 
Mpon, k. x. T. wWioT., Which is consequently represented as the 
awtimate aim of the pero nal cuprapap. rac. iy. Comp. 
ver. 10. The xavynpya, because tua is placed along with it 
(comp. 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15; 2 Cor. ii 14, ix. 3), is that-of the 
readers and not of the apostle (Chrysostom: petfovas exw 
kavyac0as. ipdy érdovrav, Ewald: my pride in you at the 
last day) ; nor is it equivalent to xavynors, gloriatio (Flatt and 
many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does,’ materies | 


1 This applies also against Huther, i.c. p. 585, who, in support of the 
signification gloriatio, appeals to Pind. Jsth. v. 65: xavynpe xardipsys ocyg. But 


56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


gloriand: (Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15f; 2 Cor. 1 14, 
v. 12; Gal. vi. 4). Hence: that the matter in which you have to 
glory, 2.e. the bliss as Christians in which you rejoice (compare 
previously the yapa tis qiotems), may increase abundantly 
(comp. previously the mpoxom7 tijs mriotews). The év Xpior@ 
"Inood that is added expresses the sphere in which the tepic- 
cevewv is to take place, and characterizes the latter, therefore, 
as something which only develops itself in Christ as the 
element, in which both the joyful consciousness and the 
ethical activity of life subsist. Ifthe sepsovevew took place 
otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally ab- 
normal and aberrant thing; as was the case, for example, 
with some of the Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians, 
whose xavyaoGa: was based and grew upon works of the law. 
The normal gepeocevew of the xavynua of the Philippians, 
however, namely, its wepusocvew év Xpiot@ 'Inood, shall take 
place—and this is specially added as the concrete position of 
the matter—éey eywol da rys euijs mapovelas a. mpos tpas, 
that is, 2 shall have in me by my coming again to you its pro- 
curing cause; inasmuch as through this return in itself, and 
in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the 
occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your 
xavynua, and thus the mepiccevew will rest in me. Conse-. 
quently the dy in ey X. ’I., and the év in éy doi, are differently 
conceived; the former is the specific, essential definition of 
aepiocevn, the latter the statement of the personal procuring 
ground for the mepioc. év ‘I. X., which the apostle has in 
view in reference to the xavynpa of his readers,—a statement 
of the ground, which is not surprising for the service of an 
instrument of Christ (Hofmann), and which quite accords 
with the concrete species fact here contemplated, the personal 
return and the apostolic position and ministry. The inter- 
pretation of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that 
the increase of their glorying is given to the readers in the 
person of the apostle, in so far as the having him again among 
in this passage also padxnue means that in which one glories, as the Scholiast 


has appropriately explained it: si xal cydsxavcn sie) cay Aiysnrey ¢& narople- 
pare, Prize nai leindrvercs oy c1Ty. 











CHAP. I. 25, 26, 57 


them would be a matter of Christian joy and pride to them. 
Thus would the apostle make himself in fact the object and 
contents of the xavyaéc@a, which would neither be consistent 
with the logical relation of the tva to the preceding eds r. vp. 
mpoxomny «.T.r., nor with Paul’s own deep humility (1 Cor. 
lii, 21, xv. 9; Eph. iii 8), which he satisfies also in 2 Cor. i. 
14 by the mutual nature of the xavynua between himself and 
his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many (see 
Calvin, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Rilliet, and others) dy X. ’I,, 
and by some even éy dof (Storr, Flatt, Huther), are referred, 
contrary to the position of the words, to To xavynya tpor, 
with various arbitrary definitions of the sense, e.g. Flatt: “so 
that ye shall have still more reason, in reference to me, to 
glorify Jesus Christ (who hath given me again to you) ;” 
Rheinwald: “If I shall be delivered by the power of Christ, 
ye will find abundant cause for praising the Lord, who has 
done such great things for me.” — addy] is connected, as an 
adjectival definition, with wapovo. See on 2 Cor. xi. 23; 
Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7. 


REMARK.—From vv. 20-26 we are not to conclude that 
Paul at that time was in doubt whether he should live to see 
the Parousia (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 355, and others). For in ver. 
20 he only supposes the case of his death, and that indeed, in 
ver. 21, as the case which would be profitable for himself, and 
for which, therefore, he protests in ver. 23 that he longs. But 
on account of the need for his life being prolonged (ver. 24), he 
knows (ver. 25) that that case will not come to pass. This 
ola (ver. 25) is not to be weakened into a probabiliter sperare 
or the like (Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Hein- 
richs, Rheinwald; comp. Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet), with 
which Grotius, from connecting oJda wsrod., even brings out 
the sense, “scio me haec sperare,i.e. malle ;” whilst others fall 
back upon the argumentum a silentio, viz. that Paul says 
nothing here of any revelation (see Estius, Matthies, and 
others), but only expresses an inference in itself liable to error 
(Weiss). No, although he has supposed the possibility (comp. 
ii, 17) of his being put to death, he nevertheless knew that 
he should remain alive; and it must withal be confessed 
that the result did not correspond to this definite oie, which 
Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen pro- 


58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


pheticum. By no means, however, is an tmaginary situation 
to be suspected here (Baur), and just as little can a second 
imprisonment at Rome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius, 
Bengel, and many others, also Wiesinger); as to the relation of 
this passage to Acts xx. 25, see on Acts.—We have further to 
notice that Paul, according to ver. 23, assumes that, in case he 
should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into 
heaven to Christ,—a conviction of the bliss attending martyr- 
dom which is found in 2 Cor. v. 8 and in the history of Stephen, 
Acts vil 59, and therefore does not occur for the first time in 
the Apocalypse (vi. 9 ff, vi. 9 ff). Wetstein’s idea is a mere 
empty evasion, that by dvaAtca: 1s doubtless meant the dying, 
- but by ow xX. sho: only the time following the resurrection 
(comp. also Weitzel, Stud. wu. Krit. 1836, p. 954 ff); as also is 
that of Grotius, that odv X. sve: means: “in Christi custodia esse,” 
and “nihil hine de loco definiri potest.” It is also altogether at 
variance with the context (see vv. 20, 21), if, with Kaeuffer, we 
interpret dvaAtoau: as the change that takes place at the Parousia 
(“ut quasi eximeretur carne”). Comp. on the contrary, Poly- 
carp: ad Phil. 9, bri tig ray bpesrAcuevoy abroie rbarov sic) mapa ro 


! Hinsch even assigns, U.c. p. 71, to the passage with its vivid emotion the 
character of a historico-critical reflection. He represents the author of the 
epistle as having in view the various opinions current in his age regarding the 
close of the apostle’s life, in other words, the question, whether his captivity 
at that time ended in his being put to death, or in his being set at liberty and 
beginning a new course of labour. The author adduces the grounds of both 
views, putting them in the mouth of the apostle, and in ver. 24 decides in favour 
of the second ; the original, of which the present passage is an imitation, is to 
be found (as Baur also thinks) in 2 Cor. v. 8, Rom. xiv. 8. See Hilgenfeld, 
in opposition to Baur and Hinsch. . 

2 All we can gather from Rom. viii. 10f. is merely that the life of believers 
remains unaffected by the death of the body; as at John xi. 25f. They re- 
main in fellowship with Christ ; but as to the mode and place of this fellowship, 
of which they might indeed be partakers even in Hades (Paradise, Luke xvi. 
22 ff., xxiii. 43; Phil. ii. 10), as little is said in that passage as in viii. 88, xiv. 8. 
But in the passage we are considering, the words «iy Xpery stva: point to an 
actual being with the Lord in heaven (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17; Acts vii. 59; 
2 Cor. i.c.), and do not therefore apply to the atate in Hades (in opposition to 
Giider, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 111, and others) ; see also 2 Cor. v. 8. 
This union with Christ, however, is not the 3¢%« as the ultimate goal of hope ; 
see iii. 20f. ; Col. ili. 8. To she latter belongs also the dodily transfiguration, 
which can only take place at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 28. ‘This applies also in 
opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff., whose distinction between 
corporeality and materiality [Leiblichkeit und Kérperlichkeit] is not in harmony 
with the New Testament, which distinguishes rather between cama and capt. 





CHAP, L 2. . 59 


xupiy, @ xa! owvtradoy, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 5, of Peter: papruphoas 
txopsvidy sig rdv dpesAbusvoy rire rig dokns, and of Paul: sig rby 
aytov réxov éxopevdn, Martyr. Ignat. 26. It 1s an intermediate 
state, not yet the fully perfected glory, but 7 heaven, where 
Christ is (iii. 20 f.). Georgii, in Zeller’s theolog. Jahrb. 1845, 
I. p. 22, following Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 368, erroneously dis- 
covers in our passage a modification of the New Testament 
view, developed only when the hope of a speedy Parousia fell 
into the background. Comp. Neander and Baumgarten Crusius 
(whose view amounts to an inconsistency of the conceptions). 
Opposed to these views, even apart from 2 Cor. v. 8 and Acts 
vil. 59, is the fact that the speedy Parousia appears still to 
be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particularly 
iii. 20f. But we find nothing said in the New Testament as 
to an intermediate body between death and resurrection. See 
remark on 2 Cor. v. 3. There is a vague fanciful idea in 
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 443 f., who in p. 419 ff, however, forcibly 
shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. 


Ver. 27. To these accounts regarding his own present 
position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations to right con- 
duct for his readers. — povov] without connecting particle, as 
in Gal ti 10, v. 13. With the above assurance, namely, 
that he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object 
of this preserving of his life (ver. 255 may be accomplished in 
them, needs only to summon them ¢o be in a way worthy of 
the gospel members of the Christian community (arodsteveoOe) ; 
nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence of his 
finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously, 
the only counter-demand made for it.— tod Xprorod) of Christ. 
See on Mark i. 1.—-roAcreveoGe] comp. on Acts xxiii. 1. 
See also 2 Mace. vi. 1, xi 25; 3 Mace. i. 4; Joseph. Antz. 
iii, 5. 8, Vit. 2; Wetstein ad loc., and Suicer, Thes. IT. p. 709 ff. 
The word, which is not used elsewhere by Paul in-the epistles 
to express the conduct of life, is here purposely chosen, because 
he has in view the moral life, internal and external, of the Chris- 
tian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of the gospel 
(arodstever Oat, to be citizen of a state, to live as citizen). See 
the sequel. It is also selected in Acts xxiii. 1, where the idea . 
of the official relation of service is involved (aroAsreverOau, to 
administer an office in the state). Comp. 2 Mace. vi. 1, xi 25; 


60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


3 Macc. iii. 4. In the absence of such references as these, 
Paul says mepivarety (Eph. ‘iv. 1; Col. i. 10, with a£&lws). 
Comp. however, Clement, Cor. i. 3: aodstevecOar xara ro 
xabjxov Te Xptot@, and ch. 54: aodsTevopevos TH apeta- 
wérntov wodtelay tod Beov, ch. 21: a&lws avrod wodusrevo- 
pevot,— etre éXOwy «.7.d.] a parenthetic definition as far as 
amrev, 80 that dxovow then depends on iva: in order that I 
—whether it be when I have come and seen you, or during my 
absence from you—may hear, etc. The two cases elre... etre 
do not refer to the liberation and non-liberation of the apostle ; 
but they assume the certainty of the liberation (ver. 25 f.), after 
which Paul desired to continue his apostolic journeys and to 
come again to the Philippians; and indeed trusted that he 
should come (ii. 24), but yet, according to the circumstances, 
might be led elsewhere and be far away from them (ere 
avowv), In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that 
he may come to learn the affairs of the church in their ex- 
cellence as described by 67+ ornjxere «.7.X. It cannot surprise 
us to find the notion of learning expressed by the common 
form of the zeugma,' corresponding to the elre drwy; and 
from the adxovow accordingly employed there naturally sug- 
gests itself a word of kindred import to correspond with ete . 
€Mav «.7.r., such as yo. The rash opinion, repeated even 
by Hofmann, that dxovow only refers to the second case, does 
the apostle the injustice of making his discourse “hiwca” 
(Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being 
supposed that he intended to write either: “ut sive veniens 
videam vos, sive absens audiam,” or: “sive quum venero et 
videro vos, sive absens audiam de statu vestro, intelligam 
atrogue modo,” etc. Calvin allows a choice between these 
two interpretations; the latter is approved of by de Wette 
and Weiss (comp. Rilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also 
accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written ¢ize 

‘1 It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]) to suppose that 
in a zeugma the directly appropriate verb must be joined to the first member. 
It can also be joined with the second, as here. Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 12, 
and Kiihner in loc. ; Plat. Rep. p. 589 C, and Stallbaum in loc. ; Hom. J1. 


iii. $27, and Faesi in loc. ; generally Nagelsbach, z. Jlias, p. 179, ed. 3 ; Bremi, 
ad Lys. p. 48 ft. ; Kihner, II. 2, p. 1075 f. 





CHAP. I. 27, 61 


aTav axovew Ta tept Sov (which words are to be taken 
together), as if he had previously put ere &\Owv Syropas 
vpas; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply 
the verbs that should have depended on fa, and of which 
two’ would have been needed! The passage employed for 
comparison, Rom. iv. 16, with its close, concise, and clear 
dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkwardness. Hoele- 
mann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary 
way, as if Paul had written: iva, efre €XOwy «. idwv ipas, etre 
aTov Kal axovoas Ta Tept Spar, oTnKyTe «.T.r., thus making 
the participles absolute nominatives. — ra zrept dpa] the object 
of dxovow, so that Ste oTnxere x.1.X., that, namely, ye stand, etc., 
is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence 
of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction oldd ce ris 
ei, and the like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781}. It has been 
awkwardly explained as absolute : “ quod attinet ad res vestras” 
(Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, and others), while van Hengel 
not more skilfully, taking eire dr@v axovow 7. 1. du. together, 
afterwards supplies dxovow again. Grotius, Estius, and am 
Ende take ra even for tadra, and Hoelemann makes Paul ex- 
press himself here also by an anakoluthon (comp. above on etre 
€\Oev «.7.d.), so that either 67+ should have been omitted and 
sTynknre written, or rd should not have been inserted. — ey évi 
avevpatt] is to be joined with oryxere, alongside of which it 
stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it abso- 
lutely (2 Thess. i: 15). It is the common element, in which 
they are to stand, te. to remain stedfast (Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. 
xv. 1, xvi. 13); avevdpuarte, however, refers not to the Holy 
Spirit (Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald, 
Matthies, van Hengel, Weiss), but, as the context shows by 
pa puy7, to the human spirit; comp. 1 Thess. v. 23. The 
perfect accord of their minds in conviction, volition, and 
feeling, presents the appearance of one spirit which the various 
persons have in common. De Wette well says: “the practical 


1 But why two? He would only have needed to insert «als or yw before 
se. This would have suited both halves of the alternative discourse, in the con- 
fased form in which Hofmann makes it run; and there would be no necessity 
whatever for ¢wo verbs. . 


62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


community of spirit.” Comp. Actsiv.32. It is,as a matter of 
course, plain to the Christian consciousness that this unity of 
the human spirit is brought about by the Holy Spirit (see on 
Eph. iv. 3 f., 23), but évi avevdp. does not. say so. Moreover 
the emphasis is on this év éyt wv. and therefore pid yy. is 
subsequently placed first.—The special mode, which this stand- 
ing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is 
contained in the sequel down to avricet, — pa spuyy ovvabn. 
x.t.r.| The yyy, as distinguished from the mvedpua, is the 
principle of the individual personal life, which receives its 
impressions on the one hand from the zrveiya as the principle 
of the higher divine {w7, and on the other hand from the 
outer world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and 
emotion, the sympathetic unity of which in the church is here 
described (comp. on Luke i. 46 f). Comp. todyuyos, ii. 20; 
cuprpuxot, ii, 2; Herodian. viii 5. 15: pug te youn xal 
sux, Rom. xv. 6, duoupadov, 4 Mace. xiv. 20, ouoyrvyos, 
1 Pet. iii 8, ouodpwr. But wid yy. does not also belong to 
ornxere (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Er. Schmid, and 
others), for ovvadd. requires a modal definition in harmony 
with the context. — ovvaOAocbvres] in keeping with or7eere, 
according to the conception of a contest (comp. ver. 30), under 
which the activity of Christian fazthfulness is presented in 
relation to all hostile powers, Comp. Col. ii. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 2; 
1 Tim. vi.12; 2 Tim. iv. 7, ¢al.; also Soph. 0. C. 564; Eur. 
Suppl. 317; Aesch. Prom. 95. The compound, striving together 
(comp. iv. 3, and ouvaywriferGat, Rom. xv. 30), is not to be 
overlooked, as if ovvaOd., with the dative of the thing ex- 
pressed merely the entering or stepping into the lists for it 
(Hofmann). It does not refer, however, to the fellowship of 
the Philippians themselves (“quasi facto agmine contra hostes 
evang.,” Grotius; comp. Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wie- 
singer, Weiss, and others, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius). Paul looks upon himself as a 
combatant (ver. 30, comp. ver. 7), and the Philippians as 
striving with him, and affording him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) 
as his ovvafAo: in defending the faith (objectively viewed), 
protecting it and rendering it victorious. That they were to 


CHAP, I. 28, 63 


do this with ene accord, is stated emphatically by pra >uyy%, 
but is not conveyed by ouvan, in itself. If, however, Paul 
is the combatant, the passage cannot be understood in the 
sense: “ adjuvantes decertantem adversus impios evangelii 
fidem,” Erasmus, Paraphr. ; comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, 
Flatt, Lightfoot,—even apart from the fact that such @ per- 
sonification of mlotis is unprecedented, and must have been 
suggested by the text, as in the case of rH aAnGela, 1 Cor. 
xiii. 6.—r9 mlotes is the dative commodi (comp. Jude 3), not 
instrumentt. (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, Rhein- 
wald, and others), which pia :vy7 was. As to the genitive 
of the object with mloris, see on Rom. iii. 22. 

Ver. 28. On arvpecOar, to become frightened (of horses, 
Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 34; Plut. Fab. 3; Mare. 6), to be thrown 
into consternation (Diod. xvii. 37 f.; Plat. Am p. 370 A; 
Plut. Mor: p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Gen. xh. 8 
Aquila has xatamripecOas.— év pndevi] in no point, nulla 
ratione, ver. 20; 2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4.—The ayr- 
xeiuevos (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9) are the non-Christian opponents 
of the gospel among Jews and Gentiles, and not the Judaizers 
and their adherents (Flatt), or the malevolent false teachers 
(Matthies). This follows from ver. 30, since the whole 
position and ministry of the apostle was a conflict with 
such adversaries, comp. ver. 7.— iris éeotly aitois x.r.2.] 
which is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding py mrvpecOar 
iro TeV avtixers., to which Paul desires to encourage them. 
This wndauntedness in the cvvadGety, and not the latter itself 
(Hofmann), is now the leading idea, with which what has 
further to be said connects itself; hence #T¢ is not to be 
taken as referring to the sufferings, as it is by Ewald (comp. 
2 Thess. i. 5), who subsequently, although without critical 
proof, would read dzrwAelas tyar, tuiv 5é.— avdrois] trois avre- 
xepevos is to be taken simply as dative of reference: which 
is to them an indication of perdition. “Otay yap Bwow, Ste 
pupla rexvatopevos ovde mripat tpas Svvavrat, ov Setypa Tovro 
cages SEovow, Ste Ta pev adltay arrododvtar, TA Se ipétepa 
ioyupa nal dvddwra Kal abribev éxovta thy cwrnpiav; Theo- 
phylact. The #ris involving a reason is just as in Eph. iii. 13, 


64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


@ 

See on that passage. This would be still more emphatically 
expressed by res ye (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 305). But the 
fact that the avrexelwevos do not recognise in the undauntedness 
of those persecuted a proof (not: causa, as in the Vulgate ; 
but comp. Rom. iii. 25 f.; 2 Cor. vii. 24; Plat. Hp. vii p. 
341 E; Legg. xii. p. 966 C) of their own perdition, and on 
the other hand of the salvation of the persecuted (tpav Se 
owrnpias), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that the 
pn wrvpecOas is in reality objectively such an évder£is to them. 
It is, indeed, the onpetor of the righteous divine cause, and of 
its necessary final victory. Perdition and salvation: both with- 
out more précise definition; but the reader knew what reference 
to assign to each, viz. the Messianic perdition and salvation. 
Comp. on the matter, 2 Thess. i. 5 ff.; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. 
ii, 12; Luke xii. 32, e¢ al.—xal rodto ard Qcod] and that 
(see on Rom. xiii. 11) of God, thus certain, therefore, and 
infallible. It adds force to the encouragement conveyed by 
ipav 5¢ owrnplas; for the context shows by the dyiv which 
is emphatically placed first in ver. 29,—without making the 
reading vuty necessary, however, in ver. 28 (Hofmann); see 
the critical remarks,—that rodro refers only to this second and 
* main part of #res «.7.A. (Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and 
others, also Ewald and Hofmann), and not to both halves of 
qvis (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wiesinger, Weiss, 
and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any purpose 
of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the 
Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what 
follows (6rt, that) (Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Erasmus, and others, and recently Rilliet); in which case the 
(preparative) tovro would receive an uncalled-for importance, 
and yet azo @Qcod would be obviously intelligible through 
éxapia On. 

Ver. 29. “Ove is argumentative. “Kal rovro do Oeod,” I 
say, “since indeed to you it was granted,” etc. This grant 
distinguishing you is the practical proof, that the just ex- 
pressed azo Qeod is indubitably right, and that consequently — 
the évdeks of your final salvation which is afforded to the 
adversaries in your undauntedness is a divine beaks, a 





CHAP. I. 29. 65 


tolcen given by God.' Hofmann’s view, that 6s specifies the reason 
why God imparts to them what has been before stated, is based 
upon the erroneous reading tiv in ver. 28; and is itself erro- 
neous, because 6rt would introduce merely the self-evident 
thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully, 
but had had it given to them by God, and because, for the pur- 
pose of marking the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not vpty, 
but dro Qeod again would have been emphatically prefixed, and 
consequently Paul must have written : dts dro Oeod ipiv éyap- 
ic@m «.r.. Hofmann curiously explains the emphasized tpi», 
as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their sufferings 
the case stood exactly as with his own. In that case he must at 
least have written, in prospect of ver. 30, Kat dpi, to you also. 
— vpiy] emphatically put first, corresponding to the previous 
vpov 5é carnpias. — ¢yapicOn] donatum est ; by whom, is self- 
evident. 1 Cor. ii. 12.—16 vrép Xpictod] as if the racyew 
was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this 
unwritten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the 
first place the idea of vzép, as Hofmann artificially explains. 
But here his full heart interposes, after 7. virép Xpiorod, and 
before he writes wdo-yewv, the fresh thought ov povoy To ets avr. 
micrevew, 30 that adAAa cat must now be also added; and, on 
account of the different prepositional relation (eis) introduced, 
the 76 urép Xptotod already expressed is again taken up by 
To trép avrov. Thus od povoy ... virép a’trod appears as a 
parenthesis of more special definition, after which the mracyeup, 
which had been prepared for by To vrép Xpiorod, but is only 
now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis: “to you 
the gift of grace is granted, in behalf of Christ—not only to 
believe on Him, but also for Him—/“o suffer.” Plat. Legg. x. 
p. 802 C: ef dé davicera: uyy mpatov, ob trip ov8é dnp, uy 
5é dy arpwrots yeyernuévn. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 
431; Fritzsche, ad Matth.p.501. Itis an awkward construc- 
tion, to take 76 vrép X. absolutely and (notwithstanding thesubse- 
quent vzrép avrod) in the sense: as to what concerns Christ (Beza, 

1 At the same time it is to be observed here also (comp. on ver. 28) that this 


divine pointing to the final salvation of believers was in fact before the adversaries, 
and that their non-recognition of it altered nothing in this objective relation. 


PHIL. E 


66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Camerarius, Calovius,and others,including Matthies and Rilliet). 
* For the conception of suffering for Christ as a high divine distinc- 
tion, seealready Acts v. 41; comp. Matt. v.11f£ Comp. on ver. 7. 

Ver. 30. So that ye have the same conflict, etc., serves to cha- 
racterize the vpiv éyap. To Urép X. waoxev just asserted ; and 
Paul's intention in thus speaking, is to bring home to them the 
high dignity and distinction of suffering for Christ, which is in- 
volved in the consciousness of fellowship in conflict with the 
apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true explana- 
tion of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in roy avroy, 
that they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as 
little as the apostle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have 
received it as a gift of grace from God (Hofmann), The par- 
ticiple might have been put by Paul in the nominative (instead 
of the dative), because vets was floating before his mind as the 
logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Eph. iii. 18, 
iv. 2; 2 Cor.i. 7; Col ii. 2, iii. 16; Phil. iii 19; Kiihner, IT. 
2, p. 661 f. There is therefore neither a logical nor a gram- 
matical reason, with Bengel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. 
also Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. 299]), to treat Aris. . 
waoyxew as a parenthesis,—a construction which would be only 
an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse. — roy 
avrov] namely, in respect of the olyect ; it is the conflict for 
Christ (ver. 29) and His gospel (ver. '7).— olov eldete «.7.r.] as 
ye have seen tt in my person (viz. whilst I was still with you in 
Philippi ; see scenes of this conflict in Acts xvi. 16 ff.; comp. 
1 Thess. ii. 2), and now (from my epistle which is read out to 
you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks to the 
Philippians as if they were listening to him in person; thus 
they hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in 
the statements of the apostle. This explanation is all the less 
unfitting, as Hofmann terms it (comparing the dy piv in 
1 Cor. iv. 6), since Paul must necessarily have assumed that 
the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings would not 
fail to receive more detailed description in Philippi on the 
part of Epaphroditus, The rendering de me for the second 
év éuol, adopted by Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
Grotius, and others, including Flatt, is erroneous. 








CHAP. Il. 67 


CHAPTER IL 


Ver. 1. Instead of 7 +: xapay., D* L, min. have: 67 rig rapa, 
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Matth. It is nothing but a 
mechanical repetition of the preceding «/ rs. The same judg- 
ment must be passed on the reading: s7 ri¢ ewrdyyva, although 
this si¢ (instead of which the Recepta ria is to be restored) has the 
greatly preponderant attestation of ABCDEFGKLPX, min. 
Bas. Chrys. (?) Damasc. Oec. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb. 
Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. Twa (as early as Clem. Al. 
Strom. iv. p. 604, Pott. ; also Theodoret) is, notwithstanding its 
small amount of cursive attestation, we do not say absolutely 
necessary,’ but requisite for such an understanding of the entire 
verse as naturally offers itself to the reader; see the exegetical 
remarks. — Ver. 3. 7] Lachm. and Tisch. read, and Griesb. also 
recommended: ynds xard, following A BCR, min. vss. and 
Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings 
i xard, nal xarcé, undsy xard.— Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz, have txaocrog 
in both places, which is defended also by Reiche. But éxacro,, 
which is confirmed by preponderating testimony even before 
oxowovrres (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the 
singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T. — Elz. 
has oxors?re instead of oxosoivrss, against decisive testimony. — 
Ver. 5. rotro yép] A BC* &*, min. vss. Fathers, Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8 have rodro only. But what led to the omission of yap 
was, that, ppove7rs being subsequently read, the preceding txacro 
was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (AC &). 
Moreover, the commencement of a lesson at rotro favoured the 
omission. — gpovsisdw| The reading gpovsirs appears to have deci- 
sive attestation from the uncials, of which only C*** K LP 
favour the Recepta gpovsicdw. But it is incredible, if the well- 
known and very common imperative form gpovetrs was the original 
reading, that it should have been exchanged for the otherwise 


1 Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 218, would read o: instead of rive ; but the former 
is found only in min., and is scarcely susceptible of a forced explanation (‘‘ si qua 
est vobis,” or ‘‘ si quid valet”’).—The old Latin versions, with their si qua or si 

id, leave us uncertain as to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm. has: si 
quis. 


68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


unusual passive form ¢gpove/oda, merely for the reason that it was 
sought to gain a passive form to be supplied with the following 
words 6 xa/ év X. °I. (where the supplying of 7» would have been 
sufficient). And as the very ancient testimony of most Greek 
authorities since Origen, also of the Goth. Copt. Arm. and 
nearly all min., is in favour of opoveic6w, we must retain it as the 
original, which has been made to give way to the more current 
gpoveirs. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following 
Lachmann. — Ver. 9. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have t¢voue alone 
instead of rd ova, in opposition to A BC X8, 17, and several 
Fathers. The article has been suppressed by the preceding 
syllable. — Instead of éEoporoyqonra: the future souoroyjoeras is 
decisively attested. — Ver. 13. The article before @sé¢ (Elz. 
Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony. — Ver. 15. 
vyivnode| A D*® E* FG, Vulg. It. Cypr. have rs. So also Lachm. 
But the testimony is not decisive, and there is the more reason 
for defending the Recepta, because yivnods might be more readily 
glossed by 7r+ than the converse, both in itself, and also here 
-on account of the following é of¢ gafsote x.9.A.— duacunra] 
Lachm. Tisch. 8 have duapza, following A BC 8, min. Clem. 
Cyr. But the latter is the prevailing form in the N. T., and 
readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Pet. iii. 14).— # wiow] A BC D* 
F GX,min. Clem. have wis. Approved by Griesb., and 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is ex- 
planatory. — Ver. 19. xvupiyv] Lachmann reads Xpiorg, upon 
too weak authority. — Ver. 21. Elz.: ra rod Xprorod Inood. But 
ra "Inoou X. (Tisch.: rd& Xpsorov "Incot) has the preponderance of 
evidence in its favour. — Ver. 26. After izaés, A C D E &*, min. 
vss. and some later Fathers have id, which Lachm. places in 
brackets. To be adopted; because, after i. 8, its omission would 
be very probable, and there is no reason why it should have 
got in as a gloss here and not at i. 8.—- Ver. 27. Elz.: ea? Aven, 
against decisive testimony in favour of éa/ Abxnv.— Ver. 30. rd 
épyov rou Xpiorot | Tisch. 7 reads rd tpyovmerely ; following, indeed, 
only C, but correctly, for the bare ri ipyov appeared to need 
some defining addition, which was given to it by rod Xpioro or 
Xpiorod (Tisch. 8), or even by xupiov (A &). — xapaBovr.] The form 
wapasor. has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred. 
See the exegetical remarks. 


Ver. 1. Ovdv] infers from i. 30 what is, under these circum- 
stances, the most urgent duty of the readers. If they are 
engaged in the same conflict as Paul, it is all the more im- 


CHAP. I. 1. 69 


peratively required of them by the relation of cordial affec- 
tion, which must bind them to the apostle in this fellowship 
that they should fulfil his joy, etc. Consequently, although, 
connecting what he is about to say with what goes imme- 
diately before (in opposition to Hofmann), he certainly, after 
the digression contained from #rés in ver. 28 onwards, leads 
them back to the exhortation to wnanimity already given in 
ver. 27, to which is then subjoined in ver. 3 f. the sum- 
mons to mutual humility. — et tis «.7.d.| four stimulative 
elements, the existence of which, assumed by e (comp on Col. 
i. 1), could not but forcibly bring home to the readers the 
fulfilment of the apostle’s joy, ver. 2." With each éoré simply 
is to be supplied (comp. iv. 8): Jf there be any encouragement 
an Christ, of any comfort of love, etc. It must be noticed that 
these elements fall into two parallel sections, in each of which 
the first element refers to the olyective principle of the Christian 
life (¢v Xptor@ and mvevparos), and the second to the subjective 
principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (ayamns 
and omAayyva xal oixripyot). Thus the inducements to 
action, involved in these four elements, are, in equal measure, 
at once objectively binding and inwardly affecting (aas 
ogodpis, mas peta cupmabeias morris! Chrysostom). — 
mapaxr, év X.| év X. defines the wapaxn. as specifically Chris- 
tian, having its essence and activity in Christ; so that it 
issues from living fellowship with Him, being rooted in it, and 
sustained and determined by it. Thus it is in Christ, that 
brother exhorteth brother. wapd«Anow means exhortation 
(1 Cor. xiv. 3; Rom. xii. 8; Acts iv. 36, ix. 31, xiii. 15, 
xv. 31), 4.e. persuasive and edifying address; the more special 
interpretation consolatvo, admissible in itself, anticipates the 
correct rendering of the vrapapyv@toy which follows (in opposi- 
tion to Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Erasmus, 
Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others; 
and recently Hoelemann and Ewald). — ef ti mapap. dyar. | 


1 Hitzig, z. Krit. Paul. Briefe, p. 18, very erroneously opines that there is 
here a made excitement, an emphasis in which not so much is felt as is put 
into the words; and the four times repeated tf is to cover the dofect,—in con- 
nection with which an utterly alien parallel is adduced from Tacit. Agric. 46. 


70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


mapapvOcov (see generally Schaefer ad Bos. p. 492; Lobeck 
ad Phryn. p. 517; Jacobs ad Ach. Tat. p. 708) corresponds 
to the fourth clause (o7Adyyva x. otxr.), and for this reason, 
as well as because it must be different from the preceding 
element,' cannot be taken generally with Calovius, Flatt, 
Matthies, de Wette, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J. 
B. Lightfoot, and Hofmann as address, exhortation (Plat. Legg. 
vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. 880 A), but definitely as comfort (Thuc. v. 
103; Theocr. xxiii. 7; Anth. Pal. vii. 195, 1; Wisd. iii. 18; 
Esth. viii. 15; comp. wapayvOia, Plat. Axioch. p. 375 A; 
Luc. Nigr. 7; Ps. Ixv. 12; Wisd. xix. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 3). 
"Ayanns is the genitive of the subject: a consolation, which 
love gives, which flows from the brotherly love of Christians. 
In order to make out an allusion to the Trinity in the three 
first points, dogmatic expositors like Calovius, and also Wolf, 
have understood dydarns of the love of God (to us). — el tes 
xowwy. rv.] if any fellowship of the Spirit (2.e. participation in 
the Spirit) exists; comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 13. This is to be 
explained of the Holy Spirit, not of the animorum conjunctio 
(Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, am Ende, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Hoelemann, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others; Usteri 
and Rilliet mix up the two), which is inconsistent with the 
relation of this third clause to the first (€v Xpior@), and also 
with the sequel, in which (ver. 2) Paul encowrages them to 
fellowship of mind, and cannot therefore place it in ver. 1 as a 
motive. — el tiva or. x. olwr.| if there be any heart and com- 
passion. The former used, as ini. 8, as the seat of cordial 
loving affections generally; the latter, specially as mzsericordia 
(see on Rom. ix. 15), which has its seat antl life in the heart. 
See also on Col. iii. 12; comp. Luke i. 28; Tittmann, Synon. 
p. 68 f.—It must further be remarked, with regard to all four 
points, that the context, by virtue of the exhortation based 
upon them wAnpecatré pov THY yapdv in ver. 2, certainly pre- 
supposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the 


' Hofmann erroneously makes the quite arbitrary distinction that wapaxa. 
refers to the will, and rapes. to the feelings. The will, feelings, and intellect 
are called into exercise by both. Comp., especially on wapausé., Stallbaum, ad 
Plat. Rep. p. 476 E; Phaed. p. 70 B; Euthyd. p. 272 B; Thue. viii. 86, 1. 








CHAP. IL. 1, 71 


general expression (if there 7s) forms a more moving appeal, 
and is not to be limited by the addition of in you (Luther, 
Calvin, and others). Hence the idea is: “Jf there 1s exhorta- 
tion in Christ, wherewith one brother animates and incites 
another to a right tone and attitude; if there is comfort of love, 
whereby one refresheth the other; if there 1s fellowship in the 
Spirit, which inspires right feelings, and confers the consecra- 
tion of power; ¢f there is a heart and compassion, issuing in 
sympathy with, and compassion for, the afflicted,—manifest 
all these towards me, in that ye make full my joy (uov tay 
yapav).” Then, namely, I experience practically from you that 
Christian-brotherly exhortation, and share in your comfort of 
love, and so ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the 
Spirit and the cordial sympathy, which makes me not distressed, 
but glad in my painful position—There is much that is mis- 
taken in the views of those who defend the reading res before 
omy. (see van Hengel and Reiche), which cannot be got rid 
of by the assumption of a constructio ad synesin (in opposi- 
tion to Buttmann, Neu. Gr. p. 71 [E.T. 81]). Hofmann is 
driven by this reading, which he maintains, to the strange 
misinterpretation of the whole verse as if it contained only 
protases and apodoses, to be thus divided: e? tis ovy trapd- 
KANO, év Xpiore eb Ts twapapvOuv, aydirns el tis Kowwvia 
TVEVMATOS, eb TLS, OTAAdYYVA K. oixTippol; this last ef Tis being 
a repetition of the previous one with an emphasizing of the ei. - 
Accordingly the verse is supposed to mean: “If exhortation, 
let it be exhortation in Christ; if consolation, let it be a con- 
solation of love; if fellowship of the Spint, if any, let it be 
cordiality and compassion.” A new sentence would then begin 
with wAnpwoarte” Artifices such as this can only serve to 
recommend the reading ei? riva. 


'In the application of the general s7 eis wapdéxaness bs X., the subjects of this 
Fapaxaners must, following the rule of the other elements, be the Philippians ; 
Paul (Wiesinger, comp. Ewald) cannot be conceived as the wapaxadcy. 

* From this interpretation of the whole passage he should have been deterred by 
the forlorn position which is assigned to the s7 «ss before ewadyyva as the stone 
of stumbling, as well as by the purposelessness and even inappropriateness of 
an oddly emphasized problematical sense of this «/ ¢s5.— If it be thought that 
the reading s7 1s ewa. must be admitted. I would simply suggest the following 


72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Ver. 2. The joy which Paul already feels in respect to the 
Philippians (i. 4), they are to make full to him, like a measure 
(comp. John il. 29, xv. 11, xvi. 13; 1 John i. 4; 2 John 
12; 2 Cor. x. 6). For the circumstances of the case, comp. 
1,9. The pov represents, as it very often does in the N. T. 
(eg. iv. 14; Col. iv. 18; Philem. 20), and in Greek authors, 
the dative of interest. — iva] The mode in which they are to 
make his joy full is conceived in ¢elic form, as that which is 
to be striven for in the action of making full; and in this aim 
of the wAnpody the regulative standard for this activity was 
to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the 70 avro 
dpovety in the imperative, and the wAnpoiv thy yapay in the 
telic form; but the immediate relation fo himself, in which he 
had conceived the whole exhortation, induced him to place the 
wrnpodv t. x. in the foreground. — 70 avro dpovijte] denotes 


generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely defined by 


the sequel here as identity of sentiment. See Tittmann, Synon. 
p. 67; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 87 f.; comp. Herod. i. 60, 
ix. 54, and the passages in Wetstein. The opposite: audis 
dp., Hom. Jl. xiii. 345 ; GAAn dp., hymn. Ap. 469; d:yodpo- 
veiv, Plut. Mor. p. 763 E; Seyopnris, Nonn. ev. Joh. xx. 29; 
and similar forms. Hoelemann interprets 1d a’ro as illud 
apsunv, that, namely, which was said in ver. 1, the wapaxAnots ev 
X. down to otxtipyot. This is at variance with the context (see 


by way of necessary explanation of the passage :—I1st, Let the verse be regarded 
as consisting of a series of four protases, on which the apodosis then follows in 
ver. 2; 2d, Let iv Xpreg, ayadons, wntpares and ewrdcyyra x. sineipyes be taken 
uniformly as predicative specifications ; 3d, Let xe:wsi« be again understood with 
the last «7 e15, Paul would accordingly say: ‘‘ If any exhortation is exhortation 
in Christ, if any comfort is comfort of love, if any fellowship is fellowship of the 
Spirit, if any (fellowship) is cordiality and compassion (that is, full of cordiality 
and compassion) fulfil ye,” etc. The apostle would thus give to the element of 
the xe:mwsiz, besides the objective definition of its nature (wvsepares, referring to 
the Holy Spirit), also a subjective one (era. x. sixes.), and mark the latter 
specially by the repetition of si cis sc. xe:wvie, a8 well as designate it the more 
forcibly by the nominative expression (ewadyyva x. sixr,, not another genitive), 
inasmuch as the latter would set forth the ethical nature of such a xe:wvie (comp. 
such passages as Rom. vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 17) in the form of a direct predicate. 
The s;, moreover, would remain uniformly the syllogistic si in all the four clauses, 
and not, as in Hofmann’s view, suddenly change into the problematic sense in 
the fourth clause. 





CHAP. II. 2. 73 


the following r. aur. ayd7r. and & ¢pov.), and contrary to the 
wonted use of the expression elsewhere (Rom. xii. 16, xv. 5; 
2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil iv. 2).—riy adriy ay. &., covey. to 
éy ¢pov.| Two more precise definitions of that like-minded- 
ness, so far as it is tdentity of (mutual) love, and agreement of 
feeling and active impulse, sympathy (cvpyuyo, only found 
here in the N. T.; but see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on i. 27, 
also on icoyvyov, ver. 20). This accumulation of definitions 
indicates earnestness ; Paul cannot sever himself from the 
thought, of which his heart is so full. Comp. Chrysostom: 
BaBat, rocdxuw To avro Neyer aro Stabécews worAARS! He 
also well remarks on t. avr. dyam. éy.: Touréote opoiws oireiy 
cat diretobar. The following to & ¢dpovoivres is to be closely 
connected with ovpy., so that oupyvyos has the emphasis 
and adds the more precise definition of the previously men- 
tioned unity of mind: with harmony of soul cherishing the one 
sentiment. There are therefore only two, and not three, special 
explanations of the ro avro dpovnre; and & with the article 
points back to the previous 76 avro, which is now represented 
by to & without any essential difference in sense. Exposi- 
tors, not attending to this close connection of cdg. with 7d 
éy dpov. (which Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and Schenkel have 
acknowledged), have either made the apostle say the very same 
thing twice over (Oecumenius: SsrAacralet To opodpoveiv), or 
have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between 7d avro and 
To éy dpov.—e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the 
same objects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same senti- 
ment itself ; Tittmann, /.c., that the former is idem sentire, velle 
ef quaerere, and the latter in uno expetendo consentire ; Beza and 
others, that the former means the acreement of will, the latter 
the agreement in doctrine ; while others put it inversely ; Hof- 
mann thinks that é& with the article means the one thing, on 
which a Christian must inwardly be bent (comp. Luke x. 42). 
It means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been 
designated by rd avro dpovyre (as in iv. 2; Rom. xii. 16; 
and other passages); the context affords no other reference for 
the article. — It is usual, even in classical authors, for the 
participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself, in 


74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


such a way that one of the two conveys a more precise 
specification. See Stallb. ad Plat. Hipp. m. p. 292 A; Borne- 
mann, ad Cyrop. viii. 4. 9; Lobeck, Paral. p. 532 f. 

Ver. 3 f. Mndév xara épi8. 7 xevodo€.) sc. ppovodvres (not 
qotouvres, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende, 
Rheinwald, Flatt, van Hengel, and others); so that, accord- 
ingly, what was excluded by the previous requirement ro avro 
povire . .. dpovovyres, is here described. To take, as in Gal. 
v. 13, udev... xevodofiay as a prohibition by itself, without 
dependence on ¢povodvres (see on Gal. l.c.), as J. B. Lightfoot 
does, is inappropriate, because the following participial anti- 
thesis discloses the dependence of the undev «.7.r. on the 
previous participle ; hence also Hofmann’s view, that there is an 
antentional leaving the verb open, cannot be admitted. Hoele- 
mann combines it with syovu., and takes pndev as newtiquam ; — 
but incorrectly, for jyoup. «.7.X. affirms the esteeming others 
better than oneself, which, therefore, cannot take place in a 
factious (xara épiMecay, see on i. 17) or in a vainglorious (4 Kevo- 
Soflav) way. The xara denotes that which is regulative of the 
state of mind, and consequently its character, and is exchanged 
in the antithetic parallel for the dative of the instrument: by 
means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a 
generic idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual 
brotherly humility (Eph. iv. 2; Col. ii 12; Acts xx. 19) is 
the determining principle, by which, for example, Caius is 
moved to regard Lucius as standing higher, in a moral point 
of view, than himself, and, on the other hand, Lucius to pro- 
nounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself (ze. 
GANoUS ... €avrd@v). Hoelemann erroneously refers t7 tameuw- 
opp. to umepex., so that it “excellentiae designet praesidium,” 
—a view which the very position of the words should have 
warned him not to adopt. — «evodo£ia] ostentation, only here 
in the N. T. Comp. Wisd. xiv. 14; Polyb. iii. 81. 9; Lucian, 
D. Mort. x. 8, xx. 4; and see on Gal. v. 26.— Ver. 4. 2) ra 
éavtav Exaorot oxom.] The humble mind just indicated cannot 
exist together with selfishness, which has its own interests in 
view. See instances of oxomeiy ra twos, to be mindful of 
any one’s interests, in Herod. 1 8; Plat. Phaedr. p. 232 D; 





CHAP. IL. 8, 4 75 


Thue. vi. 12. 2; Eur. Supp. 302. Comp. Lucian, Prom. 14: 
 Tapavrod ova cxoTa®. The opposite of ra éavray ox. may be 
seen in 2 Mace. iv. 5: ro 5¢ cupdhépov xowy .. . oxoTrav. 
Comp. fnrety ta éavrov, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5; Phil. ii. 21, 
where Cnreiy presents no essential difference in sense. Others 
consider that the having regard to gifts and merits is intended 
(Calvin, Hammond, Raphel, Keil, Commentat. 1803, in his 
Opuse. p. 172 ff., Hoelemann, Corn. Miiller), which, after the 
comprehensive 77 Tazrewvodp. «.7.r., would yield a very insipid 
limitation, and one not justified by the context. — &acror] It 
is usually, and in other passages of the N. T. invariably, the 
singular that is used in this distributive apposition ; the plural, 
however, is not unfrequently found in classical authors. Hom. 
Od. ix. 164; Thuc.i. 7.1; Xen. Hell. ii. 4, 38; Herodian, 
iii, 13, 14.— ara wal x.7.r.] a@ weaker contrast than we 
should have expected from the absolute negation in the first 
clause ;' a softening modification of the idea. In strict con- 
sistency the xat must have been omitted (1 Cor. x. 24). 
Comp. Soph. 47. 1292 (1313): dpa py robdpoy adAa Kal rd 
cov; and see Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 788; Winer, p. 463 f. 
[E. T. 624]. The second éxaoro: might have been dispensed 
with; it is, however, an earnest repetition. — The influences 
disturbing unity in Philippi, disclosed in vv. 2-4, are not, 
according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal kind, nor do 
they refer to the strength and weakness of the knowledge and 
conviction of individuals, as was the case in Rome (Rom. xiv.) 
and Corinth (1 Cor. vi. and x.)—in opposition to Rheinwald 
and Schinz ;—but they were based upon the jealousy of moral 
self-estimation, in which Christian perfection was respectively 
ascribed and denied to one another (comp. ver. 12, iii. 12 ff). 
Although this necessarily implies a certain difference of opinion 
as to the ethical theory, the epistle shows no trace either of 
any actual division into factions, or of ascetic jealousy (which 

1 In which, in fact, it is not merely the limitation (Hofmann) to one’s own that 
is forbidden, as if #évev stood along with it. What Hofmann at the same time 
deduces from the reading fxagres (before exerevrrss), which he follows, as dis- 
tinguished from the subsequent %saerw (with a here wholly irrelevant compari- 


son of Plat. Apol. p. 89 A), is sophistical, and falls, moreover, with the reading 
itself. 





76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


de Wette assumes as co-operating). But the exhortations to 
unity are too frequent (i. 27, ii. 2 f, iii, 15, iv. 2 f.) and too 
urgent to justify us in questioning generally the existence 
: (Weiss) of those disturbances of harmony, or in regarding 
them as mere tll humour and isolation disturbing the cordial 
fellowship of life (Hofmann). Comp. Huther, in the Mecklend. 
Zetschr. 1862, p. 640 fff. 

Ver. 5. Enforcement of the precept contained in ver. 3 f. 
by the example of Jesus (comp. Rom. xv. 3; 1 Pet. i. 21; 
Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of humility, kept not His own inte- 
rest in view, but in self-renunciation and self-humiliation sacri- 
ficed it, even to the endurance of the death of the cross, and 
was therefore exalted by God to the highest glory ;! this ex- 
tends to ver. 12. See on this passage Kesler in hes. nov. ex 
nus. Has. et Iken. II. p. 947 f.; Schultens, Dissertatt. philol. 
I. p. 443 ff; Keil, two Commentat. 1803 (Opuse. p. 172 ff); 
Martini, in Gabler’s Journ. f. auserl. theol. Lit. IV. p. 34 ff. ; von 
Ammon, Magaz. f. Pred. II. 1, p. 7 ff. ; Kraussold in the Annal. 
d. gesummt. Theol. 1835, Il. p. 273 ff.; Stein in the Stud. w. 
Krit. 1837, p. 165 ff; Philippi, d. thdtige Gehors. Chr. Berl. 
1841, p. 1 ff.; Tholuck, Disp. Christol. del. Phil. ii. 6-9, Halle 
1848 ; Ernesti in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff, and 1851, 
p. 595 ff; Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 502 ff, and 
1852, p. 133 ff, and in his Paulus, II. p. 51 ff. ed. 2; Liebner, 
Christol. p. 325 ff.; Raebiger, Christol. Paulin. p. 76 ff.; 
Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zettalt. p. 58 ff.; Schnecken- 
burger in the Deutsch. Zettschr. 1855, p. 333 ff.; Wetzel in 
the Monatschr. f. d. Luth. Kirche Preuss. 1857 ; Kihler in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 99 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1860, p. 431 ff., and his Christol. d. N. T. 1866, p. 233 ff; 
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 1870, p. 163 ff.; J. B. Light- 
foot’s Excursus, p. 125 ff.; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschr. 

' Christ’s example, therefore, in this passage is one of self-denial, and not of 
obedience to God (Ernesti), in which, in truth, the self-denial only manifested 
itself along with other things. It is, however, shown by the very addition of x«/, 
that Paul really intended to adduce the example of Christ (in opposition to Hof- - 
mann’s view) ; comp. Rom. xv. 3. Christ's example is the moral, ideal, histori- 
cally realized. Comp. Wuttke, Stééent. II. § 224; Schmid, Sittenl. p. 855 ff. ; 
and as early as Chrysostom. 








CHAP. IL 6. "7 


1871, p. 519 ff; Grimm in the same Zettschr. 1873, p. 33 fff. 
Among the more recent dogmatic writers, Thomasius, IT. p. 
148 ff.; Philippi, IV. 1, p. 469 ff.; Kahnis, I. p. 458 ff. 
— dpoveicOw ev vp.) sentiatur in animis vestris. The parallelism 
with the éy which follows prohibits our interpreting it intra 
vestrum caetum (Hoelemann, comp. Matthies). The passive 
mode of expression is unusual elsewhere, though logically 
unassailable. Hofmann, rejecting the passive reading, as also 
the passive supplement afterwards, has sadly misunderstood 
the entire passage.’ — 56 xal év X.’I.] sc. ébpov7jOy. On ev, 
comp. the Homeric év) ¢dpeci, évt Oupa, which often occurs 
with gdpoveiv, Od. xiv. 82, vi. 313; Ji. xxiv. 173. «al is not 
cum maxime, but the simple also of the comparison (in opposi- 
tion to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern of Christ. 

Ver. 6. The classical passage which now follows is like an 
Epos in calm majestic objectivity ; nor does it lack an epic 
minuteness of detail.— 6s] epexegetical ; subject of what 
follows ; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the pre-human state, 
in which He, the Son of God, and therefore according to the 
Johannine expression as the Aoyos doapxos, was with God.’ 


1 Reading ¢persies, and subsequently explaining the t» Xpeeg "Ineot as a frequent 
expression with Paul for the ethical Christian quality (like iv xupi» in iv. 2), 
Hofmann makes the apostle say that the readers are to have their mind so directed 
within them, that it shall not be lacking in this definite quality which makes tt 
Christian. Thus there would be evolved, when expressed in simple words, 
merely the thought: ‘‘Have in you the mind which is also the Christian 
one.” Asif the grand outburst, which immediately follows, would be in harmony 
with such a general idea! This outburst has its very ground in the lofty 
example of the Lord. And what, according to Hofmann’s view, is the purpose of 
the significant zai? 1t would be entirely without correlation in the text ; for in i» 
tiv the iv would have to be taken as local, and in the iv Xpserg, according to that 
misinterpretation, it would have to be taken in the sense of ethical fellowship, 
and thus relations no? aé all analogous would be marked. 

2 That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-existence was already the eternal Prin- 
ciple and Prototype of humanity (as is urged by Beyschlag), is self-evident ; for 
otherwise He would have been one essentially different from Him who in the 
fulness of time appeared in the flesh. But this does not entitle us to refer the 
pre-existence to His whole divine-human person, and to speak of an eternal 
humanity, —paradoxes which cannot exegetically be justified by our passage and 
other expressions such as 1 Cor. xv. 47; Rom. v. 12 ff., viii. 29; Col. i. 15. 
The Logos pre-existed as the divine principle and divine prototype of humanity ; 
@sés ay 6 Adyeos, and this, apart from the form of expression, is also the teaching 


78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


The human state is first introduced by the words éaurdp 
éxévwoe in ver. 7. So Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, 
Zanchius, Vatablus, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, Calixtus, Semler, 
Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraussold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Miiller, 
and most expositors, including Liinemann, Tholuck, Liebner, 
Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thomasius, Raebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis, 
Beyschlag (1860), Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 306, Messner, 
Lehre d. Ap. 233 f., Lechler, Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 f, 
Rich. Schmidt, /.c., J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm; comp. also Hof- 
mann and Diisterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. III. p. 65 ff. It has 
been objected (see especially de Wette and Philippi, also 
Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrd. f. D. Th. 1856, p. 
394 f.), that the name Christ Jesus is opposed. to this view; 
also, that in vv. 8-11 it is the exaltation of the earthly Christ 
that is spoken of (and not the return of the Logos to the divine 
Sofa) ; and that the earthly Christ only could be held up as a 
pattern. But Xptoros Incods, as subject, is all the more justly 
used (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. 14 ff; 1 Cor. 
x. 4), since the subject not of the pre-human glory alone, but 
at the same time also of the human abasement? and of the 
subsequent exaltation, was to be named. Paul joins on to és 
the whole summary of the history of our Lord, including His 
pre-human state (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9: éwrrwyevore mAOVCLOS By) ; 
therefore vv. 8-11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as 
regards the definition of the subject; and the force of the 
example, which eertainly comes first to light in the historical 
Christ, has at once historically and ethically its deepest root in, 
and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matt. v. 48; 
Eph. v. 1), obligation from, just what is said in ver. 6 of His 
state before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context 
introduces the incarnation only at ver. 7, and introduces it as 
that by which the subject divested Himself of His divine 
appearance, and as the earthly Jesus never was in the form of 


of Paul. Only is time could He enter upon the human existence; the notion of 
eternal humanity would refute itself. 

1 Hence Philippi’s objection, that ¢pevsix is elsewhere applied to man only, 
and not to God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded is also Beyschlag’s objec- 
tion (1866) drawn from the word exipar: ; see below. 


-_ 


CHAP. II. ¢. 79 


God (comp. Gess, p. 295), it is incorrect, because at variance 
with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran 
orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos, 
to regard the incarnate historical Christ, the Aoyos Evoapxos, as 
the subject meant by és (Novatian, de Trin. 17, Ambrosiaster, 
Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron, Piscator, Hunnius, 
Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and 
others, including Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, 
de Wette, Schneckenburger, Philippi, Beyschlag (1866), Dor- 
ner, and others; see the historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff, 
and J. B. Lightfoot). Liebner aptly observes that our passage 
is “the Pauline 6 ddyos cap& éyévero ;” comp. on Col. i 15.— 
éy popdy Qeod urdpywr] not to be resolved, as usually, into 
“ although, etc.,’ which could only be done in accordance with 
the context, if the dpmaypov wryetocOa «.r.r. could be pre- 
supposed as something proper or natural to the being in the 
form of God; nor does it indicate the possibility of His divest- 
ing Himself of His divine appearance (Hofmann), which was 
self-evident ; but it simply xarrates the former divinely glorious 
position which He afterwards gave up: when He found Himself 
an the form of God, by which is characterized Christ’s pre- 
human form of existence. Then He was forsooth, and that 
ubjectively, not merely in God’s self-consciousness—as the not 
yet incarnate Son (Rom. i. 3, 4, viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4), according 
to John as Aoyos—with God, in the fellowship of the glory 
of God (comp. John xvii. 5). It is this divine glory, in which 
He found Himself as ica Oc@ dv and also eixay Ocot—as such 
also the instrument and aim of the creation of the world, Col. 
i 15 f—and into which, by means of His exaltation, He again 
returned ; so that this divine d£a, as the possessor of which 
before the incarnation He had, without a body and invisible to 


? According to which Christ had the full divine majesty ‘‘statim in sua con- _ 
ceptione, etiam in utero matris” (Form. Conc. p. 767). But He had itin His 
state of humiliation secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, quoties ipst 
visum fuerit. In opposition to this, Liebner rightly observes, p. 334: ‘‘ This is 
altogether inadequate to express the powerful N. T. feeling of the depth and 
greatness of our Lord’s humiliation. This feeling unmistakeably extends to the 
unique personal essence of the God-man, and in conformity with this, to the 
very heart of the act of incarnation itself.” 


80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the eye of man (comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655), the form of 
God, is now by means of His glorified body and His divine- 
human perfection visibly possessed by Him, that He may appear 
at the zrapoveia, not again without it, but in and with it (iii. 20f.). 
_ Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col.i.15, iit 4. Mopd7, therefore, which 
ig an appropriate concrete expression for the divine Sofa 
(comp. Justin, Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne 
of God, and not a “ fanciful expression” (Ernesti), is neither 
equivalent to @vows or oveia (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Augustine, Chemnitz, and many others; 
comp. also Rheinwald and Corn. Miiller); nor to status (Calo- 
vius, Storr, and others); nor is it the godlike capacity for 
possible equality with God (Beyschlag), an interpretation which 
ought to have been precluded both by the literal notion of the 
word zopd7, and by the contrast of wopdy SovAov in ver. 7. But 
the opp Oeod presupposes’ the divine gvavs as ouoorodos 
popdys (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the 
divine status, namely, as form of being, corresponding to the 
essence, consequently to the homoousia, and exhiiting the con- 
dition, so that wopdy Qeod finds its exhaustive explanation in 
Heb. i. 3: dravyacpa tis SoEns x. yapaxtnp ris trocracews 
tov @eov, this, however, being here conceived as predicated 
of the pre-existent Christ. In Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C, popdy 
is also to be taken strictly in its literal signification, and not 
less so in Eur. Bacch. 54; Ael. H. A. ii. 24; Jos. c. Ap. ii. 
16, 22. Comp. also Eur. Bacch. 4: popdnv apetbas éx Oeov 
Bpornaiav, Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 2: gvow pev &n THs uyis x. Tis 
Hopdys. What is here called poppy Ocod is eldos Ocod 
in John v. 37 (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 380 D; Plut. Mor. p. 
1013 C), which the Son also essentially possessed in His pre- 
human ofa (John xvii. 5). The explanation of duc was 
promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a 

1 Bengel well says: ‘‘Ipsa natura divina decorem habebat infinitum, in se, 
etiam sine ulla creatura illum decorem intuente.”—What Paul here designates 
simply by iv poppy Osov dxdpxay is pompously expressed by Clement, Cor. J. 16: 
ed cxnreper ong peryaadwovens rev Osov. The forma mentis aeterna, however, in 
Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception utterly foreign to our passage (although 
udduced here by Hitzig), and of similar import with Propertius, iii. 1, 64: 
‘*ingenio stat sine morte decus.” 





CHAP. IL. 6. Sl 


number of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in 
triumph ; hence, also, there is much polemical matter in them. 
For the later controversy with the Socinians, see Calovius. — 
imdpyewv] designating more expressly than #y the relation of 
the subsisting state (iii. 20; Luke vii. 25, xvi. 23; 2 Pet. 
iii, 11); and hence not at all merely in the decree of God, or in 
the divine self-consciousness (Schenkel). The time is that of 
the pre-human existence. See above on és. Those who under- 
stand it as referring to His human existence (comp. John i. 14) 
think of the divine majesty, which Jesus manifested both by 
word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, Heinrichs, 
Krause, Opusc. p. 33, and others), especially by His mzracles 
(Grotius, Clericus) ; while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest 
that the transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would 
be more in harmony with the context to understand the pos- 
session of the complete divine image (without arbitrarily 
limiting this, by preference possibly, to the moral attributes 
alone, as de Wette and Schneckenburger do)—-a possession 
which Jesus (“as the God-pervaded man,” Philippi) had (poten- 
tialiter) from the very beginning of His earthly life, but in a 
latent manner, without manifesting it. This view, however, 
would land them in difficulty with regard to the following 
éaut. éxévwce «.7.r., and expose them to the risk of insert- 
ing limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of 
the passage; see below. —oty dpmaypyov iyijcato TO eivat 
toa OQecw] In order to the right explanation, it is to be ob- 
served: (1) that the emphasis is placed on dpzraypov, and 
therefore (2) that ro elvas ica Oew cannot be something essen- 
tially different from ev popdH Ocod trdpyew, but must in sub- 
stance denote the same thing, namely, the divine habitus of 
Christ, which is expressed, as to its form of appearance, by év 
popon Qeod imdpy., and, as to its internal nature, by ré elvar 
ica @e@;* (3) lastly, that dpmayyucs does not mean praeda, or 


! An entirely groundless objection has been made (even by Liinemann) against 
the view which takes ¢é sivas ive @sw as not essentially different from lv poppr @rov 
wees, viz. that Paul would, instead of vé sive: icn Ose, have written merely 
vevre, or even nothing at all. He might have done so, but there was no neces- 
sity for his taking that course, least of all for Paul/ He, on the contrary, 
distinguishes very precisely and suitably between the two ideas representing 


PHIL. F 





82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


that which %s seized on (which would be dpzrayiyov, Callim. 
Cer.9; Pallad. ep. 87; Philop. 79; or dpmaypua or dpracpa, 
and might also be dprrayn), or that which one forcibly snatches 
to himself (Hofmann and older expositors); but actively: 
robbing, making booty. In this sense, which is & priort probable 
from the termination of the word which usually serves to 
indicate an action, it is used, beyond doubt, in the only profane 
passage in which it is extant, Plut. de pueror. educ. 15 (Mor. 
p. 12 A): Kat Tous pwev OnBnor nat ros’ Hd. heveréov Epwras 
wal Tov éx Konrns xadovpevov apraypyoy, where it denotes the 
Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly to be ex- 
plained: Not as a robbing did He consider’ the being equal with 
God, 1.e. He did not place it under the point of view of making 
booty, as if it was, with respect to its exertion of activity, to 
consist in His seizing what did not belong to Him. In opposi- 
tion to Hofmann’s earlier logical objection (Schriftbew. I. 
p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a doing, comp. 
1 Tim. vi. 5; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recog- 
nised the linguistically correct explanation of dpmayyos, but 
leaves the object of the dpzafeu indefinite, though the latter 
must necessarily be something that belongs to others, con- 
sequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise than in the 
active sense, namely raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I. 
p. 25 (in Wetstein): ovy dprayyov® tiv wapaitrnow as ef 
adpavois xal vdaperrépas érroveiro dpevos; further, Eus. in 
Ine. vi. in Mai’s Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165, and the passage 
in Possini Cat. in Marc. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. 
Tolos.: Srt ov« éoriw dpraypos 4 TYysn;® as also the entirely 
synonymous form dpmracpds in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and Aniopos 
the same state, by saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human form of life, 
did not venture to use this His God-equal being for making booty. Both, there- 
fore, express the very same divine Aabttus ; but the sive: ivn @sw is the general 
element, which presents itself in the divine sepp% as its substratum and lies at 
its basis, so that the two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. Comp. 
also Liebner, p. 328. 

1 On Sysicées, in this sense of the mode of regarding, which places the 
object under the point of view of a qualitative category, comp. Kriiger on 7'huc. 
ii, 44. 8. 


* Lot did not let the refusal of the angels be a making of profit to himself. 
3 Where, according to the connection, the sense is: Not @ seizing to oneself 





CHAP. Il. 6 83 


in Byzantine writers; also oxvAevyds in Eustathius ; comp. 
Phryn. App. 36, where apmraypos is quoted as equivalent to 
dpwacss. The passages which are adduced for &pmraypa 
aryetoOas or troseto Pai. re (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7; Eus. H. 
E. viii. 12 ; Vit. C. ii. 31)—comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic. 
_ Verr. v.15; Justin, i. 5. 9, xiii 1. 8)—do not fall under the 
same mode of conception, as they represent the relation in ques- 
tion as something made a booty of, and not as the act of making 
booty. We have still to notice (1) that this ody dapmaypov 
qyjoaTo corresponds exactly to my Ta éavtay oxomobvres 
(ver. 4), as well as to its contrast éavroy éxévwoe in ver. 7 (see 
on ver. 7); and (2) that the aorist qrynoaro, indicating a definite 
point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connection (see the 
contrast, dAX’ éavrov éxévece x.T.d.), transports the reader to that 
moment, when the pre-existing Christ was on the point of coming 
into the world with the being equal to God. Had He then thought : 
“ When I shall have come into the world, I will seize to myself, 
by means of my equality with God, power and dominion, 
riches, pleasure, worldly glory,” then He would have acted the 
part of dprraypoy iryetoOas 10 elvas ica Gee ; to which, however, 
He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self- 
renunciation, etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the sup- 
posed case of the dpmrayyds is not conceived as an action of the 
pre-existing Christ (as Richard Schmidt objects), but is put as 
connecting itself with His appearance on earth. The reflection, 
of which the pre-existent Christ is, according to our passage, 
represented as capable, even in presence of the will of God 
(see below, yevou. tarnxoos), although the apostle has only con- 
ceived it as an abstract possibility and expressed it in an 
anthropopathic mode of presentation, is decisive in favour of 
the personal :pre-existence ; but in this pre-existence the Son 
appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout 
the entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag 
objects) at variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in 
the Biblical sense. By the dprraypoy wyeioOar x.7.X., if it had 
taken place, He would have wished to relzeve Himself from this 


is the position of honour, as among the heathen, but a renouncing and serving 
after the example of Christ. 


84 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


subordination.—The linguistic correctness and exact apposite 
correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmonizes 
with 2 Cor. viii. 9,’ completely exclude the interpretation, 
which is traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite 
incapable of proof, that dpzayyos, either in itself or by 
metonymy (in which van Hengel again appeals quite inap- 
propriately to the analogy of Jas. i. 2, 2 Pet. iii 15), means 
praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation of dpmaypos, 
the idea of elvac ica Oc@ has either been rightly taken as 
practically identical with év popd7j Ocod vrrdpyeww, or not. (A) 
In the former case, the point of comparison of the figurative 
praeda has been very differently defined: evther, that Christ 
regarded the existence equal with God, not as a something 
usurped and illegitimate, but as something natural to Him, and 
that, therefore, He did not fear to lose it through His humilia- 
tion (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and 
other Fathers ; see Wetstein and J. B. Lightfoot) ; comp. Beza, 
Calvin, Estius, and others, who, however, give to the conception 
a different turn;’ or, that He did not desire pertinaciously to 
retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his booty, 
or as an unexpected gain (Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, 
Kesler, and others; and recently, Hoelemann, Tholuck, Reuss, 


¥ Rabiger and Wetzel, and also Pfleiderer, /.c., have lately adopted this view ; 
likewise Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschy. 1873, p. 311 f. Hofmann also now 
explains the passage in a way not substantially different. But Grimm, l.c. 
p. 38, very unjustly describes the retention of éprayués in the sense which it has 
in Plutarch, as petty grammatical pedantry. The ideas, spoil, booty, occur in 
countless instances in all Greek authors, and in the LXX., and are very variously 
expressed (dpray%, apraypa, dpwacua, Anis, oxvArvuee, ovAev, Asia), but never by 
éprayuos, or any other form of word ending with «ss. It is true that various 
substantives ending in «es may denote the result of the action ; not, however, 
as we may be pleased to assume, but solely in accordance with evidence of 
empirical usage, and this is just what is wanting for this sense in the case of 
éprayuss. Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not pedantic, but is simply 
linguistically demanded. Weiss, Libl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously objects 
to our view of dprayyés, that, in that case, it would be impossible to conceive of 
any object, and that thus an utterly empty antithesis to the giving up of Christ’s 
own possession is the result. As if there were not given in the very notion of 
éprayees its object, viz. that which does not belong to the subject of the action, 
and this, indeed, in its unrestricted and full compass, just because nothing special 
is added as an object. 

2 Beza: ‘‘Non ignoravit, se in ea re (i.e. quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) 














CHAP. II. 6. 85 


Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, Gess, Messner, Grimm ; comp. also 
Usteri, p. 314);’ or, that He did not conceal it, as a prey 
(Matthies) ; or, that He did not desire to display it triumphantly, 
as a conqueror his spoils (Luther, Erasmus, Cameron, Vatablus,. 
Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and many others, 
including Michaelis, Zachariae, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt, 
Rheinwald) ;? whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but 
also Usteri and several) mix up very various points of comparison. 
The very circumstance, however, that there exists so much 
divergence in these attempts at explanation, shows how arbi- 
trarily men have endeavoured to supply a modal definition for 
apr. nyno., Which is not at all suggested by the text.—(B) In 
the second case, in which a distinction 1s made between To elvas 
ica Oe and ev poppy Oeod virdpyewv, it is explained: non 
rapinam duant, Le. non rapiendum sibi duit, or directly, non 
vapuit (Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Elsner, Clericus, Bengel, and 
many others, including am Ende, Martini, Krause, Opuse. p. 31, 
Schrader, Stein, Rilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Ernesti, Raebiger, Schneckenburger, Ewald, Weiss, Schen- 
kel, Philippi, Thomasius, Beyschlag, Kahnis, Rich. Schmidt, and 
others); that Christ, namely, though being éy popd7 Oeod, did 
not desire to seize to Himself the elvas iva Oe, to grasp eagerly 
nullam injariam cuiquam facere, sed suo jure uti; nihilominus tamen quasi jure 
suo cessit.” So also Calvin, substantially, only that he erroneously interprets 
tyncaro as arbitratus esset, ‘‘ Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo apparuisset.” 
Estius: ‘‘that He had not recognised the equality with God as an usurped 
possession, and dherefore possibly desired to lay it aside, but had renounced 
Himself,” etc. 

In this class we must reckon the interpretation of Theodoret (comp. 
Origen, ad Rom. v. 2, x. 7, Eusebius, and others): that Christ, being God by 
nature, did not hold His equality with God as something specially great, as 
those do who attain to honours vay’ &Ziev; but that He, ray dgiav xacaxpurpas, 
chose humiliation. To this comes aiso the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia : 
opQny yap Serre AaBay env Alice ixsivny arixpurpsy, Tove ois spareiy sivas vopese cpesves, 
éxtp i@aivere.—Tholuck compares the German expression: als ein gefundenes 
Essen (einen guten Fund) ansehen. According to him, the idea of the whole 
passage is, ‘‘Tantum aberat, ut Christus, quatenus Aéyos est, in gloria atque 
beatitate sua acquiescere sibique soli placere vellet, ut amore erga mortales 
ductus servi formam induere ac vel infimam sortem subire sine ulla haesitatione 
sustineret.” 


? To this belongs also Pelagius, ‘‘Quod erat, humilitate celavit, dans nobis 
exemplum, ne in his gloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus.” 


86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the possession of it! In this view expositors have understood 
the ica elvar Ge@ as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem 
(Bengel) ; the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos); the divine honour 
(Cocceius, Stein, de Wette, Grau) ; the vitam mtae Dei aequalem 
(van Hengel); the existendi modum cum Deo aequalem (Liine- 
mann); the coli et beute vivere ut Deus (Krause) ; the dominion 
on earth as a visible God (Ewald); the divine autonomy 
(Ernesti) ; the heavenly dignity and glory entered on after the 
ascension (Raebiger, comp. Thomasius, Philippi, Beyschlag, 
Weiss), corresponding to the Svoua To trép may dvoua in 
ver. 9 (Rich. Schmidt); the nova jura divina, consisting in 
the xupiorns wdvrwy (Briickner); the divine Sofa of universal 
adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner); the 
original blessedness of the Father (Kahnis); indeed, even the 
identity with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), 
and the like, which is to sustain to the wop¢7 Oecod the relation 
of a plus, or something separable, or only to be obtained at some 
future time by humiliation and suffering? (ver. 9). So, also, 
Sabatier, [ apdtre Paul, 1870, p. 223 ff.° In order to meet 
the ody dpz. iy. (comparing Matt. iv. 8 ff), de Wette (comp. 

1 So also Liinemann, who, in the sense of the divine pre-existence of Christ, 
paraphrases thus: ‘‘ Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde dignitate creatoris et domini 
rerttm omnium frueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnificentia coram patre con- 
sideret, nihilo tamen minus hand arripiendum sibi esse autumabat existendi 
modum cum Deo aequalem, sed ultro se exinanivit.” . In a sense opposed to the 
divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag says, Christol. p. 236 f.: ‘‘ Christ 
possessed the opp @sev (that is, ‘the inner form of God’); He might have 
but stretched out Hie hand towards the iva @sw sivas; He disdained, however, 
to seize it for Himself, and chose quite the opposite ; therefore it was given Him 
as the reward of His obedience, etc.” Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1871, 
p. 197 f., says: the Pauline Christ is indeed the heavenly man, but no divine 
being ; the ezuality with God was attained by Him only through the renuncia- 
tion, ete. 

* The lead in this mode of considering the passage was taken by <rius, 
whose party, on the ground of the proposition ixsive aprdZes ois, 3 ode iu, 
declared: Se: @sés wy ivadeewy oby apwacs ve sles leu cH OL Te piydry x. 
psifevs, See Chrysostom. 

3 He thinks that the divine seppx of Christ stands to the %ra sivas @sp in the 


relation of potentia to actus. ‘‘ Christ était des l’origine en puissance ce qu’ | 


la fin il devint en réalité ;” the opp Gsev denotes the general form of being of 
Christ, but ‘‘une forme vide, qui doit étré remplie, c’est-d-dire spirituellement 
réalisée.” This higher position He had not wished to usurp, but had attained to 
it ‘‘réellement par le libre développement de sa vie morale.” 








CHAP. Il. 6. 87 


Hofmann, Schritbew. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied, 
that it was not in the aim of the work of redemption be- 
fitting that Christ should at the very outset receive divine 
honour, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have 
been a seizure, an usurpation. But as ey poppy Ocod iv. already 
involves the divine essence,’ and as ica elvas @e@ has no 
distinctive more special definition in any manner climactic 
(comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has estimated this whole mode 
of explanation very justly: ef #y Qeos, mas eiyey dprrdcat ; Kar 
Tas OUK aepwontoy ToiTo; Tis yap dy elmo, Sts Oo Seiva 
dvOparros ay ovx Hptrace 7d etvat dvOpwrros ; TAS yap dy TIS 
Strep éotiv, apwacevey, Moreover, in harmony with the 
thought and the state of the case, Paul must have expressed 
himself conversely : 8s loa Oce@ trrdpyev oy apm. Try. TO elvas 
éy 40poH Qeod, so as to add to the idea of the equality of nature 
(toa), by way of climax, that of the same form of appearance 
(nop), of the divine Sofa also.—With respect to 76 eivas toa 
Ged, it is to be observed, (1) that toa is adverbial: in like manner, 
as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic writers (Thue. 
iii. 14 ; Eur. Or. 880al. ; comp. oyota, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108), 
and often in the later Greek, and in the LXX. (Jobv. 14, x. 10, 
xi 12, xiii 12; Wisd. vii. 3, according to the usual reading). 
This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment, 
even so early as Homer (Jl. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 304, xv. 
519al.), of ica as the case of the object or predicate (see Ellendt, 
Lex, Soph. I. p. 847 ; Kriiger, II. § xlvi. 6. 8). But as elvat, 
as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial 
ica, part ratione, therefore (2) ro etvas must be taken in the 
sense of existere ; 80 that To elvas ica Oe@ does not mean the 
being equal to God (which would be ro elvas icoy Oc@), but 
the God-equal eaistence, existence in the way of parity with 
God? Paul might have written ‘cov (as mascul.) Oe@ 
. (John v. 18), or icoPeoy; but, as it stands, he has more dis- 
tinctly expressed the metaphysical relation, the divine mode of 


™ Not merely the similarity, from which is there distinguished the equality by 
sivas ten (in opposition to Martini and others). 

3 (The German is: nicht das Gotte gleich sein, sondern das gotigleiche Sein, das 
Sein auf gottgleiche Weise, die gottgleiche Haistensz. } 


88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


existence of the pre-human Christ. (3) The article points 
back to év wopdy Oeod imdpywr, denoting the God-equal cxist- 
ence manifesting itsclf in that popdy; for the popd7 Ocod is the 
appearance, the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal 
existence. (4) Ernesti (in controversy with Baur), who is fol- 
lowed by Kahler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, and Hilgenfeld, entertains 
the groundless opinion that our passage alludes to Gen. 11 f, 
the ica etvar Oew pointing in particular to Gen. iii. 5. In the 
text there is no trace? of any comparison of Christ with the 
first human beings, not even an echo of like expression ; how 
different from the equality with God in our passage is the éveoOe 
@s Oeoi in Gen. iii. 5! Certainly, any such comparison lay 
very remote from the sublime idea of the divine glory of the 
pre-existent Christ, which was something quite different from 
the image of God in the first human beings. Comp. also 
Rich. Schmidt, p. 172 ; Grimm, p. 42 f. 

Ver. 7. "AAN éavrov éxévwoe] The emphatically prefixed 
éavrov is correlative to the likewise emphatic dpwayuoy in 
ver. 6. Instead of the dpwafew, by which he would have 
entered upon a foreign domain, He has, on the contrary, emptied 
Himself, and that, as the context places beyond doubt, of the 
divine popdy, which He possessed but now exchanged for a 
pop SovrAov; He renounced the divine glorious form which, 
prior to His incarnation, was the form of appearance of His 
God-equal existence, took instead of it the form of a servant, 
and became as a man. Those who have already taken ver. 6 

1 Which, therefore, was not essentially different from that of the Father. 
The iva sivas Gsm is the Pauline @sés H» 6 ASyes. Hofmann erroneously, although 
approved by Thomasius, makes the objection (Schriftbew. p. 150) that an exist- 
ence equal to divine existence can only be predicated of Him, who is not God. 
It may be predicated also of Hiin who is not the very same person, but of equal 
divine nature. Thus it might also be asserted of the Holy Spirit. The appeal 
by Hofmann to Thuc. iii. 14 is here without any bearing whatever. 

? Ritschl indeed also, Altkath. Kirche, p. 80, requires, for the understanding 
of our passage, a recognition that Christ, as lv uep@a Osed iwepyes, is put in 
comparison with the earthly Adam. But why should Paul, if this comparison 
was before his mind, not have written, in accordance with Gen. i. 26, sae’ 
sixéve @., OF xaf sueiwew @., instead of bv «eppy 6.7 This would have been most 
natural for himself, and would also have been a hint to guide the readers.—The 


passages quoted by Hilgenfeld from the Clementine Homilies affirm the peppa 
@sod of the body of man, and are therefore irrelevant. 





CHAP. II. 7. 89 


as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on Gs, ver. 6) are at 
once placed in a difficulty by exévwoe, and explain away its 
simple and distinct literal meaning; as, for instance, Calvin: 
“ supprimendo ... deposuit;” Calovius (comp. Form. Cone. 
pp. 608, 767) : “ velutz (2) deposuit, quatenus eam (gloriam div.) 
non perpetuo manifestavit atque exserurt ;” Clericus : “ non magis 
ea usus est, quam st ea destitutus fuisset;” comp. Quenstedt, 
Bos, Wolf, Bengel, Rheinwald, and many others. Beyschlag 
also finds expressed here merely the idea of the self-denial exer- 
cised on principle by Christ in His earthly life, consequently 
substituting the N. T. idea of awapvetaGat éavrov. De Wette, 
in accordance with his distinction between propo Geod and elvac 
ica Oe@ (comp. Schneckenburger, p. 336), referring it only to 
the latter (so also Corn. Miiller, Philippi, Beyschlag, and others), 
would have this elvas ica Oe@ meant merely in so far as it 
would have stood in Jesus’ power, not in so far as He actually 
possessed it, so that the éaur. éxév. amounts only to a renun- 
ciation of the elyas toa Oew, which He might have appropriated 
to Himself; while others, like Grotius, alter the signification of 
xevouy itself, some making it mean: He led a life of poverty 
(Grotius, Baumgarten -Crusius), and others: depressit (van 
Hengel, Corn.. Miiller, following Tittmann, Opusc. p. 642 f., 
Keil, comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine: 
“Non amittens quod erat, sed accipiens quod non erat; forma 
servi accessit, non forma Dei discessit.” But éxévwoe means 
nothing but cxinanivit (Vulgate) (see Rom. iv. 14; 1 Cor. 
i. 17, ix. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 3; and the passages in the LXX. 
cited by Schleusner; Plat. Conv. p. 197 C, Rep. p. 560 D, 
Phil. p. 35 E; Soph. 0. &. 29; Eur. Rhes. 914; Thue. viii. 
57.1; Xen. Occ. 8. 7), and is here purposely selected, because 
it corresponds with the idea of the dpzarypos (ver. 6) all the 
more, that the latter also falls under the conception of xevody 
(as emptying of that which is affected by the dpmaypos; comp. 

1 Comp. Hasse in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 394 f. (in opposition 
to Dorner’s reference of the ides to that of iXevgsyi), Dorner, in the same 
Jahrb. 1856, p. 395, is likewise driven to reduce the idea of the xixwess merely to 
that of the renunciation of the appearance of majesty, which would have been 


befitting the divine form and parity, this inner greatness and dignity of Jesus 
Christ. 


90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


LXX. Jer. xv. 9; Plat. Rep. p. 560D; Ecclus. xiii. 5, 7). 
The specific reference of the meaning to making poor (Grotius) 
must have been suggested by the context (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 
Ecclus. /.c.), as if some such expression as ey rAovT@ Oeod imapy. 
had been previously used. Figuratively, the renunciation of 
the divine nop¢7 might have been described as a putting it off 
(éxSvecGar).—The more precise, positive definition of the mode 
in which He emptied Himself, is supplied by popdyv Sovrxov 
hafoy, and the latter then receives through ev op. avOp. yevo- 
pevos Kal oynp. evp. ws avOp. its specification of mode, correla- 
tive to elvas ica Gee. This specification is not co-ordinate (de 
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate 
to popdny Sovr. XaBov, hence no connecting particle is placed 
before év ou., and no punctuation is to be placed before «ai 
ox7part, but a new topic is to be entered upon with ératreivo- 
oev in ver. 8 (comp. Luther). The division, by which a stop is 
placed before nal oynpuate . . . dvOporros, and these words are 
joined to érazreivwoer «.7.r. (Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others ; 
including Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel, Lachmann, Wiesin- 
ger, Ewald, Rich. Schmidt, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm), is at variance 
with the purposely-chosen expressions oyyuate and evpebels, 
both of which correspond to the idea of zopd7), and thereby show 
that x. oy. etp. ds dvOp. is still a portion of the modal defini- 
_tion of popdny SovdAov AaBey. Nor is the oynp. edp. ws avOp. 
something following the xéywors (Grimm), but the empirical 
appearance, which was an integral part of the manner in 
which the act of self-emptying was completed. Besides, 
érarelywoev éavrov has its own more precise definition follow- 
ang; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of 
structure in the two statements, governed respectively by 
éauroyv éxévoce and érarrelywoev éautov, would be unnecessarily 
disturbed. This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who 
(comp. Grotius) even connects dy opomparte dvOp. yevou. with 
ératrei(vwoey éavrov, whereby no less than three participial 
definitions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann 
discovers in éy ouoiparte «.t.X. a second half of the relative 
sentence attached to Xpiore@ "Incoi, it is at variance with the 
fact, that Paul does not by the intervention of a particle (or 








CHAP, Il. 7. 91 


by 89 xai, or even by the bare ds) supply any warrant for such 
a division, which is made, therefore, abruptly and arbitrarily, 
simply to support the scheme of thought which Hofmann 
groundlessly assumes: (1) that Jesus, when He was in the 
divine pop, emptied Himself; and (2) when He had become 
man, humbled Himself. Comp. in opposition to this, Grimm, 
p. 46, and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeiischr. 1873, p. 314.— 
popdny Sovrov AaBov] so that He took slave-form, now making 
this lowly form of existence and condition His own, instead of 
the divine form, which He had hitherto possessed. How this 
was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist participle de- 
notes, not what was previous to the éaur. éxév., but what was 
contemporaneous with it. See on Eph.i. 9. So also do the 
two following participles, which are, however, subordinated to 
the popdiy SovrAov AaBev, as definitions of manner. That 
Paul, in the word SovAov, thought not of the relation of one 
serving tn general (with reference to God and men, Matthies, 
Rheinwald, Rilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or 
that of a servant of others, as in Matt. xx. 28 (Schnecken- 
burger, Beyschlag, Christol. p. 236, following Luther and 
others), or, indefinitely, that of one subject to the will of 
another (Hofmann), but of a slave of God (comp. Acts iii. 13; 
Isa. liL), as is self-evident from the relation to God described 
in ver. 6, is plain, partly from the fact that subsequently the. 
assumption of the slave-form is more precisely defined by é» 
cuore. avOp. yevou. (which, regarded in itself, puts Jesus only 
on the same line with men, but in the relation of service towards 
God), and partly from winxoos in ver. 8. To generalize the 
definite expression, and one which corresponds so well to the 
connection, into “ miseram sortem, qualis esse servorum solet” 
(Heinrichs, comp. Hoelemann; and already, Beza, Piscator, 
Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others), is pure caprice, which 
Erasmus, following Ambrosiaster (comp. Beyschlag, 1860, p. 
471), carries further by the arbitrary paraphrase: “servi nocentis, 
cum ipsa esset innocentia,” comp. Rom. viii. 3. — év opouyp. 
avOp. yevou. k.7.r.] the manner of this pop. SovrAov AaBeiv : 80 
that He came in the likeness of man, tliat is, so that He entered 
into a form of existence, which was not different from that which 


92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


men have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects éy opotw- 
pati n.t.r. with ératelywoev x.t.r., see above. On yiverOar ev, 
in the sense, ¢o come into a position, into a state, comp. 2 Cor. 
iii 7; 1 Tim. ii. 14; Luke xxii. 44; Acts xxii. 17; 1 Macc.i. 27; 
2 Mace. vii. 9; Ecclus. xliv. 20; and frequently in Greek authors 
after Homer (Xen. Anabd. i. 9. 1; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii 13.21); 
see Nagelsbach, zur Ilias, p. 295 f. ed. 3. This entrance into 
an existence like that of men was certainly brought about by 
human birth ; still it would not be appropriate to explain yevoy. 
by natus (Gal. iv. 4; Rilliet ; comp. Gess, p. 295 ; Lechler, p. 66), 
or as an expression for the “beginning of existence” (Hofmann), 
since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous con- 
ception is, notwithstanding Rom. i. 3, also thought to be 
included, was really human, as it is also described in Gal. iv. 4. 
Paul justly says: év oworwpare avOp., because, in fact, Christ, 
although certainly perfect man (Rom. v.15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; 
1 Tim. ii. 5), was, by reason of the divine nature (the ica 
elvat Ge@) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not 
a purus putus homo, but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Rom. 
i. 3; Gal. iv. 4; and the Johannine o Adyos adpE eyévero), ds 
édavepwOn év capxi (1 Tim. iii. 16), so that the power of the 
higher divine nature was united in Him with the human ap- 
pearance, which was not the case in other men. The nature of 
Him who had become man was, so far, not fully zdentical with, 
but substantially conform (év oporwp.) to, that which belongs 
to man.’ Comp. on Rom. viii. 3, i. 3f., and respecting the 
idea of opofwpza, which does not convey merely the conception 


Our passage contains no trace of Docetism, even if Paul had, instead of 
évéporwr, used the singular, which he might just as well have written here as 
ws &vépwores in the sequel, in place of which he might also have used ss &»fpawa. 
This applies in opposition to Lange, apost. Zeitalé. I. p. 181, and Lechler, p. 66. 
Even Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 472, is of opinion that the above-named in- 
terpretation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was in fact, although perfect 
man, nevertheless something so much more exalted, that the phrase iv épemp. 
avép. must have vindicated itself to the believing consciousness of the readers 
without any misconception, and especially without that of Docetism, which Baur 
introduces into it (neutest. Theol. p. 269), particularly when we consider the 
thoroughly ethical occasion and basis of the passage as an exhibition of the 
loftiest example of humility (comp. Rich. Schmidt, p. 178). Nevertheless, 
Beyschlag has repeated that objection. 





CHAP. II. 7. 93 


of analogy, see on Rom. i. 23, v. 14, vi. 5, viii.3. The expres- 
sion is based, not upon the conception of a guasi-man, but upon 
the fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 15) there was 
the superhuman life-basis of divine écorns, the eivas ica Oecd 
not indwelling in other men. Justice, however, is not done to 
the intentionally used oocepare (comp. afterwards oy7jpatTV1), 
if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He (not 
appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition, — 
a consequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the 
time after the incarnation. This drove also the ancient dog- 
matic expositors to adopt the gloss, which is here out of place, 
that Christ assumed the accidentales injirmitates corporis (yet 
without sin), not ex naturae necessitate, but ex olxovopias 
libertate (Calovius).! By others, the characteristic of debile et 
aljectum (Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded 
upon the word avOpewy, which is here to be taken in a purely 
generic sense ; while Grotius understood av@p. as referring to 
the first human beings, and believed that the sinlessness of 
Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially ¢hzs (in opposi- 
tion also to Castalio, Liinemann, Schenkel, and others), but 
the whole divine nature of Jesus, the pop of which He laid 
aside at His incarnation, which constitutes the point of differ- 
ence that lies at the bottom of the expression ev opowwpare (bud 
TO pty Wirov avOpmrrov elvar, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom), 
and gives to it the definite reference of its meaning. The 
explanation of the expression by the unique position of Christ 
as the second Adam (Weiss) is alien from the context, which 
presents to us the relation, not of the second man to the first 
man, but of the God-man to ordinary humanity. — «al oyny. 
eip. ws avOpwir.| to be closely connected with the preceding 
participial affirmation, the thought of which is emphatically 
exhausted: “and in fashion was found as a man,” so that the 
divine nature (the Logos-nature) was not perceived in Him. 

> To this also amounts the not so precisely and methodically expressed 
explanation of Philippi: Since Christ remained in the divine form, His 
assumption of the slave-form consisted ‘‘in the withdrawal of the rays of the 
divine glory which continued to dwell in His flesh, and which He only veiled and 


subdued with the curtain of the flesh.” Thus also does Calvin depict it: the 
carnis humilitas was instar veli, quo divina majestas tegebatur. 


94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS 


oyna, habitus, which receives its more precise reference from 
the context (Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 619), denotes here the entire 
outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the 
phenomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor. vii. 31 ; comp. 70 T#js 
Geo oxfjpa x. dyadpa, Plat. Crit. p. 110 B; rvpawov oyjua, 
Soph. Ant. 1154; Eur. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267C: 
oyna Baciuxov, p. 290D: trav tepéav oxjpa; Dem. 690. 
21: bmnpérov cxjua; Lucian, Cyn. 17: to euov oxjua ro 8 
vpuétepoy; also, in the plural, Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 7; Lucian, 
D. M. xx. 5. Men saw in Christ a humen form, bearing, 
language, action, mode of life, wants and their satisfaction, 
etc.,in general the state and relations of a human being, so that 
in the entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known 
and was recognised (evpe?.) as a man. In His external 
character, after He had laid aside the divine form which He 
had previously had,’ there was observed no difference between 
His appearance and that of a man, although the subject of His 
appearance was at the same time essentially divine. The as 
with dv@p. does not simply indicate what He was recognised 
to be (Weiss); this would have been expressed by avOp. alone; 
but He was found as a man, not invested with other qualities. 
The Vulgate well renders it, “inventus wt homo.” This 
included, in particular, that He presented and manifested in 
Himself the human cdap£, human weakness and susceptibility 
of death (2 Cor. xii. 4; Rom. vi 9; Acts xxvi. 23). 

Ver. 8. ’Erazreivwcer] is placed with great emphasis at the 
head of a new sentence (see on ver. 7), and without any con- 
necting particle: He has humbled Himself. ‘Eavrov is not 
prefixed as in ver. 7 ; for in ver. 7 the stress, according to the 
object in view, was laid on the reflexive reference of the action, 
but here on the reflexive action ttself. The relation to éxévwce 
is climactic, not, however, as if Paul did not regard the self- 
renunciation (ver. 7) as being also self-humiliation, but in so 
far as the former manifested in the most extreme way the cha- 


1 Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f. : spects Osér by exsipars avépowev. Comp. 
p. 744: rev Bacirta rav cipavar, viv ini ys Paviven iv popha dvipowen carurecies. 
How these passages agree with the Nazaraic character of the book, is not a point 
for discussion here. 





CHAP. Il. 8 95 


racter of ratreivywots in the shameful death of Jesus. It is a 
climactic parallelism (comp. on iv. 9) in which the two pre- 
dicates, although the former in the nature of the case already 
includes the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept 
- apart as respects the essential points of their appearance in 
historical development. Bengel well remarks: “Status exin- 
anitionis gradatim profundior.” Hoelemann, mistaking this, 
says: “He humbled Himself even below His dignity as man.” 
—yevoy. tmnxoos| The aorist participle is quite, like the 
participles in ver. 7, simultaneous with the governing verb: 
so that He became obedient. This drjxoos is, however, not to 
be defined by “ capientibus se, damnantibus et interficientibus” 
(Grotius); nor is it to be referred to the Jaw, Gal. iv. 4 
(Olshausen), but to God (Rom. v. 19; Heb. v. 8 f.), whose 
will and counsel (comp. eg. Matt. xxvi. 42) formed the ground 
determining the obedience. Comp. ver. 9: 80 «al o Oeds 
«7... The expression itself glances back to popd. Sovrcu; 
“ obedientia servum decet,’ Bengel. — péyps Gavdrov] belongs 
to taj. yevou., not to éram. éavr. (Bengel, Hoelemann)— 
which latter connection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the 
discourse, and would leave a too vague and feeble definition 
for éram. éavr. in the mere dmryjx. yevon. By péype death is 
pointed out as the culminating point, as the highest degree, 
up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van 
Hengel). Comp. 2 Tim. it 9; Heb. xii 4; Acts xxi 4; 
Matt. xxvi. 38. This extreme height reached by His obedi- 
ence was, however, just the extreme depth of the humiliation, 
and thereby at the same time its end; comp. Acts vul 33; 
Isa. liii. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes taj. yiveoOac in 
the sense of showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The 
obedience of Christ was an ethical becoming (Heb. v. 8). — 
Oavdrov 5¢ otavp.] tovréots rot émixatapdrov (comp. Gal. 
iii, 13; Heb. xii. 2), rod rots dvouous abwpicpuévow, Theophy- 
lact. The 6é, with the repetition of the same word (comp. 
Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30), presents, just like the German ater, 
the more precisely defined idea in contradistinction to the 
idea which is previously left without this special definition: 
wnio death, but what kind of death ? unto the most shameful 


96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


and most painful, unto the death of the cross; see Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 361, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 97; and the 
examples in Hartung, Parttkell. I. p. 168 f.; Ellendt, Lez. 
Soph. I. p. 388. 


REMARK 1.—According to our explanation, vv. 6—8 may be 
thus paraphrased: Jesus Christ, when He found Himself in the 
heavenly mode of existence of divine glory, did not pernut Him- 
self the thought of using His equality with God for the purpose of 
seizing possessions and honour for Himself on carth: No, He 

emptied Himself of the divine glory, inasmuch as, notwithstand- 
ing His God-equal nature, He took upon Him the mode of existence 
of a slave of God, so that He entered into the likeness of men, and 
an His outward bearing and appearance manifested Himself not 


otherwise than as aman. He humbled Himself, so that He be- 


came obedient unto God, etc. According to the explanation of 
our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6-8 to the earthly life of 
Christ, the sense comes to this: “ Christum jam inde a primo con- 
ceptionis momento divinam gloriam et majestatem sibi secundum 
humanam naturam communicatam plena usurpatrone exscrere et 
tanguam Deum se gerere potursse, sed abdicasse se plenario ejus 
usu et humilem se cxhibuisse, patrique suo coelestt obedientem 
Jactum esse usque ad mortem crucis” (Quenstedt). The most 
thorough exposition of the passage and demonstration in this 
sense, though mixed with much polemical matter against the 
Reformed and the Socinians, are given by Calovius. The point 
of the orthodox view, in the interest of the full Deity of the God- 
man, lies in the fact that Paul is discoursing, not de humiliatione 
INCARNATIONIS, but de humaliatione INCARNATI. Among the 
Reformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed 
with our [Lutheran] orthodox expositors. 

REMARK 2.—On a difference in the dogmatic understanding of 
vv. 6-8, when men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine 
of the Church (Form. Cone. 8), was based the well-known con- 
troversy carried on since 1616 between the theologians of 
Tiibingen and those of Giessen. The latter (Feuerborn and 
Menzer) assigned to Jesus Christ in His state of humiliation 
the xrjjoz of the divine attributes, but denied to Him their 
xpierz, thus making the xivwo a renunciation of the xypios. The 
Tiibingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc. Osiander, 
and Nicolai), not separating the xsjoi¢ and pio, arrived at 
the conclusion of a hidden and imperceptible use of the divine 
attributes, and consequently made the xivwos a xpirpes rice 





CHAP. II. 6-8. 97 


spices. See the account of all the points of controversy in 
Dorner, IT. 2, p. 661 ff, and especially Thomasius, Christi Pers. 
uw. Werk, Il. p. 429 ff. The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part 
with the Giessen divines, rejected the xpi~jis, without thoroughly 
refuting it, and even without avoiding unnecessary concessions 
to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 608, 767), so 
that the disputed questions remained open and the controversy 
itself only came to a close through final weariness. Among 
the dogmatic writers of the present day, Philippi is decidedly on 
the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 279 ff. 
ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of . 
the xivwors is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the re- 
ducing of it to a xpi-jr¢ rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers 
the écuriy éxévwot to the woppy Osov, and consequently to the divine 
mode of appearance, while he makes the sha: ica ©#@ to subsist 
with the assumption of the opp dovdAcv, just as subsequently the 
Incarnate One appears only as iv émostmars dvop. and as ox juars 
ws avdp.; and since, further, in the case of the xryo¢ of the 
divine attributes thus laid down, the non-use of them—because 
as divine they necessarily cannot remain dormant (John v. 17, 
ix. 4)—is in itself inconceivable and incompatible with the 
Gospel history ; the xrjo¢ and the xyp%o¢ must therefore be in- 
separably kept together. But, setting aside the conception of 
the xpi-js¢ as foreign to the N. T., this possession and use of the 
divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by the renun- 
ciation of the ~opg} Oso in virtue of the incarnation, entered 
upon a human development, consequently as conditioned, not 
as absolute, but as theanthropic. At the same time, the sel/- 
consciousness of Jesus Christ necessarily remained the self-con- 
sciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly, or 
(according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had 
become flesh, who was the povoyerts rapa rarpéc¢; see the nume- 
rous testimonies in John’s Gospel, as i. 13, viii. 58, xvii. 5, 
v. 26. “Considered from a purely exegetical point of view, 
there is no clearer and more certain result of the interpretation 
of Scripture than the proposition, that the Hgo of Jesus on earth 
was identical with the Zgo which was previously in glory with 
the Father; any division of the Son speaking on earth into two 
Egos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other 
the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of 
Scripture, however intimate we may seek to conceive the mar- 
riage of the two during the earthly life of Jesus;” Liebner 
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which the 
divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to 
PHIL. G 


98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


our passage, the nopp?) Oso3, that is, the divine déFa as a form of 
existence, and not the «vas iow @e@ essentially and necessarily 
constituting His nature, which He retained,’ and to which 
belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine—and 
consequently in Him who had become man the divine-human— 
self-consciousness.* But as this cannot find its adequate ex- 
planation either in the absolute consciousness of God, or in the 
archetypal character which Schleiermacher assigned to Christ, or 
in the idea of the religious genius (Al. Schweizer), or in that of 
the second Adam created free from original sin, whose personal 
development proceeds as a gradual incarnation of God and deifi- 
cation of man (Rothe), so we must by no means say, with Gess, 
v. da. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f., that in becoming incarnate the Logos had 
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only 
in the gradual course of development of a human soul, and that 
merely in the form of a hwman self-consciousness. See, in op- 
position to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, IT. p. 198 f.; 
Schoeberlein in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 471 ff., comp. the 
latter's Geheimnisse des Glaubens, 1872, 3. The-various views 
which have been adopted on the part of the more recent Lutheran 
Christologists,* diverging from the doctrine of the Formula Con- 
cordvae in setting forth Christ’s humiliation (Dorner: a gradual] 
ethical blending into one another of the divine and human life 
in immanent development; Thomasius: self-limitation, 1.¢. 


1 Comp. Diisterdieck, Apolog. Abh. III. p. 67 ff. 

2 Paul agrees mm substance with the Logos doctrine of John, but has not 
adopted the form of Alexandrine speculation. That the latter was known to 
him in its application to the Christology, may at least be regarded as probable 
from his frequent and long intercourse with Asia, and also from his relation to 
Apollos. His conception, however, is just as little Apo]linarian as that of John ; 
comp. on Rom. i. 3 f. ; Col. i. 15. 

3 Schenkel’s ideal transference of Christ’s pre-existence simply into the seff- 
consciousness of God, which in the person of Christ found a perfect self-manifes- 
tation like to humanity, boldly renounces all the results of historical exegesis 
during a whole generation, and goes back to the standpoint of Lofiler and othera, 
and also further, to that of the Socinians. Comp. on John xvii. 5. Yet even 
Beyschlag’s Christology leads no further than to an ideal pre-existence of Christ 
as archetype of humanity, and that not asa person, but merely as the principle 
of a person ;—while Keerl (d. Gottmensch. das Hbcnbild Gottes, 1866), in unper- 
ceived direct opposition to our passage and to the entire N. T., puts the Son of 
God already as Son of man in absolute (not earthly) corporeality as pre-existent 
into the glory of heaven. From 1 Cor. xv. 47 the conception of the pre-exist- 
ence of Christ as a heavenly, pneumatic man and archetype of humanity 
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only be obtained through misapprehen- 
sion of the meaning. See on 1 Cor. U.c., and Grimm, p. 61 ff 














CHAP, IL. 9. . 99 


partial self-renunciation of the divine Logos; Liebner: the 
entrance of the Logos into a process of becoming, that is, into 
a divine-human development), do not fall to be examined 
here in detail; they belong to the province of Dogmatics. 
See the discussions on the subject by Dorner, in the Jahrb. 7. 
Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the 
Karchl. Zeitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff. ; Liebner, 
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 349 ff.; Hasse, zhid. 
p. 336 ff.; Schoeberlein, /.c. p. 459 ff.; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. wu. 
Werk, II. pp. 192 ff, 542 ff.; Philippi, Dogmat. IV. 1, p. 364 ff 
—According to Schoeberlein, the Son of God, when He became 
man, did not give up His operation in governing the world in 
conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but continued 
to exercise it with divine consciousness im heaven. Thus the 
dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a dual person- 
ality of Christ, or of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven 
is not local. Not only the former, however, but the latter view 
also, would be opposed to the entire N.T. 


Ver. 9. The exaltation of Christ,—by the description of 
which, grand in its simplicity, His example becomes all the 
more encouraging and animating. — 610] for a recompense, on 
account of this self-denying renunciation and humiliation in 
obedience to God («a/, also, denotes the accession of the cor- 
responding consequence, Luke 135; Acts x. 29; Rom.i 24, 
iv. 22; Heb. xiii 12). Comp. Matt. xxiii 12; Luke xxiv. 26. 
Nothing but a dogmatic, anti-heretical assumption could have 
recourse to the interpretation which is at variance with linguistic 
usage: guo facto (Calvin, Calovius, Glass, Wolf; and others). 
The conception of recompense (comp. Heb. ii 9, xii 2) is 
justified by the voluntariness of what Christ did, vv. 6-8, as 
well as by the ethical nature of the obedience with which He 
did it, and only excites offence if we misunderstand the 
Subordinatianism in the Christology of the apostle. Augus- 
tine well says: “Humilitas claritatis est meritwm, claritas 
humilitatis praemium.” Thus Christ’s saying in Matt. xxiii. 12 
was gloriously fulfilled in His own case. — imreptpoce] comp. 
Song of Three Child. 28 ff; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10; 
Dan. iv. 34; Synes. Zp. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere 
among Greek authors, by whom, however, treptnros, excoed- 


100 TiIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


ingly high, is used. He made Him very high, exceedingly 
exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the previous 
ératreivpwoev, of the exaltation to the fellowship of the highest 
glory and dominion, Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Eph. i 21, 
al.; John xii. 32, xvii. 5.1 This exaltation has taken place 
by means of the ascension (Eph. iv. 10), by which Jesus 
Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi 19; 
Acts vii. 55 f£.; Rom. viii. 34; Eph i 20 f.; Col i 1; 
Heb. i. 3, viii. 1, x. 12, xi 2; 1 Tim. 11.16; 1 Pet. ii. 22), 
although it is not this local mode, but the exaltation viewed 
as a state which is, according to the context, expressed by 
inrepiy. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without 
lexical authority, to take vép as intimating: more than pre- 
viously (Grotius, Beyschlag). — éyaplcato] He granted (i. 29), 
said from the point of view of the subordination, on which also 
what follows (aupsos . . . ets S0€ay Qeod rratpos) is based. Even 
Christ receives the recompense as God’s gift of grace, and 
hence also He prays Him for it, John xvii. 5. The glory of 
the cxultation did not stand to that possessed before the incarna- 
tion in the relation of a plus, but it affected the entire divine- 
human person, that entered on the regnum gloriae. —- To évopa] 
is here, as in Eph. 1. 21, Heb. 1. 4, to be taken in the strictly 
literal sense, not as dignitas or gloria (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, 
and many others), a sense which it might have ex adjuncto 
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against 
which here the following éy t@ Gvopate "Incod is decisive. 
The honour and dignity of the name of Jesus are expressed 
by To trép wav dvopa, but are not implied in ro dvopya of 
itself. Nor is it to be understood of an eppellative name, as 
some have referred it to xvptos in ver. 11 (Michaelis, Keil, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann, 
Grimm) ; others to vios @Qeod (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius) ; 
and some even to @cds (Ambrosiaster, Oecumenius, and again 

1 In the conception of the ‘‘ exaltation” Paul agrees with John, but does not 
convey expressly the notion of the return to the Father. This is not an incon- 
sistency in relation to the doctrine of pre-cxistence (in opposition to Pfleiderer, 
lc. p. 517), but a consequence of the more dialectically acute distinction of ideas 


in Paul, since that change of condition affected the entire Christ, the God-man, 
-whereas the subject of the pre-existence was the Logos. 














CIAP. II. 10. 101 


Schultz; but see on Rom. ix. 5). In accordance with the 
context—ver. 11, comp. with ver. 6—the thought is: “ God 
has, by His exaltation, granted to Him that the name ‘ Jesus 
Christ’ surpasses all names in glory.” The expression of this 
thought in the form: God has granted to Him the name, etc., 
cannot seem strange, when we take into account the highly 
poetic strain of the passage. 

Ver. 10 f. “Iva] This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in 
accordance with the divine purpose, general adoration and 
confession as its result,—a continuation of the contrast with 
the previous state of self-renunciation and humiliation. In 
the mode of expression there may be detected a reminiscence 
of Isa. xlv. 23 (Rom. xiv. 11).— The ev 7@ dvop. ’I., empha- 
tically prefixed, affirms that, in the name of Jesus, te. in what 
is involved in that most glorious name “Jesus Christ,” and 
is present to the conception of the subjects as they bend their 
knees, is to be found the moving ground of this latter action 
(comp. Ps, Ixui. 5; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10, ai. ; 
1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 20; Col. iii 17; 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16; 
Jas. v. 14). The bowing of the knee represents adoration, 
of which it is the symbol (Isa. xlv. 23; Rom. xiv. 11, xi. 4; 
Eph. ii. 14; 3 Esdr. vill. 73; 3 Macc. ii. 1; and in Greek 
writers from Homer onward), and the subject to be adored 
is, according to the context (év r@ vou. ’I., and comp. ver. 11), 
none other than Jesus, the adoring worship of whom has its 
warrant in the fellowship of the divine government and of the 
divine Sofa to which He is exalted (comp. the habitual émxa- 
Neto Bas To Svoua xupiov, Rom. x. 12 f.; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Tim. 
li. 22 ;, Acts vil 59, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16), but has also at the 
same time its peculiar character, not absolute, but relative, 4.c. 
conditioned by the relation of the exalted Son to the Father 
(see Liicke, de invocat. Jes. Ch. Gott. 1843, p. 7 f.; comp. 
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 218),—a peculiarity which did 
not escape the observation of Pliny (Zp. x. 97: “Christo 
quast Deo”), and was, although only very casually and im- 
perfectly, expressed by him. This adoration (comp. ver. 11, 
eis S0fav Ocod martpos) does not infringe that strict mono- 
theism, which could ascribe absolute deity to the Father only 


102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


(John xvii. 3; Eph. iv. 5; 1 Cor. xii: 6, viii. 6; 1 Tim 
vi. 15 f.); the Father only is o dv él mdvtwv Oeos, Rom. 
ix. 5 (comp. Ignat. Tars. interpol. 5), 0 @eos absolutely, God 
also of Christ (see on Eph. i. 17), the @eos 6 mavroxpatwp 
(2 Cor. vi. 18; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8, al.); and the Son, although of 
like nature, as cvvOpovos and partaker of His Sofa, is subor- 
dinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv. 27 f.), as in turn the Spirit 
is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18); the honour which is to be paid 
to the Son (Rev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and 
aim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former ia to be 
honoured as the Father, and God in Christ fills and moves 
the consciousness of him who prays to Christ. According to 
van Hengel, it is not the adoration of Jesus which is here in- 
tended, but that of God under application of the name of Jesus ; 
and de Wette also thinks it probable that Paul only intended 
to state that every prayer should be made in the name of 
Jesus as the Mediator («vptos). Comp. also Hofmann: “the | 
praying to God, determined in the person praying by the con- 
sciousness of his relation to Jesus as regulating his action.” 

Instead of this we should rather say: the praying ¢o Jesus, 
determined by the consciousness of the relation of Jesus to 
God (of the Son to the Father), as regulating the action of 
the person praying. All modes of explaining away the — 
adoration as offered to Jesus Himself are at variance not only 
with the context generally, which has to do with the honour 
of Jesus, making Him the olyect of the adoration, but also with 
the word é7rovpavlmy which follows, because the mediatorship 
of Jesus, which is implied in the atonement, does not affect 
the angels as its objects (comp., on the contrary, Heb. i. 4, 6). 
The two sentences may not be separated from one another (in 
opposition to Hofmann); but, on the contrary, it must be 
maintained that the personal object, to whom the bowing of 
the knee as well as the confession with the tongue applies, 
is Jesus. Linguistically erroneous is the view which makes ép 
T@ dvos, equivalent to eis ro dvoya, for the glorification: of 
His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and others), or as @ paraphrase 
for ev Fncod (Estius; Rheinwald leaves either of the two to 
be chosen) ; while others, by the interpretation “ quoties audttur 

















CHAP. [L 10. 103 


nomen,’ brought out a sense which is altogether without 
analogy in the N.T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin : “ quasi 
vox (the word Jesus) esset magica, quae totam in sono vim 
haberet inclusam.”— étrovpavlwy x.1.d.|] every knee of heavenly 
beings (those to be found in heaven), and those on earth, and 
those under the earth, is to bow, none is to remain unbent; that 
is, every one from these three classes shall bow his knees 
(plural). ézrovp. includes the angels (Eph. i 20 f, iii 10; 
Heb. i. 4, 6; 1 Pet. i 12, iti. 22); darvy. the human beings on 
earth (comp. Plat. Az. p. 368 B: émiyeos avOpwros); and 
watax@. the dead in Hades (comp. Hom. JI. ix. 457: Zeus 
xatayGovis, Pluto: xatayOovsos Salpoves, the Manes, Anthol. 
vii. 333). Comp. Rev. v. 13; Ignat. Trail. 9, and the 
similar classical use of toyPovus, diro yatay (Eur. Hee. 149, 
and Pfluck 1 loe.). The adoration on the part of the latter, 
which Grotius and Hofmann misinterpret, presupposes the 
descensus Ch. ad inferos? Eph. iv. 9, in which He presented 
Himself to the spirits in Hades as the «vpios. Our passage, 
however, does not yield any further particulars regarding the 
so-called descent into hell, which Schweizer has far too rashly 
condemned as “a myth without any foundation in Scripture.” 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and many 
others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have 

1 Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Bretschneider, and others, arrived at this inter- 
pretation simply by understanding i» cy érig. as ad nomen (comp. Grotius : 
““nuncupato nomine”) ; but Hoelemann, with forced subtilty, by the analysis : 
‘‘ quasi circumsonitum appellatione nominis.”’ 

* To transfer, with Grotius, Hofmann, and Grimm, the genuflexion of the dead 
to the period after the resurrection, so that, according to Hofmann, the sara- 
scenes ‘sleep below and awuit their resurrection and shall then adore and confess,” 
would be entirely erroneous, mixing up with the direct, poetically plastic 
description of the apostle a remotely suggested reflection. He views the bowing 
of the knee, as it has béen done and is continuously being done, and not as it 
will be done by an entire class only in the future, aftcr the Parousia. Wiesinger, 
however, has also placed the realization of the fra way yévw xdpeyy x.¢.a. at the 
end of the world, when the knees, which hitherto had not willingly bent, would 
be forced to do so (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.). On this point he appeals to Rom. xiv. 11, 
where, however, the whole text is dealing with the last judgment, which is 
not the case here. Besides, ty ry évéuar: is far from leading us to the idea of an 
adoration partially forced ; it rather presupposes the faith, of which the bowing 


of the knee and the confession which follows are the free living action ; comp. 
Rom. x. 9. 


104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


incorrectly understood by xaray6. the Daemones, which is an 
erroneous view, because Paul does not regard the Daemones 
as being in Hades (see, on the contrary, at Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12). 
There is an arbitrary rationalizing in Heinrichs, who takes the 
words as neuters: “ omnes rerum creatarum complexus ” (comp. 
Nosselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza: “ quaecun- 
que et supra mundum sunt et in mundo.” We meet with the 
right view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred xatay6, 
to those who are in purgatory ; so Bisping still, and Dollinger, 
Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 262, ed. 2.—<As regards the realization 
of the divine purpose expressed in iva x.1.X., respecting the 
emvyetwv, it was still in progress of development, but its comple- 
tion (Rom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the apostle near at 
hand, in keeping with his expectation of the near end of the 
aiwy obros. Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the uni- 
versality of the divine purpose (iva) with regard to the bowing 
the knees and confession with the tongue so strongly by wav 
yovu and waca yAeooa, that the arbitrary limitation which 
makes him mean only those who desire to give God the glory 
(Hofmann) is out of the question. 

Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the 
adoration in ver. 10, in doing which the concrete form of repre- 
sentation is continued, comp. Rom. xiv. 11; Isa. xlv. 23; 
hence yA@ooa is tongue, correlative to the previous yovu, not 
language (Theodoret, Beza, and others). — é£oy0A.] a strengthen- 
ing compound. Comp. on Matt. ili. 6. Respecting the future 
(see the critical remarks) depending on iva, see on Gal. ii. 4; 
Eph. vi. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 18.— x«xvpcos] predicate, placed first 
with strong emphasis: that Zord is Jesus Christ. This is the 
specific confession of the apostolic church (Rom. x. 9; 2 Cor. 
iv. 5; Acts it 36), whose antithesis is: dvad@eua “Inaods 
1 Cor. xii. 3. The xvpsov eivas refers to the fellowship of the 
divine dominion (comp. on Eph. i. 22 f.,iv.10; 1 Cor. xv. 27 f.); 
hence it is not to be limzted to the rational creatures (Hoele- 
mann, following Flatt and others), or to the church (Rheinwald, 
Schenkel). — ets 50€ Qcod matp.] may be attached to the 
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however, 
in the second part a modification of the expression is intro- 





CHAP. II. 11, 105 


duced by the future, it is more probably to be joined to this 
portion, of which the ¢eltc destination, a2. the final cause, is 
specified. It is not to be connected merely with xvpios I. X., 
as Bengel wished: “J. Ch. esse dominum, guippe qui sit in 
gloria Det patris,’ making eis stand for év, for which the 
Vulgate, Pelagius, Estius, and others also took it. Schnecken- 
burger also, p. 341 (comp. Calvin, Rheinwald, Matthies, 
Hoelemann), joins it with «uvpios, but takes eis Sofa rightly : 
to the honour. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self- 
evident that the «upsorns of the Son tends to the honour of the 
Father; and the point of importance for the full conclusion 
was not this, but to bring into prominence that the universal 
confessing recognition of the xupsorns of Jesus Christ glorifies 
the Father (whose will and work Christ’s entire work of sal- 
vation is; see especially Eph. ii; Rom. xv. 7-9; 2 Cor. i. 20), 
whereby alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a 
recompense from the Father, appears in its fullest splendour. 
Comp. John xit 28, xvil. 1. The whole contents of ver. 9 f. 
is parallel to the év popdy Geod, namely, as the recompensing 
re-elevation to this original estate, now accorded to the divine- 
human person after the completion of the work of humiliation. 
Complicated and at variance with the words is the view of van 
Hengel, that éfopor. ets Sofav Geod is equivalent to éFopon. 
@c@, to praise God (Gen. xxix. 34, al.; Rom. xv. 9; Matt. xi. 25; 
Luke x. 21), and that 67: is guod; hence: “ laudibus celebrarent, 
quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini.” 


REMARK.—From vv. 6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows, 
derives his arguments for the assertion that our epistle moves 
in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions,’ and must therefore 
belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic speculation. But 
with the true explanation of the various points these arguments? 
fall to pieces of themselves. For (1) if rd shas iow ew be related 


1 Its idea is, that Christ ‘‘divests Himself of that which He already is, in 
order to receive back that of which He has divested Himself, with the full reality 
of the idea filled with its absolute contents,” Baur, Neutest. Theol. p. 265. 

? Hinsch, l.c. p. 76, does not adopt them, but yet thinks it un-Pauline that 
the incarnation of Christ is represented detached from its reference to humanity. 
This, however, is not the case, as may be gathered from the connection of the 
passage in its practical bearing with ver. 4 (+a ivipay). 


106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


to év oppy Osot sivas as the essence to its adequate manifestation, 
and if our explanation of éprayuéss be the linguistically correct 
one, then must the Gnostic conception of the Aeon Sophia— 
which vehemently desired to penetrate into the essence of the 
original Father (Iren. Haer. i. 2. 2), and thus before the close of 
the world’s course (Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 507 ff.) wished to usurp 
forcibly something not de jure belonging to it (Paulus, II. p. 51 ff.) 
—be one entirely alien and dissimilar to the idea of our passage. 
But this conception is just as inconsistent with the orthodox 
explanation of our passage, as with the one which takes the s/ras 
iow Osw as something future and greater than the wopp? Os0d; since 
in the case of the wopg%, as well as in that of the Zea, the full 
fellowship in the divine nature is already the relation assumed 
as existing. Consequently (2) the éaurdy ixtvaoe cannot be ex- 
plained by the idea, according to which the Gnostics made that 
Aeon, which desired to place itself in unwarranted union with 
the Absolute, fall from the Pleroma to the xsvaza—as to which 
Baur, in this alleged basis for the representation of our passage, 
lays down merely the distinction, that Paul gives a moral turn to 
what, with the Gnostics, had a purely speculative signification 
(“ Whilst, therefore, in the Gnostic view, that aprayués indeed 
actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutralizes 
itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this 
case, in virtue of a moral self-determination, matters cannot 
come to any such éprayués; and the negative, which even in 
this case occurs, not in consequence of an act that has failed, 
but of one which has not taken place at all, is the voluntary 
self-renunciation and self-denial by an act of the will, an éaurdy 
xevovv instead of the ysvicdas tv xevipar:”). (3) That even the 
notion of the uope4 @sot arose from the language used by the 
Gnostics, among whom the expressions opp4, woppotr, usppwers, 
were very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by 
Baur, since these expressions were very prevalent generally, and 
are not specifically Gnostic designations; indeed, wope} x00 is 
not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among 
other authors, including philosophers (eg. Plat. Rep. p. 381 C: 
Maver del dade Ev ry airot woppn, comp. p. 381 B: yxses’ dy rorrds 
moppas texyo: 6 @eds). Further, (4) the erroneousness of the view, 
which in the phrases é 6uompari dvipurav and oxhwars sipsdels we 
dp. discovers a Gnostic Docetism, is self-evident from the ex- 
planation of these expressions in accordance with the context 
(see on the passage); and Chrysostom and his successors have 
rightly brought out the essential difference between what the 
apostle says in ver. 7 and the Docetic conceptions (Theophylact : 





CHAP. II. 12. 107 


obx qv 08rd Pasvdusvov wovor, namely, Man, ZAAd xa! Osdg, odx Fv Ads 
GwWpuwos. Aid rovro OHO sy Gorwmars avOpuTaN nusic wsy yap Lux 
nai occ, éxetvos 3b buy) xal oda xai Osé¢ x.7.A. Theodoret: wep? 
Tou Adyou raura Onory, drs Osi wv ovy Ewparo Osis rv dvdpwrecia repinsi- 
pesvog Quow x.A4.). Comp. on Rom. viii. 3. Lastly, (5) even the 
three categories éxoupaviwy xa/ ixry. xa) xaray)., and also the notion 
of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged 
by Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent 
to Hades is not distinctively Gnostic ; it belongs to the N. T., and 
1s @ necessary presupposition lying at the root of many passages 
(see on Luke xxiii 43; Matt. xii. 40; Acts 11. 27ff.; Rom. x. 
6 ff.; Eph. iv. 8 ff.) ; it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief 
in Christ’s resurrection &x vsxpav. That threefold division of 
all angels and men (see also Rev. v. 13) was, moreover, so 
appropriate and natural in the connection of the passage (comp. 
the twofold division, xa/ vexpav xa/ Zavrav, Rom. xiv. 9, Acts 
x. 42,1 Pet. iv. 5f, where only men are in question), that its 
derivation from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event 
of the Gnostic character of our passage being demonstrated on 
other grounds. The whole hypothesis is engrafted on isolated 
expressions, which only become violently perverted into concep- 
tions of this kind by the presupposition of a Gnostic atmosphere. 
According to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said 
of the Aeon Sophia: 3¢ sv woppy Orod ixcpywy ob wpoaArtcbas Hyjoare 
sig rb cAxpoua rou Grou x.r.A. The apostle’s expressions agree 
entirely with the Christology of his other epistles; it is from 
these and from his own genuine Gnosis laid down in them, that 
his words are to be understood fully and rightly, and not from the 
theosophic phantasmagoria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever. 


Ver. 12.' To this great example of Jesus Paul now annexes 
another general admonition, which essentially corresponds with 
that given in i. 27, with which he began all this hortatory 
portion of the epistle (i. 27-ii. 18). — dete] ttaque, draws an 


1 Linden, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 750, attempted a new explanation of 
wv. 12-14. According to this, 2% #s is to stand for os us, xacipy a2. to be indica- 
tive, wh os... xaripy. to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated as a paren- 
thesis, and, finally, the apodosis to follow in wdyre x.¢.a. Against this view 
may be simply urged the fact, that «4 os (2 Thess. iii. 15 ; Philem. 14; 2 Cor. 
ix. 5) cannot be equivalent to #s «#, and that there must have been used not even 
#s xs, but, on account of the negation of @ purely actual relation, ss obs ; to say 
nothing of the involved construction, and of the so special tenor of the alleged 
apodosis after a preparation of so grand and general a nature by the alleged 
protasis. 


108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


inference from the example of Christ (vv. 6-11), who by the 
path of self-renunciation attained to so glorious a recompense. 
Following this example, the readers are, just as they had always 
been obedient, etc., to work out their own salvation with the 
utmost solicitude. wrnxovcate is not, indeed, correlative with 
yevop. Umrnxoos in ver. 8 (Theophylact, Calovius, Bengel, and 
others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory 
definition; but the owrnpia is correlative with the exaltation 
of Christ described in ver. 9, of which the future salvation of 
Christians is the analogue, and, in fact, the joint participation 
(Rom. viii. 17; Eph. ii. 6; Col. ii. 12f., iii. 3f.). Since, therefore, 
wore has its logical basis in what immediately precedes, it must 
not be looked upon as an inference from all the previous admont- 
tions, i. 26 ff., from which it draws the general result (de Wette). 
It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous 
exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhor- 
tation which follows, see on ver. 14) as in iv.1; 1 Thess. 
iv. 18; Rom. vu. 12; 1 Cor. ui. 21, iv. 5, v. 8, xi. 33, xiv. 39, 
xv. 58, but in such a way that it joins on to what was last 
discussed. It is least of all admissible to make, with Hofmann, 
@ore point backwards to mAnpacaré pov tT. yapay in ver. 2, 
so that this prayer “7 repeated in a definitive manner” by 
the exhortation introduced with @ore. In that case the 
apostle, in order to be understood, must at least have inserted 
@ resumptive ody after @ore, and in the following exhortation 
must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element 
of the making joy.—Ka0as mavrote vrnxovcate] whom ? is 
neither a question to be left unanswered (Matthies), nor one 
which does not require an answer (Hofmann). The context 
yields the supplement here, as well as in Rom. vi. 16, Philem. 
21, 1 Pet. i. 14; and the right supplement is the usual one, 
viz. mthi, or, more definitely, meo evangelio, as is plain, both 
from the words which follow pn os... dzovela pov, and also 
from the whole close personal relation, in which Paul brings 
home to the hearts of his readers his admonitions (from i. 27 
down till 1. 18) as their teacher and friend. On sdyrore, 


_ Comp. ard mpdtns thuépas axpe tod voy (i. 5). We cannot 


infer from it a reference to earlier epistles which have been lost 








CHAP. Il. 12. 109 


(Ewald). — py os... avrovala pov] belongs not to drnxovcare 
(Luther, Wolf, Heumann, Heinrichs, and others), as is evident 
from py ws and viv, but to Kxatepydteobe, so that the comma 
before pera dofov is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp. 
Grotius.— os had to be inserted, because Paul would not and 
could not give an admonition for a time when he would be 
present. Not perceiving this, B, min., vss., and Fathers have 
omitted it. If ws were not inserted, Paul would say: that they 
should not merely in his presence work out their salvation. 
But with os he says: that they are not to work out their own 
salvation in such a way as if they were doing tu in His 
presence’ merely (neglecting it, therefore, in His absence); nay, 
much more now, during His absence from them, they are to work it 
out with fear and trembling. There is nothing to be supplied 
along with ws, which is the simple modal as, since py os is 
connected with the governing verb that follows in the anti- 
thesis (7. éavr. owt. xatepyateoOe) as its prefixed negative 
modal definition: not as in my presence only (not as limiting 
it to this only) work out your salvation. And the adda 
is the antithetic much more, on the contrary, nay. Erasmus, 
Estius, Hoelemann, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly 
join povoy with uy, and take ws in the sense of the degree: 
not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it, in my absence ; 
comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two comparisons, 
as does also J. B. Lightfoot. It is arbitrary not to make 
povoy belong to év 7. map. pou, beside which it stands; comp. 
also Rom. iv. 16 (where r@ é« rod vouov forms one idea), 
iv. 23; 1 Thess. i. 5.’ Still more arbitrary is it to hamper 
the flow of the whole, and to break it up in such a way as to 
insert the imperative dwaxovete after Smnxovcate, and then 
to make peta oBSov «.7.A. a sentence by itself (Hofmann). 
Moreover, in such a case the arrangement of the words in the 
alleged apodosis would be illogical; vi» (or, more clearly, «ai 
yov) must have begun it, and povoy must have stood imme- 
diately after yj. — aroAA@ pGddov] than if I were present; for 

1 The word wapeveia does not contain, any more than in i. 26, a reference to 


the Parousia of Christ, which Kihler (‘‘ ye know what tais word would properly 
tell us”) reads between the lines. 


110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


now (viv), when they were deprived of the personal teaching, 
stimulus, guidance, and guardianship of the apostle, moral 
diligence and zealous solicitude were necessary for them in a 
far higher. measure, in order to fulfil the great personal duty of 
working out their own salvation. That cavrer, therefore, cannot 
be equivalent to dAA\7jAwy (Flatt, Matthies, and older expositors), 
is self-evident. — pera hoSov x. Tpouov] that is, with such 
earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing 
enough in the matter. Comp. on 1 Cor.ii.3; 2 Cor. vi. 15; 
Eph. vi 5. Aei yap poBeicbar x. tpépew ev te epyalerGas tHv 
iSiav cwrnplay Exactov, pn mote frocKxeduobels extrécn Tavrns, 
Oecumenius. Awe before the presence of God (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss), 
the feeling of dependence on God (de Wette), a reverential 
devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hengel), and similar ideas, 
must be implied in the case, but do not constitute the sense of the 
expression, in which also, according to the context, we are not 
to seek a contrast to spiritual pride (Schinz, Rilliet, Hoelemann, 
Wiesinger), as Augustine, Calvin, Bengel, and others have 
done. — xarepydfeoGe] bring about, peragite (Grotius), “ usque 
ad metam” (Bengel), expressing, therefore, more than the 
simple verb (comp. Eph. vi. 13; Dem. 1121.19; Plat. Legg. 
’ vii. p. 791 A; Eur. Heracl. 1046: wore omrnplay xarepyd- 
cao0a:; and see on Rom.i. 26). The summons itself is not 
at variance with the principle that salvation is God’s gift of 
grace, and is prepared for, predestined, and certain to believers ; 
but it justly claims the exercise of the new moral power bestowed 
on the regenerate man, without the exertion of which he 
would fall away again from the state of grace to which 
he had attained in faith, and would not actually become 
partaker of the salvation appropriated to him by faith, so that 
the final reception of salvation is so far the result of his 
moral activity of faith in the xaworns Swijs. See especially 
Rom. vi. 8, 12 ff, and 2 Cor. vi 1. Our passage stands 
in contrast, not to the certitudo salutts, but to the moral 
securitas, into which the converted person might relapse, if he 
do not stand fast (iv. 1; 1 Cor. x 12), and labour at his 
sanctification (1 Thess. iv. 3, 7; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Tim. ii 15), 











CHAP, IL 13. 111 


etc. Comp. Wuttke, Stttenl. IL § 266. The demand is 
expressed all the more earnestly, the more that the readers have 
conflict and suffering to endure (i. 27-30). 

Ver. 13. Ground of encouragement to the fulfilment of this 
precept, in which it is not their own, but God’s power, which 
works in them, etc. Here @Qeos is placed first as the subject, 
not as the predicate (Hofmann): God is the agent. It is, 
however, unnecessary and arbitrary to assume before ydép (with 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others) 
an unexpressed thought (“ be not terrified at my having said: — 
with fear and trembling”). Bengel gratuitously supplies with 
@ecs the thought: “ praesens vobis ciam absente me” (comp. 
also van Hengel), while others, as Calvin, Beza, Hoelemann, 
Rilliet, Wiesinger, who found in pera of. «x. tp. the anti- 
thesis of pride (see on ver. 12), see in ver. 13 the motive to 
humility ; and de Wette is of opinion that what was expressed 
in ver. 12 under the aspect of fear is here expressed under 
the aspect of confidence. In accordance with the unity of the 
sense we ought rather to say: that the great moral demand 
peta hop. x. Tp. THY éavTay owt. xatepyaleoOa, containing as 
it did the utmost incentive to personal activity, needed for the 
readers the support of a confidence which should be founded 
not on their own, but on the divine working. According to 
Ewald, the peta go8ov x. tpoyov is to be made good by 
pointing to the fact that they work before God, who is even 
already producing in them the right tendency of will But 
the idea of the évwiriov rod Ocod was so familiar to the apostle, 
that he would doubtless have here also directly expressed it. 
Kahler (comp. Weiss) imports a hint of the divine punishment, 
of which, however, nothing is contained in the text. So also 
Hofmann: with fear in presence of Him who 1s a devouring 
jire (Heb. xii. 28 f.), who will not leave unpunished him who 
does not subordinate his own will and working to the divine. 
As if Paul had hinted at such thoughts, and had not, on 
the contrary, himself excluded them by the irép rijs evdolas 
which is added! The thought is rather “ dulcissima sententia 
omnibus piis mentibus,” Form. Conc. p. 659.—Calvin (comp. 
Calovius) rightly observes on the subject-matter: “ intelligo 


112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS., 


gratiam supernaturalem, quae provenit ex spiritu regenerationis ; 
nam quatenus sumus homines, jam in Deo sumus et vivimus 
et movemur, verum hic de alio motu disputat Paulus, quam 
illo universali.” Augustine has justly (in opposition to the 
Pelagian rationalizing interpretation of a mediate working: 
“velle operatur swadendo et praemia promittendo”), in con- 
formity with the words, urged the efficaciter operari, which 
Origen, de Prine. ii. 1, had obliterated, and the Greeks who 
followed qualified with synergistic reservations. — dy vpiv] 
not tantra coetum vestrum (Hoelemann), but in animis vestris 
(1 Cor. xii 6; 2 Cor. iv. 12; Eph. it 2; Col i 29; 
1 Thess. ii. 13), in which He produces the self-determination 
directed to the xatepydfec0a: of their own omwrnpia, and the 
activity in carrying out this Christian-moral volition.’ This 
activity, the évepyety, is the inner moral one, which has the 
xatepyateaBat as its consequence, and therefore is not to be 
taken as equivalent to the latter (Vulgate, Luther, and others, 
including Matthies and Hoelemann). Note, on the contrary, 
the climactic selection of the two cognate verbs. The regene- 
rate man brings about his own salvation (carepyaferar) when 
he does not resist the divine working (évepyov) of the willing 
and the working (é€vepyetv) in his soul, but yields steady obedi- 
ence to it in continual conflict with the opposing powers (Eph. 
vi. 10 ff.; Gal. v.16; 1 Thess. v. 8, al.) ; so that he wepsrarei, 
not xata odpxa, but xara amvedpa (Rom. viii 4), is con- 
sequently the child of God, and as child becomes Acir (Rom. 
viii. 14, 17, 23). According, therefore, as the matter is viewed 
from the standpoint of the hwman activity, which yields 
obedience to the divine working of the Oedrew and évepyeiv, or 
from that of the divine activity, which works the 6éXev and 
évepyetv, we may say with equal justice, either that God 
accomplishes the good which He has begun in man, up to the 
day of Christ; or, that man brings about his own salvation. 
“ Nos ergo volumus, sed Deus in nobis operatur et velle; nos 
ergo operamur, sed Deus in nobis operatur et operari,” Augus- 


1“ Yelle quidem, quatenus est actus voluntatis, nostrum est ex creatione: 
bene velle etiam nostrum est, sed quatenus volentes facti per conversionem bene 
volumus,” Calovius. 





CHAP. II. 14. 113 


tine. How wholly is it otherwise with the unregenerate in 
Rom. vii. !— The repetition by Paul of the same word, évepyav 
. 70 évepryety, has its ground in the encouraging design which 
he has of making God’s agency felt distinctly and emphatically ; 
hence, also, he specifies the ¢wo elements of all morality, not 
merely the évepyetv, but also its premiss, the Gé\ev, and keeps 
them apart by using «al twice: God is the worker in you, 
as of the willing, so of the working. From His working 
comes man’s working, just as already his willing.’ — imép ris 
evdoklas| for the sake of goodwill, in order to satisfy His own 
benignant disposition. On the causal t#rép, which is not 
secundum, comp. Rom. xv. 8; Kiihner, ITI. 1, p. 421; Winer, 
p. 359 [E. T. p. 480]; and on evdoxla, which is not, with 
Ewald, to be taken in a deterministic sense, comp. i. 15; 
Rom.x.1. Theodoret aptly says: evdoxlay $¢ ro ayabov rod 
@cod mpoonyopevoe Oédnpa Oéree Sé mdvtras avOpwrous 
owbGjvat x7. The explanation: “for the sake of the good 
pleasure, which He has in such willing and working” (Weiss), 
would amount to something self-evident. Hofmann erroneously 
makes turép rt. evdox. belong to mdvta qoveire, and convey the 
sense, that they are to do everything for the sake of the divine 
good pleasure, about which they must necessarily be concerned, 
etc. In opposition to this view, which is connected with the 
misunderstanding of the previous words, the fact is decisive, 
that ris evdoxdas only obtains its reference to God through its 
belonging to o évepyav «7.X.; but if it be joined with what 
follows, this reference must have been marked? and that, on 
account of the emphasized position which tr. t. evdox. would 
have, with emphasis (as possibly by trép rijs adrod eddoxias). 
Ver. 14. With ver. 13 Paul has closed his exhortations, so 
far as the matter is concerned. He now adds a requisition in 
respect to the mode of carrying out these admonitions, namely, 
that they shall do everything (which, according to the admoni- 
tions previously given, and summarily comprised in ver. 12, 
1 This is God's creative moral action in salvation, Eph. ii. 10. Comp. 
Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 287. Incorrectly, however, the Reformed 
theologians add: ‘‘ quae prohiberi non potest. a 


2 Hofmann groundlessly compares Luke ii. 14 (but see on that passage) and 
even Ecclus. xv. 15, where Fritzsche, Handb. p. 74 f., gives the right view. 


PHIL. a 


114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


they have to do, 1 Cor. x. 31) willingly and without hesitation, 
—an injunction for which, amidst the temptations of the pre- 
sent (i. 27-30), there was sufficient cause. — yapls yoyryvep.] 
utthout (far removed from) murmuring. The yoyyuopos 
(Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 358), that fault already prevalent in 
ancient Israel (Ex. xvi. 7 ff; Num. xiv. 2), is to be con- 
ceived as directed against God, namely, on account of what He 
imposed upon them both to do and to suffer, as follows from 
the context in vv. 13 and 15; hence it is not to be referred 
to their fellow-Christians (Calvin, Wiesinger, Schnecken- 
burger), or to their superiors (Estius), as Hoelemann also 
thinks, Comp, on 1 Cor. x. 10.— dsadoyiopev] not: with- 
out disputes (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including 
Schneckenburger), de imperatis cum imperatoribus (Hoelemann, 
comp. Estius), or among themselves (Calvin, Wiesinger), and 
that upon irrelevant questions (Grotius), and similar interpreta- 
tions, which, although not repugnant to Greek usage generally 
(Plut. Mor. p. 180 C; Ecclus, ix. 15, xiii. 35), are at variance 
with that of the N. T. (even 1 Tim. ii 8), and unsuitable to 
the reference of yoyyvop. to God. It means: without hesita- 
tion, without your first entering upon serupulous considerings 
as to whether you are under any obligation thereto, whether 
it is not too diffieult, whether it is prudent, and the like. 
Comp. Luke xxiv. 38, and on Rom. xiv. 1; Plat. Az. p. 367 A: 
dpovrides ... nab Stadroyiopol, Tim. p. 59 C: oddév srotciArov 
érs StadoylcacOa. Ecclus. xl. 2. The Vulgate renders it 
rightly, a¢cording to the essential sense: “ Aaesttationtbus.” 
The yoyyvopol would presuppose aversion towards God; the 
Staroyiopol, uncertainty in the consciousness of duty. 

Ver. 15. If to their obedience of the admonitions given 
down to ver. 13 there is added the manner of obedience 
prescribed in ver. 14, they shall be blameless, ete. This, there- 
fore, must be the high atm, which they are to have in view in 
connection with what is required in ver. 14. — dueprro x. 
axépator| blameless and sincere ; the former represents moral 
integrity as manifesting itself to the judgment of others; the 
latter represents the same as respects its inner natwre (comp. on 
Matt. x. 16 and Rom. xvi. 19). —réxva Qcod dywp.] com- 





CHAP, Il. 15. | 115 


prehending epexegetically the two former predicates, Children 


‘of God (in virtue of the viofecla that took place in Christ, 


Rom. viii. 15, 23; Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5) they are (Rom. 
viii. 16, ix. 8). They are to become such children of God, as 
have nothing with which fault can be found ; which in children 
of God presupposes the inward moral axepasorns, since they 
are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. vui. 14). This edlical view 
of the viofecla, prominent throughout the N. T., and already 
implied in the mode of contemplating Israel as the people of 
adoption (Rom. ix. 4) in the O. T. and Apocrypha, necessarily 
involves, in virtue of the ideal character of the relation, the 
moral development towards the lofty aim—zimplies, therefore, in 
the being the constant task of the becoming; and hence the 
sense of showing themselves is as little to be given, with Hof- 
mann, to the yé»noGe here as in Matt. x. 16, John xv. 8, e al. ; 
comp. also on Gal. iv. 12. ’Apapnros, gui vituperari non potest, 
occurring elsewhere in the N. T. only at 2 Pet. iii. 14 (mot 
equivalent to duwpos or Gueutrros), but see Hom. Ji. xii. 109 ; 
Herod. ni. 82; frequently in the Anthol. Its opposite is: 
Tréexva popnra, Deut. xxxii. 5; the recollection of this latter © 
passage has suggested the subsequent words, which serve as a 
recommendation of the condition to be striven for by contrast- 
ing i with the state of things around. — péooy (see the critical 
remarks) is adverbial, in the midst of (Hom. JI. xii. 167; Od. 
xiv. 300; Eur. Rhes. 531 (uéoa); LXX. Num. xxxv. 5). — 
oxonas x. Sveotpayp.| crooked and perverted, a graphic figura- 
tive representation of the great moral abnormity of the genera- 
tion. Comp. on cxondsos, Acts ii. 40; 1 Pet. ii. 18; Prov. iv. 
24; Wisd. i 3; Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 B, Gorg. p. 525 A; 
and on Sceotp., Matt. xvii. 17; Deut. xxxii. 20; Polyb. viii. 
24. 3, v. 41. 1, ii. 21. 8; also dudotpodos, Soph. 47. 442. — 
év ols] ie among the people of this yeved; see Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 242 [E. T. p. 282]; Bremi, ad Jsoer. I. p. 213'f.; 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 49 f.— daiveoGe] not imperative (Cyprian, 
Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Theophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, 
Grotius, and others, including Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, Baum- 
garten-Crusius), but the existing relation, which constitutes the 
essential distinctive character of the Christian state as con- 


116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


trasted with the non-Christian, Eph. v. 8, al. The atm of the 
év ols daivecGe x.7.d. is, by means of an appeal to the true 
Christian sense of honour (the consciousness of their high 
Christian position towards them that are without), to assist 
the attainment of the end in view; this is misunderstood 
by Bengel, when he suggests the addition of “servata hac 
admonitione,”’ a view in which he is followed by Hofmann. 
The meaning is not lucetis (so usually), but (comp. also 
Weiss, Schenkel, and J. B. Lightfoot): ye appear; come into 
view, apparetis (Matt. ii. 7, xxiv. 27; Jas. iv. 14; Rev. 
xviii. 23; Hom. Jl. i. 477, xxiv. 785, 788, Od. ii. 1, ZU. ix. 
707; Hes. Oper. 600; Plat. Rep. p. 517 B; Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 
10; Polyb. ix. 15.7; Lucian, D. D. iv. 3; also Xen. Symp. 1. 
9, Anab. vii. 4.16; hence ta datvomeva, the heavenly appear- 
ances). Lucetis (Vulgate) would be ¢aivere, John i. 5, v. 35; 
1 John ii. 8; 2 Pet. i 19; Rev.i. 16, xxi. 23; 1 Mace. iv. 
40; Plat. Zim. p. 39 B; Arist. Nub. 586; Hes. Oper. 528 ; 
Theoc. i, 11.— dworipes| light-givers (Rev. xxi. 11), here 
. @ designation, not of torches (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide) or 
lamps (Hofmann), which would be too weak for éy T@ xoopug, 
and without support of linguistic usage; but, in accordance 
with the usage familiar to the apostle in the LXX., Gen. i. 14, 
16, of the shining heavenly bodies ; Wisd. xiii. 2 ; Ecclus. xliii. 
7; Heliod. 87; Anthol. xv. 17; Constant. Rhod. ep. in Para- 
lip. 205.—év xoopm] is to be taken in reference to the 
physical world, and closely connected with ¢wor. As light- 
bearers in the world (which shine in the world, by day the sun, 
by night the moon and stars), the Christians appear in the 
midst of a perverted generation. Comp. Matt. v. 14; also 
classical expressions like watpas déyyea (Anthol. vi. 614, 2), 
etc. If daweoGe be rightly interpreted, éy xooum cannot be 
joined with it (de Wette, Weiss, who takes xéopem in the 
ethical sense), or be supplemented by gaivoyvras (Hoelemann, 

1 So also Homer, Ji. i. 200, which Hofmann compares and brings out for our 
passage the sense: “‘ stand in the light proper to them.” Comp., however, J1. 
xix. 16, xxii. 28, and ic.; Duncan, Lez. ed. Rost. p. 1148 f. In the former 
passage, i. 200, the sense is: her eyes (Athene’s) appeared terrible. Comp. 


Négelsbach, p. 87, ed. 3. The same sense, according to another explanation, is 
found in Faesi. 








CHAP. Il. 16. 117 


Rilliet, van Hengel). It is erroneous, further, to make ev 
xoopy mean in heaven (Clericus, Rheinwald'), and also 
erroneous to attach a pregnant force to év, making it mean 
“within the world,” in contrast to the lights of heaven shining 
From above ; thus Hofmann, connecting it with Aoyor Cwhs éréy. 
and bringing out with emphasis something quite self-evident. 
On xoopos without the article, see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. p. 153]. 
On the whole passage, comp. Zest. XII. Patr. p. 577: tpels of 
gworipes ToU ovpavod ds o HAsos Kal 4 cEARVN? TE TroLncoVEL 
wavTa Ta GOyn, cdv tyets cxoticOncecbe dy aceBela K.T.2. 
Paul, however, has put dworipes without the article, because 
he has conceived it qualitatively. 

Ver. 16. Adyov fwijs éréyovres] a definition giving the 
reason for daivecOe ws dwor. ev x.: since ye possess the word of 
life. This is the Gospel, éred1 tTHv aidvioy mpokevet Cony, 
Theodoret. See Rom. i.16; comp. John vi. 68; Acts v. 20; 
it is the divinely efficacious vehicle of the wvedya ris Cwijs 
which frees from sin and death (see on Rom. viii. 2), and 
therefore not merely “ the word concerning life” (Weiss). Christ 
Himself is the essential Noyos THs CwHs (1 Johni. 1), His 
servants are oop) Cans eis Cwnv (2 Cor. ii 16), therefore the 
word preached by them must be Aoyos Las in the sense in- 
dicated. Paul does not elsewhere use the expression. As to 
San without the article, of eternal life in the Messiah’s king- 
dom (iv. 3), see Kaeuffer, de Cais ai. not. p. 73 f. As pos- 
sessors of this word, the Christians appear like ¢wotijpes in a 
world otherwise dark; without this possession they would not 
so present themselves, but would be homogeneous with the 
perverted generation, since the essence of the gospel is light 
(Eph. v. 8; Col. i 12; 1 Thess. v. 5; 1 Pet. 1. 9; Luke 
xvi 8; Acts xxvi. 18, ai.), just as Christ Himself is the prin- 
cipal light (John i. 4, 5, iii. 19, viii. 12, xii. 35, al.) ; but the 
element of the unbelieving yeved, whose image is the xoopos 
in itself devoid of light, is darkness (2 Cor. iv. 6, vi. 14; Eph. v. 
8, vi. 12; Col. i. 13; John i. 5, iii. 19). ’Eéyeww, to possess,’ 

1 The designation of the heavens by steers, first used by Pythagoras (see Bremi, 


ad Isoc. Paneg. p. 90), did not enter into the Biblical usus loquendi. 
2 Hofmann erroneously pronounces against this, representing that isizs could 


118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


to have in possession, at disposal, and the like; see Herod. i 
104, viii. 35; Xen. Symp. viii. 1; Thuc. i 48. 2, i, 101. 3; 
Anth. Pal. vii. 297. 4; Polyb. iii 37. 6,112. 8, v. 5, 6; 
Lucian, Necyom.14. Not: holding fast (Luther, Estius, Bengel, 
and others, including Heinrichs, Hoelemann, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger); nor yet: sus- 
tinentes (Calvin), so that the conception is of a light fixed on 
a candlestick. Others understand it similarly: holding forth 
(Beza, Grotius, and others, including Rheinwald, Matthies, 
Wiesinger, Lightfoot), namely, “ that those, who have a longing 
for life, may let it be the light which shall guide them to life,” 
as Hofmann explains more particularly; comp. van Hengel. 
This would be linguistically correct (Hom. Ji. ix. 489, xxi. 43 ; 
Plut. Mor. p. 265 A; Pind. Ol. ii 98; Poll. iii. 10), but not in 
harmony with the image, according to which the subjects them- 
selves appear as shining, as self-shining. Linguistically incorrect 
is Theodoret’s view : r@ Aoyw Mpocéyovres (attendentes), which 
would require the dative of the object (Acts iii 5; 1 Tim. iv. 
16; Ecclus. xxxi 2; 2 Macc. ix. 25; Job xxx. 26; Polyb. mL 
43, 2, xviii. 28. 11). Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact 
take éméy. correctly, but understand Acyor Sw7s as equivalent 
to orréppa €. or évéyupa ¢, and indicate, as the purpose of the 
words : Spa, was evOéws TiOnot Ta érabda (Chrysostom). This 
view is without sanction from the usus loqguendi. Linguis- 
tically it would in itself be admissible (see the examples in 
Wetstein), but at variance with the N.T. mode of expression 
and conception, to explain with Michaelis, Storr, Zachariae, and 
Flatt: supplying the place of life (in the world otherwise dead), 
so that Aoyow érréyecy would mean : to hold the relation. Comp. 
Syr.—els xavynya x.7.r.] the result which the yiveo@a 
apépmrrovs «.7.A. on the part of the readers was to have for 
the apostle ; it was to become for him (and what an incitement 
this must have been to the Philippians!) a matter of glorying 
(i. 26) for the day of Christ (see on i. 10), when he should 
have reason to glory, that he, namely (érz), had not laboured in 
only be thus used in the sense of having under one's control. Compare, in oppo- 


sition to this, especially such passages as Thuc. iii. 107. 4, where the word is 
quite synonymous with the parallel simple du ; also Anth. Pal. vii. 276. 6. 





CHAP. IL 17. 119 


vain, of which the excellent quality of his Philippian converts 
would afford practical evidence, Ste rovotrous tyas éraidevoa, 
Theophylact. Comp. 1 Thess. 11.19 f.; 2 Cor.114. Thus they 
were to be to him on that day a orépavos xavynoews (1 Thess. 
lc). Paul cannot mean a present xavyacOa: in prospect of the 
day of Christ (Hofmann), for cis xavynua «.7.d. cannot be the 
result accruing for him from the éy ols daiveoOe «.7.X. (since 
by it the position of the Christians generally is expressed), but 
only the result from the ethical development indicated by iva 
yevnoGe Guestrros «.7.A. Hence also dts cannot be a statemént 
of the reason (Hofmann) ; it is explicative : that, — The twofold? 
yet climactic, figurative description of his apostolical exertions 
(on édpap., comp. Gal. ii. 2; Acts xx. 24; on éxomlaca, comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal iv. 11), as well as the repetition of eis 
xevov (see on Gal. ii. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 1; Polyc. Phil. 9), is in 
keeping with the emotion of joy, of triumph. 

Ver. 17. The connection of ideas is this: What Paul had 
said in ver. 16: eis xavynua «.7.., presupposed, in the first 
place, that he himself would live to see the further develop- 
ment described in ver. 15: va yévnoOe dyeurros. Now, how- 
ever, he puts the opposite case, so as to elevate his readers to 
the right point of view for this also, and says: “ But even if I 
should be put to death in my vocation dedicated to your faith,” 
etc. Van Hengel finds in these words the contrast to the 
hope of living to see the Parousia. But this hope is not ex- 
pressed in what precedes, since the result ets cavynua «.7.2. 
was conditioned, not by the apostle’s living to see the Parousta, 
but only by his living to see the described perfection of his 
readers ; inasmuch as, even when arisen at the Parousia, he | 
might glory in what he had lived to see in the Philippians. 
Many others are satisfied with making these words express 
merely a climax (in relation to éxomiaca) (see especially 
Heinrichs and Matthies); but this is erroneous, because éxo- 
gwiaca in the preceding verse is neither the main idea, nor 
specially indicative of tribulation. Arbitrary and entirely 
unnecessary is, further, the assumption of an opponent’s olyec- 
tion (“at vero imminent tristissima !”) to which Paul replies; 

1 Comp. Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 2: pa cpixs, pa newla. 


120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


or the explanation of ada by the intervening thought: “non, 
je nat pas travaillé en rain, mais au contraire,” etc., Rilliet ; 
comp. also Erasmus, Paraphr. In a similar but direct way 
Hofmann gains for aA the explanation, but on the contrary, by 
connecting it antithetically with the preceding negative clauses 
Ste ovx els xevoy «7... which, with the right explanation 
of the following words, is impossible. According to de Wette 
(comp. also Storr and Flatt), ver. 17 connects itself with i. 26, 
so that adda forms a contrast to ver. 25, and all that inter- 
venes is a digression. But how could any reader guess at 
this? The suggestion is the more groundless, on account of 
the yaipw in ver. 17 corresponding so naturally and appositely 
with the xavynua in ver. 16.— ef nal «.7.d.] if I even (which 
I will by no means call in question) should be poured out, etc. 
On the concessive sense of ef nai (1 Cor. iv. 7; 2 Cor. iv 
3,16, v. 16, vii. 8, al.), see Herm. ad Viger. p. 832; Klotz, 
ad Devar. p. 519. The case supposed is thus rendered more 
probable than by the reading of EG, xat ei (even assuming that 
I). Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A; Gorg. p. 509 A; 
Schmalf. Syntax d. Verb. sec. 99 f. The protasis beginning 
with adAX’ e& xai extends to tT. wior. tjpov. As in ver. 12, 
so also here Hofmann makes the violent assumption that the 
apodosis already begins at éwt 7. Ovola «.r.r. with ovrévdopat 
again to be supplied, whilst at the same time there is imputed 
to this éml r. Ovcia x.7.X., in order to give an appropriate turn 
to the assumed antithesis for @AAd, a tenor of thought which 
the words do not bear ; see below. — ovévdonar] I become offered 
as a libation, poured out as a drink-offering (2 Tim. iv. 6, 
frequently in all classical writers; see also Schleusner, TZhes. 
V. p. 79; Suicer, 7hes. II. p. 993). The sense stripped of 
figure is: if even my blood 18 shed, if even I should be put to 
death. Paul represents his apostolic exertions for the faith of 
the Philippians as an offering (comp. Rom. xv. 16); if he is 
therein put to death, he is, by means of the shedding of his 


1 This (since the time of Chrysostom) unanimous interpretation of the figura- 
tive expression has been abandoned by Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 214 f., who explains 
it as referring, not to the shedding of blood, but to the severance of the apostle’s 
life in his vocation from intercourse with the world by his imprisonment. An 
abortive suggestion, the forced result of incorrect assumptions. 





CHAP. II. 17. 121 


blood in this sacrifice, made a libation, just as among the Jews 
(Num. xxviii. 7, xv. 4 ff; Joseph. Anti. iii. 9.4; see gene- 
rally, Ewald, Alterth. p. 46 f.; Saalschiitz, M. R. p. 314 f) in 
the sacrifices, together with meat-offerings, libations of wine were 
made, which were poured upon the ground from sacred vessels 
(c7rovéeia) at the altar. As to the Hellenic sacrificial libations, 
see Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. § 25,15 f. On the figurative 
representation of the shedding of blood as a ozrovdy, comp. 
Anthol. ix. 184. 6: Eidos alua tupavwy éorecev, Ignatius, 
Rom. 2; croviicOjvar Oe@ ads ert Ovovactyptoy érowpov ori. 
—The present tense is used, because Paul has strongly in view 
his present danger (i. 20 ff.) ; Kiihner, II. 1,p.119 f. Rilliet 
(comp. Wetstein) takes the passive erroneously : J am besprinkled 
(which also does not correspond with the present tense), making 
Paul say, “ que la libation préparatoire du sacrifice a coulé sur 
sa téte.” Confusion with xatao7éviecOat, Plut. Alex. 50, de 
def. orac. 46; Strabo, iv. p. 197; Eur. Or. 1239; Antip. Sid. 
73 (Anthol. vii. 27).— éml +. Ovo. «. NecT. 7. 7. dy] at the 
sacrifice and priestly service of your faith, that is, whilst I present 
your faith as a sacrifice and perform priestly service in respect 
to it; the sense of this, stripped of the figure, is: whilst J, 
by furtherance of your faith in Christ, serve God, as by the 
offering and priestly ministration of a sacrifice. tis ait. 
is the object which is conceived as sacrificed and undergoing 
‘priestly ministration; @vcia and Aecroupyia have one article 
in common, and are thereby joined so as to form one concep- 
tion. But Aeroupyia (priestly function, comp. Luke i 23; 
Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21, and frequently in the LXX.; see Schleus- 
ner, Thes.; comp. also Diod. Sic. 1. 21, and, for the figurative 
use of the word, Rom. xv. 16, 27) is added by the apostle as 
a more precise definition, because the mere Ouvela would leave it 
uncertain whether he was to be considered as a priest, whereas 
Paul desires ‘expressly to describe himself as such. O6vaia, as 
always in the N. T., is sacrifice, so that the idea is: at the 
sacrifice and priestly service of your faith; hence there is no 
necessity for taking it as sacrificing, or the act of sucrifice 
(Herod. iv. 60, viii. 99; Herodian, viii. 3. 5,i. 36. 12, al). 
The ézi, however, is simply to be taken as at, as ini. 3 and 





122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


frequently ; not as to, in addition to (Beza, Raphel, Matthies, 
de Wette, Weiss, and many others; comp. also Hofmann), or 
with the Vulgate as supra (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, van Hengel), 
in the sense of the (heathen) mode’ of the libation, an interpre- 
tation which should have been precluded by the addition 
of the abstract «. AeToupy. Finally, although Paul’s official 
activity concerned the faith of all his churches, he says vuay 
with the same right of individualizing reference as in &’ tuas 
at i 24 and many other passages. The passage is peculiarly 
misunderstood by Hofmann, who holds that ém/ has the sense 
in association with; that ris miorews ty. is the genitive of 
apposition to Ovcig and Aeroupy.; that the sacrificing and 
ministering subject is not the apostle, but the Philippian 
church, which, when it became believing, had presented its 
own sacrifice to God, and has been constantly honouring Him 
with its own work of service. Accordingly Paul says that, even 
though his labours should end in a violent death, yet the 
shedding of his blood would not be an isolated drink-offering, but 
would associate rtself with their sacrifice. But this would only 
make him say, with artificial mysteriousness, something which 
is perfectly self-evident (namely : after that ye became believers, 
and whilst ye are believers). Moreover, éwi would thus be 
made to express two very different relations, namely, with r7 
Quota after, after that, and with the AeToupyia at, during. 
And how could a reader discover from the mere é7i x.7.d. 
the alleged antithetical reference of an tsolated drink-offering, 
especially as no antithesis of the persons is even indicated 
by wpzeav being placed first (immediately after éwi)? The 
entire explanation is a forced artificial expedient in conse- 
quence of the mistaken assumption that an apodosis begins 
after ovrévSoua, and a new section sets in with yaipw.* — 


1 On this mode of libation rests the expression iwswivdssx, to pour a libation 
over something (Herod. ii. 39, iv. 60. 62, vii. 167; Aesch. Ag. 1895; Plut. 
Rom. 4). 

2 In which yaipo «. ovyyuipe waew tury are supposed to serve merely as an in- 
troduction for the exhortation which follows ; thus Paul would be made to say, 
that even for that supposed case of the ewisdsefas he is in a joyful mood, and 
he rejoices with any pereon tn the church whose heart is joyful (all this is sup- 
posed to be implied in waes syir!). 











CHAP. IL 17. 123 


xalpw] Apodosis down to tpiv: I reoice, not at the Ouola x. 
Aetroupyia THs wher. dy. (Chrysostom, who connects ém} r. Ove. 
«.T.d With yaipw; comp. Oecumenius; so also Rilliet), for 
it is mere arbitrariness to separate the sacrificial expressions 
omévoouas and él r. Ovoia x.7.r. and attach them to different 
parts of the sentence, and because yalpw, as the point of the 
apodosis, would have been placed before dai 7. Ouc. «.7.r.; but 
at the omévdea Gar: I rejoice to be employed for so sacred a des- 
tination. Theophylact appropriately remarks: ovy as 0 drre- 
Bavovpevos AvTotpat, GAA Kai yalpo... 516 crovdy yivopat, 
and Theodoret: tatra 5é Aéye yruyayaryar atrovs x. Siddoxwy 
rou paptuplov To wéyeGos. Comp. Grotius, Heinrichs. The 
ground of the apostle’s joy, assumed by many (including Flatt, 
Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette): because my death will tend 
lo the advantage of the gospel (i. 20), and also the interpretation 
of Weiss: that joy at the progress of the Philippians towards 
‘perfection is intended, are both quite gratuitously imported into 
the passage. The explanation of it as referring generally to 
inward joyfulness of faith (Wiesinger) or divine serenity (Ewald), 
does not correspond with the protasis, according to which it 
must be joyfulness in the prospect of death. “Even if I am 
compelled fo de in this sacrificial service, I rejoice therein,” 
and that, indeed, now for the case supposed; hence not 
future.—xak ovyy. maow ipiv] is wrongly explained by most 
commentators: “and I reoice with you all” (so Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, Matthies, van Hengel, 
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Schneckenburger, Weiss, 
Hofmann, and many others); along with which explanation 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and various of the older expositors, 
bring forward another.ground for this joint joy than for the 
yalpw (Chrysostom: yaipw pév, Sts orovdn yivouar cuy- 
yaipw Se, éru Ouclay mpoceveyxwy ; comp. Schneckenburger). 
Decisive against this interpretation is the yaipere which follows 
in ver. 18,—a summons which would be absurd, if omyy. ty. 
meant: “I rejoice with you.” The Vulgate already rightly 
renders: congratulor (comp. Jerome, Beza, Castalio, Grotius, 
Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Bisping, Ellicott, Light- 
foot), J congratulate you all, namely, on the fact that I am 





124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


poured out in the service of your faith. Such a martyrdom, 
namely, for the sake of their faith, how it must have elevated and 
honoured the readers, their whole church; for such a martyr 
death concerned them all! Comp. on Eph. iii 13; it re- 
dounds to their glory, if the apostle sheds his blood on account 
of their Christian standing established by him. It is in this 
light that Paul wishes his o7révdecOat, should it occur, to be 
regarded by his readers, and therefore gracefully and in- 
geniously represents it (though Hofmann holds this to be 
impossible) as something on which he must congratulate them 
all. Pauline linguistic usage is not to be urged in objection 
to this view (Weiss), as Paul employs ovyyaipw elsewhere only 
in the passages 1 Cor. xii. 26, xiii. 6, and these are balanced 
by vv. 17 and 18 here. Van Hengel and de Wette have 
erroneously objected that it would have been ovyyaipouar 
(3 Macc. i. 8). The active as well as the middle may convey 
either meaning, to rejoice along with, or gratulari (Polyb. xxix. 
7. 4, xxx. 10.1; Plut. Mor. p. 231 B; 3 Mace. i. 8). See 
Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 54. 

Ver. 18. And upon the same (upon my possibly occur- 
ring omévderOar emt r. Ove. «.7.r., ver. 17) rejoice ye also 
(because it takes place for the sake of your faith), and con- 
gratulate me thereon (on such a sacred destination). The verbs 
are imperatives. “Postulat enim Paulus parem oupmadeay a 
Philipp.,” Beza. The ground of the yalpere may not be arbi- 
trarily introduced (Hofmann: whatever untowardness muy 
occur), but must by logical necessity be the same which, in 
ver. 17, suggested the cuvyyaipw iyiv; and that of the ovy- 
“aiperé wor must be the same as caused Paul to say ya/pm in 
ver. 17. The expositors, who do not take ovyyalpew as 
gratulart, are here placed in the awkward position of making 
the apostle summon his readers to a joy which, according to 
ver. 17, they would already possess, By this impossibility 

1 The difficulty which van Hengel (comp. Hofmann) urges, that the readers 
‘‘vix aut ne vix quidem induci potuerunt de hujus viri morte violenta gnudentes 
vel gavisuri,” entirely mistakes the lofty standpoint of the apostle, who looks 
death in the face with a holy joy (comp. the frequent corresponding sentiments 


in the epistles of Ignatius), and also attributes to his readers a corresponding 
mode of looking at the possibility of his death. 


CHAP. II. 19. 125 


Weiss, in spite of the ro avro, allows himself to be driven 
into taking the joy in ver. 18, not as in ver. 17, but (comp. 
also Hofmann) quite generally, of a joyful frame of mind. — 76 
avTo] in_the same (on the accusative, comp. Matt. ii. 10) 
rejowe ye also; see also oni. 25. Hence it is not to be taken 
as equivalent to dcavtws (Beza, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, Rhein- 
wald, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann) (comp. 
on i. 6), in order thereby to avoid identifying it with the joy 
mentioned in ver. 17. As to yalpew with the: accusative in 
classical authors, see generally Lobeck, ad 4j. 131; Kiihner, 
II. 1, p. 255 f. 

Ver. 19. The apostle now, down to ver. 24, speaks of send- 
ing Timothy’ to them, and states that he himself trusted to 
visit them shortly. — éA7i{w 5é «.7.r.] The progress of thought 
attaching itself to ver. 17 (not to ver. 12) is: However 
threatening, according to ver. 17 f., and dangerous to life my 
situation 18, nevertheless I hope soon to send Timothy to you, 
etc. He hopes, therefore, for such a change in his situation, 
as would enable him soon to spare that most faithful friend 
for such a mission. Here also, as in i. 21-26, there is an 
immediate change from a presentiment of death to a confidence 
of his being preserved in life and even liberated (ver. 24). The 
right view of vv. 17, 18 debars us from construing the pro- 
gress of the thought thus: for the enhancement of my joy, how- 
ever, etc. (Weiss). Others take different views, as eg. Bengel : 
although I can write nothing definite regarding the issue of my 
case,—an imported parenthetic thought, which is as little 
suggested in ver. 17 f. as is the antithetical relation to yalperte 
x. cuyyalp. wot discovered by Hofmann, viz. that the apostle 
is anxious as to whether all ts well in the church. — év xupie] 
making the hope causally rest in Christ. Comp. on 1 Cor. 
xv. 19.— tyiv] not equivalent to the local mpos ipas (van 
Hengel), nor yet the dative commodi (“vestros in usus, 

' Hofmann’s hypothesis, that the church had expressed a desire that the apostle 
would send them one who should aid them, with word and deed, in their affairs, 
has no hint of it given at all in the text ; least of all in iva sdya siuye x.¢.A. 
Why should Paul not have mentioned, in some way or another, the wish of the 


church !—Baur and Hinsch find no motive mentioned for the mission of Timothy. 
As if the motive of love conveyed by ira xéye «.¢.4. were not enough ! 


126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


vestra in gaudia,” Hoelemann, comp. de Wette and Hofmann), 
whereby too special a sense is introduced; but the dative 
of reference (1 Cor. iv. 17; Acts xi. 29), indicating the persons 
concerned as those for whom the mission generally ig intended. 
— xaryo | I also, as ye through the accounts! to be received of 
me, namely, those which ye shall receive through this epistle, 
through Epaphroditus, and through Timothy. — etpuyeiv] to 
be of good cowraye, occurs here only in the N. T. See Poll. 
iii 135; Joseph. Antt. xi. 6. 9. Comp the evyoyes in 
epitaphs (like yatpe) in Jacobs, ad Anthol. xii. p. 304. — Ta 
mepl vy.] the things concerning you, quite generally, your cir- 
cumstances. Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8. See Heindorf, ad Plat. 
Phaed. p. 58 A. | 

Ver. 20. Reason why Timothy is the person sent. Hof- 
mann erroneously takes it as: the reason why he sends no one 
at the time. As if viv ydp or dpe yap ovdéva x.7.d. were 
written. — icoyruyov] like-minded, namely, with me; in what 
respect, is stated in the sequel. Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Rilliet, 
Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, wrongly interpret it: no one who 
would be so minded as he (Rheinwald combines the two 
references). As aur@ is not added, the text gives no other 
reference for loos (in dodyrvy.) than to the subject of éya (see 
also ver. 22); as, indeed, Paul could not give a better reason 
for the choice of Timothy, and could not more effectively re- 
commend him to his readers, than by setting forth his like- 
mindedness with himself ; comp. Deut. xiii. 6: pidos toos 77 
aruyyn pov. The word occurs only here in the N. T.; see 
LXX. Ps. lv. 14; Aesch. 4gam. 1470. Comp. on the subject- 
matter, 1 Cor. xvi. 10.— dori «.7.A.] the emphasis is laid on 
yunoiws, and dotis, guippe gut, ita comparatum ut, introduces 
the character of an icovuyos, such as is not at his disposal. — 


' There is a delicate compliment implied in this s4y#; for Timothy was to 
come back again to the apostle (but not Epaphroditus, ver. 25), and thus he 
hopes to receive the desired news about them which shall make him be of good 
courage. Hofmann introduces the comparative sense: fresher courage, under 
the assumption which he reads between the lines, that the apostle is concerned 
about various things im the church, which Timothy would succeed in settling and 
arranging. Paul’s cordial, loving interest in the welfare of the Philippians 
is quite sufficient to explain the sipuys. 














CHAP. II. 21. 127 


qyunoios] in genuine, sincere fashion, with one care without 
guile (Dem. 1482, 14; Polyb. iv. 30. 2; 2 Macc. xiv. 8), 
the selfish contrast to which is described in ver. 21. Comp. 
2 Cor. viii. 8.— pepspynoer] namely, when I shall have sent him. 
The caring is not to be more precisely defined ; it necessarily 
manifested itself according to the circumstances in watching, 
correction, encouragement, counsel, and action. Comp. 1 Cor. 
xit 25; 2 Cor. xi 28. . 

Ver. 21. Oc aves] all (except Timothy), of those whom 
I now have with me and at my disposal for sending; see 
ver. 20. We have the less warrant to modify this judgment 
in any way, expressed, as it is, so very clearly and decidedly 
by the absolute antithesis ra éavrav Gntotow, ov ra I. X., 
seeing that we are unacquainted with the circle surrounding 
the apostle at that particular time, and do not know to what ex- 
tent the anti-Pauline tendency, i 15, 17, had then spread in 
the immediate neighbourhood of the apostle. The only limi- 
tation of the general expression, which is in accordance with 
the text, lies in the fact that Paul does not mean the Chris- 
tians generally in Rome, but such assistant teachers as would 
otherwise, if they had been pure and honest, have been quali- 
fied for such a mission. The trustworthy ones among these 
otherwise qualified fellow-labourers must have been absent at 
the time, especially Zuke, who could by no means have been 
included among of wdvres (in opposition to Wieseler, Chronol. 
d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 42'7) ; hence the Philippians are not saluted 
specially either by Luke or by any other, and the omission of 
such salutations by name at the end of this epistle receives 
in part its explanation from this passage. Consequently, o: 
ardyt. cannot be understood as many or the most (Beza, Wolf, 
Hammond, Drusius, Estius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, and 
others, including Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Flatt); nor is it: 
“all, whom I can spare” (Erasmus), or: “who are known to 
you” (van Hengel). Neither is the negation to be taken rela- 
tively: they seek more their own interest, etc. (Erasmus, 
Calvin, and many others, also Flatt, Hoelemann, comp. the 
reservations of Weiss), to which Hofmann’s view' also ulti- 

1 The latter says: they allow themselves to be influenced tn the direction of 


128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


_ mately comes; nor is it to be explained by assuming an in- 
tention of distinguishing Timothy (Matthies); nor yet is the 
Judgment to be restricted, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and 
Theophylact, to the hardships of the long journey, to which 
they preferred their own repose. Bengel rightly defends the 
full seriousness of the utterance, and adds: “ subtilissima erat 
aic@nous, qua hoc percepit Paulus.” But Baur erroneously 
discovers here merely an exaggeration, which arose from the 
subjectivity of a later author. What an uncalled-for fiction 
that would have been ! 

Ver. 22. Contrast, not of the person (which would have run 
thy Sé avtod Sox. or avtod Sé rv So0x.), but of the guulifica- 
tion, in order further to recommend him, whom he hopes soon 
to be able to send; not to make up for the disadvantage, 
that they can in the first instance only hope, etc. (as Hofmann 
artificially explains). But the approved character (indoles spec- 
tata, comp. Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13) of him ye know; 
for Timothy had himself been in Philippi (Acts xvi. 1, 3, 
xvii. 14); hence yuwon. is not the imperative (Vulgate, Pela- 
gius, Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Clericus, Rheinwald, Hoele- 
mann). — 67t «.7.r.| that he, namely, etc. — os marpi réxvoy] 
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17. The apostle had here édovAevoev before 
his mind, but alters the conception in such a way, that.he 
thinks upon the service as rendered no longer to him, but with 
him, in a humble glance at Christ (ver. 21), whom he himself 
also serves, so that the apostle’s servant is at the same time 
his svvdovdos. See Winer, pp. 393, 537 [E. T. pp. 525, 722]. 
Hofmann labours without success to remove the incongruity, 
which cannot be got rid of unless, with Vatablus, we were at 
liberty to supply ovv before vrarpi. But, however frequently 
the Greeks put the preposition only once in comparisons (see 
Bernhardy, p. 204 f.; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 479), its omission does 
not occur in the clause placed first. The poetical use of 
such an omission in the case of words which are connected by 


their activity, even though it be consecrated to the kingdom of God (?), by special 
_ personal aims, instead of devoting themselves ALWAYS ONLY (? ov ra °I, X.) to that 
which is MOST ADVANTAGEOUS for the cause of Christ ( ob ea I. X.!). Thus there 
is imported into the passage what is not at all to be found in it. 








CHAP. II. 23—25. 129 


nai, Té, or # (Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. x. 38; Lobeck, ad Aj. 
397 ff.) does not concern us here. — ets] tn respect to the gospel 
(comp. i 5), the serving in question having reference to the 
preaching, defence, etc., thereof. 

Ver. 23. Mey ody) ody resumes ver. 19, and to the péy 
corresponds the 8¢ in ver. 24. — as ay amiédw x«.7.r.] when (of 
the time, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 759, that is, as soon as, comp. 
on 1 Cor. xi. 34; Rom. xv. 24) J anyhow (by dv the matter is 
left to experience) shall have scen to the end (Jonah iv. 5). The 
latter, which expresses the perceiving from a distance (Herod. 
viii. 37; Dem. 1472. 15; Lucian, D. D. vi. 2), denotes the 
knowledge of the final course of matters to be expected,—only 
after which could it be decided whether or not he could spare the 
faithful Timothy for a time. The form a@¢iSo (Lachmann and 
Tischendorf) in A B* D* F G x is, on account of this weighty 
evidence, to be considered not as a copyist’s error, but as the 
original, and to be derived from the pronunciation of ‘Seip 
(with the digamma). Comp. on Acts iv. 29, and see Winer, 
p. 44 [E. T. p. 48]; J. B. Lightfoot ad loc. ; Buttmann, Newt. 
Gr. p. 7 [E. T. p. 7]. — 7a epi éué] the things about me, that is, 
the state of my affairs. Substantially not different from 7a 
aept euov (ver. 19 f.). See Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 1. 20; 
Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 506]. 

Ver. 24. Kai avros] also myself personally. What Paul 
shall see, therefore, is, as he contidently trusts (not merely 
hopes), his liberation (comp. i. 25 f.); that it will make it pos- 
sible for him to come soon.’ The terminus a quo of the tayéws 
is, as in ver. 19, the then present time, although the sending of 
Timothy and his return (ver. 19) are to precede his own 
coming. The rayéws as a relative definition of the time is not 
opposed to this view. But that «al adres includes also the 
case of his coming at the same time with Timothy (Hofmann), 
is, according to ver. 19 ff, not to be assumed. 

Ver. 25 f. About Epaphroditus; the sending him home, 


1 How could this confidence, which the result did not justify, have been put 
by any later author into the apostle’s mouth? Only Paul himself could have 
written in such a way as here and ini. 25f. See, in opposition to Hinsch, 
Hilgenfeld, 1878, p. 186 f. 


PHIL. I 


130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


and recommendation of him, down to ver. 30.—dvayx. 8 
ary.| I have, however, judged wt necessary, although Epaphro- 
ditus, namely, according to vv. 19-24, might have remained 
here still, in order to have made his return-journey to you 
later, either in company with Timothy, or eventually with 
myself. For the special reason, which Paul had for not 
keeping him longer with himself in Rome, see vv. 26, 28. 
— 'Eradposditov] otherwise not further known. The name 
(signifying Venustus) was a common one (Tac. Ann. xv. 55; 
Suet. Domtt. 14; Joseph. Vit. 76; Wetstein in loc.), also 
written "Esrappodertos (Boeckh; Corp. inser. 1811, 2562) ; but 
to regard the man as identical with "Emadpas (Col. i 7, 
iv. 12; Philem. 23) (Grotius, Paulus, and others) is all the 
more arbitrary, since Epaphras was a Colossian teacher.—The 
grouping together of jive predicates which follows, has arisen 
out of loving and grateful regard for Epaphroditus, as an 
honourable testimony to him in his relation to the apostle as 
well as to the church. — adeA¢., cvvepy., cvetpar.] a climactic 
threefold description of companionship, advancing from the 
most general category, that of Christian brotherhood (a5eA¢os), 
to a twofold more special relation. On ovorpar., which sets 
forth the joint working (cuvepy.) in relation to the hostde 
powers, comp. Philem. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 3.— tpav Sé amoor. x. 
NetToupy. T. Xp. pov.] still belonging to roy; hence dpa, placed 
in contrast to the pou, belongs to Aetroupy. 7. y. wu. as well (in 
opposition to de Wette and others). ’Azoorodos here means 
delegate (2 Cor. viii. 23), and not apostle (Vulgate, Hilarius, 
Theodoret, Luther, Erasmus, Calovius, Wetstein : “mei muneris 
vicarium apud vos,” am Ende, and others), which would necessi- 
tate the genitive uyzov being taken as in Rom. xi. 13, against 
which the context, by the union with Aettoupy. 7. x. 4, 18 
decisive ; as, indeed, Paul uses door. as an official designa- 
tion only in the sense of the actual apostolic rank, based 
upon a direct call by Christ, in its narrower and wider refer- 
ence (comp. on Gal. i. 19; Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and 
hence there is no necessity to seek even an allusion to his 
“ quasi”-apostolic position towards the Philippians (Matthies). 
— x. NevToupy. T. x. .] the sacrificial minister of my need, ws 


CHAP. Il. 26, 27. 131 


Ta wap avtéy atootadévta Kopicavta ypipara, Theodoret. 
By sending aid they had cared for the apostle’s need (iv. 16) ; 
and that gift of love being regarded as a sacrifice offered to 
God, Epaphroditus, who had been entrusted by them with the 
conveying of it, was the Aesrovpyos in the matter, that is, he 
who performed the priestly service in the bringing of this 
offering (comp. ver. 17). Such is also the conception im 
2 Cor. ix. 12. On tijs xpetas pw. comp. iv. 16; Rom. xii. 13.— 
qéuxyat| as also in Greek authors frequently, in the sense of 
dimittere domum, to send home, consequently equivalent to 
anroméwresy or avaréuresy (Philem. 12); Xen. Hell. ii. 7. 9; 
Sop. 0. & 1518; Polyb. v. 100. 10; and frequently in 
Homer. See especially Od. xv. 74: xpi Eeivov wapeovra 
direiy, 60érovra Se rréwrewy, 

Ver. 26. State of mind (hv with participle) of Epaphroditus, 
which supplied the motive for the dvaryx. syno. «.7.r.2 — The 
imperfect is used (jv), because Paul transports himself to the 
time when the readers shall receive this epistle. Then is 
Epaphroditus again among them ; but he was previously longing, 
etc. — adnuovav] in anxiety, Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 37.— 
Sri 7oO.| that he was sick. How the Philippians received this 
information, remains an open question, as also how Epaphro- 
ditus learned that they had heard it. 

Ver. 27. Confirmation of that jrovearte, Sr. no 0. — xal yap 
x.T.r.] for he has also (really, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132 ; 
Baeumlein, p. 150) been sick.—-wapatA, Oavdre] adds the 
specification of the mode: in a way almost equivalent to death. 
There is neither an ellipsis (de Wette: adixero or some such 


1 That Paul, however, here writes win Was wpes deas, and, on the other hand, 
w. ducv in ver. 19, is an accidental and undesigned variation. Hofmann thinks 
that by #. isi» is meant the sending of a representative of the apostle to the 
Church, and by ©. wpés owas the sending of a representative of the Church to the 
apostle. This distinction is involved in the state of the case, but has nothing to 
do with the difference between the duiv and wpés duas. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; 
Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8; Tit. ili. 12; 2 Cor. xii. 17. 

2 The supposition that Paul, in specifying this ground, wished to prevent the 
so speedy return of the man from being interpreted to his disadvantage (Hof- 
mann), assumes the existence of a certain distrust, for which there is no basis in 
the text. Besides, Epaphroditus had in fact accomplished the purpose of his 
mission. 


132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


word is to be understood before vapamX.; comp. van Hengel) 
nor a solecism (van Hengel); aapamaA, is adverbial (equi- 
valent to wapam)\nolws, see Polyb. iv. 40. 10, iii, 33. 17; 
Lucian, Cyn. 17; comp. wapazAnotatrepov, Plat. Polit. p. 
275 C), and the dativus congruentiae (instead of which the 
genitive might also have been used, Bernhardy, p. 148) is 
governed by it.— Avmnp émi Avy] grief upon grief (super- 
added). LXX. Ezra vii. 26; Ps. lxix. 27; Isa. xxviii. 10. 
Comp. expressions with the dative (as Ecclus. xxvi. 15) in 
classic Greek, ¢.g. dyxvn émt dyyvn (Hom. Od. vii. 120), éora ex’ 
éodois (Pind. Ol. viii. 84), povos eri hovp (Eur. Iph. T. 197); 
Polyb. i. 57. 1. See also Eur. Hec. 586: Avan tis GdrAn 
SuaSoyos xaxav xaxots, Soph. Hl. 235: drav ara, Eur. 
Troad. 175: én’ ddyeat 8 adyuvOa. The first Avrny refers to 
the dreaded death of his friend; the second, to the apostle’s 
affliction over the painful position in which he found -him- 
self, as a prisoner, and also through the doings of the adver- 
saries (ver. 20 f,, i. 15, 17, 30), not over the sickness of Epa- 
phroditus (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, 
Estius, and others, also Weiss), to which would be added that 
for his death. ’Advirorepos in ver. 28 is fatal to the latter 
view, for it appears that, even after Epaphr. had been sent 
away, &@ Avr still remained, which, therefore, could not be 
referred to the latter’s sickness. Van Hengel errs in under- 
standing the affliction as pain concerning this sickness, and the 
first Avarny as “ cogitatio anxietatis vestrae.” See, in opposi- 
tion, on ver. 28. Calvin’s remark suffices to justify the double 
Avan: “Non jactat Stoicorum amdGeav, quasi ferreus esset et 
immunis ab humanis affectibus.” Comp. John xi. 35 f.— 
ox] not optative. See Winer, p. 270 [E. T. p. 359]. 

Ver. 28. The more urgently, therefore (in consequence of 
this sickness which he had had and recovered from, of which 
ye received tidings, vv. 26, 27), I have brought about his 
return, which otherwise I would still have delayed. — waduw] 
belongs to yapyre, as Paul usually places it before the verb, or, 
at least, makes it follow immediately after. See Gersdorf, 
Beitr. p. 491 f., and van Hengel. And the context affords no 
ground for departing from the usual mode, and for joining it 











CHAP. Il. 29, 80. 133 


with iSovres avroy (Beza, Grotius, and others, also Baumgarten- 
Crusius and de Wette).— «ayo aAvmor. &] Eady yap tpets 
xapiyre, nal éyw xalpw, Oecumenius. He is not a@Avzos, for he 
is in captivity and surrounded by adversaries; but the joy 
which he is aware is already prepared for his beloved Philip- 
pians by the return of Epaphroditus, lessens his Avrn. This 
tender interweaving of his own alleviation with the rejoicing 
of his readers is lost, if we refer adv7ror. to the removal of the 
vexation of seeing the recovered one so full of longing and so un- 
easy (Hofmann), which, regarded as Avrn, would be sentimental. 
According to Weiss, Paul intends to say: still more ddvTros, 
than I have already become in consequence of Epaphroditus’ 
recovery. An unsuitable idea, because the comparative neces- 
sarily presupposes a certain degree of the Avin still remaining. 
In the consciousness of this Paul has written adAvzor.; if it 
had been otherwise, he would perhaps have used, as in ver. 19, 
KAYO EpUYa OF Kary Yaipe. 

Ver. 29f. Oty] Let, then, the reception which he meets 
with among you be in accordance with my purpose in accelerat- 
ing his return (tva iSovres x.7.X.) ; receive him with all joy. — 
év xupiw] denotes, as in Rom. xvi. 2, the Christian character of 
the mpocdéxecOas, the nature and action of which have their 
distinctive quality in Christ, in whose fellowship Christians live 
and move. — pera ado. yap.| excludes every kind of sullen or 
indifferent temper and expression: “ with all joyfulness.” — xat 
Tous ToLoUToUS K.T.r.] and the people of such a sort, etc. “Iva uy 
S0fn aite wove yapiterOas, Kowds tapasvet wdvras Tols THY 
aurny aperny émderxvupevous tipav, Theophylact. But Epa- 
phroditus is in his view, as in the given case, the person 
belonging to the class thus to be held in honour.’ 

Ver. 30. dia ro épy.] emphatically prefixed: on account 
of nothing else than for this great sacred aim. The work (see 
the critical remarks) is, according to the context (comp. Acts 

1 There is no ground for the reference, which Hofmann discovers here, to an 
assumed inclination, on the part of the Philippians, to hold in honour people of 
another sort (such as are described in chap. iii.) more than the reevrous. For 
this assumption there would, at the most, be occasion only if Paul had used the 


comparative instead of iveisevs. Besides, the emphasis is not on reis resov-revg 
(Hofmann), but on iveisess, correlative to the preceding msra wade. vapas. 


134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


xv. 38), obvious, namely, that of labour for the gospel; the 
addition in the Rec. tov Xpiorod is a correct gloss, and it is 
this gpyov xatr’ e£oyr» (comp. imrép tod ovopatos, Acts v. 41) 
in the service of which Epaphroditus incurred so dangerous 
an illness, namely, when he, according to the testimony. of 
the predicates in ver. 25, as the ouvepyos and ovorpatiarns 
of the apostle, with devotedness and self-sacrifice, united his 
exertions for the gospel and his striving against the move- 
ments of its adversaries (i. 15, 17, 30, ii. 20) with a similar 
activity on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which 
refers épyov to the business of conveying the bounty (de Wette, 
following older expositors, comp. Weiss), does not suffice for 
the more special characteristic description; and the refer- 
ence to the enmity of Nero against Paul, the dangers of 
which Epaphroditus had shared, in order to reach the apostle 
and to serve him, finds no warrant either in the context or in 
Acts xxviii. (in opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, comp. Theodoret). — péype Gav. iryy.] as in Ps. cvii. 18: 
Hyyioay Ews Tay TudAdy TOD Oaydrov, Ecclus. li. 6: ws Oavd- 
tov, Rev. xii. 11. The expression with uéyps is more definite 
than the dative would be (as in Ps. Ixxxviii. 3: 4 Son pou TO 
an ipryice), or eis Oavar, (Job xxxiii 22); he came near even 
unto death.— mwapafouxr. 7H Wvy.] Such is the Text. Rec., which 
Bengel, Matthaei (vehement in opposition to Wetstein and 
Griesbach), Rinck, van Hengel, Reiche, and others defend, 
and Tischendorf still follows in the 7th ed. Justly, however, 
Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, and 
others, including Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, 
ed. 8, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, Winer, Ewald, Weiss, 
J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, have preferred wrapaBon. 
t. Yr. The latter has the authority of ABDEFGR, 177, 
178, 179 in its favour, as well as the support of the Itala by 
“ narabolatus est de anima sua,’ and of Vulgate, Aeth., Pelagius, 
by “tradens (Ambrosiaster: in interitwm tradens) animam 
suam.” Since BodeverGas was unknown to the copyists, whilst 
BovreverOar was very current, instead of the one dzaf reyou. 
another crept in, the form of which, on account of the pre- 
valence of the simple word, had nothing offensive. wapa- 





CHAP. IL 80. 135 


BoneveoOar, which is nowhere certainly preserved (in opposition 
to Wetstein’s quotations from the Fathers, see Matthiae, ed. 
min. p. 341 f., and Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 220 f.), is formed 
from the very current classical word mapdBoros, putting at 
stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to crapdSonov 
elvat, to be venturous, to be an adventurer, as mepmepeverOas 
equivalent to sépmepov elvas (1 Cor. xiii. 4), droyever@as 
equivalent to ddoyoy elvase (Cic. Ait. vi. 4), dvrooxoTrevery and 
émrioxomrevey (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), xwpixeverOas (Luc. 
Philop. 22). See more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 67, 
and comp. generally Kiihner, I. p. 695, IL 1, p. 98. Hence 
the mapafodevoduevos x.7.X., which is to be regarded as a 
modal definition to p. Gav. tryyioe, means: so that he was ven- 
turesome with his sou (dative of the more definite reference), 
ic. he hazarded his life, in order to supply, etc. In this sense 
mapaBaddcoOas is current among Greek authors, and that not 
merely with accusative of the object (Hom. Jl. ix. 322; so 
usually, as in 2 Mace. xiv. 38), but also with dative of reference 
(Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii, 94. 4; Diod. Sic. iii. 35: éxpwvay wapaBard- 
NécOar tais weyais), in the sense of pirroxivduvety (Schol. Thuc. 
iv. 57) and wapapplrrrew (Soph. fr. 499. Diud.). Comp. mrapa- 
Baddopat rH ewavrod KepadF in Phryn. ed. Lob. p. 238. Hence, 
also, the name parabolani for those who waited on the sick 
(Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 2, p. 173, ed. 4). Taking: the read- 
ing of the Test. Rec, wapaBovreverGar would have to be 
explained: male consulere vitae (Luther aptly renders: since 
he thought light of his life). See especially Reiche. This 
verb, also, does not occur in profane Greek authors; but for 
instances from the Fathers, especially Chrysostom, and that in 
the sense specified, see Matthiae, lc; Hase in Steph. Thes. 
VI. p. 220. — iva dvatr. «.7.r.] The object, to attain which 
he hazarded his life. We have to notice (1) that tpoav 
belongs to terépnua; and (2) that tis mpos pe Aevroupy. can 
denote nothing else but the function,—well known and defined 


1 The matter is conceived as staking a price or forfeit. Comp. wapaBédse in 
Poll. viii. 63, Phrynich. p. 288. On the subject-matter comp. also wpetsebas rag 
oxdés (Pausanias, iv. 10. 8); the animae magnae prodigus of Horace (Od. 
i. 12. 87) ; and the vitam profundere pro patria of Cicero (de Off. i. 24). 


136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


by the context (ver. 25), and conceived of as a sacrificial 
service,—with which Epaphroditus had been commissioned by 
the Philippians in respect to Paul (apos we). All explana- 
tions are therefore to be rejected, which either expressly or 
insensibly connect tu@y with Aevroupy., and take the latter 
in the general sense of rendering service (S:axovety). We must 
reject, consequently, Chrysostom’s explanation (comp. Theo- 
phylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castalio, Vatablus, and others) : 
TO ovv voTEpnua THS wweTépas NetTOUpyias aveTANpwCEY .. . 
Otrep exphv mdavras tovjoat, TovrTo émpakey avros;' also the 
similar view taken by Erasmus and many others (comp. 
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, Rilliet) : 
“ quo videlicet pensaret id, quod ob absentiam vestro erga me 
officio videbatur deesse;” the arbitrary explanation of Matthies: 
“in order that he might perfect the readiness of service which 
you have shown on various occasions ;” and several other inter- 
pretations. Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the simple 
literal sense, takes To bpav torép. as defectus cut subvenistis, 
and Tis mpos pe NevToupy. as: rerum necessariarum ad me sub- 
ministrando deferendarum. No; of the two genitives, referring 
to different things (comp. ver. 25, and see Winer, p. 180 
[E. T. p. 239]), by which 70 torépnye is accompanied, the first 
conveys who were wanting (Udy, ye were wanting, ye your- 
selves were not there, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17), and the second 
to what this want applied. Consequently the passage is to be 
explained: tn order to compensate for the circumstance, that ye 
have been wanting at the sacrificial service touching me; that is, 
for the circumstance, that this sacrificial service, which has been 
made through your love-gifts in my support, was completed, not 
jointly by you, but without you, so that only your messenger 
Epaphroditus was here, and not ye yourselves in person. 
How delicate and winning, and at the same time how enlist- 


' Hofmann substantially reverts to this. He takes tua» as the subject, which 
had allowed something to remain lacking in the service, namely, in so far as 
the church had only collected the aid, but not conveyed it. How indelicate would 
such a thought have been! Besides, it was, in fact, an impossibility for the 
church to have come personally. : Hence the church was wanting, indeed, at 
the transmission of the bounty, but it did not thereby allow anything to be 
wanting in the latter. 








7 


CHAP. II. 80. 13 
ing their grateful sympathy in the fate of Epaphroditus, was 
it to represent the absence of the Philippians as something 
that had been lacking in that AerTovpyia, and therefore, as 
something which Paul had missed, to supply which, as repre- 
sentative of the church, the man had (as his deadly sickness 
had actually shown) hazarded his life! He did not there- 
fore contract the illness on his journey to Rome (de Wette, 
Weiss, and older expositors), as Hofmann thinks, who repre- 
sents him as arriving there in the hot season of the year; but 
through his exertions 8:2 ro épyov in Rome itself during his 
sojourn there, when his sickness showed that he had risked 
his life in order to bring the offering of the Philippians, and 
thus compensate the apostle for the absence of the church. 
On dvarr. ro by. torép., comp. 1 Cor. xvi 17. The com- 
pound verb is appropriately explained by Erasmus: “ accessione 
implere, quod plenitudini perfectae deerat.” See on Gal. vi. 2. 
—It was a foolish blunder of Baur to hold the entire passage 
respecting Timothy and Epaphroditus as merely an imitation of 
2 Cor. viii. 23f. Hinsch very erroneously, because miscon- 
ceiving the delicate courtesy of the grateful expression, thinks 
that in ver. 30 the aid is described as a duty incumbent on 
the readers,—which would be un-Pauline; iv. 10 is far from 
favouring this idea. 





138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


CHAPTER IIL 


VER. 3. Instead of Oct Elz. has ©ew, against decisive testi-. 
mony, although again defended by Reiche. A clumsy emenda- 
tion in order to complete the Arp. — Ver. 6. Z%0v] Lachm. and 
Tisch. read %%Aos, following AB D* FG &*. A copyist’s error; 
comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Cor. ix. 2.— Ver. 8. Instead of 
pev ov Elz. and Tisch. 8 have wevodvye, which, although supported 
by AL &, is opposed by very preponderating testimony. — The 
second «vas is wanting in B D* F Gk*, 17, Arm. Vulg. It. 
Lucif., e al. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have 
been left out before the similar fa!— Ver. 10. The second 
civ is wanting in A B&*; omitted by Lachm.; overlooked as 
unnecessary.—lInstead of cvnzmopg:Zéusvog (So Lachm. and Tisch.), 
which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scholz have ovymoppoipmerog. 
But the former has in its favour A B D* P &*, min. Or. ms. 
Bas. Macar., as also ovvpopriZéucvog in F G It. Lucif. Ir. The 
Recepta substitutes an analogous form more familiar. — Ver. 11. 
civ vexp.] A BD EP 8, min., and many vss. and Fathers, have 
‘env x vexp., Which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by 
Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses dvdécracig with 
merely the genitive sav vexpav, or only vexp. The éx was written 
on the margin here to explain the word éavacr., which does 
not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and subsequently the erroneous 
insertion of this éx after rav (so still F G) produced the read- 
ing ryv éx vexp.— Ver. 12. The Xpiorod alone (Elz. gives rod X. 
"Inoov) has preponderant evidence. — Ver. 14. é</] Lachm. and 
Tisch. read sis, following A B&, min. Clem. Aeth. Rightly; 
¢xi is explanatory. — Ver. 16. After crorysi, Elz., Scholz have 
zavvi, rd adrd gpove, Which is wanting in A B &*, min. Copt. 
Sahid. Aeth. Hilar. Aug., ¢ al. There are, besides, several 
variations, and differences in the arrangement of the words. The 
Recepta has arisen from glosses (following Gal. vi. 16; Phil. 
_ ii 2), and has far too little homogeneousness in a critical point 
of view, to enable it to be defended on the ground of homoio- 
teleuton (so Matth. and Rinck).— Ver. 21. After quar, Elz. 
has tig rd yevéobas airé, which (although defended by Matth.) is 
omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient supplement, — 


CHAP. III. 1. 139 


iavr@] Following A B D* FG K P &*, min. Eus. Theophyl, airg 
is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read; iaurg is a more precise 
definition. 


In iii. 1 Paul seems already preparing to close his epistle ; 
but at this point his attention is directed, perhaps by some 
special momentary occasion, to the party of anti- Pauline 
teachers, against which he at once breaks forth with vehemence 
and irony in ver. 2, warning his readers against them; and 
thereafter, from ver. 4 to 14, he sets forth in detail his own bear- 
ing as contrasted with the character of those false teachers. 


Ver. 1. To Aowrév] introduces what is still to be done by 
the readers in addition to what has been hitherto communi- 
cated; see on Eph. vi 10. Hence it is of frequent occurrence 
towards the close of the epistles, as bringing in a further 
request, exhortation, etc. Comp. iv. 8; 2 Cor. xi 11; 
1 Thess, iv. 1; 2 Thess. ui. 1. To the closing address thus 
introduced, but at once abandoned again in ver. 2, Paul would 
have attached his giving of thanks for the aid sent to him 
(comp. iv. 8,10 ff). This is contrary to the view of Schinz 
and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul has not yet 
expressed his thanks, conclude that he did not at this point 
desire to proceed to the closing of the letter. We need not 
search for a connection with what precedes (Chrysostom : éyere 
"Erradpod:tov, Se by nryetre, &yere- Tipobeoy, Epyouat Kayo, Td 
evaryédsov érridSwor Th ipiv Nelres Nowtrov ; comp. Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, 
and others). The preceding topic is closed, and the exhorta- 
tion beginning with ro dow. which now follows stands by 
itself; so that we are not even justified in saying that Paul 
here passes from the particular to the general (Schinz, 
Matthies), but must simply assume that he is proceeding to 
the conclusion, which he desired to commence with this general 
encouragement. — yalpere év xupip] is a summons to Christian 
joyfulness, which is not xatd xdcpov (see Chrysostom), but 
has its ground in Christ, and is thereby specifically defined, 
inasmuch as Christ—through the Holy Spirit—rules in the 
believing heart; hence the yapd wvevparos ayiov (1 Thess, 


140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


i. 6) or ev avevpate dyiw (Rom. xiv. 17) are in substance not 
different. from this (comp. Gal. v. 22). The subsequent 
double repetition of this encouragement (iv. 4) is the result of 
the apostle’s special love for his readers, and of the whole 
tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in év xupip 
we are not to seek for a new special element, preparing the 
way for the transition to the explanations which follow 
(Weiss, Hofmann); for Paul could not in what went before 
mean any other joy, either on his own part (i. 18) or on the 
part of his readers (ii. 17 f, 28), and in other passages also 
he does not add to yalpere the self-evident definition é» 
xupi» (2 Cor. xiii, 11; 1 Thess. v. 16). Another joy in 
the Christian life he knew not at all. — 7a atta ypddew] 
“Hic incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere,” Calvin. After yaip. 
ev x. there is a pause; Paul breaks off. td avta has been 
erroneously referred to xalp. €v x., and in that case the retro- 
spective reference which Paul had in view is either not 
explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae), or is believed to be found 
in ii, 18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in i. 27 f. (Matthies, 
Rilliet), or in i. 27-11. 16 (Storr). This view is at variance, 
not indeed with the plural 7a avrd (see, on the contrary, 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 19 D; Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 
153; Kiihner IT. 1, p. 60), but with the facts, first, that there is 
no express summons whatever to Christian joyfulness generally, 
given in the previous portion of the epistle (not even in i. 
18); secondly, that so simple and natural a summons—which, 
moreover, occurs again twice in iv. 4—would certainly have 
least of all given rise to an apology for repetition; and 
lastly, that aodadés, in accordance with its idea (without 
danger), points not to the repetition of a summons of this kind, 
but to a warning, such as follows immediately in the context." 
The accusation of poverty of thought (Baur) is therefore all the 
more groundless here. And as the altogether vague refer- 
ence of Theodoret and Erasmus (Annotat.) to the numerous 


1 The expedient to which Wiesinger has recourse is gratuitously introduced, 
when he connects the yaipses ivy x. more closely with the warning that follows by 
imagining that, in vaip. lv x., he detects already the idea on which the sequel is 
based, namely the erisses by xupig, iv. 1. 


CHAP. IIL. 1. 141 


exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the funda- 
mental tone of the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance 
with the literal import of the words, ra avra cannot be inter- 
preted as applicable to anything but the subsequent warning 
against the false teachers. This warning, however, has not 
occurred previously, either at i. 15 f., or indirectly in i. 27, as 
Liinemann thinks, or in i. 27—-ii. 18, as Ewald assumes. 
Hence many have caught at the explanation: “eadem 
repetere, quae praesens dixeram” (Pelagius, Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, so also Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin, 
Estius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others; de Wette unde- 
cidedly). But this quae praesens dixeram is quite gratuitously 
imported; it must at least have been indicated by ta aira 
xa yp. jp. or in some other way. The same objection applies 
against Wieseler (Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f.), who 
takes ta avrd as contrasted with the oral communications, 
which would be made to the readers by Hpaphroditus and 
especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation, there- 
fore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is 
expressly rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already 
written what follows in an earlier epistle to the Philipmans’ 
which is not preserved, and that he here repeats the same. 
So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt, Flatt, Kohler, in 
the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834, III. 1, p. 18 f.; Feilmoser, 
Bleek, Jatho, Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann; de 
Wette undecidedly. It must remain uncertain, however, 
whether this repetition covers ver. 2 only, or ver. 3 also, or a 
still larger portion of the sequel ; as also, how far the repetition 
is a literal one, which seems to be the case with ver. 2 from 
its peculiar character. — éxvnpov] irksome, matter of scruple 
(Dem. 777. 5; Theocr. xxiv. 35; Pind. Nem. xi. 28; Herodian 
vi. 9,7; Soph. O. &. 834), comp. ov« oxvyrtéov, Polyb. i 14. 
7, also Plat. Bp. II. 310 D: rarnOy rAéyew obre oxvncw ovTe 
aioxuvovpas,— aoparés| safe, so that ye will the more firmly 
rely thereon for the determination of your conduct. Comp. 
Acts xxv. 26; Heb. vi. 19; Wisd. vii. 23; Plat. Rep. 450 E; 
Phaed. p. 100 DE; Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15. Hofmann, 
1 Comp. also Credner, Hinl. I. p. 383. 


142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


without any precedent of usage, assigns to dxvnpoy the sense 
of indolent cowardice, and takes aodadés as prudent, which 
linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231 A), 
but would be unsuitable to the tuiv. The apostle wishes to 
say, that the repetition is for himself not irksome (éxvos, 
haesitatio), and is for his readers an aodanés rexunprov (Eur. 
Rhes. 94.) to be attended to. : 


Note.—This exegetical result, that, previously to our epistle, 
Paul had already written another to the Philippians, is confirmed 
- by Polycarp,* who, ad Phil. 3, says: rot paxapiov x. svdézou 
Tlavaou, 0¢ yevdusvos sv but xard axpbowrov ray ches avopumov sdidacev 
axpiBig x. BeSaiug viv wepi kAnbsing Adyov, 3¢ xal aad iwi typapey 
Exsororhas, tig ds tay tyxbarnre, duvgseods oixedousiobas x.7.A. It is 
true that the plur. in this passage (éasorodds, e#¢ &s) is usually 
explained as referring to one epistle (see Cotelerius zn Joc. ; and 
Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. IL p. 914 f.; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vater, p. 
210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as it is well known that 
also in profane authors iaroAci (comp. literae) is used of one 
despatch (Thuc. i. 132. 6, viii. 39. 2), sometimes generally in a 
generic sense as plural of the category, and sometimes specially 
of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446; 
Blomf. and Stanl. ad <Aesch. Prom. 3; Rettig, Quaest. Phil. II. 
p. 37 f. But there is the less ground for assuming this con- 
struction here, since doctrinal epistles, both in the N. T. and 
also in the apostolic Fathers, are always described by the 
singular when only one epistle is intended, and by the plural 
(as in 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. x. 9-11; 2 Pet. iii. 16; comp. Acts 
ix. 2, xxii. 5) if more than one are meant,—a practice from which 
there is no exception (not even in 1 Cor. xvi. 3), as, in fact, 
Polycarp, in regard to éaioroa%, elsewhere very definitely distin- 


1 Ewald also acknowledges the composition of more than one epistle to the 
Philippians, but finds traces of them not here, but at ii. 12, iii. 18. 

21 cannot at once accept the view that the passages in question, ch. iii. and 
xi., are interpolated (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 588 ff.). The interpolations 
in the Ignatian epistles are at any rate of another kind. Besides, we have from 
Polycarp only the one epistle; and we have therefore no sufficient objec- 
tive standard of comparison, in the absence of which a judgment founded on 
taste is very uncertain. But even assuming the interpolation, we should still 
have the result that the interpolator was acquainted with several epistles of Paul 
to the Philippians. Otherwise he would have had no reason for using the plural, 
especially as it was already distinction enough for the church to have had 
epistle addressed to it by the apostle. : 


CHAP. Il. 143 


guishes between the singular and plural. See ch. xiii: rd¢ 
imiororas Tyvariou rag wsupisiong nui ie aired xal AAAag bog 
siagouer wap Hun, ixtu-Lawsy Yun, xabds sversiiacder airives imorsray- 
wives siol +H ‘axsoroAy saurn. In order to prove that Polycarp 
in ch, iii. did not mean more than one epistle to the Philippians, 
an appeal has been made to ch. xi, where, in the Latin ver- 
sion, which alone has been preserved, it is said: “Ego autem 
nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus 
Paulus, qui estis (non-genuine addition: /audat:) in principio 
epistolae eyus ; de vobis enim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, 
quee Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem nondum nove- 
ramus.” But epistolae e7us cannot here be the epistle to the 
Philippians, for the idea: “ye are in the beginning of his 
epistle,’ would: be simply absurd; epistolae is, on the contrary, 
the nominative plural, and the sense is: “Ye are originally his 
epistles,” that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase 
allusion is made to 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff! The correctness of this 
explanation, which Wieseler has substantially adopted, is cor- 
roborated by the sequel: de vobis enim gloriatur, etc.—It is, 
moreover, @ priort intelligible and likely enough that Paul 
should have corresponded with this church—which enjoyed his 
most intimate confidence, and the founding of which marked 
his entrance on his European labours—at an earlier period 
than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Poly- 
carp was sufficiently close to the time of the apostle, not 
merely to have inferred such a correspondence from our passage, 


1’ Hofmann also explains the expression from 2 Cor. iii. 1ff., but errs in taking 
epistolae as the genitive ; he makes this epistle to be the whole of the Christians 
gathered by Paul, and thus represents Polycarp as declaring, in reference to the - 
Philippian church, that tt stands jirst in this epistle, because it is reckoned among 
his carliest acquisitions. According to this interpretation, a vast aggregate of 
churches would be depicted as one epistle, in which one church would stand 
written frst, and others after it, each therefore being marked by name in the 
order of its date. What a different picture this would yield from that presented 
in 2 Cor. iii., and one, too, delineated singularly enough! And how unsnitable 
would such a precedence, as to time, be for the church at Philippi! By how 
long a period had the establishment of all ihe churches of Asia preceded it! 
Hofmann’s objection to our view, viz. that the present estis would be unsuit- 
able, does not apply, since Polycarp realizes the state of matters as it stood with 
the church in principio (is px, i.e. in the earliest times of the gospel), as present ; 
hence also he subsequently says gloriatur (not gloriabatur). The conception is 
this : Paul in all the churches of that early Christian age boasts of the excellent 
Philippian church, and so this church serves him as so many letters of recom- 
mendation, which by his gloriari he communicates, and as it were reads before, 
those other churches. 


144 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


but to have had a historical knowledge of it (in opposition to 
Hofmann). 


Ver. 2. This is now the za avra which he had previously 
written, and probably in the very same words, At least this 
seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in them- 
selves ; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the rela- 
tion of contrast, which this vehement “ fervor pii zeli” (Calvin) 
presents to the tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That 
lost epistle had probably expressed the apostle’s mind at 
length, and with all the warmth of controversy, for the 
warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. How 
entirely different is the tone in which, in the presené epistle, 
he speaks (i. 15 ff) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline 
type, and labouring, indeed, at that time in his immediate 
neighbourhood! Comp., moreover, the remark after i. 18. 
Those who refer ra avrd to the yaipere ev xuplw, labour in 
very different ways to establish a connection of thought with 
Bndétrere «.7.r.; a8, for instance, Wiesinger: that Paul wished 
to suggest, as a ground for the reiterated summons to joy in 
the Lord, the danger which was threatening them from the 
men described; Weiss: that the readers were to learn e con- 
trario, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what it was 
not, based. — Brémere}] not: be on your guard against, etc. 
(which would be 6A. amo, Mark viii. 15, xii. 38), but asa 
calling attention to: behold ! (1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18), with a view, 
however, to warn the readers against these men as per- 
nicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which they 
present themselves. — rovs xvvas] a term of reproach among 
the Jews and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, 
also uses it without any dishonourable reference; see Duncan, 
Lex. ed. Rost. p. 674); used by the latter specially to denote 
impudence, furious boldness (Hom.. Jl. viii. 289; Od. xvii. 
248; Anth. Pal. ix. 302), snappishness (Pollux, On. v. 65), 
low vulgarity (Lucian, Nigr. 22), malice and cunning (Jacobs, 
ad Anthol. VI. p. 18), and the like, see generally Wetstein ; 
used also among the Jews in similar special references (Isa. 
lvi. 10 f£.; Deut. xxiii. 18 ; Rev. xxii. 15, et al.), and, because 





CHAP. III. 2. 145 


dogs were unclean animals, generally to denote the profane, 
impure, unholy (Matt. vii. 6; Ps. xxii. 17; Rev. xxii. 15; 
Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 1145); hence the Gentiles were so desig- 
nated (see on Matt. xv. 26). In this passage also the profane 
nature and demeanour of the false teachers, as contrasted 
with the holy character of true Christianity, is to be adhered 
to as the point of comparison (Chrysostom: ovxére téxva 
"Tovdator . . . Bomep of €Ovixol Kal tot Oecd Kab rod Xpictod 
GANOTpLOL Hoay, obrw Kal obTOL yeyovact viv). Any more special 
reference of the term—as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and 
many others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), 
covetousness (both combined by Grotius), snappishness (Rilliet, 
and older expositors, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and 
Pelagius), envy, and the like; or to the disorderly wandering 
about in selfishness and animosity towards those who were 
living peaceably in their Christian calling (Hofmann), to which 
Lange fancifully adds a loud howling against Paul,—is not 
furnished by the context, which, on the contrary, follows it up 
with yet another general designation, subjoining, namely, to that 
of the low, unholy character («vvas) that of the evil working: 
Tovs KaKxous épyat. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13. The opposite: 2 Tim. 
ii, 15; Xen. Mem. i. 2.57. ’Epyalovrar pév, dnow, adr’ ead 
Kax@, Kal apylas woNA@ yeipoy Epyoy, dvaomwrvtes TA KaES 
xeiyeva, Chrysostom ; comp. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact. They, in fact, abowred in opposition to the fundamental 
doctrine of justification by faith. — tv xatarouny] the cutting 
an greces (Theophr. #. pl. iv. 8.12), a word formed after the 
analogy of meperou, and, like the latter in ver. 3, used in a 
concrete sense : those who are cut in pieces! A bitter parono- 
masta, because these men were circumcised merely as regards 
the body, and placed their confidence in this fleshly circum- 
cision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision, 
which that of the body typified (see ver. 3; Rom. ii. 28 f.; 
Col ii.11; Eph. ii. 11; Acts vii 51). Comp. Gal.v.11f. In 
the absence of this, their characteristic consisted simply in the 
bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal point of view which 
Paul here occupies, was not circumcision, but concision; whilst, 
on the other hand, circumcision, as respected its moral idea, was 
PHIL, K 


146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


entirely independent of the corporeal operation, ver. 3. Comp. 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction 
between aepir. and xarat. has been misunderstood by Baur, 
who takes the climax as quantitative, and hence sees in it a 
warped and unnatural antithesis, which is only concocted to 
give the apostle an opportunity of speaking of his own person. 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact justly lay stress on 
the abolition of the legal circumcision as such brought about 
through Christ (the end of the law, Rom. x. 4),—a presup- 
position which gives to this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.’ 
A description of idolatry, with allusion to Lev. xxi. 5, 1 Kings 
Xviii. 28, e al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot; comp. Beza), is 
quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to discover here 
any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther's 
gloss), or a cutting in preces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, 
Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and 
others), against which the necessary (comp. ver. 3) passive sig- 
nification of the word (not cutters in pieces, but cut in pieces) is 
decisive-—The thrice repeated Bdérere belongs simply to the 
éripovry of earnest emotion (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 315; 
Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398]), so that it points to 
the same dangerous men, and does not, as van Hengel miscon- 
ceives, denote three different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. 
the apostate, the heretical, and the directly inimical. The 
passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. ii 1, does not 
bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of 
éBrevre are divided by wey... 54 Weiss also refers the three 
designations to three different categories, namely: (1) the 
unconverted heathen, with their immoral life; (2) the self- 
seeking Christian teachers, i 15-17; and (3) the unbelieving 


* Luther’s works abound in sarcastic paronomasiae. Thus, for instance, in 
the preface to his works, instead of Decret and Decretal, he has written 
“ Drecket” and ‘‘ Drecketal”” (Germ. Dreck = dregs, filth]; the Legenden he 
calls Liigenden, the Jurisperitos he terms Jurisperditos ; also in proper names, 
such as Schwenkfeld, whom he called ‘‘ Stenkfeld.” In ancient authors, comp. 
what Diog. L. vi. 2, 4 relates of Diogenes: viv Evxasidey eyerny lrasye yeasty, 
ony 33 Wadreves Siarpiiy xaracp Biv, Thue. vi. 76. 4: obs &fursewripev, xaxckv- 
sreripey 31. See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 276; Jacobs, Delect. epigr. 
p- 188, For the Latin, see Kiihner, ad Cic. Tusc. p. 291, ed. 8. 





CHAP. III. 3. 147 


Jews, with their carnal conceit. But the first and third cate- 
gories introduce alien elements, and the third cannot be 
identified with those mentioned at i. 15-17, but must mean 
persons much more dangerous. In opposition to the whole 
misinterpretation, see Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. p. 
626 ff. All the ¢hree terms must characterize one class of 
men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the 
Judaizing false teachers. As is evident from Tt. xatatopyy and 
ver. 3 ff., they belonged to the same fundamentally hostile party 
against which Paul contends in the Epistle to the Galatians, 
At the same time, since the threefold repetition of the article 
pointing them out may be founded upon the very notoriety 
of these men, and yet does not of necessity presuppose a 
personal acquaintance with them, it must be left an open 
question, whether they had already come to Philippi itself, or 
merely threatened danger from some place in its vicinity. 
It is certain, however, though Baur still regards it as doubtful, 
that Paul did not refer to his opponents in Rome mentioned 
in i. 15 ff. (Heinrichs), because in the passage before us a 
line of teaching must be thought of which was expressly and 
in principle anti-Pauline, leading back into Judaism and to 
legal righteousness ; and also because the earnest, demonstra- 
tive Brérrere, as well as aodanés (ver. 2), can only indicate a 
danger which was visibly and closely threatening the readers. 
It is also certain that these opponents could not as yet have 
succeeded in finding adherents among the Philippians; for if 
this had been the case, Paul would not have omitted to cen- 
sure the readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians 
and Second Corinthians), and he would have given a very dif- 
ferent shape generally to his epistle, which betrays nothing but 
a church as yet undivided in doctrine. His language directed 
against the false teachers is therefore merely warning and 
precautionary, as is also shown in ver. 3. 

Ver. 3. Justification of the preceding 7. xatarouyy ; not, 
however, “ an evident copy” of 2 Cor. xi. 18 f. (Baur), but very 
different from the latter passage amidst the corresponding 
resemblances which the similarity of subject suggested ; in both 
cases there is Pauline originality. — 7s] with emphasis: we, 


148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIE PHILIPPIANS. 


not they. The xcatarouy being not the unconverted Jews, but 
Christian Judaizers, the contrasted ets cannot mean the Chris- 
tvans generally (Weiss), but only those who, in the apostle’s 
sense, were true and right Christians, whose more definite 
characterization immediately follows. The zets are the 
"Iopanr tov Geod of Gal. vi. 15 f., the members of the people 
of God in the sense of the Pauline gospel, and not merely Paul 
and the true teachers of the gospel (Hofmann),—a restriction 
which the exclusiveness of the predicate, especially furnished 
as it is with the article, does not befit; in iii. 17 the context 
stands otherwise. — 7) mrepetrouy] If this predicate belongs to ws, 
not to those men, then, in regard to the point of circumcision, 
nothing remains for the latter but the predicate xararouy ! 
As the 7ets, among whom the readers also were included, 
were for the most part uncircumcised (Gal. 11. 9, 1i.; Eph. 
ii. 11), it is clear that Paul here takes mepurouy purely in 
the antitypical spiritual sense, according to which the cir- 
cumcised are those who, since the reception of baptism, are 
regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and therefore members of the 
true people of God; the investiture with their new moral 
condition is typically prefigured by the legal bodily meperop) 
of the Jewish theocracy. Comp. Rom. ii. 29, iv. 10 f.; Eph. 
it 11; Coli 11; Acts vii. 51. Whether the bodily circum- 
cision was prescit or not, and whether, therefore, the subjects 
were Jewish or Gentile Christians, was in that case matter of in- 
difference, 1 Cor. vii.19; Gal. iu. 28, v. 6. Comp. the further 
amplification of the thought in Barnab. Ep. 9.— ot arvevpate 
Gcov x.7.d.] We who serve through the Spirit of God, in con- 
trast to the external, legal Aarpeda (Rom. ix. 4). Comp. Heb. 
ix. 10,14; Rom. xii. 1 f. With this Aatpela, wrought by 
the Holy Spirit,? there takes place on the part of man 
(comp. Rom. i. 9), but in virtue of that very workirg of the 
Holy Spirit, the worship which is required in John iv. 24. 

' True Christianity is, according to Paul also, the true continnation of Judaism, 
and that not merely of the promise given in it, but also of the law; tke latter, 
however, according to the idea of the wAspeo:s, Matt. v. 17, in which the letter 
has yielded to the spirit. 

2 If we adopt the reading wvsepac: Oso, wvssmers must be understood as in Rom. 
i, 9. See Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 229 ff. ’ 


{ 


CHAP. IIL 4 149 


The article of extends also to the two participles which follow ; 
and the arthrous participles (quippe qui colimus, etc.) contain 
the experimental proof that the #ets are the mepiroun. The 
dative mvevpare denotes neither the standard (van Hengel) nor 
the object (Hilgenfeld), which latter view would amount to 
the conception, foreign to the N. T., of a worship of the Holy 
Spirit—but is instrumental, expressing the inward agent (Rom. 
v. 5, vu. 14 f, e¢ al.) > vi spiritus divint (Rom. viil. 13, e¢ al.). 
On the absolute Aarpevew, to render divine worship, comp. Luke 
i, 37; Acts xxvi. 7; Heb. ix. 9,x. 2; Rom. ix. 4; 3 Esdr. 
iv. 54.— Kavyop. év X.’I.] and who glory in Christ Jesus (as 
Him through whom alone we have attained righteousness, etc., 
see ver. 9; comp. Gal. vi. 14), not in our own privileges and 
legal performances, as those false teachers do, who place their 
confidence in what is fleshly, i.e. in that which belongs to 
material human nature and has nothing in common with the 
divine blessings of the Christian (such as circumcision, descent, 
outward observance of the law, comp. vv. 4-6). Hence the 
contrast: xat ovx év capxt treroOores, with which the disposi- 
tion of mind contrary to the cavydo@a: év X. ’I. (from which 
disposition the xavyaa@az, opposed to that Christian xavyado6az, 
of itself results) is negatived ; so that this contrast is pregnant, 
belonging, however, by way of antithesis, to the second state- 
ment, and not containing a separate third one (Hofmann). 
If x. ovx éy o. aem. were merely a more precise definition of 
purport added to navy, év X. ’I. (Weiss), it must have been 
added without «ai As to ove in the passage, referring to 
concrete persons and a definite fact, and negativing not merely 
the év capxt (Hofmann), but the actual position év o. mero, 
see Winer, p. 451 f. [E. T. 609]; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
276 f. 

Ver. 4. By the ov« év capxi mero@., which he had just 
used, Paul finds himself led to his own personal position ; for 
he was, in fact, the proper organ of the anti-Judaizing ten- 
dency expressed in ver. 3, and the real object against which 
the whole conflict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by 
the words ov« éy capxi aero. he by no means intends to 
concede that he is destitute of that crerol@nots which was 


150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


founded on externals;’ no, in this respect also he has more to 
show than others, down to ver. 6.2 So no one might say 
that he was despising what he himself did not possess. — The 
classical xalzep with the participle (only used here by Paul; 
and elsewhere in the N. T. only in Heb. v. 8, ¢ al.; 2 Pet. 
i, 12), adds to the adversative sentence a hmiting concessive 
clause (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 201 f.), and that in such a way, 
that from the collective subject of the former the apostle now 
with emphasis singles out partitively his own person (éye). 
If, following the Homeric usage, he had separated the two 
particles, he would have written: xal éyw aep.; if he had 
expressed himself negatively, he would have said: ovddérep éyw 
ove éywv. — The confidence ‘also in flesh, te. in such circum- 
stances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in 
éxav (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4) conceived as a possession; he has 
this confidence, namely, from his personal position as an 
Israelite—a standpoint which, laying out of view for the 
moment his Christian transformation, he boldly adopts, in 
order to measure himself with his Judaistic opponents on their 
own ground of proud confidence, and thereupon in ver. 7 ff. 
yet again to abandon this standpoint and to make those 
Israelitish advantages vanish into nothing before the light of 
his vital position as a Christian. Hence the zremo(6nors, his 
possession of which he in the first instance urges, is not jiduciae 
argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, includ- 
ing Flatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss); nor is the possession of it 
to be viewed as something which he might have (Storr, Rilliet, - 
Matthies, Ewald); nor is it to be referred to the pre-Christian 
period of the apostle’s life (van Hengel). The latter is also the 
view of Hofmann, who holds éywy (and then diwxwyv also) as the 
amperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the involved 
misinterpretation : that xalmep introduces a protasis, the apodosis 

1 zat iy capxi, namely, in addition to the higher Christian relations, on which 
I place my confidence. 

? Only a comma is to be placed after wseeirss in ver. 8; but after iy capxi in 
ver. 4 a full stop; and after éuseweos in ver. 6 another full stop. So also 
Lachmann and Tischendorf. In opposition to Hofmann’s confusing construction 


of the sentence, see below. 
* Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 246. & 


CHAP. IIL 5, & 151 


of which follows with adda in ver. 7. In accordance with this 
view, ver. 4 is supposed to mean: “ Although I possessed a con- 
fidence, and that, indeed, based on such matters as are flesh, of 
any other ventures to trust in such things, I for my part possessed 
confidence in a higher degree.” This is erroneous ; first, because 
the familiar aAAa of the apodosis is used indeed after xa/ros 
(with finite tense; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 68 E; Parm. 
p. 128 C), but not after the common xaizep with parti- 
ciple, attaching itself to a governing verb; secondly, because 
xai before éy capxi means nothing else than also, which does 
not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to force 
upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed ; thirdly, 
because the present doxe? presupposes the present sense for 


éyov also; and lastly, because with éyw paddov the present (in 


accordance with the preceding Soxe?), and not the imperfect, 
again suggests itself as to be supplied) And how awkward 
would be the whole form of expression for the, after all, very 
simple idea! — res... dAAos] quite generally : any other person, 
but the intended application to the above-mentioned Judazzers 
was obvious to the reader. See the sequel, The separation 
by Soxe? lays all the stronger stress on the ris. — Soxet] not: 
“thinks to be able to confide” (de Wette and many others) ; 
nor yet: “si quis alius vdetur” (Vulgate), since it is a matter 
depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his 
own fancy, according to the connection. Hence: if any one 
allows himself to think, if he presumes. Just in the same 
way, as in the passage parallel also in substance, Matt. i 9. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16.— éym padrov] sc. Sond mer. ev capi, 
I for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression 
implies a certain boldness, defiance ; comp. 2 Cor. xi 21. ; 
Vv. 5, 6. Predicates of the éy#, by which that éyw padror 
is justified —If those Judaizers were, as may be inferred from 
our passage, partly proselytcs (to these the mepsr. oxranp. stands 
in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish descent was not se 
noble and pure as that implied in é« yévous. . . . ‘EBpaiwy, and 
if they could not boast of any such Jaw-striciness, zealous 
activity, and righteousness, as is described in xara vopov... 
Geurros; and if, on the other hand, there were found con- 








152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


joined in the case of Paul the elements here adduced of ancient 
theocratic legitimacy and perfection; the éy® padAov in 
ver. 4 was completely made good. —epsrouy oxranp.] in 
respect to circumcision an eighth-day-one, not older, as were the 
proselytes who were only circumcised at a later period of life. 
The eighth-day character in the relation specified by vrepstou7 
is conceived as a quality of the persons concerned, which dis- 
tincuishes them from those circumcised later." The reading 
TepiToun as nominative (some min. and Fathers, Erasmus, 
Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Mill, Bengel, Matthies, Heinrichs, 
and others, also Elz. 1624, 1633, not 1641), so that it would 
stand in the concrete sense (circwmcisus), is erroneous, because 
this usage occurs only collectively. — éx yévous ’Icp.] that is, a 
descendant of Jacob, not, therefore, possibly of Jdumaean blood. 
The theocratic name ’Icp. corresponds entirely with the design 
of the passage. Comp. on Eph. 11. 12. On what follows, 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22; Rom. xi. 1.— dvajs Bevay.] therefore 
not, possibly, an Ephravmite (Ezra iv. 1); a climactic more 
precise definition of the edyévea; evryers yap 7) dios Kak 
eXyevov, Soph. Phil. 862 (874). For its fuller exhibition 
Paul finally specifies the last feature of his lineage: “ESpaios 
e€ ‘EBp., that is, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents, so that his 
mother also was a Hebrew woman. His lineage is not carried 
further back in respect to both parents, because it was not the 
custom to trace back the genealogy of the wives. Inappro- 
priate to the context is the rendering of Michaelis, following 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact: “one speaking 
Hebrew, born of Hebrew-speaking parents.” It is also erro- 
neous, following the Greek Fathers, to take €€ “ESp. of the 
tota majorum series (Beza, Grotius, Storr, Matthies, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, and others), because this was after the two 
previously specified points self-evident. If, among his an- 
cestors, Paul had had one who was a non-Hebrew, he would 
not have been descended from Jacob and Benjamin, but from 
the non-Hebrew and his forefathers. For instances of ex- 
pressions quite similar to ‘E8p. e£ ‘“Efp., used to denote the 

1 For instances of the personal use of such nomina dialia, see especially 
Wetstein on John xi. 39; comp. generally Kiihner, II. 1, p. 234 f. 


CHAP. IIL §, 6. 153 


identity, as conditioned By birth, of a man’s position with that 
of his parents, see Wetstein and Kypke; they occur very 
frequently in classic authors.— xatd voyov «.7.d.] After his 
Jewish evyévera there now follows his distinguished personal 
position in Judaism, set forth in a threefold climactic grada- 
tion: (1) In respect of the law (of Moses) a Pharisee. Comp. 
Acts xxvi. 5, xxii. 6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and 
strictest relation to the law, as they with their traditions 
were regarded as the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and 
observers of it. The interpretation of voyoy, not in its habitual 
historic sense, but generally as regular rule (Beza) or dis- 
ciplina (aipeors) (Castalio, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Heinrichs, 
Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others), is all the more erroneous, 
since the validity of the Mosaic law in Christianity was the very 
principle upheld by those Judaizers; see also below, Scxazoc. 
rT. év vou. (2) In respect of zeal (zealous maintenance and 
championship of the law-religion, 1 Mace. 11. 58 ; Acts xxi. 20; 
Gal. 1. 14), a persecutor of the church. Comp. Gal. 1 13 f. 
The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gall. i. 
23. What Paul, to his deep grief, had been (1 Cor. xv. 8 f.; 
1 Tim. i. 13), he, with a bitter recalling of his former dis- 
tinction in Judaism, throws, by way of confronting the Jewish 
zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic predicate not yet 
extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any 7roré as in 
Gal. i. 23, it carries from the standpoint to which he has now 
attained very strong weight (in opposition to Hofmann, who 
holds the present sense to be impossible here). (3) In respect 
to righteousness, which 18 grounded on the law, having become 
blameless (1. 15), having carried it so far (not: having borne 
myself so, a8 Hofmann renders it; comp. on ii. 15), that 
human judgment jinds nothing in me to blame in this respect! 
That which is here denoted by dex. 4 év voum is not substan- 
tially different from Sse. 7) é voysov in ver. 9; comp. Rom. 
x. 5. It has its basis in the law, so far as it consists in the 
accordance of its nature with the character and the rules of 
that institute (Gal. iii. 11, v. 4), and proceeds from the law, 
so far as it is produced by the precepts of the latter which 
man follows. In opposition to the correlation with ver. 9 


154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. — 


de Wette interprets: “the righteousness valid in the state 
of law (comp. Rom. i. 12).” Calvin appropriately observes 
that Paul means “ tofam justitiam legis,” but “ communi homi- 
num existimatione ;” that it is not, therefore, the real moral 
fulfilment of the law, but its justitia externa literalis. Comp. 
‘J. Miiller, v. d. Sande, I. p. 59, ed. 5. 

Ver. 7. Now, with the antithetic a\Ad, the apostle comes 
again to his real standpoint, far transcending any semoBevas 
év capi, and says: No! everything that was gain to me, etc. 
— driva] quaecunque, the category of the matters specified in 
vv. 5 and 6.1 The emphasis is to be placed on this word; 
comp. tavra subsequently. — 4v pot xépdn] poe is not the 
dative of opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including 
Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Hof- 
mann; comp. van Hengel, who takes xépdy as lucra opinata) ; 
but such things were to the apostle in his pre-Christian state 
really gain (xara odpxa). By means of them he was within 
the old theocracy put upon a path which had already brought 
him repute and influence, and promised to him yet far greater 
honours, power, and wealth in the future; @ carcer rich in gain 
was opened up to him. The plural xépdm denotes the various 
advantages dependent on such things as have been mentioned. 
Frequently used also in the classical writers. — Taira] 
emphatically: these very things. — Sia tov X.] for the sake of 
Christ, who had become the highest interest of my life. Paul 
explains himself more particularly in vv. 8, 9, explanations 
which are not to be here anticipated. — &nulay] as harm, that 
is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to xépdos; comp. Plat. de 
lucrt cup. p. 226 E, Leg. viii. p. 835 B), because, namely, 
they had been impediments to the conversion to Christ, and 
that owing to the false moral judgment and confidence attach- 
ing to them. Comp. Form. Cenc. p. 708; Calvin on ver. 8. 
This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he 


1 The later heretical enemies of the law appealed to this passage, in which also, 
in their view, the Jaze was meant to be included. On the other hand, Chrysostom 
and his successors asserted that the law was meant only in comparison with 
Christ. Estius, however, justly observes: ‘‘non de ipsa lege ee sed de 


justitia, quae in lege est.” 








CHAP. 111, 8, 155 


is speaking; hence the plural is not again used here as pre- 
viously in xépdn. The frynpas (perfect), however, has occurred, 
and is an accomplished fact since his conversion, to which the 
apostle here glances back. On *yeicOar Snulay, comp. Sturz, 
Lex. Xen. Il. p. 454; Lucian, Lexiph. 24; on the relation of 
the singular to the plural xépdy, Eur. Cycl. 311: oddoior 
xépdn twovnpa Enplay jyehparo.. 

Ver. 8. ’AdAz is the climactic but, still, much more, giving a 
corrective reference of the sense, signifying that with the pre- 
vious atwa...€nulav there has not yet been enough said. 
Comp. on 2 Cor. vii. 11. In the péy ody it is implied, that 
“wey rem praesentem confirmet, ovv autem conclusionem ex 
rebus ita comparatis conficiat,’ Klotz, ad Devar. p. 663. 
Hence adda pev ovv: at quidem igitur. The xat before syot- 
pas (after dAAa pw. ovv) serves also to help the climactic sense, 
outtidding what has been said previously: etiam, 1.e. adeo. It 
is consequently to be explained: but, accordingly, I am even of 
opinion that everything (not merely what was meant by drwa 
in ver. 7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the 
following 5: 7o tmepéyov x.7.d. that mdvra is meant indeed 
without restriction, of all things, goods, honours, etc. (comp. 
also Hofmann), but tn so far as they are not made subordinate to | 
the knowledge of Christ. The explanation of others, according 
to which aAAa péy ovy is intended to oppose the present Hryod- 
peas by way of correction to the perfect frynwas (Calvin and 
others, including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 552], and the ex- 
planation hitherto given by me), is incorrect, because *ynpar, 
and not the aorist synodpnv, was employed previously, and the 
perfect already involves the continuance of the opinion in the 
present, so that no contrast of the tenses would logically be 
elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the 
second *ryetoGas Snulay is a much more comprehensive one than 
the first, in fact, one without exception (mayra).— Sia ro 
trepéyov x.T.r.] on account of the surpassingness of the knowledge 
of Christ ; that is, because this knowledge, to which I have 
attained, is a possession which excels in value everything else ; 
the eminent quality of a possession attained is the grownd (5:4) 
for estimating other possessions according to their relation to 


156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


that one, and consequently, if they stand to the latter in a rela- 
tion hindersome to us, for looking upon them no longer as some- 
thing advantageous, but as hurtful. As to the neuter adjective 
used as a substantive with the genitive, in order to the more 
prominent setting forth of the attribute, see Bernhardy, p. 
155 f.; Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 294]. — Xpuoros "Inoods 6 xupids 
pov; this is the fundamental sum of the whole contents of 
Christian knowledge. This saving knowledge is the necessary 
intelligence of faith (comp. on John vil. 32), and grows with 
the experience of faith (ver. 10; Eph. iii. 16 ff).—&v dv] for 
the sake of whom, 2. for the sake of possessing Him; comp. 
afterwards a Xpioroy...avtg@.— ta mdvta] the whole, not 
general like mdyra previously (Hofmann), but: which I 
possessed, vv. 5—7. This more precise definition by the article 
results from é€fmpwOnv, in connection with which the aorist 
is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical 
turning-point in his life, the event of his conversion ; through 
that event he has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions; 
and thenceforth he has them no more. Luther erroneously 
interprets: “considered as harm ;” and the emotion and force 
of the expression are only weakened by the frequently given 
reflexive sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Flatt, Hoelemann, 
van Hengel, and many): J have made myself lose—a meaning, 
besides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form 
of the aorist of this verb (not even in Luke ix. 25). The future 
passive form SnutwOrjcouae (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 
12, Thue. iii. 40. 2) is invariably damno aficiar. — xat Hyodpae 
x.7.r.| not to be taken as independent (de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Weiss), but, in keeping with the climactic flow of the 
discourse, as still in continuous connection with 8 oy «7.2; 
hence 6’ dy r. a. é&np. is not, with van Hengel, to be put in a 
parenthesis, Paul had become loser of all these things for 
Christ’s sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession, 
“1 Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived correspondence of Jn‘ay in ver. 
7 f., and i%spsény in ver. 8, in which the former expresses the idea of damnum, 
detrimenitum, and the latter: I have become loser of. It might be reproduced 
in Latin: ‘‘ etiam censeo omnia detrimentum (é.e. detrimentosa) esse. . . propter 


quem omnium detrimentum (i.e. jacturam) passus sum censeoque ea esse quis- 
quilias, ” 





CHAP. III. 9. ‘157 


but as rubbish ! oxvBanrov, refuse (such as sweepings, dung, 
husks, and the like); Ecclus. xxvii. 4; Plut. Mor. p. 352 D; 
and see Wetstein ad loc. ; frequently in the Anthol., see Jacobs, 
Ach. Tat. p. 522, ad Anthol. VIL p. 173, IX. p. 208. Comp. 
the similar figurative expressions wepixdfapya and mepupnpa, 
1 Cor. iv. 13. — ta X. xepd.] The design in the *yotpas oxv8. 
elyas: in order to gain Christ, not the aim of ta wavta étnpw- 
@nv (Hofmann), there being no reason for such a retrospective 
reference. The gaining of Christ, ze. the appropriation of Him 
by means of the fellowship brought about through faith, is 
that, which for him is to take the place of those former xépdy 
which he has lost, and so he looked to this gain in his 7yodpas 
oxvBada elvas; it is present to his view as the one and 
highest gain at which he has to aim. It is true that Paul 
has Christ already long ago (Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 17; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 3); nevertheless, this xepdaey is from its nature a 
development, the completion of which still hes before him. 
Comp. ver. 12 ff. 

Ver. 9. Kai etpeOa év avr@| and to be found in Him. The 
emphasis, which previously lay upon Xpioroy, is laid not upon 
év avt@ (Hofmann), but upon the evdpeO@ placed first for that 
reason, and introducing a new feature of the relation aimed 
at, annexing to the (subjective) gaining of Christ the (objec- 
tive) moulding of life corresponding to it. The apostle desires 
to be found in Christ, as in the element of his life; by this he 
means (comp. Ignatius, Hpk. 11) the whole perceptible mani- 
festation of his Christian being and nature; so that ep. must 
neither be limited to the judicium Dei (Beza, comp. Flatt), 
nor taken as sim (Grotius and others). Calvin erroneously 
makes evpeOe active: Paulum renuntiasse omnibus quae 
habebat, ut recuperaret in Christo. — py wv «.7.r.] Specific 
modal definition to evp. év avr@: so that I, in accordance with 
this design, may not have, etc. Van Hengel erroneously 
connects (Lachmann, also, and Tischendorf have omitted the 
comma after atr@) wy éEywv «.7.r. immediately with evp. év 
avr@: et deprehendar in communione ejus non meam qualem- 


1 Not to be derived from vais xve) Béaaur, quod canibus projicitur, but from 
oxup (exds). See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 92. 


158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


cungue habere probitatem. Thus, indeed, éy avr@ would be 
utterly superfluous! The subjective negation py flows from 
the conception of design (ta), see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 295; 
Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 302 [E. T. 351]; and éywy is the 
simple habens, possessing, not: holding fast (am Ende, Rhein- 
wald, Baumgarten-Crusius). — éuny Sex. tiv éx vouov] See on 
ver. 6; comp. Rom. x. 3. It is the righteousness acquired as 
a self-achievement (éu7v), which proceeds from the law by 
means of a justifying compliance with it (Rom. i113). As 
to the nature of this righteousness, and the impossibility of 
attaining it, comp. Gal. ii 16, iii 10; Rom. iii 19 f,, iv. 4, 
vii. 7 ff, ix. 31, e al. — hv 8a alot. Xpiotod] contrast to 
éunv: that procured by faith in Christ’ (as the causa appre- 
hendens). The causa efficiens is God (His grace, see Eph. ii. 8) ; 
hence, for the complete exhaustion of the matter, riy é« Oeod 
dcx. is added, in which é« Qeov, correlative to the preceding 
é vowou, expresses the causal issuing from God. As to the 
way in which this é« @eod takes place, namely, by God’s 
imputing faith as righteousness? see Rom. i 17, iii. 24 f, 
iv. 3 f£; 2 Cor. v.19; Gal iii. 6.—ém 7H qiotes] on the 
ground of faith (Acts ii. 16), added at the end with solemn 
emphasis, and dependent on éywv, which is again to be sup- 
plied after adda. So also Weiss. The repetition of éyer 
after émt r. lores, which Hofmann feels the want of in this 
explanation, would be simply superfluous and clumsy. ‘Ez? r. 
w.is usually attached to Sccatoovyny (“ justitiam superstructam 
fidei,” Hoelemann, Wiesinger), some having taken é7i as “ tn 
fide” (Vulgate, Calvin), or an fide sitam (Castalio) ; others as 
“per fidem” (Beza, Grotius); others, for the sake of faith (de 
Wette) ; others, wpon the condition of faith (Storr, Flatt, 
Matthies, Rilliet, van Hengel, J. B. Lightfoot). But it may 
be urged against this connection, first, that, in accordance with 
the previous definitions, we could not but expect the repeti- 


1 On the genitive of the object with wiers, comp. i. 27. Against taking it as 
the genitive auctoris, see on Rom. iii. 22. 

* In this passage also, therefore, justification by faith is the basis and presup- 
position of further Christian development up to the blessed consummation, ver. 
11. Comp. Kostlin, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 121 f. 





CHAP. IIL 10. , 159 


tion of the article ; secondly, that dscavodobat with éaié nowhere 
occurs in the N. T.; and lastly, that Sccaocvvn in its quality 
as righteousness of faith was already distinctly designated by 
Ty Sia tliat. X., so that the same attribute of it would be 
expressed twice, and, on the other hand, the éywv which is 
to be repeated after a\Ad (the basis of which is still ém? r. 
qm.) would be without any more precise definition. In oppo- 
sition to Hofmann, who makes éml +. qioctre belong to the 
following infinitive clause, see on ver. 10. 

Ver. 10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by 7 
éywy «.t.r. in ver. 9. Paul has not the righteousness of the 
law, but the righteousness of faith, an order to know, etc. This 
knowledge would fail him if, on the contrary, instead of the 
- righteousness of faith, he had that of the law. So he reverts 
to a more detailed illustration of to imepéyov tis yvooews X., 
ver. 8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great 
personal contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteous- 
ness of faith (rod yvavas avrov), and next, more particularly, 
the most important—especially to the apostle in his position 
infinitely important—matters which were its objects (riv Siva- 
pv «.7.d.), developing them from his own richest experience, 
which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the 
Umepéxov THs yvooews X. The tod yvovas might also be con- 
ceived as dependent on evpeOa ev avr@ (Wiesinger, Schnecken- 
burger, Schenkel); but the more precise definition of this 
eipeOa év ate by pi) Exwy «.7.r. is so important, earnest, and 
solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the state- 
ment.of aim which follows. Chrysostom joins éml r7 ciotes 
to ver. 10: ri dé dorly emi tH riote Tod yvadvat adtov; apa 
$:a. wrlorews 4 yvaeots, Kal TicTews Avev yyadvat avTov ovK EoTL. 
So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann (comp. 
also his Schriftbew. I. p. 618), who, in doing so, takes éé in 
and by itself correctly as on the grownd of faith. But such 
cases of emphatic prefixing, while they are certainly found 
with fa (see on Gal. ii. 10; Eph. iii. 18), are not found 
before the genitive of the infinitive with the article, which 
represents the expression with iva, but in such infinitive 
clauses only between article and infinitive; hence Paul would 


160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


have written tod emi TH miotes yvovas. Comp. Rom. viii. 12; 
1 Cor. xvi 4. Hofmann improperly appeals, not any longer 
indeed to Rev. xii. 7, but, doing violence to the position of the 
words in the LXX., to 2 Sam. vi 2; Isa. x. 32. According 
to Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, the genitive 
Tov yv. is meant to depend on 77 miores; “describit vim et 
naturam fider, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio” (Calvin). But 
wlorts is never joined with the genitive of the infinitive with 
the article; and, besides, not the nature, but the object of 
the faith (ver. 9) would be denoted by the genitive (Col. 
ii, 12; 2 Thess. ii. 13, e al.). Nor is rod ywdvas avroy to be 
regarded as parallel with wa X. xepdjow x. cip. ev ate 
(Estius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, including Rheinwald, 
Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Winer), since it is in itself 
arbitrary to despise the appropriate dependence on what im- 
mediately precedes, and to go back instead to syovpar oxv- 
Bara elvas; and since in tva Xpiotov xepo. x. evpeO@ ev abr@ 
two elements are given, a subjective and an objective one, so 
that thus there would be presented no parallel corresponding 
with the subjective tod yyv@vat x.t.X. Moreover, Paul is in the 
habit of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a 
double tva (Rom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3).— The 
yvevas, which both conditions the faith and also in fuller 
development follows it (see on ver. 8), is not the discursive, 
or generally theoretical and speculative knowing, but the 
inwardly salutary, experimental becoming - acquainted - with 
(“ qui expertus non fuerit, non zntelliget,” Anselm), as is plain 
from ry Suvaytv «7. Comp.1 Cor. ii. 8, viii. 2; Gal. iv. 9, 
et al.; frequently so used in John. See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. 
p. 421, ed. 2.—xal tiv Sivayw ris dvact. avrod Kal rf. 
kowov. T. 7a8. avt.] and (that is, and especially) the power of 
His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings. The 
Suva, T. avact, avr. is not the power by which He has been 
raised (Vatablus, Grotius; comp. Matthies), which would be 
quite unsuitable to the context, but the power which the resur- 
rection of Christ has, its vis et efficacia in respect to believers. 
The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the 
context through what is said immediately before of the 


CHAP. IIL 10. 161 


righteousness of faith, to which rod yvavac «.7.d. refers. He 
means the powerful guarantee of justification and salvation which 
the resurrection of Christ affords to believers; see Rom. iv. 25, 
v.10; 1 Cor. xv. 17; Acts xiii. 37, 38. This power of the 
resurrection is experienced, not by him that is mghteous 
through the law, but by him that is righteous through faith, 
to whom the resurrection of the Lord brings the constant 
energetic certainty of his reconciliation procured by Jesus’ 
death and the completion of eternal life (Rom. vui 11; 
1 Cor. vi. 14; Col. iii. 1 ff; Phil ii. 21). Comp. also Rom. 
viii. 34, where this Svvayus THs avaot. is triumphant in the 
apostle. As a matter of course, this power, in virtue of which 
the resurrection of Christ, according to 1 Cor. xv. 17, Rom. 
iv. 25, might be described as “ complementum redemtionis” 
(Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally known, 
as is Christ generally (avrov); but Paul speaks from the con- 
sciousness that every element of the regenerate life, which 
has ry é« Qeovd Sixacocvyny eri rH wore, is an ever new 
perception of this power. The view which understands it of 
the moral power of awakening (Beza and others, also van 
Hengel; comp. Rilliet), according to Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12, 
_ or the living power of victory, which lies for the believer in 
the resurrection of Christ, according to 2 Cor. iv. 10, Gal. 
i. 20, Phil iv. 13,—by means of which the Christian, 
“ through his glorified Lord, himself also possesses an infinite 
new power of acquiring victory over the world and death” 
(Ewald, comp. de Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Schenkel; 
substantially also Hofmann),—does not accord either with the 
words themselves (for so understood it would be the power of 
the risen Christ, not the power of His resurrection), or with the 
following «. THv Kxowoviay tov ta0nu. avtod, which, in a 
logical point of view (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10-12), must either 
have gone before, or have been expressed by ev TH Kot- 
vpovia «.7.. The certainty of our own resurrection and glory 
(Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Heinrichs, Hoelemann, and 
others ; comp. Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and 
Theophylact) is necessarily included also in the Svvayss, with- 
out, however, being exclusively meant. By the series ser- 
PHIL. L 





162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


montis Bengel (comp. Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be 
misled into explaining aydotacis, not of the resurrection at 
all, but of the exortus or adventus of the Messiah Refer- 
ences of various kinds are mixed up by Rheinwald, Flatt, 
Schinz, Usteri, and others. — «al ty Kxowov. tav abn. 
autov] In these words Paul intends to express—and he does 
so by the repetition of the article with a certain solemnity 
—a second, highly valuable relation, conditioned by the first, 
to the experimental knowledge of which the possession of the 
righteousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the 
fellowship of the svjferings of Christ, in which he sees a high 
proof of divine grace and distinction (i. 29, ii. 17 f.). Comp. 
Col. i. 24. Suffering for the sake of Christ's cause is a 
participation in Christ's sufferings (a cupmacyew, Rom. viii. 
17), because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of 
suffering, one suffers the same that Christ suffered (accord- 
ing to the ethical category, drinks of the same cup which 
Christ drank, Matt. xx. 22). Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 13, and see 
on 2 Cor. i. 5, Col. i 24; also on ry véxpwow rod ’Incod, 
2 Cor. iv. 10. The explanation which makes it: suffering 
with such a disposition of mind as He suffered (as sted- 
fastly, etc.), given by Flatt and others, is imported from a 
rationalistic point of view; and the view which takes it in 
' the sense of: the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ 
(Calovius, Rheinwald, and others), is opposed to the words, and 
at variance with the habitual conception of a real cuprracyecv 
with Christ, under which the sufferings of Christian martyrs were 
regarded. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, have already 
in substance the correct view. Observe, moreover, that Paul 
has not written riy Sivayw tis xotvwvias «7.4. (Hoelemann: 
“vim ac pondus;” de Wette: “all that this fellowship in- 
volves ;” comp. Corn. a Lapide: “dulcedinem ac sanctita- 
tem”); the yvavac, on the contrary, relates to the matter 
itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith 
can attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an 
unknown element; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the 
latter, though the objective suffering is present. It was other- 
wise with the previous element; for the resurrection of Christ 


CHAP. III. 11. 163 


in itself—the fact as such—is known also by him who is 
righteous through the law, but not so its Sv¥vayss, of which 
only the righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of 
this S¥vaycs, in virtue of which he experiences in the resur- 
rection of Christ the abiding divinely effectual guarantee of | 
his justification and eternal life, makes him capable also of 
recognising in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a 
fellowship in the sufferings of Christ; the latter knowledge 
is conditioned by the former; he would not have it without 
the former, because he would be driven to look upon his 
faith as vain and idle, and upon himself, so far as he suffers, 
as decworepoy twaytwy avOpmmeyv (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17, 19). 
The enthusiastic feeling of drinking the cup of Christ is not 
possible, unless a man bears in his heart the mighty assurance 
of salvation through the resurrection of the Lord. — ovuppopdqu- 
Couevos T@ Oavatw avrod] denotes the corresponding situation 
(comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10), in which Paul was conscious that he 
should know, as one righteous by faith, the xowwwvlay trav af. 
Apicrov: inasmuch as I am made like to His death; for his 
position then was such that he saw himself threatened with 
martyrdom, consequently (comp. ii. 17) his state of suffering 
developed itself into similarity to the death of Christ. This 
present state of development of the being made like to Christ is 
indicated by the present participle. The interpretation, which 
takes it of the fellowship in suffering generally, which is here 
more precisely described (Calvin, Estius, and others; also 
Wiesinger and Weiss), does not satisfy the progression from 
the general zra@nucreyv to the definite Qavarw. And the sense: 
“non detrectando mortem ejus morti similem” (Vatablus ; comp. 
Matthies and de Wette) is imported into the words, which by 
Grotius, van Hengel, Rilliet, Schneckenburger, and others, are 
interpreted quite in opposition to the context, as referring 
to the ethical dying to the world, its lusts, etc. (Rom. vi.; 
Gal 1119). The nominative cvppopd., which is to be ex- 
plained as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on 
evpeOé (Grotius, Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on tod 
yvwvat x.7.r., refers to its logical subject. See Eph. iv. 2. 
Ver. 11. Ev ws] if possibly, designating the aim, the attain- 


164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


ment of which is before the apostle’s mind in the cuppopd¢:fo- 
pevos T@ Gay. avtod. In this case, however, the deliberative 
form of expression (comp. Rom. i. 10, xi. 14; Kiihner, ITI. 2, 
p. 1034) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will attain to 
the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live 
to see the Parousia), but of humility under the conception of 
the greatness of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on 
man’s part, it is subject; ov Oappo ydp, dycw, ovr obtws 
ératrewvoppovet, Strep GdAaXod Aéyer’ O Soxdv Eotdvat, Brerétw 
pn twéon, Theophylact : comp. Chrysostom. This suffices also 
in opposition to Baur’s doubt (Paulus, II. p. 79 f.) whether 
Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all The 
expression excludes moral security, but not the certitudo 
salutis in itself, as, following Estius and other Catholic ex- 
positors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty of salvation is 
founded on God’s decree, calling (Rom. viii. 29 f.), promise, 
and attestation by the Spirit (Rom. vui. 10), in faith on 
the saving facts of redemption (Rom. viii. 32 ff.). Comp. 
Calovius.—The reader could not feel any doubt as to what 
efavdotact Tov vexpov Paul means, namely, the first, in which 
ot tod Xpiotod év tH Tapovola avrod (1 Cor. xv. 23) shall 
arise! Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16. It is the resurrection of the 
dead xar’ eEoynv, not different from the dvdoracts rav Sixaiwv. 
See on Luke xiv. 14. Nevertheless, we must not find this 
resurrection denoted by the double compound éfavdor., the 
é& in it conveying the idea é« tijs yas ets Tov dépa (Theophy- 
lact). This e€ is simply to be explained by the conception 
€x THS ys, so that neither in the substantial meaning nor even 
in style (Bengel: “Paulinus enim s¢ylus Christo adscribit 
avdoctaow, éEavactacw Christianis”) is éfavdor. to be dis- 
1 It is incorrect to ascribe to the apcstle the idea that none but believers will 
rise at the resurrection, and that unbelievers will remain in Hades (Weiss). The 
resurrection of all, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught it (see on John 
v. 28 f. ; Luke xiv. 14), is alsoin Peul’s view the necessary premiss of the judg- 
ment of all, of believers and also of unbelievers (of the xéeues, Rom. iii. 6; 1 Cor. 
vi. 2, xi. 32). That view, moreover, is at vuriance with the apostle’s distinct 
declaration in Acts xxiv. 15 , comp. xvii. 81. Gerlach properly declares himself 
(Leizte Dinge, p. 147 ff.) opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final judgment, 


at p. 101 ff., as regards the persons subjected to Me in a way that is exegetically 
altogether unjustifiable. 





CHAP. III. 19. 165 


tinguished from dvdor.; but the former is to be explained 
solely from the more vividly imaginative view of the event 
which the apostle has before him. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 14. 
The double compound substantive does not occur elsewhere in 
the N. T. (the verb, Mark xii. 19; Luke xx. 28; Acts xv. 5); 
but see Polyb. iii 55. 4,11, 21. 9, i. 35. 4; Gen. vii 4. 
Compl. We may add, that while it has been explained, at 
variance with the context, as referring to the ethical resurrec- 
tion, Rom. vi. 4 f. (Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others ; 
comp. Schrader), it is also erroneous to find in it the sense: 
“if perchance J should remain alive until the resurrection of the 
dead” (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld); since, on the contrary, 
essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luke xx. 34 
by of xatakwlévres ... THs avactdcews, and it is conceived 
as a possible case (comp. i 20 ff, ii, 17) that Paul will not 
remain alive until the Parousia.’ xatavr. es (comp. Eph. 
iv. 13) denotes the attaining to a goal (frequently in Polybius, 
see Schweighauser, Lex. p. 332 ; see also the passages from the 
LXX. and Apocr. in Schleusner, III. p. 234 f.), which, how- 
ever, is here not a point of time, but a bliss which is to be 
attained. Comp. Acts xxvi. 7. 

Vv. 12-14. Protest, that in what he had said in vv. 7-11 
he had not expressed the fanciful idea of a Christian perfection 
already attained; but that, on the contrary, his efforts are 
still ever directed forward towards that aim— whereby a 
mirror for self-contemplation is held up before the Philippians 
in respect to the moral conceit which disturbed their unity 
(ii. 2-4), in order to stir them up to a like humility and 
diligence as a condition of Christian perfection (ver. 15). 

Ver. 12. Ovy dtc] By this I do not mean to say that, ete. 
See on 2 Cor. i. 24, ii. 5; John vi. 46. Aken, Lehre v. 
Temp. u. Mod. p. 91 ff. He might encounter such a miscon- 
ception on the part of his opponents; but “in summo fervore 
sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus,” Bengel. — 78 
éraPov] that I have already grasped it. The olject is not 
named by Paul, but left to be understood of itself from the 


1 This also applies against the view of Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 283, who has 
altogether misunderstood vv. 11 and 12. 


‘166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


context. The latter represents a prize-runner, who at the poal of 
the cradioSpopula grasps the Bpafetov (ver. 14). This BpaBetoy 
typifies the dliss of the Messiah's kingdom (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 
24; 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8), which therefore, and that as Bpafetop, 
is here to be conceived as the object, the attainment of which is 
denied to have already taken place. And accordingly, é\aBop 
is to be explained of the having attained in zdeal anticipation, 
in which the individual is as sure and certain of the future 
attainment of the SpaBetov, as if it were already an accom- 
plished fact. What therefore Paul here denies of himself is 
the same imagination with which he reproaches the Corinthians 
in 1 Cor. iv. 8 (see tn loc.). The reference to the BpaPeiov (so 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Hein- 
richs, Rilliet, and others) is not proleptic;’ on the contrary, 
it is suggested by the idea of the race just introduced in ver. 
12, and is preparcd for by the preceding xataytyjcw eis rip 
éfavdotraow t. vexp., in which the Messianic cwrnpia makes 
its appearance, and the grasping of the SpaQeioy is realized ; 
hence it is so accordant with the context that all other refer- 
ences are excluded. Accordingly, we must neither supply 
metam generally (Beza, comp. Ewald); nor tyy dvdotacw 
(Rheinwald) ; nor roy Xpsorov (Theodoret ; comp. Weiss) ; nor 
moral perfection (Hoelemann, following Ambrosiaster and 
others); nor the. right of resurrection (Grotius); nor even 
“the knowledge of Christ which appropriates, imitates, and 
strives to follow Him” (de Wette ; comp. Ambrosiaster, Calvin, 
Vatablus, van Hengel, Wiesinger) ; nor yet the xarayray of ver. 
11 (Matthies). — 4 769 rereXelopar] or—in crder to express 
without a figure that which had been figuratively denoted by 
nen éhaBov—were already perfected.2 For only the ethically 
perfected Christian, who has entirely become and is (observe 
the perfect) what he was intended to become and he, would 


' As alao Hofmann objects, who finds the notion of the verb alone sufficient 
for expressing what is to be negatived, but yet likewise ultimately comes to 
eternal life as a supplement ; for that which is not yet attained is cne ard the 
same with that which is one day to be attained. 

2 This being perfected is not the result of the #200» (Wiesinger, Weiss), but 
the moral condition of him who can say fAaBev. Nete that #7 is used, and not 
zai; xai might have been taken as annexing the result. 





CHAP. III. 12. 167 


be able to say with truth that he had already grasped the 
SpaBeiov, however infallibly certain might be to him, looking 
at his inward moral frame of life, the future cwrnpia. He 
who is not yet perfect has still always ¢o run after it; see the 
sequel. The words 4 75 Sedccatopac, introduced in consider- 
able authorities before 7, form a correct gloss, when under- 
- gtood in an ethical sense. For instances of reXecodcGas—which 
is not, with Hofmann, to be here taken in the indefinite 
generality of being ready—in the sense of spiritual perfection 
(comp. Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, xii 23), see Ast, Lex. Plat. IIL p. 
369; comp. Philo, Alleg. p. 74 C, where the Spafeta are 
adjudged to the soul, when it is perfected. To be at the goal 
(Hammond, Wolf, Loesner, Heinrichs, Flatt, Ruilliet, and 
others), is a sense, which tereA. might have according to the 
context. In opposition to it, however, we may urge, not that the 
figure of the race-contest only comes in distinctly in the sequel, 
for it is already introduced in ver. 12, but that Paul would thus 
have expressed himself quite tautologically, and that rédevor 
in ver. 15 is correlative with teteXelwpas, — Sumxw Sé] but I 
pursue rt, 2.e. I strive after it with strenuous running; see ver. 
14, The idea of urgent haste is conveyed (Abresch, ad Aesch. 
Sept. 90; Blomfield, Gloss. Pers. 86). The 5é has the force 
of an dAda@ in the sense of on the other hand; Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 95, and comp. on Eph. iv. 15. We must under 
stand to BpaPeloy as object to Swxe, just as in the case of \aPBov 
and xatadadBw; hence Sux is not to be taken absolutely 
(Rilliet; comp. Rheinwald, de Wette, Hofmann), although 
this in itself would be linguistically admissible (in opposition 
to van Hengel), see on ver. 14. Phavorinus: Stoxew eviore 
TO GTAwS KATA oTroVo)Y éXavvey ; also Eustathius, ad J7. xxiii. 
344,— ei xa) xatadaBw| This ed is, as in ef areas, ver. 11, delibera- 
tive: 4 I also, etc., the idea of cxozrety or some similar word being 
before his mind; the compound «aradaf8w is more (in opposition 
to Weiss) than é\af8ov, and denotes the apprehension which 
takes possession ; comp. on Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, where 
we have the same progression from Aapf. to xatarapB. ; 
Herod. ix. 58: Suwxréos cial és 8 xatadapdbévres; and Kal 
implies: I not merely grasp (€daBov), but also actually appre- 


168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


hend.' — éf? & Kal xatedndOnv tra X.] Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 
38 D: d0ev xatarapBavoval te xal xatadkapSavovrat, 1 Cor. 
xili, 12: éseyyvmcopas xabws xai éreyvooOny, Ignatius, Bom. 
8: Oerjoate, iva nat tpets OernOire, Trall. 5: moda yap 
Hpiv reltret, iva Oeovd pr) Aetrra@peOa : because I was also appre- 
hended by Christ. This is the determining ground of the Sox, 
and of the thought thereto annexed, ef xal xatadaBw. Theo- 
phylact (comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret) aptly remarks: 
Sevaves, Stu opeiAn éorl To mpaypa, dynot SwoTe Kal xatedndd. 
imo X. Otherwise, in fact, this having been apprehended 
would not have been responded to on my part.” Respecting 
颒 @, on the ground of this, that, i.e. propterea quod, see on 
Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 4. The interpretation: for which, on 
which behalf (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, Rheinwald, Rilliet, 
Weiss, and others), just as in iv. 10, is indeed linguistically 
correct and simple; but it assigns the conversion of Paul, 
not to the general object which it had (Gal. i. 16), but to a 
personal object. In this case, moreover, Rilliet, de Wette, 
Wiesinger supply rotvro previously, which is not in accordance 
with the objectless €\afov. More artificial are the explana- 
tions: whereunto, in the sense of obligation (Hoelemann) ; 
under which condition (Matthies); in so far as (Castalio, 
Ewald) ; in the presupposition, that (Baur); which is certain 
from the fact, that (subjective ground of knowledge; so Ernesti, 
Urspr. d. Sinde, II. p. 217). According to Hofmann, Paul 
desires to give the reason why, and for what purpose, he con- 
templates an apprehension. But thus the reference of éd’ @ «.7.A. 
would be limited to «¢ «. xatadafSo, although the positive 
leading thought has been introduced in Suoxw 52. "Ed’ @ x72. 
serves this leading thought along with that of its accessory 
definition ef «. xatadaBw.— xaé] also, subjoins to the active 
xatahaBo the ingeniously corresponding passive relation 
xaterxnpOny, And by xatedypO. Paul expresses what at his 


12 Tim. iv. 7 does not conflict with our passage, but is the confession at the 
end of the course, ‘‘exemplum accipientis jam jamque,” Bengel. 
? Paul is conscious that, being apprehended by Christ, he may not and cannot 
do ‘otherwise. Comp. Bengel: quoniam; sensus virtutis Christi accendit 
um. 





CHAP, III. 18, 14 169 


conversion he experienced from Christ (hence the aorist); there 
is no need for suggesting the idea, foreign to the context, of 
an apprehended fugitwe (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, 
and others, including Flatt and van Hengel). The fact that 
at that time Christ lacd hold of him on his pre-Christian 
career, and took him into His power and gracious guidance 
as His own, is vividly illustrated by the figure, to which the 
context gave occasion, cated. tro X. 

Vv. 13, 14. Once more, and with loving earnestness 
(adedpot), Paul says what he had already said in ver. 12 with 
ovy Sr... xatada8w; and in doing so, he brings more into 
relief in the first portion the element of se/f-estimation, which 
in his own case he denies; and, in the second part, he sets 
forth more in detail the idea: Suoxw dé ef x. xatar. — éyo 
éuavroy| cgo me ipsum, an emphatic mode of indicating one’s 
own estimation, in which one is both subject and object of the 
judgment. Comp. John v. 30 f, vii. 17, viii 54; Acts xxvi. 9, 
et al. A reference to the judgment of others about him (Bengel, 
Weiss, and others; comp. also Hofmann) is here out of place. 
— roylSouas] I judge, I am of opinion,’ Rom. iii. 28, viii. 18, 
xiv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 5, ef al.; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 13; Dem. 
lxiii, 12.— @& 6é] Comp. Anthol. Pal. vii. 455: & 8 dyn? 
adavrov, also the frequent éy ovoy; see Stallbaum, ad. Plat. 
Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 548 C. It is here usually supple- 
mented by zrovw (Chrysostom appears to have understood zrovay). 
So also Winer, Buttmann, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ellicott. But 
how arbitrarily, seeing that the context by what immediately 
precedes suggests simply the supplying of Aoyopas (not Aoyi. 
KateAnpévat, Oecumenius, Weiss), and this is in perfect har- 
mony with the sense! Hence we take it thus: “ but one 
thing J think, unum censeo.” This one thing which Paul 
thinks regarding the matter in question, in contrast to the 
previous negative (6é, as in ver. 12), is then directly expressed 
by all that follows from ta wev orlow to vy X."I. Nearest to 
this contextual supplement comes the Syriac, which has added 
oiéa, and Luther, who has added Aéyw. The supplying of 


1 O8 belongs to AeyiZeuas, The erroneous reference to xarssAnfive: produced the 
reading e#ww (A D & min. vss. and Fathers), which Tischendorf 8. has adopted. 


170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Aoylfowat is confirmed by the cognate dpovdpev, ver. 15. 
Without supplying anything, év 5é has either been connected 
with Suoxw (thus Augustine, Serm. de divers. i. 6, Pierce, 
Storr, van Hengel, and others), or has been taken absolutely: . 
“unum contra!” see Hoelemann, comp. Rheinwald. But the 
former is to be rejected, because the subsequent Suoxew carries 
its own complete definiteness; and the latter would render 
the discourse abrupt without reason, since it is not written 
under emotional excitement, and would, withal, require a 
supplement, such as Beza gives by éor/. Hofmann also comes 
at length in substance to this latter supplement, mixing up an 
imaginary contrast to that which the adversaries imputed to the 
apostle: over-against this, his conduct subsequently described 
was the only thing which was quite right (?).— 7a pev orion] 
what ts behind, cannot be referred to what has been mentioned 
in vv. 5 and 6 and the category of those pre-Christian advan- 
tages generally (so in substance, Pelagius; tevés in Theodoret, 
Vatablus, Zeger, Wolf, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann) ; 
this would be at variance with the context, for ra pév oricw 
émtav@. corresponds to the negation of the having already at- 
tained or being perfect in ver. 12, and must therefore apply to 
the previous achievements of the Christian life, to the degrees 
of Christian moral perfection already reached, which are 
conceived as the spaces already left behind in the stadiwn 
of the runner still pressing forward; and not to what had 
belonged to his pre-Christian conduct (Hofmann). Comp. 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact. — émiAavOav.] forget- 
ting, like the runner who dismisses from his mind the space 
already traversed, and fixes his thoughts only on what still 
lies before him. This is surely nd break in the internal con- 
nection (as Hofmann objects) ; on the contrary, like the runner 
pressing forward, Paul in his continuous restless striving over- 
looks the degree of moral perfection already attained, which he 
would not do, if he reckoned it already as itself perfection. 
ériiavOdveoGas is joined with the genitive and accusative; 
the simple verb, on the contrary, only with the genitive. See 
Kihner, IT. 1, p. 313. On the use of the word in the sense of 
intentional forgetting, comp. Herod. iii. 75, iv. 43; 1 Macc. i. 49. 





CHAP. III. 18, 14. 171 


It thus amounts to the sense of nullam rationem habere (Sturz, 
Lex. Xen. IL p. 294).— rots 58 EurrpocGev errexrewop.] but 
stretching myself out towards that which is before. The dative 
is governed by the verb compounded with éwi (Kriiger, § 48. 
11. 5; Nigelsbach, zur Jiias, p. 30, ed. 3), the é/ intimating 
the direction. In the case of such an one running “prono et 
quasi praecipiti corpore” (Beza), “ oculus manum, manus pedem 
praevertit et trahit,” Bengel. On the verb, comp. Strabo, 
xvii. p. 800; Aristot. Poet. 21; Plut. Mor. p. 1147 A. Ta 
éump. represent the higher stages of Christian perfection not 
yet attained.’ — xara cxordv Ssaxw] I hasten towards the goal, 
therefore in a straight course towards the prize of victory. 
The opposite: amd oxorod, Hom. Od. xi. 344, xxii. 6; Plat. 
Theaet. p. 179 C, Tim. p. 25 E; Xen. Conv. ii, 10; Lucian, 
Icarom. 2; and wapa oxorov, Pind. Ol. xiii. 144. On Ssdnw 
without an accusative of the olyect (in opposition to van Hengel), 
comp. Xen. Anad. vii. 2. 20, vi 5. 25 (Spopeo Sucdxeww) ; 
Aesch. Sept. 89 ; Buttmann, Lezil. p. 219; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
IX. p. 213. Comp. on ver. 12. The prize of victory (ro 
SpaBeioy, see on 1 Cor. ix. 24; Clem. Cor. L 5; Schol. min. 
ad Soph. El. 680; Oppian, Cyneg. iv. 196; Lycophr. 1154) 
represents the salvation of the Messiah's kingdom (see on ver. 
12), to which God has called man. Hence: tis dvw xAjoews, 
a genitive which is to be taken not as appositional (de Wette, 
Schenkel), but as the genitive of the subject: the SpaBeiov, to 
which the calling relates. Comp. Luther: “ which the heavenly 
calling holds out.” This is therefore the object of the éAmis 
THs KAjocews (Eph. i 18, iv. 4; comp. the Platonic xadov 76 
dOXov wat 4 édtris peyadn, Phaed. p. 114 C). — 9 dvw wrjow 
tov Geod is the calling which issued from God above in heaven 
(on avw, comp. Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26; and on the subject-matter, 
Heb. iii. 1), by which He has called us to the cwrypia of His 
kingdom. The general form of expression, not even limited 


1 Te Inwportss is thus conceived by the apostle as that which still lies further in 
prospect after every advance in the ethical course; not as that which lay before 
him in consequence of his conversion (contrasting with his pre-Christian efforts), 
as Hofmann thinks. It is the ever new, greater, and loftier task which he 
gees before him, step after step. 


172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


by @ pronoun (such as ris éuijs), does not allow us to think only 
of the miraculous calling of the apostle himself; this is rather 
included under the general category of the dyw xAjow Tod 
@cov, which in the individual cases may have taken historically 
very different forms. The dv, which in itself is not neces- 
sary, is added, because Paul is thoroughly filled with the con- 
sciousness of the divine nature of the xAjors in its exaltedness 
above everything that is earthly. Lastly, the xAsjous itself is, 
as always (even in 2 Thess. i. 11), the act of calling; not that 
whereto one is called (de Wette), or “le bonheur céleste méme” 
(Rilliet) ; and the general currency of the idea and expression 
forbids us also, since no indication of the kind is given, to 
conceive of God as SpaBevrys or BpaBevs, as the judge of the 
contest (Pollux, iii, 145; Blomf. Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 307), 
who through the herald summons the runners to the race 
(Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, am Ende, Hoelemann, van Hengel, 
Wiesinger) ; rijs dvw «Kr. 7. @. serves to define more accurately 
that which is figuratively denoted by Bpafetov, but does not 
itself form a part of the allegory. —éy X. 'I.] is rightly (so 
also Weiss) joined by Chrysostom to dsaxw: ev Xpiore Inaod 
TovTO Tow, dnaiv. ov yap Eu yawpls ris éxelvou porns ToTovTOV 
dieN ety Sidornpa. Comp. Theodoret and Oecumenius. This 
thought, that the Ssoxeww just described is done by him in 
Christ, as the great upholding and impelling element of life in 
which amidst this activity he moves, is emphatically placed 
at the end as that which regulates all his efforts. The usual 
connection of these words with 7. dyw xAjcews +. Oeov, in 
which the calling is understood as brought about through Christ 
(rather: having its causal ground in Christ), yields a superfluous 
and self-obvious definition of the sAjots already so accu- 
rately defined ; although the connecting article would not be 
necessary, since, according to the construction wade dy X. 
(1 Cor. vii. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), €v X. ’I. might be joined with 
KAnoews 80 as to form one idea; comp. Clem. Cor. I. 46. A 
contrast to the calling issued to Jsrael to be God’s people on 
earth, is groundlessly suggested by Hofmann. 

Ver. 15. Application of the passage vv. 12-14 for the 
benefit of the Philippians, down to ver. 17. — réAevor] denotes 


CHAP. Ill. 15. 173 


not perfection, like rereXelopas in ver. 12, but the moral ripeness 
which, with differences of degree in the case of individuals, 
belongs to the true Christian state that has advanced beyond 
the novitiate—that Christian maturity in which one is no 
longer mprios €v Xpiot@; comp. on 1 Cor. ii. 6, iii. 1; Eph. 
iv. 13. The reredXeiwpyac is the ideal goal of the development 
of this réXetov elvas, contradistinguished from the vymedrns. 
The special aspect of this maturity, which Paul had in view in 
using TéA«ot, is to be regarded, not as theoretical knowledge,— 
the doctrine of righteousness by farth being conceived to be spe- 
cially referred to (Hrasmus, Wolf, Rheinwald, and others),— 
but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears 
from ver. 13 f., along with which the corresponding relation 
of practical insight is self-evident as a necessary presupposi- 
tion (comp. Col. iv. 12, i. 28); although there is no reason 
to suppose that particular questions in this domain (such as 
those relating to sacrificial flesh, fasts, feasts, and the like) had 
arisen in Philippi and occasioned division, of which no trace 
exists. The jealousy and partial disunion in the church arose 
from a moral concett, which was prejudicial to mutual humility 
(ii. 3 ff) and to personal genuine striving after holiness 
(ii. 12 ff.). In using éco:-—with which we are to supply 
swmus simply, and not volumus esse—Paul leaves it to the 
conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his 
part, belongs to the number of the réAewos; but by including 
himself in this predicate, and yet having previously negatived 
the 75 rereXciwpae in his own case (ver. 12), the apostle 
removes all idle misunderstanding and abuse of his words 
which might tend to moral pride, and then by rodto ¢poveper 
leaves room only for the consciousness: as redelov TO p41) 
vouitew éavrov rédecov elvat, Chrysostom. A tone of trony 
(Schenkel) is utterly alien to the heartfelt character of’ the 
whole discourse, which is, moreover, in this application, 
ver. 15, so expressed as to include the apostle in common 
with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfec- 
tion the passage is in direct opposition. — Todro ppovdper] 
let us have this frame of mind, namely, which I, in ver. 13 f., 
have just expressed as mine; the frame of humble self- 





174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


estimation, and at the same time incessant pressing forward. 
Grotius holds quite arbitrarily that Paul reverts to what he 
had said in ver. 3. But it is also wrong to seek the reference 
of rovro dpoy. in the passage from ver. 4 onwards: “renun- 
ciandum esse splendidis virtutibus Judd. (vv. 4-7), contra in 
solo Christo acquiescendum (vv. 8-10) et ad victricem pal- 
mam studio indefesso annitendum (vv. 12-14),” Hoelemann ; 
comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies, - 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Rilliet, and Reiche; similarly Hofmann, 
who makes it refer to the entire presentation—Jjoining on 
to ver. 3—of a frame of mind which is opposed to the 
disposition of those against whom they are to be on their 
guard. Vv. 4-11 are certainly said by way of warning 
against the false teachers, and are opposed ¢o these; but this 
Opposition is of a dogmatic nature, for the upholding of the 
Pauline fundamental doctrine against Judaism, and it is only 
ver. 12 that begins what has regard to the moral progress of 
the Church in the right way pressing onward to the goal, in 
which respect Paul desires to serve for their model (ver. 17), 
—as which he has sketched himself in ver. 13 f., when he 
begins with ddeddpol and introduces his éy#. Besides, the 
dpoveev, which is correlative with the Aoyifoua, does not 
point back beyond ver. 13 f£ Therefore, not even the appro- 
priation of Christ, vv. 8—11, is to be included in the refer- 
ence of the tovro (in opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger). 
Van Hengel is inclined to refer ro#ro to to BpaBetov; but 
the readers needed the exhortation to the right mode of striving 
after the SpaSetov, and not ¢he summons generally, that they 
should have the Spaf. in view. This applies also against 
the similar, although more exact, interpretation of Fritzsche 
(Diss. IT. in 2 Cor. p. 92): “hac mente simus sc. ut 76 Bpaf. 
Tis dve Krjoews consectemur.” — Kal ef te érépws dpov.] and 
af as to any point (rl, accusative of the object) ye be otherwise 
' minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely, 
from that specified in todro ¢pov@uev. A man may, for- 
sooth, have in general the same frame of mind which Paul 
has represented in himself, and to which he has summoned 
his readers; but at the same time an isolated concrete case 


CHAP. III. 15. 175 


(rt) may occur, which a man cannot fit into the ¢dpoveiy 
in question, and regarding which he is of opinion that he 
ought to be differently minded, so that in such a state of 
things he becomes morally inconsistent in his frame of mind, 
inasmuch as he lacks the befitting émréyvwors and ala @nars eis 
70 Soxtpatew «.7.r., 1. 9,in the moral judgment which deter- 
mines the ¢povety. Hofmann arbitrarily limits the 7} to some 
matter wndependent of the essential disposition of the Christian 
life. This sense would have required a more precise defini- 
tion, in order to be found. And the hope which is uttered in 
the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the prayer in i. 9 f.; 
hence Hofmann’s objection, that the readers must have them- 
selves corrected the fault which according to our view here 
emerges, is quite groundless. The suljcet addressed is the 
readers generally (see ver. 17), not the wprcoc (Hunnius, Wolf, 
Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoele- 
mann, Rilliet, Reiche), whom several expositors have regarded 
as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure 
righteousness of faith excluding the law (see Rheinwald and 
Reiche), or who had allowed themselves to be led away by 
false teachers (see Hunnius, Grotius, Storr). But setting aside 
the arbitrariness generally with which this contrast is intro- 
duced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not assume 
any thorough and essential diversity in the ¢povety, but only 
such a variation as might affect some one or other isolated 
point (ri), and that not in the doctrinal, but in the moral 
province of Christian conduct. Moreover, if persons led 
astray were here in question, nothing would be less in har- 
mony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful 
tolerance which is expressed in the words nat rodro... 
Grroxadinpye, Lastly, the change of person (in opposition to 
Bengel) was necessary, because Paul, speaking of a partial 
érépas dpoveiv, could not include himself. — In érépws, other- 
wise (not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.), there is implied, 
according to the context, an wnfavowrable sense, the notion of 
incorrectness, secius quam oportet. Comp. Hom. Od. i. 234; 
Dem. 298. 22, 597. 3; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448. 2; Soph. 
Phil. 503; Valckenaer, Diair. p. 112; just as repos (comp. 


176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


on @ddo, Gal. v. 10) may denote even that which is bad or 
hostile (Wisd. xix. 3; Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. viii. 3, Pyth. 
iii. 54; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 321). It is here the 
érepodofetv (Plat. Theact. pp. 190 E, 193 D), as frame of mind. 
This has not been attended to by van Hengel, when he takes 
with equal unsuitableness ti in an emphatic sense, and ¢dpovety 
as to strive for: “si quid boni per aliam viam expetitis, quam 
ego persequor.” —xal rovTo 6 Qeds dy. drox.] Expression of 
the hope that such variations will not fail to be rectified, on the 
part of God, by His revealing operation. Certainly, therefore, 
the variations, which Paul so forbearingly and confidently and 
without polemical handling commits to revealing correction 
on the part of God, were not on matters of principle or of an 
anti-Pauline character. — «ai rodro] this also, like other things 
which He has already revealed unto you; so that in «ai is 
contained the idea also stil (Hartung, Parttkell. I. p. 135). 
Hofmann erroneously says that «al implies: there, where the 
disposition 1s present, which I require. It in fact belongs to 
tovro. This rovro, however, is not: that ye (Oecumenius, 
Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fritzsche, /.c. p. 93), but what ye 
wrongly think; the frame of mind in question, as it ought to be 
instead of the érépws dpoveiy, not: “ whether you are right or 
I” (Ewald). Calvin aptly says: “Nemo ita loqui jure posset, 
nisi cui certa constat suae doctrinae ratio et veritas.” The 
passage is very far from betraying uncertainty or want of 
firmness (Baur). — The dzoxaduer, which is to be taken as 
purely future, is conceived by Paul as taking place through the 
Holy Spirit (see Eph. i. 17; Col. i. 10), not by human instruc- 
tion (Beza). He might also have written ddafec (comp. eodi- 
daxrot, 1 Thess. iv. 9; also John vi. 45), by which, however, 
the special kind of instruction which he means would not 
have been indicated. This is the inward divine unveiling of 
ethical truth, which is needed for the practical reason of him 
who in any respect otherwise gpovet than Paul has shown 
in his own example ; for ov zrepi doypatov raira elpntrat, ard 
qmept Biov TeXevoTn Tos Kal Tov pr) voutCew éavrodvs Tedelous elvat, 
Chrysostom. Wherever in this moral respect the right frame of 
mind is not yet completely present in one or the other, Paul 





CHAP. III. 16. 177 


trusts to the disclosing operation of God Himself, whose Spirit 
rules and works in the Church and its individual members 
(1 Cor. ii. 14, ii 16; Eph i 17, ii, 21 £; Rom. viii. 9, 15, 
26; Gal v. 22, 25, e¢ al.). 

Ver. 16. A caution added to the precept given in ver. 15, 
and the promise coupled with it: Only let there be no devia- 
tion in the prosecution of the development of your Christian 
life from the point to which we have attained! Neither to 
the right nor to the left, but forward in the same direction ! 
This warning Paul expresses briefly and precisely thus: “ Only 
whereto we have attained,—according to the same to direct your 
walk !”—that is, “ however ye may be in some point otherwise 
minded and, therefore, may have to await further revelation, 
at all events ye ought not to deviate—this must in every case 
be your fundamental rule—/from that whereto we have already 
attained in the Christian life ; but, on the contrary, should let the 
Jurther direction of your moral walk be determined by that same.” 
Such a general precept addressed to the Philippians conveys an 
honourable testimony to the state of their moral constitution 
on the whole, however different in individuals we may con- 
ceive the point to be from which Paul says eis 3 é$0., as is 
evident from the very fact that he includes himself in the eis 
8 é60., which could not but honour and stimulate the readers. 
On wdyjv, nisi quod, comp. i 18; on POdvew eis, to attain to 
anything, comp. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 26; 1 Thess. 11. 16 
(dri); Rom. ix. 31; Dan. iv. 19; Tob. v. 18; Plut. Mor. 
p. 338 A; Apollod. xii. 242. It denotes the having come 
forward, the having advanced. Ewald takes it: if we had the 
advantage (see 1 Thess. iv. 15, and the common classical usage), 
that is: “in what we already possess much better and higher 
than Judaism.” But this reference to Judaism is not given 
in the text, which aims to secure generally their further pro- 
gress in the development of Christian life. On orotyety with 
the dative of the rule: to advance (march) according to something, 
that is, to direct oneself in one’s constant conduct by some- 
thing, see on Gal. v.16, 25. The infinitive, however, as the 
expression of a briefly measured wish or command, without 
supplying Aéyw, Se?, or the like (which Buttmann requires, 

PHIL, M 


178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. © 


Neut. Gr. p. 233 [E. T. 272]), stands in place of the tmpera- 
tive, asin Rom. xii. 15; see Hom. JU. i. 20, and Nagelsbach 
an loc.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 473 A; Pflugk, ad Zur. 
Heracl. 314; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 86. Fritzsche, how- 
ever, Diss. II. 2 Cor. p. 93, has erroneously made the infinitive 
dependent on azroxadvet: “ praeterea instituet vos, ut, quam 
ego consecutus sum 76 BpaPelp ris avo «djcews intentam 
mentem, ejusdem participes fieri ipsi annitamini.” Comp. 
Oecumenius. Decisive against this view is the plural é¢@a- 
oapev, which, according to the context (ver. 15), cannot apply 
merely to Paul, as well as the fact that the antithesis of persons 
(ego... %pst) is gratuitously introduced. Michaelis, who is 
followed by Rilliet, closely unites ver. 16 with the sequel,’ 
but in such a way that only an awkward arrangement of the 
sentences is attained, and the nervous vigour of the concise 
command is taken away.—The es 8 é$@ae0.—which cannot 
in accordance with the context denote the having attained to 
Christianity, to the being Christian (Hofmann’s view, which 
yields a meaning much too vague and general)—has been 
rightly explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact as relating 
to the attainments in the Christian life, which are to be 
maintained, and in the further development of which 
constant progress is to be made (8 xatwpOwcapev, xatéyoper, 
Theophylact). Comp. Schinz and van Hengel. This view is 
corroborated by the sequel, in which Paul represents himself 
as model of the walk ; and therefore it is not to be referred 
merely to the measure of the right frame of mind attained 
(Weiss). Most expositors understand the words as signifying 
the measure of Christian knowledge acquired (so also Heinrichs, 
Flatt, Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, de Wette, Wiesinger), 
in conformity with which one ought to live. In connection 
with this, various arbitrary definitions of the olject of the know- 
ledge have been suggested, as, for instance, by Grotius : “ de cir- 
1 This is thrown out as a suggestion also by Hofmann, according to whom the 
infinitive clause ought ‘‘ perhaps more correctly” to be coupled with evppinead 
x..4., and taken as a prefixed designation of that in doing which they are to 
be his imitators and to have their attention directed to those, etc. Thus the 


infinitive would come to stand as infinitive of the aim. But even thus the whole 
attempt would be an artificial twisting of the passage without reason or use. 


CHAP. IIL 16. 179 


cumcisione et ritibus;” Heinrichs and de Wette: concerning 
the main substance of the Christian faith apart from secondary 
matters; Schneckenburger: “ that man is justified by faith, 
and not by the works of the law ;” along with which de Wette 
lays stress on the point that it is not the individual more or 
less perfect knowledge (so usually; see Flatt, Rheinwald, 
Matthies) that is meant, but the collective conviction, the 
truths generally recognised. But the whole interpretation 
which refers it to knowledge is not in keeping with the text; 
for épOdcapev, correlative with orovyety, presents together 
with the latter-a unity of figurative view, the former de- 
noting the point of the way already attained, and r@ atr@ 
orovyely, perseverance in the direction indicated by that 
attainment. Therefore, if by cvotyety there is clearly (see 
ver. 17) intended the moral conduct of life, this also must be 
denoted by eis 3 ép0. as respects its quality attained up to the 
present time. Moreover, if es 8 €$0. is to be understood as 
referring to knowledge, there would be no motive for the pro- 
minence given to the identity by rw avr@. 


REMARK.— What Paul means in ver. 16 may be illustrated thus: 


aka 
A——__—__B: C 


Here B is the point of the development of Christian life #¢ 3 
épécoausy, Which, in the case of different individuals, may be more 
or less advanced. The ro air® cromysh takes place, when the 
path traversed from A to B is continued in the direction of C. 
If any one should move from B in the direction of either D or 
E, he would not r@ air® cross. The reproach of uncertainty 
which Wiesinger brings against this canon, because a iripws 
gpovs may take place which does not lie in the same direction, 
and generally because the power of sin might hinder the follow- 
ing out of this direction, would also apply in opposition to every 
other explanation of the «/¢ 6 é94., and particularly to that of the 
knowledge attained ; but it is altogether unfounded, first, because 
the irspw¢ gpove® only refers to one or another concrete single 
point (r:), 80 that the whole of moral attainment—the collec- 
tive development—which has been reached is not thereby dis- 
turbed ; and, secondly, because Paul in this case has to do with a 





180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


church already highly advanced in a moral point of view (i. 5 ff.), 
which he might, at all events generally, enjoin to continue in the 
same direction as the path in which they had already travelled. 
Very groundless is also the objection urged by Hofmann, that 
the s/s 5 ¢96. must necessarily be one and the same for all. This 
is simply to be denied ; it is an utterly arbitrary assumption. 


Ver. 17. In carrying out this command they are to follow 
his example, which he has previously held up to their view, 
especially from ver. 12 onwards. — cuppipnrtat] co-imitators, 
is a word not elsewhere preserved. Comp., however, cupput- 
povpevot, Plat. Polit. p. 274 D. ovp is neither superfluous 
(Heinrichs, comp. Hofmann), nor does it refer to the imitation 
of Christ in common with the apostle (Bengel, Ewald),—a 
reference which cannot be derived from the remote i. 30-ii 8, 
and which would be expressed somewhat as in 1 Cor. xi 1; 
1 Thess. i. 6. Neither does it refer to the obligation of his 
readers collectively to imitate him (Beza, Grotius,-and others, 
including Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette), so 
that “omnes uno consensu et una mente” (Calvin) would be 
meant ; but it means, as is required by the context that follows: 
“ana cum alus, qui me imitantur (Estius; comp. Erasmus, 
Annot., Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, 
and others). Theophylact aptly remarks: ovyxoAAg avrovs 
Tols KANWS TepiTrarovct, whereby the weight of the exhortation 
is strengthened. — oxotretre] direct your view to those who, etc., 
namely, in order to become imitators of me in like manner as 
they are. Other Christians, not Philippians, are meant, just 
as ver. 18 also applies to those of other places. — xa@ws] does 
not correspond to the o#rw, as most expositors think, but is 
the arguincntative “as” (see oni. 7), by which the two previous 
requirements, cupptynrat x.7.r. and oxorretre x.7.r., are estab- 
lished: im mcasure as ye have us for an example, This 
interpretation (which Wiesinger and Weiss adopt) is, notwith- 
standing the subtle distinction of thought which Hofmann 
suggests, required both by the second person éyere (not éyouct) 
and by the plural judas (not éué). This yas refers not to the 
apostle alone (so many, and still de Wette; but in this case, as 
before, the singular would. have been used), nor yet generally 


CHAP. III. 18. 181 


to the apostle and his companions (van Hengel, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Lightfoot), especially Timothy (Hofmann), or to all 
tried Christians (Matthies); but to him and those obtw (in this 
manner, imitative of me) treputratovytas. This view is not at 
variance with rirov in the singular (de Wette); for the several 
rurot of individuals are conceived collectively as tuos. Comp. 
1 Thess. i. 7 (Lachmann, Liinemann) ; see also 2 Thess. iii. 9 ; 
comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 58 f.; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 12 f. 
This predicative turov, which is therefore placed before jas, 
is emphatic. 

Ver. 18. Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in ver. 
17. — weperrarodcty] is not to be defined by xaxds (Oecume- 
nius), or longe aliter (Grotius; comp. Syr.); nor is it to 
be taken as circulantur (comp. 1 Pet. v. 8) (Storr, Heinrichs, 
Flatt), which is at variance with the context in ver. 17. 
Calvin, unnaturally breaking up the plan of the discourse, 
makes the connection: “ambulant terrena cogitantes” (which is 
prohibited by the very article before ézrvy. ¢pov.), and puts in 
a parenthesis what intervenes (so also Erasmus, Schmid, and 
Wolf) ; whilst Estius quite arbitrarily overleaps the first rela- 
tive clause, and takes mepim. along with my 1d rédos #.7.A. 
Erasmus (see his Annot.) and others, including Rheinwald, 
van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, and Weiss, consider 
the discourse as broken off, the introduction of the relative 
clauses inducing the writer to leave out the modal definition 
of epi, Hofmann transforms the simple eye (comp. Gal. 
i. 9) into the idea of naming, and takes tovs éyOpovs as its 
object - predicate, in which case, however, the mode of the 
mepitratew would not be stated. On the contrary, the con- 
struction is a genuine Greek mode of attraction (see Wolf, ad 
Dem. Lept.15; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec.'771; Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 925; 
Buttm. Meut. Gr. p. 68 [E. T. 77]), so framed, that instead 
of saying: many walk as the enemves of the cross, this pre~ 
dicative definition of mode is drawn into the relative clause ods 
aroAnaxss «.7..' and assimilated to the relative; comp. Plat. Rep. 


1 Hence also the conjecture of Laurent (Neu. Stud. p. 21 f.), that ofs 
werrAduis... avedus is a supplementary marginal note inserted by the apostle, 
is unwarranted. 


182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


p. 402 c., and Stallbaum zn Joc. It is therefore to be interpreted: 
Many, of whom I have said that to you often, and now tell you 
even weeping, walk as the enemies, etc. The wodAdecs, emphati- 
cally corresponding with the zroAAo/ (2 Cor. viii 22), refers to 
the apostle’s presence in Philippi; whether, at an earlier date 
an an epistle (see on ili. 1), he had thus characterized these 
enemies of the cross (Flatt, Ewald), must be left undecided. 
But it is incorrect to make these words include a reference 
(Matthies) to ver. 2, as in the two passages different persons 
(see below) must be described. — viv 5¢ nat xralwy] da ci; 
bre rrérecve ro Kaxoy, Ste Saxpvwr dot of Towvros . . . ovTwS 
dott cuptraOntixds, otra dpovtites mavrwy ayOperrev, Chrysos- 
tom. The deterioration of these men, which had in the 
meanwhile increased, now extorts tears from the apostle on 
account of their own ruin and of their ruinous influence. — 
tous éxOp. r. or. t. X.] The article denotes the class of men 
characteristically defined. We must explain the designation 
as referring, not to enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theo- 
doret: as S:Sdoxovras Sri Slya tis voptnns toMtelas abvvatoy 
cwTnpias tuxelv, so in substance Luther, Erasmus, Estius, 
Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many others; also 
Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies), so that passages such as Gal. 
v. 11, vi. 12, would have to be compared; but, as required 
by the context which follows, to Christians of Epicurean 
tendencies (ev avéces Cavres x. tpupy, Chrysostom; comp. Theo- 
phylact and Oecumenius), who, as such, are hostile to the 
fellowship of the cross of Christ (comp. iii. 10), whose maxims 
of life are opposed to the wa@jpara tod Xpiorod (2 Cor. i. 5), 
so that it is hateful to them fo suffer with Christ (Rom. 
viii 17). Comp. ver. 10, also Gal. vi. 14. In opposition to 
the context, Rilliet and Weiss understand non-Christians, who 
reject Christianity with hostile disdain, because its founder 
was crucified (comp. 1 Cor. ii 18, 23), or because the preach- 
ing of the cross required the crucifixion of their own lusts 
(Weiss) ; Calvin interpreted it generally of hypocritical enemies 
of the gospel. This misunderstanding ought to have been pre- 
cluded by the very use of the tragic moAXo/, the melancholy 
force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but 


CHAP. IIL 19. 183 


Christians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that 
which is required in ver. 17. See, besides, in opposition to 
Weiss, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 630 fi— 
We have still to notice that the persons here depicted are 
mot the same as those who were described in ver. 2 (contrary 
to the usual view, which is also followed by Schinz and Hil- 
genfeld) ; for chose were teachers, while these sroAXo: are Chris- 
tians generally. The former might indeed be characterized 
as éyOpol r. cravpot tr. X., according to Gal. vi. 12, but their 
Judaistic standpoint does not correspond to the Epicureanism 
which is affirmed of the datier in the words dy 6 @eds 4 xosdla, 
ver. 19. Hoelemann, de Wette, Liinemann, Wiesinger, 
Schenkel, and Hofmann have justly pronounced against the 
identity of the two; Weiss, however, following out his wrong 
interpretation of xuves in ver. 2 (of the heathen), maintains the 
identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct of 
those «vves is here described; while Baur makes use of the 
passage to deny freshness, naturalness, and objectivity to the 
polemic attack here made on the false teachers. 

Ver. 19. A more precise deterrent delineation of these 
persons, having the most deterrent element put foremost, and 
then those points by which it was brought about. — oy ro 
Tédos amwr.| By this is meant Messianic perdition, eternal 
condemnation (comp. i. 28), which is the wtimate destiny ap- 
pointed (70) for them (rédos is not: recompense, see Rom. vi. 21; 
2 Cor. xi. 15; Heb. vi. 8). For corresponding Rabbinical 
passages, see Wetstein and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 801.— dy o 
Oecds 4) KotAla] Aatpevover yap as Ge@ tavTyn Kal wacay Oepa- 
qelay mpocwyovet, Theophylact. Comp. Rom. xvi. 18; Eur. Cyed. 
334 f; Senec. de benef. vil. 26 ; and the maxim of those whose 
highest good is eating and drinking, 1 Cor. xv. 32. It is the 
yaotptuapyla (Plat. Phaed. p. 81 E; Lucian, Amor. 42) in its 
godless nature; they were xotArodatuoves (Eupolis in Athen. iii. 
p. 100 B), ras rijs yaortpos fdovds tWWeuevos pérpov evdatpovias 
(Lucian, Patr. enc. 10); 19 yaortpl perpodvtes Kai Tots aicylo- 
Tos THY evdatwoviay (Dem. 524. 24).—«al 9 Sofa «.7.r.] also 
dependent on av: and whose honour is in their shame, that is, 
who find their honour in that which redounds to their shame, 


184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


as for instance, in revelling, haughty behaviour, and the like, in 
which the immoral man is fond of makinga show. 7 S0€a is sub- 
jective, viewed from the opinion of those men, and 77 aioyvvy is 
oljective, viewed according to the reality of the ethical relation. 
Comp. Polyb. xv. 23. 5: éd’ ols éypiv aioyvverOar xa” inrep- 
Borny, él rovrois ws Kadois ceuvierOar Kal peyadavyeir, and 
also Plat. Theaet. p. 176 D; dyaddovras yap ré oveida. On 
elvas év, versari in, to be found in, to be contained in some- 
thing, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 470 E: éy rovrp 9 waca evdaipovia 
éoriv, Eur. Phoen. 1310: ov ev aicyvvn ra od. The view, 
foreign to the context, which refers the words to circumcision, 
making atoyx. signify the genitals (Schol. Ar. Equ. 364; Am- 
brosiaster; Hilary; Pelagius; Augustine, de verb. apost. xv. 5; 
Bengel; Michaelis; Storr), is already rejected by Chrysostom 
and his successors. — oi ta émlyea hpovodyres] who bear the 
earthly (that which is on the earth; the opposite in ver. 20) 
in their mind (as the goal of their interest and effort). Comp. 
Col. ii 2. Thus Paul closes his delineation with a summary 
designation of their fundamental immoral tendency, and he 
put this, not in the genitive (uniformly with the dv), but more 
independently and emphatically in the nominative, having in 
view the logical subject of what precedes (comp. on i. 30), 
and that with the individualizing (2, guz) article of apposition. 
Comp. Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228]; Buttmann, Weut. Gr. p. 69 
[E. T. 79]. 

Ver. 20. After Paul has, by way of confirmation and warn-’ 
ing, subjoined to his exhortation given in ver. 17 the deterrent 
example of the enemies of the cross of Christ in ver. 18 f.,, he 
now sketches by the side of that deterrent delineation—in out- 
lines few, but how clear !—the inviting picture of those whom, 
in ver. 17, he had proposed as tiuros.— yap] The train of 
thought runs thus: “Justly I characterize their whole nature 
by the words of ra érvyeva dpovodvres; for it is the direct 
opposite of owrs ; our qoAtrevpa, the goal of our aspiration, is 
not on earth, but in heaven.” ydp therefore introduces a con- 
jirmatory reason, but not for his having said that the earthly 
mind of the zroAXod necessarily involves such a walk (Hof- 
mann) ; for he has not said this, and what follows would not 


CHAP. III. 20. 185 


be a proof of it. The apostle gives, rather, an experimental 
proof e contrarw, and that for what immediately precedes, not 
for the remote dv 70 TéA0s amr@Acia (Weiss). — u4@v] emphati- 
cally placed first; contrast of the persons. These »pets, how- 
ever, are the same as the suas in ver. 17, consequently Paul 
himself and the oftw wepimarobytes. — 1d doditevpa] the 
commonwealth, which may bear the sense either of: the state 
(2 Mace. xii. 7; Polyb. i. 13. 12, ii. 41. 6 ; Lucian, Prom. 15; 
Philo, de opif. p. 33 A, de Jos. p. 536 D); or the state-adminis- 
tration (Plat. Legg. 12, p.945 D; Aristot. Pol. iii 4; Polyb. iv. 
23. 9; Lucian, Dem. enc. 16), or its principles (Dem. 107. 
25, 262. 27; Isocr. p. 156 A); or the state-constitution 
(Plut. Them. 4; Arist. Pol. iii. 4.1; Polyb. v. 9. 9, iv. 25. 7), 
see generally Raphel, Polyb. in loc.; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. 
p. 486 ; Schoemann, ad Plut. Cleom. p. 208. Here, in the 
first sense: our commonwealth, that is, the state to which we 
belong, 1s in heaven. By this is meant the Messiah's kingdom 
which had not yet appeared, which will only at Christ's 
Parousia (comp. é& o8 «.7.X. which follows) come down from 
heaven and manifest itself in its glory on earth. It is the state 
of the heavenly Jerusalem (see on Gal. iv. 26; comp. Usteri, 
Lehrbegr. p. 190; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 59), of which 
true Christians are citizens (Eph. 11. 19) even now before the 
Parousia in a proleptic and ideal sense (ém’ édrmids ris S0Ens, 
Rom. v. 2; comp. viii. 24), in order that one day, at the 
éripavera THS Tapovalas Tod Kupiov (2 Thess. ii. 8), they may 
be so in complete reality (comp. Heb. xii. 22 f,, xiii. 14), as 
KoLvwMvoL THS pée\XAoOVoNS amroxadvrTrecOar Sokns (1 Pet. v. 1; 
Col. iii. 4), nay, as oupPactdevovtes (2 Tim. ii. 12; comp. 
Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 8). Hence, according to the neces- 
sary psychological relation, “ where your treasure is, there will 
your heart be also” (Matt. vi. 21), they q¢povodcrw, not ra 
ézriyea, but ta dvw (Col. iii. 1 f.), which serves to explain the 
logical correctness of the ydp in its relation to o¢ ta éerrby. dpov. 
Others, following the Vulgate (conversatio), render it: our walk, 
making the sense, “tota vita nostra quasi jam nunc apud 
Deum naturasque coelestes puriores versatur, longe remota a 
tots émvyelots eorumque captatione” (Hoelemann). So Luther 


186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


(who up till 1528 rendered it “citizenship”), Castalio, Erasmus, 
Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Matthies, van 
Hengel, de Wette; while Rheinwald mixes up interpretations 
of various kinds. This rendering is not justified by linguistic ~ 
usage, which indeed vouches for soAsteveo@as (i. 27) in this 
sense, and for mroAsrela(Clem. Cor. I. 54: rrodurever Oat tromtelay 
@cod, Ep. ad Diogn. 5), but not for voAsrevya, not even in Eus. 
HT. E. v. prooem. Nor does linguistic usage even permit the in- 
terpretation: citizenship. So Luther, in the Posti. Epist. D. 3, 
post f. pasch.: “ Here on earth we are in fact not citizens...; 
our citizenship is with Christ in heaven..., there we are to 
remain for ever citizens and lords;” comp. Beza, Balduin, 
Erasmus Schmid, Zachariae, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, 
and others. This would be vodcteda, Acts xxii. 28; Thuc. vi. 
104.3; Dem. 161.11; Polyb. vi. 2. 12; 3 Mace. iii 21. 
Theophylact’s explanation, 77» watpida (which is used algo for 
heaven by Anaxagoras in Diog. L. ii. 7), must be referred to 
the correct rendering state (comp. Hammond, Clericus, and 
others’), while Chrysostom gives no decided opinion, but 
Theodoret (roy odpavoy davrafcuea) and Oecumenius (otpa- 
revopeOa) appear to follow the rendering conversatio. — 
€£ ob wal «.7..] And what a happy change is before us, 
in consequence of our thus belonging to the heavenly state! 
From the heaven (scil. #£ovra, comp. 1 Thess. i 10) we 
expect, etc. The neuter od, which is certainly to be taken 
in a strictly local sense (in opposition to Calovius), is not to 
be referred to zroA(r. (Wolf, Sohoettgen, Bengel, Hofmann) ; 
but is correctly rendered by the Vulgate: “wnde.” Comp. 
on é£& ov, Col. ii 19, and Bornemann, ad Yen. Anab. i. 2. 20: 
Hpepas Tpels, év @. — Kal, also, denotes the relation correspond- 
ang to the foregoing (namely, that our roA/revya is to be 
found in heaven), not a second one to be added (Hofmann). — 
corTipa} placed first with great emphasis, and that not as the 
accusative of the olject (Hofmann), but—hence without the 
article—as predicative accusative: as Saviour, namely, from 
all the sufferings and conflicts involved in our fellowship with 
the cross of Christ (ver. 18), not from the amwdea (Weiss), 
1 The Gothic Version has: ‘‘ unsara bdudine” (that is, building, dwelling). 


CHAP. IIL. 21. 187 . 


which, indeed, the jets have not at all to fear. Comp. on 
the subject - matter, Luke xviii. 7 f., xxi 28; Tit. ii. 13; 
2 Tim. iv. 18. — dmexdey.] comp. 1 Cor.i. 7; Tit.ii, 13. As 
to the signification of the word: perseveranter expectare, see 
on Rom. viii. 19; Gal. v. 5. 
Ver. 21. As a special feature of the Lord’s saving activity 
at His Parousia, Paul mentions the bodily transfiguration of 
the sets, in significant relation to what was said in ver. 
_19 of the enemies of the cross. The latter now lead an 
Epicurean life, whilst the seis are in a condition of bodily 
humiliation through affliction and persecution. But at the 
Parousia—what a change in the state of things! what a glori-. 
fication of these bodies now so borne down ! — petacynuar.] 
shall transform." What is meant is the ddd\docew of the 
body (1 Cor. xv. 51 f.) at the Parousia, which in this passage, 
just as in 1 Cor. xv. 52, Paul assumes that the seis will 
live to see. To understand it at the same time of the resurrection 
of the dead (so most expositors, including de Wette, Wiesinger, 
Weiss), is inappropriate both to dmexdeyoueOa and to the 
definition of the quality of the body to be remodelled: ris 
tare. »ov, both these expressions being used under the con- 
viction of being still alive in the present state when the change 
occurs. Moreover, the resurrection is something more than a 
peracynpariots; it is also an investiture with a new body 
out of the germ of the old (1 Cor. xv. 36-38, 42-44. — rijs 
taTrewoo. jyuov)| Genitive of the suwhject. Instead of saying 
qpeov merely (our body), he expresses it with more specific 
definition: the body of our humiliation, that is, the body which 
1 As to the nature of this transformation, see 1 Cor. xv. 58. The older dog- 
matic exegetes maintained in it the identity of substance. Calovius: ‘‘Ille 
piracvupacieuts non substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, non ratione 
quidditatis corporis nostri, sed ratione qualitatum salva quidditate importat.” 
This is correct only so far as the future body, although an organism without e4)€ 
and alsa, 1 Cor. xv. 50, will not only be again specifically human, but will also 
belong to the identity of the persons. See 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff. Comp. Ernesti, 
Urspr. d. Sitnde, I. p. 127 f. More precise definitions, such as those in 
Delitzsch’s Psychol. p. 459 ff., lose themselves in the misty region of hypothesis. 
The inappropriateness of the expression employed in the Con/ession: Resurrec- 
tion of the flesh, has been rightly pointed out by Luther in the Larger Catechism, 
p. 501. 


188 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


as the vehicle of the state of our humiliation, namely, through 
the privations, persecutions, and afflictions which affect the 
body and are exhibited in it, thereby reducing us into our pre- 
sent oppressed and lowly position ; vod mdoyet viv To copa, 
Seopetrat, paoriferat, pvpla macxye Sevd, Chrysostom. This 
definite reference of +. Tazr. mp. is required by the context 
through the contrast of the sets to the éyOpovs rod oraupoi 
7. X., 80 that the sufferings which are meant by the cross of 
Christ constitute the tazrelvwots of the sets (comp. Acts viii. 
33); in which case there is no ground for our taking ravrei- 
vwows, contrary to Greek usage (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 815 A; 
Polyb. ix. 33. 10; Jas. i. 10), as equivalent to razreworns, 
lowliness, as in Luke i. 48 (Hofmann). On this account, and 
also because av applies to subjects distinctly defined in con- 
formity with the context, it was incorrect to explain razreey, 
generally of the constitution of our life (Hofmann), of weakness 
and frailty (Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others ; 
including Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann, Schrader, Rilliet, 
Wiesinger, Weiss) ; comparison being made with such passages 
as Col 1.22; Rom. vi. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 44. The contrast 
lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the one hand and 
of Sofa on the other ; hence 7#v and avrod are neither to be 
joined with capa (in opposition to Hoelemann), nor with +. 
capa tr. rar. and tT. o. THs Sofns as ideas forming an unity 
(Hofmann), which Paul would necessarily have marked by sepa- 
rating the genitives in position (Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]). — 
ovppopdor] Result of the petracynp., so that the reading eis 
ro yevéoOas avo is a correct gloss. See on Matt. xii. 13 and 
1 Cor. 1. 8; Fritzsche, Diss. If. in 2 Cor. p. 159; Liibcker, 
grammat. Stud. p. 33 f. The thing itself forms a part of the 
cuvdo-ater Oat, Rom. viii. 17. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 48 f.; 
Rom. viii 29. We may add Theodoret’s appropriate re- 
mark: o¥8 xaTa THY Toaornta THs Sons, GAARA KaTa THY 
motornTa. — THs Sok. avrod] to be explained like ris rar. ap. : 
in which His heavenly glory is shown forth. Comp. éyeperae 
éy Sof, 1 Cor. xv. 44. — xara r. evépy. «.7.4.] removes every 
doubt as to the possibility ; according to the working of His 
being able (comp. Eph. 1 19) also to subdue all things unto 


CHAP. III. 21. 189 


Himself ; that is, in consequence of the energetic efficacy which 
belongs to His power of also subduing all things to Himself. 
Comp. xara rt. évépy. ris Suvdp. avrod, Eph. iii. 7, also Eph. 
i.19; as to the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25 f.; as to 
the expression with the genitive of the infinitive, Onosand. I. p. 
12: 4 rod StvacGa troviy é€ovoia.—xal] adds the general 
element trorafas ait@ ta a. to the petacynpar. «7d! 
Bengel aptly says: “non modo conforme facere corpus nostrum 
suo.” — ta wavta] all things collectively, is not to be limited ; 
nothing can withstand His power; a statement which to the 
Christian consciousness refers, as a matter of course, to created 
things and powers, not to God also, from whom Christ has 
received that power (Matt. xxviii. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 27), and to 
whom He will ultimately deliver up again the dominion 
(1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Chrysostom and Theophylact have 
already with reason noticed the argumentum a majori ad 
MINUS. 

} Hoelemann takes xa/ as and, so that the sense would be, ‘‘ that Christ can do 
all things, and subdues all things to Himself.” The very aorist urerd%es should 


have withheld him from making this heterogeneous combination, as it betrays 
itself to be dependent on dvvactas, 


:190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


CHAPTER IV. 


VER. 3. Instead of »af Elz. has xa/, against decisive witnesses.— 
Instead of obfuye yvjos, yvjors otZuys should be written, with 
Lachm. and Tisch., upon preponderating evidence.—On decisive 
testimony, in ver. 12, instead of olde 3 rar. (Elz.), olda xai raz. 
is to be received. The 3 has taken its rise from the last syl- 
lable of of8a; hence we also find the reading 0 xa/.— Ver. 13. 
After jus Elz. has Xpor®, in opposition to A B D* x8, vas. 
(also Vulgate) and Fathers. Defended by Reiche, but it is an 
addition from 1 Tim. i. 12, from which passage also are found 
the amplifications in Or., X. ‘Inood and X. ‘I. cf xupip jucir.— Ver 
16. sig] wanting in A D* E**, min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed 
by Lachm. But after 313, iIz might the more readily be 
omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might, indeed, on account 
of the absence of an object for éxtu-)., appear offensive. — Ver. 
19. With Lachm. and Tisch., the form ri rAcirog is to be adopted 
upon decisive testimony. See on 2 Cor. viii 2.—Ver. 23. 
ctévrav inov) ABDEFG P x**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Damase. Ambrosiast. Pel. have rod avetwarog tmay. 
So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Gal. vi. 18, whence also in 
Elz. 44av has likewise crept in after xupiov. 


Ver. 1. Conclusion drawn from what precedes, from ver. 
17 onwards. We are not justified in going further back (de 
Wette refers it to the whole exhortation, iii. 2 ff, comp. also 
Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann), because the direct address to the 
readers in the second person is only introduced at ver. 17, and 
that with adeddol, as in the passage now before us; secondly, 
because the predicates dyamnrol ... otépavds pou place the 
summons in that close personal relation to the apostle, which 
entirely corresponds with the words cuppipntal pou ylvecbe 
in ver. 17; thirdly, because ore finds its logical reference in 
that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is con- 
nected with the exhortation cuppiuntai «.7.r, in ver. 17; and 
lastly, because oftm in ver. 1 is correlative to the ofr in 





CHAP. IV. }. 191 


iii. 17.1— dere] accordingly ; the ethical actual result, which 
what has been said of the nets in. iii 20 f ought to have 
with the readers. Comp. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 58. — dyamnrol 
«.T.d.] “ blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se -imsinuat, 
quae tamen non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris,” Calvin.— 
How might they disappoint and grieve such love as this by — 
non-compliance ! — ériraPnro:| longed for, for whom I yearn 
(comp. i. 8); not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.; comp. 
App. Hisp. 43; Eust. Opuse. p. 357. 39; Aq. Ez. xxiii. 11 
(érrvmoOnass) ; Ps. cxxxix. 9 (sriroOypa); Ael. N. A. vii. 3 
(troOnr 6s). — orépaves] comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19; Ecclus. i 9, 
vi. 31, xv. 6; Ez. xvi. 12, xxiii. 42; Prov. xvi. 31, xvii. 6; 
Job xix. 9. The honour, which accrued to the apostle from 
the excellent Christian condition of the church, is repre- 
sented by him under the figure of a crown of victory. Comp. 
aorépavoy evxreias péyav, Soph. Aj. 465; Eur. Suppl. 313; 
Iph. A.193, Here. F. 1334; Thue. ii. 46; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
IX. p. 30; Lobeck ad Aj. l.c.; also crehavoty (Wesseling, ad 
Diod. Sic. I. p. 684), orepdvwpa, Pind. Pyth. i. 96, xii. 9, 
oreparngopeity, Wisd. iv. 2, and Grimm in loe. The refer- 
ence of yapa to the present time, and of oréd. to the future 
judgment (Calvin and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbi- 
trarily a reflective distinction of ideas, which is not in keeping 
with the fervour of the emotion. — oirw] corresponding to the 
turos that has just been set forth and recommended to you 
(iii. 17 ff.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, 
Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret: so, as ye stand, so that 
Paul “ praesentem statum laudando ad perseverantiam eos 
hortetur,’ Calvin. This is at variance with the context, for 
he has just adduced others as a model for his readers; and the 
exhortation would not agree with ouppip. p. yiverOe, iii. 17, 
which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally advanced 
community, still does not presuppose the existence already of 
a normal Christian state.— éy xupim] Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8. 


1 In opposition to which Hofmann quite groundlessly urges the objection, 
that Paul in that case would have written ripwarses instead of erjxirs. As if 
he must have thought and spoken thus mechanically! The ersaxses is in fact 
substantially just a wsprarsiy which maintains its ground. 


192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


Christ is to be the element 1m which the standing fast required 
of them is to have its specific character, so that in no case can 
the moral life ever act apart from the fellowship of Christ. 
_ —ayarntol] “ wepurrabys haec vocis hujus dvagopa,” Grotius. 
In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied 
the expressions of love and praise of his readers; a strong 
testimony certainly as to the praiseworthy condition of the 
church, from which, however, Weiss infers too much. Here, as 
always (Rom. xii. 19; 2 Cor. vii. 1, xii. 19; Phil. 11. 12; 1 Cor. 
x. 14; Heb. vi. 9, e¢ al.), moreover, ayamnro/ stands as an 
address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is 
not to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with é xupip. 

Ver. 2 f. After this general exhortation, ver. 1, the apostle, 
still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to 
him, finds it requisite to give a special admonition to and for 
two meritorious women,’ through whose disagreement, the 
details of which are unknown to us, but which probably 
turned on differences of their working in the church, a scandal 
had occurred, and the orjxe év xvpim might more or less be 
imperilled. Whether they were deaconesses in Philippi (as 
many conjecture), must remain undecided. Grotius has 
erroneously considered both names, Hammond and Calmet 
only the second, to be masculine? and in that case avrats in 
ver. 3 is made to apply to others (viz. atreves «.7.X.). For the 
two feminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori. 
With Tischendorf and Lipsius (Gramm. Unters. p. 31), Suvrvyy 
is to be treated as oxytone. Comp. generally Kiihner, I. p. 

1 According to Baur, indeed, they are alleged to be two parties rather than 
two women ; and Schwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt. II. p. 185) makes out that 
Euodia represents the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the Gentile-Christian 
party, and that yviesws evZuyes applies to Peter / On the basis of Constitutt. ap. 
vii. 46. 1 (according to which Peter appointed an Zuodius, and Paul Ignatius, as 
Bishop of Antioch), this discovery has been amplified with further caprice by 
Volkmar in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 147 ff. But exegetical fiction in con- 
nection with the two feminine names has been pushed to the utmost by Hitzig, 
2. Krit. Paulin. Br. p. 5 ff., according to whom they are supposed to have 
their origin in Gen. xxx. 9 ff. ; he represents our author as having changed 
Asher and Gad into women in order to represent figuratively two parties, and 
both of them Gentile-Christian. 

2 Theodore of Mopsuestia quotes the opinion that the two were husband and 
wife. 


OHAP. IV. 3. 193 


256. The twice used mapax.: “quasi coram adhortans 
seorsum utramvis, idque summa cum aequitate,’ Bengel. An 
earnestly individualizing ér:povn (Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 400). 
—TO avro dpov.] see on ii. 2. — dy xup.] characterizes the 
specifically Christian concord, the moral nature and effort of 
which are grounded on Christ as their determining vital prin- 
ciple. Paul does not desire a union of minds apart from 
Christ—Whether the disunion, which must be assumed, had 
its deeper root in moral pride on account of services in the 
cause of the gospel (Schinz), is not clear. 

Ver. 3. Indeed, I entreat thee also, etc. This bringing in 
of a third party is a confirmation of the previous admonition 
as regards its necessity and urgency; hence the vac; comp. 
Philem. 20. See also on Matt. xv. 27.— ovfuye is erroneously 
understood by Clemens Alexandrinus, Isidorus, Erasmus, 
Musculus, Cajetanus, Flacius, and others, as referring to the 
wife of the apostle; an idea which, according to 1 Cor. vii. 8, 
compared: with ix. 5, is at variance with history (see, already, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact), and at the 
same time at variance with grammar, as the adjective must in 
that case have stood in the feminine (Test. XII. Patr. p. 526; 
Eur. Alc. 314, 342, 385). Others understand the husband of 
one of the two women (so, although with hesitation, Chry- 
sostom, also Theophylact, according to whom, however, he 
might have been a brother, and Camerarius ; not disapproved 
by Beza); but what a strangely artificial designation would 
“genuine coyuz” be! Weiss prefers to leave undecided the 
nature of the bond which connected the individual in question 
with the two women. But if, in general, a relation to the 
women were intended, and that apart from the bond of matri- 
mony, by the term ovfvye Paul would have expressed himself 
very awkwardly ; for the current use of the word ovfuyos, and 
also of sufuy7js (3 Mace. iv. 8) and ovfvE (Eur. Alc. 924), in 
the sense of conjux (comp. cutevywivat, Xen. Occ. 7. 30; 
Herodian, iii. 10. 14), must have been well known to the 
reader. . The usual mode of interpreting this passage (so 
Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, following 
Pelagius and Theodoret) has been to refer it to some dis- 

PHIL. N 


194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


tinguished fellow -labowrer of the apostle, well known, as a 
matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his 
abode in Philippi and deserved well of the church there 
by special services. Some have arbitrarily fixed on Silas 
(Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on Zimothy (Estius), 
and even on Jpaphroditus (Vatablus, Grotius, Calovius, 
Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hof- 
mann also would have us understand as referred to, inasmuch 
as he regards him as ‘the amanuensis of the epistle, who had 
therefore heard it dictated by the apostle, and then heard it 
again when it came to be read in the church, so that he knew 
himself to be the person addressed. What accumulated in- 
vention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all, 
unsuitable confession before the church that he was himself 
the person thus distinguished by the apostle! According to 
Luther’s gloss, Paul means “the most distinguished bishop in 
Philippi.” Comp. also Ewald, who compares ovprpeaBvrepos, 
1 Pet. v.1. But how strange would such a nameless desig- 
nation be in itself! How easily might the preferential 
designation by yvyjoros have seemed even to slight other fellow- 
labourers in Philippi! Besides, Paul, in describing his 
official colleagues, never makes use of this term, ovfuyos, 
which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and which would 
involve the assumption that the unknown individual stood 
in quite a special relation to the apostle corresponding to this 
purposely-chosen predicate. Laying aside arbitrariness, and 
seeing that this address is surrounded by proper names 
(vv. 2, 3), we can only find in ovfuye a proper name, in 
which case the attribute yvjove corresponds in a delicate 
and winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp. 
Philem. 11); genuine Syzygus, that is, thou who art in 
reality and substantially that which thy name expresses: 
“ fellow-in-yoke,” 1.e. yoke-fellow, fellow-labourer. We may 
assume that Syzygus had rendered considerable services to 
Christianity in Philippi in joint labour with the apostle, and 
that Paul, in his appellative interpretation of the name, fol- 
lowed the figurative conception of animais in the yoke ploughing 
or thrashing (1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18), a conception which 


CHAP. IV. 8. 195 


was suggested to him by the very name iiself. The opposite of 
yvijotos would be: ov« 8yrws ay (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 E), 
so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be ézrdvupos 
(Eur. Phoen. 1500; Soph. 47. 430), Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. 
p. 272 f. He bore this his name, however, as Svoya ér7rupoy 
(Del. Epigr. v. 42). This view of the word being a proper 
name—to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent decidedly 
defends’ in his Neut. Stud. p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of 
in his Lexicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects? 
simply on account of the wsus loquendi of yvyjows not being 
proved—was already held by tevés in Chrysostom; comp. 
Niceph. Call. ii. p. 212 D; Oecumenius permits a choice 
between it and the explanation in the sense of the husband of 
one of the two women. It is true that the name is not pre- 
served elsewhere ; but with how many names is that the case ? 
‘Hence it was unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of 
the name KodAnyas (Joseph. Bell. vii. 3. 4),in connection with 
which, moreover, it would be hard to see why Paul should 
have chosen the word avfuyos elsewhere not used by him, 
and not cuvepyds, or the like.® To refer the word to Christ, 
who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a 
mistake. — ovAAapfP. abrais] lay hold along with them, that is, 
assist them (Luke v. 7; Herod. vi. 125; Xen. Ages, 2. 31; 
Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 280; Lex. Plat. IIL p. 294), namely, 
for their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious 
action. — alrwes] utpote quae, giving the motive, comp. i 28 ; 


1 In doing so, Laurent takes the reference of ¢¢» contained in the name as 
general: ‘helper of all labour in the vineyard of the Lord.” More thoughtful, 
however, is the reference to the apostle himself, whose true yoke-fellow is to 
supply his place with his former female fellow-strivers (evrida. ges); comp. 
also subsequently curspyas pov. 

2 According to our view, yvieves is, in fact, taken in no other sense than that 
which is current in all Grecok authors, viz. candids, verus, as Hofmann himsclf 
takes it. Whether we refer it thus to es{vys as an appellative word, or as the 
appellative contents of a name—is a matter which leaves the linguistic use 
of yviews altogether untouched. As is well known, viées has the same general 
linguistic usage in the opposite sense (see ¢.g. Plat. Rep. p. 586 A ; Jacobs, ad 
Det. Epigr. i. 108. 8). 

3 This holds at the same time against the view of Pelagius : ‘‘ @ermanus dictus 
est nontine, qui erat compar oficii.” He is followed by Lyra. 





196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS., 


see on Rom. i. 25, ii. 15, vi. 2, e¢ al.—év t@ evaryy.] the domain, 
an which they, etc. Comp. Rom. i. 9; 1 Thess. iii. 2. It was 
among women that the gospel had first struck root in Philippi 
(Acts xvi. 13), and it is to be assumed that the two women 
named had rendered special service in the spread and con- 
firmation of Christianity among their sex, and therein had 
shared the conflict of affliction and persecution with Paul 
(1 Thess. ii. 2). On cuvnOrAncav, comp. i 27.— pera xai- 
Kyxpevros x.7.d.] and in what fellowship, so honourable to them, 
have they shared my conflict for Christ’s sake ? in association 
also with Clement and, etc. The reference of the xa/ is 
to wos; their joint-striving with Paul had been a fellowship 
in striving also with Clement, etc.; they had therein stood 
side by side with these men also. On wal... xai, the first xai 
meaning also, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 891 ; on its rarer 
position, however, between preposition and noun, see Schaefer, 
Ind. ad Gregor. Cor. p. 1064; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 143 ; 
Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 480 f. The connection of pera «. KX. «.7.2. 
with ovdAau8. avrais (Coccejus, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, J. B. 
Lightfoot, Hofmann) is opposed by the facts, that Paul has 
committed the service of mediation to an individual, with 
which the general impress now given to this commission is not 
in keeping, and that the subsequent oy ta ovopata «.7.r., in 
the absence of any specification of the churches, would neither 
be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and 
would be strangest of all in the event of Paul’s having intended, 
as Hofmann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons 
mentioned in i. 1. The Aowroi cuvepyoi, as well as generally 
the more special circumstances of which Paul here reminds his 
readers, were—if peta xat x.7.r. be joined with cvv7AAnody pos, 
beside which it stands—2Aistorically known to these readers, 
although unknown to us.—That Clement was a teacher in 
Philippi (so most modern expositors ; according to Grotius, a 
presbyter in Philippi, but “ Romanus aliquis in Macedonia 
negotians ”), must be maintained in accordance with the con- 
text, seeing that with him those two Philippian women laboured. 
as sharing the conflict of the apostle; and of a travelling com- 
panion of this name, who had laboured with the apostle in 





CHAP. IV. 8 197 


Macedonia, there is no trace to be found; and seeing that the 
Novrrot cuvepyo: also are to be regarded as Philippians, because 
thus only does the laudatory expression dy Ta Gvopata x.T.r. 
appear in its vivid and direct set purpose of bespeaking for 
the two women the esteem of the church. The more frequent, 
however, in general the name of Clement was, the more 
arbitrary is the old view, although not yet known to Irenaeus 
(iii. 3. 3), that Clement of Rome is the person meant.’ So 
most Catholic expositors (not Dollinger), following Origen, 
ad Joh. i. 29; Eusebius, H. #. ii. 15; Epiphanius, Haer. 
xxvii. 6; Jerome, Pelagius, and others; so also Francke, in 
the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengel, 
who conjectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman 
women who had assisted the apostle in Rome, and had travelled 
with Epaphroditus to Philippi. See generally, besides Liine- 
mann and Briickner, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. p. 167 ff. ; 
J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff.; and Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vater, p. 
92 ff. — dy ra ovo. x.t.r.] refers merely to Tay Nourdy x«.7.X,, 
whom Paul does not adduce by name, but instead of this 
affirms of their names something so great and honourable. 
God has recorded their names in His book, in which are 
written down the future partakers of the everlasting Messianic 
life; so surely and irrevocably is this life assigned to them. 
What Paul thus expresses by this solemn figure, he knew 
from their whole Christian character and action, in which he 
recognised by experience “ quasi electionis® absconditae sigilla” 

1 Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur builds up a whole fabric of com- 
binations, which are intended to transfer the date of our epistle to the post- 
apostolic age, when the Flavius Clemens known in Roman history, who was a 
patruelis of Domitian (Suet. Dom. 15), and a Christian (Lami, de erud. apost. 
p- 104; Baur, IT. p. 68), had already become the well-known Clement of Roman 
tradition. Comp. Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1856, p. 809, according to 
whom the Roman Clement is to be here already assumed as a martyr. Indeed, 
according to Schwegler and Hitzig, 2 Krit. paulin. Br. p. 18, a first attempt 
is made here to connect this Clement also with Peter (for no other in their view 
is the ev{uyes). Thus, no doubt, the way is readily prepared for bringing down 
. our epistle to the days of Trajan. Round the welcome name of Clement all 


possible fictions crystallize. 
2 The detailed discussion of the question as to the ground of the divine electio 
here portrayed (the Reformed theologians, ‘‘the decretum absolutum ;” the 


Lutherans, ‘‘ the praeviea fides ;” the Catholics, ‘‘ the praevisa opera’’) is out of 





198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


(Calvin). See, moreover, on Luke x. 20, and Wetstein on our 
passage ; it is different in Heb. xii. 23 (see Liinemann 7m Joc). 
éori must be supplied, not the optative, as Bengel thinks ; 
and it must remain an open question, whether the persors 
referred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be 
regarded as already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be 
inferred from Ov ra ovopata x.t.d.; see Luke x. 20; Hermas, 
Pastor i. 1.3. It is at all events certain that this predicate, 
which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially honourable one, 
and does not simply convey what holds true of all Christians 
(so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of 
pera xa «.7.dr.). At Luke x. 20, and Rev. xiii. 8 also, it is a 
mark of distinction. 

Ver. 4 f. Without any particle of transition, we have once 
more general concluding admonitions, which begin by taking 
up again the encouraging address broken off in iii. 1, and now 
strengthened by wdvrore—the key-note of the epistle. They 
extend as far as ver. 9; after which Paul again speaks of the 
assistance which he had received. —rdvrore] not to he con- 
nected with md)dty épd (Hofmann), which would make the 
addy very superfluous, is an essential element of the Chris- 
tian yalpew; comp. 1 Thess. v.16; 2 Cor. vi. 10. Just at 
the close of his epistle the apostle brings it in significantly. 
Paul desires joyfulness at all times on the part of the believer, 
to whom even tribulation is grace (i. 7, 29) and glory (Rom. 
v. 3), and in whom the pain of sin is overcome by the cer- 
tainty of atonement (Rom. viii. 1); to whom everything must 
serve for good (Rom. viii. 28; 1 Cor. iii. 21 f.), and nothing 
can separate him from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38 f.).— 
mad €pw] once more I will say. Observe the future, which 
exhibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer; 
consequently not equivalent to madw Aéyw, 2 Cor. xi. 16; 
Gal.i. 9. Kadés é6:rdaclacey, dred) trav mpaypdrav } pvc 
AvIrnv Eriere, Sid tov Sirractacpod Selxvvow, bts wdvros 
Set yalpew, Chrysostom.— To émieixes tpav] your mildness 
place here. Flacius, Clav. s.v. ‘‘liber,” justly obeerves that it is not fatalis 
quaedam electio which is pointed to, but 0b veram justiliam, qualis Christi eat, 
oredentes co referri et inacridi. 


CHAP. I¥. 4, 5. 199 


[Lindigkett, Luther], that is, your genéle character, a8 opposed 
to undue sternness (Polyb.’v. 10.1: 4 émcedxeva wat dirav- 
O@perria, Lucian, Phal. pr. 2: émieens x. pétptos, Herodian, 
ii, 14. 5, ix. 12; 1 Tim iii 3; Tit. iii 2; Jas. iii 17; 

1 Pet. 11.18; Pa, Ixxxy. 5; Add. to Esth. vi 8; 2 Maco. ix. 
27). Comp. on 2 Cor. x. 1. ‘The opposite : dxosGodleasos, 
Arist. Eth. Nic. v.10. 8, oxdnpos. As to the neuter of the 
adjective taken as a substantive, see on ui 8; comp. Soph. 
0.C. 1127. It might also mean: your becoming behaviour ; 
see eg. the passages from Plato in Ast, Zex. I. p.775. But 
how indefinite would be such a requirement as this! The 
general duty of the Christian walk (which Matthies finds in 
the words) is not set forth till ver. 8. And in the N. T. 
émveix. always occurs in the above-named special sense. — 
yvooOnre mracw avOp.] let it be known by all men, through the 
acquaintance of experience with your conduct. Comp. Matt. 
v.16. The wntversality of the expression (which, moreover, is 
to be taken popularly: “let no man come to know you in a 
harsh, rigorous aspect”) prohibits our referring it to their rela- 
tion to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they 
should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact), or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius, 
Theodoret, Erasmus, and others), or to the Judaists (Rhein- 
wald), although none of these are excluded, and the mottve for 
the exhortation is in part to be found in the outward circum- 
stances full-of tribulation, face to face with an inclination 
to moral pride.—The succession of exhortations without any 
outward link may be psychologically explained by the fact, that 
the disposition of Christian joyfulness must elevate men quite 
as much above strict insisting upon rights and claims as above 
solicitude (ver.6). Neither with the former nor with the latter 
could the Christian fundamental disposition of the yalpew é 
xuplp subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding 
love and casts all care upon God. —o ciptos éyyus] points to 
the nearness of Christ's Parousia, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Comp. on 
éyryus, Matt. xxiv. 32 f.; Luke xxi. 31; Rev. i. 3, xxii. 10; 
Rom. xiii. 11. The reference to God, by which Paul would 
bring home to their hearts, as Calvin expresses it, “ divinae 








200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


providentiae fiduciam” (comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 
18 ; so also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zanchius, Wolf, Rhein- 
wald, Matthies, Rilliet, Cornelius Miiller, and others), is not 
suggested in vv. 1, 2, 4 by the context, which, on the con- 
trary, does not refer to God until ver. 6. Usually and rightly, 
following Chrysostom and Erasmus, the words have been 
attached to what precedes. If the Lord is at hand, who is 
coming as the Vindex of every injustice endured and as the 
carp of the faithful, how should they not, in this prospect 
of approaching victory and blessedness (iii. 20), willingly and 
cheerfully renounce everything opposed to Christian emelxeta ! 
The words therefore convey an encouragement to the latter. 
What follows has its complete reference, and that to God, 
pointed out by the antithesis dAX’ éy wari x7). 

Ver. 6. The pepipvare is not to be limited in an arbitrary 
way (as by Grotius, Flatt, Weiss, and others, to anxious care) ; 
about nothing (neither want, nor persecution, nor a threaten- 
ing future, etc.) are they at all to give themselves concern, but 
on the contrary, etc.; undév, which is emphatically prefixed, is 
the accusative of the object (1 Cor. vii. 32 ff, xii. 25 ; Phil. ii. 
20). Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 12: 7d rodAd pepypvav nat 
To py Suvacbar jovyiay éyew. Caring is here, as in Matt. 
vi., the contrast to full confidence in God. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 7. 
“Curare et orare plus inter se pugnant quam aqua et ignis,” 
Bengel. — év arayré] opposed to the pndéy; hence: in every 
case or affair (comp. Eph. v. 24; 2 Cor. iv. 8; 1 Thess. v. 
18; Plat. Huthyd. p. 301 <A), not: at all times (Syriac, 
Grotius, Bos, Flatt, Rheinwald).— 19 apocevyyn x. 7H Sencer] 
by prayer and supplication. On the distinction between the two 
(the former being general, the latter supplicating prayer), see on 
Eph. vi. 18. The article indicates the prayer, which ye make ; 


1 They do not belong, by way of introduction, to what follows, as Hofmann 
thinks, who understands ‘‘ the helpful nearness of the Lord’’ (Matt. xxviii. 20 ; 
Jas. iv. 8) én the present, and consequently the assurance of being heard in the 
individual case. Comp., rather, on the iyyvs habitually used of the future final 
coming, in addition to the above passages, Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17, x. 7; Marki. 15; 
Luke xxi. 8, 28; Rom. xiii. 12; Heb. x. 25; Jas. v. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 7; and the 
Ipxouas raxs of the Apocalypse. The simply correct rendering is given after 
Chrysostom by Erasmus (‘‘instat enim adventus Christi”), Grotius, and others. 


CHAP, IV. °. 201 


and the repetition of the article, otherwise not required, puts 
forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kiihner, IT. 1, 
p. 529). — pera evxap,] belongs to ywpif. «.7.r., which, exclud- 
ing all solicitude in the prayer, should never take place (comp. 
1 Thess. v. 18; Col. iii. 17) without thanksgiving for the 
proofs of divine love already received and continually being 
experienced, of which the Christian is conscious under all cir- 
cumstances (Rom. viii. 28). In the thanksgiving of the sup- 
pliant there is expressed entire surrender to God’s will, the very 
opposite of solicitude. — ra aitjpara ty.] what ye desire (Plat. 
Rep. viii. p. 566 B; Dionys. Hal. Antt. vi. 74; Luke xxiii. 
24), that is, in accordance with the context: your petitions 
(1 John v.15; Dan. vi 7,13; Ps. xix. 6, xxxvi. 4, 4 al.; 
Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 100). — ywapslécOm mpos 7. Geov] must 
be made known towards God ; mpos, versus; it is the coram 
of the direction. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Js. 
iii. 25. The expression is more graphic than the mere dative 
would be; and the conception itself (yvwp:f.) is popularly 
anthropopathic ; Matt. vi.8. Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks 
on the subject-matter: “qui desideria sua praepostero pudore 
ac diffidenti modestia ...velant, suffocant ac retinent, curis 
anguntur ; qui filiali et liberali fiducia erga Deum expromunt, 
expediuntur. Confessionibus ejusmodi scatent Psalmi.” 

Ver. 7. -The blessed result, which the compliance with 
ver. 6 will have for the inner man. How independent is this 
blessing of the concrete granting or non-granting of what is 
prayed for !— % eipnyn +. Beod] the peace of soul produced by 
God (through the Holy Spirit; comp. yapa ev avevpare aio, 
Rom. xiv. 17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God’s 
counsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and 
variance are excluded, such as it is expressed eg. in Rom. 
viii, 18, 28. So in substance most expositors, including 
Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de 
Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and Winer. This 
view—and not (in opposition to Theodoret and Pelagius) that 
explanation of peace in the sense of harmony with the brethren 
(Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 23; 
2 Thess. iii. 16), which corresponds to the ordinary use of the 


202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL.TO' THE PHILIPPIANS. 


correlative 0 Qeos ris eipyjvns in ver. 9—is here required on 
the part of the context, both by the contrast of pepiuvate 
in ver. 6, and by the predicate » trepéyovca mdvta vod. 
The latter, if applicable to the peace of harmony, would express 
too much and too general an idea; it is, on the other hand, 
admirably adapted to the holy peace of the soul which God 
produces, as contrasted with the pépiyva, to which the feeble 
vovs by itself is liable; as, indeed, in the classical authors 
also (Plat. Rep. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere (Wisd. 
iii. 3), etpyvn denotes the tranquillitas and securitas, the mental 
yadqnvn (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 791 A) and #ovyla—a rest, which 
here is invested by rod @eotd with the consecration of divine 
life. Comp. etoenyn tod Xpiorod, Col. iii. 15; John xiv. 33; 
and, on the other hand, the false etpyvn «. aodddea, 1 Thess. 
v. 3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Rom. 
v. 1, as “ pax, qua reconciliats estis Deo” (Erasmus, Paraphr. ; 
so Chrysostom, 4) KatadXayn, ) ayamn 7. Beot; and Theophy- 
lact, Oecumenius, Beza, Estius, Wetstein, and others, including 
Storr, Matthies, and van Hengel), which would be too general 
and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is 
the presupposition of the divinely produced moral feeling 
which is here meant; the former is etp7vy mpos tov Qeor, the 
latter etpnvn tod Ocod.—% irepéyouca travra vovv] which sur- 
passes every reason, namely, in regard to its salutary power and 
efficacy ; that is, which is able more than any reason to elevate 
above all solicitude, to comfort and to strengthen. Because 
the reason in its moral thinking, willing, and feeling is of itself 
too weak to confront the power of the odp£ (Rom. vii. 23, 25; 
Gal. v. 17), no reason is in a position to give this clear holy 
elevation and strength against the world and its afflictions. 
This can be effected by nothing but the agency of the divine 
peace, which is given by means of the Spirit in the believing 
heart, when by its prayer and supplication with thanksgiving 
it has elevated itself to God and has confided to Him all its 
concerns, 1 Pet. v. 7. Then, in virtue of this blessed peace, 
the heart experiences what it could not have experienced by 
means of its own thinking, feeling, and willing. According 
to de Wette, the doubting and heart-disquieting vods is meant, 





CHAP. IV. 7. 203 


which is surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is 
based upon faith and feeling. In opposition to this, however, 
stands the mdyra, according to which not merely all doubdt- 
ang reason, but every reason is meant. No one, not even 
the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its 
action what he has through the peace of God. Others have 
explained it in the sense of the incomprehensibleness of the 
peace of God, “the greatness of which the understanding 
cannot even grasp” (Wiesinger). So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoele- 
mann and Weiss. Comp. Eph. ii. 20. But the context, 
both in the foregoing pndév pepeuvare and in the dpovpjoe 
«.7.4. which follows, points only to the blessed influence, in 
respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of 
reason whatever, and consequently is more efficacious than it. 
_ It is a trepéyew 75 Suvdpec; Paul had no occasion to bring 
into prominence the incomprehensibleness of the eipyvn Qeod. 
— On trrepéyesy with the accusative (usually with the genitive, 
ii. 3), see Valckenaer, ad Eur. Hippol. 1365; Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 337.— dpoupyce x.7.r.] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact: dc¢adlca:ro, Luther, Calovius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, 
Flatt), but custodiet (Castalio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection 
against all injurious influences (comp. 1 Pet. i. 5) is promised. 
Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 560 B: of . .. dpiorot dpovpot re rat 
dvraxes dv dvdpav Oeodirav eict Stavoiars. Eur. Suppl. 902: 
éppovper (mroAdods) pndey eEapapravew, “ Animat eos hac 
fiducia,” Erasmus, Annot. This protecting vigilance is more 
precisely defined by év X. ’I., which expresses its specific cha- 
racter, so far as this peace of God is an Christ as the element of 
its nature and life, and therefore its influence, protecting and 
keeping men’s hearts, is not otherwise realized and carried out 
than in this its holy sphere of life, which is Christ. The 
gpovpd which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, 
as it were, the ¢povpapyla (Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 17). Comp. 
Col. iii. 15, where the eiojvn rod Xptorot BpaBeve: in men’s 
hearts. Others consider ¢v X. ’I. as that which takes place on 
the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God would keep 


204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


them, namely “in unity with Christ, in His divinely-blessed, 
holy life,” de Wette; or dare pévew xad pr) exrecety atrod, 
Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, 
and others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, van 
Hengel, Matthies, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Weiss. But the words 
do not affirm wherein watchful activity is to keep or preserve 
the readers (Paul does not write rnpyjoe: ; comp. John xvii. 11), 
but wherein it will take place ; therefore the inaccurate render- 
ing per Christwm (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so 
far more correct. The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann 
(“Christo fere cinguli instar ras xapdias ipa x.7.r. circum- 
cludente,” etc.) is all the less warranted, the more familiar 
the idea éy Xpiotp was to the apostle as representing the 
element in which the life and action, as Christian, move-—The 
pernicious influences themselves, the withholding and warding off 
of which are meant by qpoupyoe x«.7.r., are not to be arbi- 
trarily limited, eg. to opponents (Heinrichs), or to Satan (Beza, 
Grotius, and others), or sin (Theophylact), or pravas cogitationes 
(Calvin), or “ omnes insultus et curas” (Bengel), and the like ; 
but to be left quite general, comprehending all such special 
aspects. Erasmus well says (Paraphr.): “adversus omnia, 
quae hic possunt incidere formidanda.” — tas xapd. by. «x. Ta 
von. vpav] emphatically kept apart. It is enough to add 
Bengel’s note: “cor sedes cogitationum.” Comp. Roos, Fun- 
dam. psychol. ex sacr. script. III. § 6: “causa cogitationum 
interna eaque libera.” The heart is the organ of self-conscious- 
ness, and therefore the moral seat of the activity of thought 
and will. As to the vonyara (2 Cor. iii, 14) as the internal 
products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore 
including purposes and plans’ (Plat. Polit. p. 260 D; 
2 Cor. ii. 11), comp. Beck, b:b1. Seelenl. p. 59, and Delitzsch, 
Psychol. p. 179. The distinction is an arbitrary one, which 
applies r. xapd. to the emotions and will, and 7. von. to the 
intelligence (Beza, Calvin). 

Ver. 8 f..A summary closing summons to a Christian mode 
of thought and (ver. 9) action, compressing everything closely 
and succinctly into a few pregnant words, introduced by 7d 
Aourdy, with which Paul had already, at iii, 1, wished to pass 


CHAP, IV. 8, 9. 205 


on to the conclusion. See on iii, 1. This 7d Aorror is 
not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the 
old expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in 
iii, 1 (Hofmann), for in that passage it introduced quite a 
different summons; but, without any reference to iii 1, it 
conveys the transition of thought: “what over and above all 
the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is: 
everything that,” etc. According to de Wette, it is intended 
to bring out what remained for man to do, in addition to that 
which God does, ver. 7. But in that case there must have 
been expressed, at least by tpeis before aderpol or in some 
other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be 
done on the part of man.—éca] nothing being excepted, 
expressed asyndetically six times with the emphasis of an 
earnest éxsuovy. Comp. ii 1, iii, 2; Buttmann, Neut, Gr. 
_p. 341 [E. T. 398]. — adrn69] The thoroughly ethical contents 
of the whole summons requires us to understand, not theoretical 
truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally true; that is, 
that which is in harmony with the oljective standard of morality 
contained in the gospel. Chrysostom: 1) dpery spebdos S¢ 4 xaxla. 
_Oecumenius: dAnO Sé dnot ta évdpera. Comp. also Theophy- 
lact. See 1 John i. 6; John iii. 21; Eph.v. 9; 1 Cor. v. 8. 
To limit it to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself 
arbitrary, and not in keeping with the general character of the 
predicates which follow, in accordance with which we must 
not even understand specially wnfeigned sincerity (Erasmus, 
Grotius, Estius, and others; comp. Eph. iv. 21; Plat. Phil. p. 
59 C: 1d adrmOés nat 3d 8) Aéyouey eidixpuvés), though this 
essentially belongs to the morally true.— ceuva] worthy of 
honour, for it is in accordance with God. Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2: 
evoeBela xal ceuvorntt. Plat. Soph. p.249 A: cwepvov xad dryrov 
voov. Xen. Cec. vi. 14: 7d cepvov dvoya TO Kadov re navyaGor, 
. Dem. 385. 11; Herodian, i 2.6; Ael. V. H. ii. 13, viii. 36 ; 
Polyb. ix. 36. 6, xv. 22. 1, xxii. 6. 10.— Siata] upright, as 
it ought to be; not to be limited to the relations “ erga alios” 
(Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the narrower 
sense would be meant (so Calvin: “ne quem laedamus, ne 
quem fraudemus;” Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others), 


206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Comp., on the contrary, Theogn. 147 : év Sicasoovyy ovAdAnBSnv 
waa’ ape) tort. — ayva] pure, unstained, not: chaste in the 
narrower sense of the word (2 Cor. xi 2; Dem. 1371. 22; 
Plut. Mor, p. 268 E, 438 C, e¢ al.), as Grotius, Calovius, Estius, 
Heumann, and others would explain it. Calvin well says: 
“castimoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus.” Comp. 
2 Cor. vi. 6, vii. 11; 1 Tim. v. 22; Jas. iii. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 2; 
1 John it. 3; often so used in Greek authors. Comp. Menand. 
in Clem. Strom. vii. p. 844: aas dyvos dorw o pndey éavt@ 
Kaxov cuviday. — mpoogirH] dear, that which is loved. .This is 
just once more Christian morality, which, in its whole nature 
as the ethical xanov, is worthy of love ;' Plat. Rep. p. 444 E; 
Soph. El. 972: tre? yap mwpos Ta ypnota mas opay, “ Nihil 
est amabilius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligendum, 
Cic. Lae. 28. Comp. ad Famil. ix. 14; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 33. 
The opposite is the aioypév, which deserves hate (Rom. 
vii. 15). Chrysostom suggests the supplying tots muotot x. 
tm @e@; Theodoret only r@ Oe@. Others, as Calovius, 
Estius, Heinrichs, and many: “ amabilia hominibus.” But 
there is no necessity for any such supplement. The word 
does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., although frequently 
in classical authors, and at Ecclus. iv. 8, xx. 13. ~ Others 
understand kindliness, benevolence, friendliness, and the like. 
So Grotius ; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “quaecumque ad 
alendam concordiam accommoda.” Linguistically faultless 
(Ecclus. l.c.; Herod. 1.125; Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x. 5. 6), 
but not in keeping with the context, which does not adduce 
any special virtues. — ebnua] not occurring elsewhere either 
in the N. T., or in the LXX., or Apocrypha; it does not 
mean: “quaecumque bonam famam conciliant” (Erasmus; 
comp. Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Heinrichs, 
and others, also Rheinwald); but: that which sounds well 
(Luther), which has an auspicious (faustum) sownd, 2. that 
which, when it is named, sounds significant of happiness, as, 
for instance, brave, honest, honourable, etc. The opposite 
would be: Sve¢nya. Comp. Soph. .4j. 362; Eur. Iph. T. 687: 


1 Luther well renders it: ‘‘lieblich,” and the Gothic: ‘‘ Gubaleik >” the Vul- 
gate: ‘‘ amabilia.” 


CHAP. IV. 8, 9 207 


etdnua dover, Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A: ro ths @dys yévos 
evdnpov nuiv. <Aesch. Suppl. 694, Agam. 1168; Polyb. 
xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, Prom. 3. Storr, who is followed by 
Flatt, renders it: “ sermones, qui bene aliis precantur.” So 
used in later Greek authors (also Symmachus, Ps. Ixii. 6); 
but this meaning is here too special. —e? tis «.7.4.] com- 
prehending all the points mentioned: if there be any virtue, 
and if there be any praise; not if there be yet another, etc. 
(de Wette).—dper7 used by Paul here only, and in the rest of 
the N. T. only in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i 3, 5, in the ethical 
sense: moral aptitude in disposition and action (the opposite 
to it, caxla: Plat. Rep. 444 D, 445 C, 1, p. 348 C). Comp. 
from the Apocrypha, Wisd. iv. 1, v. 13, and frequent instances 
of its use in the books of Macc. — évasos] not: res laudabilis 
(Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, and 
many others; comp. Weiss), but praise (Erasmus: “laus 
virtutis comes”), which the reader could not understand in 
the apostle’s sense otherwise than of a laudatory judgment 
actually corresponding to the moral value of the object. Thus, 
for instance, Paul’s commendation of love in 1 Cor. xiii. is an 
émaivos ; or when Christ pronounces a blessing on the humble, 
' the peacemakers, the merciful, etc., or the like. “ Vera laus 
uni virtuti debetur,’ Cic. de orat. ii. 84. 342; virtue is xa? 
avrny ératveryn, Plat. Def. p. 411 C. Mistaken, therefore, 
were such additions as émrioriuns (D* E* F G) or disciplinae 
(Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius). — tadra NoyilerGe] consider 
these things, take them to heart, in order (see ver. 9) to deter- 
mine your conduct accordingly. “ Meditatio praecedit, deinde 
sequitur opus,” Calvin. On AoyiferPas, comp. Ps. li 2 ; Jer. 

! We are not entitled to assume (with Beza) as the reason why Paul does not 
use this word elsewhere, that it is ‘‘verbum nimium humile, si cum donis 
Spiritus Sancti comparetur.” The very passage before us shows the contrary, as 
it means no other than Christian morality. Certainly in Paul’s case, as with 
the N. T. authors generally and even Christ Himself, the specific designations 
of the idea of virtue, which correspond more closely to the sphere of theocratic 
O. T. ideas, such as d:xaservwn, iwaxet, dyisens, dyimeirn, éosoens, %.¢.A., too Neces- 
sarily suggested themselves to his mind to allow him to use the general term for 
morality, éser#, as familiar, however worthily and nobly the Platonic doctrine, 
in particular, had grasped the idea of it (sis deer Suracdy dvlpuwy suovelas Org, 
Plat. Rep. p. 618 A, 500 C, e¢ al) 


208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


xxvi. 3; Nah. i. 9; Ps. xxxv. 4, xxxvi 4; 3 Mace. iv. 4; 
Soph. 0. &. 461; Herod. viii. 53; Dem. 63, 12; Sturz, Lez. 
Xen. III. p. 42; the opposite: Guarda Aoyifer Oar, Anthol. Pal. 
xi. 56. 3.—Ver. 9. The Christian morality, which Paul in 
ver. 8 has commended to his readers by a series of predicates, 
he now again urges upon them in special reference to their 
relation to himself, their teacher and example, as that which 
they had also learned, etc. The first xaé is therefore also, pre- 
fixing to the subsequent taira mpdocere an element corre- 
sponding to this requirement, and imposing an obligation to its 
fulfilment. “ Whatsoever also has been the object and purport 
of your instruction, etc., that do.” To take the four times 
repeated xaé as a double as well ...as also (Hofmann and 
others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of separa- 
tion. Kai in the last three cases is the simple and, but so 
that the whole is to be looked upon as bipartite: “ Duo priora 
verba ad doctrinam pertinent, reliqua duo ad exemplum” 
(Estius).— &@] not dca again; for no further categories of 
morality are to be given, but what they are bound to do 
generally is to be described under the point of view of what 
is known to the readers, as that which they also have learned, etc. 
— waperdBere] have acccpted. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; John 
1,11; Polyb. xxxui. 16. 9. The interpretation: “ have 
received” (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most exposi- 
tors, including Rheinwald, Rilliet, Hoelemann, de Wette, 
Weiss, Hofmann), which makes it denote the znstruction com- 
municated (1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor. 
xi 23; Gal i 9,12; Col. ii. 6; comp. Plat. Theaeé. p. 198 B: 
maparkapPdavovta dé pavOdvev), would yield a twofold designa- 
tion for the one element,’ and on the other hand would omit 
the point of the assexsus, which is so important as a motive; 
moreover, from a logical point of view, we should necessarily 
expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp. 


1 Real distinctions have, indeed, been made, but how purely arbitrary they 
are! Thus Grotius (comp. Hammond) makes igéé. apply to the primam in- 
stitulionem, and wapsAdB. to the cxuctiorem doctrinam. Rilliet explains it dif- 
ferently, making the former denote : ‘‘ son exseignement direct,” and the latter : 
‘* leg instructions, qu'il leur a transmises sous une forme quelconque.” 


CHAP. IV. 8 9. ; 209 


Gal. i. 12). — 4xovcare] does not refer to the proper preaching 
and teaching of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Elsner, Rhein- 
wald, Matthies), which is already fully embraced in the two 
previous points; nor does it denote: “ audistis de me absente” 
(Estius and others, including Hoelemann, Rilliet, Hofmann), 
for all the other points refer to the time of the apostle’s pre- 
sence, and consequently not merely the “ de me,” but also the 
“ absente” would be purely imported. No, by the words 
nkovoate and eldere, to both of which éy éuol belongs, he re- 
presents to his readers his own example of Christian morality, 
which he had given them when he was present, in its two 
portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him (éy eyo, 
comp. i. 30) partly by hearing, in his whole oral behaviour 
and intercourse with them, partly by seeing, in his manner of 
action among them; or, in other words, his example both in 
word and deed.—-ratra mpaocere| these things do, is not 
related to taidta XoyilecOe, ver. 8, as excluding it, in such 
a way that for what is said in ver. 8 the AoylfecPar merely 
would be required, and for what is indicated in ver. 9 
the mpdocew; on the contrary, the two operations, which 
in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses, 
are formally separated in accordance with the mode of expres- 
sion of the parallelism. Comp. on ii. 8 and Rom. x. 10.— 
xal 6 Qeds «.7.X.] in substance the same promise as was 
given in ver. 7. God, who works peace (that holy peace of soul, 
ver, 7), will be with you, whereby is meant the help given 
through the Holy Spirit ; and His special agency, which Paul 
here has in view, is unmistakeably indicated by the very 
predicate ris etpnuns. 


REMARK.—It is to be noticed that the predicates in ver. 8, 
&Anby .. . stonwa, do not denote different individual virtues, but 
that each represents the Christian moral character generally, so 
that in reality the same thing is described, but according to the 
various aspects which commended it. Comp. Diog. Laert. 11. 106: 
ty od ayabby worAoes bvducos xarouuevor, Cic. de fin. lil 4.14: “une 
virtus unum istud, quod honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, de- 
corum.” That it is Christian morality which Paul has in view, 
is clearly evident from ver. 9 and from the whole preceding 

PHIL. 0 





210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


context. Hence the passage cannot avail for placing the 
morality of the moral law of nature (Rom. ii 14 f.) on an 
equality with the gospel field of duty, which has its specific 
definition and consecration—as also, for the reconciled whom it 
embraces, the assurance of the divine keeping (vv. 7, 9)—in the 
revealed word (ver. 9), and in the enlightening and ethically 
transforming power of the Spirit (comp. Rom. xii. 2). 


Ver. 10. Carrying on his discourse with 8é Paul now in 
conclusion adds, down to ver. 20, some courteous expressions, a8 
dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid which he had 
received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work 
of love briefly and casually (ii. 25, 30). In the aid itself 
Baur discovers a contradiction of 1 Cor. ix. 15, and conjectures 
that the author of the epistle had 2 Cor. xi. 9 in view, and 
had inferred too much from that passage. But, in fact, Baur 
himself has inferred too much, and incorrectly, from 1 Cor. ix. 
15; for in this passage Paul speaks of payment for his preach- 
ang, not of loving gifts from persons at a distance, which in 
point of fact put him in the position to preach gratuitously in 
Achaia, 2 Cor. xi. 8 ff. There is, besides, in our passage no 
mention of regular sendings of money. — éy xupiq] as in iii. 1, 
iv. 4. It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart from Christ; ov 
Koopixas eyadpny, dyaiv, ovdé Biwtixas, Chrysostom. — peyd- 
ws] mightily. Comp. LXX., 1 Chron. xxix. 9; Neh. xii. 42; 
Polyb. iii. 87. 5; Polyc. Phil. 1. The position at the end is 
emphatic. See on Matt. ii 10; and Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Phaedr. p. 256 E, Menez. p. 235 A.— &re Sn roré «.7A] is 
to be rendered: “that ye have at length once again come into the 
flourishing condition of taking thought for my benefit, in behalf 
of which ye also TOOK thought, but had no favourable opportunity.” 
— %5n moré] taken in itself may mean: already once; or, a8 
in Rom. i. 10: tandem aliquando. The latter is the meaning 
here, as appears from 颒 @ «.7.X. Chrysostom justly observes 
(comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes ypovoy 
paxpov, when namely that 6a)X«w had not been present, which 
has now again (comp. ver. 15 f) set in. Comp. Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 140. This view of 459 qoré is the less to be 
evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in 





CHAP. IV. 10. 211 


the passage (ézreriunots, Chrysostom) is not by any means con- 
veyed in it, as indeed from the delicate feeling of the apostle 
we might expect that it would not, and as is apparent from 
the correct explanation of the sequel. — dveOdrere] ye have 
again become green (refloruistis, Vulgate), like a tree or an 
orchard which had been withered, and has again budded and 
put forth new shoots (AadAovs). It cannot be the revival of 
their care-taking love which is meant, so that the readers would 
have previously been drropapavOévres ev tH ehennoovyy (Occu- 
menius, also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, 
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors, who rightly take 
aveOar. as intransttive, as well as all who take it transitively ; 
see below); for how indelicate would be such an utterance, 
which one could not, with Weiss, acquit from implying an 
assumption that a different disposition previously existed; and 
how at variance with the 颒 @ égpovetre «.7.X. which imme- 
diately follows, and by which the continuous care previously 
exercised is attested! No, it is the flourishing anew of their 
prosperity (comp. Rheinwald, Matthies, van Hengel, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite 
of which is afterwards expressed by jxa:peiaGe, that is denoted, 
as prosperous circumstances are so often represented under 
the figure of becoming green and blooming. Comp. Ps. xxviii. 
7: dvéBarev % odp& pov, Wisd. iv. 3 f.; Hes. Op 231: 
réOnre wondss, Pind. Isth. iti. 9: SrBos ... Oddrwov, Pyth. 
vii. 22: @ddAXovcay eddarpoviav. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 945 D: 
} wicca ovr Oddre Te Kal eddatpovel ywpa x. words. Of 
frequent occurrence in the tragedians; comp. also Jacobs, 
_ad Del. Epigr. viii. 97. It is therefore inconsistent, both 
with delicate feeling and with the context, to take dve@an. 
transitively : “ revirescere sivistis solitam vestram rerum mearum 
procurationem” (Hoelemann ; comp. Coccejus, Grotius, Hein- 


1 The conjecture, on the ground of this figurative expression, that the Philip- 
pians might have sent to the apostle in spring, and that ssapsiots 3i applies to 
the winter season (Bengel), is far-fetched and arbitrary. The figurative énsééa, 
does not even need to be an image of spring, as Calvin, Estius, Weiss, and others 
understand it. 





212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


richs, Hammond, and others, including Rilliet, de Wette, Weiss), 
although the transitive use of dva@adAew in the LXX. and 
also in the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezek. xvii. 24; Ecclus. 
1, 16, xi 20, 1. 10; see generally Schleusner, 7hes. I p. 
220 f.) ; and that of OadXev is also current in classical authors 
(Pind. Ol. ili. 24; Aesch. Pers. 622 (608); Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
VIL. p. 103; Kiihner, IL 1, p. 265). An unfounded objec- 
tion is brought against the view which explains it of the 
revival of prosperity, that it is inappropriate as a subject of joy 
an the Lord (see Weiss) ; it is appropriate at all events, when 
such a use is made of the revived prosperity. — To irep éuod 
dpovetv| is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of 
aveOcn.,' so understood that ro is taken together with ¢povety, 
and this must be regarded as the accusative of more precise 
definition, which is only distinguished by its greater emphasis 
from the mere epexegetical infinitive. See Bernhardy, p. 356 ; 
Schmalfeld, Syntax d. Griech. Verb. p. 401 f.; Ellendt, Lez. 
Soph. II. p. 222. Comp. van Hengel: “negotium volo mihi 
consulendi.” But the whole view which takes 7ré with 
dpovety is set aside by the following 颒 @ «. éppovetre; seeing 
that 颒 ¢, unless it is to be rendered at variance with lin- 
guistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr), 
or just as (Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its ® 
the previous 70 trép éwod dpovety, and would consequently 
yield the logically absurd conception: édppovetre ext r@ virép 
€u0d dpovety, whether 颒 6 be taken as equivalent to ob &vexa 
(Beza) or qua de re (Rheinwald, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, 
Ewald, and others), or in co quod (Erasmus), in gua re (Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Hoelemann), or e¢ post id (Grotius), and the 
like. Recourse has been had, by way of helping the matter, 
to the suggestion that ¢povety él is a thinking without action, 
and dpovely wrép a thinking with action (de Wette, Wiesinger ; 
comp. Ewald); but how purely arbitrary is this view! Less 
arbitrarily, Calvin and Rilliet (“vous pensiez bien & moi”) 
have referred @ to éuov, by which, no doubt, that logical 
1In the transitive interpretation (see, against it, supra) the +3 @persix, which 
would likewise be taken together, would be the accusative forming the object of 
énééa. Seo Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 226 (E. T. 263]; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 608. 





CHAP. IV. 10. 213 


awkwardness is avoided; but, on the other hand, the objection 
arises, that 颒 6 is elsewhere invariably used by Paul as 
neuter only, and that it is difficult to see why, if he desired to 
take up twrép éuod in a relative form, he should not have 
written iméep ob, since otherwise in émi, if it merely went 
back to gov, the more precise and definite reference which he 
must have had in view would not be expressed, and since the 
progress of the thought suggested not a change of preposition, 
but only the change of the tenses (xat édpoveire). Weiss, in- 
terpreting 颒 @ as: about which to take thought, refers it back 
to aveJadere—a reference, however, which falls to the ground 
with the active interpretation of that word. Upon the whole, 
the only right course seems to be to take ro trép euod together 
(comp. T2 rept bpav, ii. 20; also ra aap’ buey, ver. 18 ; and see 
generally, Kriiger, § 50. 5. 12; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 231 f.), and 
that as the accusative of the object to dpovetw (comp. Bengel, 
Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann) : “to take into consideration 
that which serves for my good,” to think of my benefit; on 
wrép, comp. i. 7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal, 
logical, and delicately-turned reference, namely, when 颒 & 
applies to To imrép éuod. Taking this view, we have to notice: 
(1) that ézz is used in the sense of the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 475; Kithner, II. 1, p. 435): on behalf of which, for 
which, comp. Soph. 0. R. 569; (2) that Paul has not again 
written the mere accusative (6 nat édp.), because 颒 6 is in- 
tended to refer not alone to «. édpoveire, but also to the 
antithesis 7xaupetoOe Sé, consequently to the entire «. édp., 
gxatp. 5é;' (3) that the emphasis is placed on édpov. as the 


1 All the more groundless, therefore, is Hofmann’s objection, that @persiv ivi 
wis means: to be proud about something. This objection, put thus generally, is 
even in itself incorrect. For ¢pevtiy iwi cis does not in itself mean: to be 
about something, but only receives this signification through the addition of «iva, 
fiyeéra, or some similar more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 D, Alc. 1. 
p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p. 217 A: Dem. 181. 16, 836. 10), either 
expressly specified or directly suggested by the context. Very artificial, and for 
the simple reader hardly discoverable, is the view under which Hofmann takes the 
fact expressed by sai igpersies as the ground, ‘‘ pon, or on account of, which their 
re-emergence from an unfavourable position has been a revival unto care for him.” 
If the reference of ig’ » to vé éwip ined were not directly given in the text, it would 
be much simpler to take ig’ ¢ as in Rom. v. 12, Phil iii. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4 in 





214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


imperfect, and xat indicates an element to be added to the 
dpovely which has been just expressed; hence «al édp. inti- 
mates: “in behalf of which ye not only are taking thought 
(that is, since the dveOaXere), but also were taking thought 
(namely, wrpdcGev, before the dveBadere) ;” lastly, (4) that after 
édp. there is no yey inserted, because the antithesis is meant 
to emerge unprepared for, and so all the more vividly. — 
nratpeiaBe} ye had no favourable time; a word belonging to 
the later Greek. Diod. ev. Mai. p. 30; Phot. Suid. The 
opposite: evxaipeiy, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 125. Unsuitably 
and arbitrarily this is explained: “deerat vobis opportunitas 
mittendt” (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and 
others). It refers, in keeping with the dveddere, not without 
delicacy of description, to the unfavourable state of things as 
regards means (Chrysostom: ov« elyere dy yepolv, ovde ey 
apOovla ire ; so also Theophylact ; while Oecumenius adduces 
this interpretation alongside of the previous one) which had 
occurred among the Philippians, as Paul might have learned 
from Epaphroditus and otherwise. Comp. evxaipety tots Blow 
in Polyb. xv. 21. 2, xxxii. 21.12; and also the mere evaacpety 
in the same sense, iv. 60. 10; edsarpla: xv. 31. 7, i. 59. 7; 
axatpia: Plat. Legg. iv. p. 709 A; Dem. 16. 4; Polyb. iv. 
44.11. 

Ver. 11. Obviating of a misunderstanding. — ov» Sri] as in 
iii, 12: my meaning is not, that I say this in consequence of 
want, that is, this my utterance of joy in ver. 10 f. is not 
meant as if it were the expression of felt want, from which 
your aid has delivered me. On «ard, sccundum, in the sense 
of propter, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 413, and ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 
12. According to van Hengel’s interpretation: “ut more 
receptum est penuriac, 8. hominibus penuria oppressis,” «ata - 
could not have been united with an abstract noun (Rom. iii. 5, 
et al.).—eéyo yap Euabov «.1.r.] for I, as regards my part 
(although it may be different with others), have learned in the 


the sense of propterea quod, snd that as 8 graceful and ingenious specification of 
the reason for the great joy of the apostle, that they had flourished again to 
take thought for his benefit; for their previous emiesion had been caused not 
by any lack of the ¢persss in question, but by the unfavourableness of the times, 


CHAP. IV. 12. 215 


circumstances, in which I find myself, to be self-contented, that is, 
to have enough independently without desiring aid from others. 
It is evident from the reason thus assigned that in oby. dre xa? 
tor. X. he has meant not the objective, but the subjective state 
of need. —éyw] with noble self-consciousness, there being no 
need to supply, with Bengel, “in tot adversis.” — éuafor]} 
signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat. Symp. p. 
182 C: py Se robro guabov Kai oi évOade rvpavvos), and all 
that accordingly he can, ‘he owes to the strengthening in- 
fluence of Christ, ver. 13.— & ols eips] in the situation, in 
which I find myself. See examples in Wetstein and Kypke; 
comp. also Mitzner, ad Antiph. p. 131. Not merely his 
position then, but, generally, every position in which he finds 
himself, is meant, although it is not exactly to be taken as: 
“in quocunque statu sim” (Raphel, Wetstein, and others), 
which would be ungrammatically expressed. In opposition to 
the context (see ver. 12), Luther: among whom (ols, mas- 
culine) J am. As to avdrdpxea as applied to persons, the 
subjective self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not 
make the satisfaction of his needs dependent upon others, 
but finds it in himself, comp. Ecclus. xl 18; Xen. Mem. iv. 
7.1; Dem. 450. 14; Stob. v. 43; and see on 2 Cor. ix. 8. 
Ver. 12. Paul now epecifies this his adrapxeta (in Plat. Def. 
p. 412 B, termed rercsorns xtycews ayabav). — oida] I 
understand how (1 Thess. iv. 4; Col. iv. 6; 1 Tim. i 5; 
Matt. vii. 11; Soph. 47. 666 f.; Anth. Pal. vii. 440. 5 ff) ;* 
result of the éuafov,— «al razrew.] also to be abased, namely, 
by want, distress, and other allotted circumstances which place 
the person affected by them in the condition of abasement. 
Paul understands this, inasmuch as he knows how to bear 
himself in the right attitude to such allotted circumstances, 
namely, in such a way that, independently thereof, he finds his 
sufficiency in himself, and does not seek it in that which he 
lacks. We find a commentary on this in 2 Cor. iv. 8, vi 9, 
10. olda wal srepiccevew is to be understood analogously, of 
the right attitude to the matter, so that one is not led away by 


1]t is the moral understanding, having its seat in the character. Comp. 
Ameis, Anh, 2. Hom. Od. ix. 189, 


216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter instead of in 
himself. Pelagius well says: “ut nec abundantia eztollar, nec 
frangar inopia.” — The first «ai adds to the general ey ols eis 
the special statement on the one side, to which thereupon the 
second “also” adds the counterpart. The contrast, however, is 
less adequate here than subsequently in mepisceve xai tore- 
petaOar, for rarrevvotcGatr is a more comprehensive idea than the 
counterpart of zrepioceverv, and also contains a figurative con- 
ception. Some such expression as inpodoGat would have been 
adequate as the contrast of razrew. (Matt. xxiii. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7; 
Phil. i. 8, 9; Polyb. v. 26.12). There isa lively versatility 
of conception, from not perceiving which some have given to 
this reprocevew (to have a superfluity) the explanation excellere 
(Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to tazrewv. the meaning to be 
poor, to be in pitiful plight, orgJtyos KeypiicOar, Theophylact 
(Estius and others; comp. also Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, 
Rheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hof- 
mann), which even the LXX., Lev. xxv. 39, does not justify. — 
In what follows, év zravri x. év maou is not to be regarded as 
belonging to tazrewoveOat and meprocevew (Hofmann), but is 
to be joined with peutnwas. We are dissuaded from the 
former connection by the very repetition of the oi8a; and the 
latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which rests upon 
éy wavti x. év waot heading the last clause, as also by the 
correlative mravra at the head of ver. 13. Further, no comma 
as to be placed after wepunpat, nor is ¢v trayti... pepunpas to be 
explained as meaning: “nto everything I am initiated,” and 
then xal yopraleo bac x.7.d. as elucidating the notion of “ every- 
thing”: “cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate et 
fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiari- 
tatem, ut rationem teneam iis bene utendi,” van Hengel; 
comp. de Wette, Rilliet, Wiesinger; so also, on the whole, 
Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and many others, but with 
different interpretations of vayri and waow. This view is at 
variance with the fact, that pvetofac has that into which one 
is initiated expressed not by means of évy, but—and that most 
usually—in the accusative (Herod. ii. 51; Plat. Gorg. p. 497 C, 
Symp. p. 209 E; Aristoph. Plut. 845 (eupuetoGas); Lucian, 


CHAP. IV. 12. 217 


Philop, 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11), or genitive 
(Heliod. i 17; Herodian, i 13. 16); hence zay «. rravra, or 
qTavTt Kk. Tac, OF TavTos K. TavTev must have been written 
(in 3 Mace. ii. 30 it has «ara with the accusative). No; Paul 
says that in everything and in all, that is, under every relation 
that may occur and in all circumstances, he 18 initiated inio, 
that is, made completely familiar with, as well the being satisfied 
as the being hungry, as well the having superfluty as want; 
in all situations, without exception, he quite understands how 
to assume and maintain the right attitude to these different 
experiences, which in ver. 11 he characterizes by the words 
avrapens elvat, *Ev travti x. év wéor is accordingly to be taken 
after the analogy of éy ols eius, ver. 11, and therefore as neuter. 
It was purely arbitrary to render év wavri: ubique (Vulgate, 
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others), or to refer it to 
time (Chrysostom, Grotius), or to time and place (Theophylact, 
Erasmus, and others, also Matthies). Luther and Bengel 
explain wavri correctly as neuter, but make wdaoup (as in 2 Cor. 
xi. 6) masculine (Bengel: “respectu omnium hominum”). It 
is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words ; 
and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which 
only indicates the total absence of any exception (comp. 
analogous expressions in Lobeck, Paral. p. 56 ff.), there is no 
occasion for artificial explanation.-—In German we say: in 
Allem und Jedem [in all and each]. Comp. on ev maoe on 
Col. i 18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes épy 
mavtl x. év wace denote everything that is a necessary of life 
(in detail and in whole). in that case certainly the contrast 
of yopraf. and zreway is unsuitable !— peuvnpat] the proper 
word for the various grades of initiation into the mysteries 
(Casaubon, Exerc. Baron. p. 390 ff.; Lobeck, Aglaoph. I. p. 
38 ff.) is here used in a figurative sense, like inwtiatum esse, of 
@ special, unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar 
acquaintance with something. See Munthe, Obss. p. 383; 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. IIL p. 488. The opposite is duunros. — 
The climax should here be noticed, éuafoy ... olda .. . pepunuat. 
Ver. 13 places beyond doubt to whom the apostle owes this 
lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circumstances. As 


218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


to the later form weway instead of crewhy, see Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 61; Jacobs, ad Ae. IL p. 261. 

Ver. 13. After the special statement, the consciousness of 
the avrdpxeva now finds fresh utterance generally ; and in the 
grand brevity of the latter how marked is the assurance, and, 
at the same time, the humility !— icyvw] of moral strength, 
homogeneous as to category with éua@ov in ver. 11, and with 
oda and pepvnpas in ver. 12, because these predicates also were 
dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice. 
There is therefore the less reason for limiting wdyra in any 
way (van Hengel: “omnia memorata;” comp. Weiss); there 
is nothing for which Paul did not feel himself morally strong ; 
for every relation he knew himself to be morally adequate. 
adyra is the accusative of the olject. Gal. v. 6; Jas. v. 16. 
The opposite to it: pndev ioytwow, Plat. Crit. p. 50 B, Ael. 
V. HI. xii. 22, et al. — ev r@ évdvy, pe] Not in his own human 
ability does Paul feel this power, but it has its basis in Christ, 
whose Suvapis the apostle experiences in his fellowship of life 
with Him (2 Cor. xii. 9). Comp. 1 Tim. i 12; 2 Tim. ii. 1, 
iv. 17. Thus he is able to do all things dy r@ xpdre tis 
ioxves avrov, Eph. vi. 10. 

Ver. 14. ITAjv] Nevertheless (1 Cor. xi. 11; Eph. v. 33), 
apart from the fact that with such moral power I am equal to 
all emergencies, and therefore, as far as want is concerned, do 
not need aid (comp. ver. 11). ‘“Cavet, ne fortiter loquendo 
contemsisse ipsorum beneficlum videatur,” Calvin. Comp. 
Chrysostom and Theophylact. — xad@s] in the moral sense. — 
ovyxov. pou TH Orly.) characterizes the work according to its 
high ethical value (8pa codlay, ras érraipe: To 1p@ypya, Theophy- 
lact): that ye became partukers with me in my affliction. He 
who renders the aid enters into the relation of a participant in 
the position of the afflicted one, inasmuch as by his very work 
‘of love he, in common with the latter, shares and bears his 
Orxtpus. Comp. Rom. xii. 13. It is a practical participation, 
_and not merely that of feeling and emotion. Comp. Eph. v. 
11; Rev. xviii 4,19. By 79 Orup., Paul means his position 
at the time as a whole, not: want (which also in 2 Cor. viii. 
13 it does not mean). The dative is governed by ovyxow. 


CHAP. IV. 15. 219 


(Eph. v. 11; Rev. xviii 4; Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27, e¢al.); and 
pov is, in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken 
as if wos were in the text (comp on ii 2; and Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 C, Symp. p. 215 C). The aorist participle 
coincides as to time with érromoare (see on Eph. i. 9); as to the 
participle with xaos mroveiv, see Winer, p. 323 f. [E. T. 434]. 

Ver. 15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the 
very beginning of the gospel the Philippians had distinguished 
themselves by such manifestation of love towards Paul. — 6é] 
carrying the discourse onward: But what ye have done con- 
nects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no 
other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very 
first ! — ofdare 5é «.17.d.] but tt is known also to you, Philippians, 
that, etc. Hofmann very erroneously derives thé object of 
oldare from what precedes, and takes Ort in the sense of 
because. He makes the apostle say, namely, to the Philippians : 
That they had done well im helpfully taking part in his afflic- 
tion they knew also, as other churches knew that it was well 
done ; by experience they knew it, because it was not the first 
time that they had sent similar gifts to him, etc. This ex- 
planation is erroneous, because invariably where olda (oldaper, 
oldare, «.7.r.) is accompanied, not with an accusative of the 
object, but with dr, the latter conveys the contents (that), and 
not the reason or the cause (because), of the ofda (comp. i. 19, 
25; Rom. ili. 2; 1 Cor. iii, 16, xii. 2; Gal iv. 13, and in- 
numerable other passages) ; secondly, because the previously 
attested «adds éroujcate, while perfectly suitable to be ex- 
pressed by the grateful apostle, was not so suited to be transferred 
to the consciousness of the donors, to which it was self-evident, 
and to be appealed to by them; thirdly, because the «a/ in 
the alleged reference to other churches would be very unsuit- 
able, since the question here concerns merely a work of love 
of the Philippians, but other churches could only know 
generally that it was well done to aid the apostle, into which 
general idea, therefore, Hofmann insensibly transforms the 
object of ofdare, instead of abiding strictly by the concrete 
Kanes érrotnoate as its object; finally, it would be strange and 
not in keeping with the thoughtful manner of the apostle, to 


220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


furnish the idea: “ ye know that ye did well therein” (which 
oldare is supposed to convey) with the altogether external 
specification ot a ground for it: “because ye have already 
formerly and repeatedly supported me.” The contents attributed 
by Hofmann to ofdare needed no assignment of a causal 
ground, or—if any—one internal, ethical, and in harmony with 
the subtle delicacy of the apostle. —- Observe, moreover, in 
connection with otdare x. duets, that in that which the readers 
also know (consequently in ére «.7.d.) the stress lies upon the 
negative ovdeuia «.7.A.— Kal tpets] ye also, as I.!— Serer- 
anotor] addressing them by name, not because he desires to 
assert something of them which no other church had done 
(Bengel: for in this case Paul would have written Ste types, 
Pidur7.), but in his increasing carnestness. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 
11.—& dpyp +. evayy.] glancing back, certainly, to the 
second missionary journey (Weiss); but the relative expression 
is used from the standpoint of the time then present, behind 
which lay the founding of the Macedonian churches about 
ten years back; a long past which seemed, in relatton to the 
present and to the wider development of the church now 
attained, as still belonging to the period of the beginning of 
the gospel. Comp. Clement. Cor. I. 47. An epexegetical 
more precise definition of this expression—which does not 
betray the hand of a later author (Hinsch)—for the date 
intended is: dre é&MAOov aro Maxed., when I departed from 
Macedonia, Acts xvii. 14. Paul, therefore, tmmediately on 
leaving that country, received aid from the infant church, when 
the brethren tov ITaddov eEaréctetday rropeverPar ws emi Thy 
Odraccay and Fryayov éws ’AOnvav, Acts Uc. Doubtless the 
money which Paul subsequently received in Corinth (see 2 Cor. 
xi. 9) through Macedonian delegates was sent, if not ex- 
clusively, at least jointly by the Philippians, so that they 
thereby gave continued active proof of the fellowship es Aoyor 
Soc. «. App., into which they had entered with the apostle at 


' To express this, Paul was not at all under the necessity of writing «Maes 
eieei, as Hofmann objects. The latter would convey a different conception, 
namely : ye know without my reminding you (Acts ii. 22; 1 Thess. ii. 1, iii. 3; 
2 Thess. iii. 7). 


CHAP. IV. 15 221 


his very departure. But this receipt of money at Corinth is 
not the fact meant by éxowwvynoev x.t.r., in which case é&j\Oov 
would have to be taken, with Estius, Flatt, van Hengel, de 
Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others, in the sense of 
the pluperfect (Winer, p. 258 [E. T. 343]); for the latter 
would be the more unwarranted in the context, seeing that 
Paul himself by éy apy7 tod evaryy. carries them back to the 
earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (ver. 16) to a 
period even antecedent to the Gre é&7jAov. The aorist, how- 
ever, has its justification in this purely historical statement of 
fact, although the imperfect also, but following a different 
conception, might—not, however (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
objection), must—have been used. — dxowavncev eis Aoyov 
Socews x. Ampp.] entered into fellowship with me in reference to 
account of giving and recewving,—a euphemistic indication, 
calculated to meet the sense of delicacy in the readers, of 
the thought: “has entered into the relation of furnishing aid 
towards me.” On xowwvety eis, comp. oni. 5. The analysis 
of the figurative description is this: The Philippians keep 
an account of expenditure on Paul and income from him; and 
the apostle likewise keeps account of his expenditure on the 
Philippians and income from them. This mutual account- 
keeping, in which the docs on the one part, agrees with 
the Ajyis on the other, is the xowwvia eis Noyoy «rr. It is 
true that in this case no money-amount is entered in the 
account of the Philippians under the heading of Azpfuis, or 
the account of the apostle under the heading of Secu; instead 
of this, however, comes in the blessing, which the readers were 
to receive from their gifts of love, according to ver. 17, as if it 
were an income corresponding to this expenditure, and coming 
in from it. We are therefore not justified in adopting the view, 
that Soo. and AW. apply to Paul alone (Schrader), or that 
Socews applies to the Philippians and Apr. to Paul (“ Ego sum 
in vestris expenst tabulis, vos in meis accepti,’ Grotius; comp. 
Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and others, including 
Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Ewald) ; 
for the words require the idea of an account under doth 
headings on the side of both parties. Others, maintaining 


222 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


indeed this reciprocity, but arbitrarily- introducing ideas from 
1 Cor. xi. 11, comp. Rom. xv. 27, consider that the Seocs on 
the part of the apostle, and the Asus on the part of the 
Philippians, consisted in the spiritual benefits brought about 
by the preaching of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Pelagius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius, 
Zeger, Estius, Hammond, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and 
others); whilst others, again, import into the words the thought : 
“ Quae a-Philippensibus accepit in rationes Det remuneratoris 
refert Paulus” (Wetstein, Rosenmiiller; comp. Wolf, Schoettgen, 
and already Ambrosiaster). Rheinwald finds the Amis of the 
Philippians and the Sects of the apostle even in the assump- 
tion that he also had assisted them, namely, out of the sums of 
money collected in the churches,—an error which is at variance 
with the context, and which ought to have been precluded both 
by the prominence given to the statement of the date, and also 
by the exclusion of all other churches, as well as by the inappro- 
priateness of the mention just in this passage of such a Ames 
on the part of the Philippians. — On Adyos, ratio, account, comp. 
Matt. xii. 36; Luke xvi. 2; Rom. xiv. 12; 1 Macc. x. 40; 
Dem. 227. 26; Diod. Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv. 34. 2. The 
rendering which takes els Noyov : in respect to (Bengel, Hein- 
richs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Liinemann), would 
no doubt be linguistically correct (Dem. 385. 11; 2 Mace. 1. 
14; and see Kriiger on Thue, iii. 46. 3), but is to be rejected 
on account of the context, as expressions of accounting follow 
(comp. Cic. Lael. 16: “ratio acceptorum et datorum”). For 
instances from Greek writers of Soots wal AF pes (Ecclus. xli. 
14, xlii. 7) as expenditure and income, see Wetstein. Comp. 
Plat. Rep. p. 332 AB: 9 drrodocrs x. 4 ARs. As to the 
corresponding }nb xwD, see Schoettgen, Hor. p. 804. 

Ver. 16. “Ort] since, indeed, ye also already in Thessalonica, 
etc. It is argumentative, namely, outbidding the early defini- 
tion of date ey dpyp ... MaxeSovias, in ver. 15, by one even 
antecedent, and thus serving more amply to justify that speci- 
fication of time; for which purpose the 81 specifying the 

1 If Baur had noticed this correct logical connection, he would not have made 
an improper use of our passage to fortify his opinion of the affair of the aid 


CHAP. IV. 16. 223 


reason was quite sufficient, and (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
objection) no yép was necessary. The opinion of Wiesinger, 
that Srz «.7.X. is intended to explain that it was only with the 
aid sent after Paul at a distance that the readers had entered 
into such a connection with the apostle as is previously men- 
tioned, is bound up with the untenable interpretation of 
é&j\ Oop as pluperfect. The rendering of dre by that (Rheinwald, 
Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Liine- 
mann, Weiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic 
otdate wat tpets, ver. 15, accords doubtless with the exclusion of 
other churches in ver. 15, it does not accord with ver. 16 (“ye 
also know that ye have sent...to me!”), to which it would 
stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the uncalled-for 
inversion of the order of time, which would result. Hofmann’s 
explanation, which makes Src in ver. 16 parallel to the ére in 
ver. 15 and places it in causal relation to oléare, falls with 
his erroneous view of ver. 15.— The «al before év Qeacax., 
for which Hinsch, following Baur, thinks that he finds a 
reference in 2 Cor. xi. 9, is the simple also in the sense of 
also already ; a climax as regards time; see Hartung, Partzk. 
I. p. 135; Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 797.— év @eocan.] is not used, 
in the sense of the bearers having arrived, for ets, for there is 
no certain instance of drocréAXew or mréurrey with év in this 
sense (Thuc. vii. 17 must, with Becker and Kriiger, be read: 
és ray Yuxediayv) ; but the preposition is used from the stand- 
point of the recetver: “also at Thessalonica (when I was there) 
ye sent to me.” Thus this sending took place in Thessalonica. 
Comp. on Matt. x. 16; Poppo and Kriiger on Thue. iv. 27. 1. 
— Kab dra xai Sis] Comp. 1 Thess. ii 18. The conception 
is: “ when the first azd arrived, the éwéuare had taken place 
once ; when the second arrived, it had taken place both once 
and twice.” Paul has not written dé& merely, nor yet da€ x. 
Su (1 Mace. iii. 30; Xen. Anad. iv. 7.10), but by xal dr. x. 


being an invented incident.—The same assistance which is meant in ver. 15 
cannot be meant in ver. 16, as some not attending to the sai (comp. Luther, 
Castalio, and others) have thought. This view is also at variance with the 
specification of time ges ifsaéev, ver. 15; for Paul abode several weeks in 
Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 2), and then there still followed his sojourn in Beroea 
(Acts xvii. 10 ff.), ere he quitted Macedonia and travelled to Athens. 


224 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


dé he sets forth the repetition of the matter more emphatically, 
to the praise of his readers (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 144). 
Comp. wal dis xal tpis, Plat. Phaed. p. 63 D, Phil. p. 59 E; 
Herod. ii. 121, iii 148. The opposite: ovy dara ovde dis, 
Plat. Clit. p. 410 B. — els 7. ypedav] on behalf of the necessity, 
in order to satisfy it; comp. 115. The article indicates the 
necessity that had been extsting in Paul’s case. On réuypas, 
used absolutely, comp. Acts xi. 29. What they sent, they 
knew. 

Ver. 17. Just as in ver. 11 Paul anticipated a possible 
misunderstanding in respect to ver. 10, so here in reference 
to the praises contained in ver. 14 ff. This, he would say, 
is not the language of material desire, but, etc. — ovy dre 
«.7..] 28 in ver. 11: I do not mean by this to convey that 
my desire is directed towards the gift (the emphasis being laid 
on Tro Souza)—this, namely, taken in and by itself—in which 
case the article means the donation accruing to him as the case 
occurred, and the present émtfnre denotes the constant and charac- 
teristic striving after (Bernhardy, p. 370): it is not my busi- 
ness, etc. The compound verb indicates by él the direction. 
Comp. on émio0m, i. 8, and on Matt. vi 33; Rom. xi. 7. 
The view which regards it as strengthening the simple verb 
(studiose guaero, so Hoelemann and others) is not implied in 
the context any more than the sense: insuper guaero (Polyb. 
i 5. 3); so van Hengel, who indelicately, and notwithstanding 
the article, explains rd Soya as still more gifts.— arn émtnra] 
The repetition of the verb after aAAd makes the contrast stand 
out independently with special emphasis; comp. Rom. viii. 
15; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Fritzsche, ad Rom. IL. p. 137. — rév xaprroy 
«.7...] This is what Paul desires, towards which his wishes 
and endeavours are directed: the fruit which abounds to your 
account; not, therefore, a gain which he wishes to have for 
himself, but gain for the Philippians. So completely is his 
emitntety devoid of any selfish aim,—which, however, would 
not be the case, if the émifnrd ro Sova were true. This 
applies against Hofmann’s objection, that the xapmés must be 
something which Paul himself desires to have; the notion of 
emitnre is anguiro, appeto, and this indeed applies to personal 


CHAP. IV. 18. 225 


possession in the negative half of the sentence; but then the 
second half expresses the real state of the case, which does 
away with the notion of selfishness——The xapzros itself cannot 
be the fruit of the gospel (Ewald), or of the labour of the apostle 
(Weiss) ; but, in accordance with the context, only the fruit 
of the Sopa, that is, the blessing which accrues from the gift to 
the givers; comp. on ver. 15. By this is meant? the divine 
recompense at the judgment (2 Cor. ix. 6), which they will then 
receive, as if it were the product of their account, for their 
labour of love (Matt. xxv. 34 ff.). This produce of their doua 
is figuratively conceived as jfrwtt, which is largely placed to 
the credit of their account, in order to be drawn by them at 
the day of harvest (comp. also Gal. vi. 7 ff.). Comp. ver. 19, 
In substance it is the treasure in heaven that is meant (Matt. 
xix. 21, vi. 20), which will be received at the Parousia. 
Comp. on Col. i. 5. The figurative efs Novo dudv, which here 
also is not to be understood, with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Rilliet, 
and others, as equivalent to eis tpdas, is the completion of the 
figure in ver. 15; although there is no need to explain xapmés 
as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in arAeovdl. of com- 
pound interest, Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difficult to 
see why Paul, if he used ¢izs figure, should not have applied 
to it the proper term (roxos), and because the idea of 
interest is quite alien to that of the Soya (a present). —r. 
mreoval. eis ANOyov Yudy] to be taken together (see above); eis 
states the destination of the wdeovdt. Van Hengel and de 
Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling eis Ady. 
tu. with érifnra, because wdcovafew with eis is not used else- 
where by Paul (not even 2 Thess. i. 3). The preposition is 
in fact not determined by the word in itself, but by its logical 
reference, and may therefore be any one which the reference 
requires. 

Ver. 18. 4é] The train of thought is: “not the gift do I 


1 Not the active manifestation of the Christian life (Matthies, Rilliet, Hof- 
mann; comp. Vatablus, Musculus, Piscator, Zanchius; Flatt and Rheinwald 
mingle together heterogeneous ideas); for only the fruit of the 3éua can be 
meant, not the 3éaa itself as fruit, which is produced in the shape of the love- 
gift (Hofmann). 

PHIL. P 


226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


seek, but the fruit (ver. 17); and as regards what has been 
received from you in the present instance, I have everything 
already, and need nothing further.” That this refers to the 
desire of the church to know what he possibly still needed 
(Hofmann), is a very unnecessary assumption. — drréyo Se 
mavra] not: habeo autem omnia (Vulgate) ; not a mere acknow- 
ledgment of receipt (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Heinrichs, and others); nor yet equivalent to mepocevw 
(Rheinwald) ; but, in keeping with the sense of the compound : 
I have everything away, so that I have nothing left to desire 
at your hands. Comp. Philem. 15; Matt. vi 2, 5, 16; 
Luke vi. 24; Callim. ep. 22; Arrian. Epic. iii. 2. 13, iii, 24. 
17; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIL pp. 276, 298. IIdyra, therefore, 
according to the context (émifqra +. Soua, ver. 17), is: every- 
thing which I could desire, although there is no necessity for 
introducing specially, with Chrysostom and Oecumenius, ra 
Adrcupbévra év rH rapeGovrs ypovp. The emphasis, moreover, 
is laid, not on wavra, but on dzéyw, in contrast to émsfnteiy. 
—xal trepiccedw] and my wants are thus so fully satisfied, 
that I have over.— wendjpopat] forms a climax to mepicc.: 
Iam full, I have abundance. The gift must have been ample ; 
but gratitude sets this forth in all the stronger a light. To 
memdnp. is attached Sefauevos «.7.A.— oop evwdias x.7.r.] 
This apposition to ra zap’ duev, expressing a judgment as to 
the latter (see on Rom. xii 1), sets forth, to the honour of the 
givers, the relation in which the gifts received stand towards 
God, by whom they are esteemed as a sacrifice well-pleasing to 
Him. As to dopa) edwdias, smell of a sweet savour, HI OM 
(genitive of quality), which is used of free-will offerings, see 
on Eph. v. 2. It describes the thing according to its effect on 
God, namely, that it is acceptable to Him; Ovolay «.7.r., how- 
ever, describes it according to what it 7s. — Sexrnv, evapeot.] 
acceptable, well-pleasing, a vividly asyndetic climax (on the 
former, comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 7); tg Oe, however, applies to 
the whole apposition ocpyy...evap. The asyndetic juxta- 
position of several epithets is frequent also in classical authors, 
from Homer onward (Ameis z. Od. iv, Ank.). As to the 
view, originating in the O. T., which regards works well- 





OHAP, IV. 19. 227 


pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see the expositors on Rom. 
xi, 1; 1 Pet. u. 5; Heb. xiii, 16. Comp. Philo, de vit. Mos. 
IL. p. 151: 4 yap ddAnOns icpsupyla rhs dv etn mri Wwuyis 
Geodirods evoéBera; passages from the Rabbins in Schoettg. 
Hor. p. 1006. 

Ver. 19. The thought starts from r@ Oe. But God, to 
whom your gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will 
recompense you.—Paul says o 5¢ @eds pov (comp. i. 3), because 
he himself had been the recipient of that which they had 
brought as a sacrifice pleasing to God; as his God (to whom 
he belongs and whom he serves, comp. on Rom. i. 8), there- 
fore, will God carry out the recompense. — wAnpecet] used 
with significant reference to memAvjp., ver. 18, according to the 
idea of recompense. Not, however, a wish (hence also in 
Codd. and in the Vulgate the reading wAnpécar), as Chrysos- 
tom, Luther, and others take it, but a promise. — aacav ypelav 
tay] likewise corresponding to the service which the readers 
had rendered ; for they had sent ets ri ypelay (ver. 16) of the 
apostle. To be understood as: every need which ye have, not 
merely bodily (so usually, following Chrysostom, who explains 
it as the fulfilment of the fourth petition, also van Hengel, de 
Wette, Wiesinger), and not merely spiritual (Pelagius, Rilliet, 
also mainly Weiss), but as it stands: every need. It is not, 
however, an earthly recompense which is meant (Hofmann), 
but (comp. on ver. 17) the recompense in the Messiah’s king- 
dom, where, in the enjoyment of the owrnpia, the highest 
satisfaction of every need (comp. on wAnp. ypelav, Thuc. i 70. 
4, and Wetstein in loc.) shall have set in amidst the full, 
blessed sufficiency of the eternal fa) (comp. Rom. viii. 17 f.; 
Rev. xxi. 4). There are specifications of this satisfaction in 
the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v.; comp. 
especially the yoptrac@ncecOe and yeXdcere, Luke vi. 21, also 


1 Hofmann very irrelevantly objects that it is out of place to speak of want in 
that kingdom. But just, in fact, on teat account is the bliss of the kingdom 
the complete satisfaction of every need. Comp. Rev. vii. 16 f. ; 2 Tim. iv. 7 f. 
Thus also is the perfect then put in the place of that which is in part. Con- 
sequently the idea of the satisfaction of every xpsfe in eternal life, where man 
even beholds God, and where He is all in all, is anything but a ** monstrous 
thought.” 


228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the ov pu) Sion ets Tov aiova in John iv. 14, and the sarcastic 
Kexopeopevot in 1 Cor. iv. 8. That it is the Messianic satis- 
faction in the édevOepia ris SoEns trav téxvewy tod Ocod (Rom. 
viii. 21), in the possession of the wAovros rijs SoEns tis KAnpo- 
vowlas avrod (Eph. i. 18), which is to be thought of, Paul 
himself states by év 0&7, which is to be taken as instrumental 
(Eph. i. 23, v. 18) and dependent on wAnp.: with glory, 
whereby the Messianic is indicated. Hofmann also, though 
he rejects the instrumental view, comes ultimately to it: 
“ Therewith and thus will God fulfil all their need, in that He 
gives them glory.”! Others, who also correctly join the words 
with arAnp., take them as a modal definition : in a glorious way, 
that is, amply, splendide, and the like. See Castalio, Beza, 
Calvin, and many others, including Hoelemann, van Hengel, 
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss. But what an indefinite yet 
peculiarly affected, and withal—by its so habitual reference 
elsewhere to the final judgment—misleading expression would 
this be for so simple an idea! And how far would it be from 
the apostle’s mind, considering his expectation of the nearness 
of the Parousia (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29, 31), to promise on 
this side of 1¢ a hearty recompense, which was to take place, 
moreover, ey Xpict@’Incod! An appeal is wrongly made to 
2 Cor. ix. 8, where an increase of means for further well- 
doing, to be granted through God’s blessing, and not the 
recompense, is the point under discussion. Others erroneously 
join éy do£n with 7d wAodros avtod (Grotius, Storr, Flatt, Rhein- 
wald, and others) : “pro amplissimis suis divitiis, id est, potestate 
sua omnia excedente,” Heinrichs. It is true that éy Sof 
might be attached without a connecting article (according to 
the combination wAoureiy dv tit, 1 Tim. vi. 8; comp. 1 Cor. 


1 In order, however, to bring out of the passage, notwithstanding this t» 3é%n, 
the idea of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes 3s%a mean the glory of the 
children of God which is hidden from the world, and which is the fulfilment of 
every want only in proportion ‘‘as there is lacking in us what, either corporally 
or spiritually, is necessary for the completion of our divine sonship.” Instead of 
such arbitrary inventions, let us keep clearly before us how great a weight in the 
very word of promise, which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies in the fact 
that the grand aim of all promise and hope, i.e. the glory of eternal life (Rom. 
v. 2, viii. 18, 21, ix. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 43 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17; Col. iii. 4; and many 
other passages), is once more presented to the reader's view. 


CHAP. IV. 20-28. 229 


i 5; 2 Cor. ix. 11); but Paul always connects mAovtos with 
the genitive of the thing, and mAovros ris So€ns in particular, 
said of God, is so constantly used by him, that it seems alto- 
gether unwarranted to assume the expression wAotvros év Sok 
in this passage. See Rom. ix. 23; Eph. i. 18, iii, 16; Col. 
i. 27. He would have written: cata ro wdovros ris S0Ens 
avrov, comp. Rom. ix. 23.—xata ro wNodtos avtov] that 
ts, an conformity with His being so rich, and consequently 
having so much to give. Comp. Rom. x. 12, xi. 33. This 
assures what is promised.—ev Xpior® ’Inood} definition 
annexed to wAnpwoe... So&y; that which is promised has 
its causal ground in Christ, who by His work has acquired for 
believers the eternal Sofa. Christ is, in fact, 4 éAmis tis 
d0Ens, Col. i. 27. 

Ver. 20. The conception of the superabundant salvation, 
which Paul has just promised from God, forces from his heart 
a doxology. — marpi] through Christ, in virtue of our vioGecia, 
Rom. viii. 15; Gal iv. 5. Astor. Ocg x. wrarpi jp. comp. 
on Gal. i. 5.— % d0f€a] sc. ein, the befitting glory. See on 
Eph. iii. 21; Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, e¢ al. — ets rovs aiav. Tav 
aiwy.| Gal. i. 5; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; 
1 Pet. iv. 11, v. 11, and frequently in Rev. As to the 
analysis of the expression, see on Eph. iii. 21. 

Vv. 21-23. Ilavra dywv] every one, no one in the church 
being excepted,—a point which is more definitely expressed by 
the singular.'— év X. 'I.] is not to be joined to Gyo (so 
usually, as by Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Matthies, van Hengel, 
de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to dozrdc. 
(comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), denoting the specifically 
Christian salutation, in conveying which the consciousness 
lives in Christ. This is the connection adopted by Ambrosiaster, 
Estius, Heinrichs, Rilliet, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and J. B. Light- 
foot, and it is the right one, since with dyoy it is self-evident 
that Christians are meant, and there would be no motive for 


1 Since Paul does not here express, as in other cases (Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12), the conception of mutual salutation (4Aasaevs), he has 
in éerécachs had in view the immediate recipients of the epistle (presbyters and 
deacons, i, 1). So also 1 Thess. v. 26. 


230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in the 
address i. 1, where rote dyious ev X. I. bears a certain formal 
character. —- oi adv éduot ddedd.] is the narrower circle of 
those Christians who were round the apostle in Rome, including 
also the official colleagues who were with him, though there is 
no ground for understanding these alone (Chrysostom, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even pointing 
distinctly to Timothy, Linus, and Clement. The difficulty, 
which has been raised in this case by a comparison of ii. 20, - 
is unfounded, since, in fact, the expression in ii. 20 excludes 
neither the giving of a salutation nor the mention of brethren ; 
groundless, therefore, are the attempted solutions of the 
difficulty, as, for example, that of Chrysostom, that either 
ii, 20 is meant ov mepl ray ev TH mode, or that Paul ov 
Tapatreirat Kat Tovrous adedpovs xadely (comp. Oecumenius, 
who brings forward the latter as a proof of the orAayyva of 
the apostle). Misapprehending this second and in itself correct 
remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction 
being drawn between two classes of companions in office, 
namely, travelling companions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas, 
and:those who were resident in the places where the apostle 
sgjourned (among whom van Hengel reckons in Rome, Clement, 
Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epaphroditus), and holds that only 
the latter class is here meant. The limits of the narrower circle 
designated by of ovy éuol ad, are not at all to be definitely 
drawn. Estius well says: “Qui .. . mihi vincto ministrant, 
qui me visitant, qui mecum hic in evangelio laborant.” — 
mavres ot dytou] generally, all Christians who are here ; comp. 
on 2 Cor. xiii, 12; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.— pariota 82] but most 
of all, pre-eminenily ; they have requested the apostle to give 
special prominence to their salutation. Comp. Plat. Critzas, 
p. 108 D: rovs re ddAXous KAnTéov Kat 8) Kal Ta paddoTa 
Mvnpocvvnv. Whether these persons stood in any personal 
relations to the Philippians, remains uncertain. It is enough 
to assume that Paul had said to them much that was honour- 
able concerning the church to which he was about to write. 
— oi é« ris Kaloapos oixias] se. Gyvot, as is plain from the 
connection with the preceding (in opposition to Hofmann): 


CHAP. IV. 21-28, 231 


those from the emperor's house (from the Palatium, see Botiger, 
Beitr. IL. p. 49) who belong to the saints) We have to think 
of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to 
Grotius, Hitzig, and others: freedmen), who dwelt, or at least 
were employed, in the palace, In this way there is no need for 
departing from the immediate meaning of the word, and taking 
it in the sense of household (Hofmann). In no case, however, 
can we adopt as the direct meaning of olxia the sense of 
domestic servants, a meaning which it does not bear even in 
Xen. Mem. ii. 7.6; Joseph. Antt. xvi. 5.8; and Tac. Hist. 
ti. 92;! domestic servants would be oixerefa. Others have 
taken oixia, in accordance with current usage, as family 
(1 Cor. xvi. 15, and frequently), and have understood kinsmen 
of the emperor, a meaning which in itself seems by no-means 
shown by Philo in Flace. p. 190 A to be at variance with 
linguistic usage’ (in opposition to Hofmann). So recently 
Baur, who needed this point for his combinations against the 
genuineness of the epistle, and van Hengel.” But apart from 
the fact that through Nero himself this family was greatly 
diminished, and that conversions among those related to the 
emperor were @ priorz (comp. also 1 Cor. 1. 26 ff.) very impro- 
bable, doubtless some historical traces of such a striking success 
would have been preserved in tradition.* Matthies, quite 


1 ‘Where it is said of those who entered the service of the emperor : ‘‘ in domum 
Caesaris transgreasi.” Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9: wpiv sig roy BacirAssoy olxey 
weaprArlsiy. . 

* For in Philo /.c. it is said regarding Herod Agrippa: ‘‘ Even though he were 
not king, but only one of the emperor’s kinsmen (is ris Kaivepes olxias), it would 
still be necessary to prefer and honour him.” 

* Whether Chrysostom and his successors understood here members of the 
émperial family, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chrysostom does not take 
the word itself, sizia, as family, but explains it by +2 Baviaua, palace, and finds 
in the salutation a purpose of encouragement : si yap of iv vois BawiAsions warren 
nari~perncay Sid viv Bacidia rev obparev, WeAAY MAAAOY Bleeds vPh Tere weii?. 
Comp. Theodoret, Oecumenins, Theophylact. 

4 Certainly Baur believes that he has found these traces in sufficient number. 
Flavius Clemens, namely, was a kinsman of Domitian (see on ver. 3). Now, 
since out of this Clement grew the Clemens Romanus of Christian tradition, the 
latter also must have been a kinsman of the imperial family, as indeed the 
Homil. Clement. iv. 7, comp. xiv. 10, designate him as donp wpés yiveus TiPspien 
Kaieapes. He, therefore, would be exactly the man, in whom Christianity was 


232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


arbitrarily, understands the Praetorians, as if Paul had written : 
ot ée Tov mpattwpiov (i. 13). This also applies, in opposition 
to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420, who, con- 
sidering the Praetorium to be a portion of the palace (see 
remark on i. 13), thinks the apostle alludes especially to the 
Praetorians. Those who transfer the epistle to Caesarea (see 
Introduction, § 2), suppose the Praetorium of Herod in that 
place to be intended, and consequently also think of Prae- 
torians, Acts xxiii 35 (Paulus, Bottger) ; or (so Rilliet) taking 
oixla as fumilia, of administrators of the imperial private 
domain, called Caesariani or Procuratorese—a view against 
which the plural should have warned them ; or even of “ the 
family of the imperial freedman Felix” (Thiersch). What 
persons, moreover, were meant (various of the older expositors 
have even included Seneca’ among them), is a point just as 
unknown to us, as it was well known to the Philippians or 
became known to them through Epaphroditus. The general 
result is, that people from the imperial palace were Christians, 
and that those could obtain access to the apostle probably 


represented in the circle of the imperial house itself. ‘‘ Concluding from one 
that there were sevcral, the author of the epistle might make his apostle write 
earnest salutations to the church in Philippi from believing members of the 
imperial house in the plural,” ete. Thus does criticism, departing from the solid 
ground of history, lose itsclf in the atmosphere of subjective inventions, where 
hypothesis finds no longer either support or limit. Indecd, Baur now goes 
forther beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and discovers that the mention of 
Clement even throws @ new light over the whole plan of the epistle. Witi 
this Clement, namely, and the participation, as attcstcd by him, of the imperial 
house in the gespel, is given the wpexorh rod siayy. (i. 12), and with the latter 
the feeling of joyfulness, which expresses itself throughout the eristle as the 
ground-tone of the apostle (ti. 17 f., comp. iii. 1, iv. 1, 4, 10), and which is 
ogain and ogain the refrain cf each separato eection. Only by the preponderance 
of this feeling is it to be explained that the authcr makes his aposile even 
express the hore of a tpeedy liberation (ii. 24). But with this joy there is also 
blended, with a neutralizing «ffect, the idca of a nearly approaching death, 
i. 20-24, and this divided state cf mind between life and death betrays an suthor 
‘echo had already before his eyes as an actual fact the end of the axzecstle, 
which was 50 far from harmonizing with all these presuppositions.” 

1 See generally on ‘‘ Paul and Seneca,” and the apocryphal fourteen Latin 
letters exchanged between them, Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1858, 2. 3; 
Reuss in Herzog’s Encyklop. XIV. p. 274 fi.; J. B. Lightfoot, Exe. II. p. 
268 ff., 327 ff. ; latest edition of the text of these epistles in the Theol. Quartalechr. 
1867, p. 609 ff. 


CHAP. IV. 21—28. 233 


with special ease and frequency ; hence their especial saluta- 
tion. The question also, whether one or another of the persons 
saluted in Rom. xvi. should be understood as included here 
(see especially J. B. Lightfoot, p. 173 ff.), must remain entirely 
undecided. Calvin, moreover, well points to the working of 
the divine mercy, in that the gospel “in illam scelerum | 
omnium et flagitiorum abyssum penetraverit.”— 1 ydpus Tr. cup. 
"I. X.] see on Gal. i. 6.— peta mdyrav ty.| Comp. Rom. 
xvi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 24; 2 Cor. xiii, 13; 2 Thess. iii, 18; 
Tit. i. 15, 


Digitized by Google 


THE 
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


INTRODUCTION 


§ 1. THE CHURCH. 


nt hy BITH the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, the 
‘y Y fi letter now before us is the only one of all the epistles 
BA Aig = ©of Paul that have been preserved, which is addressed 
to a church that was neither founded by Paul him- 
self nor even subsequently visited by him in person (see oni. 7, 
ii 1), although the Colossian Philemon was his immediate dis- 
ciple (Philem. 19), and the Book of Acts relates that the apostle 
passed through Phrygia on two occasions (Acts xvi. 6, xviii 23). 
There, in Phrygia Magna on the Lycus, was situate Kolossae, 
or Kolassae (see the critical remarks oni. 2). It is designated 
by Herodotus, vii. 30, as srodAus peyddAn, and by Xenophon, 
Anab. i. 2. 6, a8 evdaiuoy x. peyddn; but, subsequently, as 
compared with the cities of Apamea and Laodicea which had 
become great (weyiora: ... modeus, Strabo xii. 8, p. 576), it 
became so reduced, that it is placed by Strabo, /.c., only in the 
list of the Phrygian vroAicpuara, and by Pliny, WV. H. v. 41, 
only among the oppida, although celeberrima. According to 
the Eusebian Chronicle and Oros. vii. 7, it also was visited by 





? See Hofmann, Introduct. in lectionem ep. P. ad Col. Lips. 1749 ; Bohmer, 
Isagoge in ep. ad Col. Berol. 1829 ; Mayerhoff, Der Brief an d. Kol. kritisch 
geprife, Berlin, 1888 ; Wiggers, d. Verh. d. Ap. P. zud. christl. Gem. in Kol. 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 165 ff. ; Leo Montet, Introd. in ep. ad Col. 1841; 
Klopper, De orig. ep. ad Eph. et Col. 1853; Weiss in Herzog’s Hncykl. XIX. 
p- 717 ff ; Schenkel in his Bibellex. IIT. p. 565 ff. ; Holtzmann, Kriz. der 
Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, 1872. 

285 


236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the earthquake which, according to Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27, devas- 
tated Laodicea. This took place not so late as the tenth year 
of Nero’s reign (Eus. Chron.), or even the fourteenth (Orosius), 
but, according to Tacitus, in the seventh—about the same 
time with the composition of our epistle, perhaps shortly 
afterwards, as the earthquake is not mentioned in it. In the 
Middle Ages the city was again flourishing under the name 
Chonae (Theophylact and Oecumenius on 1 2; Constant. 
Porphyr. Them. 1. 3); it 1s in the present day the village 
of Chonus (see Pococke, Morgenl. III. p. 114; and generally, 
Mannert, Geogr. VI. 1, p. 127f.; Bohmer, Jsag. p. 21 ff; 
Steiger, p. 13 ff.). 

By whom the church—which consisted for the most part 
of Gentile Christians, i. 21, 27, ii, 13—-was founded, is not 
unknown ; Epaphras is indicated by i. 7 f. as its founder, 
and not merely as its specially faithful and zealous teacher. 
See the remark after i. 7 f. That it had received and accepted 
the Pauline gospel, is certain from the whole tenor of the 
epistle. It may be also inferred as certain from ii. 1 com- 
pared with Acts xviii 23, that the time of its being founded 
was subsequent to the visit to Phrygia.in Acts xvii 23. 
From the address (i. 2) we are not warranted to infer (with 
Bleek), that the body of Christians there had not yet been 
constituted into a formal church; comp. on Rom. i. 7. It 
was so numerous, that it had a section assembling in the house 
of Philemon (Philem. 2). 


§ 2. OCCASION, AIM, TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION, CONTENTS. 


The apostle had received through Epaphras, who had come 
to him (i. 7 f, iv. 12; Philem. 23), detailed accounts of 
the condition of the church, and of its perils and needs at 
that time, whereby he found himself induced—and the re- 
moval of Epaphras from the church at the moment certainly 
made the matter appear all the more urgent—to despatch 
Tychicus, an inhabitant of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 4), to Colossae, 
and to send with him this epistle (iv. 7 f., comp. Eph. vi. 21 f.). 





INTRODUCTION. 237 


Tychicus was also to visit the Ephesians, and to convey the 
letter written at the same time to them (see on Eph. Introd. 
§ 2). Tychicus was despatched at the same time with Onesimus, 
the Colossian slave (iv. 9), who had to deliver to his master 
Philemon the well-known letter from the apostle (Philem. 11 f). 
Doubtless Onesimus also—who had come, although still as a 
heathen, from Colossae to Paul—brought with him accounts as 
to the state of matters there, as he had been a servant in a Chris- 
tian household amidst lively Christian intercourse (Philem. 2). 
In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to 
the letter, the aim of the apostle was not merely to confirm 
the church generally in ds Christian faith and life, but also 
to warn i against heretical perils by which it was threatened. 
The false teachers whom he had in view were Jewish-Christians ; 
not, however, such as those who, as in Galatia and in the neigh- 
bourhood of Philippi (Phil. in. 2 ff.), restricting themselves to 
the sphere of legal requirement and especially of the necessity 
of circumcision, did away with Christian freedom, the founda- 
tion of which is justification by faith,—but such as had mized 
up Christian Judaism with theosophie speculation. While they 
likewise adhered to circumcision (ii. 11), and to precepts as to 
meats and feasts (ii. 16), to the prejudice of Christ's atoning 
work (ii. 13 ff.), they at the same time—and this forms their 
distinctive character—put forward a philosophy as to the higher — 
spirit-world, with the fancies and subtleties of which (ii. 18) 
were combined, as practical errors, a conceited humility, wor- 
ship of angels, and unsparing bodily asceticism (ii. 20—23)— 
extravagances of an unhealthy Gnosis, that could not fail to 
find a fruitful soil in the mystico-fanatical character of the 
Phrygian people, which served as an appropriate abode for- 
merly for the orgiastic cultus of Cybele, and subsequently for 
Montanism.! These theosophists, however, came most keenly 
into conflict with the exalted rank and the redeeming work 
of Christ, to whom they did not leave His full divine dignity 
(as etxwy tod Ocod x«.7.2., i. 15 ff.), but preferred to assign to 
1 The theosophic tendency, which haunted Colossae, may help to explain the 


fact that Paul does not make use, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, of arguments 
derived from the O. T. The epistle contains no quotation from Scripture, 


238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


‘Him merely a rank in the higher order of spirits, while they 
ascribed to the angels a certain action in bringing about the 
Messianic salvation, entertaining, probably, at the same time, 
demiurgic ideas as to the creation of the world. We must 
not conclude from i. 18, i. 12, that they also rejected the 
resurrection of Christ; into such an important point as this 
Paul would have entered directly and at length, as in 1 Cor. 
xv. But that in dualistic fashion they looked on matter as 
evil, may be reasonably inferred from their adoration of spirits, 
and from their asceticism mortifying the body, as well as from 
the at all events kindred phenomenon of later Gnosticism. 
Attempts have been made in very different ways to ascer- 
tain more precisely the historical character of the Colossian 
false teachers, and on this point we make the following re- 
marks: (1) They appear as Jewish-Christians, not as Jews (in 
opposition to which see ii. 19), which they were held to be 
by Schoettgen, Eichhorn, and others, some looking on them as 
Pharisees (Schoettgen ; comp. Schulthess, Engelwelt, p. 110 f.) ; 
others, as indirect opponents of Christianity through the sem- 
blance of more than earthly sanctity (Eichhorn) ; others, as 
adherents of the Alexandrine Neo-Platonism (doctrine of the 
Logos) (so Juncker, Kommentar, Introd. p. 43 ff.); others, as 
Chaldaeans or Magians (Hug); others, as syncretistic wuniversalists, 
who would have allowed te Christ a subordinate position in 
their doctrinal structure and passed Christianity off as a stage 
of Judaism (Schneckenbur¢ger, last in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1832, 
p. 840 f.; in opposition to him, Rheinwald, de pseudodoct. 
Coloss. Bonn, 1834). Just as little were they adherents of a 
heathen philosophy, whether they might be looked upon as of 
the Epicurean (Clemens Alexandrinus), or of the Pythagorean 
(Grotius), or of the Platonic and Stoic (Heumann) school, or 
of no definite school at all (Tertullian, Euthalius, Calixtus). 
(2) The right view of these false teachers, in accordance with 
history, necessarily carries us back to Essenism. In opposition 
to the opinion that they were Christian Zssenes (so Chemnitz, 
Zachariae, Storr, Flatt, Credner, Thiersch, histor. Standp. p.2'70f., 
Ritschl, Ewald, Holtzmann, ¢ al.), it is not to be urged that 
the Essene washings, and various other peculiarities of Essenism, 


INTRODUCTION. 239 


remain unnoticed in the epistle; or that the secluded and 
exclusive character peculiar to this society, and the limitation 
of their abode to Syria and Palestine, do not suit the case of 
the Colossian heretics; or that the hypocrisy, conceit, and 
persuasiveness which belonged to the latter do not harmonize 
with the character of the Essenes, as it is otherwise attested. 
These difficulties are got rid of by comparison with the Roman 
ascetics (Rom. xiv.), who likewise were Essene Jewish-Chris- 
tians, only more unprejudiced and inoffensive than these 
Asiatics, whose peculiar character, which had already received 
a more Gnostic development and elaboration, was of a philo- 
sophic stamp, addicted to rhetorical art, full of work - piety 
and hypocrisy, and therefore fraught with more danger to 
Pauline Christianity, the greater the opportunity they had, just 
then whilst the great apostle was himself far away and in 
bonds, of raising their head. Now, if at that time the 
Essene influence was not at all unfrequent among the Jews, 
and thence also among Jewish-Christians (see Ritschl, alt- 
kath. Kirche, p. 232 ff, and in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1855, 
p. 355), and if, beyond doubt, the theosophy of the Essenes 
—kindred with the Alexandrine philosophy, although in origin 
Jewish—and their asceticism (see Joseph. Bell. ii. 8; Philo, 
Quod omnis probus liber, p. 876 ff. ; Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 11 ff.), 
as well as their adherence to their tradition (Joseph. lc. ii. 
8. 7; comp. Credner, Beitr. I. p. 369), are very much in 
accord with the characteristic marks of our heretics (comp. 
generally Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 286 ff.), the latter are with 
justice designated as Jewish-Christian Gnostics, or more ac- 
curately, as Gnostics addicted to an Essene tendency.’ This 
designation, however, is not to be taken in the sense of any 
subsequently elaborated system, but must be understood as 
intimating that in the doctrines of our theosophists there were 
apparent the widely-spread, and especially in Essenism strongly- 
asserted, elements of Gnosticism, out of which the formal 
Gnostic systems were afterwards gradually and variously deve- 
loped (comp. Bohmer, Jsag. p. 56 ff. ; Neander, Gelegenheitsschr. 


1 Comp. Grau, Eniwickelungegeach. d.n. t. Schriftth. II. p. 145 ff. ; Lipsius 
in Schenkel’s Bibel-Lezxic. II. p. 498. 


240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


p. 40 ff.; Schott, Zsag. p. 272; Weiss, Jc. p. 720; Grau, Le. ; 
Holtzmann, p. 296 ff.; Clemens in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, 
p. 418 ff.). Among the latter, the Cerinthian doctrine in par- 
ticular is, in various points, closely allied with that combated 
in our epistle (comp. F. Nitzsch on Bleek, Vorles. p.15f.; 
Lipsius, d. Gnosticismus, 1860, p. 81 f.), although we are not 
justified in considering with Mayerhoff that this polemic was 
already directed against Cerinthus and his adherents, and 
thence arguing against the genuineness of the epistle. A 
similar judgment is to be formed regarding their relation to the 
Valentinians, who often appealed to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians; and Baur leaps much too rapidly to a conclusion, 
when he thinks (Paulus, IJ. p. 4 ff) that in the Colossian false 
teachers are to be found the Gnostic Hbionites (who no doubt 
originated from Essenism)—thereby making our epistle a pro- 
duct of the fermentation of the post-apostolic age, and connect- 
ing it as a spurious twin-letter with that to the Ephesians. 
Holtzmann forms a much more cautious judgment, when he 
takes his stand at a preliminary stage of Gnosticism ; but even 
this he places in the post-apostolic age,—a position which the 
less admits of proof, seeing that we have no other letter from 
the later period of the apostle’s life before the letters of the 
captivity and subsequent to that to the Romans, and possess 
for comparison no letter of Paul at all addressed to those 
regions where the Gnostic movements had their seat. The false 
teachers have, moreover, been designated as Cabbalistic (Herder, 
Kleuker, Osiander in the 7b. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 96 ff.) ; 
but this must likewise be restricted to the effect that the 
theosophic tendency generally, the special Essene-Christian 
shape of which Paul had to combat, may have probably been 
at bottom akin to the subsequently developed Cabbala, although 
the origin of this Jewish metaphysics is veiled in obscurity. 
(3) We must decidedly set aside, were it only on account of 
the legal strictness of the men in question, the assumption of 
Michaelis, that they were disciples of Apollos, to whom Hein- 
richs adds also disciples of John, as well as Essenes and other 
Judaistic teachers, and even a malevolum hominum genus ex 
ethnicis—of which, in itself extremely improbable, medley the 


INTRODUCTION. 241 


epistle itself contains no trace. (4) In contrast to all pre- 
vious attempts to classify the Colossian false teachers, Hofmann 
prefers to abide by the position that they were Jewish 
Christians, “ who, starting from the presupposition that the 
Gentile Christians, in their quality as belonging to Ethnicism, 
were subject to the spirits antagonistic to God which ruled 
therein, recommended—with a view to complete their state 
of salvation, which, it was alleged, in this respect needed 
supplement—a sanctification of the outward life, based partly 
on the Sinaitic law, partly on dogmas of natural philosophy.” 
But this cannot be made good as an adequate theory by the 
explanation of the characteristic individual traits, since, on the 
contrary, that theosophico - Judaistic false teaching presents 
sufficient evidences of its having its historical root in Essenism, 
and its further development and diversified elaboration in the 
later Gnosticism, provided that with unprejudiced exegesis we 
follow the apostle’s indications in regard to the point; see 
especially on 1. 16-23. 

In date and place of composition our epistle coincides with 
that to the Ephesians, and is, like the latter, to be assigned 
not, in conformity with the usual opinion, to the Roman, but - 
to the Caesarean captivity of the apostle. See on Eph. Introd. 
§ 2. In opposition to this view,’ de Wette, Bleek, and others 
attach decisive importance specially to two points: (1) That 
what Paul says in Col. iv. 3, 11 of his labours for the gospel 
harmonizes with Acts xxviii. 31, but not with his sojourn in 
Caesarea, Acts xxiv. 23. But iv. 11 contains no special state- 
ment at all as to the labours of the apostle in captivity, and as 
to iv. 3 we must observe that he there expresses the longing for 
Suture free working. The latter remark applies also in oppo- 
sition to Wieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420) and 
Hofmann, who likewise regard iv. 3 f. as decisive in favour 
of the Roman captivity, while Hofmann finds the statement 
as to Mark and Jesus contained in iv. 11 incompatible with 
the situation in Caesarea (but see in loc.). In assuming that 


1 Which, with Hausrath, Laurent, and others, Sabatier also (Vapétre Paul, 
1870, p. 193 ff.) prefers, while Weiss leaves the point undecided. Hofmann 
rejects our view, and Holtzmann does not find it the more probable. 


COL. Q 


i) 


42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the conversion of the Gentile Onesimus (Philem. 10) is incom- 
patible with the statement in Acts xxiv. 23, Wieseler infers 
too much from the words tév idlwy avrod (Acts xxiv. 23), 
especially as the intention of a liberal custody is obvious in 
the arrangement of Felix. (2) That tn Rome Paul might have 
thought of the journey to Phrygia hoped for at Philem. 22, 
but not in Caesarea (comp. Hofmann, p. 217), where, accord- 
ing to Acts xix. 21, Rom. i. 13, xv. 23 ff, Acts xxiii. 11, he 
had the design of going to Rome, but a return to Asia Minor 
would have been, after his language in Acts xx. 25, far from 
his thoughts. But although certainly, when he spoke the 
words recorded in Acts xx. 25, a return to Asia was far from his 
thoughts, nevertheless this idea might subsequently occur to 
him just as easily at Caesarea as at Rome ; indeed more easily, 
for, if Paul had been set free at Caesarea, he could combine his 
intended journey to Rome with a passage through Asia. 
There is no doubt that when at Rome he expressed the hope 
(Phil. ii. 24) of again visiting the scene of his former labours ; 
but why should he not have done the same when at Caesarea, 
so long, namely, as his appeal to the emperor had not 
_ taken place? See also on Philem. 22—If our epistle was 
written in Caesarea, the time of its composition was the year 
60 or 61, while the procuratorship was still in the hands of 
Felix. 

As regards the contents of the epistle, after the salutation 
(i. 1 f.), a thanksgiving (i. 3-8), and intercessory prayer 
(i. 9-12), Paul passes on (ver. 12) to the blessedness of 
the redemption which his readers had obtained through Christ, 
whose dignity and work are earnestly and very sublimely 
set before their minds with reference to the dangers arising 
from heresy (i. 13-23). Next Paul testifies to, and gives the 
grounds for, the joy which he now felt in his sufferings as an 
apostle (i. 24-29). By way of preparation for his warnings 
against the false teachers, he next expresses his great care for 
his readers and all other Christians who do not personally know 
him, as concerns their Christian advancement (ii. 1-3), and 
then subjoins the warnings themselves in detail (ii. 4-23). 
Next follow moral admonitions (iii. 1-iv. 6); a commendatory 





INTRODUCTION. 243 


mention of Tychicus and Onesimus (iv. 7-9); salutations with 
commendations and injunctions (iv. 10-17); and the conclu- 
sion appended by the apostle’s own hand (ver. 18). 


§ 3. GENUINENESS. 


Even if it be allowed that the apparent allusions to our 
Epistle which one might find in the apostolic Fathers 
(Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius) are uncertain, and that even 
the mention of wpwrotoxos mdons xticews in Justin Mart. c. 
Tryph. p. 311 (comp. p. 310, 326), and Theophil ad Aufol. 
ii. 31, may be independent of Col. i. 15, still the eaternal 
attestation of our Epistle is so ancient, continuous, and general 
(Marcion, the school of Valentinus; Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 14. 1 
and v. 14. 2, who first cites it by name; Canon Murat.; Clem. 
Al. Strom. i. p. 277, iv. p. 499, v. p. 576, vi. p. 645; Tert. 
Praeser. 7, de resutr, 23; Origen, ¢. Cels. v. 8, etc.), that no 
well-founded doubt can from this quarter be raised. 

But modern criticism has assailed the Epistle on infernal 
grounds; and the course of its development has been as fol- 
lows. Mayerhoff . Brief an die Kol. mit vornehml. Beriick- 
sicht. d. Pastoralbr. kritisch geprift, Berl. 1838) assumed 
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, to the 
prejudice of our Epistle (de Wette inverts the procedure to 
the prejudice of the Ephesian Epistle); Baur, on the other 
hand (Paulus, II. p. 8 ff.), rejected both ‘the cognate Epistles ; 
comp. also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. II. p. 325 ff 
According to Weisse (philos. Dogmat. I. p. 146), our Epistle, 
like most of the Pauline letters, is pervaded by interpola- 
tions. Hitzig also (zur Kritik paulin. Briefe, 1870, p. 22 ff.) 
asserts their presence, and ascribes them to the author of the © 
(un-Pauline) Ephesian Epistle, who, after the composition of 
his own work, had manipulated afresh a Pauline letter to the 
Colossians, the genuine text of which he misunderstood. In 
assigning his reasons for this view, Hitzig does not go beyond 
the bounds of bare assertions and misunderstandings on his own 
part. Hoenig (in Hilgenfeld’s Zetischr. 1872, p. 63 ff.), after 


244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


comparing the two kindred letters, propounds the view that 
all those passages of the Epistle to the Colossians are to be 
regarded as interpolations, regarding which it can be shown 
that the author of the (not genuine) Epistle to the Ephesians 
did not know them, But Hoenig has reserved to a future 
time the exhibition of the detailed grounds for this bold view, 
and has consequently for the present withdrawn it from 
criticism. After thorough investigation, Holtzmann (Kritik d. 
Epheser- u. Kolosserbriefe, 1872) has arrived at the hypothesis 
of a great series of interpolations, the author of which was 
none other than the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians 
written, according to MHoltzmann, somewhere about the 
year 100, who, with the help of this writing of his own, had 
worked up the short and genuinely Pauline letter to the 
Colossians, which he found in existence, into a new and 
amplified form, and thereby rescued it in a second enlarged 
edition from oblivion. But neither can the course of interpo- 
lation thus set forth be exegetically verified, nor can it—seeing 
that all the witnesses from the beginning prove only the present 
shape of the letter, and no trace has been left of any earlier one 
—be without arbitrariness rendered critically intelligible, as in 
fact such a procedure on the part of an interpolator, who had 
withal so much mastery of free movement in the sphere of 
Pauline thought and language that he could write the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, would yield a laborious and—as overlaying 
and obscuring the given nucleus—somewhat clumsy mosaic 
patchwork, which, from a psychological point of view, would 
be hardly conceivable, 

Mayerhoff, in order to characterize the Epistle as a pro- 
duction of possibly the second century epitomized from the 
Epistle to the Ephesians with the addition of some contro- 
versial matter, lays stress on (a) differences in language and 
style, (b) deviations from the Pauline character both of con- 
ception and of representation, (c) the comparison with the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, and (d) the supposed reference of the 
polemics to Cerinthus. But, first, the stamp of language and 
the style are so entirely Pauline, that particular expressions, 
which we are accustomed to in Paul’s writings but do not find 





INTRODUCTION. 245 
here (Sseatoctvn «.7.2., sarnpla KTM, atjoxadduwis, vraxon, 
dpa, 810, Ser, ért, et al.), or dmrak Neyopweva which occur (as 
E000 pnoxela, miBavoroyia, et al.), cannot furnish any counter 
argument, since, in fact, they are fully outweighed by similar 
phenomena in epistles which are indubitably genuine. There 
is the less ground for urging the occurrence only six times of 
yap (Teat. Rec.), as even in the larger Epistle to the Ephesians 
it occurs only eleven times, and in the Second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians only five times. And how little are such 
mechanical standards of comparison at all compatible with a 
mind so free in movement and rich in language as was that of 
Paul! In his case even the order of the words “EAAny xat 
"Iovdatos (iii. 11) cannot seem surprising, nor can the com- 
bining of designations similar in meaning (as i 6, 10, iL 
18, 23) appear as a strange hunting after synonyms. See, 
besides, Huther, Schlussbetracht. p. 420 ff.; Hofmann, p. 179 f. 
Secondly, un-Pauline conceptions are only imported into the 
Epistle by incorrect interpretations ; and the peculiar develop- 
ments of doctrine, which Paul gives only here, but which are 
in no case without their preliminary conditions and outlines in 
the earlier Epistles, were suggested to him by the special occa- 
sion of the letter (as, in particular, the development of the 
relation of Christ to the angel-world). And if the Epistle is 
said to lack in its dogmatic portion the logical arrangement 
which is found in the hortatory portion (the reverse being the 
case in the genuine Epistles) ; if Pauline freshness and vigour 
are said to be wanting, and poverty of thought to prevail; 
these are judgments which in some cases are utterly set aside 
by a right exegesis, and in others are of a partisan character 
and aesthetically incorrect. The complaint, in particular, of 
“ poverty of thought” is characteristic of the procedure of such 
criticism towards its victims, no matter how precarious a 
subjective standard must ever be in such questions, or how 
various may be the judgments which are put forth as based 
on taste (according to Bohmer, Jsag. p. 160, our Epistle is 
“viva, pressa, solida, nervis plena, mascula”). Thirdly, the 
affinity of our Epistle with that to the Ephesians in style and 
contents is explained by their composition at the same time, 


246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


—as respects which, however, the priority lies with our letter, 
—and by the analogy of the circumstances giving occasion 
to write, which in either case the apostle had in view.’ See 
on Eph. Introd. § 3. Lastly, the assertion that Cerinthus is 
assailed is erroneous—a critical prothysteron ; see § ‘2. 

Baur,? who describes the Epistle to the Ephesians and that 
to the Colossians, which are held at any rate to stand or fall 
together, as un-Pauline, and places the former in a secondary 
relation to the latter, looks upon this latter as combating an 
Ebionitism, which would have nothing to do with a recognition 
of the universalism of Christianity at the cost of renounc- 
ing everything that was incompatible with the absoluteness 
of the Christian principle. He holds, however, that this 
universalism was not that based on the Pauline anthropology, 
but only the external universalism, which consisted in the 
coalition between Gentiles and Jews effected by the death of 
Christ, and in which, alongside of the forgiveness of sin, the 
Clementines placed the aim of Christ's death. Thus, accord- 
ing to Baur, the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians are 
to be placed in the post-apostolic period of a conciliation 
between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. The highest 
expression of this conciliatory destination is the Christology 
of the Epistles, in so far, namely, as Christ appears as the 
primordial principle of all being, and His whole work onward 
to His exaltation as the self-realization of this idea, according 
to which-the pre-existence is the main point of the Christology. 
The arguments of Baur are mostly derived from the Epistle to 
the Ephesians ; those that particularly affect our Epistle, and 
are supposed to attest a Gnostic stamp impressed on it (such 
as the idea of Christ as the central point of the whole kingdom 
of spirits, the notion of the wA7pwya, etc.), will be shown by 
the exposition to be a homogeneous development of elements of 


1 The assertion is being constantly repeated, that Paul could not have copied 
himself. But, in fact, we have not among the apostle’s letters any other two, 
which were written so immediately at the same time, and to churches whose 
wants were similar. If we had had two such, who knows but that they would 
have presented an analogous resemblance ? 

* Planck, Késtlin, Hilgenfeld, Hockstra (in the Theolog. Tijdschrift, 1868), 
as well as Schwegler, agree in substance with Baur. 





INTRODUCTION. 247 


doctrine already presented in the earlier Epistles.’ Concerning 
these Christological doubts, see, moreover, especially Raebiger, 
Christol. Pawl. p. 42 ff., and generally Klopper, de orig. epp. ad 
Eph. e& Coloss, Gryphisw. 1853 ; Hofmann, p. 181 ff.; Rich. 
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 196 ff. ; Sabatier, Papétre Paul, p. 
207 ff? It may be observed in general, that if our Epistle (and 
that to the Ephesians) is nothing more than a pseudo-apostolic 
movement of Gnosis against Ebionitism, then every other 
Epistle is so also, since every other writing in the N. T. may, 
with almost equal justice, be brought under some such category 
of subjective presupposition; and that it is in reality incon- 
sistent, if the whole N. T. is not (and for the most part it 
has already been) made out to be a collection of later books 
written with some set purpose, which, by means of their 
pseudo-epigraphic names, have succeeded in deceiving the 
vigilance of centuries. The fabrication of such an epistle 
as that to the Colossians would be more marvellous than its 
originality. “Non est cujusvis hominis, Paulinum pectus 
effingere ; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus,” 
Erasmus, Annot. ad iv. 16. 

"Ewald has modified the theory of its composition by the 
apostle in a peculiar way. ‘In his view, the Epistle is indeed 
planned and carried out quite after the manner of the apostle ; 
but after the contents had been settled by preliminary dis- 
cussion, Paul committed the composition to Timothy (i. 1), 
again, however, towards the end, dictating the words more in 
person, and adding the final salutation (iv. 18) with his own 
hand. But, first, this hypothesis is already rendered doubtful 


1 The exegesis of the Epistle will also dispose of what Hilgenfeld, who rejects 
the genuineness of the Ephesian and Colossian letters, adduces by way of estab- 
lishing his assertion, that ‘‘the new and characteristic feature of the Colossian 
Epistle consists simply in this, that it represents Paulinism no longer merely 
in contradistinction to Jewish Christianity, but also in contradistinction to 
Gnosticism (proper) ;” sce Hilgenfeld’s Zeiéschr. 1870, p. 245f. We see, he says, 
Paulinism in this case not merely repelling, but even in part adopting, Gnostic 
clements.—For Baur’s Gnostic interpretation of the waspepa, see especially his 
Paulus, II. p. 12 ff., and Neutest. Theol. p. 257 ff. 

2 Compare, also generally, in opposition to the hypothesis of a positive in- 
fluence of Gnosis on N. T. doctrinal ideas, Heinrici, d. Valent. Gnosis u. d. heil, 
Schr. 1871. 


248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


by the fact that it is not made to extend uniformly to chap. iv. 
Secondly, it may be urged against it, that a Timothy himself, 
even after preliminary discussion with the apostle, could hardly 
have appropriated or imitated the completely Pauline stamp in 
such measure, as in this Epistle it recurs at every sentence 
and in every turn. Thirdly, the conjectured course of pro- 
cedure does not appear in any other-of Paul’s Epistles, and yet 
the present was one of the shortest and the easiest to be 
dictated. Fourthly, such a procedure can scarcely be recon- 
ciled with the high value and authority, well understood by 
the apostle, which an Epistle from him could not but possess 
for any Christian church, especially for one not founded by him- 
self. Fifthly, we cannot but naturally regard the concluding 
salutation by his own hand (iv. 18) as simply the token of 
his own, and not of a merely indirect, composition (2 Thess. 
iii 17). Sixthly, according to iv. 16, a similar merely indirect 
composition on his part would have to be attributed also to the 
Epistle to the Laodiceans, since the two Epistles, as they were 
to be read in both churches, must have been, as it were, cast in 
the same mould, and of essentially the same import. Lastly, 
the peculiar dangerous character of the spiritualistic Judaism, 
which had to be opposed in the Epistle, was precisely such as to 
claim the undivided personal action of the apustle, which was 
certainly, even in the enforced leisure of his imprisonment, 
sufficiently within his power for the purpose of his epistolary 
labours. The grounds on which the foregoing hypothesis is 
based'—and in the main the assailants of the genuineness 


' Ewald appeals (presupposing, moreover, the non-genuinencss of the Epistle 
to the Ephesians) to the longer compound words, such as dveavawAnpiw, &we- 
uararrAdsou, dwardorpin, wapareyifeuns, Wirobpnentia, s@larmedevrsia ; to un- 
usual modes of expression, such as JiAw imac sidivas (ii. 1), 3 leew for the 
explanatory that is (i. 24 [27], ii. 10, iii. 14), in connections capable of being 
easily misunderstood ; to the circumstances, that in the progress of the discourse 
and in the structure of sentences we entirely miss ‘‘ the exceedingly forcible flow 
and the exultant ebullition, and then, again, the quick concentration and the 
firm collocation of the thoughts ;” that the words 3i, yds, and 422d are less 
frequently found, and that the sentences are connected more by simple little rela- 
tional words and in excessively long series, like the links of a chain, alongside 
of which is also frequently found the merely rhetorical accumulation of sen- 
tences left without links of connection (such as i. 14, 20, 25 f., 27, ii. 8, 11, 28, 





INTRODUCTION. 249 


have already used them—are in part quite unimportant, in 
part framed after a very subjective standard, and far from 
adequate in the case of a letter-writer, who stands so high and 
great in many-sided wealth both of thought and diction and 
in its free handling as Paul, and who, according to the diversity 
of the given circumstances and of his own tone of feeling, was 
capable of, and had the mastery over, so ample and manifold 
variety in the presentation of his ideas and the structure of 
his sentences. Nor do those linguistic difficulties, which 
Holtzmann, p. 104 ff., has brought forward more discreetly 
than Mayerhoff, and to some extent in agreement with Ewald, 
with a view to separate the portions of the letter pertaining 
to the genuine Paul from those that belong to the manipulator 
and interpolator, suffice for his object." They could only be 
of weight, in the event of their exhibiting modes of expres- 
sion beyond doubt un-Pauline, or of the interpolated character 
of the passages in question being already established on other 
grounds. 


iii. 5); that we meet delicate but still perceptible distinctions of thought, such 
as the non-mention of 3:xaseedem and d:xas0d, and the description of the Logos 
by the word wAspeus itself (i. 19, ii. 9); that we find a multitude of words 
and figures peculiarly Pauline, but that we miss all the more the whole apostle in 
his most vivid idiosyncrasy throughout the main portions of the Epistle ; and 
that many a word and figure, in fact, appears imitated from the Epistles of 
Paul, especially that to the Romans. 

1'When we take fully into account the singularly ample storehouse of the 
Greek language, from which the apostle knew how to draw his materials with 
so much freedom and variety in all his letters, we shall not be too hastily ready 
to hold that suoh expressions, phrases, or turns, as have no parallels in the 
undisputed letters, at once betray another author; or, on the other hand, to 
reckon that such as are characteristic of, and currently used by, the apostle, are 
due to an assumption of the Pauline manner. 


TIavnov ériorody mpos Kodoocaets. 


A B K min. Copt. have the superscription pig KeAacous%. So 
Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. on ver. 2. 


‘CHAPTER L 


Ver. 1. The arrangement Xprorot ’Incot (Lachm. Tisch.) has pre- 
ponderant téstimony in its favour, but not the addition of ’Inootd 
after Xpierot in ver. 2 (Lachm.).— Ver. 2. Kodcssut] K P, also C 
and & in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Or. Nyss. Amphi- 
loch. Theodoret, Damasc. ef. al. have KoAacsa%. Approved by 
Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst.; adopted by Matth. 
Lach. Tisch. 7. The Recepia is supported by BDEFGLR, 
min. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl. Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag. 
The matter is to be-judged thus: (1) The name in itself correct is 
undoubtedly Kodcss«/, which is supported by coins of the city 
(Eckhel, Doctr. num. IIT. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod. vii. 30 
(see Wessel. and Valck. in loc.) ; Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 (see Bornem. 
an loc.) ; Strabo, xii. 8, p. 576; Plin. WV. H. v. 32. (2) But since 
the form KeAasce/ has so old and considerable attestation, and is 
preserved in Herodotus and Xenophon as a various reading, as 
also in Polyaen. viii. 16, and therefore a mere copyist’s error can- 
not be found in the case—the more especially as the copyists, 
even apart from the analogy which suggested itself to them of 
the well-known xoAoo0¢;, would naturally be led to the prevalent 
form of the name Kodccoz/—-we must assume that, although 
Kodosoas was the more formally correct name, still the name 
KoAacoai was also (vulgarly) in use, that this was the name 
which Paul himself wrote, and that Kodacosz7%s is an ancient 
correction. If the latter had originally a place in the text, there 
would have been no occasion to alter the generally known and 
correct form of the name.—After surpig jucv, Elz. (Lachm. in 
brackets) has xa/ xupiov ’Inood Xprorod, in opposition to BDEKL, 
min. vss. and Fathers. A complementary addition in accord- 
ance with the openings of other epistles, especially as no ground 
for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Reiche, 
Comm. crit. p. 351 f.).— Ver. 3. xa? xarpi] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: 

250 


CHAP. L 251 


warpi, So B C*, vss. and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys. have 
rp warpi. Since, however, Paul always writes é¢ Qsbe xa! rardp 
rou xupiov (Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor.i 3, xi. 31; Eph.i. 3; also 1 Cor. 
xv. 24; Eph. v. 20), and never 6 @si¢ & warp ¢. x. OF 6 Os warp 
¢. x., the Recepta, which has in its favour A C** D*** E K LP &, 
min. Vulg. and Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to be retained. The 
xai was readily omitted in a mechanical way after the imme- 
diately preceding G10 sarpés.— Instead of xspi, Lachm. reads 
veép, which is also recommended by Griesb., following B D* E* 
FG, min. Theophyl. Not attested by preponderating evidence, 
and easily introduced in reference to ver. 9 (where isip stands 
without variation). — Ver. 4. Instead of # iysre (which is re- 
commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Elz. 
Matth. Scholz have rv merely, but in opposition to A C D* 
E* F GP &, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If r4v were 
originally written, why should it have been exchanged for 7» 
tyers? On the other hand, jv éyers, as it could be dispensed 
with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word 
preceding concludes with the syllable HN, and the word fol- 
lowing (sis), like tyers, begins with & The grammatical gap 
would then, following Eph. i. 15, be filled up by r4. — Ver. 6. 
xal tors] xas is Wanting in A B C D* E* P 8, min. and some vas. 
and Fathers; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8. But, not being understood, this x«/, which has the 
most important vss. and Fathers in its favour, was omitted in 
the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection. — xa/ 
avzavousvov] is wanting in Elz. Matth., who is of opinion that 
Chrys. introduced it from ver. 10. But it is so decisively 
attested, that the omission must be looked upon as caused by 
the homoeoteleuton, the more especially as a similar ending and a 
similar beginning here came together (ONKA). — Ver 7. xaddg 
xai]| xa/ is justly condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence, 
and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition 
from the preceding. — ipzav] ABD*GF x*, min.: 4a; approved 
by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both 
precedes and follows (away... 44), it was put here also by care- 
less copyists. — Ver. 10. After xspixarijous, Elz. Tisch. 7 have 
iwas, against decisive testimony; a supplementary addition. — 
tig viv ix/yywow] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz. Tisch. 8 have ry éaryvwoss, 
So ABC D*E* FGP &, min. Clem Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks 
the support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. tn scientia Dei) have 
read the Recepia sic +. iwi. attested by D*** E** K L and 
most min., also Theodoret, Dam. Theophyl. Oec., or with *** 
and Chrys. év + isryvies. The latter, as well as the mere sj 


252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


isryv., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult sig ¢. tx/yv., 
which, we may add, belongs to the symmetrical structure of the 
whole discourse, the participial sentences of which all conclude 
with a destination introduced by sis. — Ver. 12. ixavwoarrs] 
Lachm.: xadtcaves xai ixavioavrs, according to B, whilst D* F G, 
min. Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil. have xadétoavs 
merely. Looking at the so isolated attestation of xa. x. ixay., 
we must assume that xadicave: was written on the margin by 
way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with 
xa/, and in others without xa/ substituted for ixavwe.— Instead 
of ques, Tisch. 8 has inés ; but the latter, too weakly attested by 
B X, easily slipped in by means of the connection with sixap. — 
Ver. 14. After dwodurp. Elz. has da rot aiuarog abrot, against de- 
cisive testimony ; from Eph. i. 7. — Ver. 16. ra év roi odpavors xa? 
ré| Lachm. has erased the first ré and bracketed the second. In 
both cases the raé is wanting in B x*, Or.; the first r¢ only is 
wanting in D* E*F G Pandtwomin. But how easily might TA 
be absorbed in the final syllable of eévTA; and this would then 
partially involve the omission of the second ré! The assump- 
tion that the final syllable of zévra was written twice would only 
be warranted, if the omitting witnesses, especially in the case of 
the second rd, were stronger. — Ver. 20. The second 3% airot 
is wanting in B D* F GL, min. Vulg. It. Sahid. Or. Cyr. 
Chrys. Theophyl. and Latin Fathers. Omitted by Lachm. It 
was passed over as superfluous, obscure, and disturbing the 
sense. — Ver. 21. Instead of the Recepta droxargaraéev, Lachm., 
following B, has droxarnrArdyare. D* FG, It. Goth. Ir. Am- 
brosiast. Sedul. have amoxaradrayivess. Since, according to this, 
the passive is considerably attested, and the active droxarjrrAatey, 
although most strongly attested (also by &), may well be sus- 
pected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between 
the two passive readings dwoxarndAdynrs and droxaradrayévese, in 
favour of the former, because the latter is quite unsuitable. If 
the Recepta were original, the construction would be so entirely 
plain, that we could not at all see why the passive should have 
been introduced.— Ver. 22. After éavérov, A P &, min. vss. Ir. 
have airov, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested 
so weakly, as to seem nothing more than a familiar addition. — 
Ver. 23. +4 before xricesis, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted, 
following A B C D* F GX, min. Chrys.—Instead of dsdxovos, 
P & have xfpué x, darborodos. A gloss; comp. 1 Tim. 1.7. nA 
all the three words xmpuk x. dw. x. diax, are given, — Ver. 24. viv] 
D* E* FG, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have é¢ viv. Rightly; the 
final syllable of ddxevog in ver. 23, and the beginning of a 


CHAP. I. 1, 2 253 


church-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of &, which, how- 
ever, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole 
progress of the discourse. — After radju. Elz. has mov, against 
decisive testimony. — 6 iorw] C D* E, min.: 8 tor. So Lachm. 
in the margin. A copyist’s error. — Ver. 27. The neuter ri +3 
wdoures (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and Fathers 
sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation: 
comp. on 2 Cor. vill. 2.— 6¢ torw] A BF GP, min. (quod in Vulg. 
It. leaves the reading uncertain): & ierw. So Lachm. A gram- 
matical alteration, which, after ver. 24, was all the more likely. 
— Ver. 28. After d:ddox., rdvra dvdpwrov is wanting in D* E* FG, 
min. vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be 
defended. The whole xa/ d:ddox. wdvra &vbpux. was omitted owing 
to the homoeoteleuton (so still in L, min. Clem.), and then the 
restoration of the words took place incompletely. — After Xpiora 
Elz. has ’Inoov, against decisive testimony. 


Vv. 1, 2. ed Oerjp. cod] see on 1 Cor.i.1. Comp. 2 
Cor. i. 1; Eph. i 1.— «al TipcO.] see on 2 Cor. i. 1; Phil. 
1.1. Here also as subordinate joint-author of the letter, who 
at the same time may have been the amanuensis, but is not 
here jointly mentioned as such (comp. Rom. xvi. 22). See on 
Phil. i. 1.—o aderpos] see on 1 Cor. i. 1; referring, not to 
oficial (Chrys.: obxobdy cat abros amroctoNos), but generally to 
Christian brotherhood. — tots év Kod. ay. «.7.r.] to the saints 
who are in Colossae. To this theocratic designation, which in 
itself is not as yet more precisely defined (see on Rom. i. 7), is 
then added their distinctively Christian character: and believ- 
ing brethren in Christ. Comp. on Eph. i. 1. dryious is to be 
understood as a substantive, just as in all the commencements 
of epistles, where it occurs (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; Eph.; 
Phil.) ; and év Xpior@ is closely connected with aor. a6., with 
which it blends so as to form one conception (hence it is not 
tots év X.), expressly designating the believing brethren as 
Christians, so that dy X. forms the element of demarcation, 
am which the readers are believing brethren, and outside of 
which they would not be so in the Christian sense. Comp. 
on 1 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. vi. 21; in which passages, however, 
avoros is faithful,—a meaning which it has not here (in oppo- 
sition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dalmer), because every- 


254 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


where in the superscriptions of the Epistles it is only the 
Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt 
évy Xpior@ was in itself hardly necessary; but the addresses 
have a certain formal stamp. If ayiow is taken as an adjec- 
tive : “ the holy and believing brethren” (de Wette), év Xpior@ 
being made to apply to the whole formula, then miorots coming 
after aylocs (which latter word wowd already have, through 
év X., its definition in a Christian sense, which, according to — 
our view, it still has not) would be simply a superfluous and 
clumsy addition, because dyiou would already presuppose the 
muorrois. — The fact that Paul does not expressly describe the 
church to which he is writing as a church (as in 1 Cor; 
2 Cor.; Gal.; 1 and 2 Thess.) has no special motive (comp. 
Rom., Eph., Phil), but is purely accidental If it implied 
that he had not founded the church and stood in no kind of 
relation to it as such, and especially to its rulers (de Wette, 
by way of query), he would not have written of a Aaodicéwy 
éxxdnola (iv. 16). Indeed, the principle of addressing as 
churches those communities only which he had himself 
founded, is not one to be expected from the apostle’s disposi- 
tion of mind and wisdom ; and it is excluded by the inscription 
of the Epistle to the Ephesians (assuming its genuineness and 
destination for the church at Ephesus), as also by Phil i. 1 
(where the mention of the bishops and deacons would not 
compensate for the formal naming of the church). It is also 
an accidental matter that Paul says ev Xpior@ merely, and 
not ev X. ’Inood (1 Cor.; Eph.; Phil; 2 Thess.), although 
Mayerhoff makes use of this, among other things, to impugn 
the genuineness of the epistle; just as if such a mechanical 
regularity were to be ascribed to the apostle! — ydpis vpiv 
«.7.d.] See on Rom. i. 7. 

Ver. 3 f£ Thanksgiving for the Christian condition of. the 
readers, down to ver. 8,— evyapiotéupev] I and Timothy ; 
plural and singular alfernate in the Epistle G. 23, 24, 28, 
29 ff, iv. 3); but not without significant occasion. — xat ararpt 
«.T.».] who is at the same time the Father, etc. See on Eph. 
i. 3. — mavrote] belongs to evyap., as in 1 Cor. i 4; 1 Thess. 
i 2; 2 Thess. i 3; Philem. 4, and not to epi ip. wrpocevx. 





CHAP. L. 5. 255 


(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, 
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, in- 
cluding Bohmer, Olshausen, Dalmer)——-a connection opposed to 
the parallel Eph. i. 16, as well as to the context, according to 
which the thanksgiving is the main point here, and the prayer 
merely a concomitant definition; and it is not till ver. 9 that 
the latter is brought forward as the object of the discourse, 
and that as unceasing. This predicate belongs here to the 
thanking, and in ver. 9 to the praying, and crept buav mpocevy. 
—words which are not, with Bahr, to be separated from one 
another (whereby pocevy. would unduly stand without 
relation) —is nothing but a more precise definition of wdyrore: 
“always (each time, Phil. i. 4; Rom. i 10°), when we pray 
for you.’ — axovoavtes «.7.d.] with reference to time; a/ter 
having heard, etc. Comp. ver. 9. In that, which Paul had 
heard of them, lies the ground of his thanksgiving. The wlotis 
is faith (Rom. i. 8; 1 Thess. i 3; 2 Thess.i. 3) not faithful- 
ness (Ewald), as at Philem. 5, where the position of the words 
is different. That Paul has heard their faith prazsed, is self- 
evident from the context. Comp. Eph. i. 15; Philem. 5. 
— évy X.’I.] on Christ, in so far, namely, as the faith has its 
basis in Christ. Seeon Marki.15; Gal. iii. 26 ; Eph.i 13,15. 
As to the non-repetition of rv, see on Gal. iii. 26.—4v eyere] 
Paul so writes,—not by joining on immediately (rv aydmnp eis 
mTavTas K.7.r.), nor yet by the mere repetition of the article, as in 
Eph. 1. 15 (so the Recepta, see the critical remarks),—because 
he has it in view to enter more fully upon this point of aydzn, 
and indeed definitely upon the reason why they cherished 1. 
Ver. 5. Mua ri edrriba «.7.d.] on account of the hope, etc., 
does not belong to evyap. ver. 3 (Bengel, “ ex spe patet, quanta 
sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris;” comp. 
Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Elsner, Michaelis, Zachariae, 
Storr, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, and others), because the ground 
for the apostolic thanksgiving at the beginnings of the Epistles, 
as also here at ver. 4, always consists in the Christian cha- 
racter of the readers (Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor.i 4 ff; Eph. i. 15; 
Phil i. 5; 1 Thess. i.3; 2 Thess.i 3; 2 Tim.i 5 ; Philem. 5), 
? For a like use of 4s/, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 360 A. 


256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


and that indeed as a ground in itself,' and therefore not merely 
on account of what one has in future to hope from it; and, 
moreover, because evyapiotety with Sia and the accusative 
does not occur anywhere in the N. T. It is connected with 
iv Exere x.7.0., and thus specifies the motive ground of the 
love; for love guarantees the realization of the salvation 
hoped for. So correctly, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Steiger, Bleek, and 
others. The more faith is active through love, the richer one 
becomes es @eov (Luke xii. 21), and this riches forms the 
contents of hope. He who does not love remains subject to 
death (1 John iii 14), and his faith profits him nothing 
(1 Cor. xiii. 1-3). It is erroneous to refer it jointly to miotes, 
so as to make the hope appear here as ground of the 
faith and the love; so Grotius and others, including Bahr, 
Olshausen, and de Wette; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and 
Ewald. For fw éyere (or the Rec. ryv) indicates a further 
statement merely as regards tyv ayamnv; and with this aecords 
the close of the whole outburst, which in ver. 8 emphatically 
reverts to THyv tuav ayarny.—The édrmis is here conceived 
objectively (comp. éAm. Breropévn, Rom. viii. 24): our hope 
as to tts objective contents, that which we hope for. Comp. Job 
vi 8; 2 Macc. vii. 14, and see on Rom. viii. 24 and Gal. 
v. 5 ; Zockler, de vt ac notione voc. éXzris, Giss, 1856, p. 26 fff. 
— Thy atroxerp. div ev +r. ovp.) What is meant is the Messianic 
salvation forming the contents of the hope (1 Thess. v. 8; 

Rom. v. 2, vii 18 ff.; Col. iu. 3 f), which remains deposited, 
that is, preserved, laid up (Luke xix, 20), in heaven for the 
Christian until the Parousia, in order to be then given to him.’ 

On arox. comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Macc, xii. 45; Kypke, II. 
p. 320f£; Loesner, p. 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 678. 
Used of death, Heb. ix. 27; of punishments, Plat. Locr. 


’ In opposition to the view of Hofmann, that Paul names the reason why the 
news of the faith and love of the readers had become to him a cause of thanks- 
giving. 

2 It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no longer occurs in our Epistle. It 
is the substratum of the iawis daex. iv ¢. otp. Comp. iii. 1 ff. (in opposition to 
Mayerhoff, and Holtzmann, p. 203f.). 


CHAP, I. 6. 257 


p. 104 D, 4 Mace. viii. 10. As to the idea, comp. the conception 
of the treasure in heaven (Matt. vi 20, xix. 21; 1 Tim. vi. 19), 
_of the reward in heaven (see on Matt. v. 12), of the wodtrevpa 
in heaven (see on Phil. iii. 20), of the «Anpovoula rernpnyuévy 
év oupay. (1 Pet. i. 4), and of the Bpafetov ris dvw KrANoceEws 
(Phil. iii. 14). — fv mponxovoarte x.1.d.| Certainty of this hope, 
which is not an unwarranted subjective fancy, but is objec- 
tively conveyed to them through the word of truth previously 
announced. The apo in wponxovoare (Herod. viii. 79; Plat. 
Legg. vii. p. 797 A; Xen. Mem. ii. 4.7 ; Dem. 759. 26, 955.1; 
Joseph. Anti. vili. 12. 3) does not denote already formerly, 
whereby Paul premises se nihil allaturum novi (Calvin and 
many), but must be said with reference to the future, to which 
the hope belongs ; hence the sense imported by Ewald: where- 
with the word of truth began among you (Mark i. 15), is the 
less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents 
of the éAzris, the heavenly salvation, is the great future bless- 
ing, the infallible pre-announcement of which they have heard. 
As previously annownced, it is also previously heard. — rijs 
adnbelas is the contents of the Adyos (comp. on Eph. i. 13); 
_and by rod evay., the ad7Oea, that is, the absolute truth, is 
specifically defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that which 
1s announced in the gospel. Both genitives are therefore to be 
left in their substantive form (Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and many others understand rjs adn. as adjectival : 
sermo verax; comp. on the contrary, on a7. rod evaryry., Gal. 
li. 5, 14), so that the expression advances to greater definite- 
ness. The circumstantiality has something solemn about it 
(comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4); but this is arbitrarily done away, if we 
regard Tod evayy. as the genitive of apposition to T@ Aoye Tis 
adn. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Flatt, Bihr, 
Steiger, Bohmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann) ; 
following Eph. i. 13, Paul would have written r@ evaryyerlp. 
Ver. 6. In what he had just said, jy mponxovoate .. . 
evaryyeAtlov, Paul now desires to make his readers sensible of 
the great and blessed fellowship in which, through the gospel, 
they are placed, in order that they may by this very con- 
sciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the 
COL. R 


258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


gospel, in presence of the heretical influences; émedn pddiocra 
ol ToANol ex TOD Kowwvors Exetv ToAAOUS TOY SoyyudT@V oTN- 
pilovras, Chrysostom. Comp. Oecumenius: smpoduporépous 
avtovs wept ry aistw tot éx Tov Bye TavTas Kowmvous. 
— eis Upds] not év duty, because the conception of the previous 
arrival predominates; 1 Macc. xi 63. Often so with vapetvas 
in classical authors (Herod. i. 9, vi. 24, viii. 60; Polyb. xviii 
1. 1; comp. Acts xii. 20). See Bornemann and Kiihner, ad 
Aen. Anab. i. 2.2; Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 320 ; and generally, 
Niagelsbach, 2 Jlias, p. 158 f., ed. 3. Observe, moreover, the 
emphasis of tot mapoyros: tt is there! it has not remained 
away; and to the presence is then added the bearing fruit. 
xaos xat éy travri +. coop] A popular hyperbole. Comp. 
Rom. i. 8; Acts xvii. 6, and see ver. 23. The expression is 
neither arbitrarily to be restricted, nor to be used against the 
genuineness of the Epistle (Hilgenfeld); nor yet to be rational- 
ized by “as regards the idea” (Baumgarten-Crusius) and the like; 
although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianity 
is expressed in the passage (comp. Rom. x..18; Mark xiv. 9, 
xvi. 15; Matt. xxiv. 14).—«al éori xaptrog. x.7.d.] Instead of 
continuing : «ai xapmodopoupevou x.t.d., Paul carries onward 
the discourse with the finite verb, and thus causes this element 
to stand out more independently and forcibly :* “and «¢ 1s 
frutt-bearing and growing” (see Maetzner, ad Lycurg. Leocr. 
p. 108; Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222B; Winer, p. 533 
[E. T. 717]), by which is indicated the fact, that the gospel, 
wherever it is present, is also in course of living dynamical 
development, and this state of development is expressed by éort 
with the participle. This general proposition based on expe- 
rience: «at gore xaptrod. x. a’gav., is then by cafes «. év 


1 If sai is not genuine, as Bleek, Hofmann, and others consider (see the 
critical remarks), the passage is to be translated : as it also in the whole world 
is fruit-bearing, by which Paul would say that the gospel is present among the 
readers in the same fruit-bearing quality which it developes on all sides. But 
in that case the following saées xa) iv iaiy would necessarily appear as very super- 
fluous. No doubt we might, after the preceding wapérees, take the ieei, with 
F. Nitzsch, as equivalent to wapsee: (see Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 59 B) ; and to 
this comes also the punctuation in Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after issir, But 
how utterly superfluous would this ivsi then be! 


ee te ae A eg a Oe ey ey NE 





CHAP. I. 7, 8 259 


tty confirmed through the experience found also among the 
readers ; 80 that Paul’s view passes, in the first clause (rod 
mapovres ... koopm), from the special to the general aspect, 
and in the second, from the general to the special. With xap- 
mogop. (not occurring elsewhere in the middle) is depicted the 
blissful working in the inward and outward life(comp. Gal. v. 22; 
Eph. v. 9) ; and with avgayop. the continuous diffusion, whereby 
the gospel is obtaining more and more adherents and local 
extension. Comp. Theodoret: xapzrodopiay rod evaryy. xéxdAnne 
Thy érrasvoupévny woritelay abknow Sé tay micrevovT@y TO 
awr500s. Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain from 
deciding whether avg. is intended to refer to the outward 
growth or to the inward (so Steiger), or to both. See Acts vi. 7, 
xii. 24, xix. 20. Comp. Luke xii 19; Matt. xiii 32. The 
padrov ornpltecGar, which Chrysostom finds included in avt., 
ig not denoted, but presupposed by the latter. Comp. Theo- 
phylact. The figure is taken from a éree, in which the xap- 
mopopla does not exclude the continuance of growth (not so 
in the case of cereals). — aq’ is jép. «.7.d.] since the first 
beginning of your conversion which so happily took place 
(through true knowledge of the grace of God), that develop- 
ment of the gospel proceeds among you; how could ye now 
withdraw from it by joining yourselves to false teachers ? — 
Thy xapw tod Qeov]| contents of the gospel, which they have 
heard ; the object of #xovc. is the gospel, and 7. ydpiv Tr. Ocod 
belongs to éwéyvwre; and by év adnGela (2 Cor. vii. 14), 
equivalent to aAn@@s (John xvii. 8), the qualitative character 
of this knowledge is affirmed: it was a true knowledge, corre- 
sponding to the nature of the ydpis, without Judaistic and other 
errors. Comp. on John xvii. 19. Holtzmann hears in nxovcare 
.. . GAnOes “the first tones of the foreign theme,” which is then in 
vv. 9,10 more fully entered upon. But how conceivable and 
natural is it, that at the very outset the danger which threatens 
the right knowledge of the readers should be present to his mind ! 

Ver. 7 £ Kaéas] not guandoguidem (Flatt, comp. Bahr), 
but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just: 
been affirmed by év ddn@ela that they had known the divine 
grace, had they learned it (comp. Phil. iv. 9) from Epaphras. 


260 TILE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Notwithstanding this appropriate connection, Holtzmann finds 
in this third xa@ws a trace of the interpolator. — Nothing 
further is known from any other passage as to Hpaphras the 
Colossian (iv. 12); according to Philem. 23, he was cvvaty- 
pdnrwros of the apostle. That the latter circumstance is not 
mentioned in our Epistle is not to be attributed to any special 
design (Estius: that Paul was unwilling to make his readers 
anxious). See, on the contrary, on iv. 10. Against the 
identity of Epaphras with Kpaphroditus, see on Phil. i. 25. 
The names even are not alike (contrary to the view of Grotius 
and Ewald, who look upon Zpaphras as an abbreviation) ; 
’"Erragpas and the corresponding feminine name ’E7rad¢pe are 
found on Greek inscriptions. — ovydovAov] namely, of Christ 
(comp. Phil. i. 1). The word, of common occurrence, is used 
elsewhere by Paul in iv. 7 only. — 6s éorw «.7.2.] This 
faithfulness towards the readers, and also, in the sequel, the 
praise of their love, which Epaphras expressed to the apostle, 
are intended to stir them up “ne a doctrina, quam ab eo didi- 
cerant, per novos magistros abduci se patiantur,” Estius. The 
emphasis is on wtords. — imrép tudy] for, as their teacher, he 
is the servant of Christ for them, for their benefit. The inter- 
pretation, instead of yow (“in prison he serves me in the 
gospel,” Michaelis, Bohmer), would only be possible in the 
event of the service being designated as rendered Zo the apostle 
(Sidxovos pou é€v Xpwor@, or something similar). Comp. 
Philem. 13. Even with Lachmann’s reading, ir. jpyov 
(Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take 
tirép as instead ; it might equally well be taken as for in 
the sense of interest, as opposite of the anti-Pauline work- 
ing (comp. Luke ix. 50). The present éort (Paul does not put 
qv) has its just warrant in the fact, that the merit, which the 
founder of the church has acquired by its true instruction, is 
living and continwous, reaching in its efficacy down to the 
present time. This is an ethical relation, which is quite inde- 
pendent of the circumstance that Epaphras was himself a 
Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but also makes it un- 
necessary to find in éors an indirect continuance of Epaphras’ 
work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek). —o0 xat Snrwoas 


CHAP. I. 7, & 261 


K.T..| who also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful 
service) has made us to know; comp. 1 Cor.i.11. The dyary 
is here understood either of the love of the Colossians to Paul 
(and Timothy), as, following Chrysostom, most, including 
Huther, Bleek, and Hofmann,’ explain it, or of the brotherly 
love already commended in ver. 4 (de Wette, Olshausen, 
Ellicott, and others). But both these modes of taking it are 
at variance with the emphatic position of busy (comp. 1 Cor. 
ix. 12; 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7, viii. 13, e¢ al.), which betokens the 
love of the readers to Epaphrasasmeant. There had just been 
expressed, to wit, by izrép tua, the faithful, loving position of 
this servant of Christ towards the Colosstans, and correlative to 
this is now the love which he met with from them, consequently 
the counter-love shown to him, of which he has informed the 
apostle. <A delicate addition out of courtesy to the readers. — 
éy arvevpati| attaches itself closely to dyamnyv, so as to form one 
idea, denoting the love as truly holy—not conditioned by any- 
thing outward, but divinely upheld—which is in the Holy Spirit 
as the element which prompts and animates it; for it is the fruit 
of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22 ; Rom. xv. 30), od capaten, dAAd arvev- 
parixyn (Oecumenius). Comp. yapa ev av., Rom. xiv. 17. 


REMARK.—Since a9’ %¢ qukpas yxovcare x.7.2., ver. 6, refers the 
readers back to the first commencement of their Christianity, 
and xadis iudders dxd "Earagp&% x9.4., ver. 7, cannot, except by 
pure arbitrariness, be separated from it as regards time and 
regarded as something later, it results from our passage that 
Epaphras is to be considered as the jirst preacher of the gospel 
at Colossae, and consequently as founder of the church. This 
exegetical result remains even if the Recepta xabi¢ xaf is re- 
tained. This xe/ would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. w. 
Krit. 1838, p. 185), place the preaching of Epaphras in contradis- 
tinction to an earlier one, and make it appear as a continuation 
of the latter (in this case xaddc xai drd'Exagp. tucdere or xadag 
iucbers xal ded Exagp. would have been employed) ; but it is to 
be taken as also, not otherwise, placing the ¢udéere on a parity 
with the éxtyvwrs. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger, 
in Herzog’s Encykl. iv. p. 79 f. : 

1 Who, at the same time, makes the iv wvsiuars suggest the reference, that the 
é&yaen took place in a manner personally unknown—which must have been con- 
veyed in the context. 


262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Ver. 9. Intercession, down to ver. 12.—6a rovto}] on 
account of all that has been said from dxovcavres in ver. 4 
onward: induced thereby, we also cease not, etc. This reference 
is required by aq’ Hs quépas jaxovoapev, which cannot corre- 
spond to the Snrdcas Huiv, belonging as that does merely to 
an accessory thought, but must take up again (in opposition to 
Bleek and Hofmann) the axovoavres which was said in ver. 4. 
This resumption is emphatic, not tautological (Holtzmann). — 
xal sets] are to be taken together, and it is not allowable to join 
xal either with dca rodro (de Wette), or even with smpocevy. 
(Baumgarten-Crusius). The words are to be rendered: We also 
(I and Timothy), like others, who make the same intercession for 
you, and among whom there is mentioned by name the founder 
of the church, who stood in closest relation to them.—s7pocevy. | 
“‘Precum mentionem generatim fecit, ver. 3; nunc exprimit, guid 
precetur” (Bengel). — xat aitovpevor] adds the special (asking) 
to the general (praying). Comp. 1 Macc. i 44; Matt. xx 
22; Mark xi. 24; Eph. vi. 18; Phil. iv.6. As to the popular 
form of hyperbole, ov wavoy., comp. on Eph. i. 16. On drép 
tuey, so far as it is also to be taken with «. airovp., comp. 
Lys. c. Ale. p. 141. — Wa wAnpw.] Contents of the asking in 
the form of its purpose. Comp. on Phil. i. 9. The emphasis 
lies not on wAnpad. (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the object 
(comp. Rom. xv. 14, i. 29, al.), which gives to the further eluci- 
dation in vv. 9, 10 its specific definition of contents, — rhy 
émlyy. tov Ber. avtov] with the knowledge of His will, accusa- 
tive, as in Phil. i. 11; avrod applies to God as the subject, 
to whom prayer and supplication are addressed. The context 
in ver. 10 shows that by the $é\nua is meant, not the counsel 
of redemption (Eph. i. 9; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but, 
doubtless (Matt. vi. 10), that which God wills in a moral respect 
(so Theodoret, who makes out a contrast with the voperats 
mapatnpyceow). Comp. Rom. ii. 18, xii. 2; Eph. v. 17, vi. 6; 
Col. iv. 12. The distinction between yraors and ériyvacs, 
which both here and also in ver. 10, ii. 2, iii. 10, is the know- 
ledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly 
denied by Olshausen. See on Eph. i. 17.— dv wdoy «7d.] 


CHAP. L. 9. | 263 


instrumental definition of manner, how, namely, this mAnpe- 
Givat thy érbyy. +. Ber. abtod (a knowledge which is to be 
the product not of mere human mental activity, but of objec- 
tively divine endowment by the Holy Spirit) must be brought 
about: by every kind of spiritual wisdom and insight, by the 
communication of these from God; comp. on Eph.1.8. A 
combination with the following mepimarfoas (comp. iv. 5: é& 
copia wmepim.), such as Hofmann suggests, is inappropriate, 
because the two parts of the whole intercession stand to one 
another in the relation of the divine edhical foundation 
(ver. 9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life 
(ver. 10f.); hence the latter portion is most naturally and 
emphatically headed by the expression of this Christian prac- 
tice, the srepirarjoas, to which are then subjoined its modal 
definitions in detail. Accordingly, wepurarjoa: is not, with 
Hofmann, to be made dependent on rod Oernp. adrod and 
taken as its contents, but 7. Ger. r. O. is to be left as an abso- 
lute idea, as in iv. 12. On avevparixos, proceeding from the 
Holy Spirit) comp. Rom. i. 11; 1 Cor. ii 13, xii. 1; Eph. 
i. 3,v. 19, et al. The ovveccs is the insight, in a theoretical 
and (comp. on Mark xii. 33) practical respect, depending upon 
judgment and inference, Eph. iii, 4; 2 Tim. ii 7. For the 
opposite of the pneumatic ovveots, see 1 Cor. i 19. It is 
related to the copia as the special to the general, since it is 
peculiarly the expression of the inéelligence in the domain of 
trath,? while the codia concerns the collective faculties of the 
mind, the activities of knowledge, willing, and feeling, the 
tendency and working of which are harmoniously subservient to 
the recognised highest aim, if the wisdom is mvevparucy; its 
opposite is the copia capxixn (2 Cor. i 12; Jas, iii. 15), 
being of man, and not of God, in its aim and efforts. Accord- 
ing as gpovnots is conceived subjectively or objectivized, the 
cuveots may be considered either as synonymous with it 

1 Hence 4 dewhs copia, Jas. iii. 15,17. The predicate, althongh in the case 
of divine endowment with sepi« and eves obvious of itself (as Hofmann 
objects), was yet all the more apposite for expressly bringing the point into pro- 
minence, the greater the danger which threatened Colossae from non-divine, 
fleshly wisdom ; comp. ii. 28. 

* Comp. Dem. 269. 24: ovrseis, § vd nerd nal ainxpd Bayweonsras, 


264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(Eph. 1.8; Dan. it 21; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attri- 
bute of it (Ecclus, i. 4: ovveots ppovncews). 

Ver. 10. The practical aim’ which that wAnpo@jvar «.7.d. 
is to accomplish; del r97 mlotes ovevyyvct thy troMTeElay, 
Chrysostom. The Vulgate renders correctly : ué ambuletis (in 
opposition to Hofmann, see on ver. 9). — afiws Tov xupiov] so 
that your behaviour may stand in morally appropriate relation 
to your belonging to Christ. Comp. Rom. xvi 2; Eph. iv.1; 
Phil. i 27; 1 Thess. ii. 12; 3 John 6. The genitive (and in 
the N. T. such is always used with afiws) does not even 
“ perhaps” (Hofmann) belong to the following eds 2. dpeox., 
especially as dpeoxeia, in the Greek writers and in Philo 
(see Loesner, p. 361), stands partly with, partly without, a 
genitival definition, and the latter is here quite obvious of 
itself. Such a combination would be an unnecessary artificial 
device. Comp. Plat. Conv. p.180 D: akiws rod Oeod. — eis 
macay apecxeiav| on behalf of every kind of pleasing, that is, 
in order to please Him in every way. The word only occurs 
here in the N. T., but the apostle is not on that account to be 
deprived of it (Holtzmann) ; it is found frequently in Polybius, 
Philo, e¢ al.; also Theophr. Char. 5; LXX. Prov. xxix. 30 
(xxx. 30); Symmachus, Ps, Ixxx. 12. On wacap dp. comp. 
Polybius, xxxi. 26. 5: way yévos apecxeias mpoadepopevos. 
Among the Greeks, dpecxela (to be accentuated thus, see 
Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 57]; Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 11 [E. T. 
12]) bears, for the most part, the sense of seeking to please. 
Comp. Prov. xxix. 30: yevdets apeoxetas, — év travtl epyp 
«.t.r.| There now follow three expositions, in order to define 
more precisely the nature and mode of the wepurarjoat akiws 
x.7.r. We must, in considering these, notice the homogeneous 
plan of the three clauses, each of which commences with a 
prepositional relation of the participial idea, viz. (1) év zravtt 
Epyp «7... (2) dv wdon Suvaper, (3) pera yapas, and ends 

1 Not to be attached as object of the request immediately to wporsuysputves, and 
all that intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator (Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet, 
according to Holtzmann, p. 123, iv ware} ipye down to rev @soy is alleged to be 
simply an interpolated duplicate of ver. 6; in which case, however, it would not 


be easy to see why xapweGepevysves was not written, after the precedent of ver. 6, 
but on the contrary xapwrepPepourrts, 


CHAP. I. 10. 265 


with a relation expressed by eis, viz. (1) eis 7. erriyv. 7. Oeod, 
(2) eis mao. trop. x. paxpoOup., (3) eis thy pepida K.7.2. 
The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the 
third clause, éy wacn yapd (Rom. xv. 32) had been written 
instead of wera yapas—which was easily prevented by the ver- 
satility of the apostle’s form of conception. — éy mravti Epy@ 
aya0q@ xaptrod. is to be taken together (and then again, av£a- 
vou. eis tTHv emrbyv. t. Beod), inasmuch as ye by every good work 
(by your accomplishing every morally good action) bear frutt, 
as good trees, comp. Matt. vii. 17. But not as if the xapzro- 
gopeiy and the avgdvecGat were separate things; they take 
place, as in ver. 6, jointly and at the same time, although, after 
the manner of parallelism, a special more precise definition is 
annexed to each. Moreover, ev mavti gpy. dy. is not to be 
connected with ets macay apeor. (Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, and others, also Steiger); otherwise we mistake and 
destroy the symmetrical structure of the passage. — xai avf£a- 
vou. eis T. erréyy. t. Q.] and, inasmuch as with this moral fruit- 
bearing at the same time ye increase in respect to the know- 
ledge of God, that is, succeed in knowing Him more and more 
fully. The living, effective knowledge of God, which is meant 
by émréyv. r. Geod (ver. 6, iii. 10, ii. 2), sustains an ethically 
necessary action and reaction with practical morality. Just 
as the latter is promoted by the former, so also knowledge 
grows through moral practice in virtue of the power of inward 
experience of the divine life (the {#7 tov Qecod, Eph. iv. 18), 
by which God reveals Himself more and more to the inner 
man. The fact that here rov Qeod generally is said, and not 
Tod OeXnpatos Oeod repeated, is in keeping with the progressive 
development set forth ; there is something of a climazin it. On 
eis, used of the telic reference, and consequently of the regula- 
tive direction of the growth, comp. on Eph. iv. 15; 2 Pet. 
i. 8. The reading 77 ervyywoes r. ©. would have to be taken 
as instrumental, with Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette, 
Bleek, who follow it, but would yield after ver. 9 something 
quite self-evident. We may add that avgav., with the dative 
of spiritual increase by something, is frequent in Plato and 
classic writers.—As to the nominatives of the participles, which 


266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


are not to be taken with aAnpw8. (Beza, Bengel, Reiche, and 
others), but relate to the logical subject of mepirar. aflws, 
comp. on Eph. iv. 2; 2 Cor. i. 7. 

Ver. 11 is co-ordinate with the foregoing éy mravti gpyo ... 
Beco. — dv don Suv. Svvap.] év is instrumental, as in ver. 9 
(Eph. vi. 10; 2 Tim. ii, 1); hence not designating that, in the 
acquiring of which the invigoration is supposed io consist (Hof- 
mann), but: dy means of every (moral) power (by its bestowal 
on God’s part) becoming empowered. Svvauow (Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 605) does not occur in Greek authors, and is only 
found here and at Heb. xi. 34, Lachm. in the N. T.; in the 
LXX. at Eccles. x. 10; Dan. ix. 27 ; Ps. xvii. 31; in Aquila; 
Job xxxvi. 9; Ps. lxiv. 4. Paul elsewhere uses évévvayowp. 
— KxaTa To “patos tis SOF. avdr.] according to the might of His 
majesty ; with this divine might (see as to xpdros on Eph. i 19), 
through. the powerful influence of which that strengthening is 
to be imparted to them, it is also to be correspondent—and 
thereby its eminent strength and efficacy are characterized (xard 
in Eph. i. 19 has another sense). Comp. 2 Thess. 1. 9; 
Phil. iii 21. And 16 xpdaros r. 50€. adr. is not His glorious 
power (Luther, Castalio, Beza, and others; also Flatt and 
Bahr), against which avrod should have been a sufficient warn- 
ing; but ro xpdros is the appropriate attribute of the divine 
majesty (of the glorious nature of God). Comp. Eph. iii. 16; 
Ecclus. xviii. 5. The xpartos therefore 7s not the glory of God 
(Bohmer), but the latter has the former,—and the dd£a is not 
to be referred to a single aspect of the divine greatness 
(Grotius: power; Huther: Jove), but to its glorious whole. 
Comp. on Rom. vi. 4.— eis wacav tnrop. x. paxpob.| in re- 
spect to every endurance (in affliction, persecution, temptation, 
and the like, comp. Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. 1. 6, vi. 4; Jas. i1.3f,; 
Luke viii. 15; Rom. ii 7, e¢ al.) and long-suffering (towards 
the offenders and persecutors), that is, so as to be able to 
exercise these virtues in every way by means of that divine 
strengthening. The distinction of Chrysostom: paxpoOupel 
Tus mpos exeivous ods Suvatoy xal apvvacbar iropéver 82, 
ods ov Sivarat duivacGa, is arbitrary. See, on the contrary, 
for instance, Heb. xii. 2, 3. Others understand it variously ; 





CHAP. I. 192. 267 


but it is to be observed, that érouovy expresses the more 
general idea of endurance, and that paxpoBupia, the opposite . 
of which is ofvOuzla (Eur. Andr. 729; Jas. i. 19) and 
of€vOvpmoss (Artem. iv. 69), always refers in the N. T. to the 
relation of patient tolerance towards offenders. Comp. i. 12; 
Gal. v. 22; Rom. ii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; also Heb. vi. 12; Jas. 
v. 10. — pera yapas]| is joined with wacay trop. «x. paxpod. 
by Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, 
Bengel, Heinrichs, and many others, including Olshausen, 
Bahr, Steiger, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, so that 
the true, joyful patience (comp. ver. 24) is denoted. But the 
symmetry of the passage (see on ver. 10), in which the two 
previous participles are also preceded by a prepositional defini- 
tion, points so naturally to the connection with what follows 
(Syr., Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, 
and others, including Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bohmer, Huther, 
Ewald, Ellicott, Bleek, Hofmann), that it cannot be abandoned 
without arbitrariness. Even in that case, indeed, the thought 
of joyful patience, which is certainly apostolic (Rom. v. 3 ; 1 Pet. 
i 6; Rom. xii. 12; comp. Matt. v. 12), is not lost, when the 
intercession rises from patience to joyful thanksgiving. Observe 
also the deliberate juxtaposition of pera yapas evyapior. 

Ver. 12. While ye give thanks with joyfulness, ete..—a third 
accompanying definition of wrepurarioas akiws «.7.r. (ver. 10), 
co-ordinate with the two definitions preceding, and not to be 
connected with od sravoyefa x.7.4. (Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Calvin: “iterum redit ad gratulationem,” Calovius, Bohmer, 
Baumgarten-Crusius). — 7@ aatpi} of Jesus Christ; comp. 
ver. 13, and rot Kup(ov in ver. 10, not: “the Father absolutely” 
(Hofmann). It is always in Paul’s writings to be gathered 
from the context, whose Father God is to be understood as 
being (even at Eph. i. 17); never does he name God absolutely 
(in abstracto) 6 watyp. Comp. ver. 3, which, however, is held 
by Holtzmann to be the original, suggesting a repetition by 
the editor at our passage, in spite of the fact that the two 
passages have different subjects. Just as little does eis thy 
peploa «.7.d, betray itself as an interpolation from Eph. i. 18 
and i. 11 (Holtzmann), seeing that, on the one hand, the 





268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


expression at our passage is so wholly peculiar, and, on the 
other hand, the idea of «Anpovouzta is so general in the N. T. 
Comp. especially Acts xxvi. 18.1. — 16 ixaywoarte x.7.d.] 
Therein lies the ground of the thanksgiving, quippe quz, etc. 
God has made us fit (jpas applies to the letter-writers and 
readers, so far as they are Christians) for a share in the Mes- 
sianic salvation through the light, inasmuch as, instead of the 
darkness which previously prevailed over us, He has by means 
of the gospel brought to.us the dA7Oeva, of which light is the 
distinctive element and the quickening and saving principle 
(Eph. v. 9) of the Christian constitution both in an intellectual 
and ethical point of view (Acts xxvi. 18); hence Christians are 
children of the light (Eph. v. 8; 1 Thess. v. 5; Luke xvi. 8). 
Comp. Rom. xiii. 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9. In Christ the 
light had attained to personal manifestation (John i. 4 ff, 111. 9, 
viii. 12; Matt. iv. 16, e¢ al.), as the personal revelation of the 
divine nature itself (1 John i. 5), and the gospel was the means 
of its communication (Eph. iii. 9; Heb. vi. 4; 2 Cor. iv. 4; 
Acts xxvi. 23, e¢ al.) to men, who without this enlightenment 
were unfit for the Messianic salvation (Eph. iz 1 ff, iv. 18, 
v. 11, vi. 12; 1 Thess. v. 4, e¢ al.). The instrumental defini- 
tion évy T@ dur is placed at the end, in order that it may stand 
out with special emphasis; hence, also, the relative sentence 
which follows refers to this very element. An objection has 
been wrongly urged against our view (which is already adopted 
by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact; comp. Estius and 
others, including Flatt and Steiger), that Paul must have used 
avedua instead of das (see Olshausen). The tavody éy te 
qwrt is, indeed, nothing else than the xadely eis To Pas 
(1 Pet. 11. 9) conceived in respect of its moral efficacy, and 
the result thereof on the part of man is the elvyas das év xuplo 
(Eph. v. 8), or the efat vidy rod dwros (1 Thess. v. 5; John 
xii. 36), ds dwotipes ev noopm (Phil. ii. 15). But the light 


' The mode in which Acts xxvi. 18 comes into centact as regards thougtt and 
expression with Col. i. 12-14, may be sufficiently explained by the circumstance 
that in Acts xxvi. also Paul is the speaker. Holtzmann justly advises caution 
with reference to the ay-parent echoes of the Book of Acts in general, as Luke 
originally bears the Pauline stamp. 


CHAP, I. 12. 269 


is a power ; for it is ro das rhs Cwys (John viii. 12), has its 
armour (Rom. xiii. 12), produces its fruit (Eph. v. 9), effects 
the Christian éAéyyecy (Eph. v. 13), endurance in the conflict 
of affliction (Heb. x. 32), etc. ‘Ev r@ dori is usually con- 
nected with rod xAjpou tay ayiwy, so that this xAjpos is de- 
scribed as eatsting or to be found in light, as the kingdom of 
light ; in which case we may think either of its glory (Beza 
and others, Bohmer, Huther), or of its purity and perfection 
(Olshausen, de Wette, and Dalmer) as referred to. But 
although the connecting article rod might be wanting, and the 
KARpos tT. wy. ev T@ port might thus form a single conception, it 
may be urged as an objection that the heritage meant cannot 
be the temporal position of Christians, but only the future 
blessedness of the Messianic glorious kingdom ; comp. ver. 13, 
THv Baotr. tod viod. Hence not ev To dori, but possibly év 
7H Son, ev rH Sw, ev tots ovpaveis, or the like, would be a 
fitting definition of «Ajpos, which, however, already has in 
Tay ayiwv its definite description (comp. Eph. i 18; Acts 
xx. 32, xxvi. 18). Just as little—for the same reason, and 
because 7. pepida already carries with it its own definition 
(share in the xA‘jpos)—is ev T@ dwt to be made dependent on 
thy pepida, whether é€y be taken locally (Bengel: “ Lux est 
regnum Dei, habentque fideles in hoc regno partem beatam”) 
or a8 in Acts viii. 21 (Ewald), in which case Hofmann finds 
the sphere expressed (comp. also Bleek), where the saints have 
got their peculiar possession assigned to them, so that the being 
in light stands related to the future glory as that which is still 
in various respects conditioned stands to plenitude—as if KAHpos 
" (comp. on Acts xxvi. 18) had not already the definite and full 
eschatological sense of the possession of eternal glory. This 
AF pos, of which the Christians are possessors (ray ayiwv), ideally 
before the Parousia, and thereafter really, is the theocratic de- 
signation (dno) of the property of the Messianic kingdom (see 
on Gal. iii. 18; Eph. i. 11), and the pepls (pon) rod «Ajpou is 
the shave of individuals’ in the same. Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 23. 

1 Comp. also Bleek. Hofmann incorrectly says that rou sAnpov serves only to 


designate the pspis as destined for special possession. In that case, at least, the 
qualitative genitive of the abstract must bave been put (cis xAnpoveuias, as in 


270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Ver. 13. A more precise elucidation of the divine benefit 
previously expressed by t@ ixavwoavts ... dwri. This verse 
forms the transition, by which Paul is led on to the instructions 
as to Christ, which he has it in view to give down to ver. 20." 
— €« ths eLove. Tod cxor.] Tov oxor. is not genitive of apposi- 
tion (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the eis rnv Bactrctay 
that follows, genitive of the subject: out of the power, which 
darkness has, The latter, as the influential power of non- 
Christian humanity (of the xdcpos, which is ruled by the devil, 
Eph. ii. 2), is personified ; its essence is the negation of the 
intellectual and ethical divine aA70ea, and the affirmation of 
the opposite. Comp. Luke xxii. 53; Matt. iv. 16; Acts 
xxvi. 18; Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8, vi 12, e¢ al. The act 
of the é6pvcaro has taken place by means of the conversion to 
Christ, which is the work of God, Rom. viii. 29 £; Eph. 
ii. 4 ff. It is to be observed, that the expression é« 7. éfoue. 
rT. oxotous is chosen as the correlative of év r@ wri in ver. 12. 
—«xal peréornoev] The matter is to be conceived locally (eis 
repoy tomov, Plat. Legg. vi. p. 762 B), so that the deliver- 
ance from the power of darkness appears to be united with 
the removing away into the kingdom, etc. Comp. Plat. Rep. 
‘p. 518 A: & re dards eis cxoros peOiotapévov al ex oKxo- 
Tous eis das. — els THY Baotd. «.7.X., that is, into the kingdom 
of the Messiah, Eph. v. 5; 2 Pet. i. 11; for this and nothing 
else is meant by % Baotreta Xpiotod (rod Oecod, rev ovpaver) 
an all passages of the N. T. Comp. iv. 11; and see on Rom. 
xiv. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20; Matt. iii. 2, vii 10. The aorist 


Ps. xvi. 5). But the concrete rod zrdpou +. dy. is, as the literal sense of pspis, 
portio, most naturally suggests, the genitivus partitivus (G. tottus), so that the 
individual is conceived as pspirns of the xAspes of the saints, in which he for his 
part cupperixes. 

1 This Christological outburst runs on in the form of purely positive statement, 
although having already in view doctrinal dangers of the kind in Colossae. 
According to Holtzmann, the Christology belongs to the compiler ; the whole 
passage, vv. 14-20, is forced and without motive, and it is only in ver. 21 that 
we find the direct sequel to ver. 18. The latter statement is incorrect. And 
why should this excursus, as a grand basis for all the exhortations and warnings 
that follow, be held without due motive? Holtzmann forms too harsh a judg- 
ment as to the whole passage i. 9-23, when he declares it eas aca with 
any strict exegetical treatment. 


CHAP. L. 18, 271 


peréot. is to be explained by the matter being conceived 
proleptically (7H yap érmids éo@Onwev, Rom. viii. 24), as 
something already consummated (comp. on édoface, Rom. 
viii. 30). Thus the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of 
their fellowship of life with their Lord (Eph. i. 6), as certain 
to the redeemed as if they were already translated into it. 
The explanation which refers it to the Christian church (so 
still Heinrichs, Bahr, Huther, and most expositors) as con- 
trasted with the xocpos, is just as unhistorical as that which 
makes it the invisible inward, ethical kingdom (see especially 
Olshausen, following an erroneous view of Luke xvii. 21), to 
which also Bleek and Hofmann ultimately come. Certainly 
all who name Christ their Lord are under this king (Hofmann) ; 
but this is not yet his Baotdela; that belongs to the future 
aidy, Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f., xv. 24,50; Gal v.21, e al. ; 
John xviii. 36.— Tis dyads avrod] in essential meaning, 
indeed, nothing else than tod uiov avrod Tov dyarntod (Matt. 
iii 17, xvii 5, e¢ al), or rod viod tod dyarnrod avtou 
(Matt. xii 18; Mark xii. 6), but more prominently singling 
out the attribute (Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 141 [E. T. 162): 
of the Son of His love, that is, of the Son who is the object of 
His love, genitive of the subject. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 18: vids 
odvvns pov. Entirely parallel is Eph. i. 6 f.: év r@ nyamrnpévg, 
év @ Exouev «.t.d. Augustine, de Trin. xv. 19, understood it 
as genitive of origin, making aydirn avrod denote the divine 
substantia.’ So again Olshausen, in whose view the expression 
is meant to correspond to the Johannine povoyeyys. This is 
entirely without analogy in the N. T. mode of conception, 
according to which not the procreation (ver. 15), but the send- 
ing of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act; and 
the love is not the essence of God (in the metaphysical sense), 
but His essential disposition (the essence in the ethical sense), 
even in 1 John iv. 8, 16. Consequently it might be ex- 
plained: “of the Son, whom His love has sent,” if this were 
suggested by the context; so far, however, from this being the 
case, the language refers to the exalted Christ who rules (Baot- 


1 Theodore of Mopsuestia finds in the expression the contrast that Christ was 
the Son of God ob ses, bAr’ dydern cris viohseiag. 





272 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Nelav). The expression itself, o vios tis aya. abtod, is found 
in the N. T. only here, but could not be chosen more suitably 
or with deeper feeling to characterize the opposite of the 
God-hated element of oxoros, which in its nature is directly 
opposed to the divine love. The view, that it is meant to be 
intimated that the sharing in the kingdom brings with it the 
viobecia (Huther, de Wette), imports what is not expressed, 
and anticipates the sequel. Holtzmann without ground, and 
unfairly, asserts that in comparison with Eph. i. 6 our passage 
presents “stereotyped modes of connection and turns of an 
ecclesiastical orator,’ under which he includes the Hebraizing o 
vids THs ayamns abr. as being thoroughly wn-Pauline—as if the 
linguistic resources of the apostle could not even extend to an 
expression which is not indeed elsewhere used by him, but is 
in the highest decree appropriate to a specially vivid sense of 
the divine act of love ; something sentimental in the best sense. 

“Ver. 14. Not a preliminary condition of the viofecla (de 
Wette), nor the benefit of which Christians become partakers 
in the kingdom of the Son of God (Huther; against which it 
may be urged that the BacvAeia does not denote the kingdom 
of the church); nor yet a mark of the deliverance from dark- 
ness having taken place (Ritsch] in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche 
Theol. 1863, p. 513), since this deliverance necessarily 
coincides with the translation into the kingdom ; but it is the 
abiding (Eyouer, habemus, not accepimus) relation, in which that 
transference into the kingdom of God has ws causal basis. The 
ransoming (from the punishment of sin, see the explanatory 
Thy adgecww Tov duapt.) we have in Christ, inasmuch as He, 
by the shedding of His blood as the purchase-price (see on 
1 Cor. vi. 20; Gal. uz 13, iv. 5), has given Himself as a 
Avrpoy (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45; 1 Tim. ii 6); and this 
redemption, effected by His tAaoryjpoy (Rom. iii 21 ff), 
remains continually in subsistence and efficacy. Hence: éy 9, 
which specifies wherein the subjective Eyoyev is objectively 
based, as its causa meritoria (Rom. ii 24). Comp., moreover, 
on Eph. i 7, whence ota rod aivaros avrod has found its way 
hither as a correct gloss. But the deleting of this addition 
by no means implies that we should make tov dyaptiov also 


CHAP. I. 18. 273 


belong to 1 dmroAvtTpwow (Hofmann), as in Heb. ix. 15, 
especially as Paul elsewhere only uses dzrodvtpwois either 
absolutely (Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i 30; Eph. i. 7, iv. 30) or 
with the genitive of the subject (Rom. vill. 23; Eph. i. 14), 
The expression ddeots t. dpapr. is not used by him elsewhere 
in the epistles (comp., however, Rom. iv. 7), but at Acts xiii 
38, xxvi. 28. Holtzmann too hastily infers that the writer 
had read the Synoptics. 

Ver. 15. As to vv. 15-20, see Schleiermacher in the Stud. 
u. Krit. 1832, p. 497 ff. (Werke z Theol. II. p. 321 ff.), and, 
in opposition to his ethical interpretation (of Christ as the 
moral Reformer of the world), Holzhausen in the Jib. Zettschr. 
1832, 4, p. 236 ff.; Osiander, wd. 1833, 1, 2; Bahr, ap- 
pendix to Komment. p. 321 ff.; Bleek on Heb. i. 2. See 
generally also Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 153 ff., IL 1, p. 
357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 446 f. — 
After having stated, in ver. 14, what we have in Christ (whose 
state of exaltation he has in view, see ver. 13, t7v Bactreiav), 
Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epexegetical relative 
clause, depicts what Christ zs, namely, as regards His divine 
dignity—having in view the influences of the false teachers, 
who with Gnostic tendencies depreciated this dignity. The 

plan of the discourse is not tripartite (originator of the physi- 
- cal creation, ver. 15 f.; maintainer of everything created, 
ver. 17; relation to the new moral creation, ver. 18 ff.,.—so 
Bihr, while others divide differently’), but bipartite, in such a 
way that vv. 15-17 set forth the exalted metaphysical rela- 
tion of Christ to God and the world, and then ver. 18 ff., His 
historical relation of dignity to the church.? This division, 
which in itself is logically correct (whereas ver. 17. is not 
suited, either as regards contents or form, to be a separate, 
co-ordinate part), is also externally indicated by the two con- 
firmatory clauses Gre év ar@ «.7.d. in ver. 16 and ver. 19, by 


1 e.g. Calovius : ‘‘ Redemptoris descriptio a Deitate : ab opere creationis,” and 
** quod capué ecclesiae sit.” Comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. 11. p. 299 f. 

2 Olshausen brings the two divisions under the exegetically erroneous point of 
view that, in vv. 15-17, Christ is described without reference to the incarnation, 
and in vv. 18-20, with reference to the same. 


COL. 8 


274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


which the two preceding’ affirmations in ver. 15 and ver. 18 
are shown to be the proper parts of the discourse. Others 
(see especially Bengel, Schleiermacher, Hofmann, comp. also 
Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 77) have looked upon the twice-expressed 
5; dorey in ver. 15 and ver. 18 as marking the beginning of the 
two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the 
second 8s éorsv; for the main idea, which governs the whole 
effusion, vv. 15-20, is the glory of the dominion of the Son of 
God, in the description of which Paul evidently begins the 
second part with the words «al avrés, ver. 18, passing over 
from the general to the special, namely, to His government 
over the church to which He has attained by His resurrec- 
tion. On the details, see below. — ds éorw x.7.r.] It is to be 
observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His present 
existence, consequently as regards the presence and continu- 
ance of His state of exaltation (comp. on. vv. 13, 14); hence 
he affirms, not what Christ was, but what He zs. On this 
éoriy, comp. vv. 17, 18, and 2 Cor. iv. 4. Therefore not 
only the reference to Christ's temporal manifestation (Calvin, 
Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), but also 
the limitation to Christ’s divine nature or the Logos (Calovius, 
Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Bihr, Steiger, Ol- 
shausen, Huther) is incorrect. The only correct reference is 
to His whole person, which, in the divine-human state of its 
present heavenly existence, 7s continually that which its divine 
nature—this nature considered in and by itself—was before. 
the incarnation; so that, in virtue of the identity of His 
divine nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ 
as to the Logos. See Phil. ii. 6; John xvii. 5.—eixayv rod 
Oeod rob aopdrou] image of God the invisible. Comp. on 2 Cor. 
iv. 4. As, namely, Christ in His pre-existence? down to His 


1 In conformity with the confirmatory fanction of the 3s,, according to which 
not the clause introduced by ge, but the clause which it is to confirm, contains 
the leading thought, to which ge: x.¢.4. is logically subordinated. Hence the 
two parts are not to be begun with the two clauses %e: iy airg themselves (so 
Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 182), in which case, moreover, ver. 15 is 
supposed to be quite aloof from this connection—a supposition at variance with 
its even verbally evident association with ver. 16. 

2 Sabatier, p. 290, without reason represents the apostle as in a state of indis- 





CHAP. I. 12. 275 


incarnation already possessed the essential divine glory, so 
that He was as to nature toa Oe@, and as to form of 
appearance év popdy Oeod imdpyov (see on Phil. ii. 6); 80, 
after He had by means of the incarnation divested Himself, 
not indeed of His God-equal nature, but of His divine 0£a, 
and had humbled Himself, and had in obedience towards 
God died even the death of the cross, He has been exalted 
again by God to His original glory (Phil. i. 9; John xvii. 5), 
so that the divine Sofa now exists (comp. on ii. 9) in His 
glorified corporeal manifestation (Phil. iii, 21); and He—the 
exalted Christ—in this His glory, which is that of His Father, 
represents and brings to view by exact image God, who is in 
Himself invisible. He is avravyacua ris S0Ens Kal yapaxrip 
THs orocracews Beod (Heb. i. 3),’ and, in this majesty, in 
which He is the exactly similar visible revelation of God, He 
will present Himself to all the world at the Parousia (Matt. 
xvi. 27, xxv. 31; Phil. iii. 20; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 13; 
Tit. ii. 13, ¢ al.). The predicate rod doparov, placed as it is 
in its characteristically significant attributive position (Borne- 
mann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvi. ; Bernhardy, p. 322 f.) behind the 
emphatic rod Oeod, posits for the conception of the exact image 
visibility (Heb. xii. 14; 2 Cor. ili. 18; Acts xxii. 11); but 
the assumption that Paul had thus in view the Alexandrian 
doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and manifest 
God (see Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 308; comp. Bahr, Olshausen, 
Steiger, Huther), the less admits of proof, because he is not 
speaking here of the pre-existence, but of the exalted Christ, 
tinct suspense in regard to his conception of this pre-existence. And Pfleiderer 
(in Hilgenfeld’s Zeiéschr. 1871, p. 533) sees in the pre-existence a subjective 
product, the consequence, namely, of the fact that Christ is the ideal of the 
destiny of the human mind, hypostasized in a single person, to which is trans- 
ferred the eternity and unchanged sclf-equality of the idea. 

1 This is the chief point of agreement between our Epistle and the Epistle to 
the Hebrews ; and it is explained by the Pauline basis and footing, on which 
the author of the latter stood. The subsequent wpwriroxes wae. xvie., however, 
has nothing to do with wpwréroxes, Heb. i. 6, where the absolute word is rather 
to be explained in accordance with Rom. viii. 29. We make this remark in 
opposition to Holtzmann, according to whom ‘‘ the autor ad Ephesios as to his 
Christology walks in the track opened by the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Other 


apparent resemblances to this letter are immaterial, and similar ones can be 
gathered from all the Pauline letters. 


276 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


including, therefore, His human nature; hence, also, the com- 
parison with the angel Metatron of Jewish theology (comp. 
Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 67) is irrelevant. The 
Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly 
laid stress upon the fact (see Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 415) that, 
according to the entire context, etc@y tod @cod is meant in the 
eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently con- 
substantial, image of God (movos... nat dmrapadAdxras eixoy, 
Theophylact), and not as man (Gen. i. 26; comp. also 1 Cor. 
xi. 7; Col. iii. 10) or the creation (Rom. i. 20) is God’s image. 
In that case, however, the invisibility of the eixwy is not at all 
to be considered as presupposed (Chrysostom, Calovius, and 
others); this, on the contrary, pertains to the Godhead in «self 
(1 Tim. i. 17; Heb. xi. 27), 80 far as it does not present itself 
in its ete@v; whereas the notion of eixwy necessarily involves 
perceptibility (see above) ; “ Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago,” 
Grotius. This visibility —and that not merely mental (Rom. i. 
20)—had been experienced by Paul himself at his conversion, 
and at Christ’s Parousia will be fully experienced by all the 
world. Different from this is the (discursive) cognoscibility of 
God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and 
working. Johni18,xiv. 9. This applies against the view of 
Calvin, Clericus, and many others, including de Wette: “in 
His person, appearance, and operation ... God has made Him- 
self as it were visible ;” comp. Grotius: “Adam imago Dei 
fuit, sed valde tenuis; in Christo perfectissime apparuit, quam 
Deus esset sapiens, potens, bonus ;” Baumgarten-Crusius: “the 
affinity to God (which is held to consist in the destination 
of ruling over the spirit-world) as Christ showed it upon earth.” 
Thus the substantiality of the exact image is more or less 
turned into a guast or guodammodo, and the text is thus laid 
open to every kind of rationalizing caprice. We may add that 
Christ was already, as Acyos Aoapxos, necessarily the image of 
God, but év wopd7 Geod, in purely divine glory; not, as after His 
exaltation, in divine-human Sofa; consequently, the doctrine of 
an eternal humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based 
on eixay tov Gcov. Comp. Wisd. vii. 26, and Grimm, Handb. 
p. 161 f. The idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which 





CHAP. I. 15. 277 


is held by Beyschlag here to underlie that of the image 
of God (comp. his Christol. p. 227), is foreign to the context. 
Certainly God has in eternity thought of the humanity which 
in the fulness of time was to be assumed by His Son (Acts xv. 
18); but this is simply an ideal pre-existence (comp. Delitzsch, 
Psychol. p. 41 ff.), such as belongs to the entire history of sal- 
vation, very different from the real antemundane existence of 
the personal Logos. —- apwroroxos mdons xticews}] After the 
relation of Christ to God now follows His relation to what is 
created, in an apologetic interest of opposition to the Gnostic false 
teachers ; BovAeras Sci€as, brs po macns Tis Kticews eotw Oo 
viosy mas Ov; Sia yevnoews’ ovxody Kal THY wyyédwY ITpoTeEpoS, 
Kal ovTas @oTe Kal altos éxticey avrovs, Theophylact. The 
false teachers denied to Christ the supreme unique rank in the 
order of spirits. But he is jirst-born of every creature, that 
is, born before every creature—having come to personal exist- 
ence, entered upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created 
was extant (Rom. i. 25, vill. 39; Heb. iv. 13). Analogous, 
but not equivalent, is Prov. viii. 22 f. It is to be observed 
that this predicate also belongs to the entire Christ, inasmuch 
as by His exaltation His entire person is raised to that state in 
which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed before 
the creation of the world, corresponding to the Johannine 
expression éy apy %v o Aovyos, which in substance, although 
not in form, is also Pauline; comp. Phil. ii. 6. Philo’s term 
mpwtoyovos, used of the Logos, denotes the same relation ; but 
it 1g not necessary to suppose that Paul appropriated from 
him this expression, which is also current among classical 
authors, or that the apostle was at all dependent on the Alex- 
andrian philosophic view. The mode in which he conceived 

! According to Hofmann (Schriftbew.), the expression is also intended to imply 
that the existence of all created things was brought about through Him. But 
this is only stated in what follows, and is not yet contained in wpursroxes by 
itself, which only posits the origin of Christ (as Aéyes wpofopsxés) in His temporal 
Telation to the creature; and this point is the more purely to be adhered to, 
seeing that Christ Himself does not belong to the category of the seis. Calvin 
also has understood it as Hofmann does ; comp. also Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 
79, and Beyschlag, p. 446, according to whom Christ is at the same time to be 


designated as the principle of the creature, whose origin bears in itself that of 
the latter. 


278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


of the personal pre-cxistence of Christ before the world as 
regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the figurative 
mpwrotoxos more precisely than as procession from the divine 
nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the 
Logos, by saying that the Father avéreckevy Him), whereby 
the premundane Christ became subsistent é€v wop¢7 Ocod and 
toa Oew (Phil ii 6). The genitive mdons xricews, moreover, 
is not the partiive genitive (although de Wette still, with 
Usteri, Reuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because 
the anarthrous waoa «riots does not mean the whole creation, or 
everything which is created (Hofmann), and consequently cannot 
affirm the category or collective whole’ to which Christ belongs 
as its first-born individual (it means: every creature; comp. on 
mace oixodoun, Eph. ii. 217); but it is the genitive of compari- 
son, corresponding to the superlative expression : “ the first-born 
in comparison with every creature” (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that 
is, born earlier than every creature. Comp. Bahr and Bleek, 
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sinde, I. p. 241; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 424; 
Philippi, Glaubensi. II. p. 214, ed. 2. In Rev. i 5, rpwrorox. 
tay vexpay, the relation is different, r. vexpa@y pointing out 
the category ; comp. mpwrtortox. éy moddois d6.; Rom. viii. 29. 
The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative 


1 Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 C. The article would necessarily be 
added, as waea 4 xviers, Judith xvi. 14, or 4 waca avioi, 8 Macc. vi. 2, ors 
xvisig wzen, Comp. also 3An 4 xrioss, Wisd. xix. 6. 

2 Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 156: ‘‘ In relation to all that is created, Christ 
occupies the position which a first-born has towards the household of his father.” 
Essentially similar is his view in his Heil. Schr. N. T., p. 16, where w. xrie. is 
held to mean ‘‘all creation,” and to signify ‘‘all that is created in its unity,” 
which is also the opinion of Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 211. The inter- 
pretation of Hofmann (comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 79) is incorrect, because there 
would thereby be necessarily affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for Christ 
and all the xries. The xriess would stand to Christ in the relation of the srra- 
aszbsis to the epwrézcacs, of the iwiyeres to the wpwréyoves, Hofmann indeed (Heil. 
Schr. in loc.) opines that sdens xcivws is simply genitive ‘‘ of the definition of 
relation.” But this, in fact, explains nothing, because the question remains, 
What relation is meant to be defined by the genitive? The wpwricoxes rdens 
xrieiws is not at all to be got over so easily as it is by Hofmann, namely, with 
@ grammatically erroneous explanation of the anarthrous séea xeieis, and with 
appeal to Ps, Ixxxix. 28 (where, in fact, wpwréroxes stands without genitive, and 
{52 in the sense of the first rank). 


CHAP. I. 13, 279 


genitive with mpd@ros; see on John i. 15, and generally, 
Kihner, II. 1, p. 335 The element of comparison is the 
relation of time (apo tov Tov xocpuoy eivas, John xvii. 5), and 
that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case 
of every xriows is different from what it is in the case of 
Christ, neither mpwroxtioros nor wpwromdactos is made use 
of'—terms which would indicate for Christ, who is withal 
Son of God, a similar mode of origin as for the creature—but the 
term mpwtotoxos is chosen, which, in the comparison as to time 
of origin, points to the peculiar nature of the origination in the 
case of Christ, namely, that He was not created by God, like the 
other beings in whom this is implied in the designation «riots, 
but born, having come forth homogeneous from the nature of 
God. And by this is expressed, not a relation homoge- 
neous with the «riows (Holtzmann), a relation kindred to the 
world (Beyschlag, Chrisiol. p. 227), but that which is abso- 
lutely exalted above the world and unique. Theodoret justly 
observes: ovy ws adergny Exov THY KTiCW, GAN ws Tpo TaINS 
xticews yevynOels. At. variance with the words, therefore, is 
the Arian interpretation, that Christ is designated as the first 
creature; so also Usteri, p. 315, Schwegler, Baur, Reuss. 
With this view the sequel also conflicts, which describes Christ 
as the accomplisher and aim of creation ; hence in His case a 
mode of origin higher and different from the being created must be 
presupposed, which is, in fact, characteristically indicated in the 
purposely-chosen word mapwtotoxes. The Socinian interpreta- 
tion is also incorrect? (Grotius, Wetstein, Nosselt, Heinrichs, 
and others), that «rious denotes the new ethical creation, along 
with which there is, for the most part, associated the refer- 
ence of wxpwrorox. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanch- 


1 How much, however, the designations wpwrixrieros, aricua, xeiluy x.¢.2., a8 
applied to the origin of the Son, were in use among the Alexandrians (following 
Prov. viii. 22, where Wisdom says : adpies ixeiei ws, comp. Ecclus. i. 4, xxiv. 8f.), 
may be seen in Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 827, ed. 4. 

2 The Socinian doctrine argues thus: ‘‘primogenitum unum ex eorum 
numero, quorum primogenitus est, esse necésse est ;” but Christ could not be 
‘* anus e rebus conditis creationis veferis,”—an assumption which would be Arian ; 
He must consequently belong to the new creation, from which it follows, at the 
same time, that He does not possess a divine nature. See Catech. Racov. 167, 
p. 818, ed. Oceder. 





280 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


thon, Cameron, Hammond, Zachariae, and others, including 
Storr and Flatt; comp. de Wette), which is assumed also by 
many who understand it of the physical creation. It is 
decisive against this interpretation, that «riouw would neces- 
sarily require for the moral notion a more precise definition, 
either by a predicate (cacy, 2 Cor. v. 17; comp. Barnabas, 
ep. ¢. XVi.: NaBovtes THY Apecty Tay dpaptiav Kal éAricaytes 
él T@ dvopate Tov Kupiov, éyevouela xawvol, mdédw é& apyis 
xriCopevot), or at least by a context which admitted of no 
doubt ; also, that wpwroroxos never means the most excellent, 
and can only have this sense ex adjuncto (as at Ps. Ixxxix. 28 ; 
Rom. viii. 29), which in this passage is not by any means the 
case, as the context (see ver. 16, and 7po awdvroy in ver. 17 ; 
comp. also wpwroroxos ex Twyv vexpoy in ver. 18) brings pro- 
minently forward the relation of time. Chrysostom justly says: 
ovy) akias x. Tihs, GAAG xXpovou povoy earl onpaytixoy, and 
already Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 31, p. 172: Sarore 5é nOeAncev 
6 @c0s Toijoas Soa €BovrevoaTo, TovTOY TOV NOYoU eyévynaeE 
wrpopopixov, mpwToroxoy mdons xricews. This mpwrdroxov 
elvas belongs to the high dignity of Christ (comp. Rev. iii. 14: 
2) apXn Tis KTicews TOU Beod), but it does not signify it. Comp. 
Justin, c. Zr. 100: arpwroroxoy pév tov Oeod x. mpd mavtwy Tov 
xtiaparwy, The ethical’ interpretation of the passage appears 
all the more mistaken, since according to it, even if mpw- 
Torox. is understood temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius: “ «riots 
is that which is remodelled, and mpwréoroxos, He who has come 
first under this category, has first received this higher spiritual 
dignity”), Christ is made to be included under the xriots, 
which is at variance both with the context in ver. 16 f, 
and with the whole N. T. Christology, especially the sinless- 
ness of Christ. If, however, in order to obviate this ground 
of objection, wpwroroxos is combined as an adjective with 
eixov, we not only get a complicated construction, since both 


! Both errors of the Socinians, ctc., are already present in Theodore cf Mop- 
suestia, namely, that wpwetrencss wir. xriz, does not sland iv? ypsvev, Tut ix? 
wperipnotos, ond signilics tase wasay chy xr'esy cysomsyes; Od that the following 
iv abrg a.¢.A. does not denote civ wperny, but cay iv airy ysveuivny bvdaeioiy. 
Comp. also Photius, Amphil. 192. 








CHAP. L. 16. 281 


words have their genitival definition, but wpardroxos (instead 
of srpwrdoruTos) would be an inappropriate predicate for eixav. 
This applies against Schleiermacher,. who, taking xticws as 
“disposition and arrangement of human things,” educes the 
rationalizing interpretation, that Christ is in the whole compass 
of the spiritual world of man the first-born image, the original 
copy of God ; that all believers ought to be formed in the image 
of Christ,and thence the image of God would likewise necessarily 
arise in thern—an image of the second order. In the interest 
of opposition to heresy, some, following Isidore of Pelusium, Zp. 
iii. 31, p. 237, and Basil the Great, c. Hunom. iv. p. 104, have 
made the first-born even into the first-bringer-forth (rpwrotoxos, 
as paroxytone, according to the classical usage, Hom. J/. xvii. 5 ; 
Plat. Theaet. p. 161 A,151C; Valckenaer, Schol. IL p. 389), as, 
with Erasmus in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus 
Schmid and Michaelis did, although wpwrortoxos in an active 
sense occurs only of the female sex, and the very mpwrortoxos éx 
tr. vexp. of ver. 18 ought to have dissuaded from such an idea, to 
say nothing of the unfitness and want of delicacy of the figure’ 
as relating to Christ’s agency in the creation of the world, and of 
the want of reference in the zpa@rov to the idea of a Sevrepov—an 
idea which, with the usual interpretation, is implied in «ticews. 
—Ver. 15 f. is, moreover, strikingly opposed to that assumption 
of a world without beginning (Schleiermacher, Rothe). 

Ver. 16. For in Him were all things created,—the logically 
correct confirmation of mpwroroxos mac. xticews. For if the 
creation of all things took place in Christ, it is evident that He 
must stand before the series of created things, and be mapwro- 
Toxos mraons kticews. — ev avT@] is not equivalent to Se atrod 
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Bleek, 
and many others), but: on Christ depended (causally) the act of 
creation, so that the latter was not done independently of Him— 
in a causal connection apart from Him—but it had in Him the 
ground essentially conditioning it. In Him lay, in fact, the 
potency of life, from which God made the work of creation 
proceed, inasmuch as He was the personal principle of the 
divine self-revelation, and therewith the accomplisher of the 


1 wparer aires virexiva:, rove’ bees wirenxivas chy xvii, Isidore, Lc. 


282 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


divine idea of the world A well - known classical usage 
to denote the dependence of a state of things, the causality 
of which is contained in any one. See Bernhardy, p. 210; 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 403 f.; from the N. T., Winer, p. 364 [E. T. 
521]. Not as if the “causa principalis” of the creation 
lay in Christ, but the organic causality of the world’s becom- 
ing created was in Him; hence the following & avrod 
affirms not a different state of things, but the same thing under 
a varied form of conception and designation, by which it is 
brought out in greater definiteness. The primary ground of 
creation is ever God, Rom. xi 36; 1 Cor. vii. 6; Heb. xi 3. 
The speculative interpretation of scholastic theology, which 
found here the “ causa exemplaris,” according to which the tdea 
omnium rerum was in Christ, is indeed followed in the main 
again by Beyschlag, as earlier by Kleuker, Bohmer, Bahr, 
Neander, Schleiermacher, Steiger, Julius Miiller, Olshausen (the 
latter saying: “the Son of God is the intelligible world, the 
xoop0s vonros, that is, things in their very idea; He bears their 
essence in Himself”), but is destitute of confirmation from 
- the modes of conception and expression elsewhere in the 
N. T., and, as éxrio@n denotes the historical fact of the having 
been created, it would require not évy avr@, but €£ avrod, by 
which the coming forth of the real from the ideal existence in 
Christ might be expressed. Huther finds the inward connection 
indicated by év avr@ in the idea, that the eternal essence of 
the universe is the divine essence itself, which in Christ became 
man. This idea in itself has no biblical ground; and Paul is 
speaking here, not of the existence and essence of the universe 
in Christ, but of the becoming created, which took place in 
Christ (€v atr@ Sw Fv, John i. 4), consequently of a divine 
act depending on Christ; comp. John i. 3: yapis adrod 
éyéveto ovdé év & yéyovey; Heb. i 2; and Bleek in loc. Lastly, 
de Wette finds in é» besides the instrumental agency at 
the same time something of a ¢elic idea (comp. also Ewald and 
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 424f.); but this blending together of 
two heterogeneous references is not justified by the 5: avrov 
nat ets avtoy that follows. — éxricOn] physical act of creation ; 
Schleiermacher ought not to have called in question the 





CHAP. L. 16. 283 


linguistic usage to this effect, with a view to favour the ethical 
interpretation of the founding of the church. See Wisd. i. 14, 
x. 1, xi. 18; Deut. iv. 32; comp. Gen. vi. 7; Ecclus. xxiv. 9, 
comp. xv. 14 ; Judith xiii. 18 ; comp. Gen. 1.1; 1 Cor. x19; 
Eph. iii. 9; Rom. i 25; Rev. x. 6, comp. xiv. 7. The word 
may have the meaning adopted by Schleiermacher : to obtain ts 
arrangement and constitution (Herod. i. 149,167,168; Thuc. 
i 100; Aesch. Choeph. 484; Soph. Ant. 1101; Pind. OI. 
vi. 116; 3 Esdr. iv. 53), and that according to the relative 
nature of the notion implied in the word condere (comp. 
Blomf. Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. 294); but not here, where it is 
correlative with dons xticews, and where the quite general 
and in no way to be restricted ta wdvra follows. Through- 
out the N. T., in general xrifw, «rious, xtiopa, denote the 
original bringing forth, never merely the arrangement of that 
which exists; and even in such passages as Eph. i. 10, 15, 
iv. 24, the relation is conceived, only in a popular manner, as 
actual creation.—Observe, moreover, the distinction of the tenses: 
éxric@n, which denotes the act that took place; and then 
éxtiotat, Which denotes the creation which has taken place and 
now subsists. See Winer, p. 255 [E T. 340]; Kihner, IT. 1, 
p. 143 f,, and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 4, iii. 7. '7.— 7d wayra] 
the collective whole, namely, of what is created. This is then 
specified in a twofold way, as well in regard to place as in 
regard to nature. — Ta éy tots ovpavois «.7.A.] the things to be 
found in the heavens and those to be found on earth. This is 
certainly a less exact designation of all created things than 
that in Rev. x. 6 (téy otpavoy xal ta & atr@ «7..; comp. 
Neh. ix. 6; Gen. 11. 1, & al.), but does not differ from it, as 
it does not exclude heaven and earth themselves, the consti- 
tuent elements of which, in the popular view, are included in 
these two categories. Comp. 1 Chron. xxx. 11. It is incor- 
rect, therefore, to press this expression in opposition to the 
explanation which refers it to the creation of the world 
(Wetstein: “non dicit 6 ovpavds nal 4 vip exricAn sed ra 
mdyra, etc., quo habitatores significantur, qui reconciliantur,” 
comp. Heinrichs and others, also Catech. Racov. 132, p. 214, 
ed. Oeder), and to think, with Schleiermacher, of the kingdom 


284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. . 


of heaven ; but it is arbitrary also, especially after ta wdyra, 
to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bahr, de 
Wette) or rational creatures. The expression embraces every- 
thing ; hence there was neither need for the mention of the 
lower world, nor, looking at the bipartite form of enumeration, 
occasion for it (it is otherwise in Phil. 11. 10; Rev. v. 3). 
The idea that Paul could not have adduced those wnder the 
earth as a special class of created beings, because God had not 
created them with the view of their being under the earth (de 
Wette), would imply a reflection alien to the vivid flow of the 
passage before us.—7Ta opara x. Ta dopata] By the latter is 
meant the heavenly world of spirits, the angelic commonwealth, 
as is evident from the more precise enumeration which follows, 
and not the souls of men (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others), 
which, on the contrary, as animating a portion of the opard, 
are included among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts 
that even rd opard applies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and 
stars) ; it applies to everything visible, as in Plat. Phacd. p. 79 A: 
Odev ody, et Bovret, fn, Svo ef5n Tav dyrwv Td yey oparor, 
to 5é devdés.— The dopata are now more precisely specified 
disjunctively by cite, sive... sive (put more than twice ; 
comp. Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, 493 D; Ecclus. xli. 4). As to the 
four denominations of angels which follow—whose difference of 
rank Hofmann groundlessly denies,’ understanding thereby 
merely “spirits collectively, of whatever name they may be”—see 
on Eph. i. 21; Rom. viii. 38. In accordance with Eph. i. 21, 
where the grades of angels are mentioned in descending order, 
the arrangement here must be understood so, that the @povor are 
the highest and the xupsornres the lowest class, the dpya¢ and 
the éfovcias being two middle orders lying between these two 
extremes. At Eph. /.c. Paul names also fowr grades of the 
angelic hierarchy ; but neither there nor here has he intended 
to give a complete enumeration of them, for in the former case 
he omits the Opovor, and in the latter the Suvdpeu. The 
@povor are not mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. (nor yet in 
Ignat. ad Trall. 5), but they occur in the Zest. Levi, p. 548, in 


‘ See, on the other hand, Hahn, Theol. d. N. 7. I. p. 292f.; Philippi, 
Glaubensi. II. p. 808 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 559. 


CHAP. I. 16. 285 


which they are placed in the seventh heaven (év @ del duvoe 
t¢ Oe@ mpoodpépovtat), also in Dionys, Areop. Hier. coel, 6 ff., 
and in the Rabbins (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm: p. 1097; Schoettgen, 
Hor. p. 808). As regards the expression, the last three de- 
nominations are to be taken as abstracts, which represent the 
respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun O@pdvos 
is used for those to be found on the thrones (for those enthroned) ; 
comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 11; Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 190. 
In this case the very natural supposition that the angels, 
whose designation by the term @povos must have been in cur- 
rent use, were, in the imagery which gave sensuous embodi- 
ment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be 
called in question (in opposition to Fritzsche,ad Rom. II. p. 226). 
They were probably conceived as enthroned round the throne 
of God (comp. Rev. iv. 4, xx. 4). It is to be observed, more- 
over, generally that Paul presupposes the various classes of 
angels, which he names, as well known; although we are un- 
acquainted with the details of the case, this much is neverthe- 
less certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy 
fancies indulged in on this point by the later Rabbins (see 
Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 374). But very soon 
after the apostolic age (comp. Hermas, Past. vis. iii. 4), instruc- 
tion as to romodecias tas dyyeduxds was regarded as teaching 
for the more perfect. See Ignatius, ad Tall. 5. For the Chris- 
tian faith there remains and suffices the testimony as to different 
and distinctively designated stages and categories in the angelic 
world, while any attempt to ascertain more than is written in 
Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy.— With 
é£ovclat is concluded the confirmatory sentence (67+), so that a full 
stop isto be placed after efouec. With ta advra begins a new 
sentence,in which ta wravta and avros correspond to one another; 
hence a comma only must stand after xrioras. There is no 
reason for placing (with Lachmann) ta zrdvra down to éxxAno. 
in a parenthesis. — ta savra 8? atrod x.7.r.] a solemn reca- 
pitulation, but in such a way that, instead of the act of crea- 

1 Ewald well says: ‘‘ Just at this point the discourse breaks forth as if with 


fresh force, so a8 once more to express as clearly as possible the whole in all 
conceivable temporal relations.” 


286 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


tion previously mentioned, there is now presented the finished 
and ready result (Exttorar) ; the causal relation which was pre- 
viously denoted by éy is now more precisely indicated as a 
relation of mediate agency (&¢ avrod, comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6) ; then 
in eis avtov a new element is added, and the emphasis which in 
ver. 16 lay on éxtic@n, is now laid on ta wdyta which stands 
at the head of the sentence. We cannot say with Hofmann, 
that by 8: avrod and eis avroy the Son comes to stand in con- 
tradistinction to what has been created as Creator, after by éy 
autre the creative act has been presented as one that had taken 
place only not without the Son. By the latter, é avre would 
become too general and indefinite a thought; while 6’ av’rod 
in fact leaves the Father as the Creator, which He is, and predi- 
cates of the Son merely the “causa medians” of the execution of 
the work, just as es avrov predicates the “causa jinalis” of the 
same.—els avrov] in reference to Him, for Him, as the aim and 
end, “in quo Pater acquiescit,” Beza. Comp. Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. 
viii, 6; Barnab. Ep. 12: ey aire ta mdvta xal eis avrov. 
The more exact purport of this relation is apparent from all 
that follows down to ver. 20. Everything, namely, is created, 
in order to be dependent on Christ and to serve His will and aim.' 
Comp. on Eph. i. 23, iv. 10; Phil. ii. 9 ff. The final cause 
of the world, referred in Rom. xi 36 to God, is here affirmed 
of Christ, and with equal right; for He, as He was the organ 
of God in ereation, is the commissioned ruler to whom the 
xuploTns Tey TavTwy is committed (Matt. xxviii. 18 ; Phil. ii 9; 
1 Cor. xv. 27; Heb. ii. 8), in order that everything created 
may have the ethical telic destination of serving Him? More 


' And, if the world was created not merely 3:’ adres, but also sis abeéy, conse- 
sequently in telic reference to Him, it is certain that with the counsel of crea- 
tion there was also posited, in prospect of the entry of sin, the counsel of 
redemption. Comp. Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, I. p- 196f; Julius 
Miiller, Dogm. Abhand. p. 121 ff. 

* This sis abréy is wrongly found incompatible with 1 Cor. viii. 6 (see, after 
Mayerhoff, Baur, and others, especially Holtzmann, p. 219), where, in fact, it is 
said of the ethical existence of Christians that they exist for God through Christ, 
inasmuch as the subject of sis airéy (for God) and of 3,’ «aired (through Christ) 
is not the universe, but the susis. The relation of subordination between Father 
and Son would be only done away with at our passage, in the event of its being 


CHAP. L 17. 287 


special definitions of the meaning of eis avrov are without due 
warrant, and in particular, the often-repeated one: to His glori- 
jation (Beza, Flatt, Bohmer, and others); it lays down Christ 
in general as the legitimus jinis (Calvin). — The expositors, 
who explain the words as referring to the new moral creation, 
have summoned to their aid all kinds of arbitrary conjectures 
in detail—a remark which applies not merely to Nosselt, 
Heinrichs, and others, but also to Schleiermacher, who holds 
(comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that ra év 7. ovp. is everything 
that belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and ra émi +. yijs 
everything which belongs to civil order in earthly kingdoms ; 
that ta opara and td dopata apply only to the latter; that 
the Opdvor x.7.r. are magisterial offices, and the like. 
Ver. 17. Kat avrés] which is to be separated from the 
preceding by a comma only (see on ver. 16), places, in contra- 
distinction to the created objects in ver. 16 (7a sdvra), the 
subject, the creating self: “and He Himself, on His part, has 
an earlier existence than all things, and the collective whole 
subsists in Him.” Never is airés in the nominative’ the 
mere unemphatic “he” of the previous subject (de Wette), 
either in Greek authors or in the N. T., not even in 
passages such as Buttmann (Newt. Gr. p. 94 [E. T. 107] 
brings forward; see Fritzsche, ad Maith. p. 47; Winer, p. 
141 f.[E. T. 187]; Kihner, II. 1, p. 563. — apo wavrv] like 
mparoroxos, referring to time, not to rank (as the Socinians, 
Nosselt, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
said of Christ that ra wedvre were created bf aire’. But by ix aire, and by the 
more precise definition 3) aired, it is guarded ; and the subordination remains 
unaffected by the circumstance that the sis aveés is laid down by God for the 
world as itstelicaim. This ss airés ixeiera:s is the necessary preliminary condi- 
tion, on God’s part, to the universal dominion which he has destined for Christ, 
and which the latter shall one day, at the goal of consummation, hand over to 
the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). Moreover, what Paul says of the xeis:s in Rom. 
viii. is essentially connected with that sis aveér, which does not go beyond Paul 
or come at all into opposition to him. The resemblance of our passage to é 
apures xa) éiexares, Rev. i. 17, xxii. 18, rests upon the Christological basis of 
their common faith, not upon a dependence of our epistle on the Apocalypse, 
which would doubtless imply a post-Pauline date (in opposition to Holtzmann, 
p. 247). 
' Bengel correctly observes on ver. 16: “ Ipse hic saepe positum magnam sig- 
nificat majestatem et omnem excludit creaturam.” 





288 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


others hold); Paul thus repeatedly and emphatically lays stress 
on the pre-existence of Christ. Instead of éori, he might 
have written #v (John i. 1); but he makes use of the former, 
because he has in view and sete forth the permanence of 
Christ's existence, and does not wish to narrate about Him 
historically, which is done only in the auxiliary clauses with 
ért, vv. 16 and 19. On the present, comp. John viii. 58. 
His existence is more ancient than that of all things (zravrwyr, 
not masculine, as the Vulgate and Luther translate). — & 
avr@] as in ver. 16, referring to the causal dependence of the 
subsistence of all existing things on Christ. — ovvéornxe] de- 
notes the subsistence of the whole, the state of lasting inter- 
dependence and order,—an idea which is not equivalent to 
that of creation, but presupposes it. Reiske, Jnd. Dem. ed: 
Schaef. p. 481: “Corpus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum 
consentiens esse et permanere.” Comp. 2 Pet. iii 5; Plat. 
Rep. p. 530 A: Evvectavas t@ tod ovpavod Snusoupyp avrov 
te kai Ta ev avto, Tim. p.61 A: viv... Evveotneviay, Legg. 
vii. p. 817 B: 4 qroAstela Evvéornee pipnots tov xaddlotov... 
Blov. Herod. vii. 225; Philo, quis rer. div. haer. p. 489: 
© Evatpos dyKos, €E éavtod Suvadvtos dv Kai vexpds, cuvéotynxe 
x. Cwrrupeitras mpovoia Geo x.7.r. It expresses that there is 
in Christ not merely the creative cause, but also the cause 
which brings about organic stability and continuance in unity 
(preserving and governing) for the whole of existing things. 
Comp. Heb.i. 3. Of attempts at explanation under the moral 
interpretation, we may note that of Schleiermacher: the con- 
solidating of earthly relations and institutions; and that of 
Baumgarten - Crusius: “in this new world He is Lord in 
recognition and in sway.” 


REMARK.—The intentional prominence given to the fact of 
the creation of all things through Christ, and in particular of 
the creation of the angels in their various classes, justifies 
the supposition that the false teachers disparaged Christ in 
this respect, and that they possessed at least elements of the 
Gnostic-demzurgic doctrine which was afterwards systematically 
elaborated. There is no evidence, however, of their particular 
views, and the further forms assumed by the Gnostic elements, 


CHAP. L 18. 289 


as they showed themselves according to the Fathers in Simon 
Magus (Iren. Haer. i. 20: “ Eunoiam ...generare angelos et 
potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc factum dixit;” comp. 
Epiph. Haer. xxi. 4), Cerinthus, etc., and especially among the 
Valentinians, while certainly to be recognised as fundamentally 
akin to the Colossian doctrinal errors (comp. Heinrici, Valen- 
tinian. Gnosis, 1871), are not to be identified with them; 
nor are those elements to be made use of as a proof of 
the post-apostolic origin of the epistle, as still is done by 
Hilgenfeld (see his Zezischr. 1870, p. 246 f.), and more 
cautiously by Holtzmann. Of Ebionitism only Essene elements 
are to be found in Colossae, mingled with other Gnostic 
doctrines, which were not held by the later Ebionites. In 
particular, the ap) xdvrwv svar, on Which Paul lays so much 
stress, must have been doubted in Colossae, although a portion 
of the Ebionites expressly and emphatically tauglit it (Aéyousw 
dvabey yoty ovr, apd wdveov Os xsiobivra, Epiph. Haer. xxx. 3). 
Moreover, the opinion that Paul derived the appellations of the 
classes of angels in ver. 16 from the language of the heretics 
themselves (Bohmer, comp. Olshausen) is to be rejected, because 
in other passages also, where there is no contrast to the Gnostic 
doctrine of Aeons, he makes use in substance of these 
names (Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. xv. 24; comp. Eph. i. 20 ff., iii. 
10, vi. 11 ff). They are rather to be regarded as well-known 
and generally-current appellations, which were derived from 
the terminology of later Judaism, and which heretics made use 
of in common with the orthodox. The anti-Gnostic element is 
contained, not in the technical expressions, but in the doctrinal 
contents of the passage; and it was strong enough to induce 
Marcion, who took offence at it, to omit vv. 15-17 (Tertullian, 
c. Marcion, v.19). See, besides, Rabiger, Christol. Paul. p. 51 f.; 
Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 55 f.; Klopper, Zc. 


Ver. 18. Second part (see on ver. 15) of the exhibition of 
the exaltedness of Christ. To that which Christ is as zpwro- 
Toxos Taons KTicews (vv. 16, 17) is now added what He is as 
mpwrotokos €x Tay vexpov, namely, the Head of the Church, 
and thus His spmwrevecv has its consummation (év maou). The 
latter, namely, fva yévntat... rpwrevov, embraces also a retro- 
spect to that mpwroroxos wdons xticews, and includes it in 
év waowy, without its being necessary, however, to attach ver. 
18 to the carrying out of the relation to the world expressed 

COL, T 


290 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


in wpwtorox, m. «tic, (Hofmann, comp. Rich. Schmidt). The 
perspective proceeds from the dignity of the original state of 
our Lord to that of His state as Saviour, from His cosmical 
to His soteriological glory, and so at length exhibits Him to 
view as the éy maov mpwrevoy. — That ver. 18, with its confir- 
mation in ver. 19 f., has an apologetic reference to the Gnostic 
false teaching, must be assumed from its connection with what 
goes before. The passage is to be looked upon as antagonistic 
to the worship of angels (ii. 18), which disparaged Christ in His 
dignity as Head of the Church, but not (in opposition to Bahr 
and Huther) as antagonistic to a theological dogma, such as is 
found in the Cabbala, according to which the body of the 
Messiah (the Adam Kadmon) is the aggregate of the emana- 
tions. For the emphasis of the passage and its essential 
point of doctrine lie in the fact that Christ is the Head of the 
church, and not in the fact that He is the head of the 
church ; it is not the doctrine of another capa, but that of 
any other mpwrevwy, which is excluded. — «al avros] stands 
again, as x, avros in ver. 17, in significant reference to ra 
mavra : et ipse, in quo omnia consistunt, est caput, etc. so that the 
passage continues to divide itself as into the links of a chain. 
— Tov cduaros THS Exkdyo.] to be taken together; the second 
genitive is that of apposition (Winer, p. 494 [E. T. 666)), 
which gives to the word governing it concrete definiteness ; 
comp. Miiller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 611 f£ On 
the familiar Pauline mode of considering the church of be- 
lievers, livingly and actively ruled by Christ as the head 
(Eph. iii. 10; Phil. iii. 6; Acts ix. 31), as His body, comp. 
1 Cor. x. 17, xii 12 ff, 27; Eph. i 23, iv. 12, v. 23, 30; 
Rom. xii. 5. — & éorw «.7.r.] epexegetical relative clause (as 
in ver. 15), the contents of which are related by way of confir- 
mation to the preceding statement (Matthiae, p. 1061 f.; 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 2.64; Stallbaum, ad Phil.'p. 195 f.), 


1In which is expressed the idea of the invisible church. Comp. Julius 
Miller, Dogmat. Abh. p. 316 ff. And this conception and representation belong 
quite to the apostle’s general sphere of ideas, not specially to that of the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, into which the interpolator is supposed by Holtzmann again to 
enter here, after he has manifested a comparative independence in vv. 15-18. 


CHAP. I. 18. 291 


like our: he, who, etc. which might be expressed, but not neces- 
sarily, by Sores (or Sore). Comp. on Eph.i. 14; If Christ 
had not risen, He would not be Head of the church (Acts 
ii. 24-36 ; 1 Cor. xv.; Rom i 4, e al.).—dpyy] beginning ; 
which, however, is not to be explained either as “ initium 
secundae et novae creationis” (Calvin), progenitor of the re- 
generate (Bisping), or “author of the church” (Baumgarten- 
Crusius), or even “ruler of the world” (Storr, Flatt); but 
agreeably to the context in such a way, as to make it have 
with the appositional pwrdoroxos its definition in é« rav vexpar, 
just as if the words ran: dpyy tay vexpay, mpwroroxos é& 
avrav, although Paul did not express himself thus, because at 
once upon his using the predicate apy7 in and by itself the 
exegetical mpwroroxos suggested itself to him. Accordingly 
Christ is called dpy7 (rv vexp@v), inasmuch as He ts among 
all the dead the first arisen to everlasting life. It is arbitrary 
to discover in apy7 an allusion to the offering of jirst-fruits 
sanctifying the whole mass (Chrysostom, Beza, Ewald, and 
others) ; especially as the term dzrapy7, which is elsewhere used 
for the first portion of a sacrifice (Rom. xi. 16), is not here 
employed, although it has crept in from 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, in 
a few minuscult and Fathers, as in Clement also, Cor. I. 24, 
Christ is termed drapy?) Tis dvactdcews. To assume a re- 
miniscence of 1 Cor. xv. (Holtzmann) is wholly unwarranted, 
especially as avapy7 is not used. On dpyy, used of persons, 
denoting the one who begins the series, as the first in order of 
time, comp. Gen. xlix. 3, where dpy7) réxvwy pov is equivalent 
to apwrétoKxos pov, as also Deut. xxi. 17. In what respect any 
one is dpy7 of those concerned, must be yielded by the con- 
text, just as in this case it is yielded by the more precisely 
defining mpwrdroxos é« +r. vexpav; hence it has been in sub- 
stance correctly explained, following the Fathers: apy7, ¢ncb, 
dort THS avaotdcews, Too TdyTwY avaotas; Theophylact. 


1 The Fathers have already correttly judged that even in regard to the isolated 
cases of rising from the dead, which have taken place through Christ and before 
Him, Christ remains the first-risen. Theophylact: si yap xa) Bares apd redeev 
aviceneay, bAAG wddw Swibaver’ aires Biche riAsian dvdcracy driers. Comp. on 
1 Cor, xv. 20. 


292 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Only tis dvacracews is not to be mentally supplicd, nor is 
it to be conjectured (de Wette) that Paul had intended to — 
write apy?) T. dvaotdcews, but, on account of the word wpwro- 
Toxos presenting itself to him from ver. 15, did not complete 
what he had begun. It follows, moreover, from the use of 
the word mpwroroxos, that dpy7 is to be taken in the temporal 
sense, consequently as equivalent to primus, not in the sense 
of dignity (Wetstein), and not as principle (Bahr, Steiger, 
Huther, Dalmer, following earlier expositors). — mpwtoroxos éx 
T. vexp.| €x T. vexp. is conceived in the same way as in dvaor7vat 
éx tT. vexp. (Eph. v. 14), so that it is the dead in Hades 
among whom the Risen One was, but from whom He goes 
forth (separates Himself from them, hence also ao rt. verp., 
Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64, xxviii. 7), and returning into the body, 
with the latter rises from the tomb. Comp. mpatos é€ davac- 
Ttacews vexpov, Acts xxvi. 23, also 1 Cor. xv. 22 f. This 
living exit from the grave is figuratively represented as birth ; 
comp. Rev. i. 5, where the partitive genitive ray vexp. (not ex 
7. v.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not materially 
different. Calvin takes apwroroxos é«. 7. v. as specifying the 
ground for dpyy: “principiwm (absolutely), guia primogenitus 
est ex mortuis; nam in resurrectione est rerum omnium in- 
stauratio.” Against this it may be urged, that apy7 has no more 
precise definition; Paul must have written either adpy1 rijs 
Kaivis xticews, or at least Hs instead of 6s. Calvin was likewise 
erroneously of opinion (comp. Erasmus, Calovius) that Christ 
is called Primogenitus ex mortuis, not merely because He was 
the first to rise, but also “quia restitutt alits vitam.” This 
idea is not conveyed either by the word or by the context, 
however true may be the thing itself; but a belief in the 
subsequent general resurrection of the dead is the presupposi- 
tion of the expression mpwroroxos (aivirrerat S¢ 0 Aoyos Kar 
THY Tavrwoy pov avdotacw, Theodoret). This expression is 
purposely chosen in significant reference to ver. 15, as is inti- 
mated by Paul himself in the following Wa yéyras év rraew 
«7. But it is thus all the more certain, that wpwroroxos éx 
. 7. vexp. 18 to be taken independently, and not adjectivally 
together with apyy (Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, Ewald), which 


CIIAP. I. 18 293 


would only amount to a tautological verboseness (first-born 
beginning) ; and, on the other hand, that é« tay vexpav may 
not be separated from mpwroroxos in such a way as to 
emphasize the place, issuing forth from which Christ is what 
He is, namely, apy}, zpwroroxos ; the former, “ as the personal 
beginning of what commences with Him;” the latter, “in the . 
same relation to those who belong to the world therewith 
coming into life as He held to the creation” (Hofmann). 
In this way the specific more precise definition, which is by 
means of é« 7. vexpwy in significant reference to ver. 15 
attached to the predicates of Christ, apyy and mpwroroxos, 
would be groundlessly withdrawn from them, and these pre- 
dicates would be left in an indefiniteness, in which they would 
simply be open vessels for receiving a gratuitously imported 
supplement. — iva yévytat «.7.r.] not to be restricted to the 
affirmation é« tév vexpov (Hofmann),' but to be referred to the 
whole sentence that Christ is dpyy, mpwrotoxos éx T. vexp., 
expressing the divine teleology of this position of Christ as the 
Risen One: in order that He may become, etc.; not: in order 
“that He may be held as” (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor yet “ that 
He may be” (Vulgate, and so most expositors), as yhyveoOa: and 
élvat are never synonymous. The ev maow avitos mpwreves is 
looked upon by Paul as something which is still in course of 
development (comp. Steiger and Huther), and is only to be 
completed in the future, namely, when the Risen One shall 
have conquered all the power of the enemy (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.) 
and have erected the kingdom of the Messiah—but of this 
result, His resurrection itself was the necessary historical basis, 
and hence the future universal wpwrevew is the divinely in- 
tended aim of His being risen.— év mwaow] in all points, 
without excepting any relation, not, therefore, merely in the 
relation of creation (vv. 15-17). Comp. Phil. iv. 12; 1 Tim. 
iii, 11, iv. 15; 2 Tim. ii 7, iv. 5; Tit. it 9; Heb. xiii. 4,18. 
"Ev wayri is more commonly used by Paul (1 Cor. i. 5; 
2 Cor. iv. 8, e¢ al.). According to Beza, waow is masculine: 
“inter omnes, videlicet fratres, ut Rom. viii. 29.” So also 


* So that it would express the design, which Christ Himself had in His coming 
forth from the dead. : 


294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Kypke and Heinrichs. But this would be here, after the 
universal bearing of the whole connection, much too narrow 
an idea, which, besides, is self-evident as to the Head of the 
church. According to Pelagius, it denotes: “tam in visi- 
bilibus quam in invisibilibus creatwris.”” At variance with 
the text; this idea was conveyed by vv. 16, 17, but in ver. 
18 another relation is introduced which does not refer to 
created things as such. — avrcs] emphatic, as in vv. 17, 18. 
— mpwrevoy] having the first rank, not used elsewhere in the 
N. T., but see Esth. v.11; 2 Macc. vi 18, xiii. 15; Aquila, 
Zech. iv. 7; Plat. Legg. iii. p. 692 D, Dem. 1416. 25: 
mpwrevey dy amact Kxpatirov. Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 28; 
Mem. ii. 6. 26. This precedence in rank is to be the final 
result of the condition which set in with the mpwrtdroxoy 
elvat éx 7. vexp.; but it is not contained in this wpwroroxoy 
elvac itself—an idea against which the very wa yévntas 
is logically decisive (in opposition to de Wette’s double 
signification of rpwtdtox.). : 

Ver. 19.! "Ore] Confirmatory of the wa yéynras «.7.X., just | 
said : “ about which divinely intended yéyveoOar év rraow airov 
aparevovra there can be no doubt, for it has pleased, that in Him, 
etc.” How could He, who was thus destined to be possessor of 
the divine fulness and reconciler of the world, have been des- 
tined otherwise than to become éy wraovv rpwrevwv! This con- 
firmation, therefore, does not refer to the statement that Christ 
is the Head of the church (Steiger, Huther, comp. Calovius), 
which has already its confirmation by means of & dorw apy) 
«.7.r., nor at all to é« trav vexpoy (Hofmann, following up his 
incorrect explanation of these words), as if the reason were 
specified why Christ should have gone to His high dignity as 
beginner of a new world by the path of deepest abasement—a 
thought which Paul would have known how to express quite 
differently (comp. Phil ii. 7 f.) than by the bare é« rép vexp,, 

' Holtzmann, after having rejected vv. 14-18 entirely as an interpolation, 
allows to stand as original in vv. 19, 20 only the words: de: iv aiey ctéanceo 
naradrratas, to which zxaeaaA. there is then attached in ver. 21, as object, xa? 
Spas, also you, with reference to suas in ver. 18. How daring and violent, and 


yet how paltry (rescuing merely the sa) iuas), would the procedure of the author 
thus have been ! 


CHAP. L. 19. 295 


which is currently used everywhere of resurrection from death, 
and without conveying any special significance of humiliation. 
Nor yet does Paul move tn a circle, by putting forward in 
ver, 19 as ground of proof that from which in ver. 15 (8 
éorsy eixwy x.7.r.) he had started (de Wette); for ver. 19 isa 
historical statement (observe the aorists), whereas ver. 15 ex- 
pressed what Christ is, His habitwal being. — év abr@] although 
belonging to «atotx., is prefixed in emphatic transposition 
(Kiihner, IL 2, p. 1101). — evdoxnce] He was pleased, placutt 
et, that, etc. As to this use of evdoxeity in the later Greek 
(1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. i 15, ef al), for which, in the classical 
language, Soxety merely was employed, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. 
IL p. 370. On the accusative with infinitive, comp. 2 Mace. 
xiv. 35; Polyb.i 8.4. The sulyect, whose pleasure it is, is 
not expressed ; but that it is God, is obvious from the context, 
which in %a yévyras «.7.r. has just stated the divine purpose. 
Among Greek authors also o @eds is not unfrequently omitted, 
where it is self-evident as the subject. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 
30 c. According to Ewald and Ellicott (also Weiss, Bibl. 
Theol. p. 428, ed. 2, and Rich. Schmidt, Paw. Christol. p. 208), 
wav TO WAHpwua is the subject; and the whole fulness is a new 
expression for the Godhead, inasmuch as, going as it were out 
of itself, it fills something separate and thus becomes visible 
(=mm nas, Sofa, Novos, rvejua). Without support from N. T. 
usage ; may, too, would be unsuitable for the subject of evédo- 
«noe; and eis avroy in ver. 29 clearly shows that Qeds is 
conceived as subject, to which epnvorroujoas then refers. 
According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 
357 f.), Christ is meant to be the subject of evddx. Ver. 20 
itself, and Eph. 1. 9, ought to have precluded this error. 
Throughout the whole of the N.T. it is never Christ, but 
always the Father, who in respect to the work of redemption 
to be executed gives the decree, while Christ executes it as 
obedient to the Father; hence also Paul, “beneficium Christi 
commemorans, nunquam dimittit memoriam Patris,” Bengel. 
Comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 263.— ay 1d m\popa 
xarou.| that in Him the whole fulness was to take up its abode, 
The more precise definition of the absolute way ro wAyjpopa 


296 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


is placed beyond doubt by the subject to be mentally sup- 
plied with evdoxnce; namely, 7d wAjpwya trod Ocod (Eph. 
iii, 19; comp. 7d wAnp. THs GeorynTos, Col. ii. 9). To wdjpopa, 
the signification of which is not to be defined actively : id quod 
rem tmplet (in opposition to Storr, Opuse. I. p. 144 ff., Bahr, 
Steiger), but passively: id quo res impletur (see generally 
on Eph. i. 10, ui 19, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469), has 
here, as in Eph. iii. 9, the derivative general notion of copia, 
mnouros, like the German Fille. What is meant, namely, is 
the whole charismatic riches of God, His whole gracious fulness 
of evAoyia mvevpatinn (Eph. i 3), of which Christ became 
permanent (caroucjoas) possessor and bearer, who was thereby 
capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation (see the 
following xad &@ avrod amoxataddafas x.1.r.). The case is 
otherwise in ii 9, where the divine essence (Tis Oeorntos) is 
indicated as the contents of the mAzjpwyza, and the xatouxely 
of the same in Christ is affirmed as present and with reference 
to His state of exaltation. It would be an utterly arbitrary 
course mentally to supply here the tijs Geornros, ii. 9, and to 
regard both passages as an echo of Eph. i. 23, where the 
notion of wAjpwya is a very different one (in opposition to 
Holtzmann). Inasmuch as the charismatic wAnpwpya of God, 
meant in our passage, dwelt in Christ, and consequently Christ 
- was the possessor and disposer of it, this divine fulness is not 
in substance different from the wArjpapa Xptorod, out of 
which grace passed over to men (John 1.16; Eph. iv. 13). 
The thought and expression in 1 Cor. xv. 28 are different 
from our passage, and different also from Eph. i. 23. Beza 
aptly observes: “cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum 
copia, quam scholastici gratiem habitualem ... appellant, ex 
qua in Christo, tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos 
pro cujusque membri medulo deriventur ;” comp. also Bleek. 
Observe, at the same time, the stress lying on the may, in con- 
trast to a merely partial imparting out of this fulness, which 
would have been inadequate to the object of reconciling the 
universe. The ontological interpretation of the “fulness of 


1 Hence not: ‘‘la tclalité de Vétre qui doit étre realisée dans le monde,” 
Sabatier, ?apétre Paul, p. 209. 





CHAP, I. 19. 297 


the nature of God” (Huther, Dalmer, Weiss; Oecumenius, 
and Theodoret: the nature of the @eds Aoyos; Calovius and 
others: of the communicatio hypostatica, that is, of the ab- 
solute immanence of God in Him, comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. 
Sinde, IL p. 222; Rich Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 201} 
does not correspond to the idea of evdoxnaev, for doubtless the 
sending of the Son, and that with the whole treasure of divine 
grace, into the world (John iii. 17) for behoof of its recon- 
ciliation and blessedness, was the act of the divine pleasure 
and resolve; but not so the divine nature in Christ, which 
was, on the contrary, necessary in Him,’ although by His in- 
carnation He emptied Himself of the divine mode of appear- 
ance (Sofa or popdy, Phil ii. 6 ff.). The divine nature is 
presupposed in what is here said of Christ. Comp. Gess, v. d. 
Pers. Christi, p. 85. Some (see especially Steiger, Bahr, and 
Reuss) have regarded to wAnjpwpya as derived from the Gnostic 
terminology of the false teachers, who might perhaps, like 
Valentinus, have given this name to the aggregate of the 
Aeons (see Baur, Gnosis, p. 157),? and in opposition to whom 


1 As in the Son of God in the metaphysical sense ; hence the original being of 
God in Him cannot be conceived merely as ideal, which was to develope itself into 
reality, and the realization of which, when it at length became perfect, made Him 
the absolute abode of the fulness of Godhead. So Beyschlag, Christol. p. 282 f., 
according to whom Christ would be conceived as ‘‘man drawing down upon 
himself” this indwelling of God. He is conceived as the incarnate Son (comp. 
ver. 13 fi.), who, in accordance with the Father's decree, has appeared as bearer 
of the whole fulness of salvation. For He was its dwelling not merely in principle, 
but in fact and reality, when He appeared, and He employed it for the work, 
which the Father desired to accomplish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4; 
Rom. viii. 3. The indwelling of the ra» +3 wAspeye He had not, indeed, to achieve 
by his own effort ; but He had, in obedience towards the Father, to preserve . 
(comp. Heb. iv. 15), apply, communicate it; and so this indwelling is—not 
merely in the risen One, but in His very work on the cross—the presupposition 
of the universal] reconciliation, ver. 20. 

* Baur himself (Paulus, II. p. 12 ff.) likewise explains wa%pepe from the 
technical language of the Gnostics, especially of the Valentinian doctrine of 
Aeons, but finds the Gnosticism to belong to the (post-apostolic) writer of 
the epistle. According to Baur (see his Neutest. Theol. p. 258), Christ is the 
waspepe of God as He “in whom that which God is in Himself, according to the 
abstract idea of His nature, is filled with its definite concrete contents.” Comp. 
also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 247, according to whom our passage is 
intended to affirm that the Pleroma of divine nature is to be sought not in the 
proliz series of the Aeons of the Gnostics, but in Christ alone. Holtzmann, with 


298 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


Paul maintains that in Jesus there dwells the totality of all 
divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated spirit ; 
but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul him- 
self does not intimate any such polemical destination of the 
word; on the contrary, in Eph. iii, 19 also he uses way rd 
mrnpopa tT. Geod evidently without any reference of the kind. 
And if he had wished to place the whole fulness of the efflux 
of divine power in contrast to an asserted single emana- 
tion, he must have prefixed, not éy avr@ (in Him and in none 
ether), but way (the whole wrnpwpa, not merely a single con- 
stituent element of it) with the main emphasis, and have logically 
said: Ot. way 1d wAnpwpa evddxnoey ev ait@ KaToxoas. 
Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. p. 29, 359), who in general 
has quite misunderstood ver. 19 f£. (comp. above on evdoxncer), 
takes aréy To wAnpwpa as “the one-like totality of that which 
as ;” and holds that the will of Christ (to which evdox. applies) 
can only have been, “ that that may come to dwell in Him, which 
otherwise would not be in Him, consequently not what is in God, 
but what is out of God.” This idea of the immanent indwelling 
of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of 
Christ being the archetype, would be entirely alien to the N. T. 
view of the relation of Christ to the world, and is not indi- 
cated either at Eph. i 10 or here in the context by ra wdvra 
éy aut@ ouvéornxev. Christ is not the place for the world, 


' *go that ultimately all comes to dwell in Him, as all has been 


created in Him and has in Him its subsistence ; but the world 
originated and maintained through Him, which He was to 
redeem, is the place for Him.’ If Paul had really entertained 
the obscure paradoxical conception attributed to him by Hof- 
mann, he would have known how to express it simply by ro 
may (or Ta tdvtTa) KaTorkisas, or by To wANpwpa Tod TavTos 
(or Tay Tavrwv) Katouxjo. Lastly, at utter variance with 
both the word and the context, some have based on Eph. 1 
more caution, adheres to the view that the idea of the waspaye forms a first step 
towards the extended use which the Gnostics make of the word ; whereas Hilgen- 
feld (Zeitschr. 1878, p. 195) finds the idea here already so firmly established, 


** that the wAspoye emerges as in a ccrtain measure holding an independent posi- 
tion between God and Christ.” 
1 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, l.c. p. 208. 


CHAP. I. 19. : 299 


22 f. the interpretation of wAnjpmpea as the church. So already 
Theodoret: wAgp. thy éxxrAnolay dv rH mpos ’Edecious éxa- 
Aecev, ws THY Oelwy yapiopator TeTANpopevyv. Tavrny en 
evdoxfjoat row Gedy dy to Xpict@ xatouhoat, tovréotiy avT@ 
ouvvndGat, and recently in substance Heinrichs, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and others ; comp. also Schleiermacher, who, in accord- 
ance with Rom. xi. 12, 25, understands “the fulness of the 
Gentiles and the collective whole of Israel,” the dwelling of whom 
in Christ is the “definitive abiding state,” which the total — 
reconciliation (see the sequel) must necessarily have preceded, 
as this reconciliation is conditioned by the fact that both 
parties must have become peaceful. — xaroixijoat] The wA7- 
pepo is personified, so that the abiding presence, which it was 
to have according to the divine evéox/a in Christ, appears 
conceived under the form of taking up its abode; in which, 
however, the idea of the Shechinah would only have to be 
presupposed, in the event of the 7Ajpwya being represented as 
appearance (MiP N33). See on Rom. ix. 5. Comp. John i. 14. 
Analogous is the conception of the dwelling of Christ (see 
on Eph. iii 17) or of the Spirit (see Theile on Jas. iv. 5) 
in believers. Comp. also 2 Pet. iii. 13. In point of teme, 
the indwelling of the divine fulness of grace according to 
God’s pleasure in Christ refers to the earthly life of the 
Incarnate One, who was destined by God to fulfil the divine 
work of the dzroxata\d\aka: ta wavra, and was to be 
empowered thereto by the dwelling in Him of that whole 
divine 7A7jpwuza. Without having completed the performance 
of this work, He could not become éy macw mpwrevov; but 
of this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be 
completed through Him (67z, ver. 19). Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sande, 
I..p. 215 £ (comp. also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2), refers 
evdoxnoe x.r.d. to the heavenly state of Christ, in which God, 
by way of reward for the completion of His work, has made 
Him the organ of His glory (Phil. ii 9); he also is of 
opinion that avroxaradAd£az in ver. 20 does not apply to the 
reconciliation through His blood, but to the reunion of all 
created things through the exalted Lord, as a similar view is 
indicated in Phil. ii. 10. But this idea of the dmroxarad\\akas 





300 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


is just the point on which this view breaks down. For ver. 
21 clearly shows that dzroxata\ddfat is to be taken in the 
usual sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the 
iiaatynpiov of Christ. Moreover, that which Christ received 
through His exaltation was not the divine wAjpapa, but the 
divine ddéa. 

Ver. 20.' “ Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconcilia- 
tionis,’ Bengel. Hence Paul continues: nal dv avrod azo- 
xatadrakar ta wravta, and through Him to reconcile the whole. 
As to the double compound doxataAx., prorsus reconciliare; 
see on Eph. ii. 16. The considerations which regulate the 
correct understanding of the passage are: (1) that ta mdyra 
may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropriately 
urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther); that it con- 
sequently cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings 
generally (the usual view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, 
Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), especially the 
Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the “ universam ecclesiam” (Beza), 
but is, according to the context (see ver. 16 ff.), simply to be 


1 According to Holtzmann, p. 92, the author is assumed to have worked 
primarily with the elements of the fundamental passage 2 Cor. v. 18 f., which 
he has taken to apply to the cosmical dwexaraarayy. But, instead of appre- 
hending this as the function of the risen Christ, he has by 3:2 cod aipares 
=.7.a. occasioned the coincidence of two dissimilar spheres of conception, of 
which, moreover, the one is introduced as form for the other. The interpo- 
lator reproduces and concentrates the thought of Eph. i. 7, 10, ii. 13-17, 
bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation (Eph. i. 10) into expression in 
such a way ‘‘ that he, led by the sound of the terminology, takes up at the same 
time and includes the thought of the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles.” In 
opposition to this view, the exegesis of the details in their joint bearing on the 
whole will avail to show that the passage with all its difficulty is no such con- 
fused medley of misunderstanding and of heterogeneous ideas, and contains nothing 
un-Pauline. The extension of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres, in par- 
ticular, has been regarded as un-Pauline (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.). 
But even in the epistles whose genuineness is undisputed it is not difficult to 
recognise the presuppositions, from which the sublime extension of the concep- 
tion to an universality of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue. We may 
add, that Eph. i. 10 is not ‘‘the leading thought of the interpolation” at 
ver. 16 ff. (Holtzmann, p. 151) ; in ver. 16 ff. much more is said, and of other 
import. 

2 As if we might say in German, abversdhnen, that is: to finish quite the 
reconciliation. Comp. é@:Adexseba:, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 878 A. 


CHAP. I. 20. 301 


taken as quite general: the whole of that which exists (has been 
created); (2) that the reconciling subject is here not Christ 
(Hofmann, in accordance with his incorrect reference of evdo- 
«noe in ver. 19), but God, who through Christ (80 avdrod) 
reconciled all things; (3) that consequently doxaradrd£at 
cannot be meant of the transforming of the misrelation between 
the world and Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just 
as little of the reconciliation of all things with one another, of 
the removal of mutual hostility among the constituent elements 
composing ta mdyta, but only of the universal reconcilia- 
tion with the God who is hostile to sin} as is clearly evident 
from the application to the readers in ver. 21. The only 
correct sense therefore is, that the entire universe has been re- 
conctled unth God through Christ. But how far? In answer- 
ing this question, which cannot be disposed of by speculation 
beyond the range of Scripture as to the having entered into 
the finite and having returned again to the infinite (Usteri), nor 
by the idea imported into amroxatann. of gathering up into the 
unity of absolute final aim (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 257), the follow- 
ing considerations are of service: (a) The original harmony, 
which in the state of innocence subsisted between God and 
the whole creation, was annulled by sin, which first obtained 
mastery over a portion of the angels, and in consequence of 
this (2 Cor. xi 3), by means of the transgression of Adam, over 
all mankind (Rom. v. 12). Comp. on Eph.i 10. (6) Not 
only had sinful mankind now become alienated from God by 
sin and brought upon themselves His hostility (comp. ver. 21), 
but also the whole of the non-rational creation (Rom. viii. 19 ff.) 
was affected by this relation, and given up by God to pataw- 
Ts and dovireia tis POopas (see on Rom. l.c.). (c) Indeed, 
even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with 


1 God is the audject, whose hostility is removed by the reconciliation (comp. on 
Rom. v. 10); r& wérea is the object, which was affected by this hostility grounded 
of necessity on the holiness and righteousness of God. If the hostile disposition 
of men towards God, which had become removed by the reconciliation, were meant 
(Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1868, p. 515), the universal +2 wérre 
would not be suitable ; because the whole universe might, indeed, be affected 
by the hostility of God against sin, but could not itself be hostilely disposed 
towards Him. See, moreover, on ver. 21. 


$02 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


God as it originally existed, since a portion of the angels— 
those that had fallen—formed the kingdom of the devil, in 
antagonism to God, and became forfeited to the wrath of God 
for the everlasting punishment which is prepared for the devil 
and his angels, (d) But in Christ, by means of His tkaor7piop, 
through which God made peace (eipnvotroswjoas «.1.r.), the 
reconciliation of the whole has taken place, in virtue of the 
blotting out, thereby effected, of the curse of sin. Thus not 
merely has the fact effecting the reconciliation as its causa 
meritoria taken place, but the realization of the wniversal recon- 
ciliation ttself is also entered upon, although it is not yet com- 
pleted, but down to the time of the Parousia is only in course 
of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present aiwy the 
believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the 
reconciliation, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among 
the wheat) are not yet separated ; inasmuch, further, as the 
non-intelligent creation still remains in its state of corruption 
occasioned by sin (Rom. viii.); and lastly, inasmuch as until 
the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the 
devil which has issued from it still—although the demoniac 
powers have been already vanquished by the atoning death, 
and have become the object of divine triumph (ii. 15)—not 
annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph. vi 12) against 
the Christian church. But through the Parousia the reconcilia- 
tion of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach 
its consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will 
be separated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in 
virtue of the Palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28) will be transformed 
into its original perfection, and the new heaven and thé 
new earth will be constituted as the dwelling of Sixatootyn 
(2 Pet. iii, 13) and of the Sofa of the children of God 
(Rom. viii. 21); while the demoniac portion of the angelic 
world will be removed from the sphere of the new world, and 
cast into hell. Accordingly, in the whole creation there will 
no longer be anything alienated from God and object of His 
hostility, but +d mwdyra will be in harmony and reconciled 
with Him; and God Himself, to whom Christ gives back the 
regency which He has hitherto exercised, will become the only 


CHAP. I. 20. 303 


Ruler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). This collective 
reconciliation, although its consummation will not occur until 
the Parousia, is yet justly designated by the aoris¢ infinitive 
a@mroxata\rdtas, because to the telic conception of God in 
the evdoxnce it was present as one moment in conception. — 
The angels also are necessarily included in ta wdyta (comp. 
subsequently, ra éy rots ovpavois); and in this case—seeing 
that a reconciliation of the angels who had not fallen, who 
are holy and minister to Christ (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 
269 ff.), considered in themselves as individuals, cannot be 
spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T.1— it is to 
be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to 
category, in so far, namely, as the hostile relation of God — 
towards the fallen angels affected the angelic world viewed 
asa whole. The original normal relation between God and 
this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so long as 
the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God still subsists—. 
which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the 
death of Christ (ii 14 f; Heb. ii. 14), but will undergo at 
length utter separation ——a result which is to be expected 
in the new transformation of the world at the Parousia. The 
idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the 
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the 
several objects included in ta wavra, meant partly in an imme- 
diate sense (in reference to mankind), partly in a mediate 
sense (in reference to the «riovs affected by man’s sin, Rom. 
viii, and to the angelic world affected by its partial fall) ;? 


* According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels also, lay wh wiersieusiy sis £3 
alus Xperev, incur judgment. But this conception of angels needing reconcilia- 
tion, and possibly even unbelieving, is doubtless merely an abstraction, just as is 
the idea of an angel teaching falsely (Gal. i. 8). It is true that, according to 
1 Cor. vi. 8, angels also are judged ; but this presupposes not believing and 
unbelieving angels, but various stages of moral perfection and purity in the 
angelic world, when confronted with the absolute ethical standard, which in 
Christianity must present itself even to the angels (Eph. iii. 10). Comp. on 
1 Cor. vi. 3. 

3 The idea of dwexaraarrcza: is not in this view to be altered, but has as its 
necessary presupposition the idea of hostility, as is cleat from sipnyewe/neas and from 
i dpevs, ver. 21, compared with Eph. ii. 16! Compare Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 
p. 276 ff.; Eur. Med. 870: tarrayivas eis Ixbpas, Soph. Aj. 731 (744): 


304 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the idea of amroxatadda£a:, in presence of the all-embracing 
Ta Trayta, is as it were of an ceastic nature. At the same 
time, however, azoxara\X. is not to be made equivalent 
(Melanchthon, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, Bahr, Bleek, 
and others) to dmoxepadkawcacba (Eph. i. 10), which is 
rather the sequel of the former; nor is it to be conceived 
as merely completing the harmony of the good angels (who are 
not to be thought absolutely pure, Job iv. 18, xv. 15; Mark 
x. 18; 1 Cor. vi. 3) with God (de Wette), and not in the strict 
sense therefore restoring it—an interpretation which violates 
the meaning of the word. Calvin, nevertheless, has already so 
conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the element— 
foreign to the literal sense—of confirmation in righteousness : 
“quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi 
Christi gratia fuissent confirmat:.” According to Ritschl, in 
the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522 f,, Paul intends to 
refer to the angels that had been active in the law-giving on 
Sinai (Deut. xxxil. 2; Ps. Ixvii. 18, LXX.), to whom he attri- 
butes “a deviation from God’s plan of salvation.” But this 
latter idea cannot be made good either by i. 15, or by Gal. 
iii, 19, or by Eph. iii. 10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the 
context to indicate any such reference to the angels of the law 
in particular. The exegetical device traditionally resorted to, 
that what was meant with respect to the angels was their 
reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on 
bseiew os nararraxls xirov, Plat. Rep. p. 566 BE: apes cots a ixbpeds ceis pro 
natadrayy, cos 31 xa} BaGhiipy. This applies also against Hofmann’s enervating 
weakening of the idea into that of transposition from the misrelation into a 
good one, or of ‘‘an action, which makes one, who stands ill to another, stand well 
to him.” In such a misrelation (namely, to Christ, according to the erroneous 
view of sdéxnes) stand, in Hofmann’s view, even the ‘‘ spirits collectively,” 
in so far as they bear sway in the world-life deteriorated by human ain, 
instead of in the realization oj salvation.—Richard Schmidt, Le. p. 195, also 
proceeds to dilute the notion of reconciliation into that of the bringing to Christ, 
inasmuch as he explains the zxaraArdeeuy as effected by the tact that Christ has 
become the head of all, and all has been put in dependence on Him. Hilgenfeld, 
Le. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the sense, which is at variance with 
the following context, but adheres, for his own pert, to the statement that here 
the author in a Gnostic fashion has in view disturbances of peace in the heavenly 
spheres (in the wAspupa). 
1 Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 269 f., ed. 2. 


CHAP. I. 20, 305 


account of sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysos- 
tom, Pelagius, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, 
Cameron, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, Michaelis, Bohmer, and 
others), is an entirely erroneous makeshift, incompatible with 
the language of the passage. — eis avrdy] is indeed to be 
written with the spiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from 
the standpoint of the author, and because a reflexive emphasis 
would be without a motive; but it is to be referred, not to 
Christ, who, as mediate agent of the reconciliation, is at the 
same time its aim (Bahr, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Reiche, 
Hofmann, Holtzmann, and others; comp. Estius, also Grotius : 
“ut ipsi pareant’”’), but to God, constituting an instance of 
the abbreviated form of expression very usual among Greek 
writers (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the N.T. (Winer, p. 577 
[E. T. 776]), the constructio praegnans: to reconcile to God- 
ward, so that they are now no longer separated from God 
(comp. amnAXoTp., ver. 21), but are to be united with Him in 
peace. Thus es avr., although identical in reality, is not in 
the mode of conception equivalent to the mere dative (Eph. 
ii. 16; Rom. v. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20), 
as Beza, Calvin, and many others take it. The reference to 
Christ must be rejected, because the definition of the aim 
would have been a special element to be added to &’ avrod, 
which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by xal eis 
avrov, and also because the explanation which follows (eipnvo- 
jowjoas «.7.d.) concerns and presupposes simply the mediate 
agency of Christ (6: avrod). — eipnvoroincas, down to ctaupod 
avrod, is a modal definition of dv avrod dvoxaradAd£as (not a 
parenthesis): so that He concluded peace, etc., inasmuch, namely, 
as the blood of Christ, as the expiatory offering, is meant to 
satisfy the holiness of God, and now His grace is to have free 
course, Rom. v. 1; Eph. vi. 15. The aorist participle is, as 
ver. 21 shows, to be understood as contemporary with atroxa- 
TaXx. (see on Eph. i. 9, and Kiihner, IT. 1, p.161f.; Miller 
in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff.), and not antecedent to 
it (Bahr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in consist- 
ency with his explanation of ver. 19 (see on ver. 19), who, 
moreover, without any warrant from the context, in accordance 
COL. U 


306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


with Eph. ii. 14~16, thinks of the conclusion of peace between 
Jews and Gentiles. The nominative refers to the subject; and 
this is, as in the whole sentence since the evddcxencev, not 
Christ (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Storr, 
Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hofmann, and many others), but God. 
The verb eipnvorroretv, occurring only here in the N. T., which 
has elsewhere srocety etpjvyy (Eph. ii. 15 ; Jas. iii. 18), and also 
foreign to the ancient Greek, which has etpnvozrolos, is never- 
theless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Eel. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX. 
Prov. x. 10. — 8a rod atu. +. ctavpod avrot] that is, by means 
of the blood to be shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacri- 
ficial blood reconciling with God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 21), became 
the causa medians which procured the conclusion of peace be- 
tween God and the world. Rom. iii. 25, v.9f; Eph. i 7. 
The reason, which historically induced Paul to designate the 
blood of Christ with such specific definiteness as the blood of His 
cross, is to be sought in the spiritualism of the false teachers, 
who ascribed to the angels a mediating efficacy with God. 
Hence comes also the designation—so intentionally material— 
of the reconciling sacrificial death, ver. 22, which Hofmann 
seeks to avoid as such, namely, as respects its definite character 
of a satisfaction.’ — 8: avtod] not with the spiritus asper, 
equivalent to dv’ éavrod, as those take it who refer etpnvotroinoas 
to Christ as subject (€avrov éxdovs, Theophylact), since this re- 
ference is erroneous. But neither can &’ avrod be in apposition 
to da rod aiparos 7. or. avtod (Castalio, “ per ejus sanguinem, 
h. e. per ewm”), for the latter, and not the former, would be 
the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the above- 
given d¢ autod, after the intervening definition eipyvotroujcas 
x.T.»., in order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, 


1 According to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 362 ff., by the blood of the cross, 
ver. 20, the death of Christ is meant to be presented as a judicial act of violence, 
and ‘‘ what befell Him” as an ignominy, which He allowed to be inflicted on Him 
with the view of establishing a peace, which brought everything out of alienation 
from Him into fellowship of peace with Him. Ver. 22 does not affirm the 
expiation of sin, but the transition of mankind, which had once for all been 
effected in Christ, from the condition involved in their sin into that which came 
into existence with His death. Christ has, in a body like ours, and by means 
of the death to which we are subject, done that which we have need of in order 


CHAP. L 20. : 307 


and that by once more emphatically bringing forward the 8: 
aitod which stood at the commencement; “through Him,” I 
say, to reconcile, whether they be things on earth or whether 
they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph.i.11; Rom. vii. 23. 
— elre ta em) 7. vy, elre Ta ey t..0vp.] divides, without “ affected 
tautology ” (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting 
the close of this part of the epistle, the ta wdyra into its two 
component parts, As to the quite wniversal description, see 
above on ta mavra; comp. on ver. 16. We have, besides, to 
notice: (1) that Paul here (it is otherwise in ver. 16, where 
the creation was in question, comp. Gen. 1 1) names the 
earthly things jirst, because the atonement took place on earth, 
and primarily affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive 
expression e?re . . . elve renders impossible the view of a recon- 
ciliation of the two sections one with another (Erasmus, Wet- 
stein, Dalmer, and others). To the category of exegetical 
aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleiermacher, who 
understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes among 
the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental 
tendencies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto: “ Jews and 
Gentiles were at variance as to both, as to the heavenly and 
earthly things, and were now to be brought together in rela- 
tion to.God, after He had founded peace through the cross of 
His Son.” The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also an utter 
misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen- 
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing 
meant; and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in 
the consciousness given back to men of being worthy of con- 


that we may come to stand holy before Him. Not different in substance are 
Hofmann’s utterances in his Heil. Schr. N. J. But when we find it there stated : 
‘* how far Christ has hereby (namely, by His having allowed Himself to be put 
to death as a transgressor by men) converted the variance, which subsisted 
between Him and the world created for Him, into its opposite, is not here speci- 
fred in detail,”—that is an unwarranted evasion ; for the strict idea of recon- 
ciliation had so definite, clear, firm, and vivid (comp. ver. 14, ii. 18f.) a place 
in the consciousness of the apostle and of the church, which was a Pauline one, 
that it did not need, especially in express connection with the blood of the cross, 
any more precise mention in detail Comp. Gal. iii. 13; Rom. iii. 25. Calvin well 
says : ** Tdeo pignus et pretium nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis Christi, 
quia in cruce fusus.” 


308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


nection with the higher spirits—Lastly, against the reference 
to universal restoration, to which, according to Olshausen, at 
least the tendency of Christ’s atonement is assumed to have 
pointed, see on Eph. 1. 10, remark 2. Comp. also Schmid in 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol, 1870, p. 133. 

Ver. 21. As far as ver. 23, an application to the readers of 
what had been said as to the reconciliation, in order to animate 
them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to stedfast- 
ness in the faith (ver. 23).—xal duds x.7.d.] you also, not: and 
you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma 
from the preceding verse, and vuvt dé... Oavdrov would, not- 
withstanding its great importance, come to be taken as paren- 
thetical (Lachmann), or as quite breaking off the discourse, and 
leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It begins a new sentence, comp. 
Eph. ii. 1 ; but observe, at the same time, that Eph. ii. is much 
too rich in its contents to admit of these contents being here 
compressed into vv. 20, 21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 150). 
As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate con- 
nection with what precedes, see on ver. 19. The construction 
(following the reading amroxarnAXaynte, see the critical notes) 
has become anacoluthic, inasmuch as Paul, when he began the 
sentence, had in his mind the active verb (which stands in the 
Recepta), but he does not carry out this formation of the sen- 
tence; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he 
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he 
had begun with xal tpets x7. See Matthiae, p. 1524; 
Winer, p. 527 ff. [E. T. 714]; and upon the aorist, Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197].—aanarorp. 7.4] when ye 
were once in the state of estrangement, characterizes their heathen 
condition. As to amnddorp., see on Eph. ii. 12; from which 
passage amo Tis woNTelas tT. ’Iop. is here as unwarrantably 
supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), as is from Eph. iv. 14 ris 
{wis tod Geod (Bahr). In conformity with the context, seeing 
that previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation, 
the being estranged from God (Tov Qeod), the being excluded 
from His fellowship, is to be understood. Comp. @@eoe ep r. 
xoopm, Eph. ii. 12. On the subject-matter, Rom. i. 21 ff. — 
éyOpovs] sc. Tr Oe@, in a passive scnse (comp. on Rom, v. 10, 


CHAP. I. 21. 309 
xi, 28): invisos Deo; as is required by the idea of having 
become reconciled, through which God’s enmity against sinful 
men, who were réxva gucet dpyijs (Eph. ii. 3), has changed into 
mercy towards them.” This applies in opposition to the usual 
active interpretation, which Hofmann also justly rejects: hos- 
tile towards God, Rom. viii. 7; Jas. iv. 4 (so still Huther, de 
Wette, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be com- 
bined with the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek).— 79 dvavola and 
év Tots Epyots t. 1. belong to both the preceding elements; the 
former as dative of the cause: on account of their disposition of 
mind they were once alienated from God and hateful to Him ; 
the latter as specification of the overt, actual sphere of life, 
an which they had been so (in the wicked works, in which their 
godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus 
information is given, as to amrnAXd. and éyOpovs, of an internal 
and of an external kind. The view which takes rf Scavola as 
dative of the.respect (comp. Eph. iv. 18): as respects disposition 
(so, following older expositors, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Ewald), would no doubt suit the erroneous active 
explanation of éy@p., but would furnish only a superfluous 
definition to it, as it is self-evident that the enmity towards 
God resides in the disposition. Luther incorrectly renders: 
“through the reason ;” for the d:dv. is not the reason itself, but 
its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263 E), 
and that here viewed under its moral aspect; comp. on Eph. 
iv. 18. Beza (“mente operibus malis intenta”’), Michaelis, 
Storr, and Bihr attach dy rois épyous «7d. to 7H Stavoig. 


1 Compare the phrase very current in the classical writers, from Homer 
onward, kyépes éseis, quem Dii oderunt. 

2 See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff., who aptly explains serarrdeesebai 
wi: in alicujus favorem ventre, qui antea succensuerié. Comp. Philippi, Glau- 
benst. IV. 2, p. 265 ff., ed. 2. The reconciliation of men takes place, when God, 
instead of being further angry at them, has become gracious towards them,— 
when, consequently, He Himself is reconciled. Comp. Luke xviii. 13 ; 2 Cor. 
v. 19. So long as His wrath is not changed, and consequently He is not recon- 
ciled, men remain unreconciled. 2 Macc. vii. 33: & Jay xupss... Beavis 
imapy:oras nal wid xaradraytosras cos laveod Sevres, COMP. Vili. 29, i. 5, v. 20; 
Clem. Cor. I. 48: ixsrsdovess aivéy (God), deus tases yevepsves iminaradra yh 
iuir, In Constt. Apost. viii. 12. 14, it is said of Christ that He re xicpe 
narhrrats God, and § 17, of God: eet nararrAnyivees abeois (with believers). 


310 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


This is grammatically admissible, since we may say Svavoeic Gar 
éy, animo versart in (Ps. lxxiii. 8; Ecclus. vi. 37; Plato, 
Prot. p. 341 E), and therefore the repetition of the article 
was not necessary. But the badness of the disposition was 
so entirely self-evident from the context, that the assumed 
more precise definition by év rots Epy. +. arovnp. would appear 
tediously circumstantial_—The articles 77 and rots denote the 
disposition which they have had, and the works which they have 
done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furnished 
with the article (rots arovnpots) is not causal (“ because they 
~ were bad,” Hofmann), but emphatically brings into prominence 
the quality, as at Eph. vi. 13; 1 Cor. vii 14, and often 
' (Winer, p. 126 [E. T. 167]).— und 82 daroxarn\Xadynte] as 
if previously vpets «.7.A. were used (see above): Ye also... 
have nevertheless now become reconciled. On Sé after partic‘ples 
which supply the place of the protasis, as here, where the 
thought is: although ye formerly, ete., see Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 374 ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 136 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. iti. 7. 8, Anad. vi. 6.16. On vvvi, with the aorist fol- 
lowing, comp. ver. 26; Rom. vii. 6; Eph. ii. 13; Plat. Symp. 
p. 193 A: apo Tod... dy jyev, vuvi §¢ b1a ri dbdielay Sipnlo- | 
Onyev tro tr. Oeod. Ellendt, Lex Soph. II. p. 176 ; Kiihner, 
II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in 
with the dmoxarnAA. (comp. Buttmann, Meut. Gr. p. 171 
[E. T. 197]); and the latter has taken place objectively through 
the death of Christ, ver. 22, although realized subjectively in 
the readers only when they became believers—-whereby the 
reconciliation became appropriated to them, and there existed 
now for them a decisive contrast of their vuvf with their 
moré, The reconciling subject is, according to the context 
(vv. 19, 20), not Christ (as at Eph. ii. 16), through whom 
(comp. Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18) the reconciliation has taken 
place (see ver. 20), but, as at 2 Cor. v. 19, God (in opposition 
to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius, 
Calovius, Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette and 
Ewald). For the reference to Christ even the reading azroxa- 
tn\Aakevy would by no means furnish a reason, far less a 
1 Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. 403. 


CHAP, I. 22, 311 


necessity, since, on the contrary, even this active would have, 
according to the correct explanation of evdoance in ver. 19, 
to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to Hofmann). 
Ver. 22. "Ev t¢ odpare «.7.0.] that, by means of which they 
have been reconciled ; corresponding to the &’ avrod and di 
Tod aluatos Tov oTavpod avrod of ver. 20: in the body of His 
Jlesh by means of death, Since God is the reconciling subject, 
we are not at liberty, with Elzevir, Scholz, and others, to read 
auto (with the spiritus asper), which would not be justified, 
even though Christ were the subject. We have further to 
note: (1) da +r. Oavdrov informs us whereby the being recon- 
ciled év t@ cw@pate 7. o. av. was brought about, namely, by the 
death occurring, without which the reconciliation would not 
have taken place in the body of Christ. (2) Looking to the 
concrete presentation of the matter, and because the procuring 
element is subsequently brought forward specially and on its 
own account by dia, the éy is not, with Erasmus and many 
others, to be taken as instrumental, but is to be left as local ; 
not, however, in the sense that Christ accomplished the azo- 
xataddaocew in His body, which was fashioned materially 
like ours (Hofmann, comp. Calvin and others, including Bleek) 
—which, in fact, would amount to the perfectly self-evident 
point, that it took place in His corporeally-human form of 
being,—but, doubtless, especially as dca tod Gavarov follows, in 
the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the death 
therein accomplished, our reconciliation was objectively 
realized, which fact of salvation, therefore, inseparably asso- 
ciated wself with His body; comp. éy r7 capxé pou, ver. 24, 
see also 1 Pet. ii. 24 and Huther in loc. The conception of 
substitution, however, though involved in the ¢hing (in the 
itaornptov), is not to be sought in éy (in opposition to Bohmer 
and Baumgarten-Crusius). (3) The reason for the intentional 
use of the material description: “in the body which consisted 
of His flesh” (comp. ii. 11; Ecclus. xxiii. 16), is to be sought 
in the apologetic interest of antagonism to the false teachers, 
against whom, however, the charge of Docetism, possibly on 
the ground of ii. 23, can the less be proved (in opposition to 
Beza, Balduin, Bohmer, Steiger, Huther, and Dalmer), as Paul 








= 


312 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


nowhere in the epistle expressly treats of the material Jncar- 
nation, which he would hardly have omitted to do in contrast 
to Docetism (comp. 1 John). In fact, the apostle found suffi- 
cient occasion for writing about the reconciliation as he has 
done here and in ver. 20, in the fatth in angels on the part of 
his opponents, by which they ascribed the reconciling media- 


tion with God in part to those higher spiritual beings (who are 


without capa ths capxos). Other writers have adopted the 
view, without any ground whatever in the connection, that 
Paul has thus written in order to distinguish the real body 
of Christ from the spiritual o@pua of the church (Bengel, 
Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen). The other capa of Christ, 
which contrasts with His earthly body of flesh (Rom. i. 3, 
viii. 3), is His glorified heavenly body, Phil iit 21; 1 Cor. 
xv. 47 ff. References, however, such as Calvin, eg., has dis- 
covered (“humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium 
corpus”), or Grotius (“tantas res perfecit instrumento adeo 
tenui;” comp. also Estius and others), are forced upon the 
words, in which the form of expression is selected simply in 
opposition to spiritwalistic erroneous doctrines. Just as little 
may we import into the simple historical statement of the 
means 6:2 tod Oavarou, with Hofmann, the ignominy of shedding 
His blood on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect 
is subjoined or indicated. — apaorijca: was x.t.X.] Ethical 
definition of the object aimed at in the avroxarnAx.: ye have been 
reconciled ...2% order to present you, etc. The presenting sub- 
ject is therefore the subject of azroxarnAxr., so that it is to be 
explained: iva mapaornonte ipas, ut sisteretis vos, and there- 
fore this continuation of the discourse is by no means awkward 
in its relation to the reading avroxarnAXaynte (in opposition to 
de Wette). We should be only justified in expecting éaurovs 
(as Huther suggests) instead of tas (comp. Rom. xii 1) if 
(comp. Rom. vi. 13; 2 Tim. i. 15) the connection required a 
reflexive emphasis. According to the reading amoxar7\Xakev 
the sense is wt sisteret vos, in which case, however, the subject 
would not be Christ (Hofmann), but, as in every case since evdd- 
anoe in ver. 19, God.—The point of time at which the mrapaov. 
is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judgment, in 


CHAP. I. 92. 318 


which they shall come forth holy, etc., before the Judge. Comp. 
ver. 28, and on Eph. v. 27. This reference (comp. Bahr, 
Olshausen, Bleek) is required by the context in ver. 23, where 
the wapactijcas «.T.r. is made dependent on continuance in the 
faith as its condition ; consequently there cannot be meant the 
vesult already accomplished by the reconciliation ttself, namely, 
the state of S:catoovvn entered upon through it (so usually, 
including Hofmann). The state of justification sets in at any 
rate, and unconditionally, through the reconciliation; but it 
may be lost again, and at the Parousia will be found subsist- 
ing only in the event of the reconciled remaining constant 
to the faith, by means of which they have appropriated the 
reconciliation, ver. 23. dylous «.7.d.] does not represent the 
subjects as sacrifices (Rom. xii. 1), which would not consist 
with the fact that Christ is the sacrifice, and also would not 
be in harmony with avey«d.; it rather describes without figure 
the moral holiness which, after the justification attained by 
means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Rom. vii. 6, 
viii. 2, 9, et al.), and which, on the part of man, is preserved 
and maintained by continuance in the faith (ver. 23). The 
three predicates are not intended to represent the relation 
“erga Deum, respectu vestri, and respectu proximt” (Bengel, 
Bahr), since, in point of fact, auwmpouvs (Glameless, Eph. i. 4, 
v. 27; Herod. ii. 177; Plat. Rep. p. 487 A: ovd dv o Madpos 
TO ye ToLodToy péryatro) no less than dveyKr. (reproachless, 
1 Cor. i. 8) points to an external judgment: but the moral 
condition is intended to be described with exhaustive emphasis 
positively (dylovs) and negatively (dump. and dveyxr.). The 
idea of the moral holiness of the righteous through faith 
is thoroughly Pauline; comp. not only Eph. ii. 10, Tit. ii. 
14, iii. 8, but also such passages as Rom. vi. 1-23, viu. 4 ff. ; 
Gal. v. 22-25; 1 Cor. ix. 24 ff.; 2 Cor. xi 2, e& al. —xarte- 
vetioy avtov| refers to Christ, to His judicial appearance at 
the Parousia, just as by the previous adrod after capxds Christ 


1 So also Holtzmann, p. 47, though holding in favour of the priority of Eph. 
i. 4, that the sense requires a reference to God, although syntactically the refer- 
ence is made to Christ. But, in fact, the one is just as consistent with the sense 
as the other. 


314 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


also was meant. The wswal reference to God (so Huther, de 
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with 
the reading dmroxaty\Xafey taken as so referring; comp. Jude 
24; Eph. i. 4. The objection that xarevarwyv elsewhere 
occurs only in reference to God, is without force ; for that this 
is the case in the few passages where the word is used, seems 
to be purely accidental, since ¢verrcov is also applied to Christ 
(2 Tim. ii. 14), and since in the notion itself there is nothing 
opposed to this reference. The frequent use of the expres- 
sion “before God” is traceable to the theocratically national 
currency of this conception, which by no means excludes the 
expression “before Christ.” So éumpoobey is also used of 
Christ in 1 Thess. ii, 19. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 10: Eumpoobev 
tov Bnpatos tod Xpiocrov, which is a commentary on our Kxate- 
vorrvoy auvtov; see also Matt. xxv. 32. 


REMARK.—The proper reference of sapacrijca: x.r.A. to the 
judgment, as also the condition appended in ver. 23, place it 
beyond doubt that what is meant here (it is otherwise in Eph. 
i, 4) is the holiness and blamelessness, which is entered upon 
through justification by faith actu judiciali and is positively 
wrought by the Holy Spirit, but which, on the other hand, +s 
preserved and maintained up to the judgment by the sel/-active 
perseverance of faith in virtue of the new life of the reconciled 
(Rom. vi.); so that the justitia <nhaerens is therefore neither 
meant alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, 
and others), nor excluded (Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, and 
others), but is included, Comp. Calovius. 


Ver. 23. Requirement, with which is associated not, indeed, 
the being included in the work of reconciliation (Hofmann), 
but the attainment of its blessed final aim, which would 
otherwise be forfeited, namely the trapactijca: «.7.r. above 
described : s0 far at any rate as ye, Le. assuming, namely, that 
ye, etc. A confidence that the readers will fulfil this condi- 
tion is not conveyed by the eZye in itself (see on 2 Cor. v. 3; 
Gal. iii. 4; Eph. iii. 2), and is not implied here by the con- 
text; but Paul sets forth the relation purely as a condition 
certainly taking place, which they have to fulfil, in order to 
attain the mapactijcas x... — that “ fructus in posterum lae- 


CHAP. I. 23. 315 


tissimus” of their reconciliation (Bengel). — 197 lovee] 
belonging to émipéy.: abide by the faith, do not cease from it.’ 
See on Rom. vi. 1. The mode of this abiding is indicated by 
what follows positively (reOeu. «. épazor), and negatively (x. 21) 
peraxwy. x.7.r.), under the figurative conception of a budding, 
in which, and that with reference to the Parousia pointed at by 
wapacticat «.T.r., the hope of the gospel is conceived as the 
foundation, in so far as continuance in the faith zs based on 
this, and is in fact not possible without it (ver. 27). “Spe 
amissa perseverantia concidit,” Grotius. On reBeued., which 
is not interjected (Holtzmann), comp. Eph. iii. 17; 1 Pet. 
v. 10; and on édpator, 1 Cor. xv. 58. The opposite of 
TeOeper. is yopis Oeyeriov, Luke vi. 49; but it would be a 
contrast to the reBeyer. xal EdSpaior, if they were peTaxivovpevor 
«7. 3 concerning py, see Winer, p. 443 [E. T. 596]; 
Baeumlein, Part. p. 295. — peraxwotp.] passively, through 
the influence of false doctrines and other seductive forces. — 
a7ro| away ... from, so as to stand no longer on hope as the 
foundation of perseverance in the faith. Comp. Gal. i. 6.— 
The éAzris Tod evayy. (which is proclaimed through the gospel 
by means of its promises, comp. ver. 5, and on Eph. i. 18) 1s 
the hope of eternal life in the Messianic kingdom, which has 
been imparted to the believer in the gospel. Comp. vv. 4, 
5, 27; Rom. v. 2, viii. 24; Tit. i. 2 f, iii. 7.— 0d qxovoate 
«.7..| three definitions rendering the pm petraxweioGar x72. 
in its universal obligation palpably apparent to the readers; 
for such a peraxuetoGas would, in the case of the Colossians, 
be inexcusable (ob jxovcare, comp. Rom. x. 18), would set at 
naught the universal proclamation of the gospel (rod xnpvuyé. 

1 In our Epistle faith is by no means postponed to knowing and perceiving 
(comp. ii. 5, 7, 12), as Baur asserts in his Neut. Theol. p. 272. The frequent 
emphasis laid upon knowledge, insight, comprehension, and the like, is not to 
be put to the account of an intellectualism, which forms a fundamental pecu- 
liarity betokening the author and age of this Epistle (and especially of that to 
the Ephesians), as Holtzmann conceives, p. 216 ff. ; on the contrary, it was 
owing to the attitude of the apostle towards the antagonistic philosophical specu- 
lations. Comp. also Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. N. JT. II. p. 153 ff. It was 
owing to the necessary relations, in which the apostle, with his peculiarity of 
being all things to all men, found himself placed towards the interests of the 
time and place. 





316 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


x.t.r.), and would stand in contrast to the personal weight 
of the apostle’s position as its servant (ov éyev. «.7.r.). If, 
with Hofmann, we join rod xnpvyGévros as an adjective to Tov 
evaryyenlou, o nxovcate, we withdraw from the ov 7xovcaTe 
that element of practical significance, which it must have, if 
it is not to be superfluous. Nor is justice done to the third 
point, ob éyevouny «.7.r., if the words (so Hofmann, comp. de 
Wette) are meant to help the apostle, by enforcing what he 
1s, thenceforth to write with the weight of his name, to come 
to his condition at that time. According to this, they would 
be merely destined as a transition. In accordance with the 
context, however, and without arbitrary tampering, they can 
only have the same aim with the two preceding attributives 
which are annexed to the gospel; and, with this aim, how 
appropriately and forcibly do they stand at the close!’ Aeourov 
yap péya Rv To Iavdov dvopa, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom. 
Comp. on éyw IIaindos, with a view to urge his personal 
authority, 2 Cor.x.1; Gal. v. 2; Eph. iii. 1; 1 Thess, 11.18; 
Philem. 19. It is to be observed, moreover, that if Paul 
himself had been the teacher of the Colossians, this relation 
would certainly not have been passed over here in silence. — 
év waon xtice. (without 77, see the critical remarks) is to 
be taken as: in presence of (coram, see Ast, Lex. Plat.1. p.701; 
Winer, p. 360 [E. T. 481]) every creature, before everything 
that is created («rlows, as in i. 15). There is nothing created 
under the heaven, in whose sphere and environment (comp. 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 401) the gospel had not been proclaimed. 
The sense of the word must be left in this entire generality, 
and not limited to the Acathen (Bahr). It is true that the 
popular expression of universality may just as little be pressed 
here as in ver. 6. Comp. Herm. Past. sim. viii. 3; Ignatius, 
Rom. 2. But as in i. 15,80 also here vaca xriows is not 
all creation, according to which the sense is assumed to be: 
“on a stage embracing the whole world” (Hofmann). This Paul 
would properly have expressed by é€v waon TH xrioe, or év 
Tavtl Te Koop, or év SAw TO x.; comp. ver. 6. The expression 


? According to Baur, indeed, such passages as the present are among those 
which betray the double personality of the author. 


CHAP. I. 24, 317 


is more lofty and poetic than in ver. 6, appropriate to the 
close of the section, not a fanciful reproduction betraying an 
imitator and a later age (Holtzmann). Omitting even od 
jxovoate (because it is not continued by od xat éyw), Holtz- 
mann arrives merely at the connection between ver. 23 and 
ver. 25: yu peraxiv. and Tod evaryy. ob éyev. eyo IT. didx. 
Kata Thy oiKov. T. Geod riv Sobeicdy pot eis bpas, just as he 
then would read. further thus: wAnpdcas tT. Noy. T. Oeod, els 
& Kal xomud aywvilop. Kata +. évépy. abtod THY évepyoup, év 
é0t, — Sudxovos] See on Eph. iii. 7. Paul has become such 
through his calling, Gal. i, 15 f.; Eph. iii. 7. Observe the 
aorist. 

Ver. 24." A more precise description of this relation of 
service, and that, in the first place, with respect to the su/ffer- 
angs which the apostle is now enduring, ver. 24, and then 
with respect to his important calling generally, vv. 25-29. 
—s (see the critical remarks) viv yalpw «.7.r.: I who 
now rgoice, etc. How touchingly, so as to win the hearts of 
the readers, does this join itself with the last element of 
encouragement in ver. 23 !— voy] places in contrast with the 
great element of his past, expressed by od éyey. «.7.X., which 
has imposed on the apostle so many sorrows (comp. Acts 
ix. 16), the situation as it now exists with him in that 
relation of service on his part to the gospel. This gresent 
condition, however, he characterizes, in full magnanimous 
appreciation of the sufferings under which he writes, as joyful- 
ness over them, and as a becoming perfect in the fellowship of 
tribulation with Christ, which is accomplished through them. 
It is plain, therefore, that the emphatic voy is not transitional 
(Bahr) or inferential (Liicke: “quae cum ita sint”); nor yet 
is it to be defined, with Olshausen, by arbitrary importation of 
the thought: now, after that I look upon the church as firmly 
established (comp. Dalmer), or, with Hofmann, to be taken as 
standing in contrast to the apostolic activity. — év tots maOnp.] 
over the sufferings; see on Phil. i. 18; Rom. v. 3. This joy 
in suffering is so entirely in harmony with the Pauline spirit, 

1 See upon ver. 24, Liicke, Progr. 1888; Huther in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1838, p. 189 ff. 


318 THY EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIE COLOSSIANS. 


that its source is not to be sought (in opposition to Holtz- 
mann) in 2 Cor. vii 4, either for the present passage or for 
Eph. iii 13; comp. also Phil. i. 17. — ivép ipésy] joins itself 
to wa@npacw so as to form one conception, without connect- 
ing article. Comp. on vv. 1,4; 2 Cor. vii 7; Eph ii. 13; 
Gal. iv. 14. Since iwép, according to the context, is not to be 
taken otherwise than as in iép Tov cwp. avrod, it can neither 
mean instead of (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius 
a Lapide or Estius), nor on account of (Rosenmiiller, Hein- 
richs, Flatt; comp. Eph. iii 1; Phil. i 29), but simply: ix 
commodum; namely, a ipas &pedjjoas Suvn8, Oecumenius, 
and that, indeed, by that honourable attestation and glorifying 
of your Christian state, which is actually contained in my 
tribulations ; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers, 
for the sake of which the apostle has undertaken and borne 
the suffering, as the holy divine thing which is worthy of 
such a sacrifice. Comp. Phil 1 12 ff; Eph i.13. The 
reference to the example, which confirms the readers’ faith 
(Grotius, Wolf, Bahr, and others), introduces inappropriately 
a reflection, the indirect and tame character of which is not 
at all in keeping with the emotion of the discourse. —— The 
vpov, meaning the readers, though the relation in question 
concerns Pauline Christians generally, is to be explained by 
the tendency of affectionate sympathy to individualize (comp. 
Phil i. 25, ii, 17, e¢ al.). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply 
trav éOvev here from Eph. iii 1 (Flatt, Huther); but that 
Paul, nevertheless, has his readers in view as Gentile Christians, 
and as standing in a special relation t> himself as apostle of 
the Gentiles, is shown by vv. 25—27.— xal] not equivalent to 
wal yap (Heinrichs, Bahr), but the simple and, subjoining to 
the subjective state of feeling the objective relation of suffer- 
ing, which the apostle sees accomplishing itself in his destiny. 
It therefore carries on, but not from the special (vuav) “ ad 
totam omnino ecclesiam” (Liicke), since the new point to be 
introduced is contained in the specific avravaAnpw .. . 
Xpicrod, and not in imép +. cwp. avtod. The connection of 


18o also Bisping, who, however, explains it of the meritoriousness of good 
works availing for others. 


CHAP. I. 24. 319 


ideas is rather: “I rejoice over my sufferings, and what a 
holy position is theirs! through them J fulfil,” etc. Hence 
the notion of yaipw is not, with Huther, to be carried over 
also to avravardnpo: and I supplement with joy, etc. At 
the same time, however, the statement introduced by «ai 
stands related to yaipw as elucidating and giving wnfor- 
mation regarding it.— avtavardnpe] The double compound 
is more graphic than the simple dvamAnpo, Phil. ii. 30; 
1 Cor. xvi. 17 (I jill up), since avri (to fill up over against) 
indicates what is brought in for the making complete over 
against the still existing torepyuara. The reference of the dyri 
lies therefore in the notion of what is lacking; inasmuch, 
namely, as the incomplete is rendered complete by the very 
fact, that the supplement corresponding to what is lacking is 
introduced in its stead. It is the reference of the correspond- 
ing adjustment,’ of the supplying of what is still wanting. 
Comp. Dem. 182. 22: avravamdnpobytes pos Tov evrropwrta- 
Toy ael Tovs amropwrdtous (where the idea is, that the poverty 
of the latter is compensated for by the wealth of the former) ; 
so also dyravatrAnpwors, Epicur. ap. Diog. L. x. 48 ; Dio Cass. 
xliv. 48: dooy ... évédeu, rodro ex Tis mapa tOv G\Xwy ouvte- 
Nelas avravarAnpwO7. Comp. avreumrladnust, Xen. Anad. iv. 
5. 28; dvravardAnOev, Xen. Hell. ii. 4.12; and avtevrdnpody, 
Xen. Cyr. ii. 2.26. The distinction of the word from the 
simple dvamAnpodv does not consist in this, that the latter is 
said of him, who “ torépnua a se relictum tpse explet,” and 
avravamn, of him, who “ alterius dorépnya dé suo explet” (so 
Winer, de verbor. c. praepos. in N. T. usu, 1838, IIT. p. 22); 
nor yet in the endurance vieing with Christ, the author of the 
afflictions (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275); but in the cir- 
cumstance, that in avrava7d. the filling up is conceived and 
described as defectui respondens, in dvatry., on the other hand, 

1 Many ideas are arbitrarily introduced by commentators, in order to bring 
out of the deri in dyravawa. a reciprocal relation. See e.g. Clericus : *‘ Ile ego, 
qui olim ecclesiam Christi vexaveram, nunc vicissim in ejus utilitatem pergo 
multa mala perpeti.” Others (see already Oecumenius) have found in it the 
meaning : for requitad of that which Christ suffered for us; comp. also Grimm 


in his Lexicon. Wetstein remarks shortly and rightly : “‘ dvr? derspypaces suc: 
cedit wAzpopa,”—or rather drawAdpome. 


320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


only in general as completio. See 1 Cor. xvi. 17; Phil. ii. 30; 
Plat. Legg. xii p. 957 A, Tim. p. 78 D, 4 al. Comp. also 
Tittmann, Synon. p. 230.— 1a torepjyata] The plural 
indicates those elements yet wanting in the sufferings of 
Christ in order to completeness. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10; 
2 Cor. ix. 12. — rev OAbp. tod Xprorov] tov X. is the geni- 
tive of the subject. Paul describes, namely, his own sufferings, 
in accordance with the idea of the xowwvety tots tod Xpiorod 
maGnpact (1 Pet. iv.13; comp. Matt. xx. 22; Heb. xiii. 13), 
as afflictions of Christ, in so far as the apostolic suffering in 
essential character was the same as Christ endured (the same 
cup which Christ drank, the same baptism with which Christ 
was baptized). Comp. on Rom. viii. 17; 2 Cor.i 5; Phil. 
iii, 10. The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived 
in the form of a definite measure, just as the phrases ava- 
Tipmvdvat Kakd, avamAjocat Kaxov oitov, and the like, are 
current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative 
conception (Hom. JI, viii. 34. 354, xv. 132), Schweigh. Lez. 
Herod. I. p. 42. He only who has suffered all, has filled up 
the measure. That Paul is now, in his captivity fraught 
with danger to life, on the point (the present dvravamn. 
indicating the being in the act, see Bernhardy, p. 370) of 
filling up all that still remains behind of this measure of 
affliction, that he is therefore engaged in the final full solution 
of his task of suffering, without leaving a single torépnpa in 
it—this he regards as something grand and glorious, and 
therefore utters the aytavamdnpw, which bears the emphasis at 
the head of this declaration, with all the sense of triumph 
which the approaching completion of such a work involves. 
“I rgowe on account of the sufferings which I endure for you, 
and—so highly have I to esteem this situation of afilic- 
tion—TJ am in the course of furnishing the complete ful fil- 
ment of what in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of 
affliction with Christ.” This lofty consciousness, this feeling 
of the grandeur of the case, very naturally involved not only 
the selection of the most graphic expression possible, avrava- 
adnpo, to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description, 
in the most honourable and sublime manner possible, of the 


CHAP. I. 24. 321 


apostolic afflictions themselves as the Ornpes tod Xpsorod, 
since in their kind and nature they are no other than those 
which Christ Himself has suffered. These sufferings are, 
indeed, sufferings for Christ's sake (so Vatablus, Schoettgen, 
Zachariae, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Bohmer, and others ;. 
comp. Wetstein), but they are not so designated by the geni- 
tive; on the contrary, the designation follows the idea of 
ethical identity, which is conveyed in the icopotpov elvas te 
Xptor@, a8 in Phil. ii, 10. Nor are they to be taken, with 
Liicke (comp. Fritzsche, l.c.), as: “ afflictiones, quae Paulo 
apostolo Christo auctore et auspice Christo perferendae erant,” 
since there is no ground to depart from the primary and most 
natural designation of the suffering subject (Orns, with the 
genitive of the person, is always so used in the N. T., eg. in 
2 Cor. i. 4, 8, iv. 17; Eph. iii. 12 ; Jas. i. 27), considering how 
current is the idea of the xowwvia of the sufferings of Christ. 
Theodoret’s comment is substantially correct, though not - 
exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the genitive: 
Xpioros tov umep THs éxxrAnolas xatedékato Odvarov ... Kat 
Ta Gra Soa wréuewve, nai o Ocios amocToAcs aaavrws irép 
aurns uréotn Ta woulda ta@jpata. Ewald imports more, 
when he says that Paul designates his sufferings from the 
point of view of the continuation and further accomplishment 
of the divine aim in the sufferings of Christ. Quite erroneous, 
however, because at variance with the idea that Christ has 
exhausted the suffering appointed to Him in the decree of God 
for the redemption of the world (comp. also John xi. 52, 
xix. 30; Luke xxii. 37, xviii. 31; Rom. iii. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21, 
et al.), ig not only the view of Heinrichs: “qualia et Christus 
passurus fursset, si diutius visisset” (so substantially also 
Phot. Amphil. 143), but also that of Hofmann, who explains 
it to mean: the supplementary continuation of the afflictions 
which Christ suffered in His earthly life—a continuation 
which belonged to the apostle as apostle of the Gentiles, and 
consisted in a suffering which cowld not have affected Christ, 


1 When de Wette describes our view of #aiy. +. X. as tame, and Schenkel as 
tautological, the incorrectness of this criticism arises from their not observing 
that the stress of the expression lies on érravawAnpo, and not on ¢. #a, . X. 


COL. D4 


322 — THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


because He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. , As if 
Christ’s suffering were not, throughout the N. T., the one per- 
fect and completely valid suffering for all mankind, but were 
rather to be viewed under the aspect of. two quantitative 
halves, one of which He bore Himself as dudxovos wepitopis 
(Rom. xv. 8), leaving the other behind to be borne by Paul 
as the Sidacxanros €Ovdv ; so that the first, namely, that which 
Jesus suffered, consisted in the fact that. Israel brought Him 
to the cross, because they would not allow Him to be their 
Saviour; whilst the other, as the complement of the first, con- 
sisted in this, that Paul lay in captivity with his life at stake, 
because Israel would not permit him to proclaim that Saviour 
to the Gentiles. Every explanation, which involves the idea 
of the suffering endured by Christ in the days of His flesh 
having been incomplete and needing supplement, is an anomaly 
which offends against the analogy of faith’ of the N. T. 
And how incompatible with the deep humility of the apostle 
(Eph. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 9) would be the thought of being 
supposed to supplement that, which the highly exalted One 
(ver. 15 ff.) had suffered for the reconciliation of the universe 
(ver. 20 ff.)! Only when misinterpreted in this fashion can 
the utterance be regarded as one perfectly foreign to Paul (as 
is asserted by Holtzmann, pp. 21 f., 152, 226); even Eph. 
i. 22 affords no basis for such a view. As head of the Church, 
which is His body, and which He fills, He is tn statu gloriae 
in virtue of His kingly office. Others, likewise, holding the 
genitive to be that of the sulject, have discovered here the 
conception of the suffering of Christ in the Church, His body, 
so that when the members suffer, the head suffers also. So 
Chrysostom and Theophylact (who compare the apostle with 
a lieutenant, who, when the general-in-chief is removed, takes 
the latter’s place and receives his wounds), Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, 
Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide, Vitringa, Bengel, Michaelis, and 
others, including Steiger, Bahr, Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel, 
Dalmer; comp. Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek. But 
the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people 
1 Comp. also Sabatier, Vapétre Paul, p. 218. 


CHAP. I. 24, 323 


(Olshausen: “Christ is the suffering God in the world’s 
history !") is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Acts 
ix. 4, where Christ, indeed, appears as the One against whom 
the persecution of Christians is directed, but not as affected by 
at in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal. i. 20), 
speaks in them (2 Oor. xiii. 3); His heart beats in them 
(Phil i. 8); He is mighty in them (ver. 29), when they are 
weak (2 Cor. xii. 9), their hope, their life, their victory ; but 
nowhere is it said that He suffers in them. This idea, more- 
over—which, consistently carried out, would involve even the 
conception of the dying of Christ in the martyrs—would be 
entirely opposed to the victoriously reigning life of the Lord 
in glory, with whose death all His sufferings are at an end, 
Acts ii. 34 ff; 1 Cor.xv. 24; Phil ii. 9 ff; Luke xxiv. 26; 
John xix. 30. Crucified ¢£ aoeveias, He lives é« Suvdpews 
@eod, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, at the right hand of God exalted above all 
the heavens and filling the universe (Eph. i 22 f., iv. 10), 
ruling, conquering, and beyond the reach of further suffering 
(Heb. i. 18 ff.). The application made by Cajetanus, Bellar- 
mine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation for the pur- 
pose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists 
of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and 
saints, is a Jewish error (4 Macc. vi 26, and Grimm in loc.), 
historically hardly worthy of being noticed, though still de- 
fended, poorly enough, by Bisping. — év 79 capxi pov] belongs 
to dvtavamr., as to which it specifies the more precise mode ; 
not to trav Orhp. +. X. (so Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Bohmer, 
Huther), with which it might be combined so as to form one 
idea, but it would convey a more precise description of the 
Christ-sufferings experienced by the apostle, for which there 
was no motive, and which was evident of itself. Belong- 
ing to avraya72., it contains with trép tod cap. d. a pointed. 
definition (cdp£ . . . oda) of the mode and of the aim.’ Paul 
accomplishes that dyravamAnpoiy in his flesh? which in its 


1 Steiger rightly perceived that iv +. vagni ». and swip ¢. ¢. & belong together ; 
but he erroneously coupled both with ea» éa. «. X. (“‘ the sufferings which Christ 
endures in my flesh for His body”), owing to his incorrect view of the éaispuus ¢, X 

3 Hofmann thinks, without reason, that, according to our explanation of 


324 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


natural weakness, exposed to suffering and death, receives the 
affliction from without and feels it psychically (comp. 2 Cor. 
iv. 11; Gal. iv. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 1), for the benefit of the body 
of Christ, which is the church (comp. ver. 18), for the con- 
firmation, advancement, and glory of which (comp. above on 
tmép vay) he endures the Christ - sufferings. Comp. Eph. 
iii 13. The significant purpose of the addition of év 77 capxi 
«.7.X. is to bring out more clearly and render palpable, in 
connection with the dvravamdAnpa «.7.r., what lofty happiness 
he experiences in this very avtavamAnpoty. He is therein 
privileged to step in with his mortal odp£ for the benefit 
of the holy and eternal body of Christ, which is the church. 
Ver. 25. That He suffers thus, as is stated in ver. 24, for 
the good of the church, is implied in his special relation of 
service to the latter; hence the epexegetical relative clause 
Fs éyevdounb x.t.d. (comp. on ver. 18): whose servant I have 
become in conformity with my divine appointment as preacher 
to the Gentiles (xata 7. oixov. x.7...). In this way Paul now 
brings this his specific and distinctive calling into prominence 
after the general description of himself as servant of the gospel 
in ver. 23, and here again he gives expression to the conscious- 
ness of his individual authority by the emphasized ¢yw. The 
relation of the testimony regarding himself in ver. 25 to that 
of ver. 23 is climactic, not that of a clumsy duplicate (Holtz- 
mann).— «ata Hv oixovop. «.7.d.] in accordance with the 
stewardship of God, which rs given to me with reference to you. 
The oixovopla +. Geod is in itself nothing else than a charac- 
teristic designation of the apostolic office, in so far as its 
holder is appointed as administrator of the household of God 
(the oixoSearorns), by which, in the theocratic figurative con- 
ception, is denoted the church (comp. 1 Tim. i. 15). Comp. 
1 Cor. ix. 17, iv. 1; Tit. i. '7. Hence such an one is, in con- 
sequence of this office conferred upon him, in his relation to 
the church the servant of the latter (2 Cor. iv. 5), to which 


areavawAnpe %.7.A., We ought to join is 3 vapxzi ew With car OAiy. +. X., a8 the 
latter would otherwise be without any reference to the person of the apostle. It 
has, in fact, this reference through the very statement, that the dvcarawAnpers 
a.¢.a. takes places in the flesh of the apostle, 





CHAP. I. 23. | 325 


function God has appointed him, just because he is His 
steward. This sacred stewardship then receives its more pre- 
cise distinguishing definition, so far as it 1s entrusicd to Paul, 
by the addition of eis tpas x.7.r. It is purely arbitrary, and 
at variance with the context (r7v 508. pos), to depart from the 
proper signification, and to take it as wstitution, arrangement 
(see on Eph. i. 10, ui. 2). So Chrysostom and his successors 
(with much wavering), Beza, Calvin, Estius, Rosenmiiller, and 
others. It is well said by Cornelius a Lapide: “in domo Dei, 
quae est ecclesia, sum oeconomus, ut dispensem ... bona et 
dona Dei domini mei.” Comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 1.—els tpas] 
although the office concerned Gentile Christians generally ; 
@ concrete appropriation, as in ver. 24. Comp. on Phil. 1. 24, 
It is to be joined with +. do8eicdy pot, as in Eph. iii. 2; not 
with wAnpacas x... (Hofmann), with the comprehensive tenor 
of which the individualizing “for you” is not in harmony, 
when it is properly explained (see below). — wAnpacas .T.d-] 
telic infinitive, depending on tyv Sofeicdy por eis vuds, beside 
which it stands (Rom. xv. 15 f.); not on Hs éyer. dudx. 
(Huther). Paul, namely, has received the office of Apostle to 
the Gentiles, in order through the discharge of it ¢o bring to 
completion the gospel (Tov Aoyov +r. Beod, 1 Cor. xiv. 36; 
2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 13; Acts iv. 29, 31, vi. 2, 
and frequently), obviously not as regards its contents, but 
as regards its universal destination, according to which the 
knowledge of salvation had not yet reached its fulness, so long 
as it was only communicated to the Jews and not to the 
Gentiles also. The latter was accomplished through Pawl, who 
thereby made full the gospel—conceived, in respect of its 
proclamation in accordance with its destiny, as a measure to be 
filled—just because the divine stewardship jor the Gentiles had 
been committed to him. The same conception. of mArpwots 
occurs in Rom. xv. 19. Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.; also 
Calovius.’ Similarly Bengel: “ad omnes perducere; P. ubique 
ad summa tendit.” Partly from not attending to the con- 
textual reference to the element, contained in 7. 800. poe ets 


! Who rightly says: ‘‘ Nimirum impletur ita verbum non ratione su ceu im- 
perfectum, sed ratione hominum, cum ad plures sese diffundit.” 


326 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


upas, of the wAjpwors of the gospel which was implied in 
the Gentile - apostolic ministry, and partly from not doing 
justice to the verbal sense of the selected expression 7A7po- 
oat, or attributing an arbitrary meaning to it, commentators 
have taken very arbitrary views of the passage, such as, for 
example, Luther: to mreach copiously; Olshausen, whom 
Dalmer follows: “to proclaim it completely as respects its 
whole tenor and compass;” Cornelius a Lapide: “ut com- 
pleam praedicationem ev., guam cocpit Christus ;” Vitringa, 
Storr, Flatt, Bahr: wAnpody has after 13 the signification of 
the simple docere ; Huther: it means either to diffuse, or (as 
Steiger also takes it) to “-recalize,’ to introduce into the life, 
inasmuch as a doctrine not preached is empty ;' de Wette: to 
“ execute,’ the word of God being regarded either asa commis- 
sion or (comp. Heinrichs) as a decree; Estius and others, 
following Theodoret: “ut omnia loca impleam verbo Det” (quite 
at variance with the words here, comp. Acts v. 28); Fritzsche, 
ad Itom. III. p. 275: to supplement, namely, by continuing the 
instruction of your teacher Epaphras. Others, inconsistently 
with what follows, have explained the Aoyos 7. Geotd to mean 
the divine promise (“ partim de Christo in genere, partim de 
vocatione gentium,” Beza, comp. Vatablus), in accordance with 
which Ap. would mean exsequi. Chrysostom has rightly 
understood 7. Noy. r- Geod of the gospel, but takes wAnpacat, to 
which he attaches eds iuas, as meaning: to bring to full, firm 
faith (similarly Calvin)—a view justified neither by the word 
in itself nor by the context. 

Ver. 26. Appositional more precise definition of the Adyos 
tov @eov, and that as regards its great cohtents.— As to To 
puornpiov K.7.r., the decree of redemption, hidden from eternity 
in God, fulfilled through Christ, and made known through the 
gospel, see on Eph. i 9. It embraces the Gentiles also; and 
this is a special part of its nature that had been veiled (see 
Eph. iii. 5), which, however, is not brought into prominence till 


1 In a similarly artificial fashion, emptying the purposely chosen expression of 
its meaning, Hofmann comes ultimately to the bare sense: ‘‘to proclaim God's 
word,” asserting that the word is a fact, and so he who proclaims the fact 
Sulfils it. 


CHAP. I. 26. 327 


ver. 27. Considering the so frequent treatment of this idea 
in Paul’s writings, and its natural correlation with that of the 
yvaots, an acquaintance with the Gospel of Matthew (xiii. 11) 
is not to be inferred here (Holtzmann).'— dd tay aiapvey 
K. amo tov yevedv] This twofold description, as also the 
repetition of d7ro, has solemn emphasis: from the ages and 
from the generations. The article indicates the ages that had 
existed (since the beginning), and the generations that have 
lived. As to amd tov aidvev, comp. on Eph. iii. 9. Paul 
could not write wpd tay aiwy., because while the divine 
decree was formed prior to all time (1 Cor. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i 9), 
its concealment is not conceivable before the beginning of 
the times and generations of mankind, ¢o whom it remained 
unknown. Expressions such as Rom. xvi. 25, ypovois alevloss? 
and Tit. i 2 (see Huther 2 loc.), do not conflict with this 
view. aro rT. yeveoy does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; 
but comp. Acts xv. 21. The two ideas are not to be regarded 
as synonymous (in opposition to Huther and others), but are to 
be kept separate (¢imes—men).— vuvi 5é épavepwOn] A tran- 
sition to the finite tense, occasioned by the importance of the 
contrast. Comp. on i. 6. Respecting vuvé, see on ver. 21. The 
gavépwors has taken place differently according to the different | 
subjects; partly by dvoxddvyus (Eph. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii 10), 
as in the case of Paul himself (Gal i. 12, 15; Eph. iii 3); 
partly by preaching (iv. 4; Tit. 1. 3; Rom. xvi. 26); partly 
by both. The historical realization (de Wette; comp. 2 Tim. 
i. 10) was the antecedent of the ¢avépwors, but is not here 
this latter itself, which is, on the contrary, indicated by rots 
aylois avrod as a special act of clearly manifesting communica- 

1 Just as little ground is there for tracing zara ra lyedapara x.¢.4., in ii, 22, 
to Matt. xv. 9; ob xpacoy, in ii. 19, to Matt. vii. 8, 4; geden, in ii, 8, to 
Matt. xiii. 22; and in other instances. The author, who manifests so much 
lively copiousness of language, was certainly not thus confined and dependent 
in thought and expression. 

? According to Holtzmann, indeed, p. 309 ff., the close of the Epistle to the 
Romans is to be held as proceeding from the post-apostolic auctor ad Ephesios,— 
a position which is attempted to be proved by the tones (quite Pauline, how- 
ever) which Rom. xvi. 15-27 has in common with Col. i. 26 f. ; Eph. iii. 20, 


iii. 9, 10, v. 21 ; and in support of it an erroneous interpretation of 3:4 ypages 
wpeGarszwy, in Rom. xvi. 26, is invoked. 


328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


tion. — Tots ayiows avrod] 2c. not: to the apostles and prophets 
of the N. T. (Flatt, Bahr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, following Estius and older expositors, and even 
Theodoret, who, however, includes other Christians also),— 
a view which is quite unjustifiably imported from Eph. iii. 5," 
whence also the reading a7rocroXors (instead of dyiors) in F G 
has arisen. It refers to the Christians generally. The mystery 
was indeed announced to all (ver. 23), but was made manifest 
only to the believers, who as such are the «Aqjrol ayo 
belonging to God, Rom. i. 7, viii.” 30, ix. 23 f Huther 
wrongly desires to leave rots ayloss indefinite, because the 
puornpiov, so far as it embraced the Gentiles also, had not 
come to be known to many Jewish-Christians. But, apart from 
the fact that the Judaists did not misapprehend the destina- 
tion of redemption for the Gentiles in itself and generally, 
but only the direct character of that destination (without a 
transition through Judaism, Acts xv. 1, e¢ al.), the épavepwbn 
tots ayious avrod is in fact a swmmary assertion, which is to 
be construed @ wotiort, and does not cease to be true on 
account of exceptional cases,in which the result was not 
actually realized. 

Ver. 27. Not exposition of the épavep. tots wy. avrod, since 
the yvwpicas has for its object not the pvornpror itself, but the 
glory of the latter among the Gentiles. In reality, ols subjoins 
an oncard movement of the discourse, so that to the general 
TO puoTipoy epavepwOn Trois ay. avtod a particular element is 
added: “The mystery was made manifest to His saints,—to 
them, to whom (guippe quibvs) God withal desired especially 
to make known ¢ha?, which is the riches of the glory of this 
mystery among the Gentiles.” Along with the general 
epavepwOn tois adrylous avtod God had this special definite 
dircction of His will. From this the reason is plain why Paul 
has written, not simply ols éyvwpecev 0 Geos, but ols 7Oérecev 
6 Qeos yvwpicat. The meaning that is usually discovered in 


- 1 Holtzmann also, p. 49, would have the apostles thought of ‘‘frst of all.” 
The resemblances to Eph. iii. 3, 5 do not postulate the similarity of the con- 
ception throughout. This would assume a mechanical process of thought, 
which could not be proved. 








CHAP. I. 27. 329 


nOerAncev, free grace, and the like (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Calvin, Beza, and many others, including Bahr, Bohmer, de 
Wette; Huther is, with reason, doubtful), is therefore not the 
aim of the word, which is also not intended to express the 
joyfulness of the announcement (Hofmann), but simply and 
solely the idea: “He had a’ mind.” — yvapica] to make 
known, like épavepw6n, from which it differs in meaning not 
essentially, but only to this extent, that by éfavep, the thing 
formerly hidden is designated as openly displayed (Rom. i. 19, 
iii. 21, xvi. 26; Eph. v. 13, e¢ al.), and by yvwpicas that 
which was formerly unknown as brought to knowledge. Comp. 
Rom. xvi. 26, ix. 22; Eph. i 9, iii. 3, 5, 10, vi 19; Luke 
ii, 15, ¢ al. The latter is not related to édavep. either as 
a something more (Bahr: the making fully acquainted with 
the nature); or as its result (de Wette); or as entering 
more into detail (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; or as making aware, 
namely by experience (Hofmann).— ri 76 aAobtos ris SoEns 
K.7.d.| what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the 
Gentiles, Le. what rich fulness of the glory contained in this 
mystery exists among the CGentiles—since, indeed, this riches 
consists in the fact (6s éorz), that Christ is among you, in 
whom ye have the hope of glory. In order to a proper inter- 
pretation, let it be observed: (1) ré occupies with emphasis 
the place of the indirect 6, te (see Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 
10; Kiihner, ad Dfem. i 1.1; Winer, p. 158 f. [E T. 210)), 
and denotes “ quae sint divitiae” as regards degree: how creat 
and unspeakable the riches, etc. Comp. on Eph. i. 18, 
iii, 18. The text yields this definition of the sense from the 
very connection with the quantitative idea té mXovros. (2) 
All the substantives are to be left in their full solemn force, 
without being resolved into adjectives (Erasmus, Luther, and 
many others: the glorious riches; Beza: “divitiae gloriosi 
hujus mysterii”). Chrysostom aptly remarks: cepvds elzre 
Kal Syxov éréOnxey aro Toddjs Siabécews, éretdces Entav 
emitacewv. Comp. Calvin: “magniloguus est in extollenda 
evangelii dignitate.” (3) As ris Sofns is governed by vo 
TNovTOS, 80 also is Tov pvotnplov governed by tis So€ns, and 
ev tots €Oy, belongs to the éori which is to be supplied, comp. 


330 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Eph. i 18. (4) According to the context, the dda cannot 
be anything else (see immediately below, % éAmts tis SoEns) 
than the Messianic glory, the glory of the kingdom (Rom. 
vili. 18, 21; 2 Cor. iv. 17, et al.), the glorious blessing of the 
KAnpovoyia (comp. ver. 12), which before the Parousia (Rom. 
viii. 30 ; Col. iii. 3 f.) is the ideal (éAzrés), but after it is the 
realized, possession of believers. Hence it is neither to be 
taken.in the sense of the glorious effects generally, which the 
gospel produces among the Gentiles (Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, and many others, including Huther, comp. Dalmer), nor 
in that specially of their conversion from death to life (Hof- 
mann), whereby its glory is unfolded. Just as little, however, 
is the Sofa of God meant, in particular His wisdom and 
grace, which manifest themselves objectively in the making 
known of the mystery, and realize themselves subjectively 
by moral glorification and by the hope of eternal glory (de 
Wette), or the splendor internus of true Christians, or the bliss 
of the latter combined with their moral dignity (Bohmer). 
(5) The genitive of the subject, rod pvornpiov rovtov, defines the 
Sofa as that contained in the pvotypwy, previously unknown, 
but now become manifest with the mystery that has been 
made known, as the blessed contents of the latter. Comp. 
ver. 23: édmls tov evayyedlov. To take the Sofa as attribute 
of the mystery, is forbidden by what immediately follows, 
according to which the idea can be none other than the 
familiar one of that glory, which is the proposed aim of the 
saving revelation and calling, the object of faith and hope (in 
opposition to Hofmann and many others); iii 4. Comp. on 
Rom. v. 2.— & tots GOveow] paiverar 5é év érépous, rodAr@ Se 
ahéov év TovTOLS % ToAA TOU puvornpiov Séfa, Chrysostom. 
“Qui tot saeculis demersi fuerant in morte, ut viderentur 
penitus desperati,” Calvin. —és éors Xpioros év dpiv] “ Christus 
in gentibus, summmum illis temporibus paradoxon,” Bengel. 
According to a familiar attraction (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207]), 
this Ss applies to the previous subject to wAobros ris SdEns 
Tov pvot. T., and introduces that, in which this riches consists. 
Namely: Christ among you,—in this it consists, and by this 
information is given at the same time how great it is (ri éorw). 


CHAP. I. 27. $31 


Formerly they were ywpls Xpiorod (Eph. ii 12); now Christ, 
who by His Spirit reigns in the hearts. of believers (Rom. 
viii. 10; Eph iii 17; Gal ii, 20; 2 Cor. iii. 17, et al.), as 
present and active among them. The proper reference of the 
relative to 1d wrAodros x.7.r., and also the correct connection of 
éy ipiv with Xpuords (not with 4 dads, as Storr and Flatt 
think), are already given by Theodoret and Oecumenius (comp. 
also Theophylact), Valla, Luther, Calovius, and others, includ- 
ing Bohmer and Bleek, whereas Hofmann, instead of closely 
connecting Xprorés dv iptv, makes this é& tui depend on 
éori, whereby the thoughtful and striking presentation of the 
fact “Christ among the Gentiles” is without reason put in the 
background, and éy tyivy becomes superfluous. Following the 
Vulgate and Chrysostom, 65 is frequently referred to rod 
pvortnp. tovrov: “this mystery consists in Christ’s being 
among you, the Gentiles,’ Huther, comp. Ewald. The con- 
text, however, is fatal to this view; partly in general, because 
it is not the mystery itself, but the riches of its glory, 
that forms the main idea in the foregoing; and partly, in 
particular, because the way has been significantly prepared 
for 5s éore through ri, while év duiy corresponds’ to the éy 
tos €Oyeow referring to the wAotros, and the following 4 éAmls 
vis S0&ns glances back to the wAodros ris 8bEns. — Xpioros] 
Christ Himself, see above. Neither 7 rod X. yvaous (Theo- 
phylact) is meant, nor the doctrine, either of Christ (Grotius, 
Rosenmiiller, and others), or about Christ (Flatt). On the 
individualizing tpt», although the relation concerns the Gen- 
tiles generally, comp. das in ver. 25. “ Accommodat ipsis 
Colossensibus, ut efficacius in se agnoscant,” Calvin. — 4 Amis 
ws 8é6£ns] characteristic apposition (comp. iii 4) to Xpsorés, 
giving information how the Xpiords éy tyiv forms the great 
riches of the glory, etc. among the Gentiles, since Christ is 
the hope of the Messianic Sofa, in Him is given the possession 
in hope of the future glory. The emphasis is on 7 éAzés, in 
which the probative element lies. Compare on the subject- 

1 Hence also to be rendered not in vobis (Luther, Bobmer, Olshausen), but 


inter vos. The older writers combated the rendering és vobis from opposition to 
the Fanatics. ; 


332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


matter, Rom. viii. 24: 7 yap ékrBe dowOnper, and the contrast 
érmlSa py Exyovres in Eph. ii. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 13; and on 
the concrete expression, 1 Tim. 1.1; Ignat. Eph. 21; Magnes. 
11; Ecclus. xxxi, 14; Thue. iii 57. 4; Aesch. Ch. 236. 
776. 

Ver. 28. Christ was not proclaimed by alJ in the definite 
character just expressed, namely, as “ Christ among the Gentiles, 
the hope of glory ;” other teachers preached Him in a Judaistic 
form, as Saviour of the Jews, amidst legal demands and 
with theosophic speculation. Hence the emphasis with which 
not the simply epexegetic 6v (Erasmus and others), but the 
qyets, which is otherwise superfluous, is brought forward ;* by 
which Paul has meant himself along with Timothy and other 
like-minded preachers to the Gentiles (we, on our part). This 
emphasizing of sets, however, requires the éy to be referred 
to Christ regarded in the Gentile-Messianic character, precisely 
as the sets make Him known (comp. Phil. i 17 f.), thereby 
distinguishing themselves from others; not to Christ generally 
(Hofmann), in which case the emphasizing of sets is held 
to obtain its explanation only from the subsequent clause 
of purpose, iva mapact. x.7.4.— The specification of the mode 
of announcement vouerovyres and Sddacxovres, admonishing 
and teaching, corresponds to the two main elements of the 
evangelical preaching petavocire and miotevere (Acts xx. 21, 
xxvi. 18; Rom. iit 3 ff.; Mark i 15). Respecting the idea 
of vouvGereiv, see on Eph: vi. 4. It occurs also joined with 
Siddox. in Plato, Legg. viii. p. 845 B, Prot. p. 323 D, <Apol. 
p. 26 A; Dem. 130. 2.— & aden codia] belongs to vovder. 
and diéacn.: by means of every wisdom (comp. iii. 16) which 
we bring to bear thereon. It is the mas of the process of 
warning and teaching, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, in which no sort 
of wisdom remains unemployed. The fact that Paul, in 


1 Without due reason, Holtzmann, p. 153, finds the use of the plural disturb- 
ing, and the whole verse tautological as coming after ver. 25. It is difficult, 
however, to mistake the full and solemn style of the passage, to which also the 
thrice repeated wdvra dvbpawer belongs. 

3 In iii. 16 the two words stand in the inverse order, because there it is not 
the psrasesse preceding the wiees which is the aim of the seseie, but mutual 
improvement on the part of believers. 





CHAP. L 29. ' 333 


1 Cor. i. 17, comp. ii. 1, 4, repudiates the cod/a Aoyov in his 
method of teaching, is not—taking into consideration the sense 
in which oogia there occurs—at variance, but rather in keeping, 
with the present assertion, which applies, not to the wisdom of 
the world, but to Christian wisdom in its manifold forms, — 
The thrice repeated aavra avOpwroy (in opposition to the 
Judaizing tendency of the false teachers) “ maximam habet 
Sesvornta ac vim,” Bengel. The proud feeling of the apostle of 
the world expresses itself.'— %a mapaoryo. x.t..] The pur- 
pose of the dv *peis xatayyéd\Nopev down to aodia. This 
purpose is not in general, that man may so appear (Bleek), or 
come to stand so (Hofmann), but it refers, as in ver. 22, and 
without mixing up the conception of sacrifice (in opposition to 
Bahr and Baumgarten-Crusius), to the judgment (comp. on 
2 Cor. iv. 14), at which it is the highest aim and glory 
(1 Thess. ii. 19 f.) of the apostolic teachers to make every man 
come forward rédewv dv X. ’Ev Xpior@ contains the distin- 
guishing specialty of the reXecorns, as Christian, which is not 
based on anything outside of Christ, or on any other element 
than just on Him. It is perfection in respect of the whole 
Christian nature; not merely of knowledge (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others, including Bohmer), but also of life. 
Moreover, this év X. is so essential to the matter, and so cur- 
rent with the apostle, that there is no ground for finding in it 
an opposition to a doctrine of the law and of angels (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others). Theophylact, however (comp. Chry- 
sostom), rightly observes regarding the entire clause of purpose : 
Ti reyes; wdvta dyOpwirov; val, dynos, TovTo oTrovddlopmer” et 
5é py yévyntat, obey mpos, Has. 

Ver. 29. On the point of now urging upon the readers 
their obligation to fidelity in the faith Gi 4), and that from 
the platform of the personal relation in which he stood 
towards them as one unknown to them by face (ii. 1), Paul 

1 Which Hofmann groundlessly calls in question, finding in wdsra dlpewer 
the idea: ‘‘every one singly and severally.” This is gratuitougly introduced, 
and would have been significantly expressed by Paul through {va isaeres (Acts 
xx. 31), or through the addition of xaf isa, or otherwise ; comp. also 1 Thess. 


ii. 11. Calvin hits the thought properly : ‘‘ué sine exceptione totus mundus ex 
me discat.” 


334 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


now turns from the form of expression embracing others in 
‘common with himself, into which he had glided at ver. 28 in 
harmony with its contents, back to the individual form (the 
first person singular), and asserts, first of all, in connection 
with ver. 28, that for the purpose of the mapacrijcat x.7.X. (cts 
&, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10) he also gives himself even toil (xo, 
comp. Rom. xvi. 6,12; 1 Cor. iv. 12), striving, etc. — xa/] 
also, subjoins the xomay to the xatayyéANe «.7.X., in which 
jhe subjects himself also to the former; it is therefore aug- 
mentative, in harmony with the climactic progress of the dis- 
course; not & mere equalization of the aim and the striving 
(de Wette). Neither this «a/, nor even the transition to the 
singular of the verb,—especially since the latter is not empha- 
sized by the addition of an éy#,—can justify the interpretation 
of Hofmann, according to which eis 6 is, contrary to its position, 
to be attached to dyawuouevos, and xom@ is to mean: “J 
become weary and faint” (comp. John iv. 6; Rev. ii. 3, and 
Diisterdieck in loc.). Paul, who has often impressed upon others 
the 4) éxxaxeiv, and for himself is certain of being more than 
conqueror in all things (Rom. viii. 37; 2 Cor. iv. 8, @ al), 
can hardly have borne testimony about himself in this sense, 
with which, moreover, the aywvrileoOa: in the strength of Christ 
is not consistent. In his case, as much as in that of any one, the 
ovx éxorrlacas of Rev. ii. 3 holds good. — dyavcfopevos} Com- 
pare 1 Tim. iv. 10. Here, however, according to the context, 
ii. 1 ff, the inward striving (comp. Luke xiii. 24) against diffi- 
culties and hostile forces, the striving of solicitude, of watching, 
of mental and emotional exertion, of prayer, etc., is meant ; as 
respects which Paul, like every regenerate person (Gal. v. 17), 
could not be raised above the resistance of the gdpf to the 
avebpa ruling in him. Comp. Chrysostom: wat ovy dam)as 
arrovodta, dnow, ovde as Etuyev, GAA KoTT aywvilopevos 
PETA TOAAS THS oTrovons, peTa WoAARS Ths ayputrvlas. It-is 
not: “tot me periculis ac malis objicere” (Erasmus, comp. 
Grotius, Estius, Heinrichs, Bahr, and others), which outward 
struggling, according to Flatt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
aud others, should be understood along with that inward 
striving ; ii. 1 only points to the latter; comp. iv. 12. — «ara 


CHAP. I. 29. 335 


tiv évépyevay x.7.d.] for Paul does not contend, amid the labours 
of his office, according to the measure of his own strength, 
but according to the effectual working of Christ (avrod is not to 
be referred to God, as is done by Chrysostom, Grotius, Flatt, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which worketh in him. Comp. 
Phil. iv. 13. How must this consciousness, at once so humble 
and confident of victory, have operated upon the readers to 
stir them up and strengthen them for stedfastness in the faith ! 
—-Tiv évepyoun.] is middle; see on 2 Cor. i 6; Gal. v. 6; 
Eph. iii, 20. The modal definition to it, dy Suvdyes, mightily 
(comp. on Rom. i 4), is placed at the end significantly, as in 
2 Thess. i 11; it is groundlessly regarded by Holtzmann as 
probably due to the interpolator. 


336 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


CHAPTER II. 


VER. 1. zsp/] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read istp, following A BC D* 
Px min. But how easily may ixip have been suggested to the 
copyists by i. 24 and iv. 12!—The form swpaxay (Lachm. and 
Tisch. 7) or éépaxas (Tisch. 8) is more than sufficiently attested 
by ABC D* &*, etc., to induce its reception in opposition to 
the usage elsewhere. Respecting this Alexandrian form see 
Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 90]; and on ip., Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Th. 
32.— Ver. 2. Instead of cuxS8:Bacbivess, Elzevir has cup BiBacbivewy, 
in opposition to decisive testimony; an emendation. — rdéra 
xAovrev] AC min. have sé» rd xAodres (So Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are 
- also joined by B x* Clem. with wré&y rActros (so Tisch. 8). Here 
also (comp. i. 27) the neuter is the original ; in thinking of the 
more common é wAcvrog the IIANTO became IIANTA, in accord- 
ance with which sAoctrey also came to be written. The reading 
of Tisch. 8 is a restoration of the neuter form after the article 
had been lost.—Instead of the simple rot © (so Griesb. 
Scholz, Tisch. 7, Rinck; among modern expositors, Bahr, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald), Elzevir has rot @s0d xa! carpig xa? 
rou Xpicrov, While Lachm. reads rod @r0d Xprorod, and Tisch. 8 £03 
@100, Xpioros. Among the numerous various readings, rod @rot 
Xpiorot (also adopted by Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is 
certainly strongly enough attested by B. Hilar. (but without 
vss.), while the simple rod Ord has only 37, 67**, 71, 80*, 116, 
Arm. ed. Venet. in its favour. AC x*, 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms. have 
rou @e0d warpo¢ (rod) X., which Bohmer and Reiche prefer, whilst 
x** Syr. p. have +. ©rod xa/ warp. rod X., and others still, such as 
Syr. Copt. Chrys. read r. ©. rarpig xa} rod Xpiorod, and conse- 
quently come nearest to the Recepta; but a few authorities, 
after the mention of God, insert é Xpsor%, as Clem. Ambrosiaster : 
cov Osod &v X. Regarding these variations we must judge thus: 
(1) the far too weak attestation of the bare rod @s0% is decisive 
against it; (2) the reading of Lachm.: rod @s0d Xpioroi, is to be 
regarded as the original, from which have arisen as glosses the 
amplifications rot Osod warpi¢ rou X.,' and rod Osod warp. xal rod X., 


1If this reading, relatively so strongly attested, were the original one, it 
would not be easy to see why it should have been glossed or altered. The 


CHAP. Il. 337 


as well as the Recepta ; (3) the reading rod rod &v XprorH arose 
out of a gloss (é Xpier@) written on the margin at éy q, In accord- 
ance with i. 27, which supplanted the original Xprorcd ; (4) the 
éy Xpior® thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated, 
without, however, the original Xpsorod being reinserted, and thus 
arose the reading of Griesb. rod @sod, which therefore—and with 
this accords its late and weak attestation—appears to be merely 
a half completed critical restoration. — Ver. 4. dé] is wanting in 
B s*, Tisch. 8; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before 
the syllable AE. — 4% s¢] Lachm. and Tisch. read wnés/s, which, 
following preponderant codd. (A B C D E P 8), is to be pre- 
ferred.— Ver. 7. év +H xior.] Lachm. and Tisch. have only ry 
«ters, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast. 
Theophyl. Properly; the é was mechanically introduced from 
the adjoining text. — iv airy] though suspected by Griesb., and 
rejected by Tisch. 8 (it is wanting in A C &*, min. Copt. Tol. 
Archel), is to be defended. Its omission was easily occasioned 
by the fact that xspi0o. was found to be already accompanied by 
@ more precise definition expressed by #&. The ev air® read by 
D* &**, 1, Pel. vss., though only a mechanical repetition of the 
preceding é airg, testifies indirectly to the fact that originally 
év airy Was in the text. — Ver. 10. 5¢ iorw] Lachm. reads ¢ iorw, 
following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction, 
occasioned by the reference of the preceding iv aire to ri 
aarnpaya. — Ver. 11. After cuuaros Elz. has rav a&uapriov; an 
exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony. Comp. 
Rom. vi. 6.— Ver. 13. The second ip&s is indeed wanting in 
Elz., but receives so sufficient attestation through A C K L x*, 
min. vss. and Fathers, that its omission must be explained on 
the ground of its seeming superfluous. B min. Ambr. have 
nas, Which is conformed to the following 72%. Instead of this 
nui, Elz. has izw, in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver. 
17. dé] Lachm. reads 4, following B F G It. Goth. Epiph. Am- 
brosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch as the plural was 
naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the 
things previously mentioned.— Ver. 18. & «2% sdépaxsy] wh 13 
wanting in A B D* s*, 17, 28, 67**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd. 
in Aug., Or. ed. Tert.? Lucif. Ambrosiast., while F G have oiz. 
The negation is with justice condemned by Griesb., Steiger, 
Olshausen, Huther, Ewald; deleted by Tisch. 8 (bracketed by 
Lachm.), although defended specially by Reiche, whom Hot- 


original expression must have given rise to dogmatic scruples, and only the 
description of God as ret Osov Xpserev could have done so. 


COL. ¥ 





338 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


mann also follows. An addition owing to misapprehension. 
See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 20. s/] Elz. reads si odv, in 
Opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of 
connecting, after the analogy of ver. 16 and iii. 1. 


Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for 
the salvation of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces 
(vv. 1-3) what he has to urge upon them in the way of 
warning against the seduction of false teachers (vv. 4, 5), of 
exhortation to faithfulness (vv. 6, 7), and then, again, of warn- 
ing (ver. 8). He then supports what he has urged by sub- 
joining the relative soteriological instructions and remindings 
(vv. 9-15), from which he finally draws further special 
warnings as respects the dangers threatening them on the 
part of the false teachers (vv. 16-23). 

Ver. 1. Tap] The apostle now confirms in concreto the eis 3 
x. KoTr. GyovCouevos x.7.r., which has just been affirmed of 
himself in general: in proof of that assertion I would have 
you to know, etc. Hofmann holds erroneously, in consequence 
of his mistaken explanation of xom1® ini. 29, that Paul desires 
to explain why he has said that he is becoming weary over the 
exertion, etc. — Instead of the more frequent ov Oérw tpas 
ayvoely (see on Rom. xi. 25, i. 13), Paul uses the @érwm dp. 
e(dévat, also in 1 Cor. xi. 3; comp. Phil. i, 12. — %Adxov] 
whrt a great, vehement conflict. Paul nowhere else uses this 
word, which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX. 
or in the Apocrypha; in the N. T. it is only found again at Jas. 
iii, 5. That by the conflict is meant the internal pressure of 
solicitude and apprehension, etc. (comp.i 29, also Rom. xv. 30), 
is plain—when we remember the imprisoned condition of the 
apostle, who now could not contend outwardly with the false 
teachers themselves—from ver. 2. It is at the same time self- 
evident that the wrestling of prayer was an eminent way of con- 
ducting this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to 
regard iv. 12 as a criterion for determining the sense in our 
passage.—«xat trav év Aaodix.] The neighbouring Laodiceans 
(Rev. iii. 14 ff.) were without doubt exposed to like heretical 
dangers; hence also the injunction as to the mutual communi- 
cation of the Epistles, iv. 16.—xat Sco «.1.X.] The sense is: 





CHAP. IL 1. | 339 


and generally (xal, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 786. 870) for 
all to whom I am personally unknown. It adds the entire 
category, to which the dpeis and those éy Aaobdixelg, both 
regarded as churches, were reckoned to belong. Comp. Acts 
iv. 6. Itis plain from our passage that Paul had not been 
in Colossae and Laodicea. It is true that Wiggers, in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 176, would have 80 «.7.X. under- 
stood as referring to a portion of the Colossians and Laodiceans, 
in which case xa/ would mean even ; but the text itself is deci- 
sively opposed to this view by the following a’ray, ver. 2, which, 
if the dooc x.7.X. to which it refers be not the class in which 
the readers and Laodiceans were included, would be altogether 
unsuitable ; a8, indeed, the bare even does not suffice to give 
special prominence to a particular portion (we should expect 
pdnora Sé or the like), and the comprehensive dco: withal does 
not seem accounted for. Erroneous also is the view (held 
already by Theodoret in the Hypothes. and in the Commentary, 
though Credner, inl. § 154, erroneously denies this) of 
Baronius, Lardner, and David Schultz (in the Stud. wu. Krit. 
1829, p. 535 ff), that the dco «.7.A, were other than the dpets 
and of ev Aaodix.; Paul having been personally known to 
both the latter. The subsequent avrwy is fatal to this theory 
likewise; and how singularly without reason would it have 
been, if Paul had designated as the objects of his anxiety, 
along with two churches of the district which are supposed 
to have known him personally, all not knowing him personally, 
without distinction of locality! With how many of the 
latter were there no such dangers at all existing, as the Colos- 
sians and Laodiceans were exposed to! To this falls to be 
added the fact, that in the entire Epistle there is not a single 
hint of the apostle having been present in Colossae. See, on 
the contrary, on i. 8 and on i. 23. Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. 
des apost. Zeitalt. p. 440. According to Hilgenfeld, in his 
Zeitschr. 1870, p. 245 f,, the intimation that Paul was per- 
sonally unknown to the Colossians betrays the composition of 
the Epistle at a later time, when the recollection of his labours 
there had been already superseded and had vanished from the 
memory of thee churches. As if such a forgetfulness wete 


340 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS 


even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the 
apostle was held !—-That Paul should have been so concerned 
about the Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know 
him personally, is natural enough, seeing that they were not 
in a position to oppose the living impression of the apostle’s 
personal ministry, and his direct authority, to the heretical 
seductions. Comp. ver. 5.—eév capxi] not belonging to 
éwpdxaci—in which case it would be a contrast to seeing é 
avevpate (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius)— 
joins itself, so as to form one idea, with 1d mpocwroy pov 
(Winer, p. 128 [E.T. 169]). Seever. 5. The addition, which 
might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Gal. i. 22; 1 Thess. 
ii. 17), serves the purpose of concrete representation, without its 
being necessary to import into it a contrast to the “spiritual 
phystognomy” (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance 
in a spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in connection with which 
Estius even discovers a certain tazreiywors through a higher 
estimation of the latter; although generally the idea of a 
spiritual mode of intercourse, independent of bodily absence, 
very naturally occasioned the concrete description: my bodily 
face. There is all the less ground for assigning éy capxi, as 
an anticipation of ver. 5, to the hand of the manipulator, and 
that in such a way as to betray an author who knows the 
apostle to be already snatched away from the flesh and 
present in heaven (Holtzmann). 

Ver. 2. The end aimed at (va) in this conflict: in order 
that their hearts may be comforted, viz. practically by the fact, 
that they are united in love, etc. Accordingly, cupPiBacd. 
x7. contains the mode of that comforting, which ensues, 
when through loving union the evil of heretical division, 
whether threatening or already rampant, is removed. Most 
thoughtfully and lovingly Paul designates the concern of his 
solicitude as mapdxAyots TaY Kapdiav avroy, not impeaching 
them on account of the heretical seductions, but making those 
temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence of which 
one requires comfort (Vulgate: “wt consolentur”). Chrysostom 
remarks aptly (comp. Theophylact): 78) Aowroy omevdec nar 
wdiver éuBanrety cis To Soypa, ovre KaTyyopay ole atTraNNdtrov 


CHAP. II. 2. 341 


aitods xarnyoplas. The explanation which makes mrapaxan. 
mean, like yor (LXX. Deut. iii. 28; Job iv. 3), to strengthen, 
confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), is quite 
opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to 
exhort (so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann ; comp. 
Bleek), to entreat, to encourage, to comfort ; the latter in par- 
ticular when, as here, it is joined with xapdla. Comp. iv. 8; 
Eph. vi. 22; 2 Thess. ii 17 (also Ecclus, xxx. 23). — ovp- 
BiBaoGévres] referred to the logical subject of the foregoing, 
ae. to the persons, of whom ai xapdlat avrav was said. See on 
-Eph. iv. 2. It means here not instructt (Vulgate; comp. 
1 Cor. ii. 16, and the LXX.), nor yet introduced, which lin- 
guistic usage does not permit, but brought together, united, 
compacti (ver.19 ; Eph. iv. 16; Thuc. ii. 29. 5; Herod. i. 74; 
and see Wetstein and Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 453 f.). In con- 
nection therewith, év a@yamy, which denotes Christian brotherly 
love, is the moral element, in which the union is to subsist; to 
which is then added the telic reference of cupfiBac8. by xar 
eis «.7.d.: united in love and for behoof of the full richness, 
etc., z.e.in order, by that union, to attain the possession of 
this full richness, which could not be attained, but only 
hindered, by division and variance. «at eis is not to be 
joined with mapaxd. (Storr, Flatt), since the xa/ rather adds 
to the édv-relation of the cuvpAc8. its ecs-relation, and is there- 
fore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann) ; 
but not to be explained either as e quidem (Bahr, Bohmer), 
or by an é\wor to be supplied (Olshausen permits a choice be- 
tween the two). — Tis wAnpod. Tis ovvéo.] The full certainty 
of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole riches of 
'So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense with sis was oé rAcveos, taking i» 
aydéen adverbially, and explaining the x«/, which stands in the way, in the sense 
of ‘‘ even,” to the effect that this introduction into all riches of the understanding 
has as its presupposition another introduction, viz. that into the faith. This is 
a sophistically forced mode of disposing of the xai, suggested by nothing in the 
context, especially since faith by no means, either of itself or in vv. 5-7, falls to 
be considered as a preliminary stage, as if the wrAnpegepia x.¢.4., like a new 
stadium, had to be entered upon through a second introduction ; on the contrary, 
this wAnpepepia is the full rich development of faith in the inner life. We may 
add that cvmB.Bé%ux=to éntroduce is nothing but a lezicographical fiction 
invented by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says rightly : tra lsefaes, 


342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


which, 4. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, 
so that in no element of the cdveots and in no mode thereof 
does there remain any lack of completely undoubting convic- 
tion ;' comp. 1 Thess. i. 5 ; Heb. vi. 11, x. 22; Rom. iv. 21, 
xiv. 5. On the conception of wAnpodopety, see Bleek on Hebr. 
II. 2, p. 233 f. As to ovveoss, intelligence, both theoretical and 
practical, comp. on i. 9; that here also what is specifically 
Christian is meant xar’ éEoyny, is plain from the context. 
See the sequel. The cumulative fulness of the description 
wav To 1H. T. WAN. T. cuvéec. ig naturally and earnestly called 
forth by the consideration of the dangers which threatened 
the wAnpod. 7. cuvéc. through the attempts of false teachers 
(ver. 4). Ot8a, drt wuorevere, GAAA wANpodopnGhvar twas 
BodNouas ove eis Tov TAovUTOY povoy, GAN eis mavtTa Tov 
movrov, Wa nal ev maior al erirerapéves tremdnpopopnpévos 
#re, Chrysostom. — els éréyvwow x.7.d.] parallel to the pre- 
ceding cis way 16 awhovrTos «.7.4., and destined to bring in with 
emphasis the great object of the ovveois (the divine counsel of 
redemption, TO puorypwoy, see on i, 26); so that what was 
previously set forth at length by eis av Td wAODTOS T. wWANpOd. 
tT. cuvéo. is now succinctly summed up for the sake of annex- 
ing the object by ets éréyywow. Thus the distinction between 
ériyvaou and yvaars (ver. 3) is brought out clearly. Comp. 
on i.9. But rod pvor. r. 8. is not to be attached also to rijs 
cuvécews (Hofmann), so that the ryv érbywoty would occupy an 
interrupting position. — Tod Geod] Genitive of the subject; it 
is God, whose decree the yuor. is. The reading to be approved, 
tod Geod Xpiotod (see the critical remarks), means: of the God 
of Christ, ie. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to 
His Father, Sender, Head, etc.; see on Eph. i 17; comp. 


1 Neither Greek authors, nor the LXX., nor the Apocrypha have wranpepepia. 
In Ptol. Tetr. p. 4. 9, wAnpepépners is found. 

3 According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the frequent mention of yees and 
lwiyrwets, Of cedia and edvseis, Of yrepilev and Qwritur, Of purenpoy kaxexsxpupss. 
and farkpwors rev uver., We may detect already the terminology of the Grecian 
mysteries, As if these ideas and expressions were not sufficiently Pauline, and 
their intentional application were not sufficiently intelligible in the light of 
theosophic aberrations. Comp. also on i. 23; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420, 
ed. 2. 


CHAP. IL. 8. 343 


John xx. 17; Matt. xxvii 46. The separation of Xpicrod, 
however, from 7. @eov, and the taking it as apposition to tov 
pevornp. Tov Geov, so that Christ Himself appears as the per- 
sonal secret of God, “ because He is personally the truth con- 
tained in God and revealed from God” (Hofmann, comp. 
Holtzmann, p. 215), must be rejected, because Paul would 
thus have expressed himself in a way as much exposed to mis- 
apprehension as possible. He would either have inserted an 
& éore after rod Geod (i 24; 1 Cor. iii. 11), or have omitted 
to} @eov, which would have made 70 pvotipioy Xpiotod, 
as in Eph. ii. 4, the mystery contained personally in Christ. 
But as the apostle has actually written, the reader could only 
understand the mystery of the God of Christ. If Christ is 
God’s (see on 1 Cor. iii. 23; comp. Luke i. 26, ix. 20; Acts 
iv. 26), then God is also the God of Christ. After @Qeoi, 
therefore, no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of 
Hilary (“ Deus Christus sacramentum est”), that o Qeos is 
Christ Himself (so Steiger and Bisping, also Philippi, Glaw- 
bensl. IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2), is wholly without Pauline analogy, 
and is not to be supported by such passages as Rom. ix. 5; 
Tit. ii. 13; Eph. v. 5; in fact, even the lofty predicates em- 
ployed ini. 15 ff., ii, 9, draw the line of distinction between 
God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher 
(de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more 
unsuitable and obscure (Reiche), than the phrase 6 @eds rod 
aupiou 7. "Inood X. in Eph. i. 17; since in connection with 
the notion “the God of Christ,” the designation of the latter 
as our Lord is unessential. The addition Xpiorot finds ds 
motive in the connection, because it was just im Christ that 
God formed the decree of redemption (the zvornprov), and has 
carried it out (Eph. iii, 10 f., e¢ al.). Whosoever has known - 
God as the God of Christ, has the divine uvorjpuoy therewith 
unveiled to him. 

Ver. 3. "Ev @] is to be referred to rod pvornplou—a 
remark which applies also in the case of every other reading 
of the foregoing words—not to Christ, as is commonly done 


1 Older dogmatic expositors (see especially Calovius) discover here the omni- 
science of Christ. 





344 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


with the Recepta, and by Bohmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even 
with our reading. The correct reference is given, in connec- 
tion with the Recepta, by Grotius (against whom Calovius 
contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis; and in connec- 
tion with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek; its 
correctness appears from the correlation in which doxpudor 
stands to rov yxvornp. The destination of this relative clause 
is to bring out the high value of the ewréyywors tod pvornpiov 
(sire in Him, etc.), and that in contrast to the pretended 
wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers; hence also the 
emphatic mwavres ot Ono. «7.4. — The codia and yrpors are 
here conceived objectivcly, and the genitives indicate whereitt 
the treasures consist. The distinction between the two words 
is not, indeed, to be abandoned (Calvin: “duplicatio ad 
augendum valet ;” comp. Huther and others), but yet is not 
to be defined more precisely than that yvders is more special, 
knowledye, and copia more general, the whole Christian wisdom, 
by which we with the collective activity of the mind grasp 
divine relations and those of human morality, and apply them 
to right practice. Comp. on i 9.—On @noavpol, comp. 
Plato, Phil. p.15 E: &s tia codlas eipnxws Onoavpov, Xen. 
Mem. iv. 2. 9, 1.6. 14; Wisd. vi. 14; Ecclus. i, 22; Bar. 
iii 15. — daéxpvgo.} is not the predicate to eiot (so most 
writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were azroxe- 
Kpuppévoe eiow instead of eiclv asoxpupor; for, as it stands, 
the unsuitable sense would be conveyed: “in whom all 
treasurcs ... are hidden treasures.” But neither is it a descrip- 
tion of the qualitative how of their being in Him, in so far, 
namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hof- 
mann) ; for this adverbial use of the adjective (see Kiihner, 
ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 12, ii, 2.17; Kriiger, § 57. 5) would be 
without due motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned, 
not about the mode of the é& @ eiot, but about the charac- 
tcrizing of the treasures themselves, whereupon the how 
in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore take 

2In connection with which Bihr, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek convert 


the notion of being hidden into that of being deposited for preservation (awe- 
asietas, i. 5). 





CHAP. II. 4. 345 


adroxpupet simply as an attributive adjective to @ycaupol, 
placed at the end with emphasis: in whom the collective hidden 
treasures... are contained. Comp. LXX. Isa. xlv. 3; 1 Macc. 
i 23; Matt. xiii. 44. The treasures, which are to be found 
in the mystery, are not such as lie open to the light, but, in 
harmony with the conception of the secret, hidden (comp. 
Matt. J.c.), because unattainable by the power of natural dis- 
cernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who 
attain eis émtyywow tod puornpiov, whereby they penetrate 
‘into the domain of these secret riches and discover and 
appropriate them. The objection to this view of azroxp. as the 
adjective to @no., viz. that there must then have been written 
ot droxp. (Bahr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous; the article 
might have been (1 Macc. i. 23), but did not need to. be, in- 
serted. With the article it would mean: guippe qui abscondits 
sunt; without the article it is simply: “ thesaurt absconditi” 
(Vulgate), ¢.¢. atroxpudos dyres, not of Svres azroxpudon. 

Ver. 4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his 
zealous striving for the Christian development of his readers, 
and thereby claiming their faithful adherence to his gospel, 
the warning now follows, for the sake of which Paul has 
prefixed vv. 1-3 (rodro). That rodro does not refer merely 
to ver. 3 (so Oecumenius, Theophylact, Oalvin, Zanchius, 
Estius, and others, including Bahr and Bobmer; Huther is 
undecided) is in itself probable, since vv. 1-3 form a con- 
nected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport 
for what follows, and is confirmed by ver. 5, which glances 
back to ver. 1. Hence: This contained in vv. 1-3, which ye 
ought to know, I say with the design that, etc. — wa pndels 
(see the critical remarks); comp. Mark v. 43; Tit. iii 12; 
Rev. iii. 11, e¢ al.— mapadoyit.| In N. T., only found else- 
where in Jas, 1 22 (see Theile in Joc.) ; frequent in the later 
Greek writers since Demosthenes (822. 25, 1037.15). It 
indicates, by a term borrowed from false reckoning, the 
deception and overreaching that take place through false rea- 
soning. What particular sophistries the false teachers, whose 
agitations at all events tended (see ver. 8 f.) to the disadvan- 
tage of the Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It 


R 


346 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


is certain, however, that they were not those suggested by 
Bohmer (nothing good can come out of Nazareth; one who 
was crucified cannot have possessed divine wisdom), since the 
false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did these 
beguiling sophistries affect the person of the apostle, as if he 
were not concerning himself about the confirming and train- 
ing of churches not planted by himself, 2s Hofmann thinks. 
In that case we should have in wv. 1—3 only a self-testi- 
mony to the contrary, which, as assertion against assertion, 
would neither have been skilful nor delicate; nor do we m 
what follows find any defence in opposition to personal 
calumniation. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, 
p. 177. The ydp in ver. 5 by no means requires this inter- 
pretation. — dy miBavoroyia| by means of persuading speech; 
Luther’s “ with rational discourses” misapprehends the mean- 
ing. It occurs in this place only in the N. T.; but see Plato, 
Theae. p. 162 E; comp. Dem. 928. 14: Adyous Oavpacins 
aavous, also wriMavoroyeiv, Diog. L. x. 87; Diod. Sic. i 39 ; 
and mi@avas reyev, Lucian, Amor. 7. Hence the art of per- 
suasion: 9 wiavoroyien, Arr. Epict. i. 8. 7. 

Ver. 5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily 
absence, by which his readers are encouraged not to allow 
themselves to be deceived. — 17 capxi] with respect to the 
flesh, 1.¢. bodily. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 3.—dAAa] at, yet am I on 
the other hand, beginning the apodosis; see on Rom. vi. 5 and 
1 Cor. iv. 15.—7@ mvevpare] with respect to the spirit, tc 
mentally ; my spirit, translating itself in thought into your 
midst, is along with you. |Erroneously Grotius: “ Deus 
Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent,” so that mvedua would be 
meant of the Holy Spirit. According to Wiggers, in the Stud. 
u. Krit. 1838, p. 181, and Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Encyklop. 


IV. p. 79, dzretue takes for granted the apostle’s having been - 


there previously. A quite groundless assumption; the verb 
expresses (d7rd) the being away from, but does not indicate 
whether a person had been previously present or not, which 
can only be gathered from the connection or other circum- 
stances of the case. In this case the context directly indi- 
cates, by ver. 1, that a bodily wapetva: had not occurred. It 


CHAP. IL 5. $47 


is otherwise in 1 Cor. v. 3; 2 Cor. x. 1, 11, xiii 2,10; 
Phil. i 27. From the similar expression in 1 Cor. v. 3. 
Theodoret nevertheless infers that Paul as Geardpevos avtovs 
éypayey tiv émirtoAny.— adv wiv] in your society, among 
you. Comp. Luke vill. 38, xxii. 56; Phil i. 23; 1 Thess. 
iv. 17; 2 Pet. i 18, & al.—-yaipov x. Brérov] There is 
here no ¢Jlogical prefixing of the yatpwy in the lively feeling 
of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette); yatpwy rather expresses 
joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and «at Brérray 
ip. thy tTakw x«.7.d. then adds what at this joyful being with 
the Colossians he sees in them, so that the description thus 
advances with «x. Bdér.: in spirit I am along with you, 
rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc. 
Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, imports into BAéray the 
pregnant meaning not conveyed by the simple verb; it is as 
plainly present to my soul, as if I saw it with myeyes. This 
would be «. as Brérwy, or x. ds ev opParpois BA. Renderings 
blending the ideas, such as gaudeo videns (Grotius, Wolf, 
Bahr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or deholding 
with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the 
words as they stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell. 
iii. 10. 2, where yaipw xai Brerov (not Arerw) means: I 
rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438 [E. T. 589], and 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 425, supply with yatpor the words: 
concerning you. But the supplying of 颒 vpiy is not justified by 
the context, which naturally suggests joy at the being together 
with the readers, for yalp. stands alongside of this as an 
accompanying relation without any other definition of object. 
And according to this view there is no ground at all for an 
explicative rendering of xat, which Winer still admits (so also 
Bohmer and Olshausen).— The testimony, moreover, which is 
given to the readers by BAérwy x«.7.r. is not inconsistent with 
the anxious conflict in ver. 1; but,on the contrary, makes the 
latter, in a psychological point of view, all the more cenceiv- 
able, when the dangers which threatened a state of things 
still even now so good are considered.—tpav t. tafw] The 
prefixed pronoun owes this position t» the favourable expec- 
tation which the Colossians, more than many others, have 


348 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


awakened in the apostle. The ras is order, orderly condi- 
tion. Its antithesis is drafia, Plato, Tim. p. 30 A. For the 
idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504 A: tdfews ... Kal xoopou Tvyotca 
oixia, Polyb. i. 4. 6: 9 cupmaca oyéou x. Takis ‘TIS oixoupérns, 
iii, 36. 6: 9... dsalpeots x. taku. It is often used of the 
organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Crit. 
p. 109 D; elsewhere also (see Sturz, Lez. Xen. IV. p. 245) 
of the army, sometimes to designate a section of it (a company 
of two Aoyor), and sometimes to express its regular arrange- 
ment in rank and file (Thue. iii. 87. 2, iv. 72. 2, 126. 4, 
viii. 69. 1). Hofmann! takes both raf. and otepéwpa in a 
military sense. But the two words have not in and of them- 
selves the military sense; they would receive it from the con- 
text, which is not the case here. Moreover, the meaning 
fortress, military bulwark, is expressed not by otepéwpa 
generally, but by eépuua or éyvpwya, 2 Cor. x. 4. Hence, if 
we would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view 
that here ra&es means the orderly state of the Christian church, 
which has hitherto not been disturbed by sectarian divisions 
or forsaken by the readers. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 40. To this 
outward condition Paul then subjoins the inner one, by which 
the former is conditioned: and the solid hold of your faith in 
Christ. otepéwpa, firmamentum, that which has been made 
jim (Arist. partt. an. ii: 9; Theophr. HZ. pl. v. 7. 3), @ late 
word, often found: in LXX., Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, 
and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Zhes. V. p. 102 f.), represents 
the stedfastness and immoveableness of faith in such a way, 
that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with 
solid foundation, masonry, etc.) from injury (Ezek. xi. 5; Ps. 
xviii, 2; 3 Esdr. viii. 81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts 
xvi. 5: éorepeodyro rH wiore, 1 Pet. v. 9: avrloryte orepeol 
th wlotes. The abstract firmness, however (Huther, de Wette, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would 
be orepeorns, is never designated by the word. Chrysostom 
explains rightly: dre woAAd cuvayayov ovyKoAdjces TUKVOS 
kat ddvactractas, tore orepéwpa ylveras. The genitive tijs 
miorews, finally, is not to be taken in such a way as to make 
1 Whom Holtzmann, p. 177, has too rashly followed. 


CHAP. IL 6, 7. 349 


faith the orepéwyza (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as 
if it were To ipay orepéwpa; but as the genitive of the sub- 
ject, in such a way that their faith has the orepéwpa securing 
it, which Paul spiritually sees—To call in question the unse- 
ducedness here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius, who leaves it a 
question whether the sense is not merely: “7f it is so”), op 
to refer it to only a part of the church (Flatt), is a quite 
arbitrary result of unduly pressing the general utterance of 
commendation. 

Ver. 6 f. From the warning given in ver. 4 and having its 
ground assigned in ver. 5, follows (ovv) the positive obligation 
to make Christ, as He had been communicated to them through 
the instruction which they had received, the element in which 
(€vy avr@) their conduct of the inner and outer life moves 
(qrepieraretre), whereupon the more precise modal definitions 
are subjoined by éppufwpevor x.7...— os] according as. Observe 
that in the protasis vapeXadSere and in the apodosis srepira- 
teire (not év avr@, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in 
which case the addition of an odrws was not necessary. Their 
walk in Christ is to be in harmony with the instruction, by 
means of which they have through Epaphras received Christ. 
— trapedaBere| have received (i. 7; Eph. iv. 20), comp. Gal. 
i. 9,12; 1 Thess, ii. 13, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor xi. 23. 
Christ was communicated to them as the element of life.’ The 
rendering: have accepted (Luther, Bahr, Bohmer, Huther, 
Hofmann), is not contrary to Pauline usage (de Wette; but 
see on Phil. iv. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 1); but it is opposed to the 
context, in which after ver. 4 (see especially ver. 7: xaOws 
éddaxOnre, and ver. 8: «ata rv mapadoow rav dvOp.) the con- 
trast between true and false Christian instruction as regulative 
of the walk, and not the contrast between entrance into the 
fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hofmann), 
predominates.? — roy X. ’I. tov xvpwv] A solemnly complete 


' To this conception tv abrs refers subsequently. Chrysostom and his followers 
take this iv so, that Christ is regarded as the way. But this Johannine con- 
ception nowhere occurs in Paul’s writings ; nor does it accord with wapsadBses, 
with which, however, the extremely common Pauline idea of the iy Xpssrgy sTvas 
is in harmony. 

2 Eph. iii. 17f., by comparing which Holtzmann discovers in our passage the 





350 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


designation, a summary of the whole confession (1 Cor. xii 3 ; 
Phil ii. 11), in which roy xvpwv, conformably with its posi- 
tion and the entire connection, is to be taken in the sense: 
as the Lord, consequently atiributively, not as a mere apposition 
(de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann 
includes also ’Incody, a view which is not warranted by Eph. 
iii, 1. — Ver. 7. éppsfop. x. érrotxod. év abtr@] introduces the 
ethical habitus in the case of the required mepumateiy dv X. 
But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly exhaust- 
ing the important point, combines very dissimilar elements ; 
for the two figures, of a plant and of a building, are incon- 
sistent as such both with srepiwaretre and with one another. 
Comp. Eph. iii. 17 £ By beginning a new sentence with 
éppilwpéevor x.7.X., and thus construing it in connection with 
ver. 8 (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in sym- 
metry, and should only lose without sufficient reason in 
simplicity of construction ; while we should leave the éy aire 
mepttratetre in ver. 6 in a disproportionately bald and isolated 
position. This conjunction, moreover, of heterogeneous figures 
might quite as legitimately have been made by the apostle 
himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks 
that he here discovers. — Observe further the difference in time 
of the two participles, whereby the stedfastness of the ev Xpuot@ 
elvas (figuratively represented by éppsfap.) is denoted as a 
subsistent state, which must be present in the case of the zreps- 
warew év auto, while the further development of the Christian 
condition (figuratively represented by ézrotxod.) is set forth as a 
continuing process of training; comp. Acts xx. 32. — érratxod.] 
becoming built up, in which éml exhibits the building rising on 
the foundation. Comp. 1 Cor. ni. 10,12; Eph. it 20; Xen. 
Anab. iii. 4.11; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E. The building up 
may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through 
conversion), a8 in Bph. ii. 20: ésrouodounGévtes, which, how- 
ever, as modal definition of zrepurar., would not have suited 
here. The progress and finishing of the building (de Wette, 
following Acts xx. 32, where, however, the simple form oixod. 
hand of the interpolator, is both as regards contents and form too diverse for 
that purpose. 


CHAP. II. 6, 7. 351 


should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by ézrosod. 
in itself (comp, Eph. ii, 22). Nor does the latter represent 
the readers as stones, which are built up on the top of those 
already laid (Hofmann); on the contrary, they are in their 
aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. lc.) represented as an 
otxodou7 in the course of being built (ze. of a more and more 
full development of their Christian common life), in regard to 
which the ézi in ézrotxod. presupposes the foundation laid by 
Epaphras, namely, Christ (1 Cor. iii. 11); and the building 
materials, including the stones, are not the persons, but the 
doctrines, by means of which the builders accomplish their 
work (see on 1 Cor. iii 12).—é avr@] belongs to both 
participles, so that Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the 
soil for the roots striking downwards (Eph. iii 17), and as the 
foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11) for the building extending upwards ; 
but the expression is determined by the conception of the 
thing signified, namely, the éy Xpsor@ elvas, as in ev aire 
mepiTrat., and not by the figures; hence Paul has not written 
én’ avroy (1 Cor. iii. 12), or ém atte (Eph. ii 20), which 
would have been in harmony with the latter participle, but he 
exhibits Christ as the Person, in whom that which is meant by 
the being rooted and becoming built up has its specific being 
and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and 
growth." Comp. on Eph. ii. 21.—xal BeBatovp. tH alot.] 
And to this being rooted and becoming built up there is to be 
added the being stablished by the faith, as the development 
of quality in. the case, in order that no loose rooting may 
take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative r7 
wloret (see the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, 
not: with respect to (in opposition to de Wette), since the follow- 
ing modal definition wepioc. év avry specifies, not how they 
are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but how they are 
to be stablished dy it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich 
in faith ; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring 
about that establishment. In like manner we should have to 


1 Hofmann inappropriately, since in the case of iwe:xed. at any rate we have to 
think of the foundation, takes iv airy in the sense that Christ surrounds the 


building. 








352 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


take the reading éy 7. wioret, which Hofmann defends. He, 
however, joins this éy +. wiores not with BeBaovp., but with 
the following wepsacevovres,—a connection which is excluded 
by the genuineness of év avr, but which is, even apart from 
this, to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly 
intelligible, have inserted the év avr@ only after BeSatovpevos, 
to which it would also refer. — xaOas é55dy8.] namely, to 
become stablished by the faith. For this they have received 
(from Epaphras, i. 7) the instructions which are to guide 
them. — wepiocevovres x.7.d.]| is subordinate to the BeBatovpz., 
and that as specifying the measure of the faith, which must 
be found in them in order that they may be stablished 
through faith; while at the same time the requisite vital 
expression, consecrated to God, of the myety of the believing 
heart is brought out by év evyap.: while ye are abounding 
in the same amidst thanksgiving, 1.e. while ye are truly rich in 
faith, and at the same time giving thanks to God for this 
blessing of fulness of faith, The emphasis is upon wepioc., 
in which lies the more precisely defining element; mepeocevery 
év is nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have 
abundance of something (Rom. xv. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Phil. 
i, 9, et al.), and éy evyap. indicates an accompanying circum- 
stance in the case, the ethical consecration of grateful piety, 
with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp. 
iii, 17,112. It is well explained,in substance, by Theophy- 
lact: meptocoy te évdeixvucOas dv TH TiaTEL, evyaptoTobyTes TH 
Gem, Ett nElwcev Huds Tovavrns xdpiTos, Kal py éavTots THY 
mpoxomy éenvypapovtas. Rightly also by Oecumenius, who 
takes dy evyap. as equivalent to ovy evyap. Comp. Castalio, 
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bahr, 
Steiger, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Hofmann, 
and others. Others, however, regard év evyap. as belonging to 
mepiso. Such is the view not only of the majority who reject 
év avr on critical grounds (as Ewald), but also of Luther, 
Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Huther (that the Colossians in their 
faith towards God. . . are to show themselves abundantly grate- 
ful). De Wette favours this rendering on the ground that the 
clause is not attached by «al, which, however, is quite in keep- 


CHAP. II. 8 353 


ing with the circumstance that aepioc. «.7.d. is subordinate 
to the BeSaovp. «.r.r. In opposition to the combination 
mepiso. ev evyap. there may be urged, first, the arrangement 
of the words in itself; secondly, the fact that éy avr# would 
be superfluous; and thirdly, that all the other elements of the 
verse refer to the nature of fazth, and hence the latter, in 
harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last 
participial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas év 
evyap. is to be treated as a relation associated with the 
faith. 

Ver. 8. Be upon your guard, lest there shall be some one 
carrying you away as a prey. In that case, how grievously 
would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts, 
in vv. 6, 7, be rendered fruitless !— The future ora after 
uy (comp. Heb. iii. 12) has arisen from the apprehension that 
the case may yet actually occur. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Rep. p. 451 A; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 139. f.; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. II. p. 104. Comp. also on Gal.-iv. 11.— As to 
the participle with the article, comp. on Gal. i. 7: tivés eiow 
ot tapdsoovres. — Respecting ovAayayeiv, belonging to the 
later Greek, see Eustath. ad Jl. v. p. 393,52. Very inaccu- 
rately rendered by the Vulgate: decipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22, 
joined with olxoy, it means to rob; and is so taken here by 
Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret (amrocukay tyv siotiy), 
Theophylact (rov vodv), Luther, Wolf, and many others, 
including: Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of 
the word praedam abigere (Heliod. x. 35 ;' Nicet. Ann. 5, p. 96 
D) is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation, 
mepirateite, aS well as with the purposely chosen peculiar 
expression in itself, which is more significant than the classical 
cuday or cudevesy, and serves vividly to illustrate the idea of 
the seduction, through which one falls under extraneous power, 
as respects its disgracefulness. — dia THs pidocodias Kx. Kevijs 
avrarns] through philosophy and empty deceit. It is to be 
observed that neither the preposition nor the article is repeated 
before «evs (see Kiihner, IT. 1, pp. 476,528 ; Buttmann, Meut. 
Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100]), because with wat xev. dwar. there 
is added no further element different from rijs ¢sAocod. (in 

COL. Z 





354 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


opposition to Hofmann), but only that which the philosophy 
in tts essence 1 ; 1t 1s empty deception, that is, having no real 
contents ; the w@avonroyla (ver. 4), with which it is presented, 
is a xevearyopia (Plat. Rep. p. 607 B), and xevoroyia (Plut. 
Mor. p. 1069 C). On the idea of xevos (1 Cor. xv. 14; Eph. 
v. 6), comp. Dem. 821. 11.: xevoratov rdavroy Noywv réyouct, 
and on dmdrn, Plat. Soph. p. 260 C: dros 56 ye yevddous gorw 
ardtn..., Kat pny amdtns ovens eddrwy Te Kab eixovey 759 
kal gavtacias wavta dydyxn peota elvar, The ¢srooodia, 
however, against which Paul utters his warning, is not philo- 
sophy generally and in ttself,—a view at variance with the 
addition x. xevijs amar. closely pertaining to it, however much 
the wisdom of the world in its degeneracy (comp. Herm. 
gottesd, Alterth. § 12; and Culturgesch. d. Griech. u. Rom. I. 
p. 236 ff, IL p. 132), as experience was conversant with its 
phenomena in that age,’ may have manifested itself to the 
apostle as foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the 
gospel (1 Cor. i. 18 ff, ii. 6). Rather, he has in view (comp. 
ver. 18) the characteristic speculation, well known to his 
readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the surround- 
ing district,’ and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up 
with Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature 
directed to the supersensuous and its ontological character, 
correctly designated by the term philosophy in general, apart 
from its relation to the truth, which is signalized by the 
x. kevis dadrys appended.” (Plat. Def. p. 414 C: ris rap 

1 Comp. Luther's frequent denunciations of philosophy, under which he had 
present to his mind its degeneracy in the Aristotelian scholasticism. 

*Comp. also Calovius. The latter rightly remarks how é@:Ascipws and 
&ésoASyws men would proceed, who should regard philosophical and theological 
truth as opposites ; and points out that if Greek philosophy do not teach the 
doctrine of eternal life and its attainment, it is not a ss éwden, but an 
imperfectio, Fathers of the Church also, as e.g. Clemens Al. (comp. Spiess, 
Logos spermat. p. 341), aptly distinguish philosophy itself from the phenomena 
of its abuse. The latter are philosophy also, but not in accordance with the 
truth of the conception. 

3 These words x. xs». &@., characterizing the philosophy meant, are therefore 
all the less to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tautological insertion ; and it 
is mere arbitrariness to claim the words xara ¢. wapdd. caxv dvbpow. for the 
Synoptical Gospels (Matt. xv. 2f.); as if wapdédeess (comp. especially Gal. i. 14) 
were not sufficiently current in the apostle’s writings. 


CHAP. II. & 355 


Syvrwy del ériornpns dpekis’ Ets Oewpytuxn tod adnOois, mas 
adnGés). Possibly it was also put forward by the false 
teachers themselves expressly under this designation (comp. 
the Sophists as the dacxovres Girocodgeiv, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 19 ; 
and olopevos wravr’ eidévat, in i. 4.1). The latter is the more 
probable, since Paul uses the word only in this passage. 
Comp. Bengel: “quod adversarii jactabant esse philosophiam 
et sapientiam (ver. 23), id Paulus znanem fraudem esse dicit.” 
The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be regarded 
as Judaistic-Oriental ; we are under no necessity to infer from 
the word ¢iAocodia a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius 
did, suggesting the Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought 
of the Lpicurcans, and Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul 
had to do with at Athens). The idea that the “ sacrarum liter- 
arum earumque recte interpretandarum scientia ” (Tittmann, de 
vestigris Gnosticor. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, p. 86 ff.) is meant, 
is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of 
heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the 
apostle, who never so designates the QO. T. teaching and 
exposition, however frequently he speaks of it; although 
Philo gives it this name (see Loesner, Obss. p. 364), and 
Josephus (see Krebs, p. 236) applies it to the systems of 
Jewish sects, and indeed the Fathers themselves apply it to the 
Christian doctrine (Suicer, hes. s.v.); see Grimm on 2 Macc. 
i 1, p. 298 f—xara 7. mapdd. +. dvOp.] might be — and 
this is the common view—closely joined with amarns (Winer, 
p. 128 f£. [E. T.169]). But the od xara Xpioroy would not 
suit this connection, since adry is already in itself a definite 
and proper idea, in association with which a xara: Xpuorov 
would be inconceivable; whereas the figurative ovdaywryeiv 
still admits also the negative modal statement (od xata X.) 
for greater definiteness. Accordingly xara +. mapdad. «7.2. 
(comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode 
to cuAaywyov. Paul, namely, having previously announced 
whereby the ovdayoryety takes place, now adds for the still 
more precise description of that procedure, in order the more 

1The speculations of Essenism are also designated as philosophy in Philo. 
Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 292, 


356 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


effectively to warn his readers against it, that in accordance 
with which it takes place, ie. what is the objective regulative 
standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. 
He does this positively (cata riv....xocpov) and negatively 
(x. ov xara Xpiocrov). The genitive ray avOp. is to be 
explained: fy wapédaBe mapa rév avOp. (comp. 2 Thess. iil 
6), and ray denotes the category, the traditio humana as such, 
opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark vii. 8. What 
is meant, doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of 
the Mosaic law (comp. on Matt. xv. 2), the latter being 
excluded by tay avOp.; but Paul designates the thing quite 
generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as 
human. — xata ta orouxeia Tod Kocpov] Parallel of the fore- 
going: according to the clements of the world, ie. according to 
the religious rudiments, with which non-Christian humanity 
occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces the ritual 
observances! both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in 
comparison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only 
“puerilia rudimenta” (Calvin), as it were the A BOC of 
religion, so that Paul therefore in this case also, where he 
warns his readers against Judaistic enticing, characterizes the 
matter according to its category. As to the designation itself 
and its various interpretations, see on Gal. iv. 3. Among the 
latest expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann 
explains: “because it (the philosophy which is described as 
deceit) permits the material things, of which the created world 
consists, to form its standard.” See in opposition to this on 
Gal. ic. Both expressions, ryv aapaéd. r. avOp. and ra orovy. 
t. xoopou, have it as their aim to render apparent the worth- 
lessness and unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint 
(comp. Gal. iv. 9). Hence, also, the contrast which, though 
obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic: xal ov «ara 
Xpiorov. The activity of that cvraywyeiv has not Christ for 
ats objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine 
dignity exalted above everything (see ver. 9), was to be the 

1Calvin well says: ‘‘Quid vocat elementa mundi? Non dubium quin 


ecremonias ; nam continuo post exempli loco speciem unam adducit, circum- 
cisionem scilicet.” 


CHAP. II. 9. 357 


sole regulative for all activity in Christian teaching, so that 
the standard guiding their work should be found in the rela- 
tion of dependence upon Him; but instead of this the pro- 
cedure of the cvAaywyéy allows human tradition, and those 
non-Christian rudiments which the Christian is supposed to 
have long since left behind, to serve as his rule of conduct! 
How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow such seduction ! 

Ver. 9. Since indeed in Him dwells, etc. This is not “a 
peg upon which the interpolator hangs his own thoughts” 
(Holtzmann). On the contrary, Paul assigns a reason for the 
ov xara Xpiotov just.said, with a view more effectually to 
deter them from the false teachers. The force of the reason 
assigned lies in the fact that, if the case stand so with Christ, 
as is stated in vv. 9 ff, by every other regulative principle of 
doctrine that which is indicated in the words cata Xpucrov 
is excluded and negatived. Others make the reason assigned 
refer to the warning: Bdémere x.7.d., 80 that dre adduces the 
reason why they ought to permit this warning to be addressed 
to them (Hofmann, comp. Huther and Bleek) ; but, in opposi- 
tion to this view, it may be urged that the év av’r@ placed 
emphatically first (1 Him and in no other) points back to the 
immediately preceding od xata Xpictoy (comp. Chrysostom 
and Calvin); there is therefore nothing to show that the 
reference of &re ought to be carried further back (to AAézere). | 
In Christ the whole fulness of Godhead—what a contrast to the 
human grapdéoots and the orovyeta of the world ! — xarotxet] 
The present, for it is the exalted Christ, in the state of His 
heavenly Sofa, that is in view. Comp. i. 15. In Him the 
entire wAjpwpa has its xatotentypiov (Eph. ii. 22), so that He 
is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential 
presence. — may To mAnpwpa (comp. on i 19) is here more 
precisely defined by the “ vocabulum abstractum significantissi- 
mum” (Bengel) tis Oedrxros, which specifies what dwells in 
Christ in its entire fulness, ze. not, it may be, partially, but 
in its complete entirety. On the genitive, comp. Rom. xi. 25, 
xv. 29. Itis not the genitive auctoris (Nosselt: “ universa 
comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines 
transferre”) ; the very abstract @edrnr. should have been a 


358 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


sufficient warning against this view, as well as against the 
interpretation : “id quod inest Oeornre” (Bahr). 1% Oeorns, the 
Godhead (Lucian, Icarom. 9; Plut. Mor. p. 415 C), the 
abstract from o @eos, is to be distinguished from % Qesorns, the 
abstract from Oetos (Rom. i. 20; Wisd. xviii. 19; Lucian, de 
calumn. 17). The former is Dettas, the being God, i.e. the 
divine essence, Godhead ; the latter is divinitas, +e. the divine 
quality, godlikeness, See on Rom. i 20. Accordingly, the 
essence of God, undivided and in its whole fulness, dwells in 
Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and 
adequate image of God (i 15), which He could not be if He 
were not possessor of the divine essence. The distinction 
between what is here said about Christ and what is said about 
Him in i. 19 is, that the wA7jpmua is here meant metaphysi- 
cally, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage charis- 
matically, of the divina gratia, and that xaroucely is conceived 
here as in present permanence, but in the former passage 
historically (namely, of Christ’s historical, earthly appearance). 
See on ii 19. The erroneous attempts that have been made 
to explain away the literal meaning thus definitely and de- 
liberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in i. 19. 
One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it 
to the church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation 
(Heinrichs, Baumgarten - Crusius, Schenkel) which has its 
dwelling-place in Christ. Already Theodoret (comp. rwés in 
Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation that Christ sig- 
nifies the church in which the wrAnpmpa dwells, but on account 
of cmpatixas hesitates to agree to it, and rather accedes to 
the common view, thereby deviating from his interpretation of 
L 19. Theophylact is substantially right (comp. Chrysostom 
and Oecumenius): ef ri éotiy 6 eds Aoyos, ev adTE oixe?, so 
that the fulness of the Godhead in the ontological, and not in 


' Thus, indeed, the fulness of the Godkead has Leen removed from Christ, but 
there has only been gained insiead of it the unbiblical idea that the church 
dwells in Christ. The church has its support in Christ as the corner-stone 
(Eph. ii. 20, 21), but it does not dwell in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells 
in the church, which is His body, and the raspepe filled by JTim (see on Eph. i. 
28), namely, in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in the church (see on Eph. ii. 22), 
which is the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19). 


CHAP. Il. 9. 359 


the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is 
meant. — But how does it dwell in Christ? ocmpatixds, in 
bodily fashion, ¢.e. in such a way that through this indwelling 
in Christ it is in a bodily form of appearance, clothed with a 
body. Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schriftbew. IT. 1, p. 
29; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2. It is not in Christ 
(dcwpdrws),as before the Incarnation it was in the Adyos (Oeds 
Hv 6 NOyos, John i. 1), but (comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 
260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Phil. iii. 21), so that the 
év popdy Beod and ica Oe@ elvar, which already existed in the 
Aoyos doapxos (Phil. ii. 6), now in Christ's estate of exaltation 
—which succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the popd) 
cod was affected—have a bodily frame, are in bodily personality.’ 
Of course the Oeorns does not thereby itself come into the 
ranks of the cwparixal ovciac (Plat. Locr. p. 96 A), but is 
in the exalted Christ after a real fashion cwpatixe elder (Luke 
iii, 22), and therefore Christ Himself is the visible divine- 
human image of the invisible God (i. 15). In this glory, as 
Possessor of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily, He will 
also appear at the Parousia—an appearance, therefore, which 
will manifest itself visibly (1 John iii 2) as the actual émipavera 
tis S0Ens Tod peyddouv Geod (Tit. ii. 13). The reference of the 
whole statement, however, to the evalted Christ is placed 
beyond question by the use of the present sarouel, which 
asserts the presently existing relation, without requiring a voip 
along with it (in opposition to Huther). The renderings: 
essentialiter, ovovwdas (Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and 
others, including Usteri, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, Bisping), 
in which case some thought of a contrast to the divine évépyea 
in the prophets (see Theophylact), and: realiter (Augustine, Eras- 
mus, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgzen, Wolf, 
Nosselt, Bleek, and others), in which was found the opposite of 
tuTiKa@s (ver. 17), are linguistically inappropriate ; for cwpate- 
xos never means anything else than corporeus. Comp. on the 


1 It is now only worth remarking historically, but is almost incredible, how 
the Socinians have twisted our verse. Its sense in their view is: ‘‘quod in 
doctrina ipsius tota Dei voluntas integre et reapse est patefacta,” Catech. Racov. 
194, p. 398, ed. Oeder. Calovius gives a refutation in detail. 


360 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


adverb, Plut. Mor. p. 424 D. The less justifiable is the 
hypothesis of Rich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that in the 
term coparixes the contrast of ver. 17 was already present to 
the apostle’s mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explana- 
tion of wAjpwpye as referring to the church, assign to cwpate- 
xaos the meaning: “so that the church stands related to Him 
as His body” (Baumgarten-Crusius and Schenkel), which issues 
in the absurdity that the body of Christ is held to dwell in 
Christ, whereas conversely Christ could not but dwell in His 
body. It is true that the church is related to Christ as His 
body, not, however, in so far as ¢¢ dwells 7n Him (and, accord- 
ing to the context, this must have been the case here, if the 
explanation in question be adopted), but either in so far as 
He dwells in tt, or in so far as He is tés Head, which latter 
thought is quite foreign to the connection of the passage; for 
even in ver. 10 Christ is not called the Head of the church. 
It is, morever, to be observed, that the adverb is placed 
emphatically at the end. The special reason, however, on 
account of which the xarouxety x.7.A. is thus prominently set 
forth as bodily, cannot, indeed, be directly shown to have been 
supplied by the circumstances of the Colossians, but is never- 
theless to be recognised in an apologetic interest of opposition 
to the false teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the 
angels (comp. ver. 10: apyis «. é€ovc.) must have broken up, 
in a spiritualistic sense, the wAjpwpa ris OeoTnTOSs. 

Ver. 10. Kai éore é€v air@ wemdnp.| still depending on 
. Ott: and (since) ye are filled in Him, i.e. and since the mAn- 
porns which ye possess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the 
divine wAjpwpa. The two are correlative: from the wAjpepa 
vis Oeornzos, which dwells in the exalted Christ, flows the 
metAnpwpevoy evar of the Christian, which has its basis, there- 
fore, in no other than in Christ, and in nothing else than just 
in fellowship with Him. Filled with what? was self-evident 
to the consciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charis- 
matic wAnpwots, which Christians, in virtue of their union of 
life with the Lord, whose Spirit and fw are in them, have 
received, and continuously possess, out of the metaphysical mAn- 
popa dwelling in Christ, out of the wAjpapa tis Ocorntos.— 


CHAP. II. 10. 361 


The emphasis is not upon éoré, but, as shown by the subse- 
quent relative definitions, upon év avr@. .If the semd\npw- 
pévov elvac depends on Him, on nothing and on no one but 
on Him, then everything else which men may teach you, and 
with which they may wish to seize you and conduct you in 
leading strings, is ob xara Xpictov. With due attention to 
this emphasis of éy avr@, we should neither have expected 
jpets (in opposition to de Wette; comp. Estius and others: 
“et vos”) nor have explained éoré in an imperative sense (in 
opposition to Grotius, Bos, Heumann); which latter view is 
to be rejected, because the entire connection is not paraenetic, 
and generally because, whilst a wAnpodoGe (Eph. v. 18) 
or ylveoGe temAnp. May, éote aemAnp. cannot, logically be 
enjoined.’ There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann), nothing 
to be supplied with wemAnp. (usually: ris Geornros, see Theo- 
phylact and Huther; de Wette, Bleek: tov wAnpwp. tr. Oeor.), 
since the specifically ontological sense of the purposely-chosen 
Geornros would not even be consistent with the supposed 
equalization of the Christians with Christ (ovdéy éXarroy 
Eyere abtod, GdAd trerAnpwpévor Kat tyels eote THs OedtyTOSs, 
Theophylact), and this equalization does not exist at all, 
because Paul has not written «at vyeis. In what their being 
filled consisted, was known to the readers from their own expe- 
rience, without further explanations; their thoughts, however, 
were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended 
on Christ, those labours of the false teachers were of quite 
another character than xata Xpiotov.— 6s dorw 4 Kxepads) 
«.7..| This, as also ver. 11, now supplies confirmatory informa- 
dion regarding the fact that they have their being filled not 
otherwise than just in Christ ; namely, neither through apyat 
x. é£ovciat, since Christ is the head of every dpy7 and é£oucia; 
nor yet through circumcision, since they have received in 
Christ the real ethical circumcision. — waons apy. «. é£ova.] 
is not more precisely defined as in Eph. iii, 10; hence, in 


1 Calovius has well said : ‘‘ Beneficium Christi, non nostrum officium ;” comp. 
Wolf, In complete opposition to the context, Grotius brings out the sense : 
“‘illo contenti estote,” which he supports by the remark : ‘‘ quia quod plenum 
est, nihil aliud desiderat.” 


362 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


virtue of the munus regium of the Lord quite generally : every 
principality and power, but with the tacit apelogetic reference : 
consequently also of the angelte powers (i. 16) belonging to 
these categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation, 
to be attained through Opnoxeia, the false teachers direct you, 
—a reference which Hofmann, understanding the expressions 
in the sense of spiritual beings ruling arbitrarily and in opposi- 
tion to God especially over the Gentile world (notwithstanding 
the fact that Christ is their Head /), groundlessly denies ; see 
ver. 18. If Christ be the Head of every apy7 and éfouvcia, «.e. 
their governing sovereign, the Christian cannot have anything 
to expect from any angelic powers subordinate to Christ, 
—a result involved in the union in which He stands to the 
Higher, to Christ Himself—With the reading 6 éotwv (see the 
critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,! Lachmann 
has placed xal dore €v ait@ wemdnp. in a parenthesis. But, 
while this important thought would neither have motive nor 
be appropriate as a mere parenthesis, it would also be improper 
that the neuter subject ro wAjpwya +. Geor. should be desig- 
nated as 1) xepads) x.Td., which applies rather to the personal 
possessor of the wAxpapa, to Christ. 

Ver. 11. Respecting the connection and its reference to the 
false teachers, so far as they “legem evangelio miscebant” 
(Calvin), see on ver. 10.— &éy @] like & aiv@ in ver. 10: 
on whom it also causally depends that ye, etc. This applies 
to the point of time of their entrance into the union with 
Christ, as is clear from the historical epuery., which took 
place on them through their conversion (comp. ver. 12).—xal] 
also circwmcised were ye. The xaé is the simple also, which, 
however, does not introduce an element included under 
werdAnpwp. €ore (Hofmann), but to the previous relative state- 
ment (és éorw «.t.r.) appends another; comp. ver. 12. Hof- 
mann’s objection, that the foregoing relative statement has 
indeed reference to the readers, but 1s made without reference 
to them, is an empty subtlety, which is connected with the 

1 Inasmuch as he takes 3 ives directly as scilicet, utpote, and regards this usage 


as a linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But this rendering is not required 
either in i. 24 or in iii. 17 ; and respecting i. 27, see the critical remarks. 


CHAP, Il. 11. 363 


erroneous rendering of madons apyis «. éEovo. — meptropy 
ayetpor.] is not supplementary and parenthetical (Hofmann), 
as if Paul had written epsroun Se dyeipor., but appends 
immediately to creprerun@. its characteristic, whereby it is dis- 
tinguished from what is elsewhere meant by circumcision ; 
hence the thought is: “in your union with Christ there has 
also taken place a circumcision upon you (Gentiles), which. is not 
(like the Jewish circumcision) the work of hands ;” comp. Eph. 
ii 11. On the word ayecpoz. itself (which is similar to 
ayetpoupynros, Poll. ii. 154), in analogous antithetical reference, 
comp. Mark xiv. 58; 2 Cor. v. 1; and on the idea of the 
inner ethical circumcision, of which the bodily is the type, 
comp. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6; Ezek. xliv. 7; Acts vii. 51. See 
Michaelis zn loc., and the expositors on Rom. ii. 29 ; Schoettgen, 
Hor. I. p. 815.— & 1H drexévce «.7.r.] This characteristic 
mepreTunOnte meper. axerp. took place by means of the putting off 
of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in your case 
(observe the passive connection), te. in that the body, whose 
essence and nature are flesh, was taken off and put away from 
you by God.’ ‘With reference to éy rH dmexdvceu x.7.X., which 
is to be coupled not merely with mepretznOnre (Hofmann), but 
with the entire specifically defined conception of circumcision 
WepleTL. WepiT. axetpotr., it is to be noticed: (1) that the geni- 
tive THs odpxos is the genitivus materiae, asin i. 22; (2) that 
the odp& here is not indifferent, but means the flesh as the seat 
of sin, and of 2s lusts and strivings (Rom. vii. 23, 25, viii. 3, 13 ; 
Gal. v.16; Eph. i. 3; Col. iii. 5, e¢ al.) ; so that Paul (3) might 
have conveyed the idea of ro capa THs capx. also by 70 
copa THS apaptias (Rom. vi. 6), but the description by tis 
capxos was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision 
(Rom. i, 28; Eph. ii. 11). (4) The significant and weighty 
expression da7rexdvcet (the substantive used only here, the verb 
also in ver. 15, iii. 9 ; Josephus, Antt. vi. 14. 2) is selected in 
contrast to the operation of the legal circumcision, which only 


1 Compare Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 171. The same writer, however, 
now objects that dwixdee:s cannot have passive significance. But this it is not 
alleged to have: God is the dwsxddwr, i.e. He who, as author of regeneration, 
puts off from man the body of flesh. 





364 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


wounded the odua tr. capxos and removed a portion of one 
member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely 
performed, consisted in a complete parting and doing away 
with this body, in so far as God, by means of this ethical cir- 
cumcision, has taken off and removed the sinful body from man 
(the two acts are expressed by the double compound), like a 
garment which is drawn off and laid aside. LEthically cir- 
cumcised, 2.¢, translated by conversion from the estate of sin 
into that of the Christian life of faith and righteousness (see 
ver. 12), consequently born again as caw? rious,’ as a xatvos 
avOpwros created after God (Eph. iv. 24), man has no longer 
any capa THs capxos at all, because the body which he has 
is rid of the sinful odp£ as such, as regards its sinful quality ; 
he is no lohger év T7 capxi as previously, when lust évnpyeiro 
éy tots pédcow (Rom. vii. 5; comp. ver. 23); he is no longer 
TAapKIWOS, TeTpapévos Uird THY ayaptiay (Rom. vii. 14), but is 
dead for sin (Rom. vi. 11); he has crucified the odp§ (Gal. 
v. 24), and no longer walks xatd odpxa, but ev Kawornre 
mvevpatos (Rom. vii. 6); by the law of the Holy Spirit he is 
freed from the law of sin and death (Rom. viii. 2), év avevpare 
(Rom. viii. 9), dead with Christ (Gal. ii. 19; 2 Cor. v. 14; 
Col. iii. 3), and risen, so that his members are S1rAa dexato- 
ouwvns T@ Oe, (Rom. vi. 13). This Christian transformation is 
represented in its tdcal aspect, which disregards the empirical 
imperfection, according to which the cdp€ is still doubtless even 
in the regenerate at variance with the wvedya (Gal. v.17). Our 
dogmatists well describe regeneration as perfecta a parte Dez, 
but as emperfecta a parte hominum recipientium. To take copa 
in the sense of massa or aggregate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, 
and others, including Steiger and Bihr’), is opposed as well to 


1 The epoch of this transformation is Laptism (see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 489, 
cd. 2; comp. Holtzmann, p. 178), by which, however, the baptism of Christian 
children is by no means assumed as the antitype of circumcision (Steiger, 
Philippi). Comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 14; Acts xvi. 15. 

2 Comp. also Philippi, Glaubensl. V. 2, p. 225, who declares my explanation 
to be forced, without proof, and contrary to the Scripture; and Reiche, Comm. 
crit. p. 274, who understands capa of the “ toto quasi vitiositatis (¢. capxés) 
corpore,” so that the putting away of all immorality is denoted. Similarly 
Dalmer. 





CHAP, II. 11. 365 


the context, in which the discourse turns upon circumcision and 
(ver. 12) upon burial and resurrectton, as also to the linguistic 
usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion 
in question in the physical sense, eg. Plat. Tim. p. 32 C: to 
Tov Koopov copa (comp. p. 31 B, Hipp. maj. p. 301 B), and 
in later writers may also denote generally a whole consisting 
of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Att. 11.1. 4). In opposition to the 
erroneous assumption that o@pa must have a figurative mean- 
ing here, as Julius Miiller, v. d. Sunde, I. p. 459 f., still in the 
5th ed., thinks” see on Rom. vi. 6; comp. also Hofmann, 
Schriftbew. I. p. 560 f. — év 1h weperopp tod X.) by means of 
the circumcision of Christ, parallel to the previous éy 77 azrex- 
Stoes «.7.r., naming specifically (as different from that of the 
Old Testament) the circumcision described previously according 
to its nature. The genitive rod Xprorod is to be rendered: 
the circumcision, which 1s produced through Christ. The con- 
text requires this by the further explanation of the thing itself 
in ver. 12. Comp. above, év 6 But Christ is not conceived 
of as Himself the circumciser, in so far, namely, as by baptism 
(Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek), He 
accomplishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on 
ver. 12); but as the One through whom, in virtue of the 
effective living union that takes place in conversion between 
man and Himself, this divine srep:rouy, in its character speci- 
fically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practically 
brought about and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based 
on Christ as its atrvos (Theodoret). It is not, however, dap- 
tism itself (Hofmann, following older expositors) that is meant 
by the circumcision of Christ, although the predicate dyetpor. 
would not be in opposition to this view, but the spiritual trans- 
formation, that consecration of a holy state of life, which takes 
place in baptism ; see ver. 12: évyt@ Bamricpars, According 
to Schneckenburger, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 286 ff, the 
atéxduats 7. oop. T. cape. is meant of the death of Christ, and 
also the weperouy rod X. is meant to denote this death, so that 


1 Miller also holds that Paul here conceives the old sinful nature as a body 
which, in regeneration, the Christian puts off; and that «4; is to be understood 
only of the earthly-human life. 


366 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the latter is an explanation by way of application of the 
former, in opposition to the heretical recommendation of a 
bodily or mystical meperouy. It may be decisively urged 
against this view, that after ris capxds there is no avzoi, 
(comp. i. 22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader 
was to think of another subject than that of meprerunOnrte ; 
further, that 797 dxpoBvotia tis capxos bor, in ver. 13, stands 
in significant retrospective reference to the dzréxdvats 7. cap. 
Ths capKos; and that cvvradpévres «.7.A. in ver. 12 is synchronous 
with sreprerunOnre x.7.r., and represents substantially the same 
thing. Moreover, the description of the death of Christ as 
His circumcision would be all the more inappropriate, since, 
in the case of Christ, the actual circumcision was not absent. 
According to Holtzmann, the entire clause: éy 1. dzrexd. Tod 
cop. T. oapK., ev +. Wepit. T. X., should be deleted as an 
addition of the interpolator, because the expression capa 
Tis capxos has occurred at i. 22 in quite another—namely, 
an ‘indifferent, genuinely Pauline—reference. This reason is 
incorrect, because in i 22 it is not tis capxés, but ris capKds 
avrov, and this avrod makes the great essential difference 
between the expression in that passage and that employed in 
our present one. 

Ver. 12 supplies further information as to how the zrepeer- 
pnOnre, so far as it has taken place by means of the circum- 
cision of Christ, has been accomplished. — ovyradévres x.7.X. ] 
synchronous with zreprery. (comp. oni. 20, elpnvorroinaas): in 
that ye became buried with Him in baptism. The immersion 
in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is— 
seeing that baptism translates into the fellowship of the death 
of Christ (see on Rom. vi. 3)—a burial along with Christ, 
Rom. vi. 4. Through that fellowship of death man dies as to 
his sinful nature, so that the cada Tis capxos (ver. 11) ceases 
to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off 
(ver. 11). The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as 
in the whole context. In the burial of Christ this joint burial 
of all that confess Him as respects their sinful body was 
objectively completed; but it takes place, as respects each 
individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism, 


CHAP. II. 12. 367 


prior to which the realization of that fellowship of burial was, 
on the part of individuals, still wanting —é @ nai cuvnyép- 
@nre] A new benefit, which has accrued to the readers éy 
Xpiotw, and which in their case must bring still more clearly 
to living consciousness their éy Xpiotq@ memdnpwpévoy elvas; 
so that év @ here is parallel to the é& @ in ver. 11, and refers 
to Christ, as does also avroy subsequently. Itis rightly taken 
thus, following Chrysostom and his successors, by Luther and 
most others, including Flatt, Bahr, Huther, Ewald. Others 
have referred it to év r@ Bart. (Beza, Calixtus, Estius, 
Michaelis, Heinrichs, and others, including Steiger, Bohmer, 
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Dalmer, Bleek) ; but, 


in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry 


of the discourse (6s ...<€v 6 nai... év @ wal); secondly, and 
specially, the fact that, if é& ¢ refers to baptism, éy could not 
be the proper preposition, since évy te Sazr., in accordance with 
the meaning of the word and the figure of burial, refers to the 
dipping into (not overflowing, as Hofmann thinks), whilst the 
spiritual awakening to new life, in which sense these exposi- 
tors take cuvyyép?., would have taken place.through the 
emerging again, so that we should expect ¢& ov, or, at all 


‘events, the non-local &’ od; and, thirdly, the fact that just as 


cuvragévres has its own more precise definition by & ro 
Bamt., 80 also has ouvnyép. through a ris mictews «7X, 
and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again 
for ovvnyép@. the more precise definition of the previous point, 
viz. évy t@ Batricpatt. No, the first benefit received in 
Christ which Paul specifies, viz.. the moral circumcision, 
accomplished by God through the joint burial in baptismal 
immersion, has been fully handled in ver. 11 down to farz- 
ticpart in ver. 12, and there now follows a second blessing 
received by the readers in Christ (év 6 «al): they have been 
raised up also with Christ, which has taken place through faith, 
etc. The previous joint burial was the necessary moral pre- 
liminary condition of this joint awakening, since through it 
the cdpua ris capxds was put off. This ovvyyép@. is to be 
understood in the sense of the fellowship of the bodily resurrec- 
tion of Christ, into which fellowship man enters by faith in 


268 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


such a way that, in virtue of his union of life and destiny 
with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his 
own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christ—a 
benefit of joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the 
Parousia, an ideal possession, but through the Parousia 
becomes real (whether its realization be attained by resurrec- 
tion proper in the case of the dead, or by the change that shall 
take place in those who are still alive). Usually ovvnyép0. 
is taken in the ethical sense, as referring to the spiritual 
awakening, viz. from moral death, so that Paul, after the 
negative aspect of the regeneration (ver. 11; PBamricpati, 
ver. 12), now describes its positive character; comp. also 
Huther, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. But in opposition to this 
view is the fact that the fresh commencement ev @ xal, corre- 
sponding with the similar commencement of ver. 11, and 
referring to Christ, makes us expect the mention of a new 
benefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the previous 
one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeat- 
ing the év ¢* xal; as also, that the inference of participation in 
the proper resurrection of Christ from death lies at the basis of 
the following rod éye/paytos avrov éx vexpéyv. Comp. on Eph. 
li. 1, and ii. 5,6. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius 
have already correctly explained it of the proper resurrection 
(xad yap éynyéppeOa rh Suvdper, et Kal un TH evepyeia), but Theo- 
phylact makes it include the ethical awakening also: holding 
that it is to be explained xara vo tporous, of the actual 
resurrection in spe, and at the same time 67¢ avevpatixas Tiv 
véxpwow tav épywv THS duaptias ameppivapev. — Sid Tis 
alorews x.7..] The tis miotews is described by Holtzmann, 
p. 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive; he regards it as 
an interpolation borrowed from Eph. i. 19 f. Groundlessly ; 
Paul is describing the sehjective mediwm, without which the 
joint awakening, though objectively and historically accom- 
plished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated 
individually, the Anmrixov for this appropriation being wanting. 
The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with 
Christ, because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with 
Christ, just as also he has not the reconciliation, although the 


CHAP, IL 12. 369 


reconciliation of all has been accomplished objectively through 
Christ’s death. The genitive rijs dvepyelas 7. O. is the object 
of faith; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of 
the Schriftbew. IL. 2, p.174f. But others, such as Luther 
(“ through the faith which God works”), Bengel, Flatt, Bihr, 
Steiger, de Wette, Bohmer, Huther, e¢ al., take rijs evepy. 7. 0. 
as genitivus causae, for which, however, Eph. i. 19 is not to 
be adduced (see in loc.), and in opposition to which it is de- 
cisive that in a// passages, where the genitive with miotis is 
not the believing subject, it denotes the object (Mark xi. 22; 
Acts ii 16; Rom. ui 22; Gal. i. 16, 20, 11 22; Eph. iii. 12; 
Phil. i. 27, iii. 9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; Jas. ii. 1; Rev. ii, 13, xiv. 12), 
and that the description of God as the Being who has raised 
up Christ from the dead stands most naturally and directly 
in significant reference to the divine activity which procures, 
not the faith, but the cuveyeiperOar, and which is therefore 
set forth in a very appropriate manner as the special object’ 
of faith (comp. iv. 17, 24, vi 8, x. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 13, 14; 
Eph. i 19 f.; 1 Pet. i. 21). At the basis, namely, of the rod 
éyelpavtos aut. éx vexp. lies the certainty in the believer's 
consciousness: since God has raised up Christ, His activity, 
which has produced this principale and majus, will have 
included therein the consequens and minus, my resurrection 
with Him. To the believer the two stand in such essential 
connection, that in the operation of God which raised up Christ 
he beholds, by virtue of his fellowship of life with Christ, 
the assurance of his own resurrection having taken place along 
with that act; in the former he has the pledge, the évéyupov 
(Theodoret) of the latter. Hofmann now again (as in the first 
ed. of the Schriftbewets) explains ris evepy. 7. O. as in apposi- 
tion to THs aiorews, in such a way that Paul, “ as ¢f correcting 
himself,’ makes the former take the place of the latter, in 
order to guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to 

1 The efficacy of the divine power shown in the resurrection of Christ is the 
guarantee of the certainty of salvation. 

COL. 2A 





370 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


themselves faith as a conduct on man’s part making possible 
the participation in the resurrection of Christ by God, while in 
reality it is nothing else than the product of the évépyea of 
God. A quite gratuitously invented self-correction, without 
precedent, and undiscoverable by the‘ reader; although the 
thought, if it had entered the mind of Paul, might have been 
indicated with the utmost simplicity and ease (possibly by dca 
Ths tlarews, padrov 5 Sia ris évepy. T. O.). 

Ver. 13. Since that cuvnyépOnre was the awaking to eternal 
life, Paul now goes on to give special: prominence to this great’ 
blessing, the making alive, and that in reference to the Gentile- 
Christian position of the readers; and to this he annexes, in 
ver. 14 f,, an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement reminding 
them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law.— 
To attach nal buds... capes suav still to ver. 12; and to 
make it depend on éyelpavros (Steiger), is rendered impossible 
by the right explanation of rijs miotews ris evepyeias 7. O. 
in ver. 12,1 to say nothing of the abrupt position in which 
ovvetwor. would thus appear. Kal suds goes along with 
ovvefworr., 80 that vuds is then repeated (see Fritzsche, Quaest. 
Ime. p. 14; Bornemann in the Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 66; 
Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 568 ; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 184)), the repeti- 
tion being here occasioned by the emphasis of the ouvvefwor. : 
“You also, when ye were dead .. . Ha made you alive together 
with Him.” The «a: therefore is not the copula and, but, in 
harmony with the dpas placed in the front emphatically : also, 
as in Eph. ii. 1. It has its reference in this, that the readers 
had been Gentiles liable to eternal death, but the ovvefwor. 
had been extended, as to all believers, so also to them. The 


? This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, who takes ver. 18 likewise as a 
continuation of the description of God given in red lysis. adcvev tx vexp., and 
therein makes the apostle guilty of a clumsy change of construction, viz. that he 
intended to make cvweweteavres follow, but, because this word would have been 
‘*inconvenient” after vexpets dyras x.7.4., exchanged it for an independent sen- 
tence. But evQeoweneaveos would have been inserted without any inconvenience 
whatever : on the contrary, it would only have expressed the alleged idea con- 
formably to the construction clearly and definitely. The comparison of i. 26 
is unsuitable. Holtzmann follows substantially the view of Hofmann, but 
regards the change of structure as the result of dictation. There is no change of 
structure in the passage at all. 


CHAP. Il. 13. 371 


correctness of this reference is shown by the context as well 
through 79 axpoBvoria rijs cape. dp, as through the pronoun of 
the first person which is introduced after yapiodp. Extremely 
arbitrary is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in ver. 
11 f. the readers are addressed as representatives of the collec- 
tive community, but by «al buas in ver. 13 personally; while 
Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the position 
of the words, joins xai, not to das, but to the verb: “also 
He has called you to the new life that abideth.”—-To arrive at 
& proper understanding of what follows we must observe: 
(1) That ovve{worofncey is not to be taken, any more than 
curnyépOnre previously, in an ethical sense, as referring to 
regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as eg. Grotius: 
“sicut Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et 
nobis novam ex morte animorwm;” comp. also Bleek and 
Hofmann), but in its proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer, 
de wns aiwy. not. p. 94 f.) as referring to the everlasting life 
to which God’ raised up Christ, and which He has thereby 
also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship with 
Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the 
Parousia). See also Eph i. 5. The reconciliation (which de 
Wette understands) is not the fwozroinocs itself, as is plain 
from the compound ovvefwor., but its precursor and medium. 
The ovwor7roceiy stands in the same relation to the cuveyetpew 
as the nature of the act to its process; but the reason why 
ouvryépO. here stands before the cuvtwororeiv (it is different in 
Eph. ii. 5) is, that the cuvyryép@nre was correlative with the cup- 
rapévres in ver. 12, hence that word is used first, while in 
Eph. tc. the being dead preceded, with which the cu€worrosety 
primarily corresponds. (2) Like cuvetworr, so also vexpous 
is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here 


’ God is ihe subject of cers2woreiness, not Christ (Ewald and the older exposi- 
tors) ; for God has raised up Christ, and God is, according to the present con- 
text (it is different in iii. 13), the forgiver of sins, and has brought about the 
remission of sins through the ‘aaerspey of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it is not 
to be written ¢. airy (with the aspirate). Just as God was obviously the act- 
ing subject in wspsepaéncs, in corrapirrss, and in evsnyip?., so also He is intro- 
duced in the same character emphatically in ver. 12, and remains so till the 
close of ver. 15. 





372 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


and in Eph. ii. 1, as eg. Calvin, who thinks that the altenatio 
a Deo is meant), but, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, in its 
proper sense; the readers have been—this is the conception 
—prior to their conversion to Christ a prey of death. This is 
by no means to be understood, however, in the sense of 
physical death (for that comes from Adam’s sin, see on Rom. 
v. 12), but in that of efernal death, to which they were liable 
through their sins, so that they could not have become par- 
takers of the eternal fw?) (comp. on Rom. vii. 9 f.). See also 
on Eph. ii. 1. What is meant, therefore, is not a death 
which would have only become their eternal death in the 
absence of the quickening (Hofmann), but the eternal death 
itself, in which they already lay, and out of which they would 
not have come without that deliverance, nay, which on 
the contrary—and here we have a prolepsis of the thought— 
would only have completed itself in the future aiwv.' (3) 
This being dead occurred in the state (év) of their sins (rots 
indicates the sins which they had committed) and of the 
uncircumcision of their flesh, i.<. when as respects their sinful 
materially-psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and 
had not yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly con- 
stitution.? The dxpoBvotia in itself they even now had as 
Gentile Christians, but according to ver. 11 it was no longer 
axpoB. tis capxos in their case, but was now indifferent (iil. 
11; 1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal v. 6, vi. 15), since they had been 
provided with the ethical circumcision of Christ and emptied 
of the capa ris capxos. The ethical reference of the expres- 
sion does not lie, therefore, in dxpoSvoria itself, but in the 
characteristic tis capxos bar (genitive of the subject) ; in this 
uncircumcision they were as Gentiles prior to their conversion, 
but were so no longer as Christians. Consequently axpo8. is 
not to be taken figuratively (Deut. x. 16; Ezek. xliv. 7; Jer. 
iv. 4) as a designation of vitiositas (so Theodoret, Beza, 

1 Quite correlative is the conception of the {ws as eternal life, which the 
righteous man already has, although he has still in prospect the glorious perfec- 
tion of it in the future aia, 

2 The iv is not repeated before +7 dxpoG. because the two elements coupled by 


xai are conceived together so as to form the single idea of unconversion ; Kiihner, 
II. 1, p. 476. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmanp, p. 156. 


CHAP. Il. 13. 373 


Grotius, Bahr, Bleek, and most expositors), but in its proper 
sense, in which the readers as axpoSvoror could not but have 
understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of uneleanness 
(Huther), or of the alienatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann), 
or the’like; on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on 
THs capx. vp. The idea of original sin (Flacius and other 
dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel: “exquisita appellatio 
peccati origin.”) is likewise involved, and that according to 
its N. T. meaning (Rom. vii. 14 ff), not in a@xpoRvor., but 
doubtless in tis capx. tyav. Nevertheless this trijs oapx. 
tay belongs only to rH axpoBvotia, and not to tots mapa- 
mreopact as well (Hofmann) ; comp. Eph. ii.11. Otherwise we 
should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous 
in sense for the genitive; besides, the notion of wapdamrrTwpa 
presupposes not the odp&, but the £go in its relation to the 
divine law as the subject; hence also the expression wapdmrt. 
THs capk. (or apaptia t. 0.) does not occur, while we find épya 
Tis capxos in Gal. v. 19, Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the 
words xal TH axpof. tr. capKxos by. to the interpolator’s love for 
synonyms and tautological expressions, and wishes to condemn 
them also in consequence of what in ver. 11 belongs to the 
latter (p.155). But they are not at all tautological ; and see on 
ver. 11.— yapioapevos x,7.r.] after having granted to us, 1. 
forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin was 
necessarily prior to the ouvetwor. tpas ovv auto. By the 
fact, namely, that He remitted to us all the sins which we had 
committed (dyta ta trapart.), the causa efficiens of the being 
(eternally) dead was done away. Comp. Chrysostom: ta 
wapartTapata, & thy vexpornta érole, This yaptodpevos «.7.d. 
is the appropriation of the reconciliation on the part of God, 
which believers experienced when they believed and were bap- 
tized ; the objective expiratory act through the death of Christ 
had preceded, and is described in ver. 14.— 7%] applies to 
believers generally." This extension, embracing himself in com- 


1 Not specially to Jewish Christians (Hofmann, who discovers here the same 
idea that is expressed in Heb. ix. 15, and makes a new period begin with 
xapedpsyves), since Paul does not express a contrast with the Gentile-Christians, 
but very often passes from the second person, which refers to the readers, to the 


374 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


mon with others, is prepared for by xat tpas, but could 
not have been introduced, if yapiody. «.7.. had been con- 
ceived as synchronous with ouvefwom., in which case Paul 
must logically have used tui (not piv), as the reading 
isin B x** Vulg. Hilary. On yaplfec@a:, comp. 2 Cor. ii. 
10, xii, 13; Eph. iv. 32. On the subject-matter: 2 Cor. v. 
19 ff. 

Ver. 14. The participle, which is by no means parallel and 
synchronous with yapioduwevos in ver. 13, or one and the 
same with it (Hofmann), is to be resolved as: after that He 
had blotted out, etc. For it is the historical divine reconciling 
act of the death of Christ that is meant, with which yapicd- 
pevos x.7.r cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation 
had first to be accomplished before the yapifeo@a: «.7.A. could 
take place through its appropriation to believers. — ¢£anrelpety] 
is to be left quite in its proper signification, as in Acts iii. 19, 
Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4, and frequently in LXX. and 
Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to something 
written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous 
form of blotting out, even more forcibly than by d:aypadeuy (to 
score out ; see Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81). Comp. Plat. Rep. 
p. 386 ©, p. 501 B: éefarelpouey . . . wrddww eyypaddovev, Ep. 
7, p. 342 C: 10 Cwypadovpevoy te nal éEarechowevov, Dem. 
468. 1 in reference to a law: e¢ yp) Todrov éfanrelyrar, Xen. 
Hell. ii. 3. 51; Lucian, 2mag. 26; Eur. [ph. 4.1486. Comp. 
Valckenaer, ad Act. iii. 19.— 1d xaf judy yerpoypadov] the 
handwriting existing against us. What is thus characterized 
is not the burden of debt lying upon man, which is, as it were, 
his debt-schedule (Bleek), but the Mosuiclaw. A xetpoypadon, 
namely, is an obligatory document of debt (Tob. v. 3, ix. 5; 
Polyb. xxx. 8. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 8; and the passages in 
Wetstein ; also the passages quoted from the Rabbins in 
Schoettgen), for which the older Greek writers use ovyypagdy 
first, in which he, in accordance with the sense and connection, continues the 
discourse from the standpoint of the common Christian consciousness. Comp. 
i, 12 ; Gal. iv. 5, 6; Eph. ii. 1, 4, e¢ al.; Winer, p. 539 [E. T. 725]. Nor does 
the idea of the figurative xupéypager, which Hofmann urges, by any means 
require such a limitation—which there is nothing to indicate—of the si» em- 
bracing himself and others. 


CHAP, IL 14. 375 


or ypayparetov, Dem. 882. 7, 956. 2; see also Hermann, 
Privatalterth. § 49,12. And the law is the yetpoypadoy con- 
fronting us, in so far as men are bound to fulfil it perfectly, 
in order to avoid the threatened penal curse ; and consequently 
because no one renders this fulfilment, it, like a bill of debt, 
proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We are not to 
carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the 
halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound 
has not himself written the xeipoypapov.' Hofmann maintains 
that this element also, namely, man’s having written i with 
his own hand, is retained in the conception of the figurative 
xeipoypadov. But the apostle himself precludes this view by 
his having written, not : 76 jua@v yeipoyp. (which would mean : 
the document of debt drawn by us), but: To xa® judy yeupoyp. ; 
which purposely chosen expression does not affirm that we 
have ourselves written the document, but it does affirm that it 
authentwates us as arrested for debt, and is consequently against 
us, The words trois Soypacw appended (see below) also preclude 
the conception of the debt-record being written by man’s own 
hand. Moreover, the law is to be understood as an integral 
whole, and the various limitations of it, either to the ceremonial 
law (Calvin, Beza, Schoettgen, and others), or to the moral law 
(Calovius), are altogether in opposition to the connection (see 
above, wdyta Ta mapamr.), and un-Pauline. The explanation 
referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and 


1 The relation of obligation and indebtedness in which man stands to the law 
(comp. Gal. iii. 10) is quite sufficient to justify the conception of the latter as 
the xsipsypager, without seeking this specially in the promise of the people, Ex. 
xxiv. 8 (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others; also Hofmann) ; 
which the reader could not guess without some more precise indication. Indeed, 
that promise of the people in Ex. xxiv. 3 has by no means the mark of being 
self-written, but contains only the self-odligation, and would not, therefore, any 
more than the amen in Deut. xxvii. (which Castalio suggests), suffice for the 
idea of the xspéypager, if the latter had to contain the debtor's own handwriting. 
In accordance with the apostle’s words (ré xaf sus xupoyp., seo above), and 
with the type of his doctrine regarding the impossibility of legal righteousness, 
his readers could think only of the ypaupa of the law itself ag that which proves 
man a debtor; comp. Rom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. Wieseler, on Gal. 
p. 258 (appealing to Luke xvi. 5 ff. )s Bleek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, aleo errone- 
ously press the point that the xupsyp. must necessarily be written or ss by 
the debtor himsel/. 


376 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


others) is also at variance both with the word and with the 
context.! The conscience is the medium for the knowledge of 
the law as the handwriting which testifies against us ; without 
the activity of the conscience, this relation, in which the law 
stands to us, would remain unknown. Exception has been 
taken to its being explained of the Mosaic law on account of 
the use of ney, seeing that this law existed only for the Jews. 
But without due ground ; for it is in fact also the schedule of 
debt against the Gentiles, in so far, namely, as the latter have 
the knowledge of the Sccaiwua rod Ocod (Rom. i. 32), have in 
fact To Epyov Tod vowou ypartoy ev tais xapdias avtay (Rom. 
ii. 15), and, consequently, fall likewise under the condemning 
sentence of the law, though not directly (Rom. iii. 19, ii. 12), 
but indirectly, because they, having incurred through their 
own fault a darkening of their minds (Rom. 1 20-23), trans- 
gress the “ xowov atravtwy avOparray vopov” (Dem. 639. 22). 
The earnest and graphic description of the abrogation of the 
condemning law in ver. 14 is dictated by an apologetic motive, 
in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers; hence it 
is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a 
Lapide and others the covenant of God with Adam in Gen. 
ii. 16, as was already proposed by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact (comp. Iren. Haer. v. 17. 3, and Tertullian). — 
tois Soypacw] Respecting Soyya, command, especially of legal 
decrees, see on Eph. ii 15; Wetstein on Luke ii. 1; the- 
dative is closely connected with -yetpoypadov, and is instru- 
mental: what is written with the commands (therein given), so 
that the déyzara, which form the constituent elements of the 
law, are regarded as that wherewith wt 1s written. Thus the 
tenor of the contents of what is written is indicated by the 
dative of the instrument (ablativus modi), just as the external 
constituent elements of writing, eg. ypappace in Gal. vi. 11, 
and ruou in Plat. Zp. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the 


! Luthor’s gloss: ‘‘ Nothing is so hard against us as our own conscience, 
whereby we are convinced as by our own handwriting, when the law reveals to 
us our sin.” Melanchthon: ‘‘sententia in mente et corde tanquam scripta lege 
et agnitione lapsus,” in connection with which he regards the conscience as 
‘“ syllogismus practicus ex lege ductus.” 


CHAP. II, 14. ' 377 


same dative. Observe the verbal nature of yespoypadoy, and 
that the dative is joined to it, as to Td yeypappévov (comp. 
Plat. dc.: 1rd yeypappéva riots). This direct combination 
of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is such 
an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek 
(see Matthiae, IT. p. 890; Heindorf, ad Plat. Cratyl. p. 131; 
and especially Kiihner, II. 1, p. 374), that the connection in 
question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh (Winer, 
Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann) ; nor should it 
have been regarded as something “ welded on” by the inter- 
polator (Holtzmann, p. 74), who had desired thereby to give 
to yeupoyp. its reference to the law. The explanation given by 
many writers (Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Michaelis, Hein- 
richs, and others, comp. Luther), which hits nearly the true 
sense: the yespoypapov, consisting in the Soypact, is to be 
corrected grammatically in accordance with what we have said 
above. It is in compiete variance with the arrangement of the 
words to join rots Soyu. to To nal? jay by supplying an dp 
(Calovius).' Bahr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette) regard 
it as a more precise definition of the entire ré xa’ Hy. yerporyp., 
so that Paul explains what he means by the yetpoyp., and, at 
the same time, how it comes to be a debt-document testifying 
against us. So also Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 275]. This, however, 
would have been expressed by 70 trois Soypace xa? pov 
xetpoyp., or in some other way corresponding grammatically 
with the sense assumed. Ewald joins rots Soyp. as appropriat- 
ing dative (see Bernhardy, p. 88 f.) to yepoyp.: our bond of 
obligation to the statutes.” But if yetpoyp. were our bond of 
obligation (subjectively), the expression 76 xa? jyav yep. would 
be inappropriate, and Paul would have said merely 76 jay yeep. 
t. Sdyp. It is incorrect as to sense, though not linguistically 
erroneous, to connect tots Soyp. with é€adetrvas, in which case 
it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph. ii 15) that the 


1 So also Wieseler in Rosenmiiller’s Rep. II. p. 185 ff. : 8 scupsyp. 8 esis Séyp. 
nal? apsv bv. 

Comp. Wieseler on Gal. p. 258 : ‘‘ with reference to the statutes.” He takes 
Paul’s meaning to be, ‘‘ our testimony with our own hand, that we have trans- 
greased the statutes of the law of Moses.” 


378 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


abrogation of the law had taken place either as regards is 
statutes (Steiger) ; or by the evangelical doctrines of faith (the 
Greek expositors, Estius, Grotius, Hammond, Bengel, and 
others) ; or nova praecepta stabiliendo (Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. 
II. p. 168 f.). In opposition to these views, see Eph. i. 15. 
Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hof- 
mann have attached it to the following relative clause,’ in 
opposition to the simple order of the words, without any 
certain precedent in the N. T. (with regard to Acts i. 2, Rom. 
xvi. 27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an emphasis 
to the tots Soyu. which is not warranted (for the law as such 
contains, in fact, nothing else than Seypata). — 8 Fv inrevaytiov 
#ptv| an emphatic repetition—bringing into more marked pro- 
minence the hostile relation—of the thought already expressed 
by «a? sev, with the view of counteracting the legalistic 
efforts of the false teachers. Bengel’s distinction, that there is 
here expressed ipsa pugna, and by xa’ spud, status belli, is 
arbitrary and artificial. It means simply: which was against 
us, not: secretly against us, as Beza and others, including 
Bohmer, interpret the word, which Paul uses only in this 
place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers, in 
the Apocrypha and LXX., and in the N. T. again in Heb. x. 
27. The relative attaches itself to the entire 76 xa? ny. 
xetpoyp. Tots Soy. — xab adbro Hpxev x.7.A.] Observe not only 
the emphatic change of structure (see on 1. 6) which passes 
from the participle, not from the relative (Hofmann), over to 
the further act connected with the former in the - finite tense, 
but also (comp. on i. 16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem. 
786. 4): and ttself (the bill of debt) he has taken out of the 
way, whereby the abrogation now stands completed. A graphi- 
cally illustrative representation: the bill of debt was blotted 
out, and it has ttself been carried away and is no longer in 
its place; tpxev avto éx tod pécov ph adels ert xwpas, 
Oecumenius. avro denotes the handwriting itself, materialiter, 


1 So also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, WI. 1, p. 110. He considers as the 
xspsypadev not the Mosaic law itself, but the bill of debt which the broken law 
has drawn up against us. The very parallel in Eph. ii, 15 is decisive against this 
view. 


CHAP. IL. 14. 379 


in contrast to the just mentioned blotting out of. its contents. 
For He has nazled it, etc.; see the sequel. Hofmann imports 
the idea: 2 in this (hostile) quality ; as if, namely, it ran xai 
totouro dv (Xen. Anab. vi. 5.13;'Philem. 9).— The é« rod 
pécov is our: “out of the way,” said of obstructions which are 
removed. Comp. Plat. Zryx. p. 401 E; Xen. Anab. i. 5.14; 
de praefect. 3. 10, and the passages in Kypke, Il. p. 323. 
The opposite: év péow elvas, to be in the way, Dem. 682. 1; 
Aesch. Suppl. 735; Dorv. ad Charit. vii. 3, p.601. Thus 
the law stood in the syoay of reconciliation to God, of the 
yaptterOas «.7,r. in ver. 13. — wpoondwoas x.7.d.] mpoondoby 
only found here in the. N. T.; see, however, Plat. Phaed. p. 
83 D (with mpos); Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (r@ Kavedop 
mpoondwpévos) ; Galen. IV. p. 45, 9: te oravpe, 3 Mace. 
iv. 9. Since the law which condemned man lost its punitive 
force through the death of Christ on the cross, inasmuch as 
Christ through this death suffered the curse of the law for 
men (Gal. iii. 13), and became the end of the law (Rom. x. 
4), at the same time that Christ was nailed as thacrnptov to 
the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased 
to be ev uéow. Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the 
aorist participle to the perfect jpxev. The latter is the state 
of the matter, which has emerged and exists after God has 
nailed, etc. The x. avré fpxey éx pécov takes place since that 
nailing. In the strong expression mpoondwoas, purposely 
chosen and placed foremost, there is involved an antinomistic 
triumph, which makes the disarming of the law very palpably 
apparent. Chrysostom has aptly observed on the whole passage: 
ovdapod obtas peyaropavas ef0éyEato, ‘Opas crrovdipy 
tod apavicPivar Td yerpoypahov Bony érrolycaro ; oloy waytes 
juev vd dpaprlay x. nodacw avtos Kodacbels 2rvce Kab Thy 
dpaptlay xal thy KodNaow. Nevertheless, spoondwoas neither 
figuratively depicts the tearing in pieces of the yeporyp. 
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor is there any 
allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated 
laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his 
Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 370 £.), a public placarding with a view 
to observance is meant; the requirement of Israelitish legal 


380 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


obligation has become changed into the requirement of fazth 
in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross, and this 
transformation is also the pardon of transgressions of the law. 
This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the 
point of which is merely the blotting out and taking away of 
the law, as the debt-document hostile to us, by the death of 
the cross. The entire representation which is presented in this 
sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be expanded into 
the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just re- 
ferred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the /forgive- 
ness of sins introduced by yapiodpevos x«.7.d. in ver. 13, and 
nothing more. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 24. It is to be observed, at: 
the same time, that the éfarethery and the alpew é« Tr. péecov 
do not represent two acts substantially different, but the same 
thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by 
way of climax with particularising vividness. 

Ver.15.' In this doing away of the law was involved the 
victory and triumph of God over the devilish powers, since the 
strencth of the latter, antagonistic to God, is in sin, and the 
strencth of sin is in the law (1 Cor. xv. 56); with the law, 
therefore, the power of the devil stands or falls. — If dzrexduc. 
ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with wpoonAweas, there 
must have been a xaé inserted before éSevyyar., as in ver. 14 
before the finite verb, because otherwise no connection would 
be established. Hence a full stop (Beza) must be placed before 
atrexdvo., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek) ; and without 
any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the 
more forcibly the description of this final result expressed 
with triumphant fulness: Having stripped the lordships and 
powers, he has made a show of them boldly, holding triumph 
over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical emphatic 
prefixing of amexduc., éSevyudr., and Oprau8. The subject is 


1 Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse because it interrupts the transition of 
thought to ver. 16 (which is not the case); because 3uypar%ur is un-Pauline 
(but in what sense is it un-Pauline ? it is in any sense a very rare word) ; because 
épnyGsés. is used here otherwise than in 2 Cor. ii. 14 (this is incorrect) ; but, 

ially, because ver. 15 can only be explained by the circle of ideas of Eph. 
iii. 10 and Col. i. 10; Eph. iv. 8, ii 15 f. (passages which touch our present 
one either not at all, or at the most very indirectly). 


CHAP. IL 15. . 381 


still always God, not Christ, as Baur and Ewald hold, fol- 
lowing Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius, 
Calovius, and many others; hence the reading dzexd. rip 
oapxa in F G (which omit 7. apy, «. 7. e£ove.) Syr. Goth. 
Hil. Aug. was an erroneous gloss; and at the close, not avtr@ 
(Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, FElzevir, 
Griesbach, and Scholz), instead of which G has éavr@, but 
avr@ should be written; see Wolf i loc. The figurative 
amexduo., which illustrates the deprivation of power that has 
taken place through the divine work of reconciliation, repre- 
sents the dpyas «al é£ovc. as having been clothed in armour 
(comp. Rom. xiii, 12; Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8), which 
God as their conqueror stripped off and took from them; 
Vulg.: exspolians. Comp. on éxdvey and amodvev, used from 
Homer’s time in the sense of spoliare, Dem. 763. 28, 1259. 
11; Hesiod, Scut. 447; Xen. Anadb. v. 8. 23; 2 Macc. viii. 
27; and on the subject-matter, Matt. xii. 19; Luke xi. 22. 
Moreover, we might expect, in accordance with the common 
usage of the middle, instead of darexducduevos, which is else- 
where used intransitively (comp. iii. 9), the active dmrexdvcas 
(comp. Matt. xxvii. 28, 31; Luke x. 30); yet even in Plat. 
Rep. p. 612 A, the (right) reading dmebucdueOa is to, taken 
in the sense of nudavimus ; and Xenophon uses the perfect 
amodéouxev, which is likewise infransitive elsewhere (see 
Kiihner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anab. lc. : modrovs 75 
amrodéduxev, multos veste spoliavit ; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47. 
Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious sel/-cnterest 
of the action (sii exspoliavit), is here selected even with 
nicety, and by no means conveys (as Hofmann, in order to 
refute this explanation, erroneously lays to its charge) the 
idea: in order to appropriate to Himself this armour; see on 
the contrary generally, Kriiger,§ 52. 10. 1; Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 
93 f. The disarming in itself, and not the possession of the 
enemy’s weapons, is the interest of the victor. Lastly, the 
whole connection does not admit of any intransitive inter- 
pretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 350 f. 


1 Through this erroneous definition of the subject it was possible to discover 
in our passage the descent into hell (Anselm and others). 


382 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(and substantially also in his Het. Schr. in loc.), has attempted, 
making the sense: God has laid aside from Himself the 
powers ruling in the Gentile world—which were round about 
Him like a veil concealing Him from the Gentiles—by mani- 
festing Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such as 
this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has 
put an end to the ignorance of the Gentile world and 
revealed Himself to it, Paul must necessarily have said ; no 
reader could unravel it from so strange a mode of veiling 
the conception, the more especially seeing that there is no 
mention at all of the victorious word of Christ* converting 
the Gentiles, as Hofmann thinks, but on the contrary of 
what God has effected in reference to the apyat and éf£ouclas 
by the fact of reconciliation accomplished on the cross; He 
has by it rendered powerless the powers which previously held 
sway among mankind; comp. John xii. 30 f, xvi. 11.—That 
these apyat and éfouvcias are two categories of evil angels 
(comp. Eph. vi. 12), corresponding to two classes of good angels 
similarly named (comp. ver. 10), is taught by the context, 
which has nothing to do with mediating beings intervening 
between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human 
rulers. Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 
§22, understands the angels of the law-giving (comp. on i. 
20), of whom God has divested Himself (middle), 2.e. from 
whose environment He has withdrawn Himself. Even apart 
from the singular expression amexdvodu. in this sense, this 
explanation is inappropriate, because the apyas and é£ovcias 
appear here as hostile to God, as beings over whom He has 
triumphed ; secondly, because the angels who ministered 
at the law-giving (see on Gal iii. 19) have no share in the 
contents of the law, which, as the voyos Qeod, is holy, righteous, 
good, and spiritual (Rom. vii.), and hence no deviation from 
God’s plan of salvation can be attributed to the angels of the 
law ; and, finally, because the expression tas dpyds x. Tas 


'In which sense also Grotius explained it, though he takes éesxdecdp. 
rightly as exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calovius. Hofmann’s expla- 
nation is also followed by Holtzmann, p. 222; it is an unfortunate attempt at 
rationalizing. 


CHAP. Il. 15. 383 


é£ovcias is so comprehensive that, in the absence of any more 
precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially limited 
to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must 
denote the collective angelic powers—hostile, however, and 
therefore devilish. Zhem God has disarmed, put to shame, 
and triwmphed over, through the abrogation of men’s legal 
debt-bond that took place by means of the atoning death. 
The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this 
statement was, doubtless, specially occasioned by those specu- 
lations regarding the power of demons, with which the false 
teachers were encroaching on the work of Christ. — Sevyparivey, 
preserved only here and in Matt. i. 19 (comp. however, 
Twapadevryparivery, especially frequent in Polybius ; see Schweig- 
hduser, Lex. p. 429), denotes, in virtue of its connection with 
the conception of triumph, the making a show (Augustine, ep. 
59: “exemplavit ;” Hilary, de trin. 9: “ ostentui esse fecit ”) 
for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chry- 
sostom), not in order to exhibit the weakness of the conquered 
(Theodoret, Bohmer), but simply their accomplished subju- 
gation ; comp. Nah. iii. 6: Ojoopat ce eis wapdderypa. — 
ev wrappnolg] is usually rendered publicly, before the eyes of all, 
consequently as equivalent to gavepas in John vii. 10 (the 
opposite: év xpurr@, John vil. 4; Matt. vi. 4; Rom. ii 28) ; 
but this the word does not mean (see on John vii. 4); 
moreover, the verb already implies this idea;* and the usage 
of Paul elsewhere warrants only the rendering: boldly, freely 
and frankly. Comp. Eph. vi. 19; Phil. i 20. Hilary: 
“cum fiducia ;” Vulgate: “confidenter palam.” The objection 
that this sense is not appropriate to the action of God 
(Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here represented 
just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with re- 
morseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects 

1 Hence Hofmann joins it with é¢papfsieas, in which, however, the idea of 
publicity is obviously already contained. Hofmann, indeed, assumes a reference 
of contrast to the invisible triumphs, which God has ever been celebrating over 
those powers. But thus the idea of épapPseuv is extended to an unwarranted 
amplitude of metaphorical meaning, while, nevertheless, the entire anthropopathic 
imagery of the passage requires the sfrict conception of the public dpiapfes 
Moreover, the pretended contrast is altogether foreign to the context. 


384 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the conquered to ignominious exhibition.’ — OprapBevoas avr. 
éy avt@] synchronous with éSevyp.: while He triumphed over - 
them. Respecting @prapSevew teva, to triumph over some one, 
see on 2 Cor. ii. 14. Comp. the passive OptayBever@Gaz, to be 
led in triumph, Plut. Coriol. 35. avrovs refers cata ovverw 
to the devils endividually, who are conceived as masculine (as 
Saipoves, xoopoxpatopes, Eph. vi. 12), see generally Winer, 
p. 138 [E. T. 183]; and éy avz@ is referred either to the cross 
(hence, also, the readings éy r@ EvAw or ocravpe@) or to 
Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority 
of the Fathers (Theophylact: év t@ ocraup@ tovs Saipovas 
qTTnuévous Seas), Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, in- 
cluding Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. 
p. 432, ed. 2; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther, Melanch- 
thon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, 
Bahr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek, 
Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous, 
because Christ is not mentioned at all in ver. 14, and God 
pervades as subject the entire discourse from ver. 11 onwards. 
We must hold, therefore, by the reference to 7@ otavp@, s0 
that éy avrg once more places the cross significantly before 
our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the 
previous sentence. Aé the cress God celebrated His triumph, 
inasmuch as through the death of Christ on the cross obliter- 
ating and removing out of the way the debt-bill of the law He 
completed the work of redemption, by which the devil and his 
powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on the law 
and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included. 
Ver. 16. Ody] since ye, according to vv. 11-15, are raised 
to a far higher platform than that of such a legal system. — 
xpwétrw ev Bpwoer] No one is to form a judgment (whether ye 
are acting allowably or unallowably, rightly or wrongly) con- 


1 It is an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann to say, by way of controverting our 
explanation : Who would be surprised, that the triumpher should make a show of 
the conquered, ‘‘ without previously asking their permission" ? As if such a 
thonght, no doubt very silly for the victor, were necessarily the contrast to the 
frank daring action, with which a general, crowned with victory, is in a position 
to exhibit his captives without any scruple, without sparing or hesitation! He 
has the ievete for the dsuypariur, and uscs it iv rapsncig. 


CHAP. II. 16. 383 


cerning you in the point of eating (év, comp. Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 22; 


‘1 Pet. ii. 12). There is hereby asserted at the same time their 


independence of such judgments, to which they have not to yield 
(comp. Eph. v. 6). With Paul, Spaors is always actio edendi, 
and is thus distinct from Spape, cibus (Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. 
viii. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 10; also Heb. xii. 16), although it is also 
current in the sense of Bpaiwa with John (iv. 32, vi. 27, 55), and 
with profane authors (Hom. J. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x. 176, e 
al.; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scué. 396). This we 
remark in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 200. The 
case is the same with zoos (Rom. xiv. 17) and oye (1 Cor. 
x. 4; Heb. ix. 10).— év mwoces] Since the Mosaic law contained 
prohibitions of meats (Lev. vil. 10 ff), but not also general 
prohibitions of drinks, it is to be assumed that the false teachers 
in their ascetic strictness (ver. 23) had extended the prohibition 
of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num. vi. 3), 
and for the period of priestly service (Lev. x. 9), to the Chris- 
tians as such (as dyiovs). Comp. also Rom. xiv. 17,21. De 
Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was added doubtless in con- 


_ sideration of this, as well as of the Pharisaic rules as to drinks, 


Matt. xxiii. 24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols 
(ovv does not point to such things), but still mainly on account 
of the similarity of sound (Rom. xiv. 17; Heb. ix. 10, and 
Bleek tn loc.).—éy pépe éopris «.7.A.] ev péper, with the 
genitive, designates the category, as very frequently also in 
classical authors (Plat. Zheaet. p. 155 E, Rep. p. 424 D; 
Dem. 638. 5, 668. 24); comp. on 2 Cor. ii, 10, and see 
Wyttenbach, ad Plut. I. p.65. The three elements: festival, 
new moon, and Sabbath, are placed side by side as a further 
classis rerum; in the point (év) of this category also no judg- 
ment is to be passed upon the readers (if, namely, they do 
not join in observing such days). The elements are arranged, 
according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals 
in the year (€oprjs), or monthly (voupny.), or weekly (ca8Bar.). 
But they are three, co-ordinated; there would be only one 
thing with three connected elements, if caf were used instead 
of #7 in the two latter places where it occurs. The three are 
given in inverted order in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31; 2 Chron. ii 4, 
COL. 2B 





386 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


xxxl 3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iv. 10. Respect- 
ing the Jewish celebration of the new moon, see Keil, Archaol. 
I. §'78; Ewald, Alterth. p. 470 f.; and on od8Sara as equi- 
valent to cd8BSarov, comp. Matt. xii. 1, xxviii. 1; Luke iv. 16, 
et al, év wépes has been erroneously understood by others in 
the sense of: a partial celebration (Chrysostom: éFevreviles 
Adyar 4 év péper Eoptis: ov yap &) mdvra Kareixov Ta mWp0- 
tepa, Theodoret: they could. not have kept all the feasts, on 
account of the long journey to Jerusalem ; comp. Dalmer), or: 
victbus festorum (Melanchthon, Zanchius), or, that the partici- 
pation in the festival, the taking part in it is expressed (Otto, 
dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio, “ nam 
qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt” 
_ (Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that év pépec 
means merely: tn respect to (Beza, Wolf, and most expositors, 
including Bahr, Huther, and de Wette); in 2 Cor. iii 10, 
ix. 3, it also denotes the category. Comp. Aelian. V. H. viii. 3: 
xplvovtes Exacroy év TH pépet povov. 

Ver. 17.’ An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the 
ground for what has just been said —é, which (see the critical 
remarks), is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observ- 
ance of feasts and days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things 
of the law mentioned in ver. 16 generally, all of which it 
embraces. — xsd] not an outline (oxvaypadia, oxtaypddnpa), 
as in the case of painters, who “non exprimunt primo ductu 
. imaginem vivis coloribus et edxovexes, sed rudes et obscuras 
lineas primum ex carbone ducunt,” Calvin (so also Clericus, 
Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which oxed does 
not mean even in Heb. viii. 5, x. 1, and which is forbidden 
by the contrast of ro c@pa, since it would rather be the per- 
fect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline. 


1 Holtzmann, without assigning his reasons, regards the entire verse as an 
‘+ extract from the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Heb. ix. 6, 9 f., 25, x. 1, 11, viii. 5); 
he thinks that the whole polemic of vv. 16-23 was intended to introduce the 
more developed features of later heresy into the picture of the apostolic age. 
But the difficulty of ver. 18 (which Holtzmann considers utterly unintelligible) 
and ver. 22 f., as well as the alleged un-Pauline character of some expressions 
in ver. 19, does not furnish a sufficient basis for such an opinion. Comp. on 
vv. 18, 19, 22, 28. 


CHAP. IL. 17. 887. 


It means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating, 
namely, the relation of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced 
in ver. 16, to that which 18s future, 1.6. to those relations of the 
Messianic kingdom, which are to be manifested in the atoy 
pédroy (neither dya0av from Heb. x. 1, nor anything else, is 
to be supplied with tay peAAovrwv), and in doing so he fol- 
lows the figurative conception, that the ~éAXorta, which there- 
fore, locally considered, are in jfront,. have cast their shadow 
behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual constitution,—a 
conception which admirably accords with the typical character 
of the latter (Heb. viii. 5, x. 1), of which the constitution of 
the Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted 
further: (1) The emphasis of confirmation lies not on tay 
ped\XovToy (Beza), but on oxsd, in contrast to ro caya. If, 
namely, the things in question are only the shadow of the 
Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are 
—in accordance with this relatively non-essential, because 
merely typical nature of theirs—not of such a kind that 
salvation may be made dependent on their observance or non- 
observance, and adjudged or withheld accordingly. (2) The 
passage is not to be explained as if 7 stood in the place of 
éori, 80 that ta péAXovra would denote the Christian relations 
already then existing, the xaww7 Sia8jen, the Christian plan 
of salvation, the Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysos- 
tom).; but, on the contrary, that which is spoken of 1 
shadow, not, indeed, as divinely appointed in the law (Hof- 
mann)—for of this aspect of the elements in question the text 
contains nothing—but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual 
condition still at that time present. The pédAdXovta have not 
yet been manifested at all, and belong altogether (not merely 
as regards their completion, as de Wette thinks, comp. also 
Hofmann) to the aidy péd\Awv, which will begin with the 
coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom—a coming, how- 
ever, which was expected as very near at hand. The péd- 
Aovra could only be viewed as having already set in either in 
whole or in part, if #7v and not éor! were used previously, and 
thereby the notion of futurity were to be taken relatively, in 
reference to a state of things then already past (comp. Gal. 


ef a ea ae le 


388 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


iii. 23; 1 Tim. i. 16), or if éord were meant to be said from 
the standpoint of the divine arrangement of those things 
(Hofmann), or if this present tense expressed the logical 
present merely by way of enabling the mind to picture them 
(Rom. v. 14), which, however, is inadmissible here, since the 
elements indicated by oxida still continued at this time, long 
after Christ’s earthly appearance, and were present really, and 
not merely in legal precepts or in theory. (3) The charac- 
teristic quality, in which the things concerned are meant to be 
presented by the figurative oxid,is determined solely by the 
contrast of To capa, namely, as unsubstantiality in a Messianic 
aspect: shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, there- 
fore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and 
woid of its reality. The reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de 
degit. rit. p. 214 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely 
imported. — ro 8¢ capa] scil. trav pedrAovtov, but the body of 
the future. Inasmuch as the legal state of things in ver. 16 
‘stands to the future Messianic state in no other relation than 
that of the shadow to the living body ztself, which casts the 
shadow, Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates 
as the body of the future ¢hat which is real and essential in 
it, which, according to the context, can be nothing else than 
just the wérXXovTa themselves, their concrete reality as con- 
trasted with the shadowy form which preceded them. Accord- 
ingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but 
without its figurative garb, in this way: 8 dots Tiros ta 
pedAovTwy, avra Sé ta pédArovra Xpiorod, — Xpiotod] scil. 
éotl, belongs to Christ. The péAXovra, namely, viewed under 
the figurative aspect of the owpa which casts the shadow 
referred to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the 
body stands in to the Head (ver. 19); as the body now 
adumbrating itself, they must belong to Christ the Head of 
the body, in so far, namely, as He is Lord and ruler of all the 
relations of the future Messianic constitution, ze. of the Mes- 


> The explanation of Hilgonfeld, 1878, p. 199: ‘‘the mere capa Xpored, a 
purely somatic Christianity,” is at variance with the antithetical correlation 
of exé and cima, as well as with the apostle’s cherished conception of the 
wus of Christ, which is contained immediately in ver. 19. 








CHAP. IL. 18. 389 


sianic kingdom, of the Baotdela trod Xpiotod (i. 13; Eph. 
v. 5). Whosoever, therefore, holds to the skadow of the 
future, to the things of the law (as the false teachers do and 
require), and does not strive after the péAAovra themselves, 
after the body which has cast that shadow, does not hold to 
Christ, to whom as Head the capa (ris oxias) belongs as His 
own. This view, which is far removed from “ distorting” the 
thought (as Hofmann objects), is required by the natural 
and obvious correlation of the conception of the body and its 
head, a8 also by ver. 19. There is much inaccuracy and irrele- 
vancy in the views of expositors, because they have not taken 
Ta pédXovra in the sense, or not purely in the sense, of the 
relations of the ai@y wéAXwy, but in that of the then existing 
Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to the aiov 
ovros, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take 
up with clearness and precision the contextually necessary 
relation of the genitive Xprorod as denoting Him, whose the 
compa 18, but resolve it into what they please, as ¢.g. Grotius (so 
also Bleck): “ad Christum pertinet, ab eo solo petenda est ;” 
Huther: “ the substance itself, to which those shadowy figures 
point, has appeared in Christ ;” Ewald: “so far as there is 
anything really solid, essential, and eternal in the O. T., it 
belongs to Christ and to His Spirit;” Hofmann: “the body 
of the future 7s there, where Christ 1s, present and given with 
Him” (consequently as if év Xpsuor@ were used).—On 16 cdpa 
in contrast to oxtd, comp. Josephus, Bell. ii. 2. 5: oxsdy 
aitnoopevos Bacihelas, is Hptacey éEavt@ To cdpa. Philo, de 
conf. ling. p. 434: Ta yey puta trav xpnopav oxids Twas Ooavel 
cwopdrwy evar tas 8 eudawouévas Suvdpens ta bfheotata adn- 
Gela mpdyyata. Lucian, Hermot. 29. Observe, however, 
that oda invariably retains its strict literal sense of body, as 
a sensuous expression for the substantially real, in contrast 
to the unsubstantial shadow of it. 

Ver. 18.1 Warning against a further danger, with which 
they were threatened on the part of these false teachers. — 
pndels] not different from pyres in ver. 16, as if the latter 
emphasized the verb and the former the subject (Hofmann). 

1See upon ver. 18, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 277 ff. 








390 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


This would be correct, if in ver. 16 it were px) obv xpivéro Tis 
vas. Comp. on pris, ver. 8, and on pdes, ver. 4. More- 
over, the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a 
duplicate proceeding from the interpolator, especially as they 
contain a new warning, and in such a peculiar form («ara- 
Spaf.). — xataBpaBevérw] Let no one deprive you of the prize. 
xataBpaPevev, which is not a Cilician word (Jerome; see, on 
the contrary, Eustath. ad JI. i. 93. 33: xaraSpaPever avror, 
as dacty of madaioé), is only now preserved among ancient 
Greek authors in Dem. c. Mid. 544, ult.: émurtdpeOa 2 rpa- 
teva iro Mediov xataBpaBevbévra wal rapa mavra Ta Sixata 
atipmbévra, where it expresses the taking away of victory in 
@ judicial suit, and the procuring of a sentence of condemna- 
tion, and that in the form of the conception: to bring v about 
to the injury of some one, that not he, but another, shall receive the 
prize from the BpaBevs. Midias had bribed the judges. The 
cata intimates that the prize was due to the person concerned, 
although it has been in a hostile spirit (not merely wn- 
righteously, which would be mapaBpafevew,' Plut. Mor. p. 
535 C; Polyb. xxiv. 1. 12) withdrawn from him and ad- 
judged to another. The right view substantially, though not 
recognising the distinction from apaS8paf., is taken by 
Chrysostom (srapaBpaBev@ijvas yap éorw, Stay wap’ érépwv 
fev 1) vixen, Tap érépwy 5é to BpaPetov) and Theophylact, also 
Suidas: 10 dAXov aywvilopévou ddXrov orehavotabas rAéyet O 
amootodos xataBpaBever Oar. Comp. also Zonaras, ad Concil. 
Laod. can. 35, p. 351: 7d ph Tov wejocavra afwiv tov Bpa- 
Belov, arr’ érépm SiSovas ado adixovpévou tov vixnoayros. The 
conception is: (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the 
Messianic prize of victory,—-this is the assumption upon which 
the expression is based; (2) The false teachers desire ¢o 
deprive them of the prize of victory and to give it to others, 
namely, to themselves and their adherents, and that through 
their service of angels, etc.; (3) Just as little, however, as in 


With which Theodoret confounds it (d3isws BpaBsdev) ; he makes it the 
unrighteous awarding of the prize of victory: iwudh roivur nai of cas vomines 
Wupaenphess cy shayyiiiy wapapryrviess dws cay xpurcéres abceis iw) ca lAderw 
aseidsper, slnicag IOn' pndsis duas xarahpaGsvirw. 


CHAP. IL 18. 391 


the case of the xpivesy in ver. 16, ought the readers to give heed 
to, or let themselves be Jed astray by, this hostile proceeding 
of the xarafpafevew, which is based upon subjective vanity 
and is (ver. 19) separation from Christ and His body,— 
this is implied in the imperatives. Consequently, the view 
of Jerome, ad Aglas. p. 10, is not in substance erroneous, 
although only approximately corresponding to the expression : 
“Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat ;” Erasmus is substan-- 
tially correct: “praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis inter- 
vertat ;” comp. Calvin, Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Ewald, and others; while the Vulgate (seducat), Luther (“to 
displace the goal”), and others content themselves with a much 
less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengel imports into 
the passage the sense of usurped false leading and instruction, 
as Beza similarly took it." The Bpafetov, to which xataBp. 
refers, is not Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it prae- 
mium exigere), nor yet: “the honour and prize of the true 
worship of God” (de Wette), but, in accordance with the stand- 
ing apostolic conception (comp. Phil. iii 14; 1 Cor. ix. 24): 
the bliss of the Messianic kingdom, the incorruptible orépavos 
(1 Cor. ix. 25), the ored. tis Sixavoovvns (2 Tim. iv. 8), rijs 
So€ns (1 Pet. v. 4), ris Cwhs (Jas. i 12); comp. 2 Tim. ii. 5. 
With reference to the Spafetor, Elsner, Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, 
Steiger, and others, including Bahr, Bohmer, Reiche, Huther, 
and Bleek, following Photius in Oecumenius (pndels tuas 
xataxpwero), have taken xaraSpaf. in the sense of to condemn, 
parallel to the xpuvérw in ver. 16, or to refuse salvation to 
(Hofmann). This rendering is not, indeed, to be rejected on 
linguistic grounds, since Hesychius and Suidas both quote the 
signification xataxpivey in the case of xataBpaBevew; but 
it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in 
opposition to the context through the following @édrwy «.7.X., 
which presupposes not a judgment of the opponents, but- an 


1 “Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi ultro sumat.” He starts from the 
common use of fpafsises in the sense of regere ac moderari (see Dorvill. ad 
Charit. p. 404). Comp. on iii. 15. But neither the passage of Dem. l.¢., nor 
the testimony of the Greek Fathers, of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the 
analogy of wapaSpaBséssx, would justify the adoption of this sense in the case of 
’ the compound zsavaSpaf. 


392 ‘THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


action, something practical, which, through their’ perverse re- 
ligious attitude, they would fain accomplish. — Oédov] sc. 
xataBpaBevew t Suds: while he desires to do this, would willingly 
accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ii. 9'7) by humility, 
etc. So rightly Theodoret (rotro roivuy cvveBovrcvoy éxeivos 
yiver Bat Tarrewoppootvn d70ev Kexpnuévor), Theophylact (Gérov- 
ow tas xataBpaBevew dca tatrevodpp.), Photius in Oecumenius, 
-Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Huther and Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The “languidum et frigidum,” 
which Reiche urges against this view, applies at the most 
only in the event of xataBpaB. being explained as fo con- 
demn; and the accusation of «incorrectness of sense (Hof- 
mann) is only based upon an erroneous explanation of the 
subsequent €y rarrewodp. x7.» The interpretation adopted 
by others: taking delight in humility, etc. (Augustine, Cas- 
talio, Vatablus, Estius, Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including 
Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Hof- 
mann, and Hilgenfeld), is based upon the extremely unneces- 
sary assumption of an un-Greek imitation of 2 ypn, such as 
occurs, indeed, in the LXX. (1 Sam. xviii. 22 ; 2 Sam. xv. 26; 
1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Ps. cxlvii. 10), but not in the 
N. T.; for in Matt. xxvii. 43, OéXecy is used with the accusa- 
tive, comp. on Rom. vii. 21. Moreover, in the QO. T. passages 
the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only excep- 
tion being Ps. cxlvii. 10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha 
that abnormal mode of expression does not occur. Others, 
again, hold that it is to be joined in an adverbial sense to 
xataBp. It would then (see Erasmus, Annot.) have to be 
rendered cupide or studiose (Plat. Theaet. p. 143 D; and see 
Reisig, Conject. p. 143 f.), or unconstrained, voluntarily, equiva- 
lent to €Bcdovri, Oedovtjy, eberXovrns (Plat. Symp. p. 183 A, 
very frequent in Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph. 
19. 790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted by Sturz, 
Lex, II. p. 21), which sense, here certainly quite unsuitable, 
has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage into the 
idea: “hoc munus sit a nullo tributwm exercens” (Beza), or: 
unwarrantably (Bohmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice 
(Luther, who, like Ewald, couples it with éuSarevwy), or: 





CHAP. IL 18 393 


arbitrarily (Ewald), or: capriciously (Reiche), etc.; conse- 
quently giving it the sense of éxwy, avrobeds, adtoxédevoros, 
or avtoyvouwyv. Even Tittmann, Synon. p. 131, comes at length 
to such an wltro, erroneously quoting Herod. ix. 14, where 
Gérxwy must be taken as in Plat. Theaet. lc. — ev rarewodp. 
x. Opnox, tov aryyér.] év is not propier, which is supposed to 
have the meaning: because tazrewodp. x.7.X. is necessary to 
salvation (Reiche) ; ‘nor does it denote the condition in which 
the «araSpaSevew takes place (Steiger, Huther); but, in keep- 
ing with the OéXwyv, it is the means by which the purpose is 
to be attained: by virtue of humility and worshipping of angels. 
Thereby he wishes to effect that the Bpafeioy shall be with- 
drawn from you (and given to himself and his followers). 
T. ayyéAwr is the genitive of the object (comp. Wisd. xiv. 27 ; 
Herodian, iv. 8. 17; Clem. Cor. I. 45; see also Grimm on 
4 Macc. v. 6, and the passages from Josephus in Krebs, p. 339), 
and belongs only to Opner., not to raretvodp. That the latter, 
however, is not humility in the proper sense, but is, viewed 
from the perverse personal standpoint of the false teachers, a 
humility in their sense only, is plain from the context (see below, 
eich puvovovp, «.7.d.), although trony (Steiger, Huther) is not to 
be found in the word. Paul, namely, designates the thing as 
that, for which the false teachers held it themselves and 
desired it to be held by others, and this, indeed, as respects 
the disposition lying at the root of it, which they sought to 
- exhibit (€y tazrewodp.), and as respects the abnormal religious 
phenomenon manifested among them («. Opnox. tT. ayyedor) ; 
and then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these 
together according to their true character in a theoretical 
(@ ... ésPar.) and in a moral (eiem duc. . . . Thy Kehadny) 
respect. How far the false teachers bore themselves as 
tamrevodpoves, is correctly defined by Theodoret: Aéyorres, 
@>s adpatos 6 tay Sdwv Oeos, avédixtos Te nal axatddAnTTOs, 
kal mpoonxe Sia tov ayyehov thy Oeiav evuéveray mpaypa- 
teveo Gas, so that they thus regarded man as too insignificant - 
in the presence of the divine majesty to be able to do without? 


1 Compare Augustine, Conf. x. 42: ‘‘Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret 
tibi? Abeandum mihi fuit ad angelos? Multiconantes ad te redire, neque per 


394 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure through 
Opnoxela (comp. 4 Macc. iv. 11), thereby placing the merit of 
Christ (Rom. v. 2) in the background. It is differently ex- 
plained by Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius 
in Oecumenius): the false teachers had declared the majesty of 
the Only-Begotten to be too exalted for lowly humanity to have 
access through Him to the Father, and hence the need of the 
mediation of angels for that purpose. In opposition to this 
view it may be urged, that the very prominence so frequently 
and intentionally given to the majesty of Christ in our Epistle, 
and especially as above the angels, rather goes to show that 
they had depreciated the dignity of Christ. Reiche and Ewald 
(comp. Hofmann’s interpretation below) find the razrewodpe- 
ouvn in the ddedia coparos of ver. 23, where, however, the 
two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see 
on ver. 23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels 
in the post-apostolic church are found in Justin, Ap. I. 6, 
p. 56,’ Athenagoras, and others; among the Gnostic heretics 
(Simonians, Cainites): Epiph. Haer. xx. 2; Tertullian, praeser. 
33; Iren. Haer. 1. 31. 2; and with respect to the worshipping 
of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies: Euewe 
dé TovTo To TdGos ev TH Ppvyia nat Ticdia péype roddod ob 
5) xdpww xal cvveMoica aivodos ev Aaodixcia ris Ppuyias 
(A.D. 364, can. 35) vouw Kex@duKe TO TOiS aryyédoLs TpocEd- 
xecOat, Kal péxype 5¢ Tod viv edeTypta Tod dyiov Meyanr trap’ 
éxeivois Kal Trois opuopors exelvwy coriv iseiv. The Catholic 
expedrents for evading the prohibition of angel-worship in 
our passage (as also in the Concil. Zaod., Mansi, II. p. 568) 
may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide, who under- 
stands not all angel-worship, but only that which places 
' the angels above Christ (comp. also Bisping), and who refers 
the Laodicean prohibition pointing to a “«expuypévyn eido- 
Aodatpeia” (“Gre ov Sei Xprotiavods eyxararelwesy tiv éxny- 


se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt in desiderium 
curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illusionibus.” The (false) cawsuve- 
Gporvyn was the subjective source of their going astray to angel-worship. 

1 Hasselbach gives substantially the right interpretation of the passage in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 829 ff. 





| CHAP, I. 1m © - 395 


olay tod’ Qeod nab diva nat wyyéhous Gvopatew” x.7.r.), in 
accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the 
cultus lairtae, not duliae, consequently to actual adoration, 
not téentixiy mpooxuynow. In opposition te-the words 
as they stand (for Opnoxela with the genitive of the 
subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels 
present to God, 4 Macc. v. 6, 12; Joseph. And#. xii. 5. 4; 
comp. Acts xxvi. 5), and also in opposition to the context 
(see ver. 19), several have taken tay dyyéAwy as the 
genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious 
condition, which desired to be like that of the angels, eg. 
Luther: “spirituality of the angels,’ comp. Melanchthon, 
Schoettgen (“habitus aliquis angelicus”), Wolf, Dalmer. 
Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle definition of 
the sense, has again taken ray dyyéAwy as genitive of the sub- 
ject, and joined with it not only Opnoxeta, but also tazrewo- 
dpocvvy. The rarrevoppoovvy of the angels, namely, consists 
in their willingly keeping within the bounds assigned to them as 
smrits, and not coveting that which man in this respect has 
beyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world. 
And the O@pnoxela of the angels is a self-devotion to God, in 
which, between them and Him, no other barrier exists than 
that between the Creator and His creatures. That tazrewodpo- 
ovvn and this @pnoxeia man makes into virtue on his part, 
when he, although but partially, renownces that which belongs 
to Him in distinction from the angels (ramewodp.), and, as one 
who has divested himself as much as possible of his corporeality, 
presents himself adoringly to God in such measure as he refrains 
from what was conferred upon him for bodily enjoyment. I 
do not comprehend how, on the one hand, the apostle could 
wrap up the combinations of ideas imputed to him in words 
so enigmatical, nor,.on the other, how the readers could, 
without the guidance of Hofmann, extract them out of these 
words. The entire exposition is a labyrinth of imported sub- 
jective fancies, Paul might at least have written éy éyxpartela 
dri tei Opotmpate (or Kal opolwow, or xa? ouowrnta) Tis 
tatrewodpoovvns cat Opnoxelas tov ayyédov! Even this 
would still have been far enough from clear, but it would at 


396 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


least have contained the point and a hint as to ifs inter- 
pretation. See, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, Rich. 
Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 f. — & éwpaxev éuBarevwyv] Sub- 
ordinate to the Oé\wv «.7.A. as a warning modal definition to 
it: entering upon what he has beheld, i.e. instead of concerning 
himself with what has been objectively given (ver. 19), enter- 
ing the subjective domain of visions with his mental activity, 
—by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupation of 
the mind with God and the angels,’ so that éspaxey (comp. 
Tert. c. Marc. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes, 
but a mental beholding,? which belonged to the domain of 
the davrdfeoGat, in part, doubtless, also to that of visionary 
ecstasy (comp. Acts ii. 17; Rev. ix. 17; Spaya in Acts ix. 
10, 12, x. 3; 2 Chron. ix. 29, et al.; Luke i. 22). This re- 
ference must have been intelligible to the readers from the 
assertions put forth by the false teachers’ but the failure to 
observe it induced copyists, at a very early date, to add a 
negative (sometimes y} and sometimes ov) before émpaxey. 
’EpRarevew (only used here in the N. T.; but see Wetstein, 
also Reisig, ad Oecd. Col. praef. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the 
place conceived as object (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 257), also with the 
genitive, with the dative, and with eés, means to step upon, as 
eg. vioov, Aesch. Pers. 441; addy, Eur. El. 595; yfv, Josh. 
xix. 49; also with reference to a mental domain, which is 


1 This fanciful habit could not but be fostered and promoted by the Jewish 
view, according to which the appearances of angels were regardcd a8 @avrdcpara 
(Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 158, ed. 4). 

2 Ewald regards ispaxsy as more precisely defined by i» caws:vefp. x.7.A4., a8 if 
it ran iv cawimedp. x.¢.A. lopaxsy: ‘while he enters arbitrarily upon that, which 
he has seenin humility and angel-worship (consequently has not actually himself 
experienced and known), and desires to teach it as something true.” But such 
a hyperbaton, in the case of the relative, besides obscuring the sense, is without 
precedent in the N. T. Comp. on ver. 14. Besides, the thought itself is far 
from clear ; and respecting éiaw», see above. 

3 For the sphere of vision of the ispaxsy lay not outside of the subjects, but in 
the hollow mirror of their own fancy. This applies also in opposition to Hilgen- 
feld, who now (1878, p. 198 f.) properly rejects the ss, but takes 2 inp. afar. 
incorrectly : ‘‘ abiding by the sensuous."’ Opposed to this is the very use of the 
perfect is, and the significant expression lufarsvos. The apostle does not mean 
the épardé, but the éépara (i. 16), into which they ascend by visions which they 
profess to have had. 


CHAP. If. 18 397 


trodden by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo, 
de plant. Noé, p. 225 C, et al.; see Loesner, p. 369 f.; 2 Macc. 
ii. 30; comp. also Nemes. de nat. hom. p. 64, ed. Matth.: 
ovpavoy éuBareves TH Oewpla, but not Xen. Conv. iv. 27, where, 
with Zeunius, €uacrevere ought to be read. Phavorinus: 
éuPareicar To evdoy éFepevvijca: } oxomjcat, It is frequently 
used in the sense of seizing possession (Dem. 894. 7 ; Eur. 
Heracl. 876; Schleusner, Thes. II. 332; Bloomfield, Gloss: in 
Aesch. Pers. p. 146 f.). So Budaeus and Calvin (se ingerens), 
both with the reading m7, also Huther (establishing himself 
jirmly in the creations of fancy); still the context does not 
suggest this, and, when used in this sense, éufSar. is usually 
coupled with ets (Dem. 894. 7, 1085. 24, 1086. 19; Isa. 
ix. 3, et al.; 1 Mace. xii. 25). In the reading of the Recepta, 
& un éop., the sense amounts either to: entering into the un- 
seen transcendental sphere, wherein the assumption would be 
implied that the domain of sense was the only field legitimately 
open, which would be unsuitable (2 Cor. v. 7, xiii 12); or to: 
entering into things, which (although he dreams that he has 
seen them, yet) he has not seen—a concealed antithetical refer- 
ence, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indi- 
cated. The thought, in the absence of the negative, is not weak 
(de Wette), but ¢rwue, in characteristic keeping with the perverse- 
ness of theosophic fancies (in opposition to Hofmann’s objec- 
tion), and representing the actual state of the case, which Paul 
could not but know. According to Hofmann, the & p7) éwpaxev 
which he reads is to be taken, not with éuSarevoy, but with 
what goes before: of which, neverthelcss, he has seen nothing 
(and, consequently, cannot imitate it). This is disposed of, 
apart even from the incorrect inference involved in it,? by the 
preposterousness of Hofmann’s exposition of the razrevoppootvn 
x. Opnoxela ray aryy., with which the connection, hit upon by 

1 Comp. Chrysostom: they have not scen the angels, and yet bear themselves 
as if they had seen them. 

? For even the unaeen, which may in any other way have been brought to our 
knowledge, we may and under certain circumstances should imitate (comp. e.g. 
Eph. v. 1). And even the angels and their actions have been included among 


the objects of the divine revelation as to the history of salvation and its accom- 
plishment. 








398 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


him, of efx} with éuSarevor (“an investigation, which results in 
nothing”), also falls to the ground.—eixj guciovp. «.7.., and 
then «al ov xparéy x.7.d., are both subordinate to the & éwpaxey 
éuBarevor, and contain two modal definitions of it fraught with 
the utmost danger. — ix gdvotovp.] for the entering upon 
what was seen did not rest upon a real divine revelation, but 
upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggeration. Ts Sé ye duvotov- 
pevos TH TatTrewodpootvy evaytioy ovx gore THY ev yap éo“mr- 
Tovro, Tov Se tupov To mWdbos axpiBas mepuxewro, Theodoret. 
On etxh, temere, Le. without grownd, comp. Matt. v. 22; Rom. 
xiii, 4; Plat. Menez. p. 234C; Xen. Cyrop. ii. 2..22. It 
places the vanity, that-is, the objective groundlessness of the 
pride, in contradistinction to their presumptuous fancies, em- 
phatically in the foreground. Even if éuSar. is not taken 
absolutely with Hofmann, we may not join it with eix (in 
opposition to Steiger, de Wette, Reiche; Bohmer is doubtful), 
since it is not the wselessness (in this sense ele would require 
to be taken, 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11) of the éufa- 
revew & éwp. (or & pur) éwp.), but this éuParevew in and of 
itself, that forms the characteristic perversity in the conduct of 
those people—a perversity which is set forth by ete ducrovp. 
«.7.., and in ver. 19 as immoral and antichristian. — iro tod 
yoos THs capx. avTov] becoming puffed up dy (as operative 
principle) the reason of has flesh. This is the morally deter- 
mined intellectual faculty in its character and activity as not 
divinely regulated, in which unennobled condition (see on 
Eph. iv. 23) it is the servant, not of the divine svepua, whose 
organ it is designed to be, but of the materio-physical human 
nature, of the cdp£ as the seat of the sin-power, and is governed 
by its lusts instead of the divine truth. Comp. Rom. i. 21, 28, 
iv. 1, vi. 19, vii 14, xii 2; Eph. iv. 17 f.; see also Kluge in 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1871, p. 329 ff The wots does not 
belong to the essence of the odp£ (in opposition to Holsten) ; 
' but, be it observed, the matter is so represented that the odp£ 
of the false teacher, in accordance with its dominant superiority, 
appears personified (comp. Rom. viii. 6), as if the vods, influenced 
by it, and therewith serviceable to it, were ts own. In virtue 
of this non-free and, in its activity, sinfully-directed reason, 


bn 


CHAP. II. 19. 399 


the man, who is guided by it, is dvéyros (Gal. iii. 1, 3; Tit. 
iii, 3), loses his moral judgment (Rom. xii. 2), falls into ér@v- 
plas avorrovs (1 Tim. vi. 9), and withstands Christian truth 
and purity as xarepOappévos tov voby (2 Tim. iii. 8; 2 Cor. 
xi. 3), and éoxoriwpévos tH Siavola (Eph. iv. 18).— The 
puffing wp of the persons in question consisted in this, that 
with all their professed and apparent humility they, as is 
commonly the case with mystic tendencies, fancied that 
they could not be content with the simple knowledge and 
obedience of the gospel, but were capable of attaining a special 
higher wisdom and sanctity. It is well said by Theophylact : 
TOS yap ov capKiKod voos K. Taxéos TO aDerioa TA iro Xpio- 
tov AexOévra, John iii. 16, 17, 19, x. 26 f,, wat pupla dca! 
Ver. 19. Kai] annexing to eix guotovpevos xt.d. 8 
further, and that a negative, modal form of the 2 éwpaxey 
éuBarevov. This éuParevew into what is seen takes place, 
namely, in such a way, that one is puffed up by fileshly 
reason, and does not hold the Head, etc. So much is it at 
variance with the nature and success, as respects unity, of the 
church !'— od xpardy x.7.r.] not holding fast (but letting it 
go, comp. Song of Sol. iii. 4: éxpdtyca a’rov nai ote adixa 
avrov) the Head, inasmuch, namely, as they seek angelic media- 
tion. Bengel aptly observes : “ Qui non unice Christum tenet, 
plane non tenet.” — é£ od «.7.X.] represents the whole objection- 
ableness of this ov xparay r. xed., and the absolute necessity 
of the opposite. This ov is not to be referred to the verbal 
idea (Bengel’s suggestion: “ex quo sc. tenendo caput”), 
but applies objectively (comp. Eph. iv. 15 f.) to that which 
was designated by tv xepar. In this view it may be masculine, 
according to the construction xara ovveow (Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 
49), as it is usually taken, but it may also—and this is prefer- 
able, because here the personality is not, as in Eph. iv. 15 f, 
specially marked—be neuter, so that it takes up the Head, not 


1 The conduct of those men is the negation of this holy relation, a separation 
from the organism of the body of Christ as an unity. Thecompressed character- _ 
izing of this articulated organism is therefore as suitable here as in Eph. 
iv. 16, and by no means an opus Be Sa on the part of the author 
(Holtzmann). 


400 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


personally (though it ¢s Christ), but in accordance with the 
neuter. idea: from which. See Matthiae, p. 988; Kiihner, IL. 
1, p. 55. Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 201. The +. cedar. 
might also be taken attributively: not holding fast as the 
Head Him, from whom, ete. (Ewald), which would be, how- 
ever, less simple and less forcibly descriptive. ¢& denotes the 
causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed relation, 
comp. Eph. iv. 16.— av 76 opal] consequently no member 
is excepted, so that no member can expect from any other 
quarter what is destined for, and conveyed to, the whole body 
from the head. The conception of the church as the body of 
Christ, the Head, is not in our Epistle and the Ephesian letter 
different from that of the other Epistles (in opposition to 
Holtzmann, p. 239 ff.). Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 12 f, vi 15; 
Rom. xii. 4 f.; also 1 Cor. xi. 3. Any pressing contrary 
to the author's design of the thought of a capa, which strictly 
taken is a trunk, is in this particular case excluded by the 
graphic delineation of the constantly living and active con- 
nection of the members with the Head. Every comparison, 
indeed, when pressed, becomes halting. — dia tov ddov x. 
cuvdecumv émruyop. x. cup8t8.] The participial relation to 
the following verb is this: from the Head the whole body is 
furnished and bound together and grows in this way, so that é& 
o} therefore is to be referred neither to the participles only, 
nor to the verb only, but to both; and da +. ad. x. cuvdecp. 
specifies by what means the emyop. x. cupBiB., proceeding 
from the Head, is brought about, viz. through the (bodily) nervre- 
impulses (not joints, as it is usually explained; see on Eph. 
iv. 16), which are conveyed from the Head to the body, and 
through ¢he bands, which, proceeding from the Head, place the 
whole in organic connection. Observe that émtyop. refers to 
dua Tr. ddwy, and cvp BiB. to x. cvvderp. Theophylact (comp. 
Theodoret) has aptly illustrated the former by the- action of 
the nerves which is diffused from the head through the 
entire body, so that dao ris xeparys éore taca alobnass x. 
maca xivnots. As, therefore, the body receives its efficiency 
from the head through the contact of impulses effected by 
means of the network of nerves, so would the church, 


CHAP. II. 19. 401 


separated from Christ—from whom the feelings and impulses 
in a spiritual sense, the motions and activities of the higher 
fwn, are conveyed to it—be without the supply in question. 
Comp. the idea of the figure of the vine. Further: as, starting 
from the head, the whole body, by means of the bands which 
bind member to member, is bound together into one organic 
whole ; so also is the entire church, starting from Christ, by 
means of the bands of Christian communion (xowwwvia), which 
give to the union of individuals the coherence of articulate 
unity. Faith is the inner ground of the ada, not the latter 
themselves (in opposition to Bengel) ; so also is Jove the inner 
ground of the cuvSecpol of the mystical body, not these latter 
themselves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius, 
Bengel, and others) ; and the operative principle on the part of 
Christ the Head is the Holy Spirit (Eph. iv. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 3 f, 
7, et al.). Theodoret erroneously (comp. Ewald) explains the 
ouvdecpoi as the drocrodo «x. mpopyras «. Siddoxado, and 
Bohmer takes the dd¢al and cuvdeou. as the believers. The 
latter, as also the teachers, are in fact the members, and share 
in experiencing what is here asserted of the entire body.— 
émixyopyryoup.| receiving supply, being furnished. Comp. on 
the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtzmann), 
but in harmony with the general passive usage (Kiihner, IT. 
1, p. 109), Polyb. iv. 77. 2: qwodAals adoppuais ex dicews 
xeyopnynpévos, iii. 75. 3, et al.; Diod. Sic. i. 73; Ecclus. 
xliv. 6; 3 Mace. vi 40. The compound, not expressing “ in 
addition besides” (Bleek), denotes that the yopyyla is coming 
to, 78 being conveyed towards. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal. iii. 
5; Dion. Hal. x. 54. But it is not said with what the body 
is provided, as yopyyeiy (comp. also émeyop., Ecclus. xxv. 22) 
is often used absolutely (see e.g. the passages from Polybius in 
Schweighiduser, Lex. p. 663), and admits of its more precise 
definition being supplied from the context, which, however, 
here points not to nourishment (Grotius, de Wette), but to that 
which is accomplished through the feelings (a¢@v), namely, 
the wital activity, of which the body would be destitute in 
the absence of the different impulses, Comp. Chrysostom: 76 
elvat xat to Karas elvyat, Theophylact : waca aicOnais x. 
COL. 2C 


402 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


vaca xlynow, and in the application: AapBdver ro Gy er. 
abtew mvevpaticws. — Tv avEnow tov Oecd] denoted by the 
article as the divine growth absolutely; tod Oeod is the 
genitive auctoris: which God confers (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7), with 
which é€ od is not at variance (as Bahr thinks), since God is 
ranked above Christ (1 Cor. xi. 3), and is the supreme operat- 
ing principle in the church (1 Cor. xii 6; Eph. iv. 6). At 
once weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view : 
“ incrementum, quod Deus probat ” (Calvin, Bahr’). What is 
meant is the gradual growth of Christians collectively toward 
Christian perfection. The circumstance that avfer as an 
intransitive only occurs again in Eph. i, 21, comp. iv. 15, 
and av&nouw only in Eph. iv. 16, cannot prove it to be an 
un-Pauline mode of expression (Holtzmann). Respecting the 
connection of the verb with the more precisely defined cog- 
nate noun, see Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 281]; Lobeck, Paralip. 
p. 507 f.; Kiihner, IZ. 2, p. 262 f. 

Ver. 20 f. After these warnings, vv. 16-19, which were 
intended te secure his readers against the seduction threaten- 
ing them, the apostle now returns for the same purpose once 
more to the two main foundations of the Christian life, to the 
fellowship with Christ in death (ver. 20), and fellowship with 
Him also in resurrection (iii. 1). His aim is to show, in 
connection with the former, the groundlessness and perversity 
of the heretical prohibitions of meats (vv. 20-23), and to 
attach to the latter—to the fellowship of resurrection—the 
essence of Christian morality in whole and in detail, and there- 
with the paraenetic portion of the Epistle (11. 1—iv. 6), the tenor 
of which thereby receives the character of the holiest moral 
necessity, — et ameOdvere x.7.r.| the legal abstinence required 
by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradiction with 
the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into 
the fellowship of the death of Christ, and thereby had become 
loosed from the orovyela rob xoopou (see on ver. 8), 7.6. from the 
ritual religious elements of non-Christian humanity, among 
which the legal prohibition of meats and the traditional regu- 
lations founded thereon are included. How far the man who 

1 Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who explain rei Ose by xara Osén 





CHAP, IL 20, 21. 403 


has died with Christ has passed out of connection with these 
elementary things, is taught by ver. 14, according to which, 
through the death of Christ, the law as to its debt-obligation 
has been abolished. Consequently, in the case of those who 
have died with Christ, the law, and everything belonging to 
the same category with it, have no further claim to urge, since 
Christ has allowed the curse of the law to be accomplished on 
Himself, and this has also taken place in believers in virtue 
of their fellowship of death with Him, whereby the bind- 
ing relation of debt which had hitherto subsisted for them 
has ceased. Comp. Gal. ii 19, iv. 3,9; Rom. vii. 4, e¢ al. — 
arroOvnoxew, with dro, meaning to die away from something, 
moriendo liberart a (Porphyr. de abstin. ab esu anim.i. 41), is 
only met with here in the N. T.; elsewhere it is used with the 
dative, as in Gal. i, 19, Rom. vi. 2, whereby the same thing 
is otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to 
be observed, that Christ Himself also is by death released from 
the orotyela, since He was made under the law, and, although 
sinless, was destined to take upon Himself the curse of it; 
hence it was only by His death in obedience to the Father 
(Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v. 19), that He became released from 
this relation. Comp. on Gal iv. 4. Huther erroneously 
denies that such an azro@avety can be predicated of Christ, and 
therefore assumes (comp. Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachy- 
logy: “if, by your dying with Christ, ye are dead from the 
arovyela To Kocpov.”"— th as Covres x.t.d.] why are ye, as 

though ye were still alive in the world, commanded: Touch not, 
etc. Such commands are adapted to those who are not, like 
you, dead, ete. As drobavorres atv X. aro 7. oroty. T. Koop, 
ye are no longer alive in the domain of the non-Christian 
xoopos, but are removed from that sphere of life (belonging 
to the heavenly zrodvrevyya, Phil. iii. 20). The word Soypa- 
tiew, only found here in the N. T., but frequently in the 
LXX. and Apocrypha, and in the Fathers and decrees of 
Councils (see Suicer, Zhes. I p. 935), means nothing more 
than to decree (Diod. Sic. iv. 83; Diog. L. iii. 51; Anth. Pal. 
ix. 576. 4; Arrian. Epict. iii. 7; Esth. iii. 9; 3 Esdr. vi. 34; 
2 Macc. x. 8, xv. 36; 3 Mace. iv. 11), and Soypariferbe is 


404 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


passive: why are ye prescribed to, why do men make decrees for 
you (vobis) ? so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed 
by the expression affects rather the false teachers), but a warn- 
ing to those readers (comp. vv. 16, 18) who were not yet led 
away (i. 4, il. 5), and who ought not to yield any compliance 
to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive 
subject, is quite according to rule, since the active has the 
dative along with it, doypari{ew rus (2 Mace. x. 8); comp. 
also Hofmann and Beza. The usual rendering takes Soypar. 
as middie, and that either as: why do ye allow commands to 
be laid down for you (Huther), rules-to be imposed upon you 
(de Wette), yourselves to be entangled with rules (Luther)? and 
such like;! or even: why do ye make rules for yourselves (Ewald) ? 
comp. Vulgate : decernitis, This, however, would involve a 
censure of the readers, and a> Savres ev Kooum would express 
the unsuitableness of their conduct with their Christian stand- 
ing—a reproach, which would be altogether out of harmony 
with the other contents of the Epistle. On the contrary, ws 
faves év x. indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Chris- 
tian standing of the readers was regarded by the false teachers, 
who took up such an attitude towards them, as if they were 
not yet dead from the world, which nevertheless (comp. ver. 
11f.) they are through their fellowship with Christ (iu. 3 ; 
Gal. ii. 19f; 2 Cor.v.14f). The ds Sevres ev coop, more- 
over, is entirely misunderstood by Bahr: “as if one could at 
all attain to life and salvation through externals,” Comp., on 
the contrary, the thought of the elva: év 17 capxi in Rom. 
vii. 5 and Gal. vi 14. Observe, further, that this jv é&y 
Koo pap is not one and the same thing with etvas dd ta ototyeia 
TOU Koo pou (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation 
of crovyeia in the sense of the material things of the world) ; 
but the Sj év «. is the more general, to which the special elvas 
imo T. orovxela 7. x. is subordinate. If the former is the case, 
the latter also takes place by way of consequence. — y7 
én xt.) a vivid concrete representation of the Soyyara 
concerned, in a “ compendiaria mimesis” (Flacius). The ériple 

1 Comp. Chrysostom : wavs voig erorysios Uwsnsses ; similarly Theodoret, Beza; 
and recently, Bahr, Boéhmer, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others. 








CHAP. II. 20, 21. 405 


description brings out the urgency of the eager demand for 
abstinence, and the relation of the three prohibitions is such, 
that nde both times means nor even ; in the second instance, 
however, in the sense of ne quidem, so that the last point 
stands to the two former together in the relation of a climax: 
thou shalt not lay hold of, nor even taste, nor once touch ! 
What was meant as object of this enjoined dzréyeo@ac (1 Tim. 
iv. 3) the reader was aware, and its omission only renders the 
description more vivid and terse. Steiger’s view, that the 
object was suppressed by the false teachers themselves from 
fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words 
themselves, however (yevon), and from the subsequent context 
(see ver. 23), it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain 
meats and drinks (comp. ver. 16); and it is entirely arbitrary 
to mix up other things, as even de Wette does, making them 
refer also to serual intercourse (Ovyydvew yuvasxos, Eur. Hipp. 
1044, e¢ al.; see Monck, ad Eur. Hipp. 14; Valckenaer, ad 
Phoen. 903), while others distinguish between dry and Otyns 
in respect of their objects, eg. Estius: the former refers to 
unclean objects, such as the garments of a menstruous woman, 
the Jatter to the buying and selling of unclean meats ; Erasmus, 
Zanchius: the former concerns dead bodies, the latter sacred 
vessels and the like; Grotius: the former refers to meats, 
the latter to the “vitandas feminas,” to which Flatt and 
Dalmer, following older writers, make a&rn refer (1 Cor. vii. 1). 
Others give other expositions still; Bohmer arbitrarily makes 
Ovyns refer to the oil, which the Essenes and other theoso- 
phists regarded as a labes. That Paul in &yy and Oly. had no 
definite object at all in view, is not even probable (in opposi- 
tion to Huther), because yevon stands between them, and 
ver. 23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same 
time to anything else—Following the more forcible &yrn, lay 
hold of, the more subtle Osyns, touch, is in admirable keeping 
with the climax: the object was to be even d@exrov (Soph. 
0. C. 39). Comp. on the difference between the two words, 
Xen. Cyrop. i. 3.5: Grav pev tod Aprou ayy, eis ovdev rHv 
xelpa atroyropevov (od op), Seay Se rovrwy {these dainty 
dishes) rwvds Obyns, ebO0s atroxabalpy riv xelpa eis Ta yetpo- 





406 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


partpa, alsov.1.16. In an inverted climax, Eur. Bacch. 617 : 
our eOuyev ov’ ral syuov. See also Ex. xix. 12, where the 
LXX. delicately and aptly render %7¥P3 V3), to touch the outer 
border of the mountain, by the free translation O¢yes t+ avrov, 
but then express the general 172 257 by the stronger 6 ayfa- 
peevos tov dpovs. Hofmann erroneously holds that drropuas 
expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at some- 
thing, Oryydve rather his arriving at the object. In opposition 
to this fiction stands the testimony of all the passages in the 
Gospels (Matt. viii. 3, ix. 20; John xx. 17, and many others), 
in which dmreo@ax signifies the actual laying hold of, and, in 
Paul’s writings, of 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2 Cor. vi. 17, as also the quite 
common Grecian usage in the sense of contrectare (attingere et 
inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten 
to, to make to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698; Duncan, Lez. 
Hom. ed. Rost, p. 150). The mere stretching out the hand 
towards something, in order to seize it, is never dmrecOas. 
Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of the 
three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon yevon, 
that this might even happen more wnintentionally, and upon 
Ovyns, that this might happen involuntarily—Respecting the 
aorist Ovyety (a present Oryety instead of Oryydvery can nowhere 
be accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 990, 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 804; Kiihner, I. p. 833. 

Ver. 22. We are not to put in a parenthesis 7) dry... a7ro- 
xpnoe: (Erasmus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely 
& éorw ... amoyp. (Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald) ; for 
the construction proceeds uninterruptedly to Ovyys, is then only 
broken by the judgment & ots 7. ets $0. 7. drroyp., and there- 
after runs on with xara ta évrdAp. x.7.A.— & ore... amoyxp. 
is an inserted’ judgment of the apostle anent that which the false 
teachers interdicted by wy Gn «1.A.: which all are destined 
to destruction’ through the using,—from which it is to be rendered 


' For it is only an incidental observation in opposition to the above deypne- 
vi%sebas; the main ground of opposition to the latter lies in si dwsbds, eb» X. 

2 iselv sis Qbopay, it serves for destruction, i.e. it serves for the purpose of being 
destroyed. See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 229); Buttmann, Newt. Gr. 
p. 181 [E. T. 1507.) Comp. Wisd. iv. 18 ; Ecclus. xxxiv. 10; Judith v. 21, 24, 


CHAP. IL. 22. 407 


’ palpably apparent, how preposterous it is to make such things 
a condition of eternal bliss by urging abstinence from them. 
We have here a similar line of argument to that in Matt. 
xv. 17. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13. Hence Oopa is meant to 
denote the perishing which takes place through the natural 
dissolution (digestion) of the meats and drinks; and with this 
conception quite accords the purposely-chosen compound 77 
atroxpnoet, which, like abusus, indicates the using up, the con- 
suming (Plut. Mor. p. 267E; Davis, ad Cte. N. D. iv. 60). 
So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (ets. 
KOTpoy yap atravta petaBadrcTar), Oecumenius (POopa yap, 
dnowy, trroxertas év T@ apedpave), Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, 
Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis, and many others, in- 
cluding Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. 
But, according to others, who likewise regard @ ... azroyp. as & 
parenthetical judgment, the @ is to be referred to the prohibi- 
tions, azroyp. to the use, te. the following of them, and ¢6opa 
(comp. Gal. vi. 8) to the destruction of the persons who follow 
them : all which Soypara by their use tend to (eternal) destruction. 
So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Calixtus, Heu- 
mann, Junker. Erroneously; because amoypyots never means 
merely use, and even the simple ypiats, in the sense of tTypnats, 
would be an unsuitable designation; in fact, the entire addi- 
tion, “ by the use,” would be utterly superfluous. On account 
of azroyp., the expedient must also be rejected, on linguistic 
grounds, that & ... azroyp. are still words of the false teachers, 
which Paul repeats with irony: “omnia haec (vetita) usu suo 

wciem afferunt,” Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, 
who, like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, 
the whole down to av@paroyv is taken together: all this, which 
the false teachers forbid, tends through the using to (“ moral,” 
de Wette) destruction, “si sc. ex doctorum Judatcorum prae- 
ceptis et doctrints hac de re judicium feratur,”’ Kypke; so also 


1 Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes oH dwexp. in the sense of abuse, 
joining it immediately to xara vag Bidacx. x.¢.4. But while’ éwexpaebas (Dem. 
215. 8; Herodian, v. 1. 18) is found in the sense of abuse (xavaypiess, waparpness), 
dwoxpicis is not, though it was so taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, 
Zachariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon. 





408 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius — 
(Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But 
in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound azo- 
xpnoee would be entirely without a motive, since not the consump- 
tion, but the wse at all would be soul-destroying according to 
the maxims of those people. Our view alone supplies a motive 
for the use of dwoypyoe, and that through the point of its 
connection with e’s @Oopdy, in which case, however, the object 
affected by azroyp. and eis @Oop. must be the same (the things for- 
_bidden). De Wette’s objections are irrelevant, since the thought 
of the parenthesis &... azoyp. is expressed not strangely, 
but with Pauline ingenuity, the words cata td édvrddy. 1.7.2. 
annexed to doyparifeoSe are by no means superfluous (see 
below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the paren- 
thesis with 47 dry and thereby to include heterogeneous 
elements together; for ua airy «.7.A. still belongs closely to 
Soyuat., of which it is the contents, and xara ta évrdAp. «.7.r. 
is then annexed, after the brief incidentally inserted remark, to 
Soypar. and its contents (47 dry «.7.r.).— Kata Ta évrddpata 
x.t.X.| The article before evra, and extending also to ddac- 
kan., is generic. The uy avy «.7.r. was decreed by the false 
teachers conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men, 
not in consequence of what God had commanded and taught. 
This element, annexed to doypari£., is by no means superfluous 
(in opposition to de Wette), since, in fact, Soyua in itself is a 
command generally, and may be one based upon divine autho- 
rity ; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the 
conflicting relation, in which that doyyarifecOas stands to the 
ameOavere ovv Xpiot@ v.71... For what the false teachers 
decreed was not the prohibitions of meats contained in the law 
of Moses as such, and these alone (although they too would 
have been incompatible with the azreOavere avy X. «.7.r.), but 
such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, 
and amplifications of the former (xara tay arapddoow ray 
avOpwreyv, ver. 8). It was in this, and not in the mere setting 
up again of the Mosaic law abolished through Christ (Chry- 
sostom and many others), that the SoyzarlfecOas was regulated 
‘by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant. 


CHAP. II. 923. 409 


Moreover, S:8acx. is not synonymous with évradp., but has a 
wider sense (in Matt. xv. 9 and Mark vi. 7, the narrower idea 
comes after as a more precise definition), so that the two 
together specify the preceptive and generally (xal) the doctrinal 
standard. Comp. Isa. xxix. 13. 

Ver. 23. And of what nature and quality is that, which I 
have just termed ta évtdd\pyata x. Siédacxar. trav avOp.? — 
aria] quippe quae, ie. ita comparata, ut (Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Mem. ii. 1,30). The conception was different in @ of ver. 22, 
where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, 
as mere object. — dori] belongs to éyovra, without, however, 
being with this equivalent to éye:; it introduces what the 
awa areas regards their quality. If it belonged to ov« éy 
vin tee (Bahr), or to mpos mAnop. tr. o. (Bengel), or to éy 
EOedoOpnoxeia x.7.r. (that which moves and has its being in 
€OedoOp. x.7.r,.), a8 Hofmann thinks, taking Acyov pw. Exovra 
cog. parenthetically—why should it not have been actually 
placed beside that to which it would belong? Apart from 
this, Hofmann’s connection of it with éy é@edoOp. could alone 
deserve consideration, since from év é@edo8p. onwards all that 
follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be 
abandoned, because the sphere of subsistence indicated by év 
€BedoOp. «.7.X. would be too wide for such special prohibitions, 
ver. 21, as are conveyed by a@riva, and because we have no 
right to put aside from the connection, as a mere incisum, 
the important thought (comp. ver. 8) expressed. by Ady. 7. éy. 
codias, which comes in with éoré so emphatically at the very 
head of the judgment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, 
attaches to itself all that follows. — Aoyov eye, explained by 
Inany since Jerome approximately in the sense of speciem or 
praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, and others ; 
also Koster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according as 
we adopt for Adyos the signification ratio or sermo, mean either : 
to have ground (so in the passages from Demosth, Dionys. 
Hal., and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat. in Ast, Lex. II. 
p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweighiuser, Lex. p. 370°), in 

"So Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitechr. 1870, p. 250, holding that what is rejected in 
the legal sense in ver. 22 is here ‘‘ permitied as voluntary asceticism.” See, 


410 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one, 
@ pretext (comp. Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have 
an insight into something (often thus in Plato, eg. Rep. p. 
475 C), to have regard to (Herod. i. 62 ; Plat. Zim. p. 87 C); or: 
to have a reputation, so that one is in any relation the subject 
of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumour, etc.; see «g. 
Plat. Epin. p. 987 B: ‘Ewogopos . . . "Adpodirys elvat oyedov 
éyet Aoyow (dicitur), Herod. v. 56: Noyor eye Hv II vOiny 
avateioat, comp. ix. 78; Xen. Occ. 11. 4 (the same thing con- 
ceived under another form: Adyos yee twa, Herod. vii. 5, and 
frequently). The latter signification is here to be adhered 
to, because the subsequent ovx éy ti te, when correctly 
rendered, accords with it as bearing on the matter in hand, and 
is in sense appropriately correlative. Hence: that which has 
a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. Comp. évoue 
éyew (Rev. iii. 1) and ovopdtecBasr (1 Cor. v. 11). — per] 
without a subsequent d¢; there was before the apostle’s mind 
the contrast: repute, truly, but not the reality, ov Sivapey, ovx 
adnGevav, Chrysostom. He omitted to express this, however, 
led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that instead of 
bringing in the antithesis of Aoyov by 5é, he makes ove dy tiny 
tiwve follow without &é, and in contrast not to the Aoyor, but 
to the dy é6edoOp. «.7.r.,—from which we are to gather in 
substance, what in starting with Aoyor uéy it was intended 
to express. See Erasmus, Annot., and generally Winer, 
p. 584 f. [E. T. 719]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 313 [E. T. 
365]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 153 ; 
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 163 f. The linguistic phenomenon of 
this ~év without an adversative word following is so common, 
that there is no ground tor requiring before ovx éy tTiuz 7. an 
@\\d (Hofmann), which might have been used (Baeumlein, 
p. 170), but not necessarily. Holtzmann also takes too much 
offence at the absence of a formal contrast, and finds in mpds 
wAnop. tT. capxds an ill-inserted remnant of the original. — 
éy €edoOpnoxeia] instrumental, specifying by what means it is 
brought about, on the part of those who lay down the com- 
however, on the sequel, from which the impossibility of this interpretation is 
self-evident. 





CHAP. II. 23. 411 


mandments and doctrines referred to, that the latter have a 
repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, ze. through a 
cultus, which is not divinely commanded, but is the work of 
their own self-determination. What was meant by this, the 
reader was aware; and ver. 18 places it beyond doubt that the 
worship of angels formed an essential and chief part of it, 
though it need not, from the general character of the expres- 
sion in our passage, have been meant exclusively ; other forms 
of capricious cultus may have been included with it. The 
substantive éOedoOp. does not occur elsewhere except in eccle- 
siastical writers; but the verb éOcdoOpnoxety is explained by 
Suidas: idfm Oedypars céBew to Soxodv, and Epiph. Haer. i. 16 
. explains the name Pharisees: 5:2 70 agbwpicpévous elvat avrous 
amd Tey Gdrov Sia. THY EOeXoTEeptocoOpnaKkelay Tap’ ators 
vevouscpéevny. Comp. €Berodovrcla (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, 
Rep. p. 562 D), €BeXoxdanars, €BeXoxivduvos, ePeNotropos, eBedo- 
apotevos (Thue. iii. 70. 2, where the scholiast explains: aq’ 
éavTod yevopevos Kab py KeAcvaobels x.7.X.), and various others. 
Hofmann erroneously takes away from the word in itself the 
bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of é@edomovia and 
éOeXoupyla): worship, which one interests himself in. This 
view is prohibited by the evident retrospective reference of 
this word and the following one to ver. 18, where, according 
to the right interpretation, the Opncxea was certainly some- 
thing bad. The unfavourable meaning, according to Hof- 
mann’s present explanation (he gave a different but also 
erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposi- 
tion to it, my third edition), is only got by the addition of 
cwparos, which belongs to all the three points, so that éOeXo- 
Opnoxela cmpatos must be understood as a worship gladly 
and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with bodily 
demeanour. But aeparos does not suit either with éOcdo8p. 
or tatrewodp., but only with agediqa. For it is plain from 


) According to Hofmann, namely, casrssfperivn edpaces is & disposition of self- 
humiliation, which, however, only weakens the body by abstinences. But it would 
rather have the absurd sense: humility of the body ; for cawsvegpeedrn neither 
re humiliation nor self-humiliation, but humility, meekness, ver. 18, iii. 12; 

il. ii. 8, 


412 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIE COLOSSIANS. 


apedia coparos that cmparos is the genitive of the object, 
from which it follows that Opncxela caparos would yield the 
opposite sense: a Opnoxeia rendered to the body (comp. Opnex. 
Tay aryyéXNwv in ver. 18), which would come ultimately to the 
idea of the Aatpeve TH NSovh (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. 
Mor. p. 107 C: Aarpela tod o@paros, and on the matter con- 
ceived as Opnoxeia, Phil. iii. 19.— tawrevodpoc.| from the 
point of view of the false teachers (comp. ver. 18), what they 
thus designated ; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as 
in all false humility, they with spiritual conceit (comp. ver. 18, 
and subsequently apos mAnopov. tr. capxos) took pleasure in 
unduly undervaluing themselves-——an ethical self-contempt, 
which involved in relation to God the 6cXoOpnoxela, and to- 
wards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence 
and mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty. 
On adeidia, comp. Plat. Defin. p.412 D; Plut. Mor. p. 762 D; 
further, dgesdetv Biov, Thuc. ii. 43. 3; spuyzjs, Soph. Hl. 968 ; 

owparor, Lys. ii, 25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60.— ode ev teuh rut] 
not through anything whatever that is an honour, not through 
anything honourable, by which that repute would appear 
founded in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, 
in order to make the Adyos codias appear as repute without 
honour, 7.e. without any morally estimable substratum on the 
part of the persons concerned. The following pos mAnopovny 
Tis capxos is also purposely chosen; in it wAnopov. signifi- 
cantly glances back to ddedia, and ris capKos to ooparos, 
and there is produced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical 
oxymoron: for the sake of fully satisfying the flesh. Those com- 
mandments and doctrines have a repute of wisdom, etc., in 
order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the material-psychical 
human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured 
among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh 18 satisfied ; 
the fleshly sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying 
nourishment conveyed to it, when they see that their doctrines 
and commandments pass for wise. What lust of the flesh it 
is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt by the case 
itself and also by ver. 18, namely, that of religious conceit and 
pride, which through the Adyor codias Exew feels itself flattered 





CHAP. Il. 28 413 


and gratified in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpre- 
tation, which we have given of ov« ev rush Tit, Tpds TANT pOVHY 
Tis capxos, is held in substance, following Hilary (‘sagina 
carnalis sensus traditio humana est”), by Bengel, Storr, Flatt, 
Bohmer, Steiger, Bahr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek,and others. Most, 
however, refer ev tiuq tive to the honour to be shown to the 
body (or the odp£, see Luther), and apos wAnop. 7. cape. to 
bodily satisfaction, so that the sense results: not in some esteem- 
ing of the body to the satisfying of bodily wants ;' “ sentit 
apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae 
corpori debitus hofior, pertinens ad expletionem, 7¢. justam 
refectionem carnis, subtrahatur,’ Estius. So, in substance, 
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oceumenius, 
Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, 
Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Erasmus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, 
Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nésselt, Rosen- 
miller, and others, including de Wette and Baumgarten- 
Crusius. It is fatal to this view :—(1) that éy tym Ti, a3 
is shown-by the repetition of év, is the contrast not merely to 
éy adedia swparos, but to the entire connected ey é0edofpn- 
oxeia ... o@paros, and hence the reference to the honour to 
‘ be shown to the body does not seem justified by the context ;? 
(2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfaction 
at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a 
Mpovotay THS capxos in view, as in Rom. xiii. 14, the term 
mAnopovyy would be very inappropriate, especially in contra- 
distinction to the mortifications of the false teachers, since it 
denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Ex. xvi. 3 (see 
generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted 
by Schleusner, Tes. IV. p. 375 f.); comp. Plat. Legg. viii. 
p. 837: Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40, 
Ages, 5.1; Lucian. Migr. 33, Hp. Saturn. 28 ; Polyb. i. 19. 4; 
(3) finally, that the interchange of oa@patos and oapxos, in 

1 “God will have the body honoured, i.e. it is to have its food, clothing, etc., 
for its necessities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable fasting, labour, or 
impossible chastity, as the doctrine of men would do,” Luther's gloss, 

* This applies also in opposition to Olshausen, who in the case of iv ein cin 


follows the explanation of respect for the body, but with regard to wpés wancp. 
7. capn. follows our view. 


414 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character, 
would seem to ibe without a motive, while, according to 
our view, capxés stands in as ingenious correlation with 
THPATOS, as mAnopovny with apedlg, These arguments apply 
also in opposition to Ewald’s view; “what seems very wise, 
but is «2 no value whatever, 1s rather quite useless for the 
satisfaction of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if 
man would not wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even 
destroy it” (2 Cor. x. 3). Hofmann finally takes wAnopov) 
T. capxos rightly, but explains ov« dy tip Twe in such a way 
as to make rive masculine, and to attach it as appropriating 
dative to ruynq: “not so that honour accrues to any one.” This 
is to be rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly 
writing rium Twos, would only have expressed himself in a 
way singularly liable to be misunderstood by rw/, which every 
reader was led to join as a feminine with repzy (“in honore 
aliquo,” Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what subjects, 
beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should 
have to conceive to ourselves under rut taken as masculine. 





CHAP, IIL 415 


CHAPTER IIL 


Ver. 4. Instead of tuay, which Griesb. approves, and Lachm. 
puts in the margin, but Tisch. 8 in the text, say is read by 
Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7, in opposition to C D* E* F P G& min. 
Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. and many Fathers (not Origen). <A is 
defective here. Considering this weighty evidence in favour of 
iwav, and seeing that the following xa? ius% suggested the change 
of person to the copyists, as indeed the beginning of a lesson 
with ver. 4 could not but have favoured the insertion of the 
general 4uav, we have stronger grounds for regarding ia as 
original than as a repetition from ver. 3.— Ver. 5. indy] is 
wanting, indeed, in B C*x* min. Clem. Or. (five times) Eus., 
but has all the vss. in its favour ; hence the evidence against it 
is not sufficient to warrant its rejection, with Tisch. 8, as an 
inserted supplement. —2,’ 2] C* D* E F G Clar. Germ. read 3, 2 
or 66. Rightly; the Recepia, though strongly attested, is an 
alteration to correspond with the plurality of the precedin 

objects under comparison of Eph. v. 6. — ia? rovg vids r. dertsiag| 
is wanting in B D* (?)Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Cypr. Ambrosiast., 
bracketed by Lachm. and omitted by Tisch. The evidence 
against it is too weak to justify its rejection, especially in the 
face of the agreement of the passage otherwise with Eph. v. 6, 
and of the incompleteness of the thought which would remain, 
in case those words were omitted; Reiche properly defends 
them. — Ver. 7. Instead of rotrog Elz. and Scholz have airoi, 
in opposition to decisive Codd., although defended by Reiche. 
— Ver. 11. Before #¢é@. Lachm. inserts xa‘; considerably 
attested, it is true (not by BC), but nevertheless an addition 
which crept in easily in consequence of the first two clauses of 
the verse; nearly all the same authorities (not A) have it also 
before 2xvéa¢.— Ver. 12. Instead of olxvipyot Elz. has olxeripyiuy, 
in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver. 13. 6 Xpsoré¢] Lachm. 
reads 6 xbpss, following AB D* FG 213, Vulg. It. Aug. (once) 
Pel. Rightly ; the Recepta is an interpretation, instead of which 
6 @sb¢ (N) and Deus in Christo (Arm. Aug. once) are also found. 
— Ver, 14. &] ABCFGP Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys, read 3, which 


416 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. é¢ 
(x*) and the Recepta rig (**) are emendations.— Ver. 15. 
Instead of rod Xpisrod Elz. has rod @sod, in opposition to decisive 
evidence, from Phil. iv. 7.— Ver. 16. The xas before vu». and 
wdaig should in both cases be omitted (Scholz omits only the 
first), in accordance with preponderating evidence. Borrowed 
from Eph. v. 19.— é yép.] Lachm. and Tisch.: é 57 xép., which, 
on the authority of BD* E*FGsx** Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, 
is to be preferred. The article was passed over as superfluous. 
— Following far preponderant testimony (also &), we must read 
subsequently with Lachm. and Tisch. 8: ty rats xapdiass tu. rw 
Or, not: evry xapdig bw. rg xupiy (Elz. Reiche), or: iv +7 xapdiq 
vs. +. Or@ (Tisch. 7). Comp. Eph. v. 19.— Ver. 17. xupiou "Inood] 
Lachm.: "Inood Xpiorov, which is to be adopted on the guthority 
of AC D* FG min. vss. and Fathers; & has xup. "Inood Xp. — 
xai carpi] xai is to be omitted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following 
ABC R min. vss. and Fathers; from Eph. v. 20.— Ver. 18. 
After ro% Elz. reads jdfos, in opposition to decisive evidence ; 
from Eph. v. 22.— Ver. 19. After yuveixag Lachm. has ipa», 
which, with considerable evidence in its favour, is the more 
especially to be adopted, as in Eph. v. 25 iauréy is found. The 
omission easily occurred, because ro% avdpéew previously was 
also without genitival definition. — Ver. 20. Instead of éy xupip 
Elz. has @ xupiy, which is to be regarded on decisive evidence 
as an omission of the apparently superfluous é.— Ver. 21. 
ips6iZere] Lachm. and Scholz, as also Griesb., recommend: «#ap- 
opyilers, following, it is true, AC D* E* FG K LR® (sapopyiZeras) 
min, Vulg. It. Theodoret, ms. Theoph. ; but it comes from Eph. 
vi. 4. — Ver. 22. Elz. and Tisch. have épdaaApodoursiass, which 
Reiche approves. But spdaruodourasig (recommended by Griesb. 
and adopted by Lachm. and Scholz) is the reading in A B D E 
¥F G min. Damasc. Theoph.; and Chrysostom also by xa’ spbarpo- 
dovAc‘av testifies in favour of the singular. The singular is to be 
preferred as preponderantly attested, and because the final 
syllable AI (q¢) might very easily bring about the conversion 
into the plural. If the singular had come in from Eph. vi. 6, 
Chrysostom’s reading, xer o94., would be more frequent. — In- 
stead of xipsov Elz. has @eév, contrary to decisive witnesses.— Ver. 
23. xai wév 6, 51 iév] The reading 6 dv, which Griesb. approves, 
and Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. have adopted, is decisively 
attested ; the Mecepta is from ver. 17.— Ver. 24. r& yap] yap 
has so decisive witnesses against it (also &), that, with Lachm. 
and Tisch. (Griesb. also condemns it), it is to be deleted 
as @ current connective addition.— Ver. 25. 6 d2] 6 ydp is 








CHAP. III. 1. 417 


decisively attested (also by 8); it is approved by Griesb., and 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The antithetical 3 crept in 
from misunderstanding. — xoyusetras] The form xouiorras (Lachm.) 
is found in B D*** E K L &** min. Fathers. To these may 
be added F G, which have xouif%sra:. The Recepta must give 
way to the more strongly attested xouissras. Comp. on Eph. 
vi. 8. 


ConTENTS.—The generally hortatory second portion of the 
Epistle, preceded in ii 6 merely by a special exhortation 
against the danger of heresy, does not begin with ii 6 
(Hofmann), but only now, and seeks to promote in the 
readers the essential moral direction of the Christian life 
(vv. 1-4); after which they are encouraged to lay aside and 
abandon everything which is contrary to that direction 
(vv. 5-11), and to adopt and follow all that is good and 
edifying in a Christian sense (vv. 12-17). Then follow 
exhortations in reference to the various relations of the 
household (ver. 18-iv. 1). 

Ver. 1 f. Et] does not make the relation problematical any 
more than in ii. 20, but sets it forth as an undoubted fact 
(ii 12), from which the subsequent duty results, in syllogistic 
form, as is frequently the case in Paul’s writings (see Fritzsche, 
ad Rom. I. p. 325), and also in the classics (Hartung, Parti- 
kell. I. p. 259f; Kithner and Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1). 
The being risen with Christ, namely, is not meant in the 
sense of the regenerate moral life (see on ii. 12), but as 
the relation of real participation in the resurrection of Christ, 
which involves as its ethical correlate the obligation ta 
avw fnreiy. To be risen with Christ, and not ra dvw fnreiv, 
would be a contradiction. — ovv] therefore, points back to 
ver. 20, and with logical propriety, since fellowship in the 
resurrection of Christ is the necessary consequence? of fellow- 

1 It is therefore with all the less reason that Hitzig, p. 23 ff., would have 
vv. 1, 2 regarded as ‘‘ a portion of the reviser's work,” at the same time denying 
the integrity of the text in ii. 22, 23, declaring ii. 19 to be an interpolation, 
and very arbitrarily remodelling ii. 17, 18. He thinks that the interpolation of 
iii. 1 f. betrays times subeequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, when earthly 


grounds of hope had vanished, but not extending beyond the period of Trajan, 
—which is assumed to result from iv. 17. Combinations such as these are 


COL. 2D 


418 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


ship in His death,—a fact which Paul had in view also in ver. 
21, in writing as Cavres dy xoopm. The ovy is not intended 
to be resumptive, namely, of what was said in ii 12 (Hof- 
mann); otherwise what comes after that verse down to the 
present one must have had the nature of a parenthesis, or a 
digression. — 7a dyw]| the opposite to ta émt ris vis: that 
which 1s in heaven (comp. John viii. 23; Gal. iv. 26; Phil. 
ii, 14), by which 1s indicated the Messianic salvation which, 
with its future blessings (ii. 17), is preserved in heaven to be 
manifested and communicated at the Parousia (vv. 3, 4). 
Comp. Matt. vi. 33, and the conceptions of the treasure in 
heaven (Matt. vi 20), of the heavenly Spafetov (ii. 18; 
Phil. iii. 14), woAdrevya (Phil. iii. 20), Jerusalem (Gal. iv. 26). 
It is substantially the same as Sofay x. tiny x. abOapciay 
fmrety in Rom. ii 7. As a philosophical analogy, comp. 
especially the dvw ods in the beautiful close of Plato's Re- 
public, and the farewell of Socrates in the Phaedo, A liturgical 
colouring, which such expressions as ta dvw (also ta év Tots 
oupavots «.7.d. in 1. 16, 20) are alleged to have (Holtzmann), 
is arbitrarily assumed as a criterion of a later age.— od o X. 
dors «.7.d.] furnishing a motive encouraging them to perfect 
the fellowship. “Par est enim illuc tendere studia curasque 
membrorum, ubi jam versatur caput,’ Erasmus. The event 
of the bodily ascension (but not a definite form of the process) 
is here, as in every case where the exalted Christ is the sub- 
ject of discourse, presupposed. Comp. especially Phil. iii 21; 
1 Cor. xv. 48. Notwithstanding the local o5, Hofmann thinks 
that Paul has conceived the supramundane existence of Christ 
not at all locally. Comp., however, on Eph.i 20 and Mark 
xvi 19; and see the frequent and significant Ssrov éye vray 
and G7rov eiut éyo from the lips of Jesus in John. — Ver. 2. 
ta avw| repeated with emphasis, and then still further 
strengthened by the negative contrast. The ¢dpovetre is more 
beyond the reach of criticism. According to Holtzmann, vv. 2, 8 presuppose 
the destruction of all hopes connected with the continuance of the theocracy, 
and directly allude to Heb. xii. 22; even the “ sitting at the right hand” 


(as in Eph. i 20) is withal, notwithstanding Rom. viii. 34, assailed. Of 
the entire chapter, Holtzmann only leaves vv. 3, 12, 18, 17 to stand as 


original. 





CHAP. IIL. 8. 419 


comprehensive than Cntetre, expressing not only the striving 
(comp. Rom. ii 7), but the whole practical bent of thought and 
disposition (comp. Beck, b1b/. Seelent. p. 62), the moral meditari, 
Phil. ii, 5.— a é7i +. yfjs] eg. money and estate, honours, 
comforts, etc. Comp. Phil. iii 19: ot 7a ériyea dpovoivres, 
also 1 John ii. 15, et al. Neither the contrast nor the sub- 
sequent text warrants us in finding here a further reference to 
the requirements of the false teachers. So Theophylact: 
Ta Trepl Bpwpdrov x pépwv; Calvin: “adhuc persequitur 
suam disputationem de ceremoniis, quae similes tricis facit, 
quae nos humi repere cogant;” comp. Beza, Michaelis, and 
others. The hortatory portion of the Epistle proceeds no 
longer at all in the form of statements opposed to the false 
teachers, but in that of general moral exhortations.— We have 
to observe, further, that the earthly is not of tself placed 
under the point of view of the sinful, which would be quite 
un-Pauline (1 Cor. vi. 12, x. 23), but is 80 as the contents of 
the striving which is opposed to the ta dvw dpoveiy. Comp. 
the idea in Matt. vi 21. 

Ver. 3. Assigning a reason for the requirement of ver. 2. — 
For ye are dead; how then could your mind be directed 
towards earthly things! and your life does not belong to the 
realm of the visible world, but it 7s hidden with Christ in God: 
how should you not then ta dvw dpovely! It is a guide to 
a correct and certain interpretation of the passage, that this 
statement of a reason must affirm the same thing as was 
already contained, only without special development, in «4 
ouvnyépO, +. X. of ver. 1. This special exposition Paul now 
gives. Whosoever is risen, namely, has died and lives, and 
these are the two points to which ver. 3 refers. — dame@avere] 
namely, by your having entered into the fellowship of the 
death of Christ. This being dead has dissolved in the con- 
sciousness of the Christian the ties that hitherto bound him 
to earthly things. He jinds himself still in the realm of the 
earthly, but he no longer dives therein, ii. 21. Comp. Phil. iii 
20; Gal ii. 20.— 4 fw dav] must necessarily be the life, 
which has followed the being dead; consequently the eternal 
life, comp. ver. 4, which set in through the resurrection (of 





420 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


which Christians, in fact, have become partakers with Christ, 
ver. 1)—~a life which the believer has, prior to the Parousia, as 
@ possession that has not yet been manifested but is still in 
secret (otrw éefavepwOn, 1 John iii. 2), a treasure in heaven, 
possessed in hope and still unrevealed, destined to appear in 
glorious manifestation only at the Parousia. — ody To Xpiore] 
For Christ Himself, apart from fellowship with whose life the 
fon of His believers cannot have its being and essence, is 
hidden till the Parousia ; and only then sets in His ¢avépwors 
(ver. 4), amroxdduyis (1 Cor. i 7; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Pet. i 7, 
13, iv. 13), éwepayera (1 Thess. ii 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14), with 
which also the adzoxadupis tay view 7. Geod (Rom. viii. 19) 
will take place, ver. 4. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10 f.; 1 John iii. 2. 
—év T@ Oem) in God, in so far, namely, as Christ, who, 
according to John (i. 18), is ets tov xoAmroy Tod trarpos, remains 
hidden in God till the Parousia, as cvv8povos of God (ver. 1), 
living united with God in His glory hitherto unseen, in order 
thereafter to proceed from God and to manifest Himself with 
the full divine glory.~ But, as with Christ, so also with our life, 
which is hidden ody r@ Xpior@, and therefore can only issue 
forth at His second coming from God, and be received by us 
in real glorious communication and manifestation through our 
ouvdokacOjvas (Rom. viii. 17, comp. v. 2,10). If the coherence 
of the relation expressed by xéxpumras was asserted by ody 
t@ X., so also is its inherence by év tH Oem. The essential 
part of our explanation, viz. that 4 fw ny. is eternal life, is 
held also by Chrysostom, Theodoret (éxelvou yap dvactavros 
mavres HyépOnuey, GAN ovdérm opayev THY TMpayudTov THY 
é<Pacw), Oecumenius (trav yap adnOas Xprotiavav Cwn Err 
peévouca, } péev tot Wdpovoa eixova paddrov Oavatov 4 Cwijs 
éyet), Theophylact (Paul wished to show avrovds xaOnpévous dvw 
Kal GArAnv Lavras Cony, Thy dv TO Oew, Thy py dawopévny), 
Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Grotius, and others, including 
Baumgarten-Crusius. The accurate contextual connection of 
this view with what precedes, and with ver. 4 (see above), ex- 
cludes the explanation adopted by many, of {@7) in the ethical, 
spiritual sense. So Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, 
Flatt (“the inner, new, blissful life of true Christians”), Bahr, 








CHAP. III. 3. : 421 


Béhmer, Steiger, Olshausen,’ and others, including Huther? 
Bleek, and de Wette, who apprehends this life as being hidden 
in two respects: namely, as regards the disposition and striving, 
it is, because directed to the heavenly, infernal and ideal, 
whereas the life of worldly men in the common sense is real 
or manifest ; as regards the imputation or recompense, it lacks 
outward happiness, but enjoys internal peace, and is there- 
fore in this respect also hidden or ideal, whereas the worldly 
life, in unison with the outer world, leads to external peace or 
to happiness, and is so far, therefore, real or manifest also ; 
the cvv t@ X. denotes not merely the spiritual fellowship, but 
is “at the same time to a certain extent” to be understood in 
a local sense (comp. ver. 1), and év r@ @e@ denotes the sphere 
of the Christian life, or “its relation to the system of the 
universe, that it belongs to the invisible world, where God 
Himself lives.” Of all this there is nothing in the words, the 
historical sense of which neither requires nor bears such a 
spiritualistic idealisation with more senses than one, but, on 
the contrary, excludes it as caprice. The % Sa) buay does not 
refer to the ethical life of Christians at all, neither alone nor 
along with eternal life (Cornelius a Lapide, Estius; comp. 
Bleek and Ewald). On the contrary, it is aptly said by 
Kaeuffer, de Cwijs aiwy. not. p. 93: “vitam enim piam et 
honestam, quam homo Christianus in hac terra vivere possit 
ac debeat, P. dicere non poterat nunc cum Christo in Deo (in 
coelis puta, in quibus Christus nunc est) reconditam esse, 
atque olim in splendido Jesu reditu de coelo revelatum iri; 
haec non nisi vitae coelestt conveniunt.” Hofmann’s distinc- 
tion is less clear and definite: the fw is meant as the blessing, 
in which Christians have an advantage over the world, by their 


- 41 ‘The life of believers is said to be hidden, inasmuch as it is internal, and 
what is external does not harmonize with it ;” and in tv ce @sg God is conceived 
as the element, ‘‘into whose essence believers, like Christ Himself, are assumed 
and enwrapped.” 

* In whose view the Christian leads a life in God, and this is a hidden life, be- 
cause the world knows nothing about it (comp. Erasmus: ‘‘juxta judicium 
mundi”); in fact, to the Christian himself its full glory is not manifest (comp. 
Bengel) ; and by ei» r@ X. it is shown that, the Christian leads such a life not of 
himeelf, but only in his fellowship with Christ. Dalmer gives an obscure and 
heterogeneous explanation. 








422 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


having participated in the death and resurrection of Christ,— 
a life, which is indeed life in the full sense of the word, but 
which does not appear before the world as what it is, so long 
as Christ is hidden from the world and in God. Notwith- 
standing, Hofmann properly rejects the explanations referring 
it to the holy life of the Christian, and to the holy and blissful 
life together. — Observe, further, the difference in the tenses, - 
the aorist avreOavere denoting the accomplished act of dying at 
conversion, by which they entered into the fellowship of the 
death of Christ; and the perfect xéxp., the continuous subsisting 
relation in reference to the present up to the (near) Parousia. 

Ver. 4. And what a blissful future is connected with the 
Sor buov exp. x.7.r.! This bright, favourable side of the 
previous thought is the continuation of the proof of ver. 2 
begun in ver. 3, detaching them thoroughly from earthly 
pursuits and elevating them to.the courage of victory ; vividly 
introduced without connecting particle («a/): “repentina luce 
percellit,” Bengel, which Hofmann fails to perceive, when he 
objects to the absence of 5é@ The relation is not antitheti- 
cal at all. — davepwO7] shall have become manifest, have come 
forth from His present concealment, namely, by His Parousia. 
See on ver. 3.—1 fa) tuav] your life. Christ Himself is 
thus designated (comp. 4 éAmis in i. 27), because He is the 
personal author, possessor, and bearer of the eternal life of 
His believers (comp. John xiv. 6, xi. 25), and this, according 
to the context, inasmuch. as they have entered into the fellow- 
ship of His resurrection: they are alive! with Him (ctp +. 
X., ver. 3); His life is their life. The definite object of this 
apposition, moreover, is argumentative, for the following rote 
«.7.. — Kart tpeis|] as Christ, so also ye with Him. The two 
subjects have the emphasis. — davepmwO. dy Sofy] Comp. our- 
SofacOapev in Rom. viii. 17. It means nothing else than the . 
glory of the Messianic kingdom, in which believers (also glorified 
bodily, 1 Cor. xv. 43; 2 Cor. v. 1 ff; Phil. iii 21) shall be 
manifested visibly. The offence which Holtzmann takes at 
the use of davepotcGas (instead of dmroxadvirrecOas, Rom. viii. 
. Comp. Ignatius, Zph. 8, where Christ is designated +3 dd:dapren apes 73, 
also Magnes. 1, Smyrn. 4. 











CHAP. IIL. 6. 423 


17 ff.) and {ar}, presupposes a too limited range for Paul’s 
manipulation of language. Our passage has nothing to do 
with 2 Cor. iv. 10f. Nor does it even “almost look” (Holtz- 
mann) as if the author were conceiving the readers as already 
dead at the Parousia. The davepwOnvas év Sofy takes place 
in the case of those still alive. through their being changed, 
as the reader was aware. 

Ver. 5.1 Owv] draws the inference from vv. 3, 4, in order 
now to lead to that which must be done with a view to the 
carrying out of the 7) 7a éwt tr. yijs. The inference itself is: 
“ Since, according to vv. 3, 4, ye are dead, but have your life 
hidden with Christ in God and are destined to be glorified 
with Christ, it would be in contradiction of all this, according 
to which ye belong no longer to the earth but to the heavenly 
state of life, to permit your earthly members still to dive ; no, ye 
are to put them to death, to make them die” (Rom. iv. 19 ; Heb. 
xi 12; Plot. Mor. p. 954 D)! — vexpocare] prefixed with 
emphasis as the point of the inference ; the term is selected in 
significant reference to ameOavete and 7 wi tua, vv. 3, 4.— 
Ta pédXn boy] means nothing else, and is not to be explained 
otherwise than: your members (hand, foot, eye, etc). That 
these were not to be put to death in the physical sense, but in 
an ethical respect (comp. ii. 11)—-seeing, namely, that they, as 
the seat and organs of sinful lusts (Rom. vii. 23), which they 
still are even in the case of the regenerate (Gal. v. 17, 24), 
are to lose their vigour of life and activity through the Chris- 
tian moral will governed by the Holy Spirit, and in so far 
to experience ethical deadening (comp. Rom. vii. 5, 23, viii 13, 
and the analogous representation by Jesus as to plucking out 
the eye, etc, Matt. v. 29 f, xviii. 8 £; comp. also xix. 12)— 
was self-evident to the reader, as it was, moreover, placed 
beyond doubt by the following appositions sropyeiay x7. 
Hence there was neither ground nor warrant in the context 
to assume already here (see ver. 9) the conception of the old 
man, whose desires are regarded as members (Beza, Flacius, 


1 In the section vv. 5-17, in which Honig, in relation to Eph. iv. 1-5, 20, 
finds the stamp of originality, Holtzmann discovers the concentrating labour of 
the interpolator, whose second (and better) eflort is the passage in Colossians. 








424 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, and others, in- 
cluding Bohmer, Olshausen, and Bleek), although the required 
putting to death presupposes that the old man is still par- 
tially alive. Nor is sin itself, according to its totality, to be 
thought of as body and its individual parts as members (Hilary, 
Grotius, Bengel, Bahr, and others; comp. also Julius Miiller, 
v. d. Siinde, I. p. 461, ed. 5, and Flatt),—a conception which 
does not obtain even in ii 11 and Rom. vi. 6, and which is 
inadmissible here on account of tov. The view of Steiger, 
finally, is erroneous (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), that the entire 
human existence is conceived as c@ua. We may add that the 
véxpwots of the members, etc., is not inconsistent with the 
death (dme@avere, ver. 3) already accomplished through con- 
version to Christ, but is required by the latter as the necessary, 
ever new act of the corresponding morality, with which faith 
lives and works.’ And in view of the ideal character of this 
obligation the command vexpocate x«.7.A.—this requirement, 
which is ever repeating itself, of the ethical mortificatio—is 
never superfluous. — Ta emi Tijs qs] which are upon the earth, 
corresponds to the ta él r. y. in ver. 2; in contrast, not to 
the glorified human nature of Christ (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 
I. p. 560), but to the life hidden with Christ in God. In this 
antithetical addition is involved an element which justifies the 
requirement vexpwoate T. p. Uu., not expressing the activity of 
the én for what is sinful (de Wette, comp. Flatt and others, in 
connection with which Grotius would even supply 7a dpovoivra 
from ver. 2), which the simple words do not affirm, but: that 
the yéAn, as existing upon earth, have nothing in common with 
the life which exists in heaven, that their life is of another 
kind and must not be spared to the prejudice of that heavenly 
Sw! Comp. also Hofmann’s present view. The context does 
not even yield a contrast uf heavenly members (Huther), «ec. of 
a life of activity for what is heavenly pervading the members, 
or of the members of the new man (Julius Miiller), since the 
fon is not to be understood in the sense of the spiritual, 


3 Chrysostom illustrates the relation by comparing the converted person to a 
cleansed and brightened statue, which, however, needs to be afterwards cleansed 
afresh from new accretions of rust and dirt. 








CHAP. IIL 6. 425 


ethical life. — ropveiay x«.7.A.] Since Paul would not have the 
members slain as such absolutely and unreservedly, but only 
as regards their ethical side, namely, the sinful nature which 
dwells and works in them (Rom. vii. 23), he now subjoins 
detailed instances of this sinful nature, and that with a bold 
but not readily misunderstood directness of expression apposi- 
tionally, so that they appear as the forms of immorality cleav- 
ing to the members, with respect to which the very members 
are to be put to death. In these forms of immorality, which 
constitute no such heterogeneous apposition to Ta pédn op. 
as Holtzmann thinks, the life of the éA7n, which is to be put 
to death, is represented by zfs parts. Paul might have said: 
Aéym Sé qropveiay; but by annexing it directly, he gave to his 
expression the form of a distributive apposition (see Kiihner, 
II. 1, p. 247), more terse and more compact after the oyjpua 
xa Sdov cal pépos. It is neither a sudden leap of thought 
nor a metonymy. — ax«aGapo.] in reference to lustful unclean- 
ness; comp. on Rom. i. 24; Gal. v. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Eph. 
iv. 19, v. 3. Paul gives, namely, from zropy. to xaxny, four 
forms of the first Gentile fundamental vice, wnchastity, be- 
ginning with the special (zropvelav), and becoming more and 
more general as he proceeds. Hence follows: md@os, passion 
(the nrracOar tro rhs Hdovis, Plat. Prot. p. 352 A; Dem. 
805.14; Arist. Hth. ii. 4), heat; Rom. i. 26; 1 Thess. iv. 5; 
and Liinemann in loc. Comp. also Plat. Phaed. p. 265 B: 
To épwrixoy waGos, Phaedr. p. 252 C. And finally: ércOup. 
xaxny (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 854 A), evil desire, referring to 
unchaste longing. Comp. Matt. v. 28; Breitenbach, ad Xen. 
Her. 6. 2. Unnatural unchastity (Rom. i. 26 f.; 1 Cor. 
vi. 9) is included in axa@,, wa8., and ém8. xax., but is not ex- 
pressly denoted (Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, Bohmer) 
by mwa6os (comp. pathict, Catullus, xvi. 2; wasxeverOaz, Nicarch. 
in Anth. xi. 73), a meaning which neither admits of linguistic 
proof, nor is, considering the general character of the adjoining 
terms (axaGapo. ér0, xax.),in keeping with the context. éz0. 
xax. is to be distinguished from md@os as the more general con- 
ception; the wd@os is alwaysalso ézOuvp/a and relatively ézi6. 
waxy, but not the converse, since a »yceioBae or xpateiy Tis 


426 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


émOuuias may also take place. — x. Tv mreoveElay] After the 
vice of uncleanness comes now the second chief vice of the Gen- 
tiles (comp. on Eph. iv. 19): covetousness, Hence the connection 
here by means of «at, which is not even, but (in opposition to 
Hofmann) the simple and, and the article, which introduces the 
new category with the description of its disgraceful character,’ 
associating this descriptive character as a special stigma with 
the vice of wAcoveEla, In opposition to the erroneous interpreta- 
tions: insatiable lust (Estius, Michaelis), or: the gains of prostt- 
tution (Storr, Flatt, Bahr), see on Eph. .c., and Huther. The 
mreovetia is not separated by the article from the appositional 
definitions of the wéAn, and co-ordinated with ra pédn, so that 
the latter would only be “the members which minister to 
unchaste lust” (Huther) ; for ra yéAn dp. can only denote the 
members generally, the collective members ; and éy tots péAcouw 
(Rom. vii. 5, 23) understood generically, and not as referring 
to particular individual members, sin is operating with all its 
lusts, as, in accordance with this ethical mode of viewing the 
matter, the collective members form the o@yua tis capxes of 
ii 11. Bengel remarks aptly that the article indicates totum 
genus vitw a genere commemoratarum modo specierum diversum. 
— Hrs éotiv eidwroXaTp.] quippe quae est, etc., further supports 
the vexpwoare specially in reference to this vice, which, as the 
idolatry of money and possessions, is xat’ é£oynv of a heathen 
nature. It has been well said by Theodoret: ézrecdy 76 papova 
KUpioy 6 owTnp mpoonyopevoe, Siddoxwv, ws 6 TE Td0e THs 
mrcoveElas Sovrevav ws Qeov tov mAovrov tia. In 1 Cor. v. 
11, the etSwdodarp. is to be taken differently (in opposition to 
Holtzmann). Moreover, see on Eph. v. 5. Observe, further, 

1 Looking to the so closely marked éwofold division of the vices adduced, it is 
inconsistent with the text to take, with Hofmann, the three elements, dxatage., 
wébos, and lesdup. xax., in such a general sense as to make dxaéapcian Mean 
every ‘‘action which mars the creaturely honour (t) of man,” wales, the passion 
which enslaves through excitement of the blood, and iwiluyia xaxs, all evil desire, 
which is, as such, a morbid excitement of the blood. The excitement of the blood, 
thus sanguinely enough invented without any hint whatever from the text, is 
then held to convert the second and third elements into cases in which one sins 
against his own body,—a characteristic point, which Paul has not in view at all 


in connection with the apposition to ra pian ».¢.4., a8 is plain from the appended 
s. . wAsentéiar belonging to the same apposition. 











CHAP, IIL 6, 7. : 427 


that the addition of the w)coveE/a to unchastity (comp. 1 Cor. 
v. 11) can afford no ground for supposing that the author of 
the Ephesians borrowed this combination from 1 Thess. ii. 3, 
and that it was taken into our present Epistle from that to the 
Ephesians (Holtzmann). Comp. also 1 Cor. vi. 9 f. 

Ver. 6. This relative affirmation stands in a confirmatory 
reference to the vexpwoare x.7.d. above, the omission of which 
would draw down upon the readers, instead of the davepo- 
Ojvas év Son of ver. 4, a fate such as is here described. — 
8.’ 6 (see the critical remarks) has the significant stress of the 
relative clause: on account of this immorality mentioned in 
ver. 5. The Reoepta &: & is to be taken just in the same way, 
and not to be referred to the wéA7 (Bahr), since it is not the 
latter themselves, but their life-activities specified by sropyelav 
«.7.4., which call forth the wrath of God. — gpyeras] namely, 
at the judgment. Comp. Eph.v. 6; 1 Thess. i 10: 7 opyn 9 
épyopévn ; Matt. iii. 7: ) uéddXovoa cpy?). Hence: ajpuépa dpyias 
in Rom. ii. 5; Rev. vii 17. Chrysostom well says: Paul warns 
dia Tav pedrovray €£ dv danrAXdynpev Kaxdv. See also 
on Eph. v. 6. The frequent reference to the manifestation of 
the divine wrath (comp. Rom.i. 18 ff.) in the course of this tem- 
poral life (Huther and many others) overlooks the correlation 
with ver. 4, and the apostle’s conception of the nearness of the 
Parousia. Hence, also, the combination of the two references 
(Theophylact and others, also Flatt) is to be rejected.— Respect- 
ing the viovs ris ameO. (the Jews and Gentiles, who reject the 
gospel and thereby disobey God), comp. on Eph. v. 6, and as 
to this mode of expression generally, Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 14. 

Ver. 7. Transition to the following exhortation; and how 
touching through the effect of the contrast ! — éy ols] is, with 
the reading &’ 6 in ver. 6, necessarily to be referred to the 
viovs 7. amreO.: among whom ye also walked once, by which is 
meant, not external association (which in fact was not can- 
celled by conversion, 1 Cor. v. 10), but the fellowship of moral 
conduct. But, even with the reading 6’ @ in ver. 6, é& ols is 
to be taken (comp. Eph. ii. 2 f.) as inter quos (Vatablus, Rosen- 
miiller, de Wette, Schenkel, Bleek), and not to be referred, as 
it commonly is (Chrysostom, however, seems to understand it 





428 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


as masculine) to the vices named in ver. 5, because the rela- 
tive most naturally attaches itself to what immediately pre- 
cedes, in order to continue the discourse, and because, if év oés 
refer to the sins, then é{jre éy rovross once more asserts sub- 
stantially the same thing, so that the discourse gains nothing 
in thoughtfulness through the two verbs, as in Gal. v. 25, 
but is unduly amplified. The distinctions which in this 
case have been attempted between zepurareiy and Cy still 
make the one or the other appear as self-evident. See 
eg. Calvin: vivere and ambulare are distinguished from each 
other like potentia (comp. Grotius: “moveri”) and actus, the 
former preceding and the latter following; Beza (and Estius) : 
vivere denotes naturae habitwm, ambulare, évépyetay ipsam ; 
Bahr (comp. Olshausen and Reiche): the former refers more 
to the disposition, the latter to the outward conduct; Hof- 
mann: the state of life (efjre), with which the conduct in 
detail (aepverrat.) harmonized. — dre éfjre ey rovrois] efire 
stands emphatically and pregnantly first: when ye lived in 
these, t.e. when ye were alive therein, inasmuch as the ame@dyete 
of ver. 3 had not yet set in in your case, the requirement of 
the vexpody in ver. 5 was still strange to you, and. these dis- 
graceful things formed the element and sphere of activity of 
your life. On Gv, to be alive, in*contrast to the being dead, 
comp. Rom. vii. 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; also Col. ii. 20 ; ev rovrais! 
is newter, grouping together demonstratively, and setting forth 
contemptuously, the states of vice spoken of. According to 
Flatt, Bohmer, and Huther, it is masculine: “then, when ye 
belonged to the children of disobedience,” so that {jv éy xoope 
(ii. 20) and dvaotpédew ev r@ xoopm (2 Cor. i. 11) would 
have to be compared. In opposition to this view it may be 
urged that dre éfjre ey rovross, in this sense, would be a very 
‘meaningless and superfluous more precise designation of the 
moré, whereas, according to the view above adopted, it is 
thoughtful and characteristic? — On the change from the 


1 With the Recepta abeess any other reference than that, which ols has, is 
excluded ; hence the origin of aicois. 

3 Hence not to be attributed, with Holtzmann, to the tautological style of the 
author, in remembrance of 1 Cor. vi. 11. 











CHAP. IIL. 8. 429 


merely historical aorist to the descriptive imperfict, lending a 
lively colour to the representation, and claiming the closer 
attention of the reader who had passed more rapidly over the 
qepterat., comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 133, and Reisig, ad Soph. 
0. C. p. 254f. 

Ver. 8. Nuvi 5é] In contrast to the past, which has just 
been described : du¢ now, when ye are no longer alive in those 
things. — «ai vpeis] does not refer to the fact that the Ephe- 
stans also are thus exhorted (Eph. iv. 22, 25, 31), as Holtz- 
mann here contrives critically to suggest; but as xat vp. in 
ver. 7 reminded the readers of the immoral pre-Christian 
society, which they also had formerly resembled, so this nat 
ipets reminds them of the moral Christian society, which they 
also ought to resemble now. — a mavra] the whole of these, 
4e.1the things indicated by év rovrous without any exception ; 
ye shall retain nothing of them, “ne quid veneni resideat” 
(Grotius). To this ta maya the apostle then annexes directly 
and in rapid asyndetic continuation yet other sins, which are 
likewise to be left off. Bleek erroneously takes dpyjyv x.7.2. 
as in apposition to ra mavra; for the latter can only be retro- 
spective (comp. Hofmann), and cannot, consistently with the 
text, be taken as meaning, “ everything that belongs to the old 
man.” — amd0ecGe] like garments (see on Eph. iv. 22); a 
lively change of figures; the conception of members is laid 
aside. — Ovyov] distinguished from épyjy as the ebullition, the 
effervescing of the latter (Eustath. ad Jl. i p. 7.17). See on 
Rom. ii 8 comp. Eph. iv. 31; Rev. xvi. 19; Ecclus. xlviii. 
10; 1 Mace. ii. 49; Hom. JU. ix. 629; Plat. Phil. p. 47 E: 
tois Oupois «x. Talis opyais. — xaxiav] wickedness, malicious 
nature. Comp. on Rom. i 29; Eph. iv. 31.— Bracdnplay] 
slander, not against God, but against others, as oral outbreak 
of the evil dispositions mentioned. Comp. Eph. lc.; 1 Cor. 
iv. 13; Rom. iii. 8 ; Tit. tii. 2; frequently in classic writers ; in 
Dem. 312. 19 joined with ovxodavria. — aicypodorylay] only 
used here in the N. T.: shameful discourse, which, in accordance 
with the category of all the sins here named, is not to be un- 
derstood of wnchaste discourse, as, following the Fathers (see 
Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 136), it has commonly been taken (Hof- 


430 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


mann: “obscene” discourse); comp. Epictet. Enchir. 33. 
16; Xen. de Lac. rep. 5.6; aioyporoyovvras in Plat. Rep. 
p- 395 E; Pollux, iv. 105; and the passages in Wetstein ; 
also alcypoeréw in Athen xiii. p. 571 A; and respecting the 
aicyporoyia ef’ iepots, see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p.689. Rather: 
rauing speech (Polyb. vni. 13. 8, xxxi 10. 4), forming one 
genus with Bracdnulay, but a wider idea. Comp. aioypa 
érea, Hom. Jl. iii. 38, xxiv. 238. All the elements in 
ver. 8 specify the malevolent and hostile disposition; and the 
two last, especially the oral manifestation thereof; hence the 
addition of é« tod oroyaros bp., which, without arbitrariness, 
cannot but be referred to both words (so also Bleek), not to 
aicypor. alone, and is, with Grotius, to be conceived as de- 
pending on the still operative idea of dzroBecGe, so that it 
may not be characterized as a “secondary malformation” 
(Holtzmann). The readers are fo lay aside, generally, opyns, 
Oupsv, xaxlay; and to lay aside from ther mouth Braody- 
play, atoypodoylay. We are not to suppose any special 
purpose in connection with the addition; it serves merely 
for the concrete representation ; but, if we should regard it as 
the more precise definition of aicypor. (Hofmann), or should 
even, as is often done, by supplying an é«ropevopévnp, join 
it with aloyporoy., or with Bracd. and alcyporoy., it would 
be utterly void of meaning. The special idea of that which 
defiles (Chrysostom), or of the opposite of Christian praise 
to God (Hofmann), does not form the basis of the é« Tr. ordm. 
tp. ; on the contrary, it is the conception in general of what 
is unsuited and foreign (comp. on vuvi dé) to Christian fellow- 
ship and intercourse, which serves as the presupposition for 
the enture exhortation. Comp. Eph. iv. 29. 

Ver. 9. Mn yevderGe eis adr] tc. lie not one to another, 80 
that eis expresses the direction of the yevdeo9ar (comp. +. 
xara Twos in the sense of the hostile direction, Plat. Futhyd. 
p. 284 A, al.; Jas, iii. 14), like wpos in Xen. Anab.i. 3. 5; 
Plat. Legg. xi. p. 917 A; Lev. vi 2. It is different in 
Susann. 55. 59. It connects itself with what precedes, and 
hence it is to be separated only by a comma from ver. 8 
(with Lachmann and Tischendorf) ; the following dmexdvcd- 














CHAP. Ill.9. . 431 


pevot x.7.r. adds a determining motive for the whole drofecOe 

. AAAHNous: since ye have put off the old man... and put 
on the new, etc., with which the retaining of wrath, etc., and 
the further lying (observe the present rev5.) would not be 
consistent; on the contrary, this transformation which, in 
principle, has taken place in and with the conversion to Christ, 
must manifest itself practically by the laying aside of those 
vices. Accordingly, the aorist participles are not synchronous 
with the foregoing (eruentes, etc., so Vulgate, Luther, Calovius, 
and others, including Flatt, Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Ewald, 
and Bleek), but precede it; they are not included in the 
exhortation, for which reason 1 Pet. v. 6 f. is inappropriately 
appealed to, but assign a ground for it. This is clear, even itt 
a lincuistic point of view, from the fact that sevderGe is the 
present ; and also, as regards the sense, from the circumstance 
that if the words be regarded as part of the exhortation itself, 
as a definition of the mode of what is required, the exwentes 
only, and not the induentes, would correspond with the require- 
ment to lay aside and to abstain from lying. Besides, ver. 11 
is inappropriate as a constituent part of an exhortation, but 
suits well as an argumentative enlargement. Finally, the 
assumed figurative exhortation only comes in expressly at 
ver. 12, and that by way of inference (ovv) from what had 
been said previously from dazrexdvodu. onwards in the same 
figure, though not yet in paraenetic form. Without any 
sufficient reason, and out of harmony with the simple parae- 
netic form of the entire context, Hofmann begins with dzex- 
Svodu. a new period, whose protasis ends in ver. 11, and 
whose apodosis begins with ovy in ver. 12 (comp. on Rom. 
ii 17 ff.); by this we gain only a more clumsy complica- 
tion of the discourse, especially as the supposed apodosis 
has again participial definitions. The entire practical part 
of the Epistle proceeds in plain sentences, not dialectically . 
joined together. Comp., moreover, on ver. 12. — Respect- 
ing the double compound arrexéve., comp. on ii. 11. — The 
terminus ante quem for wanaws is the adoption of Chris- 
tianity, so that, by the whole expression 6 madaws dvOparros 
generically the collective pre-Christian condition in a moral 





432 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


respect! is presented as personified? Comp. on Rom. vi 6; 
Eph. iv. 22. — ovy rai; wpdfeow avrod] not generally : with 
his doing (Hofmann), but in the bad sense: along with his 
evil practices, with his bad tricks. Comp. on Luke xxii. 51 
and Rom. viii. 13. 

Ver. 10. The positive aspect of the transformation (regenera- 
tion) wrought by God through conversion to Christ ; and since 
ye have put on, etc. — tov véov] The collective new Christian- 
ethical condition, conceived as personified and set forth oljec- 
tively, so that it appears as becoming individually appropriated 
by the putting on. It might, with equal propriety, be desig- 
nated from the point of view of time as the homo recens in 
contrast to the decayed and worn-out nature of the pre- 
Christian moral condition (comp. the véow dupapya in 1 Cor. 
v. 7), as from the point of view of the new, altogether different, 
and previously non-existent quality as the homo novus. It is 
the former here,* the latter in Eph. iv. 23 (comp. also ii. 15), 
where xawos Gvfp. is used. See regarding the difference 
between the two words, Tittmann, Synon. p. 59 ff. The speci- 
fication of quality is then further added by rov avaxatvoup. 
«.7.X. The notion of not growing old (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus) is not implied in véov. — tov dvaxa:- 
voupevoy] The homo recens, so far, namely, as the converted 
person has appropriated tt as his moral intdividuality, is not 
something ready-made and finished, but (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16) 
in a state of development (through the Holy Spirit, Rom. vii. 6, 
viii. 2; Tit. ii 5), by means of which there is produced in 
him a new character and quality specifically different from that 


' Original sin is not denoted by the expression and the conception to which it 
ig subservient (in opposition to Calvin: ‘‘ veteris hominis nomine intelligi pra- 
vitatem nobis ingenitam ;"’ comp. Calovius: ‘‘concupiscentiam pravam con- 
genitam ") ; it is, however, according to the biblical view (Rom. vii. 14 ff.), its 
presupposition and the regulative agent in the moral character of the old man. 

4 With the entrance of Christianity into the life of humanity, the old has 
passed away, and all things have become new (2 Cor. v. 17). But the old man 
was individually put off by the several subjects through their own historical 
conversion to Christ. The Xpsecéy iveddoueés of Gal. iii. 27 is not i substance 
different from the having put on the new man. 

3 In the ethical sense Christians are, as it were, the vseAaséa (Blomfield, Gloss. 
Pers. 674) of humanity. 


CHAP, III. 10. 433 


of the old man. Comp. Rom. xii. 2. Hence the present par- 
ticiple, which is neither to be taken as imperfect (B.-Crusius), 
nor as renewing itself (Bleek); and ava does not refer to the 
relation of re-establishment,’ namely, of the justitia originalis 
(since tod xricayros does not directly mean the /irs¢ creation), 
but only to the old constitution, the transformation and new- 
moulding (renewal) of which forms the process of development 
of the véos dvOpmros. Comp. Winer, de verb. c. praepos. compos. 
p. 10f. The xaworns of the véos dvOp. is relative. In Greek 
authors dvaxawzow is not found, but dvaxasvitw is (Isocr. Areop. 
3, App. 2, p. 13; Plut. Marcell. 6), Heb. vi. 6; also in the 
LXX. — els ériyvwow] is to be taken along with the follow- 
ing car’ eix. t. xtlo. avrov, and with this expresses the end 
aimed at by the avaxawotcGa:. Through the latter there is 
to be produced a knowledge, which accords .with the image 
of God. Comp. Beza. God, as respects His ‘absolute know- 
ledge, z.e. a knowledge absolutely adequate to its objects, is the 
model, with which the relative knowledge of the regenerate to 
be attained in the course of their being renewed, «¢. their 
increasing penetration into divine truth, is to be accordant. 
And the more it is so—the more fully it has developed itself 
in accordance with the divine ideal—the more is it also the 
determining power and the living practical agent of the whole 
conduct, so that all those vices enumerated in ver. 8 are. 
excluded by it, and even become morally impossible. Hof- 
mann rightly takes nat’ eix. tod etic. abroy as the more precise 
description of éxrtyywow, though defining the sense to this 
effect, that the new man “everywhere looks to, and estimates 
everything by the consideration, whether he finds the stamp of | 
this image.” But, in that case, an object (wdyrwy) would 

1 ** Renovatus autem dicitur novus ille homo, quia novus quondam fuit in 
prima creatione,” Calovius. Comp. Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Philippi, Dogm. 
II. p. 375 ff., ed. 2, and many others. Thus we should have for the vies avépuwes, 
not the conception of a nova creatura (xa) xeiess, 2 Cor. v.17; Gal. vi. 15), 
but that of a redintegrata creatura. But it is to a new life that the believer is 
regenerated, raised up, etc. by God. This new creation is not the redintegratio 
of the first, though it is its antitype, as Christ Himself, so far as in Him the new 
creation is founded and begun (how, see Rom. v. 16, 17-19, vi. 1 ff.), is the 


antitype of Adam (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 45). Consequently this passage is 
only indirectly probative for the doctrine of the image of God as innate. 


COL. 25 


434 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


necessarily stand with érfyvwowy, and the idea of avaxplvew or 
Soxiuafew would be substituted for that of ériyvaou. The 
nar eixdva «.7.. is usually connected with dvaxawovp. and 
eis érréyv. taken by itself, in connection with which Steiger, 
Huther, de Wette, and Bleek (comp. also Ewald) arbitrarily 
adopt the view, that the prominent mention of the knowledge 
was occasioned by a polemic opposition to the false teachers and 
their tendencies to false gnosis. But how abrupt, isolated, 
and indefinite would the eis éwéyv. thus stand! No; the sub- 
sequent xar’ eixova x.7.d. just serves as a more precise charac- 
teristic definition for the—in theory and practice so extremely 
important—point of Christian knowledge. The expression of 
this definition in this particular way comes very naturally to 
Paul, because he is speaking of the homo recens creatus, in con- 
nection with which, after the analogy of the creation of Adam, 
the idea of the image of God naturally floated before his mind, 
—the image which that first-created man had, and which the 
recens creatus is to attain and present by way of copy in that 
towards which he is being developed, in the érfywors. This 
development is only completed in the aiav pédrAwv, 1 Cor. 
xii 12; for its aim before the Parousia, see Eph. iv. 13 f 
— Tod xtleavros avrov] A description of God, harmonizing 
with the conception of the véos dvOpwiros, who is God’s crea- 
. ture. Comp. on Eph. iv. 24. It is erroneous, with Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Ewald, and others, to understand Christ’ as 
referred to; for creating is invariably represented in Scripture 
as the work of God (even in i. 16), and especially here where 
a parallel is instituted with the creation of Adam after God’s 
image. Comp. Eph. ii. 10, iv. 24, Olshausen, indeed, under- 
stands Tov «ric. avr. to mean God, but would have the «mage 
of God, in accordance with i. 15, taken of Christ, who is the 
archetype of man. There is no ground for this view in the 
context, which, on the contrary, reminds us simply of Gen. 
i 27; comp. cata Qeov, in Eph. iv. 24, a simpler expression, 
which has found here a significant more precise definition out 
of the riches of the apostle’s store of ideas (not a fanciful 


' So also Julius Miiller, v. d. Stinde, IL p. 496, ed. 5; see, on the other hand, 
Ernesti, Urepr. der Stinde, Il. p. 138 ff. 








CHAP. IIL 11. 435 


variation, as Holtzmann thinks) in vivid reproduction. — 
avrov| must refer to the véos dvOpwiros, whom God has created 
by regeneration, not to 7. avOpwiroy alone (“which is ‘the 
substance, on which the old and new qualities appear as acci- 
dents,” de Wette); as the orthodox explanation is forced to 
assume contrary to the text; see eg. Calovius: “ Per imaginem 
ejus, qui creavit ipsum, imago Del, quae in prima creatione 
nobis concessa vel concreata est, intelligitur, ad quam nos 
renovamur, quaeque in nobis reparatur per Spiritum sanctum, 
quae ratione intellectus consistebat in cognitione Dei, ut 
ratione voluntatis in justitia et sanctitate, Eph. iv. 24. Per 
verbum itaque tov xtigaivros non nova creatio, sed vetus ala 
et primaeva intelligitur, quia in Adamo conditi omnes sumus ad 
imaginem Dei in cognitione Dei.” Rather, the divine creation 
of the new man had that primaevam creationem for its sacred- 
historical type, and is the work of salvation antitypically cor- - 
responding with it, which the Creator has done in Christ ;_ 
hence also Paul has not written «riovros (as Philippi, lc. 
p. 376, thinks might have been expected), but «ricavros, 
comp. iv. 24, ii 10; 2 Cor. v.17; also Jas. i. 18. 

Ver. 11. Where all the separating diversities have ceased, by 
which those phenomena of malevolence and passion mentioned 
in ver. 8 were occasioned and nourished. Comp. Gal. iii. 28, 
of which passage Baur indeed sees here only an extended and 
climactic émitation. — Srrov] where there is not, etc.; namely 
there, where the old man has been put off, and the véos «.7.r. 
put on, ver. 10. It represents the existing relation according 
to local conception, like the Latin whi, Le. gua in re, or in quo 
rerum statu, like the local a; comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
ili, 5. 1; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IL p. 331 f. The relation is 
one oljectively real, historically occurring (comp. Gal. iii. 28 ; 
Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii 13), present in renewed humanity. 
Consequently d7rov is not to be referred to the émréyvwots, and 
to be interpreted within which, 2.e.in the Christian conscious- 
ness (Schenkel); but just as little is the relative clause to be 
joined immediately with eis ériyywow at eixova x.T.r. 380 
that it affirms that there, where this image is found, all 
contrasts. etc., have vanished; so Hofmann in connection with - 





436 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


his erroneous explanation of eis ésriywwow Kar eixova «.T.Xr., 
see on ver. 10. — Respecting &, equivalent to éveors, see on 
Gal. iii. 28. —“EdAnv «. ’Iovd.] national diversity, without 
taking “EdAnv, however, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and 
others, in the sense of proselyte. — arepit. x. axpo8.] theocratic 
diversity.'— BapBapos «.7..] In the increasing vividness of 
conception the arrangement by pairs is dropped, and the 
nouns are placed beside each other asyndetically. Paul does 
not couple with SdpBSapos, as he does again in the case of 
SodAos, its opposite, which was already adduced (“EAAny, comp. 
on Rom. i. 14), but proceeds by way of a climax: YevOys. 
Bengel (comp. Grotius) well says: “Scythae ... barbaris 
barbariores ;” they were included, however, among the bar- 
barians (in opposition to Bengel, who thinks that the latter 
term indicates the Numidians). For instances in which the 
Scythians are termed Sapfapwratos (comp. also 2 Macc. iv. 
47; 3 Macc. vii. 5), see Wetstein. We may infer, moreover, 
from the passage, that among the Christians there were even 
some Scythians, possibly immigrants into Greek and Roman 
countries. — ddA 1a wavta. ... Xpiords] the dividing circum- 
stances named, which, previous to the putting on of the véos 
avOpwros, were so influential and regulative of social interests 
and conduct, have now—a fact, which was beyond doubt not 
recognised by the Jewish prejudice of the false teachers — 
since the Christian renovation (comp. 2 Cor. v. 17) ceased 
to exist in the fellowship established by the latter (ideal 
expression of the thought: their morally separating influence 
is abolished) ; whereas Christ is the sum total of all desires 
and strivings, and that in all individuals, without distinction 
of nations, etc.; He “solus proram et puppim, ut aiunt, 
principium et finem tenet” (Calvin). All are one in Christ, 


1 For even a “EAAny might be circumcised and thereby received into the 
theocracy. — The tact that “Eaasy stands before ‘led. (it is otherwise in Gal. 
iii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Rom. x. 12, e¢ al.) ought not to be urged, with 
Holtzmann, following Baur and Hokstra, against the originality of the passage. 
Paul does not arrange the designations mechanically, as is evident from the 
second clause. Holtzmann, however, justly denies, in opposition to Mayerhoff 
and Hokstra, that the arrangement is so inserted in antagonism to the Jewish 


people. 











CHAP. IIL 19. 437 


Gal. iii. 28, v.15; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Eph. ii. 14. 
Comp. on this use of the 7a wdyra in the sense of persons, who 
pass for everything, 1 Cor. xv. 28 ; Herod. iii, 157, vii. 156 ; 
Thue. viii. 95.1; Dem. 660. 7; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 727. 
— Xpiords] the subject put at the end with great emphasis. 
He, in all His believers (€v wact) the all-determining principle 
of the new life’ and activity, is also the constituent of the 
new sublime unity, in which those old distinctions and con- 
trasts have become meaningless and as it were no longer 
exist. The Hellene is no longer other than the Jew, etc, 
but in all it is only Christ, who gives the same specific 
character to their being and life. 

Ver. 12. Ody] for these virtues are in keeping with the 
véos dvOpmwiros, according to what has been said in ver. 11; 
it would be a contradiction to have put on the new man, and 
not to have put on these virtues. The new moral condition, 
into which ye have entered by your conversion, passing 
thereby into the fellowship of equality and unity in Christ 
described in ver. 11, dinds you to this by the necessity of 
moral eonsistency. The ovy therefore serves for the introduc- 
tion of the direct summons by way of inference from its fore- 
going premisses, just like the ody in ver. 5, but not for the 
introduction of the apodosis (Hofmann ; see on ver. 9), as if 
it were resumptive. — évdvcacGe] for, although the putting on 
of the véos dvOp. has taken place as a fact historically through 
the conversion to Christ, nevertheless it has also, in accordance 
with the ethical nature of the véos dvOp. (comp. Tov dvaxar- 
voupevoy x.T.r. in ver. 10), its continued acts, which are to take 
place, namely, by appropriation of the virtues which the new 
man as such must have. — ws é«dextol «.7.r.] as it becomes 
such; éxA. 7. Beod is the subject, and dy. x. aya. its predicates. 
The consciousness of this distinguished bliss, of being the elect 
of God—chosen by God from profane humanity for eternal 
Messianic salvation (Eph. i. 4; Rom. viii. 33; Tit. i. 2, al.), 
who as such’ are holy (through the dyacpos srvevparos, 
2 Thess. i. 13), and beloved of God (Rom. v. 5; Eph. i. 6), — 


1 For the act of the divine isaey#, which in itself is before time, has come 
into temporal realization and manifestation through the calling (comp. ver. 15). 


438 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


how could it fail to touch the consciences of the readers, 
and incite them to the very virtues, corresponding to so high 
& position, — virtues of that fellowship described in ver. 11, 
which are required from them as renewed men! Observe, 
moreover, that the éxAoy7 r. Oeot is the presupposition of what 
is said by azexdvoduevoe x.t.X in vv. 10, 11, and that 
therefore as éxAcwrot x«.7.d. is not inserted without significant 
connection with what goes before. It is likewise admissible 
to take the words Gyo x. yaw. substantively, either as 
co-ordinate with the éxdexrot r. @. and explanatory of this idea 
(“as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” Luther, Calvin, 
Grotius, and the majority, including Bahr, Bohmer, Huther, 
de Wette, Hofmann), or so that éxAexr. r. Oeod stands in adjec- 
tival relation to them (Bleek: “elect holy and beloved ones of 
God”); but it is more in keeping with the purposely chosen 
order of the words to concentrate the whole stress on éxAexrot 
@cov. Bengel, connecting as we do, aptly observes: “ Ordo 
verborum exquisite respondet ordini rerum: electio aeterna 
praecedit sanctificationem in tempore; sanctificati sentiunt 
amorem et deinceps imitantur.” Theophylact (comp. also 
Steiger) took dyos as the chief word, which is more precisely 
defined by kA. +. Qeod and sya7. (éyévovro pev yap ays, 
GAN ovx éxdextol ode ayaTrnpévor tyets St tavTa wdyvta). 
Neither supported by the position of the words nor by the 
context, which does not suggest any contrast. — omdayyva 
oixrippov| oixr. is the genitive of quality, and the expression 
is quite similar to that in Luke i 78, owAdyyva édéous; see 
in loc. Hence owddyxva is not to be taken here in the 
abstract sense (love, so usually), but in its proper sense: 
viscera, as the seat of sympathy ; consequently: a heart, the 
moving feeling of which is sympathy. Comp. Ewald and 
Hofmann. The two are separated in Phil. 1. 1. As to the 
conception of oterepp., comp. on Rom. ix. 15 — ypnororyra] 
kindliness, the opposite is azrorouia, Rom. xi. 22. Comp. 
Eph. iv. 32. See generally, Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff. — 
tatrewodp., humbleness, which is meant here, however, according 


Comp. generally, Weiss in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 78 ff., and 
Bibl. Theol. § 88, ed. 2. 














CHAP, IIL 1% 439 


to the entire context, not towards God (Bohmer), but (see 
ver. 11) in relation to others, as the opposite of haughti- 
ness (tyndodpoveiy) ; Eph. iv. 2; Phil. 1. 3.—On zpaor., 
gentleness (opposite: Eph. iv. 31, and dypsorys, Plat. Conv. 
p- 197 D), and paxpol., long-suffering, bearing with immoral 
opposition (comp. Eph. iv. 2, and on Gal v. 22), ver. 13 
throws fuller light. 

Ver. 13. Neither the second part of the verse, cafes ... 
tjwets, nor aveyouevos... poudyy, is to be parenthesized ; for 
the whole is an uninterrupted continuation of the construction. 
— dveyop. GAX.}] modal definition of the évdvcacbat of the last 
two virtues, informing us how the required appropriation of 
them is fo manifest ttself inactive conduct: so that ye, etc. 
This conduct is conceived as developing itself in and with 
the completion of the required évdvcacbe; hence dveyopevor 
GAAnA. is not to be regarded as only “loosely appended” 
(Hofmann) to paxpo8. — xai yapsfopevor x.7.r.] for the endur- 
ance (comp. Eph. iv. 2) is to advance to positive forgiveness, and 
not to remain a mere passive attitude. Observe here the alter- 
nation of aAArAwv (one the other) and éavrois (yourselves each 
other); the latter is used, because to the yapifeoOas of the Chris- 
tians, which they are to show to themselves mutually, there is 
proposed as pattern the yapifeoOas which they have experienced 
from above, from Christ. Comp. Kiihner, ad Yen. Mem. ii. 6. 20. 
— poudny | blame, reproach, only here in the N. T., not found 
at all in the Apocrypha and LXX., but very common in the 
classics, especially the poets, also with éyew, to find fault. 
with something, Eur. Phoen. 780, Ale. 1012, Or. 1069; 
Soph. 47. 179, and Schneidewin én loc. ; Pind. Isthm. iv. 61. 
— xabas Kat «.7.A.]. The duty of the yapifecPas éavr. is 80 
essentially Christian and important, that Paul goes on further 
to hold up before the readers the great motive and incitement 
for its fulfilment, namely, the forgiveness which they them- 
selves have experienced, which Christ (o xvpuos, see the critical 
remarks) has bestowed upon them. Comp. Eph. iv. 32, where, 
however, the principal subject of the yapifecGas is indicated, 
namely, God (comp. ii 13), who has pardoned in Chresé. 
To the expression in our passage—and a consideration of the 





440 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


circumstances of the Colossian church naturally prompted the 
emphasizing of the merit of Christ—corresponds the frequent 
) Xa pts ToD Kuplov nuav, Rom. xvi. 20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 23; 
2 Cor. viii. 9,.xii. 9, xiii. 13; Gal. i 6, vii 18; Phil iv. 23. 
There is no trace here of “an advanced Christology ” (Holtz- 
mann). The divine pardon obtained for us by Christ in His 
work of atonement (Rom. v. 6 f., 15), and continuously pro- 
cured through His intercession (Rom. viii. 34), is in so far Hzs 
(in the sense that He is the pardoning subject) as He is the 
procurer, bearer, and accomplisher of the divine grace (Eph. iL 
16; Col. i. 19 f.), and God's love is His love (Rom. viii. 35, 
39; Eph. iii. 19; Rom. v. 7 f.). The pardon received from 
Christ, however, binds us by moral necessity (Matt. xviii. 33 ; 
and generally, Rom. viii. 9) to forgive also upon our side; 
—anything beyond this, namely, what is contained in Matt. 
vi. 12, as de Wette thinks, is not conveyed in the words, but 
results as a consequence. —xai tyeis} sc. yaptfouevor. The 
context suggests this, and not the imperative; hence the 
orderly connection is not broken, and the whole verse contains 
accompanying participial definitions, after which, in ver. 14, 
the discourse continues uninterrupted.— Respecting the 
double xai of the comparison, see on Rom. i 13. — It is to be 
observed, moreover, that xaOws refers only to the pardon itself, 
and does not concern the service by which Christ has pro- 
cured the pardon, the death, namely, which the Christian 
ought to be ready to undergo for the brethren, John xiii. 34, 
as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others think, but which would 
be here an irrelevant importation. 

Ver. 14. In addition to all this, however, put on love, by 
which Christian perfection is knit. In making +. ayamrnv 
dependent on év§vcacGe, Paul abides by his figure: becoming 
added (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 433) to all those virtues (regarded 
as garments), love is to be put on like an upper garment 
embracing all, because love brings it about, that the moral 
perfection is established in its organic unity as an integral 
whole. Thus love is the bond of Christian perfection, its 
cuvdetixdy Spyavoy ; without love, all the individual virtues, 
which belong in themselves to that perfection, would not unite 











CHAP. III. 14. 441 


together into that necessary harmonious entirety, in which 
perfection consists. Not as if the latter were already existent 
without love (as Schenkel objects to this view), but love is the 
avvder pos constituting its perfection ; apart from love there ts no 
TeXevorns, Which has its conditio sine gua non only in the in- 
clusion of its other factors in love; how love accomplishes this, 
no one has better shown than Paul himself in 1 Cor. xiii’ Nor 
is it as if the genitive would necessarily be a plurality (as Hof- 
mann objects) ; on the contrary, the reAevorns according to its 
nature and to the context is a collective idea, with which the 
conception of a ovvdecpuos well corresponds. It might, more- — 
over, occasion surprise, that Jove, which is withal the principle 

and presupposition of the virtues enumerated, is mentioned Jas, 
and described as being added ; but this was rendered necessary 
by the figurative representation, because love, from its nature, 
in so far as it includes in principle the collective virtues and 
comprehends them in itself, necessarily had assigned to it in the 
figure of putting on garments the place of the upper garment, 
so that Paul rightly proceeds in his description from the under 
garments to the upper one which ‘holds all the others together, 
and with whose function love corresponds. Accordingly the 
absolute 2) dyd7rn is not to be taken in any other sense than 
the general and habitual one of Christian brotherly love (i. 8, ii. 
2; 1 Cor. xiii.; Phil. i. 9); nor yet in any sort of reference 
limiting it to special qualities, ¢.g. as by de Wette: “as active, 
beneficent, perfecting love.”——-6 (see the critical remarks), 
which, namely love, conceived of as neufer, as in our “ that 4s.” 
Comp. on é€ oi, ii. 19. — ovvdeopos rijs tedevdr.] bond of per- 
fection, 7.e. what binds together the Christian moral perfection 
into the totality of its nature, cvvdeopuevet, Polyb. iii. 42. 8; 
Euvdel xal Evprdéxet, Plat. Polit. p. 309 B. Chrysostom 
(though mingling with it the foreign figure of the root) aptly 
SAYS: oUyxpdTyols Tay Thy TEAELOTHTAa Towvvrwov. Comp. 
Theophylact : wdvra éxeiva, ¢now, aitn avodiyyes wapotca’ 
amrovens 5é Stadvovrar xal éhéyyovtat troxpiots Gyta Kal ovdev. 
The genitive, which is that of the object, denotes (it is otherwise 
in Eph. iv. 3; comp. Acts vill, 23; LXX. Isa. lviii. 6) that 

1 Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49 f. 


442 ‘ {HE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


which is held together by the bond. Comp. Plat. Rep. 
p. 616 C: elvas yap totro ro das EvvSecpov ov ovpavod... 
macayv Evvéxov thy tepthopay, also p. 520 A: tov Evvdecpoy 
Ths jwodews, Polit. p. 310 A: rov Evvderpov dperis pepav 
pioews dvopoiwv. Taken as the genitive of quality, it would 
yield the adjective sense: the perfect bond, “ animos sc. con- 
jungens,” Grotius. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius, 
Estius, Wolf, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others. But 
how arbitrary this would be in itself, and especially in view of 
the fact that, in the event of 7. reXed7. being disposed of as an 
adjective, the more . precise definition of cvvderpes would have 
to be gratuttously introduced ! Taken as the genitivus causae 
(Schenkel), it would not correspond with the figure, though it 
is in substance correct that that, which as a bond envelopes per- 
fection, only thereby brings about its existence (comp. above). 
According to Huther, the sense is: “ by man’s putting on love 
he is girt with perfection; whosoever lives in love is perfect.” 
Thus the genitive would have to be conceived as genitive of 
apposition, which would yield an incongruous analysis of the 
figure, induced by the opinion that 6 does not refer to the dyamn 
itself, but to the évdvcacPas rv dyarnyv.' According to 
Hofmann (comp. Ellicott), the genitive is meant. to be that of 
the sulyect, and the redeorns is to indicate the completeness 
of the Christian state, of which love is the bond, enasmuch as 
it binds Christians together among themselves, wherever that 
completeness exists (John xiii. 35). This is erroneous; for if in 
some curious fashion the abstract 4 Tredecorns (consequently an 
agpregate of attributes) were to be the acting subject, which 
makes use of love as a bond (consequently for the purpose of 
binding), yet the Christians among themselves could not be 
conceived as the object of that binding, but only the vavra 
tadra in accordance with the immediate context (dri waot Sé 

1 givdiemes, namely, would apply to the girdle, as Clericus, Ewald, and 
Schenkel make it do. But to that view the isdcvacés to be supplied would be 
contextually less suitable (comp. Eph. vi. 14) ; while after what has gone before 
the reader would most naturally think of love simply as a garment, and not as 
the girdle, ‘‘ which holds together all individual efforts towards perfection ” 


(Ewald). Besides, it would not at all be easy to see why Paul should not have 
used the definite word {ey instead of curdsepecos. 











CHAP. ITI. 13. 443: 


rovros). The apostle would have been able to express the 
tenor of thought forced upon him by Hofmann simply and 
clearly by some such phrase as 6 (or és, or #ris) dors ovvderpos 
Trav év Xpior@ Tedeiwv (comp.i. 28). Others take it as the swm 
of perfection. So Bengel, Zachariae, Usteri, Bohmer, Steiger, 
de Wette, Olshausen (“inasmuch as it comprehends in itself 
—bears, as it were, bound up in itself—all the individual 
aspects of the perfect life, all virtues”). Comp. on the subject- 
matter, Rom. xiii. 10. This explanation cannot be justified 
linguistically (not even by Simplic. Hpictet. p. 208, according 
to which the Pythagoreans termed friendship: ovvdecpoy 
jTacay Tay aperov, t.e. the bond which knits all the virtues 
together), unless we take ovvdecpos in the sense of a bundle, 
as Herodian uses it, iv. 12. 11 (wdvta tov civdecpoyv tov 
émuctoN@v), which, however, even apart from the singular 
form of the conception in itself, would be unsuitable to 
the context, since love is to be added to all the previously 
enumerated elements of perfection, and may therefore well be 
termed the bond that holds them together, but not their bundle, 
not the sum of them. The word cvvdecpos itself, which 
except in our two parallel epistles does not occur in Paul’s 
writings, is too hastily assigned by Holtzmann “to the range 
of language of the Actor ad Ephesios.” As if we had the 
whole linguistic range of the copious apostle in the few 
epistles which bear his name! Indeed, even ém) maot 5é 
rovrows (comp. Eph. vi. 16) is alleged to betray the auctor in 
question. — In opposition to the Catholic use of our passage 
to support the sustificatio operum, it is enough to observe that 
the entire exhortation has justification as its presupposition 
(ver. 12), and concerns the moral life of those who are already 
justified, Irrelevantly, however, it is urged in the Avpol. Conf. 
Aug. 3, p. 104 f. (comp. Calovius and others), in opposition to 
the Catholics, that reXecérys is the integritas ecclesiae, and that 
through love the church ts kept in harmony, as Erasmus, 
Melanchthon, and others also explained it. 

Ver. 15. All these virtues, however, along with the love 
which binds them together, must have their deep living 
foundation in the peace of Christ, which reigns in the heart, 





444 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


and their abiding incitement in gratitude towards God for the 
salvation received in Christ. Hence now the further summons 
—appended by the simple xa/—to the readers, to let that 
peace reign in their hearts and to be thankful. The eipyvn rob 
Xpworod is the holy satisfaction of mind wrought by Christ 
through the Spirit, the blessed inner rest, of which the atone- 
ment and justification appropriated in faith (Rom. v. 1) are the 
presupposition and condition. See on Phil. iv. 7. Comp. 
Luther, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, 
Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, Hof- 
mann. To understand the peace of mutual concord (the Greek 
Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and many others, 
also Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 297), is less in accordance with 
the universality of the connection, which here descends to the 
deepest ground of the Christian life in the heart ; and besides, 
the concord in question already follows of ztself on the virtues 
recommended. Moreover, there is implied in fpaf. the 
determining and regulating power, the supreme authority, 
which the peace of Christ is to have in the Christian heart, 
which suits most fully the above interpretation alone. — 
BSpaBevérw| BpaB8evew only found here in the N. T., but as 
little un-Pauline as xataS8pa8. in ii. 18 (in opposition to 
Holtzmann) ; it means primarily: to arrange and conduct the 
contest (Wisd. x. 12, and Grimm in loc.); then: to confer the 
prize of victory, to be BpaBevs, t.e. umpire (Plut. Afor. p. 960 A; 
Diod. Sic. xiii. 53); finally: to govern’ generally. See for 
the last signification especially Dem. 36. 7, 1231.19; Eur. 
Hel. 1079; Isocr. Areop. p. 144 B; Polyb. vi. 4. 3, xiii. 1. 5, 
xxvil. 14. 4, e¢ al.; passages from Josephus in Krebs, and 
from Philo in Loesner. Considering its very frequent occur- 
rence in the latter sense, and its appropriateness in that sense 
to éy 7. xapd. vy., and seeing that any reference to the Messianic 
SpaBetov (comp. ii. 18) is foreign to the context, the majority 
of modern expositors have rightly interpreted it: the peace of 
Christ must rule, govern in your hearts. So Luther (“let it 
be master and keep you in all tribulation”), Castalio, Beza, 
Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, 
1 The Vulgate incorrectly renders: exuléef. So also the Gothic. 





CHAP. III. 15, ) 445 


Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, and 
’ Bleek. The conception involves the superintending, arranging, 
and administering activity, and that in supreme deciding com- 
petence (comp. Ewald and Hofmann), as it ought to be exer- 
cised by the eipyvn r. X. in the heart, quite like the German 
verfigen [to dispose of]. Bremi says aptly, ad Dem. Ol. p. 
179, Goth. : it is not simply equivalent to d:ouxety, “ sed pleno 
jure et ex arbitrio S:ocxety.” Chrysostom and his followers 
have retained the meaning: to confer the prize of victory, but 
with ideas introduced to which nothing in the text points. 
Theophylact : b8ploO@npuev wrodrdxts b1rd Twos dywvltovrat trap’ 
npiy Noyiopol Svo, o wey eis Guvvay Kwa, o Se ets paxpoOvuiay. 
"Edy % eipnvn tr. Geod orp ey tyiv, domep tis BpaBevtis 
Sixawos, tovréote xpiTns Kal aywvobérns, nal S@ To BpaBetov 
Tis vlens Te xedXevovTs paxpoOupeiy, TavceTat Oo avTaywvioTis. 
Comp. also Erasmus, Vatablus, and Calvin, who, however, ex- 
plain it erroneously: palmam ferat. Grotius: “ dijudicet, 
nempe si quid est inter vos controversum.” So also, substan- 
tially, Hammond, Kypke, and others; similarly, Melanchthon : 

“gubernet omnia certamina.” Comp. BpaBevew égpw (Plut. 
Rom. 9) and the like. See Dorville, ad Charit. p. 445. But 
the context points to deeper matters than disputes, upon which 
the peace of Christ in the heart is to decide. — els fx. eer 
x.7.d,| argumentative, supporting the exhortation just uttered ; 
for which ye also (nai expressing the corresponding relation) 
were called, etc. ; eis Hv, in behalf of which, i.e. to possess which 
peace, is not the final aim of the calling, which is rather par- 
ticipation in the Messianic kingdom, but a mediate aim. Comp. 
1 Pet. i 21.— & & capare] not instead of eis & oadpa 
(Grotius, Flatt, and many others); nor yet: “as growing to be 
members of a single body” (Hofmann, gratuitously importing), 
but (comp. Ellicott and Bleek) as the result of éexAn@nre, 
announcing the relation of fellowship, into which the indivi- 
duals are translated through their calling, and in which they 
now jind themselves continuously. This abiding condition was 
the predominant conception; hence the pregnancy of the ex- 
pression (Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 469); so that ye are in one body, 
namely, as its members. The element of unity, added with 


446 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


emphasis, and that quite in Pauline form (Rom. xi 5; 1 
Cor. x. 17; in opposition to Holtzmann), stands in appropriate 
reference to the entire requirement. To have become by the 
calling one body with those who share in that calling, and yet 
not to let the holy moral disposition, for the sake of which we 
are called, be the common ruling power of life—what a con- 
tradiction! In that case there would be wanting to the & 
capa the & avetya accordant with the calling (Eph iv. 4; 
1 Cor. xii. 13).— The mention of this calling—the great bless- 
ing which makes everything, that is at variance with what has 
hitherto been demanded (ver. 12 ff.), appear as ingratitude 
towards God—induces the apostle to add still further the 
highest motive of all for every Christian virtue (comp. ii. 7, 
i 12): «. evydpiotos ylvecBe: and become ye thankful (comp. 
on Eph. iv. 32); in which the yeo@e (not equivalent to éoré) 
requires the constant striving after this exalted aim as some- 
thing not yet attained; comp. eg. John xv. §. It was nothing 
but a misconception of that inner connection and of this sig- 
nificance of yiveo@e, which led to the taking evydp. as amabiles, 
friendly, and the like (comp. Eph. iv. 32; Prov. xi. 15). So 
Jerome, Erasmus (not in the Paraphr.), Calvin, Vatablus, Beza, 
(benefict), Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Krebs, and many others, 
including Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, and Reiche. The lin- 
guistic use of evydpioros in this sense in the classical writers 
is well known (Xen. Cyr, ii. 2. 1, Oee. v.10), but equally so is 
also its use in the sense of thankful (Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 49 ; 
Herodian, ii. 3.14; Diod. Sic. xvii. 28); and the N. T., in 
which, moreover, the adjective is nowhere else found, has, like 
the Apocrypha, evyapiorety and evyapiotla only in the latter 
signification (comp. ver. 17), the reference of which in our 
passage to God after eis iy x. éxAnO. (it is God who calls) is 
self-evident, but not (in opposition to Grotius and Calovius) 
the mutua gratitudo. The ascription of the words x. edydp, yin. 
to the interpolator, who is also supposed to have inserted éy 
evyapiotia in iv. 2 (Holtzmann), is destitute of ground either 
in the language or in the matter of the passage. It is not at 
all easy to see why evydpictos should be “as un-Pauline as 
eborrharyyvos in Eph. iv. 32.” 





CHAP. III. 16, 447 


Ver. 16 f. The series of exhortations begun in ver. 12 is 
now closed,’ and Paul proceeds to give, before going on in 
ver. 18 to the duties of particular callings, an encouraging 
allusion to the Christian means of grace for furthering the 
common life of piety, namely, the word of Christ. This ought 
to dwell richly among them, so that they might by means of 
its operation (1) instruct and admonish each other in all wisdom 
with psalms, etc.; (2) by the divine grace sing to God in their 
hearts ; and.(3) let all that they do, in word or deed, be done 
an the name of Jesus with thanksgiving to God. Accordingly, 
the previous paraenesis by no means ends in a “loose aggrega- 
tion” (a8 Hofmann objects), but in a well-weighed, steadily- 
progressive, and connected conclusion on the basis of the Aoyos 
of Christ? placed at the very beginning. According to Hof- 
mann, ver. 16 f. is only meant to be an amplification of the 
evyaptoros yiveoBe in ver. 15. This would be a dispropor- 
tionate amplification—especially as evy. yiv. is not the leading 
thought in the foregoing—and could only be plausibly up- 
held by misinterpretations in the details; see below. — 
0 Aoyos 7. Xpiorod] 1c. the gospel. The genitive is that of 
the subject ; Christ causes it to be proclaimed, He Himself 
speaks in the proclaimers (2 Cor. xiii. 3), and has revealed it 
specially to Paul (Gal. iv. 11 f.); it is His word. Comp. 
1 Thess. 1 8, iv. 15; 2 Thess. iii 1; Heb. vil. The desig- 
nation of it, according to its principal author: 0 X% Tod Geoi, 
is more current. — évoixeitw év jyiv] not: among you (Luther 
and many others), which would not be in keeping with the 
conception of indwelling; nor yet: i animis vestris (Theo- 
doret, Melanchthon, Beza, Zanchius, and others, including 
Flatt, Bohmer, and Olshausen), so that the indwelling which 


1 Lachmann and Steiger have put é Aéyes . . . wAcveiws in a parenthesis, which 
just as arbitrarily sets aside the new and regulative idea introduced by 3 Aéyes, 
as it very unnecessarily comes to the help of the construction. 

2 This‘applies also in opposition to’ Holtzmann, p. 54 f., who finds in ver. 16 
an echo of Eph. v. 19, which at the same time interrupts the entire connection, 
and presents something un-Pauline almost in every word (p. 164). Un-Pauline, 
in his view, is ¢ Abdyes +. Xpsrred (but see 1 Theas, i. 8, iv. 15); un-Pauline the 
juxtaposition of Yarseis, Emves, gdais (the reason why it is 80, is not plain); fin- 
Pauline the ¢3s» itself, and even the adverb wAcveins. How strangely has the 
apostle, so rich in diction, become impoverished ! 





443 TUE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


depends on knowledge and fatth would be meant, since the 
subsequent modal definition is of an oral nature: but in you, 
4e.in your church, the upets, as a whole, being compared to a 
house, in which the word has the seat of its abiding operation 
and rule (comp. Rom. viii 11; 2 Tim. i 5).— wAovctws) in 
ample measure. In proportion as the gospel is recognised 
much or little in a church as the common living source and 
contents of mutual instruction, quickening, discipline, and edifi- 
cation, its dwelling there is quantitatively various. De Wette 
explains it, not comprehensively enough, in accordance with 
what follows: “so that many come forward as teachers, and 
often.” In another way Hofmann limits it arbitrarily: the 
letting the word of Christ dwell richly in them is conceived 
as an act of gratitude. How easy it would have been for 
Paul to have indicated this intelligibly! But the new point 
which he wishes to urge upon his readers, namely, to let the 
divinely-powerful means of Christian life dwell richly in them, 
is placed by him without any link of connection, and inde- 
pendently, at the head of his closing exhortation. — The fol- 
lowing év mdcy . . . T@ Oe@ is the modal definition of the 
foregoing: so that ye, etc. ; construction according to the logical 
subject, as in ii. 2.—€y macy aodia] Since what precedes has 
its defining epithet in 7Aoveiws, and that with all the emphasis 
of the adverb put at the end, and since, moreover, the sym- 
metry of the following participial clauses, each of which begins 
with & (év mdoyn copia... év t. yapiti), ought not to be 
abandoned without some special reason, the ey 7. cod. is to be 
referred to what follows (so Bos, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bahr, 
Steiger, Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Ewald, Dalmer, Reiche, Bleek, Hofmann, and others; Bohmer 
hesitates, and Beza permits this reference), and not to what 
precedes (80 Syriac, Chrysostom, Luther, and many others). 
Comp. i. 28. Every sort of (Christian) wisdom is to be 
active in the mutual instruction and admonition. Regarding 
the details, see on L 28.— éavrovs] mutually, among your- 
selves, comp. ver. 13. —-~arpois «.7.A.] modal definition of 
the mutual dvdacxew and vovOereivy, which are to take place 
by means of (see below, év ydp. adovres x.7.d.) psalms, etc. It 











CHAP. III. 16. | 449 


is all the more arbitrary to refer it merely to vouGer. (de 
Wette), seeing that the position of éavrovs binds the two par- 
ticiples together, and seeing that inspired songs by no means 
exclude a doctrinal purport. The conceivableness of a didactic. 
activity in mutual singing (in opposition to Schenkel and 
Hofmann), and that without confounding things radically 
different, is still clearly enough recognisable in many of our 
best church songs, especially in those born of the fresh spirit 
of the Reformation. Storr and Flatt, Schenkel and Hofmann 
join the words with ddéovres, although the latter has already a 
definition both before and after it, and although one does not 
say Wadpois x.7.r., ade (dative), but yrarpods x.7.A. (accusa- 
tive), as in Ex. xiv. 32; Plat. Symp. 197 E, Rep. p. 388 D, 
and in all Greek authors. The dative of the instrument with 
aéewv would be appropriate, if it had along with it an accu- 
sative of the object praised (as eg. Eur. Jon. 1091). See, 
moreover, on Eph. v.19. Concerning the distinction between 
ayradpol (religious songs after the manner of the Psalms of the 
O. T., to be regarded partly as Christian songs already in use, 
partly as improvised effusions, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26) and dpvos 
(songs of praise), to both of which ¢da? mvevpatixal (4.¢. songs 
inspired by the Holy Spirit) are then added as the general 
category,’ see on Eph. v. 19. Observe, moreover, that Paul is 
here also (comp. Eph. /.c.) speaking not of divine worship’ in 
the proper sense of the term, since the teaching and admonition 
in question are required from the readers generally and mutu- 
ally, and that as a proof of their abundant possession of the 
word of Christ, but rather of the communication one with 
another in religious intercourse (e.g. at meals, in the agapae and 
other meetings, in family circles, etc.—in which enthusiasm 
makes the fulness of the heart pass from mouth to mouth, and 
brotherly instruction and admonition thus find expression in 
the higher form of psalms, etc., whether these may have been 

1 Many arbitrary more special distinctions are to be found in expositors. See 
Babr. Even Steiger distinguishes them very precariously into (1) songs accom- 
panied by stringed instruments ; (2) solemn church songs ; (3) songs sung in the 
house and at work. 


* This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, who discovers here and in 
Eph. v. 19 an already far advanced stage of worship. 


COL. 2F 








450 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIAXS. 


songs already well known, or extemporized according to the 
peculiar character and productive capacity of the individual 
enthusiasm, whether they may have been sung by individuals 
alone (especially if they were improyised), or chorally, or in 
the form of alternating chante (Plin. Zp. x. 97). How com- 
mon religious singing was in the ancient church, even apart 
from divine service proper, may be seen im Suicer, 7Zhes. 
IL p. 1568f The existence of a multitude of rhythmic 
songs, composed am’ dpyis by Christians, is attested by Eua 
H. £. ii. 17, v. 28. Regarding singing in the agapae, see 
Tertullian, Apol. 39: “post aquam manualem et lumina, ut 
quisque de scripturis sanctis vel proprio ingenio potest, provo- 
catur in medium Deo canere.” See generally, Augusti, Denkw. 
IL p. 110 ff. — The asyndetic (see the critical remarks) juxta- 
position of yaru., duv., and gdais mv. renders the discourse 
more urgent and animated. — dv rH ydpets GSovres x.7.A] is 
commonly regarded as subordinate to what goes before; as if 
Paul would say: the heart also ts to take part in their singing, 
ob, dmhas TH oTOpaTt, GAN ev TH Kapdia, 8 dors pera wpoo- 
oyijs, Theophylact. But Paul himself has not in the least 
expressed any such contrasting reference; and how superfluous, 
nay, even inappropriate, would such an injunction be, seeing 
that the ddacxcew and vovlerciy takes place in fact by the 
yarpol «.7.d., and this is ta be the outcome of the. abundant 
indwelling of the gospel ; and seeing, further, that there is no 
mention at all of a stated common worship (where, possibly, 
lip-service might intrude), but, on the contrary, of mutual 
edifying intercourse! The entire view is based upon the 
unfounded supposition of a degeneracy of worship in the 
apostolic age, which, even though it were true in itself, would 
be totally inapplicable here. Moreover, we should expect the 
idea, that the singing is to be the expression of the emotion of 
the heart, to be represented not by éy r. xapd., but by dx rep 
xapd. (comp. 2 Tim. ii 22; Matt. xii. 34) or dard v. Comp. 
Wied. viii. 21, also classical expressions like é« ¢pevés and 
the like. No, the participial clause is co-ordinate with the 
preceding one (as also at Eph. v. 19, see in loc.), and conveys 
—after the audible singing for the purpose of teaching and 





CHAP, III. 16. | 451 


admonition, to be done mutually—as a further element of 
the pious life in virtue of the rich indwelling of the word 
of Christ, the stil singing of the heart, which each one must 
offer to God for himself inwardly; «e. the silent praising 
of God, which belongs to self-edification in the inner man. 
Chrysostom already indicates this view, but mixes it up, not- 
withstanding, with the usual one; Theophylact quotes it as 
another (€Xws), giving to it, moreover, the inappropriate an- 
tithesis: 7) wpos éridecEw, but adding with Chrysostom the 
correct illustration: «dv yap év dyopa ys, SWvaca Kata ceav- 
Tov ddev pndevos axovovtos. Bengel well describes the two 
parallel definitions éy mdoy codia «7d. and dv yapite w.7X, 
as distributio of the wrAovaolws, and that mutuo et seorsim. — dy 
7H x4pire] does not belong to @dais mvevp. (Luther: “ with 
spiritual pleasant songs,” also Calvin), but to ddovres as the 
parallel element to é& rdoy codfa. In the same way, namely, 
as the teaching and admonition above mentioned are to take 
place by means of every wisdom, which communicates and 
operates outwardly through them, so the still singing of the 
heart now spoken of is to take place by means of the divine 
grace, which stirs and moves and impels men’s minds,—a 
more precise definition, which is so far from being useless and 
idle (as Hofmann objects), that it, on the contrary, excludes 
everything that is selfish, vain, fanatical, and the like. 
Chrysostom says rightly: dd ris ydpitos Tod mvedpatos, 
dnotv, dovres x.7.4.; comp. Oecumenius: Sa ris mapa Tod 
dylov avevpatos Sobelons ydperos, also Estius and Steiger. 
Hofmann’s view is erroneous: that ddew év rit means to sing 
of something, thus making the grace experienced the sudject- 
matter of the songs. This it does not mean even in the LXX. 
Ps. cxxxviii. 5, where 3 is taken in a local sense’ The 
subject-matter of the singing would have been expressed by 
an accusative (as pijvey deve), or with es.? Inappropriate as 


1 As in the Vulgate, and by Luther. 

? Nevertheless, Holtzmann, p. 164, adopts the linguistically quite incorrect 
explanation of Hofmann: he thinks that it alone yields a tolerable sense, 
but that it is foreign to the linguistic usage of Paul (no, it is foreign to all 
linguistic usage). 





452 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


to sense (since the discourse concerns singing in the heart) 
is the view of others: with gracefulness. So Theophylact 
(who, however, permits a choice between this and the true 
explanation), Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon (“sine confusione, 
evorynpoves”), Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Bahr, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Reiche. Even though the sing- 
ing in public worship were spoken of, the injunction to sing 
gracefully, and especially with the emphasis of being placed 
first, would touch on too singular an element. Anselm, and 
in more modern times Bohmer, Huther, de Wette, and Bleek 
take it: with thankfulness, in which case the article, which 
Bleek rejects (see the critical remarks), would denote not the 
gratitude already required in ver. 15 (so Huther), but that 
which is due. But the summons to general thanksgiving 
towards God (in ver. 15, grateful conduct was meant by evyap. 
ylv.) only follows in ver. 17; and inasmuch as the interpreta- 
tion which takes it of the diving grace is highly suitable both 
to the connection and to the use of the article (which sets 
forth the ydpis as a conception formally set apart), and places 
an admirably characteristic element in the foreground, there is 
no reason for assuming here a call to thanksgiving.— As & 
tais xapd. tp. was contrasted with the preceding oral singing, 
so is Tr@ Ge@ contrasted with the destination for others; the 
still heart-singer sings to God. It is just for this reason that 
the otherwise superfluous 7@ Oe@ is added. Comp. 1 Cor. 
xiv. 28. 

Ver. 17. The apostle having announced in ver. 16 the first 
way in which the abundant indwelling of the word of Christ 
must manifest itself by éy wdon codla Sidaoxovres . . . arvev- 
parixots, and having set forth as the second the ey TH yadpets 
aéovres «.7..., now adds the third, and that, indeed, as one 
embracing the entire conduct of life; the xat, and, attaches 
it to the two participial clauses in ver. 16, not, however, 
introducing another participial mode of expression conformed 
to the foregoing, but leading over, through the verb to: be sup- 
plied, into the direct form of discourse: And whatsoever ye do 
by word or by work, do allin the name of Jesus. The way 6, 


CHAP, III. 17. 453 


vt dy Trowire.. . Epy@ is the absolute nominative, placed at the 
‘beginning with rhetorical emphasis, and syntactically inde- 
pendent. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 42; Winer, p. 534 [E. T. 
718], — &y Ady H ev Epyw] Comp. Aesch. Prom. 659: ri ypy 
Spavr’ h Aéyovra Saipoow mpdccew pira. See Pflugk, ad Eur. 
Hec. 373: “ Dictis factisque omnis continetur actio.” For 
instances of Adyos and épryor associated in that order and 
conversely, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3.6; Lobeck, 
Paral. p. 64 f.— mavrta] again emphatically prefixed, not, 
however, taking up again the previous 7radv, but rather: in the 
case of everything which is done by word or deed, all is to take 
place in the name of Jesus ;' no element of the doing is to 
be out of this sphere! The imperative zrotefre is to be sup- 
plied from the context. Comp. on Eph. v. 21.— & dévoy.] 
Not: with invocation of (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
lact, Melanchthon, and others), but: so that the name is the 
holy moral element, in which the action proceeds, inasmuch, 
namely, as this name, as the sum of the faith which moulds 
the new life, fills the consciousness, and gives to the action its 
specific Christian quality and consecration. "Ev Xpiot@ 
"Inood would not be substantially different. Comp. on Eph. 
v. 20; Phil it 10; John xiv. 13. “Illum sapiat, illum 
sonet, illum spiret omnis vestra vita,’ Erasmus, The tdeal 
character of the requirement is misapprehended, when, with 
Cornelius «2 Lapide, it is lowered to a mere consilium. See, 
on the contrary, Calovius.—evyap. ro Ge@ «.7.d.] accompany- 
ing definition: whilst ye at the same time give thanks, etc. 
Comp. é evyapiorig in ii. 7, iv. 2, 1.12; Phil. iv. 6. In the 
apostle’s view, there belongs essentially to the devoutness of 
Christian life the self-expressing piety of thankfulness for all 
Christian bliss, in the consciousness, assurance, and experience 
of which one does everything in the name of Jesus. Since 
evyap. denotes thanksgiving, Grotius ought not to have taken 
the participle in a declaratory sense (“quid si¢ in nomine 
Christi omnia facere et loqui”); a misinterpretation, which 

1 Paul, as is well known, is fond of placing close beside each other different 


forms of was with different references. See Wilke, Rhetor..p. 881; comp. also 
on Phil. iv. 12. : 





454 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIARS. 


Hofmann rightly rejects, but substitutes another explanation 
which neglects the verbal import of evyapioreiy: namely, that 
Paul declares the doing here required to be a thanksgiving, etc., 
doing, which is practical thanks. Evyapioreis is never in the 
N. T. equivalent to ydpiy arodoiwas, gratias referre. — xatpé] 
Father of Jesus. — 5’ avrov] For Jesus, as the personal 
historical mediator of Messianic bliss through the work of 
atonement, is therewith for the Christian consciousness the 
mediator of thanksgiving ; He it is, through whose benefit the 
Christian can and does give thanks. Comp. Rom. 1 8, vii. 25, al 
Hence in Eph v. 20: éy ovopat: «7. Both the thought 
and expression were so habitually in use ‘and belonged so 
essentially to the circumstances of the case, that the hypothesis 
of a contrast to the mediation of angels (Theodoret, Bengel, 
and many others, including Bahr) is unfounded, more especially 
seeing that the entire context has no polemical reference. 

Ver. 18 to iv. 1.' Instructions for the different portions of 
the household. Why Paul should have given to the churches 
such a table of household rules only in this Epistle and in 
that to the Ephesians (comp. also 1 Tim. and Tit.), must be left 
wholly undecided (Chrysostom exhausts himself in conjectures). 
They are not polemical; but possibly, in the presence of a 
theosophico-ascetic atmosphere, the practical rules of healthy 
domestic life seemed to him the more seasonable. They do 
not contain traces of a later development of church-life (Holtz- 
mann). The circumstance that the precepts for the several 
forms of domestic society uniformly (vv. 18, 20, 22 ff.) begin 
with the subordinate party, as also at Eph. v. 21 ff., is to be 


1 This domestic code is held by Holtzmann to be an insertion of the interpo- 
lator from Eph. v. 21-vi. 9. Hs groundlessly questions the genuineness of the 
expressions septeres, &3insiv, ipshissy, ivéens, v6 Binasev, aerOrns vas xapdias, ond 
even appeals to the use of érbpuwcpienes, dvrawéderss, and the formula cy x»piy 
. Xpoeg sovascur as direct evidence against its Pauline origin. Might not, how- 
ever, the word é¥perdpsoncs have been sufficiently familiar to Paul from the 
LXX. (Ps. liii. 5) and otherwise (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 621), and have been 
used by him in the two parallel epistles? Is not dveawédecss a term in general 
use since Thucydides? Is not ‘‘to serve the Lord Christ” a Pauline idea, 
and even (comp. Rom. xvi. 18) litcral expresaion? The danger of a petitio 
principié only too easily steals upon even the cautibus and sober critic in such 
points of detail, He finds what he seeks. 








CHAP. Il. 19. 455 


regarded as having occurred without any set purpose; the idea 
of obedience was primarily present to the writer's mind. If 
Paul’s aim had been to counteract the abuse of Christian freedom 
and equality,or in other words, perverse desires for emancipation, 
he would not have considered so weighty a purpose sufficiently 
met by the mere mode of arrangement, but would have 
entered upon the matter itself (in opposition to Huther and de 
Wette); and this we should have to assume that he would 
have done also in the event of his having had in view an 
attitude of resistance on the part of those bound to obedience 
as the thing most to be feared (in opposition to Hofmann). 
Just as much might such an attitude be a thing to be feared 
from the stronger party. Respecting the nominatives in the 
address, see especially Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 172 A.— 
&> avnxey] not the perfect (with present signification), as 
Huther thinks and Bleek does not disapprove, but the im- 
perfect, which has its logical reference in the év xuplp to be 
connected with it: as was fitting in the Lord, ie. as was be- 
coming in the relation of the éy Xpior@ elvas (Philem. 8), as 
Was appropriate to the Christian state, but had not yet been 
in this way realized. The imperfect (comp. Acts xxii 22) 
denotes, therefore, as also in ypjy and ée, the incomplete 
condition, which extends even into ths present. See Kiihner, 
IL. 1, p. 176£; Bernhardy, p. 373. Similarly, Winer, p. 254 
[E. T. 338] Comp. also Buttmann, p. 187 [E T. 216}. 
We. are not to think of an omission of ay; see Kiihner, Lec. 
The connection of éy xupim with iroraccecOe (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, and others)—in 
which case Hofmann imparts into &s dvijxey the abstract idea: 
as was already in itself fitting—is opposed by the position of 
the words, themselves, as well as by the parallel in ver. 20: 
etdpecrov eat dv Kupi. 

Ver. 19. Comp. Eph. v. 25 ff, where this love is admirably 
characterized according to its specifically Christian nature. — 
aixpalverGe] become not embittered, description of a spitefully 
cross tone and treatment. Plat. Legg. v. p.731 D; Dem. 1464. 
18: popre wixpalveoOas pire pvnoicaxeiy. Philo, Vit. Mos. IT. 
p. 135. Comp. mixpas SiaxeicOas wpos twa, Polyb. iv. 14.1; 


456 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


LXX. Ex. xvi. 20; Ruth i 20; 3 Esdr. iv. 31; eparcepai- 
veoOai tevt, Herod. v. 62. 

Ver. 20 f. Comp. Eph. vi. 1-4, where likewise is given a 
characteristic development in fuller detail of what is here 
only succinctly stated. — «ata mdvra] not to be restricted ; 
for Paul is quoting the rwe, that which holds good principalster 
in the relation of children, while possible exceptional cases 
obviously come under the principle of obeying God rather 
than man (Oecumenius: diya ray es acéBeay pepovrwr). 
Comp. Eph. v. 24. — evdpeoroy dori dy xupiw] In connection 
with this reading (see the critical remarks), to supply re Oe 
to evap. is arbitrary (in opposition to de Wette and Baum- 
garten-Crusius), since this is not suggested by the context as 
in Rom. xii. 1, 2; nor is év xuplp to be taken as instead of 
the dative (Flatt, Bahr, Bleek), or in the sense: coram Domino 
(Bohmer), but rather as in ver. 18. We have to leave evap. 
without any other more precise definition than what is con- 
tained in éy «up., so that it is affirmed of childlike obedience, 
that it is well- pleasing, and that indeed not in a worldly 
fashion apart from Christ, ov« dz ris dvcews povns (Chry- 
sostom), but in a definite Christian character; consequently 
the Christian ethical beauty, in which the Sixaoy (Eph. vi. 1) 
of that virtue manifests itselfi Comp. mpoodiAy in Phil. iv. 8. 
It would be a perfectly groundless violence to couple, with 
Hofmann, év xvpip with izraxovete 7. ¥. x. 7., notwithstanding 
the clause which is introduced by yép.— Ver. 21. ot warépes] 
they, and not the mothers, are addressed as holding the 
government of the household, also in reference to education. 
Comp. on Eph. vi. 4. — epe@ifere] irritate, very frequent in 
the classics and LXX., especially in connection with anger, 
as here (comp. Eph. vi. 4). This irritation takes place through 
unjust or over-severe (corly Grov cai ouyympeiy odeirere, 
Chrysostom) treatment, which the child, provoked thereby to 
anger, must bear without being able to get satisfaction for its 
injured sense of justice ; whereby it becomes liable to a spirit- 
less and sullen, and therefore immoral, resignation, a despair 
paralysing all moral power of will; hence wa ys) abupdow. 
This verb is only found here in the N. T., but frequently in 











CHAP, IIL 22-24. 457 


LXX., also Judith vii. 22; 1 Macc. iv. 27; and in classic 
writers from the time of Thucydides (v. 91.1, vii. 21, al.). 
Its opposite is Oapsety. Bengel aptly says: “fractus animus 
pestis juventutis.” 

Ver. 22. Comp. Eph. vi. 5 ff. The minuteness.with which 
Paul enters into this point in comparison with the others, 
may naturally have been caused by the flight and conversion 
of Onesimus, who was a Colossian slave. — ois xara cdpKa 
xuptoss] the masters, who are so after a jleshly manner, 7c. in 
respect to material-human nature; a description, which pre- 
supposes another relation belonging to the higher pneumatic 
sphere, in which, namely, Christ is (ver. 24) the master. 
Comp. Rom. ix. 3.— yy ev odOadp. as dvOpwrdp.] See 
on Eph. vi. 6. The obedience of Christian slaves becomes 
men-pleasing, and, to appearance, eye-service,.-when it is not 
subordinated to, and normally conditioned by, the fear of 
' Christ (2 Cor. v. 11) as the higher Master. See below, where 
év amor. xapdias (see on Eph. vi. 5) corresponds to the éy 
6POarpodovr., and doBovp. 7. xvpioy to the ws avOpwirdp. Eye- 
service presupposes insincerity of heart, and men-pleasing 
takes for granted a want of the fear of Christ. Comp. on the 
latter, Gal. i. 10. 

Ver. 23 f. More precise explanation of the éy drdor. xapé., 
goSovp. tT. xup. just required. — zros#re] in your service. — é« 
apuyiis] peta evvolas, pyr peta Sovducis avdayens, GAAd peta 
érevOepias nal mpoatpécems, Chrysostom. Comp. on Eph. vi. 6. 
— épydfeoGe] execute, carry out, not equivalent to qocefre, but 
correlative with it, hence also not in the narrower sense: labour 
(as eg. in Xen. Occ, iii. 4 with reference to slaves).— as Tp 
xup.| Point of view of the epydf.; this is to be regarded as 
taking place for Christ, rendered as a service to Him. Comp. 
Eph. vi. 6 f. And the relation to the human masters, to 
whom the slaves belong, is in this higher aspect of the service 
thrown so much into the background as not to be taken into 
account at all, in accordance with the principle that no man 
can serve two masters; hence ov« is not relatively, but 
absolutely negative. Respecting the contrast of avfp. and 
Xpiords, see on Gal. i, 1.— cideres «.7.X.] Ground of the 


458 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


obligation in one’s own consciousness for the &s Te xuplp x. 
ovx avOp.: since ye know that ye shall receive from the Lord, 
etc. On eidcres, comp. iv. 1.— azo xvpiov, excluding the 
human recompense, stands first with emphasis, and azo (on 
the part of) denotes, not expressly the direct giving (wapa), 
through which the recompense is received, but generally the 
issuing, proceeding from the Lord, who is the possessor and 
bestower, although the receiving of the recompense at the 
judgment will be in reality direct (Eph. vi 8; 2 Tim.i 18). 
Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 23; Winer, p. 347 [E.T. 463]. — 7s 
xAnpov.] In the Messianic xAnpovoula, ie. in the future 
possession of eternal bliss (see on Gal. ii. 18; Eph. i 11; 
Col i. 12; Rom. iv. 13), the reward consists. The motive for 
its purposely-chosen designation by this particular term lies m 
the fact, that in human relations slaves are not usually heirs, 
comp. Gen. xxi 10. Hence also this closing word, next to 
the azro «xup., has special emphasis: from the Jord ye shall 
receive the recompense of the inheritance. Comp. as to sub- 
stance, Ignat. ad Polyc. 4: twa xpeirrovos édevOepias ard Qeov 
tuyeow.—On dyrarodocts (only found here in the N.T.), 
comp. Thuc. iv. 81.1 (where, however, the sense is different) ; 
Plut. Mor. p. 72 F; Polyb. vi. 5. 3, xx. 7. 2, xxxii. 13.6; 
passages from Diod. Sic. in Munthe’s Odss. p. 390; and from 
the LXX. in Schleusner, I p. 296; also dyrrarcdopa im 
Rom. xii 9.—7@ «upip X. Sovdevere] without ydp (see the 
critical remarks) embraces succinctly the whole summary of 
the Christian duty of slaves in accordance with the principle 
already laid down in the ws t@ Kxupip «. ove avOpwros ; 
Xpior@ is not to be taken as appositionally equivalent to 5¢ 
dort Xpurros (Hofmann), but in accordance with the quite 
common usage; hence: fo the Lord Christ be serviceable! It 
is properly rendered thus imperatively in the Vulgate ; also by 
Ewald, Dalmer, Schenkel, and Bleek. The whole significant 
emphasis lies upon r@ xup. Xpwt@; His slaves they are 
to be in the relation of human service. Where the ydp is 
regarded as not genuine,’ the indicative interpretation (the 

3 The decisive preponderance of the witnesses omitting this yd, renders it 
quite impossible to uphold it by subjective criticism (in opposition to Hofmann), 


Wat > Aled 








CHAP, II. 23. 459 


usual one) makes the utterance—which, moreover, would be 
superfluous after ver. 23 -—vapid, especially without the 
addition of an obras. 

Ver. 25. Ground of encouragement (ydp, see the critical 
remarks) to fulfil the precept r@ «up. X. Sourevere: for he 
who does wrong shall carry off (the penal recompense of) what 
wrong he has done,— a locus communis, of which the slaves 
were to make the application, that the unjust treatment which 
they experienced from their masters would not go unpunished ; 
hence they could not but feel themselves the more encouraged to 
be in their relation of servitude slaves of no other than Christ, 
and to permit no unjust treatment to make them deviate 
from that principle. Paul therefore adds for their further 
encouragement :) xa) ovm gore mpocwrodmpia, and there is no 
partiality, of which likewise general proposition the intended 
application is, that in that requital the impartial Judge 
(Christ, comp. ver. 24) will not favour the masters, and will 
not injure the slaves, comp. Eph. vi. 9. The correct view 
is held substantially by Theodoret, Beza, Calvin, Estius, 
Zachariae, Ewald, and others. Others have understood o aéucév 
as referring to the slave who violates his duty, in which case 
aéixety is taken either in the strict sense of the ¢respass of 
him who intentionally injures his master (Hofmann, comp. 
Philem. 18), or loosely and generally in the sense of doing 
wrong, comp. Rev. xxii. 11 (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, 
Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others). But against this 
view the « ovx éott mpoowmor. may be decisively urged, 


proceeding on the supposition that its omission may be traced to an artificial 
combination of ideas, which is imputed to the copyists, Just as little is the 
Recepta 3 (instead of yd) in ver. 25 to be defended. 

' Hofmann finds it incredible that Paul should have closed the section 
referring to the slaves with a proposition couched in such general terms as 
yer. 25, which applies not to the slaves, but to the masters. This, however, is 
an erroneous view. For in vv. 22-24 the apostle has instructed the slaves 
regarding their active bearing in service, and he is now, in the general pro- 
position of ver. 25, suggesting for their reflection and deliberate consideration 
the proper soothing and elevating point of view regarding their passive bearing 
in service also. Thus ver. 25 also applies to the slaves, and forms merely the 
transition to the precept for the masters in iv. 1. This appliesalso in opposition 
to the doubts expressed by Holtzmann, p. 44 f. 





460 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


so aa ecoacred mon the subject to be punished is higher, of 
passage is purely fanciful : “Tennes saepe putant, sibi propter 
tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum; id negatur,” Bengel, m 
connection with which Theophylact appeals to Lev. xix. 15. 
And if on account of ov« éots xpoowwod. the unjust masters 
must be taken as meant by o adccey» in the application of the 
sentence, the reference to both parties, to the masters and 
the slaves (Erasmus, Grotius, and others, including Bahr, 
Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek, following Jerome and 
Pelagius), is thereby excluded, since wpocewwoX. is appropriate 
only to the masters. — xopiceras] shall carry off for himself 
(sibi), refers to the Messianic judgment, and »dicyce to that 
which he, who is now adccéop (present), has (shall have) then 
done. Onthe expression copiferOas x.r., used to express the 
idea of a recompense equivalent to the deed in respect of 
ite guilt, comp. Eph. vi. 8, and on 2 Cor. v. 10. — Respecting 
mpocwmornyia, see on Gal ii 6. 





CHAP. IV. 1. 461 


CHAPTER IV. 


VER. 1. odpave%] Lachm. and Tisch. read otpavs, following 
ABC s* min. vss. Clem. Or. Damasce. The plural is from Eph. 
vi. 9.— Ver. 3. 3 5] Lachm. reads 3’ o», following BFG. 
Not attested strongly enough, especially as after +. Xpiorot the 
masculine involuntarily suggested itself. — Ver. 8. yv@ rd sep? 
iwav] AB D* FG min. Aeth. It., and some Fathers have yvars 
rz wapi quay. Recommended by Griesb., received by Scholz, 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8, approved also by Rinck and Reiche ; and 
rightly, because it has preponderant attestation, and is so 
necessary as regards the context that it must not be regarded 
as an alteration from Eph. vi. 22 (comp. in loc.). The Recepta 
is to be regarded as having arisen through the omission of the 
syllable TE before TA. — Ver. 12. Instead of orjrs Tisch. 8 has 
craéirs, only on the authority of A*B and some min.— 
wstanpuevos| A BC D* F G& min. have ssxAnpopopyuivo. Recom- 
mended by Griesb., received by Lachm. and Tisch., and justly ; 
the familiar ssrAxpay. creptin involuntarily, or by way of gloss. 
— Ver. 13. Ziaor wordy] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Reiche 
read groady xévor, following A BC D**®& 80, Copt., while D* FG 
have woAvv xérov, and Vulg. It.: multum laborem. Accordingly 
the Recepia is at any rate to be rejected, and woAdv sévoy to be 
preferred as having decisive attestation ; xévoy was glossed partly 
by xérov, partly by ZijAov (xédey and d&yava are also found in codd.). 
Neither 2ov nor xéaov would have given occasion for a gloss ; 
and in the N. T. xévog only further occurs in the Apocalypse. 
— Ver. 15. aisoct] ACPS min. have airty; B: atric. The 
latter is the reading of Lachm., who with B** instead of Nuzgéy 
accents Niuger. The atray, which is received by Tisch. 8, is 
to be held as original; the plural not being understood was 
corrected, according as the name Nu«g. was reckoned masculine 
or feminine, into adrot or abriie. 


Ver. 1. Thy icornra] not: equity, for the word signifies 
aequalitas, not aequitas, i.e. érveixera (in opposition to Steiger, 
1 * has yew os ra wip vmor; K** deletes the rs, and is thus a witness for the 











462 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and most expositors), but : 
equality (2 Cor. viii. 13 ££; very often in Plato, Polyb. 
ii 38. 8, vi 8. 4; Lucian, Herm 22, Zeuzr. 5, also the 
passages from Philo in Wetstein, and the LXX- Job xxxvi. 29 ; 
Zech. iv. 7), 80 that ye, namely, regard and treat the slaves 
as your equals. What is herein required, therefore, is not a 
quality of the master, and in particular not the freedom from 
moral unevenness; which is equivalent to &casoovwwn (Hofmann), 
but a quality of the relation, which is to be conceded; it is 
not at all, however, the equalization of the outward relation, 
which would be a de facto abolition of slavery, but rather 
the equality, which, amidst a continued subsistence of all the 
outward diversity, is brought about in the Christian cowewvla 
by kindly treatment. While ro Sixasop (what is right) expresses 
that which, according to the Christian consciousness of right, 
belongs as matter of right to the slave, ry» icoryra requires 
the concession of the parity (égalzté) implied in the Christian 
a8eXporns. Paul has in view (in opposition to Hofmann) 
merely Christian slaves (whom he has exhorted in iii. 22 f.) ; 
otherwise, in fact, the conception of corns would be not at 
all appropriate. It is just by the Christian status of both 
parties that he desires to see their inequality in other respects 
ethically cownterbalanced. A commentary on Ty icornra is 
supplied by Philem. 16. At variance with the context, 
Erasmus, Melanchthon, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Bohmer, 
and others understand the equality of impartial treatment, 
according to which the master does not prefer one slave to — 
another. This would not in fact yield any definite moral 
character of the treatment in itself, nor would it suit all the 

! This conception, coincident with Ysaservrn, does not pertain to ivéeus at all ; 
and just as little to 7ss in Soph. Phél. 685, where ives tv y' loo dvup is nothing 
else than par infer pares, namely, to his friends a friend, to his foes a foe. 
Comp. Schneidewin és loc. At many other passages 70s denotes the equality of 
right, that which is impartial, and is hence often combined with dixass (righteous 
in the narrower sense). But icérns is always (even in Polyb. ii. 38. 8) 
equality ; see4g. Plato, Rep. 658 OC, where it is said of the democracy : ivéenrd 
wives bpecing Toeig os wml dvivess Siarlacere, that is, it distributes uniformly to equal 


and unequal a certain equality. In such passages the conception of égalié 
comes into view with special clearness. Hofmann has explained our passage as 
if lesens and dmadrstens, or Aussens (levelness), were identical conceptions. 





CHAP. IV. 2. 463 


cases where there is only one slave. As to the middle 
mapéyeoOe (Tit. ii 7; Acts xix. 24), observe that it is based 
simply on the conception of the ‘self-activity of the subject; 
Kithner, IIL. 1, p. 9'7. — eiSdres] consciousness, that serves as 
a motive, as in iii 24.— «al dpels x.7.X.] Theophylact says 
correctly: dovzep éxeivor tpas, obra kal tpeis Exere Kipioy, 
and that in heaven, namely Christ. 

Vv. 2-6. After having already concluded the general 
exhortations at iii. 17, Paul now subjoins some by way of 
supplement, and that in aphoristic epistolary fashion, con- 
cerning prayer along with intercession for himself (vv. 2-4), 
and demeanour towards non-Christians (vv. 5,6). How special 
was the importance of both under the circumstances then 
existing ! 

Ver. 2. To prayer apply ee perseveringly ; comp. 
Rom. xii. 12; Eph. vi. 18; Acts i 14; also 1 Thess. v. 17: 
adianelrrras rpooetyeabe, which is substantially the same 
thing. Comp. Luke xviii. 1.— ypnyop. & avr7] modal 
definition of the wrpooxaptepeiy: so that ye are watchful (that 
is, alacres, mentally attentive and alert, not weary and 
distracted, comp. 1 Thess. v. 6; Eph vi 18; 1 Pet. iv. 
7, v. 7 £3; Matt. xxvi. 41) in the same. év, not to be taken 
as instrumental, is meant of the business, in the execution of 
which they are to be vigilant, since it is prayer in ttsel/, as. an 
expression of the spiritual life, and not as an aid to moral 
activity, that is spoken of. Hence we must not interpret it, 
with Hofmann, as indicating how Christian watchfulness ought 
to be (namely, a watching in prayer), but rather how one 
ought to be tn praying (namely, watchful therein). The 
point of the precept is the praying ; and hence it is continued 
by mpooevyopuevot. — év evyap.| accompanying attitude, belong- 
ing to ypry. év aurh; with thanksgiving, amidst thanksgiving, 
namely, for the benefits already received. Comp. i. 12, ii. 7, 
iii, 17; Phil. iv. 6; 1 Thess v.17. This is the essential 


element of the piety of prayer:* airy yap 4 adnOur) ein 
1 But Olshausen incorrectly says: ‘‘ the prayer of the Christian at all times, 


in the consciousness of the grace which he has experienced, can ied be @ prayer 
of thanksgiving.” He holds the more general spestoxs to be more precisely 





464 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


4) evyaptotiay éyovea imép mdvrov ov lopey nai wy ove 
lopev, ov e erdbopev 4 eOViBonev, rép TeV KoWaY Evep- 
yeriwy, Theophylact. The combination with rH mpocevy7 
apooxapt. (Bohmer, Hofmann) is without ground in the con- 
text, although likewise suitable as to sense. 

Ver. 3. Comp. Eph. vi. 19 f.—dpa xai wept Hy.) while 
your prayer takes place at the same time also (not merely for 
yourselves, for others, and about whatever other affairs, but at 
the same time also) for us, includes us also. This pov, not 
to be referred to Paul alone, like the singular Séenae subse- 
quently and ver. 4, applies to him and Timothy, i. 1. — wa] 
contents of the prayer expressed as its purpose,as in i. 9 and 
frequently.—@vpav 7. Noyou] is not equivalent to cropa (Beza, 
Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and 
others, comp. Storr and Bohmer)—a singular appellation which 
Eph. vi. 7 does not warrant us to assume—but is rather a 
figurative way of indicating the thought: wnhindered opera- 
tion in the preaching of the gospel. So long as this does not 
exist, there is not opened to the preachers a door for the word, 
through which they may let it go forth. Comp.1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; 
2 Cor. ii. 12; Dion. Hal. de vi Dem. p. 1026. 14: ovde 
Ovpas iSmv doyos, also Pind. Ol. vi. 44; avras tyvev 
avamirvapev, Bacchyl. fr. xiv. 2. The wappnola of the preach- 
ing (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), however, lies not 
in the 6vpa and its opening, but in what follows. Hofmann 
incorrectly holds that the closed door is conceived as being on 
the side of those, to whom the preachers wished to preach the 
_word, so that it could not enter in. This conception is 
decidedly at variance with the immediately following Aadjoas 
k.7.d., according to which the hindrance portrayed (the door 
to be opened) exists on the side of the preachers. Moreover, 
in this iva 6 @Qeds «.7.X. the wish of the apostle, as regards his 
own person, is certainly directed to liberation from his captinty 
(comp. Philem. 22), not, however, to this in <étself, but to the 
free working which depended on it. It was not the preaching 
in the prison which Paul meant, for that he had; but he 


defined by tv sbyap. Against this view the very ver. 3 is decisive, where, in 
fact, Paul does no¢ mean a prayer of thanks. 





CHAP. IV. 4 465 


longed after the opening of a Ovpa rod Aoyou; God was to give 
it to him. Perhaps the thought of liberation suggested to 
himself the choice of the expression. Nor is the plural 
nueyv and nuiv, embracing others with himself, at variance 
with this view (as Hofmann holds); for by the captivity of 
the apostle his faithful friend and fellow-labourer Timothy, 
who was with him, was, as a matter of course, also hindered 
in the freedom of working, to which he might otherwise have 
devoted himself. This was involved in the nature of their 
personal and official fellowship. Observe how it is only with 
dédeuzae that Paul makes, and must make, a transition to the 
singular. This transition by no means betrays (in opposition 
to Hitzig and Holtzmann) the words 6? 8 xal déeuat, iva dav. 
avro to be an interpolation from Eph. vi. 20. The fact, that 
Paul elsewhere (Rom. vii. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 27, 39) has déevv in 
the figurative sense, cannot matter; comp., on the contrary, 
the Seopuos and Sécptos which he so often uses. — Aadijoac 
x.7.d.] infinitive of the aim: in order to speak the mystery of 
Christ. The emphasis is on Aadjoat: not to suppress it, 
but to let tt be proclaimed. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 13; 
1 Thess. ii, 2.—-tod Xptorod] genitive of the subject, the 
divine mystery contained in the appearance and redemptive 
act of Christ (comp. Eph. iii. 4), in so far, namely, as the 
divine counsel of redemption, concealed previously to its being 
made known by the gospel, was accomplished in Christ’s 
mission and work (i. 26, ii. 2; Eph. i 9; Rom. xvi. 25). 
Thus the puvornpioy of God in ii. 2 is, because Christ was the 
bearer and accomplisher of it, the puorjprov rod X pra tod.— 
d: 8 wal Sédeyar] dc’ 6 applies to the puoryp.; and the whole 
clause serves to justify the intercession desired. When, namely, 
Paul wishes AaAjoae TO pvotyp. r. X., he therewith desires 
that, which is in such sense his entire destination, that on 
account of this mystery—because, namely, he has made it 
known—he also bears his feters. This xaé is consequently 
the also of the corresponding relation, quite common with re- 
latives (Baeumlein, Partzk. p. 152). 

Ver. 4. “Iva x.7.A.] cannot, seeing that the preceding fa o 
cos avoity «.7.r. means the free preaching outside of the 

COL, 2Q 


466 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


prison, be dependent either on S&epas (Bengel, Hofmann, 
eomp. Theodoret) or on wpocevyoperos, so that it would ran 
parallel with Sa in ver 3 (Beza, Bahr, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Dalmer, and others) ; it is the atm of the XNadAjca: Te 
puor. Tr. X.: t order that I may make st manifest (by preach- 
ing) as I must speak vt. Comp. also Bleek, who, however, less 
simply attaches it already to Ga 6 Qeos avoify xtr. The sig- 
nificant weight of this clause expressing the aim lies in the 
specification of mode as Sei pe AaAReas, in which Se has the 
emphasis. To give forth his preaching tn such measure, as tf 
was the necessity of his apostolic destiny to do (8c&)—so frankly 
and without reserve, so free from hindrance, so far and wide 
from land to land, with such liberty to form churches and to 
combat erroneous teachings, and so forth—-Paul was unable, so 
long as he was in captivity, even when others were allowed 
access to him. There is a tragic trait in this as Sei pe AaARjoas, 
the feeling of the hindered present. The traditional explana- 
tion is that of Chrysostom: perd wodAjs Tis wappnolas wal 
pndey wrroote:Ndpevov, namely, in captivity, where Paul longed 
to speak tn the right way (de Wette; so usually), or conform- 
ably to higher necessity (Bahr, Huther, comp. Beza, 1 Cor. 
ix. 16), or without allowing himself to be disturbed in his 
preaching as apostle to the Gentiles by his imprisonment occa- 
sioned by Jewish - Christian hostility (Hofmann). But in 
opposition to the reference of the whole intercession to 
the ministry iz prison, see on ver. 3. The wish and the 
hope of working once more én /reedom were so necessarily 
bound up in Paul with the consciousness of his comprehensive 
apostolic task, that we can least of all suppose him to have 
given it up already in Caesarea, where he appealed to the 
emperor. Even in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 25, ii 
24), his expectation is still in fact direeted to renewed freedom 
of working. 

Ver. 5 £ Another exhortation, for which Paul must. still 
have had occasion, although we need not seek its link of 
connection with the preceding one. Comp. Eph. v. 15 f, 
where the injunction here given in reference to the non- 
Christians is couched in a general form. — é&v soda] Practical 


CHAP, IV. 5, & 467 


Christian wisdom (not mere pradence ; Chrysostom aptly quotes 
Matt. x. 16) is to be the element, in which their walk amidst 
their intercourse with the non-Christians moves, pos of the 
social direction, Bernhardy, p. 205. As to of een, seo on 
1 Cor. v.12. Comp. 1 Thess, iv. 12. — réy Kaspov éEayop. | 
definition of the mode in which that injunction is to be carried 
out: so that ye make the right point of time your own (see on 
Eph. v. 16), allow it not to pass unemployed. For what? is to 
be inferred solely from the context; namely, for all the activi- 
ties in which that same wise demeanour in intercourse with the 
non-Christians finds expression-—which, consequently, may be 
according to the circumstances very diversified. Individual 
limitations of the reference are gratuitously introduced, such 
as “ad ejusmodi homines meliora docendos,” Heinrichs, comp. 
Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, and others, including Flatt and 
Bohmer ; or: “in reference to the furtherance of the kingdom 
of God,” Huther, Hofmann. There is likewise gratuitously 
imported the idea of the shortness of time, on account of which 
it is to be well applied (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, 
and others, including Bahr), as also the view that the xazpos, 
which signifies the aidpy otros, is not the property of the 
Christian, but belongs tots é&w, and is to be made by Chris- 
tians their own through good deeds (Theodoret, comp. Oecu- 
Menius), or by peaceful demeanour towards the non-Christians 
(Theophylact). Lastly, there is also imported the idea of an 
evil time from Eph. v. 16, in connection with which exposi-: 
tors have in turn lighted on very different definitions of the 
meaning; eg. Calvin: “in tanta saeculi corruptela eripiendam 
esse benefaciendi occasionem et cum obstaculis luctandum ;” 
Grotius : “ effugientes pericula.” — Ver. 6. 0 Aoy. tu.} what ye 
speak, namely, wpos tods é€e; the more groundless, therefore, 
is the position of Holtzmann, that ver. 6 is a supplement 
inserted at a later place, when it should have properly come in 
at chap. iii, between vv. 8 and 9. éorw is to be supplied, 
as is evident from the preceding imperative zreperaretre. — dy 
xapite| denotes that with which their speech is to be furnished, 
with grace, pleasantness, Comp. on Luke iv. 22; Ecclua, 
xxvi, 16, xxxvii. 21; Hom. Od. viii. 175; Dem. 51. 9. This 





468 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


xapevtos elvas of speaking (comp. Plato, Prot. p. 344 B, Rep. 
p. 331 A) is very different from the yapstoy\wocetv of Aesch. 
Prom. 294. — drate nprup.| seasoned with salt, a figurative 
representation of speech as an article of food, which is 
communicated. The sal¢ is emblem of wisdom, as is placed 
beyond doubt by the context in ver. 5, and is in keeping with 
the sense of the following eidévas «.7.4. (comp. Matt. v. 13; 
Mark ix. 49, 50). As an article of food seasoned with salt? 
is thereby rendered palatable, so what is spoken receives 
through wisdom (in contents and form) its morally attracting, 
exciting, and stimulating quality. Its opposite is the stale, 
ethically «insipid (not the morally rotten and corrupt, as Beza, 
Bohmer, and others hold) quality of speech, the papov, pwpo- 
Aoyelv, in which the moral stimulus is wanting. The designa- 
tion of wit by GAs (Gdes) among the later Greeks (Plut. Moral. 
p- 685 A; Athen. ix. p. 366 C) is derived from the pungent 
power of salt, and is not relevant here. Moreover, the relation 
between the two requirements, ev ydpire and Grate nprupéves, 
is not to be distinguished in such a way that the former shall 
mean the good and the latter the correct impression (so, arbi- 
trarily, Hofmann); but the former depicts the character of the 
speech more generally, and the latter more specially. The good 
and correct impression is yielded by both. — eidévae x.7.r.] 
taken groundlessly by Hofmann in an imperative sense (see on 
Rom. xii. 15; Phil. iii 16), is, as if dore stood alongside of it, 
the epexegetical infinitive for more precise definition: so that 
ye know; see Matthiae, § 532 f, p. 1235 f.; Winer, p. 296 
[E. T. 398]. This eidéae (to understand how, see on Phil. 
iv. 12) is, in fact, just an ability, which would not be found in 
the absence of the previously-described quality of speech, but 
is actually existent through the same. -— ds] which may be 
in very different ways, according to the varieties of indivi- | 
duality in the questioners, Hence: évt éxdorm, “nam haec 
pars est non ultima prudentiae, singulorwm habere respectum,” 
Calvin. — dzroxplverOas| We may conceive reference to be 

1 The poets use dprvuy often of articles of food or wines, which are prepared 


in such a way as to provoke the palate. Soph. Fragm. 601, Dind.; Athen. ii. 
p. 68 A; Theoph. de odor. 51; Symm. Cant. viii. 2. Hence épropa, spice. 





CHAP. IV. 7-9. 469 


made to questions as to points of faith and doctrine, as to 
moral principles, topics of constitution and organization, his- 
torical matters, and so forth, which, in the intercourse of Chris- 
tians with non-Christians, might be put, sometimes innocently, 
sometimes maliciously (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 1), to the former, and 
required answer. Paul does not use the word elsewhere. 
Comp. as to the thing itself, his own example at Athens, Acts 
xvii. ; before Felix and Festus ; before the Jews in Rome, Acts 
Xxvili. 20, and so forth; and also his testimony to his own 
procedure, 1 Cor. ix. 20-22. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calo- 
vius, and others, inappropriately mix up believers as included 
in évi éxdore, in opposition to ver. 5. 

Vv. 7-9. Sending of Tychicus, and also of Onesimus. 
Comp. on Eph. vi. 21 f. — By ader¢. Paul expresses the rela- 
tion of Tychicus as a Christian brother generally ; by Sidxovos, 
his special relation as the apostle’s official servant, in which 
very capacity he employs him for such missions; and by ovv- 
Sovdos (i. 7) he delicately, as a mark of honour, places him as 
to official category on a footing of equality with himself ; while 
éy xupiv, belonging to the two latter predicates,' marks the 
specific definite character, according to which nothing else than 
simply Christ—His person, word, and work—¥is the sphere in 
which these relations of service are active. Comp. Eph. 
vi. 21.— eis avrd rovro|] for this very object, having a 
retrospective reference as in Rom. xii. 6, 2 Cor. v. 5 (in 
opposition to Hofmann), in order, namely, that ye may learn 
from him all that concerns me. The following va yore 7a 
ar. tov (see the critical remarks) is explicative; mayra wp. 
yvop. Ta mde in ver. 9 then corresponds to both. Comp. on 
Eph. vi. 22. — vrapaxad.] may comfort, in your anxiety con- 
cerning me, respecting my position. With the reading y@ 
Ta Trepl ipav, the reference would be to the sufferings of the 
readers ; deixvuce xal avrovs ev metpacpois Syras Kal wWapaxd7- 
cews xpnCovtas, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom. — ody ’Ovn- 
cium] belonging to é7reua. As to this slave of Philemon, see 

2 Sduores and esrdevres are also connected by the common attribute wisrés, 


and separated from 43:494s, which has its special adjective. Chrysostom, more- 
over, aptly remarks on the different predicates : 3 &&:émserer evriyayty. 


470 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Introd. to the Epistle to Philemon. Paul commends him’ as 
his faithful (arsorros, as in ver. 7, not: having become a believer, 
as Bahr would render it) and beloved brother, and designates 
him then as Colossian, not in order to do honour to their city 
(Chrysostom, Theophylact), but in order to bespeak their 
special sympathy for Onesimus, the particulars as to whom, 
especially as regards his conversion, he leaves to be communi- 
cated orally. _— é& ua] As a Colossian he was from among 
them, that is, one belonging to their church. Comp. ver. 12. 
—ad d&de}] the state of matters here, to which ra xar’ dyé, 
ver. 7, especially belonged. 

Ver. 10. Sending of salutations down to ver. 14.—’Apie- 
tapyos|] a Thessalonian, known from Acts xix. 29, xx. 4, 
xxvii. 2, Philem. 24, was with Paul at Caesarea, when the 
latter had appealed to the emperor, and travelled with him to 
Rome, Acts xxvii. 2.— 6 cuvacypdrotds pov] Ovdev tovrou 
Tob éyxwplov yweifov, Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter 
to Philemon at ver. 24, the same Aristarchus is enumerated 
among the ovvepyo:; and, on the other hand, at ver. 23 
Epaphras, of whose sharing the captivity our Epistle makes no 
mention (see i. 7), is designated as cuvarypddwrTos, 80 that in 
Philem. /.c. the cvvaryyddwros is expressly distinguished from 
the mere ovvepryoi, and the former is not affirmed of Aristar- 
chus. Hence various interpreters have taken it to refer not 
to a proper, enforced sharing of the captivity, but to a voluntary 
one, it being assumed, namely, that friends of the apostle 
allowed themselves to be temporarily shut up with him in 
prison, in order to be with him and to minister to him not 
merely as visitors, but continuously day and night. Comp. 
Huther, de Wette, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. xxi. Accord- 
ing to this view, such friends changed places from time to 
time, so that, when the apostle wrote owr letter, Aristarchus, 
and when he wrote that to Philemon, Hpaphras, shared his 
captivity. But such a relation could the less be gathered by 
the readers from the mere cuwvacypddwros (comp. Lucian, 


1 And how wisely and kindly, after what had happened with Onesimus! Yet 


Holtzmann holds that of the whole verse only the name Onesimus is character- 
istic, and reckons the verse to owe its existence to that name. 


CHAP. IV. 10. 471 


As. 27), seeing that Paul himself was a prisoner, and con- 
sequently they could not but find in cuvacypanr. simply the 
entirely similar position of Aristarchus as a ovvderperns (Plat. 
Rep. p. 516 C; Thue. vi 60. 2), and that as being so at the 
same time, not, as in Rom. xvi. 7, at some earlier period. Hence 
we must assume that zow Aristarchus, but when the Epistle to 
Philemon was written, Epaphras, lay in prison at the same 
time with the apostle,—an imprisonment which is to be re- 
garded as detention for trial, and the change of persons in the 
case must have had its explanation in circumstances to us 
unknown but yet, notwithstanding the proximity of the two 
letters in point of time, sufficiently conceivable, It is to be 
observed, moreover, that as aiyudd. always denotes captivity 
an war (see on Eph. iv. 8 ; also Luke iv. 18), Paul by cvvaryp. 
sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of 
Christ). Comp. ovotpatwrns, Phil ii 25; Philem. 2. 
Hofmann (comp. also on Rom. xvi. 7) is of opinion that we 
should think “of the war-captive state of one won by Christ 
from the kingdom of darkness,” so that cvvarypddwros would be 
an appellation for fellow-Christian ; but this is an aberration, 
which ought least of all to have been put forth in the pre- 
sence of a letter, which Paul wrote in the very character of a 
prisoner. — Upon adverts, consobrinus, cousin: Herod. vii. 5. 
82,ix. 10; Plat. Legg. xi p. 925 A; Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 9, 
Tob. vii. 22, Num. xxxvi. 11; see Andoc. i 47; Pollux, 
iii, 28. Not to be confounded either with nephew (aderqu- 
Sods) or with aveyrrddys, cousin's son, in the classical writers, 
avefiod trais. See generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 506. To 
take it in a wider sense, like our “ kinsman, relative” (so in 
Hom. Jl. ix. 464, who, however, also uses it in the strict 
sense as in x. 519), there is the less reason, seeing that Paul 
does not use the word elsewhere. Moreover, as no other Mark 
at all occurs in the N. T., there is no sufficient ground for the 
supposition of Hofmann, that Paul had by o dvey. Bapy. 
merely wished to signify which Mark he meant. Chrysostom 
and Theophylact already rightly perceived that the relation- 
ship with the highly-esteemed Barnabas was designed to 
redound to the commendation of Mark. — rept od édaf. évron.] 


472 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


in respect of whom (Mark) ye have received injunctions'—a 
remark which seems to be made not without a design of remind- 
ang them as to their execution. What injunctions are meant, 
by whom and through whom they were given, and whether 
orally or in writing, Paul does not say; but the recalling of 
them makes it probable that they proceeded from himself, and 
were given aypadws Sia tivwy (Oecumenius). Ewald conjec- 
tures that they were given in the letter to the Laodiceans, 
and related to love-offerings for Jerusalem, which Mark was 
finally to fetch and attend to. But the work of collection 
was probably closed with the last journey of the apostle to 
Jerusalem. Others hold, contrary to the notion of évroAm, 
that letters of recommendation are meant from Barnabas 
(Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius); while others 
think that the following day €\@y «.7.d. forms the contents of 
évroxas (Calvin—who, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some 
codd., reads subsequently Sé€acOast.—comp. Beza, Castalio, 
Bengel, Bahr, and Baumgarten-Crusius),—a view against 
which may be urged the plural évroAds and the absence of 
the article. Hofmann incorrectly maintains that sept od eda. 
éyroXads is to be taken along with day ErOy a. iy.: respecting 
whom ye have obtained instructions for the case of his coming to 
you. This the words could not mean; for dav €XOn a. ip. 
signifies nothing else than: if he shall have come to you, and 
this accords not with éAuf. évror., but only with défacbe 
avtoy, which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed with- 

1 esi ov is not to be referred to Barnabas, as, following Theophylact and 
Cajetanus (the former of whom, however, explains as if wap’ oF were read), Otto, 
Pastoralbr. p. 259 ff., has again done. The latter understands under the lvreads 
instructions formerly issued to the Pauline churches not to receive Barnabas, 
which were now no longer to be applied. Asif the wapefurnés of Acts xv. 89 
could have induced the apostle to issue such an anathema to his churches against 
the highly-esteemed Barnabas, who was accounted of apostolic dignity! Paul 
did not act so unjustly and imprudently. Comp., on the contrary, Gal. ii. 9 
and (notwithstanding what is narrated at Gal. ii. 11) 1 Cor. ix. 6. 

2In 1 Tim. iii. 14 f., a passage to which Hofmann, with very little ground, 
appeals, the verb of the chief clause is, in fact, a present (ypéQw), not, a3 would 
be the case here, a practerite, which expresses an act of the past (iadBses). There 
the meaning is : In the case of my departure being delayed, however, this my 
letter has the object, etc. But here, if the conditional clause were to be annexed 
to the past act iadgirs, the circumstance conditioning the latter would logically 





CHAP, IV. 11. 473 


out connecting link (that is, with singular abruptness).—édy 
€XOy x.7.d.] Parenthesis; Mark must therefore have had in 
view a journey, which was to bring him to Colossae. déyeoOas 
of hospitable reception, as often in the N. T. (Matt. x. 14; 
John iv. 45) and in classical authors (Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 23). 
From the circumstance, however, that défacGe stands without 
special modal definition, it is not to be inferred that Paul was 
apprehensive lest the readers should not, without this sum- 
mons, have recognised Mark (on account of Acts xv. 38 f.) as 
an apostolic associate (Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. 
p. 567). Not the simple 5é£ace, but a more precise defini- 
tion, would have been called for in the event of such an 
apprehension. " 

Ver. 11. OF this Jesus nothing farther is known. — o: dyres 
éx wepit. is to be attached, with Lachmann (comp. also Steiger, 
Huther, Bleek), to what follows, so that a full stop is not to 
be inserted (as is usually done) after aweper. Otherwise of 
Syres ex wepet. would be purposeless, and the following ovros 
povor «.7.A, too general to be true, and in fact at variance with 
the subsequent mention of Epaphras and Luke (vv. 12-14). 
It is accordingly to be explained: Of those, who are from the 
circumcision, these alone (simply these three, and no others) 
are such fellow-labourers for the kingdom of the Messiah, as have 
become a comfort to me. The Jewish-Christian teachers, conse- 
quently, worked even at Caesarea to a great extent in an 
anti-Pauline sense. Comp. the complaint from Rome, Phil. i. 
15,17. The nominative of Syres ex mepir. puts the generic 
subject at the head; but as something is to be affirmed not 
of the genus, but of a special part of it, that general subject 
remains without being followed out, and by means of the 
peradBacts eis pépos the special subject is introduced with 
oro, so that the verb (here the eioéf to be supplied) now 
attaches itself to the latter. A phenomenon of partitive 
apposition, which is current also in classical authors. See 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 246; Niagelsbach and Faesi on Hom. JZ. iii. 


have to be conceived and expressed in oblique form (from the pomt of view of 
the person giving the ingunction), in some such form, therefore, as: i dAbes wpés 
isas (comp. Acts xxiv. 19, xxvii. 89; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 491 f.). 


474 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


211. Comp. Matthine, p. 1307. Hence there is the less 
reason for breaking up the passage, which runs on simply, 
after the fashion adopted by Hofmann, who treats éx epero- 
pijs otrot povos as inserted paerenthetically between of Eyres 
and cuvepyot. The complimentary affirmation is to be referred 
to all the three previously named, without arbitrary exclusion 
of Anistarchus (in opposition to Hofmann). At any rate, 
Caesarea was @ city so important for the Christian mission, 
that many teachers, Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian, 
must have frequented it, especially while Paul was a prisoner 
there ; and consequently the notice in the passage before us 
need not point us to Rome as the place of writing. — vapy- 
yopia| consolation, comfort, only here in the N. T.; more 
frequently in Plutarch; see Kypke. Méysoroy éyxwpuoy ro rp 
arroctimp yevéobas Oupndias mpofevov, Theodoret. Bengel 
imposes an arbitrary limitation: “in forensi periculo.” 

Ver. 12. "Ewagpas] See i 7 and Introd. — It is to be 
observed that, according to ver. 11, Epaphras, Luke, and - 
Demas (ver. 14) were no Jewish-Christians, whereas Tiele in 
the Stud. u. Kriz. 1858, p. 765, holding Luke to be by birth 
a Jew, has recourse to forced expedients, and wishes arbitrarily 
to read between the lines. Hofmann, refining groundlessly (see 
on ver. 14), but with a view to favour his presupposition that 
all the N. T. writings were of Israelite origin,’ thinks that our 
passage contributes nothing towards the solution of the ques- 
tion as to Luke’s descent ; comp. on Luke, Introd. § 1.— 6 ¢£ 
tov] as in ver. 9, exciting the affectionate special interest of 
the readers; trép tuay afterwards thoughtfully corresponds. 
— Soiros X. is to be taken together with wdyrote ayoret., but 
6 é& dudv is not to be connected with SedA0s (Hofmann) ; on 
the contrary, it is to be taken by itself as a special element of 
recommendation (as in ver. 9): Epaphras, your own, a servant 
of Christ who is always striving, etc.—daywf | Comp. Rom. xv. 
80. The more fervent the prayer for any one is, the more is it 
a striving for htm, namely, in opposition to the dangers which 
threaten him, and which are present to the vivid conception 

41 This postulate, wholly without proof, is also assumed by Grau, Zriwick- 
elungegeach. d. newtest. Schriftth. 1. p. 54. 


CHAP. IV. 12. 475 


of him who wrestles in prayer. Comp. also ii. 1. The 
striving of Epaphras in prayer certainly had reference not 
merely to the heretical temptations to which the Colossians, of 
whose church he was a member, were exposed, but—as is 
evident from fa orijre x.7.X. (purpose of the ayo «.7..)— 
to everything generally, which endangered the right Christian 
frame in them. — or7jre] designation of stedfast perseverance ; 
in which there is neither wavering, nor falling, nor giving way. 
To this belongs éy apr? Gednu. 7. O., expressing wherein 
(comp. 1 Pet. v. 12) they are to maintain stedfastness; in 
every will of God, that is, a all that God wills. Comp. on 
orjvat év in this sense, John viii. 44; Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 
1, xvi 13. This connection (comp. Bengel and Bleek) 
recommends itself on account of its frequent occurrence, and 
because it completes and rounds off the whole expression ; for 
orire now has not merely a modal definition, réX. x. wewNnp., 
but also a local definition, which admirably corresponds to the 
figurative conception of standing. This applies, at the same 
time, in opposition to the usual mode of construction with 
réx. x. emdnp., followed also by Hofmann, according to which 
év ar. Oex. +. @. would be the moral sphere, “within which the 
perfection and firm conviction are to take place,’ Huther.’— 
Téevoe Kal tremAnpopopnpévor| perfect and with full conviction 
(comp. it 2; Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5; and see on Luke i. 1) 
obtain through the context (orjre év mw. Ged. +. O.) their more 
definite meaning; the former as moral perfection, such as the 
true Christian ought to have (i 28); and the latter, as sted- 
fastness of conscience, which excludes all scruples as to what 
God's will requires, and is of decisive importance for the 
renevorns of the Christian life; comp. Rom. xiv. 5, 22 f. 


1 If we follow the Recepta wswAnpapsives (see the critical remarks), on the other 
hand, we must join, as is usually done, following Chrysostom and Luther, J» #. 
ba. +. Cred to wsranpap, : filled with every will of God, which, instead of being 
transformed into ‘‘ voluntatis divinae verae et integrae cognitio” (Reiche, comp. 
Beza), is rather to be understood as denoting that the heart is to be full of all 
that God wills, and that in no matter, consequently, is any other will than the 
divine to rule in the believer. Respecting is, comp. on Eph. v. 18. Bahr 
incorrectly renders: ‘‘ by virtue of the whole counsel of God,” which is not 
possible on account of the very absence of the article in the case of ex»ri. Grotius, 
Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, erroneously hold that iy is equivalent to sis. 


476 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Ver. 13. General testimony in confirmation of the particular 
statement made regarding Epaphras in wdvrore «.r.A. ; on which 
account there is the less reason to ascribe to the interpolator 
the more precise definition of a@yewul. in. ix., which is given 
by é traits mpocevy. (Holtzmann). The ydp is sufficiently 
clear and logical. — zroAdw arovoy (see the critical remarks) ; 
much toil, which is to be understood of the exertion of mental 
activity—of earnest working with its cares, hopes, wishes, 
fears, temptations, dangers, and so forth The word is pur- 
posely chosen, in keeping with the conception of the conflict 
(ver. 12); for zrovos is formally used of the toil and trouble 
of confict. See Herod. vi. 114, viii. 89; Plat. Phaedr. p. 
247 B; Dem. 637.18; Eur. Suppl. 317; Soph. Trach. 21. 
169; often so in Homer as Ji. i 467, and Nagelsbach in loc. ; 
comp. Rev. xxi 4.— «al tov ev Aaod. «. +. dy ‘Iepar.] 
Epaphras had certainly laboured in these adjoining towns, as 
in Colossae, which was probably his headquarters, as founder, 
or, at least, as an eminent teacher of the churches. 

Ver. 14. Luke the physician, the (by me) beloved, is the 
Evangelist—a point which, in presence of the tradition current 
from Iren. iii. 14. 1 onward, is as little to be doubted as that 
the Mark of ver. 10 is the Evangelist. Luke was with Paul 
at Caesarea (Philem. 24), and travelled with him to Rome (Acts 
Xxvil. 1), accompanying him, however, not as physician (as if 
pov or nov had been appended), but as an associate in teach- 
ing, as ouvepyos, Philem. 24.: Hofmann calls this in question, 
in order to avoid the inference from ver. 11, that Luke was a 
non-Israelite. The addition, moreover, of 6 iarpds is simply 
to be explained after the analogy of all the previous saluta- 
tions sent, by assuming that Paul has appended to each of the 
persons named a special characteristic description by way of 
recommendation.’ The case of Anpuds is the only exception ; 
on which account it is the more probable that the latter had 

1 In the case of Luke, the attachment of the honourable professional designa- 
tion 4 ‘arpés to the name suggested itself so naturally and spontaneously—con- 
sidering the peculiarity of his professional position, to which there was probably 
nothing similar in the case of any other evvspyss—that there is no reason to 


assume any special purpose in the selection (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and many, 
suggest that the object was to distinguish Luke from others of the eame name). 


CHAP. IV. 15. ATT 


even at this time (at the date of 2 Tim. iv. 10 he has abdan- 
doned him) seemed to the apostle not quite surely entitled to 
a commendatory description, although he still, at Philem. 24, 
adduces him among his ouvepyol, to whose number he still 
belonged. Hence the assumption of such a probability is not 
strange, but is to be preferred to the altogether precarious 
opinion of Hofmann, that Demas was the amanuensis of the 
letter, and had, with the permission of the apostle, inserted 
his name (comp. Bengel’s suggestion). Whence was the reader 
to know that? How very different is it at Rom. xvi. 22! 
The name itself is not Hebrew (in opposition to Schoettgen), 
but Greek; see Boeckh, Corp. inscrip. 1085; Becker, Anecd. 
714. 

Ver. 15. Messages down to ver. 17.— The first xaé is: 
and especially, and in particular, so that of the Christians at 
Laodicea (rovs éy Aaod. aderd.). Nymphas is specially’ singled 
out for salutation by name. In the following xal riy nar 
olxoy avtav éxknr., the church which is in their house, the plural 
avtwy (see the critical remarks) cannot without violence re- 
ceive any other reference than to tovs dv Aaod. ddeAdors x. 
Nupdav. Paul must therefore (and his readers were more pre- 
cisely aware how this matter stood) indicate a church different 
from the Laodicean church, a forcign one, which, however, 
was in jilial association with that church, and held its meetings 
in the same house wherein the Laodiceans assembled. If we 
adopt the reading avrod, we should have to think, not of the 
Jamily of Nymphas (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, and others), 
but, in accordance with Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Philem. 2, 
of a portion of the Laodicean church, which held its separate 
meetings in the house of Nymphas, In that case, however, the 
persons here saluted would have been already included among 
tovs év Aaodixela adedovs. The plural avtav by no means 
warrants the ascribing the origin of ver. 15 to an unseasonable 
reminiscence of 1 Cor. xvi. 19 and Rom. xvi. 5, perhaps also 
of Philem. 2 (Holtzmann). What a mechanical procedure 

1 Nymphas appears to have been specially well known to the apostle, and on 


friendly terms with him ; perhaps a evspyés, who was now for a season labouring 
in the church at Laodicea. 


478 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


would that be!—The personal name Nymphas itself, which 
some with extreme arbitrariness would take as a symbolic 
name (Hitzig, comp. Holtzmann), is not elsewhere preserved, 
but we find Nymphaeus, Nymphodorus, Nymphodotus, and Nym- 
phius, also Nymphis. 

Ver. 16.1 This message presupposes essentially similar 
circumstances in the two churches. — 4 éxiotoA2] is, a8 a 
matter of course, the present Epistle now before us; Winer, 
p. 102 [E. T. 133}. Comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Thess. v. 27.— 
mwowncate, iva| procure, that. The expression rests on the con- 
ception: to be active, in order that something may happen, 
John xi 37. Comp Herod. i. 8: srolet, Sxws x«.7.r, i 209; 
Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3.18. The following xat rnvy ex Aaod. «.17.d. 
is, with emphatic prefixing of the object, likewise dependent 
OD wrowmoate, not co-ordinated with the latter as an independent 
imperative sentence like Eph. v. 33—a forced invention of 
Hofmann, which, besides, is quite inappropriate on account of 
the stern command which it would yield.? — ry» é« Aaodixelas] 
not: that written to me from Laodicea. So tiwés in Chrysostom, 
who himself gives no decisive voice, as also Syriac, Theodoret, 
Photius in Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Calvin, 
Calovius, Wolf, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, and others, 
as also again Baumgarten-Crusius. This is at variance with 
the context, according to which «ai tpels, pursuant to the 
parallel of the first clause of the verse, presupposes the Laodi- 
ceans, not as the senders of the letter, but as the receivers of the 

1 See Anger, Beitr. zur histor. krit. Einl. in d. A. u. N. 7. 1.; Ober den 
Laodicenerbrief, Leip. 1848 ; Wieseler, de epistola Laodicena, Gott. 1844 ; and 
Chronol. d. apost. Zeit. p. 450 fi ; Sartori, Ueber d. Laodicenserbrief, Liib. 
1858. 

? Hofmann needed, certainly, some such artificial expedient, wholly without 
warrant in the words of the text, te favour his presupposition that the Epistle to 
the Ephesians was meant, and that it was a circular letter. Fora circular letter 
goes through the circuit destined for it of itee[f, and there is no occasion to ask 
or to send for it in order to procure, that (wesiears, tre) people may get it to read. 
But the effect of the forced separation of the second ise from weseucs is, that the 
words chy ix Asedixsias are supposed only to affirm that the letter ‘‘ will come” 
from Laodicea to Colossae, that it ‘‘ will reach” them, and they ought to read 
it. In this way the text must be strained to suit what is @ priors put into 
it. This applies also in opposition to Sabatier, fap. Paul, p. 201, who entirely 
ignores the connection with wesivars (‘la lettre qui vous vierdra de Laod.”). 


CHAP. IV. 16. 479 


letter, by whom it was read. How unsuitable also would be 
the form of the message by zrosyoare! Paul must, in fact, 
have sent to them the letter. Lastly, neither the object aimed at 
(Theophylact already aptly remarks : dA’ ove olda, ri Av exelyns 
—namely, that alleged letter of the Laodiceans—ée. avrois 
apos Bertiwowv), nor even the propriety of the matter would be 
manifest. Purely fanciful is the opinion of Jablonsky, that 
Paul means a letter of the Laodiceans to the Colossian overseers, 
as well as that of Theophylact : 4 wpos Tipoleov rpotn airy 
yap é« Aaodtxelas éypddn. So also a scholion in Matthaei. 
In accordance with the context—although Lange, Aposf. 
Zeitalt. I. p. 211 ff, denounces the idea as a “ fiction,” and 
Hofmann declares it as excluded by the very salutations with 
which the Colossians are charged to the Laodiceans—we can 
only understand it to refer to @ letter of Paul to the Laodtceans, 
which not merely these, to whom it was written, but also the 
Colossians (cat jpeis) were to read, just as the letter to the 
Colossians was to be read not merely by the latter, but also in 
the Laodicean church. The mode of expression, rnv ée Aaode- 
xelas, is the very usual form of attraction in the case of pre- 
positions with the article (comp. Matt. xxiv. 17; Luke xi. 13), 
so that the two elements are therein comprehended: the letter 
to be found in Laodicea, and to be claimed or fetched from 
Laodicea, to Colossae. See generally, Kiihner, IL 1, p. 473 f, 
and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 11, ad Anab.i. 1. 5; Stallbaum, ad 
Plat. Apol. p. 32 B; Winer, p. 584 [E. T. 784]. This letter 
written to the Laodiceans has, like various other letters of the 
apostle, been lost.' In opposition to the old opinion held by 
Marcion, and in modern times still favoured especially by such 
as hold the Epistle to the Ephesians to be a circular letter 

? The apocryphal letter to the Laodiceans, the Greek text of which, we may 
mention, originated with Elias Hutter (1599), who translated it from the Latin, 
may be seen in Fabricius, Codex apocr. p. 878 ff., Anger, p. 142 ff. The whole 
letter, —highly esteemed, on the suggestion of Gregory I., during the Middle Ages 
in the West, although prohibited in the second Council of Nice, 787 (to be found 
also in pre-Lutheran German Bibles),—which is doubtless a still later fabrication 
than that already rejected in the Canon Muratorianus, consists only of twenty 
verses, the author of which does not even play the part of a definite situation. 
Erasmus rightly characterizes it: ‘‘quae nihil habeat Pauli praeter voculas 
aliquot ex ceteris ejus epistolis mendicatas,” 


od 


480 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


(Bohmer, Bottger, Bahr, Steiger, Anger, Reuss, Lange, Bleek, 
Dalmer, Sabatier, Hofmann, Hitzig, and others), that the 
Epistle to the Ephesians is to be understood as that referred to, 
see Introd. to Eph. § 1; Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. 
p. 435 ff; Sartori, dc.; Reiche, Comm. crit. ad Eph. 1.1; 
Laurent in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1866, p.131 ff. The hypo- 
thesis that the Epistle to Philemon is meant (so Wieseler, also 
Thiersch, Hist. Standp. p. 424 ; and some older expositors, see 
in Calovius and in Anger, p. 35) finds no confirmation either in 
the nature and contents of this private letter,’ or in the expres- 
sions of our passage, which, according to the analogy of the 
context, presuppose a letter to the whole church and for it. 
Even the Epistle to the Hebrews (Schulthess, Stein, in his Comm. 
2. Luk,, appendix) has been fallen upon in the vain search after 
the lost! According to Holtzmann, the words are intended to 
refer to the Epistle to the Ephesians, but xal ry de Aaodix. va 
x. by. avaryv. is an insertion of the interpolator ;? comp. Hitzig. 


REMARK.—It is to be assumed that, the Epistle to the Laodi- 
ceans was composed at the same time with that to the Colossians, 
inasmuch as the injunction that they should be mutually read 
in the churches can only have been founded on the similarity 
of the circumstances of the two churches as they stood at the 
time. Comp. ii. 1, where the xa/ ri» iv Aaodixeig, specially 
added to wspi iwtv, expresses the similar and simultaneous 
character of the need, and, when compared with our passage, is 
to be referred to the consciousness that the apostle was writing 


1 For, although it is in form addressed to several persons, and even to the 
church in the house (see on Philem. 1, 2), it is at any rate in substance clear, as 
Jerome already remarks: ‘‘ Paulum tantummodo ad Philemonem scribere, e¢ 
unum cum suo sermocinari.” Besides, it is to be inferred from the contents of 
the Colossian letter, that the Laodicean letter meant was also doctrinal in con- 
tents, and that the reciprocal use of the two letters had reference to this, in 
accordance with the essentially similar needs of the two neighbouring churches. 

2 Because, if we annex ‘va to weteaes, an awkward sense arises, “‘ seeing that 
the Colossians can only cause that they geé the letter to read, but not that they 
read it.” That is a subtlety, which does injustice to the popular style of the 
letter. But if we take %s independently (as Hofmann does), then Holtzmann 
is further of opinion that the author of Eph. iv. 29, v. 27, 38, is immediately 
betrayed—an unfounded inference (comp. Winer, p. 295 [E. T. 396]), in which, 
besides, only the comparison of Eph. v. 33 would be relevant, and thut would be 
balanced by 2 Cor. viii. 7. 





CHAP, IV. 17. 481 


to both churches. And the expression ray ix Aaedixsiag pro- 
duces the impression that, when the Colossians received their 
letter, the Laodiceans would already have theirs. At the same 
time the expression is such, that Paul does not expressly inform 
the Colossians that he had written also to the Laodiceans, but 
speaks of this letter as of something known to the readers, 
evidently reckoning upon the oral communication of Tychicus. 
The result, accordingly, seems as follows: Tychicus was the 
bearer of doth letters, and travelled by way of Laodicea to 
Colossae, so that the letter for that church was already in 
Laodicea when the Colossians go¢ theirs from the hands of 
Tychicus, and they were now in a position, according to the 
directions given in our passage, to have the Laodicean letter 
forwarded to them, and to send their own (after it was publicly 
read in their own church) to Laodicea. 


Ver. 17. The particular cireumstances which lay at the 
root of this emphatic admonitory utterance’ cannot be ascer- 
tained, nor do we even know whether the duaxovia is to be 
understood in the narrower sense of the office of deacon 
(Primasius), or of any other office relating to the church 
(possibly the office of presbyter), or of the calling of an evange- 
list, or of some individual business relating to the service of 
the church. We cannot gather from év xupim any more pre- 
cise definition of the Christian Svaxcowa. Ewald conjectures 
that Archippus was a still younger man (Bengel holds him to 
have been sick or weak through age), an overseer of the 
church, who had been during the absence of Epaphras too 
indulgent towards the false teachers. Even Fathers like 
Jerome and the older expositors regard him as bishop (so 
also Dollinger, Christenthum u. Kirche, ed. 2, p. 308), or as 
substitute for the bishop during the absence of Epaphras 
(similarly Bleek), whose successor he had also become (Cor- 
nelius a Lapide and Estius). Comp. further as to this 
Colossian,? on Philem. 2. The special motive for this precise 

1 Bengel : ‘‘ vos meis verbis dicite tanquam testes. Hoc magis movebat, quam 
si ipsum Archippum appellaret.” 

* Theodoret already with reason declares himself against the opinion that 
Archippus had been a Daodicean teacher (so Theodore of Mopeuestia, Michaelis, 


and Storr), just as the Constitt. apost. vii. 46. 2 make him appointed by Paul as 
bishop of Lacdicea. Recently it has been defended by Wieseler, Chronol. des 


COL. 2H 


482 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


form of reminding him of his duty is not clear. But what 
merits attention is the relation of disciplinary admoniteve 
authority, in which, according to these words, the church stood 
to the office-bearers, and which should here be the less called 
in question with Hofmann, since Paul in the letter to 
Philemon addressed jointly to Archippus would doubtless 
himself have given. the admonition, if he had not conceded 
and recognised in the church that authority of which he in- 
vokes the exercise—and that even in the case, which cannot 
be proved, of the daxovia having been the service of an 
evangelist. The expedient to which Oecumenius and others 
have recourse can only be looked upon as flowing from the 
later hierarchical feeling: a dray émutipa “ApyiTrros avrots, 
pt) Eywow éyxarely exelvp as miucp@... érel GAdwS AroTrov 
tois wantais wept Tod SiSacxddov SvaréyerOa: (Theophylact). 
— Prérre «.7.d.] Grotius, Wolf, Flatt, Bahr, and many, take 
the construction to be: Brérre, iva rijy Sax. fv wapén. év xup., 
mAnpots, from which arbitrary view the very avrq should 
have precluded them. The words are not to be taken other- 
wise than as they stand: Look to the service (have it in thy 


apost. Zeitalt. p. 452, and Laurent in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 180, argu- 
ing that, if Archippus had been a Colossian, it is not easy to see why Paul, 
in ver. 17, makes him be admonished by others ; and also that ver. 17 is joined 
by xai to ver. 15 f., where the Laodiceans are spoken of. But the form of 
exhortation in ver. 17 has a motive not known to us at all; and the reason based 
on xai in ver. 17 would only be relevant in the event of ver. 17 following imme- 
diately after ver. 15. Lastly, we should expect, after the analogy of ver. 15, 
that if Archippus had not dwelt in Colossae, Paul would have caused a salutation 
to be sent to him as to Nymphas. Besides, it would be altogether very sur- 
prising that Paul should have conveyed the warning admonition to Archippus 
through a strange church, the more especially when he had written at the same 
time to himself jointly addressed with Philemon (Philem. 2). 

1 Hitzig, p. 31 (who holds also vv. 9, 15, 16 to be not genuine), gives it as 
his opinion that Archippus is indebted for this exhortation, not to the apostle, 
but to the manipulator, who knew the man indeed from Philem. 2, but 
probably had in his mind the Flavius Archippus, well known from Plin. Ep. 
x. 66-68, and the proconsul Paulus, when he adjusted for himself the relation 
between the Apostle Paul and his fellow-warrior Archippus (Philem. 2). I do 
not understand how any one could ascribe even to an interpolator so singular an 
anachronistic confusion of persons. Yet Holtzmann finds the grounds of Hitzig 
so cogent, that he ultimately regards vv. 15-17 as the rivet, ‘‘by means of which 
the Auctor ad Ephesios has made a connected triad out of his own work, the 
interpolated Colossian epistle, and the letter to Philemon.” 








CHAP. IV. 18. 483 


view), which thow hast undertaken in the Lord, in order that 
thou mayest fulfil it, mayest meet its obligations; wa aur. 
wAnp. is the purpose, which is to be present in the BAérep 7. 
Stax. «7.4. Comp. 2 John 8. On wdnpois, comp. Acts xii. 
25; 1 Mace. ix. 55; Liban. Ep. 359; Philo, zn Flace. p. 988: 
thy Svaxoviay éxmdjoaytes. — év Kupio] not: from the Lord 
(Bahr); not: for the sake of the Lord (Flatt); not: secundum 
Domini praecepta (Grotius). Christ, who is served by the 
diaxovia (1 Cor. xii. 5), is conceived as the sphere, in which 
the act of the wapaXapBdavew thy diaxoviay is accomplished 
objectively, as well as in the consciousness of the person con- 
cerned ; he is in that act not out of Christ, but living and 
acting in Him. The ev xvup. conveys the element of holy 
obligation. The less reason is there for joining it, with 
Grotius, Steiger, and Dalmer, to the following a air. wAnp. 

Ver. 18. Conclusion written with his own hand; comp. 
2 Thess. iii, 17. See on 1 Cor. xvi. 21.— Be mindful for me 
of my bonds, a closing exhortation, deeply touching in its sim- 
plicity, in which there is not a mere request for intercession 
(ver. 3), or a hint even at the giving of aid, but the whole 
pious affection of grateful love is claimed, the whole strength 
of his example for imparting consolation and stedfastness is 
asserted, and the whole authority of the martyr is thrown into 
the words. Every limitation is unwarranted. Todro yap ixavov 
eis Tavra avtrovs mpotpéacbat, Kal yevvaotépovs Trotjoat 
Mpos Tos ayavas’ dpa Kal oixevotépous avrods eroinge nal Tov 
goBov édrvcev, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom. — % xdpss] 
wat éEoynv: the grace of God bestowed in Christ. Comp. 
1 Tim. vi. 21; 2 Tim. iv. 22; Tit. iit 5. Comp. on Eph. 
vi. 24. 


MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
PRINTERS TO HER MAJKSTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE. 








ZT. and T. Clark's Publications. 


DR. LUTHARDT’S NEW WORK. 





Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s., 


ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE 
FOURTH GOSPEL. 


By PROFESSOR C. E. LUTHARDT, 


AUTHOR OF ‘FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY,’ ETC. 


Granslated and the Piterature Enlarged 
By C. R. GREGORY, Lerpzic. 


Cuap. I. Tradition. II. St. John’s Authorship disputed. III. The Testimony 
of the Church. IV. Testimony outside of the Church. V. St. John’s 
Residence at Ephesus. VI. The Passover Controversy. VII. The Testi- 
mony of the Gospel itself. VIII. St. John’s Gospel and the Second 
Century. IX. St. John’s Gospel and the Synoptists. X. St. John’s Gos- 
pel and the Revelation. XI. St. John’s Christology psychologically 
possible. APPENDIX.—Literature of the disputed Origin of the Fourth 
Gospel, from 1792 to the present. 


‘A work which must be regarded as a very able and almost exhaustive summary of 
the arguments in favour of the catholic tradition on this subject—exhaustive, that is to 
say, in the present state of the question, and until new evidence shall have been dis- 
covered. Nothing can be more lucid or effective than the author’s method of arranging 
and presenting his arguments.'—.Scotsman. 


‘There are few works in the later theological literature which contain, in such a con- 
fined space, such wealth of sober theological knowledge, and such an invulnerable 
phalanx of objective apologetical criticism.’ —Professor Guericke. 


‘In this work, from the pen of one of the greatest divines of Germany, the facts are 
made to speak for themselves, and the result is a complete refutation of the Anti- 
Johannine school of criticism, and a correspondingly complete establishment of the 
truth on which the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church is shown to rest. .. . 
Such a work as this was much needed.’ Dickinson's Quarterly. 


‘It is with no ordinary gratification that we welcome ‘Dr. Luthardt’s exhaustive 
treatise. All the more so, that while he writes evidently with the earnestness of a man 
fighting for a treasure, he never descends to the mere special pleader. ... We cor- 
dfally commend Dr. Luthardt’s work as an able and seasonable contribution to the 
literature of this question.’—Courant. 


‘Those who consult Luthardt’s volume will find him to be a safe guide. He is 
remarkably temperate and fair. He makes the liberal concessions of one who feels that 
his resources are substantial, and that he need not fight for trifle. ... This is by 
far the best handbook on the subject which any inquirer can have. We hope that in its 
present form it will find a large circle of readers.’—Daily Review. 








T. and T. Clark's Publicateons. 


DR. MURPHY'S NEW WORK. 


Just published, in demy 8vo, 700 pages, price 15s., 


A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


BOOK OF PSALMS, 


WITH A NEW TRANSLATION. 
By JAMES G. MURPHY, LLD., T.C_D,, 


AUTHOR OF COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOKS OF GENESIS, EXODUS, ETO. 


‘Every Bible Student will look upon this volume with interest, and should give warm 
thanks to the learned author for the care and erudition which have been bestowed upon 
it. . The introductory chapters are very valuable, referring both to the fee of 
the Psalms, their themes, their authors, and their arrangements. The exegesis is ad 
able, and the spirit is devout.’— Methodist Recorder. 


Just published, in Two Vols. 8vo, price 218., 


A COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


GOSPEL QF ST. LUKE. 


By F. GODET, 


DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUOCHATEL. 


Translated from the Second French Edition. 


‘We are indebted to the publishers for an English translation of the admirable work 
which stands at the head of this review. . . . It isa work of great ability, learning, and 
rescarch.’—Christian Observer. 


‘The whole book is very valuable, and is the work of a critic, scholar, and divine of 
no ory 2 Mb Ppa who has devoted to it wonderful conscientiousness and diligent 
care.’"— 


‘This is one of the most important and valuable works yet issued in the Forei 
Theological Library. sap in learning, scientific in method, profound and luminous 
thought, it is a masterpiece of exposition, critical and yearn , Worthy to be placed side 
Phestocic side pment the ee thor’s great ‘Commentary on St. John’s Gospel.”’—Dickinson's 











7. and T. Clark's Publications. 


Just Published, in Demy 8v0, Price 75. 64., 


THE 


MIRACLES OF OUR LORD 
IN RELATION T0 MODERN CRITICISM. 


BY 


¥F. L. STEINMEYER, D.D., 


ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN. 


TRANSLATED, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR, FROM 
THE GERMAN BY 


L A WHEATLEY. 


Intropuction.—1. The Problem. 2. Method of Solving it. 8. Value of the 
Solution. JEsus as A WORKER OF MIRACLES. 

First Group.—Miracles considered as Signs of the Kingdom of Heaven. 

Srconp GrouP.—Miracles considered as Symbols. 


THIRD GrouPp.—Miracles as Witnesses of the Power of the Kingdom of Heaven. 
FourtH Group.— Miracles as Prophecies. 


‘In this exegesis Dr. Steinmeyer displays a very high degree of critical acumen and 
& rare subtlety end originality of thought.’—Scoteman. 


‘We have read this excellent translation of Professor Steinmeyer’s famous work on 
Miracles with great satisfaction. It is a careful and masterly reply to Strauss—to his 
attack on the historical veracity of the Gospels and on the reality of Biblical Miracles. 
It is therefore, by anticipation, a reply to “Supernatural Religion.” ... We most 
cordially recommend the volume to young theological students.’— Watchman. 


‘This work will be found of great and lasting service in the cause of truth against the 
i oti tendencies of the present eager age. . . . The whole argument is bold, masterly. 
and convincing; and the essay will take its place among the best recent volumes o 
Ohristian evidence.’—Standard. 


‘A work of intrinsic importance at the present time, and both as an argument for the 
miracles and an exposition of their meaning, deserves thoughtful consideration.’— 
English Independent. 

‘Besides the value of the work apologetically, there is much of acute criticism and 

ive exegesis, which will be orlzad by all who have learned to value duly even the 
contribution to a more fresh, life-like, and correct conception of that unique 
divine life portrayed in the Gospels.'— British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 








T. and T. Clark's Publications. 





Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s., 
INTRODUCTION 


|THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 


By PATON J. GLOAG, D.D., 


Author of a ‘ Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acta of the 
Apostles.’ 





ee 


‘Those acquainted with the author’s previous works will be prepared for something 
valuable in his present work; and it will not disappoint expectation, but rather exceed it. 
The most recent literature of his subject is before him, and he handles it with ease and 
skill. . . . It will be found a trustworthy guide, and raise its author's reputation in this 
important branch of biblical study. —British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 

‘A work of uncommon merit. He-must be a singularly accomplished divine to whose 
library this book is not a welcome and valuable addition. — Watchman. 

_ ‘It will be found of considerable value as a handbook to St. Paul’s Epistles. The 
dissertations display great thought as well as research. The author is fair, learned, and 
calm, and his book is one of worth.’—Church Bells. 

‘A capital book, full, scholarly, and clear. No difficulty is shirked, but dealt with 
fairly, and in an evangelical spirit. To ministers and theological students the book will 
be of great value.’—Evangelical Magazine. 

‘It bears the stamp of study and of calm, critical power. It is a good defence of the 
orthodox views, written in a style which combines dignity, strength, and clearness. It 
may be read with pleasure by any lover of theology, and will be a valuable addition to 
the book-shelf as a book of reference.’—Glasgow Herald. 

‘We honestly and heartily commend the work.’— United Presbyterian ‘Magazine. 

‘Most fair, comprehensive, critical, and effective, disposing of modern as well as ~ 
ancient difficulties in the most satisfactory way.’—Homilist, 

‘This work will commend itself to all competent judges, alike by the candour and 
earnestness of its spirit, the breadth of its learning, and the cogency of its reasoning.’— 
Baptist Magazine. 

‘We congratulate Dr. Gloag on his production of a work at once creditable to our 
sacred scholarship and helpful to the cause of truth. His aim is to furnish an introduo- 
tion to the Pauline Epistles, each of which he takes up in the chronological order which 
he accepts... . The volume has a real and permanent value, and will take a high place 
in our biblical literature.'—London Weekly Review. 

‘We recommend it as the best text-book on the subject to students of theology and to 
clergymen—as a most reliable guide, from the orthodox standpoint, to a knowledge of the 
present position of the historical criticism of the Pauline Epistles.'— Courant. 

‘It everywhere bears the marks of an impartial judgment and of thorough research.'— 
New York Evangelist. 

‘A safe and complete guide to the results of modern oriticism. At the same time it 
gives a fair idea of the processes by which those results are arrived at.—Li 
Churchman. 


T. and T. Clark's Publications. 


Just published, Fourth Edition, price 6s., 


THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN, 


SPIRIT, SOUL, AND BODY, 


Applied to Dllustrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New Birth, 
the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. 


By Rev. J. B. HEARD, M.A. 


With an Appendix on the FATHERHOOD oF GoD. 


‘ The author has got a striking and consistent theory. Whether agreeing or disagreeing 
with that theory, it is a book which any student of the Bible may read with pleasure.’— 
Guardian. 

‘ A valuable and interesting treatise on the “ Tripartite Nature of Man,” the first English 
theological work of any pretensions which has dealt with the subject in a methodical 
and systematic manner.’—Dezan or Norwicu. 

‘It is with considerable satisfaction we note the issue of a fourth edition of this most 
original and valuable treatise, which, without exaggeration, may be described as one of 
the ablest contributions to our theological literature which has been published of late 
years.’ —English Independent. 


GAarburtonian Lectures on Prophecy, 1870 to 1874, 


_ S _- a 


In crown 8vo, price 5s., 


VOICES OF THE PROPHETS. 


Twelve Lectures Preached in the Chapel of Lincoln’s Inn, in the Years — 
1870-74, on the Foundation of Bishop Warburton. 


By EDWARD HAMILTON GIFFORD, D.D. 


‘The author has long ago attained high position as a scholar, a man of science, and a 
theologian, and in the volume before us he offers his readers some of the best fruits of 
these varied accomplishments.’—Standard. 


‘We have not for many years met with a book dealing with the important question of 
prophecy in all respects so satisfactory, so reverent in its treatment of the written 
word, so fair in argument, so courteous and dignified withal in its replies to the objections 
of “science falsely so called.” ’—Daily Revie. 


‘This volume deals with the subject of prophecy in a clear and forcible manner. ‘The 
objections to a belief in prophetic utterances are ably met, and much light is thrown 
upon the matter, which has here been dealt with in a scholarly and Christian spirit.'— 
Rock. 


T. and T: Clark's Publications. 


Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s., 


PASTORAL THEOLOGY, 


A TREATISE ON THE OFFICE AND DUTIES OF THE 
CHRISTIAN PASTOR. 


By the Late PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D., 
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW. 


WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR. 


‘This treatise on the office and duties of a Christian pastor, by the late Profeesor 
-Fairbairn, is well deserving thoughtful perusal. Throughout the volume, however, 
there is a ‘tone of capri piety and practical good sense, which finds expression in many 
profitable counsels, embo dying the result of large experience and shrewd observation. 
. . . Much of the volume evoted to the theory and practice of preaching, and this 
part we can most heartily commend; it is replete with valuable suggestions, which even 
those who have had some experience "in the ministry will find caloulated to make them 
more attractive and efficient preachers.’—Christian Observer. 


‘This work is pervaded throughout by an earnest zeal for the interests of religion, 
as well as for the prosperity of the Church to which the author belonged, and is on the 
whole free from the charge of intolerance and bigotry.’— Scotsman. 


BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d., 


THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 


Che Greek Tert and Translation. 


WITH INTRODUCTION, EXPOSITORY NOTES, AND 
DISSERTATIONS. 


‘We cordially recommend this work to ministers and theological students.’— Methodist 
Magazine. 

‘We havo read no book of his with a keener appreciation and enjoyment than that 
just published on the Pastoral Epistles.'—Nonconformist. 


‘The work is in every way worthy of Dr. Fairbairn’s high reputation. Nay, mors, it 
will enhance it. Wide and well-digested learning, accurate scholarship, thorough 
independence. of thought exercised in a calm and serious spirit, — judgment, ripe 
Ohristian experience, distinguish this work.’—London Weekly Revi 


‘Dr. Fairbairn deserves our best thanks for this meritorious ‘on of conscientious 
criticism and careful exposition of a portion of Scripture which has not received so much 
attention as it merits.'—Daily Review. 


‘Dr. Fairbairn has done essential service by this very scholarly and able work, in Pobines 
he deals vigorously with the critical questions of our own day.’—Brittsh Quarter! ly Review. 


‘The work is indeed a complete Ss of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and 
re all the critical and controversial questions to which they have given rise.’— 














T. and T. Clark's Publications. 





Just published, in demy 8vo, 570 pages, price 10s. 6d., 


MODERN DOUBT AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF. 


_A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest 
Seekers after Truth. 


By THEODORE CHRISTLIEB, D.D., 


UNIVERSITY PREACHER AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BOND. 


Translated, with the Author's sanction, chiefly by the Rev. H. U. WEITBRECHT, 
Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kinassury, M.A., Vicar of Easton 
Royal, and Rural Dean. 

CONTENTS. 

FIRST LEOTURE.—Tas Existrve BREACH BETWEEN Mopern CULTURE AND 
OnRISTIANITY.—Introduction.—L Causes of the Breach. II. Present Extent of the 
Breach. ILI. Can the Breach be filled up? 

SECOND LECTURE.—ReEason anp REVELATION.—Whence do we derive our Know- 
ledge of God?—-I. Natural Theology, or the Knowledge of God derived from Nature and 
Reason. II. Supernatural Theology, or the Knowledge of God derived from Revelation. 

IL Relation between Revealed Religion and Natural Theology. 

THIRD LECTURE.—Mopern Non-Bis.icat OonceEPrions oF Gop.—Present Condi- 
tion of the Controversy respecting the Idea of God.—I. Atheism. IL Materialism. 
III. Pantheism. IV. Deism and Rationalism. 

FOURTH LECTURE.—THEOLoGyY or ScRIPTURE AND OF THE CHUROH.—I. Biblical 
Theism. II. Trinitarian Conception of the Divine Nature. 

FIFTH LECTURE.—Txe Mopern NEGATION oF MrirRAOCLES.—Miracles the greatest 
rian ia to the spirit of our Age—The consequences of their Negation—A nnihila- 
tion of all Religions, and of the Moral Personality of Man—Fundamental importance of 
the question.—I. Nature and Possibility of Miracles. II. Necessity and Historical 

estations of the Miraculous. III. Are Miraculous Manifestations still vouchsafed? 

SIXTH LECTURE.—Mopvern AntTI-MinacuLous ACCOUNTS OF THE Lire or CuRist. 
—The Christological Problem, the great Theological question of the present day— 
Variety in the Rationalistic methods of treating the Life of Christ—All combine in the 
denial of the Miraculous—Rationalism and Mythicism.—I. Old Rationalistic Accounts of 
the Life of Christ. II. Schenkel’s ‘Sketch of the Character of Christ.’ III. Strauss 
‘ Life of Christ.’ IV. Rénan’s ‘ Vie de Jesus.’ 

SEVENTH LECTURE.—Mopern Destats oF THE REsuRRECTION.—I. Anti-Mira- 
culous Theories, II. The Historical Testimonies. III. Collapse of the ‘ Visionary 
Hypothesis.’ 

EIGHTH LECTURE.—TuHe Moprrnx Orrrica, Treory oF PRIMITIVE CHRISTI- 
ANITY.—The Ttibingen School and its Founder, F. C. Baur.—L The Principles of the 
Ttibingen School. 11. Critique and Refutation of this Theory. 


‘ We express our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed in this work, and of 
the spirit of deep piety which pervades it; and whilst we commend it to the careful 
perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that iu those days of reproach and blasphemy, , 
so able a champion has come forward to contend earnestly for the faith which was once 
delivered to the saints.'.—Christian Observer. 

‘The book is written with a distinct aim of a most important kind, viz. to give to 
intelligent laymen a fair and full idea of the present state of the never-ending con- 
troversy between doubt and Christian faith. ... The lectures are, in animation, in 
clearness, in skilful grouping of topics, in occasional and always appropriate eloquence, 
worthy of the author's reputation as one of the most eloquent preachers of the day.’— 
British and Foreign Evangelical Review. ; 
‘ These lectures are indeed an armoury of weapons—arms of precision every one. We 
have the el highest admiration for them, and recommend them warmly to our readers.’ 

; hurchman. 

‘We do not hesitate to describe this as the clearest, strongest, and soundest volume of 
apologetics from a German pen we have read. The author takes hold of the great 
, central and critical points and principles, and handles them with extraordinary vigour 

and wisdom.’— Watchman. 

‘It is one of the best works on Christian Evidences as a modern question to be found 
in any language. —Freeman. 











T. and T. Clark's Publications. 





In crown 8vo, price 4s., 


AIDS TO THE STUDY 


OF 


GERMAN THEOLOGY. 
By Rev. GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., B.D., 


MINISTER OF INELLAN. 


1. Natural Theology of Kant. 2. Kant’s Interpretation of the Facts of Scrip- 
ture. 3. Transition to Schleiermacher. 4. Thought-Translation of the 
System of Schleiermacher. 5. Diversities in his School. 6. Fichte. 7. 
Introduction to the Theology of Hegel and Schelling. 8. Trinity of Hegel 
and Schelling. 9. Evolution of Hegelian Trinity in Time. 10. And in 
the aageat of the Church. 11. The Right and Left. 12. Mythical 
Theory of Strauss. 13. Breaking up of the Mythical Theory—School of 
Tiibingen. 14. Signs of a Return to the Old Rationalism. 15. ‘The Old 
Faith and the New.’ 16. Parallel between the History of English and 
German Theology. 


‘The writer of this treatise has formed to himself singularly clear conceptions, and he 

ssesses in a remarkable degree the faculty of lucid exposition. . . . Besides serving as 
an admirable introduction to the study of German theology, this little volume will be 
valuable to the general reader, as furnishing an intelligible and interesting account of the 
a pe phases which theological speculation has assumed in Germany in modern times.’ 
—Scotsman. 

‘ This little volume is a valuable and instructive introduction to a department of theo- 
logical literature that every student is now compelled to examine.’—British Quarterly 


‘A helpful little volume: helpful to the student of German theology, and not less so 
to the careful observer of the tendencies of English religious thought.'— Freeman. 

‘The author has a complete grasp of his subject, and displays marked ability in his 
searching analysis of the progress of thought in Germany.’—Glasgow News. 

‘The writer or compiler deserves high praise for the clear manner in which he has in 
a brief compass stated these opinions.’— Christian Observer. 


Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 


DELIVERY AND DEVELOPMENT 
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 


Che Sifth Devies of the Cunningham Lectures. 
- By ROBERT RAINY, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND CHURCH HISTORY, NEW OOLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 


‘We gladly acknowledge their high excellence and the extensive learning which they 
all display. They are adie to the last degree ; and the author has in an unusual measure 
the power of acute and brilliant generalization. He handles his array of multifarious 
facts with ease and elegance; and we must needs acknowledge (and we do it willingly) 
that the Lectures are a real contribution to the settlement of the vast and obscure question 
with which they are occupied.’—Literary Churchman. : 

‘This is an important book; for it contains a mass of powerful principles, | neg 
forth by an original mind, on a subject interesting to all times and fascinating for our 
own.’—Daitly Review. 


—— 


>% I 





ee oe a Se 


ey 


iii ee 


es eee = = . : 





~ ————— 
— — ‘ +