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/ 





—- 


‘a 


aa 7 ‘ . 
t 4 ” 
o . . _ 
. ‘ . yp) 
a “ . . 
. . . . ") 
PS . *** ° n ‘* 
Le OSes . te ws 
’ 
” o** E oe, wt 
, r 5 ; Speer le 
¢ ‘ . ee | < : ¥ 4 
| 4 
‘i= » 
ai By 
of P ‘ > 
eal =e res tied 
yO ‘ as | ‘ 
; <6 
y + F ee »? 


Harbard GAnibersity 


Library of the Divinity School 


A GIFT 
from the library of the late 
CHARLES CARROLL EVERETT 


Dean of the School, 1878-1900 


19 October 1905 





rae ee ee eee 


& 
C : 
Dyeing eveelnash pgs etomnmevtang om te shear Gate went 
YIr. O ie eer , 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
HAND-BOOK 


TO 


THE EPISTLES 


TO THE 


PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS, 


AND TO 


PHILEMON. 


cC) 


BY 


HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz.D., 


OBEROONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER, 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 


Rrv. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A. boo 


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


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 
TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 


PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE, 


NEW YORK: 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PuBLIsHERs, 
18 aND 20 AsToR PLACE. 
1889. 


(2 &) 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, 
By FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. © 











PREFACE 
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


THe present volume of Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Hand- 
book to the New Testament contains the Commentaries on the Epistles 
to the Philippians, the Cologsians, and Philemon, by Meyer himself, 
and the Commentary on the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, by his 
coadjutor, Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann. According to the arrangement 
of the New Testament books which is found in the English Version, 
and also that of the editions of the Greek text which differ in some 
respects from the English Version, the Epistle to Philemon is placed 
after the Epistle to Titus. It has been deemed best, however, to insert 
the commentary upon this Epistle in the present volume, rather than 
in the one which includes the Pastoral Epistles, for two reasons: first, 
because the Epistle itself was written at the same time with the Epistle 
to the Colossians, and secondly, because the commentary upon it was 
prepared by Meyer, while the Pastoral Epistles were assigned by him 
to one of his fellow-workers, Dr. Huther. It may be added, that the 
superintendence of the English translation of the Hand-book by Dr. 
Dickson extended to all the parts of which Meyer himself was the 
author, but not to those parts which were written by others. 

The English Editor, Dr. Dickson, has prefixed to the volume on 
Philippians and Colossians no formal preface, but only a brief prefatory 
note. All that is of any present interest in this note is the following 
passage :—“‘ The Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians was 
translated from the third edition of the German by the late Mr. G. H. 
Venables; but, as it became necessary to incorporate the numerous 
alterations and additions made by Dr. Meyer for the fourth edition, 
the work of revising and completing the version of Mr. Venables has 
been entrusted to the Rev. John C. Moore, who has also executed 
independently the greater portion of the translation, from the fourth 
German edition, of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians. 
I have myself translated a small portion of the latter, and, as in pre- 
‘vious volumes, have revised the whole with some care, and carried it 
through the press. It is stated by Dr Meyer’s son, in the Preface to 

ad 


1V PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


the new edition of this volume, that his father had, before his fatal 
illness, despatched the one half of the manuscript of his revision to the 
printers, and that the other half was found labelled ‘ ready for the 
press.. The book, therefore, although issued subsequently to the 
author’s death, is entirely his own work.” The Commentary on the 
Epistle to Philemon, which was published in the English Edition, as 
also in the original German work, in the same volume with that on the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, was translated by the Rev. Maurice J. 
Evans, B.A. 

Of the general characteristics of Meyer’s work, and of the few 
changes made in the American Edition, in the way of transferring 
citations, references to authors, and lists of names from the text to the 
footnotes, it will be unnecessary to say anything in this yolume, in 
addition to what has been fully set forth in the parts of the work 
already given to the public. With reference to Dr. Liinemann and 
his commentary, the translator, Dr. Gloag, has expressed his views in 
his Preface, which will be found at the beginning of that part of the 
volume which relates to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. Dr. Gloag’s 
translation was made from the third edition of Liinemann’s work. A 
fourth edition has since been published in Germany, but with very few 
and unimportant additions. These additions have been incorporated 
in the present volume,* so that the reader has before him the trans- 
lation of the fourth German edition. 

In my own work, as the editor of the American Edition of this 
portion of the Commentary, I have been influenced by the same feeling 
with that which affected me when I undertook the preparation of the 
volume on the Epistle to the Romans—namely, that if additional notes 
were to be inserted in the American Edition, they should be of such a 
character, and so extended, as to give the edition a value of its own, 
and thus a reason for its existence. Within the necessarily limited 
number of pages allowed me, I have endeavored, according to my 
ability, to do what this feeling prompted me to undertake. Whether 


* One or two wholly insignificant additions, of two or three lines each, were 
accidently overlooked until the pages of this volume were in prens, and, as they 
would be of no use to the readers, it was thought unnecessary to record them on an 
appended page. The most noticeable of these is the expression of the opinion 
that Hofmann’s explanation of a certain pvint connected with 1 Thess. iv. 11 is 
without any foundation. As this opinion respecting Hofmann’s interpretations is 
pronounced in forty or fifty different places in Liinemann’s Commentary, indeed 
on almost every page of the work—not to mention equally numerous instances in 
Meyer's notes,— it 1s hoped that the editor may be pardoned by the indulgent 
reader (indulgent to Hofmann, if not to himself), for having omitted this newly- 
added case from the fourth edition ;—especially, as the reader will recall to mind 











PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vv 


the task has been successfully accomplished, the scholarly reader will 
judge for himself, but I trust that he will not find my annotations 
altogether unworthy of a place in connection with those of the authors 
of the original work. 

The plan of my annotations is slightly different from that which was 
followed in the volume on the Epistle to the Romans. Instead of 
selecting particular Greek words or sentences, sometimes separated: 
from one another by a considerable space in the original text, I have, 
in the present volume, arranged my notes according to the verses of 
each chapter continuously from beginning to end. In this way,I have 
covered the ground of the whole Epistle in each case. The reader, 
however, will not demand of me an examination of every word or 
phrase, or even a full presentation of every difficult question. To 
meet such a demand required, in the case of Meyer and Liinemann, 
more than five times the space which has been given to me, and it 
will be readily understood, therefore, that my work could only have 
completeness within the limitations imposed. Such completeneas—in 
some measure, at least—I have made an effort to secure. I have pur- 
posely avoided all discussion of the interesting subjects connected with 
the Introduction to the Epistles, and have considered but few points of 
textual criticism. It seemed better to do one part of the work more 
fully, than all parts less fully, and I confined myself, from the outset, 
to the explanation of the text in its thought and meaning. 

As in the notes on the Epistle to the Romans, I have made but few 
references to commentators, and, in general, only to those who are of 
quite recent date, and, on this account, are not often, or not at all, 
alluded to by Meyer and Lunemann. For the purpose of saving space, 
I have usually abbreviated the names of these writers, but they will be 
easily recognized by all who are familiar with their works, and by 
others on examining the List of Exegetical Literature at the beginning 
of the Commentaries on Philippians and Thessalonians. The occa- 
sional references to Winer’s and Buttmann’s Grammars, in my own 
notes, are to the pages of the American translations of those works. 
The same is the fact with the references marked [E. T.] in the notes 
by Linemann and Meyer. The letters tr. following the names of 
Noyes, Davidson, and one or two others, in my own annotations, will 
be understood as referring to the translations of the New Testament by 
the persons mentioned. 


the fact that Hofmann is now dead, and will realize that, though so unfortunately 
misguided in his opinions in his life-time, he may be presumed, in the clearer 
light of his present existence, to have brought his views of Paul’s meaning, in 
every instance, into complete harmony with those expressed by Dr. Liinemann. 


vi PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


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

TIMOTHY DWIGHT. 


New Hanes, Aug. 15th, 1885. 











EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLES 


TO THE 


PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS, 


AND TO 


PHILEMON. 


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


Array (Henry), ¢ 1616, Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford: Lectures upon the 


whole Epistle to the Philippians . . . 4°, Lond. 1618, al. 
ATTERSOLL (William), Minister at Infield, Sussex: A Commentary upon the 
Epistle to Philemon. Lond. 1612, 2d ed. 1633. 


Amu Enve (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 Cologser, mit stiter Beriicksichtigung der altern 
und nevern Ausleger. 8°, Basel, 1833. 

Barry (Alfred D.D.), Principal of Kings College, London: Commentary on 
Philippians, on Colossians, and on Philemon (in Ellicott’s Commentary 
for English Readers). 

BaumMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob). See GaLaTIans 

Baumearten-Cevsius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: 
Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser und Kolosser . . . 8°, 
Jena, 1845.—Commentar tiber die Briefe an die Philipper und Thessa- 
lonicher ... 8°, Jena, 1848. 

vil 


vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


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


chapters of Saint Paul to the Colossians .. . 4°, Lond. 1634, al. 
BEELEN (Jean-Théodore,) R. C. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commentarius in 
Epistolam 8. Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lovanii, 1852. 
BuiexExk (Friedrich), ¢ 1859, Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe 
an die Kolosser, den Philemon und die Epheser . . . 8°, Berl. 1865. 
Boumer (Wilhelm), Prof, Theol. at Breslau: Theologische Auslegung des paul- 
inischen Sendschreibens an die Cologser. 8°, Breslau, 1835. 


Beaune (Karl), Superintendent at Altenburg in Saxony: Die Briefe 8“. Pauli 
an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper. Theologisch-homiletisch bearbei- 
tet. [In Lange’s Bibelwerk.] 8°, Bielefeld, 1867. [Translated from 
the German, with additions (Philippians), by Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., 
and (Colossians) by M. B. Riddle, D.D.] 8°, New York and Edin. 1870. 

BrerrHavrpt (Joachim Justus), ¢ 1732, Prof. Theol. at Halle; Animadversiones 
exegeticae et dogmatico-practicae in Epistolam ad Philippenses. 

4°, Halae, 1708. 

Brenz [or BRENTIUS] (Johann), ¢ 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: Explicatio Episto- 
lae ad Philippenses. 8°, Francof. 1548. 

ByF1eip (Nicholas), ¢ 1622, Vicar of Isleworth: An Exposition upon the Epistle 
to the Colossians ... 4°, 1617, al. 


Caxixtus (Georg). See Romans. 
Cartwricat (Thomas), + 1603, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Commentary on the 


Epistle to the Colossians. 4°, Lond. 1612. 

Dariix (Jean), ¢ 1670, Pastor at Paris: Exposition sur la divine Epttre de Papo- 

tre 8. Paul aux Filippiens. 8°, Genev. 1659. 
DaLMER (Karl Eduard Franz): Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Colosser. 

’ 8°, Gotha, 1858. 

Danarvus [DanaEv] (Lambert), + 1596, Pastor at Orthes: Commentarius in 

Epistolam ad Philemonem. 8°, Geneva, 1579 


DAVENANT (John,) ¢ 1641, Bishop of Salisbury: Expositio Epistolae Pauli ad 
Cologsenses, 2°, Cantab. 1627, al. [Translated, with notes, by Josiah 
Allport. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1831.] 

Daviss (JoHN LLEWELYN), Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone: The Epistles 
of St. Paul to the Ephesians, the Cologsians, and Philemon, with intro- 
duction and notes, and an essay on the traces of foreign elements in the 


theology of these Epistles. 8°, Lond. 1867. 

Demme (Jacob Friedrich Ignaz): Erklirung des Briefes an den Philemon. 
8°, Breslau, 1844. 
Dyxe (Daniel), ¢ c. 1614, Minister at’ St. Albans: A fruitful Exposition upon 
Philemon. | 4°, Lond. 1618. 


Eanvre (John), D.D., ¢ 1876, Prof. Bibl. Lit. to the United Presbyterian Church: A 
Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul tothe Philip- 
pians. 8°, Edin. 1859. 
A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle to the Colossians. 
8°, Lond. and Glasg. 1856. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 1x 


Exxicorr (Charles John), D. D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: A Critical and 
Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, Coloe- 


sians, and Philemon, with a revised translation. 8°, Lond. 1857, al. 
Exton (Edward), Minister at Bermondsey: An Exposition of the Epistle to the 
Colossians ... 4°, Lond. 1615, al. 


Fercuson (James), ¢ 1667, Minister 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 Tiibingen: Vorlesungen iiber 
die Briefe Pauli an die Philipper, Kolosser, Theesalonicher, und den 
Philemon, herausgegeben von Chr. F. Kling. 8°, Tiibing. 1829. 


GENTILIB (Scipione), ¢ 1616, Prof. Law at Altdorf: Commentarius in Epistolam 
ad Philemonem. 4°, Norimb. 1618, [Crit. Sac. vii. 2.] 
Haaensacnh (Karl Rudolph), ¢ 1874, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Pauli Epistolam ad 
Philemonem interpretatus est C. R. Hagenbach. 4°, Basil, 1829. 
Hepvricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Testamentum Novum 


Graece perpetuo annotatione illustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol. vii. p.2. Com- 
plectens Pauli Epistolas ad Philippenses et Colossenses. Continuavit 


J. H. Heinrichs. 8°, Gétting. 18038, ed. IL, 1826, 
HEnGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Commentarius perpetuus 
in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1839. 


HoELEMANN (Hermann Gustav), Teacher in Gymnasium at Zwickau: Commen- 
tarius in Epistolam divi Pauli ad Philippenses. [THEmtEe: Comment. 
in N. T,, vol. xxii.] 8°, Lips. 1839. 
Hormanxn (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die Heilige 
Schrift des N. T. zusammenhingend untersucht. IV. 2. Die Briefe 
Pauli an die Kologser und Philemon. IV. 3. Der Brief Pauli an die 
Philipper. 8°, Nérdlingen, 1870-2. 
HourzMaNnn (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. i in Strassburg: Kritik der Epheser 
und Kolosserbriefe auf Grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandschafts- 
verhiiltnisses. 8°, Leipzig, 1872. 
Houmaex (Johann Heinrich), t 1674, Dean at Berne: Explanatio Epistolae ad 
Philemonem. 2°, Tiguri, 1670. 
Huruer (Johann Eduard), Pastor at Wittenférden, Schwerin: Commentar iiber 
den Brief Pauli an die Cologser. 8°, Hamb. 1841. 


JatTHO (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: Pauli Brief 
an die Philipper. 8°, Hildesheim, 1857. 
Jonxs (William, D.D.): A Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon and the 
Hebrews. 2°, Lond. 1635. 
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. 
Kxiorpur (Albrecht): Der Brief an die Kolosser kritisch untersucht und in 
seinem Verhiltnisse zum Paulinischen Lehrbegriff exegetisch und bib- 
lisch-theologisch erértert. 8°, Berlin, 1882. 


x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


Koc (August): Kommentar aber den Brief Pauli an den Philemon. 
8°, Ziirich, 1846. 

Koprs. See EPHESIANS. 

Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), ¢ 1827, Tutor at Vienna: Die Briefe an 
die Philipper und Thessalonicher iibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen 
begleitet. 8°, Frankf. 1790. 

Kravsg (Johann Friedrich), ¢ 1820, Superintendent at Weimar: Observationes 
critioo-exegeticae in Pauli Epistolae ad Philippenses c. i. et ii. 

) 4°, Regimont. [1810]. 

Kivune (Franz Robert): Die Epistel Pauli an Philemon in Bibel-ctunden .. . 

-  ausgelegt, 2 Bandchen. 8°, Leipzig, 1858. 


Ligurroor (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. 


Lumay (J. Rawson, D.D.), St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge: Commentary on 
Philippians, and glso on Philemon. (In Schaff’s Popular Commentary). 
New York, 1882. 
Manovury (A. F.). See PastoraL Epristies. 
Matraias (Konrad Stephan), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald: Erklarung des Briefes 
Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Greifswald, 1835. 
MayerrHorr (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 
Coloesenses. 8°, Viteb. 1559, al. 
MicHAELis (Johann David). See GALATIANS. 
MULuER (Cornelius): Commentatio de locis quibusdam Epistolae ad Philippenses. 
4°, Hamburgi, 1844. 
Muscurivus [or Mreussiin] (Wolfgang), t 1563, Prof. Theol. at Berne: In Epis- 
tolas ad Philippenses, Colossenses, Theasalonicenses ambas et primam ad 
Timotheum commentarii. 2°, Basil, 1565, al. 


NEANDPER (Johann August Wilhelm), ¢ 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. 


Rertiae (Heinrich Christian Michael), ¢ 1836, Prof. Theol, at Ziirich : Quaestiones 
Philippenses. 8°, Giessen. 1831. 
RHEINWALD (Georg Friedrich Heinrich), ¢ 1849, Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Com- 
mentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Philipper. 8°, Berl. 1827. 
Ripe (Matthew B., D.D.), Prof. Exeg. at Hartford: Commentary on Colossians. 
(In Schaff’s Popular Commentary). New York, 1882. 








EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xi 


Ruuret (Albert), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentaire sur )’épftre de l’apdtre 
Paul aux Philippiens . . . 8°, Génave, 1841. 

Borit (Herman Alexander), t 1718, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Brevis Epistolae 
Pauli ad Cologsenses exegesis. 4°, Traject. 1731. 
Ro..ock (Robert), ¢ 1598, Principal of the Univ. of Edinburgh: In Epistolam 
ad Philemonem Commentarius. 8°, Geneva, 1602. 

Rorue (Moritz): Pauli ad Philemonem Epistolae interpretatio historico-exegetica. 
8°, Bremue, 1844. 


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

Scuinz (Wilhelm Heinrich): Die christliche Gemeinde su Philippi. 

8°, Ziirich, 1838. 

Scumip (Leberecht Christian Gottlieb), ¢ 1836, Pastor at Gliva: Pauli ad Phile- 
monem Epistola Graece et Latine illustrata. 8°, Lips. 1786. 

Scumap (Sebastian). See Romans 

ScHoranus (Meinardus H.), ¢ 1644, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Analysis et Commen- 
taria in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses. 4°, Franek. 1637. 

SpraKeEr’s [Bible] Commentary: On Philippians, by the very Rev. J. Gwynn, 
Dean of Raphoe, with selections from notes by Dean Jeremie. On 
Colossians and Philemon, by the Lord Bishop of Derry. 

SreiczerR (Wilhelm), ¢ 1836, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Der Brief Pauli an die 
Colosser ; Uebersetzung, Erklarung, einleitende und epikritische Abhand- 
lungen. 8°, Erlangen, 18365. 

Stroker (Gottlob Christian), ¢ 1805, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen: Dissertatio exegetica 
in Epistolam ad Philippenses. . . . Dissertatio exegetica in Epistolae ad 
Coloasenses partem priorem [et posteriorem] .. . 

4°, Tiibing. [1783-87]. 
Expositions of the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and Colossians by 
John Calvin and D. Gottlob Christian Storr. Translated from the orig- 
inal by Robert Johnston. [Biblical Cabinet.] 12°, Edin. 1842. 

Suicervs [ScHweirzER} (Johann Heinrich), Prof. of Greek in Heidelberg: In 
Epistolam ad Colossenses commentarius critico-exegeticus. 


4°, Tiguri, 1699. 
TAYLOR (Thomas), ¢ 1632, Minister in London: Commentarius in Epistolam ad 
Philemonem. 2°, Lond. 1659. 


Tr (Salomon van). See Romans. 


Vamw OosTERzEE (Johannes Jacob), Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Die Pastoralbriefe 
und der Brief an Philemon Theologisch-Homiletisch bearbeitet, Lange's 
Bibelwerk; Vol. XI. 8°, Bielefeld, 1861. 
On Philemon, translated from the German, with additions, by Prof. H. 
B. Hackett, D.D. (In Schaff’s Ed. of Lange). 8°, New York, 1869. 

VavuGuHan (C. J.) Lectures on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. 

8°, Lond. 1882, 


xii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


VxLasquez (Juan Antonio), 8, J.: In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses commen- 
taria et adnotationes. 2°, Lugd. et Paris. 1628-33. 
Vicrormus (C. Marius), about a. p. 360, teacher of rhetoric at Rome: In Epis- 
tolam ad Philippenses liber unicus. [In Mai’s Scrip. Vet. Nov. Coll. iii. 1.] 
VINCENT (Jean): Explicatio familiaris in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Philemonem. 
2°, Paris, 1647. 
WEIFFENBACH (Prof. Dr. Wilhelm): Zur Auslegung der Stelle Philipper if. 
6-11. 8°, Karlsruhe, 1884. 
Wess (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 Noérdlingen: Die 
Briefe des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus und 
Philemon erklirt. [In Olshausen’s Commentar.] 8°, Kénigsb. 1850. 
{Translated by the Rev. John Fulton, A.M. 8°, Edin.1851. The trans- 
lation revised, with additional notes, by Prof. A. C. Kendrick, D. D. 
New York, 1858.] 
ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott). See GALATIANE, 








THE 


EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


SEC. I—THE PHILIPPIAN COMMUNITY: 






fortified city of Philippi? was situated in Macedonia, on 
the borders of Thrace; in earlier times, as a Thasian colony, it 
was Called, from its site abounding in springs, Kp7vide¢ (Diodor. 

7 Zz) 8. 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 Italicum (see on Acts xvi. 11); 
but it obtained another and higher historical interést, attended by a greater 
gain for the Roman Empire, through the fact that it was the first city in 
Europe in which Paul, under the divine direction in a nocturnal vision 
(see on Acts xvi. 9 f.), and amid ill-treatment and persecution (Acts xvi. 
16 ff.; 1 Thess. ii. 2), planted Christianity. Thus did the city vindicate its 
original name, 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, labored 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, 


s 
iBee generally, Mynster, Rinleit. ind. Br. St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, Lond. 1368, 


en d. Philipper, in his Kil. theol. Schriften, 
p. 169 ff.; Hoog, de coetus Christ. Philipp. 
conditione, etc., Lugd. Bat. 1825; Rettig, 
Quaest. Philipp., Giess. 1831 ; Schinz, d. christ. 
Geom. z. Phil., Zarich, 1833; J. B. Lightfoot, 


p. 46 ff. 

2 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. 

1 


2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


which exhibits a more cordial, affectionate, and undisturbed relation 
between the church and the apostle, and bears a more unalloyed testimony 
to the distinction of the church (comp. especially iv. 1), than we find in 
any other apostolic letter. This peculiar mutual affection also explains 
the fact that Paul, contrary to his usual custom, accepted aid on more than 
one occasion from the Philippians (iv. 10 ff.; 2 Cor. xi. 9); from which, 
however, on account of this very love, we are not entitled to infer that they 
were specially wealthy. The Jews were so few in number that they had 
only a rpocevy# (see on Acts xvi. 18), and the Christian church was one 
consisting mostly of those who had been Gentiles. The view which dis- 
covers a Judaizing faction (iii. 2) in it (Storr, Flatt, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, 
Rheinwald, Guericke, and others), seems all the more unwarrantable, 
when we consider how deeply the apostle was concerned to ward off from 
his beloved Philippians the danger, at that time everywhere so imminent, 
of the intrusion of Judaistic disturbance, and how susceptible the Philip- 
pians themselves were to such a danger, owing to a certain spiritual con- 
ceit' which had already impaired their unanimity (i. 12-ii. 16, iv. 2). 
Comp. i. 28. See, against the view of heretical partisanship, Schinz, p. 48 
ff.; 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. 


SEC. 2—PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION, OCCASION, AND 
CONTENTS. 


It is justly the universal tradition (Chrysostom; Euthalius, in Zaeagni, 
Coll. vet. mon. pp. 547, 642, 648; Srmopsis 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 otxia Kaioapog 
(iv. 22), and by the crisis between life and death in which Paul was placed, 
—a crisis which presupposes his appeal to the emperor, as the ultimate 
legal resort (i. 20 ff, ii. 17),—as well as by the entire conformity of his 
position and work (i. 12 ff.) to what we find recorded in Acts xxviii. 16 ff. 
The epistle must, moreover, have been written during the later period of 
the Roman captivity; for the passages, i.12 ff., ii. 26 ff, betoken that a 
somewhat lengthened course of imprisonment had elapsed, and the apostle 
was already abandoned by all his more intimate companions (ii. 20), ex- 


1 Credner, 3 158 f., represents the conceit of —_ thé statement in Acts xvi. 12, which, besides, 
the Philippiansasapparentalsoin“theservile is purely historical, gives no warrant for the 
courting of the rank of a spury wédss.” But charge of any arbitrary assumption of rank. 











INTRODUCTION. 3 


cept Timothy (i. 1). A more precise specification, such as Hofmann in 
particular gives (that the apostle had then been transferred from his hired 
dwelling to the prison-house), is not deducible either from i. 12 ff., or from 
the mention of the Praetorium and the imperial house. We must reject 
the isolated attempts to tranefer its composition to Corinth (Acts xviii. 12; 
Oeder, Progr., Onold. 1781) or to Caesarea (Acte xxiii. 28--xxvi. 82; Paulus, 
Progr., Jen. 1799; and Bottger, Beitr. I. p. 47 ff.; favored also by Rilliet, 
and Thiersch, Kérche tm apost. Zetlalt. p. 212). Concerning and against 
these views, see particularly Hoelemann, Commeniar, 1839, p. iii. f.; Nean- 
der, Geach. d. Phanewng, etc., p. 498 f. 

We are to assume, therefore, as the date of composition, not mdeed the 
full expiration of the dria 5Ay of Acta xxviii. 80 (Hofmann), but the latter 
portion of that period —in the year 68 possibly, or the beginning of 64.! 
See on Acta, Introd. 3 4. 

The occasion of the epistle was the fact that the Philippians had sent 
Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid to Paul, who, on the return of the former 
after his recovery from “a sickness nigh unto death,’”’ made him the bearer 
of the letter (ii. 25-28). In the utterances of the epistle, however, there is 
nothing to suggest any special change in the situation of the apostle as hav- 
ing afforded a motive for this gift on the part of the church; and it is an 
uncertain reading between the lines to assume, with Hofmann, not merely 
that the apostle was transferred to the prison-house, but that with that 
transference the process had reached the stage of its judicial discussion, in 
which the Philippians believed that they could not but discern a change 
to the worse for Paul, whom they regarded as suffering privations in 
prison. Those traces, aleo, which Hofmann has discovered of a letter of the 
church brought to Paul by Epaphroditus along with the contribution, and 
expressing not only the concern of the Philippians for the apostle, but aleo 
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 geing beyord the oral communications of Epa- 
phroditus in order to account for the apostle’s acquaintance with the cir- 
cumstances of the Philippians. And just as the aid tendered by the care- 
ful love of the church had furnished the occasion for this letter to them, so 
also does its entire tenor breathe forth the heartfelt and touching love, 


t Meaxrvidh propltty Wibigned Os ctr Upiilie the law plats, fa point of tthe, aancng bi tou 
Pouiiind opietizs. 


4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


which the captive apostle cherished towards his Philippians. Not one of 
his epistles is so rich as this in hearty effusions of affection and in tender 
references; and not one of them is so characteristically epistolary, without 
any rigid arrangement, almost without dogmatic discussion, as also with- 
out quotations from the Old Testament or dialectic chains of reasoning. 
Not one is so eminently an epistle of the feelings, an outburst of the 
moment, springing from the deepest inward need of loving fellowship 
amidst outward abandonment and tribulation; a model, withal, of the 
union of tender love, and at times an almost elegiac impress of courageous 
resignation in the prospect of death, with high apostolic dignity and 
unbroken holy joy, hope, and victory over the world. “Summa epistolae: 
Gaudeo, gaudete,”’ Bengel; comp. Grotius: “ laetior alacriorque et blandior 
ceteris.” 

After the apostolic salutation (i. 1f.), Paul, with heart-winning fervor, 
expresses thanks, intercession, and confidence as regards his readers (i. 3— 
11), and then enlarges on his present position, with his hope of a speedy 
return (i. 12-26) ; after which he exhorts them to unanimity and humility, 
and generally to the Christian life (i. 27-ii.18). He promises to send 
Timothy to them soon, yet trusts that he himself shall also soon come 
to them (ii. 19-24); in the meantime he sends away to them Epaphro- 
ditus, their messenger, who is delicately and touchingly commended to 
them (11. 25-30). On the point, apparently, of passing on to a conclusion 
(iii, 1) he proceeds to deal with his Jewish opponents, with whom he 
compares himself at some length, thereby inciting his readers to be 
like-minded with him, to keep in view the future salvation, and so to 
maintain their Christian standing (iii. 2-iv. 1). After a special exhorta- 
tion to, and commendation of, two women (iv. 2, 8), the apostle subjoins 
the concluding words of encouragement (iv. 4-9), to which he had 
already sct himself in iii. 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. 21-28). 


SEC. 3—GENUINENESS AND UNITY. 


The genuineness of this epistle is established externally by the continuous 
testimoxies of the ancient church from Polycarp, iii. 11, onward; see 
Marcion in Epiph. Haer. 42; Canon Murat.; Tertull. c. Mare. v. 19, 
de praescr. 86; 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. 18. 
3; Cypr. Test. iii. 89; Clem. Paed. i. 107; Tert. de resurr. 28, 47,—in the 


INTRODUCTION. ») 


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 character of its contenis, 
of its spirit, of its emotions, of its delicate turns and references, of ite 
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. Zeitechr. 1886, 8, 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. 188 ff. "); and Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. 
II. p. 133 ff, has adopted the same views. See, against these attacks, 
now hardly worth the trouble of refutation, beside the Commentaries 
and Introductions, Linemann, Pauli ad Phil. epist. contra Baurum defend., 
Gott. 1847; Briickner, Ep. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata contra Baur., 
Lips. 1848; Ernesti in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff, 1851, p. 595 ff.; 
Grimm in the Lit. Bl. of the Allg. K. Z. 1850, No. 149 ff., 1851, No. 6 ff; 
Hilgenfeld in his Zettschr. 1871, p. 809 ff. According to the opinion of 
Baur, the epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and expressions, to 
which it attaches itself; but the only passage adduced as a proof is ii. 5 ff, 
and this entirely under mistaken explanations or arbitrary references 
of the several elements of that passage. Comp. the commentary on this 
passage, and the remark after ii. 11. The further charges—that the 
epistle labors under feeble repetitions (copies of passages in other epistles, 
as iii. 4 ff. from 2 Cor. x. 18, @ al.), under a want of connection, and 
poverty of ideas (in proof of which strees is laid on iii. 1, as the author's 
own confession)—rest entirely on uncritical presupposition, 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 pree- 
ent position generally and towards his Philippians. Lastly, we must 
reckon as wholly fanciful the doubt thrown upon what is said at i. 12, 
for which a combination of this passage with iv. 22 is alleged to furnish 
ground, and to which the mention of Clement, iv. 3, who is taken to 
be Clement of Rome, and is supposed to weave the bond of unity round 
Paul and Peter, must supply the key ; while the supposed anachronism in 
the mention of the bishops and deacons in i. 1, the Euodia and Syntyche 
in iv. 2, and the ot¢uyos yvfous in iv. 8, are likewise wrongly adduced against 


1 Compare also Planck in the same, 1847, p. 481 f.; Kéetlin in the same, 1850, p. 263 ff. 


6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the Pauline authorship. Indeed, even the historical occasion of the 
epistle—the aid sent to Paul—is made to appear as a fictitious incident 
at variance with 1 Cor. ix. 15. The special arguments of Baur are set 
aside by an impartial interpretation of the passages to which they refer, 
and the same may be said with regard to the latest attacks of Hitzig 
(zur Kritik d. paulin. Briefe, 1870) and of Hinsch (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 
1878, p. 59 ff.) on the genuineness. The latter, though independent in 
his movement, stands on the ground occupied by Baur; the former has 
no ground whatever. Against Hinsch, see Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 
1878, 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 assump- 
tion that there were originally two epistles,—one evoteric, addressed to the 
whole church, consisting of i. 1-1i1. 1, yaipere év xvpiyv, and the salutations, 
iv. 21-23; the other esoteric, to the apostle’s more intimate friends, which 
contained from iii. 1, ré avra ypégecv, down to iv. 20.! But this idea is noth- 
ing but a consequence of misconceiving the free epistolary movement, 
which, especially in a letter like this called forth by a special occasion, and 
addressed to a community so dear to him, might naturally be most unfet- 
tered (see on iii. 1); and in this case, the distinction of exoteric and 
esoteric elements is a mistake, which is no less unhistorical than contrary 
to all psychological probability. 

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


1 Without any grounds whatever, Weisse based on style, to regard the portion from 
(see his Beitrdge 2. Krit. d. paulin. Briefe, chap. iii. onward as the fragmentof a second 
edited by Sulsze, 1867) has found himself Epistle to the Philippians. 
forced, in accordance with his criticism 








Hablov éenorol) xpds Prdexxnotovs.® 
ABDEFGR have merely xpi¢ OcArrmyotove. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. I7oot Xpeorov}] Lachm. and Tisch. read Xpicrotd Inco. The same in 
vv. 6 and 8. This is to be preferred on account of the strong attestation of B D 
E® (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 
TH Godoy. without év. Lachm. has é», which Griesb., Matth., Scholz, and Tisch. 
adopt, in brackets, It is found in B D** E K L P &, min. Syr. Copt. Arr. Vulg. 
It. and some Fathers. Looking at this indecisive attestation, and seeing that év 
might more readily be supplementarily or mechanically added than omitted, 
it should be deleted.— Ver. 8. goriv] after yov is defended by Griesb., bracketed 
by Lachm., omitted by Tisch., following B F G x*, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Chrys. 
An addition made from a reminiscence of Rom. i. 9.—Ver. 9. tepicoeby] BD E 
have temovetcy. So Lachm., who has placed tepiooeby in the margin, and Tisch. 
7. With the considerable testimony which exists in favor of the Recepta, restored 
also by Tisch. 8, it should be retained, as wepicetoy might very easily originate 
in the similarity of sound in the following final syllables: éx:yrOZEI, ra ZHI, 
and aio##ZEI. The Recepta is also supported by the readings tepiooetec and 
reprooetor.— Ver. 11, Elz. has xaprév . . . Trav, against decisive testimony. An 
emendation.—Ver. 14. Lach. and Tisch. 8 have rot Ocot after Adyov, although, 
according to testimony of some weight (such as A B &, Clem.), only an explana- 
tory addition, which some Codd. give in a different position, while others change 
it into rod xupiov.—Vv. 16, 17. Elz. reverses their position: of uév é& épbeiag .. . 
pou ol d2 && aydan¢g ... xeiuat, against decisive testimony. A transposition 
intended to produce uniformity with ver. 10.—Instead of éyeipew (Griesb., 
Lachm., Tisch.) Elz. has érigépecv, which is defended by Matth. and Scholz, and 
vindicated by Reiche. But yelp. is decisively attested by the preponderance of 
uncials (including *) and vss.; épépecy, instead of which Theophyl. ms. has 
wpoogepstv, is an ancient gloss.— Ver. 18. TA7v] B has orxr; A F G P &, min. some 
- vas, and Fathers: A9v dr. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But the reference of the 
«Afv not being understood, it was explained by the ér written on the margin, 
which has in some cases (B) supplanted the 7A#v, and in others passed into the 
text along with it.—Ver. 21. Xporéc] xproréy was so isolated and weak in attesta- 
tion (Ar. pol.), that itshould not have been recommended by Griesb., following 
earlier authority.—Ver. 23. Elz. has ydp instead of d2, against decisive testimony. 


4 The Philippians are also called @A:rmfovos ing to Steph. Bysz.), G:Acwmsie in the Corp. 
by Steph. Byz., @cAcwwg_ra by Polyb.(accord- Inscript. 
7 


8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


The ydp after 704A@ is neither critically nor exegetically to be rejected. See 
Reiche, Comm. crit.—Ver. 24. év rj capi] év is wanting in AC P x, 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 éuévecv, especially as it is fre- 
quently used elsewhere with the simple dative —Ver. 25. cvzrapayevo] Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8 read tapayeva, which Griesb. also approved of, following A B C D* 
FG x, min. A neglect of the doubly compound verb, attested certainly more 
weakly, but yet by D*** E K L P, Chrys. al. and many min., which took place all 
the more readily, because the word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and 
even its meaning might be offensive——Ver. 27. Instead of aaobow, Lach. and 
Tisch. 8 read axobw, but without a preponderance of testimony in its favor.—Ver. 
28. éoriv avroic] Elz. has avroic pév éoriv, against decisive testimony.—tpir] A B 
C** x, min. vss. Aug. read dzav. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the dative is 
a mechanical alteration in accordance with the preceding ebroi¢ and the following 
iuiv—Ver. 30. Elz. has idere. But eidere is attested by A & D* E* x, min. and 
Fathers, and was supplanted by Jdere through Itacism. 


ConTENTS.—After the greeting to his readers (vv. 1, 2), Payl 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 (vv. 12-18), because Christ in fact is preached, 
which must tend to his—the apostle’s—salvation, since now nothing else 
but the glorification of Christ in his case will be the result, whether he 
remains alive in the body or not (vv. 19-21). Which of the two he should 
prefer, he knows not; since, however, the former is more needful for the 
sake of his readers, he is convinced that it will be the case for their fur- 
therance and joy (vv. 22-26). Only their conduct should be in conformity 
with the gospel, in order that he, if he should come again to them, or 
should be absent, might learn their Christian unity and fearlessness 
(vv. 27-30). 

Vv. 1, 2. Kai Ty60.] [On vv. 1, 2, see Note I. pages 46, 47], not as aman- 
uensis, although he may have been so (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. iii. 
17; Col. iv.18; and see on Gal. vi. 11), for from Rom. xvi. 22 we mus’ 
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 # emanates ; 
but as subordinate 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 previously discussed with him, as his own. 
At the same time, the apostle himself remains so completely the proper 
and principal writer of the epistle, that so early as ver. 3 he begins to 
speak solely in his own person, and in ii. 19 speaks of Timothy, who was 





CHAP, I. 1, 2. 9 


to be sent to them, as a third person. Nevertheless this joint mention of 
Timothy must have been as accordant with the personal relation existing 
between the latter and the 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 inti- 
mate fellowship between the apostle and his subordinate fellow-laborer '.— 
dovia X.'I] The fact that Paul does not expressly assert his apostolic 
dignity by the side of Timothy (as in 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. i. 1), may be explained 
by the intimate and cordial relation in which he stood to the Philippians; 
for in regard to them he saw no external cause, and felt no internal need, 
for making this assertion; and we may assume the same thing in Philem. 
1. The non-mention of his apostolic dignity in the First and Second 
Epistles to the Thessalonians is, considering the early date at which they 
were composed, to be similarly explained (see Lunemann on 1 Thess. i. 1). 
In their joint designation as dotAun ’I. X. (see on Rom. i. 1),—a designation 
resulting from the deep consciousness of the specific vocation of their 
lives (1 Cor. iv. 1),—both the apostleship of Paul and the official position 
of Timothy (comp. Rom. xvi. 21: Ted@. 6 ovvepyés pov; Col. iv. 12) are 
included. Compare efsdovdos, Col. i. 7, iv. 7.—roig dyiou év X. 'I.] see on Rom. 
i. 7, and on #yaopévog ev X.'1.,, 1 Cor. i. 2.—oiv emox. x. dtaxdv.| along with 
overseers and deacons. Paul writes to alJ* the Christians at Philippi (comp. 
Rom. i. 7), bishops and deacons being expressly included (ctv, comp. Acts 
xiv. 5). As official designations, the words did not require the article 
(Kubner, ad. Xen. Anab. iii. 5.7: orparyyol d2 xai Aoxayol), although par- 
ticular persons are meant (in opposition to Hofmann), who are regarded, 
however, just as office-bearers. The reason why the latter are specially 
mentioned in the salutation, in a way not found in any other epistle, must 
be sought in the special occasion of the letter, as the aid which had been 


21In general, when Paul names others be- tioned with him (Silvanus being named with 


sides 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 
character (Huther on Col. p. 45, with whom 
Corn. Maller agrees, Commentat. de loc. 
quibued. ep. ad Phil., Hamb. 1843, p. 5); for in 
that case the Epistles to the Romans and 
Ephesians would least of all bear the Apos- 
tle’s name alone. To him, too, with his 
yeraona! consciousness of his high apostolic 
standing (Gal. i. 1), the need of any confirma- 
tion or corroboration by others must have 
been an idea utterly foreign. Lastly, this 
very Epistle to the Philippians bears less 
of the official and more of the familar 
character than any of the others.—The fact, 
moreover, that in almost au the epistles, 
im the superscription of which Paul does 
not name himeelf alone, Timothy is men- 


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. 

2For all had, in fact, by their common 
readiness in offering given occasion to the 
apostolic letter. Thus the deeorum of reply 
naturally gave rise to the insertion of the 
otherwise superfluous wacr, without its imply- 
ing any special design of not putting to shame 
those who possibly had not contributed (van 
Hengel). And when Paul still further in this 
Epistie makes mention repeatedly and ear- 
nestly of all his readers (i. 4, 7 f., 26, ii. 17, 26, 
iv. 25), the simple and natural explanation 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 ¢. g. de Wette 


10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


‘conveyed to Paul could not have been collected without the guidance, 
and co-operation otherwise, of these office-bearers.' They might even 
have transmitted to him the money by means of an accompanying letter in 
the name of the church (Ewald; compare Hofmann); there is, however, 
no trace elsewhere of this. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Cornelius 
a, Lapide and Grotius: that he thus arranged the salutation with reference 
to Epaphroditus, who was one of the érioxora:; by Matthias: that the 
éxioxorot and didxovoe 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 expla- 
nations.—The writing of the words as one: cvverioxérog (B** D*** K, 
Chrysost. Theophyl. min.) is to be rejected, because ow 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 évioxoma (Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. ili. 2; Tit. 1. 7), or figuratively 
motmévec (Eph. iv. 11), and after the Jewish-theocratic analogy peoBtrepot, 
see on Acts xx. 28, Eph. iv. 11. And how much the plural is at variance 
with the Catholic doctrine of the episcopate, see in Calovius. The absence 
also of any mention of presbyters? strikingly shows that the latter were 
still at that time identical with the bishops.® As to the d:axovia, the care of 
the poor, sick, and strangers, comp. on Rom. xil. 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 ot», - 
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 !"—xGpu dpiv x. tr. 4.] See on Rom. 
17. 
Ver. 3 f. [On vv. 8-11, see Note II pages 47-50] Comp. Rom.i. 9; 1 Cor. 
i. 4; Eph. i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; Philem. 4; Col. i. 3.—évi mdoy ty pveie 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 
(s0 usually, following Chrysostom and Luther), but: my remembrance of 








does, by suggesting erroneously that “Paul 
wished to manifest his impartiality with 
regard to the dissension in the church.” 

1There 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 composition of the epistle, 
as is also done by Hinsch in the passage 
specified. See, against this, Hilgenfeld in his 
Zeitschr. 1873, p. 178 £ 


3In the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philip- 
pians, wpecBurepo: and Sdxovor are spoken of 
as existing in Philippi, but no éwiencowos. See 
especially chap. v.6. Therefore even at this 
later period bishops and presbyters were 
identical in Philippi. 

8Comp. particularly Acta xx. 17, 28; and 
see Ritschal, a/tkath. Kirche, p. 400 ff ; also J. 
B. Lightfoot, p. 93 ff., and Jul. Maller, dogmat. 
Abh. p. 581. Mistaken view in Ddllinger's 


CHAP. I. 3, 4. 11 


you tn tts entire tenor and compass is mingled with thankfulness towards 
God. On ézi with the dative, comp. ii. 17. Maldonatus, Homberg, Peirce, 
Michaelis, Bretschneider, Hofmann, are mistaken in making tuov geni- 
tive of the subject (and ézi 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 atd transmitted to 
him as a single pveia. 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.—yveig] is to be rendered in 
the usual sense of remembrance (comp. 1 Thess. iii.6; 2 Tim. i. 8), and 
not, as by van Hengel, in that of mention, which it only obtains in the 
passages—certainly otherwise corresponding—Rom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, 1 
Thess. i. 2, Philem. 4, by the addition of roeio6a. In this case it is the 
pveiay 2xecv (1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim.i. 3; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 798 A), and not 
the uv. rovicba:, that is thought of.—*xdvrore] [II 6.] cannot belong to 
evzyapioré in such a way that the following é mdoy defoe x. r. A. should be 
separated from it and joined to the participial clause, as Hofmann ! desires. 
It is true that révrore down to iuéy is closely linked with what precedes; 
but the connection is of such a character that xdvrore already finds the 
befitting limitation through é7? réoy +. pveig tuov, and now by wdvrore x, 7. A, 
can be announced, when the evxapiora 1. ©. wu. éxi x. 1. uv. du, takes place, 
namely, “at all times, in every request which I make for you all, thankagiving 
towards my God is joined with my entire remembrance of you.” Nega- 
tively expressed, the sense up to this point therefore is: “ I never (mavrore) 
make my tntercessory prayer for you all, without always (mavrore, as in Rom. 
i. 10, Col. i. 4) in tt associating thanks towards my God with my entire remem- 
brance of you.” This does not render the tdvrev inappropriate, as 
Hofmann objects, the fact being that the apostle constantly bears all his 
Philippians upon his heart, and cannot help praying for them all; he feels 
this, and expresses it. If we should, with Castalio, Beza, and many others, 
including Weiss, connect as follows: “ whilst I at all times in all my praying 
for you all make the prayer with joy,” the expression é dog dejoe: rij dénow 
rovobpevoc, as thus linked together, would be only a burdensome tautology. 
Instead of pera zap. r. 6, wodtu., Paul would have simply and naturally 
written the mere yaipuv, This applies also to the view of Huther, who* 
substantially agrees with Weiss. Hoelemann incorrectly connects trép 
ravr, i, with ebyapcoro (Rom. i. 8; Eph. i. 16; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 8). 
Against this it may be urged, that the otherwise too general év rdey defoe 
pov needs* an addition more precisely defining it; and the words pera zap. 


Christenthum u. Kirche, p. 308, ed. 2, who 
makes out of ov¢{vye ynjoue the bishop «ar’ 
é£ox Hr. 

‘ According to whom Paul is supposed to say 
that “he thanks his God for their collective re- 
membrance 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 


extravagant even to falsehood, because im- 
plying an impossibility. 

2In the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1863, p. 400. 

8This applies also in opposition to Ewald, 
who attaches twép wéyrwv tpev, and to Hof- 
mann, who at the same time joins dy wdon 
8ejoe, to the participial clause. The partici- 
pial clause only begins with the emphatically 
prefixed wera xapas. 


12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


rq dino, rowbu. 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 rv déjow points back to a more precisely defined dénot, 
the specification of which is contained in this very ¢. 7. %. Comp. Col. 
i. 3—As to the distinction between dénots and mpocevyz?y (ver. 9, iv. 6), see on 
Eph. vi. 18.—On the emphatic sequence of doy, wdvrore, rdoy, révruv, 
comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 56. Paul does not aim at such accumulations, 
but the fullness of his heart suggests them to him; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8.— 
peta xapac x,t. A.) His heart urges him, while mentioning his prayer for 
them all, to add: “when I make with joy the (mentioned) prayer 
(rv ¢.),”—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 xap. onwards, for towbu, is connected with evxyapiord (in opposition to 
Heinrichs), as containing the characteristic definition of mode for déyot 
in, war, ty, 

Ver 5 f. ’Eni rg xorvev, ip, ei¢ 1d ebayy.] is to be taken together with 
evzapiora, ver. 3 (1 Cor. i. 4), and not with pera zap. x. r. A. (Calvin, Grotius, 
van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann); for in that case, with 
the right explanation of évi rdoy r. uv. du., the specification of the ground 
for thanks would be entirely wanting, or would at all events result only 
indirectly, namely, as object of the joy. On account of your fellowship in 
respect of the gospel; [II c.] by this Paul means the common brotherly 
coherence (Acts ii. 42) which united the Philippians together for the gospel 
(as the aim to which the xowwvia hag reference), that is, for its further- 
ance and efficiency. The great cause of the gospel was the end at 
which, in their mutual coherence, they aimed; and this, therefore, 
gave to their fellowship with one another its specific character of a holy 
destination. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the 
context in ver. 9, where that which is here expressed by # co:vuria tusdv is 
characterized, under the category of the disposition on which this xorvuvia is 
based, as 7 aydry tuev. As this view is in full harmony with both words 
and sense, and is not dependent on anything to be supplied, it excludes 
divergent interpretations. We must therefore reject not only the expla- 
nation which refers xowwvia to the aid sent to Paul (Zeger, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Bisping, and others), so that it is to be 
taken actively as communication (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, 287), 
although it is never so used in the N. T. (comp. on Rom. xv. 26; Gal. vi. 6; 
Philem. 6), but also the view of Theodoret, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, 
Heinrichs, and others: “quod evangelii participes factt estis,” as if it ran 
tov ebayyediov (Theodoret : xovuviav 02 tod evayyedou rv wiatty éxadece), Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact, who are followed by most of the recent 
interpreters,' understand the fellowship of the Philippians with the apostle, 
that is, dr¢ xorvwvoi pov yiveobe x, ovnpeptoral tiv éxi rp evayy. révev, 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 


1Including Schinz, Weiss, Schenkel, Huther, Ellicott, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann. 





oHaP. 1. 5, 6. 13 


the text says nothing about a “ service” devoted to the gospel (Hofmann), 
an addition like per’ éugt (1 John i. 8, ¢ 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 therefore must have been expressed, 
as indeed Paul must have sasd 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 fepeated after tzor, because corvuria ric 
Td evayy. is conceived as forming a single notion.'—ano mporne fy. dxpe rod viv| 
is usually connected with rg xorvwvig x. r. A, This connection is the true one, 
for the constancy of the xowuvia, that has been attested hitherto, is the 
very thing which not only supplies the motive for the apostle’s thankful- 
ness, but forms also the ground of his just confidence for the future. The 
connective article (rg before a0) is not requisite, as é7i rp xowuvig tvov was 
construed as éni r@ xocvuveiv tude (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 135]). It cannot be 
connected with +. déyow rowby. (Weiss), unless émi rt. xowov, x. 7. 2. is also 
made to belong hereto. If joined with semorbde (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 merod. 
would be but indirectly indicated. If connected with evzapcré (Beza, 
Wolf, Bengel), the words—seeing that the expression tévrore év réoy defoet 
has already been used, and then in éi ry xowuvia x. t. a, @ transition has 
already been made to the object of the thanks—would contain a definition 
awkwardly postponed.—The frst day is that in which he first preached the 
gospel to them, which was followed by immediate and decided results, 
Acts xvi. 18 ff Comp. Col. i. 6.—merabec] confidence by which Paul 
knows his ebzapeoreiv, vv. 8-5, to be accompanied. [II d.] Without due 
ground, Hofmann confuses the matter by making a new prolonged 
paragraph begin with semorbéc2—aird rovro] 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 totro merely (Weiss), but would mean, 
being confident of this very thing, which is being spoken of (ii. 18; Gal. ii. 
10; 2 Cor. ii. 3). But nothing has been yet said of the contents of the 
confidence, which are to follow. It is therefore to be taken as ob id ipsum, 
for this very reason,‘ namely, because your xowuvia cig 7d evayy., from the 





1Comp. on coweveiy eis, iv. 15; Plato, Rep. 
p. 453 A. 

He makes ver. 6, namely, constitute a 
protasis, whose apodosis is again divided into 
the protasis ca8us or Sixacov éuoi and the 
apodosis corresponding thereto. But this 
apodosis of the apodosis begins with é&a 7d 
éxauy we, Ver. 7, and yet is only continued after 
the words pdprvs y. d Geds, as éxcwobe Uuas, 
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 this epistle; and what* reader would 
have been able, without Hofmann's guidanoe, 
to detect it and adjust its several parts ? 

3 Hofmann also adopts this explaation of 
evrTo Touro. 

42 Pet. 1. 5; Plato, Symp. p. 204 A, and 
Stallb. ad loc.; Prot. p. 310 E; Xen. Anab. 1. 
9. 21, and Kahner in loc., also his Gramm. II. 
1, p. 267; see also Winer, p. 135 [E. T. 142], 
and comp. on Gal. ii. 10. 








14 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


first day until now, is that which alone can warrant and justify my con- 
fidence for the future, dre 46 évapiduevog a.t.A. — 6 evap§dpuevog x.t.A.] God. 
Comp. ii. 18. That which He has begun He will complete, namely, by 
the further operations of His grace. The idea of resistance to this grace, 
as a human possibility, is not thereby excluded; but Paul has not to fear 
this on the part of his Philippian converts, as he formerly had in the case 
of the Galatians, Gal. i. 6, iii. 8. [II e.J—év iuiv). That Paul did not 
intend to say among you (a8 Hoelemann holds), but in you, in antmis vestris 
(comp. ii. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 6), is shown by trép rdvrev dudv following, by 
which the language 6 évapé. év tuiv x.r.A. expresses a confidence felt in respect 
to all individuals. — Epyov ayadév] without article, hence: an excellent work, 
by which is meant, in conformity with the context, the xo:vwvia tp. ei¢ rd 
evayy. — &xpu hutpac "I. X.] corresponding to the ard mpdrne hytp. dxpe Tod 
viv, ver. 5, presupposes the nearness of the rapovoia (in opposition to Wies- 
inger, Hofmann, and others), as everywhere in the N. T., and especially 
in Paul’s writings (Weiss, bzbi. Theol. p. 297, cd. 2). Comp. ver. 10, iii. 
20. [II f.] The device by which the older expositors (see even Pelagius) 
gratuitously introduce qualifying statements, “ Perseverat autem in illum 
usque diem, quicunque perséverat usque ad mortem suam”’ (Estius), where- 
by is meant not “ continuitas usque ad illum diem,” but “terminus et com- 
plementum perfectionis, quod habituri isto die erimus” (Calovius), is just as 
un-Pauline as Calvin’s makeshift, “that the dead are still in profectu, 
because they have not yet reached the goal,” and as Matthies’ philo- 
sophical perverting of it into the continual and eternal Parousia. 

Ver. 7. Subjective justification of the confidence expressed in ver. 6. 
How should he otherwise than cherish it, and that on the ground of his 
objective experience (aird rovro), since it was to him, through his love to 
his readers, a duty and obligation! Not to cherish it would be wrong. 
“Caritas enim omnia sperat,” Pelagius.—As to xaféc, which, in the con- 
ception of the corresponding relation, states the ground, comp. on iii. 17; 1 
Cor. i.6; Eph. i. 4; Matt. vi. 11—On dixasov, comp. Acts iv. 19; Eph. vi. 
1; Phil. iv. 8; Col. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i. 12!1—rotro gpoveir] to have this feeling, this 
practical bent of mind in favor of you, by which is meant the confidence 
expressed in ver. 6, and not his striving in prayer for the perfecting of his 
readers’ salvation (ver. 4), which the sense of the word ¢poveiv does not 
admit of (in opposition to Weiss), as it is not equivalent to ¢yreiv (comp. 
on Col. iii. 2). See besides, Huther, Jc. p. 405 f—On trép, comp. iv. 10; 2 
Macc. xiv. 8; Eur. Archel. fr. xxv. 2 f.; Plut. Phil. c. Flam. 3; on rotro ¢p., 
Gal. v. 10, otdév 4220 gp. The special reference of the sense of ¢poveiv: to be 
mindful about something, must have been suggested by the context, as in 
iv. 10; but is here insisted on by Hofmann, and that in connection with 
the error, that with xa@éc the protasis of an apodosis is introduced. The 
gpoveivy is here perfectly general, cogitare ac sentire, but is characterized by 
TOvUTO A8 & ev dpoveiv, Which Paul feels himself bound to cherish in the inter- 
est of the salvation of all his readers (irép révrov tpiv).—did rd Exery pe bv 


2A classical author would have written:  Sicaov éué rovro ¢poveiy (Herod. i. 39; Dem. 


CHAP. I. 7. 15 


_ 19 xapdig ivac] An expression of heartfelt love (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8) on the part 
of the apostle towards his readers, not on the part of his readers towards him,! 
thus making tyérs the subject; although the sing. xapdig (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.— 
év re roi¢ despotic x.r.1.] [II g.] so that, accordingly, this state of suffering, 
and the great task which is incumbent on me in it, cannot dislodge you 
from my heart. See already Chrysostom and Pelagius. These words, 
év te roi¢ deopoig x.7.A., 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... ai (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 Be., is 
taken as a whole (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 294 [E. T. 342]), is both anti- 
thetical, the defence of the gospel, and also thetical, the confirmation of it, 
that is, the corroboration of its truth by proof, testimony, etc., its verifica- 
tion”? For an instance of this kind of BeBaiwore during the earliest period 
of the apostle’s captivity at Rome, see Acts xxviii. 23. Hofmann, taking 
a groundless objection to our explanation from the use of ré... xai (see, 
however, Baeumlein, Partik. p. 225), refuses to connect the ré with the fol- 
lowing «ai; he prefers to connect with the one éyecv, namely with the éyecv 
tv rg xapdig, another, namely an éyeww ovyxocvwvotc. This is an artificial con- 
junction of very different references of the éyecv, 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 definition of 
the former. The question, moreover, whether in rg azoa. x. BeB. rov evayy. 
Paul intended to speak of his judicial examination (Heinrichs, van Hen- 
gel), or of his evtra-judicial action and ministry during his captivity, can- 
not be answered without arbitrariness, except by allowing that both were 
meant. For the words do not justify us in excluding the judicial defence® 
since the amodoyia might be addressed not merely to Jews and Judaists, 
but also to Gentile judges [II h.]—rod evayy.] belongs to r9 amo. x. BeBardoer, . 
and not to Bef. only; the latter view would make rg aoa. denote the 
personal vindication (Chrysostom, Estius, and others), but is decisively 
opposed by the non-repetition—closely coupling tue two words—of the 
article before fe8. But to interpret arodoyia and BeBaiworg as synonymous 
(Rheinwald), or to assume an @y é:a dvoiv for amodoyig eig BeBaiwow (Hein- 
richs), ig logically incorrect, and without warrant in the connection. It 
is also contrary to the context (on account of r@ azodcyig) to understand 
the BeBaivors r. evayy. as the actual confirmation afforded by the apostle’s 
sufferings (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others).—ovyxocvwvobs pov 


198.8; Plat. Symp. p. 1:4), or: Sixads eiue 2Comp. Heb. vi. 16; Rom. xv. 8; Mark xvi. 
tovro ¢p. (Herod. i. 832; Dem. 1469. 18, and 2; Thucyd. i. 140. 6, iv. 87. 1; Plat. Polit. p. 
frequently; Thuc. i. 40. 3.) 309 C; Wisd. v. 18. 

1Oeder, Michaelis, Storr, Rosenmiller, am 8 Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p 
Ende, Flatt. 430. 


16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


«.t.4.] characterizes the izéc, and supplies a motive for the éyecw pe év rp 
xapdig tuae «.7.A.: since you, etc. This love to you, unalterable even in my 
affliction, is based on the real sympathy, which results from all of you betng 
joint-partakers with me in the grace. The emphasis is laid, primarily on 
ovyx. and then on révre¢, which is correlative with the previous zévrov. 
The idea of the grace which the apostle had received (rij¢ xépiroc) is defined 
solely from the connection, and that indeed by the two points immediately 
preceding, év re roi¢ deopoig pov and rg aod. x. Bef. Tov evayy., namely, as 
God’s gift of grace enabling them to suffer for the gospel (comp. ver. 29 f.; 
see also Acts v. 41; 1 Pet. ii. 19), and therewith to defend and confirm 
instead of falling away from and denying it. .“‘ Magnus in hac re honos, 
magna praemia’” (Grotius). Paul knew that the experience of this grace 
—for the setting forth of which the context itself amply suffices, without 
the need of any retrospective ratry¢ (as is Hofmann’s objection)—had 
been vouchsafed not only to himself, but also to all his Philippian con- 
verts, who like him had had to suffer for Christ (ver. 29 f.); and thus, in 
his bonds, and whilst vindicating and confirming the gospel, conscious of 
the holy similarity in this respect between his and their experience, 
sympathetically and lovingly he bore them, as his fellow-sharers of this 
grace, in his heart. He knew that, whilst he was suffering, and defending 
and confirming the gospel, he had all his readers as ovprdoyorrec, ovvarodo- 
yotuevor, ov BeBaovvrec 1d evayyéAov, and that in virtue of the above-named 
grace of God, as a manifestation of which he had recognized his bonds, 
and his activity for the gospel in these bonds. Others interpret it much 
too generally and vaguely, looking at the tender and special references of 
the context, as the “ gratiosa evangelii donatio”’ (Hoelemann, comp. Wolf, 
Heinrichs, de Wette, and others). Likewise without any more imme- 
diate 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 assist- 
ance has come to be regarded as a xowvuvia tic rd evayyéAcov (but see on ver. 
5), as Hofmann expresses it. Those who feel dissatisfied that Paul does 
not mention at the very beginning of the epistle the assistance rendered 
to him, prescribe a certain line for the apostle; which, however, he does 
not follow, but gives expression first of all to his love for the Philippians 
in subjects of a higher and more general interest, and puts off his expres- 
sion of thanks, properly so called, to the end of the epistle. Lastly, the 
translation gaudii (Vulgate, Itala, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, 
Sedulius) is derived from another reading (yapac).—The otv in ovyxocvevat: 
refers to pov, my joint-partakers (iv. 14) of the grace, thus combining ovyk. 
with a double genitive of the person and the thing, of the subject and the 
object (Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 288; Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 191]), and placing it 
first with emphasis; for this joint fellowship is the point of the love in 
question.—As to the repetition of iyéc, see Matthis, p. 1031, and on Col. 
ii. 18; comp. Soph. O. C. 1278, and Reisig tn loc. 





CHAP. I. 8. 17 


RemMaRK.— Whether év re roic¢ deopoig . . . evayy. should be connected with the 
preceding d:a rd Exew pe év ry xapdig tuac (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, 
and many; also Huther), or with ovyx. «.7r.A. which follows (Beza, Calvin, Cal- 
ovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Flatt, Lachmann, van Hengel, Tischendorf, Wies- 
inger, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, and others), cannot be determined. Still the 
former, as of a less periodic character, is more in harmony with the fervent tone of 
feeling. Besides, the repetition of tic betrays a break in the flow of thought 
after r. evayy. 


Ver. 8. A solemn confirmation of the preceding assurance, that he had 
his readers in his heart, etc. [II ¢.] Comp., on the connection, Rom. i. 
9. Theophylact, moreover, strikingly observes: oby dc amicrobpevor paprepa 
xadei Tov Gedy, GAAG TH» TOAARy ddGeot ix Exywv rapacriea dia Aéyou.— do éxir08d 
x.7.2.] how mack I long after you all, etc., which would not be the case if I 
did not bear you in my heart (yép), as announced more precisely in ver. 
7. On émro8d, comp. Rom. i. 11; Phil. ii. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 4. 
The compound denotes the direction,’ not the strength of the rodeiv (comp. 
on 2 Cor. v. 2), which is conveyed by és; comp. Rom. i.9; 1 Thess. ii. 10.— 
év onléyxzvorg Xpioros "Iqoov] [II 7.] is not, with Hofmann,’ to be con- 
nected with what follows (see on ver. 9); it is an expression of the Aearti- 
ness and truth of his longing, uttered in the strongest possible terms. #, 
on account of the sensuous expression which follows (orA4yz»a, like D°DN), 
as seat of the affections, especially of heartfelt love, ii. 1; Col. ni. 12; 
Philem. 7, 12, 20; algo 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 Christin 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 
Cah was thus the life of Christ in him, represent the circumstances of his 
éxiroOeiv, as if the viscera Christi were moved in him, as if Christ's heart 
throbbed in him for his Philippians.’ Not doing justice to the Pauline 
consciousness of the unio mystica which gives rise to this expression, some 
have rendered 2 in an snstrumental sense, as in Luke i. 78 (Hofmann); 
others have taken it of the norma: “according to the pattern of Christ’s 
love to His people” (Rosenmiuller, Rilliet); and some have found the 
sense of the norma in the genitival relation: “in animo penitus affecto ut 
animus fuit Christi” (van Hengel).4 The merely approximate statement 


1 Pleat. Legg. ix. p. 855 F; Herod. v.98; Diod. 
Sic. xvii. 101; Ecclus. xxv. ®. 

According to Hofmann, namely, é» ond. 
X. "I aseerts with reference to the following 
Kai Touro wpowedy. that Christ's heart towards 
those who are His produces such prayer in 
the apostle, and manifests itself therein. 


8 Bengel aptly says: “In Paulo non Paulus 
vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non 
in Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur visceri- 
bus.” Comp. Theodoret: ovx dyopamvoy ro 
diATpoy, wvevmarixéy. 

480 also Wetetein, Heiurichs, and earlier 
expositors; whilst Storr refers é& owA. ‘1. X. 





18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


of the sense, given by Grotius and others: “amore non illo communi, sed 
vere Christiano,” is in substance correct, but fails to give ite full develop- 
ment to the consciousness of the Xpcordc év sjyiv (Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19; Rom. 
vili. 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 mysticism of deep pioug 
feeling, and the living immediate plastic form in which it finds expression, 
@ 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. 8-8, the reason why he 
thanks Gqd 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.'—xal] the simple and, 
[II &.] introducing the new part of?, and thus continuing, the discourse : 
And this (which follows) is what I pray,—so that the object is placed first in 
the progress of the discourse; hence it is xa? rovro rpocebyouat, and not x. 
mpoceiy. trovro. Hofmann’s explanation of the «ai in the sense of also, and 
his attaching év ora. X. ’I. to ver. 9, are the necessary result of his per- 
verse metamorphosis of the simple discourse, running on from wero@é¢ in 
ver. 6, into a lengthened protasis and apodosis,—a construction in which 
the apodosis of the apodosis is supposed to begin with év ora. X.’I.; comp. 
on ver. 6.—iva] introduces the contents of the prayer conceived of under 
the form of its design (Col. i. 9; 1 Thess. i. 11; Matt. xxiv. 20), and thus 
explains the preparatory rovro. Comp. on John vi. 29. “ This I pray, 
that your love should more and more,” etc.—} ayérn ipov), [II 1] not love to 
Paul (van Hengel, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, 
and others),—a reference which, especially in connection with ére uaA2ov x. 
pGAAov, 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 écyvdécee 
«.7.A.). 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 dis- 
position and feeling at the bottom of that xowwvia ei¢ rd evayy., for which 
Paul has given thanks in ver. 5.5 This previous thanksgiving of his was 
based on the confidence, dr: 6 évap§dpevog «.7.A., ver. 6, and the contents of his 


even to the readers (sc. 5yras). For many former portion is concluded by the fervent and 





other interpretations, see Hoelemann and 
Weiss. 

1“ Redit ad precationem, quam obiter tan- 
tum uno verbo attigerat (namely, ver. 4); 
exponit igitur summam eorum, quae illis 
petebat a Deo” (Calvin). 

8The word sxpocevxonas, which now occurs, 
points to a new topic, the thanksgiving and 
its grounds having been previously spoken 
of. Therefore «. +. wpocevx. is not to be 
attached, with Rilliet and Ewald, to the pre- 
ceding verse; and (how I) pray this. Two 
different things would thus be joined. The 


solemn ver. 8 Jatho also (Br. an d. Phitl., 
Hildesh. 1857, p. 8) connects it with ws, namely 
thus: and how I pray for: this, namely, to 
come to you, in order that I may edify you. 
But to extract for revro, out of éxiwobe vpmas, 
the notion: “my presence with you,” is 
much too harsh and arbitrary; for Paul's 
words are not even édaiwoéw idsety buds as in 
Rom. i. 11. 

8The 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 


CHAP. I. 9. 19 


prayer now is in full harmony with that confidence. The connection is 
misapprehended by Calovius and Rheinwald, who explain it as love to 
od 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 aydy, and to do justice to the idea of co-operative 
fellowship which is implied in the xorvevia in ver. 5.—ére paAAov] quite our: 
still more.| With the reading repiocety note the sense of progressive develop- 
ment.—év émtyvaoe x. Taoy aicOyoe: [II m.] constitutes that in which—i. e. 
respecting which—the love of his readers is to become more and more 
abundant.? Others take the é as instrumental : through (Heinrichs, Flatt, 
Schinz, and others); or as local: én, i. ¢. in association with (Oecumenius, 
Calvin, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, and others),—epioc. being supposed to 
stand absolutely (may be abundant). But the sequel, which refers to the 
érriyvwou and aicfoc, and not to the love, shows that Paul had in view not 
the growth in love, but the increase in ériyvwore and aiofyotc, which the love 
of the Philippians was more and more to attain. The less the love is 
deficient in knowledge and alo6nor¢, it is the more deeply felt, more moral, 
effective, and lasting. If ériyveor: 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.); alofyer¢ (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. 18, and Kriiger in loc. ; 
Plat. Theaet. p. 156 B),—which are also called aiofheec (Plat. Theae. 
p. 156 B), or spiritually* (Plat. Tim. p. 48, 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 dullness and inaction of the inward 
sense of ethical feeling (Rom. xi. 8; Matt. xiii. 15, e¢ al.), the stagnation of 
the aic@yripia tho xapdiacg (Jer. iv. 19), whereby a moral unsusceptibility, 
incapacity of judgment, and indifference are brought about.® Paul desires 
for his readers every (réoy) alcOnorc, because their inner sense is in no given 
relation to remain without the corresponding moral activity of feeling, 
which may be very diversified according to the circumstances which form 


Fathers (very frequently, ¢ g. in Augustine) 
in the language of the church (Bengel), is 
purely fanciful. 

1 Comp. Homer, Od. i. 322, xviil. 22; Herod. 
i. 94; Pind. Pyth. x. 88, Olymp. i. 175; Plat. 
Euthyd. p. 283 C; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 35; Diog. 
L. ix. 10.2. See instances of saAAcr cai pad- 
der in Kypke, ITI. p. 307. 

Comp. Rom. xv. 18; 3Cor. iff. 9 (iz), 
viii. 7; Col. 1.7; Ecclus. xix. 20 (24). 

3 Nota 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 éscys. 
be limited to the knowledge of men (Chrysos- 
tom, Erasmus, and others). 

4“ Nam etiam spiritualiter datar visus, audi- 
tus, olfactus, gustus, tactus, i.e. sensus inves- 
tigativi et fruitivi” (Benge)). 

8 Comp. LXX. Prov. L 7; Ex. xxvili. 5; Ec- 
clus. xx. 17, Rec. (aig@nocs dp6f) ; 4 Mace. fi. 21. 








20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, — 


ita ethical conditions. The relation between éxiyvwog and aiofyo is that 
of spontaneity to receptivity, and the former is the #yexovedy for the 
efficacy of the latter. In the contrast, however, mistaking and misappre- 
hending are not correlative to the former, and deception to the latter 
(Hofmann); both contrast with both. 

Vv. 10, 11. Eig 1d doxeudfecy x.7.A.] states the aim of the mepcoo, sv émcyv. x. 
x. aio®., and in iva #re etAcxp. x.t.A. we have the ultimate design [II n.J.  dox:- 
palecv ra dcagépovra is to be understood, asin Rom. ii. 18: tn order to approve 
that which is (morally) ercellent. So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Grotius, Calovius, Estius, 
Bengel, Michaelis, Flatt, Rheinwald, Rilliet, Ewald, and others.? Others 
understand it as a testing of things which are morally different (Theodoret, 
Beza, Grotius, Wolf, and others; also Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, 
de Wette, Corn. Miiller, Wiesinger, Weiss, Huther). In point of usage, 
this is equally correct; see on dox:uzaf., in both senses, 1 Thess. ii. 4. But 
in our view the sense which yields a definition of the aim of the words 
meptoo. év éxtyv. x, 7. aic6., a8 Well as the antecedent of the cidixpiveca which fol- 
lows, seems more consistent with the context. The testing of good and 
evil is not the aim, but the expression and function, of the éziyvwore and 
aio@yors. Looking at the stage of Christian life which must be assumed 
from vv. 5 and 7 (different in Rom. xii. 2), the former, as an aim, does not 
go far enough; and the eidscpiveca is the result not of that testing, but of 
the approbation of the good. Hofmann’s view is therefore unsuitable, that 
it means the proving of that which is otherwise; otherwise, namely, than 
that towards which the Christian’s love is directed. This would amount 
merely to the thought of testing what is unworthy of being loved (= ra érepa) 
—a thought quite out of keeping with the telic mode of expression.—eiAuxpi- 
veic], pure, sincere = xabapéc; Plat. Phil. p. 52 D.2—arpécxoro:] practical 
proof of the eiAxpiveca in reference to intercourse with others (2 Cor. vi. 3): 
giving no offence; 1 Cor. x. 32; Ignat. Trall. interpol. 7; Suicer, Thea. s. v. 
As Paul decidedly uses this word in an active sense in 1 Cor. J. c. (comp. 
Ecclus. xxxv. 21), this meaning is here also to be preferred to the in itself 
admissible intransitive,—viz. not offending (Acts xxiv. 16; comp. John xi. 
9),—in opposition to Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Hoelemann, de Wette, 
Weiss, Huther, Hofmann, and others [II 0.]—eic quép. X.], to, i.e. for, the 
day of Christ, when ye are to appear pure and blameless before the judg- 
ment-seat. Comp. ii. 16; Eph. iv. 30; Col. i. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 9, 11.7; 2 Tim. 
i. 12; also Jude 24 f. These passages show that the expression is not 
equivalent to the dypic #uépac 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. red. naprdv dux.}] modal definition of the eijuxpev. x. ampéox., 
and that from the positive side of these attributes, which are manifested 


1See on &kaddpey, pracstantiorem esse(Dem. Comp. dcadpepdvress, eximée (Plat. Prot. p. H49 
1466. 22; Polyb. ili. 87.1; Matt. x. 31), and ra D, and frequently). For 8oncuaég., comp. Rom. 
badbdporra, pracstantiora (Xen. Hier. 1. 3; xiv. 22, el al. 
Dio Cass. xliv. 25), Sturz, Lez. Xen. [. p. 711 f. *Comp., on its ethseal use, Plat. Phaadr. p. 





CHAP. I. 10-12. 21 


and tested in this fruitfulness—. e. in this rich fullness of Christian virtue 
in their possessors. «apd dixacoc. is the fruit which ts the product of right- 
eousness, Which proceeds from a righteous moral state. [II p.]. Comp. 
xapx, tov mvebyaroc, Gal. v. 22; x. rov gurds, Eph. v. 9; «. dtxasocivnc, Jas, iii. 
18, Heb. xii. 11, Rom. vi. 21 f., Prov. xi. 30. In no instance is the genitive 
with xapré¢ that of apposition (Hofmann). The déacacooivy here meant, 
however, is not justitia fidei ( justificalio), as many, even Rilliet and Hoele- 
mann, would make it, but, in conformity with ver. 10, a righteous moral 
condition, which is the moral consequence, because the necessary vital 
expression, of the righteousness of faith, in which man now xaprogopei rp 
Oe@ év xacvéryre wvebparoc, Rom. vii. 5 f.; comp. vi. 2, viii. 2; Col. 1.10. We 
must observe that the emphasis is laid not on diaacocbync, but on xaprdév,— 
which therefore obtains more precise definition afterwards,—so that di«a:- 
ocivye conveys no new idea, but only represents the idea, already conveyed 
in ver. 10, of the right moral condition.'—rév dia ’I. X.] 8c. bv7a, 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.).—ei¢ dégav x.7.4.] belongs to 
werAnp. x.t.A., not specially to rdv dca "I. X. How far this fruitfulness tends 
to the honor of God (comp. John xv. 8), see Eph. i. 6-14. God’s dééa is 
His majesty in itself; imavoc is the praise of that majesty. Comp. Eph. i. 
6, 12, 14. This éracoc is based on matter of fact (its opposite is areudfecv rt. 
@eév, Rom. ii. 23), in so far as in the Christian moral perfection of believers 
God’s work of salvation in them, and consequently His glory, by means 
of which it is effected, are manifested. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20. The whole 
work of redemption is the manifestation of the divine dé6ga. See John xii. 
27 f. The glory of God is, however, the ultimate aim and constant refrain 
of all Christian perfection, ii. 11; 1 Cor. x. 81; Eph. iii. 31; 1 Pet. iv. 11; 
Rom. xi. 36. 

Ver. 12. [On vv. 12-14, see Note III., pages 50-52.) See, on vv. 
12-26, Huther in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p. 558 ff—Paul now pro- 
ceeds by the dé of continuation to depict his own position down to ver. 26. 
See the summary of contents.—The element of transition in the train of 
thought is that of the notification which Paul now desires to bring before 
them; y:vdoxecv is therefore placed first: but ye areto know. It is otherwise 
in 2 Tim. iii. 1, also 1 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 1.—ra xar’ gué] my circumstances, 
my position.2—yaAror] not to the hindrance, but much the contrary. See 
Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 243]. He points in this to the apprehension assumed 


66 A, and Stallbaum in loc., 81 C; 2 Pet. iii.1; | Winer, p. 215[E. T. 220]. A classical author 
1 Cor. v.8; 2 Cor. i. 12, 1i.17; Wisd. vii. 25, would have used the genitive (Elz.) or the 
and Grimm in loc. dative. 

3 Comp. on &cacocven, Eph. v. 9; Rom. vi. 2As in Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7; Tob. x.9; 
13, 18, 20, xiv. 17, et al—On the accusative of 2 Macc. fii. 40, ef. al.; Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 16; 
the remote olject, comp. Ps. cv. 40, cxlvii.14;  Ael. V. H. it. 20. 

Ecclus. xvii. 6; Col. £ 9 (not 2 Thess. i. 11); 


22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


to exist, and° certainly confirmed to him by Epaphroditus as existing, on 
the part of his readers, which, before going further, he wishes to relieve. 
There is no trace even here of a letter received from them with the con- 
tribution (Hofmann; comp. Wiesinger); comp. on ver. 1... Hoelemann: 
“magis, quam antea contigerat;” but this meaning must have been 
intimated by a viv or 767.—rpoxorfy] progress, t. e. success. Comp. ver. 25; 
1 Tim. iv. 15.1 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.—éAgivéer] evenit, t. e. has 
redounded So the matter stands ; note the perfect. 

Ver. 13. “Qore «.7.4.] 80 that my bonds became manifest in Christ, etc. This 
gore introduces the actual result of that rpoxor4#, and consequently a more 
precise statement of tis nature* [III. b.]. 'Ev Xpcorg does not belong to 
rov¢ deapotc pov, alongside of which it does not stand; but gavepoic év Xpior. 
is to be taken together, and the emphasis is laid on ¢avepots, so that the 
decuot did not remain xpurroi or aréxpudoe év Xpiorg, as would have been the 
case, if their relation to Christ had continued unknown, and if people had 
been compelled to look upon the apostle as nothing but an ordinary 
prisoner detained for examination. This ignorance, however, did not 
exist; on the contrary, his bonds became known in Christ, in so far, 
namely, that in their causal relation to Christ—in this their specific peculiarity 
—was found information and elucidation with respect to his condition of 
bondage, and thus the specialty of the case of the prisoner, became noto- 
rious. If Paul had been only known generally as déopcoc, his bonds would 
have been ovx éugaveic év Xpiorp; but now that, as déopcoc ev xvply or Tov 
xvpiov (Eph. iv. 1, iii. 1; Philem. 9), as rdoywv o&¢ Xproriavdc (1 Pet. iv. 16), 
he had become the object of public notice, the ¢gavépworc of his state of 
bondage, as resting év Xpcorg, was thereby brought about,—a ¢avepdv yiveo- 
6a, consequently, which had its distinctive characteristic quality in the év 
Xpior@. It is arbitrary to supply dvrac with év Xpcorg (Hofmann). Ewald 
takes it as: “shining in Christ,” ¢. e. much sought after and honored as 
Christian.4 But, according to New Testament usage, ¢avepéc does not con- 
vey so much as this; in classical usage® it may mean conspicuous, eminent. 
—iv bAy TH Tpatrupiy] mpacrdpiov is not the imperial palace in Rome,* which 


1As to the later Greek character of this 
word, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 85. 
2Comp. Acts xix. 27; Wisd. xv.5; Herod. i. 


the greatness, but the salutary effect, is indi- 
cated 


4Comp. also Calvin, apd Wieseler, Chronol. 


120; Soph. Aj. 1117 (1138); Plat. Gorg. p. 487 B. 

8“ Rem, qualis sit, addita rei consequentis 
significatione definit," Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 
p. 1012. Hofmann’s view, that it stands in 
the sense of cig rovro wore, also amounts to 
this. But Hoelemann is in error in making 
it aseert the greatness of the wpoxowy. Not 


d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 457. 

6 Thue. i. 17. 2, iv. 11.3; Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 58, 
Anab. vii. 7. 22 and Kriger in loe. 

6 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, The- 
ophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Es- 
tius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Bengel, and 
Tany others, also Mynster, Rheinwald, and 


CHAP. I. 13. 23 


is denoted in iv. 22 by 4 Kaicapog oixia, but was never called praetorium.: It 
could not well, indeed, be so called, as 1d xpacréprov is the standing appel- 
lation for the palaces of the chief governors of provinces (Matt. xxvii. 27; 
John xviil. 28, xix. 9; Acta xxiii. 35); hence it might and must have been 
explained as the Procurator’s palace in Caesarea, if our epistle had been 
written there (see especially Bottger, Beitr. I. p. 51 f.). But it is the 
Roman castrum praetorianorum, the barracks of the imperial body-guard,; 
whose chief was the praefectus praetorio, the orparoridwy éxapyoc, 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.? 1d zpa:tdpiov does not mean the troop of 
praetorian cohorts (Hofmann), which would make it equivalent to oi mpa:r- 
wpavoi (Herodian, viii. 8. 14).“—The becoming known tn 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.).—xal rtoi¢ Aoiroig raor} not 
in the sense of locality, dependent on év (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin), 
but: and to all the others, besides the praetorians. It is a popular and inex- 
act way of putting the fact of its becoming still more widely known among 
the (non-Christian) Romans, and therefore it must be left without any 
more specific definition. This extensive proclamation of the matter took 
place in part directly through Paul himself, since any one might visit 
him, and in part indirectly, through the praetorians, officers of justice, dis- 
ciples, and friends of the apostle, and the like Van Hengel, moreover, 


Schneckenburger in the Deutsch. Zeitachr. 
1855, p. 300. 

1 Act. Thom. #3, 17, 18, 19, in Tischendorf, 
Aet. apocr. pp. 192, 204 f., cannot be cited in 
favor of this designation (in opposition to 
Rheinwald); the sxpa:tupia BactAcca there 
spoken of (§ 3) are royal castles, s0 designated 
after the analogy of the residences of the 
Roman provincial rulers. Comp. Sueton. Aug. 
72; Tib. 39, et al. ; Juvenal, x. 161. 

£Camerarius, Perizonius, Clericus, Elsner, 
Michaelth, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Matthies, 
Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette, Rilliet, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, 
{III ¢.] and others. 

8 See Suet. 71d. 37; Tac. Ann. iv.2; Pitiscus, 
Thesaur. antiq. 111. 174; and especially Peri- 
zonius, de orig., signif. et usu voce. praetoris et 
praetorii, Franeq. 1687, as also his Disquisitio 
de praetorio ac vero sensu verborum Phil. i. 13, 
Franeq. 1690; also Hoelemann, p. 45, and J. B. 
Lightfoot, p. 97 ff. Doubtiess there was a 
praetorian guard stationed in the imperial 
palace itself, on the Mons Palatinus, as in the 
time of Augustus (Dio. Cass. liji. 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 castra practoriana 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 castra is to be 
understood by the wonted term practorium, 
otparémedoy, when mentioned without any 
further definition (as Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6.7: 
mpd Tov BacrAciov). 

4 Not even in such passages as Tacitus, Hist. 
fi, 24, iv. 46; Suetonius, Ner. 7; Plin. H. N. 
xxv. 2, 6, e¢ al., where the prepositional ex- 
pression (in praetorium, ex praetorio) is always 
local. 

5 This suffices fully to explain the situation 
set forth in ver. 13. The words therefore 
afford no ground for the historical combina- 
tion which Hofmann here makes: that dur- 
ing the two years, Acts xxvili. 30, the apostle’s 
case was held tn 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 











24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


understands it incorrectly, as if oi Aoeroi were specially “homines ezteri,” 
“ 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. 18. Equally arbitrary is the limitation of Hofmann: 
that it refers to those, who already knew about him. 

Ver. 14. rote rAeiovac] the majority, 1 Cor. x. 5, xv. 6, etal. It is not to 
be more precisely specified or limited.—év xvpip] belongs not to adeAgav 
(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 ero0érac, along with which, however, it is not to be 
rendered : relying upon the Lord with respect to my bonds (Rheinwald, Flatt, 
Rilliet, comp. Schneckenburger, p. 301). It means rather: in the Lord 
trusting my bonds, so that év xvpiy is the specific modal definition of sero. 
roic J. ., which trust is based and depends on Christ. [III d.]. Comp. ii. 24; 
Gal. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 14; 2 Thess. iii. 4. On the dative, comp. 2 Cor. x. 
7; Philem. 21, and the ordinary usage in the classics; in the New Testa- 
ment mostly with éxi or év. 'Ev xvpiy is placed first as the correlative of 
the év Xpior., ver. 13. As the apostle’s bonds had become generally known 
as in Christ, so also in Christ (who will not abandon the work of His 
prisoner that had thus become so manifest) may be found the just ground 
of the confidence which encourages the brethren, Paul’s fellow-Christians 
in Rome, a¢é6Buc r. A. Aadeiv. They trust the bonds of the apostle, [III e.], 
inasmuch as these bonds exhibit to them not only an encouraging exam- 
ple of patience (Grotius), but also (comp. ii. 8; Col. 1. 24 f.; 2 Tim. ii. 8 
f.; Matt. v. 11 f.,and many other passages) a practical guarantee, highly 
honorable to Christ and His gospel, of the complete truth and justice, power 
and glory of the 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 r9 ¢avepioe: trav 
deopev pov (which would tend to the recommendation of the gospel); while 
Hofmann thinks that, to guard themselves against the danger of being 
criminally prosecuted on account of their preaching, they relied on the apos- 
tle’s imprisonment, in so far as the latter had now shown itself, in the 
judicial process that had at length been commenced, to be solely on account of 
Christ, and not for anything culpable. The essential elements, forsooth, 
are thus introduced in consequence of the way in which Hofmann has 
construed for himself the situation (see on ver. 13).—7epiooor.] i. ¢. in a 
higher degree than they had formerly ventured upon, before I lay here in 
bonds. Their eagofia in preaching had increased. This, however, is 





xxviii. 31 were not sufficient to have made 
the matter known, and as if that &eria éy 
Bigg picOnpuars precluded the judicial prepar- 
ation of the case (ver.7)! As ifthe increased 
courage of the mAcioves, ver. 14, were intelli- 
gible only on the above assumption! As if, 
finally, it were admissible to understand, 


with Hofmann, among these mAccoves all 
those who “even now before the conclusion of 
the trial were inspired with such courage 
by 31” 

1Oecumerius well says: «i yap uy Ociov gy, 
@noi, Td xypvyza, ovn av 6 TavAos Hveixeto 
umdp avrov Se8éc0a:. Comp. ver 16. 


cHAP. I. 14, 15. 25 


explained by Hofmann, in accordance with the above hypothesis, by the 
fact that the political guiltlessness of preaching Christ had now been estab- 
lished,—thus referring, in fact, the increase of their fearless boldness to a 
sense of legal security. But the reason of the increased d¢ofia 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 
boliness through that holy confidence, rooted in Christ, with which they 
imbued them.—rév Adyor Aareiv] t. e. to let the gospel become known, to 
preach, Acts xi. 19, and frequently. On a¢é6fuc, comp. Acts iv. 31. 

Ver. 15. [On vv. 15-17, see Note IV. pages 52, 53.] This is not indeed 
the case with all, that they év xupip mero:Bére¢ roig deop. pow wEptooor, ToAL. K.T.A. 
No, some in Rome preach with an improper feeling and design; but some 
also with a good intention. (Both parties are described in further detail 
in vv. 16,17.) In either case—Christ is preached, wherein I rejoice and 
will rejoice (ver. 18).—rivég pév xai dca pOdvov x. Epcv]. These do not form a 
part of those described in ver. 14 (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, and 
others, also Weiss, Hofmann, and Hinsch), for these latter are character- 
ized by év xupiy remo. toic deou. pov quite otherwise, and indeed in a way 
which excludes the idea of envy and contention (comp. also Huther, I. c.), 
and appear as the majority to which these rivé¢ stand in contrast as excep- 
tions ; but they are the anti-Pauline party, Judaizing preachers, who must 
have pursued their practices in Rome, as in Asia and Greece, and exer- 
cised an immoral, hostile opposition to the apostle and his gospel.! We 
have no details on the subject, but from Rom. xiv. we see that there was 
a fruitful field on which this tendency might find a footing and extend its 
influence in Rome. The idea that it refers to certain members of the 
Pauline school, who nevertheless hated the apostle personally (Wiesinger, 
comp. Flatt), or were envious of his high reputation, and impugned his 
mode of action (Weiss), is at variance with the previous é xvpiy, 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.—xai] indicates that, whilst the majority were actuated by 
a good disposition (ver. 14), an evil motive also existed in several,—expresses, 
therefore, the accession of something else in other subjects, but certainly not 
the accession of a subordinate co-operating motive in a portion of the same 
persons designated in ver. 14 (Hofmann).—dia g6évov x. Epiv] [iv. a. b. page 
58] 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 conten- 
tious disposition towards me. Comp. ver. 17.2—Tivé¢ dé xai] But some also ; 
there also are not wanting such as, etc. Observe that the d2 «at joins itself 





1 For the person to whom individually their 
@06vos and épc (as likewise the subsequent 
evSoxia) had reference was self-evident to 
the readers, and Paul, moreover, 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 Zeitechr. 1873, 
p. 180 f. 

20n &a ¢66vor, comp. Matt. xxvii.18; Mark 
Xv. 10; Plat. Rep. p. 586 D: dOévy 8:4 GtACTipiay. 








26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 

with rivés, whereas in pév xai previously the «ai is attached to the following 
dia gO5vov. The rivéc here are they who in ver. 14 were described as rAeio- 
vec, but are now brought forward as, in contrast to the rivég uév, the other 
portion of the preachers, without any renewed reference to their prepond- 
erance in numbers, which had been already intimated.'—dé’ evdoxiav] on 
account of goodwill, that is, because they entertain a feeling of goodwill 
towards me. This interpretation is demanded by the context, both in the 
antithesis d:d g0évov x. Epv, and also in ver. 16: é& aydmye.2 Others take it, 
contrary to the context, as: “ex benevolentia, qua desiderant hominum 
salutem”’ (Estius, comp. already Pelagius); or, “quod tpst td probarent,” 
from conviction (Grotius, Heinrichs, and others), from taking delight in 
the matter generally (Huther), or in the cause of the apostle (de Wette), or 
in his preaching (Weiss). 

Vv. 16, 17. We have here a more detailed description of both parties in 
respect to the motives which actuated them in relation to the deopol of the 
apostle.—oi péy ... ol dé] corresponds to the two parties of ver. 15, but— 
and that indeed without any particular purpose—in an énverted order (see 
the critical remarks), as in 2 Cor. ii. 16, and frequently in classical authors 
(Thuc. i. 68. 4.; Xen. Anab. i. 10. 4). In ver. 18 the order adopted in ver. 
15 is again reverted to.—ol 2 aydanc] [IV. c.] sc. dvrec, 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, et ali We 
must supply what immediately precedes: rév Xprordv xnptocoverw, of which 
eidérec x.r.A. then contains the particular moving cause (Rom. v. 3, 6,9; Gal. 
ii. 16; Eph. vi. 8 f., et al.). We might also take oi pév (and then oi dé) abso- 
lutely: the one, and then bring up immediately, for # aydmyc, the sub- 
sequent r. Xpiordv xarayyéAAovow (so Hofmann and others). But this would 
be less appropriate, because the progress of the discourse does not turn on 
the saying that the one preach out of love, and the other out of contention 
(for this has been said in substance previously), but on the internal deter- 
mining motives which are expressed by eidére¢ «.r.A. and oidpevor «.7.2.; 
besides, ovx dyvé¢ would then follow as merely a weak and disturbing 
auxiliary clause to é épOeiag.—re ei¢ artoA, tov ebayy. xeiuac| that I am destined, 


1Van Hengel has not taken this into ac- 











count, when he assumes that in rievés 82 nai 
Pau! had in view only a portion of those 
designated in ver. 14. It is an objection to 
this idea, that what is said subsequently in 
ver. 16 of the reves 8¢ cai completely harmon- 
izes with that, whereby the wAcoves generally, 
and not merely a portion of them, were 
characterized in ver. 14. (év xup. we. 1. 8eap.). 
This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, 
according to whom the two tuvés, ver. 15 f., 
belong to the wAeioves of ver. 14, whom they 
divide into two classes. Hofmann’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 good- 
will, 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 character- 
ized the two parties. Moreover, ¢pss means 
everywhere in the N. T., and especially here 
in its conjunction with ¢@0v0s (comp. Rom. i. 
29; 1 Tim. vi. 4), not rivalry—the weaker 
sense assigned to it here, without a shadow 
of justification from the context, by Hofmann 
(“they wish to outdo him ")—but strife, con- 
tention. Just as little is ép.deia to be reduced 
to the general notion of egotism, as is done by 
Hofmann; see on ver. 17. 

As to the linguistic use of evoxia in this 
sense (ii. 13), see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 
372. Comp. on Rom. x. 1 


CHAP. I. 16, 17. 27 


am ordained of God for (nothing else than) the defence of the gospel—a 
destination which they on their parts, in consequence of their love to me, 
feel themselves impelled to subserve. They labor sympathetically hand 
in hand with me.—xeiza:} as in Luke ii. 34; 1 Thess. iii.3.1 Others render: J 
lie in prison (Luther, Piscator, Estius, Wolf,am Ende, Huther, and others) ; 
but the idea of lying under fetters, which xciza: would thus convey ?, does not 
harmonize with the position of the apostle any more than the reference of 
its meaning thereby introduced: they know that I am hindered in my preach- 
ing, and therefore they “‘ supplent hoc meum impedimentum sua praedica- 
tione,” Estius. See, on the contrary, Acts xxviii. 30,81; Phil.i. 7. Van 
Hengel also imports (comp. Weiss): “me ad causam rei Christians, ubi 
urgeat necessitas, coram judice defendendam hic in mtseria jacere.” ®—oi 
dé 2& ép:0.] sc. bvrec, the fuctious, the cabal-makers. See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. 
xii. 20; Gal. v. 20.6 It corresponds with the ¢6évov x. épcv, ver. 15.—rov X. - 
xatayy. ovx dyvac] belong together. xarayy. is, in substance, the same as 
xnptooerv, but more precisely defining it as the announcement of the Mes- 
siah (Acts xvii. 3, 23; Col. i. 28, e al.). The words r. Xpiorév xarayyéAAovocv 
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 dyvér, non caste, not in purity of feeling and purpose. 
xaSapa¢ is synonymous (Hom. H. in Apoll. 121), also with a mental refer- 
ence (Hesiod. épya, 339).°—oiduevoe x.7.A. [IV d.] thinking to tir 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 oiéuevoe and eidére¢ 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 oiuva with the present infinitive, 
see Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 283. The future infinitive would not convey 
that what is meant is even now occurring® How far they thought that 
they could effect that injurious result by their preaching, follows from ver. 
15 and from ¢& épGeiag; 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. This was the cabal in the background of their 
dishonest preaching. That by the spread of the gospel they desired to pro- 
voke the hostility of the heathen, especially of Nero, against Paul, and 
thus to render his captivity more severe, is a groundless conjecture 
imported (Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others; comp. 


‘ 
1Comp. Plat. Legg x. p. 909; Thuc. ifi. 45, 2, 8 Comp. Hom. Od. {. 46; Soph. Aj. 316 (823) ; 
41,2; Ecclus. xxxviii. 29, and other passages Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 496. 
in which “xeto@a tanquam passivum verbi 4So also Ignatius, ad Philadelph. 8. 
wouic@a vel r:Odvac videtur,” Ellendt, Lez. 5 Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D; 2 Cor. vii 
Soph I. p. 943. 11, xi. 2; Phil. iv. 8, e¢ al. ; 2 Cor. vi. 6. 
3Comp. Eur. Phoen. 1633; Aesch. Ag. See generally Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 
1492, 52 C, comp. Phaed. p. 116 E. 


28° THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


already Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius)—On éyeipew 
(see the critical remarks) comp. éy. wdivac, Plat. Theaet. p. 149 C, and 
similar passages. 

Ver. 18. [On vv. 18-21, see Note V. pages 54, 55.] On zi ydp, seil. éori, 
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 74 that the mark of interrogation should not be placed 
(as it usually is) after ri ydp, but the question goes on to xatayyéAderat 
(comp. Hofmann); and it is to be observed that through Af the 
ti yép receives the sense of ti yap dAdo? [V a.] Hence: what else takes 
place therefore (in such a state of the case) except that, etc., i. e. what 
else than that by every sort of preaching, whether it is done in pretence 
or in truth, Christ is proclaimed? and therein, that it is always Christ 
whom they preach, JI rejoice, etc. How magnanimous is this liberality 
of judgment as to the existing circumstances in their reference to 
Christ! By zpogacee and aAnbeia is indicated the characteristic differ- 
ence in the two kinds of preachers, vv. 15-17, and thus ravri rpéry 
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 mpégaorc, 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 endeavors. For instances of 
the antithesis between zpégaore and aAffeca or taAnOéc, see Raphel, Polyb. ; 
Loesner and Wetstein. To take zpégactc as opportunity, occasion®,—as, fol- 
lowing the Vulgate, Luther, Estius, Grotius (“nam occasione illi Judaei, 
dum nocere Paulo student, multos pertrahebant ad evang.’’), and others 
understand it,—is opposed to the context in vv. 15-17, in which the want 
of honest disposition is set forth as the characteristic mark of these persons. 
On Af in the sense of 7, comp. Kuthner, II. 2, p. 842.—év rotry] the 
neuter: therein, in accordance with the conception of that in which the 
feeling has tts basis! [V b.c.] In the Xpuordg xarayyéArcra: lies the apos- 
tle’s joy.—a72d xai yapfooua:] surpassing the simple yaipw by a plus, and 
therefore added in a corrective antithetical form (imo etiam); comp. on 1 
Cor. iii. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 1. To begin a new sentence with 4444 (Lachmann, 
Tischendorf), and to sever yapyoovea: from ita connection with é rotry 
(Hofmann, who makes the apostle only assert generally that he will con- 
tinue to rejoice also in the future), interrupts, without sufficient reason, the 
flow of the animated discourse, and is also opposed by the proper refer- 


According to Weiss, ydp is intended to “TJs it then so, as they think?” 


weg peenien o 7. Ay aC 2 as *See Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 232 C. 
atter only an empty tmagination. u Bas 
this is an unnecessary seeking after a very 3 Herod. i. 29, 30, iv. 145, vi.94; Dem. xx. 26; 
obscure reference. The x yép draws, as it Antiph. v. 21; Herodian, i. 8. 16, v. 2. 14. 
were, the result from vv. 15-17. Hence also 4Comp. Col. i. 24; Plat. Rep. x. p. 603 C; 
we cannot, with Huther, adopt as the sense: Soph. 7r. 1118; Kihner, II. 1, p. 403. 


CHAP. I. 18, 19. 29 


ence of olda yép in ver. 19. [Vd.] This applies also in opposition to 
Hinsch, p. 64 f. 


REMARK.—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. Ep. Purm. ii. 11. Nor does ravri rpéry 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 
jadgment may excite surprise by its mildness (comp. iii. 2), since these opponents 
must have taught what in substance was anti-Pauline. But we must consider, 
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 might appear to him 
in itself of such preponderating importance 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 Chry- 
sostom 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 a less 
tmportant 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 against the 
genuineness of the epistle. Comp. the appropriate remarks of Hilgenfeld in his 
Zeitschr. 1871, p. 314 ff.; in opposition to Hinsch, see on ver. 15. Calvin, more- 
over, well says: “Quamquam autem gaudebat Paulus evangelii incrementis, nuu- 
quam tamen, si fuisset in ejus manu, tales ordinasset ministros.” 


Ver. 19. Reason assigned not only for the aA14 xal yapfooua:, but for the 
entire conjoint assertion: é rotty yaipw, aAAa x. yap. For both, for his 
present joy and for his future joy, the apostle finds the subjective ground 
in the certainty now to be expressed.—rovro] [V ¢.] the same thing that 
was conveyed by é» rotry in ver. 18, this fact of Christ’s being preached, from 
whatever different motives it may be done,—not: my present, ra xar’ éué 
(Hofmann).—eis cwrypiav] is, in conformity with the context, not to be 
explained of the deliverance from captivity (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Mus- 
culus, Heinrichs), or of the preservation of the apostle’s life (Oecumenius), 
or of the triumph over his enemies (Michaelis), or of the salvation multorum 
hominum (Grotius); nor is it to be more precisely defined as the eternal 
Messianic redemption (van Hengel, Weiss; comp. Matthies and Hoele- 
mann), or a8 spiritual salvation (Rheinwald, de Wette). On the contrary, 
the expression : “it will turn out to my salvation” (comp. Job xiii. 16), will 
be salutary for me, is, without anticipating the sequel, to be left without 


1Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt p. 388. “ Optimus quisque amore et fide, pessimi malig- 
*Who thinks that he recognizes here an __onitate et livore.” 
indistinct shadow of Tacitus, Agric. 41: 


30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


any more precise modal definition ; for Paul himself only announces, as the 
discourse proceeds (ver. 20), how far he expects salutary results for him- 
self to arise out of the state of things in question. [Ve] Bengel aptly 
remarks: “non modo non in pressuram,” ver. 17..\—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 supplying him with help, 
strength, courage, light, etc. (comp. on émxopzy., Eph. iv. 16). [V /] 
The words dca rH¢ ipa defoews . . . Xptorov, embrace, therefore, two elements 
which work together and bring about the aroBfo. sig owrnp., one of these 
on the part of the readers themselves (hence tpéy is placed first), the other 
on the part of the Holy Spirit. After «ai, dd is to be again understood ; 
the article, however, is not repeated before éx:zop., not because the entreaty 
and the écyopyyia are to be taken together as one category, which in this 
passage would be illogical,? but because Paul conceived the second member 
of the clause without the article: supply (not the supply) of the Spirit. ro 
rvevyaroc is the genitive of the subject ; as genitive of the object (Wiesinger, 
in accordance with Gal. iii. 5) the expression would be inappropriate, 
since Paul already has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40), and does not merely 
expect it to be supplied, though in his present position he does expect the 
help, comfort, etc., which the Spirit supplies.® [Vg.] Respecting the rveiya 
Xpcorov, see on Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv.6; 2 Cor. iii. 17. Paul here designates 
the Holy Spirit thus, because Jesus Christ forms, in the inmost conscious- 
ness of the apostle, the main interest and aim of his entire discourse, ver. 
18 ff. 

Ver. 20. It will prove salutary for me tn conformity with my earnest 
expectation (see, regarding aroxapadoxia, on Rom. viii. 19) and my hope, that 
I, etc. (object of the earnest expectation and hope). Others take ér: as 
argumentative (Vatablus, Estius, Matthies); but by this interpretation the 
xaTa T. arox. x. éAm. p. seems, after the oida 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 ér: «.r.A. what it is that he earnestly 
expects and hopes (comp. Rom. viii. 20 f.), he thereby supplies the precise 
definition of the former merely general expression ei¢ cwrnpiav.—This is 
neither clumsy nor unsuited to the meaning of dmoxapad., as Hofmann 
thinks, who goes back with ér: to the far distant olda, and finds 4t convenient 
to co-ordinate it with the first ér. Paul would have made this alleged 
conjunction convenient and at the same time intelligible, only in the event 
of his having written xa? ér:.—év ovdevi aioxvvOjoouac] that I shall in no point 
(2 Cor. vi. 8, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4), in no respect, be put to shame; that is, in no 





10n awofSioera, will turn out, tesue, comp. 
Luke xxi. 18; Job xiil. 16; 2 Macc. ix. 24; 
Plat. Lys. p. 206 A; de virt. p. 379 C; Rep. p. 
425 C; Dem. 1412 10. 

2Bengel well says: “ precationem in coclum 
ascendentem ; exhibitionem de coelo venientem.” 
If, however, éwsxoppyias is still to be included 


in dependence on ris veer (so Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 87 [E. T. p. 100]), the readers 
would at all events appear as those com- 
municating, which would yield an incongru- 
ous idea. 

8Comp. Theodoret: rod Oeiov pot wvevmaros 


Xopyyourros TRy xepir- 


CHAP. I. 20. 31 


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).! Matthies understands it differently: “in nothing 
shall I show myself shamefaced and fearful ;” comp. van Hengel: “ pudore 
_ confusus ab officio deflectam.”. But the context, in which Paul desires to 
explain more in detail (comp. ver. 21) the words po: aroByjoera: ei¢ owrnpiav, 
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 disgraced ” (Weiss, comp. Huther), that is, be found unfaithful to 
his office, or deficient in the discharge of its duties to the glorifying of 
Christ. The connection requires a description, not of Paul’s behavior, but 
of the fate in which the roiro of ver. 19 would issue for him. Hoelemann 
takes év ovdevi as masculine, of the preachers described in ver. 15 ff., who in 
their ministry, though actuated by such various motives, “ ita esse versa- 
turos, ut inde non oriatur, de quo erubescat et doleat quum ipse, tum 
etiam in re sua quasi Christus.” This interpretation is opposed both by 
the context, which from ver. 18 onwards brings forward no persons at all; 
and also by the sense itself, because Paul, thus understood, would be made 
to express a confidence in the labors of those teachers which, as regards 
the malicious portion of them (ver. 17, comp. ver. 15), would not be befit- 
ting. The aicyivecba: of the apostle was indeed the very object which they 
had in view; but, he means to say, oix aicytvouar, tovréoriv ov repiécovrat, 
Chrysostom.—aA’’ év réoy wappyoig x.7.A.] [V h.] the contrast to é oidev? 
aio ovat; for the apostle can receive no greater honor and triumph 
(the opposite to the aiozivec6a:) than to be made the instrument of glorify- 
ing Christ (iil. 7 f): but with all freeness, as always, 30 also now, Christ will be 
magnified in my body.—év naoy rappns.| év macy corresponds to the previous 
év ovdevi, 80 that every kind of freeness, which is no way restrained or 
limited (comp. Acts iv. 29, xxviii. 31; 2 Cor. iii. 12), is meant, which 
amounts substantially to the idea, “une pleine liberté ” (Rilliet and older 
expositors)*. The subject of the freeness is Paul himself, inasmuch as it 
was in his body that the fearless glorifying of Christ was to be manifested 
(see below); but he expresses himself in the passive (ueyaAvvOpoera:) and 
not in the active, because, in the feeling of his being the organ of divine 
working, the oe aroPhoera: ei¢ owrnpiay (ver. 19) governs his conceptions 
and determines his expression. Hofmann’s view, that év wr. rappyo. means 
“in full publicity,” as an unmistakable fact before the eyes of all, is lin- 
guistically erroneous. See, in opposition to it, on Col. ii. 15.—d¢ mévrore 
cai viv.] [V i.], so that the present circumstances, however inimical they 
are in part towards me (vv. 15-18), will therefore bring about no other 
result than this most happy one for me, which has always taken place.— 
dv rH oduari pov] instead of saying: év éuol, he says: in my body, because 
the decision was now close at hand, whether his body should remain alive 


1Comp. on eieyvrer@a:, 2 Cor. x.8,1 John 6; Plat. Mor. p. 1118 E. 
ii. 28, and the passages of the LXX. in 2Comp. Wunder, aa Soph. Phil. 141 £ 
Sebleusner, I. p. 98 £.; also Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 


32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


or be put to death. But whichever of these possible alternatives should 
come to pass, he earnestly expected and hoped that the glory of Christ 
would be thereby secured (eire did Cie eite dca Oavdrov), in so far, namely, as 
through his remaining in the body his apostolic labors would be continued 
to the glory of Christ, and by the slaying of his body there would take place, 
not the mere closing of his witness for Christ, as 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 glori- 
fied, inasmuch as Paul, conscious of the great gain which he shall acquire 
through death (ver. 21), will with unwavering joyfulness—with the frank joy- 
ful courage of the martyr who is being perfected—die to the glorifying of 
Christ. Comp. John xxi. 19. In any case, accordingly, the result must 
ensue, that in his body, just as it has always hitherto been the living per- 
sonal instrument of Christ’s glory, now also the free glorification of Christ 
shall be made manifest, whether this result be secured through its being 
preserved alive or being slain." Hoelemann erroneously refers, év réoy wap. 
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 augustissimum auziliatorem. But against this view it 
may be urged, that év otdevi does not refer to the teachers (see above) ; that 
mappnoig is the contrast to aicyvvPpooua:, so that the subject of the latter 
must be also the subject of the former; and lastly, that Paul would thus 
be made to say that the fearless working of others had always shown forth 
Christ’s honor én his body,—an expression which, as regards the last point, 
might be suited to the present position of the apostle, but not to the d¢ mé» 
rore. Rilliet takes peyaAvvOjoera: not in the sense of praising (Luke i. 46; 
Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17; Thuc. viii. 81; Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 13), but in the 
material signification of grandir (Matt. xxiii.5; Luke i. 58; 2 Cor. x. 15), 
making it apply to the mental indwelling of Christ (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 év rdéey rappyoig would be an inappropriate defini- 
tion of this idea; and é 76 cdéuari pov would also be inappropriate, as if 
Christ would have, even by the apostle’s death, to grow in his body; lastly, 
neither the foregoing nor the subsequent context points to the peculiar 
mystical idea of a growth of Christ in the human body; while the similar idea 
in Gal. iv. 19 is there very peculiarly and clearly suggested by the contezt. 

Ver. 21. Justification not of the joy, ver. 18 (Weiss), which has already 
been justified in ver. 19 f., but of the eire did Cue eire did Oavdrov just ex- 
pressed: [V.j.] For to me the living ts Christ, that is, if I remain alive, my 


2“Nam et corpus doquitur et corpus moritur,” Grotius. 


CHAP. I. 21. 33 


prolonged life will be nothing but a life of which the whole essential ele- 
ment and real tenor is Christ (‘“ quicquid vivo, vita naturali, Christum 
vivo,” Bengel), as the One to whom the whole destination and activity of 
my life bear reference (comp. on Gal. ii. 20); and the dying? ts gain, inas- 
much as by death I attain to Christ; see ver. 23. Whichever, therefore, 
of the two may come to pass, will tend to the free glorification of Christ ; 
the former, inasmuch as I continue to labor freely for Christ’s glory; the 
latter, inasmuch as in the certainty of that gain I shall suffer death with 
joyful courage. Comp. Corn. Muller, who, however, assumes that in the 
second clause Paul had the thought: “et si mihi moriendum est, moriar 
Christo, ita etiam morte mea Christus celebratur,” but that in the emotion of 
the discourse he has not expressed this, allowing himself to be carried 
away by the conception of the gain involved in the matter. This assump- 
tion is altogether superfluous; for, to the consciousness of the Christian 
reader, the reference of the «épdo¢ to Christ must of itself have been clear 
and certain. But the idea of xépdoc, which connects itself in the apostle’s 
mind with the thought of death, prevents us from assuming that he 
meant to say that i was a matter of no moment to him personally whether 
he lived or died (Wiesinger); for on account of the xépdo¢ in death, his 
own personal wish must have given the preference to the dying (see ver. 
23). Others (Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Knatchbull, 
et al.) have, moreover, by the non-mention of Christ in the second clause, 
been led to the still more erroneous assumption, in opposition both to the 
words and linguistic usage, that in both clauses Christ is the subject 
and xépdoc the predicate, and that the infinitives with the article are to be 
explained by mpéc or xaré, 80 that Christ “tam in vita quam in morte lucrum 
esse praedicatur.” Lastly, in opposition to the context, Rheinwald and 
Rilliet take rd (7v as meaning life in the higher, spiritual sense, and xai as: 
and consequently, which latter interpretation does not harmonize with the 
preceding alternative eire.. . eire. This explanation is refuted by the very 
7 Civ év capxi which follows in ver. 22, since év capxi contains not an anti- 
thesis to the absolute rd @7v, but on the contrary a more precise definition 
of it. Although the dia 6avdérov and 1d arofaveiv contrasted with the (7, 
as also ver. 20 generally, afford decisive evidence against the view that 
takes rd Cqv in the higher ethical sense, that view has still been adopted by 
Hofmann, who, notwithstanding the correlation and parallelism of rd C#v 
and 7d a7ofaveiv, oddly supposes that, while 1d aro@aveiv is the subject in 
the second clause, rd (qv is yet predicate in the first. Like 1d arofaveiv, 
rd Cav must be subject also.—éyuof] is emphatically placed first: fo me, as 
regards my own person, though it may be different from others. Comp. 
the emphatic #ué, iii. 20.3 


1 Not the being dead (Huther, Schenkel). On 
the combination of the Inf. pres. (continuing) 
and aor. (momentary), comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 
4.4: mpoeiAeto padAoy Trois vépots éupdvey ax0- 
Oavety } rapavouey gay, Eur. Or. 308: adv coi 
axaT@aveiy aipicopas nai Cay, Epictet. Enchir. 

3 


12; 2 Cor. vil. 83. See generally M&tzn. ad 
Antiph. p. 153 f.; Kdhner, II. 1, p. 159. The 
being dead would have been expressed, as in 
Herod. i. 31, by reOvdvat. 

2 For profane paralleis to the idea, though 
of course not to the Christian import, of rd 


34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Ver. 22. [On vv. 22-24, see Note VI. pages 55-57.] Aé] carrying onward 
the discourse to the comparison between the two cases as regards their 
desirability. Weiss understands dé as antithetic, namely to 7d aro8aveiv 
xépdoc, and Hofmann as in contrast also to the éuoi 7d (wv Xproréc, but both 
proceed on an erroneous view of what follows; as does also Huther.— 
According to the 1d arofaveiv xépdog just expressed, the aofaveiy was put as 
the case more desirable for Paul personally; but because the (7, in which 
indeed Christ is his one and all, conditioned the continuance of his official 
labors, he expresses this now in the hypothetical protasis and, as con- 
sequence thereof, in the apodosis, that thus he is in doubt respecting a choice 
between the two.—The structure of the sentence is accordingly this, that the 
apodosis sets in with xai ri alpfooua:, and nothing is to be supplied: “ But 
af the remaining in my bodily life, and just this, avails for my work, I refrain 
from a making known what I should choose.” We have to remark in detail: 
(1) that ei does not render problematical that which was said of the Civ 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 Kiuihner, 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 év capxi to 1d (gv (comp. Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. x. 3), because, in the 
previously mentioned «épdoc, the idea of life apart from the body (comp. 
2 Cor. v. 8) must have been floating in his mind; (8) that rotro again 
sums up with the emphasis of emotion (comp. Rom. vii. 10) the 1d {i év 
capxi which had just been said, and calls attention to it,! for it was the 
remaining in life, just this, this and nothing else (in contrast to the 
arofaveiv), which was necessarily to the apostle xapric Epyov; (4) that 
xapréc¢ is correlative to the preceding xépdoc, and embodies the idea emolu- 
mentum (Rom. i. 13, vi. 21, e al.; Wisd. iii. 13), which is more precisely 
defined by épyov: work-fruit, gain of work, i. e. advantage which accrues to my 
apostolical work; comp. on the idea, Rom. i. 13; (5) that «ai, at the com- 
mencement of the apodosis, is the subjoining also, showing that if the one 
thing takes place, the other also sets in ;? (6) that ri stands in the place of 
the more accurate mérepov,* and that the future alpfooua (what I should 
prefer) is quite in order,* while also the sense of the middle, to choose for 
himself, to prefer for himself, is not to be overlooked ;° (7) that ot yrupifo 
is not to be taken, as it usually has been, according to the common Greek 
usage with the Vulgate, in the sense of tgnoro, but, following the invariable 
usage of the N. T.,° as: I do not make tt known, I do not explain myself on 


awoGaveiv xépdos, (compare also Spiess, Logos 
Spermaticos, 1871, p. 330 f.) see Wetstein. 
Comp. Aelian. V. H. iv. 7; Soph. Ant. 464 f.; 
Eur. Med. 145. 

! Bernhardy, p. 283; Kahner, IT. 1, p. 568 f.; 
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 219. 

£See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 180 f.: Baeum- 
lein, Partik. p. 146; Nagelsbach, z. Mtias, p. 
164, ed. 3; comp. on 2 Cor. ij. 2, 


8 Xen. Cyrop. 1.3.17; Stallbaum, ad Philed. 
p. 168; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 219; Winer, p. 
159 [E. T. 169.]} 

4S8ee Eur. Hel. 631, and Pflugk in loc. ; and 
Winer, p. 280 [E. T. 299]. 

6 Comp. 2 Thess. fi. 18; Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 29: 
ot S¢ ph cidéres & Tt wotovcr, xaxteg 52 aipov- 
pevor, Soph. Ant. 551: od wey yap eiAou Civ. 

*Comp. also 8 Maco. il, 6; 3 Ear. vi. 18 


CHAP. I. 22, 35 


the point, give no information upon it.'’ Paul refrains from making and 
declaring such a choice, because (see ver. 23 f.) his desire is so situated 
between the two alternatives, that it clashes with that which he is com- 
pelled to regard as the better——The conformity to words and context, and 
the simplicity, which characterize the whole of this explanation,*—in 
which, however, xapr. épyov is not to be taken as operae pretium (Calvin, 
Grotius, and others), nor «af as superfluous (Casaubon, Heinrichs, and 
others), nor ov yrupifw as equivalent to ov« olda (see above),—exclude decis- 
ively all other interpretations, in which rovro and the «ai 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 cori is to be understood with 
év capxi, that the apodosis begins with retro, and that xa? ri alp. «7.2. is a 
proposition by itself: “‘f the Rving in the flesh is appointed to me, then this 
has no other aim for me than by continuous labor to bring forth fruit,” etc. 
(Huther, J.c. p. 581 f.). But how arbitrarily is the simple éori, thus sup- 
plied, interpreted (mths constitutum est)! The words rotré pot xapri¢ epyov, 
taken as an apodosis, are—immediately after the statement éyol yap rd CH 
Xprorés, in which the idea of xaprwi¢ épyov is substantially conveyed 
already—adapted less for a new emphatic inference than for a supposition 
that has been established; and the discourse loses both in flow and force. 
Nevertheless Hofmann has in substance followed this explanation.’ 
(6) Beza’s view, that ei is to be taken as whether: “an vero vivere in carne 
mihi operae pretium sit, et quid eligam ignoro.” This is linguistically incor- 
rect (xapréc Epyov), awkward (i . . . xa? ri), and in the first member of the 
sentence un-Pauline (vv. 24-26). (c) The assumption of an aposiopesis 
after épyov: if life, etc., is to me xaprac Epyov, “non repugno, non aegre fero” 
(so Corn. Muller), or, “je ne dots pas désirer la mort” (Rilliet).4 This is 
quite arbitrary, and finds no support in the emotional character of the 
passage, which is in fact very calm. (d) Hoelemann’s explanation—which 
supplies xapré¢ from the sequel after (7, takes rovro, which applies to the 
azoBaveiv, as the beginning of the apodosis, and understands capac Epyov as 
an actual fruit: “bué if fe is a fruit in the flesh (an earthly fruit), this (death) 


Aesch. Prom. 487; Athen. xii. p. 539 B; Diod. 
Sic. i. 6. 

1 Comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Huther, Schen- 
kel, also Bengel, who, however, without any 
ground, adds mihi. 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. 23) caused him 
to waive the giving of such a decision, in order 
not to anticipate in any way the divine pur 
pose by his own choice. 

280, in substance, also Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, 
Luther, Calvin, and many others, including 


Heinrichs, Rheinwald, van Hengel, de Wette, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, Ellicott, Hilgenfeld. 

3Uf it be life in the flesh, namely, which I 
have to expect instead of dying (2), then this, 
namely the life in the flesh, is to me produce 
of labor, in so far as by living I produce fruit, 
and thus then (xai) if is to me unknown, eto. 
This interpretation of Hofmann’s also is lia- 
ble to the objection that, if Paul intended to 
say that he produced fruit by his life, logically 
he must have predicated of his gay év capi, 
not that it was to him capwds épyov, but rather 
that it was épyov xaprov, a work (a working) 
which produces fruit. 

48ee Winer, p. 557 f. [E. T. 599 f.]; Meineke, 
Menand. p. 238, 





36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


as also a fruit of (in) fact (a substantiai, real fruit)”—is involved, artificial, 
and contrary to the genius of the language (xapz. gpyov!). (e) The ex- 
planation of Weiss is that, after év capxi, xépdo¢ is to be again supplied as a 
predicate, so that rovro, which is made to apply to the entire protasis, 
begins the apodosis: “but if life is a gain, that is a fruit of his labor, 
because the successes of his apostolic ministry can alone make his life 
worth having to him” (ver. 24). This supplying of xépdoc, which was 
predicated of the antithesis of the ¢#, is as arbitrary as it is intolerably 
forced ; and, indeed, according to ver. 21, not xépdo¢ merely would have to 
be supplied, but éyoi xépdog; and, since xépdog is not to be taken from 
arofaveiv, of which it is predicate, we should have to expect an also before 
7d Civ, 80 that Paul would have written: e dé (or 4A’ ei) nat rd Ca év capri 
éuot xépdog x.7.A. : 

Ver. 23. Respecting the ri aipfoopa: ob yuupivo, [VI ¢. page 56], Paul 
expresses himself more fully in vv. 23, 24, proceeding with the explicative 
dé; for dé is not antithetical (Hofmann: “on the contrary”’), but, in fact, 
the reading ydép is a correct gloss, since the situation now follows, which 
necessitates that relinquishment of a choice. But I am held ina strait‘ of 
the two points, namely the aroGaveiv and the ¢#,? of which he has just said, 
ti alp. ov yuup. These do are not conceived in an instrumental sense, which 
is expressed with ovvéy., by the dative,’ but as that from which the ovvé yecfaz 
proceeds and originates.‘—rjv éxiun. Eyuv «.1.A.] since my longing is to 
die. [See note VI. page 56.] The article denotes, not “ votum jam com- 
memoratum”’ (Hoelemann), for Paul has not indeed as yet expressed an 
ércOvueiv, 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 
necessary, will come to pass, and that he will remain alive (ver. 25). 
Augustine aptly observes: “ Non patienter moritur, sed patienter vivit et 
delectabiliter moritur.”—davadicar] 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 to Christ (comp. iméye:y, 
Matt. xxvi. 24; éxdnyeiv, 2 Cor. v. 8 f.; and similar passages); hence the 
xai ctv Xptor@ eivae immediately added.2—oAi@ y. waar. xpeiacov] by much in 
a higher degree better ; a cumulative expression in the strength and vivid- 


1Comp. Luke xii. 50; Acts xvili.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. 

2 It is therefore more in harmony with the 
context to refer éx trav 800 to what precedes 
than to what follows (Luther, Rheinwald, Corn. 
Muller, and others). Note that the emphasis 
is laid on ovvdxopzar, which is the new elimac- 
tie point in the continuation of the discourse. 
The word ovvex. itself is rightly rendered 
by the Vulgate: coarctor. The mere teneor 
(Weiss and earlier expositors) is not sufficient 
according to the context. Paul feels him- 


self ina dilemma between two opposite alter- 
natives. 

3 Matt. iv. 24; Luke viii. 37; Acts xviii. 6; 
Plat. Soph. p. 250 D; Eur. Heracel. 634. 

4 Bernhardy, p. 227 f.; Schoem. ad Js. p. 348; 
Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 167. 

Sit is thus explained why Paul did not 
write rou avadtoa (as Origen reads). efs is 
not dependent on rh éwc8. (éc8. is never so 
construed; comp. Corn. Miller): but ray 
én.0. is absolute, and eis rd avadA. expresses 
the direction of thy éx8. exer: having my 
longing towards dying. Comp. Thuc. vi. 15. 2. 

¢ Bengel: “ Decedere sanctis nunquam non 


CHAP. I. 23—26. 37 


ness of feeling.! If here interpreted as potius (ver. 12), it would glance 
at the preference usually given to life; but nothing in the context leads 
to this. The predicate xpeicoov (a much better, t.e. happier lot) refers to 
the apostle himself ; comp. below, 4’ tac.” 

Ver. 24. ’Enmuéveww involves the idea: to remain sill (still further), to 
stay on, comp. Rom. yi. 1.—év rg capxi] in my flesh. Not quite equivalent 
to the idea involved in év capxi without the article (ver. 22). The reading 
without the é» (see the critical remarks) would yield an ethical sense 
here unsuitable (Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22; Col. i. 23).—avayxacér.] namely, than 
the for me far happier alternative of the avadica: x. o. X. elvac. The neces- 
sity for that is only a subjective want felt by the pious mind. But the 
objective necessity of the other alternative has precedence as the greater ; 
it is more precisely defined by 4’ tuas, regarded from the standpoint of 
love2—é¢ bua] 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 individualizing mode of expression adopted by special 
love. 

Vv. 25, 26. [On vv. 25, 26, see Note VII. page 57.) Tovro merod.] 
sovro does not belong to oldéa, but to zero.8., and refers to the case of neces- 
sity just expressed; having which as the object of his confidence, Paul 
knows that, etc., so that 4r: is dependent on olda alone,—in opposition to 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others, under whose 
view the olda would lack the specification of a reason, which is given in this 
very Tovro wero#., as it was practically necessary.—yevo] I shall remain ; 
contrast to the dvadica:, which was before expressed by éripéveey év rt. oapxi. 
Comp. John xii. 34, xxi. 22 f.; 1 Cor. xv.6. The loving emotion of the 
apostle (ver. 8) leads him to add to the absolute pevd: xai ovprapapyevo raoww 
ipiv, and I shall continue together with all of you; I shall with you all be pre- 
served in temporal life. From vv. 6 and 10 there can be no doubt as to 
the terminus ad quem which Paul had in view; and the zaow (comp. 1 
Cor. xv. 51; Rom. xiii. 11) shows how near he conceived that goal to be 
(iv. 5). [VII c.] Notwithstanding, Hofmann terms this view, which is 
both verbally and textually consistent, quixotic, and invents instead one 
which makes Paul mean by pevo the remaining alive without his co-opera- 
tion, and by wapayevd, which should (according to Hofmann) be read (see 
the critical remarks), his rematning willingly, and which assumes that the 
apostle did not conceive the xai rapapevd racw tyiv as dependent on gr, 
but conveys in these words a promise to remain with those, “from whom he 
could withdraw himself.” What a rationalistic, artificial distinction of ideas 


optabile fuit, sed cum Christo esse ex novo 
testamento est.” This Christian longing, 
therefore, has in view anything rather than a 
“having emerged from the limitation of per- 
sonality ” (Schleiermacher).—The translation 
dissolvi (Vulgate, Hilary) is to be referred to 
another reading (avaAv@yvat). 

1 As to paAAoyw with the comparative, see on 
Mark vii. 36; 2 Cor. vii. 13; and Kahner, IL 


2, p. 24 f., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 18.6; Borne- 
mann, ad Cyrop. p. 137, Goth. 

* Eur. Hee. 214: Oavety pou fuvruxia xpesioouy 
dxvpnoev. 

3“ Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua 
causa, sed eorum, quibus utilisest.” Seneca, 
ep. 98; comp. ep. 104. 

4On the accusative of the object with we- 
wo8., comp. Bernhardy, p. 106; Kahner, II. 1, 


38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


and separation of things that belong together! and what a singular 
promise from the apostle’s lips to a church so dear to him: that he will 
not withdraw himself, but will remain faithful to them (Schneider and 
Kruger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6.2)! If wapayeve is the true reading, Paul says 
quite simply : I know that I shall remain (shall not be deprived of life), and 
continue with you all, t.e. and that I shall be preserved to you all.'—apayeva, 
to continue there, just like zevo in the sense of in vita manere, Herod. i. 30. 
Hence ovprapapévery (Thuc. vi. 89.3; Men. in Stob. ]xix. 4, 5), to continue . 
there with, to remain alive along with2—eig riv iuow . . . rior.] tpov, as the 
personal subject of the mpoxor# and yapa ri¢ riotewc, 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, mpoxorjy x. xapdv. 
Hence: for your faith—furtherance and joy. [VII d.] Both points are to 
be advanced by the renewed labors of the apostle among them (ver. 26). 
The blending of them together by an éy d:é dvoiv (Heinrichs, Flatt) is erro- 
neous. Weiss, however, is also in error in urging that rH rior. cannot 
belong to zpoxor#y also, because it would be in that case the genitive of 
the object; the faith also is to be an increasing and progressive thing, 
2 Cor. x. 15.—Ver. 26. iva 1d xabynpya x.7.A.] [VII e.] the special and con- 
crete aim of the general proposition ei¢ rv tuov mpox. x. x. 7. wior., Which is 
consequently represented as the ultimate aim of the pevd xat ovprapap. 
nao. tu. Comp. ver.10. The xabynua, 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: pec{évwe exw xavyaoba tpav éemidévrev, Ewald: 
my pride in you at the last day); nor is it equivalent to xabyyorc, gloriatio 
(Flatt and many others), but it denotes, as it invariably does,’ materies 
gloriandi (Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 f.; 2 Cor. i. 14, v. 12; Gal. vi. 4). 
Hence: that the matter in which you have to glory, t. e., the bliss as Chris- 
tians in which you rejoice (compare previously the yapa ric ricrewc), may 
increase abundantly (comp. previously the rpoxor? tH iorewc). The év 
Xpior 'Inoot that is added expresses the sphere in which the mrepioceter is to 
take place, and characterizes the latter, therefore, as something which 
only develops itself in Christ as the element, in which both the joyful 
consciousness and the ethical activity of life subsist. If the mepiooetew 
took place otherwise, it would be an egotistical, foreign, generally abnor- 
mal and aberrant thing; as was the case, for example, with some of the 
Corinthians and with Judaistic Christians, whose xavyaofa: was based and 
grew upon works of the law. The normal repiocete of the xabynua of the 
Philippians, however, namely, its wepiocebery tv Xpiord "Inoov, shall take 
place—and this is specially added as the concrete position of the matter— 


p. 267; also Wunder, ad Soph. O. T. 250 f. 
Obeerve that we may say: weroénow wézo8a, 
2 Kings xviii. 19. Comp. on ii. 18. 

1Comp. Heb. vii. 23; Ecclus. xii. 15; Hom. 
ql. xii. 402; Plat. Menex. p. 235 B; Lucian. 
Nigr. 30; Herodian. vi. 2. 19. 

8Thus LXX. Ps. Ixxii. 5; Basil, I. p. 40; 


Gregory of Nasianzua, I. p. 74 (joined with 
ovrdcarcevicey). 

*This applies also against Huther, le. p. 
585. who, in support of the signification 
gloriatio, appeals to Pind. Isth. v. 65: xav- 
xnua xaréBpexe oryg. But in this passage 
also xavxquea means that in which one glories, 


CHAP. I. 25, 26. 39 


év got did rio tune wapovoiag m. mpdg ipac, that is, i shall have in me by my 
coming again to you tts procuring cause ; inasmuch as through this return 
in itself, and in virtue of my renewed ministry among you, I shall be the 
- occasion, impulse, and furtherance of that rich increase in your xabynya, 
and thus the repiocetew will rest in me. Consequently the é in & X.'I, 
and the év in év éuoi, are differently conceived; the former is the specific, 
essential definition of nepiooety, the latter the statement of the personal pro- 
curing ground for the epoc. év 'I. X., which the apostle has in view in refer- 
ence to the xatynua of his readers,—a statement of the ground, which is 
not surprising for the service of an instrument of Christ (Hofmann), and 
which quite accords with the concrete species facti here contemplated, the 
personal return and the apostolic position and ministry. The interpreta- 
tion of Hofmann is thus all the more erroneous, viz. that the increase of 
their glorying is given to the readers in the person of the apostle, tn a0 far 
as the having him again among them would be a matter of Christian joy and 
pride to them. Thus would the apostle make himeelf in fact the object 
and contents of the xavyao6a:, which would neither be consistent with the 
logical relation of the iva to the preceding ei¢ r. iu. rpoxompy x«.7.4., nor with 
Paul’s own deep humility (1 Cor. iii. 21, xv.9; Eph. ili. 8), which he satis- 
fies also in 2 Cor. i. 14 by the mutual nature of the xatynua between him- 
self and his friends, and in view of the day of Christ. By many! & X.’I., 
and by some even év éyuoi? are referred, contrary to the position of the 
words, to rd xabynua tov, 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.”—zéAv] is 
connected, as an adjectival definition, with wapovo. See on 2 Cor. xi. 28; 
Gal. i. 18; 1 Cor. viii. 7. 


ReEMARK.—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 knowe (ver. 25) that that case will no¢ come to pass. This 
oida (ver. 25) is not to be weakened into a probabiliter sperare or the like (Beza, 
Calvin, Estius, and many others, also Heinrichs, Rheinwald; comp. Matthies, 
van Hengel, Rilliet), with which Grotius, from connecting olda sezo@., even 
brings out the sense, “acio 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 


as the Scholiast has appropriately explained 18ee Calvin, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Rilliet, 
it: e¢ nal rRAccavra ¢ici ter Aiywwyrey ra = and others. 
naropSepara, Bptxe nai dwixdAvere Ty o10Tp- *Storr, Flatt, Huther. 


40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


must withal be confessed that the result did not correspond to this definite olda, 
which Bengel even goes so far as to refer to a dictamen propheticum. By no 
means, however, is an imaginary situation! to be suspected here (Baur), and just as 
little can a second imprisonment at Rome be founded on this passage (Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theodoret, Bullinger, Piscator, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and many 
others, also Wiesinger); as to the relation of this passage to Acts xx. 25, see on 
Acts.—We have further to notice that Paul, according to ver. 23, assumes that, 
in case he should be put to death, he would go not into Hades, but into heaven to 
Christ,—a conviction of the bliss attending martyrdom which is found in 2 Cor. 
v. 8 and in the history of Stephen, Acts vii. 59, and therefore does not occur for 
the first time in the Apocalypse (vi. 9 ff., vii. 9 ff.).2_ Wetstein’s idea is a mere 
empty evasion, that by avadvoa: is doubtless meant the dying, but by ow X. eivaz 
only the time following the resurrection (comp. also Weitzel, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, 
p- 954 ff.); as also is that of Grotius, that ctv X. eivac means: “in Christi custodia 
esse,” and “nthil hine de loco definiri potest.” It is also altogether at variance with 
the context (see vv. 20, 21), if, with Kaeuffer, we interpret avaAtioa: as the change 
that takes place at the Parousia (“ut quasi eximeretur carne”). Comp. on the 
contrary, Polycarp: ad Phil. 9, dri cig Trav ogecAduevov avroig rérov eiot mapa TO 
xupiy, @ Kat ovvérafov, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 5, of Peter: paptruphoag éropebOn et¢ tov 
OgecAduevoyv rérov TH¢ 66€7¢, and of Paul: ei¢ trav aytov térov éropebOn, Martyr. 
Ignat. 26. It is an intermediate state, not yet the fully perfected glory, but in 
heaven, where Christ is (iii. 20 f.). Georgii, in Zeller’s theolog. Jahrb. 18465, I. p. 
22, following Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 368, erroneously discovers 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 vii. 59, is the fact that the speedy 
Parousia appears still to be very distinctly expected in this epistle. See particu- 
larly iii. 20 f. But we find nothing said in the New Testament as to an inter- 
mediate body between death and resurrection. See remark on 2 Cor. v. 3. There 
is a vague fanciful idea in Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 443 f., who in p. 419 ff., however, 
forcibly shows the incorrectness of the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. 


iHinsch even assigns, l.¢. p. 71, to the 
passage with its vivid emotion the character 
of a historico-eritical 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 labor. The 
author adduces the grounds of both views, 
putting them in the mouth of the apostle, and 
in ver. 24 decides in favor 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 Hil- 
genfeld, in opposition to Baur and Hinsch. 

SAll we can gather from Rom. viii. 10 f. 
is merely that the life of believers remains 
unaffected by the death of the body; as at 


John xi. 25 f. They remain 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. 38, xiv.8. But 
in the passage we are considering, the words 
avy Xpiory eivas point to an actual being with 
the Lord in heaven (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17; 
Acts vii. 59; 2 Cor l.c.), and do not therefore 
apply to the state in Hades (in opposition to 
Gider, Erschein. Chr. unt. d. Todten, p. 111, 
and others); see also 2 Cor.v. 8 This union 
with Christ, however, is not the 8déa as the 
ultimate goal of hope; see iii. 20 f.; Col. 141.3. 
To the latter belongs also the bodily trans- 
figuration, which can only take place at the 
Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 23. This applies also in 
opposition to Gerlach, d. letzt. Dinge, p. 79 ff., 
whose distinction between corporeality and 


CHAP. I. 27. 41 


Ver. 27. [On vv. 27-30, see Note VIII. page 58.] To these accounts 
regarding his own present position Paul now subjoins certain exhortations 
to right conduct for his readers.—yévov| [VIII a.j without connecting 
particle, as in Gal. ii. 10, v.18. With the above assurance, namely, that 
he shall continue alive, etc., he, in order that the object of this preserving 
of his life (ver. 25) may be accomplished in them, needs only to summon 
them #o be in a way worthy of the gospel members of the Christsan commu- 
nity (rodureteode); nothing further is needed. Hofmann, in consequence 
of his finding previously a promise, finds here, equally erroneously, the 
only counter-demand made for it.—rov Xprorov] of Christ. See on Mark i. 1. 
—ronreveote] [VIII b.] comp. on Acts xxiii. 1." The word, which is not 
used elsewhere by Paul in the epistles to express the conduct of life, is 
here purposely chosen, because he has in view the moral life, internal and 
external, of the Christian commonwealth, corresponding to the purport of 
the gospel (roAreiecba:, 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 (roAcrebeo8a:, to administer an office in the 
state). Comp. 2 Macc. vi. 1, xi. 25; 3 Macc. iii. 4. In the absence of such 
references as these, Paul says reperareiv (Eph. iv. 1; Col. i. 10, with agioc)2— 
eire éADbv «.7.A.] a parenthetic definition as far as arév, so that axobow then 
depends on iva: tn order that I—whether it be when I have come and seen you, 
or during my abeence from you—may hear, etc. The two cases eire ... eire 
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 (eire 
arév). In either event it is his earnest desire and wish that he may come 
to learn the affairs of the church in their excellence as described by dre 
oryxete x.t.A. It cannot surprise us to find the notion of learning expressed 
by the common form of the zeugma,’ corresponding to the ¢ire arév, and 
from the axotow accordingly employed there naturally suggests itself a 
word of kindred import to correspond with elre éA@ov «.7.4., such as yvé. 
The rash opinion, repeated even by Hofmann, that axotew only refers to 
the second case, does the apostle the injustice of making his discourse 
“hiulca” (Calvin), and even grammatically faulty (Hofmann), it being 
supposed that he intended to write either: “ut sive veniens videam vos, 
sive absens audiam,” or: “sive quum venero et videro vos, sive absens 
audiam de statu vestro, intelligam utroque modo,” etc. Calvin allows a 


materiality [Lewbischkert und Korperlichkeit) is 
not in harmony with the New Testament, 
which distinguishes rather between cwpye 
and capé. 

1See also 2 Mace. vi. 1, xi. 25; 3 Macc. fil, 
4; Joseph. Anti. iif, 5& 8, Vit. 2; Wetstein 
ad loe., and Suicer, Thes. IL p. 70% % 

Comp, however, Clement, Cor. 1.3: woAu 
reveoOas xata 1d xabycoy Te Xprory, and ch. 


54: wodtrevémeves thy auetaudAnroy wolireiay 
trou @eov, ch. 21° agtws avrov wodrrevéperos. 
3 It is a mistake (notwithstanding Winer, p 
578 [E. T. 622]) to suppose that in a seugma 
the directly appropriate verb must be joined 
to the first member. It can algo be joined 
with the second, as here, Comp. Xen. Anab, 
vii. & 12, and Kuhner {fn loc. ; Plat. Rep p. 
689 C, and Stallbaum in loc.; Hom. J2. iii, 327, 





42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


choice between these two interpretations; the latter is approved of by de 
Wette and Weiss (comp. Rilliet and J. B. Lightfoot). Hofmann also 
accuses the apostle of the confusion of having written eire arav axotow ra 
epi tuov (which words are to be taken together), as if he had previously 
put eire 2AGGy dypouac iuac ; but of having left it to the reader mentally to supply 
the verbs that should have depended on iva, and of which two! would have 
been needed! The passage employed for comparison, Rom. iv. 16, with 
its close, concise, and clear dialectic, is utterly a stranger to such awkward- 
ness. Hoelemann finally interprets the passage in a perfectly arbitrary 
way, as if Paul had written: iva, eire éAQdv x. iddy tae, eite andv kai axoboac 
Ta rept duev, orgxyte «.t.A., thus making the participles absolute nominatives. 
—ra repi tuén] the object of axobow, so that br: orgxere x.7.4., that, namely, ye 
stand, etc., is a more precise definition arising out of the loving confidence 
of the apostle, analogous to the familiar attraction oid4 ce ric el, and the 
like; Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 625]. It has been awkwardly explained as 
absolute: “quod attinet ad res vestras” (Heinrichs, Rheinwald, Matthies, 
and others), while van Hengel not more skillfully, taking eire arav axobow r. 
w. tu. together, afterwards supplies axotow again. Grotius, Estius, and am 
Ende take ré even for ratra, and Hoelemann makes Paul express himself 
here also by an anakoluthon (comp. above on eire éA@av «.1.4.), 80 that 
either &r: should have been omitted and orjxyre written, or ré should not 
have been inserted.—év évi rvebpyarc] is to be joined with orfxere, alongside 
of which it stands, although Hofmann, without any reason, takes it abso- 
lutely (2 Thess. ii. 15). It is the common element, in which they are to 
stand, ¢ e. to remain steadfast (Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 18); rvetpare, 
however, refers not to the Holy Spirit,? but, as the context shows by «é 
yvxz9, 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 community of spirit.” Comp. Acts iv. 32. It is, asa 
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. 8 f., 23), 
but ét rvebu. does not say so. . Moreover the emphasis is on this év éi 77., 
and therefore «:@ y. is subsequently placed first—The special mode which 
this standing fast in one spirit desired by the apostle is to assume, is con- 
tained in the sequel down to avrixeeu.— ug oye ovvalA, x.7.A.] The yuyf, as 
distinguished from the rveiya, is the principle of the individual personal 
life, which receives its impressions on the one hand from the rvedua as the 
principle of the higher divine {«#, and on the other hand from the outer 
world, and is the seat of the activity of feeling and emotion, the sympathetic 
unity of which in the church is here described (comp. on Luke i. 46 f). 


and Faesi in loc.; generally Nagelsbach, z. discourse, in the confused form in which 
Iivas, p. 179, ed, 3; Bremi, ad Lys. p. 43 ff.; Hofmann makes it run, and there would 
Kahner, II. 2, p. 10765 f. be no necessity whatever for two verbs. 

1 But why two? He would only have needed 2Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Hein- 
to insert nae or yyw before ér. This would  richs,Rheinwald, Matthies,van Hengel, Weiss, 
have suited both halves of the alternative 8Comp. iodyvxos if. 20; ovuypuxo, iL 2, 


CHAP. I. 28. 43 


But y.@ p. does not also belong to orfxere (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, 
Er. Schmid, and others), for ovva64. requires a modal definition in harmony 
with the context.—ovwvebdoivres] in keeping with orfxere, according to the 
conception of a contest (comp. ver. 30), under which the activity of Christian 
Jaithfulness is presented in relation to all hostile powers. The compound, 
striving together (comp. iv. 8, and ovvaywrvifeofa:, Rom. xv. 30), is not to be 
overlooked, as if ovved/., with the dative of the thing expressed merely the 
entering or stepping into the lists for it(Hofmann). It does not refer, how- 
ever, to the fellowship of the Philippians themselves (“ quasi facto agmine 
contra hostes evang.,” Grotius.)? Paul looks upon himself as a combatant 
(ver. 30, comp. ver. 7), and the Philippians as striving with him, and afford- 
ing him assistance (Diod. iii. 4) as his obvafAo: in defending the faith (object- 
ively viewed), protecting it and rendering it victorious. [VIIIc.] That 
they were to do this with one accord, is stated emphatically by x4 wy, but 
is not conveyed by ovvaf. in itself. .If, however, Paul is the combatant, 
the passage cannot be understood in the sense: “adjuvantes decertantem 
adversus impios evangelii fidem,” Erasmus, Paraphr. ;* even apart from 
the fact that such a personification of riottc is unprecedented, and must 
have been suggested by the text, as in the case of rj aAnfeig, 1 Cor. xiii. 6. 
—1y miore: is the dative commodi (comp. Jude 8), [VIII d.] not imatru- 
ment,‘ which ui yz was. As to the genitive of the object with ior, 
see on Rom. iii. 22. 

Ver. 28. On rripecba:, to become frightened (of horses, Diod. ii. 19, xvii. 84; 
Plut. Fab. 3; Marc. 6), to be thrown into consternation (Diod. xvii. 87 f.; Plat. 
Ax. p. 370 A; Plut. Mor. p. 800 C), see Kypke, II. p. 312. In Gen. xli. 8 
Aquila has xararripecba:.—év pndevi] in no point, nulla ratione, ver. 20; 2 
Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i.4.—The avrixeiuevor (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 (Mat- 
thies). This follows from ver. 30, since the whole position and ministry 
of the apostle was a conflict with such adversaries, comp. ver. 7.—#rc¢ éoriv 
avroic «.7.A.] [VIII ¢.] which is indeed, etc., refers to the preceding yu) mrbpeo- 
Gat ind rév avrixecu., to which Paul desires to encourage them. This undaunt- 
edness in the ovvadGeiv, and not the latter itself (Hofmann), is now the lead- 
ing idea, with which what has further to be said connects itself; hence 
#ri¢ 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 anwieiac tyav, tuiv dt.—abroic] roic avrixeruévorc ig to be taken simply as 
dative of reference: which is to them an tndication of perdition. The jr 








Herodian. viii. 5. 15: pug re yruuy xat Wuyx7, 
Rom. xv. 6, j:0Ovpeddy, 4 Macc. xiv. 20, suoyr- 
xos, 1 Pet. iii. 8, onddpen , 

1Comp. Col. ii, 1; 1 Thess, ii, 2; 1 Tim, vi, 
12; 2 Tim. iv. 7, et al.; also Soph. O CG 564; 
Eur. Suppl, 317; Aesch. Prom. 95. 

2Comp. Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wie- 
singer, Weiss, and others, following Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius. 


3 Comp. Castalio, Michaelis, Mynster, Flatt, 
Lightfoot. 

4Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Loesner, 
Rheinwald, and others 

5°Oray ydp wor, Ste pupia rexvafoueros 
ovse wrupas vues Suvarrac ov Seiya rovro 
gadis efovow, Sr. rad wey alray axohotrra, 
7a 82 Uudrepa icxupa nai avddwrta xai abrober 
éxovra Thy cuTapiay ; Theophylact. 





44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


involving a reason is just as in Eph. iii. 18. See on that passage. This 
. would be still more emphatically expressed by #ri¢ ye (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
305). But the fact that the avriacizevoe do not recognize in the undaunted- 
ness of those persecuted a proof (not: causa, as in the Vulgate; but comp. 
Rom. ili. 25 f.; 2 Cor. viii. 24; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 341 E; Legg. xii. p. 966 C) 
of their own perdition, and on the other hand of the salvation of the per- 
secuted (ipzdr d2 owrypiac), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that 
the pi) rripecba is in reality objectively such an évdegec to them. It is, 
indeed, the onzeiov of the righteous divine cause, and of its necessary final 
victory. Perdition and salvation: both without more precise definition ; 
but the reader knew what reference to assign to each, viz. the Messianic 
perdition and salvation.'—xai rovro ad Ocov| and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11) 
of God, thus certain, therefore, and infallible. It adds force to the 
encouragement conveyed by ipa d2 owrnpiac; for the context shows by the 
tuiv which is emphatically placed first in ver. 29,—without making the 
reading tuiv necessary, however, in ver. 28 (Hofmann); see the critical 
remarks,—that rovro refers only to this second and main part of #ri¢ «.7.A. 
(Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann), 
and not to both halves of gri¢ (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wies- 
inger, Weiss, and Ellicott). Entirely foreign to the connection is any 
purpose of humiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the 
Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what follows (6r:, that) 
(Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, and recently 
Rilliet); in which case the (preparative) rovro would receive an uncalled- 
for importance, and yet ard Ocod would be obviously intelligible through 
exapiobn. 

Ver. 29. *Or: is argumentative. “Kail rovro ard Oeod,’’ I say, “ since indeed 
to you it was granted,” etc. This grant distinguishing you is the practical 
proof, that the just expressed ad Oecd is indubitably right, and that con- 
sequently the évdecEcc of your final salvation which is afforded to the adver- 
saries in your undauntedness is a divine évdeétc, a token given by God? 
Hofmann’s view, that 7: specifies the reason why God imparts to them 
what has been before stated, is based upon the erroneous reading yi» in 
ver. 28; and is itself erroneous, because érz would introduce merely the 
self-evident thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully, but 
had had it given to them by God, and because, for the purpose of marking 
the alleged contrast to the wilfulness, not tiv, but ard Oecd again would 
have been emphatically prefixed, and consequently Paul must have writ- 
ten: 57: ard Ccov tyiv exapicOy x«.7r.A. Hofmann cunously explains the 
emphasized tiv, as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their suffer- 
ings the case stood exactly as with his own. In that case he must at least 
have written, in prospect of ver. 30, xa? tyiv, io you also.—iyiv] emphatically 
put first, corresponding to the previous ta d2 owreplac.—ézapicty |] donatum 


1 Comp. on the matter, 2 Thess. 1.5ff.; Rom. ing tothe final salvation of believers was in 
vill. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Luke x{i. 32, e¢ al. fact before the adversaries, and that their 

# At the same time it is to be observed here non-recognition of it altered nothing in this 
also (comp. on ver. 28) that this divine point-  object:ve relation. 


CHAP. I. 29, 30. 45 


est; by whom, is self-evident. 1 Cor. ii. 12.—rd trép Xprot] as if the 
méoxecv Was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this unwrit- 

ten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the first place the idea 
* of trép, as Hofmann artificially explains. But here his full heart inter- 
poses, after r. irép Xpiorov, and before he writes rdéoyerv, the fresh thought 
ov pdévov Td cig avr. morevev, 80 that a2A4a xat must now be also added; and, 
on account of the different prepositional relation (ec) introduced, the 7a 
trép Xporov already expressed is again taken up by 10 vrép avrov. Thus ob 
uévov ...trép avrov appears as a parenthesis of more special definition, 
after which the rdéozerv, which had been prepared for by 1d ixép Xprorov, 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—to suffer.”! It is an awkward construction, to take ré vrép 
X. absolutely and (notwithstanding the subsequent vrép av7ov) in the sense: 
as to what concerns Christ (Beza, Camerarius, Calovius, and others, includ- 
ing Matthies and Rilliet). For the conception of suffering for Christ as a 
high divine distinction, see already Acts v. 41; comp. Matt.v.11f. Comp. 
on ver. 7. 

Ver. 30. [VITI f.]. So that ye have the same conflict, etc., serves to charac- 
terize the tiv éxap. rd irép X. réoyxew 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 involved in the consciousness of fellowship 
in conflict with the apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true 
explanation of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in rév airéy, that 
they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as little as the apos- 
tle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have received it as a gift of grace 
from God (Hofmann). The participle might have been put by Paul in the 
nominative (instead of the dative), because tueic¢ 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; Ktihner, IT. 2, p. 661 f. 
There is therefore neither a logical nor a grammatical reason, with Ben- 
gel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. also Buttman, Neuf. Gr. p. 256 
[E. T. 299]), to treat ro... racyew as a parenthesis,—a construction 
which would be only an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse. 
—rov avrév] namely, in respect of the object; it is the conflict for Christ 
(ver. 29) and His gospel (ver. 7).—viov eldere x.t.4.] as ye have seen it in my 
person (viz. whilst I was still with you in Philippi; see scenes of this con- 
flict in Acts xvi. 16 ff.; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2), and now (from my epistle 
which is read out to you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks 
to the Philippians as if they were listening to him in person; thus they 
hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in the statements 
of the apostle. This explanation is all the less unfitting, as Hofmann 
terms it (comparing the év juiv in 1 Cor. iv. 6), since Paul must necessarily 
have assumed that the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings 


1Plat. Legg. x. p. 902 C: at 8 Garijcerac ros yeyernudvy. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de 
Wuxh pwtoy, ov rip ovde ahp, Wuxi 52 ev xpe- cor. p. 431; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 501. 





44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


involving a reason is just as in Eph. iii. 138. See on that passage. This 
. would be still more emphatically expressed by #ri¢ ye (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
305). But the fact that the avrexeiuevoe do not recognize in the undaunted- 
ness of those persecuted a proof (not: causa, as in the Vulgate; but comp. 
Rom. iii. 25 f.; 2 Cor. viii. 24; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 341 E; Legg. xii. p. 966 C) 
of their own perdition, and on the other hand of the salvation of the per- 
secuted (iar d2 owrypiac), does not alter the state of the case in itself, that 
the p) rripecba is in reality objectively such an évdeéec to them. It is, 
indeed, the oyueiov of the righteous divine cause, and of its necessary final 
victory. Perdition and salvation: both without more precise definition ; 
but the reader knew what reference to assign to each, viz. the Messianic 
perdition and salvation.'—xai rotro ad Oect] and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11) 
of God, thus certain, therefore, and infallible. It adds force to the 
encouragement conveyed by ipa 62 cwrnpiac; for the context shows by the 
tuiv which is emphatically placed first in ver. 29,—without making the 
reading tiv necessary, however, in ver. 28 (Hofmann); see the critical 
remarks,—that rovro refers only to this second and main part of #rig «7.2. 
(Calvin, Piscator, Calovius, Flatt, and others, also Ewald and Hofmann), 
and not to both halves of #re¢ (Beza, Grotius, and many others, also Wies- 
inger, Weiss, and Ellicott), Entirely foreign to the connection is any 
purpose of Awmiliation (Hoelemann and older expositors, following the 
Greek Fathers). Nor are the words to be attached to what follows (571, that) 
(Clemens Alex., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, and recently 
Rilliet); in which case the (preparative) rovro would receive an uncalled- 
for importance, and yet ard Ocov would be obviously intelligible through 
exapiobn. 

Ver. 29. ’Orc is argumentative. ‘Ka? rovro ard Oeoi,”’ I say, “ since indeed 
to you it was granted,” etc. This grant distinguishing you is the practical 
proof, that the just expressed a7é Gcot is indubitably right, and that con- 
sequently the évdecéee of your final salvation which is afforded to the adver- 
saries in your undauntedness is a divine éveéEc, a token given by God, 
Hofmann’s view, that 4r: specifies the reason why God imparts to them 
what has been before stated, is based upon the erroneous reading div in 
ver. 28; and is itself erroneous, because 4rz: would introduce merely the 
self-evident thought that they had not sought out their suffering wilfully, but 
had had it given to them by God, and because, for the purpose of marking 
the alleged .contrast to the wilfulness, not tiv, but ad Ocov again would 
have been emphatically prefixed, and consequently Paul must have writ- 
ten: Srz ad Gcov tuiv éxapioOn x.r.A. Hofmann curiously explains the 
emphasized tiv, as if Paul meant to say that with respect to their suffer- 
ings the case stood exactly as with his own. In that case he must at least 
have written, in prospect of ver. 30, xai tyiv, io you also.—tyiv] emphatically 
put first, corresponding to the previous tpzév d2 cwreplac.—éxapichn] donatum 


1 Comp. on the matter, 2 Thess. 1.5ff.; Rom. ing tothe final salvation of believers was in 
vill. 17; 2 Tim. ff. 12; Luke xii. 32, et al. Jact before the adversaries, and that their 

# At the same time it is to be observed here non-recognition of it altered nothing in this 
also (comp. on ver. 28) that this divine point- objective relation. 


CHAP. I. 29, 30. 45 


est; by whom, is self-evident. 1 Cor. ii. 12.—rd drép Xpwrov} as if the 
méoxecv Was immediately to follow. The apostle does not leave this unwrit- 
ten purposely, in order to bring into prominence in the first place the idea 
* of trép, ag Hofmann artificially explains. But here his full heart inter- 
poses, after r. ix2p Xpuorov, and before he writes rdcyev, the fresh thought 
ov pévoy Td ei¢ abr. motebev, 80 that a2Ad xa? must now be also added; and, 
on account of the different prepositional relation (ec) introduced, the rd 
trip Xpwrov already expressed is again taken up by ré vrép airov. Thus od 
pévov ... vmép avrov appears as a parenthesis of more special definition, 
after which the réoyzev, which had been prepared for by 13 txép Xporov, but 
is only now introduced, is to be dwelt upon with emphasis: “ to you the 
gift of grace ts granted, in behalf of Christ—not only to believe on Him, but 
also for Him—to suffer.”! It is an awkward construction, to take 76 trép 
X. absolutely and (notwithstanding the subsequent érép atrov) in the sense: 
as to what concerns Christ (Beza, Camerarius, Calovius, and others, includ- 
ing Matthies and Rilliet). For the conception of suffering for Christ as a 
high divine distinction, see already Acts v. 41; comp. Matt. v.11 f. Comp. 
on ver. 7. 

Ver. 30. [VIII f.]. So that ye have the same conflict, etc., serves to charac- 
terize the tiv éyap. rd trip X. réoxew 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 involved in the consciousness of fellowship 
in conflict with the apostle. It is impossible, in accordance with the true 
explanation of what goes before (see on ver. 29), to find in rév airéy, that 
they have themselves sought their conflict of suffering as little as the apos- 
tle had sought his, but, on the contrary, have received it as a gift of grace 
from God (Hofmann). The participle might have been put by Paul in the 
nominative (instead of the dative), because tuei¢ was floating before his 
mind as the logical subject of the preceding clause. Comp. on Eph. iil. 
18, iv. 2; 2 Cor. i. 7; Col. ii. 2, iii. 16; Phil. iii. 19; Ktihner, IT. 2, p. 661 f. 
There is therefore neither a logical nor a grammatical reason, with Ben- 
gel, Michaelis, Lachmann, Ewald (comp. also Buttman, Neut. Gr. p. 266 
[E. T. 299]), to treat gre... mdoxew as a parenthesis,—a construction 
which would be only an injurious interruption to the flow of the discourse. 
—rdv airév|] namely, in respect of the object; it is the conflict for Christ 
(ver. 29) and His gospel (ver. 7).—viov cidere x.7.4.] as ye have seen it in my 
person (viz. whilst I was still with you in Philippi; see scenes of this con- 
flict in Acts xvi. 16 ff.; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2), and now (from my epistle 
which is read out to you) ye hear in my person. Paul, in his epistle, speaks 
to the Philippians as if they were listening to him in person; thus they 
hear in him his conflict, which is made known to them in the statements 
of the apostle. This explanation is all the less unfitting, as Hofmann 
terms it (comparing the év juiv in 1 Cor. iv. 6), since Paul must necessarily 
have assumed that the statements in the epistle regarding his sufferings 


1Plat. Legg. x. p. 802 C: «i 8 darfoerac rots yeyernudvyn. See also Dissen, ad Dem. de 
Puxh epwrov, ov wip ovde anp, Wuxy 82 dy xpw- cor. p. 431; Fritasche, ad Matth. p. 501. 


46. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


would not fail to receive more detailed description in Philippi on the part 
of Epaphroditus. The rendering de me for the second év éuoi, adopted by 
Peschito, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including 
Flatt, is erroneous. 


NorTes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
I. Vv. 1, 2. 


The salutation of this Epistle corresponds, in its general characteristics, with 
those of the other Pauline Epistles. Its only peculiarity, as distinguishing it 
from all the rest, is the special mention of the church officers among those who 
are addressed. The reason for thus alluding to them may, not improbably, be 
the one suggested by Meyer (with whom Weiss, Ellicott and others agree), but 
it may be connected with the particularly intimate relations which the Apostle 
sustained to all the membership of this Church, the evidence of which is mani- 
fest throughout the Epistle. That these officials are placed in the salutation 
after the company of believers, may be due to the fact that the gift sent to 
Paul was the result of a general contribution. It would seem, however, that 
he could hardly have written thus, if he had not esteemed the believing body 
as of more importance than its officers. 

The Church is not designated here by the word éxxAnoia, as it is not in the 
opening words of any of the letters which are later in date than 2 Cor. and Gal. 
As the Ep. to the Romans, in which this term first disappears from the saluta- 
tion, was probably not separated in time from either of those Epistles by a period 
of more than from three to six months, the change in expression must undoubt- 
edly have been accidental, rather than the result of any settled purpose or new 
ideas. The natural effect of a progress in church organization, it would seem, 
would rather have been in the opposite direction. For this reason, as well as 
because the earliest officers of the churches were presbyters and deacons, conclu- 
sions as to the date of this Epistle, or as to any peculiar or established church 
constitution, can scarcely be founded upon the words here used. 

With regard-to the absence of the word amécrodo¢ in this salutation, it may, 
after the same manner, be said that no altogether satisfactory account can be 
given of its insertion or omission. It occurs in letters addressed to individuals 
(Tim. and Titus), as well as in those written to churches; and, among the latter, 
it is found not only in cases where Paul’s apostolic authority was assailed (Gal., 
2 Cor.), but where there is little evidence of any intended reference to such 
opposition, (Rom., 1 Cor.). It is omitted, on the other hand, in Ist and 2d 
Thess., Phil. and Philem. Perhaps the best suggestion which can be offered 
is that the letters, whether to churches or individuals, whose opening words 
contain this term, have a somewhat more official character than those in which 
it does not appear. 

With respect to the relation of Timothy to the Epistle, the view of Weiss, 
Ellicott, Lightfoot and others, seems more probably to be the correct one—that 
he simply “takes part in the greeting.” No doubt, that if he had not agreed 
with Paul in opinions and feelings, his name would not have been inserted. 
But there appears to be no sufficient ground for supposing, with Meyer, that 
the Apostle had had any special or formal discussion with him as to the exhort- 


NOTES 47 


ations and teachings which were to be addressed to the Philippians in the 
letter. Timothy was well known to the church and was about to visit it on 
behalf of Paul, but the Apostle is apparently in this case, as in all others where 
he associates his companions with himself in his words of address, the sole author 
of the Epistle in every sense. 


Il. Vv. 3-11. 


With reference to the construction and meaning of these verses, the following 
points may be noticed: (a) As evyapiore is the leading verb and apparently ex- 
presses the feeling which was uppermost in the Apostle’s mind, it is most natural 
to hold that the words é7i rj xocywvig are to be connected with it. This view gains 
support from the following verses, which set forth the confidence which he has for 
the future respecting the continuance of what now constitutes the ground of his 
thankfulness. It is also confirmed by the fact that in the beginning of other 
epistles where evzapior® occurs, it is followed by the same preposition with a 
dative, or by clauses of another form, expressing the reason or occasion of his 
grateful feeling (1 Cor. i. 4,5; Rom. i.8; 2 Thess.i.3; Col. i.3,4; Philem. 4,5).— 
(6) The connection of mévrore x.r.A.—whether with evyapioro or with pera x. r. J. 
moobuevoc—is more doubtful. Tdvrore is, in some similar cases in Paul’s writings, 
evidently to be joined with evy. (e. g. 1 Thees. i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3, ii.13). In other 
cases, however (e.g. Col. i. 4; Philem. 4; cf. Rom. i.9, 10), it may qualify the partici- 
pial word, and it is to be observed that the present sentence has peculiarities which 
render any conclusions drawn from comparison with kindred passages uncertain. 
There is no other instance where the accumulation of phrases conveying the idea 
of “all,” and the twofold use of dévoc, are found. The sentence may, therefore, 
be properly determined in its construction by the probabilities belonging to iteelf. 
These, on the whole, favor the uniting of wévrore x.7.A. with mototyevoc, After 
the insertion of éxi xdoy rp uveig dyer, the addition of these words would seem 
unnecessary and antecedently improbable, as connected with evzapiora; while, as 
modifying srovotu., they are very suitable and natural. The participial clause, if 
including these words, is more easily accounted for than if they are separated from 
it. Ifthe writer says, that he thanks God in all his remembrance of them always 
in every prayer on their behalf, there is little emphasis to be gained by adding, 
parenthetically, that he offers these prayers with joy. But, on the other hand, if 
his words are, “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, in every prayer 
of mine on behalf of you all making the prayer with joy,” the added clause serves 
& purpose corresponding in some measure, though not precisely, with that of Rom. 
i. 9,10 as related to evy.in Rom. i. 8. It shows how natural it was—as he was 
always joyfully offering prayers for them—to give thanks, when he called them to 
mind, for their fellowship in respect to the gospel. 

(c) The determination of the meaning of xotvuvia tuav (ver. 5) seems to depend 
on two points: 1. The absence of any defining words giving these words a special 
application, as e.g. to gifts of money, and also (as Meyer suggests) of any such 
words as yer’ évov, which would indicate fellowship on their part with himeelf, 
and this alone; and 2. The fact that in iv. 14, 15, the Apostle, by the use of the 
corresponding verb, refers distinctly to their contributions for his benefit, and 
speaks of those contributions, as he does here of the xo:vwvia, as having been made 
also at the beginning of their Christian life (év apyzq tov evayyediov, iv. 15; amd rig 





48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


mporne uépac, i.5) In view of these facts, we must hold, with Meyer, that the 
words mean the fellowship of the Philippians with one another, but that, in using 
the expression, the writer had in mind the thought that, as this fellowship worked 
out to the end of furthering the gospel, it directed itself towards the supply of his 
wants as a means to the end. «ocvwria is not, therefore, to be understood here in 
the sense of contribution, and it does not, in and of itself, suggest codperation with 
Paul, but only with one another. But, in the outgoing of their mutual codpera- 
tion, their affection for him led them to help the cause which they had at heart 
by helping him. 

(d) weroi¢ avtd rovro (ver.6). The participle here appears to be circum- 
stantial (as Mey.), rather than causal (as Ell., Lightf,, and others). It is not pre- 
cisely parallel with socobyrvog (Alf, de W.), but it denotes the feeling which 
accompanies his thanksgiving. Confidence in the future naturally unites itself 
with his knowledge of the past and the present, and thus is ever in his mind when 
he expresses his gratitude to God. The view of Meyer with regard to avrd rovro— 
that it means for this very reason—is to be rejected, both because of the order of the 
words in the clause (so Lightf.), and because the argument which Meyer urges has 
no sufficient basis,—namely, that “nothing has been yet said of the contents of the 
confidence, which are to follow.” This is true, if we are to understand the state- 
ment in the strictest and most precise sense. But the subject respecting which the 
Apostle is confident for the future is so far indicated in the preceding verse as to 
justify the use of avrd rovro as it is used in Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8. The “good 
work” is the xorvwria, 

(ec) With the thought in émreAéoe: x.7.A. (ver. 6) as related to the preceding, 
we may compare 1 Cor. i.8 and 6. Passages of this character express confidence 
as to the perseverance of the particular persons referred to; whether they can be 
regarded as, in themselves, establishing the doctrine of the perseverance of all 
Christians is doubtful. This doctrine must find its main support elsewhere.— 
(f) The words ype uépac "Incot Xpicrov correspond very nearly with éw¢ réAoue 
... &v ry quepg tr. x. Hu. "I, Xp. of 1 Cor. i. 8, and in connection with iv. 5 (comp. 1 
Cor. xv. 51, 52, xvi. 22) they favor the view that in his later epistles, as in his 
earlier ones, Paul held that the Lord’s second coming was near at hand. His ex- 
pectation of this event as probably to occur in the early future, if this view is 
adopted, did not change as he advanced in life, although he naturally became more 
doubtful as to whether he should himself live to witness it—(g) Meyer’s view of the 
connection of év re deopoic . . . evayyediou (ver. 7) is favored by De W., Alf., Noyes 
tr., and others, but is opposed by Treg., W. and Hort., Ell., Lightf,, Eadie, Bisping, 
Lumby, Davidson tr., and others, who join the words, as do A. V. and R. V., with the 
following. The consideration which Meyer urges has force. The order of the sen- 
tence, also, and the fact that the position of these words, in case of the other ex- 
planation, gives them an emphasis which appears almost too great, supports his 
view. But the development of thought as related to xocmwvie (ver. 4), and the 
repetition of dza¢, which is more easily accounted for if the new clause begins with 
év re deou., may be regarded as overbalancing these considerations and rendering 
the connection of the words with what follows, on the whole, more probable. 

(hk) The close connection of decu. with aod, and Be. makes it almost certain 
that the Apostle has in mind only that @oA. and BeB. which belonged to his 
present period of imprisonment. For this reason it is probable that in ri¢ ydaprro¢ 
he refers to that manifestation of the Divine grace which fitted them, as it fitted 


NOTES. 49 


him, for the furtherance of the gospel even in times of trial and suffering, and 
which also made them ready to help him in his defence and confirmation of the 
gospel while a prisoner at Rome. The defence and confirmation are the negative 
and positive side of the same thing. The defence, therefore, does not mean a 
defence at the time of his judicial trial, but that which was a part of the work of 
preaching which, according to Acts xxviii. 30, 31, he was permitted to carry for- 
ward without hindrance.—(i.) yap (ver. 8) is, as Meyer intimates, to be connected 
with dia rd Exew ue ev rg xapdia tuac—this verse being the confirmation of those 
words and not of what precedes them.—(j.) The view of Meyer with respect to 
ev orAayxvore Xp. "Inc. is adopted by Ell., Lightf., Ead., Alf. de W., Bisp., Jatho, 
Gwynn, and others, and is doubtless correct. 

(k) xai of ver. 9 is rightly explained by Meyer as simply adding the new part 
of the discourse. But whether (as he supposes, with Ell., Alf, Lightf£, de W,, 
and others) the thought is carried back to ver. 4, as if taking up and explaining a 
prayer alluded to there, is doubtful. It is more probable that he merely intends 
to add to what he has said of his thankfulness and confidence a statement of what 
he prays for with reference to their future growth and progress. The emphasis 
on Touro does not seem to require a reference to ver. 4 of the sort indicated, but is 
sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the ayé77 and the xo:vwria are so closely 
related. That these two words are thus related is proved by the fact, that, other- 
wise, the unity of the introductory passage is broken.—(!) The meaning of 
ay477 is, accordingly, love as connected with xorywvia, that love which brought the 
Philippians into fellowship for the furtherance of the gospel. The reference does 
not seem to be (as Meyer holds) simply to their love to one another, but to 
Christian love which, existing as a power in each individual soul, led them to work 
together as the opportunity and call for such working came to them.—(m) “The 
intensive preposition (ei) before yreoe:,” says Lightfoot, “answers to the adjective 
before aiofjoe:.” He appears, thus, to give macy an intensive force, and with this 
view Eadie and some others agree. De W., Ell., Weiss, Alf., Lumby, Harless on 
Eph., and many other comm. regard this adjective as extensive, as Meyer also does: 
every (“every form of,” Ell.). To say the least, it may be affirmed that the writer 
has in mind the application of the knowing and perceptive love to the demands 
made upon it in the work of carrying forward the gospel, and there can be no 
doubt that the extensive sense brings the phrase into closest accord with this 
thought. Paul’s desire and prayer was that their love might abound in full, 
accurate knowledge, and in moral perception in all lines. 

(n) el¢ TO doxepdcecy x.7.A. (ver. 10). In respect to this phrase it may be said, 
(1) that the original meaning of both the verb and the participle favors the 
interpretation of de Wette and others (who understand it of a testing of things 
which are morally different), as against that of Meyer; (2) that the function of 
the perceptive faculty in the moral sphere is, primarily, that to which this‘inter- 
pretation puints; (3) that the two passages which are in nearest parallelism to 
this may be best explained in this way: namely, Rom. ii. 18, where the claim of 
the Jew which is referred to is, that, inasmuch as he is taught by the law, he is 
able to know the will of God (i.e. to distinguish what is right from what is 
wrong), and thus to guide others, and Heb. v. 14, where the writer speaks of 
mature Christians as having their perceptive faculties exercised by reason of use 
to discriminate between what is good and what is bad. It is claimed, indeed, by 
many, and by Meyer himself, that in Rom. ii. 18, we must translate “approvest 

4 








50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the things that are excellent,” on account of a certain climactic character belong- 
ing to that passage. But the fact that the phrase is there preceded by the words 
knowest isis will, and followed by words which simply point to instruction, and to 
the possession of the form or exact outline of truth in the law as qualifying for 
such instruction, and not at all to any approval or preference—the whole context, 
so far as the Jew’s claim for himself is concerned, referring to the sphere of the 
understanding and the capacity to teach others—seems to be decisive against this 
translation, If these words, therefore, are not to be explained in the present 
verse as meaning “ to distinguish the things that differ,” it must be for some such 
reason as that suggested by Meyer in his note. His suggestion is not without 
force, as Alford claims, who ealls it “ mere trifling ;” but it is doubtful whether it 
can be properly regarded as having weight enough to over-balance the considera- 
tions on the other side, 

(0) Grimm and Robinson in their Lexicons, as well as Lightf., Ell., Alf., 
Gwynn, and others among recent commentators, give the passive or intransitive | 
sense to ampdéoxoro:, Eadie agrees with Meyer. Lumby includes both senses. 
’ The objection of Lightf., Ell., and Alf., to Meyer’s view, that a reference to their 
relation to others is out of place, because, as Lightf. expresses it, the question is 
solely of their fitness to appear before the tribunal of Christ, is not conclusive for 
the reason that their attitude toward other men is a part of that which is passed 
upon at that tribunal. The prominence of the thought of xoewwria ei¢ rd evay, in 
the paragraph, on the other hand, favors, though it does not fully prove, the 
transitive sense.—(p) That dcxacooivn¢ (ver. 11) is here used in its ordinary, not 
in its peculiar Pauline sense, is admitted by almost all recent commentators. The 
correctness of this view is made apparent by the clauses which precede. This 
moral rectitude or conformity to what is right, however, is defined as that which 
is by means of Jesus Christ, and thus is that which begins in the soul at its 
entrance into the new life through faith. Faith works by love, and the result is 
right living. The fruit of righteousness grows more abundantly as the love 
abounds more and more in knowledge and all perception, until the man appears 
at the tribunal full of this fruit. dcx. may be a genitive of origin, as Meyer, or of 
apposition, as Huther on Jas. iii. 18, and Liinemann on Heb. xii. 11 (in Meyer's 
Comm.), take it. 


III. Vv. 12-14, 


(«) The letter being one of friendship and affection, rather than one written 
for the purpose of discussing doctrinal questions or matters of practical life, the 
writer naturally turns from his introductory passage, which has reference to the 
readers, to a statement of his own condition and success. In giving this state- 
ment he very naturally, also, makes prominent the matter which had been 
emphasized in the preceding paragraph—namely, the furtherance of the gospel. 
The connecting point between the two passages is found in the words xowwvia ei¢ 
7d evay. of vv. 3-11 and ei¢ mpoxomiy tov evay. of ver. 12 f. (comp. also év roic 
deopoig pov . . . . ovyKormwvote pov x.T.A. ver. 7, Tovg decpobe pov gavepote K.7.A. 
ver. 13).—(6) Meyer regards Gore . . . yevéo@a: (ver. 13) as indicating the salutary 
effect, and not the greatness, of the poxor#, May it not be better to include both 
ideas? The following words seem to suggest the thought of the wide-reaching 
effect—“in the whole pretorium and to all the rest;” “the majority of the 


NOTES. 51 


brethren ;” “more abundantly bold.”—({c) Meyer refers to Bp. Lightfoot as 
holding that tpa:ropiov means here the castrum pretortanorum, but the view of 
Lightf. is that the word denotes “the preetorian regiments, the imperial guards” 
—a body of men, not a place. Grimm, as also, among recent English commen- 
tators, Eadie, Ellicott, and, apparently, Lumby, agree with Meyer. Alford wavers 
in opinion somewhat, but finally favors Meyer’s explanation. Lewin, in his 
“Life and Epistles of St. Paul,” regards the explanation of the Auth. Ver. as 
most probably the correct one, but prefers that of Lightfoot to that of Meyer. 
R. V. apparently adopts L.’s view, translating in the text “ throughout the whole 
pretorian guard,” with a marginal note, “Gr. in the whole Pretorium.” Among 
the recent translations of the N. T., that of Davidson has: “among all the 
pretorian guard”; those of the Bible Union, Green, and Darby: “in all the 
(or, the whole) Pretorium;” that of Dr.G. R. Noyes: “in the whole camp of the 
imperial guards.” Meyer claims that the prepositions in the passages cited for 
the reference to the pretorian regiments themselves are always local, and seems 
thus to deny the propriety of any such reference. The passages quoted by Light- 
foot and in Freund’s Lexicon (Harper's Ed.) may, however, be regarded as proving 
that the word was used of the regiments, and Lightfoot even goes so far as to 
deny that any decisive instance is produced in which the great camp of the pre- 
torian soldiers is designated by “pretorium.” L. and 8. (7th Ed.) say, “At Rome, 
Pretorium generally meant the Castra Pretoriana.” Amid this marked variety 
of views, and in a case where certainty seems scarcely attainable, it is difficult to 
pronounce a decision with much confidence. But as the Apostle, having now 
been in Rome not improbably nearly two years, may be supposed in his employ- 
ment of the word to follow the Roman, not the provincial, usage; as this usage 
appears to have allowed, if not indeed to have required, the application of the 
term to the guards; and as, by general consent, roi¢ Aocroi¢ raow is taken as desig- 
nating persons, not places, the view advocated by Bp. Lightfoot may be considered 
as the one best sustained.—(d) év xupiy (ver. 14) is connected with rav adeAgav by 
R. V. as well as A. V. Alf. and Lumby agree with the writers mentioned in 
Meyer’s note, who favor this construction. Eadie, E)l., Lightf., Gwynn, Jatho, v. 
Hofm. W. and Wilk., make the words qualify seroérac, as Meyer does. The 
order of the words, the fact that in all other cases éo:3a precedes the adverbial 
phrase which modifies it, and the unnecessary emphasis which the reverse 
arrangement gives in this sentence to év xupiy, sustain the rendering of the Revise 
Version. It is affirmed, on the other side, that év xvpiy is not found elsewhere in 
the N. T. with adeAgoi (comp. however, Col. i. 2, Xpuorg: Lightf. maintains that 
this verse is not parallel with the present one because of the adjective moroic 
added there to ad.); that it is thus united with ev. (e.g. ii. 24); and that ad. 
alone would here mean all that ad, év x, means—év x. being thus superfluous. 
The explanation of the emphasis on év «. as qualifying ter. which Meyer gives in 
his note—that it is placed first as the correlative of é Xpiorg, of ver. 13—is 
hardly satisfactory. The same may be said of Ellicott’s similar explanation— 
that it must have been in Christ, and in Him only, that confidence could be felt. 
This may be true, but that it is true in such a sense as to demand the insertion of 
ev xupiy at all as qualifying te7o8,, and especially with such marked emphasis, is by 
no means evident. The suggestion of the preceding verse was abundantly sufficient 
to carry with it this thought into the me7o., and thus no such additional promi- 
nence was required. The construction with adeAgav appears, on the whole, to be 


52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHiLIPPIANS., 


simpler and better.—(e) memouSdrag roicg deopoic pov (ver. 14).—The explanation of 
these words must be sought for in the context. Ver. 13 sets forth the fact that 
his bonds had become manifest in Christ, i.e. as connected with and caused by 
his relation to Christ, and ver. 16 refers to his defence of the gospel. Ver. 7, in 
like manner, connects the ideas of the defence and the bonds. The reason, 
accordingly, for the confidence which the wAziovec thus gained, and which strength- 
ened them to preach fearlessly, was their knowledge that his imprisonment had 
been the means, not of hindering, but of furthering the gospel. 


IV. Vv. 15-17. 


Two important questions present themselves in connection with these verses. 
The first is, whether the writer divides the mAciovec of ver. 14 into two sections 
here,—rivéc, tevéc, and again, of puév, of dé,—or whether, on the other hand, the 
rivég uév (to which words of dé correspond) are a class quite distinct from the 
mAzioves, There are considerations which may be urged on both sides. The fact 
(1) that tAziovec, as united with the words which follow it in ver. 14, implies that 
the remainder of the brethren were not active in preaching, whereas the rivé¢ pév 
evidently were thus active; (2) that ordinarily such divisions (reveg «.7.A.), when 
they are introduced after a more general descriptive word, are naturally referred 
by the reader to divisions making up the general class alluded to; and (3) that 
tiwvec dé, while exactly fitted to describe a second section of the wAeiovec, is a singu- 
lar, if not indeed altogether unsuitable, expression as designating the whole body 
of that majority, must be admitted to have weight in favor of the former supposi- 
tion. But it must be observed, on the contrary, (1) that ver. 13 apparently 
points, in its whole statement, to persons in whose working the Apostle could feel 
unalloyed satisfaction ; (2) that, if the revég uév were a portion of the rAsiovec, we 
seem compelled to give a different explanation to remo, 7, decyoic as related to 
them (comp. ver. 17) from that which we give in connection with the revéc dé— 
whereas these words, as they stand in ver. 13, appear to have but one sense and 
application; (3) that xai following tevé¢ uév may—not to say, certainly does—indi- 
cate a new and independent class of persons as now brought forward. In the case 
of a carefully developed argument, or rhetorical treatise, the points favoring the 
view that the revég uév and rivéc dé are parts of the rAeioves would be almost decis- 
ive. But, in a friendly letter telling of experiences and feelings, the writer might 
easily by a sudden and slight turn leave the thought of ver. 13 at its close, and 
make a new beginning, and thus he might readily speak of two classes of 
preachers—the one already alluded to, and a different one of an opposite charac- 
ter. Not improbably, therefore, the correct view is that of Meyer. But it must 
be admitted that he and the many modern commentators who agree with him fail 
to recognize the full force of the arguments urged by their opponents. 

The second question has reference to the persons indicated by the revég uév: Who 
or what were they? The answer to this question rmaust be sought primarily in the 
passage itself. This presents to us two facts respecting them: namely, that thev 
preached Christ, and that they did so dca g9évov xai &pev and é& épPeiac—oidpevor x.1.A. 
As these latter words, according to all the evidence in the case, refer to their atti- 
tude or feeling towards the Apostle himself, it follows that they were preachers 
of Christ who had bitter personal opposition to Paul. The passage, however, adds 


NOTES. 53 


another point—the Apostle’s declaration that, notwithstanding their envy, etc., he 
rejoices and will rejoice that Christ is proclaimed by them, as well as by his own 
friends. It is, certainly, difficult to suppose that Judaizers such as those who ap- 
pear in the Ep. to the Galatians, or enemies like the ones described in 2d Cor., could 
have been here before his mind. Moreover, the language which he uses in iii. 2 
is so much stronger and more severe than that of these verses—so much more after 
the manner of 2d Cor. and Gal., that we can scarcely believe him to be speaking 
in the two chapters of the same persons. And, still further, it seems almost im- 
possible that, even at this late period of his life, he could say that he rejoiced in 
the preaching of such men. That they were, however, of the Jewish-Christian, 
rather than the Pauline party, is rendered probable by their opposition to him. 
In doctrine, therefore, we must believe them to have been less anti-Pauline than 
the teachers in Galatia, who were preaching a different sort of gospel—a perversion 
of the true gospel, and on whom the A postle pronounces an anathema (Gal. i. 6-8). 
Meyer seems to admit this in his “ Remark” at the close of ver.18. With respect 
to feeling, on the other hand, they must have had the bitterness of the Judaizing 
orthodoxy to such a degree, that jealousy and the desire to trouble the Apostle 
became the chief impulse prompting them in their work. The word pogdce:, as 
contrasted with a/7feig, proves that they were neither honorable nar honest ad- 
versaries, and gives evidence both of the Apostle’s sentiments towards men of this 
character and of the expressions which he felt free to use respecting them. 

With regard to the words and phrases of this passage, the following remarks 
may be added: (a) 946vov not improbably here includes the feelings both of envy 
and jealousy in view of the Apostle’s fame and success.—(5) The strife, pec, which 
is alluded to is evidently, by reason of the corresponding clause in ver. 17, that 
which was connected with épGeia, that is, with selfish and factious partisanship. 
It belonged thus, like the ¢9évoc, to the baser sort of opposition, and was directed 
towards the A postle personally.—(c) é& aydmne, é€ épeSelac are joined with the verbs 
by R. V., A. V., and some comm. (as Lightf,, Alf., Eadie, Gwynn, also by Hofm., as 
stated by Meyer). De W., Weiss, Ell., Lumby appy., v. Heng., and others agree 
with Meyer. A. R. V. inserts Meyer’s rendering in the margin. The reasons 
presented by Meyer may be regarded as justifying his view. Alf. objects that, if 
this construction had been in Paul’s mind, “the words rdv Xprordy xarayyédAovow 
would hardly have been expressed in ver. 17,” and Lightf. regards these words, in 
this case, as too emphatic. May it not be, however, that there is a designed em- 
phasis in placing these words in this clause, rather than in the preceding, as con- 
nected with ovy ayvic? The Christ-preaching of these factious adversaries is so 
insincere, that the very contrast between their state of mind and their action car- 
ries their condemnation with it.—(d) olduevoe OAL Wen éyeipecy roig deopoic pov (ver. 
17). As these words are closely related to é& épc9eiac, and, through that phrase, to 
dia gOdvev xal Eptv, and as the parallel clause in the preceding verse, eidére¢ .. . xeiuat, 
is connected with the suggestion as to aiding him in his work as a preacher, the 
thought of “raising up affliction for his bonds” on the part of this hostile party 
must, in all probability, have a similar and immediate reference to his work and 
influence. They thought to take advantage of the fact of his bonds, and of what- 
ever hindrance these occasioned in the unlimited freedom of his preaching, to ad- 
vance other doctrines or views, to promote the interests and increase the numbers 
of their own party, and to diminish his authority and influence. Thus they ex- 
pected to make his bonds more grievous. 





54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


V. Vv. 18-21. 


(a) With respect to the construction and explanation of the words ri yap xAfwv 
x.7.4., Meyer gives a different view from that of most other commentators, and 
also of his own third edition. The claim which is made by him, and by Hof- 
mann, who in this instance—contrary to what we observe in moet other cases— 
seems to have favorably influenced his mind, that 7A7v renders it necessary to place 
the interrogation-mark after xarayyéAAera:, and not after yap, can hardly be sus- 
tained. It is evidently possible, however, to give this explanation of the words. The 
grounds for adopting the more common view are the frequent occurrence in Paul’s 
writings of ri ovv and ri ydp as independent questions; the fact that we find no paral- 
lel expression to ri Av br: in his Epistles as equivalent to ri aAAd bre; the use of 
rAgyv elsewhere (iii. 16, iv. 14, 1 Cor. xi. 11, Eph. v. 33) in the sense of only or never- 
theless (comp., however, Paul’s words in Acts xx. 23); and the simple and more 
natural construction of xai év r. xaipo, if united with 7Ajv...xarayy. in one 
clause, than if taken as an answer to a question ri... xarayy. In view of these 
considerations, it is probably safer to place the interrogation-mark after yép. With 
this construction, the true explanation of Av bri (which is probably the correct 
reading), is that which makes it an answer to the question ti ydp, and gives the 
meaning “ What then, i. e. such being the state of the facts, what follows, so far as 
my thought and feeling are concerned? Nothing except that,” &c.—(b) ev rotry 
xaipw (ver. 18). The thing in which the Apostle rejoices, as inferred from the 
context, is not simply the fact that Christ is preached, but that, in that preaching 
which goes forward during his imprisonment, and is even furthered by it, Christ 
is proclaimed both by the one party and the other, who have been mentioned. His 
bonds, thus, do not hinder, but help the work of the gospel.—(c) In connection with 
this meaning of rotry, the following rovro (ver. 19) is to be explained. It refers 
to the same thing. This view of rovro is sustained by the fact that the reader’s 
mind is naturally, and almost necessarily, carried back to the same pronoun in the 
next preceding sentence, and also by the fact that, in this way, the thought of the 
paragraph moves forward, without a break or parenthesis, from ver. 12 to ver. 21.— 
(d) Tisch. and Lachm., as Meyer says, place a period after xalpwo, and a comma 
after yaphooua:, and thus connect olda yép with the GAA xai yapjooua: clause only. 
W. and H. have the same punctuation, except that they put a colon after yalpw. 
R. V., on the other hand, joins the two clauses, “and therein I rejoice, yea and will 
rejoice.” Meyer’s view is probably correct, because the statement of ver. 19 gives 
a reason which applies as fully to his present joy as to that which should be in 
the future, and also because the emphatic addition of “yea and,” etc. to “TI re- 
joice” is thoroughly in accordance with Paul’s style. In his third edition Meyer 
adopts Lisch.’s punctuation.—(e) In his explanation of owrypiay, Meyer differs 
from many of the best recent commentators, and his arguments seem insufficient. 
Paul does not elsewhere use the word in the sense which Meyer gives to it here. 
He uses it only of the Messianic salvation, either as experienced by the soul in its 
beginnings on earth or in its completeness in heaven. The words are not im- 
probably a designed or accidental quotation from Job xiii. 16, LX X., where the 
meaning is open to questioning. But there is apparently no such reference to that 
passage, as to make the interpretation given to it determinative of the interpre- 
tation to be adopted here.—(f) ded ric . . . exexopryiag x.r.A.—The union of dénore 
and é7:x. under one article points towards the uniting of tuov with both genitives, 


NOTES. 55 


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


VI. Vv. 22-24. 


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





56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


living, both in the period of his abeence and, if his hopes shall prove to be realized, 
after he is restored to them. 

The turn to the thought of the first of these half-paragraphs is very easy and 
nutural, and in the manner of the transition we may see an indication of the true 
construction of ver. 22. In the development of the preceding thought, as has 
been already explained, the Apostle has been led to give the ground of his confi- 
dence that Christ will be magnified, etc., in the words of ver. 21. He now takes 
up these words in their bearing, not upon the honoring of Christ, but upon him- 
self and his own happiness. The words 76 (#7 év capxi, therefore, correspond with 
to Cav of ver. 21, and the words xapré¢ épyov with Xpiorée; and the whole of that 
verse is taken up under the particle e:—its entire statement being assumed as a 
fact—and the question as to his own preference is raised. The emphatic rovro, 
repeating and summing up in itself the words 7d (iq év oapxi, is thus easily 
accounted for. As “to live is Christ,” it is the continuance of life in the flesh—_. 
this and this only—which will bring the fruit of work. Everything in the 
context and connection points to this arrangement of the sentence, which makes 
et... &pyov the protasis and xa? ri «.r.A. the apodoasis. 

As to the individual words of this verse, (a) dé may be regarded as equivalent 
to however or the logical now; (6) xapzéc is prevailingly used of that which 
appertains to Christian life and effort, but whether the idea of emolumentum is 
necessarily contained in it (Meyer) is doubtful; épyov evidently here refers to 
Paul’s apostolic labors in Christ’s cause ; xai is to be explained as Meyer explains 
it in his note. Ellicott says, with a kindred statement, “ if life certainly serve to 
apostolic usefulness, there will also be a difficulty as to choice.” (c) Tvupifw (ver. 
25). RK. V. and W. & H. place ri aipfooua: with an interrogation mark in the 
margin, thus suggesting a construction by which ov yrupif{o becomes an answer to 
the question, what shall I choose. This construction, though possible, is much 
less simple than the ordinary one, which they have in the text. As to the 
meaning of yrwpice in this place, the fact that Paul uses this word elsewhere 
in seventeen places and in seven of his Epistlee—and always in the sense 
to make known—and the fact that this is the only meaning of the verb as 
found in the N. T. (there are, however, but six passages where it occurs outside 
of Paul’s writings], favor Meyer’s view somewhat strongly. But, on the other 
hand, the more common meaning of the verb as employed by Greek authors 
is to know; this meaning is found in the LXX.; and it is much the more 
natural sense, if ever allowable, in this passage. As Hofmann remarks, why 
should the apostle be limited to the use of the word with a single meaning, when 
it had in itself two meanings? R. V. places I do not make known in the margin 
as an alternate rendering. A. R. V. rejects this marginal note. Noyes translates, 
I cannot say, Darby, I cannot tell, Deans Jeremie and Gwynn, in Bib. Comm., J 
declare not, or make not known ; the other recent English translators and commen- 
tators, generally, regard the verb here as meaning I do not know. 

The intimation of ver. 23, as of 2 Cor. v. 8, is that, in case of his dying at this 
time, he would immediately be with Christ, and thus that he would pass at death, 
not into a condition of sleep or unconsciousness, but into one of conscious union 
with his Lord. Lightf. calls attention to the other conception of death as found 
in 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, and 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16, and says that “the one mode of repre- 
sentation must be qualified by the other.” May not the true explanation of the 
matter be this :—that, as related to the body, the figure of sleep was before the 


NOTES. 57 


e 


Apostle’s mind, and, inasmuch as the full consummation of blessedness was not, in 
his view. to be reached until the resurrection, he sometimes views the whole inter- 
mediate period as connected with the condition of the body. At other times— 
thinking only of the living spirit—he gives his actual and truer idea, that the life 
moves on unbroken into the future, changing its place, indeed, and still waiting 
its completeness, but never ceasing in its activity and its powers. (Comp. Rom. 
viii 10, 11, 23). 

As we compare this verse with the one cited from 2 Cor., we discover, appar- 
ently, a certain change in the Apostle’s feelings, which is readily accounted for by 
the advance of years. In 2 Cor. v. 1 ff, he seems to contemplate death only as a 
possibility, and, in the expression of his desire to be with the Lord, he yet 
earnestly longs to live to the end and be “changed” (1 Cor. xv. 51), so that he 
may not pass through the experience which must come to those who die. The 
burdens and trials of the time which intervened between the two epistles, the 
progress of life towards old age, and the uncertainty of the result of his imprison- 
ment, of which he must have often thought during his two years at Rome, may 
well have made him welcome more fully the idea of dying, and have carried his 
mind more and more towards the future things as very far better. These things 
may well have made continued life seem desirable to him, not for himself, but 
only in view of the possibility of usefulness to others. 


VII. Vv. 25, 26. 


(a) Lightfoot apparently regards terocSd¢ as having an adverbial force, and 
translates “of this I am confidently persuaded.” Alf. Ell., Ead., and most of the 
recent comm., agree with Meyer.—(b) The examples given by van Hengel (Iliad 
vi. 447f.; Isoc. Busir. Laud. c. 19; 2 Kings viii. 12; Acts xx. 29;) seem to show 
that olda need not be taken as affirming absolute knowledge, as Meyer asserts but 
may express strong conviction. That this is the force of the word here is held 
by De W., Weiss, Lightf., and others.—(¢c) That by the word veve Paul refers to a 
remaining alive until the Parousta, and by the introduction of xdoty into the sen- 
tence he shows that he thought it was near, is claimed by Meyer as beyond doubt, 
Vv. 6 and 10 may point to this as possible or probable, but hardly ascertain. It does 
not appear necessary to extend the continuance of uevd to the time indicated in 
those verses, as it is so far separated from them and occurs in an entirely different 
paragraph.—(d) 7poxor#y (ver. 26) has a certain connection of thought, no doubt, 
with the same word in ver. 12. The Apostle’s continued life would be for the 
furtherance of the faith of the Philippians, as his recent experiences, and indeed 
all his working, had been for the furtherance of the gospel.—(e) With reference 
to the relation of the iva and ei¢ clauses, the similar construction in ver. 10 may 
be compared. iva introduces the final end; of his remaining, etc., ei¢ rv pox, 
x.t.A, The xabznpua is, as Meyer says, the materies gloriand:, This is, according to 
Meyer, “ the blies as Christians which they enjoy” (comp. xyapa ‘:iorews) ; accord- 
ing to EIL, “their condition as Christians ;” according to Alford, their “ profession 
of the gospel.” Perhaps we may better say, as suggested by the immediate con- 
nection of the thought with the preceding verse, it is the xiorm whose advance- 
ment was to be secured. The glorying indicated in Paul’s use of xavxaodas and 
its kindred nouns is, as Weiss and others remark, not a self-glorification i in a com- 
parison of one’s self with other men, but rather an exultation in the blessings and 





58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


privileges bestowed by Divine grace. Grimm regards xatynya, in this place, as 
equivalent to xabynorc. 


VIII. Vv. 27-30. 


These verses have a connection both with what precedes and what follows. As 
related to the preceding context, they constitute a new half-paragraph, in which 
the Apostle, still keeping his mind on the prominent thought from ver. 12 
onward, urges upon the Philippians, whether he shall himself be able to come 
to them or not, to conduct themselves in a manner becoming their heavenly 
citizenship, and worthily of the gospel, by striving together for the faith without 
fear of enemies, even if called to conflict and suffering. He gives them, thus, an 
exhortation to move onward, as he himself had done and was doing, with boldness 
and with confidence that even the opposition of their enemies would result 
in their own salvation. As related to the following chapter, vv. 1-18, on the 
other hand, it is a general exhortation, agiws . . . woditeveode, which is subse- 
quently carried out into some of its details. 

(a) Mévov, in the connection in which it stands, seems to imply that notwith- 
standing his confidence that, through his continued life, he might be of service to 
them, there was one exhortation which he would press upon them; but that, in 
view of his confidence, there was only one. (6) The force of od:rebeode is prob- 
ably given by Meyer correctly, though it is possible that the word, as here used, 
may have passed beyond the meaning belonging to it by derivation into the more 
general sense, conduct yourselves.—(c) ZvvaAovvrec, means striving together with one 
another—uniting in a common earnest effort. Meyer refers it, with less proba- 
bility, to a striving together with Paul.—(d) 19 wicre: is, as Meyer says, the dative 
commodt. R. V. reads for the faith in the text, with a marginal note “Gr. with.” 
This marginal note, which assumes that the dative is to be taken in the original 
as meaning with, is hardly to be justified. The most that can be said is that the 
Greek may mean with, but it must be admitted, also, that it may not. The prob- 
able construction, indeed, is that given by Meyer. Lightf. makes siores depend 
on ovvadA., and regards the Apostle as personifying faith.—(e) dzav 62 swrnpiac (ver. 
28)—If this text is adopted, as it should be according to the weight of authority, 
the meaning may be that the intrepidity of the Philippians is a sign to the 
enemies of two things:—their own destruction and the salvation of the Philip- 
pians; or the thought of the writer may be (as if he had inserted a tiv before 
tyav), to them of destruction, but to you of your salvation. The first sense answers 
most exactly to the words, and is adopted by Meyer and some others.—(f) maoyecv 
and the 30th verse (rdv avrév ayava—viv—éy éuoi) make it very clearly manifest 
that the writer has especially in mind the furtherance of the gospel by the 
Philippians in, and notwithstanding, experiences similar to his own, i. e. persecu- 
tion, etc. 


CHAP. Il. 59 


CHAPTER IT. 


Ver. 1. Instead of ef rs wapaz., D* L, min. have: e rig rapau. Approved by 
Griesb., adopted by Matth. It is nothing but a mechanical repetition of the pre- 
ceding «ir. The same judgment must be passed on the reading: ei Teg orAdyxva, 
although this t:¢ (instead of which the Recepia twa is to be restored) has the 
greatly preponderant attestation of ABC D E FG K L P®, min. Bas. Chrys. (?) 
Damasc. Oec. Theoph., and is adopted by Griesb. Matth. Scholz. Lachm. and 
Tisch. Teva (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 : yd? xard, following A BC ® min. 
ves. and Fathers. An attempt at interpretation, as are also the readings # xard, 
nai xara, undév xard.—Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz, have éxaoro¢ in both places, which is 
defended also by Reiche. But éxaoro:, which is confirmed by preponderating testi- 
mony even before cxoxovvres (in opposition to Hofmann), was supplanted by the 
singular, as only the latter occurs elsewhere in the N. T.—Elz. has oxoreire in- 
stead of oxorovrvrec, against decisive testimony.—Ver. 5. rovro yap] A B C* B*, 
min. ves. Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have rovro only. But what led to the 
omission of yép was, that, ¢poveire being subsequently read, the preceding éxaoroc 
was looked upon as the beginning of the new sentence (A C ®). Moreover, the 
commencement of a lesson at rovro favored the omission.—¢poveicfw}] The reading 
¢poveire appears to have decisive attestation from the uncials, of which only 
Cc*" K L P favor the Recepta ¢poveios, But it is incredible, if the well-known 
and very common imperative form ¢poveire was the original reading, that it 
should have been exchanged for the otherwise unusual passive form ¢poveicbu, 
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 favor of 
dpoveio&s, we must retain it as the original, which has been made to give way to 
the more current ¢poveire. The latter, however, is adopted by Tisch. 8, following 
Lachmann.—Ver. 9 Elz. Scholz, Tisch. 7 have 4voya alone instead of 1d dvoya, 
in opposition to A B C ®, 17, and several Fathers. The article has been sup- 
pressed by the preceding syllable.—Instead of éfoyoAoyfonra: the future 
éfouodoyhoera: is decisively attested—Ver. 18. The article before Oeé¢ (Elz. 
Scholz) is condemned by preponderating testimony.— Ver. 15. yévnode] 


1 Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 2183, would read quid valet’’).—The old Latin versions, with 
sv instead of ra; but the former is found their si qua or si quid, leave us uncertain as 
only in min., and is scarcely susceptible of n to their reading. But the Vulg. Lachm. 
forced explanation (“si qua est vobis,” or“si has: si quis. 


60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS., 


A D* E* FG, Vulg. It. Cypr. have jre. Soalso Lachm. But the testimony is 
not decisive, and there is the more reason for defending the Recepta, because 
yévno6e might be more readily glossed by #re than the converse, both in iteelf, 
and also here on account of the following év ot¢ gaiveofe x.7.A.—édpudunra] Lachm. 
Tisch. 8 have aGywya, following A BC *®, min. Clem. Cyr. But the latter is the 
prevailing form in the N. T., and readily crept in (comp. var. 2 Pet. iii. 14).— 
év ploy] ABC D* FG®, min. Clem. have pzécov, Approved by Griesb., and 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is explanatory.—Ver. 19. 
xupiy] Lachmann reads Xpior@, upon too weak authority.—Ver. 21. Elz.: ra tov 
Xpiorov ‘Incov. But ta 'Inoot X. (Tisch.: ra Xprorov ’Incov) has the preponderance 
of evidence in its favor.—Ver. 26. After tac, A C D E &*, min. vss. and some 
later Fathers have ‘deity, which Lachm. places in brackets. To be adopted; be- 
cause, after i. 8, its omission would be very probable, and there is no reason why 
it should have got in asa gloss here and not at i. 8.—Ver. 27. Elz.: eri Abry, 
against decisive testimony in favor of éxi Abrav.—Ver. 30. 7d épyov row Xpiorov)} 
Tisch. 7 reads 7d épyov merely; following, indeed, only C, but correctly, for the 
bare rd épyov appeared to need some defining addition, which was given to it by 
tov Xpiorov or Xporov (Tisch. 8), or even by xvpiov (A &).—rapafBovA,] The form 
mapaBoA, has preponderant attestation, and is to be preferred. See the exegetical 
remarks, 


‘Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-5, see Note IX. pages 106,107]. Otv] infers from i. 
30 what is, under these circumstances, the most urgent duty of the readers. 
[IX a.] If they are engaged in the same conflict as Paul, it is all the more 
imperatively required of them by the relation of cordial affection, which 
must bind them to the apostle in this fellowship, that they should fulfill 
his joy, etc. Consequently, although, connecting what he is about to say 
with what goes immediately before (in opposition to Hofmann), he cer- 
tainly, after the digression contained from #r¢ in ver. 28 onwards, leads 
them back to the exhortation to unanimity already given in ver. 27, to 
which is then subjoined in ver. 3 f. the summons to mutual humility. — 
el tig x.7.4.] four stimulative elements, the existence of which, assumed by 
ei (comp. on Col. iii. 1), could not but forcibly bring home to the readers 
the fulfillment of the apostle’s joy, ver. 2. [IX 6.] With each éori simply 
is to be supplied (comp. iv. 8): Jf there be any encouragement tn Christ, +f 
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 objective 
principle of the Christian life (¢v Xpioré and mvetyaroc), and the second to 
the subjective principle, to the specific disposition of the Christian (aydmn¢ 
and ordéyyva xai oixrippoi). Thus the inducements to action, involved in 
these four elements, are, in equal measure, at once objectively binding and 
inwardly affecting (ra¢ agodpic, Tao peta ovprabeiag roAAgc! Chrysostom).— 
wapaxd, év X.] év X. defines the sapaxd. as specifically Christian, having its 


1Hitsig, s. Krit. Paul. Briefe, p. 18, very and the four times repeated {¢f is to cover 
erroneously opines that there is here a made the defect—in connection with which an 
excitement, an emphasis in which not so utterly alien parallel is adduced from Tacit. 
much is felt as is put into the words; Agric. 46. 


CHAP. IL. I. 61 


easence and activity in Christ; 80 that it issues from living fellowship with 
Him, being rvoted in it, and sustained and determined by it. Thus it is: 
tn Christ, that brother erhorteth brother. rapdxAyowe means exhortation, i. e. 
persuasive and edifying address ; the more special interpretation consolatio, 
admissible in itself, anticipates the correct rendering of the mrapaptOov 
which follows (in opposition to Vulgate, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecume- 
nius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Heinrichs, and many others; 
and recently Hoelemann and Ewald).—el r rapap. ayaz.) rapaptOcov? cor- 
responds to the fourth clause (orAéyyva x. oicr.), and for this reason, as well 
as because it must be different from the preceding element,’ cannot be 
taken generally‘ as address, exhortation, but definitely as comfort® 'Aydrne 
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 aydry¢ of the love of God (to us).—el reg 
xowav, rv.) if any fellowship of the Spirit (i.e. participation in the Spirit) 
exists; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii.13. This is to be explained of the Holy Spirit, 
not of the antmorum conjunctio,' which is inconsistent with the relation 
of this third clause to the first (év Xpord), and also with the sequel, in 
which (ver. 2) Paul encourages them to fellowship of mind, and cannot 
therefore place it in ver. 1 as a motive.—ei tiwa ond. x. oixr.] tf there be any 
heart and compassion. The former used, as in i. 8, as the seat of cordial 
loving affections generally; the latter, specially as mtsericordia (see on 
Rom. ix. 15), which has its seat and life in the heart.® It must further be 
remarked, with regard to all four points, that the context, by virtue of the 
exhortation based upon them wAypécaré pov rv xapév in ver. 2, certainly 
presupposes their existence in the Philippians, but that the general expres- 
sion (if there ts) 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: 
“Tf there is exhortation in Christ, wherewith one brother animates and 
incites another to a mght tone and attitude; if there is comfort of love, 
whereby one refresheth the other; tf there ts fellowship in the Spirit, which 
inspires right feelings, and confers the consecration of power; tf there ts 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 (nov 
tv xapév).” Then, namely, I experience practically from you that 


11 Cor. xiv.3; Rom. xii. 8; Acta iv. 36, ix. | Hoelemann, van Hengel, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. 


$1, xiii. 15, xv. 31. 

28ee generally Schaefer ad Bos. p. 402; 
Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 517; Jacobse ad Ach. Tat. 
p. 708. 

8 Hofmann erroneously makes the quite 
arbitrary distinction that wapaxaA. refers to 
the will, and wapay. to the feelings. The will, 
feelings, and intellect are called into exercise 
by both. Comp., especially on wapaynv6., Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 476 E; Phaed. p. 70 B; 
EButhyd. p. 272 B; Thue. vili. 96, 1. 

4With Calovius, Flatt, Matthies, de Wette, 


Lightfoot, and Hofmann. 

§ Plat. Legg. vi. p. 773 E, xi. p. 880 A. 

¢Thuc. v. 103; Theocr. xxiii. 7; Anth. Pal. 
vii. 195, 1; Wisd. iff. 18; Esth. vilf. 15; comp. 
wapapvOia, Plat. Azioch. p. 375 A; Luc. Nigr. 
7; Ps. Ixv. 12; Wisd. xix. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 3. 

T Michaelis, Rosenmiller, am Ende, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Hoelemann, Wies- 
inger, Hofmann, and others; Usteri and 
Rillfet mix up the two. 

8 See also on Col. iii. 12; comp. Luke 1. 28; 
Tittmann, Synon, p. 68 f. 


62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Ghristian-brotherly exhortation,’ and share in your comfort of love, and 80 
ye put to proof, in my case, the fellowship in the Spirit and the cordial 
sympathy, which makes me not distressed, but glad in my painful posi- 
tion.—There is much that is mistaken in the views of those who defend 
the reading ric before ov. (see van Hengel and Reiche), which cannot be 
got rid of by the assumption of a constructio ad synesin (in opposition to 
Buttmann, New. 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: el tic ovv 
mapaxAnow, tv Xpiore’ el te wapapibiov, aydrnyg el reg xowwuria mrvebparoc, el ree, 
onAdyxva x. oixtippoi; this last ei reg being a repetition of the previous one with 
an emphasizing of the ei. Accordingly the verse is supposed to mean: 
“Tf exhortation, let it be exhortation in Christ; if consolation, let it bea 
consolation of love; if fellowship of the Spirit, if any, let it be cordiality 
and compassion.” A new sentence would then begin with mrAnpdécare.* 
Artifices such as this can only serve to recommend the reading el riva. 
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 iii. 29, 
xv. 11, xvii. 18; 1 John i. 4; 2 John 12; 2 Cor. x.6). For the circum- 
stances of the case, comp. i. 9. The ov represents, as it very often does 
in the N. T. (e.g. iv. 14; Col. iv. 18; Philem. 20), and in Greek authors, 
the dative of interest—iva] The mode tn which they are to make his joy 
full is conceived in tec form, as that which is to be striven for in the action 
of making full; and in this aim of the Azpotv the regulative standard for 
this activity was to consist. Paul might quite as fitly have put the rd aird 
gpoveiy in the imperative, and the wAnpoiv ry yxapév in the telic form; but 
the immediate relation to himself, in which he had conceived the whole 
exhortation, induced him to place the Anpoiv +. y. in the foreground.— 
rd abrd gpov#re] denotes generally harmony, and that, indeed, more closely 


1In the application of the general « ree 
wapaxAnacs ey X., the subjects of this wapdxAnors 
must, following the rule of the other elements, 
be the Philippians; Pau! (Wiesinger, comp. 
Ewald) cannot be conceived as the wapaxader. 

$From this interpretation of the whole 
passage he should have been deterred by the 
forlorn position which is assigned to the « 
tie before owAdyxva as the stone of stum- 
bling, as well as by the purposelessness and 
even inappropriateness of an oddly empha- 
sized problematical sense of this ei rs.—If it 
be thought that the reading ¢i ris owA. must 
be admitted, I would simply suggest the fol- 
lowing by way of necessary explanation of 
the passage :—Ist, Let the verse be regarded 
as consisting of a series of four protases, on 
which the apodosis then follows in ver. 2; 2d, 
Let éy Xpiorg, aydwys, rvevaros and owidy- 
xva x. oizntipnol be taken uniformly as predé- 
eative specifications; 3d, Let xowwervia be 
again understood with the last «i rs. Paul 


would accordingly say: “If any exhortation ig 
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 com- 
passion) fulfill ye,” etc. The apostie would 
thus give to the element of the co:veria, be- 
sides the objective definition of its nature 
(xvev¥maros, referring to the Holy Spirit), also 
a subjective one (ow. x. oixripy.), and mark the 
latter specially by the repetition of ¢i ris se. 
xo.vevia, as well as designate it the more forci- 
bly by the nominative expression (owAdyxva 
x. our., not another genitive), inasmuch as 
the latter would set forth the ethical nature of 
such a xouvevia (comp. such passages as Rom. 
vii. 7, viii. 10, xiv. 17) in the form of a direct 
predicate. The ¢i, moreover, would remain 
uniformly the syllogistic «i in all the four 
clauses, and not, as in Hofmann's view, sud- 
denly change into the problematic sense in 
the fourth clause. 


CHAP. II. 2, 3. 63 


defined by the sequel here as identtfy of sentiment.'. Hoelemann interprets 
7d abré a8 tllud ipsum, that, namely, which was said in ver. 1, the rapdAyorg 
éy X. down to olxripyoi. This is at variance with the context (see the fol- 
lowing r. avr. ayéx. and é ¢pov.), and contrary to the wonted use of the 
expression elsewhere (Rom. xii. 16, xv.5; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 2).—rjp 
airy ay. tx., cbuy. Td bv gpov.} Two more precise definitions of that like- 
mindedness, so far as it is identity of (mutual) love, and agreement of feeling 
and active impulse, sympathy (cbyzyvyo, only found here in the N. T.; but 
see Polemo, ii. 54, and comp. on i. 27, also on iodyvyov, ver. 20). This 
accumulation of definitions indicates earnestness ; Paul cannot sever himself 
from the thought, of which his heart is so full? The following 1d éy ¢povoiwre¢ 
is to be closely connected with ofpy., so that ciuyvyou has the emphasis 
and adds the more precise definition of the previously mentioned unity of 
mind : with harmony of soul cherishing the one sentiment. There are there- 
fore only two, and not three, special explanations of the 12 aird ¢povjre ; and 
év with the article points back to the previous 7d avré, which is now repre- 
sented by rd é& without any essential difference in sense. Expositors, not 
attending to this close connection of ciyzy. with ro éy ¢pov. (which Wiesin- 
ger, Weiss, Ellicott, and Schenkel have acknowledged), have either made 
the apostle say the very same thing twice over (Oecumenius: dirAaodCec 
7d duogpoveiv), or have drawn entirely arbitrary distinctions between 1d airé 
and 1d é ¢pov.—e.g. Bengel, who makes the former refer to the same 
objects of the sentiment, and the latter to the same sentiment itself > Titt- 
mann, l.c., that the former is idem senttre, velle et quaerere, and the latter 
in uno expetendo consentire ; Beza and others, that the former means the 
agreement of will, the latter the agreement in doctrine; while others put 
it inversely; Hofmann thinks that é with the article means the one 
thing, on which a Christian must tnwardly be bent (comp. Luke x. 42). It 
means, on the contrary, the one thing which has just been designated by 
Td avrd gpovyre (a8 in iv. 2; Rom. xii. 16; and other passages); the context 
affords no other reference for the article—It is usual, even in classical 
authors, for the participle of a verb to stand by the side of the verb itself, 
in such a way that one of the two conveys a more precise specification 

Ver. 3 f. [TX c.] Mydév ward ep. % xevodot.] sc. gpovotwree (not rotobvreg, 
Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Camerarius, Storr, am Ende, Rheinwald, Flatt, 
van Hengel, and others); so that, accordingly, what was ercluded by the 
previous requirement 1d aird ¢povere . . . gpovowvrec, is here described. To 
take, as in Gal. v. 13, puydév . . . xevodogiay as a prohibition by itself, with- 
out dependence on ¢povoiwrec (see on Gal. l.c.), as J. B. Lightfoot does, is 
inappropriate, because the following participial antithesis discloses the 


18ee Tittmann, Synon. p. 67; Fritesche, ad 
Rom. IIL. p. 87 f.; comp. Herod. i. 60, ix. 54, 
and the passages in Wetstein. The opposite: 
adgdis op., Hom. Jl. xiii. 345; GrAAp op., Ayman. 
Ap. 400; &:xodporeiy, Plut. Mor. p. 763 E; 
Scxényris, Nonn. ov. JoA. xx. 29; and similar 
forma, 


3Comp. Chrysostom: Bafal, woodats 1d abrd 
Adyar awd 8caSdcews woAARS! He also well 
remarks on +. avr. éyéa. éx.: rourtets dpoles 
Prrciy zai dirciobat. 

See Stallb. ad Flat. Hipp. m. p. 292 A; 
Bornemann, ad Cyrop. vili. 4. 9; Lobeck, 
Paral. p. 532 f. 


64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


dependence of the addy «.r.2. on the previous participle; hence also Hof- 
mann’s view, that there is an intentional leaving the verb open, cannot be 
admitted. Hoelemann combines it with #yotu., and takes pundév as neuti- 
quam ; but incorrectly, for jyobp. «.r.A. affirms the esteeming others better 
than oneself, which, therefore, cannot take place in a factious (xard épiAstay, 
see on i. 17) or in a vainglorious (# xevodofiav) 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 tnstrument: by 
means of humility, the latter being by the article set down as a generic 
idea (by means of the virtue of humility). The mutual brotherly humil- 
ity (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12; Acta 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 
pronounce Caius to be of a higher moral rank than himself (¢. e. 
GAAfiove . . . avrov). Hoelemann erroneously refers rg rarecvogp. to irepéy., 
so that it “ercellentiae designet praesidium,’’—a view which the very posi- 
tion of the words should have warned him not to adopt.—xevodogia]} ostenta- 
tion, only here in the N. T..—Ver. 4. yu ra éavrav éxacros oxor.] [IX d.) The 
humble mind just indicated cannot exist together with selfishness, which 
has its own interests in view.? Others consider that the having regard to 
gifts and merits is intended (Calvin, Hammond, Raphel, Keil, Commentat. 
1808, in his Opusc. p. 172 ff., Hoelemann, Corn. Muller), which, after the 
comprehensive rg raecvogp. x.7.A., would yield a very insipid limitation, 
and one not justified by the context.—éxacro:] It is usually, and in other 
passages of the N. T. invariably, the singular that is used in this distribu- 
tive apposition ; the plural, however, is not unfrequently found in classical 
authors.’—a/Ad nai «.7.2.] a weaker contrast than we should have expected 
from the absolute negation in the first clause;‘* a softening modification 
of the idea. In strict consistency the xai must have been omitted (1 Cor. 
x. 24).6 The second éxacros might have been dispensed with; it is, how- 
ever, an earnest repetition —The influences disturbing unity in Philippi, dis- 
closed in vv. 2—4, are not, according to these exhortations, of a doctrinal 
kind, nor do they refer to the strength and weakness of the knowledge and 
conviction of individuals, as was the case in Rome (Rom. xiv.) and Corinth 
(1 Cor. viii. and x.}—in opposition to Rheinwald and Schinz ;—but they 
were based upon the jealousy of moral self-estimation, in which Christian 


1Comp. Wisd. xiv. 14; Polyb. iii. 81.9; Lue 
fan, D. Mort. x. 8, xx. 4; and see on Gal. v. 26. 

See instances of gzomeiy ra tiv0s, to be 
mindful of any one's interests, in Herod. i. 
8; Plat. Phaedr. p. 232 D; Thuc. vi. 12. 2; 
Eur. Supp. 302. Comp. Lucian, Prom. 14; 
vépavroy uéva ones. The opposite of ra 
davrey ox. may be seen in 3 Macc. iv. 5: rd 8 
Cupddpory cocvy . . . cxowery. Comp. fyreiy ra 
davrov, 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiffi. 6; Phil. ff. 21, 
where ¢erety presents no essential difference 
in sense. 

8'Hom. Od. ix. 164; Thuo. L 7.1; Xen. Hell. 


il. 4,38; Herodian, fii. 13, 14. 

4In which, in fact, itis not merely the limit- 
ation (Hofmann) to one’s own that is forbid- 
den, as if udvoy stood along with it. What 
Hofmann at the same time deduces from the 
reading éxacros (before cxorovrres), which he 
follows, as distinguished from the subsequent 
éxacros (with a here wholly irrelevant com- 
parison of Plat. Apol. p. 39 A), is sophistical, 
and falls, moreover, with the reading itself. 

5 Comp. Soph. Aj. 1292 (1313): dpa wh rotvmdy 
GANA zai 73 ody; and see Fritzsche, ad Mare. 
p. 768; Winer, p. 463 f£. [E. T. 498.) 


CHAP. I. 4, 5. 65 


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 de Wette assumes 
as codperating). 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 i humor and tsolaiton disturbing the cordial fellowship of 
life (Hofmann).! [LX page 107.] 

Ver. 5. Enforcement of the precept contained in ver. 8 f. by the example 
of Jesus (comp. Rom. xv. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 21; Clem. Cor. I. 16), who, full of 
humility, kept not His own tnterest in view, but in self-renunciation and 
self-humiliation sacrificed it, even to the endurance of the death of the 
cross, and was therefore exalted by God to the highest glory;? this ex- 
tends to ver. 12.°—¢poveic6w év iu.| sentiatur in animis vestris. The parallel- 
ism with the év 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.‘—d xai év X. 'I.] ac. é¢povfOy. On by, 


1Comp. Huther, in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 
1862, p. 640 ff. 

# 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 «ai, that Paul really intended to 
adduce the example of Christ (in opposition 
to Hofmann’s view); comp. Rom. xv. 3. 
Christ’s example is the moral ideal, histori- 
cally realized. Comp. Wuttke, Sittent. II. 2 
224; Schmid, Sittent. p. 355 ff.; and as early as 
Chrysostom. 

3 See on this passage Kesler in Thes. nov. ex 
mus. Has. et Iken. II. p. 947 f.; Schultens, 
Dissertatt. philot. 1. p. 443 ff.; Keil, two Com- 
mentat. 1803 (Opusc. p. 172 ff.); Martini, in 
Gabler’s Journ. f. auserl. theol. Jit. 1V. p. 34 
ff.; von Ammon, Magaz. f. Pred. 11.1, p.7 ff.; 
Kraussold in the Annal. d. gesammt. Theol. 
1835, II. p. 273 ff.; Btein in the Stud. u. Arit. 
1837, p. 165 ff.; Philippi, d. thatige Gehors. Chr. 
Berl. 1841, p. 1 ff.; Tholuck, Disp. Christol. de 
l. Phil. iL. 6-9, Halle 1848; Ernesti in the Stud. 
u. Krit. 1848, p. 858 ff., and 1851, p. 505 ff.; 
Baur in the theol. Jahrd. 1849, p. 502 ff., and 
1852, p. 133 ff, and in his Paulus, IT. p. 51 ff. 
ed. 2; Liebner, Christol. p. 325 ff.; Raebiger, 
Christol. Paulin. p. 76 ff.; Lechler, Apost. u. 
nachapost. Zeitait. p. 58 ff.; Schneckenburger 
in the Deutsch. Zeitachr. 1855, p. 333 ff. ; Wetzel 
in the Monatschr. f. d. Luth. Kirche Preuss. 


6 


1857; Kahler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 99 
ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 
431 ff.,and his Christol.d. N. T. 1866, p. 233 ff.; 
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 1870, p. 163 ff. ; 
J. B. Lightfoot’s Excursus, p. 125 ff.; Pflei- 
derer in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1871, p. 519 ff. ; 
Grimm in the same Zeitschr. 1873, p. 33 ff. 
Among the more recent dogmatic writers, 
Thomasius, II. p. 148 ff.; Philippi, 1V. 1, p. 
469 ff.; Kahnis, I. p. 453 ff. 

‘Reading ¢@poveire, and subsequently ex- 
plaining the ey Xprore ‘Inco as a frequent 
expression with Paul for the ethical Christian 
quality (like é» cvpi» 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 it Christian. Thus there would be 
evolved, when expressed in simple words, 
merely the thought: “ Have in you the mind 
which is also the Christian one.” As if the 
grand outburst, which immediately follows, 
would be in harmony with such a general 
ideal 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 cai? It would be entirely 
without correlation in the text; for in é» vir 
the é» would have to be taken as local, and in 
the év Xprorg, according to that misinterpre- 
tation, it would have to be taken in the sense 
of ethical fellowship, and thus reiations not at 
all analogous would be marked, 


66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 

comp. the Homeric évi ¢peci, évt Ovug, which often occurs with ¢poveiv, Od. 
xiv. 82, vi. 318; Jl. xxiv. 173. «ai is not cum mazime, but the simple also 
of the comparison (in opposition to van Hengel), namely, of the pattern 
of Christ. 

Ver. 6. [On vv. 6-11, see Note X. pages 107-111.] The classical passage 
which now follows is like an Epos in calm majestic objectivity; nor does 
it lack an epic minuteness of detail—s;:] 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 Adyo¢ dcapxoc, was with God.' The human state is first introduced by 
the words éavrdv éxévwoe in ver.7.2 It has been objected’ that the name 
Christ Jesus is opposed to this view; also, that in vv. 8-11 it is the exalta- 
tion of the earthly Christ that is spoken of (and not the return of the 
Logos to the divine dda); and that the earthly Christ only could be held 
up as a pattern. But Xpwric 'Inootvc, as subject, is all the more justly used 
(comp. 2 Cor. viil. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 14 ff.; 1 Cor. x. 4), since the sub- 
ject not of the pre-human glory alone, but at the same time also of the 
human abasement* and of the subsequent exaltation, was to be named. 
Paul joins on to é¢ the whole summary of the history of our Lord, includ- 
ing His pre-human state (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 9: érrdyevoe rAotatog Sv); there- 
fore vv. 8-11 cannot by themselves regulate our view as regards the defi- 
nition of the subject; and the force of the evample, which certainly comes 
Jirst to light in the historical Christ, has at once historically and ethically 
its deepest root in, and derives its highest, because divine (comp. Matt. v. 
48; Eph. v. 1), obligation from, just what is said in ver..6 of His state 
before His human appearance. Moreover, as the context introduces the 
incarnation only at ver. 7, and introduces it as that by which the subject 
divested Himself of His divine appearance, and as the earthly Jesus 
never was in the form of God (comp. Geass, p. 295), it is incorrect, because 
at variance with the text and illogical, though in harmony with Lutheran 


1That Christ in His Trinitarian pre-exist- 
ence was already the eternal Principle and 
Prototype of humanity (as is urged by Bey- 
schiag), is self-evident; for otherwise He 
would have been one essentially different 
from Him who in the fullness of time ap- 
peared 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 exegeti- 
cally be justified by our passage and other 
expressions such as 1 Cor. xy. 47; Rom. v. 12 
ff., viii. 29; Col. 1.15. The Logos pre-existed 
as the divine principle and divine prototype of 
humanity; @eds qv o Adyos, and this, apart 
from the form of expression, is also the 
teaching of Paul. Only in time could He 
enter upon the human existence; the notion 
of eternal humanity would refute iteelf. 

$80 Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, 


Zanchius, Vatablns, Castalio, Estius, Clarius, 
Calixtus, Semler, Storr, Keil, Usteri, Kraus- 
sold, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Corn. Maller, and 
moet expositors, including Linemann, Tho- 
luck, Liebner, Wiesinger, Ernesti, Thoma- 
sius, Raebiger, Ewald, Weiss, Kahnis, Bey- 
schlag (1860), Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 
306, Messner, Lehre d. Ap. 233 f., Lechler, 
Gess, Person Chr. p. 80 f., Rich. Schmidt, 


” Le, J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm ; comp. also Hof- 


mann and Disterdieck, Apolog. Beitr. IIL. 
p. 65 ff. 

3See especially de Wette and Philippi, also 
Beyschlag, 1866, and Dorner in Jahrb. f. D. 
Th. 1856, p. 304 f. 

4 Hence Philippi’s objection, that ¢poreiy is 
elsewhere applied to man only, and not to 
God, is devoid of significance. Unfounded 
is also Beyschlag’s objection (1866) drawn 
from the word cxquer:; see below, 


CHAP. 11. 6. 67 


orthodoxy and its antagonism to the Kenosis of the Logos,' to regard the 
incarnate historical Christ, the Adyog évoapxos, as the subject meant by as.! 
Liebner aptly observes that our passage is “the Pauline 6 Adyoc aapf tytvero;” 

comp. on Col. i. 15.—év pop¢9 Geot txépzuv] not to be resolved, as usually, 
into “although, etc.,” which could only be done in accordance with the 
context, if the dpraypdv Hyciofa: x.r.A. could be presupposed as something 
proper or natural to the being in the form of God; nor does it indicate 
the possibility of His divesting Himself of His divine appearance (Hof- 
mann), which was self-evident; but it simply narrates the former divinely 
glorious position which He afterwards gave up: when He found Himself in 
the form of God, by which is characterized Christ’s pre-human form of 
existence. Then He was forsooth, and that objectively, not merely in 
God’s self-consciousness—as the not yet incarnate Son (Rom. i. 3, 4, viii. 8; 
Gal. iv. 4), according to John as Aéyoc—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 Qc Gv and also cixav Ocov—as such also the instru- 
ment 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 dé£a, 
as the possessor of which before the incarnation He had, without a body 
and invisible to the eye of man,’ the form of God, is now by means of 
His glorified body and His divine-human perfection visibly possessed by 
Him, that He may appear at the zapovcia, not again without it, but in and 
with it (iii. 20 f.). Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15, iii. 4. Mopgg, therefore, 
which is an appropriate concrete expression for the divine dééa (comp. 
Justin, Apol. I. 9), as the glory visible at the throne of God, and not a 
“fanciful expression” (Ernesti), is neither equivalent to ¢bec¢ or ovoia; * nor 
to status:® nor is it the god-like capacity for possible equality with God 
(Beyschlag), an interpretation which ought to have been precluded both 
by the literal notion of the word yop¢%, and by the contrast of pop¢?) dobAcu 
in ver.7. But the popg9 Geod presupposes® the divine gto as éudarodog 


1 According to which Christ had the full 
divine majesty “statim in sua conceptione, 
etiam in utero matris” (Form. Conc. p. 767). 
But He had it in His state of humiliation 
secreto, and only manifested it occasionally, 
quoties ipsi visum fuerit. In opposition to 
this, Liebner rightly observes, p. 334: “This 
is altogether inadequate to express the pow- 
erful N. T. feeling of the depth and greatness 
of our Lord’s humiliation. This feeling 
unmistakably extends to the unique per- 
sonal essence of the God-man, and in con- 
formity with this, to the very heart of the act 
of incarnation itself.” 

® Novatian, de Trin. 17, Ambrosiaster, Pela- 
gius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cameron, 
Piscator, Hunnius, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, 
Bengel, Zachariae, Kesler, and others, includ- 
ing Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hen- 
gel, de Wette, Schneckenburger, Philippi, 


Beyschlag (1866), Dorner, and others; see the 
historical details in Tholuck, p. 2 ff., and J. 
B. Lightfoot. 

* Comp. Philo, de Somn. I. p. 655. 

4 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, The- 
ophylact, Augustine, Chemnits, and many 
others; comp. also Rheinwald and Corn. 
Maller. § Calovius, Storr, and others. 

*Bengel well says: “Ipsa natura divina 
decorem habebat infinitum, in se, etiam sine 
ulla creatura illum decorem intuente."— 
What Paul here designates simply by é» 
hopoy Scov vwdpyewy is pompously expressed 
by Clement, Cor. I. 16: 13 oxiwrpor Tis peya- 
Awcvrns Tou @eov. The forma mentis aeterna, 
however, in Tacitus, Agric. 46, is a conception 
utterly foreign to our passage (although ad- 
duced here by Hitzig), and of similar import 
with Propertius, iii. 1, 64; “ingenjo stat sing 
morte decus.” 


68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


popens (Aesch. Suppl. 496), and more precisely defines the divine status, 
namely, as form of being, corresponding to the essence, consequently to 
the homoousia, and exhibiting the condition, so that pop¢g) Geot finds its 
exhaustive explanation in Heb. i. 3: azatyacpa rife déEn¢ x. xapaxtip 
THe imocTdceug Tov Oeov, this, however, being here conceived as predi- 
cated of the pre-existent Christ... What is here called opg) Ocod is 
eldog Ozov in John v. 37,2 which the Son also essentially possessed in 
His pre-human défa (John xvii. 5). The explanation of ¢boc was 
promoted among the Fathers by the opposition to Arius and a number 
of other heretics, as Chrysostom adduces them in triumph; hence, 
also, there is much polemical matter in them. For the later controversy 
with the Socinians, see Calovius.—imdpzwv] designating more expressly 
than ov 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 é#me is that of the pre-human 
existence. See above on d. Those who understand it as referring to His 
human existence (comp. John i. 14) think of the divine majesty, which 
Jesus manifested both by word and deed (Ambrosiaster, Luther, Erasmus, 
Heinrichs, Krause, Opuse. p. 33, and others), especially by His miracles 
(Grotius, Clericus); while Wetstein and Michaelis even suggest that the 
transfiguration on the mount is intended. It would be more in harmony 
with the context to understand the possession of the complete 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 (potentiakter) 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 éavr. éxévwce x.r.A., and expose them to the risk of 
inserting limiting clauses at variance with the literal import of the passage; 
see below.—ovy dpraypév Hyfoato rd elvat toa Oc@] In order to the right 
explanation, it is to be observed: (1) that the emphasis is placed on dpzay- 
pév, and therefore (2) that 12 civacica OcG cannot be something essentially 
different from év popd% Ocod ixdpyecv, but must in substance denote the same 
thing, namely, the divine habitus of Christ, which is expressed, as to its 
form of appearance, by év pop¢y Ocov izdpy., and, as to its internal nature, by 
rd elvat ica Ocg; * (3) lastly, that dowayude does not mean praeda, or that which 


1In Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C, nopdy is also to be 
taken strictly in its literal signification, and 
not less so in Eur. Bacch. 54; Ael. H. A. iii. 
24; Jos. ¢. Ap. ii. 16, 22. Comp. also Eur. 
Bacch. 4: pophay dmeiyas dx Geo Bporyciay, 
Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 2: dvecw péw Sy THe YuxHs «- 
THs Mopdys. 

#Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 380 D; Plut. Mor. p. 
1013 C. 


Paul would, instead of 1d eivar iva Gey, have 
written merely rovro, or even nothing at all. 
He might have done so, but there was no 
necessity for his taking that course, least of 
all for Paul! He, on the contrary, distin- 
guishes very precisely and suitably between 
the two ideas representing the same state, by 
saying that Christ, in His divine pre-human 
Sorm of life, did not venture to use this his God- 


$ An entirely groundless objection has been 
made (even by Linemann) against the view 
which takes rd elvac iva ep as not essentially 
different from ¢» popdy @Ocov elves, vis. that 


equal being for making booty. Both, there- 
fore, expreas the very same divine Aabitus; 
but the elya: ica Gem is the general element, 
which presents itself in the divine pop¢y as 


CHAP. I. 6. 69 


is seized on (which would be dprdy:ov,' or dpraypa or dpracua, and might 
also be dpray#), or that which one forcibly snatches to himself (Hofmann and 
older expositors); but actively: robbing, making booty. In this sense, 
which is @ priori 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): xai 
Tove wey OfByor xai Tove’ HAids geveréov Epwrag nai tov ex Kpirn¢ xadotpyevov dpray- 
uév, where it denotes the Cretan kidnapping of children. It is accordingly 
to be explained: Not as a robbing did He consider* the being equal with God, 
#.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 seieing what 
did not belong to Him. In opposition to Hofmann’s earlier logical objec- 
tion (Schrifibew. I. p. 149) that one cannot consider the being as a dowmg, 
comp. 1 Tim. vi. 5; and see Hofmann himself, who has now recognized 
the linguistically correct explanation of dpraypés, but leaves the object of 
the dpréfev indefinite, though the latter must necessarily be something 
that belongs to others, consequently a foreign possession. Not otherwise 
than in the active sense, namdly raptus, can we explain Cyril, de adorat. I. 
p. 25 (in Wetstein) : oby dpwaypodv® ray wapaitnow d¢ 2 adpavore nal idapecrépas 
éxoueito gpevés ; further, Eus. in Luc. vi. in Mai’s Nov. Bibl. patr. iv. p. 165, 
and the passage in Possini Cat. in Mare. x. 42, p. 233, from the Anonym. 
Tolos. : 872 ob« gore dpraypyos 4 tyuh;* as also the entirely synonymous form 
dpracués in Plut. Mor. p. 644 A, and Ayicuzés in Byzantine writers; also 
oxvievués in Eustathius; comp. Phryn. App. 36, where dprayyéc is quoted as 
equivalent to dpracn. The passages which are adduced for dprayya pyeioba 
or roceiobal rc (Heliod. vii. 11. 20, viii. 7; Eus. H. E. viii. 12; Vit. C. ii. 81) 
—comp. the Latin praedam ducere (Cic. Verr. v.15; Justin, ii. 5. 9, xiii. 1. 
8)—do not fall under the same mode of conception, as they represent the 
relation in question as something made a booty of, and not as the act of 
making booty. We have still to notice (1) that this ovy dpraypdv Hyfoaro 
corresponds exactly to p? Ta éavrav oxomoivrec (ver. 4), as well as to its con- 
trast éavrév éxévwoe in ver. 7 (see on ver. 7); and (2) that the aorist jyfearo, 
indicating a definite point of time, undoubtedly, according to the connec- 
tion (see the contrast, aA2’ éavrév éxévwoe «.7.4.), transports the reader tc 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 dprayyav fyeicGar rd elvac ica Oem; to Which, however, 
He did not consent, but consented, on the contrary, to self-renunciation, 
etc. It is accordingly self-evident that the supposed case of the dpraypér 


its substratum and lies at its basis, so that the 
two designations exhaust the idea of divinity. 


point of view of a qualitative category, comp. 
Kriger on Thue. li. 44. 3. 


Comp. also Liebner, p. 328. 

1Callim. Cer. 9; Pallad. ep. 87; Philop. 79. 

7 On wyeio@a:, in this sense of the mode of 
regarding, which places the object under the 


8Lot did not let the refusal of the angels 
be a making of profit to himself. 

Where, according to the connection, the 
sense is: Nota seizing to oneself is the posi- 





70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


is not conceived as an action of the pre-existing Christ (as 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, 
yevdu. irhxoos), although the apostle has only conceived it as an abstract 
possibility and expressed it in an anthropopathic mode of presentation, is 
decisive in favor of the personal pre-existence; but in this pre-existence 
the Son appears as subordinate to the Father, as He does throughout the 
entire New Testament, although this is not (as Beyschlag objects) at 
variance with the Trinitarian equality of essence in the Biblical sense. By 
the dpraypodv wyeioba: x.7.A., if it had taken place, He would have wished to 
relieve Himself from this subordination.—The linguistic correctness and 
exact apposite correlation of the whole of this explanation, which harmo- 
nizes with 2 Cor. viii. 9,1 completely exclude the interpretation, which is 
traditional but in a linguistic point of view is quite incapable of proof, that 
dpraypzéc, either in itself or by metonymy (in which van Hengel again 
appeals quite inappropriately to the analogy of Jas. i. 2,2 Pet. iii. 15), 
means praeda or res rapienda. With this interpretation of dpraypéc, the 
idea of eiva: ica OcG has either been rightly taken as practically identical 
with év popgg Scov imdpyev, or not. (A) In the former case, the point of 
comparison of the figurative praeda has been very differently defined ; 
either, that Christ regarded the existence equal with God, not as a some- 
thing usurped and illegitimate, but as something natural to Him, and that, 
therefore, He did not fear to lose it through His humiliation (Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, and other Fathers; see Wetstein 
and J. B. Lightfoot); comp. Beza, Calvin, Estius, and others, who, how- 
ever, give to the conception a different turn;* or, that He did not desire 


tion of honor, as among the heathen, but a 
renouncing and serving after the example of 
Christ. 

1R&abiger and Wetzel, and also Pfieiderer, 
tc. have lately adopted this view; likewise 
Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p. 311 f. 
Hofmann also now explains the passage in a 
way not substantially different. But Grimm, 
% ¢. p. 38, very unjustly describes the reten- 
tion of apwrayyés 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 
(Apway}, apwaypa, dpwacue, Ayls, oxvAcuua, 
ovAoy, Acta), but never by dpwayyuds, or any 
other form of word ending with pos. It is 
true that various subetantives ending in poe 
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 want- 
ing for this sense in the case of dpwaypés. 
Its rejection, therefore, in our passage, is not 


pedantic, but is simply linguistically demanded. 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 426, ed. 2, erroneously 
objects to our view of apwayyués, 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 apwayyds 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. 

2Beza: “Non ignoravit, se in ea re (4. 
quod Deo Patri coaequalis esset) nullam in- 
juriam cuiqnam facere, sed suo jure uti; 
nihilominus tamen quasi jure suo cessit.” So 
also Calvin, substantially, only that he erro- 
neously interprets nyjcaro as arbitratus csset, 
“Non fuisset injuria, si aequalis Deo appar- 
uisset.” Estius: “that He had not recog- 
nized the equality with God as an usurped 
possession, and therefore possibly desired to 
lay it aside, but had renounced Himeel/,” 
etc. 


CHAP. I. 6. 71 


pertinaciously to retain for Himself this equality with God, as a robber his 
booty, or as an unexpected gain;' or, that He did not conceal it, as a 
prey;? or, that He did not desire to display tt triumphantly, as a con- 
queror his spoils*; whilst others (Wetstein the most strangely, but also 
Usteri and several) mix up very various points of comparison. The very 
circumstance, however, that there exists so much divergence in these 
attempts at explanation, shows how arbitrarily men have endeavored to 
supply a modal definition for apr. sy#o., which is not at all suggested by the 
text.—(B) In the second case, in which a distinction is made between 12 
elvac loa Or@ and év popgy Oecd irdpyreiv, it is explained: non rapinam duzit, 
i.e. non rapiendum sibit duxit, or directly, non rapuit ;* that Christ, namely, 
though being é» popge Geov, did not desire to seize to Himself the elva: toa 
Grp, to grasp eagerly the possession of it.’ In this view expositors have 
understood the ica elva: Oep as the divine plenitudinem et altitudinem (Ben- 
gel); the sessionem ad dextram (L. Bos); the divine honor (Cocceius, Stein, 
de Wette, Grau); the vitam vitae Dei aequalem (van Hengel) ; the eristendé 
modum cum Deo aequalem (Liinemann); the coli e& beate 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), cor- 
responding to the dvoya rd imép wav dvoua in ver. 9 (Rich. Schmidt); the 
nova jura divina, consisting in the xvpiéty¢ rdévruv (Brickner); the divine 
é6fa of universal adoration (Schneckenburger, Lechler, comp. Messner) ; 
the origtttal blessedness of the Father (Kahnis); indeed, even the tdentity 


1 Ambrosiaster, Castalio, Vatablus, Kenler, 
and others; and recently, Hoelemann, Tho- 
luck, Reuss, Liebner, Schmid, Wiesinger, 
Gess, Messner, Grimm; comp. also Usteri, p. 
314. In this class we must reckon the inter- 
pretation 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 honors wrap’ 
éfiev; but that He, ryy afiay xaraxpiwas, 
chose humiliation. To this comes also the 
view of Theodore of Mopsuestia: wopdnv yap 
SovAou AaBoov Thy afiay éxeivny dadxpuper, TOVTO 
Tos dpc eivas voucféueros, Swep ébaivero.— 
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 Adyos 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. 

? Matthies. 

8 Luther, Eraamus, Cameron, Vatablus, Pis- 
cator, Grotius, Calovius, Quenstedt, Wolf, and 
many others, including Michaelis, Zachariae, 


Rosenmuller, Heinrichs, Flatt, Rheinwald. 
To this belongs also Pelagius, “Quod erat, 
humilitate celavit, dans nobis exemplum, ne 
in his gloriemur, quae forsitan non habemus.” 

¢Musculus, Er. Schmidt, Elsner, Clericus, 
Bengel, and many others, including am Ende, 
Martini, Krause, Opusc. p. 31, Schrader, Stein, 
Rilliet, van Hengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Ernesti, Raebiger, Schneckenburger, 
Ewald, Weiss, Schenkel, Philippi, Thomasius, 
Beyschlag, Kahnis, Rich. Schmidt, and 
others. 

680 also LQnemann, who, in the sense of 
the divine pre-existence of Christ, para- 
phrases thus: “ Christus, etsi ab aeterno inde 
dignitate creatoris et domini rerum omnium 
frnueretur, ideoque divina indutus magnifi- 
centia corum patre consideret, nihilo tamen 
minus haud arripiendum sibi ease autumabat 
existendi modum cum Deo aequalem, sed 
ultro se exinanivit.” Ina sense opposed to 
the divine pre-existence, however, Beyschlag 
says, Christol. p. 236 f.: “Christ possessed the 
popdh Geou (that is, ‘the inner form of God’); 
He might have but stretched out His hand 
towards the ica @eq elvac; He disdained, 
however, to seize it for Himself, and chose 
quite the opposite; therefore it was given 


72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


with the Father consisting in invisibility (Rilliet), and the like, which is to 
sustain to the pop¢?) Gcod 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, 7? apotre Paul, 1870, p. 223 ff2 In order to meet the 
ovx dor. yy. (comparing Matt. iv. 8 ff.), de Wette (comp. Hofmann, Schrift- 
bew. p. 151) makes the thought be supplied, that it was not in the aim of 
the work of redemption befitting that Christ should at the very outset 
receive divine honor, and that, if He had taken it to Himself, it would have 
been a seizure,an usurpation. But as év pop¢y Ocod iz. already involves 
the divine essence,* and as ica elva: Oeg has no distinctive more special 
definition in any manner climactic (comp. Pfleiderer), Chrysostom has 
estimated this whole mode of explanation very justly: ci qv Oed¢, wag elev 
dpréca; xai wae ovK arepivdénroy tovTo; tig ydp Gv elrot, bt 6 deiva GvOpwrog Gy 
ovx yptrace Td elvar GvOpwrog ; TOC yap dv ric bepéoriv, aprdaecev. Moreover, 
in harmony with the thought and the state of the case, Paul must have 
expressed himself conversely: 5¢ loa Oeg ixdpyov oby dpm. wy. Td elvar év 
#0p¢@ Gcov, 80 as to add to the idea of the equality of nature (ica), by way 
of climax, that of the same form of appearance (uop¢97), of the divine déga 
also.— With respect to rd elvat loa G29, it is to be observed, (1) that ica is 
adverbial: in like manner, as we find it, although less frequently, in Attic 
writers. This adverbial use has arisen from the frequent employment, 
even so early as Homer,® of ica as the case of the object or predicate.® 
But as elvac, as the abstract substantive verb, does not suit the adverbial 
loa, pari ratione, therefore (2) rd elvac must be taken in the sense of ezistere ; 
so that rd elva: loa Oey does not mean the being equal to God (which would 
be rd elvas Ioov Org), but the God-equal existence, existence in the way of 
parity with God.’ Paul might have written icov (ag mascul.) 69 (John 
v. 18), or isd@eov; but, as it stands, he has more distinctly expressed the 
metaphysical relation, the divine mode of existence,’ of the pre-human Christ. 
(3) The article points back to év pop¢7 Oecd imdpywr, denoting the God-equal 


Him as the reward of His obedience, etc.” 
Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 197 f., 
says: the Pauline Christ is indeed the heav- 
enly man, but no divine being; the equality 
with God was attained by Him only through 
the renunciation, ete. 

1The lead in this mode of considering 
the passage was taken by Arius, whose 
party, on the ground of the proposition éxeivo 
apwege: tis, & ova Exe, declared: Gr: Geds oy 
CAdrreav ovx Hpwace Td elves: iva Ty Oey Te 
peyddAw «. meigors, See Chrysostom. 

8 He thinks that the divine nop} of Christ 
stands to the tea elves Oey in the relation of 
potentia to actus. “Christ était des l’origine 
en puissance ce qu’ A la fin il devint en réalité ;” 
the pepda Geov denotes the general form of 
being of Christ, but “une forme vide, qui 
doit étré remplie, c’est-a-dire spirituellement 
réalisée.” This higher position He had not 
Wished to usurp, but had attained to it “ réel- 


lement par le libre développement de sa vie 
morale.” 

3Not merely the similarity, from which is 
there distinguished the equality by «lva: iva 
(in opposition to Martini and others). 

‘Thue. iii. 14; Eur. Or. 880 al.; comp. 
dpoce, Lennep. ad Phalar. 108, and often in 
the later Greek, and in the LXX. Job v. 14, x. 
10, xi. 12, xifif. 12; Wisd. vii. 3, according to 
the usual reading. 

§ fl. v. 71, xv. 439; Od. xi. 904, xv. 519 al. 

*See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 847; Krager, 
11.3 xlvi. 6. 8. 

(? The German is: nicht das Gotte gleieh 
sein, sondern das gotigleiche Sein, das Sein auf 
gottgleiche Weise, die gottgleiche Existenz.] 

® Which, therefore, was not essentially dif- 
ferent from that of the Father. The ica sivas 
Gey is the Pauline Geds Fr 4 Adyor. Hofmann 
erroneously, although approved by Thoma- 
sius, makes the objection (Schriftbew. p. 150) 


CHAP, It. 7. 78 


existence manifesting itself in that popgh ; for the pop¢? Occt is the appeararice, 
the adequate subsisting form, of the God-equal evistence. (4) Ernesti (in 
controversy with Baur), who is followed by K&hler, Kahnis, Beyschlag, 
and Hilgenfeld, entertains the groundless opinion that our passage 
alludes to Gen. ii. f., the ica elvas Oey 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 loecbe d¢ 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 
1 3 


Ver. 7. ’AAA’ éavrdv éxévooe] The emphatically prefixed éavrév ia correla- 
tive to the likewise emphatic aprayzév in ver. 6. Instead of the dprdfeu, 
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 pope, which He possessed but now exchanged for a pop¢e 
dobAov; He renounced the divine glorious form which, prior to His incar- 
nation, was the form of appearance of His God-equal existence, took 
instead of it the form of a servant, and became as a man. Those who 
have already taken ver. 6 as referring to the incarnate Christ (see on &¢, 
ver. 6) are at once placed in a difficulty by éxéwuoe, and explain away its 
simple and distinct literal meaning.* De Wette, in accordance with his 
distinction between opg? Ocov and elva: Ioa Org (comp. Schneckenburger, 
p. 336), referring it only to the latter (80 also Corn. Miller, Philippi, Bey- 
schlag, and others), would have this elva: ica @cG meant merely in a0 far as 
it would have stood in Jesus’ power, not in so fur as He actually possessed it, 
so that the éaur. éxév. amounts only to a renunciation of the elva: Ica Oc, 
which He might have appropriated to Himself; while others, like Grotius, 
alter the signification of xevotv itself, some making it mean: He led a life 
of poverty (Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), and others: depressit (van Hen- 
gel, Corn. Miller, following Tittmann, Opusc. p. 642 f, Keil, comp. 


that an existence equal to divine existence 
can only be predicated of Him, who is not 
God. It may be predicated also of Him 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. 

1 Ritech! indeed also, Altkath. Kirche, p. 80, 
requires, for the understanding of our pass- 
age, a recognition that Christ,as é» popd7 
Gcov vrdpxer, is put in comparison with the 
earthly Adam. But why should Paul, if this 
comperison was before his mind, not have 
written, in accordance with Gen. i. 26, xar° 
cixéva @., or cal’ dpoiwory @., instead of é» 
popdy 8.? 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 popdy Geos of the body of man, and 
are therefore irrelevant. 

3 Comp. also Rich. Schmidt, p. 172; Grimm, 
p. 42 f. N 

3 Aa, for instance, Calvin: “supprimendo... 
deposuit;” Calovius (comp. Form. Cone. pp. 
608, 767): “veluti (?) deposuit, quatenus eam 
(gloriam div.) non perpetuo manifestavit atque 
exseruit ;” Clericus: “non magis ea usus est, 
quam si ea destitutus fuisset;" comp. Quen- 
stedt, Bos, Wolf, Benge!, Rheinwald, and 
many others. Beyschlag also finds expressed 
here merely the idea of the self-denial exer- 
cised on principle hy Christ in His earthly 
life, consequently substituting the N. T. idea 
of awapveicOa: éavrév. 


74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others). Augustine: “Non amittens quod 
erat, sed accipiens quod non erat; forma servi accessit, non forma Dei 
discessit.” But éxévwoe means nothing but ezinanivit (Vulgate),' and is 
here purposely selected, because it corresportds with the idea of the apraypéc 
(ver. 6) all the more, that the latter also falls under the conception of 
xevorv (as emptying of that which is affected by the dprayyéc; comp. LXX. 
Jer. xv. 9; Plat. Rep. p. 560 D; 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. J.c.), as if some such expression ‘as 
by rlobry cot imépy. had been previously used. Figuratively; the renun- 
ciation of the divine yop¢/ might have been described as a putting tt off 
(éxdtec8ar).—The more precise, positive definition of the mode in which He 
emptied Himself, is supplied by pop¢9v dotAov AaB», and the latter 
then receives through év du. avOp. yevduevog xal oxhp. etp. o¢ avOp. its specifica- 
tion of mode, correlative to elva: ica Gey. This specification is not co-or- 
dinate (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weiss, Schenkel), but subordinate 
to pop¢iy Joba, AaBév, hence no connecting particle is placed before év dz., 
and no punctuation is to be placed before xai oxfpare, but a new topic is to 
be entered upon with érameivwoev in ver. 8 (comp. Luther). The division, by 
which a stop is placed before xa? oxyfpatt . . . dvOpwroc, and these words are 
joined to érameivwcev x.7.A2 is at variance with the purposely-chosen 
expressions oxfpar: and etpebeic, both of which correspond to the idea of 
pop¢f, and thereby show that x. oy. cip. d¢ dvOp. is still a portion of the 
modal definition of uop¢iv dobAov AaBov. Nor is the cxf. etp. d¢ Gvbp. some- 
thing following the xévwore (Grimm), but the empirical appearance, which 
was an integral part of the manner in which the act of self-emptying was 
completed. Besides, érareivucev éavrév has its own more precise definition 
following ; hence by the proposed connection the symmetry of structure 
in the two statements, governed respectively by éavrév éxévwce and érareiv- 
woev éavrév, would be unnecessarily disturbed. This applies also in oppo- 
sition to Hofmann, who (comp. Grotius) even connects év duodpare dvOp. 
yevou. With érareivwoev éavrév, whereby no less than three participial defini- 
tions are heaped upon the latter. And when Hofmann discovers in év 
duocduare «.t.A, a second half of the relative sentence attached to Xpor¢ 
‘Inoov, it is at variance with the fact, that Paul does not by the interven- 
tion of a particle (or by &¢ xai, or even by the bare éc¢) 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¢4, emptied Himself; 


18ee Rom. iv. 14; 1 Cor. i. 17, ix. 15; 2 Cor. 
ix. 3; and the passages in the LXX. cited by 


reduce the idea of the céveors merely to that 
of the renunciation of the appearance of ma- 


Schleusner; Plat. Conv. p. 197 C, Rep. p. 560 D, 
Phil. p. 35 E; Soph. O. R. 29; Eur. Rhes. 914; 
Thuc. viii. 67.1; Xen. Oec.8.7. Comp. Hasse 
in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 394 f. 
(in opposition to Dorner’s reference of the 
idea to that of efov@eveiy). Dorner, in the 
same Jahrb. 1856, p. 395, is likewise driven to 


jesty, which would have been befitting the 
divine form and parity, this inner greatness 
and dignity of Jesus Christ. 

%Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others; in- 
cluding Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel, 
Lachmann, Wiesinger, Ewald, Rich. Schmidt, 
J. B. Lightfoot, Grimm. 


CHAP. 11. 7, 75 


and (2) when He had become man, humbled Himself.\—pop¢qv dobrov AaBdv] 
so that He took slave-form, now making this lowly form of existence and 
condition His own, instead of the divine form, which He had hitherto pos- 
sessed. How this was done, is stated in the sequel. The aorist participle 
denotes, not what was previous to the éaur. éxév., but what was contempora- 
neous with it. See on Eph.i.9. So also do the two following participles, 
which are, however, subordinated to the popgq dobAov AaBéy, as definitions 
of manner. That Paul, in the word dotAov, thought not of the relation of 
one serving in general (with reference to God and men, Matthies, Rhein- 
wald, Rilliet, de Wette, comp. Calvin and others), or that of a servant of 
others, as in Matt. xx. 28 (Schneckenburger, 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. 18; Isa. 
lii.), a8 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 év dpoidyu. av6p. yevéu. (which, regarded in itself, 
puts Jesus only on the same line with men, but in the relation of service 
towards God), and partly from irfxooc 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 dpzoidp. avlp. yevdp. x.7.A.] the 
manner of this xop¢. dobAov AaBeiv: so that He came in the likeness of man, 
that is, so that He entered into a form of existence, which was not different 
from that which men have. In opposition to Hofmann, who connects év 
duompare «.7.A. With érameivecer x.r.A. see above.? This entrance into an 
existence like that of men was certainly brought about by human birth; 
still it would not be appropriate to explain yevsu. by natus (Gal. iv. 4; Ril- 
liet);* or as an expression for the “‘ beginning of existence” (Hofmann), 
since this fact, in connection with which the miraculous conception is, not- 
withstanding Rom. i. 3, also thought to be included, was really human, as 
it is also described in Gal.iv. 4. Paul justly says: év duocdpare avép., 
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 loa elvaz 
G6) present in Him, not simply and merely man, not a purus puius homo, 
but the incarnate Son of God (comp. Rom. i. 3; Gal. iv. 4; and the Johan- 
nine 6 Aédyog oap& eyévero), ¢ épavepbOy év capxi (1 Tim. iii. 16), so that the 
power of the higher divine nature was united in Him with the human 
appearance, which was not the case in other men. The nature of Him 
who had become man was, so far, not fully identical with, but substantially 


1Comp. in opposition to this, Grimm, p. 46, Macc. i. 27; 2 Macc. vii. 9; Ecclus. xliv. 20; 
and Kolbe in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1873, p.314. and frequently in Greek authors after Homer 

20n ylvec@a: év, in the sense, tocome intoa (Xen. Anad.i.9.1; Herodian, iii. 7. 19, ii. 13. 
position, into a state, comp. 2 Cor. tii, 7; 1 21); see Nigelsbach, sur Ilias. p. 295 f. ed. 3 
Tim. if. 14; Luke xxii. 44; Acts xxii. 17; 1 3Comp. Geass, p. 295; Lechler, p. 66. 





76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


conform. (év éyzordu.) to, that which belongs to man.' Comp. on Rom. viii. 
3, i. 3 f., and respecting the idea of éuotwua, which does not convey merely 
the conception of analogy, see on Rom. i. 23, v. 14, vi. 5, viii. 3. The 
expression is based, not upon the conception of a quasi-man, but upon the 
fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 15) there was the superhuman 
life-basis of divine ioéryc, the elva: ica Oc@ not indwelling in other men. 
Justice, however, is not done to the intentionally used épodyar: (comp. 
afterwards oyfparc), if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He 
(not appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition,—a con- 
sequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the time a/ter the 
incarnation. This drove also the ancient dogmatic expositors to adopt 
the gloss, which is here out of place, that Christ assumed the accidentales 
infirmitates corporis (yet without sin), not ez naturae necessitate, but ex oixov- 
opiac Ubertate(Calovius).? By others, the characteristic of debile et abjectum 
(Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded upon the word 
avOpéruv, which is here to be taken in a purely generic sense; while Grotius 
understood aȎp. as referring to the jirst human beings, and believed that 
the sinlessness of Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in oppo- 
sition also to Castalio, Linemann, Schenkel, and others), but the whole 
divine nature of Jesus, the yop¢, of which He laid aside at His incarnation, 
which constitutes the point of difference that lies at the bottom of the 
expression éy duordpare (dtd 7d pe yrAdv GvOpwrov elvac, 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.—xai oxhp. eip. oc dvOpur.] 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. oyqua, habitus, which 
receives its more precise reference from the context,’ denotes here the 
entire outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the phe- 
nomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor. vii. 31.4 Men saw in Christ a 


1 Our passage contains no trace of Docetism, 
even if Paul had, instead of av@padswr, used 
the singular, which he might just as well 
have written here as ws av@pwros in the 
sequel, in place of which he might also have 
used ws arOpwao. This applies in opposition 
to Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 131, and Lechler, 
p. 66. Even Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 472, 
is of opinion that the above-named interpre- 
tation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was 
in fact, although perfect man, nevertheless 
something so much more exalted, that the 
phrase dv dno0usp. arp. 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. 

4To 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 con- 
sisted “in the withdrawal of the rays of the 
divine glory which continued to dwell in Hts 
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. 

3Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 619. 

*Comp. rd ris Geov oxhua «x. dyaAne. Plat. 


CHAP. U. 8. 77 


human form, bearing, language, action, mode of life, wants and their satis- 
faction, etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that in 

the entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known and was 
" recognized (etpe@.) 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 oc 
with a4p. does not simply indicate what He was recognized to be (Weiss); 
this would have been expressed by dp. alone; but He was found as a 
man, not invested with other qualities. The Vulgate well renders it, “inventus 
ut homo.” This included, in particular, that He presented and manifested 
in Himself the human odpé, human weakness and susceptibility of death 
(2 Cor. xiii. 4; Rom. vi. 9; Acts xxvi. 23). 

Ver. 8. ’Erazeivwoev] is placed with great emphasis at the head of a new 
sentence (see on ver. 7), and without any connecting particle: He has 
humbled Himself. ‘Eavréy 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 tiself. The relation to éxévooe 
is climactic, not, however, as if Paul did not regard the self-renunciation 
(ver. 7) as being also self-huméliation, but in so far as the former manifested 
in the most extreme way the character of rareivuorc in the shameful death 
of Jesus. It is a climactic parallelism (comp. on. iv. 9) in which the two 
predicates, although the former in the nature of the case already includes 
the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept apart as respects the 
easential points of their appearance in historical development. Bengel 
well remarks: “Status exinanitionis gradatim profundior.” Hoelemann, 
mistaking this, says: “He humbled Himself even below His dignity as 
man.” —yevou. trfxooc] The aorist participle is quite, like the participles 
in ver. 7, simultaneous with the governing verb : so that He became obedient. 
This irfxooc is, however, not to be defined by “‘capientibus se, damnantibus 
et interficientibus” (Grotius); nor is it to be referred to the law, Gal. iv. 4 
(Olshausen), but to God (Rom. v. 19; Heb. v. 8 f.), whose will and counsel 
(comp. e.g. Matt. xxvi. 42) formed the ground determining the obedience. 
Comp. ver. 9: dd wai 6 Ged x.7.A. The expression itself glances back to 
popo. Sobaov; “ obedientia servum decet,” Bengel.—yéxp: Oavdrov] belongs 
to orf. yevou., not to érarn, éavr. (Bengel, Hoelemann)—which latter con- 
nection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the discourse, and would leave 
a too vague and feeble definition for éraz. éavr. in the mere trf«. yevou. 
By péxp: death 1s pointed out as the culminating point, as the highest degree, 
up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van Hengel). 
Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 9; Heb. xii. 4; Acts xxii.4; Matt.xxvi.38. This extreme 


Crit. p.110 B; réparvov cxRpue, Soph. Ant. 1154; 1Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f.: Speode 
Eur. Med. 1089; Plat. Polit. p. 267 C: oxyjme Gedy dv cyrjpart avOpexov. Comp. p. 744: vty 
Bacri:xdy, p. 290 D: rev iepdev cxnpna; Dem. BacrdAda tev ovpavwy, roy éwi ys davdvra dv 
690. 21: vrnpérov cx_ne; Lucian, Cyn. 17: 1d = wopdyp avOpwewou rarecvrwoews. How these pas- 
dudy oxhua 7d 5 Uudrepoy; also, in the plural, sages agree with the Nasaraic character of 
Xen. Mem. iii. 10.7; Lucian, D. M. xx. 5. the book, is not a point for discussion here. 








78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


height reached by His obedience was, however, just the extreme depth of 
the humiliation, and thereby at the same time its end; comp. Acts viii. 
33; Isa. lili. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes imjx. yiveoa: in the sense of 
showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The obedience of Christ was 
an ethical becoming (Heb. v. 8).—Oavdrov 52 oravp.] tourtots rob éxuaraparov 
(comp. Gal. iii. 13; Heb. xii. 2), Tov roig avéuoe agwptopévov, Theophylact. 
The dé, with the repetition of the same word (comp. Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30), 
presents, just like the German aber, the more precisely defined idea in 
contradistinction to the idea which is previously left without this special 
definition : unto death, but what kind of death? unto the most shameful 
and most painful, unto the death of the cross.’ 


ReMARK 1.—According to our explanation, vv. 6-8 may be thus paraphrased : 
Jesus Christ, when He found Himself in the heavenly mode of existence of divine Glory, 
dud nae permit Himself the thought of using His equality with God for the purpose of 
setzmng possessions and honor for Himself on earth: No, He emptied himself of the 
divine glory, inasmuch as, notwithstanding 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 
wm Elis outward bearing and appearance manifested Himself not otherwise than as a 
man. He humbled Eimself, 30 that He became obedient unto God, etc. According to 
the explanation of our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6-8 to the earthly life of 
Christ, the sense comes to this: “Christum jam inde a primo conceptionis momento 
divinam gloriam et majestatem stbi secundum humanam naturam communicatam plena 
usurpatione exserere et fanquam Deum se gerere potutsse, sed abdicasse se plenarto qus 
use ef Aumilem se exhibuisse, patrique suo coelests obedientem factum esse usque ad 
mortem cruets’’ (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 Giscoursing, not de humiliations INCARNATIONIB, but de humiliatione INCARNATI. 
Among the Reformed theologians, Calvin and Piscator substantially agreed with 
our | Latheran] orthodox expositors. 

NeEMARK 2.-—-On a difference in the dogmatic understanding of vv. 6-8, when 
men sought to explain more precisely the doctrine of the Church (Form. Cone. 8), 
was based the well-known controversy carried on since 1616 between the theolo- 
gians of TWbingen and those of Giessen. The latter (Feuerborn and Menzer) 
wsigned to Jesus Christ in His state of humiliation the «rjocc of the divine attri- 
butes, but denied to Him their zpgorc, thus making the «é»wour a renunciation of 
the yoieee, The Tiibingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc. Osiander, 
and Nicolai), not separating the xrjoce and ypyore, arrived at the conclusion of a 
hidden and imperceptible use of the divine attributes, and consequently made the 
crow a sobvee vic xpjoews, See the account of all the points of controversy in 
Dorner, I. 2, p. 661 ff, and especially Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, II. p. 
288 The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part with the Giessen divines, rejected 
the soive, without thoroughly refuting it, and even without avoiding unnecessary 
eoncessions to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 608, 767), 80 that the 


@r.p.20l,and Baeumlein, Partikell. I. p. 168 f; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. L. p. 
@ examples in Hartung, 388. 


CHAP. IL. 6-8. 79 


disputed questions remained open and the controversy itself only came to a close 
final weariness. Among the dogmatic writers of the present day, 
~Philippi is decidedly on the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaubenal. IV. 1, 
p. 279 ff ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of the cfrwor 
is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the reducing of it to a «pier 
rejected. But, since Paul expressly refers the éavriv ixfvece to the pope Geos, 
and consequently to the divine mode of appearance, while he makes the eiva: loa 
Ge to subsist with the assumption of the opp) dowtoi, just as subsequently the 
Incarnate One appears only as éy édpo:dmar: ap. and as oyfpars o¢ arp; 
and since, further, in the case of the «rho 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 iteelf inconceivable and incompatible with the 
Gospel history; the «rjow and the zpgo~ must therefore be inseparably kept 
together. But, setting aside the conception of the «pi-yx¢ as foreign to the N. T., 
this posession and use of the divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by 
the renunciation of the popg Oeov in virtue of the incarnation, entered upon a 
human development, consequently as conditioned, not as absolute, but as thean- 
thropic. At the same time, the self-conscicusness of Jesus Christ necessarily 
remained the eelf-consciousness of the Son of God developing Himself humanly, 
or (according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had become flesh, who 
was the povoyeryg napa xarpéc; see the numerous testimonies in John’s Gospel, 
as iii. 13, viii. 58, xvii. 5, v. 26. “Considered from a purely exegetical point of 
view, there is no clearer and more certain result of the interpretation of Scripture 
than the proposition, that the Eyo of Jesus on earth was identical with the Ego 
which was previously in glory with the Father; any division of the Son speaking 
on earth into two Egos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other 
the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of Scripture, how- 
ever intimate we may seek to conceive the marriage of the two during the earthly 
life of Jesus ;” Liebner in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which 
the divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to our passage, the 
Hope? Ocod, that is, the divine ééfa as a form of existence, and not the eiva: loa 
Gee essentially and necessarily constituting His nature, which He retained,' and 
to which belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine—and conse- 
quently in Him who had become man the divine-human—self-consciousness.* 
Bat as this cannot find its adequate explanation either in the absolute consctousness 
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 deification of man (Rothe), 80 we must by no means say, 
with Geass, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f., that in becoming incarnate the Logos had 
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only in the gradual 
course of development of a human soul, and that merely in the form of a human 
self-consciousness. See, in opposition to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, 


3Comp. Disterdieck, Apolog. Abh. IIL p. 
67 ff. 

3 Paul agrees in 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 inter- 
course with Asia, and also from his relation 
to Apollos. His conception, however, is just 
as little Apollinarian as that of John; comp. 
on Rom. i. $f.; Col. i 15. 


80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


II. 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 Concordiae in setting forth Christ’s humiliation (Dorner: 
a gradual ethical blending into one another of the divine and human life in immanent 
development ; Thomasius: selflimitation, t.e. 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. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the 
Kirehl. Zeitechr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff.; Liebner, in the Jahrb. f. 
Deutsche Theol. 1858, p. 349 ff.; Haase, ibid. p. 336 ff.; Schoeberlein, J. c. p. 459 ff.; 
Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. 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 in 
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 locul. 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 animat- 
ing.—0.6| for a recompense, on account of this self-denying renunciation 
and humiliation in obedience to God (xai, also, denotes the accession of 
the corresponding consequence, Luke i. 85; Acts x. 29; Rom. i. 24, iv. 22; 
Heb. xiii. 12). Comp. Matt. xxiii. 12; Luke xxiv. 26. Nothing but a dog- 
matic, anti-heretical assumption could have recourse to the interpretation 
which is at variance with linguistic usage: quo facto (Calvin, Calovius, 
Glaas, 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 Christ- 
ology of the Apostle. Augustine well says: “ Humilitas claritatis est 
meritum, claritas humilitatis praemium.” Thus Christ’s saying in Matt. 
xxiii. 12 was gloriously fulfilled in His own case.—imeptywoe] comp. 
Song of Three Child. 28 ff; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10; Dan. iv. 34; 


1Schenkel's ideal transference of Christ's 
pre-existence simply into the self-consctousness 
of God, which in the person of Christ found a 
perfect self-manifestation like to humanity, 
boldly renounces all the results of historical 
exegesis during a whole generation, and goes 
back to the standpoint of Léffler and others, 
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 hu- 
manity, and that not as a person, but merely 


as the principle of a person;—while Keerl 
(d. Gottmensch. das Ebenbild Gottes, 1866), in 
unperceived 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-existence of Christ as a heavenly, 
pneumatic man and archetype of humanity 
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only 
be obtained through misapprehension of the 
meaning. See on 1 Cor. l. c., and Grimm, p. 51 ff. 


CHAP. If. 9, 10. §1 


Synes. Ep. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere among Greek authors, by 
whom, however, irepiyyioc, exceedingly high, is used. He made Him very 
high, exceedingly exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the pre- 
vious érareiveoev, 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.'. This exaltation has taken place by means of the ascension (Eph. iv. 
10), by which Jesus Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi. 
19; Acts vii. 55 f.; Rom. viii. 84; Eph. i. 20 f.; Col. iii. 1; Heb. i. 8, viii. 1, 
x. 12, xii. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. iii, 22), although it is not this local mode, 
but the exaltation viewed as a state which is, according to the context, 
expressed by imepiy. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without 
lexical authority, to take urép as intimating: more than previously (Grotius, 
Beyschlag).—éxapicaro] He granted (i. 29), said from the point of view of 
the subordination, on which also what follows (xipiog . . . cig déav Ocod 
natpéc) 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 
exaltation did not stand to that possessed before the tncarnation in the rela- 
tion of a plus, but it affected the entire divine-human person, that entered 
on the regnum gloriae.—rd dvouza] is here, as in Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4, to be 
taken in the strictly literal sense, not as dignitas or gloria (Heinrichs, 
Hoelemann, and many others), a sense which it might have ez adjuncto 
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against which here 
the following é& r@ ovduar: "Incov is decisive. The honor and dignity of 
the name of Jesus are expressed by 1d irép ray dvoua, but are not implied 
in 7d évoya of itself. Nor is itto be understood of an appellative name, as 
some have referred it to «tpi¢ in ver. 11 (Michaelis, Keil, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann, Grimm); others 
to vid Oeov (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius); and some even to Oeé¢ (Am- 
brosiaster, Oecumenius, and again Schultz; but see on Rom. ix. 5). In 
accordance with the context—ver. 11, comp. with ver. 6—the thought is: 
“ God has, by His exaltation, granted to Him that the name ‘ Jesus Christ’ 
surpasses all names in glory.” The expression of this thought in the form: 
God has granted to Him the name, etc., cannot seem strange, when we take 
into account the highly poetic strain of the passage. 

Ver. 10 f. *Iva] This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in accordance with 
the divine purpose, general adoration and confession as its result,—a con- 
tinuation of the contrast with the previous state of self-renunciation and 
humiliation. In the mode of expression there may be detected a remin- 
iscence of Isa. xlv. 28 (Rom. xiv. 11).—The év r¢ évéu. ’I., emphatically 
prefixed, affirms that, in the name of Jesus, i. e. in what is involved in that 
most glorious name “ Jesus Christ,”’ and is present to the conception of 
the subjects as they bend their knees, is to be found the moving ground 
of this latter action (comp. Ps. Ixiii. 5; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10, 


1In the conception of the “exaltation” tion to the doctrine of pre-existence (in 

Paul agrees with John, but does not convey opposition to Pfleiderer, fc. p. 517), but a 

expressly the notion of the return to the consequence of the more dialectically acute 

Father. This is not an inconsistency in relae distinction of ideas in Paul, since that change 
6 


82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


al.; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 20; Col. iii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 14,16; Jas. v. 14). 
The bowing of the knee represents adoration, of which it is the symbol (Isa. 
xlv. 28; Rom. xiv. 11, xi. 4; Eph. iii. 14; 3 Esdr. viii. 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¢ ovdu. ‘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 déga to which He is exalted 
(comp. the habitual ér:xadeiofa: rd dvoua xvpiov, Rom. x. 12 f.; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 
Tim. ii. 22; Acts vii. 59, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16), but has also at the same time 
its peculiar character, not absolute, but relative, 4. e. conditioned by the 
relation of the exalted Son to the Father!,—a peculiarity which did not 
escape the observation of Pliny (Ep. x. 97: “ Christo quasi Deo”), and was, 
although only very casually and imperfectly, expressed by him. This 
adoration (comp. ver. 11, ec dégav Oecd rarpéc) does not infringe that strict 
monotheism, which could ascribe absolute deity to the Father only (John 
xvii. 3; Eph. iv. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 6, viii. 6; 1 Tim. vi. 15 f.); the Father only 
is 6 &v éxl révrav Oeds, Rom. ix. 5 (comp. Ignat. Tars. interpol. 5), 6 Oed¢ 
absolutely, God also of Christ (see on Eph. i. 17), the Oed¢ 6 ravroxpérup (2 
Cor. vi. 18; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8, al.); and the Son, although of like nature, as 
otvOpovoc and partaker of His dééa, is subordinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv. 
27 f.), a8 in turn the Spirit is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18); the honor which 
is to be paid to the Son (Rev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and 
aim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former is to be honored as 
the Father, and God in Christ fills and moves the consciousness of him 
who prays to Christ. According to van Hengel, it is not the adoration 
of Jesus which is here intended, but that of God under application of the 
name of Jesus; and de 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 («(pic). Comp. also Hofmann: “the praying to God, 
determined in the person praying by the consciousness of his relation to Jesus 
as regulating his action.” Instead of this we should rather say: the pray- 
ing to Jesus, determined by the consciousness of the relation of Jesus to 
God (of the Son to the Father), as regulating the action of the person 
praying. All modes of explaining away the adoration as offered to Jesus 
Himself are at variance not only with the context generally, which has to 
do with the honor of Jesus, making Him the olject of the adoration, but 
also with the word érovpaview 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 év r¢ ovéu, equiva- 


of condition affected the entire Christ, the 1Bee Licke, de invocat. Jes. Ch. Gott. 1848, 
God-man, whereas the subject of the pre-  p. 7 f.; comp. Ernesti, Urepr. d. Sande, L 
existence was the Logos. p. 218. 


CHAP. 11. 10. . 83 


lent to ele rd dvoua, for the glorification of His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and 
others), or as a paraphrase for év 'Incov (Estius; Rheinwald leaves either of 
the two to be chosen); while others, by the interpretation “ quoties auditur 
nomen,’ brought out a sense which is altogether without analogy in the 
N.T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin: “ quasi vox (the word Jesus) esset 
magica, quae totam in sono vim haberet inclusam.”—ézovpavioy x.1.A.] 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). érovp. includes 
the angels (Eph. i. 20 f, iii. 10; Heb. i. 4,6; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii. 22); éwcy. the 
human beings on earth (comp. Plat. Az. p. 868 B: émiyeworg dvOpuroc); and 
catayz0. the dead in Hades (comp. Hom. Jl. ix. 457: Zete xaray6évioc, Pluto: 
xara x6évi0r daipoves, the Manes, Anthol. vii. 333). The adoration on the part 
of the latter, which Grotius and Hofmann misinterpret, presupposes the 
descensus Ch. ad inferos,* Eph. iv. 9, in which He presented Himself to the 
spirits in Hades as the xipwre. 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 
tn Scripture.”’ Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and 
many others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have incor- 
rectly understood by xaraz@. 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 com- 
plerus” (comp. Nosselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza: “quae 
cunque et supra mundum suntet in mundo.” We meet with the right 
view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred xaray@. 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.7.4., respecting the éryeiuy, it was still in progress of development, but 
its completion (Rom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the Apostle near at 
hand, in keeping with his expectation of the near end of the aidy otros. 


1 Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Bretechneider, 
and others, arrived at this interpretation 
simply by understanding é» re dvdéu. as ad 
nomen (comp. Grotius: “nuneupato nomine ”); 
but Hoelemann, with forced subtilty, by the 
analysis: “quasi circumsonitum appellatione 
nominis.” 

3 Comp. Rev. v. 13; Ignat. Trall. 9, and the 
similar classical use of vwoyxOdrtos, ued yaiay 
(Eur. Hee. 149, and Pflugk tn loe.). 

%To transfer, with Grotius, Hofmann, and 
Grimm, the genuflexion of the dead to the 
period after the resurrection, so that, according 
to Hofmann, the carax6dvior “ sleep below and 
await 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 sug- 


gested reflection, He views the bowing of the 
knee, as it has been done and is continuously 
being done, and not as it will be done by an 
entire class only tn the future, after the Parou- 
sia. Wiesinger, however, has also placed the 
realization of the iva way yéru nduwy «.7A. at 
the end of the world, when the knees, which 
hitherto had not willingly bent, would be 
forced to do so (1 Cor. xv. 25f.). On this point 
he appeals to Rom. xiv. 11, where, however, 
the whole text is dealing with the last judg- 
ment, which is not the case here. Besides, 
éy te ovéuars 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 fol- 
lows are the free living action; comp. Rom. 
x. 9. 


84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the universality of the divine pur- 
pose (iva) with regard to the bowing the knees and confession with the 
tongue 80 strongly by ray yévv and aca yAéoca, that the arbitrary limitation 
which makes him mean only those who desire to give God the glory (Hof- 
mann) is out of the question. 

Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the adoration in 
ver. 10, in doing which the concrete form of representation is continued, 
comp. Rom. xiv. 11; Isa. xlv. 23; hence yAéeca is tongue, correlative to the 
previous yévv, not language (Theodoret, Beza, and others).—éfoyoa.] a 
strengthening compound. Comp. on Matt. iii. 6. Respecting the future 
(see the critical remarks) depending on iva, see on Gal. ii. 4; Eph. vi. 3; 1 
Cor. ix. 18.—xtépws} predicate, placed first with strong emphasis: that Lord 
is Jesus Christ. This is the specific confession of the apostolic church (Rom. 
x.9; 2 Cor. iv. 5; Acts ii. 86), whose antithesis is: avdBeza 'Iycote 1 Cor. 
xii. 3. The xtépcov elvac 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 Amited 
to the rational creatures (Hoelemann, following Flatt and others), or to the 
church (Rheinwald, Schenkel).—ei¢ 66g. Ocod zarp.] may be attached to the 
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however, in the 
second part a modification of the expression is introduced by the future, it 
is more probably to be joined to this portion, of which the tele destination, 
t.e. the final cause, is specified. It is not to be connected merely with 
xbpiog ‘I. X., a8 Bengel wished: “J. Ch. esse dominum, quippe qui sit in 
gloria Dei patris,” making eic¢ stand for év, for which the Vulgate, Pelagius, 
Estius, and others also took it. Schneckenburger also, p. 341 (comp. Cal- 
vin, Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann), joins it with xtpcoc, but takes cic 
défav rightly: to the honor. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self- 
evident that the xupér7¢ of the Son tends to the honor of the Father; and 
the point of importance for the full conclusion was not this, but to bring 
into prominence that the universal confessing recognition of the xvpidra¢ of 
Jesus Christ glorifies the Father (whose will and work Christ’s entire work 
of salvation is; sce especially Eph. i.; Rom. xv. 7-9; 2 Cor. i. 20), whereby 
alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a recompense from the 
Father, appears in its fullest splendor. Comp. John xii. 28, xvii. 1. The 
whole contents of ver. 9 f. is parallel to the é pop¢j Ocov, 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 
é€ouoa. eic déFav Oeov is equivalent to é£ou0A. Oe@, to praise God (Gen. xxix. 34, 
al.; Rom. xv. 9; Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21), and that 67: is quod; hence: “lau- 
dibus celebrarent, quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini.” 


REMARK.—From vv. 6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows, derives his argu- 
ments for the assertion that our epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and 
expressions,’ and must therefore belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic 


1 Its idea is, that Christ “divests Himself, receive back that of which He has divested 
of that which He already is, in order to Himself, with the full reality of the idea 


CHAP. Ir. 6—11. 85 


speculation. But with the true explanation of the various points these arguments! 
fall to pieces of themselves, For (1) if ré eiva: ica Oe@ be related to év popgy Ocod 
eiva: as the essence to its adequate manifestation, and if our explanation of dpray- 
Hs 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, IT. p. 51 ff.)}—be one entirely alten 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 elva: ica Ge as something future 
and greater than the op¢7 Ozov; since in the case of the op¢f, as well as in that 
of the ica, the full fellowship in the divine nature is already the relation assumed 
as existing. Consequently (2) the éavrov éxévwoe cannot be explained 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 xéveya—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 aprayyde indeed actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutral- 
izes itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this case, in virtue 
of a moral self-determination, matters cannot come to any such aprayyéc; 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-renuncia- 
tion and self-denial by an act of the will, an éavrév xevovy instead of the yevéoba: ev 
xevouatt”), (3) That even the notion of the “op¢7? Ocov arose from the language 
used by the Gnostics, among whom the expressions op¢h, popgotv, udpgworc, were 
very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by Baur, since these expres- 
sions were very prevalent generally, and are not specifically Gnostic designations ; 
indeed, op¢7) Geo is not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among 
other authors, including philosophers (e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 381 C: pévee aei dade év 
TH aitov ope), comp. p. 381 B: qxor’ av woAAag popga¢ ioxor 6 Oed¢). Further, 
(4) the erroneousness of the view, which in the phrases év duocopuat: avipérev and 
oxjuart eipebeic oc avOp. discovers a Gnostic Docetism, is self-evident from the 
explanation of these expressions in accordance with the context (see on the 
passage); and Chrysostom and his successors have rightly brought out the essen- 
tial difference between what the apostle says in ver. 7 and the Docetic conceptions 
(Theophylact: ob« 7v 62 rd gacvduevov uévov, namely, man, GAAG Kai Cede, ovK Hv 
yde GvOpuroc. Ara rowrd gnow ev dbpordparcavOporur’ Hueic pév yap ux? Kai copa, 
éxzivoc 62 Wuyx7 Kai capa Kai Oxd¢ «.t.A. Theodoret: epi rov Adyov ravTad gyotv, dre 
Gede Gv ovy éwpato Oed¢ riv avOpureiay mepineipevog giorv x.t.A.), Comp.on Rom. 
viii. 3. Lastly, (5) even the three categories érovpaviav xal exty. xai xatayz6., and 
also the notion of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged by 
Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent to Hades is not dis- 
tinctively Gnostic; it belongs to the N. T., and is a necessary presupposition lying 
at the root of many passages (see on Luke xxiii. 43; Matt. xii. 40; Acts ii. 27 ff; 


filled with its absolute contents,” Baur, Neu- but yet thinks it un-Pauline that the incarna- 
test. Theol. p. 265. tion of Christ is represented detached from its 
1 Hinsch, Le. p. 76, does not adopt them, reference to humanity. This, however, is not 


76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


conform (év duodu.) to, that which belongs to man,’ Comp. on Rom. viii. 
3, i. 8 f., and respecting the idea of éuzotwua, which does not convey merely 
the conception of analogy, see on Rom. i. 28, v. 14, vi. 5, viii. 3. The 
expression is based, not upon the conception of a quasi-man, but upon the 
fact that in the man Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 15) there was the superhuman 
life-basis of divine ioéryc, the elva: loa Oc@ not indwelling in other men. 
Justice, however, is not done to the intentionally used dzodpar: (comp. 
afterwards oyjar:), if, with de Wette, we find merely the sense that He 
(not appearing as divine Ruler) was found in a human condition —a con- 
sequence of the fact that even ver. 6 was referred to the time after the 
incarnation. This drove also the ancient dogmatic expositors to adopt 
the gloss, which is here out of place, that Christ assumed the accidentales 
infermitates corporis (yet without sin), not ez naturae necessitate, but ex oi xor- 
opiac kbertate(Calovius).2 By others, the characteristic of debile et abjectum 
(Hoelemann, following older expositors) is obtruded upon the word 
avOpéruv, which is here to be taken in a purely generic sense; while Grotius 
understood avép. as referring to the first human beings, and believed that 
the sinlessness of Jesus was meant. It is not at all specially this (in oppo- 
sition also to Castalio, Liinemann, Schenkel, and others), but the whole 
divine nature of Jesus, the pope? of which He laid aside at His incarnation, 
which constitutes the point of difference that lies at the bottom of the 
expression év duoidpuare (did Td pH YAdv dvOpwrov elvac, 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.—xal oyu. eip. &¢ &vOpur.] 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. oyqua, habitus, which 
receives its more precise reference from the context,’ denotes here the 
entire outwardly perceptible mode and form, the whole shape of the phe- 
nomenon apparent to the senses, 1 Cor. vii. 31.4 Men saw in Christ a 


1 Our passage contains no trace of Docetism, 
even if Paul had, instead of avpOpaxwr, used 
the singular, which he might just as well 
have written here as os dvOpwros in the 
sequel, in place of which he might also have 
used ws av@pwxor. This applies in opposition 
to Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 131, and Lechler, 
p. 66. Even Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 472, 
is of opinion that the above-named interpre- 
tation amounts to Docetism. But Christ was 
in fact, although perfect man, nevertheless 
something so much more exalted, that the 
phrase éy duowsp. av6p. 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. 

2 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 con- 
sisted “in the withdrawal of the rays of the 
divine glory which continued to dwell in Hts 
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. 

3 Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 619. 

4Comp. rd ris Geo oxqma x. dyaApe. Plat. 


CHAP. U. 8. 717 


human form, bearing, language, action, mode of life, wants and their satis- 
faction, etc., in general the state and relations of a human being, so that in 
the entire mode of His appearance He made Himself known and was 
" recognized (etpe9.) 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 o¢ 
with dv$p. does not simply indicate what He was recognized to be (Weiss); 
this would have been expressed by dv@p. alone; but He was found as a 
man, not invested with other qualities. The Vulgate well renders it, “inventus 
ut homo.” This included, in particular, that He presented and manifested 
in Himself the human oép£, human weakness and susceptibility of death 
(2 Cor. xiii. 4; Rom. vi. 9; Acts xxvi. 23). 

Ver. 8. ’Erareivwoev] is placed with great emphasis at the head of a new 
sentence (see on ver. 7), and without any connecting particle: He has 
humbled Himself. ‘Eavréy 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 itself. The relation to éxévooe 
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 character of rareivwore in the shameful death 
of Jesus. It is a climactic parallelism (comp. on. iv. 9) in which the two 
predicates, although the former in the nature of the case already includes 
the latter (in opposition to Hofmann), are kept apart as respects the 
essential points of their appearance in historical development. Bengel 
well remarks: “Status exinanitionis gradatim profundior.” Hoelemann, 
mistaking this, says: “He humbled Himself even below His dignity as 
man.” —yevbu. trhxoog] The aorist participle is quite, like the participles 
in ver. 7, 8imultaneous with the governing verb : so that He became obedient. 
This ifxooc is, however, not to be defined by “capientibus se, damnantibus 
et interficientibus” (Grotius); nor is it to be referred to the law, Gal. iv. 4 
(Olshausen), but to God (Rom. v. 19; Heb. v. 8 f.), whose will and counsel 
(comp. e.g. Matt. xxvi. 42) formed the ground determining the obedience. 
Comp. ver. 9: dcd xai 6 Oeds x.t.4. The expression itself glances back to 
pops. dobAov; “obedientia servum decet,” Bengel.—yézp: Oavdrov] belongs 
to irhx. yevdu., not to éraz. éavr. (Bengel, Hoelemann)—which latter con- 
nection is arbitrarily assumed, dismembers the discourse, and would leave 
a too vague and feeble definition for éraz. éavr.in the mere thx. yevu. 
By éxzp¢ death is pointed out as the culminating point, as the highest degree, 
up to which He obeyed, not merely as the temporal goal (van Hengel). 
Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 9; Heb. xii. 4; Acts xxii.4; Matt. xxvi.38. This extreme 


Crit. p.110 B; réparvoy oxhua, Soph. Ant. 1154; 1Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 644 f.: SperOe 
Eur. Med. 1039; Plat. Polit. p. 267 C: cxnjua Gedy dv oxnjpars avOperov. Comp. p. 744: av 
Baguisxdéy, p. 290 D: trav iepédwr oxnpa; Dem. Baciréa rwv ovpavey, rov éwi ys davdvra dy 
600. 21: wwynptrov cxqua; Lucian, Cyn. 17: 7d = nop jp avOpwrov rawecvucews. How these pas- 
dpdv oxqua 7d & vuérepoy; also, in the plural, sages agree with the Nazaraic character of 
Xen. Mem. iii. 10.7; Lucian, D. M. xx. 5. the book, is not a point for discussion here. 





80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


II. p. 198 f.; Schoeberlein in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 471 ff., comp. the latter’s 
Geheimnisse des Glaubens, 1872, 8. The various views which have been adopted 
on the part of the more recent Lutheran Christologists,' diverging from the 
doctrine of the Formula Concordiae in setting forth Christ’s humiliation (Dorner: 
a gradual ethical blending into one unother of the divine and human life in immanent 
development ; Thomasius: self-limitation, i.e. partial self-renunciation of the divine 
Logos; Liebner: the entrance of the Logos into a process of 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. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the 

‘irehl, Zeitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff.; Liebner, in the Jahr’. f. 
Deutache Theol. 1858, p. 349 ff.; Hasse, ibid. p. 336 ff.; Schoeberlein, /.c. p. 459 ff.; 
Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. 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 in 
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 animat- 
ing.—0.6| for a recompense, on account of this self-denying renunciation 
and humiliation in obedience to God (xai, also, denotes the accession of 
the corresponding consequence, Luke i. 35; Acts x. 29; Rom. i. 24, iv. 22; 
Heb. xiii. 12), Comp. Matt. xxiii. 12; Luke xxiv. 26. Nothing but a dog- 
matic, anti-heretical assumption could have recourse to the interpretation 
which is at variance with linguistic usage: quo facto (Calvin, Calovius, 
Glass, Wolf, and others). The conception of recompense (comp. Heb. ii. 9, 
xii. 2) is justified by the voluntariness 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 Christ- 
ology of the Apostle. Augustine well says: ‘“ Humilitas claritatis est 
meritum, claritas humilitatis praemium.” Thus Christ’s saying in Matt. 
xxiii. 12 was gloriously fulfilled in His own case.—imepiyuwoe] comp. 
Song of Three Child. 28 ff.; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10; Dan. iv. 34; 





18chenkel’s ideal transference of Christ's 
pre-existence simply into the self-consciousness 
of God, which in the person of Christ found a 
perfect self-manifestation like to humanity, 
boldly renounces all the results of historical 
exegesis during a whole generation, and goes 
back to the standpoint of Léffier and others, 
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 hu- 
manity, and that not as a person, but merely 


as the principle of a person ;—while Keerl 
(d. Gottmensch. das Ebenbild Gottes, 1866), in 
unperceived 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-existence of Christ as a heavenly, 
pneumatic man and archetype of humanity 
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only 
be obtained through misapprehension of the 
meaning. See on 1 Cor. l. ¢., and Grimm, p. 51 ff. 


CHAP. II. 9, 10. §1 


Synes. Ep. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere among Greek authors, by 
whom, however, imepiyndoc, exceedingly high, is used. He made Him very 
high, exceedingly exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the pre- 
vious érareivworv, 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. This exaltation has taken place by means of the ascension (Eph. iv. 
10), by which Jesus Christ attained to the right hand of God (Mark xvi. 
19; Acts vii. 55 f.; Rom. viii. 84; Eph. i. 20 f.; Col. iii. 1; Heb. i. 3, viii. 1, 
x. 12, xii. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 22), although it is not this local mode, 
but the exaltation viewed as a state which is, according to the context, 
expressed by trepiy. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without 
lexical authority, to take irép as intimating: more than previously (Grotius, 
Beyschlag).—éxapicato] He granted (i. 29), said from the point of view of 
the subordination, on which also what follows (xtpiog . . . cig détav Oeov 
natpéc) 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 
exaltation did not stand to that possessed before the incarnation in the rela- 
tion of a plus, but it affected the entire divine-human person, that entered 
on the regnum gloriae.—rd Svoua] is here, as in Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4, to be 
taken in the strictly literal sense, not as dignitas or gloria (Heinrichs, 
Hoelemann, and many others), a sense which it might have er adjuncto 
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against which here 
the following é» ro dvduart "Inoov is decisive. The honor and dignity of 
the name of Jesus are expressed by 1d irép ray dvoua, but are not implied 
in 7d dvoua of itself. Nor is itto be understood of an appellative name, as 
some have referred it to x«bpio¢ in ver. 11 (Michaelis, Keil, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann, Grimm) ; others 
to vide Oect (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius); and some even to Ged (Am- 
brosiaster, Oecumenius, and again Schultz; but see on Rom. ix. 5). In 
accordance with the context—ver. 11, comp. with ver. 6—the thought is: 
“ God has, by His exaltation, granted to Him that the name ‘ Jesus Christ’ 
surpasses all names in glory.”” The expression of this thought in the form: 
God has granted to Him the name, etc., cannot seem strange, when we take 
into account the highly poetic strain of the passage. 

Ver. 10 f. *Iva] This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in accordance with 
the divine purpose, general adoration and confession as its result,—a con- 
tinuation of the contrast with the previous state of self-renunciation and 
humiliation. In the mode of expression there may be detected a remin- 
iscence of Isa. xlv. 23 (Rom. xiv. 11).—The é 19 ovép. 'I., emphatically 
prefixed, affirms that, in the name of Jesus, 7. e. in what is involved in that 
most glorious name “ Jesus Christ,” and is present to the conception of 
the subjects as they bend their knees, is to be found the moving ground 
of this latter action (comp. Ps. Ixiii. 5; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10, 


1In the conception of the “ezaltation” tion to the doctrine of pre-existence (in 

Paul agrees with John, but does not convey opposition to Pfleiderer, /. ¢. p. 517), but a 

expressly the notion of the return to the consequence of the more dialectically acute 

Father. This is not an inconsistency in rela distinction of ideas in Paul, since that change 
6 





78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


height reached by His obedience was, however, just the extreme depth of 
the humiliation, and thereby at the same time its end; comp. Acts viii. 
33; Isa. lili. 8. Hofmann groundlessly takes tx. yiveoOac in the sense of 
showing obedience (comp. on Gal. iv. 12). The obedience of Christ was 
an ethical becoming (Heb. v. 8).—Oavdrov 62 cravp.] touréots rod éxcxarapatov 
(comp. Gal. iii. 18; Heb. xii. 2), rov roig avéuorg agwpcouévov, Theophylact. 
The dé, with the repetition of the same word (comp. Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30), 
presents, just like the German aber, the more precisely defined idea in 
contradistinction to the idea which is previously left without this special 
definition: unto death, but what kind of death? unto the most shameful 
and most painful, unto the death of the cross. 


Remark 1,—According to our explanation, vv. 6-8 may be thus paraphrased : 
Jesus Christ, when He found Himself in the heavenly mode of existence of divine glory, 
did not permit Himself the thought of using His equality with God for the purpose of 
seizing possessions and honor for Himself on earth: No, He emptied himself of the 
divine glory, inasmuch as, notwithstanding His Giod-equal nature, He took upon Him 
the mode of existence of a slave of God, 90 that He entered into the likeness of men, and 
tn His outward bearing and appearance manifested Himself not otherwise than as a 
man, He humbled Himself, so that He became obedient unto God, etc. According to 
the explanation of our dogmatic writers, who refer vv. 6-8 to the earthly life of 
Christ, the sense comes to this: “Christum jam inde a primo conceptionis momento 
divinam gloriam et majestatem sibi secundum humanam naturam conmmunicatam plena 
usurpatione exserere et tanquam Deum se gerere potuisse, sed abdicasse se plenarto ¢us 
usu et humilem se exhibuisse, patrique suo coelesti obedientem factum 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 humiliatione 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 controversy carried on since 1616 between the theolo- 
gians of Ttibingen and those of Giessen. The latter (Feuerborn and Menzer) 
assigned to Jesus Christ in His state of humiliation the xrjow of the divine attri- 
butes, but denied to Him their ypiov, thus making the xéywor a renunciation of 
the xpfore. The Tiibingen school, on the other hand (Thummius, Luc, Osiander, 
and Nicolai), not separating the «roe and xpiotc, arrived at the conclusion of a 
hidden and imperceptible use of the divine attributes, and consequently made the 
névuoc a xpinbic tie xphoews. See the account of all the points of controversy in 
Dorner, IT. 2, p. 661 ff., and especially Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, II. p. 
429 ff. The Saxon Decisio, 1624, taking part with the Giessen divines, rejected 
the xpiyic¢, without thoroughly refuting it, and even without avoiding unnecessary 
concessions to it according to the Formula Concordiae (pp. 608, 767), so that the 


18ee Klots, ad Devar. p.861,and Baeumlein, Partikeli. 1. p. 168 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 
Partik. p. 97; and the examples in Hartung, 383. 


CHAP. II. 6-8. 79 


disputed questions remained open and the controversy itself only came to a close 
through final weariness. Among the dogmatic writers of the present day, 
~Philippi is decidedly on the side of the Giessen school. See his Glaubensl. IV. 1, 
p. 279 ff. ed. 2. It is certain that, according to our passage, the idea of the xévworr 
is clearly and decidedly to be maintained, and the reducing of it to a xpbyc 
rejected. But, since Paul expresely refers the éavrév ixévwoe to the popg? Ceod, 
and consequently to the divine mode of appearance, while he makes the ¢iva: loa 
Ge to subsist with the assumption of the “op¢? dovAci, just as subsequently the 
Incarnate One appears only as év éduotGparte avOp, and as oxfpare o¢ avép,: 
and since, further, in the case of the «rfo:¢ 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 «rjow and the xpyor must therefore be inseparably kept 
together. But, setting aside the conception of the «xp{u¢ as foreign to the N. T., 
this possession and use of the divine attributes are to be conceived as having, by 
the renunciation of the wop¢? Oot in virtue of the incarnation, entered upon a 
human development, consequently as conditioned, not as absolute, but as thean- 
thropic. At the same time, the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ necessarily 
remained the self-consciousnesas of the Son of God developing Himself humanly, 
or (according to the Johannine phrase) of the Logos that had become flesh, who 
was the povoyevig napa mwarpé¢; see the numerous testimonies in John’s Gospel, 
as iii. 13, viii. 58, xvii. 5, v. 26. “Considered from a purely exegetical point of 
view, there is no clearer and more certain result of the interpretation of Scripture 
than the proposition, that the Ego of Jesus on earth was identical with the Ego 
which was previously in glory with the Father; any division of the Son speaking 
on earth into two Egos, one of whom was the eternally glorious Logos, the other 
the humanly humble Jesus, is rejected by clear testimonies of Scripture, how- 
ever intimate we may seek to conceive the marriage of the two during the earthly 
life of Jesus ;” Liebner in the Jahrb. f. Deuteche Theol. 1858, p. 362. That which 
the divine Logos laid aside in the incarnation was, according to our passage, the 
Hope? Geov, that is, the divine défa as a form of existence, and not the eiva: ica 
Ge@ essentially and necessarily constituting His nature, which He retained,’ and 
to which belonged, just as essentially and necessarily, the divine—and conse- 
quently in Him who had become man the divine-human—self-consciousness.” 
But as this cannot find its adequate explanation either in the absolute consciousness 
of 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 deification of man (Rothe), so we must by no means say, 
with Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 304 f., that in becoming incarnate the Logos had 
laid aside His self-consciousness, in order to get it back again only in the gradual 
course of development of a human soul, and that merely in the form of a human 
self-consciousness. See, in opposition to this, Thomasius, Christi Pers. u. Werk, 


1Comp. Disterdieck, Apolog. Abh. IIL p. the Christology, may at least be regarded as 
67 ff. , probable from his frequent and long inter- 
#Paul agrees in substance with the Logos course with Asia, and also from his relation 
doctrine of John, but has not adopted the to Apollos. His conception, however, is just 
form of Alexandrine speculation. That the as little Apollinarian as that of John; comp. 
latter was known to him in its application to on Rom.i.3f.; Col. L 15. 





80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


II. p. 198 f.; Schoeberlein in the Jahrd. 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 Concordiae 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, i.e. partial self-renunciation of the divine 
Logos; Liebner: the entrance of the Logos tnto 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 Jahr. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, 2, 1857, 2, 1858, 3; Broemel, in the 
Kirchl. Zeitschr. of Kliefoth and Mejer, 1857, p. 144 ff.; Liebner, in the Jahrb. f. 
Deutache Theol. 1858, p. 349 ff.; Hasse, ibid. p. 336 ff.; Schoeberlein, /.c. p. 459 f£; 
Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, II. pp. 192 ff., 542 ff.; Philippi, Dogmaz. 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 in 
heaven. Thus the dilemma cannot be avoided, either of supposing a dual person- 
ality of Christ, or of assuming, with Schoeberlein, that heaven ts 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 animat- 
ing.—éi6| for a recompense, on account of this self-denying renunciation 
and humiliation in obedience to God (cai, also, denotes the accession of 
the corresponding consequence, Luke i. 35; Acts x. 29; Rom. i. 24, iv. 22; 
Heb. xiii. 12). Comp. Matt. xxiii. 12; Luke xxiv. 26. Nothing but a dog- 
matic, anti-heretical assumption could have recourse to the interpretation 
which is at variance with linguistic usage: quo facto (Calvin, Calovius, 
Glass, Wolf, and others). The conception of recompense (comp. Heb. ii. 9, 
xii. 2) is justified by the voluntariness 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 Christ- 
ology of the Apostle. Augustine well says: “ Humilitas claritatis est 
meritum, claritas humilitatis praemium.” Thus Christ’s saying in Matt. 
xxiii. 12 was gloriously fulfilled in His own case.—imepiywoe] comp. 
Song of Three Child. 28 ff.; LXX. Ps. xxxvi. 37, xcvi. 10; Dan. iv. 34; 


18chenkel’s ideal transference of Christ's 
pre-existence simply into the self-consciousness 
of God, which in the person of Christ found a 
perfect self-manifestation like to humanity, 
boldly renounces all the results of historical 
exegesis during a whole generation, and goes 
back to the standpoint of Léffier and others, 
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 hu- 
manity, and that not as a person, but merely 


as the principle of a person ;—while Keerl 
(d. Gottmensch. das Ebenbild Gottes, 1866), in 
unperceived 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-existence of Christ as a heavenly, 
pneumatic man and archetype of humanity 
(Holsten, Biedermann, and others) can only 
be obtained through misapprehension of the 
meaning. See on 1 Cor. l. ¢., and Grimm, p. 51 ff. 


CHAP. II. 9, 10. §1 


Synes. Ep. p. 225 A; it is not found elsewhere among Greek authors, by 
whom, however, trepbynoc, exceedingly high, is used. He made Him very 
high, exceedingly exalted, said by way of superlative contrast to the pre- 
vious érareivucev, 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.! 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. 834; Eph. i. 20 f; Col. iii. 1; Heb. i. 3, viii.1, 
x. 12, xii. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 22), although it is not this local mode, 
but the exaltation viewed as a state which is, according to the context, 
expressed by imepiy. It is quite unbiblical (John xvii. 5), and without 
lexical authority, to take irép as intimating: more than previously (Grotius, 
Beyschlag).—iyapicato] He granted (i. 29), said from the point of view of 
the subordination, on which also what follows (xtpiog . . . ig dégav Oecd 
natpéc) 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 
exaltation did not stand to that possessed before the incarnation in the rela- 
tion of a plus, but it affected the entire divine-human person, that entered 
on the regnum gloriae.—rd dvoua] is here, as in Eph. i. 21, Heb. i. 4, to be 
taken in the strictly literal sense, not as dignitas or gloria (Heinrichs, 
Hoelemann, and many others), a sense which it might have er adjuncto 
(see the passages in Wetstein and Hoelemann), but against which here 
the following é 1r@ dvéuare ‘Incov is decisive. The honor and dignity of 
the name of Jesus are expressed by 10 itp rav dvoua, but are not implied 
in 7d dvoua of itself. Nor is itto be understood of an appellative name, as 
some have referred it to xipeoc in ver. 11 (Michaelis, Keil, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, van Hengel, Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann, Grimm) ; others 
to vide Oeot (Theophylact, Pelagius, Estius); and some even to Oeé¢ (Am- 
brosiaster, Oecumenius, and again Schultz; but see on Rom. ix. 5). In 
accordance with the context—ver. 11, comp. with ver. 6—the thought is: 
“ God has, by His exaltation, granted to Him that the name ‘ Jesus Christ’ 
surpasses all names in glory.” The expression of this thought in the form: 
God has granted to Him the name, etc., cannot seem strange, when we take 
into account the highly poetic strain of the passage. 

Ver. 10 f. "Iva}] This exaltation, ver. 9, was to have, in accordance with 
the divine purpose, general adoration and confession as its result,—a con- 
tinuation of the contrast with the previous state of self-renunciation and 
humiliation. In the mode of expression there may be detected a remin- 
iscence of Isa. xlv. 23 (Rom. xiv. 11).—The év r@ ovéu. ’I., emphatically 
prefixed, affirms that, in the name of Jesus, i. e. in what is involved in that 
most glorious name “ Jesus Christ,”’ and is present to the conception of 
the subjects as they bend their knees, is to be found the moving ground 
of this latter action (comp. Ps. )xiii. 5; 1 Kings xviii. 24; 1 Chron. xvi. 10, 


1In the conception of the “exaltation” tion to the doctrine of pre-existence (in 

Paul agrees with John, but does not convey opposition to Pfleiderer, /. ¢. p. 517), but a 

expressly the notion of the return to the consequence of the more dialectically acute 

Father. This is not an inconsistency in rela distinction of ideas in Paul, since that change 
6 








82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


al.; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 20; Col. ili. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 14,16; Jas. v. 14). 
The bowing of the knee represents adoration, of which it is the symbol (Isa. 
xlv. 23; Rom. xiv. 11, xi. 4; Eph. iii. 14; 3 Eedr. viii. 73; 3 Macc. ii. 1; 
and in Greek writers from Homer onward), and the subject to be adored 
is, according to the context (év ro évdu. "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 défa to which He is exalted 
(comp. the habitual ériadcioba: 1d Svopa xvpiov, Rom. x. 12 f.; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 
Tim. ii. 22; Acts vii. 59, ix. 14, 21, xxii. 16), but has also at the same time 
its peculiar character, not absolute, but relative, i. e. conditioned by the 
relation of the exalted Son to the Father',—a peculiarity which did not 
escape the observation of Pliny (Ep. x. 97: “ Christo quast Deo”), and was, 
although only very casually and imperfectly, expressed by him. This 
adoration (comp. ver. 11, ei¢ dégav Geod rarpdéc) does not infringe that strict 
monotheism, which could ascribe absolute deity to the Father only (John 
xvii. 3; Eph. iv. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 6, viii. 6; 1 Tim. vi. 15 f.); the Father only 
is 6 dv éni rdvrev Oedc, Rom. ix. 5 (comp. Ignat. Tars. interpol. 5), 6 Ged 
absolutely, God also of Christ (see on Eph. i. 17), the Oed¢ 6 ravroxpdrup (2 
Cor. vi. 18; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8, al.); and the Son, although of like nature, as 
oivOpovos and partaker of His dééa, is subordinate to Him (1 Cor. xi. 3, xv. 
27 f.), as in turn the Spirit is to the Son (2 Cor. iii. 18); the honor which 
is to be paid to the Son (Rev. v. 8 ff.) has its principle (John v. 22 f.) and 
aim (ver. 11) in the Father, and therefore the former is to be honored as 
the Father, and God in Christ fills and moves the consciousness of him 
who prays to Christ. According to van Hengel, it is not the adoration 
of Jesus which is here intended, but that of God under application of the 
name of Jesus; and de 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 (xbpioc), Comp. also Hofmann: “the praying to God, 
determined in the person praying by the consciousness of his relation to Jesus 
as regulating his action.” Instead of this we should rather say: the pray- 
ing to Jesus, determined by the consciousness of the relation of Jesus to 
God (of the Son to the Father), as regulating the action of the person 
praying. All modes of explaining away the adoration as offered to Jesus 
Himself are at variance not only with the context generally, which has to 
do with the honor of Jesus, making Him the olject of the adoration, but 
also with the word éovpaviev 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 ¢v r¢ ovéu. equiva- 


of condition affected the entire Christ, the 18ee Licke, de invocat. Jes. Ch. Gott. 1848, 
God-man, whereas the subject of the pre- pp. 7 f.; comp. Ernesti, Urapr. d. Sande, I. 
existence was the Logos. p. 218. 


cHAP. Ir. 10. . 83 


lent to ei¢ rd dvoua, for the glorification of His dignity (Heinrichs, Flatt, and 
others), or a8 a paraphrase for év "Inoot (Estius; Rheinwald leaves either of 
the two to be chosen); while others, by the interpretation “ quoties auditur 
nomen,' brought out a sense which is altogether without analogy in the 
N.T. See, in opposition to this, Calvin: “quasi vox (the word Jesus) esset 
magica, quae totam in sono vim haberet inclusam.”—érovupavioy «.7.4.] 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). éovp. includes 
the angels (Eph. i. 20 f, iii. 10; Heb. i. 4, 6; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii. 22); émcy. the 
human beings on earth (comp. Plat. Az. p. 368 B: émlyewsg évOpwroc); and 
xarax0. the dead in Hades (comp. Hom. Il. ix. 457: Zei¢ narazOévioc, Pluto: 
xara x6dvioe daipovec, the Manes, Anthol. vii. 833). The adoration on the part 
of the latter, which Grotius and Hofmann misinterpret, presupposes the 
descensus Ch. ad tnferos,® Eph. iv. 9, in which He presented Himself to the 
spirits in Hades as the «tpue. 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 
tn Scripture.’ Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and 
many others, including Baumgarten-Crusius and Wiesinger, have incor- 
rectly understood by xarayz@. 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 com- 
plexus” (comp. Nosselt and J. B. Lightfoot), and already in Beza: “ quae- 
cunque et supra mundum sunt et in mundo.” We meet with the right 
view as early as Theodoret. The Catholics referred xaray@. 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 «.7.A., respecting the émyeiuy, it was still in progress of development, but 
its completion (Rom. xi. 25) could not but appear to the Apostle near at 
hand, in keeping with his expectation of the near end of the aidy oirog. 


1 Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Bretschneider, 
and others, arrived at this interpretation 
simply by understanding ¢» re dydép. as ad 
nomen (comp. Grotius: “nunecupato nomine ”); 
but Hoelemann, with forced subtilty, by the 
analysis: “quasi circumsonitum appellatione 
nominis.” 

2 Comp. Rev. v.13; Ignat. Trail. 9, and the 
similar classical use of vx0x6dv0s, Vrd yatay 
(Eur. Hee. 149, and Pflugk in loe.). 

3To transfer, with Grotius, Hofmann, and 
Grimm, the genuflexion of the dead to the 
period after the resurrection, so that, according 
to Hofmann, the xcaray Ody “ sleep below and 
await 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 sug- 


gested reflection. He views the bowing of the 
knee, as it has been done and {fs continuously 
being done, and not as it wild be done by an 
entire class only in the future, after the Parou- 
sia. Wiesinger, however, has also placed the 
realization of the iva way yévu xduwp «.7.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. 25f.). On this point 
he appeals to Rom. xiv. 11, where, however, 
the whole text is dealing with the last judg- 
ment, which is not the case here. Besides, 
év te ébvéuare 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 fol- 
lows are the free living action; comp. Rom. 


x. 9. 
< 


84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Observe, moreover, how he emphasizes the universality of the divine pur- 
pose (va) with regard to the bowing the knees and confession with the 
tongue so strongly by wav yévu and aoa yAdooa, that the arbitrary limitation 
which makes him mean only those who desire to give God the glory (Hof- 
mann) is out of the question. 

Ver. 11 appends the express confession combined with the adoration in 
ver. 10, in doing which the concrete form of representation is continued, 
comp. Rom. xiv. 11; Isa. xlv. 23; hence yAdéoca is tongue, correlative to the 
previous yévv, not language (Theodoret, Beza, and others).—éfoyo.] a 
strengthening compound. Comp. on Matt. iii. 6. Respecting the future 
(see the critical remarks) depending on iva, see on Gal. ii. 4; Eph. vi. 3; 1 
Cor. ix. 18.—xtpioc}] predicate, placed first with strong emphasis: that Lord 
is Jesus Christ. This is the specific confession of the apostolic church (Rom. 
x.9; 2 Cor. iv. 5; Acts ii. 86), whose antithesis is: avd@eua 'Inoci¢ 1 Cor. 
xii. 3. The xtpiov elva: 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 kmited 
to the rational creatures (Hoelemann, following Flatt and others), or to the 
church (Rheinwald, Schenkel).—ei¢ d6¢. Ocod rarp.] may be attached to the 
entire bipartite clause of purpose (Hofmann). Since, however, in the 
second part a modification of the expression is introduced by the future, it 
is more probably to be joined to this portion, of which the telic destination, 
i.e. the final cause, is specified. It is not to be connected merely with 
xbptocg ‘I. X., a8 Bengel wished: “J. Ch. esse dominum, quippe qui sit in 
gloria Dei patris,” making eis stand for év, for which the Vulgate, Pelagius, 
Estius, and others also took it. Schneckenburger also, p. 341 (comp. Cal- 
vin, Rheinwald, Matthies, Hoelemann), joins it with «tps, but takes ei¢ 
défav rightly: to the honor. But, in accordance with ver. 9, it was self- 
evident that the xvp:éry¢ of the Son tends to the honor of the Father; and 
the point of importance for the full conclusion was not this, but to bring 
into prominence that the universal confessing recognition of the xupcérne of 
Jesus Christ glorifies the Father (whose will and work Christ’s entire work 
of salvation is; see especially Eph. 1.; Rom. xv. 7-9; 2 Cor. i. 20), whereby 
alone the exaltation, which Christ has received as a recompense from the 
Father, appears in its fullest splendor. Comp. John xii. 28, xvii.1. The 
whole contents of ver. 9 f. is parallel to the é yop¢% Ocov, 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 
éEopuoa. eic ddfav Ceod is equivalent to éfouo0A. Oc@, to praise God (Gen. xxix. 34, 
al. ; Rom. xv. 9; Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21), and that ér: is quod; hence: “lau- 
dibus celebrarent, quod hunc filium suum principem fecerit regni divini.” 


REMARK.—From vv. 6-11, Baur, whom Schwegler follows, derives his argu- 
ments for the assertion that our epistle moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and 
expressions,’ and must therefore belong to the post-apostolic period of Gnostic 


1 Its idea is, that Christ “divests Himself, receive back that of which He has divested 
of that which He already is, in order to Himself, with the full reality of the idea 


CHAP. II. 6—11. 85 


speculation. But with the true explanation of the various points these arguments! 
fall to pieces of themselves, For (1) if rd eivac ica Oe@ be related to év popg) Ocow 
eiva: as the essence to its adequate manifestation, and if our explanation of dpray- 
#és 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, IT. p. 51 ff.)—be one entirely alten 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 civa: ica Oe as something future 
and greater than the op¢7) Geot ; since in the case of the op¢y, as well as in that 
of the ica, the full fellowship in the divine nature is already the relation assumed 
as existing. Consequently (2) the éavrév éxévwoe cannot be explained by the idea, 
according to which the Gnostics made that Aeon, which desired to place iteelf in 
unwarranted union with the Absolute, fall from the Pleroma to the xévwyua—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 dprayyuée indeed actually takes place, but as an unnatural enterprise neutral- 
izes itself, and has, as its result, merely something negative, in this case, in virtue 
of a moral self-determination, matters cannot come to any such dptaypés; 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-renuncia- 
tion and self-denial by an act of the will, an éavrdv xevovv instead of the yevéofa: év 
xevouatc”). (3) That even the notion of the op¢7) Ocov arose from the language 
used by the Gnostics, among whom the expressions pope}, popgotv, pépewoic, were 
very customary, is all the more arbitrarily assumed by Baur, since these expres- 
sions were very prevalent generally, and are not specifically Gnostic designations ; 
indeed, op¢7) Oecd is not once used by the Gnostics, although it is current among 
other authors, including philosophers (e.g. Plat. Rep. p. 381 C: pévec aei dmAae év 
TH avTov pop¢), comp. p. 381 B: gxior’ av modAag popgag iaxzor 6 Oeds). Further, 
(4) the erroneousness of the view, which in the phrases év dyzotapar: avfporuy and 
oxjpart eipebeig ac GvOp. discovers a Gnostic Docetism, is self-evident from the 
explanation of these expressions in accordance with the context (see on the 
passage); and Chrysostom and his successors have rightly brought out the essen- 
tial difference between what the apostle says in ver. 7 and the Docetic conceptions 
(Theophylact: ovx 7v d2 1d oarvéuevov pévov, namely, man, GAAd xal Oedc, ov Hv 
Wd GvOpwroc. Ata tours gnow Ev db potdpat se avOporuv’ Hueic uév yap yuzn Kal cua, 
éxeivoc 62 Wuyi xai cua nai Oeds «.7.A. Theodoret: wepi rov Adyou tavrad gnorv, bre 
Oeic Gv oby EwpaTo Oedc riv avOpwreiav Tepixeinevos gio. x.T.A.). Comp. on Rom. 
viii. 3. Lastly, (5) even the three categories érovpaviuy xal exty. xai xataz@., and 
also the notion of the descensus ad inferos which the latter recalls, are alleged by 
Baur to be genuinely Gnostic. But the idea of the descent to Hades is not dis- 
tinctively Gnostic; it belongs to the N. T., and is a necessary presupposition lying 
at the root of many passages (see on Luke xxiii. 43; Matt. xii. 40; Acts ii. 27 ff; 


filled with its absolute contents,” Baur, Neu- but yet thinks it un-Pauline that the incarna- 
test. Theol. p. 265. tion of Christ is represented detached from its 
2 Hinsch, Le. p. 76, does not adopt them, reference to humanity. This, however, is not 


86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Rom. x. 6 ff.; Eph. iv. 8 ff); it is, in fact, the premiss of the entire belief in 
Christ’s resurrection é« vexpov. 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? vexpov xai Covrwy, Rom. xiv. 9, 
Acts x. 42, 1 Pet. iv. 5 f., where only men are in question), that its derivation 
from Gnosticism could only be justified in the event of the Gnostic character of 
our passage being demonstrated on other grounds, The whole hypothesis is 
engrafted on isolated expressions, which only become violently perverted into 
conceptions of this kind by the presupposition of a Gnostic atmosphere. Accord- 
ing to the Gnostic view, it would perhaps have been said of the Aeon Sophia: é¢ 
&y popgey Oeov irapzuv ov mpodAAcofa tyhoato ei¢ Td TAHpwpa Tov Oeov «.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 phantasma- 
goria of any subsequent Gnosis whatever. 


Ver. 12.! [On vv. 12, 18, see Note XI. pages 111,112.] To this great 
example of Jesus Paul now annexes another general admonition, which 
essentially corresponds with that given in i. 27, with which he began all 
this hortatory portion of the epistle (i. 27-ii. 18).—dore] [XI b.] daque, 
draws an inference from the example of Christ (vv. 6-11), who by the path 
of self-renunciation attained to so glorious a recompense. Following this 
example, the readers are, just as they had always been obedient, etc., to 
work out their own salvation with the utmost solicitude. iyxotcare is not, 
indeed, correlative with yevéu. imfxoog in ver. 8 (Theophylact, Calovius, 
Bengel, and others), as the latter was in what preceded only an accessory 
definition ; but the cwrypia 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. 11. 12 f, iii. 3 f.). Since, therefore, dcre has its logical basis in what 
immediately precedes, it must not be looked upon as an inference from all 
the previous admonitions, i. 26 ff., from which it draws the general result (de 
Wette). It certainly introduces the recapitulation of all the previous 
exhortations, and winds them up (on account of the new exhortation 
which follows, see on ver. 14) as in iv. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 18; Rom. vii. 12; 1 
Cor. iii. 21, iv. 5, v. 8, xi. 38, 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, éore point backwards to ranpdécaré pov r. yapév in ver. 2, 80 that 
this prayer “is repeated in a definitive manner” by the exhortation intro- 
duced with dore. In that case the apostle, in order to be understood, must 


the case, as may be gathered from the con- 
nection of the passage in its practical bearing 
with ver. 4 (7a érépey). 

1 Linden, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1960, p. 750, 
attempted a new explanation of vv. 12-14. 
According to this, ui, &s is to stand for ws 4%, 
xatepyas. to be indicative, ph ws . . . xarepy. 
to belong to the protasis, ver. 13 to be treated 


as a parenthesis, and, finally, the apodosis to 
follow in sdvre «.r.A. Against this view may 
be simply urged the fact, that ni ws (2 Thess. 
ili. 15; Philem. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 5) cannot be 
equivalent to ws «4, and that there must have 
been used not even ws 4%, but, on account of 
the negation of a purely actual relation, de 
ov«; to say nothing of the involved construc- 


CHAP. II. 12. 87 


at least have inserted a resumptive ov» after dore, and in the following 
exhortation must have again indicated, in some way or other, the element 
of the making joy.—xallig ravrote imnxoboare] 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. mthé, or, more definitely, meo evangelio, as is plain, both from the words 
which follow y@ o¢ .. . arovsig yov, and also from the whole close personal 
relation, in which Paul brings home to the hearts of his readers his admo- 
nitions (from i. 27 down till ii. 18) as their teacher and friend. On sévrore, 
comp. avd xporng huépac ype rod viv (1.5). We cannot infer from it a refer- 
ence to earlier epistles which have been lost (Ewald).—y9 o¢ .. . arovoig nov) 
belongs not to ixyxotoare (Luther, Wolf, Heumann, Heinrichs, and others), 
as is evident from p? &¢ and viv, but to xarepydfeobe, 80 that the comma 
before pera ¢68ov is, with Lachmann, to be deleted. Comp. Grotius.—o, 
had to be inserted, because Paul would not and could not give an admo- 
nition for a time when he would be present. Not perceiving this, B, min., 
vss., and Fathers have omitted it. If o¢ were not inserted, Paul would 
say: that they should not merely in his presence work out their salvation. 
But with o¢ he says: that they are not to work out their own salvation in such 
a way as if they were doing tt in His presence’ merely (neglecting it, therefore, 
in His absence); nay, much more now, during His absence from them, they 
are to work tt out with fear and trembling. There is nothing to be supplied 
along with o<¢, which is the simple modal as, since 7) o¢ is connected with 
the governing verb that follows in the antithesis (r. éaur. owr. xarepydfeo0e) 
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 aA4é is the anti- 
thetic much more, on the contrary, nay. Erasmus, Estius, Hoelemann, 
Weiss, Hofmann, and others, incorrectly join zévov with uf, and take dc in 
the sense of the degree: not merely so, as ye have done it, or would do it, 
in my absence; comp. de Wette, who assumes a blending of two com- 
parisons, as does also J. B. Lightfoot. It is arbitrary not to make pévor 
belong to év r. map. pov, beside which it stands; comp. also Rom. iv. 16 
(where r@ éx rov véuov forms one idea), iv. 283; 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 iraxotere after trnxotcare, and then to 
make pera ¢6fov «7.4. 8 sentence by itself (Hofmann). Moreover, in such 
a case the arrangement of the words in the alleged apodosis would be 
illogical; viv (or, more clearly, xai viv) must have begun it, and pévov must 
have stood immediately after u7. [XI d.]—rodAp paddov] than if I were 
present; for now (wv), 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 


tion, and of the so special tenor of the alleged more than in 1 26,a reference tothe Parousia 

apodosis after a preparation of so grand and = of Christ, which Kahler (“ ye know what this 

general a nature by the alleged protasis. word would properly tell us”) reads between 
1The word wapoveia does not contain, any _the lines. 


88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


to fulfill the great personal duty of working out their own salvation. That 
éavrov, therefore, cannot be equivalent to aAafdev (Flatt, Matthies, and 
older expositors), is self-evident.—yera ¢6fou x. tpézov] [XI c.] that is, with 
such earnest solicitude, that ye shall have a lively fear of not doing enough 
in the matter.’ Awe before the presence of God (Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Oecumenius), before the future Judge (Weiss), the feeling of dependence on 
God (de Wette), a reverential devotion to God (Matthies, comp. van Hen- 
gel), and similar ideas, must be implied in the case, but do not constitute 
the sense 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.—xarepyé- 
Ceabe] bring about, peragite (Grotius), “usque ad metam” (Bengel), express- 
ing, therefore, more than the simple verb.2. The summons itself is not at 
variance with the principle that salvation is God’s gift of grace, and is 
prepared for, predestined, and certain to believers; but it justly claims the 
exercise of the new moral power bestowed on the regenerate man, with- 
out the exertion of which he would fall away again from the state of grace 
to which he had attained in faith, and would not actually become partaker 
of the salvation appropriated to him by faith, so that the final reception 
of salvation is so far the result of his moral activity of faith in the xacvér7e¢ 
luge. See especially Rom. vi. 8, 12 ff., and 2 Cor. vi.1. Our passage 
stands in contrast, not to the certitudo salutis, but to the moral securitas, 
into which the converted person might relapse, if he do not stand fast (iv. 
1; 1 Cor. x. 12), and labor at his sanctification (1 Thess. iv. 3, 7; 2 Cor. vii. 
1; 1 Tim. ii. 15), etc.2 The demand is expressed all the more earnestly, the 
more that the readers have conflict and suffering to endure (i. 27-30). 
Ver. 13. [XI e.] Ground of encouragement to the fulfillment of this pre- 
cept, in which it is not their own, but God’s power, which works in them, 
etc. Here Oeé¢ is placed first as the subject, not as the predicate (Hof- 
mann): God is the agent. It is, however, unnecessary and arbitrary to 
assume before yép (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 Ged: the 
thought: “ praesens vobis etiam absente me” (comp. also van Hengel), while 
others, as Calvin, Beza, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Wiesinger, who found in pera 
968. x. tp. the antithesis of pride (see on ver. 12), see in ver. 18 the motive to 
humility ; and de Wette is of opinion that what was expressed in ver. 12 
under the aspect of fear is here expressed under the aspect of confidence. 
- In accordance with the unity of the sense we ought rather to say: that 
the great moral demand perd 968. «. tp. TH éavrév our. xatepydleofa, con- 
taining as it did the utmost incentive to personal activity, needed for the 
readers the support of a confidence which should be founded not on their 
own, but on the divine working. According to Ewald, the pera ¢éfov x. 


1Comp. on 1 Cor. li. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. 2Comp. Eph. vi. 13; Dem. 1121. 19; Plat. 
vi. 5. Act yap GofetcOar x. tpépew ev rye Legg. vii. p.791A; Eur. Heracl. 1046: wéAce oe- 
épyelerOa: ry idiay curnpiey ixagrov, uy OTe §=©— TuPLaY KaTepyécacba; and see on Rom. 1. 2%, 
breoxeAcabeis éxwion TavTys, Oocumenius. 3 Comp. Wuttke, Sittenl. IT. 2 266. 


cHaP. rm. 13. 89 


rpéuov 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 évérwy rot Oeot was so familiar to the apostle, that he 
would doubtless have here also directly expressed it. Kiéhler (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 is a devouring fire (Heb. xii. 28 f.), who will not leave unpun- 
ished him who does not subordinate his own will and working to the 
divine. As if Paul had hinted at such thoughts, and had not, on the 
contrary, himself excluded them by the tmép ry¢ evdoxiag 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 grattam supernaturalem, quae provenit ex spiritu regen- 
erationis; nam quatenus sumus homines, jam in Deo sumus et vivimus 
et movemur, verum hic de alio motu disputat Paulus, quam illo univer- 
sali.” Augustine has justly (in opposition to the Pelagian rationalizing 
interpretation of a mediate working: “ velle operatur suadendo e praemia 
promittendo’’), in conformity with the words, urged the efficaciter operari, 
which Origen, de Prine. iii. 1, had obliterated, and the Greeks who fol- 
lowed qualified with synergistic reservations —év tpiv] not intra coetum 
vestrum (Hoelemann), but in animis vestris (1 Cor. xii.6; 2 Cor. iv. 12; 
Eph. ii. 2; Col. i. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 18), in which He produces the self- 
determination directed to the xarepyéfec6a: of their own cuwrnpia, and the 
activity in carrying out this Christian-moral volition.' This activity, the 
évepyeiv, is the inner moral one, which has the xarepyéfeoGa: as ita 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 regenerate 
man brings about his own salvation (xarepyéfera:) when he does not resist 
the divine working (évepyév) of the willing and the working (évepyeiv) in his 
soul, but yields steady obedience to it in continual conflict with the oppos- 
ing powers (Eph. vi. 10 ff.; Gal. v. 16; 1 Thess. v. 8, al.); 80 that he repr- 
warei, not xara odpxa, but card mvevya (Rom. viii. 4), is consequently the 
child of God, and as child becomes heir (Rom. viii. 14, 17, 28). 
According, therefore, as the matter is viewed from the standpoint 
of the human activity, which yields obedience to the divine working of 
the 6a» and évepyeiv, or from that of the divine activity, which works 
the Ode» and évepyeiv, 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,” Augustine. How wholly is it otherwise with the 
unregenerate in Rom. vii.!—The repetition by Paul of the same word, 
évepyov ... 7d évepyeiv, has ita ground in the encouraging design which he 


1% Velle quidem, quatenus est actus volun- etiam nostrum est, sed quatenus volentes facts 
tatis, nostrum est ex creatione: bene velle per conversionem bene volumus,” Calovius. 


90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


has of making God’s agency felt distinctly and emphatically ; hence, also, 
he specifies the two elements of all morality, not merely the évepyeiv, but 
also its premiss, the #éAev, and keeps them apart by using xai 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.'—imrép rie ebdo- 
xiag] for the sake of goodwill, in order to satisfy His own benignant dispo- 
sition. [XI f.]. On the causal ixép, which is not secundum, comp. Rom. 
xv. 8; Kéhner, IE. 1, p. 421; Winer, p. 359 [E. T. p. 383]; and on eidoxia, 
which is not, with Ewald, to be taken in a deterministic sense, comp. i. 15; 
Rom. x. 1.2. The explanation: “for the sake of the good pleasure, which 
He has in such willing and working” (Weiss), would amount to some- 
thing self-evident. Hofmann erroneously makes irép r. eidox. belong to 
ndvra roeire, 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 rie 
evdoxiac Only obtains its reference to God through its belonging to 6 évepyav 
«.7.A.; but if it be joined with what follows, this reference must have been 
marked,? and that, on account of the emphasized position which tr. r. ebdox. 
would have, with emphasis (as possibly by trép ric avrov evdoxtac). 

Ver. 14. [On vv. 14-18, see Note XII. pages 112-114.] With ver. 13 Paul 
has closed his exhortations, so far as the matter is concerned. [XII a.] 
He now adds a requisition in respect to the mode of carrying out these 
admonitions, namely, that they shall do everything (which, according to 
the admonitions previously given, and summarily comprised in ver. 12, 
they have to do, 1 Cor. x. 31) willingly and without hesitation,—an injunction 
for which, amidst the temptations of the present (i. 27-30), there was 
sufficient cause.—yupic yoyyvou.] without (far removed from) murmuring. 
The yoyyvoudc,* that fault already prevalent in ancient Israel (Ex. xvi. 7 ff; 
Num. xiv. 2), is to be conceived as directed against God, namely, on 
account of what He imposed upon them both to do and to suffer, as 
follows from the context in vv. 18 and 15; hence it is not to be referred 
to their fellow-Christians (Calvin, Wiesinger, Schneckenburger), or to their 
superiors (Estius), as Hoelemann also thinks. Comp. on 1 Cor. x. 10.— 
dtadoyiozev] not: without disputes (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, 
including Schneckenburger), de imperatis cum imperatoribus (Hoelemann, 
comp. Estius), or among themselves (Calvin, Wiesinger), and that upon 
érrelevant questions (Grotius), and similar interpretations, which, although 
not repugnant to Greek usage generally,® are at variance with that of the 
N. T. (even 1 Tim. ii. 8), and unsuitable to the reference of yoyyvoy. to 


1 This is God's creative moral action in sal- 
vation, Eph. ii. 10. Comp. Thomasius, Chr. 
Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 287. Incorrectly, however, 
the Reformed theologians add: “quae pro- 
hiberi non potest.” 

2 Theodoret aptly says: ev8oxniay 8 rd aya- 
Ody rod Seed wpocyydpeveoe OéAnpa’ Oia 


82 wdévras avO@patove cwOhvat x.T.A. 

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

4 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 858. 

5 Plut. Mor. p.180 C; Ecclus. ix. 15, xiii. 35. 


CHAP. I. 14, 15. 91 


God. It means: without hesitation, without your first entering upon 
scrupulous considerings as to whether you are under any obligation thereto, 
whether it is not too difficult, whether it is prudent, and the like. The 
Vulgate renders it rightly, according to the essential sense : “ haesitations- 
bus.” The yoyyvoyxoi would presuppose aversion towards God; the d:adc- 
ytopoi, uncertainty in the consciousness of duty. 

Ver. 15. [XII 6.] If to their obedience of the admonitions given down 
to ver. 13 there is added the manner of obedience prescribed in ver. 14, 
they shall be blameless, etc. This, therefore, must be the high aim, which 
they are to have in view in connection with what is required in ver. 14.— 
Gueurro: x. axtpaco| blameless and sincere; the former represents moral 
integrity as manifesting itself to the judgment of others ; the latter represents 
the same as respects its inner nature (comp. on Matt. x. 16 and Rom. xvi. 
19).—réxva Oeot auépu.] comprehending epexegetically the two former pre- 
dicates. Children of God (in virtue of the vioecia 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 having nothing with 
which fault can be found; which in children of God presupposes the 
inward moral dxepacérnc, since they are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 
viii. 14). This ethical view of the viofecia, 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—implies, therefore, in the being the constant task 
of the becoming ; and hence the sense of showing themselves is as little to 
be given, with Hofmann, to the yévyjoGe here as in Matt. x. 16, John xv. 8, 
etal.; comp. also on Gal. iv. 12. ’Apéyyroc, qué vituperari non potest, occur- 
ring elsewhere in the N. T. only at 2 Pet. iii. 14 (not equivalent to dzepo¢ 
or dueurroc)2 Its opposite is: réxva pourra, 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 contrasting it with 
the state of things around.—yéoov (see the critical remarks) is adverbial, in 
the midst of 3~—oxoduds x. eotpayp.] crooked and perverted, a graphic figurative 
representation of the great moral abnormity of the generation.‘—év oi¢] 
i.e. among the people of this yeved;5—gaivecbe] not imperative,* but the 
existing relation, which constitutes the essential distinctive character of the 
Christian state as contrasted with the non-Christian, Eph. v. 8, al. The 
aim of the év oi¢ gatveote x.r.4. is, by means of an appeal to the true Chris- 


1Comp. Luke xxiv. 38, and on Rom. xiv. 1; 
Plat. Ax. p. 367 A: ¢dpovribes . . . nai &:ado- 
yropuoi, Tim. p. 59 C: ovSdy wotxiAow ers 8:aA0- 
yicarOa. Ecclus. xl. 2. 

2 But see Hom. Jl. xii. 109; Herod. iii. 82; 
frequently in the Anthol. 

3Hom. Il. xii. 167; Od. xiv. 300; Eur. Rhes. 
531 (néva); LXX. Num. xxxv. 5. 

4Comp. on exodcds, 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 é&eorp., Matt. xvii. 
17; Deut. xxxii. 20; Polyb. viii. 24. 3, v. 41. 1, 
ii. 21. 8; also d&k:acrpodos, Soph. Aj. 442. 

5See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 242[E. T. p. 
282); Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 213 f.; KObner, IL 
1, p. 40 f. 

Cyprian, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, Theo 
phylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin, Grotiua, 
and others, including Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, 
Baumgarten-Crusius. 





92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


tian sense of honor (the consciousness of their high Christian position 
towards them that are without), to assist the attainment of the end in 
view ; this is misunderstood by Bengel, when he suggests the addition of 
“servata hac admonitione,” a view in which he is followed by Hofmann. 
The meaning is not lucetis (so usually), but (comp. also Weiss, Schenkel, 
and J. B. Lightfoot) : ye appear,' come into view, apparetis.2 Lucetis (Vulgate) 
would be gaivere2—gworpec| light-givers (Rev. xxi. 11), here a designation, not 
of torches (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide) or lamps (Hofmann), which would 
be too weak for év 16 xéouy, 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. ‘—év xéopuy] is to be taken in refer- 
ence to the physical world, and closely connected with guer. [XII c.]. As 
light-bearers in the world (which shine in the world, by day the sun, by night 
the moon and stars), the Christians appear in the midst of a perverted genera- 
tion. Comp. Matt. v. 14; also classical expressions like mérpac géyyea (Anthol. 
vi. 614, 2), ete. If ¢aiveobe be rightly interpreted, év xédozy cannot be joined 
with it (de Wette, Weiss, who takes xéouy in the ethical sense), or be supple- 
mented by ¢aivovra: (Hoelemann, Rilliet, van Hengel). It is erroneous, 
further, to make év «éouzy mean in heaven (Clericus, Rheinwald®), and also 
erroneous to attach a pregnant force to é, making it mean “ within the 
world,” in contrast to the lights of heaven shining from above ; thus Hof- 
mann, connecting it with Adyov Cuge éxéx. and bringing out with emphasis 
something quite self-evident. On xécpyo¢ without the article, see Winer, p. 
117 [E. T. p. 123]. On the whole passage, comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 577: 
tpeic ol gworapes Tov ovpavod O¢ 6 HALog Kai 4 ceAquy’ Ti rothoover mdvTa Ta Evy, EGY 
bueic oxorioOhocobe év aoeBeig x.r.A. Paul, however, has put gworgpec without 
the article, because he hag conceived it qualitatively. 

Ver. 16. Adyov (uie éxéxovres] a definition giving the reason for ¢atveofe d¢ 
guor. év x.: since ye possess the word of life. [XII d.J. This is the Gospel, 
ved) tiv aidvov mpotevei (wv, Theodoret. See Rom. i. 16; comp. John vi. 
68; Acts v. 20; it is the divinely efficacious vehicle of the rveiya ric (wie 
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 
Adyoc rig SwH¢ (1 John i. 1), His servants are dopz Cwie etc Sof (2 Cor. ii. 
16), therefore the word preached by them must be Adyos fuse in the sense 
indicated. Paul does not elsewhere use the expression. As to (wf with- 


180 also Homer, J1. i. 200, which Hofmann 
compares and brings out for our passage the 
sense: “stand in the light proper to them.” 
Comp., however, Jl. xix. 16, xxii. 28, and Le. ; 
Duncan, Ler. ed. Rost. p. 1148 f. In the former 
passage, i. 200, the sense is: her eyes (Athene’s) 
appeared terrible. Comp. Nagelsbach, p. 87, 
ed.3. The same sense, according to another 
explanation, is found in Faesi. 

$ Matt. ii. 7, xxiv. 27; Jas.iv.14; Rev. xviii. 
23; Hom. Jt. i. 477, xxiv. 785, 788, Od. ii. 1, Jl. 
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. i.9, Anab. vii. 4. 16; 
hence ra datvdépeva, the heavenly a 

3John i. 5, v.35; 1 John ii. 8; 2 Pet. £19; 
Rev. i. 16, xxi. 23; 1 Macc. iv. 40; Plat. Tim. 
p. 39 B; Arist. Nub. 586; Hes. Oper. 528; 


Theoe. ii. 11. 


* Wisd. xfii.2; Ecclus. xliii.7; Heliod. 87; 
Anthol. xv. 17; Constant. Rhod. ep. in Para- 
lip. 206. 

6 The designation of the heavens by xécpos, 
first used by Pythagoras (see Bremi, ad Isoe. 
Paneg. p. 90), did not enter into the Biblical 
usus loquendi. 


CHAP. m1. 16. 93 


out the article, of eternal life in the Messiah’s kingdom (iv. 8), see Kaeuffer, 
de Cwne¢ ai. not. p. 73 f. As possessors of this word, the Christians appear 
like gworypec 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 Aght (Eph. v. 8; Col. 1.12; 1 
Thees. v. 5; 1 Pet. ii. 9; Luke xvi. 8; Acts xxvi. 18, al), just as Christ 
Himeelf is the principal light (John i. 4, 5, iii. 19, viii. 12, xii. 85, al.); but 
the element of the unbelieving yeved, whose image is the xéopor in iteelf 
devoid of light, is darkness (2 Cor. iv. 6, vi. 14; Eph. v. 8, vi. 12; Col. i. 18; 
John i. 5, iii. 19). "Exé zee, to possess,! to have in possession, at disposal, and 
the like? Not: holding fast (Luther, Estius, Bengel, and others, including 
Heinrichs, Hoelemann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Schneck- 
enburger); nor yet: sustinentes (Calvin), so that the conception is of a light 
fixed on a candlestick. Others understand it similarly: holding forth 
(Beza, Grotius, and others, including Rheinwald, Matthies, Wiesinger, 
Lightfoot), 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,* 
but not in harmony with the image, according to which the subjects them- 
selves appear as shining, as self-shining. Linguistically incorrect is Theo- 
doret’s view: 1@ Aédyw mpoctxovres (attendentes), which would require the 
dative of the object. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact take éréy. 
correctly, but understand Aédyov (ug as equivalent to orépua ¢. or évéxvpa €., 
and indicate, as the purpose of the words: dpa, ri¢ eibtug rigor ra érabda 
(Chrysostom). This view is without sanction from the usus loquendi. 
Linguistically it would in itself be admissible (see the examples in Wet- 
stein), but at variance with the N. T. mode of expression and conception, 
to explain with Michaelis, Storr, Zachariae, and Flatt: supplying the place 
of life (in the world otherwise dead), so that Adyov éréyecv would mean: to 
hold the relation. Comp. Syr.—ei¢ xabynpya «.7.A. [XII ¢.] the result which 
the yiveoOat apyéurrove x.t.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 (ér:), 
had not labored in vain, of which the excellent quality of his Philippian 
converts would afford practical evidence, 5r: rocovroug tude éxaidevoa, Theo- 
phylact. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19 f.; 2 Cor.1.14. Thus they were to be to 
him on that day a orégavog xavyfoews (1 Thess. /.c.). Paul cannot mean a 
present xavyac0a in prospect of the day of Christ (Hofmann), for ei¢ xabynua 
«.r.A. cannot be the result accruing for him from the év oi¢ gaiveoOe x.1.A. 


1 Hofmann erroneously pronounces against 
this, representing that éwdxecw could only be 
thus used in the sense of having under one's 
control. Compare, in opposition to this, espe- 
cially such passages as Thuc. fii. 107. 4, where 
the word is quite synonymous with the par- 
allel simple éxe»; also Anth, Pal vii. 276. 6. 

*See Herod. i 104, vill. 35; Xen. Symp. vili. 


1; Thue. 1 48, 2, if. 101,38; Anth. Pal. vil. 297. 
4; Polyb. iii. 37. 6, 112 8, v. 5, 6; Lucian, 
Necyom. 14. 

8 Hom. Jl. ix. 489, xxii. 48; Plut. Mor. p. 265 
A; Pind. O2. fi. 98; Poll. iii. 10. 

4 Acta iii. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 16; Ecclus. xxxi. 2; 
2 Macc. ix. 25; Job xxx. 26; Polyb. iii. 48. 2, 
xviii. 28. 1L 


94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TH» PHILIPPIANS. 


(since by it the position of the Christians generally is expressed), but only 
the result from the ethical development indicated by iva yévyode dueurro: x.7.A. 
Hence also dr: cannot be a statement of the reason (Hofmann); it is explica- 
tive: that.—The twofold,' yet climactic, figurative description of his apos- 
tolical exertions (on édpaz., comp. Gal. ii. 2; Acta xx. 24; on éxoriaca, comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. iv. 11), as well as the repetition of sic xevév (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: 
ei¢ xabynua x.T.A., presupposed, in the first place, that he himself would live to 
see the further development described in ver. 15: iva yévyjo6e éueutro. Now, 
however, he puts the opposite case, so as to elevate his readers to the right 
point of view for this also, and says: “ But even if I should be put to death 
in my vocation dedicated to your faith,” etc. Van Hengel finds in these 
words the contrast to the hope of living to see the Parousia. But this hope 
is not expressed in what precedes, since the result ci¢ xabynpa x.7.A. was 
conditioned, not by the apostle’s living to see the Parousia, 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 climaz (in relation to éxowiaca), see especially Heinrichs 
and Matthies; but this is erroneous, because éxoriaca in the preceding 
verse ig neither the main idea, nor specially indicative of tribulation. 
Arbitrary and entirely unnecessary is, further, the assumption of an oppo- 
nent’s objection (“‘ at vero imminent tristissima !”’) to which Paul replies; or 
the explanation of 4444 by the intervening thought: “non, je n'ai pas 
travaille en vain, mais au contraire,” etc., Rilliet; comp. also Erasmus, 
Paraphr. Ina similar but direct way Hofmann gains for 4424 the expla- 
nation, buf on the contrary, by connecting it antithetically with the pre- 
ceding negative clauses dr: obx ei¢ xevév x.r.2., which, with the right expla- 
nation of the following words, is impossible. According to de Wette 
(comp. also Storr and Flatt), ver. 17 connects itself with i. 26, so that aAad 
forms a contrast to ver. 25, and all that intervenes is a digression. But 
how could any reader guess at this? The suggestion is the more ground- 
less, on account of the yaipw in ver. 17 corresponding so naturally and appo- 
sitely with the xabynua in ver. 16.—ei xai x«.7.4.] if I even (which I will by 
no means call in question) should be poured out, etc. On the concessive 
sense of ¢ xai (1 Cor. iv. 7; 2 Cor. iv. 8, 16, v. 16, vii. 8, al.), see Herm. ad 
Viger. p. 882; Klotz, ad Devar. p.519. The case supposed is thus rendered 
more probable than by the reading of E G, xai ei (even assuming that I)? 
The protasis beginning with 4/2’ ei xai extends to r. ior. fuév. As in ver. 
12, so also here Hofmann makes the violent assumption that the apodosis 
already begins at é7i r. Qvoig «.7.A. with orévdoua: again to be supplied, whilst 
at the same time there is imputed to this évi r. @voig «.r.4., in order to give 


1Comp. Anthol. Pal. xi. 56.2: pk rpdxe, wh £8tallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A; Gorg. 
comla. p. 509 A; Schmalf. Syntaz d. Verb. sec. 99 f. 


CHAP. mm. 17. 95 


an appropriate turn to the assumed antithesis for 4244, a tenor of thought 
which the words do not bear; see below. —ortvdopat] I become offered as a 
kibation, poures out asa drink-offering (2 Tim. iv. 6), frequently in all clags- 
ical writers.' The sense stripped of figure is: if even my blood is shed, if 
even I should be put to death. Paul represents his apostolic exertions for 
the faith of the Philippians as an offering (comp. Rom. xv. 16); if he is 
therein put to death, he is, by means of the shedding of his blood in this 
sacrifice, made a libation, just as among the Jews? in the sacrifices, together 
with meat-offerings, Abations of wine were made, which were poured upon 
the ground from sacred vessels (crovdeia) at the altar. The present tense 
is used, because Paul has strongly in view his present danger (i. 20 ff.); 
Kihner, II. 1, p. 119 f. Rilliet (comp. Wetstein) takes the passive erro- 
neously : I am besprinkled (which also does not correspond with the present 
tense), making Paul say, “que la libation preparatoire du sacrifice a 
coulé sur sa tete.” Confusion with xaraortvéecta:.5—éml 1. Ovo. x. Ait. Tr. 3. 
iji.| at the sacrifice and priestly service of your faith, that is, whilst I present 
your faith as a sacrifice and perform priestly service in respect to it; the 
sense of this, stripped of the figure, is: whilst I, by furtherance of your faith in 
Christ, serve God, as by the offering and priestly ministration of a sacrifice. 
[XII f.] rie zior. is the object which is conceived as sacrificed and under- 
going priestly ministration ; 6vcig and Aerovpyig have one article in com- 
mon, and are thereby joined so as to form one conception. But Ac:rovpyi¢ 
(priestly function) ®* is added by the apostle as a more precise definition, because 
the mere 6veig would leave it uncertain whether he was to be considered 
as a priest, whereas Paul desires expressly to describe himself as such. 
6vcia, as always in the N. T., is sacrifice, so that the idea is: at the sacrifice 
and priestly service of your faith; hence there is no necessity for taking 
it as sacrificing, or the act of sacrifice.’ The éri, however, is simply to be 
taken as af, as in i. 8 and frequently; not as to, in addition to (Beza, 
Raphel, Matthies, de Wette, Weiss, and many others; comp. also Hof- 
mann), or with the Vulgate as supra (Heinrichs, Hoelemann, van Hen- 
gel), in the sense of the (heathen) mode® of the libation, an interpretation 
which should have been precluded by the addition of the abstract x. Aer- 


1See also Schlieusner, Thee. V. p. 79; Suicer, 
Thes. II. p. 993. 

* This (since the time of Chrysostom) unani- 
mous interpretation of the figurative expres- 
sion 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 inter- 
course with the world by his imprisonment. 
An abortive suggestion, the forced result of 
incorrect assumptions. 

® Num. xxviii. 7, xv. 4 ff.; Joseph. Antt. iii. 
9. 4; see generally, Ewald, Alterth. p. 46 f.; 
Saalschits, M. R. p. 314 f. 

4 As to the Hellenic sacrificial libations, see 
Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. 3 25,15 f. On the 
figurative representation of the shedding of 


blood as a crovd}, comp. Anthol. ix. 184. 6: 
bidgos alve rupdvvey iowacev, Ignatius, Rom. 2; 
crovéicGiva: Gey ws its Ovotacripioy érowpoy 
tori. 

5 Plat. Alex. 50, de def. orac. 46; Strabo, iv. p. 
197; Eur. Or. 1239; Antip. Sid. 73 (Asthol. vii. 
27). 

6 Comp. Luke i. 23; Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21, and 
frequently in the LXX.; see Schleusner, 
Thes.; comp. also Diod. Sic. i. 21, and, for the 
figurative use of the word, Rom. xv. 16, 27. 

? Herod. iv. 60, viii 99; Herodian, villi. 3. 6, 
iL. 36. 12, al. 

8On this mode of libation rests the expres- 
sion émoxérSecy, to pour a libation over some- 
thing (Herod. ii. 39, iv. 60, 62, vii. 167; Aesch. 
Ag. 1395; Plut. Rom. 4). 


96 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


ovpy. Finally, although Paul’s official activity concerned the faith of all 
his churches, he gays iuév with the same right of individualizing reference 
as in é&’ tuac at i. 24 and many other passages. The passage is peculiarly 
misunderstood by Hofmann, who holds that évi has the sense in association 
with ; that rio wiotews iu. is the genitive of apposition to Ovoig and Azcroupy. ; 
that the sacrificing and ministering subject is not the apostle, but the Phil- 
ippian church, which, when it became believing, had presented its own 
sacrifice to God, and has been constantly honoring Him with its own work 
of service. Accordingly Paul says that, even though his labors should end 
in a violent death, yet the shedding of his blood would not be an isolated drink- 
offering, but would associate itself with their sacrifice. But this would only 
make him say, with artificial mysteriousness, something which is perfectly 
self-evident (namely: after that ye became believers, and whilst ye are 
believers). Moreover, éri would thus be made to express two very differ- 
ent relations, namely, with rg 6voig after, after that, and with the Aecroupyig at, 
during. And how could a reader discover from the mere émi «.r.A, the 
alleged antithetical reference of an isolated drink-offering, especially as no 
antithesis of the persons is even indicated by iuév being placed first (imme- 
diately after éxi)? The entire explanation is a forced artificial expedient 
in consequence of the mistaken assumption that an apodosis begins after 
orévdoua:, and a new section sets in with yalpw.—yaipw| [XII g.] Apodosis 
down to tpiv: I rejoice, not at the Qvoia x. Aecroupyia tig rior. tu. (Chrysos- 
tom, who connects ézi_ r. Ovo. «.7.4. with zaipw; comp. Oecumenius; 80 also 
Rilliet), for it is mere arbitrariness to separate the sacrificial expressions 
orévdopa and émi r. Gvoig «.r.A. and attach them to different parts of the 
sentence, and because yaipw, as the point of the apodosis, would have been 
placed before imi r. Ove. «.7.A.; butat theanrfvdecGar: I rejoice to be employed 
for so sacred a destination? The ground of the apostle’s joy, assumed by 
many (including Flatt, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette): because my 
death will tend to the advantage of the gospel (i. 20), and also the interpre- 
tation of Weiss: that joy at the progress of the Philippians towards perfection 
is intended, are both quite gratuitously imported into the passage. The 
explanation of it as referring generally to inward joyfulness of faith (Wies- 
inger) or divine serenity (Ewald), does not correspond with the protasis, 
according to which it must be joyfulness in the prospect of death. “ Even 
if I am compelled éo die in this sacrificial service, I rejoice therein,” and 
that, indeed, now for the case supposed; hence not future.—xal ovyx. maocw 
tpiv] is wrongly explained by most commentators: “and I rejoice with you 
all” (so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Heinrichs, Matthies, 
van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Schneckenburger, Weiss, 
Hofmann, and many others); along with which explanation Chrysostom, 





tIn which xalpe «. cvyxalpe wacwv buiv are 
supposed to serve merely as an introduction 
for the exhortation which foliows; thus Paul 
would be made to say, that even for that sup- 
posed case of the omdvico@a: he is in a joyful 
mood, and he rejoices with any person in the 


church whose heart ts joyful (all this is sup- 
posed to be implied in saeuy vyiy'!). 
*Theophylact appropriately remarks: ovx 
eas 6 awoOavovpmevos Aumovma, adAAa cal yaipe 
-.- OTe cwovdy yivopwas, and Theodoret: 
ravra 8 Adye. Yuxaywyey atrois x. dddéoxwv 


CHAP. II. 18. . 97 


Theophylact, and various of the older expositors, bring forward another 
ground for this joint joy than for the yaipw (Chrysostom : xaipw pev, bre orovdy 
ylvouat’ ovyzxalpw dé bt¢ Gvoiay mpooeveyndv ; comp. Schneckenburger). Decisive 
against this interpretation is the yaipere which follows in ver. 18,—a sum- 
mons which would be absurd, if ovyy. tu. meant: “I rejoice with you.” The 
Vulgate already rightly renders: congratulor,, I congratulate you all, 
namely, on the fact that I am poured out in the service of your faith. Such a 
martyrdom, namely, for the sake of their faith, how it must have elevated and 
honored the readers, their whole church; for such a martyr death con- 
cerned them all! Comp. on Eph. iii. 13; it redounds to their glory, if the 
apostle sheds his blood on account of their Christian standing established 
by him. It is én this Kght that Paul wishes his orévdéecGa:, should it occur, 
to be regarded by his readers, and therefore gracefully and ingeniously 
represents it (though Hofmann holds this to be impossible) as something 
on which he must congratulate them all. Pauline linguistic usage is not 
to be urged in objection to this view (Weiss), as Paul employs ovyzaipe 
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 ovyyalpoya: (3 Macc. i. 8). The active as 
well as the middle may convey either meaning, to rejoice along with, or 
, 3 

Ver. 18. And upon the same (upon my possibly occurring orévdéeoOa: éri 1. 
Ovo. x.7.4., ver. 17) rejoice ye also (because it takes place for the sake of your 
faith), and congratulate me thereon (on such a sacred destination). The 
verbs are imperatives. “‘ Postulat enim Paulus parem ovyrd@erav a Philipp.,” 
Beza. The ground of the yaipere may not be arbitrarily introduced (Hof- 
mann: whatever untowardness may occur), but must by logical necessity 
be the same which, in ver. 17, suggested the ovyyaipw tuiv; and that of the 
ovyxaiperé wot must be the same as caused Paul to say xaipw in ver. 17. 
The expositors, who do not take ovyyaipe:v as gratulari, are here placed in 
the awkward position of making the apostle summon his readers to a joy 
which, according to ver. 17, they would already possess. By this impos- 
sibility Weiss, in spite of the ra atré, allows himself to be driven into taking 
the joy in ver. 18, not as in ver. 17, but (comp. also Hofmann) quite gen- 
erally, of a joyful frame of mind.—ré airé] in the same (on the accusative, 
comp. Matt. ii. 10) rejoice ye also; see also on i. 25. Hence it is not to be 
taken as equivalent to dcatruc (Beza, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, Rheinwald, 
Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann) (comp. on i. 6), in order 
thereby to avoid identifying it with the joy mentioned in ver. 17. As to 


TOD papTrupiov 7d wdyeGos. Comp. Gro- 
tius, Heinrichs. 

1Comp. Jerome, Besa, Castalio, Grotius, 
Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Bisping, 
Ellicott, Lightfoot. 

2Polyb. xxix. 7. 4, xxx. 10.1; Plut. Mor. p. 
231 B; 3 Macc. i. 8. See Valckenaer, Schol. 
L p. 54. 

3The difficulty which van Hengel (comp. 

7 


Hofmann) urges, that the readers “ vix ant 
ne vix quidem induci potuerunt de hujus viri 
morte violenta gaudentes vel gavisuri,” en- 
tirely mistakes the lofty standpoint of the 
apostie, 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 readersa corresponding 


mode of looking at the possibility of his death. 


98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


xaipey with the accusative in classical authors, see generally Lobeck, ad 
Aj. 131; Kuhner, IT. 1, p. 255 f. 

Ver. 19. [On vv. 19-24, see Note XIII. pages 114, 115.] The apostle now, 
down to ver. 24, speaks of sending Timothy ' to them, and states that he 
himself trusted to visit them shortly. [XIII a.] [eawi{e 62 «.7.4.] [XIII 
b.] 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 is, nevertheless I hope soon to send Timothy to you, etc—He 
hopes, therefore, for such a change in his situation, as would enable him 
soon to spare that most faithful friend for such a mission. Here also, as 
in i, 21-26, there is an immediate change from a presentiment of death 
to a confidence of his being preserved in life and even liberated (ver. 24). 
The right view of vv. 17, 18 debars us from construing the progress of the 
thought thus: for the enhancement of my joy, however, etc. (Weiss). Others 
take different views, as e.g. Bengel: although I can write nothing definite 
regarding the issue of my case,—an imported parenthetic thought, which 
is as little suggested in ver. 17 f. as is the antithetical relation to yaipere 
k. ovyxaip. pot discovered by Hofmann, viz. that the apostle is anzious as to 
whether all is well in the church.—év xvpiy] making the hope causally rest in 
Christ. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 19.—iyiv] not equivalent to the local mpdc 
tuacs (van Hengel), nor yet the dative commod: (“ vestros in usus, vestra in 
gaudia,” Hoelemann, comp. de Wette and Hofmann), whereby too special 
a sense is introduced; but the dative of reference (1 Cor. iv. 17; Acts xi. 
29), indicating the persons concerned as those for whom the mission gen- 
erally is intended.—xayo] [XIII c.] I also, as ye through the accounts* to 
be received of me, namely, those which ye shall receive through this 
epistle, through Epaphroditus, and through Timothy.—eiypuyeiv] to be of 
good courage, occurs here only in the N. T. See Poll. iii. 185; Joseph. 
Antt. xi. 6. 9.3—ra epi iu.) the things concerning you, quite generally, your 
circumstances. Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8.4 © 

Ver. 20. [XIII d.] Reason why Timothy is the person sent. Hof- 
mann erroneously takes it as: the reason why he sends no one at the time. 
As if viv yép or dpe yap obdéva «.r.A. were written.—todywuyor] like-minded, 
namely, with me ; in what respect, is stated in the sequel. Castalio, Beza, 
Calvin, Rilliet, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, wrongly interpret it: no one who 


1 Hofmann’s hypothesis, that the church 
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 tva 
xayes ebuye «.7.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 Timo- 
thy. As if the motive of love conveyed by 
tva nays «.7.A, were not enough! 

8 There is a delicate compliment implied in 
this xéye; 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 in 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 
evyuxe. 

3 Comp. the evyixe: in epitaphs (like xaipe) 
in Jacobs, ad Anthol. xii. p. 304. 

4See Heindorf, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 68 A. 


CHAP. 11. 19-21. 99 


would be so minded as he (Rheinwald combines the two references). As 
air¢ is not added, the text gives no other reference for loo¢ (in ioéyvyz.) than 
to the subject of tye (see also ver. 22); as, indeed, Paul could not give a 
better reason for the choice of Timothy, and could not more effectively 
recommend him to his readers, than by setting forth his likemindedness 
with himself; comp. Deut. xiii. 6: ¢lAo¢ loog rg woxp pov. [XIII ¢.] The 
word occurs only here in the N.T.; see LXX. Ps. lv. 14; Aesch. Agam. 
1470. Comp. on the subject-matter, 1 Cor. xvi. 10.—teri¢ «.7.A.] the em- 
phasis is laid on yv7eiuc, and der, quéppe qué, ita comparatum ut, introduces 
the character of an iséyvyoc, such as is not at his disposal.—yvyciuc] in gen- 
uine, sincere fashion, with one care without guile,! the selfish contrast to 
which is described in ver. 21. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 8.—pepiuvfoe}] namely, 
when I shall have sent him. The caring is not to be more precisely defined ; 
it necessarily manifested itself according to the circumstances in watch- 
ing, correction, encouragement, counsel, and action. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 
25; 2 Cor. xi. 28. 

Ver. 21. Ol wdvrec] all (except Timothy), of those whom I now have 
with me and at my disposal for sending ; ‘wee 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 Cyrovory, ob ra 'I. 
X., seeing that we are unacquainted with the circle surrounding the 
apostle at that particular time, and do not know to what extent the anti- 
Pauline tendency, i. 15, 17, had then spread in the immediate neighbor- 
hood of the apostle. The only limitation of the general expression, 
which is in accordance with the text, lies in the fact that Paul does not 
mean the Christians generally in Rome, but such assistant teachers as 
would otherwise, if they had been pure and honest, have been qualified 
for such a mission. The trustworthy ones among these otherwise quali- 
fied fellow-laborers must have been absent at the time, especially Luke, 
who could by no means have been included among ol révrec (in opposition 
to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 427); 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, ol révr. cannot be under- 
stood as many or the most (Beza, Wolf, Hammond, Drusius, Estius, Gro- 
tius, 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 relatively: they 
seek more their own interest, etc. (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others, 
also Flatt, Hoelemann, comp. the reservations of Weiss), to which Hof- 
mann’s view? also ultimately comes; nor is it to be explained by assum- 
ing an intention of distinguishing Timothy (Matthies); nor yet is the judg- 
ment to be restricted, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, 


1 Dem. 1482, 14; Polyb. iv. 30. 2; 2 Macc. even though it be consecrated to the kingdom of 
riv. &. God (?), by special personal aims, instead of 
2 The latter says: they allow themselves to devoting themselves ALWAYS ONLY (? ov ra"I. X.) 
be influenced in the direction of their activity, to that which is moet apvaxtacxous for the 





100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 

to the hardships of the long journey, to which they preferred their own 
repose. Bengel: rightly defends the full seriousness of the utterance, and 
adds: “subtilissima erat aiofocs, 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 rw 62 
airov dox. OF avrov dé ri dox.), but of the qualification, 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 spectata, 
comp. Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. 11. 9, ix. 18) of him ye know; for Timothy had 
himself been in Philippi (Acts xvi. 1, 3, xvii. 14); hence yevdox. is not the 
imperative —dre «.1.A.] that he, namely, etc.—d¢ marpi réxvov] Comp. 1 Cor. 
iv. 17. The apostle had here édotAevoev before his mind, but alters the con- 
ception in such a way, that he thinks upon the service as rendered no 
longer to him, but with him, in a humble glance at Christ (ver. 21), whom 
he himself also serves, so that the apostle’s servant is at the same time 
his ofvdovacc? Hofmann labors without success to remove the incongru- 
ity, which cannot be got rid of unless, with Vatablus, we were at liberty 
to supply ofv before zarpi. But, however frequently the Greeks put the 
preposition only once in comparisons,’ its omission does not occur in the 
clause placed first. The poetical use of such an omission in the case of 
words which are connected by «ai, ré, or 7‘ does not concern us here.—ei¢] 
in respect to the gospel (comp. i. 5), the serving in question having reference 
to the preaching, defence, etc., thereof. [XIII /-] 

Ver. 23. Mév otv] obv resumes ver. 19, and to the yév corresponds the 2 
in ver. 24.—dc¢ ay amidw x.7.4.] when (of the time, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
759, that is, as soon as, comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 34; Rom. xv. 24) I anyhow (by 
av the matter is left to experience) shall have seen to the end (Jonah iv. 5). 
The latter, which expresses the perceiving from a distance ® denotes the 
knowledge of the final course of matters to be expected,—only after which 
could it be decided whether or not he could spare the faithful Timothy 
for a time. The form agidw (Lachmann and Tischendorf ) in A B* D* F 
G ®& is, on account of this weighty evidence, to be considered not as a 
copyist’s error, but as the original, and to be derived from the pronuncia- 
tion of ideiv (with the digamma). Comp. on Acts iv. 29, and see Winer, 
p. 44 [E. T. p. 45]; J. B. Lightfoot ad loc. ; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 7 [E. 
T. p. 7].—1a wept et] the things about me, that is, the state of my affairs. 
Substanti:lly not different from ra repi éuod (ver. 19 f.).* 


cause of Christ (ob ra “I. X.!). Thus there is 
imported into the passage what is not at all 
to be found in it. 
1 Vulgate, Pelagius, Castalio, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Clericua, Rheinwald, Hoelemann. 
See Winer, pp. 393, 537 [E. T. pp. 422, 577.] 
%See Bernhardy, p. 204 f.; Kdhner, II. 1, 
p. 479. 


1 


4Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. x. 38; Lobeck, ad 
Aj. 397 ff. 

5 Herod. viii 37; Dem. 1472. 15; Lucian, D. 
D. vi. 2. 

See Ktithner,ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20; Winer, 
p. 379 [E. T. p. 406}. 


CHAP. Il. 22-25. 101 


Ver. 24. Kat atrés] also myself personally. [XIII g.] What Paul shall 
see, therefore, is, as he confidently trusts (not merely hopes), his Aberation 
(comp. i. 25 f.); that it will make it possible for him to come aoon.'_ The 
terminus a quo of the rayzéwe 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 rayéuc as a relutive definition of the time is not opposed to 
this view. But that xai avré¢ 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. [On vv. 25-30, see Note XIV. pages 115, 116]. About Epa- 
phroditus ; the sending him home, and recommendation of him, down to 
ver. 30—avayx. 62 #y.] [XIV a.b.] I have, however, judged tt necessary, al- 
though Epaphroditus, namely, according to vv. 19-24, might have re- 
mained 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.— Exagpéd:rov}] otherwise not further known. The 

name (signifying Venustus) was a common one,’ also written ’Exagpédetrog ;* 
but to regard the man as identical with ’Eragpa¢ (Col. i. 7, iv. 12; Philem. 
23) (Grotius, Paulus, and others) is all the more arbitrary, since Epaphras 
was a Coiossian teacher.—The grouping together of five predicates which 
follows, has arisen out of loving and grateful regard for Epaphroditus, as 
an honorable testimony to him in his relation to the apostle as well as to 
the church.—adedg., ovvepy., ovorpar.] [XIV c.] a climactic threefold de- 
scription of companionship, advancing from the most general category, 
that of Christian brotherhood (adeA¢é¢), to a twofold more special relation. 
On overpar., which sets forth the joint working (owepy.) in relation to the 
hostile powers, comp. Philem. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 3.—ipéy 62 ardor. x. Aecrovpy. tr. 
xp. wov.] [XIV d.] still belonging to rév; hence inév, placed in contrast to 
the pov, belongs to Aerovpy. tr. x. p. a8 well (in opposition to de Wette and 
others). ‘Ardéorodog here means delegate (2 Cor. viii. 23), and not apostle, * 
which would necessitate the genitive tuév being taken as in Rom. xi. 13, 
against which the context, by the union with Aecroupy. r. x. u., is decisive ; 
as, indeed, Paul uses azéor. as an official designation only in the sense of the 
actual apostolic rank, based upon a direct call by Christ, in its narrower 
and wider reference (comp. on Gal. i. 19; Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and 
hence there is no necessity to seek even an allusion to his “ quasi ”-apos- 
tolic position towards the Philippians (Matthies).—x. Aecroupy. r. x. y.] the 
sacrificial minister of my need, o¢ Ta nap’ avtav anootadtvra xopicavta xXphyata, 
Theodoret. By sending aid they had cared for the apostle’s need (iv. 16); 
and that gift of love being regarded as a sacrifice offered to God, Epaph- 


1 How could this confidence, which the 2Tac. Ann. xv. 55; Suet. Domit, 14; Joseph. 
result did not justify, have been put by any  Vit.76; Wetstein in loc. 
later author into the apoetle’s mouth? Only 8 Boeckh, Corp. inser. 1811, 2562. 
Pan! himself could have written in such a 4Vulgate, Hilarius, Theodoret, Luther, Eras- 
way as here and in 1.25 f, See, in opposition mus, Calovinus, Wetastein: “mei muneris vica- 
to Hinsch, Hilgenfeld, 1873, p. 185 f. rium apud vos,” am Ende, and others. 


102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 

roditus, who had been entrusted by them with the conveying of it, was 
the Aecrovpyéc in the matter, that is, he who performed the priestly service 
in the bringing of this offering (comp. ver. 17). Such is also the con- 
ception in 2 Cor. ix. 12. On rie xpeiag x. comp. iv. 16; Rom. xii. 18.— 
réupa} as also in Greek authors frequently, in the sense of dimittere 
domum, to send home,' consequently equivalent to aroréuray or avariurecv 
(Philem. 12). 

Ver. 26. State of mind (# with participle) of Epaphroditus, which sup- 
plied the motive for the avayx. #y70. x«.r.A.2—The imperfect is used (4), 
because Paul transports himself to the time when the readers shall 
receive this epistle. [XIV e.] Then is Epaphroditus again among them; 
but he was previously longing, etc.—adyzyovav] in anziety. Comp. on 
Matt. xxvi. 37.—érc 700.] that he was sick. How the Philippians received 
this information, remains an open question, as also how Epaphroditus 
learned that they had heard it. 

Ver. 27. Confirmation of that qxoteare, Sr: 700.—xa? yap x..A.] for he has 
also (really, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 182; Baeumlein, p. 150) been sick. 
—rapari, Gavéty] adds the specification of the mode: ina way almost equiv- 
alent to death. There is neither an ellipsis (de Wette: agixero or some such 
word is to be understood before raparA.; comp. van Hengel) nor a solecism 
(van Hengel); apard. is adverbial (equivalent to taparAnciuc, see Polyb. 
iv. 40. 10, iii. 88.17; Lucian, Qyn. 17; comp. raparAnotairepov, 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.—Atayy én? 
Abrnv] [XIV f.] grief upon grief (superadded). LXX. Ezra vii. 26; Ps. 
Ixix. 27; Isa. xxviii. 10.4 The first Atwmy refers to the dreaded death of his 
friend ; the second, to the apostle’s affliction over the painful position in 
which he found himself, as a prisoner, and also through the doings of the 
adversaries (ver. 20 f., 1. 15, 17, 80), not over the sickness of Epaphroditus 
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Estius, and others, also 
Weiss), to which would be added that for his death. ’AAumérepoc in ver. 
28 is fatal to the latter view, for it appears that, even after Epaphr. had 
been sent away, a Atry still remained, which, therefore, could not be 


1That Paul, however, here writes wéuwas 
mpos Umas, and, on the other hand, #. vuiy in 
ver. 19, is an accidental and undesigned 
variation. Hofmann thinks that by #. vip is 
meant the sending of a representative of the 
apostle to the Church, and by #. wpds vuas 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 tvuivy and wpids 
upas. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. vi. 22; Col. 
iv. 8; Tit. iii. 12; 2 Cor. xif. 17. 

2 Xen. Hell. ii. 7.9; Soph. O. R. 1518; Polyb. 
vy. 100. 10; and frequently in Homer. See 
especially Od. xv. 74: xpy fetvoy wapedvra 
GiAciv, ddAovra 82 wép recy. 


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

4Comp. expressions with the dative (as 
Ecclus. xxvi. 15) in classic Greek, ¢ g. dyxvy 
éwi Syxvn (Hom. Od. vii. 120), écAa éx’ écdAcis 
(Pind. Ol. vili. 84), dovos dwt Govy (Eur. Iph. 
T. 197); Polyb. i. 57. 1. See also Eur. Hee. 586: 
Avwy Tis GAAR Stadoxos Kaxwy xaxois, Soph. El. 
235: adrey drats, Eur. Troad. 175: és’ dAyeos F 
aAyvvbe. 


CHAP. I. 26-30. 103 


referred to the latter’s sickness. Van Hengel errs in understanding the 
affliction as pain concerning this sickness, and the first Ai-r7v as “ cogitatio 
anxietatis vestrae.” See, in opposition, on ver. 28. Calvin’s remark 
suffices to justify the double Atrz: “Non jactat Stoicorum a7é@eav, quasi 
ferreus esset et immunis ab humanis affectibus.” Comp. John xi. 35 f— 
axa] not optative. See Winer, p. 270 [E. T. p. 288]. 

Ver. 28. The more urgently, therefore (in consequence of this sickness 
which he had had and recovered from, of which ye received tidings, vv. 
26, 27), I have brought about his return, which otherwise I would still 
have delayed.—rdéd] belongs to zap7re, as Paul usually places it before the 
verb, or, at least, makes it follow tmmediately after.' And the context 
affords no ground for departing from the usual mode, and for joining it 
with idévre¢ avrév (Beza, Grotius, and others, also Baumgarten-Crusius and 
de Wette).—xayo adurér. &] Eav yap tusic yapzre, xal ty xaipw, Oecumenius. 
He is not dAvros, 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 Ai7vy. This tender inter- 
weaving of his own alleviation with the rejoicing of his readers is lost, if 
we refer aAtror. to the removal of the vexation of seeing the recovered one 
80 full of longing and 80 uneasy (Hofmann), which, regarded as Airy, 
would be sentimental. According to Weiss, Paul intends to say: still 
more dAvroc, than I have already become in consequence of Epaphroditus’ 
recovery. An unsuitable idea, because the comparative necessarily pre- 
supposes a certain degree of the Airy still remaining. In the conscious- 
ness of this Paul has written advumér.; if it had been otherwise, he would 
perhaps have used, as in ver. 19, xay® eiyvyzd or xaya xaipu. 

Ver. 29 f. Otv] Let, then, the reception which he meets with among you 
be in accordance with my purpose in accelerating his return (ive idévre¢ 
x.7.A.); receive him with all joy.—év xvpiy] denotes, as in Rom. xvi. 2, the 
Christian character of the mpocdéyeo8a:, the nature and action of which 
have their distinctive quality in Christ, in whose fellowship Christians live 
and move.—peré ado. xzap.] excludes every kind of sullen or indifferent 
temper and expression : “with all joyfulness.”—xai roig rowobrovg x.r.A.] and 
the people of such a sort, etc. “Iva uh d6&y aito udvy yapilecbat, xorg mapacvei 
xévrag Tous Ty avriy aperiy ecidecxvuptvove tiuav, Theophylact. But Epa- 
phroditus is in his view, as in the given case, the person belonging to the 
class thus to be held in honor. 

Ver. 80. dia 1rd Epy.] [XIV g.] emphatically prefixed: on account of 
nothing else than for this great sacred aim. The work (see the critical 
remarks) is, according to the context (comp. Acts xv. 38), obvious, 
namely, that of labor for the gospel; the addition in the Rec. rov Xpiorov is 
a correct gloss, and it is this épyov car’ é¢fox4v (comp. trép rod ovépuaros, Acta 


18ee Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 491 f., and van to holdin honor people of another sort (such 
Hengel. as are described in chap. iii.) more than the 
There is no ground for the reference, rovovrovs. For this assumption there would, 
which Hofmann discovers here,toanassumed at the most, be occasion only if Paul had 
inclination, on the part of the Philippians, used the comparative instead of érripove. 


104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


v. 41) in the service of which Epaphroditus incurred so dangerous an 
illness, namely, when he, according to the testimony of the predicates in 
ver. 25, as the ovvepyé¢ and ovorpariérne of the apostle, with devotedness and 
self-sacrifice, united his exertions for the gospel and his striving against 
the movements of its adversaries (i. 15, 17, 30, ii. 20) with a similar activity 
on the part of the apostle. The interpretation which refers épyov to the 
business of conveying the bounty (de Wette, following older expositors, 
comp. Weiss), does not suffice for the more special characteristic descrip- 
tion; and the reference to the enmity of Nero against Paul, the dangers 
of which Epaphroditus had shared, in order to reach the apostle and to 
serve him, finds no warrant either in the context or in Acts xxviii. (in 
opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, comp. Theodoret).— 
péxpt Oar. fyy.] 28 in Ps. cvii. 18: Fyyicav we tév wvAdv Tov Gavdrov, Ecclus. li. 
6: ga¢ Oavdrov, Rev. xii. 11. The expression with zéyp: is more definite 
than the dative would be (as in Ps. Ixxxviii. 3: 4 (wf pov 1G gdy fyyioe), OF 
eic Oavar. (Job xxxiii. 22); he came near even unto death.—rapafovi. rh yy. ] 
Such is the Tezt. 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 Gries- 
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, ed. 8, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, 
Winer, Ewald, Weiss, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann, and others, have preferred — 
rapaBoa, r. y. The latter has the authority of ABDEFG x, 177, 178, 179 
in its favor, as well as the support of the Itala by “parabolatus est de anima 
sua,” and of Vulgate, Aeth, Pelagius, by “tradens (Ambrosiaster: in 
interitum tradens) animam suam.” Since Bodebecfac was unknown to the 
copyists, whilst BovAetec@a: was very current, instead of the one amrag Acydu. 
another crept in, the form of which, on account of the prevalence of the 
simple word, had nothing offensive. apdBodetecOa:, 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 mapéodec, putting at 
stake, venturesome, and is therefore equivalent to rapéBodov elvat, to be 
venturous, to be an adventurer, as mreprepetecbac equivalent to réprepov elvac 
(1 Cor. xili. 4), adoyebecfa: equivalent to ddoyov eivac (Cic. Ad. vi. 4), 
arooxoretey and émoxorebey (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 591), xapexebeoBat 
(Luc. Philop. 22)... Hence the rapaBorevoduevoe «.7.A., which is to be 
regarded as a modal definition to y. 6av. #yyioe, means: so that he was ven- 
turesome with his soul (dative of the more definite reference), ¢.c. he hazarded 
his Ufe,? in order to supply, etc. In this sense rapaféAAeofa is current 


Besides, the emphasis is not on rovs rocovrove 
(Hofmaun), but on érripovs, correlative to the 
preceding mera wdc. xapas. 

18ee more such verbs in Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p- 67, and comp. generally Kahner, I. p. 695, 
II. 1, p. 98. 

3 The matter is conceived as staking a price 


or forfeit. Comp. wapaBéAsor in Poll. viii. 63, 
Phrynich. p. 238. On the subject-matter comp. 
also wpoterOac ras Wuyds (Pausanias, iv. 10. 3); 
the animae magnae prodigua of Horace (Od. i. 
12. 37); and the vitam profundere pro patria 
of Cicero (de Off. 1. 24). 


CHAP. 1. 30. 105 
among Greek authors, and that not merely with accusative of the object, 
but also with dative of reference,? in the sense of p:yox:vduveiv (Schol. Thuc. 
iv. 57) and wapappirrewy (Soph. fr. 499. Dind.).2= Hence, also, the name 
parabolani for those who waited on the sick (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 2, p. 
178, ed. 4). Taking the reading of the Tert. Rec., mapaBovaeteoOa: 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.—éva avara, x.7.A.] The object, to attain which 
he hazarded his life. We have to notice (1) that tuév belongs to terépnya ; 
and (2) that ric rpd¢ pe Aecrovpy. can denote nothing bse but the function,— 
well known and defined by the context (ver. 25), and conceived of as a 
sacrificial service,—with which Epaphroditus had been commissioned by 
‘the Philippians in respect to Paul (xpd¢ ye): All explanations are there- 
fore to be rejected, which either expressly or insensibly connect dyzéy with 
Aecrovpy., and take the latter in the general sense of rendering service 
(dtaxoveiv). We must reject, consequently, Chrysostom’s explanation (comp. 
Theophylact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Castalio, Vatablus, and others): 7d ot» 
tortpnua tig tuertpac Aectovpyiac avewAgpwoev ... brep éxpyv wavrag romjoat, TovTO 
éxpagev airéc ;* 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 interpretations. Hoelemann, also, in opposition to the 
simple literal sense, takes rd tydv torép. as defectus cut subvenistis, and ry, 
mpbo pe Aetrovpy. a8: rerum necessariarum ad me subministrando deferendarum, 
No; of the two genitives, referring to different things (comp. ver. 25, and 
see Winer, p. 180 [E. T. p. 191]), by which 1d torépzue is accompanied, the 
first conveys who were wanting (izéav, ye were wanting, ye yourselves were 
not there, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17), and the second to what this want applied. 
Consequently the passage is to be explained : in order to compensate for the 
circumstance, that ye have been wanting at the sacrificial service touching me ; 
that is, for the circumstance, 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 enlisting their grateful sympathy in the fate of Epaphroditus, was it to 


1 Hom. Jl. ix. 822; so usually, as in 2 Macc. 
xiv. 38, 

2 Polyb. ii. 26. 6, iii. 94.4; Diod. Sic. fii. 35: 
éxptvay wapaBadéoba Taig Yvyais. 

3 Comp. wapaBéAAonat TH euavrod xepadg in 
Phryn. ed. Lob. p. 238. 

4 Hofmann substantially reverts to this. He 
takes tpervas the subject, which had allowed 
something to remain lacking in the service, 


namely, in so far as the church had only col- 
lected the aid, but not conveyed it. How indeli- 
cate would such a thought have been! Be- 
sides, 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. 


106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


represent the absence of the Philippians as something that had been lack- 
ing in that Aerovpyia, and therefore, as something which Paul had missed, 
to supply which, as representative of the church, the man had (as his deadly 
sickness had actually shown) hazarded his life! He did not therefore con- 
tract the illness on his journey to Rome (de Wette, Weiss, and older 
expositors), as Hofmann thinks, who represents him as arriving there in 
the hot season of the year; but through his exertions dé rd 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 absenae of the church. On avamd. 1d iz. 
torép., comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17. The compound 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. 23 f. Hinsch very erroneously, because misconceiv- 
ing the delicate courtesy of the grateful expression, thinks that in ver. 30 
the aid is described as a duty incumbent on the readers,—which would be 
un-Pauline ; iv. 10 is far from favoring this idea. 


Norss BY American Eprtor. 
IX. Vv. 1-5. 


(a) ovv is best understood as connecting this opening passage of the second 
chapter with rodcrebeode (i. 27), as related to and modified by the iva... evayyediou 
clause. To such a conformity in living to the gospel as would make them strive 
together for the faith with one soul, unanimity of sentiment and oneness of heart 
were necessary. The Apostle urges this upon them, therefore (otv), as the first 
element of Christian life, of which he would speak. To this unanimity humility, 
such as he describes in ver. 3, was essential. He accordingly adds an exhortation 
to this virtue also, which, because of the close relation between the two, he joins 
with the previous one in an added clause of the same sentence.—(b) The fourfold 
conditional portion of the sentence and the fourfold expression of the idea of har- 
mony, a8, indeed, also the asking the readers to make his joy complete by following 
his exhortation, show the urgency and emphasis with which he desired to make 
his appeal.—(c) The clauses from pndév to éavrav incidentally suggest the causes 
of want of harmony which the Apostle had in mind. The former word, as Light- 
foot remarks, is connected with “the exaltation of party;” the latter, with “the 
exaltation of self.” The fact, however, that the clause r7 raretugpoobry x.7.A. is 
placed in contrast with both ép:Beiav and xevodogiav, points to the conclusion that 
the “exaltation of party” here alluded to is inspired by the spirit of self-exalta- 
tion, and the latter idea is, thus, the one that is prominent.—(d) The words 4)... 
oxorrovvres x.T.A. (ver. 4) are, by reason of their connection with what precedes, to 
be regarded as having reference to the same thing. The looking upon the things 
of others is opposed to that exclusive consideration of one’s own things which is 
characteristic of a self-exalting spirit. That this is the thought is indicated, also, 
by the passage (vv. 6-11) which refers to Christ. A very similar phrase to the 
one here used is found in 1 Cor. x. 24, and a similar idea to that contained in 


NOTES. 107 


these words, as viewed in themselves alone, is expressed in other places by the 
Apostle; but the special thought and application are suggested, in different cases, 
by the context.—(e) The emphasis of the appeal, and the distinctness with which 
the thing to be laid aside is brought out, render it probable, that the writer was 
giving here, not a general exhortation to harmony as besed upon humility, but a 
special and personal one to the Philippians, which had reference to some division, 
or tendency to division, among them,—at least, to some ép«eia springing out of 
xevodogia, At the same time, there is no evidence or probability of contending 
doctrinal divisions in the Philippian Church, or of parties like those in Corinth. 
The divisions, if such they should be called, or the want of harmony (as the lan- 
guage employed seems more probably to justify us in describing the condition of 
things), was a minor matter in comparison with what was seen in some of the 
other churches. They were not so divided as to prevent their fellowship for the 
furtherance of the gospel (i. 5), or the Apostle’s joy on their behalf (i. 4). 

With respect to individual words or minor points in these verses, the following 
remarks may be added :—(1) The exhortation of vv. 1, 2, as presented in the form 
of the sentence, is fulfill my joy, while the harmony of the church is the end ta view 
or result of such fulfilling. But, in the writer’s mind, the latter was the main thing 
which he desired and aimed at. It seems probable, therefore, that the four points 
mentioned in the e clauses are intended by the Apostle to bear upon iva ¢povire 
6 auré, rather than upon wAypdécare pov tr. yap. If there is any exhortation in 
Christ, etc., as there surely is, which may legitimately bear upon your relations to 
one another, I beg you, he says, to let it influence you to be thoroughly united. 
Meyer connects these clauses somewhat more directly with tAjpwoare.—(2) R. V. 
has comfort, A. V., consolation, as the rendering of tapdxAjoc¢; but most of the 
best recent commentators (including not only Meyer, but Ell., Lightf., Alf., Eadie, 
and others), agree with A. R. V. in translating it by exhortation. This is probably 
correct.—(3) tapaytd:ov is regarded by Grimm (Lex. N.T.), as well as by the 
writers mentioned by Meyer in his note, and some others, as meaning persuadens 
alloquium, persuasion, encouragement, incentive. This, also, seems more in accordance 
with the character of the passage than consolation (R. V.) or comfort (Meyer and 
many others). The reasons urged by Meyer for the latter meaning do not appear 
to be conclusive—(4) With Meyer’s view respecting the supply of ¢povotwrec be- 
fore 47dév (ver. 3) most recent comm. agree. The movement of the whole sentence 
in the sphere of thinking, rather than doing, strongly favors this view. The other 
participles and the verb ¢poveire of ver. 5 confirm it. The right state of mind— 
harmony of thought and feeling—would make the church ready for united action, 
such as that indicated in i. 27. 


X. Vv. 6-11. 


(a) These verses are evidently introduced as commending the exercise of hu- 
mility. The Apostle presses upon his readers the exhortation just given by pre- 
senting before them the example of Christ and bidding them have the same mind 
which He had. The setting forth of what Christ was and is, of what He gave up 
and has received, is therefore for the purpose of exhibiting His mind and example, 
and this for a practical end. But this is only the primary purpose, as related to 
the particular line of thought along which he is moving. It is clear that the 
verses contain a more detailed statement concerning Him than was necessary for 


108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


the accomplishment of such an object. They must have, by reason of this fact, 
something beyond what their subordinate grammatical position would indicate. 
In the declarations which they make describing Christ in Himself, they must have 
a certain independence. As they go back in these declarations to the past and 
forward to the future, they must be designed to set before the readers not merely 
His example, but Himself. That this is the fact is confirmed by the relationship‘ 
in thought which exists between this passage and Eph. i. 20 ff. and Col. i. 15 ff, for, 
though the statements of the three passages are occasioned by different causes 
and addressed to men exposed to different influences, it cannot be reasonably 
doubted that, in the mind of the Apostle, they belonged together as expressing 
his view of Christ. The verses here, as well as those in the other Epistles, 
must be examined in this light. Examining them thus we find—(d) that the 
writer traces out a progressive development in the matter of which he is speaking. 
His primary object, as connected with his exhortation to the readers, is to show 
how Christ by His voluntary humbling of himself reached the exaltation which 
He has attained. For the setting forth of this, he tells what He gave up in 
thus humbling Himself, what He did while here on earth in the same line of 
self-renunciation, and what is the greatness and glory of His reward. This 
progressive character of the statements is an important element in the question 
of the interpretation.—(c) The progressive development alluded to points, in and of 
itself, most naturally to a condition antecedent to what is indicated by éxévwoev 
of ver. 7; to what took place in and at the time of the act of emptying Himself; 
to that humiliation and death which followed upon the xévwow and completed 
the self-renunciation ; and to the exaltation at the end, with all that it involved.— 
(d) The most natural interpretation of the clauses as related to each other, and 
of the individual words and phrases, accords with and confirms the understanding 
of the passage which the observation of its general progress would suggest. 

In the consideration of these individual words and phrases we may notice the 
following points:—(1) The natural interpretation of the words éavrdv éxfvocev 
suggests a giving up, not of something which He might assume, but of something 
which He already possessed. This is confirmed by the contrast of txdpzuv with 
yevduevoc, and of év pop¢y Geod with AaBdv popgdiy dobdaov, and perhaps, also by 
the emphatic position of éaurév. The indication of these words is that, at a certain 
time, the question arose whether He should retain something which He had had 
before and still had, or whether He should lay it aside for something else which 
was lower, and which even involved an emptying of Himself; and that He volun- 
tarily chose the latter course. He could not, either in the strict sense or figura- 
tively, empty Himself of what did not previously appertain to Him.—(2) That 
which thus previously appertained to Him, and of which He emptied Himself, is 
indicated by op¢? Sect as contrasted with pop¢?) dovAct. He emptied Himself by 
giving up the former and taking the latter. The condition designated by év uop¢y 
Geod must, therefore, be a condition antecedent to éxévwcer, and trdpyuv x.7.2. must 
refer to the pre-incarnate state-—(3) The significance of yop¢f in the N. T. and 
the writings of Greek authors, as distinguished from oyjya, cannot perhaps be 
determined with absolute certainty in all cases. It is in general well established, 
however ; and, in a case like the present, where the use of the two words shows the 
writer’s intention, there can be no reasonable doubt that op¢4 has its own peculiar 
force—denoting that form which is the outward expression of, and is conceived 
of as immediately connected with, the inward nature. 27a, on the other hand, 


NOTES. 109 


has the sense of fashion, appearance, form, as not thus closely and vitally related 
to essence.—(4) It must be noticed, however, that Paul does not use in these verses 
oveia or gvoic—that is, words directly expressing the notion of essence or nature, but 
* that he limits himself to words which relate to form, nop¢f and oxy#ua. The con- 
trast is one of ope#, and not of ovcia, so far as the expressions of the sentence set 
it forth. It is also noticeable that, in connection with the idea of assuming the 
uop¢?) dotvAov, words of leas significance than op¢7 are added—namely, dpuoiwya and 
oxjua.—{5) The indication as to the Apostle’s thought which the facts give is, 
that in emptying Himself Christ did not lay aside His divine nature, but that form 
which would, of itself, immediately lead the one who beheld it to the belief that 
He had this nature. The terms and precision of scientific doctrinal statement are 
not to be looked for in a passage where the language employed is intentionally of 
another character, i. e., the language of ordinary letters and discourse. Within 
the possibilities of the style which he adopts, the Apostle is careful to use words, to 
add suggestions of limitation, to repeat, in some measure, with modifying clauses 
or expressions, to guard against misunderstanding; and his words and statements, 
when taken together, all show that what he intended to declare was this—that 
Christ had in the pre-incarnate state the yop¢? Gcotv which implied divine nature, 
but that, in emptying Himself, He laid aside the form, but not the nature; that 
He assumed the human, but did not give up the divine in every sense. The 
Pauline idea as to the divine nature of Christ is thus expreased by é» pop¢?) Oeov 
trap yur, : 

(6) A further expression of the idea is found in 1d elva: loa 649, and also in 
connection with the word aprayyzéy, The phrase ro eiva: loa Ged must, from the form 
of the sentence, have an immediate relation to év yopg. Geov tx. As nope? implies 
divine nature,—only in its exhibition outwardly,—ro eivac «,r.A. cannot be other- 
wise than consistent with this idea. And this, whether Jca be taken, with Meyer 
and others, in the simple adverbial sense and ¢lva: be understood as equivalent to 
existere—so that the meaning is the God-equal existence (existence in the way of 
parity with God); or whether, with Lightf. and others, ica be regarded as a predi- 
cate and elva: as having its ordinary sense—to be on an equality with God. This 
phrase conveys the idea, on the more internal side, of that which, on the external 
side, is set forth by »op¢7. The two together, as Meyer remarks in his foot-note 
(page 69), exhaust the idea of divinity; and, as he also remarks in the foot-note 
on page 72, the 10 eiva: ica Yep is the Pauline Jede y 6 Adyoc. As regards the 
exact force of the words, the use of the ica in a predicative way is legitimate, as 
proved by Job xi. 12 and other examples. But the connection and progress of 
the thought in the verses may be regarded as, on the whole, favoring Meyer's 
view, and as showing that Paul had in mind the divine mode of existence. That 
loa has the sense of equality, and not mere likeness, is made evident by all the in- 
dications of the passage.—(7) The word dp7ayyéc must be understood either (z) as 
having the active sense of the oc termination of verbal nouns, a robbing ; or (y) as 
equivalent to the passive form in sa, a thing robbed or seized, preda, res rapta; or 
(z) as holding a sort of intermediate position between the two, a thing to be grasped, 
res rapienda. If either z or y is adopted as the true explanation, the phrase indi- 
cates, in itself, that the equality spoken of was a thing already belonging to Him: 
He did not look upon it as a thing which was a foreign possession, which He could 
only possess by an act of robbing, or as something robbed. If z is adopted, two 
suppositions are possible—either He did not count it a thing already in possession, 


ee 


110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


which was to be grasped as if he would not let it go; or a thing not already pos- 
sessed, which was to be eagerly laid hold of. While both of these are possible, 
however, the following verb éxévwoev, which is adapted to express the divesting 
one’s self of what one has, rather than the refusal to seize upon what one has not, and 
the preceding words év nop¢g Seov trdpxuv show the former of the two to be the 
correct one. In whichever of the three ways aprayyéy is explained, therefore, this 
phrase, as well as the other two already considered, sets forth the divinity of Christ. 
The explanation designated by sis to be preferred as meeting most satisfactorily 
the demands of the strong adversative conjunction aAAd. Emptying Himeelf by 
taking the form of a servant was the direct opposite to the regarding 10 eiva: loa 
Jey as a thing to be firmly held in possession—(8) The word dobdAov (ver. 7) is 
evidently contrasted with 3cov, and the words év du. avdp, yevduevoc are explanatory 
of the way:in which He took the “op¢9 dobAov. The view of Meyer with respect 
to this point must be regarded as correct, as also his explanation of the use of the 
word dzoiwua, ‘“ Christ, although certainly perfect man, was by reason of the divine 
nature present in Him, not simply and merely man, but the incarnate Son of God.” 
This is the Pauline 6 Adyog capt éyévero. The carefulness in the selection of the 
language, within the limits of the figures, etc., which are used, is very strikiny. 
He assumes the nature of man, as suggested by 0p¢4, but not so as to exchange 
the divine nature for it and thus divest Himself of the divine nature (é du. yev.— 
(9) This latter idea is still further brought out by xa? oyfpare eipeveic oc GvPpuros. 
If there words are, as Meyer holds, to be connected immediately with the preceding 
participial clause (a new sentence beginning with érareivwoev), they must be intro- 
duced with this special design. If, on the other hand, the connection is with this 
verb, the same suggestion is contained in them, only that it is leas direct and 
prominent. As regards the question of connection, the natural force of the words, 
considered in themselves and in relation to the other participial clauses, favors 
Meyer’s view—He was not simply a man, but was in the likeness of men (entered 
into a form of existence like that of men), and was found in fashion as a man 
(there was no observed difference between His appearance and that of a man—the 
divine nature in Him was not perceived). The abruptness of the introduction of 
érareivwoev with no connecting particle is, however, a serious objection to this view. 
A new participial clause seems fitted, also, to the turn of thought from the self-re- 
nunciation and humility manifested by Christ in assuming human nature to that 
which He showed after He had assumed it (10) 5:6 of ver. 9 introduces the ex- 
altation as the reward of the humiliation. The verbs treptyucer and éyxapicaro 
are used, thus, from the standpoint of the work of Christ and His condition upon 
the earth, and do not carry with them any necessary indication as to His relation 
to God the Father in His dcapxog state. The subordination of Christ suggested in 
this passage is only that connected with His Messianic position and His carrying 
out of the Father’s plan of salvation. 

(11) The reference of rd dvoua (ver. 9), may be to honor and dignity (comp. Eph. 
i. 21); or to a particular name given to Christ. The fact that the article is used 
points to the latter as more probable. If some special name is intended, the pass- 
age suggests only two—xtpioc and ’Iycotve. The indications of the verses (9-11), 
when taken together, favor the view that the name is "Iycotc; because the bowing 
is declared to be in the name of Jesus, and because the confession that He is xtpio¢ 
does not seem to be the recognition by the worshipers of a divinely given name, 
but rather the expression of the worship itself. The name Jesus, however, cannot 


NOTES. ili 


be understood here imply as the name given to Him at the beginning (Matt. i. 
21), but as having its final and full significance in the universal honor given to it 
and the universal acknowledgment that He is Lord.—(12) Vv. 10, 11 set forth 
(iva) the purpose of God in thus giving Christ the name which is above every 
name. With respect to these two verees, it may be noticed (w) that the expression 
év TO dy, 'Inoov declares that the homage is to move in the sphere of his name, and, 
if interpreted most strictly, it would seem to point towards a willing and true wor- 
ship. The latter sense, however, cannot be insisted upon as certainly in the words; 
(x) that the worship is declared to be on the part of all—either all intelligent be- 
ings in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, or all things, i.e. all creation. The 
language employed (7av yévv, aca yAGooa), favors the reference to intelligent beings, 
but can hardly be said, in a passage of this character, to prove it. This, however, 
is probably the true view of the meaning; (y) that x<arazVJoview is to be taken as 
referring to the dead in Hades, as Meyer and others hold; (z) that éfovoAcyhoerac 
means confess in full or openly, and that it is also a word which may be used of 
hearty, willing confession.—(13) The main thought of vv. 10, 11, for the expree- 
sion of which they are written, is evidently that of the exaltation of Christ, and 
not that of the union of all intelligent beings with Him as willing subjects. This 
fact must be borne in mind in the consideration of any points in the verses, which 
may appear to indicate such voluntary subjection on the part of all. In view of 
this fact, also, the inquirer as to Paul’s doctrine of the future should carefully ex- 
amine all his statements on the subject, and should discover in the present passage 
only what it clearly affirms. The Pauline view of Christ’s exaltation can be 
proved from these verses. What the Pauline view of the eternal condition of men 
is to be, must be sought for in other passages taken in connection with this one, and 
not in this one alone. 


XI. Vv. 12, 13. 


(a) In relation to sod:rebecOe of i. 27, Vv. 12-18 contain the third point in 
which the Apostle would urge the Philippians to conduct themselves, as citizens 
of the new kingdom, in a manner worthy of the gospel. Firmness in contending 
for the gospel faith, accompanied by unity of spirit; unity of spirit among them- 
selves, accompanied by humility and self-renunciation ; self-renunciation, inspired 
by and in imitation of the example of Christ, as leading to the most careful and 
earnest effort to fail in nothing which might be essential to the attainment of 
salvation ;—these are the three things which he presses upon their attention. 
They are the things which the readers needed, in their condition and circum- 
stances to make them “children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked 
and perverse generation,” and thus to give him a ground of glorying in them in 
the day of Christ; and for this reason, doubtless, they are the only things which 
he mentions as elements of the wod:rebeo6a: «.r.A—(b) The immediate connec- 
tion of ver. 12 with what precedes through Gore is, as Meyer rightlv says, with 
vv. 6-11. The example of Christ, who reached His glorious reward and exalta- 
tion through self-abasement, is urged as the ground of the new exhortation.. As 
the Head of the kingdom had thus acted, they, as its citizens, should be moved 
to earnestness to do everything, and solicitude to leave nothing undone, which the 
end in view demanded.—(c) The emphasis of the exhortation in ver. 12, con- 
sidered simply as an exhortation, is largely upon the words perd ¢6fov xa? rpdpov, 


112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


and the connection of thought with what goes before is, thus, partly through the 
fact that such solicitude would, in one line of its influence, naturally manifest 
itself in self-renunciation. 

(d) The emphasis on 4) o¢ év ry wapovoig pov x.r.A. is due to the fact that this 
is the real ground of his giving the exhortation, so far as their relation to him 
is concerned. The explanation which Meyer gives of &¢ and of this entire clause 
(with which Ell. and some others also agree), is simpler and better than that 
which he mentions as favored by Weiss, de Wette, Lightf., and others.—({e) Ver. 
13 is subordinate to ver. 12, the main thought moving on in ver. 14. The rela- 
tion of ver. 13 to ver. 12 is that of a reason for the carrying out of the exhortation, 
Work out, etc., and the reason given is, as Meyer says, in the line of encourage- 
ment. Whatever general theological statement may be properly founded upon 
the words of this verse, it must be observed that they are directly applied to, 
and spoken of, those who have already entered upon the Christian life. The 
Apostle in this passage, does what the N. T. writers generally do when they speak 
of God’s election of men, His predestinating purpose, His working for the accom- 
plishment of that purpose, so far as this working lies back of man’s working. 
He does not allude to the subject in its relation to unbelievers or to men before 
their conversion, but solely as a ground of confidence and comfort to those who 
have already believed. He tells the Christian that he may have joyful and vic- 
torious hope in his living and working, because he can rest upon the eternal 
purpose of God.—(/) iép tij¢ evdoxiag is to be connected with évepydv, Evdoxia, 
with its kindred verb evdoxeiv, when used of God, seems to tend, in the N. T., 
towards the idea of good pleasure rather than good will, and to refer to free, 
unconditioned will, or favoring will. That the meaning in this case may be good 
wil, as Meyer understands it—that is, “in order to satisfy His own benignant 
disposition,” cannot be doubted. But the peculiar character of the statement, 
“worketh in you both to will and to work ip ric evd.,” as well as the more com- 
mon usage, may lead us to believe that the thought of the Divine purpose was in 
the writer’s mind, and that the word here means benevolent purpose. imép—on be- 
half of, for the advantage of, for, in fulfillment of. Grimm (Lex. N.T.) says 


AIT. Vv. 14-18. 


{a) Ver. 14 may be regarded as presenting the opposite side of the exhortation 
of ver.12. To act with that earnest solicitude which fears lest something may be 
left undone is directly contrary to murmuring and questioning. mévra is, thus, to be 
determined in its limits of application by xarepydeoVe x,7.4., and yoyy. and d:aA, are 
to be explained as murmurings, etc. against God, not against other men. There is 
nothing in the context which, either certainly or probably, indicates such differ- 
ences or parties as would suggest the latter reference. d:aAoytopev is, accordingly, 
to be understood, with Meyer, as meaning questionings (0 A. R. V. and many 
comm.), and not disputings, as R. V. As Lightf. well says, “yoyy. is the moral, 
d:aA, the intellectual rebellion against God.”—(b) iva yévnode x.r.A.—As, ini. 27 ff, 
they were to act worthily of the gospel to the end of standing boldly and without 
fear before their enemies, so here they are to do all things to the end of being 

-examples of the true life, blameless children and light bearers, in the midst of 


NOTES. 113 


evil men.—{c) év xéouw is more probably to be taken as qualifying ¢aiveo¥e d¢ 
gvor., than wor. alone, as Meyer takes it.—(d) Meyer differs from most comm. in 
giving to exéyovrec (ver. 16) the sense of possessing. It is doubtful whether any 
of the passages cited by him fully justify his view; certainly most of them, even 
Thuc. iii. 107. 4 mentioned in his foot note, do not. Rob. (Lex. N. T.), agreeing 
with Luther, de Wette and others, makes it mean holding fast ; (so also W. and 
Wilk.,Gwynn). Grimm (Lex. N. T.), Ell, Alf, Eadie, v. Heng. and others under- 
stand it in the sense assigned to it by Beza, Grot., Lightf., etc., holding forth. This 
last meaning (given, also, by R. V. and A. V.), is probably correct. Weiss agrees 
with Meyer. Lightf. regards év ol¢ . . . xéouy as a parenthesis, and é7éy a8 un- 
connected with it and belonging to tva yévyoVe «7A. But this construction is 
unnecessary, and is even less natural than that which joins the participle with ¢aly 
os gwor, The Phil. Christians are luminaries as and because they hold forth, etc. 

(e) It can hardly be doubted that in his use of the words ei¢ xabynua (ver. 16), 
the Apostle had in mind a thought kindred to that of i. 26. As his renewed 
presence with them, in case his life should be continued, would be, through its 
beneficial influence upon their lives, a cause of glorying on their part, so their 
progress and Christian development would be a cause of similar glorying on his 
part. We may believe, therefore—for this reason, as well as because of ver. 17— 
that he refers here to the probability of his surviving the present uncertainties. 
Whether ete 34. Xp. implies a hoped-for continuance of life until the Parousia is 
more doubtful. It cannot be regarded as certain that it does, and no inference on 
this point can be drawn from this verse, taken by itself—(f) Lightf. regards the 
Philippians as the priests who offer the sacrifice of their own faith, the Apostle’s 
life-blood being the accompanying libation. This view harmonizes with the pre- 
ceding thought. As their becoming blameless, etc., would, in case he lived, be a 
ground of glorying for him, so, on the other hand, if, in connection with their 
advance in faith and Christian living, his death should occur, he will still rejoice. 
It is also favored by the fact that, if Paul presents himself as the priest, we have 
the figure of a priest offering his own blood, which is somewhat improbable. But 
passages such as Rom. xv. 16, 17 represent the Apostle in the exercise of the 
priestly office, making an offering to God of his Gentile converts, and the paral- 
lelism of these passages with this one is noticeable. Most recent comm. adopt the 
view of Meyer, but that of Lightf., which is advocated by some others, is worthy 
of serious consideration. 

(9) The progress of the verses shows that the joy which the Apostle speaks of 
in ver. 17 (zaipw), is not joy in the fact that death is gain to himself (i. 21), but 
in the fact that even his death, if it comes,-will be immediately connected with 
the development of their faith. His congratulation of the Philippians, therefore, 
or uniting of his joy with theirs, is not on account of the honor which “such a 
martyrdom for the sake of their faith ” would give them (so Meyer), but because 
his martyrdom, like his life’s labors (ver. 16), was for the furtherance of the 
gospel, as related to the furtherance of their faith. Zovyalpw may mean congratu- 
late, as Mey., Grimm, Eadie, Lightf., and many others take it, or rejoice with, as 
Ell., de W., Weiss, R. V., A. V., and others hold. The objection made by Meyer 
to the latter meaning cannot be regarded as conclusive. In the simple, affectionate 
style of this Epistle, we may naturally expect expressions of this sort (“I rejoice 
and rejoice with you, and do you rejoice and rejoice with me”), without any 
thought of the difficulty suggested. Looking at ver. 18 alone, it would seem 

8 


114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


more probable that Paul would ask the Philippians to rejoice with him in the joy 
which he felt, than to congratulate him on the happiness which is alluded to as 
appertaining to his death. KR. V. renders 16 auré in the same manner, A. V. for the 

same cause. The tendency of recent comm. is rather towards the latter view, the 
words being regarded, grammatically, as a sort of objective accusative depending 
on yaipere. 


XI. Vv. 19-24. 


(a) The object which the Apostle had in sending Timothy to Philippi was two- 
fold :—first, that which is indicated by iva . . . iuav of ver. 19, and secondly, the 
one referred to in Ta epi tuav pepiuvioe: of ver. 20. The same two-fold thought 
appears here, therefore, which has appeared in the preceding context and else- 
where in the Epistle. The Christian progress of the Philippian Church is viewed 
as the thing primarily and earnestly to be desired; but it is thus desired as a 
source of joy and comfort to Paul himself. He thinks of the subject in this light 
because of his peculiar affectionate interest in them, and because, in his present 
condition of uncertainty respecting the future, his mind naturally turns to the 
contemplation of the results of his own work.—(b) That there is a connection of 
thought between these verses and those which immediately precede (vv. 12-18), 
is not to be questioned. As for the particle dé at the beginning of ver. 19, the 
explanation given by Meyer (“However threatening my situation is (ver. 17), 
nevertheless I hope”), may be satisfactory. But, when the whole passage (19-24) 
is considered, we must believe that Paul was thinking, not merely of continued 
life, as opposed to the possibility of speedy death, but also, and prominently, of 
the growth in Christian character on the part of the Philippians, and of his own 
satisfaction in that growth as connected with his own labors.—(c) «ayo of ver. 19, 
however, is not to be explained as if the two ideas just mentioned were in the 
Apostle’s mind in writing this clause. Had this been the case, he could scarcely 
have left one of them, and that so important a one, altogether unnoticed. On the 
other hand, the fact that the clause contains but one verb, evy~vzxo,—which by the 
emphatic éyé with its connective «ai is most naturally carried over, in its appro- 
priate form, to the tuei¢ to be supplied in thought,—confirms the explanation given 
in Meyer’s note as the true one. Timothy was to comfort Paul by what he should 
have to report of the Philippians, and the Philippians by what he should have 
to report of Paul. The service which he was to render by ministering to the 
faith and life of the church in Philippi is not referred to until the next verse.— 
(d) The allusion to this service is brought out in a sentence which gives the 
reason why Timothy was chosen by Paul to be the messenger. This reason, how- 
ever, presents so emphatically the Apostle’s desire to send the most competent 
person possible, that the grammatical subordination of the sentence connected 
with the ydp is more than counterbalanced. 

(e) That Meyer’s view respecting the word to be supplied with tod poyov (ver. 
20), (namely, oi), is correct, as against the view of those who would supply air@, is 
proved (1) by the evident intimation (comp. ver. 20 with ver. 24) that Timothy was 
sent to fill Paul’s place until he should, perhaps, be able to visit the Church himself; 
(2) by the d¢ warpi réxvov ov épuoi édobdAevoev of ver. 22; and (3) by the fact that 
the whole matter is introduced as relating to Paul’s own satisfaction in what the 
Church should gain.—(/) cig rd evayyéAuov (ver. 22)—comp. the same words in i. 5. 


NOTES. 115 


The Apostle’s thought is evidently moving, throughout these two chapters, in 
the sphere of this “furtherance of the gospel,” and the explanation of many 
points must be determined, more or less directly and entirely, by this fact.—(g) 
Vv. 23, 24 indicate, once more, the confidence which he felt in his release from 
imprisonment. This release was also, as he believed, to come soon. The date 
of the Epistle cannot be proved from these indications, but they must be regarded 
as strongly favoring the conclusion that it was written not long before the actual 
decision of his case. 


XIV. Vv. 25-30. 


(a) The marked emphasis on Gvayxaiov points to some connection between this 
statement and what has been said about Timothy. Probably a certain contrast to 
éArifw of ver. 19 is intended. The special reason for sending Epaphroditus is 
given, as Meyer says, in vv. 26, 28; but, in view of the word avayx. and the stress 
laid upon it, we may believe that there was a necessity, to Paul’s feeling, to hear 
again from the Philippian Church, and to give them an inspiring message and 
helpful aid from himself, for the setting forward of their faith. Though he hoped 
to send Timothy soon, and even had confidence that he might, somewhat later, go 
to them himself, he felt the weight of this “necessity” so strongly, that he must 
send back Epaphroditus at once.—(b) y7oduyy (ver. 25) and éreyya (ver. 28) are 
quite generally regarded as epistolary aorists. If so, when taken in connection 
with ver. 29, they make it probable that Epaphroditus was the bearer of Paul’s 
letter. As such aorists, they should be translated as presents, rather than as in 
A. V. and R. V.; or, as the former verb precedes in time the latter, #ynody77 should 
perhaps be rendered as a perfect.—(c) In the words cvvepyév and ovvorparioryy may 
be found another indication of the thought underlying the whole development of 
these chapters.—(d) It is doubtful whether Ae:rovpyédy is to be pressed here to its 
sense of sacrificial minister, as Meyer holds. The more general meaning of minister 
would seem to meet the demands of the passage. Ell., Alf., and others take it in 
the latter sense.—(¢) #v of ver. 26 is regarded by Meyer as used from the stand- 
point of the time of the reception of the Epistle. Even if this be so, the time of 
the beginning of this feeling and of the sickness of Epaphroditus would seem 
clearly to have been before the date of writing the letter. May not %v ércrofév, 
therefore, be more properly rendered by the perfect—the feeling of longing and 
distress having continued to the time when the Apostle takes his resolution here 
alluded to?—(f) The first Airqy of ver. 27 evidently refers to the loss of Epaphro- 
ditus, from which Paul had now been saved. The second Aimy is more doubtful, 
but the view of Meyer seems more probable than that of Weiss and others men- 
tioned in Meyer’s note. The objection made by Weiss to Meyer's view, that Paul 
expresses a feeling of joy elsewhere in connection with the matter of his imprison- 
ment, does not seem conclusive, for the reason, frst, that the joy was not in the 
imprisonment itself, but in the fact that it had resulted in good, and, secondly, that 
the limitations and trials of imprisonment could not, in themselves, have been 
other than a grief to him. He might have rejoiced in the death of Epaphroditus 
in a similar way, if it had been the means of good to the Christian cause, and yet 
he would have felt it to be a ground of sorrow, and naturally might have some- 
where spoken of it as such. His mind was here upon his own grievous trial; in 
the other places to which Weiss alludes, it was upon what had so remarkably been 











116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


effected by it.—(g) If the textual reading dca rd épyov, adopted by Tisch. 7th ed., Alf, 
Mey., Lightf., is correct, épyov refers undoubtedly to the work of the gospel (called, 
absolutely, the work). If, however, Kupiov (W. and H.), Xpiorov (Tisch. 8th ed.), or 
tov Xpiorov (T. R.) is to be added, there may be in this general expression an in- 
tended allusion to the bringing of the contribution from the Philippian Church, or 
to some special service or attendance given to the Apostle. The connection of 
thought with ovvepyéy and cvvorpariarny, which is suggested by Meyer, is not im- 
probable, if we adopt Meyer's view of the text, and not eae though perhaps 
_ leas probable, if we read with the majority of the MSS. 


CHAP. II. 117 


CHAPTER ITI. 


Ver. 3. Instead of Oect Els. has Oc, against decisive testimony, although 
again defended by Reiche. A clumsy emendation in order to complete the Aarp.— 
Ver. 6. ¢9A0v) Lachm. and Tisch. read ¢7A0¢, following ABD* FGy*®. A 
copyist’s error; comp. the exeg. remarks on 2 Cor. ix. 2.—Ver. 8. Instead of pév 
otv Elz. and Tisch. 8 have pevovvye, which, although supported by A P x, is 
opposed by very preponderating testimony.—The second elva: is wanting in B D* 
FG xx*, 17, Arm. Vulg. It. Lucif., ¢ al. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how readily may it, otherwise superfluous, have been 
left out before the similar iva !—Ver. 10. The second r# is wanting in A B ®*; 
omitted by Lachm.; overlooked as unnecessary.—Instead of cvppoppiduevog (so 
Lachm. and Tisch.), which Griesb. approves, Elz. and Scholz have ovppopgotpevor. 
But the former has in its favor A B D* P ®,* min. Or. ms. Bas. Macar., as also 
ovvgopriCéuevoc in F G. It. Lucif. Ir. The Recepta substitutes an analogous form 
more familiar—Ver. 11. rov vexp.] AB DEP x, min. and many ves. and 
Fathers, have tv éx vexp., which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by 
Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch. But Paul always uses avéoraci¢ with merely the 
genitive trav vexpov, or only vexp. The é« was written on the margin here to 
explain the word éfavacr., 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 reading tiv éx vexp.—Ver. 12. The Xprorod alone (Elz. gives rou X. 'I7oov) has 
preponderant evidence.—Ver. 14. évi] Lachm. and Tisch. read ei¢, following A B 
m, min. Clem. Aeth. Rightly ; exi is explanatory.—Ver. 16. After orozyeiv, Elz, 
Scholz have xavéu, rd avtd gpoveiv, which is wanting in A B y*, min. Copt. 
Sahid. Aeth. Hilar. Aug., e al. There are, besides, several variations, and 
differences in the arrangement of the words. The Recepia 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 homoioteleuton 
(so Maith. and Rinck).—Ver. 21. After juav, Elz. has ei¢ 1d yevéoOar até, which 
(although defended by Matth.) is omitted by decisive authorities. An ancient 
supplement.—éavr¢] Following A B D* F G K P &*, min. Eus. Theophyl., atra 
is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read ; éavr¢ is a more precise definition. 


In iii. 1 Paul seems already preparing to close his epistle; but at thie 
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 bearing as contrasted with the character of those false 
teachers. 


118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Ver. 1. [On Ver. 1, see Note XV. page 152.] 12d Aouréy] introduces what 
is still to be done by the readers in addition to what has been hitherto com- 
municated; see on Eph. vi. 10. Hence it is of frequent occurrence 
towards the close of the epistles, as bringing in a further request, exhorta- 
tion, etc. To the closing address thus introduced, but at once abandoned 
again in ver. 2, Paul would have attached his giving of thanks for the aid 
sent to him (comp. iv. 8, 10 ff). This is contrary to the view of Schinz 
and van Hengel, who, from the fact that Paul has not yet expressed his 
thanks, conclude that he did not at this point desire to proceed to the 
closing of the letter. We need not search for a connection with what 
precedes.? The preceding topic is closed, and the exhortation beginning 
with 7d Aour. 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 encourage- 
ment.—yalpere év xvpiy] [XV a.] is a summons to Christan joyfulness, 
which is not xara xéopuov (see Chrysostom), but has its ground tn Christ, and 
is thereby specifically defined, inasmuch as Christ—through the Holy Spirit 
—rules in the believing heart; hence the yapa rvebparog dyiov (1 Thess. i. 6) 
or év rvetpare dyiy (Rom. xiv. 17) are in substance not different from this 
(comp. Gal. v. 22). The subsequent double repetition of this encourage- 
ment (iv. 4) is the result of the apostle’s special love for his readers, and 
of the whole tone of feeling pervading the epistle. Moreover, in é xvpiy 
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 éy xvpiy (2 Cor. xiii. 
11; 1 Thess. v. 16). Another joy in the Christian life he knew not at all.— 
ra aira ypdgev) [XV b.] “Hic incipit de pseudo-apostolis agere,” Calvin. 
After yaip. év x. there is a pause ; Paul breaks off. 1a attra has been erron- 
eously referred to yaip. év «., and in that case the retrospective reference 
which Paul had in view is either not explained at all (Bengel, Zachariae), 
or is believed to be found in ii. 18 (van Hengel, Wiesinger), or in i. 27 f. 
(Matthies, Rilliet), or in i. 27-11. 16 (Storr). This view is at variance, not 
indeed with the plural ra atré,’ 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 11. 18); secondly, that so sim- 
ple and natural a summons—which, moreover, occurs again twice in iv. 4— 
would certainly have least of all given rise to an apology for repetition; 
and lastly, that aogatéc, in accordance with its idea (without danger), points 
not to the repetition of a summons of this kind, but to a warning, such as 


tComp. iv. 8; 2 Cor. xiff. 11; 1 Thess. iv.1; | Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmas, Estius, 
2 Thess. iii. 1. Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, and others. 

8Chrysostom: dxere "Ewadppddirov, &° by ®See, on the contrary, Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Hayeire, dxera Teudbeor, ipxouar xaye, 7d evay- Apol. p. 19 D; Matsner, ad Antiph. p. 158; 
yeAcoy dwcdidece: ri Uuiv Aciwee Aocwdy; comp. Kahner II. 1, p. 60. 


CHAP. 111. 1. 119 


follows immediately in the context.! The accusation of poverty of thought 
(Baur) is therefore all the more groundless here. And as the altogether 
vague reference of Theodoret and Erasmus (Annotat.) to the numerous 
exhortations contained in the epistle generally, or to the fundamental tone of 
the letter hitherto (Weiss), is simply at variance with the literal import of 
the words, ra ara cannot be interpreted 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 Liine- 
mann thinks, or in i. 27-ii. 18, as Ewald assumes. Hence many have 
caught at the explanation: “eadem repetere, quae praesens dizeram.’’? 
But this quae praesens dizeram is quite gratuitously imported ; it must at 
least have been indicated by ra aira nai yp. du. or in some other way. The 
same objection applies against Wieseler,? who takes ra avréd as contrasted 
with the oral communications, which would be made to the readers by 
Epaphroditus and especially by Timothy. The only correct explanation, 
therefore, that remains is the assumption (which, however, is expressly 
rejected already by Theodoret) that Paul had already written what follows 
in an earlier epistle to the Philippians‘ which is not preserved, and that he 
here repeats the same.’ 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 kteral one, which seems to be 
the case with ver. 2 from its peculiar character.—oxvnpdv] irksome, matter 
of scruple.’—aogaréc} safe, so that ye will the more firmly rely thereon for 
the determination of your conduct.’ Hofmann, without any precedent of 
usage, assigns to oxvypéy the sense of indolent cowardice, and takes acgaé¢ 
as prudent, which linguistically is admissible (Heind. ad Plat. Soph. p. 231 
A), but would be unsuitable to the iuiv. The apostle wishes to say, that 
the repetition is for himself not irksome (éxvoc, haesitatio), and is for his 
readers an aogadéc rexpufpiov (Eur. Rhes. 94.) to be attended to. 

Nore.—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: tot 


’1The expedient to which Wiesinger has 
reeourse is gratuitously introduced, when he 
eonnects the xaipere é» x. more closely with 
the warning that follows by imagining that, 
in xaip. dy «., he detects already the idea on 
which the sequel is based, namely the onjxere 
éy cvpiy, iv. 1. 

3 Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, so also 
Erasmus, Paraphr., Calvin, Beza, Balduin, 
Eatius, Calovius, Wolf, Schrader, and others; 
de Wette undecidedly. 

3 Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 458 f. 

$ Comp. also Credner, Fini. I. p. 383. 

§ So Aegidius Hunnius, Haenlein, Bertholdt, 
Flatt, Kohler, in the Annal. d. ges. Theol. 1834, 
III. 1, p- 18 f.; Feilmoeser, Bleek, Jatho, 
-Schenkel, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann; de 
Wette undecidedly. 


® Dem. 777.5; Theocr. xxiv.35; Pind. Nem. 
xi. 28; Herodian vi. 9,7; Soph. O. R. 8M, 
comp. ove davyrdor, Polyb. i. 14. 7, also Plat. 
Ep. 11. 310 D: radAnOy Adyeew ovTe daviow ovre 


‘ aio xuroupas. 


7Comp. Acts xxv. 26; Heb. vi. 19; Wisd. 
vil. 23; Plat. Rep. 450 E; Phaed. p. 100 D E; 
Dem. 372. 2, 1460. 15. 

§ Ewald also acknowledges the composition 
of more than one epistle to the Philippians, 
but finds traces of them not here, but at Ii. 
12, fii. 18. 

® I cannot at once accept the view that the 
passages in question, ch. ffi. and xi., are inter 
polated (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 568 ff.). 
The interpolations in the Ignatian epistles 
are at any rate of another kind. Besides, we 
have from Polycarp only the one epistle; and 


120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Haxapiou x. evddfou Matdov, b¢ yevdpevog év tiv xara mpdouroy Tov rére avOpdruv édi- 
Sakev axpiBag x. BeBalug rov repi adnbeiac Adyov, b¢ cal avdv ipiv typapey ExtatoAdgy, 
cic Gg dav éyxbrryre, duvpoeobe oixodopeioba: x.7.A, It is true that the plur. in this 
passage (ércoroAdc, et¢ ac) is usually explained as referring to one epistle (see Cote- 
lerius in loc. ; and Fabricius, Cod. Apoer. II. p. 914 f.; Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vater, p. 
210; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 138 f.), just as is it well known that also in profane 
authors éiroAai (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 
specialiy of commissions and orders. See Schaefer, Plut. VI. p. 446; Blomf. and 
Stanl. ad Aesch. Prom. 3; Rettig, Quaest. Phu. I]. p. 37 f. But there is the less 
ground for assuming this construction 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 éxcoroAy, elsewhere very definitely distinguishes between the singular 
and plural. See ch. xiii: rag EmcoroAdg "Iyvariou tag wepgpheicag Hiv bn’ abtod 
Kai GAAag boag elyouev rap! nul, éréupapev ipiv, xaos tvereiAacbe: aitives ioretay- 
péva etoi th’ LoTOAG tatty. 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 version, which alone has been preserved, it is said: “Ego 
autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui 
estis (non-genuine addition: laudati) in principio epistolae ejus; de vobis enim 
gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis, quze Deum solae tunc cognoverant, nos autem non- 
dum noveramus.” But epistolae ejus cannot here be the epistle to the Philippians, 
for the idea: “ye are in the beginning of his epistle,”’ would be simply absurd ; 
epistolae is, on the contrary, the nominative plural, and the sense is: ‘ Ye are origi- 
nally his epistles,” that is, his letters of recommendation, in which phrase allusion is 
made to 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff! The correctness of this explanation, which Wieseler has 
. substantially adopted, is corroborated by the sequel: de vobis enim gloriatur, etc.— 





we have therefore no sufficient objective 
standard of comparison, in the absence of 
which a judgment founded on taste is very 
uncertain. But even assuming the interpo- 
lation, we should still have the result that 
the interpolator was acquainted with several 
epistles of Paul to the Philippians. Other- 
wise he would have had no reason for using 
the plural, especially as it was already dis- 
tinction enough for the church to have had 
one epistle addressed to it by the apostle. 
1Hofmann also explains the expression 
from 2 Cor. iii. 1 ff., bat erra in taking epis- 
tolae 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 it 
stands first in this epistle, because tt is reckoned 
among his earliest 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. fii, and one, too, deline- 
ated singularly enough! And how unsuitable 
would such a precedence, as to time, be for 
the church at Philippi! By how long a 
period had the establishment of all the 
churches of Asia preceded it! Hofmann's 
objection to our view, viz. that the present 
estis would be unsuitable, does not apply, 
since Polycarp realizes the atate of matters an 
it stood with the church in principio (év apxy, 
t.¢. 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 Philip- 
pian church, and so this church serves him 
asso many letters of recommendation, which 
by his gloriari he communicates, and as it 
were reads before, those other churches. 


CHAP, III. 2. ‘ 121 


It is, moreover, @ prior: intelligible and likely enough that Paul should have cor- 
responded with this church—which enjoyed his most intimate confidence, and the 
founding of which marked his entrance on his European labors—at an earlier 
period than merely now, almost at the close of his life. And Polycarp was suffi- 
ciently close to the time of the apostle, not merely to have inferred such a corres- 

pondence from our passage, but to have had a historical knowledge of it (in opposi- 

tion to Hofmann). 


Ver. 2. [On Vv. 2ff., see Note XVI. pages 152, 158.] This is now the ra 
aité which he had previously written, and probably in the very same 
words. At least this seems to be indicated by the peculiar expressions in 
themselves ; and not only so, but it serves also to explain the relation of 
contrast, which this vehement “fervor pii zeli” (Calvin) presents to the 
tender and cordial tone of our epistle. That lost epistle had probably 
expressed the apostle’s mind at length, and with all the warmth of con- 
troversy, for the warning of his readers as to the Judaizing false teachers. 
How entirely different is the tone in which, in the present epistle, he 
speaks (i. 15 ff.) of teachers likewise of an anti-Pauline type, and laboring, 
indeed, at that time in his immediate neighborhood! Comp., moreover, 
the remark after i.18. Those who refer ra avré to the yaipere tv xvply, 
labor in very different ways to establish a connection of thought with 
PAérere x.7.A.; 98, for instance, Wiesinger; that Paul wished to suggest, asa 
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 contrarto, on what the true Christian joy was, and on what 
it was not, based.—fAérere] not: be on your guard against, etc. (which 
would be fa. 476, Mark viii. 15, xii. 88), but as a calling attention to: behold ! 
(1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18), with a view, however, to warn the readers against 
these men as pernicious, by pointing to the forbidding shape in which 
they present themselves.— rove xivac] a term of reproach among the Jews 
and the Greeks (frequently in Homer, who, however, also uses it without 
any dishonorable reference ; see Duncan, Ler. ed. Rost. p. 674); used by 
the latter specially to denote impudence, furious boldness (Hom. Ji. viii. 
289; Od. xvii. 248; Anth. Pal. ix. 802), 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, e@ al.), and, because 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 designated (see 
on Matt. xv. 26). In this passage also the profane nature and demeanor 
of the false teachers, as contrasted with the holy character of true Chris- 
tianity, is to be adhered to as the point of comparison’. Any more 
special reference of the term—as to shamelessness (Chrysostom and many 
others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), covetousness (both 

1 Chrysostom: ov«érs réxva ‘Iovbaion... Tov dAdAdérprn foay, ovre Kai edtea. yeyévacs 
eowep O drixoi cai rou Geov Kai rou Xpic~ — vor. 


a 


122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


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 
(xivac) that of the evil working : rovs xaxove épyér. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18. The 
opposite: 2 Tim. ii. 15; Xen. Mem. i. 2.57". They, in fact, labored in 
opposition to the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith.—rp 
xatarouty] the culting in pieces,? a word formed after the analogy of repirous, 
and, like the latter in ver. 3, used in a concrete sense: those who are cut in 
pieces! A bitter paronomasia, because these men were circumcised merely 
as regards the body, and placed their confidence in this fleshly circum- 
cision, but were wanting in the inner, spiritual circumcision, which that 
of the body typified (see ver.8; Rom. ii. 28 f.; Col. ii.11; Eph. ii. 11; 
Acts vii. 51). Comp. Gal. v.11 f. In the absence of this, their character- 
istic consisted simply in the bodily mutilation, and that, from the ideal 
point of view which Paul here occupies, was not circumcision, but con- 
cision; whilst, on the other hand, circumcision, as respected its moral 
idea, was entirely independent of the corporeal operation, ver. 3. Comp. 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2. This qualitative distinction between epcr. 
and xarar. 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 presupposition which gives to 
this antinomistic sarcasm its warrant.2 A description of idolatry, with 
allusion to Lev. xxi. 5, 1 Kings xviii. 28, et al. (Storr, Flatt, J. B. Lightfoot ; 
comp. Beza), is quite foreign to the context. It is erroneous also to dis- 
cover here any indication of a cutting off of hearts from the faith (Luther’s 
gloss), or a cutting in pieces of the church (Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, 
Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and others), against which the 
necessary (comp. ver. 3) passive signification of the word (not cutters in 
pieces, but cut in pieces) is deqisive—The thrice repeated Biérere belongs sim- 
ply to the é:uovn of earnest emotion,‘ so that it points to the same dan- 


l’Epydfovras pdv, Gnocy, add’ éwi xaxgy, Kat 
dpyias woAAG xi por épyor, avacnwrres Ta RAAWE 
xeipeva, Chrysostom; comp. Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact. 

2 Theophr. HZ. pl. iv. 8. 12. 

3 Luther's works abound in sarcastic paro- 
nomasiue. Thus, for instance, in the preface 
to his works, instead of Decret and Decrctal, 
he has written “Drecket” and “Drecketal” 
(Germ. Dreck — dregs, filth]; the Legenden 
he calls Ligenden, the Jurisperitos he terms 


Jurisperditos ; also in proper names, such as 
Schwenkfeld, whom he called “Stenkfeld.” 
In ancient anthors, comp. what Diog. L. vi. 2, 
4 relates of Diogenes: rhv Evadcidov cxorny 
éAcye xoAgy, THy 8¢ TAdrwvos ScarpiBiy cerarpi- 
Biv. Thuc. vi. 76.4: ov« afvyerwrdpov, caxofu- 
verwrépov 64. See also Ast, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 
276; Jacobs, Delect. epigr. p. 188. For the 
Latin, see Kdhner, ad Cie. Tuse. p. 291, ed. 3. 

4 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 315; Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 341 (E. T. 308}. 


CHAP. II. 3. 123 


gerous men, and does not, as van Hengel misconceives, denote three 
different classes of Jewish opponents, viz. the apostate, the heretical, and the 
directly inimical. The passage quoted by him from Philostr., Vit. Soph. ii. 
1, does not bear upon the point, because in it the three repetitions of 
éB2zepe are divided by pév . . . dé. Weiss also refers the three designations 
to three different categories, namely: (1) the unconverted heathen, with 
their immoral life; (2) the self-seeking Christian teachers, i. 15-17; and 
(3) the unbelieving Jews, with their carnal conceit. But the first and third 
categories 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 three terms must characterize one 
class of men as in three aspects deserving of detestation, namely the 
Judaizing false teachers. As is evident from rt. xararoufy and ver. 8 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 1n i. 15 ff. (Heinrichs), because in the passage before 
us a line of teaching must be thought of which was expressly and in 
principle anti-Pauline, leading back into Judaism and to legal righteous- 
ness; and also because the earnest, demonstrative BAémere, as well as 
Gogadée (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 censure the 
readers themselves (as in the Epistle to the Galatians and Second Corin- 
thians), and he would have given a very different shape generally to his 
epistle, which betrays nothing but a church as yet undivided in doctrine. 
His language directed against the false teachers is therefore merely warn- 
ing and precautionary, as is also shown in ver. 3. 

Ver. 3. Justification of the preceding +r. xararoufy; 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. —jyeic] with 
emphasis: we, not they. The xararouf# being not the unconverted Jews, 
but Christian Judaizers, the contrasted juci¢ cannot mean the Christians 
generally (Weiss), but only those who, in the apostle’s sense, were true and 
right Christians, whose more definite characterization 1mmediately fol- 
lows. The j#ueic are the ‘IopazA tov Gcov 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 


? 


124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


article, does not befit; in iii. 17 the context stands otherwise.—} zeprroug] | 


If this predicate belongs to us, not to those men, then, in regard to the 
point of circumcision, nothing remains for the latter but the predicate 
xatatouf! As the gueic, among whom the readers also were included, were 
for the most part uncircumcised (Gal. 11. 9, iii.; Eph. ii. 11), it is clear that 
Paul here takes zepcrou# purely in the antitypical spiritual sense, according 
to which the circumcised 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 pre- 
figured by the legal bodily epirouy of the Jewish theocracy. Comp. Rom. 
11. 29, iv. 10 f£; Eph. ii, 11; Col. ii. 11; Acts vii. 51. Whether the bodily 
circumcision was present or not, and whether, therefore, the subjects were 
Jewish or Gentile Christians, was in that case matter of indifference, 
1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. iii. 28, v.6. Comp. the further amplification of the 
thought in Barnab. Ep. 9.—oi rveijpare Oeoi x.7.2.] We who serve through the 
Spirit of God, in contrast to the external, legal Aarpeia (Rom. ix. 4).' 
Comp. Heb. ix. 10, 14; Rom. xii.1f. With this Aarpe‘a, wrought by the 
Holy Spirit,? there takes place on the part of man (comp. Rom. i. 9), but 
in virtue of that very working of the Holy Spirit, the worship which is 
required in John iv. 24. The article oi extends also to the two participles 


which follow; and the arthrous participles (quippe qui colimus, etc.) con-. 


tain the experimental proof that the jyeic¢ are the sep:roun7. The dative 
avebpar: denotes neither the standard (van Hengel) nor the object (Hilgen- 
feld), which latter view would amount to the conception, foreign to the 
N. T., of a worship of the Holy Spirit—but is instrumental, expressing the 
inward agent (Rom. v. 5, viii. 14 f., et al.): vi spiritus divini (Rom. viii. 18, 
eéal.). On the absolute Aarpeterv, to render divine worship, comp. Luke ii. 
87; Acts xxvi. 7; Heb. ix. 9, x. 2; Rom. ix. 4; 3 Esdr. iv.‘54.—xavyéu. 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, ¢.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: xai obx év capxi neroédrec, with 
which the disposition of mind contrary to the xavyao6a év X.’I. (from which 
disposition the xavyae6a:, opposed to that Christian xavzdofa, of itself 
results) is negatived ; so that this contrast is pregnant, belonging, however, 
by way of antithesis, to the second statement, and not containing a separ- 
ate third one (Hofmann). If «. ovx év o. rex. were merely a more precise 
definition of purport added to xavy. év X. I. (Weiss), it must have been 
added without xai. As to oix in the passage, referring to concrete persons 


1True Christianity is, according to Paul v.17, {n which the letter has yielded to the 
also, the true continuation of Judaism, and _ spirit. 
that not merely of the promise given in it, 3 If we adopt the reading wvevpare Oeg, wvev- 
but also of the law; the latter, however, sar: must be understood as in Rom. i.9. See 
according tothe idea of the sAjpeors, Matt. Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 229 ff. 


ahs am, 
~ 


CHAP. II. 4. 125 


and a definite fact, and negativing not merely the é capxt (Hofmann), but 
the actual position évo. rero., see Winer, p. 451 f. [E. T. 485]; Baeum- 
lein, Partik. p. 276 f. 

Ver. 4. (On Vv. 4-11, see Note XVII. pages 153-155.] By the ot« é& capal 
sero., Which he had just used, Paul finds himself led to Ais own personai 
position ; for he was, in fact, the proper organ of the anti-Judaizing tend- 
ency expressed in ver. 3, and the real object against which the whole con- 
flict with it was ultimately directed. Hence, by the words ov« év capa) 
nero. he by no means intends to concede that he is destitute of that 
seroibnou, Which was founded un 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 xaixep with 
the participle (only used here by Paul; and elsewhere in the N. T. only 
in Heb. v. 8, 4 al. ; 2 Pet. i. 12), adds to the adversative sentence a limit- 
ing concessive clause (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 201 f.), and that in such a 
way, that from the collective subject of the former the apostle now with 
emphasis singles out partitively his own person (éyé).’_—_ If, following the 
Homeric usage, he had separated the two particles, he would have written : 
kai éyd xep.; if he had expressed himself negatively, he would have said: 
ovdérep Eye ovx Exuv.—The confidence also in flesh, i.e. in such circum- 
stances as belong to the sphere of the materially human, is in 2yw» (comp. 
2 Cor. iii. 4) conceived as a possession; he has this confidence, namely, 
from his personal position as an Jsraelite—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 rezoi@notc, his possession of which he in the first instance urges, 1s not 
fiduciae argumentum (Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including 
Flatt, Hoelemann, and Weiss); nor is the possession of it to be viewed as 
something which he might have (Storr, 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 ézuv (and then didxuv 
also) as the imperfect participle, and gives to the whole passage the in- 
volved misinterpretation : that xairep introduces a protasis, the apodosis of 
which follows with aaad in ver.7. In accordance with this view, ver. 4 is 
supposed to mean: “ Although I possessed a confidence, and that, indeed, 
based on such matters as are flesh, if any other ventures to trust in such things, 
I for my part possessed confidence in a higher degree.’ This is erroneous; 
first, because the familiar 4444 of the apodosis is used indeed after xairoc 
(with finite tense ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 68 E; Parm. p. 128 C), but 


leai év capxi, namely, in addition to the _—full stop; and after dueuwros in ver. 6another 
higher Christian relations,on which I place full stop So also Lachmann and Tischen- 
my confidence. dorf. In opposition to Hofmann's confusing 

2 Only a comma is to be placed after wewor- construction of the sentence, see below. 
Oéres in ver. 3; but after dy capxi in ver.4 a 3Comp. Kuhner, IL 1, p. 246.8. 











126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


not after the common xaixep with participle, attaching itself to a govern- 
ing verb; secondly, because «ai before é»v cayxi means nothing else than 
also, which does not suit the interpretation of Hofmann, who desires to 
force upon it the here inappropriate sense, and that indeed ; thirdly, be- 
cause the present doxei presupposes the present sense for ézwv also; and 
lastly, because with éyé paAAov the present (in accordance with the preced- 
ing doxei), 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 !—ric . . . dAAoc] quite generally: any other person, but 
the intended application to the above-mentioned Judatzers was obvious to 
the reader. See the sequel. The separation by doxzi lays all the stronger 
streas on the ric.—doxei] not: “ thinks to be able to confide” (de Wette and 
many others); nor yet: “si quis alius videtur” (Vulgate), since it is a 
matter depending not upon the judgment of others, but upon his own 
fancy, according to the connection. Hence: if any one allows himself to 
think, if he presumes. Just in the same way, as in the passage parallel also 
in substance, Matt. iii. 9. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 16.—éyo paArov] sc. dona mer. év 
capxi, 1 for my part presume it still more. This mode of expression im- 
plies a certain boldness, defiance; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 21. 

Vv. 5, 6. Predicates of the éyé, by which that éyO uaAAov is justified —If 
those Judaizers were, as may be inferred from our passage, partly proselytes 
(to these the vepir. dxrafu. stands in contrast), partly persons whose Jewish 
descent was not so noble and pure as that implied in éx yévoug. . . . ‘EBpaiuy, 
and if they could not boast of any such law-strictness, zealous activity, and 
righteousness, as is described in xara véuov ... dueurroc; and if, on the other 
hand, there were found conjoined in the case of Paul the elements here 
adduced of ancient theocratic legitimacy and perfection; the éy® paAAov in 
ver. 4 was completely made good.—rep:rouy oxrahp.] in respect to circum- 
cision an eighth-day-one, not older, as were the proselytes who were only cir- 
cumcised at a later period of life. The eighth-day character in the relation 
specified by wepsroug ig conceived as a quality of the persons concerned, 
which distinguishes them from those circumcised later. The reading 
TepToy a8 nominative (some min. and Fathers, Erasmus, Vatablus, Corne- 
lius a Lapide, Mill, Bengel, Matthies, Heinrichs, and others, also Elz. 1624, 
1638, not 1641), so that it would stand in the concrete sense (circumcisus), 
is erroneous, because this usage occurs only collectively. —é« yévoug "Iop.] that 
is, a descendant of Jacob, not, therefore, possibly of Idumaean blood. The 
theocratic name 'Iop. corresponds entirely with the design of the passage. 
Comp. on Eph. ii. 12. On what follows, comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22; Rom. xi. 1. 
— pviAge Bevau.| therefore not, possibly, an Hphrasnute (Ezra iv. 1); a cli- 
mactic more precise definition of the etyévera.? For ita fuller exhibition 
Paul finally specifies the last feature of his lineage: 'Efpaiog é€ 'EBp., that 
is, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents, so that his mother also was a Hebrew 


1 For instances of the personal use of such _p. 234 f. 


nomina dialia, see especially Wetstein on S evyeras yap & Ovens Ket evyerey, Soph. Phil 
John xi. 39; comp. generally Kadhner, II. 1, 862 (874). 


cHaP, rr. 5, 6. 127 


woman. His lineage is not carried further back in respect to both parents, 
because it was not the custom to trace back the genealogy of the wives. 
Inappropriate to the context is the rendering of Michaelis, following 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact: “one speaking Hebrew, born 
of Hebrew-speaking parents.” It is also erroneous, following the Greek 
Fathers, to take 2& 'Efp. of the tota majorum series,' because this was after 
the two previously specified points self-evident. If, among his ancestors, 
Paul had had one who was a non-Hebrew, he would not have been de- 
scended from Jacob and Benjamin, but from the non-Hebrew and his 
forefathers. For instances of expressions quite similar to 'Efp. ¢§ ‘E8p., 
used to denote the identity, as conditioned by birth, of a man’s position 
with that of his parents, see Wetstein and Kypke; they occur very fre- 
quently in classic authors.—xaré vépov «.r.A.] After his Jewish eiyéveca there 
now follows his distinguished personal position in Judaism, set forth in a 
threefold climactic gradation : (1) In respect of the law (of Moses) a Phari- 
see. Comp. Acts xxvi. 5, xxii.6. The Pharisees stood in the closest and 
strictest relation to the law, as they with their traditions were regarded as 
the most orthodox expositors, defenders, and observers of it. The inter- 
pretation of Ȏuov, not in its habitual historic sense, but generally as regu- 
lar rule (Beza) or disctplina (aipeotc) (Castalio, Wolf, Grotius, Storr, Hein- 
richs, 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, dixaioc. r. ev vduy. (2) In respect 
of zeal (zealous maintenance and championship of the law-religion, 1 Macc: 
ii. 58; Acta xxi. 20; Gal. i. 14), a persecutor of the church. Comp. Gal. i. 
18 f. The present participle is used as a substantive, comp. on Gal. i. 23. 
What Paul, to his deep grief, had been (1 Cor. xv. 8 f.; 1 Tim. i. 18), he, 
with a bitter recalling of his former distinction in Judaism, throws, by way 
of confronting the Jewish zealots, into the scale, as a characteristic pre- 
dicate not yet extinct. And precisely thus, unaccompanied by any oré 
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). (8) In respect to righteousness, which ts 
grounded on the law [XVII a.] having become blameless [XVII 6.) (ii. 15), 
having carried it so far (not: having borne myself so, as 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 dix. 7 év véuy is not substan- 
tially different from dix. 4 éx véuov 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 pro- 
ceeds 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 de Wette 
interprets: “the righteousness valid in the sfate of law (comp. Rom. ii. 
12).” Calvin appropriately observes that Paul means “totam justitiam 
legis,” but “ communi hominum existimatione; ’’ that it is not, therefore, the 


1 Besa, Grotius, Storr, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others. 





128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
real moral fulfillment of the law, but its justitia externa literalis. Comp. J. 
Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 59, ed. 5. 

Ver. 7. Now, with the antithetic a44¢, the apostle comes again to his 
real standpoint, far transcending any zero:déva: év capxi, and says: No/ 
everything that was gain to me, etc.—driva] quaecunque, the category of the 
matters specified in vv. 5 and 6." The emphasis is to be placed on this 
word; comp. raira subsequently.—jw po: xépdy] por is not the dative of 
opinion (Erasmus, Beza, and many others, including Heinrichs, Rhein- 
wald, Hoelemann, Matthies, de Wette, Hofmann; 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 honors, power, 
and wealth in the future; a career rich in gain was opened up to him. 
The plural xépéy7 denotes the various advantages dependent on such things 
as have been mentioned. Frequently used also in the classical writers.— 
ravta} emphatically : these very things.—dé.a 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. 
—{npiav] as harm, that is, as disadvantageous (the contrast to xépdoc) ;? 
because, namely, they had been impediments to the conversion to Christ, 
and that owing to the false moral judgment and confidence attaching to 
them. This one disadvantage he has seen in everything of which he is 
speaking; hence the plural is not again used here as previously in xépdy. 
The #ynua (perfect), however, has occurred, and is an accomplished fact 
since his conversion, to which the apostle here glances back.* ‘ 

Ver. 8.. ’AA2ad [XVII c.] is the climactic bu, still, much more, giving a 
corrective reference of tne sense, signifying that with the previous arua... 
Cnuiav there has not yet been enough said. Comp. on 2 Cor. vii.11. In 
the p2y oty it is implied, that “zv rem praesentem confirmet, oiv autem con- 
clusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficiat,” Klotz, ad Devar. p.663. Hence 
GAAa pév obv: at quidem igitur. The xai before syoipma: (after 4224 yu. ody) 
serves also to help the climactic sense, outbidding what has been said pre- 
viously : etiam, i.e. adeo. Itis consequently to be explained : but, accord- 
ingly, I am even of opinion that everything (not merely what was meant by 
' ara in ver. 7) is a disadvantage. It is clear, withal, from the following 
did rd trepéxov x.r.A. that wdvra is meant indeed without restriction, of all 
things, goods, honors, etc. [XVII d.] (comp. also Hofmann), but in so far 
as they are not made subordinate to the knowledge of Christ. The explana- 


1 The later heretical enemies of the law ap- 
pealed to this passage, in which also, in their 
view, the law was meant to be included. On 
the other hand, Chrysostom and his suc- 
cessors asserted that the law was meant only 
«n comparwon ‘with Christ. Estius, however, 
justly observes: “non de tpsa lege ioquitur, 
sed de justifia, quae in lege est.” 


Comp. Plat. de luert cup. p. 226 E, Leg viii. 
p- 835 B. 

*Comp. Form. Cone. p. 708; Calvin on ver. 8 

#On wyetoOae Cnpiay, comp. Sturz, Ler. Xen. 
II. p. 454; Lucian, Leziph. 24, on the relation 
of the singular to the plural «ép8n, Eur, Oyed. 
311: woAAotes xépSy wownpa Cyuiay Huciparo. 


CHAP. rir. 7, 8. 129 
tion of others, according to which 4/Ad pév otv is intended to oppose the 
present yyovuac by way of correction to the perfect qynua (Calvin and others, 
including Winer, p. 412 [E. T. 442], and the explanation hitherto given 
by me), is incorrect, because #ynua:, and not the aorist jyyodunv, Was em- 
ployed previously, and the perfect already involves the continuance of 
the opinion in the present, so that no contrast of the tenses would logically 
be elicited. The climactic contrast lies rather in the fact that the second 
HyeioOat Cyyiav is a much more comprehensive one than the first, in fact, one 
without exception (rdvra).—did 1d imeptyov x.7.A.] on account of the surpass- 
ingness of the knowledge of Christ; that is, because this knowledge, to 
which I have attained, is a possession which excels in value everything 
else; the eminent quality of a possession attained is the ground (é:¢) for 
estimating other possessions according to their relation to that one, and 
consequently, if they stand to the latter in a relation hindersome to us, 
for looking upon them no longer as something advantageous, but as hurt- 
ful. As tothe neuler adjective used as a substantive with the genitive, in 
‘order to the more prominent setting forth of the attribute, see Bernhardy, 
p. 155 f.; Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 235].—Xpuord¢ 'Inoots 6 wupide pov ; this is the 
fundamental sum of the whole contents of Christian knowledge. This sav- 
ing knowledge is the necessary intelligence of faith (comp. on John viii. 
32), and grows with the experience of faith (ver. 10; Eph. iii. 16 ff.).—dr 3v] 
for the sake of whom, i.e. for the sake of possessing Him; comp. after- 
wards iva Xpiordv.. . avrg.—ra révra] the whole, not general like zdvra pre- 
viously (Hofmann), but: which I possessed, vv. 5-7. This more precise 
definition by the article results from é{nu667, in connection with which 
the aorist is to be noted, by which Paul denotes that great historical turn- 
ing-point in his life, the event of his conversion; through that event he 
has lost all his (pre-Christian) valued possessions,' and thenceforth he has 
them no more. Luther erroneously interprets: “ considered as harm ;” 
and the emotion and force of the expression are only weakened by the 
frequently given reflexive sense (see Beza, Calvin, Heinrichs, Flatt, Hoele- 
mann, van Hengel, and many): I have made myself lose——a meaning, be- 
sides, which cannot be shown to belong to the passive form of the aorist 
of this verb (not even in Luke ix. 25). The future passive form (nuw- 
Gfooua:*® is invariably damno afficiar.—xai jyotpa: x.t.A.] 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 d¢ 8v «7.4. [XVII e.]; hence é¢ vr. 7. én. is not, with van Hengel, 
to be put in a parenthesis. Paul had become loser of all these things for 
Christ’s sake, and he holds them as not worthy of possession, but as 
rubbish | oxtBadov,® refuse (such as sweepings, dung, husks, and the like); 


1 Observe here, also, the shrewdly contrived 
correspondence of ¢qutay in ver. 7f ,and é¢qus- 
oO_y in ver. 8, in which the former expresses 
the idea of damnum, detrimentum, and the 
latter; I have become loser of. It might be re- 
produced in Latin: “etiam censeo omnia det- 
runentum (i.¢6. detrimentosa) esse . . . propter 


quem omnium detrimentum (i.e. jacturam) 
passus sum censeoque ea esse quisquilias.” 
*8ee Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 12, Thuc. 
iii, 40. 2. 
* Not to be derived from rots xvci BadAAciy, 
quod canibus projicitur, but from oxep (cade). 
See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 92. 


130 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
Eeclus. xxvii. 4; Plut. Mor. p. 352 D; and see Wetatein ad loc.! Comp. the 
similar figurative expressions mepud@appa and mepfpnyua, 1 Cor. iv. 13.—iva 
X. xeod.] The design in the #yoipa: oxbB. eivac: in order to gain Christ, not 
the aim of ré wavra éfnu607v (Hofmann), there being no reason for such a 
retrospective reference. The gaining of Christ, ¢.e. the appropriation of 
Him by means of the fellowship brought about through faith, is that, 
which for him is to take the place of those former xépd7 which he has lost, 
and so he looked to this gain in his #yoipa: oxiBada eivac; 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. in. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 
8); nevertheless, this xepdaivecy is from its nature a development, the com- 
pletion of which still lies before him. Comp. ver. 12 ff. 
Ver. 9. Kai eipefe év aire] [XVII f.] and to be found in Him. The em- 
phasis, which previously lay upon Xproréy, is laid not upon év avrg (Hof- 
” mann), but upon the etpe6 placed first for that reason, and introducing a 
new feature of the relation aimed at, annexing to the (subjective) gaining 
of Christ the (objective) moulding of life corresponding to it. The apostlt 
desires to be found in Christ, as in the element of his life; by this he 
means (comp. Ignatius, Eph. 11) the whole perceptible manifestation of 
his Christian being and nature; so that eip. must neither be limited to the 
judicium Dei (Beza, comp. Flatt), nor taken as sim (Grotius and others). 
Calvin erroneously makes etpe# active: Paulum renuntiasse omnibus 
quae habebat, uf recuperaret in Christo—pq éxov x.7.4.] Specific modal 
definition to etp év airg: so that I, in accordance with this design, may not 
have, etc. Van Hengel erroneously connects (Lachmann, also, and Tisch- 
endorf have omitted the comma after atr@) v9 Exov x.7.A. immediately with 
eip. év avrg: et deprehendar in communtone ejus non meam qualemcunque 
habere probitatem. Thus, indeed, év airg would be utterly superfluous ! 
The subjective negation “4 flows from the conception of design (iva), see 
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 295; Buttmann, Neu. Gr. p. 302 [E. T. 351]; and 
éyuv is the simple habens, possessing, not: holding fast (am Ende, Rhein- 
wald, Baumgarten-Crusius).—éyjv dix. tiv éx véuov] See on ver. 6; comp. 
Rom. x. 8. It is the righteousness acquired as a self-achievement (éuq), 
which proceeds from the law by means of a justifying compliance with it 
(Rom. ii. 13). As to the nature of this righteousness, and the impossi- 
bility of attaining it, comp. Gal. ii. 16, iii. 10; Rom. iii. 19 f,, iv. 4, vii. 7 
ff., ix. 31, ef al.—ry da riot. Xpiorov| contrast to éu4v: that procured by faith 
in Christ? (as the causa apprehendens). The causa efficiens is God (His 
grace, see Eph. ii. 8); hence, for the complete exhaustion of the matter, 
tiv éx Oeov dix. is added, in which é« Qeov, correlative to the preceding éx« 
véuov, expresses the causal issuing from God. As to the way in which 
this éx Oeai takes place, namely, by God’s imputing faith as righteousness,’ 


1 Frequently in the Anthol., see Jacobe, Ach. 3 In this passage also, therefore, justification 
Tat. p. 522, ad Anthol. VII. p. 173, LX. p. 208. by faith is the basis and presupposition of 
20n the genitive of the object with wions, further Christian development up to the 
eomp.i.27. Against taking itasthe genitive blessed consummation, ver. 11. Comp. Kéet- 
euctoris, see on Rom. iii. 22. lin, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol, 1856, p. 121 f. 


ap 


CHAP. I. 9, 10. 131 


see Rom. i. 17, iii. 24 f, iv. 8 ff. ; 2 Cor. v.19; Gal. iii. 6.—éx? rg riore:] on 
the ground of fatth (Acts iii. 16), added at the end with solemn emphasis, 
and dependent on éywv, which is again to be supplied after a44é. [XVII 
g.] So also Weiss. The repetition of éyuv after évi +r. xiore:, which Hof- 
mann feels the want of in this explanation, would be simply superfluous 
and clumsy. ‘Emir. r. is usually attached to diaaiootvyy (“ Justitiam super- 
structam tidei,” Hoelemann, Wiesinger), some having taken émi as “in 
fide” (Vulgate, Calvin), or in fide sitam (Castalio) ; others as “per fidem ” 
(Beza, Grotius); others, for the sake of faith (de Wette) ; others, upon the 
condition of faith (Storr, Flatt, Matthies, Rilliet, van Hengel, J. B. Light- 
foot). But it may be urged against this connection, first, that, in accord- 
ance with the previous definitions, we could not but expect the repetition 
of the article; secondly, that dicatofac with érf nowhere occurs in the 
N.T.; and lastly, that dixacotvy in its quality as righteousness of fatth was 
already distinctly designated by rv dia rior. X., 80 that the same attribute 
of it would be expressed twice, and, on the other hand, the éZyov which is 
to be repeated after aiAé (the basis of which is still éx r. +.) would be 
without any more precise definition. In opposition to Hofmann, who 
makes én r. riorec belong to the following infinitive clause, see on ver. 10. 

Ver. 10. Telic definition of the relation expressed by yu? éyov «.r.A. in ver. 
9. Paul has not the righteousness of the law, but the righteousness of 
faith, tn order to know, etc. [XVII h.] This knowledge would fail him if, 
on the contrary, instead of the righteousness of faith, he had that of the 
law. So he reverts to a more detailed illustration of 1d trepéyov rig yudceuc 
X., ver. 8, expressing, in the first place, again generally the great personal 
contents of the knowledge accruing from the righteousness of faith (rod 
yrova: airév), and next, more particularly, the most important—especially 
to the apostle in his position infinitely important—matters which were its 
objects (riv divauey x.r.4.), developing them from his own richest experience, 
which had thus brought home to his deepest consciousness the tepéxov 
Tie yuootug X. The rov yvava: might also be conceived as dependent on 
eipe0e év avr (Wiesinger, Schneckenburger, Schenkel); but the more pre- 
cise definition of this etpe6o év aire by ui Exov x.7.A. is 80 Important, earnest, 
and solemn, that it most naturally carries with it also the statement of 
aim which follows. Chrysostom joins émi rg wiore: to ver. 10: ri dé éoriv exi 
tH wlores tov yveva abrév; dpa dca mlorewc  yvao, nal mloteeg dvev yrova 
avrdév ov« tort. So also Theodoret and Erasmus, and recently Hofmann,' 
who, in doing so, takes éri in and by itself correctly as on the ground of faith. 
But such cases of emphatic prefixing, while they are certainly found with 
tva (see on Gal. ii. 10; Eph. iii. 18), are not found before the genitive of the 
infinitive with the article, which represents the expression with iva, but in 
such infinitive clauses only between article and infinitive; hence Paul 
would have written rov én ry rlores yrovac. 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. 


{2 Comp. also his Schrtftbew. I. p. 618. 


132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


vi. 2; Isa. x. 82. According to Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and 
others, the genitive roi yv. is meant to depend on rg riore:; “describit vim 
et naturam fidei, quod scilicet sit Christi cognitio” (Calvin). But ziorc 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. 18, @ al.). Nor is rev yvova airév to be 
regarded as parallel with iva X, xepdfow x. evp. év airo,' since it is in itself 
arbitrary to despise the appropriate dependence on what immediately 
precedes, and to go back instead to #yotpa: oxiBada civac; and since in iva 
Xptorév xepd. x. evpc0@ év avt@ two elements are given, a subjective and an 
objective one, so that thus there would be presented no parallel corres- 
ponding with the subjective rob yyovac x.7.A. Moreover, Paul is in the habit 
of introducing two parallel clauses of design with a double iva (Rom. vii. 
18; Gal. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 3)—The yrava:, which both conditions the faith 
and also in fuller development follows it (see on ver. 8), is not the discur- 
sive, or generally theoretical and speculative knowing, but the inwardly 
salutary, experimental becoming-acquainted-with (“ qui expertus non fuerit, 
non intelliget,” Anselm), as is plain from rv divauey «.7.A. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 
8, viii. 2; Gal. iv. 9, et al.; frequently so used in John.2—x«ai rv divauey rij¢ 
avacT. avTov Kal T. Kover. Tt. 7af. air.] and (that is, and especially) the power 
of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings. The dbvap. tr. avacr. 
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 resurrection of Christ has, its vis et efficacia in respect to believers. 
[XVII ¢.] The special point that Paul has in view, is supplied by the 
context through what is said immediately before of the righteousness of 
faith, to which rod yvovac x.r.A. refers. He means the powerful guarantee 
of justification and salvation which the resurrection of Christ affords to 
believers; see Rom. iv. 25, v.10; 1 Cor. xv. 17; Acts xiii. 37, 38. This 
power of the resurrection is experienced, not by him that is righteous 
through the law, but by him that is righteous through faith, to whom the 
resurrection of the Lord brings the constant energetic certainty of his 
reconciliation procured by Jesus’ death and the completion of eternal life 
(Rom. viii.11; 1 Cor. vi. 14; Col. ili. 1 ff.; Phil. iii. 21). Comp. also Rom. 
viii. 34, where this divayig ri¢ avacr. 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 “comple- 
mentum redemtionis ” (Calvin), is already in regeneration experimentally 
known, as is Christ generally (airév); but Paul speaks from the conscious- 
ness that every element of the regenerate life, which has ray éx Oecd dexasoo- 
iva én) rh miore, ig 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 ving 
power of victory, which lies for the believer in the resurrection of Christ, 


1 Ketius, Storr, Heinrichs, and others, in- Wette, Winer. 
cluding Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de 28ee also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 421, ed. 2. 


CHAP. III. 10. 133 


according to 2 Cor. iv. 10, Gal. ii. 20, Phil. iv. 13—by means of which the 
Christian, “through his glorified Lord, himself also possesses an infinite 
new power of acquiring victory over the world and death ” (Ewald, comp. 
de Wette, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger, Schenkel; substantially also Hof- 
mann),—does not accord either with the words themselves (for so under- 
stood it would be the power of the risen Christ, not the power of His resur- 
rection), or with the following «. r#v xomeviay tov nabyp. avrov, which, in @ 
logical point of view (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10-12), must either have gone before, 
or have been expressed by év rg xocvwvig «.t.A. The certainty of our own 
resurrection and glory! is necessarily included also in the divayec, without, 
however, being exclusively meant. By the series sermonis Bengel (comp. 
Samuel Crell) has allowed himself to be misled into explaining avéoracic, 
not of the resurrection at all, but of the ezortus or adventus of the Messiah. 
References of various kinds are mixed up by Rheinwald, Flatt, Schinz, 
Usteri, and others.—xai riv xowwwv. tov raOnp. avtov) In these words Paul 
intends to express—and he does so by the repetition of the article with a 
certain solemnity—a second, highly valuable relation, conditioned by the 
first, to the experimental knowledge of which the possession of the right- 
eousness of faith was destined to lead him, namely, the fellowship of the 
sufferings of Christ, in which he sees a high proof of divine grace and dis- 
tinction (i. 29, ii.17f.). Comp. Col.i.24. Suffering for the sake of Christ’s 
cause is a participation in Christ's sufferings (a ovptdéoxewv, Rom. viii. 17), 
because, as respects the characteristic kind and way of suffering, one 
suffers the same that Christ suffered (according to the ethical category, 
drinks of the same cup which Christ drank, Matt. xx. 22). The, expla- 
nation which makes it: suffering with such a disposition of mind as He 
suffered (as steadfastly, etc.), given by Flatt and others, is imported from 
a rationalistic point of view; and the view which takes it in the sense of: 
the believing appropriation of the merit of Christ (Calovius, Rhemwald, and 
others), is opposed to the words, and at variance with the habitual con- 
ception of a real ovuréoxev 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 riv divas rif¢ xowwuviag x.7.A. (Hoelemann: “ vim ac pondus;” 
de Wette: “all that this fellowship involves,” comp. Corn. a Lapide: 
“dulcedinem ac sanctitatem ”’); the yvévaz, on the contrary, relates to the 
matter itself, to the knowledge of which only those righteous by faith can 
attain, whilst to those righteous by the law it remains an unknown 
element; the subjectivity for it is wanting to the latter, though the object- 
ive suffering is present. It was otherwise with the previous element; for 
the resurrection of Chnst in itself—the fact as such—is known also by him 
who is righteous through the law, but not so its dévaysc, of which only the 
righteous through faith is aware. The knowledge of this d(vaycc, in virtue 


1 Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Storr, Hein- 2Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 18, and see on 2 Cor. i. 5, 
richa, Hoelemann, and others; comp. Pela- Col. i. 24: also on rh» wdepwory tov “lycod, 2 
gius, Theodore of. Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Cor. iv. 10. 
and Theophylact. 


134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


of which he experiences in the resurrection of Christ the abiding divinely 
effectual guarantee of his justification and eternal life, makes him capable 
also of recognizing in his sufferings for the sake of the gospel a fellowship 
in the sufferings of Christ; the latter knowledge is conditioned by the 
former; he would not have it without the former, because he would be 
driven to look upon his faith as vain and idle, and upon himeelf, so far as 
he suffers, a8 éAeecvérepov révtuv avOpdruv (1 Cor. xv. 14,17, 19.) The enthu- 
siastic feeling of drinking the cup of Christ is not possible, unless a man 
bears in his heart the mighty assurance of salvation through the resurrec- 
tion of the Lord.—ovppopgi{suevoe 16 Oavdry abrov} denotes the corresponding 
situation (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10), in which Paul was conscious that he should 
know, a8 one righteous by faith, the xonwviay rav ral. Xpiotod: tnasmuch as 
Iam 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 pro- 
gression from the general ra@7pérwv to the definite Gavéry. 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. yi.; Gal. ii. 19). The nominative ovppop¢., which is to be explained 
as dependent, not in a clumsily complicated fashion on etpe# (Grotius, 
Hoelemann, Hofmann, and others), but on rot yava: «.7.1., refers to its 
logical subject. See Eph. iv. 2. 

Ver. 11. El ruc] if possibly, designating the atm, the attainment of which 
is before the apostle’s mind in the ovppop¢iféuevoc 1H Oav. airov. In this 
case, however, the deliberative form of expression (comp. Rom. i. 10, xi. 
14; Kihner, II. 2, p. 1034) bears the impress, not of doubt that he will 
‘attain to the resurrection of the dead (in case, namely, he should not live 
to see the Parousia), but of humility under the conception of the greatness 
of the bliss, and of the moral condition to which, on man’s part, it is subject.! 
This suffices also in opposition to Baur’s doubt (Paulus, II. p. 79 f.) whether 
_ Paul could have expressed himself in this way at all. The expression 
excludes moral security, but not the certitudo salutis in itself, as, following 
Estius and other Catholic expositors, Bisping still thinks. The certainty 
of salvation is founded on God’s decree, calling (Rom. viii. 29 f.), promise, 
and attestation by the Spirit (Rom. viii. 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 éfavdcracig tov vexpov Paul means, namely, 
the first,in which of rob Xpwrot év rH rapovolg airov (1 Cor. xv. 28) shall 


lov Gappe ydp, dno, obwe’ otrws draweve- Prcwire nh wien, Theophylact: comp. Chry- 
opéva, Swep aAAaxov Adya’ b Sexay éordva, sostom. 


CHAP. I. 11, 12. 135 
arise.! Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16. It is the resurrection of the dead kar’ ééoxfy, 
not different from the avdoraot tov dixaiov. See on Luke xiv. 14. Neverthe- 
less, we must not find this resurrection denoted by the double compound 
éfavdor., the é€ in it conveying the idea éx rie yi¢ cig rov aépa (Theophylact). 
This é is simply to be explained by the conception é« rjc yf, so that 
neither in the substantial meaning nor even in style (Bengel: “ Paulinus 
enim stylus Christo adscribit avdcracy, t€avdoracc Christianis’’) is éfavéor. 
to be distinguished from avdor.; 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 substan- 
tive does not cccur elsewhere in the N. T. (the verb, Mark xii. 19; Luke xx. 
28; Acts xv. 5); but see Polyb. iii. 55. 4, ii. 21. 9, ii. 85. 4; Gen. vii. 4. 
Compl. We may add, that while it has been explained, at variance with 
the context, as referring to the ethical resurrection, Rom. vi. 4 f, it is 
also erroneous to find in it the sense: “if perchance J should remain akve 
unlil the resurrection of the dead” (van Hengel, Hilgenfeld); since, on the 
contrary, essentially the same meaning is expressed as in Luke xx. 84 by 
ol xatafwhivres ... THe avacrdcees, and it is conceived as a possible case 
(comp. i. 20 ff, ii. 17) that Paul will not remain alive until the Parousia.® 
xaravr. ei¢ (comp. Eph. iv. 13) denotes the attaining to a goal,‘ which, how- 
ever, is here not a point of time, but a bliss which is to be attained. Comp. 
Acts xxvi. 7. 

Vv. 12-14. [On Vv. 12-16, see Note XVIII. pages 155, 156.] Protest, that in 
what he had said in vv. 7-11 he had not expressed the fanciful idea of a Chris- 
tian perfection already attained; but that, on the contrary, his efforte are 
still ever directed forward towards that aim—whereby a mirror for self-con- 
templation is held up before the Philippians in respect to the moral conceit 
which disturbed their unity (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 br] By this I do not mean to say that, etc® He might 
encounter such a misconception on the part of his opponents; but “in 
summo fervore sobrietatem spiritualem non dimittit apostolus,” Bengel.— 
#5n taBov]| that I have already grasped it. The object is not named by Paul; 
but left to be understood of itself from the context. The latter represents a 
prize-runner, who at the goal of the oragvodpoyuia grasps the Bpafetov (ver. 14). 


1 It is incorrect to ascribe to the apostle the 
idea that.none but believers will rise at the 
resurrection, and that unbelievers will re- 
main in Hades (Weiss). The resurrection of 
eli, as Christ Himself unquestionably taught 
it (see on John v. 28 f.; Luke xiv. 14), is also 
in Paul's view the necessary premiss of the 
judgment of all, of believers and also of unbe- 
Hevers (of the «écpos, Rom. iii. 6; 1 Cor. vi. 
2, xi.32). That view, moreover, is at variance 
with the apostle’s distinct declaration in 
Acts xxiv. 15, comp. xvii. 31. Gerlach proper- 
ly declares himself (Letzte Dinge, p. 147 ff.) 
opposed to Weiss, but still limits the final 


judgment, at p. 101 ff., as regards the persons 
subjected to it, in a wey that is exegetically 
altogether unjustifiable. 

*Flacius, Balduin, Coccejus, and others; 
comp. Schrader. 

3 This also applies against the view of Otto, 
Pastoralbr. p. 233, who has altogether misun- 
derstood vv. 11 and 12. 

4 Frequently in Polybius, see Schweigha&u- 
ser, Lex. p. 332; see also the passages from 
the LXX. and Apocr. in Schlensner, III. p. 
234 f. 

8See on 2 Cor. i. 24, ifi. 5; John vi. 4. 
Aken, Lehre v. Temp. u. Mod. p. 91 





136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


This SpaBeioy typifies the bliss of the Messiah’s kingdom (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24; 
2 Tim. iv. 7, 8), which therefore, and that as fpafeiov, is here to be con- 
ceived as the object, the attainment of which is denied to have already 
taken place. And accordingly, 2Aafov is to be explained of the having 
attained in ideal anticipation, in which the individual is as sure and certain 
of the future attainment of the Spaeiov, as if it were already an accom- 
plished fact. What therefore Paul here denies of himself is the same 
imagination with which he reproaches the Corinthians in 1 Cor. iv. 8 (see 
in loc.). The reference to the Spafeiov (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Erasmus, Bengcl, Heinrichs, Rilliet, and others) is not proleptic;! 
on the contrary, it is suggested by the idea of the race just introduced in 
ver. 12, and is prepared for by the preceding xaravrfow ei¢ tiv éfavdoraae fr. 
vexp., in which the Messianic owrypia makes its appearance, and the grasp- 
ing of the fpafeioy is realized; hence -it is so accordant with the context 
that all other references are excluded. Accordingly, we must neither supply 
metam generally (Beza, comp. Ewald); nor ri avécracw (Rheinwald); nor 
rov Xpiorév (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) ;* nor yet the xaravrav of ver. 11 (Matthies).—4 
70n teteAetwopar) or—in order to express without a figure that which had been 
figuratively denoted by 67 éAaBov—were already perfected* [XVIII b. c.] 
For only the ethically perfected Christian, who has entirely become and is 
(observe the perfect) what he was intended to become and be, would be 
able to say with truth that he had already grasped the BpaBeiov, however 
infallibly certain might be to him, looking at his inward moral frame of 
life, the future owrzpia. He who is not yet perfect has still always to run 
after it; see the sequel. The words } #67 dedixaivya:, introduced in con- 
siderable authorities before 7, form a correct gloss, when understood in an 
ethical sense. For instances of reAecovofa:—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, Lez. Plat. IT. 
p. 369; comp. Philo, Alleg. p. 74 C, where the Bpafeia are adjudged to the 
soul, when it is perfected. To be at the goal (Hammond, Wolf, Loesner, 
Heinrichs, Flatt, Rilliet, and others), is a sense, which rereA. 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 réAecoc in ver. 15 is correla- 
tive with rereAciopa:.—didnu df] [XVIII d.] but I pursue tt, t.c. I strive after 


1As also Hofmann objects, who finds the 
notion of the verb alone sufficient for express- 
ing what is to be negatived, but yet likewise 
ultimately comes to eternal life as a supple- 
ment; for that which is not yet attained is 
one and the same with that which is one day 
to be attained. 


2 Comp. Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Vatablus, van 
Hengel, Wiesinger. 

8 This being perfected is not the result of 
the dAaBow (Wiesinger, Weiss), but the moral 
condition of him who can say fAafov. Note 
that 4 is used, and not «ai; cai might have 
been taken as annexing the result. 


CHAP. wl. 12. 137 


it with strenuous running; see ver. 14. The idea of urgent haste is con- 
veyed.’ The dé has the force of an aAAd in the sense of on the other hand ; 
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 95, and comp. on Eph. iv. 15. We must understand 
rd BpaBeiov as object to didxw, just as in the case of @AaGov and xaraAdBu; 
hence didn 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. 14.2—ei xa? caradéBw} This ei is, 
ag in ei ruc, ver. 11, deliberative: ¢f I also, etc., the idea of oxomeiv or some 
similar word being before his mind; the compound xara4é@w is more (in 
opposition to Weiss) than 2AaBov, and denotes the apprehension which 
takes possession ;* and «ai implies: I not merely grasp (2Aafov), but also 
actually apprehend.—颒 @ nai xareAfgOny tnd X.]° because I was also appre- 
hended by Christ. This is the determining ground of the d:dcw, and of the 
thought thereto annexed, ¢ xai caraAéBu. Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom 
and Theodoret) aptly remarks: deccvic, 571 dgeiAy éoti rd mpaypa, gnoi’ dibtt Kal 
xareAngo, Urs X. Otherwise, in fact, this having been apprehended would 
not have been responded to on my part. Respecting 颒 9, on the ground 
of this, that, i.e. propterea quod, see on Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. v. 4. [XVIII e.] - 
The interpretation : for which, on which behalf (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, 
Rheinwald, Rilliet, Weiss, and others), just as in iv. 10, is indeed linguis- 
tically correct and simple; but it assigns the conversion of Paul, not to 
the general object which it had (Gal. i. 16), but to a personal object. In 
this case, moreover, Rilliet, de Wette, Wiesinger supply rovro previously, 
which is not in accordance with the objectless 2AaBov. More artificial are 
the explanations: 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. Sunde, II. p. 217). According 
to Hofmann, Paul desires to give the reason why, and for what purpose, he 
contemplates an apprehension. But thus the reference of 颒 @ «.r.2. would 
be limited to ¢i x. caradé Bu, although the positive leading thought has been 
introduced in d:dnw dé. ’E¢’ » «.7.4. serves this leading thought along with 
that of its accessory definition ¢ «. xaraaéBu.—xai] also, subjoins to the active 
xaraAéBw the ingeniously corresponding passive relation xareAfg@7v. And 
by xareAfg0. Paul expresses what at his conversion he experienced from 
Christ (hence the aorist); there is no need for suggesting the idea, foreign 
to the context, of an apprehended fugitive (Chrysostom, Theophylact, 





1 Abresch, ad Aesch. Sept. 90; Blomfield, 
Gloss. Pers. 8. 

8Phavorinus: d&escev éviore rd dwime xara 
exovény éAavvey; also Eustathius, ad Ji. 
xxiii. 344. 

8Comp. on Rom. ix. 30, 1 Cor. ix. 24, where 
we have the same progression from Aapf. to 
«xeataAauf.; Herod. ix. 58: dcwardos cici és 8 
catadaudbivres. 

42 Tim. iv. 7 does not conflict with our 
passage, but is the confession at the end of the 


course, “ exemplum acetpientis jam jamque,” 
Bengel. 

5 Comp. Plat. 7im. p. 38 D: 3@cy nataAaufd- 
vougi te xai xataAaufdvoevra, 1 Cor. xili. 13: 
dxwyvacopas cabins cal éxeyvec@yy, Ignatius, 
Rom. 8: SerAI$;vare, iva cai Vucic OedAyGyre, Trall. 
5: wodAAd yap Huiv Aciwes, iva Ceo ne Accwapebe. 

* Paul is conscious that, being apprehended 
by Christ, he may not and cannot do other- 
wise. Comp. Bengel: quoniam; sensus vir- 
tutis Christi accendit Christianum. 





138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUI. TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Theodoret, and others, including Flatt and van Hengel). The fact that at 
that time Christ laid hold of him on his pre-Christian career, and took him 
into His power and gracious guidance as His own, is vividly illustrated by 
the figure, to which the context gave occasion, xareApgd. ind X. 

Vv. 18, 14. [XVIII f.] Once more, and with loving earnestness 
(adeAgoi), Paul says what he had already said in ver. 12 with oby grr . . 
xaraAéBw; 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: didxw d2 ei x. xarad.— 
éyo uauréy] ego me ipsum, an emphatic mode of indicating one’s own esti- 
mation, in which one is both subject and object of the judgment. Comp. 
John v. 30 f, vii. 17, viii. 54; Acts xxvi. 9, eal. Areference to the judg- 
ment of others about him (Bengel, Weiss, and others; comp. also Hof- 
mann) is here out of place.—Acyifoua:] I judge, I am of opinion,’ Rom. iii. 
28, viii. 18, xiv. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 5, @ al.; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 138; Dem. lziii. 
12.—év dé] Comp. Anthol. Pal. vii. 455: & & avri réyrwv, also the frequent 
év pévov ; see Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, Rep. p. 548 C. It is here 
usually supplemented by zo (Chrysostom appears to have understood 
rowv), Soalso Winer, Buttmann, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ellicott. But 
how arbitrarily, seeing that the context by what immediately precedes 
suggests simply the supplying of Aoyifoua: [XVIII g.] (not Aoyil. xarecAngéva, 
Oecumenius, Weiss), and this is in perfect harmony 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 (dé, as in ver. 12), is then directly expressed by all 
that follows from ré pév drisw to év X."I. Nearest to this contextual sup- 
plement comes the Syriac, which has added oida, and Luther, who has 
added A4yw. The supplying of Acyifoua: is confirmed by the cognate 
gpovayev, ver.15. Without supplying anything, év dé has either been con- 
nected with didxw (thus Augustine, Serm. de divers. 1. 6, Pierce, Storr, van 
Hengel, and others), or has been taken absolutely: “unum contra!’’ see 
Hoelemann, comp. Rheinwald. But the former isto be rejected, because 
the subsequent d:dxw 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 écrit. Hofmann also comes at length in substance 
to this latter supplement, mixing up an imaginary contrast to that which 
the adversaries imputed to the apostle: over-against this, his conduct sub- 
sequently described was the only thing which was quite right (?).—r4 pév dricw] 
what is behind, cannot be referred to what has been mentioned in vv. 5 and 
6 and the category of those pre-Christian advantages generally (so in sub- 
stance, Pelagius; revés in Theodoret, Vatablus, Zeger, Wolf, and others, 
also Ewald and Hofmann); this would be at variance with the context, 
for 74 pay orrisw ercdavd. corresponds to the negation of the having already 


10% belongs to Acyigone:. The erroneous ing evrw (A D & min. vas. and Fathers), which 
reference to careAypdve: produced the read- Tischendorf 8. has adopted. 


CHAP. 11. 138, 14. 139 


attained or being perfect in ver. 12, and must therefore apply to the pre- 
vious achievemenis of the Christian life, to the degrees of Christian moral 
perfection already reached, which are conceived as the spaces already left 
behind in the stadiwm of the runner still pressing forward; and not to 
what had belonged to his pre-Christian conduct (Hofmann). Comp. 
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact.—ém:AavOay.] forgetting, like the 
runner who dismisses from his mind the space already traversed, and fixes 
his thoughts only on what still lies before him. This is surely no break in 
the internal connection (as Hofmann objects); on the contrary, like the 
runner pressing forward, Paul in his continuous restless striving overlooks 
the degree of moral perfection already attained, which he would not do, 
if he reckoned it already as itself perfection. ém:Aav@dveoOa: is joined with 
the genitive and accusative; the simple verb, on the contrary, only with 
the genitive. See Kihner, II. 1, p. 313. On the use of the word in the 
sense of intentional forgetting, comp. Herod. iii. 75, iv. 483; 1 Macc. i. 49. 
It thus amounts to the sense of nullam rationem habere.'—roig 62 tumpoobev 
éxextecvéu.] but stretching myself out towards that which is before. The dative 
is governed by the verb compounded with é7i,? the évi intimating the 
direction. In the case of such an one running “prono et quasi praecipiti 
corpore” (Beza), ‘“‘oculus manum, manus pedem praevertit et trahit,” 
Bengel.* Ta éuxp. represent the higher stages of Christian perfection not 
yet attained.‘—xard oxomdy didxw}] I hasten towards the goal, therefore in a 
straight course towards the prize of victory. The opposite: 47d oxoroi, 
Hom. Od. xi. 844, xxii. 6; Plat. Theaet. p. 179 C, Tim. p. 25 E; Xen. Conv. 
ii. 10; Lucian, Icarom. 2; and apa oxordéy, Pind. Ol. xiii. 144. On didnw 
without an accusative of the object (in opposition to van Hengel), comp. Xen. 
Anab. vii. 2. 20, vi. 5. 25 (dpéuw didxev); Aesch. Sept. 89; Buttmann, Lezil. 
p. 219; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 218. Comp. on ver. 12. The prize of 
victory (rd BpaBeiov, see on 1 Cor. ix. 24; Clem. Cor. 1.5; Schol. min. ad 
Soph. El. 680; Oppian, Cyneg. iv. 196; Lycophr. 1154) represents the sal- 
vation of the Messiah's kingdom (see on ver. 12), to which God has called 
man. Hence: ri¢ dvw xAfceus, a genitive which is to be taken not as appo- 
sitional (de Wette, Schenkel), but as the genitive of the subject: the 
BpaBeiov, to which the calling relates. Comp. Luther: “which the heavenly 
calling holds out.” This is therefore the object of the éAmig ri¢ wAgoeus 
(Eph. i. 18, iv. 4).°—} ave «Agere rod Ocot [XVIII h.] is the calling which issued 
from God above in heaven (on dvw, comp. Col. iii. 2, Gal. iv. 26; and on the 
subject-matter, Heb. iii. 1), by which He has called us to the ournpla of 
His kingdom. The general form of expression, not even limited by a 
pronoun (such as ri¢ éxyc), does not allow us to think only of the miracu- 


18tura, Lex. Xen. IT. p. 294, that which lay before him in consequence of his 

* Kroger, g 48. 11. 5; Nagelabach, sur Ilias, conversion (contrasting with his pre-Christian 
p. 30, ed. 3. efforts), as Hofmann thinks. It is the ever 

%On the verb, comp. Strabo, xvii. p. 800; new, greater, and loftier task which he sees 
Aristot. Poet. 21; Plut. Mor. p. 1147 A, before him, step after step. 


4Td duspocbcr, is thus conceived by the 6Comp. the Platonic caddy 1d dOAcy nal § 


apostle as that which still lice further in prospect éAmis weyéAn, Phaed. p. 114 C, 
after every advance in the ethical course; not as 





140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


lous calling of the apostle himself ; this is rather included under the general 
category of the dvw xAgoic rov Geov, which in the individual cases may have 
taken historically very different forms. The aw, which in itself is not 


necessary, is added, because Paul is thoroughly filled with the conscious- . 


ness of the divine nature of the «Ager in its exaltedness above everything 
that is earthly. Lastly, the xAjoce 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 BpaBevrhe or BpaBets, as the judge of the contest,’ who 
through the herald summons the runners to the race (Grotius, Wolf, 
Rosenmuller, am Ende, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Wiesinger); rjc évw xa. 
r..@. serves to define more accurately that which is figuratively denoted by 
BpaBetov, but does not itself form a part of the allegory.—év X. 'I.] is rightly 
(so also Weiss) joined by Chrysostom to d:dxw* [XVIITi.]. This thought, 
that the d:dxew 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 reyulates all his 
efforts. The usual connection of these words with r. évw KAfoeus r. Geod, 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 Agen already so accurately defined; although the con- 
necting article would not be necessary, since, according to the construc- 
tion xateiv év X. (1 Cor. vii. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), é X. I. might be joined with 
KAfoews 80 a8 to form one idea.* A contrast to the calling issued to Israel 
to be God’s people on earth, is groundlessly suggested by Hofmann. 

Ver. 15. Application of the passage vv. 12-14 for the benefit of the 
Philippians, down to ver. 17.—réAew:] [XVIII j.] denotes not perfection, 
like rereAeiopa: 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 vfru¢ tv XpwrhH; comp, on 1 Cor. il. 6, ili. 1; Eph. iv. 18. 
The rereAetoua: is the ideal goal of the development of this réAecov elvai, 
contradistinguished from the vymérac. The special aspect of this maturity, 
which Paul had in view in using réAew, is to be regarded, not as 
theoretical knowledge,—the doctrine of righteousness by faith being con- 
ceived to be specially referred to (Erasmus, Wolf, Rheinwald, and 
others),—but as the moral character and striving of believers, as appears 
from ver. 13 f.,along with which the corresponding relation of practical 
insight is self-evident as 4 necessary presupposition (comp. Col. iv. 12, i. 
28); although there is no reason to suppose that particular questions in 
this domain (such as those relating to sacrificial flesh, fasta, feasts, and the 
like) had arisen in Philippi and occasioned division, of which no trace 


t Pollux, fil. 145; Blomf. Gloss.ad Aesch.  & xeupis ris dxelvov powhs rocotrow SiedAOeiy 
Pers. 307. didornue. Comp. Theodoret and Oecumenius. 
8iy Xpery "Inods rovro wove, onciv. ob yap 8Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 46. 


‘N 


CHAP. I. 15. 141 


exists. The jealousy and partial disunion in the church arose from a 
snoral conceit, which was prejudicial to mutual humility (ii. 8 ff) and to 
personal genuine striving after holiness (ii. 12 ff.). In using de0:-—with 
which we are to supply sumus simply, and not volunvus esse—Paul leaves 
it to the conscientious judgment of every reader whether he, on his part, 
belongs to the number of the réAew; but by including himself in this 
predicate, and yet having previously negatived the #éy rereAcivua: 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 retro 
¢poveuev leaves room only for the consciousness: o¢ reAeiov rd py vpilew 
éavrdv réAewv elva:, 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, s0 expressed as to include the apostle in common 
with his readers. To the Catholic fictions of a state of perfection the pas- 
sage is in direct opposition.—rovro gpovayev] [XVIII k.] let us have this 
frame of mind, namely, which I, in ver. 13 f., have just expressed as mine; 
the frame of humble self-estimation, and at the same time incessant 
pressing forward. Grotius holds quite arbitrarily that Paul reverts to 
what he had said in ver. 3. But it is also wrong to seek the reference of 
Tovro ¢pov. in the passage from ver. 4 onwards: ‘“ renunciandum esse splen- 
didis virtutibus Judd. (vv. 4-7), contra in solo Christo acquiescendum 
(vv. 8-10) et ad victricem palmam studio indefesso annitendum 
(vv. 12-14),” Hoelemann ;' similarly Hofmann, who makes it refer to the 
entire presentation—joining on to ver. 8—of a frame of mind which is 
opposed to the disposition of those against whom they are to be on their 
guard. Nv. 4-11 are certainly said by way of warning against the false 
teachers, and are opposed to these; but this opposition is of a dogmatic 
nature, for the upholding of the Pauline fundamental doctrine against 
Judaism, and it is only ver. 12 that begins what has regard to the moral 
progress of the Church in the right way pressing onward to the goal, in 
which respect Paul desires to serve for their model (ver. 17),—as which he 
has sketched himself in ver. 13 f., when he begins with ddeAgoi and intro- 
duces his yd. Besides, the gpovayev, which is correlative with the AoyiZouas, 
does not point back beyond ver. 13 f. Therefore, not even the appropria- 
tion of Christ, vv. 8-11, is to be included in the reference of the rotro (in 
opposition to de Wette and Wiesinger). Van Hengel is inclined to refer 
tovro to rd BpaBeiov; but the readers needed the exhortation to the right 
mode of striving after the Spafeiov, and not the summons generally, that 
they should have the fpaf. in view. This applies also against the similar, 
although more exact, interpretation of Fritzsche (Diss. II. tn 2 Cor. p. 92): 
“hac mente simus sc. ud. Td BpaB. ti avw KAgoews consectemur.”—xai el re Erépwc 
¢pov.] and if as to any potnt (ri, accusative of the object) ye be otherwise 
minded, take up another way of thinking, varying, namely, from that 
specified in rovro gpovduev. A man may, forsooth, have in general the 


1 Comp. Calvin, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others, including Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Rilliet, 
and Reiche. : 














142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


same frame of mind which Paul has represented in himself, and to which 
he has summoned his readers; but at the same time an isolated concrete 
case (r?) may occur, which a man cannot fit into the ¢gpoveiy 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 ériyyoor and 
aiobyorg ei¢ Td doxtudlev «.7.A., i. 9, in the moral judgment which deter- 
mines the ¢povety. Hofmann arbitrarily limits the r? to some matter énde- 
pendent of the essential disposition of the Christian life. This sense would 
have required a more precise definition, in order to be found. And the 
hope which is uttered in the apodosis, is in perfect harmony with the 
prayer in i. 9 f.; hence Hofmann’s objection, that the readers must have 
themselves corrected the fault which according to our view here emerges, is 
quite groundless, The subject addressed is the readers generally (see ver.17), 
not the »#r«: (Hunnius, Wolf, Bengel, Storr, and others, including Flatt, 
Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Rilliet, Reiche), whom several expositors have 
regarded as those who had not yet raised themselves to the pure right- 
eousness of faith excluding the law (see Rheinwald and Reiche), or who 
had allowed themselves to be led away by false teachers (see Hunnius, 
Grotius, Storr). But setting aside the arbitrariness generally with which 
this contrast is introduced, it is opposed by the fact, that Paul does not 
assume any thorough and essential: diversity in the ¢poveiv, but only such 
& variation as might affect some one or other isolated point (r?), 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 
leas in harmony with the character of the apostle than the hopeful toler- 
ance which is expressed in the words xal rovro . . . Groxadiwe. Lastly, 
the change of person (in opposition to Bengel) was necessary, because 
Paul, speaking of a partial érépws gpoveiv, could not include himself.—In 
érépuc, otherwise (not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.), there is implied, 
according to the context, an unfavorable sense, the notion of éncorrectness, 
secius quam oportet ;* just as érepog (comp. on Ao, Gal. v. 10) may denote 
even that which is bad or hostile” Itis here the érepodogeiv (Plat. Theaet. 
pp. 190 E, 198 D), as frame of mind. This has not been attended to by 
van Hengel, when he takes with equal unsuitableness ri in an emphatic 
sense, and ¢poveiv as to strive for: “si quid bons per aliam viam expetitts, 
quam ego persequor.”—xal rovro 6 Oed¢ tu. don.) 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 rotro] this aleo, like other things 
which He has already revealed unto you; so that in «at is contained the 


* 1Comp. Hom. Od. 1. 234; Dem. 298. 22, 607. 2 Wisd. xix. 3; Dissen. ad Pind. Nem. viii. 3, 
8; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1448.3; Soph. Padi. 603; Pyth. iil. 64; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 
Valckenaer, Diatr. p. 112. $21. 


CHAP, 11. 15, 16. 148 


idea also still (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 135). Hofmann erroneously says 
that xa? implies: there, where the disposition is present, which I requére. It 
in fact belongs to rotro. This rovro, however, is not: that ye,' but what ye 
wrongly think ; the frame of mind in question, as it ought to be instead of 
the éréipuc gpoveiv, not: “whether you are right or 1” (Ewald). The 
passage is very far from betraying uncertainty or want of firmness (Baur). 
—The émroxadtype:, which is to be taken as purely future, is conceived by 
Paul as taking place through the Holy Spirit (gee Eph. i. 17 ; Col. i. 10), not 
by human instruction (Beza). He might also have written d:dége: (comp. 
Geodidaxro:, 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 gpovei than Paul has 
shown in his own example: for ot mept doypuéruv raira elpyra:, GAAd wept 
Biov reAecérntog nat Tov uA) voullew eavrove reAeioug elva:, Chrysostom. Where- 
ever in this moral respect the right frame of mind is not yet completely 
present in one or the other, Paul trusts to the disclosing operation of God 
Himself, whose Spirit rules and works in the Church and its individual 
members.® 

Ver. 16. [XVIII e.] A caution added to the precept given in ver. 15, 
and the promise coupled with it: Only let there be no deviation in the 
prosecution of the development of 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 dérect 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 con- 
trary, should let the further direction of your moral walk be determined by that 
same.” Such a general precept addressed to the Philippians conveys an 
honorable testimony to the state of their moral constitution on the whole, 
however different in individuals we may conceive the point to be from 
which Paul says ei¢ 6 2¢6., as is evident from the very fact that he includes 
himself in the ei¢ 8 2¢0., which could not but honor and stimulate the 
readers. On 1%, nisi quod, comp. i. 18 ; on ¢0évery eic, to attain to anything, 
comp. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 26; 1 Thess. ii. 16 (éri); Rom. ix. 831; Dan. 
iv. 19; Tob. v.18; Plut. Mor. p. 388 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 


3 Ocecumenius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, ratio et veritas.” 

Fritzsche, & ¢. p. 93. $1 Cor. ii. 14, iff.16; Eph. 1.17,1L 91 £; Rom. 
*Calvin aptly says: “Nemo ita loqui jure _—viii. 9, 15, 96; Gal. v. 22, 26, e¢ al. 

posset, nisi cui certa constat suse 


144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


secure generally their further progress in the development of Christian 
life. On oro:zeiv with the dative of the rule: to advance (march) according 
to something, that is, to direct oneself in one’s constant conduct by some- 
shing, see on Gal. v. 16, 25. The infinitive, however, as the expression of 
a briefly measured wish or command, without supplying Aéyo, dei, or the 
like (which Buttmann requires, Neut. Gr. p. 238 [E. T. 272]), stands in 
place of the tmperative, as in Rom. xii. 15;! Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 86. 
Fritzsche, however, Diss. II. 2 Cor. p. 93, has erroneously made the infini- 
tive dependent on aroxaAtpe: “ praeterea instituet vos, ut, quam ego con- 
secutus sum 76 BpaBely ri¢ dve KAfoewe intentam mentem, ejusdem parti- 
cipes fieri ipsi annitamini.” Comp. Oecumenius. Decisive against this 
view is the plural é¢@dcauev, which, according to the context (ver. 15), can- 
not 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 
un awkward arrangement of the sentences is attained, and the nervous 
vigor of the concise command is taken away.—The ei¢ 8 ¢¢6é0.—which 
cannot in accordance with the context denote the having attained to 
Christianity, to the being Christian (Hofmann’s view, which yields a mean- 
ing much too vague and general)—has been rightly explained by Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact as relating to the attainments in the Christian life, 
which are to be maintained, and in the further development of which 
constant progress is to be made (8 xarwpOécapyev, xaréyopev, 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, Rhein- 
wald, Matthies, Hoelemann, de Wette, Wiesinger), in conformity with 
which one ought to live. In connection with this, various arbitrary defi- 
nitions of the object of the knowledge have been suggested, as, for instance, 
by Grotius: “de circumcisione et ritibus;” Heinrichs and de Wette: 
concerning the main substance of the Christian faith apart from secondary 
matters; 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 ; 
eee Flatt, Rheinwald, Matthies) that is meant, but the collective conviction, 
the truths generally recognized. But the whole interpretation which 
refers it to knowledge is not in keeping with the text; for ég¢@dcaev, correl- 
ative with cro:zeiv, presents together with the latter a unity of figurative 


18ee Hom. Il. 1. 20, and Nagelsbach in loc. ; 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 473 A; Pflugk, ad 
Bur. Herael. 314. 

8 This is thrown out as a suggestion also by 
Hofmann, according to whom the infinitive 
clause ought “ perhape more correctly” to be 
coupled with cuppipyrai «.7.A., and taken as 


a prefixed designation of that in doing which 
they are to be his imitators and to have ther 
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. i. 16, 17. 145 


view, the former denoting the point of the way already attained, and r¢ 
avr® ocrovzeiy, perseverance in the direction indicated by that attainment. 
Therefore, if by cro:zeiv there is clearly (see ver. 17) intended the moral 
conduct of life, this also must be denoted by cic 8 98. as respects its 
quality attained up to the present time. Moreover, if eic¢ 3 é90. is to be 
understood as referring to knowledge, there would be no motive for the 
prominence given to the identity by r¢ air¢. 


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


| a ee: 2 peau 


Here B is the point of the development of Christian life ei¢ 5 ég6écauev, which, 
in the case of different individuals, may be more or less advanced. The rT atr¢ 
croxeiv 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@ avrg crotzeiv. The reproach of uncertainty which Wiesinger 
brings against this canon, because a érépwc ¢poveiy may take place which does not 
lie in the same direction, and generally because the power of sin might hinder 
the following out of this direction, would also apply in opposition to every other 
explanation of the cic 4 é¢8.. and particularly to that of the knowledge attained ; 
but it is altogether unfounded, first, because the érépwc ¢poveiv only refers to one 
or another concrete single point (r:), so that the whole of moral attainment—the 
collective development—which has been reached is not thereby disturbed ; and, 
secondly, because Pau] in this case has to do with a 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 ei¢ 6 &¢9. must 
necessarily be one and the same for all. This is simply to be denied; it is an 
utterly arbitrary assumption. 


Ver. 17. [On Vv. 17-21, see Note XIX. pages 157, 158.] 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.—ovypcuyraf}] [XIX a.] 
co-imitators, is a word not elsewhere preserved. Comp., however, ovup- 
pobpevor, Plat. Polit. p. 274 D. iv 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 col- 
lectively to imitate him (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Matthies, 
Hoelemann, van Hengel, de Wette), so that “ omnes uno consensu 4 una 
mente” (Calvin) would be meant; but it means, as is required by the con- 
text that follows: “una cum aliis, qui me imitantur (Estius ; comp. Eras- 
mus, Annot., Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Wiesinger, Weiss, Ellicott, and 

10 





146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


others). Theophylact aptly remarks: ovyxoA2g airote roig xadde meperarovet, 
whereby the weight of the exhortation is strengthened.—oxoreire] 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#éc] [XTX }.] does not 
correspond to the ofrw, as most expositors think, but is the argumentative 
“as” (see on i. 7), by which the two previous requirements, cuypeyyral x.7.A. 
and oxoreire x.r.A., are established : in measure as ye have us for an example. 
This interpretation (which Wiesinger and Weiss adopt) is, notwithstand- 
ing the subtle distinction of thought which Hofmann suggests, required 
both by the second person éyere (not éyovor) and by the plural gyds (not 
éué), This quae refers not to the apostle alone [XIX c.] (s0 many, and still 
de Wette; but in this case, as before, the singular would have been used), 
nor yet generally to the apostle and his companions (van Hengel, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Lightfoot), especially Timothy (Hofmann), or to all tried 
Christians (Matthies); but to him and those ottw (in this manner, imitative 
of me) weptxatovvras. This view is not at variance with rimov in the singu- 
lar (de Wette); for the several rtvro: of individuals are conceived collectively 
as roroc. Comp. 1 Thess.i.7 (Lachmann, Lunemann).' This predicative 
torov, which is therefore placed before judas, is emphatic. 

Ver. 18. [XIX d.] Admonitory confirmation of the injunction in ver. 
17.—trepirarovory] is not to be defined by xaxéc (Oecumenius), or longe akter 
(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 ériy. gpov.), and puts in a parenthesis what intervenes 
(so also Erasmus, Schmid, and Wolf); whilst Estius quite arbitrarily over- 
leaps the first relative clause, and takes reper. along with dv 1d réAog a.r.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 weper. Hofmann transforms the simple 
Atyecv (comp. Gal. i. 9) into the idea of naming, and takes rove éxPpote as its 
object-predicate, in which case, however, the mode of the zepirarety would 
not be stated. On the contrary, the construction is a genuine Greek mode 
of attraction,” so framed, that instead of saying: many walk as the enemies 
of the cross, this predicative definition of mode is drawn into the relative 
clause ob¢ roAAda x.7.A.2 and assimilated to the relative; comp. Plat. Rep. 
p. 402 C., and Stallbaum tn loc. 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 soAAéxe, emphatically corresponding with the roAAoi (2 


1BSee also 3 Thess. iii.9; comp. generally, ®Hence also the conjecture of Laurent 
Bernhardy, p. 58 f.; Kahner, IL 1, p. 12 f. (Neut. Stud. p. 21 f.), that ots wodAdace.. . 
See Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. 15; Pflugk. ad dwwAaa is a supplementary marginal note in- 
Eur. Hee. 771; Kahner, II. 2, p. 925; Buttm. serted by the apostle, is unwarranted. 
Neut. Gr.p 68 (E. T. 77]. 


CHAP. In. 18, 19. 147 


Cor. viii. 22), refers to the apostle’s presence in Philippi; whether, at an earlier 
date in an epistle (see on iii. 1), he had thus characterized these enemies of 
the cross (Flatt, Ewald), must be left undecided. But it is incorrect to make 
these words include a reference (Matthies) to ver. 2, as in the two passages 
different persons (see below) must be described.—viw d2 nal xdaiuv] did ri; 
bre émérecve rd xandy, bre daxptuv Sftot of rowira . . . obtug dori ouprab- 
yrinds, obTe gpovriles xavruv &vOpdrer, Chrysostom. The deterioration of 
these men, which had in the meanwhile increased, now extorts tears from 
the apostle on account of their own ruin and of their ruinous influence. 
—roig ixOp. r. or. r. X.] The article denotes the class of men characteris- 
tically defined. We must explain the designation as referring, not to 
enemies of the doctrine of the cross (Theodoret: o¢ diddoxovrag bri dixa rie 
vouxhe wodreiac Gdtvatoy curnplac tuzeiv, 80 in substance Luther, Erasmus, 
Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, and many others; also Hein- 
richs, Rheinwald, Matthies), so that passages such as Gal. v. 11, vi. 12, 
would: have to be compared; but, as required by the context which fol- 
lows, to Christians of Epicurean tendencies (év avtoes Cavres x. tpvpy, Chry- 
sostom ; comp. Theophylact and Oecumenius), who, as such, are hostile 
to the fellowship of the cross of Christ (comp. ili. 10), whose maxims of 
life are opposed to the rafpara rod Xpiorot (2 Cor. i. 5), 80 that it is hate- 
ful to them to 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. i. 18, 23), or because the preaching 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 precluded by the very use of the tragic roAAoi, the mel- 
ancholy force of which lies in the very fact that they are Christians, but 
Christians whose conduct is the deterrent contrast to that which is re- 
quired in ver. 17.1! We have still to notice that the persons here depicted 
are not the same as those who were deacribed in ver. 2 (contrary to the usual 
view, which is also followed by Schinz and Hilgenfeld); for those were 
teachers, while these roAdoi are Christians generally. The former might 
indeed be characterized as éz@pol r. cravpov r. X., according to Gal. vi. 12, 
but their Judaistic standpoint does not correspond to the Epicureanism 
which is affirmed of the latter in the words dv é @ede # xo:dia, ver. 19. 
Hoelemann, de Wette, Linemann, Wiesinger, Schenkel, and Hofmann 
have justly pronounced against the identity of the two; Weiss, however, 
following out his wrong interpretation of xive¢ in ver. 2 (of the heathen), 
maintains the identity to a certain extent by assuming that the conduct 
of those «tve¢ is here described; while Baur makes use of the passage to 
deny freshness, naturalness, and objectivity to the polemic attack here 
made on the false teachers. 

Ver. 19. A more precise deterrent delineation of these persons, having 
the most deterrent element put foremost, and then those points by which it 


1 Bee, besides, in opposition to Weiss, Huther in the Mechlenb. Zeltechr. 18968, p. 680 ff. 





148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


was brought about.—dv rd réAog axdd.] By this is meant Messianic perdi- . 
tion, eternal condemnation (comp. 1. 28), which is the ultimate destiny ap- 
pointed (ré) for them (réAoc 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.—dv 6 @eds 4 xocdia] Aarpetover yap d¢ Oe@ rabry 
nal wacav Oeparelay xpoodyovor, Theophylact. Comp. Rom. xvi. 18; Eur. 
Oycl. 334 f.; Senec. de benef. vii. 26; and the maxim of those whose highest 
good is eating and drinking, 1 Cor. xv. 32. It is the yaorp:yapyia (Plat. 
Phaed. p. 81 E; Lucian, Amor. 42) in its godless nature.'—xai 4 déga x.1.A.] 
also dependent on ov: and whose honor is in their shame, that is, who find 
their honor in that which redounds to their shame, as for instance, in 
revelling, haughty behavior, and the like, in which the immoral man is 
fond of making a show. 4 dééa is subjective, viewed from the opinion 
of those men, and r9 aicxztvy is objective, viewed according to the reality of 
the ethical relation.2 On elva: év, versari in, to be found in, to be contained 
in something, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 470 E: éy rotry 4 rica eidaipovia toriv, 
Eur. Phoen. 1310: ovx év aioxzivy ra od. The view, foreign to the context, 
which refers the words to circumcision, making aicy. signify the genitals 
(Schol. Ar. Equ. 364; Ambrosiaster; Hilary; Pelagius; Augustine, de verb. 
apost.xv.5; Bengel; Michaelis ; Storr), is already rejected by Chrysostom and 
his successors.—ol 1a ériyera gpovotvres] [XIX e.] who bear the earthly (that 
which is on the earth; the opposite in ver. 20) tn their mind (as the goal 
of their interest and effort). Comp. Col. iii. 2. Thus Paul closes his 
delineation with a swmmary designation of their fundamental immoral 
tendency, and he puts 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 individu- 
alizing (%#, quz) article of apposition.® 

Ver. 20. After Paul has, by way of confirmation and warning, 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 outlines few, but how clear !—the inviting picture 
of those whom, in ver. 17, he had proposed as rbzroc.—yap] [XIX f.] The 
train of thought runs thus: “ Justly I characterize their whole nature by 
the words oi ra ériyeca ¢povotvrec; for it is the direct opposite of ours; our 
roAirevza, the goal of our aspiration, is not on earth, but in heaven.” yép 
therefore introduces a confirmatory reason, but not for his having said that 
the earthly mind of the rroAAoi necessarily involves such a walk (Hofmann) ; 
for he has not said this, and what follows would not be a proof of it. The 
apostle gives, rather, an experimental proof e contrario, and that for what 
immediately precedes, not for the remote dv rd réAoc amdAeca (Weiss).—jyudv] 


’They were «oldosaipoves (Bupolis in veoGa: caf vwepBorgyy, ewi rovros we xedois 
Athen. fii. p. 100 B), ras ris yaorpos HSovas «= wejevverOar cai peyadavxeiy, and also Plat. 
T’Oduevon pérpow evdaimovias (Lucian, Patr. Theaet. p. 176 D; d&yéAAovras ydp te dveide. 
enc. 10); Ty yaorpt werpourres xai Tos aicxic- 8 Comp. Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 183]; Buttmann, 
rou thy evdanoviay (Dem. 524. 2.) Neut. Gr. p. 60 [E. T. 79}. 

Comp. Polyb. xv. 23. 5: 颰 ols éxpay aicxv- 


CHAP. 111. 20. 149 


emphatically placed first; contrast of the persons. These sueis, however, 
are the same as the uae in ver. 17, consequently Paul himself and the 
ouTW Tepinatovvres.—rd moditevua] the commonwealth, which may bear the 
sense either of: the state ;! or the state-administration ;* or its principles ;* or 
the state-constitution.‘ Here, in the first sense: our commonwealth, that is, 
the state to which we belong, is tn heaven. By this is meant the Messiah’s 
kingdom which had not yet appeared, which will only at Christ’s Parousia 
(comp. é£ od «7.4. which follows) come down from heaven and manifest 
itself in its glory on earth. It is the state of the heavenly Jerusalem (see on 
Gal. iv. 26; comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 190; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 59.), 
of which true Christians are citizens (Eph. ii. 19) even now before the 
Parousia in a proleptic and ideal sense (én éAmid: rig d6gnc, Rom. v. 2; 
comp. vili. 24), in order that one day, at the émigdvera rig mapoveiag Tov Kvpiov 
(2 Thess. ii. 8), they may be so in complete reality (comp. Heb. xii. 22 f., 
Xlii. 14), a8 xoevwvol rig perAobone axonaninrecbar déEne (1 Pet. v. 1; Col. iii. 4), 
Nay, as ovuBaccdetovres (2 Tim. ii. 12; comp. Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 8). 
Hence, according to the necessary psychological relation, “ where your 
treasure is, there will your heart be also ” (Matt. vi. 21), they gpovotaw, not 
7a éxiyea, but ra dvw (Col. ii. 1 f.), which serves to explain the logical cor- 
rectness of the yép in its relation to ol ra éxiy. gpov. Others, following the 
Vulgate (conversatio), render it: our walk, making the sense, “ tota 
via nostra quasi jam nunc apud Deum naturasque coelestes puriores 
versatur, longe remota a roi¢ ércyeiong eorumque captatione ” (Hoelemann). 
8o Luther (who up till 1528 rendered it “ citizenship ”’), Castalio, Erasmus, 
Calvin, Grotius, and many others, including Matthies, van Hengel, do 
Wette; while Rheinwald mixes up interpretations of various kinds. This 
rendering is not justified by linguistic usage, which indeed vouches for 
modreveoba (i. 27) in this sense, and for rodcreia (Clem. Cor. 1.54: wodrreteobar 
nodreiav Geov, Ep. ad Diogn. 5), but not for roAirevxza, not even in Eus. H. 
E.v. prooem. Nor does linguistic usage even permit the interpretation : 
citizenship. So Luther, in the Postil. Epist. D. 3, post f. pasch.: “Here on 
earth we are in fact not citizens ...; our citizenship is with Christ in 
heaven ..., there we are to remain for ever citizens and lords; ” comp. 
Beza, Balduin, Erasmus Schmid, Zachariae, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, 
Weiss, and others. This would be wotreia. Theophylact’s explanation, 
tyv ratpida (which is used also for heaven by Anaxagoras in Diog. L. ii. 7), 
must be referred to the correct rendering state (comp. Hammond, Clericus, 
and others®), while Chrysostom gives no decided opinion, but Theodoret 
(rv obpavdv gavraléuea) and Oecumenius (arparevdueba) appear to follow the 
rendering conversatio.—éé ov xai x.7.A.] And what a happy change is before 


12 Macc. xii. 7; Polyb. i, 13. 12, ti. 41.6;  v.9.9, iv. 26.7; see generally Raphel, Polgd. 
Lucian, Prom. 15; Philo, de opif. p.33 A, de inloc.; Schweigh, Lez. Polyd. p. 486; Schoe- 


Joe. p. 536 D. mann, ad Plut Cleom. p. 208. 

* Plat. Legg. 12, p. 945 D; Aristot. Pol. fii. 4; SActs xxii. 28; Thuc. vi. 104.8; Dem. 161. 
Polyb. iv. 23.9; Lucian, Dem. enc. 16. 11; Polyb. vi. 2. 12; 3 Macc: iif. 21. 

$ Dem. 107. 25, 262. 27; Isocr. p. 156 A. 6 The Gothic Version has: “unsara bduding “ 


¢Plat. Them. 4; Arist. Pol. iii.4.1; Polyb. (that is, building, dwelling). 





150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


us, in consequence of our thus belonging to the heavenly state! From the 
heaven (scil. 7€ovra, comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) we expect, etc. The neuter oi, 
which is certainly to be taken in a strictly local sense (in opposition to 
Calovius), is not to be referred to odir. (Wolf, Schoettgen, Bengel, 
Hofmann); but is correctly rendered by the Vulgate: “ unde.’ Comp. 
on é€ ov, Col. ii. 19, and Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 20: fuépac rpeic, év 
¢.—xai, also, denotes the relation corresponding to the foregoing (namely, 
that our vodirevua is to be found in heaven), not a second one to be added 
(Hofmann).—vur7pa ] [XTX g.] placed first with great emphasis, and that not 
as the accusative of the object (Hofmann), but—hence without the article— 
as predicative accusative: as Saviour, namely, from all the sufferings and 
conflicts involved in our fellowship with the cross of Christ (ver. 18), not 
from the ardéjea (Weiss), which, indeed, the #eic have not at all to fear. 
Comp. on the subject-matter, Luke xviii. 7 f., xxi. 28; Tit. ii. 13; 2 Tim. 
iv. 18.—amexdex.] comp. 1 Cor. i. 7; Tit. 11.18. 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 gyeic, 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 #zeic 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 glorification of these bodies 
now so borne down !—yeracynuar.] shall transform. What is meant is the 
atadooe 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 gueic will Hive to see. 
[XIX h.] To understand it at the same time of the resurrection of the 
dead (so most expositors, including de Wette, Wiesinger, Weiss), is inap- 
propriate both to arexdeyéue6a and to the definition of the quality of the 
body to be remodelled : ri¢ rare judy, both these expressions being used 
under the conviction of being still alive in the present state when the 
change occurs. Moreover, the resurrection is something more than a 
petacynuatior ; it is also an investiture with a new body out of the germ 
of the old (1 Cor. xv. 86-38, 42-44.—rij¢ rarewdo. judv}] [XIX 1.] Genitive 
of the subject. Instead of saying juév merely (our body), he expresses it 
with more specific definition: the body of our humiliation, that is, the 
body which is the vehicle of the state of our humiliation, namely, through 
the privations, persecutions, and afflictions which affect the body and are 
exhibited in it, thereby reducing us into our present oppressed and lowly 





1 As to the nature of this transformation, 
see 1 Cor. xv. 53. The older dogmatic exe- 
getes maintained in it the identity of sub- 
stance. Calovius: “ Ille perecynuariouds non 
substantialem mutationem, sed accidentalem, 
non ratione quidditatis corporis nostri, sed 
ratione qualitatum salva quidditate importat.” 
Tnis is correct only so far as the future body, 
although an organism without cdpf and alza, 
1 Cor. xv. 50, will not only be again specifical- 


ly human, hut will also belong to the identity 
of the persons. See 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff. Comp. 
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 127 f. More 
precise definitions, such as those in De- 
litssch’s Psychol. p. 459 ff., lose themselves in 
the misty region of hypothesis. The inap- 
propriateness of the expression employed in 
the Confession: Resurrection of the flesh, has 
been rightly pointed out by Luther in the 
Larger Catechism, p. 501. 


CHAP. I11. 21. 151 


position; woAAa mdoye: viv 1rd copa, deopueitat, paotiserat, prpia méoxer ded, 
Chrysostom. This definite reference of r. rar. ju. is required by the context 
through the contrast of the jeic to the éxOpoi¢ rov cravpot r. X., 80 that the 
sufferings which are meant by the cross of Christ constitute the rareivwor 
of the jueic (comp. Acts viii. 33); in which case there is no ground for our 
taking rameivworc, contrary to Greek usage (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 815 A; Polyb. 
ix. 33. 10; Jas. i. 10), as equivalent to ramecvérnc, lowliness, as in Luke i. 48 
(Hofmann). On this account, and also because yey applies to subjects 
distinctly defined in comformity with the context, it was incorrect to explain 
tarecv. 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. i. 22; Rom. vii. 24; 1 
Cor. xv. 44. The contrast lies in the states, namely, of humiliation on the 
one hand and of dééa on the other; hence 7u6y and avrot are neither to be 
joined with cde (in opposition of Hoelemann), nor with +. cdua r. tax. and 
t. o. tH¢ 86€n¢ as ideas forming an unity (Hofmann), which Paul would 
necessarily have marked by separating the genitives in position (Winer, 
p. 180 [E. T. 192]).—oippopgov] Result of the peracznu., 80 that the reading 
eig rd. yevéoOar airé is a correct gloss.' The thing itself forms a part of the 
ouvddfalecGar, Rom. viii. 17. Comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 48 f.; Rom. viii. 29.>— 
tHe d6£. avtov] to be explained like ri raz. #u.: in which His heavenly glory 
is shown forth. Comp. éyeiperas év d6&y, 1 Cor. xv. 44.—nxard 7. evépy. x.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 Himself ; that is, 
in consequence of the energetic efficacy which belongs to His power of also 
subduing all things to Himself. Comp. xara r. évépy. ti¢ duvéu. avrov, Eph. 
ili, 7, alzo Eph. i. 19; as to the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 25f.; as 
to the expression with the genitive of the infinitive, Onosand. I. p. 12: 4 row 
Sivacbas roiv éfovoia.—xai | adds the general element imordga avrg ra 7. to 
the peraoxnpyart. «7.4.5 Bengel aptly says: “non modo comforme facere 
corpus nostrum suo.”—ra mavra] 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. 


1S8ee on Matt. xii. 13 and 1 Cor. i. 8; Frits- 8 Hoelemann takes «ai as and, so that the 
sche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p.159; Labcker,gram- sense would be, “that Christ can do all things, 
mat. Stud. p. 33 f. and subdues all things to Himself.” The very 
* We may add Theodoret’s appropriate re- aoristvworaga: should have withheld him from 
Mark: ov cata thy woodéryta THs Sofns,aAAd making this heterogeneous combination, as 
anata Tay woéTHTA, it betrays iteelf to be dependent on dvvacGas. 





162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 
XV. Ver. 1. 


‘ 

(a) rd Aoiréy evidently indicates that the writer's intention was to close his 
epistle shortly, but it is not necessary to infer from this fact, that yvaipere means 
farewell, as some hold. The addition of év xvpiy and the corresponding phrase in 
iv. 4 make it more probable that it means rejoice (so R. V.)—(b) 1a aura x.r.A— 
The things referred to in these words must be things which the Apostle had 
already written to the Philippians (ypdgew); they must have such an exact 
correspondence with what he had written, as to allow of the application of ra 
avrd to them; and they must be of such a character that he could use respecting 
tle renewed mention of them the expressions “to me, not irksome,” “for you, safe.” 
The last of these points is fatal to the view that they refer to the exhortation to 
Christian joy. Neither of the two adjectives would be expected with such a 
reference. The first point is exclusive of the idea that he is repeating what he 
had said to the church when personally present with them. As Meyer remarks, 
had this been his idea, he must, at least, have placed a xai before ypagexvx. We 
are compelled, therefore, either to suppose, that he is speaking of some prev- 
ious letter to the Philippians (so Meyer), or of something in this letter which can 
appropriately suggest the words oxvypév and ao¢gatéc, In either case, the reference 
must be to some evil connected with the life of the Church. Meyer holds that 
this evil is indicated in what follows—ver. 2, or vv 2, 3, or vv. 2 ff. Lightf. 
holds that it is the dissensions alluded to in ii. 1 ff, which related to social rather 
than doctrinal questions. The former view is favored by the fact that vv. 2 ff. 
immediately follow these words, and might, thus, naturally be explanatory of 
them. The latter, by the fact that there seems to be no satisfactory evidence 
that the Judaizing party had been active in Philippi. Indeed, if they had been 
thus active, so that he was obliged to give a renewed and repeated warning 
against them, it is improbable that he would have passed over the subject with 
so brief an allusion to it. On the whole, it must be regarded as doubtful whether 
this passage proves the existence of an earlier letter. 


XVI. Vv. 2ff. 


(a) The persons alluded to in ver. 2 (comp. ver. $) are of the Judaizing faction. 
This is evident from the word xararo#, as contrasted with sep:touh of ver. 3,—see, 
also, Gal. v. 12; Gal. vi. 12-14; Rom. ii. 28, 29,—and from the words rov¢ xaxoi¢ 
épyérac, which, in connection with 2 Cor. xi. 13, can hardly refer to any other 
class. As two of the three descriptive phrases have this reference, the third must, 
undoubtedly, have the same.—(5) With respect to the question whether these per- 
sons are the only ones alluded to in the chapter, the words of ver. 19 seem to be 
decisive. The descriptive phrases, whose god ts the belly, and whose glory is in their 
shame, point rather to persons of Gentile than Jewish origin. 

(c) The progress of thought, however, is such that the passing from the refer- 
ence to the one party to the mention of the other is not strongly marked or ab- 
rupt. Vv. 12-14 belong, in a sense, to both sections of the chapter, and form the 
transition from the one to the other. The following points in the development 


NOTES. 7 153 


may be noticed:—(1) There is evidently a very close connection between ver. 3 
and ver. 4 through the words “confidence in the flesh,” common to both. (2) The 
suggestion of this as belonging to the Judaizing party leads to a presentation of 
the emphatic contrast between righteousness by faith and by the law, and of the 
blessed result to be attained through the former. So far we have the direct refer- 
ence to the Judaizers, first introduced in ver.2. (3) In immediate union with the 
allusion to the result, the Apostle adds some words, ver. 12 ff,, for the purpose of 
guarding himself against a misapprehension as to what he claimed to have already 
attained—a misapprehension which, he feared, might arise in view of the self- 
commendatory expressions of vv. 4ff. (4) These verses (12 ff.), at the same time, 
become, and aré intended to become, through their setting forth of his determina- 
tion to press forward to the attainment of what lies yet before him, preparatory to, 
and a foundation for, the exhortation of ver. 17, to imitate him. (5) This ex- 
hortation is then given, but it is urged upon the readers in view of a new and addi- 
tional reason (ver. 18), namely, the fact that “many walk,” etc. The warning 
against the one class (ver. 2), which is designed to lead them to an imitation of 
himself, passes over thus, naturally and easily, to the call to such imitation of him- 
self in contrast with the course and actions of another class. 

(d) In the earlier part of this section the Epistle draws near in its thought to 
Gal. and 2 Cor. It is evident, however, that the Apostle neither has it in mind 
to enter upon a doctrinal discussion, as in the former of those epistles, nor makes 
allusion to his claims as a Jew in the same way and for the same purpose as in 
the latter. In 2 Cor. xi. he plunges earnestly into conflict with the Judaizing 
teachers who bitterly opposed him, and sets forth his superiority to them even in 
the region of their own self-glorying. It is a personal controversy. Here, on the 
other hand, his mind is looking forward, from the beginning, to the exhortations 
of vv. 15,17. He has everything—every ground of confidence in the fleeh—which 
any of the Judaizers have, but he has counted these as nothing and sought a bet- 
ter course, and he would have the Philippians think with him and follow him. 
The peculiar personal element of 2 Cor. is thus wanting, and the passage is free 
from the vehemence and irony belonging to the similar verses in that epistle.— 
(e) The friendly and loving character of the letter accordingly does not disappear, 
even in this section which introduces the adversaries. Here, as elsewhere, he tries 
to bring the readers into a union with himself in Christian living; and, to the end 
of accomplishing this, he sets before them his own example. His example, more- 
over, is presented in a loving and Christian way—with a presentation of what he 
had given up for faith and Christ, and yet a renouncing of all claims to an at- 
tained perfection.—(f) The prominence in his mind of the exhortation, as com- 
pared with the mere opposition to the Judaizers, accounts for the fact that he 
passes beyond the statement of what he had done (ver. 7) to a setting forth of the 
great thought and endeavor of his Christian life (vv. 8—11). 


XVII. Vv. 4-11. 


With reference to individual words and phrases in this passage, the following 
points may be noticed: (a) That véuoc, as here used (ver. 6), means not law, but 
the (Mosaic) law, is indicated (1) by the fact that the persons with whom the 
Apostle is contrasting himself are Judaizers; (2) by the allusions to circumcision, 
concision, confidence in the flesh, etc.; (3) by the fact that in all the words con- 


154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


nected with véuov of ver. 5 there is an immediate and direct reference to the Jew- 
ish race and ideas; (4) by the correspondence of the phrase dixacoctvyy ex vdpov 
with similar phrases in Gal. and Rom., where the Mosaic law is referred to (e.g. 
Gal. iii. 11, 12); (5) by the fact that what Paul had so fully devoted himself to as 
to become blameless in it, and what he had abandoned for the righteousness of 
faith, was the righteousness of the Mosaic system.—(b) dueurroc is determined in 
its meaning by the character of the sentence in which it stands. In all the phrases 
the Apostle is, evidently, speaking of himself from the Jewish standpoint. He was 
blameless as viewed from the same standpoint, i.e. in the more external sense, and 
according to the ordinary manner of human judging.—(c) aaAa of ver. 7 (which is 
read by W. and H., and placed in brackets by Lachm., but omitted by Tisch. 8), 
presents this verse in a direct contrast to the preceding; a4/¢ of ver. 8, on the 
other hand, is that which affirms even more than the preceding statement has 
contained. 

(d) Meyer justly holds that zdvra is not limited in its reference to ravra of ver. 
7. The contrast in the tenses in 7yyua: and 7jyovua, however, can hardly be with- 
out emphasis, and the former must, therefore, have an especial, though not, in- 
deed, an exclusive, reference to the period of his conversion. Beyond the estimate 
which he then put upon what had been gain to him, and which he has continued 
to put upon it until the present, the permanent state of his mind as a Christian is 
to place a similar estimate on all things, because he has come to see the surpass- 
ingness of the knowledge of that Divine Friend for whose sake he gave up all that 
he had before. 7a sdvra is to be referred, with Meyer, to the things mentioned in 
vv. 5-7. If we make 7dvra equivalent to ravra, and ra rdv7a universal, or if we 
make the sole difference between ver. 7 and ver. 8 to lie in ratra—sdyra, and not 
at all in the different tenses of the verb, we loge the force and progress of the 
thought.—(e) A large portion of the recent commentators agree with Meyer that 
the words xa? 77yovjar oxbBada are to be taken as dependent on d’ é6v, The sentence 
becomes Jess cumbersome and repetitious, if they are connected with the preceding 
cai yyouna:—“T count all things as loss on account of the excellency of the 
knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom, etc.; and I count them as refuse 
(worthless and not worthy of a thought) in order that I may gain Him and be 
found in Him.” (Comp. Weiss, Farrar, W. and H. appy.).—(/) evpede is, proba- 
bly, explained correctly by Meyer as not limited to the time of the final judgment, 
because the result at the end seems tu be first spoken of in ver. 11.—(g) Meyer's 
view of éxi ry sioret, on the other hand, is improbable. The reader could not be 
expected readily to join these words with a participle which was merely implied in 
one so remote as p47) 2yav—a repeated éywv would be almost necessary to make the 
connection clear to him. Moreover, while, if the words are united with rv éx 
Veov dix., the doubling of the phrase which describes the righteousness is after the 
manner of Paul, such a sentence as “ having on the ground of faith the righteous- 
ness through faith” is harsh and unnatural.—(h) tov yvovae avrév (ver. 10) is 
taken up again from T7¢ yvdoeur of ver. 8, but is now set forth, in two of its most 
important aspects («ai, as in Gal. iv. 2, being explanatory rather than strictly 
additional) as the end in view of etpe0a x.r.A, The selection of these two, rather 
than others, was probably due to the present experience and hopes of the Apostle, 
which are brought before us in the Epistle. His experience of affliction and im- 
prisonment suggested the fellowship of Christ's sufferings; his confident hope of the 
future, in case the imprisonment should terminate in his death, carried his thought 


NOTES. 155 


to the power of Christ’s resurrection. In the words ovpyopg. r. Sav. avr. may, per- 
haps, be found a combining of the two ideas of Rom. vi. 5 and 2 Cor. iv. 10, and 
there is, probably, some suggestion in them of the present dangers. 

(‘) The resurrection to which Paul desires to attain is ao plainly the rising of 
the followers of Christ to the perfected life of the future,—as indicated by the 
whole context,—that the readers could have had no doubt respecting the meaning. 
The element of doubt or uncertainty suggested by tu¢ cannot, therefore, be re- 
garded as showing that there is no resurrection of others than Christ’s followers. 
Nor can this verse, in any view of it, be made to contradict the statement of Acts 
xxiv. 15, where Paul declares the resurrection of the wicked as well as the right- 
eos, In the epistles he makes no such general statement, and no distinct declara- 
tion that the unrighteous will be raised from the dead, except in 1 Cor. xv., and 
possibly not even in that passage. But this may be accounted for by the fact that 
his allusions to the subject of the resurrection occur, ordinarily, in an incidental 
way, and in the course of expressions respecting the Christian life and hopes. 


XVIII. Vv. 12-16. 


(a) The emphasis and fullness with which the Apostle sets forth, in opposition 
to any wrong inference which might be drawn from vv. 4 ff, the fact that he 
does not claim to have obtained perfection, but that, on the other hand, he is 
ever pressing forward earnestly to attain it, is satisfactorily explained as we see 
in these verses a transitional passage, looking forward, also, to the following 
context.—(b) The change of tenses from éAafov to rereAcivua: is generally regarded 
by comm. as of no special significance, or it is explained, as by Winer (Gram. E. T. 
p. 276)—the former denoting merely the attaining of the goal as an honorable 
achievement, the latter denoting its consequences; or as by Meyer—the latter 
expressing without a figure that which had been figuratively denoted by the 
former. Lightf., on the contrary, regards the former verb as referring to the 
time of Paul’s conversion and the latter as describing his present state. The 
repeated #67 may be urged as an objection to this view, but it is not a de- 
cisive one. The adverb means already; that is, it covers what is before 
and up to the present. The former of the two verbs may single out a par- 
ticular time within this period, and the latter extend over the whole :—In 
what I have said, I do not maintain that the thing is already accomplished, 
either by a receiving of the prize at once, at the moment of nly entrance 
upon the new course, or by a progress which, beginning then, has now reached 
its end. This seems to be the most satisfactory explanation—(c) The object 
of #aBov is, probably, +d BpaBeiov. He has not obtained this as yet, but he 
presses on towards the goal to obtain it.—(d) As d:dxw of ver. 14 is used abso- 
lutely, without an objective word, it is better to take it in the same way in ver. 12, 
than to hold that it governs a pronoun referring to Té Spafeiov, as Meyer does. 

(:) Meyer admits that the more common explanation of 颒 9, as meaning for 
which or on which behalf, is linguistically simple and correct. He objects to it only 
on the ground that it assigns the conversion of Paul, not to the general object 
which it had (Gal. i. 16: “that I might preach Him among the Gentiles”), but 
to a personal object. This objection, however, has little weight, for (1) it is evi- 
dent that his conversion had a personal, as well as a general, object; (2) this being 
so, he might naturally, on one occasion, make special allusion to the former, and, 
on another, to the latter; (3) the context here deals altogether with what is per- 


° 





156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


sonal to himself. R. V. places that for which in the text, and gives Meyer’s render- 
ing in the margin. This course, adopted by the Revisers, recognizes, in the best 
manner, both the possibilities and the probabilities of the case.—(f) The turn of 
the thought towards the following context is found in the adeAgoi of ver. 13, and 
in the emphasis on éyo éuavurév, By the repetition of what he had already stated 
with sufficient detiniteness, and by calling the attention of the readers to himself 
as an example, he shows that he is preparing for a new exhortation —(g) Meyer 
holds that Aoyifoua: is to be supplied with & dé. But, as what follows is not, like 
what precedes, a matter of thinking, but of doing, it is better, with Winer, Buttm., 
and most comm., to supply 70@.—(h) tT7¢ dvw KAgoews, The simplest explanation 
of these words, grammatically, is as a gen. possess. The prize appertains to the call 
ing in the sense that it is offered when the call comes, and secured when the fins] 
result of the call is reached. As «Ajocg everywhere appears to mean (as Meyer 
also says), the act of calling on God’s part, dvw is best taken as equivalent to érev- 
pévioc ;—it is heavenly, as it comes from God. But, as it offers the prize whicl: it 
has in its possession, it summons the man, of course, to press onward earnestly 
towards the heavenly life. This heavenly life, viewed in its blessedness and # a 
reward, is the Bpafeiov.—(t) The connection of év Xp. I7c0d with dtdxw, which 
Meyer favors, seems less probable than that which is more commonly adopted 
(with xAfoeuc), both because of the position of the words, and because, if év Xp 'I. 
were intended to indicate “the great upholding and impelling element of life’ in 
which he presses on (as Mey. holds), it would seem to demand a position of em- 
phasis nearer to d:dxw. 

(j) TéAeto, in accordance with the general usage of Paul, describes those who 
are mature in the Christian life, in contrast with vm. They are of the class © 
designated by mvevyarixoi in 1 Cor. iii. 1, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 18-16. In 1 Cor., however, © 
they are spoken of with reference to the possession or comprehension of the Divine 
cogia, as exhibited in the deeper parts of the plan of salvation. Here, on the 
other hand, the primary, if not exclusive, reference is to a course of action fouaded 
on the due estimate of the Christian’s present attainments.—(k) gpovapev, ver. 15. 
This verb seems to refer here, first, to the thought of the mind with respect tc the 
true view of the Christian life as indicated in the preceding verses, and secondly to 
a setting of the mind upon the course of action to which it leads. If the reacers, 
or any of them—having this state of mind as their prevailing and permanent one— 
do not find themselves able to see, and therefore to act, altogether as he does he 
has confidence that God will make the right view and right course plain to them 
in due time. It would appear to be almost necessary to hold that the gpovayey 
lies, in a certain sense, back of the gpoveire, or, in other words, that the Apostle 
conceives that every mature Christian must have, in all its essentials, the same view 
with himself, and only supposes that there may be cases where, in minor points a 
different one could be held. He can hardly have in mind, therefore, as he writes 
this verse, an opposition to his own ideas of so vital a character, as that whieh 
would be involved in adopting the doctrine of salvation by works. Ver. 15 be 
longs with vv. 12-14, and does not bear upon vv. 2,3. This exhortation of ths 
verse, with its accompanying word of assurance and the appeal in ver. 16, is ex- 
pressed in the gentle and friendly style of the whole Epistle-—(l) The explanation 
of the thought and purpose of ver. 16 is given, in the most simple and satisfactory 
way, by Meyer in the first twenty lines of his note on the verse. See, also, his 
“Remark” at the close of his note. 


NOTES, 15; 


XIX. Vv. 17-21. 


(a) Svppcunral is better taken as meaning, be one and all, unitedly, imitators of me 
(so Eadie, Lightf.,, Alf., De W., v. Heng.), than as Mever, Weiss, Ell., and others 
hold, co-imttators with others who imitate me. Meyer claims that the latter view is 
rendered necessary by the following context, but evidently this is not the case, for 
it is a perfectly natural and legitimate form of exhortation, to say: Unite together 
in imitating me and attentively observe those who walk as you see me walking.— 
(5) It is also a much more simple construction of the xa¥cc clause, as well as of the 
whole sentence, if that word is made to correspond with ore, than if it is taken, 
with Meyer, as having an argumentative force, “establishing the two require- 
ments ovugz. and oxo.” They were to imitate him and those who lived in ac- 
cordance with what they knew, from their long-continued knowledge of him, to 
be his example.—(c) ‘jude, if xado¢ is explained according to Meyer's view. may 
not improbably refer to Paul and those who walked as he walked; but, if xador 
is connected with ovr, jua¢ probably refers to his associates, such as ‘Timothy and 
Epaphroditus, who were or had been with him in Rome. These associates in his 
missionary labors sympathized with his Christian thinking, and naturally modeled 
their lives after th@ pattern of his in the great things here alluded to. 

(2) The soAAoi of ver. 18, as apparently indicated by the use of the verb 7epsra- 
tovotv, are members of the Christian churches, not persons outside of the Christian 
body. The descriptive words which follow are partly consistent with the suppo- 
sition that they are of the same general class with those who are spoken of in ver. 
2, but partly not so. The view of Meyer and others that they were persons of 
Epicurean tendency, and not of the Judaizing party, is, accordingly, to be adopted. 
Whether they were of the number of those who abused the Pauline doctrine of 
liberty, as Lightf. holds—like those alluded to in 1 Cor., but more extreme in 
their antinomianism—is uncertain. Some of this class may have been in Philippi. 
The earnestness of feeling manifested in the language used would seem, indeed, to 
indicate that this was the fact.—(e) of ra ériyeca gpovovvrec (ver.19). These words 
are intended, as we may believe, to present a marked contrast with that gpovayev 
which had been urged upon the readers in ver. 15, and which would lead them 
to press on towards the attainment of the prize of their heavenly calling. To 
bring out this contrast, as well as to mark them in distinction from the 7a of the 
following verse, the words are put in the nominative. They mind the earthly 
' things, we the heavenly (ra émiyeca, dvw, év ovpavoic). 

(f) The use of yap (ver. 20) is similar to that in Gal. v. 5, proving the state- 
ment respecting one party by showing that the other party pursue an opposite 
course, or have an opposite character. This peculiarity in the ydp, and the em- 
phasis just mentioned as connected with ol r. é. gpov., show clearly that Meyer is 
correct in making the yép give the proof of that last preceding clause alone.— 
(g) owrgpa is better taken as a predicate accusative, as Meyer and others hold, than 
as an accusative of the object. The word Saviour is to be explained in its special 
reference here, by the suggestions of the context. We may notice with respect to 
these, (1) that the next verse concentrates the thought on the change in the body. 
This, according to Rom. viii. 23, is the final consummation of the work of redemption. 
The verb amexdéyoua: is, also, used in that passage; (2) that the distinguishing 
characteristic of the enemies of the cross alluded to in ver. 19 is their giving them- 
selves up to fleshly indulgences. They make a god, as it were, of this fleshly ele- 


158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


ment connected with the body; (3) that the end to which the course of life of these 
enemies will bring them, is @m&Aea. The thought of the Apostle, in view of these 
facts, would seem to be this: that he is waiting for the appearance of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, as one who shall perfect the great work of salvation from sin, and its 
consequences, by that wonderful transformation of the body which delivers it from 
the fleshly element and carnal passions, and makes it like His own—a spiritual body 
fitted for the uses and the abode of the glorified spirit —(h) Meyer holds that amexde- 
xéueda (ver. 20) and the words of ver. 21 are to be understood as implying that 
Paul expected the juei¢ to live until the Parousia. Alf. holds the same view. 
The words are undoubtedly consistent with this view, and they have an especial 
fitness (as e.g. Tare:vGceuc) if this view is adopted, but they do not, in themselves, 
prove beyond question that such was the Apostle’s expectation.—(t) T7¢ rarecvdorws 
is opposed to r#¢ déf7¢. It describes the body as appertaining to this earthly con- 
dition of humiliation, as contrasted with the future body appertaining to the glori- 
fied state of the heavenly life. The change takes the body out of the bondage to 
corruption and the law of decay, and brings it into the freedom from that law 
which belongs to the glorified state of the children of God (Rom. viii. 21). The 
_ humiliation is not the “fleshly” element, and it does not by any means involve the 
necessity of coming under the dominion of the fleshly power. But so long as the 
body of our humiliation continues, there is an exposure to the assaults of that 
power, and we earnestly look for the Saviour who shall transform it—(j) The 
closing words of ver. 21 are added, not improbably, as showing the ground of con- 
fidence which the follower of Christ has, in his preasing on towards the reward, and 
in his triumphant hope of the final completeness of his redemption. The readers 
might well, therefore, stand fast in the Lord. 


CHAP. IV. 159 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 8. Instead of vai Elz. has «ai, against decisive witnesses.—lInstead of 
oituye yvhou, yvhove ob vye should be written, with Lachm. and Tisch., upon pre- 
ponderating evidence.—On decisive testimony, in ver. 12, instead of oida d2 raz, 
(Els.) olda xa? rar. is to be received. The dé has taken its rise from the last syl- 
lable of ofda ; hence we also find the reading dé xai.—Ver. 13. After ue Elz. has 
Xpior¢, in opposition to A B D* ®, vss. (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. "Iycov and X.'I. 16 xvpiy juov.—Ver. 16. cic] 
wanting in A D* E**, min. vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But after 
61%, é1Z might the more readily be omitted, as it seemed superfluous, and might, 
indeed, on account of the absence of an object for éréuy., appear offensive-—Ver. 
19. With Lachm. and Tisch., the form 1d tAovrog is to be adopted upon decisive 
testimony. See on 2 Cor. viii. 2.—Ver. 23. ravrev tpov] ABD E F G P mt, 
min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Damasc. Ambrogsiast. Pel. have rot 
avetparog tuov. So Lachm. and Tisch. Taken from Gal. vi. 18, whence also in 
Elz. #uov has likewise crept in after xvpiov, 


Ver. 1. [Onvv.1-8, see Note XX. pages 188, 189.] Conclusion drawn from 
what precedes, from ver. 17 onwards. We are not justified in going fur- 
ther 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 
édeAgoi, as in the passage now before us; secondly, because the predicates 
Gyanyrot . . . arégavécg pov place the summons in that close personal rela- 
tion to the apostle, which entirely corresponds with the words ovyucunrat 
pou yiveode in ver. 17; thirdly, because Sore finds its logical reference in 
that which immediately precedes, and this in its turn is connected with 
the exhortation cvpptpyrai «.7.A. in ver. 17; and lastly, because ore in 
ver. 1 is corrclative to the otre in iii. 17.—dore] [XX a.] accordingly ; 
the ethical actual result, which what has been said of the juei¢ in iii. 20 f. 
ought to have with the readers. Comp. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 58.—ayarnroi 
x.7.A.] “ blandis appellationibus in eorum affectus se insinuat, quae tamen 
non sunt adulationis, sed sinceri amoris,” Calvin.—How might they dis- 
appoint and grieve such love as this by non-compliance !—émindéyro) 
longed for, for whom I yearn (comp. i. 8); not occurring elsewhere in the 
N. T. ;3—orégavocg] comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19; Ecclus. i. 9, vi. 31, xv. 6; Ez. xvi. 


In opposition to which Hofmann quite thought and spoken thus mechanically! The 
groundiessly urges the objection, that Paul oryxere is in fact substantially just a repiwarety 
in that case would have written wepiwaretre which maintains its ground. 
instead of orjxere. As if he must have £Comp. App. Hisp. 43; Eust. Opuse. p. 367. 





160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 

12, xxiii. 42; Prov. xvi. 31, xvii. 6; Job xix.9. The honor, which accrued 
to the apostle from the excellent Christian condition of the church, is 
represented by him under the figure of a crown of victory The reference 
of zapé to the present time, and of orég. to the future judgment (Calvin 
and others, comp. Pelagius), introduces arbitrarily a reflective distinction 
of ideas, which is not in keeping with the fervor of the emotion.—virw] 
[XX b.] corresponding to the réroc that has juat been set forth and re- 
commended to you (iii. 17 #f.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, 
Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, and others, interpret : 80, 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 oumpeu. 
p. yiveoOe, iii. 17, which, notwithstanding all the praise of the morally ad- 
vanced community, still does not presuppose the existence already of a 
normal Christian state——év xvpiy] Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8. Christ is to be the 
element in which the standing fast required of them is to have its specific 
character, so that in no case can the moral life ever act apart from the 
fellowship of Christ.—ayamyroi] “ teperabjc haec vocis hujus avagop4,” Gro- 
tius. In no other epistle so much as in this has Paul multiplied the ex- 
pressions of love and praise of his readers; a strong testimony certainly 
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. ii. 12; 1 Cor. x. 14; Heb. vi. 9, e al.), moreover, ayaryroi stands as 
an address without any more precise self-evident definition, and is not 
to be connected (as Hofmann holds) with év xvpiy. 

Ver. 2f. [XX c.] After this general exhortation, ver. 1, the apostle, 
still deeply concerned for the community that is so dear to him, finds it 
requisite to give a special admonition to and for two meritorious women,? 
through whose disagreement, the details of which are unknown to us, but 
which probably turned on differences of their working in the church, a 
scandal had occurred, and the orjxew év xpi» might more or less be im- 
perilled. 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 


89; Aq. Ex. xxiii. 11 (éwiwd@nots); Ps. cxxxix. 
9 (¢wewdOnua); Ael. NV. A. vil. 3 (wo@nrés). 

1Comp. erépavoy evadrcias wéyar, 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 orefavouy (Wea- 
seling, ad Diod. Sic. I. p. 684), crepavywpa, Pind. 
Pyth. i. 96, xii. 9, creharndopeiy, Wisd. iv. 2, 
and Grimm in loc. 

SAccording to Baur, indeed, they are 
alleged to be two parties rather than two 
women; and ®tchwegler (nachapostol. Zeitalt. 
II. p. 135) makes out that Euodia represents 
the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche the Gen- 
tile-Christian party. and that yvjows avgvyos 
applies to Peter! On the basis of Constitutt. 


ap. vii. 46. 1 (according to which Peter ap- 
pointed an Euodius, 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 exe- 
getical fiction in connection with the two 
feminine names has been pushed to the 
utmost by Hitzig, s. Krit. Paulin. Br. p. 6 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 figura- 
tively two parties, and both of them Gentile- 
Christian. 

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


CHAP. Iv. 2, 3. 161 


avrai¢ in ver. 3 is made to apply to others (viz. dirweg «.r.4.). For the two 
JSeminine names on inscriptions, see Gruter and Muratori. With Tischen- 
dorf and Lipsius (Gramm. Unters. p. 31), Zuvrvyq is to be treated as oxy- 
tone. Comp. generally Kiuhner, I. p. 256. The twice used rapax.: “ quasi 
coram adhortans seorsum utramvis, idque summa cum aequitate,” Ben- 
gel. An earnestly individualizing éruovg (Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 400).— 
7d abrd gpov.] see On il. 2.—év xvp.] characterizes the specifically Christian 
concord, the moral nature and effort of which are grounded on Christ as 
their determining vital principle. Paul does not desire a union of minds 
apart from Christ—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. 8. 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 vai; comp. Philem. 20. See also on Matt. xv. 27.— 
’ eb{vye [XX d.] is erroneously understood by Clemens Alexandrinus, Isido- 
rus, 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, Theodo- 
ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact), and at the same time at vanance with 
grammar, as the adjective must in that case have stood in the feminine.' 
Others understand the husband of one of the two women (so, although with 
hesitation, Chrysostom, 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 conjur” be! 
Weiss prefers to leave undecided the nature of the bond which connected 
the individual in question with the twowomen. But if, in general, a 
relation to the women were intended, and that apart from the bond of 
matrimony, by the term of{vye Paul would have expressed himself very 
awkwardly; for the current use of the word cifvyor, and also of owuyte (8 
Macc. iv. 8) and offvé (Eur. Alc. 924), in the sense of conjux (comp. owevy- 
vova, Xen. Oec. 7. 30; Herodian, iii. 10. 14), must have been well known 
to the reader. The usual mode of interpreting this passage’ has been to 
refer it to some distinguished /fellow-laborer of the apostle, well known, as a 
matter of course, to the readers of the epistle, who had his abode in Phil- 
ippi and deserved well of the church there by special services. Some 
have arbitrarily fixed on Silas (Bengel), and others quite unsuitably on 
Timothy (Estius), and even on Epaphroditus (Vatablus, Grotius, Calovius, 
Michaelis, van Hengel, and Baumgarten-Crusius), whom Hofmann 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 
invention, in order to fasten upon Epaphroditus the, after all, unsuitable 


\ Test. XII. Patr. p.626; Eur. Ale.314,342,385. _ thies, de Wette, following Pelagius and The- 
3So0 Flatt, Rheinwald, Hoelemann, Mat  odoret. 


11 


162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 


confession before the church that he was himself the person thus dis- 
tinguished by the apostle! According to Luther’s gloss, Paul means “ the 
most distinguished bishop in Philippi.” Comp. also Ewald, who compares 
ovuunpecBirepoc, 1 Pet. v.1. But how strange would such a nameless desig- 
nation be in itself! How easily might the preferential designation by 
yvjovg have seemed even to slight other fellow-laborers in Philippi! Be- 
sides, Paul, in describing his official colleagues, never makes use,of this 
term, ot{vyoc, 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 ci{vye a proper 
" name, in which case the attribute yvfoe corresponds in a delicate and 
winning way to the appellative sense of the name (comp. Philem. 11); gen- 
uine Syzygus, that is, thou who art in reality and substantially that which 
thy name expresses : “ fellow-in-yoke,” 1. e. yoke-fellow, fellow-laborer. We 
may assume that Syzygus had rendered considerable services to Christi- 
anity in Philippi in joint labor with the apostle, and that Paul, in his 
appellative interpretation of the name, followed the figurative conception 
of animals in the yoke ploughing or thrashing (1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18), 
a conception which was suggested to him by the very name iéself. The 
opposite of yvforoe Would be: obx Svtru¢ dv (comp. Plat. Polit. p. 293 EB), 
so that the man with his name Syzygus would not be érévupoc (Eur. Phoen. 
1500 ; Soph. Aj. 480), Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. p. 272 f. He bore this his 
name, however, as évoua érfruuov (Del. Epigr. v. 42). This view of the 
word being a proper name—to which Wiesinger inclines, which Laurent 
decidedly defends! in his Neué. Stud. p. 134 ff. and Grimm approves of in 
his Lezicon, and which Hofmann, without reason, rejects? simply on 
account of the usus loquendi of yvfowos not being proved—was already held 
by rwée in Chrysostom; comp. Niceph. Call. ii. p. 212 D; Oecumenius 
permits a choice between it and the explanation in the sense of the hus- 
band of one of the two women. It is true that the name is not preserved 
elsewhere; but with how many names is that the case? Hence it was 
unwarranted to assume (Storr) a translation of the name Koddanya¢ 
(Joseph. Beil. vii. 8. 4), in connection with which, moreover, it would be 
hard to see why Paul should have chosen the word of{vyos elsewhere not 
used by him, and not ovvepyéc, or the like.* To refer the word to Christ, 


1 In doing so, Laurent takes the reference 
of e¢vv contained in the name as general: 
“helper of all labor 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 Ars 
former female fellow-strivers (cvvAOA. por); 
comp. also subsequently cuvepyey pov. 

3 According to our view, yrioros is, in fact, 
taken in no other sense than that which is 
current in all Greek authors, viz. aAnOvds, 
verus, as Hofmann himself takes it. Whether 


we refer it thus to ov¢vye as an appellative 
word, or as the appellative contents of a name 
—is a matter which leaves the linguistic use 
of yviovoes altogether untouched. As is well 
known, vd6os has the same general linguistic 
usage in the opposite sense (see ¢.g. Plat. 
Rep. p. 636 A; Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. 1. 
103. 3). 

8 This holds at the same time against the 
view of Pelagius: “Germanus dictun est 
nomine, qui erat compar offcii.” He is fol- 
lowed by Lyra. 


~™ 


CHAP. IV. 3. 163 


who helps every one to bear his yoke (Wieseler), was a mistake — 
ovAdauB. abraic] lay hold along with them, that is, assist them,' namely, for 
their reconciliation and for restoring their harmonious action.—airwe¢] 
utpote quae, giving the motive, comp. i. 28; see on Rom. i. 25, 1i. 15, vi. 2, 
a al—év r@ evayy.] the domain, in 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 confirmation of Christi- 
anity among their sex, and therein had shared the conflict of affliction 
and persecution with Paul (1 Thess. 11. 2). On ovv#ayjcav, comp. i. 27.— 
peta xa2 KAguevrog x.r.A.] and in what fellowship, s0 honorable to them, have 
they shared my conflict for Christ’s sake? tn association also with Clement 
and, etc. The reference of the «ei is to wo; their joint-striving with 
Paul had been a fellowship in striving also with Clement, etc.; they had 
therein stood side by side with these men also.” The connection of pera x. 
KA. «1.4. with ovAdauB avraic (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 
ev Ta ovéuara x.r.A., in the absence of any specification of the churches, 
would neither be based on any motive nor intelligible to the readers, and 
would be strangest of all in the event of Paul’s having intended, as Hof- 
mann thinks, to indicate here the presbyters and deacons mentioned in i. 1. 
The Aorroi ovvepyoi, as well as generally the more special circumstances of 
which Paul here reminds his readers, were—if pera xai «.r.A. be joined 
with ovrfOAnodv po: beside which it stands—historically known to these 
readers, although unknown to us.—That Clement was a teacher in Philippi 
(so most modern expositors ; according to Grotius, a presbyter in Philippi, 
but “Romanus aliquis in Macedonia negotians’’), must be maintained in 
accordance with the context, seeing that with him those two Philippian 
women labored as sharing the conflict of the apostle; and of a travekng 
companion of this name, who had labored with the apostle in Macedonia, 
there is no trace to be found ; and seeing that the Ac:rol cvvepyoi also are 
to be regarded as Philippians, because thus only does the laudatory ex- 
pression ov ré évéuara x.r.A. appear in its vivid and direct set purpose of 
bespeaking for the two women the esteem of the church. The more fre- 
quent, however, in general the name of Clement was, the more arbitrary 
is the old view, although not yet known to Irenaeus (iii. 8. 8), that Cle- 
ment of Rome is the person meant.’ So most Catholic expositors (not 


1 Luke v.7; Herod. vi.125; Xen. Ages. 2.81; 
Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 280; Lex. Plat. III. p. 204. 

20On cei... xai, the first ca: 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; Kdhner, 
II. 1, p. 480 f. 

3 Nevertheless, upon this hypothesis Baur 


builds up a whole fabric of combinations, 
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, II. p. 68), had already become the well- 
known Clement of Roman tradition. Comp. 
Volkmar in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1856, p- 309, 





164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
Doéllinger), following Origen, ad Joh. i. 29; Eusebius, H. E. iii. 15; Epiph- 
anius, Haer. xxvii. 6; Jerome, Pelagius, and others; so also Francke, in 
the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff, and van Hengel, who con- 
jectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman women who had 
assisted the apostle tn Rome, and had traveled with Epaphroditus to 
Philippi. See generally, besides Linnemann and Bruckner, Lipsius, de 
Clem. Rom. ep. p. 167 ff. ; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff; and Hilgenfeld, .A post. 
Vater, p. 92 ff.—av ra ovéu. x.7.2.] refers merely to rév Aomdyv «7... whom 
Paul does not adduce by name, but instead of this affirms of their names 
something so great and honorable. God has recorded their names in 
His book, in which are written down the future partakers of the everlast- 
ing Messianic life; so surely and irrevocably is this life assigned to them. 
What Paul thus expresses by this solemn figure, he knew from their 
whole Christian character and action, in which he recognized by experi- 
ence “ quasi electionis' absconditae sigilla” (Calvin). See, moreover, on 
Luke x. 20, and Wetstein on our passage; it is different in Heb. xii. 23 
(see Lunemann in loc). éo.i must be supplied, not the optative, as Bengel 
thinks; and it must remain an open question, whether the persons re- 
ferred to (among whom Ewald reckons Clement) are to be regarded as 
already dead (Bengel, Ewald), which is not to be inferred from dv ra 
ovéuata x.t.A.; see Luke x. 20; Hermas, Pastor i.1.3. It is at all evente 
certain that this predicate, which Paul nowhere else uses, is an especially 
honorable one, and does not simply convey what holds true of all Chris- 
tians (so Hofmann in connection with his erroneous reference of pera xal 
«.7.A.). At Luke x. 20, and Rev. xiii. 8 also, it is a mark of distinction. 
Ver. 4 f. [On vv. 4-9, see Note X XI. pages 189, 190.] Without any par- 
ticle of transition, we have once more general concluding admonitions, 
which begin by taking up again the encouraging address broken off in 
iii. 1, and now strengthened by zdvrore—the key-note of the epistle. 
[XXT @.] They extend as far as ver.9; after which Paul again speaks 
of the assistance which he had received.—zdvrore] not to be connected 
with sd/4.v ép@ (Hofmann), which would make the mda very superflu- 
ous, is an essential element of the Christian yaipew; 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 be- 
liever, to whom even tribulation is grace (i. 7, 29) and glory (Rom. v. 3), 
and in whom the pain of sin-is overcome by the certainty of atonement 
(Rom. viii. 1); to whom everything must serve for good (Rom. viii. 28; 1 


according to whom the Roman Clement is to 
be herealready assumed as amartyr. Indeed, 
according to Schwegler and Hitsig, z. Krit. 
paulin. Br. p. 13, a first attempt is made here 
to connect this Clement also with Peter (for 
no other in their view is the avgvyos). Thus, 
no doubt, the way is readily prepared for 
bringing down our epistie to the days of 
Trajan. Round the welcome name of Clement 


all possib!. fictions crystallize. 


1The detailed discussion of the question as 
to the ground of the divine electio here por- 
trayed (the Reformed theologians, “ the deere- 
tum absolutum ;” the Lutherans, “the pracvisa 


fides ;" the Catholics, “the praeviea opera”) is 


out of place here. Flacius, Clav. s. v. “ liber,” 
justly observes that it is not fatalis quaedam 
electio which is pointed to, but 0b veram jus- 
titiam, qualis Christi est, credentes eo referri e 
: bi 


CHAP. Iv. 4, 5. 165 
Cor. ili. 21 f.), and nothing can separate him from the love of God (Rom. 
vill. 88 f.).—zdd:v épa] once more I will say. Observe the future, which 
exhibits the consideration given to the matter by the writer ; consequently 
not equivalent to méAw Aéyo, 2 Cor. xi. 16; Gal. i. 9..—Td énceuds tpdv] 
(XXT b.] your mildness [Lindigkeit, Luther], that is, your gentle character, 
as opposed to undue sternness.* As to the neuter of the adjective taken 
as a substantive, see on iii. 8; comp. Soph. O. C.1127. It might also 
mean: your becoming behavior.» 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. 
éxvecx. always occurs in the above-named special sense.—yvwoOfrw aor 
Gv6p.| let it be known by all men, through the acquaintance of experi- 
ence with your conduct. Comp. Matt. v. 16. The universality of the 
expression (which, moreover, is to be taken popularly: “let no man 
come to know you in a harsh, rigorous aspect ”) prohibits our referring 
it to their relation to the enemies of the cross of Christ, against whom they 
should not be hatefully disposed (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), 
or to the enemies of Christianity (Pelagius, Theodoret, Erasmus, and 
others), or to the Judaists (Rheinwald), although none of these are ex- 
cluded, and the motive for the exhortation is in part to be found in the 
outward circumstances full of tribulation, face to face with an inclination 
to moral pride.—The succession of exhortations without any outward link 
may be psychologically explained by the fact, that the disposition of 
Christian joyfulness must elevate men quite as much above strict insist- 
ing upon rights and claims as above solicitude (ver. 6). Neither with the 
former nor with the latter could the Christian fundamental disposition of 
the zalpecv év xvpiy subsist, in which the heart enlarges itself to yielding 
love and casts all care upon God.—< xipig tyyts] [XXI ¢.] points to the 
nearness of Christ's Parousia, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Comp. on éyybs, Matt. xxiv. 
82 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 providentiae fiduciam,” * is not suggested in vv. 1, 2,4 by the 
context, which, on the contrary, 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 owrfp of the faithful, 


1Kadus é&cwiaciacey, éwecdh Tov wpayydrey 
9 Gvots Avwny ériere, 8a TOU iwAactacpLOU 
Seixvvacy, St. wdvtws bt xaipey, Chrysostom. 

$Polyb. v.10. 1: % émceixeca nai ¢AarOpwwia, 
Lucian Phal. pr.2: éxceccns «- wérpios, Hero- 
dian, ii. 14. 5, ix. 12; 1 Tim. fif.3; Tit. iii. 2; 
Jas. iii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 18; Ps. Ixxxv. 5; Add. to 
Esth. vi. 8; 2 Macc. ix. 27). Comp. on 2 Cor. 
x.1. The opposite: axpcBobicatos, Arist. Eth. 
Nie. v.10. 8, oxAnpds. 

®See «ag, the passages from Plato in Ast, 
Ler. 1. p. TI. 

¢Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151,cxlv. 18; so 


also Pelagius, Luther, Calovius, Zanchius, 
Wolf, Rheinwald, Matthies, Rilliet, Cornelius 
Maller, and others. 

5 They do not belong, by way of tntroduc- 
tion, to what follows, as Hofmann thinks, who 
understands “the helpful nearness of the 
Lord” (Matt. xxviii. 20; Jas. iv. 8) in the 
present, and consequently the assurance of 
being heard in the individual case. Comp., 
rather, on the ¢yyvs habitually used of the 
future final coming, in addition to the above 
pasrager, Matt. fii. 2, iv. 17, x.7; Mark 1.15; 
Luke xxi. 8, 28; Rom. xiii. 12; Heb» x. 25; 


166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 

now should they not, in this prospect of approaching victory and blessed- 
ness (iii. 20), willingly and cheerfully renounce everything opposed to 
Christian émeixeca! The words therefore convey an encouragement to the 
latter. What follows has its complete reference, and that to God, pointed 
out by the antithesis aaW’ év wayri x.1.A. 

Ver. 6. The pepesrare is not to be limited in an arbiter way (as by 
Grotius, Flatt, Weiss, and others, to anzious care); about nothing (neither 
want, nor persecution, nor a threatening future, etc.) are they at all to 
give themselves concern, but on the contrary, etc.; y7déé, which is em- 
phatically prefixed, is the accusative of the object (1 Cor. vii. 32 ff, xii. 
25; Phil. ii. 20).1. [XXId.] 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.—é» ravri] opposed to the 
pndév ; hence: tn évery case or affair (comp. Eph. v. 24; 2 Cor. iv. 8; 1 
Thess. v. 18; Plat. Euthyd. p. 301 A), not: at all times (Syriac, Grotius, 
Bos, Flatt, Rheinwald).—ry mpocevyy «. ry defoe] by prayer and supplica- 
tion. On the distinction between the two (the former being general, the 
latter supplicating prayer), see on Eph. vi.18. The article indicates the 
prayer, which ye make; and the repetition of the article, otherwise not re- 
quired, puts forward the two elements the more emphatically (Kuhner, 
II. 1, p. 529).—yerd ebvyap.] belongs to yvupil. «.7.4., which, excluding 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 re- 
ceived and continually being experienced, of which the Christian is con- 
scious under all circumstances (Rom. viii. 28). In the thanksgiving of the 
suppliant there is expressed entire surrender to God’s will, the very 
opposite of solicitude.—ra airfuara iu.) what ye desire, that is, in accord- 
ance with the context: your petitions®—yvupilicfw mpdc tr. Oedv] must be 
made known towards God ; mpéc, versus; it is the coram of the direction.‘ 
The expression is more graphic than the mere dative would be; and the 
conception itself (yvwp:f.) is popularly anthropopathic ; Matt. vi. 8. Ben- 
gel, 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 expro- 
munt, 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 grant- 
ing or non-granting of what is prayed for !—# cipfvy tr. Ocov] the peace of 
soul produced by God (through the Holy Spirit; comp. yapa & mvebpare 
dyiy, Rom. xiv. 17), the repose and satisfaction of the mind in God’s 





Jas. v.8; 1 Pet. iv.7; and the dpyozar raxv 
of the Apocalypse. The simply correct ren- 
dering is given after Chrysostom by Erasmus 
(“‘instat enim adventus Christi’), Grotius, and 
others. 

1Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 12: 7d wodAd 
peptuvary cai rd uh Sivacba Hovxiay Exav. 


#Plat. Rep. viii. p. 666 B; Dionys. Hal. Antt. 
vi. 74; Luke xxiii. 24. 

81 John v. 15; Dan. vi. 7, 13; Ps. xix. 6, 
xxxvi. 4, e¢ al.; Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 
100. 

4Comp. Bernhardy, p. 265; Schoem. ad Js. 
fil, 25. 


CHAP. Iv. 6, 7. 167 


eounsel and love, whereby all inward discord, doubt, and variance are 
excluded, such as it is expressed ¢.g. in Rom. viii. 18, 28. So in substance 
most expositors.' 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 correlative 4 Oed¢ ri¢ 
eipfyn¢ in ver. 9—is here required on the part of the context, both by the 
contrast of pepiuvare in ver. 6, and by the predicate 9 irepéxovca révra vou. 
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 
pépeuva, to which the feeble voic by itself is liable; as, indeed, in the clas- 
sical authors also (Plat. Rep. p. 329 C, p. 372 D), and elsewhere (Wied. 
iii. 3), eiof#vy denotes the tranquillitas and securitas, the mental yaAgvy (Plat. 
Legg. vii. p. 791 A) and sovzia—a rest, which here is invested by rod Oecd 
with the consecration of divine life. Comp. eipfvm rot Xprotov, Col. iii. 15; 
John xiv. 83; and, on the other hand, the false cipf#v7 x. aogadea, 1 Thess. 
v. 3. It is therefore not to be understood, according to Rom. v. 1, as “ pax, 
qua reconciliati estis Deo” (Erasmus, Paraphr.);* which would be too general 
and foreign to the context. The peace of reconciliation is the preswppost- 
tion of the divinely produced moral feeling which is here meant; the 
former is eipfvy tpd¢ rdv Gedy, the latter cipfvy rot Ocov.— trepéixovea névra 
vow] [XXI e.] which surpasses every reason, namely, in regard to ite 
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 odpé (Rom. vii. 23, 25; Gal. v. 17), no reason is in a posi- 
tion to give this clear holy elevation and strength against the world and 
its afflictions. This can be 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. Accord- 
ing to de Wette, the doubting and heart-disquieting voic is meant, which is 
surpassed by the peace of God, because the latter is based upon faith and 
feeling. In opposition to this, however, stands the zavra, according to 
which not merely all doubting reason, but every reason is meant. No one, 
not even the believer and regenerate, has through his reason and its 
action what he has through the peace of God. Others have explained it 
in the sense of the tncomprehensibleness of the peace of God, “‘ the greatness 
of which the understanding cannot even grasp” (Wiesinger).? Comp. 


1Including Rheinwald, Flatt, Baumgarten- Estius, Wetstein, and others, including Storr, 
Crusius, Hoelemann, Rilliet, de Wette, Wies- Matthies, and van Hengel. 
inger, Ewald, Weise, Hofmann, and Winer. So Chrysostom, Oecumentus, Theophylact, 
280 Chrysostom, 4 xaraAAays, § aydxy tr Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, also Hoele- 
Geov; and Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, mann and Weiss. : 


168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Eph. iii. 20. But the context, both in the foregoing pydev peptzvare and in 
the gpovpfoe x.7.A. which follows, points only to the blessed énfluence, in 
respect of which the peace of God surpasses every kind of reason whatever, 
and consequently is more efficacious than it. It isa imepéye rH duvdper; 
Paul had no occasion to bring into prominence the tncomprehensibleness 
of the eipfvn Geov.'—gpovphoee x.7.A.] [XXI f.] not custodiat (Vulgate, Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, Theophylact: aogadica:ro, Luther, Calovius, Cornelius a 
Lapide, and others, including Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt), but custodée (Cas- 
talio, Beza, Calvin), whereby protection against all injurious influences 
(comp. 1 Pet. i. 5) is promised? This protecting vigilance is more pre- 
cisely defined by év X. 'I., which expresses its specific character, so far as 
this peace of God is én Christ as the element of its nature and life, and 
therefore its influence, protecting and keeping men’s hearts, is not other- 
wise realized and carried out than in this its holy sphere of life, which is 
Christ. The ¢povpé which the peace of God exercises implies in Christ, as 
it were, the gpovpapyia (Ken. Mem. iv. 4.17). Comp. Col. iii. 15, where the 
eipfyn Tov Xpcorod BpaBeve in men’s hearts. Others consider éy X. "I. as that 
which takes place on the part of the readers, wherein the peace of God 
would keep them, namely “tn unity with Christ, in His divinely-blessed, 
holy life,” de Wette; or dore pévety xai u9 Exreceiv abrov Oecumenius, comp. 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Zanchius, and others, including Hein- 
richs, 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 rypfoe:; comp. John xvii. 11), 
but wherein it will take place; therefore the inaccurate rendering per 
Christum (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) is so far more correct. 
The artificial suggestion of Hoelemann (‘Christo fere cinguli instar ré¢ 
xapdiag tuev «.t.A. circumcludente,”’ etc.) is all the less warranted, the more 
familiar the idea év Xpor@ 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 ¢poupfee 
x.7.A., are not to be arbitrarily limited, e.g. to opponenis (Heinrichs), or to 
Satan (Beza, Grotius, and others), or stn (Theophylact), or pravas cogita- 
tiones (Calvin), or “ omnes tnsultus et curas” (Bengel), and the like; but to 
be left quite general, comprehending all such special aspects. Erasmus 
well says (Paraphr.): “adversus omnia, quae hic possunt incidere formi- 
danda.”—ra¢ xapd. ip. x. Td vopu. tuov.] emphatically kept apart. It is 
enough to add Bengel’s note: “cor sedes cogitationum.”*® The heart is 
the organ of self-consciousness, and therefore the moral seat of the 
activity of thought and will. As to the vofuara (2 Cor. iii. 14) as the inter- 
nal products of the theoretical and practical reason, and therefore includ- 


10n tweptxaw with the accusative (usually 
with the genitive, ii. 3), see Valckensaer, 
ad Eur. Hippol. 1365; Kothner, II. 1, p. 
337. 
®Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 560 B.: of... dpeoror 
dpovpol re nai GvAaxes dv dvipwy Oeogircey cici 


Scavolacs. Eur. Suppl. 902: éppovpe: (woddovs) 
pater dfapapréver. “Animat eos hac fiducia,” 
Erasmus, Annot. 

8Comp. Roos, Fundam peychol. ex sacr. script. 
IIT. 26: “causa cogitationum interna eaque 
libera.” 


CHAP. Iv. 8, 9. 169 
ing purposes and plans (Plat. Polt. p. 260 D; 2 Cor. ii. 11), comp. Beck, 
bibl. Seelenl. p. 59, and Delitzsch, Psychol. p.179. The distinction is an 
arbitrary one, which applies r «apd. to the emotions and will, and r. vofp. 
to the intelligence (Beza, Calvin). 

Ver. 8 f. [XXI g.] 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 16 Ao:rév, with which Paul had 
already, at iii. 1, wished to pass on to the conclusion. See on iii. 1. This 
rd Aaréy is not, however, resumptive (Matthies, Ewald, following the old 
expositors), or concluding the exhortation begun in iii. 1 (Hofmann), for in 
that passage it introduced quite a different summons; but, without any 
reference to iii. 1, it conveys the transition of thought: “what over and 
above all the foregoing I have to urge upon you in general still is: every- 
thing that,” etc. According to de 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, ut least by iueic before adeAgol 
or in some other way, an antithetic statement of that which had to be 
done on the part of man.—ica] nothing being excepted, expressed asyn- 
detically six times with the emphasis of an earnest émiyovf. Comp. ii. 1, 
iii. 2; Buttmann, Neu. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. 398].—a176;] The thoroughly 
ethical contents of the whole summons requires us to understand, not 
theoretical truth (van Hengel), but that which is morally true; that is, that 
which is in harmony with the objective standard of morality contained tn the 
gospel See 1 John i. 6; John iii. 21; Eph. v. 9; 1 Cor. v. 8. To limit it 
to truth in speaking (Theodoret, Bengel) is in itself arbitrary, and not in 
keeping with the general character of the predicates which follow, in 
accordance with which we must not even understand specially unfeigned 
sincerity (Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, and others) ;* though this essentially 
belongs to the morally true.—ceuzrd] worthy of honor, for it isin accordance 
with God!2—dixa:a] upright, as it ought to be; not to be limited to the rela- 
tions “‘ erga alios ” (Bengel, Heumann, and others), so that justice in the 
narrower sense would be meant (so Calvin: “ne quem laedamus, ne 
quem fraudemus;” Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others). Comp., on 
the contrary, Theogn. 147 : év dixawoobvygovdAgBdyy rao’ aperh éott.—dyvd] pure, 
unstained, not: chaste in the narrower sense of the word (2 Cor. xi. 2; 
Dem. 1371. 22; Plut. Mor. p. 268 E, 438 C, e¢ al.), as Grotius, Calovius, 
Estius, Heumann, and others would explain it. Calvin well says: “ cas- 
timoniam denotat in omnibus vitae partibus.” Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 6, vii. 
11; 1 Tim. v. 22; Jas. iii. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 2; 1 John iii. 8; often so used in 
Greek authors.‘—poog:A9] dear, that which is loved. Thisis just once more 


1Chrysostom: 4 dperj Weisos 82 4 xaxia. 
Ocecumenius : dAnOy 84 Ones Ta dvdpeta. Comp. 
also Theophylact. 

®Comp. Eph. iv. 21; Plat. Phil. p. 69 C: rd 
GAnbde cai b 8m Adyomer cidcapivds. 

8 Comp. 1 Tim. fi. 2: evoeBeig nai ceprdéryts. 
Plat. Soph. p. 249 A: cepvdy xai aytor vour. 


Xen. Occ. vi. 14: 1d cepvdw dvouea rd addy ru 
xaya6dy. Dem. 385.11; Herodian, i. 2. 6; Ael. 
V. A. iL 13, viii. 36; Polyb. ix. 96. 6, xv. 22. 1, 
xxii. 6. 10. 

*Comp. Menand. in Clem. Strom. vii. p. 
844: was dyvés dorcy d uyoty davry cacdy 
curser. 


170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Christian morality, which, in its whole nature as the ethical xadév, is worthy 
of love! The opposite is the aicypéy, which deserves hate (Rom. vii. 15). 
Chrysostom suggests the supplying roi¢ moroic x. r@ O26; Theodoret only 
tp? Ocy. 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 clas- 
sical authors, and at Ecclus. iv. 8, xx. 18. Others understand kindliness, 
benevolence, friendliness, and the like. SoGrotius; comp. Erasmus, 
Paraphr.: “ quaecumque ad alendam concordiam accommoda.” Lin- 
guistically faultless (Ecclus. J.c.; Herod. i. 125; Thuc. vii. 86; Polyb. x. 
5. 6), but not in keeping with the context, which does not adduce any special 
virtues.—etgyua] not occurring elsewhere either in the N.T., orin 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) sound, ¢.e. that which, when it 
is named, sounds significant of happiness, as, for instance, brave, honest, 
honorable, etc. The opposite would be: dicggua.* Storr, who is followed 
by Flatt, renders it: ‘“ sermones, qui bene aliis precantur.” So used in later 
Greek authors (also Symmachus, Ps. ]xii. 6); but this meaning is here too 
special.—e! ric «.7.A.] comprehending all the points mentioned: if there be 
any virtue, and if there be any praise; not if there be yet another, etc. (de 
Wette).—aper# used by Paul here only, and in the rest of the N. T. only 
in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 3, 5,3 in the ethical sense: moral aptitude in dispost- 
tion and action (the opposite to it, xaxia: Plat. Rep. 444 D, 445 C, 1, p. 
348 C). Comp. from the Apocrypha, Wisd. iv. 1, v.18, and frequent 
instances of its use in the books of Macc.—éma:we] 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 éracvog; 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. 842; virtue is xa? atriy braverh, Plat. Def. p. 


1 Plat. Rep. p.444 E; Soph. HU. 972: guret ydp 
mpos Ta ypnora wasdpay. “Nihil est amabilius 
virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat ad diligen- 
dum,” Cic. Lael. 28. Comp. ad Famil. ix. 14; 
Xen. Mem. il. 1.38. Luther well renders it: 
“lieblich,” and the Gothic: “liubaleik;” the 
Vulgate: “amabilia.” 

®Comp. Soph. Aj. 362; Eur. Iph. 7. 687: 
cigypa duver. Plat. Leg. vii. p. 801 A: rd ris 
eons yévos eidquoy nuiv. Aesch. Suppl. 694, 
Agam. 1168; Polyb. xxxi. 14. 4; Lucian, 
Prom. 3. 

8 We are not entitled toassume (with Beza) 


as the reason why Paul does not use this 
word elsewhere, that it is “verbum nimium 
humile, si cum donis Spiritus Sancti com: 
paretur.” The very passage before us shows 
the contrary, as it means no other than Chrie- 
tian 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 S&:cacoovrn, Uraxoy, dycérys, aytwoourn, 
oovdrys, «.7.A., too necessarily suggested them- 
selves to his mind to allow him to use the 





CHAP. Iv. 8, 9. 171 
411 C. Mistaken, therefore, were such additions as érwrfune (D* E* F G) 
or disciplinae (Vulg., It., Ambrosiaster, Pelagius).—raira Aoyifeote] consider 
these things, take them to heart, in order (see ver. 9) to determine your 
conduct accordingly. ‘‘ Meditatio praecedit, deinde sequitur opus,” Cal- 
vin.’—Ver. 9. The Christian morality, which Paul in ver. 8 has com- 
mended to his readers by a series of predicates, he now again urges upon 
them in special reference to their relation to himself, their teacher and 
example, as that which they had also learned, etc. The first xaf is therefore 
also, prefixing to the subsequent ratra rpdocere an element corresponding 
to this requirement, and imposing an obligation to ita fulfillment. ‘“ What- 
soever also has been the object and purport of your instruction, etc., that 
do.” To take the four times repeated xai as a double aswell... as also 
(Hofmann and others), would yield an inappropriate formal scheme of 
separation. Kai in the last three cases is the simple and, but so that the 
whole is to be looked upon as bipartite: “Duo priora verba ad doctrinam 
pertinent, reliqua duo ad evemplum” (Estius).—a] not 50a 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.—rapeAé Bere] have 
accepted. Comp. 1 Cor. xv.1; John i. 11; Polyb. xxxiii. 16.9. The inter- 
pretation: “ have received,” which makes it denote the tnstruction commu- 
nicated (1 Thess. ii. 18, iv.1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 283; Gal. i. 9, 12; 
Col. ii.6)* would yield a twofold designation for the one element,‘ and on 
the other hand would omit the point of the assensus, which is so import- 
ant as a motive; moreover, from a logical point of view, we should 
necessarily expect to find the position of the two words reversed (comp. 
Gal. i. 12).—xoteare} does not refer to the proper preaching and teaching 
of the apostle (Erasmus, Calvin, Elsner, Rheinwald, 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 pres- 
ence, and consequently not merely the “de me,” but also the “absente” 
would be purely imported. No, by the words yxotcare and eidere, to both 
of which év éuoi belongs, he represents to his readers his own example of 
Christian morality, which he had given them when he was present, in tts 
two portions, in so far as they had perceived it in him (é» éyoi, comp. i. 80) 


general term for morality, aperj, as familiar, 
however worthily and nobly the Platonic 
doctrine, in particular, had grasped the idea 
of it (cis scov Suvardy avOpwry dporovcba 
@cq, Plat. Rep. p. 613 A, 500 C, et al.). 

1On AcyterOar:, comp. Ps. lii. 2; Jer. xxvi. 
8; Nah. 1.9; Ps. xxxv.4; xxxvi.4; 3 Macc. 
iv. 4; Soph. O. R. 461; Herod. viii. 53; Dem. 
63,12; Sturz, Lez. Xen, III. p. 42; the opposite: 
Ovara AcyigerOa, Anthol. Pal. xi. 56. 3. 

$ Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and most 
expositors, including Rheinwald, Rilliet, 


Hoelemann, de Wette, Weiss, Hofmann. 

*Comp. Plat. Theaet. p. 198 B: wapadap- 
Bdvovra 8 parOdvey. 

4 Real distinctions have, indeed, been made, 
but how purely arbitrary they are! Thus 
Grotius (comp. Hammond) makes éueé. apply 
to the primam institutionem, and wapedAdB. to 
the exactiorem doctrinam. Rilliet explains it 
differently, making the former denote: “son 
enseignement direct,” and the latter: “les in- 
structions, qu il leur a transmises sous une forme 
quelconque.” 





172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


partly by hearing, in his whole oral behavior 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.—raita mpdocere}] these things do, is not 
related to ravra Aoyifeofe, ver. 8,as excluding it, in such a way that for 
what is said in ver. 8 the AoAifecfa: merely would be required, and for 
what is indicated in ver. 9 the rpdocew; on the contrary, the two opera- 
tions, which in substance belong jointly to the contents of both verses, are 
formally separated in accordance with the mode of expression of the par- 
allelism. Comp. on ii. 8 and Rom. x. 10.—xai 6 Oeé¢ «.r.4.] in substance 
the same promise as was given in ver. 7. God, who works peace (that holy 
peace of soul, ver. 7), will be with you, whereby is meant the help given 
through the Holy Spirit; and His special agency, which Paul here has in 
view, is unmistakably indicated by the very predicate rie eipfune. 


REMARK.—It is to be noticed that the predicates in ver. 8, dA707 . . . ebgnua 
do not denote different individual virtues, but that each represents the "Christian 
moral character generally, 80 that in reality the same thing is described, but according 
to the various aspects which commended tt. Comp. Diog. Laert. ii. 106: é 1d ayabev 
mwoAAoig bvéuact Kadoipevov, Cic. de fin. iii. 4.14: “una virtus unum tetud, quod 
honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, decorum.” That it is Christian morality which 
Paul has in view, is clearly evident from ver.9 and from the whole preceding 
context. Hence the passage cannot avail for 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. Kom. xii. 2). 


Ver. 10. [On Vv. 10-19, see Note XXII. pages 190, 191.] Carrying on his 
discourse with dé, Paul now in conclusion adds, down to ver. 20, some 
courteous expressions, as dignified as they are delicate, concerning the aid 
which he had received. Hitherto, indeed, he had only mentioned this work 
of love briefly and casually (ii. 25, 30). In the aid itself Baur discovers a 
contradiction of 1 Cor. ix. 15, and conjectures that the author of the 
epistle had 2 Cor. xi. 9 in view, and had inferred too much from that 
passage. But, in fact, Baur himself has inferred too much, and incor- 
rectly, from 1 Cor. ix. 15; for in this passage Paul speaks of payment for his 
preaching, 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.—év xvpiy] as in iii. 1,iv.4. It was, indeed, not a joy felt apart 
from Christ ; ob xoapixdc Exdprv, gnoiv, obd2 Bwruds, Chrysostom.—peydAuc ] 
mightily. Comp. LXX., 1 Chron. xxix. 9; Neh. xii. 42; Polyb. iii. 87. 5; 
Polyc. Phil. 1. The position at the end is emphatic.'—%rc #dn roré x.7.A.] 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 


18ee on Matt. ff. 10; and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 256 E, Menez. p. 235 A. — 


CHAP. Iv. 10. 173 
thought, but had no favorable opportunity.”’—ién roré] taken in itself may - 
mean : already once; or, as in Rom.1i.10: tandem alquando. The latter 
is the meaning here, as appears from é¢ » «.r.A. Chrysostom justly 
observes (comp. Oecumenius and Theophylact) that it denotes xzpévov 
paxpév, when namely that Ode had not been present, which has now 
again (comp. ver. 15 f.) set in.’ This view of #7 roré is the less to be 
evaded, seeing that the reproach which some have discovered in the 
passage (émcriugo, Chrysostom) is not by any means conveyed 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.—avefddere] [XXII c.] 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 (@aAAobc).?_ It cannot be the revival 
of their care-taking love which is meant, so that the readers would have 
previously been aropaparbivres év rH éAenpoobvy (Oecumenius, also Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Flatt, Wiesinger, Ewald, and most expositors, 
who rightly take dave6d1. as intransitive, 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 9» 
égpoveire «.t.A. which immediately 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, Baumga rten-Crusius, 
Schenkel, Hofmann, and others), the opposite of which is after- 
wards expressed by jxacpeiobe, that is denoted, as prosperous circum- 
stances are so often represented under the figure of becoming green and 
blooming.® It is therefore inconsistent, both with delicate feeling and 
with the context, to take dvefdA. transitively: “ revirescere sivistis solitam 
vestram rerum mearum procurationem” (Hoelemann; comp. Coccejus, 
Grotius, Heinrichs, Hammond, and others, including Rilliet, de Wette, 
Weiss), although the transitive use of ava#daAev in the LXX. and also in 
the Apocrypha is unquestionable (Ezek. xvii. 24; Ecclus. i. 16, xi, 20, 1. 
10; see generally Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 220 f.); and that of 64,2 is also 
’ current in classical authors.6 An unfounded objection is brought against 
the view which explains it of the revival of prosperity, that it is inappro- 
priate as a subject of joy in the Lord (see Weiss) ; it is appropriate at all 
events, when such a use is made of the revived prosperity. —rd trép éuov 


1Comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 140. 

The conjecture, on the ground of this 
figurative expression, that the Philippians 
might have sent to the apostle in spring, and 
that Rca:petoGe 8¢ applies to the winter season 
(Bengel), is far-fetched and arbitrary. The 
figurative ave@éA. does not even need to be an 
image of spring, as Calvin, Eatius, Weiss, and 
others understand it. 

8Comp. Ps. xxviii. 7: dvé@arew 4 cdp£ pov, 


Wisd.iv.3f.; Hes. Op. 231: réOnAe wéAcc, Pind. 
Isth. iii. 9: SABos...OdAAwy, Pyth. vii. 22: 
OadAovcay evSa:uoriay. Plat. Legg. xi. p.945 D: 
H waca ovTy OddAdre Te aai evdarpover xape x. 
worss. Of frequent occurrence in the trage- 
dians; comp. also Jacobs, ad Del. Epigr. viii. 
97. 
4Pind. Ol. ili. 24; Aesch. Pers. 622 (608); 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 108; Kahner, II. 1, 
p. 2665, 


174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 

¢poveiv] [XXII d.] is usually, with the correct intransitive rendering of 
ave0aA.,' 80 understood that rd is taken together with gpoveiv, and this must 
be regarded as the accusative of more precise definition, which is only 
distinguished by its greater emphasis from the mere epexegetical 
infinitive? Comp. van Hengel: “ negotium volo mihi consulendi.” But 
the whole view which takes 76 with ¢poveiy is set aside by the following 颒 
@ x. Eppoveire; seeing that 颒 ¢, unless it is to be rendered at variance with 
linguistic usage by although (Luther, Castalio, Michaelis, Storr), or just as 
(Vulgate, van Hengel), could only convey in its ¢ the previous ré trép' 
éuov gpovetv, and would consequently yield the logically absurd con- 
ception: égpoveire iri rQ trép eEuod gpoveiv, whether ey’ g be taken as 
equivalent to ov évexa (Beza) or qua de re (Rheinwald, Matthies, de Wette, 
Wiesinger, Ewald, and others), or in eo quod (Erasmus), in qua 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 gpoveiy évi is a thinking without action, and ¢poveiv irép a thinking with 
action (de Wette, Wiesinger; comp. Ewald); but how purely arbitrary is 
this view! Less arbitrarily, Calvin and Rilliet (“vous pensiez bien a 
moi”) have referred » to éuov, by which, no doubt, that logical awkward- 
ness is avoided; but, on the other hand, the objection arises, that é’ » is 
elsewhere invariably used by Paul as neuter only, and that it is difficult to 
see why, if he desired to take up érép éuod in a relative form, he should 
not have written érép oi, since otherwise in é7i, if it merely went back to 
éuov, 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 égpoveire). Weiss, interpreting 颒 » as: about which to take thought, 
refers it back to aveéAere—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 1d imép énod together (comp. ra repi tye, ii 
20; also ra wap’ tuev, ver. 18;*° and that as the accusative of the olyect to 
gooveiv (comp. Bengel, Schenkel, J. B. Lightfoot, Hofmann): “ to take tnto 
consideration that which serves for my good,” to think of my benefit; on 
tr2p, comp. i. 7. Only thus does the sequel obtain its literal, logical, ‘and 
delicately-turned reference, namely, when é9’ » applies to 1d trép épod. 
Taking this view, we have to notice: (1) that évi is used in the sense of 
the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475; Ktihner, II. 1, p. 485): on behalf of 
which, for which, comp. Soph. O. R. 569; (2) that Paul has not again written 
the mere accusative (5 xai égp.), because é9’ » is intended to refer not alone 
to «. égpoveire, but also to the antithesis 7xarpeiobe dé, consequently to the 
entire x. égp., qxacp. 6é;* (8) that the emphasis is placed on égpov. as the 


1 In the transitive inter pretation (see, against 
it, supra) the ro ¢povery, which would likewise 
be taken together, would be the accusative 
forming the object of aveOaA. See Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 226 [E.T. 263); Kahner, II. 2, p. 
603. 


See Bernhardy, p.356; Schmalfeld, Syntax 
d. Griech. Verd. p. 401 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
II. p. 222. 

3And see generally, Kriiger, 3 50. 5. 12; 
Kohner, IJ. 1, p. 231 f. 

4All the more groundless, therefore, is 


CHAP. Iv. 11. 175 


tmperfect, and xai indicates an element to be added to the ¢poveiv which has 
been just expressed ; hence «ai é¢p. intimates: “in behalf of which ye not 
only are taking thought (that is, since the avefddere), but also were taking 
thought (namely, rpdéodev, before the avefdAere) ;” lastly, (4) that after é¢p. 
there is no é inserted, because the antithesis is meant to emerge unpre- 
pared for, and so all the more vividly.—jxa:peio6e} [XXII e.] ye had no 
favorable time; a word belonging to the later Greek.' Unsuitably and 
arbitrarily this is explained: “deerat vobis opportuntias mittendi”’ (Eras- 
mus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, and others). It refers, in keep- 
ing with the ave@édere, not without delicacy of description, to the unfavor- 
able state of things as regards means (Chrysostom : ov« elzere év yepoiv, ovd2 tv 
agGovig #re; 80 also Theophylact; while Oecumenius adduces this inter- 
pretation alongside of the previous one) which had occurred among the 
Philippians, as Paul might have learned from Epaphroditus and 
otherwise.’ 

Ver. 11. [XXII f. g.] Obviating of a misunderstanding.—oby 6r:) as in 
iii. 12: my meaning is not, that I say this tn 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 xaré, secundum, 
in the sense of propter, see Kuhner, II. 1, p. 418, and ad Xen. Mem. i. 8. 
12. According to van Hengel’s interpretation: “ué more receptum eat 
penuriae, s. hominibus penuria oppressis,” xardé, could not have been 
united with an abstract noun (Rom. iii. 5, e al.).—tyo yép éuabov «.7.A.] for I, 
as regards my part (although it may be different with others), have learned 
in the circumstances, in which I find myself, to be self-contented, that is, to 
have enough independently without desiring aid from others. It is 
evident from the reason thus assigned that in ovy. dr: xa? dor, A. he has 
meant not the objective, but the sulyective state of need.—éyw] with noble 
self-consciousness, there being no need to supply, with Bengel, “in tot 
adversis.”—éuafov] signifies the having learned by experience (comp. Plat. 
Symp. p. 182 C: épy d2 rovro éuafov xai ol évOdde ropavvo:), and all that 
accordingly he can, he owes to the strengthening influence of Christ, ver. 


Hofmann's objection, that ¢povety éwi ren 
means: to be proud about something. This 
objection, put thus generally, is even in itself 
incorrect. For ¢povety éwi reve does not in 
itself mean: to be proud about something, but 
only receives this signification through the 
addition of uéya, ueydéAa, or some similar 
more precise definition (Plat. Theaet. p. 149 
D, Ale. 1. p. 104 C, Prot. p. 342 D, Sympos. p. 
217 A: Dem. 181. 16, 836, 10), eithér expressly 
specified or directly suggested by the con- 
text. Very artificial, and for the simple 
reader hardly discoverable, is the view under 
which Hofmann takes the fact expressed by 
nat éppoveire as the ground,“ upon, or on account 
of, which their re-emergence from an unfavorable 
position has been a revival unto care for him.” 
If the reference of 颰 ¢ to 7d uwip éuod were 


not directly given in the text, it would be 
much simpler to take ¢¢' ¢ as in Rom. v. 12, 
Phil. iii. 12, 2 Cor. v. 4, in the sense of propte- 
rea quod, and that as a 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 pre- 
vious omission had been caused not by any 
lack of the ¢povetv in question, but by the 
unfavorableness of the times. 

1Diod. exe. Mai. p. 30; Phot, Suid. The 
opposite: «vxapeiy, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
125. 

£Comp. evxatpety rots Bios in Polyb. xv. 21. 
2, xxxii. 21.12; and also the mere evxa:peiy in 
the same sense, iv. 60. 10; evxarpia: xv. 31. 7, 
i. 50.7; axacpia: Plat. Legg. iv. p.709A; Dem. 
16.4; Polyb. iv. 44. 11. : 


176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


13.—év oi¢ eins] tn the situation, in which I find myself.' Not merely his 
position then, but, generally, every position in which he finds himself, is 
meant, although it is not exactly to be taken as: “in quocunque statu sim” 
(Raphel, Wetstein, and others), which would be ungrammatically 
expressed. In opposition to the context (see ver. 12), Luther: among 
whom (o’, masculine) I am. As to atrdépxea as applied to persons, the 
subjective self-sufficing, by means of which a man does not make the satis- 
faction of his needs dependent upon others, but finds it in himself, comp. 
Ecclus. xl. 18; Xen. Mem. iv. 7.1; Dem. 450. 14; Stob. v. 43; and see on 
2 Cor. ix. 8. 

Ver. 12. Paul now specifies this his airépxea (in Plat. Def. p. 412 B, 
termed redecérng xrhoewe ayabiv).—volda}] I understand how (1 Thess. iv.4; Col. 
iv.6; 1 Tim. iii. 5; Matt. vii. 11; Soph. Aj. 666 f.; Anth. Pal. vii. 440. 5 
ff.) ;* result of the éuaov.—xal rarewv.] also to be abased, namely, by want, 
distress, and other alloted circumstances which place the person affected 
by them in the condition of abasement. Paul understands this, inasmuch 
as he knows how to bear himself in the right attitude to such alloted cir- 
cumstances, namely, in such a 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 xad repioceberw 

‘is to be understood analogously, of the right attitude to the matter, so that 
one is not led away by abundance to find his satisfaction in the latter 
instead of in himself. Pelagius well says: “ut nec abundantia eztollar, 
nec frangar inopia.”—The first xai adds to the general év oi¢ eiu 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 repiooevew nal dorepeioba, for tarecvovoda: is & more comprehensive idea than 
the counterpart of repicceberv, and also contains a figurative conception. 
Some such expression as tyoicfa: would have been adequate as the con- 
trast of rarecv. (Matt. xxiii. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 7; Phil. ii. 8,9; Polyb. v. 26. 12). 
There is a lively versatility of conception, from not perceiving which some 
have given to this repisceberv (to have a superfluity) the explanation excellere 
(Erasmus, Vatablus, Calvin), or to rarecv. the meaning to be poor, to be in 
pitiful plight, dAtyou xexpzo8a, Theophylact (Estius, and others; comp. also 
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Rheinwald, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
de Wette, Hofmann), which even the LXX., Lev. xxv. 39, does not justify. 
—In what follows, év ravr? «. év waéor is not to be regarded as belonging to 
tarecvovoba: and mepicoevew (Hofmann), but is to be joined with peytnpa:. 
We are dissuaded from the former connection by the very repetition of 
the olda; and the latter is recommended by the great emphasis, which 
rests upon éy ravri x. év rao heading the last clause, as also by the cor- 
relative mévra at the head of ver. 13. Further, no comma is to be placed 
after pepvnpat, Nor is év ravri.. . weuvnpyat to be explained as meaning: “ énto 


18ee examples in Wetstein and Kypke; seat in the character. Comp. Ameis, Anh. s. 
comp. also Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 131. Hom. Od. ix. 189. 
3It is the moral understanding, having its 


CHAP. IV. 12, 13. 177 


everything I am initiated,” and then kai yopréfecGa: x.r.A. as elucidating the 
notion of “ everything”: “cum re qualicunque omnibusque, tam saturitate 
et fame, quam abundantia et penuria, tantam contraxi familiaritatem, 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 ravri and waow. This view is at 
variance with the fact, that pveiofa: has that into which one is initiated 
expressed not by means of év, but—and that most usually—in the accusa- 
tive (Herod. ii. 51; Plat. Gorg. p. 497 C, Symp. p. 209 E; Aristoph. Phu. 
845 (éupveica:); Lucian, Philop. 14), or in the dative (Lucian, Demon. 11), 
or genitive (Heliod. i. 17; Herodian, i. 18. 16); hence ray «x. révra, or ravri 
kK. Waoty, OY wavrog x. wévTwv Must have been written (in 3 Macc. ii. 80, it has 
xaté with the accusative). No; Paul says that tn everything and tn all, that 
is, under every relation that may occur and in all circumstances, he ts 
initiated into, that is, made completely familiar with, as well the being satis- 
fied, as the being hungry, as well the having superflutty 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 airépxye elva:. ‘Ev ravrl x. dv maou is 
accordingly to be taken after the analogy of év oi¢ ei, ver. 11, and there- 
' fore as neuter. It was purely arbitrary to render év ravri: ubtque (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 zavri correctly as neuter, but make 
rao (as in 2 Cor. xi. 6) masculine (Bengel: “respectu omnium homi- 
num”). It is not necessary to supply anything to either of the two words; 
and as to the alternation of the singular and plural, which only indicates 
the total absence of any exception (comp. analogous expressions in 
‘Lobeck, Paral. p. 56 ff.), there is no occasion for artificial explanation.— 
In German we say: in Allem und Jedem [in all and each]. Comp. on éy 
maot on Col. i. 18. With strange arbitrariness Hofmann makes év ravri x. 
évy raoc denote everything that is a necessary of life (in detail and in whole). 
In that case certainly the contrast of yoprdéf. and sewayv is unsuitable !— 
peubnuac] the proper word for the various grades of initiation into the 
mysteries! is here used in a figurative sense, like initiatum esse, of a special, 
unusual, not by every one attainable, familiar acquaintance with some- 
thing? The opposite is azéyroc.—The climax should here be noticed, 
&uabov ...oida ... peubnua. Ver. 13 places beyond doubt to whom the 
apostle owes this lofty spiritual superiority over all outward circum- 
stances. As to the later form zewav instead of resp, see Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 61; Jacobs, ad Ael. II. p. 261. 

Ver. 13. After the special statement, the consciousness of the atrépxea 
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 !—icyt.] 


1 Casaubon, Exere. Baron. p. 390 ff.; Lobeck, *8ee Munthe, Obes. p. 383; Jacoba, ad Anthol, 
Agtaoph. I. p. 38 ff. III. p. 488. * 
12 


178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


[XXII h.] of moral strength, homogeneous as to category with éuafoy in 
ver. 11, and with oida and pepvinua: in ver. 12, because these predicates also 
were dynamically meant, of the understanding of ethical practice. There 
is therefore the less reason for limiting wévra 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. évra is the accusative of the object. Gal. v. 6; Jas. v. 
16. The opposite to it: pydév icxtwor, Plat. Crit. p. 50 B, Ael. V. H. xii. 
22, et al.—tv rg évduv. pe} Not in his own human ability does Paul feel this 
power, but it has ita basis in Christ, whose dtvauc 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 éy r@ xpdree rie iaxbor 
avrov, Eph. vi. 10. 

Ver. 14. Ag] Nevertheless (1 Cor. xi. 11; Eph. v. 38), apart from the 
fact that with such moral power I am equal to all emergencies, and there- 
fore, as far as want is concerned, do not need aid (comp. ver.11). ‘“ Cavet, 
ne fortiter loquendo contemsisse ipsorum beneficium videatur,” Calvin. 
Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact.—xadéc] in the moral sense.—ovyxorv, 
pou TH OAip.) characterizes the work according to its high ethical value (pa 
cogiav, wig éraipes td mpayva, Theophylact): that ye became partakers with 
me in my affliction. [XXIIi.] 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 @iyc. Comp. Rom. xii. 13. It is a practical participation, and not 
merely that of feeling and emotion. Comp. Eph. v.11; Rev. xviii. 4, i. 9. 
By ry 6aiy., 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 
ovyxowv. (Eph. v.11; Rev. xviii. 4; Rom. xii. 18, xv. 27, a al.); and pov is, 
in accordance with the well-known usage, to be taken as if yo: were in the 
text (comp. on ii. 2).!' The aorist participle coincides as to time with érxochoare 
(see on Eph. i. 9); as to the participle with xaddc roveiv, see Winer, p. 328 f. 
[E. T. 345]. 

Ver. 15 f. A courteous recalling of the fact, that in the very beginning of 
the gospel the Philippians had distinguished themselves by such manifestation 
of love towards Paul—déé] carrying the discourse onward: But what ye 
have done connects itself with a relation into which, as ye also know, no 
other church, but yours only, placed itself to me at the very first !—vidare 
dé x.7.A.) but it is known also to you, Philippians, that, etc. Hofmann very 
erroneously derives the object of oidare from what precedes, and takes br: 
in the sense of because. He makes the apostle say, namely, to the Philip- 
pians: That they had done well in helpfully taking part in his affliction 
they knew also, as 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 explanation is erroneous, because invariably where 
olda (oldayev, oidare, x.r.A.) ig accompanied, not with an accusative of the 


2 And Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 C, Symp. p. 215 ©. 


oHap. tv. 14, 15. 179 


object, but with 5r:, the latter conveys the contents (thaf), and not the 
reason or the cause (because), of the olda (comp. i. 19, 25; Rom. iii. 2; 1 
Cor. iii. 16, xii. 2; Gal. iv. 18, and innumerable other passages); secondly, 
because the previously attested «gid érocpoare, while perfectly suitable to 
be expressed by the grateful apostle, was not so suited to be transferred to 
the consciousness of the donors, to which it was self-evident, and to be ap- 
pealed to by them; thirdly, because the «aé/ in the alleged reference to 
other churches would be very unsuitable, since the question here con- 
cerns merely a work of love of the Phikppians, 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 
oidare, instead of abiding strictly by the concrete xadée érogoare as its 
object; finally, it would be strange and not in keeping with the thoughtful 
manner of the apostle, to furnish the idea: “ye know that ye did well 
therein’ (which oldare is supposed to convey) with the altogether exter- 
nal specification of a ground for it: “because ye have already formerly 
and repeatedly supported me.” The contents attributed by Hofmann to 
oidare needed no assignment of a causal ground, or—if any—one internal, 
ethical, and in harmony with the subtle delicacy of the apostle-—Observe, 
moreover, in connection with oldare «x. tpeic, that in that which the 
readers also know (consequently in érc «.r.A.) the stress lies upon the 
negative ovdeula x.7.A.—xai dpeic] ye also, as I.\—*:Arwrgowor) 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 
bre tpeic, ScAewr.), but in his increasing earnestness. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 11.— 
éy apxp rt. 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, tn relation to 
the present and to the wider development of the church now attained, as still 
belonging to the period of the beginning of the gospel. Comp. Clement. 
Cor. I. 47. An epexegetical more precise definition of this expression— 
which does not betray the hand of a later author (Hinsch)—for the date 
intended is: dre 2£7Afov ard Maxed., when I departed from Macedonia, Acts 
xvii. 14. Paul, therefore, immediately on leaving that country, received aid 
from the infant church, when the brethren ray IlaiAow éfaréorecAav 
mopevecbas oc évi tiv OdAaccav and jyayov iwc 'AOyvov, Acts l.c. Doubtless 
the money which Paul subsequently received in Corinth (see 2 Cor. xi. 9) 
through Macedonian delegates was sent, if not exclusively, at least joinily 
by the Philippians, so that they thereby gave continued active proof of the 
fellowship cic Adyov déc. x. Afp., into which they had entered with the 
apostle at his very departure. But this receipt of money at Corinth is not 
the fact meant by éxo:vévncev «.r.A.,in which case &£10v would have to 


1To express this, Paul was not atall under different conception, namely: ye know with- 
the necessity of writing oi8are avroi,as Hof- out my reminding you (Acts ii. 22; 1 Thess. fi. 
mann objects. The latter would convey a it, ili. 3; 3 Thess. iii. 7). 


180 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


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. 
275]; for the latter would be the more unwarranted in the context, see- 
ing that Paul himself by é& apyg rov evayy. carries them back to the 
earliest time possible, and indeed afterwards (ver. 16) to a period even 
antecedent to the dre é&jAGov. The aorist, however, has its justification in 
this purely historical statement of fact, although the imperfect also, but 
following a different conception, might—not, however (in opposition to 
Hofmann’s objection), must—have been used.—éxowdvyoty eig Abdyov décewe 
x. Aipp.] [XXII j.] entered into fellowship with me in reference to account of 
giving and receiving—a euphemistic indication, calculated to meet the 
sense of delicacy in the readers, of the thought: “ has entered into the rela- 
tion of furnishing aid towards me.” On xowuveiv cic, comp. on i. 5. The 
analysis of the figurative description is this: The Philippians keep an 
account of expenditure on Paul and income from him; and the apostle like- 
wise keeps account of his expenditure on the Philippians and income from 
them. This mutual account-keeping, in which the déo¢ on the one part, 
agrees with the Ac on the other, is the xowwvia cig Adyov x.7.A. It is 
true that in this case no money-amount is entered in the account of the 
Philippians under the heading of Ayic, or the account of the apostle under 
the heading of dée:¢ ; 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 déc. and 
Any. apply to Paul alone (Schrader), or that déceug applies to the Philip- 
pians and Afy. to Paul (“Ego sum in vestris expensi tabulis, vos in meis 
accepti,” Grotius; comp. Erasmus, Camerarius, Casaubon, Castalio, and 
others, including Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, 
Ewald); for the words require the idea of an account under both headings 
on the side of both parties. Others, maintaining indeed this reciprocity, 
but arbitrarily introducing ideas from 1 Cor. xi. 11, comp. Rom. xv. 27, 
consider that the dée¢ on the part of the apostle, and the Asyic on the 
part of the Philippians, consisted in the spiritual benefits brought about by 
the preaching of the gospel (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pel- 
agius, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Zanchius, Zeger, Estius, Hammond, 
Wiesinger, Weiss, Hofmann, and others); whilst others, again, import 
into the words the thought: “Quae a Philippensibus accepit in rationes 
Dei remuneratoris refert Paulus” (Wetstein, Rosenmuller; comp. Wolf, 
Schoettgen, and already Ambrosiaster). Rheinwald finds the Asc of 
the Philippians and the déoc¢ of the apostle even in the assumption that 
he also had assisted them, namely, out of the sums of money collected in 
the churches,—an error which is at variance with the context, and which 
ought to have been precluded both by the prominence given to the state- 
ment of the date, and also by the exclusion of all other churches, as well 
as by the inappropriateness of the mention Just in this passage of such a 
Asus on the part of the Philippians.—On Adyoc, ratio, account, comp. Matt. 
xii. 86; Luke xvi. 2; Rom. xiv. 12; 1 Macc. x. 40; Dem. 227. 26; Diod. 


CHAP. Iv. 16. 181 
Sic. i. 49; Polyb. xv. 34. 2. The rendering which takes ei¢ Adyov: in 
respect to (Bengel, Heinrichs, Storr, Matthies, van Hengel, Rilliet, Liine- 
mann), would no doubt be linguistically correct,’ but is to be rejected 
on account of the context, as expressions of accounting follow (comp. Cic. 
Lael. 16: “ratio acceptorum e datorum”). For instances from Greek 
writers Of déo¢ nai App (Ecclus. xli. 14, xlii. 7) as expenditure and income, 
see Wetstein.* As to the corresponding {Nd) RwD, see Schoettgen, Hor. p. 
804. 

Ver. 16. Orc] since, indeed, ye also already in Thessalonica, etc. It is argu- 
mentative, namely, outbidding the early definition of date é apxyj... 
Maxedoviacs, in ver. 15, by one even antecedent, and thus serving more amply 
to justify that specification of time,’ for which purpose the 4r: specifying 
the reason was quite sufficient, and (in opposition to Hofmann’s objec- 
tion) no yép was necessary. The opinion of Wiesinger, that dre «.r.A. is 
intended to explain that it was only with the aid sent after Paul at a dis- 
tance that the readers had entered into such a connection with the 
apostle as is previously mentioned, is bound up with the untenable inter- 
pretation of é&48ov as pluperfect. The rendering of ére by that (Rhein- 
wald, Matthies, Hoelemann, van Hengel, Rilliet, de Wette, Liinemann, 
Weiss) is to be set aside, because, while the emphatic oldare xa? iyeic, 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 ... tome! ”’), 
to which it would stand in an illogical relation, even apart from the un- 
called-for inversion of the order of time, which would result. Hofmann’s ex- 
planation, which makes 6r: in ver. 16 parallel to the 3r: in ver. 15 and places 
it in causal relation to oidare, falls with his erroneous view of ver. 15.—The 
xai before év Oeocad., 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.‘—év Oecoad.] is not used, in the sense of the 
bearers having arrived, for eic, for there is no certain instance of arooréA- 
Aew or réurew with év in this sense (Thuc. vii. 17 must, with Becker and 
Kriiger, be read: é¢ rjv Zixediav); but the preposition is used from the 
standpoint of the receiver : ‘also at Thessalonica (when I was there) ye sent 
tome.” Thus this sending took place in Thessalonica.°—xai araf xai dig] 
Comp. 1 Thess. 11.18. The conception is: “when the first aid arrived, 
the éréupare had taken place once ; when the second arrived, it had taken 
place both once and twice.” Paul has not written dic merely, nor yet araé 


1 Dem. 885. 11; 2 Macc. i. 14; and see Krfl- _—‘iio, and others) have thought. \ This view is 


ger on Thue. iii. 46. 3. 


2Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 332 A. B: 9 awddons . 


K. H Anes. 

3If Baur had noticed this correct logical 
connection, he would not have made an im- 
proper use of our passage to fortify his opinion 
of the affair of the aid being an invented inci- 
dent.—The same assistance which is meant ip 
ver. 15 cannot be meant in ver. 16, as some 
not attending to the «ai (comp. Luther, Casta- 


also at variance with the specification of time 
bre éfnAOov, ver. 15; for Paul abode several 
weeks in Thessalonica (Acta xvii. 2), and then 
there still followed his sojourn in Beroea 
(Acts xvii. 10ff.), ere he quitted Macedonia 
and traveled to Athens. 

4See Hartung, Partik. I. p. 135; Kdahner, 
II. 2, p. 797. 

’Comp. on Matt. x. 16; Poppo and Kriger 
on Thuc. iv. 27. 1. 





182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


x. dig (1 Macc. iii. 30; Xen. Anabd. iv. 7. 10), but by «ai am. x. dig he sets 
forth the repetition of the matter more emphatically, to the praise of his 
readers-(Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 144).'—eic +. ypeiav] on behalf of the neces- 
sity, in order to satisfy it; comp. ii. 15. The article indicates the neces- 
sity that had been existing in Paul’s case. On répypa, used absolutely, 
comp. Acts xi. 29. What they sent, they knew. 

Ver. 17. Just as in ver. 11 Paul anticipated a possible misunderstand- 
ing in respect to ver. 10, so here in reference to the praises contained in 
ver. 14 ff. This, he would say, is not the language of material desire, 
but, etc.—oby dre x.7.A.] as in ver. 11: I do not mean by this to convey 
that my desire is directed towards the gift (the emphasis being laid on ré 
déua)—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 
émi{yte denotes the constant and characteristic striving after (Bernhardy, p. | 
370): it is not my business, etc. The compound verb indicates by éri the 
direction. Comp. on ér:rofé, i. 8, and on Matt. vi. 883; Rom. xi.7. The 
view which regards it as strengthening the simple verb (studiose quaero, 80 
Hoelemann and others) is not implied in the context any more than the 
sense: insuper quaero (Polyb. i. 5. 3); so van Hengel, who indelicately, 
and notwithstanding the article, explains rd déua as still more gifts —adr’ 
éxi{nta] The repetition of the verb after ajAé makes the contrast stand 
out independently with special emphasis; comp. Rom. viii. 15; 1 Cor. ii. 
7; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 1387.—rdv xapriv «.7.A.] This is what Paul 
desires, towards which his wishes and endeavors are directed : the frust 
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 
émiCyreiv devoid of any selfish aim,—which, however, would not be the case, 
if the érfyrd 7d déua were true. This applies against Hofmann’s objec- 
tion, that the xapré¢ must be something which Paul himself desires to 
have ; the notion of ém{yro 1s anquiro, appeto, and this indeed applies to 
personal possession in the negative half of the sentence; but then the 
second half expresses the real state of the case, which does away with the 
notion of selfishness.—The xapréc itself cannot be the fruit of the gospel 
(Ewald), or of the labor of the apostle (Weiss) ; but, in accordance with the 
context, only the fruit of the déua, that is, the blessing which accrues from 
the gift to the givers; comp. on ver. 15. By this is meant? the divine re- 
compense at the judgment (2 Cor. ix. 6), which they will then receive, as if 
it were the product of their account, for their labor of love (Matt. xxv. 
34 ff.). This produce of their déua is figuratively conceived as fruit, 
which is largely placed to the credit of their account, in order to be 
drawn by them at the day of harvest (comp. also Gal. vi. 7 ff.). Comp. 


1Comp. «ai 8is xai rpis, Plat. Phaed. p. 63 blus, Musculus, Piscator, Zanchius; Flatt and 
D, Phil. p. 59 E; Herod. ii. 121, iii. 148. The |Rheinwald mingle together heterogeneous 
opposite: obx drag ovdé dis, Plat. Clit. p. ideas); for only the fruit of the déua can be 
410 B. meant, not the 8due itself as fruit, which fs 

9 Not the active manifestation of the Christian produced in the shape of the love gift (Hof- 
life (Matthies, Rilliet, Hofmann; comp. Vata- mann). 


CHAP. Iv. 17, 18. 183 


ver. 19. In substance it is the treasure in heaven that is meant (Matt. xix. 
21, vi. 20), which will be received at the Parousia. Comp. on Col. i. 5. 
The figurative cig Adyov tuov, which here also is not to be understood, 
with Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Rilliet, and others, as equivalent to ele pac, is 
the completion of the figure in ver. 15; although there is no need to ex- 
plain xaprég as interest (Salmasius, Michaelis, who thinks in rAcovdl. of 
compound interest, Zachariae, Heinrichs), because it is difficult to see why 
Paul, if he used ¢his figure, should not have applied to it the proper 
term (réxoc), and because the idea of tnéerest is quite alien to that of the 
déua (a present).—r. wAcovdl. et¢ Adyov ivov] [XXII k.] to be taken 
together (see above); ei¢ states the destination of the mdeovaf. Wan Hen- 
gel and de Wette needlessly break up the passage by coupling ei¢ Ady. iz. 
with ém{nyrd, because ricovdfew with cic is not used elsewhere by Paul 
(not even 2 Thess. i. 3). The preposition is in fact not determined by the 
word in itself, but by its logical reference, and may therefore be any one 
which the reference requires. 

Ver. 18. [XXII] Aé] The train of thought is: “not the gift do I 
seek, but the fruit (ver. 17); and as regards what has been received from 
you in the present instance, I have everything already, and need nothing 
further.”’ That this refers to the desire of the church to know what he 
possibly still needed (Hofmann), is a very unnecessary assumption.— 
avéyw d2 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 epiocebw (Rheinwald); but, in keep- 
ing with the sense of the compound: I have everything away, so that I 
have nothing left to desire at your hands.’ [dvra, therefore, according 
to the context (ém{yrd 1. déua, ver. 17), is: everything which I could desire, 
although there is no necessity for introducing specially, with Chrysostom 
and Oecumenius, ra éAAegOévra év tH mapeAfdvte xypdvy. The emphasis, 
moreover, is laid, not on mdvra, but on azxéyzo, in contrast to érifyreiv.— 
kal wepicoeiw} and my wants are thus so fully satisfied, that I have over.— 
revAnpouat| forms a climax to repioo.: Tam full, I have abundance. The 
gift must have been ample; but gratitude sets this forth in all the 
stronger a light. To merAgp. is attached defduevog x.7.A.—oopi ebudiac 
«.t.4.] This apposition to rd rap’ tuév, expressing a judgment as to the 
latter (see on Rom. xii. 1), sets forth, to the honor of the givers, the rela- 
tion in which the gifts received stand towards God, by whom they are 
esteemed as a sacrifice well-pleasing to Him. As to Gop? eiwdlac, smell of a 
sweet savor, "IV} 10" (genitive of quality), which is used of free-will offer- 
ings, see on Eph. v. 2. It describes the thing according to its effect on 
God, namely, that it is acceptable to Him; @6vsiav x.r.4., however, describes 
it according to what it is.—dexryv, ebdpeot.] acceptable, well-pleasing, a 
vividly asyndetic climax (on the former, comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 7); ro Oe, 
however, applies to the whole apposition dcp ... evap. The asyndetic 


1Comp. Philem. 15; Matt. vi.2,5,16; Luke iti. 24. 17; Jacobs. ad Anthol. VIL pp. 276, 
vi. 24; Callim. ep. 22; Arrian. Epict. iii.2.18, 208. 





184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 
juxtaposition of several epithets is frequent also in classical authors, from 
Homer onward.' As to the view, originating in the O. T., which regards 
works well-pleasing to God as ethical sacrifices, see the expositors on 
Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii.5; Heb. xiii. 16. 

Ver. 19. The thought starts from 76 Oeg. But God, to whom your 
gift stands in the relation of such a sacrifice, will recompense you.—Paul 
says 6 d2 Ged 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), therefore, 
will God carry out the recompense.—Anpdoe:] used with significant ref- 
erence to rexAgp., ver. 18, according to the idea of recompense. Not, 
however, a wish (hence also in Codd. and in the Vulgate the reading 
mwAnpéoa), as Chrysostom, Luther, and others take it, but a promise.— 
macav ypeiav tov] likewise corresponding to the service which the 
readers had rendered; for they had sent ei¢ ry ypelav (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 fulfillment 
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 ouwr7pia, the highest satisfaction of 
every need (comp. on dnp. xpeiav, Thue. i. 70. 4, and Wetstein in loc.) 
shall have set in amidst the full, blessed sufficiency of the eternal (w7 
(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 yopraothoccfe and yeAdoere, Luke vi. 21, also the ov 
pH dupjog et¢ rdv aidva in John iv. 14, and the sarcastic xexopeopévo: in 1 
Cor. iv. 8. That it is the Messianic satisfaction in the éAevOepia rig d6En¢ 
tov téxvev rov Oeov (Rom. viii. 21), in the possession of the rAovrog ric 
d6En¢ TH KAnpovopiag avrov (Eph. i. 18), which is to be thought of, Paul 
himself states by év dé&, which is to be taken as instrumental (Eph. i. 23, 
v. 18) and dependent on zAnp.: with glory, whereby the Messianic is indi- 
cated. Hofmann also, though he rejects the instrumental view, comes 
ultimately to it: “ Therewith and thus will God fulfill all their need, tn thut 
He gives them glory.”* Others, who also correctly join the words with 


1 Ameis 2. Od. iv., Ank.. 

2Comp. Philo, de vit. Mos. II. p. 151: 2 ydp 
dAnOns icpoupyia ris dy cin wARY Wuxas Ceopsdous 
evodBeca; passages from the Rabbine in 
Bchoettg. Hor. p. 1006. 

3 Hofmann very irrelevantly objects that it 
is out of place to speak of want in that king- 
dom. But just, in fact, on that account is the 
bliss of the kingdom the complete satisfaction 
of every need. Comp. Rev. vii. 16 f.; 2 Tim. iv. 
7f. Thus also is the perfect then put in the 
place of that which is in part. Consequently 
the idea of the satisfaction of every xpeia in 


eternal life, where man even beholds God, and 
where He is all in all, isanything but a “ mon- 
strous thought.” 

4In order, however, to bring out of the pas- 
sage, notwithstanding this ¢» 8é€p, the idea 
of a recompense in this life, Hofmann makes 
ééfa mean the glory of the children of God 
which is hidden from the world, and which is the 
fulfillment of every want only in proportion 
“as there is lacking inus 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 


CHAP. Iv. 19-28. 185 


nAgp., take them as a modal definition: in a glorious way, that is, amply, 
splendide, and the like. See Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and many others, in- 
cluding 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 expres- 
sion 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 tt a hearty 
recompense, which was to take place, moreover, év Xpur@ ‘I7oos! 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 iy 
é6&y with 1rd rAoctro¢ airov (Grotius, Storr, Flatt, Rheinwald, and others) : 
“pro amplissimis suis divittis, id est, potestate sua omnia excedente,”’ 
Heinrichs. It is true that év dé& might be attached without a connect- 
ing article (according to the combination mAovreiy éy rev, 1 Tim. vi. 8; 
comp. 1 Cor. i. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 11); but Paul always connects wAotrog with 
the genitive of the thing, and sActro¢ ric éégn¢ in particular, said of God, 
is 80 constantly used by him, that it seems altogether unwarranted to as- 
sume the expression rAovroc év défy in this passage. See Rom. ix. 23; 
Eph. i. 18, iii. 16; Col. i. 27. He would have written: xara 1d rAovroc 
rig d6&n¢ abtov, comp. Rom. ix. 28.—xara rd wAovto¢ abrov] that is, $n con- 
formity with His being a0 rich, and consequently having so much to give. 
Comp. Rom. x. 12, xi. 88. This assures what is promised.—y Xpiorg 
"Iootv) definition annexed to wAnpdon .. . dé&g; that which is promised. 
has its causal ground in Christ, who by His work has acquired for be- 
lievers the eternal défa. Christ is, in fact, 9 éAmie rig d6€y¢, Col. i. 27. 

Ver. 20. The conception of the superabundant salvation, which Paul 
has just promised from God, forces from his heart a dozology.—rarpi] 
through Christ, in virtue of our woGecia, Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 5. As tor. 
Oep x. warpi iu. comp. on Gal. i. 5.—7 déga] sc. eln, the befitting glory. See 
on Eph. iii. 21; Rom. xi. 86, xvi. 27, 4 al.—eig rode aid. roy aldy.) 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. 21-28. Iévra dytov] every one, no one in the church being excepted, 
—a point which is more definitely expressed by the singular.\—é» X. 'I.] 
is not to be joined to dy:ov (so usually, as by Rheinwald, Hoelemann, 
Matthies, van Hengel, de Wette, Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann), but belongs to 
éoxéc. (comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), denoting the specifically 


great a weight in the very word of promise, 
which forms the conclusion of the epistle, lies 
tn the fact that the grand aim of all promise and 
hope, i.e. the glory of eternal life (Rom. v. 2, 
vili. 18, 21, ix. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 435; 2 Cor. iv. 17; 
Col. iii. 4; and many other passages), is once 
more presented to the reader's view. 


1S8ince Paul does not here express, as in 
other cases (Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Oor. xvi. 20; 2 
Cor. xiii. 12), the conception of mutual saluta- 
tion (&AAsAous), he has in dowdécec@e had in 
view the immediate recipients of the epistle 
(presbyters and deacons, i. 1). So also 1 
Theas. v. 26. 


186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


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. Lightfoot, and it is the right one, since 
with dyoy it is self-evident that Christians are meant, and there would be 
no motive for specially expressing this here, as there was, for instance, in 
the address i. 1, where roi¢ dyiow éy X. 'I. bears a certain formal character. 
—ol civ tuol adeAp.] is the narrower circle of those Christians who were 
round the apostle in Rome, including also the official colleagues who were 
with him, though there is no ground for understanding these alone (Chry- 
sostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and many others), Grotius even point- 
ing distinctly to Timothy, 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 wepi rev by rH wéAeK, or that Paul ob wapa:teiras xai robrove 
ddeAgode xadeiv (comp. Oecumenius, who brings forward the latter as a 
proof of the orAdyzva of the apostle). Misapprehending this second and 
in itself correct remark of Chrysostom, van Hengel insists on a distinction 
being drawn between two classes of companions in office, namely, travel- 
ing companions, such as Luke, Mark, Titus, Silas, and those who were 
resident in the places where the apostle sqjourned (among whom van Hengel 
reckons in Rome, Clement, Euodia, Syntyche, and even Epaphroditus), 
and holds that only the latter class is here meant. The limits of the 
narrower circle designated by ol civ éuol ad. are not at all to be definitely 
drawn. Estius well says: “Qui... mihi vincto ministrant, qui me visi- 
tant, qui mecum hic in evangelio laborant.”—wdvre¢ of adyioc}] generally, 
all Christians who are here; comp. on 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.— 
pdducta dé] but most of all, pre-eminently; they have requested the apostle 
to give special prominence to their salutation.’ 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 honor- 
able concerning the church to which he was about to write.—ol ix ri¢ 
Kaioapog oixiac] sc. dycot, a8 i8 plain from the connection with the preceding 
(in opposition to Hofmann): those from the emperor’s house (from the Pala- 
tium, see Bottger, Beitr. II. p. 49) who belong to the saints. We have to 
think of probably inferior servants of the emperor (according to Grotius, 
Hitzig, and others: freedmen), who dwelt, or at least 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 oixia the sense 
of domestic servants, a meaning which it does not bear even in Xen. Mem. 
ii. 7.6; Joseph. Ant. xvi. 5. 8; and Tac. Hist. ii. 92;* domestic servants 


1Comp. Plat. Critias, p.108 D: rove re GAAovs = service of the emperor: “in domum Cucsaris 
aayrdoy cai 8% ai ra paddiora Mynnoovvny. transgressi.” Comp. Herodian, iii. 10. 9: 
2 Where it is said of those whoentered the spiv cis roy Bacirctor olxop sapedbeiv 


CHAP, Iv. 21-23. 187 
would be oixereta. Others have taken oixia, in accordance with current 
usage, as family (1 Cor. xvi. 15, and frequently), and have understood kins- 
men of the emperor, 8 meaning which in itself seems by no means shown 
by Philo tn 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 dimin- 
ished, and that conversions among those related to the emperor were a 
priori (comp. also 1 Cor. i. 26 ff.) very improbable, doubtless some histori- 
cal traces of such a striking success would have been preserved in 
tradition.* Matthies, quite arbitrarily, understands the Praeforians, as if 
Paul had written: oi é« rov mpa:tupiov (i. 13). This also applies, in oppo- 
sition to Wieseler, Chronol. d. apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420, who, considering the 
Praetorium to be a portion of the palace (see remark on i. 18), thinks the 
apostle alludes especially to the Praetorians. Those who transfer the 
epistle to Caesarea (see Introduction, 32), suppose the Praetorium of Herod 
in that place to be intended, and consequently also think of Praetorians, 
Acts xxiii. 85 (Paulus, Bottger); or (so Rilliet) taking oixia as familia, of 
administrators of the imperial private domain, called Cuesariani or Pro- 
curatores—a view against which the plural should have warned them; or 
even of “the family of the imperial freedman Fels’ (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 


1 For in Philo J. . it is said regarding Herod 
Agrippa: “ Even though he were not king, but 
only one of the emperor's kinsmen (é« ry 
Kaigapos oixias), it would still be necessary to 
prefer and honor him.” fF 

2Whether Chrysostom and his successors 
understood here members of the imperial fam- 
ily, is a matter of doubt. At all events Chry- 
rostom does not take the word itself, oixia, as 
family, but explains it by ra BaciAeaa, palace, 
and finds in the salutation a purpose of en- 
couragement: ei yap ot év Trois BamtAeios waw 
Twy careppovygay &4 Toy PaciAda THY CUparey, 
wodAw MGAAOY avrovs xpi TOVTO worety. Comp. 
Theodoret, Oecumentus, Theophylact. 

2 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 tra- 
dition, the latter also must have been a kins- 
man of the imperial family, as indeed the 
Homil. Clement. iv. 7, comp. xiv. 10, designate 
him as avnp wpos yévovs TiPepiov Kaioapos. 
He, therefore, would be exactly the man, in 
whom Christianity was represented in the 
circle of the imperial house itself. “Con- 
cluding from one that there were several, 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,” etc. Thus does criticism, depart- 
ing from the solid ground of history, lose it- 
self in the atmosphere of subjective inven- 
tions, where hypothesis finds no longer either 
support or limit. Indeed, Baur now goes 
further beyond all bounds (II. p. 69), and dis- 
covers that the mention of Clement even 
throws a new light over the whole plan of the 
epistle. With this Clement, namely, and the 
participation, as attested by him, of the impe- 
rial house in the gospel, is given the spoxow) 
Tov evayy. (i. 12), and with the latter the feel- 
ing of joyfulness, which expresses itself 
throughout the epistle as the ground-tone of 
the apostle (ii. 17 f., comp. ffi. 1, fv. 1, 4, 10), and 
which is again and again the refrain of each 
separate section. Only by the preponderance 
of this feeling is it to be explained that the 
author makes his apostle even express the 
hope of a speedy liberation (ii. 24). But with 
this joy there is also blended, with a neutral- 
izing effect, the idea of a nearly approaching 
death, i. 20-24, and this divided state of mind 
between life and death betrays an author 
“who had already before his eyes as an actual 
Jact the end of the apostle, which was so far from 
harmonizing with all these presuppositions.” 
#See generally on “ Paul and Seneca,” and 
the spocryphal fourteen Latin letters ex- 


188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


well known to the Philippians or became known to them through Epaph- 
roditus. The general result is, that people from the imperial palace were 
Christians, and that those could obtain access to the apostle probably with 
special ease and frequency ; hence their especial salutation. The question 
also, whether one or another of the persons saluted in Rom. xvi. should 
be understood as included here (see especially J. B. Lightfoot, p. 173 ff), 
must remain entirely undecided. Calvin, moreover, well points to the 
working of the divine mercy, in that the gospel “in illam scelerum 
omnium et flagitiorum abyssum penetraverit.”—#} xzdpu 7. cup. I. X.] see 


on Gal. i. 6.—yerd révrov iv.] Comp. Rom. xvi. 24; 1 Cor. xvi.'24; 2 Cor. 
xili. 18; 2 Théss. iii. 18; Tit. iii. 15. 


Nores py AMERICAN EDITror. 
XX. Vv. 1-3. 


(a) The direct connection of Sore is, evidently, with the verses immediately 
preceding, and through them with iii. 17. The exhortation of that verse, how- 
ever, is founded, as we must believe, upon the verses which next precede it—at 
least, upon vv. 12-16; and as these verses are but the development of what goes 
before them, the thought is carried back to the early part of the third chapter.— 
(b) ovrwe orfxere. The connection being as above, ctrwe must refer to a standing 
fast in the Lord after the same manner with himself, and thus after the manner 
indicated in the preceding chapter, especially vv. 7-11 and 12-16. The allusion 
in iii. 20 to the fact that “our voAlrevua is in heaven” as a reason for their imi- 
tating him, may possibly suggest that the Apostle had still in his mind the thought 
of rotirebecde aging tov evayyediov (i. 27)—but soAirevza probably varies in its 
immediate sense here from that found in the verb of i. 27. The same thing may 
possibly be suggested, also, by the fact, that, as he turns to individual exhortations 
in ver. 2 ff, his first expression is ppoveiv rd avré (comp. ii. 2).—(c) The fact that 
a digression or an inserted passage begins with iii. 2 and extends through the third 
chapter, or even includes iv. 1, and the fact that ver. 4 takes up the closing words 
of iii. 1 a, yalpere ev xvpiy, point to the conclusion that vv. 2, 3 have a somewhat 
closer connection with ver. 1, and thus that the exhortations of these verses are 
special ones to the individuals named, which are deemed essential to their stand- | 
ing in the Lord as they should.—(d) The view of Meyer with regard to the word 
obfuye is adopted by Canon Farrar (Life of St. Paul) and considered favorably by 
Alford, who hesitates between it and that which supposes some fellow-laborer of 
the Apostle (as Timothy or Epaphroditus) to be referred to. Conyb.and Howson 
say it is “not without plausibility.” Grimm (Lex. N. T.), as Meyer states in his 
note, adopts it. So also Jatho. W.and H. place the word as a proper name 
in their margin. It is not improbably the correct view. The reference of the 
word to Epaphroditus seems very improbable, especially if he was the bearer of the 
epistle to Philippi. It is difficult to believe that the Apostle would have written 
in his letter an exhortation of this character, and in this form, to a person who 


changed between them, Baur in Hilgenfeld’s _p. 268 ff., 327 ff.; latest edition of the text of 


Zettschr. 1858, 2.3; Reuss in Herzog's Ency- _ these epistles in the Theol. Quartalechr. 1867, 
klop. XIV. p. 274ff.; J, B. Lightfoot, Exec. Il. pp, 600 ff. 


NOTES, 189 


was with him at the time of writing, and was himself to carry it to the church. 
The supposition that there was a chief bishop in Philippi, and that Epaphroditus 
held this office, which is favored by some writers, cannot fairly be regarded as finding 
any sure support in this verse. If we consider the word as a proper name, every 
_ difficulty is removed, and there is no objection to this view except the fact that 
the name is not found elsewhere. This fact must be allowed its proper weight, 
but is by no means decisive. 


XXI. Vv. 4-9. 


(a) R. V. translates yalpere rejoice, in the text, but adds a marginal note, Or 
farewell. A.R. V. omits this marginal note. Lightf. combines the two meanings 
in the word, regarding it as both a parting benediction and an exhortation. 
This view, however, is opposed by the following considerations: (1) the fact that 
joy and rejoicing appear as very prominent thoughts in the epistle; (2) the 
improbability that, after having once used the expression in the sense of farewell, 
and then, under some influence, having been led to add a passage covering a 
whole chapter, he should again use it so long before the end of the letter; (3) the 
somewhat close connection of vv. 6-8, in their fundamental thought, with the 
idea of joy in the Lord; (4) the use of the words rejoiced (or, as epist. aorist, 
rejoice) in the Lord in ver. 10, where the words, of course, cannot have the sense of 
farewell. The dA points backward to iii. 1, and so the yalpere of that verse 
also has only the meaning rejoice.—(b) 1d émcecnée (=4 émceixeca 2 Cor. x. 1; Acts 
xxiv. 4) is explained by Trench (Syn. N. T.) as “that yieldingness which recog- 
nizes the impossibility which formal law will be in, of anticipating and providing 
for all those cases that will emerge and present themselves to it for decision, ... 
which therefore urges not its own rights to the uttermost.” He derives it from 
elxw to yield. Webster (Syn. N. T.) gives the adjective the sense of making allow- 
ance, forbearing, not insisting on, just rights. Grimm, L & 8, and others, deriving 
from eixés, regard the adj. as meaning fitting, suitable, reasonable, gentle, and the 
noun as signifying reasonableness, fairness, equity, gentleness. The word moderation 
by which it is translated in this place by A. V., though akin to it, is a more gen- 
eral word, and does not answer to its distinctive meaning. In Acts xxiv. 4, it 
means clemency; in 2 Cor. x.1. gentleness. This latter word is given by R. V. as 
a marginal rendering here, while forbearance is placed in the text. Possibly the 
two ideas may be combined, or possibly the Apostle had in mind the thought of 
reasonableness, as contrasted with the strict pressing for, and insisting upon, one’s 
own rights in one’s dealing with others. 

(c) Ver. 5 b. In view of the usage of Paul respecting the word xbpi¢ and the 
kindred expressions elsewhere (comp. especially Rom. xiii. 11; 1.Cor. xvi. 22), 
there can be little doubt that the reference in this sentence is to the second coming, 
which Bp. Ellicott says, “the inspired apostle regards as nigh,” though he adds “yet 
not necessarily as immediate, or to happen in his own life-time.” W. and H. 
place a period before these words and a colon after them: thus apparently indi- 
cating their opinion to be that they belong with the following exhortation. 
Tisch., on the other hand, places a colon before the words and a period after them, 
and favors a connection with what goes before. Alf. Ell., and some others would 
connect with both the preceding and following sentences. This last view may 
probably be correct, as, in this way, the words become a sort of uniting link, to 
bind the whole passage together. In relation to what precedes—the fact of the 





190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Lord’s coming would be a natural motive for the reasonableness referred to. The 
right adjustment of all things would then take place, and, in the intervening time, - 
the Christian might well be éceufe. With regard to what followe—the same 
thought would tend to free their minds from anxiety and give them peace in all 
circumstances. 

(d). The view of Meyer respecting “epezvare (which he also maintains in Matt. 
vi. 25) is inconsistent with the N. T. idea of this word—which is not that of care, 
but of anxious care which distracts and harasses the soul. Comm. generally give 
the word the latter sense.—(e) Lightf. agrees substantially, though not precisely, 
with Meyer as to the meaning of imepéxovoa xdvra voy, He says “surpassing 
every device or counsel of man, i.e. which is far better, which produces a higher 
satisfaction, than all punctilious self-assertion, al] anxious forethought.” Lumby, 
with a similar view, says, “It is better than all that the wit of man or his fore- 
thought can devise, and therefore to be preferred before the results which can be 
gained by over-anxiety for worldly things.” The explanation of Meyer, if this 
general view be adopted, is perhaps nearer to the exact sense of the words :— 
“which is able more than any [human] reason to elevate above all solicitude.” 
The imepéxew according to this view is, as Meyer says, a tmepéyerv rp duvvéuer, The 
decision between this explanation of the words and the more common one—“ passes 
the power of the human understanding to comprehend it”—will depend largely 
on the question whether the words “and the peace of God,” &c., are to be regarded 
as a ground for the exhortation “be not anxious, but,” &c., or simply as an added 
assurance or promise. If the latter is what the Apostle intends, as seems probable, 
the incomprehensibleness of the Divine peace may most fitly be presented to the 
reader’s thought.—(f) ¢povpijoe: is, as Meyer remarks, quite general in its appli- 
cation; and yet we can scarcely doubt, in ‘view of the main idea of the two 
verses, that the guarding which should keep the mind tranquil, whatever might 
occur, was prominent in the Apostle’s thought as he made use of the general ex- 
pression which would also cover the whole sphere of life. 

(9) That vv. 8, 9 belong to the same passage or paragraph with the preceding 
verses is rendered probable both by 70 Aocrév and the closing words of ver. 9, Td Aor- 
mév, by the position which it holds, must—even if suggested by the same phrase in iii. 
1, and looking towards an ending of the epistle—have a certain final relation to 
the exhortations just given. The designation of God as the God of peace un- 
doubtedly points backward to the peace spoken of in ver. 7. These verses, thus, 
contain a concluding and comprehensive exhortation, which most appropriately — 
gathers up into itself the whole sum of Christian morality—the whole sum of what, 
in such an affectionate and personal letter, the writer would urge upon his readers. 
To think of and to do these things—to meditate upon them as characteristic of 
Christian living, and practise them as they had heard them presented in his 
teaching, or seen them exemplified in his manner of life—would make them 
always rejoice in the Lord, and would make his own joy complete; and this re- 
sult—the perfecting of their joy and his—was what he hoped to accomplish by 
his letter. 


XXII. Vv. 10—19. 


(a) dé (ver. 10) introduces this passage as something which he would not close 
his letter without mentioning.—(b) éyép7v mav be an epist. aor., or it may refe- 
to the feeling which he had when the gift arrived—(c) Meyer's explanation of 


NOTES. 191 


éveSdAere as used intransitively is, undoubtedly, to be adopted. His arguments 
for the reference of it to the revival of their prosperity, rather than of their care- 
taking love, are strong and render that reference not improbable. But they cannot 
be regarded as decisive, inasmuch as the impulse to aid him, which was awakened 
into activity by the opportunity offered through the journey of Epaphroditus to 
Rome, might suitably be spoken of as a reviving of their interest, and this without 
denying the continued existence, during all the past period, of such an interest as 
would have been equally active, had a similar opportunity presented itself at any 
time.—(d) As to Meyer’s view respecting the construction of rd trép éuov as re- 
lated to gpoveiv, there is much more room for question. His explanation of this 
point is ingenious, and it must be allowed to be possibly correct. But the separa- 
tion of the infinitive from the article is not in accordance with the ordinary usage 
in such cases, and, as Ell. remarks, it involves a somewhat undue emphasis on 
76 trép éuov. It is certainly not necessary to adopt Meyer’s construction because 
of the point which he urges in connection with the relative 9, for this pronoun— 
even if té belongs to gpoveix—may refer, not indeed grammatically, but accord- 
ing to the sense, to that which is suggested in irép éuov, namely, Paul’s well- 
being.—(e) The determination of the reference of 7xacpeiofe—whether to the un- 
favorable condition of their means, or to the want of an opportunity for sending a 
gift—will be in accordance with the view taken of aveSddere, In itself considered, 
the verb 7xacp would seem, by its derivation and fundamental meaning, to favor 
the latter idea rather than the former.—(/) toréfpnow (ver. 11) refers, as Meyer 
says, to the subjective state of need, the felt want. This is indicated by the whole 
passage from ver. 11 to ver. 13.—(g) &uadov. This verb shows that the result here 
mentioned was what his experience and the progress of years had accomplished 
for him. He had learned to be in that state of mind which he had just commended 
to his readers in vv. 6,7. He had been fully initiated into the mystery of it 
(ueuinuat).—(h) toxtw mdvra is a general expression, starting, no doubt, from the 
thought of the things just alluded to, but reaching out beyond these into the whole 
range of the Christian life.—(1) dAipez. The Apostle has learned to be content in 
tribulation, but not to regard it as other than it is; to be self-sufficing, so far as 
dependence on aid from other men is concerned, but not to be indifferent to the 
love shown in such aid, or regardless of the Christian duty and fitness of rendering 
it to those in distress.—(j) It seems unnecessary to explain décews xai Aimpeuc as 
Meyer does. The giving of money on the part of the Philippians and the re- 
ceiving of it on Paul’s part make the two sides of the account and sufficiently an- 
swer the demands of the figure.—(k) In ver. 17 the words ei¢ Adyov duev must be 
connected in thought with the same expression in ver. 15. We must explain xap- 
mév accordingly. He declares that he does not desire the gift, as placed on the 
recewing side of the account between himself and them, but, in the blessing which 
it will bring to the giver, as placed on the giving side. Kapzéy refers to the recom- 
pense to be divinely bestowed at the end; perhaps also, to the blessing which at- 
tends and follows benevolence in this life. Ver. 19 makes the former reference 
probable, to the exclusion of the latter.—(/) The 18th and 19th verses very 
strikingly exhibit the love which the Apostle had for the Philippian Church and 
the close relations of friendship in which they stood to each other. The ground 
of the doxology in ver. 20, as we may believe, is the joy which he had in the 
thought, that such an abundant supply of every want of the hearts of these loved 
and generous friends would be given them by God in the glory of the future. 


Digitized by Google 


THE 


EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


INTRODUCTION: 


SEC. I—THE CHURCH. 







ROR See ITH the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, the letter now 
At Ly before us is the only one of all the epistles of Paul that have 
| been preserved, which is addressed to a church that was 
neither founded by Paul himself nor even subsequently visited 
by him in person (see on i. 7, ii. 1), although the Colossian Philemon 
was his immediate disciple (Philem. 19), and the Book of Acts relates 
that the apostle passed through Phrygia on two occasions (Acts xvi. 6, 
Xviii. 28). There, in Phrygia Magna on the Lycus, was situate Kolossae, 
or Kolaseae (see the critical remarks on i.2). It is designated by Herodo- 
tus, vii. 80, as wéAcg¢ peyédy, and by Xenophon, Anab. i. 2. 6, as etdaipwn x. 
peyday; but, subsequently, as compared with the cities of Apamea and 
Laodicea which had become great (ueyiora: . . . wéAe, Strabo xii. 8, p. 576), 
it became so reduced, that it is placed by Strabo, /. c., only in the list of 
the Phrygian rodiopvara, and by Pliny, N. H. v. 41, only among the oppida, 
although celeberrima. According to the Eusebian Chronicle and Oros. vii. 
7, it also was visited by the earthquake which, according to Tacit. Ann. xiv. 
27, devastated Laodicea. This took place not so late as the tenth year of 
Nero’s reign (Eus. Chron.), or even the fourteenth (Orosius), but, accord- 
ing to Tacitus, in the seventh—about the same time with the composition 


18ee Hofmann, Introduct. tn lectionem op. P. ‘Introd. in ep. ad Col. 1841; Klépper, De orig. ep. 
ad Col. Lips. 1749; Bohmer, Isagoge in ep.ad ad Eph. et Col. 1853; Weiss in Hersog's Encyki. 
Col. Berol. 1829; Mayerhoff, Der Brief and. XIX. p.717 ff.; Schenkel in his Bibellez. II. 
Rol. kritisch geprift, Berlin, 1888; Wiggers,d. _p. 565 ff.; Holtsmann, Krit. der Epheser- und 
Verh. d. Ap. P. zu d. christl. Gem. in Kol.inthe  Kolosserbriefe, 1872. 
Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 165 ff; Leo Montet, 
13 193 


194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


of our epistle, perhaps shortly afterwards, as the earthquake is not 
mentioned in it. In the Middle Ages the city was again flourishing 
under the name Chonae (Theophylact and Oecumenius on i. 2; Constant. 
Porphyr. Them. i. 8); it is in the present day the village of Chonus (see 
Pococke, Morgenl. III. p. 114; and generally, Mannert, Geogr. VI. 1, p. 
127 f.; Bohmer, Isag. p. 21 ff.; Steiger, p. 13 ff.). 

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


SEC. I1—OCCASION, AIM, TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION, 
CONTENTS, 


The apostle had received through Epaphras, who had come to him (i. 
7 f., iv. 12; Philem. 23), detailed accounts of the condition of the church, 
and of its perils and needs at that time, whereby he found himself 
induced—and the removal of Epaphras from the church at the moment 
certainly made the matter appear all the more urgent—to despatch 
Tychicus, an inhabitant of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 4), to Colossae, and to 
send with him this epistle (iv. 7 f., comp. Eph. vi. 21 f.). Tychicus was 
also to visit the Ephesians, and to convey the letter written at the same 
time to them (see on Eph. Introd. 32). 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 Christian household 
amidst lively Christian intercourse (Philem. 2). 

In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to the letter, 
the aim of the apostle was not merely to confirm the church generally in 
tis Christian faith and life, but also to warn i against heretical perils by 


INTRODUCTION. 195 


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 neighborhood of Philippi (Phil. iii. 2 ff), restricting themselves to 
the sphere of legal requirement and especially of the necessity of circum- 
cision, did away with Christian freedom, the foundation of which is 
justification by faith,—but such as had mized up Christian Judaism with 
theosophic speculation. While they likewise adhered to circumcision (ii. 
11), and to precepts as to meats and feaste (ii. 16), to the prejudice of 
Christ’s atoning work (ii. 18 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, worship 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 formerly 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 eixav rov Oecd x.r.1., i. 15 ff.), but preferred to assign 
to 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, ii. 12, that they also 
rejected the resurrection of Christ; into such an important point as this Paul 
would have entered directly and at length, asin 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 ascertain more 
precisely the historical character of the Colossian false teachers, and on 
this point we make the following remarks: (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 semblance of more than 


’1The theosophic tendency, which haunted Galatians, of arguments derived from the O, 7. 
Colosses, may help to explain the factthat Paul The epistle contains no quotation from Scrip 
does not make use, as in the Epistle to the _—_ ture. ‘ 


196 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


earthly sanctity (Eichhorn); others, as adherents of the Alexandrine Nea 
Platonism (doctrine of the Logos) (so Juncker, Kommentar, Introd. p. 43 
ff.); others, as Chaldaeans or Magians (Hug); others, as syncretistic 
universalists, who would have allowed to Christ a subordinate position in 
their doctrinal structure and passed Christianity off as a stage of Judaism 
(Schneckenburger, last in the Stud. u. 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 Essenes 
(so Chemnitz, Zachariae, Storr, Flatt, Credner, Thiersch, histor. Standp. 
p. 270 f., Ritsch], Ewald, Holtzmann, e al.), it is not to be urged that the 
Essene washings, and various other peculiarities of Essenism, remain 
unnoticed in the epistle; or that the secluded and exclusive character 
peculiar to this society, and the limitation of their abode to Syria and 
Palestine, do not suit the case of the Colossian heretics; or that the 
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-Christians, only more 
unprejudiced and inoffensive than these Asiatics, whose peculiar character, 
which had already received a more Gnostic development and elaboration, 
was of a philosophic stamp, addicted to rhetorical art, full of work-piety 
and hypocrisy, and therefore fraught with more danger to Pauline Chris- 
tianity, the greater the opportunity they had, just then whilst the great 
apostle was himself far away and in bonds, of raising their head. Now, 
if at that time the Essene influence was not at all unfrequent among the 
Jews, and thence also among Jewish-Christians (see Ritschl, altkath Kirche, 
p. 282 ff., andin the Theolog. Jabrb. 1855, p. 855), 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 lber, p. 876 ff.; Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 11 ff.), as 
well as their adherence to their tradition (Joseph. lec. ii. 8. 7; comp. 
Credner, Beitr. I. p. 8369), are very much in accord with the characteristic 
marks of our heretics (comp. generally Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 286ff.), the 
latter are with justice designated as Jewish-Christian Gnostics, or more 


INTRODUCTION. 197 


accurately, 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 developed 
(comp. Bohmer, Jeag. p. 56 ff.; Neander, Gelegenhettsschr. p. 40 ff.; Schott, 
Isag. p. 272; Weiss, l.c. p. 720; Grau, ic. ; Holtzmann, p. 296 ff.; Clemens in 
Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 418 ff.). Among the latter, the Cerinthian 
doctrine in particular is, in various points, closely allied with that com- 
bated in our epistle (comp. F. Nitzsch on Bleek, Vorles. p. 15 f.; Lipsius, 
d. Gnosticismus, 1860, p. 81 f.), although we are not justified in 
considering with Mayerhoff that this polemic was already directed 
against Cerinthus and his adherents, and thence arguing against the 
genuineness of the epistle. A similar judgment is to be formed regarding 
their relation to the Valentinians, who often appealed to the Epistle to the 
Ephesians; and Baur leaps much too rapidly to a conclusion, when he 
thinks (Paulus, II. p. 4 ff.) that in the Colossian false teachers are to be 
found the Gnostic Ebionttes (who no doubt originated from Essenism)— 
thereby making our epistle a product of the fermentation of the post- 
apostolic age, and connecting it as a spurious twin-letter with that to the 
Ephesians. Holtzmann forms a much more cautious judgment, when he 
takes his stand at a preliminary stage of Gnosticism; but even this he 
places in the post-apostolic age,—a position which the less admits of proof, 
seeing that we have no other letter from the later period of the apostle’s 
life before the letters of the 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 Tub. Zeitechr. 1834, 8, p. 96 ff.); but this must likewise be 
restricted to the effect that the theosophic tendency generally, the special 
Fesene-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 Heinrichs adds also disciples of John, as well as Easenes 


1Comp. Grau, Entwictelungegesch. d. n. t. Schriftth. Il. p. 145 ff.; Lipstus in Schenkel’s 
Bibel-Lexce. Il. p. 408. 





198 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


and other Judaistic teachers, and even a malevolum hominum genus et 
ethnicis—of which, in itself extremely improbable, medley the epistle itself 
contains no trace. (4) In contrast to all previous attempts to classify the 
Colossian false teachers, Hofmann prefers to abide by the position that 
they were Jewish Christians, “ who, starting from the presupposition that 
the Gentile Christians, in their quality as belonging to Ethnicism, were 
subject to the spirits antagonistic to God which ruled therein, recom- 
mended—with a view to complete their state of salvation, which, it was 
alleged, in this respect needed supplement—a sanctification of the out- 
ward life, based 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 ii. 16-23. 

In date and place of composition our epistle coincides with that to the 
Ephesians, and is, like the latter, to be assigned not, in conformity with 
the usual opinion, to the Roman, but to the Caesarean captivity of the 
apostle. See on Eph. Introd. 32. In opposition to this view,' de Wette, 
Bleek, and others attach decisive importance specially to two points: (1) 
That what Paul says in Col. iv. 3, 11 of his labors for the gospel harmo- 
nizes with Acts xxviii. 31, but not with his sojourn in Caesarea, Acts xxiv. 
23. But iv. 11 contains no special statement at all as to the labors of the 
apostle in captivity, and as to iv. 3 we must observe that he there expresses 
the longing for future free working. The latter remark applies also in 
opposition to Wieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalt. p. 420) and Hofmann, 
who likewise regard iv. 3 f. as decisive in favor of the Roman captivity, 
while Hofmann finds the statement as to Mark and Jesus contained in iv. 
11 incompatible with the situation in Caesarea (but see in loc.). In assum- 
ing that the conversion of the Gentile Onesimus (Philem. 10) is incom- 
patible with the statement in Acts xxiv. 23, Wieseler infers too much from 
the words rév idiuy abrov (Acts xxiv. 23), especially as the intention of a 
Kiberal custody is obvious in the arrangement of Felix. (2) That in Rome 
Paul might have thought of the journey to Phrygia hoped for at Philem. 


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


INTRODUCTION. 199 


22, but not in Caesarea (comp. Hofmann, p. 217), where, according to Acts 
xix. 21, Rom. i. 18, 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 
labors; but why should he not have done the same when at Caesarea, so 
long, namely, as his appeal to the emperor had not taken place? See also 
on Philem. 22.—If our epistle was written in Caesarea, the time of its com- 
position was the year 60 or 61, while the procuratorship was still in the. 
hands of Felix. 

As regards the contents of the 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 person- 
ally 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 mention of Tychicus 
and Onesimus (iv. 7-9); salutations with commendations and injunctions 
(iv. 10-17); and the conclusion appended by the apostle’s own hand (ver. 
18). 

SEC. ITI.—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 rpuréroxog xéone xricews in Justin 
Mart. c. Tryph. p. 311 (comp. p. 310, 326), and Theophil. ad Awol. ii. 31, 
may be independent of Col. i. 15, still the external attestation of our Epistle 
is so ancient, continuous, and general (Marcion, the school of Valentinus; 
Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 14.1 and v. 14. 2, who first cites it hy name; Canon 
Murat.; Clem. Al. Strom. i. p. 277, iv. p. 499, v. p. 576, vi. p. 645; Tert.- 


200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


Praescr. 7, de resurr. 28; Origen, c. Cels. v. 8, etc.), that no well-founded 
toubt can from this quarter be raised. 

But modern criticism has assailed the Epistle on ¢nternal grounds; and 
the course of its development has been as follows. Mayerhoff (d. Brief an 
die Kol. mit vornehml. Bericksicht. d. Pastoralbr. kritisch gepriift, Berl. 1888) 
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. 
825 ff. According to Weisse (philos. Dogmai. I. p. 146), our Epistle, like 
most of the Pauline letters, is pervaded by interpolations. Hitzig also (sur 
Kritik paulin. Briefe, 1870, p. 22 ff.) asserts their presence, and ascribes 
them to the author of the (un-Pauline) Ephesian Epistle, who, after the 
composition of his own work, had manipulated afresh a Pauline letter to 
the Colossians, the genuine text of which he misunderstood. In assign- 
ing his reasons for this view, Hitzig does not go beyond the bounds of 
bare assertions and misunderstandings on his own part. Hoenig (in Hil- 
genfeld’s Zettschr. 1872, p. 63 ff.), after comparing the two kindred letters, 
propounds the view that all thoee 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. Kolosserbricfe, 1872) has arrived at the hypothesis of 
a great series of interpolations, the author of which was none other than 
the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians written, according to Holtz- 
mann, somewhere about the year 100, who, with the help of this writing 
of his own, had worked up the short and genuinely Pauline letter to the 
Colossians, which he found in existence, into a new and amplified form, 
and thereby rescued it in a second enlarged edition from oblivion. But 
neither can the course of interpolation thus set forth be exegetically 
verified, nor can it—seeing that all the witnesses from the beginning prove 
only the present shape of the letter, and no trace has been left of any 
earlier one—be without arbitrariness rendered critically intelligible, as in 
fact such a procedure on the part of an interpolator, who had withal so 
much mastery of free movement in the sphere of Pauline thought and 
language that he could write the Epistle to the Ephesians, would yield a 
laborious and—as overlaying and obscuring the given nucleus—somewhat 


INTRODUCTION. 201 


clumsy mosaic patchwork, which, from a psychological point of view, 
would be hardly conceivable. 

Mayerhoff, in order to characterize the Epistle as a production of 
possibly the second century epitomized from the Epistle to the Ephesians 
with the addition of some controversial matter, lays strees ‘on (a) differ- 
ences in language and style, (0) deviations from the Pauline character 
both of conception 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 here (dixatootvy «.1.A., owrnpia x.1.A., droxé- 
Awyic, draxoh, dpa, did, didre, Ere, et al.), Or Gag Aeyéueva which occur (as éeAo- 
Opyoxela, rBavodoyia, et al.), cannot furnish any counter argument, since, in 
fact, they are fully outweighed by similar phenomena in epistles which 
are indubitably genuine. There is the less ground for urging the occur- 
rence only six times of yép (Text. Rec.), as even in the larger Epistle to the 
Ephesians it occurs only eleven times, and in the Second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians only five times. And how little are such mechanical stand- 
ards of comparison at all compatible with a mind so free in movement 
and rich in language as was that of Paul! In his case even the order of 
the words EAA xai "Iovdaiog (iii. 11) cannot seem surprising, nor can the 
combining of designations similar in meaning (as i. 6, 10, ii. 18, 28) appear 
as a strange hunting after synonyms. See, besides, Huther, Schiusebde- 
tracht. p. 420 ff.; Hofmann, p. 179 f. Secondly, un-Pauline conceptions 
are only imported into the Epistle by incorrect interpretations; and the 
peculiar developments 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 occasion 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 vigor are 
said to be wanting, and poverty of thought to prevail; these are judg- 
ments which in some cases are utterly set aside by a right exegesis, and in 
others are of a partisan character and aesthetically incorrect. The com- 
plaint, in particular, of “ poverty of thought” is characteristic of the pro- 
cedure of such criticism towards its victims, no matter how precarious a 
subjective standard must ever be in such questions, or how various may 
be the judgments which are put forth as based on taste (according to 


4 
202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Bohmer, Isag. p. 160, our Epistle is “viva, pressa, solida, nervis plena, mas 
cula””). Thirdly, the affinity of our Epistle with that to the Ephesians in 
style and contents is explained by their composition at the same time,— 
as respects which, however, the priority lies with our letter,—and by the 
. analogy of the circumstances giving occasion to write, which in either case 
the apostle had in view.' See on Eph. Introd. 38. Lastly, the assertion 
that Cerinthus is assailed is erroneous—a critical prothysteron ; see 2 2. 
Baur,? who describes the Epistle to the Ephesians and that to the Col- 
ossians, which are held at any rate to stand or fall together, as un-Pauline, 
and places the former in a secondary relation to the latter, looks upon 
this latter as combating an Ebionitism, which would have nothing to do 
with a recognition of the universalism of Christianity at the cost of renoun- 
cing everything that was incompatible with the absoluteness of the Chris- 
tian principle. He holds, however, that this universalism was not that 
. based on the Pauline anthropology, but only the external universalism, 
which consisted in the coalition between Gentiles and Jews effected by the 
death of Christ, and in which, alongside of the forgiveness of sin, the Cle- 
mentines placed the aim of Christ’s death. Thus, according to Baur, the 
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians are to be placed in the post-apos- 
tolic period of a conciliation between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. 
The highest expression of this conciliatory destination is the Christology 
of the Epistles, in so far, namely, as Christ appears as the primordial prin- 
ciple of all being, and His whole work onward to His exaltation as the self- 
realization of this idea, according to which the pre-existence is the main 
point of the Christology. The arguments of Baur are mostly derived from 
the Epistle to the Ephesians; those that particularly affect our Epistle, 
and are supposed to attest a Gnostic stamp impressed on it (such as the 
idea of Christ as the central point of the whole kingdom of spirits, the 
notion of the rA#pena, etc.), will be shown by the exposition to be a homo-. 
geaeous development of elements of doctrine already presented in the 
earlier Epistles. Concerning these Christological doubts, see, moreover, 
especially Raebiger, Christol. Paul. p. 42 ff., and generally Klopper, de orig. 


1 The assertion is being constantly repeated, 
that Paul could not have copied himeelf. But, 
in fact, we have not among the apostle’s letters 
any other two, which were written so imme- 
diately 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, Héckstra (ix. 
the Theolog. Tijdschrift, 1868), as well as 
Schwegier, agree in substance with Baur. 

3 The exegesis of the Epistle will also dis- 
pose of what Hilgenfeld, who rejects the 
genuineness of the Ephesian and Colossian 
letters, adduces by way of establishing his 
assertion, that “the new and characteristic 


INTRODUCTION. 203 


‘epp. ad Hph. et Coloes. Gryphiaw. 1858 ; Hofmann, p. 181 ff.; Rich. Schmidt, 
Paul. Christol. p. 196 ff.; Sabatier, Papdtre Paul, p. 207 ff’ It may be 
observed in general, that if our Epistle (and that to the Ephesians) is 
‘nothing more than a pseudo-apostolic movement of Gnosis against Ebion- 
itism, then every other Epistle is so also, since every other writing in the 
N. T. may, with almost equal justice, be brought under some such category 
of subjective presupposition; and that it is in reality inconsistent, 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 Col- 
ossians would be more marvelous 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 discussion, Paul committed the composition to 
Timothy (i. 1), again, however, towards the end, dictating the words more 
in person, and adding the final salutation (iv. 18) with his own hand. 
But, first, this hypothesis is already rendered doubtful by the fact that it 
is not made to extend uniformly to chap. iv. Secondly, it may be urged 
against it, that a Timothy himself, even after preliminary discussion with 
the apostle, could hardly have appropriated or imitated the completely 
Pauline stamp in such measure, as in this Epistle it recurs at every sen- 
tence and in every turn. Thirdly, the conjectured course of procedure 
does not appear in any other of Paul’s Epistles, and yet the present was one 
of the shortest and the easiest to be dictated. Fourthly, such a procedure 
can scarcely be reconciled with the high value and authority, well under- 
stood by the apostle, which an Epistle from him could not but possess for 
any Christian church, especially for one not founded by himself. 
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, 


feature of the Cologsian Epistle consists sim- 
ply in this, that it represents Paulinism no 
longer merely in contradistinction to Jewish 
Christianity, but also in contradistinction 
to Gnosticism (proper);” see Hilgenfeld’s 
Heitechr. 1870, p. 245 f. We see, he says, Paul- 


inism in this case not merely repelling, but 
even in part adopting, Gnostic elements.—For 
Baur’s Gnostic interpretation of the wA¥pepa, 
see especially his Paulus, IJ. p. 12 ff., and 
Neutest. Theol. p. 257 ff. 

1Compare, also generally, in opposition te 


204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSI4 NA, 


according to iv. 16, a similar merely indirect composition on his part 
would have to be attributed also to the Epistle to the Laodiceans, since 
the two Epistles, as they were to be read in both churches, must have 
been, as it were, cast in the same mould, and of essentially the same 
import. Lastly, the peculiar dangerous character of the spiritualistic 
Judaism, which had to be opposed in the Epistle, was precisely such as to 
claim the undivided personal action of the apostle, which was certainly, 
even in the enforced leisure of his imprisonment, sufficiently within his 
power for the purpose of his epistolary labors. The grounds on which 
the foregoing hypothesis is based '—and in the main the assailants of the 
genuineness have already used them—are in part quite unimportant, in 
part framed after a very subjective standard, and far from adequate 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 mani- 
fold variety in the presentation of his ideas and the structure of his sen- 
tences. Nor do those linguistic difficulties, which Holtzmann, p. 104 ff, 
has brought forward more discreetly than Mayerhoff, and to some extent 
in agreement with Ewald, with a view to separate the portions of the 
letter pertaining to the genuine Paul from those that belong to the 


manipulator and interpolator, suffice for his object. 


the hypothesis of a positive influence of 
Gnosis on N. T. doctrinal ideas, Heinrici, d. 
Valent. Gnosis u. d. heil. Schr. 1871. 

1 Ewald appeals (presupposing, moreover, 
the non-genuineness of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians) to the longer compound worda, 
such as dévravawAypéw, awoxatadAdcow, éwaddo- 
tpiéde, wapadoyifopa:, dedoOpnexeia, bpbarpo- 
8evAeia; to unusual modes of expression, 
such a8 Oddo bpas eiSdvan (ii. 1), 5 ore» for the 
explanatory that is (i. 24 [27], if. 10, fii. 14), in 
connections capable of being easily mis- 
understood ; to the circumstances, that in the 
progress of the discourse and in the structure 
of sentences we entirely miss “the exceed- 
ingly forcible flow and the exu.tant ebullition, 
and then, again, the quick concentration and 
the firm collocation of the thoughts;” that 
the words 8¢, yép, and dAAd are less frequently 
“ound, and that the sentences are connected 


They could only be 


more by simple little relational words and in 
excessively long series, like the links of a 
chain, alongside of which is also frequently 
found the merely rhetorical accumulation of 
sentences left without links of connection 
(such as i. 14, 20, 25f., 27, if. 8,11, 23, iii. 5); 
that we meet delicate but still perceptible 
distinctions of thought, such as the non- 
mention of &xatoovyy and S:xaovr, and the 
description of the Logos by the word mAjjpeye 
iteelf (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, 

®# When we take fully into account the sin- 
gularly ample storehouse of the Greek lam 


INTRODUCTION. 206 


of weight, in the event of their exhibiting modes of expression beyond 
doubt un-Pauline, or of the interpolated character of the passages in ques- 
tion being already established on other grounds. 


guage, 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 such expres 
eions, 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. 


-* 


306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CUOLUSSIANS, 


Habhov eéxetarody xpds Kodocaaets. 


A BK min. Copt. have the superscription 7pd¢ Kodaccaeig. So Matth. Lachm. 
and Tisch. Comp. on ver. 2. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. The arrangement Xpcoroi "Inco (Lachm. Tisch.) has preponderant tes- 
timony in its favor, but not the addition of "I7cot after Xpiorot in ver. 2 (Lachm.). 
' —Ver. 2. Kodoocaic] K P, also C and & in the subscription, min. Syr. utr. Copt. 
Or. Nyss. Amphiloch. Theodoret, Damasc. et. al. have Kodagcaic. Approved by 
Griesb., following Erasm. Steph. Wetst.; adopted by Matth. Lach. Tisch. 7. The 
Recepta is supported by BD EF G L®, min. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theophyl. 
Tert. Ambrosiast. Pelag. The matter is to be judged thus: (1) The name in 
itself correct is undoubtedly KodAoocai, which is supported by coins of the city 
(Eckhel, Doctr. num. III. p. 107) and confirmed by Herod. vii. 30 (see Wessel. 
and Valck. in loc.); Xen. Anab. i. 2.6 (see Bornem. tn loc.); Strabo, xii. 8, p. 
576; Plin. N. H. v. 32. (2) But since the form KoAaccai has so old and consid- 
erable attestation, and is preserved in Herodotus and Xenophon as a various read- 
ing, as also in Polyaen. viii. 16, and therefore a mere copyist’s error cannot be 
found in the case—the more especially as the copyists, even apart from the 
analogy which suggested itself to them of the well-known xoAocoés, would naturally 
be led to the prevalent form of the name KoAocoai,—we must assume that, although 
KoAoooal was the more formally correct name, still the name KoAcocai was 
also (vulgarly) in use, that this was the name which Paul himself wrote, 
and that Kodoocaic 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 marpd¢ #udv, Elz. (Lachm. in brackets) has 
xai xupiov ’Incov Xpiorod, in opposition to B D E K L, min. vas. and Fathers. A 
complementary addition in accordance with the openings of other epistles, espe- 
cially as no ground for intentional omission suggests itself (in opposition to Reiche, 
Comm. crit. p. 351 f.).—Ver. 3. xat rarpi] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: sarpi. So B C*, 
vss. and Fathers, while D* F G, Chrys. have r@ sarpi. Since, however, Paul 
always writes 6 Qed¢ xal rarjp rov xupiov (Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31; Eph. i. 
3; also 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. v. 20), and never 6 Ged¢ 6 rarnp fr. x. or 4 Oede rarhp 
r. «., the Recepta, which has in its favor A C** D#* EK L Py», min. Vulg. and 
Fathers, is with Tisch. 8 to be retained. The «af was readily omitted ina 
mechanical way after the immediately preceding Qect rarpéc.—Instead of epi, 
Lachm. reads trép, 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 tvép stands without variation).—Ver. 4. Instead of 
fv Exere (which is recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), Els. 
Matth. Scholz have r# merely, but in opposition to A C D* E* FG PX, miu. 


CHAP. I. 207 


ves. (including Vulg. It.) Fathers. If 1/v were originally written, why should it 
have been exchanged for fv éxete? On the other hand, fv Zyere, as it could be 
dispensed with for the sense, might easily drop out, because the word preceding 
concludes with the syllable HN, and the word following (eis), like 2zere, begins 
with E, The grammatical gap would then, following Eph. i. 15, be filled up by 
thv.—Ver. 6, xai tort] xai is wanting in A B C D* E* P &, min. and some vas. and 
Fathers; condemned by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But, not being 
understood, this «ai, which has the most important vas. and Fathers in its favor, 
was omitted in the interest of simplicity as disturbing the connection.—x«ai 
avfavéuevov] 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. xadu¢ xal] xai is justly 
condemned by Griesb. on decisive evidence, and is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
A mechanical repetition from the preceding.—izov] A B D*G F &*, min. : quer; 
' approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. But since the first person both precedes 
and follows (juav . . . #uiv), it was put here also by careless copyists.—Ver. 10. 
After tepirarijoa, Elz. Tisch. 7 have tac, against decisive testimony ; a supple- 
mentary addition.—ei¢ riv éxiywwow] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz. Tisch. 8 have rg 
éntyvace, So A BC D* E* F G P yz, min. Clem. Cyr. Maxim. But it lacks the 
support of the vss., which (Vulg. It. tn scientia Dei) have read the Recepta ei¢ r. 
ériyy, attested by D*** E** K L and most min., also Theodoret, Dam. Theophyl. 
Oec., or with x** and Chrys. év ry émcyvdce:. The latter, as well as the mere T9 
ércyv., betrays itself as an explanation of the difficult ei¢ r. ériyv., 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 eic.—Ver. 12. 
‘xavécavtt] Lachm.: xaAéoavri xai lxavdcavri, according to B, whilst D* F G, min. 
Arm. Aeth. It. Didym. Ambrosiast. Vigil. have xadécavr: merely. Looking at the 
so isolated attestation «aA. x, lxav., we must assume that xadfcavr: was written on 
the margin by way of complement, and then was in some cases inserted with xai, 
and in others without «ai substituted for ixavéc.—Instead of jyac, Tisch. 8 has 
tuas; but the latter, too weakly attested by B x, easily slipped in by means of the 
connection with evyap.—Ver. 14. After aroAurp. Elz. has did rov alyarog avrov, 
against decisive testimony ; from Eph. i. 7.—Ver. 16. ré év roi¢ ovpavoig xal 14) 
Lachm. has erased the first ra and bracketed the second. In both cases 
the rd is wanting in B y*, Or.; the first rd only is wanting in D* 
E* F G P and two min. But how easily might TA be absorbed in the 
final syllable of dvTA; and this would then partially involve the omission 
of the second ré4! The assumption that the final syllable of mdvra 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 4’ avrov is wanting 
inBD* FG L, 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 aroxarfAAagev, Lachm., 
following B, has aroxarnAAdynre. D* FG, It. Goth. Ir. Ambrosiast. Sedul. have 
aroxaraddayévrec, Since, according to this, the passive is considerably attested, 
and the active aroxarf#AAagev, although most strongly attested (also by »), may 
well be suspected to be a syntactic emendation, we must decide, as between the 
two passive readings aroxarnAAdyyre and aroxaraAdayévres, in favor of the former, 





208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


because the latter is quite unsuitable. Ifthe Recepta were original, the construe- 
tion would be so entirely plain, that we could not at all see why the passive 
should have been introduced.— Ver. 22. After @avdrov, A P y, min. vss. Ir. have 
avrov, which Lachm. has admitted in brackets. It is attested so weakly, as to 
seem nothing more than a familiar addition—Ver. 23. rg before «rice: is, with 
Lachm. and Tisch., to be omitted, following A B C D* F Gx, min. Chrys — 
Instead of d:dxovoc, P x have afjpug x. amécrodos. A gloes; comp.1 Tim. ii. 7. In A 
all the three words «jpvg «. az, x, diax. are given —Ver. 24. viv] D* E* FG, 
Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. have d¢ viv. Rightly; the final syllable of dcdxovoc in 
ver 23, and the beginning of a church-lesson, co-operated to the suppression of 4c, 
which, however, is quite in keeping with the connection and the whole progress 
of the discourse.—After ra6jyu. Elz. bas pov, against decisive testimony.— éorcv] 
C D* E, min.: &¢ éorey. So Lachm. in the margin. A copyist’s error.—Ver. 27. 
The neuter ri 1d mAovrog (Matth. Lachm. Tisch.) is attested by codd. and 
Fathers sufficiently to make the masculine appear as an emendation: comp. on 2 
Cor. viii. 2—d¢ éorcy] A BF G P, min. (quod in Vulg. It. leaves the reading uncer- 
tain): 4 éortv, So Lachm. A grammatical alteration, which, after ver. 24, was 
all the more likely.— Ver. 28. After d:déox., rdvra dvOpwrov is wanting in D* E* 
F G, min. ves.and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., but is to be defended. The whole 
xal didéox. névta dvpwr. was omitted owing to the homoeoteleuton (so still in L, 
min. Clem.), and then the restoration of the words took place incompletely.— 
After Xpior® Elz. has 'Ijcov, against decisive testimony. 


Vv.1,2. [On Vv. 1, 2, see Note XXIII. pages 263, 264.] A:d eAgu. Ceot] 800 
on 1Cor.i.1. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 1; Eph. i. 1.—xai T2u69.] see on 2 Cor. i.1; Phil. 
i.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—é adeAgéc] see on 1 Cor. i.1; 
referring, not to official (Chrys. : ovxotv xai atric aréoroAoc), but generally to 
Christian brotherhood.—roic¢ év KoA. dy. «.7.4.] to the saints who are in Colos- 
sae [XXIII }. ¢.]. To this theocratic designation, which in itself is not as 
yet more precisely defined (see on Rom. i. 7), is then added their distinc- 
tively Christian character: and bekeving brethren in Christ. Comp. on Eph. 
i. 1. dyiouw is to be understood as a substantive, just as in all the com- 
mencements of epistles, where it occurs (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; Eph.; 
Phil.); and é Xpior@ is closely connected with mor. aé., with which it blends 
so as to form one conception (hence it is not roi¢ é X.), expressly designat- 
ing the believing brethren as Christians, so that ¢v X. forms the element of 
demarcation, tn 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, woréc is faithful,—a meaning 
which it has not here (in opposition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Dal- 
mer), because everywhere in the superscriptions.of the Epistles it is only 
the Christian standing of the readers that is described. No doubt év 
Xpior@ was in itself hardly necessary; but the addresses have a certain 
formal stamp. If dytow is taken as an adjective: “the holy and believing 
brethren” (de Wette), & Xprg being made to apply to the whole 
formula, then moroig coming after dylog (which latter word would already 


CHAP. I. 1-3. 209 


have, through év X., ita definition in a Christian sense, which, according 
to our view, it still has no!) would be simply a superfluous and clumsy 
addition, because dyio would already presuppose the moroic.—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 Aaodixéwy éxxAyoia (iv. 16). Indeed, the principle of address- 
ing as churches those communities only which he had himself founded, is | 
not one to be expected from the apostle’s disposition of mind and wisdom ; 
and it is excluded by the inscription of the Epistle to the Ephesians 
(assuming its genuinenéss 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 ¢v Xpiorg merely, and not é X. 'Iyoot (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!—zdp¢ ipiv 
«.7.A.) See on Rom. i. 7. [XXIII d.] 

Ver. 8 f. [On Vv. 3-8, see Note XXIV. pages 264-266.] Thanksgiving for the 
Christian condition of the readers, down to ver. 8.—et yapiorovuev] [XXIV a.] 
Iand Timothy ; plural and singular a#ernate in the Epistle (i. 28, 24, 28, 29 ff, 
iv.3); but not without significant occasion.—xai warpi x.7.A.] whois at the same 
time the Father, etc. See on Eph. i. 3.—dvrore] [XXIV b.] belongs to eiyap., 
as in 1 Cor. i.4; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. i.8; Philem. 4, and not to zepi ix- 
npooevx,'—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 wep? tuav xpocevy.—words which are not, with Bahr, 
to be separated from one another (whereby zposevy. would unduly stand 
without relation)}—is nothing but a more precise definition of sdvrore: 
“always (each time, Phil. i. 4; Rom. i. 10%), when we pray for you."’—axoicav- 
reg «.7.A.) [XXIV c.] with reference to time; after having heard, etc. 
Comp. ver. 9. In that, which Paul had heard of them, lies the ground of 
his thanksgiving. The sriore is faith (Rom. i. 8; 1 Thess. i.3; 2 Thess. i. 
3) not faithfulness (Ewald), as at Philem. 5, where the position of the words 
is different. That Paul has heard their faith praised, is self-evident from 
the context. Comp. Eph. i. 15; Philem. 5.—év X. 'I.] on Christ, in so far, 
namely, as the faith has tts basis in Christ. See on Mark i. 15; Gal. ii. 26 ; 
Eph. i. 18, 15. As to the non-repetition of r#v, see on Gal. ill. 26.—j 


1Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Béhmer, Olshausen, Dalmer. 
Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Gro- 2¥For a like use of dei, see Stallbaum, ad 
tius, Bongel, and many others, including Plat. Rep. p. 360 A. 
14 ' 


210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


éyere} Paul so writes,—not by joining on immediately (rjv ayéry etic 
mévtac «.T.A.), nor yet by the mere repetition of the article, as in Eph. i. 15 
(so the Recepta, see the critical remarks),—because he has it in view to 
enter more fully upon this point of ayd7y7, and indeed definitely upon the 
reason why they cherished it. 

Ver. 5. Aca tiv éAnida x.t.A.] [XXIV d.] on account of the hope, etc. does 
not belong to evap. ver. 3,' because the ground for the apostolic thanks- 
giving at the beginnings of the Epistles, as also here at ver. 4, always con- 
sists in the Christian character of the readers,? and that indeed as a 
ground in itself? and therefore not merely on account of what one has in 
future to hope from it; and, moreover, because evyapioreiy with dé and 
the accusative does not occur anywhere in the N.T. It is connected with 
fv Eyere «.7.A., and thus specifies the motive ground of the love; for, love 
guarantees the realization of the salvation hoped for.6 The more faith is 
active through love, the richer one becomes «ic Oedv (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 riers, s0 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 fv éyere (or the Rec. r#v) indicates a further 
statement merely as regards rv ayér7v; and with this accords the close 
of the whole outburst, which in ver. 8 emphatically reverts to rj tpuév 
ayannv.— The énig is here conceived objectively (comp. éAr. BAeropévn, 
Rom. viii. 24): our hope as to its objective contents, that which we hope for.® 
—riv aronem. tuiv év rt. ovp.}| What is meant is the Messianic salvation 
forming the contents of the hope (1 Thess. v. 8; Rom. v. 2, viii. 18 ff.; 
Col. iii. 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 azox. comp. 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Macc. xii. 45; Kypke, IT. 
p. 820 f.; Loesner, p. 360; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 678. Used of death,. 
Heb. ix. 27; of punishments, Plat. Locr. p. 104 D, 4 Macc. 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 
xoAitevpza in heaven (see on Phil. iii. 20), of the xAnpovouia rernpyptvy ev 
ovpav. (1 Pet. i. 4), and of the Bpafeiov tie avw KAgoewc (Phil. iii. 14).—#v 
mponxovoare x.7.A.] [XXIV e.] Certainty of this hope, which is not an un- 


1 Bengel, “ex spe patet, quanta sit causa 
gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris;” 
comp. Bullinger, Zanchius, Calovius, Elsner, 
Michaelis, Zachariae, Storr, Rosenmaller, 
Hofmann, and others. 

2Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. i. 4 ff.; Eph. 1.15; Phil. 
i.5; 1 Thess. 1.3; 2 Thess. i.3; 2 Tim. i. 5; 
Philem. 5. 

8 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 thanksgiving. 


480 correctly, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Calvin, Es- 
tius, Steiger, Bleek, and others. 

&Comp. Job vi. 8; 2 Macc. vii. 14, and 
see on Rom. viii. 24 and Gal. v. 5; Zéck- 
ler, de vi ac notione voc, éAwis, Giss. 1856, p. 
26 ff. 

¢It is erroneous to say that the Parousia no 
longer occurs in our Epistle. It is the sub- 
stratum of the éAsic dwox. év 7. ovp. Comp. 
iiL 1 ff. (in opposition to Mayerhoff, and Holts- 
mann, p. 203 £). 


CHAP. I. 3-6. 211 
warranted subjective fancy, but is objectively conveyed to them 
through the word of truth previously announced. The -pé in 
aponxovoatre' does not denote already formerly, whereby Paul premises 
se nthil allaturum novi (Calvin and many), but must be said with 
reference to the future, to which the hope belongs; hence the sense im- 
ported by Ewald: wherewith the word of truth began among you (Mark i. 15), 
is the less admissible. The conception is rather, that the contents of the 
éAric, the heavenly salvation, is the great future blessing, the infallible pre- 
announcement of which they have heard. As previously announced, it is also 
previously heard.—rij¢ aAnbeiag is the contents of the Adyog (comp. on Eph. 
i. 18); and by row ciay., the adAffea, that is, the absolute truth, is specifi- 
cally defined as that of the gospel, that is, as that which is announced in the 
gospel. [XXIV /.] Both genitives are therefore to be left in their substan- 
tive form,” so that the expression advances to greater definiteness. The 
circumstantiality has something solemn about it (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4); but 
this is arbitrarily done away, if we regard rot eivayy. as the genitive of 
apposition to 19 Adyw rio aAnd. (Calvin, Beza, and many others, including 
Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Bohmer, Huther, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann); 
following Eph. i. 138, Paul would have written rq evayyeriy. 

Ver. 6. In what he had just said, fv wponxoboare . . . evayyeAfov, Paul now 
desires to make his readers sensible of the great and blessed fellowship in 
which, through the gospel, they are placed, in order that they may by this 
very consciousness feel themselves aroused to faithfulness towards the 
gospel, in presence of the heretical influences; éed) pddora of moAAot éx 
rou Kotvavode Exerv rodAode tév doypdtev ornplCovra, Chrysostom. Comp. 
Oecumenius: rpoOvportpove avroic wept tiv riorw roi ex Tov Eye méavrac 
corvavobe.—eic iuac}] not év suiv, because the conception of the previous 
arrival predominates; 1 Macc. xi. 63. Often so with rapeiva: in classical 
authors (Herod. i. 9, vi. 24, viii. 60; Polyb. xviii.1.1; comp. Acts xii. 20). 
Observe, moreover, the emphasis of rot mapévroc: it is there! it has not 
remained away; and to the presence is then added the bearing frutt.—xaBor 
xai év ravti r. xéouy] 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 rationalized by “as regards the idea” (Baumgarten-Crusius) and 
the like; although, certainly, the idea of the catholicity of Christianity is ex- 
pressed in the passage (comp. Rom. x. 18; Mark xiv. 9, xvi. 15; Matt. xxiv. 
14).—«ai gore xaprog. «.7.A.] [XXIV g.] Instead of continuing: «ai xapzo- 
gopovpévov x.7.A., Paul carries onward the discourse with the finite verb, and 
thus causes this element to stand out more independently and forcibly : ¢ 


? Herod. viii. 79; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 797 A; Ken. 
Mem. fi. 4. 7; Dem. 750. 26, 955. 1; Joseph. 
Antt. viii. 12. 3. 

2 Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
and many others understand rig dAn6. as 
adjectival: sermo verax; comp. on the con- 
trary, on 4A#@, rov eveyy., Gal. ii. 5,14. 


8See Bornemann and Kohner, ad Xen. 
Anab. i. 2. 2; Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 320; and 
generally, Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 158 f., ed. 3. 

‘If «ai 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 Paar 


212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TU THE COLOSSIANS. 
“and t is fruit-bearing and growing,” ' 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 éor 
with the participle. This general proposition based on experience: xa? 
ort xaprog. x. avéav., is then by xafoc x. év tiv confirmed through the 
experience found also among the readers ; 80 that Paul’s view passes, in the 
first clause (rot wapévroe . . . xéopy), from the special to the general aspect, 
and in the second, from the general to the special. With xapzogop. (not 
occuring elsewhere in the middle) is depicted the blissful working in the 
inward and outward life (comp. Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9); and with avfavdu. 
the continuous diffusion, whereby the gospel is obtaining more and more 
adherents and local extension.2, Huther and de Wette groundlessly refrain 
from deciding whether avé. is intended to refer to the outward growth or to 
the inward (s0 Steiger), or to both. See Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, xix. 20. Comp. 
Luke xiii. 19; Matt. xiii. 32. The paov ornpivecba:, which Chrysostom 
finds included in avé., is not denoted, but presupposed by the latter. Comp. 
Theophylact. The figure is taken from a tree, in which the xaprogopia does 
not exclude the continuance of growth (not so in the case of cereals).—a¢’ 
n¢ quép. «.7.2.] since the first beginning of your conversion which so 
happily took place (through true knowledge of the grace of God), that 
development of the gospel proceeds among you; how could ye now with- 
draw from it by joining yourselves to false teachers?—rjv yépw rov Ocoi'] 
contents of the gospel, which they have heard; the object of jxobe. is the 
gospel, and +r. yépuw r. Geot belongs to éxéyvure; and by év aAnbelg (2 Cor. 
vii. 14), equivalent to aA6a¢ (John xvii. 8), the qualitative character of this 
knowledge is affirmed: it was a true knowledge, corresponding to the 
nature of the ydpe«, without Judaistic and other errors. Comp. on John 
xvii. 19. Holtzmann hears in jxoboare . . . adnOac “the first tones of the 
foreign theme,” which is then in vv. 9, 10 more fully entered upon. But 
how conceivable and natural is it, that at the very outset the danger which 
threatens the right knowledge of the readers should be present to his 
mind! 

Ver. 7 f. [XXIV A.] Kadc] not quandoquidem (Flatt, comp. Bahr), 
but the as of the manner in which. So, namely, as it had just been 
affirmed by év aAnfeig that they had known the divine grace, had they 
learned it (comp. Phil. iv. 9) from Epaphras. Notwithstanding this appro- 
priate connection, Holtzmann finds in this third xa6é¢ a trace of the 
interpolator.—Nothing further is known from any other passage as to 
Epaphras the Colossian (iv. 12); according to Philem. 23, he was ovva:y- 


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 xaOts xai éy vuiv would 
necessarily appear as very superfluous. No 
doubt we might, after the preceding wapdévros, 
take the éori, with F. Nitssch, as equivalent 
to rdpeor: (see Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 50 B); 
and to this comes also the punctuation in 


Tisch. 8, who puts a comma after éoriy. But 
how utterly superfluous would this éeri then 
be! 

18ee Maetsner, ad Lycurg. Leocr. p. 108; 
Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 222B; Winer, p. 
533 [E. T. 578}. 

2Comp. Theodoret: capwodopiay rov cvayy. 
xéxdqune Tay éxatvoundyny wodcreiay’ abgyawy 52 
Tey LoTevévTep Td wANOOS. 


CHAP. I. 7, 8. 213 


pddwros 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 E'paphroditus, see on Phil. ii. 
25. The names even are not alike (contrary to the view of Grotius and 
Ewald, who look upon Epaphras as an abbreviation) ; 'Exagpa¢ and the 
corresponding feminine name ’Eragpé are found on Greek inscriptions.— 
ovvdoiA0v] namely, of Christ (comp. Phil. i. 1). The word, of common 
occurrence, is used elsewhere by Paul in iv. 7 only.—&¢ éorw «.7.A.] This 
faithfulness towards the readers, and also, in the sequel, the praise of their 
love, which Epaphras expressed to the apostle, are intended to stir them 
up “ne a doctrina, quam ab eo didicerant, per novos magistros abduci se 
patiantur,” Estius. The emphasis is on moré¢.—inép tyuov] for, as their 
teacher, he is the servant of Christ for them, for their benefit. The inter- 
pretation, instead of you (“in prison he serves me in the gospel,” Michae- 
lis, Bbhmer), would only be possible in the event of the service being 
designated as rendered to the apostle (didxovés pov év Xpeorp, or something 
similar). Comp. Philem. 13. Even with Lachmann’s reading, tr. judy 
(Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald), it would not be necessary to take trép as 
instead ; it might equally well be taken as for in the sense of interest, as 
opposite of the anti-Pauline working (comp. Luke ix. 50). The present 
. tori (Paul does not put 7) 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 continuous, reaching in its efficacy down to the present time. 
This is an ethical relation, which is quite independent of the circumstance 
that Epaphras was himself a Colossian (in opposition to Hofmann), but 
also makes it unnecessary to find in éore an éndirect continuance of Epa- 
phras’ work for the Colossians (in opposition to Bleek).—é «ai dyAdca¢ 
x.T.A.] who also (in accordance with the interest of this faithful service) 
has made us to know; comp. 1Cor.i.11. The ayéry 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 tzév (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 12; 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7, 
vill. 13, @ al.), which betokens the love of the readers to Epaphras as 
meant. [XXIV i.] There had just been expressed, to wit, by tép 
tuov, the faithful, loving position of this servant of Christ towards the Col- 
ossians, and correlative to this is now the love which he met with from 
them, consequently the counter-love shown to him, of which he has in- 
formed the apostle. A delicate addition out of courtesy to the readers.— 
év mvebuari] attaches itself closely to aydmqy, 80 as to form one idea, de- 
noting the love as truly holy—not conditioned by anything outward, but 
divinely upheld~which is in the Holy Spirit as the element which 


1 Who, at the same time, makes the év wved- ~— place in a manner personally unknown—which 
nar: suggest the reference, thatthe dydw_gtook must have been conveyed in the context. 


214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


prompts and animates it; for it is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. v. 22; 
Rom. xv. 30), ob capxim), GAAd mvevparuc (Oecumenius). Comp. xapa év 
nv., Rom. xiv. 17. 


REMARK.—Since 49’ #¢ uépac qxoboare x.7.A,, ver. 6, refers the readers back 
to the first commencement of their Christianity, and xeOd¢ éuébere ard 'Eragpa 
x,T.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 first preacher of the gospel at Colossae, and consequently 
as founder of thechurch. This exegetical result remains even if the Recepla xaos 
xai ig retained. This xai would not, as Wiggers thinks (in the Stud. u. Krif. 
1838, p. 185), place the preaching of Epaphras in contradistinction to an earlier 
one, and make it appear as a continuation of the latter (in this case xafo¢ xal 
and ’Evagp. éudbere or xabac éudbete xai ard ’Eragp. would have been em- 
ployed) ; but it is to be taken as also, not otherwise, placing the éud@ere on a parity 
with the étéyvure. This applies also in opposition to Vaihinger, in Herzog’s 
Encykl. iv. p. 79 f. 


«Ver. 9 [On vv. 9-14, see Note XXV. pages 266, 267.] Intercession, down 
to ver. 12.—d:d rovro] [XXV a.] on account of all that has been said 
from axotcavres in ver. 4 onward: induced thereby, we also cease not, etc. 
This reference is required by ag’ 7¢ 7uépac qxotoayzev, which cannot corre- 
spond to the dyAdcac juiv, belonging as that does merely to an accessory 
thought, but must take up again (in opposition to Bleek and Hofmann) 
the dxotoavres which was said in ver. 4. This resumption is emphatic, not 
tautological (Holtzmann).—xai jucic] are to be taken together, and it is not 
allowable to join «ai either with dia rovro (de Wette), or even with 
mpocevy. (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.—pocevy.} “ Precum mentionem 
generatim fecit, ver. 8; nunc exprimit, quid precetur” (Bengel).—xai 
atrobuevo.] adds the special (asking) to the general (praying).'—iva rAnpo0.] 
Contents of the asking in the form of its purpose. Comp. on Phil. i. 9. 
The emphasis lies not on sAzpw6. (F. Nitzsch, Hofmann), but on the ob- 
ject (comp. Rom. xv. 14, i. 29, al.), which gives to the further elucidation 
in vv. 9, 10 its specific definition of contents.—rjv éniyv. rod Gea. avrov] 
[XXV b.] with the knowledge of His will, accusative, as in Phil. 1. 11; 
aitov applies to God as the subject, to whom prayer and supplication are 
addressed. The context in ver. 10 shows that by the 6éAnya is meant, not the 
counsel of redemption (Eph. i. 9; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
and many others, including Huther and Dalmer), but, doubtless (Matt. vi. 
10), that which God wills in a moral respect (so Theodoret, who makes out 
@ contrast with the voyxaic saparnpiocov).2 The distinction between 


1Comp. 1 Macc. iii. 44; Matt. xxi.22; Mark to be taken with «. airovpz., comp. Lys. ¢. Alc. 
xi. 24; Eph. vi. 18; Phil. iv. 6. As to the _ p. 141. 
popular form of hyperbole, ov wavdu., comp. 2Comp. Rom. fi. 18, xii. 2; Eph. v. 17, vi. 6; 
on Eph.i.16. On vwip tye, 80 farasitisalso . Col. iv. 12. 


CHAP. I. 9, 10. 215 


yoo and éniyvwors, Which both here and also in ver. 10, li. 2, iii. 10, is 
the knowledge which grasps and penetrates into the object, is incorrectly 
denied by Olshausen. See on Eph. i. 17.—év dog x.r.4.] instrumental 
definition of manner, how, namely, this wAypwijvae rw emiyv. 7. OA. abrod 
(a knowledge which is to be the product not of mere human mental 
activity, but of objectively 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. i. 8. A combination 
with the following weperargoae (comp. iv. 5: é& sogig mepir.), such as Hof- 
mann suggests, is inappropriate, because the two parts of the whole 
intercession stand to one another in the relation of the divine ethical 
foundation (ver. 9), and of the corresponding practical conduct of life 
(ver. 10 f:); hence the latter portion is most naturally and emphatically 
headed by the expression of this Christian practice, the rep:rarjoa, to 
which are then subjoined its modal definitions in detail. Accordingly, 
nepirarjoa is not, with Hofmann, to be made dependent on rot 6cAgu. 
avrov and taken as its contents, but r. 6e4. r. ©. is to be left as an absolute 
idea, as in iv. 12. On mvevzatixés, proceeding from the Holy Spirit, comp. 
Rom. i. 11; 1 Cor. ii. 13, xii. 1; Eph. i. 3, v. 19, et al. The oivere is the 
insight, in a theoretical and (comp. on Mark xii. 83) practical respect, 
depending upon judgment and inference, Eph. iii. 4; 2 Tim.ii.7. For 
the opposite of the pneumatic cbveoic, 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 intelligence in the domain of truth,? while the cogia concerns the col- 
lective faculties of the mind, the activities of knowledge, willing, and feel- 
ing, the tendency and working of which are harmoniously subservient to 
the recognized highest aim, if the wisdom is rvevuarixg; its opposite is the 
cogia capxixy (2 Cor. i. 12; Jas. ili. 15), being of man, and not of God, in 
ita aim and efforts. According as ¢pévyoe¢ is conceived subjectively or 
' objectivized, the civeow may be considered either as synonymous with it 
(Eph. i. 8; Dan. ii. 21; Plat. Crat. p. 411 A), or as an attribute of it 
(Ecclus. i. 4: civeore gpovfoewc). 

Ver. 10. The practical aim?® which that wAnpw67var «.7.A. is to accom- 
plish; det 19 miores ovlebyvvot tiv modsrelav, Chrysostom. The Vulgate 
renders correctly : ut ambuletis (in opposition to Hofmann, see on ver. 9). 
—<atiwg tov xupiov] so that your behavior may stand in morally appropri- 
ate 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 


1 Hence 4 dveder codia, Jaa, ii. 15,17. The 
predicate, although in the case of divine en- 
dowment with cgodia and oiveors obvious of 
itself (as Hofmann objects), was yet all the 
More apposite for expressly bringing the 
point into prominence, the greater the danger 
which threatened Colossae from non-divine, 
fleshly wisdom; comp. fi. 23. 

3Comp. Dem. 260. 24: cvveocs, } ra card cai 
aicxea aymeeneras. 


8 Not to be attached as object of the request 
immediately to rpocevydpueva, and all that 
intervenes to be assigned to the interpolator 
(Holtzmann, p. 85). Yet, according to Hoits- 
mann, Pp. 123, é» wayri épyye down to rov @cov 
is alleged to be simply an interpolated du- 
plicate of ver. 6; in which case, however, 
it would not be easy to see why xaprodopovpe- 
vo. was not written, after the precedent of 


ver. 6, but on the contrary capmogopourres. 


216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


is always used with afiws) does not even “ perhaps ” (Hofmann) belong to 
the following eis m. apeox., especially as apeoxeia, in the Greek writers and 
in Philo (see Loesner, p. 361), stands partly with, partly without, a geni- 
lival 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: agiwg roi Ocodv.—eig wacav apeckeiav] on behalf of every kind 
of pleasing, that is, in order to please Him in every way. The word 
only occurs here in the N. T., but the apostle is not on that account to be 
deprived of it (Holtzmann); it is found frequently in Polybius, Philo, 
et al.; also Theophr. Char. 5; LXX. Prov. xxix. 30 (xxx. 30); Symma- 
chus, Ps. lxxx. 12.1 Among the Greeks, apeoxcia (to be accentuated thus, 
see Winer, p. 50[E. T. 51]; Buttmann, Neu. Gr. p. 11 [E. T. 12]) bears, 
for the most part, the sense of seeking to please. Comp. Prov. xxix. 30: 
wevdci¢ Gpeoxeiat.—év mavri Epyw x.t.2.] There now follow three expositions, 
in order to define more precisely the nature and mode of the zep:rarjoa 
agiwe «.7.A. We must, in considering these, notice the homogeneous plan 
of the three clauses, each of which commences with a prepositional rela- 
tion of the participial idea, viz. (1) é mavti épyp «.1.A., (2) év mdon 
duvdyet, (8) pera yapac, and ends with a relation expressed by eis, viz. (1) 
tig tT. Exiyv tT. Oeov, (2) eig rao. trou. x. paxpoOuu., (3) eig Trav pepida x.T.A. 
The construction would be still more symmetrical if, in the third clause, 
év aon yap@ (Rom. xv. 32) had been written instead of pera yapac—which 
was easily prevented by the versatility of the apostle’s form of concep- 
tion.—év marti épyp ayab xaprog. is to be taken together [XXV c.] (and 
then again, aifavdu. cig tiv émiyv. tr. Oevi), inasmuch as ye by every good 
work (by your accomplishing every morally good action) bear fruit, as 
good trees, comp. Matt. vii. 17. But not as if the xaprogopeiy and the 
avgdavecba: 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, év mavri py. ay. is not 
to be connected with cic wacay apeox. (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Eras- 
mus, and others, also Steiger); otherwise we mistake and destroy the 
symmetrical structure of the passage.—xai avfavéu. cig 1. ériyy. tr. O.] 
and, inasmuch as with this moral /rutt-bearing at the same time ye in- 
erease in respect to the knowledge of God, that is, succeed in knowing Him 
more and more fully. The living, effective knowledge of God, which is 
meant by éziyv. r. Ocov (ver. 6, iii. 10, ii. 2), sustains an ethically necessary 
action and reaction with practical morality. Just as the latter is pro- 
moted by the former, so also knowledge grows through moral practice in 
virtue of the power of inward experience of the divine life (the fw row 
Gcov, Eph. iv. 18), by which God reveals Himself more and more to the 
inner man. The fact that here rov Gcov generally is said, and not row 
OcAnjpatoc Sect repeated, is in keeping with the progressive development 
set forth; there is something of a climaz init. On eic, used of the telic 
reference, and consequently of the regulative direction of the growth, 


10n wacer ap. comp. Polybius, xxxi. 26.5: ray ydvos dpecxeias spoopepdmeros. 


CHAP. I. 11. 217 


comp. on Eph. iv. 15; 2 Pet.i. 8. The reading r9 émeyvdce r. 6. would 
have to be tuken 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 avgdv., with the dative of spiritual in- 
crease by something, is frequent in Plato and classic writers.—As to the 
nominatives of the participles, which are not to be taken with mAnpu. 
(Beza, Bengel, Reiche, und others), but relate to the logical subject of 
mepimat, agiug, Comp. on Eph. iv. 2; 2 Cor. i. 7. 

Ver. 11 is co-ordinate with the foregoing é» wavri épyy .. . Oeov.—év 
macy dvv, duvaz.) [XXV d.] év is instrumental, as in ver. 9 (Eph. vi. 10; 
2 Tim. ii. 1); hence not designating that, in the acquiring of which the in- 
vigoration is supposed to consist (Hofmann), but: by means of every (moral) 
power (by its bestowal on God’s part) becoming empowered.'—xara 1d xpéro¢ 
zH¢ 665. ait.] according to the might of His majesty; with this divine might 
(sée as to xpdrog 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 ts eminent strength and efficacy are characterized (xaré in 
Eph. i. 19 has another sense). Comp. 2 Thess. ii.9; Phil. iii. 21. And 7rd 
xpatog r. dé£. avr. is not His glorious power (Luther, Castalio, Beza, and 
others ; also Flatt and Bahr), against which airob should have been a 
sufficient warning ; but rd xpéroc is the appropriate attribute of the divine 
majesty (of the glorious nature of God). Comp. Eph. iii. 16; Ecclus. 
xvill. 5. The xpdrog therefore is not the glory of God (Béhmer), but the 
latter has the former,—and the défa is not to be referred to a single 
aspect of the divine greatness (Grotius: power; Huther: love), but to its 
glorious whole. Comp. on Rom. vi. 4.—ei¢ racav trop. x. paxpod.] in respect 
to every endurance (in affliction, persecution, temptation, and the like, 
comp. Rom. v.3; 2 Cor. i. 6, vi. 4; Jas. i. 3 f.; Luke viii. 15; Rom. ii. 7, 
et al.) and long-suffering (towards the offenders and persecutors), that is, so 
as to be able to exercise these virtues in every way by means of that 
divine strengthening. The distinction of Chrysostom: paxpoOvpei rig mpdc 
éxeivog ob¢ duvardv xal apbvacbal’ tropuévec d2, od¢ ov dbvarae ayubvacba, is 
arbitrary. See, on the contrary, for instance, Heb. xii. 2, 3. Others 
understand it variously; but it is to be observed, that imouzorf expresses 
the more general idea of endurance, and that paxpo@vula, the opposite of 
which is dfvypia? and dfbbunoc*® always refers in the N. T. to the rela- 
tion of patient tolerance towards offenders. Comp. iii. 12; Gal. v. 22; 
Rom. ii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; also Heb. vi. 12; Jas. v. 10.—uerd yapac] [XXV e.] 
is joined with macav trou. x. paxpob. 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 


1 8uvaude (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 605) doesnot = Ixvil. 31; in Aquila; Job xxxvi. 9; Ps. lxiv. 
occur in Greek authors, and is only found 4. Paul elsewhere uses évpdurapody. 
here and at Heb. xi. 34, Lachm. in the N.T.; in 2 Eur. Andr. 729; Jas. i. 19. 
the LXX. at Eccles. x. 10; Dan. ix. 27; Ps. 8 Artem. iv. 69. 


218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
also preceded by a prepositional definition, points so naturally to the con-- 
nection with what follows! that it cannot be abandoned without arbitrari- 
ness. Even in that case, indeed, the thought of 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 thanks- 
giving. Observe also the deliberate juxtaposition of werd yapag evzapior. 
Ver. 12. While ye give thanks with joyfulness, etc.,—a third accompanying 
definition of mepitarjoa: agiug «7.2. (ver. 10), co-ordinate with the two 
definitions preceding, and not to be connected with ob avéyueba x... 
(Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin: “iterum redit ad gratulationem,” 
Calovius, Bdhmer, Baumgarten-Crusius).—r@ rarpi] of Jesus Christ; comp. 
ver. 13, and rot Kupiov 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 xarfp. Comp. ver. 3, which, how- 
ever, is held by Holtzmann to be the original, suggesting a repetition by 
the editor at our passage, in spite of the fact that the two passages have 
different subjects. Just as little does ei¢ rjv uepida x.7.A. betray itself as an 
interpolation from Eph. i. 18 and i. 11 (Holtzmann), seeing that, on the 
one hand, the expression at our passage is so wholly peculiar, and, on the 
other hand, the idea of xA7povoyia is so general in the N. T. Comp. espe- 
cially Acts xxvi. 182—r@ ixavécavre x.7.A.] Therein lies the ground of the 
thanksgiving, quippe qui, etc. God has made us fit (juace applies to the 
letter-writers and readers, so far as they are Christians) for a share in the 
Messianic salvation through the light, inasmuch as, instead of the darkness 
which previously prevailed over us, He has by means of the gospel 
brought to us the aa@ea, 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, iii. 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. 1v. 4, Acts xxvi. 23, e al.) to men, who without this enlight- 
enment were unfit for the Messianic salvation (Eph. ii. 1 ff, iv. 18, v. 11, 
vi. 12, 1 Thess.'v. 4, e al). The instrumental definition & 16 geri 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 


18yr., Chrysostom, Oecumentius, Theophy- 
tact, Erasmus, Estius, and others, including 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bohmer, Huther, 
Ewald, Ellicott, Bleek, Hofmann. 

2The mode in which Acta xxvi. 18 comes 
into contact as regards thought and expres- 


sion with Col. {. 12-14, may be sufficiently ex- 
plained by the circumstance that in Acta xxvi. 
also Paul is the speaker. Holtsmann justly 
advises caution with reference to the apparent 
echoes of the Book of Acts in general, as 
Luke originally bears the Pauline stamp. 


CHAP. I. 12, 13. 219 


others, including Flatt and Steiger), that Paul must have used veda 
instead of ga (see Olshausen). The ixavoty év re guri is, indeed, nothing 
else than the xadziv cig 1d gde (1 Pet. ii. 9) conceived in respect of its moral 
efficacy, and the result thereof on the part of man is the elva: gic év xupig 
(Eph v. 8), or the elva: vidvy rov guwré¢ (1 Thess.-v. 5; John xii. 36), d¢ 
quoripec év xéouy (Phil. ii. 15). But the light is a power; for it is rd ga¢ rH¢ 
Suge (John viii. 12), has its armor (Rom. xiii. 12), produces its fruit (Eph. 
v. 9), effects the Christian éA4éy yee (Eph. v. 13), endurance in the conflict of 
affliction (Heb. x. 82), etc. ‘Ev ro guri [XXV//] is usually connected 
with rov KAjpou rev dyivy, 80 that this «Agpoc is described as eristing 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 perfeo- 
tion (Olshausen, de Wette, and Dalmer) as referred to. But although the 
connecting article rov might be wanting, and the «Agpor r. dy. év rH gurl 
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. 18, 
tay BaoiA. tov viov. Hence not év r6 geri, but possibly év ra dééy, ev TH Cup, ev 
toig obpavoic, Or the like, would be a fitting definition of «Agpoc, which, 
however, already has in rév dyiwy its definite description (comp. Eph. i. 18; 
Acts xx. 32, xxvi.18). Just as little—for the same reason, and because r. 
pepida already carries with it its own definition (share in the xAjpoc)—is év 
t@ guri to be made dependent on ryv pepida, whether é be taken locally 
(Bengel: “Lux est regnum Dei, habentque fideles in hoc regno partem 
beatam’’) or as in Acts viii. 21 (Ewald), in which case Hofmann finds the 
sphere expressed (comp. also Bleek), where the saints have got their peculiar pos- 
session assigned to them, so that the being in light stands related to the future 
glory as that which is still in various respects condiioned stands to plenitude 
—as if xAgpoc (comp. on Acts xxvi. 18) had not already the definite and full 
eschatological sense of the possession of eternal glory. This xAgpoc, of 
-which the Christians are possessors (rov dyiwv), ideally before the Parousia, 
and thereafter really, is the theocratic designation (AdN)) of the property 
of the Messianic kingdom (see on Gal. iii.18; Eph. i. 11), and the pepic (p9N) 
tov xAfpov is the share of individuals’ in the same. Comp. Ecclus. xliv. 23. 

Ver. 18. A more precise elucidation of the divine benefit previously 
expressed by 19 ixavécavr: . . . guti. 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. 20.2—éx rij¢ é£ove. tov oxor.] [XXV g.] rod oxor. is not 


1Comp. also Bleek. Hofmann incorrectly 
says that rov cAjpov serves only to designate 
the wepis as destined for special possession. In 
that case, at least, the qualitative genitive of 
the abstract must have been put (ris KAnpovo- 
pias, aS in Ps. xvi. 5). But the concrete rov 
xAnpov 7. ay. is,as the literal sense of pepis, 
portio, most naturally suggests, the genitivus 
partitivus (G. totius), so that the individual is 


conceived as nepirys of the xAjpos of the saints, 
in which he for his part cupperdxes. 

3 This Christologica] outburst runs on in the 
form of purely positive statement, although 
having already in view doctrinal dangers of 
the kind in Colossae. According to Holtz- 
mann, the Christology belongs tothe compiler ; 
the whole passage, vv. 14-20, is forced and with- 
out motive, and it is only in ver 21 that we find 


220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

genitive of apposition (Hofmann), but, corresponding to the ei¢ r7v Bactetav 
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 
xéopuoc, Which is ruled by the devil, Eph. ii. 2), is personified ; its essence is 
the negation of the intellectual and ethical divine aA#6ea, and the afirm- 
ation of the opposite! The act of the éppicaro has taken place by 
means of the conversion to Christ, which is the work of God, Rom. viii. 
29 f.; Eph. ii. 4 ff It is to be observed, that the expression éx r. é&ovs. rt. 
oxérove is chosen as the correlative of év r@ gwri in ver. 12.—xai peréorncev] 
The matter is to be conceived locally ( sig Erepov rérov, Plat. Legg. vi. p. 762 
B), 80 that the deliverance from the power of darkness appears to be 
united with the removing away into the kingdom, etc.2—eig rjv BaotA x.7.A., 
that is, into the kingdom of the Messiah, (X XV h.] Eph. v.5; 2 Pet. i. 11; 
for this and nothing else is meant by 7 Saoieia Xpiorov (rov Oeov, rdv obpaviv) 
in all passages of the N. T® The aorist peréor. is to be explained by the 
matter being conceived proleptically (rg yap éAmids éodOnpev, Rom. viii. 24), 
as something already consummated (comp. on édégaoe, Rom. viii. 80). Thus 
the kingdom which is nigh is, by means of their fellowship of life with 
their Lord (Eph. ii. 6), as certain to the redeemed as if they were already 
translated into it. The explanation which refers it to the Christian church 
(so still Heinrichs, Bahr, Huther, and most expositors) as contrasted with 
the xéoyzoc, is just as unhistorica] 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 Baoreia; that belongs to the future aidy, 
Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 9 f, xv. 24, 50; Gal. v. 21, ¢ al. ; John xviii. 36.—rie¢ 
ayarne abrov] in essential meaning, indeed, nothing else than roi vioi avrov 
rov ayaxnrov (Matt. ii.17, xvii. 5, e al.), or rov viov rov ayannrod abvrov 
(Matt. xii. 18; Mark xii. 6), but more prominently singling out the attribute 
(Buttmann, Neu. 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: vld¢ odivys pov. Entirely parallel is Eph. i. 6 f.; é r@ gyarnpévy, 
év @ Exouev x.r.A. Augustine, de Trin. xv. 19, understood it as genitive of 
origin, making aydér7 avrov denote the divine substantia.* So again Olshau- 
sen, in whose view the expression is meant to correspond to the Johan- 
nine povoyerfe. This is entirely without analogy in the N.T. mode of con- 
ception, according to which not the procreation (ver. 15), but the sending 
of the Son is referred to the divine love as its act; and the love is not the 





the direct sequel to ver.13. The latter state- 
ment is incorrect. And why should this ex- 
cursus, as a grand basis for all the exhorta- 
tions and warnings that follow, be held with- 
out due motive? Holtzmann forms too harsh 
a judgment as to the whole passage i. 9-23, 
when he declares it incompatible with any 
strict exegetical treatment. 

1Comp. Luke xxii. 53; Matt. iv. 16; Acts 


xxvi. 18; Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 8, vi. 12, e¢ al. 
2Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 518 A; é« re durds cis 
oxétog peOcorapéver cai éx oxdtovs eis Gas. 
2Comp. iv. 11; and see on Rom. xiv. 17; 1 
Cor. iv. 20; Matt. fii. 2, vi. 10. 
4Theodore of Mopsuestia finds in the ex- 
pression the contrast that Christ was the Son 
of God ob dioa, adr’ aydxy Tis vicOecias. 


CHAP. I. 14, 15. 221 


essence of God (in the metaphysical sense), but His essential disposition 
(the essence in the ethical sense), even in 1 John iv. 8, 16. Consequently 
it might be explained: “ of the Son, whom His love has sent,” if this were 
suggested by the context; so far, however, from this being the case, the 
language refers to the exalted Christ who rules (Saocdciav). The expression 
itself, 4 vidg r7¢ ayaz. avrod, 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 oxérog, 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 vio#ecia (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 6 vids ric 
ayanne av7. as being thoroughly un-Pauline—as if the linguistic resources 
of the apostle could not even extend to an expression which is not 
indeed elsewhere used by him, but is in the highest degree appropriate to 
a specially vivid sense of the divine act of love; something sentimental 
in the best sense. 

Ver. 14. Not a preliminary condition of the vlo#ecia (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 Baovreia does 
not denote the kingdom of the church); nor yet a mark of the deliverance 
from darkness having taken place,'—since this deliverance necessarily 
coincides with the translation into the kingdom; but it is the abiding 
(éyouev, habemus, not accepimus) relation, in which that transference into the 
kingdom of God has tts causal basis. The ransoming (from the punishment 
of sin, see the explanatory rv ddeov rév duapt.) we have in Christ, inas- 
much as He, by the shedding of His blood as the purchase-price (see on 
1 Cor. vi. 20; Gal. iii. 18, iv. 5), has given Himself as a Atrpov (Matt. xx. 
28; Mark x. 45; 1 Tim. ii. 6); and this redemption, effected by His 
iAaorfpiov (Rom. iii. 21 ff), remains continually in subsistence and efficacy. 
Hence: év », which specifies wherein the subjective ézouev is objectively 
based, as its causa meritoria (Rom. iii. 24). Comp., moreover, on Eph. i.7, 
whence da tov aipzarog avrov has found its way hither as a correct gloss. 
But the deleting of this addition by no means implies that we should 
make rév dyapriév also belong to ry aroAtrpworw (Hofmann), as in Heb. ix. 
15, especially as Paul elsewhere only uses droAtrpwoc either absolutely 
(Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7, iv. 30) or with the genitive of the 
subject (Rom. viii. 23; Eph. i. 14). The expression dgeore r. duapr. 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.? (On vv. 15 ff., see Note X XVI. pages 267, 268.] After having stated, 


1 Ritechl in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 2 As to vv. 15-20, see Schleiermacher in the 
1863, p. 518. Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 407 ff. (Werke 3. Theol. 1. 





/ 


222 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

in ver. 14, what we have in Christ (whose state of evaltation he has in view, 
see ver. 13, r#v Bacrdeiav), Paul now, continuing his discourse by an epex- 
egetical relative clause, depicts what Christ is, namely, as regards His 
divine dignity—having in view the influences of the false teachers, who 
with Gnostic tendencies depreciated this dignity. The plan of the dis- 
course is not tripartite (originator of the physical creation, ver. 15 f.; main- 
tainer of everything created, ver. 17; relation to the new moral creation, 
ver. 18 ff..—so Bahr, while others divide differently)', but bipartite, [X XVI 
a.] in such a way that vv. 15-17 set forth the exalted metaphysical rela- 
tion of Christ to God and the world, and then ver. 18 ff., His historical 
relation of dignity to the church.2 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 
confirmatory clauses gr: év avr@ «.7.A. in ver. 16 and ver. 19, by which the 
two preceding * affirmations in ver. 15 and ver. 18 are shown to be the proper: 
parts of the discourse. [XXVI6.} Others‘ have looked upon the twice- 
expressed &¢ gory in ver. 15 and ver. 18 as marking the beginning of the 
two parts. But this would not be justifiable as respects the second 8¢ éorev; 
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 xai airéc, ver. 18, passing over from 
the general to the special, namely, to His government over the church to 
which He has attained by His resurrection. [XXVI ¢] On the details, 
see below. [On vv. 15-17, see Note XXVII. pages. 269-271.J—s¢ éorey «.1.A.] 
It is to be observed that Paul has in view Christ as regards His present 
existence, consequently as regards the presence and continuance of His 
state of exaltation (comp. on vv. 18, 14); hence he affirms, not what Christ 
was, but what He is. On this éoriv, comp. vv. 17,18, and 2 Cor. iv. 4. 
Therefore not only the reference to Christ's temporal mantfestation (Calvin, 
Grotius, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), but also the limit- 
ation to Christ’s divine nature or the Logos (Calovius, Estius, Wolf, and 
many others, including Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, Huther) is incorrect. 
The only correct reference is to His whole person, [X XVII a.], which, in 


p. $21 ff.), and, in opposition to his ethical 
interpretation (of Christ as the moral Re- 


ence to the incarnation, and in vv. 18-20, with 
reference to the same. 


former of the world), Holzhausen in the 7¥6, 
Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 236 ff.; Osiander, ibid. 
1833, 1, 2; Bahr, appendix to Komment. p. 
321 ff.; Bleek on Heb. i. 2 See generally 
also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 153 ff., IT. 1, 
p. 357 ff.; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1860, p. 446 f. 

1¢.g. Calovius: “Redemptoris descriptio a 
Deitate: ab opcre creationis,” and “ quod caput 
ecclesiag sit.” Comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. If. 
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 refer- 


In conformity with the confirmatory func- 
tion of the én, according to which not the 
clause introduced by rz, but the clause which 
it is to confirm, contains the leading thonght, 
to which 6ér¢ «.7.4. is logically subordinated. 
Hence the two parts are not to be begun with 
the two clauses én éy avrg themselves (20 
Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 182), in 
which case, moreover, ver. 15 is supposed to 


_be quite aloof from this connection—a suppo- 


sition at variance with ite even verbally evi- 
dent association with ver. 16. 

4See especially Bengel, Schleiermacher, 
Hofmann, comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 77. 


CHAP. I. 15. 223 
the divine-human state of its present heavenly existence, is 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.—eixav rov Oeov rov aoparov] image of God the 
invisible. [XXVII b.] Comp. on 2 Cor. iv. 4. As, namely, Christ in His 
pre-existence' down to His incarnation already possessed the essential 
divine glory, so that He was as to nature ica Or, and as to form of appear- 
ance év pope) Seo imdpyev (see on Phil. ii. 6); so, after He had by means 
of the incarnation divested Himeelf, not indeed of His God-equal nature, 
but of His divine dé6a, and had humbled Himself, and had in obedience 
towards God died even the death of the cross, He has been exalted again 
by God to His original glory (Phil. ii.9; John xvii. 5), so that the divine 
défa 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 aratyaopa rye déén¢ xai xapaxrip tic 
vroordceuc Cecov (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. 18, e¢ al.). The predicate rot aopdérov, placed as it is in ite 
characteristically significant attributive position § behind the emphatic rot 
Geod, posits for the conception of the exact image visibility (Heb. xii. 14; 2 
Cor. iii. 18; Acta xxii. 11); but the assumption that Paul had thus in view 
the Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos, the doctrine of the hidden and 
manifest God ‘, the less admits of proof, because he is not speaking here 
of the pre-existence, but of the eralted Christ, including, therefore, His 
human nature; hence, also, the comparison with the angel Metatron of 
Jewish theology (comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. IIT. 2, p. 67) is irrelevant. 
The Fathers, moreover, have, in opposition to the Arians, rightly laid 
stress upon the fact® that, according to the entire context, eixav rot Ceod is 
meant in the eminent sense, namely of the adequate, and consequently 
consubstantial, image of God (pévo¢ .. . nai amapadAdxrug eixdv, Theophy- 
lact), and not as man (Gen. i. 26; comp. also 1 Cor. xi. 7; Col. iii. 10) or 


1 Sabatier, p. 290, without reason represents 
the apostle as ina state of indistinct suspense 
in regard to his conception of this pre-exist- 
ence. And Pfleiderer (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitechr. 
1871, p. 33) sees in the pre-existence a sub- 
jective product, the consequence, namely, of 
the fact that Chriat is the ideal of the destiny of 
the human mind, hypostasized in a single per- 
son, to which is transferred the eternity and 
unchanged self-equality of the idea. 

8This is the chief point of agreement be- 
tween our Epistle and the Epistle to the He- 
brews; and it is explained by the Pauline 
basis and footing, on which the author of the 
latter stood. The subsequent spwrdérocos rac. 


«tio., however, has nothing to do with wpereé- 
roxos, Heb. i.6, where the absolute word is 
rather to be explained in accordance with 
Rom. viii.29. We make this remark in oppo- 
sition to Holtzmann, according to whom “the 
autor ad Ephesios as to his Christology walks in 
the track opened by the Epistle to the He- 
brews.” Other apparent resemblances to this 
letter are immaterial, and similar ones can be 
gathered from all the Pauline letters. 

3 Bornemann, Schol. tn Lue. p. xxxvi.; Bern- 
hardy, p. 322 f. 

4See Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 308; comp. Bahr, 
Olshausen, Steiger, Huther. 

6 See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 416. 





224 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


the creation (Rom. i. 20) is God’s image. In that case, however, the énvia- 
ibility of the cixév is not at all to be considered as presupposed (Chrysos- 
tom, Calovius, and others); this, on the contrary, pertains to the Godhead 
in itself (1 Tim. i. 17; Heb. xi. 27), so far as it does not present itself in its 
eixév; whereas the notion of eixév necessarily involves perceptibility (see 
sbove); ‘“ Dei inaspecti aspectabilis imago,” Grotius. This visibility—and 
that not merely mental (Rom. i. 20)—had been experienced by Paul him- 
self at his conversion, and at Christ’s Parousia will be fully experienced 
by all the world. Different from this is the (discursive) cognoscibility of 
God, which Christ has brought about by His appearance and working. 
John i. 18, xiv. 9. This applies against the view of Calvin, Clericus, and 
many others, including de Wette: “in His person, appearance, and oper- 
ation... God has made Himself as i were visible.”' Thus the substan- 
tiality of the exact image is more or less turned into a quasi or quodam- 
modo, and the text is thus laid open to every kind of rationalizing caprice. 
We may add that Christ was already, as Adyoc dcapxoc, necessarily the 
image of God, but év popgp Ocod, in purely divine glory; not, as after His 
exaltation, in divine-human défa; consequently, the doctrine of an eternal 
humanity of Christ (Beyschlag) is not to be based on eixav rot Geoi.2? The 
idea, also, of the prototype of humanity, which 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 ‘hought of the humanity which 
in the fullness 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 salvation, very different from the 
real antemundane existence of the personal Logos.—zpuréroxog méong xrti- 
ceux]. [XXVIII c.] After the relation of Christ to God now follows His 
relation to what is created, in an apologetic interest of opposition to the 
Gnostic false teachers. The false teachers denied to Christ the supreme 
unique rank in the order of spirits. But he is first-born of every creature, 
that is, born before every creature—having come to personal existence,* entered 
upon subsistent being, ere yet anything created was extant (Rom. i. 25, viii. 
39; Heb. iv. 13). [XXVII d.e.] Analogous, but not equivalent, is Prov. 
vili. 22 f. It is to be observed that this predicate also belongs to the entire 
Christ, inasmuch as by His exaltation His entire person is raised to that 
state in which He, as to His divine nature, had already existed before the 


1 Comp. Grotius: “ Adam imago Dei fuit, sed 


valde tenuis; in Christo perfectissime appa- 
ruit, quam Deus esset sapiens, potens, bo- 
nus;” Baumgarten-Crusius: “the affinity to 
God (which is held to consist in the destina- 
tion of ruling over the spirit-world) as Christ 
showed it upon earth.” 

%Comp. Wisd. vii. 26, and Grimm, Handb. p. 
161 f. 

8 BovAcras Seifat ote spd WaoNs THS KTivews Eo- 
Ti 0 vids. TwS WY; Sa yeriGENsS’ OVKOUY Kai TiwY 
ayyéAwy mpdrepos, Kai oUTus GoTe Kai ards éx- 
tive avrous, Theophylact. 


4 According to Hofmann (Schriftbew.), the ex- . 
pression is also intended to imply that the ex- 
istence of ali created things was brought about 
through Him. But this is only stated in what 
Soliows, and is not yet contained in wperdéro- 
xos by itself, which only posits the origin of 
Christ (as Adyos wpodopixds) in His temporal re- 
lation 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 «riots. Calvin also has understood it 
as Hofmann does; comp. also Geass, v. d. Pers. 
Car. p. 79, and Beyschlag, p. 446, according to 


CHAP. rr. 15. 225 


creation of the world, corresponding to the Johannine expression év apy 
fv 6 Aéyoc, which in substance, although not in form, is also Pauline; 
comp. Phil. ii. 6. Philo’s term mpuréyovoc, used of the Logos, denotes the 
same relation; but it is not necessary to suppose that Paul appropriated 
from him this erpression, which is also current among classical authors, or 
that the apostle was at all dependent on the Alexandrian philosophic 
view. The mode in which he conceived of the personal pre-existence of 
Christ before the world as regards (timeless) origin, is not defined by the 
figurative mpwréroxog more precisely than as procession from the divine 
nature (Philo illustrates the relation of the origin of the Logos, by saying 
that the Father avérecAev Him), whereby the premundane Christ became 
subsistent év pop¢f Ocov and ica Oc— (Phil. ii.6). The genitive réone xriceue, 
moreover, is not the partilive genitive (although de Wette still, with Usteri, 
Reuss, and Baur, holds this to be indubitable), because the anarthrous raca 
xtiow does not mean the whole creation, or everything which is created (Hof- 
Mann), and consequently cannot affirm the category or collective whole to 
which Christ belongs as its first-born individual (it means: every creature ; 
comp. on doa oixodouy, Eph. ii. 21*); but it is the genitive of comparison, 
corresponding to the superlative expression: “the first-born in comparison 
with every creature” (see Bernhardy, p. 139), that is, born earlier than every 
creature.2 In Rev. i. 5, rpwrérox. rév vexpav, the relation is different, r. vex- 
pov pointing out the category; comp. mpurédrox, év moAAoic ad., Rom. viii. 
29. The genitive here is to be taken quite as the comparative genitive 
with mpéroc; see on John i. 15, and generally, Ktihner, II.‘1, p. 335 f. The 
element of comparison is the relation of time (po rob rév xéopov elvac, John 
xvii. 5), and that in respect of origin. But because the latter in the case 
of every xrioce 18 different from what it is in the case of Christ, neither rpwré- 
xTioTog NOY mpurdérAacroc is made use of,‘—terms which would indicate for 


whom Christ is at the same time to be desig- 
nated as the principle of the creature, whose 
origin bears in itself that of the latter. 

1Comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 C. The 
article would neceasavily be added, as waca 
y% «riows, Judith xvi. 14, or 9 waca «riots, 3 
Macc. vi. 2, or } xriots waca. Comp. also oAy 
9 ariow, Wisd. xix. 6. 


* Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 156: “ In relation 
to all that is created, Christ occupies the posi- 
tion which a first-born has towards the house- 
hold of his father.” Essentially similar is his 
view in his Heil. Scar. N. T., p. 16, where #. 
xtic. is held to mean “all creation,” and to 
signify “all that is created in its unity,” which 
is aleo the opinion of Rich. Schmidt, Paul. 
Christol. p. 211. The interpretation of Hof- 
mann (comp. Gess, Pers.Chr. p. 79) is incorrect, 
because there would thereby be neceasarily 
affirmed a homogeneous relation of origin for 
Christ and all the criow. The «riow would 
stand to Christ in the relation of the mera- 
rexOei¢ to the rpwrdroxos, of the éxiyovos to the 


15 


wpetéyovos. Hofmann indeed (Heil. Schr. in 
loc.) opines that wacys xricews is simply geni- 
tive “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 wperdrocos wacys xri- 
cews is not at all to be got over so easily as 
it is by Hoffmann, namely, with a grammati- 
cally erroneous explanation of the anarthrous 
waca xriovs, and with appeal to Ps. Ixxxix. 28 
(where, in fact, wpwréroxos stands without 
genitive, and 33 in the sense of the first 
rank). 

8Comp. Bahr. and Bleek, Ernesti, Urspr. d. 
Sande, I. p. 241; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 424; 
Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 214, ed. 2, 

4How much, however, the designations 
Wpweroxtieros, KTioma, xrigev «.7.A., a8 applied 
to the origin of the Son, were in use amony 
the Alexandrians (following Prov. viii. 22, 
where Wisdom says: xvptos éxrigd pe, COMP. 
Ecclus. i. 4, xxiv. &f.), may be seen in Giesu- 
ler, Kirchengesch. 1.1, p. 327, ed. 4 


226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

Christ, who is withal Son of God, a similar mode of origin as for the 
creature—but the term mpuréroxoc 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 «rio, but born, having 
come forth homogeneous from the nature of God. And by this is 
expressed, not a relation homogeneous with the «rio (Holtzmann), a 
relation kindred to the world (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 227), but that which is 
absolutely eralied above the world and unique. Theodoret justly observes: 
ovy O¢ adeAdpy Exuy TH Kriow, GAN’ d¢ rpd maone KTicews yevvnBeic. At Variance 
with the words, therefore, is the Arian interpretation, that Christ 1s desig- 
nated as the jirst creature; 30 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 mpuréro- 
xo. The Socinian interpretation is also incorrect! (Grotius, Wetstein, 
Nosselt, Heinrichs, and others), that «rio denotes the new ethical creation, 
along with which there is, for the most part, associated the reference of 
mpwrérox. to the highest dignity (Pelagius, Melanchthon, Cameron, Ham- 
mond, 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 «rice would necessarily 
require for the moral notion a more precise definition, either by a pre- 
dicate (xai4, 2 Cor. v.17; comp. Barnabas, ep. c. xvi.: AaBévreg TH dpeow 
Tav duapriav Kal éAricavres ext TO Ovduartt Tov Kupiov, éyevducba Kacvol, méAw ef 
apxi¢ xtcCépevoc), or at least by a context which admitted of no doubt; also, 
that mpwréroxos never means the most excellent, and can only have this sense 
ex adjuncto (as at Ps. lxxxix. 28; Rom. viii. 29), which in this passage is 
not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and mpd mdvrwy in 
ver, 17; comp. also mpuréroxog éx tév vexpov in ver. 18) brings prominently 
forward the relation of time? This tpuréroxov elva: belongs to the high 
dignity of Christ (comp. Rev. ili. 14. 9 apxz9 ric xricews tov Geov), but 1b 
does not signify it. The ethical‘ interpretation of the passage appears all 
the more mistaken, since according to it, even if tpurérox is understood 
temporally (Baumgarten-Crusius. “ «rio is that which is remodelled, and 


1The Socinian doctrine argues thus “pri- 
mogenitum unum ex eorum numero, quorum 
primogenitus est, esse necesse est,” but 
Christ could not Se “unus e rebus conditis 
creationis veteris,'—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 di- 
vine nature. See Catech Racov 167, p 318, ed 
Oeder 

*#Chrysostom justly says ovbyiafiagx Timss, 
aAAG xpdvou pévov don: onpaytixéy, and already 
Theophilus, ad Autol ii. 31, p 172 omore b¢ 


HedAncer b Geds worhoa dea éBovAcicarto, rosToOy 
Tov. Adyow ¢yévvnce wpohopiady, wpetéroxoy wd- 
ons xTioeus. 

8Comp. Justin, c Jy. 100: wperérocow wiv 
TOU @eov K wpd wWavTey TwY KTIT MATER 

4Both errors of the Socinians, etc., are al- 
ready present in Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
namely, that spwrérocos wag «rio does not 
stand éwi ypdvov, but éwi wporiuyoens, and sig- 
nifies wapa wacay Thy ariow Tiscspevos, aNd 
that the following d» avrg «.r A does not de- 
note rhy spwryv, but thy dv avre yervonéray 
QvaxTiouy Comp. aleo Photius, AmpAul. 193. 


CHAP, I. 16. 227 


mpuréroxos, He who has come first under this category, has first received 
this higher spiritual dignity ”), Christ is made to be included under the xriocg, 
which is at variance both with the context in ver. 16 f., and with the whole 
N. T. Christology, especially the sinlessness of Christ. If, However, in 
order to obviate this ground of objection, mpwréroxos is combined as an 
adjective with eixév, we not only get a complicated construction, since both 
words have their genitival definition, but mpwréroxog (instead of mpwréruroc) 
would be an inappropriate predicate for eixév. This applies against Schlei- 
ermacher, who, taking «rio 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 them— 
an image of the second order. In the interest of opposition to heresy, 
some, following Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. iii. 31, p. 237, and Basil the Great, 
c. Eunom. iv. p. 104, have made the first-born even into the first-bringer-forth, 
mpwroréxoc, 28 paroxytone, according to the classical usage,! as, with Erasmus 
in his Annot. (but only permissively) Erasmus Schmid and Michaelis did, 
although mpwroréxo¢ in an active sense occurs only of the female sex, and 
the very rpurdéroxog éx rt. 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 zpérov to the idea of a detrepov—an idea which, 
with the usual interpretation, is implied in «ricew.—Ver. 15 f. is, more- 
over, strikingly opposed to that assumption of a world without beginning 
(Schleiermacher, Rothe). 

Ver. 16. For in Him were all things created,—the logically correct con- 
firmation of mpwréroxo¢ rao. xricews. For if the ereation of all things took 
place in Christ, it 1s evident that He must stand before the series of created 
things, and be tpuréroxog rdone xricews.—év atte] [X XVII f.] is not eqivalent 
to d¢ abrov (Chrysostom, Oecumenuus, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Bleek, 
and many others), but. on Christ depended (causally) the act of creation, 
so that the latter was not done independently of Him—in a causal con- 
nection apart from Him—but it had in Him the ground essentially con- 
ditioning it. In Him lay, in fact, the potency of life, from which God 
made the work of creation proceed, inasmuch as He was the personal 
principle of the divine self-revelation, and therewith the accomplisher of 
the divine idea of the world. A well-known classical usage to denote the 
dependence of a state of things, the causality of which is contained tn any 
one* Not asif the “causa principalis” of the creation lay in Christ, but 
the organic causality of the world’s becoming created was in Him; hence 
the following 4’ airoi affirms not a different state of things, but the same 
thing under a varied form of conception and designation, by which it is 


1 Hom. Jl. xvii 5; Plat. Theaet.p. 161A, vac raw xriow, Isidore, Le. 
151 C, Valokenaer, Schol. II. p. 389. 3See Bernhardy, p. 210; Kahner, IL. 1, p. 408 
3 wpwroy abroy TeTOKevat, TOUT’ dors weworyad- (f.; from the N.T., Winer, p. 304 [E. T. 300]. 


228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


brought out in greater definiteness. The primary ground of creation 1s 
ever God, Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. viii.6; Heb. xi. 3. The speculative inter- 
pretation of scholastic theology, which found here the “causa exemplaris,” 
according to which the idea omnium rerum was in Christ, 1s 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 xéopog voyréc, 
that is, things in their very idea; He bears their essence in Himself”), 
but is destitute of confirmation from the modes of conception and expres- 
sion elsewhere in the N. T., and, as éxrio#7 denotes the historical fact of the 
having been created, it would require not év at7¢, but é€ abrov, 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 air 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 Paulis 
speaking here, not of the existence and essence of the universe in Christ, 
but of the becoming created, which took place in Christ (év abr@ Cup i, 
John i. 4), consequently of a divine act depending on Christ; comp. John 
1. 3: youpic avrov éyévero ovde év 6 yéyovev; Heb. i. 2; and Bleek in loc. 
Lastly, de Wette finds in év besides the instrumental agency at the same 
time something of a telic idea (comp. also Ewald and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 
424 f.); but this blending together of two heterogeneous references is not 
justified by the é&’ airod nat ele airév that follows.—éxriof7] physical act of 
creation ; Schleiermacher ought not to have called in question the linguistic 
usage to this effect, with a view to favor the ethical interpretation of the 
founding of the church.| The word may have the meaning adopted by 
Schleiermacher: to obtain its arrangement and constitution? and that 
according to the relative nature of the notion implied in the word 
condere;* but not here, where it is correlative with mdo7¢ xricex, and 
where the quite general and in no way to be restricted ra révra follows. 
Throughout the N. T., in general «rifw, «rioy, xrioza, denote the original 
bringing forth, never merely the arrangement of that which exists; and 
even in such passages as Eph. ii. 10, 15, iv. 24, the relation 18 conceived, 
only in a popular manner, as actual creation.—Observe, moreover, the 
distinction of the tenses : éxtio67, which denotes the act that took place; and 
then éxréoraz, which denotes the creation which has taken place and now 
subsists.‘—ra mavra] 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.—ra év roi¢ ovpavoic x.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 (rév otpavév xal ra év att «.7.A,; COMp. 


1See Wisd. i. 14, x. 1, xL 18; Deut. 1v.32; Choeph, 484; Soph Ant. 1101; Pind. O£, vi. 
comp, Gen. vi.7; Ecclus xxiv. 9, comp. xv. 116; 3 Esdr iv. 63 
14; Judith xiii. 18; comp Gen.i.1; 1 Cor. x. ®Comp. Blomf Gloss tn Aeach. Pers, 204. 
9; Eph. fiL 9; Rom. £ 25; Rev. x. 6, comp. 4See Winer, p. 255 [E.T. 272]; Kahner, II. 
xiv. 7. 1, p. 143 f£., and ad Xen. Mem ili. 1. 4 fit 
$ Herod. i. 149, 167,168; Thuc. 1.100; Aesch. 7. 7. 


CHAP. I. 16. 229 


Neh. ix. 6; Gen. ii. 1, 4 al.), but does not differ from it, as it does not 
exclude heaven and earth themselves, the constituent elements of which, 
in the popular view, are included in these two categories. Comp. 1 
Chron. xxx. 11. It is incorrect, therefore, to press this expression in 
opposition to the explanation which refers it to the creation of the world 
(Wetstein: “non dicit 6 ctpavog xat } yj éxrioby sed ra mdvra, etc., quo 
habitatores significantur, qui reconciliantur,” comp. Heinrichs and others, 
also Catech. Racov. 132, p. 214, ed. Oeder), and to think, with Schleier- 
macher, of the kingdom of heaven ; but it is arbitrary also, especially after 
ra ravra, to make the apostle mean primarily the living (Bahr, de Wette) 
or rational creatures. The expression embraces everything; hence there . 
was neither need for the mention of the lower world, nor, looking at the 
bipartite form of enumeration, occasion for it (it is otherwise in Phil. 
ii. 10; Rev. v. 3). The idea that Paul could not have adduced those under 
the earth as a special class of created beings, because God had not created 
them with the view of their being under the earth (de Wette), would 
imply a reflection alien to the vivid flow of the passage before us.—ra 
dpata x, ta adpara}. 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 dpard, are 
included among the latter. Theodoret erroneously asserts that even ra 
épara applies to heavenly things (sun, moon, and stars); it applies to every- 
thing visible, as in Plat. Phaed. p. 79 A: Oapev ov, ci Bobdet, ign, dbo eidy Trav 
dvruv 7d pev dparév, rd dé aecdéic.—The aépara are now more precisely specified 
disjunctively by eire, 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 [XXVII g.]—whose difference of rank Hofmann ground- 
lessly denies,’ understanding thereby merely “ spirits collectively, of what- 
ever name they may be "’—see on Eph. 1. 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 @pévo: are 
the highest and the xvpiéryrec the lowest class, the apyai and the é£ovviac 
being two middle orders lying between these two extremes. At Eph. Lc. 
Paul names also four grades of the angelic hierarchy; but neither there 
nor here has he intended to give a complete enumeration of them, for in 
the former case he omits the 4pévo, and in the latter the duvdyece. The 
@pdvoc are not mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. (nor yet in Ignat. ad Trall. 
5), but they occur in the Test. Levi, p. 548, in which they are placed in the 
seventh heaven (é @ aei iuvot rh 6e9 mpoogépovrat), also in Dionys. Areop. 
Hier. cel. 6. ff., and in the Rabbins.* As regards the erpression, the last 
three denominations are to be taken as abstracts, which represent the 
respective concretes, and analogously the concrete noun 6pévo is used for 


18ee, on the other hand, Hahn, Theol. d. * Buxtorf, Lex. Talm.. p. 1097; Schoettgen, 
NV. 7. 1. p. 202f.; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. Hor. p. 808. 
308 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 559. 





230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


those to be found on the thrones (for those enthroned).' In this case the very 
natural supposition that the angels, whose designation by the term Opévo 
must have been én current use, were, in the imagery which gave sensuous 
embodiment to religious ideas, conceived as on thrones, is not to be called 
in question (in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 226). They were | 
probably conceived as enthroned round the throne of God (comp. Rev. iv. 

4, xx. 4). It is to be observed, moreover, generally that Paul presupposes 
the various classes of angels, which he names, as well known ; although we 
are unacquainted with the details of the case, this much is nevertheless 
certain, that the apostle was far removed from the dreamy fancies 
indulged in on this point by the later Rabbins.? But very soon after the 
apostolic age (comp. Hermas, Past. vis. iii. 4), instruction as to romo@eciac 
rag ayyeAuxdc was regarded as teaching for the more perfect. See Ignatius, 
ad Trall. 5. For the Christian faith there remains and suffices the 
testimony as to different and distinctively designated stages and 
categories in the angelic world, while any attempt to ascertain more than 
is written in Scripture passes into the fanciful domain of theosophy.— 
With éfuveia is concluded the confirmatory sentence (51), so that a full stop is 
to be placed after éfove. With ra rdévra begins a new sentence, in which 
7@ waévra and airée correspond to one another; hence a comma only must 
stand after zxrcoraz. There is no reason for placing (with Lachmann) ra 
ravra down to éxxAyo. in a parenthesis.—ra mdvra 6c’ avrov x.7.A.] a solemn 
recapttulation,® but in such a way that, instead of the act of creation 
previously mentioned, there is now presented the finished and ready 
result (éxriorac); the causal relation which was previously denoted by év is 
now more precisely indicated as a relation of mediate agency (6: avroi, 
comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6); then in ei¢ airévy a new element is added, and the 
emphasis which in ver. 16 lay on é«rio@7, is now laid on ré mévra which 
stands at the head of the sentence. ‘We cannot say with Hofmann, that 
by & avrov and ei¢ airév the Son comes to stand in contradistinction to 
what has been created as Creator, after by év avrg the creative act has 
been presented as one that had taken place only not without the Son. By the 
latter, év air@ would become too general and indefinite a thought; while 
é’ airov 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 ei¢ atrév predicates the “ causa finalis” of the same.—eic airév] 
in reference to Him, for Him, as the aim and end, “in quo Pater acqui- 
escit,” Beza. Comp. Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Barnab. Ep. 12: é& aire 
ra wévra kat cig avrév. 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 


1Comp. Kthner, II. 1, p. 11; Ruhnken, ad 
Tim. p. 190. 

$See Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. IT. p. 
374. 

8 Ewald well says: “Just at this point the 
discourse breaks forth as if with fresh force, 


80 as once more to express as clearly as possi- 
ble the whole in al] conceivable temporal 
relations.” 

4 And, if the world was created not merely 
&° avrod, but also cis avrdy, consequently 
in telic reference to Him, it is certain tha! with 


CHAP. I. 17. 231 
Eph. i. 23, iv. 10; Phil. ii. 9 ff. The final cause of the world, referred in 
Rom. xi. 36 to God, is here affirmed of Christ, and with equal right; for 
He, as He was the organ of God in creation, is the commissioned ruler to 
whom the xvpidryg trav révtev is committed (Matt. xxviil. 18; Phil. 1.9; 1 
Cor. xv. 27; Heb. ii. 8), in order that everything created may have the 
ethical telic destination of serving Him. More special definitions of the 
meaning of cic avrév are without due warrant, and in particular, the often- 
repeated one: to His glorification (Beza, Flatt, Bohmer, and others); it lays 
down Christ in general as the legitimus finis (Calvin)—The expositors, 
who explain the words as referring to the new moral creation, have sum- 
moned to their aid all kinds of arbitrary conjectures in detail—a remark 
which applies not merely to Nésselt, Heinrichs, and others, but also to 
Schleiermacher, who holds (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius) that ra év r. onp. 
is everything that belongs to the kingdom of heaven, and ra émi r. yi 
everything which belongs to civil order in earthly kingdoms; that ra 
éparé and ra adpara apply only to the latter; that the Opévo: «.r.A. are 
magisterial offices, and the like. 

Ver. 17. Kai avré¢} [X XVII h.] which is to be separated from the pre- 
ceding by a comma only (see on ver. 16), places, in contradistinction to 
the created objects in ver. 16 (ra wdvra), 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 airéc 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 (Neut. Gr. 
p. 94 [E. T. 107] brings forward2—zxpo ravruv] like rpuréroxoc, referring to 
time, not to rank (as the Socinians, Nosselt, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others hold); Paul thus repeatedly and emphati- 
cally lays stress on the pre-existence of Christ. Instead of éori, he might 
have written 7 (John i. 1); but he makes use of the former, because he 


the counsel of creation there was also posited, 
in prospect of the entry of sin, the counsel 
of redemption. Comp. Thomasius, Christi 
Pers. u. Werk, I, p. 196 f.; Julius Maller, Dogm. 
Abhand. p. 121. ff. 

1This «ig avréy is wrongly found incom- 
patible 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 
tis avréy (for God) and of &° atvrov (through 
Christ) is not the universe, but the ques. The 
relation of subordination between Father and 
Son would be only done away with at our 
passage, in the event of ite being said of 
Christ that ra. wavra were created é¢f avrov. 
But by dé» avrg, and by the more precise 
definition 8.° avrowv, itis guarded; and the 
subordination remains unaffected by the cir- 
cumstance that the eis avréy is laid down 
by God for the world as its telic aim. This 


, 


eis aurév éxrigra: is the necessary prelimi- 
nary condition, 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 «riocs in Rom. vilf. is essen- 
tially connected with that eis avrov, which 
does not go beyond Paul or come at all into 
opposition to him. The resemblance of our 
passage to 0 wpetos xai 6 étcxaros, Rev. 
i. 17, xxii. 13, rests upon the Christological 
hasis of their common faith, not upon a 
dependence of our epistle on the Apoca- 
lypse, 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 significat 
majestatem et omnem excludit creaturam.” 

8See Fritzache, ad Matth. p. 47; Winer, p. 
141 f. [E. T. 150); Kahner, II. 1, p. 563. 





232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


has in view and sets forth the permanence of Christ’s existence, and does 
not wish to narrate about Him historically, which is done only in the 
auxiliary clauses with ér:, vv. 16 and 19. On the present, comp. John viii. 
58. His existence is more ancient than that of all things (xdvruy, not 
masculine, as the Vulgate and Luther translate).—év air] as in ver. 16, 
referring to the causal dependence of the subsistence of all existing things 
on Christ.—ovvéoryjxe] denotes the subsistence of the whole, the state of lasting 
interdependence and order,—an idea which is not equivalent to that of crea- 
tion, but presupposes it.'' 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 exist- 
ing things. Comp. Heb. i.3. Of attempts at explanation under the moral 
interpretation, we may note that of Schleiermacher: the consolidating of 
earthly relations and institutions; and that of Baumgarten-Crusius: “in 
this new 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-demiurgic 
doctrine which was afterwards systematically elaborated. There is noevidence, how- 
ever, of their particular views, and the further forms assumed by the Gnostic ele- 
ments, as they showed themselves according to the Fathers in Simon Magus (Iren. 
Haer.i. 20: “ Eunoiam ...generare angelos et potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc 
factum dixit;” comp. Epiph. Haer. xxi. 4), Cerinthus, etc., and especially among 
the Valentinians, while certainly to be recognized as fundamentally akin to the 
Colossian doctrinal errors (comp. Heinrici, Valentinian. 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 Zeitachr. 
1870, p. 246 f.), and more cautiously by Holtzmanu. Of Ebionitism only Easene 
elements are to be found in Colossae, mingled with other Gnostic doctrines, which 
which were not held by the later Ebionites. In particular, the pd rdavrev civaz, 
on which Paul lays so much stress, must have been doubted in Colossae, although 
a portion of the Ebionites expressly and emphatically taught it (Aéyovory dvufev 
nev bvta mpd wavrwv dé KrioPévra, Epiph. Haer. xxx. 3). Moreover, the opinion 
that Paul derived the appellations of the classes of angels in ver. 16 from the 
language of the heretics themselves (Bohmer, comp. Olshausen) is to be rejected, 
because in other passages also, where there is no contrast to the Gnostic doctrine 
of Aeons, he makes use in substance of these names (Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. xv. 24; 
comp. Eph. i. 20 ff, iii. 10, vi. 11 ff). They are rather to be regarded as well- 
known and generally-current appellations, which were derived from the termin- 
ology of later Judaism, and which heretics made use of in common with the 


1 Reiske, Ind. Dem. ed. Schaef. p.481: “Cor B: ¥ wodcreia Euvdorycd pipnore Tov cadAlorov 
pus unum, integrum, perfectum, secum con-_... Aiov. Herod. vii. 225; Philo, quis rer. div 
sentiens esse et permanere.” Comp. 2 Pet. Aaer. p. 489: 6 évatuos Syxos, éf cavrod Saduros 
ili. 5; Plat. Rep. p.530 A: fuveordvac te rou ay Kai vexpds, curdaryce x. Geowupetras mpovoig 
ovpavocy Snusovpyy airév re xai Ta dv airy, Tim. cov x.1.A. 

p- GLA: yay... guveorgaviar, Legg. vii. p. 817 


CHAP. I. 18. 233 


orthodox. The anti-Gnostic element is contained, not in the technical expres- 
sions, but in the doctrinal contents of the pascage; 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.51f.; Lechler, apost, Zeit, p. 55 f.; 
Klopper, 4. ¢. 


Ver. 18. [On vv. 18-20, see Note XXVIII. pages 271-275.| Second part (see 
on ver. 15) of the exhibition of the exaltedness of Christ. [XXVIII a.] 
To that which Christ is as puréroxog méong xricew (vv. 16, 17) is now 
added what He is as zpuréroxog ix tiv vexpov, namely, the Head of the 
Church, and thus His zporetew has its consummation (év rao). The 
latter, namely, iva yévyra ... mpuretbwv, embraces also a retrospect to that 
mpurtéroxoc mdone xrioews, and includes it in év waocv, without its being neces- 
sary, however, to attach ver. 18 to the carrying out of the relation to the 
world expressed in mpurérox, +. xrico. (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 é rao: mpwretwv.—That ver. 
18, with its confirmation in ver. 19 f., has an apologetic reference to the 
Gnostic false teaching, must be assumed from its connection with what 
goes before. The passage is to be looked upon as antagonistic to the 
worship of angels (ii. 18), which disparaged Christ in His dignity as Head of 
the Church, but not (in opposition to Bahr and Huther) as antagonistic to 
a theological dogma, such as is found in the Cabbala, according to which 
the body of the Messiah (the Adam Kadmon) is the aggregate of the 
emanations. For the emphasis of the passage and its essential point of 
doctrine lie in the fact that Christ is the Head of the church, and not in 
the fact that He is the head of the church ; it is not the doctrine of another 
copa, but that of any other rpuretuv, which is excluded.—xai airéc] stands 
again, as x. avréc in ver. 17, in significant reference to rad mdvra: e¢ tpse, in 
quo omnia consistunt, est caput, etc., 80 that the passage continues to divide 
itself as into the links of a chain.—rov odparoc rig éxxAno.] to be taken 
together; the second genitive is that of apposition (Winer, p. 494 [E. T. 
531]), which gives to the word governing it concrete definiteness.! On the 
familiar Pauline mode of considering the church of believers, livingly and 
actively ruled by Christ as the head (Eph. iii. 10; Phil. iii. 6; Acts ix. 31), 
as His body,? comp. 1 Cor. x. 17, xii. 12 ff., 27; Eph. i. 23, iv. 12, v. 28, 30; 
Rom. xii. 5.—d¢ éorw x.7.4.] expexegetical relative clause (as in ver. 15), the 
contents of which are related by way of confirmation to the preceding 
statement,’ like our: he, who, ec., which might be expressed, but not neces- 


1Comp. Miller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, 
p. 611 ff. 

2In which is expressed the idea of the in- 
visible church. Comp. Julius Maller, Dog 
mat. 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 Holts- 
mann again to enter here, after he has mani- 
fested a comparative independence in vv. 
15-18. 

3 Matthiae, p. 1061 f.; Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
i. 2. 64; Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 196 f. 


234 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


sarily, by boric (or dave). 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. 1. 4, 4 
al.).—épxh] beginning ; whieh, however, is not to be explained either as 
“initium secundae et novae creationis” (Calvin), progenitor of the regen- 
erate (Bisping), or “author of the church” (Baumgarten-Crusius), or even 
“ruler of the world” (Storr, Flatt); but agreeably to the context in such a 
way, as to make it have with the appositional rpuréroxog its definition in é« 
tov vexpiav, (XXVIII b.] just as if the words ran: apy rav vexpov, mpwrdroxog 
é€ avrév, although Paul did not express himself thus, because at once upon 
his using the predicate apf in and by itself the exegetical mpwréroxoc sug- 
gested itself to him. Accordingly Christ is called apx7 (rév vexpov), inas- 
much as He is among all the dead the first arisen to everlasting life. It is 
arbitrary to discover in apy an allusion to the offering of first-fruis sancti- 
fying the whole mass (Chrysostom, Beza, Ewald, and others); especially 
as the term arapz4, whjch is elsewhere used for the first portion of a sacri- 
fice (Rom. xi. 16), is not here employed, although it has crept in from 1 
Cor. xv. 20, 23, in a few minusculi and Fathers, as in Clement also, Cor. I. 
24, Christ is termed arapyi r7¢ avaordceuc. To assume a reminiscence of 1 
Cor. xv. (Holtzmann) is wholly unwarranted, especially as arapy is not 
used. On apx%, used of persons, denoting the one who begins the series, as 
the first in order of time, comp. Gen. xlix. 3, where apy) réxvuy pov is 
equivalent to mpwréroxoc pov, as also Deut. xxi. 17. In what respect any one 
is apxf of those concerned, must be yielded by the context, just as in this 
case it is yielded by the more precisely defining mpwréroxog éx tr. vexpav; 
hence it has been in substance correctly explained, following the Fathers: 
apxh, dnoiv, tore THE aGvactdcews, Tpd Tavtwv avacrdc,' Theophylact. Only 
Tie avactéceuc is not to be mentally supplied, nor is it to be conjectured (de 
Wette) that Paul had intended to write apx7 1. avacrdceuc, but, on account 
of the word mpuréroxog presenting itself to him from ver. 15, did not com- 
plete what he had begun. It follows, moreover, from the use of the word 
mpuréroxoc, that apzf 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).— 
mputéroxoc éx t. vexp.] [XXVIII c.] éx 7. vexp. is conceived in thesame way asin 
avacrivat éx tr. 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 az r. vexp. Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64, xxviii. 7), and returning 
into the body, with the latter rises from the tomb. Comp. mpéro¢ é& avacrécewc 
vexpov, Acta 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 rav vexp. (not é« r. v.) yields a form of conceiving the matter not 
materially different. Calvin takes mpuréroxoc éx. r. v. as specifying the 
ground for apz4: “ principitum (absolutely), quia primogenitus est ex mortuis ; 


1 The Fathers‘have already correctlyjudged mains the firstrisen. Theophylact: ei yap 
that even in regard to the isolated cases of Kai GAAot pd Tovrov dvdorncar, GAAa wedcy 
rising from the dead, which have taken place = d we@avow airrds 82 ry» TeAciar évéoracty évéory. 
through Christ and before Him, Christ ree Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 20. 


CHAP, I. 18. 238 


nam in resurrectione est rerum omnium instauratio.” Against this it 
may be urged, that apz77 has no more precise definition; Paul must have 
written either apy? Tio Kaivig xricewc, or at least 7¢ instead of d¢. Calvin was 
likewise erroneously of opinion (comp. Erasmus, Calovius) that Christ is 
called Primogenitus ex mortuis, not merely because He was the first to rise, 
but also “quia restituit aliis viiam.”’ 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 presupposition of 
the expression mpuréroxog (aivirreras d2 6 Adyog Kai TRY TavTur Audv avdoraar, 
Theodoret). This expression is purposely chosen in significant reference to 
ver. 15, as is intimated by Paul himself in the following iva yévyra: tv waow 
«.7.4. But it is thus all the more certain, that tpwréroxog ix r. vexp. is to be 
taken independently, and not adjectivally together with apx7 (Heinrichs, 
Schleiermacher, Ewald), which would only amount to a tautological ver- 
boseness (first-born beginning); and, on the other hand, that é« rév vexpov 
may not be separated from mpuréroxos in such a way as to emphasize the 
place, issuing forth from which Christ is what He is, namely, apy4, mpwrdroxog ; 
the former, “‘as the personal beginning of what commences with Him;” 
the latter, “in the same relation to those who belong to the world there- 
with coming into life as He held to the creation” (Hofmann). In this 
way the specific more precise definition, which is by means of éx r. vexpav 
in significant reference to ver. 15 attached to the predicates of Christ, ap74 
and mpuréroxoc, would be groundlessly withdrawn from them, and these 
predicates would be left in an indefiniteness, in which they would simply 
be open vessels for receiving a gratuitously imported supplement.—iva 
yévyrat x.t.A.] [XXVIII d.] not to be restricted to the affirmation é« rav 
vexpov (Hofmann),' but to be referred to the whole sentence that Christ is 
apxh, mputétoxog éx t. vexp., expressing the divine teleology of this posi- 
tion 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 yiyveo8ac and elva 
are never synonymous. The év raow atrd¢ tpwrebe 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 mpureberr is the divinely intended aim of His being risen.—év rao] 
én all points, without excepting any relation, not, therefore, merely in the 
relation of creation (vv. 15-17). Comp. Phil. iv. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 11, iv. 15; 
2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5; Tit. ii. 9; Heb. xiii. 4,18. ’Ev xavri 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 
Kypke and Heinrichs. But this would be here, after the universal bear- 


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


236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


ing of the whole connection, much too narrow an idea, which, besides, is 
self-evident as to the Head of the church. According to Pelagius, it 
denotes: “tam in visibilibus quam in invisibilibus creaturis.” 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 us 
such.—airé¢] emphatic, as in vv. 17, 18.—pwreiwy] having the first rank, 
not used elsewhere in the N. T.!. This precedence in rank is to be the final 
result of the condition which set in with the mpwréroxov elvac éx r. vexp.; but 
it is not contained in this puréroxov eiva: itself,—an idea against which 
the very iva yévyra: is logically decisive (in opposition to de Wette’s double 
signification of zpwrérox.). 

Ver. 19.* Ore] Confirmatory of the iva yévyra: x.r.2., just said: “about 
which divinely intended yiyveo$a: év raow abriv mpwretovra 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 fullness and reconciler of the world, 
have been destined otherwise than to become é radow rpuretwv! This 
confirmation, therefore, does not refer to the statement that Christ is the 
Head of the church (Steiger, Huther, comp. Calovius), which has already 
its confirmation by means of é¢ éorey apxq «.7.4., nor at all to é« rév vexpav 
(Hofmann, following up his incorrect explanation of these words), as if 
the reason were specified why Christ should have gone to His high dig- 
nity as beginner of a new world by 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« ray vexp., which is currently used every- 
where of resurrection from death, and without conveying any special 
significance of humiliation. Nor yet does Paul move in a circle, by put- 
ting forward in ver. 19 as ground of proof that from which in ver. 15 ( ¢ 
éorw eixov x.7.A.) he had started (de Wette); for ver. 19 is a historical state- 
ment (observe the aorists), whereas ver. 15 expressed what Christ 7s, His 
habitual being.—év aire] although belonging to xaroc., is prefixed in em- 
phatic transposition (Kuhner, II. 2, p. 1101).—evdécnce] He was pleased, 
placuit ei, that, etc. As to this use of evdoxeivy in the later Greek (1 Cor. i. 
21; Gal. i. 15, et al.), for which, in the classical language, doxetv merely was 
employed, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 370. On the accusative with infini- 
tive, comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 85; Polyb. i. 8.4. The subject, whose pleasure it 
is, is not expressed ; but that it is God, is obvious from the context, which 
in iva yévyra: «1.4. has just stated the divine purpose. Among Greek 
authors also 6 @ed¢ is not unfrequently omitted, where it is self-evident as 
the subject. See Kiihner, ITI. 1, p.30 c. According to Ewald and Elli- 
cott,? rav 13 rAgpwua is the subject; and the whole fullness is a new expres- 


1 But see Esth. v. 11; 2 Macc. vi. 18, xifi. 15; 
Aquila, Zech. iv. 7; Plat. Legg. iii. p. 692 D, 
Dem. 1416. 25: wpwreve év awac. xpatiotor. 
Xen. Cyr. viii. 2.28; Mem. ii. 6. 26. 

4 Holtzmann, after having rejected vv. 14-18 
entirely as an interpolation, allows to stand 
as original in vv. 19, 20 only the words: 6. é» 
evry cbSscncey xarad\Adga:, to which xaraAA. 


there is then attached in ver. 21, as object, 
nai Uuas, also you, with reference to quas in 
ver. 13. How daring and violent, and yet 
how paltry (rescuing merely the «ai Uyas), 
would the procedure of the author thus have 
been. 

%Also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2, and 
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 208, 


CHAP. I. 19. 237° 


sion for the Godhead, inasmuch as, going as it were out of itself, it fills 
something separate and thus becomes visible (= Nd, déga, Adyoc, 
rvevpa). [XXVIII e.] Without support from N. T. usage; av, too, 
would be unsuitable for the subject of eidéxnce; and ei¢ avréy in ver. 29 
clearly shows that @eé¢ is conceived as subject, to which eipzvorodjoac then 
refers. According to Hofmann,' Christ is meant to be the subject of evdéx. 
Ver. 20 itself, and Eph. i. 9, ought to have precluded this error. Through- 
out the whole of the N. T. it is never Christ, but always 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,” Bengel2— 
nav Td rAfpopa xatox.)] [XXVIII f.] that in Him the whole fullness was to 
take up its abode. The more precise definition of the absolute av rod 
tAfpwua is placed beyond doubt by the subject to be mentally supplied 
With eivdéxyoe,> namely, rd tAGpwua Tov Geov (Eph. iii. 19; comp. rd Asp. 
tae Oedrytoc, Col. 11.9). Td wAfpwpa, the signification of which is not to be 
defined actively: id quod rem tmplet,‘ but passively: id quo res impletur (see 
generally on Eph. i. 10, iii. 19, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469), has here, as 
in Eph. iii. 9, the derivative general notion of copia, rAcirog, like the Ger- 
man Fille. What is meant, namely, is the whole charismatic riches of 
God, His whole gracious fullness of evdoyia rvevparixh (Eph. i. 3), of which 
Christ became permanent (xarocgoa:) possessor and bearer, who was 
thereby capable of fulfilling the divine work of reconciliation (see the fol- 
lowing xai dé’ atrov amoxaradAdéac x«.7.A.). The case is otherwise in ii. 9, 
where the divine essence (ri¢ Oeérytoc) is indicated as the contents of the 
TAfpwpa, and the xaroxeiv of the same in Christ is affirmed as present and 
with reference to His state of eraltation. It would be an utterly arbitrary 
course mentally to supply here the ric Oeéryrog, ii. 9, and to regard both 
passages as an echo of Eph. i. 23, where the notion of wAgpwua is a very 
different one (in opposition to Holtzmann). Inasmuch as the charismatic 
wAgpwpa of God, meant in our passage, dwelt in Christ, and consequently 
Christ was the possessor and disposer of it, this divine fullness is not in 
substance different from the zAfpuya Xpiorot, out of which grace passed 
over to men (John i. 16; Eph. iv. 13). The thought and expression in 1 
Cor. xv. 28 are different from our passage, and different also from Eph. i. 
23. Beza aptly observes: “cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum 
copia, quam scholastici gratiam habitualem ... appellant, ex qua in 
Christo, tanquam inexhausto funte, omnes gratiae in nos pro cujusque 
membri modulo deriventur ;” comp. also Bleek. Observe, at the same 
time, the stress lying on the av, in contrast to a merely partial impart- 
ing out of this fullness, which would have been inadequate to the object of 
reconciling the universe. The ontological interpretation of the “fullness of 
the nature of God’”’ (Huther, Dalmer, Weiss ; Oecumenius, and Theodoret : 


1Comp. also his Schriftbew. 1]. 1, p. 357 f. Paul, p. 209. 
2Comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. p. 263. 4In opposition to Storr, Opuse. L p. 14M, 
SHence not: “la totalité de (étre qui doit Bahr, Steiger. 

étre realisée dans le monde,” Sabatier, 'apétre 


238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 

the nature of the Oeds Adyor; Calovius and others: of the communicat, 
hypostatica, that is, of the absolute immanence of God in Him, comp. 
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stinde, I. p. 222; Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 201) 
does not correspond to the idea of evdéxnoev, 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 reconciliation 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 incarna- 
tion He emptied Himself of the divine mode of appearance (éé&a or pop¢h, 
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 rd rAgpwua as derived from the Gnostic 
terminology of the false teachers, who might perhaps, like Valentinus, have 
given this name to the aggregate of the Aeons (see Baur, Gnosis, p. 157),? 
and in opposition to whom Paul maintains that in Jesus there dwells the 
totality of all divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated 
spirit; but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul himself 
does not intimate any such polemical destination of the word; on the 
contrary, in Eph. iii. 19 also he uses way rd wAgpwua +r. Ceod evidently 
without any reference of the kind. And if he had wished to plaee the 
whole fullness of the efflux of divine power in contrast to an asserted single 
emanation, he must have prefixed, not év avrg (in Him and in none other), 
but dav (the whole rAgpwpa, not merely a single constituent element of it) with 
the main emphasis, and have logically said: dre raév 1d wAjpwpa eidéxnoev 
év avt@ xarouxjoa. Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. p. 29, 359), who in gen- 
eral has quite misunderstood ver. 19 f. (comp. above on cidéxyoev), takes 





1As in the Son of God in the metaphysical 
sense; hence the original being of God in 
Him cannot be conceived merely as tdeal, 
which was to develop itself into reality, and 
the realization of which, when it at length 
became perfect, made Him the absolute abode 
of the fullness of Godhead. So Beyschlag, 
Christol. p. 232 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 ff), who, in accordance with the Father's 
decree, has appeared as bearer of the whole 
fullness 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 accom- 
plish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4; 
Rom. viil.3. The indwelling of the way rd 
wAyjpena He had not, indeed, to achieve by 
his own effort; but He had, in obedience to- 
wards the Father, to preserve (comp. Heb. iv. 
15), apply, communicate it; and so this in- 
dwelling is—not merely in the risen One, but 
in His very work on the croes—the presup- 


position of the universal reconciliation, ver. 
20. 

* Baur himself (Paulus, II. p. 12 ff.) likewise 
explains rAjpeye from the technical language 
of the Gnostics, especially of the Valentinian 
doctrine of Aeons, but finds the Gnosticism 
to belong to the (post-apoatolic) writer of the 
epistle. According to Baur (see his Neutest. 
Theol. p. 258), Christ ia the wAjpwyna of God as 
He “in whom that which God is in Himself, ac- 
cording tu the abstract idea of His nature, is 
Juled with its definite concrete contents.” Comp. 
also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitsehr. 1870, p. 247, ac- 
cording 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 Acons of 
the Gnostics, but in Christ alone. Holtzmann, 
with more caution, adheres to the view that 
the idea of the wAjpeua forms a first step 
towards the extended use which the Gnostics 
make of the word; whereas Hilgenfeld 
(Zeitschr. 1873, p. 195) finds the idea here al- 
ready so firmly established, “that the wAjpepa 
emerges as in a certain measure holding an 
tndependent position between God and Christ.” 


CHAP. 1. 19. 239 


may Td rAjpwpa as ‘the one-lke totality of that which is ;” 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 indicated either at Eph. i. 10 or 
here in the context by ra mévra év avr ovvtorgxev. Christ is not the place 
for the world, so that ultimately all comes to dwell in Him, as all has been 
created in Him and has in Him its subsistence; but the world originated 
and maintained through Him, which He was to redeem, is the place for 
Him. If Paul had really entertained the obscure paradoxical conception - 
attributed to him by Hofmann, he would have known how to express it 
simply by 1d wav (or ra mévra) xarouxjoa, or by rd rAfpwua tov wavrd¢ (or 
tav wévruv) xatougjo. Lastly, at utter variance with both the word and the 
context, some have based on Eph. i. 22 f. the interpretation of rAfpwya as 
the church. So already Theodoret: wAfp. riv ixxAnoiav tv rH mpdc ’Egectoue 
éxdAecev, O¢ Tov Oeiuw yapiopdrwv merAnpwopévav. Tatryy ion evdorjoa tiv Oedy 
év 7@ Xpior@ xarocxfjoa, tovréativ aire ovvpdba:, and recently in substance 
Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others; comp. also Schleiermacher, 
who, in accordance with Rom. xi. 12, 25, understands “the fullness of the 
Gentiles and the collective whole of Israel,” the dwelling of whom in Christ is 
the “definitive abiding state,” which the total reconciliation (see the 
sequel) must necessarily have preceded, as this reconciliation is condi- 
tioned by the fact that both parties must have become peaceful.—xaro:- 
xjoat| The rAfpepa is personified, so that the abiding presence, which it was to 
have according to the divine evdoxia in Christ, appears conceived under 
the form of taking up its abode ; in which, however, the idea of the Shechi- 
nah would only have to be presupposed, in the event of the rAfpwpza being 
represented as appearance (MT 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. 18. In point of time, the indwelling of the divine fullness of grace 
according to God’s pleasure in Christ refers to the earthly life of the Incar- 
nate One, who was destined by God to fulfill the divine work of the azoxa- 
raAAdfac ra mévra, and was to be empowered thereto by the dwelling in 
Him of that whole divine rAfpeza. Without having completed the per- 
formance of this work, He could not become é rdow rpurebov; but of 
this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be completed 
through Him (ér, ver. 19). Ernesti, Urspr. d. Stunde, I. p. 215 f. (comp. 
also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2), refers evdéxnoe x.r.A. 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 aroxaradAééa: in ver. 20 does not apply to the reconciliation 
through His blood, but to the reunion of all created things through the 


1Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Z. ¢. p. 208. 





240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

exalted Lord, as a similar view is indicated in Phil. ii.10. But this idea 
of the aroxaraAAdfa is just the point on which this view breaks down. 
For ver. 21 clearly shows that aroxeraAAéga: is to be taken in the usual 
sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the Uacrfpiov of 
Christ. Moreover, that which Christ received through His exaltation 
was not the divine Afpwna, but the divine dééa, 

Ver. 20.1 “ Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis,” Ben- 
gel. Hence Paul continues: xai d¢ avrod amoxaradAdgac ra mévra, and 
through Him to reconcile the whole. [XXVIII g.] As to the double com- 
pound droxaradA., prorsus reconciliare,? see on Eph. ii. 16. The considera- 
tions which regulate the correct understanding of the passage are: (1) 
that ra wayvra may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropri- 
ately urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther); that it consequently 
cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings generally (the usual 
view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
others), especially the Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the ‘“universam ecclesiam” 
(Beza), but is, according to the context (see ver. 16 ff.), simply to be taken 
as quite general: the whole of that which erists (has been created); (2) that 
the reconciling subject is here not Christ (Hofmann, in accordance with 
his incorrect reference of evdéxyce in ver. 19), but God, who through Christ 
(dé avrov) reconciled all things; (3) that consequently avoxaraAAdgac can- 
not be meant of the transforming of the misrelation between the world and 
Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just as little of the reconcilia- 
tion of all things with one another, of the removal of mutual hostility 
among the constituent elements composing ra révra, but only of the uni- 
versal reconciliation with the God who is hostile to sin, as is clearly evident 
from the application to the readers in ver. 21. The only correct sense 
therefore is, that the entire universe has been reconciled with God through Christ. 
But how far? [XXVIII h.] In answering this question, which cannot 
be disposed of by speculation beyond the range of Scripture as to the 





1 According to Holtsmann, 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 cos- 
mical awoxataAAayy. But, instead of appre- 
hending this as the function of the risen 
Christ, he has by &a rov aiparos «.7.A. OCCA- 
sioned the coincidence of two dissimilar 
spheres of conception, of which, moreover, 
the one is introduced as form for the other. 
The interpolator reproduces and concen- 
trates the thought of Eph. i. 7, 10, if. 13-17, 
bringing the idea of a cosmical reconciliation 
(Eph. {. 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 dif- 
ficulty is no such confused medley of misun- 


derstanding and of heterogenzous ideas, and 
contains nothing un-Pauline, The extension 
of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres, 
in particular, has been regarded as un-Paul. 
ine (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.) 
But even in the epistles whose genuineness 
is undisputed it is not difficult to recognize 
the presuppositions, from which the sublime 
extension of the conception to an universality 
of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue. 
We may add, that Eph. {. 10 is not “the lead- 
ing thought of the interpolation” at ver. 16 
(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. adirdoxer@ar, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 873 A. 

8God is the subject, whose hostility is re- 
moved by the reconciliation (comp. on Rom. 
v.10); ra wdyra is the object, which was af- 
fected by this hostility grounded of necessity 


CHAP. 1. 20. 241 


having entered into the finite and having returned again to the infinite 
(Usteri), nor by the idea imported into amoxaradad. of gathering up into the 
unity of absolute final aim (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 257), the following con- 
siderations are of service: (a) The original harmony, which in the state 
of innocence subsisted between God and the whole creation, was annulled 
by sin, which first obtained mastery over a portion of the angels, and in 
consequence of this (2 Cor. xi. 3), by means of the transgression of Adam, 
over all mankind (Rom. v.12). Comp. on Eph.i.10. (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 paraéry¢ and dovieia rij¢ gOopacg (see on Rom.i.c.). (c) In- 
deed, even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with God 
as it originally existed, since a portion of the angels—those that had 
fallen—formed the kingdom of the devil, in antagonism to God, and 
became forfeited to the wrath of God for the everlasting punishment 
which is prepared for the devil and his angels. (d) But in Christ, by 
means of His iAacrfpwv, through which God made peace (eipyvoromjoag 
x.t.A.), 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 universal reconciliation ttself is also entered upon, 
although it is not yet completed, but down to the time of the Parousia is 
only in course of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present aidv 
the believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the reconcilia- 
tion, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among the wheat) are not 
yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the non-intelligent creation still re- 
mains in its state of corruption occasioned by sin (Rom. viii.) ; and lastly, in- 
asmuch as until the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the 
devil which has issued from itstill—although the demoniac powers have been 
already vanquished by the atoning death, and have become the object of di- 
vine triumph (ii. 15)—not annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph. 
vi. 12) against the Christian church. But through the Parousia the recon- 
ciliation of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach its 
consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will be sepa- 
rated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in virtue of the 
Palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28) will be transformed into its original perfec- 
tion, and the new heaven and the new earth will be constituted as the 
dwelling of dixaooivy (2 Pet. iil. 18) and of the déga 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 


on the holiness and righteousness of God. swavra would not be suitable; because the 
If the hostile disposition of men towards God, whole universe might, indeed, be affected by 
which had become removed by the recon- __ the hostility of God against sin, but could not 
cilhation, were meant (Ritschl in the Jahrd.f. itself be hostilely disposed towards Him. 
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 515), the universal ra See, moreover, on ver. 21. 

16 


242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


alienated from God and object of His hostility, but ra xdvra 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 Ruler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). This collective reconcilia- 
tion, although its consummation will not occur until the Parousia, is yet 
justly designated by the aorist infinitive azoxaradAdfa, because to the 
telic conception of God in the eidéayoe it was present as one moment in 
conception.—The angels also are necessarily included in ré xdvra (comp. 
subsequently, ra év roi¢ ovpavoic); and in this case—seeing that a recon- 
ciliation 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 in- 
dividuals, cannot be spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T.— 
it is to be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to category, 
in so far, namely, as the hostile relation of God towards the fallen angels 
affected the angelic world viewed as awhole. The original normal rela- 
tion between God and this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so 
long as the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God still subsists— 
which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the death of Christ 
(ii. 14 f; Heb. ii. 14), but will undergo at length utter separation—a result 
which is to be expected in the new transformation of the world at the 
Parousia. The idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the 
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the several 
objects included in ra wévra, meant partly in an immediate sense (in ref- 
erence to mankind), partly in a mediate sense (in reference to the «rice 
affected by man’s sin, Rom. viii., and to the angelic world affected by its 
partial fall) ;? the idea of aroxaraAAégéa, in the presence of the all-embrac- 
ing Ta mdvra, ig as it were of an elastic nature.* At the same time, how- 


1 According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels 
also, day pa miorevowary eis TO aipa Xporov, in- 
curjudgment. But this conception of angels 
needing reconciliation, and possibly even un- 
believing, is doubtless merely an abstraction, 
just as is the idea of an angel teaching falsely 
(Gal. i. 8). Itistrue that, according to 1 Cor. 
vi. 3, angels also are judged; but this presup- 
poses 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. iff. 10). Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 3. 

The idea of axoxcaraAAdfa is not in this 
view to be altered, but has as its necessary 
presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear 
from eipyvowoujeas and from éx@pous, ver. 21, 
compared with Eph. {i.16! Compare Fritzsche, 
ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff.; Eur. Med. 870: 8&aAAayn- 
vas THS dx@pas, Soph. Aj. 731 (744): Geotoww ws 
ncaradAax@p xdAov, Plat. Rep. p.566 E: xpos rovs 
éfea dxOpovs Trois pew xatadAayf, Tove 82 cai drad- 
Ocipy. 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 ili to another, stand well to him.” 
In such a misrelation (namely, fo Christ, ac 
cording to the erroneous view of evédcxcyce) 
stand, in Hofmann’s view, even the “spirits 
collectively,” in so far as they bear sway in the 
world-life deteriorated by human sin, tnstead 
of in the realization of salvation.—Richard 


. Schmidt, Z ¢. p. 195, also proceeds to dilute the 


notion of reconciliation into that of the bring- 
tng to Christ, inasmuch as he explains the 
catadAacoeyv as effected by the fact that 
Christ has hecome the head of all, and all has 
been put in dependence on him. Hilgenfeld, 
tc. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the 
sense, which is at variance with the following 
context, but adheres, for his own part, to the 
statement that here the author tn a Gnostic 
fashion has in view disturbances of peace in 
the heavenly spheres (in the #Agpepe). 

%Comp. Philippi, Glaubensi. LV. 2, p. 200 f, 
ed. 2. 


CHAP. I. 20. 243 


ever, déroxaraAA. is not to be made equivalent (Melanchthon, Grotius, Corne- 
lius a Lapide, Flatt, Bahr, Bleek, and others) to aoxegadasicaoGa: (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. 8) with 
God (de Wette), and not in the strict sense therefore restoring it—an in- 
terpretation which violates the meaning of the word. Calvin, neverthe- 
Jess, has already so conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the ele- 
ment—foreign to the literal sense—of confirmation in righteousness: 
“‘quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi Christi gratia 
fuissent confirmati.” According to Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 
18638, p. 522 f., Paul intends to refer to the angels that had been active in 
the law-giving on Sinai (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. Ixvii. 18, LXX.), to whom he 
attributes “a deviation from God’s plan of salvation.” But this latter 
idea cannot be made good either by ii. 15, or by Gal. iii. 19, or by Eph. iii. 
10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the context to indicate any such refer- 
ence to the angels of the law in particular, The exegetical device tra- 
ditionally resorted to, that what was meant with respect to the angels was 
their reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on account of 
sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodo- 
ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, Cameron, Calovius, Estius, 
Bengel, Michaelis, Bohmer, and others), is an entirely erroneous make- 
shift, incompatible with the language of the passage.—ei¢ avrév] is indeed 
to be written with the epiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from the 
standpoint of the author, and because a reflerive emphasis would be with- 
out a motive; but it is to be referred, not to Christ, who, as mediate agent 
of the reconciliation, is at the same time its aim (Bahr, Huther, Olshau- 
sen, de Wette, 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 
(Kuhner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the N. T. (Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621]), the 
constructio praegnans: to reconcile to Godward, so that they are now no 
longer separated from God (comp. am7Adorp., ver. 21), but are to be united 
with Him in peace. Thus eic air., 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 tq 
é:’ avrov, which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by «ai ei¢ abrév, 
and also because the explanation which follows (elpyvororheag «.1.4.) con- 
cerns and presupposes simply the mediate agency of Christ (de atrot).— 
eipnvorojoas, [XXVIII ¢.] down to cravpod abrod, is a modal definition of 
di airod aroxaradAdéac (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 amoxaradA. (see on Eph. i. 9, and 


244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 

Kiuhner, II. 1, p. 161 f.; Miiller in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1872, p. 631 ff), 
and not antecedent to it (Bahr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in 
consistency with his explanation of ver. 19 (see on ver. 19), who, more- 
over, without any warrant from the context, in accordance with 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 ebdéxyoev, not Christ,’ but God. The verb eipyvoraeiv, occurring 
only here in the N.T., which has elsewhere roceiv cipyvyv (Eph. ii. 15: 
Jas. iii. 18), and also foreign to the ancient Greek, which has ecipyvorotog, is 
nevertheless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Ecl. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX. 
Prov. x. 10.—dia rov aiu. tr. oravpo airov] that is, by means of the blood to 
be shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacrificial blood reconciling 
with God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 21), became the causa medians which procured 
the conclusion of peace between God and the world. Rom. iii. 25, v.9 f.; 
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 
—#s0 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.~—é atrov] not with the spiritus asper, equiva- 
lent to 6 éavroi, as those take it who refer elpyvorogoag to Christ as sub- 
ject (éavrdv éxdotcs, Theophylact), since this reference is erroneous. But 
neither can dv avrov be in apposition to dd tov aivarog tr. or. abroi (Cas- 
talio, “per ejus sanguinem, h.e. per eum”), for the latter, and not the 
former, would be the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the 
above-given é¢ avrov, after the intervening definition elpyvotogoag x.7.A., in 
order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, and that by once 
more emphatically bringing forward the 6 ebro which stood at the com- 
mencement; “through Him,” I say, to reconcile, whether they be things 


1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Vecumenius, Lu 
ther, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hof- 
mann, and many others. 

2 According to Hofmann, Schriftbew IT 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 in- 
flicted 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 expia- 
tion 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 
meaner of the death to which we are subject, 
done that which we have need of in order that 
we may come to stand holy before Him Not 


different in substance are Hofmann’s utter. 
ances in his Hel Schr. N T But when we 
find it there stated “how far Christ has 
hercby (namely, by His having allowed Him- 
self to be put to death as a transgreasor by 
men) converted the variance, which subsisted 
between Him and the world created for Him, 
into its opposite, is not here specified tn detail,” — 
that is an unwarranted evasion, for the strict 
idea of reconciliation had so definite, clear, 
tirm, and vivid (comp, ver. 14, il 13 f.) 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, fii. 13, Rom. 
fii. 25. Calvin well says “Ideo pignus et pre 
thum nostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis 
Christi, qua in cruce fusus.” 


CHAP. I. 21. 245 


on earth or whether they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph. i. 11; 
Rom. viii. 28.—eire ra éwi 1. y., elre ta év 1. ovo.) divides, without 
“affected tautology ” (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting 
the close of this part of the epistle, the ra wdvra into its two component 
parts. As to the quite universal description, see above on ré mdvra; comp. 
on ver. 16. We have, besides, to notice: (1) that Paul here (it is other- 
wise in ver. 16, where the creation was in question, comp. Gen. i. 1) names 
the earthly things first, because the atonement took place on earth, and 
primarily affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive expression eire 

. elre renders impossible the view of a reconciliation of the two sections 
one with another (Erasmus, Wetstein, Dalmer, and others). To the cate- 
gory of exegetical aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleier- 
macher, who understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes 
among the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental tenden- 
cies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto: “Jews and Gentiles were at 
variance as to both, as to the heavenly and earthly things, and were now 
to be brought together in relation to God, after He had founded peace 
through the cross of His Son.” The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also 
an utter misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen- 
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing meant; 
and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in the consciousness 
given back to men of being worthy of connection with the higher spirits. 
—Lastly, against the reference to universal restoration, to which, according 
to Olshausen, at least the tendency of Christ’s atonement is assumed to 
have pointed, see on Eph. i. 10, remark 2.! 

Ver. 21. (On Vv. 21-23, see Note X-XITX. page 275.) As far as ver 23, an 
application to the readers of what had been said as to the reconciliation, 
in order to animate them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to 
stedfastness in the faith (ver. 23).—xal tua «.7.A.] [X XIX a.] you also, not: 
and you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma from 
the preceding verse, and wi d2...@avdrov would, notwithstanding its 
great importance, come to be taken as parenthetical (Lachmann), or as 
quite breaking off the discourse, and leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It 
begins a new sentence, comp. Eph. ii. 1; but observe, at the same time, 
that Eph. ii. is much too rich in its contents to admit of these contents 
being here compressed into vv. 20, 21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 
150). As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate connection 
with what precedes, see on ver. 19. The construction (following the read- 
ing GmoxarnAddyyte, 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 sentence; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he 
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he had begun 
with nat tpeic «.7.A.2—amrnAdorp. x.7.A.] when ye were once in the state of 


1 Comp. also Schmid in the Jahrb. f.d. Theol. TT. 567 ff.]; and upon the aorist, Butémann, 
1870, p. 133. Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197]. 
2Sce Matthiae, p. 1524; Winer, p. 527 f& [E. 


246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

estrangement, characterizes their heathen condition. As to aryAorp., sée 
on Eph. ii. 12; from which passage amd ric wodreiag tr. "Iop. is here as 
unwarrantably supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), as is from Eph. iv. 14 
ri¢ Swi¢ Tod Ocov (Bahr). In conformity with the context, seeing that 
previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation, the being 
estranged from God (rov Ocov), the being excluded from His fellowship, is 
to be understood. Comp. eo: éy r. xéouy, Eph. ii. 12. On the subject- 
matter, Rom. i. 21 ff.—ézpotc] sc. rp OeG, in a passive sense (comp. on Rom. 
v. 10, xi. 28): tnvisos Deo,’ as is required by the idea of having become 
reconciled, through which God’s enmity against sinful men, who were 
téxva gioee dpyge (Eph. ii. 3), has changed into mercy towards them? This 
applies in opposition to the usual acéive interpretation, which Hofmann 
also justly rejects: hostile towards God, Rom. viii. 7; Jas. iv. 4 (so still 
Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be com- 
bined with the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek).—rg dcavoig and év roi¢ épyorg r. 
wt. 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, in which they had been so (in the wicked works, in which their 
godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus information 
ig given, as to amyAd. and éx@potc, of an internal and of an external kind. 
The view which takes r@ d:avoig as dative of the respect (comp. Eph. iv. 18) : 
as reapects disposition (so, following older expositors, Huther, de Wette, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald), would no doubt suit the erroneous active 
explanation of é76p., 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 é:év. is not the 
reason itself, but its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263 
E), and that here viewed under its moral aspect ; comp. on Eph. iv. 18. 
Beza (‘mente operibus malis intenta”), Michaelis, Storr, and Bahr 
attach év roig Epyow x.7.A. to rH dtavoig. This is grammatically admissible, 
since we may say dtavorioba év, animo versari 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 é» 
rag épy. tT. wovnp. would appear tediously circumstantial.—The articles rp 
and roi¢ denote the disposition which they have had, and the works which 





1Compare the phrase very current in the 
classical writers, from Homer onward, ¢x@pos 
Ocois, quem Dis oderunt. 

3See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 576 ff., who 
aptly explains caradAAacoecOu tiv. In alicu- 
jus favorem venire, qui antea succensuerit. 
Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. 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 ws reconciled. 


Comp. Luke xviii. 18; 2Cor v.19. So long as 
His wrath is not changed, and consequently 
He 1s not reconciled, men remain unrecon- 
ciled. 2Macc vli.33: 0 Gwy «vpros. Bpaxéws 
emwpyicrat nat warty eatadAayioerat TOs éav- 
rov 8ovAns. comp. viii. 29, i. 5, v 20; Clem 
Cor. I. 48: exerevovres avtév (God), 6rws Acws 
yevopevos éwcxaradAayy neivy In Constt Apost. 
viii. 12. 14, it ia said of Christ that He ry xécuep 
xarmAAage God, and 3 17, of God: cov carad\Aa 
yérros avrocs (with believers). 


CHAP. I. 22. 247 


they have done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furnished with 
the article (roi¢ rovnpoic) 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. 1382]).—vuvi dé amoxarnAadyyre] 
as if previously tyeic x.r.A. were used (see above); Ye also... have neverthe- 
less now become reconciled. On dé after participles which supply the place 
of the protasis, as here, where the thought is: although ye formerly, etc, 
see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 374 ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 186; Kithner, ad. 
Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 8, Anab. vi. 6. 16. On wi, with the aorist following, 
comp. ver. 26; Rom. vii. 6; Eph. ii. 13; Plat. Symp. p. 193 A: mpd rod... 
by fuev, vovi 62 dea tH adixiav dupKiotypyer bd Tr. Oeov. Ellendt. Lez Soph. II. p. 
176; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in 
with the dmoxar7jA. (comp. Buttmann, Neuf. 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 »vi with their 
roré.! 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.? For the reference to Christ even the reading amoxarfAAagev would 
by no means furnish a reason, far less a necessity, since, on the contrary, 
even this active would have, according to the correct explanation of 
evddécnoe in ver. 19, to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to 
Hofmann). 

Vev. 22. ’Ev rg odéuare x.t.A.] that, by means of which they have been 
reconciled ; corresponding to the dé’ avrot and dia rod aiuzarog rot oravpov avo 
of ver. 20: in the body of His flesh by means of death. Since God is the 
reconciling subject, we are not at liberty, with Elzevir, Scholz, and others, 
to read airod (with the spiritus asper), which would not be justified, even 
though Christ were the subject. We have further to note: (1) da r. 6avérov 
informs us whereby the being reconciled év r@ oduate 1.6. 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 ita own account by dd, 
the év is not, with Erasmus and many others, to be taken as instrumental, 
but is to be left as local; not however, in the sense that Christ accom- 
plished the azoxaraAAdooew 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 dia 
rov Gavdrov follows, in the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the 


21Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, 
“3. Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette 
2In opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ewald. 





238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

the nature of the Ged Adyoe; Calovius and others: of the communicat, 
hypostatica, that is, of the absolute immanence of God in Him, comp. 
Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 222; Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 201) 
does not correspond to the idea of eidéxncev, 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 reconciliation 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 incarna- 
tion He emptied Himself of the divine mode of appearance (éé&a or popdh, 
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 rd tAfpwua as derived from the Gnostic 
terminology of the false teachers, who might perhaps, like Valentinus, have 
given this name to the aggregate of the Aeons (see Baur, Gnosis, p. 157),? 
and in opposition to whom Paul! maintains that in Jesus there dwells the 
totality of all divine powers of life, and not merely a single emanated 
spirit; but this view is all the more unwarranted, because Paul himself 
does not intimate any such polemical destination of the word; on the 
contrary, in Eph. iii. 19 also he uses av rd wAfpwua rt. Geo evidently 
without any reference of the kind. And if he had wished to place the 
whole fullness of the efflux of divine power in contrast to an asserted single 
emanation, he must have prefixed, not év air (in Him and in none other), 
but wav (the whole rAgpwpya, not merely a single constituent element of it) with 
the main emphasis, and have logically said: dre wav 1d wAgpwua evddxnoev 
év avT® xaroujoa:, Hofmann (comp. his Schrifibew. p. 29, 359), who in gen- 
eral has quite misunderstood ver. 19 f. (comp. above on eidé«ycer), takes 


1As 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 develop itself into reality, and 
the realization of which, when it at length 
became perfect, made Him the absolute abode 
of the fullness of Godhead. So Beyschlag, 
Christol. p. 232f., according to whom Christ 
would be conceived as “man drawing down 
upon himself” this indwelling of God. He is 
conceived asthe incarnate Son (comp. ver. 
13 ff.), who, in accordance with the Father's 
decree, has appeared as bearer of the whole 
fullness 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 accom- 
plish by Him (ver. 20). Comp. Gal. iv. 4; 
Rom. viii.3. The indwelling of the say rd 
wAyjpwna He had not, indeed, to achieve by 
his own effort; but He had, in obedience to- 
wards the Father, to preserve (comp. Heb. iv. 
15), apply, communicate it; and so this in- 
dwelling is—not merely in the risen One, but 
in His very work on the cross—the presup- 


position of the universal reconciliation, ver. 
20. 
* Baur himself (Paulus, II. p. 12 ff.) likewise 
explains sAjpwpne from the technical language 
of the Gnosties, 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 wAjpenza of God as 
He “in whom that which God is in Himeel/, ac- 
cording tu the abstract tdea of His nature, is 
Juled with its definite concrete contents.” Comp. 
also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1870, p. 247, ac- 
cording 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 more caution, adheres to the view that 
the idea of the wAjpeua forms a first step 
towards the extended use which the Gnostics 
make of the word; whereas Hilgenfeld 
(Zeitschr. 1873, p. 195) finds the idea here al- 
ready so firmly established, “that the wAjpepa 
emerges as in a certain measure holding an 
independent position between God and Christ.” 


CHAP. 1. 19. 239 


nav Td rAfpwua as ‘the one-like totality of that which is;” 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 ts in God, but what is out of God.” This idea of the immanent 
indwelling of the universe in Christ, repeated by Schenkel in the sense of 
Christ being the archetype, would be entirely alien to the N. T. view of the 
relation of Christ to the world, and is not indicated either at Eph. i. 10 or 
here in the context by ra wévra év avrg ovvéctyxev. Christ is not the place 
for the world, so that ultimately all comes to dwell in Him, as all has been 
created in Him and has in Him its subsistence; but the world originated 
and maintained through Him, which He was to redeem, is the place for 
Him. If Paul had really entertained the obscure paradoxical conception 
attributed to him by Hofmann, he would have known how to express it 
simply by rd wav (or ra mévra) xaroexjoa, or by 1d rAfpwua tov mavrog (or 
Tav wévTev) xarougjo. Lastly, at utter variance with both the word and the 
context, some have based on Eph. i. 22 f. the interpretation of 7Afpupua as 
the church. So already Theodoret: Agp. riv éxxAnoiav ty rh mpde ’Egeatove 
éxaAcoev, O¢ Tov Oeluv yzapiopdruv merAnpopévav. Tatbryy ign evdoxqjoa tiv Gedy 
évy rt Xpiot@ xarouxfoa, rovréorw ard cvv7¢Oa:, and recently in substance 
Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others; comp. also Schleiermacher, 
who, in accordance with Rom. xi. 12, 25, understands “ the fullness of the 
Gentiles and the collective whole of Israel,” the dwelling of whom in Christ is 
the “definitive abiding state,” which the total reconciliation (see the 
sequel) must necessarily have preceded, as this reconciliation is condi- 
tioned by the fact that both parties must have become peaceful.—xaro- 
xjoat| The tAgpepue is personified, so that the abiding presence, which it was to 
have according to the divine evdoxia in Christ, appears conceived under 
the form of taking up its abode ; in which, however, the idea of the Shechi- 
nah would only have to be presupposed, in the event of the rAfpopza being 
represented as appearance (MT N35). 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. 18. In point of time, the indwelling of the divine fullness of grace 
according to God’s pleasure in Christ refers to the earthly life of the Incar- 
nate One, who was destined by God to fulfill the divine work of the azoxa- 
raAAéfa: ra évra, and was to be empowered thereto by the dwelling in 
Him of that whole divine rAfpoza. Without having completed the per- 
formance of this work, He could not become év réow rpurebwv; but of 
this there could be no doubt, for God has caused it to be completed 
through Him (ér:, ver. 19). Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sunde, I. p. 215 f. (comp. 
also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, ed. 2), refers evddxnce x.7.A. 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 aroxaradAééat in ver. 20 does not apply to the reconciliation 
through His blood, but to the reunion of all created things through the 


2Comp. Rich. Schmidt, l. ¢. p. 208. 


240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 

exalted Lord, as a similar view is indicated in Phil. ii.10. But this idea 
of the aroxarazAdga is just the point on which this view breaks down. 
For ver. 21 clearly shows that droxaradAdéa: is to be taken in the usual 
sense of the work of reconciliation completed through the iacrgpov of 
Christ. Moreover, that which Christ received through His exaltation 
was not the divine rAfpuua, but the divine dééa. 

Ver. 20.! “ Haec inhabitatio est fundamentum reconciliationis,” Ben- 
gel. Hence Paul continues: xai 6: avrov amoxataAAdgac ra mévra, and 
through Him to reconcile the whole. (XXVIII g.] As to the double com- 
pound aroxaraaa., prorsus reconciliare? see on Eph. ii. 16. The considera- 
tions which regulate the correct understanding of the passage are: (1) 
that ra mdyta may not in any way be restricted (this has been appropri- 
ately urged by Usteri, and especially by Huther); that it consequently 
cannot be referred either merely to intelligent beings generally (the usual 
view), or to men (Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
others), especially the Gentiles (Olshausen), or to the “universam ecclesiam” 
(Beza), but is, according to the context (see ver. 16 ff.), simply to be taken 
as quite general: the whole of that which exists (has been created); (2) that 
the reconciling subject is here not Christ (Hofmann, in accordance with 
his incorrect reference of evdéxnoe in ver. 19), but God, who through C hrist 
(dc avrov) reconciled all things; (3) that consequently avoxaraAAdgar can- 
not be meant of the transforming of the misrelation between the world and 
Christ into a good relation (Hofmann), and just as little of the reconcilia- 
tion of all things with one another, of the removal of mutual hostility 
among the constituent elements composing ra mévra, but only of the uni- 
versal reconciliation with the God who is hostile to sin,? as is clearly evident 
from the application to the ‘readers in ver. 21. The only correct sense 
therefore is, that the entore universe has been reconciled with God through Christ. 
But how far? [XXVIII h.] In answering this question, which cannot 
be disposed of by speculation beyond the range of Scripture as to the 


1 According to Holtsmann, 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 cos- 
mical axoxatraAAayy. But, instead of appre- 
hending this as the function of the risen 
Christ, he has by &4a rov atjarog «.7.A. occa- 
sioned the coincidence of two dissimilar 
spheres of conception, of which, moreover, 
the one is introduced as form for the other. 
The interpolator reproduces and concen- 
trates the thought of Eph. {. 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 dif- 
ficulty is no such confused medley of misun- 


derstanding and of heterogenszous ideas, and 
contains nothing un-Pauline, The extension 
of the reconciliation to the celestial spheres, 
in particular, has been regarded as un-Paul. 
ine (see, especially, Holtzmann, p. 231 ff.) 
But even in the epistles whose genuineness 
is undisputed it is not difficult to recognize 
the presuppositions, from which the sublime 
extension of the conception to an universality 
of cosmic effect in our passage might ensue. 
We may add, that Eph. i. 10 is not “ the lead- 
ing thought of the interpolation” at ver. 16 ff 
(Holtzmann, p. 151); in ver. 16 ff. much more 
is said, and of other import. 

8 As if we might say in German, abversdhnen, 
that is: to finish quite the reconciliation. 
Comp. agirAdoneOa, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 873 A. 

8God is the subject, whose hostility is re- 
moved by the reconciliation (comp. on Rom. 
v.10); ta wavra is the object, which was af- 
fected by this hostility grounded of necessity 


CHAP. I. 20. 241 


having entered into the finite and having returned again to the infinite 
(Usteri), nor by the idea imported into amoxaraaa. of gathering up into the 
unity of absolute final aim (Baur, new. Theol. p. 257), the following con- 
siderations are of service: (a) The original harmony, which in the state 
of innocence subsisted between God and the whole creation, was annulled 
by sin, which first obtained mastery over a portion of the angels, and in 
consequence of this (2 Cor. xi. 3), by means of the transgression of Adam, 
over all mankind (Rom. v. 12). Comp. on Eph.1.10. (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 paracéryg and dovdeia ri¢ gOopac (see on Rom.i.c.). (c) In- 
deed, even the world of heavenly spirits had lost its harmony with God 
as it originally existed, since a portion of the angels—those that had 
fallen—formed the kingdom of the devil, in antagonism to God, and 
became forfeited to the wrath of God for the everlasting punishment 
which is prepared for the devil and his angels. (d) But in Christ, by 
means of His iacrfpwv, through which God made peace (eipzvorojoag 
x.t.4.), 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 «universal reconciliation itself is also entered upon, 
although it is not yet completed, but down to the time of the Parousia is 
only in course of development, inasmuch, namely, as in the present aidy 
the believing portion of mankind is indeed in possession of the reconcilia- 
tion, but the unreconciled unbelievers (the tares among the wheat) are not 
yet separated; inasmuch, further, as the non-intelligent creation still re- 
mains in its state of corruption occasioned by sin (Rom. viii.) ; and lastly, in- 
asmuch as until the Parousia even the angelic world sees the kingdom of the 
devil which has issued from it still—although thedemoniac powers have been 
already vanquished by the atoning death, and have become the object of di- 
vine triumph (ii. 15)}—not annulled, and still in dangerous operation (Eph. 
vi. 12) against the Christian church. But through the Parousia the recon- 
ciliation of the whole which has been effected in Christ will reach its 
consummation, when the unbelieving portion of mankind will be sepa- 
rated and consigned to Gehenna, the whole creation in virtue of the 
Palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28) will be transformed into its original perfec- 
tion, and the new heaven and the new earth will be constituted as the 
dwelling of dixacooivy (2 Pet. iii. 18) and of the dége 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 


on the holiness and righteousness of God. wayra would not be suitable; because the 
If the hostile disposition of men towards God, whole universe might, indeed, be affected by 
which had become removed by the recon- __ the hostility of God against sin, but could not 
cithation, were meant (Ritschl in the Jahrd.f. itself be hostilely disposed towards Him. 
Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 515), the universal 74 See, moreover, on ver. 21. 

16 


242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


alienated from God and object of His hostility, but ra xdvra 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 Ruler and All in All (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28). This collective reconcilia- 
tion, although its consummation will not occur until the Parousia, is yet 
justly designated by the aorist infinitive aoxaraAAdfa, because to the 
telic conception of God in the eidéxyoe it was present as one moment in 
conception—The angels also are necessarily included in ré wévra (comp. 
subsequently, rd év roi¢ otpavoic); and in this case—seeing that a recon- 
ciliation 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 in- 
dividuals, cannot be spoken of, and is nowhere spoken of in the N. T..— 
it is to be observed that the angels are to be conceived according to category, 
in so far, namely, as the hostile relation of God towards the fallen angels 
affected the angelic world viewed asa whole. The original normal rela- 
tion between God and this higher order of spirits is no longer existing, so 
long as the kingdom of demons in antagonism to God still subsists— 
which has had its powers broken no doubt already by the death of Christ 
(ii. 14 f£; Heb. ii. 14), but will undergo at length utter separation—a result 
which is to be expected in the new transformation of the world at the 
Parousia. The idea of reconciliation is therefore, in conformity with the 
manner of popular discourse, and according to the variety of the several 
objects included in ra rayra, meant partly in an immediate sense (in ref- 
erence to mankind), partly in a mediate sense (in reference to the «rise 
affected by man’s sin, Rom. viii., and to the angelic world affected by its 
partial fall) ;? the idea of amoxaraAAdga, in the presence of the all-embrac- 
ing rad wdvra, ig as it were of an elastic nature? At the same time, how- 


1 According to Ignatius, Smyrn. 6, the angels 
also, day uh wiorevowaor eis TO alua Xprorov, in- 
curjudgment. But this conception of angels 
needing reconciliation, and possibly even un- 
believing, is doubtless merely an abstraction, 
just as is the idea of an angel teaching falsely 
(Gal. i. 8). Itis true that, according to 1 Cor. 
vi. 3, angels also are judged; but this presup- 
poses 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 
Ohristianity must present itself even to the 
angels (Eph. fii. 10). Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 3. 

2The idea of awoxaraAAcga is notin this 
view to be altered, but has as its necessary 
presupposition the idea of hostility, as is clear 
from «ipnvowogeas and from ¢x@pous, ver. 21, 
compared with Eph. il. 16! Compare Fritzsche, 
ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff.; Eur. Med. 870: &eAAaya- 
vas THS €xOpac, Soph. Af. 731 (744): Ocotcuy as 
xaradAax67 xoAou, Plat. Rep. p. 566 E: xpos rovs 
éfw ¢xOpovs rois pew caradAAay;, Tove 8 cai &ad- 
Ocipy. 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, ac 
cording to the erroneous view of evdé«cyee) 
stand, in Hofmann's view, even the “spirits 
collectively,” in so far as they bear sway in the 
world-life deteriorated by human sin, instead 
of in the realization of salvation.—Richard 


_ Schmidt, Lc. p. 195, also proceeds to dilute the 


notion of reconciliation into that of the bring- 
tng to Christ, inasmuch as he explains the 
xataAAgocey as effected by the fact that 
Christ has hecome the head of all, and all has 
been put in dependence on him. Hilgenfeld, 
lc. p. 251 f., justly rejects this alteration of the 
sense, which is at variance with the following 
context, but adheres, for his own part, to the 
statement that here the author in a Gnostic 
fashion has in view disturbances of peace in 
the heavenly spheres (in the wAgpeue). 

3Comp. Philippi, Glaubensi. 1V. 2, p. 900 f, 
ed. 2, 


CHAP. I. 20. 243 


ever, droxaraAA. is not to be made equivalent (Melanchthon, Grotius, Corne- 
lius a Lapide, Flatt, Bahr, Bleek, and others) to amroxegaAadcaofa: (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. 8) with 
God (de Wette), and not in the strict sense therefore restoring it—an in- 
terpretation which violates the meaning of the word. Calvin, neverthe- 
leas, has already so conceived the matter, introducing, moreover, the ele- 
ment—foreign to the literal sense—of confirmation in righteousness: 
“quum creaturae sint, eztra lapsus periculum non essent, nisi Christi gratia 
fuissent confirmati.” According to Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 
1868, p. 522 f., Paul intends to refer to the angels that had been active in 
the law-giving on Sinai (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. Ixvii. 18, LXX.), to whom he 
attributes “a deviation from God’s plan of salvation.” But this latter 
idea cannot be made good either by ii. 15, or by Gal. iii. 19, or by Eph. iii. 
10, as, indeed, there is nothing in the context to indicate any such refer- 
ence to the angels of the law in particular, The exegetical device tra- 
ditionally resorted to, that what was meant with respect to the angels was 
their reconciliation, not with God, but with men, to whom on account of 
sin they had been previously inimical (so Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodo- 
ret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Zanchius, Cameron, Calovius, Estius, 
Bengel, Michaelis, Bohmer, and others), is an entirely erroneous make- 
shift, incompatible with the language of the passage.—ei¢ atrév] is indeed 
to be written with the apiritus lenis, as narrating the matter from the 
standpoint of the author, and because a reflexive emphasis would be with- 
out a motive ; but it is to be referred, not to Christ, who, as mediate agent 
of the reconciliation, is at the same time its aim (Bahr, Huther, Olshau- 
sen, de Wette, 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 
(Kuhner, II. 1, p. 471) and in the N. T. (Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621]), the 
constructio praegnans: to reconcile to Godward, so that they are now no 
longer separated from God (comp. am7Adorp., ver. 21), but are to be united 
with Him in peace. Thus ei¢ air., although identical in reality, is not in 
the mode of conreption 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 tq 
é:' avrov, which, as in ver. 16, would have been expressed by xa? ei¢ abrév, 
and also because the explanation which follows (elpyvorochoag «.t.A.) con- 
cerns and presupposes simply the mediate agency of Christ (dé: atrot).— 
eipnvorroqoag, [XXVIII i.] down to cravpot abroi, is a modal definition of 
di avrov amoxaraAAdfa: (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 aroxaraAd. (see on Eph. i. 9, and 





244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 

Kuhner, II. 1, p. 161 f.; Miiller in the Ltdher. Zeitschr. 1872, p. 681 ff), 
and not antecedent to it (Bahr), as has been incorrectly held by Ernesti in 
consistency with his explanation of ver. 19 (see on ver. 19), who, more- 
over, without any warrant from the context, in accordance with 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 eidéxyoev, not Christ,| but God. The verb eipyvoroeiv, occurring 
only here in the N. T., which has elsewhere zoceiv eipfyyv (Eph. ii. 15: 
Jas. 111. 18), and also foreign to the ancient Greek, which has eipzvoroiog, is 
nevertheless found in Hermes, ap. Stob. Ecl. ph. i. 52, and in the LXX. 
Prov. x. 10.—dé:a rov aiz. t. oravpov avrov] that is, by means of the blood to 
be shed on His cross, which, namely, as the sacrificial blood reconciling 
with God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 21), became the causa medians which procured 
the conclusion of peace between God and the world. Rom. iii. 25, v.9 f.; 
Eph. 1.7. 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.~—é airov] not with the spiritus asper, equiva- 
lent to d¢ éavroi, as those take it who refer elpyvoro:joacg to Christ as sub- 
ject (gavrdv éxdotc, Theophylact), since this reference is erroneous. But 
neither can dé avrod be in apposition to dia tov aiparog +. or. abrov (Cas- 
talio, “per ejus sanguinem, h.e. per eum’), for the latter, and not the 
former, would be the explanatory statement. It is a resumption of the 
above-given dc avrov, after the intervening definition eloyvoromoag x.7.., In 
order to complete the discourse thereby interrupted, and that by once 
more emphatically bringing forward the é¢ av7oi which stood at the com- 
mencement; “through Him,” I say, to reconcile, whether they be things 





1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Vecumenius, Lu 
ther, Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, Steiger, Hof- 
mann, and many others. 

2 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 
pudicial aet of violence, and “what befell Him" 
as an ignominy, which He allowed to be ine 
flicted 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 expia- 
tion 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 that 
we may come to stand holy before Him Not 


different in substance are Hofmann’'s utter- 
ances in his Hed Schr.N T But when we 
find 1t there stated “how far Christ has 
hereby (namely, by His having allowed Him- 
self 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 spectfied in detail," — 
that is an unwarranted evasion, for the strict 
idea of reconciliation had so definite, clear, 
tirm, and vivid (comp, ver. 14, lf 13 f.) a place 
in the consciousness of the apostle and of thir 
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 “Ideo pignus et pre 
tsum vostrae cum Deo pacificationis sanguis 
Christi, qusa in cruce fusus.” 


CHAP. I. 21. 245 


on earth or whether they be things in heaven. Comp. on Eph. i. 11; 
Rom. viii. 28.—elre ra evi rt. y., elite ta év 1. ovo.) divides, without 
“affected tautology ” (Holtzmann), but with a certain solemnity befitting 
the close of this part of the epistle, the ra mévra into its two component 
parts. As to the quite universal description, see above on ra mdévra; comp. 
on ver. 16. We have, besides, to notice: (1) that Paul here (it is other- 
wise in ver. 16, where the creution was in question, comp. Gen. i. 1) names 
the earthly things first, because the atonemerit took place on earth, and 
primarily affected things earthly; (2) that the disjunctive expression eire 

. elre renders impossible the view of a reconciliation of the two sections 
one with another (Erasmus, Wetstein, Dalmer, and others). To the cate- 
gory of exegetical aberrations belongs the interpretation of Schleier- 
macher, who understands earthly and heavenly things, and includes 
among the latter all the relations of divine worship and the mental tenden- 
cies of Jews and Gentiles relative thereto: “Jews and Gentiles were at 
variance as to both, as to the heavenly and earthly things, and were now 
to be brought together in relation to God, after He had founded peace 
through the cross of His Son.” The view of Baumgarten-Crusius is also 
an utter misexplanation : that the reconciliation of men (Jews and Gen- 
tiles) among themselves, and with the spirit-world, is the thing meant; 
and that the reconciliation with the latter consists in the consciousness 
given back to men of being worthy of connection with the higher spirits. 
—Lastly, against the reference to universal restoration, to which, according 
to Olshausen, at least the tendency of Christ’s atonement is assumed to 
have pointed, see on Eph. 1. 10, remark 2.' 

Ver. 21. [On Vv. 21-28, see Note X XIX. page 275.] As far as ver 23, an 
application to the readers of what bad been said as to the reconciliation, 
in order to animate them, through the consciousness of this blessing, to 
stedfastness in the faith (ver. 23).—nai tua¢ «.7.A.] [X- XTX a.] you also, not: 
and you, so that it would have to be separated by a mere comma from 
the preceding verse, and wi 62... @avdrov would, notwithstanding its 
great importance, come to be taken as parenthetical (Lachmann), or as 
quite breaking off the discourse, and leaving it unfinished (Ewald). It 
begins a new sentence, comp. Eph. ii. 1; but observe, at the same time, 
that Eph. ii. is much too rich in its contents to admit of these contents 
being here compressed into vy. 20, 21 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 
150). As to the way in which Holtzmann gains an immediate connection 
with what precedes, see on ver. 19. The construction (following the read- 
ing anoxarnAAdyyre, 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 Recepia), but he does not carry out this formation 
of the sentence; on the contrary, in his versatility of conception, he 
suddenly starts off and continues in a passive form, as if he had begun 
with xat ipeic «.7.A2—arnddorp. x.7.A.] when ye were once tn the state of 


1 Comp. also Schmid in the Jahrb. f.d. Theol. TT. 567 ff.]; and npon the aorist, Butémann, 
1870, p. 133. Neut. Gr. p. 171 [E. T. 197]. 
?Sce Matthiae, p. 1524; Winer, p. 527 © [E. 


246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

estrangement, characterizes their heathen condition. As to amnMorp., sée 
on Eph. ii. 12; from which passage ard rjc wodureiac r."Iop. is here as 
unwarrantably supplied (Heinrichs, comp. Flatt), as is from Eph. iv. 14 
the Coxe tov Ocov (Bahr). In conformity with the context, seeing that 
previously God was the subject as author of reconciliation, the being 
estranged from God (row Geov), the being excluded from His fellowship, is 
to be understood. Comp. deo: év r. xéozy, Eph. ii. 12. On the subject- 
matter, Rom. i. 21 ff—éz6potc]} sc. rH OeG, in a passive sense (comp. on Rom. 
v. 10, xi. 28): énvisos Deo,’ as is required by the idea of having become 
reconciled, through which God’s enmity against sinful men, who were 
téxva pice dpyic¢ (Eph. ii. 3), has changed into mercy towards them? This 
applies in opposition to the usual active interpretation, which Hofmann 
also justly rejects: hostile towards God, Rom. viii. 7; Jas. iv. 4 (so still 
Huther, de Wette, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann), which is not to be com- 
bined with the passive sense (Calvin, Bleek).—r dsavoig and év roi¢ epyoug rt. 
st. 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, in which they had been so (in the wicked works, in which their 
godless and God-hated behaviour had exhibited itself). Thus information 
i8 given, as to and. and éxOpoic, of an internal and of an external kind. 
The view which takes r9 dcavoig 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 éz6p., but would furnish only a superfluous definition to it, 
ns it is self-evident that the enmity towards God resides in the disposition. 
Luther incorrectly renders: “through the reason ;’’ for the é&év. is not the 
reason itself, but its immanent activity (see especially, Plato, Soph. p. 263 
¥), and that here viewed under its moral aspect; comp. on Eph. iv. 18. 
Beza (“mente operibus malis intenta’’), Michaelis, Storr, and Bahr 
attach év roig Epyou «.t.A. to rH dtavoig. This is grammatically admissible, 
since we may say diavocioba: év, animo versari in (Ps. |xxili. 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 
cog épy. tT. movnp. would appear tediously circumstantial.—The articles ry 
and roi¢ denote the disposition which they have had, and the works which 


Comp. Luke xviii. 18; 2Cor v.19. So long as 





tCompare the phrase very current in the 
classical writers, from Homer onward, ¢x@pos 
Ocois, quem Dit oderunt. 

See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 576 ff., who 
aptly explains caradAAdocerOar rev. In alicu- 
jus favorem venire, qui antea succensuerit. 
Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. 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 w reconciled. 


His wrath is not changed, and consequently 
He is not reconciled, men remain unrecon- 
ciled. 2Macc vii.33: 0 gwy xvptos.  Bpaxéws 
emuopytorar Kas wadty KaTradAayicetat Tos eav- 
rov SovAns. comp. viii. 29, 1.5, v 20; Clem 
Cor. I. 48: ixerevorvres avrév (God), Orws tAews 
yevonevos émtxaradAayn nucy In Constt Apost. 
viii. 12. 14, it is said of Charest that He re xéopep 
xarynAAage God, and 3 17, of God: cov xaradAa- 
yevros avrois (with believers). 


CHAP. I. 22. 247 


they have done. In the latter case the subjoined attributive furnished with 
the article (roig rovnpoic) is not causal (‘‘ because they were bad,” Hofmann), 
but emphatically brings into prominence the quality, as at Eph. vi. 13; 1 
Cor. vii. 14, and often (Winer, p. 126 [E. T. 132]).—vuvi_ 62 aroxarnaadynre | 
as if previously iei¢ «.r.A. were used (see above); Ye also... have neverthe- 
less now become reconciled. On dé after participles which supply the place 
of the protasis, as here, where the thought is: although ye formerly, etc, 
see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 374 ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 1386; Ktihner, ad. 
Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 8, Anab. vi. 6. 16. On vi, with the aorist following, 
comp. ver. 26; Rom. vii. 6; Eph. 11.18; Plat. Symp. p. 1938 A: mpd rov... 
by fuer, veri d2 dia tiv adixiav depxioOnuev bd 7. Ocov. Ellendt. Lex Soph. II. p. 
176; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 672. It denotes the present time, which has set in 
with the dzoxary74A. (comp. Buttmann, Neul. 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 vvvi with their 
moré.! The reconciling subject is, according to the context (vv. 19, 20), not 
Christ (as at Eph. ii. 16), ékrough whom (comp. Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18) 
the reconciliation has taken place (see ver. 20), but, as at 2 Cor. v. 19, 
Godt For the reference to Christ even the reading amoxarjAdagev would 
by no means furnish a reason, far less a necessity, since, on the contrary, 
even this active would have, according to the correct explanation of 
evdéxnoe in ver. 19, to be taken as referring to God (in opposition to 
Hofmann). 

Vev. 22. ’Ev rq cdpuate x.7.4.] that, by means of which they have been 
reconciled ; corresponding to the 6: atrot and é:4 Tov aiparog rov cravpot avtow 
of ver. 20: tn the body of His flesh by means of death. Since God is the 
reconciling subject, we are not at liberty, with Elzevir, Scholz, and others, 
to read avrov (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 reconciled év rg oduati tr. 0. 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 it3 own account by éd, 
the év is not, with Erasmus and many others, to be taken as instrumental, 
but is to be left as local; not however, in the sense that Christ accom- 
plished the éGmoxaraAAdooew 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 da 
rov Gavdrov follows, in the sense, that in the body of Christ, by means of the 


1Comp. Luthardt, vom freien Willen, p. Ocecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, 
“es. Heinrichs, and others, including de Wette 
2In opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ewald. 


248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


death therein accomplished, our reconciliation was objectively realized, 
which fact of salvation, therefore, inseparably associated itself with His 
body; comp. év rg capxi pov, ver. 24, see alsol Pet. ii. 24 and Huther in 
loc. The conception of substitution, however, though involved in the 
thing (in the iAaorypiwov), is not to be sought in év (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 antago- 
nism 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 nowhere 
in the epistle expressly treats of the material Incarnation, which he would 
hardly have omitted to do in contrast to Docetism (comp. 1 John). In 
fact, the apostle found sufficient occasion for writing about the reconcilia- 
tion as he has done here and in ver. 20, in the faith in angels on the part 
of his opponents, by which they ascribed the reconciling mediation with 
God in part to those higher spiritual beings (who are without cap ri 
capxéc). Other writers have adopted the view, without any ground what- 
ever in the connection, that Paul has thus written in order to distinguish 
the real body of Christ from the spiritual cduza of the church (Bengel, 
Michaelis, Storr, Olshausen). The other cdua of Christ, which contrasts 
with His earthly body of flesh (Rom. i. 3, viii. 3), is His glorified heavenly 
body, Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 47 ff. References, however, such as Calvin, 
e.g., has discovered (“ humile, terrenum et infirmitatibus multis obnoxium 
corpus’’), or Grotius (‘ 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 spiritualistic erroneous doc- 
trines. Just as little may we import into the simple historical statement of 
the means é:4 rob Oavdrov, with Hofmann, the ignominy of shedding His blood 
on the cross, since no modal definition to that effect is subjoined or indicated. 
—napaorjoa tac «.7.A.] Ethical definition of the object aimed at in the 
GmoxarnAA.: ye have been reconciled . . . én order to present you, etc. The 
presenting subject is therefore the subject of aroxary/1., so that it is to be 
explained : iva rapacrgonre tuac, ut sisteretis vos, and therefore this continua- 
tion of the discourse is by no means awkward in its relation to the read- 
ing aroxarnAAdynre (in opposition tode Wette). We should be only justified 
in expecting éavrofe (as Huther suggests) instead of tuac (comp. Rom. xii. 
1) if (comp. Rom. vi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 15) the connection required a reflexive 
emphasis. According to the reading dmoxarfAAagev the sense is ut sisteret 
vos,in which case, however, the subject would not be Christ (Hofmann), 
but, as in every case since evdéxyoe in ver. 19, God.—The point of time at 
which the rapaor. is to take place (observe the aorist) is that of the judg- 
ment, in 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 savacrjoa x«.7.A. is made 
dependent on continuance in the faith as its condition: consequently there 
cannot be meant the result already accomplished by the reconciliation itself, 


CHAP. I. 22. 249 


namely, the state of dixacoctvy entered upon through it (so usually, includ- 
ing Hofmann). The state of justification sets in at any rate, and uncon- 
ditionally, through the reconciliation; but it may be lost again, and at the 
Parousia will be found subsisting only in the event of the reconciled 
remaining constant to the faith, by means of which they have appropri- 
ated the reconciliation, ver. 23.—dyiovg x.r.A.] does not represent the sub- 
jects 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 aveysa.; it 
rather describes without figure the moral holiness which, after the justifica- 
tion attained by means of faith, is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Rom. vii. 
6, viii. 2, 9, e¢ al.), and which, on the part of man, is preserved and main- 
tuined by continuance in the faith (ver. 23). The three predicates are not 
intended to represent the relation “erga Deum, respectu vestri, and 
respectu prozimi”’ (Bengel, Bahr), since, in point of fact, auepoue (blameless, 
Eph. i. 4, v. 27; Herod. ii. 177; Plat. Rep. p. 487 A: oid’ Gv 6 Mapuoc 16 ye 
Tocowrov wéupairo) no less than aveyxa. (reproachless, 1 Cor. i. 8) points to an 
external judgment: but the moral condition is intended to be described 
with exhaustive emphasis positively (dyiov) and negatively (auéu. and 
aveyxa.). The idea of the moral holiness of the righteous through faith is 
thoroughly Pauline; comp. not only Eph. ii. 10, Tit. ii. 14, ii. 8, but also 
such passages as Rom. vi. 1-23, viii. 4 ff; Gal. v. 22-25; 1 Cor. ix.24 ff; 
2 Cor. xi. 2, et al.—xarevérwov avrov} refers to Christ,,to His judicial appear- 
ance at the Parousia, just as by the previous avrov after capxé¢ Christ also 
was meant. The wsual reference to God (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek) is connected with the reading azoxargAAagev 
taken as so referring; comp. Jude 24; Eph. i. 4. The objection that 
xatevorriov 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 évGmov is also applied to Christ (2 Tim. ii. 14), 
and since in the notion itself there is nothing opposed to this reference. 
The frequent use of the expression “ before God” is traceable to the theo- 
cratically national currency of this conception, which by no means 
excludes the expression “ before Christ.” So éumpooGev is also used of Christ 
in 1 Thess. ii. 19. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 10: éumpoofev rov Bhuatog tov Xpwrod, 
which is a commentary on our xarevdrwov avrov; see also Matt. xxv. 82. 


REMARK.—The proper reference of tapaotyoa: x.7.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, ts preserved and maintained up to the 
judgment by the self-active perseverance of faith in virtue of the new life of the 
reconciled (Rom. vi.) ; so that the justitia inhaerens is therefore neither meant 
alone (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, and others), nor excluded 
(Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, and others), but is included. Comp. Calovius. 


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








250 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

Ver. 28. [XXIX b.c.] Requirement, with which is associated not, 
indeed, the being included in the work of reconciliation (Hofmann), but 
the attainment of its blessed final aim, which would otherwise be for- 
feited, namely the zapacr#oa: x.r.A. above described : so far at any rate as 
ye, i.e. assuming, namely, that ye, etc. A confidence that the readers 
will fulfill this condition is not conveyed by the elye in itself (see on 2 
Cor. v.3; Gal. ili. 4; Eph. iii. 2), and is not implied here by the context; 
but Paul sets forth the relation purely as a condition certainly taking place, 
which they have to fulfill, in order to attain the wepaoryoa: x.r.A.—that 
“fructus in posterum laetissimus” of their reconciliation (Bengel).—rg 
niore:] belonging to émuév.: 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 (reBeu. x. édpaios), and negatively (x. 4) weraxv. x«.7.A.), under the 
figurative conception of a building, in which, and that with reference to 
the Parousia pointed at by sapaorjoa x.r.4., the hope of the gospel is 
conceived as the foundation, in so far as continuance in the faith is based 
on this, and is in fact not possible without it (ver. 27). ‘Spe amissa per- 
severantia concidit,” Grotius. On refevedA., which is not interjected 
(Holtzmann), comp. Eph. iii. 17; 1 Pet. v.10; and on édpaia, 1 Cor. xv. 
58. The opposite of reeyer. is ywpic Oeueriov, Luke vi. 49; but it would 
be a contrast to the reBeweA. xai édpaios, if they were peraxcvobyevor x.7.A. 5 
concerning yf, see Winer, p. 443 [E. T. 475]; Baeumlein, Part. p. 295.— 
peraxvoiu.| passively, through the influence of false doctrines and other 
seductive forces.—aré] away . . . from, so as to stand no longer on hope 
as the foundation of perseverance in the faith. Comp. Gal. i. 6.—The 
éAri¢ rov evayy. (which is proclaimed through the gospel by means of its 
promises, comp. ver. 5, and on Eph. i. 18) is the hope of eternal life in 
the Messianic kingdom, which has been imparted to the believer in the 
gospel. ‘Comp. vv. 4, 5, 27; Rom. v. 2, viii. 24; Tit. 1.2 f., ili. 7.—ob 
nxovoare x.t.A.] three definitions rendering the pj peraxcveiofar «.7.A. in its 
universal obligation palpably apparent to the readers; for such a pera- 
xvetoOac would, in the case of the Colossians, be inexcusable (oi #xotecare, 
comp. Rom. x. 18), would set at naught the universal proclamation of the 
gospel (rod xypvz@. x.7.2.), and would stand in contrast to the personal 
weight of the apostle’s position as its servant (ov éyev. «.r.2.). If, with 
Hofmann, we join tov xypuy8évrog ag an adjective to rov evayyediov, ov 
qxotoate, we Withdraw from the ov jxobcare that element of practical sig- 
nificance, which it must have, if it is not to be superfluous. Nor is justice 
done to the third point, ob éyevéuqy x.7./., if the words (so Hofmann, comp. 


1In our Epistle faith is by no means post- 
poned to knowing and perceiving (comp. ii. 
6, 7, 12), as Baur asserts in his Neut. Theol. p. 
272. The frequent emphasis laid upon know- 
ledge, insight, comprehension, and the like, 
is not to be put to the account of an intel- 
lectualism, which forms a fundamental pe- 
culiarity betokening the author and age of 
this Epistle (and especially of that to the 


Ephesians), as Holtsmann conceives, p. 216 ff.; 
on the contrary, it was owing to the attitude 
of the apostle towards the antagonistic philo- 
sophical speculations. Comp. also Grau, Ent- 
wickelungsgesch. d. N. T. 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. 


CHAP. I. 23, 24. 251 


de Wette) are meant to help the apostle, by enforcing what he is thence- 
forth to write with the weight of his name, to come to his condition at that 
time. According to this, they would be merely destined as a transition. 
In accordance with the context, however, and without arbitrary tamper- 
ing, they can only have the same aim with the two preceding attributives 
which are annexed to the gospel; and, with this aim, how appropriately 
and forcibly do they stand at the close!! Aomdv yap péya Hv Td TatbAov 
dvoua, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysostom. Comp. on éy& Mavdcs, with a 
view to urge his personal authority, 2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. v. 2; Eph. i. 1; 1 
Thess. ii. 18; Philem. 19. It is to be observed, moreover, that if Paul 
nimeelf had been the teacher of the Colossians, this relation would cer- 
tainly not have been passed over here in silence.—év wéey xricec (without 
3, see the critical remarks) is to be taken as: in presence of (coram, see 
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 701; Winer, p. 360 [E. T. 385] every creature, before 
everything that is created («riowc, as in i. 15). There is nothing created 
under the heaven, in whose sphere and environment (comp. Kiihner, IT. 
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 heathen (Bahr). 
It is true that the popular expression of universality may just as little be 
pressed here as in ver. 6.2. But as ini. 15, so also here raoa xriote 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 mdéoy rH xricet, or év ravri TQ kéopy, OF cv bAy TO K.; 
comp. ver.6. The expression is more lofty and poetic than in ver. 6, ap- 
propriate to the close of the section, not a fanciful reproduction betray- 
ing an imitator and a later age (Holtzmann). Omitting even ot ;xobcare 
(because it is not continued by ov «ai éyé), Holtzmann arrives merely at — 
the connection between ver. 23 and ver. 25: yu) peraxiv. ard tov evayy. ov 
éyev, éy@ II. didx. xata ri oixov. tr. Geo riv dobeicdv por ei¢ iva, just as he 
then would read further thus: wAnpaoa +r. Ady. 1. Oeov, cig & nal Koma 
ayeutéu. xara r. évépy. avrov riv éivepyouu. év épuol.—d:dxovog] See on Eph. 
iii. 7. Paul has become such through his calling, Gal. i. 15 f.; Eph. iii. 7. 
Observe the aorist. 

Ver. 24.* [On Vv. 24-29, see Note XXX. pages 275-278.] A more precise . 
description of this relation of service, and that, in the first place, with 
respect to the sufferings which the apostle is now enduring, ver. 24, and 
then with respect to his important calling generally, vv. 25-29.—¢ (see the 
critical remarks) [XXX a.] viv yaipo «.1.4.: I who now rejoice, etc. How 
touchingly, so as to win the hearts of the readers, does this join itself with 
the last element of encouragement in ver. 23 !—+iv] places in contrast with 
the great element of his past, expressed by ob éyev. «.7.4., which has im- 
posed on the apostle so many sorrows (comp. Acts ix. 16), the situation as 
it now exists with him in that relation of service on his part. to the gospel. 


1 According to Baur, indeed, such passages Comp. Herm. Past. sim. viii.3; Ign. Rom. 2. 
as the present are among those which betray *See upon ver. 24, Licke, Progr. 1833; Hue 
the double personality of the author. ther in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 189 ff. 


252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


This present condition, however, he characterizes, in full magnanimous 
appreciation of the sufferings under which he writes, as joyfulness over 
them, and as a becoming perfect in the fellowship of tribulation with 
Christ, which is accomplished through them. It is plain, therefore, that 
the emphatio viv 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 roi¢ rafpu.] [XXX b.] over the suffer- 
ings; see on Phil. i. 18; Rom. v. 3. This joy in suffering is so entirely in 
harmony with the Pauline spirit, that its source is not to be sought (in 
opposition to Holtzmann) in 2 Cor. vii. 4, either for the present passage or 
for Eph. iii. 18; comp. also Phil. it. 17—irép tyév] joins itself to raPjuacw 
so as to form one conception, without connecting article. Comp. on wv. 
1,4; 2 Cor. vii. 7; Eph. iii. 18; Gal. iv. 14. Since izrép, according to the 
context, is not to be taken otherwise than as in imép rot ody. adrod, it can 
neither mean instead of (Steiger, Catholic expositors, but not Cornelius a 
Lapide or Estius), nor on account of (Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt; comp. 
Eph. iii. 1; Phil. i. 29), but simply: in commodum,' namely, iva tude age- 
joa: dvv7bi, Oecumenius, and that, indeed, by that honorable attestation and 
glorifying of your Christian state, which is actually contained in my tribida- 
tions; for the latter show forth the faith of the readers, for the sake of 
which the apostle has undertaken and borne the suffering, as the holy 
divine thing which is worthy of such a sacrifice. Comp. Phil. i. 12 ff; 
Eph. iii. 18. The reference to the ezample, which confirms the readers’ 
faith (Grotius, Wolf, Bahr, and others), introduces inappropriately a reflec- 
tion, the indirect and tame character of which is not at all in keeping with 
the emotion of the discourse.—The tzév, 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, @ al.). It is arbitrary, doubtless, to supply rov évév here from 
Eph. iii. 1 (Flatt, Huther); but that Paul, nevertheless, has his readers in 
view as Gentile Christians, and as standing in a special relation to himself 
as apostle of the Gentiles, is shown by vv. 25-27.—xai] not equivalent to aa? 
yap (Heinrichs, Bahr), but the simple and, subjoining to the subjective 
state of feeling the objective relation of suffering, which the apostle sees 
accomplishing itself in his destiny. It therefore carries on, but not from 
the special (iudv) “ad totam omnino ecclesiam ” (Lucke), since the new 
point to be introduced is contained in the specific avravarAnpa . . . Xpicrod, 
and not in trép r. odu. avrov. The connection of ideas is rather: “TI rejotce 
over my sufferings, and what a holy position is theirs! through them J 
fulfill,” etc. Hence the notion of yaipw is not, with Huther, to be carried 
over also to avravaranpo: and I supplement with joy, etc. At the same 
time, however, the statement introduced by «ai stands related to yaipw as 
elucidating and giving information regarding it.—avravatAnpd] [XXX c.]. 


180 also Bisping, who, however, explains it of the meritoriousness of guod works avatling for others. 


CHAP. I. 24. 253 


The double compound is more graphic than the simple évarAypa, Phil. ii. 
30; 1 Cor. xvi. 17 (J fill up), since arti (to fill wp over against) indicates what 
is brought in for the making complete over against the still existing vorepfyara. 
The reference of the avri lies therefore in the notion of what is lacking; 
inasmuch, namely, as the incomplete is rendered complete by the very 
fact, that the supplement corresponding to what is lacking is introduced 
in its stead. It is the reference of the corresponding adjustment, of the 
supplying of what is still wanting. The distinction of the word from the 
simple avarAypovv does not consist in this, that the latter is said of him, 
who “ torépqya a se relictum ipse explet,” and avravara. of him, who “ alte- 
rius torépyua de suo explet;”*® nor yet in the endurance vieing with Christ, 
the author of the afflictions ;* but in the circumstance, that in avravara., 
the filling up is conceived and described as defectut respondens, in avard., 
on the other hand, only in general as completio.°—ra_ torepfuata] 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.—rév OAip. rod Xprorod] 
rov X. is the genitive of the subject. Paul describes, namely, his own suffer- 
ings, in accordance with the idea of the xowwveiv toig rov Xpiorov rabhyace (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. 1.5; Phil. iii. 10. 
The collective mass of these afflictions is conceived in the form of a definite 
measure, just as the phrases avamiumdAdvat xaxd, avatAgoat xaxdv olrov, and the 
like, are current in classic authors, according to a similar figurative con- 
ception (Hom. J1. viii. 34. 354, xv. 132), Schweigh. Ler. Herod. I. p. 42. He 
only who has suffered all, has filled wp the measure. That Paul is now, in 
his captivity fraught with danger to life, on the point (the present avravara, 
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 terépnya in it,—this he regards as something grand and glorious, and 
therefore utters the avravarAypé, which bears the emphasis at the head of 
this declaration, with all the sense of triumph which the approaching com- 


pletion of such a work involves. 


1 Many Ideas are arbitrarily introduced by 
commentators, in order to bring out of the 
avri in avravawa. areciprocal relation. Seee.g. 
Clericus : “ Ile ego, qui olim ecclesiam Christi 
vexaveram, nune vicissim in ejus utilitatem 
pergo multa mala perpeti.” Others (see al- 
ready Oecumenius) have found in it the 
meaning: for requital of that which Christ 
suffered for us; comp. also Grimm in his 
Lexicon. Wetstein remarks shortly and 
rightly: “ari vorepjuaros succedit wA¥pw- 
pa,”—or rather avawAjpeya. 

2 Comp. Dem. 182. 22: avravanAnpovrres wpds 
Tow ehroperatoy aci Tos anopwratous (where 


“TI rejoice on account of the sufferings 


the idea is, that the poverty of the latter is 
compensated for by the wealth of the former); 
80 also avravawAypwors, Epicur. ap. Diog. L. 
x. 48; Dio Cass. xliv. 48: dco... évddet, rovro 
dx Tis wapa Tov GAAwY cuvTeAciag avravanAn- 
pwOn. Comp. avrepmiwAnus, Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 
2; avravyandAnOeayv, Xen. Hell. ii. 4. 12; and 
avrvwAnpovy, Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 26. 

So Winer, de verbor. c. praepos in N. T. usu, 
1838, LIT. p. 22. 

4 Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275. 

6See 1 Cor. xvi. 17: Phil. ii. 30; Plat. Legg. 
xii. p. 957 A, Tim. p. 78 D, et al. Comp. also 
Tittmann, Synon. p. 230. 





254 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


which I endure for you, and—so hignly have I to esteem this situation of 
affliction—I am in the course of furnishing the complete fulfillment of 
what tn my case still remains tn 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, avravarAnpd, to be emphatically prefixed, but also the description, 
in the most honorable and sublime manner possible, of the apostolic 
afflictions themselves as the @iwer tov Xpiorod,’ 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,? but they are not 
so designated by the genitive; on the contrary, the designation follows the 
idea of ethical identity, which is conveyed in the ioduompov eiva: rg Xpurd, as 
in Phil. iii. 10. Nor are they to be taken, with Liicke (comp. Fritzsche, 
lc.),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 (6Aiyx¢, with the geni- 
tive 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 
xovwvia Of the sufferings of Christ. Theodoret’s comment is substantially 
correct, though not exhibiting precisely the relation expressed by the 
genitive: Xpiordc rdv trép tHe éxxAnoiacg watedé—ato Oévatov . . . wat Ta GAda 
doa trkuecve, nat 5 Oetog ambcrodog doattuc tméip abrig trborn ra motKiAa rah. 
para. Ewald imports more, when he says that Paul designates his suffer- 
ings from the point of view of the continuation and further accomplish- 
ment of the divine aim in the sufferings of Christ. Quite erroneous, how- 
ever, because at variance with the idea that Christ has exhausted the 
suffering appointed to Him in the decree of God for the redemption of the 
world (comp. also John xi. 52, xix. 830; Luke xxii. 87, xviii. 831; Rom. iii. 
25; 2 Cor. v. 21, et al.), is not only the view of Heinrichs: “ qualia et Chriat- 
us passurus fuisset, si diutius vixisset,”* 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 could 
not have affected Christ, because He was only sent to the lost sheep of 
Israel. As if Christ's suffering were not, throughout the N. T., the one 
perfect and completely valid suffering for all mankind, but were rather to 
be viewed under the aspect of two quantitative halves, one of which He 
bore Himself as dedxovog reperopge (Rom. xv. 8), leaving the other behind to 
be borne by Paul as the diddoxadoc éfvav; 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, consisted in this, that Paul lay in cap- 


1When de Wette describes our view of onr. OA. ¢. X. 
OAip. tr. X. as tame, and Schenkel as tautologi- 280 Vatablua, Schoettgen, Zachariae, Storr, 
eal, the incorrectness of this criticism arises | Rosenmiller, Flatt, Bohmer, and others; 
from their not observing that the stress of comp. Wetstein. 
the expression lies on avravazAnpe, and not %So substantially also Phot. Ampkil. 143. 


CHAP. I. 24. 255 


tivity with his life at stake, because Israel would not permit him to proclaim 
that Saviour to the Gentiles. Every explanation, which involves the idea 
- of the suffering endured by Christ in the days of His flesh having been 
incomplete and needing supplement, is an anomaly which offends against 
the analogy of faith of the N.T. And how incompatible with the deep 
‘humility of the apostle (Eph. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 9) would be the thought of 
being supposed to supplement that, which the highly exalted One (ver. 15 
ff.) had suffered for the reconciliation of the universe (ver. 20 ff.)! Only 
when misinterpreted in this fashion can the utterance be regarded as one 
perfectly foreign to Paul (as is asserted by Holtzmann, pp. 21 f,, 152, 226); 
even Eph. i. 22 affords no basis for such a view. As head of the Church, 
which is His body, and which He fills, He is in statu gloriae in virtue of 
His kingly office. Others, likewise, holding the genitive to be that of the 
subject, have discovered here the conception of the suffering of Christ in the 
Church, His body,' so that when the members suffer, the head suffers also? 
But the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His people (Olshausen : 
“Christ is the suffering God in the world’s history !’’) 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 
bu at in the sense of suffering. He lives in His people (Gal. ii. 20), speaks in 
them (2 Cor. xiii. 3); His heart beats in them (Phil. i. 8); He is mighty in 
them (ver. 29), when they are weak (2 Cor. xii. 9), their. hope, their life, 
their victory; but nowhere is it said that He suffersin them. This idea, 
moreover—which, consistently carried out, would involve even the con- 
ception 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 é& dofeveiacs, He lives éx duvapeuc 
Geov, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, at the right hand of God exalted above all the heavens 
and filling the universe (Eph. i. 22 f,, iv. 10), ruling, conquering, and 
beyond the reach of further suffering (Heb. iii. 18 ff). The application 
made by Cajetanus, Bellarmine, Salmeron, and others, of this explanation 
for the purpose of establishing the treasury of indulgences, which consists 
of the merits not merely of Christ but also of the apostles and saints, is a 
Jewish error (4 Macc. vi. 26, and Grimm #n loc.), historically hardly worthy 
of being noticed, though still defended, poorly enough, by Bisping.—é» rg 
capri pov] belongs to avravara., as to which it specifies the more precise mode ; 
not to rav Oi. r. 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 apos- 
tle, for which there was no motive, and which was evident of itself. Belong- 


1Comp. also Sabatier, [apéire Paul, p. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Erasmus, 
213. Luther, Beza, Calvin, Melanchthon, Clarius, 

#80 Chrysostom and Theophylact (who Cornelius a Lapide, Vitringa, Bengel, Mi- 
compare the apostie with a lieutenant, who, chaelis, and others, including Steiger, Bahr, 
when the general-in-chief is removed, takes Olshausen, de Wette, Schenkel, Dalmer; 
the latter’s place and receives his wounds), §comp.Grotius and Calovius, and even Bleek. 


256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


ing to avravard., it contains with imép rod cdu. a. a pointed definition: (odpf 
... oGua) of the mode and of the aim.!' Paul accomplishes that avravaray- 
pow in his flesh,? which in its 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 confirmation, advancement, 
and glory of which (comp. above on trép inzov) he endures the Christ- 
sufferings. Comp. Eph. iii. 18. The significant purpose of the addition 
of év ry capx? x.7.A. is to bring out more clearly and render palpable, in 
connection with the avravarAnpé x.7.A., what lofty happiness he experiences 
in this very avravarAnpovv. He is therein privileged to step in with his 
mortal oépé 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 7¢ éyevéunqv x.7.A. (comp. on ver. 18): whose 
servant I have become in conformity with my divine appointment as 
preacher to the Gentiles (xara r. oixov. «.7.A.). Inthis way Paul now brings 
this his specific and distinctive calling into prominence after the general 
description of himself as servant of the gospel in ver. 23, and here again he 
gives expression to the consciousness of his individual authority by the 
emphasized éyd. 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).—«xarta tiv oixovou. x.7.A.] [XXX d.] in accordance with the steward- 
ship of God, which is given to me with reference to you. The oixovouia tr. Geo 
is in itself nothing else than a characteristic designation of the apostolic 
office, in so far as its holder is appointed as administrator of the household 
of God (the oixodearéryc), by which, in the theocratic figurative conception, 
is denoted the church (comp., 1 Tim. iii. 15). Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 17, iv.1; 
Tit. i. 7. Hence such an one is, in consequence of this office conferred upon 
him, in his relation to the church the servant of the latter (2 Cor. iv. 5), to 
which function God has appointed him, just because he is His steward. 
This sacred stewardship then receives its more precise distinguishing defi- 
nition, so far as it is entrusted to Paul, by the addition of ei¢ tuac x«.7.A. It 
is purely arbitrary, and at variance with the context (rv dof. yo), to 
depart from the proper signification, and to take it as institution, arrange- 
ment (see on Eph. i. 10, iii. 2).°—eic¢ tuac] although the office concerned Gen- 
tile Christians generally; a concrete appropriation as in ver.24. Comp.on 
Phil.i.24. Itistobe joined with +. dofeiody yo, asin Eph. iii.2; not with rAnpo- 
oat «.7.A. (Hofmann), with the comprehensive tenor of which the individual- 


1 Steiger rightly perceived that éy r. capxi mu, x«.7.A., we ought to join éy rj capxi pov with 


and vwép tr. ¢. a. belong together; but he er- 
roneously coupled both with rev 6A. +. X. 
(“the sufferings which Christ endures in my 
flesh for His body”), owing to his incorrect 
view of the @Acpes r. X. 

Hofmann thinks, without reason, that, 
according to our explanation of avravawAnpe 


tev OrAiv. r. 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 avravawzAnpovy 
«7A, takes place in the flexh of the apostle. 
3So Chrysostom and his successors (with 
much wavering), Beza, Calvin, Estius, Rosen- 


CHAP. I. 25, 26. 257 
izing “for you” is not in harmony, when it is properly explained (see 
below).—Anpadoa: «.7.A.] telic infinitive, depending on ri dobeicdy por eic 
tuac, beside which it stands (Rom. xv. 15 f.); not on je éyev. dedx. (Huther). 
Paul, namely, has received the office of Apostle to the Gentiles, in order 
through the discharge of it to bring to completion the gospel (rov Adyov +. 
@cov, 1 Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor. 11.17, iv. 2; 1 Thess. ii. 18; Acts iv. 29, 31, vi. 
2, and frequently), obviously not as rezards its contents, but as regards its 
universal destination, according to which the knowledge of salvation had 
not yet reached its fullness, so long as it was only communicated to the 
Jews and not to the Gentiles also. The latter was accomplished through 
Paul, who thereby made full the gospel—conceived, in respect of its pro- 
clamation in accordance with its destiny, as a measure to be filled—just 
because the divine stewardship for the Gentiles had been committed to 
him. The same conception of sAgpwore occurs in Rom. xv. 19.' Partly 
from not attending to the contextual reference to the element, contained 
in 7. dof. pot et¢ das, of the rAjpwore 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 rAypéca, or attributing an arbitrary 
meaning to it, commentators have taken very arbitrary views of the 
passage, such as, for example, Luther: to preach copiously; Olshausen, 
whom Dalmer follows: “to proclaim it completely as respects its whole 
tenor and compass ;” Cornelius a Lapide: “ut compleam praedicationem 
ev., quam coepit Christus ;” Vitringa, Storr, Flatt, Bahr: rAnpovy has 
after 793 the signification of the simple docere; Huther: it means either 
to diffuse, or (as Steiger also takes it) to “realize,” to introduce into the 
life, inasmuch as a doctrine not preached is empty ;* de Wette: to 
“execute,” the word of God being regarded either as a commission or 
(comp. Heinrichs) as a decree; Estius and others, following Theodoret : 
“ut omnia loca impleam verbo Dei” (quite at variance with the words 
here, comp. Acts v. 28); Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 275; to supplement, 
namely, by continuing the instruction of your teacher Epaphras. Others, 
inconsistently with what follows, have explained the Adyoc r. Geov to 
mean the divine promise (“partim de Christo in genere, partim de 
vocatione gentium,” Beza, comp. Vatablus), in accordance with which 
tAnp. would mean ersequi. Chrysostom has rightly understood r. Ady. r. 
Orov of the gospel, but takes rAnpdca:, to which he attaches cic ipuac, 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 Adyor rod Oecd, and 


miller, and others. It is well said by Corne- 
lius a Lapide: “in domo Dei, quae est eccle- 
sia, sum oeconomus, ut dispensem ... bona 
et dona Dei domini mei.” Comp. on 1 Cor. 
fv. 1. 

1Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.; also Calovina, 
who rightly says: “Nimirum impletur ita 
verbum non ratione sui ceu imperfectum, sed 
ratione hominum, cum ad plures sese diffnn- 


dit.” Similarly Bengel: “ad omnes perdu- 
cere; P. ubique ad summa tendit.” 

2In a similar artificial fashion, emptying 
the purposely chosen expression of its mean- 
ing, Hofmann comes ultimately to the bare 
sense: “to proclaim God's word,” asserting 
that the word is a fact, and so he who pro- 
claims the fact fulfilie it. 


17 


258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


that as regards its great contents—As to 1d uvorfpiov x.7.A. [XXX e.] the 
decree of redemption, hidden from eternity in God, fulfilled through Christ, 
and made known through the gospel, see on Eph. i.9. & embraces the 
Gentiles also; and this is a special part of its nature that had been veiled 
(see Eph. iii. 5), which, however, is not brought into prominence till ver. 
27. Considering the so frequent treatment of this idea in Paul’s writings, 
and its natural correlation with that of the yréoc, an acquaintance with 
the Gospel of Matthew (xiii. 11) is not to be inferred here (Holtzmann).'— 
and TOY aidvuy K. ard Tov yeveov] This twofold description, as also the repeti- 
tion of azé, 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 ard tiv aiéver, comp. on Eph. iii. 
9. Paul could not write mpd rév aidv., 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, 
to whom it remained unknown. Expressions such as Rom. xvi. 25, xpévorg 
aiwviorc,” and Tit. i. 2 (see Huther in loc.), do not conflict with this view. 
avd t. yeveov does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.; but comp. Acts xv. 
21. The two ideas are not to be regarded as synonymous (in opposition 
to Huther and others), but are to be kept separate (times—men). [XXX f.] 
—vuvi dé épavepiOy] A transition to the finite tense, occasioned by the im- 
portance of the contrast. Comp. oni.6. Respecting vvvi, see on ver. 21. 
The ¢avépworg has taken place differently according to the different sub- 
jects; partly by amoxéavyc (Eph. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 10), as in the case of 
Paul himself (Gal. i. 12,15; Eph. iii. 3); partly by preaching (iv. 4; Tit. i. 
3; Rom. xvi. 26); partly by both. The historical realization (de Wette; 
comp. 2 Tim. 1. 10) was the antecedent of the ¢gavépwors, but 1s not here 
this latter itself, which is, on the contrary, indicated by roi¢ dyiow avrov as 
a special act of clearly manifesting communication.—roi¢ dylocg abvrov] 4. e. 
not: éo the apostles and prophets of the N. T. (Flatt, Bahr, Bohmer, Steiger, 
Olshausen, Baumgarten-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. 5,5 whence also 
the reading azooréAoce (instead of ayiorc) 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 «Ayrol 





1 Just as little ground is there for tracing 
«xara Ta évrdAnara «.r.X., in ii. 22, to Matt. xv. 
9; ov xparwy, in ii. 19, to Matt. vii. 8,4; dxary, 
in ii. 8, to Matt. xifl. 22; and in other in- 
stances. The author, who manifests so much 
lively copiousness of language, was certainly 
not thus confined and dependent in thought 
and expression. 

2 According to Holtzmann, indeed, p. 309 ft., 
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 at- 


tempted to be proved by the tones (quite 
Pauline, however) which Rom. xvi. 15-27 has 
in common with Col. i. 26 f.; Eph. fif. 20, fii. 9, 
10, v. 21; and in support of it an erroneous in- 
terpretation of 8a ypadev wpodytixev, in 
Rom. xvi. 26, is invoked. 

8 Holtzsmann also, p. 49, would have the 
apostles thought of “first of all.” The re- 
semblances to Eph. {iii.3, 5 do not postulate the 
similarity of the conception throughout. 
This would assume a mechanical process of 
thought, which could not be proved. 


CHAP. I. 27, 259 


aywt belonging to God, Rom. i.7, vill. 30, ix. 23 f. Huther wrongly desires 
to leave roi¢ dyioee indefinite, because the pvorf#piov, 80 far as it embraced 
the Gentiles also, had not come to be known to many Jewish-Christians. 
But, apart from the fact that the Judaists did not misapprehend the desti- 
nation of redemption for the Gentiles in itself and generally, but only the 
direct character of that destination (without a transition through Judaism, 
Acts xv. 1, et al.), the égpavepo6y roi¢ dylog avrov is in fact a summary asser- 
tion, which is to be construed a potiori, and does not cease to be true on 
account of exceptional cases, in which the result was not actually 
realized. 

Ver. 27. [XXX g.] Not exposition of the égavep. roi¢ dy. airov, since 
the yvupica has for its object not the pvorfpoy itself, but the glory of the 
latter among the Gentiles. In reality, oi¢ subjoins an onward movement of 
the discourse, so that to the general 1rd pvorfpioyv égavepdOn roig dy. avrov a 
particular element is added: “The mystery was made manifest to His 
saints,—to them, to whom (quippe quibus) God withal desired especially to 
make known that, which is the riches of the glory of this mystery among 
the Gentiles.”” Along with the general égavepdOy roig dyiotg avrov God had 
this special definite direction of His will. From this the reason is plain why 
Paul has written, not simply oi éyvdpiev 6 Cede, but oi¢ POéAecev 6 Oedc¢ 
yvupicaz. The meaning that is usually discovered in #éAncev, free grace, 
and the like (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Beza, and many others, 
including Bahr, B6hmer, 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.”—yvupica:] to make known, like épavepd6y, from 
which it differs.in meaning not essentially, but only to this extent, that 
by égavep. the thing forinerly hidden is designated as openly displayed 
(Rom. i. 19, iii. 21, xvi. 26; Eph. v. 18, e¢ al.), and by yvwpica that which 
was formerly unknown as brought to knowledge.' The latter is not related 
to épgavep. 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 1rd wAobrog rig déEnc x.7.2.] what is the riches of the glory of 
this mystery among the Gentiles, i. e. what rich fullness of the glory contained in 
this mystery exists among the Gentiles,—since, indeed, this riches consists in 
the fact (5¢ éor:), that Christ is among you, in whom ye have the hope of 
glary. In order to a proper interpretation, let it be observed : (1) ré occu- 
pies with emphasis the place of the indirect 6, 12,2 and denotes “ quae sint 
divitiae ” as regards degree: how great and unspeakable the riches, etc. 
Comp. on Eph. i. 18, iii. 18. The text yields this definition of the sense 
from the very connection with the quantitative idea rd rAovroe. (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 


1Comp. Rom. xvi. 26, ix. 22; Eph. i 9, iii. 3, 3 See Poppo, ed Xen. Qyrop. i. 2.10; Kihner, 
6, 10, vi. 19; Lule ii. 15, 6¢ al. od Mom. i. 1.1; Winer, p. 158 f. [E. T. 168}. 


260 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


riches; Beza: “divitiae gloriosi hujus mysterii’’).' (3) As rie dééne¢ is 
governed by 123 wAovroc, so also is tov pvornpiov governed by tHe dééqc, and 
év roic 20v. belongs to the éori which is to be supplied, comp. Eph.1.18. (4) 
According to the context, the défa cannot be anything else (see immedi- 
ately below, } éAmic ri¢ déEn¢) than the Messianic glory, the glory of the 
kingdom (Rom. viii. 18, 21; 2 Cor. iv. 17, e¢ al.), the glorious blessing of 
the xAnpovozia (comp. ver. 12), which before the Parousia (Rom. viii. 30; 
Col. iii. 3 f.) is the ideal (éA7ic), but after it is the realized, possession of 
believers. Hence it is neither to be taken in the sense of the glorious 
effects generally, which the gospel produces among the Gentiles (Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, and many others, including Huther, comp. Dalmer), 
nor in that specially of their conversion from death to life (Hofmann), 
whereby its glory is unfolded. Just as little, however, is the déga 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 (Bihmer). (5) The genitive of the sub- 
ject, rou pvotypiov robrov, defines the déga as that contained in the pvorfpior, 
previously unknown, but now become manifest with the mystery that has 
been made known, as the blessed confents of the latter. Comp. ver. 23: 
éArig tov evayyeAiov. To take the dééa as attribute of the mystery, is forbid- 
den by what immediately follows, according to which the idea can be 
none other than the familiar one of that glory, which is the proposed aim 
of the saving revelation and calling, the object of faith and hope (in oppo- 
sition to Hofmann and many others); ili. 4. Comp. on Rom. v. 2.—éyv roi¢ 
26veorv] [XXX h.] gaiverac dé év Erépouc, woAAG dé TwALov év Tobroig 4 TOAAL 
Tov pvotypiov d6€a, Chrysostom. “Qui tot saeculis demersi fuerant in 
morte, ut viderentur penitus desperati,” Calvin.—d¢ éore Xpiotdg ev typi] 
“Christus in gentibus, summum illis temporibus paradoxon,” Bengel. 
According to a familiar attraction (Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 166]), this a¢ 
applies to the previous subject ro xAcvrog rig déne tod prot. r., and intro- 
duces 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 éorev). Formerly they were yopic Xpiotov (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, e al.), is present and active among them. 
The proper reference of the relative to 1d rAcvrog «.7.A., and also the cor- 
rect connection of év tuiv with Xpiords (not with # éAric, as Storr and 
Flatt think), are already given by Theodoret and Oecumenius (comp. also 
Theophylact), Valla, Luther, Calovius, and others, including BOhmer and 
Bleek, whereas Hofmann, instead of closely connecting Xprordg év tpi, 
makes this év tyiv depend on éori, whereby the thoughtful and striking 
presentation of the fact “Christ among the Gentiles” is without reason 


1Chrysostom aptly remarks: cenvas elwe = vers Cnteov émtrdgcewv. Comp. Calvin: “ magnilo- 
nai Gycoy creOnxey awd woAARs bcabdvews, dmird- quus est in extollenda evangelii dignitate.” 


CHAP. I. 28. 261 
put in the background, and év ipviv becomes superfluous. Following the 
Vulgate and Chrysostom, é¢ is frequently referred to rot pvornp. rotrov: 
“this mystery consists in Christ’s being among you, the Gentiles,” Huther, 
comp. Ewald. The context, however, is fatal to this view; partly in gen- 
eral, because it is not the mystery itself, but the riches of its glory, 
that forms the main idea in the foregoing; and partly, in particular, 
because the way has been significantly prepared for dc éor: through i, 
while év iuiv corresponds! to the év rote g6veow referring to the rAovror, 
and the following 4 éAric¢ rij¢ d6&y¢ glances back to the wAovrog rig b6En¢.— 
Xpcoréc] Christ Himself, see above. Neither  rov X. ywaou (Theophy- 
lact) is meant, nor the doctrine, either of Christ (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and 
others), or about Christ (Flatt). On the individualizing tyiv, although the 
relation concerns the Gentiles generally, comp. txzaé¢ in ver. 25. “Accom- 
modat ipsis Colossensibus, ut efficacius in se agnoscant,” Calvin.—# éAmic¢ 
tH¢ 66&n¢] characteristic apposition (comp. iil. 4) to Xpeorés, giving infor- 
mation how the Xpcord¢ év tiuiv forms the great riches of the glory, etc. 
among the Gentiles, since Christ is the hope of the Messianic dé6£a, in Him 
is given the possession in hope of the future glory. The emphasis is on # 
éAric, in which the probative element lies.? 

Ver. 28. Christ was not proclaimed by all in the definite character just 
expressed, namely, as “‘ Christ among the Gentiles, the hope of glory ;” other 
teachers preached Him in a Judaistic form, as Saviour of the Jews, amidst 
legal demands and with theosophic speculation. Hence the emphasis with 
which not the simply epexegetic 4y (Erasmus and others), but the gueic, 
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 jucic, however, requires 
the 4» to be referred to Christ regarded in the Gentile-Messianic character, 
precisely as the juei¢ make Him known (comp. Phil. i. 17 f.), thereby 
distinguishing themselves from others; not to Christ generally (Hofmann), 
in which case the emphasizing of #yei¢ is held to obtain its explanation 
only from the subsequent clause of purpose, iva sapaor. «.r.A.—The 
specification of the mode of announcement vovéerotvre¢ and diddoxovrec, 
admonishing and teaching, corresponds to the two main elements of the 
evangelical preaching peravoeire and moretere (Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18; Rom. 
iii. 3 ff.; Mark 1.15). Respecting the idea of vovfereiv, see on Eph. vi. 4. 
It occurs also joined with d:ddox.‘ in Plato, Legg. vill. p. 845 B, Prot. p. 323 


1Hence also to be rendered not in vobis 
(Luther, Bohmer, Olshausen), but inter vos. 
The older writers combated the rendering in 
vodis from opposition to the Fanatics. 

3Compare on the subject-matter, Rom. viii. 
24: rH yap éAwid. igwOnuer, and the contrast 
dAniga ph éxovres in Eph. ii. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 
13; and on the concrete expression, 1 Tim. i. 
(: Ignat. Eph. 21; Magnes. 11; Ecclus. xxxi 
14: Thue. iii 57.4; Aesch. Ch. 236. 776. 

8 Without due reason, Holtzmann, p. 153, 


finds the use of the plural disturbing, 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 sdavra avOpwwor 
belongs. 

4In iii. 16 the two words stand in the inverse 
order, because there it is not the peravociy 
preceding the wiorts, which is the aim of the 
vovOeoia, but mutual improvement on the 
part of believers. 


2962 «THE. EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


D, Apol. p. 26 A; Dem. 180. 2.—év rdoy cogig] belongs to vovler. and didéox.: 
by means of every wisdom (comp. ili. 16) which we bring to bear thereon. 
It is the wae of the process of warning and teaching, comp. 1. Cor. iii. 10, 
in which no sort of wisdom remains unemployed. The fact that Paul, 
in 1 Cor. i. 17, comp. i1. 1, 4, repudiates the cogia Adyov 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 mdévta dvOpwrov [XXX i.] in 
opposition to the Judaizing tendency of the false teachers) “ maximam 
habet dewéryra ac vim,” Bengel. The proud feeling of the apostle of the 
world expresses itself..—iva mapaorge. «.r.4.] The purpose of the av gyeic 
xatayyéAdouev down to cogig. This purpose is not in general, that man 
may 80 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 réAeov tv X. ‘Ev Xpiotp 
contains the distinguishing specialty of the reAecéryc, 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 éy X. is so essential to the 
matter, and so current with the apostle, that there is no ground for finding 
in it an opposition to a doctrine of the law and of angels (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and others). Theophylact, however (comp. Chrysostom), 
rightly observes regarding the entire clause of purpose: ri Aéye; xévra 
avipwrov; vai, g7ot, ToUTO omovddloper’ Ei d2 ue yévyTtat, ovdév mpd¢ Nuac. 

Ver. 29. On the point of now urging upon the readers their obliga- 
tion to fidelity in the faith (ii. 4), and that from the platform of the 
personal relation in which he stood towards them as one unknown 
to them by face (ii. 1), Paul now turns from the form of expression 
embracing others in common with himself, into which he had glided at ver. 
28 in harmony with its contents, back to the individual form (the first 
person singular), and asserts, first of all, in connection with ver. 28, that 
for the purpose of the rapacrjoa x.r.A. ( cig 6, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10) he also 
gives himself even toil (xom:a, comp. Rom. xvi. 6, 12; 1 Cor. iv. 12), striving, 
etc.—xai] also, subjoins the xomay to the xarayyéAAew «.7.4., in which he 
subjects himself also to the former ; it is therefore augmentative, in harmony 
with the climactic progress of the discourse; not a mere equalization of 
the aim and the striving (de Wette). Neither this xai, nor even the 
transition to the singular of the verb,—especially since the latter is not 


1Which Hofmann groundlessly calis in éxacroy (Acts xx. 31), or through the addition 
question, finding in wdyra dv@pwxoy the idea: of xaé’ «va, or otherwise ; comp. also 1 Thess. 
“every one singly and severally." Thisisgra-  if.11. Calvin hits the thought properly: “ut 
tuitously introduced, and would have been sig- sine exceptione totus mundus ex me discat.” 
nificantly expressed by Paul through éva . 


CHAP. I. 29. 263 


emphasized by the addition of an éyé,—can justify the interpretation of 
Hofmann, according to which ei¢ é is, contrary to its position, to be 
attached to ayur{duevoc, and xorg is to mean: “I become weary and faint” 
(comp. John iv. 6; Rev. ii. 3, and Dtisterdieck in loc.). Paul, who has often 
impressed upon others the pu? éxxaxetv, and for himself is certain of being 
more than conqueror in all things (Rom. viii. 37 ; 2 Cor. iv. 8, e al.), can 
hardly have borne testimony about himself in ¢his sense, with which, 
moreover, the aywrifecba: in the strength of Christ is not consistent. In his 
case, as much as in that of any one, the oi« éxomiaoac of Rev. ii. 3 holds 
good.—aywrfsuevoc] Compare 1 Tim. iv. 10. Here, however, according 
to the context, ii. 1 ff., the inward striving (comp. Luke xiii. 24) against 
difficulties and hostile forces, the striving of solicitude, of watching, of 
mental and emotional exertion, of prayer, etc., 1s meant; as respects 
which Paul, like every regenerate person (Gal. v. 17), could not be raised 
above the resistance of the odpé to the wveiza ruling in him.' It is not: 
“tot me periculis ac malis objicere”’ (Erasmus, comp. Grotius, Estius, 
Heinrichs, Bahr, and others), which outward struggling, according to Flatt, 
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, should be understvod along 
with that inward striving; ii. 1 only points to the latter; comp. iv. 12— 
xara tiv évépyecay x.t.A.] for Paul does not contend, amid the labors of his 
office, according to the measure of his own strength, but according to the 
effectual working of Christ (avroi is not to be referred to God, as is done by 
Chrysostom, Grotius, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), which 
uorketh tn 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 !—rjv 
évepyoup. | 18 middle ; see on 2 Cor. i. 6; Gal. v.6; Eph. iii. 20. The modal 
definition to it, év dvvdéye, 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. 


Norres By AMERICAN EpITor. 
XXIII. Vv. 1-2. 


(a) The presence of the word aécrodo¢ here, as contrasted with its absence in 
the salutation of the letter to the Philippians, may be accounted for in connection 
with the fact that Paul had not ever visited Colossae, while with the Philippian 
Church he had long been on terms of very close friendship. The use of the simple 
word dovAo: as including the two names in Phil., and the designation of Timothy 
by the word adeAgéc here, may, perhaps, be explained in the same way. (See 
also note I. on Phil. i. 1, 2—(b) That ayior¢ is here used as a substantive, is 
rendered probable by the fact that it is evidently thus used in Eph. i. 1—that 
Ep. having been written at the same time with this one. As to the meaning of 
miororc— whether believing or faithful, the argument presented by Meyer against the 


«Comp. Chrysostom: xai ovxy axAwe crov- jeevos pera wodAs THis oroveTs, META WOAAHS THES 
Bdge, Gyo, USE we Eruvxev, dAAG Kom aGywrGs-  dypumvias. 


264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


latter signification (that it is only the Christian standing of the readers that the 
Apostle describes in the superscriptions of the Epistles) is worthy of consideration. 
The argument which Lightf. urges against the former meaning, on the other hand, 
(that the epithet would add nothing which is not already contained in dy. and adeA¢.), 
is not decisive; for, as Meyer says of the addition of év zp., though hardly necee- 
sary in itself, the word is quite in harmony with the formal character of the Pauline 
addresses. Certainly, the Apostle does not anywhere, in his other salutations, single 
out the stedfast members only, as Lightf. supposes him todo here. If the word 
means faithful in this passage, it is, no doubt, applied to all the church. But not 
improbably it means belteving.—(c) In Eph., Paul addresses roi¢ dyiore toig ovoty év 
"Ed. wai xioroi¢; in Phil., roi¢ dyiore roig obow év, .; here, roig év. K. dyiow nai mo- 
toi¢ ad. Wecan scarcely doubt that he has the same idea of the kindred words 
in the different cases. It is noticeable, also, that év Xpcor@ is connected in Eph. 
with moroi¢, and in Phil. with dyiou, which may have some bearing upon the 
question of the connection here.—(d) The omission of the words xai xupiov ’I Xp., 
which are found in T. R. and in ® A C and some other authorities, is favored by 
the best recent comm. and textual critics. If these words are omitted, the saluta- 
tory address in this part of it—the prayer for grace and peace to rest upon the 
readers—differs not only from the salutations of Eph. and Phil., which are so 
similar to it in other respects, but from those of all the other Pauline Epp., in that 
the name of God the Father alone is used. 


XXIV. Vv. 3-8. 


(a) The use of the singular evyapioré in Phil. may readily be explained by a 
desire on the Apostle’s part to express his own thankfulness as a personal friend, 
the plural used here is natural, as there was no such peculiar personal relation. 
It is doubtful, however, whether we are, in all cases, to ask for a special reason for 
such variations of expression in different epistles. Comp. e.g. 1 Cor.and 1 Thess., 
in both of which Paul addresses the church in the name of one or more companions, 
as well as in his own, yet employs the singular of this verb in the former and the 
plural in the latter. It will be noticed, however,—in this Ep., as in all the others,— 
that when emphatic exhortations or authoritative directions are given, the singu- 
lar is always used.—(b) The position taken by Meyer with regard to the connection 
of wdavrore with evy. is probably, yet not certainly, correct. His view respecting 
rept tuay is less probable. If, (joining sdévrore with evy.), we unite these words with 
mpooevy., it seems to give them an undue emphasis. The participle is, rather, to 
be taken absolutely, as by Lightf., and as equivalent to in our prayers. The pro- 
gress of the thought from thanksgiving in prayers for what had been attained by 
the readers (ver. 3f.) to prayer on their behalf for future attainments (ver. 9), is 
similar to what we find in Phil. (i. 3f. 9f.).—(¢) axoboavreg tiv wiorw «.1.A. This 
clause evidently contains the ground of the thanksgiving; but whether in such a 
way that dxoto. is to be regarded as a causal participle, is doubtful. The fact that 
the participle is in the aorist tense, (as contrasted with the present in Philem. 5), 
and the words a¢° 7¢ #uépac qxoboauev in ver 9 favor very strongly the view that 
the meaning is having heard, i.e. after having heard. Comp. Eph. i. 15.—(d) As to 
the construction of dia r)v éArida, the following points may be noticed :—(1) éArida, 
because of the participial phrase which follows, is here equivalent to the thing 
hoped for. It thus does not stand in that exact parallelism with faith and love, 


NOTES. 265 


which we find in 1 Cor. xiii. 13; 1 Thess. i. 3; (2) this hoped for thing is made 
prominent as that which the readers had heard when the gospel was proclaimed to 
them; (3) the gospel is referred to (ver. 6) especially in respect to its fruit-bearing 
power; (4) this fruit in the lives of the readers, so far as it is presented in these 
verses, consists in faith and love; (5) the faith and love, therefore, which are the 
fruit of the éAric, rather than the éAmi¢ itself, are the ground of the Apostle’s 
thankfulness. These considerations are sufficient in themselves to make it prob- 
able that the writer intended to connect da r. éA7. «.1.4., with the words immedi- 
ately preceding, and not with evxy. The reasons given by Meyer, when added to 
these, show this construction to be almost certainly the correct one. It seems 
better, however, to connect these words with both siorw and aydrny, than with 
aydaz7y alone as Meyer does, because both faith and love are the fruits.—(e) spon- 
xoveare is regarded by Ell., Alf., Lightf., Eadie, Rid., and others as meaning heard 
formerly or in the earliest proclamation to them of the gospel; by Huther and 
others, as meaning before the writing of the present letter; by Grimm, Blk., de W., 
Olsh., and others, as having a sense similar to that given by Meyer. The verb does 
not occur elsewhere in the N.T. The use of the word in other authors favors 
Meyer's view.—(f) The description of that which had been preached to them as 
the word of the truth of the gospel, and of the gospel as everywhere bearing fruit 
and increasing, and the allusion to their having known the grace of God in truth, 
are peculiar elements in this earlier part of the introductory passage. The prayer 
in the later part (vv. 9-14) refers apparently to the same things—“ bearing fruit 
and increasing in the knowledge of God,” “who delivered us, etc. ... the forgive- 
ness of our sins.” We may, accordingly, believe that these ideas were suggested 
to Paul’s mind in connection with the condition of things in Colossae, and that he 
intended to contrast the truth of the gospel as related to grace and forgiveness, in 
this Epistle as in that to the Galatians, with the doctrines held by persons of whom 
he speaks in later chapters. The contrast, however, is not set forth in these 
verses a8 definitely as in Gal. It is hinted at, rather than expressed. The sug- 
gestion of the teachings of the heretics is only incidental, and probably designedly 
so, the main purpose being to commend, with thanksgiving, the Christian develop- 
ment of the Church.—(g) The xai before éoriv xaprogopotuevov which Meyer reads 
(see his textual note) is rejected, on the authority of the oldest MSS., by Tisch. 8th 
ed., Treg., W. & H., Alf., and others, and is an insertion of the copyists, probably, 
for the purpose of simplifying the construction of the sentence. The insertion is 
more easily accounted for in this way than the omission, though Meyer claims the 
oppoeite. Whether we read xal, however, or not, there can be little doubt that the 
substance of the Apostle’s thought is this:—that the gospel had come to and was 
still abiding with them, with that growing and fruit-bearing power which it had 
in all places which it reached,—that it had had this power ever since the day 
when they first heard its message. The insertion or omission of the «ai will only 
affect the question of the particular way in which the thought is set forth, as 
Meyer explains in his foot-note page 211.—(h) The correspondence of ver. 7 with 
ver. 6 makes it altogether probable that Epaphras was the founder of the Colos- 
sian church. If vrép judy (not dudv), which has the weight of MSS. authority in 
its favor, is the true text, Epaphras must have been an assistant of Paul, who 
preached the gospel in Colossae for him and in his stead. Tisch. agrees with 
Meyer in reading tzov. W.and H., Treg., Alf. read 7u6v.—(i) In his 3d ed, 
Meyer says, with de W., Olsh., and others, that r7v tuov aydr7 refers to the love 





266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


mentioned in ver.4. In his 4th ed. he understands by it the love of the Colossians 
towards Epaphras, assigning as his reason for his change of view the emphatic 
position of tzav. Had the Apostle meant this love for Epaphras, however, he 
would hardly have left the expression in so general a form. The English comm. 
of recent date generally agree with Meyer's 3d ed. (so Ell., Lightf., Alf., Eadie, 
Rid., Farrar (Life of St. P.). W.and Wilk., however, the writer in Ell.’s Comm. for 
English Readers, and appy. the Bible (Speaker’s) Comm. take the view of Blk., Hof- 
mann and Huther. Blk. urges, with some force, that, if the allusion were to ver. 4, 
faith, as well as love, would be mentioned. He urges, also, the opening words of 
ver. 9, dia rovro Kai jpueic, claiming that da r. is best explained as referring to this 
Sth verse. It is better, however, to take dia r. as pointing to all which precedes (vv. 
3-8), because the idea of fruit-bearing, which is so prominent in these verses, is 
also prominent in the passage beginning with ver. 9. The emphatic position of 
tpyov may, perhaps, be satisfactorily explained by understanding the words to mean 
your love towards me. The general character of the expression and the absence of 
such words as ¢¢ 7uaG¢ favor the reference to Christian love in general. 


XXV. Vv. 9-14. 


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


° NOTES. | 267 


pleasing, in every good work bearing fruit.—(c) é savri py ayabo is, with 
Meyer, to be joined to what follows. The two participles go together. In their 
living worthily of the Lord, they will in the sphere of good works both bear fruit 
and increase (grow in the life itself as they bear fruit), by means of their full- 
knowledge of God. Tisch. 8th ed., Treg., Lachm., W. & HL, Alf., read, with the 
best MSS., rH émcyvdce, as against Meyer, who reads ei¢ rv ériy.—(d) The 
position of év racy dvvdéue, together with the use of the adjective all, shows 
clearly a designed parallelism with é ravri épy. ay. The strength or power 
referred to is moral power especially with respect to stedfast endurance and long- 
suffering,—that is, to characteristics of Christian living which are emphatically 
set forth in the N. T. writings. In the midst of the oppositions and persecutions 
to which the churches were, in those days, so much exposed, these virtues needed 
peculiar cultivation. The strength from God was largely demanded to this end, 
and the prayer might well be for the imparting of it in accordance with, and after 
the measure of, the power of God’s own glorious majesty.—(¢) The connection of 
HeéTa xapay with the preceding words, rather than with those which follow, is to 
be preferred, as bringing out the peculiar characteristic of Christian endurance— 
it is an enduring with joy, (comp. Rom. v. 3).—(f)The simplest construction of 
év t@ guri is with xAfjpov. The light is the sphere within which the inheritance 
of the saints is found, as darkness is the sphere in which those who are outside of 
the kingdom of God live. To make the words instrumental, as Meyer does, takes 
¢4¢ out of that relation of contrast to oxéroc, which is suggested by the verses.— 
(g) Lightf. says that éfoveiac has here the sense of arbitrary power or tyranny, and that 
“ the transference from darkness to light is represented as a transference from an 
absolute tyranny, an éfovcia, to a well-ordered sovereignty, a BaorAeia.” It is doubt- 
ful, however, whether this meaning of éfovcia can here be insisted upon, and this 
peculiar sense does not, apparently, belong to the word elsewhere in the N. T. 
Whether any such contrast between the two terms employed is intended by the 
writer is very questionable-—(h) Whether the “kingdom” is to be understood 
here (as Meyer claims it must be everywhere), as meaning “nothing else than 
the Messiah’s kingdom, the erection of which begins with the Parousia” (Meyer 
on Rom. xiv. 17), or whether this view is to be rejected, vv. 12-14, taken together, 
indicate that the apostle has in his thought a present participation in the bleas- 
ings and life of that kingdom, in some beginning of it, or in an anticipatory way 
at least, (comp. the aor. weréorjoev and the pres. ézosev), 


XXXVI. Vv. 15 ff. 


(a) The bipartite arrangement of this passage adopted by Meyer seems to be the 
one which Paul had in mind—vv. 15-17, presenting Christ’s relation, as Meyer 
expresses it, to God and the world; vv. 18-20, his relation to the Church; or, as 
Lightf. says, to the Universe, the Natural Creation, and to the Church, the new 
Moral Creation; or, perhaps better, to God, vv. 15-17, as viewed in connection 
with the Divine plan and work in the Natural Creation, and vv. 18-20 as viewed 
in connection with the Divine plan and work in the Moral Creation. This passage 
is kindred with Eph. i. 20-23 and Phil. ii. 6-11, though somewhat more detailed in 
its statements than either of these. It is worthy of notice that these more definite 
declarations respecting the Person of Christ, in which Paul approaches very 


268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


nearly to the expressions of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John, 
occur in the Epistles of this later epoch in the Apostle’s life. This fact is consist- 
ent with that progress of Christian thought and discussion which was naturally to 
be expected. Questions concerning the time of Christ’s second coming and the 
full establishment of the Messianic Kingdom, and such as related to the right way 
of entering into the Kingdom—whether through faith or works of the law,—must 
have preceded those which arose from reflections on the Divine-human nature of 
Christ, or from philosophical speculating as to the means by which the unseen 
God can come into connection with the world. Those who would demand of the 
N. T. writers a declaration of the Divinity of Christ on every page mistake the 
order of growth in the thought and work of the earliest apostolic days. 

(b) As compared with the passages in Phil. and Eph. just alluded to, some 
points in these verses may be specially noticed :—(1) In Eph., the reference is 
exclusively to the exaltation of Christ in the future and His relation to the Church. 
In Phil., the humiliation of Christ in laying aside the op¢7 Yeov, and in becoming 
a man and suffering death, is presented as preparatory to, and as the ground of, the 
future exaltation. His existence in the form of God and equality with God are 
thus mentioned only incidentally to the main purpose of the passage. Here, on 
the other hand, a more full and, as it were, dogmatic declaration is made, which 
finds its end in itself, and is doubtless intended to meet the false views of the 
errorists in Colossae. It becomes, in this way, a more definite theological state- 
ment in its form, if not in its suggestions—(2) In accordance with the main 
thought in each case, the reference to Christ’s exaltation as above thrones, domin- 
ions, etc., is connected with the future triumph of His Kingdom, in Eph., but with 
His having been their creator, in Col. A corresponding thought may be found, 
perhaps, in the words of Phil. ver. 10, “that every knee should bow, of things in 
heaven, on earth and under the earth.” These words are closely related to the 
expression “the name above every name,” which in Eph. is, in nearly the same 
form, attached to “ authority, power, dominion ” (“and every name that is named,” 
etc). The bond uniting the three Epistles can scarcely fail to be observed.—(3) 
The headship of Christ as related to the Church as His body is declared both in 
Eph. and Col. But here again, as might naturally be suggested by the peculiar 
development of thought in the two Epistles, the position of Christ in the moral 
creation is connected with, and founded upon, His position in respect to the natural 
creation in Col. only.—(4) The connection in thought of Col. i. 20, with Eph. i. 10 
(and possibly with Phil. ii. 10 in the words “things in heaven,” etc.) is indicated by 
the similarity of the expressions used—(5) The several points of correspondence 
suggest that the passages have, each one of them, a light to throw upon the others, 
and that they may properly all be considered with care in the attempt to interpret 
them individually. 

(c) The principal statements of this passage in Col., in vv. 15 and 18, who is the 
image of God; He is the head of the body, the church ; who is the beginning, etc., are 
declarations respecting Christ, which have the form of propositions. Hence the 
present tenses. They have a permanent truth, reaching forward and backward as 
far as the nature of the case allows with regard to each. The other verhs and 
clauses introduce the relations of time and succession. This form of declaration is 
connected with the object which the Apostle has in view—to set forth what Christ 
is, t. ¢. what is the true doctrine of Christ. 


NOTES. 269 
XXVIII. Vv. 15-17. 


(a) Meyer (as also Weiss, Bib. Theol. N.T. 2108. d.n. 10, and others), sup- 
poses d¢ éorcy eixav tov Yeov to refer to the risen and exalted, not to the pre-exist- 
ent Christ. The ground of this supposition is that in vv. 13, 14 Christ is spoken 
of in His relation to the work of redemption and the kingdom. This fact, how- 
ever, is not a decisive proof that He must be spoken of only in the same way in 
all the clauses which follow those verses. At least, it does not prove, that, in 
describing the one who is thus related to the work of redemption, no statement 
can be made which applies to Him in His personality, and by its suggestion carries 
the mind beyond the limits of the present to the past. We are not limited by the 
verses which precede, but must consider also the context which immediately 
follows, if we are seeking for the true idea of the author in using these words. 
The correct view of the present tense here is, probably, that which is given in the 
preceding note. It is a permanent and descriptive present. Indeed, Meyer 
admits that the proposition is applicable to the past as well as the present, only 
that here it is used of the present alone. He says: “In virtue of the identity of 
His divine nature, the same predicates belong to the exalted Christ as to the 
Logos.” If we take his view, therefore, we may still affirm that there is in this 
passage an approximation to the Logos doctrine as contained in the Gospel of 
John. Lightf. says that the Logos idea “underlies the whole passage, though 
the term itself does not appear;” and, in some sense at least, we may hold this to 
be true. The difference between these verses (15-20) and the corresponding ones 
in Eph. (i. 18 fi.) shows a wider range, in the present passage, in the reference to 
Christ’s person and work. 

(b) If we consider 8¢ éorw eixdv tov Yeod in its relation to the Person of 
Christ, and not as referring only to Him in His present exalted state, the corres- 
pondence of the words of vv. 15-17 with Heb. i. 3 cannot fail to be noticed. 
With that verse on the one side and John i. 1-3 on the other, it must be supposed 
that Paul was moving near, or in, the same sphere of thought, and that he 
declares Christ to be the image of God in some such deep meaning as that which 
is indicated by amatyacya rie déEn¢ Kai yapaxtip tie inoctaceuc (Heb.), or even 
by 6 Aéyo¢ (John). Comp. the reference to the fact of creation through the Son 
both in Heb. and John, and the eépwr of Heb. i. 3, which, like ovvéorfxev of ver. 
17 in this passage, adds to the idea of creating, that of sustaining the universe. 
The inference which may properly be drawn, as bearing upon this passage, from 
Phil. ii. 6-8, whatever weight we may be justified in giving to it, tends to con- 
firm this interpretation of the words here used. It may be added, that the em- 
phatic row aopdérov and the following phrase, tp7réroxo¢ mdon¢ xricews, which is 
also, like eixav, predicate of 8¢ eorcv, point towards the same conclusion; for the 
former expression, by its emphasis, suggests the idea of the unseen God as reveal- 
ing Himself, and the latter brings out distinctly the idea of pre-existence. 

(c) With respect to the words tpwréroxog méone xriceuc, it must be noticed :— 
(1) that the Son, of whom this descriptive phrase is used, is set apart from created 
things by the clause év atro éxriody ra wavra; (2) that He is exalted above the 
highest created beings by eire Ppévor «.7.A.—(3) that all created things are said 
to be ei¢ avrov, as they are said elsewhere to be for (ei¢) God the Father. In 
view of these points, as well as because the words connected with tpur. are réone 
xricewc, and not wdoxe TH¢ Kricewc, and because the proof given that He is per, 


270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


x.7.A, (572) is that all things were created év avrg, the genitive xricews cannot be 
regarded as a partitive genitive, as if the Son were a part of the creation, but 
must be taken, with Meyer, as a genitive of comparison, or as Ell says, of the 
point of view, or as Lighft. expresses it, “He stands in the relation of mpwréroxoc 
to all creation.”—(d) That the primary idea of tpwréroxog, as here used, is that 
of priority in time—“ born before every creature,” as Meyer says—is clearly indi- 
eated by the original sense of the adjective; by the fact that the following dre 
with its clause seems to suggest this meaning; and by pd mavruv of ver. 17. 
The evidence that the Apostle designed here to include in the word itself the 
additional idea, which according to the O. T. usage it sometimes has, of exalta- 
tion as connected with the privileges and rights of the first-born son, is much less 
direct and manifest. That the idea of exaltation is implied in the context, 
cannot be doubted; but, in respect to the word, the most that can be confidently 
affirmed is, that the sense of priority may be regarded as certainly belonging to 
it in this place, while the other sense is only possible or probable.—(e) Whether 
we give the word the former signification only or add the latter also, the thought 
of the writer is not so much that of the origin of the Son as contrasted with the 
creation, as of His relation to the creation and exaltation above it as its creator. 
This adjective, as several writers suggest, is like uovoyeyf¢ when applied to the 
Son, only it describes Him as existing before, and so able to bring into being, 
created things, while povoy. refers to Him as related to the Father. So far ag 
origin is concerned, the word, if designed to express this idea, would imply a 
complete difference between Him and the creation. He was not created. He 
was born of God. He is the only begotten Son. But these terms are probably 
employed as connected with the idea of His peculiar sonship, and not with refer- 
ence to the mode of becoming Son, or to an eternal generation. 

(f) On the words év avr@, Lightf. remarks, “The use of éy to describe Christ’s 
relations to the Church abounds in St. Paul, and more especially in the Epistles 
to the Cologsians and Ephesians. In the present passage, as in ver. 17, the same 
preposition is applied also to His relations to the Universe.” He also says, “ The 
Apostolic doctrine of the Logos teaches us to regard the Eternal Word as holding 
the same relation to the Universe which the Incarnate Christ holds to the Chruch. 
He is the source of its life, the centre of all its developments, the mainspring of 
all its motions.” In these verses, the truth of this statement is seen in the 
earnestness of the Apostle’s effort—by means of emphasis, the use of universal 
expressions, repeated declarations of similar import, but slightly varied forms, 
combinations of words tending to set it forth—to express the idea of supremacy 
and dignity. All things were created in Him, and through Him, and for Him, 
and in Him all things subsist. He is above them all and before them all. The 
“all things” cover the earthly and the heavenly, the visible and the invisible, 
the thrones and dominions and principalities and powers. He is the image of 
God, the invisible one. In and through Him alone, is everything accomplished 
which the erroneous teachers believed to be wrought through the intermediate or 
angelic beings. Not merely as first or highest among these beings does He have 
His place, but beyond them, in a more exalted sphere. They are all dependent 
on Him for the beginning and continuance of their life. They have no existence 
except as resting upon Him and in Him. 

(g) The words eire Opdvor x.7.A. are probably to be connected (as Meyer holds) 
with Td aépara, not with ra épard, for the following reasons:—(1) The reference 


NOTES. 271 


of similar combinations of words elsewhere in Paul’s Epistles is generally to 
angelic, and not to earthly beings. It must be admitted, however, that this is not 
always the case, (see below).—(2) The intended allusion to the theories of the 
heretical teachers respecting angels, etc., points towards this understanding of the 
words.—({3) The emphasis of the setting forth of the exalted position of the Son, 
which seems evidently designed by the writer, is moet striking, if this view is 
adopted. We find combinations of words corresponding with those of this verse 
in several places in Paul’s writings, but in more or less varied forms. In Eph. i. 
21 and: this passage, the form is fourfold ; in 1 Cor. xv. 24; Rom. viii. 38 (T. R.), 
it is threefold ; in Eph. iii. 10; Col. ii. 10, 15; Tit. iii. 1, it is twofold. By com- 
parison of these passages, we notice that they refer for the most part, to angelic 
powers, good (Eph. i. 21; Col. ii. 10; Rom. viii. 38), or bad (Eph. vi. 12; Col. ii. 
15); yet in Tit. iii. 1 the reference is to earthly magistrates (comp. duvdueco Rom. 
viii. 38, if the text which reads this word after uéAdovra be adopted). In 1 
Cor. xv. 24, the apostle is, not improbably, speaking of all powers, whether 
superhuman or human, including even death conceived of as a power. We may 
also notice that the arrangement of the words varies, in different cases, to some 
extent. Thus, in Eph. i. 21 we find apyi¢ xai éfovoiag placed first in the fourfold 
list, while in Col. i. 16 these words are placed last. In Eph. vi. 12, again, they 
have the first place. Substitutions of one word for another also occur in some 
cases, as in Eph. i. 21 dvvdpeug takes the place of Spéve: in Col. 1.16; in Eph. vi. 12 
xoopoxpéropac is possibly used in a similar sense to that of each of the two words just 
mentioned, and to that of xup:éry¢ in both of the other passages. In 1 Cor. xv. 24 we 
find apxyfv, éfovoiav, divauey; in Rom. viii. 38, dyyeAot, apyai, duvduerg (T. BR.) ; 
in 1 Pet. iii. 22, ayyéAuwy, tovordv, duvéueov, It is difficult, under these circum- 
stances, to make any definite affirmations as to the precise distinctions in meaning 
of the several words, as thus used. The fact should be observed, however, that 
wherever ap74 and éfoveia occur, the latter word always follows ap7, and that 
dtvausc, when occurring with either of the two, follows it, or, when occurring with 
both, follows both. There would seem, therefore, to be some definiteness of order, 
or something connected with the words, which made it natural for the apostle to 
write them in this way. With the exception of 1 Pet. iii. 22, Luke xii. 11, and 
the scarcely parallel passage Luke xx. 20, where we find ry apy xal rg éfovoig 
tov yyeudvoc, these combinations are peculiar to Paul. 

(k) The introduction of the word avrég in ver. 17 cannot be satisfactorily 
accounted for, unless especial emphasis is laid uponit. Lightf. says that avrd¢ 
toriv of this verse exactly corresponds with éyo eiui of John viii. 58 (comp. Exod. 
iii. 14). He accordingly affirms that éorcy is not an enclitic in this place, but should 
be accented gor. W. & H. give it the accent. Commentators and textual 
editors in general, however, regard it as an enclitic, (so Tisch., Treg., Lachm., EIlL., 
Mey., de W.). Whatever may be held with regard to this point, the emphatic 
avrés, the 1pd mavruy, and the 7a mdvra . . . cuvéornxev, show His pre-existence and 
His superiority to created things. Had there not been an intention to make these 
ideas peculiarly prominent, no such repetition as that of this verse and ver. 16 
could have been given. 


XXVIII. Vv. 18-20. 


(a) In the second part of the statements with respect to the Son, vv. 18-20, the 
connection with Eph. i. 20 ff. is manifest. The forms of expression in the two 





272 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


cases, however, are somewhat different because of the fact that, in Eph., the whole 
passage is limited to what follows the resurrection of Christ, while here it covers 
also the pre-existent state. The declaration that He is the head of the Church is 
placed at the beginning here, at the end in Eph. The headship is presented 
under different forms of expression. In Eph., where the exaltation above all 
authority and power, etc., and the subjecting of all things under Him, are set forth 
first, and the mention of the headship follows, the words are such as we might 
naturally expect—“ and Him He gave as head over all things to the Church which 
is His body.” Here, on the other hand, the headship is mentioned first, and the 
exaltation connected with it afterwards. Accordingly, we have here, as the open- 
ing words of the passage, “ And He Himself is the head of the body the Church,” 
and then the statement “who is the beginning, the first-born,” etc. In both 
cases, and most distinctly here, the word head is connected with the appiication of 
the word body to the Church. It has, thus, a figurative sense, and the two passages 
accord with others in Paul’s writings in which the Church is called Christ’s body, 
and individual Christians members of His body. In Eph. i. 23, this figurative 
representation may be extended so far, that the body, the Church, is conceived of 
as that by which Christ (tod mAnpovyévov x.1.A.) is, as the head, filled up to the 
completeness of a man—the head and body making an entire man. Td sA#pupa, 
in that verse, however, may have a different sense, according to some writers (e.g. 
see Meyer on Eph. i. 23), and may mean that which is filled by Christ (rot mAyp- 
ovu, being a genitive as if of the agent). Or, as some take it, the plenitude of 
Christ’s graces being communicated to the Church, the latter becomes, in a certain 
sense, His fullness, 

(6) The fact of the co-ordinate bipartite arrangement of the entire passage (vv. 
15-20) favors the view that ap7f# is not simply. equivalent to and explained by 
mpwtéroxo¢, as Meyer holds, but that it contains the idea of source or beginning of 
the spiritual creation—as, in the earlier verses, the Son is said to be the agent in the 
natural creation. If 4p74 is understood thus, tpwréroxog x.7.A. indicates the way in 
which He becomes the ap77.—(c) mpwréroxog of ver. 18 has a certain parallelism 
with the same word in ver. 15, but the parallelism of the whole expression in the 
two verses is not complete. This is proved by the form of expression, and also by 
the added clauses in the two cases. He is first-born from the dead, as having been 
Hinself one of the dead; but He is not first-born of every creature, as being Him- 
self created. The writer himself has made the distinction clear by the very careful 
ordering of his phraseology.—(d) The final clause iva yévyra: év raow avrig mpuwret- 
wy indicates that the apostle has a progress of development in his mind—a progress 
from a beginning to a consummation,—and in this the rising from the dead and 
being head of the body, the Church, is an essential step. He moves forward in his 
thought from the pre-existent state, before the creation of all things, to the final 
result, when the reconciliation of all things shall have taken place. This clause 
thus points to the eternal Divine purpose, which is in process of accomplishment. 
That this is the Divine purpose is proved by the following re x.r.4, (so Meyer). 

(e) The arguments presented by Meyer against the view of Ell. and Ewald, 
that av Td wAfpwya is the subject of evdéxjoev, are satisfactory. Lightf. urges, in 
addition, that, with evdéxycev, personification such as would be required by that 
view of 7. r. «A, would suggest personality—(f) As to the meaning of rd tAfpuna, 
it must, from all the indications of the context, refer to God’s fullness, i. e. that by 
which He is filled. But whether we are to understand by it, with Mey., the 


NOTES. 273 


fullness of the Divine grace, or the fullness of the Godhead (Seéryro¢ ii. 9), it is 
more difficult to determine. In favor of the former supposition is the fact that 
the clause which is co-ordinated with this (aroxaraAAdfa x.T.A.) refers to the work 
of Divine grace, and the context, as far as ver. 23, deals with this subject. On the 
other hand, the latter view is favored by ii. 9, where ri¢ edt. is added; by the 
possible or probable allusion to the doctrines of the false teachers; and by what- 
ever evidence may exist that this expreasion was a technical term meaning the 
fullness of Deity. There is possibly a sort of parallelism in thought between cixdv 
tov Geov of ver. 15, as related to exriodn év avr of ver. 16, and this expression 
with xarouxqoa: év avT® as related to GroxaraAAdéa: di avrov. If so, an additional 
ground for the second view may be found in this fact. The objection that Paul 
would hardly have omitted r7¢ Seéryrog when he first uses 7A7puya in the Epistle, 
if he had desired to have the expression thus understood, and this particularly in 
a passage where the reader’s thought might connect it with another idea, is one 
of considerable force. It must be borne in mind, however, that this is the only 
instance in the Pauline Epistles in which 1d 7A%pwyue occurs without a defining 
genitive, whatever may be its reference or connection. The absence of such a 
genitive here is remarkable on any explanation of the meaning. It must also be 
remembered, that this is the Epistle in which the early beginnings of the Gnostic 
theories are moet clearly indicated. On whichever side the probabilities of the 
meaning here may lie, there can be no doubt in respect to ii. 9. The Apostle’s 
doctrine is, therefore, not dependent on this verse. The view of 1d 7, in the 
present passage, which refers it to the Divine grace is adopted by Meyer, Alf., 
Eadie, de W., and others; that which makes it refer to the fullness of Deity, or 
of the nature of God, is maintained by Ell., Weiss, Bib. Theol. N. T., Lightf., Hu- 
ther, and others. Meyer's claim that “it would be an uéferly arbitrary course men- 
tally to supply here r#¢ Sedriroc,” cannot be sustained. No such affirmation can 
properly be made on either side. 

(g) With respect to aroxara/Adfa: x.t.A, the following points should be con- 
sidered :—(1) The fundamental idea of the verb is reconciliation, a changing 
from enmity to friendship.—(2) This idea is confirmed in the present case by 
eipnvorowjoag «.T.A, of this verse; by the evident meaning of the verb in ver. 
21; and by dvrac drnAA, nat éx Spots (ver. 21) compared with audpoug x.7.A. (ver. 
22).—(3) The things in the heavens must refer to, or at least they must include, 
the good angels, as is manifest from ver. 16. There seems, however, to be no 
possibility of applying the word reconcile, in its strict and proper sense, to these 
angels. The verb a@moxaraAAdfa: must therefore have, so far as it refers to them, 
a certain “elasticity” of meaning, as Meyer says—(4) The end in view of the 
reconciliation mentioned in ver. 21 is to perfect holiness in the reconciled per- 
sons—“ to present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable before 
him.”—(5) In Eph. i. 10, which, if not altogether parallel to the present passage, 
must be regarded as having some immediate connection with it in thought, the 
word avaxegadadoacPa: is used in place of avoxaraAAdgéa:. The former verb is 
not, indeed, equivalent in meaning to the latter, but is rather the sequel to it, as 
Mever says. Nevertheless, it may suggest the thought which is to be found in 
a7rox., so far as that verb has reference to the heavenly beings. In connection 
with the consummation of the work of Christ in overcoming the power of sin in 
this world, there may, not impossibly, be some exaltation in holiness, and, not 


improbably, some perfection of blessedness unknown before, secured to those 
- 4@ 





274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


beings who have never- sinned.—(6) Whether rd sévra in this connection is to 
be understood as limited to intelligent beings, or as extended so as to cover the 
whole of that which exists (Meyer), or the totality of created things (EIl.), is 
somewhat doubtful. The universality of the neuter and the correspondence of 
the phraseology with ver. 16 favor the latter view. Such passages as Rom. viii. 
19 ff. ; 2 Pet. iii. 13 may, also, furnish some support for it. On the other hand, 
it is clear that the following context refers only to persons (vv. 21 ff.), and it is 
also evident that, at ver. 18, the general thought turns from the natural to the 
spiritual creation. The passage in Eph., also, (i. 10) follows upon a line of 
thought which has reference to God’s purpose and work in redemption. 

(hk) As to the meaning and extent of the reconciliation here spoken of—how 
far it is actually realized in the subjective experience of individuals, and whether 
the idea of universal restoration or salvation is suggested—we may remark :—(1) 
Meyer claims that God is the subject, whose hostility is removed by the reconcili- 
ation, a8 in Rom. v.10. He asserts this on the ground of the universal 7a mévra 
—all things that exist; it being impossible that the whole universe should be 
hostilely disposed towards God. This ground would not be sufficient, of course, 
if rd wévra refers to intelligent beings. According to this view the reconcilia- 
tion is viewed from the side of God and the Divine plan, as in all probability it 
is in Rom. v. 10 and 2 Cor. v. 18,19. If it be adopted, the universality may be 
found in the provisions of the plan, rather than in its realized results. There is 
so much in this passage, however, which apparently points towards actual con- 
summation, that we can hardly suppose the thought of this to have been absent 
from the writer’s mind, even if he was looking at the plan. The passages in 
Rom. and 2 Cor. are not parallel in this regard.—(2) The realized result seems 
evidently to be referred to in vv. 21, 22. It must be admitted, however, that this 
result may there be suggested in the other words, while azoxaraAA, may point 
more particularly towards the Divine side and the plan of redemption.—(3) It is 
worthy of notice that in this passage, and in the corresponding one in Eph., the 
statement of this universality is connected, in the surrounding context, with allu- 
sions to those only who are in the Christian body. The same is true of Phil. ii. 
10. These declarations do not occur in any passage where the author’s primary 
purpoee is, to show how universally the plan of redemption results in securing the 
salvation of individual men.—(4) It is not inconsistent with a reasonable view of 
either of the two passages in Eph. and Col., or of the one in Phil., to suppose that 
the writer leaves out of consideration the finally unbelieving portion of mankind 
and the evil angels. Weiss (Bibl. Theol. N. T. Vol. ii. p. 109, n. 8 (Eng. Tr.) 
says, “evil spirits and unbelievers, being incapable of final union to Christ, are, 
it is self-evident, left out of account.”—(5) The intimations in the Pauline Epis- 
tles, as well as elsewhere in the N. T., in regard to the ultimate fate and loss of 
unbelievers, must be allowed their proper influence in connection with these pas- 
sages. This is especially true, in view of what has already been said in the fore- 
going remarks.—(6) The explanation of Weiss referred to above is more satisfac- 
tory than the elaborate one given by Meyer on page 242, because it can hardly 
be said with accuracy that, after the demoniac portion of the angelic world and 
the unbelieving portion of mankind have been consigned to Gehenna, there will 
be no longer anything alienated from God and the object of His hostility. This 
view either makes subjection in the case of these angels and men equivalent to 
reconciliation, which cannot be affirmed, or limits ra wdvra, as Meyer here 


NOTES, 275 


apparently does, to the new heaven and new earth, which, to say the least, is a 
doubtful limitation. Ta xéyra in ver. 16, and again as connected with ver. 20, 
apparently includes not merely the heaven and the earth, but the intelligent 
beings in them. Unless, therefore, the writer is confining his thought either to 
the Divine provision of redemption, without regard to individual acceptance of 
it,or to those who accept it, as suggested by the surrounding context, it seems 
arbitrary to exclude from ra ravra, in ver. 20, any of those included in it in ver. 16. 

(i) eipyvoroujoac is connected immediately with the idea of amoxaraAAdéas, 
and accordingly refers to peace with God. It is noticeable that this suggestion of 
peace occurs here before the allusion to the readers as having been called into the 
Christian life from among the Gentiles, while in Eph. ii. 11 ff. it is introduced 
after a similar allusion. By reason of this fact, in Eph. the word takes hold not 
only of the idea of peace with God, but also, and especially, of peace (the destruc- 
tion of the enmity) between Gentiles and Jews. In a similar way, the word 
arnAdorpiwpévor in Eph. ii. 12 is connected with “the commonwealth of Israel 
and the covenants of the promise,” while here the reference is not thus limited. 
The genitive, if supplied here, would, as Meyer says, be @eoi. 


XXIX. Vv. 21-28. 


(a) The construction of tud¢ «.7.A, of ver. 21, as well as the textual reading in 
the case of the last word of this verse (whether a7oxar#AAagev or avoxaryAAdyrre), is 
uncertain. If we read the second person plural of the verb, it seems better, on the 
whole, to make the clause from »vi to Yardrov parenthetical, and to connect 
srapaotijoat, by the xai at the beginning of ver. 21, with aroxaraAAd£a: of ver. 20— 
tuas of ver. 21 being the object of sapaorijoa:, and being repeated in tya¢ 
of ver. 22. This construction must be regarded as more simple and natural 
than that which is given by Meyer, who makes sapaorjoa:, the object aimed at in 
the reconciliation. With the text droxar#/Jatev, Meyer's view would apparently be 
correct (so Ell. and some others), but Meyer reads the verb in the 2d pers. 
W. & H. give the parenthetical character to the sentence commencing with vvvi 
dé, even with the verb in the 3d pers. sing., but this is leas probable—(5) The 
23d verse does not indeed necessarily, but may quite probably have an incidental 
reference to the danger, to which the readers were exposed, of being led away 
from the truth by the errorists—(c) The connection of ver. 23 with vv. 5, 6, can 
scarcely fail to be observed—rij¢ éAridoc, rot evayyediou ov nxoboare, To mppuxdtvrog 
év wéoy «rice, (comp. dtdxovog ver. 7 ).—(d) Ell. Lightf. Rid. and others agree 
with Mey., that rdoy crices means every creature, not the whole creation. 


XXX. Vv. 24-29. 


(a) The textual reading %, which Meyer adopts, is rejected by Tisch., Treg., 
W. & H., Alf., R. V., Hofm., Ell. Lightf. and others. The oldest MSS. omit it, 
and its insertion is easily accounted for by the final syllable of dcdxovoc of ver. 23, 
and the desire to make an easy transition to ver. 24. Meyer's view, that it fell 
out by reason of didxovoc, or by the fact that a Church lesson began here, is leas 
probable—(5) The sufferings here alluded to, as may be inferred from Eph. iii. 
1-13, are especially those connected with his imprisonment. This is indicated 
by the similarity in various phrases between the passage in Ephesians and these 





276 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


verses. Comp. the use of SAipecc in both passages, tye vduyy (G97) didxovoc, oixovoula, 
Td pvornptov Td ATOKEKp., Amd TOY aidvur, etc. 

(c) avravarAnp® ta torepyyata Tov YAivewy tov Xpiorov.—With reference to 
these words we may observe: (1) The “afflictions” are designated by the word 
OAipecc, which, according to the general usage of the N. T., denotes outward 
calamities or troubles. The suffering of Christ for sin, distinctly so called, is 
evidently not included in the word; wa@quara of this verse must, accordingly, 
be explained in the same way, and also ta¥fyara of 2 Cor. i. 5.—(2) In 2 Cor. i. 
5 the sufferings of Christ appear to be represented as so abounding that they over- 
flow from Him upon His disciples. That verse seems, in a certain sense, to pre- 
sent the opposite side of the thought here presented. The argument becomes a 
strong one, therefore, that the genitive Xpcorcd in this place, as well as in 2 Cor., 
is a gen. of the subject, and in the strict sense of belonging to Him, being His.— 
(3) The reference to the Church, in ver. 24, as Christ’s body naturally carries 
back the thought to 9 xegaAi tov odparo¢g ver. 18, and to the similar expression 
in Eph. i. 23. This relation of the body to the head may, therefore, be properly 
taken into consideration in the explanation of the words “ fill up,” ete. It sug- 
gests how the sufferings of the body may be conceived as belonging primarily to 
the head, and as “abounding unto” (overflowing from the head to) the body.— 
(4) The verb avravarAyp® carries in it the idea of filling up or supplying 
what belongs to one person by another, as a substitute. It represents the taking 
hold, as it were, over against another, and bearing up what he does not or cannot 
bear, and thus supplying his place and his want, and in this way filling up what 
is lacking—(5) It will be noticed that, in 2 Cor. i. 3-5, the abounding or over- 
flowing of the sufferings of Christ to the apostle is placed in a parallelism with 
the passing over of the comfort which the Apostle had received from God, in his 
sufferings, to the Corinthian Christians in theirs. The suggestion derived from 
this fact may have a bearing on the present verse. In view of these considera- 
tions, we may conclude that the Apostle’s conception is that all the sufferings and 
afflictions which are involved in the carrying on of Christ’s work in the world, 
whether experienced by Himself or His followers, are His own, and that, as He - 
was not able, in His earthly life, to bear them all, they overflow to His followers. 
As filling up that which remains from Him, His followers, in a certain figurative 
sense, supply His place, after His death, so far as these experiences are concerned. 
They may rejoice in tribulations, therefore,—and the Apostle himself does rejoice, 
—not only because they tend (as in Rom. v. 3 ff.) to the confirmation of the hope 
of future glory, and not only because they are endured for the welfare of the 
Church and the progress of the Gospel (Eph. iii. 1, 13; Phil. i. 12, and other 
passages), but also because in the endurance of them the disciple is brought, in 
a most intimate way, into fellowship with Christ. Comp. on this whole subject 
Matt. xx. 23; Rom. viii. 17; Gal. vi. 17; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. xiii. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 
13; and on the genitive, as subjective, 2 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. iii. 13; Jas. i. 27, with 
Princ, and 2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. iii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 11, iv. 13, v. 1, with wadguara. 

(d) Oixovoziav—That this word is correctly explained by Meyer is indicated by 
a comparison of the passage with 1 Cor. iv.1, and Rom. xv. 15 ff. These two pas- 
sages, when taken together, present in a striking way the ideas and expressions of 
vv. 25, 26:—the oixovouia as connected with the pvorfpwy (in 1 Cor.), the 
entrusting of the office, and the fulfilling of the word with reference to preaching 
to the Gentiles (in Rom.); (comp. also vv. 26, 27 with Rom. xvi. 25, 26). The 


NOTES. 277 


word ofxevouiav is found in Eph. i. 10, where it cannot have this sense of steward- 
ship. In Eph. iii. 2, in a passage somewhat similar to the one before us, it prob- 
ably does not have this meaning. But in Eph. i. 10, the connection and thought 
are entirely different, and in Eph. iii. 2 it will be observed that the development 
of the subject is more in detail than it is here. The development there proceeds 
from the thought of the economy of grace which had been made known to the 
apostle (vv. 2-6), to that of the office and commission which had been given to 
him to proclaim this economy (vv 7 ff.). Here, on the other hand, the passage 
begins with the latter point, and all that is said is brought into subordination to 
this. The fact mentioned by Meyer in his notes on Eph. iii. 2, that the participle 
is there connected with xdpcro¢g (do¥eionc), while here it agrees with oixovoyiay (do- 
Ueicav), shows the different conception in the two cases.—(e) The same peculiar 
reference of the xvorfpiov which we find in these verses is indicated also in Eph. 
iii. 1-12. In the latter passage this is more distinctly presented than it is here— 
that the Gentiles are fellow-heirsa, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow- 
partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. But that the writer 
thinks of this bearing of the gospel on the Gentiles here, is sufficiently manifest. 
The two passages were, doubtless, written with the same general thoughts in 
mind, and should be interpreted in connection with each other. Yet certain indi- 
vidual characteristics belong to each. The development of the passage in Eph. is 
influenced by the thought of the Divine plan and eternal purpose with which 
that Epistle opens, and by that of the removal of the separation between Jews 
and Gentiles which does not belong so definitely in the present letter. 

(f) It is doubtful, to say the least, whether Meyer's view of yevedv, that it 
refers to men while aidévuy refers to times, can be affirmed. A comparison with 
Eph. iii. 21 favors the reference of both words to time——(g) With respect to ver. 
27, the following points may be noticed :—(1) whether r/ means what in the sense 
of how great, as Meyer holds, or simply what, the question, as a whole, suggests the 
former idea. (2) The antecedent of 4 (or 4¢, if this is adopted as the true text) is, 
probably, uvornpiov, and not (as Meyer) td mAovrog «.7.A. This may be inferred from 
the fact that Christ is spoken of as the mystery in ii. 2; fromthe fact that pvorypiov 
is the most prominent word—it is the mystery, to which the riches of the glory 
belong ; and from the fact that the idea of the wealth of the glory does not seem to be 
exhausted by the hope of the glory. The revelation makes known the mystery 
—what had been unknown—that Christ is among or in the Gentiles the hope of 
the future heavenly glory, and it opens the knowledge of what the greatness and the 
richness of this glory are. (3) Meyer is apparently correct in referring the dé6&n¢ 
before uvornpiov and the déé7¢ after éAmi¢ to the same thing, i.e. the glory of the 
Messianic Kingdom—of the «Aypovouia—to which the éAzig points.—(h) ’Ev with 
roi¢ Efveowv has, doubtless, the sense of among; with iuiv it may mean among or 
in. The correspondence in form and the nearness to each other of the two phrases 
favor the former meaning for the second év. But as the writer is speaking, in 
the first clause, of making known to the saints what is, etc., he naturally uses in 
that place the word among i.e. as manifested among. In the second case, on the 
other hand, he is giving an explanation of what the mystery is, and he says that 
it is Christ, as the hope, etc. The clauses, therefore, are not parallel; and, as 
hope is a subjective thing within the individual mind, we should more naturally 
expect him to use in here. 


(¢) The thrice repeated tavra dv3pwrov is noticed by Meyer as emphasizing 





278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


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














CHAP. IL. 279 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 1, xepf] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read orép, following A BC D* P x min. 
But how easily may irép have been suggested to the copyists by i. 24 and iv. 12!— 
The form éopaxay (Lachm. and Tisch. 7) or éépaxav (Tisch. 8) is more than 
sufficiently attested by A B C D* x*, etc, to induce its reception in opposition to 
the usage elsewhere. Respecting this Alexandrian form see Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 
76}; and on éép., Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Th. 32.—Ver. 2. Instead of cvzP:Bacbévrec, 
Elzevir has ovuf:Bacbévrwr, in opposition to decisive testimony ; an emendation.— 
navra tAovrov] A C min. have wav rd mAowvrog (so Lachm. Tisch. 7), and are also 
joined by B x* Clem. with tay wAoiroc (s0 Tisch. 8). Here also (comp. i. 27) the 
neuter is the original; in thinking of the more common 6 Aovrog the TIANTO 
became ITANTA, in accordance with which 7Actrov 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 tov Oeov (so Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. 7, Rinck ; among 
modern expositors, Biihr, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald), Elzevir has rov Orov xai 
matpo¢ xai tov Xpicrov, while Lachm. reads Tov Geov Xpiorvd, and Tisch. 8 roi Oecot, 
Xptorov. Among the numerous various readings, Tov Geov Xpiorod (also adopted by 
Steiger, Huther, Bleek, Hofmann) is certainly strongly enough attested by B. Hilar. 
(but without vss.), while the simple tov Oeod has only 37, 67**, 71, 80*, 116, Arm. 
ed. Venet. in its favor. A C y*, 4, Sahid. Vulg. ms, have tov Qeov sarpd¢ (rov) X., 
which Béhmer and Reiche prefer, whilst ®** Syr. p. have r, Qeod xal arp. rov X., 
and others still, such as Syr. Copt. Chrys. read 1. 0. marpog xat rov Xpiorov, and 
consequently come nearest to the Recepia ; but a few authorities, after the mention 
of God, insert év Xpor@, as Clem. Ambrosiaster : tov Oeot év X. Regarding these 
variations we must judge thus: (1) the far too weak attestation of the bare rov 
Geo is decisive against it; (2) the reading of Lachm.: tov Geot Xpcoroi, is to be 
regarded as the original, from which have arisen as glosses the amplifications Tov 
Geov rarpd¢ tov X.,! and tov Oeov rarp. xai rov X., as well as the Recepta ; (3) the 
reading Tov cov év Xpror® arose out of a gloss (€v Xpior®) written on the margin 
at év 9, in accordance with i. 27, which supplanted the original Xpiorov; (4) the 
év Xpcorg thus introduced was again subsequently eliminated, without, however, 
the original Xprorov being reinserted, and thus arose the reading of Griesb. row 
Gcov, which therefore—and with this accords its late and weak attestation— 
appears to be merely a half completed critical restoration.—Ver. 4. d&] is wanting 
in B y*, Tisch. 8; but it was readily omitted by the copyists before the syllable 
AE.— 4 t1¢] Lachm. and Tisch. read undeic, which, following preponderant codd. 
(ABCDEP), is to be preferred.—Ver. 7. év ry wior.] Lachm. and Tisch. 


1If this reading, relatively so strongly |§ must have given rise to dogmatic scruples, 
attested, were the original one, it would not and only the description of God as rov @eov 
he easy to see why it should have been Xpicrov could have done so. 
glossed or altered. The original expression 








280 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


have only 79 tiore:, following B D* min. Vulg. It. Archel. Ambrosiast. Theophyl. 
Properly ; the év was mechanically introduced from the adjoining text.—év airj] 
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 tepioo. was found to be already accompanied by a more precise 
detinition expressed by év. The év avr@ read by D* *%, 1, Pel. vss., though only a 
mechanical repetition of the preceding év avr, testifies indirectly to the fact 
that originally ev avrg was in the text.—Ver. 10. 6¢ éorcv] Lachm. reads & 
to7tv, following B D E F G Germ. Hilar. A mistaken correction, occasioned by 
the reference of the preceding év avr@ to 7d TAjpwya.—Ver. 11. After oduarog Elz. 
has tov duapriov; an exegetical addition, in opposition to decisive testimony. 
Comp. Rom. vi. 6.—Ver. 13. The second iva¢ is indeed wanting in Elz., but 
receives so sufficient attestation through A C K L y*, min. ves. and Fathers, 
that its omission must be explained on the ground of its seeming superfluous. B 
min. Ambr. have 7ua¢, which is conformed to the following juiv. Instead of this 
juiv, Elz, has iziv, in opposition to decisive testimony.—Ver. 17. a4] Lachm. reads 
8, following B F G It. Goth. Epiph. Ambrosiast. Aug. To be preferred, inasmuch 
as the plural was naturally suggested to the copyists by the plurality of the 
things previously mentioned.—Ver. 18. 4 yi) édpaxev] uf is wanting in A B D* 
y*, 17, 28, 67**, Copt. Clar. Germ. codd. in Aug., Or. ed. Tert.? Lucif. Ambrosiast., 
while F G have ovx. 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 Hofmann also follows. An addition owing 
to misapprehension. See the exegetical remarks.—Ver. 20. ei] Elz. reads et ody, 
in opposition to decisive testimony. An addition for the sake of connecting, after 
the analogy of ver. 16 and iii. 1. 


Expressing in a heart-winning way his earnest concern for the salva- 
tion of the souls of his readers, Paul introduces (vv. 1-3) what he has to 
urge upon them in the way of warning against the seduction of false 
teachers (vv. 4, 5), of exhortation to faithfulness (vv. 6, 7), and then, again, 
of warning (ver. 8). He then supports what he has urged by subjoining 
the relative soteriological instructions and remindings (vv. 9-15), from 
which he finally draws further special warnings as respects the dangers 
theatening them on the part of the false teachers (vv. 16-23). 

Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-5, see Note XXXI. pages 331-334.] Tép] [X-XXI a.] 
The apostle now confirmstn concreto the ei¢ 6 x. nom. GyouCéuevog x.7.A., Which 
has just been affirmed of himself in general: in proof of that assertion [. 
would have you to know, etc. Hofmann holds erroneously, in con- 
sequence of his mistaken explanation of com in i. 29, that Paul desires 
to explain why he has said that he is becoming weary over the exertion, 
etc.—Instead of the more frequent ov OéAw inde ayvoeiv (see on Rom. xi. 25, 
i. 13), Paul uses the @éAw in. eidévac, also in 1 Cor. xi.8; comp. Phil. 1. 12.— 
yaixov] what a great, vehement conflict. Paul nowhere else uses this word, 
which is classical, but does not occur either in the LXX. or in the 
Apocrypha; in the N. T. it is only found again at Jas. iii. 5. That by the 
conflict is meant the internal pressure of solicitude and apprehension, etc. 
(comp. i. 29, also Rom. xv. 30), is plain [XX XI }.]—when we remember 


CHAP, IU. 1. 281 


the imprisoned condition of the apostle, who now could not contend out- 
wardly with the fulse teachers themselves—from ver. 2. It is at the same 
time self-evident that the wrestling of prayer was an eminent way of conduct- 
ing this spiritual conflict, without its being necessary to regard iv, 12 as u 
criterion fur determining the sense in our passage.—xai tov év Aaodix. |. 
The neighboring Laodiceans (Rev. iii. 14 ff.) were without doubt exposed 
to like heretical dangers; hence also the injunction as to the mutual 
communication of the Epistles, iv. 16.—xai doo «.r.4.] The sense is: and 
generally (xai, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 786. 870) for all to whom Iam 
personally unknown. It adda the entire category, to which the ipeic and 
those év Aaodexeig, both regarded as churches, were reckoned to belong. Comp. 
Acts iv. 6. It is plain from our passage that Paul had not been in Colossae 
and Laodicea. It is true that Wiggers, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 176, 
would have éco «.r.A. understood as referring to a portion of the Colossians 
and Laodiceans, in which case xai would mean even; but the text itself is 
decisively opposed to this view by the following atré», ver. 2, which, if the 
doo: «.7.A, to which it refers be not the class in which the readers and 
Laodiceans were included, would be altogether unsuttable ; as, indeed, the 
bare even does not suffice to give special prominence to a particular 
portion (we should expect pdédora dé.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 Cred- 
ner, Finl. 3 154, erroneously denies this) of Baronius, Lardner, and David 
Schultz (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 535 ff.), that the doo: «.7.4. were otherthan 
the ipeic and of gv Aaodex.; Paul having been personally known to both the 
latter. The subsequent airayv is fatal to this theory likewise; and how singu- 
larly 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 Colossians and Laodiceans were exposed to! 
To this falls to be added the fact, that in the entire Epistle there is not a 
single hint of the apostle having been present in Colossne. See, on the 
contrary, on i. 8 and on i. 23.1 According to Hilgenfeld, in his Zetlschr. 
1870, p. 245 f., the intimation that Paul was personally unknown to the 
Colossians betrays the composition of the Epistle at a later time, when the 
recollection of his labors there had been already superseded and had 
vanished from the memory of the churches. As if such a forgetfulness 
were even conceivable, in presence of the high esteem in which the 
apostle was held!—That Paul should have been so concerned about the 
Colossians and Laodiceans, as those who did not know him personally, is 
natural enough, seeing that they were not in a position to oppose the 
living impression of the apostle’s personal ministry, and his direct 
authority, to the heretical seductions. Comp. ver. 5.—év capxi] not 
belonging to éwpéxao:—in which case it would be a contrast to seeing év 


1Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt, p. 440. 


282 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


rvetpart (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Baumgarten-Crusius)—joins itself, so 
as to form one idea, with 16 rpéownédv pou (Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 135]). See 
ver.5. The addition, which might in itself be dispensed with (comp. Qal. 
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 
physiognomy”’ (Olshausen), or to the having made acquaintance tn a 
spiritual fashion (Hofmann), in connection with which Estius even 
discovers a certain razeivworc 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 é 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 (iva) in this conflict: in order that their hearts 
may be comforted, viz. practically by the fact, that they are united in love, etc. 
Accordingly, ovuf:Bact. «.r.A. 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 rapéxAnoce trav 
xapdtav avrav, not impeaching them on account of the heretical seductions, 
but making those temptations to be felt as a misfortune, in the presence 
of which one requires comfort (Vulgate : “ut consolentur ”): 1 The explana- 
tion which makes zapaxa, mean, like pox (LXX. Deut. iii. 28; Job iv. 8), 
to strengthen, confirm (so Huther, de Wette, Baumgartén-Crusius), is 
quite opposed to the Pauline usage, according to which it means to exhort 
(so Luther here), to give consolation (so Hofmann; comp. Bleek), to 
entreat, to encourage, to comfort; the latter in particular when, as here, 
it is joined with «apdia. Comp. iv. 8; Fph. vi. 22; 2 Thess. ii. 17 (also 
Ecclus. xxx. 23).—svuuBiBaobévres} referred to the logical subject of the fore- 
going, t.e. to the persons, of whom ai xapdia: avrév was said. See on Eph. 
iv. 2. It means here not instructi (Vulgate; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 16, and the 
LXX.), nor yet introduced? which linguistic usage does not permit, but 
brought together, united, compacti2 In connection therewith, é& aydry, 
which denotes Christian brotherly love, is the moral element, in which the 


1Chrysostom remarks aptly (comp. Theo- _ either of itself or in vv. 5-7, falls to be con- 


phylact) : 789 Aotwor owevder cat wdiver euBarciv 
eis 7d Sdypna, ovre caryyopey ovre awadAaTrev 
avrovs xarnyopias. 

2So Hofmann, who couples it in this sense 
with ei¢ way rd wAouros, taking ev ayarn ad- 
verbially, and explaining the «ai, 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 dis- 
posing of the «ai, suggested by nothing in the 
context, especially since faith by no means, 


sidered as a preliminary stage, as if the wAypo- 
dopia «.7.A., like a new stadium, had to be en- 
tered upon through a second introduction; on 
the contrary, this srAnpodopia is the full rich 
development of faith in the inner life. We 
may add that cupBiBdgevesto introduce is 
nothing but a lericographical fiction invented 
by Hofmann. Chrysostom already says 
rightly: iva évw@wor. 

3Ver.19; Eph. iv.16; Thuc. fi. 29.5; Herod. 
1.74; and see Wetstein and Valckenaer, Schol. 
I. p. 453 f. 


CHAP, II. 2, 283 
union is to subsist ; to which is then added the ¢elic reference of ovpf:Baod. 
by wai eis «.7.A.: united in love and for behoof of the full richness, etc., t.¢. 
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. . 
[XX XI ¢.]—xai eig i8 not to be joined with wapaxd. (Storr, Flatt), since the 
xai rather adds to the e-relation of the ovuf:f. its eic-relation, and is there- 
fore merely the simple and, not etiam (Bengel, Hofmann); but not to be 
explained either as et quidem (Bahr, Bohmer), or by an 2Aéwa to be 
supplied (Olshausen permits a choice between the two).—r#¢ mAnpog. ric 
ovvéc.} The full certainty of Christian insight is the lofty blessing, the whole 
riches of which, #.e. its blissful possession as a whole, they are to attain, so 
that in no element of the ofveor¢ and in no mode thereof does there 
remain any lack of completely undoubting conviction ;} comp. 1 Thess. 
i. 5; Heb. vi. 11, x. 22; Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5. On the conception of 
rAnpogopeiv, see Bleek on Hebr. II. 2, p. 233 f. As to otveor, intelligence, 
both theoretical and practical, comp. on i.9; that here also what is 
specifically Christian is meant xer’ é€oyfv, is plain from the context. See 
the sequel. The cumulative fullness of the description wav rd 1A, 7. wAnp. 1. 
ovvéc. is naturally and earnestly called forth by the consideration of the 
dangers which threatened the zAnpog. 7. ovvéc. through the attempts of 
false teachers (ver. 4).2—eic ériyywow x.7.2.] parallel to the preceding ei¢ 
nav td jAovroc x.t.A., and destined to bring in with emphasis the great 
object of the cbveor (the divine counsel of redemption, rd pvorhpiov, see on i. 
26); so that what was previously set forth at length by cig av rd mAovTog 7. 
wAnpop. t. ovvéo. is now succinctly summed up for the sake of annexing 
the object by cic éxiywwoow. Thus the distinction between éiywwo and 
yvaos (ver. 3) is brought out clearly.2 Comp. oni.9. But rot pvor. r. 0. 
is not to be attached also to tie ovécewe (Hofmann), so that the ri 
éexiyvwoww Would occupy an interrupting position.—rov Oect] Genitive of the 
subject ; it is God, whose decree the pvor. is. The reading to be approved, 
tov Geov Xprorov [XX XI d.] (see the critical remarks), means: of the God 
of Christ, i.e. to whom Christ belongs in a special way, as to His Father, 
Sender, Head, etc.; [XX XI e.] see on Eph.i.17; comp. John xx. 17; 
Matt. xxvii. 46. The separation of Xpcrov, however, from r. Geov, and the 
taking it as apposition to rot proryp. rov Orci, so that Christ Himself appears 
as the personal secret of God, ‘because He is personally the truth con- 
tained in God and revealed from God ” (Hofmann, comp. Holtzmann, p. 
215), must be rejected, because Paul would thus have expressed himself 
in a way as much exposed to misapprehension as possible. He would 


1 Neither Greek authors, nor the LXX., nor 
the Apocrypha have wAnpodopia. In Ptol. Tetr. 
p. 4, 9, tAnpodopyacs is found, 

2Qisa, Gre meorevere, GAAG wAnpodopnOjvar 
tvuas BovAomat’ ove cig Toy wAoUTOY udvoy, GAA’ 
ei¢ wavra Toy wAOUTOP, iva Kal ¢y Fact Kal émre- 
Tandvas wewAnpodophudvor Fre, Chrysortom. 

3 According to Holtzmann, p. 303, in the fre- 
quent mention of yreors and éixiyrecis, of 


cogia and cuvecis, of ywwpigew and derifey, 
of pvotiproy awoxexpvyp. and gavdpwois rou 
uvor., 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 theo- 
sophic aberrations. Comp. also on 1. 23; and 
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 420, ed. 2. 


284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


either have inserted an 6 éor: after rot Oecd (i. 24; 1 Cor. iii. 11), or have 
omitted rov Oeov, which would have made -rd yvorfpiov Xpiotod, as in Eph. 
iii. 4, the mystery contained personally in Christ. But as the apostle has 
actually written, the reader could only understand the mystery of the God 
of Christ. If Christ is God’s (see on 1 Cor. iii. 23; comp. Luke ii. 26, ix. 
20; Acts iv. 26), then God is also the God of Christ. After cov, therefore, 
no comma is to be inserted. Finally, the view of Hilary (“ Deus 
Christus sacramentum est’), that 6 Océc is Christ Himself (so Steiger and 
Bisping,') is wholly without Pauline analogy, and is not to be supported 
by such passages as Rom. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Eph. v. 5; in fact, even the 
lofty predicates employed in i. 15 ff, ii. 9, draw the line of distinction 
between God and Christ. Moreover, the expression itself is not harsher 
(de Wette), or even more inconceivable (Olshausen), more unsuitable and 
obscure (Reiche), than the phrase 6 Ged¢ rot xvpiov fu. "Inood X. in Eph. i. 
17 ; since in connection with the notion “ the God of Christ,” the designa- 
tion of the latter as our Lord is unessential. The addition Xpicroi finds its 
motive in the connection, because it was just in Christ that God formed the 
decree of redemption (the pvorfpcov), and has carried it out (Eph. iii. 10 f., 
et al.). Whosoever has known God as the God of Christ, has the divine 
pvor7#piov therewith unveiled to him. 

Ver. 3. ’Ev g] [XXXI/] is to be referred to rod pvornpiov—a remark 
which applies also in the case of every other reading of the foregoing 
words—not to Christ,? as is commonly done with the Recepta, and by 
Béhmer, Dalmer, and Hofmann even with our reading. The correct 
reference is given, in connection with the Recepta, by Grotius (against 
whom Calovius contends), Hammond, Bengel, and Michaelis; and in 
connection with our reading, by Huther, Schenkel, and Bleek ; its cor- 
rectness appears from the correlation in which azdéxpygo stands to rot 
pvotnp. The destination of this relative clause is to bring out the high 
value of the ériywwor rob pvornpiov (since in Him, etc.), and that in con- 
trast to the pretended wisdom and knowledge of the false teachers; 
hence also the emphatic wdvre¢ ol Onc. x.r.A—The cogia and yoo are 
here conceived objectively, and the genttives indicate wherein the treasures 
consist. The distinction between the two words is not, indeed, to be 
abandoned (Calvin: “duplicatio ad augendum valet;” comp. Huther 
and others), but yet is not to be defined more precisely than that yvéccc is 
more special, knowledge, and cogia 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. 9.2—aréxpugo:] [XX XT g.J] is not the predicate to cisi (so 
most writers, with Chrysostom and Luther), as if it were droxexpuypévor 
elow instead of eicty améxpugo:; for, as it stands, the unsuitable sense 
would be conveyed: “in whom all treasures . ... are hidden treasures. ”’ 


1 Also Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1, p. 460, ed. 2. 3On @ncavpoi, comp. Plato, Phil. p.15 E: as 

% Older dogmatic expositors (see especially riva codias evpyncws Oncavpcy, Xen. Sem. iv. 2. 
Calovius) discover here the omniscience of 9, i. 6.14; Wisd. vii. 14; Ecclus. i. 22; Bar. fil. 
Christ. 16. 








CHAP. II. 3, 4. ; 285 


But neither is it a description of the qualitative how of their being in Him," 
in so far, namely, as they do not lie open for ordinary perception (Hof- 
mann); for this adverbial use of the adjective? would be without due 
motive here, seeing that the apostle is concerned, not about the mode of 
the é& » eio:, but about the characterizing of the treasures themselves, 
whereupon the how in question was obvious of itself. We must therefore 
take amréxpugos simply as an attributive adjective to @joavpoi, placed at 
the end with emphasis: in whom the collective hidden treasures . . . are 
contained* The treasures, which are to be found in the mystery, are not 
such as lie open to the light, but, in harmony with the conception of the 
secret, hidden (comp. Matt. J. c.), because unattainable by the power of 
natural discernment in itself, but coming to be found by those who attain 
tig érriyvwotv tov pvotnpiov, whereby they penetrate into the domain of 


. these secret riches and discover and appropriate them. The objection to 


this view of azoxp. as the adjective to Mec., viz. that there must then 
have been written of aroxp. (Bahr, Bleek, Hofmann), is erroneous; the 
article might have been (1 Macc. i. 23), but did not need to be, inserted. 
With the article it would mean: quippe qui abscondi#i sunt; without the 
article it is simply: “ thesauri abscondii” (Vulgate), 7. e. amdxpupo dvrec, 
not of dvreg amdxpugor. 

Ver. 4. After this affecting introduction, testifying to his zealous striv- 
ing for the Christian development of his readers, and thereby claiming 
their faithful adherence to his gospel, the warning now follows, for the 
suke of which Paul has prefixed vv. 1-8 (rotro). [XXXI h.] That robro 
does not refer merely to ver. 3* is in itself probable, since vv. 1-8 form a 
connected sentence admirably preparatory in its entire purport for what 
follows, and is confirmed by ver. 5, which glances back to ver. 1. Hence: 
This contained in vv. 1-8, which ye ought to know, I say with the design 
that, etc.—iva pndeig (gee the critical remarks); comp. Mark v. 43; Tit. 
lii. 12; Rev. iii. 11, e& al—apadoyif.] InN. T., only found elsewhere in 
Jas. i. 22 (see Theile in loc.); frequent in the later Greek writers since 
Demosthenes (822. 25, 1037. 15). It indicates, by a term borrowed from 
false reckoning, the deception and overreaching that take place through 
false reasoning. What particular sophistries the false teachers, whose 
agitations at all events tended (see ver. 8 f.) to the disadvantage of the 
Pauline gospel, were guilty of, does not appear. It is certain, however, 
that they were not those suggested by BOhmer (nothing good can come 
out of Nazareth; one who was crucified cannot have possessed divine 
wisdom), since the false teachers were not non-Christians. Hardly did 
these beguiling sophistries affect the person of the apostle, as if he were 
not concerning himself about the confirming and training of churches 


1In connection with which Bahr, Baumgar- 3Comp. LXX. Isa. xlv.3; 1 Macc. £ 28; 
ten-Crusius, and Bleek convert the notion of Matt. xiii. 44. 
being hidden into that of being deposited for 4So Oecumeniusa, Theophylact, Calvin, Zan- 
tion (aroxetc@at, i, 5). chius, Estius, and others, including Bahr and 
2See Kihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. iv. 12, 1i.2.17; | Bohmer; Huther is undecided 
Kriger, @ 57. 5. 


286 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


not planted by himself, as Hofmann thinks. In that case we should 
have in vv. 1-3 only a self-testimony to the contrary, which, as assertion 
against assertion, would neither have been skillful nor delicate; nor do 
we in what follows find any defence in opposition to personal calumnia- 
tion. This applies also in opposition to Holtzmann, p.177. The yép in 
ver. 5 by no means requires this interpretation.—év mBavodoyig] by means 
of persuading speech ; Luther’s “ with rational discourses ” misapprehends 
the meaning. It occurs in this place only in the N. T. 

Ver. 5. A special reason, having reference to his bodily absence, by 
which his readers are encouraged not to allow themselves to be deceived. 
—rj oapxi] with respect to the flesh, 7. e. bodily. Comp.1 Cor. v. 3.—a11¢] 
at, yet am I on the other hand, beginning the‘ apodosis ; see on Rom. vi. 5 
and 1 Cor. iv. 15.—ré mvetyar:] with respect to the spirit, 4. e. mentally; 
my spirit, translating itself in thought into your midst, is along with you. 
Erroneously Grotius: ‘‘ Deus Paulo revelat, quae Colossis fierent,” so that 
mvevua 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, 
drecu: takes for granted the apostle’s having been there previously. <A 
quite groundless assumption; the verb expresses (a7vé) 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 
circumstances of the case. In this case the context directly indicates, by 
ver. 1, that a bodily zapeiva: had not occurred. It is otherwise in 1 Cor. 
v.38; 2 Cor. x. 1, 11, xiii. 2,10; Phil. i. 27. From the similar expression 
in 1 Cor. v. 8, Theodoret nevertheless infers that Paul o¢ Geacduevor 
aitove éypapev tiv éexcoroAfy.—ow tiv] in your society, among you. Comp. 
Luke viii. 88, xxii. 56; Phil. i. 28; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Pet. 1. 18, 4 al— 
xaipov x. Baéruv] There is here no illogical prefixing of the zaipuy in the 
lively feeling of joy (Huther, comp. de Wette); xzaipwy rather expresses 
joy at the fact that he is with them spiritually, and «ai BAérov ty. rip 
régw «.7.A. then adds what at this joyful being with the Colossians he sees in 
them, so that the description thus advances with x. BAé.: in spirit I am 
along with you, rejoicing in this mental presence, and therewith seeing, etc. 
Comp. also Hofmann, who, however, imports into fAéruv the pregnant 
meaning not conveyed by the simple verb; it is as plainly present to my 
soul, as if I saw it with my eyes. This would be «. o¢ BAéruy, or x. o¢ ev 
dgbaruoic BA. Renderings blending the ideas, such as gaudeo videns (Gro- 
tius, Wolf, Bahr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and others), or beholding 
with joy (Bengel, Heinrichs, Flatt), are at variance with the words as they 
stand. Some erroneously cite Josephus, Bell. iii. 10.2, where xaipw kat 
Bréxov (not BAérw) means: I rejoice, when I even see it. Winer, p. 438 
(FE. T. 469 f.], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 425, supply with zaipwy the 
words : concerning you. But the supplying of 颒 dziv is not justified by 


1 But see Plato, Theast. p.162E; comp.Dem.  s@avas Adyar, Lucian, Amor.7. Hence the 
928. 14: Adyous Gavuacins wiOavovs,also mBavo- art of persuasion: 4 wBavodoyied, Arr. Epict. 
Aoyeiy, Diog. L. x. 87; Diod. Sic. 1. 30; and =i. 8.7. 





CHAP. I. 4. 287 


the context, which naturally suggests joy at the being together with the 
readers, for xaip. 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 xai, which Winer still 
admits (so also BGhmer and Olshausen).—The testimony, moreover, which 
is given to the readers by fAérwy «.7.A. 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 conceivable, when the dangers 
which threatened a state of things still even now so good are considered. 
—ipéiv t, tégv] The prefixed pronoun owes this position to the favor- 
able expectation which the Colossians, more than many others, have 
awakened in the apostle. The rdé¢ is order, orderly condition. Its anti- 
thesis is aragia, Plato, Tim. p.30 A. For the idea see Plato, Gorg. p. 504 
A: rdéfew . . . nai xdopov tvyovca oixia, Polyb. i. 4. 6: 9 obpraca cyborg x. 
raéig TH¢ oixovpevyc, iii. 36. 6: 4... dealpeote x. rdéec. It is often used of 
the organized condition of the state, Dem. 200. 4, Plat. Ori. p. 109 D; else- 
where also (see Sturz, Lez. Xen. IV. p. 245) of the army, sometimes to 
designate a section of it (a company of two 2éyo:), and sometimes to ex- © 
press its regular arrangement in rank and file (Thuc. iii. 87. 2, iv. 72. 2, 126. 
4, viii. 69. 1). Hofmann' takes both rdé. and orepéoua in a military 
sense. But the two words have not in and of themselves the military 
sense; they would receive it from the context, which is not the case here. 
Moreover, the meaning fortress, military bulwark, is expressed not by 
orepfuya generally, but by égpyza or dyxipwua, 2 Cor. x. 4. Hence, if we 
would avoid arbitrariness, we can only abide by the view that here rdgc¢ 
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. 
orepéwpa, firmamentum, that which has been made firm (Arist. partt. an. 11. 9; 
Theophr. H. pl. v. 7. 8), a late word, often found in LXX., Aquila, The- 
odotion, Symmachus, and Apocrypha (see Schleusner, Thes. V. p. 102 f.), 
represents the stedfastness and immovableness of faith in such a way, 
that the latter appears as protected by a strong work (with solid founda- 
tion, masonry, etc.) from injury (Ezek. xiii.5; Ps. xviii. 2; 3 Esdr. viii. 
81). On the subject-matter, comp. Acts xvi. 5: écrepeotvro rg mioret, 1 Pet. 
v.9: avriornre orepeot rg miotex. The abstract firmness, however (Huther, 
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, and older expositors), which would 
be orepeéryc, is never designated by the word. Chrysostom explains 
rightly : bre woAAd ovvayaydv ovyKoAAfoes muKvag nal adiacraocTig, Tére oTepéwua 
yiverax, The genitive rij¢ wiorews, finally, is not to to be taken in such a way 
as to make faith the orepéwua (Hofmann), which protects the readers, as if 
it were 1d duev orepéwua; but a8 the genitive of the subject, in such a way 
that their faith has the orepéuya securing it, which Paul spiritually sees.— 
To call in question the unseducedness here attested (Baumgarten-Crusius, 


1 Whom Holtsmann, p. 177, has too rashly followed. 


288 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


who leaves it a question whether the sense is not merely: “ ¢/it is 80”), 
or to refer it to only a part of the church (Flatt), is a quite arbitrary result 
of unduly pressing the general utterance of commendation. 

Ver.6f. [XXXIi.] From the warning given in ver. 4 and having its 
ground assigned in ver. 5, follows (civ) the positive obligation to make 
Christ, as He had been communicated to them through the instruction 
which they had received, the element in which (é air¢) their conduct of 
the inner and outer life moves (ep:rareire), whereupon the more precise 
modal definitions are subjoined by éppitupévor x.1.A.—dc] according as. 
Observe that in the protasis rapeAdBere and in the apodosis wepirareire (not 
év avrg, as Hofmann thinks) have the emphasis, in which case the addition 
of an obruc was not necessary. Their walk in Christ is to be in harmony 
with the inatruction, by means of which they have through Epaphras 
received Christ.—apeAdBere] have received (i. 7; Eph. iv. 20), comp. Gal. i. 
9, 12; 1 Thess. ii. 18, iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 28. Christ was com- 
municated 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: xabac éd:daxbyre, 
and ver. 8: xaré r#v wapddoov tév avbp.) the contrast between true and false 
Christian instruction as regulative of the walk, and not the contrast between 
entrance into the fellowship of Christ and the walk therewith given (Hof- 
mann), predominates.2~—rdv X. I. rdv xipcov] A solemnly complete designa- 
tion, a swmmary of the whole confession (1 Cor. xii. 3; Phil. ii. 11), in which 
rov xtpiov, conformably with its position and the entire connection, is to be 
taken in the sense: asthe Lord, consequently attributively, not as a mere appo- 
sition (de Wette, Bleek, Ellicott, and others), in which Hofmann includes 
also "Incotv, a view which is not warranted by Eph. iii. 1.—Ver. 7. éppifon. 
x. érouxod, év abt] introduces the ethical habitus in the case of the required 
wepirareiy é¢v X. But the vivid conception, in the urgency of properly 
exhausting the important point, combines very dissimilar elements; for 
the two figures, of # plant and of a building, are inconsistent as such both 
with reperareire and with one another. Comp. Eph. 1ii.17f. By beginning 
a new sentence with éppcSwyévor x.7.2., and thus construing it in connection 
- with ver. 8 (Schenkel, Hofmann), we should gain nothing in symmetry, 
and should only lose without sufficient reason in simplicity of construc- 
tion; while we should leave the év air@ repirareire in ver. 6 in a dispropor- 
tionately bald and isolated position. This conjunction, moreover, of heter- 
ogeneous figures might quite as legitimately have been made by the 
apostle himself as by an interpolator, whose hand Holtzmann thinks that 
he here discovers.—Observe further the difference in time of the two par- 





1To this conception é¢v avrg refers subse- 
quently. Chrysostom and his followers take 
this év so, that Christ is regarded as the way. 
But this Johannine conception nowhere oc- 
curs in Paul’s writings; nor does it accord 
with wapeAdSere, with which, however, the 


extremely common Pauline idea of the éy 
Xpiore elvac is in harmony. 

2 Eph. fii. 17 f., by comparing which Holtz- 
mann discovers in our passage the hand of 
the interpolator, is both as regards contents 
and form too diverse for that purpose. 


CHAP. Ii. 6, 7. 289 


ticiples, whereby the stedfastness of the év Xpiot@ elva: (figuratively repre- 
sented by épp:fupu.) is denoted as a subsistent state, which must be present in 
the case of the reperareiv év air, while the further development of the Christian 
condition (figuratively represented by éro:xod.) is set forth as a continuing 
process of training; comp. Acts xx. 32.—éroiod.] becoming built up, in 
which éxi exhibits the building rising on the foundation.' The building up 
may in itself be also regarded as an act accomplished (through conversion), 
asin Eph. ii. 20: éromodounbévrec, which, however, as modal definition of 
nepirar., would not have suited here. The progress and finishing of the 
building (de Wette, following Acts xx. 32, where, however, the simple form 
oixod. should be read) are conveyed by the present, not by ézocxod. in itself 
(comp. Eph. ii. 22). Nor does the latter represent the readers as stones, 
which are built up on the top of those already laid (Hofmann); on the con- 
trary, they are in their aggregate as a church (comp. on Eph. l.c.) represented 
as an oixodouf in the course of being built (i.e. of a more and more full 
development of their Christian common life), in regard to which the é7i in 
érocxod, 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» air] belongs to both participles, so that 
Christ is to be conceived doubtless as the soil for the roots striking down- 
wards (Eph. iii. 17), and as the foundation (1 Cor. iii. 11) for the building 
extending upwards; but the erpression is determined by the conception of 
the thing signified, namely, the év Xpor@ eiva:, as in év avrp mepevat., and 
not by the figures; hence Paul has not written éx’ airév (1 Cor. iii. 12), or 
én’ avr® (Eph. ii. 20), which would have been in harmony with the latter 
participle, but he exhibits Christ as the Person, in whom that which 1s 
meant by the being rooted and becoming built up has ita specific being 
and nature, and consequently the condition of endurance and growth.’ 
Comp. on Eph. ii. 21.—xai BeBaoby. rp mior.) 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 
miay take place, nor any slack building be formed. The dative rg miores (see 
the critical remarks) is to be taken as instrumental, not: with respect to (in 
opposition to de Wette), since the following modal definition mepioc. & 
airy specifies, not how they are to be stablished in respect of the faith, but 
how they are to be stablished by it, by the fact, namely, that they are rich 
in faith; poverty in faith would not be sufficient to bring about that estab- 
lishment. In like manner we should have to take the reading & rf. ziote:, 
which Hofmann defends. He, however, joins this év r. rioree not with 
BeBaroby., but with the following mepiccebovres—a connection which is 
excluded by the genuineness of év airg, but which is, even apart from this, 
to be rejected, because Paul would, in order to be fairly intelligible, have 


1Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10, 12; Eph. fi.20; Xen. case of dwoxod. at any rate we have to think 
Anab. iii. 4.11; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 E. of the foundation, takes évy avry in the sense 
3 Hofmann inappropriately, since in the that Christ surrounds the building. 
19 


290 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


inserted the év atr@ only after BeBatobyevor, to which it would also refer.— 
xabig é6:d670.] namely, to become stablished by the fatth. For this they have 
received (from Epaphras, i. 7) the instructions which are to guide them.— 
meptooebvovrec x.T.A.) is subordinate to the BeBaobu., and that as specifying 
the measure of the faith, which must be found in them in order that they 
may be stablished through faith; while at the same time the requisite 
vital expression, consecrated to God, of the piety of the believing heart is 
brought out by év evyap.: while ye are abounding in the same amidst thanks- 
giving, i.e. while ye are truly rich m faith, and at the same time giving 
thanks to God for this blessing of fullness of faith. The emphasis is upon 
mepwoo., in which hes the more precisely defining element; mepiooeterv év is 
nothing else than the usual abundare aliqua re, to have abundance of some- 
thing (Rom. xv. 18; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Phil. i. 9, e al.), and év evyap. indicates 
an accompanying circumstance in the case, the ethical consecration of grate- 
ful piety, with which the richness in faith must be combined; comp. lii. 
17,i. 12. It is well explained, in substance, by Theophylact: repicodv re 
evdcixvucba: év TH wioTel, evyaptoTotvres TH Beg, Sri H&iwoev Hua toabtn¢ yapitos, 
kal ua) éavroig tiv mpoxon#y emcypagovtac. Rightly also by Oecumenius, who 
takes év ebyap. a8 equivalent to civ evyap.! Others, however, regard év 
evyap. a8 belonging to wepico. Such is the view not only of the majority 
who reject év airy 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 grateful). De Wette favors 
this rendering on the ground that the clause is not attached by «ai, which, 
however, is quite in keeping with the circumstance that mepioo. «.7.4. is 
subordinate to the BeBarobu. x.r.A. In opposition to the combination zens. 
év evyap. there may be urged, first, the arrangement of the words in itself; 
secondly, the fact that év atrj would be superfluous; and thirdly, that all 
the other elements of the verse refer to the nature of faith, and hence the 
latter, in harmony with the context, is to be regarded also in the last par- 
ticipial clause as the object of the discourse, whereas é evap. is tobe treated 
as a relation associated with the faith. 

Ver. 8. [On vv. 8-10, see Note XXXII. pages 334-336.] Be upon your 
guard, lest there shall be some one carrying you away asa prey. In that case, 
how grievously would what I have just been impressing upon your hearts, 
in vv. 6, 7, be rendered fruitless! [XXXII a.] The future éora after yf 
(comp. Heb. iii. 12) has arisen from the apprehension that the case may 
yet actually occur. As to the partictple with the article, comp. on Gal. i. 7: 
rivéig eiow ol rapdoocovres.—Respecting ovdaywyeiv, belonging to the later 
Greek, see Eustath. ad Ii. v. p. 893,52. [XXXII b.] Very inaccurately 
rendered by the Vulgate: decipiat. In Aristaen. ii. 22, joined with oixoy, it 
means fo rob; and is so taken here by Hilary, Chrysostom; Theodoret 
(aroovAav riv rior), Theophylact (rév vowv), Luther, Wolf, and many others, 


1Comp. Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, §See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 451 A; Hart- 
Estius, Oornelius a Lapide, Bahr, Steiger, ung, Partikell. II. p. 189 f.; Ellendt, Lez. 
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Dalmer, Soph. II. p.104 Comp. also on Gal. iv. 1L 
Hofmann, and others. 


CHAP. II. 8. 291 
including Baumgarten-Crusius. But the stronger sense of the word prae- 
dam abigere' is in keeping with the verb of the previous exhortation, repera- 
reire, as well as with the purposely chosen peculiar expresdion in itself, which 
is more significant than the classical ovAav or ovAebew, and serves vividly to 
illustrate the idea of the seduction, through which one falls under extra- 
neous power, as respects its disgracefulness.—did rig giAocogiag K. Kevng anétye] 
through philosophy and empty deceit. It is to be observed that neither the 
preposition nor the article is repeated before xevj¢* because with xai xev 
arar. there is added no further element different from ri¢ ¢Aos0g. (in oppo- 
sition to Hofmann), but only that which the philosophy in its essence is ; it is 
empty deception, that is, having no real contents; the mavodoyia (ver. 4), 
with which it is presented, is a xeveayopia (Plat. Rep. p. 607 B), and xevoAoyia 
(Plut. Mor. p. 1069 C).® The ¢cAocogia, however, against which Paul utters 
his warning, is not philosophy generally and in ttself,—a view at variance 
with the addition «. xevj¢ amar. closely pertaining to it, however much the 
wisdom of the world in its degeneracy,‘ as experience was conversant with 
its phenomena in that age,5 may have manifested itself to the apostle as 
foolishness when compared with the wisdom of the gospel (1 Cor. i. 18 ff, 
ii. 6). Rather, he has in view (comp. ver. 18) the characteristic specula- 
tion, well known to his readers, which engaged attention in Colossae and the 
surrounding district,* and consisted of a Gnostic theosophy mixed up with 
Judaism (Essenism). This is, on account of its nature directed to the 
supersensuous and its ontological character, correctly designated by the 
term philosophy in general, apart from its relation to the truth, which is 
signalized by the «. xevic axdry¢ appended.’ (Plat. Def. p. 414 C: zi rv 
bvruv aei excorhung bpeEic’ Eig Oewpytiny Tov GAnOovc, wae GAnGéc). Possibly it was 
also put forward by the false teachers themselves expressly under this 
designation.® The latter is the more probable, since Paul uses the word 
only in this passage.® The nature of this philosophy is consequently to be 


1 Heliod. x. 35; Nicet. Ann. 5, p. 96 D. 

2S8ee Kohner, II. 1, pp. 476, 528; Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 86 [E. T. 100}. 

8 On the idea of cevds (1 Cor. xv. 14; Eph. v. 
6), comp. Dem. 821. 11.: cevetaroy wévter Adé- 
yur A¢yover, and on aszdry, Plat. Soph. p. 260C: 
Gyros 8¢ ye Pevsovs dorey awdry .. ., xal phy 
asdreat otons cidsdwy te cai cixdver Hoy cai 
garragias sévta avayay peora elvas. 

4Comp. Herm. gottesd. Alterth. 312; and 
Culturgeach. d. Griech. u. Rom. I. p. 236 ff., IL. 
p. 132. 

$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 a¢giAogdgus and abcoAdyws Men 
would proceed, who should regard philosophi- 
cal and theological truth as opposites; and 
points out that if Greek philosophy do not 
teach the doctrine of eternal life and its at- 


tainment, it is not a cevy awdrn, but an imper- 
Jectio. Fathers of the Church also, as 6.9. 
Clemens AJ. (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. 

1 These words «. xey. aw., characterizing the 
philosophy meant, are therefore all the leas 
to be regarded, with Holtzmann, as a tauto- 
logical insertion ; and it is mere arbitrariness 
to claim the words cara 7. wapéd. rar avOpen. 
for the Synoptical Gospels (Matt. xv. 2f.); as 
if wapasocrs (comp. especially Gal. i. 14) were 
not sufficiently current in the apostle’s 
writings. 

® Comp. the Sophists as the ¢dcxovres ¢tA0- 
cogery, Xen. Mem. i. 2.19; and eicpevos wavr’ 
eiddvax, in {. 4. 1). 

® Comp. Bengel : “ quod adversarii jactabant 
esse philosophiam et sapientiam (ver. 23), id 
Paulus inanem fraudem esse dicit.” 





292 THE EPISTLE OF PAUI. TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


regarded as Judaistic-Oriental ;! we are under no necessity to infer from 
' the word ¢:Aosogia a reference to Greek wisdom, as Grotius did, suggesting 
the Pythagorean (Clemens Alexandrinus thought of the Epicureans, and 
Tertullian of such philosophers as Paul had to do with at Athens). The 
idea that the “ sacrarum kterarum earumque recte interpretandarum scien- 
tia”? is meant, is opposed, not to the word in itself, but to the marks of 
heretical doctrine in our Epistle, and to the usage of the apostle, who 
never so designates the O. 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, Thes. s.v.); see Grimm on 2 Macc. 1. 1, p. 298 f—xara +. mapdd. r. 
av$p.] might be—and this is the common view—closely joined with arérn¢ 
(Winer, p. 128 f. [E. T. 185 fJ) [XXXII c.] But the ob xara Xproréy 
would not suit this connection, since azdry is already in itself a definite 
and proper idea, in association with which a xaré Xpioréy would be incon- 
ceivable; whereas the figurative ovAaywyeiv still admits also the negative 
modal statement (ov xara X.) for greater definiteness. Accordingly xaré r. 
mapad. x.t.A. (comp. Steiger, Ellicott) is to be taken as definition of mode to 
ovAaywyv. Paul, namely, having previously announced whereby the ovAay- 
wyeiv takes place, now adds for the still more precise description of that 
procedure, in order the more effectively to warn his readers against it, 
that in accordance with which it takes place, 4. e. what is the objective regu- 
lative standard by which they permit themselves to be guided. He does 
this positively (cara rv... . xédouov) and negatively (x. ob xara Xpiorév). The 
genitive trav avfp. is to be explained: qv mapéAaBe mapa tov avOp. (comp. 2 
Thess. iii. 6), and rév denotes the category, the traditio humana as such, 
opposed to the divine revelation. Comp. Mark vii. 8. What 1s meant, 
doubtless, is the ritual Jewish tradition outside of the Mosaic law (comp. 
on Matt. xv. 2), the latter being excluded by ra» avfp.; but Paul desegnates 
the thing quite generally, according to the genus to which it belongs, as 
human.—xara ra orotxeia rot xécpov] Parallel of the foregoing: according to 
the elements of the world, i.e. according to the religious rudiments, with which 
non-Christian humanity occupies itself. The expression in itself embraces 
the ritual observances? both of Judaism and heathenism, which, in com- 
parison with the perfect religion of Christianity, are only “puerilia rude- 
menta” (Calvin), as it were the A B C of religion, so that Paul therefore in 
this case also, where he warns his readers against Judaistic enticing, charac- 
terizes the matter according to its category. As to the designation itself - 
and its various interpretations, see on Gal. iv. 3. Among the latest 
expositors, Bleek agrees with our view, while Hofmann explains: “ because 
it (the philosophy which is described as deceit) permits the material things, 


1The speculations of Essenism are also ®Calvin well says: “Quid vocat elementa 
designated as philosophy in Philo. Comp. mundi? Non dubium quin ceremonias; nam 
Keim, Geach. Jesu, 1. p. 292. continuo post exempli loco speciem unam 

2Tittmann, de vestigiis Gnosticor. in N. T. adducit, circumoisionem scilicet.” 


Srustra quacsitis, p. 86 ff 


CHAP. II. 9. 293 


of which the created world consists, to form its standard.” See in opposition 
to this on Gal. lic. Both expressions, rjv mapdd. +r. avdp. and ra oroty. rt. 
xéouov, have it as their aim to render apparent the worthlessness and 
unsuitableness for the Christian standpoint (comp. Gal. iv. 9). Hence, 
also, the contrast which, though obvious of itself, is nevertheless emphatic: 
kai ov xara Xpeorév. The activity of that ovsaywyeiv has not Christ for tts 
objective standard; He, in accordance with His divine dignity exalted 
above everything (see ver. 9), was to be the sole regulative for all activity 
in Christian teaching, so that the standard guiding their work should be 
found in the relation of dependence upon Him; but instead of this the 
procedure of the ovAaywyév allows human tradition, and those non-Christian 
rudiments which the Christian is supposed to have long since left behind, 
to serve as his rule of conduct! How unworthy it is, therefore, to follow 
such seduction! 

Ver. 9. [XXXII d.] Since indeed 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 Xptoréy 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 xara Xpioréy is excluded and negatived. 
Others make the reason assigned refer to the warning: BAémete x.7.A., 80 
that 5r: 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 air placed emphatically 
first (tn Him and in no other) points back to the immediately preceding 
ov xata Xpioréy (comp. Chrysostom and Calvin); there is therefore noth- 
ing to show that the reference of ér: ought to be carried further back (to 
Prérete). In Christ the whole fullness of Godhead—what a contrast to the 
human sapddoore and the oro:zeia of the world !—xarocxei] The present, for 
it is the exalted Christ, in the state of His heavenly dééa, that is in view. 
Comp. i. 15.. In Him the entire wAgpwua has its xarouxnrfhpiov (Eph. ii. 22), 
so that He is the personal bearer of it, the personal seat of its essential 
presence.—zav 16 wAgpuoua [XXXII e.] (comp. on i. 19) is here more pre- 
cisely defined by the “ vocabulum abstractum significantissimum ” (Bengel) 
t7¢ Geéryroc, which specifies what dwells in Christ in its entire fullness, 4. e. 
not, it may be, partially, but in its complete entirety. [XXXII /] On 
the genitive, comp. Rom. xi. 25, xv. 29. It is not the genitive auctoris ;' 
the very abstract deéryr. should have been a sufficient warning against 
this view, as well as against the interpretation: “id quod inest 6eéryrc” 
(Bihr). 47 Oeérnc, the Godhead (Lucian, Icarom.9; Plut. Mor. p. 415 C), 
the abstract from 6 Oedés, is to be distinguished from #4 Gecéryc, the 
abstract from @ciog (Rom. i. 20; Wisd. xviii. 19; Lucian, de calumn. 
17). The former is Deitas, the being God, ¢.e. the divine essence, Godhead ; 


1 Néaselt: “universa comprehensio eorum, quae Deus per Christum vellet in homines 
transferre.” 


294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

the latter is diviniias, i.e. the divine quality, godlikeness. See on Rom. i. 
20. Accordingly, the essence of God, undivided and in its whole fullness, 
dwells in Christ in His exalted state, so that He is the essential and ade- 
quate image of God (i. 15), which He could not be if He were not pos- 
sessor of the divine essence. The distinction between what is here, said 
about Christ and what is said about Him in i. 19 is, that the wAfpupa is 
here meant metaphysically, of the divina essentia, but in the former passage 
charismatically, of the divina gratia, and that xarocxeiv is conceived here 
as in present permanence, but in the former passage historically (namely, 
of Christ’s historical, earthly appearance). See on i.19. The erroneous 
attempts that have been made to explain away the literal meaning thus 
definitely and deliberately expressed by Paul, are similar to those in i. 19. 
One of these, in particular, is the mis-explanation referring it to the 
church as the God-filled organ of divine self-revelation (Heinrichs, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Schenkel) which has its dwelling-place in Christ.'. Already 
Theodoret (comp. rwéc in Chrysostom), indeed, quotes the explanation 
that Christ signifies the church in which the tAfpeya dwells, but on account 
of cwuarcde hesitates to agree to it, and rather accedes to the common 
view, thereby deviating from his interpretation of i. 19. Theophylact is 
substantially right (comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius): ei ri éorw 6 
@cd¢ Adyoc, év avT@ oixei, 80 that the fullness of the Godhead in the ontolog- 
ical, and not in the simply mystical or morally religious sense (de Wette) is 
meant.—But how does it dwell in Christ? owparixic, 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? It is not in Christ (aowpdruc), as 
before the Incarnation it was in the Adyor (Ged¢ Fw 6 Adyoc, John i. 1), but 
(comp. also Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 260 ff.) it is in His glorified body (Phil. 111. 
21), so that the é» uopg@ Oeod and loa Oe@ elvac, which already existed in 
the Adyor doapxoc (Phil. ii. 6), now in Christ’s estate of exaltation—which 
succeeded the state of humiliation, whereby the pop¢? Ocot was affected— 
have a bodily frame, are in bodily personality.2 Of course the 6eérn¢ does 
not thereby itself come into the ranks of the owparixai oboia (Plat. Locr. 
p. 96 A), but is in the exalted Christ after a real fashion owparinp eidec 
Luke iii. 22), and therefore Christ Himself is the visible divine-human 
image of the invisible God (i. 15). In this glory, as Possessor of the God- 
head dwelling in Him bodily, He will also appear at the Parousia—an 
appearance, therefore, which will manifest itself visibly (1 John iu. 2) as 





1Thus, indeed, the fullness of the Godhead 
has been removed from Christ, but there has 
only been gained instead of it the unbiblical 
idea that the church dwells in Christ. The 
church has its suppcurt in Christ as the cor- 
ner-stone (Eph. ii. 2u, 21), but it does not dwell 
in Him. On the contrary, Christ dwells in the 
church, which is His body, and the wAjpwya 
jiled by Him (see on Eph. i. 23), 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. §. 19). 

Comp. also Hofmann in loc., and Schrift- 
dew. II. 1, p. 29; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 428, 
ed. 2. 

%It is now only worth remarking histori- 
cally, but is almost incredible, how the So- 
cinians 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. 


CHAP. 11. 10. 295 


the actual émipdverca rij¢ déEqe row peyadov Ceov (Tit. ii. 13). The reference 
of the whole statement, however, to the eralted Christ is placed beyond 
question by the use of the present xarocei, which asserts the presently 
existing relation, without requiring a viv along with it (in opposition to 
Huther). The renderings: essentialiter, ovowdec,! in which case some 
thought of a contrast to the divine évépyeca in the prophets (see Theophy- 
lact), and: reakter,? in which was found the opposite of rum«é¢ (ver. 17), 
are linguistically inappropriate; for cwyuarixég never means anything else 
than corporeus. Comp. on the adverb, Plut. Mor. p. 424 D. The less 
justifiable is the hypothesis of Rich. Schmidt (Paul. Christol. p. 191), that 
in the term cwparids the contrast of ver. 17 was already present to the 
apostle’s mind. Those who adopt the erroneous explanation of rAfpwye 
as referring to the church, assign to ownaruée 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 if dwells in Him (and, according to the context, this 
must have been the case here, if the explanation in question be adopted), 
but either in so far as He dwells in #, or in so far as He is its Head, which 
latter thought is quite foreign to the connection of the passage; for even 
in ver. 10 Christ is not called the Head of the church. It is, moreover, to 
be observed, that the adverb is placed emphatically at the end. The 
special reason, however, on account of which the «aroceiv «.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 nevertheless 
to be recognized in an apologetic interest of opposition to the false 
teachers, who by their doctrines concerning the angels (comp. ver. 10: 
apxic «x. é€ove.) must have broken up, in a spiritualistic sense, the rAfpwpa 
ti¢ Oedryroc. 

Ver. 10. Kal tore év air metdAnp.] [XXXII g. h.] still depending on ér:: 
and (since) ye are filled in Him, i.e. and since the wAypérn¢ which ye pos- 
sess rests on Him, the bodily Bearer of the divine wAgpwya. [XXXII 4] 
The two are correlative: from the rAfpupa ric bedryro¢, Which dwells in the 
exalted Christ, flows the merxAnpwpévov elvac of the Christian, which has its 
basis, therefore, in no other than in Christ, and in nothing else than just 
in fellowship with Him. Filled with what? was self-evident to the con- 
sciousness of the reader. It is the dynamic, charismatic rAjpwo, which 
Christians, in virtue of their union of life with the Lord, whose Spirit and 
fwh are in them, have received, and continuously possess, out of the 
metaphysical rAjpeua dwelling in Christ, out of the rAfpwya rig Geér7tog— 
The emphasis is not upon éoré, but, as shown by the subsequent relative 
definitions, upon év airg. Ifthe rerAnpupévov slvac depends on Him, on noth- 


1Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, and 2 Augustine, Erasmus, Vatablus, Cornelius 
others, including Usteri, Steiger, Olshausen, a Lapide, Grotius, Schoettgen, Wolf, Néseelt. 
Huther, Bisping. Bleek, and others, 


296 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


ing and on no one buton 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 ov xara Xpiorév. With due attention to this emphasis of év air, we 
should neither have expected ieic (in opposition to de Wette; comp. Estius 
and others: “et vos’’) nor have explained éoré, in an tmperative 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 rAzpovofe (Eph. v. 18) or yiveote mexAnp. may, éore texAnp. 
cannot, logically be enjoined.' There is, moreover (comp. also Hofmann), 
nothing to be supplied with werAnp. (usually: rig Oeérytos, see Theophylact 
and Huther; de Wette, Bleek: rov wAnpdy. r. Oeér.), since the specifically 
ontological sense of the purposely-chosen 6eéryroc would not even be con- 
sistent with the supposed equalization of the Christians with Christ,? and 
this equalization does not exist at all, because Paul has not written «ai 
tyeig. In what their being filled consisted, was known to the readers 
from their own experience, without further explanation ; their thoughts, 
however, were to dwell upon the fact that, since their being full depended 
on Christ, those labors of the false teachers were of quite another charac- 
ter than xara Xpiotév.—i¢ éoriv 4 xepady x.1.4.] This, as also ver. 11, now 
supplies confirmatory information regarding the fact that they have their 
being filled not otherwise than just in Christ ; namely, neither through 
apyai x. é£ovola:, since Christ is the head of every apy and éfoveia; nor 
yet through circumcision, since they have received in Christ the real 
ethical circumcision.—éo7¢ apy. x. é€ove.] is not more precisely defined 
as in Eph. iii. 10; hence, in virtue of the munus regium of the Lord quite 
generally : every principality and power, but with the tacit apologetic refer- 
ence: consequently also of the angelic powers (i. 16) belonging to these 
categories and bearing these names, to whose mediation, to be attained 
through 6proxeia, the false tedchers direct you,—a reference which Hof- 
mann, understanding the expressions in the sense of spiritual beings rul- 
ing arbitrarily and in opposition to God especially over the Gentile world 
(notwithstanding the fact that Christ is their Head /), groundlessly denies; 
see ver. 18. If Christ be the Head of every apyf and é£govoia, é.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 
5 éorw (see the critical remarks), which is also preferred by Ewald,’ Lach- 
mann has placed xai éore év atr@ meranp. in a parenthesis. But, while 
this important thought would neither have motive nor be appropriate as 
@ mere parenthesis, it would also be imoroper that the neuter subject ra 


1Calovius has well said: “Beneficilum yor cal ipmets dore ris Oeornros, Theophylact. 
Christi, non nostrum officium ;" comp. Wolf. 8Inasmuch as he takes 6 éorw directly as 
In complete opposition to the context, Gro- _seilicet, utpote, and regards this usage as a 


tius brings out the sense: “tllocontenti estote,” linguistic peculiarity of this Epistle. But 
which he supports by the remark: “quiaquod this rendering is not required either in i. 2 
plenum est, nihil aliud desiderat.” or in fii. 17; and respecting i. 27, see the criti- 


3 ovdéy dAarrovy éxerTe avrov, aAAG wewAnpeyd- cal remarks. 


CHAP. Ir. 11. 297 


nAjpopa t. Oeér. should be designated as 9 xegarz «.7.A., which applies 
rather to the personal possessor of the rAf#puua, to Christ. 

Ver. 11. [On Vv. 11-15, see Note XX XIII. pages 336-338.] Respecting the 
connection and its reference to the false teachers, so far as they “legem 
evangelio miscebant”’ (Calvin), see on ver. 10. [XX XIII a.J]—év 9] like 
év avr@ 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 meperz., which took place on them through 
their conversion (comp. ver. 12).—xai] also circumcised were ye. The xai 
is the simple also, which, however, does not introduce an element in- 
cluded under wetAnpwp. éore (Hofmann), but to the previous relative state- 
ment (d¢ gore «.7.A.) appends another; comp. ver. 12. Hofmann’s objec- 
tion, that the foregoing relative statement has indeed reference to the 
readers, but is made without reference to them, is an empty subtlety, which 
is connected with the erroneous rendering of raone apyge x. EEove.—repirone 
Gyecpor.] is not supplementary and parenthetical (Hofmann), as if Paul 
had written wep:toyg dé ayetpoxr., but appends immediately to zepcerp#O. 
its characteristic, whereby it is distinguished from what is elsewhere meant 
by circumcision ; hence the thought is: “in your union with Christ there 
has also taken place a circumcision upon you (Gentiles), which is not (like the 
Jewish circumcision) the work of hands ;” comp. Eph. ii.11. On the word 
ayepor. itself (which is similar to aye:pobpynroc, 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—év rg amexdioe «.7.A.] 
[XXXII b.] This characteristic mepserunOyre reper. axecp. took place by 
means of the putting off of the body of the flesh, which was accomplished in 
your case (observe the passive connection), t.e. in that the body, whose 
essence and nature are flesh, was taken off and put away from you by God? 
With reference to ¢v 19 amexdioe: «.7.4., which is to be coupled not merely 
with xepeery4Onre (Hofmann), but with the entire specifically defined con- 
ception of circumcision mepietu. mepir. ayeipor., it is to be noticed : (1) that 
the genitive rip odpxoc is the genitivus materiae, as in i. 22; (2) that the 
odp£ here is not indifferent, but means the flesh as the seat of sin, and of 
tts lusts and strivings (Rom. vii. 23, 25, viii. 3, 18; Gal. v. 16; Eph. ii. 8; 
Col. iii. 5, e al.); so that Paul (8) might have conveyed the idea of 1d cdyua 
tie caps. also by 1d capa tH duapriag (Rom. vi. 6), but the description by 
The capxés Was suggested to him by the thought of the circumcision (Rom. 
ii. 28; Eph: ii. 11). (4) The significant and weighty expresion azexdtoes 
(the substantive used only here, the verb also in ver. 15, iii. 9; Josephus, 
Antt, vi. 14. 2) is selected in contrast to the operation of the legal circum- 
cision, which only wounded the oda +. capxég and removed a por- 
tion of one member of it; whereas the spiritual circumcision, divinely 


’ 18ee Michaelis in loc., and the expositors awéxévorg cannot have passive significance. 

on Rom. ii. 29; Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 815. But this it is not alleged to have: God is the 
2Compare Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11.2, p.171. dawex8vey, t.¢., He who, as author of regenera- 

The same writer, however, now objects that _tion, puts off from man the body of flesh. 


298 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


performed, consisted in a complete parting and doing away with this body, 
in so far as God, by means of this ethical circumcision, has taken off and 
removed the sinful body from man (the two acts are expressed by the 
double compound), like a garment which is drawn off and laid aside. 
Ethically circumcised, i. e. translated by conversion from the estate of sin 
into that of the Christian life of faith and righteousness (see ver. 12), con- 
sequently born again as xacv) crio,’ a8 a xawde dvOpwroc created after God 
(Eph. iv. 24), man has no longer any cdpa rie capxés at all, because the 
body which he has is rid of the sinful odp¢ as such, as regards its sinful 
quality ; he is no longer év rg capxi as previously, when lust évypyeiro év 
toig péAcow (Rom. vii.5; comp. ver. 23); he is no longer cdpaivoc, wempa- 
pévog ind Ti duapriav (Rom. vii. 14), but is dead for sin (Rom. vi. 11); he 
has crucified the oépé (Gal. v. 24), and no longer walks «xara odpxa, but ev 
kavérytt mvetpatoc (Rom. vii. 6); by the law of the Holy Spirit he is freed 
from the law of sin and death (Rom. viii. 2), év mvetyar: (Rom. viii. 9), 
dead with Christ (Gal. ii. 19; 2 Cor. v. 14; Col. iii. 3), and risen, so that 
his members are iia dixawobvyc rp Oey (Rom. vi. 18). This Christian 
transformation is represented in its ideal aspect, which disregards the 
empirical imperfection, according to which the odpé is still doubtless even 
in the regenerate at variance with the rveiua (Gal. v.17). Our dogma- 
tists well describe regeneration as perfecta a parte Dei, but as imperfecta a 
parte hominum recipientium. To take cdua in the sense of massa or aggre- 
gate (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, and others, including Steiger and Bahr), 
is opposed as well to the context, in which the discourse turns upon cir- 
cumeision and (ver. 12) upon burial and resurrection, as also to the linguis- 
tic usage of the N. T. In classic authors it expresses the notion in ques- 
tion in the physical sense,? and in later writers may also denote generally 
a whole consisting of parts (comp. Cicero, ad Ad. ii. 1.4). In opposition 
to the erroneous assumption that céua must have a figurative meaning 
here, as Julius Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 459 f., still in the 5th ed., thinks,‘ 
see on Rom. vi.6; comp. also Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. p. 560 f—év ry 
weptrou® tov X.] by means of the circumcision of Christ, parallel to the pre- 
vious év rH amexdioe: x.7.4., naming specifically (as different from that of 
the Old Testament) the circumcision described previously according to its 
nature. The genitive ro’ Xporov is to be rendered: the circumcision, 
which is produced through Christ. The context requires this by the further 
explanation of the thing itself in ver. 12. Comp. above, éy 9. But Christ 


'The epoch of this transformation is bap- 
tiem (see Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 439, ed. 2; 
comp. Holtzmann, p. 178), by which, however, 
the baptism of Christian children is by no 
means assumed as the antitype of circum- 
cision (Steiger, Philippi). Comp. on 1 Cor. 
vii. 14; Acts xvi. 15. 

2Comp. 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 under- 


stands gwya of the “toto quasi vitiositatis (7. 
gapx6s) corpore,” so that the putting away of 
all immorality is denoted. Similarly Dal- 
mer. 

8¢.g. Plat. Tim. p. 32 C: +d rou xcécpou owpe 
(comp. p. 31 B, Hipp. maj. p. 301 B). 

4 Miller also holds that Paul here conceives 
the old sinful nature as a body which, in re- 
generation, the Christian puts off; and that 
edpé is to be understood only of the earthly- 
human life. 


CHAP. 11. 12. 299 


is not conceived of as Himself the circumciser, in so far, namely, as by bap- 
tism (Theophylact, Beza, and others), or by His Spirit (Bleek), He accom- 
plishes the cleansing and sanctification of man (see on ver. 12); but as 
the One through whom, in virtue of the effective living union that takes 
place in conversion between man and Himself, this divine sepcroy#, in ita 
character specifically different from the Israelite circumcision, is practi- 
cally brought about and rendered a reality, and in so far it is based on Christ 
as its alrwoc (Theodoret). It is not, however, baptism itself (Hofmann, fol- 
lowing older expositors) that is meant by the circumcision of Christ, 
although the predicate aye:por. would not be in opposition to this view, 
but the spiritual transformation, that consecration of a holy state of life, 
which takes place in baptism ; see ver. 12: év ro Barriouarr. According 
.to Schneckenburger,! the aréxdvece r. odu. 7. capx. is meant of the death of 
Christ, and also the repro? rov X. is meant to denote this death, so that 
the latter is an explanation by way of application of the former, in oppo- 
sition to the heretical recommendation of a bodily or mystical zeperopdg. 
It may be decisively urged against this view, that after rjc capxés there is 
NO avrov, (comp. i. 22), which was absolutely necessary, if the reader was 
to think of another subject than that of seperyfOyre; further, that rg 
axpoBvotig ti¢ capxdc tudv, in ver. 13, stands in significant retrospective 
reference to the améxdvocg 7. ob. tHe capxéc; and that ov-ragévree x«.7.A. in 
ver. 12 is synchronous with mepeerufOnre x.7.A., 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: év r. amexd. Tov cdu. Tt. capx., ev tT. wepit. Tr. X., Should be 
deleted as an addition of the interpolator, because the expression c&ua ri¢ 
oapxés has occurred at 1. 22 in quite another—namely, an indifferent, gen- 
uinely Pauline—reference. This reason is incorrect, because in i. 22 it is 
not rij¢ capxéc, but rye capxde avrov, and this avrov makes the great essen- 
tial difference between the expression in that passage and that employed 
in our present one. 

Ver. 12 supplies further information as to how the meprerufOrre, 80 far as 
it has taken place by means of the circumcision of Christ, has been accom- 
plished.—ovvragévree x.7.4.] synchronous with meperz. (comp. on i. 20, 
eipnvororfeac): in that ye became buried with Him in baptism. The immer- 
sion in baptism, in accordance with its similarity to burial, is—seeing that 
baptism translates into the fellowship of the death of Christ (see on Rom. 
vi. 3)—a burial along with Christ, Rom. vi. 4. Through that fellowship of 
death man dies as to his sinful nature, so that the cdua ri capxds (ver. 11) 
ceases to live, and by means of the fellowship of burial is put off (ver. 11). 
The subject who effects the joint burial is God, as in the whole context. 
In the burial of Christ this joint burial of all that confess Him as respects 
their sinful body was objectively completed ; but it takes place, as respects 
each individually and in subjective appropriation, by their baptism, prior 


iIn the Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 286 fi. 


300 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


to which the realization of that fellowship of burial was, on the part cf 
individuals, still wanting.—év 9 xa? ovvnyépOyre] [XX XIII c.] A new benc- 
fit, which has accrued to the readers é Xpcoré, and which in their case 
must bring still more clearly to living consciousness their é Xpwrg z- 
TAnpwpévoy elvac; 80 that é » here is parallel to the é ¢ in ver. 11, and 
refers to Christ, as does also airéy subsequently. It is rightly taken thus, 
following Chrysostom and his successors, by Luther and most others, 
including Flatt, Bahr, Huther, Ewald. Others have referred it to év ro 
Barr.;* but, in opposition to this may be urged, first, the very symmetry 
of the discourse (3¢ . . . & @ nai... év @ kai); secondly, and specially, 
the fact that, if év » refers to baptism, év could not be the proper prepo- 
sition, since év r@ Barr., 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 
expositors take ovwvyép#., would have taken place through the emerging 
again, so that we should expect é€ oi, or, at all events, the non-local d:’ ov; 
and, thirdly, the fact that just as cvvragévree has its own more precise defi- 
nition by év r@ Barr., 80 also has ownyép#. through d:4 rie wictews x.1.A., 
and therefore the text affords no occasion for taking up again for ovv7yép@. 
the more precise definition of the previous point, viz. év r@ 3arrioyare. 
No, the first benefit received in Christ which Paul specifies, viz. tne moral 
circumcision, accomplished by God through the joint burial in baptismal 
immersion, has been fully handled in ver. 11 down to Barriovar: in ver. 
12, and there now follows a second blessing received by the readers in 
Christ (é ¢ xai): they have been raised up also with Christ, which has 
taken place through faith, etc. The previous joint burial was the necessary 
moral preliminary condition of this joint awakening, since through it the 
ciua tH¢ capxés Was put off. This ovr7yép§. is to be understood in the 
sense of the fellowship of the bodily resurrection of Christ, into which fellow- 
ship man enters by faith in such a way that, In virtue of his union of life 
and destiny with Christ brought about by means of faith, he knows his 
own resurrection as having taken place in that of Christ—a benefit of 
joint resurrection, which is, indeed, prior to the Parousia, an ideal posses- 
sion, but through the Parousia becomes real (whether its realization be 
attained by resurrection proper in the case of the dead, or by the change 
that shall take place in those who are still alive). Usually ovvyyépé. 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; Barriopar:, 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 é 9 «ai, corresponding with the 
similar commencement of ver. 11, and referring to Christ, makes us expect 
the mention of a new benefit, and not merely that of another aspect of the 
previous one, otherwise there would have been no necessity for repeating 


1 Beza, Calixtus, Estius, Michaelis, Heine de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, 
richs, and others, including Steiger, Bohmer, Dalmer, Bleek. 


CHAP. II. 12. 301 


the év » «a.; as also, that the inference of participation in the proper res- 
urrection of Christ from death lies at the basis of the following rot tyzipav- 
tog avrév éx vexpov. Comp. on Eph. ii. 1, and ii. 5, 6. Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, and Oecumenius have already correctly explained it of the 
proper resurrection (kai ydp éynyépueba tH duvdyet, ci wai py) TH évepyeig), but 
Theophylact makes it include the ethical awakening also: holding that 
it is to be explained «ara dbo rpémovc, of the actual resurrection in spe, and 
at the same time Sr: rvevyarids trav véxpworw tov ipywv tio auapriag aTeppi- 
papev.—dua tie miorews x.7.A.] The tic tiorewg is described by Holtzmann, 
p. 70, as syntactically clumsy and offensive ; he regards it as an interpola- 
tion borrowed from Eph. i.19 f. Groundlessly ; Paul is describing the sub- 
jective medium, without which the joint awakening, though objectively 
and historically accomplished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be 
appropriated individually, the Amri«éy for this appropriation being want- 
ing. The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with Christ, 
because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with Christ, just as also 
he has not the reconciliation, although the reconciliation of all has been 
accomplished objectively through Christ’s death. The genitive rip évep- 
yetag 7. 0. is the object of faith; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Zeger, Grotius, Estius, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and Hofmann, in the 2d ed. of the Schrifibew. 
II. 2, p. 174 f. But others, such as Luther (“through the faith which God 
works”), Bengel, Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, de Wette, Bohmer, Huther, e al., 
take ric évepy. r. 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 decisive 
that in all passages, where the genitive with ziorg is not the believing 
subject, it denotes the object,! and that the description of God as the Being 
who has raised up Christ from the dead stands most naturally and directly 
in significant reference to the divine activity which procures, not the 
faith, but the ovveyeiproba:, and which is therefore set forth in a very appro- 
priate manner as the special object? of faith (comp. iv. 17, 24, vi. 8, x. 9; 
2 Cor. iv. 13, 14; Eph. i. 19 f.; 1 Pet. i. 21). At the basis, namely, of the 
tov éyeipavrog avr. 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 évéyvpov (Theodoret) of the latter. Hof- 
mann now again (as in the first ed. of the Schriftbeweis) explains rig évepy. 
Tr. 8. a8 in apposition to ri¢ riorewc, in such a way that Paul, “as ¢f correct- 
ing himsel/,”” makes the former take the place of the latter, in order to 


1Mark xi.22; Acts iii. 16; Rom. iii. 22; Gal. 2 The efficacy of the divine power shown in 
il. 16, 20, iii. 22; Eph. iii. 12; Phil. i. 27, lii.9; | the resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of 
2 Thess. ii. 13; Jas. fi. 1; Rev. if. 13, xiv. 12. the certainty of salvation. 


302 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
guard against the danger of his readers conceiving to themselves faith as 
@ conduct on man’s part making possible the participation in the resurrec- 
tion of Christ by God, while in reality it is nothing else than the product 
of the évépyeca of God. A quite gratuitously invented self-correction, with- 
out precedent, and undiscoverable by the reader; although the thought, 
if it had entered the mind of Paul, might have been indicated with the 
utmost simplicity and ease (possibly by dé:d rij¢ riorewc, paddrov dé dia TIC 
évepy. T. 0.). | 

Ver. 13. Since that cuvyyép6yre was the awaking to eternal life, Paul now 
goes on to give special prominence to this great blessing, the making akve, 
and that in reference to the Gentile-Christian position of the readers; and 
to this he annexes, in ver. 14f,, an anti-Judaistic triumphant statement 
reminding them of the cancelling of their debt-bond with the law.—To 
attach xa? tuac... capxds tov still to ver. 12, and to make it depend on 
éyeipavrog (Steiger), is rendered impossible by the right explanation of ric 
niotews Tho évepyelac r. ©. in ver. 12,' to say nothing of the abrupt position 
in which ovve{wor. would thus appear. Kai ipuac goes along with ovvefwor., 
so that iyac is then repeated, the repetition being here occasioned by the 
emphasis of the ovvef{wor.: “You also, when ye were dead... He made 
you alive together with Him.” The xai therefore is not the copula and, but, 
in harmony with the tza¢ 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 ovve(wor. had been extended, as to all believ- 
ers, 80 also to them. The correctness of this reference is shown by the 
context as well through rf axpoBvoria rif¢ capx. tu., as through the pronoun 
of the first person which is introduced after yapuéu. Extremely arbitrary 
is the view of Olshausen, who thinks that in ver. 11 f. the readers are 
addressed as representatives of the collective community, but by xai izac in ver. 
13 personally ; while Baumgarten-Crusius, in complete antagonism to the 
position of the words, joins «ai, not to tua, but to the verb: “also He has 
called you to the new life that abideth.”—To arrive at a proper understand- 
ing of what follows we must observe: (1) That cvve(woroincer is not to be 
taken, any more than ovv7yépOyre previously, in an ethical sense, as referring 
to regeneration (so usually since Oecumenius, as e.g. Grotius: “sicut 
Christo novam contulit vitam ex morte corporis, ita et nobis novam 
ex morte animorum,” comp. elso Bleek and Hofmann), but in its 
proper sense, and that (comp. Kaeuffer, de (wic¢ aiuv. not. p. 94 f.) as 





1 This applies also in opposition to Hofmann, 
who takes ver. 13 likewise as a continuation 
of the description of God given in rod éyeip. 
avrov ex vexp., apd therein makes the apostle 
guilty of a clumsy change of construction, 
viz, that he intended to make ovgwororjoar- 
tos follow, but, because this word would have 
been “inconvenient” after vexpovs oyras x.1.A., 
exchanged it for an independent sentence. 
But cvgworaycayros would have been in- 
verted without any inconvenience whatever: 


on the contrary, it would only have expressed 
the alleged idea conformably to the con- 
struction clearly and definitely. The comperi- 
son of {. 26 is unsuitable. Heltemann follows 
substantially the view of Hofmann, but re- 
gards the change of structure as the result 
of dictation. There is no change of structure 
in the passage at all. 

$See Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p.14; Borne- 
mann in the Sdchs. Stud. 1846, p. 66: Kdhner, 
IL 1, p. 568; Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 148}. 


CHAP. 11. 13. 303 
referring to the everlasting life to which God! raised up Christ, and which 
He has thereby also provided for believers in virtue of their fellowship 
with Christ (as an ideal possession now, but to be realized at the Parousia). 
[XXXII d.] See also Eph. ii. 5. The reconciliation (which de Wette 
understands) is not the (woroinor itself, as is plain from the compound 
ovveCwor., but its precursor and medium. The ovfworoeiy stands in the 
same relation to the ovveyeipew as the nature of the act to its process; but 
the reason why ovrzyépé. here stands before the ov{woroceir (it is different in 
Eph. ii. 5) is, that the ovvzyépOyre was correlative with the ovvragévrec in ver. 
12, hence that word is used first, while in Eph. lc. the being dead preceded, 
with which the ovfworoiv primarily corresponds. (2) Like ovvefuor., 80 
also vexpote is not to be taken in an ethical sense (so usually both here and 
in Eph. ii. 1, as e.g. Calvin, who thinks that the akenatio 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 eernal death, to which they were liable through their sins, so that 
they could not have become partakers of the eternal (wf (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 quick- 
ening (Hofmann), but the eternal death itself, in which they already lay, and 
out of which they would not have come without that deliverance, nay, 
which on the contrary—and here we have a prolepsis of the thought— 
would only have completed itself in the future aidv.2 (8) This being dead 
occurred in the state (év) of their sins (roic indicates the sins which they had 
committed) and of the uncircumcision of their flesh, t. e. when as respects thetr 
sinful materially-psychical nature they were still uncircumcised, and had not 
yet put off by conversion their Gentile fleshly constitution.® The axpofvoria 
in ttself they even now had as Gentile Christians, but according to ver. 11 it 
was no longer axpéf. r7¢ capxéc in their case, but was now tndtfferent (iii. 
11; 1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v. 6, vi. 15), since they had been provided with the 
ethical circumcision of Christ and emptied of the odya rij¢ capxés. The 
ethical reference of the expression does not lie, therefore, in axpofvetia 
itself, but in the characteristic ri ocapxdc tuéy (genitive of the subject); in 
this uncircumcision they were as Genitles prior to their conversion, but 
were so no longer as Christians. Consequently axpof. is not to be taken 


1 God is the subject of cvregworoingey, not 
Christ (Ewald and the older expositors); for 
God has raised up Christ, and God is, accord- 
ing to the present context (it ia different in 
fil. 18), the forgiver of sins, and has brought 
about the remission of sins through the 
iAeorypeoy of Christ (ver. 14). Hence also it 
is not to be written oc. avrg (with the aspirate). 
Just as God was obviously the acting subject 
in wepcerunOyre, in cuvraddvres, and in evry 
yép8., 80 also He is introduced in the same 
character emphatically in ver. 12, and re- 


mains so till the close of ver. 15. 

9 Quite correlative is the conception of the 
¢wy as eternal life, which the righteous man 
already has, although he has still in prospect 
the glorious perfection of it in the future 
atwy. 

8 The éy is not repeated b>fore +7 axpof. be- 
cause the two elements coupled by «ai are 
conceived together so as to form the single 
idea of unconversion; Kahner, II. 1, p. 476. 
This applies also in opposition to Holtsmann, 
p. 156. 


304 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 
Jiguratively (Deut. x. 16; Ezek. xliv. 7; Jer. iv. 4) as a designation of vit- 
tositas (so Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Bahr, Bleek, and most expositors), 
but in its proper sense, in which the readers as axpéSvora could not but 
have understood it, and therein withal not as a symbol of uncleanness 
(Huther), or of the alienatio a Deo (Calvin, comp. Hofmann), or the like; 
on the contrary, the entire ethical stress lies on ry oapx. iu. The idea of 
original sin (Flacius and other dogmatic expositors, comp. Bengel: “ exqué- 
sita appellatio peccati origin.’’) is likewise involved, and that according to 
its N. T. meaning (Rom. vii. 14 ff.), not in axpoBvor., but doubtless in ri¢ 
capx. iuav. Nevertheless this ry capx. tuav belongs only to rg axpopvorig, 
and not to roi¢ zapanrépac: as well (Hofmann); comp. Eph. ii. 11. Other- 
wise we should have, quite unnecessarily, two references heterogeneous 
in sense for the genitive; besides, the notion of rapérrwya presupposes not 
the cdpé, but the Ego in its relation to the divine law as the subject; hence 
also the expression wapdrr, rij¢ capx. (Or duaprtia r. o.) does not occur, while 
we find épya ri#¢ oapxéc in Gal. v.19. Holtzmann, p. 71, ascribes the words 
kal TH axpo3. r. capxdc iu. to the interpolator’s love for synonyms and tauto- 
logical 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 tauto- 
logical; and see on ver. 11.—yapiodyuevog «.7.4.]) [XXXII1e.] after having 
granted to us, i.e. forgiven, etc. This blotting out of our whole debt of sin 
was necessarily prior to the ovve{wor. tuac civ ait. By the fact, namely, 
that He remitted to us all the sins which we had committed (révra ra naparr.), 
the causa efficiens of the being (eternally) dead was done away. Comp. 
Chrysostom : ré maparréuara, & tiv vexpérytra éroie. This yapioduevog x.7.A. 
is the appropriation of the reconciliation on the part of God, which believers 
experienced when they believed and were baptized ; the objective expiatory act 
through the death of Christ had preceded, and is described in ver. 14.— 
piv] applies to believers generally. This extension, embracing himself in 
common with others, is prepared for by xai iuac, but could not have been 
introduced, if zapioéu. x.7.A. had been conceived as synchronous with ovve- 
Swor, in which case Paul must logically have used iyi» (not qjuiv), as the 
reading is in B x** Vulg. Hilary. On yapifeo6a:, comp. 2 Cor. ii. 10, xii. 
13; Eph. iv. 32. On the subject-matter: 2 Cor. v. 19 ff. . 

Ver. 14. [XXXII e.] The participle, which is by no means parallel and 
synchronous with yapioduevoc in ver. 13, or one and the same with it (Hof- 
mann), is to be resolved as: after that He had blotted out, etc. For it is the 
historical divine reconciling act of the death of Christ that is meant, with 
which yapioduevog «.7.A. cannot coincide, since that work of reconciliation 





1Not specially to Jewish Christians (Hof- 
mann, who discovers here the same idea 
that is expressed in Heb. ix. 15, and makes 
a new period begin with yxapicdpevos), 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 first, in which he, in accord- 
ance with the sense and connection, contin- 


ues the discourse from the standpoint of the 
common Christian consciousness. Comp. i. 
12; Gal. iv. 5,6; Eph. ii. 1, 4, et al.; Winer, p. 
639 [E. T. 580]. Nor does the idea of the fig- 
urative xecpéypedoy, which Hofmann urges, 
by any means require such a limitation— 
which there is nothing to indicate—of the 
jury ombracing himself and others. 


CHAP. Il. 14. 305 
had first to be accomplished before the yapifec8a «.r.A. could take place 
through its appropriation to believers.—éfaAzigecy] is to be left quite in its 
proper signification, as in Acts ili. 19, Rev. iii. 5, vii. 17, xxi. 4, and 
frequently in LX X. and Apocrypha, since the discourse has reference to 
something written, the invalidating of which is represented in the sensuous 
form of blotting owt, even more forcibly than by d:aypdégecw (to score out ; see 
Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 81).'—1rd xa? judv yeipdypagor] 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 Mosatc 
law. A xepdsypagov, namely, 1s an obligatory document of debt,’ for 
which the older Greek writers use cvyypag# or ypappareioy Dem. 882. 7, 
956. 2.2 And the law is the yepéypagov confronting us, in so far as 
men are bound to fulfill it perfectly, in order to avoid the threatened 
penal curse; and consequently because no one renders this fulfillment, 
it, like a bill of debt, proves them debtors (the creditor is God). We 
are not to carry the figure further, in which case we should come to the 
halting point in the comparison, that the man who is bound has not him- 
self written the yzeipsypagerv. Hofmann maintains that this element also, 
namely, man’s having written it with his own hand, is retained in the con- 
ception of the figurative ye:péypagev. But the apostle himself precludes 
this view by his having written, not: 1d guév zeepsyp. (which would mean: 
the document of debt drawn by us), but; 1d xa? hud yeipsyp.; which purposely 
chosen expression does not affirm that we have ourselves written the docu- 
ment, but it does affirm that it authenticates us as arrested for debt, and is 
consequently against us. The words roi¢ déyzaow 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, révra rd rapanr.), and un-Pauline. 


1Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B: égadei- 
dovey ... wadev eyypadoer, Ep. 7, p. 342 C: 
Td Caypahovpevoy te xai éfarecpdpevoy, Dem. 
468. 1 in reference to a law: «i xpi rovroy 
éfareiwar, Xen. Hell. fi. 3.51: Lucian, Imag. 
26; Eur. Iph. A. 1486. Comp. Valckenaer, 
ad Act. fii. 19. 

%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. 

8See also Hermann, Privatalterth. 3 40, 12. 

*The relation of obligation and indebtedness 
in which man stands to the law (comp. Gal. 
iii. 10) is quite sufficient to justify the con- 
ception of the latter as the xe:péypadgoy, with- 
out seeking this specially in the promise of 
the people, Ex. xxiv. 3 (Chrysostom, Oecu- 
meniua, Theophylact, and others; also Hof- 
mann); which the reader could not guess 


20 


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-obdliga- 
tion, and would not, therefore, any more thar 
the amen in Deut. xxvii. (which Castalio sug- 
gests), suffice for the idea of the xetpéypadgor, 
if the latter had to contain the debtor's own 
handwriting. In accordance with the apos- 
tle’s words (7d xa nuery xecpdyp., see above), 
and with the type of his doctrine regarding 
the impossibility of legal righteousness, his 
readers could think only of the ypaumnea of 
the law itself as that which proves man a 
debtor; comp. Rom. ji. 27, 29, vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 
6. Wieseler, on Gal. p. 258 (appealing to Luke 
xvi. 5 ff.), Bleek, and Holtzmann, p. 64, also 
erroneously press the point that the xeupdyp. 
must necessarily be written or signed by the 
debtor himself. 


306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


The explanation referring it to the conscience (Luther, Zwingli, Melanch- 
thon, and others) is also at variance both with the word and with the con- 
text.1 The conscience is the medium for the knowledge of the law as the 
handwriting which testifies against us; without the activity of the con- 
science, this relation, in which the law stands to us, would remain 
unknown. Exception has been taken to its being explained of the 
Mosaic law on account of the use of #uév, 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 dixaiwya tov Oeov (Rom. i. 32), have in fact rd épyov rod véuov 
yparrov ty rai¢ xapdiac avrav (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. i. 20-23), transgress the “ xocvdv 
arévruv avOpdruv véuov” (Dem. 639. 22). The earnest and graphic descrip- 
tion of the abrogation of the condemning law in ver. 14 is dictated by an 
apologetic motive, in opposition to the Judaism of the false teachers ; hence 
it is the more inappropriate to understand with Cornelius a Lapide and 
others the covenant of God with Adam in Gen. 11. 16,2~—roi¢ déyuacrv] Respect- 
ing déypza, command, especially of legal decrees, see on Eph. ii. 15; Wet- 
stein on Luke ii. 1; the dative is closely connected with ye:péypagoy, and is 
instrumental: what ts written with the commands (therein given), so that 
the déyuara, which form the constituent elements of the law, are regarded 
as that wherewith i is 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, ¢. g. ypéupzao: in Gal. vi. 11, 
and rimoe in Plat. Ep. 7, p. 343 A, are expressed by the same dative. 
Observe the verbal nature of ye:psypagov, and that the dative is joined to it, 
as to rd yeypaupévov (comp. Plat. I.c.: rd yeypaupéva rior). This direct 
combination of a verbal substantive with a dative of the instrument is 
such an unquestionable and current phenomenon in classical Greek ® that 
the connection in question cannot in the least degree appear as harsh 
(Winer, Buttmann), or even as unnatural (Hofmann); nor should it have 
been regarded as something “ welded on” by the interpolator (Holtzmann, 
p. 74), who had desired thereby to give to zepéyp. its reference to the law. 
The explanation given by many writers,‘ which hits nearly the true sense: 
the yetpsypagov, consisting in the déypnact, is to be corrected grammatically in 
accordance with what we have said above. It is in complete variance 
with the arrangement of the words to Join roi¢ déyz. to Td xa pov by 


1 Luther's gloss: “ Nothing is so hard against $As was already proposed by Chrysostom, 


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 “syllo- 
gismus practicus ex lege ductus.” 


Oecumenius, Theophylact (comp. Iren. Haer. 
vy. 17. 3, and Tertullian). 

8See Matthiae, II. p.890; Heindorf, ad Plat. 
Cratyl. p. 131, and especially Kdhner, IL. 1, p 
374. 

‘Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Michaelis, 
Heinrichs, and others, comp. Luther. i 


CHAP. 11. 14. 307 
supplying an 6v (Calovius).! Bahr, Huther, and Dalmer (comp. de Wette) 
regard it as a more precise definition of the entire rd xa? gu. xetpdyp., 80 
that Paul explains what he means by the yecpéyp., and, at the same time, 
how it comes to be a debt-document testifying against us. So also Winer, 
p. 206 [E. T. 220]. This, however, would have been expressed by rd roi¢ 
Séypact xa? huav yxeipoyp., or in some other way corresponding gramma- 
tically with the sense assumed. Ewald joins roic déyz. a8 appropriating 
dative (see Bernhardy, p. 88 f.) to xepsyp.: our bond of obligation to the 
statutes? But if xeepsyp. were our bond of obligation (subjectively), the 
expression rd xa? juav yep. would be inappropriate, and Paul would 
have said merely ré judy yep. r. déyx. It is incorrect as to sense, though 
not linguistically erroneous, to connect roi¢ déyyu. with efadeipas, in which 
case it is explained to mean (as by Harless on Eph. ii. 15) that the abro- 
gation of the law had taken place either as regards 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. ii. 15. 
Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Olshausen, Schenkel, Bleek, and Hofmann have 
attached it to the following relative clause,’ in opposition to the simple 
order of the words, without any certain precedent in the N. T. (with regard 
to Acts i. 2, Rom. xvi. 27, see on those passages), and thereby giving an 
emphasis to the roi¢ déyz. which is not warranted (for the law as such con- 
tains, in fact, nothing else than déyyata).—6 fw trevarriov jpiv}] an emphatic 
repetition—bringing into more marked prominence the hostile relation— 
of the thought already expressed by xa? yuav, with the view of counter- 
acting the legalistic efforts of the false teachers. Bengel’s distinction, that 
there is here expressed ipsa pugna, and by «af 7dr, status bell, is arbitrary 
and artificral. It means simply’: which was against us, not: secretly against 
us, as Beza and others, including Bohmer, interpret the word, which Paul 
uses only in this place, but which is generally employed in Greek writers, 
in the Apocrypha and LXX., and in the N. T. again in Heb. x. 27. The 
relative attaches itself to the entire rd xa? Hu. yeipsyp. toig déyu.—xal avrd 
npxev «.t.A.] Observe not only the emphatic change of structure (see on i. 
6) which passes from the participle, not from the relative (Hofmann), over 
to the further act connected with the former in the finite tense, but also 
(comp. on i. 16) the perfect (Thuc. viii. 100; Dem. 786. 4): and itself (the 
bill of debt) he has taken out of the way, whereby the abrogation now stands 
completed. A graphically illustrative representation: the bill of debt was 
blotted out, and it has téself been carried away and is no longer in tls place ; 
‘ $pxev avrd éx tov péoov pp agele Exit ydpac, Oecumenius. avré denotes the 


180 also Wieseler in Rosenmiller’s Rep. 
IL. p. 135 ff: ro yxewpoyp. rd rots Séypn. nal? 
yueev oy. 

%Comp. Wieseler on Gal. p. 258: “ with refer- 
ence to the statutes.” He takes Paul's mean- 
ing to be, “our testimony with our own hand, 
that we have transgressed the statutes of the 


law of Moses.” 

So also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, III. 
1, p. 110. He considers as the xe:péypadgor not 
the Moaaic 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. y 





308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
handuriting itself, materialiter, in contrast to the just mentioned blotting out 
of its contents. For He has nailed it, etc.; see the sequel. Hofmann 
imports the idea: it in this (hostile) quailty ; as if, namely, it ran xai rocovro 
bv (Xen. Anab. vi. 5.138; Philem. 9).—The é« rov péoov is our: “ out of the 
way,” said of obstructions which are removed.! The opposite: év péow eivar, 
to be in the way, Dem. 682.1; Aesch. Suppl. 7385; Dorv. ad Charit. vii. 3, p. 
601. Thus the law stood in the way of reconciliation to God, of the yapi- 
CeoPac «.7.A. in ver. 138.—mpoondAdeoag x.1.A.] mpoondovy only found here in the 
N. T.22 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 lAcorfpur 
to the cross, the law was nailed to it also, and thus it ceased to be év péoy. 
Observe, moreover, the logical relation of the aorist participle to the perfect 
npxev. The latter is the state of the matter, which has emerged and exists 
after God has nailed, etc. The x. aird fpxev éx péoov takes place since that 
nailing. In the strong expression mpooyAdécac, purposely chosen and placed 
foremost, there is involved an antinomistic triumph, which makes the dis- 
arming of the law very palpably apparent. Chrysostom has aptly 
observed on the whole passage: oidapod otruc peyarogdvuc egbbyéaro. 
‘Opac orovdiy tov agavicbzva: rd yetpbypagov bony érothoato; olov mdvreg fyuev 
tg’ duapriay x. xéAaow' avrig KoAacbeig 8Avoe nal THY duapriav Kal THv KdAaa. 
Nevertheless, tpooyAéoac neither figuratively depicts the tearing in pieces 
of the yepsyp. (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor is there 
any allusion to an alleged custom of publicly placarding antiquated 
laws (Grotius). According to Hofmann (comp. also his Schrifibew. IT. 1, 
p. 370 f.), a public placarding with a view to observance is meant; the 
requirement of Israelitish legal obligation has become changed into the 
requirement of faith in the Crucified One which may be read on the cross, 
and this transformation is also the pardon of transgressions of the law. 
This is a fanciful pushing further of the apostolic figure, the point of which 
is merely the blotting out and taking away of the law, as the debt-docu- 
ment hostile to us, by the death of the cross. The entire representation 
which is presented in this sensuous concrete form, and which is not to be 
expanded into the fanciful figure of transformation which we have just 
referred to, is intended, in fact, to illustrate merely the forgiveness of sins 
introduced by yapiodépevog x.r.A. in ver. 18, and nothing more. Comp. 1 
Pet. ii. 24. It is to be observed, at the same time, that the éfateigew and 
the alpew é« r. pécov do not represent two acts substantially different, but 
the same thing, the perfect accomplishment of which is explained by way 
of climax with particularizing vividness. 

Ver. 152 In this doing away of the law was involved the victory and 
triumph of God over the devilish powers, since the strength of the latter, 


1Comp. Plat. Eryz. p.401 E; Xen. Anab.i.  mspdés); Lucian, Prom. 2, Dial. D. I. (re Kav- 
5. 14; de praefect. 8. 10, and the passages in «dow wpoonAwuévos); Galen. IV. p. 45, 9: ry 
Kypke, II. p. 323. oravpe, 3 Macc. iv. 9. 

See, however, Plat. Phaed. p. 83 D (with *Holtzmann, p. 156 f., rejects this verse 


CHAP. 11. 15. 309 


antagonistic to God, is in sin, and the strength of sin is in the law (1 Cor. 
xv. 56); with the law, therefore, the power of the devil stands or falls.—If 
arexduc, ran parallel, as the majority suppose, with spooyAdcas, there must 
have been a xai inserted before édecyydr., as in ver. 14 before the finite verb, 
because otherwise no connection would be established. Hence a full stop 
(Beza) must be placed before azexdvc., or at least a colon (Elzevir, Bleek) ; 
and without any connecting particle the significant verb heads all the 
more forcibly the description of this final result expressed with triumphant 
fullness: Having stripped the lordships and powers, he has made a show of them 
boldly, holding triumph over them in the same. Observe the symmetrical 
emphatic prefixing of azexdvc., édecyzér., and Opau8. The subject is still 
always God, not Christ,.as Baur and Ewald hold, following Augustine, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, and many others; 
hence the reading arexd. r#v capxa in F G (which omit +r. épy x. 1. é€ove.) 
Syr. Goth. Hil. Aug. was an erroneous gloss; and at the close, not air¢ 
(Syr. Vulg. It. Theodoret, Luther, Melanchthon, Elzevir, Griesbach, and 
Scholz), instead of which G has éavrg, but airé should be written; see 
Wolf in loc. The figurative azexduc., [XX XIII f.] which illustrates the 
deprivation of power that has taken place through the divine work of recon- 
. Ciliation, represents the dpyd¢ xai éove. as having been clothed in armour 
(comp. Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8), which God as their con- 
queror stripped off and took from them; Vulg.: ezspolans.? Moreover, 
we might expect, in accordance with the common usage of the middle, 
instead of dmexdvodpevoc, which is elsewhere used tntransitively (comp. iii. 9), 
the active amexdioas (comp. Matt. xxvii. 28, 31; Luke x. 30); yet even in 
Plat. Rep. p. 612 A, the (right) reading amedvodueba is to be taken in the 
sense of nudavimus; and Xenophon uses the perfect drodééuxev, which is 
likewise intransitive elsewhere (see Kihner, I. p. 803), actively, see Anab. 
lc. : moAnove ibn arodéduxev, multos veste spoliavit ; comp. Dio Cass. xlv. 47. 
Further, the middle, as indicating the victorious self-interest of the action 
(sibi exspoliavit), is here selected even with nicety, and by no means con- 
veys (as Hofmann, in order to refute this explanation, erroneously lays to 
its charge) the idea: in order to appropriate to Himself this armor.’ The 
disarming in itself, and not the possession of the enemy’s weapons, is the 
interest of the victor. Lastly, the whole connection does not admit of any 
intransitive interpretation, such as Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 350 f. 
(and substantially also in his Heil. Schr. in loc.), has attempted, making 


because it interrupts the transition of thought 1Through this erroneous definition of the 


to ver. 16 (which is not the case); because 
Seyparigey is un-Pauline (but in what sense 
is it un-Pauline? it is in any sense avery rare 
word); because @pcau Bevery is used here other- 
wise than in 2 Cor. if. 14 (this is incorrect) ; 
but, especially, 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 moet very indirectly). 


subject it was possible to discover in our 
passage the descent into hell (Anselm and 
others). 

3Comp. on éxdvew and amoévew, used from 
Homer’s time in the sense of spoliare, Dem. 
763. 28,1259. 11; Hesiod, Scut.447; Xen. Anad. 
v. 8. 23; 2 Macc. viii. 27; and on the subject- 
matter, Matt. xii. 19; Luke xi. 22. 

3See on the contrary generally, Krager, 2 
62. 10.1; Kahner, II. 1, p. 93 £ 


310 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


the sense: God has laid aside from Himself the powers ruling in the Gentile 
world—which were round about Him like a veil concealing Him from the 
Gentiles—by manifesting Himself in unveiled clearness. Something such 
as this, which is held to amount to the meaning that God has put an end 
to the ignorance of the Gentile world and revealed 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 refer- 
ence to the dpyai and éfovoia 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 
apxat and éfovola: are two categories of evil angels (comp. Eph. vi. 12), corres- 
ponding to two classes of good angels similarly named (comp. ver. 10), is 
taught by the context, which has nothing to do with mediating beings 
intervening between God and the world (Sabatier), or even with human 
rulers. Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522, understands 
the angels of the law-giving (comp. on i. 20), of whom God has divested Him- 
self (middle), ¢.e. from whose environment He has withdrawn Himself. Even 
apart from the singular expression amexdvody. in this sense, this explana- 
tion is inappropriate, because the dpyai and éfovoia: 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 véduo¢ Geod, 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 ra¢ apydc x. tag t€ovoiac is 80 comprehensive that, in the 
absence of any more precise indication in the text, it cannot be specially 
limited to the powers that were active in the law-giving, but must denote 
the collective angelic powers—hostile, however, and therefore devilish. 
Them God has disarmed, put to shame, and triumphed over, through the 
abrogation of men’s legal debt-bond that took place by means of the aton- 
ing death. The emphatic and triumphant prominence given to this state- 
ment was, doubtless, specially occasioned by those speculations regarding 
the power of demons, with which the false teachers were encroaching on 
the work of Christ.—éecyyarifev, preserved only here and in Matt. i. 19, 
denotes, in virtue of its connection with the conception of triumph, the 
making a show’ for the purpose of humiliation and disgrace (comp. Chry- 
sostom), not in order to exhibit the weakness of the conquered (Theodoret, 
Boéhmer), but simply their accomplished subjugation ; comp. Nah. iii. 6: 
Ojoopal oe cig wapddetypa.—év wappnoig| is usually rendered publicly, before the 


1In which sense also Grotius explained *Comp. however, wapadeyparifeay, espe- 
it, though he takes awexévodu. rightly as cially frequent in Polybius; see Schweig- 
exarmatos. See, in opposition to him, Calo- hauser, Lez. p. 429. 
vius. Hofmann’s explanation is also followed 8 Augustine, ep. 50: “exemplavit;” Hilary, 
by Holtzmann, p. 222; it is an unfortunate dé trin.9: “ostentui esse fecit.” 
attempt at rationalizing. 


—_ 


CHAP. II. 16. 311 
eyes of all, consequently as equivalent to gavepad¢ in John vii. 10 (the oppo- 
site: év xputr@, 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? The objection that this sense is not appropri- 
ate to the action of God (Hofmann), overlooks the fact that God is here 
represented just as a human triumpher, who freely and boldly, with 
remorseless disposal of the spoils acquired by victory, subjects the con- 
quered to ignominious exhibition.2—OpiapuBetoac avr. év ait@] synchronous 
with édecyu.: while He triumphed over them. Respecting @pauBetew tive, 
to triumph over some one, see on 2 Cor. 11.14. Comp. the passive pray Betecbar, 
to be led in triumph, Plut. Coriol. 35. avrobs refers xara ofveccv to the devils 
individually, who are conceived as masculine (as daipovec, noopoxpéropec, Eph. 
vi. 12), see generally Winer, p. 1388 [E. T. 146]; and é» avrg is referred 
either to the cross (hence, also, the readings év rT &/A» or oravpg) or to 
Christ. The former reference is maintained by the majority of the Fathers 
(Theophylact: é 1r@ oravp@ toi daipovag yrrnuévore dei~ac), Beza, Calvin, 
Grotius, and many others, including Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, 
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 4382, ed. 2; and the latter, by Erasmus, Luther, 
Melanchthon, Wolf, Estius, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, 
Bahr, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Bleek, Hofmann, 
Rich. Schmidt. The reference to Christ is erroneous, because Christ is 
not mentioned at all in ver. 14, and God pervades as subject the entire 
discourse from ver. 11 onwards. We must hold, therefore, by the refer- 
ence to T@ oravp¢, so that évy avrg once more places the cross significantly 
before our eyes, just as it stood emphatically at the close of the previous 
sentence. At the cross God celebrated His triumph, inasmuch as through 
the death of Christ on the cross obliterating and removing out of the way 
the debt-bill of the law He completed the work of redemption, by which 
the devil and his powers were deprived of their strength, which rested on 
the law and its debt-bond. The ascension is not to be here included. 
Ver.16. [On vv. 16-19, see Note X XXIV. pages 338-340.] Ovv] since ye, 
according to vv. 11-15, are raised to a far higher platform than that of 
such a legal system. [XXXIV a.]—xpivéro iv Bpdoe] [XXXIV b.] No 
one is to form a judgment (whether ye are acting allowably or unallowa- 


2 Hence Hofmann joins it with @pcauBevcas, 
in which, however, the idea of publicity ts 
obviously already contained. Hofmann, in- 
deed, assumes a reference of contrast to the 
invisible triumphs, which God has ever been 
celebrating over those powers. But thus the 
idea of @prauBevew is extended to an unwar- 
ranted amplitude of metaphorical meaning, 
while, nevertheless, the entire anthropopathic 
imagery of the passage requires the strict 
conception of the public 6piazBos. Moreover, 
the pretended contrast is altogether foreign 
to the context. 

Comp. Eph. vi. 19; Phil, 1. 20. Hilary: 


“cum fiducia ;” Vulgate: “confidenter palam.” 

3It is an inconsiderate fancy of Hofmann 
to say, by way of controverting our expla- 
nation: Who would be surprised, that the 
triumpher should make a show of the con- 
quered, “without previously asking their per- 
mission”? As if such a thought, 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 éfoveia for the dayparifay, and uses 
it dy wappnol¢. 





312 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


ably, rightly or wrongly) concerning 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, fpédo-¢ is always actio edendi, and is 
thus distinct from fpaxa, 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 Bpdua with 
John (iv. 32, vi. 27, 55), and with profane authors.! This we remark in 
opposition to Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 200. The case is the same with 
néary (Rom. xiv. 17) and xéua (1 Cor. x. 4; Heb. ix. 10).—év écec] Since 
the Mosaic law contained prohibitions of meaés (Lev. vii. 10 ff), but not 
also general prohibitions of drinks, it is to be assumed that the false 
teachers in their ascetic strictness (ver 23) had extended the prohibition 
of the use of wine as given for the Nazarites (Num. vi. 3), and for the 
period of priestly service (Lev. x. 9), to the Christians as such (as dyiovc). 
Comp. also Rom. xiv. 17, 21. De Wette arbitrarily asserts that it was 
added doubtless in consideration of this, as vel as of the Pharisaic rules 
as to drinks, Matt. xxiii. 24, and of the prohibition of wine offered to idols 
(obv does not point to such things), but still mainly on account of the simi- 
larity of sound (Rom. xiv. 17 ; Heb. ix. 10, and Bleek in loc.).—év uépec éopric 
x.7.A.] év uéper, with the genitive, designates the category, as very frequently 
also in classical authors? The three elements: festival, new moon, and 
Sabbath, are placed side by side as a further classis rerum ; in the point (év) 
of this category also no judgment is to be passed upon the readers (if, 
namely, they do not join in observing such days). . The elements are 
arranged, according as the days occur, either at longer unequal intervals 
in the year (éopr7c) or monthly (vovu7v.), or weekly (caBfér.). But they are 
three, co-ordinated; there would be only one thing with three connected 
elements, if «ai were used instead of 7 in the two latter places where it 
occurs. The three are given in inverted order in1 Chron. xxiii. 31; 2 
Chron. ii. 4, xxxi.3. On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iv. 10. Respecting 
the Jewish celebration of the new moon, see Keil, Archdol, I. 3 78; 
Ewald, Alterth. p. 470 f.; and on oéBfara as equivalent to o4f8farov, comp. 
Matt. xii. 1, xxviii. 1; Luke iv. 16, dal. é pépe has been erroneously 
understood by others in the sense of a partial celebration (Chrysostom : 
é€evreAiles Abyuw’ ev pbpe toptig’ ov yap 6) mdvta xateiyov ta mpérepa, 
Theodoret: they could not have kept all the feasts, on account of the long 
journey to Jerusalem ; comp. Dalmer), or: vicibus festorum (Melanchthon, 
Zanchius), or, that the participation in the festival, the taking part in it is 
expressed (Otto, dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio, 
“nam qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt”’ 
(Calvin). Many, moreover inaccurately, hold that év uépec means merely : 
in respect to (Beza, Wolf, and most expositors, including Bahr, Huther, 
and de Wette); in 2 Cor. iii. 10, ix. 3, it also denotes the category. Comp. 
Aelian. V. H. viii. 3: xpivovres éxacrov év rq péper dévov. 

1Hom. Jl. xix. 210, Od. i. 191, x. 176, et al.; 638. 5, 668. 24; comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 10, and see 


Plat. Legg. vi. p. 783 C; Hesiod, Scut. 396. Wyttenbach, ad Piut. I. p. 66. 
8 Plat. Theact. p. 155 E, Rep. p. 424 D; Dem. 


CHAP. II. 17. 313 


Ver. 17.1 An epexegetical relative sentence, assigning the ground for 
what has just been said. [XXXIV c.]—, which (see the critical remarks), 
is not to be arbitrarily referred merely to the observance of feasts and 
days (Flatt and Hofmann), but to the things of the law mentioned in ver. 
16 generally, all of which it embraces.—ox:d] not an outline (cxiaypagia, 
ox:aypé¢nua), as in the case of painters, who “non exprimunt primo ductu 
imaginem vivis coloribus et eixovexdc, sed rudes et obscuras lineas primum 
ex carbone ducunt,” Calvin (so also Clericus, Huther, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and others), which oxé does not mean even in Heb. viii. 5, x. 1, 
and which is forbidden by the contrast of rd odua, since it would rather be 
the perfect picture that would be put in opposition to the outline. It 
means nothing else than shadow. Paul is illustrating, namely, the relation _ 
of the legal ordinances, such as are adduced in ver. 16, to that which ts future, 
i.e. to those relations of the Messianic kingdom, which are to be manifested 
in the aidv puéAdwy (neither aya#év from Heb. x. 1, nor anything else, is to 
be supplied with rév peAAévrov), and in doing so he follows the figurative 
conception, that the péAdovra, which therefore, locally considered, are in 
front, have cast their shadow behind, which shadow is the Mosaic ritual 
constitution,—a conception which admirably accords with the typical 
character of the latter (Heb. viii. 5, x. 1), of which the constitution of the 
Messianic kingdom is the antitype. It is to be noted further: (1) Tne 
emphasis of confirmation lies not on rév peAAdvtuv (Beza), but on ond, in 
contrast to rd céua. If, namely, the things in question are only the shadow 
of the Messianic, and do not belong to the reality thereof, they are—in 
accordance with this relatively non-essential, because merely typical 
nature of theirs—not of such a kind that salvation may be made depend- 
ent on their observance or non-observance, and adjudged or withheld 
accordingly. (2) The passage is not to be explained as if 47 stood in the 
place of éori, so that ra péAdovra would denote the Christian relations 
already then existing, the xa: d:a6f#xy, the Christian plan of salvation, the 
Christian life, etc. (so usually since Chrysostom); but, on the contrary, 
that which is spoken of is shadow, not, indeed, as divinely appointed in 
the law (Hofmann)—for of this aspect of the elements in question the text 
contains nothing—but in so far as Paul sees it in its actual condition still at 
that time present. The péAdovra have not yet been manifested at all, and 
belong alogether (not merely as regards their completion, as de Wette 
thinks, comp. also Hofmann) to the aidv péAdwv, which will begin with 
the coming again of Christ to set up His kingdom—a coming, however, 
which was expected as very near at hand. The ,#éAdovra could only be 
viewed as having already se in either in whole or in part, if #v and not 


1 Holtsmann, without assigning his reasons, 
regards the entire verse as an “extract from 
the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Heb. ix. 6, 9 f., 
26, 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 apostolicage. Butthe 


? 


difficulty of ver. 18 (which Holtsmann con- 
siders 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, 23. 


314 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


éori were used previously, and thereby the notion of futurity were to be 
taken relatively, in reference to a state of things then already past (comp. 
Gal. iii. 23; 1 Tim. i. 16), or if éeri were meant to be said from the stand- 
point 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 ox:d still continued at this time, long after 
Christ’s earthly appearance, and were present really, and not merely in 
legal precepts or in theory. (38) The characteristic quality in which the 
things concerned are meant to be presented by the figurative ox:d, 1s deter- 
mined solely by the contrast of rd cua, namely, as unsubstaniiality in a 
Messianic aspect: shadow of the future, standing in relation to it, there- 
fore doubtless as typically presignificant, but destitute and void of its 
reality. The reference to transitoriness (Spencer, de legit. rit. p. 214 f., 
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others) is purely imported.—ré d2 cde) scil. rév 
peddévruv, 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 itself, which casts the shadow, 
Paul thus, remaining faithful to his figure, designates as the body of the 
future that which is real and essential in it, which, according to the con- 
text, can be nothing else than just the uéAAo0vra themselves, their concrete 
reality as contrasted with the shadowy form which preceded them. 
Accordingly, he might have conveyed the idea of the verse, but without 
its figurative garb, in this way: 4 éore rimo¢ rév peAAdvTuv, abra dé 7a péAAovTa 
Xpiorod.—Xpioroi] scil. éori, belongs to Christ. The péAdovra, namely, viewed 
under the figurative aspect of the o®za which casts the shadow referred 
to, must stand in the same relation to Christ, as the body stands 1n 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, 7. e. of the Messianic 
kingdom, of the Baoideia rod Xpiorod (i. 13; Eph. v. 5). Whosoever, there- 
fore, holds to the shadow of the future, to the things of the law (as the false 
teachers do and require), and does not strive after the néAAovra themselves, 
after the body which has cast that shadow, does not hold to Christ, to whom 
as Head the cia (rij¢ oxcag) belongs as His own. This view, which is far 
removed from “ distorting” the thought (as Hofmann objects), is required 
by the natural and obvious correlation of the conception of the body and 
its head, as also by ver. 19. There is much inaccuracy and irrelevancy in 
the views of expositors, because they have not taken 1ré uéAdorvra in the 
sense, or not purely in the sense, of the relations of the aldy uéAdwr, but in 
that of the then existing Christian relations, which in fact still belonged to 
the aidy ovroc, and because, in connection therewith, they do not take up 
with clearness and precision the contextually necessary relation of the 


1The explanation of Hilgenfeld. 1878, p. as with the apostle’s cherished conception of 
199; “the mere capa Xpicrov, a purely somatic the gwyuaof Christ, which is contained imme- 
Christianity,” is at variance with the anti- diately in ver. 19. 
thetical correlation of cnc and cee, as well 


CHAP. 11. 18. 315 


genitive Xporot as denoting Him, whose the odua is, but resolve it into 
what they please, as e. g. Grotius (so also Bleek): “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 ts there, 
where Christ is, present and given with Him ” (consequently as if év Xpiore 
were used.)! 

Ver. 18.2 Warning against a further danger, with which they were 
threatened on the part of these false teachers.—yydeic] not different from 
parec in ver. 16, as if the latter emphasized the verb and the former the 
subject (Hofmann). This would be correct, if in ver. 16 it were yu? obv 
kpivétw tig buac. Comp. on partic, ver. 8, and on pydeic, ver. 4. Moreover, 
the words cannot be regarded (with Holtzmann) as a duplicate proceeding 
from the interpolator, especially as they contain a new warning, and in 
such a peculiar form (xaraBpaf.).—xaraBpaBevérw] [XXXIV d.] Let no one 
deprive you of the prize. xataBpaBebev, which is not a Cilician word (Je- 
rome; see, on the contrary, Eustath. ad Jl. 1. 98. 33: xaraBpaBeies airav, o¢ 
gaocv ol wadacoi), is only now preserved among ancient Greek authors 
in Dem. c. Mid. 544, ult. : exwrdueba Irpétuva trd Mecdiov xataBpaBevdtvra 
kai mapa mdvta Ta dixaa atiwwhévra, Where it expresses the taking away of 
victory in a judicial suit, and the procuring of a sentence of condemna- 
tion, and that in the form of the conception: to bring tt about to the injury 
of some one, that not he, but another, shall receive the prize from the BpaBets. 
Midias had bribed the judges. The «ard intimates that the prize was due 
to the person concerned, although it has been in a hostile spirit (not 
merely unrighteously, which would be rapaBpafetev,? Plut. Mor. p. 585 C; 
Polyb. xxiv. 1. 12) withdrawn from him and adjudged to another. The 
right view substantially, though not recognizing the distinction from 
napaBpaf., is taken by Chrysostom (rapaBpaBevOqva: ydp éorw, brav map’ 
érépwv pév 9 vin, wap’ érépwv dé 1d BpaBeiov) and Theophylact, also Suidas: 
70 GAdov aywriloutvov GAdov oregavovcbar Atyet 6 amdactodog naraBpaBebvecba:.* 
The conception is: (1) To the readers as true believers belongs the Messi- 
anic prize of victory,—this is the assumption upon which the expression 
is based; (2) The false teachers desire to deprive them of the prize of 
victory and to give it to others, namely, to themselves and their adherents, 


10n 7d capa in contrast to ond, comp. Jose- 
phus, Bell. 11.2.5: oxncay airnaduevos BacsAcias, 
Ws Hpwacey éavt~ rd cwoua. Philo, de conf. 
ling. p. 434: ta wey pyra tev xpnopey oxcds 
Twas acavel cwpatwy elvar’ tas 8 déudacvopyd- 
vas buvduets Ta vberrwra aAnOeiqg wpdypara. 
Lucian, Hermot. 29. Observe, however, that 
owpa invariably retains its strict literal sense 
of body, as a sensuous expression for the sub- 
stantially real, in contrast to the unsubstan- 
tial shadow of it. 

See upon ver. 18, Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 


277 ff. 

8 With which Theodoret confounds it (a&ine¢ 
Bpafevayv); he makes it the unrighteous 
awarding of the prize of victory: éwedh roivuy 
KGL Ol TAS vOMLKaS WapaTypiioes TH evayyediy 
Wapamtyvurres awd Tey npetrovey avrove exit 
Ta éAdrrw perégepor, eixérws ibn’ unoeis Kar 
xataBpaBevéres. 

4Comp. also Zonaras, ad Concil. Laod. can. 
35, p. 351: 7d ph Tov muxioavra afiovy Tov Bpa- 
Beiov, add’ érdépy SiSdves avTo adinouudvoy roy 
WEKHCayTos. 


316 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

and that through their service of angels, etc.; (3) Just as little, how- 
ever, as in the case of the xpivey in ver. 16, ought the readers to give heed 
to, or let themselves be led astray by, this hostile proceeding of the 
xataBpaBetecv, Which is based upon subjective vanity and is (ver. 19) sepa- 
ration from Christ and His body,—this is implied in the imperatives. 
Consequently, the view of Jerome, ad Aglas. p. 10, is not in substance erro- 
neous, although only approximately corresponding to the expression : 
‘“‘Nemo adversus vos praemium accipiat;”’ Erasmus is substantially cor- 
rect: ‘“praemium, quod sectari coepistis, vobis intervertat ;’’ comp. Calvin, 
Estius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and others; while the 
Vulgate (seducat), Luther (“to displace the goal’’), and others content them- 
selves with a much less accurate statement of the sense, and Bengel 
imports into the passage the sense of usurped false leading and instruction, 
as Beza similarly took it.1 The Bpafeiov, to which xaraSp. refers, is not 
Christian liberty (Grotius, who explains it praemium ezigere), nor yet: 
“the honor and prize of the true worship of God" (de Wette), but, in accord- 
ance with the standing apostolic conception (comp. Phil. iii. 14; 1 Cor. 
ix. 24): the bliss of the Messianic kingdom, the incorruptible crégavog (1 Cor. 
ix. 25), the oreg. ti¢ Sixasoobyyc (2 Tim. iv. 8), rig ddEq¢ (1 Pet. v. 4), rH Cute 
(Jas. i. 12); comp. 2 Tim. ii. 5. With reference to the fpafeiov, Elsner, 
Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others, including Bihr, Bohmer, 
Reiche, Huther, and Bleek, following Photius in Oecumenius (p7éeig¢ tps 
xataxpivétw), have taken xarafpaf. in the sense of to condemn, parallel to the 
xpivérw 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 xaraxpivery in the case of xaraBpaBeverv ; 
but it cannot be justified by proofs adduced, and it is decidedly in opposi- 
tion to the context through the following 6éAwv «.r.4., which presupposes 
not a judgment of the opponents, but an action, something practical, which, 
through their perverse religious attitude, they would fain accomplish.— 
OéAwr] sc. xataBpaBeiew tuac: while he desires to do this, would willingly 
accomplish it (comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. ii. 97) by humility, etc. So 
rightly Theodoret (rovro roivw ovveBotdevov éxeivor yiveoOat ramewogpootvy 
didev xexpnpévor), Theophylact (@éAovew tua xataBpaBetecv did rarecwogp.), 
Photius in Oecumenius, Calvin, Casaubon, and others, including Huther 
and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 322 [E. T. 376]. The “ languidyn et frigidum,” 
which Reiche urges against this view, applies at the most only in the 
event of xarafpa8. being explained as to condemn; and the accusation of 
tncorrectness of sense (Hofmann) is only based upon an erroneous explana- 
tion of the subsequent év razecvogp. «7.4. The interpretation adopted by 
others: taking delight in humility, etc.,? is based upon the extremely 


i1“Nemo adversum vos rectoris partes sibi 
ultro sumat.” He starts from the common 
use of Spafevecy in the sense of regere ac mo- 
derari (see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 404). Comp. 
on iii. 15. But neither the passage of Dem. 
ic, nor the testimony of the Greek Fathers, 
of Suidas, Eustathius, and Zonaras, nor the 


analogy of wapaBpafevev, would justify the 
adoption of this sense in the case of the com- 
pound xataBpaf. 

* Augustine, Castalio, Vatablus, Estius, 
Michaelis, Loesner, and others, including 
Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Bleek, Hofmann, and Hilgenfeld. 


CHAP. I. 18. 317 


unnecessary assumption of an un-Greek imitation of 3 YSN, such as occurs, 
indeed, in the LXX,}! but not in the N. T.; for in Matt. xxvii. 48, 0éAew is 
used with the accusative, comp. on Rom. vii. 21. Moreover, in the O. T. 
passages the object of the delight is almost invariably (the only exception 
being Ps. cxlvii. 10) a person. Even in the Apocrypha that abnormal 
mode of expression does not occur. Others, again, hold that it is to be 
joined in an adverbial sense to xaraBp. It would then (see Erasmus, 
Annot.) have to be rendered cupide or studiose* or unconstrained, volun- 
tarily, equivalent to éeAovri, @eAovriy, éeAovrhc, which sense, here certainly 
quite unsuitable, has been transformed at variance with linguistic usage 
into the idea: “hoc munus sibt a nullo tributum exercens” (Beza), or: 
unwarrantably (BGhmer, comp. Steiger), or of his own choice (Luther, 
who, like Ewald, couples it with éuSaretuv), or: arbitrarily (Ewald), or: 
capriciously (Reiche), etc.; consequently giving it the sense of éxdv, 
aitobeAgc, avroxéAevoroc, OF avroyvéuuv, Even Tittmann, Synon. p. 181, comes 
‘at length to such an wlfro, erroneously quoting Herod. ix. 14, where 
6éuv must be taken as in Plat. Theaet. |. c.—év raretvogp. x. Opnox. rev ayyéa. ] 
év is not propter, which is supposed to have the meaning: because 
raTetvogp. x.T.A. iS necessary to salvation (Reiche); nor does it denote the 
condition in which the xarafpafetew takes place (Steiger, Huther); but, in 
keeping with the 6éAuv, it is the means by which the purpose is to be 
attained : by virtue of humility and worshiping of angels. Thereby he wishes 
to effect that the Bpafeiov shall be withdrawn from you (and given to him- 
self and his followers). +. ayyéAwy is the genitive of the object‘ and belongs 
only to Opyox., not to rarevogp. That the latter, however, is not humility 
in the proper sense, but is, viewed from the perverse personal standpoint 
of the false teachers, a humility in their sense only, is plain from the con- 
text (see below, cix# guovobp. «.7.A.), although irony (Steiger, Huther) is not 
to be found in the word. Paul, namely, designates the thing as that, for 
which the false teachers held it themselves and desired it to be held by 
others, and this, indeed, as respects the disposition lying at the root of it, 
which they sought to exhibit (év rare:vogp.), and as respects the abnormal 
religious phenomenon manifested among them (x. Opyox. r. ayyéAwv); and 
then proceeds to give a deterrent exposure of both of these together 
according to their true character in a theoretical (4 éuBar.) and 
in a moral (eixg gue. tiv Kepadgv) respect. How far the false 
teachers bore themselves as ramecvégpovec, is correctly defined by Theo- 
doret: Aéyovres, w¢ adpatog 6 Tav bAuy Cede, avégixtog te Kal axardAnmros, Kal 
mpoohker 6a tov ayyéAwy tiv Beiav evutvecay mpaypatebecba:, 80 that they thus 
regarded man as too insignificant tn the presence of the divine majesty to be 
able to do without® the mediation of angels, which they sought to secure 


11 Sam. xviii. 22; 2 Sam. xv. 26; 1 Kings x. 
9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Ps. cxlvii. 10. 

Plat. Theaet. p.143 D; and see Reisig, Con- 
ject. p. 143 f. 

8Plat. Symp. p. 183 A, very frequent in 
Homer, Soph. Phil. 1327, Aesch. Choeph. 19. 
790, and the passages from Xenophon quoted 


by Sturz, Ler. II. p. 21. 

«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. 

5Compare Augustine, Conf. x. 42: “Quem 
invenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi? Abe- 





318 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


through 6pyoxeia (comp. 4 Macc. iv. 11), thereby placing the merit of 
Christ (Rom. v. 2) in the background. It is differently explained by 
Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Photius in Oecumenius): the 
false teachers had declared the 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 rarewogpocivy in the dgedia cdparoc of ver. 28, where, how- 
ever, the two aberrations are adduced separately from one another, see on 
ver. 23. Proofs of the existence of the worship of angels in the post- 
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, praescr. 33 ; Iren. Haer. i. 31. 2; and with respect to the 
worshiping of angels in the Colossian region Theodoret testifies : Euecve d2 
Tovto TO mabog Ev ty Spvyig Kai Tliodig péype roAdAov’ ov by xdpw Kai ovveABovoa 
atvodog év Aaodixeia tie bpuyiag (A.D. 364, can. 35) véum xexdAvxe 1d roic 
ayyédo mpocebyecbar, Kai péype 62 tov viv ebxthpia tov dyiov MiyagA tap’ 
éxeivorg Kai toig dudpoie éxeivwy éoriv ideiv. The Catholic expedients for evading 
the prohibition of angel-worship in our passage (as also in the Concil. 
Laod., Mansi, II. p. 568) may be seen especially in Cornelius a Lapide, 
who understands not all angel-worship, but only that which places the 
angels above Christ (comp. also Bisping), and who refers the Laodicean 
prohibition pointing to a “‘xexpuypévy eidwaodarpeia” (“dre ob dei Xpiotcavodes 
éyxatadeirev tv éxxAnoiav rov Ocod cai amiévar nai ayyéAove ovoudlew” «.7.A.), in 
accordance with the second Nicene Council, only to the cultus latriae, not 
duliae, consequently to actual adoration, not riuqrixyy mpooxivyow. In 
opposition to the words as they stand (for 6p7oxeia with the genitive of the 
subject would necessarily be the cultus, which the angels present to God, 
4 Macc. v. 6, 12; Joseph Ané. xii.5.4; comp. Acts xxvi. 5), and also in 
opposition to the context (see ver. 19), several have taken rév ayyéJuv as 
the genitive of the subject, and have explained it of a religious condition, 
which desired to be like that of the angels, e. g. Luther: “ spirituality of the 
angels,” comp. Melanchthon, Schoettgen (“habitus aliquis angelicus ”’), 
Wolf, Dalmer. Nevertheless, Hofmann, attempting a more subtle defini- 
tion of the sense, has again taken rév ayyéAwy as genitive of the subject, and 
joined with it not only @pyoxeia, but also rarewogpootvy. The rarewogpoctvn 
of the angels, namely, consists in their willingly keeping within the bounds 
assigned to them as spirits, and not coveting that which man in this respect 
has beyond them, namely, what belongs to the corporeal world. And the 


undum mihi fuitad angelos? Multiconantes ¢pocvrvn was the subjective source of their 
ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, going astray to angel-worship. 

sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt 1 Hasselbach gives substantially the right 
in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni interpretation of the passage in the Stud. u. 
habiti sunt illusionibus.” The (false)rawevo- Krit. 1839, p. 329 ff. 


CHAP. 11. 18. 319 
Opnoxeia 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 rare:vogpootvy and this dpyoxeia man makes into virtue on his part, 
when he, although but partially, renounces that which belongs to Him in dis- 
tinction from the angels (rare:vogp.), 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 guid- 
ance of Hofmann, extract them out of these words. The entire exposi- 
tion is a labyrinth of imported subjective fancies. Paul might at least 
have written év éyxpateig éni r@ dpuotpare (Or xaP dpyoiwowv, or Kal duocéryra) rie 
TaTevodpociync xat Opyoxeiag Tav ayyéAwy! Even this would still have been far 
enough from clear, but it would at least have contained the point and a 
hint as to its interpretation.'.—é édpaxev tuBarebwyv] [XXXIV e.]. Subor- 
dinate to the 6éAuv x.r.A. a8 a Warning modal definition to it: entering upon 
what he has beheld, i. e. instead of concerning himself with what has been 
objectively given (ver. 19), entering the subjective domain of visions with 
his mental activity,—by which is indicated the mystico-theosophic occupa- 
tion of the mind with God and the angels,? so that édpaxew (comp. Tert. c. 
Marc. v. 19) denotes not a seeing with the eyes, but a mental beholding,® 
which belonged to the domain of the gavrdfec6a:, in part, doubtless, also to 
that of visionary ecstasy (comp. Acts 11.17; Rev. ix. 17; dpauea in Acts ix. 
10, 12, x. 3; 2 Chron. ix. 29, ¢ al.; Luke i. 22). This reference must have 
been intelligible to the readers from the assertions put forth by the false 
teachers,‘ but the failure to observe it induced copyists, at avery early 
date, to add a negative (sometimes y47 and sometimes ov) before édpaxev. 
'EuBaretecv (only used here in the N. T.; but see Wetstein, also Reisig, ad 
Oed. Col. praef. p. xxxix.), with accusative of the place conceived as object 
(Kuhner, II. 1, p. 257), also with the genitive, with the dative, and with 
ets, means lo step upon, as e.g. vaoov, Aach. Pers. 441; wéav, Eur. El. 595; 
yiv, Josh. xix. 49; also with reference to a mental domain, which is trod- 
den by investigation and other mental activity, as Philo, de plant. Noe, p. 


1gee, besides, in opposition to Hofmann, 
Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 193 f. 

This fanciful habit could not but be fost- 
ered and promoted by the Jewish view, 
according to which the appearances of angels 
were regarded as davracmara (Gieseler, Kirch- 
engesch. I. 1, p. 153, ed. 4). 

3 Ewald regards éwpaxey as more precisely 
defined by é» rawevodp. «.7.A., a8 if it ran 4a a 
Tanxevopp. «.7.A. ewpaxey: “while he enters 
arbitrarily upon that, which he has seen in 
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 with- 
out precedent in the N. T. Comp. on ver. 14. 
Besides, the thought itself is far from clear; 
and respecting OeAwv. see above. 

4For the sphere of vision of the édjpaxey lay 
not outside of the subjects, but in the hollow 
mirror of their own fancy. This applies also 
in opposition to Hilgenfeld, who now (1873, p. 
198 f.) properly rejects the u%, but takes & ewp. 
éuBar. incorrectly: “abiding by the sensuous.” 


_ Opposed to this is the very use of the perfect 


éwp. and the significant expression éuBarevev. 
The apostle does not mean the dpara, but the 
aépara (i. 16), into which they ascend by 
visions which they profess te have had. 


320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


225 C, et al. ; see Loesner, p. 369 f.; 2 Macc. ii. 30; comp. also Nemes. de 
nat. hom. p. 64, ed. Matth.: obpavdv éuBareber r7 Oewpig, but not Xen. Conv. iv. 
27, where, with Zeunius, éuaorebere ought to be read. Phavorinus: éufar- 
evoar'Td Evdov éfepevvijca: f oxorjoa. It is frequently used in the sense of 
seizing possession.. So Budaeus and Calvin (se ingerens), both with the 
reading »7, also Huther (establishing himself firmly in the creations of 
fancy); still the context does not suggest this, and, when used in this 
sense, éufar. is usually coupled with eic¢.? In the reading of the Recepta, 
a py? édp., the sense amounts either to : entering into the unseen transcendental 
sphere, wherein the assumption would be implied that the domain of 
sense was the only field legitimately open, which would be unsuitable (2 
Cor. v. 7, xiii. 12); or to: entering into things, which (although he dreams 
that he has seen them, yet) he has not seen—a concealed antithetical refer- 
ence, which Paul, in order to be intelligible, must have indicated. The 
thought, in the absence of the negative, is not weak (de Wette), but true, in 
characteristic keeping with the perverseness of theosophic fancies (in oppo- 
tion to Hofmann’s objection), and representing the actual state of the case, 
which Paul could not but know. According to Hofmann, the & 
éipaxev which he reads is to be taken, not with éuBarebuy, but with what 
goes before: of which, nevertheless, he has seen nothing (and, consequently, 
cannot imitate it). This is disposed of, apart even from the incorrect 
inference involved in it,* by the preposterousness of Hofmann’s exposi- 
tion of the rare:vogpocivn x. Opnoxeia trav ayy., With which the connection, hit 
upon by him, of cix7 with éuBarebyr (“an investigation, which results in noth- 
ing”), also falls to the ground.—eixy gvorobp. «.7.4., and then «ai ob xparév, 
x.7.A., are both subordinate to the & éépaxev EuBarebwr, and contain two 
modal definitions of it fraught with the utmost danger.—eixj ¢voiobp.] 
[XXXIV f.] for the entering upon what was seen did not rest upon areal 
divine revelation, but upon a conceited, fanciful self-exaggeration. Td dé 
ye gvowbpevog tH Taretvoppootvy évavriov ov ote’ Ti pév yap éoxhrrovto, Tov 
dé rigov rd mdBog axpiBac mepcéxecvro, Theodoret. On eixg, temere, i.e. with- 
out ground, comp. Matt. v. 22; Rom. xiii. 4; Plat. Mener. p. 234 C; Xen. 
Oyrop. ii. 2. 22. It places the vanity, that is, the objective groundlessness 
of the pride, in contradistinction to their presumptuous fancies, emphati- 
cally in the foreground. Even if éuBar. is not taken absolutely with Hof- 
mann, we may not join it with eix# (in opposition to Steiger, de Wette, 
Reiche ; Béhmer is doubtful), since it is not the wselessness (in this sense 
eix# would require to be taken, 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11) of the éufe- 
rebew & édp. (or & pd édp.), but this éuBaretery in and of itself, that forms 
the characteristic perversity in the conduct of those people—a perversity 


1 Dem. 894.7; Eur. Heraci. 876; Schleusner, 
Thes. 11. 332; Bloomfield, Gloss.in Aesch. Pers. 
p. 146 f. 

8 Dem. 804. 7; 1085. 24, 1066. 19; Isa. ix. 3, et 
al.; 1 Macc. xii. 25. 

3Comp. Chrysostom: they have not seen 
the angels, and yet bear themselves as if they 
had seen them. 


‘For even the unseen, which may in any 
other way have been brought to our knowl- 
edge, we may and under certain circumstan- 
ces should imitate (comp. eg. 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 
ite accomplishment, 


CHAP. It. 19. o2d 
which is set forth by eix# gvovoby. x.7.A., and in ver. 19 as immoral and 
antichristian.— io rov vods r#¢ capk. avrov |] becoming puffed up by (as opera- 
tive principle) the reason of his flesh. This is the morally determined 
intellectual faculty in its character and activity as not divinely regulated, 
in which unennobled condition (see on Eph. iv. 28) it is the servant, not 
of the divine zvetza, whose organ it is designed to be, but of the materio- 
physical human nature, of the odpf as the seat of the sin-power, and is 
governed by its lusts instead of the divine truth.!. The voi¢ does not 
belong to the essence of the odp& (in opposition to Holsten); but, be it 
observed, the matter is so represented that the odpf of the false teacher, 
in accordance with its dominant superiority, appears personified (comp. 
Rom. viii. 6), as if the vot¢, influenced by it, and therewith serviceable to 
it, were zs own. In virtue of this non-free and, in its activity, sinfully- 
directed reason, the man, who is guided by it, is avéqro¢ (Gal. iii. 1, 3; Tit. 
iii. 3), loses his moral judgment (Rom. xii. 2), falls into érdupiac dvofroue 
(1 Tim. vi. 9), and withstands Christian truth and purity as xareg@appévoc 
tov vovv (2 Tim. iii. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 3), and éoxoriopévog rg diavoig (Eph. iv. 
- 18)!—The puffing up of the persons in question consisted in this, that with 
all their professed and apparent humility they, as is commonly the case 
with mystic tendencies, fancied that they could not be content with the 
simple knowledge and obedience of the gospel, but were capable of attain- 
ing a special higher wisdom and sanctity. It is well said by Theophylact: 
mac yap ov aapxixov vodo x. maxboo Td GOerzoar Ta bed Xpicrod Aexfévra, John 
ili. 16, 17, 19, x. 26 f., xa2 prpia bea! 

Ver. 19. [XXXIV g.] Kai] annexing to eixy gvocotpevog «7.4. a further, 
and that a negative, modal form of the 4 édpaxev iufBarebov. This éuBareb- 
ev into what is seen takes place, namely, in such a way, that one is 
puffed up by fleshly reason, and does not hold the Head, etc. So much is 
it at variance with the nature and success, as respects unity, of the church !* 
—ov xpariy x.t.A.] not holding fast (but letting it go, comp. Song of Sol. iii. 
4: ixpdéryca avrdv nal obx agijxa avrév) the Head, inasmuch, namely, as they 
seek angelic mediation. Bengel aptly observes: “ Qui non unice Christum 
tenet, plane non tenet.”—2£ od «.r.4.] represents the whole objectionable- 
ness of this ob xparéyv r. xeg., and the absolute necessity of the opposite. 
This ot 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 ri xegad. In this view it may be mascu- 
line, according to the construction xara obveow (Kithner, ITI. 1, p. 49), as it 
is usually taken, but it may also—and this is preferable, because here the 
personality is not, as in Eph. iv. 15 f., specially marked—be neuter, so that 
it takes up the Head, not personally (though it 7s Christ), but in accord- 


1Comp. Rom. i. 21, 28, iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, xii. | The compressed characterizing of this artic- 
2; Eph. iv.17 f.; see also Kluge in the Jahrb. ulated organism is therefore as suitable here 
J. D. Theol. 1871, p. 329 ff. as in Eph. fv. 16, and by no means an opus 
*The conduct of those men isthe negation supererogationis on the part of the author 
of this holy relation, a separation from the (Holtzmann). 
organism of the body of Christ as an unity. 


21 


O22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


ance with the neuter idea: from which. See Matthiae, p. 988; Kihner, IT. 
1, p. 56. Comp. Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 201. The r. xegaa. might also be 
taken attributively : not holding fast as the Head Him, from whom, etc. 
(Ewald), which would be, however, less simple and less forcibly descrip- 
tive. é& denotes the causal issuing forth of the subsequently expressed 
relation, comp. Eph. iv. 16.—7vav rd cdua] consequently no member is 
excepted, so that no member can expect from any other quarter what is 
destined for, and conveyed to, the whole body from the head. The con- 
ception of the church as the body of Christ, the Head, is not in our 
Epistle and the Ephesian letter different from that of the other Epistles 
(in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 239 ff.). Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 12 f,, vi. 
15; Rom. xii. 4 f.; also 1 Cor. xi. 3. Any pressing contrary to the 
author’s design of the thought of a caza, which strictly taken is a trunk, 
is in this particular case excluded by the graphic delineation of the con- 
stantly living and active connection of the members with the Head. 
Every comparison, indeed, when pressed, becomes halting.—é:a tév dgav 
nx. cuvdecuayv Entyop. x. ovufiB.] 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 ov therefore is to be referred 
neither to the participles only, nor to the verb only, but to both; and é&a 
tT. dg. x. ovvdecop. specifies by what means the éx-yop. x. ovufiB., proceeding 
from the Head, is brought about, viz. through the (bodily) nerve-impulses (not 
joints, as it is usually explained; see on Eph. iv. 16), which are conveyed 
from the Head to the body, and through the bands, which, proceeding 
from the Ilead, place the whole in organic connection. Observe that 
éxcyop. refers to did 1, dgdv, and ovufcB. to x. ovvdecop. 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 amé ri¢ 
xepadgc éott waca alcOnou x. waca kivnowe. As, therefore, the body receives 
its efficiency from the head through the contact of impulses effected by 
means of the network of nerves, so would the church, separated from 
Christ—from whom the feelings and impulses in a spiritual sense, the 
motions and activities of the higher (4, 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 (xo:wwria), which give to the union of indi- 
viduals the coherence of articulate unity. Faith is the inner ground of the 
agai, not the latter themselves (in opposition to Bengel) ; so also is love the 
inner ground of the ovvdecuoi of the mystical body, not these latter them- 
selves (in opposition to Tertullian, Zanchius, Estius, Bengel, and others) ; 
and the operative principle on the part of Christ the Head is the Holy 
Spirit (Eph. iv. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 8 f., 7, ¢ al.). Theodoret erroneously (comp. 
Ewald) explains the ovvécoyoi as the améorodo: x. rpogjrat x. Sidéoxaror, and 
Bohmer takes the dg¢ai and ovvécou. as the believers. The latter, as also 
the teachers, are in fact the members, and share in experiencing what ig 


CHAP. II. 20. 323 


lere asserted of the entire body.—é:xopyyobu.] receiving supply, being fur- 
nished. Comp. on the passive expression, which is not un-Pauline (Holtz- 
mann), but in harmony with the general passive usage,! Kithner II. 1. p.109. 
The compound, not expressing “in addition besides” (Bleek), denotes that 
the yopeyia is coming to, is being conveyed towards. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal. 
iii. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 54. But it is not said with what the body is provided, 
as xopryeiv (comp. also émcxop., Ecclus. xxv. 22) is often used absolutely 
(see e.g. the passages from Polybius in Schweighduser, Lez. 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 (d¢ov), namely, the 
vital activity, of which the body would be destitute in the absence of the 
different impulses.2—rjv abfyow tov Ocov] denoted by the article as the 
divine growth absolutely; rov @cov is the genitive aucloris: 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 
operating principle in the church (1 Cor. xii. 6; Eph. iv. 6). At once 
weak, and suggested by nothing in the text, is the view: “incrementum, 
quod Deus probat ” (Calvin, Bahr*®). What is meant is the gradual growth 
of Christians collectively toward Christian perfection. The circumstance 
that aife as an intransitive only occurs again in Eph. ii. 21, comp. iv. 15, 
und abfyote only in Eph. iv. 16, cannot prove it to be an un-Pauline mode 
of expression (Holtzmann).‘ 

Ver. 2U f [On Vv. 20-23, see Note XX XV. pages 340, 341.] After these 
warnings, vv. 16-19, which were intended to secure his readers against 
the seduction threatening them, the apostle now returns for the same 
purpose once more to the two main foundations of the Christian life, to 
the fellowship with Christ in death, (ver. 20), and fellowship with 
Him also in resurrection (iii. 1), [XXXV a.] His aim is to show, 
in connection with the former, the groundlessness and _ perversity 
of the heretical prohibitions of meats (vv. 20-23), and to attach to the 
latter—to the fellowship of resurrection—the essence of Christian 
morality in whole and in detail, and therewith the paraenetic portion of 
the Epistle (iii. 1-iv. 6), the tenor of which thereby receives the character 
of the holiest moral necessity.—ei ameOdvere x.t.A.] [XXXV b.] the legal 
abstinence required by the false teachers (see below) stands in contradic- 
tion with the fact, that the readers at their conversion had entered into 
the fellowship of the death of Christ, and thereby had become loosed from 
the ororyela tov xécuov (see on ver. 8), t.e. from the ritual religious ele- 
ments of non-Christian humanity, among which the legal prohibition of 


1Polyb. iv. 77. 2: wodAais adoppats dx dicces 8 Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who 
Kexopnynudvos, iii. 75. 8, et al.; Diod. Sic. i. explain rov @eov by xara Gedy. 
73; Eeclus. xliv. 6; 3 Macc. vi. 40. *Respecting the connection of the verb 
*Comp. Chrysostom: rd elva: xai 6 xadws with the more precisely defined cognate noun, 
elves, Theophylact: waca aicOnois x. waca see Winer, p. 210| E. T. 224]; Lobeck, Paralig. 
aivnoes, and in the application: AapSdve rd op. 607 f.; Kahner, 11.2% p 263 


ony «x. avgeay xvevuarixas. 








324 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


meats and the traditional regulations founded thereon are included. How 
far the man who has died with Christ has passed out of connection with 
these elementary things, is taught by ver. 14, according to which, through 
the death of Christ, the law as to its debt-obligation has been abolished. 
Consequently, in the case of those who have died with Christ, the law, and 
everything belonging to the same category with it, have no further claim 
to urge, since Christ has allowed the curse of the law to be accomplished 
on Himself, and this has also taken place in believers in virtue of their 
fellowship of death with Him, whereby the binding relation of debt which 
had hitherto subsisted for them has ceased.'—arofvjoxecv, with avé, mean- 
ing to die away from something, moriendo liberari 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. ii. 19, Rom. vi. 2, whereby the same thing is 
otherwise conceived in point of form. It is, moreover, to be observed, that 
Christ Himself also is by death released from the croyeia, since He was 
made under the law, and, although sinless, was destined to take upon 
Himself the curse of it; [XX°XV c.] hence it was only by His death in 
obedience to the Father (Phil. 11. 8; Rom. v.19), that He became released 
from this relation. Comp. on Gal. iv.4. Huther erroneously denies that 
such an amofaveiv can be predicated of Christ, and therefore assumes 
(comp. Schenkel and Dalmer) the brachylogy: “if, by your dying with 
Christ, ye are dead from the crotyeia tov xoopod.”—ri we Cavreg x.7.A.] why 
are ye, as though ye were still alive in the world, commanded: Touch not, etc. 
Such commands are adapted to those who are not, like you, dead, etc. 
As arobavévres ctv X. ard 1. ororxy. T. xéou., ye are no longer alive in the 
domain of the non-Christian xéozoc, but are removed from that sphere of 
life (belonging to the heavenly odirevza, Phil. iii. 20). The word doyyari- 
fev, [XXXV d.] only found here in the N. T., but frequently in the LXX. 
and Apocrypha, and in the Fathers and decrees of Councils (see Suicer, 
Thes. I. p. 985), means nothing more than to decree? and doyyarifeobe is 
passive: why are ye prescribed to, why do men make decrees for you (vobis)? 
so that it is not a reproach (the censure conveyed by the expression affects 
rather the false teachers), but a warning to those readers (comp. wv. 16, 18) 
who were not yet led away (i. 4, ii. 5), and who ought not to yield any 
compliance to so absurd a demand. That the readers are the passive sub- 
ject, is quite according to rule, since the active has the dative along with 
it, doynarife rar (2 Macc. x. 8); comp. also Hofmann and Beza. The 
usual rendering takes doyuar. as middle, and that either as: why do ye 
allow commands to 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. Vul- 
gate: decernitis. This, however, would involve a censure of the readers, and 
dg Cavrec tv xéopy would express the unsuitableness of their conduct with 


1Comp. Gal. ii. 19, iv. 3,9; Rom. vii. 4, et al. 8Comp. Chrysostom: was rots orocxeine 

$ Diod. Sic. iv.83; Diog. L. fii.51; Anth. Pal. twéxneco@e; similarly Theodoret, Beza; and 
ix. 576.4; Arrian. Epict. ili. 7; Esth. iii. 9; 3 recently, Bahr, Béhmer, Olshausen, Baum- 
Eedr. vi.3!; 2 Macc. x.8, xv.36; 3Maco.iv.11. garten-Crusius, Bleek, and others. 


CHAP. I. 21. 325 


their Christian standing—a reproach, which would be altogether out of 
harmony with the other contents of the Epistle. On the contrary, d¢ 
Cavrec év x. indicates the erroneous aspect in which the Christian standing 
of the readers was regarded by the false teachers, who took up such an 
attitude towards them, as if they were not yet dead from the world, which 
nevertheless (comp. ver. 11 f.) they are through their fellowship with 
Christ (iii. 3; Gal. ii. 19 f.; 2 Cor. v.14 f.). The o¢ (avre¢ év xéouw, more- 
over, is entirely misunderstood by Bahr: “as if one could at all atatn to 
life and salvation through externals.” Comp., on the contrary, the thought 
of the elvac év rg capxi in Rom. vii. 5 and Gal. vi. 14. Observe, further, 
that this (jv év xéopp is not one and the same thing with elva: ind ra oro 
xeia tov xéopov (Hofmann, by way of establishing his explanation of ora- 
xeia in the sense of the material things of the world); but the (# éy x. is 
the more general, to which the special elvac td 1. crocxeia tr. x. is subordi- 
nate. Ifthe former is the case, the latter also takes place by way of con- 
sequence.—y9 ayy «.r.A.] a vivid concrete representation of the déyyara 
concerned, in a “compendiaria mimesis” (Flacius). The triple descrip- 
tion brings out the urgency of the eager demand for abstinence, and the 
relation of the three prohibitions is such, that u7dé both times means nor 
even ; in the second instance, however, in the sense of ne quidem, so that 
the last point stands to the two former together in the relation of a cli- 
max: thou shalt not lay hold of, nor even taste, nor once touch! What was 
meant as object of this enjoined aréyecfac (1 Tim. iv. 3) the reader was 
aware, and its omission only renders the description more vivid and terse. 
Steiger’s view, that the object was suppressed by the false teachers them- 
selves from fear and hypocrisy, is quite groundless. From the words 
themselves, however (yeéo7), and from the subsquent context (see ver. 23), 
it is plain that the prohibitions concerned certain meats and drinks (comp. 
ver. 16); and it is entirely arbitrary to mix up other things, as even de 
Wette does, making them refer also to serwal intercourse (Otyyévewv yvvatxéc, 
Eur. Hipp. 1044, e al.);' while others distinguish between ayy and!6iyp¢ 
in respect of their objects, e.g. Estius: the former refers to unclean objects, 
such as the garments of a menstruous woman, the later 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 ayy refer (1 Cor. vii. 1). Others 
give other expositions still; BGhmer arbitanly makes @iyg¢ refer to the 
oil, which the Essenes and other theosophists regarded as a labes. That 
Paul in ayy and 6iy. had no definite object at all in view, is not even prob- 
able (in opposition to Huther), because yeboy stands between them, and 
- ver, 23 points to abstinence from meats, and not at the same time to any- 
thing else.—Following the more forcible ayy, lay hold of, the more subtle 
Giync, touch, is in admirable keeping with the climax: the object was to 
be even d@xrov (Soph. O. C. 39).2_ Hofmann erroneously holds that azro- 


18ee Monck, ad Eur. Hipp. 14; Valckenaer, 2 Comp. on the difference between the two 
ad Phoen. 303. words, Xen. Cyrop. i. 3.5: oray pérw rou dprov 





326 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


pas expresses rather the motion of the subject grasping at something, Oryyéve 
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 drreofa 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 a 
inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten to, to make 
to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698; Duncan, Ler. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 150). 
The mere stretching out the hand towards something, in order to seize it, is 
never Garrecfa:. Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of 
the three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon yetoy, that this 
might even happen more unintentionally, and upon Oiygc, that this might 
happen involuntarily. 

Ver. 22. We are not to put in a parenthesis yu) apy... dxoxphoe: (Eras- 
mus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely @ éorw ... azoxp. (Gries- 
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald); for the construction proceeds uninter- 
ruptedly to 6iyyc, is then only broken by the judgment 4 éore 1. cig $0. 1. 
avoxp., and thereafter runs on with xara ra évrdéAy. «.1.A.—d tore... atoxp.i8 - 
an inserted* judgment of the apostle anent that which the false teachers 
interdicted by yu? ayy «.7.A.: which all are destined to destruction® through the 
using,—from which it is to be rendered palpably apparent, how preposter- 
ous it is to make such things a condition of eternal bliss by urging absti- 
nence from them. We have here a similar line of argument to that in 
Matt. xv. 17. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13. Hence ¢6opé is meant to denote the 
perishing which takes place through the natural dissolution (digestion) 
of the meats and drinks; and with this conception quite accords the pur- 
posely-chosen compound 19 azoxpfoe, which, like abusus, indicates the 
using up, the consuming (Plut. Mor. p. 267 E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60). 
So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (ei¢ xémpov yap 
aravta peraBdAarerat), Oecumenius (¢O0p4 ydp, grow, tmdxerras Ev TE agedpwri), 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis, 
and many others, including Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hof- 
mann. But, according to others, who likewise regard 4... arzoyp. a8 & 
parenthetical judgment, the ais to be referred to the prohibitions, aroyp. 
to the use, é.e. the following of them, and ¢@opé (comp. Gal. vi. 8) to the 


Epp, cis over Thy xeipa dwoyapevoy (ce dpe), 
bray 8¢ rovrey (these dainty dishes) revds Oyps, 
evOis aroxaSaipy Thy xeipa eis Ta xetpdpaxTpe, 
also v. 1. 16. In an inverted climax, Eur. 
Bacch. 617. ovr’ yey ov6 Hal’ jyyuer. See 
also Ex. xix. 12, where the LXX. delicately 
and aptly render 1¥/3 JJ}, to touch the 
outer border of the mountain, by the free trans- 
lation @iyew re avrov, but then express the 
general 3 yin by the stronger 3 aypdue- 
vos Tov Spovs. 

tRespecting the aorist @yetr (a present 
G@yer instead of O:yydéver can nowhere be 


accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg. 
Cor. p. 990, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 804; Kah- 
ner, I. p. 833. 

*For it is only an incidental observation in 
opposition to the above B8o0ypnerifer@ac; the 
main ground of opposition to the latter lies in 
«i aweOdy. cuw X. 

Sécriv eis POopay, it serves for destruction, 
{. e. it serves for the purpose of being destroyed. 
See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 183]; Butt- 
mann, Neut. Gr. p. 131 [E. T. 150 f.). Comp. 
Wied. iv. 18; Ecclus, xxxiv. 10; Judith v. 21, 
24, viii. 22. 


CHAP. I. 22. 327 


destruction of the persons who follow them: all which déyyara by their use 
tend to (eternal) destruction. So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Calixtus, Heumann, Junker. Erroneously; because azéypret¢ 
never means merely use, and even the simple ypyorc, in the sense of r4prace, 
would be an unsuitable designation ; in fact, the entire addition, “by the 
use,” would be utterly superfluous. On account of azoyp., the expedient 
must also be rejected, on linguistic grounds, that 4... azoyp. are still words 
of the false teachers, which Paul repeats with irony: “omnia haec (vetita) 
usu suo perniciem afferunt,” Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, who, 
like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, the whole down 
to avpéruy is taken together: all this, which the false teachers forbid, 
tends through the using to (“moral,” de Wette) destruction , “si sc. ex 
doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,” ! 
Kypke; so also Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, BGhmer, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius (Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But 
in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound amoypioe: would 
be entirely without a molive, since not the consumption, but the use at all 
would be soul-destroying according to the maxims of those people. Our 
view alone supplies a motive for the use of aroypfoe, and that through the 
point of its connection with etc g@opdv, in which case, however, the object 
affected by aroxp. and eis gop. must be the same (the things forbidden). 
De Wette’s objections are irrelevant, since the thought of the parenthesis 
a... anoxzp. is expressed not strangely, but with Pauline ingenuity, the 
words xara ra évrdAy. x.t.A. annexed to doypyarifecte are by no means super- 
fluous (see below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the paren- 
tnesis with 47 ayy and thereby to include heterogeneous elements together; 
for p) ayy x.1.A. still belongs closely to doyyar., of which it is the contents, 
and xara rad évrédu. «.7.A igs then annexed, after the brief incidentally 
inserted remark, to doyzar. and its contents (4) ayy x«.1.4.).—xara ta évrda- 
pata x.t.A.] [XXXVe.] The article before évrdau., and extending also to 
didaoxad., is generic. The u? ayy «.7.A. was decreed by the false teachers 
conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men, not in consequence 
of what God had commanded and taught. This element, annexed to doy- 
parif., is by no means superfluous (in opposition to de Wette), since, in 
fact, déyza in itself is a command generally, and may be one based upon 
divine authority ; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the 
conflicting relation, in which that doyzariZecba: stands to the arefdvere obv 
Xpior@ «.t.A. 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 ameOdvere odv' X. «.17.4.), but 
such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, and 
amplifications of the former (xara tv rapdédoow tiv avipdrur, ver. 8). It was 
in this, and not in the mere setting up again of the Mosaic law abolished 


18imilarly Dalmer, who, however, takes rp  ~=found in the sense of abuse (xaraxpnois, rapa- 
éxoxp. in the sense of abuse, joining itimme- xpyors), awoxpnors is not, though it was so 
diately to xara ras 88acn. «.7.A. But while taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, Zach- 
a&woxpyo@a: (Dem. 215.8; Herodian, v.1.13) is _ariae, as also by Grimm in his Lezicon, 


328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


through Christ (Chrysostom and many others), that the doyyarifec9a: was 
regulated by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant. 
Moreover, d:daox. is not synonymous with évrdAu., but has a wider sense (in 
Matt. xv. 9 and Mark vi. 7, the narrower idea comes after as a more pre- 
cise definition), so that the two together specify the preceptive and generally 
(xai) the doctrinal standard. Comp. Isa. xxix. 13. 

Ver. 28. And of what nature and quality is that, which I have just termed 
ra évrdédpata x. didacxaA tiv avbp.?—darwa] quippe quae, i. e. ita comparata, 
ut (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 30). The conception was different in 4 of 
ver. 22, where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, as 
mere object.—écri] belongs to éyovra, without, however, being with this 
equivalent to Zxec; it introduces what the arcva are as regards their quality. 
If it belonged to ov« é riug tix (Bahr), or to apd rAyop. tr. o. (Bengel), or 
to év éOeAobpnoxeia x.7.A. (that which moves and has its being in é6eAofp. x.1.A.), 
as Hofmann thinks, taking Adyov p. éxovra oop. 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 év éeAodp. 
could alone deserve consideration, since from év é%eAo¥p. onwards all that 
follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be abandoned, 
because the sphere of subsistence indicated by év édeAodp. «.7.A. would be 
too wide for such special prohibitions, ver. 21, as are conveyed by ariva, 
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 r. ey. aogiac, 
which comes in with éori so emphatically at the very head of the judg- 
ment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, attaches to itself all that 
follows.—Adyov éxerv, explained by many since Jerome approximately in 
the sense of speciem or praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, 
and others; also Késter in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according 
as we adopt for Adyor the signification ratio or sermo, mean either: to have 
ground,' in which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one, 
a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lez. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have an insight 
into something (often thus in Plato, e.g. Rep. p. 475 C), to have regard to 
(Herod. i. 62; Plat. Tim. p. 87 C); or: to have a reputation, so that one is 
in any relation the subject of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumor, 
etc2 The latter signification is here to be adhered to, because the sub- 
sequent ov« év riug tem, when correctly rendered, accords with it as bear- 
ing on the matter in hand, and is in sense appropriately correlative. 
Hence: that which has a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. 
Comp. évoua éxewv (Rev. ill. 1) and dvouzdfeofac (1 Cor. v. 11).—pév] without a 
subsequent dé; there was before the apostle’s mind the contrast: repute, 


180 in the passages from Demoeth., Dionys, 
Hal., and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat. in 


impossibility of this interpretation is self- 
evident. 





Ast, Lex. II. p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweig- 
hauser, Lez, p. 370. So Hilgenfeld, in his 
Zeitechr, 1870, p. 250, holding that what is 
rejected in the legal sense in ver. 22 is here 
“permitted as voluntary asceticism.” See, 
however, on the sequel, from which the 


*See ¢.g. Plat. Epin. p. 987. B: ‘ Ewoddpos 
. -. Adpoditys etva: oxeddy exes Adyor (dicitur), 
Herod. v. 56: Adyow éxes thy LvOinv avawcioa 
comp. ix, 78; Xen. Oce. 11. 4. (the same thing 
conceived under another form: Adyos éxes 
viva, Herod. vii. 5, and frequently). 


CHAP. II. 23. 329 


truly, but not the realty, ob divapuiv, ovx adgbecav, Chrysostom. He omitted 
to express this, however, led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that 
instead of bringing in the antithesis of Adyov by dé, he makes ote év ripp 
reve follow without 6é, and in contrast not to the Adyov, but to the ev éveAodp. 
x.t.A.,—from which we are to gather in substance, what in starting with 
Aédyov puév it was intended to express.' The linguistic phenomenon of this 
pév without an adversative word following is so common, that there is no 
ground for requiring before ov« év rizg r. an 44446 (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 rpd¢ 
wTAnou. tr. capxéc an ill-inserted remnant of the original.—év édeAod proxeig | 
[XXXVI /.] instrumental, specifying by what means it is brought about, on 
the part of those who lay down the commandments and doctrines referred 
to, that the latter have a repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, #. e. 
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 expression in our passage, have been meant 
exclusively; other forms of capricious cultus may have been included 
with it. The substantive ifeA00p. does not occur elsewhere except in eccle- 
siastical writers; but the verb éSeAodpryoxeiv is explained by Suidas: idiy 
VeAfuare oéBew 1rd doxovv, and Epiph. Haer. i. 16 explains the name Phari- 
sees: dca Td adupioptvorc elva aitodc amd Tév Adu ba THY EVeAoreptaco- 
Vpnoxetav map’ avroi¢ vevoucuévyv.2 Hofmann erroneously takes away 
from the word in itself the bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of 
éVedAorovia and éSeAovpyia): 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 Sproxeia was certainly something bad. The unfavorable meaning, 
according to Hofmann’s present explanation (he gave a different but also 
erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposition to it, my 
third edition), is only got by the addition of cdézaroc, which belongs to all 
the three points, so that édeAoSproxeia cbuatog must be understood as a 
worship gladly and earnestly rendered, but which ts rendered only with 
bodily demeanor. But cdépzaroe does not suit either with éveAodp. or rarevogp.® 
but only with agedia. For it is plain from agedig cdparog that cdparog is 
the genitive of the object, from which it follows that Ypyoxeia odparoe would 
yield the opposite sense: a Ypyoxcia rendered to the body (comp. Ypr7ox. rav 


18ee Erasmus, Annot.,and generally Winer, 
p. 534 f. [E. T. 575]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 
$13 [E. T. 365}; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656; Maets- 
ner, ad Antiph. p. 153; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
163 f. 

2Comp. deAc8ovAcia (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, 
Rep. p. 562. D), derAoxdanore, éeAonivéduros, 
ePeAdSwopos eeAorpdéfevos (Thuc. ili. 70. 2, where 
the scholiast explains: a¢’ éavrod yerdpevors 


mai py xeAevoOeis x.7.A.), and various others. 

% According to Hofmann, namely, rawevo- 
dpocivn caparos is a disposition of self-humil- 
tation, which, however, only weakens the body 
by abstinences. But it would rather have the 
absurd sense: humility of the body ; for rawe- 
vodpoo’m neither means humiliation nor 
self-humiliation, but humility, weakness, ver. 
18, iii. 12; Phil il 3. 


eA) THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

«rj! tn ver. 15), which would come ultimately to the idea of the Jarpetea 
Ҥ tH (Larian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C: Zazpeia rot coparer, 
amion the matter conceived as Oproxeia. Phil. iil. 19.—razerrcepes.| from 
tae point of view of the false teachers (comp. ver. 18), what they thus 
dsaignatsl; although in fact it consisted in this, that, as in all false 
hessail.ty, they with spiritual conceit (comp. ver. 18, and subsequently xpic 
rip, 7, oapxéc) took pleasure in unduly undervaluing themselves—an 
ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the edcA08 proxzia, 
aru) towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and 
inortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty.'"—or« év riysj 
rv.) [XXXVg.] Not through anything whatever that is an honor, not 
through anything honorable, by which that repute would appear founded 
in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make 
thes D4yo¢ oogiag appear as repute without honor, i. e. without any morally 
extisnuble substratum on the part of the persons concerned. The follow- 
Ing mag wAnapuviy tig capkés is also purposely chosen ; in it zAnopor. signifi- 
cantly glances back to dgedig, and ri capxéc to oduaroc, and there is pro- 
Aneod a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron: for the sake of 
fully satinfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a 
reptite of windom, otc., in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the mate- 
rhal paychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured 
among othor things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied ; the fleshly 
alnfial lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it, 
when they sco that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise. 
What lust of tho flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt 
by tho caso itself and also by ver. 18, namely, that of religious concett and 
pride, which through the Adyov cogiag eve feels itself flattered and gratified 
In tho fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have 
ulvon Of ob« bv rych reve, mpdg rAncuovay Tig aapxéc, is held in substance, fol- 
lowing Hilnry (‘angina carnalis sensus traditio humana est”), by Bengel, 
Morr, Mlatt, BOhmer, Steiger, Biihr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others. 
Mont, however, refer év tiv) tee to the honor to be shown to the body (or 
the adpé, oo Luther), and mpdg rayou. 7. cape. to bodily satisfaction, so that 
tho senne roaulta: not tn some esteeming of the body to the satisfying of bodily 
wntas® “wontit apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae 
corport debitua honor, pertinens ad expletionem, é. e. justam refectionem 
curtis, aubtrahatur,” Estius? It is fatal to this view :-—(1) that év rug reve, 
na lenhown by the repetition of é, is the contrast not merely to év agecdig 
awn, but to the entire connected & MHeodproxeia . .. cbuatoc, and hence 
(he reference to the honor to be shown to the body does not seem justified 


VOM ddocdee, oop Plat. Nesap 419 D: Phad. 


Adve yo Td UY, Mather, Adeadede dian, Thue. ib 
Ot Ay Bede, Mop AY Wt: emmereaa, Lys ib 
CSW AL AD LN 

O' Cal Will ave the teaty Nanared, da it ts 
Gas lee the (aed, Olothing, ahs) fe ti neem 
gn VE Neem, aad Wet tee be deat oad with mtderhle 


fasting, labor, or impossible chastity, as the 
doctrine of men would do,” Luther’s gloss. 
3S, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanch- 
thon, Calvin, Muscalas, Clarius, Zeger, Eras- 
waus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius, 


ee oa 


NOTES. 331 
by the context ;! (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfac- 
tion at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a mpévaav rig 
capxés in view, as in Rom. xiii. 14, the term zAyopyovfv would be very inap- 
propriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false 
teachers, since it denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Ex. xvi. 8 (see 
generally the passages from the LXX. and Apocrypha quoted by Schleus- 
ner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.);* (8) finally, that the interchange of céparo¢ and 
capxéc, in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character, 
would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, capxés 
stands in as ingenious correlation with oduaroc, as rAnopovty with agecdig. 
These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewald’s view; “what seems 
very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfac- 
tion of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not 
wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it” (2 Cor. x. 8). 
Hofmann finally takes rAyopovp 1. capxés rightly, but explains oix & rip 
tive in such a way as to make rim masculine, and to attach it as appropriat- 
ing dative to rig: “not so that honor accrues to any one.” This is to be 
rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing ring revog, 
would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be mis- 
understood by rvi, which every reader was led to join as a feminine with 
rug (“in honore aliquo,” Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what sub- 
jects, beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to 
conceive to ourselves under ri taken as masculine. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 
XXXII. Vv. 1-5. 


(a) yép of ver. 1 evidently connects this verse with ii. 29, because of the words 
Gyéva and aywviléuevoc. The “conflict,” however, is to the end (ei¢ & i. 29) of 
presenting every man perfect in Christ. We may believe, therefore, that in ver. 
1 the Apostle confirms and unfolds the idea of ayw»:{éuevoc as bearing upon all, by 
calling attention to the great ayév which he has even for those whom he had never 
seen. The connection of the thought, accordingly, as well as the indications of the 
verse itself which are pointed out by Meyer, proves that Paul had no personal 
acquaintance with the Cologsians—that is, that the Colossians and Laodiceans were 
of the same class of persons with the dco0.—(b) That ayéva and ayw. refer promi- 
nently to inward struggle—anxiety, prayer, etc.—is rendered probable both by the 
Apoastle’s condition at the time and by the words used in iv. 12. But the connec- 
tion of thought with the beginning of the paragraph in which these verses should 
be included (i. 24-ii. 7), suggests a reference, also, to roi¢ radhyaoww irép tudor... 
GvravatAnp «.t.A. of i. 24.—(c) Meyer apparently regards év aydry as suggesting 


Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Nésselt, 
Rosenmiller, and others, including de Wette 
and Baumgarten-Crusius. 

This applies also in opposition to Olshau- 
sen, who in the case of éy rizq rem: follows the 
explanation of respect for the body, but with 


regard to spds wAnop. tr. capex. follows our 
view. 

2Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 887: Xen. Mem. 
ili. 11. 14, rep. Lae. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40, Ages. 
5.1; Lucian. Nigr. 33, Ep. Saturn. 28; Polyb. 
il. 19. 4. 


330 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


ayyéAwy in ver. 18), which would come ultimately to the idea of the Aarpebec 
t% 460vg (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C: Aarpeia rot cdéparog, 
and on the matter conceived as Spyoxeia., Phil. iii. 19.—rarecvogpoc.] 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 mpd¢ 
wAnopov. t. capxéc) took pleasure in unduly undervaluing themselves—an 
ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the é3eAo9 proxeia, 
and towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and 
mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty.'\—ovx é ring 
riu.] [XXXVg.] Not through anything whatever that is an honor, not 
through anything honorable, by which that repute would appear founded 
in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make 
the Adyog copiag appear as repute without honor, i. e. without any morally 
estimable substratum on the part of the persons concerned. The follow- 
"ing pd¢ rAnauoviy ti¢ capxés is also purposely chosen; in it zAyopov. signifi- 
cantly glances back to agedig, and ric capxdc to oduaroc, and there is pro- 
duced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron: for the sake of 
fully satisfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a 
repute of wisdom, etc., in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the mate- 
rial-psychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured 
among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied ; the fleshly 
sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it, 
when they see that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise. 
What lust of the flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt 
by the case itself and also by ver. 18, namely, that of religious conceit and 
pride, which through the Adyov cogiac Exew feels itself flattered and gratified 
in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have 
given of ote év rig Tem, mpd¢ TAncpovay Ti¢ capKéc, is held in substance, fol- 
lowing Hilary (“sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est”), by Bengel, 
Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, Steiger, Bahr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others. 
Most, however, refer év riug reve to the honor to be shown to the body (or 
the oép£&, see Luther), and mpd¢ rAjopu. 7. capx. to bodily satisfaction, so that 
the sense results: not in some esteeming of the body to the satisfying of bodily 
wants ;* “sentit apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae 
corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, #. e. justam refectionem 
carnis, subtrahatur,” Estius.® It is fatal to this view :—(1) that év ring revi, 
as is shown by the repetition of év, is the contrast not merely to év agecdig 
cdépuaroc, but to the entire connected év éveAodprnoxeia . . . cuaroc, and hence 
the reference to the honor to be shown to the body does not seem justified 


10n dgeacdig, comp. Plat. Defin.p. 412 D; Ptut. 
Mor. p. 762 D; further, adecdecv Biov, Thuc. iL 
43.3; puxins, Soph. Hl. 968: capdrey, Lys. ii. 
25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60. 

$“ (Jod will have the body honored, f. «. it is 
to have its food, clothing, etc., for ita neces- 
sities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable 


fasting, labor, or impossible chastity, as the 
doctrine of men would do,” Luther's gloss. 
8So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecumeniusr, Theo- 
phylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanch- 
thon, Calvin, Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Eras- 
mus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius, 


NOTES. 331 
by the context ;! (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfac- 
tion at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a rpévacav rig 
capxéc in view, a8 in Rom. xiii. 14, the term Anoporfy would be very inap- 
propriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false 
teachers, since it denotes filling up, satiafying fully, even in Ex. xvi. 8 (see 
generally the passages from the LX-X. and Apocrypha quoted by Schleus- 
ner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.);? (8) finally, that the interchange of céparog and 
capxdc, in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character, 
would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, capxé¢ 
stands in as ingenious correlation with oduaroc, as mAnopovay with agecdig. 
These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewald’s view; “what seems 
very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfac- 
tion of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not 
wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it’ (2 Cor. x. 8). 
Hofmann finally takes rAyopovn +r. capxéc rightly, but explains ob« é& riuh 
reve in such a way as to make re masculine, and to attach it as appropriat- 
ing dative to rug: “not so that honor accrues to any one.” This is to be 
rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing reug revoe, 
would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be mis- 
understood by r:vi, which every reader was led to join as a feminine with 
rium (“in honore aliquo,” Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what sub- 
jects, bevond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to 
conceive to ourselves under ri taken as masculine. 


Nores spy AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXXII. Vv. 1-5. 


(a) yép of ver. 1 evidently connects this verse with ii. 29, because of the words 
Gyava and aywriféuevog. The “conflict,” however, is to the end (ei¢ & i. 29) of 
presenting every man perfect in Christ. We may believe, therefore, that in ver. 
1 the Apostle confirms and unfolds the idea of aywv{éuevoc as bearing upon all, by 
calling attention to the great ayév which he has even for those whom he had never 
seen. The connection of the thought, accordingly, as well as the indications of the 
verse itself which are pointed out by Meyer, proves that Paal had no personal 
acquaintance with the Colossians—that is, that the Colossians and Laodiceans were 
of the same class of persons with the éco.—(b) That ayéva and aywv¢. refer promi- 
nently to inward struggle—anxiety, prayer, etc.—is rendered probable both by the 
Apostle’s condition at the time and by the words used in iv. 12. But the connec- 
tion of thought with the beginning of the paragraph in which these verses should 
be included (i. 24-ii. 7), suggests a reference, also, to roi¢ tadquacww vrép tudy ... 
GvravarAnp x.7.A. of i. 24.—(c) Meyer apparently regards é aydrry as suggesting 


Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Néaselt, 
Rosenmialler, and others, including de Wette 
and Baumgarten-Crusius. 

1This applies also in opposition to Olshau- 
sen, who in the case of é» riz Te follows the 
explanation of respect for the body, but with 


regard to spds sAncu. tr. capx. follows our 
view. 

2Comp. Plat. Legg. vili. p. 887: Ken. Mem. 
fi, 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Qyrop. iv. 2. 40, Ages. 
6.1; Lucian. Nigr. 383, Ep. Saturn. 28; Polyb. 
iL. 19. 4. 


332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


that union of love which is connected with the removal of heretical division. 
That there is a reference in the following words to the mystery of God as contrasted 
with the ideas of the heretics, can hardly be doubted, but whether this is intended 
in ayéry is more questionable. There seems to be no objection to the under- 
standing of this word in its ordinary more general sense. (Comp. iii. 14). 

(d) The textual reading at the end of ver. 2 which adopted by most of the recent 
critics and commentators is tov Seov Xpiorov, So Tisch., Treg, W. & H., Lachm., 
R. V., Mey., Blk., Huther, Hofm., Lightf, Ell., and others. That the various 
other readings which are found are derived from this one, or from the simple row 
VYeov (which Alf. favors), is evident to any one who will observe how easily and 
naturally they grow from the shorter into thé longer forms. W.& H.claim that 
the latter of these two readings, as well as the others, is unquestionably derived 
from the former. It must be admitted that the omission of Xprorotd by copyists is 
somewhat more easily accounted for, than its insertion. But whether the omis- 
sion can be affirmed as, beyond question, the origin of the reading tov deot may be 
doubted. Dr. Hort suggests that rot év Xpior} may not improbsbly have been the 
original text, and Dr. Westcott, who apparently does not agree with him in this 
view, joins him in excepting the reading rov Jeov év Xptorp from those which are 
clearly deriyed from tov Seov Xpiorotv, This derivation would seem, however, to 
be a very natural one—some copyist attempting to explain the difficulty of the 
genitive Xp. by é» Xp. Dr. Hort’s view hardly accounts satisfactorily for the 
appearance of Qeov in the several texts, for, if the original reading had been rov 
pvornpiov Tov év Xpior@, this expression which is simple and Pauline would not 
have been likely to suggest a change, and especially a change to so difficult a 
reading as tov @cot Xptotov. Dr. Scrivener, in his Introd. to the Criticism 
of the N. T., 3d Ed., p. 635 f. says, “We may unhesitatingly reject the short- 
est form tov Oecot ... We would gladly adopt rot Gov Xprorod, so powerfully 
do internal considerations plead in its favor, were it but a little better sup- 
ported: the important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that 
is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unreservedly. 
Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows upon us, as the source 
from which all the rest are derived. At present, perhaps, rod Jeot marpdc¢ rov 
Xpicrov may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of 
s0 many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice to turn the 
critical scale.” This is the reading of ®*AC 4, Sahid. Vulg. am. fu. (** omitting 
rov before Xp.), but it is so difficult to suppose that zarpé¢ should have been omit- 
ted if this were the first text, and so easy to account for its insertion if the original 
text were Tov Seo Xporod, that we must agree with W. & H., who would place 
this reading among those which are undoubtedly derived from rot Seov Xpiorov. 
Qn the whole, 7. 3. Xp. is to be regarded as the true text, though not sustained by 
as many authorities as might be desired (B. Hilar.), and involving considerable 
difficulties. 

(e) If the reading rot Seo Xpiorov is adopted, what is the construction of the 
word Xpiorov? This question has received three answers, which are mentioned 
by Meyer and which seem to exhaust the probabilities of the case. These are (1) 
that which makes Xp. appositional with Jeov; (2) that which makes it apposi- 
tional with xvernpiov; (3) that which makes it depend on Yeot,—the God of Christ. 
Huther mentions (4) that which makes it depend on pvorypiov, in which case 
the meaning apparently is, God’s mystery belonging to Christ, or the divine mystery 


NOTES. 333 


of Christ. This fourth explanation is so improbable, however, that it may be set 
aside, the form of expression being a strange and unnatural one to set forth the 

idea. Of the other three, Meyer adopts the third. That this construction is 

Vallowable must be admitted. That it is in harmony, as to the idea involved, with 
the expression the God of our Lord Jesus Christ in Eph. i. 17, must also be 
granted. It is to be observed, however, that there is no occasion here for speak- 
ing of the God of Christ, whereas, on the other hand, the object which the 
Apostle has in view in the preceding and following context is to represent Christ, 
in His relation to God, as the exact image of God and as having in Himself the full- 
ness of Deity, and, in His relation to Divine truth, as containing in Himself the 
completeness of the uvorfpiov, Everything in the context, therefore, would sug- 
gest to the intelligent reader the connection of Xpiorov in the way of apposition 
either with eov or nvornplov; and the Apostle might well suppose, under the 
circumstances, that the reader would not be misled by reason of the possibility, 
or—as viewed with respect to many sentences—the naturalness, of making it 
dependent on deov. The probabilities of the case, accordingly, are strongly 
against Meyer’s view. The decision of a question of this sort is peculiarly de- 
pendent on the character of the thought which an author is developing in the 
passage under consideration. 

Assuming, then, that the gen. Xp. is a genitive of apposition, the first and 
second explanations already mentioned present themselves. As between them, 
preference must be given, we think, to the second, for the following reasons: (1) 
because the purpose of the Apostle in setting forth the Divine in Christ, in this 
Epistle, seems to be to present Him as the one who reveals God, as the image of 
the invisible one, as the one by whom God works in creation and redemption, as 
having embodied, as it were, in Himself the treasures of Divine wisdom, as pos- 
sessing, indeed, the fullness of Deity, which dwells in Him bodily; but not to pre- 
sent Him as 6 Sed¢ ;—to set Him forth, that is, as having Deity indeed, yet in His 
distinction from God the Father. To understand the words of this second verse 
as meaning the God Christ seems out of harmony with the particular purpose of 
the writer. This purpose was determined, undoubtedly, by the position and 
views of the heretical teachers, who thought of a large number of emanations or 
angels as the means by which the hidden God comes into contact with the world. 
Paul, on the contrary, proclaims the one Divine Son of God’s love as the creator 
and redeemer, the revealer of God and Histruth. To call Him the God Christ was 
outside of his line of thought, and might even appear to interfere with its best and 
most direct progress; (2) because this expression, the God Christ, is not found else- 
where in the Epistles of this period of Paul’s life, or, indeed, in any of his Epistles. 
The word ede is applied to Christ, probably, in Rom. ix. 5; possibly or probably, 
in Tit. ii. 13; according to some interpreters, in 2 Theas. i. 12; Eph. v. 5; 
according to what is not improbably the correct reading, in Acts xx. 28; accord- 
ing to some authorities, in 1 Tim. iii. 16; but we do not discover such a phrase as 
this—the God Christ, rov Seov Xpiorov—in use by Paul; (3) because the passage in 
the preceding context which apparently draws nearest in thought to the present 
verse—namely i. 27—+sets before us God as willing to make known the mystery 
which is Christ. In view of the fact that the words now under consideration fol- 
low so soon after this sentence whose meaning cannot be mistaken, as well as of 
the fact that the prominent words in the two verses are the same, and that the poe- 
sibilities of construction allow of the same interpretation in the latter as in the 





334 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


former, it must be regarded as quite improbable that the writer gives expression 
lere to a different and new idea. The explanation of the genitive Xp. as in appo- 
sition with pvornpiov, the mystery of God, even Christ, is favored by R. V., Lightf., 
Ell., Davies, W. & H. appy., Davidson tr. appy., and others. 

({) "Ev » is referred by Meyer to pvorypiov, If his view of rot Oeov Xpiorov 
is adopted, this reference may probably be regarded as correct. But if Xpcoroi is 
to be taken as appositional with pvornpiov, ¢ in all probability has Xp. as its 
antecedent. Christ is the mystery, and in Him all the treasures are hidden.—(g) 
Meyer regards azéxpupo: as an attributive adjective to ycavpoi, being placed at 
the end simply for emphasis. It is evidently possible to explain it in this way, 
but the adjective may be, also, a secondary predicate, as Lightf. and several others 
take it.—(h) Totro of ver. 4 is to be referred to vv. 1-3 (as Meyer says); iva 
denotes the end in view with which those verses were written ; and the following 
words may be regarded as having reference to the deceiving and misleading per- 
suasive discourse of the Colossian errorists. These errorists were drawing the 
members of the church away from faith in Christ to the idea of a Jewish Alex- 
andrian or Oriental philosophizing--worship of angels, mysteries, etc., which 
denied the true idea of Christ and the true view of the Divine mystery.— 
(t) Vv. 6, 7, press upon the readers, in view of the fact that in Christ are the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and of the danger of their being led astray 
by harmful persuasions, the exhortation to continue steadily and firmly in that 
knowledge and apprehension of Christ which had been given them at the begin- 
ning.—(j) tdv «xipcov has, apparently, a certain emphasis (whether correctly ex- 
plained by Meyer or not) indicative of Christ’s exaltation. 


XXXII. Vv. 8-10. 


(a) It may be regarded as somewhat doubtful whether a new paragraph should 
begin at ver. 8 or ver. 6. R. V. makes a paragraph begin with each of these 
verses, W. & H. with ver. 6 (though they also make a half-paragraph at ver. 8), 
Treg. with ver. 6, Tisch. 8th ed. has no paragraph at either verse, Lightf. makes 
one at ver. 8. The view of Lightf. is, on the whole, to be preferred. ‘Vv. 6, 7, 
are best explained as an exhortation drawn immediately from the suggestions of 
the preceding verses and forming an appropriate conclusion for them. Vv. 8 ff, 
on the other hand, turn more directly and emphatically to warnings against the 
false teachers, their influence and teachings, and at the opening of the 8th ver. 
the second part of the Epistle begins. 

(b) The very strong word ovAaywyév carrying off as prey, which is used in the 
N. T. only in this place, indicates the spirit and effectiveness of the errorists, and 
the completeness of the separation from the Gospel which would result for the 
Colossians, if their efforts should not be resisted. It is a stronger expression, if 
possible, even than those which we find describing the work of the Judaizing 
teachers in Galatia.—(c) The two phrases, after the tradition of men, after the 
rudiments of the world, occur again, though not precisely in the same form or 
connection, in vv. 20, 22. The expression Td orotyeia tov xéopov occurs, also, 
in Gal. iv. 3. In that passage, as may be inferred from the indications of the 
chapter, it has reference both to the Gentile and Jewish religious systems—the 
latter, so far as it had been ceremonialized and turned into a mere human system 
by the Pharisees or others of the time. Out of the former of those systems the 


NOTES. 335 


Galatian converts had mainly come into Christianity ; into the latter they were 
in danger of falling away. But they were going back into the croyeia, as they 
had come out of them, Gal. iv. 9. In this Epistle, the two elements of Gentil- 
ism and Judaism seem to be joined in one, making up the system opposed to the 
Christian truth, a Judaico-Gnostic theosophy and asceticism. But the later and 
compounded system was xara TG orotyeia Tov xéouov as truly, and for the same 
reason, as either of the earlier and simpler systems. In all the places where the 
- words occur, oro:yeia apparently refers to the rudimentary character of the sys- 
tems alluded to, as contrasted with the higher and more complete doctrine re- 
vealed through Christ, and xécyov refers to the world (i. e. mankind) apart from 
God. This meaning of xéoyvov seems more probable than that which connects it 
with external or sensuous things.—(d) 6r: of ver. 9 is immediately connected 
with ov xatd Xpioréy, but, at the same time, it introduces that which is the 
ground of the warning against the deceitful philosophy. 

(e) Whether we take 7Afpwya as signifying that by which the person or thing 
expressed by the following genitive is made full, (which is the only signification 
derived from A7péw in the sense of to fill, that will satisfy the demands of 
every passage where the word occurs in the N. T.), or that which ts completed, and 
thus equivalent to the plenitude (from Ajpéw as meaning to complete), the 
declaration of this verse is, that the Divine essence in its fullness is in Christ. 
This is proved by every indication and element of the passage—by this word 
rAfpoua as connected with Oeéryrog; by Oeérns, the full significance of which, 
as distinguished from Geéry¢ (as in Rom. i. 20), cannot be set aside; by the fact 
that, in the following verse, He is said to be the head of every principality and 
power, i.e. exalted above the highest angels; by the apparent contrasting of 
Christ, as having in Himself the 7Af%pwua, with the angelic mediators as con- 
ceived of by the heretics. This indwelling in Him of the tAfpupya rig Oedryro¢ 
is the very truth from which the false philosophy, (comp. the yvaorg falsely so 
called, 1 Tim. vi. 20) was endeavoring to draw the Colossians away. To Paul’s 
mind it was a vital and central truth of that system in which, as they had 
received Christ, he would have the readers continue firmly established ; and be- 
cause it was so vital and central, every opposing system was xatd orotyeia Tov 
xéopov—a mere rudimentary, imperfect, even deceitful, philosophy of the unspir- 
itual world.—(f) xarocxet is a continuous present, like éoriv of i. 15.18. Though 
spoken from the standpoint of the present, it extends in its meaning over the 
past, and as Lightf. says xarocxei . . . Oeéryrog answers to Johni.1, and owya- 
tio to Johni. 14, The approximation of the Pauline thought, in this Epistle, 
to that of John, in the Prologue of the Gospel, can scarcely fail to be observed by 
the careful student. 

(g) R. V. and many commentators agree with Meyer in making éoré of ver. 
10 depend on 4r:, and there can be little doubt that this is the correct view. 
Meyer's view with respect to texAnpwyévor is also correct. This participle is 
suggested by and closely connected with 7Ajpwua of ver. 9, but it does not re- 
quire the supply of a genitive from eéryroc, nor does the connection between 
the two words show that tAjpwya ri¢ Yedtyto¢g must be understood in such a 
sense as to be equally applicable to Christians and Christ. The word Vedérye¢ is, 
on the other hand, exclusive of any supposition of this sort. Indeed, we may 
believe that the Apostle has here a similar twofold thought to that which we find 
in the first chapter,—Christ being first presented in relation to what He has or is 





326 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


pas expresses rather the motion of the sulyect grasping at something, Ocryyéve 
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 dazreofa 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 ea 
inhaerere), and similarly the signification of the active to fasten to, to make 
to stick (Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 698; Duncan, Lev. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 150). 
The mere stretching out the hand towards something, in order to seize it, is 
never arreofa:. Hofmann, moreover, in order to establish a climax of 
the three points, arbitrarily makes the subtle gloss upon yetoy, that this 
might even happen more unintentionally, and upon 6iyyc, that this might 
happen involuntarily." 

Ver. 22. We are not to put in a parenthesis pu? ayy... aroxphoe (Eras- 
mus Schmid, Heinrichs, and others), but merely a éorw... arxoyxp. (Gries- 
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Ewald); for the construction proceeds uninter- 
ruptedly to @iyyc, is then only broken by the judgment 4 éorc 7. ei¢ 96. 1. 
aroyp., and thereafter runs on with xara ra évrdAu, x.7.A.—d tori... Groxp. i8 - 
an inserted? judgment of the apostle anent that which the false teachers 
interdicted by yu) ayy «.7.A.: which all are destined to destruction® through the 
using,—from which it is to be rendered palpably apparent, how preposter- 
ous it is to make such things a condition of eternal bliss by urging absti- 
nence from them. We have here a similar line of argument to that in 
Matt. xv. 17. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 18. Hence ¢@opé is meant to denote the 
perishing which takes place through the natural dissolution (digestion) 
of the meats and drinks; and with this conception quite accords the pur- 
posely-chosen compound 19 azoypfoe, which, like abusus, indicates the 
using up, the consuming (Plut. Mor. p. 267 E; Davis, ad Cic. N. D. iv. 60). 
So it is unanimously explained by Chrysostom, Theodoret (etc xémpov yap 
amavta peraBaAdrerac), Oecumenius (¢OopG ydp, gnow, iméxectar Ev TH agedparr), 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Grotius, Michaelis, 
and many others, including Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, Ewald, Bleek, Hof- 
mann. But, according to others, who likewise regard 4... amoxzp. a8 a 
parenthetical judgment, the ais to be referred to the prohibitions, amoyp. 
to the use, 4. e. the following of them, and ¢@opé (comp. Gal. vi. 8) to the 





ayp, cis ovdey raw xeipa dwopdpevoy (ct dpe), 
bray 84 rovrey (these dainty dishes) rivds Oc yp, 
evOis awoxabaipy THY Xelpa cis TA xetpdmaxTpe, 
also v. 1. 16. In an inverted climax, Eur. 
Bacch. 617. ovr’ ecyev evO Hed’ yyav. See 
also Ex. xix. 12, where the LXX. delicately 
and aptly render %1$¥/3 Ji), to touch the 
outer border of the mountain, by the free trans- 
lation Oiyew rs abrov, but then express the 
general 13 3m by the stronger 4 ayéue- 
yos tov Spovs. 

1Respecting the aorist G&yety (a present 
Oyer instead of GHyyéveay can nowhere be 


accepted as certain), see Schaefer, ad Greg. 
Cor. p. 990, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 804; Kah- 
ner, I. p. 833. 

*For it is only an incidental observation in 
opposition to the above soyuarigerOa:; the 
main ground of opposition to the latter lies in 
ei aweOay. cvw X. 

Secriv eis Oopdy, it serves for destruction, 
{. e. it serves for the purpose of being destroyed. 
See generally Winer, p. 173 [E. T. 183]; Butt- 
mann, Neut. Gr. p. 131 [E. T. 150 f.). Comp. 
Wisd. iv. 18; Ecclus. xxxiv. 10; Judith v. 21, 
24, viii. 22. 


CHAP. I. 22, 327 


destruction of the persons who follow them: all which déyyara by their use 
tend to (eternal) destruction. So Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Cornelius a 
Lapide, Calixtus, Heumann, Junker. Erroneously; because aréypnotg 
never means merely use, and even the simple yp7orc, in the sense of r#prore, 
would be an unsuitable designation ; in fact, the entire addition, “by the 
use,” would be utterly superfluous. On account of azoyp., the expedient 
must also be rejected, on linguistic grounds, that 4... aoyp. are still words 
of the false teachers, which Paul repeats with irony: “omnia haec (vetita) 
usu suo perniciem afferunt,”’ Heinrichs, comp. Schenkel. By others, who, 
like Tischendorf, have deleted the marks of parenthesis, the whole down 
to avfpédauwv is taken together: all this, which the false teachers forbid, 
tends through the using to (“ moral,” de Wette) destruction , “si sc. ex 
doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur,” ! 
Kypke; so also Vatablus, Storr, Flatt, BOhmer, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius (Huther is undecided between this explanation and ours). But 
in opposition to this it may be urged, that the compound azoypfoe would 
be entirely without a motive, since not the consumption, but the use at all 
would be soul-destroying according to the maxims of those people. Our 
view alone supplies a motive for the use of arozp#oa, and that through the 
point of its connection with cic gfopdv, in which case, however, the object 
affected by amoyp. and cic ¢4op. must be the same (the things forbidden). 
De Wette’s objections are irrelevant, since the thought of the parenthesis 
a... amoxp. is expressed not strangely, but with Pauline ingenuity, the 
words xaré ra évrdAy. x.t.A. annexed to doyyarifeofe are by no means super- 
fluous (see below), nor does this annexation require us to begin the paren- 
tnesis with 7) dy and thereby to include heterogeneous elements together; 
for 4? ayy «.7.A. still belongs closely to doyzar., of which it is the contents, 
and xara ra évrddAu. «.7.A is then annexed, after the brief incidentally 
inserted remark, to doyzar. and its contents (u) ayy x.7.A.).—xard ra évrda- 
pata x.t.A.] [XXXVe.] The article before évrdéau., and extending also to 
didackad., is generic. The pu) ayy «.7.A. was decreed by the false teachers 
conformably to the commandments and doctrines of men, not in consequence 
of what God had commanded and taught. This element, annexed to doy- 
parif., is by no means superfluous (in opposition to de Wette), since, in 
fact, déyua in itself is a command generally, and may be one based upon 
divine authority ; it rather serves to bring out with perfect clearness the 
conflicting relation, in which that doyyarifecbac stands to the ameOdvere oiv 
Xpiorg «.7.A. 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 areOdvere ovv X. x.1.4.), but 
such as consisted in the human (Essene) definitions, expansions, and 
amplifications of the former (xara tiv tapddoow Trav avOpdrur, ver. 8). It was 
in this, and not in the mere setting up again of the Mosaic law abolished 


1Similarly Dalmer, who, however, takes ry found in the sense of abuse (xaraxphors, wape- 
éwoxp. in the sense of abuse, joining itimme- xpHors), awoxpyots is not, though it was so 
diately to xara ras &8age. «.7.A. But while taken by Erasmus Schmid, Schoettgen, Zach- 
éwoxpnoOa (Dem. 215.8; Herodian, v. 1.13) is ariae, as also by Grimm in his Lexicon. 


328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


through Christ (Chrysostom and many others), that the doyzarifecda: was 
regulated by human standard, without the divine authority and warrant. 
Moreover, didaox. is not synonymous with évrday., but has a wider sense (in 
Matt. xv. 9 and Mark vi. 7, the narrower idea comes ajter as a more pre- 
cise definition), so that the two together specify the preceptive and generally 
(xai) the doctrinal standard. Comp. Isa. xxix. 13. 

Ver. 28. And of what nature and quality is that, which I have just termed 
ra éyrdApara x. didacxad tov avbp.?—driwa] quippe quae, i.e. ita comparaia, 
ut (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 30). The conception was different in a of 
ver. 22, where the thing in question was regarded purely objectively, as 
mere object.—ori] belongs to éyovra, without, however, being with this 
equivalent to ézec; it introduces what the ariva are as regards their quality. 
If it belonged to obx éy rip reve (Bahr), or to mpd¢ rAyop. t. o. (Bengel), or 
to év éeAcbpnoxeia x.7.A. (that which moves and has tts being in éeAobp. x.7.A.), 
as Hofmann thinks, taking Adyov p. éxovra 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 év éedAodp. 
could alone deserve consideration, since from éy é3eAo%p. onwards all that 
follows is consecutive. But even this connection must be abandoned, 
because the sphere of subsistence indicated by év é¥eAodp. «.r.A. would be 
too wide for such special prohibitions, ver. 21, as are conveyed by ariva, 
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 r. éy. copiac, 
which comes in with éori so emphatically at the very head of the judg- 
ment, and appropriately, as regards meaning, attaches to itself all that 
follows.—Adyov éxev, explained by many since Jerome approximately in 
the sense of speciem or praetextum habere (see Kypke, de Wette, Dalmer, 
and others; also Késter in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1854, p. 318), may, according 
as we adopt for Adyoc the signification ratio or sermo, mean either: to have 
ground, in which case the ground may certainly be only an apparent one, 
a pretext (comp. Ellendt, Lez. Soph. II. p. 36); further, to have an insight 
into something (often thus in Plato, e.g. Rep. p. 475 C), to have regard to 
(Herod. i. 62; Plat. Tim. p. 87 C); or: to have a reputation, so that one is 
in any relation the subject of discourse, of legend, of mention, of rumor, 
etc.2 The latter signification is here to be adhered to, because the sub- 
sequent oi év riug tax, when correctly rendered, accords with it as bear- 
ing on the matter in hand, and is in sense appropriately correlative. 
Hence: that which has a repute of wisdom, popularly passes for wisdom. 
Comp. dvoya éyew (Rev. iii. 1) and évoudfecfa: (1 Cor. v. 11).—yév] without a 
subsequent dé; there was before the apostle’s mind the contrast: repute, 


180 in the passages from Demosth., Dionys, 
Hal., and Lesbonax in Kypke; from Plat. in 
Ast, Lex. II. p. 257; from Polyb. in Schweig- 
hauser, Lez, p. 370. So Hilgenfeld, in his 
Zeitechr, 1870, p. 250, holding that what is 
rejected in the legal sense in ver. 22 is here 
“permitted as voluntary asceticism.” See, 
however, on the sequel, from which the 


impossibility of this interpretation is self- 
evident. 

*See e.g. Plat. Epin. p. 987. B: ‘ Ewoddpos 
... Adpoditns civar cxeddy exer Adyor (dicitur), 
Herod. v. 56: Adyow éxee Thy LvOiny avaweioat 
comp. ix, 78; Xen. Occ. 11. 4. (the same thing 
conceived under another form: Adyos éxes 
tiva, Herod. vii. 5, and frequently). 


CHAP. Ir. 23. 329 


truly, but not the reality, ov divapiv, oix GAfbecav, Chrysostom. He omitted 
to express this, however, led aside by the progress of his discourse, so that 
instead of bringing in the antithesis of Aéyov by dé, he makes ov« é ripy 
reve follow without dé, and in contrast not to the Aéyov, but to the év éveAodp. 
x.7.4.,—from which we are to gather in substance, what in starting with 
Adyov pév it was intended to express.! The linguistic phenomenon of this 
pév without an adversative word following is so common, that there is no 
ground for requiring before ot« év rium 7. an aAAé (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 mrpd¢ 
wAnon. Tt. capxéc an ill-inserted remnant of the original.—év édeAovproneia} 
[XXXVI f.] instrumental, specifying by what means it is brought about, on 
the part of those who lay down the commandments and doctrines referred 
to, that the latter have a repute of wisdom: through self-chosen worship, ¢. e. 
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 expression in our passage, have been meant 
exclusively; other forms of capricious cultus miay have been included 
with it. The substantive é@eA08p. does not occur elsewhere except in eccle- 
siastical writers; but the verb édeAodproxeiv is explained by Suidas: idly 
SeAguare oéBew rd doxovv, and Epiph. Haer. i. 16 explains the name Phari- 
sees: did Td agupiopévoug elvar avTovc and Tov dAAwy dua THY EDeAowEpiaao- 
Spynoxeiay map’ avtoig vevououévyy.? Hofmann erroneously takes away 
from the word in itself the bad sense, and explains (after the analogy of 
éVeAorovia and édedovpyia): 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 Ypyoxcia was certainly something bad. The unfavorable meaning, 
according to Hofmann’s present explanation (he gave a different but also 
erroneous view in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 72; see, in opposition to it, my 
third edition), is only got by the addition of céuaroc, which belongs to all 
the three points, so that édeAoSproxeia cduarog must be understood as a 
worship gladly and earnestly rendered, but which is rendered only with 
bodily demeanor. But cdparoc does not suit either with éeAodp. or rarecvogp.® 
but only with agedig. For it is plain from agecdig odparoc that cdparoe is 
the genitive of the object, from which it follows that Spyoxeia cdyarog would 
yield the opposite sense : a Spnoxeia rendered to the body (comp. Spor. trav 


1See Erasmus, Annot.,and generally Winer, 
p. 534 f. [E. T. 575]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 
$13 [E. T. 365]; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 656; Maets- 
ner, ad Antiph. p. 153; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
163 f. 


kai ph xeAevoGeis «.7.A.), and various others. 

3 According to Hofmann, namely, rawrepo- 
dpoovwvn cwparos is a disposition of self-humil- 
tation, which, however, only weakens the body 
by abstinences. But it would rather have the 


Comp. @edrAoSovAcia (Plat. Symp. p. 184 C, 
Rep. p. 562. D), eOcAoxdanais, eeAoxivévvos, 
Medrdbwopos COedAonpdfevos (Thuc. fii. 70. 2, where 
the scholiast explains: ad’ cavrov yerdpevos 


absurd sense: humility of the body ; for rawe:- 
vodpocvwm neither means humiliation nor 
self-humiliation, but humility, weakness, ver. 
18, iii. 12; Phil ii 3. 


330 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


ayyéAwy in ver. 18), which would come ultimately to the idea of the Aarpebeew 
tg #dovg (Lucian, Nigr. 15), comp. Plut. Mor. p. 107 C: Aarpeia roi cdéparoe, 
and on the matter conceived as Sproxeia. Phil. iii. 19.—rarecvogpoc.] 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 rpé¢ 
wAnouov. Tt. capxéc) took pleasure in unduly undervaluing themselves—an 
ethical self-contempt, which involved in relation to God the é¥eAoVproxeia, 
and towards the body an unsparingness through mistaken abstinence and 
mortifying asceticism, inconsistent with Christian liberty.'.—ovn & ripj 
riu.) [XXXVg.] Not through anything whatever that is an honor, not 
through anything honorable, by which that repute would appear founded 
in truth and just. The expression is purposely chosen, in order to make 
the Adyog copiag appear as repute without honor, i. e. without any morally 
estimable substratum on the part of the persons concerned. The follow- 
"ing mpd¢ wAnapoviy tiz¢ capxéc is also purposely chosen ; in it rAyopov. signifi- 
cantly glances back to d¢gedig, and rie capxéc to oduaroc, and there is pro- 
duced a thoughtful contrast, a striking ethical oxymoron: for the sake of 
fully satisfying the flesh. Those commandments and doctrines have a 
repute of wisdom, etc., in order to afford thereby full satisfaction to the mate- 
rial-psychical human nature. Thus, while the repute of wisdom is procured 
among other things by mortifying the body, the flesh is satisfied ; the fleshly 
sinful lust of these men gets fully satisfying nourishment conveyed to it, 
when they see that their doctrines and commandments pass for wise. 
What lust of the flesh it is which Paul has in view, is placed beyond doubt 
by the case itself and also by ver. 18, namely, that of religious conceit and 
pride, which through the Adyov cogiag eeu feels itself flattered and gratified 
in the fancy of peculiar perfection. This interpretation, which we have 
given of ob« év rip tiv, mpde TAnopovay THe capxéc, is held in substance, fol- 
lowing Hilary (“sagina carnalis sensus traditio humana est’), by Bengel, 
Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, Steiger, Bahr, Huther, Dalmer, Bleek, and others. 
Most, however, refer év riu@ rx to the honor to be shown to the body (or 
the odpé, see Luther), and mpé¢ rAzou. 7. capx. to bodily satisfaction, so that 
the sense results: not in some esteeming of the body to the satisfying of bodily 
wants ;? “sentit apost., sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae 
corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, #. e. justam refectionem 
carnis, subtrahatur,” Estius.® It is fatal to this view :—(1) that é reg rev, 
as is shown by the repetition of év, is the contrast not merely to év agecdig 
céuaroc, but to the entire connected éy eveAodproxeig . . . cduaroc, and hence 
the reference to the honor to be shown to the body does not seem justified 





10n adecdig, comp. Plat. Defin.p. 412 D; Ptut. 
Mor. p. 762 D; further, agecdetu Biov, Thuc. ii. 
43.3; puxins, Soph. Hl. 968: cuopdrey, Lys. ii. 
25, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60. 

*“ (Jod will have the body honored, f. «. it is 
to have its food, clothing, etc., for its neces- 
sities, and not to be destroyed with intolerable 


fasting, labor, or impossible chastity, as the 
doctrine of men would do,” Luther's gloss. 
8So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- 
phylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Melanch- 
thon, Calvin, Musculus, Clarius, Zeger, Eras- 
mus Schmid, Zanchius, Vatablus, Calovius, 


NOTES. 331 
by the context ;! (2) further, that for the designation of the mere satisfac- 
tion at this particular place, where Paul could only have had a rpévaay rig 
capxés in View, a8 in Rom. xiii. 14, the term sAyopov4y would be very inap- 
propriate, especially in contradistinction to the mortifications of the false 
teachers, since it denotes filling up, satisfying fully, even in Ex. xvi. 8 (see 
generally the passages from the LX-X. and Apocrypha quoted by Schleus- 
ner, Thes. IV. p. 375 f.);? (8) finally, that the interchange of céparog and 
capxéc, in the event of the latter not being meant in an ethical character, 
would seem to be without a motive, while, according to our view, capxé¢ 
stands in as ingenious correlation with oéparoc, as rAnopoviy with agecdig. 
These arguments apply also in opposition to Ewald’s view; “what seems 
very wise, but is in no value whatever, is rather quite useless for the satisfac- 
tion of the flesh, which yet also demands its rights, if man would not 
wantonly disorganize his earthly life or even destroy it” (2 Cor. x. 8). 
Hofmann finally takes wAjopov) r. capxéc rightly, but explains ov« é ring 
tev in such a@ way as to make rim masculine, and to attach it as appropriat- 
ing dative to rug: “not so that honor accrues to any one.” This is to be 
rejected, because Paul, instead of simply and clearly writing rizg revog, 
would only have expressed himself in a way singularly liable to be mis- 
understood by rivi, which every reader was led to join as a feminine with 
rium (“in honore aliquo,” Vulgate). Nor is it to be easily seen what sub- 
jects, beyond the teacher of the false wisdom himself, we should have to 
conceive to ourselves under revi taken as masculine. 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XXXI. Vv. 1-5. 


(a) yép of ver. 1 evidently connects this verse with ii. 29, because of the words 
ayéva and aywvifépevog. The “conflict,” however, is to the end (ei¢ 8 i. 29) of 
presenting every man perfect in Christ. We may believe, therefore, that in ver. 
1 the Apostle confirms and unfolds the idea of aywréuevoc as bearing upon all, by 
calling attention to the great ayév which he has even for those whom he had never 
seen. The connection of the thought, accordingly, as well as the indications of the 
verse itself which are pointed out by Meyer, proves that Paal had no personal 
acquaintance with the Colossians—that is, that the Colossians and Laodiceans were 
of the same class of persons with the dc0.—(b) That ayéva and ayw¢. refer promi- 
nently to inward struggle—anxiety, prayer, etc.—is rendered probable both by the 
Apostle’s condition at the time and by the words used in iv. 12. But the connec- 
tion of thought with the beginning of the paragraph in which these verses should 
be included (i. 24-ii. 7), suggests a reference, also, to Troi¢ ta¥fyaoty irép tua... 
avravanAnp x.1.A. of i, 24.—(c) Meyer apparently regards év ayd7y as suggesting 


Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Ndsselt, 
Rosenmiuller, and others, including de Wette 
and Baumgarten-Crusius. 

3This applies also in opposition to Olshau- 
sen, who in the case of ép riz rem follows the 
explanation of respect for the body, but with 


regard to mspds wAnou. tr. capex. follows our 
view. 

2Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 887: Xen. Mem. 
fil. 11. 14, rep. Lac. 2. 5, Cyrop. iv. 2. 40, Ages. 
5.1; Lucian. Nigr. 38, Ep. Saturn. 28; Polyb. 
ii. 19. 4. 





332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


that union of love which is connected with the removal of heretical division. 
That there is a reference in the following words to the mystery of God as contrasted 
with the ideas of the heretics, can hardly be doubted, but whether this is intended 
in aydé7y is more questionable. There seems to be no objection to the under- 
standing of this word in its ordinary more general sense. (Comp. iii. 14). 

(d) The textual reading at the end of ver. 2 which adopted by most of the recent 
critics and commentators is Tov Yeov Xprorod. So Tisch., Treg., W. & H., Lachm., 
R. V., Mey., Blk., Huther, Hofm., Lightf., Ell., and others. That the various 
other readings which are found are derived from this one, or from the simple row 
Veov (which Alf. favors), is evident to any one who will observe how easily and 
naturally they grow from the shorter into the longer forms. W.& H.claim that 
the latter of these two readings, as well as the others, is unquestionably derived 
from the former. It must be admitted that the omission of Xpcorov by copyists is 
somewhat more easily accounted for, than its insertion. But whether the omis- 
sion can be affirmed as, beyond question, the origin of the reading rot Seot may be 
doubted. Dr. Hort suggests that tov év Xp:or} may not improbably have been the 
original text, and Dr. Westcott, who apparently does not agree with him in this 
view, joins him in excepting the reading tov Jeov év Xpior@ from those which are 
clearly deriyed from rot Seov Xporov, This derivation would seem, however, to 
be a very natural one—some copyist attempting to explain the difficulty of the 
genitive Xp. by éy Xp. Dr. Hort’s view hardly accounts satisfactorily for the 
appearance of Ocov in the several texts, for, if the original reading had been rov 
pvornpiov rou év Xpiord, this expression which is simple and Pauline would not 
have been likely to suggest a change, and especially a change to so difficult a 
reading as tov Qcov Xpicrov. Dr. Scrivener, in his Introd. to the Criticism 
of the N. T., 3d Ed., p. 635 f. says, “We may unhesitatingly reject the short- 
est form rov Ocov ... We would gladly adopt rov Geov Xpiorod, so powerfully 
do internal considerations plead in its favor, were it but a little better sup- 
ported: the important doctrine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that 
is, will naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unreservedly. 
Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it grows upon us, as the source 
from which all the rest are derived. At present, perhaps, tov Seot rarpd¢ rod 
Xptorov may be looked upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of 
60 many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice to turn the 
critical scale.” This is the reading of ®*AC 4, Sahid. Vulg. am. fu. (** omitting 
tov before Xp.), but it is so difficult to suppose that zrarpé¢ should have been omit- 
ted if this were the first text, and so easy to account for its insertion if the original 
text were Tov Jeo Xpcorod, that we must agree with W. & H., who would place 
this reading among those which are undoubtedly derived from rot Yeo Xprotod. 
On the whole, 7. 5. Xp. is to be regarded as the true text, though not sustained by 
as many authorities as might be desired (B. Hilar.), and involving considerable 
difficulties. 

(e) If the reading rot Seov Xprorov is adopted, what is the construction of the 
word Xpiotov? This question has received three answers, which are mentioned 
by Meyer and which seem to exhaust the probabilities of the case. These are (1) 
that which makes Xp. appositional with Scot; (2) that which makes it apposi- 
tional with pvornpiov; (3) that which makes it depend on Seov,—the God of Christ. 
Huther mentions (4) that which makes it depend on pvornpiov, in which case 
the meaning apparently is, God’s mystery belonging to Christ, or the divine mystery 


NOTES. 333 


of Christ. This fourth explanation is so improbable, however, that it may be set 
aside, the form of expression being a strange and unnatural one to set forth the 
idea. Of the other three, Meyer adopts the third. That this construction is 

Vallowable must be admitted. That it is in harmony, as to the idea involved, with 
the expression the God of our Lord Jesus Christ in Eph. i. 17, must also be 
granted. It is to be observed, however, that there is no occasion here for speak- 
ing of the God of Christ, whereas, on the other hand, the object which the 
Apostle has in view in the preceding and following context is to represent Christ, 
in His relation to God, as the exact image of God and as having in Himself the full- 
ness of Deity, and, in His relation to Divine truth, as containing in Himself the 
completeness of the uvorjpiov, Everything in the context, therefore, would sug- 
gest to the intelligent reader the connection of Xpiorov in the way of apposition 
either with Yeov or pvornpiov; and the Apostle might well suppose, under the 
circumstances, that the reader would not be misled by reason of the possibility, 
or—as viewed with respect to many sentences—the naturalness, of making it 
dependent on Yeov. The probabilities of the case, accordingly, are strongly 
against Meyer’s view. The decision of a question of this sort is peculiarly de- 
pendent on the character of the thought which an author is developing in the 
passage under consideration. 

Assuming, then, that the gen. Xp. is a genitive of apposition, the first and 
second explanations already mentioned present themselves. As between then, 
preference must be given, we think, to the second, for the following reasons: (1) 
because the purpose of the Apostle in setting forth the Divine in Christ, in this 
Epistle, seems to be to present Him as the one who reveals God, as the image of 
the invisible one, as the one by whom God works in creation and redemption, as 
having embodied, as it were, in Himself the treasures of Divine wisdom, as pos- 
sessing, indeed, the fullness of Deity, which dwells in Him bodily ; but not to pre- 
sent Him as é Jed¢ ;—to set Him forth, that is, as having Deity indeed, yet in His 
distinction from God the Father. To understand the words of this second verse 
as meaning the God Christ seems out of harmony with the particular purpose of 
the writer. This purpose was determined, undoubtedly, by the position and 
views of the heretical teachers, who thought of a large number of emanations or 
angels as the means by which the hidden God comes into contact with the world. 
Paul, on the contrary, proclaims the one Divine Son of God’s love as the creator 
and redeemer, the revealer of God and Histruth. To call Him the God Christ was 
outside of his line of thought, and might even appear to interfere with its best and 
most direct progress; (2) because this expression, the God Christ, is not found else- 
where in the Epistles of this period of Paul’s life, or, indeed, in any of his Epistles. 
The word Sede is applied to Christ, probably, in Rom. ix. 5; possibly or probably, 
in Tit. ii. 13; according to some interpreters, in 2 Thess. i. 12; Eph. v. 5; 
according to what is not improbably the correct reading, in Acts xx. 28; accord- 
ing to some authorities, in 1 Tim. iii. 16; but we do not discover such a phrase as 
this—the God Christ, roi eos Xprorov—in use by Paul; (3) because the passage in 
the preceding context which apparently draws nearest in thought to the present 
verse—namely i. 27—+sets before us God as willing to make known the mystery 
which is Christ. In view of the fact that the words now under consideration fol- 
low so soon after this sentence whose meaning cannot be mistaken, as well as of 
the fact that the prominent words in the two verses are the same, and that the pos- 
sibilities of construction allow of the same interpretation in the latter as in the 


334 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


former, it must be regarded as quite improbable that the writer gives expreasion 
here to a different and new idea. The explanation of the genitive Xp. as in appo- 
sition with pvornpiou, the mystery of God, even Christ, is favored by R. V., Lightf., 
Ell., Davies, W. & H. appy., Davidson tr. appy., and others. 

({) "Ev » is referred by Meyer to puornpiov. If his view of rot Seow Xprcroi 
is adopted, this reference may probably be regarded as correct. But if Xpvoroi is 
to be taken as appositional with svorypiov, » in all probability has Xp. as its 
antecedent. Christ is the mystery, and in Him all the treasures are hidden.—(g) 
Meyer regards aréxpupot as un attributive adjective to Oycaupoi, being placed at 
the end simply for emphasis, It is evidently possible to explain it in this way, 
but the adjective may be, also, a secondary predicate, as Lightf. and severul others 
take it.—(h) Tovro of ver. 4 is to be referred to vv. 1-3 (as Meyer says); iva 
denotes the end in view with which those verses were written ; and the following 
words may be regarded as having reference to the deceiving and misleading per- 
suasive discourse of the Cologsian errorists. These errorists were drawing the 
members of the church away from faith in Christ to the idea of a Jewish Alex- 
andrian or Oriental philosophizing—-worship of angels, mysteries, etc., which 
denied the true idea of Christ and the true view of the Divine mystery.— 
(t) Vv. 6, 7, press upon the readers, in view of the fact that in Christ are the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and of the danger of their being led astray 
by harmful persuasions, the exhortation to continue steadily and firmly in that 
knowledge and apprehension of Christ which had been given them at the begin- 
ning.—({ j) Tév xipiov has, apparently, a certain emphasis (whether correctly ex- 
plained by Meyer or not) indicative of Christ’s exaltation. 


XXXII. Vv. 8-10. 


(a) It may be regarded as somewhat doubtful whether a new paragraph should 
begin at ver. 8 or ver. 6. R. V. makes a paragraph begin with each of these 
verses, W. & H. with ver. 6 (though they also make a half-paragraph at ver. 8), 
Treg. with ver. 6, Tisch. 8th ed. has no paragraph at either verse, Lightf. makes 
one at ver. 8. The view of Lightf. is, on the whole, to be preferred. ‘Vv. 6, 7, 
are best explained as an exhortation drawn immediately from the suggestions of 
the preceding verses and forming an appropriate conclusion for them. Vv. 8 ff. 
on the other hand, turn more directly and emphatically to warnings against the 
false teachers, their influence and teachings, and at the opening of the 8th ver. 
the second part of the Epistle begins. 

(b) The very strong word ovAaywyév carrying off as prey, which is used in the 
N. T. only in this place, indicates the spirit and effectiveness of the errorists, and 
the completeness of the separation from the Gospel which would result for the 
Coloasians, if their efforts should not be resisted. It is a stronger expression, if 
possible, even than those which we find describing the work of the Judaizing 
teachers in Galatia—(c) The two phrases, after the tradition of men, after the 
rudiments of the world, occur again, though not precisely in the same form or 
connection, in vv. 20, 22. The expression ra croyeia tov xéopov occurs, also, 
in Gal. iv. 3. In that passage, as may be inferred from the indications of the 
chapter, it has reference both to the Gentile and Jewish religious systems—the 
latter, so far as it had been ceremonialized and turned into a mere human system 
by the Pharisees or others of the time. Out of the former of those systems the 


NOTES. 335 


Galatian converts had mainly come into Christianity ; into the latter they were 
in danger of falling away. But they were going back into the crovzeia, as they 
had come out of them, Gal. iv. 9. In this Epistle, the two elements of Gentil- 
ism and Judaism seem to be joined in one, making up the system opposed to the 
Christian truth, a Judaico-Gnostic theosophy and asceticism. But the later and 
compounded system was xara ra orotxeia tov xéouov as truly, and for the same 
reason, as either of the earlier and simpler systems. In all the places where the 
- words occur, orotyeia apparently refers to the rudimentary character of the sys- 
tems alluded to, as contrasted with the higher and more complete doctrine re- 
vealed through Christ, and xdéouov tefers to the world (i. e. mankind) apart from 
God. This meaning of xéouov seems more probable than that which connects it 
with external or sensuous things.—(d) 4r: of ver. 9 is immediately connected 
with ov xard Xpioréy, but, at the same time, it introduces that which is the 
ground of the warning against the deceitful philosophy. 

(e) Whether we take tAfpwyua as signifying that by which the person or thing 
expressed by the following genitive ts made full, (which is the only signification 
derived from 7A7péw in the sense of to fill, that will satisfy the demands of 
every passage where the word occurs in the N. T.), or that which ts completed, and 
thus equivalent to the plenitude (from Aypéw as meaning to complete), the 
declaration of this verse is, that the Divine essence in its fullness is in Christ. 
This is proved by every indication and element of the passage—by this word 
nAjpwpa as connected with Geéryrocg; by OGeérnc, the full significance of which, 
as distinguished from Q@ecéry¢ (as in Rom. i. 20), cannot be set aside; by the fact 
that, in the following verse, He is said to be the head of every principality and 
power, i.e. exalted above the highest angels; by the apparent contrasting of 
Christ, as having in Himself the A#pwyua, with the angelic mediators as con- 
ceived of by the heretics. This indwelling in Him of the rAfpopya rig Oedérrog 
is the very truth from which the false philosophy, (comp. the yvéor falsely so 
called, 1 Tim. vi. 20) was endeavoring to draw the Colossians away. To Paul’s 
mind it was a vital and central truth of that system in which, as they had 
received Christ, he would have the readers continue firmly established ; and be- 
cause it was so vital and central, every opposing system was kata orotyeia rov 
xécuov—a mere rudimentary, imperfect, even deceitful, philosophy of the unspir- 
itual world.—(f) xarocxet is a continuous present, like éoriv of i. 15.18. Though 
spoken from the standpoint of the present, it extends in its meaning over the 
past, and as Lightf. says xaroiei . . . Oedrytog answers to Johni.1, and owpa- 
tua to Johni. 14. The approximation of the Pauline thought, in this Epistle, 
to that of John, in the Prologue of the Gospel, can scarcely fail to be observed by 
the careful student. 

(g) R. V. and many commentators agree with Meyer in making éoré of ver. 
10 depend on 6r:, and there can be little doubt that this is the correct view. 
Meyer’s view with respect to tetAzpupévo: is also correct. This participle is 
suggested by and closely connected with wAypuya of ver. 9, but it does not re- 
quire the supply of a genitive from eéryroc, nor does the connection between 
the two words show that 7Afjpwya ri¢ DedtyTog must be understood in such a 
sense as to be equally applicable to Christians and Christ. The word Vedra is, 
on the other hand, exclusive of any supposition of this sort. Indeed, we may 
believe that the Apostle has here a similar twofold thought to that which we find 
in the first chapter,—Christ being first presented in relation to what He has or is 


336 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


in Himself (also what He does in creation,ch. i.), and then in His relation to His 
followers and the Church.—(h) The emphasis on év avro of ver. 10, and its 
correspondence or parallelism with é» air® of ver. 9 must be noticed (comp. 
avré¢ i. 17, 18). As in Him dwells the 7Afp. Yeér., (and because it dwells in 
Him), the Church is in Him made full. It is made full out of His fullness, but does 
not, in being made full, exhaust it. It receives only that which it can receive— 
not the Divine essence, but that grace and likeness to Himself which He is able 
to impart to those who are united with Him. 

(i) As opposed to the errorists and their views of angels, therefore, the Apostle 
in every way brings out the exaltation of Christ and His all-sufficiency. In Him 
and Him alone is contained and revealed the whole mystery of God, His great 
plan of redemption; through Him is the work of reconciliation to be carried to 
its final result, so that all on earth and in heaven are to reach in Him their per- 
fected state; He is the possessor and bestower of the divine gifts and grace in 
their completeness; He is the head of the Church and the one pre-eminent in all 
things; He is the creator of all things, even of the highest angelic powers; He 
is before all things and the head of every authority and dominion; He has 
abiding in Him the fullness of what God gives forth from Himself and is in Him- 
self; He is the image of God, the exact expression and complete revelation of 
God. As it was such an One that they had received as Lord, the readers were 
exhorted, with all emphasis to be established, rooted, built up in Him, and to take 
earnest heed that no one should, through a deceitful philosophy, deprive them of 
His fullness, by the outgoing of which they might hope to be made full. The 
bearing of what is declared concerning Christ in these passages, in this Epistle, — 
and of the near approach of the statements made in them to what is found in the 
Gospel of John,—on the question of the 2 asa of the word ed to Christ 
in Rom. ix. 5, may well be considered. 


XAXITI. Vv. 11-15. 


(a) In the words of ver. 11, following after téo7¢ apyxi¢ xat Efovolac of ver. 10, 
and in rd¢ apya¢ x.r.A. of ver. 15, may be found an allusion to the Jewish element, 
combined with the Oriental or Gnostic, in the heresy, as we find the two also 
united in vv. 16-19, and again in vv. 20-23. This close combination proves that 
the writer was contending, not against two separate and distinct errors, but against 
one compounded doctrine. The Jewish element, however, had not only taken 
into union with itself what came from a philosophy beyond its own limits; it had 
developed within itself, also, into something more than it had been in its 
earlier stages. Nevertheless this element preserved its own striking peculiarities, 
and thus we have, here as in earlier Epistles, e. g. in Gal. and Rom., circumcision, 
the observance of days, the bondage to rules and ordinances. 

(6) ,The correspondence of the underlying thought in vv. 11, 12 with that in 
Rom. vi. 2-6, in some of the minor points, is worthy of notice, though the main 
thought in the two cases is quite different. Thus the putting off of the body of 
the flesh (roi odpuarog ri¢ capxéc), which belongs to the true circumcision, leads to 
the figure of burial with Christ in baptism and a resurrection to new life, as, in 
Rom. vi., the same figure is found in connection with a doing away or destroying 
of the body of sin (rd oda ti¢ auapriac). The two expressions, body of the flesh 
and of sin, are nearly, but not precisely, equivalent to each other. In the latter, 


NOTES. 337 


the body is conceived of as belonging to a master—so far forth as sin rules over 
it, it is destroyed ; in the former, capxég denotes the evil principle, carnality, and 
this has its dwelling in the body, or the body is conceived of so far forth as it is 
fleshly. The figure of burial and resurrection, on the other hand, is precisely 
the same in both passages. The reference of ovvragévrec to baptism by immersion 
is not necessary here, as it is not in Rom. vi. 4. At the same time, there is 
evidently less to suggest such a figure in the other words of this passage, than in 
the surrounding verses in Rom., in which the author, apparently, is endeavoring 
to set forth the idea of death by a variety of expressions. This verse, accordingly, 
may be regarded as strengthening, in some degree, the probability of such a 
reference.—(c) Meyer regards cvv7yfp6nre as referring to the awaking to eternal 
life—a resurrection which is, “prior to the Parousia an ideal possession, but through 
the Parousia becomes real.” It seems better, however, to understand it in an 
ethical sense, a8 most others do, because of the connection with baptism, and 
because of the clear use of ovveragyre in a figurative sense, and the correspondence 
in expression with Rom. vi.4. In connection with this view of ovv7yép6., Meyer 
holds that é @ «ai of ver. 12 refers to Christ. His reasons, however, seem 
insufficient, for, although there is another év @ «ai, in ver. 11, which evidently 
refers to Christ, it is not inconsistent with Paul’s style to use a similar form ina 
new clause with another reference; and although we might have é& ov to designate 
rising out of the baptismal water, this was not necessary in the present case, since 
the whole experience, (being buried and rising), is in the sphere of baptism. The 
fact that burial and resurrection are parts of one change points strongly to making 
Barricpat: the antecedent of ¢.—(d) After the same manner, Meyer's view that 
cuveCworoinoey and vexpot¢ of ver. 13 have reference to eternal life and eternal 
death is to be rejected, and that which explains them of spiritual life and death is 
to be preferred. The corresponding passage in Eph. ii. 1 ff. may be compared. 
That passage, in all its eaflier part, seems to have the spiritual sense; but, in 
ouvexddicev tv roig érovpaviorg, it carries the thought, also, forward to the future. 
This phrase is wanting in the present passage, and the only suggestion of the 
future, if there be any, is in the fact that the spiritual life and death naturally 
reach on into the future. 

(e) xapioduevog denotes the forgiveness which accompanies, and in thought 
precedes, the establishment of the new spiritual life in the soul; éadeipac is 
really antecedent to yap., having been accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ, but 
in its application to 7%v is contemporaneous with it. 1d xeipdypagoy roig déyyaom 
is an expression which is founded upon the thought of the Mosaic Law and 
suggested by it. This can scarcely be doubtful, in view of Eph. ii. 15. At the 
same time, the writer is speaking here largely of Gentiles (vuac) and the déypzara 
are not conceived of, as in Eph., as separating the Jews from them. There is, 
therefore, in the present passage, a probable reference to the Jewish element in 
the compound heresy which had invaded this Gentile Church. #pxev and 
mpoondAacac are added to éfaAeipac as emphasizing the entire doing away with the 
law, after the manner of Paul in opposing the Judaistic errors, yet with more of 
repetition and earnestness than in most other places, because of the greater 
seriousness or larger development of the error. 

(f) amexdvoduevoc—with respect to this word, the following points may be 
noticed: (1) The word does not occur in Greek writers before Paul, and the deter- 
mination of its meaning from d7odtw and éxdbw is doubtful. (2) The verb, in itself, 

22 


338 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


naturally means to put off from oneself, as clothing, etc. (3) This is the meaning 
of the participle in iii. 9, and of the kindred active noun (a7éxdévocc) in ver. 11. 
These are the only places, except the present verse, in which the noun or verb 
occurs inthe N.T. (4) On the other hand, the representation, which this mean- 
ing would require, of Jesus stripping off from Himself the powers of evil, as if 
they had surrounded Him like a garment, involves a figure which is not found 
elsewhere in the N. T., and which appears scarcely to be in the line of the thought 
in this context. The figure in UprayuPetoas is that of triumphing over an enemy 
or of leading a conquered enemy in triumph; édecyydricev is also adapted to the 
idea of such a triumph. The combination of so different a figure as that of putting 
off a garment with this of triumphing as a conqueror, seems antecedently impro- 
bable. (5) If, however, azrex. can have the sense of spoliare, spoiled of their armor, it 
will suit the connection with the other figurative words in a most satisfactory man- 
ner. Grimm, Rob., L. & 8., A. V., and very many comm. agree with Meyer in 
giving this latter meaning to the participle. R. V., Ell., Lightf., Farrar (Life of 
St. P.) and some others hold the former view. Alf. gives this meaning to the par- 
ticiple, but refers the dpyaz, etc., to the angelic powers as connected with the ideas 
of the Colossian heretics. A. R. V. reads despoiled in the text, and put of from 
himself in the margin. 


XXXIV. 16-19. 


(a) At the 16th verse, the Apostle turns to a more particular application of the 
exhortation, which had been already set forth in a general form. We have here 
again, as was natural because of the relation of the verses which now follow to 
those which precede, a reference to each of the two elements in the heresy; vv. 
16, 17 and vv. 18, 19.—(5) In connection with the Jewish element, the two points 
are mentioned, te which allusion is made in earlier epistles :—the subject of 
meats and the observance of days; and the same position is taken with respect to 
both which Paul everywhere assumes. The-.Colossian Christian, like the Roman 
and Corinthian, was not to be subject to the condemnation of others in these 
matters—he was not to let any one sit in judgment upon him (xpevétw), That Paul 
does not here present the obligation of love resting upon the “strong party” in 
relation to the weak, and also does not treat the subject on all sides as far as he 
does in Rom and 1 Cor., is, probably, owing to the character of the heresy and the 
dangers arising from its presence in the Church. As to the general subject, 
some suggestions are offered in the Amer. Ed. of Meyer’s Comm. on Romans pp. 
523-530.—(c) The reason given in ver. 17 for the injunction of ver. 16 is different 
from the reasons which are hinted at in the earlier epistles, and the form of 
expression is related to what we find in Heb. x.1. The general thought, however, 
that the ordinances of this sort in the law of Moses pass away with the coming of 
the Christian dispensation, is abundantly set forth in the N. T. The use of these 
words in this verse may be accounted for as showing the exaltation of Christ above 
the Mosaic system, just as on the other hand, in connection with the worshiping 
of angels, His exaltation above all principalities and powers is declared. 

(d) The verb xarafpaBetew conveys the idea of an unfair judgment against a 
person by a judge in the games, which deprives him of the prize that properly 
belongs to him. It cannot here have its strict and full sense, because the false 
teachers, indicated by yydeic, were not the awarding judges. With this exception, 


NOTES. 339 


however, it would seem that we ought to give the word its legitimate signification. 
It will, therefore, suggest the notion of hostility (as Meyer says), and of a certain 
unfairness or selfishness. The character of these false teachers was, accordingly, 
similar, in this regard, to that of those who appeared in the Galatian churches. The 
meaning of the verb, as thus given, favors the explanation of 0é4u» which Meyer 
adopts. The use of eveAodpyoxeia in ver. 28 on the other hand,—where the 
order of the words worship and humility is transposed, and where the force of the é92/o 
may, not improbably, have been intended by the writer to pass over, also, to 
TaTetvoppoovvg,—may be regarded as pointing towards a somewhat more immediate 
connection of this participle with év rare, xat 9p7ox,—the movement of his will 
(desire), as well as of the action «atafp., being in the sphere of humility, etc. This 
connection seems, also, to be favored by the following participles, which are 
further explanatory. 

(ce) The textual reading which omits the negative before édpaxey is adopted 
by Tisch., 8th ed., Treg, W.& H., Alf, and undoubtedly has the weight of 
evidence in its support. The insertion of “#7 by a copyist is much more easily 
accounted for than its omission. If omitted, the explanation of the words given 
by Meyer is the best one. The antecedent probability that Paul would have 
spoken of intruding into things not seen, rather than dwelling upon things seen, 
which has been affirmed by many, may be questioned. All religious thought 
moves in the sphere of the unseen, but errors like the one at Colossae are readily 
connected with visions and, as Meyer says, “the mystico-theosophtc occupation of 
the mind with God and the angels.” The use of the simple édpaxey in such a 
sentence as descriptive of mental visions presents, however, a certain difficulty or 
improbability, which must be allowed. The word pvosobyevoc, with its clause which 
follows, would adapt itself easily to either text in this clause.—(f) The connection 
of etx with gvowotpuevoc is to be preferred, as compared with making it qualify 
the preceding clause. It sets forth the groundlessness and vanity of the 
intellectual pride of the false teachers. The votc of these teachers was not 
illuminated by and under the guidance of the divine wvevya, but under the rule 
of the odpé, the evil principle. It was the o¢pé which led them not to hold fast 
the Head, but to move only in the sphere of the unenlightened vovs, and, moving 
thus, they became puffed up with self-conceit and pride as they gave themselves 
up to speculations and visions—thinking of and dwelling in what they believed 
themselves to have seen by means of the voi. 

(g) The correspondence of the phraseology in ver. 19 with that of Eph. iv. 16 
is very noticeable. At the same time, there are differences to be observed. From 
the correspondence we may infer, (1) that the relative in é§ ov is to be taken as 
masculine (xepaAf having a certain element of personification in its use) ; (2) 
that d¢ay belongs more particularly, in the thought, with ex:xopzy., (Epk. maon¢ 
agyco tic émexopyyiac), but not so exclusively as to make it necessary to unite it 
in the grammatical construction with that participle alone. More probably there 
is here, as in Eph., a combining of the different elements into one compound 
phrase or statement. The differences, on the other hand, are seen (1) in the 
effect upon the general structure of the verses in each case, which is due to the 
difference in the connection and purpose of the passages in the two Epistles. In 
Eph., the Apostle.is setting forth the object of the gifts and officers appointed by 
Christ for the Church, and is thus led to present, under this figure, the growth 
of the Church, in the persons of all its individual members, towards the perfec- 





340 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


tion of Him who is its head. Here, on the contrary, he is speaking of the cause 
and characteristics of a certain erroneous doctrine. Those who teach it fail to 
hold fast the Head. The relation of dependence of the body on the Head for 
its true life, is thus, naturally, brought out with more emphasis and with an ex- 
clusion of every other thought.—(2) In this way we easily explain the absence, 
in this place, of such words as xar’ évépyevay év petp@ éevog éxdosov pépovc— 
oixodou7y éavrov—and év aydry, which are found in Eph.—(3) There is, proba- 
bly, a reference in the word Head here (as there is not in Eph.), to Christ as 
head, as contrasted with the ideas respecting the angels which the false teachers 
had—not such a reference, indeed, as if this were the only occasion of the figure, 
but an incidental one. 


XXXV. Vv. 20-23. 


(a) The passage ii. 20—iii. 4 is correctly arranged by W. & H. in their text, as 
one paragraph made up of two half-paragraphs (ii. 20-23; iii. 1-4). The one- 
ness of the paragraph is shown by the contrast of the verbs ameJdvere and 
cuvyyépSnre, which present, in the Pauline figure found in the preceding verses 
and elsewhere, the two sides of the change from the unchristian to the Christian 
life. The division into half-paragraphs is indicated by the manifest relation of 
the earlier portion to what goes before, and of the later to what follows. The 
true account of this passage is, probably, this: that it is designed to be a sum- 
mary statement on both sides, forming a transition from the earlier chapters to 
the more distinctly practical part of the Epistle, which begins with iii. 5. The 
centering of the thought in the two verbs mentioned above, and the element of 
repetition in vv. 20-23, as compared with vv. 16-19, are thus explained. 

(6) The same kind of argument is used in ver. 20, which we find in Rom. vi. 
2 with regard to continuance in sin. How can we still live in a life to which we 
have died? There, it is sin, to which the Christian is conceived of as having com- 
pletely terminated his relations, by becoming a Christian ; in Rom. vii. 6, it is 
the law. Here, on the other hand, it is the crocyeia tov xéopzouv; but the same 
reasoning applies. The fact that the Colossian Christians had died, at their con- 
version, to all religious systems of the world apart from God, made it unsuitable 
that they should allow themselves to have any such system again imposed upon 
them. How is it that you are turning again to the weak and beggarly elements ? 
(Gal. iv. 9).—(c) The idea, which Meyer suggests, that Christ is also conceived 
of by the Apostle as dying to the ororzeia, since He “was born under the law,” 
seems improbable. Indeed, the law, as He lived under it, was scarcely of the 
crotxeia; it is only of the Mosaic system as transformed by the Pharisees, etc., 
into a mere external system, that this term seems to be applied to it. That be- 
cause they are said to have died with Christ from,etc., He also must have died 
from, etc., does not necessarily follow. By dying with Him they became sepa- 
rated from these “ rudiments of the world.” 

(d) doypzarivecSe may be either passive or middle. The objection made by 
Meyer to the middle, that it involves a censure of the readers, is not conclusive, 
for the earnestness of the Apostle in urging the matter, with so much of repeti- 
tion even, may be indicative of an impulse on the part of some of the readers 
at least, to yield, and the form of the sentence may be only that of argument, 
without implying that they were actually yielding. Apart from this objection, 


NOTES. 341 


the middle sense is, apparently, more natural: why do you allow commands to 
be laid upon you, or, why do you subject yourselves to ordinances—the former, as 
presenting more prominently the action of the false teachers, is to be preferred.— 
(e) “The commandments and teachings of men” answer to the “ rudiments of 
the world.” The orocyeia are religious systems devised by men, and what they teach 
and enjoin is the doctrine and commands of men. The words as here employed, 
however, refer only to one section of these commands, etc., namely, those relating 
to such matters as meats, and hence, of course, they are not co-extensive in mean- 
ing with crocyeia. 

(f) The éy before éSeAodpnoxeia is better taken as in than by—denoting the 
sphere in which, rather than the means by which. The noun é¥edodpyox. is 
here placed before rarecvoppootvy, instead of following it as in ver.18. The 
force of the é¥eAo. may go over to the other noun, and thus define it. If this 
is not so, the position of the words is, in itself, indicative of the sort of humility 
of which the writer is speaking. The compounds with é%edo, which most nearly 
correspond with the one here used (éVeAogiAdcogoc, EPeAbcopo¢, would-be philoso- 
pher, would-be wise), involve the idea of pretence or falseness. This idea, however, 
does not appear to be essential to the é%e2o. element. In some or even most of 
the compounds, the roluntary idea is all that is added to the meaning of the 
simple word (e. g. éVeAodovAoc, éVSeAdnaxoc, eV0eAdrovoc, voluntarily serving, will- 
fully bad, willing to work). The indications of the passage (Adyov cogiac, ovx ev 
Tuy tTivt) suggest the former idea as a possibility, but do not render it certain; the 
latter idea is beyond question. The word points, thus, to that sort of religious 
service which is characterized by self-imposed rules and worship, and a self-im- 
posed and, therefore, ostentatious humility, and with reference to the body, by 
agecdia. (g) The rendering of the last clause of verse 2%given in R. V.: “but 
are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh” is favored by Lightf., 
Rid., Bib. Comm., Farrar, and is deserving of serious consideration, if, indeed, it 
should not be adopted. The apparently intended contrast of ov« éy riu® to bv 
éSeA, x.t.A.; the greater probability that t¢zq@ means honor, rather than value ; 
and the probability that zpé¢ in such sentences has the sense of with a view to, 
as looking towards, the thing expressed by the following substantive as an end, 
and not with a view to removing or remedying that thing (Lightf.) or against 
(R. V.), are grounds of objection to it. 





342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CULOSSIANS, 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 4. Instead of tzév, which Griesb. approves, and Lachm. puts in the 
margin, but Tisch. 8 in the text, juav is read by Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7, in 
opposition to C D* E* F P Gx min. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. and many Fathers 
(not Origen). A is defective here. Considering this weighty evidence in favor 
of iuov, and seeing that the following xai weig suggested the change of person to 
the copyists, as indeed the beginning of a lesson with ver. 4 could not but have 
favored the insertion of the general 74», we have stronger grounds for regarding 
vzov as original than as a repetition from ver. 3.—Ver. 5. tuov] is wanting, 
indeed, in B C* x* min. Clem. Or. (five times) Eus., but has all the vss. in its 
favor; hence the evidence against it is not sufficient to warrant its rejection, 
with Tisch. 8, as an inserted supplement.—c’ a] C* D* E F G Clar. Germ. read 
dé’ Sor 66. Rightly; the Recepta, though strongly attested, is an alteration to 
correspond with the plurality of the preceding objects under comparison of Eph. 
v. 6,—émi rove vioig tr. ameBetag] 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 tovroc¢ Elz. and Scholz have avroi¢, in opposition to 
decisive Codd., although defended by Reiche.—Ver. 11. Before éAci6. Lachm. 
inserts xai; considerably attested, it is true (not by BC 3), 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 Zxi6yc.—Ver. 12. 
Instead of otxripyov Elz. has otxr:pyav, in opposition to decisive testimony.—Ver. 
18. 6 Xpiordc] Lachm. reads 0 xtpios, following A B D* F G 213, Vulg. It. Aug. 
(once) Pel. Rightly; the Recepta is an interpretation, instead of which 4 Geé¢ (3) 
and Deus in Christo (Arm. Aug. once) are also found.—Ver. 14. 55] A BC FG P 
Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. read 6, which is approved by Griesb. and adopted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. 4¢ (xx*) and the Recepta 7g (x**) are emendations.—Ver. 15. 
Instead of rov Xprorov Elz. has tov Ooi, in opposition to decisive evidence, from 
Phil. iv. 7.—Ver 16. The xai befure tyv. and gdai¢ should in both cases be 
omitted (Scholz omits only the first), in accordance with preponderating evidence. 
Borrowed from Eph. v. 19.—év ydp.] Lachm. and Tisch.: év rg zap., which, on 
the authority of B D* E* F G y** Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, is to be preferred. 
The article was passed over as superfluous.—Following far preponderant testimony 
(also x), we must read subsequently with Lachm. and Tisch. 8: &v raig xapdtarg 
iu, Ty Oe, not: év Ty Kapdia tu. TE Kvpiy (Elz. Reiche), or: év tp xapdia vp, r. 
Geo (Tisch. 7). Comp. Eph. v. 19.—Ver. 17. xvpiov 'Incov] Lachm.: "Ijcov 
Xpiorov, which is to be adopted on the authority of A C D* F G min. vas. and 
Fathers; yx has «vp. ‘Iycov Xp.—xai warpi] xai is to be omitted, with Lachm. and 
Tisch., following A BC y» min. vss. and Fathers; from Eph. v. 20.—Ver. 18. 


CHAP. IIL. l. 343 


After roiy Elz. reads idiocc, in opposition to decisive evidence ; from Eph. v. 22.— 
Ver. 19. After yuvaixag Lachm. has tuov, which, with considerable evidence in its 
favor, is the more especially to be adopted, as in Eph. v. 25 éavrov is found. The 
omission easily occurred, because toi¢ avdpdorv previously was also without 
genitival definition—Ver. 20. Instead of é xvpiy Elz. has 6 xvpiy, which is to 
be regarded on decisive evidence as an omission of the apparently superfluous 
év.—Ver. 21. épetijere] Lachm. and Scholz, as also Griesb., recommend: tap- 
opyisere, following, it is true, A C D* E* FG K L x (aapopyiferac) min. Vulg. It. 
Theodoret, ms. Theoph.; but it comes from Eph. vi. 4.—Ver. 22. Elz. and Tisch. 
have opfadApodovAciars, which Reiche approves. But o¢GaApodovieig (recommended 
by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Scholz) is the reading in A BDEFG 
min. Damasc. Theoph.; and Chrysostom also by «ar’ o¢faApodoviciay testifies in 
favor of the singular. The singular is to be preferred as preponderantly attested, 
and because the final syllable AI (¢) might very easily bring about the conversion 
into the plural. If the singular had come in from Eph. vi. 6, Chrysostom’s 
reading, xar’ o9!., would be more frequent.—Instead of xtpiov Elz. has Gedy, 
contrary to decisive witnesses—Ver. 23. xai wav 6, te éav] The reading 6 éa», 
which Griesb. approves, and Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. have adopted, is decisively 
attested; the Recepia is from ver. 17.—Ver. 24. ty ydp] yap has so decisive 
Witnesses against it (also 38), that, with Lachm. and Tisch. (Griesb. also condemns 
it), it is to be deleted as a current connective addition—Ver. 25. 6 dé] 6 yép is 
decisively attested (also by x9); it is approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. The antithetical dé crept in from misunderstanding.—«oueiraz] The 
form kouicerac (Lachm.) is found in B D*** E K L y** min. Fathers. To these 
may be added F G, which have xopiferaz. The Recepta must give way to the 
more strongly attested xouiceratz. Comp. on Eph. vi. 8. 


CoNTENTS.—The generally hortatory second portion of the Epistle, 
preceded in 11.6 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 every- 
thing which is contrary to that direction (vv. 5-11), and to adopt and 
follow all that is good and edifying in a Christian sense (vv. 12-17). Then 
follow exhortations in reference to the various relations of the household 
(ver. 18-iv. 1). 

Ver. 1. f. [On Vv. 1-4, see Note XX XVI. pages 372, 373.] Ei] doesnot 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, Partikell. I. p. 259 f.; 
Kiihner and Herbst, ad Xen. Mem.i. 5.1). The being risen with Christ, 
namely, is not meant in the sense of the regenerate moral life (gee on Ii. 
12), but as the relation of real participation in the resurrection of Chnist, 
which involves as its ethical correlate the obligation ra dvu ¢yreiv. 
[XXXVI b, c.] To be risen with Christ and not ra advw (yreiv, would be a 
contradiction.—oiv] therefore, points back to ver. 20, and with logica! 
propriety, since fellowship in the resurrection of Christ is the necessary 


344 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

consequence! of fellowship in His death,—a fact which Paul had in view 
also in ver. 21, in writing d¢ Covrec év xéouy. The otv is not intended to 
be resumptive, namely, of what was said in ii. 12 (Hofmann); otherwise 
what comes after that verse down to the present one must have had the 
nature of a parenthesis, or a digression.—7ad dw} [XXXVI d.] the 
opposite to ra émt ri¢ y7o: that which 1s in heaven (comp. John viii. 23; 
Gal. iv. 26; Phil. iti. 14), by which is indicated the Messianic salvation 
which, with its future blessings (ii. 17), is preserved in heaven to be 
manifested and communicated at the Parousia (vv. 3, 4). Comp. Matt. vi. 
33, and the conceptions of the treasure in heaven (Matt. vi. 20), of the 
heavenly Bpafeiov (11.18; Phil. iii. 14), woairevua (Phil. iii. 20), Jerusalem 
(Gal. iv. 26). It is substantially the same as défav x. repjv x. apOapoiav Cyreiv 
in Rom. ii. 7. As a philosophical analogy, comp. especially the dvw ddé¢ 
in the beautiful close of Plato’s Republic, and the farewell of Socrates in 
the Phaedo. A liturgical coloring, which such expressions as ra dvw (also 
Ta év Toi¢ ovpavoig «.t.A. in 1. 16, 20) are alleged to have (Holtzmann), is 
arbitrarily assumed as a criterion of a later age—ot 6 X. éorw x.r.A.] 
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 ov, Hofmann thinks that Paul has con- 
ceived 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 dzov éy® iméyw and Srov eiui éyd from the lips of Jesus in John. 
—Ver. 2. ra dvw] repeated with emphasis, and then still further strengthened 
by the negative contrast. The ¢poveire is more comprehensive than Cyreire, 
expressing not only the striving (comp. Rom. 11 7), but the whole practical 
bent of thought and disposition (comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 62), the moral 
meditari, Phil. ii. 5.—ré ei r. yj] e.g. money and estate, honors, comforts, 
etc. Comp. Phil. iii. 19: of ra émiyeta gpovoivres, also 1 John ii. 
15, @ al. Neither the contrast nor the subsequent text warrants us in 
finding here a further reference to the requirements of the false teachers. 
So Theophylact: ra mepi Bpwudrov x. juépuv; 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 


1It 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 wo: k,” 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 subsequent 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 
beyond the reach of criticiam. According to 
Holtzmann, vv. 2,3 presuppose the destruc- 
tion of all hopes connected with the con- 
tinuance 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, as- 
sailed. Of the entire chapter, Holtsmann 
only leaves vv. 3, 12, 13, 17 to stand as 
original. 


CHAP, Il. 2, 3. 346 


opposed to the false teachers, but in that of general moral exhortations.— 
We have to observe, further, that the earthly is not of ilself placed under 
the point of view of the sinful, which would be quite un-Pauline (1 Cor. 
vi. 12, x. 23), but is so as the contents of the striving which is opposed to 
the rd dvw gpoveiv. Comp. the idea in Matt. vi. 21. 

Ver. 3. [XXXVI e.] Assigning a reason for the requirement of ver. 
2.—For ye are dead; how then could your mind be directed towards 
earthly things! 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 ré dvw 
gpovety! It is a guide to a correct and certain interpretation of the pas- 
sage, that this statement of a reason must affirm the same thing as was 
already contained, only without special development, in ei ovviyép8. r. 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.—ameOdvere] namely, by your having entered into the fellowship of 
the death of Christ. This being dead has dissolved in the consciousness 
of the Christian the ties that hitherto bound him to earthly things. He 
finds himself still in the realm of the earthly, but he no longer ives therein, 
ii. 21. Comp. Phil. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 20.—# fw) tuev] must necessarily be 
the life, which has followed the being dead ; consequently the eternal life, 
comp. ver. 4, which set in through the resurrection (of which Christians, 
in fact, have become partakers with Christ, ver. 1)—a life which the 
believer has, prior to the Parousia, as a possession that has not yet been 
manifested but is still in secret (cbrw égavepoty, 1 John iii. 2), a treasure in 
heaven, possessed in hope and still unrevealed, destined to appear in 
glorious manifestation only at the Parousia.—oiy re Xpor@] For Christ 
Himeelf, apart from fellowship with whose life the («4 of His believers 
cannot have its being and essence, is hidden till the Parousia; and only 
then sets in His gavépwore (ver. 4), aoxdAvyre (1 Cor. i. 7; 2 Thess. i.7; 1 
Pet. i. 7, 13, iv. 13), érepaveca (1 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14), with which also 
the amoxdAupy trav vidv tr. Ocov (Rom. viii. 19) will take place, ver. 4. 
Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10 f.; 1 John iii. 2.—é» 16 @eg] in God, in so far, namely, 
as Christ, who, according to John (i. 18), is cic rdv xéAwov rov warpéc, remains 
hidden in God till the Parousia, as otvfpovoc 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 fe, which is hidden oiv r6 Xpiorp, and there- 
fore can only issue forth at His second coming from God, and be received 
by us in real glorious communication and manifestation through our 
ovvdofacbjvac (Rom. viii. 17, comp. v. 2, 10). If the coherence of the rela- 
tion expressed by xéxpurra: was asserted by ovy ro X., 80 also 1s its inherence 
by év rq Oeg. The essential part of our explanation, viz. that 7 Cw? qu. is 
eternal life, is held also by Chrysostom, Theodoret (éxeivov yap avacrdvrog 
mévreo wyépOnpev Gad’ ovdétw dpapev tov mpaypatuy tiv exBaow), Oecumenius 
(riv yap aArflag Xpwriavov Cun lorw pévovoa, f pwbv Tot mapovoa eixéva 
uaddov Oavdtov Cure exe), Theophylact (Paul wished to show airoi¢ 
xaOnptvoug Gvw nai a?Anv favrac Swi, tiv év TH Oe, Tiv pH gacvouévn), 


346 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


Calvin, Beza, Erasmus, Schmid, Grotius, and others, including Baum- 
garten-Crusius. The accurate contextual connection of this view with 
what precedes, and with ver. 4 (see above), excludes the explanation 
adopted by many, of («7 in the ethical, spiritual sense. So Erasmus, 
Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Flatt (“the inner, new, blissful life of true 
Christians”), Bihr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen,'’ and others, including 
Huther,? Bleek, and de Wette, who apprehends this life as being hidden 
in two respects: namely, as regards the disposition and striving, it is, 
because directed to the heavenly, internal and ideal, whereas the life of 
worldly men in the common sense is real or manifest ; as regards the 
imputation or recompense, it lacks outward happiness, but enjoys internal 
peace, and is therefore in this respect also hidden or ideal, whereas the 
worldly life, in unison with the outer world, leads to external peace or to 
happiness, and is so far, therefore, real or manifest also; the ovv ro 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 7@ 
«> 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 idealization with 
more senses than one, but, on the contrary, excludes it as caprice. The ¢ 
Cay dud 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 Coxe aiwy. not. p. 
93: “ vitam enim piam et honestam, quam homo Christianus in hac terra 
vivere possit ac debeat, P. dicere non poterat nune 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 
coelesti conveniunt.” Hofmann’s distinction is less clear and definite : the 
Cw is meant as the blessing, in which Christians have an advantage over 
the world, by their having participated in the death and resurrection of 
Christ,—a life, which is indeed life in the full sense of the word, but which 
does not appear before the world as what it is, so long as Christ is hidden 
from the world and in God. Notwithstanding, 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 arefavere denoting the accomplished act of dying at con- 
’ version, 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. 


1“ The life of believers is said to be hidden, 
inasmuch as it is internal, and what is exter- 
nal does not harmonize with it;” and in ev r@ 
@eq God is conceived as the element, “into 
whose essence believers, like Christ Himself, 
are assumed and enwrapped.” 

2In whose view the Christian leads a life in 
God, and this is a hidden life, because the 


world knows nothing about it (comp. Eras- 
mus: “juxta judicium mundi”); in fact, to 
the Christian himself its full glory is not 
manifest (comp. Bengel); and by avy ry X. 
it is shown that the Christian leads such a 
life not of himself, but only in his fellowship 
with Christ. Dalmer gives an obscure and 
heterogeneous explanation. 


CHAP. ll. 4, 5. 347 


Ver. 4. And what a blissful future is connected with the 4 (uy ipéy xexp. 
x.r.a.! This bright, favorable side of the previous thought is the continua- 
tion of the proof of ver. 2 begun in ver. 3, detaching them thoroughly 
from earthly pursuits and elevating them to the courage of victory; 
vividly introduced without connecting particle (xa/): “repentina luce 
percellit,” Bengel, which Hofmann fails to perceive, when he objects to 
the absence of dé The relation is not antithetical at all—pavepo6y] shall 
have become manifest, have come forth from His present concealment, 
namely, by His Parousia. See on ver. 3.—} (wi tuov] your fe. Christ 
Himself is thus designated (comp. 4 éA7i¢ in i. 27), because He is the per- 
sonal author, possessor, and bearer of the eternal life of His believers 
(comp. John xiv. 6, xi. 25), and this, according to the context, inasmuch as 
they have entered into the fellowship of His resurrection: they are alive! 
with Him (ow +. X., ver. 3); His life is their life. The definite object of 
this apposition, moreover, is argumentative, for the following rére «.t.A.— 
kai tysic] as Christ, so also ye with Him. The two subjects have the 
emphasis.—¢avepu§. év dé&7] Comp. ovvddfacfeyev in Rom. vili.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 gavepoioba: (instead of aroxaAimrecba, Rom. viii. 17 ff.) and fw4, pre- 
supposes a too limited range for Paul’s manipulation of language. Our 
passage has nothing to do with 2 Cor. iv. 10 f. Nor does it even “almost 
look ” (Holtzmann) as if the author were conceiving the readers as already 
dead at the Parousia. The gaveputjva év défy takes place in the case of 
those still alive through their being changed, as the reader was aware. 

Ver. 5.2 [On vv. 5-11. see Note XX XVIL. paves 873-375.] Otv] 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 yw? 7a évi tr. yao. EXXXVIT a.] The 
inference itself is: “Since, according to vv. 3, 4, ye are dead, but have 
your life hidden with Christ in God and are destined to be glorified with 
Christ, it would be in contradiction of all this, according to which ye 
belong no longer to the earth but to the heavenly state of life, to permit 
your earthly members still to ive; no, ye are to pud them to death, to make 
them die” (Rom. iv. 19; Heb. xi. 12; Plut. Mor. p. 954 D)!—vexpdcare)} 
[XX XVII 6.] prefixed with emphasis as the point of the inference; the 
term is selected in significant reference to ame@dévere and 4 Cw? tudr, vv. 3, 
4.—ré péAn tuov] means nothing else, and is not to be explained otherwise 
than: your members (hand, foot, eye, etc.). That these were not to be put 
to death in the physical sense, but in an ethical respect (comp. ii. 11)}— 
seeing, namely, that they, as the seat and organs of sinful lusts (Rom. vii. 
23), which they still are even in the case of the regenerate (Gal. v. 17, 24), 
are to lose their vigor of life and activity through the Christian moral will 


1Comp. Ignatius, Eph. $8, where Christ is = relation to Eph. iv. 1-6, 20, finds the stamp of 
designated rd adtaxprtoy nuwy ony, also Mag- originality, Holtzmann discovers the concen- 
nes. 1, Smyrn. 4. trating labor of the interpolator, whose second 
2In the section vv. 6-17,in which Hénig,in (and better) effort is the passage in Colossians, 


348 THE EPISTLE OF PAUI TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


governed by the Holy Spirit, and in so far to experience ethical deadening 
(comp. Rom. vii. 5, 23, viii. 18, and the analogous representation by Jesus 
as to plucking out the eye, etc., Matt. v. 29 f., xwii. 8 f.; comp. also xix. 
12)—was self-evident to the reader, as it was, moreover, placed beyond 
doubt by the following appositions zopveiay x.r.A. Hence there was neither 
ground nor warrant in the context to assume already here (see ver. 9) the 
conception of the old man, whose desires are regarded as members (Beza, 
Flacius, Calvin, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, and others, includ- 
ing Bohmer, Olshausen, and Bleek), although the required putting to 
death presupposes that the old man is still partially alive. Nor is sin 
itself, according to its totality, to be thought of as body and its individual 
‘parts as members (Hilary, Grotius, Bengel, Bahr, and others) ;'—a concep- 
tion which does not obtain even in ii. 11 and Rom. vi. 6, and which is 
inadmissible here on account of tuév. The view of Steiger, finally, is 
erroneous (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), that the entire human evistence is 
conceived as cua. We may add that the véxpwors of the members, etc., is 
not inconsistent with the death (ameOdvere, ver. 3) already accomplished 
through conversion to Christ, but is required by the latter as the necessary, 
ever new act of the corresponding morality, with which faith lives and 
works.2 And in view of the ideal character of this obligation the com- 
mand vexpdcare x.r.A.—this requirement, which is ever repeating itself, of 
the ethical mortificatio—is never superfluous.—ra éxi rH¢ ypc] which are upon 
the earth, corresponds to the ra ézir. 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 justijies the requirement vexpdoare rT. u. du., not expressing 
the activity of the yéA7n for what is sinful (de Wette, comp. Flatt and others, in- 
connection with which Grotius would even supply ra ¢povovyvra from ver. 
2), which the simple words do not affirm, but: that the péA7, 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 («47! Comp. also Hofmann’s present view. The context 
does not even yield a contrast of heavenly members (Huther), 7. e. of a life of 
activity for what is heavenly pervading the members, or of the members 
of the new man (Julius Muller), since the €w/ is not to be understood in the 
sense of the spiritual, ethical life—opveiav x«.r.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 direct- 
ness of expression appositionally, so that they appear as the forms of immor- 
ality cleaving to the members, with respect to which the very members are 
to be put to death. In these forms of immorality, which constitute no 


1Comp. also Julius Miller, v.d. Sinde,I.p. and brightened statue, which, however, needs 
461, ed. 5, and Flatt. to be afterwards cleansed afresh from new 
2Chrysostom illustrates the relation by accretions of rust and dirt. 
comparing the converted person to a cleansed 


CHAP. II. 5. 349 


such heterogeneous apposition to rd uéAy tu. as Holtzmann thinks, the 
life of the uéay, which is to be put to death, is represented by its parts. 
Paul might have said: Aéyw d2 ropveiav; but by annexing it directly, he 
gave to his expression the form of a distributive apposition (see Kiihner, 
IT. 1, p. 247), more terse and more compact after the oxjpya xa? ddov Kal 
ufpoc. It is neither a sudden leap of thought nor a metonymy.—axaapo. } 
in reference to lustful uncleanness; comp. on Rom. i. 24; Gal. v. 19; 2 
Cor. xii. 21; Eph. iv. 19, v. 3. Paul gives, namely, from op». to xaxfy, 
Jour forms of the first Gentile fundamental vice, unchastity, beginning with 
the special (ropveiav), and becoming more and more general as he pro- 
ceeds. Hence follows: d6o0c, passion (the #rraofa ind rie ydovi¢, Plat. 
Prot. p. 352 A; Dem. 805. 14; Arist. Eth. ii. 4), heat; Rom. i. 26; 1 Thess. 
iv. 5; and Liinemann in loc.’ And finally : érdup. xaxgv (Plat. Legg. ix. p. 
854 A), evil desire, referring to unchaste longing. Comp. Matt. v. 28; 
Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. 6. 2. Unnatural unchastity (Rom. i. 26 f.; 1 
Cor. vi. 9) is included in dxaé., raf, and ér0. xox., but is not expressly 
denoted (Erasmus, Calovius, Heinrichs, Flatt, Bohmer) by zd%o¢ (comp. 
pathici, Catullus, xvi. 2; maScxeieoOa, Nicarch. in Anth. xi. 73), a meaning 
which neither admits of linguistic proof, nor is, considering the general 
character of the adjoining terms (daxafapo. é7:6. xax.), in keeping with the 
context. én. xax. is to be distinguished from 7é3o0¢ as the more 
general conception; the mé6oc is always also ém:upia and relatively 
éx0. xaxf, but not the converse, since a #yeioda: or Kpareiv rig Enbvpiac 
may also take place.—«. riv wieovegiay] [XXXVII c.] After the vice 
of uncleanness comes now the second chief vice of the Gentiles (comp. 
on Eph. iv. 19): covetousness. Hence the connection here by means 
of xai, 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 zAeovefia. In opposition to the erroneous inter- 
pretations : insatiable lust (Estius, Michaelis), or: the gains of prostitution 
(Storr, Flatt, Bahr), seeon Eph. l.c., and Huther. The seovegia is not 
separated by the article from the appositional definitions of the péAy, and 
co-ordinated with ra yéAy, so that the latter would only be “the members 
which minister to unchaste lust ” (Huther) ; for ra yéAy du. can only denote 
the members generally, the collective members; and év roig uéAeorv (Rom. 
vii. 5, 23) understood generically, and not as referring to particular indi- 
vidual members, sin is operating with ali its lusts, as, in accordance with 
this ethical mode of viewing the matter, the collective members form the 
oaua tho capxéc Of ii. 11. Bengel remarks aptly that the article indicates 


1Comp. also Plat. Phaed. p. 265 B: rd épwrt- 
xdy waSos, Phaedr. p. 252 C. 

2 Looking to the so closely marked twofold 
division of the vices adduced, it is inconsist- 
ent with the text to take, with Hofmann, the 
three elements, axeOapc., wéOos, and éwOuu. 
xax., in such a general sense as to make axe- 
@apcia mean every “action which mars the 


creaturely honor (?) of man,” wa@oc, the passion 
which enslaves through excitement of the blood, 
and éwi@vyuia xaxy, 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 


- 350 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


totum genus vilii a genere commemoratarum modo specierum diversum.—iris 
éoriv eidw?odazp.] quippe quae est, etc., further supports the vexpocare specially 
in reference to this vice, which, as the idolatry of money and possessions, 
is car’ é€oyyv Of a heathen nature.’ In 1 Cor. v.11, the eidwiodarp. isto be 
taken differently (in opposition to Holtzmann). Moreover, see on Eph. v. 
5. Observe, further, that the addition of the rAcovecia 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 vexpdécare «7.2. above, the omission of which would draw down upon 
the readers, instead of the gavepudjvae ev d6fy Of ver. 4, a fate such as is 
here described.—éc' 6 (see the critical remarks) has the significant stress 
of the relative clause: on account of this immorality mentioned in ver. 5. The 
Reccpta 6’ a4 is to be taken just in the same way, and not to be referred to 
the uéAy (Bihr), since it is not the latter themselves, but their life-activi- 
ties specified by mopveiav «.r,4., which call forth the wrath of God.—épyeraz] 
namely, at the judgment. Comp. Eph. v. 6; 1 Thess. 1. 10: 4 dpy) 9 
épxoutévyn; Matt. ili. 7: 4 péAdovoa opy7. Hence: qyépa opyz¢ in Rom. ii. 5; 
Rev. vi. 17. Chrysostom well says: Paul warns da trav peaadvruv && ov 
axnazrAdynpev xaxov. See also on Eph. v.6. The frequent reference to 
the manifestation of the divine wrath (comp. Rom. i. 18 ff.) in the course 
of this temporal life (Huther and many others) overlooks the correlation 
with ver. 4, and the apostle’s conception of the nearness of the Parousia. 
Hence, also, the combination of the two references (Theophylact and 
others, also Flatt) is to be rejected.—Respecting the vioi¢g rio aed. (the 
Jews and Gentiles, who reject the gospel and thereby disobey God), comp. 
on Eph. v. 6, and as to this modeof expression generally, Steiger on 1 
Pet. i. 14. [XX XVII d.]. 

Ver. 7. Transition to the following exhortation; and how touching 
through the effect of the contrast !—é» oic] is, with the reading 6’ 3 in 
ver. 6, necessarily to be referred to the vioic rt. azecd.: among whom ye also 
walked once, by which is meant, not external association (which in fact was 
not cancelled by conversion, 1 Cor. v. 10), but the fellowship of moral con- 
duct. * But, even with the reading 6’ a in ver. 6, év ol¢ is to be taken 
(comp. Eph. ii. 2 f) as inter quos (Vatablus, Rosenmiiller, de Wette, 
Schenkel, Bleek), and not to be referred, as it commonly is (Chrysostom, 
however, seems to understand it as masculine) to the vices named in ver. 
5, because the relative most naturally attaches itself to what immediately 
precedes, in order to continue the discourse, and because, if év ol¢ refer to 
the sins, then éjre év robrore once more asserts substantially the same 


against his own body,—a characteristic point, 1]t has been well said by Theodoret: éweidy 
which Pan] has not in view at all in connec- = rd Mapwva xipiov 6 cwrnp mpoonydpevoce, &da- 
tion with the apposition to 7a wéAn «.7.A., ag oxwy, ws 6 TH wade: THS wACOVEsLas SoVACTOY wE 
is plain from the appended «. +. wAeovegiay Ocdy Tov wAOUTOY Tia. 

belonging to the same apposition. 


CHAP. Ir. 6-8. 351 


thing, so that the discourse gains nothing in thoughtfulness through the 
two verbs, as in Gal. v. 25, but is unduly amplified. The distinctions 
which in this case have been attempted between sepezareivy and gy still 
make the one or the other appear as self-evident. See e.g. Calvin : vivere 
and ambulare are distinguished from each other like potentia (comp. 
Grotius: “ moveri”’) and actus, the former preceding and the latter fol- 
lowing ; Beza (and Estius): vivere denotes naturae habitum, ambulare, 
évépyecav ipsam ; Biihr (comp. Olshausen and Reiche): the former refers 
more to the disposition, the latter to the outward conduct; Hofmann : 
the state of life (éjre), with which the conduct in dctail (zepueraz.) harmon- 
ized.—re eare év tobrow) isyre stands emphatically and pregnantly first: 
when ye lived in these, i.e. when ye were alive therein, inasmuch as the 
aredavere Of ver. 3 had not yet sct in in your case, the requirement of the 
vexpovv in ver. 5 was still strange to you, and these disgraceful things 
formed the element and sphere of activity of your life. On Civ, to be alive, 
in contrast to the being dead, comp. Rom. vii. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 4; also Col. 
li. 20; év roizoig! is neuter, 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 chil- 
dren of disobedience,” so that Sjv év xéopm (ii. 20) and avaarpigen év 76 néopp 
(2 Cor. 1. 11) would have to be compared. In opposition to this view it 
may be urged that ve éyre év totirorc, in this sense, would be a very mean- 
ingless and superfluous more precise designation of the zoré, whereas, 
according to the view above adopted, it is thoughtful and characteristic.’ 
On the change from the merely historical aorist to the descriptive imper- 
fect, lending a lively color to the representation, and claiming the closer 
attention of the reader who had passed more rapidly over the sepierar., 
comp. Kihner, IT. 1, p. 138, and Reisig, ad Soph. O. C. p. 254 f. 

Ver. 8. Nui 6¢] In contrast to the past, which has just been described: 
but now, when ye are no longer alive in those things.—x«ai ipeic] does not 
refer to the fact that the Ephesians also are thus exhorted (Eph. iv. 22, 26, 
31), as Holtzmann here contrives critically to suggest; but as «at vu. in 
ver. 7 reminded the readers of the immoral pre-Christian society, which 
they also had formerly resembled, so this xat tyei¢ reminds them of the 
moral Christian society, which they also ought to resemble now.—ra révra] 
the whole of these, 7.e. the things indicated by év rotrog without any 
exception; ye shall retain nothing of them, “ne quid veneni resideat” 
(Grotius). To this ra xdvra the apostle then annexes directly and in 
rapid asynietie continuation yet other sins, which are likewise to be left off. 
Bleek erroneously takes épyjv x.7.4. as in apposition to ra mavra; for the 
latter can only be retrospective (comp. Hofmann), and cannot, consist- 
ently with the text, be taken as meaning, “everything that belongs to the 
old man.”—azdfeote] like garments (see on Eph. iv. 22); a lively change 
of figures; the conception of members is laid aside.—@uudr] distinguished 


1With the Recepta atrocs any other refer- *Hence not to be attributed, with Holtz- 
ence than that, which ois has, is excluded; mann, to the tantological style of the author, 
hence the origin of avrois. in remembrance of 1 Cor. vi. 1L 


352 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
g 


from épy#v as the ebullition, the effervescing of the latter (Eustath. ad Je. 
1. p. 7. 17).1—kaxiav] wickedness, malicious nature. Comp. on Rom. 1. 29; 
Eph. iv. 31.—fAacgnuiav] slander, not against God, but against others, as 
oral outbreak of the evil dispositions mentioned.?—aicypodoyiay] only used 
here in the N. T.: shameful discourse, which, in accordance with the cate- 
gory of all the sins here named, is not to be understood of unchaste dis- 
course, a8 following the Fathers? it has commonly been taken (Hofmann: 
“obscene ” discourse). Rather: railing speech (Polyb. viii. 18. 8, xxxi. 10. 
4), forming one genus with PAacgnyiav, but a wider idea.® All the ele- 
ments in ver. 8 specify the malevolent and hostile disposition ; and the two 
last, especially the oral manifestation thereof; hence the addition of é« row 
oréuaroc du., Which, without arbitrariness, cannot but be referred to both words 
(so also Bleek), not to aicypoa. alone, and is, with Grotius, to be conceived 
as depending on the still operative idea of azdé6eo6e, so that it may not be 


characterized as a “secondary malformation ” (Holtzmann). The readers | 


are to lay aside, generally, opyjv, Ovudv, xaxiav; and to lay aside from their 
mouth Biracpnuiav, aicxpodoyiav. We are not to suppose any special pur- 
pose in connection with the addition; it serves merely for the concrete 
representation ; but, if we should regard it as the more precise definition 
of aisypoa. (Hofmann), or should even, as is often done, by supplying an 
éxrropevouév7y, join it with alcypodoy., or with BAacd. and aicyxpodcy., it would 
be utterly void of meaning. The special idea of that which defiles (Chry- 
sostom), or of the opposite of Christian praise to God (Hofmann), does not 
form the basis of the é« +r. oréu. tu.; on the contrary, it is the conception 
in general of what is unsuited and foreign (comp. on vi éé) to Christian 
fellowship and intercourse, which serves as the presupposition for the 
entire exhortalion. Comp. Eph. iv. 29. 

Ver. 9. M} petdeote cig GAA.) i.e. lie not one to another, so that ei¢ expresses 
the direction of the peideoOa: (comp. yp. até tivoc in the sense of the hostile 
direction, Plat. Euthyd. p. 284 A, al.; Jas. iii. 14), like xpé¢ 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 arexdvoduevor «.7.A. adds a determining motive for the whole aré- 
Oecbe . . . aAAjAouc: 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 pets.) would not be consistent; on the contrary, this trans- 
formation which, in principle, has taken place in and with the conver- 
sion to Christ, must manifest itself practically by the laying aside of those 
vices. Accordingly, the aorist participles are not synchronous with the 





18ee on Rom. ii. 8; comp. Eph. iv. 831; Rev. 
xvi. 19; Eecclus. xlviii. 10; 1 Macc. fi. 49; 
Hom. Jl. ix. 629: Plat. Phil. p. 47. E: rots 
Ovpois x. Tais Opyais. 

3Comp. Eph. l. e.; 1 Cor, iv. 13; Rom. fii. 8; 
Tit. fii. 2; frequently in classic writers; in 
Dem. 312. 19 joined with ovcodayria. 

38ee Suicer, Thes, I. p. 136. 


4Comp. Epictet Enchir. 33.16; Xen. de Lac. 
rep. &.6; aiaxpodAcyourras in Plat. Rep. p. 395 
E; Polluz, iv. 105; and the passages in Wet- 
stein; also aicxpoeréw in Athen. xiii. p. 571 
A; and respecting the aicxpodAcyia ép’ iepois, 
see Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 689. 

&5Comp. aicxpa éwea, Hom. Jt iii. 38, xxiv. 
238. 


seen + 


CHAP. II. 9, 10. 303 
foregoing (eruentes, etc., s0 Vulgate, Luther, Calovius, and others, includ- 
ing 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 
in a linguistic point of view, from the fact that peideofe is the present; 
and also, as regards the sense, from the circumstance that if the words be 
regarded as part of the exhortation itsclf, as a definition of the mode of 
what is required, the eruentes only, and not the induentes, would correspond 
with the requirement to lay aside and to abstain from lying. Besides, ver. 
11 is inappropriate as a constituent part of an exhortation, but suits well 
as an argumentative enlargement. Finally, the assumed figurative 
exhortation only comes in expressly at ver. 12, and that by way of infer- 
ence (odv) from what had been said previously from amexdvoédu. onwards 
in the same figure, though not yet in paraenetic form. [XXXVII e.] 
Without any sufficient reason, and out of harmony with the simple parae- 
netic form of the entire context, Hofmann begins with amexdvodu. a new 
period, whose protasis ends in ver. 11, and whose apodosis begins with oty 
in ver. 12 (comp. on Rom. ii. 17 ff.); by this we gain only a more clumsy 
complication of the discourse, especially as the supposed apodosis has 
again participial definitions. The entire practical part of the Epistle pro- 
ceeds in plain sentences, not dialectically joined together. Comp., more- 
over, on ver. 12.—Respecting the double compound amrexdéve., comp. on ii. 
11.—The terminus ante quem for radacde, is the adoption of Christianity, so 
that, by the whole expression 6 radacdg dvOpwroc generically the collective 
pre-Christian condition in a moral respect! is presented as personified. 
Comp. on Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 22.—ctv raig mpdgeowv airov} not generally : 
with his doing (Hofmann), but in the bad sense: along with his evil prac- 
tices, with his bad tricks. Comp. on Luke xxiii. 51 and Rom. viii. 18. 
Ver. 10. The positive aspect of the transformation (regeneration) 
wrought by God through conversion to Christ; and since ye have pul on, 
etc.—rov véov] The collective new Christian ethical condition, conceived as 
personified and set forth objectively, so that it appears as becoming individu- 
ally appropriated by the putting on. It might, with equal propriety, be 
designated from the point of view of time as the homo recens in contrast to 
the decayed and worn-out nature of the pre-Christian moral condition 
(comp. the véov ¢bpaza in 1 Cor. v. 7), as from the point of view of the 
new, altogether different, and previously non-existent quality as the homo 
novus. It is the former here,® the latter in Eph. iv. 23 (comp. also ii. 15), 


1 Origiral sin is not denoted by the expres- 
sion and the conception to which {t is sub- 
servient (in opposition to Calvin: “veteris 
hominis nomine, intelligi pravitatem nobis 
ingenitam;" comp. Calovius: concupiscen- 
tiam pravam congenitam™); 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. 

£ With the entrance of Christianity into the 


23 


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 Xpicrdp 
dveducac6e of Gal. iii. 27 is not in substance 
different from the having put on the new man. 

3In the ethical sense Christians are, as it 
were, the veodaia (Blomffeld, Gloss. Pors. 674) 
of humanity. 


3b04 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


where xaid¢ GrOp. is used! The specification of quality is then further 
added by rév avaxaivoi-u, «7.4. The notion of not growing old (Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus) is not implied in véov.—rév avaxazrov- 
pevov] [XXXVIL/] The homo recens, so fur, namely, as the converted person 
has appropriated it as his moral individuality, is not something ready-made 
and finished, but (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 16) in a state of development (through 
the Holy Spirit, Rom. vii. 6, viii. 2; Tit. ni. 5), by means of which there 
is produced in him a new character and quality specifically different from 
that of the old man. Comp. Rom. xii. 2. Hence the present participle, 
which is neither to be takenas 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 tov xricavtog does not directly 
mean the first creation), but only to the old constitution, the transforma- 
tion and new-moulding (renewal) of which forms the process of develop- 
ment of the véog aévépwroc. Comp. Winer, de verb. ¢. praepos. compos. p. 10 
f. The xavérng of the véog dvdp. is relative. In Greek authors avaxaivdw is 
not found, but dvaxavig~w is (Isocr. Areop. 3, App. 2, p. 18; Plut. Marcell. 
6), Heb. vi. 6; also in the LX X.—eic¢ éExijvwow] is to be taken along with 
the following xer’ eix. 7. Kris. av7év, and with this expresses the end aimed 
at by the avaxacvoieda. Through the latter there is to be produced a 
knowledge, which accords with the image of God. Comp. Beza. God, as 
respects Lis absolute knowledge, ¢.e. a knowledge absolutely adequate to 
its objects, is the model, with which the relative knowledge of the regener- 
_ ate to be attained in the course of their being renewed, 7. ¢. their increas- 
ing penetration into divine truth, is to be accordant. And the more it is 
so—the more fully it has developed itself in accordance with the divine 
ideal—the more is it also the determining power and the living practical 
agent of the whole conduct, so that all those vices enumerated in ver. 8 
are excluded by it, and even become morally impossible. Hofmann 
rightly takes ar’ eix. tov xric. avvév as the more precise description of 
éxiyywowv, 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 (zévrwr) would 
necessarily stand with éx/yrworv, and the idea of avaxpivery or doxepdsew 
would be substituted for that of étijvwar. The xar’ eixédva x.7.A. is usually 
connected with avexawovpn. and eicg éxiyv. 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 


1See regarding the difference between the 
two words, Tittmann, Synon. p. 59 ff. 

2“ Renovatus autem dicitur novus ille homo, 
quia novus guondam fuit in prima crentione,” 
Calovius. Comp. Steiger, Huther, do Wette, 
Philippi, Doqm. I. p. 375 ff., ed. 2, and many 
others. Thus we should have for the veéos 
avOpwros, not the conception ofa nova creatura 
(xawn xriow, 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 redinteqratio 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. vy. 15, 17-19, vi. 1 ff.), is the 
antitype of Adam (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xy. 45), 
Consequently this passage is only indirectly 
probative for the doctrine of the image of 
God as innate. 


CHAP. lI. 10. 355 


was occasioned by a polemic opposition to the false teachers and their 
tendencies to false gnosis. But how abrupt, isolated, and indefinite would 
the ei¢ ériyv. thus stand! No; the subsequent xar’ eixéva x.7.2. Just serves 
as a more precise characteristic definition for the—in theory and practice 
so extremely important—point of Christian knowledge. [XXXVII g.] 
The expression of this definition in this particular way comes very natur- 
ally to Paul, because he is speaking of the homo recens creatus, in connec- 
tion with which, after the analogy of the creation of Adam, the idea of the 
image of God naturally floated before his mind,—the image which that 
first-created man had, and which the recens creatus is to attain and present 
by way of copy in that towards which he is being developed, in the ériyvu- 
atc. This development is only completed in the aidy péAszwv, 1 Cor. xiil. 
12; for its aim before the Parousia, see Eph. iv. 13 f.—rod xricavro¢g avrév] 
A description of God, harmonizing with the conception of the véoc avd pu- 
moc, Who is God’s creature. Comp. on Eph. iv. 24. It is erroneous, with 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ewald, and others, to understand Christ! as 
referred to; for creating is invariably represented in Scripture as the work 
of God (even in i. 16), and especially here where a parallel is instituted 
with the creation of Adam after God’s image. Comp. Eph. ii. 10, iv. 24. 
Olshausen, indeed, understands rov «ric. abr. to mean God, but would 
have the image of God, in accordance with i. 15, taken of Christ, who is 
the archetype of man. There is no ground for this view in the context, 
which, on the contrary, reminds us simply of Gen. i. 27; comp. xara Ged», 
in Eph. iv. 24, a simpler expression, which has found here a significant 
more precise definition out of the riches of the apostle’s store of ideas 
(not a fanciful variation, as Holtzmann thinks) in vivid reproduction.— 
av7év] must refer to the véog dvPpwroc, Whom God has created by regen- 
eration, not to r. dv3purov alone (“ which is the substance, on which the 
old and new qualities appear as accidents,” de Wette), as the orthodox 
explanation is forced to assume contrary to the text; see e.g. Calovius: 
“Per imaginem ejus, qui creavit ipsum, imago Dei, quae in prima 
creatione nobis concessa vel concreata est, intelligitur, ad quam nos renova- 
mur, quaeque in nobis reparatur per Spiritum sanctum, quae ratione 
intellectus consistebat in cognitione Dei, ut ratione voluntatis in justitia 
et sanctitate, Eph. iv. 24. Per verbum itaque rov xricavrog non nova 
creatio, sed vetus illa 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 corresponding with it, 
which the Creator has done in Christ; hence also Paul has not written 
kriCovrog (as Philippi, lc. p. 376, thinks might have been expected), but 
xtioavroc, comp. iv. 24, ii. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17; also Jas. i. 18. 

Ver.11. [XXXVIITh.] Where all the separating diversities have ceased, 
by which those phenomena of malevolence and passion mentioned in 
ver. 8 were occasioned and nourished. Comp. Gal. iii. 28, of which pass- 


1So also Julius Miller, v. d. Siinde, II. p. 496, ed. 5; see, on the other hand, Ernesti, Urapr. 
der Siinde, II. p. 133 ff. 


396 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


age Baur indeed sees here only an extended and climactic imtlation— 
éxov] where there is not, etc. ; naniely there, where the old man has been 
put off, and the véoc «7.4. put on, ver. 10. It represents the existing 
relation according to local conception, like the Latin ubi, 1.e. qua in re, 
or in quo rerum statu, like the local iva. The relation is one objectively 
real, historically occurring (comp. Gal. iii. 28; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 13), 
present in renewed humanity. Consequently érov is not to be referred 
to the éziyveos, and to be interpreted within which, i.e. in the Christian 
consciousness (Schenkel) ; but just as little is the relative clause to be 
joined immediately with cic émiyvuow nar’ eixéva x.7.2. 80 that it affirms 
that there, where this image is found, all contrasts, etc., have vanished; so 
Hofmann in connection with his erroneous explanation of ei¢ exiyvwouw 
kar’ cixéva x.t.A,, see on ver. 10.—Respecting é, equivalent to Eveoti, see 
on Gal. ili. 28.— EAA x. 'Tovd.] national diversity, without taking °EAAnp, 
however, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, in the sense of 
proselyte.—repit. x. axpoZ.] theocratic diversity*—BépBapoc x.t.A.] 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 BdpBapoc, as he does again in the case of dovAoc, w3 opposite, 
which was already adduced ("EAaq», comp. on Rom. i. 14), but proceeds 
by way of a climaz: <xidn. Bengel (comp. Grotius) well says: 
“Seythae .,. barbaris barbariores;” they were included, however, among 
the barbarians (in opposition to Bengel, who thinks that the latter term 
indicates the Numidians). For instances in which the Scythians are - 
termed Bapfapéraro (comp. also 2 Macc. iv. 47; 8 Macc. vii. 5), see Wet- 
stein. We may infer, moreover, from the passage, that among the 
Christians there were even some Scythians, possibly immigrants into Greek 
and Roman countries.—a44a ra mdvra... Xpisréc] the dividing circum- 
stances named, which, previous to the putting on of the véog dv8puroc, 
were so influential and regulative of social interests and conduct, have 
now—a fact, which was beyond doubt not recognized by the Jewish prejudice 
of the false teachers—since the Christian renovation (comp. 2 Cor. v. 17) 
ceased to exist in the fellowship established by the latter (ideal expression 
of the thought: their morally separating influence is abolished) ; whereas 
Christ is the sum total of all desires and strivings, and that in all individuals, 
without distinction of nations, etc.; He “solus proram et puppim, ut 
aiunt, principium et finem tenet” (Calvin). All are one in Christ, Gal. 


li. 28, v.15; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 


1Comp. Kihner. ad Xen. Mem. fii. 5. 1; 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IT. p. 331 f. 

$For even a “EAAny might be circumcised 
and thereby received into the theocracy. 
—The fact that’ EBAAny stands before "Iovd. (it 
is otherwise in Gal. iii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 13; 
Rom. x. 12, e¢ al.) ought not to be urged, 
with Holtamann, following Baur and Hdék- 
stra, against the originality of the passage. 
Paul doe; not arrange the designations 


18; Eph. ii. 14.2—xpordc] the sub- 


mechanically, as is evident from the second 
clause. Holtzmann, however, justly denies, 
in opposition to Mayerhoff and Hékstra, that 
the arrangement is so inserted in antagonism 
to the Jewish people. 

*Comp. on this use of the ra wéyra in the 
sense of persons, who pass for everything, 1 
Cor. xv. 28; Herod. iii. 157, vii. 156; Thuc. 
viii. 95. 1; Dem. 660. 7; Hermann, ad Viger. 
p. 727. 


CHAP. 11. 11, 12. 307 


ject put at the end with great emphasis. He, in all His believers (é» raoz) 
the all-determining principle of the new life and activity, is also the con- 
stituent of the new sublime unity, in which those old distinctions and 
contrasts have become meaningless and as it were no longer exist. The 
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. [On vv. 12-17, see Note XX XVIII. pages 375, 376.] Otv] for 
these virtues are in keeping with the véog avdpwroc, 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, binds you to 
this by the necessity of moral consistency. The ovy therefore serves for 
the introduction of the direct summons by way of inference from its fore- 
going premises, 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. 
([XXXVIII a,]—évdicacde] for, although the putting on of the véog dv¥p. 
has taken place as a fact historically through the conversion to Christ, 
nevertheless it has also, in accordance with the ethical nature of the véo¢ 
avdp. (comp. Tov avakacvobpevov x.7.A. 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.—dog éxAexrol «.7.A.] as it becomes such; éxA. r. 
@cov is the subject, and ay. x. ayax. 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 assuch! are holy (through the dy:acpde mvetparog, 2 
Thess. ii. 13), and beloved of God (Rom. v. 5; Eph. i. 6),—how could it 
fail to touch the consciences of the readers, and incite them to the very 
virtues, corresponding to so high a position,—virtues of that fellowship 
described in ver. 11, which are required from them as renewed men! 
Observe, moreover, that the éxJoy7 r. Gcov is the presupposition of what 
is said by amexdvoduevo «.t.A. in vv. 10, 11, and that therefore o¢ éAexrot 
x... is not inserted without significant connection with what goes before. 
It is likewise admissible to take the words dyw: x. qyar. substantively, 
either as co-ordinue with the éxAexroi r. ©. and explanatory of this idea 
(“as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” Luther, Calvin, Grotius, and 
the majority, including Bihr, Bbhmer, Huther, de Wette, Hofmann), or 
so that éxAexr. r. Ocov stands in adjectival relation to them (Bleek: 
“elect holy and beloved ones of God”); but it is more in keeping with 
the purposely chosen order of the words to concentrate the whole stress 
on éxdexrol Ocov. Bengel, connecting as we do, aptly observes: “Ordo 
verborum exquisite respondet ordini rerum: electio aeterna praecedit 
sanctificationem in tempore; sunctificati sentiunt amorem et deinceps 
imitantur.” Theophylact (comp. also Steiger) took ayo: as the chief 


1 For the act of the divine éxAoyy#, which in calling (comp. ver. 15). Comp. generally, 
itself is before time, has come into temporal Weiss inthe Jahrod. f. Deutsche Theok 1857, p. 
realization and manifestation through the 78 ff., and Bidl. Theol. 3 88, ed. 2. 


358 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


word, which is more precisely defined by é«A. r. Geov and jyar. (éyévovto 
pev yap Gytot, GAA’ obK ExAexrot ovde yyannukvor, ipeic 62 ravra wavra). Neither 
supported by the position of the words nor by the context, which does 
not suggest any contrast.—orddyzva oixripyov} oixr. is the genitive of 
quality, and the expression is quite similar to that in Luke i. 78, orAdyzva 
éXéove; see in loc. Hence omAdyzva is not to be taken here in the abstract 
sense (love, so usually), but in its proper sense: viscera, as the seat of 
sympathy; consequently : a heart, the moving feeling of which is sym- 
pathy. Comp. Ewald and Hofmann. The two are separated in Phil. ii. 
1. As to the conception of oixtipu., comp. on Rom. ix. 15—ypyorér7yra] 
kindliness, the opposite is arorozia, Rom. xi. 22. Comp. Eph. iv. 32) 
tarevogp., humbleness, which is meant here, however, according to the 
entire context, not towards God (Boéhmer), but (see ver. 11) in relation to 
others, as the opposite of haughtiness (ipyAogpoveiv); Eph. iv. 2; Phil. ii. 3. 
—On pgér., gentleness (opposite: Eph. iv. 31, and aypiéryc, Plat. Conv. p. 
197 D), and paxpod., 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, nada . . . tec, nor 
aveyduevor . . . poudzv, ig to be parenthesized ; for the whole is an uninter- 
rupted continuation of the construction. [XX XVIII ¢c.]—aveydpy. a4a.] 
modal definition of the évdtcacda of the last two virtues, informing us 
how the required appropriation of them is to manifest itself in active con- 
duct: 80 that ye, etc. This conduct is conceived as developing itself in 
and with the completion of the required évdicaode; hence avexduevor 
adana, is not to be regarded as only “ loosely appended” (Hofmann) to 
paxpod.—xai yapilsuevoe «.7.A.] for the endurance (comp. Eph. iv. 2) is to 
advance to positive forgiveness, and not to remain a mere passive attitude. 
Observe here the alternation of GA2%Awv (one the other) and éavroic (your- 
selves each other); the latter is used, because to the yapi{ecba: of the Chris- 
titans, which they are to show fo themselves mutually, there is proposed as 
pattern the zapifeodae which they have experienced from above, from 
Christ. Comp. Kihner, ad Nen. Mem. ii. 6. 20.—pouggv] 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 éyecv, to find 
fault with something,*—xa6we xai «.7.A.] The duty of the yapifecba: éavr. 
is so essentially Christian and important, that Paul goes on further to 
hold up before the readers the great motive and incitement for its fulfill- 
ment, namely, the forgiveness which they themselves have experienced, 
which Christ (6 xtpios, see the critical remarks) has bestowed upon them. 
Comp. Efh. iv. 32, where, however, the principal subject of the yapifecOa 
is indicated, namely, God (comp. ii. 13), who has pardoned in Christ. To 
the expression in our passage—and a consideration of the circumstances 
of the Colossian church naturally prompted the emphasizing of the 
merit of Chrisi—corresponds the frequent 9 yépe¢ rod xvplov judy, Rom. 
xvi. 20, 24; 1 Cor. xvi. 23; 2 Cor. viii. 9, xii. 9, xiii. 18; Gal. i. 6, vi. 18; 

1See generally, Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff. Ay. 179, and Schneidewin in loc. ; Pind. Jsthm. 

8Eur. Phoen. 780, Ale. 1012, Or. 1069; Soph. _iv. 61. 


CHAP. II. 13, 14. 359 


Phil. iv. 23. There is no trace here of “an advanced Christology ” 
(Holtzmann). The divine pardon obtained for us by Christ in His work 
of atonement (Rom. v. 6 f., 15), and continuously procured through His 
intercession (Rom. viii. 34), is in so far His (in the sense that He is the’ 
pardoning subject) as He is the procurer, bearer, and accomplisher of the 
divine grace (Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 19 f£.), and God’s love is His love (Rom. 
viii. 35, 39; Eph. iii. 19; Rom. v. 7 f.). The pardon received from 
Christ, however, binds us by moral necessity (Matt. xvill. 33; and gen- 
erally, Rom. viii. 9) to forgive also upon our side;—anything beyond 
this, namely, what is contained in Matt. vi. 12, as de Wette thinks, is not 
conveyed in the words, but results as a consequence.—xa? ipmeic] sc. yapt- 
Cépevor. The context suggests this, and not the imperative; hence the 
orderly connection is not broken, and the whole verse contains accom- 
panying participial definitions, after which, in ver. 14, the discourse con- 
tinues uninterrupted.—Respecting the double xai of the comparison, see 
on Rom. i. 18.—It is to be observed, moreover, that xa6é¢ refers only to 
the pardon itself, and does not concern the service by which Chnst has 
procured the pardon, the death, namely, which the Christian ought to be 
ready to undergo for the brethren, John xii. 34, as Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, 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 r. adydxyv dependent on évdicacfe, Paul 
abides by his figure: becoming added (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 433) to all those 
virtues (regarded as garments), love is to be put on like an upper gar- 
ment embracing all, because love brings it about, that the moral perfec- 
tion is established in its organic unity as an integral whole. Thus love is 
the bond of Christian perfection, its ovvderixdy dpyavov; without love, all the 
individual virtues, which belong in themselves to that perfection, would 
not unite together into that necessary harmonious entirety, in which per- 
fection consists. Not asif the latter were already existent without love (as 
Schenkel objects to this view), but love is the civdecpog constituting its per- 
fection; apart from love there is no redecéryc, which has its conditio sine 
qua non only in the inclusion of its other factors in love; how love ac- 
complishes this, no one has better shown than Paul himself in 1 Cor. xiii. 
Nor is it as if the genitive would necessarily be a plurality (as Hofmann 
objects); on the contrary, the reAedry¢ according to its nature and to the 
context is a collective idea, with which the conception of a otvdecpoc well 
corresponds. It might, moreover, occasion surprise, that love, which is 
withal the principle and presupposition of the virtues enumerated, is 
mentioned last, and described as being added; but this was rendered 
necessary by the figurative representation, because love, from its nature, 
in so far as it tncludes 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 wpper garment, so that Paul rightly proceeds in 
his description from the under garments to the upper one which holds 


1Comp. Clem. Cor, I. 40 f. 





360 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLASSIANS. 


all the others together, and with whose function love corresponds. Ac- 
cordingly the absolute 4 ayd77 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.”—3 
(see the critical remarks), which, namely love, conceived of as neuter, a3 
in our “that is.” Comp. on é€ ot, li. 19.—oivdecpog rig teAecdr.] bond of 
perfection, t.e. what binds together the Christian moral perfection into 
the totality of its nature, cvvdeopeie:, Polyb. ili. 42. 8; Evvdei nad EvprAéxes, 
Plat. Polit. p. 309 B.'! The genitive, which is that of the object, denotes 
(it is otherwise in Eph. iv. 3; comp. Acts viii. 23; LXX. Isa. lviii. 6) 
that which is held together by the bond. Taken as the genitive of 
quality, it would yield the adjective sense: the perfect bond, “‘animos sc. 
conjungens,” Grotius. So also Erasmus, Vatablus, Calovius, Estius, Wolf, 
Michaelis, Rosenmiller, Flatt, and others. But how arbitrary this would 
be in itself, and especially in view of the fact that, in the event of r. 
tedeér. being disposed of as an adjective, the more precise definition of 
oivdecpoc Would have to be gratuitously introduced! Taken as the genitivus 
causae (Schenkel), it would not correspond with the figure, though it is in 
substance correct that that, which as a bond envelopes perfection, only 
thereby brings about its existence (comp. above). According to Huther, 
the sense is: “by man’s putting on love he is girt with perfection ; who- 
soever lives in love is perfect.” Thus the genitive would have to be con- 
ceived as genitive of apposition, which would yield an incongruous analy- 
sis of the figure, induced by the opinion that 6 does not refer to the 
ayary itself, but to the évdicacfac rv ayétyv*® According to Hofmann 
(comp. Ellicott), the genitive is meant to be that of the subject, and the 
teAeétn¢ 18 to indicate the completeness of the Christian state, of which 
love is the bond, tnasmuch as it binds Christians toyether among themselves, 
wherever that completeness exists (John xiii. 35). This is erroneous; for if 
in some curious fashion the abstract 7 reAedry¢ (consequently an aggre- 
gate of attributes) were to be the acting subject, which makes use of love 
as a bond (consequently for the purpose of binding), yet the Christians 
among themselves could not be conceived as the object of that binding, 
but only the rdvra ravra in accordance with the immediate context (émi 
nao. 62 tobroc). The apostle would have been able to express the tenor 


1Chrysostom (though mingling with it the 
foreign figure of the root) aptly says: ovyxpa- 
THROWS Tew Thy TeAQLOTHTA WoLovyTwy. Comp. 
Theophylact: wavra éxeivd, dnow, avTn ove- 
diyye: wapovea’ amovons 82 caAvovrat cai éAdy- 
xovrat Umdxprors GvTa Kai ovder. 

3Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 616 C: «lvas yap rovro 
Td bus EvvSerpor Tov ovpavov ... racav furdxor 
Tay wepidopay, also p. 520 A: roy fuvdecpory ris 
wédews, Polit. p. 310 A: roy gurderpov aperas 
Repay dicews dvopoier. 

3 civéecnos, namely, would apply to the 


girdle, as Clericus, Ewald, and Schenkel make 
itdo. But to that view the évducac@ 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 ¢ovy 
instead of curSecpos. 





CHAP. 111. 15. 361 


of thought forced upon him by Hofmann simply and clearly by some 
such phrase as 4 (or oc, Or #ric) gore cbvdecpog Tay év XpioTe TeAeivv (comp. 
i. 28). Others take it as the sum of perfection. So Bengel, Zachariae, 
Usteri, BGhmer, Steiger, de Wette, Olshausen (“inasmuch as it compre- 
hends 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. Epictet. p. 208, according to which the Pythagoreans 
termed friendship : civdecpov racdv rév aperav, i. e. the bond which knits 
all the virtues together), unless we take civdeouoc in the sense of a bundle, 
a8 Herodian uses it, iv. 12.11 (ravra rév civdeopov rév éniotoAdv), 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 ctvdecuos itself, which except in our two 
parallel epistles does not occur in Paul’s writings, is too hastily assigned 
by Holtzmann “‘ to the range of language of the Auctor ad Ephesios.” As if 
we had the whole linguistic range of the copious apostle in the few 
epistles which bear his name! Indeed, even ézi mao: dé rotro (comp. 
Eph. vi. 16) is alleged to betray the auctor in question.—In opposition to 
the Catholic use of our passage to support the justificatio operum, it is 
enough to observe that the entire exhortation has justification as its pre- 
supposition (ver. 12), and concerns the moral life of those who are already 
justified. Irrelevantly, however, it is urged in the Apol. Conf. Aug. 3, p. 
104 f. (comp. Calovius and others), in opposition to the Catholics, that 
reAziérne is the integritas ecclesiae, and that through love the church is kept 
in harmony, as Erasmus, Melanchthon, and others also explained it. 

Ver. 15. All these virtues, however, along with the love which binds 
them together, must have their deep living foundation in the peace of 
Christ, which reigns in the heart, and their abiding incitement in gratitude 
towards God for the salvation received in Christ. Hence now the further 
summons—appended by the simple xai—to the readers, to let that peace 
reign in their hearts and to be thankful. The eip#vy rob Xpiorod is the holy 
satisfaction of mind wrought by Christ through the Spirit, the blessed inner 
rest, of which the atonement and justification appropriated in faith (Rom. 
v. 1) are the presupposition and condition. See on Phil.iv.7. Comp. 
Luther, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bahr, Olshausen, Huther, de 
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann. To understand 
the peace of mutual concord (the Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, 
Calovius, and many others, also Reiche, Comm. Orit. 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 ttself on the virtues recommended. 
Moreover, there is implied in Spaf. 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.—fpafevtra] 





362 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 
BpaBebecy only found here in the N. T., but as little un-Pauline as xaraBpaf. 
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 BpaBets, t.e. umpire (Plut. Mor. p. 960 A; Diod. Sic. xiii. 
53); finally: to govern! generally.2_ Considering its very frequent occur- 
rence in the latter sense, and its appropriateness in that sense to év r. xapd. 
tu., and seeing that any reference to the Messianic Spafeicy (comp. 1. 18) 
is foreign to the context, the majority of modern expositors have rightly 
interpreted it: the peace of Christ must rule, govern in your hearts.’ The 
conception involves the superintending, arranging, and administering 
activity, and that in supreme deciding competence (comp. Ewald and Hof- 
mann), as it ought to be exercised by the cipgvq r. X. in the heart, quite 
like the German verftigen [to dispose of ]. Bremi says aptly, ad Dem.Ol. p. 
179, Goth.: it is not simply equivalent to dcoceiv, “sed pleno jure et ex 
arbitrio d:oceiv.”” Chrysostom and his followers have retained the mean- 
ing: to confer the prize of victory, but with ideas introduced to which 
nothing in the text points. Comp. also Erasmus, Vatablus, and Calvin, 
who, however, explain it erroneously: palmam ferat. Grotius: “ dijudtce, 
nempe si quid est inter vos controversum.” So also, substantially, Ham- 
mond, Kypke, and others; similarly, Melanchthon: “gubernet omnia cer- 
tamina.” Comp. BpaBeiew Ep (Plut. Rom. 9) and the like.® But the con- 
text points to deeper matters than disputes, upon which the peace of 
Christ in the heart is to decide.—eic fv x. éxA. x.7.2.] argumentative, sup- 
porting the exhortation just uttered; for which ye also (xai expressing the 
corresponding relation) were called, etc.; cic #v, in behalf of which, i. e. to 
possess which peace, is not the final aim of the calling, which is rather 
participation in the Messianic kingdom, but a mediate aim. Comp. 1 Pet. 
li. 21.—év évt cdparc] not instead of cig éy c&ua (Grotius, Flatt, and many 
others); nor yet: “as growing to be members of a single body” (Hof- 
mann, gratuitously importing), but (comp. Ellicott and Bleek) as the result 
of éxAgSyre, announcing the relation of fellowship, into which the indivi- 
duals are translated through their calling, and in which they now find 
themselves continuously. This abiding condition was the predominant con- 
ception; hence the pregnancy of the expression (Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 469); so 
that ye are in one body, namely, as its members. The element of unity, 
added with emphasis, and that quite in Pauline form (Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. 
x. 17; in opposition to Holtzmann), stands in appropriate reference to 
the entire requirement. To have become by the calling one body with 





1The Vulgate {incorrectly renders: exultet. 
8o also the Gothic. 

£See for the last signification especially 
Dem. 86. 7, 1231. 19; Eur. Hel. 1079; Isocr. 
Areop. p. 144.B; Polyb. vi. 4. 3, xiii. 1. 5, xxvii. 
14. 4, et al.; passages from Josephus in Krebs, 
and from Philo in Loesner. 

3So Luther (“let it be master and keep you 
in all tribulation”), Castalio, Beza, Bengel, 
and many others, including Fiatt, Bahr, Ols- 


hausen, Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Dalmer, and Bleek. 

4Theophylact: vBpicOnuew woddAdats vad The 
vos’ aywrigovra: map’ nuiv Aoyiopoi Svo, 6 way 
eis Guvvay xivwv, 6 S28 eis paxpoOvyiay. ‘Ear 
} eipiyy tr. @eov ory ev nucy, womrep Tis Bpa- 
Bevrns Sixatos, rourdats xpirns nat aywroGdrns, 
cai 5@ 7d BpaBetow Ths vinns Te KeAaVOYTL MaKpo- 
Oupeiv, mavceras 6 avraywnoris. 


5See Dorville, ad Charit. p. 445. 


CHAP. I. 16. 363 


those who share in that calling, and yet not to let the holy moral dis- 
position, for the sake of which we are called, be the common ruling 
power of life—what a contradiction! In that case there would be want- 
ing to the & oda the é& mvevya accordant with the calling (Eph. iv. 4; 1 
Cor. xii. 13).—The mention of this calling—the great blessing which makes 
everything, that is at variance with what has hitherto been demanded | 
(ver. 12 ff.), appear as ingratitude towards God—induces the apostle to add 
still further the highest motive of all for every Christian virtue (comp. ii. 
7,1. 12): «. ebxdmeoro: yiveode: and become ye thankful (comp. on Eph. iv. 
32); in which the yiveofe (not equivalent to éoré) requires the constant 
striving after this exalted aim as something not yet attained; comp. e. g. 
John xv. 8. It was nothing but a misconception of that inner connection 
and of this significance of yiveo¥e, which led to the taking evyép. as ama- 
biles, friendly, and the like (comp. Eplt iv. 82; Prov. xi. 15).!. The lin- 
guistic use of evzdproroc in this sense in the classical writers is well known 
(Xen. Cyr. ii. 2.1, Oec. v. 10), but equally so is also its use in the sense of 
thankful (Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 49; Herodian, ii. 3. 14; Diod. Sic. xviii. 28); 
and the N. T., in which, moreover, the adjective is nowhere else found, 
has, like the Apocrypha, evyaproreitv and evyapioria only in the latter signi- 
fication (comp. ver. 17), the reference of which in our passage to God after 
gic fv x. éxAfO. (it is God who calls) is self-evident, but not (in opposition 
to Grotius and Calovius) the mudua gratitudo. The ascription of the words 
x. evxdp, yiv. to the interpolator, who is also supposed to have inserted év 
evyaptoria 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 evydpioro¢ 
should be ‘as un-Pauline as ebomAayyzvoc in Eph. iv. 32.” 

Ver. 16 f. The series of exhortations begun in ver. 12 is now closed,? and 
Paul proceeds to give, before going on in ver. 18 to the duties of particular 
callings, an encouraging allusion to the Christian means of grace for further- 
ing the common life of piety, namely, the word of Christ. This ought to 
dwell richly among them, so that they might by means of its 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 (8) let ‘all that they do, in 
word or deed, be done in the name of Jesus with thanksgiving to God. 
Accordingly, the previous paraenesis by no means ends in a “ loose aggre- 
gation” (as Hofmann objects), but in a well-weighed, steadily-progressive, 
and connected conclusion on the basis of the Aéyoc of Christ® placed at the 


180 Jerome, Erasmus (notin the Paraphr.), 
Calvin, Vatablus, Beza, (benefici), Cornelius a 
Lapide, Wolf, Krebs, and many others, includ- 
ing Bahr, Steiger, Olshausen, and Reiche. 

*Lachmann and Steiger have put 6 Adyos 
..+ wAovciws in a parenthesis, which just as 
arbitrarily sets aside the new and regulative 
idea introduced by 6 Adyos, as it very unnec- 
essarily comes to the help of the construc- 
tion. 

3This applies also in opposition to Holts- 


mann, 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 some- 
thing un-Pauline almost in every word (p. 
164). Un-Pauline, in his view, is & Adyos*+. 
Xpeorov (but see 1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 15); un-Paul- 
ine the juxtaposition of padpois, duro, gdais 
(the reason why it is so, is not plain); un- 
Pauline the ¢éey itself, and even the adverb 
xAovciws. How strangely has the apostle, a0 


. rich in diction, become impoverished! 





364 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


very beginning. According to Hofmann, ver. 16 f. is only meant to be an 
amplification of the eiydpioro: yiveode in ver. 15. This would be a dispro- 
portionate amplification—especially as evy. yiv. is not the leading thought 
in the foregoing—and could only be plausibly upheld by misinterpretations 
in the details; see below.—é Adyog +. Xprorov] t.e. the gospel. The genitive 
is that of the subject ; Christ causes it to be proclaimed, He Himself speaks 
in the proclaimers (2 Cor. xiii. 3), and has revealed it specially to Paul 
(Gal. iv. 11 f.); it is His word. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 8, iv. 15; 2 Thess. iii. 1; 
Heb. vi.1. The designation of it, according to its principal author: 6 2. 
tov Oeov, i8 more current.—évoxeirw év ipiv.}) [X XXVIII d.] not: among 
you (Luther and many others), which would not be in keeping with the 
conception of indwelling; nor yet: in animis vestris (Theodoret, Melanch- 
thon, Beza, Zanchius, and others, including Flatt, Bohmer, and Olshausen), 
so that the indwelling which depends on knowledge and faith would be 
meant, since the subsequent modal definition is of an oral nature: but in 
you, t.e. in your church, the teic, 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. 1. 5).—Acveiwc] in ample measure. In proportion as 
the gospel is recognized much or little in a church as the common living 
source and contents of mutual instruction, quickening, discipline, and 
edification, its dwelling there is quantitatively various. De Wette explains 
it, not comprehensively enough, in accordance with what follows: “so 
that many come forward as teachers, and often.” In another way Hof- 
mann limits it arbitrarily: the letting the word of Christ dwell richly in 
them is conceived as an act of gratitude. How easy it would have been for 
Paul to have indicated this intelligibly! But the new point which he 
wishes to urge upon his readers, namely, to let the divinely-powerful means 
of Christian life dwell richly in them, is placed by him without any link of 
connection, and independently, at the head of his closing exhortation.— 
The following éy mdoy . . . Tr Oc is the modal definition of the foregoing : 
so that ye, etc.; construction according to the logical subject, as in 1. 2.— 
év wdéoy cogig] Since what precedes has its defining epithet in zAovoius, and 
that with all the emphasis of the adverb put at the end, and since, more- 
over, the symmetry of the following participial clauses, each of which 
begins with év (év mdoy copig .. . év tr. xdpcrt), ought not to be abandoned 
without some special reason, the év r. cog. is to be referred to what follows, 
and not to what precedes.*. Comp. i. 28. Every sort of (Christian) wisdom 
is to be active in the mutual instruction and admonition. Regarding the 
details, see on i. 28.—éavroic] mutually, among yourselves, comp. ver. 18.— 
padpoic «.t.A.] [XX XVIII e.} modal definition of the mutual d:déoxew and 
voulereiv, which are to take place by means of (see below, éy xdp. gdovre¢ 
x.7.2.) psalms, etc. It is all the more arbitrary to refer it merely to vovéer. 
(de Wette), seeing that the position of éavrote binds the two participles 


180 Boa, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bahr, Steiger, Beza permits this reference. 
Olshausen, Huther, de Wette, Baumgarten- #So Syriac, Chrysostom, Luther, and many 
Crusius, Ewald, Dalmer, Reiche, Bleek, Hof- others. 
mann, and others: Bohmer hesitates, and 


CHAP. 111. 16. 365) 


together, and seeing that inspired songs by no means exclude a doctrinal 
purport. The conceivableness of a didactic activity in mutual singing (in 
opposition to Schenkel and Hofmann), and that without confounding 
things radically different, is still clearly enough recognizable in many of 
our best church songs, especially in those born of the fresh spirit of the 
Reformation. Storr and Flatt, Schenkel and Hofmann join the words 
with gdovrec, although the latter has already a definition both before and 
after it, and although one does not say ypadpoig x.1.A., gdecv (dative), but ~ad- 
povc «.1.A. (accusative).1 The dative of the instrument with géev would be 
appropriate, if it had along with it an accusative of the object praised (as 
e.g. Eur. Ion. 1091). See, moreover, on Eph. v.19. Concerning the dis- 
tinction between wpadyoi (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 iuvo (songs of praise), to 
both of which dai mvevyarexai (i. e. songs inspired by the Holy Spirit) are 
then added as the general category,? see on Eph. v. 19. Observe, more- 
over, that Paul is here also (comp. Eph. /. 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 mutually, and that as 
a proof of their abundant possession of the word of Christ, but rather of 
the communication one with another in religious intercourse (e.g. at meals, in 
the agapae and other meetings, in family circles, etc.)}—in which enthusi- 
asm makes the fullness of the heart pass from mouth to mouth, and 
brotherly instruction and admonition thus find expression in the higher 
form of psalms, etc., whether these may have been songs already well 
known, or extemporized according to the peculiar character and produc- 
tive capacity of the individual enthusiasm, whether they may have been 
sung by individuals alone (especially if they were improvised), or chorally, 
or in the form of alternating chants (Plin. Ep. x. 97). How common 
religious singing was in the ancient church, even apart from divine ser- 
vice proper, may be seen in Suicer, Thes. IT. p. 1568 f. The existence of 
a multitude of rhythmic songs, composed az dpzi¢ by Christians, is 
attested by Eus. H. EF. ii. 17, v. 28. Regarding singing in the agapae, see 
Tertullian, Apol. 39: “post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de 
scripturis sanctis vel proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo 
canere.”* The asyndetic (see the critical remarks) juxtaposition of padz., 
iuv., and ¢daig mv. renders the discourse more urgent and animated.—é» 
tH ydpire gdovreg x.T.A.] is commonly regarded as subordinate to what goes 
before; as if Paul would say: the heart also is to take part in their singing, 
oby amAac TH orduatt, GAA’ év rH Kapdia, 8 Eote peta mpoooxjc, Theophylact. 


1As in Ex. xiv. 32; Plat. Symp. 197 E, Rep. songs; (3) songs sung in the house and at 
p. 388 D, and in all Greek authors. work. 

2 Many arbitrary more special distinctions 8This applies also in opposition to Holtz- 
are to be found in expositors. See Bahr. mann, who discovers here and in Eph. v. 19 
Even Steiger distinguishes them very pre- an already far advanced stage of worship. 
cariously into (1) songs accompanied by 4See generally, Augusti, Denkw. II. p. 
stringed instruments; (2) solemn church 110 ff. 


366 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


But Paul himself has not in the least expressed any such contrasting refer- 
ence; and how superfluous, nay, even inappropriate, would such an 
injunction be, seeing that the d:ddoxecy and vovbereiv takes place in fact by 
the padyo? «.7.4., and this is to 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 sing- 
ing is to be the expression of the emotion of the heart, to be represented 
not by év rt. xapd., but by é& trav xapd. (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 22; Matt. xii. 34) 
or a7d rt. x. Comp. Wisd. viii. 21, also classical expressions like é ¢pevéc 
and the like. No, the participial clause is co-ordinate with the preceding 
one (as also at Eph. v. 19, see in loc.), and conveys—after the audible 
singing for the purpose of teaching and admonition, to be done mutually 
—as a further element of the pious life in virtue of the rich indwelling of 
the word of Christ, the still singing of the heart, which each one must offer 
to God for himself inwardly; i. e. the silent praising of God, which be- 
longs to self-edification in the inner man. Chrysostom already indicates 
this view, but mixes it up, notwithstanding, with the usual one; Theo- 
phylact quotes it as another (dA4uc), giving to it, moreover, the inappro- 
priate antithesis: 47 mpog éridecéev, but adding with Chrysostom the cor- 
rect illustration: «av ydp év ayop@ g¢, divacac xatad ceavriv gdeww pndevog 
axobovroc. Bengel well describes the two parallel definitions ev rdéoy codig 
K.7.A. and év ydpire x.7.A. as distribulio of the wAovoiuc, and that mutuo et 
seorsim.—év ty ydpit:] does not belong to ¢daicg mvevy. (Luther: “with 
spiritual pleasant songs,” also Calvin), but to g@dovrec as the parallel ele- 
ment to év wdoy copia. 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: émd rie xdperog rob 
mvebuatoc, gnoiv, gdovrec «.t.A.; comp. Oecumenius: dia tHe mapa Tov aytov 
nvebyatocg dolcion, ydpitoc, also Estius and Steiger. Hofmann’s view is 
erroneous: that gdew gv tev means to sing of something, thus making the 
grace experienced the subject-matter of the songs. This it does not mean 
even in the LXX. Ps. cxxxviii. 5, where 3 is taken in a local sense.! 
The subject-matter of the singing would have been expressed by an accu- 
sative (as piv decde), Or with eic.2 Inappropriate as to sense (since the 


1 As in the Vulgate, and by Luther. tolerable sense, but that it is foreign to the 
3Nevertheless, Holtzmann, p. 164, adopts _linguistic usage of Paul (no, it is foreign to 
the linguistically quite incorrect explanation all linguistic usage). 
of Hofmann: he thinks that it alone yields a 


CHAP, III. 17. 367 


discourse concerns singing in the heart) is the view of others: with grace- 
fulness! Even though the singing in public worship were spoken of, the 
injunction to sing gracefully, and especially with the emphasis of being 
placed first, would touch on too singular an element. Anselm, and in 
more modern times BUhmer, Huther, de Wette, and Bleck 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 geéncral thanks- 
giving towards God (in ver. 15, grateful conduct was meant by evap. yiv.) 
only follows in ver. 17; and inasmuch as the interpretation which takes 
it of the divine grace is highly suitable both to the connection and to the 
use of the article (which sets forth the ydpec 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 éy tai¢ 
kapd. vu. was contrasted with the preceding oral singing, so is rg OE& 
contrasted with the destination for others’; the still heart-singer sings to 
God. It is just for this reason that the otherwise superfluous r¢ Oe¢ i8 
added. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 28. 

Ver. 17. The apostle having announced in ver. 16 the jirst way in which 
the abundant indwelling of the word of Christ must manifest itself by év 
méoy cogig diddoxovrec . . . rvevuatixoic, and having set forth as the second the 
éy tH yapite adovrec x.7.A.. now adds the third, and that, indeed, as one 
embracing the entire conduct of life; the xa/, and, attaches it to the 
two participial clauses in ver. 16, not, however, introducing another 
participial mode of expression conformed to the foregoing, but leading 
over, through the verb to be supplied, into the direct form of discourse : 
And whatsoever ye do by word or by work, do all in the name of Jesus. The 
nav 6, te av wore... épyy is the absolute nominative, placed at the begin- 
ning with rhetorical emphasis, and syntactically independent,?—év Adyp 4 
év épyy}| Comp. Aesch. Prom, 659: ti yp) dpavr’ } A€yovta daipoow mpdooev 
gida. See Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 373: “ Dictis factisque omnis continetur 
actio.” For instances of Adéyoc and épyov associated in that order and 
conversely, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3.6; Lobeck, Paral. p. 64 
f.—rdvra] again emphatically prefixed, not, however, taking up again the 
previous vay, 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 roceize is to be supplied 
from the context. Comp. on Eph. v. 21.—év ovéu.] Not: with invocation 
of (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Melanchthon, and others), 
but: so that the name is the holy moral element, in which the action 


180 Theophylact (who, however, permits a 2See Kuhner, II. 1, p. 42; Winer, p. 631 [E. 
choice between this and the true explana- _T. 574]. 
tion), Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, (“sine 3Paul, as is well known, is fond of placing 
confusione, evoxnporws"), Castalio, Calvin, | close beside each other different forms of was 
Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, with different references. See Wilke, Rhetor, 
Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Bahr, p. 381; comp. also on Phil. iv. 12. 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Schenkel, Reiche. 





368 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


proceeds, inasmuch, namely, as this name, as the sum of the faith which 
moulds the new life, fills the consciousness, and gives to the action its 
specific Christian quality and consecration. ’Ev Xpir@ 'Iycov would not 
be substantially different. Comp. on Eph. v. 20; Phil. ii. 10; John xiv. 
13. “Tilum sapiat, illum sonet, illum spiret omnis vestra vita,” Erasmus. 
The ideal character of the requirement is misapprehended, when, with 
Cornelius a Lapide, it is lowered to a mere consilium. See, on the con- 
trary, Calovius.—evyap. 7H Ged «.7.A.] [X XXVIII f.] accompanying 
definition: whilst ye at the same time give thanks, etc. Comp. é& eizapiorig 
in li. 7, iv. 2, i. 12; Phil. iv. 6. In the apostle’s view, there belongs 
essentially to the devoutness of Christian U/e 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 
ebyap. denotes thanksgiving, Grotius ought not to have taken the participle 
in a declaratory sense (“ quid sifin nomine Christi omnia facere et loqui”’); 
a misinterpretation, which Hofmann rightly rejects, but substitutes 
another explanation which neglects the verbal import of evyaporeiv: 
namely, that Paul declares the doing here required to be a thanksgiving, etc., 
doing, which is practical thanks. Evyaporeiv is never in the N. T. 
equivalent to ydpiv arodotva, gratias referre—rxatpi] Father of Jesus.—d?’ 
avtov} For Jesus, as the personal historical mediator of Messianic bliss 
through the work of atonement, is therewith for the Christian conscious- 
ness the mediator of thanksgiving ; He it is, through whose benefit the Chris- 
tian can and does give thanks. Comp. Rom. i. 8, vii. 25, al. Hence in Eph. 
v.20: év dvéuati «.7.A. 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. 1.1 [On Vv. 18-25, see Note XX XIX. page 376.] In- 
structions for the different portions of the household. [XXXIXa.] Why 
Paul should have given to the churches such a table of household rules 
only in this Epistle and in that to the Ephesians (comp. also 1 Tim. and 
Tit.), must be left wholly undecided (Chrysostom exhausts himself in 
conjectures). They are not polemical; but possibly, in the presence of a 
theosophico-ascetic atmosphere, the practical rules of healthy domestic 
life seemed to him the more seasonable. They do not contain traces of a 
later development of church-life (Holtzmann). The circumstance that 


1This domestic code is held by Holtzmann _ sufficiently familiar to Paul from the LXX. 
to be an insertion of the interpolator from (Ps. liii. 5) and otherwise (Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
Eph. v. 21-vi. 9. He groundlessly questions _p. 621), and have been used by him in the two 
the genuineness of the expressions eidpeoros, _ parallel epistles? Is not avrarddocre a term 
adcxety, épeOiCery, ivarns, To Eixacov,awAdétys THs ~=—s in general use since Thucydides? Is not “ to 
xapéias, and even appeals to the use of avOpw- — serve the Lord Christ” a Pauline idea,and even 
wdpecxos, avrarddocis, and the formula re (comp. Rom. xvi. 18) literal expression? The 
xvpiy Xpiotg SovAeiew as direct evidence danger of a petitio principii only too easily 
against its Pauline origin. Might not, how- steals upon even the cautious and sober critic 
ever, the word dv@pwrdpecxos have been insuch pointsofdetail. He finds what he seeks. 


CHAP. 111. 18-20. 369 


the precepts for the several forms of domestic society uniformly (vv. 18, 
20, 22 ff.) begin with the subordinate party, as also at Eph. v. 21 ff, 18 to be 
regarded as having occurred without any set purpose; the idea of obedience 
was primarily present to the writer’s mind. If Paul’s aim had been to 
counteract the abuse of Christian freedom and equality, or in other words, 
perverse desires for emancipation, he would not have considered so 
‘ weighty a purpose sufficiently met by the mere mode of arrangement, 
but would have entered upon the matter itself (in opposition to Huther 
and de Wette); and this we should have to assume that he would have 
done also in the event of his having had in view an attitude of resistance 
on the part of those bound to obedience as the thing most to be feared (in 
opposition to Hofmann). 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.—dc avixev] not 
the perfect (with present signification), as Huther thinks and Bleek does 
not disapprove, but the imperfect, which has its logical reference in the év 
xvpiy to be connected with it: as was fitting in the Lord, t.e. a8 was becom- 
ing in the relation of the év Xpior@ elvac (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 yp7 and éez, 
the incomplete condition, which extends even into the present.' We 
are not to think of an omission of av; see Kiihner, lic. The connection 
of é xvpiy with ixéracceofe (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, Rosen- 
miller, Hofmann, and others)—in which case Hofmann imparts into o¢ 
avyxev 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: 
evapeoréy éoriv Ev Kupiy. 

Ver. 19. Comp. Eph. v. 25 ff., where this love is admirably characterized 
according to its specifically Christian nature.—zcxpaiveode] become not 
embittered, description of a spitefully cross tone and treatment.? 

Ver. 20 f. Comp. Eph. vi. 1-4, where likewise is given a characteristic 
development in fuller detail of what is here only succinctly stated.—xard 
navra not to be restricted; for Paul is quoting the rule, that which holds 
good principaliter in the relation of children, while possible exceptional 
cases obviously come under the principle of obeying God rather than man 
(Oecumenius : diya rév ei¢ doéBerav gepévtwr). Comp. Eph. v. 24.—evdpeoréy 
éorwv év xvpiy] In connection with this reading (see the critical remarks), 
to supply rp Oep to eidp. is arbitrary (in opposition to de Wette and 
Baumgarten-Crusius), since this is not suggested by the context as in 
Rom. xii. 1,2; nor is é» xpi» 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 etdp. without any other more precise definition 


18ee Kahner, II. 1, p. 176 f.; Bernhardy, p. Mos. II. p. 185. Comp. wexpas dtaxeicGar xpos 
373. Similarly, Winer, p. 254 [E. T. 270}. viva, Polyb. iv. 14.1; LX X. Ex. xvi. 20; Ruth 
Comp. also Buttmann, p. 187 [E. T. 216]. i. 20: 3 Esdr. iv. 31; éumexpaivec@at tiv, 
2Plat. Legg. v. p. 731 D; Dem. 1464. 18: pyre Herod. v. 62. 
muxpaives@a: pyre pynoiaxety. Philo, Vit. 


24 





370 THE EPISTLE OF PAGL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


than what is contained in @ a«vp., 80 that it is affirmed of childlike 
obedience, that it is well-pleasing, and that indeed not in a worldly fashion 
apart from Christ, ov amd tij¢ gicews pédvy¢ (Chrysustom), but in a definite 
Christian character; consequently the Christian ethical beauty, in which 
the dixaov (Eph. vi. 1) of that virtue manifests itself. Comp. mpoog:Aq in 
Phil. iv. 8. It would be a perfectly groundless violence to couple, with 
Hofmann, év xvpio with imaxotere tT. y. x. x., notwithstanding the clause 
which is introduced by yép.—Ver. 21. of rarépec] they, and not the mothers, 
are addressed as holding the government of the household, also in 
reference to education. Comp. on Eph. vi. 4.—épedifere] [XX XIX D.] 
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 (éoriv drov Kai ovyxupeiv opeidere, Chrysostom) treat- 
ment, which the child, provoked thereby to anger, must bear without 
being able to get satisfaction for its injured sense of justice; whereby it 
becomes liable to a spiritless and sullen, and therefore immoral, resig- 
nation, a despair paralyzing all moral power of will; hence iva pu) advpoor. 
This verb is only found here in the N. T., but frequently in LXX., also 
Judith vii. 22; 1 Macc. iv. 27; and in classic writers from the time of 
Thucydides (v. 91.1, vii. 21, al.). Its opposite is 6appeiv. Bengel aptly 
says: “fractus animus pestis juventutis.” 

Ver. 22. [XXXIX c.] Comp. Eph. vi. 5 ff. The minuteness with 
which Paul enters into this point in comparison with the others, may 
naturally have been caused by the flight and conversion of Onesimus, who 
was a Colossian slave.—roi¢ xara odpxa xvpioc} the masters, who are 80 
after a fleshly manner, t.e. in respect to material-human nature; a descrip- 
tion, which presupposes another relation belonging to the higher pneu- 
matic sphere, in which, namely, Christ is (ver. 24) the master. Comp. 
Rom. ix. 3.—p) év o9Oaru. d¢ avOpurdp.] See on Eph. vi.6. The obedi- 
ence of Christian slaves becomes men-pleasing, and, to appearance, eye-ser- 
vice, when it is not subordinated to, and normally conditioned by, the fear 
of Christ (2 Cor. v. 11) as the higher Master. See below, where év azAér. 
xapdiag (see on Eph. vi. 5) corresponds to the év é¢@adpodova., and goBodz. rt. 
xiptov to the o¢ avOpwrdp. Eye-service presupposes insincerity of heart, 
and men-pleasing takes for granted a want of the fear of Christ. Comp. 
on the latter, Gal. 1. 10. 

Ver. 23 f. More precise explanation of the év drAér. xapd., goBobp. Tr. Kbp. 
just required.—zvojre] in your service.—ék yuyic] pera evvolac, pp uerd 
dovdiKie avdyxnc, GAAG pera édevdepiag nai mpoatpéoewe, Chrysostom. Comp. 
on Eph. vi. 6.—épydteote] execute, carry out, not equivalent to moire, but 
correlative with it, hence also not in the narrower sense: labor (as e.g. in 
Xen. Cec. iil. 4 with reference to slaves).—dc¢ 7@ xvp.] Point of view of the 
épya,.; this is to be regarded as taking place for Christ, rendered as a ser- 
vice to Him. Comp. Eph. vi. 6 f. And the relation to the human 
masters, to whom the slaves belong, is in this higher aspect of the service 
thrown so much into the background as not to be taken into account at 
all, in accordance with the principle that no man can serve two masters; 


CHAP. Ill. 21-25. 371 
hence ov« is not relatively, but absolutely negative. Respecting the con- 
treat of avép. and Xproréc, see on (ial. i. 1.—eidéreg «.7.2.] Ground of the 
cbligation in one’s own consciousness for the o&¢ r@ Kupipy x. obK avop.: 
since ye know that ye shall receive from the Lord, etc. On eidére¢, comp. iv. 
1.—ér6 xvpiov, excluding the human recompense, stands first with empha- 
sis, and aré (on the purt of) denotes, not expressly the direct giving (apd), 
through which the recompense is received, but generally the issuing, pro- 
ceeding 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. 370].— 
tig KAnpov.] Inthe Messianic «Agpovouia, t.e.in the future possession of 
eternal bliss (see on Gal. iii. 18; Eph. i. 11; Col. i. 12; Rom. iv. 18), the 
reward consists. The motive for its purposely-chosen designation by this 
_ particular term lies in the fact, that in human relations slaves are not 
usually heirs, comp. Gen. xxi. 10. Hence also this closing word, next to 
the azd xup., has special emphasis: from the Lord ye shall receive the 
recompense of the inheritance. Comp. as to substance, Ignat. ad Polyc. 4: 
iva xpeitrovog édevdepiag ard Oecd rizworv.'—re xvpiy X. dovdetere] without 
yap (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 o¢ r@ «upiy x. obx avOpdros; Xptorp is not to be taken as 
appositionally equivalent to 8¢ éore Xprorédg (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. [XXXIX d.] The whole significant 
emphasis lies upon T@ «vp. Xpiorg; His slaves they are to be in the rela- 
tion of human service. Where the ydp is regarded as not genuine,? the 
indicative interpretation (the usual one) makes the utterance—which, 
moreover, would be superfluous after ver. 23—vapid, especially without 
the addition of an obrwe. 

Ver. 25. Ground of encouragement (ydp, see the critical remarks) to fulfill 
the precept r@ «up. X. doviebere: for he who does wrong shall carry off (the 
penal recompense of) what wrong he has done,—a locus communis, of which 
the slaves were to make the application, that the unjust treatment which 
they experienced from their masters would not go unpunished ; hence they 
could not but feel themselves the more encouraged to be in their relation 
of servitude slaves of no other than Christ, and to permit no unjust treat- 
ment to make them deviate from that principle. Paul therefore adds for 
their further encouragement :* xai obx gore mpoowroAmpia, [XX XIX e.] and 


10n avraré8oorg (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 Obdss. p. 390; 
and from the LXX. in Schleusner, I. p. 296; 
also avraxcéoua in Rom. xi. 9. 

*The decisive preponderance of the wit- 
nesses omitting this ydp renders it quite im- 


possible to uphold it by subjective criticism 
(in opposition to Hofmann), 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 8¢é (instead of ydp) in ver. 25 to be de- 
fended. 

8 Hofmann finds it incredible that Paul 
should have closed the section referring to 


372 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CULOSSIANS, 


there is no partiality, of which likewise general proposition the intended 
application is, that in that requital the impartial Judge (Christ, comp. ver. 
24) will not favor the masters, and will not injure the slaves, comp. Eph. 
vi. 9. The correct view is held substantially by Theodoret, Beza, Calvin, 
Estius, Zachariae, Ewald, and others. Others have understood 6 adiuév 
as referring to the slave who violates his duty, in which case ddcxety is taken 
either in the strict sense of the trespass of him who intentionally injures his 
master (Hofmann, comp. Philem. 18), or loosely and generally in the 
sense of doing wrong, comp. Rev. xxii. 11 (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ben- 
gel, Heinrichs, Storr, Flatt, Steiger, and others). But against this view 
the «. ov« gor: mpoowroA, may be decisively urged, which assumes that the 
subject to be punished is higher, of superior rank ; for the idea which has 
been imported into the passage is purely fanciful: “ Tenues saepe putant, 
sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum ; id negatur,” Bengel, in 
connection with which Theophylact appeals to Lev. xix. 15. And if on 
account of ov« gor: mpoowroA. the unjust masters must be taken as meant 
by 6 adv in the application of the sentence, the reference to both 
parties, to the masters and the slaves (Erasmus, Grotius, and others, includ- 
ing Bahr, Huther, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bleek, following Jerome and 
Pelagius), is thereby excluded, since mpoowrod. is appropriate only to the 
masters.—xopicera:] shall carry off for himself (sibi), refers to the Messianic 
judgment, and jdixyoe to that which he, who is now adixéw ( present), has 
(shall have) then done. On the expression xopifeoOa: «.7.A., used to express 
the idea of a recompense equivalent to the deed in respect of its guilt, 
comp. Eph. vi. 8, and on 2 Cor. v. 10.—Respecting tpoowmoAnyia, see on 
Gal. 1. 6. 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 
XXXVI. Vv. 1-4. 


(a) The second part of the transition passage is found at the beginning of this 
chapter, vv. 1-4, (see Note xxxv. a.). These verses are introductory to the par- 
ticular and special exhortations which follow.—(5) Meyer maintains here, as in 
ii, 12, that “the being risen with Christ is not meant in the sense of the regener- 
ate moral life, but as the relation of real participation in the resurrection of 
Christ.’ The explanation of the word ow7yépJere, however, is to be deter- 
mined, (1) by its contrast with ameJdvere (ii. 20); which is declared to bea 
dying to the orosyeia; (2) by the fact that ovvzyépdyre, in ii. 12, is connected 


the slaves with a proposition couched in rate consideration the proper soothing and 


such general terms as ver. 25, which applies 
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 proposition of ver. 
25, suggesting for their reflection and delibe- 


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 applies also in opposition 
to the doubts expressed by Holtsmann, 
p. #4 f. 


NOTES. 373 


with faith and with a deliverance from sins; (3) by the evident reference of the 
exhortations which follow to things relating to the development of the regenerate 
moral life; (4) by a comparison with the strikingly similar passage in Rom. vi. 
2 ff. All these points favor the view that the rising to the new spiritual life is 
meant. Alf. speaks of this explanation as “stultifying the sentence”; “for if 
the participation were an ethical one,” he says, ‘“‘ what need to exhort them to its 
ethical realization?” The true view of the meaning is—as in Rom. vi. and viii. 
—that as, according to the idea and doctrine of the Christian life, every believer 
is, at his conversion and baptism, raised to a new spiritual life—having died to 
sin,—he is to be exhorted to conform his actual living, in all respects, to this idea. 
So far from stultifying the sentence—this is a mode of exhortation which all 
Christian teachers adopt, and which Paul himself uses in several of his Epistles. 
—(c) This rising to a new life is here, as in Rom. vi., described as a being raised 
with Christ, and the verb is put in the aor. tense, and in the compound form with 
ovv, because, by his faith and baptism, the union of the Christian with Christ 
becomes so close and complete, that it is as if he had actually died upon the cross 
with Him and had been actually raised with Him. The representation is, thus, 
a figurative one. The real physical resurrection of the believer, which is the 
result of Christ’s resurrection, belongs to the future. 

(d) The “things above” are the things which belong to the spiritual, heavenly 
life. The principles and characteristics of the life of the kingdom of God have 
their origin in heaven and descend, as it were, out of heaven into this world. 
These things are spoken of here in their perfection and consummation, and in 
their widest extent, and thus include all that belongs to the idea of the per- 
fected heavenly life, on which the Christian is to set his whole mind, in contrast 
to earthly things. He is, accordingly, to lay aside all evil and to put on all good, 
—to have love, which is the bond of perfectness,—to be a new man in the image 
of God,—to look forward to the future glory.—(e) Ver. 3 gives a reason for ver. 
2. This reason includes a repeated azeSdvere and the statement 9 (uw) «.7.A. 
These latter words must therefore set forth, in some sense, a contrast to the idea of 
that to which they had died. The old life was an earthly one, related to and occu- 
pied with outward things and unspiritual desires and actions. The new life is a 
hidden one, having its centre and spring with Christ in God, and only to be man- 
ifested in all its glory when Christ Himself shall be manifested at the end. In 
view of this fact, the Christian should not give himself to the earthly things, but 
the heavenly. Zw# refers, thus, to the soul-life which rests in Christ and is to be 
realized in its consummation hereafter. 


XXXVI. Vv. 5-11. 


(a) The more detailed development of ‘the exhortation ¢poveire ra &ve now 
follows in a paragraph vv. 5-17, which is divided into two half-paragraphs: vv. 
5-11 giving the negative, and vv. 12-17 the positive side: the former passing 
over towards the latter in vv. 10, 11.—(5) As they had died with Christ, they 
should (on the negative side) put to death all that was inconsistent with the new 
life. This is expreesed, at the beginning of the half-paragraph, by vexpdoare ra 
wéAn ra ent rig yoe. That uéAy here means the members, only so far as they 
are used in the service of sin (Rom. vi. 13, 19), is evident from the following 
words (topveiay x.r.A.), and also from the fact that Paul never represents the 





314 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


caua or the “éAy as evil in themselves. It is only when sin, as a master, rules 
them, and employs them as its instruments, that evil comes in. From this fact it 
seems probable, that in the phrase rad éxi ry¢ yi¢ there is, at least, an intima- 
tion of the idea of this sinful use; and so, that the same idea is, in some degree, 
connected with the same words in ver. 2—a point which may be regarded as con- 
firming, in its measure, the reference of the “being raised,” etc., to the new 
spiritual life. 

(c) The connection of covetousness and sins of unchastity with each other, and 
of both of them with idolatry, is set forth in several places in Paul’s writings ; 
see Eph. v. 5; 1 Cor. v. 10, 11; 1 Thess. iv. 3-6 (?); Rom. i. 20-29. In the 
chief passage relating to the whole subject (Rom. i. 20 ff.), the sins of unchastity 
are presented as the first and great outgrowth of the idolatry of the heathen. 
Here, on the other hand, covetousness is spoken of as idolatry—the word idolatry 
having, however, a somewhat more specific sense. Lightf. and some others sepa- 
rate the words vojveiay «.7.A. from Ta péAy, and make them depend on the 
idea of aré3eo9e of ver. 8, the construction being changed or made irregular by 
the intervening of other clauses. But it is more Pauline and, on the whole, more 
simple to make them appositional with éA7, as Meyer does.—(d) The words 
éxi tovg vlog ri¢ anecSeiag at the end of ver. 6, which are found in T. R. and 
retained by Meyer, R. V., Rid., Ell., de W., are rejected by Tisch., Treg., Alf., W. 
& H., Lightf., and others. If they are omitted, oi¢ is neuter; if retained, it is 
masculine. In either case tobroi¢ is neuter. Comp. Rom. i. 18 ff, with respect 
to opy?) Geov and its coming upon sin. 

(ec) The view of Meyer with regard to drexdvoduevo: «.7.A. is strongly sup- 
ported by the first and fourth considerations which he presents: namely, the fact 
that the verbs wpeideode and azdéSeode are present, while the two participles are 
in the aorist, and the fact that the exhortation of ver. 12 is introduced by ovtv, 
It is supported, also, by the correspondence, if the words are understood in this 
way, between these participles and ¢ amoJdvere, ovv7yépOyre, of ii. 20, iii. 1, as 
related to the exhortations there given. The comparison with Eph. iv. 22-24 
cannot properly be urged against this view and in favor of making these words a 
part of the command in wetdeode, or an independent one, because the arrangement 
of the sentence in the passage is different in the points which are vital to this 
particular question. The participial clauses, accordingly, must be understood as a 
ground or motive, as Meyer says, for the whole aréSecde .. . GAAfdouy. They 
do not belong to ypetdeode alone. 

(f) The participle avaxacvobyevoy is a descriptive or characteristic participle, 
describing the new man with reference to that progressive renewal which is incon- 
sistent with the non-laying-aside of all the evils mentioned.—(g) kar’ eixéva is 
probably to be joined with avaxay., not (as Meyer) with ériywwow, This is in- 
dicated by a comparison with Eph. iv. 24, and by the general intimations of the 
N. T. respecting the conformity of the new life to God and the Divine life. The 
explanation of Meyer seems artificial and is not made necessary by the position 
of the words. The full knowledge here spoken of is to be understood in accord- 
ance with the suggestions of the several passages in which this word occurs in 
this Ep. and in Eph. (Col. i. 10, ii. 2; Eph. i. 17, iv. 13). It is the knowledge of 
God and of truth, to which the progress of the new life bears the man onward as the 
end to be reached.—(h) In Gal. iii. 28, where the words of ver. 11 are found in 
nearly the same form, they occur most naturally in the course of an argument 


( 





NOTES. 375 


against Judaizers, who would limit the Divine plan by national boundaries. 
Here, the reason of their use is leas evident. The explanation given by Meyer, 
* where all the separating diversities have ceased, by which those phenomena of 
malevolence and passion mentioned in ver. 8 were occasioned and nourished,” is 
hardly satisfactory. The phenomena in question were not occasioned so exclu- 
sively by these diversities ag to make it natural to bring the latter forward with 
so much prominence. It would seem not improbable, that there may be some 
special reference to the views of the Cologsian errorists, whose system was exclu- 
sive—both on its Jewish and Gnostic side—with reference to Gentiles, or to those 
of more barbarous and uncultured regions, and in opposition to whom Christ is 
now set forth as everything in the new life, just as He is elsewhere declared to be 
head of all angelic powers in whom they professed to believe. 


XXXVIIL Vv. 12-17. 


(a) Vv. 12-17 present (see above) the more special exhortations on the posi- 
tive side; the introductory otv referring to vv. 10,11 which thus form, as 
already stated, a transition passage. If Meyer's view of rarecvogpoctv7 is cor- 
rect, as it probably is, it will be noticed that all the virtues which the readers are 
exhorted to put on are those which have reference to their relations to one 
another, until the end of ver. 15a. The év év? cayuar: of the close of ver. 15 
suggests the same thought, and it is again brought out in 165. 17, and also in the 
following verses, 18-iv. 1, which set forth the mutual obligations of husbands and 
wives, etc. This peculiar prominence given to these relations may, perhaps, in- 
dicate a ground of the insertion of the words of ver. 11, additional to the one 
referred to in the notes on that verse.—(b) mpavryra here means gentleness (so 
also Meyer), rather than meekness, as it does also in 1 Cor. iv. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 25.— 
(c) The view of Meyer with respect to the supply of a participle, and not a verb, 
after tyeic of ver. 13, is hardly to be accepted. It makes the sentence less bur- 
densome to supply a verb, and then to add in thought a new évdbcacte before 
tay aydrny of ver. 14.—(d) With respect to the word Spafevew the following 
points are worthy of notice: (1) It is a peculiar word, not used in this simple 
verbal form elsewhere in Paul’s writings or in the N. T. (2) The corresponding 
noun §pafeiov, found in 1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. iii. 14, has its full and legitimate 
meaning in both cases. The compound verb used in ii. 18 has an element of the 
same meaning, though not the exactness of the sense which the derivation would 
suggest. (3) The reference in the preceding context is to feelings which work 
out towards others, and which conflict with each other inthe soul. (4) The 
words é & odpuar: point to a unity which would be secured by the exercise of 
the one sort of feelings and excluded by the other. These considerations favor 
the assigning to Apafevérw of its strict sense—act as umpire or judge, as be- 
tween conflicting emotions, etc.—(e) é ipiv (ver. 16) is better understood in the 
sense within you, than in you as a church, as Meyer takes it. The é rai¢ 
xapdiaic, which precedes and follows, suggests the former meaning, though these 
words are not, indeed, in the same clause, and é» doy oogia favors it. év tpiv, 
in such cases, is generally equivalent to in animis vestris. 

(f) That the words padpoic . . . rvevparixale are to be connected with d:déoxovre¢ 
«.7.A. is indicated by the insertion of év xépit: before Hdovrec, and also by the 


corresponding passage in Eph. v. 19. In Eph., however, they are suggested in a 





376 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


more natural connection—the outbreaking of song being the result of the work- 
ing of the Divine Spirit upon the emotional nature apparently, (comp. the con- 
trast with uedioxeode oivy in that passage). The suggestion here may be, pos- 
sibly, of song as accompanving the teaching, etc., with all wisdom; but such 
teaching may even have been conveyed, at times, by this means. If the word of 
Christ dwelt in them richly, all their utterances, even those of emotion and 
praise, might become instructive and helpful in their relations to one another.—(g) 
evyaptorovvres (ver. 17)—The emphasis which Paul lays upon thankfulness in the 
Epistle, placing it at the end of his exhortations, etc., is very noticeable. Comp. 
i. 12; ii. 7; iii. 15; iv. 2, It should abound in all their walk and growth in the 
Christian life; it should accompany every prayer; it should attend upon their 
actions and their words, as they did their work for Christ; it should go out joy- 
fully to God, as He made them fit to share in the inheritance of the saints. 


XXXIX. Vv. 18—25. 


(a) This passage (iii. 18-iv. 1) sets forth the duties of the Christian life— 
which have been urged upon the readers comprehensively in iii. 1-4, and more 
in detail in iii. 12-17—in particular domestic and social relations. In the similar 
passage Eph. v. 21-vi. 9, they follow a similar exhortation with respect to speak- 
ing to one another in psalms, etc., and giving thanks to God through Christ, but 
the words “subjecting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ ” are placed 
after “ giving thanks,” etc. These duties are, accordingly, made a part of that 
general subjection to one another which is the duty of all Christians. This fact 
is to be borne in mind in the interpretation of the individual exhortations. The 
tendency to excess in pressing the doctrine of Christian liberty and equality at 
that early period, so as to interfere with the subordinations to which society had 
been accustomed, must also be considered.—(5) In connection with the general 
subjection of every one to every other, the exact correspondence in the duties ‘of 
the two parties in the several cases should be observed. The child, for example, 
is no more under obligation to obey the father, than the father is not to provoke 
or fret the child. The whole matter is so presented as to remove all mere earthly 
and governmental ideas of subjection, and to make all the relations simply rela- 
tions of self-surrendering love.—(c) The suggestion made by some writers, that 
the case of Onesimus led Paul to speak especially, and so fully, of slaves, seems 
improbable when we consider the parallel passage in Eph., the similar one in 1 
Pet. ii. 18-iii. 7, and the allusion to slaves in Tit. ii. 9 ff, and also when we ob- 
serve the evident intention to refer to the prominent relationships of domestic 
life.—(d) dovAebere (ver. 24), which Meyer takes as an imperative, is perhaps 
better regarded as an indicative. Paul reminds the slaves that they are serving 
the Lord Christ, that Christ is the master whom they serve—therefore they should 
do everything as if to Him, and should know that the reward would come.—(c) 
It is noticeable that the words “there is no respect of persons,” which are made 
a ground of urgency in pressing the obligations of duty upon the slaves, in this 
Epistle, are made a similar ground in exhorting masters to fulfill their obliga- 
tions in Eph. vi. 9. 


CHAP, Iv. 1. 377 


CHAPTER IV. 


VER. 1. otpavoi¢] Lachm. and Tisch. read oipav®, following A B C y* min. vas. 
Clem. Or. Damasc. The plural is from Eph. vi. 9.—Ver. 3. di 8) Lachm. reads 
6’ bv, following B F G. Not attested strongly enough, especially as after r. 
Xpcorov the masculine involuntarily suggested itself—Ver. 8. yoo ra repl tyov] 
A B D* FG min. Aeth. It., and some Fathers have yore ra rrepi judy. Recom- 
mended by Griesb., received by Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. 8, approved also by 
Rinck and Reiche ; and rightly, because it has preponderant attestation, and is so 
necessary as regards the context that is must not be regarded as an alteration 
from Eph. vi. 22 (comp. in loc.). The Recepta is to be regarded as having arisen 
through the omission of the syllable TE before TA.—Ver. 12. Instead of orjre 
Tisch. 8 has orafjre, only on the authority of A* B and some min.—erAnpuptvor] 
ABC D* FG xy min. have rerAnpopopnutvor, Recommended by Griesb., re- 
ceived by Lachm. and Tisch., and justly; the familiar zerAypwp. crept in invol- 
untarily, or by way of gloas—Ver. 13. (#Aov roAtv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 
Reiche read rodtv sévov, following A B C D** x» 80, Copt., while D* F G have 
roAiv xérov, and Vulg. It.: multum laborem. Accordingly the Recepta is at any 
rate to be rejected, and 7oAvy sévov to be preferred as having decisive attestation ; 
mévov was glossed partly by xérov, partly by ¢#Aov (7é60ov and aydva are also 
found in codd.). Neither 67Aov nor x«érov would have given occasion for a gloss; 
and in the N. T. mévo¢ only further occurs in the A pocalypee.—Ver. 15. avrov] A 
C P 9 min. have atrav; B: avric¢. The latter is the reading of Lachm., who 
with B** instead of Nuupay accents Niugav, The airdv, which is received by 
Tisch. 8, is to be held as original ; the plural not being understood was corrected, 
according as the name Nuyg. was reckoned masculine or feminine, into atrov or 
aurig. 


Ver. 1. Ti ioéryra] not: equity, for the word signifies aequalitas, not 
aequitas, i.¢. érieixeca (in opposition to Steiger, Huther, de Wette, Ewald, 
Bleek, and most expositors), but: equality,? so that ye, namely, regard and 
treat the slaves as your equals. What is herein required, therefore, is not a 
quality of the master, and in particular not the freedom from moral uneven- 
ness, which is equivalent to dixaociny (Hofmann), but a quality of the rela- 
tion, which is to be conceded; it is not at all, however, the equalization 
of the outward relation, which would be a de facto abolition of slavery, but 


1N* has yr re Ta wep. vuwry; N** deletes 
the re, and is thus a witness for the Recepta. 
$2 Cor. viii. 13 f.; very often in Plato, Polyb. 
ii. 38. 8, vi. 8.4; Lucian, Herm. 22, Zeuzx. 5, also 
the passages from Philo in Wetatein, and the 
' LXX. Job xxxvi. 29; Zech. iv. 7. 
8 This conception, coincident with &xcasoovwn, 


does not pertain to ioérns at all; and just as 
little to ives in Soph. Phil. 685, where ivos év 
y tvou dvip is nothing else than par inter 
pares, namely, to his friends a friend, to his 
foes a foe. Comp. Schneidewin in loc. At 
many other passages igos denotes the equality 
of right, that which is impartial, and is hence 


378 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


rather the equality, which, amidst a continued subsistence of all the out- 
ward diversity, is brought about in the Christian xowwvia by kindly treat- 
ment. While 1d dixacov (what is right) expresses that which, according to 
the Christian consciousness of right, belongs as matter of right to the slave, 
ry ioéryra requires the concession of the parity (égakté) implied in the 
Christian adeAgéry¢. 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 icér7¢ would be not at all appropriate. It is just by the 
Christian status of both parties that he desires to see their inequality in 
other respects ethically counterbalanced. A commentary on rv icéryra 18 
supplied by Philem. 16. At variance with the context, Erasmus, 
Melanchthon, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Bohmer, and others under- 
stand the equality of impartial treatment, according to which the master 
does not prefer one slave to another. This would not in fact yield any defi- 
nite moral character of the treatment in itself, nor would it suit all the 
cases where there is only one slave. As to the middle wapéyeovde (Tit. ii. 
7; Acts xix. 24), observe that it is based simply on the conception of the 
self-activity of the subject; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 97.—eidérec] consciousness, 
that serves as a motive, as in iii. 24.—«ai ipet¢ «.7.A.] Theophylact says 
correctly: domep éxeivo: tude, ovrw Kai tueic Exere xbpcov, and that in heaven, 
namely Christ. 

Vv. 2-6. [On Vv. 2-6, see Note XL. pages 392, 393.] After having already 
concluded the general exhortations at iii. 17, Paul now subjoins some by 
way of supplement, and that in aphoristic epistolary fashion, concerning 
prayer along with intercession for himself (vv. 2-4), and demeanor towards 
non-Christians (vv. 5, 6). How special was the importance of both under 
the circumstances then existing! [XL a.] 

Ver. 2. To prayer apply yourselves perseveringly ; comp. Rom. xii. 12; 
Eph. vi.18; Acts i. 14; also 1 Thess. v.17: ddtadeimrucg mpocebzeode, which 
is substantially the same thing. Comp. Luke xviii. 1.—ypryop. & avrg] 
modal definition of the mpooxaprepeiv: 80 that ye are watchful (that is, 
alacres, mentally attentive and alert, not weary and distracted, comp. 1. 
Thess. v.6; Eph. vi. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 7, v. 7 f.; Matt. xxvi. 41) i 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 itself, as an expression 
of the spiritual life, and not as an aid to moral activity, that is spoken of. 
Hence we must not interpret it, with Hofmann, as indicating how Chris- 
tian watchfulness ought to be (namely, a watching in prayer), but rather 
how one ought to be in praying (namely, watchful therein). The point of 
the precept is the praying ; and hence it is continued by rpocebyouevor.— 
éy ebyap.] accompanying attitude, belonging to ypry. év avrg; with thanks- 


o 


often combined with 8ixcaos (righteous inthe wnequal a certain equality. In such passages 
narrower sense). But iodrys is always (even the conception of égalité comes into view with 
in Polyb. if. 38. 8) equality ; see e.g. Plato, Rep. special clearness. Hofmann has explained 
658 C, where it is said of the democracy: icé- our passage as If iodérys and éuaddryes, or Acorns 
TyTd Teva Spoins ivos Te Kai avicoss Savépovea, _(levelness), were identical conceptions. 

that is, it distributes uniformly to equal and 


CHAP. Iv. 2, 3. - 379 
giving, amidst thanksgiving, namely, for the benefits already received. 
Comp. i. 12, ii. 7, iii. 17; Phil. iv.6; 1 Thess. v.17. This is the essential 
element of the piety of prayer :! airy yap 9 aAndiv) edxn 4 evxaptotiav bxovea 
urép wavTwv av iouev nal Gv ovK lopev, ov ev exdObopev H eOAiBopev, vréip rav 
xoway evepyeciov, Theophylact. The combination with rg rpocevyg mpooxapr. 
(Bohmer, Hofmann) is without ground in the context, although likewise 
suitable as to sense. 

Ver. 3. Comp. Eph. vi. 19 f—dépa nai wepi ju.] 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 judr, not to be referred to Paul alone, like the singular dédeza: subse- 
quently and ver. 4, applies to him and Timothy, i. 1.—iva] contents of the 
prayer expressed as its purpose, as in i. 9 and frequently.—ipay r. Adyov] 
[XL 6.] is not equivalent to oréua (Beza, Calvin, Zanchius, Estius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and others. comp. Storr and Bohmer)—a 
singular appellation which Eph. vi. 7 does not warrant us to assume—but 
is rather a figurative way of indicating the thought: unhindered operation 
in the preaching of the gospel. So long as this does not exist, there is not 
opened to the preachers a door for the word, through which they may le¢ 
it go forth The mapfnoia of the preaching (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact), however, lies not in the 6ipa and its opening, but in what 
follows. Hofmann incorrectly holds that the closed door is conceived as 
_ being on the side of those, to whom the preachers wished to preach the word, 
so that it would not enter in. This conception is decidedly at variance with 
the immediately following AeAgoa: «.r.A., according to which the hindrance 
portrayed (the door to be opened) exists on the side of the preachers. 
Moreover, in this iva 6 Oed¢ «.7.A. the wish of the apostle, as regards his 
own person, is certainly directed to liberation from his captivity (comp. 
Philem. 22), not, however, to this in téself, but to the free working which 
depended onit. It was not the preaching in the prison which Paul meant, for 
that he had; but he longed after the opening of a 6ipa rot Adyou; God was to give 
it to him. Perhaps the thought of liberation suggested to himself the choice 
of the expression. Nor is the plural judy and jyiv, embracing others with 
himself, at variance with this view (as Hofmann holds); for by the 
captivity of the apostle his faithful friend and fellow-laborer Timothy, who 
was with him, was, as a matter of course, also hindered in the freedom of 
working, to which he might otherwise have devoted himself. This was 
involved in the nature of their personal and official fellowship. Observe 
how it is only with dédezac 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 dv’ 8 kal dédepat, iva gav. abré to be an 


?But Olshausen incorrectly says: “the 
prayer of the Christian at all times, in the 
consciousness of the grace which he has ex- 
perfenced, can only be a prayer of thanks- 
giving.” He holds the more general spocevx# 
to be more precisely defined by év evxap. Against 


this view the very ver. 3 is decisive, where, in 
fact, Paul does not mean a prayer of thanks. 

2Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 12; Dion. 
Hal. de vi Dem. p. 1026. 14: ov82 @vpas i8ay Ad- 
yos, also Pind. Ol. vi. 44; wvAac tuver dvamre 
youer, Bacchyl. fr. xiv. 2 


380 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS, 


interpolation from Eph. vi. 20. The fact, that Paul elsewhere (Rom. vii. 
2; 1 Cor. vii. 27, 39) has déew in the figurative sense, cannot matter; 
comp., on the contrary, the deozéc and déoyeog which he so often uses.— 
AaAjoa: x.7.A.] infinitive of the aim: in order lo speak the mystery of Christ. 
The emphasis is on Aadyoa: not to suppress it, but to let i be proclaimed. 
Comp. 1 Cor. ii.6; 2 Cor. iv. 18; 1 Thess. ii. 2.—rov Xpioroi] genitive of 
the subject, the divine mystery contained in the appearance and redemp- 
tive act of Christ (comp. Eph. ili. 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 pvorjpiov of God in ii. 2 is, because 
Christ was the bearer and accomplisher of it, the pvorfpiov rov X prorov.— 
dé’) 8 wat dédepac] 6’ 3 applies to the pzvor#p.; and the whole clause serves to 
justify the intercession desired. When, namely, Paul wishes AaAgéa: rd porgp. 
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 fetters. This «ai is consequently the also of the corres- 
ponding relation, quite common with relatives (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152). 

Ver. 4. ‘Iva x.7.A.] cannot, seeing that the preceding iva 6 Qcd¢ avoigy 
x.r.A. means the free preaching outside of the prison, be dependent either 
on dédeuae (Bengel, Hofmann, comp. Theodoret) or on mpocevyduevor, 80 
that it would run parallel with iva in ver. 3 (Beza, Bahr, de Wette, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Dalmer, and others); it is the atm of the Aadgjoat rd xvor. 
r. X.: in order that I may make tt manifest (by preaching) as I must 
speak it. Comp. also Bleek, who, however, less simply attaches it already 
to iva 6 Ode avoify x.r.A. The significant weight of this clause expressing 
the aim lies in the specification of mode ¢ dei ye AaAgoa:, in which dei 
has the emphasis. To give forth his preaching in such measure, as it was 
the necessity of his apostolic destiny to do (dei)—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 o¢ dei pe AaAgoa, 
the feeling of the hindered present. [XLc.] The traditional explanation 
is that of Chrysostom: perd moAAge rij¢ mappyoiag Kai pnddv trooreAdpevoy, 
namely, in captivity, where Paul longed to speak in the right way (de 
Wette ; so usually), or conformably to higher necessity (Bahr, Huther, comp. 
Beza, 1 Cor. ix. 16), or without allowing himself to be disturbed in his preach- 
tng as apostle to the Gentiles by his imprisonment occasioned by Jewish- 
Christian hostility (Hofmann). But in opposition to the reference of the 
whole intercession to the ministry in prison, see on ver. 8. The wish and 
the hope of working once more in freedom were so necessarily bound up 
in Paul with the consciousness of his comprehensive apostolic task, that 
we can least of all suppose him to have given it up already in Caesarea, 
where he appealed to the emperor. Even in the Epistle to the Philippi- 
ans (i. 25, ii. 24), his expectation is still in fact directed to renewed 
freedom of working. 


CHAP. Iv. 4, 5. 381 


Ver. 5 f. Another exhortation, for which Paul must still have had occa- 
sion, although we need not seek its link of connection with the preceding 
one. Comp. Eph. v. 15 f., where the injunction here given in reference to 
the non-Christians is couched in a general form.—év cogig] Practical 
Christian wisdom (not mere prudence; Chrysostom aptly quotes Matt. x 
16) is to be the element, in which their walk amidst their intercourse with 
the non-Christians moves. zpéc of the social direction, Bernhardy, p. 
205. As to ol éw, see on 1 Cor. v.12. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 12.—rév xacpov 
é€ayop.] 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 activities in which that same wise demeanor 
in intercourse with the non-Christians finds expression—which, consequently, 
may be according to the circumstances very diversified. Individual limit- 
ations of the reference are gratuitously introduced, such as “ad ejusmodi 
homines meliora docendos,” Heinrichs, comp. Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, 
and others, including Flatt and Bohmer; or: “in reference to the fur- 
therance of the kingdom of God,” Huther, Hofmann. There is likewise 
gratuitously imported the idea of the shortness of time, on account of 
which it is to be well applied (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, and 
others, including Bahr), as also the view that the xapéc, which signifies 
the aidyv obroc, is not the property of the Christian, but belongs roi¢ é£u, 
and is to be made by Christians their own through good deeds (Theodo- 
ret, comp. Oecumenius), or by peaceful demeanor towards the non-Chris- 
tians (Theophylact). Lastly, there is also imported the idea of an evil 
time from Eph. v. 16, in connection with which expositors have in turn 
lighted on very different definitions of the meaning; e.g. Calvin: “in 
tanta saeculi corruptela eripiendam esse benefaciendi occasionem et cum 
obstaculis luctandum;’’ Grotius: ‘“effugientes pericula.”—Ver. 6. 6 Ady. 
tu.] what ye speak, namely, wpd¢ rove tfv; 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 im- 
perative meperareire.—év ydpirc] denotes that with which their speech is to 
be furnished, with grace, pleasantness.' This yapeévru¢ eiva: of speaking 
(comp. Plato, Prot. p. 344 B, Rep. p. 331 A) is very different from the 
xapiroyAwoceiv of Aesch. Prom. 294.—adare npruu.] seasoned with salt, a figu- 
rative representation of speech as an article of food, which is communi- 
cated. The salt is emblem of wisdom, as is placed beyond doubt by the 
context in ver. 5, and is in keeping with the sense of the following eidévac 
x.7.A. (comp. Matt. v. 18; 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, exciling, and 


1Comp. on Luke iv. 22; Ecclus. xxvi. 16, way as to provoke the palate. Soph. Fragm. 
xxxvii. 21; Hom. Od. viii. 175; Dem. 51.9. . 601, Dind.; Athen. ii. p. 68 A; Theoph. de 

*The poeta use apriay often of articles of | odor. 51; Symm. Cant. viii. 2. Hence dprvpe, 
food or wines, which are prepared in such a spice. 


382 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


stimulating quality. Ita opposite is the stale, ethically insipid (not the 
morally rotten and corrupt, as Beza, BOhmer, and others hold) quality of 
speech, the pépov, pwpodoyeiv, in which the moral stimulus is wanting. 
The designation of wit by ad¢ (ddec) among the later Greeks? is derived 
from the pungent power of salt, and is not relevant here. Moreover, the 
relation between the two requirements, év ydpere and GAarti yprupévor, is 
not to be distinguished in such a way that the former shall mean the good 
and the latter the correct impression (so, arbitrarily, Hofmann); but the 
former depicts the character of the speech more generally, and the latter 
more specially. The good and correct impression is yielded by both.— 
etdéva: x.r.A.] taken groundlessly by Hofmann in an imperative sense (see 
on Rom. xii. 15; Phil. iii. 16), is, as if dere stood alongside of it, the 
epexegetical infinitive for more precise definition: so that ye know.* This 
eidéva: (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.—zré-] which 
may be in very different ways, according to the varieties of individuality 
in the questioners. Hence: é éxdéory, “nam haec pars est non ultima 
prudentiae, singulorum habere respectum,” Calvin.—azoxpivecOa:] We may 
conceive reference to be made to questions as to points of faith and doc- 
trine, as to moral principles, topics of constitution and organization, his- 
torical matters, and so forth, which, in the intercourse of Christians with 
non-Christians, might be put, sometimes innocently, sometimes malici- 
ously (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 1), to the former, and required answer. Paul does 
not use the word elsewhere. Comp. as to the thing itself, his own exam- 
ple at Athens, Acts xvii.; before Felix and Festus; before the Jews in 
Rome, Acts xxviii. 20, and so forth; and also his testimony to his own 
procedure, 1 Cor. ix. 20-22. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calovius, and others, 
inappropriately mix up believers as included in évi éxéory, in opposition to 
ver. 5. 

Vv. 7-9. Sending of Tychicus, and also of Onesimus. Comp. on’ Eph. 
vi. 21 f.—By adeAg. Paul expresses the relation of Tychicus as a Christian 
brother generally ; by didxovoc, his special relation as the apostle’s official 
servant, in which very capacity he employs him for such missions; and 
by otvdovios (i. 7) he delicately, as a mark of honor, places him as to 
official category on a footing of equality with himself; while éy xvpiy, be- 
longing to the two latter predicates,’ marks the specific definite character, 
according to which nothing else than simply Christ—His person, word, 
and work—is the sphere in which these relations of service are active. 
Comp. Eph. vi. 21.—ei¢ avro rovro] for this very object, having a retrospec- 
tive reference as in Rom. xiii. 6, 2 Cor. v. 5 (in opposition to Hofmann), 
in order, namely, that ye may learn from him all that concerns me. The fol- 


1Plut. Moral. p. 685 A; Athen. ix. p. 366 C. rated from aéeA¢és, which has its special ac- 
*8ee Matthine, 2532f,, p. 1235f.; Winer, p. jective. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly rv- 
296 [E. T. 316]. marks on the different predicates: 1d ag.o- 
8 &dxovos and cuv8ovAos are alsoconnected smscrov curiyayey. 
by the common attribute mordés, and sepa- 


CHAP, tv. 6-10. 383 


lowing iva yvare 1rd 1. tuév (see the critical remarks) is explicative ; révra 
tu. youp. ra ode in ver. 9 then corresponds to both. Comp. on Eph. vi. 
22.—mapaxa’.] may comfort, in your anxiety concerning me, respecting my 
position. With the reading yvp ra mepi tude, the reference would be to 
the sufferings of the readers ;'—ovv ‘Ovycizy] belonging to éreuya. As to 
this slave of Philemon, see Introd. to the Epistle to Philemon. Paul 
commends him ®* as his faithful (xoréc, as in ver. 7, not: having become a 
beKever, as Bahr would render it) and beloved brother, and designates him then 
as Colossian, not in order to do honor to their city (Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact), but in order to bespeak their special sympathy for Onesimus, the 
particulars as to whom, especially as regards his conversion, he leaves to 
be communicated orally.—éé tuzév] As a Colossian he was from among 
them, that is, one belonging to their church. Comp. ver. 12.—rd dde] the 
state of matters here, to which ra xar’ éué, ver. 7, especially belonged. 

Ver. 10. (On wv. 10-18, see Note XLI. pages 398, 394.] Sending of salu- 
tations down to ver. 14.— Apicrapyoc]} 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 
XXV1i. 2.—d ovvaizudaAorés pov] [XLI a.] Obdév robrov rod tyxuplou peifov, 
Chrysostom. In the contemporary letter to Philemon at ver. 24, the 
same Aristarchus is enumerated among the owepyoi; 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 owvatyyddwroc, so that in 
Philem. J. c. the ovvarypzddwrog is expressly distinguished from the mere 
ovvepyoi, and the former is not affirmed of Aristarchus. Hence various 
interpreters have taken it to refer not to a proper, enforced sharing of the 
captivity, but to a voluntary one, it being assumed, namely, that friends of 
the apostle allowed themselves to be temporarily shut up with him in 
prison, in order to be with him and to minister to him not merely as 
visitors, but continuously day and night. Comp. Huther, de Wette, and 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. xxi. According to this view, such friends changed 
places from tire to time, so that, when the apostle wrote our letter, Aris- 
tarchus, and when he wrote that to Philemon, Epaphras, shared his cap- 
tivity. But such a relation could the less be gathered by the readers from 
the mere ovvaizyddwroc (comp. Lucian, As. 27), seeing that Paul himself 
was a prisoner, and consequently they could not but find in ovva:ypaa. 
simply the entirely similar position of Aristarchus as a ovvdeopérne (Plat. 
Rep. p. 516 C: Thuc. 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 
now Aristarchus, but when the Epistle to Philemon was written, Epaphras, 
lay in prison at the same time with the apostle,—an imprisonment which 
is to be regarded as detention for trial, and the change of persons in the 
case must have had its explanation in circumstances to us unknown but 


18eixvves kal avrovs dv weipagpots Syras cel had happened with Onesimus! Yet Holtz- 
wapaxAfcens xpygovras, Theophylact, comp. mann holds that of the whole verse only the 
Chrysostom. name Onesimus is characteristic, and reckons 

SAnd how wisely and kindly, after what the vorse to owe its existence to that name. 


384 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

yet, notwithstanding the proximity of the two letters in point of time, 
sufficiently conceivable. It is to be observed, moreover, that as aizpda. 
always denotes captivity tn war (see on Eph. iv. 8; also Luke iv. 18), Paul 
by ovva:zu. sets himself forth as a captive warrior (in the service of 
Christ). Comp. overparidrys, Phil. ii. 25; Philem. 2. Hofmann (comp. 
also on Rom. xvi. 7) is of opinion that we should think “ of the war-cap- 
tive state of one won by Christ from the kingdom of darkness,” so that ovvaryz- 
paddwrog would be an appellation for fellow-Christian ; but this is an aber- 
ration, which ought least of all to have been put forth in the presence of 
a letter, which Paul wrote in the very character of a prisoner—Upon 
aveyiéc, 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, ili. 28. Not to be confounded either with nephew (adeAgidade 
or with dveyddy¢, cousin’s son, in the classical writers, aveyov aig. See 
generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 506. To take it in a wider sense, like our 
“kinsman, relative ”! there is the less reason, seeing that Paul does not 
use the word elsewhere. Moreover, as no other Mark at all occurs in the 
N. T., there is no sufficient ground for the supposition of Hofmann, that 
Paul had by 6 ave. Bapv. merely wished to signify which Mark he meant. 
Chrysostom and Theophylact already rightly perceived that the relation- 
ship with the highly-esteemed Barnabas was designed to redound to the 
commendation of Mark.—repi ob éAaB. évrod.] in respect of whom (Mark) ye 
have received injunctions *—a remark which seems to be made not without 
a design of reminding them as to their execution. What injunctions are 
meant, 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 proba- 
ble that they proceeded from himself, and were given aypdgug did rivev 
(Oecumenius). Ewald conjectures that they were given in the letter to 
the Laodiceans, and related to love-offerings for Jerusalem, which Mark 
was finally to fetch and attend to. But the work of collection was proba- 
bly closed with the last journey of the apostle to Jerusalem. Others hold, 
contrary to the notion of évroay, that letters of recommendation are meant 
from Barnabas (Grotius), or from the Roman church (Estius); while others 
think that the following éay 246, «.r.4. forms the contents of évrodde (Calvin 
—who, with Syriac, Ambrosiaster, and some codd., reads subsequently 
défac0a:.—comp. Beza, Castalio, Bengel, Bahr, and Baumgarten-Crusius), 
a view against which may be urged the plural évrodAd¢ and the absence of 
the article. Hofmann incorrectly maintains that wep ot éAéB. évroddg 18 
to be taken along with édv 2169 1. tu.: respecting whom ye have oblained 


18o in Hom. IN. ix. 464, who, however, also 
uses it in the strict sense as in x. 519. 

2sepi 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 un- 
der the évroAds instructions formerly issued 
to the Pauline churches not to receive Barna- 


bas, which were now no longer to be applied. 
As if the wapofvoyds of Acts xv. 39 could have 
induced the apoetle 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. 
li. 9 and (notwithstanding what is narrated at 
Gal. ii. 11) 1 Cor. ix. 6, 





CHAP. Iv. 11. 389 
instructions for the case of his coming to you. This the words could not 
mean; for édv 2269 nr. iu. signifies nothing else than: if he shall have 
come to you, and this accords not with 24d. évroa., but only with défacée 
avréy,) which Hofmann makes an exclamation annexed without connect- 
ing link (that is, with singular abruptness).—édav 246p «.7.4.] Parenthesis ; 
Mark must therefore have had in view a journey, which was to bring him 
to Colossae. déyeobar 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 déaofe stands without special modal defi- 
nition, it is not to be inferred that Paul was apprehensive lest the readers 
should not, without this summons, have recognized Mark (on account of 
Acts xv. 88 f.) as an apostolic associate (Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. 
Zeitalt. p. 567). Not the simple défac6e, but a more precise definition, 
would have been called for in the event of such an apprehension. 

Ver. 11. [XLI b.] Of this Jesus nothing further is known.—ol dvre¢ éx 
repir. 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 reper. Otherwise ol dvre¢ éx reper. would be purposeless, 
and the following otro: pévoe «.7r.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-laborers for the 
kingdom of the Messiah, as have become a comfort to me. The Jewish-Christian 
teachers, consequently, worked even at Caesarea to a great extent in an 
anti-Pauline sense. Comp. the complaint from Rome, Phil. 1. 15, 17. The 
nominative ot dvre¢ éx reper. 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 
petdBacre ec pépoc the special subject is introduced with otro, so that the 
verb (here the eisi to be supplied), now attaches itself to the latter. A 
phenomenon of partitive apposition, which is current also in classical 
authors.2, Hence there is the less reason for breaking up the passage, 
which runs on simply, after the fashion adopted by Hofmann, who treats 
éx meptrouae ovrot uévot a8 inserted parenthetically between of évre¢ and 
ovvepyoi. The complimentary affirmation is to be referred to all the three 
previously named, without arbitrary exclusion of Aristarchus (in opposi- 
tion to Hofmann). At any rate, Caesarea was a city so important for the 
Christian mission, that many teachers, Jewish-Christian and Gentile- 





1In 1 Tim. iii, 14 f,, a passage to which Hof- 
mann, with very little ground, appeals, the 
verb of the chief clause is, in fact, a present 
(ypadew), not, as would be the case here, a 
praeterite, which expresses an act of the past 
(eAdBere). There the meaning is: Jn the case 
of my departure being delayed, however, this my 
letter has the object, etc. But here, if the con- 
ditional clause were to he annexed to the 
past act éAdBere, the circumstance condition- 


25 


ing the latter would logically have to be con- 
ceived and expressed in oblique form (from 
the point of view of the person giving the in- 
junction), in some such form, therefore, as: 
€i €AGoe zpos vmas (comp. Acts xxiv. 19, xxvii. 
39; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 491 f.). 

2See Kahner, II. 1, p. 246; Nagelabach and 
Faesi on Hom. Jt. iii.211. Comp. Matthiae, p. 
1307. 





386 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Christian, must have frequented it, especially while Paul was a prisoner 
there; and consequently the notice in the passage before us need not point 
us to Rome as the place of writing.—rapryopia]} consolation, comfort, only here 
in the N. T.; more frequently in Plutarch; see Kypke. Méyorov tyxdpcov 
1d TO par yevéoOa: Ouundiag mpdée oy ‘Theodoret. Bengel i imposes an 
arbitrary limitation: “in forens: periculo.” 

Ver. 12. ’Exagpac] See i. 7 and Introd.—It is to be observed that, accord- 
ing to ver. 11, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas (ver. 14) were no Jewish- 
Christians, whereas Tiele in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1858, p. 765, holding Luke to 
be by birth a Jéw, has recourse to forced expedients, and wishes arbitrarily 
to read between the lines. Hofmann, refining groundlessly (see on ver. 
14), but with a view to favor his presupposition that all the N. T. writings. 
were of Israelite origin,’ thinks that our passage contributes nothing 
towards the solution of the question as to Luke’s descent ; comp. on Luke, 
Introd. 3 1.—é é ter] as in ver. 9, exciting the affectionate special interest 
of the readers; ivép izav afterwards thoughtfully corresponds.—dotAce X. 
is to be taken together with wdvrore aywxf., but 6 é& tudv is not to be con- 
nected with dovAog (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.—ayw~.] Comp. Rom. 
xv. 30. The more fervent the prayer for any one is, the more is it a striv- 
ing for him, namely, in opposition to the dangers which threaten him, and 
which are present to the vivid conception of him who wrestles in prayer. 
Comp. also ii. 1. The striving of Epaphras in prayer certainly had refer- 
ence not merely to the heretical temptations to which the Colossians, of 
whose church he was a member, were exposed, but—as is evident from 
iva orqre x.t.A, (purpose of the aywm{. x.7.A.}—to everything generally, which 
endangered the right Christian frame in them.—or#re] designation of 
stedfast perseverance ; in which there is neither wavering, nor falling, nor 
giving way. To this belongs év wavri BeAgu. 7. ©., [XLI c.] expressing 
wherein (comp. 1 Pet. v. 12) they are to maintain stedfastness ; in every will 
of God, that is, in all that God wills. Comp. on orjva é& in this sense, 
John viii. 44; Rom. v. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 18. 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 or#re now has not merely a modal definition, réA. x. mweranp., 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 réA. «. mewAnp., followed also by Hofmann, 
according to which év x. 6eA. r.6. would be the moral sphere, “ within which 
the perfection and firm conviction are to take place,” Huther.2—réAew: xat 


1This postulate, wholly without proof, is | sostom and Luther, éy w. 6eA. +r. Geo to wewAy- 
also assumed by Grau, Entwickelungsgesch.d. pwp.: filled with every will of God, which, in- 
neutest. Schriftth. I. p. 54. stead of being transformed into “ voluntatis 
If we follow the Recepta wewAnpwepudvo: (see =. divinae verae et integrae cognitio” (Reiche, 
the critical remarks), on the other hand, we comp. Beza), is rather to be understood as- 
must join, as is usually done, following Chry- denoting that the heart is to be full of all thas 


CHAP, Iv. 12-14. 387 


renAnpopopnutvor] perfect and with full conviction (comp. ii. 2; Rom. iv. 21, 
xiv. 5; and see on Luke i. 1) obtain through the context (orjre év m. eA. 1. 
8.) their more definite meaning; the former as moral perfection, such as 
the true Christian ought to have (i. 28); and the latter, as stedfastness of 
conscience, which excludes all scruples as to what God’s will requires, and 
is of decisive importance for the reAeérn¢ of the Christian life; comp. Rom. 
xiv. 5, 22 f. 

Ver. 13. General testimony in confirmation of the particular statement 
made regarding Epaphras in wéyrore x.r.A.; on which account there is the 
less reason to ascribe to the interpolator the more precise definition of 
ayuvt. tr. iu., which is given by év raig xpooevy. (Holtzmann). The yép is 
sufficiently clear and logical.—oeAiv srévoy (see the critical remarks); much 
toil, which is to be understood of the exertion of mental activity—of earnest 
working with its cares, hopes, wishes, fears, temptations, dangers, and so 
forth. The word is purposely chosen, in keeping with the conception of the 
conflict (ver. 12); for sévo¢ is formally used of the toil and trouble of con- 
flict’—nxai riv iv Aaod. x. 1. év ‘Iepar.] Epaphras had certainly labored in 
these adjoining towns, as in Colossae, which was probably his headquarters, 
as founder, or, at least, as an eminent teacher of the churches. 

Ver. 14. Luke the physician, the (by me) beloved, is the Evangelist—a point 
which, in presence of the tradition current from Iren. iii. 14. 1 onward, is 
as little to be doubted as that the Mark of ver. 10 is the Evangelist. Luke 
was with Paul at Caesarea (Philem 24), and traveled with him to Rome 
(Acts xxvii. 1), accompanying him, however, not as physician (as if pov or 
juov had been appended), but as an associate in teaching, as ovvepydr, 
Philem. 24. Hofmann calls this in question, in order to avoid the infer- 
ence from ver. 11, that Luke wasanon-Israelite. The addition, moreover, 
of 6 tarpéc is simply to be explained after the analogy of all the previous 
salutations sent, by assuming that Paul has appended to each of the per- 
sons named a special characteristic description by way of recommenda- 
tion.” The case of Anzac is the only exception; on which account it is the 
more probable that the latter had even at this time (at the date of 2 Tim. 
iv. 10 he has abandoned him) seemed to the apostle not quite surely enti- 
tled to a commendatory description, although he still, at Philem. 24, adduces 
him among his ovvepyoi, to whose number he still belonged. [XLI d.] 
Hence the assumption of such a probability is not strange, but is to be 
preferred to the altogether precarious opinion of Hofmann, that Demas 


God wills, and that in no matter, consequently, 
is any other will than the divine to rule in 
the believer. Respecting éy, comp. on Eph. 
v. 18. B&hr 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 wayri. Grotius, Hein- 
richa, Flatt, and others, erroneously hold that 
dy is equivalent to «is. 

18ee 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 II. i. 467, 


and Nagelsbach in loc. ; comp. Rev. xxi. 4. 

4JIn the case of Luke, the attachment of the 
honorable professional designation 6 iatpés to 
the name suggested itself so naturally and 
spontaneously—considering the peculiarity 
of his professional position, to which there 
was probably nothing similar in the case of 
any other cuvepycs—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 same name). 


‘388 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


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 xai is: and especially, and 
in particular, so that of the Christians at Laodicea (rove év Aaod. adeAg.). 
Nymphas is specially’ singled out for salutation by name. In the follow- 
ing xat riv kar’ olxov avrév éxxd., the church which is in their house, the plural 
aivrav (see the critical remarks) cannot without violence receive any other 
reference than to rov¢ év Aaod. adeAgove x. Neugav. Paul must therefore (and 
his readers were more precisely aware how this matter stood) indicate a 
church different from the Laodicean church, a foreign one, which, however, 
was in filial association with that church, and held its meetings in the 
same house wherein the Laodiceans assembled. [XLI e.] If we adopt 
the reading avrov, we should have to think, not of the family of Nymphas 
(Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, and others), but, in accordance with 
Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Philem. 2, of a portion of the Laodicean church, 
whicli held its separate meetings in the house of Nymphas. In that case, 
however, the persons here saluted would have been already included 
among rove év Aaodixeig adeAgote. The plural avréy by no means warrants 
the ascribing the origin of ver. 15 to an unseasonable reminiscence of 1 
Cor. xvi. 19 and Rom. xvi. 5, perhaps also of Philem. 2 (Holtzmann). 
What a mechanical procedure would that be!—The personal name 
Nymphas itself, which some with extreme arbitrariness would take as a 
symbolic name (Hitzig, comp. Holtzmann), is not elsewhere preserved, 
but we find Nymphaeus, Nymphodorus, Nymphodotus, and Nymphius, also 
Nymphis. 

Ver. 16.2. This message presupposes essentially similar circumstances 
in the two churches.—} éoro24] is, as @ matter of course, the present 
Epistle now before us; Winer, p. 102 [E. T. 107]. Comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 
1 Thess. v. 27.—zo:foare, iva] procure, that. The expression rests on the 
conception: to be active, in order that something may happen, John xi. 37.8 
The following xat riv é« Aaod, x.7.A. is, with emphatic prefixing of the 
object, likewise dependent on srojoaze, 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.t—rjv éx Aaodxeiag] not: that written to me 


i Nymphas appears to have been specially *Comp. Herod. i. 8: woie, Sxesg «.7.A., i. 200; 


well known to the apostle, and on friendly 
terms with him; perhaps a ovvepy6s, who was 
now for a season laboring in the church at 
Laodicea. 

See Anger, Battr. zur histor. krit. Einl. in d. 
A.u. N. T.1.; aber den Laodicenerbrief, Leip. 
1843; Wieseler, de epistola Laodicena, Gott. 
1844; and Chronol. d. apost. Zeit. p. 450 ff.; 
Sartori, U.4er d. Laodicenserbrief, Lab. 1863. 


Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 18. 

‘Hofmann needed, certainly, some such 
artificial expedient, wholly without warrant 
in the words of the text, to favor his presup- 
position that the Epistle to the Ephesians waa 
meant, and that it was a circular letter. For 
a circular letter goes through the circuit 
destined for it of itself, and there is no occa- 
sion to ask or to send for it in order to pro 


CHAP. Iv. 15, 16. 389 
from Laodicea. So rvée 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 xa? tyeic, pursuant to the parallel of the first 
clause of the verse, presupposes the Laodiceans, not as the senders of the 
letter, but as the receivers of the letter, by whom it was read. How 
unsuitable also would be the form of the message by zojoare! Paul must, 
in fact, have sent to them the letter. Lastly, neither the object aimed at 
(Theophylact already aptly remarks: 4A’ otx olda ri dv éxeivye—namely, 
that alleged letter of the Laodiceans—éde: avroig mpdg BedAtiwocv), 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 mpic Tipdeov mpdrn’ 
airy yap éx Aaodixelac éypégn. So alsoascholion in Matthaei. In accordance 
with the context—although Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 211 ff., denounces 
the idea as a “ fiction,” and Hofmann declares it as excluded by the very 
salutations with which the Colossians are charged to the Laodiceans—we 
can only understand it to refer to a letter of Paul to the Laodiceans, which 
not merely these, to whom it was written, but also the Colossians (kai tpei¢) 
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, riv 
éx Aaodixiac, is the very usual form of attraction in the case of prepositions 
with the article (comp. Matt. xxiv. 17; Luke xi. 13), so that the two 
elements are therein comprehended : the letter to be found in Laodicea, and 
to be claimed or fetched from Laodicea to Colossae.' 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 
favored especially by such as hold the Epistle to the Ephesians to be a 
circular letter (Bohmer, Béttger, Bihr, 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.2 The hypothesis 








cure, that (xoujeare, iva) people may get it to 
read. But the effect of the forced separation 
of the second iva from soujoare is, that the 
words thy éx Aaoédixeias are supposed only to 
affirm that the letter “will come” from Lao- 
dicea to Colossae, that it “wil reach” them, 
and they ought to read it. In this way the 
text must be strained to suit what is a priori 
put intoit. This applies also in opposition to 
Sabatier, fap Paul, p. 201, who entirely ignores 
the connection with wovjoare (“la lettre gui 
vous viendra de Laod. ). 

18ee generally, Kibner, II. 1, p. 473 f., and 
ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6.11, ad Anab. i. 1.5; Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 B; Winer, p. 584 
[F. T. 629}. 

8The apocryphal letter to the Laodiceans, 


the Greek text of which, we may mention, 
originated with Elias Hutter (1599), who trans- 
lated it from the Latin, may be seen in Fabri- 
cius, Codex apocr. p. 873 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 Muratorianu:, 
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.” 

3See Introd. to Eph. ¢1; Wieseler, Chronol. 


890 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 

that the Epistle to Philemon is meant,' finds no confirmation either in the 
nature and contents of this private letter,? or in the expressions of our 
passage, which, according to the analogy of the context, presuppose a 
letter to the whole church and for it. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews 
(Schulthess, Stein, in his Comm. z. Iuk., 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 xa? rv éx Aaodix. 
iva x. iu. avayv. is an insertion of the interpolator ;* comp. Hitzig. 


REMARK.—It is to be assumed that the Epistle to the Laodiceans was com- 
posed at the same time with that to the Colossians, inasmuch as the injunction that 
they should be mutually read in the churches can only have been founded on the 
similarity of the circumstances of the two churches as they stood at the time. 
Comp. ii. 1, where the xat rév év Aaoduxeig, specially added to epi izav, expresses 
the similar and simultaneous character of the need, and, when compared with our 
passage, is to be referred to the consciousness that the apostle was writing to both 
churches. And the expression tv é« Aaodiueiag produces the impression that, 
when the Colossians received their letter, the Laodiceans would already have theirs, 
At the same time the expression is such, that Paul does not expressly inform the 
Colossians that he had written also to the Laodiceans, but speaks of this letter as 
of something known to the readers, evidently reckoning upon the oral communica- 
tion of Tychicus. The result, accordingly, seems as follows: Tychicus was the 
bearer of both letters, and traveled by way of Laodicea to Coloasae, so that the 
letter for that church was already in Laodicea when the Colossians got theirs 
from the hands of Tychicus, and they were now in a position, according to the 
directions given in our passage, to have the Laodicean letter forwarded to 
them, and to send their own (after it was publicly read in their own church) 
to Laodicea. 


Ver. 17. The particular circumstances which lay at the root of this 
emphatic admonitory utterance ‘ cannot be ascertained, nor do we even 
know whether the diaxovia is to be understood in the narrower sense 


d. apost, Zeitalt. p. 435 ff. ; Sartori, l.¢.; Reiche, 
Comm. crit. ad Eph.i.1; Laurent in the Jahrb. 
Jj. D. Theol. 1866, p. 131 ff. ‘ 

1So Wieseler, also Thiersch, Hist. Standp. 
p. 424; and some older expositors, see in Calo- 
vius and in Anger, p. 35. 

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 scri- 
bere, et 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 contents, and that 
the reciprocal use of the two letters had refer- 
ence to this, in accordance with the essen- 
tially similar needs of the two neighboring 


churches. 

3 Because, if we annex iva to woujcere, an 
awkward sense arises, “seeing that the Col- 
ossians can only cause that they get the letter 
to read, but not that they read it.” Thatisa 
subtlety, which does injustice to the popular 
style of the letter. But if we take iva inde 
pendently (as Hofmann does), then Holtz- 
mann is further of opinion that the anthor of 
Eph. iv. 29, v. 27, 33, is immediately betrayed 
—an unfounded inference (comp. Winer, p. 
295 [E. T. 315]), in which, hesides, only the 
comparison of Eph. v. 83 would be relevant, 
and that would be balagced by 2 Cor. 
viii. 7. 

*Bengel: “vos meis verbis dicite tanquam 
testes. Hoc magis movebat, quam ai ipsum 
Archippum appellaret.” 


CHAP. Iv. 17. 391 


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- 
kst, or of some individual business relating to the service of the church. 
We cannot gather from év xvpiy any more precise definition of the Chris- 
tian dcaxovia. 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 wu. Kirche, 
ed. 2, p. 308), or as substitute for the bishop during the absence of 
Epaphras (similarly Bleek), whose successor he had also become (Cor- 
nelius a Lapide and Estius). Comp. further as to this Colossian,! on 
Philem. 2.—The special motive for this precise form of reminding him of 
his duty is not clear? But what merits attention is the relation of dis- 
cipliinary admonitive authority, [XLI f.] in which, according to these 
words, the church stood to the office-bearers, and which should here be 
the less called in question with Hofmann, since Paul in the letter to 
Philemon addressed jointly to Archippus would doubtless himself have 
given the admonition, if he had not conceded and recognized in the 
church that authority of which he invokes the exercise—and that even in 
the case, which cannot be proved, of the dcaxovia 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 : iva bray émiriua "Apyermog avroic, un Exwotv tyxadeiv éxeivy Oe mUuKpO... 
érel GAdwe Grorov roi¢g pabyraic wepi tov didaoxdAov diadkyecbat (Theophylact).— 
Bidére x.r.A.] Grotius, Wolf, Flatt, Bihr, and many, take the construction 
to be: BAére iva rip dian. fv mapéA. év xvp., wAnpois, from which arbitrary 


1Theodoret already with reason declares _ nition to Archippus through a s¢range church, 


himself against the opinion that Archippus 
had been a Laodicean teacher (s0 Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Michaelis, and Storr), just as the 
Constitt. apost. vil. 46.2 make him appointed 
by Paul as bishop of Laodicea. Recently it 
has been defended by Wieseler, Chronol. des 
apost. Zeitalt. p. 452, and Laurent in the Jahrb. 
jf. D. Th. 1866, p. 130, arguing that, if Arch- 
ippus had been a Coloasian, 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 «ai to ver. 15f., where the Lao- 
diceans are spoken of. But the form of ex- 
hortation 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 immediately 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 himas to Nymphas. Besides, it 
would be altogether very surprising that Paul 
should have conveyed the warning admo- 


the more erpecially when he had written at 
the same time to himself jointly addressed 
with Philemon (Philem. 2). 

* 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 Arch- 
ippus, 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 toan interpolator so singular an 
anachronistic confusion of persons. Yet Holtz- 
mann finds the grounds of Hitzig so cogent, 
that he ultimately regards vv. 15-17 as the 
rivet, “by means of which the Auetor ad Ephe 
sios has made a connected triad out of his 
own work, the interpolated Colossian epistle, 
and the letter to Philemon.” 





392 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


view the very airfy should have precluded them. The words are not to 
be taken otherwise than as they stand: Look to the service (have it in thy 
view), which thou hast undertaken in the Lord, in order that thou mayest 
fulfill it, mayest meet its obligations; iva air. rAnp. is the purpose, which is 
to be present in the Baérev r. duax. «7.4. Comp. 2 John 8 On zAnpoic, 
comp. Acts xii. 25; 1 Macc. ii. 55; Liban. Ep. 359; Philo, in Flacc. p. 988: 
ri dtaxoviav ixtAfoavtes.—év xvpiy] not: from the Lord (Bahr); not: for 
the sake of the Lord (Flatt); not: secundum Domini praecepta (Grotius). 
Christ, who is served by the draxovia (1 Cor. xii. 5), is conceived as the 
sphere, in which the act of the wapaAapBdvew riv dtaxoviav is accomplished 
objectively, as well as in the consciousness of the person concerned ; he is 
in that act not out of Christ, but living and acting in Him. The év xvp. con- 
veys the element of holy obligation. The less reason is there for joining 
it, with Grotius, Steiger, and Dalmer, to the following iva avr. rAnp. 

Ver. 18. [XLI g.] Conclusion written with his own hand; comp. 2 
Thess. iii. 17. See on 1 Cor. xvi. 21—Be mindful for me of my bonds, 
[XLI h.] a closing exhortation, deeply touching in its simplicity, in 
which there is not a mere request for intercession (ver. 3), or a hint even 
at the giving of aid, but the whole pious affection of grateful love is 
claimed, the whole strength of his example for imparting consolation and 
stedfastness is asserted, and the whole authority of the martyr is thrown 
into the words. Every limitation is unwarranted. Totro yap lxavdy eic¢ 
révta avtove mpotptwacba, nat yevvasorépove rotgoat mpd Todo ayavac apa xai 
oixecorépoug avroig éroinoe cai tov géBov EAvoev, Oecumenius, comp. Chrysos- 
tom.—# yzdpu] nar’ tEoxfv: the grace of God bestowed in Christ. Comp. 
1 Tim. vi. 21; 2 Tim. iv. 22; Tit. iii. 5. Comp. on Eph. vi. 24. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 
XL. Vv. 2-6. 


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


NOTES. 393 


probable. It was in this way, especially, that all hindrances in bis work would 
be removed. The words é’ 8 xai dédexa: favor this view ; perhaps, also, the words 
of ver. 4. But it is not clear that the reference is to be limited to such a release. 
The desire for freedom, for the sake of his apostolic work, must, at the time and 
under the circumstances, have been a chief desire, but he would have prayers 
offered for the largest opportunities of preaching in every line.—(c) Whether the 
reference in o¢ dei pe AaAjoa: is as exclusively to the hindrance occasioned by his 
imprisonment as Meyer claims, may also be questioned. The parallel passage, 
Eph. vi. 19, 20, would indicate something besides this. This idea, however, is a 
part, if not the whole, of the thought. dei, in any case, denotes the necessity of 
his apostolic mission—the application being in the subjective or the objective 
line, or both, according as we interpret,—i.e. referring to his own boldness (7ap- 
pyoia, Eph. vi. 19), or his release from captivity—(d) The relation of ver. 5 to 
ver. 6 seems to be this :—the former presents the general idea of life and conduct 
as having reference to unchristian men around them, and the latter turns this 
especially into the line of speaking to such men or with them. 


XLI. Vv. 10-18. 


(a) Meyer insists that ovva:yuddwrog refers to an imprisonment of Aristarchus 
with the Apostle by the authorities and fur purposes of judicial trial. The fact that 
Epaphras is said to be ovvacy. in Philem., ver. 24, while Aristarchus is not, is 
made an objection to this view. It may be remarked with reference to this point, 
that the Greek word naturally refers to an involuntary imprisonment or captivity ; 
that, as Paul was himself now in imprisonment, the readers would naturally un- 
derstand him by the use of civ to mean a captivity like his own; that in Rom. 
xvi.7 (the only other passage in the N. T. where the word is found) it is difficult 
to explain it in any other way; that the fact that Epaphras is called thus in 
Philem. and Aristarchus not, while here Aristarchus is thus described and Epa- 
phras not, does not necessarily occasion a difficulty, by reason of sudden or fre- 
quent changes which it would imply, for the absence of the adjective as applied 
to Aristarchus in Philem. may be accounted for on other grounds. Epaphras and 
Aristarchus were both ovva:yudAwrot, and both ovvepyot and civdovAo. Rea- 
sons unknown to us may easily have determined the use of the one adjective or 
the other, independently of the question as to the particular time when they 
were in imprisonment. The Ep. to Philem. was, probably, written almost on the 
same day with that to the Colossians. A release of one of these men and an im- 
prisonment of the other in the interval (if any there was) between them, is not 
altogether probable. Though Paul was not strictly an aizpddwrog a prisoner of 
war, this fact can hardly be made an objection to the application of the word to 
an association with him in his present condition—(5) All the persons mentioned 
here as joining Paul in his salutation to the Cologsian Church are, also, mentioned 
as saluting Philemon (Philem. ver. 24), except Jesus Justus. Of Mark we learn 
three things from this passage, (1) that he was a near relative of Barnabas, which 
may partly account for the action of the latter in Acts xv. 36 ff. ; (2) that he was 
a Jewish convert; and (3) that he was, at least at this time, in Rome—facts 
which may have a bearing upon the correct view respecting his Gospel. The 
other great fact bearing upon his Gospel—namely, his relations to Paul and the 
Pauline doctrine—is indicated not only here, but elsewhere.—(c) Meyer is ap- 





394 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


parently correct in connecting év mavri SeAguare of ver. 12 with orfre (or 
oradqre), The prayer was, that they might stand firmly—be settled without 
wavering—in the sphere of what is willed by God, being perfect in their fulfill- 
ment of it, and fully persuaded respecting it so as to be beyond doubts or ques- 
tionings. To this end Epaphras, he says, earnestly prayed, and had toAw révoyr, 
which, as he was now absent from the Colossians, probably refers wholly, as 
Meyer says, or mainly, as Lightf, to internal struggle, desire, prayer, etc.—(d) 
The suggestion made by Meyer and several others, that Demas may have already 
shown symptoms of his subsequent defection (2 Tim. iv. 10), and that this fact 
may have occasioned the omission of any commendatory words respecting him, is — 
hardly probable. The interval of time between this Epistle and the 2d Epistle 
to Timothy was from three to five years. Demas is called, with all the others 
here mentioned, ovvepyés in Philem. ver. 24, and his name is there placed before 
that of Luke.—(e) The view of Meyer with respect to avrav—that it refers to 
toig év Aaod, adeAd. «x. Nouypav, and that the allusion is to a foreign church 
which met in the same house with the Laodicean Church, but was different from 
it—cannot be affirmed with confidence. The reference of avrév may be to 
Nymphas and his family.—(f) The remarks made by Meyer respecting the meg- 
sage for Archippus, as indicating the “disciplinary admonitive authority” which 
Paul recognized the church as having: in relation to its officers, are worthy of 
notice. The supposition which Lightf. makes, that Archippus lived at Laodicea 
(see his Introd. to the Ep. to Philemon, p. 375), if adopted, will hardly explain 
the sending of this admonition to the Colossian Church and the omission of all 
allusion to any such thing in the Ep. to Philem., in which Archippus is per- 
sonally addressed.—(g) The fact that in this late Epistle we have an autograph 
salutation, is evidence that, from the time of his beginning to certify his letters 
in this way, 2 Thess. iii. 17, Paul continued always to do so (6 éorv onpeiov év xdon 
éxioToAg).—(h) The letter closes with an allusion to his imprisonment, which in 
all the Epistles of this period is naturally made so prominent. It is interesting 
to notice, that it was at this time of his life, and in the midst of this experience, 
that he said he had learned in whatsoever state he was to be content (Phil. 
iv. 11). 


ee eee lllti_sll 





THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


INTRODUCTION. 


5] HILEMON, who had been converted to Christianity by Paul 
himself perhaps during his sojourn at Ephesus (ver. 19), was 
a member of the Christian community, not at Laodicea 
(Wieseler, Laurent), but—like Archippus, ver. 2 (8ee on Col. 
iv. 17)—at Colossae (Col. iv. 9), wherein, by his zealous Chris- 
tian activity, and more especially by the holding of an éxxAyola in his 
house (vv. 1-7), he had gained deserved esteem, being described by Chry- 
sostom as rig tiv Gavyacréy nal yevvaiwv. Nothing is known as to his more 
definite vocation, although tradition has made him bishop in Colossae 
(Constit. apost. vii. 46. 2) or in Gaza (Pseudo-Dorotheus), as it has likewise 
placed him among the martyrs (under Nero). It is possible, however, 
that he was one of the presbyters of the church (ovvepy¢, ver. 1). Of the 
house where he dwelt Theodoret relates (im6Gectc): péype rov mapévrog 
pepévnne, . 

His slave Onesruus? had, on account of a misdemeanor (vv. 11, 18), 
fled from him through fear of punishment (ver. 15), and had come, cer- 
tainly of set purpose? and not by mere accident, to the apostle, then a 
captive at Caesarea, who converted him to Christ (ver. 10), and conceived 
& most cordial affection for him (vv. 12, 13, 16 f.). When, therefore, Paul 
was despatching Tychicus to Colossae (Col. iv. 7), he made use of this 





1Tradition in one form of it makes him 
subsequently bishop of Beroea in Macedonia 
(Constit. apost. vii. 46. 2), and in another iden- 
tifies him with the Bishop Onesimus in Ephe- 
sus (Ignat. ad Eph. 1 and 6), and makes him 
die as a martyr in Rome. 

3In this way the circumstances of the case 
find their simplest and most natural expla- 
nation. Comp. Bengel on ver. 11: Onesimus 
etiam antequam ad frugem veram pervenisset, 


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


was converted by the apostle. 
895 


396 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


opportunity to send Onesimus—whom he at the same time commended 
to the church there (Col. iv. 9)—back to his master, and to procure for 
him at the hands of the latter forgiveness, welcome, and love by means 
of this letter—an aim, which is pursued in it with so much Christian love' 
and wisdom, with so great psychological tact, and, without sacrifice of the 
apostolic authority, in a manner so thoughtfully condescending, adroit, 
delicate, and irresistible, that the brief letter—which is in the finest sense 
& Adbyo¢ Glare nprupévog (Col. iv. 6), as a most precious and characteristic 
relic of the great apostle—belongs, even as regards its Attic refinement 
and gracefulness, to the epistolary master-pieces of antiquity.? 

The Epistle bears so directly and vividly the stamp of genuineness, that 
the doubts of Baur (Paulus, II. p. 88 ff.) would appear a whim hardly 
meant in earnest, were they not in strict consistency with the assumption 
that we should not have any letters of the apostle at all from the 
period of his captivity. Baur, who, we may add, acknowledges the 
author as profoundly pervaded by Christian consciousness, places the con- 
tents of the Epistle upon a parallel with those of the Clementine Homi- 
lies, and finds in it the “ embryo of a Christian fiction,” by which the idea 
was to be brought home to men’s minds, that what we lose temporally in 
the world, we regain eternally in Christianity (according to ver. 15). 
With equal caprice Baur propounds the view, that even should the writ- 
ing be Pauline, what actually took place is set forth under the point of 
view of that definite idea, and the bringing of this latter into prominence 
is its proper aim and import. The genuineness is erternally attested—and 
that the more adequately, when we consider that from its brevity and the 
personal, not directly didactic, nature of its contents there was little occa- 
sion for citations—by the Canon Muratorianus, Marcion (see Tertullian, c. 
Marc. v. 42; Epiph. Haer. xlii. 9), Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, 
etc., though the passages of Ignatius, ad Eph. 2, ad Magnes. 12, ad Polyca. 
6, do not serve to prove a reference to ver. 20. Nevertheless, Jerome had 
already to controvert those, who wished to infer from the non-dogmatic 
character of the contents “ aut epistolam non esse Pauli... aut etiam, 
si Pauli sit, nihil habere, quod aedificare nos possit.” 


1Comp. Luther’s preface: “This Epistle 
presents a masterly and charming example 
of Christian love,” etc. Ewald: “Nowhere 
can the sensibility and warmth of tender 
friendship blend more beautifully with the 
higher feeling of a superior mind, nay, of a 
teacher and apostle, than in this brief and 


yet so eminently significant letter.” 

The letters of Pliny (Epp. 9, 21, and 24) 
have often been compared with ours; but how 
greatly it excels them in point of thoughtful- 
nessa, delicacy of plan, and depth of affection! 
“ Quid festivius etiam dici poterat vel ab ipeo 
Tullio in hujusmodi argumento?” Erasmus. 


INTRODUCTION. 397 


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


Ver. 2. Instead of adeAg%, Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ayaryrg. But the 
former, which is approved by Griesb. and Reiche, is attested by A D* E* FG xy, 
and some min. vas. Hesych. Jerome, and was easily supplanted by the aya, writ- 
ten on the margin in conformity with ver. 1 (vss. Ambrosiast.and Pelag. have 
adcAgy ayar.).—Ver. 5. mpd) Lachm.: eis, following A C D* E, 17, 137. An 
alteration, occasioned by zior:y.—Ver. 6. Instead of 7%», Elz. has viv, in opposi- 
tion to A C D E K L, min. vss. and Fathers. The latter reading is to be traced 
to the mechanical copyists, who, as in the opening of the Epistle, had in view 
Philemon and those around him (ver. 3). The preceding tov is deleted by 
Lachm. on too weak counter-evidence (A C, 17); how easily might it be passed 
over after the final syllable of ayafov!—Ver. 7. Instead of yapayv, Elz. Tisch. 
_ have x4pcv, in opposition to decisive evidence; the latter found its way into the 
text through reference to evyapiord, ver. 4. Comp. Reiche.—ézoyev] Lachm. has 
£oyov, which was also recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A C F Gx, 
min. vss. Fathers. The other witnesses are divided between ¢zouev and foyouer, 
but remain too weak to warrant either of these two readings. The plural appears 
an inappropriate following up of év #uiv in ver. 6, and éoyourv also tells indi- 
rectly in favor of Lachm. The position after moAA, is decidedly attested (Lachm.). 
—Ver. 10. Before éyévynjoa Lachm. ed. min. had @)0, following A, min. Syr. p. 
Slav. ms. Chrys. Rightly; the emphasis resting upon éy®, in accordance with 
the context, was overlooked ; and it is more likely to have been dropped out on 
occasion of the following ETE, than to have been introduced by the writing of 
ET twice.—After deo. Elz. Scholz have jov, in opposition to decisive testimony. 
—Ver. 11. After avéreuya we have, with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A 
C D* E »* 57), to take in oo, the omission of which is to be explained from the 
following of.—Ver. 12. ov dé] is wanting in A C »x* 17. Lachm., who, like Tisch., 
has deleted also tpooAafov after orAdyyva. This spooAaBov is wanting in A F 
G »* 17, while some min. place it immediately after ov dé; Arm. Boern. Theo- 
doret, on the other hand, after avrév. It is, though afresh defended by Reiche, 
to be looked upon as a supplement from ver. 17; the absence of the verb, how- 
ever, involved, by way of redressing the construction, the omission of ov dé, so 
that atréy was regarded as governed by avéreyya (comp. Lachm.: dv avérepyd 
oot, avtdv, Tovréoriy ta éud orAdyxva).—Ver. 13. The position of oe before drax, 
(Elz. in reverse order) is decisively attested.—Ver. 18. The form éAAdéya is to 
be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in conformity with A C D* (évA.) F G x, 17, 
31; éAAéyet was imported from the familiar passage, Rom. v. 13.—Ver. 20. Instead 
of Xptoro, Elz. has xvpiy. Repetition from what precedes, in opposition to 
decisive evidence.—Ver. 21. vrép 6] Lachm.: wép 4, in accordance with A C x, 





398 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


Copt. We have no means of deciding the point.—Ver. 23. Instead of dowd (e- 
rat, Elz. has cgowd{ovra:, which has decisive witnesses against it. An emenda- 
tion. 


ConTENTs.—After the address and apostolic greeting (vv. 1-8), there fol- 
lows a glorious testimony to the Christian character of Philemon (vv. 4-7); 
then the proper object of the Epistle, intercession for Onesimus (vv. 8-21); 
and finally, the bespeaking of a lodging, in the hope of being liberated 
(ver. 22). Salutations and concluding wish, vv. 28-25. 

Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-3, see Note XLII. pages 415, 416.] Aéopsog Xp. 'T.] 4.6. 

‘whom Christ has placed in bonds. See on Eph. iii.1. Thés self-designation 
(not améorodAoc, or the like) at the head of the letter is in keeping with its 
confidential tone and its purpose of moving and winning the heart, wrép 
Tov tiv xaptv érouudtepov AaBeiv, Chrysostom.—x«. T:u60.] See on Phil: i. 1; 
Col. i. 1.—ovvepy@] The particular historic relations, on which this predi- 
cate is based, are unknown to us; yet comp. ver. 2: rg xar’ olxév cov 
éxxAgo.; perhaps he was an elder of the church.—jzé7] namely, of Paul 
and Timothy. It belongs to ayar. and ovepyp. Although, we may add, 
the Epistle is, as to its design and contents, a private letter, yet the associ- 
ating of Timothy with it, and especially the addressing it to more than 
one (ver. 2), are suitably calculated with a view to the greater certainty of 
a successful result (comp. already Chrysostom). Hofmann incorrectly 
holds that in the directing of the letter also to the relatives and to the 
church in the house the design was, that they should, by the communica- 
tion of the letter to them, become aware of what had induced Philemon to do 
that which was asked of him. This they would in fact have learned other- 
wise from Philemon, and would have believed his account of the matter. 

Ver.2. [XLII }.] That Appia was the wife of Philemon (Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Theophylact, and many) does not indeed admit of proof, but 
is the more probable, in proportion as the intercession for the slave was a 
matter of household concern, in which case the mistress of the house came 
into view. On the form of the name with 7¢ instead of wm (Acts xxviii. 
15), comp. 'Argiavéc in Mionnet, Description des médailles, III. 179, IV. 65, 
67, and the forms arg¢bc and amgd.'—rg adeAgg] in the sense of Christian 
sisterhood, like adeAgéc, ver. 1.—Archippus, too (see on Col. iv. 17), must 
have belonged to the family circle of Philemon. [XLII c.] But whether 
he was precisely son of Philemon,? we cannot determine. Chrysostom 
and Theophylact take him to be a friend of the household ; Theodoret, to 
be the teacher to the household.—r@ ovorpar. ju.) As in Phil. ii. 25. The 
relation cannot be more precisely ascertained. He may have been deacon 
(according to Ambrosiaster and Jerome, he was even bishop), but must 
have endured conflict and trouble for the gospel. Comp. likewise 2 Tim. 
li. 8.—xai r. xar’ olx. a. éxxA.] not to be understood of the family of Philemon,? 


18ee also Lobeck, Paral. p. 33. 8 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact: wd». 

2 Michaelis, Eichhorn, Rosenmiller, Ole sas rovs éy ri oixig miorovs Adyar, cumwapada- 
hausen, Hofmann, and already Theodore of fay xai SovAovs, comp. Calvin and Storr. 
Mopesuestia. 





VERS. 1—4. 399 


but of the section of the Christians at Colossae, which met in his house.' 
See on Col. iv. 15. Wisely (see on ver. 1) does Paul—although otherwise 
in vv. 4-24 he only speaks to Philemon—enlist the interest not merely of 
Appia and Archippus, but also of the church in the house, and therewith 
embrace the whole circle, in which there was to be prepared for the con- 
verted fugitive a sanctuary of pardon and affection. But farther than this 
he does not go; not beyond the limits of the house, since the matter, as a 
household-affair, was not one suited to be laid before the Christian com- 
munity collectively. To the latter, however, he at the same time (Col. iv. 9) 
commended his protégé, though without touching upon the particular cir- 
cumstances of his case. Correct tact on the part of the apostle. 

Ver.4f. [On vv. 47,see Note XLIII. pages 416-418.] Comp. Rom.i.8; 1 
Cor. i. 4; Phil. i.3; Col. i. 3; Eph. i. 16.—1évrore}] [XLIII. a.] belongs not to 
pvetav x.7.A. (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, and 
many others), but to ebyapiord x. 7.4. (comp. on Col. i.3; 1 Thess. i. 2), as 
the main element, for the completeness und emphasis of which it serves. 
The participial definition pvelay x.7.4. specifies whereupon Paul sees him- 
self always moved to give thanks to God, namely, when he makes men- 
tion of Philemon in his prayers; and the following axowy «.r.A. is like- 
wise an accompanying definition to etyaporé «.r.A., stating whereby he 
finds himself induced to such thanksgiving, namely, because he hears, etc. 
It is not the intercession that has its motive explained by dxotur (de Wette, 
Koch), otherwise the logically necessary statement, for what Paul gives 
thanks to God, would be entirely wanting, whereas the mention of Phile- 
mon in the prayer had no need of a motive assigned for it, and would 
have taken place even without the axotecy x.r.A. Moreover, Paul does not 
by pveiav x.7.A. express the intercession, but in general the mention in prayer, 
which is a much wider notion and also may be other than intercessory 
(in opposition to Hofmann).—aexotwy] continually, through Onesimus in 
particular. It is otherwise with axotcavrec, Col. i. 4.—riv ayéry] the stand- 
ing notion of Christian love to the brethren, as in Col. iii. 14.—«. ry rior] 
is more precisely defined by the following #» érec . . . dytovs, and hence 
is not specially to be understood of faith in the dogmatic sense, to which . 
eig wévrac rov¢g dylove would not be suitable. It is fatthfulness ; comp. Gal. 
v. 22; Rom. iii. 3; 1 Thess. i. 8; Matt. xxiii. 23; Tit. ii. 10; often in the 
LXX., Apocrypha, and Greek authors. So Michaelis and Hagenbach 
(Flatt with hesitation), also Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 410 /.]. But usually (see 
already Theodoret, and especially Grotius) expositors assume a chiasmus, 
s0 that mpd r. xbp. I. is to be referred to +r. rior, and ei¢ m. 1. dyiove to 
ryy aydnx. (de Wette, Wilke, Rhetor. p. 872; Demme, Koch, Wiesinger, 
Ewald), to which also Bleek and Hofmann come in the end. Against this 
may be decisively urged, #v éyew, whereby mpd¢ r. xbpiv ... dylove is 
attached as one whole to rv rior. With trav aydrny the fv éxece has noth- 


1Perhapes it is to this part of the address, _ certainly very numerous private letters; which 
which directed the letter toa congregational the apostle wrote in the prosecution of his 
circle, that we are indebted for the preserva- many-sided labors. 
tion of the document—the only one of the 





400 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. — 


ing whatever to do; the former has, on the contrary, its own definition of 
subject by means of cov, which again does not stand in any connection 
with ry rior. [XLIII b.] Comp. Col.i. 4. The usual objection to the 
interpretation faithfulness, namely, that the dogmatic sense of rior is the 
stated one when it goes along with ayd7, does not hold good, inasmuch as 
ayazy stands first (comp. also Gal. v. 22); in the stated combination of 
faith and love the faith precedes (in accordance with the inner genetic 
relation, Gal. v. 6), as 1 Cor. xiii. 13; Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. i. 8, iii. 
6; 1 Tim. i. 14; 2 Tim. i. 18, al.; hence the transposition r. riorw x. r. 
aydar7y is found here too in D E, min. vss. and Ambrosiaster. The inter- 
change of rpé¢ and eis can occasion no surprise, inasmuch as Paul is 
fond of varying the prepositions (see on Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. i. 
7), a8 this is also of frequent occurrence with classical writers, without the 
design of expressing a different relation. On wpés, comp. 1 Theas. i. 8; 
4 Macc. xv. 21, xvi. 22; Dem. 656, 19; Lucian, Tox. 41. It is to be 
observed withal, that the stated notion: faith in Christ, is never indicated 
by 7péc, a fact which likewise tells against the ordinary interpretation. 
Ver. 6. ‘Orw¢ «.7.4.] [XLIII c.] cannot, as is usually held (also by Winer, 
de Wette, Demme, Koch, Ellicott, Bleek, and Hofmann), introduce the 
aim of the intercession, ver. 4, since pveiay cov rout. «.7.A. Was only an 
accompanying definition, and axotwv «.7.4. already pointed back to ebyapiord 
x.7.4. (see on ver. 5). It attaches itself (so rightly, Grotius, Bengel, Wie- 
singer, Ewald) in its telic sense (not in the sense of so thal, as Flatt and 
older expositors would have it taken) to ver. 5, specifying the tendency of 
fv éxecc. For the sake of making this attachment Paul has put the #w éxecg, 
which would be otherwise superfluous.—7 sxowwvia tie ioteds cov] 
[XLII d.]j is by no means to be explained as if 4 xocvwvia cov rig sicreug 
(or gov ei¢ tiv riorcv) stood in the text, which would have to be the case, 
if we take the rendering of Hofmann (“the fellowship of faith, in which 
Philemon stands with his fellow-believers”). In order to the right interpre- 
tation observe further, on the one hand, that xo:wwvia is with Paul, as 
mostly also with classical writers, when it is not accompanied by the geni- 
tive of the personal pronoun (Phil. i. 5), always so employed, that the 
genitive therewith connected denotes that with which the fellowship, or in 
which the participation, takes place (1 Cor. i. 9, x. 16; 2 Cor. viii. 4, xiii. 
13; Phil. ii. 1, 11.10; Eph. iii. 9, Elz.), consequently is the genitive not 
subjecti, but objecti ; and, on the other hand, that xowwvia signifies not com- 
municatio, but communio, consortium. Accordingly there is at once set 
aside—(1) the traditional interpretation since the time of Chrysostom and 
Theophylact: “fides tua, quam communem nobiscum habes,”’ Bengel, 
comp. Luther, Wetstein, and many ; in which case the genitive has been 
taken subjectively, as by Wiesinger: thy faith-fellowship with all saints ; 
and by Ewald: “that thou believest in Christ not merely for thyself.” 
And there fall also (2) all interpretations, which transform the 
notion of xowwvia into communicatio, such as that of Beza:' “ officéa 


1Comp. Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Hammond, Heinrichs. 


VERS. 5, 6. 401 


benignitatis in sanctos promanantia ex fide efficaci.” Similarly also 
Calvin: “fidei communicationem appellat, quum intus non latet otiosa, 
sed per veros effectus se profert ad homines ;” he is followed substantially by 
de Wette (and Koch): “the communion of thy faith (genitivus subjecti), 
as well in the display of love towards individuals as tn the advanccment of the 
gospel,” which latter element cannot be brought hither from ovvepy., ver. 
1, and is out of place (comp. ver. 7). As the correct interpretation there 
remains only this, keeping the notion of ziore in consistency with ver. 5: 
the fellowship entered into with thy Christian fidelity. So faithful a Christian 
as Philemon draws all other saints (ver. 5), who come into relations of 
experience with him, sympathetically to himself, so that they form with 
him the bond of association unto like effort, and therewith become 
xowsvoi Of his mioric.—évepyjc yévorat «.7.A.) [XLIII e.] This fellowship 
with his fidelity is not to be an tdle sympathy, but to become effective,’ to 
express itself in vigorous action—this is what Philemon wishes and aims 
at—and that by virtue of the knowledge of every Christian saving-blessing,— 
a knowledge which, in such pious fellowship, unfolds itself ever more 
fully and vividly, and which must be the means of powerfully prompting 
all Christian activity (Eph. i. 17 f.; Col. ii. 2, iii. 10). And the final aim 
of this activity? Toward Christ Jesus it is to take place, te. ei¢ Xp. ’L, 
which is neither, with Calvin, Estius, and others, to be annexed to rov ty 
quiv, nor, With Hofmann, to ayafov, nor even, with Grotius, to ricrews, but 
to évepy. yévyra:, in which case alone it has the significance: Christ Jesus’ 
will, work, kingdom, honor, and so forth, are to be their holy destination 
and relative aim. Consequently the whole passage might be paraphrased 
something in this way: And with this thy Christian fidelity thou hast the 
sacred goal of fellowship in view, that whoever enters into the participation 
of the same, may make this partaking through knowledge of every Christian 
blessing effective for Christ Jesus. An appeal to the profound Christian 
consciousness of Philemon, by way of preparation for the designed inter- 
cession on behalf of Onesimus, whom Paul in fact was now on the point 
of introducing to that xomwovia rij¢ ricrewe of his friend! Respecting the 
manifold other explanations of évepy¢ yévyrac x.1.A., it is to be observed, on 
the one hand, that we have not, with many (including Wiesinger and Hof- 
mann), arbitrarily to restrict the notion of évepyf¢ to the exercise of love, 
but to extend it to the collective activity of the Christian life; and, on the other 
hand, that as the subject of the xo:vwvia is not Philemon, but others (comp. 
also Bleek), the latter, namely the xocvwvoi ti¢ rioreds cov, must also be the 
subject of ériyvwore ; by which all expositions, according to which Philemon 
is held to be this knowing subject, are set aside, whether ravricg ayafov be 
taken in the moral sense, of every virtue (Chrysostom), of good works and 
the like, or (although in itself correctly) of the Christian blessings of 


1The translation of the Vulgate, evidens,is | enriched us (comp. on 2 Cor. vili. 9), are faith, 
based upon the reading évapy%s; socodd. hope, love, patience, peace, joy in the Holy 
Lat. in Jorome, Pelagius (Clar.Germ.: mani- Spirit, etc. In devout fellowship these become 
Sesta). ever more fully, vividly, and experimentally 

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


26 





402 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


salvation, which are to be known. Hence we have to reject the interpre- 
tation of Oecumenius: d:a rot émiyvavai ce xal mparre wav ayabdy, in 
which case the doing is arbitrarily imported, as is also done by Theophy- 
lact, according to whom ércyivéoxewy is held to be equivalent to ayaray xa? 
perazetpilecda. So likewise in substance de Wette, who mixes up moral 
action as keeping equal pace with moral knowledge, and takes 1d é qyiv 
as: the good which is as to principle and spirit in us Christians; he is 
followed by Demme and Koch. We have further to reject the explana- 
tion of Flatt (so in substance also Osiander, Calovius, Bengel): “thy faith 
shows itself active through love, by means of a grateful recognition of all the 
benefits,” etc., or (as Wiesinger puts it): “inasmuch as it (namely, thy 
fellowship of faith) recognizes—which is possible only for love—in the other 
the good which is in him.” We have to set aside, lastly, the explanation of 
Hofmann, who, after the example of Michaelis,' retaining the reading év 
wiv, and taking mavrd¢ dyafov as masculine, finds in év émcyrdces x.7.A. the 
meaning, that every one in the Christian sense good, every true Christian among 
the Colossians,? Philemon should know as being that which heis; only by 
virtue of such knowing would his fellowship of faith show itself effectively 
operative through the exercise of Christian love—which would not be the 
case with those “ whose Christian virtuousness he failed to know.” Erasmus, 
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Pricaeus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and 
others, have done rightly in not referring the émtyvwore to Philemon as the 
knowing subject,but wrongly in understanding é7tyv. of becoming known, a8e.g. 
Erasmus, Paraphr.: “adeo ut nullum sit officium Christianae caritatis, in 
quo non sis et notus et probatus.” Beza: “ut hac ratione omnes agnoscant 
et experiantur, quam divites sitis in Christo,” etc.—ayafov] Comp. Rom. xiv. 
16; Gal. vi. 6; Luke i. 53, xii. 18, 19; Heb. ix. 11, x. 1; Ecclus. xii. 1, xiv. 
25, al,; wav ayafdv rd év guiv really expresses quite the same thing as is 
expressed at Eph. i. 3 by maoa ebdoyia mvevpatixh.—rod iv pyiv] applies to 
the Christians generally, these being regarded asa whole. The blessings 
are in the Christian community. 

Ver. 7. (XLITI f.] Not the assigning of a reason for the intercession (de 
Wette and others; see in opposition thereto, on ver. 6), but a statement of 
the subjective ground (the objective one was contained in ver. 5 f.) of the 
thanksgiving, ver. 4. Jerome already aptly remarks: “ plenius inculcat 
et edocet, quare dixerit: gratias ago,” etc.—yzapdv] emphatically prefixed. 
The aorist oo (see the critical remarks) relates to the point of time, 
at which the dxotew, ver. 5, had hitherto taken place.—oA#v] applies 
to both substantives.—apdéxAyow] for Paul is déopioc, vv. 1, 9. Comp. 
capnyopia, Col. iv. 11.—ére ra oA. x.7.4.] More precise explanation to én 
TH aydwy cov: because, namely, the hearts (comp. ver. 20, as also 2 Cor. vi. 
12, vii. 15; Phil. 1. 8, al.) of the saints are refreshed by thee. There is no. 
more particular information as to the work of love referred to; and it 


1 Who interprets: “as often as thou comest be referred to Philemon himself and to those 
to know a good man among the Colossians!" adduced along with him in ver.2 The Col- 

tIf the reading é» vuiv were genuine, it ossian church is brought in after a purely arbi- 
could only, in accordance with the context, trary way by Michaelis and Hofmann. 


VERS. 7-9. 403 


is quite arbitrary to refer rév uy. specially to the poor Christians (Grotius, 
Rosenmiiller, and others), or even still more specially to “the mother- 
church of Christendom” (Hofmann), which is not to be made good either 
by 1 Cor. xvi. 1 or by Rom. xii. 13.—adeAgé] not emphatic (‘‘ brother 
in truth,” de Wette, whom Koch follows; comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.), 
but touching affection. Comp. Gal. vi. 18. 

Ver. 8. [On Vv. 8-17, see Note XLIV. pages 418, 419.] A:é] explains the 
ground for the following da r. aydw. uaAAov wapaxade: Wherefore (because 
I have so much joy and solace from thee), although Iam by no means 
wanting in great boldness (1 Tim. iii. 18; 2 Cor. iii. 12; Phil. i. 20) to 
enjoin upon thee what is becoming, I will rather for love’s sake exhort, will 
make exhortation take the place of injunction. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact (comp. also Theodoret), Erasmus, Michaelis, Zachariae, and 
others attach 6:6 to the participial assertion. This is unpsychological ; 
what Paul has said in ver. 5 [7] accords not with commanding, but with 
entreaty.—év Xpiorp] In Christ, as the element of his inner life, Paul 
knows that his great confidence has its basis. But this fellowship of his 
with Christ is not merely the general Christian, but the apostolic, fellow- 
ship.—rd avixov] that which is fitting, that is, the ethically suitable; Suidas: 
7d mpérov; not used in this sense by Greek writers. Comp. however, Eph. 
v. 4; Col. iii. 18; 1 Macc. x. 40, 42, xi. 85; 2 Macc. xiv. 8. Thus Paul 
makes that, which he desires to obtain from Philemon, already to be felt 
as his duty.—dé.a_ riv aydér7v] is understood by some of the love of Philemon 
(Calvin and others, Cornelius a Lapide: “ut scilicet solitam tuam 
caritatem in servum tuum poenitentem ostendas”) ; by others, of the love of 
the apostle to Philemon (Estius and others); by others again, #v xayd txyw mpd¢ 
oe, xai ov mpde éué (Theophylact; comp.Oecumenius and others; Grotius: 
“per necessitatem amicitiae nostrae”). But all these limitations not 
expressed m the text are arbitrary; it is to be left general: on account of 
love, in order not to check the influence of the same (which, experience 
shows, is so great also over thee), but to allow it free course. It is the 
Christian brotherly love in abstracto, conceived of as a power; 1 Cor. xiii. 

Ver. 9 f. [XLIV b.] Before rocotrog we have to place a full stop; the 
participial predication rowtro¢g Gy sums up the quality which was expressed 
in ver. 8 by woAAqw ... wGAdAov mapaxado; and lastly, o¢ IMatAoc .. . Xpsorod 
supports the wapaxade oe «.t.A. of ver. 10, from a consideration of the 
personal position of the apostle in such a way, that the granting of the 
request could not but appear to Philemon as a matter of dutiful affection. 
Consequently: Seeing that I am so constituted,’ since such is my manner 
of thinking and dealing, that, namely, in place of commanding thee, I 
rather for love’s sake betake myself to the wapaxadeiv, I exhort thee as Paul, 
etc. A very mistaken objection to this view of rowiroc dv is that Paul 
would not have said at all that he was so constituted, but only that he did 
80 in the given case (Hofmann, following Wiesinger). He, én fact, says even 
now with rovovros Gv itself that such is his nature. Observe, moreover, that 


1The Vulgate erroneously referred ey to Philemon: “cum gis talis,” which Cornelius a 
Lapide unsuccessfully defends, 


404 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


the supporting elements, d¢ Iabdog x.r.1., are prefixed with all the emphas:s 
of urgency to the rapaxadé, since in them lies the progress of the repre- 
sentation, namely, that which comes in as additional to the mapaxada, 
already said before. Usually rowtrog is taken as preparative, so that d¢ 
TlavAog x... ig the more precise explanation of it: in which case some (as 
Luther, Calvin, and others, including Flatt, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald) 
find only two elements, taking o¢ II. xpecBtrn¢ together; others (most 
expositors since the time of Chrysostom, including Bleek and Hofmann), 
three elements—IlatAoc, mpecBirnc, décpeoc. Expositors have differed in 
defining the significance of the particulars in their bearing on the matter in 
hand,' while recognizing on the whole the “pondus ad movendum 
Philemonis animum ” (Estius). According to de Wette (comp. Wetstein), 
towvrog Sy x.7.A. 18 to be held parallel to the participial clause of ver. 8, in 
accordance with which the participle would thus have to be resolved 
by alhough. But the whole mode of interpretation, which takes 
TowvTog a8 preparative, is untenable. It must of necessity point back, 
summing up under the notion of personal quality what was said by 
ToAAjY ... Wapaxaae® in ver. 8; for if rovwrog ts not already defined (as is 
here the case by reference to ver. 8), it may, doubtless, become defined 
either by an adjective immediately following, or by a following otoc? or 3¢ 
or d0o¢,* or by dcre with the infinitive® but never by oc, which neither 
actually occurs (the usually cited passage from Andocides in Wetstein, de 
Wette has rightly described as not here relevant®) nor can take place 
logically, since os, that is, as (not Like, which it means after rocdévde in Aesch. 
Pers. 180), already presupposes the definiteness of rovroe. This more 
precise definiteness is not, however, to be relegated to the mere conception 
or mode of view of the writer (Wiesinger: “I, in my circumstances”), 
according to which oe is then held to introduce an appositional definition, 
to which also Bieek and Hofmann ultimately come; but it is to be taken 
from what Paul has previously said, because it results from that quite 
simply and suitably. Comp. on rocbrog ov, which always in classical 
writers also—where it is not followed by a corresponding olo¢, 3¢, be0¢, or 
éore—summarily denotes the quality, disposition, demeanor, or the like, 


180 ¢.g. Erasmus, Paraphr.: “Quid enim 
neges roganti? primum Paulo: cum Paulum 
dico non paulum rerum tibi significo; deinde 
seni: nonnihil tribui solet et aetati.. . nunc 
etiam vincto: in precibus nonnihil ponderis 
habet et calamitas obtestantis; postremo vinc- 
to Jesu Christi: sic vincto favere debent, qui 
vrofitentur Christi doctrinam.” Similarly 
Grotius and others; while, according to Hein- 
richs, by HavdAos there was to be awakened 
gratitude; by wpeoB. the readiness to oblige, 
natural towards the aged; and by &dopros "I. 
Xp. compassion. Hofmann holds that “the 
name Paul puts Philemon in mind of all that 
makes it a historical one,” and that the im- 
pression of this becomes thereupon confirmed 
by the other two elements. 


2 Plato, Conv. p. 199 D; Dem. 41, 3. 

8 Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 2; Plat. Phaed. p. 92 B; 
Heb. viii. 1. 

4Isocr. Paneg. 21. 

& Plato, Conv. p. 175 D, al. 

¢The passage runs: 3 8 wdvrev Savérardéy 
dors, TovovTos Gy ws evvous TE Siu~ Tovs Adyous 
wovwirea:s. Here, precisely as in our passage, 
as evrovs belongs not to raovres wy, but to 
what follows, and roco¥ros wy sums up what 
had been said before.—The comparison of 
rodese, Hom. Od. xvi. 205 (Hofmann), where 
besides no ws follows, is unsuitable, partly 
on the general ground of the well-known 
diversity of meaning of the two words (comp. 
Kahner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 7. 5), which is not to 
be abandoned without special reason, partly 


vers. 10, 11. 405 


more precisely indicated before.’ It is further to be noted, (1) that the 
true explanation of rosovrog Sv «.7.4. of itself imperatively requires that we 
connect these words with the following rapaxade (Flatt, Lachmann, who, 
however, parenthesizes o¢ IlatAoc, de Wette, Wiesinger, Ewald, Bleek, 
Hofmann), not with that which precedes (as formerly was usual), in which 
case the second zapaxadé is understood as resumptive, an oty (Theophy- 
lact), inqguam, or the like, being supplied in thought (so Castalio, Beza, 
Hagenbach, and many). (2) The elements expressed by o¢ IlatAoc... 
Xpicrov stand—seeing that rpecBirns is a substantive and has not the 
article—in such relation to each other, that rpeoBira¢ and vuvi 62 wad déopcog 
x.7.A. are two attribulive statements attaching themselves to IlatAoe; con- 
sequently: as Paul, who 1 an old man, and now also a prisoner, etc. (3) 
The (flexible) notion of zpecBirns must by no means have its meaning 
altered, as is done e.g. by Calvin, who makes it.denote “non aetatem, sed 
oficium ;” but, at the same time, may not be rigidly pressed in so con- 
fidential a private writing, in which “lepos mixtus gravitate” (Bengel) 
prevails, especially if Philemon was much younger than Paul. Observe, 
withal, that the apostle does not use some such expression a8 yépwy, but 
the more relative term mpec8.; comp. Tit. ii. 2 with the contrast rot 
veatépove in ver.6. He sets himself down as a veteran in contradistinction 
to the younger friend, who was once his disciple. At the stoning of 
Stephen, and so some twenty-six or twenty-seven years earlier, Paul was 
still veaviag (Acts vii. 58); he might thus be now somewhere about fifty 
years of age. [XLIV c.]—étoptoc *I. X.] asin ver. 1.—réxvov] tenderly 
affectionate designation of his convert (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14 f.; Gal. iv. 19; 
1 Pet. v. 13), in connection with which the conception of his own child is 
brought more vividly into prominence by the prefixed iui and by éyé 
(see the critical remarks), and év roi¢ deopnoic? makes the recommenda- 
tion yet more affecting and urgent.—’Ovferuov] Accusative, in accordance 
with a well-known attraction; see Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 164]; Buttmann, p. 
68 [E. T. 78]. 

Ver. 11. Ingenious allusion to the literal signification of the name (cur- 
rent also among the Greeks) 'Ovhorpoc, useful. The objection of Estius, that 
Paul expresses himself in words derived from another stem (not from 
évivnauc), presupposes a mechanical procedure, with which Paul is least of 
all to be charged. We may add that, while there were not such forms as 
avovhotwoc and evovforpoc, doubtless he might, had he wished to retain the stem 
of the name, have employed avévyroc and évyré¢ (Suidas), or év4rup (Pindar), 
or évqoupépoc (Plutarch, Lucian). An allusion, however, at the same time 
to the name of Christian, as sometimes in the Fathers Xp:oriavée is brought 


because in that passage éyt rodcde stands 2That the expreseion: in the bonds, was 
absolutely and seacrixes (hiece ego talis), so — suitable only to Rome and not to Oaesarea, is 
that the following wa@mv «.r.A. belongs to incorrectly inferred by Wieseler, p. 420, from 
fAvOor. Acts xxiv. 23. See on that passage. It was 
1Plato, Rep. p. 493 C; Xen. Anabd. fil. 1. 30; likewise incorrect to assign the Epistle, on 
Hellen. iv. 1. 38; Oyrop. i. 5,8; Soph. Aj.1277 account of wpecfurys, to the alleged second 
(1298); ‘Lucian, Coné 20, and many other imprisonment at Rome (Calovius). 
olaces. ‘ 





406 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


into relation with zp7oréc, is arbitrarily assumed by Cornelius a Lapide, 
Koch, and others, and the more so, as the expressions have already their 
occasion in the name Onesimus, and, moreover, by means of oof and éyol 
an individually definite reference —<éyzpyotov] unserviceable, only here in 
the N. T. (comp. however, dovaoc axpeioc, Matt. xxv. 30; Luke xvii. 10). 
A definition, wherein the uselessness of Onesimus in his service consisted 
(the usual view from the time of Chrysostom : that he had robbed his mas- 
ter) does not appear more precisely than in the hint ver. 18 f.—+vvi 62... 
ebypnotov| [XLIV d.] Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11; Plato, Pol. iii, p. 411 B: 
Xphommov &E Gxpyoroy éroincev. The usefulness, which now belongs to Onesimus, 
is based simply on his conversion which had taken place, ver. 10, and 
consequently consists for Philemon in the fact, that his slave now will ren- 
der his service in a far other way than before, namely, in a distinctively 
Christian frame of mind and activity (consequently without eye-service and 
man-pleasing, o¢ 7? xvpiy x.7.A., a8 it 18 expressed; at Col. iii. 29 ff.), and for 
Paul himself in the fact that, because the conversion of Onesimus is his 
work (ver. 10), in that transformation of the previously useless slave there 
has accrued to the apostle, as the latter’s spiritual father, gain and recom- 
pense of his labor (Phil. i. 22), the joy and honor of not having striven in 
vain (Phil. ii. 16). Thus the benefits, which Philemon and Paul have 
respectively to enjoy from Onesimus as now constituted, are brought into 
contact and union” What a weighty and persuasive appeal was urged in 
the ingenious «ai éuoi (comp. Rom. xvi. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 18) is at once felt. 
Ver. 12. The rectified text? is: 4» avéweuyd cot’ ob d2 avrdv, rovréott TA 
éua onddyxva (without rpocAaBov). [XLIV e.]—On avérepya, remisi, comp. 
Luke xxiii. 11.—rovréor: ra tua orAdyzva] that is, my heart, by which Onesi- 
mus is designated as an object of the most cordial affection. So Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, and many. éua has an ingeniously-turned emphasis, in con- 
trast to avrév. According to others, the thought would be: éud¢ tory vidg, 
ix tov indy yeyévvnrat oxddyxzvur, Theodoret (comp. also Chrysostom).‘ 
But in this way the relation already expressed in ver. 10 would be only 
repeated, and that in a form, which would be less in keeping with that 
spiritual fatherhood. Paul, moreover, statedly uses orAdyzyva for the seat 
of the affection of love (2 Cor. vi, 12, vii. 15; Phil. i. 8, ii. 1; Col. iii. 12; 
Philem. 7, 20; comp. also Luke i. 78; 1 John iii. 17), and so also here, 
where the person to whom one feels himself attached with tender love 
(which, according to ver. 10, is certainly felt as paternal; comp. Wiad. x. 
5; 4 Macc. xvi. 20, 26) is designated by the lover as his very heart, because 
its feelings and inclinations are filled by this object.6 When we set aside 


1 Plato, Js. p. 204 B: ¢avAos xal dxpyoros, 8 
Macc. fii. 299; Ecclus. xxxvii. 19. 

Comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia: vei cera 
Thy vwnpeciay, suot xara THY PedTingw Tov 
¢ e 
38ee the critical remarks. The text of 
Lachmann, dy ave. co, avrov, ror’ éorwy ra 
éua ow., is followed by Hofmann, so that 
avréy is in apposition to éy (see, on the other 


hand, Winer, p. 140 [E. T. 148)). 

480 too Besa, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinrichs, 
and others, following the Syriac. See in- 
stances in Pricaeus and Wetstein, and comp. 
the Latin viscera. 

5Comp. on this expression of feeling, the 
Plautine meum corculem (Cas. iv. 4. 14), mewn 
cor (Poen. i. 2. 154). 


vERS. 12, 13. 407 


tpocda Pow ag not genuine (see the critical remarks), the verb is wanting, 
so that the passage is anacoluthic ; the apostle is involuntarily withheld by 
the following relative clause presenting itself, and by what he, in the 
lively flow of his thoughts, further subjoins (ver. 18 ff.) from adding the 
governing verb thought of with od dé airéy, until at length, after beginning 
a, new sentence with ver. 17, he introduces it in another independent con- 
nection, leaving the sentence which he had begun with ov 62 atréy in ver. 
12 unclosed. Comp. on Rom. v. 12 ff.; Gal. ii. 16.1 With classic writers, 
too, such anacoluthic sentences broken off by the influence of intervening 
thoughts are not rare, specially in excited or pathetic discourse.” 

Ver. 13 f. ’Eyé] I for my part.—éBovddunv] I was of the mind. Comp. 
noéAnoa, ver. 14, and observe not merely the diversity of notion (BobAoua: : 
deliberate self-determination, see on Matt. i. 19), but also the distinction 
of the tenses. The apostle formerly cherished the design and the wish 
(imperfect éfova.) of retaining Onesimus with himself, instead of sending 
him back to Philemon, but has become of the mind (historical aorist 
méAnoa), etc. Thus 70éA. denotes that which supervened on the previous 
occurrence of the éSova., and hindered the realization of the latter. 
Observe that Paul has not used éBovAéduny dv; that would be vellem.—irép 
cov | for thee, i.e. in gratiam tuam, that thou mightest not need thyself to 
serve me. [XLIV f.] trép accordingly is not here, any more than in any 
other passage of the N. T., used as a precise equivalent to avri, although the 
actual relation of representation lies at the bottom of the conception in 
gratiam ; for Paul would have taken the service of the slave as rendered 
by the master, to whom the slave belonged. Comp. Hofmann. This mode 
of regarding and representing the matter has nothing harsh about it, nor 
does it convey any ob#gation, which Philemon, had he been on the spot, 
would have fulfilled (Bleek), but simply the trustful presupposition, that 
Philemon himself would, if Paul had desired it, have ministered to him 
in the prison. Of this, however, Philemon was relieved by the service of 
the slave, which in this way stood him in good stead. Schweizer, in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 430, explains likewise correctly : for thy benefit, but 
takes this in the sense: “so that it would be a service rendered to thee, 
imputed to thee, so that I would be under obligation to thee.” But this 
would only have the delicacy and tenderness which are found in it, if the 
thought: “in order that he might serve me, with a view to place me 
under obligation to thee,” contained the design of Onesimus ; if, accordingly, 
Paul had written something after this manner: é¢ éSobAero mpdg tuaurdy 
péverv, iva x.7.A., Which, however, would have asserted a self-determination 
incompetent to the position of a slave. No; as the passage is written, 
there is delicately and tenderly implied in the irép oot the same thought, 
which, in accordance with Phil. ii. 30, he might have expressed by iva 


18ee generally, Winer, p. 528 ff. [E. T. 567 p. 442 f., 222, who rightly observes: “Hoc 
ff.]: Wilke, Rhetor. p. 217 f. anacoluthiae genus inter scriptores sacros 
2 E.g. Plat. Symp. p. 218 A; Xen. Anab. ii. 5.  nulli frequentius excidit quam Paulo ap., 
18; and Kriiger in loc.; Aeachin. adv. Ctesiph.  epistolas suas dictanti.” 
256, and Wunderlich é loc.; Bremi, ad Lys. 





408 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


avarAnpdcy Td cov torépnua; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 17. Thusingeniously does 
Paul know how to justify his éBovAduyv x.r.A.—seeing that he would, in fact, 
otherwise have had no claim at all upon another’s bondsman—by the 
specification of design iva imép cov x.1.A.—dtaxovg] direct representation by 
the subjunctive, “ita quidem, ut praeteriti temporis cogitatio tanquam 
praesens efferatur,”’ Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2.—év roig deopoic rob 
evayy.] in the bonds, into which the gospel has brought me—in a position 
therefore (comp. ver. 9) which makes me as needful as deserving of such 
loving service.—yupi¢ d2 x.7.A.] but without thy consent, that is, independent 
of it, I have wished to do nothing, and so have left that wish unexecuted, tn 
order that thy good may be not as from constraint, but from free will. The 
thought of the apostle accordingly is: But as I knew not thine own 
Opinion, and thus must have acted without it, I was disposed to abstain 
from the retention of thy slave, which I had in view: for the good, which 
thou showest, is not to be as if forced, but voluntary. If I had retained 
Onesimus for my service, without having thy consent to that effect, the 
good, which I should have had to derive from thee through the service 
rendered to me by thy servant trép cov, would have been shown not from 
free will,—that is, not in virtue of thine own self-determination,—but as if 
compulsorily, just because independently of thy yréun (“ non enim potuisset 
refragari Philemon,” Bengel'). Observe at the same time that 1d dya0év 
cov, thy good, that is, the good which thou showest to others, is to be left quite 
in its generality, so that not the serviceable employment of the slave 
specially and in concreto is meant, but rather the category in general, under 
which, in the intended application, there falls that special aya6év, which is 
indicated in ver. 13. The restriction to the given case is impracticable on 
account of aAAd xara éxobotoy, since Paul in fact did not at all intend to pro- 
cure the consent of Philemon and to retain Onesimus. This in opposition 
' to the usual interpretation : “1d aya6éy, t.e. beneficium tuum hocce, quo 
afficior a te, st hunc miht servum concedis,” Heinrichs; comp. Bleek. But 
it is an error also, with de Wette, following Estius (who describes it as 
probable), to understand under rd aya#. cov the manumission? of the slave, 
or to understand it at least as “also included” (Bleek), of which even in 
- ver. 16 there is no mention, and for suggesting which in so covert and 
enigmatic a fashion there would not have been any reason, if he had 
desired it at all (but see on 1 Cor. vii. 21). According to Hofmann (comp. 
his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 412), 1d ayaGdv cov is, like rd ypnotdv Tov Gcod at 
Rom. ii. 4, thy goodness, and that the goodness, which Philemon will show to 
Onesimus when he had returned into his position as a slave; this only then 
becomes an undoubtedly spontaneous goodness, when the apostle refrains 
from any injunction of his own, whereas Philemon could not have done 
otherwise than refrain from punishing the slave for his escape, if Paul 
had retained him to himself, in which case, therefore, Philemon might 


ISeneca, De Benef. ii. 4: “Si vis scire an 2That the manumission did take place, has 
velim, effice ut possim nolle.” Luther aptly been inferred from the tradition that One- 
remarks: a constrained will is not voluntas, simus became a bishop. It may have taken 
but noluntaa. place, but it is not meant here. 


vERsS. 14, 15. 409 


have seemed to be kind compulsorily. This explanation, brought out by 
the insertion of thoughts between the lines, is to be set aside as at variance 
with the context, since there is nothing in the connection to point to the 
definition of the notion of 1d dya6év cov as goodness towarde Onesimus, 
but on the contrary this expression can only acquire its import through 
the delicately thoughtful iva txép cod por diaxovy K.7.A—o¢ xara avdyxyv] 
emphatically prefixed, and o¢ expresses the idea: ‘“‘s0 that i appears 
as constrained.” Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 360. 

Ver. 15. Paul now supports his course of procedure in having given up 
his previous plan of retaining Onesimus with him, and in sending the lat- 
ter back, by the consideration that the brief separation of the slave from 
his master may perhaps have had the Providential destined aim, etc. 
This destined aim would have been in fact counteracted by the ulterior 
keeping apart of the slave from Philemon.—réyza] easily, perhaps, Rom. v. 
7. So also in classical writers, but more frequently conjoined with dy». 
Comp. for a similar use of lous, Luke xx. 13, and Buttmann, ad Soph. 
Phil. p.180." A categoric assertion, although appropriate to the expres- 
sion of a firm confidence, would have been less sparing of the feelings in 
the relation of the injured master to the fugitive slave, than the problem- 
atic mode of expression; it may readily be, that the way of the pofpa Qecod 
has been such, etc.—éyupio67] evphuwe nal riv gvyqv xupiopdyv Karel, iva pp 
TO Gvduare THE guyie mapoftvy tov deonéryv, Theophylact. The aim of scoth- 
ing underlies also the choice of the passive expression, as Chrysostom 
BAYS: ov eizev’ éxdpwev éavtdy ... ob yap avrov rd Karaoxebacua 1d én 
tovTw avaxyuphoa K.t.A.—mpd¢ Spav] Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; Gal. ii. 5; 1 Thess. 
ii.17. This relative statement of time leaves it entirely undefined, how 
long the brief stay of Onesimus with Paul lasted.—ive] divine destined 
aim therein. Chrysostom and Jerome already refer to Gen. xlv. 5.— 
aiévov] not adverb, which is aiwrivg, but accusative, so that the adverbial 
notion is expressed by way of predicate. [XLIVg.] Winer, p. 483 [E. 
T. 464]: Kiihner, II. 1, p. 284 f. Erasmus aptly observes: “ipsum jam 
non temporartum ministrum, sed perpetuo tecum victurum.” The notion 
itself, however, is not to be taken as the indefinite perpetuo (Calvin, Gro- 
tius, and many), or more precisely per omnem tuam vitam (Drusius, Hein- 
richs, Flatt, Demme, and others), in connection with which Beza and 
Michaelis point to the ordinances of the law with regard to the perpetua 
mancipia (Ex. xxi. 6; Deut. xv. 17); but—as is alone consonant with the 
N. T. use of the word concerning the future, and the Pauline doctrine of 
the approaching establishment of the kingdom—in the definite sense : for 
ever, embracing the expiring aiay obroc and the aidv uéAAwy attaching itself 
thereto, and presupposing the Parousia, which is still to be expected 
within the lifetime of both parties; but not, that the Christian brotherly 
union reaches into eternity (Erasmus, Estius, de Wette, and others); so 


1On cara dvdyx., by way of constraint (in dvayxaeriet, Ad’ dxoveins; Thucyd. vill. 27. 8: 
the passive sense), by compulsion, comp. xa’ exevaiay } wdvv ye dvdyxp, Plat. Prot. p. 
Thucyd. vi. 10. 1; Polyb. fii. 67.5; 2 Macc, 6B. 

xv. 2; on the contrast, comp. 1 Pet. v. 2: wi 4 Chrysostom aptly remarks: aedés 1d réxe, 


410 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


in the main also Hofmann: “as one who remains to him for ever, not 
merely for lifetime ;” comp. Bleek.—artyyc] Comp. Phil. iv. 18; Matt. vi. 
2. The compound expression (mayest have away) denotes the definitive 
final possession. 

Ver. 16. Altered relation which with the aidmov atrav anéyew was to 
take effect, and thenceforth to subsist, between Philemon and Onesimus. 
—obxtr: &¢ dovdo?] in this is implied not a hint of manumission, but the 
fact that, while the external relation of slavery remains in itself unchanged, 
the ethical relation has become another, a higher one (irép doviov), a 
brotherly relation of affection (adeA9. ayar.). Christianity does not abolish 
the distinctions of rank and station, but morally equalizes them (comp. on 
ioéryra, Col. iv. 1; 1 Tim. vi. 2), inasmuch as it pervades them with the 
unifying consecration of the life in Christ,’ 1 Cor. vii. 21 f., xii. 18; Gal. 
iii. 28; Col. iii. 11. To the o¢ the following irép is correlative: not 
further in the quality of a slave, but in a higher manner than as a slave; 
GdeAgdv ayar., as a beloved brother, is then the epexegesis of ixép dovAoy. 
And the latter is conceived of thus: so that he is beyond and above a 
dovAog, is more than such2—ydédora éuol x.7.A.] belongs to adeA. ayar. In 
that view zéAcora has its reference in the relation of Onesimus to his 
Sellow-Christians, with whom he has hitherto been brought into connection ; 
among these it was Paul, to whom he stood most of all—that is, in higher 
degree than to any other—in the relation of a beloved brother.—écy 62 
pGAAov oni] since he is thy property, and does not enter into merely tem- 
porary connection with thee, such as that in which he stood with me; 
see ver. 15.—xai év capxi xai év xvp.] specifies the two domains, in which Onesi- 
mus will be to him yet far more a beloved brother than to the apostle, 
namely, in the flesh, t. e. in the sphere pertaining to the material nature of 
man, in things consequently that concern the bodily life and needs, and in 
the Lord, i.e. in the higher spiritual life-sphere of fellowship with Christ. 
Accordingly, é¢v capxi Philemon has the brother as a slave, and é xvpiy 
the slave as a brother; how greatly, therefore, must he, in view of the 
mutual connection and interpenetration of the two relations, have him, 
as well év capxi as éy xvpiv, as a beloved brother! How much more still 
(wécy d2 pGAAov) must Onesimus thus be such an one to Philemon, than 
to the apostle! The two domains of life designated by é» capxi and év xvpiy 
—which, connected by xa? . . . wal, exclude the conception of ethical con- 
trast *—are to be left in all their comprehensiveness. Influenced by the 
erroneous presupposition of manumission (see on ver. 15), de Wette 
thinks in év capxi of the family-relation into which the manumitted one 
enters. 

Ver. 17. Ovv] resuming ; see on ver. 12, where the request, to which utter- 


twa eign 3 Seomérys’ éxadh ydp awd av@abeiag mentally supplied (Grotius, Storr, Flatt); 

ytyovey 9 dvyy cal Sveotpappdvns Scavoias, cai comp. on Col. fil. 23. 

ova awd mpoapdoens, Adye: Taxa. *Comp. Plato, Rep. p. 488 A; Legg. viil. p. 
1In accordance with this Christian-ideal 839 D; ove dori iwip dvOpwrorw; 2 Macc. ix. 8. 

mode of view we have to leave ovcér: abso- %Comp. Eklund, vdpf vocabulum ap. Paul., 

lute, and not to weaken it by wdévow to be Lund 1872, p. 47 f. 


VERS. 16-18. 411 


ance is only now finally given after the moving digressions vv. 13-16, was 
already to be expressed.—The emphasis, and that in the way of furnish- 
ing a motive, lies upon co:vervdy: [XLIV h.] if thou hast me as a partner, 
if thou standest in this relation to me,—according to which consequently 
the refusal of the request would appear as proof of the contrary. As to 
this use of éyew, comp. on Matt. xiv. 4. The notion of the «omic is not 
to be restricted more narrowly than is implied in the idea of Christian 
fellowship, and so of common believing, loving, hoping, disposition, work- 
ing, and so forth; while Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and 
others bring out only the partnership of the ¢poveiy and the striving; 
whereas others, as Estius, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Flatt, ¢ al., explain 
xovvwrdy as friend, and Beza and Bengel refer it to the community of 
property : ‘Si mecum habere te putas communia bona, ut inter socios 
esse soleat’’ (Beza); comp. Grotius. The d¢ is: so as if thou receivedst 
me, as if J now came to thee; for see ver. 12.1 On spocdafod, comp. Rom. 
xiv. 1, xv. 7. 

Ver. 18. [On Vv. 18-25, see Note XLV. pages 419, 420.] And herein the 
offence against thee, with which Onesimus is chargeable, is not to present 
an obstacle.—e:] indication in a hypothetic form, so as to spare the feel- 
ings: Attic politeness, see Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. i. 5.1; Bornem. ad Con- 
viv. iv. 8; Winer, p. 418 [E. T. 448].—rc pdixnot ce] Comp. Col. iii. 25; 
Gal. iv. 12; Acts xxv.10. In what the wrong done to Philemon by Onesi- 
mus, and without doubt confessed to the apostle by the latter, actually 
consisted, is hinted in what follows—# 6geiAe] or—more precisely to 
describe this #dixyce—oweth (anything). This applies to a money-debt (see 
ver. 19). Accordingly the slave had probably been guilty, not merely in 
general of a fault in service which injured his master (Hofmann), but in 
reality (comp. already Chrysostom) of purloining or of embezzlement, 
which Paul here knows how to indicate euphemistically. The referring 
it merely to the running away itself, and the neglect of service therewith 
connected, would not be (in opposition to Bleek) in keeping with the 
hypothetical form of expression.—rovro] the m, which he dixyoé ce } dgei- 
Ae; hence we have not, with Grotius, Flatt, and others, to explain these 
two verbs of different offences (the former as referring to theft at his run- 
ning away, the latter to defalcation).—éyoi éAAdya] set it down to my 
account ; “me debitorem habe,” Bengel. Friendly pleasantry, which in 
ver. 19 becomes even jocular (uerd xdpcrog rig mvevparixgc, Chrysostom), 
with which the subsequent iva pu) Atyw cot «7.2. is very compatible (in 
opposition to Hofmann), if it is correctly apprehended. On the form 
éAdoydu we have not, with Fritzsche, ad Rom. v. 18, at once to pronounce 
against it: “nulla est” (comp. Matthies: “stultum est’’), since éAjoytw 
likewise is only with certainty preserved in Rom. .c., and in Boeckh, 
Inscr. J. p. 850. It is true Aoydo, in Lucian, Leziph. 15, means to be fond 
of speaking ; but this single passage, in which the simple form is pre- 


1Theophylact: riva ovx ay xaredvoewnce; Erasmus: “recipias oportet velut alterum 
vig yap ovx ay dOdAnoe LlavAoy xpocidfacéar, me.” 





412 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


served, does not suffice to negative the use of the word in the sense of 
reckoning. 

Ver. 19. [XLV }.] Promissory note under his own hand, in which by the 
elsewhere so weighty éy® IlatAoc (Gal. v. 2; 2 Cor. x. 1, al.) the friendly 
humor of the connection is rendered the more palpable through force of 
contrast. Whether Paul wrote the whole Epistle with his own hand (the 
usual view; see already Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret), or only 
from this point onward, cannot be determined. In the latter case the 
raillery comes out the more prominently.—iva px) Aéyw cot «.7.A.] Comp. 
2 Cor. ii. 5, and the Latin ne dicam: “est cyjua rapactwrfoeuc sive reti- 
centiae, cum dicimus omittere nos velle, quod maxime dicimus,” Grotius. 
The iva denotes the design which Paul has in the éypaya . . . aworiou; 
he will, so he represents the matter, by this his note of hand avoid saying 
to Philemon—what he withal might in strictness have to say to him— 
that he was yet far more indebted to the apostle. [XLV c.] Without 
sufficient reason, Wiesinger after a harsh and involved fashion attaches 
iva, notwithstanding the intervening clause, to rovro éuoi éAAéya, and then 
takes the coi, which according to the usual view belongs without empha- 
sis to Aéyw, as emphatic (sc. éAAdya); “that reckon to me, not to say: to 
thee.” So too Hofmann, according to whose arbitrary discovery in the 
repetition of the éyé the emphatic éuoi is held “to continue sounding,” 
until it finds in the emphatic coi its antithesis, which cancels it. Why 
should not Paul, instead of this alleged “making it sound on,” have put 
the words iva pu) Afyw ool, bre x.1.A. (because, according to Hofmann) imme- 
diately after rovro éuoi éAAéya, in order thereupon to conclude this passage 
with the weighty éy® Ilaidoe x.r.4.?2 Besides, there would be implied in 
that emphasizing and antithetic reference of the oof a pungent turn so 
directly and incisively putting him to shame, that it would not be in 
keeping with the whole friendly humorous tone of this part of the letter, 
which does not warrant us in presupposing a displeasure on Philemon’s part 
meriting so deeply earnest a putting him to shame (Hofmann). The very 
shaming hint, which the passage gives, is affectionately vetled in an appar- 
ent reticence by iva yw) Afyw oo x.r.A. Chrysostom already says aptly: 
évrpenrixas dua nat yapsévroc—The coi added to Aéys is in keeping 
with the confidential tone of the Epistle. Paul would not willingly 
remind his friend of his debt.—xa? ceavrév] also thine own self, dé enor yap, 
¢noi, tie ouwrnplag amfAavoas’ Kal évreibev dpdov o¢ Tig amoorolinge §:b6n 
SiacxaNag 6 d:Afuwv, Theodoret. Through hia conversion he was indebted 
to the apostle for his own self, namely, as subject of the (w) aiévog. The 
same view is found at Luke ix. 25. See on that passage.—mpocogeiAcic} 
inswper debes.' The conception, namely, is: “not to say to thee, that thou 
(namely, because I have made thee a Christian) owest to me not merely that, 
which I have just declared my wish to pay to thee, but also (xai) thine own self 
besides.” With due attention to the correlation of xai and mpé¢, the force 


1 Herod. vi. 59; Dem. 650,23; Thucyd. vil. 48.6; Xen. Oyrop. fii. 2. 16, Oec. 20.1; Polyb. v. 88 
4. 8 viii. 25.4; Lucian. Saerif. 4. 


VERS, 19-21. 413 
of the compound would not have been overlooked (Vulgate, Luther, Flatt, 
and others). 

Ver. 20. Yea, brother, I would fain have profit of thee in the Lord.—vai] 
not beseeching (Grotius and many), but confirmatory (comp. on Matt. xv. 
27), as always: verily, certainly. It confirms, however, not the preceding 
K. geaur. por mpooogeidee (de Wette and Hofmann, following Elsner),— 
against which may be urged the emphatically prefixed éyé (it must in 
that case logically have run: cov éyé ovaiz.),—but the whole intercession for 
Onesimus, 4n which Paul has made the cause of the latter his own.' He, 
he himself, would fain have joy at the hands of his friend Philemon in the 
granting of this request; hémself (not, it might be, merely Onesimus) is 
Philemon to make happy by this compliance.—évaium] Expression of the 
wish, that this might take place (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 198); hence the counter- 
remark of Hofmann that it is not “JZ would fain,” but “may J,” is un- 
meaning.” On the expression very current from Homer’s time (Odyss. 
xix. 68, il. 33), dvivayai revoc, to have advantage from a thing or person, to 
profit thereby, comp. Wetstein ; on the different verbal forms of the word, 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 12 f.; Kihner, I. p. 879f. Inthe N. T. it is arag 
Acyéu.; but the very choice of the peculiar word supports the usual hypo- 
thesis (although not recognized by de Wette, Bleek, and Hofmann) that 
Paul intended an allusion to the name Onesimus.? There is the additional 
circumstance that the emphatic éyé ingeniously gives point to the anti- 
thetic glance back at him, for whom he has made request; comp. also 
Wiesinger, Ellicott, Winer.—év xvpiy] gives to the notion of the dyvaiuzy its 
definite Christian character. Just so the following év Xpcor¢é. Neither 
means: for the sake of (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others). No profit of 
any other kind whatever does Paul wish for himself from Philemon, but 
that, the enjoyment of which has its ground in Christ as the ethical ele- 
ment. Comp. xalpew év xvpiy, and the like.—davdravoov «.r.4.] [XLV d.] 
let me not wish in vain this éyé cov dvaip. tv xvp.! Refresh (by a forgiv- 
ing and loving reception of Onesimus) my heart: rd orAdyxzva, seat of 
loving emotion, of the love concerned for Onesimus, comp. ver. 7; not an 
expression of love to Philemon (Oecumenius, Theophylact), nor yet a 
designation of Onesimus (ver. 12), as is maintained by Jerome, Estius, 
Storr, Heinrichs, Flatt, and others. 

Ver. 21. Conclusion of the whole matter of request, and that “ as if for 
a last precaution” (Ewald), with the expression of the confidence, to 
which his apostolic dignity entitled him (iraxoj), although in accordance 
with ver. 8 he has abstained from enjoining. This, as well as the eiddg br: 


’With this vai, adeAgé the humorous tone 
has died away, and, when Paul now inserts 
the need of his own heart and his hearty 
confidence as to the compliance of his friend, 
the intercession receives the seal of its trust- 
fol assurance of success, and therewith {ts 
close. Chrysostom already aptly observes 
that the vai, adeA¢é applies generally to the 
wpogAafov requested, so that the apostle 


“adbais tray yapterriopnedny wédey Exerar 
tev sporéipey trav onmoviaiuy.” 

2Oomp. Eur. Hee. 997: heer’ bvaluyy rod 
wapévros, Ignat. Eph. 2: dvatiuny vuew da 
wavtés, Rom. 5: dvaipyy, rev Onpioy... 
evxopmes «.T.A. 

8 The allusion would have been more easily 
seized, if Paul had written in some such way 
as: val, a8eA$d, uci ov byifosuos cing. But, as 





Y 


414 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


«.7.A., appended by way of climax as an accompanying definition to the 
nero drt x.7.A.. could not but entirely remove any possible hesitation 
on the part of Philemon and complete the effect of the letter. Comp. 
already Chrysostom and Jerome.—xa? imép 8 Afyw] wha, i.e. what further 
deeds of kindness over and above the receiving back which was asked for, 
the apostle leaves absolutely to his friend, without, however, wishing to 
hint in particular at the manwmission of Onesimus (Bleek and Hofmann, 
following older expositors); comp. on ver. 18 f. The certainty, however, 
that his friend will do still more, makes him the less doubt that at the least 
what is requested will be done. Thus there is contained in this eidd¢ x.1.A. 
a thoughtfully contrived incitement.—/éyw] namely, in that which I have 
written. Observe the different tenses.—xai] not merely that which I say, 
but also. 

Ver. 22. This further commission too—what a welcome, and wisely 
closing, indirect support to the intercession for Onesimus! rolA9 yap 4 
xape xai 9 ri TlatAov évdnpovyroc, Chrysostom ; and so the apostle, in fact, 
wished soon himself to see what effect his intercession had had.—daya 62 xai] 
[XLV e.] that is, simultaneously with that, which thou wilt do in the case 
of Onesimus. This is the sense of the adverbial aua in all passages,’ even 
Col. iv.3; Acts xxiv. 26; and 1 Tim. v. 13 (in opposition to Hofmann), 
and among the Greek writers, so that it by no means expresses merely 
the conception of being joined, that the one is to associate itself with the 
other (Hofmann), but the contemporary connection of the one action with 
the other; Suidas: éxi rov xara rév abrdév xaipdv. Bleek erroneously 
renders: at the same time also I entreat thee; 80, too, de Wette, as if aua dé 
xai mapaxado or the like were in the text.—éroiualé yor Feviav] Paul hoped 
at that time for a speedy liberation; his ulterior goal was Rome; the 
journey thither, however, he thought of making through Asia Minor, where 
he also desired to come to Colossae and to take up his quarters (Acts xxviii. 
23) as a guest with Philemon. Comp. Introd. to Colossians, 32. Observe, 
moreover, that dua d2 xai presupposes so near a use of the fevia, as doubt- 
less tallies with the shorter distance between Caesarea and Phrygia, but 
not with the distance from Rome to Phrygia, specially since, according to 
Phil. i. 25 f., ii. 24, Paul thought of journeying from Rome to Macedonia; 
hence it would have been inappropiate and strange on his part, if, start- 
ing from Rome, he had already bespoken a lodging in Colossae, and that, 
too, one to be made ready so without delay—ipov and tyiv apply to 
the persons already named, vv. 1,2. To extend the reference further, 
namely, to “the body of Christians amidst which Philemon lives” (Hof- 
mann), is unwarranted. The expression is individualizing. On yepuof., 
may be granted, t.e. liberated in favor of you, comp. on Acts iii. 14, xxvii. 
24; on did rr. xpoocevy. tu., Phil. 1.19. This hope was not fulfilled. 
Calvin leaves this doubtful, but aptly adds: “ Nihil tamen est absurdi, si 


he has expressed it, it is more delicate and combination of two expressions of activity, 

yet palpable enough, especially forthe friend which takes place or ought to take place (as 

of whom he makes the request. here). What dnov is as romeacy, dua is as 
1 Where, namely, there is mention of the xponx«év (Ammonius, p. 13). 


NOTES. 415 


spes, qualem de temporali Dei beneficio conceperit, eum frustrata 
fuerit.” 

Ver. 23 f. Salutations from the same persons, Col. iv. 10-14.—8 ovvaiy- 
pbdwrés pov} See on Col. iv. 10. Here it further has expressly the 
specifically Christian character.' Comp. déoju0¢ év xvpiy, Eph. iv. 1—The 
Jesus Justus mentioned at Col.iv. 11 does not here join in the greeting. 
The reason for this cannot be ascertained. It is possible that this man 
was absent just at the moment of Paul’s writing the brief letter to 
Philemon. According to Wieseler, p. 417, he was not among those in 
the abode of the apostle under surveillance (in Rome). 

Ver. 26. See on Gal. vi. 18. 


Norms BY AMERICAN EpITror. 


XLII. Vv. 1-3. 


(a) The use of the word déojco¢ in the salutation, instead of amécroAo¢ as in the 
other Epp. addressed to individuals (1 Tim., 2 Tim., and Tit.), may be explained, as 
Meyer also suggests, in connection with the peculiarly personal and private character 
of this letter. Its use instead of dovAo¢ is not improbably designed to affect the mind 
and feeling of Philemon, as heshould read the request which the letter conveyed. 
That the union of Timothy with himself belongs to the salutation only (see 
Note I. on the Ep. to the Philippians), is made evident in this Epistle, by the fact 
that the urgency of the appeal in the following verses is founded on what Paul, 
not Timothy, had done, and on Paul’s friendship alone. Moreover, the Apostle 
speaks only in the first person singular, not at all in the first person plural. The 
word décucoc, which applies to Paul alone, may also, so far as it is correctly 
explained above as employed rather than dovAos, indicate the same thing. We 
may thus get from this Epistle a certain degree of confirmation of the view, that, 
in all the Pauline Epistles, the companions who are associated with the Apostle 
in the opening address have little share in anything beyond this.—(5) That Phile- 
mon lived in Cologsae is made probable, if not certain, by Col. iv. 9, where Onesi- 
mus is spoken of as é{ tov. By the word ovvepy® he is put into the same class 
with Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (ver. 24); and, as he had a church at 
his house, we must believe him to have been a prominent worker in the Christian 
cause, who had co-dperated with Paul himself. Lightf. says, “it is a safe infer- 
ence from the connection of the names that Apphia was the wife of Philemon.” 
He adds: ‘“ With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree of probability, 
we may infer that Archippus was a son of Philemon and Apphia.” All that can 
be said upon this point is, that they are very closely united with the principal 
person addressed, in a letter which had reference to one of his slaves. They must, 
therefore, have been persons in such near relationship or friendship as to be asso- 
ciated with him in a letter of this altogether private character. The insertion of 
the name of Apphia before that of Archippus, who was a church officer, may be 


1Yet dy Xpiory “Inco’ might also be con- rating it from the nearest word, with which 
ceived as connected with acwd¢era: (Bleek) even Chrysostom in his day expressly con- 
Comp. Phil. iv. 21; Rom. xvi. 22; 1Cor. xvi. nected it. 
19. There is, however, no reason for sepe- 


416 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


considered as favoring the view that she was Philemon’s wife—(c) Lightf. sup- 
poses Archippus to have been connected with the church in Laodicea—his name, 
in Col. iv. 17, follows immediately after the allusion to the letter to that church— 
and that he was a presbyter, or perhaps an evangelist having a missionary charge. 
Wieseler, also, supposes him to have belonged to that church. Ell., Koch, Lumby, 
Meyer, and others, oppose this view, and regard him as of the church at Colossae. 
Meyer, in his notes on Col. iv. 17 (foot-note, page 391), says we should expect that 
if Archippus had not lived at Colossae, Paul would have sent him a salutation, as 
he does to Nymphas, Col. iv. 15, in connection with the Laodicean church, and 
would not have asked another church, but rather his own, to admonish him. How 
far the words in Col. iv. 17 are to be regarded as implying failure in the full dis- 
charge of duty on the part of Archippus, is uncertain. Certainly, the Apostle so 
far approved of him as to call him in this Epistle, which was written at the same 
time with that to the Colossians, his ovvorparidrne. 


XLUI. Vv. 4-7. 


(a) The comm. of recent date generally agree with Meyer in connecting rdyrore 
with evyapioro, So Lightf. Alf., Lumby, Koch, de W., van Oost., Hackett, Wies- 
inger, and others. Ell., however, favors the connection with tosobpevoe, R. V. 
joins with the verb; A. V. with the participle. The close correspondence of the 
phraseology with that in Col. i. 3, 4, and the fact that the two letters were written 
at the same time, make it altogether probable that the construction here accords 
with that which we find there. See note by Am. Ed. on that verse. axobuwy 
suggests the ground of the thanksgiving ; but, of course, the thing heard of, rather 
than the hearing itself, (that is, the love and faith of Philemon), are the real cause 
of Paul’s gratitude to God.—() The explanation of rj aydéryv. . . dyloug by assuming 
a chiasmus, to which Meyer strongly objects, is supported by Alf., Hackett, Lightf., 
v. Oost, and others, in addition to those whom Meyer mentions. The correspond- 
ing passage in Col. i. 3, 4 favors this view. ‘The suggestion of Lumby is worthy 
of notice, and may perhaps give the best solution of the difficulty. He says, “The 
love was displayed towards the Christian congregation, the faith toward the Lord 
Jesus Christ. But they are so knit together where they truly exist, that St. Paul 
speaks of them as both exhibited alike toward Christ and toward His people.” The 
interpretation of rior as meaning faithfulness (Meyer) is contrary to all the pro- 
babilities of such a passage as this. Davies thinks that “we may understand faith 
towards all the saints, in the light of the phrase which follows, xocmwvia rij¢ triareds 
gov, as meaning a readiness to acknowledge the community of faith with all other 
believers.” This, however, can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory explanation. 
Ell. suggests that, connecting ior with both of the prepositional phrases, faith 
may be understood as having a purely spiritual reference as directed towards the 
Lord, and a more practical reference as directed towards the saints.—(c) Sue of 
ver. 6 is joined by Meyer immediately with fw éyecc, as specifying the tendency 
of what is suggested by these words. This construction Alf. regards as “perfectly 
inconceivable in a piece of Paul’s writing.” He also considers the sentence as 
thus interpreted “flat in the extreme.” Ell. thinks it “utterly puintless.” Lightf. 
declares the construction to be “altogether harsh and improbable.” Van Oost., with 
a milder form of expression, says, “It seems to us by no means necessary and 
affords a sense least clear and simple.” The more common view is that it is to be 


NOTES. 417 


connected with pvelay cov trowotpevoc. So, in addition to the writers mentioned by 
Meyer in his note, Lightf., Alf., Davies, v. Oost., Hackett, and others. Hackett 
claims that Eph. i. 16 furnishes an exact parallel to the present case, and shows 
that dru¢ belongs with rootz. But this can hardly be maintained, because the 
insertion of the clause axofwy «,7.A. here, which gives the ground of the et yapiord, 
separates the 57w¢ clause from totoiu (which is not the case in Eph.), and thus 
throws the zocoby into a much more subordinate position—making it appear, as 
Meyer says, as “only an accompanying definition.” The question as to the con- 
struction is one of much difficulty. As, however, in case the érw¢ clause is joined 
with fv exe, the sentence becomes very peculiar in its form; as the letter is of 
that purely private and personal character which, more easily than other letters 
or writings, allows such irregularities as the carrying over of a thought through 
an intervening clause to one that follows; and as in each of the three other letters 
(Eph., Phil., Col.), which belong to the same period of Paul’s life with this one 
addressed to Philemon, the declaration is made, after the words expressing thank- 
fulness, that the writer prays for the readers, and then a final particle introducing 
- a clause is added—it seems probable, notwithstanding the objections urged by 
Meyer, that the der clause is to be united with pveiav rooby. imi tov mpocevzar. 
—(d) With respect to the words introduced by due, the following points may be 
noticed :—1. If the clause depends on pvelav rocoby. «.7.A., the fact that Paul’s 
prayers at the opening of his Epistles generally have referenct to the individuals 
addressed, and, in the case of the Epistles of this section, refer to the attainment 
of ériyvwore on their part, points strongly towards the same understanding of this 
verse. 2. The probability that this verse is, in its thought, introductory to the 
request which is made on behalf of Onesimus in the following verses, favors the 
reference of the words to Philemon himself. The action and feeling towards 
Onesimus which are asked of him will be an example of what is prayed for in this 
clause. 3. The fact that in ver. 7 the thought passes again to ayd7y seems to 
show that, in the uniting of faith and love here, the Apostle has prominently in 
mind the active power of faith in the individual as going out, through love, from 
the individual towards others. 4. These considerations, which favor the reference 
of xocvwvia, as well as all the other words, to Philemon, are opposed by the fact 
that where a genitive corresponding with T¢ 7lorewc, as found here, occurs in the 
Pauline Epistles, it always, apparently, is objective. According to the analogy of 
other cases, therefore, the phrase means here the participation [of others] tn thy 
faith—unlees indeed, with Hofmann, } soc. r. wicr. is regarded as a compound 
notion, cov depending on the whole phrase, thy participation in faith, which is hardly 
to be allowed. The things which point in opposite directions may, perhaps, be 
reconciled, either (z) by adopting communication as the meaning of corvwvia, after 
the analogy of Heb. xiii. 16—the communication of thy faith in the way of acts 
of love, or (y) by understanding «ocwwvia as having the sense of sharing with others, 
and r7¢ ior. as a gen. of possession or of source—the participation with others which 
appertains to, or springs from, thy faith—(e) évepyfe indicates the effective working 
of this xocvwvia in its outgoing towards others, and év ércy. «.7.A, denotes the sphere 
in which this effectiveness has its life :—in the full knowledge of every good thing 
which belongs to Christians as looking towards Christ—for His honor, and having 
Him as its end. The man whose xocvwria is thus év émcy. . .. ei¢ Xp. will treat 
others with Christian love, as Paul would have Philemon treat Onesimus.—(/) 
yap of ver. 7 gives the reason for the Apostle’s expression of thankfulness as he 
27 


418 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


hears of Philemon’s love, etc., and on the ground of that love, etc. He is thus 
thankful for this love always, as he had had much joy in view of the fact that the 
hearts of the saints were refreshed by it. There can be but little doubt that éoyov 
and xapév are to be accepted as the correct readings in this verse, instead of 
éoxouev or Exouev and yapiy. 


XLIV. Vv. 8-17. 


(a) Acé, which refers to the thought expressed in ver. 7, and thus to the joy and 
thankfulness filling Paul’s heart for Philemon’s love which goes out towards the 
saints, shows that the request with regard to Onesimus, which now begins, is so 
immediately connected with the introductory words as to determine the question 
of their interpretation.—(b) As to the connection of rowvrog ov, the passages cited 
by Lightf. (Plato Symp. 181 E, Alexis, in Meineke Fragm. Com. iii. p. 99), seem 
to show, in opposition to what is affirmed by Meyer, that rosovrog can be followed 
by ¢, and the fact, also mentioned by Lightf., that all the Greek commentators 
connect the words in this way, must be allowed much weight. If this construc- 
tion is aliowable, it is more natural and simple than that for which Meyer con- 
tends, who begins a new sentence with ro:ovroc, and translates, “ Seeing that I am 
80 constituted, since such is my manner of thinking and dealing, I exhort thee as 
Paul, etc.” On Meyer’s view, the rovovrog ov becomes substantially a new taking 
up of woAAjv . . . . aydéryy, and the whole sentence as far as tapaxad oe is a 
repetition of what has just been said. As to the question whether (if rocotro¢ is to 
Le joined with o¢) the clause is to be united with the preceding or the following 
mapaxaAG,—the close connection in idea of this clause with that of love, and the 
fact that tie second tapaxad® has a very natural emphasis if it begins the new 
sentence, fuvor the view that it belongs with the preceding verb.—(c) Lightf. 
conjectures that the word speoBirne is either a form inserted in the text in place 
of mpeoBeurfc, or a form which, in the common dialect of Paul’s time, was often 
used as equivalent to it. The only reasons for supposing that Paul refers to him- 
self as an ambassador here, are the fact that he speaks of himself as such in Eph. 
vi. 20, (in that passage, however, he uses the verb zpeoBetw), and the difficulty, 
whatever it may be, in the application to him of the term “aged man” at this 
time. These reasons have no serious weight. His age at the date of this letter 
may, not improbably, have been beyond sixty, and his many labors and trials, as 
all admit, may naturally have led him, at times, to feel that he was growing old, 
even more rapidly than the years themselves would imply. That Paul was under 
sixty at the time of writing the Epistles of this period, is hardly consistent with 
the language which he makes use of in them, and also in the Past. Epp. The 
conjectural reading or meaning which Lightf. suggests is to be admitted as possible, 
but scarcely as that which is moet probable. It is recognized by R. V. in the mar- 
gin.—(d) The emphatic repetition of his feeling of interest in Onesimus under 
different forms of expression—réxvou, éyévynoa ey roig deopoic, éuot ebypnorov, ra 
éua ordAdyxva, bv... . xaréxesv—shows that he must have become very deeply 
attached to him, and also that he was desirous of urging Philemon by reason of 
this fact to give him a kindly reception.—(e) Tisch. 8, Treg., W. and H., Alf., RB. 
V., agree with Lachm., in omitting ot dé of the text as given by Meyer at the 
beginning of his note on ver. 12. If this is the correct text, that translation is 
best which is given in R. V., whom I have sent (or, as avéreuya is probably an epist- 


NOTES. 419 


olary aorist, I send) back to thee in his own person, that ts, my very heart. Lightf., on 
the contrary, supposes that a new sentence begins with avrév (even with this text), 
and that it depends on the idea of the verb pocAafoi, which, however, is, by 
reason of inserted clauses, deferred until it appears in another construction in ver, 
17. The omission of zpocAafov in immediate connection with avrdéy, if this were 
the idea in his mind, would seem remarkable even in Paul’s writings. If ov dé 
is to be read, tpooAaBov, or some such verb, is almost necessarily supplied in 
thought, but this is not the case, if these words are omitted.—(/) imép {cov (ver. 
13) is, as Meyer says, not equivalent to avr! cov, What Onesimus might be able 
to do, in case he remained with Paul, is conceived of as a service rendered on 
behalf of Philemon, since, being a servant of his, he would, in a sense, represent 
him in helping and comforting the Apostle. 1d dyaGov cov refers to this same 
service regarded as good or benefit coming from Philemon. Meyer, Ell., Alf., and 
others, give a more general meaning to 7d ay. cov, Meyer objects to “the restric- 
tion of the expression to the given case,” because “ Paul did not at all intend to 

--procure the consent of Philemon and to retain Onesimus.” But Paul is speaking 
of the reason why he was unwilling to act without the consent of Philemon, and 
the fact that he did not intend to procure Philemon’s consent does not prevent his 
alluding to the service, in this way, in connection with the setting forth of that 
reason.—(g) That aiémov means for eternity is held by most of the recent commen- 
tators. That this is not necessarily the signification of the word in such a case is 
admitted by Bleek, and is proved by such passages as Exod. xxi. 6. But, not 
improbably, this may be the correct view here, because of the contrast with mpéc 
apav, and because the change in Onesimus had given him an entrance into the 
Christian life, which endures ei¢ Cu aidvov, The word aiduoy in this verse is, 
as Meyer says, not an adverb, but an adjective.—(h) xocvwvdy of ver. 17 can hardly 
mean here merely a comrade or tntimate friend, as Lightf. explains it. It rather 
has a sense connected with xocwwvia, If thou holdest me to be (this is probably the 
meaning of éyecc, rather than simply hast) a participator, sharer, partner with thy- 
self in the Christian faith, etc. If 9 xocwwvia x.7.A, of ver. 6 means the sharing 
with others which appertains to or springs from thy faith (as it is suggested in 
Note XLIII d that it may mean), the connection between the two kindred words 
of that verse and the present one is very close. 


XLV. Vv. 18-26. 


(a) It would seem probable, though not certain, from the use of the word 
dgeiAe:, that Onesimus had robbed Philemon before running away, and it is possible 
that this verb serves to define and specify the particular sense in which the more 
general word 7dimpoev is used here,—showing that the wrong was a taking of 
money, which was still due (d¢eiAe, in the present tense).—(b) The verb éypaya 
(ver. 19) is clearly a case of the epistolary use of the aorist. There can be no 
doubt that it refers exclusively to the words ¢yd azoriow, and this verse, accord- 
ingly, furnishes a proof that this aor. can thus apply to a passage which wholly 
follows it. Not improbably the whole letter may have been written by Paul with 
his own hand. But this verb does not prove this to be the fact, nor does it have 
any bearing upon the question. It does not even prove that he wrote with his 
own hand all the following verses—(c) Meyer makes ‘va yu) Afyw depend on 
typaypa, ty axoricu—I write this in order that I may not say, etc. This is pro- 





420 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


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


© 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HAND-BOOK 


EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


BY 


DR. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY 


Rev. PATON J. GLOAG, D. D. 


WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES BY 
TIMOTHY DWIGHT, 


PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN YALE COLLEGE, 





Digitized by Google 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 


THE modern school of exegesis had its rise in Germany. Its excel- 
lence and peculiarity consisted in a rigid adherence to the philological 
characteristics of the sacred text, and its sole aim was to reproduce the 
exact meaning of the original, unbiased by preconceived views, 
Among modern exegetes, Meyer undoubtedly holds the first place. 
His peculiar excellences, his profound learning, his unrivalled know- 
ledge of Hellenistic Greek, his exegetical tact, his philological precision, 
his clear and almost intuitive insight into the meaning of the passage 
commented on, and his deep reverential spirit, all qualified him for being 
an exegete of the first order. Indeed, for the ascertainment of the mean- 
ing of the sacred text his commentaries are, and we believe will long con- 
tinue to be, unrivalled. These qualifications and acquirements of the 
great exegete are well stated by Dr. Dickson, the general editor of this 
series, in the general preface affixed to the first volume of the Epistle to 
the Romans. The similar commentaries of de Wette are certainly of 
very high merit, and have their peculiar excellences; but I do not think 
that there can be any hesitation among Biblical scholars in affirming the 
superiority of those of Meyer. Perhaps the constant reference to the 
opinions of others inserted in the text, the long lists of names of theo- 
logians who agree or disagree in certain explanations, and the con- 
sequent necessity of the breaking up of sentences by means of parenthetic 
clauses, are to the English reader a disadvantage as interrupting the 
sense of the passage. Much is inserted into the text which in English 
works would be attached as footnotes. Still, however, it has been judged 
proper by the general editor to make as little change in the form of the 
original as possible.’ 

Meyer himself wrote and published the Commentaries on the Gospels, 
on the Acta, and on the Pauline Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, 
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon in ten 
volumes—a monument of gigantic industry and immense erudition. 
Indeed, the treatment of each of these volumes is so thorough, so exhaust- 
ive, and so satisfactory, that its composition would be regarded as suf- 


1 [According to the plan of the American Edition, many references, etc., have been 
transferred to the foot-notes.] 


428 








424 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 


ficient work for the life of an ordinary man; what, then, must we think 
of the labors and learning of the man who wrote these ten volumes? 
The other books of the New Testament in the series were undertaken by 
able coadjutors. Dr. Liinemann wrote the Commentaries on the Epistles 
to the. Thessalonians and Hebrews, Dr. Huther on the Pastoral and 
Catholic Epistles, and Dr. Diisterdieck on the Apocalypse. 

The Commentaries of Lunemann, Huther, and Diisterdieck are 
undeniably inferior to thoseof Meyer. We feel the want of that undefin- 
able spiritual insight into the meaning of the passage which is so charac- 
teristic of all that Meyer has written, and, accordingly, we do not place 
the same reliance on the interpretations given. But still the exegetical 
acumen and learning of these commentators are of a very high order, 
and will bear no unfavorable comparison with other writers on the 
same books of the New Testament. Indeed, in this Commentary on the 
Epistles to the Thessalonians, by Dr. Lunemann, with which we are at 
present concerned, its inferiority to the writings of Meyer is not very 
sensibly felt; there is here ample evidence of profound learning, sound 
exegesis, sober reasoning and a power of discrimination among various 
opinions. The style also is remarkably clear for a German exegete ; and 
although there is often difficulty in finding out the exact meaning of 
those whose opinions he states, there is no difficulty in discovering his 
own views. Occasionally there is a tedious minuteness, but this is refer- 
able to the thoroughness with which the work is executed. Of course, in 
these translations the same caveat has to be made that was made in regard 
to Meyer’s Commentaries, that the translators are not to be held as 
concurring with the opinions given; at the same time, in this Comment- 
ary there is little which one who is bound to the moet confessional views 
can find fault with. The first edition of this Commentary was published 
in 1850, the second in 1859, and the third, from which this translation 
is made, in 1867.) 

We have, in conformity with the other volumes, attempted to give a 
list of the exegetical literature of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. 
For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the New Testament, 
see the preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew ; and for 
commentaries on the Pauline Epistles, see the preface to the Comment- 
ary on the Epistle to the Romans. The literature restricted to the 
Epistles to the Thessalonians is somewhat meagre. Articles and mono- 
graphs on chapters or sections are noticed by Dr. Liinemann in the places 
to which they refer ; and especially a list of the monographs on the cele- 
brated passage concerning “the Man of Sin” (2 Thess. ii. 1-12), as given 
by Dr. Lunemann, is to be found in p. 203 of this translation. The 


1 [The fourth edition was published in 1878.] 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 425 


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


PATON J. GLOAG. 
GALASHIELS, November 1880. 


Digitized by Google 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


{ 


AreEtius (Benedictus), ¢ 1574: Commentarius in utramque Pauli Epistolam ad 


Thessalonicenses. 1580. 
AUBERLEN (Karl August), ¢ 1864, and Riecewsacn (C. J.): Lange’s Bibelwerk 
N. T. Thessalonicher. Bielefeld, 1859-73. 


Translated from the German by John Lillie, D.D. |§ New York, 1869. 
BAUMGARTEN-CRusIus (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), t 1843: Commentar uber d. 


Philipper- u. Thessalonicherbriefe. Jena, 1848. 
BrapsHaw (W.): Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
London, 1620. 


Case (Thomas): Exposition of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 1670. 
CHANDLER (Samuel), ¢ 1766: A critical and practical commentary on First 


and Second Thessalonians. London, 1777. 
CRELLIUs (Joannes), ¢ 1633: Commentarius in utramque ad Thessalonicenses 
Epistolam. Opera I. 1636. 


Crocrus (Joannes), ¢ 1659: In Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses. 


DrevricH: Die Briefe St. Pauli an die Eph. Phil. Kologs. und Thess. 1858. 


Dope (Marcus, D. D.), of Glasgow: First and Second Thessalonians; Schaff’s 
Popular Commentary. New York, 1883. 


Eapre (John, D. D.), ¢ 1877, of Glasgow: A commentary on the Greek text of 
the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. London, 1877. 
Exxicorr (Charles J.), Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. Paul’s Epistles to 
the Thessalonians. London, 1858, 3d ed. 1866. 
FERGUSON (James), f 1667, Minister at Kilwinning: Exposition of First and 
Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. 1674. 
Fuatr (Johann Friedrich von), t 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen: Vorlesun- 
gen in die Briefe Pauli. Tubingen, 1829. 
Hormann (Christopher): Commentarius in posteriorem Epistolam ad Thessa- 
lonicenses. Frankfurt, 1545. 
Hormanwn (Johann Christian Konrad von), ¢ 1878, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: 
Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zasummenhingend untersucht. 


L. Theil Thessalonicherbriefe. Nordlingen, 1869. 
Houmnivus (Aegilius), tf 1603: Expositio epistolarum ad Thessalonicenses. 
Frankfart, 1608. 


Jackson: Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, London, 1621. 
427 


428 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


JEWELL (John), ¢ 1571, Bishop of Salisbury: An exposition of ‘the two Epistles 
to the Thessalonians. London, 1583. 
JoweTr (Benjamin), Master of Balliol College, Oxford: The Epistles of St. Paul 
to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, with critical notes and 
dissertations. . London, 1855. 


Koc (A.): Commentar tiber d. 1 Thessalonicherbrief. Berlin, 1869. 
KRravsE (Friedrich August Wilhelm), t 1827, Tutor at Vienna: Die Briefe an 
die Philipper und Thessalonicher iibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen 
begleitet. Frankfurt, 1790. 


LANDREBEN (Arnold): Erklarung iiber d. zwei Briefe an die Thess. 
Frankfurt, 1707. 
LILuIE (John, D. D.): Revised version, with notes, of the Epistles of Paul to the 
Thessalonians. New York, 1856. 


Mason (A. J.), Cambridge: First and Second Thessalonians and First Peter: 
Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary. 1879. 
MOLLER (J. A.): De Wette’s Exeget. Hanbuch z. N. T. Galater- u. Thessalon- 
icherbriefe. 3d Aufl. v. Méller. Leipsic, 1864. 
Moscuuvs [or MEusstin] (Wolfgang), ¢ 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne: In Epist. 
ad Thessalonicenses ambas commentarii. Basil, 1565. 


OLSHAUSEN (Hermann), ¢ 1839: Biblisher Commentar ii. d. N. T. Theil IV. 
Galater, Epheser, Colesser u. Thessalon. KGnigsberg, 1840. 
Translated by a clergyman of the Church of England. 

T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1851. 


Paterson (Alexander 8., D. D.), of Glasgow: Commentary, expository and 
practical, on First Thessalonians. Edinburgh, 1857. 

Pet (Anton Friedrich Ludwig), t 1861: Pauli Epist. ad Thess. 
Gryphiswaldiae, 1829. 
Puriiirs (John): The Greek of the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians 
explained. London, 1751. 


REICHE (Johann Georg): Authentiae posteris ad Thessalonicenses Epistolae 
vindiciae. | Gottingen, 1830. 
RoLLock (Robert): In Epistolam Paulo ad Thess. priorem comm. In Epistolam 
posteriorem comm. Edin. 1698. 
Lectures upon First and Second Thessalonians. . Edinburgh, 1606. 


ScHLEIERMACHER (Friedrich Danie] Ernest), f 1834: Pauli Epistolae ad Thessa- 
lonicenses. Berlin, 1823. 
ScHLICHTING (Jonas), ¢ 1564: In Epistolas ad Theasalonicenses Commentaria. 
1656. 
Scumip (Sebastian), ¢ 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg: Paraphrasis utriusque 
Epist. ad Thess. Hamburg, 1691. 
Scumipt (Prof. Paul.), Der erste Thessalonicherbrief, neu erklirt ; Neben einem 
Excurs tiber den zweiten gleichnahmigen Brief. 1884, 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 429 


Scuort (Heinrich August), ¢. 1835, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Epistolae Pauli ad 


Thees. et Gal. Leipsic, 1834. 
ScuateR (Dr. W.): A brief exposition, with notes on First and Second 
? Thessalonians. London, 1629. 


SPEAKER’s [BIBLE] Commentary: First and Second Thessalonians ; Introduction 
and Commentary by the Lord Bishop of Derry. 

London and New York, 1882. 

TURRETINI (Jean Alphonse), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentarius theoretico- 

practicus in Ep. ad Theas. Opera IT. Basil, 1739. 


WELLERvs (Hieronymus), ¢ 1572: Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli ad Phil. et 
ad Theses. Noribergae, 1561 
WILLIcuHIvs (Iodicus): Commentarius in utramque Epistolam ad Thessaloni- 
censes. Argentorati, 1545. 
ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott), ¢ 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Paraphrastische 


Erklarung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col. und Thess. 
, Géttingen [1771], 1787. 
ZaNCHIUS (Hieronymus), ¢ 1590: Commentarius in D. Pauli 1 et 2 Thessaloni- 
censes Epist. Opera VI. 1595. 
Zoe ius (Ulricus), ¢ 1531: Annotationes ad 1 Thessalonicenses. Opera IV. 





Digitized by Google 


THE 


FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


INTRODUCTION: 
SEC. L—THE CHURCH. 





HESSALONICA,? the ancient Oéfpu7 (Herod. vii. 121; Thue. i. 
61, al.), the Salneck celebrated by the German poets of the 
Middle Ages, now Saloniki, situated in the form of an amphi- 

Z} theatre on the slope of a hill at the north-east corner of the 

Thermaic gulf, was in the time of Christ the capital of the second 

district of the Roman province of Macedonia (Liv. xlv. 29), and the 

seat of a Roman praetor and questor (Cic. Planc. 41). The city was 
rebuilt, embellished, and peopled by the settlement of the inhabitants 
of the surrounding districts by Cassandra, who called it Thessalonica 

(first mentioned among the Greeks by Polybius), in honor of his 

wife Theasalonica, the daughter of the elder Philip. So we are informed 

in Dionys. Halicarn. Antig. Rom. i. 49; Strabo, vii. jin. vol. i. p. 480, 

ed. Falconer; Zonaras, Annal. xii. 26, vol. i. p. 685, ed. Du Fresne. 

Their account is more credible than the statement given by Stephan. 

Byzant. de urb. et popul. 8. v. Oecoadovixy, Tzetza, chil. x. 174 ff. (yet with 

both along with the above view), and the emperor Julian (Orato iii. p. 

200; Opp. Par. 1680, 4), that the change of name proceeded from Philip 

of Macedon to perpetuate his victory over the Thessalians (Occcaiév. . . 

vicn). By ita situation on the Thermaic gulf, and on the great commercial 

road (the so-called via Ignatia) which led from Dyrrachium, traversed 

Macedonia, extended to Thrace to the mouth of the Hebrus (Strabo, vii. 

vol. i. p. 467), and accordingly united Italy with Asia, Thessalonica became 

a flourishing commercial town,—great, rich, and populous by its trade 

(Strabo, vii. vol. i. p. 468: § viv pddsora tov dAdwv ebavdpei), luxurious and 
18ee Burgerhoudt, de coetue Christianorum  %See Tafel, de Thessalonica qusque agro 


Thessalonicensis ortu fatisque et prioris Pauli  dissertio geographica, Berol. 1830. Cousinéry, 


dis scriptae epistolae consilio atque argumento, voyaye dans la Macédoine, vol. I. Par. 1831, p. 
Lugd. Bat. 1825. 23 ff. 
431 


432 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


licentious by its riches. Greeks formed the stock of its inhabitants; next 
in number were the Roman colonists; and there was also a considerable 
Jewish population, who had been attracted by the briskness of trade, and 
were so considerable that, instead of a mere mpocevzy (gee Meyer on Acts 
xvi. 18), they possessed a synagogue proper (Acts xvii. 1). Already in the 
time of Christ Thessalonica was named by Antipater yfrnp 4. . . bone 
Maxedoving (comp. Anthol. gr., ed Jacobs, vol. II. Lips. 1794, p. 98); in the 
fifth century it was the metropolis of Thessaly, Achaia, and other prov- 
inces which were under the praefectus praetorio of Illyricum, who 
resided at Thessalonica. Many wars in subsequent ages oppressed the 
city; but as often as it was conquered and destroyed by the barbarians, it 
always rose to new greatness and power. Its union with the Venetians— 
to whom, on the weakness of the Greek empire, the Thessalonians sold 
their city—was at length the occasion of its becoming, in the year 1430, a 
prey to the Turks. Even at this day Thessalonica, after Constantinople, 
is one of the most flourishing cities of European Turkey. 

Paul reached Thessalonica, so peculiarly favorable for a rapid and wide 
diffusion of Christianity, on his second great missionary journey (see 
Meyer on Rom., ed. iv. p. 8 f.), when for the first time he came into 
Europe, in the year 58. He journeyed thither from Philippi by Amphi- 
polis and Apollonia (Acts xvii. 1), accompanied by two apostolic assistants, 
Silas (Silvanus) and Timotheus (see Acts xvii. 4, comp. with xvi. 3 and 
xvii. 14; see also Phil. ii. 22 comp. with Acts xvi. 8,12 ff). Paul, faithful 
to his custom, first turned himself to the Jews, but of them he gained only 
a few converts for the gospel. He found greater access among the prose- 
lytes and Gentiles (Acts xvii. 4). There arose, after the lapse of a few 
weeks (comp. also Phil. iv. 16), 2 mixed Christian congregation in Thes- 
salonica, composed of Jews and Gentiles, but the latter much more 
numerous (i. 9 and Acts xvii. 4, according to Lachmann’s correct reading). 
The Jews, embittered by this success among the Gentiles, raised a tumult, 
in consequence of which the apostle was forced to forsake Thessalonica 
(Acts xvii. 5 ff.). Conducted by night to the neighboring Macedonian 
city of Berea, Paul found there, among Jews and Gentiles, the most ready 
reception for the gospel. But scarcely had the news of this reached his 
opponents in Thessalonica than they hastened to Berea, and, stirring up 
the multitude, expelled the apostle from that city also. Yet Silas and 
Timotheus remained behind, for the confirmation and further instruction 
of the church at Berea. Paul himself directed his steps to Athens, and 


1At present there are about 22,000 Jews in Satonikt. 


INTRODUCTION. 433 


from thence, after a short residence, to Corinth, where he remained more 
than a year and a half (Acts xvii. 10 ff, xviii.). At a later period, the 
third great missionary journey of the apostle led him repeatedly back to 
Thessalonica (Acts xx. 1 ff.) 


SEC IT—OCCASION, DESIGN, AND CONTENTS. 


The persecution which had driven the apostle from Thessalonica soon 
also broke out against the church (ii. 14, iii. 8, 1.6). Thus it was not the 
mere yearning of personal love and attachment (ii. 17 ff.), but also care 
and anxiety (iii. 5) that urged him to hasten back to Thessalonica. Twice 
he resolved to do so, but circumstances prevented him (ii. 18). Accord- 
' ingly, no longer able to master his anxiety, he sent Timotheus, who had 
not suffered in the earlier persecution, from Athens (see on iii. 1, 2), in 
order to receive from him information concerning the state of the church, 
and to strengthen the Thessalonians by exhortation, and encourage them 
to faithful endurance. The return of Timotheus (iii. 6), and the message 
which he brought, were the occasion of the Epistle. This message was in 
the main consolatory. The church, in spite of persecution and trial, con- 
tinued stedfast and unshaken in the faith (i. 6, ii. 14), so that its members 
could be named as examples for Christians in all Macedonia and Achaia 
(i. 7), and their heroic faith was everywhere spread abroad (i. 8). They 
were also distinguished by their active brotherly love (i. 3, iv. 9, 10), and, 
upon the whole, by their faithful adherence to those rules of conduct 
pointed out to them by the apostle (iv. 1). Moreover, they had an affec- 
tionate remembrance of the apostle (iii. 6), and their congregational life 
had so flourished that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (v. 19) and prophecy (v. 
20) were manifested among them. But Timotheus had also to tell of 
defect and incompleteness (iii. 10). The church had not yet succeeded in 
preserving itself unstained by the two cardinal vices of heathenism—sen- 
suality and covetousness (iv. 3 ff.); they had not everywhere shown to the 
presbyters due respect and obedience (v. 12); and in consequence of their 
thought and feeling being inordinately directed to the advent of Christ, an 
unsettled and excited habit prevailed, which led to the neglect of the duties 
of their earthly calling, and to idleness (iv. 11 ff.). Lastly, the church was 
in great perplexity concerning the fate of their deceased Christian friends, 
being uncertain whether only those who were then alive, or whether also 
deceased Christians, participated in the blessings of the advent (iv. 13 ff.). 
Concerning this subject, it would appear, to judge from the introductory 
words of iv. 18, that the Thessalonians had requested information from 


the apostle. 
28 





434 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


The design of the Epistle accordingly was threefold. 1. The apostle, 
whilst testifying his joy for their conduct hitherto, would strengthen and 
encourage the church to persevering stedfastness in the confession of 
Christianity. 2. He would exhort them to relinquish those moral weak- 
nesses by which they were still enfeebled. 8. He would calm and con- 
sole them concerning the fate of the deceased by a more minute instruc- 
tion in reference to the advent. 


REeEMARK.—The opinion of Lipsius (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1854, 4, p. 905 ff.), 
that the design of the Epistle is to be sought for in considering it as a polemic 
directed against Judaistic opponents, is to be rejected as entirely erroneous. The 
supposed traces indicating this, which the Epistle is made to contain in rich 
abundance, are only forcibly pressed into the service. From i. 4-ii. 12, Lipsius 
infers that the apostolical dignity of Paul had been attacked, or at least threatened, 
in Thessalonica ; for it must have been for reasons of a personal nature that Paul 
so repeatedly and designedly puts stress upon his mode of preaching the gogpel, 
his personal relation to the Thessalonians, the reception and entrance which he 
had found among them. But such an inference is wholly inadmissible, as every- 
thing that Paul says concerning himself and his conduct has in the context its 
express counterpart—its express correlative. Inthe whole section, i. 2-ii. 16 (for 
the whole, and not merely i. 4-ii. 12, according to Lipsius, is closely connected 
together), the corresponding conduct of the Thessalonians is placed over against the 
conduct of Paul and his companions. There is therefore no room for the suppo- 
sition, that in what Paul remarks concerning himself there is a tacit polemical 
reference to third persons, namely, to Judaistic opponents; rather the apostle’s 
design in the section i. 2-ii. 16 is to bring vividly before the Thessalonians the 
facts of their conversion, in order to encourage them to stedfastness in Christianity 
by the representation of the grace of God, which was abundantly manifested amid 
those troubles and persecutions which had broken out upon them. Besides, the 
opinion of Lipsius, if we are to measure it according to the standard of his own 
suppositions, must appear unfounded. According to Lipsius, the opponents, with 
whom the apostle had to do in Thessalonica, were unconverted Jews, and only as a 
later effect of their machinations Paul was afraid of the formation of a Judaizing 
Christian party at Thessalonica, so that his labor was only directed to prevent and 
to make the attempt while yet there was time, whether the formation of a Jewish- 
Christian faction could not be suppressed in its first germs. But where in early 
Christianity is there any example of the apostolical dignity of Paul being dis- 
puted by the unconverted Jews? Such attacks, in the nature of the case, were 
raised against Paul only by the Jewish Christians; whereas the unconverted Jews 
naturally labored only to hinder him in the diffusion of the gospel, and accord- 
ingly manifested their hostility by acts of external violence, by opposition to his 
preaching, by laying snares for his life, etc. Comp. Acts ix. 23 ff, xiii. 45, xvii. 
5, 13, xxii. 22, al—From what has been said it follows how arbitrary it is when 
Lipsius further makes a selection from the account in ii. 3 ff, that the mention of 
nAdvn, axabapata, dé6A0¢, avOpdrrore apkoxety, Adyog xoAaxeiac, tpdpacic tAcovetias, and 
Cnreiv t& GvOpdrav défav, was designed to defend the apostle from the reproaches 
which, in point of fact, had been raised against him, on the part of the Jews, et 


INTRODUCTION. 435 


Thesealonica ; that, according to ii. 7 ff, the purity of his motives was doubted ; 
and that, according to ii. 13, it had been contended from a Judaistic point of view 
that his word was a human ordinance, and not founded on divine truth. Every- 
thing there adduced is explained simply and without any violence from the speci- 
fied design of the apostle, without our being constrained to think on any polemical 
subsidiary references. Where do we find a similar polemic in Paul, in which 
everything is veiled in mysterious darkness, and what is really intended never 
openly and decidedly brought forward? For no unprejudiced reader would 
maintain that the passage ii. 14-16, which Lipsius, entirely mistaking the whole 
plan of the Epistle, calls its most characteristic section, warrants, on account of 
the violent outburst against the Jews contained in it, the inferences which he 
deduces from it.—Further, when Lipsius makes the yearning of the apostle after 
the Thessalonians expressed in ii. 17-20, and his twofold resolution to return to 
them, occasioned because he saw in spirit the church perverted and distracted by 
the same hateful Judaistic opponents who caused him so much grief in Galatia, so 
that he wished to be personally present in Thessalonica in order to bafile the 
attacks of those enemies, all that he would here prove is forcibly introduced into 
the text. Paul himself, in iii. 1 ff, states the reason of his anxiety and twofold 
proposed journey quite differently. Certainly what Paul himeelf here says has 
little authority for Lipsius. He thinks that only a “slight power of combina- 
tion” (!) is requisite in order to perceive that it is not here only the effect of 
external trials that Paul feared; certainly it is only of this that the apostle 
directly speaks, but surely the confirmation and encouragement in the faith was a 
yet deeper reason, namely, the reason given by Lipsius (!).—When, further, Lip- 
sius refers we¢pdecy, iii, 5, to “the machinations of the Judaists,” this is a violence 
done to iii. 3; when, in fine, he discovers in v. 21, “an exhortation to caution in 
reference to those teachers who—to obtain for themselves an undisturbed entrance 
under the pretext of the free Christian zdpoua of prophecy—might aim at the 
subversion of the faith planted by Paul,” and in v. 22 a reference to “ Judaistic 
machinations,” these special explanations are nothing else than the vagaries of 
the imagination, which are not able to stand before a pure and thoughtful inter- 
pretation. 

The same remark, moreover, holds good of the opinion recently advanced by 
Hofmann (Die heil. Schrift neuen Testaments susammenhaingend untersucht, part 1, 
Nordl. 1862, p. 270 f.), that the first part of the Epistle was occasioned by the 
news brought by Timotheus to the apostle, that the Christians in Thessalonica 
had been persuaded by their heathen countrymen that they had become the prey 
of self-interested and crafty men, been involved by them in their Jewish machina- 
tions, and then given up to the misery occasioned thereby; and also that the 
Thessalonians could not understand why, during the whole time of their distress, 
Paul remained at a distance from them, and on this account they felt their dis- 
tress the more severely. To all this the contents of the first three chapters were 
an answer. They were designed to deliver the church from their depressed frame 
of mind, to meet the suspicions they entertained of their teachers and founders, 
and to efface the evil impression which their, and especially Paul’s absence, made 
on them. This threefold design was sufficiently satisfied by the three sections, i. 
2-10, ii. 1-12, ii. 13-iii. 13. 


According to its conienis, the Epistle is divided into two parts. After 





436 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


the salutation (i. 1) in the first or historical part, taken up with personal 
references (i. 2-iii. 18), Paul declares first,in general terms, his joy, 
expressed in thanksgiving, for the Christian soundness of the church (i. 2, 
3); and then in separate particulars, in an impressive and eloquent de- 
ecription, he asserts the operation of the grace of God manifested in their 
conversion to Christianity; whilst the gospel had been preached by him, 
the apostle, with energy and confidence, with undaunted, pure, and self- 
sacrificing love to his divine calling, and had been received by them, the 
Thessalonians, with eager desire, and stedfastly maintained amid suffering 
and persecution (i. 4-11. 16). Paul then speaks of the longing which came 
upon him, of the mission of Timotheus, and of the consolation which the 
return of Timotheus had now imparted to him (ii. 17-iii. 18). In the 
second or ethical-dogmatic part (iv. 1-v. 28) the apostle beseeches and exhorts 
the Thessalonians to make progress in holiness, to renounce fornication 
and covetousneas (iv. 1-8), to increase yet more and more in brotherly 
love (iv. 9, 10), and, instead of surrendering themselves to an unsettled 
disposition and to excitement, to be diligent and laborious in their worldly 
business (iv. 11, 12). The apostle then comforts them concerning the 
fate of their friends who had died before the advent, and exhorts them to 
be ever watchful and prepared for the coming of the Lord (iv. 18-v. 11). 
Then follow divers exhortations, and the wish that God would sanctify 
the Thessalonians wholly for the coming of Christ (v. 12-24). Concluding 
remarks succeed (v. 25-27), and the usual benediction (v. 28). 


SEC. 3—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 


When Paul composed this Epistle a long time could not have elapsed 
since the founding of the church of Thessalonica. The apostle is as yet 
entirely full of the impression which his residence in Thessalonica had 
made upon him; he lives and moves go entirely in the facts of the con- 
version of the Thessalonians and of his personal conduct to them, that 
only events can be here described which belong to the recent past. To 
this also points the fact that the longing after the Thessalonians which 
came over the apostle soon after his separation from them (ii. 17), still 
endures at the moment when he is composing this Epistle (iii. 11). 
And lastly, the whole second or moral-dogmatic portion of the Epistle 
shows that the Thessalonian Church, although in many respects already 
eminent and flourishing, as yet consisted only of novices in Christianity. 
Moreover, when Paul composed this Epistle, according to i. 7, 8, he had 
already preached the gospel in Achaia. According to iii. 6 (dpr.), the 


INTRODUCTION. 437 


Epistle was written tmmediately after the return of Timotheus from Thes- 
salonica. But from Acts xviii. 5,6, we learn that Timotheus and Silas, 
returning from Macedonia, rejoined Paul at Corinth at a time when he 
had not long sojourned there; as until then the gospel was preached by 
him chiefly to the Jews. Thus, then, there can exist no reason to doubt 
that the composition of this Epistle is to be assigned to the commencement 
of Paul's residence at Corinth, thus in the year 53, perhaps half a year after 
the arrival of the apostle in Macedonia, or after his flight from Thessa- 
lonica (comp. Wieseler’s Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Gottingen 
1848, p. 40 ff). 

The subscription of the Epistle: étypé¢7 amd 'AGyvav, is consequently 
erroneous, arising from a careless inference drawn from iii.1. Not only 
the modification of this view by Theodoret, followed by Hemming, Bul- 
linger, Balduin, and Aretius, that the first visit of the apostle to Athens 
(Acts xvii. 15 ff.) is here to be thought of,' is to be rejected; but also the 
suppositions of others, differing among themselves, according to which a 
later residence of the apostle at Athens is referred to. According to Calo- 
vius and Bottger (Beitr. zur hist.-krit. Kinleit. in die Paulin. Br., Gott. 1887, 
Part III. p. 18 ff), our Epistle was written at Athens on a subsequent 
excursion which Paul made to that city during his first residence at Cor- 
inth (against Bottger, see Wieseler’s Chron. p. 247); according to Wurm 
(Tubing. Zeitschr. f. Theologie, 1833, Part I. p. 78 ff.), on a journey which 
Paul undertook at the time indicated in Acts xviii. 22 from Antioch to 
Greece (see against him Schneckenburger in the Studien der ev. Geistlich- 
keit Wurtembergs, 1834, vol. VII. Part I. p. 137 ff.); according to Schrader 
(Apostel Paulus, Part I. p. 90 ff., p. 162 ff.), at the time indicated in Acts 
xx. 2, 3, after a third (?) visit of the apostle to the Thessalonians (see 
against him Schneckenburger, Beit. zur Hinleit. in’s N. T. p. 165 ff. ; Schott, 
proleg. p. 14 ff.); according to Kéhler (Ueber die A bfassungszeit der epistolis- 
chen Schriften in N. T. p. 112 f.) and Whiston (Primitive Christianity Revived, 
vol. ITI., Lond. 1711, p. 46 f., p. 110), at a residence in Athens at a period 
beyond the history contained in the Acts, K6hler assuming the year 66, 
and Whiston the year 67 after Christ as the period of composition (see 
against the former, Schott, proleg. p. 21 ff.; and against the latter, Ben- 
son’s Paraphrase and Notes, 2d ed. p. 9 ff.). 


1 Eathalius (in Zacagn. Collectan. monument. ff. For after the words: Tavryy tmerd\Ac 
vet. t. I. p. 660), and Oecumenius following ad ‘A@nvev, in giving the occasion of the 
him verbatim, do not judge so. Foralthough Epistle, they add: ‘O dwdéaroAos wodAds OAipas 
they assume the place of composition to be wadiyv év Bepoig xai év QcAcwwos THs Maxe8oviag 
Athens, yet they must have thought on a = cai év KopivOy, . . . awoardAAcs Tipsdbeor pds 
later residence in Athens than Acts xvii.15 avrovs pera ris éwtoroAss TavTAS. 





438 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


SEC. 4.—_GENUINENESS.' 


The historical attestation of the Epistle, although there are no sure indi- 
cations of it found in the apostolic Fathers,? is yet so old, continuous, and 
universal (Iren. Haer. v. 6.1; Clein. Al. Paedag. i. p. 88 D, ed. Sylb. ; Ter- 
tull. de resurr. carn. 24; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 65; Canon Murat., Peschite, Mar- 
cion [in Tert. adv. Marc. v. 15, and Epiph. Haer. xlii. 9], ete., see van 
Manen, /.c. pp. 5-21), that a justifiable reason for doubting its authen- 
ticity from external grounds is inconceivable. 

Schrader was the first to call in question the genuineness from infernal 
grounds (Apostel Paulus, Part V., Leipz. 1836, p. 23 ff.). In his paraphrase 
on iii. 18, iv. 2, 8, 6, 9, 10, 14,17, v. 8, 10, 19, 23, 26, 27, he thought that he had 
discovered suspicious abnormal expressions (see exposition-of these pas- 
sages). Baur (Paulus der Ap. Jesu Chr. Stuttg. 1845, p. 480 ff, see against 
him, W. Grimm in den Stud. u. Krit. 1850, IV. p. 753 ff.; J. P. Lange, das 
apost. Zeitalter, vol. I., 1853, p. 108 ff. Davidson, Introd., N. T., London, 1868, 
vol. I., p.20 ff.), in a detailed justification of his formerly cherished doubts 
(see Baur, die sogen. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P., Stuttg. u. Tub. 1835), but until 
then only merely asserted, questions the genuineness of the Epistle. Ata 
still later period he has maintained its spuriousness in his and Zeller’s Theol. 
Jahrb, 1855, Part IT. p. 141 ff. A. B., van der Vriess alone has agreed with 
him (De beide Brieven aan de Thessalonicensen, historisch-Kritisch onderzoek 
naar hunnen oorsprung, Leyden, 1865, see in opposition to him: Hilgen- 
feld, in his Zeilschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1866, 2, p. 295 ff.). 

The arguments insisted upon by Baur in his Apostel Paulus are the fol- 
lowing :—1. In the whole collection of Pauline Epistles there is none so 
inferior in the character and importance of its contents as 1 Thessalo- 
nians; with the exception of the view contained in iv. 18-18, no dogmatic 
idea whatever is brought into prominence. The whule Epistle consists of 
general instructions, exhortations, wishes, such as are in the other Epistles 
mere adjuncts to the principal contents; but here what is in other cases 
only an accessory is converted into the principal matter. This insignifi- 
cance of contents, the want of any special aim and of any definite occa- 





1S8ee W. C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de 
echtheid van Paulus’ eersten brief aan de Thee- 
salonicensen (De echtheid van Paulus’ brieven 
aan de Thess. onderzocht. I.), Weesp. 1865. 

£Such references are erroneously supposed 
to be found in Clem. Rom. ep. I. ad Corinth. 
88. Ignat.ad Polyc.I. Polyc. ad Phtlipp. ii. 4. 

§8The difference of Baur’s views in reference 
to the First Epistle in this last-mentioned 
place consists in this :—1. That the preaumed 


dependence of our Epistle on the Corinthian 
Kpistles is more emphatically stated and 
supported by some further parallels forcibly 
brought together; 2. Not, as formerly (comp, 
Baur’s Apost. Paulus, p. 488), the First, but 
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, is 


' regarded as having been written first; and 


from ita spuriousness, as it was not composed 
until the death of Nero, the spuriousness of 
our Epistle is inferred. 


INTRODUCTION. . 439 


sion, is a mark of un-Pauline origin. 2. The Epistle betrays a depend- 
ence on the Acts of the Apostles and on the other Pauline Epistles, 
especially those to the Corinthians. 3. The Epistle professes to have 
been written only a few months after the apostle’s first visit to Thessa- 
lonica, and yet there is a description of the condition of the church which 
evidently only suits a church already existing ‘for a considerable time. 
4 What the Epistle in iv. 14-18 contains concerning the resurrection of 
the dead, and the relation of the departed and the living to the advent of 
Christ, seems to agree very well with 1 Cor. xv. 52; but it goes farther, and 
gives such a concrete representation of those transcendent matters as we 
never elsewhere find with the apostle. 

As to the first objection, according to Baur’s view, our Epistle “arose 
from the same interest in the advent, which is still more decidedly ex- 
pressed in the second Epistle.” Baur, then, must have considered all the 
other contents of the Epistle only as a foil for this one idea; and as in his 
representation of the Pauline doctrine (p. 507 ff.) he judged the escha- 
tology of Paul not worth an explanation, it is not to be wondered at that he 
considered it impossible that Paul could have made the advent the chief 
subject of a whole Epistle. But apart from this, that, according to other 
testimonies of the Pauline Epistles, the idea of an impending advent had 
& great practical weight with the apostle; that, further, the expectation 
of it and of the end of the world in connection with it, was well fitted to 
produce the greatest excitement in a church the majority of which con- 
sisted of converted heathens, so that it was necessary to calm them con- 
cerning it; that, lastly, the explanation concerning the advent in so many 
special points, as, for example, concerning the relation of unbelievers, etc., 
is left entirely untouched, so that the interest in the advent in and for 
itself cannot have been the reason for this instruction, but only a peculiar 
want of the church: apart from all these considerations, the disorder exist- 
ing among the Thessalonians on account of the advent does not form the 
chief contents of the Epistle, but only one point along with others which 
gave occasion to its composition. Add to this, that all the further cir- 
cumstances, which were the occasion of our Epistle, present themselves 
before us in it, united together with such clearness and in so living a 
character, as to form a distinct general picture of the Thessalonian 
church, so that it cannot be asserted that there is a want of a definite 
exciting occasion (comp. sec. 2). It is admitted that the didactic and dog- 
matic element in our Epistle recedes before the hortatory, and generally 
before the many personal references of the apostle’s love and care for the 


440 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


church; but the amount more or less of dogmatic explanations can never 
decide whether an epistle belongs to Paul or not. The Epistles of the 
apostle are not the products of Christian learning in the study, but were 
called forth by the urgency of circumstances, and thus are always the 
products of historical necessity. We have then only to inquire whether 
our Epistle corresponds to the relations of the church, which it presup- 
poses; if it does correspond with the relations and wants of the church, as 
is evident to every unprejudiced mind, its contents receive thereby the 
importance and special interest which Baur misses. Lastly, it is not true 
that the instructions, exhortations, and wishes in our Epistle are of so 
general a nature, that what is elsewhere a mere accessory is here raised 
into an essential. Rather an exhortation is never found in our Epistle, 
which had not a special reference to the peculiar condition of the Thessa- 
lonian church. 

As regards the second argument, a use of the Acts of the Apostles by the 
author of the Epistle is inferred chiefly from the fact that the Epistle is 
nothing else than an extended statement, reminding the Thessalonians of 
what was already well known to them, of the history of their conversion, 
known to us from the Acts. Thus i. 4 ff. merely states how the apostle 
preached the gospel to them, and how they received it; ii. 1 ff. points 
more distinctly to the circumstances of the apostle’s coming to Thessa- 
lonica, and the way in which he labored among them ; 111. 1 ff. relates only 
what happened a short time before, and what the Thessalonians already 
knew. Everywhere (comp. already Schrader, supra, p. 24) only such 
things are spoken of as the readers knew well already, as the writer him- 
self admits by the perpetually recurring eidére¢ (i. 4), abrot yap oidare (ii. 1), 
xaBeg oidare (ii. 2), prunpovebere ydp (ii. 9), xabdrep oidare (11. 11), avrot yap 
oldare (iii. 3), xaBOc nad éyévero nat oidare (iii. 4), oldare yép (iv. 2). In answer 
to this objection, it is to be observed: (1) Apart from the inconsistency 
that what, according to Baur, should be only a foil is here converted into 
the chief contents, the history of the conversion of the Thessalonians does 
not form the chief contents of the Epistle, but only the contents of a por- 
tion of the first or historical half. (2) The remembrance of the founding 
of the church was not useless, nor a mere effusion of the heart (de Wette), 
but an essential part of the design of the apostle, serving as it did to 
strengthen and invigorate the church in stedfastness in the faith. (8) 
The often repeated appeal to the consciousness of the readers is so much 
the more natural as it refers to facts which happened during the apostle’s 
recent visit to Thessalonica, and with which his mind was completely 


INTRODUCTION. 441 


occupied. (4) The supposed lengthiness is only the fullness and inspirited 
liveliness of the discourse. (5) If the account of the conversion of the 
Thessalonians as described in the Epistle is in agreement with the narra- 
tive in the Acts, this circumstance is not a point against, but for the 
authenticity of our Epistle, inasmuch as Baur’s view that the Acts is a 
patched work of the second century, ransacking Christian history for a 
definite purpose, and accordingly designedly altering it (see Baur, Ap. 
Paulus, p. 180), merits no respect on account of its arbitrariness and want 
of consistency. (6) Lastly, the harmony between the Acts and our 
Epistle is so free, so unforced, and so slightly pervading (comp. iii. 1, 2, 
with Acts xvii. 15, xviii. 5), that a literary use of the one by the other is 
absolutely inconceivable—The passage ii. 14-16, on which Baur lays 
peculiar stress, is neither dependent on the Acts nor un-Pauline (see 
Commentary). 

It is also asserted that there are evident reminiscences more or 
less of other Pauline Epistles, especially of the Epistles to the Corin- 
thians. Thus i. 5 is manifestly an imitation of 1 Cor. ii. 4; i. 6 
is taken from 1 Cor. xi. 1, and i. 8 from Rom. i. 8; the passage 
ii. 4 ff. briefly condenses the principles enunciated in 1 Cor. ii. 4, 
iv. 8 f, ix. 15 f., and especially 2 Cor. ii. 17, v.11. Besides rdeoveéia, 
ii. 5, points to 2 Cor. vii. 2, duvdpevoe év Bépec elvat, ii. 6, and yp) émcBapieoat, 
ii. 9, to 2 Cor. xi. 9, and ii. 7 to 1 Cor. iii. 2. A simple comparison of these 
passages suffices to show the worthlessness of the inferences derived from 
them. Verbal similarities of so trifling and harmless a nature as those 
adduced might easily be discerned between the Epistles to the Romans 
and Galatians, both of which Baur regards as genuine. Besides, the cir- 
cumstances of the Thessalonian and Corinthian churches, as well as the 
history of their founding, were in many respects similar; but similar 
thoughts in the same writer clothe themselves easily in a certain similar- 
ity of expression. 

Baur supports his third argument on i. 7, 8, ii. 18, iii. 10, iv. 9 f., 11 f. 
But these passages do not prove what is intended (see exposition). 

Lastly, in reference to the fourth argument, Baur himself confesses that 
the section iv. 14-18 can only be made valid against the authenticity of 
the Epistle, provided its spuriousness is already proved on other grounds. 
But as such other grounds do not exist, and as Baur has not explained 
himself further on the subject, we might dismiss this argument, were it 
not that it might be turned into a sharp weapon against himself. For, 
according to iv. 15, 17, the author of the Epistle regards the advent of 


442 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


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


CHAP. I. 443 


Hlabdov xpdgs Osocadovixets extotod) xpw@rn. 


A B K, », 3, 37, 80, e al. pler. Copt. Damasc. have IIpé¢ Gecoadovixeic 4, the 
shortest and apparently the oldest title. It is also found in D E, but prefix- 
ing "Apxeras, 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 1. After cipfvn, Elz. Matth. Scholz, Bloomfield (The Greek Testament, with 
English notes, 9th edit. vol. II., London 1855) add: axd Geov marpig judv nai 
xupiov 'Incot Xpiotov. Bracketed by Lachm. Correctly erased by Tisch., Alford 
and Ellicott, according to B F G 47, 73, 115, et al. Syr. Baschm, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. 
Or. lat. seu Ruf. (dis.) Chrys. (comm.) Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. An interpola- 
tion, for the sake of completion, taken from the usual commencement of Paul’s 
Epistles. Recently the addition: ard Oeov marpig judy Kai Kupiov 'Inoot Xproroi, 
is defended by Bouman (Chartae theologiene, lib. i., Traj. ad Rhen. 1853, p. 61) and 
Reiche (Commentar. criticus in N. T. tom. II. p. 321 sqq.), but on insufficient 
grounds. For that the addition might easily have been erroneously overlooked 
by scribes, on account of the similar preceding words: & Oe@ rarpl Kai xupiy 
"Incov Xpiorg, is very improbable on account of the difference in the prepositions 
and cases of the two forms; that it might have been erased as an inelegant repe- 
tition has 2 Thess. i. 2 against it, for then there also traces of similar corrections 
in the critical testimonies would appear; and lastly, that the bare ydpi¢ ipiv nat 
eipfvn, without any further definition, is not elsewhere found in any of Paul’s 
writings, would only occasion a doubt, were it in itself unsuitable; but this is not 
the case here, as, from the directly preceding words év Oe@ rarpi Kai Kvpig 'Incob 
Xpior@, the specific Christian sense of the formula is self-apparent.—Ver. 2. tuav, 
in the Receptus, after pveiay, is wanting in A B yx* 17, et al. It is found in C D 
E FG K L y**, in almost all min., as well as in many Greek and Latin 
Fathers. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, erroneously erase it. How easily might 
vudy after pveiav be overluoked on account of tuav before uveiav! Comp. Eph. i. 
16, where, in a similar case, there is the same uncertainty of MSS.—Ver. 3. Elz. 
has vudv tov Epyov tij¢ miotews, Instead of this, D E F G, Syr. Arr. Aeth. Vulg. 
It. Ambrosiast. have tov épyouv [F. G. rd épyov] tHe miorewg iuov. An interpre- 
tation from misunderstanding.—Ver. 5. ~pog tua] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, 
Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, Alford, Reiche, Ellicott have et¢ iuac. Against A C** DE F 
G, min. Copt. Chrys. ed. Theoph. ed.—Instead of the Receptus év tyiv, A C x, 
min. Vulg. MS. have suiv; but év was absorbed by the last syllable of éyev@Oqjuev. 
—Ver. 7, ritov] recommended to consideration by Griesb., received by Lachm. 
Tisch., Alford and Ellicott, according to B D* min. Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. 
Baschm. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrogiast. Pel. Elz. Matth. Scholz, 





444 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Reiche, read the plural riove (from which trios, in D** E 49, proceed, which 
Mill takes for a neuter form, as tAovroc), according to A C F G K L@, most 
min. and many Gr. ves.; but it is a correction the better to adapt the predicate 
to the collective subject, and thus apparently to strengthen the expressed 
praise; whilst the plural transfers to individual members of the church what the 
singular predicates of them in general, considered as a unity. Otherwise Bou- 
man (i.¢. p. 62 f.), according to whom rivroug of the Receptus is the original, from 
which réroc was erroneously formed, and from it riov proceeded, being regarded 
as an error of the nom. sing., and it was considered the easiest method to correct 
the mistake by changing the nominative singular into the accusative singular.— 
xai év ry is to be received, according to A B C D E F Gy, min. Vulg. It. Syr. 
utr. Theodoret, Ambrosiast. Pel., instead of the Receptus xai rg; so Lachm. 
Scholz (with whom it has been omitted by an error of the press), Tisch, Ellicott.— 
Ver.8. Elz. has xai'Ayaig. So also Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, and Ellicott. 
But Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz and Tisch. 8, have «ai év rg 'Azaig, according 
toC DE FG K Lyx, min. plur. Syr. Slav. MS. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. Oec. Am- 
brosiast, Pelag. Correctly; for the repetition of the preposition and the article is 
necessary, a8 Macedonia and Achaia were to be distinguished as separate provinces. 
—The «al of the Receptus before év mavri réry (defended by Matth. and Scholz, 
suspected by Griesb.) is to be erased, according to A B C D* F G x, 17, 37, et al. 
mult. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. It. Ambrosiast. ed.; so Lachm. Tisch. and 
Alford. Because, being usually after ob pévov...aAd, it was easily inserted.— 
ypacg Exew) correctly changed by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott into 
éxew sac, according to A BC DE FG y, min. perm. Theodoret. The Receptus 
is an alteration, for emphasis, to contrast 9ua¢, ver. 8, and avrol, ver. 9.—Ver. 9. 
Eoxopev] Elz. has Zxouev against preponderating evidence, and devoid of meaning. 
On account of the similar form with e in uncial mss.,o might easily be omitted. 
—Ver. 10. é« rév vexpdv) Elz. has éx vexpdv, against BD E F G L y, min. plur. 
and Fathers. The article rév was lost in the last syllable of vexpav. 


ConTENTS.—After the address and salutation (ver. 1), Paul testifies to his 
readers how in his prayers he constantly thanks God for them all, men- 
tioning without ceasing their faith, love, and hope, being firmly convinced 
of their election ; for, on the one hand, the gospel was preached to them 
with power and much confidence; and, on the other hand, they, amid 
many trials, had received it with joyfulness, so that they had become 
examples to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia: for from them the 
word of the Lord had spread, and the knowledge of their faith had pene- 
trated everywhere, so that he had not to relate anything about it, but, on 
the contrary, he hears it mentioned by others what manner of entrance 
he had to them, and how they had turned from idols to the living and 
true God (vv. 2-10). 

Ver. 1. [See Note XLVI. pages 458-460.] It isa mark of the very early 
composition of the Epistle, and consequently of its authenticity, that Paul 
does not call himself arécrodog. For it was very natural that Paul, in 
regard to the first Christian churches to whom he wrote, whom he had 
recently left, and who had attached themselves with devoted love to him 
and his preaching, did not feel constrained to indicate himself more defi- 


CHAP. I. l. 445 


nitely by an official title, as the simple mention of his name must have 
been perfectly sufficient. It was otherwise in his later life. With refer- 
ence to the Galatians and Corinthians, in consequence of the actual oppo- 
sition to his apostolic authority in these churches, Paul felt himself 
constrained to vindicate his full official dignity at the commencement of 
his Epistles. And so the addition arécrotoc, occasioned at first by imper- 
ative circumstances, became at a later period a usual designation, espe- 
cially to those churches which were personally unknown to the apostle 
(Epistles to Rom. Col. Eph.), among whom, even without any existing 
opposition, such a designation was necessary in reference to the future. 
An exception was only natural where, as with the Philippians and with 
Philemon, the closest and most tried love and attachment united the 
apostle with the recipients of his Epistles. The supposition of Chrysos- 
tom, whom Oecumenius and Theophylact follow, is accordingly to be 
rejected, that the apostolic title was suppressed dia rd veoxatyyfroug elvat 
tovg dvdpac xat pndixw avrov reipav eiAngéva, for then it ought not to be 
found in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. Further, the view 
of Zwingli, Estius, Pelt, and others is to be rejected, that Paul omitted his 
apostolic title out of modesty, as the same title could not be assigned to 
Silvanus (and Timotheus); for, not to mention that this reason is founded 
on a distorted view of the Pauline character, and that the two companions 
of the apostle would hardly lay claim to his apostolic rank, such a suppo- 
sition is contradicted by 2 Cor. i.1; Col. i. 1—xat ZcAovavdg nat Trd6eoc] 
Both are associated with Paul in the address, not to testify their agree- 
ment in the contents of the Epistle, and thereby to confer on it so much 
greater authority (Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Pelt), or to testify that the 
contents were communicated to the apostle by the Holy Ghost (Macknight), 
but simply because they had assisted the apostle in preaching the gospel 
at Thessalonica. The simple mention of their names, without any addi- 
tion, was sufficient on account of their being personally known. By 
being included in the address, they are represented as joint-authors of the 
Epistle, although they were so only in name. It is possible, but not cer- 
tain, that Paul dictated the Epistle to one of them. (According to Berth- 
old, they translated the letter conceived in Aramaic into Greek, and 
shared in the work.)}—Silvanus (as in 2 Cor. i. 19) 1s placed before Timo- 
theus, not perhaps because Timotheus was the amanuensis, and from 
modesty placed his name last (Zanchius), but because Silvanus was older 
and had been longer with Paul. 'Ev ©e6 rarpi . . . Xprord is to be closely 
united with rg éxxAyoig Ocacadovinkuy : to the church of the Thessalonians in 
God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ,—that is, whose being, whose 
characteristic peculiarity, consists in fellowship with God the Father (by 
which they are distinguished from heathen éxxAnota) and with the Lord 
Jesus Christ (by which they are distinguished from the Jewish éxxAnoia). 
Erroneously, Grotius: quae exstitit, id agente Deo Patre et Christo. The 
article rj is neither to be repeated before éy Oc nor is rg obsy to be sup- 
plied (Olshausen, de Wette, and Bloomfield erroneously supply ote, by 
itaelf, without the article; this could not be the construction, as it would 





446 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


contain a causal statement), because the words are blended together in 
the unity of the idea of the Christian church (see Winer’s Grammar, p. 128 
[E. T. 136]). Schott arbitrarily refers é¢v Oe «.7.A, to yxalpew Atyovow, to 
be supplied before xzdpic tuiv; for zap tpiv cal eip. takes the place of the 
usual Greek salutation yaipew Atyovory. Hofmann’s view! amounts to 
the same as Schott’s, when he finds in év 6e6 «.r.4. “a Christian extension 
of the usual epistolary address,” importing that it is in God the Father 
and in the Lord Jesus Christ that the writers address themselves by letter 
to the churches. Still more arbitrarily Ambrosiaster (not Theophylact) 
and Koppe, who erase the concluding words: amd Gcoi x.r.A. (see critical 
note), have placed a point after Qcocadouxéwy, and united é Oe . . . Xpe- 
org With yap ipiv nat eipfyn. For (1) the thought: ydpe tyiv (ore) év 
Oe@ x.7.A., instead of azd Gcod x.7./., is entirely un-Pauline; (2) the placing 
of éy Oc «7.4, first in 80 calm a writing as the address of the Epistle, and 
without any special reason, is inconceivable; (3) 2 Thess. i. 1, 2 contra- 
dicts the idea.— ydpi ipiv xat eipfvn] See Otto, Ueber den apostolischen 
Segensgruss (Jahrb. fur Deutsche Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff.) and Meyer on 
Rom. i.7. Asa Christian transformation of the heathen form of saluta- 
tion, the words, grammatically considered, should properly be conjoined 
with the preceding in a single sentence: IlatvAog xad E .. . TH bxxAnoig 0. 
.. » Gp Kai eipfryy (sc. Aéyovorv). | 
Ver. 2. [On verses 2-10, see Note XLVII. pages 460, 461.] E’yapiorotpev] 
The plural, which Koppe, Pelt, Koch, Jowett, and others refer to Paul 
only, is most naturally to be understood of Paul, Silvanus, and Timo- 
theus, on account of ver. 1 compared with 1i. 18, where the apostle, to 
obviate a mistaken conception of the plural, expressly distinguishes himself 
from his apostolic helpers.—r¢ @e¢] Thanks is rendered to God, because 
Paul in his piety recognizes only His appointment as the first cause of 
the good which he has to celebrate.—révrore] even if tpzér after pvelay (see 
critical note) is omitted, belongs to evyapwrotpev, not to pveiav roby, as 
the expression: pveiav roveiofa: repi rivéc, instead of rivdéc,—although not 
unknown to the classical writers, (Plato Protag. 317 E.)—is un-Pauline. 
It is not to be weakened (with Koppe) in the sense of roAAdacc, certainly 
also not (with Zanchius and Pelt) to be limited to the feelings of the 
apostle, that the evyaporeiy took place “non actu sed affectu” (comp. 
already Nicholas de Lyra: semper in habitu, etsi non semper in actu), 
but to be understood absolutely always ; certainly, according to the nature 
of the case, hyperbolically. Moreover, not without emphasis does Paul 
Bay: wept wévruv tov, in order emphatically to declare that his thanks- 
giving to God referred to ali the members of the Thessalonian church 
without exception.—pveiav ipov moby. éxi rav rpocevzov tov) These 
words are conjoined, and to be separated from the preceding by a comma. 
The clause is no Kmitation of ebyapiorotpev mévrore: when, or as often 
as we make mention of you (Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping; 
on éri, see Meyer on Rom. i. 10); but the statement of the manner 


1 Die h. Schrift neuen Testaments susammenhdangend untersucht, Part I. Nordl. 1863. 


CHAP. I. 2, 3. 447 


of ebzap.: whilst we, etc. Only by the addition of this participial clause 
is the statement of his thanks and prayer for the Thessalonians 
completed. 

Ver. 3. As the apostle has first stated the personal object of his thanks- 
giving, so now follows a further statement of its material object. Ver. 8 is 
therefore a parallel clause to pvelav .. . fudv (ver. 2), in which pynpovebovres 
corresponds to pveiav rotobpevor, tuo tov Epyov... Xpiorov to tov after 
yveiav, and lastly, éurpoobev . . . fudy to ent trav rpocevydv judy. Schott, 
Koch, and Auberlen (in Lange’s Bibelwerk, Th. X., Bielef. 1864, 2 Ed. 1867) 
incorrectly understand ver. 3 as causal ; the statement of the cause follows. 
in ver. 4.—adiadeinruc] unceasingly does not belong to the preceding uveiav 
rotobuevor,| for, as an addition inserted afterwards, it would drag, but to 
pvnpovebovrac (Calvin, Ellicott and others), so that it begins the new clause 
with emphasis.—pypovevew is not intransitive: to be mindful of (Er. 
Schmid: memoria repetentes; Fromond: memores non tam in orationi- 
bus sed ubique; Auberlen), but transitive, referring to the making men- 
tion of them-in prayer. [XLVII a.]—izév] is, by Oecumenius, Erasmus 
(undecidedly), Vatablus, Calvin, Zwingli, Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, 
Hunnius, Balduin, regarded as the object of pvnpovetovrec standing alone, 
whilst évexa is to be supplied before the genitives rov épyov tig mior. x.t.A, 
But this union is artificial, and the supposed ellipsis without grammatical 
justification. It would be better to regard rot épyov «.r.A. as a develop- 
ment of tuav in apposition ; but neither is this in itself nor in relation to 
ver. 2 to be commended. Accordingly, tzéy is to be joined to the follow- 
ing substantives, so that its force extends to all the three following points. 
What Paul approvingly mentions in his prayers are the three Christian 
cardinal virtues, faith, love, and hope, in which his readers were: dis- 
tinguished, see v. 8; Col. i. 4,5; 1 Cor. xiii. 18. But Paul does not praise 
them simply in and for themselves, but a peculiar quality of each—each 
according to a special potency. First their rior, and that their épyov rij¢ 
niorewc, ior is faith subjectively. That rd épyov ri¢ ricrewc is not to be 
understood periphrastically for ti micrews? (Koppe), nor does it corres- 
pond with the pleonastic use of the Hebrew 433, is evident, as (1) such a 
use of the Greek épyov is not demonstrable (see Winer’s Grammar, p. 571 
(EF. T. 615]); and (2) épyov rie riorewe must be similarly understood as the 
two following double expressions, but in them the additions «ézov and 
trropovge are by no means devoid of import. Also Kypke’s explanation, 
according to which épyov ricrews denotes veritas fidei, is to be rejected, as 
this meaning proceeds from the contrast of Zpyov and Adyoc, of which there 
is no trace in the passage. Not less erroneous is it, with Calvin, Wolf, 
and others, to take épyov ry¢ ricrewe absolutely as faith wrought, ie. 
wrought by the Holy Ghost or by God. An addition for this purpose 
would be requisite ; besides, in the parallel expressions (ver. 3) it is the 


1Luther, Bullinger, Baiduin, Er. Schmid, ris wioress as an epexegetical genitive, and 
Harduin, Benson, Moldenhauer,Koch,Bloom- converts the double expression into the 
field, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Auberlen. unimportant saying: “Their doing or con- 

£So in essentials Hofmann, who considers duct consists in this, that they believed.” 


448 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


self-activity of the readers that is spoken of. In a spiritless manner Flatt 
and others reader épyov as an adjective: your active faith. Similarly, but 
with a more correct appreciation of the substantive, Estius, Grotius, 
Schott, Koch, Bloomfield, and others: operis, quod ex fide proficiscitur ; 
according to which, however, the words would naturally be replaced by 
miorie évepyounévy (Gal. v. 6). So also de Wette: your moral working pro- 
ceeding from faith. Hardly correct, as—({1) ré épyov can only denote work, 
not working. (2) The moral working proceeding from faith, according to 
Paul, is love, so that there would here be a tautology with what follows. 
Clericus refers rd Epyov rij¢ miotewc to the acceptance of the gospel (Opus... 
erat, ethnicismo abdicato mutatoque prorsus vivendi instituto, christianam 
religionem profiteri atque ad ejusdem normam vitam in posterum institu- 
ere; quae non poterant fieri nisi a credentibus, Jesum vere a Deo missum 
atque ab eo mandata accepisse apostolos, ideoque veram esse universam 
evangelii doctrinam); so also Macknight, according to whom the accept- 
ance of the gospel is called an épyov on account of the victory over the 
prejudices in which the Thessalonians were nourished, and on account of 
the dangers to which they were exposed by their acceptance of Christianity. 
But this reason is remote from the context. Chrysostom,' Theodoret, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bisping, and others understand the words 
of the verification of faith by stedfastness under persecution. This mean- 
ing underlying the words appears to come nearest to the correct sense. 
tuay tov épyov ti tictewe denotes your work of faith; but as épyov has the 
emphasis (not sicrewc, as Hofmann thinks), it is accordingly best 
explained: the work which is peculiar to your faith—by which it is 
characterized, inasmuch as your faith is something begun with energy, 
and held fast with resoluteness, in spite of all obstacles and oppositions. 
This meaning strikingly suits the circumstances of the Epistle.—Ka? row 
nbrov tie ayaryc]| the second point of the apostle’s thanksgiving. ‘Ayd77 is 
not love to God, or to God and our neighbor (Nicol. Lyr.), also not to 
Christ, as if rov xupiov ju. "I. X. belonged to dyémn¢ (Cornelius a Lapide), 
still less love to the apostle and his companions (Natal. Alexander: 
labores charitatis vestrae, quibus nos ex Judaeorum seditione et insidiis 
eripuistis, quum apud vos evangelium praedicaremus; Estius, Benson), 
but love to fellow-Christians (comp. Col. i. 4). Kémog ri¢ aydérne denotes 
the active labor of love, which shuns no toil or sacrifice, in order to 
minister to the wants of our neighbors: not a forbearing love which bears 
with the faults and weaknesses of others (Theodoret); nor is the genitive 
the genitive of origin, the work which proceeds from love (so Clericus, 
Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield, and most critics); but the genitive 
of possession, the work which is pecukar to love, by which it is 
characterized. According to de Wette, xéroc rij¢ aydrnc might refer also to 
the labor of rulers and teachers (v.12). Contrary to the context, as ver. 
8 contains only the further exposition of ver. 2; but according to ver. 2, 


ATi dor. rod épyou ris wlorens; Sri ov8ty = swicrews. Ei miorevers, wdvra wdoxe’ ai be ph 
Upey wepéxAwwe TY évoTaciy TOUTO yap «pyoy =  Fdoxets, OV MoTEvers. 


OHAP. I. 5. 451 


the --! habuerit, non ore tantum sed facto declaravistis.” That the conclud- 
ing words of ver. 5, xa6d¢ oldare ... duds, which apparently treats of the 
manner of the apostle’s entrance, contains only a recapitulatory statement 
of év Aéyy ... ToAAR, appealing to the testimony of the Thessalonians, is a 
sufficient condemnation of this strange and artificial explanation.—év Adyy 
uévov] [XLVII e.] tn word only, t.e. not that it was a bare announce- 
ment, a bare communication in human words, which go easily fade away. 
Grotius: Non stetit intra verba. But the apostle says ot yuévov, because 
human speech was the necessary instrument of communication.—a4Aa «ai 
év duvépet x.7.4.] By dévauss is not to be understood miracles by which the 
power of the preached gospel ‘was attested ;! for if so, the plural would 
have been necessary. Nor is the gospel denoted as a miraculous power 
(Benson), which meaning in itself is possible. Nor is the efficacy of the 
preached word among the Thessalonians indicated (Bullinger: Per 
virtutem intellexit efficaciam et vim agentem in cordibus fidelium). But 
it forms simply the contrast to Aéyoc, and denotes the tmpressive power 
accompanying the entrance of Paul and his followers.—é» mvebyare dyiv] 
Theodoret, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond, B. a Piconius, Natalis 
Alexander, Benson, Macknight interpret this of the communication of 
the Holy Spirit to the readers. But the communication of the Holy 
Spirit is beyond the power of the apostles, as being only possible on the 
part of God. Besides, ¢v mvebyar: can only contain a statement of the 
manner in which Paul and his assistants preached the gospel. Accord- 
ingly, the meaning is: our preaching of the gospel was carried on among 
you in the Holy Ghost, that is, in a manner which could only be ascribed 
to the operation of the Holy Ghost. év mvebuare dyiy serves, therefore, not 
only for the further amplification, but also for the intensification of the 
idea év dvvéue:. It is therefore incompetent to consider év éuvépe: nai bv 
rveip. dyiy as a & did dvoiv instead of év duvduer mvetu. dytov (Calvin, 
Piscator, Turretine, Bloomfield, and others).—Anpogopia] comp. Col. ii. 2; 
Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5) denotes neither the fullness of spiritual gifts which 
were imparted to the Thessalonians (Lombard, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Turretine), nor the completeness of the apostolic instruction (Thomasius), 
nor the completeness with which Paul performed his duty (Estius), nor 
the proofs combined with his instructions, giving complete certainty 
(Fromond, Michaelis), nor generally “certitudo, qua Thessalonicenses 
certi de veritate evangelii ac salute sua redditi fuerant” (Musculus, 
Benson, Macknight); but the fullness and certainty of conviction, #.e. the 
inward confidence of faith with which Paul and his assistants appeared 
preaching at Thessalonica.—xafdc oldare x.r.A.}] a strengthening of dre... 
woAAg by an appeal to the knowledge of his readers.? Pelt, entirely per- 
verting the meaning, thinks that the apostle in these concluding words 
would hold forth his example for the emulation of his readers. This view 


1Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 2Ocecum.: cal ri, duos, maxpyyopi; ebro 
Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Nata- speis pdprepde dere, oles éyerGOquer wpds tpae. 
lis Alexander, Turretine, etc. 


448 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


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


ATi dors rou dpyou ris wiotews; Sri obdty = =wictrews. Ei miorevecs, rdvra xdoxe’ ci 8 ph 
Oper wapéxdive THY EvoTacLY’ TOUTO yap épyoy wdoxes, OV MoTEVELS. 


 t 


OHAP. I. 5. 451 


vim habuerit, non ore tantum sed facto declaravistis.” That the conclud- 
ing words of ver. 5, xaBi¢ oidare ... tuac, which apparently treats of the 
manner of the apostle’s entrance, contains only a recapitulatory statement 
of év Aéyy ... 7oAAR, appealing to the testimony of the Thessalonians, is a 
sufficient condemnation of this strange and artificial explanation.—év Adyw 
usvov] [XLVII e.] in word only, ¢.e. not that it was a bare announce- 
ment, a bare communication in human words, which so easily fade away. 
Grotius: Non stetit intra verba. But the apostle says ot pévov, because 
human speech was the necessary instrument of communication.—ada xai 
dv duvépee x.7.A.] By dévayes is not to be understood méracles by which the 
power of the preached gospel ‘was attested;' for if so, the plural would 
have been necessary. Nor is the gospel denoted as a miraculous power 
(Benson), which meaning in itself is possible. Nor is the efficacy of the 
preached word among the Thessalonians indicated (Bullinger: Per 
virtutem intellexit efficaciam et vim agentem in cordibus fidelium). But 
it forms simply the contrast to Adyor, and denotes the impressive power 
accompanying the entrance of Paul and his followers.—év mvetyare dyiy] 
Theodoret, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond, B. a Piconius, Natalis 
Alexander, Benson, Macknight interpret this of the communication of 
the Holy Spirit to the readers. But the communication of the Holy 
Spirit is beyond the power of the apostles, as being only possible on the 
part of God. Besides, ¢v rvetyar: can only contain a statement of the 
manner in which Paul and his assistants preached the gospel. Accord- 
ingly, the meaning is: our preaching of the gospel was carried on among 
you in the Holy Ghost, that is, in a manner which could only be ascribed 
to the operation of the Holy Ghost. év mvebyari dyiy serves, therefore, not 
only for the further amplification, but also for the intensification of the 
idea év duvéye:. It is therefore incompetent to consider é duvéyec nat bv 
mvebu. dyty as a & did dvolv instead of é duvduer myebu. dylov (Calvin, 
Piscator, Turretine, Bloomfield, and others).—Anpogopia] comp. Col. ii. 2; 
Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5) denotes neither the fullness of spiritual gifts which 
were imparted to the Thessalonians (Lombard, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Turretine), nor the completeness of the apostolic instruction (Thomasius), 
nor the completeness with which Paul performed his duty (Estius), nor 
the proofs combined with his instructions, giving complete certainty 
(Fromond, Michaelis), nor generally “certitudo, qua Thessalonicenses 
certi de veritate evangelii ac salute sua redditi fuerant” (Musculus, 
Benson, Macknight); but the fullness and certainty of conviction, ¢.e. the 
inward confidence of faith with which Paul and his assistants appeared 
preaching at Thessalonica.—xabos oldare x.r.A.] a strengthening of dre... 
roaAg by an appeal to the knowledge of his readers.? Pelt, entirely per- 
verting the meaning, thinks that the apostle in these concluding words 
would hold forth his example for the emulation of his readers. This view 


tTheodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, #Ocecum.: cal ri, dye, paxpyyope; ebro 
Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Nata- tbpeis udprupde dere, oles dyer G@qper pds bpac. 
lis Alexander, Turretine, etc. 


452 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


could only claim indulgence if Koppe’s connection, which, however, Pelt 
rejects, were correct. Koppe begins a new sentence with xa@éc, consider- 
ing xa0a¢ oidare as the protasis and xai tpeic as the apodosis, and gives the 
sense: qualem me vidistis, quum apud vos essem... tales etiam vos 
nunc estis. But this connection is impossible. (1) Because oidare cannot 
mean me vidistis, but has a purely present signification—ye know. (2) 
Because if there were such an emphatic contrast of persons (qualem 
me... tales etiam vos), then, instead of the simple éyev#Oquev, jucic éyev7Onuev 
would necessarily be put. (8) Because éyev7yre does not mean nune estis, 
but factt estis. (4) Instead of the asyndeton xaOd¢ oldare, we would expect a 
connection with the preceding by some particle added to xafss. (5) And 
lastly, the apodosis would not be introduced by «ai ipeic, but by obruc dyeic 
(comp. 2 Cor. i. 5, vill. 6, x. 7). Pelt’s assertion is also erroneous, that 
instead of xafa¢ oidare oiot éyevi/nuev, the more correct Greek phrase would 
have been oiouc oldare jude yeyovéras. For the greatest emphasis is put 
on oloc éyevfOnuev, but this emphasis would have been lost by the sub- 
stitution of the above construction.—ovio: éyev#Oyuev] [XLVII f.] recapitu- 
lates the preceding 1d ciayy.... oAAg, but with this difference, that what 
was before said of the act of preaching is here predicated of the preachers. 
oloe éyevGOnuev does not denote the privations which Paul imposed upon 
himself when he preached the gospel, as Pelagius, Estius, Macknight, 
Pelt, and others think, making an arbitrary comparison of ii. 7, 9; 2 
Thess. iii. 8,9; also not x:vdivore, ob¢ inép abtav inboryjaay, Td cwrhpiov avToi¢ 
mpoogtpovres xipvyya (Theodoret), nor both together (Natal. Alexander). It 
also does not mean quales fuertmus (so de Wette, Hofmann, and others), 
but can only denote the being made for some purpose (proved to be, 
Ellicott). It thus contains the indication that the emphatic element in 
the preaching of the gospel at Thessalonica was a work of divine appoint- 
ment—of divine grace. Accordingly, é ipas, for your sake, that is, in 
order to gain you for the kingdom of Christ, is to be understood not of 
the purpose of the apostle and his assistants, but of the purpose of God. 
Ver. 6 contains the other side of the proof for the é«Acyf of the Thessa- 
lonians, namely, their receptivity for the preaching of the gospel demon- 
strated by facts. Ver.6 may either be separated by a point from the 
preceding (then the proof of ver. 6, in relation to ver. 4, lies only in 
thought, without being actually expressed), or it may be made to depend 
on ére in ver. 5 (provided this be translated by for, as it ought) [XLVII g.]. 
In this latter case xaOi¢ oldare . . . dc iuac, ver. 5,is a parenthesis. This 
latter view is to be preferred, because vv. 5 and 6 appear more evidently 
to be internally connected, and, accordingly, the twofold division of the 
argument, adduced for the éxaoy# of the readers, is more clearly brought 
forward.—:untai] See 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1; Phil. iii. 17; Eph. v. 1; Gal. iv. 
12.—éyevf#Onre denotes here also the having become as a having been made, 
i.e. effected by the agency of God.—xai rot xvpiov is for the sake of climax.! 


1 Erroneously Bullinger: Veluti corrections apostolorum imitatores esse debemus, quate- 
subjecta addit: et domini. Eatenus enim nus illi Christi imitatores sunt. 


CHAP. I. 6, 7. 453 


The Thessalonians became imitators of the apostle and of Christ, not in 
dtvauee, in rvedvpa ayov, and in rAnpogopia, as Koppe thinks; but because 
they received the evangelical preaching (rév Aédyov, comp. Gal. vi. 6, equiva- 
lent to xjpvyua), allowed it an entrance among fhem, in much affliction, 
with joy of the Holy Ghost, ¢.e. not merely that they received the Adyor 
(here the tertium comparationis would be wanting), but that they received 
it év OAinves ToAAD peTa apace trebu. dyiov.—deEduevor rov Adyov] [XLVII h.] The 
reception of the gospel corresponds to its announcement brought to the 
readers (ver. 5), whilst uiugoi is explained by év OAiper ... dyiov. The chief 
emphasis is on the concluding words: pera yapa¢ rveiparog dyiov, containing 
in themselves the proper tertium comparationis between Christ and the 
apostle on the one hand, and the Thessalonians on the other; but év 
OAiwec 7oAAQ is placed first to strengthen it, and for the sake of contrast, 
inasmuch as déyeo8a: tov Adyov pera yapac rv. dy. ig something high and sub- 
lime, but it is something far higher and more sublime when this joy is 
neither disturbed nor weakened by the trials and sufferings which have 
been brought upon believers on account of their faith in Christ—ev @Aipec 
noAAg] Erroneously Clericus: Subintelligendum évra, quum acceperitis 
verbum, quod erat in afflictione multa, h. e cujus praecones graviter 
affligebantur. The 6Aiy¢ of the Thessalonians had already begun during 
the presence of the apostle among them (Acts xvii. 6 ff.), but after his 
expulsion it had greatly increased (ii. 14, iii. 2, 8, 5). The apostle has in 
view both the commencement and the continuance of the persecution (comp. 
ver. 7, and the adjective roAAg attached to @Aipe:), against which de&duevor 
is no objection, as the two points of time are united as the spring-time of 
the Christian church.—yapé rvetparoc dyiov] is not joy tn the Holy Ghost, 
but a joy or joyfulness which proceeds from the Holy Ghost, is produced 
by Him (comp. Rom. xiv. 17; Gal. v. 22; Acts v. 41). In reality, it isnot 
to be distinguished from yaipecw év xvpiy (see Meyer on Phil. iii. 1). 

Ver. 7. The Thessalonians had so far advanced that they who were 
formerly imitators had now become a model and an example to others.— 
réxov.] The singular is regular, as the apostle considers the church as a 
unity.\—raow roi¢ moretovoww] not to all believers (de Wette), but to the 
whole body of believers.2 ao. augments the praise given. ol moreiovrec 
are believers, Christians (comp. Eph. i. 19). Chrysostom, whom Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, and most interpreters (also Pelt and Schott) follow, 
takes moretovory in the sense of moreboacv, finding in ver.7 the idea that 
the Thessalonians converted at a later period were further advanced in the 
intensity of their faith than those who had been earlier believers: Kai pv 
bv torépy HABe mpd avrobe’ GAA’ obruc eAdupare, gnoiv, O¢ Tév mpodAaBévrov yevtcbar 
didaoxdAous .. . Ov yap elev, Gore rirrovc yevéoOat mpd¢ Td miorevoal, GAAG Toig Hn 
miotetovet Tinoc éyéveobe. But this view would contain a historical untruth. 
For in Europe, according to the Acts (comp. also 1 Theas. ii. 2), only the 
Philippians were believers before the Thessalonians ; all the other churches 


1See Winer’s Grammar, p. 164 [E. T. 175); See Winer, p. 105 [E. T. 110}. 
Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 60; Kadhner, II. p. 27. 





454 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


of Macedonia and Achaia were formed afterwards. The present participle 
is rather to be understood from the standpoint of the apostle, so that all 
Christians then present in Macedonia and Achaia, that is, all Christians 
actually existing there at the time of the composition of the Epistle, are 
to be understoud.—év r9 Maxedovig xai év tr ’Ayaig] Comp. Rom. xv. 26; Acts 
xix. 21: the twofold division of Greece usually made after its subjection 
to the Romans (comp. Winer, Realwérterb. 2d ed. vol. I. p. 21). The emphasis 
which Theodoret puts on the words (Hiégoe riv ecignpiav, épxéruma avroic 
evoeBeiag yeyeviobar phoac eOveot peyiorou Kai Ex) copia Savpalopévorc) is NOt con- 
tained in it. Baur’s (p. 484) assertion, that what is said in ver. 7 is only 
suitable for a church already existing for a longer time, is without any 
justification. For to be an ezample to others depends on the behavior ; 
the idea of duration is entirely indifferent. 

Ver. 8. [XLVII i.] Proof of the praise in ver.7.1 Baumgarten-Crusius 
arbitrarily assumes in ver. 8 ff. an address, not only to the Thessalonians, 
but also to the Philippians, in short, to “the first converts in Macedonia.” 
For tuzév (ver. 8) can have no further extension than styac (ver. 7).—a¢’ 
tuav} does not import vestra opera, so that a missionary activity was attri- 
buted to the Thessalonians (Riickert), also not per vos, ope consilioque 
vestro, 80 that the sense would be: that the gospel might be preached by 
me in other parts of Macedonia and Achaia, has been effected by your 
advice and co-operation, inasmuch as, when in imminent danger, my life 
and that of Silvanus was rescued by you (Schott, Flatt). For in the first 
case vg’ iuév would be required, and in the second case é tpzédyv, not to 
mention that the entire occasion of the last interpretation is invented and 
artificially introduced. Rather a¢’ iuéyv is purely local (Schott and Bloom- 
field erroneously unite the local import with the instrumental), and 
denotes: out from you, forth from you, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 36. Yet this can- 
not be referred, with Koppe and Krause, to Paul: from you, that is, when 
I left Thessalonica, I found in the other cities of Macedonia and Achaia a 
favorable opportunity for preaching the gospel. For (1) this would have 
been otherwise grammatically expressed, perhaps by a¢’ tuav yap amedBbyri 
Oipa uot avéwye ei¢ Td Knpicoew Tov Adyov Tov xvpiov; add to this (2), which is 
the chief point, that the logical relation of ver. 8 to ver. 7 (yép) does not 
perinit our seeking in ver. 8 a reference to the conduct of the apostle, but 
indicates that a further praise of the Thessalonians is contained in it.— 
£Enxntar] Comp. Sir. xl. 18; Joel iii. 14; an Grak Acyduevov in N. T., ts 
sounded out, like the tone of some far-sounding instrument, ¢.e. without a 
figure: was made known with power.—é Adyo¢ rot xvpiov] is not the word 
from the Lord, or the report of what the Lord has done to you,’ but the 
word of the Lord which He caused to be preached (subjective genitive), 


1 See on the verse, Storr, Opus. III. p.317 ff; = xupiov évrav@a ov Thy xioriw Adyar, OV yap 
Rickert, locorum Paulinorym 1 Theass.i.8 et wiorss ax’ avray draBe Thy apxyy, GAd’ arti 
1 Thess. ili. 1-3, explanatio, Jen. 1844. Tou waytes éyvwoay Soca vumwip THs wicrews 

2So, as it seems, Theodore Mopsuest. [in  éwd@ere, cai wavres Vuwy To BéBasoy SOavpdover 
N. T. commentariorum, quae reperiri potuerunt. Ths wiorews, Ogre nai rpoTpomny érdposs yerdoOas 
Colleg., Fritzsche, Turici 1847, p. 145]: Adyow ra vmdrepa. 


CHAP. I. 8. 455 


f.¢. the gospel (comp. 2 Thess. iii. 1; Col. iii. 16); thus similar to the more 
usual expression of Paul: 6 Adyo¢ rot Ocot. But the meaning is not: The 
report of the gospel, that it was embraced by you, went forth from you, and 
made a favorable impregsion upon others (de Wette) ; but the knowledge 
of the gospel itself spread from you, so that the power and the eclat which 
was displayed at the conversion of the Thessalonians directed attention to 
the gospel, and gained friends for it—The words ov pévov have given much 
trouble to interpreters. According to their position they evidently belong 
to év rj Maxedovig xal tv rj ’Ayalg, and form a contrast to év ravri réry. But 
it does not agree with this view that a new subject and predicate are found 
in the contrast introduced with a44é, because the emphasis lies (as the 
position of ob pzévov . . . adAd appears to demand) only on the two local 
statements, so that only ag’ dudy . . . réry should have been written, and 
Sore pi} «7.4. should have been directly connected with them. This double 
subject and predicate could only be permissible provided the phrases: 
eehxnrar & Adbyog row xvpiov, and: 4 xiorig tudv } rpdcg T. Oedv sEcAHAVOeV Were 
equivalent, as de Wette (also Olshausen and Koch) assumes (“the fame 
of your acceptance of the gospel sounded forth not only in Macedonia and 
Achaia, but also in every place the fame of your faith in God is spread 
abroad ’’); but, as is remarked above, de Wette does not correctly trans- 
late the first member of the sentence. Zanchius, Piscator, Vorstius, Beza, 
Grotius, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Schrader, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
others have felt themselves obliged to assume a trajection, uniting ot 
pévov not with év r9 Maxedovia xa ev r§ Ayalg, but with é&#ynra, and thus 
explain it as if the words stood: ag’ tuév yap ob pdvov eéfynra: «.t.A. But 
this trajection is a grammatical impossibility. Bloomfield has understood 
the words as a mingling of two different forms of expression. According to 
him, it is to be analyzed: “ For from you sounded the word of the Lord 
over all Macedonia and Achaia; and not only has your faith in God been 
well known there, but the report of it has been disseminated everywhere 
else.” But that which is united by Paul is thus forcibly severed, and 
arbitrarily moulded into an entirely new form. Lastly, Ruckert has 
attempted another expedient. According to him, the apostle, after having 
written the greater part of the sentence, was led by the desire of making 
a forcible climax so to alter the originally intended form of the 
thought that the conclusion no longer corresponded with the announce- 
ment. So also Ellicott essentially. Thus, then, the sense would be: 
Vestra opera factum est, ut domini sermo propagaretur non solum in 
Macedonia et Achaja, sed etiam—immo amplius quid, ipsa vestra fides 
ita per famam sparsa est, ut nullus jam sit locus, quem ejus nulla dum 
notitia attigerit. But against this is—(1) that 9 riots tuev, on account of 
its position after év zavri rémy, cannot have the principal accent; on the 
contrary, to preserve the meaning maintained by Riickert, it ought to 
have been written, gA’’ air) 4 rior tudv 4 mpdc Tov Ocdv év ravri rémy 
éfeAGAvder ; (2) that the wide extension of the report of the lori of the 
readers is not appropriate to form a climaz to their supposed missionary 
activity expressed in the first clause of the sentence. However, to give 


456 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


ov pévoy ... GAAd its proper force, and thereby to avoid the objection of the 
double subject and predicate, there is a very simple expedient (now 
adopted by Hofmann and Auberlen), namely,.another punctuation; to 
put a colon after xvpiov, and to take together all that follows. According 
to this, ver. 8 is divided into two parts, of which the first part (a¢’ duav.. . 
xuptov), in which ag’ izov and é4#xyrax have the emphasis, contains the 
reason of ver. 7, and of which the second part (ov pdvov . . . Aadeiv 71) takes 
up the preceding é#zyra:, and works it out according to its locality. — 
From the fact that ov pévoy . . . dAAd serves to contrast the local designations, 
it follows that év ravi réry is not to be limited (with Koppe, Storr, Flatt, 
Schott, and others) to Macedonia and Achaia (év ravri rémy rij¢ Maxedovias 
xai r#¢’Ayalac), but must denote every place oufside of Macedonia and 
Achaia, entirely apart from the consideration whether Paul and his com- 
panions had already come in contact with those places or not (against 
Hofmann), thus the whole known world (Chrysostom : nv oixovpévgv; Ocecu- 
Menius: &davra rdv xéopov) ; by which it is to be conceded that Paul here, 
as in Rom. i. 8, Col. i. 6, 28, expresses himself in a popular hyperbolical 
manner.—# tlorig tuav 4 mpde Tov Oedv] your faith, that is, your believing or 
becoming believers tn God (rior thus subjective); the unusual preposi- 
tion rpé¢ instead of e¢ is also found in Philem. 5. That here God, and not 
Christ, is named as the object of faith does not alter the case, because God 
is the Father of Christ and the Author of the salvation contained in Him. 
But the unusual form # mpd¢ rdv Gedy is designedly chosen, in order to bring 
prominently forward the monotheistic faith to which the Thessalonians had 
turned, in contrast to their former idolatry.—éfeAfavev] has gone forth, has 
spread forth, namely, as a report. Comp. on éfépxzeo@a in this sense, Matt. 
ix. 26; Luke viii. 17, etc. Probably the report had spread particularly by 
means of Christian merchants (Zanchius, Grotius, Joach. Lange, Baum- 
garten, de Wette), and the apostle might easily have learned it in the 
great commercial city of Corinth, where there was a constant influx of 
strangers. Possibly also Aquila and Priscilla, who had lately come from 
Rome (Acts xviii. 2), brought with them such a report (Wieseler, p. 42). 
At all events, neither a longer existence of the Thessalonian church fol- 
lows from this passage (Schrader, Baur), nor that Paul had in the inter- 
val been in far distant places (Wurm). As, moreover, é&eAgjAvbev is con- 
strued not with cic but with év, so not only the arrival of the report in those 
regions is represented, but its permanence after its arrival.\—dore py) xpelav 
yew uae Aadeiv tc] 80 that we have no need to say anything of it (sc. of your 
niorig; erroneously Michaelis, “of the gospel;” erroneously also Koch, 
“something considerable”), because we have been already instructed 
concerning it by its report; although this is contained in éfeAfAvbev, yet it 
is impressively brought forward and explained in what follows. 

Ver. 9. Avrof] not: sponte, avrouafac, of themselves (Pelt), but emphat- 
ically opposed to the preceding jyac: not we, nay they themselves, that is, 
according to the well-known constructio ad sensum (comp. Gal. ii. 2): of é» 


18ee Winer, p. 385 (E. T. 413]; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 208. 


cHAP. I. 9, 10. 457 


7% Maxedovia xai év 19 ‘Ayala xai tv ravti réry.) Beza erroneously (though 
undecidedly) refers airoi to mdvrec ol meorebovrec (ver. 7).—rnepi jyudv] is not 
equivalent to imép judy, in our stead (Koppe), but means: concerning us, 
de nobis; and, indeed, rept juév is the general introductory object of 
avayyéAAoverv, which is afterwards more definitely expressed by droiay 
x.7.A.—qpyev, however, refers not only to the apostle and his assistants, (so 
also Ellicott and Hofmann) but also to the Thessalonians, because other- 
Wise xal mag éreorpépare in relation to #u6v would be inappropriate. This 
twofold nature of the subject may be already contained in 4 wiori tuav 9 
mpoc tov Gedy (ver. 8); as, on the one hand, the producing of rior by the 
labors of the apostle is expressed, and, on the other hand, its acceptance 
on the part of the Thessalonians.—émoiav eloodov toxouev mpde tuac}) what 
sort of entrance we had to you, namely, with the preaching of the gospel, 
¢.¢. (comp. ver. 5) with what power and fullness of the Holy Spirit, with 
what inward conviction and contempt of external dangers (Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact erroneously limit éroiav to danger), we preached 
the gospel to you. Most understand éroiav eloodov (led astray by the Ger- 
man Fingang) of the friendly reception, which Paul and his companions 
found among the Thessalonians (indeed, according to Pelt, eloodog in itself 
without drofa denotes facilem aditum); and accordingly some (Schott, 
Hofmann) think of the eager reception of the gospel, or of its entrance 
into the hearts of the Thessalonians (Olshausen). The first view is against 
linguistic usage, as elaodov Exerv mpd teva can only have an active sense, can 
only denote the coming to one, the entrance (comp. ii. 1); as also in the 
classics eloodo¢ is particularly used of the entrance of the chorus into the 
orchestra (comp. Passow on the word). The latter view is against the 
context, as in wie émeotpépare x.r.A. the effect of the apostle’s preaching is 
first referred to.—réc] how, that is, how joyfully and energetically. — 
ércorpégecv] to turn from the false way to the true—rpd¢ rav Gedy] to be 
converted to God: a well-known biblical figure. It can also denote to 
return to God ; for although this is spoken of those who once were Gen- 
tiles, yet their idolatry was only an apostasy from God (comp. Rom. i. 19 
ff.).—dovaeterv] the infinitive of design. See Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 824].—oep 
Cavri] the living God (comp. ‘1 D°TOM, 2 Kings xix. 4, 16, and Acts xiv. 15), 
in contrast to dead idols (Hab. ii. 19).—éA79ev6c] true, real (comp. Ape TINK, 
2 Chron. xv. 8; John xvii. 8; 1 John v. 20), in contrast to idols, which are 
vain and unreal. The design intended by dovdebey eG Cdvre xal adydivg 
contains as yet nothing specifically Christian; it is rather dovdeia conse- 
crated to the living and true God, common to Christians and Jews. The 
specific Christian mark, that which distinguishes Christians also from Jews, 
is added in what immediately follows. 

Ver. 10. It may surprise us that this characteristic mark is given not as 
faith in Christ (comp. Acts xx. 21; also John xvii. 3), but the hope of His 
advent. But, on the one hand, this hope of the returning Christ presup- 
poses faith in Him, as also Juduevov clearly points to faith as ita necessary 


18ee Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 288; Winer, p. 187 [E. T. 145.] 


458 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


condition and presupposition ; and, on the other hand, in the circumstances 
which occasioned the composition of this Epistle, the apostle must have 
been already led to touch in a preliminary manner upon the question, 
whose more express discussion was reserved to a later portion of his 
Epistle.—avayévecv] here only in the N. T.; in 1 Cor. i. 7, Phil. iii. 30, etc., 
arexdéyeoOa: stands for it. Erroneously Flatt: to expect with joy. The 
idea of the nearness of the advent as an event, whose coming the church 
might hope to live to see, is contained in avayéveern. [XLVII j.] —éx rav 
ovpavav | belongs to avayéverv. A brachylogy, in the sense of avapévecw éx tov 
obvpaviy épxduevov, see Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 621).—v fyecpev ex rv vexpov) is 
emphatically placed before ’Ijcovv, as God by the resurrection declared 
Christ to be His viég (comp. Rom. i. 4). Hofmann strangely perverts the 
passage, that Paul by 6» iyeipev éx rov vexpov assigns a reason for é« rév 
ovpavay, because “the coming of the man Jesus from where He is with 
God to the world where His saints are, has for its supposition that He has 
risen from where He was with the dead.” There is no emphasis on éx 
T@v ovpavev, its only purpose is for completing the idea of avapéverv.—rav 
pvéuevov] The present participle does not stand for rdv pvoduevoy (Grotius, 
Pelt); it serves to show that pieo¥ac is not begun only at the judgment, 
but already here, on earth, inasmuch as the inward conviction resides in 
the believer that he, by means of his fellowship with Christ, the curgp, is 
delivered from all fears of a future judgment.—rév pvéuevory] stands there- 
fore as a substantive. See Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 353].—dpy4#] wrath, then the 
activity of wrath, punishment. It has also this meaning among classical 
writers.'\—Also ric épxoutvyc] is not equivalent to éAevoouévnc (Grot., Pelt, 
and others), but refers to the certain coming of the wrath at the judgment, 
which Christ will hold at His advent (comp. Coll. iii. 6). 


Nores By AMERICAN EDIToR. 
XLVI. 


The similarity in some of the leading characteristics of the First Epistle to the 
Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Philippians—the earliest and latest of the 
letters addressed by Paul to the churches—is especially worthy of notice. As 
distinguished from the other epistles, they are both letters of friendly interest, of 
general practical suggestion or admonition, with no great subject occupying the 
main portion of the space or of the thought, with little definiteness of plan, with 
no setting forth, at the beginning, of his apostolic office. The first and last 
messages to the churches are messages of affection. Controversies, rebuke of 
enemies, discussions of great doctrines or grave errors, defense of his official 
claims against those who denied them, all these things arise after the first, and 
, pass away mainly before the last. And yet it is equally interesting to notice the 
differences between the two epistles, which are naturally connected with the 
passing of the years that separated them, and with the progress of the writer's 
thought and life. The former letter is that of a teacher in the vigor of his 
working age to a small Christian community having recently entered the new life 
and needing admonitions and encouragements in fundamental things. The 


1see Kypke, in den Obes. sacr., on Rom. il. 6. 


NOTES. 459 


readers were not in the conflict of doctrine, but were raising the first questions of 
the early convert, When will the kingdom be established; when will the Lord 
come? The writer was hopeful for future activity, and confident that life would 
continue. The latter epistle is the work of a man who views the end as possibly 
in the near future, and gives his exhortations on a higher plain of Christian 
development. The Church has been in existence for a long period. It has done 
continuous and fruitful work. It has considered other questions, and is ready for 
wider or deeper thoughts. 

The principal subject treated in both of the epistles to the Thessalonians, is 
the coming of the Lord. As a subject of thought or discussion, this was naturally 
the first one which would arise in the churches and in individual minds, whether 
the members of the churches came out of Judaism or heathenism. Jewish 
thought was peculiarly occupied with the matter of the Messianic kingdom and 
its establishment. As the Jewish convert to Christianity centered his belief on 
Jesus as the Messiah, no question could have greater or more immediate interest 
for him, than this of His second appearance to consummate His work. The 
Gentile convert, also, though having previously had no such ideas, found himeelf, 
by his new faith, connected with a kingdom the promise of whose future triumph 
was the encouragement of all his hopes, He must have looked with earnest 
expectation to the coming fulfillment, and have asked, with intensity of desire, for 
the time when it should be realized. It will be observed, however, that, in lst 
Thessalonians, this subject is introduced only incidentally, and not as Justification 
by Faith is in the Epistle to the Romans. It is presented simply in the way of 
correcting a misapprehension, and of affording comfort to the members of the 
church with reference to the condition of certain fellow-Christians, who had 
recently died. It belongs, therefore, with other words of counsel and exhortation 
which precede and follow it, to the practical and friendly suggestions of: a letter 
to recent converts. 

The Epistle is made up of expressions of interest in the readers—including words 
of thankfulness for their reception of the Gospel and their progress in the Chris- 
tian life, of commendation for their virtues and labors, of interest in their prosperity, 
of anxiety to know of their condition in view of persecutions which had befallen them 
since his departure from their city,—and instructions and exhortations respecting | 
duties or questions of their Christian life. The first of these divisions covers the 
first three chapters; the second, the last two chapters. The subject of the Lord’s 
Coming is only a part of the second section, introduced incidentally, as remarked 
above. The entire letter has, thus, a unity, but not so much the unity of a 
carefully arranged plan, as that of a message of interest and affection from an 
absent teacher to a church in whose early growth he is deeply interested. 

It is, no doubt, because of this character of the Epistle, that it has so much of 
simplicity and tenderness, The absence, not only of the word amécrodoc in ver. 1, 
but of any descriptive word with his own name; the close union of Silvanus and 
Timothy with himself, both in the galutation and in all the remainder of the 
Epistle, as if on an equality; the calling attention to his example as that of a 
father to children, which is hinted at in vv. 5, 6 (comp. ii. 11); and the recognition 
of their Christian work and growth in the brief period since their conversion, 
with the generous, almost unbounded, praise which a father might give (vv. 3, 8), 
may be thus explained. It is worthy of notice that the plural we, instead of the 
singular J, is used in this Epistle far more than in the later onee—J occurring in 


460 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


only two or three places (ii. 18, iii. 5, v. 27). It is evident, however, from these 
passages—as it is in the other epistles—that, while in the use of the plural he 
associates his companions in labor with himself in a certain sense, he still intends 
to send his message, commands, instructions, warnings, etc, with his own 
authority, which is different from theirs and of a higher order. The salutation 
of this Epistle—if the text which omits ad... Xpcorov at the end of ver. 1 be 
adopted, as it probably should be—is the briefest that we find in Paul’s writings. 


XLVIT. Vv. 2-10. 


(a) pvjpovebovres, (ver. 3), which Liinemann understands as meaning maxing 
mention of, is better taken in the intransitive sense, remembering. The more com- 
mon meaning of the word in the N. T., is the latter, and, as pveiay rooby. has 
already presented the former idea, it is improbable that a repetition of it would 
be given. A. V., R. V., Grimm, EIl., Noyes tr., and others take the latter view; 
Alf., de W., and others, the former.—(b) The explanations, on the other hand, 
which are given by Liinem. of inav of ver. 3, of the relations of tiorewt, ayarnc, 
éAridoc to the nouns on which they depend, of the connection of roi xupiov «.T.A, 
with éAridoc only, and of the connection of éumpoo6ev with Lvnpovévovtes must be 
accepted as correct. The word ioyovf has here, as everywhere, the sense of 
etedfast endurance, which is the evidence and the characteristic of a living hope. 
The two words, coming together here, make it evident that the Apostle has in 
mind the hope of the Lord’s coming, of which he speaks afterwards, ii. 19, etc. 
Faith works—it is a working, not an inactive force; love toils for these towards 
whom it goes forth; hope perseveres, notwithstanding all that may come to try or 
dishearten the soul. The three great principles of the Christian life are all active. 
The trials and persecutions to which the Thessalonians had already been exposed 
since they became Christians, had given evidence that they had these active 
principles working appropriately, each in its own way, in their lives—(c) The 
relation of the several participial clauses in vv. 2-4 to evyaprorotper may be 
determined by noticing, (1) that, everywhere, Paul seems to present the fact of 
his constant habit of prayer for his converts as making it natural that ke should 
give thanks when he called to mind their Christian life and development; (2) 
that eidére¢ introduces what must, almost necessarily, contain a ground of his 
thankfulness ; and (3) that, if this be so, uvyjpovetovrec, not being connected with 
eid., can hardly set forth another ground. The meaning, therefore, seems to be: 
I give thanks always for you—making mention, as I ever do, in my prayers— 
when I remember your faith, etc., for the reason that I know your election.—(d) 
R. Y. renders ér: (ver. 5) by how that in the text, and because in the margin. That 
the marginal rendering becausc (or for), is the correct one, is proved by the con- 
sideration presented by Liinem. The success of the gospel, as he had preached it 
among them, and the results of it in their lives were the proofs that they had been 
divinely elected, and the Apostle gives thanks because he knows from this evidence 
that they are thus chosen. The reference to election here is accordingly intro- 
duced, as it is uniformly in Paul’s writings, in connection with the joy which comeg 
from it to the thought of the Christian believer, who may have his hope and con- 
fidence made sure by reason of this fact—(e) The combination of Adyy, duvdyer and 
mvetuare suggests the similar combinations in 1 Cor. ii. 4,5, and iv. 20. From the 
passages considered in their resemblances, and apart from their differences, we 





ot’ 


NOTES. 461 


may infer that by dévayw¢ is meant, both here and in 1 Cor., that power of God 
which accompanies the preaching, and in the sphere of which its effectiveness 
lies; that by Aédyoc is here meant, as contrasted with the more particular reference 
given by the genitive copias in 1 Cor. the mere human word or utterance, of 
whatever sort it may be, in which the gospel message is set forth; and that év mv, 
ay, is kindred to év aodeige: rvetuarog, and is intended to signify the energizing force 
which fills the truth declared by the preacher, and carries it to the heart of the 
hearer. The whole working of the Apostle and his companions, as they had pro- 
claimed Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the Thessalonians, had, accordingly, been 
in the sphere of words, indeed, but not only in this—in the sphere, also, of power 
and of the Holy Spirit. And now he adds ¢vy rAnpogopia woAAg. This full 
assurance or conviction on the part of the preachers is connected with their con- 
sciousness of the presence of the divauic and the mvetua aytov, or more imme- 
diately with the latter, if év before rAzp. is omitted with ® B17 Sahid. Copt. W. 
& H. and Tisch. 8th ed. omit é; Treg. brackets it. As Ell says, Ap. presents 
the “ subjective, corresponding to the more objective side presented in the preced- 
ing” words.—(f) éyev#Onuev ver. 5 refers to what they had shown themselves to 
be, not in their character as exhibited in their entire life, but in their character 
as preachers. It is doubtful whether the view of Liinem., that ¢yev. has so much 
of the passive sense as to indicate divine agency, and to imply divine purpoee in 
dc’ tuac, can be insisted upon. He maintains the same view with regard to éyevh- 
Gyre of ver. 6—“ were made by the agency of God,” where became or showed your- 
selves would seem to be the more natura] rendering. The fact that these sentences 
are connected by ér: with éxAoy#v does not demand this assigning of a passive 
sense to the verb.—(g) The placing of ver. 6 under the ér: of ver. 5 (so Liinem.) 
is favored by the correspondence of the verbs eyev#Ojuev—éyeviOrre, as well as by 
the evident intention of the writer to present in the two verses the twofold reason 
for eidérec «.r.A. If a period is placed after ver. 5, as is done by Tisch., R. V., 
Alf., and many others, the connection is unnecessarily broken.—(A) If the point 
in which they showed themselves imitators of the Lord is to be found in the 
words of the verse, Heb. xii. 2, 3, may be compared. But may not the partici- 
pial clause defduevo: . . . . dyiov stand simply in an evidential relation to ¢yev. 
Hiunyral, and the latter expression have a more indefinite and general reference ?— 
(t) yép of ver. 8 gives the ground justifying the statement of ver. 7; but it intro- 
duces, at the same time, the explanation of the way in which they thus became 
an example, etc. By reason of the impression produced by their reception of the 
word and their turning from idols to the service of God, they arrested the atten- 
tion of all the believers in the upper and lower sections of Greece, and became 
objects of admiration and imitation. The gospel, in this way, had sounded forth 
from them, and their faith had gone out in its influence in every direction—and 
this to such a degree that, instead of having to tell the story of it to other 
churches, Paul found these other churches ready to tell it to him.—(j) Liinem. 
finds in avayévecy ver. 10 the idea of the nearness of the coming of the Lord. So 
Alf. and others. Ell. and others, assign to the word simply the notion of patience 
and confidence. There can be little doubt that the “waiting for His Son from 
heaven” is here spoken of as the prominent thing in the new Christian life of 
the readers, because this was the great thought occupying their minds. That they 
supposed the advent to be near is evident. Whether the apostle had this view can 
be hardly determined from this verb, but must be decided from other passages. 


462 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


CHAPTER II. 


VER. 2. rporaévrec] Elz. has xai tooradévres, Aguinst ABC DEFG 
L 9, min. plur. ves. and Fathers. Ka: is a gloss for the sake of strengthening. 
—Ver. 3. Elz. has obre év déap. So also Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, 
Ploomfield, Alford. But it is to be read ovd? év déAy, with Lachm., Tisch. 1 
und 8 and Ellicott after A B C D* F G ®, min., which also the gradation of 
the language requires (see exposition).—Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus ry Oe¢, 
B C D* ®* 67** 114, ef al., Clem. Bas. Oecum. require Oeg. The article is 
erased by Tisch., Alford and Ellicott, bracketed by Luchmann. The omission is 
not sufficiently attested. Opposed to this omission are the weighty authorities of 
A D#* E FG K L &®**** min. and many Fathers. The article might easily 
have been omitted, on account of the similarity of sound with the two following 
words.— Ver. 7. B C* D* F G ye* min. ves. (also Vulg. and It.) Orig. (once) 
Cyr. et al. have v#rio, instead of the Receptus i701. Received by Lachm. But 
against the unity of the figure, and arisen from attaching the v of the preceding 
word éyevifnuev—Ver. 8. dpuerpduevor] Elz. has iuecpduevor, Against A BC D 
Kk FG K L B®, min. plur. edd. Chrys. (alic.) Damase. ms. Theophyl. dis. 
Reiche, I. 1, p. 326 ff, indeed, recognizes detpduevoe as primitiva seriptura ; but 
he thinks that (uecpéuevoe was the word designed to be written by Paul, whilst 
oetpouevoe owed its origin to an error in dictation—to a mistake of the amanuen- 
sis in hesring or in writing.—yeyévjote] A BC DEF GLB, min. plur. 
Bas. al. read tyevftyre, Recommended by Griesbach. Rightly received by 
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott. The Receptus yeyévnobe is a 
correction, from erroneously imagining evdoxovzev to be in the present.—Ver. 9. 
vuxtéc] Elz. Matth. have vuxréc yap. But ydp is rightly erased by Griesb. 
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, Ellicott, according to A B D* F G ®&, 28, 71, 
et al. perm. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. (comm.) Theophyl. Ambrogiast. 
Aug. An explanatory correction.—Ver. 12. Instead of the Receptus paprupot- 
nevot, B D+ (also D**?) E (7?) K L gg, min. plur. Chrys. Damase. Oec. have 
paprupéuevot, Rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 1. Correctly approved by 
Matth., Fritzsche (de conform. N. T. critica, quam Lachm. edidit, comment. I., Giessen 
1841, p. 38), de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and Reiche, 
as paptupeiofac is everywhere used only in a passive sense (see Meyer on Acts 
xxvi. 22, and Rinck, lucubr. crit. p. 95), so that paprupobuevoe would be without — 
meaning. Also paprupduevo: by a careless scribe might easily have been formed 
into “aptvpoluevor, on account of the preceding tapayv@otuevoe as the similarity 
of termination gave occasion to the entire omission of «ai paprvp. in A.—Instead 
of the Rec. weperarjoa: is, with Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott, to be 
read tepirrareiv, according to A B D* F G x, min. Recommended to consid- 
eration by Griesb—Ver. 13. Instead of the Receptus dia rovro, Lachm. Tisch. 
and Alford, according to A B &, Copt. Syr. p. al. Theodoret (cd.) Ambrosiast. 
read xai dia rovro, which, as the more unusual reading, merits the preference.— 


CHAP. Ir. 1. 463 


Ver. 15. tote mpophrag] Elz. Matth. Bloomfield, Reiche read roi¢ idlove mpoghrac. 
Against A B D* E* F G &, min. vas. (also It. and Vulg.) and Fathers. A 
gloss from ver. 14 for the sake of strengthening.—Ver. 16. é¢6acev] Lachm. and 
Tisch. 1 read é¢8axev, which is only attested by B D*, whilst the Receptus has 
the important authority of A C D** and *** E F G K L ®, and as it appears of 
all min., of Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Dam. e al.—Instead of the Receptus 
4 dpyf D E F G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. Sedul. have 4 dpy) rov Oecd; an 
explanatory addition.—Ver. 18. A:ér:] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, 
Reiche have 6:6. Against preponderating testimonies (A B D* F G ® al). 
Suspected also by Griesbach.—Ver. 19. 'Iycov] Elz. Matth. Scholz have 'I7cot 
Xpiorov, Xpiorov is doubted by Griesb., correctly erased by Lachm. Tisch. 
Alford and Ellicott, according to A B D E K y, min. plur. Syr. utr. ai. Theodoret, 
Damasc, Occ. Ambrosiast. ed. 


ConTENTS.—The readers themselves know that the apostle’s entrance 
among them was not without effect: although he had just been mal- 
treated at Philippi, yet he has the courage to preach the gospel at Thes- 
saloniea amid contentions and dangers; for God Himself has called him 
to preach the gospel. It is accordingly solely and entirely the approval 
of God which he seeks; impure motives for preaching the gospel, such as 
vanity, covetousness, desire of honor, are far removed from him; he has, 
full of love, interested himself for the Thessalonians; he himself day and 
night worked for his maintenance, that he might not be burdensome to 
them; he then, in a paternal manner, exhorts and beseeches every one of 
them to show themselves worthy in their life of the call to eternal blessed- 
ness, which had been brought to them (vv. 1-12). He then thanks God 
that the Thessalonians had actually received the gospel as the word of 
God, which it really is, and that it had already been so mighty in them, 
that they shunned not to endure sufferings for its sake (vv. 13-16). Here- 
upon the apostle testifies to his readers how he, full of longing toward 
them, who are no less than other Christian churches his hope, his praise, 
and his joy, had wished twice to return to them, but had been hindered 
by the devil (vv. 17-20). 

Ver. 1. [On Vv. 1-12, see Note XLVIII. pages 491-498] is referred by Grotius 
to a thought to be supplied after i. 10: Merito illam spem vitae aeternae 
retinetis. Vera enim sunt, quae vobis annuntiavimus. Arbitrarily, as 
avtol yép, emphatically placed first, yea, you yourselves, must contain a 
contrast of the readers to other persons; and, besides, this view is founded 
on a false interpretation of ob xevy yéyovev (see below). Also ver. 1 can- 
not, with Bengel, Flatt (who, besides, will consider i. 8-10 as a parenthe- 
sis), Pelt, Schott, and others, be referred to i. 5, 6; nor, with Hofmann, 
“extending over eidérec tiv Exdoyy ipav” (i. 4) to evyapiotovpev rH Oep 
(i. 2), the thought being now developed, “what justification the apostle 
had for making the election of his readers the special object of thanks- 
giving to God;” but must, with Zanchius, Balduin, Turretin, de Wette, 
Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and others, be referred back to i.9. For to 
i. 9 points—{1) airol yap oldare, by which the Thessalonians themselves are 


464 . THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


contrasted to the strangers who reported their praise; (2) rv eloodov hua 
Tv mpd¢ tac, even by its similarity of sound refers to déroiav eloodov 
’axyouev mpoc tuac (i. 9); (8) the greater naturalness of referring ydp (ii. 1) 
to the preceding Jast independent sentence. The relation of this reference 
is as follows: in chap. ii. 1 the apostle refers to i. 9,in order to develop 
the thought expressed there—which certainly was already contained 
in i. 5, 6—by an appeal to the consciousness of the readers. But the 
thought expressed in i. 9 was twofold—(1) a statement concerning 
Paul and his assistants, namely, with what energy they preached the 
gospel at Thessalonica (éroiav eisodov toxouev mpdc tuac); and (2) a state- 
ment concerning the Thessalonians, namely, with what eagerness they 
received the gospel («ai mae «.r.A.). Both circumstances the apostle 
further develops in chap. ii.: first, and most circumstantially, the man- 
ner in which he and his assistants appeared in Thessalonica (ii. 1-12); 
and, secondly, the corresponding conduct of his readers (ii. 13-16). 
But the description of himself (vv. 1-12) was not occasioned by the calum- 
niations of the apostle, and a diminution of confidence in him occasioned 
thereby (Benson, Ritschl, Hall. A. Lit. Z. 1847, No. 125; Auberlen); also, 
not so much by the heartfelt gratitude for the great blessings which God 
had conferred on his ministry at Thessalonica, as by the definite design 
of strengthening and confirming, in the way of life on which they had 
entered, the Christian Church at Thessalonica,—which, notwithstanding 
their exemplary faith, yet consisted only of novices,—by a vivid repre- 
sentation of the circumstances of their conversion. How entirely appro- 
priate was the courageous, unselfish, self-sacrificing, and unwearied 
preaching of the apostle to exhibit the high value of the gospel itself, seeing 
it was capable of inspiring such a conduct as Paul and his compan- 
ions had exhibited !—yép] yea, or indeed. See Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 
463 ff—The construction : oldare ri eicodov, bri—where we, according to 
our idiom, would expect oidare, 5r: 4} ecicodog x.7.A.—is not only, as Schott 
and others say, “ not unknown ” to classical writers, but is a regular con- 
struction among the Greeks. See Bernhardy, Syniaz, p. 466.—# eloodoc 4 
mpo¢g tuac] denotes here nothing more than our entrance among you.— 
xevéc] is the opposite of rAf#py7¢, and denotes empty, void of contents, null. 
—oi xevi) yéyovev] Grotius (whom Hammond follows) translates this by 
mendaz, fallaz, ( \@), and gives the sense: non decepturi ad vos venimus. 
But although xevdc often forms the contrast to aA76jc¢ (see also Eph. v. 6), 
yet it obtains only thereby the meaning /falsus, never the meaning /fallaz ; 
also ver. 2 would not suit to the meaning fallax, because then the idea of 
uprighiness would be expected as a contrast. Oecumenius finds in wv. 1, 
2 the contrast of truth and falsehood: ob nevi ytyovev’ rourtotw ov pataia ov 
pvdor yap pevdeic nal Afjpor ra juérepa xypbyynata. But he obtains this mean- 
ing only by incorrectly laying the chief stress in ver. 2 on 1d evayyéAsov Tov 
Oecd (cid? Hucic avOpdmivdy re Exnpbtapev eig dpac GANA Oeov Adyovc). Simi- 
larly to Grotius, but equally erroneously, Koppe (veni ad vos eo consilio 
et studio, ut vobis prodessem, non ut otiose inter vos viverem) and Rosen- 
miiller (vani honoris vel opum acquirendarum studio) refer ot nev) ytyover 








CHAP. Il. 2. 465 


to the design of the apostle, interpretations which are rendered impossi- 
ble by the perfect yéyover. With amore correct appreciation of yéyovev, 
Estius, Piscator, Vorstius, Turretin, Flatt, and others give the meaning 
inutilis, fructu carens, appealing to the Hebrew p’). This meaning is in 
itself not untenable, but it becomes so in our passage by the contrast in 
ver. 2; for ver. 2 does not speak of the result or effect of the apostle’s 
preaching at Thessalonica, but of the character of that preaching itself. 
For the sake of this contrast, therefore, ov xevf is equivalent to duvar%, 
dew (Chrys.: ovx avipwrivy ovdé 4 tvxovea), and the meaning is: the 
apostle’s cicodoc, entrance, among the Thessalonians was not weak, power- 
less, but mighty and energetic. Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, and 
Bloomfield erroneously unite with this idea of ot xev) the idea of the 
success of the apostle’s eicodoc, which is first spoken of in ii. 13 ff. 

Ver. 2. Calvin makes ver. 2 still dependent on dr of ver. 1; but with- 
out grammatical justification.—zporafévres] although we suffered before. 
npordoxev in the N. T., an drag Aeyéuevov, denotes the sufferings previous 
to the time spoken of (comp. Thucyd. iii. 67; Herod. vii. 11). As, how- 
ever, the compound as well as the simple verb is a voz media, and so may 
denote the experience of something good (comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5), Paul 
fitly adds xa? iBpicdévrec, and were insolently treated (comp. Demosth. adv. 
Phil. iii., ed. Reisk, p. 126; Matt. xxii.6; Acts xiv. 5), by which zpora- 
Séyre¢ is converted in malam partem, and likewise the idea of racyew 
strengthened. [XLVIII }6.] (For the circumstance, see Acts xvi.}—xaa¢ 
oidare) [XLVIII c.] although avroi yap oidare had just preceded, is invol- 
untarily added by Paul, by reason of the lively feeling with which he 
places himself, in thought, in the time whereof he speaks.—ézappyova- 
odueda} is not, with de Wette, to be referred to the bold preaching of 
the gospel, and to be translated : “ we appeared with boldness,” but is to 
be rendered : “we had confidence.” mappnoidzecba, indeed, primarily de- 
notes speaking with boldness (Eph. vi. 20), then, also, acting with boldness 
and confidence.—év rg Oe yuav] in our God, by means of fellowship and 
union with Him, belongs to éxappyotdoayeba, and indicates wherein this 
confidence was founded—in what it had its ground.’ juov does not de- 
note: eundem ipsis, idolorum quondam cultoribus, deum esse ac ipsi 
(Pelt), but is the involuntary expression of the internal bond which unites 
the speakers with God, with their God; comp. Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. i.4; Phil. 
i. 8, iv. 19; Philem. 4.—AaAgoac:] cannot be united with érappyovacdépeba in 
the sense of peta rappyciag éAadovpev (Koppe, Flatt, Pelt); nor is it the 
statement of design’; nor is it an epexegetical infinitive®; but it is the 
statement of the object attached to éxappyo:acéuefa, as this gives to our 


1Oecum.: &d row év8vvaynourra Gedy rovro 
woujoa: TeOappyxapey. 

2Scott: summa dicendi libertate usi sumus, 
ut vobis traderemus doctrinam divinam laeta 
nuntiantem. 

3 Ambrosiaster: exerta libertate usi sumus 
in deo nostro, loquendo ad vos evangelium dei 
in magno certamine; Fritzsche, ad 2 Cor. diss. 


30 


IT. p. 102: non frustra vos adii (ver. 1), sed... 
libere deo fretus doctrinam div. tradidi, ut 
vel magnis cum aerumnis conflictans evan- 
gelium apud vos docerem; de Wette: “so 
that we preached the gospel to you amid 
much contention ;” Koch; Ellicdtt: we were 
bold of speech in our God, so as to speak unto 
you the gospel of God in much conflict. 


466 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


passage a dependent sense, and only introduces the infinitive clause, thus: 

we had the confidence to preach to you the gospel of God amid much contention. 
From this it follows that the chief stress is not to be laid on érappyorqodyueba 
(ver. 2); and thus the unbroken boldness of the apostle does not form the 
contrast to ov xev) yéyovev, as de Wette thinks, but ov xevp yéyovev has its con- 
trast in AaAgoa: 7d ev. dv roAAG ayou. It is only thus that a real relation 
exists between the thought in vv. 1 and 2 (and also only thus a real rela- 
tion of ver. 3 to ver. 2; see below); for that the preaching of the apostle 
in Thessalonica was so powerful and energetic (oi xevf), was by no means 
proved by the boldness of his preaching at Thessalonica, though a bold- 
ness unbroken by the persecutions which he suffered elsewhere shortly 
before ; but rather this was something great, and demonstrated the power 
and energy of the apostle’s preaching, that he and his companions, 
though they had just undergone suffering and persecution at Philippi, 
nevertheless had the courage and confidence even in Thessalonica to 
preach the gospel amid sufferings and persecutions.—ebayytiucv roi Oeov] 
The genitive denotes not the object of the gospel, but its author ; comp. 
Rom. i. 1. Moreover, evayyéAcov rov Oeov is the usual form; and there- 
fore, although 69 precedes, evayyéAov abrov is not put.—év woAAG aydui] 
in much contention. aydév is to be understood neither of the cares and 
anxieties of the apostle (Fritzsche), nor of his diligence and zeal (Molden- 
hauer), but of external conflicts and dangers. 

Vv. 8, 4 explain what enables and obliges the apostle to preach the gos- 
pel in sufferings and trials. The objective and subjective truth of his 
preaching enables him, and the apostolic call with which God had en- 
trusted him obliges him. ydp, ver. 3, accordingly does not refer to rd 
evayyéAov tov Ocov (Moldenhauer, Flatt), nor to érappyoacéueda (Olshau- 
sen, de Wette, Koch), but to Aadjoa tv modAp ayou.—} yap wapdxAnots 
quay ove éx wAdvye x.T.A.] 8c. éoriv, not ww (Bloomfield), for Paul establishes 
(vv. 8, 4) the manner of his entrance in Thessalonica (as the present 
AaAciuev proves) by qualities which were habitual to him; and not until © 
ver. 5 does he return to the special manifestation of those general quali- 
ties during his residence in Thessalonica.—rapdxAnocc | denotes exhortation, 
address. The meaning of this word is modified according to the differ- 
ent circumstances of those to whom the address is directed. If the ad- 
dress is made to a sufferer or mourner, then it is naturally consolatory, 
and sapéxAnow denotes comfort, consolation; but if it is directed to a 
moral or intellectual want, then rapéxAyote is to be translated exhortation, 
admonition. Now the first evangelical preaching naturally consists in 
exhortation and admonition,—namely, in a demand to put away their 
sins, and to lay hold on the salvation offered by God through the mission 
of His Son (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20). Accordingly, rapdxAyorg might be used 
to denote the preaching of the gospel generally. So here, where to ad- 
here to the meaning consolatio, with Zwingli, would be unsuitable. Yet 
it is erroneous to replace mapéxAnorg with didazy4 (Chrysostom, Oecume- 
nius, Theophylact, de Wette) or with d:daoxadia (Theodoret); for, accord- 
ing to the above, more is contained in zapdéxAnoe than in these ideas. 


CHAP. II. 3, 4. 467 


Pelt explains rapdéxAyou erroneously by docendi ratio. But rapdxAnou, 
understood as an echortative address, or as the preaching of the gospel, 
may be taken either in an objective or subjective meaning: in the first 
case, it denotes the contents or subject of the preaching ; in the second 
case, the preaching itself. The latter meaning is to be preferred on ac- 
count of ver. 4.—The sapdxayoie of the apostle and his assistants had its 
origin not é wAdvyc. mAdvq, error, is used in a transitive and intransitive 
sense. In the former case it denotes decettfulness (Matt, xxvii. 64) or 
seduction (Eph. iv. 14); in the latter, which is the more usual meaning, 
delusion. In both cases rAdvy is the contrast of 44470ea (1 John iv. 6): in 
the former case, of aA#3ea in a subjective sense, truthfulness; in the 
latter, of aaj%ea in an objective sense, truth (thus in Rom. i. 27, where 
wAdvy-refers to the idolatrous perversion of Monotheistic worship). Also, 
here t2dy7 (on account of the succeeding év déay) is best rendered not 
tmpostura (Erasmus, Calvin, Hemming, Estius, Beza, Turretin) or sedu- 
cendi studium (Vorstius, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), but deluston. 
Accordingly the sense is: the apostle and his associates avoided not 
sufferings and trials in the preaching of the gospel, because their preach- 
ing rested not on a fiction, a whim, a dream, a delusion,—consequently it 
had not such as these for its object and contents; but it is founded on 
reality,—that is to say, it has divine truth as its source.—ovde é£ axaBapaiar] 
a second reason different from the first, and heightening it. Paul turns 
from the objective side of the origin of his preaching to its subjective 
side,—that is, to the motive which lay at the foundation of the gospel 
preaching of himself and his assistants. This motive is not axa@apoia 
(see Tittmann, de synonym. in N. T. I. p. 150 f.), uncleanness, 1. e. impurity 
of sentiment, as would be the case were the apostle to preach the gospel 
from covetousness, vanity, or similar reasons.—ovdé év 664] nor also (does 
it consist or realize itself) in gutle or deceit (contrast to eciAupivea, 2 Cor. 
ii. 17); a new emphasis, as it was something still worse, if not only an 
impure purpose lay at the foundation of a transaction, but also reprehen- 
sible means (e. g. svdaxseia, ver. 5) were employed for the attainment of 
that purpose. 

Ver. 4. The contrast.—xa6é:] not equivalent to because, quoniam (Flatt), 
but according as, or in conformity with this.—doxualev} denotes to prove, to 
try, then to esteem worthy, so that it corresponds to the verb agcoiv, 2 Thess. 
i, 11.\—dedoneuéopefa [XLVITI. d.] denotes, accordingly, not the divine act of 
the purification of the human character (Moldenhauer), but the being 
esteemed worthy on the part of God; not, however, asa reward of human 
merit, or a recognition of a disposition not taken up with earthly things 
(Chrysostom : et ui elde mavrig annAAayptvoue Busrixod, obn av yuac eidero; 
Theophylact: obx av efeAéEaro, ei uu) agiove éyiveone); also, not as an antici- 
pation that Paul and his associates would preach the gospel without pleas- 
ing men (Oecumenius: 6 Ocd¢ édoxiuacey yudc pndev mpdc dégav Aadeiv avbpd- 
rav uéAdovrac), but as a manifestation of the free and gracious counsel of 


1Comp. Plot. Thes. 12: ’ EA@wey ody 4 Ouocis éxi 1d dprorrow obn Edoxinace Gpdhay avrév, Serig cin. 


468 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


God (Theodoret, Grotius, Pelt, Ellicott). The chief idea, however, is not 
dedoxeudoueba (80 Hofmann), but morevOjvar 1rd evayytdcov.—The passive 
form: morevOjvac rd evayyé§uov, is according to the well-known Greek 
idiom, of using in the passive the nominative of the person, even in verbs 
which in the active govern the genitive or dative. Comp. Rom. iii. 2; 1 
Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7; Kthner, II. p. 34; Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 229].— 
ovrwc] emphatically: even in this condition, even according to this rule. It 
does not refer to the following o¢ (Flatt), but to the preceding xaéc, and 
denotes that the gospel preaching of the apostle and his associates was in 
correspondence with the grace and obligation imparted to them.—ovy o¢ 
x.T.4.] explains and defines the whole preceding sentence: xafis . . . obras 
Aadotpev.—apéokerv] is here, on account of the concluding words 4244 r¢ 
Oc «.7.4., not to please, to find approbation, but to seek to please. For, in 
reference to God, the apostle, according to his whole religious views and 
habits of thought, could only predicate of himself an endeavor to please, 
but not the actual fact that he pleased Him. It would, however, be erron- 
eous to put this meaning into the verb iself ;' it arises only when the 
present or imperfect is employed, because these tenses may be used de 
conatu.A—a¢] may either be—(1) a pure particle of comparison: not as 
men-pleasers, but as such who seek to please God; or (2) may mark the 
condition : not as such who, etc.; or lastly, (8) may emphasize the per- 
versity which would exist, if the apostle was accused of avOpdroue apéoxewv: 
not as if we sought to please men. In the two first cases d¢ extends over 
the second member of the sentence: aA4a rq Oe «.1.A., in the last only 
Over arOpdrou apécxovres. The second meaning is to be preferred, as 
according to it ovy o¢ «.7.A. corresponds best to the qualifying words 
expressive of the apostle’s mode of preaching (ver. 3).—r@ doxipdfovre ra¢ 
xapdiac nuav] who proves, searches our hearts. sev refers to the speaker. 
To understand it generally, with Koppe, Pelt, Koch, and Bloomfield, is 
indeed possible, but not to be commended, as the general form r@ doxud- 
Sovre tac xapdiac, without the addition of 4uév, would be expected. Comp. 
Rom. viii. 27; Rev. ii. 23; Ps. vii. 10. Moreover, Paul speaks neither 
here nor in ver. 7 ff. of himself only, as de Wette thinks “ very probable ” 
in vv. 8, 4, but “certain ” in ver. 7, but includes his associates mentioned 
in i.1. Ifthe apostle spoke only of himself, he would not have put ra¢ 
xapdiag judy (ver. 4) and rac éavrav woyde (ver. 8), but would have wnitten 
both times the singular, r)v xapdiav judy and ry pox quer. 

Ver. 5. Proof of the habitual character of the gospel preaching by an 
appeal to the character which it specially had in Thessalonica.—yép] refers 
to oby d¢ arOpdrog apéoxovres GAA TH Ocy.—éyevfInuev év] we proved our- 
selves in, or we appeared a of such a character. The passive form éyev#6- 
nuev (see on i. 5) denotes here also that the mode of appearance mentioned 
lay in the plan of God, was something appointed by Him.—xoAaxeia] comp. 


180 Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, who, however, ex- *See Pflugk, ad Eur. Hel. V. 1085; Stallb. 
plains it not “to seek to please,” but “to live ad Plat. Gorg. p. 185, and ad Protag. p. 46; 
to please ;" andafter him, Hofmannand Méh- Kodhner, II. p. 67. 
ler in the 3d ed. of de Wette’s Commentary. 


CHAP. Il. 5. 469 


Theophrast. charact. c.2: Ti d2 xodaxeiav wroddBor dy ree duidiav atoxpay 
eivat, ovugtpovoay d2 rQ xoAaxebovrs. The word is not again found in the 
N.T. év Ady xoAaxeiag cannot denote in a rumor (report) of flattery, accord- 
ing to which the sense would be: for never has one blamed us of flattery 
(so Heinsius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis). Against this is the con- 
text, for the point here is not what others said of the apostle’s conduct, but 
what it was in reality. Also it is inadmissible to take év Adyy xodaxeiac, 
according to the analogy of the Hebrew 137 with the following substan- 
tive, as a circumlocution for év xoAaxeig (so Pelt, who, however, when he 
renders the clause: in assentationis crimen incurri, involuntarily falls into 
the afore-mentioned explanation). For—(1) the Hebrew use of 137 is 
foreign to the N. T.; (2) it is overlooked that Adyo¢ xoAaxeiac finds in the 
context its full import and reference, inasmuch as the apostle, in com- 
plete conformity to the contents of the preceding verses (comp. AaAgoaz, 
ver. 2; mapdxAnow, ver. 8; Aadovuev, ver. 4), in the beginning of ver. 5 still 
speaks of a quality of his discourse, and only in ver. 6 passes to describe 
his conduct in Thessalonica in general. Accordingly, the apostle denies 
that he appeared in Thessalonica with a mode of speech whose nature or 
contents was flattery (Schott falsely takes xoAaxeiag as the genitive of origin), 
or that he showed himself infected with it. In Thessalonica, for this limi- 
tation of ob . . . roré is demanded by the accessory appeal to the actual 
knowledge of the readers—xa6ac oidate, as ye know.—obre év mpopdoe mieo- 
vegiac] ac. éyevfOnpev. mpdgacic, from mpogaivw (not from mpdgnu:), denotes 
that which one puts on for appearance, and with the definite design to 
color or to cloak something else. It therefore denotes pretext, the out- 
ward show, and has its contrast (comp. Phil. i. 18) in aa#Gea.! The mean- 
ing accordingly is: we appeared not in a pretext for covetousness, #.¢. our 
gospel preaching was not of this nature, that it was only a pretext or 
cloak to conceal our proper design, namely, covetousness. Without 
linguistic reason, and against the context, Heinsius and Hammond 
understand mpégacrg as accusatio; Pelt, weakening the idea, and not 
exhausting the fundamental import of tpégacce (see below), nunquam 
ostendi avaritiam ; Wolf also unsatisfactorily considers tpé¢aoc as equiv- 
alent to species; similarly Ewald, “even in an appearance of covetous- 
ness;”’ for the emphatic even (by which that interpretation is at all 
suitable, and by means of which there would be a reference to a supple- 
mentary clause, “to say nothing of its being really covetousness’’) is 
interpolated, and the question at issue is not whether Paul and his associ- 
ates avoided the appearance of r2eovegia, but whether they actually kept 
themselves at a distance from mAeovefia. Lastly, erroneously Clericus (80 
also the Vulg.): in occasione avaritiae, ita ut velit apostolus se nullam 
unquam occasionem praebuisse, ob quam posset insimulari avarttiae.—Oed¢ 
pépruc}] comp. Rom. 1.9; Phil. i.8. Paul having just now appealed to the 
testimony of his readers that he was removed from xodaxeia, now takes 
God for witness that the motive of his behavior was not rAzovegia. 


18ee proofs in Raphel, Polyd. p. 354 





470 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Naturally and rightly; for man can only judge of the character of an 
action when externally manifested, but God only knows the internal 
motives of acting. 

Ver. 6. Nor have the apostle and his associates had to do in the publi- 
cation of the gospel with ezternal honor and distinction. Comp. John v. 
41, 44.—Cyrotvrec] sc. éyevfOnuev.—éE avOpdxuv] emphatic.'—According to 
Schott and Bloomfield, the preposition é« refers to the direct and a7é to 
the indirect origin,—a distinction in our passage impossible, as é& avOpe- 
muy is the general expression which is by otre . . . obre divided into sub- 
ordinate members, or specialized. See Winer, p. 383 [E. T. 411]2—A new 
sentence is not to be begun with duvdzevor, so that either, with Flatt, quev 
would have to be supplied; or, with Calvin, Koppe, and others, duvdyevor 
x.7.A. would have to be considered as the protasis, and GAA’ éyevfOnpev (ver. 
7) as the apodosis belonging to it;‘or, with Hofmann, aA’ éyevfOnyev greot 
ty pow tuav as an exclamatory interruption of the discourse in its pro- 
gress, distinctions chiefly occasioned by the misunderstanding of é Bépec. 
But duvduevoe is subordinate to Cntoivres (sc. éyevfOnuev) and mits it, on 
account of which it is inappropriate to enclose duvépevo: . . . améorodo:, 
with Schéttgen and Griesbach, in a parenthesis. The meaning is: Also 
in our entrance to you our motive was not in anywise to be honored or 
distinguished by men, although we certainly might have demanded external 
honor. Theodoret, Musculus, Camerarius, Estius, Beza, Grotius, Calixtus, 
Calovius, Clericus, Turretin, Whitby, Baumgarten, Koppe, Flatt, Ewald, 
Hofmann, and others take év Bape: elvac in the sense of being burdensome 
(sc. by a demand of maintenance from the church), and thus equivalent 
to ér:Bapeiv (ver. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8; and xaraBapeiv, 2 Cor. xii. 16; comp. 
aBapy éuavrov éthpyoa, 2 Cor. xi. 9); but this is an arbitrary assumption 
from ver. 9—arbitrary, because (yrovwrec dégav and éy Bdpec elvac must 
correspond; but in the first half of ver. 6 Paul’s custom of not suffering 
himself to be supported by the church, but gaining his maintenance by 
working with his own hands, is not indicated by a single syllable. On 
account of this correspondence of év Bépec with dégav, the explanation of 
Lipsius (Stud u. Krit. 1854, 4, p. 912) is wholly untenable: “As the 
apostles of Christ we did not at all need glory among men, but were 
rather in a position to endure trouble and burden,—that is, to endure 
with equanimity persecutions and trials of all kinds which men inflict 
upon us,” not to mention that the idea of “not at all needing,” and the 
emphatic “ rather,” are first arbitrarily interpolated. Heinsius, after the 
example of Piscator (who, however, wavers), understands év Bape: elva: of 
severitas apostolica: Se igitur, év Bdpec eivar duvéyevov, quum severitatem 
exercere apostolicam posset, lenem fuisse, eo fere modo, quo é péfdy 





1O0ecumenius: xadas 82 ef arOperer: rhv 
yap €« Geow (sc. 8éfay) cai éCnrovy xa: dAduBavov. 
“If a distinction between the two preposi- 
tions is to be assumed, we can only say, with 
Bouman (Characet. theolog. I. p. 78): “Sofa ef 
érOporwv universe est avOpwrivn, quae hu- 


manam originem habet, ex hominibus exsistit : 
Sofa ad’ buwv, quae singulatim a vobis, vestro 


* adoremanatac proficiscitur;” or, with Alford, 


“éx belongs to the abstract ground of the 
86fa, awe to the conerete object, from which it 
was in each case to accrue.” 


CHAP. I. 6-8. 471 


éABeiv nat év aydry wvebyari te mpatrytoc, 1 Cor. iv. 21, opponit. But thus 
év Béper and jm‘ will be erroneously opposed to each other. (See on 
ver. 7.) Bdpoc, heaviness, weight, occurs even among classical writers, as 
the Latin gravitas, in the sense of distinction, dignity (see Wesscling, ad 
Diodor. Sicul. IV. 61). év Bapee eivac [XLVIII e.] accordingly means to be 
of weight, to be of importance, i.e. to be deserving of outward honor and 
distinction.'—Paul annexes the justification of such an év Bépec eivac by 
the words o¢ Xpiorod arécroAo] i.e. not sicut apostoli alii faciunt (1 Cor. 
ix. 6; Grotius), but in virtue of our character as the apostles of Christ. 
ardéoroAc is, however, to be used in its wider sense, as Paul not only 
speaks of himself, but also of Silvanus and Timotheus, as in Acts xiv. 14. 

Ver. 7. Paul begins in this verse the positive description of his appear- 
ance and conduct in Thessalonica.—aav’ éyevfOnuev iin) [XLVI Sf] a 
contrast not to dvvduevoe év Béper eivas (Heinsius, Turretin, and others), 
but to the principal idea of ver.6. The apostle’s conduct is not that of 
one défav é& avOpdtwyv Cyrav, but of one who was 7c; God had made 
him show himself (éyev##yyuev) not as master, but as servant. Oecumenius: 
Og tig && tudv éyev#nyev.—irioc] mild, kindly, is used of an amiable dispo- 
sition or conduct of a higher toward a lower, i. e. of a prince to his subjects, 
of a judge to the accused, of a father to his children.*—év péoy vpdr] in 
your midst, t.e.in intercourse with you. Erroneously Calovius, it denotes: 
erga omnes pariter. Non erga hos blandi, erga illos morosi. There is, 
however, no emphasis on tuav; the apostle does not indicate that he 
behaved otherwise in other places.—A colon is to be put after év péow 
tuav, 80 that o¢ . . . oirus are connected as protasis and apodosis, and 
describe the intensity of Paul’s love to the Thessalonians; whilst in éyev4- 
Onuev . . . tuev this love only in and for itself, or according to its general 
nature, was stated as a feature of the apostle’s behavior. [XLVIII g.] 
—rpogéc] a nurse (\))3"2) here, as is evident from 7a éauri¢ réxva, the 
suckling mother herself. Under the image of a mother Paul represents 
himself also, in Gal. iv. 19, as elsewhere, under the image of a father; see 
ver. 11; 1 Cor. iv. 15; Philem. 10.—0dArew] originally to warm, of birds 
which cover and warm their young with their feathers: (see Deut. xxii. 
6); consequently an image of protecting love and anxious care generally, 
our cherishing; see Eph. w 29. 

Ver 8. ‘Oueipecfa:] occurs, besides LXX. Job iii. 21, and Symmachus, 
Ps. lxil. 2 (yet even in these two places mss. differ), only in the glossaries. 
Hesychius, Phavorinus, and Photius explain it by ércéuueiv. Theophy- 
lact derives it from duct and eipev; and corresponding to this, Photius 
explains it by duov Apudoda. Accordingly, duecpéuevor tudv would denote 
bound with you, attached to you. Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 792 f., Schott, 
and others agree. But this is questionable—(1) Because the verb is here 
construed with the genitive, and not with the dative; (2) because there is 


1Thus Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theo- Wette, Koch, Bisping, Alford, Ellicott, Auber- 
phylact (both, however, undecidedly), Am- _len,and others. 
brosiaster, Erasmus, Calvin, Hunnius, Wolf, 2Comp. Hom. Od. fi. 47; Herodian, fi. 4, 
Moldenhauer, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, de mnsi.; Pausan. Eliuc. ii. 18. 





472 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


no instance of a similar verb compounded with ézov or éué¢; see Winer, 
p. 95 f. [E. T. 101]. Now, as in Nicander (Theriaca, ver. 402) the simple 
form peipeodae occurs in the sense of iveipecda:, it can hardly be doubted 
that ueipecda: is the original root to which ipeipeo9a: and dpeipeoda (hav- 
ing the same meaning) are related, having a syllable prefixed for euphony. 
Compare the analogous forms of «éAAw and oxéAdw, dipouar and odipopat, 
pAéw and opdéu, aiw and iaiw, and see Kihner, I. p. 27. Accordingly, as 
iueipeodae tevdc denotes primarily the yearning love, the yearning desire 
for union with an absent friend, and secondarily is, according to the testi- 
mony of Hesychius, synonymous with épav, opuetpduevoe tudv receives here 
the suitable meaning of filled with love to you. Beza unnecessarily, and 
against the context (because the word is a verbum épurudy), supplies: 
videlicet vos ad Christum tanquam sponsam ad sponsum adducendi.— 
ottwc| belongs not to duecpduevoe. (Schrader), but to evdoxovzev; thus it is 
not intensifying: so much, but a simple particle of comparison: thus, in 
this manner.—evdoxoiuev] not present, but imperfect with the augment 
omitted. See Winer, p. 69 [E. T. 71]. <cvdoxew, to esteem good, here, to be 
willing, denotes that what took place was from a free determination of 
will. Thus it is used both of the eternal, gracious, and free counsels of 
God (Col. i. 19; Gal. i. 15; 1 Cor. i. 21), and of the free determination of 
men (Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. v. 8).—ra¢ éavrayv woxdc] not a Hebraism in the 
gense of nosmet ipsos (Koppe, Flatt), but our Aves (Hom. Od. iii. 74; 
Aristoph. Plut. 524); the plural yyde proves that Paul thinks not of him. 
self only, but also of Silvanus and Timotheus.—On éavrov, comp. Bern- 
hardy, Syntax, p. 272; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 150]. However, the verb 
petadovva: does not strictly apply to rag Eavrev yoyde, as the idea of imparting 
is here transformed into that of offering up, devoting. (Erroneously Bengel : 
anima nostra cupiebat quasi tmmeare in animam vestram. Hofmann: 
In the word preached, which Paul and his companions imparted to the 
Thessalonians even to the exhaustion of their vital power, this as it were 
passed over to them, just as the vital power of the mother passes over to 
the child, whom she is not content with nourishing generally, but, from 
the longings of love to it, desires to nourish it by suckling.) From the 
compound verb yeradotva: the idea of the simple verb dotva: is accord- 
ingly to be extracted (a zeugma; see Kiihner, II. 606).—The thought 
contained in a . . . obtwe is accordingly : As a mother not only nourishes 
her new-born child with her milk, but also cherishes and shelters it, yea, 
is ready to sacrifice her life for its preservation, so has the apostle not 
merely nourished his spiritual child, the Thessalonian church, with the 
milk of the gospel, but has been also ready, in order to preserve it in the 
newly begun life, to sacrifice his own life-—The inducement to such a con- 
duct was love, which the apostle, although he had already mentioned it, 
again definitely states in the words ddr: ayaryrol juiv éyevfOyte, because ye 
were dear and valuable to us. 

Ver. 9. Tép [XLVIII h.} refers not to duvéyevo: tv Bdpec elva:, ver. 6 (Flatt), 
but either to éyerfOnyev prio (ver. 7), Or to eidoxodpev peradodvar, or, finally, 
to ayar7rol juiv éyevfOnre (ver. 8). For the first reference (éyevfOnpuev rsx), it 


CHAP. II. 9. 473 


may be argued that éyevfOnyev #rioe is the chief idea, the theme as it were, 
of vv. 7 and 8; but against this is, that the same thought which was 
expressed in éyev7Snyev rue is repeated and more definitely developed in 
in @ much more vivid and special manner by means of the parallel 
sentence, attached without a copula, and thus complete. In such a 
case a causal conjunction following refers rather to the more vivid and 
concrete expression than to the more general and abstract. Accordingly, 
we are referred to the connection with evdoxovyev peradoivaz. Neither can 
this, however, be the correct connection; for then must ver. 9 have 
proved the readiness of the apostle when at Thessalonica to sacrifice his 
own life for the Thessalonians, as is expressed in ver. 8. But this is not 
the case, for in ver. 9 Paul speaks indeed of his self-sacrificing love, but 
not of the danger of his life which arose from it. Also Auberlen, who 
recently has maintained a reference to cidoxotpev petradovvat, can only 
support this meaning, that Paul has adduced his manual labor mentioned 
in ver.9 as a “risking of his health and life.” In the same manner; 
Ellicott: “the Apostle and his followers practically gave up their 
existence to these converts, when they spent night and day in toil rather 
than be a burden to any of them.” But how forced is this idea of the 
context, and how arbitrarily is the idea of the sacrifice of life, supposed to 
be expressed therein, contorted and softened down! It is best, therefore, 
to unite yap with diére ayaryrol gyiv éyev#Oyre, a union which, besides, is 
recommended by the direct proximity of the words.—pvypovetere] as yép 
proves, is indicative, not imperative.—xémo¢ and y6760c] labor and pains : 
placed together also in 2 Thess. ili. 8 and 2 Cor. xi. 27. Musculus: 
Significat se haud leviter et obiter, sed ad fatigationem usque incubuisse 
laboribus. Arbitrarily separating and mixing the gradation, Balduin 
interprets xérog “de spirtuali labore, qui consistebat in praedicatione 
evangelii;” and puéz6o¢ “de manuario labore scenopegiae.”—vuxri¢ xa? 
quépas] a concrete and proverbial circumlocution of the abstract 
adiadeintug. But vuerdc, as usual (Acts ix. 24 is an exception), is placed 
first, because the Jews (as also the Athenians, see Plin. Nat. Hist. ii. 79; 
Funke, Real-Schullex. II. p. 182) reckoned the civil day from sunset to 
sunset (see Winer’s bibl. Realworterb. 2d ed. vol. II. p. 650). Pelagius, 
Faber Stapulensis, Hemming, Balduin, and Aretius arbitrarily limit 
voxtéc to épyaléuevor, and uépac to éxnpbtayev.—ipydleotac] (comp. 1 Cor. 
ix.6; 2 Thess. iii. 10,12; Acts xviii. 18) the usual word also among the 
classics (comp. Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 57) to denote working for wages, especially 
manual labor or working by means of a trade (therefore the addition rai 
xepai, 1 Cor. iv.12; Eph. iv. 28). Paul means his working as a tent-cloth 
maker, Acts xvill. 3.—zmpi¢ 1d yp émcBapjoal twa tipiv] in order not to be 
burdensome to any, ac. by a demand of maintenance. Incorrectly, Chry- 
sostom, Theophylact, Pelt, and others infer from this that the converted 
Thessalonians were poor. Evidently this unselfish conduct of the apostle 
had its ultimate reason in an endeavor that there should be no hindrance 
on his part to the diffusion of the gospel.—ei¢ iuac] represents the readers 
as the local objects of xyptooev; comp. Mark xiii. 10; Luke xxiv. 47, 


474. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Therefore, according to the general sense, it is true that eg tvac and ipiv 
do not differ, but the mode of looking at it is somewhat different. See 
Winer, p. 200 [E. T. 212]. 

Ver. 10. This verse is designed to represent in a summary manner the 
conduct of the apostle among the Thessalonians, which was hitherto only 
represented by special features; but as thereby not merely what was 
patent to external observation, that is, the visible action on which man 
can pronounce a judgment, but likewise the internal disposition, which is 
the source of that action, was to be emphasized; so Paul naturally 
appeals for the truth of his assertion not only to his readers, but to God. 
The apostle, however, proceeds without a particle of transition, on account 
of the warmth of emotion with which he speaks.— dc] how very.—dciug 
nat ducaiwg] (comp. Eph. iv. 24; Luke i. 75; Wisd. ix. 3, decry and 
dixatootvy) is put entirely in accordance with classical usage; the first 
denotes dutiful conduct toward God, and the latter toward our neighbor.'— 
auburtuc] unblameably. Turretin, Bengel, Moldenhauer interpret this of 
dutiful conduct toward oneself, evidently from the desire of 4 logical] division 
of love, in order to obtain a sharply marked threefold division of the idea. 
Flacius refers it to the reliqui mores besides justitia, that is, to castifas, 
sobriectas, and moderatio in omnibus ; but this is without any reason. It is 
the general negative designation, comprehending the two preceding more 
special and positive expressions, thus to be understood of a dutiful con- 
duct toward God and man. Too narrowly Olshausen: that it is the 
negative expression of the positive dixaiwe.—ipiv roi¢ murebovor] belongs 
not only to apéumtuc, but to the whole sentence: d¢ doiwe nat dix. nal ap. 
éyer#f. It is not dat. commodi ;? “ to your, the believers’, behoof;” 80 that 
it would be identical with 6¢ tae robe murebovras. Nor does it mean 
toward you believers (de Wette: “ This, his conduct, had believers for ita 
object with whom he came into contact ;” Hofmann, Auberlen), for (1) 
éciug does not suit this meaning; (2) as ipiv roi¢ miorebovory is not without 
emphasis, the unsuitable contrast would arise, that in reference to others 
the apostle did not esteem the upright conduct necessary. For, with 
Hammond, to apply tiv roi¢ meoreboverv, in contrast to the time when 
those addressed had not yet been brought to the faith, is grammatically 
impossible, as then the participle of the aorist without the article must be 
used ; (3) éyev#juev does not obtain its due force, as the passive form 
cannot denote pure self-activity. [XLVIII 7.]. tiv roi¢ miorevovew is, as 
already Oecumenius and Theophylact (and recently Alford) explain it, 
the dative of opinion or judgment (see Winer, p. 199 [E. T. 212]; Butt- 
mann Gramm., des neutest. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 176 [E. T. 179]; Bern- 
hardy, Syntaz, p. 83): for you, believers, so that this was the character, the 
light in which we appeared to you. Thus an appropriate limitation arises 
by this addition. For the hostility raised against the apostle, and his 


1Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 507: cat phy wepi wey 2So also the Reviewer of the first edition in 
dvOpemwovs Ta epocjcovta mpatrwy Sixas' dy the Darmstadt Literat-Bl. zur Darmast. Allg. 
mpatro., wepi 88 Oeovs Sora; Polyb. xxxiii, 10. Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 131, p. 1051 (Wilib. 
8; Schol. ad Eurip. Hee. 788. Grimm [?]) and Ellicott. 


CHAP. 11. 10-12, 475 
expulsion from Thessalonica, clearly showed how far from being general 
was the recognition that God had enabled the apostle to behave ‘dciwe xat 
Sixaiug wat auéurtuc. Moreover, o¢ dciue «.7.A. éyev. is not equivalent to d¢ 
doco x.7.A. éyev. (Schott). The adverbs bring prominently forward the 
mode and manner, the condition of yevy6jvaz.) 

Vv. 11, 12 are not a mere further digression into particulars, which we 
can scarcely assume after the general concluding words in ver. 10, with- 
out blaming the author, notwithstanding the freedom of epistolary 
composition, of great logical arbitrariness and looseness, but are a proof 
of the general concluding sentence ver. 10, ex analogia. Asin all that has 
hitherto been said the twofold reference to the apostle and his two 
associates on the one hand, and to the readers on the other, has 
predominated, so is this also the case in vv. 10-12. The circumstance 
that he has anxiously and earnestly exhorted his readers to a similar 
conduct in éorérn¢, dixatocivy, and ayeupia, is asserted by the apostle as a 
proof that he himself behaved in the most perfect manner (dc) among the 
Thessalonians doiug xai dixaiug xat apuéurtwc. For if any one be truly 
desirous that ofhers walk virtuously, this presupposes the endeavor after 
virtue in himself. It is thus erroneous when de Wette and Koch, p. 172, 
think that the apostle in ver. 10 speaks of his conduct generally, and in 
vv. 11, 12 of his ministerial conduct particularly. In vv. 11, 12 Paul does not 
speak wholly of his ministerial conduct, for the participles wapaxadovrrec, 
rapauvOoiuevo:, and paprupsuevoe are not to be taken independently, but 
receive their full sense only in union with el¢ 1rd sepirareiv x.7.2., 
so that the chief stress in the sentence rests on e¢ 1rd «x.7.A., and the 
accumulation of participles serves only to bring vividly forward the 
earnestness and urgency of the apostle’s exhortation to rep:raretv, Entirely 
erroneous, therefore, is Pelt’s idea of the connection: Redit P. ad amorem, 
quo eos amplectatur, iterum profitendum; for the attestation of love, in 
the conduct described in vv. 11, 12, is only expressed by the addition: d¢ 
maryp téxva éavtov, and is thus only subsidiary to the main thought.— 
xa0arep| as then, denotes the conformity of what follows to what precedes. 
As regards the construction : oldare &¢ «.7.4., we miss a finite tense? Koppe 
considers that the participles are put instead of the finite tenses, o¢ 
mapexadéoapev nai mapepvOnodueba xai évaprypyodueba, an assertion which we 
can in the present day the less accept, as it is of itself self-evident that 
the participles of the present must have another meaning than that which 
could have been expressed by the finite forms of the aorist, t.e. of the 
purely historical tense. Others, objecting to the two accusatives, éva 
éxacrov and tac, have united tuac with the participle, and suggested a 


1S8ee Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 465;] Bernhardy, 
Syntaz, p. 337 ff. 

3 Certainly otherwise Schrader, who regards 
caQarep oidare as “a mere parenthesis which 
refers to what goes before and what follows,” 
so that then as wapaxadovrres cai wapap. cal 
mapt., VV. 11, 12, would be only parallel to os 


doiws xa 8x. xai audéurr., ver.10. So recently 
also Auberlen. But this construction is 
impossihle, because xaOarep oigare is not a 
complete repetition of the preceding vpeis 
maprupes cai 6 eds, but only of its first part 
(bets dprupes), and thus can in no wise be 
considered as a meaningless addition. 


476 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


Jinite tense to iva Exacrov, which, at the beginning of the period, must have 
been in Paul’s mind, but which he forgot to add when dictating to his 
amanuensis. Vatablus, Er. Schmid, Ostermann would supply to éa 
éxactov, 7yarhoapev; Whitby, égcAjoapev, or yanyoapuev, Or e0dApapev, from 
ver. 7; Pelt, ovy agjnapev (?); Schott, a verb containing the “ notio curandi 
sive tractandi sive educandi.”? But (1) the two accusatives do not at all 
justify supplying a special verb to éva éxacrov, as not only among the 
classics is the twofold use of personal determinations not rare (see 
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 275), but also in Paul’s Epistles there are similar 
repetitions of the personal object (comp. Col. ii. 18; Eph. ii. 1, 5). (2) To 
supply yyar7oayev, or a similar idea, is in contradiction with the design 
and contents of vv. 11, 12, as the chief point in these verses is to be sought 
in the recollection of the impressive exhortations addressed to the Thess- 
alonians to aim at a conduct similar to that of the apostle. Not only the 
simplest, but the only correct method, is, with Musculus, Wolf, Turretin, 
Bengel, Alford, and Hofmann, to supply éyev#@quev, which has just pre- 
ceded ver. 10, to &¢... mapaxadotvres «.7.A. And just because éyevfOnuev 
precedes, the supplying of juev, which Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others 
assume, and which otherwise would be the most natural word, is to be 
rejected. Accordingly, there is no anacoluthon in wv. 11, 12, but éyevy 
6nuev to be supplied in thought is designedly suppressed by the apostle in 
order to put the greater emphasis on the verbal ideas, rapaxadeiv, rapapv- 
Gcicat, and uapripecta:. The circumlocutionary form, éyevfOnuev mapax. x.7.A., 
has this in common with the form jyev rapak. x.r.2., that it denotes duration 
in the past, but it is distinguished from it by this, that it does not refer 
the action of the verb simply as something actually done, and which has 
had duration in the past; but this action, enduring in the past (and 
effected by God), is described in its process of completion, #.e. in the 
phase of its self-development.—éva éxacrov ipev o¢ marap téxva éavrov] The 
thought, according to Flatt, consists in this: the apostle has exhorted 
and charged, “ with a view to the special wants of each, just as a father 
gives heed to the individual wants of his children.” But iva éxacrov tpdv 
denotes only the carefulness of the exhortation which is addressed to each 
individual without distinction (of rank, endowment, Chrysostom: Befai tv 
toootty nAfber undéva napadireiv, ua pexpdv, uy péyav, uy wAoboiov, uy TévyTa), and 
the addition o¢ arjp réxva éavrov denotes only paternal love (in contrast 
to the severity of a taskmaster) as the disposition from which the exhorta- 
tions proceeded. But in a fitting manner Paul changes the image 
formerly used of a mother and her children into that of a father and his 
children, because in the context the point insisted on is not so much that 
of tender love, which finds its satisfaction in itself, as that of educating love ; 
for the apostle, by his exhortation, would educate the Thessalonians for 
the heavenly kindom. That the apostle resided a long time in Thes- 
salonica (Calovius) does not follow from éva xacrov.—mapaxadeiv] to exhort 
by direct address. Erroneously Chrysostom, Theophylact: zpo¢ rd gépew 


1Erasmus completes the clause: complexi a“ balbuties apostolicae charitatis, quae se 
fuerimus, and finds in the double accusatives | verbis humanis seu temulenta non explicat.” 





CHAP. Il. 12, 13. 477 


névra.—iuac] resumes éva éixacrov tuev; but whilst that emphatically 
precedes, this is placed after tapaxadotvrec, because here the verb apax, has 
the emphasis (comp. Col. ii. 13). Paul adds izac, which certainly might be 
omitted, not so much from carelessness or from inadvertence, but for the 
sake of perspicuity, in order to express the personal object belonging to 
the participles in immediate connection with them.—Also tapapyveioba 
does not mean here to comfort (Wolf, Schott, and others), but to address, 
to exhort, to encourage; yet not to encourage to stedfastness, to exhort to 
moral courage (Oecumenius, Theophylact, de Wette), for the object of 
rapauvlobuevos does not follow until ver. 12. 

Ver. 12. Mapripec6a:] (comp. Eph. iv. 17) in the sense of Scazapripecba: (1 
Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1), earnestly conjuring ; comp. also Thucyd. vi. 
80; dedueda 62 xai uaprupéueda dua, and viil. 58: uaprupopéven nai éxcderalévtuv 
ue} xarayecv, Which later passage is peculiarly interesting on this account, 
because there (as in our verse, see critical notes) most Mss. read the mean- 
ingless uaptupovpévuv. paprupduevoe strengthens the two former participles. 
cig rd mepimarery buae x.T.A.] contains not the design (de Wette, Koch, Elli- 
cott), also not the design and effect of the exhortation (Schott), but is the 
object to all three preceding participles. The meaning is: Calling on you, 
and exhorting, and adjuring you to a walk worthy of God, z.e. to make 
such a walk yours. But Christians walk agiog rot Geov (comp. Col. i. 10; 
Eph. iv. 1; Rom. xvi. 2; Phil. i. 27; 3 John 6), when they actually prove 
by their conduct and behavior that they are mindful of those blessings, 
which the grace of God has vouchsafed to them, and of the undisturbed 
blessedness which He promises them in the future.—rot xadovvroc] The 
present occurs, because the call already indeed made to the Thessalonians 
is uninterruptedly continued, until the completion succeeds to the call and 
invitation, namely, at Christ’s return. The meaning of Hofmann is wide 
of the mark : that by the present, the call is indicated as such that would 
become wholly in vain for those who walk unworthily.—Bac:Aciav kai 
défav]} not an & dia dvoiv; to the kingdom of His glory, or to the glory of 
His kingdom (Turretin, Benson, Bolten, Koppe, Olsh. e al.). Both sub- 
stantives have the same rank and the same emphasis. Baumgarten- 
Crusius erroneously distinguishes Baoweia and dééa as the earthly and 
heavenly kingdom of God. Further, dé& is not the glory of the Messianic 
kingdom, which is specially brought forward after the general BaoAciay (de 
Wette); but God calls the readers to participate in His kingdom (i.e. the 
Messianic) and in His (God’s) glory, for Christians are destined to enter 
upon the joint possession of the 66a which God Himself has; comp. Rom. 
v. 2; Eph. iii. 19. 

Ver. 18. [On vv. 18-16, see Note X LIX. pages 493, 494.] Paulin ver. 13 passes 
from the earnest and self-sacrificing publication of the gospel to the earnest 
and self-sacrificing reception of the gospel. Erroneously Baumgarten- 
Crusius: Paul, having taught in what manner he has been among the 
Thessalonians, shows in vv. 13-16 what he has given to them, namely, a 
divine thing.—Kai é:4 rovro] And even on this account. Kai, being placed 
first, connects the more closely what follows with what precedes. Comp. 





478 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


2 Thess. ii. 11.—¢:2 rovro] not: “ quoniam tam felici successu apud vos 
evangelium praedicavimus” (Pelt, Bloomfield): for (1) from ver. 1 and 
onwards the subject spoken of is not the success or effect, but only the char- 
acter of the apostle’s preaching ; (2) the intolerable tautology would arise, 
as we have preached to you the gospel with such happy success, so we 
thank God for the happy success of our ministry; (8) lastly, if Paul wished 
to indicate a reference of ver. 138 to the whole preceding description, he 
would perhaps have written d:4 raira, though certainly d:4 rovro might be 
justified, as vv. 1-12 may be taken together as one idea. According to 
Schott, dca rovro refers back to cic rd weperareiv; “Quum haec opera in 
animis vestris ad vitam divina invitatione dignam impellendis minime 
frustra fuerit collocata, quam vos ejusmodi vitam exhibueritis, ego vicissim 
cum soclis deo gratias ago assiduas, dr: ff.” But still a tautology remains, 
which Schott himself appears to have felt, since he takes xai jei¢ in sharp 
contrast to tua, ver. 12; besides, the ground of this explanation gives 
way, inasmuch as ¢i¢ rd repenarezy can only denote the object, but in no way 
the result of the exhortations. Also de Wette refers dia rovro to ei¢ rd 
repitareiv, but explains it thus: Therefore, because it was so important 
an object for us (so already Flatt, but who unites what is incapable of 
being united) to exhort you to a worthy walk. But there is in the pre- 
ceding no mention of the importance of the object of the apostle’s exhor- 
tations. Accordingly there remains for é:4 rovro only two connections of 
thought possible, namely, either to refer to the earnestness and zeal 
described in vv. 11, 12, with which the exhortations of the apostle were 
enforced. Then the thought would be: because we have so much applied 
ourselves to exhort you to walk worthy (Flatt, Ellicott), so we thank God 
for the blessed result of our endeavors. Or é:a rovro may be referred to the 
concluding words of ver. 12: rot xadovvrog iuag ei¢ rv éavtov Bacrdeiav xat 
dé£av, 80 that the meaning is: Because God calls you to such a glorious 
goal, so we thank God continually that you have understood this call of 
God which has come to you, and that you have obeyed it. Evidently this 
last reference, which is found in Zanchius, Balduin, and Olshausen, is to 
be preferred as the nearest and simplest. So recently also Alford and 
Auberlen.—xai queic} to be taken together, we also. For not only Paul and 
his companions, but every true Christian who hears! of the conduct of 
the Thessalonians, must be induced to thankfulness to God. Comp. Eph. 
i.15. Hardly correctly, Zanchius, whom Bald. and Ell. follow, places «ai in 
contrast to the Thessalonians : non solum vos propter hanc vocationem 
debetis agere gratias, sed etiam nos. Erroneously also de Wette; «ai 
belongs to the whole clause: therefore also, which would require 6:4 xai 
TovTo. —evyaptorovuev tH Oey] For although the spontaneous conduct of the 
readers is here spoken of, yet thanks is due to God, who has ordained this 
spontaneous conduct.—ér: mapadaBévreco Adyov x.t.A.] The object of evyapro- 
totpev, because that when ye received, etc.—napadauBévev] which Baumgarten- 
Crusius erroneously considers as equivalent to déyecda, indicates the 


180 specially Alford: We as well as wévres of micrevovrtes iv Ty Maxe8ovig xai dy ry Ayala, 1. 7. 





CHAP. I. 13. 479 


objective reception—the obtaining (comp. Col. ii. 6; Gal. i. 9); déyeo9ac, on 
the other hand, is the subjective reception—the acceptance (comp. i. 6; 2 
Cor. viii. 17).—axof] ig used in a passive sense, that which is heard, i.e. the 
preaching, the message (comp. Rom. x. 16; Gal. iii. 2; John xii. 88). Arbi- 
trarily Pelt; it is that to which one at once shows obedience. rap’ }uav 
[XLIX b.] is to be closely connected with axoge (Estius, Aretius, Beza, 
Calixtus, Koppe, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Alford, Hofmann, and others), 
and to the whole idea Adyov axoge map’ yuev is added the more definite 
characteristic tov Gcov. Thus: the word of God which ye have heard of 
us, the word of God preached by us. We must not, with Musculus, Piscator, 
Er. Schmid, Turretin, Fritzsche (on 2 Cor. déss. I. p.8) de Wette, Koch, 
Ellicott and Auberlen, unite zap’ judv with rapadaBdrrec; for against this 
is not only the order of the words, as we would expect mapadaPévre¢ rap’ 
judy Adyov axon Tov Ocov, Whereas in the passage there exists no reason for 
the separation of the natural connection; but also chiefly the addition of 
axoge Would be strange, as along with mapadaBévres rap’ yuav it would be 
superfluous. It is otherwise with our interpretation, in which an impor- 
tant contrast exists, Paul contrasting himself asthe mere publisher to the 
proper author of the gospel; and in which also the construction is unob- 
jectionable (against de Wette), as axotecy mapé rivog (see John i. 41) is used, 
substantives and adjectives often retaining the construction of verbs from 
which they are derived. See Kihner, II. pp. 217, 245.—rod Geov] not the 
objective genitive, the word preached by us which treats of God, é.¢. of . 
His purposes of salvation (Erasmus, Vatablus, Musculus, Hunnius, Bal- 
duin, Er. Schmid, Grotius), against which the following ob Asyov avd pdruv 

. . GAB Adyov Ocod is decisive; but the word which proceeds from God, 
whose author is God Himself.—édéfacde] ye have received it, sc. the word of 
God preached.—oi Aédyov «.7.4.] [XLIX c.] not as the word of man. The 
addition of a dc (ovx d¢ Adyov avOp. aAAd. . . dg Adyov Oeov), dispensable in 
itself (see Kiihner, II. p. 226), is here the rather left out, because the apos- 
tle would not only express what the preaching of the word was in the 
estimation of the Thessalonians, but likewise what it was in point of fact, on 
which account the parenthesis xaddc éoriw GAn9bc, according as it is in truth, 
is emphatically added.—The Thessalonians received the Aéyoc Oeod as the 
word of God, seeing they believed it, and were zealous for it.—%c] is not to 
be referred to Geot,' but to Adyov Ged ;* for (1) in what immediately precedes, 
the subject is not Oeéc, but Adyo¢ Oecd. (2) Paul uses always the active 
évepyeiv Of God (comp 1 Cor. xu. 6; Gal. it. 8, 111.5; Eph. i. 11; Phil. ii. 
13), and of things the middle évepyeiofac (comp. Gal. v. 6; Eph. iii. 20; Col. 
i. 29).—évepyeira: is middle (which ts active), not passive (which is made 
active), as Estius, Hammond, Schulthess, Schott, Bloomfield, and others 
think. [XLIX d.]J—év tyiv roig riorebovow] does not mean: “ex quo tempore 
religionem suscepistis” (Koppe); for then é tyiv mrepoaciv would have to 
be put. Also not: “ quum susceperitis”’ (Pelt), or “ propterea quod fidem 


1Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Aretius, Wolf, Turretin, Benson, Fritzsche, 
Auberlen, and others. de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, Alford, 
2Syr., Ambrose, Erasmus, Estius, Balduin, Ellicott, Hofmann. 





480 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


habetis ” (Schott), because or in so far as, ye believe and continue believ- 
ing (Olsh. Koch); for if it were a causal statement, the participle morebov- 
ov without the addition of the article would be put. roi¢ miretovow 
rather serves only for the more precise definition of iyiv, thus indicating 
that mrevew belongs to the Thessalonians. 

Ver. 14 is not designed, as Oecumenius, Calvin, and Pelt think, to prove 
the sincerity with which the Thessalonians received the gospel, but is a 
proof of 8 xai évepyeira:, ver. 13. [XLIX e.] In not shunning to endure 
sufferings for the sake of the gospel, the Thessalonians had demonstrated 
that the word of God had already manifested its activity among them, had 
already become a life-power, a moving principle in them.—#yeic yép] an 
emphatic resumption of the previous iyiv roig meorebovocy—piunrai] imitators, 
certainly not in intention or design, but in actual fact or result.—adeAgoi] The 
frequent repetition of this address (comp. i. 4, ii. 1, 9, 17) is significant of 
the ardent love of Paul toward the church. That Paul compares the con- 
duct of the Thessalonians with that of the Palestinian churches is, 
according to Calvin, whom Calixtus follows, designed to remove the 
objection which might easily arise to his readers. As the Jews were 
the only worshipers of the true God outside of Christianity, so the 
attack on Christianity by the Jews might give rise to a doubt whether 
it were actually the true religion. For the removal of this doubt, 
the apostle, in the first place, shows that the same fate which had 
at an earlier period befallen the Palestinian churches had happened to 
the Thessalonians; and then, that the Jews were the hardened enemies 
of God and of all sound doctrine. But evidently such a design of the 
apostle is indicated by nothing, and its supposition is entirely superfluous, 
as every Christian must with admiration recognize the heroism of Chris- 
tian resistance to persecution with which the Palestinian churches had 
distinguished themselves. Accordingly, it was a great commendation of 
the Thessalonians if the same heroic Christian stedfastness could be 
predicated of them. This holds good against the much more arbitrary 
and visionary opinion of Hofmann, that Paul, by the mention of the 
Palestinian churches, and the expression concerning the Jews therewith 
connected, designed to meet the erroneous notion or representation of 
what happened to the readers. As the conversion of the Thessalonians 
might in an intelligible manner appear in the eyes of their countrymen as 
a capture of them in the net of a Jewish doctrine, and hence on that side 
the reproach might be raised that, on account of this strange matter, they 
had become hostile to their own people; so it was entirely in keeping to 
show that the apostolic doctrine was anything but an affair of the Jewish 
people, that, on the contrary, the Jews were its bitterest enemies! Gro- 
tius would understand the present participle rév otséy in the sense of the 
participle of the preterite; whilst, appealing to Acts viii. 4, xi. 19, he 
thinks that the Palestinian churches had by persecutions ceased to exist 
as such, only a few members remaining. But neither do the Acts justify 
such an opinion, nor is it in accordance with the words of Paul in Gal. i. 
22. The further supposition which Grotius adds is strange and unhis- 


CHAP. II. 14. 481 


torical, that some Christians expelled from Palestine had betaken them- 
selves to Thessalonica, and that to them mainly a reference in our passage 
is made.—év Xpiotp ‘Incov] Oecumenius: evgvac duidev’ évecd) ydp nai al 
cuvvaywyai tév 'lovdaiwy ev Oe@ elvae doxovot, tac tev moray ExxAnclag nai iv TO 
Oc nat év TH vig abtov Aéyec elvar.—bri] for.—ra adrd] the like things, denotes 
the general similarity of the sufferings endured. Grotius precariously 
specifies them by res vestras amisistis, pars fuistis ejecti—ouugurérie | 
[XLIX f.] of the same ¢v4#, belonging to the same natural stock, contri- 
bulis, then generally countryman, fellow-countryman, dpoe6vy (Hesychius).! 
By ocvyqvaérac we are naturally not to understand the Jews (Cornelius a 
Lapide, Hammond, Joachim Lange); for that the expression is best suited 
to them, as Braun (with Wolf) thinks, whilst possibly Jews of a particular 
tribe (perhaps of the tribe of Juda or Benjamin) were resident in Thessa- 
lonica, only merits to be mentioned on account of its curiosity. Also 
ouugvAéra: is not, with Calvin, Piscator, Bengel, and others, to be under- 
stood hoth of Jews and Gentiles, but can only be understood of Gentiles. 
To this we are forced—({1) by the sharp contrast of ovzguderav and "Iovdaiuy, 
which must be considered as excluding each other; (2) by the addition of 
idiwy to cvuudvdAerav, as the great majority of the Thessalonian church con- 
sisted of Gentiles; comp. i.9. However, although Paul in the expression 
ovuguierav speaks only of Gentiles as persecutors, yet the strong invective 
against the Jews which immediately follows (vv. 15, 16) constrains us to 
assume that the apostle in ver. 14 had more in his mind than he expressed 
in words. As we learn from the Acts, it was, indeed, the heathen magis- 
trates by whose authority the persecutions against the Christian church at 
Thessalonica proceeded, but the proper originators and instigators were 
here also the Jews; only they could not excite the persecution of the 
Christians directly, as the Jews in Palestine, but, hemmed in by the exist- 
ing laws, could only do so indirectly, namely, by stirring up the heathen 
mob. This circumstance, united with the repeated experience of the 
inveterate spirit of opposition of the Jews, which Paul had in Asia at a 
period directly preceding this Epistle (perhaps also shortly before its com- 
position at Corinth), is the natural and easily psychologically explanatory 
occasion of the polemic in vv. 15,16. Erroneously Olshausen gives the 
reason ; he thinks it added in order to turn the attention of the Christians 
in Thessalonica to the intrigues of those men with whom the Judaizing 
Christians stood on a level, as it was to be foreseen that they would not 
leave this church also undisturbed ; against which view de Wette correctly 
remarks, that there is no trace of such a warning, and that the Thessa- 
lonians did not require it, as they had learned sufficiently to know the 
enmity of the Jews against the gospel.—xa0éc] Instead of this, properly 4 
or azep should have been put, corresponding to ré atré (comp. Phil. i. 30, ra» 
atvrdv . . . olov). However, even in the classics such inexact connections 
are very frequently found.? The double «ai (xai iyeig . . . xai avrof) brings 


21Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 172, 471. Demosth. adv. Phil. I. p. 187; KOhner, I. p. 
$8ee Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 426 f.; Bremi,ad 671. 
31 





482 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


out the comparison.—atroi] denotes not the apostle and his assistants 
(Erasmus, Musculus, Er. Schmid), as such a prominent incongruity in 
the comparison is inconceivable; but the masculine as a recognized free 
construction (comp. Gal. i. 22, 23; Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 631]) refers to 
Tay éxxAnoiy tov Oeov, thus denotes the Palestinian Christians. 

Vv. 15, 16. As to the occasion of this invective, see on ver. 14.—xai] not 
signifying even ; also not to be connected with the next xai, both . . . and 
(Ellicott); but rév xai means who also, and proves the propriety of the 
preceding statement from the analogous conduct in ver. 15. Grotius 
(comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius): Quid mirum 
est, 81 in nos saeviunt, qui dominum nostrum interfecerunt...?... 
Non debent discipuli meliorem sortem exspectare quam magistri fuit.— 
Moreover, rdv xbpiov emphatically precedes, and is separated from 'Incotv 
in order to enhance the enormity of the deed.—xai rote mpogfrac] De 
Wette and Koch unite this with éxdwévrey ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Bengel, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Auberlen, and 
most critics, more correctly refer it to a@roxrevdévrev. In the catalogue of 
the sins of the Jews which Paul here adduces, he begins directly with that 
deed which formed the climax of their wickedness—the murder of the 
Son of God, of Jesus the Messiah. In order to cut off all excuses for this 
atrocious deed of the Jews, as that they had done it in ignorance, not 
recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, Paul adds, going backwards in time, 
that they had already done the same to the Old Testament prophets, 
whom, in like manner, they had murdered against their better knowledge 
and conscience. Christ Himself accuses the Jews of the murder of the 
prophets, Matt. xxiii. 31, 37, Luke xi. 47 ff, xiii. 34; and Stephen does 
the same, Acts vii. 52; with which passages comp. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14 (see 
Rom. xi. 3); Jer. ii. 30; Neh. ix. 26.—xal jude éxdiwtévrwv] [XLIX g.] and 
have persecuted us. uac refers not to Paul only (Calvin), also not to Paul 
and Silas only (de Wette, Koch, Alford), or to Paul and the companions 
who happened to be with him at Thessalonica (Auberlen); but to Paul 
and the apostles generally (Estius, Aretius, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, 
Schott, Ellicott). The preposition é« in éxdwévtwv strengthens the verbal 
idea. According to Bengel, Alford, Ellicott and Hofmann, the word has 
the semi-local sense: qui persequendo ejecerunt. In an unjustifiable man- 
ner, Koppe and de Wette (the latter appealing to Luke xi. 49 and Ps. cxix. 
157, LX X.) make it stand for the simple verb.—«ai 6 9 apeoxdvrov] 
[XLIX h.] and please not God. Erroneously Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 41, 
note, and Hofmann : live not to please God ; similarly Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, 
and Baumgarten-Crusius: placere non quaerentium ; for after the pre- 
ceding strong expressions that would be flat. Rather the resulé is inferred 
from the two preceding statements, namely, the consequences of the 
obstinacy of the Jews, with which they persecute the messengers of God, is 
that they please not God, that is, are hateful to Him (@eoorvyeic, Meiosis). 
—xal raow avOpdron tvavriov] and are hostile to all men. Grotius, Turretin, 
Michaelis, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, 


CHAP. 11. 14-16. 483 


Bloomfield, Jowett, and others, erroneously find here expressed the nar- 
row exclusiveness, by means of which the Jews strictly separated them- 
selves from all other nations, and about which Tacit. Hist. v. 5 (“adversus 
omnes alios hostile odium”’); Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103 ff.; Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 
p. 524; Philostr. Apollon. v. 33; Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 10, 14, wrote. For 
(1) that hostile odium and desire of separation among the Jews was noth- 
ing else than a shrinking from staining themselves and their monotheistic 
worship by contact with idolaters. But Paul would certainly not have 
blamed such a shrinking, which was only a fruit of their strict observance 
of their ancestral religion. (2) If ver. 16 begins with an independent 
assertion, xwAvévrav . . . owGaorv would denote nothing essentially new, 
but would only repeat what was already expressed in gude éxdwfdvtur, 
ver. 15. (8) It is grammatically inadmissible to understand the words «ai 
maow avOpdroeg évavrioy a8 an tndependent assertion, and thus to be con- 
sidered as a general truth. For the participle xuAvévruv (ver. 16) must 
contain a causal statement, as it is neither united with «ai, nor by an 
article (kai kwAvévrev «.7.A. OF tév KwAvévTuv 4.7.4., OF TOV Kal KwAvdévTur 
x.7.4.), and thus is closely and directly connected with the preceding, and 
giving a reason for it, ¢.e. explaining wherefore or in what relation the Jews 
are to be considered as raow avrOpdrore évavrio. Thus the thought neces- 
sarily is: And who actually proved themselves to be hostilely disposed 
to all men since they hindered us from publishing the gospel to the Gen- 
tiles, and thus leading them to salvation. That is to say, the gospel offers 
salvation to every one, without distinction, who will surrender himself 
to it. But the Jews, in opposing themselves with all their might to the 
publication of this free and universal gospel, prove themselves, in point 
of fact, as enemies to the whole human race, in so far as they will not suffer 
the gospel, which alone can save men, to reach them. So Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bern. a Piconio, Schott, 
Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, and others correctly interpret the words; also 
Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 49, note, and Auberlen, only that he would incor- 
rectly unite xal Gep yi) apecndvrev with xwAvévrev, which would only be 
tenable if, instead of the simple connected clause xai Oc@ uA apecxdvtwy, 
the more definitely separating form rév Oe «.r.A. had been put.'—xwAvdv- 
trav nuac| hindering us, namely, by contradictions, calumnies, laying snares 
for our life, etc. Comp. Acts ix. 23 ff, xiii. 45, xvii. 5, 18, xxii. 22. 
Unnecessarily, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Koch, seeking to hinder; for the 
intrigues of the Jews are an actual hindrance to the preaching of the 
apostle,—certainly not an absolute, but a partial hindrance, conditioned 
by opportunity of place and influence.—juac] as above, us the apostles.— 
toig EGveow | to the Gentiles, with emphasis ; for it was the preaching to the 
Gentiles that enraged the Jews. roi¢ 2veocwy resumes the previous réow 
avOpdroic, as that expression comprehended the non-Jewish humanity, ¢. e. 
the Gentile world.—AaAgoa:] is not to be taken absolutely, so that it would 


1 The article ro», wanting before cal @cge un =390s make the two last «af in ver. 15 to signify, 
épeoxévrey, makes it likewise impossible to with Hofmann, “both... and.” 








484 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


be equivalent to docere (Koppe, Flatt), or would require rév Adyov rod Oced 
for its completion (Piscator), but is to be conjoined with iva owdow in 
one idea, and the whole is then another expression for evayyeAifeofa:, but 
in a more impressive form.—ei¢ rd avarAnpdocat x.7.A.] to fill up their sins 
always. sic does not denote the result—dore or quo fit uf (Musculus, Estius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Koch, Bloomfield), but the object, the design ; and that not of 
xwAvévtwy (Hofmann), as this is a dependent clause, but of the whole 
description. But it expresses not the ultimate design which the Jews 
themselves, in their so acting, had either consciously (Oecumenius: ¢y0i yép, 
bre mavra & éExoincay of ‘lovdaiot, oxoTg Tov auaprdvey Exoiovv, tovréoT Fear, 
bre auaptdvovet Kai judpravov) or unconsciously (de Wette: they do it, though 
unconsciously, to the end, etc.; Auberlen), so that an ironical expression 
would have to be assumed (Schott). But in entire conformity 
with the Pauline mode of thought, which delights to dive into the eternal 
and secret counsels of God, it expresses the design which God has with this 
sinfulness of the Jews. So, correctly, Piscator. God’s counsel was to 
make the Jews reach in their hardness even to the extreme point of their 
sinfulness, and then, instead of the past long-suffering and patience, the 
severity of anger and punishment was to commence.—dvardAnpéoa tas 
apaptiac] to fill up their sins, z.e. to fill up the measure destined for them, 
to bring them to the prescribed point ; comp. L-XX. Gen. xv. 16; 2 Macc. vi. 
14.—atrwv] refers to the subject of the preceding verses—the Jews.—révrore | 
emphatically placed at the end, is not equivalent to révrwe or mavreaAde (Bret- 
schneider, Olshausen), on all sides, in every way (Baumgarten-Crusius), 
but merely involves the notion of time, always, that is, the Jews before 
Christ, at the time of Christ, and after Christ, have opposed themselves to 
the divine truth, and thus have been always engaged in filling up the 
measure of their iniquities.|_ When, however, the apostle says that this 
avarAnpovv tag duapriag is practised by the Jews mdvrore, at all times, his 
meaning cannot be that the Jews had at any given moment, thus already 
repeatedly, filled up the measure of their sins (Musculus), but he intends 
to say that at every division of time the conduct of the Jews was of such 
a nature that the general tendency of this continued sinful conduct was 
the filling up of the measure of their sins. Paul thus conceives that the 
Jews, at every renewed obstinate rejection of the truth, approached a step 
nearer to the complete measure of their sinfulness.—ép6ace dé én’ abroi¢ 7 
opyy ei¢ téAoc] but the wrath has come upon them even to the end. The Vul- 
gate, Luther, Beza, Wolf, erroneously take dé in the sense of yép. Rather, 
dé forms the contrast to avarAnpéoat rdvrore (not to the whole preceding 
description), in so far as the increase of the divine wrath is contrasted to 
the continued wicked conduct of the Jews.—¢@dvew] contains, in classical 
usage, the idea of priority in time. Schott thinks that this idea must also 
be here preserved, whilst he finds indicated therein the épy4 breaking 


1Oecumenius: Tavra 8 cal wdéAas éwi tev expafay, iva wdvrore dvawAnpeGacw ai apap- 
wpodyrav xai vow dwi rou Xpicrou kai eh’ Hussy = TLas avrep. 





CHAP. I. 15, 16. 485 


forth upon the Jews citius quam exspectaverint vel omnino praeter opin- 
ionem eorum. Incorrectly; for when ¢@dvey is united not with the accu- 
sative of the person (comp. iv. 15), but with prepositions (g0dvecw eig¢ ti, 
Rom. ix. 31 [see Fritzsche in loco]; Phil. iii. 16; g6davew ype revds, 2 Cor. 
ix. 14; gOav. eri ria, Matt. xii. 28; Dan. iv. 25), then, in the later Greek, 
the meaning of the verb “to anticipate” is softened into the general 
meaning of reaching the intended end. The aorist é¢@ace is not here to 
be taken in the sense of the present (Grotius, Pelt), also not prophetically 
instead of the future (Koppe: mox eveniet iis; Flatt: it will certainly 
befall them, and also it will soon befall them; and so also Schott, Bloom- 
field, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 239), but re- 
ports in quite a usual manner a fact which already belongs to the past.— 
} opyf) [XLIX 1.] sc. Oecd, does not mean the divine punishment, which 
certainly in itself it may denote (Erasmus, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Flatt, Schott, de W., Ewald e al.), but the divine wrath. The article # 
denotes either the wrath predicted by the prophets (Theophylact, Schott), 
or generally the wrath which is merited (Oecumenius).—ei¢ réAoc] belongs 
to the whole sentence é¢@ace . . . opy#, and denotes even to its (the wrath’s) 
end, 1. e. the wrath of God has reached its extreme limits, so that it must 
mow discharge itself,—now, in the place of hitherto long-suffering and 
patience, punishment must step in. The actual outbreak of the wrath, the 
punishment itself, has thus not yet occurred at the composition of this 
Epistle. To interpret the words of the destruction of Jerusalem as already 
happened, would be contrary to the context. On the other hand, it is to 
be assumed that Paul, from the by no means dark signs of the times, had 
by presentiment foreseen the impending catastrophe of the Jewish people, 
and by means of this foresight had expressed the concluding words of this 
verse. It is accordingly an unnecessary arbitrariness when Ritschl (Hall. 
A. Lit. Z. 1847, (No. 126) explains the words 290... . réAoc as a@ gloss. 
Incorrectly, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Homberg, Koch, and Hofmann 
understand ei¢ réAoc in the sense of reAéuc, penitus. Also incorrectly, 
Heinsius, Michaelis, Bolten, Wahl: postremo, tandem. Others erroneously 
unite e¢ réAog with 4 épy%, whilst they supply ovca, and then either ex- 
plain it: the wrath which will endure eternally or to the end of the world 
(Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Fab. Stapulens., 
Hunnius, Seb. Schmid, and others); or: the wrath which will continue 
to work until its full manifestation (Olshausen); or lastly: the wrath 
which shall end with their (the Jews’) destruction (Flatt). In all these 
suppositions the article 7 must be repeated before eic réAoc. Erroneously, 
moreover, de Wette refers cig réAo¢ to the Jews, although he unites it with 
the verb: “so as to make an end of them.” So also Bloomfield and 
Ewald: “even to complete eradication.” The apostle rather preserves 
the figure used in avartAnpdca ; namely, as there is a definite measure for 
the sins of the Jews, at the filling up of which the divine wrath must dis- 
charge itself; so also there exists a definite measure for the long-suffer.ng 
patience of God, whose fullness provokes divine punishment. Comp. also 
Rom. ii. 5. 


486 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


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


CHAP. 11. 17. 487 


of its actual occurrence; also there is noting objectionable in AaAciv, as it is so 
used by Paul in 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 13; Col. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 20, and elsewhere.— 
Lastly, if Baur, in é¢@ace d2 én’ avroig 4 opy? sig tédo¢ (so also Schrader on iii. 
13), finds the ‘destruction of Jerusalem denoted as an event that has already 
occurred, this is only the result of an interpretation contrary to the context. 


' Ver. 17 begins a new section of the Epistle. [On Vv. 17-20, see Note 
L. pages 494, 495.J—'Hyeic dé] [L 6.] is not in contrast to ipeic, ver. 14 (de 
Wette, Koch, Hofmann); for ver. 14 is only an explanation of the main 
thought in ver. 13, and, besides, the invective against the Jews given in 
vv. 15,16 is too marked and detailed, that dé passing over it could be 
referred to tueic in ver. 14. It is therefore best to assume that usic dé, 
whilst it contrasts the writer to the Jews whose machinations have just 
been described, and accordingly breaks off the polemic against the Jews, 
refers to ver. 13 as the preceding main thought, and accordingly resumes 
the jucic in ver. 18. To the attestation of his thanksgiving to God on 
account of the earnest acceptance of the gospel on the part of the 
Thessalonians, the apostle joins the attestation of his longing for his 
readers, and his repeatedly formed resolution to return to them. The 
view of Calvin, which Musculus, Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Vorstius, 
Gomarus, Benson, Macknight, Pelt, Hofmann, and Auberlen maintain, 
is erroneous, that vv. 17 ff. were added by Paul as an ercusatio “nese a 
Paulo desertos esse putarent Thessalonicenses, quum tanta necessitas ejus 
praesentiam flagitaret.” For evidently in the circumstances that con- 
strained the apostle to depart from Thessalonica, such a suspicion could 
not arise, especially as, according to Acts xvii. 10, the Thessalonians them- 
selves had arranged the departure of the apostle. Accordingly no justifica- 
tion was requisite. The explanation has rather its origin only in the fullness 
of the apostolic Christian love, which cared and labored for the salvation 
of these recent disciples of Christ.—aropganobévrec] bereaved. odpgavilerdat 
is originally used of children who are deprived of their parents by death. 
It is however used, even by the classics, in a wider sense, expressing in a 
figurative and vivid manner the deprivation of an object, or the distance, 
the separation from a person or thing. Thus the adjective dpgavé¢ occurs 
in Pindar (see Passow) in a wider sense (e.g. op¢. éraipwv, Isthm. vii. 16) ; 
also of parents, dpgavoi yeveac, childless, Ol. ix. 92.1 Here also aropgavadévrec 
expresses the idea of distance, of separation, but is not exhausted by this 
idea. We would accordingly err, if we were to find nothing further in it 
than is expressed by zwpiodévrec; for the verb, in union with the feeling 
of tender love which pervades the whole passage, vividly describes the 
feeling of emptiness and solitude which by the separation came over the 
apostle—a feeling of solitude, such as befalls children when they are 
placed in a condition of orphanage.—ag’ ipév] away from you, The 
apostle repeats the preposition a7é, instead of putting the simple genitive 
tuav after the participle, in order to give prominence to the idea of local 


1Comp. Hesych.: dpdards 6 yordur éorepnucvos cai réxvey. 





488 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 

severance, which was already expressed in aropgavoGévrec, here once more 
specified by iéself—rpi¢ xaipov pac] not subito (Balduin, Turretin), literally, 
for the space of an hour; but ag an hour is relatively only a short space, 
generally “for the space of an instant,” i.e. for a very short period! Itisa 
more definite expression for the simple mpé¢ par, Gal. ii. 5, 2 Cor. vii. 8, 
Philem. 15, John v. 35, or pd¢ xacpdéy, 1 Cor. vii. 5, Luke viii. 18, and corres- 
ponds to the Latin horae momentum.* The expression does not import that 
the apostle even now hopes soon to return to the Thessalonians (Flatt ; 
and appealing to iii. 10, de Wette and Koch). This is forbidden by the 
grammatical relation of dmopgawodévres to the preterite éorovddoapev, 
according to which zpd¢ xarpdv Spag can only be the time indicated by the 
participle. Thus the sense is: After we were separated from you for 
scarcely an instant, that is, for a very short season, our longing to return 
to you commenced.—rpocdryp ob xapdia} comp. 2 Cor. v. 12, in presence, not 
in heart, for the severance refers only to our bodies; but love is not bound 
in the fetters of place or time; comp. Col. ii. 5.—epiosotépug tomovdéoaper] we 
endeavored so much the more. orovddfev, to show diligence to reach some- 
thing, implies in itself that the apostle had already taken steps to realize 
his resolution to return, and thus proves the earnestness of the design. 
repiocorépwe is not to be referred to ov xapdig, “ more than if I had been 
separated from you in heart” (de Wette, Koch), for then there could 
have been no mention of a orovddZev at all;? but is, with Schott, to be 
referred to mpd¢ xaipdv pac, so much the more, as the separation has only 
recently occurred. For it is a matter of universal experience, that the 
pain of separation from friends, and the desire to return to them, are 
more vivid, the more freshly the remembrance of the parting works in 
the spirit, i.e. the less time has elapsed since the parting. Therefore the 
explanation of Oecumenius and Theophylact, after Chrysostom, is 
unpsychological: sepiccorépus éorovddcanev } de eixdg qv Tove mpdg Gpav 
atoAepbévrac, Winer’s view (Gram. p. 228 [E. T. 243]) is also inappro- 
priate, because without support in the context: The loss of their personal 
intercourse for a time had made his longing greater than it would have 
been, if he had stood with them in no such relation. Further, arbitrarily, 
because the proximate reference of mepiocorépwe can only result from the 
directly preceding participial sentence, but not from ver. 14, Fromond.: 
“magis et ardentius conati sumus, quum sciremus pericula, in quibus 
versaremini; ” and Hofmann: “ for the readers the time after their con- 


1The assertion of Hofm., that wpds xa:pdy Plin. Nat. Hist. vii. 62: “ Bidem (se. Mae- 


pas “cannot possibly denote how long it was 
since Paul had been separated from the Theas. 
but only how long this was to happen: as he 
was obliged to be separated from them, yet this 
separation was not for ever,” etc., could only 
have a meaning if instead of the passive form 
awoppancbérvres a participle had been put, 
which denoted the free action of the apostle. 

2Comp. Hor. Sat. 1.1.7,8: “horae | momen- 
to aut cita mors venit aut victoria lacta.” 


cenati) triennio supremo nullo horae mo- 
mento contigit somnus.” 

*This reference is in a positive form ex- 
pressed logically more correctly by Mus- 
culus: “quo magis corde praesens vobiscum 
fui, hoc abundantius faciem vestram videre 
studui;” and B-Crus: with so much the 
greater desire, because I was sincere with 
you. Ell.: because our heart was with you, 
and our longing consequently greater. 


cHap. 11. 17, 18. 489 


version is a time of trouble; for their teachers it is on that account atime 
of so much the more anxious endeavor to see them again.” Lastly, 
grammatically incorrect Turretin, Olshausen, and de Wette, ed. 1, more 
than usual, i. e. very earnestly —Schott discovers an elegance and force in 
Paul, not having written inde idetv, but the fuller form rd rpéowrov tpiv 
ideiv, With reference to the preceding zpoodmy; but hardly correct, as rd 
npéowrov ideiv is a usual form with Paul. Comp. iii. 10; Col. ii. 1.—é» woAag 
exupig| with much desire (longing). A statement of manner added to 
éorovddoauer, for the sake of strengthening. 

Ver. 18. Acdri] on which account, that is, on account of this great longing 
for you (dra rd év moAAQ emBunig orovdalew To mpbauwrov tp. ideiv).—ijeAgoaper] 
[L c, d.] Paul uses 6éAev in agreement with écrovddoayev (ver. 17), not 
BobdcoGa:, as the latter word expresses only the wish, the inclinatfon to 
something; but the former the active will, the definite purpose. See - 
Meyer on Philem. 13 f., and Tittm. Synon. p. 124 ff But whether this 
purpose was already formed at Berea (Fromond., Baumgarten-Crusius), 
or elsewhere, cannot be determined.—éyo pév Maidoc] a restriction of the 
subject contained in 7eAfoauev, as the apostle in this section intends only 
to speak of himself. But that he considered the addition éy pév MabAog 
here necessary, whilst he omitted it in what preceded, is a proof that he 
there regarded what was said as spoken likewise in the name of his two 
associates. Moreover, é)& pév Maitdoe is an actual parenthesis, and is not 
to be connected with xai drag xai dic, as Hofmann thinks, from the 
insufficient reason, because otherwise éy® pév TatvAocg must have stood after 
nOcApoapev ('); and as we find also with Grotius, who makes a suppressed 
dé correspond to the yzév, in the sense: “nempe Timotheus et Silas 
semel.” '—Mé»] serves only to bring the subject into prominence. See 
Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 413.—xai amag nai dic] both once and twice, a definite 
expression for twice (comp. Phil. iv. 16); not in the general sense of 
saepius (Grotius, Joachim Lange, Turretin, Koppe, Pelt), for then dag xa? 
di¢ would have been written. Calvin: “ Quum dicit semel et bis voluimus, 
testatur non subitum fuisse fervorem, qui statim refrixerit, sed hujus pro- 
positi se fuisse tenacem.” A longer continuance of the church (Baur) is not 
to be assumed from this expression, as the interval of probably half a 
year, which is to be assumed between the departure of Paul from 
Thessalonica and the composition of this Epistle (see Introd. @ 3), was a 
period sufficiently long to give rise to the twice formed resolution to re- 
turn.—xai évéxowev judas 6 catavac| and Satan hindered us. «ai, not equivalent 
with 6é, by which certainly this new sentence might have been introduced 
(Vorstius, Grotius, Benson, Koppe, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch, 
Bloomfield), mentions simply the result of the apostle’s resolution in the 
form of juxtaposition. In an unnatural and forced manner Hofmann 
subordinates #eAfoauev édBciv mpoc vuaco as the antecedent to xai évéxowev 
$uac 6 caravag as the principal sentence, whilst d:ér: denotes while, and tv 


1Comp. also Wurm, 7%b. Zettschr. 1833,1, p. to visit the Thessalonians, but Paul particu- 
75 f., éy nai [lavdos is to be united directly larly more than once. 
with nai dwag «ai ds. All three had resolved 





490 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


TOAAg éxiBvule (ver. 17) is “in intention added to the sentence introduced 
by dér.” Accordingly the sense would be: Therefore the anxiety to 
visit the church became so strong, that when it came to the intention to 
go to Thessalonica, Satan hindering prevented it (!)—On éyxérrecy, comp. 
Rom. xv. 22; Gal. v.7; 1 Pet. ili. 7—<é caravac] denotes not “the oppo- 
nents of Christianity, the enemies of God and men” (Schrader), but, 
according to the Pauline view, the personal author of evil, the devil, who, 
as he is the author of all hindrances in the kingdom of God, has brought 
about the circumstances which prevented the apostle from carrying out 
his purpose. But whether, under these preventive circumstances 
occasioned by the devil, are to be understood the wickedness of the 
Thessalonian Jews (Fromond., Schott, de Wette, Bisping), “ qui insidias 
apostolo in itinere struebant”’ (Quistorp and, though wavering, Zanchius), 
or the contentions of the church where Paul was, and which prevented 
his leaving them (Musculus), or even the “ injecta ei necessitas disputandi 
saepius cum Stoicis et Epicureis, qui Athenis erant” (Grotius), or what 
else, must be left unexplained, as Paul himself has given no explanation. 

Ver. 19. [Le.] A reason not for rep. éorovd. «.7.A. ver. 17 and also, on 
the other hand, of jinx. orey. «.7.., ili. 1 (Hofm.), but of the twice formed 
resolution of the apostle to return to Thess., ver. 18. This earnest desire to 
return is founded on the esteem of the apostle for his readers, on account 
of their promising Christian qualities. Grotius : Construi haec sic debent: 
rig yap hudy éAmig . . . Eumpoofley tov xvpiov . . .  ovxt nal tpeic; Certainly 
correct as regards the matter and the thought, as éumpoofev . . . wapovoig is 
to be referred to the preceding predicates, but ought not to be connected 
with # ovyi xai dpeic, as a second independent question. So also Olshau- 
sen, who renders it thus: “ or do not ye also (as I myself and all the rest 
of the faithful) appear before Christ at His coming, ¢. e. without hesitation, 
without any doubt, ye will surely be also recognized by Christ as His, and 
therefore will not fall away again at any time from the faith.” But the 
reason and justification for this strange position of the words consist in 
this, that Paul originally conjoined the words rip yap... dpeic in thought, 
and originally wrote them by themselves ; but then to present the predi- 
cates already put down as considered not in a worldly, but in a specifically 
Christian sense, he introduces, as a closer definition and explanation of 
the whole clause ric . . . tueic, the words Eumpoofev . . . wapovoig. There 
is, accordingly, no need for the supposition of Laurent (Neutestam. Studien, 
Gotha 1866, p. 28 f.), that Paul only at a later period, after he had read 
through the whole Epistle once, placed these words in the margin, or 
ordered them to be inserted. Accordingly, the apostle says: For who is 
our hope or joy or crown of rejoicing, or are not even ye this? before our Lord 
Jesus at His coming; i.e., if any one deserves to be called our hope, 
etc., ye deserve it. As the addition éuzpoofey x.r.A. proves, the apostle 
thinks on the judgment connected with the coming of Christ—Paul, how- 
ever, calls the Thessalonians éAric judv (comp. Liv. xxviii. 39), not 
because he anticipates a reward for himself on account of the conversion 
of the Thessalonians effected by him (Estius, Fromond., Joachim Lange, 


CHAP. Ir. 19. 20. 491 


Hofmann, and most critics), or at least a remiasion of the punishment for 
his early persecution of the Christian church (for the emphasis rests not 
on #z4v, but on the predicates éAmic «.r.4.), but because he has the confi- 
dent hope that the Thessalonians will not be put to shame at the trial to 
be expected at the advent, but will rather be found pure and blameless, 
as those who embraced the faith with eagerness, and heroically persevered 
in it in spite of all contentions.—? xzap4] or joy, as by the conversion and 
Christian conduct of the Thessalonians the kingdom of God has been 
promoted.—# orégavoc xavyfoews| or crown of glory (comp. F'88A Nip, 
Ezek. xvi. 12, xxiii. 42; Prov. xvi. 31, and also the LXX.; Phil. iv. 1; 
Soph. 47. 460; Macrob. in somn. Scip.i.1), inasmuch as this greatness and 
glory, occasioned by the labors of the apostle for the church, is, as it were, 
the victorious reward of his strivings.—# obzi] not nonne (Erasmus, Schott, 
and others), but an non, for # here introduces the second member of a 
double question.—xai ipeic] also ye: for, besides the Thessalonians, there 
were other churches planted by Paul worthy of the same praise. Accord- 
ing to de Wette, to whom Koch and Bisping attach themselves, # teic 
should properly have followed orég. xavyfo.: “no one is more our hope 
than you;” but with «ai the apostle corrects himself, not to say too much, 
and not to offend other churches. But just because } tpyeic imports too 
much, why should not the apostle have designed to put 4 obyi xal tpeic 
from the very first!—év 19 avrod wapoveig] at his coming (return) to estab- 
lish the Messianic kingdom (comp. iii. 13, iv. 15, v. 28, e al.; Usteri, 
Lehrbegr. p. 841 ff.); an epexegesis to Eumpoobev tov xupiov jydv "Inood. 

Ver. 20. An impassioned answer to the question in ver. 19. Thus 
yép is not causal, but confirmatory, you or truly ye are (ipeic éoré, em- 
phatic) our glory and our joy. [Lf] Comp. Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 446]; 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 473. Flatt and Hofmann refer ver. 19 to the 
future, to the rapovoig Xpiorov, and ver. 20 to the present: “Ye are now 
our glory and our joy, therefore I hope that ye will be yet more,” etc. 
Without justification, as this distinction of time would have been marked 
by Paul. 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XLVIII. Vv. 1-12. 


(a) The second chapter, vv. 1-12, states in a more detailed form, what has been 
briefly set forth in i. 5. The word elcodov is taken up from i. 9, but the thought 
goes back to the earlier verse, as is proved (1) by the fact, that vv. 1-12 refer to 
the preaching and conduct of the Apostle and his companions, while i. 9 f. has 
reference only to the conversion of the Thessalonians (except so far, possibly, as 
the word eloodov itself is concerned); and (2) by the fact, that xevf and érap- 
pnovacéueba are naturally connected with éyevfOy .. . év duvduet «7.2. of i. 5. 
In this second and more detailed development of the thought, however, we find a 
more full reference to the matter of persecution, etc., not only with respect to the 
members of the church, vv. 14 ff., but also to the preachers, ver. 2. We also find 
a setting forth of the truth of the message, the sincerity and unselfishness of the 


492 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


preachers, and their devotion to the welfare of the hearers.—(5) Liinem. regards 
uBpovevres (ver. 2) as added to mporaGévrec, because the latter word is a vox media. 
But voo7a§. in such a connection as this could hardly be understood in any sense 
but that of suffering, and it is more probable that tfp:o8. is added for the purpose 
of definiteness or emphasis.—(c) xada¢ oldare—comp. i. 4, 5 and vv. 1, 5, 9, 10, 11 
of this chapter. This repeated appeal to their own knowledge is not to be 
regarded as indicating any doubt or opposition, but, in this early epistle, as 
belonging to the style and character of a friendly letter.—(d) dedoxiudopeda x.7.A. 
(ver. 4) answers to ovx éx wAdvyc, which is to be interpreted as Liinem. under- 
stands it, and oltre . . . xoAaxeiac x.t.A., of ver. 5, corresponds with ovdé é& axa- 
Dapoiag x.r.A. The two meanings of doxuéfo, which occur in the N. T., prove 
and approve, are found in ver. 4. Ver. 5 is introduced, however, according to the 
grammatical construction and immediate connection of thought, as the proof of 
ver. 4.—(e) R. V. renders duvayevor év Bape elvac (ver. 6) might have been burden- 
some; with a marginal note, or claimed honor. A. R. V. reads cluimed authority 
in the text, and been burdensome in the margin. The question is a nearly evenly 
balanced one, but, for the reasons given by Liinem., the rendering of A. R. V. is, 
on the whole, to be preferred. Grimm, Lex. N. T., gives this meaning.—(f) W. 
& H. defend the textual reading v#mio against 7m (ver. 7), on the ground, (1) 
that “the change from the bold image to the tame and facile adjective is charac- 
teristic of the difference between St. Paul and the Syrian revisers ;” (2) that “it 
is not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of flattery 
and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured;¥ (3) that we have 
év plow tuov which suits the former word, and not ei¢ tuda¢ which would be 
adapted to the latter. A reference to himself, however, under the two figures of 
the infant and the nursing mother, in two successive clauses, seems quite improb- 
able. The contrast, moreover, does not seem to be with flattery, etc., but with 
seeking glory and claiming authority; and, with respect to év péow, it seems not 
difficult to explain its use with 7. R. V., Tisch., Treg., Alf., read #mtor.—(g) 
Liinem. places a colon before o¢ éév of ver. 7, and a comma after réxva; but it 
seems better to place a comma before the former words, and acolon after the 
latter (so W. & H.). In either case, otrw¢ refers to the same general idea, but, if 
Liinem.’s punctuation is adopted, it introduces the apodosis to o¢ é4v ;—if that of 
W. & H., it takes up the whole preceding statement with its figure, and unfolds 
or explains it by referring to his readiness to sacrifice himself for them in his 
work among them as a preacher.—(h) ydép of ver. 9 is connected by Liinem. with 
the immediately preceding clause (dér: x.7.4.), As this clause, however, is evi- 
dently very subordinate in its character, it seems better to connect this verse with 
the main idea of the passage which precedes. This labor and toil which he took 
upon himself was a proof of that kindly disposition towards them which made 
him like a nursing-mother to her children and ready, not only to preach the 
gospel, but to sacrifice himself wholly for their sake. We have here, however, 
only one evidence of this kindly feeling; the next verses give a full and general 
survey of his whole life and conduct as proving it.—(t) Liinem. presses in ver. 10, 
as in other cases, the passive force of éyevfInpyev, affirming that it “cannot denote 
pure self-activity.” This position with regard to this aorist passive in the N. T. 
is quite doubtful in all cases, and here all the surrounding words indicate the 
opposite. In connection with this view of éyevfSnpyev, as well as because of the 
use of doiwe and the position of tuiv +. mor., Liinem. holds that these last words 





NOTES. 493 


are the dative of optnion—the light in which we appeared to you, as contrastel 
with those who were hostile tous. But this contrast appears antecedently improba- 
ble, and, as he calls attention to their knowledge in udprupes and oldare, a refer- 
ence in this additional expression to their opinion would hardly be called for, or 
be likely to be introduced. It is better to regard it either as the dative commodi, 
or the dative of interest. R. V. renders “ behaved ourselves toward you.” 


ALIX. Vv. 13-16. 


(a) These verses answer to i. 6, as vv. 1-12 toi. 5. d:d rovro may be explained, 
with Liinem., Alf., Auberlen, Olsh., and others, as referring to tov xaAovyrog x.7.A. 
As this, however, is a mere subordinate and descriptive clause, it is more probable 
that the thought of the writer goes back to the general suggestion, in the earlier 
verses, of his sense of the value of. the gospel to the hearers, which is connected 
with the earnestness of his labor and zeal in preaching it tothem. The view of 
Vaughan, and Dods in Schaff’s Pop. Comm., that it refers to what follows, is con- 
trary to the ordinary usage respecting this phrase. Ell., Mason, in Ell.’s Comm. 
for Eng. Readers, Koch, W. & Wilk., and others, agree partly or wholly with the 
view favored in this note—(5) The construction of ap’ ju4v is doubtful, but, on 
the whole, the considerations mentioned by Liinem. make it probable that his view 
is correct, and that these words belong with axoyc¢—the word preached by us; rov 
Geot being an added, and by its position somewhat emphatic, genitive, and indica- 
ting that God is the author and source of the word of which we are the preachers. 
R. V. Ell, W. & Wilk, Auberlen, agree with Koch, de W., and others in con- 
necting tap’ juav with rapadaBdvrec. Noyestr., T.S. Green tr., Bib. Un. tr., A. V., 
Olsh., Hofm., and others agree with Liinem. apaAafdvre¢ has evidently the sense 
of passive reception (i.e. through hearing), déaoVe, that of active reception (i.e. into 
the mind and heart, accepting it voluntarily). The thought is apparently this: 
When the Thess. heard the word as it was preached by the Apostle, they willingly 
received it into their hearts, not as a word coming from him, but from God. The 
thought is, accordingly, such as favors the connection of tap’ uGy with axojc.— 
(c) Alf. holds that no as is to be supplied with Adyov after défao9e, and that Paul 
is not speaking of the Thessalonians’ estimate of the word. Liinem. more properly 
says, that o¢ is omitted because the Apostle would not only express what it was in 
their estimation, but also what it was in fact. But is not the true view of the 
matter this, that they received it as—what it is in truth—the word of God; Adyov 
being appositional with the objective pronoun (referring to the preceding Aéyov) 
which is to be supplied after défao¥e, and thus expressing their estimate of it, and 
the xadd¢ clause being added to show that this estimate was in accordance with 
the fact.—(d) It is not, perhaps, absolutely certain that evepycioda: is always mid- 
dle (never passive) in the N. T., but this is probably the usage of the writers. 
Here, at least, there can be little doubt that the verb is middle, and that ¢ refers 
to Adyoc.—(e) yap (ver. 14) is evidently explained correctly by Liinem., and peuyrai 
éyevfpSnre carries back the thought to i. 6. In i. 6, however, the imitation is 
spoken of as an imitating of the Apostle and his companions, and of the Lord; 
here, of the Christian churches in Judea. In the former passage, also, the idea 
of meeting tribulation with joy in the Holy Spirit is suggested, while here the 
matter of persecution only is more distinctly set forth—(f) That ovygvderdy of 
ver. 14 is to be understood as referring to Gentiles, is rendered altogether probable 





494 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


by what Liinem. says. But, as he also intimates, we can hardly account for the 
severity of the language respecting the Jews in what follows, unless they had had 
some relation to what had occurred in Thessalonica. So far, therefore, from 
finding any want of harmony with the account in Acts xvii. in this passage, we 
may discover, rather, an incidental confirmation of what is there said.—(g) éxdu- 
§dvrov is rendered by R. V., Noyes tr., Davidson tr., and others, drove out, and this 
seems to be its meaning in the Greek outside of the N. T. (comp. Thue. i. 24). 
Grimm (Lex. N. T.) gives it this meaning in Luke xi. 49, but renders it here by 
persequor, calamitatibus premo. Rob. agrees with Grimm.—(h) The participles in 
the earlier part of ver. 15 refer to definite past acts (aor.); 4) apeoxévruy (pres.) 
and the adjective évavrivy denote the permanent condition illustrated by and con- 
sequent upon those acts; xwAvévrev of ver. 16 is probably causal, introduced as 
proving the declaration contained in the next preceding words. This last par- 
ticiple, however, is not improbably intended to carry with it, also, the idea of that 
continuous hindering of the preachers of the gospel among the Gentiles, which 
was the last step in the development of opposition to God and men, making the sin 
of the Jews finally complete, and opening the door, at last, for the breaking forth 
upon them of Divine punishment.—(i) The possibilities of signification of opy4 
(ver. 16) (whether wrath or punishment), and of cic réAoc, are such that it is difficult 
to make any positive assertion respecting the precise shade of meaning belonging 
to the last clause of the verse. But in view of the aorist tense in 4¢0ace,—of the 
fact that ei¢ réAog may naturally mean to the end, the utmost limit, of the thing 
spoken of,—and of the fact that the peculiar calamities which might specially be 
called the divine punishment had not yet been inflicted on the Jews, the expla- 
nation given by Liinem. may be regarded as most satisfactorily meeting the 
demands of the sentence. 


' L. Vv. 17-20. 


(a) These verses are immediately connected with those of the third chapter, the 
new sub-section of the Epistle covering ii. 17-iii. 18. The letter being so largely 
an expression of friendly feeling, the ordinary introduction of the Pauline Epistles 
(thanksgiving, etc., for the Christian life and progress of the Church) unites itself 
closely with, and forms a part of, the first main division, which ends with the close 
of chap. ili. This division has two principal subdivisions: i. 2-ii. 16, referring 
to his preaching among them and their reception of his message; ii. 17-iii. 13, 
relating to his anxiety, in his absence from them, to learn of their well-being (for 
which purpose he had sent Timothy, that he might bring information concerning 
them), and his joy and satisfaction at the tidings which Timothy brought. 

(5) ‘Hyeic of ver. 17 is best explained by the general contrast between himself 
and his companions on the one side, and the Thessalonians on the other, which is 
manifest throughout the whole of this first portion of the Epistle. This contrast 
and the emphasis connected with it,—as well as the strong and peculiar expres- 
sions aroppavcdtvrec—mpd¢ Kxaipdv Spac—ov xapdia—tonovddoanev—év WOAAG érct- 
Suuia,—belong to the tenderness of the writer's feeling towards the church, and 

his desire to give utterance to it in the most hearty manner.—(c) Liinem. holds that 
79 eAfoauev of ver. 18 is used, instead of the corresponding form of BobAco9-az, as better 
answering to éorovddcapev, we endeavored (“implying that he had taken steps to real- 
ize his resolution ”),—giving thus to éAecv the sense of the active will, definite pur 


NOTES, 495 


pose, and to BobAec9az, that of mere wish or inclination. The reverse of this view 
respecting the two verbs is held by some to be more correct. Comp. on this subject 
Meyer on Matt. i. 19 and Philem. 13f.,, Ell. on 1 Tim. v. 14, Buttm. Lexil. I. p. 
26, Grimm (Lex. N. T.) sub verb. 3éAv, Webster, Syntax and Syn. of the Gr. Test., 
p- 197 f.—(d) dérc, which Liinem., Alf, Ell., and others regard as meaning on 
which account, and thus as nearly equivalent to 4:6 (T.R.), is rendered by R. V. 
because. If torovddcauev is to be understood in the sense mentioned above, as it 
probably should be, and 73e/. means wished simply, the rendering of R. V. may be 
regarded with favor. The fact that 4:6 follows in iii. 1 also favors this rendering 
of d:ért.—(e) The explanation (ver. 19) given by Ltinem., or that indicated by 
W. and H., who arrange the text as follows: ric... xavyhoeuc—f ovyzi Kal tyzig— 
éunpoodey «.7.A,, is the simplest and best that can be offered. The reference to the 
sapovoia here is to be accounted for in the same way as in i. 10 and elsewhere.— 
({) yép of ver. 20 is best rendered by for, as in ordinary cases. It gives the 
affirmation of the fact as the ground of the answer implied in # ovx? xa? ipeic, 


496 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


CHAPTER ITZ. 


Ver. 1. Elz. has 5:6. Acéri, found in B, is a mere error of the transcriber, occa- 
sioned by the following paxér:t.—Ver. 2. After tov adeApdv juav the Receptus has 
kai didxovoy tov Oeov Kai cvvepydv judy, Defended by Bouman (Chartae theol. 
Lib. I. p. 63 f.) and Reiche. But instead of this, Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 2 and 7, 
Alford and Ellicott, after D* Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., have correctly received 
into the text xat ovvepydv tov Oeov, from which all variations are explained. 
In order to remove the objectionable character which the expression ovvepyo¢ Tov 
Ocov appeared to have, sometimes tov Oecd was suppressed (so the reading re- 
ceived by Tisch. 1 xai ovvepyév, in B, Arm.), at other times ovvepyéy was changed 
into didxovov (kai didxovov tov Oeov, A yx, 67** 71, et al., Copt. Aeth. Vulg. Bas. 
Pel. [in textu] ; approved by Scholz. and Tisch. 8), from which further grew, by 
blending with the original wording, didxovoyv kat ovvepydv tov Oeov, F G, Boern., 
and «al dtdx, xai ovvepydy tov Ocov in E 17; lastly, there was interpolated xa 
Stdxovoy Kai ovvepydv yudy (Sahid.), or didxovov tov Oeov nal cuvepydv judy (Syr. ed. 
Erp.), or Kai didxovov tov Ozov xai ovvepyéy (87).—Instead of the Receptus tapa- 
xadfcat tuac, only mapaxadéoa is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Alford and 
Ellicott, according to A B D* F G x, min. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Slav. ant. 
Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret (alic.) Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag.—ozép rij¢ riotewc] 
Elz. has epi ri¢ wicrew. Against A B D* E* F G Kx, 17, 31, et al., Bas. 
Chrys. Theodoret (alic.).—Ver. 3. Elz. has r@ pydiva, But A B D E K L x, 
min. plur. edd. Bas. Oecum. have 1rd yundéva, Correctly accepted by Matth. 
Lachm. (in the stereotype edition ; in his larger edition Lachm. writes rd pydév 
aouiveota:!) Tischendorf, Alford and Ellicott. Preferred also by Reiche. In the 
place of the misunderstood 76, 7@ of the Receptus was put (although this is im- 
possible from grammatical considerations ; see notes on passage), or Tov (67, 87, 
al.), or va (F G, 73).—Ver. 7. Elz. has OAipec nat avdyey. According to the 
preponderating testimony of A B D E F G x, min. edd. Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel., to be transposed avayxy xa? OAiper—Ver. 11. Instead 
of the Recept. "Inoovs Xpiordc, A B D** (in D* ‘Inoote is wanting) x, 3, 17, et al., 
Aeth. Vulg. ms. Ambr. al., Lachm. Tisch. Alford, Ellicott have ’Ijcotc, which is 
to be preferred.—Ver. 12. Elz. has 6 xtpioc. This is wanting in Syr. Erp. Sus- 
pected by Mill. Apparently spurious, as in A, 73, et al.. 6 Oedc, and in D* E* 
F G, It. 6 xipeog "Inootcs is found. If Paul added no subject in ver. 12, but 
caused the same to be continued from ver. 11, the early insertion of additions as 
glosses was natural.—Ver. 13. 'Ijcov] Elz. has ’Iycot Xpwrov. Against it A B 
DEK %, 37, 39, ef al., Aeth. Germ. Vulg. ms. Damasc. Ambr.—After the Recept. 
dyiwy abtodv, A D* E x* min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. al. add azq#v. Bracketed by 
Lachm. ; received by Tisch. 8. But au4 was inserted, as an ecclesiastical lection 
ended with ver. 18, 


cHaP. m1. 1. 497 


ConTENTS.—No longer the master of his longing and anxiety for his 
readers, Paul has sent Timotheus from Athens to them, to exhort them 
to endurance under persecutions, and to bring him exact information 
concerning their conduct. Timotheus has just returned, and by his mes- 
sage has comforted and calmed the apostle. He entreats God that he 
might soon be permitted to reach Thessalonica to assist the church in its 
remaining deficiencies, and that God might cause the Thessalonians so to 
abound in Christian excellence, that they may be blameless at the com- 
ing of Christ (vv. 1-18). 

Vv. 1 ff. are moat closely connected with the preceding ;! it is therefore 
to be regretted that a new chapter should commence here. On wv. 1-3, 
comp. the treatise of Riickert alluded to in comment on i. 8. 

Ver. 1. 4:6] [On Vv. 1-10, see Note LI. pages 509, 510.] Therefore, i. e. 
Sia Td elvar dag tHV désav judy Kai TAY yapdv (ii. 20).—pyxére oréyovres] no 
longer bearing i, t.e. incapable of mastering our longing for you any 
longer (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 12, xiii. 7; Philo, in Flacc. p. 974, Opp. Lut. Par. 
1640, fol.: pyxére oréyecy duvduevor rag évdciac). So Erasmus, Vorstius, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Wolf, Pelt, de Wette, only the latter conjoins with the 
idea of longing, that of anxiety for the Thessalonians, which, indeed, is in 
accordance with fact, but anticipates the representation, as the idea of anxiety 
on the part of the apostle is first added in what follows.—uyxér:] is not here 
instead of oixér:, as Rickert thinks, appealing to an abusus of the later 
Greek, which abusus we should be cautious in recognizing (see Winer, p. 
443 [E. T. 486]), but as spoken from a subjective standpoint: as those who, 
etc. Moreover, to take the participle oréyovrec in the sense of occultantes, 
to which Wolf and Baumgarten are inclined: “no longer concealing my 
longing,” f.e. no longer observing a silence concerning it, would be flat, 
and contrary to the context.—etdoxfoayev] as well as éréppayev, ver. 2, and 
éreuwpa, ver. 5, is a simple historical statement of a fact belonging to the 
past. Grotius and Pelt erroneously take the aorists in the sense of the 
pluperfect. eidoxfoauev does not denote a mere promptam animi inclina- 
tionem (Calvin, Pelt); also not acting gladly (Grotius: Triste hoc, sed 
tamen hoc libenter feceramus), but the freely formed resolution of the 
will: accordingly we resolved. Nicolas Lyrencis, Hunnius, Grotius, Calo- 
vius, Turretin, Whitby, Bengel, Michaelis, Wurm,? Hofmann, consider 
Paul and Silas as the subjects of cidoxfoayev; that xayd (ver. 5), I also, 
is a proof of this, for it contains it itself the reference to a wider 
subject, sothat from a plurality of the subject in ver. 1, a single indi- 
vidual was, in ver. 5, brought forward. However, this view cannot 
be the correct one. By the insertion of éyd pév Mavdog, ii. 18, the 
subject of ii. 17-20 is expressly restricted to Paul himself; and, as 
chap. iii. is most closely connected.with ii. 17-19, the subject here 
must be the same as there. evdoxgoayev must therefore, with Calvin, Hem- 


18trikingly, Calvin: Hac narratione, quae _onica, accordingly we two remained behind at 
sequitur, desiderii illius sui fidem facit. Athens, and sent Timotheus.” Asananalogy 

2In the strange interpretation: “We re- to this, the form should be oc wep: row DavAoy. 
solved that one of us should goto Thessalo- Comp. 7Wb. Zestschr. 1833, 1, p. 76. 


32 





498 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


ming, Estius, Fromond., Koppe, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Alford, Ellicott, Riggenbach (in J. P. Lange’s Bibelwerk, Part X., 
Bielef. 1864), and others, be referred to Paul only, to which «ay, ver. 5, is 
no objection (see below).—xaradegOjvar év 'AGyvare pdvor] [LI 6.] Zacha- 
riae, Koppe, Hug, Hemsen, also Wieseler (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalters, 
p. 249) and Alford (Proleg. p. 45), understand this of Paul’s being left alone 
at Athens, Timotheus not having been previously there with the apostle. 
They assume that Timotheus, left behind at Berea (Acts xvii. 14), either 
at the time of his being left behind, or at some later period, received the 
direction from the apostle, countermanding the charge given in Acts xvii. 
15, that before proceeding to Athens, he should return from Berea to Thes- 
salonica to strengthen the church there. This view is brought forward 
from a desire of reconciling our passage with the narrative in the Acts of 
the Apostles. Acts xvii. 16 informs us only of a waiting for Timotheus at 
Athens, but not of his arrival there; on the contrary, it is stated that 
Silas and Timotheus did not return from Macedonia until the residence 
of the apostle at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5). But this view does not correspond 
with the natural wording of our passage, as xaradepOjvaz, to be left behind, to 
remain behind, evidently presupposes the previous presence of Timotheus. 
We must therefore, with Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, 
Wolf, Benson, Macknight, Eichhorn, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch, 
Ellicott, Hofmann, and others, suppose that Timotheus actually came from 
Berea to Athens, and was sent from it by the apostle to Thessalonica. To 
this interpretation we appear constrained by éréuypapev, ver. 2, and éepypa, 
ver. 5, as hardly anything else can be denoted with these words than a 
commission given directly by Paul to one present. 

Ver. 2. Tav adeAgoy judy nai ovvepydv tov cod tv r. ebayy. tov Xpiorov] our 
brother (Christian brother) and fellow-laborer of God in the Gospel of Christ. 
The ovr in ovvepydv rov Oeod refers not to man, but to God, the chief ruler 
of the church; comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. ili.9. In this apposition attached to 
Tiu63eov, Theophylact, Musculus, and most critics (comp. already Chrysos- 
tom) discover the design, that Paul wished thereby to indicate what a 
great sacrifice he put himself to for the sake of the Thessalonians, as he 
surrendered to them at once his faithful assistant, whom he himself so 
much required, in order that he might minister to their wants.’ Such a 
view is remote from the apostle. The epithets which he gives to Timo- 
theus are nothing more than a commendation of his apostolic associate, 
which the apostle felt himself constrained spontaneously to express, on 
account of the faithfulness and zeal which he displayed for the sake of the 
gospel ; and we are the less to look for any ulterior design, as it was the 
constant practice of the apostle, when he had occasion specially to men- 
tion his faithful associates, to designate them by some honorable appella- 
tion.—év 16 evayyeAiw] Statement of the sphere tn which he was a ovvepyés. 
Comp. Rom. i. 9; Phil. iv. 8.—ei¢ 7d ornpiga: tuac} not that we (the senders) 


31Thus also Hofmann, only he finds the longed for the apostle himself might be 
reason of the honorable appellation in this: tempted to undervalue this mission of a sub- 
“that the Christians of Thessalonica who ordinate associate!" 


CHAP. III. 2, 3. 499 


might (by the instrumentality of Timotheus) strengthen you (Cornelius a 
Lupide, Grotius), but that he (Timotheus) might strengthen you. But 
crroneously (comp. already Chrysostom) Oecumenius, whom Theophy- 
phylact, Estius, Luc. Osiander, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Macknight, 
and others follow : o¢ cadevopévouc, 颒 oi¢ yw 6 diddoxadoc tv metpacpoig? péyac 
yap bvrwe OdpvBo¢ roig uabyraic rd elvar Tov diddoxadov tv recpacyoic.—Grotius and 
others understand zapaxadéca: in the sense of to comfort. More correctly 
(on account of ver. 3), it is to be taken in the meaning of to evhort or 
encourage. Schott erroneously unites both ideas. Also, arbitrarily separating 
the words, Olshausen refers orzpiga: to patience in persecution, and wapaxaAéoas 
to growth in faith.—izép ric wicrewe tpov] not equivalent to wep? rig risteus 
ipov (de Wette and others), as if it were a mere statement of the object, 
but : for the good of your faith i.e. in order that you might preserve it.) 
Ver. 3. Zaivev] related to ceiecvy,—only here in the N. T.,—means, to 
shake, to swing hither and thither. It is used specially of dogs who wag 
their tails (comp. Hom. Od. xvi. 4 ff., x. 217; Arist. Eg. 1031), from which 
the wider acceptation of fawning or caressing is derived. Then the verb 
stands generally for any act of shaking, passing from the sphere of sense 
to that of mind? Thus here caiveoSa: denotes a being disquieted, becom- 
ing wavering in the faith. Chrysostom correctly explains it by OopvBeioba 
xat rapétreoda:z, With unnecessary harshness Faber Stapulensis, to whom 
also Beza (adblandiri, adversariis videlicet evangelii) is inclined, Elsner, 
Observ. sacr. II. p. 275 f., Wolf, and Tittmann, de synonym. in N. T. p. 189, 
think to preserve the meaning fawning (and alluring), giving the sense: 
that they should not permit themselves, by “ adulationes et illicitamenta 
carnis ” (Faber Stapulensis), to apostatize from Christianity, and relapse 
into heathenism or Judaism. Also Rickert, whom Koch follows, adopts 
this view, as he will not acknowledge the meaning 6opuBeicba: in the verb: 
he thinks, rather, that from the meaning to fawn, the meaning blanditiis 
corrumpi in the passive is formed; and from that, in consequence of the 
toning down of the meaning, the general idea of corrumpi arose. Hof- 
mann explains caivecy directly by to delude, a meaning which the word 
never has.—év raic OAlpeorv rabrasc] in these afflictions. évis purely temporal, 
not instrumental, although, in regard to the subject in hand, it cannot be 
doubted that it was the the @,iwerc to whose influence the possibility of a 
oaiveoda is attributed. ratraic is decerixic, indicative, denoting the afflictions 
which both the Thessalonians and Paul (so Calixtus, Flatt, Schott, and 
others; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander, 
Benson, Macknight, erroneously refer the @iperc to Paul only) have just 
experienced, and which are here considered as belonging to the present, 
since a renewed outbreak of them was every instant to be feared. The 
first part of ver. 8, accordingly, contains the warning not to suffer them- 


1That Calvin here speaks of a fides Pauli 8Oomp. Diog. Laert. viii. 41: of 8@ cacydue- 
ubique adversus Satanam etmundum victrix, vor rots Aeyoudvors sSdxpudy re cal guogoy.— 
is because, in the oldest Greek editions ofthe Sophocl. Antig. 1214: wasdds pe caivea OOéyyor 
N. T., riereesg due was put in place of wicrews (Other proofs in Wetstein). 
Upon. 





500 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


selves to apostatize from the faith in Christ in the time of trouble and of 
need.—But it is asked how ver. 3 is to be connected with the preceding. 
Those who read, with the Receptus, r@ pndéva caiveofa: (see critical note), 
regard r@ as the Dativus commodi, which, as the Hebrew 5 placed before 
an infinitive, serves for the statement of the object; thus r@ would be 
equivalent to ei¢ r6 (Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Pelt, Olshausen). 
But r@ with the infinitive is used exclusively to denote the reason or the 
inducing cause, never to denote the design ; comp. 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer, 
p. 308 [E. T. 328]. Riickert, indeed, retaining this grammatical use of 
te, makes it denote: “unde nascituram ti rapdxAnow speraverat, quum 
Timotheum misit, apostolus;” and although he does not decide positively, 
prefers the reading r¢, in order that he may find expressed therein a two- 
fold object in sending Timotheus, in conformity with the longing of the 
apostle previously stated : (1) in respect to the readers, and (2) in respect 
to himself. Timotheus, Paul intends to say, is sent “fratres ut firmaret, 
sibi ut afferret ex bona illorum conditione solatium.” But this interpre- 
tation is simply impossible, as, in referring wapaxadéoa: to the apostle, it 
would be indispensably necessary, on account of the preceding tar, to 
subjoin #uéc. Accordingly, even from internal reasons, criticism requires 
us to read 1d pndéva caiveoda. But here, also, a different view is con- 
ceivable :—({1) We might, with Matthaei, supply a second ¢ei¢ to rd pndéva 
caiveoda from the preceding ei¢ rd ornpi~a. But in this case we cannot 
understand why the second eis has been suppressed by Paul, as elsewhere 
he does not avoid the repetition of the form ei¢ ré ; comp. e.g. Rom. iv. 11. 
Or (2) with Schott, Koch, and Bisping, we might take rd pydéva caiveoda: asan 
absolute accusative, in the sense of quod attinet ad. But, considering the 
rarity of this construction, and the misuse which is practised with its 
assumption (comp. Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 182 f.; also Phil. iv. 10, on which 
Schott founds, is no analogy, as there ré bép éuod gpoveiv is the usual objec- 
tive accusative to dvedddere, used transitively), this shift should only be 
resorted to when no other expedient presents itself. (3) Winer, 5th ed. p. 
375 whom de Wette, Reiche, Ellicott, Buttmann, Gramm. des neuestam. 
Sprachgebrauchs, p. 226 [E. T. 263 f.], Hofmann, and Riggenbach follow, 
makes 76 undéva caiveodac dependent on mapaxadgoa:, and considers it as a 
further explanation of ixép ric miorewe, namely, to exhort that none should 
become wavering. [LI c.] But if 1d pndéva cafveoda: depended on rapa- 
xadfcat, then mapaxadeiv, in the sense of to erhort, would be construed 
with the simple accusative of the thing, an assumption the possibility of 
which is to be absolutely denied. (The passages on which Reiche sup- 
ports the opposite view are without force. In Luke iii. 18 both accusatives 
are not governed by zapaxadév, but, in agreement with Acts xiii. 32, by 
evryyeaAilero; in 1 Tim. vi. 2, ravra depends on didaoxe, and xai mapaxdAec is 
annexed only in a loose manner to ratra didacxe; so also in Tit. ii. 15 
ravta belongs only to 442, but not also to the following verbs; further, in 
Mark v. 23 70AAé does not depend on rapaxadei, but is the adverbial much, 
very; lastly, Mark v.17 and Acts viii. 31 are not analogous, as there 
rapaxadeiv is put with the accusative of the person, to which a simple 





CHAP. III. 3, 4. 501 
infinitive, but not an infinitive with the article ré6, follows.) Besides, if <3 
pndéva oaiv. were & further explanation or epexegesis of trép ric ricrewc 
tuov, then not the accusative rd yydéva caiveofa: would have been put, but 
the genitive rot pndéva caiv., in agreement with trép ti mioreucg tov. 
Accordingly, this interpretation is also to be rejected. There consequently 
remains only (4) to consider 78 pydéva caivecbat év raic 0A. rabrae as an appo- 
sition to the whole preceding sentence cic rd ornpigat tac nal wapaxadtoa irép 
Tig miorews tpdv, 80 that rd pydéva caiv. serves only to repeat the same 
thought which was before positively expressed in a negative but better 
defined form ; thus, instead of rd, rovréors might have been written. Thus 
the sense is: to strengthen you and to exhort you on behalf of your fatth—that 
is, that no one may be shaken in these troubles ; or, to strengthen and exhort 
you on account of your faith, particularly on one point, which is con- 
tained in one requirement: that no one may be shaken, etc.’ Accord- 
ingly, 7d pydéva caiveoOa: certainly depends on the preceding eic; but our 
interpretation is entirely different from that adduced in (1), as no second 
et¢ can be inserted before 1d pundéva caivecfa: without injuring the indis- 
soluble unity which combines ré pydéva oaiv. «.7.A. with what precedes.— 
avrol yap oid. . . . xai oldare, ver. 4, is not, with Moldenhauer, Griesbach, 
Vater, Flatt, to be included in a parenthesis, as dia rovro, ver. 5, is con- 
nected with what directly precedes.—yép] proves the legitimacy of fhe 
demand p7déva caivecOat.—vidare] ver. 4, explains whence they knew it,— 
namely, partly from previous definite intimations of the apostle, and 
partly from their own experience. Contrary to the text, Theodoret : from 
the previous intimation of Christ.—ér: ei¢ rovro xeizeba] that we were 
appointed thereto. Comp. Phil. 1.17; Luke ii. 84. ei¢ rovro, ¢.¢. not ete rd 
undéva caivecba, but ei¢ 1d OAiBeofac (comp. ver. 4), in connection with 
OAipeocv. Moreover, xeiueba refers not only to Paul (Oecumenius, Estius, 
Osiander, and others), or to Paul and his companions (Hofmann), nor 
also to Paul and the Thessalonians (Koppe), but to Christians in general. 

Ver. 4. Reason of avrot yép oldare.—mpo¢ tac] The accusative, as in Gal. i. 
18, ii. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 7, etc.—Also puéAAouev is neither to be restricted to Paul 
(Oecumenius, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander, Macknight), norto Paul and 
his companions (Hofmann), nor to Paul and the Thessalonians (Grotius, 
Koppe); but, as xeizefa, ver. 8, to be taken generally: we Christians in 
general. MéAJopev GAiBecba, however, is distinguished from the simple 
future—it characterizes the sufferings as inevitable, as predetermined in 
the counsels of God.—oldare] from your own experience. Baumgarten- 
Crusius incorrectly refers it to mpoeAtyopev. 





1 Alford accedes to this interpretation. Bou- 
man (Chartae theolog. I. p. 79 ff.) assumes a 
middle position between this view and that 
adopted by Winer, de Wette, and Reiche: 
Ego... ita de Wettium sequor ac Winerum, 
ut pydidva caiverOas cum proxime praecedente 
Infinitivo wapaxaAdge: connectendum existi- 
mem. Verum toto tertiae hujus sectionis 
dicto: unddva .. . ceipeGa, illius, qaam Timo 


thei ministerio ad Thessalonicenses perfer- 
endam curabat Apostolus, rapaxAioews prac 
cipuum argumentum ac summa contineri mihi 
videtur. Cujus rei, ni fallor, indicium est 
dictumque adeo acuit et a cacteris distinguit 
praemissus ille articulus ré. Quem ibi po- 
nere Graecos, ubi nos signa citationie vulgo 
notam est. Veluti postmodum, chap. iv. 1: 
Tv) wes Sei «4.7.2. 





502 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Ver. 5. Aca rovro] on this account, t.e.on account of the actual com- 
mencement of trouble. But, incorrectly, Fromond.: ne tribulationibus 
meis turbaremini—The «ai in xayé does not belong to the whole sentence : 
“ therefore also, no longer forbearing, I sent’ (de Wette, Koch, Bisping), 
for then dia xai rovro would have been written (the passages adduced by 
de Wette to the contrary do not prove what is designed); rather «ai 
impressively gives prominence to the person of the éyé: therefore I also. 
Thus a relation must be contained in it to other persons. Schott, whom 
Olsh. and Ell. follow, supposes these other the Thessalonians, finding the 
thought expressed : “as ye, in consequence of the troubles which befell 
me, were anxious for me, so I also could no longer bear to be without 
information concerning you.” But, according to the connection («ai 
éyévero xal oldare, ver. 4), a relation must be contained in xayé to others, 
of whom, as of Paul, a unxére oréyecy in respect of the Thessalonians is 
asserted.1 These others are the Christian circle with the apostle in 
Athens (Acts xvii. 34), including Timotheus sent from it to Thessalonica. 
Events such as befell the Thessalonians must have awakened lively sym- 
pathy in every Christian who heard of them. Entirely perverted is the 
view of Hofmann, who takes the singular, ver. 5, as a contrast to the 
plural, ver. 1. In ver. 5 only Paul is spoken of, whereas in ver. 1 Paul 
and Silvanus are referred to. He accordingly infers, that besides Timo- 
theus, sent by Paul and Silvanus jointly to Thessalonica, there was 
another sent specially by Paul. After Timotheus was on his journey to 
strengthen the Thessalonian Church against the persecution which had 
broken out upon them, Paul, at a time when Silvanus was also absent, 
sent a second, this time for his own sake; his own troubled condition 
making the want of news from Thessalonica insupportable, lest perhaps 
the fruit of his labors among them might be entirely lost. Yet before the 
return of this unknown messenger Silvanus and also Timotheus had rejoined 
the apostle !—eic¢ rd yvdvaz] in order to learn, belongs to the subject of the verb 
éxexwa ; thus: “in order that I, the sender, might learn;” not; in order 
that he (Timotheus) might learn (Pelt, Olshausen, and others).—nj rior 
tpov] your faith, i.e. how it is with it, how it stands.—yrec}] [LI d.] 
depends on yveva, hot on érexya, and is the introductory particle of an 
indirect question : whether perhaps the tempter has tempted you. So Wahl, 
Schott, and de Wette; also Bouman, Chartae theolog. I, p. 80. Without 
reason, Beza, Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Winer, p. 
470 [E. T. 505], supply ¢oBobuevocg before parc: “ filled with anxiety lest 
the tempter should have tempted you.”—é sepdfuv] another expression 
for 6 catavac, 11.18. Comp. Matt. iv. 3.—eic¢ xevév] see Meyer on Gal. ii. 2. 
—éneipacev . . . yévyra:] correctly, Schott: ut cognoscerem, quomodo se 
haberet persuasio vestra, num forte tentator vos tentaverit, adeo ut (quod 


1It might otherwise be assumed that Paul éweuypa,isexplained. But this isan expedient 
here anticipates what he first, in ver. 6, which is artificial, and is to be rejected be- 
observes of the Thessalonians, namely, that cause unxér ordyev, ver. 5, and émiroSeiy, 
they also had a longing for him; and thus ver. 6, are not co-extensive ideas. 
xéye, which belongs to pyxén oréywy, not to 


CHAP. ul. 5—7. 503 


deus avertat!) labor meus irritus fiert possit. The aorist indicative refers 
to a fact which possibly may have already happened ; but the conjunctive 
yévyra: refers to a fact which belongs to the future, and is conceived as a 
consequence of the first fact. Fritzsche (Opuse. Fritzschiorum, p. 176), to 
whom de Wette and Koch adhere, explains it: ut . . . cognoscerem, an 
Sorte Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent. He thus 
takes parc in the first clause as an interrogative particle, and in the 
second clause as an expression of fear; an explanation which Winer 
rightly designates as harsh.—Moreover, incorrectly, Whitby, Macknight, 
Baumgarten-Crusius: in éeipacev is implied “tempted with success,” 
“seduced.” The idea of seduction exists only by the addition of eic xevov 
yévntat. 

Ver. 6. "Apr: dé] [LI e.] bué now, belongs not to éAévroe (Grotius, 
Pelt, Schott, Alford, Ewald, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is to be 
separated from it by a comma, and belongs to wapexafOnuev, ver. 7. For 
(1) not the mission of Timotheus and his return, but the mission and the 
consolation obtained from his return, is the main point on which it 
depends; (2) If Paul would connect dpr: 62 éAOévroc, dtd tovro would 
scarcely be inserted in ver. 7 for the recapitulation of ver. 6; (8) dpre dé 
emphatically opposes the present to the past, to éreuwa (ver. 5); but dpre 
would be flat if we referred it'to éA0évros, and that whether it was to be 
understood in its temporal or in its logical sense; (4) Lastly, we would 
expect tapaxexAfpueba (which certainly is found in A and some minusculi), 
but not apexAgfypev, in ver. 7.—éAOdvro¢ «.7.A.] not after, but because; dia 
rovro requires this. The joyful message which Timotheus brought! refers 
(1) to the Christian condition of the Thessalonian Church generally (rj 
miorw Kal tiv ayadryy tuov), and (2) to the personal relation of the Thessa- 
lonians to the apostle (xai dre Eyere «.7.A.).2—xal bre Exere pveiav judy ayabhr] 
and that ye have us in good remembrance. Arbitrarily Grotius: Est peruve- 
pia, nam per memoriam intelligit mentionem, et bonam intelligit, in 
bonam partem, z.e. honorificam. For then soioda: must be put instead 
of éxyecv.—rdvrore} belongs to the foregoing, not, as Koch and Hofmann 
suppose, to what follows.—émiroSovvre¢] Comp. Rom. i. 11; Phil. i. 8, ii. 
26; 2 Cor. ix. 14.—Strikingly Musculus (also Bengel): Non modo amoris 
hoc erat indicium, sed et bonae conscientiae. The compound verb, how- 
ever, makes prominent the direction, not the intensity, of roSeiv. Comp. 
Fritzsche on Rom. i. 11.—xaddmep nat ypueic tua] sc. ideiv exirododpev. 

Ver. 7. Aca rovro} is added in consequence of the preceding long parti- 
cipial sentence, and as its recapitulation. But Paul says ded rotro, not dia 
tavra, as we would naturaily expect, because he here regards the joyful 
message of Timotheus as a whole or in its unity, but does not think on 


1Chrysostom : ‘Op¢s thy weptxdpecay TlavAov;  Beias rd BéBarow 7» 82 dydwy Thy wpaxrichy 
otx alwey dwayyciAavros GAA’ evayyeAccaudvou’ «= dper#v’ 9 82 tov SidacxdAov prin cal db wepi 
rogouToy ayabdy HyetTo Thy dxeivwy BeBaiwoww  atroy wéOos maprupe: TH wept thy ddacKad‘ay 
cai thy &ydany. Comp. also Luke i. 19, and ocropy7. Hammond incorrectly understands 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 266 ff. dyamny of love to God. 

STheodoret: AnAot 4 péy wiores THE cUce 


504 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


the separate points enumerated above.—rapexA#Snyev] the aorist, in con- 
nection with dpr:, ver. 6, proves that this Epistle was composed immedi- 
ately after the return of Timotheus.—ég’ iyiv] in reference to you (comp. 2 
Cor. vii. 7), is not superfluous on account of the following 6:4 rig tpev 
riorews (Koppe, Pelt), but puts the personal object first in regard to whom 
the consolation of the apostle occurred, whilst dca ri¢ iwzdv wictewo brings 
in afterwards the actual circumstances, by which the consolation was 
called forth.\.—éni mdoy 19 dvdyxy nat OAiWer yuev] on (or in) all our necessity 
and tribulation. éxiis not a causal, but a temporal statement. Comp. 2 Cor. 
vii. 4; Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 892]. Erroneously Schott, in every necessity 
and tribulation which we endure; this would be expressed by éni mdog 
avayxy x«.7.A, (without an article). By 6Aéc¢ Schott understands the tribu- 
lation caused by the Corinthian adversaries of the apostle; and by avéyay, 
either sickness or (so also Macknight) pecuniary indigence, combined 
with hard labor; whilst Bouman (Chartae theolog. I. p. 80) considers 
“ avayxqv Vocabulum generale esse, quod nullum non calamitatum genus 
contineat ; GAixnv de oppressionibus singulatim dici ac persecutionibus, quibus 
Christianos vel Ethnici vexarent vel Judaei.” These special determina- 
tions or limitations are certainly precarious; still so much is certain, that 
avayxy and OAiyx¢ cannot here be interpreted, with de Wette and Koch, of 
care and anxiety, but are to be understood of erternal necessity and tribula- 
tion. For the care and anxiety of the apostle could only, according to 
the context, refer to the Thessalonians, and must have been removed by 
the message of Timotheus. But évi imports that the avdyxy and OAiyuc of 
the apostle continued in spite of the glad message of Timotheus; on the 
other hand, by reason of it they were no longer esteemed or felt by the 
apostle as an evil (comp. ver. 8). For the thought can only be: We 
were comforted during, or tn spite of, the heavy burden of necessity and 
tribulation which weighs upon us, consequently still rests upon us. With 
this interpretation what follows in ver. 8 must suitably agree. 

Ver. 8. Paul considers the avéyay and @Aiye which lay upon him as a 
Gavaroc, but he does not feel this evil; the @avaro¢ is converted to him into 
Cw, when he learns how the churches which he had founded cleave to 
the Lord. External matters are, in general, indifferent to the apostle, 
provided he reaches his life-aim, to lead souls to Christ; every success in 
reference to this imparts strength and fullness of life to him.—vir] is not 
to be understood in contrast to the pre-Christian life of the apostle, when 
his thought and aim were entirely different; whereby a thought entirely 
foreign to the context would be introduced. The force of viv as an adverb 
of time, af present, is not to be too greatly pressed (Marloratus: Sub 
adverbio nunc repetit, quod prius dixerat, se afflictione et necessitate 
graviter fuisse oppressum), but has here (on account of éév) a causal refer- 
ence; now, serving as an introduction to what follows: édv ipeig orjxere év 


1The opinion of Hofmann, that &a ris tne» = must be translated: “because it is your faith 
wiarews is to be combined with én vow gayer, by which we now live,” is so monstrous that 
ver. 8, whilst with the emphasis on tpey it it requires no refutation. 


CHAP. in. 8-10. 505 


xuply.) Copev) [LI f.] not to be referred, with Chrysostom, to the future, 
eternal life, nor weakened to “we are happy” (Pelt and others), or 
“satisfied” (Grotius, Moldenhauer), but the meaning is: For now we 
live, 4.e. we are in full strength and freshness of life, we do not feel the 
sorrows and tribulations which the outer world prepares for us.—édv éyeic 
orixnte év xupip]| when, or 80 soon as ye stand fast in the Lord, hold fast to 
His fellowship.—wyeic] applies specially to the Thessalonians what holds 
good of Christians generally.—éév] makes the fact of the stedfastness of 
the readers appear as a well-grounded supposition. But the hypothetical 
form of the sentence includes, indirectly, the exhortation to hold fast to the 
Lord for the future. 

Ver. 9. Réason of Caper, ver. 8; yép, consequently, is not “ mera particula 
transeundi” (Koppe, Pelt). In a truly monstrous construction, Hof- 
mann, with a renunciation of all exegetical tact, pulls to pieces the simple 
and clear structure of the words, taking riva ydép eiyapioriavy duvdueba ro 
Ge@ avrarodotvac wept tyov (ver. 9) as a parenthetic clause, the object of 
which is to give beforehand the reason of deéduevo (ver. 10), referring émi 
nréoy Ty xapG, 7 xaipopev d¢ ipac to dedpeva “aga statement of what he 
joined to his request; ” considering deéuevor, which is “a participle of the 
imperfect,” as an apodosis, which, passing over the parenthesis, is annexed 
to rapexAyOnuev (ver. 7), and to which dia rie tay rictewc bre viv Caper (vv. 


7, 8) forms the protasis !—riva yap evxapioriav x.1.A.] for what thanks can we 


give in return to God on behalf of you for all the joy we feel for your sakes 
before our God? t.e., What expression of thanks can be sufficiently great 
to be an equivalent for the fullness and super-abundance of our joy? 
Theophylact : Tooairy, gyoiv, 4 dt imag yapd, bre ovdé evyapioryoar rH Oed 
nar’ agiav dvvayeba vrép tyov. God has brought about and arranged this 
joy by His higher guidance ; therefore to Him belongs the thanks ; there- 
fore is this thanks a return for the proof of His grace (avramrodotva:).—raoa 
4 xapé] cannot denote joy of every kind; accordingly, cannot indicate the 
multiplicity of objects which the joy for the Thessalonians has (which 
Schott thinks possible). It means, as the article added requires, the whole 
joy—joy in its sum total. See Winer, p. 105 (E. T. 110]. A joy in its 
totality is certainly the greatest conceivable joy ; so that it may be said 
that zaca 4 xzapé denotes laetitia maxima (Flatt, Pelt, Schott)—q zafpouev] 
by attraction instead of fv yaipouev; comp. Matt. ii. 10.—éumpoofev rod 
God jz0v]} belongs not to the following (Ewald, Hofmann), but to the pre- 
ceding; but not to yap¢ (Koppe, Pelt, Bloomfield), but to yaipozev. The 
addition serves to bring forward the purity of this joy, to which nothing 
earthly cleaves. Erroneously Oecumenius and Bloomfield : “ Paul would 
think on God as the Author of the joy.”—On #uéy, comp. on ii. 2. 

Ver. 10. Aeézevor[ [LI g.] is not used absolutely instead of dedueba or 
éopév deduevot, which Cornelius a Lapide and Baumgarten-Crusius assume, 
and Flatt thinks possible, but neither is it to be united with aipopev 


1Comp. Kihner, II. p. 385; Hartung, Par- 2See Schmalfeld, Syntax des Griech. Ver- 
tikell. II. p. 25. buens, p. 201. 


506 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


(Schott, de Wette, Koch, Riggenbach), but belongs to the main thought 
tiva . . . avrarodovva:, and assigns the reason for it by the fervent longing 
for the readers, and anziety for their Christian character: What sufficient 
thanks are we able to give to God for our joy over you, as we (cleaving to you 
with such paternal love that we), without ceasing, pray to see you again, and 
complete the defects of your faith ?—vuxrés] See on ii. 9. Erroneously Fro- 
mond.: it is placed first, quia nocte praecipue propter solitudinem et silen- 
tium sancti se orationi dare solent.—The accumulation of expressions 
vuxrog Kai huépacg wrepexrrepioood, is the natural outflow of the strength of his 
feeling; comp. Phil. i. 23.—émepxrepicoot] above measure, is found only in 
v. 18, Eph. iii. 20, and Theodoton, ad Daniel. iii. 22. Erroneously—because 
grammatically impossible—Clericus insists on referring it by means of a 
trajection not to deduevor, but to ideiv, defending his opinion on the ground 
that trepexwep. denotes something not strictly necessary, whereas prayer is 
a duty, a necessity: orantes ut videamus vultum vestrum, quasi cumulum 
laetitiae nostrae. Non satis erat Paulo scire Thessalonicenses constanter 
evangelio adhaerere, quamvis summam laetitiam ex eo nuntio perciperit, 
volebat imepexrepioood, ex abundanti, eos videre.—ei¢ rd «.7.A.] the design of 
deduevoc: praying to this end,in order by means of prayer (by the answer 
to it) to attain the ideiv and xaraprica:z.—xaraprifev] isto place in the condi- 
tion of perfectness, of completeness. Thus xaraprifer ré torephpara tig wiotews 
signifies; to render complete the defects of faith, that is, in order to make per- 
fect that which is wanting in faith (Theodoret: ré éAdeixovra tAnpooa). By 
this torepfyata tio miotewe Paul understands partly defects of faith as 
regards insight (particularly in respect of the impending advent; comp. 
iv. 18 ft); partly defects of faith as regards its practical verification in the 
Christian life (comp. iv. 1 ff). It follows, moreover, from xaraprisa: ra 
vorepfuata, With what inconsiderate arbitrariness Baur misuses even this 
passage in support of his assertion that the Thessalonian church had 
already existed for a long time. 

Ver. 11. [On vv. 11-18, see Note LII. pages 510, 511.] Airéc] is not a 
general introductory subject to which the special designations are annexed 
as an apposition: “but He, God our Father,” etc. (Luther, de Wette, 
Hofmann, Riggenbach. According to de Wette, whom Koch and Bisping 
follow, airé¢ serves for bringing forward the contrast with the petitioner). 
But the whole designation of the subject Atra¢ . . . "Incove is most closely 
connected: But God Himself, our Father and our Lord Jesus. It has ite 
contrast in reference to xatevOiver rv édév. Paul thinks on a carevObvew ri 
éé6v, both on Ais (man’s) side and on the side of God. The first does not 
conduet certainly to the end, as in reference to it the power of éyxémrretv is 
given to the devil (comp. 11.18). Only when the carevOivery is undertaken 
by God Himself and Christ is its success assured, for then the hindrances 
of the devil are without power. Thus Paul contrasts simply and naturally 
God and Christ to himself.—jzé»] may be referred both to Geé¢ and to 
xatgp (Hofmann, Riggenbach), so that God is called our (the Christians’) 
God and our Father : but it is best to restrict it to xarfp, so that God is first 
considered in His existence as God simply, and then afterwards in refer- 


CHAP. I11. 11, 12. 507 


ence to us as our Father.—xal 45 xbpiog judy ‘Incotc) [LII b.] This addi- 
tion: (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17), particularly with the following xarev6bva:, 
which is to be understood as the third person singular optative aorist, not 
as the infinitive (see Winer, ed. 5, p. 383), might appear strange. But, 
according to the Pauline view (comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 301), Christ, 
exalted to the right hand of the Father, takes part in the government of 
the world, and orders everything for the promotion of Hiskingdom. And, 
inasmuch as His will is not different from the will of God, but identical 
with it, the verb in the singular is suitable.—xarev0iva:] make straight, plain, 
so in order that it can be trod. Without a figure: may cause it to be 
realized.—mpé¢ iuac] belongs not to riv dddv judy, but to xarevdivas. 

Ver. 12. To the wish as regards himself, Paul adds a further wish as 
regards his readers.’—iyac dé] Bengel puts it well: sive nos veniemus, sive 
ninus.—lIf 6 xbpiog (see critical note) is genuine, it may grammatically 
refer either to God or to Christ (although the latter is the more usual) ; 
also éumpoofev rot Geov, ver. 13, instead of airov, is no objection to the ref- 
erence to God, as the repetition of the name in full shortly after its men- 
tion is not rare; comp. ii. 2; Eph. iv. 12, 16; Winer, p. 186 [E. T. 144].— 
The optatives (not infinitives, as Bretschneider thinks, who without justi- 
fication supplies dé7 ipiv) rAeovdoa: and repicoeboa: are in a transitive sense : 
but the Lord make you to become rich and abound in love. On rieovdfecv, comp. 
LXX. Num. xxvi. 54; Ps. Ixxi. 21; on wepicoetecv, comp. Eph.i. 8; 2 Cor. 
ix. 8, etc. Erroneously Theodoret, whom Cornelius a Lapide follows, 
takes rieovdoa by itself, of the external increase of the church: ebyeraz 
Toivuy avtovs Kait@ apiug wAcovdca cal TH aydry Teptooevoat, tovrtore Tedziav 
avtiv xrhoacba, Gore pndév éAdeizew avrg. So also Olshausen and Koch erro- | 
neously distinguish rAcovdfecv and mwepiccetew as cause and effect : to increase, 
and arising from this increase, abundance. Similarly Fromond. as extensio 
and intensio charitatis,—ei¢ aaAgAouc] towards fellow-Christians.—ei¢ mévrac ] 
is not an explication of ei¢ aAdAfAove: erga vos invicem et quidem omnes, 
which Koppe thinks possible, but means toward all men generally. 
Estius: etiam infideles et vestrae salutis inimicos. Theodoret, without 
reason, limits it to fellow-Christians of all places; whilst he interprets ei¢ 
GAAgAove of fellow-Christians in Thessalonica.—xaBdérep xai speic ei¢ tuac] 
8C. TH aydry TAcovaComerv Kai reptocebouev, as we also are rich in love and abound 
towards you. Only this completion of the ellipsis corresponds to the con- 
text, and the objection to it, that rAeovéfew and reprooevery is used first in a 
transitive and then in an intransitive sense, is of no force, as the passage 
of the one into the other here ‘is so insensible and easy, that no reader 
could take objection toit. Arbitrary are the completions of Calvin : affecti 
sumus; Nosselt: animati sumus; Baumgarten-Crusius: éfyouev (7); Pelt 
and Schott: woAAqw aydrny Exouev; Wolf (and so essentially already Mus- 
culus): mepicoetoa:, abundare nos in vos faciat; in which latter case the 
accusative juac (as certainly Laurent, Neutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p. 


1 Entirely erroneously, Piscator begins with this verse the second or exhortative portion of 
the Epistle. 





508 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


188, actually reads, but without justification) must be put in place of the 
nominative jzeic. Also, supplying the simple copula swmus (Grotius) is to 
be rejected, which would suppose a form of speech entirely un-Grecian. 
Correctly, according to the sense, Theophylact: éyere yap pérpov xal rapd- 
derypa THE ayarne Huac. 

Ver. 18. The final aim is derived from the wish, ver. 12, because love is 
the fulfilling of the law (Rom. xiii. 10), and the band of perfection 
(Col. iii. 14).—eic¢ 1d ornpiga:] [LIT c, d.] not so that (Pelt, Baumgarten- 
Crusius) ; also, not so much as xa? ornpigac (Koppe), by which the words 
would only annex a new wish to the preceding. It is designed to intro- 
duce a majus, a greater, specifying the higher or final aim té which mieové- 
Sew and repioostey are to conduct. But the subject in ornpiga is not ry 
ayérnv (Oecumenius), but rév xbpiov (which, however, is not, with Theophy- 
lact and Schrader, to be converted into the idea rd mvevya), or, with the 
contingent spuriousness of é xipeog in ver. 12: God and Christ, ver. 11.— 
ornpiga: denotes confirming, strengthening generally, not confirming in the 
faith (Flatt, Pelt), against which is the context.—ré¢ xapdiac] Chrysos- 
tom: ovx elrev duac ornpig€at, aAAd Ta¢ Kapdiac tudy. ‘Ex yap rig wapdiac éépyor- 
tat dtadoyiopot rovnpol.—apéurrove] proleptic: so that you will be blameless. 
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil. iii. 21 (according to the correct reading); Winer, 
p. 579 [E. T. 624]; Kithner, IT. p. 121.—év dywotvy] belongs not to ornpiga, 
but to auéurrovu, specifying the sphere in which the blamelessness is to be 
shown. The expression denotes the condition of holiness, comp. Rom. i. 
4; 2 Cor. vii. 1; erroneously Koppe: alias dyacyécs, and Olshausen : 
dywobvy is the process of becoming holy, the result of which is dyaopég.— 
Eurpoober tov Oct} before God, according to His judgment, His judicial sen- 
tence, belongs neither to dywotvy [Koppe, Pelt), nor to apzéumrove (de Wette, 
Koch), but to the whole ayéurroug ev dywotvy.—pera mavruv Tov dyiuv atrov] 
Flatt, with whom Hofmann, in his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, ed. 1, p. 595, agrees 
(he construes the passage differently in ed. 2, p. 649, and in his H. Schr. 
N. T., without altering his interpretation of of ayo), unites the clause with 
apuéurroue évy dywoivy: “in order that ye may appear blameless on that day 
with all who are consecrated to God, who are the genuine members of 
His people, who truly honor God and Christ.” So also Musculus; and 
also Benson and Olshausen (comp. also Bouman, Chartae theol. I. p. 81 
ff.), although they do not construe with Musculus and Flatt, understand by 
ayo the earlier perfected believers... But the difficulty which impelled 
Flatt to this interpretation (and in which Schrader finds even an objection 
against the authenticity of the Epistle), namely, that ayco: in the New Tes- 
tament never denotes the angels when it is by itself, that is, without the 
addition of éyyeAo, vanishes, as—(1) The advent is considered as glorified 
by the appearance of angels; comp. 2 Thess. 1.7; Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31; 
Mark viii. 88; Luke ix. 26. (2) In the Old Testament without any further 
addition 0°70, and in the LXX. o! cy, is a designation of the angels: 


1 Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford and Ellicott refer the words to the glorified believers and the 
angels. 


NOTES. 509 


comp. e.g. Zech. xiv.5; Dan. iv. 10; and therefore this current designa- 
tion cannot surprise us in Paul. Also, what Hofmann in the above- 
mentioned place urges in favor of Flatt’s interpretation is without force. 
For to “the probability of the three prepositions éurpooter, év, and perd 
being used in a similar connection,” is opposed the greater naturalness 
and easiness of the connection of yperd mévruv trav dyiwy airod with the 
directly preceding év rj rapovoia tov xupiov judy ’Incov. “ And that also the 
connection ” supports Flatt’s explanation, “since the brotherly love in 
which the Thessalonians are to grow finds its suitable reward in sharing at 
length the blessed fellowship of all the saints of God,” so that hereby is 
already introduced “ what the apostle has particularly to teach the Chris- 
tians of Thessalonica for their comfort, that those believers who fell asleep 
before the Advent of the Lord will not be wanting at it,” can only be 
maintained without arbitrariness, if not only the explanation in iv, 1-12, 
but the section iv. 13 ff., be directly joined to iii. 138; and then this section 
would be introduced with Ov @éAouev yap tac ayvoeiv, instead of with Ov 
YéAouev 52 dae ayvoeciv.—Moreover, the concluding word aizoi is more cor- 
rectly referred to rov Geov, than, with Pelt, Riggenbach, and others, to row 
xepiov qua "Inaod. 


Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LI. Vv. 1-10. 


(a) 6t6, which Liinem. connects with iii. 20, is probably in thought, if not gram- 
matically, to be connected with the general idea of iii. 17-20.—({5) As to the in- 
consistency between Acts xvii. 14, xviii. 5 and what is stated in vv. 1, 2 of this 
chapter, it depends on two things: (1) the meaning of xaradegdyvar; (2) the 
question as to whether the statements of the Acts exclude the supposition of a 
journey of Timothy to Athens, and thence to Thessalonica, in the interval be- 
tween Acts xvii. 14 and xviii.5. With reference to the latter point, it seems 
quite improbable that Timothy should have gone thus to Athens, without any al- 
lusion being made to it by Luke, and even with intimations in his narrative which 
would convey an opposite impression. If Paul had desired Timothy to go to 
Thessalonica, it would seem more natural that he should have sent him a request 
to do so, while he was yet in Bercea. With reference to the former point, it must 
be admitted that the verb, more naturally and according to its strict sense, means 
to be left behind, as if by other persons who had been in the same place. But— 
considering that Paul had requested Silas and Timothy (Acts xvii. 15) to come to 
him with all speed, when he went from Bercea to Athens, and must accordingly 
have waited for them with earnest desire—it is questionable whether he 
might not use this verb to express the idea of being left still longer alone in 
Athens, as he would be if Timothy were sent from Bercea to Thessalonica. The 
possibilities of explanation in the case are such, at all events, that the difference 
between Paul and Luke cannot be justly said to be irreconcilable. As for the 
words éréuwauev ver. 2 and éreuypa ver. 5, they can be interpreted consistently with 
either a sending from Athens, or a request communicated from Athens to Timothy 
at Bercea, though, if there were nothing to suggest the opposite, they would 
doubtless be naturally understood in the former way.—(c) The explanation of de 





510 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


W., Buttm., Ell, and others, which makes rd yndéva caiverSa: of ver. 3 depend on 
mwapaxadica:, does not seem to be “absolutely impossible,” as Liinem. maintains— 
his position with regard to 1 Tim. vi. 2 is doubtful, to say the least ;—and if this 
construction is allowable, it is, on the whole, the simplest and most natural. No 
serious objection, however, can be made to the construction which Liinem. him- 
self proposes, making the words appositional to the whole preceding sentence.— 
(d) Grimm (Lex. N.T.) and Meyer on Gal. ii. 2 agree with Liinem. and de W. 
in giving to pfru¢ (ver. 5) the interrogative force. The ordinary use of this par- 
ticle in Paul’s writings is against this view, and there are strong arguments against 
it in Gal. ii. 2. Here, it may have this sense, but not improbably it should be 
rendered, with R. V. and many comm., lest by any means, lest haply.—{e) The con- 
nection of dp7: (ver. 6) with zapexA7dnuev, which Liinem. favors, is opposed by 
two considerations: (1) the remoteness of the verb from the adverb, and (2) the 
fact that the verb is introduced by dia rovro, The emphasis on dprz, if connected 
with éAvdvrog, can be accounted for, by the desire to point to the arrival of Timo- 
thy (and thus of the tidings concerning the church) as very recent, and by the 
contrast of Timothy’s present arrival with his past mission. The insertion of dia 
rovro is not unnatural, if apr: is connected with the participle. Whether con- 
nected thus or not, d:@ rotvro refers to the same thing—the news which Timothy 
had brought. And, as for the use of the perfect, tapaxexAjueda, instead of the 
aorist, which Liinem. claims would be expected of apr: was intended to qualify 
éAddévrog, all that can be properly affirmed is that the perfect might have been 
used, but, when we consider the uses of the aorist by the N.T. writers, and the 
comparative infrequency of the perfect, the absence of the latter tense here cannot 
be preased as an argument of weight. R.V. renders: “But when Timothy came 
even now unto us.” Whether dpr: is connected with the participle or the verb, 
the indication of the passage is that the letter was written (as Liinem. also holds), 
immediately after the arrival of Timothy, and, as there is no indication that 
Timothy went to Athens after visiting Thessalonica, and as he is stated in the Acts 
(xviii. 5) to have rejoined Paul in Corinth, this verse answers to that passage and 
thus harmonizes with Luke’s account. There can be no reasonable doubt, there- 
fore, that the Epistle was written at Corinth—(f) ¢auev (ver. 8) is a strong 
rhetorical expression, showing how dependent he was for his peace and happiness 
on the condition of his converts—as if his very life rested upon their standing 
firm. Whether there is a suggestion in the verb of a Udvaroc as figuratively in- 
volved in SAixic and avdyxy, as Liinem., Alf., Ell., and others suppose, is more 
doubtful. The answer to this question will depend on whether Gr: is to be con- 
nected solely with wapexAGOnpev tg’ tpiv dia rig wiorews, and émi méoy x.7.A, is a 
mere clause setting forth the circumstances, or whether, on the other hand, these 
last-mentioned words are made an essential and prominent part of that to which 
ére refers.—(g) The explanation of deéuevor (ver. 10) which Liinem. gives is to be 
adopted—the relation of thanksgiving to prayer corresponding, thus, with that 
in i. 2 and elsewhere. 


LI. Vv. 11-18. 


(a) The section closes with a prayer, which, following the course of all that 
precedes, refers, first, to Paul himself in relation to his work for the readers, and, 
secondly, to their personal growth in the Christian life and virtues. The request 


NOTES. Etl 


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


§f.2 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


CHAPTER fV. 


Ver. 1, Aowrév) Elz. Matth. read Td Aorréy, Correctly rejected, according to 
overwhelming testimony (A B* DEF GK L x, min. Chrys. cod. Damasc.), by 
Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford and Ellicott. Té arose from the last syl- 
lable of the preceding atvroi.—ovy in the Receptus after Aotwév is erased by 
Tisch. 1. But the omission is only attested by B* some min. Copt. Chrys. and 
Theoph., and might easily have been occasioned by the preceding ov.—After 
Inoot Elz. has xabic rapeAaBere rap’ judy td wae dei tude mepirareiv Kai aptoxew 
Oe iva reptocetyre uadAov, Defended by Reiche. But iva is to be inserted before 
xabag rapeAdBere, with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford and Ellicott (after B 
D* E* F G, 17, 37, al., Arm. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel.), and the parenthesis xaa¢ 
nai wepirareire is to be inserted before iva repicoeinre (after A BD EF G ¥, min. 
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. Slav. ed. Vulg. ms. It. Harl. Ambrosiast.). Internal 
criticism also requires this. For iva wepicoetyre presupposes the earlier mention 
of a prior commencement (comp. ver. 10), and such a commencement would not 
be implied in the preceding text without xafd¢ xai wepinareire. Evidently the 
apostle would originally have written iva, xafie wapeAdBere rap’ judy 7d wae K,T.A., 
ovTuc Kai repixar#re; but, while writing, altered this his intended expression, that 
he might not say too little, wishing to notice the good beginning already made by 
the Thessalonians. The repetition of iva after so long an intervening clause was 
too natural, so that it might excite suspicion—Ver. 6. xpoeiropev. So Griesbach 
and Schott, after A K L, most min. (as it appears) Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al. ; 
whilst Elz. Matth. Lachm. Tisch., Alford, Ellicott, after B (e sil.) DE F GX, al. 
read tpoeitayev.—Ver. 8, Elz. has tdv xal dévra, «ai is wanting in A B D# E, 
min. edd. Syr. Arr. al., Ath. Chrys. al, Erased by Lachm. and Tisch.1. How- 
ever, it might easily have been omitted, the eye of the translator passing from rév 
to dévra.—Instead of dévra, B D E F G &8* 67* e¢ al,, mult. edd. Ath. Didym. have 
d:dévra, Preferred by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8. But didévra appears to be a 
correction from a dogmatic point of view, in order, instead of the objectionable 
preterite, to obtain the statement that the Holy Spirit is permanently communicated 
to believers.—iyac] Elz. has juac. Against B DE FG K L®, min. plur. edd. 
Syr. Arr. Arm. Syr. p.in m. It. al. Didym. Ambrosiast. An alteration in con- 
formity with a reference to the apostle himself implied in the preceding 4v3pwrrov. 
—Ver. 9. Instead of the meaningless Rec. ixere (comp. commentary on ver. 9), 
éyouev is to be received, after B [elyouer] D* F G RH min. Vulg. It. Chrys 
Theoph. Ambrosiast. Recommended by Griesbach. Received by Lachm. and 
Tisch. 1. ‘Eyere is taken from v. 1.—Ver. 11. raig xepoiv] Elz. has rai¢ idtag 
xepolv. "Idiasc, defended by Reiche, suspected by Griesb., and erased by Lachm. 
Tisch. Alford, and Ellicott, after B D* E? F G & 4+ 31, 46 al, Aeth. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Bas. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. Gloss for the sake of strengthen- 
ing, arising from 1é Idca.—Ver. 13. SéAouev] Elz. has 3éAw. Against preponder- 
ating testimonies (A BDEFGL X¥, min. pl. vas. [also It. and Vulg.] and 





CHAP. Iv. 1. 513 


Fathers). Instead of the Receptus xexocunutvov, A B x, 39, al., Or. Damase. Chrys. 
ms. (alic.) have xocuouévov. So Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2,8, Alford and Ellicott.— 
Ver. 16. Elz. has zporov, D* F G, Vulg. It. Cyr. Theoph. ed. Tert. Ambrosiast. 
al. read rpirot.— Ver. 17. Elz. has ardvrgowv, D* E*? FG read trévryow.—Elz. 
has tov xupiov. D* E*? FG, Vulg. It. Tert. al. read ro Xpiorg. 


ConTENTS.—The apostle entreats and exhorts his readers to progress 
with the greatest earnestness in the Christian life, which they had begun, 
according to the instructions and commandments which they had 
received. God desires holiness; they should therefore abstain from for- 
nication, covetousness, and overreaching their neighbors (vv. 1-8). He 
has no necessity to exhort them to active brotherly love; they practise 
this already far and wide; but he exhorts them to increase therein, and to 


_ seek honor in distinguishing themselves by a quiet and busy life (vv. 


9-12). With regard to their anxiety for the fate of their fellow-Christians 
who had fallen asleep before the commencement of the advent, it may 
serve for their information and comfort that those who are then alive 
would receive no preference over those who are already asleep; Christ 
will descend from heaven; then will the dead rise first, and afterward the 
living also will be uplifted with them to eternal fellowship with the Lord 
(vv. 13-18). : 

Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-12, see Note LIIT. pages 588, 589.] Td Aouréy (see critical 
remark) would now directly oppose what follows with what precedes: 
“for the rest,” “what is yet besides to be said; ”” whereas Ao:réy is a less 
prominent particle of transition—“ besides.” Both forms, however, intro- 
duce something different from what precedes, and serve properly to intro- 
duce the concluding remarks of an Epistle; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. 
iv. 8; Eph. vi. 10; 2 Thess. ili. 1. Here Aosméy introduces the second por- 
tion of the Epistle, and that in an entirely natural and usual manner, as 
this second portion is the concluding portion of the Epistle —(T2) Aordy is 
incorrectly explained by Chrysostom, Theophylact: aet pév xai cig rd Sevens ; 
Theodoret, to whom Oecumenius, though wavering, adheres: aroypdévruc ; 
Luther: “furthermore ;’’ Baumgarten-Crusius: “generally, what is the 
main thing.”—otv] therefore, represents what follows as an inference from 
the preceding, and especially from iii. 18. As it is the final destination 
of Christians to be dyeurro: év dywotvy, in order to reach this end prayer 
directed to God does not suffice, but also man’s own striving is requisite ; 
so the apostle beseeches and exhorts his readers to increase in striving 
after a holy walk." Comp. Theodoret: Totry xexpypuévor TO oxoT rpooglpopev 
tuiv tiv rapalveorv. Calixtus refers otv to the idea of the judgment taken 
from iii. 18: Ergo, .. . . quum sciatis non stare res nostras fine tempo- 
rali aut terreno, sed exspectari adventum domini a coelis ad judicium, 
precamur vos et obtestamur, etc. Incorrectly Musculus:. Quum igitur 
gratiam hanc acceperitis a domino, ut in fide illius firmi persistatis, quem- 
admodum ex relatione Timothei cum ingenti gaudio accepi: quod jam 
reliquum est, rogo et hortor, etc.—épwrav] in the classics is used only in 
the sense of to inquire (see the Lexicons); here, as in v. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 1, 

33 ‘ 


614 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Phil. iv. 3, John iv. 40, xiv. 16, Acts xxiii. 20, etc.,in the sense of to request, 
to beseech, analogous to the Hebrew ?#¥ (so also the English to ask), which 
unites both meanings. '‘Epwrauev denotes the entreating address of a 
friend to a friend ; mapaxadotpev évy xvpiy, the exhortation in virtue of the 
apostolic office, thus the exhortation of a superior to subordinates.—év 
xupiy] in the Lord, belongs only to mapaxadcipyev (against Hofmann), and 
means, as in Rom. ix. 1, 2Cor. ii. 17, xii. 19, Eph. iv. 17, as found in 
Christ, by means of life-fellowship with Him, Paul being only the organ 
of Christ; not for the sake of the Lord (Flatt), which would require dé 
rév xbprov ; also not per dominum Jesum, as a form of oath (Estius, Grotius, 
and others), against which is the Greek usage; comp. Fritzsche on Rom. 
ix. 1; Kihner, II. p. 307.—t»a] the contents of the request and exhorta- 
tion in the form of its purpose.—apeAdBere] see on ii. 18. Oecumenius, 
after Chrysostom (and 80 also Theophylact, also Pelt): rd wapeAdBere ovx? 
pnudtov pdvov éoriv, GAAG Kal npayudruy é& dv yap atrég EBiov, rhmog roi¢ pabyrai¢ 
éyivero. But this extension of the idea is arbitrarily inserted against the 
natural meaning of the word, and against ver. 2.—ré] is not superfluous 
(Grotius), but specifies in a substantive sense the following words, in order 
to collect them into one idea, as in Rom. iv. 18, viii. 26, xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; 
Phil. iv. 10; Luke i.62. Comp. Winer, p. 103. [E. T. 108]; Bremi, ad 
Demosth. de Cherson. p 236.—xai apfoxew Gep] and (thereby) to please God, is 
co-ordinate to repirareiv, although logically considered it is the consequence 
of repirareiv; mepirareiv can only be the means of dpéoxecy.—meprooeinre | ac. 
év r@ obtwe mepixateiv. Falsely Theophylact, adhering to Chrysostom: iva 
mAkov Tt THC EvTOARE giAoTijoNe woreiv Kai imepBaivyte 1a ewitdyyata.—paAAor] & 
further intensification, as is a favorite custom with Paul; comp. iv. 10; 
Phil. i. 23; 2 Cor. vii. 13, etc. 

Ver. 2. A strengthening of wapeAdBere rap’ yuav, ver. 1, by appealing to 
the knowledge of the readers: for it is well known to you, ye will thus be 
the more willing to nepocetev. This appeal to their own knowledge is 
accordingly by no means useless, and still less un-Pauline (Schrader, 
Baur), as it is elsewhere not rare with Paul; comp. Gal. iv. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 
1 ff., etc.,—-rapayyedia:] not evangelii praedicatio, in qua singula praecepta 
semine quasi inclusa latitant (Pelt), against which is the context and the 
plural form; but commands (comp. Acts v. 28, xvi. 24; 1 Tim. i. 5, 18), and 
that to a Christian life. The stress is on rivac, to which roiro, ver. 8, cor- 
responds.—d:d rov xvpiov 'Incov] through the Lord Jesus, by means of Him, 
i.e. Paul did not command d¢ éavrov, but Christ Himself was represented 
by him as the Giver of the tapayyeAiaz. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 
235 f. Schott blends the ideas in a strange manner: Auxilio sive benefi- 
cio Christi, siquidem Paulus, ab ipso domino ad provinciam apostoli 
obeundam vocatus, d¢’ aroxadtweug Xprorov inter illos docuerat. So also de 
Wette : by means of the revelation given in the Lord, so that the general 
divine truth is communicated through Him. Falsely Pelt, 6:6 is equiva- 
lent to év; and Grotius, accepta is to be supplied. 


1Falsely, moreover, Theophylact: dpa 8&8 éfcémicrow éavrow clvas Gyo, ddAA rey Xpe~ 
raraveppoovrny, Gras oFb2 apds 1d wapaxaXciy voy wepaAapBaves «.7.A. 





CHAP. Iv. 2—4. 515 


Ver. 3. Further specification of rivas wapayyediac, according to its con- 
tents. rovro ydp éorw VéAnua tov Ocov| for this (the following) is the will of 
God.—rovro] not the predicate (de Wette, 2d ed.), but the subject (comp. 
Rom. ix. 8; Gal. iii. 7; Winer, 5th ed. p. 180) is emphatically placed first, 
accordingly not superfluous (Pelt),—déAnya tov Gcov| without the article, as 
the will of God is not exhausted with what is afterwards adduced. The 
words are without emphasis ; they resume only the idea already expressed 
in ver. 2, although in another form. For a command given ca rod xupiov 
‘Inoot is nothing else than 9éAqua tov Oz0dv.—d dytaopic ipov] namely, your 
sanctification, in apposition to rovro and the subject-matter, whereas rovro 
was only a preliminary and nominal subject. dy:acuéds has an active 
meaning, your sanctification, (tuo, the genitive of the object), t.¢. that you 
sanctify yourselves, not passive (Est., Koppe, Usteri, p. 236; Olsh., B.-Crus), 
also Huther on 1 Pet.i.1,2.3d ed.,sothat it would be identical with ay:wobvy, 
iii. 13. Calov., Wolf, Flatt, de W., Koch, Alford, and others take dy:aopd¢ as 
‘a “quite general” idea, under which not only azéfyeoda x.7.4., but also 
ver. 6, are specified as particulars. This view, in itself entirely suitable, 
becomes impossible by the article ré before wrepBaivery, ver.6. This does 
not permit us to consider ver. 6 as 8 parallel statement to arézeoVa, ver. 3, 
and eidéva:, ver. 4, but places the statement rd pu? trepBaiver x.7.A. evidently 
on the same level with 6 dysacpés tuav. Accordingly rovro receives a double 
specification of the subject-matter in the form of apposition—(1) in 6 
dytaopdc tuav, and (2) in rd uA) drepBaiverv, ver. 6. Thus the meaning is: 
For the following is the will of God, first, that ye sanctify yourselves, and 
then that ye overreach not, etc. But from this relation of the sentences it 
follows that dycacuzée must denote holiness in a special sense, i.e. must be 
considered in special reference to sins of lust, thus must be used of striv- 
ing after chastity (Turretin, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and 
others).—é dy:acpde iver is further epexegetically explained—{]1) negatively 
by aréyeoDas tuag ard rig wopveiac, and (2) positively by eidévaz x.7.4., ver. 4. 
In an entirely erroneous manner by Hofmann, according to whom the 
stress is to be laid on éAjyua rot Oecd, rovro is to indicate azéyeoPaz x.7.A., 
and 6 dycaoués ig & parenthetic apposition. Moreover, “a contradiction ” 
to the praise of the church, expressed elsewhere in the Epistle, is 
not contained in the exhortation, ver. 3 ff. (Schrader), as the reception 
of Christianity never delivers, as with the stroke of a magician, from 
the wickedness and lusts of the heathen world which have become 
habitual; rather a long and constant fight is necessary for vanquishing 
them. - 

Ver. 4. [LIII c.] That every one of you may know (understand, be 
capable; comp. Col. iv. 6; Phil. iv. 12) to acquire his own vessel in sanctifi- 
cation and honor. By oxevoc, Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Tertullian, Pelagius, Haimo, Calvin, Zeger, Mus- 
culus, Hemming, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Drusius, Piscator, Gom- 
arus, Aretius, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Grotius, Calixt, Calovius, 
Hammond, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zachar., Flatt, Olsh., 
B.-Crus., Bloomfield, Linder, St. u. Kr., 1867, Meyer (Rom. 5th ed. p. 84), and 


516 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


others, understand the body (rd oda). But—{1) xraofa cannot in any 
way be reconciled with this interpretation. For that can only denote to 
gain, to acquire, but not to own, to possess (for which one in vain appeals to 
Luke xxi. 19; Sir. vi. 7, xxii. 23, li. 20). If one would, with Olshausen 
(comp. also Chrysostom), retain the idea of acquiring, and then find the 
sense: ‘to guide and master his body as the true instrument of the soul,” 
yet, as de Wette remarks, the contrast yu? év wéOee éxcOvuiac, ver. 5, which 
likewise belongs to «rao8a:, would be irreconcilable with it. (2) The body 
may be compared with a oxevoc, or, when the context points to it, may be 
figuratively so called, but oxevoc by itself can hardly be put in the sense of 
oaya. All the passages which are usually brought forward do not prove 
the contrary; e.g. Barnabas, Ep. vil. and xi.: Td oxevog tov mvebpatog 
(avrov), where oxedvoc has its usual meaning, and only the full expression 
serves as a circumlocution for the body of Christ.2 How different also 
from our passage is 2 Cor. iv. 7, by the addition sorpaxivor, according to 
which the odua is only compared with a oxeioc corpdxivov! (8) The position 
of the words 1d éavrot oxevoc is against it. For éavrov can only be placed 
first, because the emphasis rests on it; but a reference to the body of an 
individual cannot be emphatic; it would require to be written 1d oxetorc 
éavrov. Olshausen certainly finds in éavrot a support for the opposite view; 
but how arbitrary is his assertion, that by the genitive “the subjectivity, 
the yz, is distinguished from the oxevoc,”’ as only the belonging, the private 
possession, can be designated by éavrov! (4) Thecontext also does not lead 
us to understand oxevo¢ of the body. Paul, namely, has brought forward the 
dycaoués Of his readers as the will of God, and has further explained 
this dy:aopéc, first, negatively as an abstinence from fornication. If, now, 
this negative specification is still further explained by a positive one, this 
further positive addition can only contain the reverse, that is, the require- 
ment to satisfy the sexual impulse in chastity and honor. The words import 
this, if cxeve¢ is understood in its original meaning, “ retaén a vessel,” and 
the expression as a figurative designation of wife." How suitable does the 
emphatic éavrod become through this interpretation, the apostle, in con- 
trast to the ropveia, the Venus vulgivaga, urging that every one should 
acquire his own vessel or means to appease the sexual impulse—that is, 
should enter into marriage, ordained by God for the regulation of fleshly 
lusts; comp. 1 Cor. vil. 2, where the same principle is expressed. To 


1In a special manner Ernest Schmid ex- 
plains it; Suum vas i.e. suum corpus et in 
specie sua membra, quibus a@ dxabapciav 
homo abuti potest. So also Majus, Observat. 
sacr. IIL. p.75. Schomer, Woken, and Triller 
(comp. Wolf in loc.). Bolten, entirely con- 
trary to the context: 1rd eavrot oxeios is “his 
means, his vessels, or singularis pro plurali, 
his goods, his utensils.” 

Philo, quod deter. pot. ins. p. 186: rd Tis 
Wuxiis ayyeiow 7d cepa, and de migr. Abrah. 
p. 418: rots dyyeiots Ths Yuxhs comans Kai 
aictica. Cicero, disput. Tusc. 1. 22: coxpus 


quidem quasi vas est ant aliquod animi recep- 
taculum. Lucretius, iii. 441: corpus, quod 
vas quasi constitit ¢jus (sc. animae). 

$So, in essentials, Theodore Mopsuestius 
(ed. Fritzsche, p. 145: Zeevos rhy iSiay éxdorey 
yauetyy ovoudge); rives in Theodoret (rev 
ouddvya); Augustin, contra Julian. iv. 10, v. 9; 
de nupt. et concup. i. 8; Thomas Aquinas, 
Zwingli, Estius, Balduin, Heinsius, Seb. 
Schmid, Wetstein, Schoettgen, Michaelia, 
Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bisping, 
Ewald, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggen- 
bach, and others.s 


CHAP. Iv. 5, 6. 517 
regard the expression oxeiog as a figurative designation of wife is the less 
objectionable, as this figurative designation is besides supported by Jewish 
usage.! éxacrov ipor] every one of you, sc. who does not possess the gift of 
continence; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2.—év dy:acup nai ting] in chastity and 
honor, belongs not to éxacrov, so that dvra would require to be supplied 
(Koppe, Schott), but to «raof@a:, and is an epexegesis to éavrov, so that after 
xrao8a: & comma is to be put. In 1d éavrow oxevog xraoda there is contained 
xTao0at év dy:aoup «.t.A. already implicitly included. Accordingly, by this 
addition there is by no means expressed in what way one should marry, 
which, as a too special prescription, would certainly be unsuitable; but 
ver. 4 contains only the general prescription, instead of giving oneself up 
to fornication, to marry, and this is opposed as honorable and sanctified to 
what is dishonorable and unsanctified. 

Ver. 5 brings forward the prescription év dy:acyu@ xai riug ONCe More on 
account of its importance, but now in 8 negative form.—p) év wdec émdbv- 
pia] not in phe passion of desire. Accordingly, Paul does not here forbid 
éxOvyia, for this in itself, as a natural impulse, rests on the holy ordinance 
of God, but a d6o¢ érGupiac, that is, a conditiop where sense has been 
converted into the ruling principle or into passion.2*~—«ai] after xafdarep is 
not added for the sake of elegance (Pelt), but is the usual xai after particles 
of comparison; see ii. 14, iii. 6, 12, iv. 6,18; Rom. iv. 6, etc.; Hartung, 
Partikell. I. p. 126.—ra 3 eidéra rdv Oeév] of whom nothing better is to be 
expected. Comp. on the expression, Gal. iv. 8; 2 Thess. i. 8. 

Ver. 6. The second chief point which the apostle subordinates to the 
GéAnua tov Oeov (ver. 3), adding to the prohibition of unchastity the further 
prohibition of covetousness and overreaching our neighbor (Nicolas Lyrensis, 
Faber Stapulus, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Luc. 
Osiander, Balduin, Aretius, Vorstius, Gomarus, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, 
Wolf, Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Koch, Bouman, supra, p. 82, Bisping, 
Ewald, Hofmann, Riggenbach, and others). It is true Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret, John Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jerome on Eph. v. 
5, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinsius, Whitby, 
Benson, Wetstein, Kypke, Bengel, Baumgarten, Zachar., Méchaelis, Pelt, 
Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott, and others, refer it still to 
the prohibition of unchastity given in vv. 4, 5, whilst they find in ver. 6 a 
particular form of it designated, namely, adultery, and consider the sen- 
tence as dependent on ¢idéva: (Pelt), or as in apposition to vv. 4,5. But 
this is without justification. For—{1) the expressions imepBaivew and 
mAeovexreiv most naturally denote a covetous, deceitful conduct in common 


1Thus it is said in Megilla Esther, i.11: In 
convivio illius impiialiqui dixerunt: mulleres 
Medicae sunt pulchriores, alii vero: Persicae 
sunt pulchriores. Dixit ad eos Ahasverus: 
vas meum, quo ego ufor (10 WONWD IKW 
*45), neque Medicum neque Persicum est, 
sed Chaldaicum. Comp. Sohar Levit. fol. 38, 
col. 152: Quicunque enim semen suum im- 


mittit in vas non bonum, ille semen suum 
deturpat. See Schoettgen, Hor. hebr. p. 827. 
Lastly, add to this that the expression «crac- 
@as yvvaixa, in the sense of ducere uxorem, 
is usual; comp. Xenoph. Conviv. ii. 10: ravryy 
(ZavOlwwny) «dxrnuas; LXX. Ruth iv. 10; Sir. 
xxxvi. 24. 

*Theodore Mopsuestius (ed. Fritsache, p. 





618 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


social intercourse. (2) If the discourse had been only of zopveia, the words 
rept wavtwy tobrwy would scarcely have been put. Different kinds of ropveia 
must at least have been previously enumerated. But not even this could 
be the case, as then to the dissuasion from zopveia in general, the dissuasion 
from a special kind of wopveia would be united. (3) Lastly, the article 
imperatively requires us to consider rd . . . airov as parallel to 6 dy:acpdc 
duev, ver. 8, and, accordingly, as a second object different from the first. 
If Pelt objects against our view that a mention of covetousness (ver. 6) 
would occur “ plane inexspectato,” he does not consider that lust and 
covetousness were the two cardinal vices of the heathen world, and that 
Paul was accustomed elsewhere to mention them together; comp. Eph. 
iv. 19, v. 3,5; Col. ili. 5. Also, the further objection which is insisted on, 
that on account of ver. 7 an exhortation to chastity must be contained in 
ver. 6, is not conviricing, as there is nothing to prevent us taking axafapcia 
and dy:acudc, ver. 7 (see On passage), in the wider sense.—ré] not equiva- 
lent to dere (Baumgarten-Crusius), but a second exponent of the object- 
matter of OéAjua rov Geov (ver. 3).—imepBaivew] here only in the N. T., 
stands absolutely : justos fines migrare, to grasp too far (Luther).! What 
Paul particularly understood by the entirely general yu trepBalver he 
himself indicates by xai wAeovecreiy . . . avrov, which latter words, as pf is 
not repeated before rAcovexreiv, can contain no independent requirement, 
but must be an explanatory specification of drepBaivew. xai is accordingly 
to be understood in the sense of “and indeed.” Others, as Beza, Koppe, 
Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggenbach, have 
united both verbs with rav adeAgéyv. But the union of trepSaive with a per- 
sonal object is objectionable, and also in the two passages adduced for it 
by Kypke (Plut., de amore prolis, p. 496, and Dem., adv. Aristocrat. p. 439) 
the meaning opprimere is at least not demonstrable. Moreover, not 
éxaorov, from ver. 4 (B.-Crus., Alford), but revd, is to be considered as the 
subject to 1d uy bmepBaivew x.7.A.—Aeovexreiv] expresses the overreaching, 
the fraudulent pursuit of our own gain springing from covetousness (comp. 
2 Cor. vii. 2, xil. 17, 18), not the covetous encroaching upon the posses- 
sion of a brother, as a figurative expression for adultery. —év 16 mpdyparc] 
is not verecunde pro concubitu (Estius and those mentioned above), but 
means in the business (now, or at any time in hand). See Winer p. 109 f. [E. 
T. 115]. Too narrow a sense, Piscator: in emendo et vendendo. Rittershus.’ 
Polyc. Leyser (in Wolf), and Koppe consider the article as enclitic (é re 
instead of é rex); unnecessary, and without any analogy in the New 
Testament. Comp. Winer, p. 52 [E. T. 53]. But also erroneously, Mack- 
night, Schott, Olshausen, and others, év rp mpdyyzare is equivalent to é 
tobty TO Tpdyyart.—rdv adeApdy airoi] is not equivalent to rdv rAycioy (Schott, 


165): eody rovro wovobvros obeén rairy &¢  asio violenti, qualis tyrannorum et potentium 
yuveci cuvévros dAAa dd pitty porn» awAws, est, qui inferiores injustis exactionibus aut 
Swep wabos émcOuplas dxdAccer. aliis illicitis modis premunt,” (Hemming) is 

1Comp, Eurip. Ale. 1077: wh viv dwtpBaw’, inserted, and every supplement, as that of 
GAA’ dvacinws dpe; Il. ix. 501: dre xéy mug §= Piscator, “excedere modum in augends 
bwephiy xai auéptyp. The idea ofan“oppres- rerum pretiis,” is to be rejected. 


CHAP. Iv. 7, 8. 519 


Koch, and others), but denotes fellow-Christians; comp. ver. 10. This 
limitation of the prohibition to Christians is not surprising (Schrader), as 
there is no emphasis on rév adeAgdv avrov (for otherwise it must have been 
written 1d rdv adeAgdv abrod ps x.7.A.), and accordingly the misinterpreta- 
tion that the conduct of Christians to those who are not Christians is to 
be different, could not possibly arise. Paul simply names the circle 
which stood nearest to the Christians, but without intending to exclude 
thereby the wider circles.—éxd:xo¢] an avenger ; comp. Rom. xiii. 4. The 
same reason for prohibition in Eph. v. 5,6; Col. 111.6; Gal. v.21. Com- 
pare the saying: fe: @ed¢ éexdixov dupa (Homer, Batrachom.), which has 
become a proverb.—xafac nai] refers back to d:é6rt.—mpoeiropuer| foretold ; the 
mpo refers to the time preceding the future judgment, and the preterite to 
the time of the apostle’s presence among the Thessalonians.—dceyaprupé- — 
uea] an intensifying of mpoeiropev. 

Ver. 7. Reason of éxdcxog 6 xbptog rept wavruv robtwv.—ixddecev] the fuller 
form in li. 12.—éi axaBapsig) on condition of, or for the purpose of unclean- 
ness ; comp. Gal. v. 13; Eph. ii. 10; Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 394].'—anabapsie] 
is uncleanness, moral impurity generally (comp. ii. 3), and thus includes 
covetousness as well as lust.—a2’ év dy:aoug] gives, by means of an abbre- 
_ viation (comp. Kitihner, II. p. 316), instead of the purpose, the result of the 
calling: but in holiness, t.e. so that complete holiness of life has become a 
characteristic property of us Christians. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15; Gal. i. 6; 
Eph. iv. 4. But dyaoudc, as it forms the counterpart to dxaapoig, must 
denote moral holiness in its entire compass, and is accordingly here taken 
in a wider sense than in ver. 3. 

Ver. 8. An inference from ver. 7 (not likewise from ver. 3, Flatt), and 
thereby the conclusion of the matter treated of from ver. 3 and onwards. 
—rotyapovv] (Heb. xii. 1) therefore, not: atqui (Koppe, Pelt). See Hartung, 
Partikell. II. p. 354.—é aBerav] the rejecter (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 15; 1 Cor. i. 19), 
stands absolutely (used as a substantive). Comp. Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 
853]. What is rejected by him is evident from the context, namely, the 
above exhortations to chastity and disinterestedness. So already Beza. 
But the rejection of these exhortations is actual and practical, manifest- 
ing itself by the transgression of them. To 6 a¥erav Koppe erroneously 
supplies: istam rov dysaczot legem, ver. 7; Pelt and Bloomfield: ray row 
dytacuiod KAgjow, Ernest Schmid: rév roaira twapayylAdovra; Flatt: gua rdv 
mapaxadovrra. It is decisive against the last two supplements, that hitherto 
not the person who gave the exhortations to the Thessalonians, but only 
. the contents of those exhortations themselves, are emphatically brought for- 
ward (even on 6 O¢é¢, ver. 7, there is no emphasis). To seek to determine 
more definitely 6 é3erév from the following ot« dv3pwrov aderet were arbi- 
trary, as the course of thought in ver. 8 would be interfered with.—ob« 
dvdpwrov averei GAAa tov Oedv] rejecteth not man (this may be excused) but 
God, inasmuch as he who enjoins the readers to avoid lust and covetous- 
ness, impresses on them not his own human opinion, accordingly not a 


1Erasmus: Non vocavit nos hac lege, ut ditio vocationis erat, ut desineremus esee, 
essemus immundi, siquidem causa et con- quod eramus. 








520 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


mere arbitrary command of man, but delivers to them the solemn and 
unchangeable will of God.—oi« . . . 44a] is here, as always, an absolute 
contrast, therefore not to be weakened into “ not, but especially,” or, “ not 
only, but also” (Macknight, Flatt, and others). Comp. 1 Cor.1.17; Acts 
v.4; Winer, p. 462 [E. T. 497]; Klotz, ad Devar. p.9f. In the anarthrous 
singular é-@purov, moreover, Paul expresses not merely the general idea 
man in contrast to é Geés, but there is likewise contained therein an (un- 
translatable) subsidiary reference to himself, as the person from whose 
mouth the Thessalonians have heard these commandments. Others 
incorrectly understand by dv8puroc the defrauded brother (ver. 6); so 
Oecumenius: rocyapoty 5 xapa Ti KAgow xpdrtev (ovrog yap 6 aberév) Trav 
calécavra iBpwe padrAov % Tov xAcoventAOéivra’ tovro de eixe, deucvig Sc ov 
pbvov, dvOa 5 adeAgdg 5 aduxobpevoc 9, dei geiryecy TH porxzeiay, GAAG adv axicrog 
9 «.7.A.; and Pelt: Vestrum igitur quicunque vocationem suam spernit 
fratremque laedit, quem diligere potius debuisset, is sane non hominem 
contemnit, sed, etc.; also Alford. In ‘a manner still more mistaken, 
Hofmann, referring to the whole section vv. 3-6, makes dv3purov denote 
humanity, against which he sins who misuses the woman for the sake of 
lust, or injures his brother for the sake of gain; whilst with an entirely 
inadmissible comparison of the Hebrew 133, he arbitrarily inserts into 
avereiv the idea of an “ act of sin which is a breach of peace, a violation 
of a holy or righteous relation,” and finds in ver. 8 the impossible and 
wholly abstract thought expressed, that every action which treats man as 
if there were no duty towards man as such, will accordingly be esteemed 
as having not man, but God for its object.—rév nai dévra rd xvevya avrow 1d 
ay. ei¢ tuac] who besides, etc., an emphatic representation of the greatness 
of the crime which the Thessalonians would commit, were they to dis- 
obey these exhortations. In such a case they would not only set at 
nought the eternal will of God, but also repay the great grace which God 
had shown to them with shameful ingratitude. «ai has an intensifying 
force, and brings prominently forward, by an appeal to the conscience of 
the readers, the inexcusableness of such conduct.—rd mveipa avrov ra 
Gytov] is the Holy Spirit proceeding from God, who transforms the believer 
into a new personality, and produces extraordinary capabilities and gifts 
(v.19 f.; 1 Cor. xii—xiv.).—eic¢ tpac] is not precisely equivalent to iniv 
(Koppe, Flatt, Pelt), but denotes, instead of the mere logical relation 
which the dative expresses, the communication under the form of locality ; 


accordingly, unto you. 


REeMARK.—If the present tense d:dévra is read, the communication of the Holy 
Spirit is represented as something continuing in the present. If, along with 
d:dévra, the reading of the Receptus, el¢ ude, is retained, this may be either taken 
in a wide sense, as jac in ver. 7, “to us, Christians ;” or, in a narrow sense, “tu 
us (me) the apostle.” In the first case, the addition on account of its generality 
would be somewhat aimless. In the second case, the following thought might be 
found therein: “but God, who not only commissions us to utter such exhorta- 
tions, but who has also imparted to us His Holy Spirit, put us in a position to 


CHAP. Iv. 9. §21 


speak every moment the correct thing ;” comp. 1 Cor. vii. 40.—But (1) this view 
is objectionable on account of the many additions and supplements which it 
requires; (2) Tdv xal d:dévra would introduce no new thought which is not already 
contained in the contrast oix dvOpwrov . . . GAAd rdv Oedv; for, being commis- 
sioned by God to give such exhortations, speaking in His name is one and the 
same with being qualified for this purpose by God’s Holy Spirit ; (3) Lastly, it is 
generally improbable that the addition rd» xai «.r.A. should contain a statement 
concerning the apostle, as such a statement is too little occasioned by the pre- 
ceding. For, in the contrast obx dvOpwrov . . . GAAd rdv Gedy, the general idea 
not man is contained in 4y3pwrov as the main point, whilst the reference to the 
apostle’s own person in 4v3purov is very slight, and forms only a subsidiary point. 
—If, on the other hand, ei¢ tae be received along with the present participle, this 
might be explained with de Wette, whom Koch follows, that the apostle for the 
sake of strengthening his words reminds the Thessalonians how God still con- 
tinues to communicate to them His Holy Spirit; how this communicated Holy 
Spirit, partly by inspired persons, partly by the voice of conscience, gives the 
same exhortations which he, Paul, now enforces. But who does not see that here 
also the chief matter, by which the addition becomes appropriate, must first be 
introduced and supplied? 


Ver. 9. Aé] introduces a new requirement.—giAadeAgia] brotherly love, 4. 6. 
love to fellow-Christians; Rom. xii. 10; Heb. xiii. 1; 1 Pet. i. 22; 2 Pet. 
i.7. But the apostle thinks on this not only as a disposition, but also as 
verifying itself by action, that is to say, as liberality toward needy com- 
panions in the faith (comp. wouire . . . eig, ver. 10). It is self-evident that 
this brotherly love does not exclude love to man in general, comp. Gal. 
vi, 10; 2 Pet. i. 7—When, moreover, the apostle says that he has no 
need to exhort the Thessalonians to brotherly love, as they practise this 
already, but nevertheless requires them to increase in it, this is a touch 
of delicate rhetoric (praeteritio, wapéAeyir, see Wilke, neutestamentliche 
Rhetoric, p. 865), not unusual to Paul (comp. v.1; 2 Cor. ix.1; Philem. 
19), in order to gain willing hearts for the fulfillment of an exhortation 
whose necessity was evident.'—eiro{] not equivalent to sponte (Schott), 
which would not suit 6eodidaxro:, but avrot yap tuei¢ are to be taken together, 
and form the contrast to the person of the writer formerly named (how- 
ever without further emphasis).—deodidaxro:] an drag Aeydpevov in the N. T., 
but analogous to d:daxro? Geoi, John vi. 45 (Isa. liv. 13), and by no means 
un-Pauline, because Paul elsewhere uses mvevmarixof in this sense 
(Schrader); for svevyariof could not here have been put. The 
expression is not to be taken absolutely in the sense of Sedrvevoror, 
according to which ele 1rd ayarav GAAfiove would only be a more 
definite epexegesis of it—‘ so that ye, in consequence of this theopneustia, 
love one another ;’”’ but it contains a blending of two ideas, as properly 


1 Chrysostom : Ov xpelav éxoper ypdgery vuiy. _ficat, eos omnino opus habuisse admonitione 
"Expay oby cumwaca: xai pnddy cimeiv, ci wy superiori, quae erat de sanctimonia seu mun- 
xpeia fv. Niw 88 try cimeiv, ov xpeia dori, ditia vitae; difficile enim erat, homines gen- 
pecvov dwoincew % «i alwev. Erroneously _ tiles immunditiae peccatis assuetos a talibus 
Ketius, to whom Benson assents: Tacite signi- subito revocare. 


§22 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


only didaxroi écre is expected, but now the source of this instruction is 
immediately united with the word (without any one exhorting you, you 
yourselves know, namely, being taught of God, etc.). The knowledge or 
the instruction is not theoretical, not a knowledge from the Old Testa- 
ment, not a knowledge from a word of the Lord (John xiii. 34; Baum- 
garten-Crusius), also not a knowledge from the instructions of the pro- 
phets, such as actually were, according to v. 20, among the Thessalonians 
(Zachariae), but a practical knowledge which has its ground and origin 
in the purified conscience of the inner man, effected by God through the 
communication of the Holy Spirit; consequently a knowledge or instruc- 
tion of the heart. Moreover, incorrectly Olshausen: “ where God teaches, 
there, the apostle says, I may be silent.” For the stress lies not on the 
first, but on the second half of Seodidaxro:.—ei¢ 7d Gyaray aAAZAouc] is de- 
pendent on the ddaxrof in Yeodidaxro:, and denotes, under the form of the 
design at which that instruction aims, its object. Incorrectly Flatt, ei¢ 
denotes quod attinet ad. 


REMARK.—Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Ellicott, Hofmann, also Winer, p. 313 [E. 
T. 339], and Buttmann, Gram. d. neut. Sprachgebr., Berlin 1859, p. 223 [E. T. 259], 
consider the reading of the Receptus: ob ypeiav éxere ypdgerw ipiv (see critical 
remark), as correct Greek, appealing to the frequent use of the infinitive active, 
where one would expect the infinitive passive (see Kiihner, II. p. 339). I cannot 
agree with this; on the contrary, most decidedly deny the applicability of that 
use to our passage. For, in the instances given, the characteristic distinction is 
throughout observable, that the infinitive active expresses the verbal idea ina 
vague generality, entirely free from any personal reference, so that this active infinitive, 
in its import and value, can scarcely be distinguished from an absolute accusa- 
tive. Comp. for example, Sophocles, Oed. Col. 37: &eav: Exeue yap yopov avy ayvov 
matetv.—Thucydides, i. 388: "Hv ... 5 Oeusoroxae . . . dfto¢ Savudoat.—Euri- 
pides, Med. 318: Aéyeue axvica: pardéx —Comp. also Heb. v.11: Adyor ducepyhver- 
tog Aéyecv, Entirely different from these is our passage, where ypd¢ecv, by means 
of itv, instead of forming an absolute statement, is put in a special personal refer- 
ence to the readers; indeed, as the subject of ypagecy can only be the apostle, in a 
special personal reciprocal reference to Paul and the Thessalonians, and accord- 
ingly the whole expression acquires an individual concrete form. If éyere is not to 
be without meaning, it would require accordingly either éu2 ypddgey, or, as in v. 1, 
the passive ypdgeo9a: to be written. For that, as Bouman, Chartae theolog. I. p. 65, 
and Reiche, p. 339, think, éué or #ua¢, or rather the indefinite t:vé, readily sug- 
gest themselves to be supplied, and that the more so, as the necessity of some such 
supplement is obvious from the following Seodidaxro: (Bouman), can hardly be 
maintained. Also Heb. v.12, to which an appeal is made, proves nothing, for 
here from a similar reason vd is to be accented (with Lachmann) instead of riva; 
whereby the reference and the relation of the words are entirely transformed. 
Comp. my commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 


Ver. 10. An explanatory confirmation of the statement Geodidaxrof tore 
eig¢ Td Gyarav GAAfAouc by an actual historical instance. Calvin finds in ver. 
10 an argumentum a majore ad minus: “nam quum eorum caritas per 
totam Macedoniam se diffundat, colligit non esse dubitandum, quin ipai 


CHAP. Iv. 10, 11. §23 


mutuo tnter se ament.” But the emphasis rests not on dAAfdow and roi¢ 
adeAgore rovg tv bAy rH Maxedovig, but on dyaray and wowire. Also the opin- 
ion of de Wette, whom Koch follows, that an additional reason is here 
adduced why the Thessalonians require no further exhortation, is to be 
rejected, as then xa? roeire would require to be written instead of xat ydp 
rouire, because yép cannot be co-ordinate with the preceding yép.—xai yép] 
not equivalent to simple yép (so most critics), and also not quin etiam, or 
smo (Calvin), but for also: comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 187 f. Whilst 
yép is a justification of dyarav, the idea of didaz9Fvaz is carried on to the idea 
of rowiv by means of the corresponding xai.—roeire] has the chief accent; 
it denotes the actual practice.—airé] sctlicet, rd ayarav, not 7d ri gAadeAdiac 
(Baumgarten-Crusius and Koch).—mepwoevew padrov] to increase yet more, 
scilicet, in brotherly love. Musculus, appealing to Phil. iv. 12, arbitrarily 
takes reprooetery absolutely, whilst he makes a new train of thought com- 
mence with rapaxadotpev: “qua eos redigat in ordinem, qui doctrina 
charitatis ad ignaviae suae, desidiei, curiositatis et quaestus occasionem 
abutebantur, nihil operis facientes, sed otiose ac curiose circumeundo ex 
aliorum laboribus victitantes,” and finds the meaning: “ut abundetis 
magis, h. e. ut magis in eo sitis, ut copiam eorum, quae ad vitae hujus 
sunt sustentationem necessaria, habeatis, quam ut penuriam patientes. 
fratribus sitis oneri.” Equally erroneously, because unnatural, Ewald 
thinks that as the following ¢:Aoripeioda, 80 also even repicoete paArov, 
is to be included in the unity of idea with #ovydfew x.7.4., ver. 11: “to 
keep quiet still more, and zealously,” etc. Besides, the construction of 
repwooetecv, With asimple infinitive following, would be wholly without 
example.'\—ya2i0v] The same intensification as in iv. 1. 


ReMARK.—After the example of Schrader, Baur (p. 484) finds also vv. 9, 10 
only suitable fora church which had already existed for a considerable time. 
How otherwise could the brotherly love of the Thessalonians, which they showed 
to all the brethren in all Macedonia, be praised as a virtue already so generally 
proved? Certainly Paul recognizes the brotherly love of the Thessalonians as a 
“ virtue already proved ;” but Baur, no less than Schrader, overlooks (1) that not 
ei¢ mavrac Tove dyiouc, but etc wavrac rove adeAgove Ev bAy tH Maxedovia is written; 
consequently, the exercise of that virtue is limited to the Christian circle nearest to 
the Thessalonians ; (2) that Paul yet desires an increase in that virtue, thus 
indicating that the exercise of it had only shortly before commenced. rn interval 
of half a year (see Introduction, 3 3) was accordingly a sufficient time for the 
Theesalonians to make themselves worthy of a praise restricted within such bounds. 


Ver. 11 is attached to the preceding in the loosest grammatical con- 
nection. [LIII d.] It has been thought that ver. 11 is only a further 
development of the preceding exhortation. So Olshausen, who finds in 
the whole section, vv. 9-12, only an exhortation to love, and in such a 


1 Ewald in vain endeavors anew to defend _— before said that it was not necessary to write 
the above construction of the words in his to the Thessalonians concerning brotherly 
Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft, 10 Jahrb. Gdtt. love, because they sufficiently practised it, 
1860, p. 241 ff.: That the apostle, after he had could not, without self-contradiction, proceed 





524 THE FIRST LPiSTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 

manner that vv. 9, 10 refer to love to fellow-Christians, and vv. 11, 12 to 
love to man in general. To the latter in particular, inasmuch as the 
Thessalonians were required to give no occasion to those who were not 
Christians to blame anything in the professors of the gospel. But evi- 
dently the apostle, when he exhorts his readers to give no offence by their 
conduct to those who were not Christians, considers this not as the ful- 
fillment of the commandment of love to man in general, but as a matter 
of prudence and discretion, in order in such a manner to counteract the 
prejudices against Christianity, and so to pave the way for its diffusion in 
wider circles. Comp. also Col. iv. 5, 6. Others suppose that to the exhor- 
tation to ¢:AadeAgia & Warning against its abuse is attached ; as some in the 
church practised liberality, so others made use of this liberality as an occa- 
sion of leading an idle life. So already Theodoret,! and after him Estius,? 
Benson, Flatt, Schott, de Wette (wavering),and Koch. But against this view 
is decisive.—(1) That such a sharp division of the church into two different 
classes is not justified by the context; for, on account of the close connection 
of ver. 11 with the preceding, those of whom sepicoeverv paAAov is required are 
the samewith those to whom the exhortation to gAoripeioba: govydlecv x.1.A. 
is addressed. It accordingly follows, that as the church as such was distin- 
guished by active brotherly love, so also the church as such (not a mere 
fraction of it) did not possess the qualities mentioned in ver.11. (2) 
According to this view, the stress is placed only on épydfeo8a: raic¢ xepoiv 
tuav, whereas the demand to jovydfev and mpdocew ra idea is entirely left 
out of consideration. And yet it apparently follows, from gAorieiobac 
jouyaley nai mpdcoew 1a idsa being placed first, that the main point lies on 
these, whilst the idleness blamed in the readers is evidently described only 
as a consequence or result of the neglected jovydlew nai mpdocev ta idta.— 
Accordingly, as a closer connection of ideas, than that which the form of 
the grammatical construction appears to indicate, is not without force 
demonstrable, we must, mindful of the rapid transitions which are pecu- 
liar to the Apostle Paul, especially in the practical parts of his Epistles, 
consider vv. 11, 12 as a new exhortation, internally distinct from that in 
vv. 9, 10, and which only happens to be united with it, as both refer to the 
moral furtherance of the Christian life.—¢Aoriueiobar povydfew] is to be 
taken together : to make it your ambition to lve quietly, and the juxtaposi- 
tion of the two verbs is an orymoron, as in the usual course of things every 
¢Aoriula is properly an impulse to shine by actions.® Calvin takes ¢:Aori- 
peioda: by itself, referring it back to the command to brotherly love: Post- 


to say, but we exhort you yet to increase in 
brotherly love. In this Ewald is certainly 
right. But Paul only declared before that 
the Thessalonians practised brotherly love— 
that they already practised it sufficiently we 
do not read; this, on the contrary, is only 
arbitrarily introduced by Ewald. 

1Ovn dvayria trois wpoppnPeiow twaivos F 
wapaivescs’ curdBasrve yap, Tos per prdAoTripws 
xopyyer tots Seopdvars Tay xpeiav, Tous S¢ dia 


Thy rovrey @crcTipiay apedciy THe dpyacias’ 
cixétws Toivuy xaxelvous émyvere ai rovTous Ta 
apéogopa cuveBovAcuce. 

# Hac eorum liberalitate quidam pauperiores 
abutentes, otio et inertiae vacabant, discur- 
rentes per domos et inhiantes mensis divitum 
atque in res alienas curiosi, adeo ut hoc no- 
mine etiam apud infideles male andirent.” 

* Bengel : dtAoreuia politica erubescit govxd- 
Gav. 


CHAP. Iv. 11. §25 


quam enim admonuit, ut crescant in caritate, sanctam aemulationem illis 
commendat, ut mutuo inter se amore certent, vel (?) certe praecipit, ut 
se ipsum unusquisque vincere contendat, atque hoc posterius magis 
" amplector. Ergo ut perfecta sit eorum caritas, contentionem in illis 
requirit. So also Hemming, and already Theophylact, leave this and the 
usual construction a matter of choice. But the omission of «ai before 
jovyalecv would be harsh. On ¢:AoriueioSa:, comp. Rom. xv. 20; 2 Cor. v. 
9; Kypke, ITI. p.189. The counterpart of jovydfew is reprepyéleo8a, 2 Thess. 
iii. 11, and rodvumpayyoveiv, Plat. Gorg. 526 C.—The disquiet or unsteadiness 
which prevailed in the church is not to be sought for in the political (so 
Zwingli: Nemo tumultuetur, nemo motum excitet; and, but undecidedly, 
Koppe: seditiones adversus magistratus Romanos; comp. also Schott, p. 
121), but in the religious sphere. It was, as it appears, an excitement of 
mind which had been called forth by the new world of thought produced 
by Christianity; but an excitement, on the one hand, risen to such an 
unnatural height that worldly business was neglected, and idleness stepped 
into the place of a regular laborious life; and, on the other hand mani- 
festing itself by such a fanatical spiritual zeal that the Christians by such 
a line of conduct must fall into discredit with those who are not Chris- 
tians. It is not improbable that the thought of the impending advent of 
Christ formed the centre part of this excitement. At least this, by a 
natural association of ideas, would give the reason why Paul after vv. 11, 12 
suddenly interrupts the course of his admonitions, in order, exactly at 
this place, to attach instructions concerning the advent, whilst v. 12 ff. 
shows that he intended to give various other admonitions.—The exhorta- 
tion of the apostle in v. 6, 8, to be prepared for the unexpected entrance 
of the advent, which might be abused in favor of such an excitement, is 
not decisive against the reference to an apocalyptic fanaticism (against de 
Wette, who for this reason supposes only “ pious excitement in general’), 
because that exhortation intervenes between preceding (v. 4, 5) and suc- 
ceeding (v..9 ff.) consolatory expressions, and, accordingly, loses all that is 
alarming about it; the addition of that exhortation was too naturally and 
necessarily required by the explanation of the circumstance itself, that 
Paul should have suppressed it from mere fear of a possible abuse.— 
mpéocetv ta Ida] same as idtompayeiv, to be mindful of one’s own concerns, 
without wishing to take the oversight of the concerns of our neighbor. 
If the above remarks are not incorrect, Paul thinks on the unauthorized 
zeal, by which they had used the advent as a means of terror, in order to 
draw before their tribunal what was a matter of individual conscience, 
and by which a care for the salvation of their neighbor was assumed with 
an objectionable curiosity. 1a éavrot rpéooev would be more correct Greek 
than ra idta rpdooewv..—épyéleoda:] means nothing else than to work. In- 
correctly, Flatt: to gain one’s maintenance by work; Baumgarten- 
Crusius: not to be ashamed of work. From the addition raic yepoly tpi, 
it follows that the Thessalonian church was mostly composed of the work- 


18ee Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 441 f.; Kypke, II. p. 338 f. Comp. Dio Cass. lx. 27: ran 82 8% 
qovxiay dywy xei ta éavrov spirrev ticulere. 





526 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


ing class. Comp. also 1 Cor. i. 26. Calixt, Pelt, Schott, Hofmann, and 
others erroneously find expressed in the words any imaginable business. 
Paul mentions only the business of hand labor, and to apply this to regu- 
lar business of any form or kind is entirely to sever it from this meaning 
of the expression.—xa¥ac ipuiv napryyeiAapev] refers not only to épyéleoda:, 
_ but to the whole of ver. 11. It would seem from this that these disorders 
already prevailed in their beginnings during the apostle’s personal resi- 
dence in Thessalonica. There is nothing objectionable in this inference, 
as (1) from 2 Thess. ii. 5 it appears that at the publication of the gospel in 
Thessalonica the advent had been the subject of very epecial explanations ; 
and (2) the effect of such explanations on the minds of Gentiles anxious 
about salvation must have been overwhelming. Baur, p. 484, therefore is 
entirely mistaken when he maintains that exhortations, such as those given 
in vv. 11, 12, could not have been necessary for a church recently founded. 

Ver. 12 is not the statement of an inference (Baumgarten-Crusius), but 
of a purpose; dependent, however, neither on rapyyyeiAayev, nor on what 
has hitherto been said, including the precept to g:AadeAgia, ver. 10 (Flatt), 
but on ver. 11, and in such a manner that the first half of ver. 12 refers to 
PiAoriueiada: yovydlew nai mpdocew ra Ida, and the second half to épydfeoda 
taic xepolv tuiv.—evoxznpusvac | well-becoming, honorably, Rom. xiii. 18; 1 Cor. 
vii. 85, xiv. 40. The opposite is ardxrwe, 2 Thess. iii. 6.—mpdéc] not coram 
(Flatt, Schott, Koch), but én relation to, or tn reference to those who are 
to. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 265.—ol wu] those who are without (se. 
the Christian community), those who are not Christians, whether Jews or 
Gentiles. Comp. Col. iv. 5; 1 Cor. v. 12, 18; 1 Tim. iii. 7. Already 
among the Jews oj é& (0°3\¥°N) was the usual designation of Gentiles. See 
Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 12—péevd¢] is by most considered as masculine, being 
understood partly of Christians only (so Flatt), partly of unbelievers only 
(Luther, Camerarius, Ernest Schmid, Wolf, Moldenhauer, Pelt), partly 
both of Christians and unbelievers (Schott, de Wette,—who, however, 
along with Koch and Ellicott, thinks that there is a chief reference to 
Christians,—Hofmann, Riggenbach). But to stand in need of no-man, is 
for man an impossibility. It is better therefore, with Calvin, Estius, Gro- 
tius, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, to take pydevéc as neuter, 80 
that a further purpose is given, whose attainment is to be the motive for 
fulfilling the exhortations in ver. 10: to have need of nothing, inasmuch 
as labor leads to the possession of all that is necessary for life, whereas 
idleness has as its inevitable consequence, want and need. 

Ver. 13-v. 11. A comforting instruction concerning the advent. This 
is divided into three sections—({1) iv. 18-18 removes an objection or a 
doubt; (2) v. 1-3 reminds them of the sudden and unexpected entrance 
of the advent; and lastly, in consequence of this, v. 4-11 is an exhorta- 
tion to be ready and prepared for the entrance of the advent. 

(1) Vv. 13-18. A removal of an objection. The painful uneasiness, 
which had seized on the Thessalonians concerning the fate of their 
deceased Christian friends, consisted not, as Zachariae, Olshausen, de 
Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, 2d ed. p. 649 f., and in his H. Schr. N. 


CHAP. Iv. 12, 13. 527 


T.; Luthardt, die Lehre von den letaten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 188 f., and 
others assume, in anxiety lest the deceased should only be raised at the 
general resurrection of the dead, and would thus forfeit the blessedness 
of communion with the Lord in the interval between the advent and this 
general resurrection (“the so-called reign of a thousand years,” Olshau- 
sen). There is no trace in our séction of a distinction between a first and 
a second resurrection; and the idea of a long interval of time between 
the resurrection of believers and the resurrection of the rest of mankind 
(Rev. xx.) is, moreover, entirely strange to the Apostle Paul, as it is evi- 
dent from 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff. correctly understood that the resurrection of 
unbelievers takes place in immediate connection with the resurrection of 
Christians. Rather it was feared that those already dead, as they would no 
more be found alive at the advent of Christ, would receive no share in the 
blessedness of the advent,! and accordingly would be placed in irreparable 
disadvantage to those who are then alive. See exposition of particulars. 

On vv. 18-18 [On vv. 13 ff., see Note LIV. a, }, c, pages 539-541] see von 
Zezschwitz in the Zettschr. f. Protestantismus und Kirche, new series, Erlangen 
1868, p. 88 ff. R. Stahelin, Zur Paulinischen Eschatologie. 1 Thess. iv. 18-17 
im Zusammenhang mit der Judischen Eschatologie untersucht (Jabrb. fir d. 
Theol. Bd. 19. Gotha, 1874, pt. 2. 177 ff) 

Ver. 18. Ob SéAopev d2 iuac ayvoeiv] but we wish not that ye be in ignorance. 
A recognized Pauline formula of transition to new and important com- 
munications; comp. Rom. i. 13, xi. 25; 1 Cor. x. 1, xii.1; 2Cor.i.8. Inan 
analogous manner, Paul uses also positive turns of expression: 0éw tpac 
eidévar, Col. ii. 1, 1 Cor. xi. 8, and yevdonecy tude BobaAopat, Phil. i. 12.—repi rav 
xerotunuévor] [On vv. 18-18, see Note LV. pages 541, 542] concerning those that 
are asleep, that is, by means of euphemism, “ concerning the dead ;”’ comp. 
1 Cor. xi. 30, xv. 6,18, 20; John xi. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 4; Sophocles, Electr. 509. 
The selection of the word is the more appropriate, as the discourse in 
what follows is concerning a revivification. But not the dead generally are 
meant, which Lipsius (Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 924), with an arbi- 
trary appeal to 1 Cor. xv. 29, considers possible, but the dead members of 
the Thessalonian Christian church.—This is evident from all that follows, 
particularly from the confirmatory proposition in ver. 14, and from the 
expression oi vexpol év Xpiorp, ver. 16.—After the example of Weizel (Stud. 
u. Krit. 1836, p. 916 ff.), de Wette (though in a hesitating manner) finds in 
xexotuntvuv the idea indicated “of an intermediate state, i.e. of an imper- 
fect and, as it were, a slumbering continuance of life of the departed 
soul ;” whereas Zwingli, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, in express contra- 
diction to the idea of the sleep of the soul, insist on referring this state of 
being asleep to the body exclusively. But neither, according to the one. 
side, nor according to the other, are we justified in such a limitation, as 
ol xexocunuévo: Only denotes those who are asleep as such, i. e. according to 
their whole personality.—The article in epi rév xexotunuévov represents the 
question, to the solution of which the apostle now passes, as one well 


1Calvin;: Vitam aeternam ad eos solos pertinere imaginabantur, quos Christus ultimo 
adventu vivos adhuc in terris deprehenderet 





CHAP. Iv. 14. 29 

Ver. 14. Reason not of ob SéAopev tyac ayvoeitv, but of iva up Avrfcde. The 
Thessalonians were not to mourn, for Christ has risen from the dead; but 
if this fact be certain, then it follows that they also who are fallen asleep, 
about whom the Thessalonians were so troubled, will be raised. There 
lies at the foundation of this proof, which Paul uses as a supposition, the 
idea that Christ and believers form together an organism of indissoluble 
unity, of which Christ is the Head and Christians are the members; con- 
sequently what happens to the Head must likewise happen to the mem- 
bers; where that is, there these must also be. Comp. already Pelagius : 
Qui caput suscitavit, etiam caetera membra suscitaturum se promittit. 
From the nature of this argument it is evident (1) that those who are 
asleep, about whom the Thessalonians grieved, must already have been 
Christians: (2) that their complete exclusion from the blessed fellowship 
with Christ was dreaded.'—ei yap micretouer] for tf we believe. ci is not so 
much as “quum, since, because” (Flatt), also not equivalent to quodsi: 
“for as we believe” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but is here, as always, hypo- 
thetical. But since Paul from the hypothetical protasis, without further 
demonstrating it, immediately draws the inference in question, it is clear 
that he supposes the fact of the death and resurrection of Christ as an 
absolute recognized truth, as, indeed, among the early Christians gener- 
ally no doubt was raised concerning the reality of this fact. For even in 
reference to the Corinthian church, among whom doubts prevailed con- 
cerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul, in combating this view, could 
appeal to the resurrection of Christ as an actual recognized truth; comp, 
1 Cor. xv. 12-23.—The apodosis, ver. 14, does not exactly correspond with 
the protasis. Instead of obru¢ «.7.A. we should expect xai morebew dei, dre 
woatrug of tv Xprot@ xouunSivreg avaocrhoovrat, Or bri obtuc 6 Oed¢ Kai rove 
xorunSévrac dca Tov Xpiorov éyepet.—oitwe] is not pleonastic as the mere sign 
of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen); also not, with Flatt, to be referred 
to avéory, and then to be translated “in such a condition, ¢, ¢. raised, re- 
vived;”’ or to be interpreted as “then under these circumstances, ¢, ¢. in 
case we have faith’ (Koch, Hofmann), but denotes “even ao,” and, 
strengthened by the following «ai, is designed to bring forward the agree- 
ment of the fate of Christians with Christ; comp. Winer, p. 504 (E. T. 
541].—<d:a rob *Incov] is (by Chrys., Ambrosiast., Calv., Hemming, Zanch., 
Est., Balduin, Vorstius, Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Grot., Calixt, Calov, Wolf, 
Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Mackn., Koppe, Jowett, Hilgenfeld (Zetschr. f. 
wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, 8. p. 289, Hknl. in das N. T. p. 244), Riggenbach, 


Paul, however, a life in the world to come— 
apart from the case of those who are alive at 
the Parousia—is brought about only through 
the resurrection. He therefore who, like the 
heathen, does not believe in the latter, also 
does not believe in the former; his hope limits 







perverted. He will not acknowledge that 
from the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the 
resurrection of those fallen asleep in Thessalo- 
nica isdeduced ; and—against which the ov ras 
cai of the apodosis should have guarded him 
—he deduces the aimless platitude, that “the 
apostie with the words: 4 @cds rovs cospyOdr~ 
A red ‘Iycet dfe. civ aire, gives an 
avails us in the case of our 

the death and resur- 


§28 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


known to the readers, and discussed by them. The brevity and generality 
of the statement of the subject, combined with the solemn formula of 
transition od Sédouev d2 tae ayvociv, renders it not improbable that a request 
was directly made to Paul for explanation on the subject.—ive py Aurjode] 
sc. concerning those who are asleep.—xadoac nai of Aorroi] sc. Avrowrat. 
Woken (in Wolf) gives the directly opposite meaning to the words: Absit 
a vobis tristitia, quaemadmodum etiam abest a reliquis illis, qui nempe 
non tristantur ob mortuos et tamen spem nullam certam habent de felici- 
tate. Erroneously, because then kata xai ob Avmotwra: oi Aorrol, pH Exovrec 
(instead of of yu? éy.) éAwida would require to have been written: not to 
mention that Paul would hardly propose unbelievers as an example to 
Christians.—Theodoret, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Calovius, Nat Alexander, Benson, Flatt, Pelt, Koch, Bisping, 
Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggenbach find in iva pa AurqFo9e nadac «.7.A4. the 
thought that the Thessalonians should not mourn tn the same degree, not 80 
excessively as ol Aoroi, because the apostle could not possibly forbid every 
mourning for the dead. Incorrectly; for then iva ua Aurgade rocovTov o¢ Kal 
of Aowroi Would require to have been written. «addé¢ is only a particle of 
comparison, but never a statement of gradation. The apostle forbids 
AvreioNa: altogether. Naturally; for death has no more any sting for the 
Christian. He does not see in it annihilation, but only the transition to 
an eternal and blessed fellowship with the Lord. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54 ff. 
—ol Aorroi] the others, that is, the Gentiles; comp. Eph. ii. 3. It is, how- 
ever, possible that Paul may also have thought on a portion of the Jews, 
namely, the sect of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Since, 
as Josephus reports, the Sadducees, together with the resurrection, denied 
all continued existence of the soul after death, and on the contrary made 
the soul of man die at the same time with the body. Comp. Antiq. xviii. 1.4: 
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14.—ol yu» eEyovres éAvid] namely, of an eternal life of bless- 
edness." From this comparison with those who do not believe in a future 
life in general,? it inevitably follows that also the Thessalonians feared for 
their deceased Christian friends, not merely a temporary deprivation of the 
eternal life of bliss to be revealed at the advent, but an entire exclusion 
from it. Ifthe comparison is to have any meaning (which Hofmann with 
great arbitrariness denies), the blessing for whose loss the Gentiles mourn 
must be the same as the blessing for whose loss the Christians are not to 
mourn. The solution of the theme zepi rév xexo.unpéver is therefore already 
indicated by the objective sentence, and what follows has only the pur- 
pose of further explaining this solution. 


1Comp. Theocrit. Idyll. iv. 42: “EAwi8es ép 
¢(wotowv, avéAmoro: 8¢ @avorres. Aeschyl. 
Eumenid. 688: awaf @avdvros ovris dor’ avaora- 
ows. Catull. v. 4 ff.: Soles occidere et redire 
possunt. | Nobis quum seme! occidit brevis 
lux, | Nox est perpetua una dormienda. 
Lucret, fii. 942 f.: Nec quisquam expergitus 
exstat, | Frigida quem semel est vitae pausa 
secuta. 


2Stahelin Lc. p. 185 f., improperly objects 
that such a comparison with those who do not 
believe ina future life in general would be in- 
correct in itself,because the regarding ofdeath 
as annihilation and not believing in a con- 
tinued life of the soul after death was even in 
ancient times always the sad privilege of only 
afew. For the view of the Apostie Paul only 
comes into consideration here. According to 


CHAP. Iv. 14. 529 


Ver. 14. Reason not of ob SéAopev tude ayvoeiv, but of iva yu Aur#o9e. The 
Thessalonians were not to mourn, for Christ has risen from the dead; but 
if this fact be certain, then it follows that they also who are fallen asleep, 
about whom the Thessalonians were so troubled, will be raised. There 
lies at the foundation of this proof, which Paul uses as a supposition, the 
idea that Christ and believers form together an organism of indissoluble 
unity, of which Christ is the Head and Christians are the members; con- 
sequently what happens to the Head must likewise happen to the mem- 
bers; where that is, there these must also be. Comp. already Pelagius : 
Qui caput suscitavit, etiam caetera membra suscitaturum se promittit. 
From the nature of this argument it is evident (1) that those who are 
asleep, about whom the Thessalonians grieved, must already have been 
Christians: (2) that their complete exclusion from the blessed fellowship 
with Christ was dreaded.'—ei yap muorebouev] for tf we believe. ci is not so 
much as “quum, since, because” (Flatt), also not equivalent to quodsi: 
“for as we believe” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but is here, as always, hypo- 
thetical. But since Paul from the hypothetical protasis, without further 
demonstrating it, immediately draws the inference in question, it is clear 
that he supposes the fact of the death and resurrection of Christ ag an 
absolute recognized truth, as, indeed, among the early Christians gener- 
ally no doubt was raised concerning the reality of this fact. For even in 
reference to the Corinthian church, among whom doubts prevailed con- 
cerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul, in combating this view, could 
appeal to the resurrection of Christ as an actual recognized truth; comp, 
1 Cor. xv. 12-23.—The apodosis, ver. 14, does not exactly correspond with 
the protasis. Instead of obru¢ «.r.A. we should expect xal morevew dei, bre 
doatrug of tv Xpiorg xotunSévreg avacrgoovrar, Or bri otTw¢ 6 Oed¢ Kai Tove 
xoundévrag dia Tov Xpiotov éyepei.—oituc] is not pleonastic as the mere sign 
of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen); also not, with Flatt, to be referred 
to avéorn, and then to be translated “in such a condition, ¢, e. raised, re- 
vived;” or to be interpreted as “then under these circumstances, ¢, e. in 
case we have faith” (Koch, Hofmann), but denotes “even so,” and, 
strengthened by the following «ai, is designed to bring forward the agree- 
ment of the fate of Christians with Christ; comp. Winer, p. 504 [E. T. 
541].—d:a tov "Inoov] is (by Chrys., Ambrosiast., Calv., Hemming, Zanch., 
Est., Balduin, Vorstius, Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Grot., Calixt, Calov, Wolf, 
Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Mackn., Koppe, Jowett, Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. 
wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, 8. p. 239, Hinl. in das N. T. p. 244), Riggenbach, 


Paul, however, a life in the world to come— perverted. He will not acknowledge that 


apart from the case of those who are alive at 
the Parousia—is brought about only through 
the resurrection. He therefore who, like the 
heathen, does not believe in the latter, also 
does not believe in the former; his hope limits 
itself to the earthly life: in death he can see 
only the abaolute end and annihilation. Comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 19. 32. 

i’ Hofmann's views are very distorted and 


34 


from the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the 
resurrection of those fallen asleep in Thessalo- 
nica isdeduced ; and—against which the ovres 
nai of the apodosis should have guarded him 
—he deduces the aimless platitade, that“ the 
apostle with the words; 6 @eds rovs xorunOdr- 
ras dca tov ‘Incov afer ovv ary, gives an 
assurance which avails us in the case of our 
death, if we believe on the death and resur- 


528 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


known to the readers, and discussed by them. The brevity and generality 
of the statement of the subject, combined with the solemn formula of 
transition ov éAopuev d2 tua ayvociv, renders it not improbable that a request 
was directly made to Paul for explanation on the subject.—iva py Aut7po9e} 
sc. concerning those who are asleep.—xado¢ nai ol Aotroi] sc. Avrowraz. 
Woken (in Wolf) gives the directly opposite meaning to the words: Absit 
a vobis tristitia, quaemadmodum etiam abest a reliquis illis, qui nempe 
non tristantur ob mortuos et tamen spem nullam certam habent de felici- 
tate. Erroneously, because then xaddc nai ov Avrora: oi Aoirol, ps) ExovTes 
(instead of of uA éy.) éArida would require to have been written: not to 
mention that Paul would hardly propose unbelievers as an example to 
Christians.—Theodoret, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Calovius, Nat Alexander, Benson, Flatt, Pelt, Koch, Bisping, 
Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggenbach find in iva pa AurpoSe nada¢ «.7.4. the 
thought that the Thessalonians should not mourn én the same degree, not 80 
excessively as ol Aowroi, because the apostle could not possibly forbid every 
mourning for the dead. Incorrectly; for then iva uy Aurgode rocovrov w¢ Kal 
oi Aorot Would require to have been written. «addr is only a particle of 
comparison, but never a statement of gradation. The apostle forbids 
AuvreioSa: altogether. Naturally; for death has no more any sting for the 
Christian. He does not see in it annihilation, but only the transition to 
an eternal and blessed fellowship with the Lord. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54 ff. 
—oi Ao:roi] the others, that is, the Gentiles; comp. Eph. ii. 3. It is, how- 
ever, possible that Paul may also have thought on a portion of the Jews, 
namely, the sect of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Since, 
as Josephus reports, the Sadducees, together with the resurrection, denied 
all continued existence of the soul after death, and on the contrary made 
the soul of man die at the same time with the body. Comp. Antiq. xviii. 1.4: 
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14.—ol ya éyovres éArid] namely, of an eternal life of bless- 
edness.! From this comparison with those who do not believe in a future 
life in general,’ it inevitably follows that also the Thessalonians feared for 
their deceased Christian friends, not merely a temporary deprivation of the 
eternal life of bliss to be revealed at the advent, but an entire exclusion 
from it. Ifthe comparison is to have any meaning (which Hofmann with 
great arbitrariness denies), the blessing for whose loss the Gentiles mourn 
must be the same as the blessing for whose loss the Christians are not to 
mourn. The solution of the theme epi rév xexocunuévor is therefore already 
indicated by the objective sentence, and what follows has only the pur- 
pose of further explaining this solution. 


1Comp. Theocrit. Idyll. iv. 42: "EAwi8es éy 


¢(woiowy, avéAmoro. &¢ @avovres. Aeschyl. 
Eumenid, 638: axaf Cavévros ovris dot’ dvaora- 
ow. Catull. v. 4 ff.: Soles occidere et redire 
possunt. | Nobis quum seme! occidit brevis 
lux, | Nox est perpetua una dormienda. 
Lucret. fii. 942 f.: Nec quisquam expergitus 
exstat, | Frigida quem seme! est vitae pausa 
secuta. 


2Stihelin Lc. p. 185 f., improperly objects 
that such a comparison with those who do not 
believe ina future life in general would be in- 
correct in itself,because the regarding of death 
as annihilation and not believing in a con- 
tinued life of the soul after death was even in 
ancient times always the sad privilege of only 
afew. For the view of the Apostle Paul only 
cones into consideration here. According to 


CHAP. Iv. 14. 529 


Ver. 14. Reason not of ob SéAopev tude ayvoeiv, but of iva up AurioSe. The 
Thessalonians were not to mourn, for Christ has risen from the dead; but 
if this fact be certain, then it follows that they also who are fallen asleep, 
about whom the Thessalonians were so troubled, will be raised. There 
lies at the foundation of this proof, which Paul uses as a supposition, the 
idea that Christ and believers form together an organism of indissoluble 
unity, of which Christ is the Head and Christians are the members; con- 
sequently what happens to the Head must likewise happen to the mem- 
bers; where that is, there these must also be. Comp. already Pelagius: 
Qui caput suscitavit, etiam caetera membra suscitaturum se promittit. 
From the nature of this argument it is evident (1) that those who are 
asleep, about whom the Thessalonians grieved, must already have been 
Christians: (2) that their complete exclusion from the blessed fellowship 
with Christ was dreaded.'—ei yap murebouev] for if we believe. ci is not so 
much as “quum, since, because” (Flatt), also not equivalent to quodsi: 
“for as we believe” (Baumgarten-Crusius), but is here, as always, hypo- 
thetical. But since Paul from the hypothetical protasis, without further 
demonstrating it, immediately draws the inference in question, it is clear 
that he supposes the fact of the death and resurrection of Christ as an 
absolute recognized truth, as, indeed, among the early Christians gener- 
ally no doubt was raised concerning the reality of this fact. For even in 
reference to the Corinthian church, among whom doubts prevailed con- 
cerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul, in combating this view, could 
appeal to the resurrection of Christ as an actual recognized truth; comp, 
1 Cor. xv. 12-23.—The apodosis, ver. 14, does not exactly correspond with 
the protasis. Instead of obrwe «.7.A. we should expect xai morevew dei, dre 
dcattug of ty Xpior@ xotunSévteg avacrjoovra:, Or bre ovTwo & Oed¢ Kai Tove 
xoyunSéivrag da Tov Xpwrov éyepei.imovtw¢] is not pleonastic as the mere sign 
of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen); also not, with Flatt, to be referred 
to avéory, and then to be translated “in such a condition, ¢, e. raised, re- 
vived;’’ or to be interpreted as “then under these circumstances, ¢, ¢. in 
case we have faith’ (Koch, Hofmann), but denotes “even so,” and, 
strengthened by the following «ai, is designed to bring forward the agree- 
ment of the fate of Christians with Christ; comp. Winer, p. 504 [E. T. 
541].—d:a tov "Igooi is (by Chrys., Ambrosiast., Calv.. Hemming, Zanch., 
Est., Balduin, Vorstius, Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Grot., Calixt, Calov, Wolf, 
Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Mackn., Koppe, Jowett, Hilgenfeld (Zeitéschr. f. 
wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, 3. p. 239, Hinl. in das N. T. p. 244), Riggenbach, 


Paul, however, a life in the world to come— 
apart from the case of those who are alive at 
the Parousia—is brought about only through 
the resurrection. He therefore who, like the 
heathen, does not believe in the latter, also 
does not believe in the former; his hope limits 
itself to the earthly life: in death he can see 
only the absolute end and annihilation. Comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 19. 32. 

iHofmann's views are very distorted and 


34 


perverted. He will not acknowledge that 
from the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the 
resurrection of those fallen asleep in Thessalo- 
nica isdeduced ; and—against which the ovres 
nai of the apodosis should have guarded him 
—he deduces the aimless platitade, that “the 
apostle with the words: 6 @eds rovs cotmyOdr- 
tas da tov "Incov aefec avy avry, gives an 
assurance which avails us in the case of our 
death, if we believe on the death and resur- 


526 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


ing class. Comp. also 1 Cor. i. 26. Calixt, Pelt, Schott, Hofmann, and 
others erroneously find expressed in the words any imaginable business. 
Paul mentions only the business of hand labor, and to apply this to regu- 
lar business of any form or kind is entirely to sever it from this meaning 
of the expression.—xavac iuiv rapnyyeiAausy] refers not only to épyélecda, 
but to the whole of ver. 11. It would seem from this that these disorders 
already prevailed in their beginnings during the apostle’s personal resi- 
dence in Thessalonica. There is nothing objectionable in this inference, 
as (1) from 2 Thess. ii. 5 it appears that at the publication of the gospel in 
Thessalonica the advent had been the subject of very special explanations ; 
and (2) the effect of such explanations on the minds of Gentiles anxious 
about salvation must have been overwhelming. Baur, p. 484, therefore is 
entirely mistaken when he maintains that exhortations, such as those given 
in vv. 11, 12, could not have been necessary for a church recently founded. 

Ver. 12 is not the statement of an inference (Baumgarten-Crusius), but 
of a purpose; dependent, however, neither on rapyyyeiAcuev, nor on what 
has hitherto been said, including the precept to ¢AadeAgia, ver. 10 (Flatt), 
but on ver. 11, and in such a manner that the first half of ver. 12 refers to 
piAorimeiotar yovxdlew nai rpdocew ra Iida, and the second half to épydfeodac 
Taig xepolv ipov.—ebtoynudvac | well-becoming, honorably, Rom. xiii. 18; 1 Cor. 
vii. 85, xiv. 40. The opposite is ardé«rwc, 2 Thess. iii. 6.—péc¢] not coram 
(Flatt, Schott, Koch), but én relation to, or tn reference to those who are 
8&w. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 265.—ol 2{u] those who are without (sc. 
the Christian community), those who are not Christians, whether Jews or 
Gentiles. Comp. Col. iv. 5; 1 Cor. v. 12, 18; 1 Tim. iii. 7. Already 
among the Jews ol ££ (D°3'¥"M) was the usual designation of Gentiles. See 
Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 12—ndevdc] is by most considered as masculine, being 
understood partly of Christians only (so Flatt), partly of unbelievers only 
(Luther, Camerarius, Ernest Schmid, Wolf, Moldenhauer, Pelt), partly 
both of Christians and unbelievers (Schott, de Wette—who, however, 
along with Koch and Ellicott, thinks that there is a chief reference to 
Christians,—Hofmann, Riggenbach). But to stand in need of no-man, is 
for man an impossibility. It is better therefore, with Calvin, Estius, Gro- 
tius, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, to take pydevds as neuter, 60 
that a further purpose is given, whose attainment is to be the motive for 
fulfilling the exhortations in ver. 10: to have need of nothing, inasmuch 
as labor leads to the possession of all that is necessary for life, whereas 
idleness has as its inevitable consequence, want and need. 

Ver. 13-v. 11. A comforting instruction concerning the advent. This 
is divided into three sections—({1) iv. 18-18 removes an objection or a 
doubt; (2) v. 1-3 reminds them of the sudden and unexpected entrance 
of the advent; and lastly, in consequence of this, v. 4-11 is an exhorta- 
tion to be ready and prepared for the entrance of the advent. 

(1) Vv. 18-18. A removal of an objection. The painful uneasiness, 
which had seized on the Thessalonians concerning the fate of their 
deceased Christian friends, consisted not, as Zachariae, Olshausen, de 
Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, 2d ed. p. 649 f., and in his H. Schr. N. 





CHAP. Iv. 12, 13. 527 


T.; Luthardt, die Lehre von den letsten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 188 f., and 
others assume, in anxiety lest the deceased should only be raised at the 
general resurrection of the dead, and would thus forfeit the blessedness 
of communion with.the Lord in the interval between the advent and this 
general resurrection (“the so-called reign of a thousand years,” Olshau- 
sen). There is no trace in our section of a distinction between a first and 
a second resurrection; and the idea of a long interval of time between 
the resurrection of believers and the resurrection of the rest of mankind 
(Rev. xx.) is, moreover, entirely strange to the Apostle Paul, as it is evi- 
dent from 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff. correctly understood that the resurrection of 
unbelievers takes place in immediate connection with the resurrection of 
Christians. Rather it was feared that those already dead, as they would no 
more be found alive at the advent of Christ, would receive no share in the 
blessedness of the advent,' and accordingly would be placed in irreparable 
disadvantage to those who are then alive. See exposition of particulars. 

On vv. 18-18 [On vv. 13 ff., see Note LIV. a, b, c, pages 5389-541] see von 
Zezachwitz in the Zeitschr. f. Protestantismus und Kirche, new series, Erlangen 
1868, p. 88 ff. R. Stéhelin, Zur Paulinischen Eschatologie. 1 Thess. iv. 18-17 
im Zusammenhang mit der Judischen Eschatologie untersucht (Jahrb. fir d. 
Theol. Bd. 19. Gotha, 1874, pt. 2. 177 ff) 

Ver. 13. Ob SéAopev 52 dyae ayvoeiv] but we wish not that ye be in ignorance. 
A recognized Pauline formula of transition to new and important com- 
munications; comp. Rom. i. 18, xi. 25; 1 Cor. x.1, xii.1; 2Cor.i.8. Inan 
analogous manner, Paul uses also positive turns of expression: 0fAw tpac 
eidévaz, Col. ii. 1, 1 Cor. xi. 8, and yevdonew tude Bobaouat, Phil. i. 12.—repi raw 
nerouunuévov | [On vv. 18-18, see Note LV. pages 541, 542] concerning those that 
are asleep, that is, by means of euphemism, “ concerning the dead ;’’ comp. 
1 Cor. xi. 30, xv. 6, 18, 20; John xi. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 4; Sophocles, Electr. 509. 
The selection of the word is the more appropriate, as the discourse in 
what follows is concerning a revivification. But not the dead generally are 
meant, which Lipsius (Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 924), with an arbi- 
trary appeal to 1 Cor. xv. 29, considers possible, but the dead members of 
the Thessalonian Christian church.—This is evident from all that follows, 
particularly from the confirmatory proposition in ver. 14,and from the 
expression ol vexpol év Xpiorp, ver. 16.—After the example of Weizel (Stud. 
u. Krit. 1836, p. 916 ff.), de Wette (though in a hesitating manner) finds in 
xexotuntvur the idea indicated “of an intermediate state, ¢.e. of an imper- 
fect and, as it were, a slumbering continuance of life of the departed 
soul;”’ whereas Zwingli, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, in express contra- 
diction to the idea of the sleep of the soul, insist on referring this state of 
being asleep to the body exclusively. But neither, according to the one 
side, nor according to the other, are we justified in such a limitation, as 
ol xexotunuévo: only denotes those who are asleep as such, i. e. according to 
their whole personality.—The article in wep? rév xexouznuévovrepresents the 
question, to the solution of which the apostle now passes, as one well 


1Calvin: Vitam aeternam ad eos solos pertinere imaginabantur, quos Christus ultimo 
adventu vivos adhuc in terris deprehenderet 


§28 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


known to the readers, and discussed by them. The brevity and generality 
of the statement of the subject, combined with the solemn formula of 
transition ot SéAouev d2 tyas ayvociv, renders it not improbable that a request 
was directly made to Paul for explanation on the subject.—iva py Avr7ode] 
sc. concerning those who are asleep.—xadd¢ Kai ol Aoiroi) sc. Avrovvrat. 
Woken (in Wolf) gives the directly opposite meaning to the words: Absit 
a vobis tristitia, quaemadmodum etiam abest a reliquis illis, qui nempe 
non tristantur ob mortuos et tamen spem nullam certam habent de felici- 
tate. Erroneously, because then xadé¢ xai ob Avmoivra: oi Aoirol, un Exovres 
(instead of of u) éy.) éarxida would require to have been written: not to 
mention that Paul would hardly propose unbelievers as an example to 
Christians.—Theodoret, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Calovius, Nat Alexander, Benson, Flatt, Pelt, Koch, Bisping, 
Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggenbach find in iva pa AuTFoVe nadac x.7.A. the 
thought that the Thessalonians should not mourn tn the same degree, not so 
excesstvely as ol Aoroi, because the apostle could not possibly forbid every 
mourning for the dead. Incorrectly; for then iva uy Aur7oVe rocovrov ae xal 
of Aouroi Would require to have been written. «adé¢ is only a particle of 
comparison, but never a statement of gradation. The apostle forbids 
AvreioSa: altogether. Naturally; for death has no more any sting for the 
Christian. He does not see in it annihilation, but only the transition to 
an eternal and blessed fellowship with the Lord. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54 ff. 
—ol Aoiroi] the others, that is, the Gentiles; comp. Eph. ii. 3. It is, how- 
ever, possible that Paul may also have thought on a portion of the Jews, 
namely, the sect of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. Since, 
as Josephus reports, the Sadducees, together with the resurrection, denied 
all continued existence of the soul after death, and on the contrary made 
the soul of man die at the same time with the body. Comp. Antiq. xviii. 1.4: 
Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14.—ol yp eyovres Arvid] namely, of an eternal life of bless- 
edness.! From this comparison with those who do not believe in a future 
life in general,’ it inevitably follows that also the Thessalonians feared for 
their deceased Christian friends, not merely a temporary deprivation of the 
eternal life of bliss to be revealed at the advent, but an entire exclusion 
from it. If the comparison is to have any meaning (which Hofmann with 
great arbitrariness denies), the blessing for whose loss the Gentiles mourn 
must be the same as the blessing for whose loss the Christians are not to 
mourn. Thesolution of the theme epi rév xexocunuéver is therefore already 
indicated by the objective sentence, and what follows has only the pur- 
pose of further explaining this solution. 


1Comp. Theocrit. Idyll. iv. 42: "EAwides év 


<(wotowy, avéAmoro. 8¢ Oavovres. Aeschyl. 
Eumenid. 638: axa @avdévros ours dor’ avaora- 
ows. Catull. v. 4 ff.; Soles occidere et redire 
possunt. | Nobis quum seme! occidit brevis 
lux, | Nox est perpetua una dormienda. 
Lucret. iii. 942 f.: Nec quisquam expergitus 
exstat, | Frigida quem semel est vitae pausa 
secuta. 


2Stahelin Lc. p. 185 f., improperly objects 
that such a comparison with those who do not 
believe ina future life in general would be in- 
correct in itself,because the regarding ofdeath 
as annihilation and not believing in a con- 
tinued life of the soul after death was even in 
ancient times always the sad privilege of only 
afew. For the view of the Apostle Paul only 
cores into consideration here. According to 


> | 


CHAP. Iv. 14. 529 

Ver. 14. Reason not of ob SéAopev ipae ayvoetv, but of iva yu? Aur7ode. The 
Thessalonians were not to mourn, for Christ has risen from the dead; but 
if this fact be certain, then it follows that they also who are fallen asleep, 
about whom the Thessalonians were so troubled, will be raised. There 
lies at the foundation of this proof, which Paul uses as a supposition, the 
idea that Christ and believers form together an organism of indissoluble 
unity, of which Christ is the Head and Christians are the members; con- 
sequently what happens to the Head must likewise happen to the mem- 
bers; where that is, there these must also be. Comp. already Pelagius : 
Qui caput suscitavit, etiam caetera membra suscitaturum se promittit. 
From the nature of this argument it is evident (1) that those who are 
asleep, about whom the Thessalonians grieved, must already have been 
Christians: (2) that their complete exclusion from the blessed fellowship 
with Christ was dreaded.'—ei yap moretouev] for if we believe. et is not so 
much as “quum, since, because” (Flatt), also not equivalent to quodsi : 
“for as we believe’ (Baumgarten-Crusius), but is here, as always, hypo- 
thetical. But since Paul from the hypothetical protasis, without further 
demonstrating it, immediately draws the inference in question, it is clear 
that he supposes the fact of the death and resurrection of Christ as an 
absolute recognized truth, as, indeed, among the early Christians gener- 
ally no doubt was raised concerning the reality of this fact. For even in 
reference to the Corinthian church, among whom doubts prevailed con- 
cerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul, in combating this view, could 
appeal to the resurrection of Christ as an actual recognized truth; comp, 
1 Cor. xv. 12-23.—The apodosis, ver. 14, does not exactly correspond with 
the protasis. Instead of otruc x.7.A. we should expect xal morebew dei, br: 
dcatruc of ty Xpior@ xowunSévre¢ avacthoovra:, or dre obTwo 6 Oed¢ Kai rove 
xouundévrag dua tov Xpiotov éyepei.—ovtuc] is not pleonastic as the mere sign 
of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen); also not, with Flatt, to be referred 
to avéory, and then to be translated “in such a condition, ¢, e. raised, re- 
vived;”’ or to be interpreted as ‘“‘then under these circumstances, ¢. e. in 
case we have faith” (Koch, Hofmann), but denotes “ even so,” and, 
strengthened by the following «ai, is designed to bring forward the agree- 
ment of the fate of Christians with Christ; comp. Winer, p. 504 [E. T. 
541].—déca rov 'Inoci] is (by Chrys., Ambrosiast., Calv.. Hemming, Zanch., 
Est., Balduin, Vorstius, Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Grot., Calixt, Calov, Wolf, 
Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Mackn., Koppe, Jowett, Hilgenfeld (Zetéschr. f. 
wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, 3. p. 239, Hinl. in das N. T. p. 244), Riggenbach, 


Paul, however, a life in the world to come— 
apart from the case of those who are alive at 
the Parousia—is brought about only through 
the resurrection. He therefore who, like the 
heathen, does not believe in the latter, also 
does not believe in the former; his hope limits 
itself to the earthly life; in death he can see 
only the abaolute endand annihilation. Comp. 
1 Oor. xv. 19. 32. 

’Hofmann's views are very distorted and 

34 


perverted. He will not acknowledge that 
from the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the 
resurrection of those fallen asleep in Thessalo- 
nica is deduced ; and—against which the ovrees 
xai of the apodosis should have guarded him 
—he deduces the aimless platitude, that “the 
apostle with the words: 6 @eos rovs coruyOdr- 
tas && tov "Incov dfec civ avry, gives an 
assurance which avails us in the case of our 
death, if we believe on the death and resur- 


530 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 

and others, comp. also Ellicott) connected with rot¢ xocuydévrac, and then 
the sense is given: “those who have fallen asleep in Christ.”! [LV c.] But 
this would be expressed by év r@ ’Ijcov, as ol dia tov 'Inood xoturSévrec 
would at most contain a designation of those whom Christ had brought to 
death, consequently of the Christian martyrs. Salmeron, Hammond, 
Joseph Mede, Opp. p. 519, and Thiersch (dite Kirche tm ap. Zeitalt., 
Frankf. u. Erlang. 1852, p. 188) actually-interpret the words in this sense. 
Yet how contrary to the apostle’s design such a mention of the martyrs 
would be is evident, as according to it the résurrection and participation 
in the glory of the returning Christ would be most inappropriately limited 
to a very small portion of Christians; not to mention that, first, the indi- 
cations in both Epistles do not afford the slightest justification of the idea 
of persecutions, which ended in bloody death ; and, secondly, the formula 
xotundzvas dia tiwvdg would be much too weak to express the idea of mar- 
tyrdom. Also in the fact that Paul does not speak of the dead in general, 
but specially of the Christian dead (Estius), there is no reason to unite roi¢g 
xorundévrac With did tov "Inoov; for the extent of the idea of of xoguendévrec 
in our passage is understood from the relation of the apodosis, ver. 14, to 
the protasis ei moretoyev x.r.A. We are accordingly constrained to unite 
dia tov "Inoov with dfe:.—Christ is elsewhere by Paul and in the New Testa- 
ment generally considered as the instrument by which the almighty act 
of God, the resurrection of the dead, is effected; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21; 
John v. 28, vi. 39, 44, 54.—aée:] will bring with Him, is a pregnant expres- 
sion, whilst, instead of the act of resuscitation, that which follows the act 
in time is given. And, indeed, the further clause ovy air¢, i.€. odv "Iqcon 
(incorrectly Zachariae aud Koppe= dr airév), is united in a pregnant 
form with dg. God will through Christ bring with Him those who are 
asleep, that is, so that they are then united with Christ, and have a com- 
plete share in the benefits of His appearance. Hofmann arbitrarily 
transforms the words into the thought: “ that Jesus will not appear, God 
will not introduce Him again into the world, without their deceased 
brethren coming with Him.” For the words instruct us not con- 
cerning Jesus, but concerning the xocuySévrec; it is not expressed in 
what manner the return of Christ will take place, but what will be 
the final fate of those who have fallen asleep. The apostle selects 
this pregnant form of expression instead of the simple éyepei, because 
the thought of a separation of deceased Christians from Christ was 
that which so greatly troubled the Thessalonians, and therefore it was 


rection of Jesus.” As Hofmann misinterprets 
the words, so also do Luthardt, supra, p. 1400 
€ and Stahelin. 

1Also Alford connects &4& rov “Iycov with 
xcowunOdyras; Dut then arbitrarily (comp. oi 
vexpot dv Xpory, ver. 16) pressing the expres- 
sion xcowunPdvras (0: xotunOdvres are dis- 
tinguished from the merely @avdvres. What 
makes this distinction? Why are they 
asleep and not dead? By wham have they 


been thus privileged? Certainly &a ros 
‘Iyvov), and inappropriately regarding the 
constructions evxyaporety 8&4 ‘Iycou Xpecros, 
Rom. i. 8; etpyjvny éxecy &a “Incov, Rom. v. 1; 
cavxac@a: da ‘Incov, Rom. v. 11, as analogous 
expressions, he brings out the following 
grammatically impossible meaning: If we 
believe that Jesus died and rose again, then 
even thus also those, of whom we say that thay 
sleep just because of Jesus, will God, ets. 


CHAP. Iv. 15. §31 


his endeavor to remove this anxiety, this doubting uncertainty, as soon 
as possible.} 

Ver. 15. A solemn confirmation of the comforting truth robe xoundévras 
dfec ovv avo, by bringing forward the equality between those living at the 
advent and those already asleep. Koppe, Flatt, and Koch erroneously 
assume a reference to ver. 13, making the ydp in ver. 14 parallel to the 
yep in ver. 15, and finding in ver. 15 a new reason for comfort.—roiro] 
refers not to the preceding, but is an emphatic introduction to what fol- 
lows the first dr: : this, namely, we say to you, év Adyy xvpiov, that we, the ke- 
ing, etc.—év Adyp xvpiov] in or by means of a word of the Lord (comp. 
3797) 1333, Esth. i. 12; M7 7333, 1 Kings xx. 35), that is, the following 
statement on the relation of the living to those who are asleep at the 
advent does not rest on my (the apostle’s) subjective opinion, but on the 
infallible authority of Christ. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25.—Pelagius, 
Musculus, Bolten, Pelt, and others have regarded this Adyoc xupiov, to 
which Paul appeals, as the words of Christ in Matt. xxiv. 81 (comp. Mark 
xiii. 27); whereas Hofmann is of opinion that Paul might have inferred 
it from the promises of Christ in Matt. xxvi. 25 ff.; John vi. 89 f. But the 
expressions found there are too general to be identified with the special 
thought in our passage. Schott’s statement, that Paul might justly appeal 
to the prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 31, because it contained nothing of a pre- 
rogative of the living before the dead, but on the contrary represents 
simply an assembling of believing confessors with a view to the participa- 
tion of the Messianic kingdom, is subtle, and does not correspond to the 
expression év Adyy xvpiov, which points to positive information concerning 
the definite subject in question. Also Luthardt’s (1. c. pp. 141, 57) view, 
that in Adyo¢ xvpiov a reference is made to the parable of the virgins who 
went out to meet the bridegroom (Matt. xxv.), and for which view ei¢ 
arévrnow (ver. 17) is most arbitrarily appealed to, is evidently erroneous. 
Just as little can the Adyo¢ xvpicu be found (with Stihelin /. ¢. p. 193 f.) in 
this place, i.e. in the first half of ver. 16, 80 that the word of the Lord, 
on which Paul rests his asse. eration, consists in this, that Jesus, according 
to His own declaration (Matt. xxiv. 29-31) will descend from heaven év 
Kedebouart, év guvh apyayyé2ov and tv odAmyy: Geotv. For the first words of 
ver. 16 picture only the mode in which the entrance of the advent will be 
accomplished, but they leave the central point of tne question before us 
untouched. Others, as Calvin and Koch, have thought that Paul referred to 
a saying of Christ not preserved in the Gospels, but transmitted by tradition. 
(So, recently, also v. Zezschwitz, l.c. p. 121, according to whom the apostle 
thought “on a word ” which is “ to be sought for in the peculiar and inti- 
mate communications of our Lord to His disciples, such as He would 
have given them during the forty days, when He spoke with them con- 
cerning the faoeia rov Occ.) This supposition may certainly be sup- 


1The ides of “a general ascension of all thought“ onlyona kingdom of God on earth,” 
Christians,” which Sehrader finds in this is, according to the above, introduced by him 
verse, and in which he perceives a mark into the passage. 
vf un-Pauline composition, because Paul 


532 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


ported by the analogy of Acts xx. 35; but it must always remain 
precarious, the more so as there was no inducement to Christ, in His 
intimations concerning the period of the fulfillment of the Messianic king- 
dom, to make such apecial questions, arising only in consequence of con- 
crete circumstances, the subject of an anticipated instruction. It is best, 
therefore, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Hunnius, Piscator (who, however, 
arbitrarily supposes the fact described in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4), Aretius, Turretin, 
Benson, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Gess (die Lehre von 
der Person Christi, Basel 1856, p. 69 f.), Alford, Ellicott, Riggenbach, and 
others, to suppose that Paul appeals to information concerning the mat- 
ter in hand which had been communicated to him in a direct revelation 
by the heavenly Christ; comp. Gal. i. 12, ii. 2; Eph. iii. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 1— 
queic ol Covreg of mepidecmduevor ei¢ tv wapovoiav Tov Kupiov] we, the living, who 
remain unto the presence (or return) of the Lord. From the construction of 
these words it undoubtedly follows, that Paul reckoned himself with those 
who would survive till the commencement of the advent, as indeed the 
same expectation is also expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 51 f. Comp. besides, 1 
Cor. vii. 26, 29-31, i. 7, 8; Rom. xiii. 11, 12; Phil. iv. 5. See also Dahne, 
Entwickel. des Paulin. Lehrbegr. pp. 175 f., 190; Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr. p. 
355; Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel, Leipz. 1856, p. 282. This expectation 
is not confirmed by history: Paul and all his contemporaries fell a prey 
to death. What wonder, then, if from an early period of the Christian 
church this plain meaning of the word was resisted, and in its place the 
most artificial and distorted interpretations were substituted? For that 
Paul could be capable of error was regarded as an objectionable conces- 
sion, a8 an infringement upon the divine authority of the apostle. It has 
therefore almost universally! been maintained by interpreters, that Paul 
speaks neither of himself nor of his contemporaries, but of a later period 
of Christianity. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, 
Zanchius, Hunnius, Balduin, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Lauren- 
tius, Calixt, Calov, Joach. Lange, Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Flatt, and 
many others. Whilst Calvin and Cornelius a Lapide, in order to remove 
difficulties, do not scruple to charge the apostle with a pious fraud; sup- 
posing that he, although he was convinced of the distance of the advent, 
nevertheless represented himself as surviving, in order in this way to stim- 
ulate believers to be in a state of spiritual readiness at every instant; 
Oecumenius, after the example of Methodius, interprets of Cévre¢ x.1.A. of 
the souls, and of xotunbévrec of the bodies of Christians? Usually, however, 
in order to remove the objectionableness of the words, an appeal is made 


1 Exceptions in early times are very rare. 
They are found in Piscator (yet even he 
hesitates), Grotius, and Moldenhauer. To 
bring the correct view to more general recog- 
nition was reserved for recent times. 

SCavras ras Yuxas, comnOévra 82 Ta cHOMaTa 
Adyeu’ ox dy ody wpoAdBwow ai Puxai spHTov 
yap dyeiperat ra camara, iva aiTa awoddfucww 


ai Wuxai, &s xal weptAcuwdvecOal Gyo. da rd 
a@dvarov’ ov yap ay, et mH wept Yuya ErAcyer, 
elxe Td Huets of Gevres of wepiAcirduerot, TeAEv- 
Tioew péAdAwy Adye otv, Ste of Cores ai 
Yuxat ove ay ré ceata wpodOdcwmer ev TH 
avacrdgd, GAAd per’ auray Tie : 
revgspueta, 


CHAP. Iv. 15. §33 


to the fact that by means of an “enallage personae,” or an dvaxolvuacs, 
something is often said of a collective body which, accurately taken, is 
only suited to a part. Then the sense would be: we Christians, namely, 
those of us who are alive at the commencement of the advent, ¢.e. the 
later generation of Christians who will survive the advent. But however 
often #ueic or tueic is used in a communicative form, yet in this passage 
such an interpretation is impossible, because here qyetc ol Covreg «.7.2., a8 & 
peculiar class of Christians, are placed in sharp distinction from xopafévrec, 
as a second class. Accordingly, in order to obtain the sense assumed, the 
words would require to have been written: Src judy of Cavreg x.r.A. ob pd 
P9doovra: Tove KounOévrac, apart altogether from the fact that also in v. 4 
the possibility is expressed, that the day of the Lord might break in upon 
the presently existing Thessalonian church. Not less arbitrary is it, with 
Joachim Lange, to explain the words: ‘“ we who live tn our posterity,” for 
which an additional clause would be necessary. Or, with Turretin, Pelt, 
and others, to understand ol favre of mepidecréuevoe in & hypothetical 
sense: we, provided we are then alive, provided we still remain. (So, in 
essentials, Hofmann: by those who are alive are meant those who had 
not already died.) For then, instead of #ueic of Cavrec, of repiAecrdpuevor, it 
would necessarily require yeic Cavrec, tepilecrépevor (without an article). 
The same also is valid against J. P. Lange (Das apostol. Zettalter, I., Braun- 
schw. 1853, p. 113): “The words, ‘ the living, the surviving’ are for the pur- 
pose of making the contrast a variable one, whilst they condition and limit 
the #ueic in the sense: we, so many of us (!) who yet live and have survived ; 
or (?) rather, we in so far as we temporarily represent the living and 
remaining, in contrast to our dead.” Lastly, the view of Hoelemann (Die 
Stellung St. Paul su der Frage um die Zeit der Wiederkunft Christi, Leipz. 
1858, p. 29 and in a more extended form in his Neue Bibel-Studien, Leipz. 1866, 
p. 232 ff.) is not less refuted by the article before (avree and mepcAecrépevor: 
‘The discourse, starting from the qei¢ and rising more and more beyond 
this concrete beginning, by forming, with the next two notions of Cévre¢, of 
meptAecréuevot, always wider (!) and softer circles, strives to a generic (!) 
thought—namely, to this, that Paul and the contemporary Thessalonians, 
while in the changing state of mrepiAzirecda: (being left behind), might be 
indeed personally taken away beforehand; although the opposite possi- 
bility, that they themselves might yet be the surviving generation, is 
included in the gueic of Cavrec with which the thought begins, and which 
always echoes through it.” Every unprejudiced person must, even from 
those dogmatic suppositions, recognize that Paul here includes himself, 
along with the Thessalonians, among those who will be alive at the advent 
of Christ. Certainly this can only have been a hope, only a subjective 
expectation on the part of the apostle; as likewise, in the fifth chapter, 
although he there considers the advent as impending and coming sud- 
denly, yet he supposes the indefiniteness of the proper period of its com- 
mencement (comp. also Acts i. 7; Mark xiii. 32). That the apostle here 
states his surviving only as a supposition or a hope, is not nullified by 
the fact that he imparts the information (ver. 15) év Aéyp evpiev. For the 


534 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Aéyo¢ xupiov can, according to the context, only refer to the relation of 
those who are asleep to the living; but does not refer to the fact who will 
belong to the one or to the other class at the commencement of the 
advent. [LV d.] Only on the first point was the comforting information 
contained which the Thessalonians required.—The present participles 
Covrec and mepiAecréuevor are not to be taken as futures (Calvin, Flatt, Pelt), 
but denote the condition as it exists in the present, and stretches itself to 
the advent.—ov py gOdowpev trode Kxotunbévrac] [LV e, f.] shall by no means 
precede those who are asleep, so that we would reach the end (the blessed- 
ness of the advent), but they would be left behind us, and accordingly lose 
the prize. The apostle speaks in the figure usual to him of a race, in 
which no one obtained the prize who was forced half way to interrupt his 
running.—On the emphatic od 4, see Winer, p. 471 f. [E. T. 506]. 

Vv. 16, 17. Proof of the truth of ob py gOdowuer roig xounSévtag by & 
description of the particulars in which the advent will be realized. 

Ver. 16. Comp. Flatt, Opuse. acad. p. 411 ff—ér:] not that, as Koch and 
Hofmann think, so that vv. 16 and 17 (according to Hofmann, only ver. 
16!) still depend on Aéyouev év Ady xvpiov, ver. 15; but for.—abri¢ 6 xbpioc] 
the Lord Himself. airéc is neither a mere introductory subject (“ He, the 
Lord,” de Wette, Hofmann); nor added with the design to refer “the 
coming of Christ expressly to His holy personality and corporality,” 
accordingly designed to exclude “every manifestation of Him by mere 
instruments,” or by angels (so Olshausen and Bisping, and already Mus- 
culus, Estius, and Fromond.’); also is not inserted here “ for solemnity’s 
sake, and to show that it will not be a mere gathering to Him, but He 
Himself will descend, and we shall be summoned before Him” (Alford) 
and also does not affirm “that the Lord Himself will descend amid occur- 
rences which form an essential part of God’s final revelation of judgment of 
the world, that His coming will be attended by such manifestations as usher 
in the aiév péAdwy and cause Him to appear as the one who introduces 
it and is its Lord,” Stahelin p. 222;—but it represents Christ as the 
chief Person and actor at the advent, emphatically opposed to His faith- 
ful ones—both those already asleep (ol vexpoi tv Xpcorp) and those still 
living—as they who are acted upon.—xéAevoua] in the N. T. an azaf 
Acyéuevov, denotes an imperative call, e.g. of a commander to his host to 
exhort them to the conflict or to warn them to decamp, of a driver to 
excite his horses to greater speed, of a huntsman to encourage his hounds 
to the pursuit of the prey, of sailors to excite themselves to vigorous 
rowing, etc. Comp. Thucyd. ii. 92; Xen. de venat. vi. 20; Lucian, Catapl. 
19. Here the xéAevoua might be referred to God. Only then we must not, 
as Hunnius does, identify it with the odAmyé Oeov, and find represented 
in the two expressions the “ horribilis fragor inclarescentium tonitruum ;” 
but, in conjunction with the statement that God only knows beforehand 
the time and hour of the advent (Matt. xxiv. 3), it must refer to the 


1Koch accepts both de Wette’s interpre- arts at the same time unaccented and 
tation and the meaning of Olshausen, and emphatic. 
thus falls into the contradiction of making 


CHAP. Iv. 16. 635 


imperative call to bring about the advent. So recently Bisping and 
Stihelin. This interpretation is, however, to be rejected, because the three 
sentences introduced with é are evidently similar, ¢.e. all three are a 
statement of the mode of xaraBaiverv, accordingly contain the description 
of the circumstances with which the descent during the course of its com- 
pletion will be accompanied. But, understood in the above manner, é 
xedevouat: would denote an act preceding the xaraBaivew, and thus another 
preposition instead of év would necessarily be chosen. Others, as Theo- 
doret, Oecumenius, Grotius, and Olshausen, refer év xeAcbovar: to Christ. But 
in this case we would be puzzled so to define the contents of the xéAevoya, 
as to prevent them coming into collision with the guveiv of the apyayyedog. 
For that we are not justified, with Theodoret, in distinguishing the «é- 
Aevoua and the guaf by a priusand post (6 nipus . . . nedeboet pev apxayyerov 
Bogoaz) is evident, as both are simultaneous—both in a similar manner are 
represented as accompanying the xaraBaiver. It is accordingly most pro- 
bable that Paul places év xeAetouar: first as a primary, and on that account 
absolute expression, and then, in an epexegetical manner, more fully 
develops it by év ¢wvg apyayyéAovu xai év odAmyys Oeod. If this is the correct 
interpretation, the apostle considers the xéAevoyza as given by the archangel,’ 
directly afterwards mentioned, who for the publication of it uses partly his 
voice and partly a trimpet ; and, as the contents of the xéAevoua, the impera- 
tive call which reaches the sleeping Christians to summon them from their 
graves (comp. also the following xa? of vexpot «.r.4.), consequently the resur- 
rection-call (Theodoret, John Damascenus, Calixt, Staéhelin and others).— 
év guvg apxayyéAov nat év odAmyyt Ocop| with the call, namely, of an archangel, 
and with (the sound) of the trumpet of God. Christ will return surrounded 
by hosts of angels; comp. ili. 13; 2 Thess.1.7; Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30 f., 
xxv. 31; Mark viii. 38, xiii. 26 f.; Luke ix. 26. According to the post- 
exile Jewish notion, the angels were distinguished into different orders and 
classes, over each of which presided an apydyyedoc. (See Winer’s bibl. Real- 
worterb. 2d. ed. vol. I. p. 3886 f.) One of these apydyyero: (2°%)—whom Nicolas 
de Lyra, Hunnius, Estius (appealing to Jude 9 and Rev. xii.), Bern. a Picon., 
Bisping and Staéhelin suppose to be the archangel Michael; and Corne- 
lius a Lapide, Michael or Gabriel; whilat Ambrosiaster and Olshausen, 
as well as Alphen and Honert (in Wolf), understand no angel at all, but 
the two first understand Christ (!), and the two last the Holy Ghost (!)—is 
considered as the herald at the commencement of the advent, who with a 
loud voice calls upon the dead, and arouses them. by the sound of a 
trumpet. The Jews used trumpets for summoning the people together; 
comp. Num. x. 2, xxxi. 6, Joel ii. 1. Also the manifestations of God were 
considered as accompanied by the sound of a trumpet; comp. Ex. xix. 
16; Ps. xlvii.6; Zech. ix. 14; Isa. xxvii. 138 ;—and as it was the opinion 
of the later Jews that God will use a powerful and far-sounding trumpet 


1Macknight incorrectly refers the céAevopa _ their joy at the advent of Christ to judge the 
to the whole of the attendant angelic host,and world,’"—an interpretation which finds no 
finds therein “the loud acclamation which support in the context, and militates against 
the whole angelic hoste will utter toexpress the meaning of «éAcvoua. 


536 THE FIRST EPIS6LE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


to raise the dead (comp. Eisenmenger’s entdecktes Judenthum, II. p. 929 f.), 
so in the N. T. mention is made of a odAmyé in reference to Christ’s 
advent; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 52; Matt. xxiv. 31. The trumpet is called 
adAmty€ Oeov, either because it excels all human or earthly trumpets in the 
power of its sound (so Cornelius a Lapide, Calov., Wolf, Benson, Bengel, 
Baumgarten, Bolten, and several); or because it will be blown at the 
command of God (so Balduin, Jac. Laurentius, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, and 
others); or, lastly, because it belongs to God and is used in His service (so 
de Wette, who refers to the expression “ harps of God,” 1 Chron. xvi. 42; 
Rev. xv. 2 [see also Winer, p. 232, E. T. 247], Koch, Alford, Ellicott and 
Stihelin).—az’ otpavot] down from heaven. For the crucified and risen 
Christ is enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God; comp. Rom. viii. 
34; Eph. i. 20; Col. iii. 1; Phil. iii. 20.—xa? of vexpot «.r.A.] a consequence 
of év xedebopate «.1.A. xataBhoera.—év Xpicrd] is not to be connected with 
avacrhoovra (Pelt, Schott), but with ol vexpoi; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 18; Winer, 
p. 128 [E. T. 185]. For if connected with dvacrfoovra:, then ty Xpioré 
would receive an emphasis which, according to the context, it cannot 
have; as the apostle does not intend to bring forward the person by whom 
the resurrection is effected, which is evident of itself, but designs to show 
what relation it will have to those who sleep on the one hand, and to those 
who are alive on the other. Theodoret has arbitrarily inserted into the 
text: Nexpoi¢ rove miorods Atyec, ov pdvov Tove TH evayyedly memcoreuvxérac, GAAG Kat 
rovc év véuw Kat Tove pd véuov diadduparrac ; and Musculus, that there are also 
to be reckoned among the vexpoi ¢v XpiorG the dead children of Christians 
before they believed on Christ, and the “patres priorum saeculorum qui 
ante tempora Christi vixerunt. Nam et illi cum semine ipsorum propter 
fidem venturi servatoris in Christo fuerunt.”—rpérov] does not denote, as 
Oecumenius (oi tv Xpiot@ ravréoriv of meoroi, rpSrov avacrhoovrat, ol 52 Aotroi éoya- 
Tot, we uy dpwrdlecOa phe aravrav wéAdAovrec) and others maintain, the first resur- 
rection,—the so-called resurrection of the just,—in contrast to the resurrec- 
tion of all men following ata much later period; a distinetion which is left en- 
tirely unnoticed in our passage, and in the form stated would be un-Pauline. 
Rather zpdroyv is in contrast to érecra, ver. 17, and denotes that the firstact of 
Christ at His reappearance will be the resurrection of the Christian dead, 
and then the doréfeoda: of the living, ver. 17, will follow as the second act. 

Ver. 17. Liv airoic] t.e. with the raised vexpot iv Xpiorp.—dpraynodueda] 
we wil be snatched away. The expression (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 4; Acts viii. 
89) depiets the swiftness and irresistible force with which believers 
will be caught up. But, according te 1 Cor. xv. 50-58, the apostle 
must have conceived this dpré{ecGa: as only oceurring after a change 
has taken place in their former earthly bodies into heavenly, to 
qualify them for a participation in the eternal kingdom of the Messiah.— 
év yegtAacc] not instead of ec vegéAac (Moldenhauer), but either in clouds, ¢. ¢. 
enveloped in clouds, or better, on clouds, ¢.e. enthroned in their midst. 
According to the Old Testament representation (Ps. civ. 8), God.rides on 
clouds as on a triumphal chariot. Also the Messiah appears on cleuds 
(Dan. vii. 13). Asceording to Acts i. 9, Christ ascended to heaven on & 


CHAP. Iv. 17, 18. 537 
cloud; and according to Acts i. 11, Matt. xxiv. 80, He will return on a 
cloud.\—ei¢ axdvrnow tod avpiw) to the mesting of the Lord. i.e. in order to be 
led towards the Lord. ei¢ amdvrnow, corresponding to the Hebrew ney 
is united both with the genitive (Matt. xxv. 1,6), as here, and with the 
dative (Acts xxviii. 15). From the werds it follows that the apostle did 
not think of Christ descending completely down to the earth.—ei¢ aépa] 
into the air, belongs to dprayyodueda, and can as little be considered as 
equivalent to ei¢ roi¢ ovpavots (Flatt) as it can denote through the air, é.¢. 
through the air to the higher regions (Flatt). Nor, on the other hand, can 
at be the apostle’s meaning—although Pelt, Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr. pp. 
356, 359 (hesitatingly), and Weizel in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 985 f., 
also Stéhelin p. 229 f. assume it—that the Christian host would be caught 
up into the air, in order to have their permanent abode with Christ in the air. 
For, according to 2 Cor. v. 1, the future eternal abode of Christians is éy 
toic ovpavoic.2? Nevertheless the apostle was constrained to express himself as 
he has done. For when Christ descends down from heaven, and Christians 
are caught up to meet Him, the place of meeting can only be a space between 
heaven and earth,i.e.the air. Comp. Augustine, de civit. Dei, xx. 20,2: Quod 
enim ait . . . non sic accipiendum est, tanquam in aére nos dixerit semper 
cum domino esse mansuros ; quia nec ipse utique ibi manebit, quia veniens 
transiturus est. Venienti quippe ibitur obviam, non manenti. But that Paul 
adds nothing concerning the removal of the glorified Christian host to 
heaven, following their being caught up with Christ, and of the resurrection 
of all men connected with the advent along with the judgment of the 
world, is naturally explained, because the description of the advent as such 
is not here his object, but his design is wholly and entirely to satisfy the 
doubts raised by the Thessalonians in respect of the advent.? But to effect 
this purpose it was perfectly sufficient that he now, specifying the result of 
the points described, proceeds: xat obrug mdvrore civ xupiy todueda) and so 
shall we ever be united with the Lord.—ctruc] so, that is, after that we have 
actually met with Him. It refers back to ei¢ amévryoiv.—civ] imports more 
than perd. It expresses intimate union, not mere companionship.—éodpeda]} 
comprehends as its subject both the vexpol év Xporg and the (dvrec. [LV g.] 

Ver. 18. A concluding exhortation.—apaxaieiv] not to exhort (Muscu- 
lus) but to comfort ; comp. iva py? Avrqgode, ver. 13.—Adyo:] denotes nothing 
more than words. Erroneously Aretius, Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen, and 
others: principles or doctrines (of faith). And év roi¢ Aéyorg robrou denotes 
on the ground of these or the above words. 


1Theodoret: "ESecfe 1d péyeOos ris rephs’ 
eowep yap avrds & Scowdrns éwi vededrs du- 
Tevns avedAjoOn, ovr xai of cig avTrdy wemic- 
Tevndre¢ K.T.A. 

SAlso on this account Paul cannot have 
thought on a permanent residence on the 
glorified earth (Georgii in Zeller's theol. Jahrb. 
1845, I. p. 6, and Hilgenfeld in the Zeitsch. f. 
wies. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 240). 

3 For the same reason also the silence con- 


cerning the change of believers who happened 
to be alive at the advent is justified. Against 
Schrader, who thinks on account of this 
silence that the author must have conceived 
the circumstances of the advent “in an 
entirely sensible manner;” “the incon- 
gruities of this representation, if it is under- 
stood sensibly,” cannot be Pauline, because 
with Paul the doctrine of the last things has 
a “purely (?) spiritual character.” 








538 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


Norss sy Amenicanw Eprror. 


LOL Vv. 1—12. 


(a) In the second division of the Epistle, which begins with ver. 1 of this 
chapter, and extends as far as ver. 25 of chap. v., the Apostle gives certain direc- 
tions and exhortations respecting the Christian life of the readers, and meets, at 
length, certain questionings or difficulties which occupied their minds. These 
exhortations and questionings, howeyer, indicate the early stages of development 
and thought, and belong in the line of friendly suggestion—answering, thus, to 
the preceding chapters. The word Ao:réy is suggestive of the same thing. The 
writer turns from his friendly review of the past, and his expressions of hope for 
the fature, to the brief counsels which he has to give, as if these were only the 
accidental closing remarks in a letter, which had been begun for the purpose of 
simply assuring them of his deep interest in their welfare and warm affection for 
themselves. The character of the first exhortation (vv. 1, 2), which, both in its 
general form and through the ovv pointing backward to iii. 13, is closely con- 
nected with what has been already set forth in the earlier section, is also indica- 
tive of this plan and design as in the Apostle’s mind.—(6) The exhortation of vv. 
1, 2 evidently follows immediately upon the thought of iii. 11-13. In the former 
passage, he prays that God would cause them to abound in love to the end of 
confirming them in holiness, etc., and here he asks them, in the way of reaching 
this result, to abound yet more in obeying and following the instructions which he 
had himself given them, as he had been taught by Christ. These verses, accord- 
ingly, form a most natural transition from iii. 12, 13 to iv. 3 ff, where he enters 
into some particular details. We may observe the closely connecting link, also, 
which is found in the words rotro yép éoriv OéAnpa tov Beov of ver. 3. 

(c) The principal questions in vv. 3-6 are connected with the meaning of oxetbor 
and the construction and reference of 1d tmepBaivewy x.r.A. As to the former of 
these two points, the arguments presented by Liinem., in his note, may be regarded 
as satisfactorily establishing his view. As to the latter, the following suggestions 
may be offered: (1) The designation of adultery by the verbs used in ver. 6 is 
antecedently improbable; while, as referring to covetousness, etc., they are most 
appropriately used. (2) The close connection of the sin of covetousness with that 
of unchastity elsewhere in Paul’s writings, makes it very natural that he should 
refer to both of the two here. (3) As these two sins were chief outgrowths of 
idolatry, according to his view, the combination of the two affords the most satis- 
factory contrast to that sanctification which he presents as the will of God for the 
Christian. (4) The idea of xrao%a:, modified by the words which follow, finds its 
full and complete contrast in aréyeoda:. To refrain from 7opveia is the opposite 
of “acquiring for oneself one’s own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the 
passion of lust.” To introduce a further expression, relating indeed to adultery, 
but viewing it prominently in the light of overreaching or defrauding a brother, 
involves an addition to a contrast already fully presented, and an addition which 
would scarcely seem necessary in the connection. On the-other hand, the con- 
nection of rd imepBaivecv with what precedes without any separating particle; 
the difficulty of accounting for TO tpdyyarc as referring to business (the business 
or matter on hand at any time) ; and the use of axaSapcia in ver. 7,—are points 


NOTES. 539 


of importance as bearing in favor of the application of the words to adultery. It 
must be observed, however, that the absence of any particle before 1d su) Umep- 
Baivery and the use of r@ mpdéyyarte are not altogether easy of explanation, if the 
reference to adultery is accepted. The peculiarity of the language is such that no 
confident affirmation can be made, as between the two views. Not improbably, 
however, the reference of Aeovéxrecy to covetousness is in accordance with the 
meaning of the Apostle. It does not seem necessary, if we adopt this view, to 
make rd ys) irepZ. parallel to 6 dy:aopuéc, as Liinem. does—thus giving to dy. the 
sense of holiness in the special line of chastity. More probably, the view of de 
W., Koch and others, is correct—that the parallelism is with avézeoJ3a, and that 
dyaoués is a general word covering the two particulars.—(d) In respect to ver. 
11, the simplest explanation is, that wepicoevew refers backward to the idea of 
ayargy and ¢AadeAgia, yet only in a passing way and by a single word (comp. ov 
Xpeiav Exere), and that then the exhortation immediately turns to a new point. 
The section (vv. 1-12) accordingly contains, (1) a general exhortation to walk ina °* 
way pleasing to God, vv. 1, 2; (2) an exhortation to lay aside the two great sins 
of their past idolatrous lives—unchastity and covetousness, vv. 3-8; (3) a remind- 
ing them of the virtue of brotherly love, vv. 9, 10; (4) an exhortation to live, in 
their individual lives, quietly, in the way of attending to their own affairs and 
working for their own support—that is, in a way opposite to that of persons who 
might think the new life upon which they had entered, or possibly the supposed 
nearness of the end, released them from the ordinary duties of their old life, (vv. 
11, 12). The directions belong, all of them, near the beginnings of Christian 
development, or are such as might naturally be given to a church recently 
founded.—(e) The objection made by Liinem. against regarding pdévog of ver. 
12 as masculine—that it is an impossibility for man to stand in need of no man— 
is of no force in a sentence of this sort, when understood correctly. The writer is 
not speaking of need in every possible sense, but of dependence for support on 
the exertions of others, rather than our own. But, although this objection is not 
well taken, s7dévoc is quite probably neuter. So R. V. 


LIV. Vv. 18 


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


540 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


early time. They thought that they should live to see it—otherwise their pecu- 
liar grief respecting these deceased persons, and their views as indicated in the 2d 
Ep., cannot be explained. (6) It is to persons under these circumstances, in this 
state of feeling, and with these views, that the Apostle is writing. He writes for 
the purpose of correcting their misapprehension (ot OéAouev tude ayvoeiv, ver. 13), 
and in order that, by this means, he might keep them from losing hope for those 
who had died. These points must be borne in mind in considering the questions 
connected with the passage. 

(6) In his attempt thus to comfort their hearts and correct their mistake, he 
classes himself and his readers, by the use of the emphatic #ueic¢ and the contrast 
of the jetc (as “the living,” “the survivors to the coming of the Lord’’) with the 
dead (rovs xounPévrac, ver. 15, of vexpoi, ver. 16), among those who will be alive at 
the end. The question necessarily arises whether he does this because he thought 
that the Parousia was so near that the readers and himself might, not improbably, 
live to see it, or whether, on the other hand, he merely unites himself by what is 
sometimes called the “communicative we ” with the persons, who may be alive at 
the end, whenever in the indefinite and distant future (after many centuries, as it 
has proved) the end shall come. With respect to this question, the following 
points must be noticed :—(1) Paul nowhere else uses the communicative we in the 
way of uniting himself with persons who belong exclusively, or may belong ex- 
clusively, to a remote future. The passages which are sometimes cited, and in 
which he thus associates himself with other Christians, or with a certain party of 
whom he does not altogether approve, or in which he places himself with those 
of Jewish views or with sinful men, are not in point; for, in all these vases, a pos- 
sibility of common experience can easily be thought of, since the persons alluded 
to, or representatives of the classes to which they belong, are contemporaries with 
himself. (2) The proper limits of this communicative “we” seem to be passed, when 
the persons referred to, other than the writer or speaker, belong to a future age. 
There must be some probability of a participation by the person using this we in 
the experience of those whom he has to associate with himself in using it, or it 
does not occur to the mind to adopt this form of expression. (3) It would seem 
especially difficult for the Apostle to have made this use of we in the present case 
for three reasons, namely (xz) because the readers, inasmuch as they believed that 
they would live to the Parousia, would almost necessarily understand #yei¢ as re- 
ferring to the writer and themselves; (y) because the contrast which they made 
between themselves and the xocu7Sévres, in this regard, would seem to them to be 
confirmed by the contrast which they found him making; (z) because there was 
nothing to suggest the use of #ueic, if there was no expectation in his mind that 
the readers and himself might be among the wepiAccrépuevor.—(4) The correction 
which Paul makes of their error indicates his state of mind. He does not declare 
their error to consist in the fact that they were expecting the Parousia in the 
near future, whereas that event was to be looked for only in the remote future ; he 
does not say to them, that they need not be troubled with reference to the dying 
of these friends so early, for death had come to them only a little earlier than it 
would come to themselves; and that they had fallen into a mistake as to the 
whole matter. On the other hand, he says, in substance, They have not lost the 
future bleasedness by dying before the Lord comes. When He comes, they will 
rise, and we who survive, (you, who are grieving for them, and I), shall] be caught 
up to meet them. As he says to the Corinthians five years later, The dead will be 


NOTES. 541 


raised, and we shall be changed (1 Cor. xv. 52).—(5) It is doubtful whether any 
preacher of the present day—whether believing that the Parousia is at an indefi- 
nite remove in the distant future, or that, though wholly uncertain as to its date, 
it may possibly come within a few years—would use this form of expression to 
persons having the views on the subject which the Thessalonians had, and being 
in just the state of mind, in which they were, respecting those of their number 
who had recently died. The language seems to be adapted to a state of expecta- 
tion which borders more nearly on confidence, than that which is in the minds of 
either of the classes alluded to. 

(c) The following facts are to be remarked in connection with the passages in 
Paul’s writings which bear upon this subject :—(1) None of them are in their ex- 
pressions inconsistent with the expectation of the coming of the Lord at an early 
period. (2) Some of them (as e.g. Rom. xiii. 11f., 1 Cor. i. 7, 8), although not 
necessarily carrying with them this idea, gain a special force and emphasis, if they 
are interpreted as involving it. Others (as 1 Cor. xv. 51,52 and the present 
verses) indicate, by the peculiar language employed, such an expectation, if the 
language is to be interpreted naturally and strictly. (3) If, however, the Apostle 
had such an expectation, he did not have it in such a way as to involve necessarily 
a belief that none of his readers would die before the Parousia, or a feeling that it 
was absolutely certain that he should not himself die. Writers who affirm, that, 
if juetc refers to the Apostle and his readers, the verse must be understood as in- 
volving a declaration that not asingle one of them would die, affirm what this 
reference of juei¢ does not, by any means, neceasitate—(4) We find statements in 
his writings which show that he thought that certain things were to take place 
before the end—the filling up of the times of the Gentiles, the conversion of the 
Jews, the manifestation of the man of sin, Rom. xi. 25f.; 2 Thees. ii. 2 ff. The 
date of the Parousia, accordingly, must have been, to his view, so far removed 
from the date of the writing of these Epistles as to allow time for the acoomplish- 
ment of these things before it should arrive—(5) As the time of the end is ex- 
pressly excluded by Christ (Acts i. 7) from the subjects on which Divine revela- 
tion is made, the apostles may naturally not have been enlightened in regard to 
this matter, as they were with reference to other subjects. 


LV. Vv. 13-18. 


As to the individual words and phrases of this passage, we may notice the 
following points:—(a) That rév xexocunuévev refers to the Christians who had 
died in Thessalonica, and not to deceased Christians generally, is evident from the 
use of the aorist xoiu7Sévrac, which is substituted for it in vv. 14, 15; from the 
verb Atryode; from the 18th verse; and from the general character and impres- 
sion of the passage. The same reference to the Thess. church is probably to be 
understood, for the reasons mentioned, if the reading trav xoiwwputvoer is adopted. 
—(b) The exact state of mind of the survivors with regard to these persons is 
indicated by the reference to the heathen, who have no hope, and by the 14th 
verse. They were in grief because they feared that these friends, whom they had 
known as fellow-members of their church, would not be with Jesus in the 
kingdom.—(c) The objection made by many writers against connecting did rov 
"Inoov (ver. 14) with d£e:—that this verb would, thus, have two modifying phrases 
(through Jesus—with Him), can hardly be regarded as of weight, for the former 








542 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


connects the resurrection of the dead with Jesus, as by means of Him (1 Cor. xv. 
22), and the latter unites itself closely with the verb, as expressing, by the com- 
pound phrase, the thought which was designed to meet the need of the readers. 
The somewhat “dragging” character of the expression, if this construction is 
adopted,—which is urged as an objection by Alf. and others,—is worthy of consid- 
eration. R. V. reads as above in the margin, but connects with «ouuSévrac (are 
fallen asleep in Jesus) in the text.—(d) Alf., who agrees with Liinem. in supposing 
that Paul expected to live to the time of the Parousia, says of ver. 15, “It must 
be borne in mind, that this inclusion of himself and his hearers among the 
Cavreg does not in any way enter into the fact revealed and here announced— 
which is respecting that class of persons only as they are, and must be, one portion 
of the faithful at the Lord’s coming; not respecting the question, who shall and 
who shall not be among them in that day.” The word jueic, that is, is not a part of 
the Adyo¢ xvpiov. Comp. Liinem.’s remark, that the context shows that the Aéyoc 
xvpiov is to be thus limited and explained.—(e) ¢3dowuev seems to imply such a 
“getting before” them as involves the idea of their losing the bleasedness. This 
is the suggestion of the preceding context, so that the verb is not merely equiva- 
lent to being first, in contrast to the dead being first (in ver. 16).—(f) As com- 
pared with 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52, the order of the facts is the same—the rising of the 
dead first, afterwards the translation of the living. In 1 Cor., however, the 
bodily change which comes to the living is made prominent; here, on the other 
hand, it is the removal from the earth to meet the Lord. In 1 Cor., also, the 
appearance of the Lord is not set forth, as it does not come within the sphere of 
the thought. The trumpet sound is there alluded to only as an indication of time, 
and as connected with the other expressions (a moment, the twinkling of an eye) 
which refer to the instantaneousness of the change.—(g) The passage does not, in 
its statements, go beyond the fact of the meeting with the Lord and the subee- 
quent union with Him. This was all that the Thessalonians needed in order to 
meet their error and consequent grief. This was the word by which they might 
comfort one another. But—so far as the passage offers any suggestion at all on 
the subject—the intimation of what is here said is unfavorable to the idea of a 
persona] reign of Christ as physically present on earth, and favorable to that of 
an abiding of His people with Him elsewhere. They go to Him, and are to be 
ever with Him. 





CHAPTER V 


‘Ew wer. 2 Lachm. Tisch. and Ellicott, after B D E F GX, 17, 67** et al., read 
_ only duépa, But the Receptus 7 jutpa is to be retained. The article was omitted 
in consequence of the similar letter at the beginning of the following word.—Ver. 
3. ° Orav Aéyworv) Elz. Matth. read “Orav yap Aéyworr, But ydp is wanting in A F 
G &* 17, 44, al., m. Syr. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrosiaster, ed., and instead of it B D 
E 84+ Copt. Syr. p. Chrys. Theodoret have dé (bracketed by Lachm.). This © 
diversity of authorities makes it highly probable that Paul wrote only ° Orav 
(received by Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott), but that at a later period, 
after the relation of ideas was defined, a yép or a dé was inserted for explanation.— 
Ver. 4. Elz. has 3 uépa tude. Instead of this Lachm. Tisch. 1 and Ellicott 
have vac } yuépa. Correctly; for this position is not only required by predomi- 
nant attestation (A D EF G, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. in comm.), but also by the 
internal design of the discouree.—Elz. has o¢ xAéwrnc. O¢ xAérrac, accepted by 
Lachm. (not Tisch.), is not sufficiently attested by A B, Copt., and unsuitable by 
the change of the image without any reason.—Ver. 5. wdvre¢ yép] Elz. Matth. 
read dvrec. Against AB DE FG L¥®17, 23, al., perm. edd. Syr. utr. Arr. 
Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph. Ambro- 
siast. Aug. Pel.—Elz. has ovx éouéy. ovx éoré, found in D* F G, Syr. It. Harl.** 
Marian, Ambrosiast., is a correction for the sake of conformity with the preced- 
ing.—Ver. 6 Elz. has o¢ xai of Aotroi, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read o¢ oi Aoiroi, 
But the omission of xai is not sufficiently attested by A (B?) ®* 17, al., Syr. Arr. 
Aeth. Vulg. ms. Clem. (bis) Antioch. According to Schott, xaé is a gloes from iv. 
13 (?).—Ver. 13. Instead of the Receptus irepexrepiooot, B D* F G, al. have 
trepexreptooi¢, Preferred by Lachm. Tisch., Alford and Ellicott. Probably 
original: trepexrepiood¢, not occurring elsewhere, being corrected according to 
iii. 10 and Eph. iii. 20.—Instead of é avrois, which D* F G 8, 47, al., pl. edd. Syr. 
Erp. Aeth. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Codd. ap. Theophl. Ambrosiast. 
ed. Pelag. require, Tisch. 8 has received, and Griesb. has commended to special con- 
sideration, év éavroig of the Receplus is to be retained, with Matth. Lachm. Scholz, 
Tisch. 7 Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott and Reiche. 'Ev avroi¢ arose because eipyvetere 
év éavroi¢ was not considered an independent exhortation (on which account a «ai 
is inserted by ** before eipzvetere), since these few words are found inserted between 
two exhortations, of which the first was introduced by the formula épwrapev d2 
tuas, and the second by wapaxadotpev dé tuac.—Ver. 15. xai ei¢ GAAZAoUC] so Elz. 
Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, and Alford. «ai is disputed by Griesb. Correctly erased 
by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Ellicott afte A B E F G ®* min. 
perm. Syr. Arr. Copt. Vulg. ed. It. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag—Ver. 18. Elz. has Totro 
yép SéAnua Gcov. Lachm. reads Totro ydp éore BéAnua Ocov, Although éoriv is 
found in D* E* F G, 37, al., Vulg. It. Slav. Ambrosiast. Pel., yet the change of 
its position (sometimes after yép, sometimes after YéAnua, sometimes after Ocov) 


544 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


betrays it to be an insertion.—Ver. 21. wévra dé] Elz. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield read 
révra. But dé (BD EF G K L 8#+* min. plur. edd. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. It. Clem. 
[bis] Bas. Chrys. [in textu] Damasc. Theoph. Ambrosiast. ed. Pel., recommended 
by Griesb., received by Matth. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford and 
Ellicott also preferred by Reiche) was easily absorbed by the first syllable of the 
following word, dox:udéZere.—Ver. 27. Instead of the Receptus dpxifw, Lachm. Tisch. 
Alford and Ellicott have correctly accepted évopxifw, after A B D* E, 71, 80, al., 
Auct. Synops. Euthal. (in hypoth.) Damase. rei¢ adeAgoic] Elz. Matth. Scholz, 
Bloomfield, Ellicott, Reiche, Tisch. 7, read roig dyiow adeAgoic. But dyiorg is want- 
ingin BD EF G** min. Aeth. It. Damasc. Ambrosiast. Cassiod. Suspeeted 
by Griesb. Correctly erased by Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, 8, and Alford. 


CoNTENTS.—Concerning the period of the commencement of the advent 
the readers require no instruction. They themselves well knew that the 
day of the Lord will suddenly break in, as a thief in the night. Therefore 
as children of the light they are to be watchful, and to arm themselves 
with the spiritual armor of faith, love, and hope, comforted with the assur- 
ance that God has not appointed them to destruction, but to eternal sal- 
vation through Jesus Christ who died for us, that we, whether living or 
dead, may receive a share in His glory. Therefore they are to comfort 
and edify one another (vv. 1-11). They are to esteem those who had the 
rule over them, to be peaceful among themselves, to admonish the unruly, 
to encourage the faint-hearted, to assist the weak, and to be forbearing 
toward all men. No one is to repay evil with evil. They are always to 
retain Christian joyfulness, to pray continually, to thank God for all 
things. They are not to quench the Spirit, nor to despise prophecy, but 
to prove all things, and to preserve the good. May God sanctify them 
thoroughly, in order that they may be blameless at the coming of Christ 
(vv. 12-24). After an exhortation-to the readers to pray for him, to salute 
all the brethren, and to read the Epistle to the whole assembled congre- 
gation (vv. 25-27), the apostle concludes with a Christian benediction 
(ver. 28). 

(2) Vv. 1-8. A reminder of the sudden and unexpected entrance of the 
advent. 


Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-11, see Note LVI. pages 560-561.] Mept 62 rév zypévev cat 
trav xatpov] but concerning the times and periods, ¢.e. concerning the time and 
hour, sc. of the advent. [LVI 6.] The conjunction of these two words 
frequently occurs; comp. e.g. Actsi. 7; Dan. ii. 21; Eccles. iii. 1. zadvoe 
denotes time in general; xapéc, the definite point of time (therefore 
usually the favorable moment for a transaction). See Tittmann, de 
synonym. I. p. 39 ff. Paul puts the plural, because he thinks on a plurality 
of acts or incidents, in which partly preparation is made for the advent 
(2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.), and partly it is accomplished. That, moreover, the 
apostle, although he has not treated of the advent in itself, but only of an 
entirely special objection regarding it, feels necessitated also to make the 
commencement of the advent a subject of explanation, is an evident inti- 
mation that this point also formed the subject of frequent discussion 


CHAP. Vv. 1, 2. 545 


among the Thessalonians. Yet on account of the relation of the second 
Epistle to the first, the opinien that the return of Christ was immediately 
to be expected was not yet diffused—ov zpeiav éxere] a praeteritio, as in iv. 
9. The reason why the readers did not require instruction on the time 
and hour of the advent, is neither because instruction concerning it would 
not be useful to them (Oecumenius: o&¢ actugopov' 6 dé ye Taidog lowe gdet 
airé, éx TeV appyrwy Kai rovro xadev, Theophylact, and others), nor also 
because no instruction can be given concerning it (Zwingli, Hunnius, 
Estius, Fromond., Flatt, Pelt, Baumg.-Crusius, Koch, and many others), but 
because the Thessalonians were already sufficiently acquainted with it from 
the oral instruction of the apostle. Accordingly the apostle adds— 

Ver. 2. Avroi yép] For ye yourselves, emphatically contrasted with the 
person of the writer, asin iv. 9.—axpiBadc] exactly, t.¢. very well—By the 
huépa xvpiov, Hammond, Schoettgen, and Harduin arbitrarily understand 
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; Nicolas de Lyra, Bloomfield, 
and others, the day of each man’s death; Oecumenius, Theophylact, and 
Zwingli, the death of the individual and the end of everything earthly. 
jpépa xvpiov can only be another expression for xapovoia rov xvplov, iv. 15, 
and denotes, as everywhere else, the near impending period, when the 
present order of the world will come to an end, and Christ in His glory 
will return to the earth for the resurrection of the dead, the general judg- 
ment, and the completion of the kingdom of God; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2; 1 
Cor. i. 8, v.5; 2 Cor. i. 14; Phil. i. 6, 10, ii. 16. Besides, the corresponding 
expression 71" D1, is used in the Old Testament to denote a time in 
which God will manifest in a conspicuous manner His penal justice, or also 
His power and goodness; comp. Joel i. 15, ii. 11; Ezek. xiii. 5; Isa. ii. 
12.—a¢ KAéerne év voxri] as a thief in the night, sc. ipxerac; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 10. 
The figure is designed to depict the suddenness and unexpectedness of the 
coming; comp. Matt. xxiv. 43; Luke xi 39. Others, as Flatt, Schott, 
and Alford (similarly also Hofmann and Riggenbach), find expressed 
therein the further reference that the day of the Lord will also be terrible 
to all those who are not properly prepared for it. But this further idea is 
not contained in ver. 2, but only meets us in what follows. The compari- 
son os xAéqrys év vuxri was undoubtedly the chief reason of the opinion in 
the ancient church, that the advent is to be expected at night (more spe- 
cifically, on an Easter-eve), which gave rise to the vigils, as one wished to 
be overtaken in a waking condition by the return of Christ.'—sirwe] even 
so, a strong resumption of the preceding oc.—The present épyere is not 
here used instead of the future éAetoera: (Vorstius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt), but 


16omp. Lactantius, Jnstitt. vii. 19: “ Haec 
est nox, quae a nobis propter adventum regis 
ac Dei nostri pervigilio celebratur; cujus 
noctis duplex ratio est, quod in ea et vitam 
tum fecepit, quum passus est, et postea orbis 
terrae regnum recepturus est.” Jerome on 
Matt. xxv. 6 (vol. vii. p. 203): “ Traditio Judae- 
orum est, Christum media nocte venturum in 


35 


similitudinem Aegyptii temporis, quando 
pascha celebratum est et exterminator venit, 
et dominus super tabernacula transiit.... 
Unde reor et traditionem apostolicam per- 
mansisee, ut in die vigiliarum paschae ante 
nectis dimidium populos dimittere noa lieeat, 
exspectantes adventum Christi.” 


546 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


is designed to characterize the coming thus taking place as an absolute 
and certain truth. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 871; Winer, p. 249 [E. T. 
265]. 

Ver. 3. Paul carries on in a vivid manner (therefore asyndetically) the 
description of the sudden and unexpected nature in which the advent is 
to break in, whilst he indicates that precisely at the time when man fan- 
cies himself in the greatest security, the advent will occur. But with this 
thought is the wider and more special thought blended, that they whodream 
of security and serve earthly things will reap the fruit of their carelessness, 
namely, destruction.—érav Aéywow]| when they shall say, when it is said. As 
the subject of the verb, the apostle naturally thinks not on the inhabitants 
of Jerusalem (Harduin), but, as is evident from the nature of the expres- 
sion of opinion added, and from the apodosis, unbelievers and merely 
nominal Christians, the children of this world; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38 ff. ; 
Luke xvii. 26 ff. For the pious and true Christian never abandons him- 
self to the feeling of security, but is always mindful of his salvation with 
fear and trembling; comp. Phil. ii. 12.—eipfvn nai aogddeca] sc. éoriv; comp. 
Ezek. xiii. 10.—é¢iorarac] imminet, or t surprises them.—éxgbywow)| stands 
absolutely. Camerarius and others unnecessarily supply rdv dAefpor. 
Moreover, de Wette justly remarks, that in the comparison of the pangs 
of a pregnant woman, the supposition is contained that the advent is close 
at hand ; for although the day and the hour, indeed, is not known to her, 
yet the period of her bearing is proximately known.! 


REMARK.—If Srav dé (see critical remark) is read, we might, with Schott, 
whom Koch follows, find the following contrast with avro/ in ver. 2 expressed : ye 
indeed know certainly that the day of the Lord will infallibly and suddenly arrive ; 
but the day of the Lord, bringing destruction, will surprise the unbelieving and 
ungodly, who live in carelessness and security. But were such an emphatic oppo- 
sition of persons the intention of the apostle, he would have attached to the simple 
verb bray dé Aéywow a particular personal designation. Besides, avroi, ver. 2, 
already forms a contrast with the person of the writer, ver.1; accordingly, it is 
improbable that avroi, ver. 2, should be so emphatically placed first, in order at 
the same time to introduce a contrast to third persons who are not mentioned 
until ver. 3. Lastly, it is evident from the context that it is by no means the 
design of the apostle to explain that the day of the Lord will befall Christians pre- 
pared, but unbelievers unprepared ; but he purposes to remind them only of the 
sudden and unexpected entrance of the advent «itself. | 


(3) Vv. 4-11. Exhortation to be ready and prepared for the coming of 
the advent, occasioned and also softened by the previous indication of 
their character as “of the light,” which the readers by reason of their 
peculiarity as Christians possessed. 


2Comp. Theodoret: o¢cépa swpéchopow rd pies ddcddxOnuer. Oecumenius: cadrme & ro 
wapdberypna® al yap 9 xvovoa oldey dri dépes = Urddecyna réOauxe Tis dv yaoTpi éxovene’ xei 
vd duBpvor, dyvoct St roy rey adiver xapéy. yap cal airy onneia py xe Tov récov weadd, 
etre xal Hueis, Ste pdy éwchavijcera: rev GAwy = avrg 88 TRS Gpas h THS Hudpas Oc Ere. 
6 cvpros, ioe, capers 82 avrdy Toy Kaipdy ovda- 


EE 2 _— 


CHAP. V. 3-7. 547 


Ver. 4. 'Yyeic dé] but ye, in contrast to the unbelieving and worldly- 
minded described in ver. 3.—écré] indicative, not imperative ; for other- 
wise 4) ore would require to be written instead of obx éoré (see Schmalfeld | 
Syntaz des Griech. Verb. p. 148), not to mention that, according to the 
Pauline view, Christians as such, t.e.in their ideas and principles, are no 
more oxéroc, but ga¢ év xvpiy; comp. Eph. v. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Col. i. 12. 
The expression oxéroc, darkness, [LVI d.] here occasioned by the compari- 
BON we KAémrye év vucri, ver. 2, is a designation of the ruined condition of 
the sinful and unredeemed world, which in its estrangement from God is 
neither enlightened concerning the divine will, nor possesses power to 
fulfill it—iva tpuac } guépa x.7.A.] By tuae placed first the readers are fit- 
tingly and emphatically brought forward in opposition to those described 
in ver. 3.—iva is not éxBaras in the sense of so that (Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and others), but redcéc: that, or tn order 
that. But the design contained in iva is to be referred to God. Paul 
intends to say: Ye are not among the unbelieving world alienated from 
God, and thus the design which God has in view in reference to that unbe- 
lieving and alienated world, namely, to surprise them by the day of the 
Lord, can have no application to you. Why this design of God can have 
no application to the readers, the apostle accordingly states.— 

Ver. 5, first positively, and then negatively with a general reference to 
all Christians.—viot gwréc] sons of the light, and viot gutpac, sons of the day, 
are Hebraisms: being a concrete mode of expression, in order to repre- 
seat “ belonging to.” Comp. Eph. ii. 2, 8, v. 8; Luke xvi. 8; 1 Pet. i. 14, 
and other passages. See Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 238]. #uépa is here used as a 
synonym for ¢géc. The transition from the notion of the day of the Lord 
to the notion of day generally, in contrast to the darkness, was so much 
the more natural, inasmuch as the day of the Lord is according to its 
nature kght, before which no darkness can exist, or rather by which every 
impurity of the darkness will be discovered and judged. An entirely 
similar transition from the juépa ov xvpiov to muépa generally is found in 
Rom. xiii. 12, 18.—To ox topév vunrdc obd2 oxérouc, Estius, Pelt, Schott, and 
others incorrectly again supply viol; for elva:, with the simple genitive, is 
the genuine Greek mode of expressing the idea of a possessive relation. 
See Kithner, II. p. 167; Bernhardy, Syniaz, p. 165. 

Ver. 6 infers from the Christians’ character as children of the light, the 
duty to behave comformably to it, t.e. to be watchful and sober, that they 
might not be taken unprepared by the day of the Lord.—xadetdev] denotes, 
under the image of sleep, carelessness about the eternal salvation of the 
soul. In Eph. v. 14 it is of the sleep of sin.—oi Ac:roi] the others (comp. iv. 
13; Eph. ii. 3), é.e. the unbelievers.—ypryopeivy and v#gev are also con- 
joined in 1 Pet. v. 8. vfgecv is the opposite of pePboxeofa:, ver. 7. 

Ver. 7. A reason for the exhortation in ver. 6 bya reference to the 
practice of the outward life.—vucrd¢ pedtovecv] refers to the known custom 


1Oecumenius: éwiracus cypyyépoeus Td vipa in yap cal dypryopdves cal patty daddgqw 
aabeviovres. 





548 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


of devoting the evening and the night for debauchery.—pe@ioxeofaz is 
entirely synonymous with peJiew. It is not to be assumed that the 
change of the verb is intentional, in order to denote with the first “the 
act of getting drunk,” and with the second “ the state of being so” (Mack- 
night); since, as also the analogy of the first half of the sentence proves, 
the progress of the discourse is contained in the addition of vverés, and 
accordingly only the idea already expressed in pe6voxéuevo: 18 again taken 
up by peGbovorr. The view of Baumgarten-Crusius, repeated by Koch and 
Hofmann, that ver. 7 is to be understood in a figurative sense (comp. 
already Chrysostom and Oecumenius), and that Paul intends to say: “ A 
want of spiritual life (xaSebdew) and immorality (uedioxecdaz) belong to the 
state of darkness (vvxréc,) thus not to you,” is logically and grammatically 
impossible, since vuxrés, on account of the same verbs as subjects and 
predicates, can only contain a designation of time. In order to justify the 
above interpretation, ol yap xavetdovrec xai (ol) pedvoxduevor vuxrée eiowy Would 
require to have been written. 

Ver. 8. [LVI e, f.] The apostle passes over to a new image, whilst he, 
as the proper preparation for watchfulness and sobriety, requires the put- 
ting on of the Christians’ spiritual armor, with the help of which they are 
in a condition victoriously to repel all the assaults of internal and exter- 
nal enemies.! The apostle delights to represent the Christian under the 
image of a warrior; comp. 2 Cor. x. 4 ff.; Rom. vi. 18, xiii. 12; and espe- 
cially Eph. vi. 11 ff. Here the transition to this new image was very 
easily occasioned either by the expression #uépa, ver. 5, inasmuch as in 
the day one is not only watchful, but also completely clothed; or by the 
idea of ypryopeiv, ver. 6, inasmuch as whoever watches must also be pro- 
vided with weapons. Whilst in Eph. vi. 11 ff. not only weapons of defence, 
but also of offence are mentioned, the apostle here names only weapons 
of the first description. He designates as weapons the three principal 
parts of the Christian life—faith, love, and hope; comp. i. 8 and 1 Cor. 
xiii. 13.—iorewe nai aydérn¢] are genitives of apposition. rior and éydry 
do not import “trustin God and Christ, and in connection with it 
love to Him and to our fellow-men and to our fellow-Christians” (Flatt); but 
the first is faith in Christ as the Redeemer, and the latter love to our 
neighbor. The riorc and the aydzy are a Ydpat, a coat of matl (comp. Isa. 
lix. 17; Wisd. v. 19), ¢.e. they protect the Christian’s heart against the 
influences of evil, even as a coat of mail protects the breast of the earthly 
warrior.—xal repixegadaiay tAxida owrnpiac] and as a helmet the hope of salva- 
tion. This hope of eternal salvation is so much the more a powerful 
protection against all the attacks and allurements to evil, as it by means 
of a reference to a future better world sustains our courage amidst trial 
and tribulation, and communicates strength to stedfast endurance.—The 
helmet is already in Isa. lix. 17 represented as a symbol of victory. 


This design of the armor is evident from an arming against evil in order to overcome 
the egmtext. Gehsader’s ehjection te the it,” is therefere without meaning. 
words, that “Paul elsewhere only speaks of 


CHAP. Vv. 810. 549 


Ver. 9. In this verse does not follow a new reason for the duty of watch- 
fulness and sobriety (Musculus), but a confirmation of the concluding 
words of ver. 8: éArida owrnpiac. Hofmann strangely perverts the passage : 
dre is to be translated by that (not by for), and depends on éArida,—a con- 
struction which is plainly impossible by the addition of owrnpiac to éArida, on 
account of which the passage Rom. viii. 21, which Hofmann insists on as 
an alleged analogy, cannot be compared.—The construction ridévac or 
ridesSai tiva elg Tt, to appoint one for a purpose, to destine one to some- 
thing, is conformable with the Hebrew 038, Nw, or 11) with 5 following ; 
comp. Acts xiii. 47; 1 Pet. ii. 8; 1 Tim. i. 12—ei¢ opym] to wrath, i.e, to 
be subject to it, to become its prey; comp. i. 10.—aA”’ ei¢ mepirohow 
curnpiac] but to the acquisition of salvation. mepivoiv means to Cause some- 
thing to remain, to save, to acquire. The middle wepiroeiodac signifies to 
save for oneself. Therefore mepiroinorg denotes the acquisition, and par- 
ticularly the possession of a people; comp. Eph. i. 14; 1 Pet. ii.9; Acts 
xx. 28, corresponding to the Hebrew, 720, by which the people of Israel 
were denominated God’s holy property; comp. Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, 
etc. Here asin 2 Thess. ii. 14 zepiroinoug has the meaning of acquisition 
generally.—6éia tov xupiov fudv "Inoot Xpuotot} belongs to reprroizow, not to 
29ero (Estius). Even by this grammatical relation of the words, Hof- 
mann’s opinion, that by da rod xvptov ypyédv ‘Tyco Xprorod the pledge of sal- 
vation is prominently brought forward, is refuted. But the meaning is 
not: per doctrinam eam, quam Christus nobis attulit, non rabbini, non 
philosophi (Grotius), and also not: through the atoning death of our Lord 
Jesus Christ (Ellicott), by which what is contained in ver. 10 would be 
anticipated, but: by faith on Him. 

Ver. 10. That by which the acquisition of salvation is rendered objec- 


tively possible is the death of Christ for our redemption. However, this 


objective reason’ of mepiroinou owrnpiag appears, according to the verbal 
expression, here not in causal connection with the preceding; for other- 
wise ver. 10 would have been attached with the simple participle arovavi- 
tog without the article. Rather Paul adds in ver. 10 simply the fact of 
the death of Christ for our redemption as an independent expression, in 
order, by the addition of the final end of His death, to return to the 
chief reason which led him to this whole explanation concerning the 
advent, namely, to the comforting assurance that Christians who have 
already fallen asleep at the entrance of the advent will, as well as those 
who are alive, be partakers in Christ’s glory.—irép quéav] for our benefit, 
not in our stead (Baumgarten-Crusius). See Meyer on Rom. v. 6.— 
yenyopeiy and xadetdecv cannot here, as formerly, be taken in an ethical 
sense ; for in what precedes xa¥etdexv was represented as a mark of the 
unbelieving, of the children of this world, something incompatible with 
Christians in their character as children of the light. But to understand 
the words in their iiteral sense, with Musculus, Aretius, and Whitby, that 
is, to interpret them of day and night: “whether the advent happens in 
the day-time or at night,” would be feeble and trifling. It only remains 
that waking and sleeping here is to be regarded as a figurative designation 














550 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 

of life and death, whether we are yet alive at the advent, or whether we 
are already dead. [LVI g.] Accordingly the same thought is expressed 
in the sentence with iva, generally considered, which is contained in the 
concluding words of Rom. xiv. 8 (ééy re obv Cipev édv te arodvhoxupev, Tov 
xupiov éouév).'—On xadetdew of death, comp. LXX. Dan. xii. 2; 2 Sam. vii. 
12; Ps. Ixxxviii. 5.—On elre . . . elre, with the conjunctive, see Winer, p. 
276 [E. T. 294] Buttm. p. 191 [E. T. 221.]—<aya] does not belong to ow avrg 
(Hofmann, Riggenbach), but to Cyowuev. It here corresponds to the 
Hebrew Wi, altogether (Rom. iii. 12), so that it emphatically brings for- 
ward the similar share in the (# oiv Xpor¢ for all Christians, whether 
living or dead.—{#oupzev] more specific than écdueda, iv. 17; for being 
united with the Lord is a partaking of His glory. According to Hof- 
mann (comp. also Mdller on de Wette), (#oupuev is designed to denote 
only a state of life-fellowship with Christ, so that there is indicated by it 
not something future but the present condition of Christians. But this 
weakening of the verbal idea militates against the context of our passage, 
as it has for its contents questions respecting the advent, and we are re- 
minded of the period of the advent by ei¢ dpyfv and ei¢ mepiroinow ournpiac 
directly preceding. Besides, Paul, if he would have expressed nothing 
more than “a fellowship of life with Christ, for which the distinction of 
corporeal life and death is indifferent,” would much more naturally have 
written avrot duev (comp. Rom. xiv. 8) instead of ctv aire Chowpev. 

Ver. 11. A:é] therefore, sc. because we will undoubtedly be made par- 
takers of the glory of Christ, brings the preceding explanation to a conclu- 
sion; comp. dore, iv. 18.—apaxadeiv] [LVI h.] Grotius, Turretin, Flatt, 
Pelt, de Wette, Koch, Hofmann, and others interpret it as “to exhort.” 
More correctly, it is to be taken, as in iv. 18, “to comfort.” For (1) the 
exhortation begun in ver. 6 has already, in vv. 9, 10, been changed into 
words of comfort and consolation ; (2) vv. 10, 11 stand in evident parallelism 
with chap. iv. 17, 18.—xai oixodopetre sig rov éva] and edify one the other. 
Paul considers the Christian church, as also the individual Christian, as a 
holy building, a holy temple of God which is in the course of construc- 
tion; comp. Eph. ii. 20 ff.; 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Accordingly 
oixodopeiv is @ figurative designation of Christian progress generally ; comp. 
1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 28, xiv. 4.—elc rav tva] equivalent to aArfdrou, see Kypke, 
Observ. sacr. II. p. 339. Comp. of xa éva, Eph. v. 33. Faber Stapulensis, 
Whitby, and Riickert (Romerbr. II. p. 249) read ei¢ rév éva, but differ from 
one another in their renderings. Faber Stapulensis finds the thought: 
“ aedificate vos mutuo ad unum usque, h. e. nullum omittendo ;”’ Whitby 
explains it: “ edify yourselves into one body; ” lastly, Rickert maintains 
oixodopeiv eig tov éva is used “in order to denote the One, Christ, as the 


1 By this parallel with Rom. xiv. 8, 9, the 
objections of Schrader against our passage 
are settled, who thinks that “the manner in 
which the death of Christ and His coming 
again are spoken of, is not similar to what is 
found elsewhere in Paul, but rather to what 


Mark and Luke say concerning it. We de 
not find here the words taught by the Holy 
Spirit as we are accustomed to hear from 
Paul, but the words from tradition, such 
as were at a later period prevalent among 
Christians!" 


CHAP. V. 11, 12. 551 


foundation on whom the building should be reared.” But in the first 
case Paul would have written éwc évd¢ (comp. Rom. iii. 12), in the 
second ei¢ Ev (comp. Eph. ii. 14), and in the third éxi r@ &i (comp. Eph. 
li. 19).—xadac xai rouire] a laudatory recognition, that the oixodouely had 
already begun with the readers; comp. iv. 1, 10. 

Vv. 12-24. Miscellaneous exhortations, and the wish that God would 
sanctify the Thessalonians completely for the coming of Christ. 

Ver. 12. [On vv. 12-24, see Note LVII. page 561.] The apostle com- 
mences with an exhortation to a dutiful conduct toward the rulers of the 
church.—dé] can only be a particle of transition to a new subject. It 
were possible that ver. 12 might be in the following closer connection with 
ver. 11: Certainly I have praised you, because you seek to edify one 
another ; but this by no means excludes the duty of treating those who 
are appointed for the government of the church with becoming esteem 
and respect.' At all events, it appears from this that Paul considered this 
exhortation in respect to the rulers of the church necessary, to prevent the 
Thessalonians failing in any way in the respect due to them.—eidéva:] to 
recognize, sc. what they are, according to their nature and position, ¢.e. in 
other words, highly to value, highly to esteem. Comp. émcy:vdcxerv, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 18, and JT), Prov. xxvii. 23; Ps. cxliv.3; Nah. i. 7—Paul does not by 
koravrac, mpoiorapévouc, and vovderovvrac indicate different classes of persons 
(Bernard a Picon and others), for otherwise the article rote would have 
been repeated before the two last predicates; but the same men, namely, 
the rpecBirepo, whom the apostles were accustomed to place in newly 
founded churches, and who in apostolic times were not different from the 
érioxoror; comp. Tit. i. 5,7; Acts xx. 17,28; Winer, bibl. Realworterb. 2d 
ed. vol. I. p. 217 f. These presbyters are at first named generally xomivrag 
év ipiv] those who labor among you, t.e.in your midst (Musculus. Zanch., 
Flatt, Pelt, Hofm. e al. erroneously explain it: on you, in vobis sc. docendis, 
monendis, consolandis, aedificandis), in order to make it appear before- 
hand that the eidéva, the esteeming highly, was a corresponding duty due 
to the presbyters on account of their labor for the church. The expres- 
sion xomiavrag might, on account of its generality, have been understood 
of any member of the church they liked; therefore, in order with xomvra¢ 
to make them think definitely on presbyters, Paul adds by way of expla- 
nation, «a2 mpoictapévove nal vovderovvrac, by which presbyters are more 
particularly described, according to the diversity of their official functions, 
namely, as such to whom it belongs, first, to direct the general and exter- 
nal concerns of the church ; and to whom, secondly, the office of teaching 
and exhortation is assigned.*—év xupiy] in the sphere of the Lord, a limita- 
tion of mpoictaztvour. Theophylact: ctx év roi¢ xoopixoic mpotoratal aov, aAa’ 





1Already Chrysostom closely unites ver. 
12 with ver. 11, but determines the connection 
in the following form not much to be com- 
mended: “Ered elev oixoSopetre els roy Eva, 
iva ph vopionccy, Sr cig Td Ter SiSacKxdAwy afi- 
wea avrovs dvijyaye, rovro drfyaye, povovovyxi 


Adywr, Ste Kai Vuiy ewérpepa oixoSomety &AAH- 
Aovs* ov yap Suvaroy rdvra roy &ddonadoy ciweiy. 

Incorrectly Theodoret: rd 8@ wpoicrape- 
vous Uuev éy xuplp ayri Trou Umepevxoudvous 
Uuov Kai try Gee Thy Urip Uuer specBeiay 
spoodédporras. 








552 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


év roi¢ xara xbpiov.—vovdereiv] to lay to heart, then generally to instruct and 
admonish. It refers particularly to the management of Christian disci- 
pline, yet Christian instruction generally is not excluded from it. Comp. 
also Kypke, Obs. II. p. 339 f. 

Ver. 13. Kat #yziobtar above] is by Theodoret, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, Baum- 
garten, Koppe, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield, and others, connected with 
brepexrepiooas, “and to esteem very highly, to value much,” to which é& 
ayaérg is added as asupplementary statement, to express that this esteem 
is not to be founded on fear, but on love, or is to express itself in love. 
But the requirement to esteem highly is already, ver. 12, expressed by 
eidévac, Add to this that #yeiofa:,in order to denote the idea of high 
esteem or regard, requires an additional clause, as epi rAclovos, or rept 
rieiorov; but the adverb wtrepexrepioooc cannot represent that additional 
clause. We must therefore, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
Beza, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, Hofmann, Riggen- 
bach, and others, unite #yeioGa: with év aydéry, by which, along with the 
duty of high esteem, ver. 12, the duty of love toward the rulers of the church 
is specially brought forward. The formula #yeioba: reve év ayéry, to hold a 
person in love, to cherish toward him a loving disposition, is not without 
harshness, but has its analogy in the genuine Greek construction, Zea 
riva tv opyg (Khucyd. ii. 18). Others less suitably compare #yeiobat re tv 
xpioe, LXX. Job xxxv. 2.—did rd Epyov airav] for their works’ (office) sake, 
#.e. first, on account of the labor which is connected with it; but secondly 
and chiefly, because it is an office in the service of Christ.—eipyvetere év 
éavroic] preserve peace among yourselves, comp. Rom. xii. 18; 2 Cor. xiii. 
11; Mark ix. 50. é éavroie is equivalent to é aAAgdow, see Ktihner, II. 
p. 825; Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 278. The words contain an independent 
exhortation to be separated from the preceding, the apostle passing from 
the conduct enjoined respecting rulers, to the conduct enjoined generally 
of the readers to one another. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Faber Stapulensis, 
Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Balduin, Cornelius a Lapide, Ernest Schmid, 
Fromond., and others, adopting the reading é avroi¢ (see critical note), 
have indeed explained it: “preserve peace with them, the presbyters,” 
but without grammatical justification, because for this cipqvebere per’ autay 
would be required, comp. Rom. xii. 18. 

Ver. 14. ’Araxroc] is especially said of the soldier who does not remain 
in his rank and file (so snordinatus in Livy); then of people who will not 
conform to civil regulations; then generally disorderly. Here the apostle 
alludes to those members of the Thessalonian church who, instead of 
applying themselves to the duties of their calling, had given themselves 
up to an unregulated and unsteady nature and to idleness, comp. iv. 11; 
2 Thess. i1i.6,11. We are not to understand, with Chrysostom, Oecu- 
menius, Theophylact, Estius, Fromond., Turretin, Benson, Bolten, Bloom- 
field, and others, the presbyters as the subject of vov6ereire, but, as is 
already evident from the addition of adeAgoi, and generally from the 
similarity of the introductory words of ver. 14 with those of ver. 12, the 
members of the church in their totality. Paul thus here puts it out of the 





CHAP. v. 13-16. 553 


question that the church as such had fallen into arafie (see on iv. 11). But 
it also follows from these words that the apostle was far removed from all 
hierarchical notions in regard to rulers (Olshausen).—Further, they were 
to comfort, to calm rote oAsyowbyouc] the faint-hearted, the desponding. Paul 
here thinks particularly on those who, according to iv. 18 ff., were pain- 
fully agitated concerning their deceased friends. Yet this does not pre- 
vent us from extending the expression also to such who failed in endur- 
ance in persecution, or who, conscious of some great sin, despaired of the 
attainment of divine grace, etc.—The aodeveic] the weak, whom the church 
is to assist, are not the bodily sick, but fellow-Christians who still cling to 
prejudices, and were more imperfect than others in faith, in knowledge, or 
in reference to a Christian life; comp. Rom. xiv. 1,2; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 11, 12. 
—paxpoOvueiv] to be long-suffering, denotes the disposition by which we do 
not fly into a passion at injuries inflicted, but bear them with patience and | 
forbearance, comp. 1 Cor: xiii. 4; Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12.—pd¢ wévrag] to 
all, is not to be limited to draxro:, dAcyéyuyor, and acbevei¢ (Koppe), nor to 
fellow-Christians (Riggenbach), but is to be understood of all men gener- 
ally ; comp. ei¢ GAAsAoug nal ei¢ wévrac, ver. 15. 

Ver. 15. Prohibition of revenge. This is easily and fitly added to the 
command of paxpodvuia.—dpare] take care, take heed. The apostle speaks 
thus, because man is only too ready to gratify his natural inclination to 
revenge. Watchfulness, struggle, and self-conquest are necessary to offer 
resistance to it.—y4 ric] sc. tuov. Erroneously Fromond: “ subditorum 
vestrorum.” Also incorrectly de Wette: “Since revenge is entirely 
unworthy of the Christian, so all are not warned against it, but the better 
disposed are exhorted to watch that no outbreaks of it should occur 
(among others).” For (1) the prohibition of revenge is peculiarly Chris- 
tian, corresponding neither to the spirit of heathenism (see Hermann, ad 


. Sophoel. Philoct. 679; Jacobs, ad Delect. Epigr. p. 144; in opposition to the 


objections of Jowett, see Ellicott on this passage) nor to that of Judaism 
(comp. Matt. v. 38, 43). But de Wette’s reason makes the prohibition 
appear as if it were something long known, something evident of itself. 
(2) Also the better disposed are not free from momentary thoughts of 
revenge; accordingly also upon them was that prohibition to be pressed. 
(3) The fulfilling of that command appertains to the individual life of 
every one; whereas to guard against the outbreaks of revenge among 
others is only rarely possible.—xaxdy avr? xaxod reve arodovvac] to render to 
any one evil for evil, comp. Rom. xi. 17; 1 Pet. 111.9; Matt. v. 44.—a 
aya#év| denotes not the useful or agreeable (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Olshau- 
sen, and others), or “ what is good to one ” (Ell., Hofm., Moller), nor does it 
contain an exhortatian to benevolence (Piscator, Beza, Calixt, Pelt, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, and others), but denotes the moral good; see Meyer on 
Gal]. vi. 10.—d:déxerv 11] to pursue something, to seek to reach it in the race 
(Phil. iii. 12, 14), then generally a figurative expression for striving after a 
thing, comp. Rom. ix. 30, 31, xii. 18, xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 1. ; 

Ver. 16. Comp. Phil. iv. 4. Also this exhortation is closely connected 
with the preceding. The readers are to be always joyfully inclined, even 








554 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


when the case indicated in ver. 15 occurs—that sufferings are prepared 
for them. The Christian can always feel inspired and elevated with 
internal joy, as he has the assured confidence that all things promote the 
good of the children of God; comp. Rom. viii. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 10; Rom. 
v. 3. Ina forced manner Chrysostom, whom Theophylact and others 
follow, refers ver. 16 to the disposition required in ver. 15: *Orav yap 
roatryy Exupev purty, Sore pndéva aubveocba, GAAa mdvrag evepyereiv, wéHev, eixé 
pot, TO THE Abn KévTpov TmapeceAeiv dvvfoera: ;—Also it deserves to be men- 
tioned as a curiosity that Koppe and Bolten hold it possible to consider 
mdvrore yaipere a8 & Concluding salutation (intended, but afterwards over- 
looked amid further additions): “Semper bene valere vos jubeat deus!” 
(Koppe). ‘“ Farewell always !” (Bolten). 

Ver. 17. One means of promoting Christian joyfulness is prayer Paul 
also exhorts to continued prayer in Eph. vi. 18, and to perseverance in 
prayer in Col. iv. 2; Rom. xii. 12. 

Ver. 18. Christians ought not only to pray to God, but also to give 
thanks to Him, and that é ravri] in everything i.e. under every circum- 
stance, in joy as well as in sorrow; which is different only in form, but 
not in meaning, from epi ravréc, for everything. Incorrectly Estius: in 
omnibus sc. bonis; and Flatt: év mavri, sc. xaipg@.—rovro] sc. rd év ravri 
evyaporeitv. This is the most natural meaning. Yet it were not incorrect, 
with Grotius, Schott, and Bloomfield, to refer rovro to ver. 17, as prayer 
and thanksgiving form a closely connected unity; comp. Phil. iv. 6; Col. 
iv. 2. Also to refer it even to ver. 16 (Cornelius a Lapide, Alford) may 
be justified from the same reason. On the contrary, there is no reason to 
refer it to the whole passage from ver. 14 onwards (Musculus, Calovius, 
and others), as then ratra would require to have been written.—6éA7ua] 
(sc. éoriv) denotes will, requirement, as in iv. 3: the article is here wanting, 
because the will of God comprehends more than eivyapcoreiv: this is only 
one requirement among many. Otherwise Schott, who finds in 6éAnpa Gov 
the divine decree of salvation indicated. According to him, the meaning 
is: “ Huc pertinet sive hoc secum fert decretum divinum (de vobis cap- 
tum, itemque in Christo positum), ut gratias deo pro omnibus agere 
debeatis. Vos enim, huic servatori addictos, latere amplius non potest, 
quaecunque Christianis acciderint, deo volente, eorum saluti consulere 
aeternae, Rom. viii. 28 ff.” But (1) the éoriv to be supplied cannot denote: 
huc pertinet or hoc secum fert; (2) the article ré would not be wanting 
either before éAnua or before év XpiorG; (3) the reason alleged is intro- 
duced contrary to the context, and so much the more arbitrarily, as rovro 
yap 0éAnua x.t.A. 18 a dependent clause which is founded on the preceding, 
not an independent point which requires a reason of its own. Storr also 
takes 3éAnua as the decree of redemption, but he understands rotro in the 
sense of rowiro, which is contrary to the Greek.—iv Xpwr¢ 'Incov] Christ 


1Theophylact: Thy dddy ederfe rou act xaipay, alre ent wacw os cuugepdvras ovpfaivovm, 
Thy adiaAerroy mpocevxny Kai evxapiotiaw 6 «wpddyAov, ors xapay éfar Scyvech. 
yap OccGeis durrciy rye ep Kai evxapioreiy 


CHAP. V. 17-21. 559 
is, as it were, the vehicle of this requirement, inasmuch as it is made 
known through Him. 

Ver. 19. Comp. Noesselt, in locum P. ap. 1 Thess. v. 19-22 disputatio 
(Rrercit. p. 255 ff.).—Lasch, de sententia atque ratione verborum Pauli, révra 
62 doxtu., rd xaddv xar., 1 Thess. v. 19-22, Lips. 1884—The prayer of the 
Christian is an outflow of the Holy Spirit dwelling and working in him; 
_ comp. Rom. viii. 16, 26. Accordingly the new admonition, ver. 19, is united 
in a natural manner to the exhortations, vv. 17, 18. Schrader’s view 
requires no contradiction. He, indeed, finds in this admonition a genuine 
Pauline reminiscence ; but also an objection against the composition of this 
Epistle by Paul, because “if such an admonition had been necessary for 
the Thessalonians, itis not elsewhere noticed in the whole Epistle.”—ra 
mveipa] is the Holy Spirit, and that as the source of extraordinary gifts— 
speaking with tongues, prophecy, etc., as they are more fully described in 
1 Cor. xii. 7 ff. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius will have ré 
mveipa to indicate either spiritual] illumination which fits us for the exer- 
cise of Christian virtues, but may be lost by immoral living,! or specially 
prophecy (so also Michaelis and others). Both are erroneous on account 
of ver. 20.—p9 oBivre] extinguish not, quench not. -The rvevya is conceived 
as a flame, whilst there is particular reference to the strained and inspired 
speech in which those who were seized by the Spirit expressed themselves.” 

Ver. 20. Paul passes from the genus to a species.—zpog7reia] denotes 
prophetic discourse. Its nature consisted not so much in the prediction 
of future events, although that was not excluded, as in energetic, soul- 
captivating, and intelligent expression of what was directly communi- 
cated by the Holy Ghost to the speaker for the edification and moral ele- 
vation of the church. See Meyer on Acts xi. 27; Rickert on 1 Cor. p. 
448 f.; Fritzsche on Rom. xii. 6. The Thessalonians were not to despise 
these prophetic utterances ; they were rather to value them as a form of 
the revelation of the Holy Spirit; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5. The undervaluing 
of the gifts of the Spirit, of which some members of the church must at 
least have been guilty, had its reason probably in their abuse, whilst partly 
deceivers who pursued impure designs under the pretext of having 
receiyed divine revelations, and partly self-deceivers who considered the 
deceptions of their own fancy as divine suggestions, appeared (see 2 Thess. 
ii. 2), and thus spiritual gifts in general might have been brought into dis- 
credit among discerning and calmer characters. 

Ver. 21. The apostle therefore adds to the prescription, to prove all 
things, whether they have their origin from God or not, and to retain the 
good.—rarra dé] but all things, namely, what is brought forward in inspired 


1Similarly Noesselt: wrevua denotes “vim 
divinam, Christianis propriam, h. e. quidquid 
rerum divinarum, deo ita providente, cogno- 
vissent.” 

20n the figurative expression, comp. Galen. 
ad Pison. de Ther. i. 17 (Opp. T. xiii. p. 956, 
Lut. Par. 1639 fol.): éwi 52 trav wadiey waytd- 


wact Set dvAdrrecOa: Td Pdppuaxoy ueicow ydp 
eon avris ris Suvduews Td padyeOos Tov dap- 
pdxov cai dcadver pading Td GHua Kai Td eudu- 
Tov svevua raxdws oBéyyvowy, wowep by Kal THY 
Auxvaiay ¢PAdya 7d eAatov, Tov wupds wAdoy 
yevdpevoy, cixdAws amocBévyvecy,. 


556 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


discourse.~—doxzudfere] Paul expresses the same requirement of testing in 
1 Cor. xiv. 29, and according to 1 Cor. xii. 10 there was a peculiar gift of 
testing spirits, the didxpuig mvevzérov. That, moreover, this testing can 
only proceed from those who are themselves illuminated by the Holy 
Spirit was evident to the apostle. The fundamental principle of ration- 
alism, that the reason as such is the judge of revelation, is not contained 
in these words.—rd xadév] the good, namely, that is found in the zédvra. 
Hofmann arbitrarily thinks that “the good generally” is meant, which 
the Thessalonians “as Christians already have, and do not now merely 
seek or expect.” 

Ver. 22. With ver. 22 the discourse again reverts to what is general, 
whilst the requirement to hold fast that which is good in the discourses of 
the inspired very naturally required the transition to the further require- 
ment to keep at a distance from every kind of evil, accordingly also from 
that which was perhaps intermixed in these discourses. Usually ver. 22 
is referred exclusively to the discourses of the inspired, so that méyra de 
doxiualere contains the chief point which is then unfolded according to its 
two sides, first positively (rd xajdv xaréyere), and then negatively (ver. 22). 
But ad ravri¢ eidovg rovnpov is against this view: amd rov movypov would 
require to have been written. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Drusius, Pisca- 
tor, Grotius, Calixt, Calovius, Seb. Schmid, Michaelis, and others find in 
ver. 22 the meaning: avoid all evil appearance. But (1) eidoc never signifies 
appearance. (2) A distorted thought would arise. For as the apostle has 
required the holding fast not that which has the appearance of good, but 
that which is actually good; so also in ver. 22, on account of the close 
reference of zovnpov to the preceding xa/év, the discourse must also be of 
an abstinence from that which is actually evil. (8) To preserve oneself 
from all appearance of evil is not within the power of man.—Eldoc denotes 
very often the particular kind of a class (the species of a genus).'—zovnpov] 
is not to be taken, with Bengel, Pelt, Schott, and others, as an adjective (ab 
omni mala specie), but as a substantive (ab omni specie mali). What 
Bengel, Schott and Lasch object against this meaning, that the article rot 
would be required before rovypoi, would be correct if the discourse were 
specially of the zovypéy contained in the rdvra, ver. 21; but is erroneous, 
as rovpov is taken in abstract generality. See Kihner, II. pp. 129, 141. 
Comp. Heb. v. 14; Joseph. Ant. vii. 4. 2: mav eldog péAoue; ibid. x. 3.1: 
wav eldog movyptac.—Ver. 22, as well as ver. 21, is peculiarly interpreted by 
Hansel (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1836, Part 1, p. 170 ff.) Vv. 21, 22 are 
repeatedly cited by Cyril Alexandrinus as an expression of the Apostle 
Paul, in such a manner that with this citation, and indeed as its contents, 
the words yiveofe déxuor tparefirac are united. Also these words are else- 
where frequently by the Fathers united with our passage, being quoted 

1Comp. Porphyry, tsagoge de quingue vocibus oxhparos el8os. ‘ 
2: Adyeras 88 cl80¢ nal 1d Uwd 7d awodsobey * Baumgarten-Crusius accedes to the inter- 
yévos’ xaW 8 cidBapev Adyewy TOY ty dvOpwwow _ pretation of Hansel; Koch strangely rejects 


el8os rot Céov, yévous Svrog red ddou' ro 8 it for ver. 22, but adopts it for ver. 23. 
Acvady rod xpwmaros el80s° 1d 82 rpiywvor Tov 


OHAP. Vv. 22, 23. 557 


sometimes as a saying of Christ, sometimes generally as a say- 
ing of Scripture, and sometimes specially as a saying of the 
Apostle Paul." On this Hansel supports his opinion. He regards 
the words yiveofe déxiuoe tparefira: as a saying of Christ, and thinks 
that this dictum éypagov of the Lord was in the mind of the Apostle Paul, 
and in consequence of this the expressions in vv. 21, 22 were selected by 
him, which were usual in the money terms employed by antiquity. So 
that the sense would be: “Act as experienced exchangers; everything 
which is presented to you as good coin, that test; preserve the good coin 
(what actually is divine truth), but guard against every false coin (reject 
all false doctrine).” But evidently only the expression doxeyéfere was the 
occasion for the Fathers uniting the dictum dypagov of Christ, handed 
down by tradition, with our passage. Paul, on the contrary, could not 
have thought of it, even supposing it to have been known to him. For 
although the verb Jdoxudfecv would well suit, if otherwise the refer- 
ence was to the figure of exchangers, yet in an actual reference to the 
same the words 1d xaddv eldog xaréyere, awd dé rov rovnpod antyeode would 
have been written. Lastly, add to this that eldoc cannot import in itself a 
coin, vouicuaroc must be added, or money must have been spoken of in what 
goes before. 

Ver. 23. If what the apostle requires in ver. 22 is to be actually realized, 
God’s assistance must supervene. Accordingly, this benediction is fitly 
added to the preceding.—airac d2 6 Gedc rag eiptfunc] the God of peace Him- 
self; an emphatic contrast to the efforts of man.—é Ged¢ ric eiptunc] the 
God of peace, i.e. who communicates Christian peace. Neither the con- 
nection with ver. 22 nor the contents of the benediction itself will permit 
us to understand eip#vy of harmony. To refer to eipyvetere, ver. 13, for this 
meaning is far-fetched.—dAoreAgc] here only in the N. T. spoken of what 
is perfect, to which nothing belonging to its nature is wanting. Jerome, 
ad Hedib. 12, Ambrosiaster. Koppe, Pelt, and others understand é/oreAzic¢ 
in an ethical sense, as an accusative of result: “so that ye be entire, that 
is, pure and blameless.” But it is better, on account of what follows, to 
take dAoredeic as an adverb of quantity, uniting it closely with inéc, and 
finding the whole personality of the Thessalonians denoted as if the simple 
bAocue were written: “in your entire extent, through and through.”—«ai 
dAdxAnpov . . . Thp79ein} a fuller repetition of the wish already expressed. 
—xai} and indeed.—d2bxAnpoc] means, as dAoreAge, perfectly, consisting of all 
its parts. dAdéxAnpov refers not only to rd rvevya, although it is governed by 
it, as the nearest noun, in respect of its gender, but also to yuxf and oazc. 
Comp. Winer, p. 490 [E. T.527]. The totality of man is here divided into 
three parts: spirit, soul, and body. We are not to assume that this 
trichotomy has a purely rhetorical signification, as elsewhere Paul also 
definitely distinguishes rveipa and yuyq7 (1 Cor. ii. 14, 15, xv. 44, 46). The 


18ee Suicer, Thesaurus, II. p. 1281 ff. (Sacr, N. T. scriptoribus recepta in 2. Opusc. theol., 
Observ. p. 140 ff.); Fabricius, Cod. Apoer.N.T. —Berol. 1834, p. 148 ff.; Messner, die Lehre der 
I. p. 330 ff, III. p. 524. Apostel, Leips. 1856, p. 207. 

28ee Olshausen, de naturae hum. trichotomia 


558 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


twofold division, which elsewhere occurs with Paul (1 Cor. vii. 84; 2 Cor. 
vii. 1), is a popular form of representation. The origin of the trichotomy is 
Platonic; but Paul has it not from the writings of Plato and his scholars, 
but from the current language of society, into which it had passed from 
the narrow circle of the schools.—veiya denotes the higher and purely 
spiritual side of the inner life, what is elsewhere called by Paul vic 
(reason); vz is the lower side, which comes in contact with the region 
of the senses. The spirit is preserved blameless in its totality at the 
advent, i. e. so that it approves itself blameless at the advent (apuéumruc is a 
more exact definition of 6AéxAnpov rnpzdein), when the voice of truth always 
rules in it; the soul, when it strives against all the charms of the senses; 
and, lastly, the body, when it is not abused as the instrument of shameful 
actions.! | 

Ver. 24. Paul knows that he does not implore God in vain. For God is 
faithful; He keeps what He promises; if He has called the Thessalonians 
to a participation in His kingdom, He will preserve them pure and fault- 
less even to its commencement.—zoréc] comp. 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Cor. i. 9, 
x. 18. Td miorde avri rod aAyd4c, Theodoret.—é xadav ipuae] not equivalent 
to 6 xadtoag dpac (Koppe and others), but the present participle used as a 
substantive, and therefore without regard to time: your Caller. See 
Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 353].—8¢ xa? rocgoec] who also will perform tt, sc. 1d 
apeymrog apace tnpy Siva. 

Vv. 25-27. Concluding exhortations of the Epistle. 

Ver. 25. Comp. Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 1— 
rept juov| for us, namely, that our apostolic work may be successful. 

Ver. 26. 'Aordcaode rove adeApotc mévrac] That here individuals’ are 
exhorted to salute the other members of the church, whilst in the parallel 
passages, Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xili. 12, it is aoxdaacSe aAAg- 
dove, ig a proof that this Epistle was to be received by the rulers of the 
church. (So also Phil. iv. 21.) By them it was to be read to the 
assembled church (ver. 27). Erroneously, because in contradiction with 
the entire character of the Epistle, Schrader infers from rove adeAgods 
névrag that “the writer of the Epistle wished to impart to it a general des- 
tination.”—év gAgjuare dyiy] with a holy kiss. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 12; Rom. xvi. 16; also 1 Pet. v. 14 (giAnya aydmnc); Constit. ap. ii. 57 
(rd év xupiy giAnua); Tertullian, de orat. 14 (osculum pacis). The brotherly 
kiss, the usual salutation of Christians, proceeded from the custom of 
antiquity, particularly in the East, to unite a salutation with a kiss. But 
Paul calls it ay:ov, as a symbol of the holy Christian fellowship. In the 
Greek church it is still used at Easter. 


1 According to Schrader, ver. 23 contains an 


blemish.” But the discourse is not of the holy 
un-Pauline thought, because when Paul dis- 


Divine Spirit which rules in man, but of a part 


tinguishes the yv x7 from the spirit, the latter 
is considered as something “divine,” as 
“unutterably good,” as “ eternally opposed to 
every perversity.” Paul, accordingly, could 
not have assumed, “ besides the soul in man, 
a mutable spirit which must be preserved from 


of man, himself, of the vovs; but the vovs may 
fall into parorérys (Eph. iv. 17), may be a8dxcposg 
(Rom. i. 28), wencacpévos (Tit. i. 15), carep@ap- 
pévos (2 Tim. iii. 8), ete. 

*Contrary to the sense, Hofmann, whom 
Riggenbach follows, makes the whole church, 


CHAP. v. 24—28. 559 


Ver. 27. This command has not its reason in any distrust of the rulers 
of the church ; nor, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact think, 
in the yearning love of the apostle, who, in compensation of his bodily 
absence, wished this letter read to all; nor, as Hofmann supposes, in the 
anxiety of the apostle lest they should not properly value a mere epistle 
which he sent, instead of coming in person to Thessalonica: but simply 
because Paul regarded the contents of his Epistle of tmportance for all 
without exception. How, moreover, Schrader can infer from ver. 27 that 
the composition of the Epistle belongs to a time when already a clerus 
presided in the churches, surpasses comprehension. Completely ground- 
less and untenable is also Baur’s opinion (p. 491), that “the admonition 
so emphatically given in 1 Thess. v. 27 was written from the opinions of 
a time which no longer saw in the apostolic Epistles the natural means of 
spiritual communication, but regarded them as sacred objects, to which 
due reverence was to be shown by making their contents known as accu- 
rately as possible, particularly by public reading. How could the apostle 
himself have judged it necessary so solemnly to adjure the churches, to 
which his Epistles were directed, not to leave them unread? An author 
could only say this who did not write from the natural pressure of exist- 
ing circumstances, but in writing placed himself in an imagined situation, 
and sought to vindicate for his pretended apostolic Epistle the considera- 
tion which the apostolic Epistles received in the practice of a later age.” 
But does the author adjure the church to leave his Epistle not unread? 
What a mighty difference is there between such a command and his 
urgent desire that the contents of the Epistle should be made known to all 
the members of the church! Ifthe former were objectionable, the latter 
is natural and unobjectionable. And further, how is it possible that ver. 
27 is the reflex of a time in which the apostolic Epistles were valued as 
sacred objects, and to which due honor must be paid by public reading, 
since avayvwofjva is in the aorist, and accordingly a single and exclusive 
act of reading is referred to! And what a wrong method would the post- 
apostolic author have employed to secure for his letter the consideration 
of an apostolic Epistle, when he did not select the infinitive of the present, 
and did not fail to add raocw!—rdv xbpiov] Comp. Mark v. 7: Acts xix. 18; 
LXX. Gen. xxiv. 3.\—davaywoodiva:] that tt be read to (Luke iv. 16; 2 Cor. 
iii. 15; Col. iv. 16), not that it be read by. Incorrectly also Michaelis, 
appealing to 2 Thess. ii. 2 (!): there is here intended the recognition of the 
Epistle as a genuine Pauline Epistle, by means of a conclusion added by 
his own hand.—rjw énoroAgv] comp. Rom. xvi. 22; Col. iv. 16.—zaow roi¢ 
adeAgoic| to the whole of the brethren, sc. in Thessalonica; not also in all 
Macedonia (Bengel, Flatt); still less also in neighboring Asia (Grotius), or 
even the churches of all Christendom (Seb. Schmid). 

Ver. 28. Paul concludes with the usual benediction —+} xépu tov xvplov 
hu. I. Xp.] See Meyer on Gal. i. 6.—pef? ipov] se. ei7. 


the a8eAgoi wdvres, be addressed in dowe- 1See Matthiae, p. 756. On the Greek idiom 
gao@e; thus the church is to salute itself. évopxigw, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 360 ff. 


560. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


Nores BY AMERICAN EDITOR. 
LVI. Vv. 1-11. 


(a) These verses are evidently connected with iv. 18-18, but they form a new 
paragraph, and, as they move forward, the thought turns more and more away 
from the direct line of the former passage, and towards exhortation to that moral 
life which is in accordance with their eternal hopes.—(b) The words xypéuor xai xacpoi 
(ver. 1) are the same with those found in Acts i. 7, where Jesus declares that the 
time of the end is reserved by God the Father within His own knowledge. They 
have, doubtless, a similar reference here. Two points may here be noticed: (1) 
that, in iv. 13-18, not the time, but only certain circumstances connected 
with the Parousia, are set forth; and (2) that in this passage, not the time, but 
the suddenness of the coming of the day, is mentioned. The reason why they did 
not need to have him write to them on this matter of the time, was not because 
they already knew it, but because they knew that, when it should come, the day 
would come asa thief in the night. The suggestions and exhortations which 
follow, however, seem toimply that both he and they looked for it as near at hand, 
though uncertain as to its exact date.—(c) Ver. 3 stands in a causal relation to 
ver. 2, explaining and justifying the expression as a thief in the night. It is intro- 
duced, however, abruptly and without any causal particle. yép of T. R. is 
undoubtedly to be rejected.—(d) The word oxére: (ver. 4) is a transitional word 
in the development of the thought of the passage. Its connection with what goes 
before seems to be this :—that they are not in that darkness of the night season, 
when the thief surprises the sleeper. The connection with what follows is in the 
figurative use of darkness as applied to the evil moral condition. The full 
meaning of ovx éoré év oxdérec is, therefore: you are not in that evil moral condi- 
tion in which the day can come upon you with terrible surprise. The positive 
side of this idea is then presented in ver. 5, with a repeated setting forth of the 
negative also—éouév being in the latter substituted for gore of the former, and 
thus including with the readers the Apostle himself. By this means, the hortatory 
verses 6 ff. are easily introduced.—(e) The turn of the thought to the new figure 
of armor belongs to the hortatory part of the passage, but the limitation to the 
breastplate and helmet (i. e. defensive armor) is probably connected with the idea 
of guarding against sudden surprise, and of watching.—(f) The only two places 
in the N. T. where the word mepixegadaia is used are ver. 8 and Eph. vi.17. In 
the latter verse, the helmet is spoken of as salvation ; here, as the hope of salva- 
tion. The expression here used seems to be the more exact one—(g) The refer- 
ence of yp7yopGuev and xadebduyev, of ver. 10, to life and death is undoubtedly 
correct. Whether the words are intended simply to express an idea similar to 
that of Rom. xiv. 8—that we may be the Lord’s, whether we live or die; or 
whether the reference is to the day of the Lord—that, whether we are among the 
living or the dead at that time, we may thereafter live with Him, is somewhat 
doubtful. It does not appear necessary to understand the words in the latter way. 
That view is favored, however, by the prominence in the passage of the day of 
the Lord; by the correspondence of (fowuev ctv airé, with éodueda civ are of 
iv.17; and perhaps by the use of auc, in both verses, in the sense of “all together.” 
This sense of dua seems probable in v. 10, but somewhat more doubtful in iv. 17. 
—(h) If wapaxadeire is taken as meaning comfort (as Liinem. takes it), this word 


NOTES. 561 


would favor the understanding of the 10th verse as referring to the time of the 
Parousia. This sense of the verb gives an appropriate close to the whole passage 
iv. 13—v. 11, and, as it corresponds with the meaning in iv. 18, it is quite prob- 
ably to be adopted. 


| LVI. Vv. 12-24. 


(a) The miscellaneous exhortations which are now introduced and with which 
the Epistle closes are, like all that precedes, of a character adapted to a friendly 
letter and to a church in its earliest history. The exhortations are also, as we 
might naturally anticipate in such a letter, given very briefly. In connection with 
them we may observe: (1) That they move in the first section, vv. 12-15, in a 
natural order,—to esteem and love their church leaders and teachers; to be at 
peace among themselves; in order to this end, to treat each class according to their 
needs; to have no spirit of revenge, but seek moral good for all. (2) That the 
second section (vv. 16-18) corresponds with Phil. iv. 4,6. The earliest exhorta- 
tion addressed to the churches by the Apostle was, thus, the same with the latest— 
to rejoice always, to pray always, to give thanks always and in everything. (3) 
That the third section (vv. 19-22) opens with an apparent reference to the remark- 
able spiritual gifts (comp. 1 Cor. xiv.), but closes with what is more general—the 
transition being possibly through ‘waévra doxiudCere, tr. xad. xatéy. which may take 
hold upon both what precedes and what follows.—(b) eldovg (ver. 22) undoubtedly 
means form, not appearance, and the latter meaning should hardly have been recog- 
nized in the margin of R. V. The points mentioned by Liinem. are decisive with 
respect to this word.—(c) The allusion to the Parousia in ver. 23—in the closing 
prayer of the Epistle, and almost its closing sentence—is very striking, in connec- 
tion with what has been already noticed in earlier parts of the letter, as showing 
how prominent this subject was in the thoughts of the readers and the writer at 
this time. It was the subject which, as a matter of inquiry and discussion, most 
interested the mind of the church, 





THE 


SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


INTRODUCTION. 
SEC. 1—OCCASION, DESIGN, CONTENTS. 


AUL, after having sent away his first Epistle, received fur- 
ther information concerning the state of the Thessalonian 
church. The church had actively progressed on the path 
of Christianity; their faith had been confirmed; their 

brotherly love had gained in extent and intensity; and _ their 

enduring stedfastness under persecution, which had broken out 
afresh, had been anew gloriously displayed (i. 3, 4). But along 
with this the thought of the advent had given rise to new 
disquietude and perplexity. The question concerning this Christian 
article of faith had advanced another stage. The former anxiety concern- 
ing the fate of their Christian friends who were already asleep at the time 
of the commencement of the advent had disappeared; on this point the 
instructions of the apostle had imparted complete consolation. But the 
opinion now prevailed, that the advent of the Lord was immediately at 
hand, that it might daily, hourly be expected. Accordingly, on the one 
hand fear and consternation, and on the other hand an impatient and 
fanatical longing for the instant when by the coming of the Lord the 
kingdom of God would be completed, had taken possession of their spirits; 
and it was no wonder that in consequence of this the unsteadiness and 
excitement, which at an earlier period had afflicted the church, and its 
result, the neglect of their worldly business, had increased to an alarming 
extent. This opinion, that the commencement of the advent was close 
at hand, had seized upon them the more readily, as men had arisen 
among them who maintained that they had received divine revelations 
concerning it, and they had even proceeded so far as to forge an epistle in 
the name of the apostle, in order by its contents to establish the truth of 


that doctrine (ii. 2). An appeal was also made to the alleged oral state- 
563 

















564 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


ment of the apostle (ii. 2), and it is not inconceivable that even the expla- 
nations which the genuine Epistle of the apostle contained concerning the 
advent may have promoted that view. It is true that there nothing is 
expressly said concerning the immediateness of the advent, but on the 
one hand it is described as sudden and unexpected (1 Thess. v. 2, 4), and 
on the other hand it is so characterized as if Paul himself, and his con- 
temporaries, might hope still to survive (1 Thess. iv. 15, 17). 

Such was the state of matters which gave occasion for the composition 
of the second Epistle. Its design is threefold. First, The apostle wished 
—and this is the chief point—to oppose the disturbing and exciting error 
as if the advent of Christ was even at the door, by further instructions. 
Secondly, He wished strongly and emphatically to dissuade from that 
unsettled, disorderly, and idle disposition into which the church had 
fallen. Thirdly, He wished by a laudatory recognition of their progres- 
sive goodness to encourage them to stedfast perseverance. 

The Epistle is divided, according to its contents, after a salutation (i. 1, 2) 
and introduction (i. 3-12), into a dogmatic (ii. 1-12) and a hortative por- 
tion (ii. 18-111. 15). In the introduction the apostle thanks God for the 
great increase of the church in faith and love, praises their endurance 
under fresh persecutions, comforts them with the recompense to be 
expected at the coming of Christ, and testifies that, the progress and com- 
pletion of the Thessalonians in Christianity was the constant object of 
his prayer. In the dogmatic portion, for the refutation of the fancy that 
the day of the Lord already dawns, the apostle directs attention to the 
historical pre-conditions of ite commencement. Christ cannot return 
until the power of evil, which certainly already begins to develop itself, 
is consolidated and has attained to its maximum by the appearance of 
Antichrist. Lastly, In the hortative portion Paul exhorts his readers to 
hold fast to the Christianity delivered to them (ii. 18-17), claims their 
prayers for his apostolic work (iii. 1 ff.), earnestly and decidedly warns 
them against unsteadiness and idleness (iii. 6-15), and then the Epistle is 
closed with a salutation by his own hand, and a twofold benediction (iii. 
16-18). 


SEC. 2—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 


Interpreters and chronologists agree that this so-called Second Epistle 
was composed shortly after the First, with the exceptions of Grotius, 
Ewald (Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft. G6tt. 1851, p. 250; Die Sendschreiben des 
Ap. Paulus, Gott. 1857, p. 17; Geschichte des apost. Zeitalters, GOtt. 1858, p. 
455; Jahrb. d. bibl. Wiss., Gott. 1860, p. 241), Baur (Theol. Jahrb., Tiib. 





INTRODUCTION. 565 


1855, 2, p. 165), Laurent (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1864, 8, p. 497 ff.; Neutest. 
Stud., Gotha 1866, p. 49 ff.), A. B. van der Vriess (De beide brieven aan de 
Thessalonicensen, historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar hunnen vorsprung, Leyden, 
1865), and Davidson (An introduction to the study of the New Testament, 
London, 1868, vol. I. p. 30 ff), who hold that the Second Epistle was the 
first composed. This view has nothing for it, but much against it. Grotius 
relies chiefly on the following reason : that in iii. 17 a mark is given by 
which the genuineness of the Epistles of Paul may be recognized, but 
such a mark belongs properly to the first Epistle, not to a second ; and 
that ii. 1-12 is to be referred to the Emperor Caius Caligula. But there 
is not the slightest reason for the reference of ii. 1-12 to Caligula (see on 
passage), entirely apart from the fact that on such an assumption, as 
Caligula was already dead in the beginning of the year 41 after Christ, the 
Epistle must have been composed more than ten years before Paul, 
according to the narrative of the Acts, arrived at Thessalonica! The 
mark of authenticity in 2 Thess. iii. 17 was not required until, as we learn 
from ii. 2, attempts had occurred to forge epistles in the name of the 
apostle. According to Ewald,! the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 
was placed after the First “on account of its brevity.” He thinks that it 
is manifestly a first Epistle written to a church which Paul had shortly 
before founded. It has indeed been attempted to show that, according to 
ii. 2, Paul had previously written an epistle to the church; but this 
might easily have been possible in the number of letters which the apos- 
tle had indisputably already then written; on the other hand, however, 
Paul for the first time directs them in this Epistle to give heed to his act- 
ually genuine letters to them as to his living word (ii. 15, iii. 17). Further, 
with regard to the advent, the error as if it were close at hand—and this, 
according to the existing state of matters and of doctrine generally, 
would be the first error which would have arisen—had then broken 
out in the church, which was the chief occasion of this Epistle. The 
very correction of it might easily have given rise to a second error, that 
the fate of the many who had died previously was sad, which the fol- 
lowing Epistle correcta (1 Thess. iv. 13 ff.). Also it would not at that 
time have been necessary to send Timotheus to the church, in order to 


1 Baur has not entered upon the reasons of § dependent on the First, as marks of an oppo- 
his subsequent opinion. He judged differ- site relationship. Laurent in all essentials 
ently in his Paulus der Ap. Jesu Christi, p. agrees with Ewald. The peculiarity of his 
498. He only remarks that there is no view is so manifestly erroneous, that it does 
difficulty (1) in considering those passages in not need a special refutation. 
which the Second Epistle is regarded ss 


566 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


correct the increasing disorders within it; this would only happen in the 
interval between this and the larger Epistle, which might be about four 
or six months.’ Lastly, 1 Thess. iv. 10, 11 contains a reference to 2 Thess. 
iii. 6-11. Accordingly Ewald makes the Second Epistle to the Thessalo- 
nians to have been composed during the residence of Paul at Berea, suc- 
ceeding his residence at Thessalonica. 

But that in the smaller compass of the Second Epistle a definite reason 
is to be sought for its position after the First, is historically completely 
undemonstrable, and not even probable, because—just as with the Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians—the internal relation of the lesser Epistle to 
the greater necessarily required that position. Ewald’s assertion, that our 
Second Epistle manifestly declares itself to be a first Epistle written by 
Paul to a church recently founded, is thoroughly erroneous. On the con- 
trary, our Second Epistle undoubtedly and evidently refers back to the 
First, serves for its completion, and makes known a progress from an 
earlier condition to one partially more advanced. If the First Epistle 
describes the eager desire of salvation with which the Thessalonians 
received the publication of the gospel, and dwells in vivid and detailed 
recollection of the facts of their conversion belonging to the immediate 
past,—contents which are suitable only for the Epistle composed first 
according to time; in the Second Epistle, i. 3 ff., mention is made of a 
blessed progress in their Christian life. If in the First Epistle the proz- 
imity of the advent is presupposed without anticipation of a possible mis- 
understanding, in the Second Epistle the correction and the further 
explanation in respect of this truth was necessary, namely, that the 
advent was not to be expected in the tmmediate present. So also the 
exhortation to a quiet and industrious life, which was already contained 
in the First Epistle, was more strongly and categorically expressed in the 
Second. Add to this, that the words xai judy éxiowaywyic én’ airév,2 Thess. 
ii. 1, are apparently to be referred to 1 Thess. iv. 17; whereas to obtain, 
with Ewald, a reference in 1 Thess. iv. 10,11, to 2 Thess. iii. 6-16, you 
must first have recourse to an ungrammatical and in the highest degree 
unnatural construction (see commentary on 1 Thess. iv, 10, p. 119). 


10therwise Baur. According to him, the 
larger Epistle was not written shortly after 
the lesser. On the supposition of the authen- 
ticity of the Epistle, taking into consider- 
ation the church of Thessalonica scarcely 
founded, and the Epistle of the apostle 
written only a few months after its founding, 


how many «cexotunudvovs—already deceased 
members of the church—could there be? 
The question as regards the deceased Chria- 
tians was naturally only then (?) an object of 
lively interest the greater the number of the 
dead, perhaps after a whole generation had 


passed away from the midst of Christendom. 





INTRODUCTION. 567 


Lastly, over and above, it follows from ii. 15 that Paul before our Second 
Epistle had already sent another letter to the Thessalonians; and thus to 
maintain that the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians manifestly shows 
itself as a first epistle of Paul to a church recently founded, is in contra- 
diction with the apostle’s own testimony. To explain the epistle to the 
Thessalonians preceding our Second Epistle as not identical with our First 
Epistle, but as having been lost, would be in the controverted circum- 
stances of the case a mere shift justified by nothing. Moreover, it is not 
even correct that the apostle in 2 Thess. ii. 15 “ for the first time directed 
the church to give heed to his genuine letters written to them as to his 
living word.” For only the exhortation is there given to hold fast the 
instructions in Christianity, which Paul had already at an earlier period 
given to his readers both orally and in an epistle. A direction how to 
recognize the genuineness of epistles written at a later period to the 
Thessalonians only follows from iii.17. But this notice has in the fact 
recorded in 2 Thess. ii. 2 its sufficient explanation. Further, as regards 
the eschatological explanations in both Epistles, the possibility of such a 
development as Ewald assumes is not to be denied, but its necessity is by 
no means to be proved. The actual fact that individual instances of 
death—for there is no mention “of many dying before the advent ’’—had 
occurred within the church might very well form the point of departure 
for the eschatological discussions of the apostle; and then to it the refu- 
tation of the error, that the advent was in the immediate present, might 
be added, as the later form of error, especially as the apostle’s own expres- 
sions in 1 Thess. v. 2,3 were so framed that they might have contributed to 
the origin of that error. Lastly, “ increasing disorders ” within the church 
are by no means supposed in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
Timotheus was not sent to Thessalonica “to correct increasing disorders,”’ 
but to exhort the Thessalonians to stedfastness in persecution. Comp. 1 
Thess. ii. 1 ff. But even supposing that the “ correction of increasing 
disorders ” was the reason for the mission of Timotheus, yet nothing can 
be inferred from this regarding the priority of the one Epistle to the 
other. For with the same truth with which it might be said it was not yet 
necessary to send Timotheus to the church, it might be affirmed that it 
was no longer necessary to send him thither. 

The following reasons prove that the Second Epistle was composed not 
long after the sending away of the First. Silas and Timotheus are still in 
the company of the apostle (i. 1), but the Acts of the Apostles at least 
never inform us that after Paul left Corinth (Acts_xviii. 18) these two 





568 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


apostolic assistants were again together with him. We find Timotheus 
again in the apostle’s company, first at Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), whilst 
there is no further mention of Silas in the Acts of the Apostles after his 
Corinthian residence. Besides, the relations and wants of the church are 
throughout analogous to those which are presupposed in the First Epistle. 
The same circle of thought occupies the apostle; similar instructions, 
similar praises, similar exhortations, warnings, and wishes are found 
throughout in both Epistles. It is accordingly to be assumed that also 
the Second Epistle was composed during the first residence of the apostle at 
Corinth, but, according to iil. 2, at a time when he had already suffered 
hostility on the part of the Jews, and, according to i. 4 (raic éxxAnoiarc, 
comp. 1 Cor. i. 2;1 2 Cor. ii. 1; Rom. xvi. 1), when branch churches had 
already been founded from Corinth—probably at the commencement of 
the year 54. 


SEC. 3—GENUINENESS. 


With respect to the ezternal attestation of Christian antiquity, the 
authenticity of the Epistle is completely unassailable. Polyc. ad Phil. 11 
fin.; Just. Mart. dial. c. Tryph. Col. 1686, p. 386 E, p. 250 A; Iren. adv. 
Haer. iii. 7.2; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. p. 554, ed. Sylb.; Tertull. de resurr. 
carn. c. xxiv,; Can. Murat., Peschito, Marcion, etc. Doubts from internal 
grounds did not arise until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The 
first who objected to the Epistle was Christian Schmidt. In his Bibliothek 
Jf. Krittk und Exegese des N. T., Hadamar 1801, vol. IT. p. 380 ff., he con- 
tests the genuineness of 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, and then in his Pinleit tn’s N.T., 
Giess. 1804, Part 2, p. 256 f., he proceeds to call in question the authenti- 
city of the whole Epistle. De Wette, in the earlier editions of his Intro- 
duction to the New Testament, assented to the adduced objections; but 
latterly, in the first edition of his Commentary to the Thessalonian Epis- 
tles, in the year 1841, and in the fourth edition of his Introduction to the 
New Testament (1842), he withdrew them. See against these objections, 
Heydenreich in the Neuen krit. Journal der theol. Literatur, by Winer and 





1The words ody séew eu éwixedAoupdvers 
«.7.d.,1 Cor. L 2,1 take as a continuation of 
the address of the Epistle, avrwy re xai nuow 
as dependent on dy sxavri réwy, and ¢v rayni 
tére a6 Closely connected with rod «upiov 
Huey ‘Invos Xp., “ Jesue Christ who is our (ee. 
Christians’) Lord in every place, both in theirs 
and ours.” Only with this explanation— 
which is in itself so simple and unforced that 


it is marvellous that it is not to be found in 
any interpretation—the addition, otherwise 
entirely inexplicable, éy wavri tory, avrav 
Te nai yor, receives its full import and pro- 
priety, whilst the words obtain a suitable 
reference to the Corinthian factions, by 
means of which Christ, who is everywhere 
the only and the same Lord of Christianity, 
is divided ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 18. 


INTRODUCTION. 569 


Engelhardt, Sulzb. 1828, vol. viii. p. 129 ff; Guerike, Beitr. sur héstorisch 
krit, Hinl.in’s N. T., Halle 1828, p. 92 ff.; Hemsen, der Ap. Paulus, Gott. 
1880, p. 175 ff; and especially Reiche, atuthentiae posterioris ad Theas. 
epistolae vindiciae, Gott. 1829. 

The following reasons are chiefly insisted on :—1. The Second Epistle 
contradicts the First, inasmuch as it disputes the opinion of the nearness 
of the advent which is presupposed in the First Epistle. But the Second 
Epistle does not dispute that opinion,—it rather presupposes it,—whilst 
only the view of the directly #mmediaie nearness of the advent is contested 
as erroneous. 2. When the author lays down, in iii. 17,a mark of authen- 
ticity for the Pauline Epistles in general, which yet is found neither in 
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians nor elsewhere, he seems thereby to 
wish to cast suspicions on the First Epistle as un-Pauline. But it is 
entirely a mistake to find in iii. 17 a mark which Paul would affix to aH 
his Epistles generally ; the meaning of these words can only be, that in all 
those epistles which he would afterwards write to the Thessalonians he 
would add a salutation by his own hand as an attestation of genuineness. 
3. The doctrine of Antichrist, ii. 3 ff, is un-Pauline; it points to a Mon- 
tanist as the author. But this idea is by no means peculiar to the Mon- 
tanists. It has its root already in Jewish Christology (see Bertholdt, 
christologia Judaeorum Jesu apostolorwmque aetate, p. 69 ff.; Gesenius in 
Ersch and Gruber’s allg. Encyclop. vol. iv. p. 292 ff.), and is elaewhere not 
foreign to the N. T.; comp. 1 John ii. 18, 22, iv.3; 2 John 7; Rev. xii. 13. 
Accordingly we are not entitled, because this view does not occur else- 
where with Paul, to maintain that it is un-Pauline, the less so as it neither 
contradicts the other statements of the apostle concerning the advent, nor 
did an occasion occur to Paul in his other Episties, as in this, to describe 
it more minutely. 4. The Epistle is defective in peculiar historical refer- 
ences. But, according to sections 1, 2, the state of matters which the 
Second Epistle supposes was throughout a more developed state, and con- 
sequently, of course, a peculiar one. 5. The author carefully seeks to 
represent himself asthe Apostle Paul. But the personal references which 
are contained in the Second Epistle do not make this impression, as they 
are analogous to those in the First Epistle, and the words, ii. 2, 15, iii. 17, 
are fully explained by the actual abuse which occurred of the apostle’s 
name. 

In more recent times the authenticity of the Epistle has again been 
disputed, first by Schrader in scattered remarks in his paraphrase to the 
Epistle (see the exposition), then by Kern in the Tubing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 





570 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


1829, Part 2, p. 145 ff.; further, by Baur in his Paulus der Ap. Jesu 
Christi, Stuttg. 1845, p. 480 ff, and in his and Zeller’s Theol. Jahrbucher, 
1855, Part 2, p. 141 ff.; likewise by Hilgenfeld in his Zschr. fur wies. 
Theol., 5th year, Halle 1862, p. 242 ff, also 1866, p. 299 ff., as well as 
in his Einleitung in das N. Test. Leipzig. 1875, p. 642 ff.; by van der 
Vries, l.c.; and lastly, by W. C. van Manen, Onderzoek naar de echtheid 
van Paulus’ tweeden brief aan de Thessalonicensen (De echtheid van Paulus’ 
brieven aan de Thess. onderzocht, II.), Utrecht 1865, whose chief argument, 
however, that the opinion contested in 2 Thess. ii. 2, namely, that the 
advent was to be expected in the immediate present, was the opinion of the 
Apostle Paul himself, evidently rests on an error! Against Kern, see 
Pelt in the Theolog. Mitarbeiten, 4th year, Kiel 1841, Part 2, p. 74 
ff.; against Baur, in the place first mentioned, see Wilibald Grimm in 
the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part 4, p. 780 ff.; J. P. Lange, das apost. 
Zeital. vol. i., Braunschw. 18538, p. 111 ff. 

The reasons on which Kern relies are the following :— 

1. From the section 2 Thess. ii. 1-12 it follows that the Epistle could 
not have been composed until after the death of Paul. For even if it be 
not granted, what yet is most probable, that Paul perished in the Neronian 
persecution, during the imprisonment recorded in the ‘Acts, in the year 
64,—even if a second Roman imprisonment be maintained,—yet all the 
traditions of antiquity agree on this point, that Paul suffered martyrdom 
under Nero (p. 207). But the author of the Epistle makes his announce- 
ment of Antichrist and its adjuncts from the state of the world as it was 
immediately after the overthrow of Nero, when Nero was believed to be still 
alive, and a speedy return of him to the throne was expected, and that 
from the East, or more precisely from Jerusalem (Tacit. Hist. 11.8; Sueton. 
Nero, c. 57, compared with c. 40). The Antichrist whose appearance is 
described as impending, is Nero; that which withholdeth him are the 
existing circumstances of the world; the withholder is Vespastan with his 
son Titus, who then besieged Jerusalem; and what is said of the apostasy 
is a reflection of the horrid wickedness which broke out among the Jewish 
people in their war against the Romans (p. 200). Accordingly the Epistle 
could not have been composed about the year 53 or 54, but only between 
the years 68-70 (p. 270). Moreover, Kern thinks that “the Epistle might 


1Also Weiss (Philosophische Dogmatik oder the exception of the conclusion, is through- 
Philosophie des Christenthums, vol. I., Leips. out “unapostolic in its verbal construction,” 
1855, p. 146) has declared that the Second without, however, entering into a justification 
Epistie to the Thessalonians, with perhape of this judgment. 


INTRODUCTION. 571 


be called Pauline in the wider sense’’—that a Paulinist was its author.. 
For in general the Epistle agrees with the Pauline mode of thought. A 
Paulinist, affected with a view of the present, that is, of the circumstances 
of the times between the years 68-70, saw in spirit the apocalyptic picture 
which he describes in ii. 1-12. In order to impart it to his Christian 
brethren, he has drawn it up in a letter to which he has given the form 
of a Pauline Epistle. As the already existing Epistle to the Thessalonians 
was of such a nature that to carry out that purpose a second could be 
attached to it, the author of the second Epistle has presupposed the first. 
He has surrounded his apocalyptic picture, ii. 1-12, the proper germ of 
the whole, with a border which he has formed from what he has sketched 
from the genuine Pauline Epistle, so that he has made the first part serve 
as an introduction to the section chiefly intended by him (ii. 1-12), and 
the second part as a continuation of his thoughts passing over into the 
hortative (ii. p. 214). 

This view of Kern, which is certainly carried out with acuteness, falls 
into pieces of itself, as it proceeds on an entirely mistaken interpretation 
of ii. 1-12. It is entirely erroneous to seek the Antichrist, who belongs to 
the purely religious sphere, in the political—among the number of the 
Roman emperors. Accordingly ii. 1-12 contains nothing which in any 
way transcended the circle of the Apostle Paul’s vision (see the interpre- 
tation). 

The additional arguments, which Kern insists on as marks of the 
spuriousness of the Epistle, are sought by him only in. consequence of the 
result which to him followed from the passage ii. 1-12; they would even 
to himself, were it not for that first argument, have been of hardly any 
weight. They are the following :— 

2. The suspicion resulting from 2 Thess. iii. 17, as if by the addition of 
& gore onpetov a safer reception was designed to be procured for the spurious 
Epistle, arises from the fact that Paul could not possibly have appealed 
to éoav émorodqy, especially if we consider the Second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians as one of the earliest of his Epistles. But we have already 
adverted to the correct meaning of é méey émoroAg and the addition 5 
éort onyeioy is, moreover, sufficiently occasioned by the notice in ii. 2, 
which Kern, without right, denies, understanding the émoroA d¢ d¢ jydy, 
li. 2, entirely arbitrarily, not of a forged epistle, but of the First Epistle of 
Paul to the Thessalonians, which was only falsely interpreted. 

3. The Second Epistle betrays an intentional imitation of the First. 
The whole first chapter of the Second Epistle rests on the groundwork of 


042 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


the First Epistle; its beginning corresponds to the beginning of the First 
Epistle ; what is said concerning the @Aijc¢ for the sake of the gospel, has 
many parallels in 1 Thess. ii. and iii.; ver. 6 ff. entirely depends on 1 
Theas, iv. 13 ff. (!); lastly, vv. 11, 12 are similar to 1 Thess. iii. 12 f., v. 23 
ff. Also what follows the section ii. 1-12 (which is peculiar to the Second 
Epistle) is also dependent on the First Epistle. Thus 1i. 13-17 is depend- 
ent on 1 Thess. i. 4, 5, iii. 11 ff. The address: adeAgot qyarnutva id 
xvptov, ver. 13, is borrowed from 1 Thess.i.4. Further, 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 is an 
extension of 1 Thess. v. 25, but where in ver. 2 an additional clause is 
added, which neither as regards iva jvo@dpev «.7.A., nor as regards ov yap 
névtuv } siori, can properly be explained from the condition which Paul 
was supposed at that time to be in, when he was thought to have written 
the second Epistle soon after the first (!). Vv. 3-5 point back to 1 Thess. 
v. 24, ili. 11-18; vv. 6-12 rest entirely on 1 Thess. ii. 6-12, iv. 11, 12, v.14; 
and ver. 16 is borrowed from 1 Thess. v.23. However, ona more exact 
examination, a great diversity will be seen in many of those compared 
passages; and the resemblance and similarity remaining—which, more- 
over, is not greater than that between the Epistles to the Colossians and 
Ephesians, and between many passages in the Epistles to the Galatians 
and the Romans—has its complete explanation in the analogous circum- 
stances of the church which occasioned both Epistles, and in the short 
interval which intervened between their composition. 

4. Lastly, much that is un-Pauline is seen in the Epistle. To this 
belongs ebyapcoreivy dgeidouer, i. 3, which is repeated in i. 13, and in the 
first passage, moreover, is the more prominently brought forward by 
xabdc b€c6v tor; whilst Paul elsewhere, out of the fullness of his Christian 
consciousness, simply says: “we thank God.” Directly following it 
brepavgéve. 4 wiorig tyev is surprising, which does not rightly agree with 1 
Thess. iii. 10 (caraprica: ra torephuata ric mioreoc); and évdg éxdorov mavruw 
tuav, which agrees not with what they are reminded of in the second 
Epistle iteelf (iii. 11) (!). Ver. 6 reminds us not so much of Faul as of 
Rev. vi. 9, 10. In ver. 10 the expression émwrebdy 1d papripiov juav 颒 
dua is un-Pauline; in ver. 11 the phrase aca ebdoxia ayadwotvys, and still 
more épyoy riorewe, is remarkable. In the section ii. 1-12, cai did rotro, 
which never elsewhere occurs, is placed instead of é:d rovro, elsewhere 
constantly used by Paul. In the same section, ver. 8, éxigdveta rig mapov- 
oiac, and ver. 10, déxeoGas riv aydryy ric GAnOcias, instead of the simple 
déyecbas tov Adbyov, Tiv GAgOecav, are peculiar. The idea of election is 
entirely Pauline, but it is never (?) otherwise expressed than by éxdoy#, 


INTRODUCTION. . 573 


éxAgyeoOa: ; but in ii. 18 aipeiofa: is found for it. In chap. iii. 18, caAoroceiv, 
not found elsewhere in the N. T., is a transformation of the Pauline ra 
caddy roseiv, Gal. vi. 9. Lastly, the addition d:a ri¢ émioroAge, in ver. 14, is 
remarkable, as it purposely directs attention to the present Epistle—But 
these expressions partly have their analogies elsewhere with Paul, partly 
they belong to those peculiarities which are found in every Pauline Epistle 
blended with the general fundamental type of Pauline diction, which this 
Epistle also possesses; and lastly, partly they are deviations so unim- 
portant, that the reproach of being un-Pauline can in no way be proved 
by them. 

Further, as regards Baur’s objections to this Epistle, these, in the first- 
mentioned place (Apostel Paulus), consist essentially only in a repetition 
of those already made by Kern. Only the assertion (p. 487) is peculiar to 
him, that the representation of Antichrist given in 2 Thess. ii. directly 
conflicta with the expectation of the apostle in 1 Cor. xv. For in 1 Cor. 
xv. 52 the apostle supposes that he himself will be alive at the advent, 
and will be changed with the living. In 2 Thess. ii., on the contrary, it is 
attempted by means of a certain theory to give the reason why the advent 
cannot so soon take place. Christ, according to that passage, cannot 
appear until Antichrist has come, and Antichrist cannot come so long as 
that continued which must precede the commencement of the last epoch. 
How far is one thereby removed, not only beyond the standpoint, but 
also beyond the time of the apostle! 

The wantonness and superficiality of such an opinion is evident. Even 
évéornxev (ii. 2) suffices to show its worthlessneas. For that by means of 
this expression “the day of the Lord is only removed from the most 
immediate present, but by no means from being near at hand; and that 
accordingly he also could have thus expressed himself who expected the 
day of the Lord as near, as very near, only not precisely as in the present,” 
Baur, already from the treatise of Kern (p. 151), which he indeed else- 
where so carefully follows, might have learned. Indeed, it inevitably 
follows from the emphatic position of évéornxey, that not only also he, but 
rather only he, who considered the advent as near could thus express him- 
self as to how it should take place. If the author had wished to refute 
the error that the day of the Lord has dawned, whereas he himself con- 
sidered the circumstances preceding it, instead of occurring in a short 
space of time and rapidly succeeding one another, only developing themselves 
in long periods, he would not have put the chief stress of the sentence on 
évéornxev, and would have required to have written o¢ dre 4 guépa tov Kupiov 


574 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


evéornxev instead of o¢ drt évéoryxevy 9} puépa Tov avpiov. And, only to men- 
tion one other particular, might not one with the same argument of Baur 
call in question the authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans? For, 
according to the Romans, the return of Christ was not to be expected 
until the completion of the kingdom of God, until all Israel will be con- 
verted (Rom. xi. 26); but all Israel cannot be converted until the fullness 
of the Gentiles be come in (Rom. xi. 25). ‘How far is one thereby 
removed, not only from the standpoint, but also from the time of the 
apostle!” 

Moreover, whilst Baur in the first-mentioned place (Apostel Paulus, p. 
485), differing from Kern, had assumed that the representation of Anti- 
christ given in 2 Thess. ii. rested entirely on Jewish ground, and contained 
only a repetition of the thoughts which were already expressed in their 
chief points, particularly according to the type of the prophecies of Daniel, 
and that accordingly the author moved only in the sphere of Jewish 
eschatology, and that even the Apostle Paul might have shared these 
views; in the last-mentioned place (Baur and Zeller’s Tub. Jahrbuch. p. 
151 ff.) he maintains, in agreement with Kern, that in the section 2 Thess. ii. 
such a representation of Antichrist occurs as could only have been formed 
on the soil of Christian ideas, and also on the ground of events which 
belong to a later period than that of the Apostle Paul. According to 
Baur’s subsequent opinion, the author borrowed the colors for his picture 
of Antichrist from the Apocalypse, and accordingly has imparted to the 
image of Antichrist features which are evidently borrowed from the his- 
tory and person of Nero. But to think of the dependence of the author 
on the Apocalypse is 80 much the more erroneous, as the description in 
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, compared with that in the 
Apocalypse, is one very simple and slightly developed. The Apocalypse, 
therefore, can only have been written at a period later than the Second 
Epistle to the Thessalonians. So also Baur’s argument from 2 Thess. ii. 
2 is destitute of any foundation. For it is manifestly an exegetical impos- 
sibility to find, with Baur, in the expression ei¢ rd pu) raytuc cadevOqva: an 
indication “of an historical circumstance,” such as that which most 
naturally presents itself, the “ pseudo-Nero disturbances” mentioned by 
Tacitus, Hist. ii. 8. For the author himself expressly tells us, by the three 
clauses commencing with pfre, by what this carevOjva: and Opoeioda: of the 
readers was historically occasioned. Therefore no place remains in the 
context for such a historical reason of cadevOjva: and Opocicba: as Baur 
demands. 


INTRODUCTION. 575 


4 


Lastly, Hilgenfeld removes the origin of the Epistle still farther than 
Kern and Baur. According to Hilgenfeld—who, however, holds fast to 
the genuineness of the First Epistle—it was not composed until the time 
of Trajan. The Epistle is a clear monument of the progress of the primi- 
tive Christian eschatology at the beginning of the second century. But 
his reasons for this view are extremely weak. Exactly taken, they are 
only the following :—({1) The first rise of the Gnostic heresies falls to the 
time of Trajan; (2) The continued persecution mentioned in 2 Thess. i. 
4 ff suits the time of Trajan; (8) Also to this time the prophetical 
announcement in 2 Thess. ii. 2, that the day of the Lord had already 
commenced, agrees. But the opinion, that by the already working mys- 
tery of iniquity, 2 Thess. ii. 7, the rise of the Gnostic heresies is meant, is 
entirely untenable, as it has elsewhere no support in the Epistle; it is as 
arbitrary as is the further assertion of Hilgenfeld, that the expression: 6 
dvdputrocg tie duapriac, 2 Thess. ii. 3, refers back to the blood-stained life of 
the matricide Nero, as Antichrist who had already existed. The two 
additional arguments can only lay claim to respect, provided the new 
outbreak of persecution presupposed in chap. i., and the opinion discussed 
in chap. ii. 2, that the advent was in the immediate present, were not 
sufficiently explicable from the natural development of the historical 
situation of the First Epistle, or provided it could otherwise have been 
proved that Paul could not be the author of the Epistle. But neither of 
these is the case. Also the notion, preserved to us in Hippolytus, refut. 
omn. haeres. ix. 18, p. 292, ix. 16, p. 296, that the Elxai-book, in the third 
year of Trajan, proclaimed the eschatological catastrophe as occurring 
after other three years of this emperor, is, in reference to o¢ drt évéornxev 
} guépa tov xvpiov, 2 Thess. ii. 2, wholly without value. 


576 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Tlabhov xpds Beacahovexets exiotody Seutépa. 


A BKR, Copt. 80, 87 have only: Ilpé¢ OecoaAovxeis 8’. The simplest and 
apparently oldest title. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 2. Elz. Tisch. 8, have tarpdg judv, But judy is wanting in B D E, 17, 
49, 71, al, Clar. Germ. Theophy!. Ambrosiast, ed. Pel. Bracketed by Lachm. 
Rightly erased by Tischendorf 2, 7, and Alford. An addition from the usual 
epistolary commencements of the apostle—Ver. 4. xavzyaoGa:] So Elz. Griesb 
Matt. and Scholz, after D E K L, min. vers. But in the diversity of testimonies 
(F G have xavyfoacba), tyxavyacda, after A B¥, 17 al., received by Lachm. 
Tisch. 1, 2, Alford and Ellicott (in the 7th and 8th edd. Tisch. writes évxavyaoVa:), 
merits the preference as the best accredited and the rarer form.—Ver. 8. Instead 
of the Receptus tupi gdoyé¢ (approved by Tisch. 2,7 and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, 
and Reiche), Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. 1 and Ellicott read gAoy? rupéc. For the 
latter overwhelming authorities decide (B D* E FG, 71, Syr. utr. Copt. Aeth. 
Arm. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Macar. Theodoret [in comm.], Theophyl [in 
comm.] Oec. Tert. Aug. Pel.).—'Ijcov] Elz. Matth. Scholz read 'I7cotv Xprcrod, 
Against B D E K L, min. plur. Copt. Aeth. Syr. p. Ar. pol. Theodoret, Damasc. 
Theophyl. Oec. Xpccrov ig impugned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., and 
rejected by Tischendorf, Alford and Ellicott—Ver. 9. Instead of the Receptus 
dAeSpov, Lachm., after A, 17, 73, al., Slav. ms. Chrys. ms. Ephr. Tert., reads 
oAéSpiov. But oAé9prow is simply an error of the scribe, occasioned by the follow- 
ing aiavov.—rov of the Receptus before xvpiov is wanting in D E F G, 3, 39, al, 
Chrys. (in textu) Theoph. It was absorbed in the last syllable of xpoodrov,— 
Ver. 10. évSavpacdjva, found in D* E* F G, instead of the Receptus Savpacdivaz, 
isan error of the scribe, occasioned by the two preceding and the following é.— 
xureboaow] Elz. reads miorevovory, against A B D E F Ggr. L¥, 31, al, plur. edd. 
Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theoph. Oec. 
Ambrosiast. Pel—Ver. 12. rot xupiov judv Incov] Elz. Matth. have rov xvpiov 
juav 'Inoov Xpiorov, But Xpiorov is wanting in B DE K L¥, 37, al, plur. Copt. 
Sahid. Aeth,. Clar. Germ. Theodoret, ms. Oec. Doubted by Griesb., bracketed by 
Lachm., and rightly erased by Tisch., Alford and Ellicott. 


Vv. 1, 2. Address and salutation. See on 1 Thess. i. 1.—azd Oeov rarpi¢ 
nai xvpiov I. Xp.] from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ ; not: 
from God who is the Father and Lord of Jesus Christ. For, according to 
the Pauline custom, the fullness of Christian blessings is derived in com- 
mon from God and Christ. The absolute rarpé¢ (comp. Gal. i. 3; 1 Tim. 
i. 2; 2Tim.i. 2; Tit. i. 4) is equivalent to rarpdc juev, more frequently 
used elsewhere in similar places; comp. Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 8; 2 Cor. i. 
2; Eph. i. 2; Phil. i.2; Col. i. 2; Philem. 3. 





CHAP, I. 1-3. 577 


Vv. 3-12. [On vv. 1-12, see Note LIV. pages 588-590.] Introduction of the 
Epistle. Commendatory recognition of the progress of the church in faith 
and love, as well as in the stedfastness which proved itself anew under 
persecution (vv. 8, 4), a comforting and encouraging reference to the 
recompense commencing at the advent of Christ (vv. 5-10), and an assur- 
ance that the progress and completion of the Thessalonians in Christianity 
was continually the subject of the apostle’s prayer (vv. 11, 12). 

Ver. 3. "Og¢eiAouev] namely, I Paul, together with Silvanus and Timo- 
theus.—xadoe afi6v gory] as tt is meet, as it is right and proper, is usually 
considered as a mere parenthesis, resuming dgeiAouev, so that Src is con- 
sidered in the sense of that dependent on cixzapioreiv. However, as the 
discourse afterwards follows quickly on dri, 80 xa¥ee aéidv éorev would sink 
into a mere entirely meaningless interjection and parenthesis; but as 
such, on account of the preceding d¢elAouer, it would be aimless and super- 
fluous. In direct contrast to this view, Schott places the chief emphasis 
on xaddc &fc6v éorcv, which he rightly refers back to evyapioreiv instead of 
to dgeiAouev. According to Schott, cad is designed to denote “modum 
eximium, quo animus gratus declarari debeat,” and the thought to be 
expressed is “oportet nos deo gratias agere, quales conveniant praestantiae 
beneficii, i. e. extmias.”! But neither can this interpretation be the correct 
one. For (1) xaddc is never used as a statement of gradation ; (2) it ishardly 
conceivable that Paul should have concentrated the emphasis of the sen- 
tence on xavbic afcév gore. If he had wished to do so, he would at least 
have written Evyapioreiv dgeidopey tH Oep epi tpav, nadie dédv éorcv, but 
would not have inserted rdévrore and adeAgoi. Taking this insertion into 
consideration, we are obliged to decide that after adeAgoi a certain pause 
in the discourse commences, so that Eiyapioreiv . . . ddeAgot is placed first 
as an independent general expression, to which xadd¢ dfidv éorew is added 
as a connecting clause, for the explanation and development of the pre- 
ceding by what follows. But from this it follows that 57: belongs not to 
evzapoteiv, but to xabisc déidv éorcv, and denotes not that, but because. The 
meaning 18: We ought to thank God always on your behalf, as it (sc. the 
evyaproreiv) is right and proper, because, etc. As by this interpretation 
nada d&év éorw is neither unduly brought forward nor unduly-placed in 
the shade, so also every appearance af pleonasm vanishes. For dgeiAouev 
expresses the duty of thanksgiving from its subjective side, as an internal 
conviction ; xadec d&:6v éorev, on the other hand, from the objective side, as 
something answering to the state of circumstances, since it is meet, since 
it is fit and proper, to give thanks to God for the divine proof of His 
grace.—irepavédver] grows above measure, exceedingly. The compound 
verb is an Graf Aeyéyevovin the N. T. But Paul loves such intensifying 
compounds with irép. They are an involuntary expression of his over- 


1Comp. already Ambrosiaster: ut non qua- peydAws éfaxovordos, iva } seydAws xabios dfiov 
lecumque esse debitum ostenderet, sicut dig- rq mweydAa wapéxovri.—Theophylact: Gre xai 
num est, ait, ut pro tam infinito dono magnas 8a Adywr cai &° épywr ality yap 7 afia evxa- 
gtatias referendas deo testarentur.—Oecume- picria. Comp. also Erasmus’ paraphrase, and 
ius: 4%, Sre dyot Sixaioy dons, voioas’ # ro Fromond. 
37 





578 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


flowing feelings. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 351. Olshausen cer- 
tainly represents it otherwise. He finds in the compound verb a forbear- 
ing allusion to the fact that the Thessalonians were guilty of extravagance 
in their religious zeal,—an allusion which, as‘ at all events it would con- 
tain a certain degree of irony, it is impossible to assume here, where Paul 
speaks of the reasons of his thanksgiving to God. Such an interpretation 
is not ingenious, as Baumgarten-Crusius judges, but meaningless.—évig 
éxdorov rdévrwv tov] instead of the simple tzév, emphatically strengthens 
the praise bestowed. Fromond.: non tam totius ecclesiastici corporis, sed 
uniuscujusque membri, quod mirum est et rarissimae laudis. But Hof- 
mann, in a strangely erroneous manner, thinks that rdvrev tuav does not 
depend on évéc éxaorov, but is in apposition to it.—ei¢ aAAZAove] does not 
belong to mAeovdfec. It is the further objective specification of aydzy, as évic 
éx. mavr. tu. is the subjective. aAAfAove denotes the fellow-Christians in 
Thessalonica. Therefore erroneously, Pelt: Nec vero sine causa Paulus 
tam multus est in commendanda eorum caritate in omnes effusa; quum 
enim sciret, quam facile tum temporis accideret, ut Christiani se invicem 
diligerent, exteros vero aspernarentur, hac potissimum laude ad omnium 
hominum amorem eos excitare studuit." 

Ver. 4. The progress of the Thessalonians in Christianity so rejoiced the 
heart of the apostle, that he expresses this joy not only in thanksgiving 
before God, but also in praises before men.—dcre] refers back to trep- 
avédver . . . GAAgAoU.— uae abtotc]. This emphatic designation of the subject 
might be thus explained, that otherwise such praise was not the usual 
custom of the speakers, but that the glorious success of the gospel in 
Thessalonica caused them to forget the usual limits of moderation and 
reserve. This opinion is, however, to be rejected, because it would then 
without any reason be supposed that Paul had inaccurately written ua 
avtotc (we ourselves) instead of abrove juac (even we)* It is therefore more 
correct to see in #uac avrobc, that although it was true that the praise of 
the Thessalonians was already sufficiently spread abroad by others, yet 
that they themselves, the writers of the Epistle, in the fullness of their joy 
could not forbear to glory in their spiritual offspring. A reference to 1 
Thess. i. 8 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius) is not to be assumed. Schott 
erroneously attempts to justify the emphasis on qyd¢ avrotc, by under- 
standing the same of Paul only in contrast to Silvanus and Timotheus, 
the subjects along with Paul of the verb d¢geiAouev, ver. 8; for to 
maintain such a change of subject between ver. 3 and ver. 4 is 
impossible. Equally incorrect is also the notion of Hofmann, that airots 
added to jyas denotes “ of ourselves” “ unprompted.” For it is absurd to 
attempt to deny that #ua¢e abrobe must at all events contain a contrast to 
others.—év tpiv tyxavyaoda:] boast of you. év ipiv is a preliminary object to 
éyxavyao8a, which is then more completely unfolded in irép rij¢ tropovizc 


180 also arbitrarily Schrader: from the *The latter, however, is actually found in B 
limitation of love to Christians istobeinferred & and some min. 
an abhorrence of Gentiles, 


‘ 





CHAP. I. 4. 579 
n.r.A—év raic¢ éxxAnola tov Ceo} in Corinth and its filiated churches. The 
cause which gave occasion to Paul’s boasting of his readers is more spec- 
ially expressed, being what was formerly represented as the motive of the 
apostolic thanksgiving ; whilst formerly faith in Christ and brotherly love 
were mentioned (ver. 4), the latter is here left entirely unmentioned, 
whilst the first is named in its special operation as Christian stedfastness 
under persecution.—irép ric tropovig tpov nal ricreoc] [LIV c.] is not, 
with Grotius, Pelt, and others, to be understood as a év dca dvoiy, in the sense 
of ixép rig tropovac tudv év riore:, OY trip Ti TioTews budv brouevobonc. Nor 
is stedfastness, as Calvin, Hemming, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Bouman, Chartae theol. Lib. I. p. 88 ff.,! Alford, and others think, particu- 
larly brought forward by the ziors¢ mentioned in ver. 3; and then, in 
addition, riors¢ is once more insisted on as the foundation on which 
trouovg rests, which would indeed be a strange proceeding, and would 
greatly interfere with the clearness of thought. But rior is here used in 
a different sense from that in ver. 3. Whilst ior in ver. 3 denoted faith 
in Christ, the expression here, as the article r7¢ only placed once proves, 
is of a similar nature with trouovy; whilst the reference to Christ as the 
object of faith steps into the background, and the idea of “faith” is trans- 
formed into the idea of “fidelity.” This rendering is the less objectionable 
as Paul elsewhere undoubtedly uses riorre in the sense of fidelity (comp. 
Gal. v. 22; Rom. iii. 3; Tit. ii. 10; comp. also the adjective moré¢, 1 Thess. 
v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 18; 2 Cor. i.18; 2 Tim. ii. 13); and, 
besides, the notion of fidelity in this passage implies the more general 
notion of faith in Christ ; wiore here denoting nothing else than faith in 
Christ standing in a special and concrete relation, i.e. proving ttself under 
persecutions and trials.—zdow] belongs only to dwypoic tuov. This is 
shown by the article repeated before SAipeorw, and by the additional clause 
aig avéxeode, which is parallel with tzav.—Clearer distinctions between 
dwynoi and PAipec (as “pericula, quae totum coetum concernunt” and 
“ singulorum privata infortunia,” Aretius; or “open and hidden distress,” 
Baumgarten-Crusius) are precarious. Only so much is certain that 
dwypol is speciale nomen, SAipec generalius (Zanchius).—al¢ avéyeocde] an 
attraction for dv avéyeo¥e (0, correctly, also Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. 
Sprachgebr. p. 140 [E. T. 161]),—not, as Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, and 
Hofmann maintain, instead of 4¢ avézyeode; for avéyoua: always governs 
the genitive in the N. T., never the accusative; comp. Matt. xvii. 17; 
Mark ix. 19; Luke ix. 41; Acts xviii. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 1, 19; Eph. iv. 2; Col. 
iii. 18; 2 Tim. iv.3; Heb. xiii. 22. Fritzsche’s opinion (on 2 Cor. diss. IT. 
p. 53 ff.), that there is no a#raction at all, and that avéyecac is here (as in 


1But Bouman ultimately adds (p. 88): 
“Cujus (sc. dicti Paulini) {ntacta vulgari 
utriusque subetantivi significatione, expli- 
candi alia etiam in promptu est, ab illa, quam 
memoravimus, paullo diversa via ac ratio. 
Etenim optimis quibusque scriptoribus non 
raro placuisse novimus, ut a singularibus 
ad generaliora nuncupands progredereutar, 


Quidni igitur primum singularem vwroxovis 
constantiae, virtutem celebrare potuit aposto- 
lua, atque hinc ad universae vitae Christianae 
moderatricem fidem, Domino habitam, prae- 
dicandam gressum facere? But also against 
this the non-repetition of the article before 
wigteus decides, 


580 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Eurip. Androm. 981, ovypopaic qverxsunv) construed with the dative, and 
denotes ‘“sustinendo premi calamitatibus h. e. perferre mala,” is contra- 
dicted by the above N. T. usage.—The present avéyeode represents the per- 
secutions and the trials as belonging to the present. Accordingly a new 
outbreak of persecution must be meant, as the First Epistle describes the 
persecutions as past.! 

Ver. 5. Judgment of the apostle concerning the conduct of his readers 
described in ver. 4. Their stedfastness in the sufferings of the present is 
a guarantee of future glory. Ver. 5 is a sentence in apposition, which 
is united to the preceding in the nominative, not in the accusative, to 
which Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 134 [E. T. 153], is 
inclined. See Winer, p. 496 [E. T. 533]. But adecyyza refers not to the 
subject of avézeobe, that is, to the Thessalonians, as if aig avéyeofe, bvre¢ 
évdecyuza were written (comp. Erasmus, Annot., Camerarius, Estius); for 
however simple and easy such a connection might be grammatically, yet 
logically it is objectionable. Besides, Paul would hardly have put «xaraé- 
wjvac wuac instead of the simple infinitive, if he thought on no differ- 
ence of subject in évdecyva and xaraéwOjva. But also évdecypya is not to be 
referred to mdow roicg dwwypoicg . . . avéxeofe (Ambrosiaster, Zwingli, Calvin, 
Bullinger, Aretius, Wolf, Koppe, Pelt, Schrader, Ewald, Bisping, and 
others), but to the whole preceding principal and collective idea trip ric 
tropovaig . . . avéyeobe. Accordingly it is to be analyzed as follows: 8 (that 
is tO say, xa? Tovro, bre év vropovg Kal wicree révTwy Tov dwypov tyov nai 
Tov Odinpewv avéxeobe) eorw évdetypa rie dixaiag Kpicews Tov Oeod.—tvderypa] 18 
found here only in the N. T. It denotes a sign, guarantee, proof (comp. 
the active évdecéec, Phil. i. 28); here, according to the context, a prognostic. 
—riic dtxaiac xpicews tov Seow] cannot, with Olshausen and Riggenbach, (in 
opposition to them: Linder in d. Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 3, p. 522 ff.), 
be understood of the present judgments executed on the earth, and 
which befall believers in order to perfect them and to make them worthy 
of the kingdom of God. Not only the article rjc, pointing to the judg- 
ment xar’ é€ox#, but also the explanation in ver. 6 ff., decides against 
this view. The future judgment is meant which God will execute by 
Christ at the advent.—eic¢ 7d xaragtwOqvac tua «.7.A.] whose result will be that ye 
will be esteemed worthy of the kingdom of God, depends not on aig avéyeobe, 
so that évdeypa ric dixalag xpicews tov Geos would become a parenthetic 
exclamation (Bengel, Zachariae, Bisping, Hofmann Ist ed., and others), nor 
does it also belong to the whole sentence édeyya . . . Gcov: in refer- 


1Thet a critic such as Baur knows how to 
convert this deviation from the First Epistle 
into a dependence upon it is not strange (see 
Apostel Paulus, p. 488). “This present tense 
evidently shows how the author transfers 


what had been said in 1 Thess. to his own: 


time.” Also Schrader draws from ver. 4 an 
objection against the authenticity of the 
Epistle, hut for this reason: “because later 
in the course of the Epistle the writer appears 


to have forgotten that at that instant the 
Thessalonians were in great tribulation.” 
But Paul dwells on this subject throughout 
the whole of the first chapter. Why should 
he tarry longer on it, or recur to it anew, 
since it referred to a virtue of the Theass- 
lonians already proved, whereas the chief 
object of his Epistle consisted in supplying 
the actual and considerable wants of the 
church in knowledge and conduct? 


CHAP. I. 5—7, 581 


ence to which ye, etc., but only to ric dualac xploewe. Accordingly eis ra 
xarafw0, «.7.A, 1s not a statement of purpose (thus Alford, Ewald, Linder, 
as above, Hofmann 2d ed.), but, for which view Ellicott has recently 
decided, an epexegetical statement of result. eis 16, with the infinitive, 

also stands for the result in 2 Cor. viii. 6, etc. Comp. Winer, p. 309 [E. T. 
' $28].—The infinitive aorist xarafwSjva: expresses the verbal idea simply, 
without any regard to time. See Kihner, II. p. 80.—tmép i nai wdoyere] 
for striving to obtain which ye suffer, an additional statement of the cause 
whose corresponding result will be xcarafw0Fva. The Thessalonians, by 
their enduring stedfastness, the motive of which was striving after the 
kingdom of God, made themselves worthy of participation in this king- 
dom, for they thereby showed how precious and dear Christ is to them ; it 
is thus certain that the judgment of God to be expected at the return of 
Christ will recognize this worthiness, and will exalt the Thessalonians to be 
fellow-citizens of His kingdom. Comp. Phil.i.28; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12. 

Ver 6. The suitableness and naturalness of this result to be expected 
from the righteousness of God, the mention of which was to com/ort the 
Thessalonians and encourage them to continued endurance, is further car- 
ried out by an intimation of the retribution to be expected at the return 
of Christ. To assume a parenthesis from ver. 6 to pe? udev, ver. 7 (Gro- 
 tius), or to ver. 10 inclusive (Moldenhauer), is unnecessary arbitrariness. 
—eizep] provided, does not express any doubt, but introduces by means of 
an elegant expression, under the form of suspense, a saying whose truth 
is fully acknowledged. Comp. viii. 9,17. See Hermann, ad Veger. p. 834; 
Hartung, Partikellehre, I. p. 848; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 528.—dixawv] right- 
cous, joined to dixaiae xpicewc, ver. 5. The apostle here places himself upon 
the standpoint of the strict righteousness of God, which is conceived 
according to the analogy of human jus talionis, and is also so asserted in 
Rom. ii. 5 ff.; 2 Cor. v.10; Eph. vi. 8, 9; Col. iii. 24, 25. It is accordingly 
inadmissible to interpret dixazov, with Pelt and others, of the manifesta- 
tion of divine grace. The idea that one may obtain eternal salvation by 
his own merits, which rccently Bisping finds here expressed, is removed 
from the Pauline mode of thought generally, and also from this passage. 
Certainly, as all men are subject to sin as a ruling power, the possibility 
of obtaining salvation can only be contained in Christ; and that God 
revealed this possibility of salvation, and by the mission of Christ invited 
us into His kingdom, is a pure contrivance of His free grace; but with 
this grace His holiness and righteousness are not abolished. There remains 
room for the exercise of the strict righteousness of God, as only he can 
enter into His eternal kingdom who, with the desire of salvation, accepts 
the call; whereas whoever closes himself against it, or rises up in enmity 
against it, must incur righteous punishment at the last day. 

Ver. 7. ©ABouévors is passive. Bengel erroneously considers it as mid- 
dle.—déveor] from dvinus, denotes the relaxing which follows exertion, the 
ériraoc,' passing over to the idea: comfort, refreshment, rest. Comp. 2 Cor. 

1 Plat. Rep. i. p. 349 E: dv rj émeréoes nai dvéoe rev xopsav. Plutarch, Lye. 29: ev dvecs hv 


GAN éxitacts THS woAcTelas. 





582 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


ii. 18, vii. 5, vill. 18, and the analogous expression avdyvfic, Acts iii. 19. 
Here dveowe characterizes the glory of the kingdom of God according to 
its negative side as freedom from earthly affliction and trouble.—pe? qyév] 
along with us. From this it follows that the apostle and his companions 
belonged to the 8A:Béuevo. ped’ udev accordingly contains a confirma- 
tion of the notice contained in iii. 2. Others (as Turretin,-comp. also de 
Wette) understand ed’ jor entirely generally: with us Christians in gen- 
eral. But the aveow which will likewise be imparted to the je%¢ presup- 
poses a preceding Aix, that is, according to the context, persecution by 
those who are not Christians. But such persecutions do not befall Chris- 
tians everywhere. Strangely, Bengel (and also Macknight), ue® jyov 
denotes: “ nobiscum i.e. cum sanctis Israelitis.” Ewald: “with us, é.e. 
with the apostles and other converted genuine Jews of the Holy Land, so 
that they shall have no preference.” —év rg aroxaAtwe: rov xvpiov 'Inoov}] a 
statement of the time when dvramrodoiva will take place, equivalent to 
Orav aroxadugdg 6 Kbpiog "Inoove. aroxdAvyic (1 Cor. i. 7) is a more definite 
expression for rapovoia. The return of Christ is the period at which He, 
so long hitherto concealed, will as Ruler and Judge be manifested, will 
publicly appear.'—az’ otpavov per ayyédwy duvaueuc aro) a specification 
of the mode of the azoxaAtwe:r.—an’ otpavoi] see on 1 Thess. iv. 16.—per’ 
ayyéAay duvduews avrov) with the angels of His power, i.e. through whom His 
power manifests itself, inasmuch as the angels are the executors of His 
commands, by their instrumentality e.g. the resurrection-call to the dead 
is issued (1 Thess. iv. 16). Calvin : Angelos potentiae vocat, in quibus suam 
potentiam exseret. Angelos enim secum adducet ad illustrandam regni 
sui gloriam. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Piscatur, Benson, Flatt, and 
others erroneously explain it: “with His mighty angels;” still more 
erroneously Drusius, Michaelis, Krause, Hofmann, and others: “ with His 
angelic host.” For this the Hebrew ®2¥ is appealed to. But divaycc never 
occurs in this sense in the N. T.; the proofs to the contrary, which Hof- 
mann finds in Luke x. 19, Matt. xxiv. 29, Mark xiii. 35, Luke xxi. 26, are 
entirely inappropriate. It would then require to have been written pera 
duvapews ayyédwy airov. It is a wanton error, proceeding from a want of 
philological tact, when Hofmann separates airov from the words per’ 
ayyéduy duvéyews, refers this pronoun to God, and joins it with didévro¢ 
éxdixnow into a participial clause, of which év rg aoxaAbwpec «.7.A. forms the 
commencement. Granted that per dyyéduv duvduewc, without the addi- 
tional avrov, might denote with an angelic host, yet Paul, in order to express 
the thought assigned to him by Hofmann, if he would be at all under- 
stood, would at least have entirely omitted avrov, and would have put the 
dative d:dévr: instead of the genitive didévror. 

Ver. 8. 'Ev gdoyl rupéc] is not, as Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Seb. Schmid, 
Harduin, Moldenhauer, Macknight, Hilgenfeld (Zeitsch. f. wissensch. Theol. 
1862, Part 3, p. 245), Hofmann, and others? assume, a statement declaring 

tThat also we are not here to think, with #Thus also Theodoret must have united the 


Hammond, on the destruction of Jerusalem words. For although he does not clearly 
is evident. express himself concerning this union, yet 








CHAP. I. 7—9. 583 


the instrument of d:dévro¢ éxdixnow, but is a further specification of the 
mode of amoxadiwe, ver. 7: in flaming fire (U® 37723, Isa, xxix. 6, xxx. 30, 
etc.). In the O. T. God is described as appearing in flames of fire, and 
especially His coming to judgment is described as a coming in fire ; comp. 
Ex. iii. 2 ff., xix. 18; Dan. vii. 9, 10, etc. What is there asserted of God 
is here transferred to Christ. (Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 13, where of the day 
of Christ, i.e. of His advent, it is said : év wupi aroxadirrera.) The addi- 
tional clause accordingly serves for a further exaltation of the majesty and 
glory in which Christ will return. More special statements, that Paul 
thought on thunder and lightning (Zachariae, Koppe, Bolten), on a fire 
consuming the ungodly, or the world, or both together (Zwingli, Hemming, 
Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond., Sebastian Schmid, and others), are 
to be discarded, from want of data to decide on.—dé:dévroc] is joined, not to 
mupéc, but to rov xvpiov Injcov, ver.7. The formula didévar éxdixyoiv rin, to 
impart vengeance, that is, punishment, to any one, is only found here in 
the N. T. But comp. the LXX. Ezek. xxv. 14; Num. xxxi. 3 (199) [))). 
Paul does not mention only one class of persons who are to be punished 
(Calvin, Hemming, Turretin, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Riggenbach), but two 
classes of persons. This is required by the article repeated before yu? 
traxoboverv. ‘These were the two classes of persons from whom the church 
of Thessalonica had to suffer persecution—Gentiles and Jews. By roi¢ pq 
etdéocv Oedv Paul means the former, and by roic¢ py traxobovew rp ebayy. 
x.t.A, the latter, so that the general roi¢ 9AiBovow ipac, ver. 6, is now special- 
ized. The correctness of this interpretation is further evident from the 
fact that elsewhere yu» eidéreg Oesy is with Paul a characteristic designation 
of the Gentiles (1 Thess. iv. 5; Gal. iv. 8; comp. Rom. i. 28; Eph. i. 12); 
whereas the characteristic of the theocratic nation of the Jews, as shown 
by experience, was disobedience to God and His plan of salvation; comp. 
Rom. x. 3,16, 21, etc. This reference to Gentiles and Jews is already 
found in Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Quistorp, Benson, Bengel, Koppe, Baum- 
garten-Crusius; and also recently, in Alford, Ewald, Ellicott, and Bisping. 
On the other hand, Harduin and Hofmann interpret the first clause of 
Gentiles, and the second of Jews and Gentiles ; Schrader, the first of Gen- 
tiles, and the second of Christians; Aretius, the first of “ manifesti Christi 
hostes, sive Judaei sint sive ethnici,’ and the second of “ pestes in sinu 
ecclesiae latitantes.” But with the first view the division, which the 
article repeated requires, becomes illusory; and the context decides 
against the last two views. For when, as here, Christians are comforted 
on account of the afflictions which they suffer from those who are not 
Christians by an intimation of a future retribution, the discourse cannot 
possibly have reference to a punishment which is impending on Chris- 
tians.—rov xvpiov huav ’Incov] a repetition of the subject already con- 
tained in ddévrog in a fuller form, on account of the preceding Geé». 

Ver. 9. Paul names eternal destruction as the punishment which those 
ungodly ones will have to endure. [LIV c.]—virwves] nimirum qui, refers 


he finds in dAoy: wupdés expressed ; ris repepias rd el30s,and add’: gAcyi yap wupds wapadisorra. 
~ 


584 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


back to the characteristics of the two classes named in ver. 8, and accord- 
ingly recapitulates the reason for dix risovow.—axd mposdrov tov xupiov 
«.t.A.] has received a threefold interpretation. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Fromond., and others interpret 
axé of time: immediately after the appearance of the rpécwrov rov xvpiov 
and of the déga rig ioxiog avrov. The swiftness and facility of the punish- 
ment are thereby described, inasmuch as it required Christ merely to 
become visible. The artificialness of this interpretation is evident. For 
however often a6 denotes the point of commencement of a period, yet 
the bare ard mpoodémov cannot possibly be considered as parallel with such 
constructions as avd xrigews xéopov, Rom. i. 20; ard ri¢ xpdrnyc iyuépac, Phil. 
i.5, and the like. At least ax’ dzoxaAinpews tov rposdrov or something simi- 
lar would require to have been written. Add to this that ard mpoodxov 
x.7.4., on account of its position at the end of the sentence, cannot have 
such an emphasis, that the idea of the swiftness and facility of the punish- 
ment can be derived from it. azé is understood as a statement of the 
operating cause by Grotius, Harduin, Benson, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Flatt, 
Pelt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and Hofmann: “from the 
presence of the Lord, and from thé glory of His power” (comp. Acts iii. 
19). Pelt (and so also Castalio, Koppe, Bolten, and others) arbitrarily 
considers ard mposdrov tov xupicv as equivalent to the simple ard rov 
xvpiov ; and equally arbitrarily Harduin, Benson, and Moldenhauer (comp. 
also Hofmann) understand xpécwrov of a wrathful or gloomy countenance. 
But there is an essential inconvenience to this second mode of interpre- 
tation, inasmuch as by its assumption without the introduction of a new 
idea there is only a repetition in other words of what has already been 
said in vv. 7, 8 from év rg amoxaAdiwe: to diddvrog Exdixnow; the whole of the 
9th verse would only contain aiduoy as a new point. Accordingly the 
third mode of explanation, adopted by Piscator, Ernest Schmid, Beza, 
Calixt, Koppe, Krause, Schott, Bloomfield, Alford, Bisping, Ellicott, and 
Riggenbach, is decidedly to be preferred, according to which é%é expresses 
the idea of separation, of severance from something. Comp. ii. 2; Rom. ix. 
8; Gal. v. 4. According to Flatt and de Wette, the expression icytor is 
opposed to this explanation, which directly points to an operating cause. 
But ric isxtbor is to be rendered the genitive of origin, and the dé&a is to 
be understood, not of the glory of Christ, but of the glory which is to be 
imparted to believers. The meaning is: apart or separated from the face of 
the Lord, and apart from the glory which is a creation of His power. By this 
explanation mpéowrov receives its full import; “to see the face of the 
Lord” is a well-known biblical expression to denote bleasedness (comp. 
Ps. xi. 7, xvii. 5; Matt. v. 8, xviii. 10; Heb. xii. 14; Rev. xxii. 4), whereas 
distance from it is an expression of misery. 

Ver. 10. Further, with this explanation ver. 10 agrees best, since in it, 
as the counterpart to ver. 9, the discourse is not so much of a glorification 
of Christ as of a glorification of Christiane—a glorification certainly which 


18ee Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. BR. 686. 





CHAP. I. 10. 585 
necessarily reflects on Christ Himself as. its producer.—trav #adq) when 
He shall have come, a statement of the time of dixzy ricovor, ver. 9. Schott 
less simply unites it with dedévroc¢ ixdixnow, ver. 8.—étvdofacd#va:] the infini- 
tive of design. See Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 318}. The dy: are not the 
attending angels (Macknight, Schrader), but Christians. év roic dyiow abrob 
does not, however, import through His saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Kypke, II. p. 341, Vater, Pelt, Schott, and others), nor among 
them, but in them, so that the glorification of Christians becomes a 
glorification of Christ Himself. So also Christ is admired in all believers, 
because the admiration of the blessedness to which believers have been 
exalted has as its consequence an admiration of Christ as the Creator of 
that blessedness.—ir: émioretdq . . . &@ dpac] is a parenthesis :' for our tes- 
timony brought to you has been believed. This is occasioned by moretcaor. 
It is designed to bring forward the certainty that also the Thessalonians 
belong to the moreboavres. In a peculiar—intermixing much that is 
strange—and unnatural manner Ewald: “As the subject particularly 
treats of the truth of the apostolic testimony concerning divine things (!), 
or whether the gospel, as the apostles and first witnesses proclaimed it, 
will or will not one day be confirmed in its entire contents and promises 
by God Himself at the last judgment (?), so Paul summarizes the chief 
contents (?) of that glory and admiration in a lively reference to his im- 
mediate readers directly in words in which one might almost then exclaim : 
‘Our testimony among you was verified (?).’ And it is as if the apostle had 
put here this somewhat strange short expression, the rather because he 
has said directly before that God (?) will be admired in those who bekeved, 
as if a verification or complete confirmation (?) of the contents of faith must 
at last justly correspond to the human faith regarding them.”—rd_ paprtpcov 
ypov) our testimony, i.e. the testimony proclaimed by us. Really different, 
neither from paprbpiov rov Xporot, 1 Cor. i. 6: the testimony whose subject 
is Christ; nor from papropeov rot Geov, 1 Cor. ii. 1: the testimony which 
God published through the apostles concerning Christ. To limit, with 
Bretschneider, veprtpcov to the instructions of the apostle concerning the 
advent of Christ contained in the First Epistle, instead of taking it entirely 
generally in the sense of x#pvyza or evayyéjov, is rendered impossible by 
the relation of drs émorefdn to moretoacw.—ég’ tuac} is connected with 7d 
paprbpiov juev into one idea; and hence the article ré, whose repetition 
before 颒 inzac might have been expected, is omitted. See Winer, p. 128 
[E. T. 185]. Comp. on éi with papripwr, Luke ix. 5. Ingenious, but 
erroneous, Bengel: é¢' duag denotes: ad vos usque, in occidente.—év rh 
hutpe éxeivy| [LVIII c.] belongs not to 2Adg (Zeger, Pelt, Olshausen), but to 


1 Certainly otherwise Hofmann. According 
to him, ore éwsoredOy 7d papripioy Huey 颒 
vas is to be added as a reason to avrawobouvas 
Uuiy dvecu ne jucv, ver. 6 f. (!). But this 
is not yet enough. Besides the statement of 
design, iva vuae aftaoy «.7.A., ver. 11, is made 
also to depend on éxccrevéy 7d papriprey Hudy 


颒 vuds; to this statement of design also év 
TH Hudpg éxeivy belongs; this is placed before 
tya for the sake of emphasis, and eis 8 xal 
wpocevxGuneba wavrore xepi Vue forms a mere 
parenthesis—suppositions which are cer- 
tainly worthy of an exegesis like that of Hof- 
mann, but are only possible to it. 


586 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Savpacdjva, whilst by it the indication of time, drav 2199, is resamed. The 
Peshito, likewise Pelagius, John Damascenus, Estius, Lucius Osiander, 
Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Harduin, Storr, Koppe, Krause, 
Rosenmiiller, Nésselt, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, not assum- 
ing a parenthesis, unite év rj #uépe éxetvy with the directly preceding, either 
with papripioy or with émoret3y. The interpretations resulting from this 
mode of connection vary much from each other; but are all arbitrary, 
inasmuch as, on the one hand, in order to preserve the statement of time 
in é rH hutpg exeivy, one feels himself constrained to consider the aorist 
éxiotety as placed for the future, and thus to alter the import of the verb 
(will be authenticated); or, on the other hand, in order to preserve émo- 
revSy in the sense of the aorist, one has recourse to the expedient of con- 
struing év rH #utpg éxeivy as the objective statement belonging to papripsy, 
in the sense of rept rig quépac éxeivgc—But wherefore did Paul add & rg 
jutpa éxeivy, after the sentence beginning with ér:? Perhaps only for the 
sake of parallelism. But possibly also Calvin is correct when he says: 
“repetit in die illa . . . Ideo autem repetit, ut fidelium vota cohibeat, ne 
ultra modum festinent.” 

Ver. 11. Eis 8] in reference to which, namely, that such a glori- 
fication of Christ in His people is to be expected. Comp. Bernhardy, 
Syniaz, p. 220; Ktihner, II. p. 279. Philologically incorrect, Grotius, 
Flatt, Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius take eic 5 as equivalent with qua- 
propter, and Koppe as “mera particula transeundi,” equivalent with 
itaque. Logically incorrect, de Wette, Bloomfield, Hofmann, and Riggen- 
bach : “to which end.” For, since ei¢ & must refer to the chief thought in 
ver. 10, this could only be analyzed by: “in order that the évdofaodjvar 
and the Yavzaodpva of Christ may be realized in believers.” But this fact 
in itself is clear to the apostle as a settled truth; he cannot think on it as 
dependent on his prayer; he can only have it in view in his prayers, that 
the Thessalonians also may find themselves in the number of those among 
whom Christ will be glorified.—xai] belongs not to ei¢ 8, so that the suita- 
bleness of this (supposed) design was denoted (de Wette), but to mpov- 
evyéueda. It imports that the prayer of the apostle was added on behalf of 
the Thessalonians to the fact of the évdofac0qvar.—iva] The contents of the 
prayer in the form of a purpose. aétovv rH¢ KAgcews is that to which Paul 
would attain through his prayer. Comp. Meyer on Phil. i. 9.—agciv] 
means to judge worthy; comp. 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. iii. 3; x. 29. It never 
has the meaning to make worthy, which Luther, Grotius, Flatt, Olshausen, 
Ewald attribute to it. From this it follows that «Ago cannot express the 
act' of the divine calling, already belonging to the past, but must denote 
something future. sxAjors is accordingly to be understood, as in Phil. iii. 
14, in a passive sense, as the good thing to which we are called, i.e. the 


180 also Meyer on Phil. iii. 14; likewise ence to them dperauéAnros (Rom. xi. 29), 
Grimm in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part because the Christian can again make him- 
4, p. 806 f.: “The Christians are declared self unworthy of the divine grace which he 
worthy of the call already promulgated to has received (Rom. xi. 20 f£; 2 Cor. vi. 1 
them, or the xAjeis rod @eot may be in refer- Gal. v. 4).” 


e 
i] 





cHaPp. 1. 11, 12. 58? 
future heavenly blessedness of the children of God.! Col. i.5 (see Meyer 
on that passage) is entirely analogous, where éAmic, elsewhere active, is 
used in @ passive or objective sense—With cai rAnpdoy «.7.A., which is 
grammatically subordinate to df:écy7, Paul adds, logically considered, the 
means which is to lead to the result of being judged worthy. [LVIII c.]— 
wAnpovv)] to bring to completion or perfection —racav evdoxiav ayadwotvng] can- 
not be referred to God, as if it meant all His good pleasure, and denoted 
the divine decree of election (Oecumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Estius, Justi- 
nian, Beza, Calixt, Wolf, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, 
Bisping, and others). It is against this that gpyov micrew, which forms an 
additional accusative to rAypécy, is undoubtedly to be referred to the 
Thessalonians ; that éya8wobvy is never used by Paul of God; and lastly, 
that raoav rj eidoxiay would require to’have been written instead of racay 
evdoxiay. Others refer racay cidoxiay partly to God and partly to the Thes- 
salonians.? This second explanation is even more inadmissible than the 
first. It is not even supported by the appearance of justification, as at 
least nacav ayaBwotv7y evdoxiag must be put, in order to afford a point of con- 
nection for it. The exclusively correct meaning is to understand both 
evdoxiay and ayaduoivns of the Thessalonians. But déyadwotvy does not denote 
benevolence (Chandler, Moldenhauer, Nésselt, Schott), but moral goodness 
generally. Comp. Rom. xv. 14; Gal. v. 22; Eph. v.9. Accordingly, with 
maca evdoxia ayabwoivns is expressed every satisfaction in moral goodness.— 
Epyov wiorewc] here, as in 1 Thess. i. 8, represents faith as an épyov, t.¢. as 
something begun with energy, and persevered in amid persecution.—iév 
éuvéuer}] belongs to wAnpéoy, and takes the place of an adverb. See Bern- 
hardy, Syntaz, p. 209. Comp. Rom. i. 4; Col. i. 29. Thus powerfully. 
Ver. 12. Td dvoua rot xupiov iu. 'Incov] The name of our Lord Jesus, i.e. 
so far as He is the xipwc, the Lord; comp. Phil. ii. 9ff. Arbitrarily, de 
Wette: Christ, so far as He is recognized and known. Still more arbi- 
trarily Turretin, Moldenhauer, Koppe, and others: dvoyza xvpiov is a mere 
circumlocution for xbpioc.—év airp] refers not to ’Iycov (so Alford and 
Ellicott), but to rd dvoua; and the giving prominence to the mutual recip- 
rocity, év ipiv nai tueic év ato, is an exhaustive representation. Comp. Gal. 
vi. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 13.—xara riv xépw rod Ocod judy Kai xvptov ’Incov] [LVIII c.] 
according to the grace of our God and of the (see Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 124)] 
Lord Jesus. According to Hofmann and Riggenbach, Christ is here 


1Alford incorrectly objects to the passive 
interpretation adopted by me, that the 
position of the words would require to be ris 
cAjoeas afiwon. For the emphasis rests on 
afiwopn placed first, whilst with ric xcAjoeus 
the idea, already supposed as well known by 
carafwéinvat Uuas THs BactAcias Tov Geou, Ver. 
5, as well as by the contents of ver. 10, is only 
resumed, although under a different form. 
Alford, appealing to 1 Cor. vii. 20, understands 
xaAjocs “not merely as the first act of God, but 
as the enduring state produced by that act, 
the normal termination of which is glory.” 


2Thus Theophylact: iva waca ev8oaia rod 
@cov, rourdats raga apioxeta, TANpwOy ty Vuiy 
cal way ayaddy Scampdtryncée, cai ovTws Fre oF 
BovAeras 6 Geds, undevds Uuiv Acixovros. Gro- 
tius: Omnem bonitatem sibi gratam... 
ayadwovrny, i éotiw avrov evéoxia, Olshausen, 
with whom Bloomfield agrees: May God fill 
you with all the good which is pleasing to 
Him. In an excess of arbitrariness, Olshau- 
sen besides takes evSoxiay and épyor as 
absolute accusatives, whilst he unites vuas 
not only with agwmey, but likewise with 
wAnpwoy. 


588 § THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


named both our God and our Lord,—an interpretation which, indeed, 
grammatically is no less allowable than the interpretation of the doxology, 
6 Ov éwi mavrwv Osd¢ evdoyzrig cig Tove aiévas, Rom. ix. 5, a8 an apposition 
to 6 Xprorée, but is equally inadmissible, as it would contain an un-Pauline 
thought; on account of which also Hilgenfeld, Zschr. f. d. wiss. Theol., 
Halle 1862, p. 264, in the interest of the supposed spuriousness of the 
Epistle, has forthwith appropriated to himself this discovery of Hofmann. 


Norges py American Eprror. 
 LVIIL Vv. 1-12. 


(a) The Second Epistle has the same general character as the First, both in re- 
spect to the fact that it is a letter of friendly feeling and suggestion, and in respect 
to the main subject which is treated of. It differs from the former Epistle, how- 
ever, in that it was apparently written for the purpose of correcting a single error, 
' inte which the Thessalonians had been led since Paul had written to them, and 
pethaps in connection with some misapprehension as to the meanihg of what he 
had written. It is thus a letter of explanation and correction on a single point, to 
which, both at the beginning and end, certain exhortations or expressions of 
friendly sentiment are added. The centre and substance of the Epistle are, thus, 
in the second chapter, and the other parts are united with this in a subordinate 
way. 

(6) In the expression of thankfulness, with which the letter opens, we find evi- 
dence of progress in the church, even since the date of the former epistle. This 
is indicated by the stronger words used (as compared with 1 Thess. i. 2 ff): 
trepavidvet, wheovdlet, tyxavzyaoda:. We also find evidence that the church had 
met with still further persecutions, as seen in the addition to vropovig tudw xal 
nioreug (ver. 4) of the words év wat. ... avéyeode,—and in the long passage re- 
lating to the subject (vv. 5-10). A careful comparison of the expressions in the 
two letters, however, will show that there is only such a progress indicated as 
might easily have been seen within a brief period. Indeed, the movement of the 
thought, in chap. i. in the line of faith, love and stedfastness; in chap. ii., in 
the line of the Parousia; and in chap. iii. in the line of similar exhortations, 
makes it clear that the two letters could not have been widely separated in 
time. 

(c) As to individual words and phrases, the following points may be noticed :— 
(1) While the possibility of using wiorc in the sense of fidelity may be allowed, it 
seems altogether improbable that it is to be understood in this sense in ver. 4 (as 
Liinem. takes it), because of the natural and easy connection of the ideas of 
stedfastness and faith, and because tioric of ver. 3 undoubtedly means faith— 
(2) With évdecyya of ver.5 we may compare évderéic of Phil. i. 28. The suggestion 
of the passage in Phil. points to the active, not the mere passive element, con- 
tained in trovovf as that which constituted the fvderyua. The fact that the 
Christians endured persecutions, etc., not terrified or overpowered by any thing 
which their adversaries could do, was a token or proof (prognostic, Liinem.) of the 
righteous judgment of God. The idea of justice in God, as thus recompensing, 
seems to be connected with two ideas, which we find presented in the New Testa- 











NOTES. 589 


ment:—the legal principle of reward according to works, which belongs to th2 
legal system, and that justice or righteousness which consists in the fulfillment of 
promises and covenants—God has promised His people a blessed reward (comp. 


> Heb. vi. 10).—(8) The connection of the idea of suffering with that of being 


counted worthy of the kingdom, which we find here and elsewhere in Paul’s 
writings (comp. Rom. viii. 17 and other passages), seems to show, not only how 
inseparable from the Christian life such suffering (which was then largely in the 
line of persecution, etc.) appeared to the apostolic mind, but also how the mind 
of that age turned to the recompenses of the future as a sustaining and encouraging 
fact.—{4) This Epistle opens, as also 1 Theas., with the thought of the Parousia, 
as seen in the word a7oxdéAvyc of ver. 7.—(5) The words added to amaxaAtpe: an’ 
ovpavov here, as compared with those added in 1 Thess. iv. 16. are apparently de- 
termined by the particular thought which the writer has in mind. There, it is 
the summoning of the Christians at the end, whether living or dead, to meet Him 
in their new life. Here, it is the execution of His purposes of judgment with re- 
gard to enemies and friends. The words here employed (év rupi ¢doyédc, per’ ayyé- 
Auv duvdpeuc avrov) do not, however, apparently refer to the idea of punishment. 
They set forth majesty and power, which may secure either glory to obedient sub- 
jects or destruction tv enemies.—(6) Ver. 9 is the only passage in Paul’s writings 
in which the phrase dAeUpo¢ aidviog occurs, and the only one in which the word 
aidévio¢g occurs as applied to the future of unbelieving men. This particular phrase 
is not found elsewhere in the N.T., but the adjective aidévo¢ is connected with sup 
Matt. xviii. 8, xxv. 41, Jude 7, with xéAaocg Matt. xxv. 46, with xplow (T. R.) or 
dudéprnua Mark iii. 29, and with xpiva Heb. vi. 2. The adjective is found forty- 
four times in the N.T. qualifying the word life, and twenty times (including those 
just mentioned) with other words—generally, as connected either with the idea 
of salvation, or with God, His Spirit, purpose, etc. That the adjective carries with 
it the idea of duration, and is not a mere qualitative word, is indicated by its use 
in many cases. The argument in proof that it has this idea of duration in the 
phrases which refer to the penalty of the future life, is a strong one, and one not 
easily set aside. The declaration here given by Paul in respect to this penalty is 
the most definite one which he makes, in his Epistles, in a positive form; but there 
are statements in a negative form (as e.g. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10), which may be regarded 
as conveying the same idea.—(7) The preposition a7é (ver. 9), for the reasons 
given by Liinem., contains the idea of separation from; and, this being the case, _ 
66£a is to be interpreted as meaning that glory which is connected with the mani- 
festation of His person when he accomplishes the complete triumph of His king- 
dom. This is indicated as the meaning, also, by the following words, érayv «.7.A.— 
(8) év rH iuépg Exeivy (ver. 10), which is to be connected with Savuacdyva and the 
words which precede it, refers to the avoxdAvyc, and thus to the Parousia. There 
is, apparently, nothing either here, or in any statement of either of the two 
Epistles, to indicate that Paul had in mind an Advent which was to be separated 
by a long interval from the day of Final Judgment, or that the idea of Farrar 
(Life of St. Paul, Vol. I., p. 607)—that this “sonian exclusion” takes place at the 
time of the former, and not of the latter, is to be found in the passage.—(9) The 
explanation of ei¢ 6 of ver. 11, which is given by Liinem., is the most satisfactory 
one—these words referring to the fact that the glorification of Christ in His people 
is to be expected, and the following part of the verse relating to the worthiness 
of the readers to participate in the blessedness connected with it—(10) The rela- 


590 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONTIANS. 


tion of <?.7pé0y to a&té07, which Liinem. makes that of means leading t the result 
of being judge worthy, is to be thus understood, if xAjoewc is taken, as he takes 
it, in the sense of the good thing to which we are called—the future blessedness. 
This is probably the correct view. If, on the other hand, xajoews is referred, with 
Alf., to “the enduring state pro.luced by the first act” of calling, *Ayp. may be re- 
garded as that which accompanies the a:aoy.—(11) Most of the recent comm. 
ugree with Liinem. that ver. 12 is not to be interprete! as if both Veov and «vpiov 
were intended by the writer to describe Christ—Christ receiving, thus, the name 
of God. As xipiog seems evidently to have somewhat of the character of a proper 
name in its N. T. use, the two words do not full under the ordinary rule of appella- 
tive words united by «ai undera single article. Accordingly, the phrase only unites 
God and Christ in a common relation to grace, and does not give to Christ the name 
Sedg. The passage, however, is not parallel with Rom. ix. 5, as Liinem.’s remark 
might seem toimply. In that passage, all the indications of the sentence and ita 
construction point to the connection of 6 Ov «7.4. with Xpiords, and the supposed 
“un-Pauline thought” is the only argument of weight against it. Here, on the 
other hand, the grammatical usage with regard to proper numes favors the dis- 
tinction between Yedc and Xproréc. 


CHAP. IL. | 691 


CHAPTER II. 


Ver. 2. Elz. has ard rov vod. Instead of it, D E 48, al., Syr. Erp. Syr. p.c.. 
ast. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Hier. Pel. have amd rov vod¢ 
tuov. An interpretation.—Instead of the Receptus pire Opoeioba, A B D* FGR, 
Or. require 702 6poeicda:. Correctly preferred by Lachm. Tisch. Bloomfield, 
Alford and Ellicott, for Spoeicda: contains a new point, intensifying the dis- 
course.—xvpiov] Elz. Matth. read Xpcorov. Against the preponderating authority 
of A B D* E (?) FG L®&, min. plur. vers. and Fathers—Ver. 3. Instead of the 
Receptus duapriac, B® 3, al., perm. Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. Or. ms. (bis et in edd. 
qu.) Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Nicephor. Tert. Ambrosiast. ed. Ambr. have avouiac. 
Adopted by Tisch. 8. But avopiac is taken from avopiac, ver. 7, and dvoyoc, ver. 
8.—Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus trepa:psuevoc, F G, Or. (semel) Prosop. (ap. 
Niceph. semel) demand éraipéuevog. But the directly following éi decides 
against its genuineness.—Before xaVica: Elz. Matth. add o¢ Gedy, A gloss for the 
sake of strengthening. Correctly erased by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., 
Alford and Ellicott, to whom also Reiche agrees, after A B D* ®, min. perm. Erp. 
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. (ter.) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Severus, 
Chrys. ms. Theodoret (alic.) Polychronius, Methodius jun., Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr. 
Aug. Ambrosiast. Ruf. Primas. Caasiod. al.—Instead of the Receptus arodexvivra, 
AFG, 8, 23, al, edd. Or. (semel) Cyr. utr. Theodoret (ter.) Damasc. (semel) have 
arodecxvbovta.— Ver. 8. 6 xbpiog "Incoig] Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, and 
Reiche read only 6 xtpzoc, after B (e sil.) D#** E** K L* min. pl. Arab. in 
polygl. Sl. ms. Or. (semel vel bis) Macar. Cyr. hier. Theodoret (sem.) Damasc. 
(sem.) Oec. Vig. al. But 6 xbpiog "Incot¢ (received by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. 
Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Alford, Ellicott) is required by A D* E* F G L**®, 17, 31, al, 
perm. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Or. (semcl vel 
bis) Hippol. Constitut. Ath. Bas. Cyr. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret (saepe), Damasc., 
Theoph. Ir. (semel) Tert. Hier (saepe) Fulgent. Hilar. Ambros. Aug. Rufin. Am- 
brosiast. Primas. Pelag.—Elz. has avaddécet. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read aveAei, 
after A B D* 17, 23, al., mult. Or. (semel) Hipp. Macar. Method. jun., Andreas 
caesar. Cyr. hieros. Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theophylact. But avaddce: is the more 
unusual form, and avedci is taken from the LXX. Isa, xi. 4—Ver. 10. ad¢xtac] 
Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz read rij¢ adcniag. The article is wanting in A B F G &* 
min. Or. (sexies) Cyr. hieros. The last syllable of the preceding amdry gave occa- 
sion to this addition.—roi¢ droAAvpévorc] Elz. Griesbach, Matth. Bloomfield read 
év roig aroAAupévorce. Against A B D* F G &* 17, 71, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. 
It. Or. (quinquies) Cyr. hieros. Damasec. (semel) Ir. Tert. Aug. Ambrosiast. al.— 
Ver. 11. Instead of the Receptus réupec, A B D* F G &* 67** al, Vulg. ms. Or. 
(bis vel ter) Bas. Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Ir. Ambrosiast. ed. require téumec, Recom- 
mended by Griesb. Received by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott. Cor- 
rectly. The present only suits ver. 7, according to which the wickedness had 
already begun to work.—Ver. 12. rj dd:xig] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 





592 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


7, Bloomfield, Alford, Ellicott read év rp adcxig, after A D*** E K L ®**** min. pl. 
Copt. Syr. utr. al., m. Or. (bis) Chrys. Theodoret (semel) Damasc. (semel) al., Cypr. 
Hier. Lachm. has bracketed é. It is wanting in B D* F G ®* min. perm. edd. 
Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. (bis) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Theodoret (alic.), Damasc. Ir. Tert. 
Aug. Ambrosiast. al. Erased by Tisch. 1 and 8. But the addition was most 
natural for a N. T. writer, on account of its agreement with the Hebrew, whilst at 
a later period the parallel member in the first half of the verse might easily have 
been the occasion of its omission—Ver. 18. an’ apxy7c¢] B F G 35, al., Didym. 
Damase. (comm.) Vulg. Ambr. Pel. read atapy#v. So Lachm. and Tisch. 1. Not 
only do A D E K 4%, almost all min., many vers. and Fathers attest the reading 
of the Receptus ax’ apyzic, but Paul could not possibly have written axapxj, as 
the Thessalonians were not the first who became believers, either generally or 
even in Macedonia.— Ver. 17. ornpiéac] Elz. Matth. read ornpigae ipac. But vac is 
wanting in A B D* E* F GX, min. mult. Syr. utr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. Ocec. 
Ambrosiast. a/., and is a supplementary addition.—Instead of épyw xai Adyy, Elz. 
and Matth. have Aéyy xai épyw. Against decisive testimony (A B D E L®, min. 
mult. Copt. Aeth Syr. p. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. Theodoret, Occ. 
Ambrosiast. Vigil. ai.). 


Vv. 1-12. [On vv. 1 ff., see Note LV. pages 541, 542.] Dogmatic portion of the 
Epistle. Information, by way of correction concerning the commence- 
ment of the advent. The day of the Lord is not yet. It will only then 
occur when Antichrist, whom now a preventing power hinders from 
appearing, will be manifested.’ 

Ver. 1. 'Epurauev dé] passing from what the apostle prays for the 
Thessalonians (i. 11, 12) to what he requires of them. On épuray, 
see on 1 Thess. iv. 1. [LV a.]—daédeAgoi] an affectionate and winning ad- 
dress.—irép| is in the Vulgate? understood as a form of adjuration (per 
adventum); and then the meaning attributed to it is either: si vobis dies 
ille tremendus est . . . obtestor vos per illum (Zwingli), or: si vobis animo 
carus est adventus domini, si desiderabile est vobis ad ipsum dominum 


18ee on vv. 1-13, Noesselt, Opusc. ad inter- 
pretationem sacrarum scriptur. fascie. II., Hal. 
1787, p. 257 ff.; Seger, Diss. philol. ad locum 2 
Thess. ii. 1-12, Hal. 1791; Tychsen in Henke’s 
Magazin f. Religionsphilos., Exeges. und Kirch- 
engesch, vol. VI., Helmst. 1796, p. 171 ff. ; Storr, 
Opuse. acad. vol. III., Tab. 1803, p. 323 ff; 
Nitzsch, De revelatione religionis externa eaclem- 
que publica, Lips. 1908, p. 223 ff.; Heydenreich 
in the Nene Krit. Journal der theol. Litera- 
tur, by Winer and Engelhardt, Bd. 8, Sulzb. 
1828; Kern in the Titbing. Zeitschr. f. theol. 
1839, Part 2, p. 145 ff.; Wieseler, Chronologie 
des apoet. Zeitalters, Gott. 1848, p. 257 ff.; Baum- 
garten, die Apostelgeschichte oder der Entwickel- 
ungegang de~ Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom., 
2d ed. vol i., Braunschw. 1859, p. 603 ff.; 
Schneckenburger on the LeA?e vom Antichrist. 
Treated of by Ed. Béhmer in the Jahrb. f. 


Deutsche Theol. von Liebner, etc., Gotha 1859, 


p. 420 ff.; v. Déllinger, Christenthum u. Kirche 
in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p. 
277 ff., 422 ff.; Luthardt, die Lehre von den 
letzten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 145 ff.; J. Arm- 
strong, The Apocalypee and St. Paul's prophecy 
of the Man of Sin (2 Thess. II.), critically 
examined and historically iUustrated. Dublin, 
1868; Weiss, in d. Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1860, 1, 
p. 20 ff.; W. Engelhardt, der Antichrist. Kine 
Studie iiber 2 Theas. 2. 1-12; in d. Zeitschr. for 
ad. gesammte luth. Theol. u. Kirche von Delitzach 
und Guericke. 1877, 1, p. 52 ff.; older literature 
in Wolf. 

3 As well as by Pelagius, Faber Stapulenstis, 
Bugenhagen, Clarius, Erasmus, Zwingli, Cal- 
vin, Hemming, Hunnius, Justinian, Estius, 
Piscator, Balduin, Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Beza, Fromond., Calixt, Bern. a Piconius, 
Nat. Alexander, and many others, 


cHaP. 11. 1, 2. 593 


colligi, etc. (Hemming), or lastly : quam vere exapectatis domini adventum, 
etc. (Beza). Certainly irép, as elsewhere mpé¢, sometimes occurs in pro- 
testations with the genitive; comp. Hom. JI. xxiv. 466 f—Kai pa trip 
matpoc Kai pytépog ruxéuowo Aloceo xal réxeoc, iva ol ovv Ovudv dpivyc, Bern- 
hardy, Syntaz, p. 244. But (1) such a usage is entirely foreign to the N. 
T. (2) It is hardly conceivable that Paul should have chosen that as an 
object of adjuration, concerning which he was about to instruct them in 
what follows. Therefore Zeger, Vorstius, Grotius, Hammond, Wolf, 
Noesselt, Koppe, Storr, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Winer 
(p. 359 [E. T. 383]), Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Bloomfield, Alford, 


Ewald, Bisping, Riggenbach, and others more correctly take izxép in the 


sense of epi, in respect of. Comp. Rom. ix. 27; 2 Cor. i. 8; Passow, A 3; 
Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 244; Kihner, II. p. 288. Yet this does not prevent 
the maintenance of the special import of the preposition also here. The 
meaning is in the interest of the advent, namely, in order to preserve it 
from everything that is erroneous. When, then, the apostle says: we 
entreat you in the interest of the advent, the meaning of this abbreviated 
form of expression is: we entreat you in the interest of the advent, 
namely, to guard it against all misrepresentations, not to deviate from the 
correct view concerning it.—rapovcia tov xvpiov}] here also, as everywhere 
with Paul, is nothing else than the personal coming (return) of Christ at 
the completion of the kingdom of God.—ézivwaywyy] points back to 1 
Thess. iv. 17, denoting the act by which all believers are caught up to 
Christ, or gathered together to Him, to be then eternally united to Him, 
following the resurrection and change.—jyér] is placed first in order to 
obtain a more direct contrast to «vpiov.—én’ airév] wp to Him. Incorrectly 
Grotius, Koppe, Heydenreich, Pelt, Alford, and a that it is equiva- 
lent to xpéc avrév. 

Ver. 2. A statement of the object of the whole santenee: ver. 1.—vadebe- 
ofa:| from oddoc, which is especially used of the sea agitated by a storm 
\comp. Luke xxi. 25), denotes being placed in a state of commotion and 
vacillation. It is spoken both in a natural sense of circumstances in the 
external world (comp. Matt. xi. 7; Acta iv. 31, xvi. 26; Heb. xii. 26, etc.), 
and also transferred to mental conditions (comp. Acts xvii.18). cadevPijwac 
avd tov vode is a pregnant construction, including two ideas: to be put in 
a state of mental commotion away from the voi, ¢. e. so that the vote goes 
astray, does not attain to its proper function. Comp. Rom. ix.3: avéJeua 
elvat and tov Xpiotov.—voic] is to be taken quite generally. It denotes the 
reasonable, sober, and considerate state of mind, mentis tranquillitas (Turre- 
tin). Others, contrary to the meaning of the word, understand by voic 
the more correct view or conviction, received by the personal instruction 
of the apostle concerning the advent, from which the Thessalonians were | 
not to suffer themselves to be removed. So Hemming, Bullinger, Estius, 
Lucius Osiander, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Fromond., Bern. 
a Piconius, Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Flatt, Heydenreich, and many 
others; whilst, in an equally erroneous manner, Wolf interprets the 
expression of the “ sensus verborum Pauli, de hoc argumento in superiore 

88 


§94 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


epistola traditorum.”—y9 rayévc] not suddenly. This does not import, 
“so soon after my departure” (Joachim Lange), or so shortly after the 
instructions received from us (Piscator, Calovius, Olshausen, and others), 
but: suddenly, so soon after the matter in question was spoken of.—yyde 
Bpoeiadac] nor yet be frightened. A new and stronger point, which is more 
definitely described or divided by the following pare, according to a three- 
fold statement of the cause. See on this distinction between y7dé and 
ugre, Winer, p. 404 [E. T. 488].—yajre dia sveiparog] [LV c.] neither by 
inspiration. Falsely-understood prophecies of the O. T. (Krause), or signa 
quasi per spiritum facta (Pelagius), or deceitful revelations by spiritual 
appearances (Ernest Schmid, Schrader), or by dreams (Schrader), are not 
meant; but inspired prophetical discourses, delivered by the members of 
the church in Christian assemblies, and whose contents were falsely given 
out as divine revelations. To understand, with Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, 
Vatablus, Koppe, Storr, Bolten, Heydenreich, and others (Flatt and de 
Wette give the alternative), rveiua as an abstract noun, instead of the 
concrete mvevyarixdc, 80 that the persons who delivered the inspired dis- 
courses are to be understood, although not without analogy, is yet objection- 
able in itself, and has the want of harmony occasioned by it with the 
following Adéyov and émwrodAge against it.—pyre did Adyov] is by Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius referred to a traditional (falsified) word of Jesus, more specifi- 
cally by Noesselt to the prophecy of Christin Matt. xxiv., Mark xiii., Luke 
xxi. But if Paul had in view a saying of Christ, he would have indicated 
it (perhaps by pre dca Adyou o¢ xvpiov, or something similar). Others, as 
Michaelis and Tychsen, translate Adyos by “reckoning,” and suppose 
that one made a reckoning of the times on the ground of the 
Book of Daniel, and in consequence inferred that the advent of Christ 
was directly at hand. But Adyou by itself certainly does not justify such 
an artificial hypothesis. Lastly, others, in distinction from prophecy 
delivered by inspiration, take Adyo¢ in the sense of a calm and didactic 
discourse, whether aiming at conviction or seduction. So, after the 
example of Chrysostom, Oecumenius (é:a weSavodcyiac), Theophylact (da 
Sidacxahiag Coy guvg yivouévyc), Clarius (oratione persuasoria), Zeger (per 
doctrinam viva voce prolatam), Ewald (“by word; that is, by discourse 
and doctrine [é:daz4, 1 Cor. xiv. 26]; whilst one sought to prove the error 
in a learned manner by a clever discourse, perhaps from the Holy Scrip- 
tures’’), Hofmann, Riggenbach, and many others. However, from the 
parallel arrangement in ver. 15, which opposes the true to the false 
expressed in ver. 2, it is evident that dca Adyouv and 6d éxcoroAge are closely 
connected ideas, of which the first denotes the oral, and the second the 
written statement. It is accordingly most natural to construe dé Adyov 
not by itself, but to unite o¢ dc uév, as proceeding from us, both with da 
Aéyou and with de émoroage ; and to understand the first of oral expressions 
which were imputed to the apostle,! and the latter of written expressions 

1 But not, as Mackuight (comp. also Bloom- explains it, of “rumores de nobis, quasi aliud 


field) thinks, of a pretended oral message of nunc diceremus, quam antehac diximus.” 
the apoetie to his readers; nor, as Grotiug 


CHAP. Il. 3, 4. 595 


which were imputed to him by means of a forged epistle. On the other 
hand, with Erasmus, to refer o¢ d¢ qyév also to dia rvetparos is impossi- 
ble; as, although Aéyo: and émorodai may be placed in the category of 
those things which proceed from one absent, yet this cannot be the case 
with inspired prophetical discourses, as with these the personal presence 
of the speaker was requisite.'—uc &:’ #uév] simply denies that such a say- 
ing or letter, containing such an assertion, arose from Paul and his two com- 
panions, or proceeded from them. The apostle accordingly supposes, that as 
there were actually in Thessalonica prophetical announcements (rveiya) 
which had the assertion which follows as their contents, so there were also 
actually present a Adyoc and an émoroA# containing the contents here stated. 
Accordingly, it is a completely arbitrary assumption when Kern, p. 149 
f.; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T., 4th edit., Braunschw. 1864, p. 71; 
Bleek, Hinleit. in d. N. T., Ber. 1862, p. 385 f.; and Hilgenfeld, in d. Zschr. 
f. wiss. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 249, after the example of Beza (but he not 
decidedly), Hammond, and Krause, refer the émiroAq to the apostle’s First 
Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was wrongly understood, or, as Hil- 
genfeld thinks, from which an inference suggested by it was drawn.—o¢ 
dre evéornxev 1) huépa tov xvpiov] [LV d.] as if, or, ke as tf the day of the 
Lord is already present, or, ts even on the point of commencing® (comp. Rom. 
viii. 88; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii. 26; Gal. i. 4), gives the contents of the communi- 
cations unsettling and terrifying them. o¢ placed before ir brings into 
prominence the fact that this notion was completely unfounded and 
purely imaginary. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 31, and Winer, p. 574 [E. T. 618]. 
Completely erroneous Hofmann : og¢ ér: is equivalent to ac édév, 1 Thess. ii. 
7.—When, moreover, the apostle says that these illusions unsettled and 
terrified the Thessalonians, this effect might be produced both on those 
who regarded the advent with longing desire and on those who regarded 
it with fear. For what is eagerly expected puts a man in a state of excite- 
ment, and if it is something decisive of his fate, into a state of fear, as 
soon as he believes that the moment of its realization has come. 

Vv. 8,4. [See Note LV e-k.] An emphatically-repeated exhortation, 
and the reason of it. The readers were by no means to be misled into 
the fancy, that the day of the Lord was now to dawn; for the apostasy 
and the appearance of Antichrist must precede it.—éfarxarav] does not 
precisely convey the idea of a deceit occurring from wicked intention, 
whilst it may be correctly imagined that nothing evil was seen in the 
mode of deception mentioned in ver. 2—rather it was considered as an 
excusable vehicle for the diffusion of views which were believed to be 
recognized as true; only the idea of delusion, ¢.e. of being misled into a 
false and incorrect mode of contemplation, is expressed by the verb.— 


1Correctly Theodoret: wapeyyvg rolvyy & ws df avrod ypageioay imorodAhy wpoddporer, 
Ociog awéorodcs, uy miorevacy Tots Adyovew pire ci aypdges alrdy cipyadvar Adyocer. 
dveoraxdvas roy Tis ourredcias Katpév, Kai wap- *Incorrectly Hoelemann, Die Stellung St. 
avrixa Toy ciproy tripanicerOa, wire ei wpoc- Pauli zu der Frage um die Zeit der Wiederkunfe 
govoivro xpnopepseiy kai mpodyrevacy’ rouTo yep Christi, Leipz. 1858, p. 14: “as if the day of 
Adyes pire 8a wvevmaros’ ware ci wAaedpevor the Lord was at hand.” 





596 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


When, then, the apostle says, Let no man befool you, it is, similar to a 
form of representation usual to him, ip the meaning of suffer yourselves 
to be befooled by no one. Comp. Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 16, 18.—«xera pydéve 
tpérov]| not only recapitulates the three modes of misleading mentioned 
in ver. 2 (Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius), but is an absolute expression, so 
that accordingly it may be supposed that some other mode of deception 
might be employed.—The sentence vv. 3, 4 is grammatically incomplete. 
The finite verb to dr: is wanting, which Paul intended to accompany the 
conjunction, but easily forgot as he added to 6 dv¥puroe ri auapriacg a 
longer description. It is perfectly clear from the connection that oi« 
évéoryxev 1 jutpa tov xvpiov from ver. 2 is to be supplied to dr. In a very 
forced manner Knatchbull attempts to remove the incompleteness of the 
construction by placing a comma after én, supplying évéornxev to dri, and 
uniting it with 4 Tic . . . rpérow into one sentence. “Suffer yourselves 
to be deceived by no one that (the day of the Lord is at the door), unless 
first there shall have come,” etc. To maintain this meaning évéornxev 
must necessarily be added to rc. But still more arbitrary is the attempt 
of Storr and Flatt to remove the ellipsis by explaining éé» 4 as analo- 
gous (!) to the Hebrew x4 DK, in the sense of most certainly, most positively. 
—ir:] is to be separated from the preceding by a colon, and does not 
denote indeed (Baumgarten-Crusius), but for.—arocrasia] a later Greek 
form for the older axécracc¢.1 The expression is to be left in its absolute- 
ness, not, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustin (de civitate 
dei, xx. 21), and Bolten, to be taken as abstractum pro concreto, so that 
Antichrist himself is to be understood. But no apostasy in the political 
sense, but entirely religious apostasy—that is, a falling away from God and 
true religion—can have been meant by arooracia. (1) What is said of 
the dv@pwrog ri¢ duapriag in direct internal connection with the apostasy, 
(2) the characteristic of the arocracia, ver. 3, by avouia, ver. 7, and (8) the 
constant biblical usage, constrain us to this view. Comp. LXX. 2 Chron. 
xxix. 19; Jer. ii. 19; 1 Macc. i. 15, etc.; Acta xxi. 21; 1 Tim. iv. 1. 
Accordingly, also, Kern’s view (comp. already Aretius and Vorstius) is to 
be rejected as inadmissible, that we are to think of a méature of political 
and religious apostasy.—Moreover, the apostle speaks of 9 é@ocraota (with 
the article), and also 6 dvOpwroc tHe duaptiag x.7.A., either because the 
readers had already been orally instructed concerning it (comp. ver. 5), or 

because the Old Testament prophets had already foretold the apostasy 
and the appearance of Antichrist. But the apostasy is not the consequence 
of the appearance of Antichrist, so that Paul by «ai aroxadugdg x.7.A. goes 
backwards from a statement of its effect to a specification of its author (so 
Pelt and de Wette, appealing to vv. 9, 10); but it precedes the appearance 
of antichrist, so that this is the historical climax of the érocrasia, and 
serves for its completion (vv. 7-10).—The apostle considers Antichrist as 
a parallel to Christ ; therefore he here speaks of an aroxéAvyc (comp. i. 
7), a revelation of what was hitherto concealed, as well as, in ver. 9, of an 


18ee Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 528. 


CHAP. II. 4. 597 


advent of the same. [On vv. 8-12, see Note LX. page 622.]—s dvdpurog rijc 
Guaptiac] the man of sin, i.e. in whom sin is the principal matter, and is, as 
it were, tncorporated—who thus forms the climax of wickedness.—é vids 
TI¢ anwdeiac] the son of perdition, i.e. who on account of his wickedness 
falls a prey to perdition. Comp. John xvii. 12. See Winer, p. 223 f. [E. 
T. 238 f.]. Schleusner and Pelt erroneously take the expression as tran- 
sitive : “who will be the cause of perdition to others.” Equally errone- 
ously Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others; also Heydenreich, Schott and 
Engelhardt: the transitive sense is to be united with the intransitive. 

Ver. 4. ‘0 avriueizevoc] is not to be united by eeugma with trepa:pdpevor, 
so that out of émt révrax.r.A. the dative mavri Aeyouévy Ged } ceBdopar: is to 
be taken (Benson, Koppe, Krause, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pelt, Bloomfield, 
Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is absolute, in the sense of a substantive—the 
opposer. It has been erroneously maintained by Pelt, that the article 
being only put once necessitates the assumption of a zeugma. But all that 
follows from the single insertion of the article is only that the two state- 
ments, avrixeicba: and trepaipecba:, must contain something related to each 
other, which is summed up in a common general tdea. This general idea is 
extremely evident from what follows. Accordingly, the person of whom 
Paul speaks was designated according to his infernal nature by 6 dvd3puroe 
T%¢ duapriac, then characterized according to his ultimate fate by 64 vide ric 
arwAelac, and now—whilst Paul in his delineation takes a step backward 
(comp. ver. 8 and ver. 9}—the mode and manner of his public external appear- 
ance and conduct is described.—But if 6 avrixeiuevog denotes simply and 
absolutely the opposer, the question is asked, whom does he oppose ? Baum- 
garten and Michaelis erroneously answer: the human race; for this inter- 
pretation has no point of contact in the context, and would explain away 
the form so definitely brought before us by Paul by a vague generality. 
De Wette and others more definitely answer: God and Christ. And cer- 
tainly the description that immediately follows shows that the opposer 
opposes himself in the highest degree to God. But this fact does not 
justify such a wide meaning, if another is opposed to it in the context. 
Now the context specially points to the opposer of Christ (thus Heyden- 
reich, Schott, and Kern). For the man of sin stands in the closest and 
strictest parallelism with Christ. He is the forerunner of Christ’s advent, 
and has, as the caricature of Christ, like Him an advent and a manifesta- 
tion: he raises the power of evil, which exalts itself in a hostile manner 
against Christ and His kingdom, to the highest point; his working is 
diametrically the opposite of the working of Christ, and it is Christ's 
appearance which destroys him. Accordingly, the opponent can be none 
other than the Antichrist (6 avrizpwroc, 1 John ii. 18). This Antichrist is 
not the devil himself (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from 
him (ver. 9); but according to ver. 9 he is an instrument of the devil.—In 
nal imeparpsuevog x.r.A. he is further described as he who, in frivolous arro- 
gance, exalts himself above all that is called God. With this description 
the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes, in Dan. xi. 36, 37, was before the 
mind of the apostle, where it is said: xai 6 Baoeig tyuOfoera: nai peyadwv- 


598 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


Ohoerac exit mavra Oedy, xai AaAfoe: Wripoyxa ... Kai ewi wavrag Oeoie Tov xaripuw 
‘ @uTov ov ovvioe . . . Kal évi wav Oedv ov ovvhoe, bri exi wavracg peyadvvOpoeras. 
Comp. Dan. vii. 25: nai Adyoug mpd¢ Tov iyoroy AaAjoet.—éni wavta Aeydpuevoy 
O26v]} includes the true God as well as the false gods worshipped by the 
heathen; but Aeyéuevov is a natural addition from Christian caution, as 
xavta Orév would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous expres- 
sion for a Christian —# ofBacyza) serves for a generalization of the idea 
@edv. Accordingly the meaning is: or whatever else is an object of adora- 
tion, sc. of divine adoration (= numen).—dore «.7.4.] The arrogant wicked- 
ness of Antichrist proceeds so far that he claims divine adoration for héim- 
self—xaBioac] intransitive, seats himself; accordingly not atrév (Grotius, 
Koppe, Pelt), but airéy is to be written. aird is placed for the sake of 
emphasis: he, who has lost all reverence for the divine, in whose form he 
wishes to appear.—é vade rov Orov] is not, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew 
Osiander, Aretius, Vorstius, Calixt, Calovius, Wolf, Benson, Moldenhauer, 
Bolten, and others, also Heydenreich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, 
Bisping, and Hilgenfeld (i.c. p. 253) assume, a figurative representation of 
the Christian church, but, on account of the definite expression caVioaz, 
cannot be otherwise understood than in its proper sense. But on account 
of the repetition of the article can only one definite temple of one definite 
true God—that is, the temple of Jerusalem—be meant (Grotius, Clericus, 
Schéttgen, Whitby, Kern, de Wette, Wieseler, v. Dollinger, lc. p. 282, 
Davidson, Introduction to the study of the N. Test. vol. I., p. 13)..— 
arodexvivta éavtdv bri éoriv Oedc] exhibiting himself that hets a god, i. e. 
whilst he not only actually takes possession of the temple of the only true 
God as his own, as a dwelling-place belonging to him, but also publicly 
predicates of himself divine dignity, and accordingly requires to be adored. 
The interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, 
also Heydenreich, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Bisping, and Riggenbach : 
““who shows himself or seeks to show himself as a god by deceitful mira- 
cles ” (ver. 9), agrees not with the preceding xafica. - 

Ver. 5. Estius: “ Est ... tacita objurgatio, quasi dicat : quum haec vobis 
praesens dixerim, non debebatis commoveri rumoribus aliquorum dicen- 
tium instare diem domini.”—On mpé¢ tuac] see on 1 Thess. iii. 4.—raira] 
namely, the contents of vv. 3, 4. To assume, however, a parenthesis from 
ver. 5 to oldare in ver. 6 (80 Heinsius) is arbitrary. 

Ver. 6. Td xaréxov] is that which keeps back, that which hinders (rd nwAtov, 
Chrysostom). But it does not denote, as Heinsius thinks (here and in ver. 
7), that which hinders the apostle from speaking freely of Antichrist ;? also 
not that which hinders the commencement of the advent of Christ 
(Noack, der Ursprung des Christenthums, Bd. 2, Leipz. 1857, p. 315), but 


1Schrader certainly finds in 4 vaéds a  aperte vetat loqui;” and on ver. 7: “ fille, qni 
heathen temple; and by the addition rov @eov nunc obstat, quo minus aperte loquar.” 
its interior is denoted, the place where the Heinsius makes the words refer ta the SPoe 
god had its seat! tle’s fear of offending Nero| 

#“ Neque ignoratis, quid sit, quod me nunc 








CHAP. I. 5, 6. 599 


that which hinders the appearance of Antichrist. This follows from the 
additional sentence éi¢ rd «.r.2., in which (1) avrévy can only be referred to 
the dvdpwmoc ri¢ ayapriac, and (2) aroxaAvedivac ev te éavrov xaip> forms a 
contrast to the idea of keeping back contained in xarézov. 1d xarézov is 
therefore, according to its objective side, to be completed by 1d trav dv3-pwrov 
THC duaptias Katéyov. What, on the other hand, the apostle supposes to be 
the subject of this preventing power can only be explained at the conclu- 
sion of this section.—eig rd «.r.A.] not donec, usque dum, but tn order that 
(the atm of God in the xaréxecv).—év r@ éavrov xaipg] in his time, i.e. in the 
time appointed for him by God. More difficult than these determina- 
tions is the solution of the question, In what connection this verse is con- 
joined to the preceding by means of xai viv. Storr, with whom Flatt 
agrees, finds in vy a contrast to ér, ver.5. The thought would then be, 
that the advent cannot commence until Antichrist appears, this I have 
told you by word of mouth; but now, after my written declaration (ver. 
8), you know also why the appearance of Antichrist is still delayed, namely, 
by the circumstance that the azooracia must precede his appearance. But 
if Paul had actually wished to have expressed this contrast, he would 
have been obliged to write in ver. 5, dre ratra pév éte dv mpde iuac EAcyov 
tuiv, and in ver. 6, viv dé xai 1d xarézov oldare. Related to Storr’s view is 
the interpretation of Kern, with whom Hilgenfeld (ic. p. 247) agrees: 
“That the advent of Christ does not take place until the man of sin be 
revealed, is already known to you: and now, in reference to what the present 
presents to you, ye know also that which hinders.” The same objection is 
decisive against this view. Further, according to Hofmann, who consid- 
ers vv. 5, 6 as “ two halves of one question united with xai” viv stands not, 
indeed, in opposition to ér:, ver. 5, but must express “the present in refer- 
ence to that future which was known to the readers,” that they know that 
in the present by which its commencement is still hindered. But the 
temporal viv can never form a contrast to ratra in ver. 5; and to assume 
that the words in ver. 6 are still contained in the question in ver. 5 is 
entirely erroneous, because in this case xai vip x.7.A. could only be consid- 
ered as dependent on é7:,! but it is not necessary to recall to mind what is 
actually known in the present.—r is also understood as a particle of 
time, by Whitby, Macknight, Heydenreich, Schrader, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Wieseler, and Bisping, but they do not connect it with 
oldare, but with rd xaréyov: “and ye know that which at present hinders.” 
But only a grammatical impropriety would be expressed thereby, as xa) 
7d viv xaréyov would be required. For it is inconceivable that an adverb, 
whoee proper place 18 between the article and the participle, should by a hyper- 
baton be placed first, because it has already in its natural position the same 
emphasis which it would receive by its being placed first. The passages 
appealed to, as ver. 7,1 Cor. vii. 17, Rom. xii. 3, etc., are not analogous. 
And as little do the temporal particles dpr: and #én, ver. 7, decide for this 


1 For if in the presumed question, not oid3are correspond, xal oi oifere viv 1d xartxov 
and éAcyor, but oigare and pryuovevere were to would require to have been written. 





600 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


construction. For the emphasis lies not on épr:, but on xaréyov, so that 
dpre might be omitted without injury to the sense; and #7 is not put in 
exchange for viv, but for é rp éavrov xaipp. Likewise viv is understood 
by Schott as a temporal and consecutive particle, but «ai is then taken in the 
sense of also: “ For ye know also now (not only have ye learned it at that 
time when I was with you), why the appearance of Antichrist is still 
delayed.” But (1) 78 obv xarézov oidare xai_ viv would require to have been 
written; (2) rd xaréyov must refer toa point formerly already erplained; 
but it is entirely a new point, as in what goes before what hindered the 
appearance of Christ, but not what hindered the appearance of Antichrist, 
was spoken of; (8) lastly, to what an idle, dragging, and trivial addition 
would ver. 6 be degraded! The only correct view is to take xai viv in a 
logicul sense, but not, with Koppe and Krause, as an inferential particle 
(‘‘and accordingly ’’), but with de Wette, Alford, Ewald, and Ellicott, as a 
particle of transition to a new communication: and now, comp. Acts vii. 34, 
x. 5, xili. 11, xx. 25, etc.; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 26. Accordingly, 
the emphasis does not lie on viv, but on «aréyov, The meaning is: and 
now—to pass onto a further point—ye know what hindereth, namely, wherein 
it consists, and why the appearance of Antichrist is still prevented, that 
it should be revealed in its appointed time, marked out by God. The 
Thessalonians knew this point from the apostle’s oral instructions, so that 
they required only to be reminded of it. 

Ver. 7.1 An explanatory justification of cic rd amoxaAvgdivac aro év To 
éavrov xa:p?, but not a parenthesis (Hemming). The mystery of wicked- 
ness is certainly even now active, but Antichrist cannot be manifest until 
the power preventing him be overcome.—yvorfpiov] is contrasted with 
aroxaAugOjvar, and 767 with év ro éavrov xaipo. But the chief emphasis of 
the sentence lies on pvorfpiov, which on that account is not only placed 
first, but is besides separated from its further definition rie avopiac by the 
verb and adverb? avouzia] means lawlessness, then ungodliness or wicked- 
ness generally.—The expression corresponds to arocracia, ver. 3. For the 
évOpwro¢ tie auaptiag Was mentioned in ver. 3 as the historical crown of 
the arocracia; whilst here, in like manner, avouia appears as its forerun- 
ner (#67). The genitive rij¢ avouiac is not a genitive of the working cause— 
wickedness, which lays its concealed snares (Theodoret), or which works 
under the appearance of good intentions, but uses secret unworthy means 
for ita object (Flatt); or the plan of ungodliness (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; 
or the secret counsel of the supernatural power of darkness (nxar’ évépyeav row 
carava, ver. 9), which is placed in parallelism with God’s eternal counsel 
or pvorfpiov in reference to Christ and His kingdom (Kern); but is the 
genitive of apposition. But neither is Antichrist himself meant, who, as 
Christ, because God manifest in the flesh, is called in 1 Tim. iii. 16: rd rg 
evoeBeiac pvorhpiov, is likewise named 1d pvorgpiov tie avouiacs, because he is 


1Comp. C. Th. Beyer, de caréxowr: rv avo- | Programm), 1861. 
wiay, 2 Thess. ii. 7, commentatio, Lips. 1824.— 2Comp. Gal. ii. 6,9; Arrian, Exp. Al. i. 7. 16: 
J. Grimm, the cardyeyv of the Second Epistle «ai eipér6ar cvyyrapyy ry Abe Ter Oyfainy 
to the Thessalonians (Regensburger Lyteal- ri areordceus. 


CHAP I. 7, 601 


an incarnation of the devil (Olshausen); nor is pvorfpwy a mere intensifi- 
cation of the idea avouia, so that a hitherto unheard of, unexampled godless- 
ness was designated (Krebs, Hofmann, comp. also Heydenreich, p. 41, 
and Schott, p. 22).! Rather, taking into consideration the emphatic anti- 
thesis which pvorgpiov forms to aroxaAvpOjva, the natural meaning of the 
words can only be the mystery of wickedness, i.e. wickedness in so far as it 
is still a mystery, something concealed, not yet publicly brought to light. 
Paul thinks on the detached traces of wickedness, recognizable in their 
true import only to a few as to himself, which already appeared, but 
which only at a later period will concentrate themselves, and reach their 
climax in Antichrist.—évepyeira:] is not passive,.as Estius, Grotius, Kypke, 
Nosselt, Storr, Schott, Bloomfield, and others assume, but middle, és active, 
begins to bestir itself or to develop ts activity. The subject of évepyeira: is rd 
pvorfpwv, not Antichrist, as Zeger thinks—yévor] is still by Heinsius? and 
Kypke connected with the preceding, and separated from what follows by 
a comma. Erroneously, as pévov is irreconcilable with 7dé7 in the same 
clause. But also p«évov does not begin a protasis to which xa? rére, ver. 8, 
introduces the apodosis (Koppe). Rather a comma is to be put after 
avoyias, and a colon after yévyras. Accordingly ver. 7 is divided into two 
halves, of which the first forms a concession, and the second a kmitation. 
The meaning is: as a mystery wickedness certainly works even now, only, 
before Antichrist can be manifested, we must wait until, etc.—éuc] until that, 
should properly stand before 6 xarézuv; but it is placed after, in order to 
bring forward more emphatically 6 xarézwv as the chief idea. Comp. Gal. 
li. 10: pdvov rav rruxdv iva pvqpovebopev. See Winer, p. 511 f. [E. T. 550]. 
Erroneously Tychsen: the construction is “somewhat distorted;” it 
should have been pévoy 6 xaréyuv gu aprt. Others, equally erroneously, 
assume that for the completion of the sentence an additional verb is to 
be taken from the participle 6 xatéywv. Thus, in conformity with the Vul- 
gate (tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat), Nicolas de 
Lyra, Erasmus, Zwingli, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew 
Osiander, Balduin, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, who sup- 
ply xarezxérw; Jac. Cappellus, Beza, Calixt, Joachim Lange, Whitby, who 
supply xabéfec; Bengel, Storr, Pelt, who supply xarézye. Not less arbitra- 
rily do Knatchbull, -Benson, and Baumgarten proceed, who would add 
éoriv after uévov. For not the mere copula écriv, but the emphatic and inde- 
pendent éorcv, would warrant the sense assumed by them; but a word 
which has the emphasis cannot be left out.—< xarézyav] must be essentially 
the same as what was designated in ver. 6 by the neuter 1rd xatéyov. For 
the same function is ascribed to both, whilst in a similar manner as 13 xaré- 
 yov formerly, so now also 6 xaréyuv (comp. ver. 8) appears as that by which 
the droxéAvyrc of Antichrist is still delayed. The restraining power, on 
which Paul thought, must accordingly have been so constituted that it 


2For this meaning an appeal is made to 2Heinsius finds the thought expressed: 
Joseph. de bello Jud. i. 24.1: nai roy ‘Ayre what was only begun in the time of Nero, 
watpov Biov ovx Gy audpro tis eiwmy xaxias Antichrist will at a later period bring to a 
VOTHPLOP. conclusion. 








602 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


can be brought under a twofold form of description, and be represented 
both asa thing and as a person. To make 6 xarézuv denote the ruling power 
(qui obtinet, i.e. rerum potitur, Beza, and so also Whitby, Noesselt, and 
others) is as contrary to the context as it would be to supply fidem as an 
accusative to it (Nicolas de Lyra: “ qui tenet nunc fidem catholicam, teneat 
eam firmiter’’), or fidem atque caritatem (Zeger), or Christum et veram 
ejus religionem (Estius), or Christi adventum (Vatablus), or ry avoulav 
(Flatt, Heydenreich, Schott), and the like.—dpr:] is closely connected with 
6 xarézuv, and brings specially forward the reference already contained in 
the present participle to the immediate present time of the writer. Schott, 
after Flatt and Pelt, thinks that if apr: is to be limited to the time of the 
speaker, it is not suitable to the view of the apostle (see on 1 Thess. iv. 
15); that it may accordingly be understood generally: “tempus efficient- 
iae rov xaréyovrog Opportunum, quod porro elapsurum sit ad initium usge 
temporis illi oppositi i.e. donec, remoto r¢ xarézovr:, palam sit proditura 
4} arooracia,”—éx uéoov yiveoba:| is not necessarily to be considered of death 
or violence (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius). It can denote any removal 
or being taken out of the way, however it may happen.' The opposite 
of é péoov yiveofa: or alpecOa is év ploy elva:, to be in the way, or to be 
obstructive.” 

Ver. 8. What was left to the readers themselves to supply to pévov, 
ver. 7, from the conclusion of ver. 6, is now, in its essence, although in an 
altered form, expressly indicated by xai rére aroxadugdqoera: 6 dvoyoc.—xai 
tére] and then, namely, as soon as the xaréyu» is taken out of the way. 
The emphasis is on «ai rére, not on 6 dvouoc (Grotius), nor On aroxaAvpdfoe- 
tai.—dé dvouoc] the lawless one, is not a different person from dv¥puroe rig 
duapriag (Grotius), but identical with him. For xa? rére aroxadvpdjoera 
points back to yuévov, ver. 7, and by this to aroxaAvgdqva: airév, ver.6. The 
expression avoufa, just used, afforded the easily explained occasion for 
calling Antichrist évozo¢—With the relative sentence 4y 6 xbpu¢ . . . Tapow- 
giag avrov (which is incorrectly enclosed in a parenthesis by Benson, 
Moldenhauer, Schott, and Kern) the apostle immediately adds the ultimate 
fate which Antichrist has to expect. That Paul so directly passes over 
to this, although he has it yet in view to speak of the working of Anti- 
christ before his destruction (comp. vv. 9, 10), is an involuntary impulse of 
his Christian heart which causes him immediately to resolve the horror 
which the announcement of such an event as the azoxdAuyie roi avéuov has 
into comfort and consolation, as a discord into harmony, comp. vv. 3, 4.— 
In a soaring and poetical form of expression, the members of which have 
their Hebrew parallels, Paul describes the fate of Antichrist. Not im- 
probably Isa. xi. 4 was present to his mind, where it is declared of the 
promised Deliverer of the seed of Jesse: xai rardfe: y#v 16 Ady Tov ordéuarog 
avrov, kai év mvebuatt dia yedbuv aveAei doeBe.—avadioxev] to consume, to 


tComp. 1 Cor. v. 2; Col. ii. 14; Plutarch, a» ef wy ye ddvavro cvppuifa. Ti 8 dy pécy, 
Timot. p. 238: éyve Cav xad’ davrdy ex pécou én, dori rou ovupiftac; ‘Acovpion, éfacar, Td 
yevdpevos. avrd <Ovos, 8° obwep viv ropedp. 

2Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 2. 26: nai a@dép’ 





cHaP, n. 8-10. 603 
destroy.—r6 rvebpare tov orduaros avrov} describes the power and irresistible 
might of the reappearing Christ, the breath of whose mouth sufiices to bring 
His opponents to nothing. More definite interpretations, as the sentence 
of condennation’ or a command or address* are to be rejected; for they 
destroy or weaken the picturesque directness and strength of the figure.s~— 
xatapyei: | to overthrow, to annihilate. On account of Rev. xix. 20, Calovius 
and Olshausen interpret the verb of a mere “rendering inefficient,” 
depriving Antichrist of his influence; but the parallel avaAdce: decides 
against this meaning, and a comparison of the Pauline form of expression 
with that of the Apocalypse is useless labor.—rg éxipaveia ri¢ mapoveias 
avrov] by the appearance of His presence. The majestic brightness of the 
advent is not described by ér:gdveca* also rapovoia and émipéveca are not to be 
distinguished, as Olshausen strangely thinks, as objective and subjective, ¢. e. 
as “the actual fact of the appearance of Christ,” and “the contemplation 
of it on the part of man, the consciousness of His presence;” but the 
placing the two together has the same design as formerly, r@ mvebyare rod 
oréuaroc avrov, namely, vividly to represent the power of Christ, inasmuch 
as the mere advent of His presence suffices to annihilate His adversaries. 
Comp. Bengel : “ apparitio adventus ipso adventu prior est, vel certe prima 
ipsius adventus emicatio, uti émripdveca rH¢ hutpas.”” 

Vv. 9, 10. The apostle has in ver. 8 not only said when Antichrist will 
appear, but he has also immediately added what fate awaits him. He now 
goes backward in point of time, whilst in addition he describes the char- 
acter of the working which Antichrist will develope before his destruction, 
brought about by the appearance of Christ.—o?] sc. rot avéuov. Parallel 
with &y, ver. 8.—éoriv] the present describes the certainty of the coming in 
the future. See Winer, p. 249 [E. T. 265}. Incorrectly Koppe, it imports: 
“jam agit et mox apertius majoreque cum vi aget.”—xar’ évépyecav roi 
oatrava] does not belong as an independent statement to éoriv (so Hofm. as 
before him already Georgii, in Zeller’s theol. Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 8, who gives 
the meaning that the act of the appearing of the dvouo¢ will itself be a 
work of Satan; Engelhardt), but is a subsidiary statement to the principal 
clause éoriv év «.7.4., assigning the reason of it. It does not import “after 
the example of the working of the devil” (similiier ac si satanas ageret, 
Michaelis), but in conformity with it, that an évépyea tov carava is ita char- 
acteristic, that is, that the devil works in and through him.—elva: ty rive) to 
consist in something, to prove or make itself known in something. Against 
Hofmann, who arbitrarily denies this use of the phrase, comp. Winer, p. 
361 [E. T. 386].—éduvdyec xa onueiorg xai tépacw] a rhetorical enumeration, 
as in Acts ii. 2, for the exhaustion of the idea. But as zdcy (see Winer, p. 


1 Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide. 

2Theodoret: ¢@¢yfera: pdvov; Theodore 
Mopsuestia, ed. Fritzsche, p. 148: pdvoy éme- 
Boyoas ... TovTo yap Adyer Td TH WvEevparT. TOU 
oréuaros avrov aytTi Tov TH dev, ard Tov wap’ 
Huy abrd eipncas, weedy Hueis Te wWredpare 
ouvepyp xexpyjueOa xpos Thy évapOpoy Aaiiay. 

3Comp. moreover, Eurip. Med. 588: é yap 


oty xrevet a’ éxos. 

4Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Heinsius, 
Andrew Osiander, Cornelius a Lapide, Eras- 
mus Schmid, Calixt, Clericus, Bernard a 
Piconius, Sebastian Schmid, Schoettgen, Tur- 
retin, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, Koppe, 
Krause, Bolten, Heydenreich, Pelt, Schott, 
Kern, Wieseler, and others. 





604 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


490 [E. T. 527]), so also pebdovc] belongs to all three substantives. The 
genitive may import: in every kind of power, and in all signs and won- 
ders whose nature is falsehood, or which proceed from falsehood, or which 
lead to falsehood, whose aim is falsehood. The last meaning is, with 
- Aretius, de Wette, Ellicott, and others, to be preferred, as Antichrist is 
indeed the first to bring evil to its climax.—peidoc] falsehood, belongs to 
the essential nature of the devil (comp. John viii. 44). It represents evil 
as the counterpart of divine truth (the aAgdeca). 

Ver. 10. Ka? év rdoy ardry adixiac] and in every decett which leads to or 
advances unrighteousness, i.e. ungodliness (Estius, Aretius, Grotius, de 
Wette, and others).—But this energetic working of Antichrist by no means 
describes his power as irresistible; only the azoAAtuevoe succumb under 
it.\—roig aroAAvptvorc) is dativus incommodi, and belongs not only to év réoy 
aréry adixiag (Heydenreich, Flatt, Hofmann), but to the whole sentence 
from ver. 9 onwards.—oi aroAAtpevor; are they who perish, who fall into eter- 
nal arédeca (comp. 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15, xiv. 3), and the present par- 
ticiple characterizes this future fate as already decided. Comp. Bern- 
hardy, Syntaz, p. 371. But the addition av? dv «.r.A. denotes that this was 
occasioned by their own fault—av? dv rip aydryy ric aApelac obn édéavro] in 
requital for this,? that they have not received in themselves the love of the truth. 
To interpret, with Bolten: rv aydéryy rij¢ adydeiac, “the lovable and true 
religion,” is naturally as impossible as, with Chrysostom, Theodoret,® 
Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to find therein a circumlocution for Christ 
Himself. 4 aa#@ea denotes moral and religious truth generally, not, as is 
usually supposed, Christian truth specially. Thus every objection which 
Kern (p. 212) takes to it vanishes, that rav ayéryy rij¢ GAnBelag ovn édéEavro 
was Written instead of the simple rv adfbeav obx édéEavro. For in a simi- 
lar manner, as the apostle in Gal. v. 5, instead of the simple dixaotww 
arexdexéuefa, which one would expect, put the apparently strange éArida 
Sixasootvng amexdexdueda, but did so designedly, in order to oppose to the 
arrogant feeling of the legally righteous the humble feeling of the true 
Christian; so here the expression rq aydmny rig GAnbeiag ovn édéEavTo 138 
designedly chosen to bring forward the high degree of guilt. Not only have 
they not received the Christian truth presented to them; for it might be 
still conceivable that they highly esteemed the truth itself and felt themselves 
drawn to it, although in consequence of spiritual blindness they had not 
known and recognized Christianity as an embodiment and full expression 
of the truth ; but they have not even received into their hearts the love of 
the truth under whatever form it may be presented to them; they have 
rendered themselves entirely unsusceptible of the truth, they have hardened . 
themselves against it.—ei¢ rd owSgvat abrobc] in order that they might be saved, 
brings still more prominently forward this hardness. They ought to have 
received that ayémy r7¢ aAnfeias, to the end that they might receive owrnpia, 


1Theodoret: Ov ydp sdyrev xparjoa, dAAd = =096LXX.1 Kings xt. 11; Joel iii. 5; Ken. Anabd. 
ray awwAcias afiwy, ot xai Sixa rns rovrov i. 3. 4, ibid. v. 5. 14. 
wapovoias opas avrovs THs gwrnpias éorépnoay. S’Aydwyy daAnOeias tov xdptow adxAnxey, OF 
2Comp. Luke i. 20, xix. 44; Acts xii. 23; aAnOws nuds xai yracins ayamjoerta. 


CHAP. 11. 11, 12. 605 


eternal salvation. But the attainment of such an end did not trouble them, 
was something indifferent to them. 

Ver. 11. Ka? dia rovro}] and on this account, refers to av? dv ri aydrny rig 
aAnbeiag ovx édéEavro, ver. 10, and xai serves to bring forward the reciprocal 
relation between cause and effect.—éure airoig 6 Ords] the present is 
chosen, becauge according to ver.7 the beginnings of lawlessness even now 
appeared. But the verbal idea is not! to be weakened into the idea of the 
divine permission, but must be taken in its proper sense. For according to 
the Pauline view it is a holy ordinance of God that the wicked by their 
wickedness should lose themselves always the more in wickedness, and 
thus sin is punished by sin. But what is an ordinance of God is also 
accomplished by God Himself. See Meyer on Rom. 1. 24.—évéipyecav ride] 
active power of seduction. On rAdvn, see on 1 Thess. ii. 3.—eig 1d mioredoa 
x.7.A.] not a statement of the consequence (Macknight and others), but of 
the design of God. In a forced manner, Hofmann: ei rd miorevoa: belongs 
to evépyeay. 

Ver. 12. "Iva] dependent on ¢i¢ ra miorevoat «.7.A., not on méure, as Hof- 
mann thinks. A statement of the further or higher design.—iva xp:Bior] in 
order that they may be judged, 1. e. according to the context, condemned.— 
The truth is the Christian truth, and the unbelief, shown against it, is the 
consequence of the love for the truth in general being wanting (ver. 10). 





CONCLUDING REMARKS ON CHAP. II. 1-12. 


The apocalyptic teaching of the apostle in chap. ii. 1-12 has occupied 
Christians of all times, and has been very variously interpreted. A chief 
distinction in the interpretations consists in this, that this Pauline pre- 
diction may be considered either as that which will be fulfilled in the 
near or more distant future, or as having already received its fulfillment. 

I. The Church Fathers belong to the representatives of the first view 
(Irenaeus, adv. haer. v. 25, 29, 30; Tertullian, de resur. carn. c. 24; Chry- 
sostom in loco; Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. 15; Augustine, de civit. dei, 
xx. 19; Theodoret in loco, and epit. decret. div. c. 23; Theodorus Mopsues- 
tius, and others). They correctly agree in considering that by the advent 
(vv. 1, 8), or the day of the Lord (ver. 2), is to be understood the personal 
advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic 

«kingdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here 
described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will — 
embody itself. Yet Augustin already remarks, that “nonnulli non ipsum 
principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus i. e. ad eum perti- 


1 With Theodoret, John Damascenus, Theo- Justinian, Wolf, Turretin, Whitby, Molden- 
dore Mopsuestius, p. 148, Oecumenius, Theo- hauer, Koppe, Heydenreich, Flatt, and others. 
phylact, Pelagius, Nicolas de Lyra, Hunnius, 





606 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


nentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco 
intelligi Antichristum volunt.” The restraining power by which the 
appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered to be the con- 
tinuance of the Roman Empire (rd xaréyov) and ita representative the 
Roman emperor (6 carézwv). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopeuestius 
and Theodoret, understand by it rov @eod rdv bpov, i.e. more exactly, the 
counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist unéil the gospel 
is proclaimed throughout the earth. This latter interpretation is cer- 
tainly unsuitable enough. For although the difference of gender 1 xaré- 
xov and 6 xaréyov may be to distinguish God’s counsel and God Himself, 
yet éx wécou yivecOa: is not reconcilable with the masculine 6 xarézuv. 
Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power 
is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But he 
directly refutes this by the fact that if so, Antichrist must have already 
appeared, as those gifts have long since disappeared in the Christian 
church. The temple of God, in which Antichrist will place himself, is 
referred either to the Christian church (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Augustin), the expression being taken figuratively, or to the actual temple 
of Jerusalem (so Irenaeus and Cyril); in which latter case the objection, 
that this temple was already destroyed, is met by the shift that a new 
temple rebuilt in place of the old one by Antichrist is to be thought on. 
Lastly, some, as Chrysostom,'—although in contradiction to the chronol- 
ogy of the Epistle —interpret the pvorfpiov ric dvoulac, which already 
begins to work, of Nero, the forerunner and type of Antichrist in St. 
Paul’s time ; and others, as Theodoret, of the outbreak of heresies. 

The common and grave error in the explanations of the Fathers, by 
means of which they run counter to the Pauline representation, consisted 
in their not doing sufficient justice to the point of nearness of the event 
predicted by Paul. It is incontestable, as the result of correct exegesis, 
that Paul not only considered Antichrist as directly preceding the advent, 
but also regarded the advent as so near, that he himself might then be 
alive. It was natural that the Fathers, as the prophecy of the apostle had 
not been fulfilled in their times, should disregard this point; but they 
held that in this prophecy a picture of the last things, fully correspond- 
ing to the reality in the future, must have been given. They therefore 
satisfied themselves with the consideration that the prediction had already 
begun to be fulfilled in the apostolic times, but that the apostle could not 
possibly give an exact statement of time, as he only says that Antichrist 
will be revealed in his appointed time? 

The view of the Fathers remained in the following ages the prevalent 
one in the Christian church. It was necessary, however partially to 


INdpeva évravOd dno, acavei trUwoy Sévra 
tov ‘Ayrixpiorov’ cai yap otros éBovAero vopi- 
GerOar Oeds. Kai xadus elwe rd pvonjpioy’ ov 
yap davepws ws éxeivos, ovS2 arnpvOpracuévws. 
Ei yap spd Tov xpdvou éxetvou dvevpdOn, dyoiv, 
Ss ov WOAD Tov 'Avrixpiorou éAciweTO Kara Thy 
aaxiay, Ti Oavpacrdy, ci Hon dares; 


2?Comp. Augustin, Bpist. 80 (Hp. 199, ed. Be- 
ned.):... ita sane obscure sunt et mystice 
dicta, ut tamen appareat, eum nihil de statu- 
tis dixisse temporibus, nulfumque eorum in- 
tervallum spatiumque aperuisse. Ait enim: 
ut reveletur in suo tempore, nec dixit, post 
quantum temporis hoc futurum sit. 


cHaP. m1. 1-12. 607 


change and transform it, the relation of Christianity to the Roman 
state having altered, as the Christian church, instead of being exposed 
to renewed hostilities from the secular power, had obtained the sovereignty 
of the state, and, penetrating larger portions of the world, represented 
itself as the kingdom of God on earth, and an imposing hierarchy 
was placed at its head. Whilst, accordingly, the idea of the advent 
stepped more and more into the background in the church gener- 
ally, and especially with the hierarchy, on the other hand, those who had 
placed themselves in opposition to the hierarchy believed themselves 
obliged to apply to é# the description of the apostle, as well as the figures 
in the Apocalypse of St. John. Thus arose—whilst the early view con- 
cerning the sapovoia trav xvpiov was held with only the modification that 
its entrance was to be expected in the distant future—the view, first in the 
eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is 
to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul. At first this view 
was expressed in the conflict between the emperors and the popes by the 
partisans of the imperial power ; but was then repeated by all those who 
had placed themselves in opposition with the hierarchy, because they 
wished, instead of the rigid ecclesiastical power, a freer spirit of Christian- 
ity to rule; thus by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the followers of 
Wickliffe and Huss. The empire—which was regarded as nothing else 
than a revival and renewal of the old Roman Empire—was considered as 
the restraining power which still delayed the destruction of the Papacy. 
This reference’ of Antichrist to the papal hierarchy became specially 
prevalent toward the time of the Reformation, and after that event was 
almost regarded as a dogma in the evangelical church. It is found in 
Bugenhagen, Zwingli, Calvin, Victorin Strigel, Hemming, Hunnius, 
Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Camero, Balduin, Aretius, Er. Schmid, 
Beza, Quistorp, Calixt, Calovius, Newton, Wolf, Joachim Lange, Turretin, 
Benson, Beng., Mackn., Zacha., Michaelis, Engelhardt, and others. Accord- 
ingly it is expressed in the Lutheran symbolical books; comp. <Articul. 
Smalcald. I1. 4 (ed. Meyer, p. 189 f.): Haec doctrina praeclare ostendit, 
papam esse ipsum verum Antichristum, qui supra et contra Christum sese 
extulit et evexit, quandoquidem Christianos non vult esse salvos sine sua 
potestate, quae tamen nihil est, et adeo nec ordinata nec mandata est. Hoc 
proprie loquendo est se efferre supra et contra deum, sicut Paulus 2 Thess. 
ii. loquitur.—De pot. et prim. pap. (p. 210): Constat autem, Romanos ponti- 
fices cum suis membris defendere impiam doctrinam et impios cultus. 
Ac plane notae Antichristi competunt in regnum papae et sua membra. 
Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Antichristum, vocat eum 
adversarium Christi, extollentem se super omne, quod dicitur aut colitur 
deus, sedentem in templo dei tanquam deum. Also Luther’s powerful 
treatise against the papal bull bore the title: “Adversus exsecrabilem 
bullam Antichristi.” It was thought that the Papacy would go on more 
and more developing what was anti-Christian in it, and that then the last 


1See against this view, Koppe, Excurs. II. p. 190 ff. 


608 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


judgment would overtake it. The érocracia was the falling away from the 
pure gospel to the traditions of men. The singular 6 évOpwroc rij¢ duapriag 
x.t.A. is to be understood collectively ag a series ef successio hominum, inas- 
much as the question is concerning an imperium monarchicum which 
remains one and the same, although its temporal head may be changed. 
The godlessness of Antichrist, described in ver. 4, is historically proved 
by the pope placing himself above all human and divine authority, ' the 
words révra Acyéuevov Oedv x.t.A., in accordance to biblical usage, being 
referred to the princes and great men of the world, and an allusion being 
discovered in cfBacua to the Roman imperial title ZeBaorde. The objec- 
tion, that there have been pious popes, is removed by the proverb: “a 
potiori fit denominatio.” vade rov Ocov is referred to the Christian church, 
and the xaSica: to the tyrannical power usurped over it. By rd xarézov is 
nearly universally understood the Roman Empire, and by é xaréywy the 
Roman emperor, for which proof is deduced from history, that the papal 
power sprang from the ruins of the Roman Empire, whilst in reference 
to the continuation of the empire in Germany, it is observed that praeter 
tiulum nihil fere remains. The declaration 1rd pvorhpiov fdy evepyeitar rig 
avoutac, ver. 7, is considered as justified by the fact that at least the semina 
erroris et ambitionis, which paved the way for the Papacy, were present in 
the time of the apostle; for which Camero appeals to Gal. i., ii., and 
others to other proofs. For an enumeration of répara pebdoue, ver. 9, 
relics, transubstantiation, purgatory, etc., afford rich material. The 
annihilation of Antichrist by the rvevya rod oréuaroc of the Lord, is under- 
stood to denote the annihilation of his importance in the minds of men 
by the divine word of Scripture being again opened up and diffused in its 
purity by means of the Reformation; whilst the xarapyfoe: rg émipavela tic 
mapovoiag avrov denotes the final and material destruction of Antichrist by 
the coming of Christ to judgment. 

In the presence of such polemics used against them, the Catholics are 
certainly not to be blamed that in retaliation they interpreted aocracia as 
the defection from the Roman church and from the pope, and Antichrist 
as the heretics, especially Luther and the evangelical church. Comp. 
Estius, Fromond., Bern. a Piconio. 

Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained, 
Mohammed? was already regarded by the divines of the Greek church 
(latterly by Faber Stapulensis and others) as the Antichrist predicted by 
Paul, and in the azocrasia was seen the defection of several Oriental and 
Greek churches from Christianity to Mohammedanism. This interpreta- 
tion at least so far exercised an influence on the evangelical church, that 
some of its theologians have assumed a double Antichrist—one Oriental, 


1Engelhardt recently,inthearticle referred still possesses is veiled in an impenetrable 
toabove, p. 60, finds the movementtowardsthe cloud of fiction; that there remains in fact 
final and extreme point, that atlasta pope will buta single further step to the last and most 
appear who makes himself God, already blasphemous proclamation of the Dogma: 
having become manifest in the dogma of The Pope is God. 
infallibility. He holds that the significant £See against this view, Turretin, p. 515 ff. 
remnant of truth which the Romish Church 


CHAP. 11. 1-12. 609 
viz. Mohammed and the Turkish power, and the other Western, viz. the 
pope and his power. So Melanchthon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Pisca- 
tor, and Vorstius. 

Related to this whole method of interpretation is the assumption,} 
made in our own century, that by the apostasy is to be understood the 
enormities of the French Revolution; by Antichrist, Napoleon; and by 
him that restraineth, the continuation of the German Empire—an inter- 
pretation which the extinction of the German Empire in 1806 has already 
condemned. 

In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to deter- 
mine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accord- 
ingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general, 
ideal, or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe, 
according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, sup- 
ported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the 
last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take 
place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the xarézuv.? 


18ee Leutwein, das Thier war und ist nicht, 
and wird wiederkonmen aus dem Abgrunde. 
Eine Abhandlung far nachdenkende Leser, Lud- 
wigsb. 1825. 

£To prove this view of the «ardxwv by 
Koppe as the correct one by a closer exposi- 
tion, is the object of the above-mentioned 
treatise of Beyer (on II. 7). Also Heyden- 
reich, Schott, and Grimm (Stud. u. Krit. 1850, 
Part 4, p. 790 ff.) £0 far agrec with Koppe, that 
they understand the neuter as the multitude 
of the truly pious and believers (Heyden- 
reich), or as the veri religionts doctores (Schott), 
or as the apostolorum chorus (Grimm). For 
the removal of the objection, that Paul hoped 
to survive the advent, and that accordingly 
éx wdoou yiver@a: would be unsuitable, Schott 
and Grimm consider it probable that by this 
expression we are to think not on death, but 
on “alia res externa, e.g. captivitas dura.” 
Akin to this interpretation of the cardxwy is 
Wieseler's view (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt., 
Gdtting. 1848, p. 272 f.), that Paul would denote 
with it the pious in Jerusalem, particularly 
the Christians, or in case caréxwy necessarily 
denoted an individual, the Apostle James the 
Just. Comp. also Béhme, de spe messiana 
apostolica, Hal. 1826, p. 30, according to whom 
the apostolic circle are denoted in general, 
and in particular the most prominent mem- 
ber, perhaps the Apostle James. Hofmann 
judges differently upon rd xardxov and 6 
xardxwv, Schriftbeweis, Part 1, 2d ed. Ndrd- 
ling. 1857, p. 352 f.,and in his kh. Schr. N. T., 
Part 1, p. 318 ff., with whom Baumgarten, Lc. 
p- 600, Luthardt, lc. p. 150 f., and Riggenbach 
eoincide. According to Hofmann, as through- 


39 


out the whole passage 2 Thess. ii. 5-7 Paul 
refers apparently to the visions of Daniel, he 
must have spoken to the Thessalonians of 
that which hinders the man of sin from com- 
ing sooner than his proper time with refer- 
ence to these prophecies of Daniel. There- 
fore, in agreement with Daniel, a spiritual 
power is to be thought of which rules in the 
secular world and in the varions governments 
in agreement with the divine will, and opposes 
the influences of the spirit of nations and 
kingdoms working contrary to the divine will. 
This power may be designated both as neuter 
and as masculine, as avpidmms and as xvptos, 
and the words pévoy & xardxwov dpte éwe éx 
wdroy ydvyras’ Kai tore awoxaduo@icerar 3 
avouos are sufficiently similar to those of 
Daniel: RZ {V-VW MTN YY °K) (Dan. 
X. 20), in order to be recognized as a transfer 
of the same to those last times when the 
spiritual power which now preserves the 
earthly commonwealth in agreement with 
the kingdom of God entirely recedes, in order 
that every form of secular power may enter 
which will allow no more place for the church 
of God on earth. &till differently, Ewald, 
Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, Jahr. 3, Gott. 
1851, p. 250 f. (comp. Sendschreiben des Ap. 
Paulus, Gott. 1857, p. 27): “ We have here a 
mystery before us which in the early apostolic 
times only believers loved to talk over and to 
diffuse among themselves, so that Paul may 
have been unwilling to speak openly upon it. 
The appearance of Antichrist was expected 
according to Matt. xxiv. 15 (?), and Paul here 
describes it, only more openly and freely 
than it is there indicated in the prophecy of 


610 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


Similarly Storr (i.c.), who understands by the évdSpumo¢ rij¢ duapriac “ po- 
testas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae penitus incognita et 
futuro demum tempore se proditura sit,” and by the preventing power 
the “ copia hominum verissimo amore inflammatorum in christianam 
religionem.”—Further, Nitzsch (/. c.) thinks on the power of atheism first 
come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally. 
Further, the opinion of Pelt is entirely peculiar, who in his Commentary, 
p. 204,' sums up his views in the following words: “ Mihi... adversarius 
illi principium esse videtur sive vis spiritualis evangelio contraria, quae 
huc usque tamen in Pontificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie luculen- 
tissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in ecclesia 
compareant, ad eandem Antichristi évépyeav sint referenda. Ejus vero 
rapovoia, i.e. summum fastigium, quod Christi reditum qui nihil aliud est, 
nisi regni divini victoria,? antecedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum 
illud tempus procul etiamnum abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae 
in eo erunt, ut ad Christi sacra transeant. Karéyov vero cum Theodoreto 
putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, ne erum- 
pat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tempore maxime 
imperii Romani vis, et quovis aevo illa resistentia, quam malis artibus, 
quae religionem subvertere student, privati commodi et honoris augen- 
dorum cupiditas opponere solet.” Pelt thinks that the symptoms of the 
future corruption of the Christian church were already present in the 
apostolic age in the danger of falling away from Christian freedom into 
Jewish legalism, in the mingling of heathenism with Christianity, in the 
fulse gnosis and asceticism, in the worship of angels, and in the fastus a 
religione Christiana omnino alienus. To the same class belongs Ols- 
hausen,® who considers the Pauline description only as a typical repre- 
sentation of future events. According to him, the chief stress lies on 7d 
pvorhpvov dn évepyeitac TH Gvouiac, Antichrist is a union of the individu- 


Christ ; but an opinion must have been formed 
in the bosom of the mother church at Jeru- 
salem why Antichrist had not as yet appeared, 
which was imparted only to believers. We 
may, however, pretty nearly guess what it 
was from other signs. If we reflect that, 
according to Rev. xi. 3 ff. Antichrist was not 
to be considered as coming until the two 
martyrs of the old covenant had appeared, 
and their destruction was the true beginning 
of his extreme rage; further, that instead of 
these two assumed martyrs, it was also, or 
rather originally, still more commonly sup- 
posed that only Elijah must return before 
Christ, and accordingly also before Anti- 
christ. Elijah’s return is not actually denied 
in that passage, where this expectation is 
treated of in the freest manner (Matt. xvii. 
11 f., comp. xi. 13 f.), so itis most probable 
that by that which hindereth the appearance 
of Antichrist the coming of Elijah is meant 
(Sendechr, des Ap. Paulus, p. 27: the tarrying 


of Elijah in heaven); and by him who hith- 
erto hindered, and who must he taken out of 
the way before the last atrocious wickedness 
of Antichrist, is meant Elijah himself.” Still 
otherwise Noack (Der Ursprung des Christen 
thums, vol. II., Leips. 1857, p. 313 ff.), who by 
him that hindereth—arbitrarily identifying 
the same with the man of sin—understands 
Simon Magus and his machinations. Still 
differently Jowett, according to whom (after 
the suggestion of Ewald, Jahrb. X., Gott 
1860, p. 235) rd xardyow is designed to indicate 
the Mosaic law. 


tIn only an unessentially modified form 
Pelt has later maintained the same view 
inthe Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. 4, Kiel 1941, 
H. 2, p. 114 ff. 


*Comp. Pelt, p. 185: . . . “tenentes, illum 
Christi adventum a Paulo non visibiiem hab- 
itum.” 


* Bisping follows him in all essential points, 


CHAP. 1, 1-12, 611 
ality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the 
Jews from the Romans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power, 
the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolu- 
tion of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of 
prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world, as well as the con- 
stantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and 
morality, of the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and like- 
wise the self-deification of the ego in the internal worid,—all these phe- 
nomena are the real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some 
of his characteristics, not all; it is the union of all these characteristics 
which shall make the full Antichrist. The preventing power is to be 
understood of the preponderance of the Christian world in its German 
and Roman constituents over the earth ; 3. e. of the whole political condi- 
tion of order, with which, on the one hand, there is the constant repres- 
sion of all azooracia and avoyia, and on the other hand, the continued and 
peaceful development of Christianity. Of this condition the Roman 
Empire, as the strongest and most orderly secular organization which 
history knows, is the natural type. Baumgarten-Crusius is also here to be 
named. According to him, the Pauline prediction contains no new 
teachings peculiar to the apostle, but only representations from the old 
Messianic pictures in the prophets, especially in Daniel. The apostle’s 
design is practical, to make the Thessalonians calmly observant, attentive 
to the times, prepared and strong for the future; the passage has a per- 
manent value in this reference, and in the chief thought that the devel- 
opment and determination of these things can only gradually take place. 
The passage is indeed historical and for the near future, but Paul has no 
definite or personal manifestations, whether present or future, in view, at 
least not in avrixeipevoc, which he describes as still entirely concealed; and 
it is even doubtful whether he understood by it an individual person. 
Only rd xarézov has a definite reference, but not to a person; on the con- 
trary, the new spirit of Christianity is meant. The difference in gender, 
6 xaréyov and 1d xaréyov, is used either only to correspond with dvriceipuevoc, 
or Paul thinks on Xprord¢ év avroic, Col. i. 27! Lastly, to the same class 
belong Bloomfield and Alford.'. According to the former, the pvorqpiov 


1Comp. also Disterdieck, dle drei johan- 
neischen Briefe, Bd. I., Gott. 1858, p. 306: “John, 
as Paul (2 Theea. fi, 1-13), in conformity to the 
instruction of the Lord, recognises in the 
powerful errors of the present the signs of an 
approaching decision. The last hour is 
present, the advent isathand. The last hour 
is the concluding period of ais» obros, the 
period of travail, which continues in an unbroken 
connection from tis commencement, the destruo- 
tion of Jerusalem, even to the end, to which the 
advent directly eucceeds.” John has not erred 
in that he soon expected the real commence- 
ent of the crisis, continually carried on 


throughout the whole historical development 
of the kingdom of Christ; for that generation, 
as our Lord had predicted, survived the 
destruction of the holy city, an event of whose 
importance in the history and judgment of 
the world there can be no doubt. Moreover, 
in reference to 1 Thera. iv. 15 (Hpeis of Covres 
«.7.A.), Diaterdieck (lc. p. 808) recognizes 
that there Paul has shortened the chrono- 
logical perspective too much; bat then he 
thinke, referring to 2 Thess. {i 1 ff. and Rom. 
xi. 26 ff, that this is an imperfection which 
was gradually overcome in the apostle by the 
moral development of his life in God, and 





612 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


rie avoutac is something still continuing ; the prediction of the apostle will 
obtain its complete fulfillment only at the end of time, when only then 
the preventing power—which is most probably to be understood, with 
Theodoret, of the counsel of divine Providence—will be removed. Accord- 
ing to the latter (see Proleg. p. 67 ff.), we stand, though 1800 years later, 
with regard to the dvouzoc where the apostle stood ; the day of the Lord not 
present, and not to arrive until the man of sin be manifested ; the pvor#piov 
tie avoutac still working, and much advanced in his working; the pre- 
venting power not yet taken out of the way. All this points to a state in 
which the avouia is working on underground, under the surface of things, 
gaining an expansion ‘and power, although still hidden and unconcen- 
trated. It has already partially embodied itself in Popery, in Nero and 
every Christian persecutor, in Mohammed and Napoleon, in Mormonism, 
and such like. The xaréyov and the xaréyov are to be understood of the 
fabric of human polity and those who rule that polity, by which hitherto all 
outbursts of godlessness have been suppressed and hindered in their 
course and devastations. 

It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline 
description is so definitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole 
compass so much the idea, of nearness for its supposition, that it can by no 
means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away. 

II. Others have regarded the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle as a 
prophecy already fulfilled. Thus Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, 
Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin.! The reference of 
the apovcia tov xvpiov to the coming of the Lord in judgment at the 
destruction of Jerusalem, is common to all these writers. In reference to 
the other chief points of the Pauline representation they differ as 
follows :— 


Grotius’? understands by Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula, notor- 





that it was changed for the real truth. But it 
is assumed, without right, that an entirely 
different view of things lies at the foundation 
of the section 2 Thess. fi. 1-12 than of the 
section 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff, as the Second 
Epistle to the Thessalonians was written only 
a few months after the First; and besides, 2 
Thess. ii. 6 points to the agreement of the 
written explanations there given with the oral 
instructions to the Thessalonians given even 
previously to the First Epistle. Further on, 
Diasterdieck (p. 330) concedes that because 
Paul in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff. has abbreviated the 
interval to the advent, he was also in 2 Thess. 
ii. 1 ff. constrained to represent the personal 
appearance of the opponent tnecorrectly in 
point of chronology. 

1 What is necessary to be said on Kern's 
view has already been observed in the Intro- 
duction, sec. 3. Ddllinger (2. ¢), who like 
Kern understands by Antichrist Nero, thinks, 
however, that with this assumption the 


authenticity of the Epistle, and even ita com- 
position in the year 83, are perfectly recon- 
cilable. According to Dodllinger, the pro- 
phecy in all its essentials was fulfilled close 
upon the apostle’s days, although a partial 
fulfillment at the end of time is not excluded 
by this assumption. Already Paul has recog- 
nized the youthful Nero as the future Anti- 
christ, whose public appearance was already 
prepared, but was yet prevented by Claudius 
as the then possessor of the imperial throne. 
The coming of Christ is His coming to exe- 
cute judgmenton Jerusalem. Nero, although 
he personally undertook nothing against the 
temple of Jerusalem yet entrusted Vespasian 
with the guidance of the war, and accord- 
ingly brought—certainly only after his death 
—the abomination of desolation into the 
holy city. Lastly, the apostasy is the being 
led astray into the false doctrines of the 
Goostics. 


$See against him, Turretin, p. 483 ff 


CHAP. 1. 1-12. 613 


ious for his ungodliness, who, according to Suetonius, Cakgul. xxii. 33, 
ordered universal supplication to himself as the supreme God, and accord- 
ing to Joseph. Anéig. xviii. 8, and Philo, legat. ad Caj. p. 1022, wished to 
set up his colossal statue in the temple of Jerusalem; by the xaréyuv, L. 
Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria and Judea, who dissuaded from the erec- 
tion of the statue; and by the dvopoc, Simon Magus.—This opinion is suffi- 
ciently contradicted, partly by the impossibility of distinguishing the 
dvouoc from dvOpwroe ti¢ duapriag as a separate person, and partly by its 
incongruity with the period of the composition of the Epistle. See sec. 2 
of the Introduction. 

According to Wetstein, the dv3purog rig duapriag is Titus, whose army, 
according to Joseph. de bello Jud. vi. 6. 1, brought idols into the captured 
temple of Jerusalem, sacrificed there, and saluted Titus as imperator. 
The xaréyuv is Nero, whose death must precede the rule of Titus; and the 
arooracia is the rebellion and murder of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But 
how can Titus, the ornament of the Roman emperors, pass for Antichrist ; 
and Nero, that monster in human form, the power which hinders the out- 
burst of Antichrist? 

Hammond! understands by the man of sin Simon Magus and the Gnos- 
tics, whose head he was. The érwovvaywy) én’ atrév, ver. 1; is the “major 
libertas coeundi in ecclesiasticos coetus ad colendum Christum;” the 
arooracia is the falling away of Christians to the Gnostics (1 Tim. iv. 1); 
aroxaAvgOyvac denotes the casting off the mask of Christianity ; ver. 4 refers 
to the fact that Simon Magus “se dictitaret summum patrem omnium 
rerum, et qui ipsum Judaeorum deum creaverat.” Td xaréyov is the cir- 
cumstance that the apostles and orthodox Christians still preserved union 
with the Jews, and had not yet turned themselves to the Gentiles. The 
neuter xaréyov and the masculine xaréywy are equivalent; or if a distinc- 
tion is to be maintained, 6 xaréyov must be regarded as the same as 6 
véuoc. The pvorhpov ri¢ avoulac is the “duplicis generis scelera horum 
hominum, libidines nefariae et odium in Christianos.” Ver. 8 refers to 
the contest of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus in Rome, which ended 
in the death of the latter—The exegetical and historical monstrosity of 
this interpretation is at present universally acknowledged. 

The interpretations of Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, 
and Harduin have a greater resemblance between them. 

According to Clericus,? the apostasy is the rebellion of the Jews against 
the Roman yoke; the man of sin is the rebellious Jews, and especially 
their leader, Simon the son of Giora, of whose atrocities Josephus informs 
us. ac Aeyduevoe Oedc «7.4. denotes the government. Td «xaréyov is 
whatever hindered the open outbreak of the rebellion, partly the fear of 
the proceres Judaeae gentis, who mistrusted the war because they expected 
no favorable result, partly the fear of the Roman army; 6 xarézev on the 
one side “ praeses Romanus,” on the other side “gentis proceres, rex 
Agrippa et pontifices plurimi.” The svorfpuv ri¢ dvopiag which already 


10omp. against him, Turretin, p. 493 ff. 28ee against him, Turretin, p. 501 ff. 


614 THE SECOND EPISTLE TQ THE THESSALONIANS, 


\ 


works consists in the rebellious ambition which conceals itself under the «. 
pretext of the independence of the Jewish people, yea, under the cloak of 

a careful observance of the Mosaic law, until at length what strives in 
secret is openly manifested. 

Whitby! considers the Jewish people as Antichrist, and finds in the 
apostasy the rebellion against the Romans, or also the falling away from 
the faith; and in the xaréywy the Emperor Claudius, during whose life the 
Jews could not possibly think of a rebellion, as he had shown himself 
favorable to them. 

According to Schoettgen, the Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis are Anti- 
christ. The arocracia is the rebellion excited by them, of the Jews against 
the Romans; ag Acyéuevog Oedc refers likewise to the rulers; ré xaréxou 
and 6 xaréywv are probably the Christians who by their prayers effected a 
respite from the catastrophe, until, in consequence of a divine oracle, they 
left Jerusalem, and betook ihenmaclyes to Pella; pvorgpiov tic avopiac 
denotes ipsa doctrina perversa. 

Noesselt, whom Krause follows, understands Antichrist of the Jewish 
zealots, but interprets the preventing power, as Whitby does, of the Em- 
peror Claudius. 

Lastly, Harduin explains the aooracia of the falling off of the Jews to 
heathenism. He considers the high priest Ananias (Acts xxiii. 2) as the 
avflpwrog ti¢ duapriac, and his predecessor in office as the «aréywor, who must 
first be removed by death in order to make place for Ananias. At the 
beginning of his high-priesthood the dvOpwrog rij¢ duapriag will appear as a 
deceitful prophet, and be destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem by 
Titus. 

All these interpretations of the second class avoid, it is true, the com- 
mon error of the interpretations of the first class, as they give due promi- 
nence to the point of the nearness of the catastrophe described by Paul; 
but, apart from many and strong objections which may be brought against 
each, they are all exposed to this fatal objection, the impossibility of 
understanding the coming of the Lord, mentioned by Paul, of the period 
of the destruction of Jerusalem. 


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


18ee against him, Turretin, p. 506 ff. 


CHAP. 1. 1-12. | 615 


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


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





616 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


tion which Paul himself connected with his prophecy, and how he came 
to the assertion of such a prophecy. It rests on the apocalyptic views of 
the Jews. It was a prevalent opinion of the Jews in the time of Christ, 
that a time of tribulation and travail and an Antichnst were to precede 
the appearance of the Messiah. Comp. Gfrérer, das Jahrhundert des 
Heils, Part 2, p. 256 ff., 300 ff, 405 ff. The description of Antiochus 
Epiphanes in Dan. viii. 23 ff., xi. 36 ff, and the apocalyptic representation 
of Gog and Magog in Ezek. xxxviii. 39, were esteemed as types of Anti- 
christ. From these passages it is further explicable how Paul conceived 
Antichrist as a personality, as an individual. 

Accordingly, it remains only still to determine, for the explication of the 
Pauline prophecy, what isto be understood by the preventing power, 
which still delayed the appearance of Antichrist. Without doubt, the 
Fathers have already correctly recognized by rd xaréyov the Roman Em- 
pire, and—in another form of expression for it—by 4 xaréyov the Roman 
emperor, as the representative of the empire. This is the more probable 
as, according to the Book of Daniel, the whole history of the world was 
to fall within the four monarchies of the world, but the fourth was by 
Josephus and others regarded as the Roman Empire, whose impending 
ruin the apostle might not without reason think himself justified in infer- 
ring from many symptoms. 


Ver. 13-iii. 15. Hortatory portion of the Epistle. 

Vv. 13-17. Exhortation to the readers to hold fast to the Christianity 
delivered to them (ver. 15), grounded on the comfortable fact that they 
belonged not to those who perish, but were fore-ordained by God to salva- 
tion, and called to it by the gospel (vv. 18, 14), and united with a pious 
wish that Christ and God Himself would comfort their minds, and 
strengthen them to all goodness (vv. 16, 17). 

Ver. 18. [On vv. 13-17, see Note LXI. pages 622, 623.] ‘Hyeic dé] but we, 
namely, I, Paul, together with Silvanus and Timotheus, in contrast to the 
persons described in vv. 10-12.—égeidouev] denotes here, as in i. 18, the 
subjective obligation, an internal impulse.—adeAgoi qyamnptvar ord xvpiov] 
comp. 1 Thess. i. 4. The xtpso¢ here is Christ, because ro Oe directly pre- 
cedes and 4 Ged¢ directly follows, consequently another subject was evi- 
dently thought on by the apostle.—ér: eiAaro tpae x.7.4.] the material object 
of evyapireiv for the purpose of a further statement of the personal 
object rep? tuév, that, namely, etc.—alpeioda:] in the sense of divine election 
(Deut. xxvi. 18, vii. 6, 7, x. 15), does not elsewhere occur with Paul. He 
uses éxAfyeoOa: (Eph. i. 4; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28), or xpoyewdoxeryv (Rom. viii. 29, 
xi. 2), or poopifew (Rom. viii. 29; Eph. i.11). alpeio@ac is found in Phil. i. 
22 in the related sense of “to choose between two objects the preferable.” 
—an’ apx7c] from the beginning, t.e. from eternity. Comp. 1 John i.1, ii. 
18. The following forms are analogous: ard rév aidver, Eph. iii. 9; ard 
rév alévev nal Grd tev yevedv, Col. i. 26; xpd tdv aldvev, 1 Cor. ii. 7; pd xara- 
Borge xdouov, Eph. i. 4; pd xpévuv aiuviov, 2 Tim. i.9. Others, as Vorstius 


cHap. u. 13, 14. 617 


and Krause, interpret dz’ apx7¢ of the beginning of the publication of the 
gospel, so that the Thessalonians were reckoned as the first who embraced 
the gospel in Macedonia. But this does not suit eiAaro, for the election on 
the part of God belongs to the region of eternity; the calling (ver. 14) is 
its realization in time. Besides, an addition would be necessary to ax’ 
apxic, a8 Phil. iv. 15 proves, év apyz¥ rod evayyeAiov. Lastly, the objection of 
Vorstius: ‘‘absurdum est, per principium intelligere aeternitatem, quippe 
in qua nullum est principium,” overlooks the fact that az’ apyi¢ is noth- 
ing more than a popular expression.'—ei¢ owrnpiav] is by Flatt referred to 
salvation in this life, whilst he considers included therein the forgiveness 
of sins, the assurance of God’s peculiar love, and the freedom from the 
dominion of sinful inclinations. Incorrect on this account, because the 
ournpia of the Thessalonians is in undeniable contrast with the condemnation 
of the ungodly (ver. 12), and thus likewise must be referred to the result to 
be expected at the advent of Christ, accordingly must denote eternal sal- 
vation.—év dyacue mvetparos xal riores GAnOeiac| belongs neither to owrnpiav 
alone (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Riggenbach), 
nor to eldaro alone (de Wette), but to the whole idea eidaro ei¢ owrnpiav, and. 
states the means by which the election, which has taken place to eternal 
salvation, was to be realized? To assume, with de Wette, that év is placed 
for eis, and to find the nezt aim denoted by év dyacyue «.7.4., is unmaintain- 
able. For if et¢ owrnpiay and év dyacug were co-ordinates, then (1) ei¢ 
ouwrnpiav, because the highest aim, would be put not in the first, but in the 
second place; and (2) the sudden transition from a preposition of motion 
to one of rest would be inexplicable. vedua is not the spirit of man, to 
which the being sanctified was to be referred (genitive of the object: “by 
the improvement of the spint,’”’ Koppe, Krause, Schott), but the Holy 
Spirit, from whom the sanctification of the whole man is to proceed, or 
by whom it is to be effected (genitive of origin). Accordingly it is also 
evident wherefore the apostle mentions the belief in the Christian truth 
only after dy:acyés, although otherwise the sanctification of man follows 
only on his reception of the divine word. For Paul considers a twofold 
means of the realization of the divine election—/irst, the influence of the 
Holy Spirit upon man, and secondly, man’s own reception. But the 
former already precedes the latter. 

Ver. 14. Eic 5] to which. Incorrectly, Olshausen: therefore. Eic 5 does 
not refer to riore: (Aretius), also not to é dyacpp nad riorec (Estius, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Flatt, 
Schott, Schrader, de Wette, Hofman Ist ed.), still less to the “ electio ” and 
the “ animus, quo eadem digni evadimus ” (Pelt), or to elAaro ipae b beds, 
as “the historical act of God, through which the readers have become 


1 Also Schrader’s assertion, thatthe author a mistake of the actual use of the preposition 
(the pseudo-Paul) betrays by aw’ épxae “that é» narrowing ite meaning, Hofmann objecte— 
he considered the time when the gospel was and Moller shoufd not have followed him— 
first preached in Thessalonicaasalreadylong against the above interpretation, that then 
past,” has no meaning according tothe above. the means would be taken for the act of the 

8In a manner entirely incorrect, and with lection ttedlf. 


618 THE SECOND BPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


partakers of salvation,” (Hofmann 2d ed.) but to ei¢ curspiey by dyacne 
«.7.A. (Theophylact, Ellicott); whilst to the aim of the election, and tothe 
means by which it was to be realized according to God’s eternal counsel, 
is added the actual call of the readers occurring in time. Accordingly, 
ig 5 is to be completed by sic rd cubpva: dyads dt dyracpot mveipartos Kai rictews 
GAnbeiac.——did Tot evayysAiov hdv) through owr publication of the gospel. Comp. 
1 Thess. i. 5. The historical condition of mloric.—eig mepuroinow déd&a¢ rou 
-xepiov] an appositional resumption of ¢ei¢ curgpiev, in order further to 
characterize the salvation, whose reception God had predetermined to the 
readers, as an acquisition (see on 1 Thess. v. 9) of the glory which Christ 
possesses. Soin essentials, Pelagius, Musculus, Hunnius, Piscator, Vors- 
tius, Grotius, Wolf, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Alford, Ewald, Bisping, 
Ellicott, Riggenbach, and others. Less suitably, because weakening the 
force and the important contents of the expression, Luc. Osiander, Ben- 
son, Moldenhauer, and Pelt. explain défa rot «upiov of the glory, of which 
Christ is the source or bestower. Against the reference to God as the sub- 
ject in mepiroiyow, and to Christ as the receiver of the 66a (Oecumenius : 
iva ddfay wepirochoy tT; vid avtov; Theophylact, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide), 
is the circumstance that although ete repiroinow might stand instead of 
ei¢ +6 with the infinitive, yet the dative r¢ xupiy fuev would require to be 
placed instead of the genitive rod xvptov judy. Lastly, the passive signifi- 
cation of meperoinow: “ut essetis gloriosa possessio domini nostri Jesu 
Christi”? (Menochius, Harduin; also Luther: “to the glorious mherit- 
ance,” and Calvin), has against it the weakening of the substantive dé&7- 
into an adjective, and the parallel passage in 1 Thess. v. 9. Besides, the 
context decides against the two last-mentioned views. For the object of vv. 
18, 14 is to bring forward the glory of the lot which is assigned to the 
Thessalonians, in order thereby to lead to the exhortation in ver. 15. 

Ver. 15. "Apa oiv] wherefore then, as such an end awaits you.—orfxere] 
stand fast, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 8. The opposite of cadcvOjva:, ver. 2.—xai 
Kpareite rag rrapadécecc| and hold fast to the traditions, instructions in Chris- 
tianity. As xpareiv here (comp. Mark vii. 3), 80 does xaréyeew rag rwapaddoers 
stand in 1 Cor. xi. 2.—d¢ edidéydrre] See Winer, p. 214 f, [E. T. 229].— eire 
6: Abyou] whether by oral discourse.—d'' érisroAqc] refers to the First Epistle 
to the Thessalonians. 

Vv. 16, 17. The apostle rises from ts evangelical activity (ver. 15) up 
to Christ, the Lord and Ruler of the Christian church, and concludes with 
the mention of God, who is the final reason and contriver of the Christian 
salvation. The unusual (2 Cor. xiii. 18) naming of Christ first and of 
God second, is sufficiently explained from the fact that Christ is the Medi- 
ator between God and man.—On the union of the fo nominatives, Christ 
and God, with a verb in the singular, see on 1 Thess. iii. 11.—4é ayarfoas 
yuac Kai dovg mapaxa, «.7.A.}] a fittingly-selected characteristic, in order to 
mark the confidence with which Paul expects the hearing of his suppli- 
cations.—é ayarhoag juac xa? dotc] refers exclusively to 6 @ed¢ xat rarip 
jzov. Baumgarten-Crusius incorrectly refers only the second participle 
to God, and the first to Chnst. But the participle aorist ayarfaag must not 


NOTES. 619 


be weakened into “ qui nos amat et quovis tempore amavit ” (so Schott, 
after Flatt and Pelt), but refers to the divine proof of love already belong- 
ing to the past,—accomplished, i. e. to the fact by which the love of God to 
mankind is xar’ éfox#v proved,—to the mission of Hts Son tn order to rescue 
sinners from destruction.—xai dots} and has thereby communicated to us.— 
rapéxAzowv| comfort. This is called eternal,’ not, perhaps, on account of the 
blessings of eternal life which Christians have to expect (Chrysostom, 
Estius, Vorstius, Grotius, Fromond., and others), but because Christians 
have become the sons of God, and as such are filled with indestructible 
confidence that all things, even the severest affliction which may befall 
them, infallibly serves for their good, because God has so ordained, and 
that nothing in the world will be able to separate them from the love of 
God in Christ; comp. Rom. viii. 28,38 f. The opposite of this eernal 
consolation is the fleeting and deceptive consolation of the world (Olsh,, 
Ellicott). mapéxAnow accordingly refers to the present. On the other hand 
(vv. 13, 14), éArig aya67 refers to the blessedness and glory to be expected 
in the fulure—év zdpiri] in grace, t.e. by means of a gracious appointment, 
belongs not to éAmida, but to the participles. The opposite is man’s 
own merit.—rapaxadéca:] may comfort or calm, refers particularly to the 
disquiet of the readers in reference to the advent (ii. 2).—xal ornpigfa:] ec. 
tuac (see critical remarks), which is in itself evident from the preceding 
tyudv.—év marti epyy nai Abyw ayabp] in every good work and word. Grotius 
incorrectly takes it in the sense of ei¢ raw épyov sai mdvra Adyov dyaddv. 
But, with Chrysostom, Calvin, Turretin, Bolten, Flatt, and others, to limit 
Adyoc to teaching is erroneous, on account of the universal savri and its 
being placed along with épyy. The apostle rather wishes an establish- 
ment in every good thing, whether manifested in workgor in words. 


Norzs py AMERICAN EDITor. 
LIX, Vv. 1 ff 


(a) Linem., in his note on 1 Thess. iv. 1, distinguishes épwrduev as an address 
of a friend to a friend, from apaxadciyey év xvpiy as an exhortation in virtue of 
the apostolic office; and it will be noticed, on examination of the passages in which 
the former verb occurs in the N. T., that it can very commonly be taken in this 
sense. Assuming this to be the sense of the verb here, we easily account for the 
force of trép, as distinguished from stepi: We present to you our friendly request 
or entreaty on behalf of that great event in which the Lord is to consummate His 
work for us—that you should not be led away by any misrepresentation respecting 
it—(b) éxwvvaywyi¢ undoubtedly refers to that meeting with the Lord which is 
spoken of in 1 Theas. iv. 16,17. Whether é7’ avrév is to be insisted upon as 
meaning up to Him, as distinguished from mpé¢ atrév (so Liinem.), is doubtful.— 
(c) That wvebparog refers to some prophetic, i. e. supposed prophetic, utterance in 
the presence of the church, can hardly be questioned. That Aéyov may mean 
some word in the way of teaching in the presence of the church, as distinguished 


The feminine form aiwyia is found only here in the N. T. and in Heb. ix. 12 








620 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


from prophecy, is possible. But, as we should more naturally expect didaxie, if 
this were the meaning, and as Aéyov is apparently united with émoroAje fuer in 
ver. 15, it is probable that the latter connection is intended here. As to the word 
éxioroAqs, the possibilities of reference seem to be the following: (1) to the First 
Epistle ; (2) to some forged letter ; (3) to some letter “which professed to report 
his exact opinions, while in reality it misunderstood them,” but yet not forged 
in his name (Farrar). The objections to (1) are that there is no article with 
imioroAge ; that there is no statement in 1 Thess., which implies that the Parousia 
véornxev; and that, if such a reference had been intended, there would probably 
have been some distinct intimation that that letter contained no declaration of 
this kind. The objections to (2), on the other hand, are the improbability that 
such a forged letter would have been written at this early period, so soon after the 
first epistle, and to a church in such close relations with himself, and the improb- 
ability that, if such a letter had been written, he would have passed over the fact 
with no rebuke. The objection to (3) is that iii. 17 would seem to imply that a 
forgery had occurred. Either (2) or (3) is the more probable view. If we adopt 
(3), it is possible to account for iii. 17, and the difficulty in the supposition of a 
forged letter is removed. Some word or letter, however, must have been brought 
to their notice which profeased to give Paul’s view as set forth in évéotyxev «.t.2., 
and which, either purposely or through misunderstanding, misrepresented him. 
The o¢ which precedes ¢¢’ #udv here, and is wanting in ver. 15, makes it probable 
that it was not a letter (like the first epistle) written by himself. 

(d) The verb évéornxev evidently means either “is now present” (R. V.), or 


“is just at hand” (A. R. V.). In either case, it denotes not near, as contrasted 


with in the remote or uncertain future, but already come or in the time tmmediately at 
hand. The Thessalonians had fallen into an error—supposing that the end was 
just upon them—which might naturally have led some of them to believe that it 
was useless to think pf earthly business any longer. It was an error of this sort 
which the Apostle corrected. He makes his statements to show them that the 
Parousia was not to come, as they supposed, perhaps within a year or two, but 
only after the occurrence of certain developments of evil, which were to be 
expected. The question whether the Apostle himself thought of the Parousia as 
probably to take place within twenty or thirty years or not, must be determined, 
so far as this passage is concerned, not from the fact of his denying the évéoryxer, 
for the negative of this would only prove its non-occurrence within a very much 
briefer period, but by the length of time which must be allowed for the occurrence 
of what he declares is to take place before the day of the Lord.—(e) The things 
which are mentioned as to occur before the end are the apostasy and the revela- 
tion of the man of sin. The former of these, apparently, is to precede, or at 
least to be consummated in, the latter. The apostasy seems to stand in the rela- 
tion to the mystery of lawlessness, spoken of in ver. 7, of an effect to a cause; or 
this lawlessness is that which, when reaching its full development, becomes the 
apostasy. The mystery of lawlessness is already in operation, but is restrained as 
to the outbreaking of its full force by an outside power. The progress of things, 
therefore, is, first, the partial, perhaps in some measure hidden, working of the evil 
forces, which has begun already, and is to go on until the restraining power is 
removed; then, their development in the apostasy; then, the consummation of 
the apostasy in the revelation of the man of sin; and then, the Parousia.—(f) In 
regard to the length of time which is to be allowed, two points may be noticed in 


NOTES. 621 


the passage :—(1) that the mystery of lawlessness is said to be already working, 
and (2) that the restraining power is spoken of as already exercising its force, at 
_ the time when the words were written. Beyond these indications, the passage 
affords nothing definite respecting this question.—(g) The designations of the man 
of sin are so marked and distinct, that there can be no reasonable doubt that the 
Apostle is speaking of the Antichrist. This is proved (1) by the connection with 
arootacia, (2) by the genitive avouiac, comp. advouo¢ (ver. 8), (3) by the words 
6 vidg tig amwdelac, (4) by 6 avrixeiuevog x.7.A., (5) by the reference to sitting in 
the temple of God, etc., (6) by the the connection of his coming with the working 
of Satan, (7) by the application to him of the word rapovoia, and other words 
which are used of Christ’s coming, (8) by the contrast of the deceit of unrighteous- 
ness with the truth. The combination of all these things, when compared with 
what is said in other parts of the N. T. respecting the Antichrist, establishes this 
reference as in the Apostle’s mind.—(h) By the use of the words sapovoia, aro- 
Kadbpdy, extpaveig, etc., which are to be accounted for primarily by the desire to 
present a striking contrast of Antichrist to Christ, the Apostle intends, no doubt, 
to suggest the idea of some sudden and wonderful manifestation of evil power. 

(t) The view which is to be held with regard to what the Apostle had in mind 
in this passage can hardly be determined from the passage in itself alone. The 
other passages in the N. T. where this and kindred subjects are alluded to must be 
considered, and by an examination of them all we must ascertain, as we best may, 
the general thought of the Apostolic mind on such questions. The conclusions 
thus derived will have an important bearing here. As for the passage itself, its 
indications are (1) that the error of the Thessalonians consisted in supposing the 
end to be in the very nearest future—just upon them; (2) that that which was to 
precede the end had already begun its work; (3) that this was an evil develop- 
ment in the religious, not in the political sphere; (4) that the restraining force, 
evidently not being the true religion or the Divine power ,(see the closing words 
of ver. 7), was probably political or governmental; (5) that the final extreme de- 
velopment of the evil, which was to follow the removal of the restraining force, was 
such that it could be described as the revelation of the man of sin, i.e. the descrip- 
tion involves either striking personification or definite personality; (6) that the 
man of sin was to continue in the exercise of his power until the Parousia, when 
he was to be destroyed by the manifested power of Christ. These indications point 
towards a continuous development of evil from the time which was present to the 
writer and readers (but in a somewhat hidden way, or under special limitations 
from a power beyond itself), and towards a subsequent sudden outburst of its force, 
which outburst was to be in the form of an apostasy, i.e. a falling away within the 
Christian body itself. There is evidently here somewhat of a kindred conception 
to that which we discover in certain parts of the book of Revelation, and which is 
hinted at in I. John, II. Peter, and elsewhere—(j) The Apostle speaks of the 
temple of God, which may refer to the temple at Jerusalem. He also uses the 
two phrases, Td xaréyov and 6 xaréywy, which may refer to the Roman government 
and the Roman emperor. He also refers to the restraining power as known to 
the readers, which fact may easily find an explanation for itself—and may, at the 
same time, furnish an explanation for the indefinite character of the expression 
used to describe it—if it be taken as meaning the Roman government. It can 
hardly be affirmed, however, that these different expressions must have the refer- 
ence mentioned.—(k) If the Apostles expected the Parousia in their own life-time, 


b 





632 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO’-THE THESSALONIANS. 


or thought of it as possibly coming within a short period, it would be very natural 


‘for them to think of, and picture before their readers, the approaching evils and 


calamities by means of words which were applicable to powers or developments 
of their own age. This would, aleo, be natural—at least, to some degree—even 
if they regarded the Parousia as belonging to the remoter and altogether uncertain 
future. 

LX. 3-12. 


With reference to the words and phrases in these verses, the following points 
may be noticed:—(1) dyapriac (ver. 3) is a characteristic, druwAziac, a possessive 
genitive—(2) The text-reading avopiag is placed i in the text by W. and H., Treg., 
Tisch, 8, with the authorities mentioned in Liinem.’s textual note—(3) rdv vasv 
row Seod is referred by Liinem. to the temple at Jerusalem, and he regards this 
reference as proved by the repetition of the article. Alf. claims that there is no 
force in this, and cites 1 Cor. iii. 17, where he alleges that 6 vade rot Yeod is used 
in a figurative sense. It may be questioned, however, whether the use is figure- 
tive in 1 Cor. iii. 17,—whether the statement of that verse is not made with regard 
to the actual temple as a holy building, and the application added in oirevec iyeic 
toré, of which (holy) character you are—therefore one cannot injure or destroy your 
Christian life without being exposed to Divine punishment. The cases in which 
vad¢ or vadc Yeov are used without the article, in a figurative sense, are not in point 
against Liinem:’s position. The form of expression is favorable to the detinite 
reference given by Liinem., but whether this reference can be absolutely affirmed 
may be considered doubtful.—(4) The ehange from 10 xaréyov to 6 xaréxwyv is in- 
dicative of a person as exercising the restraining power. Like the dvouog and the 
Lord, this third power is presented as a person. The conception of the writer is 
after this manner; but, while this conception may accord with reality, the repre- 
sentation may perhaps, on the other hand, be figurative, i.e. personification only. 
—(5) In ver. 7, R. V. supplies éori after udvov, in the text, (“only there is one 
that restraineth until,” etc.), but adopts, in the margin, the other construction 
(“the mystery of lawlessness doth already work, only until,” etc.). The latter in- 
terpretation, which is probably correct, recognizes a special emphasis in the word 
uvorfpiv, It is working as a mystery; it will afterwards come to a revelation — 
(6) Evidently vv. 9, 10 relate to what follows the tapovcia of the lawless one and 
precedes that of Christ. There is a period of open working of avoyia, after the 
working as a mystery is ended and the restraining power has been taken out of the 
way. What is to be the length of this period is not stated, but the first impression 
upon the reader would naturally be that it was not to be very long-contiaued. The 
parallelism between the working of the dvoyog and Christ, is still kept up in these 
verses by onpeiore, etc.—petdove and andra adixiag mark the contrast. 


LXI. Vv. 18-17. 


(a) The connection of the Hortatory Section of the Epistle, ii. 13-iii. 15, with 
what precedes is only through the contrast between the persons alluded to in vv. 
11, 12, and the Apostle and his readers—that which befalls the former and that 
for which the latter have been chosen of God. There is no exhortation which 
connects itself immediately with the suggestions of vv. 2 ff,—at the most, only a 
general one, such as we find in ver. 15.—(6) The hortatory section opens with 


NOTES. 628 
thanksgiving—in its form precisely like that of i. 3; and the mingling of thanks 
and exhortation is similar to what may be observed in 1 Thess. This inter- 
mingling of the two belongs, in both alike, to the character of the letters. The 
use of ogeiAouev with evyapreiv, here and in i. 3, is peculiar, being found in no 
other Epistle. It expresses, with friendly feeling, his sense of the fitness and 
duty of giving thanks on their behalf; (comp. xa¥ac dfbv tor i. 3).—(e) 
That eidato an’ apxic (ver. 13), though Paul does not use these words elsewhere 
in this sense, refers to God’s election from eternity, is put beyond any considerable 
doubt, by the fact that it isa choice to salvation (ei¢ cwrnoiev), and by the faet 
that the divine call follows it (ei¢ 8 éxddecev), The ground of thankfulness in 
the Apostle’s mind probably included both the choice and the call. The choice of 
God is said to move in the sphere of sanctification, etc., as, in 1 Cor. vii. 15, His 
call is said to move in the sphere of peace (comp. also 1 Thess. iv. 7, called tn 
sanctification), because there is no divine purpose of salvation except as the sancti- 
fying power of the Spirit and belief of the truth have their true influence in the 
soul. ’Ey of this verse is, thus, rather the common é» denoting the sphere in 
which, than an instrumental preposition.—(d) In view of this divine election to 
salvation in the sphere of sanctification and faith, the exhortation of ver. 15 is given 
to stand fast, and also to hold fast the zapadécecg which they had been taught. 
As these instructions include those which were 6 éroroAge, that is, the First 
Epistle, and as that epistle contains suggestions with regard to the Parousia, it 
may be that there is some reference to the errors into which they had fallen on 
this subject, and which he was writing this letter especially tocorrect. But sucha 
reference, if this be the fact, is only incidental, and the exhortation is intended to 
cover all the instructions which he had given them. Comp. orypléa: év -xavri 
Epyy xat Ady ayafp (ver. 17).—(d) The union of God and Christ as the subject 
of a verb in the singular number, which has been already noticed in Note LII. 
(1 Thess. iii. 11), is found again in ver. 16 of this chapter; and here it will be 
observed that Christ is placed first. In the uniting of Christ with God, in 
sentences which refer to the divine work in the soul and in redemption, the Apostle 
thus, im these earliest letters, goes as far as is possible. It is interesting to notice 
how, under the influence of circumstances which more fully called forth the 
expression of his thought in the latest letters addressed to the churches, he rises 
in his statements to the highest limits which epistolary and popular language 
allowed. The movement of expression from the one to the other is in the line of 
the setting forth of the same idea of Christ’s relation to the Father. The line 
begins with the close union of the Father and Christ as the common subject of one 
verb; it ends with the declaration that the fullness of Seéry¢ dwells in Christ. 
The union of the two in the words, at the beginning, may not necessarily involve 
their oneness in essence. But the declaration, at the end, may lead us to the con- 
viction, that, in thus uniting them at the beginning, Paul did so because he 
believed them to be one.—(e) The word aiaviav (ver. 16) is used, probably, 
because the consolation or comfort of the Christian life takes hold upon the 
eternal life. 





624 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


CHAPTER IIT. 


Ven. 3. Instead of the Receptus 6 xipioc, A D* F G 71, Vulg. It. Copt. Arm. in 
marg. and some Latin Fathers have 6 Oeés. Accepted by Lachm. But mordg dé 
gory 6 xipiog does not elsewhere occur, whilst icrd¢ 6 Oed¢ is a usual form. 
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 18; 2 Cor. i. 18. Therefore the former might have been 
corrected according to the latter. 4 xpio¢g is attested by B (e sil.) D4* E K L 
%, almost all min., most versions, many Greek Fathers, and Hier.—Ver. 5. ny 
tropoviy| The Elz, reads iouorv#y, Against all uncial mas. (also ®), most min, 
and many Greek Fathers. Ver. 6. Instead of rapéAaBov (D** D¥#* E K L ++ 
23, 31, al., pl. edd. Aeth. Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Bas. [alicubi] al., Cypr. 
[ter] Lucif. Aug. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag. received by Matth. and Scholz, preferred 
also by Reiche), Elz. reads wapéAafe (very weakly attested, namely, only by 8, 49, 
57, 71, Syr.); Lachm. reads wapeAdBere (after B F G 48, al., Copt. Arm. Antonius, 
Theodoret [sem.], Ambrosiast. ed. Auct. de sing. cler.); Griesbach, Tisch. Alford 
and Ellicott read tapeAéfocay (after A ®* Bas.; D* has for it the simple verb 
tAGBooav), mapéAaBe and rapeAdPere are corrections, and not so well attested as the 
third person plural. Butthe Alexandrian form mtapeAéBooav merits the prefer- 
ence before tapéAafov, as the less usual form in the N. T., which on that account 
might easily have led to an alteration —Ver. 8. Instead of the Receptus vixra xal 
qutpav, BF GX 17, al., Chrys. ms. Damasc. (sem.) have vuxrdc nai yuépac. Re- 
ceived by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Against the preponderating authority of A D E 
K L, the great majority of min., and many Fathers, and the probable conformity 
to 1 Thess. ii. 9, iii. 10—Ver. 12. Elz. Tisch. 2 read dea rot xupiov juov "Inco 
Xptotov, Lachm. Tisch., 1, 7 and 8, Alford and Ellicott read & sxvpiy 'Inood 
Xpict@. The latter is required by A B D* E* F G &* 17, 31, al., Vulg. It. Goth. 
Copt. al., Damasc. (sem.) Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel.—Ver. 13. Elz. reads i) éxxaxqjoyre. 
Instead of this, Lachm. Schott, Tisch., Alford and Ellicott have preferred 4 
éyxaxfoyre, after A B D*® (Tisch. 7: yu) éveaxjoyre). But the latter is a probable 
correction, as the writing éxxaxeiv, inste.id of ¢yxaxeiv, never occurs with certainty else- 
where than in the N. T. and in the writings of the Fathers. Comp. Meyer on 2 
Cor. iv. 1—Ver. 16. Elz. Tisch. 2, 7 and 8, and Ellicott read rpé7p. Lachm. and 
Tisch. 1 read ré7y, after A* D* F G, 17, 49, Vulg. It. Goth. Chrys. Ambrosiast. 
Pel. Commended to attention by Griesb.; already preferred by Piscator, Beza, 
and Grotius. But rpéry (attested by A** B [e. sil.] D*#** E K LX, almost all 


_ min. Syr. utr. Copt. al. m. Theodoret, Damasc. al.) decidedly merits the prefer- 


ence on account of the sense, and might, on account of the more frequent form év 
mavti réry (1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8), be easily transformed into 
réry. Also Bouman (Chartae theologicae, lib. I. p. 67) considers tpéry as the 
original; but then he advances the following supposition for the origin of the 
false reading té7y: “ Proxime cum praecessisset dud tavré¢ omni tempore, dictionis 
elegantiam ac concinnitatem hoc requirere putarunt librarii, ut nihil potius adji- 
ceretur quam év tavri réx@ omni loco; quippe qui temporis ac spaitt notiones fre- 
quentissime conjungi, pro sua scilicet sapientia, optime novissent.” 


CHAP. 111. 1, 2. 625 


Vv. 1-5. Paul requests the Thessalonians to pray that the gospel may 
be more widely diffused, and that he himself (and his companions) might 
be delivered from the persecutions to which he was exposed. He then 
expresses his trust that the Lord will assist the Thessalonians, and also 
declares his confidence that they will obey Ais (the apostle’s) command- 
ments, and he unites therewith an additional benediction. 

Ver. 1. [On vv. 1-5, See Note LXII. page 632.] Td Aorév] see on 1 
Thess. iv. 1.—epi judv] on our behalf. But the apostle’s wish is com- 
pletely unselfish, as he refers to the promotion of Christianity, and to him- 
self only so far as he stands in connection with that object.—ive] comp. on 
i. 11.—é Adbyog rov xvpiov}] Genitivus subjectivus ; see on 1 Thess. i. 8.—rpéx7] 
may run. A representation of quick and unimpeded advancing.—do&é¢7ra:] 
is passive: may be glorified. Pelt erroneously understands it as middle. 
But the gospel is only glorified when it is recognized as what it is, 
namely, as a divayic Ccod ei¢ owrnpiay mavri tr miorebovrs (Rom. i. 16). 
Nicolas de Lyra arbitrarily limits the verb to the “ miracula, veritatem 
ejus declarantia.”—xa¥ac kai mpdc tuac] even as it is among you. A lauda- 
tory recognition of the eager desire for salvation, with which the Thessa- 
lonians surrendered themselves to the preaching of the gospel. Comp. 1 
Thess. i. 6 ff. The words are closely connected with xai dofé{yra:. Accord- 
ing to Hofmann, with whom Moller, although wavering, coincides, the 
words are to be united with rpéyy, passing over xai dof4fyrar. Incorrectly, 
because dofd¢yrac is a higher idea than rpéyy, whilst it adduces that point 
by which the external act of rpézew can only receive its internal value. 
Accordingly xai dof4{qrac is too important to be considered only as a sub- 
sidiary point “appended ” to rpéxy.—po¢ ipzac] see on 1 Thess. iii. 4. 

Ver. 2. In deliverance from his adversaries lay the condition that he, 
the apostle, could work the more effectively for the diffusion of the gos- 
pel.—éroroc] is used of that which is not in its right place. Used of per- 
sons, it denotes one who does or says that which is inappropriate under 
the circumstances. Thus it is equivalent to tneptus (Cic. de orat. ii. 4). 
From “ propriety ” it passes to its wider ethical meaning, and is used of 
men who act contrary to human or divine laws. Thus it receives the 
general signification of bad or godless..—But the Thessalonian Jews are 
not to be understood by the dromo: xat rovnpol évOpwro, from whose perse- 
cution the apostle had already, at an earlier period, frequently suffered 
(so, a8 it would seem, Pelt), for their influence hardly extended to 
Corinth. Persons must be meant who were then present tn Corinth itself. 
But we are not to think on Christians who were only so in name (Zwingli, 
Musculus, Hemming, Flatt, Schrader, and others), and particularly on false 
teachers among the Jewish Christians (Schott), but on fanatical Jews.2 Comp. 
Acts xviii. 6, 12 ff. That the adversaries of the apostle could not have 
been already Christians, follows from the inferential clause setting forth 


1 Theodoret: Ac#A% paw 9 altars elvac Soxci, 2See examples in Kypke, Observ. II. p. 145 
pia 80 Sues toriv’ Tov yap wornpevavOpezer f.; Loesner, and Wetstein. 
yrteapdvey, dxaditas cai 6 TOU KypVypLaToS 3Hammond also finds here another refer- 
ovrrpdya. Adyos. ence to the Gnostics! 


40 


626 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


the naturalness of the existence of such people, ob yép révrev 9 alore, for 
faith is not an affair of all, i.e. it finds not a place among all, all have nota 
susceptible heart for it.—# iors} on account of the article, can only 
denote the Christian faith simply and generally. To understand the expres- 
sion of fidelity or honesty, with Schoettgen, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Bolten, 
Krause, Flatt, and others, is as incorrect as to interpret it of true faith, 
with Schott. For in the first case ob yap mdvreg muwroi would require to 
have been written, and in the second case ov yap révruv 9 wiatic GAgOhe. 

Ver. 3. A contrast to ob yép mdvtor 9 ior, with a play upon the word 
ciorg, and a return to the statement in ii. 16, 17.—4é xbpioc] not a designa- 
tion of God (Schott, Schrader, Olshausen, and Hilgenfeld, Zschr. f. wiss. 
Theol., Halle 1862, p. 261), but of Christ. His faithfulness consists in this, 
that He, as Protector of the church, watches over the continuance of the 
faith, and effects its diffusion in spite of all dromoc and rovnpoi. Strikingly, 
Calvin: “Ceterum de aliis magis quam de se anxium fuisse Paulum, 
ostendunt haec ipsa verba. In eum maligni homines improbitatis suae 
aculeos dirigebant, in eum totus impetus irruebat : curam interea suam ad 
Thessalonicenses convertit.”—rov tavypot} is, by Calvin, Musculus, Estius, 
Piscator, Menochius, Nat. Alexander, Benson, Bengel, Baumgarten, Mol- 
denhauer, Macknight, Olshausen, Hofmann and Ellicott, also Cornelius a 
Lapide, Er. Schmid, and Beza, though not decidedly held by the latter, 
understood as masculine, accordingly as a designation of the devil. In 
itself nothing can be objected against this interpretation, as in. Matt. xiii. 
19 and elsewhere frequently in the N. T., also with Paul in Eph. vi. 16, 
6 rrovnpéc is found in this sense. But here this interpretation is untenable, 
because 8¢ ornpiger tydc Kai guAdgec ars rev movmpoi evidently resumes 
ornpiga: év mavri Epyp nai Adyy dyad>, il. 17, and only arranges it positively 
and negatively. But if rod xovgpov corresponds to the negation of thu 
position év mavri Epyy nal Adyw ayaby, it must be newer, and denote moral 
evil generally. But it would be arbitrary to make this neuter equivalent 
to Trav rovypav avOpérur, to which Koppe and Flatt give their countenance. 

Ver. 4. The apostle bas confidence in Christ that He will come to the 
assistance of the Thessalonians, promoting their faith and protecting them ; 
but he is likewise confident in them, that they on their part will not fail in 
obedience to the apostle’s commands. Thus the apostle paves the way for a 
suitable transition to the exhortation in ver. 6 ff.—év xvpiy] a state- 
ment of the element of his confidence annexed to reroiBayev ég’ tua, in 
order to express that the apostle’s confidence in his readers was one 
founded on Christ, caused by the participation of Christianity. Comp. 
Gal. v. 10; Phil. ii. 24; Rom. xiv. 14.—é9¢’ iuac] see Meyer on 2 Cor. ii. 38.— 
xai roeeite}] does not still belong to the protasis (see Erasmus on the pas- 
sage), but begins the apodosis. 

Ver. 5. A fresh involuntary effusion of piety on the part of the apostle, 
by means of which he calls down the divine blessing on every action of 


4On the form of the expression, compare Képw@dy éc6' 5 wAovs (Strabo, vwiil, 6 20, ed. 
the well-known proverb: Ov wavrds avépds ¢¢ Siebenk.; Suidas, T. 2, p. 739). 








CHAP, Ir. 3-6. 627 


man as a condition of ita success.' To assume that ver. 5 was added by 
Taul, because he could not yet entirely trust the Thessalonians (de Wette), 
is without foundation.—é xtpeoc)] Christ, as in vv. 3, 4.—xarevOivar tuov tag 
xapdiag ei¢ tiv aydxny Tov Oeow] direct your hearts to the love of God, namely, 
in order to be filled and pervaded by it, not in order to remain contem- 
plating it (Koppe, Olshausen).—7 aydry rov Orov] is not “ amor a deo prae- 
ceptus ” (Clericus), or “amor, quem deus hominum quasi infundit ani- 

emis” (Pelt), also not the love of God to men, which was to be the pattern 
for Christian brotherly love (Macknight, Koppe), or, more specially, the 
manifestation of the love of God in Christ and in His work of redemp- 
tion (Olshausen, Riggenbach); but love teward God (Gen. object.). Paul 
wishes the Thessalonians to be inspired with it, because itis the centre 
uniting all commandments; comp. Matt. xxii. 87 ff.—xal cig riv tronovgy 
tov Xptorov} Oecumenius, Ambrose, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vata- 
blus, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Bernard a Piconio, and Benson, to whom 
recently Hofmann has attached himself, understand by this the patient 
waiting for Christ, that is, for His coming. Erroneous, because—(1) 
avapovgy (comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) would require to be written instead of 
imopevgy; and (2) the idea of patient waiting, by which addition the state- 
ment becomes only suitable, would require to be expressly brought forward 
by an additional clause. The stedfastness of Christ (Gen. possessiv.) is meant, 
inasmuch as the endurance which the Christian manifests in tribulation 
for the sake of the gospel is in its nature nothing else than the stedfastness 
which was peculiar to Christ Himself in His sufferings. Comp. the analo- 
gous expression ré ta¥quara tod Xpurov, 2 Cor. i. 5, and Meyer tn loco. 
The simple genitive cannot express stedfastness for the sake of Christ, as it is 
usually explained. 

Vv. 6-15. Dehortation from a disorderly and idle life in the church. Paul 
had already touched upon this subject in his First Epistle (iv. 11, 12, v. 
14). But here it is more expressly treated, and also with greater severity, 
because, without doubt, in the restless and fanatical excitement of spirits 
on account of the advent, this evil had greatly increased instead of dimin- 
ishing. Paul represents the core of the church as free from this fault; 
he exhorts them to withdraw themselves from every Christian brother 
living disorderly, in order to bring him to shame and amendment. Only 
in ver. 12 does he direct his apostolic word to the erring brethren them- 
selves. 

Ver.6. [On vv. 6-18, see Note LXIII. pages 682, 633.] MapayyéAAousv dé] 
An application of the general & rapayyéAAouer, ver. 4, to a special case.—iv 
évéuars Tov Kupiou Hua 'I. Xp.} belongs to mwapayyéAdopev, not to what follows. 
A solemn reference to the high authority for this injunction. Comp. 1 
Cor. v. 4.—oréAAecfa: axéd rivoc] to withdraw himself from every one, to avoid 
his company. Comp. tnoortAdse éaurdév, Gal. ii. 12, and troortAAecda:, Heb. 
x. 38.—ardaruc] see on 1 Thess. v. 14.—xard riv rapddoor, fv «.7.4.] refers 
not to instruction by the example of the apostle (Chrysostom, Theodoret, 


1Theodoret: ’Auderdpar huly ypeia, cai rpeOicens ayabis cai Tis drwhar cuvepyeiar. 





628 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 


Oecumenius, Theophylact, Hofmann), which is first mentioned in what 
follows, but to the definite instruction which the apostle had given to them 
orally, during his presence at Thessalonica (comp. ver. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 
11), and then confirmed by writing 1 Thess. iv. 11, 12).—apeAdBooav] A 
well-known constructio ad sensum adapted to the collective form ard ravri¢ 
adeAgov. See Kiihner, IT. p. 42.1 

Ver. 7. Confirmation of xara ri mapddoow, fv rapeAdBooav. The instruc- 
tion imparted was sufficiently known to the readers: what Paul com- 
manded, he practically exhibited by his own conduct.—airoi] ye yourselves, 
without it being necessary for me to speak much about it.—7é¢ dei ppei- 
o8a: jac] a concise expression, meaning: What is your incumbent walk, 
and how, in consequence of it, ye will be my imétators.—ér:] for. Unnatur- 
ally, Hofmann : ér: is to be translated by that, and is added as a parallel 
expression to ré¢ dei pupeiofa: uae, in which also ver. 9 is absorbed.—- 
araxteiv| equal to ardxrug reperareiv, ver.6. Only here in the N. T. 

Ver. 8. See on 1 Thess. ii. 9.—dupedv] by way of gift—dprov gayeiv] to eat 
bread (Mark iii. 20; Luke xiv. 1; dprov éodiev, Matt. xv. 2), has as the 
Hebrew 072 52% (Gen. xliii. 25; 2 Sam. ix. 7; Prov. xxiii. 6, etc.) the 
idea, of eating generally, so that it is not to be distinguished from the simple 
gayetv (Mark vi. 31) or éodiev (ver. 10). dprov gayeiv rapdé tivoc denotes: to 
have maintenance from any one, without care on our part.—épyafépevor]) is 
not to be taken in the sense of temp. finit. (Flatt and others), but év xér@ 

. . Epyaléuevor is to be taken together, and forms a statement of mode 
attached to dprov é¢ayouzev in contrast to dupeadv. Yet we may, with Winer, 
p. 829 f. [E. T. 351], de Wette, Ellicott, and Hofm., assume that to é¢dyouer, 
as a contrast to dwpedy, are added first év xéry xai udz76 taking the place of 
an adverb, and then to this vixra xai juépav épyaféuevor as a parallel clause. 

Ver. 9. Paul has indeed the right to be maintained by the churches, but 
he freely renounces this right, in order to present believers with a good 
example. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 ff—ovy ér:] My meaning is by no means 
that ; by no means as if. A restriction of the previous statement, in order 
to prevent a possible misunderstanding. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 24, ili. 5; Phil. 
iii. 12, iv. 11, 17; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 153 f.—efovoiav] power or 
authority, 8c. tov dwpedv gayeiv dprov.—adr'] sc. tv xéry xai udz6yp vinta wai 
nutpav épyalouevoe dprov éodiouev.—On éavrotc, comp. Bernhardy, Synfaz, p. 
272; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 150]. 

Ver. 10. A further reason, along with the example of the apostle, which 
should preserve them from ard«rw¢ repitareiv.—yép] co-ordinate with the 
yép in ver. 7. xaf cannot serve to bring out bre fuev mpdc iuac (80 Hof- 
mann), so that it would be explained, with Theodoret: Oidév xawdv tyiv 
ypagouev, GAA’ amep && apne tuac édiddgayev. For bre quev mpdc tuac is no 
new additional idea, but only again resumes what was at least already 
implied in vy. 7 and 8. Kai must accordingly be taken with roiro wapzy- 
yéAAouev duiv, and the emphasis lies on rovro, which is placed first. The 
meaning is: for even when we were with you, this we commanded you.—rovro] 


3On the verbal form, comp. Sturs, de dial. Aler. p. 60; Lobeck, ad Pahryn. p. 348. 














CHAP. Im. 7—14. 629 


namely, what follows: 8re el rig K.r.A—el rig ob ObAex épyélecbat, pnd? tobt- 
érw] was a Jewish proverb; see Schoettgen and Wetstein in loco. It has 
its root in the expression in Gen. iii. 19, that man in the sweat of his brow 
shall eat his bread.—ot 6éAe] Bengel: Nolle vitium est. 

Ver. 11. The reason for reminding them of this saying, ver. 10. Arbi- 
trarily, Hofmann: ydp refers to the whole section vv. 6-10. The verd 
repepydceofa: is only found here in the N. T. (but comp. sepiepyoc, 1 Tim. 
v.13, and ra repiepya xpdocev, Acts xix.19). It denotes a bustling disposition 
busy in useless and superfluous things, about which one should not trouble 
himself. Paul thinks on the fanatical excitement, on account of which 
one busied himself about everything except the fulfillment of the duties 
of his earthly calling. sepupyalouévove forms a& paronomasia with undév 
épyato 1 Comp. Quintilian, insf. orat. vi. 8.54: Afer enim venuste 
Mallium Suram, multum in agendo discursantem, salientem, manus 
jactantem, togam dejicientem et reponentem, non agere dixit sed satagere. 

Ver. 12. Kai rapaxadovpev] se. avtove.—perad jovylac épyalspevor] with quiet- 
ness, i.e. applying yourself to your earthly calling, subjectively with a quiet 
and collected mind, and objectively with noiseless modesty. Contrast to 
pndedv ipydleoPac GAAd repepyacectac. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 11.—éavrév] em- 
phatic, their own bread, that is to say, their self-earned sustenance, avoid- 
ing & maintenance which depends on the charity of others. 

Ver. 18. The apostle again turns himself to those who had kept them- 
selves free from this fault.—éesaxeiv] with the following participle (see 
Kihner, II. p. 869) denotes to be weary in doing something.—xadoroceiv} 
cannot signify “to be charitable” (Calvin, Estius, Flatt, Pelt, de Wette, 
Bloomfield, Ewald, Bisping, and most critics), so that the sense would be: 
But suffer not yourselves, through those who abuse your charity, to be 
restrained from exercising charity in general. The verb can only denote, 
90 act as is right and proper. Comp. Gal. vi. 9. As Paul still , even 
in vv. 14, 15, of the special matter which he treated of in the preceding 
words, xadoroeiv cannot be understood in its most general sense, but must 
be referred to the matter in question. Accordingly, the apostle requires 
that those who had kept themselves free from this fault should not be 
weary in doing what is right and proper, that is to say, that they should not 
suffer themselves to be infected with the evil example given.” 

Ver. 14. Aca rife ertaroAgc] is, by Nicolas de Lyra, Luther, Calvin, Musculus, 
Hemming, Bullinger, Lucius Osiander, Balduin, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, 
Sebastian Schmid, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Zachariae, Koppe, Krause, Pelt, 
Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 119], and others, united with what follows. It is 
usually explained : If any obey not my word, note that man to me in 
writing, sc. in order that I may direct what punishment is to be inflicted 
on him. But this interpretation is to be rejected—(1) on account of the 
article rc, which, if unforced, can only denote a definite epistle lying 


t Ewald translates it: “nicht Arbeit trei- refers tt—because anticipating the contents 
bend, sondern sich herumtreibend.” of ver. 15—to the loving and forbesring treat- 
Also Olshausen understands xeAcroe» ment of the brethrea. 
only of doing good in general, but arbitrarily 








630 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


before them, not an epistle to be written only at a later period; (2) as the 
inversion of the words: 6a rio émiwroAge tovToy onpeovobe, instead of the 
natural order: rovrov did rig émioroAgce onpewvobe, would not be justified ; 
(3) lastly, because it is very improbable that Paul should still have 
retained for himself a statement of the punishment, as he has already in 
ver. 6 stated the mode of punishment, and again repeated it in this verse, 
commanding them to withdraw from the society of every brother acting 
contrary to hisadmonitions. But interpretations in this connection, as 
that of Bengel: “notate not& censorif, hanc epistolam, ejus admonendi 
causa, adhibentes eique inculcantes, ut, aliorum judicio perspecto, se 
demittat,” or that of Pelt : “eum hac epistola freti severius tractate,” alter 
the idea of the verb onpewiofa:. We are obliged to unite dua tHe émoroAge 
with 7@ Adyy juev.' It was not necessary to repeat the article r¢ before 
dia tHE ErioroAqc, because TE Adyw fudyv dia ric EmcoroAge is blended into the 
unity of the idea of a written command. Comp. Winer, p. 128 [E. T. 135]. 
4 éxworoag denotes the definite Epistle, t.e. our Second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians (comp. 1 Thess. v. 27; Rom. xvi. 22; Col. iv. 16); and the 
command expressed by that Epistle is the admonition in ver. 12. The 
meaning is: But if any one acts contrary to my prohibition repeated in 
this Epistle, note that man, i. e. mark him, sc. in order to avoid intercourse 
with him (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9, 11), and thereby to bring him to shame (and 
amendment) ; as Paul, explaining himself, expressly adds: xa? py ovvave- 
piyvucbe ait@ iva évrparg. This meaning also remains, if, instead of the 
Receptus xai pu) cvvavapiyvecbe, we read, with Lachmann and Tischendorf 
1, after A B D* x, the infinitive yu) ovvavayiywvofa, only the form of expres- 
sion being changed.—évrparg] is passive, not middle (Pelt). Comp. Tit. ii. 
8; 1 Cor. iv. 14, vi. 5, xv. 24. 

Ver. 15. But no hostile feeling against the erring was to be conjoined with 
this avoidance of social intercourse; on the contrary, as he is a Christian 
brother, advice and admonition are not to be omitted in order to convert 
him from his error by convincing reasons.—o¢] united with #yeic6a:, other- 
wise unusual, brings still more prominently forward the subjective notion 
or representation implied in the verb. In a corresponding manner déorep 
occurs with #yeiofa: in the LXX. Comp. Job xix. 11, xxxiii. 10. 

Ver. 16. The apostle, hastening to a conclusion, annexes a benediction 
to the exhortation. By 6 xbpio¢ rif¢ eipfy7c is meant not God, but Chriat, 
and the genitive designates Him as the Creator and Producer of eiphvy.— 
THC eipfyns and ri eipfvyv] are usually interpreted, either of mutual har- 
mony or of peace of mind (or even, as e.g. by Schott, of both together, exter- 
nal and internal peace). The first-mentioned interpretation is untenable, 
because there is in the Epistle not the slightest trace of dissensions in the 
church; and the shift that the fanatical excitement in the church, and 


180, correctly, Chrysostom, Clarius, Estius, Bolten, Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, 
Piecator, Andrew Osiander, Aretius, Meno- Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford, 
chius, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Ewald, Bisping, Ellicott, Buttmann, Grane. 
Fromond., Hammond, Nat. Alexander, Joa- des neulest Sprachgebr. p. 80 [E. T. 93]; Hof 
chim Lange, Harduin, Whitby, Benson, mann, Riggenbach, and others. 


CHAP. mI. 15-18. 631 


the idleness consequent upon it, might lead to external disquiet, and 
accordingly the wish of the apostle was occasioned with a view to the 
future, is far-fetched and arbitrary, because Paul prays for what was 
immediately to occur. There is nothing against the second interpretation, 
as calmness of mind or peace of soul is undoubtedly indicated by eipfyn 
(Phil. iv. 7). See Meyer and Weiss in loco. Yet it is also admissible to 
understand eipf#vy both times (corresponding to the Hebrew d1°%; see 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 22 ff.) in the sense of salvation or blessing, and, 
indeed, on account of the article rj¢ and rf, of the definite,—that is to 
say, the specifically Christian blessing or salvation. This interpretation is 
also supported by the fact, that as ydpic nal eipfvy at the commencement of 
the apostolic Epistles corresponds to the Salutem or et mpérrev of profane 
writers, 80 the apostolic benediction at the conclusion of the Epistles is 
nothing else than the Christian transformation of the usual Valee or 
’ppwot_e.—dia wavréc] abvays, Rom. xi. 10; Matt. xviii. 10; Acts ii. 25.— 
peta révrev tuav] accordingly even with the ardéxro¢ reperarovvrec. 

Vv. 17, 18. Autographic salutation, with a repeated benediction. Paul 
had not written the letter with his own hand, but déctated it. Comp. Rom. 
xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18—8] does not stand by attraction for 
éc, nor also does it bring forward a simple special point from the foregoing 
(so Wieseler on Gal. vi. 11; and Laurent in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 639; 
Neutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p. 5: “which, namely, the autographic 
writing ’’), but it refers to the whole preceding idea : which circumstance of 
the salutation now written.—onpeiov] a sign, i.e. a mark of authenticity. Comp. 
ii. 2. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Bullinger, Estius, Piscator, 
Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, Beza, Joachim Lange, Har- 
duin, Benson, Bengel, Moldenhauer, Zachariae, Baur (Paulus, p. 489), 
Hofmann, Riggenbach, and most critics, incorrectly find this mark in the 
addition of the words following in ver. 18; for the autographic salutation 
is expressly designated as this mark. But a saluation and a benediction are 
different from each other.—év dog éxioroAg] in every Epistle, can only be 
referred to all the Epistles which the apostle has, perhaps, at a later 
period, still to write to the Thessalonians. For only for the Thessalonians, 
who had already been actually deceived by a false Pauline Epistle, and 
led into error, was such a precaution of practical importance against a new 
deception. Besides, if tv réoy émioroAg is to be understood absolutely 
instead of relatively, the autographic salutation would be found in all the 
Epistles of the apostle. But itis only found in 1 Cor. xvi. 21 and Col. iv. 18.— 
cituc ypégu] thue—that is to say, in such characters as are given in vv. 17 
and 18—IJ write. The handwriting of the apostle was accordingly still 
unknown to the readers. From this it follows, that also the First Epistle 
to the Thessalonians was not written by the apostle’s own hand. More- 
over, Zeltner (de monogrammate Pauk, Altorfii 1721), Bengel, and Molden- 
hauer erroneously—because transferring 2 modern custom into antiquity— 
consider that we are here to think on characters artificially twisted into a 
menorrems 1 Se Gomis ane ronan es a imitation. eee 
ner, see Wolf, p. 402 ff. 


632 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 


Norzs sy AMERICAN Eprror. 


LXII. Vv. 1-5. 


(a) In 1 Thess. Aouréy (iv. 1) introduces the Hortatory section. It follows a 
passage of a kindred sort to that in ii. 16,17 of this epistle. The similarity in the 
two cases is noticeable. It is worthy of remark, however, that, in the first epistle, 
the passage answering to ii. 16, 17 contains the prayer that God would open the 
way for the Apostle’s return to them, and would establish and confirm them in 
holiness, and Ao:rév opens an exhortation to walk according to what he had taught 
them. Here, on the other hand, the exhortation to hold fast his inetructions, and 
the prayer for their confirmation, both precede rd Ao:réy, while this adverbial ex- 

.pression introduces a request for their prayers that he might have freedom in 
preaching everywhere, and might be delivered from those who would hinder his 
work, And then, by a sort of repetition, thoughts corresponding with those of ii. 
16, 17 are added in iii. 3-5.—(b) The request which he makes, in asking for their 
prayers for himeelf, is that the word of the Lord may have free course and be 
glorified. He undoubtedly has in mind, however, the preaching of the word by 
himself and his companions, as the prominent thought—(c) From the suggestions 
of both epistles we must believe the persons alluded to in ver. 2 to be Jewish 
enemies, to whom the word aréxwyv would seem peculiarly applicable-—(d) The 
question as to whether rov rov7pod of ver. 3 is masculine or neuter, is hardly to be 
answered with confidence. The argument in favor of the neuter, which is urged 
by Liinem. and ‘Alf.—that ii. 17 suggests it—is of quite doubtful force, because 
7d Aowrév makes a new paragraph and allows a new thought. The argument de- 
rived from a supposed reference to the Lord’s prayer (Ell. and some others) is not 
to be pressed, because this reference is very questionable. The similarity in the 
two passages may be merely fanciful. The fact that there has been no reference 
to Satan in the context, and that the following verse, which seems to be in a cer- 
tain connection with this verse, speaks of confidence that the readers both were 
doing and would do the things which had been enjoined as Christian duty, may be 
considered as favoring the neuter. Rob., Grimm., A. V., Noves tr., de W., Alf., 
Liinem. and others hold that it is neuter. R. V., Ell., Davidson tr., Bib. Comm., 
Mason, Words., Hofm., Olsh., Calv., and others regard it as masculine.—(e) With 
ver. 4, ii. 15 and 1 Thess. iv. 1 may be compared. In the last-mentioned verse, he 
prays that, as they are now walking according to what he had taught, they may 
do so in the future; here, he expresses confidence that they will do ao. 


LXII. Vv. 6-18. 


(a) With ver. 6 comp. 1 Thess. v. 14 and iv. 11. The exhortation with regard 
to these disorderly persons is presented here more in detail. It would appear 
from this fact, that some increase of the evil indicated may have taken place since 
the first letter, or that he may have received more definite information concerning 
it. The latter seems to be clearly indicated in ver. 11. -He recalls his own course 
of action and example when he was in their city, which in 1 Thess. ii. he had 
mentioned by way of.reminiscence, and urges it as an example which they should 
imitate. The correspondence in expressions with the first epistle is very striking. 


NOTES, 633 


—(5) Ver. 10 seems to show that this tendency to give up this world’s work was 
an attendant, in many cases, upon the entrance into the Christian life—the new 
thoughts, the spiritual atmosphere, the future, making the daily duties in earthly 
things seem unnecessary. Warnings against tendencies to such errors in different 
lines are given in the N.T., and must have been found needful by the Apostolic 
preachers.—(c) mepcepyalopévove (ver. 11) as contrasted with épyalouévous, implies 
a busying themselves with things belonging to the sphere of others, and neglect- 
ing those of their own sphere. The very strong word aAAorpioerioxorog used in 1 
Pet. iv. 15 may be compared.—(d) The fact that the exhortation and suggestion 
‘of vv. 6 ff. and the exhortation in ver. 12 (iva pera jovziac x.7.A.) are in each of 
the two Epistles so clusely connected with the passage which relates to the Parou- 
sia—that of ver. 12 following it in this Ep., and immediately preceding it in 1 
Thess. (iv. 11)—is, not improbably, indicative of a connection between the mis- : 
taken notions, which members of the Thess. church had respecting the time of that 
great event, and their neglect of their earthly business. These mistaken notions 
may have been a cause of this neglect. But the most that can be affirmed with 
respect to such a connection is a possibility or probability, not a certainty. —(e) The 
reference of dia rij¢ éexisroAfe (ver. 14) to the present letter is satisfactorily proved 
by the considerations which Liinem. sets forth. The reference of xbpco¢ (ver. 16) 
which he gives is, also, to be adopted as probably correct. Elsewhere, when re- 
ferring to God in such a phrase, the Apostle uses the words 6 Jed ric eipivnc, as 
Alf. remarks.—(f) The addition of the autograph passage vv. 17, 18 is perhaps 
connected with the fact that a letter had been received by the church which 
claimed to be his, but was not actually so (see ii. 2). It is probable that such 
autograph additions were made in his subsequent epistles generally or always, and 
not merely in letters to this church. That he has special reference, however, in 
the words as here used, to what he might have occasion to write to the Thess., is 
not improbable. 














TOPICAL INDEX. 


A 


Abstinence from meats and drinks, 325. 
Advent, Second. See Second Coming 

and Parousia. 
See Notes 


American Editor, Nofes by. 
by American Editor. 

Angels, Me oes of, 233, 318; to be 

Porat rist, 595-616, 621. 

Antiochus Epiphanes, 597, 598, 616. 

Apostasy, before the Lord comes, 595, 
596, 613, 614. aie 


Apostolic nstitutions, 
Appearing, or Appearance of the Lord. 
See 


eh 68, "72. 
Athanasius referred to, 2. 
gustine, sear f or s, 138 iis, 29, nee 
As 7 38, 1 


295, 3t0. bie, 317, 397 537, 608, 608 


ee 


B 


Baptism, buried with Christ in, 299, 300. 
srt and Epistle of, 199, 230, 384, 
Bishops and Deacons, in Philippi, 9, 10. 


8) 
Guat 386. 


Calg, 565; as Antichrist, 612, 618. 
Christ Jesus, example of, 65; his 
humiliation in the incarnation veel 
107-110; the Saviour, 157; Head 
the Church, 233-236, 27 oF aol 
sonship, 511. 
Christology, 219, e¢ seqq. 
Chrysostom, referred to or uoted, 2, 8, 
10, 12, 15, 17 we 29, 35, 40, 
60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 74, 76, 83, 
88, 93-96, 99, "102, 105, 121, 122, 147, 
149, 151, 160, 161, 165, 168, 170, 172, 
177, 178, 180, 183, 184, 208, 209, 210, 


214, 217, 218, 226, 244, 247, 255, 260, 
262, 268, 282, 288, 301, 308, 323, 330, 
845, 348, 350, 352, 359, 962, 367, 370, 
872, 380, 389, 398, 400, 403, 409, 445, 
446, 449, 459, 471, 472, 497, 498, 502, 
504, 509, 510, 584, 585, 594, 598, 605, 


606, 619, 627, 630, 631. 
Circumcision, Christian, 297-299. 
Clement, 5, 163, 164, 186. 

Clement of Alexandria, 4, 44, 161, 196, 

199, 246, 291, 438, 568. 

Clement of Rome, 40, 41, 163, 164, 187, 
Colca, ee f, in Ph 

oasae, city of, in gia, 193, ee 
Colossians, b pistle to, 1 193 et 

sion and ini of writing, 4-198: 

date of, and — written, 198, 199; 

Sie 20 of, 199-205; exegesis of 

Chap. I ones notes, by American 
Editor, 263-27 exegesis 0 ter 

IL, 280-331 ; notes by American fai- 

tor, 331-341 ; ; exegesis of Chapter 

Ill, 343-372; notes by American 

Editor, 372-376; exegesis of Chapter 

IV., 377-392 ; ‘notes by American 
| bates signi 

vetousness, warned against asidolatry, 

349, 350. 

D 


Daniel, prophecies of, 609, 616. 
Deaconessen, 160. 


386, 387, 394. 
Devil, ruler of the Cosmoa, 220. 
Docetism, 76, 85, 248. 


E 


Epaphras, 101 ; founder of the Church in 
are 194, 212, 218, 265, 290, 383- 
Epap shroditus, & 4, 10, 22, 101-108, 115, 
157, 161, 175, 186, 188, 189, 191. 
Epicurean: corruption among Chri 
Epiph ie 232, 396, 438. 
iphanius, 
Episcopate, doctrine of the, 10. 
FKasenes, 196, 232. 
Euodia and Syntache, 5, 164, 186. 
Exegetical literature, 427-429. 


635 


636 


F 


Fathers, and their children, 370, 376. 

Felix, imperial freedman, 187. 

Fellowship, 47, 48, 50. 

Flavius Clemens, 187. 

Freedmen of the emperor at Rome, 
186, 187. 


G 


Gain (to die is), 32, 33, 35. 

Glory of the Messianic kingdom, 218- 
220. 

Gnostic ideas charged upon the Epistle 
to the Philippians, 84-86. 

Gnosticism in Coloasae, 195-198. 


H 


Hades, 40, 56; the dead in, 88 ; descent 
of Christ into, 83. 

Hermas, Shepherd of, 230, 251. 

Hippolytus, 76. 

Holy Spirit. See Spirit, Holy. 


I 


Ignatius, referred to or quoted, 27, 83, 
119, 130, 229, 242, 261, 347, 371, 438. 

Incarnation, the, 75-77. 

Intermediate state, 40, 56, 83. 

Irenaeus, referred to or quoted, 4, 85, 
199, 232, 438, 568, 605. 


J 


Jesus Justus, 885, 398, 415. 
Pai ts teh 
119- ; in 
198,232,317,’ 
 K 


Kingdom, the Measianic, 218-220. 


L 
Lactantius, 545. 
ages Epistle to, 204, 281, 388- 


Life, hidden with Christ, 345-347. 
Linus, 186. 
doctrine of the, 79, 80, 110, 223- 
226, 269. 
Lucius, 64. 
Luke, 186, 886, 387. 
Lying, to be put off and away, 352, 353. 


M. 


Macedonia and Achaia, 454-456. 
Man of sin, 597. See Antichrist. 


in Philippi, 
195- 


TOPICAL INDEX, 


Marcion, 8, a 199, 396, 568. 

Mark, 186, 385, 393. 

a duties of toward slaves, 877, 

Messianic salvation and kingdom, 218— 
220, 344, 347. 

Millennial reign of Christ, 527, 542. 

Mohammed, as Antichrist, 608, 609. 


N. 


Napoleon as Antichrist, 609. 
Nero, 187,193, 570, 606 ; as Antichrist, 
612. 


Notea, by American Editor, 46-58 ; 
106-116; 152-158; 188-191; 263— 
278; 331-341; 372-876; 392-394; 
415-420; 458-461; 491-495: 509-. 
511; 588-542; 560, 561; 588-590; 
619-623; 632, 633. 

Nymphas, 388. 


O. 


Onesimus, 194, 199, 876, 882, 
405, 406-408, 412, 413, “8. — 

Ontology, 237, 238. 

Origen, 89, 200, 396, 438. 

Original 


sin, 353, 
Pp, 
es hierarchy and Protestants, 607, 


Paradise, 40, 56, 57. 
Parousia of the Lord, 14, 20, 39, 57, 67, 
87, 94, 150, 158, 165, 210, 241, 24 
250, 300, 7, 355, 491, 529, 540, 
541, 545, 561, 582, 588, 589, 612, 621. 


Fay tpplans, 2,3; strong feeling ex- 
Bi ae, 
hilippians, 6, 119- 21, 152; i 


sult of trial, 32-88; exhortations, e 
41-46, 58; on the second coming of 
the Lord, 48; claim of as to origin, 
position, character, etc., 126, 127; the 
prize, the race, the contest, the strug- 
gle, 136-140, 155; supposed letters of 
to Seneca, 187, 188; sufferings of for 
Christ, 253-256, 276; on the resur- 
rection of believers and unbelievers, 
526-537 ; expectation of being alive 
at the parousia of the Lord, 
539-542; martyrdom of, 570 ;- auto- 
graphic salutation in Epistles, 631. 


TOPICAL 


Pauline and anti-Pauline parties in 
Taniuee 4 18 25-29, 53, 117. 

P 35, 81, 84, 119, 188, 
148, 161, Ye, 165, 167, 176, 180, 184, 
236, 592, 594, 618. 

Perseverance 0 saints, 48. 

Philemon, 194, 383, 415; tesa 
Paul to, 395-420 ; genuineness, da 
etc., 396, 397; contents of pinle 
398 ; ; exegesis, 398-415; notes by 
American Editor, 415-420. 

Philippi, 1 in Macedonia, Roman colony, 

; first city in Europe visited by 
Paul, 1; the church planted there, 1, 


Philippians, Epistle to, written in 
Rome, 2; date of composition, 2, 3; 
occasion of writing the Epistle, 3: 
exhibits Paul’s love towards the Phil- 
ippians, 3,4; synopsis of contents, 4; 
genuineness "and unity, 4, 5; attacks 
on by rationalists, 5, 6 ; another Epis- 
tle written before by’ Paul not now 
extant, 6, 119-121 ; contents of chapter 
I, and exegesis, 8-46 ; ; notes hy Amer- 
ican Editor, 46-58 ; ex of chap- 
ter IT., 60-106; notes y American 
Editor, 100-116 the — - 
or e exegesis of chapter 
ITI. ertT-151 5° notes by Aanenend 
Editor, 152-158 ; exegesis of chapter 
IV., 159-188 ; : notes by American 

pati Eputle f to Phili 4, 
oly e or to ians, 

6, 10,40, 119-121, 438, 568. 

Porte of Rome as Antichrist, 607, 608. 

Praetorium, 22, 23, 51, 186, 187. 

Praetorium of Herod, 187. 

Prayer, perseverance 2 378, 379. 

Preaching gene , ete, 52-55. 

Psalms and hymns, ristian songs, 
365, 375, 376. 


R. 


Reconciliation, 240-243, 273-275. 
eee new life in Christ, 353— 


ee eeibas the general, 134, 135 
155; resurrection of believers an 
unbelievers, 527. 

Resurrection body, the, 150, 151. 


8. 


Salutation, apodelte 631. 

Salvation, 31, 54. 

Saviour, the, 157, 165, 166. 

Second coming of the Lord, 48, 459. 
See Parousia. 


INDEX. 637 


Seneca, the philosopher, letters of to 
Paul, 187, 188. 
Silas (Silvanus), 161, 186, 482, 487, 
445, 446, 449, 459, 470, 472, 4 , 502, 
gtr Se ST ann 385-8 
inging by Christians, 7. 
air errors, 226, 231. 
Socrates and Plato, referred to, 344. 
Spirit of Christ, 30, 54, 55, 294. 
Spirit, Holy, 30, 42, 55, 61, 118, 124, 
166, 213, 215 322, 365, 36D, 520, 521, 
Syntache, 5. See Eu 
Syzygus, 162, 188. 


T. 


Teleology, 235. 
Temperance commended mae , 325. 
Tertullian, referred to or quoted, 4, 196, 
aie Fae i 365, pe 438, » B88, 605. 
an uty an riv 0 
308, eae privilege of, 
Theodore of ‘a estia, referred to or 
uoted, 10, 1 ae 22, 71, 133, 220, 

30 517, 518, 605 


Theodoret, referred to or quoted, 12, 15, 
17, 20-23, 30, 35, 40, 43, 61, 67, 
71, 74, 84, 85, 101, 105, 119, 122, 131, 
133, 136, 137, 147, 149, 151, 161, 165, 
167, 168, 170, 210, 212, 217, 243, 247, 

, 281, 301, 315, 318, 330, 345, 
350, 364, 372, 391, 398, 448, 449, 451, 
452, 454, 468, 470, 483, 503, 507, 513, 
515, 517, 524, 528, 532, 535, 536, 537, 
546, 552, 558, 582, 595, 597, 600, 603, 
604, 605, 606, 615, 625, 627, 631. 

Theophylact, referred to or quoted, 12, 
17, 18, 29, 35, 37, 43, 67, 70, 71, 76, 
81, 83, 88, 93, 96, 118, 119, 122, 133, 
136, 137, 144, 146, 151, 160, 161, 165, 
168, 173, 176, 177, 178, 180, 186, 209, 
214, 218, 293, 227, 234. 243, 249, 255, 
260, 262, 295, 296, 301, 311, 321, 323, 
326, 330, 344, 345, 350, 357, 359, 362, 
365, 367, 372, 383, 389, 391, 398, 400, 
403, 411, 445, 448° 449, 450, 451, 453, 
457, 466, 467, 471, 473, 474, 476, 482, 
483, 498, 499, 513, 514, 517, 551, 552, 
554, 555 582, 584, 585, 587, 594, 598, 
612, 628, 631. 

Thessalonians, First Epistle to, Intro- 
duction, 431-442; occasio ’ design, 
contents, 433-486 ; date and place of 
writing, "436, 437 ; genuineness, 438— 
442; exegesis, chapter J., 444-458 ; 
notes by American Editor, 458-461 ; 
contents, chapter II., 463; ex ia, 
463-491; notes by American itor, 
491-495 ; contents, chapter ITI, 497 ; 
exegesis, 497-509 ; notes by American 
Editor, 509-511; contents, chapter 


638 


IV., 513; ex 513-537 ; notes 
by ‘American itor, 538-542 ; con- 
tents, chapter V., 544; ; exegesis, 544. 
ate notes by American Editor, 560, 


Thessalonians, Second Epistle to, Intro- 
duction, 563-575; occasion, ‘deaign, 
contents, 563, 564; date and place of 
writing, 564-568 ; genuineness, 568- 
575; exegesis, chapter I., 576-588 ; 
notes by American Editor, 588-590: 
exegesis, chapter II., 592-605; fur- 
ther remarks on chaper IL, 1-12, 
605-616 ; hortatory portion, 616-619 ; 
notes by American Editor, 619-623: 

“ay Paving pter ITI., 625-631 ; notes 
2 


rican Editor, | 632, 633," 
Thelen aly of, 431, 432; church 
by Paul, 482, 433. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


wan ie Mortar 46, 98-101, 106, 114, 

36, 140, 141, 144, 157, 161, 181, 
218, 214, 263, 398, 432, 437 
449, 459, 471, 472, 497, 496 502, 504, 

10, 565, 567, 568, 577. 

Titus, 186. 

Techotony (spirit, en body), 557, 558. 

Tychicus, 194, 199, 382, 395. 


U 


Uncleanness, Christians warned against, 
348, 349. 
WwW 


Wont holy, in Philippi, 160, 168. 
in the primitive Church, 365. 
Wrath of God bt the day of judg- 
ment, 350. 


Digitized by Google 























MEYER, Heinrich August 531 
Wilhelm M613 
Critical and exegetical v.8 


handbook to the Epistles 1889 
to the Philippians and 
Colossians.